text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
author:
- Stéphane Corbel
- 'Stephen S. Eikenberry[^1]'
date: 'Received: ; Accepted: '
title: 'The Connection between W31, SGR 1806-20, & LBV 1806-20: Distance, Extinction, and Structure '
---
Introduction
============
W31 is one of the largest complexes in the Galaxy, with intense star-forming regions that have been observed from radio to near-infrared wavelengths (e.g. Ghosh et al. 1989; Blum et al. 2001; Kim & Koo 2002). At low spatial resolution, W31 appears as three main extended regions: G10.2$-$0.3, G10.3$-$0.1 and G10.6$-$0.4 (Shaver & Goss 1970) (Fig. 1). The radio nebula G10.0$-$0.3 lies within W31 on the plane of the sky (Fig. 1), and has drawn considerable attention in recent years due to the intriguing objects nearby. At one time, G10.0$-$0.3 was suggested to be a plerionic supernova remnant powered by a rare soft gamma-ray repeater, SGR 1806$-$20 (Kulkarni & Frail 1993; Kouveliotou et al. 1998). SGR 1806$-$20, in turn, was thought to be associated with an almost equally rare luminous blue variable (LBV) star (van Kerkwijk et al. 1995) which lies at the time-variable (in both flux and morphology) core of this nebula (Vasisht, Frail, & Kulkarni 1995). However, the revised Inter-Planetary Network (IPN) localization of SGR 1806$-$20 provides a position inconsistent (see Fig. 1) with that of the LBV star and radio core of G10.0$-$0.3 (Hurley et al. 1999), though the LBV position is consistent with the radio core within the uncertainties ($\sim 2 \arcsec$). Recent [*Chandra*]{} and infrared observations confirm that the SGR lies $\sim 12 \arcsec$ away from the LBV and radio core (Eikenberry et al. 2001; Kaplan et al. 2002). Furthermore, Gaensler et al. (2001) argue that G10.0$-$0.3 is not a supernova remnant at all, but is rather powered by the tremendous wind of the LBV star at its core. Infrared observations of the field of SGR 1806$-$20 reveal that the LBV star is not alone, but appears to be part of a cluster of embedded, hot, luminous stars ([@fuc99]), and the IPN position for SGR 1806$-$20 is consistent with membership in the star cluster (Eikenberry et al. 2001). Given this somewhat confusing history, we take a moment to summarize our current understanding of G10.0-0.3: 1. G10.0-0.3 is a radio nebula (NOT supernova remnant) with emission powered by the LBV star spatially coincident with its core. 2. The LBV star is part of a cluster of luminous stars embedded in a molecular cloud. 3. is likely another member of this cluster of stars, and is spatially distinct from the LBV star. We plot in Fig. 1 the various objects (and their relative location on the plane of the sky) that we will discuss in this paper.
Because of the proximity of these unusual objects, the distance to them can provide significant insight into their physical properties, giving this measurement particular importance. Corbel et al. (1997) proposed a distance estimate based on observations of molecular clouds along the line of sight. They used $CO$ spectroscopy to estimate the hydrogen column density towards G10.0$-$0.3, and from that an absorption column density as a function of distance. Taking the measured X-ray absorption towards SGR 1806$-$20 and an estimate of the optical extinction to the LBV star, they concluded that G10.0$-$0.3, and W31 lie $14.5 \pm 1.4$ kpc from the Sun.
However, this situation seemed complicated by newer infrared stellar spectroscopy by Blum et al. (2001) and radio/millimeter observations by Kim & Koo (2002). Blum et al. (2001) present infrared spectra of members of a star cluster in the region G10.2$-$0.3, also within W31 on the plane of the sky. Based on the spectra, they derive spectral/luminosity classes and extinctions for the stars, which, combined with infrared photometry, place them and G10.2$-$0.3 unambiguously at a distance of $d \simeq 3.4$ kpc. However, the extinction towards G10.2$-$0.3 is much smaller ($\Delta
A_V \approx 15$ mag) than the extinction towards and the star cluster close to (Eikenberry et al. 2001) and the correlated X-ray absorption towards (Mereghetti et al. 2000). Furthermore, 21-cm continuum and several molecular line maps of the region (Kim & Koo 2002) show that G10.0$-$0.3 is rather separated from the primary components of W31 (G10.2$-$0.3 and G10.3$-$0.1). Thus, as of this writing, there is no definitive physical linkage between and the major components of W31. Together, these imply that G10.0$-$0.3 may lie at a different distance along the line of sight than G10.2$-$0.3. It is this new, more-complicated situation which motivates us to reconsider the distance to G10.0$-$0.3 (and by extension and ) in the light of previous work by Corbel et al. (1997) and Blum et al. (2001) as well as new observations.
In this paper, we present newer, higher velocity -resolution $CO$ spectroscopy towards and its associated radio nebula , and also towards 2 (out of 3) of the brightest regions of W31. We also present the $NH_3$ absorption spectrum originally mentioned in Corbel et al. (1997). We then add higher-resolution infrared spectroscopic observations of the LBV star at the center of G10.0$-$0.3. In Section 2, we present the observations and data reduction as well as the main results from our observations. In Section 3, we use these data to derive a robust distance estimate for and . We then discuss in some detail the implications of this distance for and , as well as the structure of W31 as a whole . Finally, in Section 4 we present our conclusions.
Observations
============
------- ------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- ------------------ --------------
Name W(CO\*)[^2] V$_{lsr}$[^3] A$_v$ Near Distance$^b$ Far distance$^b$ Distance$^b$
(K ) () (magnitude) (kpc) (kpc) (kpc)
MC–16 28.4 –14.9 8.6 $\pm$ 1.7 n.a. 24.9 4.5
MC4 12.7 4.3 3.9 $\pm$ 0.8 0.2 16.6 0.2
MC13A 32.8 12.7 10.0$\pm$ 2.0 1.7 15.1 15.1
MC13B 9.8 16.7 3.0 $\pm$ 0.6 2.2 14.5 4.5
MC24 18.3 23.6 5.6 $\pm$ 1.1 3.0 13.8 3.0
MC30 2.6 30.0 0.8 $\pm$ 0.2 3.5 13.2 3.5
MC38 3.6 38.4 1.1 $\pm$ 0.2 4.2 12.6 4.2
MC44 5.0 43.5 1.6 $\pm$ 0.3 4.5 12.3 4.5
MC73 19.8 73.4 6.0 $\pm$ 1.2 5.7 11.0 ...[^4]
MC87 4.5 87.9 1.4 $\pm$ 0.3 6.1 10.6 ...$^c$
MC94 1.7 94.2 0.5 $\pm$ 0.1 6.2 10.5 ...$^c$
------- ------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- ------------------ --------------
$CO$ Spectra
------------
Following the work by Corbel et al. (1997), we obtained new millimeter observations with the 15 m Swedish-ESO Submillimeter Telescope (SEST) at La Silla, Chile, on 1998 August 27 and 1999 March 2. We took spectra at the position of LBV 1806-20 (same as in Corbel et al. 1997) at the transitions $^{12}$CO(J=1–0) and $^{13}$CO(J=1–0) for a total integration time of 5 minutes each (Fig. 2). As the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) beamwidth of the SEST is 45 at $\sim$ 115 GHz, the spectra toward also include the region of . Additionally, at $^{12}$CO(J=1–0) we made spectral observations towards two regions of W31 (G10.2$-$0.3 and G10.3$-$0.1) with an integration time of 2 minutes each.
We acquired the spectra in position-switching mode which consists of switching (every one minute) between sources and an off-position free of emission. We then averaged the spectra after baseline removal. The back end was an acousto-optical spectrometer with 2000 channels and a frequency bandwidth of 86 MHz, giving a high velocity resolution of 0.11 km s$^{-1}$ (to be compared with the velocity resolution of 2.3 km s$^{-1}$ in Corbel et al. 1997). The receiver was calibrated with the standard chopper-wheel method. Systems temperature during the observations were typically in the range 200–350 K. We converted all CO spectra into main-beam brightness temperature ($\eta_{eff}$ = 0.7), which is expressed in term of radial velocity in the Local Standard of Rest (LSR).
We note that there is a distance ambiguity for any molecular cloud within the solar circle at a given radial velocity (in the LSR). Indeed, at each radial velocity it is possible to locate the cloud on the near side (near distance) or on the far side (far distance) of the Galaxy. We assume an error of 10 for the velocity-distance conversion using the rotation curve of the Galaxy of Fich, Blitz & Stark (1989) with the standard rotation constants of R$_0$ = 8.5 kpc and $\Theta_0$ = 220 . This is sufficiently large to cover any velocity deviation ($\sim$ 4 ) with respect to the LSR frame of Galactic rotation (Combes 1991). This implies that the error bars associated to the distances are probably consistent with 2 $\sigma$ confidence levels.
The $^{12}$CO spectra (Fig. 2) toward reveal a complex line of sight, as already discussed in Corbel et al. (1997), with various molecular clouds detected (see Table 1 for detailed informations). Due to the high velocity resolution, some of the molecular clouds mentioned in Corbel et al. (1997) are now split into two components; for simplicity the same notation is kept as in Corbel et al. (1997). MC38 is decomposed into the component at $\sim$ 38 km s$^{-1}$ and a new cloud at $\sim$ 44 km s$^{-1}$ (now noted as MC44). The resolution of the edge of the $^{12}$CO line of MC24 also reveals a new cloud at 30 km s$^{-1}$ (MC30). MC87 is now split into MC87 and MC94. However, the most interesting feature in the new $^{12}$CO(J=1–0) spectrum toward is the splitting of molecular cloud MC13 into two components. This is confirmed by the $^{13}$CO(J=1–0) transition (an optically thin line, with narrower FWHM), which clearly reveals that MC13 is resolved into two components (Fig. 2): one at 13.0 $\pm$ 0.1 km s$^{-1}$ (hereafter MC13A) and one at 15.5 $\pm$ 0.1 km s$^{-1}$ (hereafter MC13B). (These velocities are obtained if we naively fit the lines with Gaussian profiles). This also implies that the shape of the $^{12}$CO(J=1–0) spectrum around 13 km s$^{-1}$ is not due to opacity effects. Fitting the $^{12}$CO(J=1–0) spectra leads to velocities of 12.7 $\pm$ 0.1 km s$^{-1}$ and 16.7 $\pm$ 0.1 km s$^{-1}$ for MC13A and MC13B respectively.
According to Kim & Koo (2001), the velocity of the recombination line at the core of G10.2$-$0.3 is 16.4 $\pm$ 0.2 km s$^{-1}$, and it is therefore apparent that G10.2$-$0.3 is associated with the molecular cloud we labeled MC13B. We remind the reader that in addition to the association in velocity, the map of the CO emission (Corbel et al. 1997) also points to an association of G10.2$-$0.3 with one of the clouds in this velocity range. We note that the velocity of the recombination line of the other major region studied by Kim & Koo, G10.3$-$0.1, is 7.7 $\pm$ 0.5 km s$^{-1}$, with a range from 7.7 to 11.9 (Kim & Koo 2001), which is more consistent with the velocity of MC13A.
$\mathbf{NH_3}$ Spectrum
------------------------
In addition to the above CO observations, we also include an NH$_3$ absorption spectrum (Fig. 3) towards the radio nebula G10.0–0.3 (produced by the wind of ) at the same position as the CO observations. This spectrum was originally mentioned, but not shown, in Corbel et al. (1997) as a “Note added in manuscript”. As it is important for this work, we include it here. The NH$_3$ observations (total integration time of 30 minutes) were performed at the frequency of 23,694.49 MHz (velocity resolution of 0.5 km s$^{-1}$) with the NASA Deep Space Network Goldstone 34-m antenna located in California, USA, and giving a beamwidth of 1.6. As the radio continuum against which the NH$_3$ absorption spectrum is measured is produced by the radio nebula G10.0–0.3, any absorption feature results from gas located in front of .
.
The most striking feature from this spectrum is the absorption line (detected at a significance level of 8.6 $\sigma$) at a velocity of 70.9 $\pm$ 0.5 km s$^{-1}$, in full agreement with the $CO$ velocity of the molecular cloud MC73 that is detected along the line of sight to (see Table 1). This detection thus demonstrates that the molecular cloud MC73 is located in front of . The absorption line ($4.2 \sigma$) at $\sim$ 62 may be related to an shell around MC73 or to a different cloud (cf Fig. 1 in Corbel et al. 1997) in front of G10.0$-$0.3. A possible weaker absorption feature ($2.2 \sigma$) might also be present at 28.6 km s$^{-1}$, which would be in agreement with the velocity of the MC30 cloud and would indicate that MC30 may also lie front of .
IR Spectra
----------
We used the Ohio State InfraRed Imaging Spectrograph (OSIRIS) instrument (Depoy et al. 1993) and f/14 tip-tilt secondary on the Cerro-Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) 4-meter telescope on July 5, 2001 to obtain moderate resolution ($R = 3000$ for 2 pixels) spectra of LBV 1806-20 in the J, H, and K bands ($1-2.4 \mu$m). We present details of these observations and their reduction elsewhere (Eikenberry et al. 2003), and present a reduced K-band spectrum in Fig. 4.
The colors of LBV 1806-20 (van Kerkwijk et al. 1995) and its spectral continuum shape allow us to estimate the extinction towards LBV 1806-20. For such a hot star (as indicated by the HeI $2.112
\mu$m absorption feature – Van Kerkwijk et al. 1995; Eikenberry et al. 2003), the intrinsic $J-K$ color is nearly neutral, and the observed red color of $J-K =
5.0 \ \pm 0.15$ mag corresponds to an extinction of $A_V = 28 \pm 2$ mag (assuming the Rieke-Lebofsky reddening law, Rieke & Lebofsky 1985), matching the estimates based on CO observations (Corbel et al. 1997). (While a hypothetical near-infrared excess from LBV 1806-20 would alter these conclusions, Eikenberry et al. (2003) show that this is not present, based on the spectral continuum shape across JHK bands, and the close match in $J-K$ color between and other cluster stars). In addition, the H and K bands are in the Rayleigh-Jeans portion of the blackbody emission curve (the reason for the neutral colors noted above). Thus, we can estimate the extinction towards LBV 1806-20 by de-reddening the spectra until the continuum shape matches a Rayleigh-Jeans distribution. In this way, we obtain estimates of $A_V = 31 \pm 3$ mag from the H-band continuum and $A_V = 28 \pm 3$ mag from the K-band continuum, with uncertainties dominated by $\sim
10\%$ uncertainty in the spectrograph response shape over a given waveband. Combining these with the extinction estimate from the $J-K$ color above, we adopt a final estimate for the extinction of $A_V = 29
\pm 2$ mag towards LBV 1806-20.
From the emission lines, we can also measure a radial velocity for LBV 1806-20. We selected the $\rm Br \gamma$ line as a velocity fiducial, as it is the strongest line detection in the spectrum, and appears to be relatively free from contamination due to blending with other strong lines. We fit a Gaussian profile to this line, finding no significant residuals, and a centroid shifted from the atmospheric rest frame by $-3 \pm 20 \ {\rm km \ s^{-1}}$, where residuals in the spectral wavelength solution from atmospheric OH emission lines dominate the largely systematic uncertainty. After correcting for the Earth’s barycentric motion and the Solar System barycenter motion relative to the local standard of rest, we determine a radial velocity for LBV 1806-20 of $v_{lsr} = 10 \pm 20 \ {\rm km \ s^{-1}}$. Cross-checks of this velocity determination with several other strong unblended lines in the spectra give consistent results for the velocity of LBV 1806-20. This velocity is important, as massive stars such as LBVs are a kinematically “cold” population, which do not generally deviate significantly in their velocities from their parent molecular clouds.
Results & Discussion
====================
The distance to and its associated radio nebula
--------------------------------------------------
### $NH_3$ Absorption
A critical point for measuring the distance to is the detection of the NH$_3$ absorption features (Fig. 3) against the radio continuum (G10.0$-$0.3) produced by the LBV star. A firm lower limit on the distance to and is the near distance associated with the absorption feature at 70.9 $\pm$ 0.5 , i.e 5.7 $\pm$ 0.4 kpc. We can then combine the full velocity range ($-$10 to 30 ) for (section 2.3 above) and the fact that has to be located behind MC73, together with the rotation curve of the Galaxy (Fich et al. 1989) to constrain the distance range for without making any further assumptions regarding other molecular clouds along the line of sight. This straightforward calculation unambiguously places in the distance range 13.2–21.5 kpc.
### MC13A, MC13B, and G10.2$-$0.3
This determination of the distance to G10.0$-$0.3, while unambiguous, differs significantly from the distance determination for the nearby (on the sky) stellar cluster G10.2-0.3, which Blum et al. (2001) place at $3.4 \pm 0.3$ kpc. Given the similar radial velocities of and G10.2$-$0.3 ($\sim 10-16 \ {\rm km \ s^{-1}}$), this seems somewhat surprising. However, on the plane of the sky, they are separated by 10.7. Furthermore, the measured optical extinction of (29 $\pm$ 2 mag., section 2.3) and G10.2$-$0.3 (15.5 $\pm$ 1.7 mag., Blum et al. 2001) are clearly not in agreement. This indicates that these two objects cannot be located at the same distance. G10.2$-$0.3, with a lower optical extinction, has to be located in the foreground relative to . Furthermore, Lavine et al. (2003) find that the stellar field surrounding includes two distinct populations of stars – one with $A_V \sim 30$ mag (consistent with ) and another with $A_V \sim 15$ mag (consistent with G10.2$-$0.3). Fuchs et al. (1999) also find the same bimodality in extinction, albeit with a much smaller sample. The fact that no stars are found with intermediate extinctions demonstrates that these are distinct populations, rather than a single population suffering from differential extinction across the field. Thus, we are forced to conclude that the stellar cluster of Blum et al. (2001) is a distinct cluster in the foreground to the cluster containing . Thus, discrepant distances for these two distinct clusters are not surprising, and in fact should be expected.
In order to understand the fact that these distinct populations have similar radial velocities, we need to take into account (as outlined in section 2.1) that the molecular cloud labelled MC13 in Corbel et al. (1997) is now known to consist of two distinct components that we have called MC13A and MC13B. Thus, the line of sight towards these objects is much more complex than previously thought, with two molecular clouds with similar velocities, one containing each stellar population. Based on the fact that MC13B is associated with G10.2$-$0.3 (section 2.1; Kim & Koo, 2002), and that the upper limit for the distance to G10.2$-$0.3 (Blum et al., 2001) is much less than the 13.2 kpc lower limit for , we conclude that the molecular cloud MC13B is located in the foreground relative to .
We can further constrain the parent molecular cloud of by investigating the complex of molecular clouds along the line of sight. Absorption lines against the radio continuum of G10.2$-$0.3 (see Corbel et al. 1997 and references therein) showed that MC4, MC24, MC30, MC38, MC44 are located at their near distances. Given the ammonia absorption towards and its accompanying distance range of 13-21 kpc, the only remaining molecular clouds along the line of sight which could potentially be the site of are MC87, MC94, and MC13A. Of these, only MC13A has a velocity consistent with (Section 2.3), and we conclude that it is the parent molecular cloud for , , and . This association and the distance range for now lift the near/far distance ambiguity for MC13A, and we can use the velocity of MC13A and the Galactic rotation curve to constrain the distance for both MC13A and to be 15.1$^{+1.8}_{-1.3}$ kpc.
### Extinction & Distance
We can cross-check the above distance estimation, using the measured extinction towards . This extinction arises primarily within the molecular clouds along the line of sight, and we can determine its value for each cloud using the $CO$ line area. In order to convert the molecular emission spectra into equivalent optical extinction along the line of sight, we follow the method outlined in Corbel et al. (1999) or Chapuis & Corbel (2003). We assume conservative errors of 20% (to take into account the uncertainties in the various conversion factors) for the contribution in terms of optical extinction of each molecular cloud. The discussion of Corbel et al. (1997) for the location of the various molecular clouds still holds with these new observations – we simply need to consider the revised distance of G10.2$-$0.3 and the splitting of MC13. Separating the contribution of each of the two MC13 clouds in terms of line area is not a simple task. But if we fit both $^{12}$CO(J=1–0) and $^{13}$CO(J=1–0) spectra with two Gaussian lines in the velocity range 8-20 km s$^{-1}$, we find that MC13B and MC13A contribute roughly 23% and 77% respectively in terms of line area. These should not be taken as firm numbers, but rather as indicative of the approximate relative contribution of each clouds. The resulting parameters (velocity, integrated area, optical extinction, distances) of the molecular clouds are presented in Table 1.
If we take the contribution from molecular hydrogen in all of the clouds up to MC13A, we reach a total extinction of 32.5 $\pm$ 2.6 mag. Taking the contribution from atomic hydrogen (Corbel et al. 1997) implies that the total optical extinction up to MC13A is 37.5 $\pm$ 3.0 mag. While the uncertainties are not trivially small, this is at least consistent (at the $\sim 2 \sigma$ level) with the extinction of 29 $\pm$ 2 mag for . Adding the contribution of MC13A significantly increases this extinction to 47.5 $\pm$ 3.6 mag, implying that is at or close to the near side of MC13A. In Fig. 5a, we present a map of the integrated emission (based on the data of Kim & Koo 2002). It shows that the position of , as well as and the star cluster, is consistent with a location on the edge of the cloud MC13A, as favoured by the measurement of the optical extinction. Thus, we find a straightforward explanation for the distance of G10.0$-$0.3 and , consistent with all reported data, is that the star is located in MC13A at a distance of 15.1$^{+1.8}_{-1.3}$ kpc.
The Distance to G10.2$-$0.3 and the Complex Structure of W31
-------------------------------------------------------------
### Distance and optical extinction of G10.2$-$0.3
With the distance of G10.0$-$0.3 and clarified, we now turn to the more general issues of the structure of W31, which we now understand to have several discrete components at distinct distances. In their study, Blum et al. (2001) performed near-infrared spectroscopy and photometry of an embedded stellar cluster in G10.2$-$0.3 (the other major regions of W31 being G10.3$-$0.1 and G10.6$-$0.4). They derived a spectrophotometric distance for G10.2$-$0.3 (and by extension for W31) by assuming either zero-age main-sequence or dwarf luminosity class for the stars of the cluster, obtaining distances of 3.1 $\pm$ 0.3 kpc and 3.7 $\pm$ 0.3 kpc respectively. They derived an average optical extinction to G10.2$-$0.3 of = 15.5 $\pm$ 1.7 mag (Blum et al. 2001). Clearly, this distance range, as well as the optical extinction, are not in agreement with our previous estimate for W31 (Corbel et al. 1997), in which we associate W31 with the far kinematic distance of MC13. However, as shown above, we now understand that MC13 and W31 itself are composed of multiple discrete components distributed along the line of sight. Thus, as noted above, the distance to G10.2$-$0.3, MC13B, and their portion of W31 is a separate issue from G10.0$-$0.3, , , MC13A, and their portion of W31. Nevertheless, our investigation of the latter can provide important insights into the distance to the former.
First, as a cross-check on the relative placement of molecular clouds along the line of sight in Table 1, we can compare the extinction of the stars in G10.2$-$0.3 to that expected from the clouds along the line of sight (as done above for ). If we use the spectrum towards , the total visual extinction due to the molecular material located in front of MC13B (MC4, MC24, MC30, MC38, MC44, cf Corbel et al. 1997) is 13.0 $\pm$ 1.5 mag. Adding the contribution from atomic hydrogen (as in Corbel et al. 1997) raises this number to 14.5 $\pm$ 1.8 mag, consistent with the above estimate of the optical extinction to G10.2$-$0.3 at the $\sim 1 \sigma$ level. This re-confirms the relative placement of the clouds in Table 1.
### G10.2$-$0.3: a location on the $-$30 spiral arm
Given this, an important question remains if we want to fully understand the velocity field along this line of sight: what is the distance to the parental molecular cloud (MC13B) of G10.2$-$0.3 ? A distance range of 2.8-4.0 kpc (Blum et al. 2001) would imply a velocity range of 22.0–38.0 , which is at best marginally consistent with the observed velocity of G10.2$-$0.3 (16.4 $\pm$ 0.2 , Kim & Koo 2001). Also, more importantly, absorption lines against the radio continuum of G10.2$-$0.3 are observed up to 43 (e.g. Wilson 1974, Greisen & Lockman 1979, Kalberla et al. 1982), which is very difficult to reconcile with G10.2$-$0.3. at the near distance of 2.2$^{+1.0}_{-1.6}$ kpc associated with the velocity of 16.4 . Indeed, the cloud at the origin of the absorption at the velocity of 43 is located at a distance greater than 4.5 kpc (see Table 1) if we assume circular motion. But we would like to note that absorption at velocities greater than $\sim$ 50 is not expected at these Galactic longitudes, because of a hole (Fig. 6) in the gas distribution (Dame et al. 1987; Corbel et al. 1997). The drop-off of absorption at $\sim$ 43 is just the sharp inner edge of the molecular ring (Dame, Hartmann, & Thaddeus 2001). Thus, the lack of absorption should not be an argument for ruling out a possible location at a far distance (e.g. Fish et al. (2003) for G10.6$-$0.4).
To overcome these difficulties, Blum et al. (2001), as well as other authors (e.g. Wilson 1974, Kalberla et al. 1982), invoked the presence of non-circular motion that could affect the velocity of the cloud (in addition to the contribution of rotation around the Galactic Center, hereafter GC). Indeed, along the line of sight of W31 (and ) is found the 3-kpc expanding arm. This arm can be described as a simple rotating ring at a galactocentric radius of 3.4 kpc (assuming a distance between the Sun and the GC of 8.5 kpc [^5]) expanding out from the GC with a velocity of 53 (e.g. Bania 1980).
As discussed in detailed in Corbel et al. (1997), the 3-kpc expanding arm is likely associated with the molecular cloud MC-16 and is very likely not associated with MC13B and G10.2$-$0.3. This is confirmed if we look at the radial velocity profile of the 3-kpc expanding arm as a function of the Galactic longitude based on observations (see Figure 4 of Menon & Ciotti, 1970). This clearly show that a velocity of $\sim$ $-$15 (as for MC-16) should be expected for this feature.
So, in order reconcile the fact that G10.2$-$0.3 is located on this side of the Galaxy (Blum et al. 2001) and the fact that absorption lines are observed up to a velocity of 43 , we surmise that there might be another feature with non-circular motion on this side of the Galaxy. In fact, there is another arm, the $-$30 spiral arm (unfortunately sometimes called the 4 kpc arm), that is also expanding from the GC at a galactocentric radius of 4 kpc (Menon & Ciotti 1970; Greaves & Williams 1994). Its expansion velocity measured at a Galactic longitude of 0 is $-$30 (Menon & Ciotti 1970; Liszt et al. 1977; Linke, Stark, & Frerking 1981; Greaves & Williams 1994; Sandqvist et al. 2003). This feature was originally detected in 1967 (Kerr & Vallak 1967), but we would like to point that no molecular counterpart has been associated with it. Indeed, unlike the 3 kpc expanding arm, the $-$30 spiral arm can not be traced on the longitude$-$velocity CO map (Fig. 6), possibly due to its proximity with the molecular ring (Dame et al. 2001). The extrapolation of its radial velocity profile in Figure 1 of Menon & Ciotti (1970) to a longitude of 10 is consistent with the velocity of MC13B. We therefore conclude that G10.2$-$0.3 and MC13B are located on the $-$30 spiral arm. In that case, there is no problem with the fact that absorption lines against the radio continuum of G10.2$-$0.3 are detected up to 43 , as they would originate in MC44. We note that the $-$30 spiral arm has to be closer to the Sun than the 3-kpc expanding arm with a separation of $\sim$ 0.5 kpc (Menon & Ciotti 1970). In any case, the distance to the $-$30 spiral arm is set by the maximum velocity of the absorption lines, i.e. 4.5 $\pm$ 0.6 kpc, which is completely consistent with the spectrophotometric distance of 3.4 $\pm$ 0.6 kpc for G10.2$-$0.3 (Blum et al. 2001). We note that at a Galactic longitude of 0, the 3 kpc expanding arm and the $-$ 30 spiral arm have a velocity separation of $\sim$ 23 , which is almost the difference in velocity between MC-16 and MC13B. This therefore strengthens our association of the 3-kpc expanding arm with MC-16 and the $-$30 spiral arm with MC13B. We also note that these two arms could be related to the presence of a bar at the GC (e.g. Blitz & Spergel 1991).
### The distance to G10.3$-$0.1 and G10.6$-$0.4
So if G10.2$-$0.3 is at a closer distance, are the other major components of W31 at the same distance ? In their detailed study of W31, Kim & Koo (2002) performed a map of G10.2$-$0.3 and G10.3$-$0.1 (see their Figures 4, 5 and 9). Their peak CO maps over the velocity range 0–22 shows two main components (one centered on each region) that could be interpreted as two separate molecular clouds (see also Fig. 5a with the integrated map). But based on our new CO results, it might be possible that the southern part is associated with MC13B as G10.2$-$0.3, and the northern part with MC13A and G10.3$-$0.1 (Fig. 5a). If this is the case, it would imply that W31 could be decomposed into several components, with G10.3$-$0.1 located at the kinematic distance associated with MC13A, i.e. 15.1$^{+1.8}_{-1.3}$ kpc.
Fig. 7 shows the $^{12}$CO spectrum along the line of sight to these two regions. These profiles are very different, especially at velocities above $\sim$ 40 , and the profile of G10.3$-$0.1 is very similar to the one of (the additional CO emission above 40 may also be related to the variation in galactic latitude of these sources). So it is not unlikely that this region, which has a recombination line at 7.7 $\pm$ 0.5 , could be associated with MC13A. As noted above (section 2.1), the map of this part of W31 by Kim & Koo (2002) could be interpreted as being due to the presence of two separate molecular clouds. In that case, one should wonder why no absorption line is detected, as in the case of , at $\sim$ 71 for G10.3$-$0.1 (Kalberla et al. 1982) ? In Fig. 5b, we used the of Kim & Koo (2002) to illustrate the spatial extent of MC73. We found almost no emission in the velocity range 61 to 80 , which is consistent with the non detection of absorption line above 50 (Kalberla et al. 1982) toward G10.3$-$0.1, even if it were associated with MC13A. However, our spectrum towards G10.3$-$0.1 (Fig. 7) indicates a weak contribution of MC73 along this line sight and suggest that the line of sight of G10.3$-$0.1 might be close to the edge of MC73. More sensitive absorption measurement may be useful to further detect absorption line due to MC73 in front of G10.3$-$0.1. We note that Kalberla, Goss & Wilson (1980) detected a weak absorption line at $\sim$ –15 in front of G10.3$-$0.1, that is consistent with the velocity of the 3-kpc expanding Arm (Corbel et al. 1997), i.e. the molecular cloud we called MC-16 and the fact that G10.3$-$0.1 could be associated with MC13A. We note, however, that a similar but weaker feature, is also present in front of G10.2$-$0.3 (Kalberla et al. 1980).
In a recent study of absorption lines toward a large number of regions, Fish et al. (2003) deduced a scaling law in order to estimate the distance of an region. They state that when there is a “large difference between far and near kinematic distances” |as in our case for both MC13A and MC13B, see Table 1| “high accuracy can be achieved by choosing the kinematic distance closer to 1.84 $|b|^{-1}$.” In the case of G10.2$-$0.3, G10.3$-$0.1 and G10.6$-$0.4, this expression would be equal to 5.3, 12.3 and 4.7 kpc respectively with high accuracy [^6]. This again will argue for an association of G10.2$-$0.3 and G10.6$-$0.4 with MC13B in the $-30$ spiral arm at a distance of 4.5 $\pm$ 0.6 kpc and a location of G10.3$-$0.1 in MC13A at a distance of 15.1$^{+1.8}_{-1.3}$ kpc. But again, as illustrated in Fig. 3 of Dame et al. (1987), between longitude 5 and 25, we want to stress that the lack of absorption at velocities greater than $\sim$ 50 is not an argument for the near distance due to the presence of the gas hole (Fig. 6) at low Galactic longitudes (Corbel et al. 1997).
Finally, to close the debate on the structure of W31 (as a location of G10.3$-$0.1 within the $-30$ spiral arm can not be ruled out at this time), a spectrophotometric study (with optical extinction measurement), similar to what has been performed by Blum et al. (2001) for G10.2$-$0.3, should also be performed for G10.3$-$0.1 and G10.6$-$0.4 in light of our new results. A sketch of the line of sight with the new location of each object introduced in this paper is presented in Fig. 8.
The distance to
-----------------
As we have seen before, is associated with the wind of and not and is not the remnant of a supernova (Gaensler et al. 2001). is separated from by an angular distance of 12 (Hurley et al. 1999; Eikenberry et al. 2001; Kaplan et al. 2002). However, it still lies within the angular extent of the embedded cluster (see Fig. 1 and Fuchs et al. 1999), and its X-ray absorption matches the IR extinction towards the cluster members (Eikenberry et al., 2001), leading to the conclusion that is a cluster member. This lead to the conclusion that all these objects, i.e. and the cluster of stars, have to be located at the distance we have estimated for : 15.1$^{+1.8}_{-1.3}$ kpc. An interesting consequence of this work is that all these massive stars are still located close to their parental molecular cloud (MC13A), which is not surprising if we take into account their short lifetimes and the expectation that such massive stars are a kinematically “cold” population. We would like to point out that SGR 1900$+$14 is also associated with a cluster of massive stars (Vrba et al. 2000) and that SGR 1627$-$41 also appears to lie at the edge of a massive Giant Molecular Cloud (Corbel et al. 1999). The only known extragalactic soft gamma repeater (SGR 0526$-$66), which is associated with the SNR N49, also lies at the edge of a dense molecular cloud (Vancura et al. 1992; Banas et al. 1997). It now also means that all SGRs with precise location (4 out 6) are associated with GMC and/or massive star cluster. All of this probably points to a strong connection between massive stars and formation of SGRs by the way of Giant Molecular Clouds.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented new millimeter and near-infrared observations of the field of view surroundings the radio nebula G10.0$-$0.3 (produced by the wind of ) and the giant complex W31. Based on these observations combined with others in the literature, we reach the following conclusions:
- Based on $NH_3$ absorption from MC73 and the velocity of , we unambiguously constrain the distance to G10.0$-$0.3 and to be in the range of 13.2 - 21.5 kpc.
- Combining this constraint with $CO$ observations of molecular clouds along the line of sight, we further refine the distance measurement to G10.0$-$0.3 and to be 15.1$^{+1.8}_{-1.3}$ kpc.
- This distance estimate is confirmed by the consistency between the measured extinction towards and the extinction from the molecular clouds along the line of sight inferred from their $CO$ spectra.
- Based on their distinct extinctions and the newly-resolved parental molecular clouds (MC13A and MC13B), we conclude that the stellar cluster in G10.2$-$0.3 lies in the foreground to the cluster containing . This shows that W31 consists of at least 2 discrete components along the line of sight.
- We suggest that G10.2$-$0.3 and G10.6$-$0.4 are located on the $-$30 spiral arm at a distance from the Sun of 4.5 $\pm$ 0.6 kpc and
- We also suggest that G10.3$-$0.1 may be associated with a massive molecular cloud at the same distance as (15.1$^{+1.8}_{-1.3}$ kpc).
- We confirm that is located at a distance from the Sun of 15.1$^{+1.8}_{-1.3}$ kpc and that it is associated with a very massive molecular cloud. All SGRs with precise location are associated with a site of massive star formation.
The authors would like to thank Tom Dame and Kee-Tae Kim for useful discussions and for critical review of this manuscript. We also wish to thank Claude Chapuis for conducting the 1998 SEST observations and stimulating discussion and Bill Mahoney for carrying out the DSN observations. We thank R. Blum and the CTIO staff for their help in acquiring the IR spectra. We gratefully acknowledge Kee-Tae Kim and Bon-Chul Koo for sharing their CO data of W31, as well as Yael Fuchs for her help with Fig. 1. We also thank Aage Sandqvist for providing information on the $-$30 spiral arm. SSE is supported in part by an NSF CAREER award (AST-9983830).
Banas, K. R., Hughes, J. P., Bronfman, L., & Nyman, L.-A. 1997, , 480, 607
Bania, T. M. 1980, , 242, 95
Blitz, L. & Spergel, D. N. 1991, , 379, 631
Blum, R. D., Damineli, A., Conti, P. S. 2001, , 121, 3149
Chapuis, C., & Corbel, S. 2003, A&A, in press, astro-ph/0310680
Corbel, S. et al., 1997, , 478, 624
Corbel, S., Chapuis, C., Dame, T.M., Durouchoux, P. 1999, , 526, L29
Combes, F. 1991, , 29, 195
Dame, T. M., Ungerechts, H., Cohen, R. S., de Geus, E. J., Grenier, I. A., May, J., Murphy, D. C., Nyman, L.-A., Thaddeus, P. 1987, , 322, 706
Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, , 547, 792
Depoy, D., Atwood, B., Byard, P. L., Frogel, J., O’Brien, T. P. 1993, SPIE, 1946, 667
Eikenberry, S. S., Garske, M. A., Hu, D., Jackson, M. A., Patel, S. G., Barry, D. J., Colonno, M. R., Houck, J. R. 2001, , 563, L133
Eikenberry, S. S., Matthews, K., Garske, M. A., Hu, D., Jackson, M. A., Patel, S. G., Barry, D. J., Colonno, M. R., Houck, J. R., Smith, J.D., Corbel, S., ApJ, submitted
Fich, M., Blitz, L., Stark, A. A. 1989, , 342, 272
Fish, V. L., Reid, M. J., Wilner, D. J., Churchwell, E. 2003, , 587, 701
Fuchs, Y., Mirabel, F., Chaty, S., Claret, A., Cesarsky, C. J., Cesarsky, D. A. 1999, , 350, 891
Gaensler, B. M., Slane, P. O., Gotthelf, E. V., Vasisht, G. 2001, , 559, 963
Ghosh, S. K., Iyengar, K. V. K., Rengarajan, T. N., Tandon, S. N., Verma, R. P., Daniel, R. R., Ho, P. T. P. 1989, , 347, 338
Greaves, J. S. & Williams, P. G. 1994, , 290, 259
Greisen, E. W. & Lockman, F. J. 1979, , 228, 740
Hurley, K., Kouveliotou, C., Cline, T., Mazets, E., Golenetskii, S., Frederiks, D. D., & van Paradijs, J. 1999, , 523, L37
Kalberla, P. M. W., Goss, W. M., & Wilson, T. L. 1982, , 106, 167
Kaplan, D. L., Fox, D. W., Kulkarni, S. R., Gotthelf, E. V., Vasisht, G., Frail, D. A 2002, , 564, 935
Kerr, F. J. & Vallak, R. 1967, Australian J. Phys., Astrophys. Suppl., 3, 3
Kim, K-T & Koo, B-C 2001, , 549, 979
Kim, K-T & Koo, B-C 2002, , 575, 327
Kouveliotou, C. et al. 1998, , 393, 295
Kulkarni, S. R & Frail, D. A. 1993, , 365, 33
Kulkarni, S. R., Frail, D. A., Kassim, N. E., Murakami, T., & Vasisht, G. 1994, , 368, 129
Linke, R. A., Stark, A. A., & Frerking, M. A. 1981, , 243, 147
Lavine, J., Eikenberry, S.S., Smith, J.D., in preparation
Liszt, H. S., Burton, W. B., Sanders, R. H., & Scoville, N. Z. 1977, , 213, 38
Menon, T.K. & Ciotti, J.E. 1970, , 227, 579
Mereghetti, S., Cremonesi, D., Feroci, M., Tavani, M. 2000, , 361, 240
Rieke, G. H. & Lebofsky, M. J. 1985, , 288, 618
Sandqvist, A. et al.2003, , 402, L63
Shaver, P. A., & Goss, W. M. 1970, Australian J. Phys., Astrophys. Suppl., 14, 77
van Kerkwijk, M. H., Kulkarni, S. R., Matthews, K., & Neugebauer, G. 1995, , 444, L33
Vancura, O., Blair, W. P., Long, K. S., & Raymond, J. C. 1992, , 394, 158
Vasisht, G., Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R. 1995, , 440, L65
Vrba, F. J. et al. 2000, , 533, L17
Wilson, T. L. 1974, , 31, 83
[^1]: Visiting astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, under contract with the National Science Foundation.
[^2]: W(CO\*) is the integrated line area of the cloud. The error on W(CO\*) itself is negligeable compared to the 20% uncertainty we assume to take into account the uncertainties in the various conversion factors for $A_V$.
[^3]: In the text, we use a systematic error of $\pm$ 10 on the velocity of the cloud in order to derive a robust distance range ($>$ 2$\sigma$) for each of the molecular clouds.
[^4]: We did not attempt to resolve the distance ambiguity for MC73, MC87 and MC94, since they are between MC-16 and MC13A in either case.
[^5]: Note that in old literature, this arm was sometimes called the “4-kpc expanding arm” due to a distance to the GC of 10.0 kpc.
[^6]: Note that this argument cannot be applied to G10.0$-$0.3, simply because it is not an region.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Solid state materials hosting pseudospin-1 quasiparticles have attracted a great deal of recent attention. In these materials, the energy band contains of a pair of Dirac cones and a flat band through the connecting point of the cones. As the “caging” of carriers with a zero group velocity, the flat band itself has zero conductivity. However, in a non-equilibrium situation where a constant electric field is suddenly switched on, the flat band can enhance the resulting current in both the linear and nonlinear response regimes through distinct physical mechanisms. Using the ($2+1$) dimensional pseudospin-$1$ Dirac-Weyl system as a concrete setting, we demonstrate that, in the weak field regime, the interband current is about twice larger than that for pseudospin-1/2 system due to the interplay between the flat band and the negative band, with the scaling behavior determined by the Kubo formula. In the strong field regime, the intraband current is $\sqrt{2}$ times larger than that in the pseudospin-1/2 system, due to the additional contribution from particles residing in the flat band. In this case, the current and field follows the scaling law associated with Landau-Zener tunneling. These results provide a better understanding of the role of the flat band in non-equilibrium transport and are experimentally testable using electronic or photonic systems.'
author:
- 'Cheng-Zhen Wang'
- 'Hong-Ya Xu'
- Liang Huang
- 'Ying-Cheng Lai'
title: 'Non-equilibrium transport in the pseudospin-1 Dirac-Weyl system'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Solid state materials, due to the rich variety of their lattice structures and intrinsic symmetries [@bradlyn2016beyond; @beenakker2016bringing], can accommodate quasiparticles that lead to quite unconventional and interesting physical phenomena. The materials and the resulting exotic quasiparticles constitute the so-called “material universe.” Such materials range from graphene that hosts Dirac fermions [@neto2009electronic] to 3D topological insulators [@hasan2010colloquium; @qi2011topological] and 3D Dirac and Weyl semimetals [@xu2015discovery; @lv2015experimental], in which the quasiparticles are relativistic pseudospin-$1/2$ fermions. Recently, Dirac-like pseudospin-1 particles have attracted much attention [@Bercioux2009; @shen2010single; @urban2011barrier; @dora2011lattice; @goldman2011topological; @guzman2014experimental; @Li2014; @Giovannetti2015; @vicencio2015observation; @mukherjee2015observation; @taie2015coherent; @diebel2016conical; @paavilainen2016coexisting; @zhu2016blue; @fang2016klein; @Malcolm2016; @xu2016; @Tsuch2016; @XL2017; @Fang2017], which are associated with a unique type of energy band structure: a pair of Dirac cones with a flat band through the conical connecting point. Materials that can host pseudospin-1 particles include particularly engineered photonic crystals [@fang2016klein; @guzman2014experimental; @vicencio2015observation; @mukherjee2015observation; @diebel2016conical], optical dice or Lieb lattices with loaded ultracold atoms [@Bercioux2009; @shen2010single; @urban2011barrier; @goldman2011topological; @Raoux2014], and certain electronic materials [@Li2014; @Giovannetti2015; @paavilainen2016coexisting; @zhu2016blue]. In contrast to the Dirac cone system with massless pseudospin-$1/2$ particles that exhibit conventional relativistic quantum phenomena, in pseudospin-$1$ systems an array of quite unusual physical phenomena can arise, such as super-Klein tunneling associated with one-dimensional barrier transmission [@shen2010single; @dora2011lattice; @fang2016klein], diffraction-free wave propagation and novel conical diffraction [@guzman2014experimental; @mukherjee2015observation; @vicencio2015observation; @diebel2016conical], unconventional Anderson localization [@chalker2010anderson; @bodyfelt2014flatbands; @Fang2017], flat-band ferromagnetism [@taie2015coherent], unconventional Landau-Zener Bloch oscillations [@KF2016], and peculiar topological phases under external gauge fields or spin-orbit coupling [@goldman2011topological; @wang2011nearly; @aoki1996hofstadter; @weeks2010topological]. The aim of this paper is to present the phenomenon of enhanced non-equilibrium quantum transport of pseudospin-1 particles.
Quantum transport beyond the linear response and equilibrium regime is of great practical importance, especially in device research and development. There have been works on nonlinear and non-equilibrium transport of relativistic pseudospin-$1/2$ particles in Dirac and Weyl materials. For example, when graphene is subject to a constant electric field, the dynamical evolution of the current after the field is turned on exhibits a remarkable minimal conductivity behavior [@lewkowicz2009dynamics]. The scaling behavior of nonlinear electric transport in graphene due to the dynamical Landau-Zener tunneling or the Schwinger pair creation mechanism has also been investigated [@rosenstein2010ballistic; @dora2010nonlinear]. Under a strong electrical field, due to the Landau-Zener transition, a topological insulator or graphene can exhibit a quantization breakdown phenomenon in the spin Hall conductivity [@dora2011dynamics]. More recently, non-equilibrium electric transport beyond the linear response regime in 3D Weyl semimetals has been studied [@vajna2015nonequilibrium]. In these works, the quasiparticles are relativistic pseudospin-1/2 fermions arising from the Dirac or Weyl system with a conical type of dispersion in their energy momentum spectrum. In this paper, we study the transport dynamics of pseudospin-1 quasiparticles that arise in material systems with a pair of Dirac cones and a flat band through their connecting point. Under the equilibrium condition and in the absence of disorders, the flat band acts as a perfect “caging” of carriers with zero group velocity and hence it contributes little to the conductivity [@vigh2013diverging; @hausler2015flat; @louvet2015origin]. However, as we will show in this paper, the flat band can have a significant effect on the non-equilibrium transport dynamics. Through numerical and analytic calculation of the current evolution for both weak and strong electric fields, we find the general phenomenon of current enhancement as compared with that associated with non-equilibrium transport of pseudospin-1/2 particles. In particular, for a weak field, the interband current is twice as large as that for pseudospin-1/2 system due to the interference between particles from the flat band and from the negative band, the scaling behavior of which agrees with that determined by the Kubo formula. For a strong field, the intraband current is $\sqrt{2}$ times larger than that in the pseudospin-1/2 system, as a result of the additional contribution from the particles residing in the flat band. In this case, the physical origin of the scaling behavior of the current-field relation can be attributed to Landau-Zener tunneling. Our findings suggest that, in general, the conductivity of pseudospin-1 materials can be higher than that of pseudospin-$1/2$ materials in the nonequilibrium transport regime.
Pseudospin-1 Hamiltonian and current {#sec:Hamiltonian}
====================================
We consider a system of 2D noninteracting, Dirac-like pseudospin-1 particles subject to a uniform, constant electric field applied in the $x$ direction. The system is described by the generalized Dirac-Weyl Hamiltonian [@xu2016; @urban2011barrier]. The electric field, switched on at $t=0$, can be incorporated into the Hamiltonian through a time-dependent vector potential [@lewkowicz2009dynamics; @rosenstein2010ballistic; @dora2010nonlinear; @dora2011dynamics; @vajna2015nonequilibrium; @cohen2008schwinger; @ishikawa2010nonlinear; @lee2014nonlinear]: $\boldsymbol{A}(t)=[A(t), 0, 0]$, where $A(t)=-Et\Theta (t)$. The resulting Hamiltonian is $$\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
H=v_F \{S_x [p_x - qA(t)] + S_y p_y\},$$ where $v_F$ is the Fermi velocity of the pseudospin-1 particle from the Dirac cones, $q=-e$ $(e>0)$ is the electronic charge, $\boldsymbol{S}=(S_x, S_y, S_z)$ is a vector of matrices with components $$S_x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix},
S_y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -i & 0 \\
i & 0 & -i \\
0 & i & 0
\end{bmatrix},$$ $$S_z=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1
\end{bmatrix}.$$ The three matrices form a complete representation of pseudospin-1 particles, which satisfy the angular momentum commutation relations $[S_l, S_m]=i\epsilon_{lmn}S_n$ with three eigenvalues: $s=\pm1,0$, where $\epsilon_{lmn}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. However, the matrices do not follow the Clifford algebra underlying spin-1/2 particles. The corresponding time dependent wave equation is $$\label{eq:wave_equation}
i\hbar \partial_t \Psi_{p}(t) = H\Psi_{p}(t).$$ Under the unitary transformation $$U=
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}e^{-i\theta} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{-i\theta} & \frac{1}{2}e^{{-i\theta}} \\
\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} & 0 & -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \\
\frac{1}{2}e^{i\theta} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\theta} & \frac{1}{2}e^{{i\theta}}
\end{bmatrix}$$ with $\tan\theta = p_y/[p_x-qA(t)]$, we can rewrite Eq. (\[eq:wave\_equation\]) in the basis of adiabatic energy as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Diracoriginal}
i\hbar \partial_t \Phi_p(t) = &\big[S_z \epsilon_p(t)
+ S_x \sqrt{2}C_0(t)\big]\Phi_p(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi_p(t)=U^{\dagger}\Psi_p(t)=[\alpha_p(t),\gamma_p(t),\beta_p(t)]^T$, $C_0(t)={\hbar v_F^{2}p_y eE}/{\sqrt{2}\epsilon_p^2(t)}$, and $\epsilon_p = v_F \sqrt{(p_x - eEt)^2 + p_y^2}$. Initially at $t = 0$, the negative band is assumed to be fully filled: $\Phi_p(t=0) = [0, 0, 1]^T$. From the equation of motion, we obtain the current operator in the original basis as $J_x=-e\nabla_{\boldsymbol{p}}H=-ev_F S_x$. In the transformed adiabatic energy base, the current operator is $$\label{eq:J_x}
J_x=-ev_F(S_z\cos\theta - S_y \sin\theta).$$ We thus have the current density for a certain state as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:current1}
\langle J_x \rangle _p(t)&=-ev_F\big\{\cos\theta[|\alpha_p(t)|^2 - |\beta_p(t)|^2] \nonumber \\
&- \sqrt{2}\sin\theta \mbox{Re}[i\alpha_p(t)\gamma_p^{*}(t)+i\gamma_p(t)\beta_p^{*}(t)]
\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[eq:current1\]), the first term is related to the particle number distribution associated with the positive and negative bands, which is the intraband or conduction current. The second term in Eq. (\[eq:current1\]) characterizes the interference between particles from distinct bands, which is related to the phenomenon of relativistic Zitterbewegung and can be appropriately called the interband or polarization current.
To assess the contribution of a band (i.e., positive, flat, or negative) to the interband current, we seek to simplify the current expression. Through some algebraic substitutions, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t |\alpha_p(t)|^2 = 2\mbox{Re} [\alpha_p(t) \partial_t \alpha_p^*(t)], \nonumber\\
\partial_t |\gamma_p(t)|^2 = 2\mbox{Re} [\gamma_p(t) \partial_t \gamma^*_p(t)]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From the Dirac equation (\[eq:Diracoriginal\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar \alpha_p(t) \partial_t \alpha^*_p(t) = i\epsilon_p \alpha_p(t) \alpha^*_p(t) + iC_0 \alpha_p(t) \gamma^*_p(t), \nonumber\\
\hbar \gamma_p(t) \partial_t \gamma^*_p(t) = iC_0 \gamma_p(t) \alpha^*_p(t) + iC_0 \gamma_p(t) \beta^*_p(t), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mbox{Re} [i\alpha_p(t) \gamma^*_p(t)] & = & \frac{\hbar}{2C_0}\partial_t |\alpha_p(t)|^2, \nonumber \\
\mbox{Re} [i\gamma_p(t) \beta^*_p(t)] & = & \frac{\hbar}{2C_0}\big[ \partial_t |\alpha_p(t)|^2 + \partial_t |\gamma_p(t)|^2 \big].\end{aligned}$$ Using the total probability conservation $|\alpha_p|^2 + |\gamma_p|^2 + |\beta_p|^2 = 1$, we finally arrive at the following current expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:current2}
\langle J_x \rangle _p (t)
&= -ev_F \Big\{ \frac{v_F (p_x - eEt)}{\epsilon_p(t)}\big[2|\alpha_p(t)|^2 + |\gamma_p(t)|^2 - 1\big] \nonumber \\
& - \frac{\epsilon_p(t)}{v_F e E}\big(2\partial_t |\alpha_p|^2 + \partial_t |\gamma_p|^2\big) \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where the third term in the first part that is independent of the particle distribution vanishes after an integration over the momentum space.
For convenience, in our numerical calculations we use dimensionless quantities, which we obtain by introducing the scale $\Delta$, the characteristic energy of the system. The dimensionless time, electric field, momentum, energy, and coefficient are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\tilde{t} & = & \Delta t/\hbar, \\ \nonumber
\tilde{E} & = & ev_F\hbar E/\Delta^2, \\ \nonumber
\tilde{p} & = & v_Fp/\Delta, \\ \nonumber
\tilde{\epsilon} & = & \sqrt{(\tilde{p}_x - \tilde{E}\tilde{t})^2
+ \tilde{p}_y^2}, \\ \nonumber
\tilde{C}_0 & = & \tilde{E}\tilde{p}_y/\sqrt{2}[(\tilde{p}_x -
\tilde{E}\tilde{t})^2 + \tilde{p}_y^2],\end{aligned}$$ respectively. The dimensionless current $\tilde{J}$ can be expressed in units of $e\Delta^2/v_F \hbar^2 \pi^2$.
Weak field regime: enhancement of interband current {#sec:weak_field}
===================================================
![ [**Interband current in pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 systems**]{}. (a) Evolution of the total current to electric field ratio $\tilde{J}/\tilde{E}$ with time $\tilde{t}$ for pseudospin-1 and 1/2 systems for a fixed electric field $\tilde{E}=0.0004$, where the dashed lines denote the theoretical values $\pi^2/2$ and $\pi^2/4$ for the pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 systems, respectively. The yellow and green lines represent the respective numerical results. (b) The total current $\tilde{J}$ versus the electric field $\tilde{E}$ at time $\tilde{t}=2$ for the two systems. Comparing with the pseudospin-1/2 system, the interband current in the pseudospin-1 system is greatly enhanced.[]{data-label="fig:Interband_J_tE"}](figure1.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In the weak field regime, the intraband current is negligible as compared to the interband current due to the fewer number of conducting particles [@rosenstein2010ballistic; @dora2010nonlinear] (see Appendix B for an explanation and representative results). In particular, the interband current for a certain state can be expressed as $$J_p^{inter} = \frac{\epsilon_p(t)}{E}[2\partial_t |\alpha_p|^2 +
\partial_t |\gamma_p|^2].$$ For pseudospin-1/2 particles, the interband current has only the first term [@dora2010nonlinear]. The additional term $[\epsilon_p(t)/E]\partial_t |\gamma_p|^2$ is unique for pseudospin-1 particles. To reveal the scaling behavior of the interband current and to assess the role of the positive and the flat bands in the current, we impose the weak field approximation: $|p|=\sqrt{p_x^2 + p_y^2} \gg eEt $ everywhere except in the close vicinity of the Dirac point, which allows us to obtain an analytic expression for the interband current. Under the approximation, the coefficients $\epsilon_p$ and $C_0$ become $\epsilon_p\approx v_F p$ and $C_0\approx \hbar p_y e E/(\sqrt{2}p^2)$, which are time independent. Substituting these approximations into Eq. (\[eq:Diracoriginal\]), we obtain the three components of the time dependent state $\Phi_p(t)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_p(t) = \frac{1}{2} [\cos \omega t + m_0^2(\cos \omega t - 1) - 1], \\
&\beta_p(t) = \frac{1}{2} [\cos \omega t - 2m_0 \sin\omega t - m_0^2 [\cos\omega t - 1] + 1], \\
&\gamma_p(t) = \frac{1 + m_0^2}{2C_0} [-i\hbar \omega \sin \omega t - \epsilon_p(\cos \omega t - 1)].\end{aligned}$$ The interband current contains two parts: $$\label{eq:interpositive}
J_p^{\alpha} = 2\frac{\epsilon_p C_0^4 \omega}{E(\epsilon_p^2 + 2C_0^2)^2}(2\sin \omega t - \sin 2\omega t),$$ and $$\label{eq:interflat}
J_p^{\gamma} = 2\frac{\epsilon_p C_0^2 \omega}{E(\epsilon_p^2 + 2C_0^2)^2}(\epsilon_p^2 \sin \omega t + C_0^2 \sin 2\omega t),$$ which correspond to contributions from the positive and the flat bands, respectively, where $\omega = \sqrt{\epsilon_p^2 + 2C_0^2}/\hbar$. For sufficiently weak field such that the off diagonal term is small compared with the diagonal term in Eq. (\[eq:Diracoriginal\]), we have $\epsilon_p^2 \gg 2C_0^2$, i.e., $$v_F^2 p^2 \gg \frac{p_y^2}{p^2}\frac{\hbar^2 e^2 E^2}{p^2}.$$ In this case, the contribution from the positive band is nearly zero and the flat band contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:interflat_approx}
J_p^{\gamma} \approx 2\frac{\epsilon_p^3 C_0^2 \omega}{E(\epsilon_p^2 + 2C_0^2)^2}\sin{(\omega t)} \approx e^2 \hbar E \frac{\sin^2 \theta}{p^2}\sin{(\frac{v_Fpt}{\hbar})}.\end{aligned}$$ The total positive band contribution over the momentum space is negligibly small, so the flat band contributes dominantly to the total interband current: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:intercurrent}
J_{inter} & = \frac{1}{\pi^2 \hbar^2}\iint e^2 \hbar E \frac{\sin^2 \theta}{p}\sin{(\frac{v_F pt}{\hbar})} d\theta dp \nonumber \\
& = \frac{e^2}{2\hbar}E = \frac{e\Delta^2}{v_F \hbar^2 \pi^2} \cdot \frac{\pi^2}{2}\tilde{E}.\end{aligned}$$ The dimensionless current is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{J} = \frac{\pi^2}{2}\tilde{E}.\end{aligned}$$
![ [**Origin of interband current in the pseudospin-1 system.**]{} (a) Ratio between interband currents from the pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 systems as a function of time for electric field strength $\tilde{E}=0.0004$, (b) current ratio versus $\tilde{E}$ for fixed time $\tilde{t}=2$. The black dashed lines are theoretical results, and the red and blue lines are for flat and positive bands, respectively. These results indicate that, for the pseudospin-1 system, the flat band is the sole contributor to the interband current.[]{data-label="fig:Interband_flat"}](figure2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
To verify the analytical prediction Eq. (\[eq:intercurrent\]), we calculate the interband current by numerically solving the time dependent Dirac equation (\[eq:Diracoriginal\]). For comparison, we also calculate the current for the pseudospin-1/2 system both numerically and analytically. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:Interband\_J\_tE\]. For the numerical results in Fig. \[fig:Interband\_J\_tE\](a), the momentum space is defined as $\tilde{p}_x \in [-8, 8]$ and $\tilde{p}_y \in [-8, 8]$ and the integration grid has the spacing $0.0002$. In Fig. \[fig:Interband\_J\_tE\](b), we use the same momentum space grid for $\tilde{E}=0.0001,0.0002,0.0004$ but for $\tilde{E}= 0.0008, 0.0016, 0.0032$, the ranges of the momentum space are doubled. From Fig. \[fig:Interband\_J\_tE\](a), we see that the interband current for both pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 cases are independent of time. That is, after a short transient, the interband current approaches a constant. From Fig. \[fig:Interband\_J\_tE\](b), we see that the current is proportional to the electric field $E$ for both pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 particles (with unity slope on a double logarithmic scale), but the proportional constant is larger in the pseudospin-1 case. While in the weak field regime, the scaling relation between the interband current and the electric field is the same for pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 particles, there is a striking difference in the current magnitude. In particular, the interband current for the pseudospin-1 system is about twice that for the pseudospin-1/2 counterpart, as revealed by both the theoretical approximation Eq. (\[eq:intercurrent\]) and the numerical result \[corresponding to the dashed and solid lines in Fig. \[fig:Interband\_J\_tE\](a), respectively\]. The interband current in the pseudospin-1 system is thus greatly enhanced as compared with that in the pseudospin-1/2 system.
![ [**Interband current distribution in the momentum space**]{}: (a) pseudospin-1 and (b) pseudospin-1/2 systems. The time and electric field strength are $\tilde{t}=2$ and $\tilde{E}=0.0128$ respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Interband_dist1"}](figure3.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Intuitively, the phenomenon of current enhancement can be attributed to the extra flat band in the pseudospin-1 system: while the band itself does not carry any current, it can contribute to the interband current. Indeed, the theoretical results in Eqs. (\[eq:interpositive\]) and (\[eq:interflat\]) indicate that the flat band contributes to the total interband current, while the positive band contributes little to the current. To gain physical insights, we numerically calculate three currents: the positive and flat band currents from the pseudospin-1 system, and the current from the pseudospin-1/2 system. Figure \[fig:Interband\_flat\] shows that the ratio of the flat band current to the pseudospin-1/2 current is two, while the ratio between the positive band and pseudospin-1/2 currents is nearly zero, indicating that in the pseudospin-1 system, almost all the interband current originates from the flat band.
To better understand the phenomenon of interband current enhancement in the pseudospin-1 system, we calculate the current distribution for both pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 systems in the momentum space, as shown in Fig. \[fig:Interband\_dist1\]. We see that the area in the momentum space with significant current is larger for the pseudospin-1 case, although the current magnitude is almost the same near the Dirac point for both systems. This is indication that the flat band can contribute substantially more current because the Landau-Zener transition “gap” $P_y$ for the pseudospin-1 system is small compared to that for the pseudospin-1/2 system. Mathematically, with respect to the single state current expression (\[eq:interflat\_approx\]) for the pseudospin-1 system, the corresponding one state contribution to the current for the pseudospin-1/2 system is $$J_p^{half} \approx \frac{e^2 \hbar E}{2} \frac{\sin^2 \theta}{p^2}\sin{(\frac{2v_F pt}{\hbar})}.$$ The integration of current over the entire momentum space gives the factor 2 of enhancement for the pseudospin-1 system as compared with the pseudospin-1/2 system. This implies that quantum interference occurs mainly between particles from the negative and flat bands due to the small gap between them.
![ [**Enhancement of intraband current in the strong electric field regime**]{}. Intraband current and contributions from distinct bands (a) versus time for $\tilde{E}=0.8192$, where the black dashed lines represent the analytical values $2(\sqrt{2} -1)$, $2$, $2\sqrt{2}$ (from bottom) and (b) versus electric field at time $\tilde{t}=10$ (for six values of the electric field: $\tilde{E} = 0.2048, 0.4096, 0.8192, 1.6384,
3.2768$.[]{data-label="fig:Intraband_J_tE"}](figure4.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Strong field regime: enhancement of intraband current {#sec:strong_field}
=====================================================
In the strong field regime, the intraband current \[the first term in Eq. (\[eq:current2\])\] dominates (see Appendix B). The transition probabilities for the positive, flat and negative bands are given, respectively, by [@carroll1986generalisation] $$\begin{aligned}
n_p^{+} &= \Theta (p_x) \Theta (eEt - p_x) \exp (-\frac{\pi v_F p_y^2}{\hbar e E}), \label{eq:positive}\\
n_p^{0} &= \Theta (p_x) \Theta (eEt - p_x) \nonumber \\
&\cdot 2 \Big[ 1 - \exp (-\frac{\pi v_F p_y^2}{2\hbar e E}) \Big] \Big[ \exp (-\frac{\pi v_F p_y^2}{2\hbar e E}) \Big], \label{eq:flaten}\\
n_p^{-} &= \Theta (p_x) \Theta (eEt - p_x)\Big[ 1 - \exp (-\frac{\pi v_F p_y^2}{2\hbar e E}) \Big]^2, \label{eq:negative}\end{aligned}$$ subject to the momentum constraint: $(p_x, eEt - p_x) \gg |p_y|$. The transition probabilities are essentially the pair production or transition probabilities in the generalized three-level Landau-Zener model. Substituting Eqs. (\[eq:positive\]) and (\[eq:negative\]) into Eq. (\[eq:current1\]) \[or equivalently Eq. (\[eq:current2\])\] and integrating its first term over the momentum space, we obtain the positive-band contribution to the intraband current with conducting electrons (or partially filled electrons) populated from the filled bands $$\begin{aligned}
J^{+}&= \frac{ev_F}{\hbar^2 \pi^2}\iint\frac{v_F(eEt -p_x)}{\epsilon_p(t)} \cdot |\alpha_p(t)|^2 dp_x dp_y \nonumber \\
&\approx \frac{ev_F}{\hbar^2 \pi^2} \int_{0}^{eEt}dp_x \int_{-p_x}^{p_x} |\alpha_p(t)|^2 dp_y \nonumber \\
&\approx \frac{ev_F}{\hbar^2 \pi^2} \int_{0}^{eEt}dp_x \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |\alpha_p(t)|^2dp_y \nonumber \\
&= \frac{e^2}{\hbar \pi^2}\sqrt{\frac{ev_F}{\hbar}} E^{3/2} t \tag{20}\\
& = \frac{e\Delta^2}{v_F \hbar^2 \pi^2} \tilde{E}^{3/2} \tilde{t}. \tag{21} \label{eq:J_intra_positive}\end{aligned}$$ The contribution to the current from the initially filled negative band with holes left by the electrons driven into the positive and flat bands, the conducting hole based intraband current $J^{-}$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
J^{-} &= (2\sqrt{2} - 1)\frac{e^2}{\hbar \pi^2}\sqrt{\frac{ev_F}{\hbar}} E^{3/2} t \tag{22}\\
& = \frac{e\Delta^2}{v_F \hbar^2 \pi^2} (2\sqrt{2}-1)\tilde{E}^{3/2} \tilde{t}, \tag{23}\end{aligned}$$ which can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
J^{-} = J^{-}_{positive} + J^{-}_{flat}, \tag{24}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term accounts for the contribution by the holes left by electrons finally driven into the positive band only while the second term represents the current contribution associated with the hole concentration induced by the flat band. We have $J^{-}_{positive}=J^{+}$. The flat band induced current results from the hole concentration in the dispersive band, which can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
J^{-}_{flat} &=J^{-} - J^{+} \nonumber\\
& = \frac{e\Delta^2}{v_F \hbar^2 \pi^2}2(\sqrt{2}-1)\tilde{E}^{3/2} \tilde{t}. \tag{25}\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account both the conducting electrons and the corresponding holes, we obtain the following expression for the dispersive positive band based current: $$\begin{aligned}
J_{positive} &= J^{+}+J^{-}_{positive}=2\cdot \frac{e^2}{\hbar \pi^2}\sqrt{\frac{ev_F}{\hbar}} E^{3/2} t \tag{26}\\
& = 2\cdot \frac{e\Delta^2}{v_F \hbar^2 \pi^2} \tilde{E}^{3/2} \tilde{t}. \tag{27}\end{aligned}$$ Note that, for the pseudospin-$1/2$ system, this is the total current in the strong field regime. The total intraband current in the presence of the flat band in the pseudospin-$1$ system is $$\begin{aligned}
J^{intra} &= J^{+} + J^{-} = J_{positive} + J^{-}_{flat} \nonumber \\
&= 2\sqrt{2}\frac{e^2}{\hbar \pi^2}\sqrt{\frac{ev_F}{\hbar}} E^{3/2} t \tag{28}\\
& = \frac{e\Delta^2}{v_F \hbar^2 \pi^2} 2\sqrt{2}\tilde{E}^{3/2} \tilde{t}. \tag{29}
\label{eq:J_intra_total}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing with the pseudospin-$1/2$ case, we see that the current enhancement is due to the enhanced hole concentration as a result of the additional flat band.
The intraband current scales with the electrical field as $E^{3/2}$ and scales linearly with time, which are the same as those for the pseudospin-1/2 system [@dora2010nonlinear]. However, for the pseudospin-1 system, the magnitude of the intraband current is larger: there is an enhancement factor of $\sqrt{2}$ as compared with the pseudospin-1/2 system. Since the positive band contribution is the same as for the pseudospin-1/2 system, the enhancement is due entirely to the flat band contribution.
![ [**Further evidence of enhancement of intraband current in the pseudospin-1 system**]{}. (a) The ratio of the intraband currents in the pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 systems versus time $\tilde{t}$ for $\tilde{E} = 0.8192$. (b) The current ratio versus $\tilde{E}$ for $\tilde{t} = 10$.[]{data-label="fig:Intraband_J_ratio_tE"}](figure5.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
We now provide numerical evidence for the predicted phenomenon of intraband current enhancement in the pseudospin-1 system. Figures \[fig:Intraband\_J\_tE\](a) and \[fig:Intraband\_J\_tE\](b) show the intraband current versus time $\tilde{t}$ and the electric field strength $\tilde{E}$, respectively, where the momentum space grid is $p_x \in [-16, 16]$ and $p_y \in [-16, 16]$ with spacing $0.002$ in (a) and the momentum space range is increased according to the increase in the electric field strength in (b). We see that the intraband current scales with $E$ as $E^{3/2}t$ - the same as for the pseudospin-1/2 system [@dora2010nonlinear; @rosenstein2010ballistic]. There is a good agreement between the numerical results and the theoretical predictions Eqs. ([\[eq:J\_intra\_positive\]]{}-[\[eq:J\_intra\_total\]]{}).
![ [**Numerical evidence of pair creation mechanism for the intraband current**]{}. The ratio of particle number distribution for pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 systems (a) versus time $\tilde{t}$ for $\tilde{E} = 0.8192$ and (b) versus $\tilde{E}$ for $\tilde{t} = 10$.[]{data-label="fig:Intraband_n_ratio_tE"}](figure6.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
To provide further confirmation of the enhancement of the intraband current, we calculate the ratio between the currents from the pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 systems versus time for certain electric field, as shown in Fig. [\[fig:Intraband\_J\_ratio\_tE\]]{}(a). The ratio versus the electric field for a given time is shown in Fig. [\[fig:Intraband\_J\_ratio\_tE\]]{}(b). We see that, in the long time regime, under a strong electric field the total intraband current for the pseudospin-1 system is about $\sqrt{2}$ times the current of the pseudospin-1/2 system. However, the positive band currents are approximately the same for both systems. The extra current in the pseudospin-1 system, which is about 0.4 times the contribution from the positive band, is originated from the flat band. These numerical results agree well with the theoretical predictions. The physical mechanism underlying the intraband current enhancement is the Schwinger mechanism or Landau-Zener tunneling. Note that, in Fig. [\[fig:Intraband\_J\_ratio\_tE\]]{}, the transition of an electron from the negative to the flat bands does not contribute to the intraband current, as the process leaves behind a hole in the negative band that contributes to the net current.
![ [**Current density distribution in the momentum space**]{}. (a,b) For pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 systems, respectively, the distributions of the current density in the momentum space for $\tilde{t}=20$ and $\tilde{E}=0.0512$. When the momentum gap value $P_y$ is large, the flat band can enhance the current.[]{data-label="fig:Intraband_dist"}](figure7.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
If the intraband current is generated by pair creation through Landau-Zener tunneling, the number of created particles should be consistent with the current behaviors. To test this, we numerically calculate the particle number distribution in different bands and plot the ratio between the numbers of particles for pseudospin-1 and pseudospin-1/2 systems versus time and the electric field, as shown in Fig. \[fig:Intraband\_n\_ratio\_tE\]. For the pseudospin-1 system, the number of particles created in the positive band is approximately the same as that created in the upper band in the pseudospin-1/2 system, and the number of particles in the flat band is about half of that in the positive band. Note that, for the positive band, it is necessary to count the particle number twice as both electrons and holes contribute to the transport current. However, for the flat band, only holes contribute to the current. We see that, for each band, the particle number distribution is consistent with the current distribution, providing strong evidence that the intraband current results from pair creation in the negative band. In fact, under the strong field approximation, the intraband current is the particle distributions in the positive and flat bands multiplying by the constant $ev_F$, as current is due to electron and hole transport.
We also calculate the current density distribution in the momentum space for a fixed time and electric field strength, as shown in Fig. \[fig:Intraband\_dist\]. We see that the current distribution range in the $P_y$ direction is wider for the pseudospin-1 system than for the pseudospin-1/2 system. However, the current distribution near $P_y=0$ is approximately the same for the two systems, and the current decays in the $p_y$ direction. In addition, there is a current cut-off about $\tilde{p}_x = \tilde{E}\tilde{t}$ along the $p_x$ axis. All these features of the current density distribution can be fully explained by the theoretical formulas (\[eq:positive\]-\[eq:negative\]). The general result is that the flat band can enhance the current when the “gap” $P_y$ is large.
Conclusion and Discussion {#sec:conclusion}
=========================
We investigate non-equilibrium transport of quasiparticles subject to an external electric field in the pseudospin-1 system arising from solid state materials whose energy band structure constitutes a pair of Dirac cones and a flat band through the conical connecting point. Since the group velocity for carriers associated with the flat band is zero, one may naively think that the flat band would have no contribution to the current. However, we find that the current in the pseudospin-1 system is generally enhanced as compared with that in the counterpart (pseudospin-1/2) system. In particular, in the weak field regime, for both systems the interband current dominates, is proportional to the electric field strength, and is independent of time. However, the interference between quasiparticles associated with the flat and the negative bands in the pseudospin-1 system leads to an interband current whose magnitude is twice the current in the pseudospin-1/2 system. In the strong field regime, for both systems the intraband current dominates and scales with the electric field strength as $E^{3/2}$ and linearly with time. We find that the current associated with carrier transition from the negative to the positive bands is identical for both systems, but the flat band in the pseudospin-1 system contributes an additional term to the current, leading to an enhancement of the total intraband current. The general conclusion is that, from the standpoint of generating large current, the presence of the flat band in the pseudospin-1 system can be quite beneficial. Indeed, the interplay between the flat band and the Dirac cones can lead to interesting physics that has just begun to be understood and exploited.
We discuss a few pertinent issues.
#### **Time scale of validity of effective Dirac Hamiltonian.** {#time-scale-of-validity-of-effective-dirac-hamiltonian. .unnumbered}
For a real material, the effective Dirac Hamiltonian description is valid about the degeneracy (Dirac) point only, imposing an intrinsic upper bound on time in its applicability. Similar to the situation of using the two-band Dirac Hamiltonian to describe graphene [@rosenstein2010ballistic], such a time bound can be approximately estimated as the Bloch oscillation period, i.e., the time required for the electric field to shift the momentum across the Brillouin zone: $\Delta p_x = eEt \approx \hbar/a$ with $a$ being the lattice constant. We obtain $t_B \sim \hbar/(eEa)$. Since the aim of our work is to investigate the physics near the Dirac point, the effective Hamiltonian description is sufficient. For clarity and convenience, all the calculations are done in terms of dimensionless quantities through the introduction of an auxiliary energy scale $\Delta$ whose value can be properly set to make the calculations under the restriction relevant to the real materials hosting pseudospin-$1$ quasiparticles. More specifically, the estimated time restriction $t<t_B$ gives rise to the following condition in terms of the dimensionless quantities $$\tilde{E}\tilde{t}<\frac{\hbar v_F}{\Delta a}.$$ For the given values of $\tilde{t}$ and the range of $\tilde{E}$ in all figures, the condition is fulfilled by setting $\Delta = \hbar v_F/50a$, based on which the actual physical units can be assigned to the dimensionless quantities. It is possible to test the results of this paper experimentally through tuning the characteristic energy $\Delta$ of the underlying system. While our work uses a model Hamiltonian to probe into the essential physics of pseudospin-1 systems in a relatively rigorous manner, the issue of dissipation (in momentum or energy) is beyond the intended scope of this paper.
#### **Bloch oscillations.** {#bloch-oscillations. .unnumbered}
If the whole band structure is taken into account, Bloch oscillations will occur under an external electric field for $t\gtrsim t_B$, i.e., the electron distribution will oscillate over a certain range of the lattice sites. In this case, the Dirac Hamiltonian description will no longer be valid. Instead, a full tight-binding Hamiltonian $H_{TB}(\boldsymbol{p})$ characterizing the multiband structure associated with a particular lattice configuration should be used. For the dice or $T_3$ lattice with intersite distance $a$ and hopping integral $t$, the tight-binding Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
& & H_{TB}^{(dice)}(\boldsymbol{p}) = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & h_{\boldsymbol{p}} & 0 \\
h_{\boldsymbol{p}}^* & 0 & h_{\boldsymbol{p}} \\
0 & h_{\boldsymbol{p}}^* & 0
\end{bmatrix}, \\ \nonumber
& & h_{\boldsymbol{p}} = -t\left(1 + 2\exp{(3ip_ya/2)}\cos(\sqrt{3}p_xa/2)\right).\end{aligned}$$ A previous work [@rosenstein2010ballistic] showed that, for the honeycomb lattice, the corresponding two-band tight-binding model can indeed give rise to Bloch oscillations for $t > t_B$. To investigate Bloch oscillations in the large time regime for pseudospin-1 systems with an extra flat band is certainly an interesting issue that warrants further efforts.
We note that, in a recent paper [@KF2016], the striking phenomenon of tunable Bloch oscillations was reported for a quasi one-dimensional diamond lattice system with a flat band under perturbation. It would be interesting to extend this work to two-dimensional lattices. The main purpose of our work is to uncover new phenomena in physical situations where the Dirac Hamiltonian description is valid (first order expansion of the tight binding Hamiltonian about the Dirac points).
#### **Effect of band anisotropy.** {#effect-of-band-anisotropy. .unnumbered}
For a particular lattice configuration associated with a real material, band anisotropy, e.g., the trigonal warping, will generally arise when entering the energy range relatively far from the Dirac points at a later time. In this case, direction dependent transport behavior can arise. Insights into the phenomena of driving direction resolved Bloch oscillations and Zener tunneling can be gained from existing studies of the two-band systems with the so-called “semi-Dirac” spectrum (a hybrid of the linear and quadratic dispersion) [@lim2012bloch; @lim2014mass]. At the present, the interplay between an additional flat band and dispersion anisotropy remains largely unknown, which is beyond the applicable scope of the idealized Dirac Hamiltonian framework.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Dr. Guang-Lei Wang for helpful discussions, and would like to acknowledge support from the Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship program sponsored by the Basic Research Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and funded by the Office of Naval Research through Grant No. N00014-16-1-2828. L.H. was supported by NSF of China under Grant No. 11422541.
Analytic calculation of the interband current
=============================================
In the weak field regime, we can expand Eq. (\[eq:Diracoriginal\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
i\hbar \partial_t\alpha_p(t) &= \epsilon_p \alpha_p(t) + C_0 \gamma_p(t), \label{eq:alpha} \\
i\hbar \partial_t\gamma_p(t) &= C_0[\alpha_p(t) + \beta_p(t)], \\
i\hbar \partial_t\beta_p(t) &= -\epsilon_p \beta_p(t) + C_0 \gamma_p(t) \label{eq:beta}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying the time differential operator $i\hbar \partial_t$ to Eqs. (\[eq:alpha\]) and (\[eq:beta\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
i\hbar \partial_t (i\hbar \partial_t \alpha_p(t)) = \epsilon_p i\hbar \partial_t\alpha_p(t) + C_0 i\hbar \partial_t\gamma_p(t), \label{eq:alpha2}\\
i\hbar \partial_t (i\hbar \partial_t \beta_p(t)) = -\epsilon_p i\hbar \partial_t\beta_p(t) + C_0 i\hbar \partial_t\gamma_p(t), \label{eq:beta2}\end{aligned}$$ and, hence, $$\label{eq:couple1}
-\hbar^2 \partial_t^{2}\alpha_p(t)-\hbar^2 \partial_t^{2}\beta_p(t) = [\alpha_p(t) + \beta_p(t)][\epsilon_p^{2} + 2C_0^{2}].$$ From Eqs. (\[eq:alpha\]) and (\[eq:beta\]), we have $$\label{eq:couple2}
i\hbar\partial_t\alpha_p(t) - i\hbar\partial_t\beta_p(t)=\epsilon_p [\alpha_p(t) + \beta_p(t)].$$ Defining $x_p(t)=\alpha_p(t)+\beta_p(t)$, and $y_p(t)=\alpha_p(t)-\beta_p(t)$, we get, from Eqs. (\[eq:couple1\]) and (\[eq:couple2\]), respectively, the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d^2x_p}{dt^2}+ \frac{\epsilon_p^2 + 2C_0^2}{\hbar^2}x_p = 0, \label{eq:xequation}\\
&\frac{dy_p}{dt} = \frac{\epsilon_p}{i\hbar}x_p. \label{eq:yequation}\end{aligned}$$ Solving Eq. (\[eq:xequation\]), we get $$x_p(t) = A\cos\omega t + B\sin\omega t, \nonumber$$ where $A$ and $B$ are constant, and $\omega = \sqrt{(\epsilon_p^2 + 2C_0^2)/\hbar^2}$. Using the initial condition that the negative band is fully filled: ($\Phi_p(t=0) = [0, 0, 1]^T$), we have $x_p(t=0) = A = 1$. From Eq. (\[eq:yequation\]), we have $$y_p(t) = \frac{\epsilon_p}{i\hbar \omega} [\sin\omega t - B\cos\omega t] +d.\nonumber$$ Using the initial condition, we get $y_p(t=0) = -m_0B + d = -1$, where $m_0 = \epsilon_p/(i\hbar \omega)$, $d = m_0 B -1$, which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_p(t) = \frac{1}{2}(x + y) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{2}[\cos\omega t + B \sin\omega t + m_0(\sin\omega t - B\cos\omega t + B) - 1], \nonumber\\
&\beta_p(t) = \frac{1}{2}(x - y) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{2}[\cos\omega t + B \sin\omega t - m_0(\sin\omega t - B\cos\omega t + B) + 1].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the expressions of $\alpha_p(t)$ and $\beta_p(t)$ into Eqs. (\[eq:alpha\]) and (\[eq:beta\]), we obtain an expression for $\gamma_p(t)$. Using $\gamma_p(t=0) = 0$, we have $B = -m_0$ and, hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_p(t) = \frac{1}{2} [\cos \omega t + m_0^2(\cos \omega t - 1) - 1], \\
&\beta_p(t) = \frac{1}{2} [\cos \omega t - 2m_0 \sin\omega t - m_0^2 [\cos\omega t - 1] + 1], \\
&\gamma_p(t) = \frac{1 + m_0^2}{2C_0} [-i\hbar \omega \sin \omega t - \epsilon_p(\cos \omega t - 1)].\end{aligned}$$
Dominant current source in the weak and strong field regimes
============================================================
For the three-band dispersion profile investigated in this work, there are two distinct current sources: the intraband and interband currents, where the former is proportional to the number of electrons (holes) within an unfilled (occupied) band while the latter depends on the rate of change in the particle number - a characteristic of interband interference. From Eq. (\[eq:current2\]), we see that the intraband current is determined by the transition amplitudes while the interband current depends on the rate of change of the amplitudes. For a weak driving field, the transition amplitudes between the occupied and the empty bands are negligibly small, so is the number of electron-hole generation, resulting in a weak intraband current. However, the rate of change in the transition amplitudes may not be small, neither is the interband current. Our calculations reveal that, indeed, in the weak (strong) driving regime, the interband (intraband) current dominates. As the field is increased from the weak to the strong regime, the algebraic scaling exponent of the current-field relation changes from 1 to 1.5, as shown in Fig. \[fig:Inter\_intra\_dist\].
![ [**Current versus electric field of pseudospin-1 system for $\boldsymbol{\tilde{t} = 5}$**]{}. As the magnitude of the external electrical field is increased, the dominant contribution to the total current changes from interband to intraband, and the algebraic scaling exponent of the current-field relation changes from 1 to 1.5.[]{data-label="fig:Inter_intra_dist"}](figure8.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
[48]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'During the last five years, serial femtosecond crystallography using x-ray laser pulses has developed into a powerful technique for determining the atomic structures of protein molecules from micrometer and sub-micrometer sized crystals. One of the key reasons for this success is the “self-gating" pulse effect, whereby the x-ray laser pulses do not need to outrun all radiation damage processes. Instead, x-ray induced damage terminates the Bragg diffraction prior to the pulse completing its passage through the sample, as if the Bragg diffraction was generated by a shorter pulse of equal intensity. As a result, serial femtosecond crystallography does not need to be performed with pulses as short as 5–10 fs, as once thought, but can succeed for pulses 50–100 fs in duration. We show here that a similar gating effect applies to single molecule diffraction with respect to spatially uncorrelated damage processes like ionization and ion diffusion. The effect is clearly seen in calculations of the diffraction contrast, by calculating the diffraction of average structure separately to the diffraction from statistical fluctuations of the structure due to damage (“damage noise"). Our results suggest that sub-nanometer single molecule imaging with 30–50 fs pulses, like those produced at currently operating facilities, should not yet be ruled out. The theory we present opens up new experimental avenues to measure the impact of damage on single particle diffraction, which is needed to test damage models and to identify optimal imaging conditions.'
author:
- 'Andrew V. Martin'
- 'Justine K. Corso'
- Carl Caleman
- Nicusor Timneanu
- 'Harry M. Quiney'
bibliography:
- 'damage\_effects.bib'
title: ' Single molecule imaging with longer x-ray laser pulses '
---
-5mm -5mm
Introduction
============
X-ray free-electron laser (XFEL) pulses are envisioned to probe the structures of radiation-sensitive samples, like biological molecules, by outrunning radiation damage processes[@Neutze2000]. Current facilities, however, produce their brightest pulses with durations of the order of tens of femtoseconds[@LCLS; @Ishikawa2012], which is sufficient time for ionization to become widespread and for ions to move several [Å]{}ngstr[ö]{}ms[@Caleman2009; @Caleman2011]. In spite of this, the first applications of XFELs to serial crystallography have been highly successful[@Chapman2011; @Boutet2012]. It turns out that even for longer pulses ($\sim$ 50–100 fs), Bragg diffraction probes the undamaged structure in the first few femtoseconds of the pulse-sample interaction, turning off at later times when radiation damage distributes the diffraction signal as a diffuse background[@Barty2012]. In this way, XFEL Bragg diffraction is effectively gated by damage because expected number of photons scattered to a Bragg peak is equivalent to that produced by a shorter pulse with the same intensity.
Despite the great progress in coherent imaging using XFEL sources, the holy grail - atomic resolution of a single (non-crystalline) biomolecule [@Neutze2000] - has not yet been realized. Nevertheless, the potential reward for success has kept this pursuit at the forefront of research in XFEL imaging science. One of the limiting factors is radiation damage. For non-crystalline samples, diffraction from the undamaged structure is not enhanced by periodicity and is mixed indistinguishably with the diffraction of a damaged structure. This is seemingly a major setback for the prospects of developing 3D single particle imaging into a high resolution technique for single molecules. For example, Hau-Riege et al.[@HauRiege2005] found that radiation damage causes large discrepancies with the ideal diffracted intensities, which led them to conclude that pulses must be no more than a few femtoseconds long to avoid severe resolution loss. A more recent study with more detailed scattering models reached a similar conclusion[@Ziaja2012]. However, these studies assessed feasibility with metrics inspired by crystallography whose suitability for single molecule imaging is disputed[@Quiney2011]. Without accounting in detail for the way that structural information is extracted from single molecule diffraction data, the issue of damage limits for single molecule imaging remains inconclusive.
One of the most actively pursued routes to single molecule imaging involves measuring thousands of copies of a molecule one by one. The resulting data is extremely noisy and the molecular orientations are not known. The issue of molecular orientation must be resolved to assemble a 3D dataset, which can be performed by several algorithms [@LohEMC2009; @Fung2009; @Giannakis2012; @Kassemeyer2013]. The hallmark of these methods is that they are able to cope with signals as low as 0.01 photons per Shannon-Nyquist pixel [@Tegze2012]. After the 3D dataset has been assembled, the atomic structure is recovered via coherent diffractive imaging methods[@Marchesini2007].
The crucial information needed to resolve the unknown orientations, and finally the structure, is contained in the modulations of diffraction signal arising from interference between different atoms, often called “speckles" (see Fig. \[fig:diffraction\_and\_explosion\]). Radiation damage changes the structure of the sample dynamically such that the final diffraction pattern is the sum of the diffraction from many modified structures, each with a different distribution of ions and ion displacements. It has been shown that averaging the diffraction over different molecular configurations[@Maia2009] lowers the speckle contrast relative to the mean scattering intensity within each resolution shell. We expect radiation damage to cause a similar loss of contrast. Not only is the amplitude of the speckle structure reduced, but speckle structure also fluctuates from shot-to-shot due to damage, in addition to the fluctuations due to changing orientation and shot-noise. We will use the term “damage noise" to refer to these fluctuations of speckle structure due to damage. So far damage noise has not been considered in studies of 3D dataset assembly. Here we present calculations of damage noise per diffraction pattern due to spatially uncorrelated damage processes, which include ionization and ion diffusion but not the Coulomb explosion of the molecule. An analysis of damage noise as a function of pulse duration reveals a gating effect in single molecule diffraction, whereby long pulses measure an equivalent amount of information about the average structure to shorter pulses of the same intensity. Theoretical predictions of damage noise are also the first step to understanding how orientation determination and 3D data assembly can be performed with data affected by radiation damage.
An alternative to alignment via post-processing is to experimentally align isolated gas-phase molecules, e.g. via quantum-state-selection methods [@Kupper2014; @Stern2014]. A great advantage of this approach is that multiple molecules can be illuminated simultaneously, increasing signal-to-noise and, as supported by the work here, reducing the impact of damage. These methods have been demonstrated only for small (2,5-diiodo-benzonitrile) molecules so far [@Kupper2014; @Stern2014] and extensions to larger molecules are being actively pursued. If the molecules are aligned experimentally, the self-gating effect still applies. Radiation damage modifies each molecule in the beam uniquely and stochastically, so that multiple damage scenarios are averaged in a single diffraction measurement in an analogous way to crystallography. This increases the signal with respect to damage noise as well as shot noise. The self-gating effect ensures that such benefits from using multiple aligned molecules are not lost entirely by using x-ray pulses longer than 10 fs.
Once the 3D data assembly has been performed, damage will still have a residual effect on the resulting 3D diffraction volume. Damage reduces the contrast in the averaged diffraction volume[@Quiney2011], and depending on the theoretical perspective, also contributes a background[@Lorenz2012]. Promisingly the reduction in contrast can be accounted for during structure determination by treating the sample in terms of a small number of structural modes[@Quiney2011]. The background contribution is expected to be small for hard X-rays at beam conditions currently available.
In addition to analysing the damage noise, we show how the mean and standard deviation of the diffraction signal can be combined into a sensitive measure of damage. An advantage of the measure we propose is its sensitivity to both ionization and ion motion, whereas the mean signal alone depends only on ionization. There is a need to measure damage experimentally and provide some validation and clarification for theoretical damage modelling. Many different types of damage models have been developed, based on rate-equations[@HauRiege2004], molecular dynamics [@Neutze2000; @Jurek2004b] or plasma theory[@Caleman2009], and each has specific advantages and disadvantages. For example, molecular dynamics models can keep track of specific ion trajectories, but are only computationally tractable for small molecules [@Neutze2000]. Rate equations models can simulate damage large molecules, but ignore information about ion motion on atomic length scales [@HauRiege2004]. Experimental measurements of damage will provide valuable feedback on our theoretical understanding of the interaction between XFEL pulses and biomolecules, which is needed to develop single molecule imaging techniques.
The effect of radiation damage on diffraction contrast
======================================================
The goal of single molecule imaging is to recover the initial position **R** of each atom in the sample. For simplicity, we will give equations for the case of a single atomic species, noting that the generalization to multiple atomic species is similar to that found in Ref. [@Quiney2011]. The intensity of a single measurement of a single molecule can be written $$I(\textbf{q}) = r_e^2 P(\textbf{q}) d\Omega I_0 \left[ \sum_{i=1}^N A_{i}(q) + 2 \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} B_{ij}(\textbf{q}) \right] \;,
\label{eq:I}$$ where $\textbf{q}$ is the scattering vector with magnitude $q$, $d\Omega$ is the solid-angle term, $r_e$ is the classical electron radius, $N$ is the number of atoms and $P(\textbf{q})$ is a polarization term that will be ignored in this discussion. To simplify mathematical notation, we assume the incident intensity takes a uniform value $I_0$ for the duration of the pulse. We have defined $$A_{i}(q) = \int_0^T |f_i(q,t)|^2 dt \;
\label{eq:Ai}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
B_{ij}(\textbf{q}) &= \int_0^T f_i(q,t) f_j(q,t) \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j + \bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t))] dt \;,
\label{eq:Bij}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{\epsilon}_i(t)$ is the displacement of the $i^{th}$ atom from its initial position and $T$ is the duration of the pulse. For a single two-dimensional measurement, it is understood that $\textbf{q}$ is sampled at points on the Ewald sphere, but in general we will use $\textbf{q}$ to be a general three-dimensional vector and $I(\textbf{q})$ is a three-dimensional function. The atomic scattering factor $f(q,t)$ depends upon the ionization state of the atom, which changes as a function of time. The ionic scattering factors can be calculated using Slater orbitals[@Slater1930] and we use $f_0(q)$ to denote the atomic scattering factor of the unionized atom. We assume that the probability of an ion having a particular ionization state at time $t$ is independent of where that atom is located in the sample. Although the ionization state as a function of time is different for each atom, statistically atoms of the same atomic species are assumed to be equivalent. We write $A(q)$ and $B(q)$ as a function of the magnitude of the scattering vector, $q$, because we assume the atomic scattering factors are spherically symmetric.
Consider an ensemble of 2D diffraction measurements, each with a unique damage scenario. For 3D imaging, the data needs to be assembled into a 3D intensity volume using an algorithm that accounts for the unknown molecular orientations. The desired solution of the algorithm is an average intensity, where each 2D measurement is correctly placed according to orientation and the different damage scenarios are averaged. As shown in Appendix \[app1\], the average intensity can be written in the form $$\langle I(\textbf{q}) \rangle = r_e^2 P(\textbf{q}) d\Omega I_0 \left[ N A(q) + 2 B(q) \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \right] \;,
\label{eq:Iav}$$ where we have $$\langle A_{i}(q) \rangle = A(q) \equiv I_0 \int_0^T \langle |f(q,t)|^2 \rangle dt
\label{eq:Aav}$$ and $$\langle B_{ij}(\textbf{q}) \rangle = B(q) \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \;,
\label{eq:Bijav}$$ where $$B(q) \equiv \int_0^T \langle f(q,t) \rangle^2 e^{-4\pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)^2} dt$$ and $\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)$ is the root mean square (rms) displacement of an ion as a function of time.
If the analysis is restricted to damage processes that are random and spatially uncorrelated, then we can treat the terms $A_{i}(q)$ and $B_{ij}(\textbf{q})$ as random variables and study the effect of damage statistically. We also treat the initial atomic positions $\textbf{R}_i$ as random with a uniform probability distribution, as is done in crystallography to analyse the statistics of Bragg intensities (Wilson statistics) at high scattering angles ($q > 0.33 $nm$^{-1}$) [@Huldt2003]. Both ionization and ion diffusion can be treated within this framework and, as we will show, are both involved in a self-gating pulse effect. Expansion of the molecule by Coulomb forces is not covered by the statistical treatment presented here, but is discussed further below.
The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. is sensitive to the atomic positions and accounts for the contrast in the average diffraction pattern. We can treat this information as the “signal" we aim to measure. The contribution each atom makes to the signal is proportional to $B(q)$, which is equal to the standard deviation of the diffraction in the merged 3D dataset divided by the number of atoms. The mean shot noise level, denoted by $\sigma_N$, is proportional to the square root of the intensity. We can estimate the mean shot noise level by considering the mean diffracted intensity in a shell of constant $q$, which can be derived by integrating Eq. and is proportional to $A(q)$. When the signal is compared to the noise, the proportionality constants have no influence on the interpretation, so we drop them for simplicity and write $$\sigma^2_N(q) = A(q) \;.
\label{eq:sigN}$$ In addition to shot noise, there is the damage noise due to the variations in how the damage manifests in each measurement. One contribution to the damage noise is the fluctuation of $A_{i}(q)$, which is characterized by the standard deviation of $A_{i}(q)$, which we denote by $\sigma_A(q)$. The second contribution to damage noise is the deviation of $B_{ij}(\textbf{q})$ from the average speckle $B(\textbf{q})$, which has a standard deviation $\sigma_B(q)$. The term $\sigma_B(q)$ is given by the difference between the standard deviation of the second term on the right-hand side of Eq minus the standard deviation of the second term on the right-hand side of Eq . In Appendices \[sec:app:sigA\] and \[sec:app:sigB\], we provide derivations of $\sigma_A(q)$ and $\sigma_B(q)$ that give the following results: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_A(q) = \int^T_0 \int^T_0 \left[ \langle f^2(q,t) f^2(q,t') \rangle - \langle f^2(q,t)\rangle \langle f^2(q,t') \rangle \right] dt dt'
\label{eq:sigA}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_B(q) = \int^T_0 \int^T_0 \Big[ &\langle f(q,t) f(q,t') \rangle^2 e^{-4\pi^2 q^2 |\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')|}
\nonumber \\
&\qquad - \langle f(q,t) \rangle^2 \langle f(q,t') \rangle^2 e^{-4\pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)^2} e^{-4\pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t')^2} \Big] dt dt' \;.
\label{eq:sigB}\end{aligned}$$ By comparing the size of the signal to the size of the shot-noise and damage-noise levels, we can gauge how much information is contained by each measurement about the molecule’s structure. Here we will study how the diffraction pattern varies as a function of pulse duration and pulse energy. We propose the following signal-to-noise ratio to characterize the diffraction: $$\begin{aligned}
SNR_{ND}(q) = \frac{N B(q)}{\sqrt{N \sigma^2_A(q) + N^2 \sigma^2_B(q) + N \sigma^2_N(q)}} \;.
\label{eq:SNR}\end{aligned}$$ It is also interesting to compare the signal to the damage noise directly, ignoring shot-noise, with the following ratio: $$\begin{aligned}
SNR_D(q) = \frac{N B(q)}{\sqrt{N\sigma^2_A(q) + N^2\sigma^2_B(q) }} \;.
\label{eq:SNRD}\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $SNR_{ND}(q)$ and $SNR_D(q)$, we need to calculate statistical averages of the scattering factor, e.g. $\langle f(q,t) \rangle$, $\langle f^2(q,t)\rangle$ etc, which in turn depend on the expected number of ions in each ionization state as a function of time. To calculate $B(q)$ and $\sigma_B(q)$ we also need to know the ion temperature as a function of time. These parameters can be calculated by many of the damage models reported in the literature so far, like molecular dynamics models [@Neutze2000; @Jurek2004b] and hydrodynamic (rate-equations) models[@HauRiege2004; @Scott2001; @Caleman2011]. Here we will present the results of a rate equations model to investigate single-molecule diffraction contrast and to explore the extent to which there is a self-gating pulse effect in single molecule diffraction.
The term that has not been calculated before is the correlation between the scattering factor at different time points, e.g. $\langle f(q,t) f(q,t')\rangle$, which is needed to calculate the damage noise levels. To calculate these correlations we need to know the condition probability $P( f_n(q,t') | f_m(q,t) )$, which gives the probability of an ion being found in ionization state $n$ at time $t'$ given that it was in ionization state $m$ at time $t$. We have developed a way of calculating these conditional probabilities, and hence the damage noise. First the damage simulation is carried out generating the populations of ion states at all time points and the transition rates between ion states are stored as a function of time. Starting with the mean ion population of state $m$ at time $t$, the stored transition rates can be used to generate the fraction of these atoms in ionization state $n$ at all later time points $t' > t$, from which the conditional probabilities can be readily inferred.
We use a damage model based on a rate-equations model[@HauRiege2004], which is extended to include ion diffusion using the methods from a non-local thermal equilibrium plasma model[@Scott2001; @Caleman2011]. The details of the model are given in Appendix \[app:model\]. As we closely follow the methods of Refs. [@HauRiege2004; @Caleman2011], we expect the results and the validity our model to be similar. As we will show, there are sufficient physical processes in our model to illustrate the self-gating pulse effect in single molecule diffraction. All statistical quantities are given as weighted averages over the light elements (H,C,N,O). Sulphur was included in the rate-equations model of damage, but was excluded from the average of statistical diffraction quantities, like $A(q)$, $B(q)$ and $\sigma_B(q)$, because it is computationally intensive. Sulphur has a much larger number of possible electron configurations, and averages that depend on two time variables \[e.g. $\sigma_B(q)$\] took too long to compute for the range of beam conditions we study here. Since there are of the order of 100 sulphur atoms and 10$^4$ light atoms, our main conclusions are not expected to be affected by neglecting the diffraction from sulphur.
We have set up our simulations using the chemical composition and size of GroEL. This chaperonin molecule is a candidate for first tests of single molecule imaging because it survives intact in mass spectrometry experiments[@Rostrom1999], which subject the molecule to similar conditions to injection at XFEL. It is also of sufficient size to scatter around $10^4$ photons per diffraction pattern, as shown in Fig. \[fig:diffraction\_and\_explosion\].
Simulations were performed at 8 keV photon energy ($\sim$0.155 nm wavelength) which is sufficient resolution for structural biology and similar to that demonstrated in simulation studies of single molecule imaging[@Tegze2012]. The principal effects of damage on molecular diffraction can be seen in Fig. \[fig:selfgating\_AB\], which shows a simulation for a pulse duration of 40 fs, beam intensity of $5\times10^{20}$ W cm$^{-2}$ (corresponding to a 2 mJ pulse) and a 100 $\times$ 100 nm$^2$ spot size. Without damage $A(q)$ would be equal to $f_0^2(q)$, but with damage it is reduced, attenuating the mean intensity by the same amount. The attenuation occurs at all resolutions, but is a greater fraction of the original signal at lower resolutions. The term $B(q)$ is lower than $A(q)$ because of the effects of ion motion, and the discrepancy is more pronounced at higher resolution. The deviations between $A(q)$ and $B(q)$ are important for accurate structure retrieval methods[@Quiney2011]. In this case, the most significant damage noise term $\sigma_B(q)$ is lower than $B(q)$ across all resolutions, indicating that even for pulse durations as long as 40 fs damage noise does not exceed the signal from the average molecular structure.
To illustrate the self-gating pulse effect in single molecule diffraction, we plot $B(q)$ as a function of pulse duration for a constant photon energy (8 keV) and constant beam intensity ($5\times10^{20}$ W cm$^{-2}$). We see in Fig. \[fig:selfgating\_SNR\](a) that the signal level at 0.15 nm resolution steadily rises until it plateaus at a maximum value at around 20 fs. The signal at lower resolution accumulates for longer pulse times. Interestingly the noise due to radiation damage also rises non-linearly, accumulating at slower rate at longer pulse times. This is because the random distribution of ions in the sample has smaller variation when the bound electrons are almost entirely depleted from each ion. The signal-to-noise ratios, shown in Fig. \[fig:selfgating\_SNR\](b), show strikingly that shot-noise has a much greater effect than damage noise. Although $SNR_D(q)$ improves greatly for short pulses ($<$5 fs), $SNR_{D+N}(q)$ maximizes when the signal $B(q)$ maximizes at around 20 fs.
The results are interesting when there is trade-off experimentally between pulse duration and pulse energy. For example, the LCLS can produce 2 mJ pulses with pulse durations of 30–50 fs for hard x-rays [@LCLS]. Sub 5 fs pulses can be produced by the LCLS using a low charge method or a slotted foil method, but at the expense of around a factor of ten in pulse energy. Given such a choice, the analysis presented here suggests that the gain in signal from a longer pulse with higher pulse energy compensates for the increase in damage. We note though, this conclusion only applies to spatially uncorrelated damage processes like ionization and ion diffusion (not a Coulomb explosion). Figure \[fig:pulselength\_SNR\] shows that $SNR_{D+N}(q)$ and $SNR_D(q)$ have a weak dependence on pulse duration at constant pulse energy. This suggests that maximizing pulse energy has a greater influence on the success of single molecule imaging than pulse duration with respect to the spatially uncorrelated damage mechanisms considered here.
If multiple molecules were simultaneously aligned and exposed to the x-ray pulse (as described in the Introduction), we would still expect a gating effect qualitatively similar to that shown in Fig. \[fig:selfgating\_AB\]. However, we would expect $SNR_{D+N}(q)$ and $SNR_D(q)$ to scale as $\sqrt{N_{\rm mol}}$, where $N_{\rm mol}$ is the average number of molecules in the beam for each exposure. This is because the signal is proportional to $N_{\rm mol}$, while standard deviations of the damage noise and shot noise scale as $\sqrt{N_{\rm mol}}$. This analysis is missing the additional fluctuations due to the coherent interference between molecules, which have been considered in the context of angular correlation methods [@Kirian2012].
A method of measuring damage experimentally
===========================================
The statistical analysis of diffraction contrast can be used to measure the amount of damage in single molecule experiments. The average change to the atomic structure factors, characterized by $A(q)$, can be readily measured by summing diffraction patterns. This provides some information about ionization levels but not ion motion. There is more information to be gained by analyzing the fluctuations of the diffraction signal. It is not convenient to measure $SNR_{D+N}(q)$, because $B(q)$ cannot be measured directly without resolving the issue of unknown orientations and assembling a 3D dataset, effectively accomplishing a full imaging experiment. An experimentally simpler proposition, which is independent of the imaging experiment, is to measure the standard deviation of the signal within each resolution ring, averaged over all of the measured diffraction patterns. The standard deviation is proportional to $\langle B_{ij}^2(q) \rangle$ and is a measure of the speckle contrast. It will contain both contributions from the average structure of the sample and the damage noise. Unfortunately it is not clear how to separate those two contributions experimentally. Nevertheless, the standard deviation is a sensitive measure of any dynamical change in the sample structure because it will drop relative to the mean scattering signal, as has been shown for averages of molecular conformation [@Maia2009]. To isolate the effect of damage-induced structural change, we create a measure that first subtracts the expected contribution of shot noise, which is equal to $ \mu_\textrm{pix}(q)$, and then normalizes by the mean intensity as follows: $$D(q) = \frac{\sigma_{\textrm{pix}}^2(q) - \mu_\textrm{pix}(q)}{\mu^2_\textrm{pix}(q)} \;,$$ where $\mu_\textrm{pix}(q)$ is the average intensity at a pixel in resolution ring $q$ averaged over the whole dataset and $\sigma_{\textrm{pix}}(q)$ is the corresponding standard deviation. The mean and standard deviation are calculated from the ensemble of experimental data of molecules measured individually in random orientations. It possible to show that $$D(q) \approx \frac{\langle B_{ij}^2(q) \rangle}{ A^2(q)} \;,$$ where $\langle B_{ij}^2(q) \rangle$ is given in Appendix \[sec:app:sigB\]. It is possible to show that $0 < D(q) < 1$, because $\langle f(q,t) f(q,t') \rangle^2 < \langle f^2(q,t) \rangle \langle f^2(q,t') \rangle$. Figure \[fig:pulselength\_g2\] shows $D(q)$ for variations of pulse duration at constant pulse energy (2 mJ). The large variations at high scattering angle indicate the sensitivity of $D(q)$ to ion motion and inner shell ionization, thereby providing complementary information to a measurement of $A(q)$. The term $D(q)$ provides a new means of comparing damage simulations to experiment, and testing the assumptions that underpin damage models for the single molecule case.
For low diffraction intensities, the dominant error in the calculation of $D(q)$ from experimental data is the error of $\mu_\textrm{pix}(q)$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \mu_\textrm{pix}(q) = \frac{\sqrt{\mu_\textrm{pix}(q)}}{\sqrt{N_\textrm{DATA}} \sqrt{M(q)}}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $N_\textrm{DATA}$ is the number of diffraction patterns recorded. The term $M(q)$ is the number of speckles in resolution ring $q$, which is estimated by dividing the circumference of the ring by the expected speckle width $\frac{1}{d}$, where $d$ is the width of the molecule. Assuming $D(q)$ is of the order of one, the error in $D(q)$ goes like $\delta D(q) \approx |\delta \mu_\textrm{pix}(q)| / |\mu_\textrm{pix}(q)| $. For the test molecule quoted above and 8 keV photon energy, 2 mJ pulse energy, $100 \times 100$ nm$^2$ spot size at a resolution of $q = 6.67$ nm$^{-1}$, an accuracy of $\delta D(q) = 0.01$ can be achieved in of the order of $10^3$ patterns, which is an order of magnitude less than the number required to achieve the same resolution in an imaging experiment[@Tegze2012]. This analysis could be used to gain early feedback about the data used in an imaging experiment.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
The results presented on damage noise have implications for the feasibility of determining assembling the 3D diffraction volume from the ensemble of noisy 2D measurements. The data-assembly algorithms use information common to different diffraction measurements to resolve unknown information about molecular orientation. Predicting the level of damage noise in individual 2D diffraction measurements is a first step toward understanding how damage affects these algorithms. The prediction that $SNR_D$ is greater than one even for longer pulse durations ($>$20 fs) is a preliminary indication that damage noise will not prevent data assembly under conditions currently available in experiment. This is because the contribution to the diffraction from the average molecular structure is greater than the shot-to-shot fluctuations of the diffraction, and it is the contribution from the averaged structure that is used to resolve the problem of unknown molecular orientations. That $SNR_{D+N}(q)$ is lower than $SNR_{D}(q)$ by more than an an order of magnitude (see Fig. \[fig:pulselength\_SNR\]) shows that shot noise dominates damage noise. This can be viewed positively because data-assembly algorithms can already cope with very low shot noise levels when assisted by a priori knowledge about the shot noise statistics[@LohEMC2009; @Fung2009]. However, shot noise applies per pixel and is well understood to be a Poisson process, whereas damage noise applies to features the size of a speckle and the underlying distribution is hard to predict analytically. Detailed studies of the effects of damage on the performance of data assembly algorithms are still required.
Our study is restricted to spatially uncorrelated damage processes. One significant omission is the expansion of the molecule due to the large electrostatic forces created by the positively charged molecule and the redistribution of trapped electrons. Hydrodynamic simulations have predicted that atoms at the surface can move distances comparable the molecule’s size on a time-scale of tens of femtoseconds[@HauRiege2004], while the interior of the molecule moves less in the same time frame, because the trapped electrons redistribute to neutralize the central part of the molecule. The interior atoms will still produce a significant diffraction signal for resolving unknown orientations and assembling the diffraction data. If the surface atoms have moved significantly, they will contribute less to the assembled 3D diffraction data than the interior atoms. If the scattering of surface atoms do prove to reduce relative to the bulk, it is an outstanding question as to how to account for this during structure determination, but modal methods for studying diffraction leave options open [@Quiney2011].
Since damage has been measured in nanocrystallography experiments, it is worth drawing a distinction between damage in crystals and in single molecules. In a crystal, damage ionizes and displaces ions differently in each unit cell, so that the diffraction contains an average over many different damage scenarios. For a single molecule, there is only one damage scenario per measurement and hence we expect a bigger standard deviation of diffraction of single molecules than of nanocrystals. Additionally, nanocrystals are much larger than single molecules, so that the rates at which electrons are trapped is different and the time it takes for a photoelectron to escape is longer. The water that surrounds a nanocrystal injected via a liquid jet [@DePonte2008] also contributes to the damage in the form of additional photoelectrons and secondary electrons. It is proposed to inject single molecules via aerosol injection [@Bogan2010], so that they are surrounded by vacuum, because the background water scattering from a liquid jet would dominate the diffraction from the molecule. For these reasons, damage experiments on single molecules, independent of those on crystals, are needed to draw conclusions for single molecule imaging.
At the x-ray energies required to reach atomic resolution ($\sim$ 10 keV), Compton scattering becomes another significant source of background scattering[@Slowick2014]. The background is predicted to depend on the magnitude of $q$, and would increase the noise level $\sigma_N$ by adding to the right hand side of Eq. . It has been predicted that for for beam intensities currently available at hard x-ray energies, the Compton background only becomes significant at resolutions greater than 2 Å[@Slowick2014]. Hence, Compton scattering is not expected to significantly influence the results presented here.
Conclusion
==========
We have analyzed shot-to-shot damage-noise fluctuations for single molecule diffraction. For spatially uncorrelated damage processes, there is a clear damage gating effect by which longer pulses measure the same average diffraction contrast as shorter pulses with the same intensity. The results further suggest that pulse energy is more important than pulse duration for maximizing signal to noise for these damage processes. In other words, a pulse 30 fs in duration may be preferable to a sub 5 fs pulse, if the later has an order of magnitude less pulse energy. If both 30 fs and 5 fs pulses have same pulse energy, then the shorter pulse is preferable because damage is reduced, which may be important for damage processes not considered here like the Coulomb explosion. These results provide a preliminary indication that the prospects of resolving molecular orientations to assemble in a 3D diffraction volume in the presence of damage are favorable with data from current facilities. We have also proposed a statistical measure of damage that could be applied experimentally to provide valuable feedback for modeling XFEL damage to single biological molecules.
Description of the rate-equations model {#app:model}
========================================
We use a damage model based on a rate-equations model[@HauRiege2004], which is extended to include ion diffusion using the methods from a non-local thermal equilibrium plasma model[@Scott2001; @Caleman2011]. Rates of photoionization are taken from Ref. [@Henke1993], rates of Auger decay were taken from Ref. [@McGuire1969] and atomic energy levels were taken from Ref. [@Bearden1967]. Secondary impact ionization rates were taken from Refs. [@Bell1983; @Lennon1988]. Ejected electrons are assumed to be trapped if their kinetic energy exceeds the trapping energy of the ionized molecule[@HauRiege2004]. We assume a spherical geometry for this calculation, and this is the only place geometry is included in the calculation. Both photoelectrons and some of the Auger electrons have sufficient energy to escape at early times. All of the trapped electrons are assumed to thermalize on a sub-femtosecond time scale, so that the energy distribution is Maxwell-Boltzmann, but the mean temperature changes with time. We include all ionization states of each element and the electron orbitals for each ionization state were modeled using Slater-type orbitals[@Slater1930].
There are some minor differences between our model and the published models on which it is based. We include all the shells for sulfur (in Ref. [@HauRiege2004] it was restricted to 8 electrons). This introduces high energy Auger electrons that are able to escape the molecule under the same conditions as the photoelectrons. We do not consider ionization due to potential lowering, as is done in Ref. [@Scott2001]. We also omit the expansion of the molecule under electrostatic forces in order to focus on the spatially uncorrelated motion that is implicated in the self-gating pulse effect. The expansion of a protein molecule has been predicted to affect atoms less than one tenth of the molecule’s radius from the surface [@HauRiege2004]. These atoms can move several [Å]{}ngstr[ö]{}m during interaction with the pulse, which will greatly diminish their contribution to the diffraction contrast. The rest of the atoms are only weakly affected by expansion because the trapped electrons effectively neutralize the core, for which we would expect better agreement with the theory presented here.
Derivation of Eq. {#app1}
==================
The intensity of a measurement can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
I(\textbf{q}) = r_e^2 P(\textbf{q}) d\Omega I_0 \Bigg[ &\int \sum_{i=1}^N f_i(q,t)^2 dt + 2 \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \int f_i(q,t) f_j(q,t)
\nonumber \\
&\qquad\qquad \times\cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j + \bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] dt \Bigg] \;,
\label{eq:app:I}\end{aligned}$$ where the definitions of all terms are given in the main text. We can expand the cosine term as: $$\begin{aligned}
\cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j + \bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] =& \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)]\cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )]
\nonumber \\
&- \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)]\sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )]\end{aligned}$$ We can further expand the terms that depend upon the displacement as: $$\cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] = \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)] \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_j(t)] + \sin [2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)] \sin [2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_j(t)] \;.$$ The ensemble averages of individual cosine and sine terms over different random displacements are $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)] \Big\rangle &= \int \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)] \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)} e^{-\frac{(\bm{q}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}_i(t))^2}{2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)^2}} d\bm{\epsilon}_i
\nonumber \\
&= e^{-2\pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)^2}
\label{eq:app:cosav}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)] \Big\rangle &= \int \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)] \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)} e^{-\frac{(\bm{q}\cdot\bm{\epsilon}_i(t))^2}{2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)^2}} d\bm{\epsilon}_i
\nonumber \\
&= 0 \;.
\label{eq:app:sinav}\end{aligned}$$ We assume that ionization and atomic motion are statistically independent so that $$\left\langle f_i(q,t) f_j(q,t) \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)] \right\rangle = \left\langle f_i(q,t) f_j(q,t) \right\rangle \left\langle \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)] \right\rangle \;.$$ We assume that the ionization of different atoms is statistically independent so that $$\langle f_i(q,t) f_j(q,t) \rangle = \langle f_i(q,t) \rangle \langle f_j(q,t) \rangle \;,$$ if $i \ne j$. We assume that all the atoms of the same element are equivalent statistically, so that averages of $f_i(q,t)$ and $\bm{\epsilon}_i(t)$ are independent of $i$. Combining the above results we get $$\Big\langle f_i(q,t) f_j(q,t) \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)] \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_j(t)] \Big\rangle = \langle f(q,t)\rangle^2 e^{-4\pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)^2} \;.
\label{eq:app:ffcc}$$ Substituting Eq. into Eq. leads to Eq. , using the definitions of $A(q)$ and $B(q)$ in Eqs. and respectively.
Derivation of the variance of $A_i(q)$ : Eq. {#sec:app:sigA}
=============================================
The standard deviation of the sum of $A_i(q)$ terms in Eq. \[eq:I\], denoted by $\sigma_A(q)$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_A^2(q) &= \frac{1}{N} \left[ \left\langle \left[\sum_{i=1}^N A_i(q) \right]^2 \right\rangle - \left\langle \sum_{i=1}^N A_i(q) \right\rangle^2 \right] \;,
\label{eq:sig2A_append}\end{aligned}$$ with $$A_i(q) = \int^T_0 f^2_i(q,t) dt \;.$$ Equation is scaled the number of atoms to give the contribution per atom. We ignore the $i$ dependence when writing $\sigma_A(q)$ because we assume all atoms of the same element are equivalent. Using the assumption that ionization on different atoms is statistically independent, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \left[\sum_{i=1}^N A_i(q) \right]^2 \right\rangle &= \left\langle \sum_{i=1}^N \int^T_0 f^2_i(q,t) dt \sum_{j=1}^N \int f^2_j(q,t') dt' \right\rangle
\nonumber \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^N \int^T_0 \langle f^2_i(q,t) f^2_i(q,t') \rangle dt dt' + \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j \ne i} \int^T_0 \int^T_0 \langle f^2_i(q,t) \rangle \langle f^2_j(q,t') \rangle dt dt'
\nonumber \\
&= N \int^T_0 \langle f^2_i(q,t) f^2_i(q,t') \rangle dt dt' + N(N-1) \left[ \int^T_0 \langle f^2_i(q,t) \rangle dt \right]^2 \;.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_A^2(q) &= \frac{1}{N} \left[ \left\langle \left[\sum_{i=1}^N A_i(q) \right]^2 \right\rangle - \left\langle \sum_{i=1}^N A_i(q) \right\rangle^2 \right]
\nonumber \\
& = \int^T_0 \langle f^2_i(q,t) f^2_i(q,t') \rangle dt dt' - \left[ \int \langle f^2_i(q,t) \rangle dt \right]^2 \;.\end{aligned}$$
Derivation of the variance of $B_{ij}(q)$ : Eq. {#sec:app:sigB}
================================================
The term $\sigma_B(q)$ gauges the magnitude of the damage noise fluctuations per atom due to the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. . Its square is related to the difference between the variance of the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. and that of the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. , which is given as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_{B}(q) &= \frac{1}{N^2}\left[ \sigma^2_S(q) - \frac{1}{2}(N^2 - N) B^2(q) \right]\;,
\label{eq:sigB_append}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_S(q)$ is defined to be the standard deviation of the second term on r.h.s. of Eq. and is given by $$\sigma^2_S(q) = 4 \sum^N_{i=1} \sum^{i-1}_{j=1} \sum^N_{r=1} \sum^{r-1}_{s=1} \left\langle B_{ij}(q) B_{rs}(q) \right\rangle \;.
\label{eq:sigS}$$ The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. contains terms with the form $$\begin{aligned}
B_{ij}(q) &= \int^T_0 f_i(q,t) f_j(q,t) \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j + \bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] dt
\nonumber \\
&= B_c(q) \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] + B_s(q) \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \;,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$B_c(q) = \int^T_0 f_i(q,t) f_j(q,t) \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] dt$$ and $$B_s(q) = \int^T_0 f_i(q,t) f_j(q,t) \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] dt \;.$$ Using Eq. we can show that $$\langle B_s(q) \rangle = 0 \;,$$ and thus write $$\langle B(q) \rangle = \langle B_c(q) \rangle \;.$$ We evaluate $\langle B^2_{ij}(q) \rangle$ as a first step to calculating the standard deviation.
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle B^2_{ij}(q) \rangle &= \Big\langle \left\{ B_c(q) \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] + B_s(q) \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \right\}^2 \Big\rangle
\nonumber \\
&= \langle B^2_c(q) \rangle \langle \cos^2[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \rangle + \langle B^2_s(q) \rangle \langle \sin^2[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \rangle
\nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\left[ \langle B^2_c(q) \rangle + \langle B^2_s(q) \rangle \right] \;.
\label{eq:app:x2}\end{aligned}$$
Going from the first to the second line of Eq. , we have used the assumption that the positions of the atoms are random, so that $$\Big\langle \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \Big\rangle = 0$$ and, in the last line of Eq. , we have $$\langle \cos^2[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \rangle = \langle \sin^2[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\textbf{R}_i - \textbf{R}_j)] \rangle = \frac{1}{2} \;.$$ To evaluate Eq. , we start by evaluating $\langle B^2_c(q) \rangle$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\langle B^2_c(q) \rangle = \int^T_0 \int^T_0 &\langle f_i(q,t) f_i(q,t') \rangle \langle f_j(q,t) f_j(q,t') \rangle
\nonumber \\
& \left\langle\cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t') - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t') )] \right\rangle dt dt' \;.\end{aligned}$$ Writing $c_i(t) = \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}_i(t)]$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle \cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] &\cos[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t') - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t') )] \Big\rangle
\nonumber \\
&= \Big\langle \left[ c_i(t) c_j(t) + s_i(t) s_j(t) \right] \left[ c_i(t') c_j(t') + s_i(t') s_j(t') \right] \Big\rangle
\nonumber \\
&= \langle c_i(t) c_i(t') \rangle \langle c_j(t) c_j(t') \rangle
\nonumber \\
&\qquad + \langle c_i(t) s_i(t') \rangle \langle c_j(t) s_j(t') \rangle
\nonumber \\
&\qquad + \langle s_i(t) c_i(t') \rangle \langle s_j(t) c_j(t') \rangle
\nonumber \\
&\qquad + \langle s_i(t) s_i(t') \rangle \langle s_j(t) s_j(t') \rangle
\nonumber \\
&= \langle c(t) c(t') \rangle^2 + \langle s_i(t) s_i(t') \rangle^2 \;.\end{aligned}$$ The term $\langle c(t) c(t') \rangle$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle c(t) c(t') \rangle = &\int \int \cos[ 2 \pi \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t) ] \cos[ 2 \pi \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t') ] P[\bm{\epsilon}(t),\bm{\epsilon}(t') ] d\bm{\epsilon}(t) d\bm{\epsilon}(t') \;.
\label{eq:integral:o2cos}\end{aligned}$$ The joint probability function is $$P[\bm{\epsilon}(t),\bm{\epsilon}(t')] = P[\bm{\epsilon}(t) | \bm{\epsilon}(t')] P[\bm{\epsilon}(t')] \;.$$ Assume that $t > t'$. We then assume that the conditional probability is probability of taking a random walk from position $\bm{\epsilon}(t')$ at time $t'$ to position $\bm{\epsilon}(t)$ at time $t$, and takes the form $$P[\bm{\epsilon}(t) | \bm{\epsilon}(t')] = \frac{1}{(\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t,t') \sqrt{2\pi})^3} e^{\frac{- |\bm{\epsilon}_t - \bm{\epsilon}_{t'}|^2 }{2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t,t')^2}} \;,$$ where $\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t,t')$ is given by the integral of the diffusion coefficient as a function of time $$\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t,t') = 2 N_D \int^t_{t'} d(t'') dt'' \;.$$ The term $N_D$ is the number of dimensions, which we will take to be one because we are only interested in diffusion in the direction of the scattering vector. The diffusion coefficient is given by $$d(t) = \frac{k_b T(t)}{m \nu(t)} \;,$$ where $k_b$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $T(t)$ is the ion temperature, $m$ is the ion mass and $\nu(t)$ is the collision frequency. To evaluate Eq. , we first write each cosine term as a sum of exponentials $$\begin{aligned}
\cos[ 2 \pi \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t) ] &= \frac{1}{2} [ e^{2 \pi i \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t)} + e^{-2 \pi i \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t)} ]
\nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \sum^1_{m=0} e^{ (-1)^m 2 \pi i \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t)} \;.\end{aligned}$$ We then solve two integrals of the form $$\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \sqrt{\frac{a}{\pi}} e^{-a x^2 - bx} dx = e^{\frac{b^2}{4a}} \;.$$ The first integral is over $\bm{\epsilon}(t)$, with $a = \frac{1}{2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t,t')}$ and $b = \frac{\bm{\epsilon}(t')}{\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t,t')} + (-1)^m 2 \pi \bm{q} i$. The argument of the resulting exponent is $$\frac{b^2}{4a} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\bm{\epsilon}^2(t')}{\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t,t')} + (-1)^m 2 \pi i \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t') - 2 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t') \;.$$ The second integral over $\bm{\epsilon} (t')$ has $$\begin{aligned}
a &= -\frac{1}{2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t,t')} + \frac{1}{2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t,t')} + \frac{1}{2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}a^2(t')} = \frac{1}{2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t')}
\nonumber \\
b &= (-1)^m 2 \pi \bm{q} i + (-1)^n 2 \pi \bm{q} i
\nonumber \\
\frac{b^2}{4a} &= - 2 \pi^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t') q^2 [(-1)^m + (-1^n)]^2 \;.\end{aligned}$$ The final summation over $m,n = 0,1$ gives the following result for $t > t'$: $$\begin{aligned}
& \int \cos[ 2 \pi \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t) ] \cos[ 2 \pi \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t') ] P[\bm{\epsilon}(t),\bm{\epsilon}(t')] d\bm{\epsilon}(t) d\bm{\epsilon}(t')
\nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{2} e^{- 2 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')} [ 1 + e^{- 8 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t')} ] \;.
\label{eq:cos2av}\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding sine integral evaluates to $$\begin{aligned}
& \int \sin[ 2 \pi \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t) ] \sin[ 2 \pi \bm{q} \cdot \bm{\epsilon}(t') ] P[\bm{\epsilon}(t),\bm{\epsilon}(t')] d\bm{\epsilon}(t) d\bm{\epsilon}(t')
\nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{2} e^{- 2 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')} [ 1 - e^{- 8 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t')} ] \;.
\label{eq:sin2av}\end{aligned}$$ Adding the cosine and sine integrals, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle c(t) c(t') \rangle^2 + \langle s_i(t) s_i(t') \rangle^2 = \frac{1}{2}e^{- 4 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')} [ 1 + e^{- 16 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t')} ] \qquad\qquad (t > t') \;.
\label{eq:ctt_stt}\end{aligned}$$ To complete the evaluation of Eq. , we still need to evaluate $\langle B^2_s(q) \rangle$ which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle B^2_s(q) \rangle = \int^T_0 \int^T_0 &\langle f_i(q,t) f_i(q,t') \rangle \langle f_j(q,t) f_j(q,t') \rangle
\nonumber \\
& \langle \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t') - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t') )] \rangle dt dt' \;.\end{aligned}$$ This equation can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t) - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t) )] &\sin[ 2 \pi \textbf{q} \cdot (\bm{\epsilon}_i(t') - \bm{\epsilon}_j(t') )] \rangle
\nonumber \\
&= \langle \left[ s_i(t) c_j(t) - c_i(t) s_j(t) \right] \left[ s_i(t') c_j(t') - c_i(t') s_j(t') \right] \rangle
\nonumber \\
&= \langle s_i(t) s_i(t') \rangle \langle c_j(t) c_j(t') \rangle
\nonumber \\
&\qquad + \langle c_i(t) c_i(t') \rangle \langle s_j(t) s_j(t') \rangle
\nonumber \\
&= 2 \langle c_i(t) c_i(t') \rangle \langle s_j(t) s_j(t') \rangle \;.\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. and we can write this as $$2 \langle c_i(t) c_i(t') \rangle \langle s_j(t) s_j(t') \rangle = \frac{1}{2} e^{- 4 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')} [ 1 - e^{- 16 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t')} ] \qquad\qquad (t > t') \;.$$ We can write the time integrals as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle B^2_c(q) \rangle + \langle B^2_s(q) \rangle = &\int_0^T \int_{t'}^T \langle f(q,t) f(q,t') \rangle^2 e^{- 4 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')} dt dt'
\nonumber \\
&+ \int_0^T \int_{0}^{t'} \langle f(q,t) f(q,t') \rangle^2 e^{- 4 \pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t', t)} dt dt'
\label{eq:B2c_B2s}\end{aligned}$$ Using the property that $\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t') = -\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t', t)$, Eq. can also be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle B^2_c(q) \rangle + \langle B^2_s(q) \rangle &= \int_0^T \int_0^T \langle f(q,t) f(q,t') \rangle^2 e^{- 4 \pi^2 q^2 |\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')|} dt dt'
\nonumber \\
&\equiv \langle B^2(q) \rangle \;.
\label{eq:app:BcBscombined}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. and and that $\langle B_{ij} \rangle = 0$, we can calculate the standard deviation of $B_{ij}$ (denoted $\sigma^2_{B_{ij}}(q)$) to be $$\begin{aligned}
\langle B^2_{ij}(q) \rangle &= \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T \int_0^T \langle f(q,t) f(q,t') \rangle^2 e^{- 4 \pi^2 q^2 |\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')|} dt dt' \;.\end{aligned}$$ We have now reached a point where we can evaluate $\sigma_S(q)$, given by Eq. . The averages of terms $\langle B_{ij}(q) B_{rs}(q) \rangle$ are zero unless $i,j=r,s$, because the averages over the positions $\textbf{R}$ equal zero. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_S(q) &= 4 \sum^N_{i=1} \sum^{i-1}_{j=1} \langle B^2_{ij}(q) \rangle
\nonumber \\
&= 4 \frac{N^2 - N}{2} \langle B^2_{ij}(q) \rangle
\nonumber \\
&= (N^2 - N) \int_0^T \int_0^T \langle f(q,t) f(q,t') \rangle^2 e^{- 4 \pi^2 q^2 |\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')|} dt dt'\end{aligned}$$ Using this result in Eq. , we obtain the following result: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_{B}(q) &= \frac{1}{N^2}\left[ \sigma^2_S(q) - \frac{1}{2}(N^2 - N) B^2(q) \right]
\nonumber \\
&= \left(1 - \frac{1}{N} \right) \int^T_0 \int^T_0 \Big[ \langle f(q,t) f(q,t') \rangle^2 e^{-4\pi^2 q^2 |\overline{\bm{\epsilon}}^2(t, t')|}
\nonumber \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
- \langle f(q,t) \rangle^2 \langle f(q,t') \rangle^2 e^{-4\pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t)^2} e^{-4\pi^2 q^2 \overline{\bm{\epsilon}}(t')^2} \Big] dt dt' \;.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that N is large, the term of $\frac{1}{N}$ can be ignored.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
HMQ and AVM acknowledge funding from the Australian Research Council via its Centres of Excellence and Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE140100624) programmes. We are grateful to Jochen K[ü]{}pper for helpful feedback.
![ A graphical representation of ion diffusion in GroEL, where ion locations are chosen stochastically using the time-dependent temperature. Simulation parameters are: 8 keV; 5.0 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ W cm$^{-2}$; and 100 nm pulse diameter. Ionized hydrogen (white) moves much faster than ions of other elements. The diffraction pattern for each time point is shown below and was generated by randomly assigning each atom an ionization state and a displacement according to a rate-equations model described in Appendix \[app:model\]. Large changes to the speckle structure are predicted at high resolution, as shown by the enlarged inset regions. The effect of shot-noise is shown on the right half of each diffraction image. []{data-label="fig:diffraction_and_explosion"}](fig1.pdf)
![ The effects of damage on the atomic structure factor. The term $f_0(q)$ is the undamaged atomic scattering factor for an unionized carbon atom, $A(q)$ is proportional to the mean intensity per carbon atom at each resolution shell, $B(q)$ is proportional to the speckle contrast for carbon and $\sigma_B(q)$ is the standard deviation of the shot-to-shot fluctuations of the speckle due to damage. When there is no damage $A(q)$ and $B(q)$ are equal to $f^2_0(q)$. The simulation parameters were 8 keV photon energy, 40 fs pulse duration, 2 mJ pulse energy and spot size of 100 $\times$ 100 nm$^2$.[]{data-label="fig:selfgating_AB"}](fig_2.pdf)
![ (a) Scattering and noise levels (due to damage only) as a function of pulse duration for constant incident intensity ($5 \times 10^{20}$ W cm$^{-2}$) at 8 keV photon energy and 100 $\times$ 100 nm$^2$ spot size. $B(q)$ is proportional to the speckle contrast and we define $N(q) \equiv \sqrt{\sigma^2_A(q)/N + \sigma^2_B(q)}$, which is the denominator in Eq. and measures the average contribution to the damage noise per atom. (b) Signal-to-noise ratios with and without shot noise for a resolution of 0.15 nm. []{data-label="fig:selfgating_SNR"}](fig_3a.pdf "fig:") ![ (a) Scattering and noise levels (due to damage only) as a function of pulse duration for constant incident intensity ($5 \times 10^{20}$ W cm$^{-2}$) at 8 keV photon energy and 100 $\times$ 100 nm$^2$ spot size. $B(q)$ is proportional to the speckle contrast and we define $N(q) \equiv \sqrt{\sigma^2_A(q)/N + \sigma^2_B(q)}$, which is the denominator in Eq. and measures the average contribution to the damage noise per atom. (b) Signal-to-noise ratios with and without shot noise for a resolution of 0.15 nm. []{data-label="fig:selfgating_SNR"}](fig_3b.pdf "fig:")
![ Maximum signal-to-noise ratios with and without shot noise for a resolution of 0.15 nm for 8 keV photon energy, 100 $\times$ 100 nm$^2$ spot size and constant pulse energy of 2 mJ. []{data-label="fig:pulselength_SNR"}](fig_4.pdf)
![ The function $D(q)$ for different pulse durations for 8 keV photon energy, 100 $\times$ 100 nm$^2$ spot size and constant pulse energy of 2 mJ. []{data-label="fig:pulselength_g2"}](fig_5.pdf)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Some interesting consequences of spacelike matter shells are presented, in particular the possibility of travelling through Cauchy horizons and violating the strong cosmic censorship hypothesis. These show that the weak energy condition does not guarentee cosmic censorship.'
address: ' Department of Physics, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU U.K. '
author:
- 'Wenceslao S. German and Ian G. Moss'
date: March 2001
title: Cauchy Horizon Stability and Cosmic Censorship
---
The ability to predict the future from given initial conditions might seem like an essential requirement for a classical theory of physics, but this remains an open issue in General Relativity whilst the conditions needed for cosmic censorship are not known. The situation could be resolved by finding some property of realistic matter which prevents the formation of naked singularities. In this letter we examine this question by looking at violations of cosmic censorship inside black holes.
The form of the strong cosmic censorship conjecture which we use is that ‘every generic, inextendible space-time containing physically reasonable matter is globally hyperbolic’ [@clarke]. This form of the conjecture seems to be difficult to violate. If we take the charged black hole solution, for example, this is extendable beyond the globally hyperbolic region by the usual coordinate construction, but it is not considered generic because the Cauchy horizon is not stable to linear perturbations.
The instability of the Cauchy horizon has a simple physical explanation originally due to Penrose [@penrose]. Incoming radiation ariving at the Cauchy horizon is blue shifted and the energy flux measured by an observer approaching the Cauchy horizon diverges [@chandra; @chandra1].
A detailed analysis of black hole perturbations in spacetimes with a cosmological constant has shown that the stability of the Cauchy horizon can still be related to the energy flux. Stability depends on the values of the surface gravity at the Cauchy horizon $\kappa_1$, the event horizon $\kappa_2$ and the cosmological horizon $\kappa_3$. Stability requires $\kappa_1<\kappa_3$ and $\kappa_1<\kappa_2$. [@mellor; @brady; @chambers; @brady1; @brady2]. (The second requirement was not appreciated before reference [@brady2]).
None of the vacuum black hole spacetimes satisfy the stability requirements. We will consider the effect of adding matter, specifically spacelike shells, to the inside of the black hole. These spacelike shells are best thought of as transition layers separating different vacuum phases, where the phase transition is triggered by the high spacetime curvature inside the black hole [@shore]. The shells can have internal stresses and carry currents, and generalise the bubble walls associated with broken symmetry phase transitions [@blau].
Similar forms of matter have appeared in the literature previously in connection with the limiting curvature hypothesis, the idea that quantum gravity effects may prevent spacetime curvature singularities [@frolov]. The spacelike shells allow the transformation of the black hole into a nonsingular wormhole. However, we shall consider only black holes with singularities.
The spacetime is shown in figure (\[fig1\]). The shell is placed at $r_s$ and the metric on either side of the shell is given by $$ds^2=-{r^2\over\Delta}dr^2+{\Delta\over r^2}dt^2+r^2\Omega^2\label{metric}$$ where $$\Delta=2Mr-r^2+Q^2-\case1/3\Lambda r^4\label{delta}$$ For $r<r_s$, the parameters take on values $M_1$, $Q_1$ and $\Lambda_1$ and for $r>r_s$, $M_2$, $Q_2$ and $\Lambda_2$. Both $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ will be suposed fixed by the details of some phase transition. For simplicity, we will take $Q_2=0$. This would be the case, for example, if the charge $Q_1$ is associated with a gauge symmetry which is broken outside the shell.
Suppose that $h_{ab}$ is the metric induced in the shell and $u_a$ is a unit vector along the $t$ direction, then the stress-energy of the shell has the form [@frolov; @balbinot] $$S_{ab}=p_s u_a u_b+p_\perp(h_{ab}-u_a u_b).$$ The junction conditions imply that the metric is continuous and the extrinsic curvature satisfies, $$\left[K_{ab}\right]=-8\pi\left(S_{ab}-\case1/2 h_{ab}S\right).$$ For the metric (\[metric\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\Delta^{1/2}\right]&=&4\pi r^2 p_s,\\
\left[r(\Delta^{1/2})'\right]&=&8\pi r^2p_\perp.\end{aligned}$$ The junction conditions can be solved for $M_1$ and $Q_1$ as functions of the radius $r_2$ and the pressures $p_s$ and $p_\perp$. Figure (\[fig2\]) shows contours of constant pressure $p_\perp$ when $p_s=0$. As $p_\perp\to\infty$, the solution approaches a line $$Q^2-Q_c^2=2r_2\left(M-M_c\right)$$ where $M_c=r_2-\case2/3\Lambda_1r_2^2$ and $Q_c^2=r_2^2-\Lambda r_2^4$ correspond to a black hole with coincident horizons.
The linear perturbation analysis of the black hole can be carried out on either side of the shell. The perturbations propagate as waves and undergo a constant redshift at the shell, leaving the same Cauchy horizon stabilty conditions on the surface gravity as before.
The Cauchy horizon lies inside the shell at $r=r_1$, where the surface gravity is given by $\kappa_1=\Delta'/(2r^2)$. From (\[delta\]), and the condition $\Delta(r_1)=0$, one can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
M_1&=&\kappa_1r_1^2+r_1-\case2/3\Lambda_1r_1^3\\
Q_1^2&=&2\kappa_1r_1^3+r_1^2-\Lambda_1r_1^4\end{aligned}$$ Figure (\[fig3\]) shows contours of constant $\kappa_1$ in the $(M_1,Q_1)$ parameter space. The surface gravity vanishes at the point $(M_c,Q_c)$. Comparing this figure with figure (\[fig2\]), we see that if the pressure is sufficiently large, we can make the surface gravity arbitrarily small. In particular, we can satisfy the stability requirements $\kappa_1<\kappa_2$ and $\kappa_1<\kappa_3$ for the Cauchy horizon.
The stability of the shell itself can be analysed by taking the radius $r_s$ to be a function of the proper time along the shell, as described in reference [@balbinot]. The junction conditions become $$\begin{aligned}
\left[K_{\theta\theta}\right]&=&4\pi r^2p_s\\
\left[\dot K_{\theta\theta}\right]&=&8\pi r\dot r p_\perp\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{\theta\theta}=(r^2\dot r^2+\Delta)^{1/2}$. If $\delta p_s=c^2\,\delta
p_\perp$, perturbations about the static shell satisfy $$\left[\Delta^{-1/2}\right]\delta \ddot r+
\left({1\over 2}\left[r^{-1}(\Delta^{-1/2}r^{-1}\Delta')'\right]
-{2\over c^2}\left[r^{-1}(r^{-2}\Delta^{1/2})'\right]\right)
\delta r=0$$ We find neutral stability when $p_s=0$, whilst for $0\le p_s\ll p_\perp$ there exists a $c_{max}$ such that stability occurs for $0<c<c_{max}$.
The spacelike shells which we have considered have zero density and therefore when $p_s\ge 0$ they marginally satisfy the weak energy condition, $\rho\ge0$ and $\rho+p\ge 0$. We can infer that the weak energy condition does not imply strong cosmic censorship.
The spacelike shells considered by Frolov et al. [@frolov] were specifically aimed at domonstrating the possibility of singularity avoidance in gravitational collapse by the creation of wormholes and for this the shell must have ‘exotic’ matter with $p+\rho<0$. Wormholes are not globally hyperbolic and violate the strong cosmic censoship principle. We find that spacelike shells which satisfy the weak energy condition can still violate cosmic censorship and produce naked singularities.
We would like to thank Manolo Per for helpful discussions. WSG is supported by CONACYT (Mexico) grant number 116020.
Penrose R 1969 [*Gravitational Collapse: the role of General Relativity*]{}, Riv. del Nuove Cimento [**1**]{} Clarke C J S 1993 [*The analysis of spacetime singularities*]{} (Cambridge University Press) Chandrasekhar S and Hartle J B 1982 [*Proc. R. Soc.*]{} [**484**]{} 301 Chandrasekhar S 1983 [*The mathematical theory of black holes*]{} (Cambridge University Press) Mellor F A and Moss I G 1990 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**41**]{} 403; 1992 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**9**]{} L43 Brady P R and Poisson E 1992 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**9**]{} 121 Chambers C M and Moss I G 1994 [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**11**]{} 1035 Brady P R, Nuñez D and Sinha S 1993 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**47**]{} Brady P R, Moss I G and Myers R 1998 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{} 3432 Shore G M 1980 [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**128**]{} 376 Blau S K, Guendelman E I and Guth A H 1987 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**35**]{} 1747 Frolov V P, Markov M A and Mukhavov V F 1989 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B216**]{} 272; 1990 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**41**]{} 383 Balbinot B and Poisson E 1990 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**41**]{} 395
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Three different cluster expansions for the evaluation of correlated one-body properties of s-p and s-d shell nuclei are compared. Harmonic oscillator wave functions and Jastrow type correlations are used, while analytical expressions are obtained for the charge form factor, density distribution, and momentum distribution by truncating the expansions and using a standard Jastrow correlation function $f$. The harmonic oscillator parameter $b$ and the correlation parameter $\beta$ have been determined by a least-squares fit to the experimental charge form factors in each case. The information entropy of nuclei in position-space ($S_r$) and momentum-space ($S_k$) according to the three methods are also calculated. It is found that the larger the entropy sum $S=S_r+S_k$ (the information content of the system) the smaller the values of $\chi^2$. This indicates that $S$ is a criterion of the quality of a given nuclear model, according to the maximum entropy principle. Only two exceptions to this rule, out of many cases examined, were found. Finally an analytic expression for the so-called “healing” or “wound” integrals is derived with the function $f$ considered, for any state of the relative two-nucleon motion and their values in certain cases are computed and compared.\
\
[PACS numbers: 21.45.+v, 21.60.Cs, 21.60.-n, 21.90.+f]{}
address:
- ' Department of Theoretical Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki GR-54006 Thessaloniki, Greece '
- 'Institute of Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia 1784, Bulgaria'
author:
- 'Ch.C. Moustakidis, S.E. Massen, C.P. Panos, M.E. Grypeos'
- 'and A.N. Antonov'
title: 'Evaluation of cluster expansions and correlated one-body properties of nuclei'
---
Introduction
============
The effect of short-range correlations (SRC) to the one-body properties of nuclei is an old but challenging and appealing problem. In general, the account of SRC is important for the description of the mean values of some two-body operators, such as the ground state energy of nuclei but it is also of interest to investigate the SRC contribution to simpler nuclear quantities related to one-body operators such as the form factor (FF), density distribution (DD) and momentum distribution (MD). It has been shown that mean-field theories can not describe correctly MD and DD simultaneously [@Jaminon] and the main features of MD depend little on the effective mean-field considered [@Casas87]. The reason is that MD is sensitive to short-range and tensor nucleon-nucleon correlations which are not included in the mean-field theories. We note however that the choice of a single particle potential having a short range repulsion could play a role in improving somehow the values of MD [@Ypsilantis].
The experimental evidence obtained from inclusive and exclusive electron scattering on nuclei established the existence of a high-momentum component for momenta $k > 2 \ {\rm fm}^{-1}$ [@Day87; @Ji90; @Ciofi89; @Antonov88]. It is well known, that the independent-particle model (IPM) fails to reproduce the high momentum transfer data from electron scattering in nuclei. That is, the IPM is inadequate to reproduce satisfactorily the diffraction minima of the charge FF for high values of momentum transfer. Therefore, although single-particle potentials of the type mentioned above, that is with a short-range repulsion lead to certain improvement, theoretical approaches which take into account SRC due to the character of the nucleon-nucleon forces at small distances, are necessary to be developed.
In this effort, two main problems appear. The first one is the type of SRC which must be incorporated to the mean-field nucleon wave function and the second one is the type of cluster-expansion to be used which is connected with the number of simultaneously correlated nucleons.
In the present work we consider central correlations of Jastrow type [@Jastrow55] while three different cluster expansions are considered. The first two types of expansions, named FIY (Factor, Iwamoto and Yamada) [@Iwamoto; @57] and FAHT (Factor, Aviles, Hartogh and Tolhoek) [@Aviles58] respectively, were developed by Clark and co-workers [@Clark67; @Feenberg69] while the third one named LOA (Low Order Approximation) was derived by Gaudin, Gillespie and Ripka [@Gaudin71; @DalRi82].
The FIY expansion, truncated at the two-body terms, was used for the calculation of the charge FF and DD [@Massen99] and MD [@Moustakidis00] in $s$-$p$ and $s$-$d$ shell nuclei while the LOA, truncated at the two-body terms and including a part of the three-body term, was used for the calculation of the above one-body quantities in the closed shell nuclei $^{4}$He, $^{16}$O and $^{40}$Ca [@Stoitsov93] as well as of the bound-states overlap functions, separation energies and spectroscopic factors in $^{16}$O and $^{40}$Ca [@Stoitsov96]. The FAHT expansion, truncated at the two-body terms was used for the evaluation of the charge FF [@Guardiola72] and nuclear ground state energy of $^{4}$He and $^{16}$O [@Guardiola79]. In the present paper the FAHT expansion is used in addition for the evaluation of the FF, DD and MD in s-p and s-d shell nuclei.
The present work is, in a way, a generalization of Ref. [@Ciofi69] where a comparison of various cluster expansions for the calculation of the charge FF of $^{4}$He was made. In this generalization, the above mentioned three types of expansions are applied and compared for the one-body characteristics of $s$-$p$ and $s$-$d$ shell nuclei.
The comparison of the three truncated expansions can be made, as usually, by comparing $\chi^2$ (in computing the FF) i.e. the smaller the $\chi^2$, the better the quality of the corresponding expansion. In the present work we introduce also an information-theoretical criterion in addition to $\chi^2$. Information-theoretical methods play an important role for the study of quantum-many body systems. It has been found in Ref. [@Massen98] that interesting properties of the information entropy $S$ hold for various systems. For instance, it was shown that $S=a+b\ln N$ where $N$ is the number of particles in nuclei, atomic clusters and atoms. In a previous work [@Lalazi98] it was found that the larger the $S$, the better the quality of the nuclear model. Here we apply this idea to compare various cluster expansions. It turns out that this is the case i.e. the larger the $S$ the smaller the values of $\chi^2$, for various nuclei and expansions, with only two exceptions.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II the general expressions of the one-body density matrix (OBDM) for the three types of expansions are given. Numerical results are reported and discussed in Sec. III, while the summary of the present work is given in Sec. IV. Finally, some details of the FAHT expansion as well as for the calculation of healing integrals are given in Appendix I and II, respectively.
Correlated one-body properties
==============================
General definitions
-------------------
The key of the description of the one-body properties of nuclei is the OBDM $\rho ({\bf r},{\bf r}')$, which for a system of A identical particles is defined [@Dirac30; @Lowdin55] in terms of the complete wave function $\Psi({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2,...,{\bf r}_A) $ by $$\rho ({\bf r},{\bf r}')= \int \Psi^{*}({\bf r},{\bf r}_2, \dots ,{\bf r}_A)
\Psi ({\bf r}',{\bf r}_2, \dots , {\bf r}_A) d {\bf r}_2 \ldots
d {\bf r}_A,$$ where the integration is carried out over the radius vectors and summation over spin and isospin variables is implied.
In the case where the nuclear wave function $\Psi({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2, \ldots ,{\bf r}_A)$ can be expressed as a single Slater determinant depending on the single-particle wave functions we have $$\rho_{SD}({\bf r},{\bf r}')=
\sum_{i=1}^{A}\phi_i^{*}({\bf r}) \phi_i({\bf r}') .$$ The diagonal elements of the OBDM give the DD, $\rho({\bf r},{\bf r})=\rho({\bf r})$ while the FF is the Fourier transform of it $$F({\bf q})=\int \exp [i{\bf q} {\bf r}] \rho({\bf r}) d{\bf r} ,
\label{F-T}$$ and the MD is given by a particular Fourier transform of the OBDM $$n({\bf k})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int \exp[i{\bf k}({\bf r}-{\bf r}')]
\rho({\bf r},{\bf r}') d{\bf r} d{\bf r}' .
\label{M-D}$$ The second moment of the DD is the mean square radius of the nucleus while the second moment of the MD is related to the mean kinetic energy.
We also define the information entropy sum $$S=S_r+S_k ,
\label{ie-sum}$$ where $$S_r=-\int \rho({\bf r}) \ln\rho({\bf r}) d{\bf r}$$ is the information entropy in position-space and $$S_k=-\int n({\bf k}) \ln{n({\bf k})} d{\bf k}$$ is the information entropy in momentum-space.
$S$ is a measure of quantum-mechanical uncertainty and represents the information content of a probability distribution, in our case of the nuclear density and momentum distributions. In the present work, we employ in calculating $S$ a normalization to the number of particles A for $\rho({\bf r})$ and $n({\bf k})$ .
The cluster expansions of the one-body density matrix
-----------------------------------------------------
The trial wave function $\Psi$, which describes a correlated nuclear system, can be written as (e.g. [@Bruckner55]) $$\Psi={\cal F}\Phi ,$$ where $\Phi$ is a model wave function which is adequate to describe the uncorrelated A-particle nuclear system and ${\cal F}$ is the operator which introduces SRC. $\Phi$ is chosen to be a Slater determinant wave function, constructed by single-particle wave functions. Several restrictions can be made on the model operator ${\cal F}$ [@Clark79; @Brink67]. In the present work $\cal{F}$ is taken to be of the Jastrow-type [@Jastrow55] $${\cal F}=\prod_{i<j}^{A}f(r_{ij}) ,$$ where $f(r_{ij})$ is the state-independent correlation function of the form $$f(r_{ij})=1-\exp[-\beta({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j)^2] .
\label{fr-ij}$$
### Factor cluster expansion of Iwamoto-Yamada
In the factor cluster expansion of Iwamoto-Yamada (FIY) the OBDM takes the form [@Moustakidis00] $$\rho_{FIY}({\bf r},{\bf r'})=N [ \langle {\bf O}_{\bf rr'}\rangle_1
-O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_1)-O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_2)+
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_3) ],$$ where $N$ is the normalization factor, and the terms $\langle {\bf O}_{\bf rr'}\rangle_1$ and $O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_l)$ ($l=1,2,3$) have the general forms $$\langle {\bf O}_{\bf rr'}\rangle_1=\rho_{SD}({\bf r},{\bf r}')
= \frac{1}{\pi} \sum_{nl} \eta_{nl} (2l+1)
\phi^{*}_{nl}(r) \phi_{nl}(r') P_l(\cos \omega_{rr'} ),
\label{O1-1}$$ and $$O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_l)=
\int {\rm g}_l({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\bf r}_2)
[\rho_{SD}({\bf r},{\bf r'})\rho_{SD}({\bf r}_2,{\bf r}_2)
-\rho_{SD}({\bf r},{\bf r}_2)\rho_{SD}({\bf r}_2,{\bf r'})] d{\bf r}_2 ,
\label{O22-1}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\rm g}_1({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\bf r}_2) = \exp [-\beta (r^2+r_2^2)]
\exp [2\beta {\bf r} {\bf r}_2], \quad
{\rm g}_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\bf r}_2)= {\rm g}_1({\bf r'},{\bf r},{\bf r}_2) ,
\nonumber\\
&& {\rm g}_3({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\bf r}_2) =
\exp [-\beta (r^2+{r'}^2)] \exp [-2\beta r_2^2]
\exp [2\beta ({\bf r}+{\bf r'}){\bf r}_2] .\end{aligned}$$
The term $O_2({\bf r},{\bf r}',{\rm g}_l)$, performing the spin-isospin summation and the angular integration, takes the general form $$\begin{aligned}
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r}', {\rm g}_l)& = & 4 \sum_{n_i l_i,n_j l_j}
\eta_{n_i l_i} \eta_{n_j l_j} (2 l_i +1) (2 l_j +1 ) \nonumber \\
& &\times \left[ 4 A_{n_il_in_jl_j}^{n_il_i n_jl_j,0 }
({\bf r},{\bf r}', {\rm g}_l) - \sum_{k=0}^{l_i +l_j}
\langle l_i 0 l_j 0 \mid k 0 \rangle^2
A_{n_il_in_jl_j}^{n_jl_j n_il_i,k}({\bf r},{\bf r}',{\rm g}_l) \right],
\label{O22-g-3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_{n_1l_1n_2l_2}^{n_3l_3n_4l_4,k}({\bf r},{\bf r}', {\rm g}_1)& =&
\frac{1}{4\pi}\phi^{*}_{n_1l_1}(r) \
\phi_{n_3l_3}(r') \ \exp[-\beta r^2] \ P_{l_3}(\cos\omega_{rr'})
\nonumber \\
& &\times \int_{0}^{\infty}\phi^{*}_{n_2l_2}(r_2) \phi_{n_4l_4}(r_2)
\exp[-\beta r_{2}^2] \ i_k (2 \beta r r_2)
r_{2}^{2} d r_2 ,
\label{A-O22-1}\end{aligned}$$ and the matrix element $A_{n_1l_1n_2l_2}^{n_3l_3n_4l_4,k}({\bf r},{\bf r}', {\rm g}_2)$ can be found from (\[A-O22-1\]) replacing ${\bf r}\leftrightarrow {\bf r}'$ and $n_1l_1\leftrightarrow n_3l_3$ while the matrix element corresponding to the factor $ {\rm g}_3$ can be found from (\[A-O22-1\]) replacing the factors $\exp[-\beta r^2]$, $P_{l_3}(\cos\omega_{rr'})$ and $i_k (2 \beta r r_2)$ by the factors $\exp[-\beta (r^2+r'^2)]$, $\Omega_{l_1l_3}^{k}(\omega_{rr'})$ and $i_k (2 \beta |{\bf r}+{\bf r}'| r_2)$ respectively [@Moustakidis00]. In the expressions of the matrix elements $A_{n_1l_1n_2l_2}^{n_3l_3n_4l_4,k}({\bf r},{\bf r}', {\rm g}_l)$, $i_k (z)$ is the modified spherical Bessel function and the factor $\Omega_{l_1l_3}^{k}(\omega_{rr'})$ depends on the directions of ${\bf r}$ and ${\bf r}'$.
### Factor cluster expansion of Aviles, Hartogh and Tolhoek
In the factor cluster expansion of Aviles, Hartogh and Tolhoek (FAHT), truncated at the two-body terms, the OBDM takes the form (details of the calculations are given in Appendix I), $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{FAHT}({\bf r},{\bf r'})&=&\frac{1}{A}\langle {\bf O}_{\bf rr'}\rangle_1
\nonumber \\
&& + (A-1)\left[ \frac{(A-1)\langle {\bf O}_{\bf rr'}\rangle_1-
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_1)-O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_2)+
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_3)}{A(A-1) -
\int [O_2({\bf r},{\bf r},{\rm g}_1)+O_2({\bf r},{\bf r},{\rm g}_2)-
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r},{\rm g}_3)] d{\bf r} }
-\frac{1}{A}\langle {\bf O}_{\bf rr'}\rangle_1 \right] ,
\label{faht-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle {\bf O}_{\bf rr'}\rangle_1$ and $O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_l)$ are given again by Eqs. (\[O1-1\]) and (\[O22-1\]) respectively. The FAHT expansion has the advantage that the normalization is preserved term by term.
### Low order approximation
In the low order approximation (LOA) of Gaudin et al [@Gaudin71] the Jastrow wave function $\Psi$ of the nucleus was expanded in terms of the functions $\tilde{g}=f^2(r_{ij})-1$ and $h=f(r_{ij})-1$ and was truncated up to the second order of $h$ and the first order of $\tilde{g}$. This expansion contains one- and two-body terms and a part of the three-body term which was chosen so that the normalization of the wave function was preserved. In LOA the OBDM takes the form [@Gaudin71; @DalRi82; @Stoitsov93] $$\rho_{LOA}({\bf r},{\bf r'})=\frac{1}{A}[\langle {\bf O}_{\bf rr'}\rangle_1
-O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_1)-O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_2)+
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_3)
+2O_{3}({\bf r},{\bf r'},\beta)-O_{3}({\bf r},{\bf r'},2\beta)],$$ where $\langle {\bf O}_{rr'}\rangle_1$ and $O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_l)$ are given again by Eqs. (\[O1-1\]) and (\[O22-1\]) respectively and the three-body term $O_{3}({\bf r},{\bf r'},z)$ ($z=\beta,\ 2\beta$) has the form $$O_{3}({\bf r},{\bf r'},z)=
\int {\rm g}({\bf r}_2,{\bf r}_3, z) \rho_{SD}({\bf r},{\bf r}_2)
[\rho_{SD}({\bf r}_2,{\bf r'})\rho_{SD}({\bf r}_3,{\bf r}_3)-
\rho_{SD}({\bf r}_2,{\bf r}_3)\rho_{SD}({\bf r}_3,{\bf r'})] \
d{\bf r}_2 d{\bf r}_3 ,$$ where $${\rm g}({\bf r}_2,{\bf r}_3, z)=
\exp[-z(r_{2}^2+r_{3}^2 -2{\bf r_2}{\bf r_3})].$$
The term $O_3({\bf r},{\bf r}',z)$, performing the spin-isospin summation and the angular integration, takes the general form where $$\begin{aligned}
A_{n_1l_1n_2l_2n_3l_3}^{n_4l_4n_5l_5,n_6l_6,k'}({\bf r},{\bf r}', z)& =&
\frac{1}{4\pi}\phi^{*}_{n_1l_1}(r) \phi_{n_4l_4}(r')
P_{l_1}(\cos\omega_{rr'})
\times \int_0^{\infty}\phi^{*}_{n_2l_2}(r_2) \phi_{n_5l_5}(r_2)
\exp[-z r_{2}^{2}] r_{2}^{2} d r_{2}
\nonumber\\
& &\times \int_{0}^{\infty}\phi^{*}_{n_3l_3}(r_3) \ \phi_{n_6l_6}(r_3)
\exp[-z r_{3}^2] \exp[2 z r_2 r_3]
\ r_{3}^{2} d r_3 \ .
\label{A-O3}\end{aligned}$$
Expressions (\[O1-1\]), (\[O22-g-3\]) and (\[O3-z\]) were derived for the closed shell nuclei with $N=Z$ where $\eta_{nl}$ is 0 or 1. For the open shell nuclei (with $N=Z$) we use the same expressions where now $0\le \eta_{nl} \le 1$. The normalization is preserved for the closed shell nuclei in all the expansions. In the case of the open shell nuclei the normalization is preserved (in the above formalism) for FIY and FAHT expansions. In the case of LOA, in which the number of particles is also conserved [@Vanneck97], particular attention has to be paid in each open shell nucleus.
It is noted that the general expressions of the two- and three-body terms of the density matrix given by Eqs. (\[O22-g-3\]) and (\[O3-z\]) are also valid for the expansions of the DD, FF and MD. The only difference is the expressions of the matrix elements $A$ which have to be used. For the DD they are found from (\[A-O22-1\]) putting ${\bf r'} = {\bf r}$, while the ones of the FF follow from Eq. (\[F-T\]) replacing $\rho({\bf r})$ by $A({\bf r},{\bf r})$ and for the MD they follow from Eq. (\[M-D\]) replacing $\rho({\bf r}, {\bf r'})$ by $A({\bf r},{\bf r'})$.
In the case when the model wave function $\Phi$ is constructed from harmonic oscillator (HO) wave functions, analytical expressions of the various terms of the DD, FF and MD for any $N=Z$ $s$-$p$ and $s$-$d$ shell nuclei can be found for FIY and FAHT while in the case of LOA analytical expressions of the closed shell-nuclei in the same region can be found. These expressions which depend on the HO parameter $b$ and the correlation parameter $\beta$ are given in Refs. [@Massen99; @Moustakidis00; @Stoitsov93] for FIY and LOA while the ones for FAHT can be found easily from the other expansions.
Results and Discussion
======================
The three expansions, mentioned in Sec. II, have been used for the analytical calculations of the DD, MD and charge FF as well as for the calculation of the information entropy sum defined by Eq. (\[ie-sum\]). The HO parameter $b$ and the SRC parameter $\beta$ in the three cases have been determined, for each nucleus separately, by a least squares fit to the experimental charge FF as in Ref. [@Massen99] (using the same expression for $\chi^2$). The center-of-mass correction has been taken into account by a Tassie-Barker factor [@Tassie58] while those for the finite proton size and the Darwin-Foldy relativistic correction through the Chandra and Sauer approximation [@Chandra76]. They are not taken into account in the calculations of DD and MD to obtain the information entropy sum (and in the plots of MD).
The variation with A of the best fit values of the parameters $b$ and $\beta$ for each of the three expansions is shown in Fig. 1 where $b$ and $\beta$ versus the mass number A have been plotted for various $s$-$p$ and $s$-$d$ shell nuclei. It is seen that these parameters have the same behaviour in FIY and FAHT expansions. In the case of LOA expansion, which has been used only for $^4$He, $^{16}$O and $^{40}$Ca the variation of the parameters seems to be the same. From Fig. 1b it is seen also that the SRC parameter $\beta$ has larger values in the open shell nuclei ($^{12}$C, $^{24}$Mg, $^{28}$Si and $^{32}$S) than in the closed shell ones, indicating that there should be a shell effect in the case of closed shell nuclei.
In this work we compare different expansions on the example of MD for closed and open shell nuclei. The reason for this is that the high-momentum component of $n(k)$ is very sensitive to the extent to which nucleon correlations are accounted for in a given correlation method and in various approximations. The effect of different expansions on the form factors can be seen comparing the values of $\chi^2$ for the various expansions and nuclei.
The MD for the closed shell nuclei $^4$He, $^{16}$O and $^{40}$Ca, calculated with the best fit values of the parameters and for the three expansions, are shown in Fig. 2. It is seen that the inclusion of SRC increases considerably the high momentum component of $n(k)$. It has the same slope up to $2\ {\rm fm}^{-1}$ for the three expansions. In the region $2 \ {\rm fm}^{-1} < k < 5 \ {\rm fm}^{-1}$ the slope seems to be a little different. FIY gives a larger contribution in the high momentum component than FAHT and LOA which give the same contribution in this region. The same behaviour of $n(k)$ has been observed in the open shell nuclei as can be seen from Fig. 3. Here we would like to note that in general, a more realistic description of MD requires the inclusion of tensor correlations in the theoretical scheme.
In the previous analysis, the nuclei $^{24}$Mg, $^{28}$Si and $^{32}$S were treated as $1d$ shell nuclei, that is, the occupation probability of the $2s$ state was taken to be zero. The formalism of the expansions FIY and FAHT has the advantage that the occupation probabilities of the various states can be treated as free parameters in the fitting procedure of the charge FF. Thus, the analysis can be made with more free parameters. For that reason we considered, as in Ref. [@Moustakidis00] the cases FIY$^*$ and FAHT$^*$ in which the occupation probability $\eta_{2s}$ of the nuclei $^{24}$Mg, $^{28}$Si and $^{32}$S was taken to be a free parameter together with the parameters $b$ and $\beta$. We found that in both expansions the $\chi^2$ values become smaller, compared to those of cases FIY and FAHT and the $A$ dependence of the parameter $\beta$, as can be seen from Fig. 1b, is not so strong as before. Also the values of $\eta_{2s}$ found in the fit and the values of $\eta_{1d}$ found through the relation $\eta_{1d} = [(Z-8) - 2 \eta_{2s}]/10$, are very close for both expansions in each nucleus.
Our best fit values of the parameters and the values of $\chi^2$ for the various nuclei under consideration and for the three expansions as well as for the HO case (that is when SRC are not included) are shown in Table I. From the values of $\chi^2$ we conclude that the three expansions give similar values of $\chi^2$. The FIY and FAHT expansions have almost the same $\chi^2$ values. They differ less than $ 2 \%$ in the two expansions in each nucleus. In most cases the $\chi^2$ values corresponding to FIY (or FIY$^*$) are smaller. There are two cases ($^{12}$C and $^{28}$Si) when the FAHT or FAHT$^*$ expansion gives smaller $\chi^2$ value and one case ($^{16}$O) when LOA gives smaller $\chi^2$ value.
In addition, we verify the information-theoretic criterion for comparing the quality of the three expansions. It is seen in Table I that almost in all cases, the larger the $S$ the smaller the $\chi^2$. Both methods of comparison ($S$ and $\chi^2$) show that the FIY (or FIY$^*$) expansion is better than the FAHT and LOA for $^{4}$He, $^{24}$Mg, $^{32}$S and $^{40}$Ca. For $^{16}$O the LOA is the best. There are only two exceptions to this rule i.e. in $^{12}C$ for cases FIY and FAHT and in $^{28}$Si for cases FIY$^*$ and FAHT$^*$. In $^{12}C$ $\chi^2$ is smaller in FAHT and we expect $S$ to be larger than in FIY while in $^{28}$Si $\chi^2$ is smaller in FIY$^*$ and we expect $S$ to be larger than in FAHT$^*$. These are two exceptions to our rule. It should be noted also that in these two exceptions the difference in the $\chi^2$ values for the two expansions in both nuclei is less than $1\%$.
Finally, we consider the so-called “healing” or “wound” integrals, denoted here as $w^{2}_{nl}$ [@Brink67; @Massen96] for the various states of the relative two-nucleon motion, pertinent to the closed shell nuclei of Table I and in each case, that is in each of the cluster expansions FIY, FAHT and LOA. The values of these integrals express in a way the “amount of correlations” introduced to each state of the relative two-nucleon motion. The healing integrals (for a state independent correlation function $f(r)$, such as the one given by (\[fr-ij\])) are defined as follows $$w_{nl}^{2}=\int_{0}^{\infty}|\psi_{nl}(r)-\phi_{nl}(r)|^2 dr ,
\label{heal-int}$$ where $\phi_{nl}(r)$ is the (normalized to unity), uncorrelated (HO) radial relative wave function and $\psi_{nl}(r)$ the corresponding, normalized to unity, correlated one: $\psi_{nl}(r)=N_{nl}f(r)\phi_{nl}(r)$, where $N_{nl}$, the normalization factor of $\psi_{nl}(r)$, is given by $$N_{nl}=\left[\int_{0}^{\infty}f^2(r)\phi_{nl}^2(r) dr \right]^{-1/2} .
\label{norm-healing}$$
It is interesting to note that with the correlation function (\[fr-ij\]) the healing integrals can be calculated analytically for every state $nl$. Some details are given in Appendix II. As one expects, these integrals depend on both, the HO parameter b and the correlation parameter $\beta$. We may note, however, that their dependence on them is only through the dimensionless product $y=2 \beta b^2$ (see expression (\[Inl-Jaco\]) of Appendix II).
In Table II the values of the parameters $b$, $\beta$ and $\tilde{y}=\beta b^2$ for each closed shell nucleus and cluster expansion considered, are displayed along with the corresponding values of $w_{nl}^2$ for certain relative state in the $s$-$p$ and $s$-$d$ closed shell nuclei. It is seen from the results in this table that the values of $w^{2}_{nl}$, for each of the relative states $(nl)$ involved in each nucleus, are smaller when $w^{2}_{nl}$ is obtained with the FIY expansion and larger when obtained with the LOA. Furthermore, for each nucleus and expansion the values of $w^{2}_{nl}$ of the nodless (n=0) states decrease as the value of $l$ increases, the correlations having less effect to these higher $l$-states, because of the existing centrifugal (repulsive) term of the HO potential. The values of $w_{n0}^2$ increase when $n=1$ or $n=2$ in comparison with those of $w_{00}^2$.
Summary
=======
In the present work, a systematic study of the effect of SRC on one-body properties of $sp$ and $sd$ shell nuclei has been made evaluating three different cluster expansions. The HO parameter $b$ and the SRC parameter $\beta$ have been determined by a least-squares fit to the experimental charge FF.
The comparison of the three expansions on the example of the MD and the FF shows that they can be considered as equivalent expansions. It is found that, when the calculations are made with the best fit values of the parameters, these expansions reproduce the diffraction minima of the FF in the correct place and they give similar MD for all the nuclei we have considered. The inclusion of SRC increases considerably the high momentum component of $n(k)$.
The FIY and FAHT expansions have been used both for closed and for open shell nuclei while the occupation probabilities can be treated as free parameters together with the parameters $b$ and $\beta$ in the fitting procedure of the FF. In LOA such calculations are in progress.
In addition, the information entropy sum has been calculated according to the three methods compared in the present work. It was found almost in all of the numerous cases (different expansions and nuclei), that the larger the $S$, the smaller the $\chi^2$. That is $S$ could be used as a criterion for the quality of a given nuclear model. We found only two exceptions to this rule. In these two exceptions the difference of the $\chi^2$ values is less then $1\%$.
Finally, attention was paid to the “healing” or “wound” integrals $w_{nl}^2$ of the relative two nucleon states. A convenient analytic expression of $w_{nl}^2$ with correlation function (\[fr-ij\]) was derived for any relative state $nl$. Their values were computed in a number of states with that expression and were also discussed.
Appendix I
==========
In this appendix, we give some details about the FAHT expansion. We define the correlated wave function as $$\Psi=\prod_{i<j}^{A} f({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j) \Phi ,$$ where $f({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j)$ is the Jastrow correlation function and $\Phi$ is a Slater determinant wave function. To built up the cluster expansion, we start, following Ref. [@Guardiola79], from the A-body integrals $J_A(\lambda)$ defined as $$J_{A}(\lambda)=\frac{1}{A(A-1) \cdots 1} \sum_{i_1 \ldots i_A}^{A}
\langle \phi_{i_1} \ldots \phi_{i_A}|
\prod_{i<j}^{A}f({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j) {\bf O}_1(A) e^{\lambda {\bf O}_2(A)}
\prod_{i<j}^{A} f({\bf r}_i',{\bf r}_j')|
\phi_{i_1}' \ldots \phi_{i_A}' \rangle_a \ ,$$ where the sum over the states $i_1,i_2, \ldots , i_A$ has no restrictions and extends over all one-particle states and $\alpha$ stands for the antisymmetrization. The operators ${\bf O}_1(A)$ and ${\bf O}_2(A)$ have the forms $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf O}_1(A)&=&\prod_{i=1}^{A} \delta({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_i'), \nonumber\\
%
{\bf O}_2(A)&=& \frac{1}{\prod_{i=i}^{A} \delta({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_i')}
\sum_{i=1}^{A} \ \delta({\bf r}_i-{\bf r})
\delta({\bf r}_i' -{\bf r}')\prod_{j \neq i}^{A}\delta({\bf r}_j-{\bf r}_j') .\end{aligned}$$ The OBDM $\rho_{FAHT}({\bf r},{\bf r'})$, normalized to $A$, is defined as $$\rho_{FAHT}({\bf r},{\bf r'})=
\left[ \frac{{\rm d}\ln J_A(\lambda)}{{\rm d} \lambda} \right]_{\lambda=0} .
\label{faht-ap}$$ We introduce the n-body integrals $J_n(\lambda)$ defined as $$J_{n}(\lambda)=\frac{1}{A(A-1) \cdots (A-n+1)}
\sum_{i_1 \ldots i_n}^{n}
\langle \phi_{i_1} \ldots \phi_{i_n}|
\prod_{i<j}^{n}f({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_j) {\bf O}_1(n) e^{\lambda {\bf O}_2(n)}
\prod_{i<j}^{n} f({\bf r}_i',{\bf r}_j')|
\phi_{i_1}' \ldots \phi_{i_n}' \rangle_a \ .$$ The cluster integrals $\Im_{n}\ (n=1,2,\ldots A)$ are defined through the successive application of the equation $$J_{n}=\prod_{k=1}^{n}
\Im_{k}^{{\tiny \left( \begin{array}{c}
n \\ k \end{array} \right)\normalsize}}=
\Im_{1}^{{\tiny \left( \begin{array}{c}
n \\ 1 \end{array} \right)\normalsize}} \
\Im_{2}^{{\tiny\left( \begin{array}{c}
n \\ 2 \end{array} \right)\normalsize}} \
\cdots
\Im_{n}^{{\tiny \left( \begin{array}{c}
n \\ n \end{array} \right)\normalsize}}, \quad n=1,2,\ldots , A .
\label{cluster}$$ For example, for $n=1$ and $n=2$ it gives $$\Im_{1}=J_1\nonumber, \quad
\Im_{2}=\frac{J_2}{J_1^2} \ .$$ The last of Eqs. (\[cluster\]), which corresponds to $n=A$ is the quantity we are interested in $$J_A=\prod_{n=1}^{A}
\Im_{n}^{{\tiny \left( \begin{array}{c}
A \\ n \end{array} \right)\normalsize}}
\equiv
\Im_{1}^{{\tiny \left( \begin{array}{c}
A \\ 1 \end{array}\right)\normalsize}}
\Im_{2}^{{\tiny \left( \begin{array}{c}
A \\ 2 \end{array} \right)\normalsize}}
\Im_{3}^{{\tiny \left( \begin{array}{c}
A \\ 3 \end{array} \right)\normalsize}} \cdots
\Im_A \ .$$ If the factor-cluster expansion is limited to the two-body term (assuming that the remaining cluster integrals are equal to unity [@Guardiola79]), then $$J_A \approx \Im_{1}^{{\tiny \left( \begin{array}{c}
A \\ 1 \end{array}\right)\normalsize}}
\Im_{2}^{{\tiny \left( \begin{array}{c}
A \\ 2 \end{array} \right)\normalsize}}.
\label{J-approx}$$
From Eqs. (\[faht-ap\]) and (\[J-approx\]) we have $$\rho_{FAHT}({\bf r},{\bf r'}) =
\left( \begin{array}{c}
A \\ 1 \end{array}\right)
\left[\frac{1}{J_1}\frac{{\rm d}J_1}{{\rm d} \lambda} \right]_{\lambda=0}+
\left( \begin{array}{c}
A \\ 2 \end{array} \right)
\left[ \frac{1}{J_2}\frac{{\rm d} J_2}{{\rm d} \lambda} -
2 \frac{1}{J_1}\frac{{\rm d} J_1}{{\rm d} \lambda} \right]_{\lambda=0} ,$$ where $$J_1(\lambda)=\frac{1}{A}\sum_{i_1=1}^{A}
\langle \phi_{i_1}({\bf r}_1) | {\bf O}_1(1) e^{\lambda {\bf O}_2(1)}|
\phi_{i_1}({\bf r}_1')\rangle ,$$ and $$J_2(\lambda)=\frac{1}{A(A-1)} \sum_{i_1,i_2}^{A}
\langle \phi_{i_1}({\bf r}_1) \phi_{i_2}({\bf r}_2) |
f({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2) {\bf O}_1(2) e^{\lambda {\bf O}_2(2)}
f({\bf r}_1',{\bf r}_2')|
\phi_{i_1}({\bf r}_1') \phi_{i_2}({\bf r}_2')\rangle_a \ .$$ After some algebra we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&J_1(0)=1 , \nonumber\\
&&J_2(0)=\frac{1}{A(A-1)}\left[\frac{}{} A(A-1)-\int
[O_2({\bf r},{\bf r},g_1)+O_2({\bf r},{\bf r},g_2)-
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r},g_3)]{\rm d}{\bf r}\right] , \nonumber\\
&&\left[\frac{{\rm d} J_1}{{\rm d} \lambda}\right]_{\lambda=0}=
\frac{1}{A}\langle {\bf O}_{rr'}\rangle_1 , \nonumber\\
&&\left[\frac{{\rm d} J_2}{{\rm d} \lambda}\right]_{\lambda=0}=
\frac{2}{A(A-1)}\left[\frac{}{}(A-1)\langle {\bf O}_{rr'}\rangle_1-
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},g_1)-O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},g_2)+
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},g_3)\right] ,\end{aligned}$$ where the terms $\langle {\bf O}_{rr'}\rangle_1$ and $O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},{\rm g}_l)$ have been defined in Sec. II.
Finally, the $\rho_{FAHT}({\bf r},{\bf r'})$, normalized to unity, becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{FAHT}({\bf r},{\bf r'})&=&\frac{1}{A}\langle {\bf O}_{rr'}\rangle_1
\\
& & + (A-1)\left[\frac{}{}\frac{(A-1)\langle {\bf O}_{rr'}\rangle_1-
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},g_1)-O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},g_2)+
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r'},g_3)}{A(A-1)-\int
[O_2({\bf r},{\bf r},g_1)+O_2({\bf r},{\bf r},g_2)-
O_2({\bf r},{\bf r},g_3)] d{\bf r}}
-\frac{1}{A}\langle {\bf O}_{rr'}\rangle_1\right] \nonumber .\end{aligned}$$
Appendix II
===========
The healing integral defined by(\[heal-int\]) is written as follows [@Massen96] $$w_{nl}^2 = 2 \left[ 1 + N_{nl} \left( I_{nl}(b,\beta ) -1 \right) \right] ,
\label{heal-int2}$$ where $$I_{nl}(b,\beta) = \int_0^{\infty} \exp[-\beta r^2] \phi_{nl}^2(r) d r ,
\label{Inl-1}$$ and the normalization factor $N_{nl}$ is given by (\[norm-healing\]). This factor can be easily expressed in terms of the integrals $I_{nl}(b,\beta)$ and $I_{nl}(b,2 \beta)$ by means of expression (\[fr-ij\]) $$N_{nl} = \left[ 1 - 2 I_{nl}(b,\beta) + I_{nl}(b,2 \beta) \right] ^{-1/2} .
\label{Nnl-2}$$
Thus, the analytical calculation of any healing integral $w_{nl}^2$ is reduced to the calculation of two integrals of type (\[Inl-1\]). The expression of $I_{nl}(b,2 \beta)$ follows immediately from the expression of $I_{nl}(b, \beta)$.
We use the general expression of the radial HO wave function (normalized to one as $\int_0^{\infty} \phi_{nl}^2 d r =1$) in the form $$\phi_{nl}(r)=\left( \frac{2 n!}{\Gamma(n+l+\frac{3}{2}) b_r}
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \left(\frac{r}{b_r}\right)^{l+1}
L_n^{l+\frac{1}{2}} \left( \frac{r^2}{b_r^2} \right)
\exp\left[ \frac{-r^2}{2 b_r^2} \right] ,
\label{HO-wf}$$ where $b_r$ is the HO parameter of the relative motion, which is related to the usual HO parameter $b$ by $b_r=\sqrt{2}b$ ($b=(\hbar /m\omega)^{1/2}$).
Substituting expression (\[HO-wf\]) into (\[Inl-1\]) and using the transformation $r^2/b_r^2 = \xi$, $I_{nl}$ is written $$I_{nl}(b,\beta)=\frac{n!}{\Gamma[n+l+3/2]}
\int_0^{\infty} {\rm e}^{-(1+y)\xi} \xi^{l+1/2}
\left[ L_n^{l+\frac{1}{2}} (\xi) \right]^2 d \xi,$$ where $y=\beta b_r^2=2\beta b^2$.
Using formula 13 of §7.414 of Ref. [@Grads] $I_{nl}$ takes the form $$I_{nl}(b,\beta)=(y-1)^n(y+1)^{-n-l-3/2} P_n^{(l+\frac{1}{2}, 0)}
\left(\frac{y^2+1}{y^2-1}\right),
\label{Inl-Jaco}$$ where $P_n^{(a_1,a_2)}(z)$ the Jacobi polymomials. These may be easily expressed in terms of the Hypergeometric function (see e.g. §8.962 of Ref. [@Grads]). In the case of the nodless states (because $P_0^{(a_1,a_2)}(z)=1$) $I_{nl}$ takes the simple form $$I_{0l}(b,\beta)=(y+1)^{-l-3/2},
\label{Inl-Jaco-0}$$
By substituting $\beta \rightarrow 2\beta$, the expression of $I_{nl}(b,2\beta)$ follows immediately and therefore the analytic expression of the $w_{nl}^2$ by means of the formulae (\[heal-int2\]) and (\[Inl-Jaco\]). It is thus clear that the healing integral $w_{nl}^2$ for any state depends on correlation parameter $\beta$ and the HO one, only through the product $y=2\beta b^2$. The expressions of $w_{nl}^2$ for the lower $n-$states follow also very easily.
[qq]{} M. Jaminon, C. Mahaux, and H. Ngô, Phys. Lett. [**158B**]{}, 103 (1985). M. Casas, J. Martorell, E. Moya de Guerra, and J. Treiner, Nucl. Phys. [**A473**]{}, 429 (1987). M. Grypeos, and K. Ypsilantis, J. Phys. G [**15**]{}, 1397 (1989); K. Ypsilantis, and M. Grypeos J. Phys. G [**21**]{}, 1701 (1995); K. Ypsilantis, S. Dimitrova, C. Koutroulos, M. Grypeos, and A. Antonov, J. Phys.G [**23**]{}, 1609 (1997). D.B. Day, J.S. McCarthy, Z.E. Meziani, R. Minehart, R. Sealock, S.T. Thornton, J. Jourdan, I. Sick, B.W. Filippone, R.D. McKeeown, R.G. Milner, D.H. Potterveld, and Z. Szalata, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 427 (1987). X. Ji and R.D. McKeown, Phys. Lett. [**236B**]{}, 130 (1990). C. Ciofi degli Atti, E. Pace, and G. Salme, Nucl. Phys. [**A497**]{}, 361c (1989). A.N. Antonov, P.E. Hodgson and I.Zh. Petkov, Nucleon Momentum and Density Distributions in Nuclei (Claredon Press, Oxford, 1988); A.N. Antonov, P.E. Hodgson and I.Zh. Petkov, Nucleon Correlations in Nuclei (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993). R. Jastrow, Phys. Rev. [**98**]{}, 1497 (1955). F. Iwamoto and M. Yamada, Progr. Theor. Phys. [**17**]{}, 543 (1957). J.B. Aviles, Ann. of Phys. [**5**]{}, 251 (1958); C.D. Hartogh and M.A. Tolhoek, Physica [**24**]{}, 721, 875, 896 (1958). J.W. Clark and P. Westhaus, J. Math. Phys. [**9**]{}, 131 (1967); P. Westhaus and J.W. Clark, J. Math. Phys. [**9**]{}, 149 (1967). E. Feenberg, Theory of Quantum Fluids (Academic Press, New York, 1969). M. Gaudin, J. Gillespie, and G. Ripka, Nucl. Phys. [**A176**]{}, 237 (1971). M. Dal Ri, S. Stringari, and O. Bohigas, Nucl. Phys. [**A376**]{}, 81 (1982); O. Bohigas and S. Stringari, Phys. Lett. [**98B**]{}, 9 (1982). S.E. Massen and Ch.C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{}, 024005 (1999). Ch.C. Moustakidis and S.E. Massen, Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{}, 034316 (2000); Ch.C. Moustakidis and S.E. Massen, nucl-th/0005009. M.V. Stoitsov, A.N. Antonov, and S.S. Dimitrova, Z. Phys. A [**345**]{}, 359 (1993); M.V. Stoitsov, A.N.Antonov, and S.S. Dimitrova, Phys. Rev. C [**47**]{}, R455 (1993); M.V. Stoitsov, A.N.Antonov, and S.S. Dimitrova, Phys. Rev. C [**48**]{}, 74 (1993). M.V. Stoitsov, S.S. Dimitrova, and A.N. Antonov Phys. Rev. C [**53**]{}, 1254 (1996). R. Guardiola and E. Oset, Lett. Nuovo Cim. [**4**]{}, 869 (1972). R. Guardiola, Nucl. Phys. [**A328**]{}, 490 (1979); R. Guardiola and M. Portesi, J. Phys. G [**24**]{}, L37 (1998). C. Ciofi degli Atti and M.E. Grypeos, Lett. Nuovo Cim. [**42**]{}, 587 (1969). I. Bialynicki-Birula, J. Mycielski, Commun. Math. Phys. [**44**]{}, 129 (1975). S.R. Gadre, Phys. Rev. A [**30**]{}, 620 (1984). S.R. Gadre, S.B. Sears, S.J. Chacravorty, R.D. Bendale, Phys. Rev. A [**[32]{}**]{}, 2602 (1985). S.R. Gadre, R.D. Bendale, Phys. Rev. A [**[36]{}**]{}, 1932 (1987). M. Ohya, P. Petz, “Quantum entropy and its use” (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993). A. Nagy, R.G. Parr, Int. J. Quant. Chem. [**[58]{}**]{}, 323 (1996). V. Majernic, T. Opatrny, J. Phys. [**[A 29]{}**]{}, 2187 (1996). C.P. Panos, S.E. Massen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**[6]{}**]{}, 497 (1997). G.A. Lalazissis, S.E. Massen, C.P. Panos, S.S. Dimitrova, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**[7]{}**]{}, 485 (1998). S.E. Massen, C.P. Panos, Phys. Lett. [**[246A]{}**]{}, 530 (1998). C.P. Panos, S.E. Massen, C.G. Koutroulos, nucl-th/0007064. P.A.M. Dirac: Proc. of Cambridge Phil. Soc. [**26**]{}, 376 (1930). P.O. Lowdin, Phys. Rev. [**97**]{}, 1474 (1955). K.A. Bruckner, R.J. Eden and N.C. Francis, Phys. Rev. [**98**]{}, 1445 (1955). J.W. Clark, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**2**]{}, 89 (1979). D.M. Brink and M.E. Grypeos, Nucl. Phys. [**A97**]{}, 81 (1967). D. Van Neck, L. Van Daele, Y. Dewulf, and M. Waroquier, Phys. Rev. [**C56**]{}, 1398 (1997). L.J. Tassie, and F.C. Barker, Phys. Rev. [**111**]{}, 940 (1958). H. Chandra, and G. Sauer, Phys. Rev. C [**13**]{}, 245 (1976). S.E. Massen, V.P. Garistov, and M.E. Grypeos, Nucl. Phys. [**A597**]{}, 19 (1996). I.S. Gradshteyn, and I.M. Ryzhik, [*Tables of Integrals, Series, and Products*]{}, Academic Press, New York (1994).
\[b-fig\]
------- -------
[ ]{} [ ]{}
------- -------
\[closedshell-fig\]
------- ------- --
[ ]{} [ ]{}
------- ------- --
\[openshell-fig\]
------- -------
[ ]{} [ ]{}
[ ]{} [ ]{}
------- -------
----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------- --------- --------- --------
Nucleus Case $b$ $\beta$ $\chi^2$ $\langle r_{ch}^{2}\rangle^{1/2}$ $\langle {\bf T} \rangle$ $S_r$ $S_k$ S
$^{4}$He FIY 1.1732 2.3127 3.50 1.623 29.904 9.978 5.985 15.963
FAHT 1.1661 1.9092 3.70 1.621 29.048 9.943 6.013 15.955
LOA 1.1605 1.6584 3.88 1.620 28.543 9.917 6.034 15.951
HO 1.4320 $\infty$ 30.94 1.765 15.166 11.632 3.014 14.646
$^{12}$C FAHT 1.5204 2.4683 90.19 2.427 24.779 31.455 1.989 33.444
FIY 1.5190 2.7468 90.87 2.426 25.580 31.436 2.142 33.578
HO 1.6251 $\infty$ 176.54 2.490 17.010 32.714 -2.2484 30.465
$^{16}$O LOA 1.6387 1.8825 115.50 2.674 23.006 42.083 -4.393 37.690
FIY 1.6507 2.4747 120.19 2.680 23.614 42.237 -4.557 37.680
FAHT 1.6554 2.2097 122.49 2.684 22.518 42.313 -4.939 37.374
HO 1.7610 $\infty$ 199.45 2.738 15.044 43.655 -10.667 32.988
$^{24}$Mg FIY$^*$ 1.7473 2.4992 140.37 3.064 24.614 63.532 -14.334 49.198
FAHT$^*$ 1.7468 2.1833 140.40 3.064 23.742 63.536 -14.603 48.933
FIY 1.8103 4.2275 177.51 3.095 21.109 64.452 -19.228 45.224
FAHT 1.8120 4.1322 177.91 3.096 20.818 64.483 -19.410 45.073
HO 1.8496 $\infty$ 188.01 3.117 16.162 65.124 -23.429 41.695
$^{28}$Si FAHT$^*$ 1.7773 2.1193 103.39 3.184 24.184 72.901 -20.844 52.057
FIY$^*$ 1.7774 2.4440 103.47 3.184 25.205 72.888 -20.438 52.450
FIY 1.8236 3.0020 126.33 3.216 22.933 73.889 -24.115 49.774
FAHT 1.8279 2.8372 127.84 3.219 22.110 73.987 -24.645 49.342
HO 1.8941 $\infty$ 148.28 3.257 16.099 75.288 -32.022 43.266
$^{32}$S FIY$^*$ 1.8121 2.6398 166.11 3.282 24.916 82.100 -28.343 53.758
FAHT$^*$ 1.8131 2.3358 166.31 3.283 23.961 82.129 -28.827 53.302
FIY 1.9368 3.0659 304.96 3.443 20.867 86.921 -36.707 50.214
FAHT 1.9417 2.9585 306.46 3.446 20.252 87.045 -37.316 49.729
HO 2.0016 $\infty$ 320.45 3.483 14.878 88.361 -44.881 43.480
$^{40}$Ca FIY 1.8660 2.1127 160.44 3.516 26.617 101.501 -42.710 58.791
FAHT 1.8685 1.7397 161.13 3.517 24.643 101.558 -44.172 57.387
LOA 1.8164 1.7404 188.36 3.397 25.586 97.611 -42.121 55.490
HO 1.9453 $\infty$ 229.32 3.467 16.437 100.987 -58.709 42.278
----------- ---------- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------- --------- --------- --------
: The values of the parameters $b$ (in fm) and $\beta$ (in fm$^{-2}$), the $\chi^2$, the RMS charge radii $\langle r_{ch}^{2}\rangle^{1/2}$ (in fm), of the mean kinetic energy per nucleon $\langle T \rangle$ (in MeV) and the nuclear information entropy in position- ($S_r$) and momentum-space ($S_k$) and the sum of them $S$ for various $s$-$p$ and $s$-$d$ shell nuclei. The various cases have been ordered according to increasing values of $\chi^2$. For the various cases see text.
----------- ------ -------- --------- ----------------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- ----------------
Nucleus Case $b$ $\beta$ $\tilde{y}=\beta b^2$ $w_{00}^{2}$ $w_{01}^{2}$ $w_{02}^{2}$ $w_{10}^{2}$ $w_{03}^{2}$
$^{4}$He FIY 1.1732 2.3127 3.1832 0.01874
FAHT 1.1661 1.9092 2.5961 0.02450
LOA 1.1605 1.6584 2.2335 0.02971
$^{16}$O FIY 1.6507 2.4747 6.7431 0.00664 0.00024 8.6$\ 10^{-6}$ 0.00925
FAHT 1.6554 2.2097 6.0554 0.00773 0.00031 1.2$\ 10^{-5}$ 0.01069
LOA 1.6387 1.8825 5.0552 0.00996 0.00048 2.3$\ 10^{-5}$ 0.01359
$^{40}$Ca FIY 1.8660 2.1127 7.3563 0.00586 0.00020 6.4$\ 10^{-6}$ 0.00821 2.1$\ 10^{-7}$
FAHT 1.8685 1.7397 6.0738 0.00770 0.00031 1.2$\ 10^{-5}$ 0.01065 4.8$\ 10^{-7}$
LOA 1.8164 1.7404 5.7421 0.00833 0.00035 1.5$\ 10^{-5}$ 0.01148 6.2$\ 10^{-7}$
----------- ------ -------- --------- ----------------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- ----------------
: The values of the parameters $b$ (in fm), $\beta$ (in fm$^{-2}$) and $\tilde{y}=\beta b^2$ and the values of the healing integral $w_{nl}^2$ for various states and for the closed shell nuclei $^4$He, $^{16}O$ and $^{40}$Ca and the three expansions FIY, FAHT and LOA.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantum spin liquid is an enigmatic entity that is often hard to characterize within the conventional framework of condensed matter physics. We here present theoretical and numerical evidence for the characterization of a quantum spin liquid phase extending from the exact ground state to a finite critical temperature. We investigate a three-dimensional variant of the Kitaev model on a hyperhoneycomb lattice in the limit of strong anisotropy; the model is mapped onto an effective Ising-type model, where elementary excitations consist of closed loops of flipped Ising-type variables on a diamond lattice. Analyzing this effective model by Monte Carlo simulation, we find a phase transition from quantum spin liquid to paramagnet at a finite critical temperature $T_c$ accompanied with divergent singularity of the specific heat. We also compute the magnetic properties in terms of the original quantum spins. We find that the magnetic susceptibility exhibits a broad hump above $T_c$, while it obeys the Curie law at high temperature and approaches a nonzero Van Vleck-type constant at low temperature. Although the susceptibility changes continuously at $T_c$, its temperature derivative shows critical divergence at $T_c$. We also clarify that the dynamical spin correlation function is momentum independent but shows quantized peaks corresponding to the discretized excitations. Although the phase transition accompanies no apparent symmetry breaking in terms of the Ising-type variables as well as the original quantum spins, we characterize it from a topological viewpoint. We find that, by defining the flux density for loops of the Ising-type variables, the transition is interpreted as the one occurring from the zero-flux quantum spin liquid to the nonzero-flux paramagnet; the latter has a Coulombic nature due to the local constraints. The role of global constraints on the Ising-type variables is examined in comparison with the results in the two-dimensional loop model. A correspondence of our model to the Ising model on a diamond lattice is also discussed. A possible relevance of our results to the recently-discovered hyperhoneycomb compound, $\beta$-Li$_2$IrO$_3$, is mentioned.'
author:
- 'J. Nasu, T. Kaji, K. Matsuura$^1$, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome'
title: 'Finite-Temperature Phase Transition to a Quantum Spin Liquid in a Three-Dimensional Kitaev Model on a Hyperhoneycomb Lattice'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum spin liquid (QSL) is one of the central issues in condensed matter physics. [@Balents2010] This is a new state of matter in insulating magnets, which shows no apparent symmetry breaking. Experimental candidates for QSL were recently discovered in several quasi-two- and three-dimensional (3D) compounds, which have been stimulating the study of QSL. [@Shimizu03; @Nakatsuji05; @Helton07; @Okamoto07; @Yamashita10] In these compounds, the identification of QSL often relies on the lack of singularity in thermodynamic quantities, especially, the absence of magnetic long-range ordering down to the lowest temperature ($T$). On the other hand, theoretically, in addition to a number of one-dimensional systems, several solvable models have been proposed and served as prototypes for QSL in higher dimensions. [@Rokhsar1988; @Moesner2001; @Kitaev06] In addition, intensive numerical researches have also been done to explore QSL. [@Morita2002; @Yan2011; @Jiang2012]
A fundamental question in the research of QSL is how to characterize QSL and distinguish it from a simple paramagnet. In general, liquid and gas have the same symmetry and they are not necessarily distinguished by a phase transition. In classical fluids, there is a first-order transition between liquid and gas, but the discontinuous phase boundary is terminated at a critical endpoint; beyond that, liquid and gas are adiabatically connected with each other by a crossover. Then, what is the case of a quantum fluid, QSL? Is the high-$T$ paramagnetic phase adiabatically connected to the low-$T$ QSL phase? Since there is no apparent symmetry breaking between these two phases as in the case of the classical liquid and gas, it is naively expected that QSL and paramagnet are adiabatically connected. On the other hand, some QSL phases are characterized by a topological order related with the ground state degeneracy or finite topological entropy, while the paramagnetic phase is not. [@Wen_textbook] This implies the existence of some singularity related to the topological order, but it is not clear whether the singularity accompanies a conventional phase transition. The question is not only purely theoretical but also relevant to the interpretation of experimental results in the QSL candidates.
The issue of the connection between QSL and paramagnetic state has been recently studied in the Kitaev model and its generalizations. The advantage to adopt the models is the availability of exact solutions in the excited states as well as in the ground state. The original Kitaev model defined on a two-dimensional (2D) honeycomb lattice is exactly solvable by utilizing a local Ising-type conserved quantity on each hexagon of the honeycomb lattice, [@Kitaev06] and shows a QSL ground state with short-range spin correlation. [@Baskaran2007] Meanwhile, when one type of three inequivalent bonds is much stronger than the other two, the model is mapped onto the toric code model: one of the prototypical models for QSL, where the existence of topological order was exactly proved. [@Hamma2005; @Castelnovo2007] In the toric code limit, the effect of temperature was studied in both 2D and 3D, [@Nussinov2008; @Castelnovo2007; @Castelnovo2008; @Iblisdir2009; @Iblisdir2010] and in some cases, the topological order was shown to persist up to the critical temperature. It is highly desired to explore such expanding forefront for deeper understanding of QSL physics.
In this paper, we present convincing evidence of a finite-$T$ phase transition between QSL and paramagnet in a 3D variant of the Kitaev model. This 3D Kitaev model, which was originally introduced in Ref. , is defined on a 3D hyperhoneycomb lattice, and inherits the solvability of the 2D honeycomb counterpart in the ground state. The ground-state phase diagram has the same structure as that in 2D; the model provides an example of 3D QSL. However, the limit of one stronger bond than the other two leads to a distinct model from the 2D toric code model; the excitations are allowed only in the form of peculiar closed loops because of the local constraints on the Ising-type variables, which makes the thermodynamics nontrivial. Performing the numerically exact analysis by Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, we show that, although the model is apparently noninteracting, it exhibits a phase transition at a finite critical temperature $T_c$ between QSL and paramagnetic phases because of the local constraints. We find that $T$ dependence of the internal energy largely deviates from the noninteracting one and that the specific heat exhibits a divergent singularity at $T_c$. A large amount of entropy is released in the high-$T$ paramagnetic phase. Moreover, we successfully calculate the magnetic susceptibility in terms of the original quantum spins. We show that the susceptibility obeys the Curie law at high $T$, while it exhibits a broad hump above $T_c$. Although the susceptibility decreases continuously at $T_c$, its $T$ derivative shows divergent singularity. A nonzero Van Vleck-type contribution appears below $T_c$. We also calculate the dynamical spin correlation function at finite $T$. It is momentum independent due to the extremely short-range spin correlation, but shows quantized peaks as a function of excitation energy. The peak at the highest energy rapidly increases near $T_c$ as $T$ decreases, while other peaks are suppressed.
The phase transition is hard to characterize in terms of the local variables, as it apparently accompanies no symmetry breaking. We characterize it by the emergence of extended loops of flipped Ising-type variables. We define the flux for each loop and successfully identify the transition from the paramagnetic side in terms of the flux density. We find that the transition is characterized by the emergence of flux in the high-$T$ paramagnetic state which has a Coulombic nature due to the local constraints. We also show that the finite-size scaling of the flux density suggests the critical exponents consistent with the 3D Ising universality class.
Meanwhile, in addition to the local constraints, there are global constraints on the Ising-type variables. We show that the global constraints are not relevant to the thermodynamics and the model omitting them also shows the same phase transition. The transition belongs to the 3D Ising universality class because the effective model without the global constraints corresponds to an Ising model on a diamond lattice. Although this phase transition is continuous, we find that the parameter which describes the topology of loops is expected to show a discontinuous jump at $T_c$ in the thermodynamic limit. Moreover, we analytically show that this parameter is given by a step function in a 2D loop model. We also mention a possible relation to a recently found compound, $\beta$-Li$_2$IrO$_3$.
The paper is structured as follows. In Sec. \[sec:model\], we introduce a 3D variant of the Kitaev model defined on a hyperhoneycomb lattice and its effective model in the limit of strong anisotropy. In Sec. \[sec:method\], we present a numerical method to solve the effective model, MC simulation by the Wang-Landau algorithm. [@WL] In Sec. \[sec:results\], we show the results of our numerical analysis. $T$ dependence of the energy, specific heat, and entropy is shown in Sec. \[sec:energy\]. We identify a finite-$T$ phase transition accompanied by a divergent singularity of the specific heat. In Sec. \[sec:magn-susc\], the magnetic susceptibility is calculated and its characteristic $T$ dependence is discussed in comparison with the 2D result. We also compute the dynamical spin correlation function and discuss its relation to the static susceptibility in Sec. \[sec:dynam-corr-funct\]. An attempt to characterize the phase transition from a topological viewpoint is discussed by examining the flux density defined by the loop excitations in Sec. \[sec:loop-configuration\]. In Sec. \[sec:corr-ising-model\], we examine the role of global constraints in comparison with a 2D loop model, and also discuss a correspondence of our effective model to an Ising model on a diamond lattice. Finally, Sec. \[sec:concluding-remarks\] is devoted to concluding remarks. Details of the calculation for the Van Vleck-type contribution in the magnetic susceptibility are given in Appendix \[sec:derivation-van-vleck\]. The analysis of the 2D loop model is presented in Appendix \[sec:2d-loop-model\].
Model {#sec:model}
=====
![(Color online) (a) Schematic picture of the hyperhoneycomb lattice structure and interactions in the 3D Kitaev model in Eq. (\[eq:1\]). The dotted line represents a ten-site loop on which the conserved quantity $K_p$ in Eq. (\[eq:8\]) is defined. (b) Schematic picture of the diamond lattice which is formed by contracting the dimers of $z$-bonds on the hyperhoneycomb lattice. The dotted hexagon represents a six-site loop corresponding to the ten-site loop in (a). The centers of four six-site loops sharing their edges are represented by small circles, which constitute a tetrahedral primitive cell of the pyrochlore lattice (see the main text and Fig. \[fig:pyrochlore\]). (c) Schematic picture of the pyrochlore lattice on which the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) is defined. The corresponding loop model is defined on the diamond lattice composed of the centers of tetrahedra connected by thick yellow lines. []{data-label="fig:kitaev"}](kitaev.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Four kinds of inequivalent six-site loops on which $B_p$ are defined. Each $B_p$ is given by the product of six $\tau_m^l$ which are shown in the figure. See also Eq. (\[eq:B\_p\]). []{data-label="fig:diamond"}](diamond.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
. Light (dark) circles represent sites with $B_p=+1$ $(-1)$. (b) The shortest loop excitation consisting of six sites. []{data-label="fig:pyrochlore"}](pyrochlore.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
We consider the Kitaev model on the 3D lattice depicted in Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](a), which is called a hyperhoneycomb lattice. This lattice is composed of three kinds of nearest-neighbor (NN) bonds termed $x$-, $y$-, and $z$-bonds. The Kitaev Hamiltonian is defined on this lattice in the form of $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}=-J_x\sum_{{\langleij\rangle}_x}S_i^x S_j^x-J_y\sum_{{\langleij\rangle}_y}S_i^y S_j^y-J_z\sum_{{\langleij\rangle}_z}S_i^z S_j^z,
\label{eq:1}\end{aligned}$$ where $S_i^l$ represents the $l$ component of spin-$1/2$ operator, and ${\langleij\rangle}_l$ denotes a NN $l$-bond ($l=x,y,z$). Here, $J_x$, $J_y$, and $J_z$ are set to be positive. The $z$-bond is crystallographically inequivalent to the $x$- and $y$-bonds on the hyperhoneycomb lattice, implying $J_z\not=J_x=J_y$.
The model in Eq. (\[eq:1\]) is topologically equivalent to that introduced in Ref. , whose fundamental properties at $T=0$ have been discussed. In particular, the ground state phase diagram is exactly obtained in the same structure as that for the Kitaev model on a honeycomb lattice. [@Kitaev06] This is owing to the local conserved quantities commonly existing in the two models. In the hyperhoneycomb case, the conserved quantity is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
K_p=\prod_{n=1}^{10}\sigma_{i_n}^{l_{i_n}}\label{eq:8}\end{aligned}$$ on each ten-site loop $p$, as exemplified in Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](a). Here, $\sigma_i^l=2S_i^l$ is the $l$ component of the Pauli matrices, $i_n$ represents a site belonging to a ten-site loop $p$, and $l_i$ is defined as the bond not on the loop $p$ among the three NN bonds connected at the site $i$.
In the present study, we focus on the limit of $J_z\gg J_x$, $J_y$, and set $J_x=J_y=J$ for simplicity. This anisotropy does not break the symmetry of the hyperhoneycomb lattice. In this limit, it was shown that the low-energy physics of the model in Eq. (\[eq:1\]) can be described by an effective Ising-type model, [@Mandal2009] as briefly reviewed below. For $J_z>0$ and $J=0$, the lattice is decomposed into the dimers of $z$-bonds, and the spins form independent doublets on each dimer: ${\left|\Uparrow\right>}\equiv{\left|\uparrow\uparrow\right>}$ and ${\left|\Downarrow\right>}\equiv{\left|\downarrow\downarrow\right>}$, as far as the temperature region $T\ll J_z$ is concerned. For each dimer $m$, it is convenient to introduce the pseudo-spin (PS) operators $\bm{\tau}_m$, which are the Pauli matrix operators satisfying $\tau^z_m {\left|\Uparrow\right>} = {\left|\Uparrow\right>}$, $\tau^z_m{\left|\Downarrow\right>} = -{\left|\Downarrow\right>}$, $\tau^x_m{\left|\Uparrow\right>} = {\left|\Downarrow\right>}$, and $\tau^x_m{\left|\Downarrow\right>} = {\left|\Uparrow\right>}$. The product states of ${\left|\Uparrow\right>}$ or ${\left|\Downarrow\right>}$ give macroscopically degenerate ground states. An infinitesimally small $J$ connects these dimers, and lifts this degeneracy. The perturbation in terms of $J/J_z$ leads to multiple spin interactions induced by a ring-exchange-type processes. Since the dimers compose a diamond lattice shown in Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](b), the leading-order contribution comes from the shortest six-site loops $p$ on the diamond lattice, which correspond to ten-site loops $p$ on the original hyperhoneycomb lattice (see Fig. \[fig:kitaev\]). This process leads to an effective Hamiltonian; $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm eff}=-J_{\rm eff}\sum_p B_p,
\label{eq:2}\end{aligned}$$ where the effective coupling constant $J_{\rm eff}$ is given by $7J^6/(1024J_z^5)$. [@Mandal2009] Here, the summation is taken over the loops $p$, whose centers comprise a pyrochlore lattice \[see Figs. \[fig:kitaev\](b) and \[fig:kitaev\](c)\]. The multiple spin interaction is compactified into the form of conserved operator, $B_p={\cal P}K_p{\cal P}$, where ${\cal P}$ is the projection to the states spanned by ${\left|\Uparrow\right>}$ and ${\left|\Downarrow\right>}$; $$\begin{aligned}
B_p = \prod_{m=1}^{6} \tau_m^l,
\label{eq:B_p}\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ runs on the six-site loop $p$ on the diamond lattice. There are four different $B_p$ depending on the types of original ten-site loops, as shown in Fig. \[fig:diamond\]; for each $B_p$, $\tau_m^l$ is given by the rule shown in Fig. \[fig:diamond\]. As the operators $B_p$ commute with each other and each $B_p$ takes the value $\pm 1$ ($B_p^2=1$), the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) are labeled by a set of values of the Ising-type variables $B_p$. Hence, the effective model in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) is the Ising-type model defined on the pyrochlore lattice. [^1]
The ground state of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) is trivially given by the state with $B_p=+1$ for all $p$. In excited states, $B_p$ takes $-1$ for several $p$. In particular, the lowest excitation appears to be given by the states with a single flip, $B_p=+1 \to -1$. The variables $B_p$, however, are not independent of each other, and such a single flip is prohibited as explained below. As the original Pauli operators $\sigma_i^{l_i}$ on adjacent four ten-site loops are multiplied to give $1$ as an operator identity, the four $B_p$ shown in Fig. \[fig:diamond\] are multiplied to be $1$. In terms of the pyrochlore lattice in Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](c), such constraint is summarized as $\prod_{p\in T_i}B_p=1$ for all the tetrahedra $T_i$. This immediately means that only the excited states where the sites with $B_p=-1$ form closed loops are allowed \[see Fig. \[fig:pyrochlore\](a)\].
Consequently, the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) is considered as a loop model on the diamond lattice obtained by connecting the centers of neighboring tetrahedra in the pyrochlore lattice [@Mandal2011] \[see Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](c)\]. Note that $B_p$ variables are located on the bonds of the diamond lattice and that this diamond lattice is different from that for the PS operators $\bm{\tau}_m$ in Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](b). In this representation, the energy is proportional to the sum of the loop lengths. The loops with $B_p=-1$ can intersect with each other, as shown in Fig. \[fig:pyrochlore\](a). The shortest loop is a six-site loop $C_s$ shown in Fig. \[fig:pyrochlore\](b). All of the loop configurations can be constructed by the “product” $C_{s_1}\otimes C_{s_2}\otimes C_{s_3}\otimes \cdots$, where $C_{s_i}\otimes C_{s_j}\equiv C_{s_i}\cup C_{s_j}-C_{s_i}\cap C_{s_j}$. Moreover, in addition to the local constraints in all the tetrahedra, there are two kinds of global constraints: [@Mandal2011] (i) the number of the points at which loops intersect with each $xy,yz,zx$ plane is even, and (ii) the loop configurations are constructed by the even-number “product” of the six-site loops.
In the following sections, we investigate thermodynamic properties of the effective model given by Eq. (\[eq:2\]). Let us make two remarks on the model. One is about fermionic excitations. In the original Hamiltonian given in Eq. (\[eq:1\]), there is fermionic degree of freedom in each state labeled by the local conserved quantities $K_p$.[@Mandal2009] In the effective Ising-type model in Eq. (\[eq:2\]), the fermionic excitations correspond to the excitations to the states projected out in the dimer representation. Thus, they can be neglected in the thermodynamics as well as the ground-state properties for the model in the limit of $J\ll J_z$. The other remark is on the higher-order perturbations. As mentioned above, the effective model in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) includes only the leading-order controbution from the perturbation in terms of $J/J_z$. The higher-order terms give rise to complicated interactions, which induce interactions between the loops of $B_p$ variables. We, however, believe that the loop structure is retained even if the higher-order perturbations are taken into account, because the local constraints for the conserved quantity $B_p$ originate from the algebraic property of $\tau_m^l$. We will further discuss this point in the end of Sec. \[sec:loop-configuration\].
Method {#sec:method}
======
Although the model in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) apparently describes free Ising moments in applied magnetic field $J_{\rm eff}$, the constraints give rise to intersite correlations between $B_p$. This makes the finite-$T$ behavior nontrivial in the current 3D model. Note that the 2D toric code model is free from such constraints, and hence, shows no phase transition at finite $T$. In order to examine the thermodynamic properties, particularly, the existence of finite-$T$ phase transition, we adopt an unbiased numerical method, MC simulation by the Wang-Landau algorithm. [@WL] The simulations were performed on the pyrochlore lattice with $N=4\times L^3$ sites under periodic boundary conditions. The system size is up to $L=30$. After obtaining the density of states, $10^8$ MC steps are spent for standard measurement. By performing 20-40 times iterations of this measurement independently, we obtained physical quantities with their statistical errors. We performed MC sampling by flipping a pair of six-site loops at once in each update, which automatically satisfies both global constraints (i) and (ii) as well as the local constraints. For comparison, we will show the results when we neglect the global constraints in Sec. \[sec:corr-ising-model\]. Hereafter, we take $J_{\rm eff}=1$ as an energy scale and the Boltzmann constant $k_{\rm B}=1$. We choose the lattice constant of the pyrochlore lattice to be unity.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Energy and Specific Heat {#sec:energy}
------------------------
![(Color online) MC results for (a) $E$, (b) $C/T$, and (c) $S$ as functions of $T$. Insets in (a) and (c) are the plots in a wide $T$ range. The dotted curve in the inset of (a) shows $-\tanh(T^{-1})$ for comparison. The inset in (b) shows the peak temperature of $C$ as a function of $1/L$. The dotted curve represents the quadratic fit for 5 largest $L$. The dotted horizontal line in the inset of (c) shows the value of $\frac12 \ln 2$. []{data-label="fig:mc"}](mc.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The numerical results for the effective model in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) are presented in Fig. \[fig:mc\]. Figure \[fig:mc\](a) shows the internal energy per site defined by $$\begin{aligned}
E=\frac{1}{N}{\langle{\cal H}_{\rm eff}\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\langle\cdots\rangle}$ denotes the thermal average. As shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:mc\](a), $T$ dependence of $E$ largely deviates from $-\tanh(T^{-1})$ that is expected for a free Ising moment in a magnetic field $J_{\rm eff}=1$; $E$ does not change so much up to $T =T_c \simeq 1.92$, while it rapidly increases for $T>T_c$. The deviation is due to the constraints on the Ising-type variables $B_p$, and the kink behavior around $T_c$ suggests a phase transition. Indeed, $E$ shows a significant system-size dependence, as shown in Fig. \[fig:mc\](a). Accordingly, the specific heat, calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
C = \frac{1}{NT^2}(\langle {\cal H}_{\rm eff}^2 \rangle - \langle {\cal H}_{\rm eff} \rangle^2),\end{aligned}$$ exhibits a sharp peak around $T_c$ which grows with increasing the system size; $C$ divided by $T$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig:mc\](b). The size dependence of the peak temperature of $C$, $T_c^{(L)}$, is presented in the inset of Fig. \[fig:mc\](b). The extrapolation of $T_c^{(L)}$ to $L\to \infty$ gives an estimate of the critical temperature as $T_c=1.921(1)$. The results indicate that there is a phase transition at $T=T_c$. The transition is not discontinuous; we see no sign of a double peak in the energy histograms (not shown).
Figure \[fig:mc\](c) shows the result for the entropy per site, which is calculated by the numerical integration, $$\begin{aligned}
S= \int_0^T \frac{C}{T'} dT'.\end{aligned}$$ $S$ appears to saturate at a much smaller value than $\ln 2$ at $T\to \infty$, as shown in the inset. The saturation value is close to $\frac{1}{2}\ln 2\sim 0.347$. This is due to the local constraint which allows $B_p$ to take only a half of $2^4$ configurations on every tetrahedron. Note that the value of the entropy corresponds to the degree of freedom in the space of the PS $\bm{\tau}_m$ on the diamond lattice; the number of sites on the diamond lattice in Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](b) is a half of that on the pyrochlore lattice in Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](c) as well as the original hyperhoneycomb lattice in Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](a). Interestingly, most of the entropy is released not at the transition but in the high-$T$ phase while decreasing $T$. This suggests a strong short-range correlation between the variables $B_p$ even well above $T_c$. This corresponds to the development of short-range correlations in the variables $B_p$ even well above $T_c$. Such correlations are indicated in the dynamical spin correlation function calculated in Sec. \[sec:dynam-corr-funct\]. They are also seen in terms of loops; the high-$T$ phase has a Coulombic nature due to the local constraints, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:loop-configuration\].
Magnetic susceptibility {#sec:magn-susc}
-----------------------
![(Color online) Two kinds of inequivalent eight-site loops of $B_p$ whose $p \in {\cal A}_m$ (thick lines). These loops contribute the magnetic susceptibility in Eq. (\[eq:chi\^zz\_Q\]). See the text for details. []{data-label="fig:eight_loop"}](eight_loop.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) MC results for (a) the magnetic susceptibility $\chi^{zz}$ and (b) its narrow $T$ range plot near $T_c$. In (a), the curve shows the Curie behavior $1/T$, and the horizontal dotted line represents the Van Vleck-type component $\chi_0=1/8$. (c) $T$ derivative $d\chi^{zz}/dT$. (d) Arrhenius plot for $\chi^{zz}-\chi_0$. The line shows a linear function whose slope is $-16$. []{data-label="fig:suscep"}](suscep.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
In this section, we calculate the magnetic susceptibility in terms of the original spins $\bm{S}_i$ in Eq. (\[eq:1\]) in magnetic field applied parallel to the $z$ direction. According to the Kubo formula, the susceptibility is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_s^{zz}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{ij}
\int_0^\beta d\lambda {\langlee^{\lambda{\cal H}}
S_i^z e^{-\lambda{\cal H}}
S_j^z
\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ In the limit of $J_z \gg J$, $\chi^{zz}$ can be expressed by PS operators $\bm{\tau}_m$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{zz}=2\chi_s^{zz}=\frac{1}{N_d}\sum_{mn}
\int_0^\beta d\lambda {\langlee^{\lambda{\cal H}_{\rm eff}}
\tau_m^z e^{-\lambda{\cal H}_{\rm eff}}
\tau_n^z
\rangle}.\label{eq:5}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we introduce the factor 2 to renormalize $\chi^{zz}$ by $N_d=N/2$ which is the site number of the diamond lattice composed of the dimers of $z$-bonds \[see Fig. \[fig:kitaev\](b)\].
In order to calculate the susceptibility in Eq. (\[eq:5\]), we introduce $\tilde{\cal H}_{\rm eff}^m$ so as to satisfy the relation $\tau_m^z{\cal H}_{\rm eff}=\tilde{\cal H}_{\rm eff}^m\tau_m^z$. For a given dimer site $m$, the operator $\tau_m^z$ commutes with all $B_p$ that do not involve the site $m$ in the loop $p$. On the other hand, for $B_p$ involving the site $m$, the commutation relation between $B_p$ and $\tau_m^z$ depends on the location of $m$ on the loop $p$ as follows. All $B_p$ include two $\tau_m^z$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:diamond\]. We term such two sites $m_1^p$ and $m_2^p$. If $m$ is equal to either $m_1^p$ or $m_2^p$, $B_p$ commutes with $\tau_m^z$. Otherwise, $B_p$ anticommutes with $\tau_m^z$. The number of $B_p$ that anticommute with the given operator $\tau_m^z$ is eight; the eight $B_p$ form a loop. There are two kinds of such eight-site loops, as shown in Fig. \[fig:eight\_loop\]. We define the set of $p$ for such $B_p$ as ${\cal A}_m$. From the definition of ${\cal A}_m$, $\tilde{\cal H}_{\rm eff}^m$ is written by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm eff}-\tilde{\cal H}^m_{\rm eff}=-2 \sum_{p\in{\cal A}_m}B_p=-2 {\cal Q}_m,\label{eq:4}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal Q}_m$ is the sum of $B_p$ belonging to ${\cal A}_m$. Note that ${\cal Q}_m$ takes the values $-8, -6, -4, \cdots, 8$. Then, the magnetic susceptibility in Eq. (\[eq:5\]) is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{zz}=\frac{1}{N_d}\sum_{mn}
\int_0^\beta d\lambda {\langlee^{-2 \lambda{\cal Q}_m}
\tau_m^z
\tau_n^z
\rangle}=\frac{1}{N_d}\sum_{m}{\langlef({\cal Q}_m)\rangle},
\label{eq:chi^zz_Q}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f({\cal Q}_m)&=
\int_0^\beta d\lambda e^{-2 \lambda{\cal Q}_m}
\label{eq:fQ}\\
&=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2 {\cal Q}_m}(1-e^{-2\beta {\cal Q}_m})
& ({\cal Q}_m\neq 0)\\
\beta & ({\cal Q}_m = 0)
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[eq:chi\^zz\_Q\]), we used the fact that there is no spatial correlation between $\tau^z$, i.e., ${\langle\tau_m^z \tau_n^z\rangle} = \delta_{mn}$, where $\delta_{mn}$ is the Kronecker delta. This is because, in the original Kitaev model given in Eq. (\[eq:1\]), the equal-time spin correlation ${\langleS_i^l S_j^l\rangle}$ is nonzero only if the sites $i$ and $j$ are on the same NN $l$-bond due to the existence of the local conserved quantity $K_p$. [@Baskaran2007]
The numerical result for the magnetic susceptibility is presented in Fig. \[fig:suscep\](a). In the high-$T$ region, the susceptibility obeys the Curie law rather than the Curie-Weiss law, i.e., Curie-Weiss temperature is exactly zero. The vanishing Curie-Weiss temperature is due to the absence of correlation between $\tau^z$ mentioned above. It is worthy noting that, as the effective model in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) is justified for $T\ll J_z$, the Curie law behavior is considered to be seen in the temperature range $J\ll T\ll J_z$; in the original Kitaev model in Eq. (\[eq:1\]), $\chi^{zz}$ should obey the Curie-Weiss law with a positive Weiss temperature proportional to $J_z$ for $T\gg J_z$. The anticipated crossover at $T\sim J_z$ is due to the fermion excitations which are prohibited in the effective model in Eq. (\[eq:2\]).
While decreasing $T$, $\chi^{zz}$ deviates from the Curie law, and shows a broad hump at $T\simeq 3$. Below the hump, it rapidly decreases toward $T_c$ and does not strongly depend on $T$ below $T_c$. In the low-$T$ limit, $\chi^{zz}$ converges to a nonzero constant. Since the ground state is not degenerate in terms of $B_p$, the low-$T$ behavior of the susceptibility is interpreted as the Van Vleck-type paramagnetism. As explained in Appendix \[sec:derivation-van-vleck\], the asymptotic value for $T\to 0$ is analytically obtained to be $1/8$. Our result in Fig. \[fig:suscep\](a) is consistent with this estimate.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:suscep\](b), the susceptibility changes continuously in the vicinity of $T_c$, while showing substantial system-size dependence, similar to the internal energy and entropy shown in Figs. \[fig:mc\](a) and \[fig:mc\](c), respectively. Figure \[fig:suscep\](c) shows $T$ derivative of the susceptibility near $T_c$. A sharp peak which grows with increasing the system size is observed around $T_c$. This implies divergent behavior of $d\chi^{zz}/dT$ at $T_c$.
We also analyze the behavior of $\chi^{zz}$ below $T_c$ by the Arrhenius plot for $\chi^{zz}-\chi_0$, where $\chi_0=1/8$ is the Van Vleck-type component. As shown in Fig. \[fig:suscep\](d), in the low-$T$ region, the slope of the Arrhenius plot is about $-16$. This result indicates that susceptibility except for the Van Vleck-type component is of activation type with an energy gap $\simeq 16$. This value corresponds to the energy for the lowest excitation in this gapped phase. In the current case, the lowest excitation is not a shortest six-site loop but an eight-site loop in terms of $B_p$: the lowest excitation energy is $8\times 2=16$. This is due to the global constraint (ii) given in Sec. \[sec:model\]; six-site loops should be flipped in pair, as implemented in our MC calculations (see also Sec. \[sec:method\]).
![(Color online) $T$ dependence of the magnetic susceptibility in the toric code limit of the Kitaev model on a honeycomb lattice. The curve shows the Curie behavior $1/T$. []{data-label="fig:suscep2D"}](suscep2D.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Let us compare the result with that in the 2D system, for which the susceptibility can be calculated analytically. In the toric code limit $J_z \gg J_x, J_y$ for the Kitaev model on the honeycomb lattice, the effective Hamiltonian is given as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm 2D}=-J_{\rm 2D}\sum_p \tilde{B}_p,\label{eq:10}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{B}_p=\pm 1$ is the local conserved quantity similar to $B_p$ in the 3D case. [@Kitaev06] In the 2D case, since there is no local constraint for $\tilde{B}_p$ unlike the 3D case, the correlation between $\tilde{B}_p$ does not appear. Then, the thermal average of $\tilde{B}_p$ is simply given by the noninteracting form, ${\langle\tilde{B}_p\rangle}=\tanh\beta J_{\rm 2D}$. By using this result, the magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{\rm 2D}^{zz}$ defined in the same way as Eq. (\[eq:5\]) is calculated in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\rm 2D}^{zz}=\frac{1}{2 J_{\rm 2D}}\left(\frac{\beta J_{\rm 2D}}{\cosh^2 \beta J_{\rm 2D}}+\tanh \beta J_{\rm 2D}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The functional form is plotted in Fig. \[fig:suscep2D\] by setting $J_{\rm 2D}=1$. The result is similar to that in the 3D case shown in Fig. \[fig:suscep\](a); the susceptibility $\chi_{\rm 2D}^{zz}$ obeys the Curie law at high $T$ and exhibits the Van Vleck-type paramagnetism with $\chi_0' = \lim_{T \to 0} \chi_{\rm 2D}^{zz} = 1/2$ at low $T$, after showing a hump at $T\sim 1$. In this 2D case, however, $\chi_{\rm 2D}^{zz} - \chi_0' \propto \exp(-2\beta J_{\rm 2D})$ at low $T$, which is consistent with the lowest excitation gap $2J_{\rm 2D}$ by a single flip of $\tilde{B}_p$ allowed in the absence of the local constraints. Furthermore, there is no singularity in the susceptibility unlike the 3D case because of the absence of phase transition at finite $T$ in 2D.
Dynamical spin correlation function {#sec:dynam-corr-funct}
-----------------------------------
![(Color online) (a) The dynamical spin correlation function ${\cal S}^{zz}$ as a function of $\omega$ at several $T$. $\delta$-functions in Eq. (\[eq:9\]) are shown by Lorentzian functions with the width of $0.1$. (b) $T$ dependence of the intensities $g({\cal Q})$ of the peaks in ${\cal S}^{zz}$. The definition of $g({\cal Q})$ is given in the text. The system size is $L=30$. []{data-label="fig:dynamics"}](dynamics.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
In this section, we calculate the dynamical spin correlation function which is observable in the inelastic neutron scattering and the resonant inelastic x-ray scattering measurements. The dynamical spin correlation function is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}_s^{zz}(\bm{q},\omega)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{ij}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt e^{i\omega t-i\bm{q}\cdot(\bm{r}_m-\bm{r}_n)}{\langleS_i^z(t) S_j^z\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where $S_i^z(t)=e^{i{\cal H}t}S_i^z e^{-i{\cal H}t}$. In the limit of $J_z\gg J$, the dynamical spin correlation function can be described in terms of the PS $\bm{\tau}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}^{zz}(\bm{q},\omega)&=2{\cal S}_s^{zz}(\bm{q},\omega)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{N_d}\sum_{mn}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt e^{i\omega t-i\bm{q}\cdot(\bm{r}_m-\bm{r}_n)}{\langle\tau_m^z(t) \tau_n^z\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_m^z(t)=e^{i{\cal H}_{\rm eff}t}\tau_m^z e^{-i{\cal H}_{\rm eff}t}$. On the other hand, in a similar manner to Eq. (\[eq:5\]), the dynamical susceptibility is obtained in the Matsubara representation as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{zz}(i\omega_p)&=\frac{1}{N_d}\sum_{mn}
\int_0^\beta d\lambda {\langlee^{\lambda{\cal H}_{\rm eff}}
\tau_m^z e^{-\lambda{\cal H}_{\rm eff}}
\tau_n^z
\rangle}e^{i\omega_p \lambda}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{N_d}\sum_{m}{\langle\tilde{f}({\cal Q}_m,i\omega_p)\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_p=2\pi p T$ with an integer $p$ is the Matsubara frequency and $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}({\cal Q}_m,i\omega_p)
=\int_0^\beta d\lambda e^{-2\lambda{\cal Q}_m+i\omega_p\lambda}=\frac{e^{-2{\cal Q}_m \beta}-1}{i\omega_p-2 {\cal Q}_m}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\chi^{zz}(i\omega_p)$ does not depend on the momentum $\bm{q}$ because there is no spatial correlation in terms of $\tau^z$ in the effective Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{\rm eff}$, as mentioned in Sec. \[sec:magn-susc\]. By using the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the dynamical spin correlation function is evaluated by $\chi^{zz}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}^{zz}(\bm{q},\omega)&=\frac{2}{1-e^{-\beta\omega}}{\rm Im} \chi^{zz}(\omega+i\eta)\label{eq:f-d_theorem_1}\\
&=\frac{1}{N_d}\sum_{m}{\langle2\pi\delta(\omega-2{\cal Q}_m)\rangle}.\label{eq:9}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the dynamical spin correlation function is also momentum independent: ${\cal S}^{zz}(\bm{q},\omega) = {\cal S}^{zz}(\omega)$. Moreover, from Eq. (\[eq:9\]), ${\cal S}^{zz}(\omega)$ is given by $\delta$-functional peaks at $\omega=2{\cal Q}_{m}=0,4,8,12,16$.
Figure \[fig:dynamics\](a) shows MC results for the dynamical spin correlation function as a function of $\omega$ at several $T$. The results show $\delta$-functional peaks as expected. At high $T$, intensities of the low energy peaks are stronger than those of high energy peaks. With deceasing $T$, the peak at the highest energy $\omega=16$ grows near $T_c$, whereas the intensities of the other peaks decrease. Figure \[fig:dynamics\](b) shows $T$ dependence of the peak intensities in ${\cal S}^{zz}$. We define $g({\cal Q})$ so that the dynamical correlation function is written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}^{zz}=\sum_{\cal Q}g({\cal Q})\delta(\omega-2{\cal Q}).\label{eq:11}\end{aligned}$$ As shown in Fig. \[fig:dynamics\](b), the intensity of the highest energy peak, $g(8)$, monotonically increases with decreasing $T$, and rapidly grows near $T_c$ with showing the saturation to $2\pi$ at lower $T$. This result comes from the fact that, in the ground state, all $B_p$ are equal to $+1$ and all ${\cal Q}_m$ take 8.
On the other hand, the other components show humps at a temperature above $T_c$ and decrease rapidly near $T_c$ with deceasing $T$. This nonmonotonic $T$ dependence originates from the intersite correlation of $B_p$ on the eight-site loops shown in Fig. \[fig:eight\_loop\]. This is in contrast to the 2D case. In the effective model given by Eq. (\[eq:10\]) for the 2D Kitaev model on the honeycomb lattice, the dynamical correlation function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}^{zz}_{\rm 2D}=\sum_{{\cal Q}=0,2}\tilde{g}({\cal Q})\delta(\omega-2{\cal Q}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{g}(2)=2\pi(1+\tanh\beta J_{\rm 2D})^2/4$ and $\tilde{g}(0)=2\pi(1-\tanh^2\beta J_{\rm 2D})/2$. This result indicates that both $g(2)$ and $g(0)$ show monotonic $T$ dependence, while the former increases and the latter decreases as $T$ decreases. The $\delta$-functional contribution in the dynamical correlation function was recently obtained in Ref. .
Loop configuration {#sec:loop-configuration}
------------------
While a continuous phase transition is usually associated with symmetry breaking, the present model does not show any apparent symmetry breaking below $T_c$; it is hard to construct an order parameter in terms of the local variables $B_p$. Here, we try to characterize the phase transition by focusing on the global quantities, closed loops composed of the sites with $B_p=-1$. From the observation in MC samples that loops interpenetrating the system from one side of the surface to the opposite side are dominantly excited above $T_c$, we calculate the flux density defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\phi}^2/L=
\frac1L \sum_i \sum_{\mu=1}^3(\phi_i^\mu)^2.
\label{eq:fluxdensity}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we define $\phi_i^\mu$ by the path integral $\phi_i^\mu=\oint_{{\cal C}_i}\bm{a}_\mu\cdot d\bm{s}/L$ for each loop ${\cal C}_i$ ($\bm{a}_\mu$ is a primitive translation vector of the pyrochlore lattice). A similar quantity was discussed in the 3D classical dimer model to characterize the high-$T$ Coulomb phase. [@Alet2006] Since intersections of loops are allowed in the present model \[see Fig. \[fig:pyrochlore\](a)\], we need to divide each intersection in order to identify the individual loop ${\cal C}_i$. Although there is an arbitrariness in the way to separate the loops as well as to assign the direction $d\bm{s}$, we confirm that $\langle \bar{\phi}^2 \rangle$ does not depend on the way.
![(Color online) (a) MC results for ${\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}/L$. The inset in (a) shows ${\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}/L$ in a wide $T$ range. (b) $T$ dependence of $({\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}/L)/L^{-z}$ and (c) scaling plot for ${\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}/L$. We assume $z=1$ in both (b) and (c). See the text for details. []{data-label="fig:scaling"}](scaling.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Schematic pictures of (a) the loop configuration below $T_c$ and (b) that above $T_c$. The thin red (thick blue) lines represent the loops with zero (nonzero) flux.[]{data-label="fig:loop"}](loop.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:scaling\](a) shows $T$ dependence of ${\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}/L$. This quantity exhibits an anomaly at $T_c$; while ${\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}/L$ is essentially zero below $T_c$, it becomes nonzero above $T_c$ in the thermodynamic limit. The behavior is similar to that in the classical dimer model, [@Alet2006] which suggests that the high-$T$ paramagnetic phase has a Coulombic nature because of the constraints. The results indicate that the phase transition is characterized by the flux density. The flux $\phi_i^\mu$ corresponds to the winding number of the loop ${\cal C}_i$ along the vector $\bm{a}_\mu$. Hence, the result of ${\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}/L$ in Fig. \[fig:scaling\](a) indicates that, below $T_c$, the winding numbers vanish and only short loops are excited, as schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:loop\](a). On the other hand, the extended loops, which contribute to nonzero winding numbers, are generated above $T_c$ \[see Fig. \[fig:loop\](b)\]. Therefore, the phase transition can be characterized by the flux in terms of the loop model; namely, the zero (non-zero) flux phase is associated with the low-$T$ QSL (high-$T$ paramagnetic) phase.
Despite the lack of an appropriate order parameter, we analyze the critical behavior of the phase transition from the paramagnetic side by using ${\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}$. Following the argument for the classical dimer model, [@Alet2006] we assume the scaling ${\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}/L=L^{-z}f(L^{1/\nu}(T-T_c))$, where $z$ is a scale exponent, $\nu$ is a critical exponent for correlation length, and $f(T)$ is a scaling function. Figure \[fig:scaling\](b) shows $T$ dependence of $({\langle\bar{\phi}^2\rangle}/L)/L^{-z}$ with $z=1$. The data for different $L$ cross with each other at the same point. This result indicates that the assumption $z=1$ is reasonable also for the present case. In addition, the scaling plot is shown in Fig. \[fig:scaling\](c). Here, assuming $z=1$, we optimize $T_c$ and $\nu$ so that all the data collapse onto a single universal function. The analysis gives the estimates $T_c=1.925(1)$ and $\nu=0.60(5)$. The value of $T_c$ is fairly consistent with $T_c^{(L \to \infty)}$ in the inset of Fig. \[fig:mc\](b). In addition, the value of the critical exponent $\nu$ is consistent with that of the 3D Ising universality class. The values of $T_c$ and $\nu$ will be discussed in the next section \[sec:corr-ising-model\].
The loop picture presented in Fig. \[fig:loop\] will be effective for understanding the nature of phase transition even in the parameter region apart from the limit of $J/J_z \to 0$ considered here. A finite $J$ brings about complicated interactions in the effective Hamiltonian from higher-order contributions in terms of $J$, which lead to interactions between loops. Nevertheless, the higher-order terms do not alter the loop-like structure of excited states, since it is a direct consequence of the local constraint of $K_p$ in Eq. (\[eq:8\]) stemming from the basic spin algebra, which is imposed in the entire range of parameters. Given that the nature of transition is dominated by the global behavior of loop-like excitations in the limit of $J/J_z \to 0$ as sketched in Fig. \[fig:loop\], it is reasonable to expect that a similar transition takes place even at finite $J$. Such extension will be discussed elsewhere.
Effective model without global constraints {#sec:corr-ising-model}
------------------------------------------
![(Color online) MC results for (a) $C/T$ and (b) the loop parity parameter ${\left<\eta\right>}$ for the effective model in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) without the two global constraints. The inset in (a) shows the peak temperature of $C$ as a function of $1/L$. The dotted curve represents the quadratic fit for 5 largest $L$. []{data-label="fig:mc_loop"}](mc_loop.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
As described in Sec. \[sec:model\], the effective model in Eq. (\[eq:2\]) is subject to both local and global constraints for the variables $B_p$. The local constraint restricts the excited states in the form of closed loops of $B_p=-1$ sites. It plays a decisive role on the finite-$T$ phase transition, as demonstrated in the previous sections. On the other hand, the role of the global constraints (i) and (ii) is not obvious. In this section, we examine it by studying the model with omitting the global constraints.
Figure \[fig:mc\_loop\](a) shows $T$ dependence of the specific heat divided by $T$ for the model in the absence of the global loops. In the MC simulation, we allow MC update by flipping a single six-site loop as well as the global update along an extended loop. Similar to the result in Fig. \[fig:mc\](b), the specific heat exhibits divergent behavior, although the peak values are slightly smaller than those in Fig. \[fig:mc\](b). The extrapolation of the peak temperature of $C$ to $L\to \infty$ gives an estimate of $T_c = 1.920(2)$, as shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:mc\_loop\](a). The estimate coincides well with that obtained in the inset of Fig. \[fig:mc\](b). Furthermore, we confirm that the scaling of the flux density $\langle \bar{\phi}^2\rangle/L$ also gives the same critical exponents, as in Sec. \[sec:loop-configuration\] (not shown). These results indicate that the global constraints (i) and (ii) are not relevant to the thermodynamics in the present effective model; the finite-$T$ phase transition takes place at the same $T_c$ with the same critical properties.
For further analysis from the viewpoint of the loop topology, let us introduce the parity variable $\eta=\eta_x\eta_y\eta_z$ for loop configurations. Here we define $\eta_l=(-1)^{n_l}$, where $n_l$ ($l=x,y,z$) is the number of extended loops in the $l$ direction. The parity $\eta$ distinguishes topologically different sectors of the loop configurations in the current model where loops are allowed to intersect with each other. In addition, $\eta$ is written by the flux of loops as $\eta=e^{i\pi\bar{\phi}^2}$. Note that $\eta$ is always +1 in the presence of the global constraints.
Figure \[fig:mc\_loop\](b) shows the numerical result for $T$ dependence of ${\left<\eta\right>}$. At high $T$, loop configurations with odd and even parity appear in the same weight, and hence, ${\left<\eta\right>}$ vanishes. On the other hand, below $T_c$, there are only short loops in the system as presented in Sec. \[sec:loop-configuration\], and hence, ${\left<\eta\right>}$ takes $+1$. In the vicinity of $T_c$, ${\left<\eta\right>}$ changes rapidly and the slope at $T_c$ increases with increasing the system size. The result implies that ${\left<\eta\right>}$ changes discontinuously from 0 to 1 at $T_c$ in the thermodynamic limit. Thus, this quantity appears to work as an order parameter for this phase transition, although the discontinuous jump looks incompatible with the continuous transition. As shown in Appendix \[sec:2d-loop-model\], however, the similar parity variable in a loop model on the 2D square lattice is indeed analytically shown to be a step function $\theta(\tilde{T}_c-T)$ in the thermodynamic limit, where $\tilde{T}_c$ is the critical temperature in the 2D loop model, though the transition is continuous in the Ising universality class.
Finally, we discuss a correspondence between our model and the Ising model. [@Kamiya_pc] If the global constraints (i) and (ii) are omitted, the effective loop model given by Eq. (\[eq:2\]) becomes equivalent to the Ising model with NN interactions on the diamond lattice; by identifying the contributions from loops of length $\ell$ with the $\ell$-th order terms in the high-$T$ series expansion of the Ising model on the diamond lattice, the partition function of the loop model, $Z(\beta)$, is associated with that of the Ising model on a diamond lattice, $Z_{\rm Ising}(\beta)$, as $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\rm Ising}(\beta)=2^{N_d}(e^{\beta}\cosh\beta)^{zN_d/2} Z\Big{(}-\frac12 \ln \tanh\beta\Big{)},\label{eq:3}\end{aligned}$$ where $z=4$ is the coordination number of the diamond lattice. From this relation, we obtain the critical temperature for the present loop model as $$\begin{aligned}
T_c = -\Bigl[\frac{1}{2}\ln\tanh
\Big{(}\frac{1}{T_c'}\Big{)} \Bigr]^{-1},
\label{eq:7}\end{aligned}$$ where $T_c'$ is the critical temperature of the Ising model on the diamond lattice. Using this relation and the previous result $T_c' = 2.7042(2)$, [@Essam1963; @Gaunt1973] we obtain $T_c = 1.9249(2)$. This value is consistent with our results for the effective model with and without global constraints. In addition, as discussed above, the critical exponent $\nu$ obtained from the scaling analysis of the flux density is also consistent with that of the 3D Ising universality class. These results confirm the validity of our characterization of the phase transition, although the correspondence to the Ising model is ensured only in the absence of the global constraints. The correspondence between the $Z_2$ spin liquid in a 3D toric code model and the 3D Ising model was also discussed in Ref. .
We note, however, that this correspondence does not describe the critical exponent of magnetic susceptibility $\chi^{zz}$ correctly. This is reasonable because $\chi^{zz}$ of the current 3D Kitaev model is defined through the correlation function of PS operators $\tau_m^z$, which does not show long-range ordering below $T_c$, in contrast to Ising spins in the 3D Ising model. To obtain the correct critical behavior of $\chi^{zz}$, we need the explicit calculations in terms of $\tau_m^z$, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:magn-susc\].
Concluding remarks {#sec:concluding-remarks}
==================
To summarize, we have investigated thermodynamic properties of the 3D Kitaev model on the hyperhoneycomb lattice. Focusing on the anisotropic case, in which the ground state is exactly shown to be a gapped QSL, we have studied the finite-$T$ properties in the anisotropic limit by MC simulation. We have found a phase transition between QSL and paramagnetic phase at a finite $T$. We have characterized the phase transition by the flux density of loop excitations, which is nonzero in the high-$T$ paramagnet and zero in the low-$T$ QSL. As a result, the transition turns out to be second order and belongs to the 3D Ising universality class. The local constraints in the Ising-type variables play an essential role in the occurrence of the phase transition at a finite $T$.
We have also obtained the static magnetic susceptibility and dynamical spin correlation function. The magnetic susceptibility obeys the Curie law at high $T$, while it shows Van Vleck-type constant behavior at low $T$ after showing a hump above the critical temperature $T_c$. At $T_c$, the magnetic susceptibility is continuous, but its $T$ derivative shows divergence. The dynamical spin correlation is momentum independent but shows quantized peaks as a function of excitation energy. The peak at the highest energy rapidly increases near $T_c$ as decreasing $T$, while some of other components exhibit humps before decreasing near $T_c$. These findings provide a new insight into the thermodynamics of QSLs and will stimulate further studies of the new state of matter.
Finally, we make some remarks including the relation to real materials. In our finding of the stable QSL at finite $T$, the constraints that restrict the excitations in the form of closed loops play an essential role. While our study has been limited for the gapped QSL in the limit of strong anisotropy, a finite-$T$ transition might also be seen widely, even in the gapless QSL region, as similar constraints are imposed in the entire parameter region in the current 3D Kitaev model. Such extension for generic parameters including the isotropic case with $J_x=J_y=J_z$ will be reported elsewhere. Meanwhile, the model possibly provides the simplest reference to a recently-found hyperhoneycomb compound $\beta$-Li$_2$IrO$_3$. [@Takagi_pc] Our numerically-exact results will give a firm ground for understanding of the thermodynamic properties of the compound.
[*Note added*]{}: In the completion of our study, we received two preprints on a closely related topic, one of which was published during the editorial process. [@Lee2014; @Kimchi1309]
The authors thank Y. Kamiya and K. Hukushima for helpful discussions. They are also grateful to H. Takagi for the information on the experiments. One of the authors (J.N.) acknowledges the financial support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. This research was supported by KAKENHI (No. 24340076 and No. 24740221), the Strategic Programs for Innovative Research (SPIRE), MEXT, and the Computational Materials Science Initiative (CMSI), Japan. Parts of the numerical calculations are performed in the supercomputing systems in ISSP, the University of Tokyo.
Derivation of Van Vleck-type paramagnetism {#sec:derivation-van-vleck}
==========================================
In this appendix, we evaluate the value of the magnetic susceptibility in Eq. (\[eq:chi\^zz\_Q\]) in the limit of $T\rightarrow 0$. The susceptibility is rewritten into $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{zz}=\sum_{\cal Q}{\langleP({\cal Q})\rangle}f({\cal Q}),\label{eq:12}\end{aligned}$$ where $P({\cal Q})=\sum_m p_m({\cal Q})/N_d$ and $p_m({\cal Q})$ is the probability such that ${\cal Q}_m$ is equal to ${\cal Q}$; $f({\cal Q})$ is given in Eq. (\[eq:fQ\]). By definition, $\sum_{\cal Q}P({\cal Q})=1$ is satisfied. In the low-$T$ limit, the canonical average ${\langle\cal O\rangle}$ can be expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle{\cal O}\rangle}={\langle{\cal O}\rangle}_0+D_1 ({\langle{\cal O}\rangle}_1-{\langle{\cal O}\rangle}_0)e^{-\beta \Delta E_1}+\cdots,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\langle{\cal O}\rangle}_0$ and ${\langle{\cal O}\rangle}_1$ are the microcanonical averages in the ground state and the first excited state, respectively. Here, we assume that the ground state is not degenerate. $D_1$ is the number of states in the first excited state and $\Delta E_1$ is the energy difference between the ground state and the first excited state. In the present case, $D_1=6L^3$ and $\Delta E_1=16$ because the first excited state is given by an eight-site loop formed by $B_p=-1$ sites, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:magn-susc\]. Then, the susceptibility in the low-$T$ limit is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{zz}&=\sum_{\cal Q}f({\cal Q})[{\langleP({\cal Q})\rangle}_0\nonumber\\
&\ \ +6L^3\{{\langleP({\cal Q})\rangle}_1-{\langleP({\cal Q})\rangle}_0\}e^{-16\beta} +\cdots].\end{aligned}$$ Since the ground state is the state where all $B_p$ are $+1$, the microcanonical average ${\langleP({\cal Q})\rangle}_0$ is $\delta_{{\cal Q},8}$. In addition, for negative ${\cal Q}$, $f({\cal Q})$ diverges as $\frac{-1}{2{\cal Q}}e^{-2\beta{\cal Q}}$ in the low-$T$ limit. Because $f({\cal Q}=-8)$ exhibits the strongest divergence, the value of $\chi^{zz}$ in the limit of $T\rightarrow 0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_0&= \lim_{T\to 0} \chi^{zz}(T)\nonumber\\
&=f({\cal Q}=8)+6L^3{\langleP({\cal Q}=-8)\rangle}_1 f({\cal Q}=-8)e^{-16\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ As the divergence of $f({\cal Q}=-8)$ cancels with $e^{-16\beta}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_0=\frac{1}{16}+\frac{1}{16}6L^3 {\langleP({\cal Q}=-8)\rangle}_1.
\label{eq:chi0_final}\end{aligned}$$
The value of ${\langleP({\cal Q}=-8)\rangle}_1$ is evaluated as follows. There are six kinds of eight-site loops in the pyrochlore lattice. Among them, the two kinds of loops shown in Fig. \[fig:eight\_loop\] contribute to the susceptibility. A set of these two kinds of loops is written as ${\cal L}_{\chi}$. Since the present system has a translational symmetry, ${\langleP({\cal Q}=-8)\rangle}_1$ is equivalent to ${\langlep_m({\cal Q}=-8)\rangle}_1$ for a certain $m$. The probability of finding ${\cal L}_{\chi}$ in all eight-site loops is $(2L^3)/(6L^3)=1/3$, and the eight-site loop given by ${\cal Q}_m=-8$ is one of the eight-site loops in ${\cal L}_{\chi}$, the number of which is $(2L^3)$. Thus, ${\langlep_m({\cal Q}=-8)\rangle}_1$ is evaluated as $(1/3)/(2L^3)$. Then, the Van Vleck-type component of the susceptibility in Eq. (\[eq:chi0\_final\]) is evaluated as $\chi_0=1/8$. This asymptotic value is indeed observed in our MC simulation, as shown in Fig. \[fig:suscep\](a).
There is another way to calculate the contribution at ${\cal Q}=-8$ in Eq. (\[eq:12\]). From Eq. (\[eq:f-d\_theorem\_1\]), the imaginary part of the dynamical susceptibility is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{{\rm Im}\chi^{zz}(\omega)}{\omega}=\sum_{\cal Q}f(Q){\langleP({\cal Q})\rangle}\delta(\omega-2{\cal Q}),\end{aligned}$$ where we use the relation $g({\cal Q})/(2\pi)={\langleP({\cal Q})\rangle}$ which is obtained from the Kramers-Kronig relation for $\chi^{zz}$ given in Eq. (\[eq:12\]). Since the imaginary part of the susceptibility is an odd function for $\omega$, $f({\cal Q}=-8){\langleP({\cal Q}=-8)\rangle}=f({\cal Q}=8){\langleP({\cal Q}=8)\rangle}=1/16$ is satisfied in the limit of $T\rightarrow 0$.
2D loop model {#sec:2d-loop-model}
=============
![(Color online) Spin configurations of the Ising model on the square lattice with (a) periodic-periodic and (b) antiperiodic-periodic boundary conditions. The system size is $6 \times 6$, and the leftmost (bottom) sites are equivalent to the rightmost (top) sites. Filled and open circles represent up- and down-spin states, respectively. Loop configurations corresponding to each spin configuration are represented by thick red lines. The parity $\tilde{\eta}_x$ takes different values corresponding to different boundary conditions in the $x$ direction. []{data-label="fig:ising"}](ising.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
In this appendix, we derive $T$ dependence of the loop parity in a loop model defined on the 2D square lattice. In this model, the energy is given by the sum of the loop lengths and loops can intersect with each other in the same manner of the 3D loop model discussed in the main text. Since loops are regarded as domain walls in the Ising model as schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:ising\], the partition function of the 2D loop model is calculated from that of the Ising model on the square lattice. For the 2D loop model, we introduce the parity variable $\tilde{\eta}=\tilde{\eta}_x\tilde{\eta}_y$, where $\tilde{\eta}_x$ $(\tilde{\eta}_y)$ is the parity of the number of loops which intersect with the $x$ $(y)$ axis: $\tilde{\eta}$ is the parity of the number of extended loops. In terms of the Ising model, $\tilde{\eta}_l$ represents the parity defined by the number of domain walls along the $l$ direction. This parity is determined by the boundary condition; the even parity $\tilde{\eta}_l=+1$ is realized in the periodic boundary condition and the odd parity $\tilde{\eta}_l=-1$ is realized in the antiperiodic boundary condition (see Fig. \[fig:ising\]). Therefore, the thermal average of $\tilde{\eta}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\left<\tilde{\eta}\right>}=\frac{Z_{\rm pp}+Z_{\rm aa}-Z_{\rm pa}-Z_{\rm ap}}{Z_{\rm pp}+Z_{\rm aa}+Z_{\rm pa}+Z_{\rm ap}},\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_{\rm pp}$, $Z_{\rm aa}$, $Z_{\rm pa}$, and $Z_{\rm ap}$ are the partition functions of the Ising model on the $L\times L$ square lattice with the periodic-periodic, antiperiodic-antiperiodic, periodic-antiperiodic, and antiperiodic-periodic boundary conditions, respectively. These partition functions are given by [@Kastening2002; @Wu2002] $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\rm pp}&=\frac{1}{2}[C_o+S_o+C_e-S_e'{\rm sgn}(1-\sinh\beta)],\\
Z_{\rm aa}&=\frac{1}{2}[-C_o+S_o+C_e+S_e'{\rm sgn}(1-\sinh\beta)],\\
Z_{\rm pa}&=\frac{1}{2}[C_o-S_o+C_e+S_e'{\rm sgn}(1-\sinh\beta)],\\
Z_{\rm ap}&=\frac{1}{2}[C_o+S_o-C_e+S_e'{\rm sgn}(1-\sinh\beta)],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\ln C_o&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{p=0}^{L-1}\sum_{q=0}^{L-1}\ln\Biggl[\cosh^2\beta
\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ \
-\sinh\beta \left(
\cos\frac{(2p+1)\pi}{L}
+\cos\frac{(2q+1)\pi}{L}
\right)\Biggr],\\
\ln S_o&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{p=0}^{L-1}\sum_{q=0}^{L-1}\ln\Biggl[\cosh^2\beta
\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ \
-\sinh\beta \left(
\cos\frac{2p\pi}{L}
+\cos\frac{(2q+1)\pi}{L}
\right)\Biggr],\\
\ln C_e&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{p=0}^{L-1}\sum_{q=0}^{L-1}\ln\Biggl[\cosh^2\beta
\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ \
-\sinh\beta \left(
\cos\frac{(2p+1)\pi}{L}
+\cos\frac{2q\pi}{L}
\right)\Biggr],\\
\ln S'_e&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{p=0}^{L-1}\sum_{q=0}^{L-1}\ln\Biggl[\cosh^2\beta
\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ \
-\sinh\beta \left(
\cos\frac{2p\pi}{L}
+\cos\frac{2q\pi}{L}
\right)\Biggr].\end{aligned}$$ Here, the exchange constant of Ising model is chosen to be unity. In the thermodynamic limit, since $C_o=S_o=C_e=S_e'$ is satisfied, ${\left<\tilde{\eta}\right>}$ is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
{\left<\tilde{\eta}\right>}&=\frac{S_o+C_e-C_o-S'_e {\rm sgn}(1-\sinh\beta)}{S_o+C_e+C_o+S'_e {\rm sgn}(1-\sinh\beta)}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1-{\rm sgn}(T-\tilde{T}_c)}{3+{\rm sgn}(T-\tilde{T}_c)}=\theta(\tilde{T}_c-T),\label{eq:6}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ is a step function and $\tilde{T}_c$ is the critical temperature of the 2D Ising model determined by $\sinh(1/\tilde{T}_c)=1$. [@Kastening2002; @Wu2002] This result indicates that $\tilde{\eta}$ is $1$ ($0$) for $T<\tilde{T}_c$ ($T>\tilde{T}_c$), and exhibits a discontinuous change at $\tilde{T}_c$. Although the phase transition in this system is a continuous transition, the parameter ${\langle\tilde{\eta}\rangle}$ is discontinuous at $T_c$ and does not show the $T$ dependence except for $T_c$. This behavior originates from the fact that $\tilde{\eta}$ cannot be written by a local quantity but describes the topology of loops in the system. Our result indicates that a topological aspect of the second-order phase transition is characterized by a discontinuous variable $\tilde{\eta}$.
[99]{} L. Balents, .
Y. Shimizu, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, M. Maesato, and G. Saito, .
S. Nakatsuji, Y. Nambu, H. Tonomura, O. Sakai, S. Jonas, C. Broholm, H. Tsunetsugu, Y. Qiu, and Y. Maeno, .
J. S. Helton, K. Matan, M. P. Shores, E. A. Nytko, B. M. Bartlett, Y. Yoshida, Y. Takano, A. Suslov, Y. Qiu, J.-H. Chung, D. G. Nocera, and Y. S. Lee, .
Y. Okamoto, M. Nohara, H. Aruga-Katori, and H. Takagi, .
M. Yamashita, N. Nakata, Y. Senshu, M. Nagata, H. M. Yamamoto, R. Kato, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, .
D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson, .
R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, .
A. Kitaev, .
H. Morita, S. Watanabe, M. Imada, .
S. Yan, D. A. Huse, and S. R. White, .
H.-C. Jiang, H. Yao, and L. Balents, .
X. G. Wen, [*Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Systems*]{}, (Oxford, New York, 2004).
G. Baskaran, S. Mandal, and R. Shankar, .
A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, .
C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, .
Z. Nussinov and G. Ortiz, .
C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, .
S. Iblisdir, D. Pérez-Garciá, M. Aguado, and J. Pachos, .
S. Iblisdir, D. Pérez-García, M. Aguado, and J. Pachos, .
S. Mandal and N. Surendran, .
S. Mandal and N. Surendran, arXiv:1101.3718.
F. G. Wang and D. P. Landau, .
J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moessner, arXiv:1308.4336.
F. Alet, G. Misguich, V. Pasquier, R. Moessner, and J. L. Jacobsen, .
Y. Kamiya, private communication.
J. W. Essam and M. F. Sykes, .
D. S. Gaunt and M. F. Sykes, .
H. Takagi, private communication.
G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, .
E. K.-H. Lee, R. Schaffer, S. Bhattacharjee, and Y. B. Kim, .
I. Kimchi, J. G. Analytis, A. Vishwanath, arXiv:1309.1171.
B. Kastening, .
M. Wu and C. Hu, .
[^1]: Each eigenstate labeled by the values of $B_p$ is eight-fold degenerate, but the degeneracy trivially gives a constant shift for the free energy. [@Mandal2011] Hence, we ignore this degeneracy in the following analysis.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Ion-exchange is commonly used to chemically strengthen glasses, by replacing small atoms by larger ones at sub T$_g$ temperature, thereby inducing a compressive stress. However, the resulting expansion of the glass remains lower than that predicted by the difference of molar volumes of the as-cooled glasses, an anomaly that remains poorly understood. Here, based on molecular dynamcis simulations of permanently densified sodium silicate glasses coupled with topological constraint theory, we show that the rigidity of the network controls the extent of the dilatation. Isostatic networks, which are rigid but free of eigenstress, show maximal expansion and, therefore, appear to be an attractive option to improve the toughness of glass.'
author:
- Mengyi Wang
- Mathieu Bauchy
title: 'Ion-Exchange Strengthening of Glasses: Atomic Topology Matters'
---
Problem definition: the need for ultra-strong glasses
=====================================================
Due to their non-crystallinity, glasses show unique properties in terms of optical, electronic and mechanical properties [@varshneya_fundamentals_1993]. In particular, the transparency of usual silicate glasses is at the root of life changing applications like optical fibers or smartphones. However, even after decades of intensive research, glasses still break rather easily (smartphone drops often remain fatal) [@wang_intrinsic_2015; @wang_nano-ductility_2015; @yu_fracture_2015]. Their brittleness seriously limit the range of applications, which has been identified as a grand challenge for glasses [@mauro_two_2014; @mauro_grand_2014].
Over the last decade, driven by the need for stronger screens for smartphones and tablets, the chemical strengthening of glasses through ion-exchange [@krohn_strengthening_1969; @cooper_strengthening_1969] has emerged as the easiest and cheapest solution to this problem. The most famous example is probably Corning$^\circledR$ Gorilla$^\circledR$ Glass [@wray_gorilla_2013; @welch_dynamics_2013]. This process involves the replacement of smaller ions (typically Na$^+$) by larger ones (typically K$^+$) at the surface of the glass, which is usually achieved by placing the glass in a salt bath (typically KNO$_3$) at a temperature below glass transition [@wondraczek_towards_2011]. This induces a compressive stress over tens of micrometers of the surface, which limits the risk of cracks propagating from surface flaws when subjected to tension. If potential stress relaxation is neglected, the compressive stress profile obtained by ion-exchange follows:
$$\label{eq:stress}
\sigma = - \frac{B E}{1 - \nu} \left( C(z) - C_{\rm avg}\right)$$
when $B$ is given by:
$$\label{eq:cooper}
B = \frac{1}{3} \frac{1}{V} \frac{\partial V}{\partial C}$$
where $E$ is the Young’s modulus, $\nu$ is the Poisson’s ratio, $C(z)$ is the local concentration of substituted cation at a depth $z$ from the surface, $C_{\rm avg}$ is the average of such concentration over the whole range $z$-axis, and $B$ is the linear network dilation coefficient, also known as the Cooper coefficient, in honor of Prof. Alfred R. Cooper [@tandia_atomistic_2012]. The linear network dilation coefficient was defined in analogy to the thermal expansion coefficient with respect to the relative change of the molar volume $V$ of the glass. Despite a large amount of empirical knowledge, the fact that $B$ is typically lower than the value $B_{\rm max}$ that would be expected from the density difference between the as-cooled alkali silicate glasses (e.g., between sodium and potassium silicate) remains poorly understood [@varshneya_chemical_2010]. This is a serious limitation, as higher values of $B$ would permit higher surface compressive stresses. This project specifically aims to better understand the role of the rigidity of the atomic network of silicate glasses on the relative amount of strengthening due to ion-exchange.
![\[fig:snap\] Snapshot of the atomic structure of a sodium silicate glass cooled under zero pressure. Si, O, and Na atoms are represented in yellow, red, and blue, respectively. ](snap.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Method: molecular dynamics coupled with topological constraints analysis
========================================================================
As accessing an atomistic picture of the effect of ion-exchange by conventional experimental techniques would be challenging, we rely on classical molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Such simulations are analyzed within the framework of topological constraints theory (TCT) to characterize the rigidity of the network. TCT considers the complex atomic networks of glasses analogous to simple mechanical trusses while filtering out the chemical details that ultimately do not affect macroscopic properties [@mauro_topological_2011; @bauchy_topological_2012]. The atoms undergo some mechanical constraints arising from chemical interactions, which can be divided into two types: the 2-body radial bond-stretching constraints and the 3-body angular bond-bending constraints. Following Maxwell’s criterion of stability for mechanical trusses [@maxwell_l._1864], glassy networks can either be flexible, stressed-rigid, or isostatic, when the number of constraints per atom, $n_{\rm c}$, is lower, higher, or equal, respectively, to 3, the number of degrees of freedom per atom.
To elucidate the influence of atomic rigidity on ion-exchange, sodium silicate glasses (Na$_2$O)$_{30}$(SiO$_2$)$_{70}$ (noted NS hereafter, 3000 atoms, see Fig. \[fig:snap\]) cooled under constant pressure $P$ are prepared by MD, followed by relaxation to zero pressure at room temperature, but remaining permanently densified [@bauchy_viscosity_2013; @bauchy_structural_2012; @bauchy_pockets_2011]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:nc\], these glasses have been reported to show a rigidity transition with respect to $P$: flexible at low $P$ and stressed-rigid at high $P$ due to the change of the coordination number of Si and O atoms. This effectively delimits an isostatic pressure window around 8 GPa, inside which NS shows a reversible glass transition [@bauchy_densified_2015; @bauchy_transport_2013; @micoulaut_topological_2015; @bauchy_percolative_2013; @micoulaut_anomalies_2013]. Typically, glasses show rigidity transitions according to composition, but a change of composition (e.g., the fraction of Na, or a replacement of Si by Al atoms) would affect alkali atoms and therefore ion-exchange strengthening, which would not allow us to identify the effect of network topology *only*.
![\[fig:nc\] Number of constraints per atom $n_{\rm c}$, for permanently densified sodium silicate glasses, with respect to the pressure applied during the cooling phase. The grey area indicates the domain of maximum expansion due to ion-exchange. ](nc_NS2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Results: computed ion-exchange compressive stress
=================================================
Taking the permanently densified NS systems as host glasses, we simulate the effect of ion-exchange by manually replacing a given fraction of Na$^+$ by K$^+$, following a methodology already well-established [@tandia_atomistic_2012; @vargheese_molecular_2014]. After ion-exchange, the glass is relaxed at zero pressure in order to compute the resulting increase of volume. All the processes are performed at 300K in order to avoid stress relaxation [@sane_stress_1987].
Fig. \[fig:Vm\] shows the computed molar volume of ion-exchanged sodium silicate (cooled under zero pressure) with respect to the fraction of Na$^+$ replaced by K$^+$ ions. As suggested by Eq. \[eq:stress\], the molar volume of the ion-exchanged glasses increases fairly linearly with the fraction of substituted cations. We note that, similar to what is observed in alkali aluminosilicate glasses [@vargheese_molecular_2014], once all Na$^+$ have been replaced by K$^+$ ions, the molar volume of the ion-exchanged glass remains lower than that of the as-cooled potassium silicate glass (noted KS hereafter). This has been attributed to the fact that the ion-exchanged system is a *forbidden glass* [@mauro_forbidden_2009] in which K atoms have a different coordination number than that in KS glass [@tandia_atomistic_2012]. However, we observe that the molar volume of ion-exchanged NS glasses reaches 97% of that of as-cooled KS glass, whereas, using the same methodology, the molar volume of ion-exchanged (Na$_2$O)$_{20}$(Al$_2$O$_3$)$_{20}$(SiO$_2$)$_{60}$ glass reaches only 94% of that of the corresponding as-cooled potassium aluminosilicate glass [@vargheese_molecular_2014]. This highlights the fact that network formers atoms and, more generally, the rigidity of the network influence the extent of volume expansion induced by ion-exchange.
Following this idea, we perform the same analysis on permanently densified NS glass with different degrees of rigidity (see Fig. \[fig:nc\]) by replacing 100% of Na$^+$ by K$^+$ in each case, and monitoring the resulting increase of molar volume. Fig. \[fig:B\] shows the Cooper coefficient $B$, as calculated from Eq. \[eq:cooper\], with respect to the number of constraints per atom $n_{\rm c}$ before ion-exchange in the host NS glasses. Interestingly, $B$ shows a broad maximum within $n_{\rm c}$ = 3-3.4, which corresponds to a window of pressure during cooling of 8-16 GPa. This pressure window features a maximum of diffusion in the super-cooled liquid state [@bauchy_transport_2013] and has been shown to be characterized by an isostatic network [@bauchy_densified_2015]. We note that, in the pressure window, the Cooper coefficient reaches its theoretical maximum value, as obtained by the difference of molar volume between the as-cooled NS and KS glasses, which remains fairly constant with different cooling pressures.
![\[fig:Vm\] Molar volume of a sodium silicate glass, cooled under zero pressure, after replacement of a given fraction of Na$^+$ by K$^+$ ions. The red (blue) dashed line indicates the molar volume of as-cooled sodium (potassium) silicate. ](zeroP.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![\[fig:B\] Cooper (linear network dilation) coefficient $B$ after substitution of all Na$^+$ by K$^+$ ions, with respect to the number of constraints per atom $n_{\rm c}$. The grey area indicates the domain of maximum expansion due to ion-exchange. The blue dashed line indicates $B_{\rm max}$, as obtained from the molar volume of as-cooled sodium and potassium silicate. The black dashed line serves as a guide for the eye. ](B.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Discussion: competition between rigidity and stress
===================================================
Question remains about the origin of this maximum in the isostatic phase. We propose the following atomistic picture (as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:springs\]). (1) Flexible networks feature internal modes of deformation, or floppy modes [@jacobs_generic_1995], which allow for local deformations with low energy barriers. The stress imposed by the stuffing of larger atoms can therefore be partially absorbed by local reorganizations of the network. (2) On the contrary, stressed-rigid networks are completely locked and cannot easily deform. Hence, rather than showing a global expansion, the induced stress is distributed as eigenstress [@wang_pressure_2005] within the network where some of the bonds are stretched and some others are compressed, as shown in Fig. \[fig:springs\]. (3) Eventually, isostatic networks are characterized by a percolation of rigidity [@jacobs_generic_1995] so that the displacement of one atom should affect the entire network, but are free of eigenstress. Consequently, they feature the largest expansion upon ion-exchange. All together, this suggests that a better tuning of the rigidity of the host glass would allow us to reach higher compressive stress and, therefore, to design stronger glasses.
{width="\linewidth"}
Future work
===========
For further research, we will try to find the structural signature of isostatic glasses to understand why they strengthen in an optimal way. This structural signature could be used as a metrics to quickly identify optimal compositions, e.g., from diffraction patterns. Although pure sodium silicate glass offers a simple starting point for us to better understand the underlying physics of ion-exchange, such a study will be extended to more realistic compositions of glass, e.g., modified aluminosilicate glasses. However, the rigidity of such glasses, so far unknown, will have to be evaluated first. Also, we keep in mind that higher surface compressive stress could also be compensated by higher stress relaxation. Although such relaxations are challenging to study directly via MD, they can potentially be predicted by accelerated relaxation techniques [@yu_stretched_2015]. This option will be evaluated in the future.
The authors acknowledge financial support for this research provisioned by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Access to computational resources was provisioned by the Physics of AmoRphous and Inorganic Solids Laboratory (PARISlab).
[30]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, **
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ().
, , , , in ** (),
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, **** ().
, ****, ().
, , , in **, edited by , , , (, ), no. in ,
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , **** ().
, , , , , , ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present *Stamp-it*, a new, concurrent, lock-less memory reclamation scheme with amortized, constant-time (thread-count independent) reclamation overhead. Stamp-it has been implemented and proved correct in the C++ memory model using as weak memory-consistency assumptions as possible. We have likewise (re)implemented six other comparable reclamation schemes. We give a detailed performance comparison, showing that Stamp-it performs favorably (sometimes better, at least as good as) than most of these other schemes while being able to reclaim free memory nodes earlier.'
author:
- |
Manuel Pöter\
TU Wien, Faculty of Informatics\
Vienna, Austria\
[[email protected]]([email protected])
- |
Jesper Larsson Träff\
TU Wien, Faculty of Informatics\
Vienna, Austria\
[[email protected]]([email protected])
bibliography:
- 'stampit.bib'
title: 'Stamp-it: A more Thread-efficient, Concurrent Memory Reclamation Scheme in the C++ Memory Model'
---
Introduction
============
Efficient, dynamic memory management is at the heart of many sequential and parallel algorithms, consisting in the allocation of pieces of memory and the subsequent, *safe* reclamation of these pieces when they are no longer in use. In parallel and concurrent, lock- and wait-free algorithms, the reclamation step is highly non-trivial since more than one *thread* may be referencing and using an allocated piece of memory unbeknownst to other threads: It cannot be given back to the system or thread-local heap before it has been ascertained that no threads will possibly access any data in this memory anymore.
There has been a substantial amount of work on memory reclamation for concurrent algorithms, see, [e.g., ]{} [@Alistarh:2014:StackTrack; @Alistarh:2015:TAS:2755573.2755600; @Balmau:2016:FRM:2935764.2935790; @Braginsky:2013:Drop; @Brown:2015:RML:2767386.2767436; @Cohen:2015:AMR:2814270.2814298; @Cohen:2015:EMM:2755573.2755579; @DiceHerlihyKogan16; @Gidenstam:2009; @Herlihy:2002:ROP; @RamalheteC17; @Michael:HazardPointers; @Hart:2007:PMR:1316099.1316427; @Detlefs01lock-freereference; @Sundell:2005; @WenIzraelevitz18]. All of these schemes have their merits and (performance) issues. One drawback shared by them all, except for reference counting schemes, is that they need to scan references from *all threads* in order to reclaim possibly no longer referenced memory pieces. A main motivation of this work is to overcome this bound.
Our contribution is a new lock-less reclamation scheme, called *Stamp-it*, which is compared qualitatively and experimentally to six well-known and, depending on circumstances, well performing current schemes. Reclamation in Stamp-it is done in *amortized constant time per reclaimed memory block*; no references are scanned unless they can be reclaimed. All tested schemes have been (re)implemented in C++; full source code is available at <http://github.com/mpoeter/emr>. The experimental evaluation is done on four architecturally different systems with large numbers of hardware supported threads, ranging from 48 up to 512. We use standard benchmarks, as well as a new benchmark designed to study memory consumption by reclaimable but unreclaimed memory. On these benchmarks and machines, Stamp-it compares favorably to and in many cases and aspects significantly outperforms the competing schemes.
In the following, a contiguous piece of memory allocated from the system heap for use in a concurrent algorithm and possibly shared between threads is called a *node*. We do not deal with memory management (allocation and deallocation of nodes) here. Nodes may store additional meta-information that is not visible to the application, and we mention where such is required. We are interested in *general purpose* reclamation schemes that allow eventually reclaimed nodes to be freely reused at a later time, regardless of how and in which data structure the allocated nodes were used. Not all reclamation schemes have this property, [e.g., ]{} [@Valois:Phd; @Sundell:2005] do not allow general reuse of reclaimed nodes, [@Braginsky:2013:Drop; @Gidenstam:2009] have to be tailored to the application data structure and [@Cohen:2015:EMM:2755573.2755579; @Cohen:2015:AMR:2814270.2814298] require the data structure to be in a special, normalized form. A general purpose scheme should be *non-intrusive*, requiring no or little changes in the application code. A way of achieving this is to rely on a standard interface as proposed for C++ [@Robison:2013]. A reclamation scheme should be fast, both in use and maintenance of references to shared nodes, as well as in the actual reclamation. It should require little memory overhead, avoid typical performance issues like *false sharing* and should not prevent applications using commonly found patterns in lock-free programming like borrowing some bits from a pointer. Reclaimability of nodes should be detected fast to reduce unnecessary memory consumption. Robustness against crashes, and bounds on the amount of memory blocked by crashed threads are desirable but not provided by most schemes. We say that a reclamation scheme is *lock-less*, if, provided that sufficient system memory is available, no thread can block the progress of the application. On the other hand, a scheme is *reclamation-blocking* if a suspended or crashed thread can prevent an unbounded amount of nodes from being reclaimed [@Hart:2007:PMR:1316099.1316427]. With this terminology, Stamp-it is lock-less but reclamation-blocking. Lock-freedom should allow good scalability; wait-freedom would be desirable, but not many schemes actually provide this.
All lock- and wait-free algorithms rely on hardware supported atomic operations. We consider only solutions that use standard atomics like *fetch-and-add* (FAA) and *single-word compare-and-swap* (CAS). Solutions requiring non-standard double-word compare-and-swap (as in, [e.g., ]{} [@Detlefs01lock-freereference]) will either be non-portable or require expensive emulations. We also rule out solutions that have to be tailored to specific data structures like [@Braginsky:2013:Drop; @Gidenstam:2009], or require hardware or operating system specific features like transactional memory, [e.g., ]{} [@Alistarh:2014:StackTrack] or POSIX signals, [e.g., ]{} [@Alistarh:2015:TAS:2755573.2755600; @Brown:2015:RML:2767386.2767436]. The aim was to design a portable, fully C++ standard conform and platform independent implementation. Our implementation is mature beyond a simple proof of concept, and applicable for real-life applications. It works with *arbitrary numbers of threads* that can be started and stopped arbitrarily.
Based on the above discussion, we have implemented six comparable schemes that make the same assumptions. These are Lock-free Reference Counting (LFRC) [@Valois:Phd], Hazard Pointers (HP) [@Michael:HazardPointers], Quiescent State-based Reclamation (QSR) [@Mckenney98read-copyupdate], Epoch-based Reclamation (ER) [@Fraser:Phd], New Epoch-based Reclamation (NER) [@Hart:2007:PMR:1316099.1316427], and DEBRA [@Brown:2015:RML:2767386.2767436]. Interval-based Reclamation (IR) would fit among these, but is too recent to be considered [@WenIzraelevitz18]. Hart et al. [@Hart:2007:PMR:1316099.1316427] used a similar selection of schemes in their study, and we wanted to repeat their experiments with our own implementations on different platforms and at a larger scale. Common to all implementations, including Stamp-it, is that we rely on the C++ memory model and can argue that our implementations are correct in this model. We try to use as weak consistency assumptions as possible.
In the remainder of this report we first illustrate how a reclamation scheme for C++ can be used in lock-free algorithms and data structures with the C++ interface that we support [@Robison:2013]. In Section \[sec:stampit\] we describe our new reclamation scheme Stamp-it and argue for correctness and amortized complexity. An experimental comparison between Stamp-it and the other six schemes is given in Section \[sec:experiments\]. More results can be found in the appendix, a previous technical report [@Traff17:reclamationcorr; @Traff18:reclamation] and in [@Poeter18] which is the basis for this work.
C++ Memory Reclamation Interface {#sec:interface}
================================
Before presenting the reclamation schemes, we illustrate how memory reclamation can be done in actual applications using an interface proposed for C++ by Robison [@Robison:2013]. This proposal defines an abstract interface and allows many different reclamation schemes to be implemented and used. The interface defines the following fundamental pointer abstractions:
- A |marked\_ptr| allows one or more low-order bits to be borrowed. Many lock-free algorithms rely on such mark tricks, [e.g., ]{} [@Harris:2001:PIN:645958.676105; @Boehm:2004:ANS:1011767.1011774; @SundellTsigas:2008]. The |get| method returns the raw pointer (without the mark bits), and the |mark| method returns the value of the mark bits.
- A |concurrent\_ptr| acts like an atomic |marked\_ptr|, [i.e., ]{}it supports atomic operations.
- A |guard\_ptr| is an object that can atomically take a snapshot of the value of a |concurrent\_ptr| and guarantee that the target will not be deleted as long as the |guard\_ptr| holds a pointer to it.
It is important to note that only |guard\_ptr| references protect against deletion of a node. In effect, a |concurrent\_ptr| is a “weak” pointer and a |guard\_ptr| is a “shared ownership” pointer.
To obtain a snapshot from a |concurrent\_ptr| and populate a |guard\_ptr|, |acquire| and |acquire\_if\_equal| methods can be used. In wait-free algorithms, |acquire| may be problematic with some schemes like Hazard Pointers, or even LFRC, because it may have to loop indefinitely. For such cases, |acquire\_if\_equal| can be used as it simply stops trying if the value in the pointer does not match an expected value, and reports whether it was successful or not.
Releasing a |guard\_ptr| follows the standard smart pointer interface. For a |guard\_ptr| instance |g|, the operation |g.reset| releases ownership and sets |g| to |nullptr|; the |guard\_ptr| destructor implicitly calls |reset|. The |reclaim| method marks the given node to be reclaimed once it is safe to do so and implicitly resets the |guard\_ptr|.
An implementation of the |find| function in Harris’ list-based set [@Harris:2001:PIN:645958.676105] with the improvements proposed by Michael [@Michael:2002:HPD:564870.564881] using this interface is shown in Listing \[lst:list:find\].
template <class Key, class Reclaimer>
bool list<Key, Reclaimer>::find(Key key,
concurrent_ptr*& prev, marked_ptr& next,
guard_ptr& cur, guard_ptr& save) {
retry:
prev = &head;
next = prev->load();
save.reset();
for (;;) {
if (!cur.acquire_if_equal(*prev, next))
goto retry;
if (!cur) return false;
next = cur->next.load();
if (next.mark() != 0) {
next = cur->next.load().get();
marked_ptr expected = cur.get();
if (!prev->compare_exchange_weak(
expected, next)) goto retry;
cur.reclaim();
} else {
if (prev->load() != cur.get()) goto retry;
Key ckey = cur->key;
if (ckey >= key) return ckey == key;
prev = &cur->next;
save = std::move(cur);
}
}
}
We first acquire a |guard\_ptr| to the next node and store it in |cur|, ensuring that we can safely iterate the list. We use the |acquire\_if\_equal| method since we already know the expected value. We then check if |cur|’s |next| pointer has the mark bit set. In that case we try to splice out the node, and mark |cur| for reclamation. Otherwise, we continue to iterate the list. We *move* |cur| into |save|, [i.e., ]{}the previous |guard\_ptr| in |save| (if any) gets reset and replaced with the value from |cur|; and |cur| is reset.
We made a number of small changes and adaptations to Robisons interface proposal [@Robison:2013]. These changes are described in detail in [@Poeter18]. The most important change is the introduction of the |region\_guard| concept, which is required for reclamation schemes like NER, QSR and Stamp-it. In these schemes a |guard\_ptr| can only exist inside a *critical region*, so unless the thread is already inside a critical region the |guard\_ptr| automatically enters one. Entering and leaving critical regions are usually rather expensive operations, and |region\_guard|s allow to amortize this overhead. Any |guard\_ptr| instances created inside the scope of a |region\_guard| can simply use the current critical region and save the overhead of entering a new one. In QSR, the |region\_guard|s are used to reduce the number of *fuzzy barriers*.
Stamp-it Memory Reclamation {#sec:stampit}
===========================
We now introduce our new scheme, *Stamp-it*. It is an *epoch-based scheme* conceptually similar to NER and therefore provides many of the same properties. As in ER/NER, the programmer has to define *critical regions* that are entered and left explicitly. A thread is only allowed to access shared objects inside such regions.
The Stamp-it algorithm maintains thread-local and one global *retire-list* of nodes that can potentially be reclaimed, and relies on an abstract data structure called *Stamp Pool* that efficiently supports the following operations:
1. Add an element and assign a stamp to it (|push|). Stamps have to be strictly increasing, but not necessarily consecutive.
2. Remove a specific element, return |true| if this element was the one with the lowest stamp at that point in time (|remove|).
3. Get the highest stamp assigned to an element so far, [i.e., ]{}the last stamp that has been assigned to an element.
4. Get the lowest stamp of all elements currently in the Stamp Pool.
The algorithm uses the Stamp Pool as follows. Upon entering a critical region the thread adds itself to the pool, and gets a new stamp value. Stamp values are strictly increasing, therefore, defining a total order in which all threads have entered their respective critical region. When a thread retires a node it requests the highest stamp from the Stamp Pool, stores it in the node and appends the node to the end of its local retire-list.
Upon leaving a critical region the thread removes itself from the Stamp Pool. and performs a reclaim operation on the local retire-list. The reclaim operation requests the lowest stamp from the Stamp Pool. It can then safely reclaim all nodes with a smaller stamp value. Since nodes are appended to the end, the elements in the local retire-list are ordered by their stamp values. This makes reclamation very efficient as it always has a runtime linear in the number of nodes that can currently be reclaimed; no time is wasted on nodes that cannot yet be reclaimed. The working of Stamp-it is illustrated in Figure \[fig:stamp-it-concept\].
If the |remove| operation returns |false| and the number of nodes in the local retire-list exceeds some threshold, the thread pushes all remaining entries to the global retire-list as an ordered sublist. If |remove| returns |true|, [i.e., ]{}the thread was the last one, it performs a reclaim operation on the global retire-list. The global retire-list is not ordered and therefore does not provide the same runtime guarantees. However, since it is organized as a list of ordered sublists, each sublist needs to be scanned only up to the node which has a stamp that is larger than or equal to the lowest stamp. Therefore, the resulting total runtime is $O(n+m)$ where $n$ is the total number of reclaimable nodes and $m$ is the number of ordered sublists.
We will argue for the following propositions, and deal with progress properties later:
Stamp-it is *reclamation safe*: A node is reclaimed only when it is referenced by no thread.
Assume that some thread retires (want to reclaim) some node $n$. It fetches the currently highest stamp from the Stamp Pool, stores this stamp value in $n$ and adds $n$ to its local retire-list. Now, $n$ can safely be reclaimed once all threads that were in a critical region at the time $n$ was removed have left their respective critical regions. The lowest stamp in the Stamp Pool is smaller than or equal to the stamp of the last thread, so $n$’s stamp being less than this lowest stamp implies that all threads currently inside critical regions (if any) have entered their respective critical region *after* $n$ was retired, and therefore $n$ can safely be reclaimed (no references).
Stamp-it reclaims any node in amortized constant time in the number of Stamp Pool operations.
Assume that $q$ threads are inside critical regions, when thread $T_1$ is leaving its critical region and thus removing itself from the Stamp Pool. All nodes in $T_1$’s local retire-list can be reclaimed once these $q$ threads have left their critical regions. Thread $T_1$ can possibly add its local retire-list as sublist to the global retire-list, deferring reclamation of its nodes to the *last* thread to leave its critical region. The global retire-list is traversed only when this last thread removes itself from the Stamp Pool. In the worst case, the $q$ threads remove themselves in the same order as they have entered their critical regions, resulting in $q$ traversals of the global retire-list. We can therefore achieve amortized constant time by only adding local retire-lists that hold more than $q$ nodes (threshold); the sublist might be touched up to $q$ times to reclaim at least $q$ nodes.
Maintaining a dynamic counter for $q$ can cause additional overhead. Alternatively, one could use a less volatile counter as upper bound such as the total number of threads, but then the total number of nodes left in local retire-lists would be quadratic in the number of threads and would therefore increase unnecessary memory consumption. For this reason, we use a *static threshold* with an empirical value of 20 in our implementation.
Our implementation of the Stamp Pool is built on the ideas of the lock-free doubly-linked list by Sundell and Tsigas [@SundellTsigas:2008]. It requires two static dummy nodes, |head| and |tail|, which are also used to manage the highest and lowest stamp values; the highest stamp is stored in |head| and the lowest one in |tail|.
(-0.05,1.4) node\[above\][Threads]{} – (-0.05,0) – (1.05,0) node\[below\] [$time$]{};
at (-.22, -0.9) [`head` stamp]{}; at (-.22, -1.25) [`tail` stamp]{}; at (-.22, -1.8) [Thread stamps]{};
(-0.05, 0.4) – (0.95, 0.4) node\[right\] [$T_1$]{}; (0.1, 0.4) – (0.8, 0.4);
(-0.05, 0.8) – (1.0, 0.8) node\[right\] [$T_2$]{}; (0.25, 0.8) – (0.67, 0.8);
(-0.05, 1.2) – (1.0, 1.2) node\[right\] [$T_3$]{}; (0.5, 1.2) – (0.94, 1.2);
at (.02, -0.9) [0]{}; at (.02, -1.25) [0]{};
(0.1, 0.4) – (0.1, -0.2) node\[below\] [$t_1$]{}; (0.1, -0.55) – (0.1, -0.75) node\[right,font=\] [update]{}; at (0.1, -0.9) [1]{}; at (0.1, -1.8) [$s_1$=0\
$s_2$=-\
$s_3$=-]{};
(0.25, 0.8) – (0.25, -0.2) node\[below\] [$t_2$]{}; (0.25, -0.55) – (0.25, -0.75) node\[right,font=\] [update]{}; at (0.25, -0.9) [2]{}; at (0.25, -1.8) [$s_1$=0\
$s_2$=1\
$s_3$=-]{};
at (0.4, 0.4) [remove $n_1$]{}; (0.4, 0.4) – (0.4, -0.2) node\[below\] [$t_3$]{}; (0.4, -0.55) – (0.4, -0.75) node\[right,font=\] [read]{}; at (0.4, -0.9) [2]{};
(0.5, 1.2) – (0.5, -0.2) node\[below\] [$t_4$]{}; (0.5, -0.55) – (0.5, -0.75) node\[right,font=\] [update]{}; at (0.5, -0.9) [3]{}; at (0.5, -1.8) [$s_1$=0\
$s_2$=1\
$s_3$=2]{};
at (0.61, 0.8) [remove $n_2$]{}; (0.61, 0.8) – (0.61, -0.2) node\[below\] [$t_5$]{}; (0.61, -0.55) – (0.61, -0.75) node\[right,font=\] [read]{}; at (0.61, -0.9) [3]{};
(0.67, 0.8) – (0.67, -0.2) node\[below\] [$t_6$]{}; at (0.67, -1.8) [$s_1$=0\
$s_2$=-\
$s_3$=2]{};
(0.8, 0.4) – (0.8, -0.2) node\[below\] [$t_7$]{}; at (0.8, -1.8) [$s_1$=-\
$s_2$=-\
$s_3$=2]{}; at (0.8, -1.25) [2]{}; (0.8, -0.55) – (0.8, -1.1) node\[right,font=\] [update]{};
(0.94, 1.2) – (0.94, -0.2) node\[below\] [$t_8$]{}; at (0.94, -1.8) [$s_1$=-\
$s_2$=-\
$s_3$=-]{}; at (0.94, -1.25) [3]{}; (0.94, -0.55) – (0.94, -1.1) node\[right,font=\] [update]{};
Our implementation differs from [@SundellTsigas:2008] in that we only need to push a node from one direction (next to |head|), and that each node can be removed at any time, independent of its position. Each thread has a single local |thread\_control\_block| that acts as a node in the Stamp Pool, [i.e., ]{}the nodes are “reused” and we therefore have to take care of the ABA problem and consider the possibility that nodes might reappear at different positions. We will from now on refer to the |thread\_control\_block|s in the Stamp Pool as *blocks* (not to be confused with reclaimable memory nodes).
To insert or delete a block from the Stamp Pool one has to update the respective set of |prev| and |next| pointers. These have to be changed consistently, but not necessarily all at once. The solution proposed by Sundell and Tsigas is to treat the doubly-linked list as a singly-linked list with auxiliary information in the |prev| pointers. Thus, the |next| pointers always form a consistent singly-linked list, but the |prev| pointers only give hints for where to find the previous block. We use the same approach, but reversed the directions, [i.e., ]{}keep the |prev| list consistent and use the |next| pointers as auxiliary information, as this is more suited to the use in Stamp-it.
Both pointers, |next| and |prev| have to be equipped with a deletion mark (in the least significant bit) to prevent conflicting updates from concurrent insert and delete operations as in Harris’ singly-linked list [@Harris:2001:PIN:645958.676105].
To avoid the ABA problem, in addition to the delete mark we spare additional 17 bits for a *version tag* in both pointers. These bits are used to store a tag that gets incremented with every change to the pointer value. There is still a very small chance for an undetected ABA to occur when the version tag wraps around, but in order for this to happen there have to be *exactly* $2^{17}$ updates to the pointer between the initial read and the subsequent CAS operation.
Stamp Pool data structure
-------------------------
The Stamp Pool keeps track which threads have entered a critical region and in which order. It holds two static dummy blocks |head| and |tail|; new blocks are inserted right after |head|. The |prev| pointers define the direction from |head| to |tail|; this direction is always kept consistent. The |next| pointers define the direction from |tail| to |head|, but only act as hints where to find the next block. It is therefore possible that a block, which is already in the |prev| list, does not occur (yet) in the |next| list (and the other way round in case of removal).
Each queue block, including |head| and |tail|, holds a *stamp counter*. When a new block is inserted, it loads |head|’s |prev| pointer and stores it in its local |prev|, increases |head|’s |stamp| using an FAA operation, stores the returned value in its local |stamp| and then performs a CAS on |head->prev| in order to insert itself into the |prev| list. This ensures that |head| always holds the highest stamp and that the stamps in the |prev| direction are strictly decreasing, [i.e., ]{}the stamp of the newly added block is greater than all other blocks (except |head|). The only exception to this is the |tail| block which should always reflect the stamp value of its immediate predecessor in the |prev| direction. This way we can easily fetch the lowest stamp value from |tail|.
Even though the |next| pointers only act as hints, it is guaranteed that they only point to blocks with a higher stamp value, [i.e., ]{}the stamps in the |next| direction are strictly increasing (with the |tail| block again being an exception). More specifically, the |next| pointer of some block $b$ can point to:
- |head|: This can be the case when |head| is the predecessor of $b$, or when some other block $c$ has inserted itself between |head| and $b$, but did not yet update $b$’s |next| pointer. Note that when $b$ has already marked its |prev| pointer, it can no longer be updated by $c$, so this inconsistency can only be resolved once $b$ is fully removed from both lists.
- a block $c$ which is still in the |prev| list: This is the “normal case”, [i.e., ]{}usually $c$ is the predecessor of $b$; unless $b$ is |head|, in which case the previously described exception is possible.
- a block $c$ which is removed from the |prev| list: This is the intermediate state when $c$ has been removed from the |prev| list, but not yet from the |next| list. So |prev->next| points to $c$, but $c$ is no longer the immediate predecessor of $b$ in the |prev| direction when starting from |head|. However, by following $c$’s |next| pointer (and potentially those of other removed blocks) one can find $b$’s new predecessor.
at ( 0, 0) \[rectangle,draw\] (tail) [tail]{}; at ( 1.25,1.2) \[rectangle,draw\] (t1) [$T_1$]{}; at ( 2.5, 0) \[rectangle,draw\] (t2) [$T_2$]{}; at ( 3.75,1.2) \[rectangle,draw, color=red\] (t3) [$T_3$]{}; at ( 5,0) \[rectangle,draw\] (t4) [$T_4$]{}; at ( 7,0) \[rectangle,draw\] (t5) [$T_5$]{}; at ( 9,0) \[rectangle,draw,color=green!60!black\] (t6) [$T_6$]{}; at ( 11,0) \[rectangle,draw\] (head) [head]{};
\[->\] (head) edge \[bend right=-18\] node \[below\] [prev]{} (t6) \[->\] (t6) edge \[bend right=-25\] node \[below\] [prev]{} (t5) \[->\] (t5) edge \[bend right=-25\] node \[below\] [prev]{} (t4) \[->\] (t4) edge \[bend right=-25, color=red\] node \[below\] [prev]{} (t2) \[->\] (t3) edge \[bend right= 20, color=red\] node \[above, sloped\] [prev]{} (t2) \[->\] (t2) edge \[bend right=-25\] node \[below\] [prev]{} (tail) \[->\] (t1) edge \[bend right=-20, color=red\] node \[below, sloped\] [prev]{} (tail)
\[->\] (tail) edge \[bend right=-20\] node \[above, sloped\] [next]{} (t1) \[->\] (t1) edge \[bend right=-20, color=red\] node \[above, sloped\] [next]{} (t2) \[->\] (t2) edge \[bend right=-25\] node \[above\] [next]{} (t4) \[->\] (t3) edge \[bend right=-20, color=red\] node \[above, sloped\] [next]{} (t4) \[->\] (t4) edge \[bend right=-45, color=red\] node \[above\] [next]{} (head) \[->\] (t5) edge \[bend right=-35\] node \[above\] [next]{} (head) \[->\] (t6) edge \[bend right=-15\] node \[above\] [next]{} (head);
An example is shown in Figure \[fig:stamp-it-queue\]. The links of the blocks $T_1$, $T_3$ and $T_4$ are all marked so they cannot be updated. The block $T_3$ is already fully removed, [i.e., ]{}it is not referenced by any |prev| nor |next| pointer in the list. The blocks $T_1$ and $T_4$ are marked for deletion, but are not yet fully removed; $T_1$ has been removed from the |prev| list, but is still in the |next| list; $T_4$ is still fully linked. Block $T_5$ already finished its |push| operation (not green), but the |next| pointer of its successor, $T_4$, still points to |head|. This indicates that $T_4$’s |next| pointer was already marked, so it could not be updated by $T_5$. On the other hand, $T_6$ is currently in the |push| operation (green); it has successfully inserted itself in the |prev| list, but the update of $T_5$’s |next| pointer is still pending.
The two lowest bits of the stamp counter are used to embed flags to track a block’s state:
- |PendingPush|: The block is currently being inserted into the |prev| list.
- |NotInList|: The block has been completely removed, [i.e., ]{} is no longer part of neither |prev| nor |next| list. This implies that the owning thread is no longer inside a critical region.
The two flags are mutually exclusive, so they cannot both be set at the same time. A block can be in four different states:
- *in the process of being inserted into the prev list*: The |PendingPush| flag is set, the |NotInList| flag and |next|’s delete mark are cleared and |prev|’s delete mark is undetermined.
- *in the queue*: The delete marks of the |prev| and |next| pointer, as well as the |NotInList| flag are cleared, the |PendingPush| flag is undetermined. Note that this state only indicates that the block was correctly inserted in the *prev* direction, but does not state anything about the *next* direction since we cannot update the |next| pointer of a block that is already marked.
- *in the process of being removed*: The delete mark of the |prev| pointer is set, the mark of |next| is undetermined and the |NotInList| and |PendingPush| flags are cleared.
- *fully removed*: The |NotInList| flag and |prev|’s delete mark are set, the |PendingPush| flag is cleared and |next|’s delete mark is undetermined (because it gets reset in the |push| operation before the |PendingPush| flag is set).
The Basic Steps in Detail
-------------------------
We now show how to support the operations on the doubly-linked list data structure correctly in a lock-free manner. Some code listings are included in the main text, the rest can be found in the appendix. For brevity, we omitted the C++ memory orderings from the code shown here. Full code listings with memory orderings and more detailed explanations are provided in [@Poeter18].
To insert a block we first set the block’s |next| pointer to |head| implicitly clearing the |DeleteMark| of |next|. Then we perform an FAA on |head->stamp|, getting the new stamp for the block we are about to insert. This new stamp value is modified to have the |PendingPush| flag set before it is stored in our block. Then we set the block’s |prev| pointer and attempt a CAS operation to update |head->prev| with our own block. The implementation of the |push| method is shown in Listing \[lst:push\] in the appendix. When the CAS is successful our block has been inserted in the |prev| list. We can therefore reset the |PendingPush| flag, and perform a final CAS-loop to update our successor’s |next| pointer.
When a thread leaves a critical region, it removes itself from the queue. The |remove| operation first marks the |prev| and |next| before removing the block from both lists. Then it sets the |NotInList| flag and checks if this thread was the last one, [i.e., ]{}if the block’s |prev| pointer points to |tail|. If that is the case, it tries to update |tail|’s |stamp| to that of the new “last” thread.
Marking the two pointers signals to other threads that this block is about to be removed, and also prevents the pointers from being updated by CAS operations from threads that did not yet see the mark. In order to remove a block $b$ from the |prev| list, the thread has to find its predecessor, [i.e., ]{}the block $c$ with the |prev| pointer pointing to $b$, and update $c$’s |prev| pointer with the value of $b$’s |prev| pointer. But it can of course happen that $c$’s |prev| pointer is also marked and can therefore not be updated. In this case we have to find $c$’s predecessor and *help* remove $c$ before we can continue with the removal of $b$. By removing $c$, we get a new predecessor for $b$. We can then restart the loop and try to remove it again. The same idea is applied when removing a block from the |next| list.
Since a block $b$ can only be removed from the |prev| list when its immediate predecessor is not marked, any marked immediate predecessor has to be removed before $b$ can be removed. Therefore, whenever a thread that tries to remove a marked block $b$ encounters another block $c$ which is supposed to come *after* $b$ in the |prev| direction ([i.e., ]{}it was found by following the |prev| pointers starting from $b$), where $\mathrm{stamp}_c > \mathrm{stamp}_b$, or $\mathrm{stamp}_c$ has the |NotInList| flag set, and all blocks on the path from $b$ to $c$ are also marked, we can conclude that $b$ has already been removed from both lists.
Since $c$ was encountered *after* $b$ in the |prev| direction, it is supposed to have a lower stamp than $b$; it can only have a larger stamp if it was removed and then reinserted. But since all blocks between $c$ and $b$ are marked, $c$ could not have been removed without first removing all those blocks, including $b$. The same holds for the case when the |NotInList| flag is set, as the flag is only set once the block has been fully removed.
The code to remove a block from the |prev| list is shown in Listing \[lst:remove-from-prev\]. The remove operation keeps track of three different pointers:
*prev*
: is a reference to the next *unmarked* block in the |prev| direction, [i.e., ]{}the block that we want to set as the new value for our predecessor’s |prev| pointer. We get to this block by following our own |prev| pointer and the |prev| pointers of other marked blocks (if any).
*next*
: is a reference to some block that precedes our own block in the |prev| direction. By following this block’s |prev| pointer we should end up at our own block, unless some other thread has removed it already. This way we can efficiently find our immediate predecessor to update its |prev| pointer.
*last*
: is a reference to a helper block that is used to remove potentially marked predecessors of our own block. When this pointer is not null, it should be the immediate predecessor of the [*next*]{}block in the |prev| direction.
So the order of the blocks in the |prev| direction should be as follows: [*last*]{}(if it is set), [*next*]{}, our own block $b$, and [*prev*]{}. Each of these blocks (except $b$) can potentially be removed and reinserted at any time. For [*next*]{}and [*last*]{}we have to consider this possibility and take appropriate actions. However, when we recognize that [*prev*]{}has been removed or reinserted, we can stop since we know that $b$ must have been removed already as well.
bool remove_from_prev_list(
marked_ptr& prev, marked_ptr b, marked_ptr& next)
{
const auto my_stamp = b->stamp.load();
marked_ptr last = nullptr;
for (;;) {
if (next.get() == prev.get()) {
next = b->next.load(); return false;
}
auto prev_prev = prev->prev.load();
auto prev_stamp = prev->stamp.load();
if (prev_stamp>my_stamp || prev_stamp&NotInList)
return true;
if (prev_prev.mark() & DeleteMark) {
if (!mark_next(prev, prev_stamp)) return true;
prev = prev->prev.load(); continue;
}
auto next_prev = next->prev.load();
auto next_stamp = next->stamp.load();
if (next_prev != next->prev.load()) continue;
if (next_stamp < my_stamp) {
next = b->next.load(); return false;
}
if (next_stamp & (NotInList | PendingPush)) {
if (last.get() != nullptr) {
next = last; last.reset();
} else next = next->next.load();
continue;
}
if (remove_or_skip_marked_block(
next, last, next_prev, next_stamp))
continue;
if (next_prev.get() != b.get()) {
move_next(next_prev, next, last); continue;
}
if (next->prev.CAS(next_prev, prev))return false;
}
}
The |remove\_from\_prev\_list| operation essentially consists of a large loop that keeps track of the three mentioned blocks, while trying to find the direct predecessor of $b$. Once that predecessor is found, we can try to update its |prev| pointer in order to remove $b$. There are several conditions that lead to the termination of this loop. In some of these cases we can conclude that $b$ is already removed from *both* lists, in other cases we know that $b$ has been removed from the |prev| list, but we still need to ensure that it is also removed from the |next| list.
In line 7, if [*prev*]{}and [*next*]{}point to the same block, $b$ must have been removed from the |prev| list already. If in line 12 the [*prev*]{}’s stamp is greater than $b$’s |stamp| or has the |NotInList| flag set, we can conclude that [*prev*]{}must have been removed (together with $b$).
If [*prev*]{}’s |prev| pointer is marked (line 14), we try to help setting the delete mark on [*prev*]{}’s |next|. The |mark\_next| operation simply performs a CAS loop trying to set the delete mark on the |next| pointer as long as that block’s |stamp| matches the given stamp value. When we detect that the |stamp| has changed, we can conclude that [*prev*]{}must have been removed (together with $b$).
If [*next*]{}’s |stamp| is less than $b$’s stamp (line 21), we can conclude that $b$ must have been removed from the |prev| list. Otherwise, if [*next*]{}’s stamp has the |NotInList| or |PendingPush| flag set (line 24) we cannot use this block since it might not be part of the |prev| list. For the |NotInList| flag this is clear, but for the |PendingPush| flag this is more subtle: The flag signals that the block is currently getting inserted into the |prev| list, but with the information we have available at this time it is impossible to tell whether this has already happened or not.
In line 30 we call the helper function |remove\_or\_skip\_marked\_block| (shown in Listing \[lst:remove-or-skip-marked-block\] in the appendix). This method checks whether the [*next*]{}block is marked, and if so, tries to remove it provided we have a valid [*last*]{}pointer (recall that [*last*]{}is supposed to be the predecessor of [*next*]{}). In case we have no [*last*]{}pointer, we move [*next*]{}to the next block in the |next| direction.
If [*next*]{}’s |prev| pointer does not match $b$ (line 33) it is not $b$’s predecessor. In that case we call |move\_next| (shown in Listing \[lst:move-next\]) and restart the loop.
The |move\_next| method tries to move [*next*]{}to the following block in the |prev| direction, while keeping the old value of [*next*]{}in [*last*]{}. There is a special case that needs to be handled. It could happen that the next block in the |prev| direction has successfully inserted itself into the list, but still has the |PendingPush| flag set, [i.e., ]{}it did not yet finish its |push| operation. We previously checked that [*next*]{}’s |stamp| does not have the |PendingPush| flag set, because otherwise we would have to dismiss the block as we could not determine whether it is already inserted. Now we can conclude that it is in fact part of the |prev| list, so we help resetting the |PendingPush| flag. This is necessary to ensure lock-freedom, as otherwise we would iterate infinitely because in the next iteration the previously mentioned check would fail again, resulting in [*next*]{}being moved back in the |next| direction again.
void move_next(
marked_ptr next_prev, marked_ptr& next, marked_ptr& last)
{
size_t next_prev_stamp = next_prev->stamp.load();
if (next_prev_stamp & PendingPush &&
next_prev == next->prev.load()) {
auto expected = next_prev_stamp;
auto stamp=next_prev_stamp+StampInc-PendingPush;
if (!next_prev->stamp.CAS(expected, stamp))
if (expected != stamp) return;
}
last = next; next = next_prev;
}
When we arrive at line 37 we have found $b$’s predecessor and can attempt a CAS on [*next*]{}’s |prev| with our current [*prev*]{}to remove $b$ from the |prev| list.
In case we could not conclude that $b$ is already removed from both lists, we still have to remove it from the |next| list; this is done in the |remove\_from\_next\_list| operation (shown in Listing \[lst:remove-from-next\] in the appendix), which is quite similar to |remove\_from\_prev\_list|. It also keeps track of the same three pointers, where the initial values for [*prev*]{}and [*next*]{}are those that were returned by |remove\_from\_prev\_list|. This allows us to continue from where we left, reducing the amount of work to find the blocks we need to update in many cases.
In this method we have to set [*next*]{}to the last unmarked block with a stamp greater than $b$’s |stamp|, and [*prev*]{}to the first unmarked block with a stamp less or equal to $b$’s |stamp| (both in the |prev| direction), [i.e., ]{}the two blocks that would be the predecessor and successor of $b$ if $b$ would still be part of the |prev| list. This entails that [*next*]{}’s |prev| pointer must reference [*prev*]{}. Once we have found these blocks, we can attempt a CAS to update [*prev*]{}’s |next| pointer in order to finish removal of $b$ from the |next| list. If the CAS succeeds, we have successfully removed $b$. However, we still have to make sure that the [*prev*]{}block has not been marked in the meantime. If this is the case, we have to continue and help remove [*prev*]{}from both lists in order to maintain the previously described condition, which lets us conclude that a block has been fully removed if we recognized that the successor block has been fully removed.
The |update\_tail\_stamp| method (shown in Listing \[lst:update-tail\] in the appendix) tries to find the new predecessor of |tail| in the |prev| direction, read its stamp and update |tail|’s stamp accordingly. Unfortunately, finding this predecessor is not as simple as taking |tail|’s next pointer, since it could point to |head| (due to the predecessor not having finished its push operation) or to a block that could have been removed and potentially reinserted at the time we read its |stamp|. Of course we could detect such cases and try to find the actual predecessor, but we do not want to waste too much time for this. Instead, if we cannot immediately identify the new predecessor we simply use the “next best guess” for the new stamp, which is our own block’s |stamp| plus a stamp-increment (recall that stamps are strictly increasing).
Finally, we perform a simple CAS-loop, trying to update |tail|’s |stamp| as long as the new value we want to write is greater than the value we are trying to replace.
Correctness
-----------
We can now argue for the following proposition:
Stamp-it is *lock-less*, that is, all methods used for entering and leaving critical regions (|push|, |remove|), and all helper functions are lock-free. The expected average runtime of the operations is constant, if threads do not conflict.
Stamp-it is, however, reclamation-blocking in the sense that a stalled (or crashed) thread can prevent an unbounded number of nodes for being reclaimed [@Hart:2007:PMR:1316099.1316427].
The |push| operation (see Listing \[lst:push\] in the appendix) is lock-free. The first loop performs a CAS operation in order to insert the block into the queue. In case the CAS succeeds, we break out of the loop, otherwise we just restart the loop. The CAS can only fail if some other thread interfered—either by inserting or removing some block. But in this case some other thread must have made progress. The same argument applies to |update\_tail\_stamp| and |mark\_next|. Both methods contain loops that perform CAS operations, and a failure of these operations can only be caused by progress in some other thread.
The |remove\_from\_prev\_list| (see Listing \[lst:remove-from-prev\]) and |remove\_from\_next\_list| (see Listing \[lst:remove-from-next\] in the appendix) operations are a bit more complex. We argue for |remove\_from\_prev\_list|, and since both operations are similar, the same will hold for |remove\_from\_next\_list|. As mentioned, both keep track of a [*prev*]{}and a [*next*]{}pointer. In each iteration we perform one of the following changes in case we have to restart the loop:
- move [*prev*]{}along the |prev| direction (in case [*prev*]{} is marked)
- move [*next*]{}along the |prev| direction (in case [*next*]{} is not [*prev*]{}’s predecessor)
- remove [*next*]{}from the |prev| list (in case [*next*]{}is marked and we have a valid [*last*]{}pointer)
- move [*next*]{}along the |next| direction (in case [*next*]{} is marked and we have no [*last*]{}pointer, or [*next*]{}has the |NotInList| or |PendingPush| flag set)
- nothing (in case the CAS to remove $b$ failed)
The block $b$ divides the |prev| list into two sublists: The sublist from |head| to $b$, and the sublist from $b$ to |tail|. [*next*]{}points to a block in the first sublist and [*prev*]{}points to a block in the second sublist. New blocks are inserted at the beginning of the |prev| list (right after head), [i.e., ]{}they become part of the first sublist. So the number of times we can move [*next*]{}in the |prev| direction before we reach $b$ is bounded by the number of entries in the first sublist, and the number of times we can move [*prev*]{}in the |prev| direction before we reach |tail| is bounded by the number of entries in the second sublist.
The case where we have to move [*next*]{}back in the |next| direction because it is marked and we have no valid [*last*]{}can be resolved by following [*next*]{}’s |next| pointer and from there move again along the |prev| pointer, while maintaining [*last*]{}. So the next time we encounter the same marked block, we will be able to remove it as we now have a valid [*last*]{}pointer. In the worst case scenario we have to move along the |next| direction until [*next*]{}points to |head|, from where we can then start to move [*next*]{}along the |prev| direction, while removing marked blocks (if any). The case where [*next*]{}has the |PendingPush| flag set can be resolved in the same way.
This leaves us with the cases where [*next*]{}has the |NotInList| flag set or the CAS operation to remove $b$ fails. But both cases can only occur when another thread changed the data structure in a way that it is no longer consistent with the thread’s view. So unless some other thread interferes, for both methods, |remove\_from\_prev\_list| and |remove\_from\_next\_list|, it is guaranteed that at any time a thread is able to finish the method in a bounded number of steps.
Unfortunately, the block pointed to by [*next*]{}can be removed and reinserted at any time. Obviously, this destroys the bounds as with every reinsertion the block is put back right at the beginning of the |prev| list. However, this implies that the owning thread of this reinserted block has been able to finish its |remove| and subsequent |push| operation, [i.e., ]{}that it has made progress. Thus, the requirements for lock-freedom are fulfilled as it is guaranteed that at any time at least one thread makes progress: If there is no conflict with another thread, we can finish the operation in a bounded number of steps; otherwise, the interfering thread was able to make progress.
The |push| and |remove| operations are only lock-free and therefore do not provide an upper bound on the number of iterations. In practice however, the average runtime is expected to be small (constant). We have verified this experimentally, but have to refer to [@Traff17:reclamationcorr; @Poeter18] for the results due to the limited space.
Finally, we claim the following.
The implementation is correct under the C++ memory model.
All atomic operations are relaxed as far as possible without sacrificing correctness with the appropriate C++ memory model annotations. Due to the limited space we cannot show full code with memory orderings, which we use to carefully argue that required happens-before relationships hold as needed. However, it is not possible to follow the correctness arguments on the basis of the C++ memory model’s semantics without the corresponding code; we have to refer to [@Poeter18] for full listings and correctness arguments (also for the C++ implementations of the other schemes).
|
Experimental Comparison {#sec:experiments}
=======================
We have compared Stamp-it with six other currently considered reclamation schemes: Lock-free Reference Counting (LFRC) [@Valois:Phd], Hazard Pointers (HPR) [@Michael:HazardPointers], Epoch Based Reclamation (ER) [@Fraser:Phd], New Epoch Based Reclamation (NER) [@Hart:2007:PMR:1316099.1316427], Quiescent State Based Reclamation (QSR) [@Mckenney98read-copyupdate] and DEBRA [@Brown:2015:RML:2767386.2767436]. All schemes have been implemented in C++ using the adapted interface described in Section \[sec:interface\] and the C++ memory model. All implementations are tuned by relaxing the atomic operations as far as possible. Correctness arguments based on the memory model’s semantics for all implementations are provided in [@Poeter18]. The full source code is available at <http://github.com/mpoeter/emr>. All results and scripts are available at <http://github.com/mpoeter/emr-benchmarks>.
The tests are set up similarly to Hart et al. [@Hart:2007:PMR:1316099.1316427] and we also repeat most of those analyses. We can show here only a subset of our results, more results can be found in [@Traff17:reclamationcorr; @Poeter18] and in the appendix.
Benchmarks
----------
We tested the reclamation schemes on a (1) queue, a (2) linked-list and a (3) hash-map. The queue is based on Michael and Scott’s design [@Michael:1996:SFP:248052.248106], the linked-list and hash-map on Michael’s improved version [@Michael:2002:HPD:564870.564881] of Harris’ list-based set [@Harris:2001:PIN:645958.676105]. For the List benchmark the key range is twice the initial list size. The probabilities of inserting and removing nodes are equal, keeping the size of the list and queue data structures roughly unchanged throughout a given run. The List benchmark has a *workload parameter* that determines the fraction of updates (remove/insert) of the total number of operations. A workload of $0\%$ corresponds to a search-only use case, while a workload of $100\%$ corresponds to an update-only use case.
Our experiments are *throughput oriented* in the following sense. The main thread spawns $p$ child threads and starts a timer. Every child thread performs operations on the data structure under scrutiny until the timer expires. The parent thread calculates the average execution time per operation by summing up the runtimes of the child threads and their number of performed operations. Each benchmark was performed with 30 trials with eight seconds runtime per trial. Most of the benchmarks focus on *performance*, and calculate the *average runtime per single operation* for each trial. Each thread calculates its average operation runtime by dividing its active, overall runtime by the total number of operations it performed. The total average runtime per operation is then calculated as the average of these per-thread runtime values.
The Queue and List benchmarks are synthetic micro-benchmarks, exactly as by Hart et al. [@Hart:2007:PMR:1316099.1316427]. The HashMap benchmark is intended to highlight other properties of the reclamation schemes. It mimics the calculation in a complex simulation where partial results are stored in a hash-map for later reuse. These partial results are relatively large, so in order to limit the total memory usage the number of entries in the hash-map is kept below some threshold by evicting old entries using a simple FIFO policy. The resulting benchmark has the following properties:
- there is no upper bound on the number of nodes that are *intentionally* blocked from reclamation.
- the average lifetime of each `guard_ptr` is relatively long.
- the memory footprint of each node is significant.
Since there is no upper bound on the number of nodes that need to be available for a thread, we have to use the extended hazard pointer scheme that supports a dynamic number of hazard pointers as explained by Michael [@Michael:HazardPointers]. The number of buckets in the hash-map is 2048 and the maximum number of entries is 10000. There are 30000 possible partial results and every thread has to calculate or reuse 1000 partial results per “simulation”. The size of a partial result is 1024 bytes.
It is important to note that all 30 trials were performed one after the other within the same process. This is especially important in case of the HashMap benchmark as the hash-map is retained over the whole runtime. This means that a result calculated in the first trial can be found and reused in a subsequent trial. For this reason, performance will be worse at the beginning, while the hash-map is in the “warm up phase”, but will improve over time when it becomes filled and more items can be reused. But also in the other benchmarks, it is possible that previous trials have impact on later ones, [e.g., ]{}due to an already initialized memory manager. It was a deliberate design decision to run all trials in the same process as this might more closely reflect a real world situation.
Environment
-----------
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
We executed our tests on four machines with different (micro)architectures. Their respective characteristics are shown in Table \[tbl:Machines\]. These machines all have a relatively large number of cores and hardware supported threads, allowing us to run our experiments at a scale not found in most prior studies. We did not experiment with oversubscribed cores.
[lll]{} \[tbl:Machines\]\
\
& CPUs & 4x AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 6168\
& Frequency & max. 1.90GHz\
& Cores/CPU & 12\
& SMT & –\
& Hardware Threads & 48\
& Memory & 128GB\
& OS &\
& Compiler & gcc version 6.3.0 20170205 (Debian 6.3.0-6)\
& CPUs &8x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 8850\
& Frequency & max. 2.00GHz\
& Cores/CPU & 10\
& SMT & 2x\
& Hardware Threads & 160\
& Memory & 1TB\
& OS &\
& Compiler & icpc version 17.0.1 (gcc version 6.0.0 compatibility)\
& CPUs & 1x Intel(R) Xeon Phi(TM) coprocessor x100 family\
& Frequency & max. 1.33GHz\
& Cores/CPU & 61\
& SMT & 4x\
& Hardware Threads & 244\
& Memory & 16GB\
& OS &\
& Compiler & icpc version 17.0.1 (gcc version 5.1.1 compatibility)\
& CPUs & 4x SPARC-T5-4\
& Frequency & max. 3.60GHz\
& Cores/CPU & 16\
& SMT & 8x\
& Hardware Threads & 512\
& Memory & 1TB\
& OS & SunOS 5.11 11.3 sun4v sparc sun4v\
& Compiler & gcc version 6.3.0 (GCC)\
We used the `jemalloc` [@Evans06ascalable] memory manager on all systems. The main reason being that on Solaris the `libc` memory manager uses a global lock. For comparison we also ran the experiments with the standard `libc` memory manager on all systems except SPARC; these results are shown in Appendix \[appendix:libc-results\].
ER/NER try to advance the epoch every 100 critical region entry. DEBRA checks the next thread every 20 critical region entries. In the List and Queue benchmarks, a `region_guard` spans 100 benchmark operations, so this is the size of the critical region for QSR, NER and Stamp-it. QSR executes a fuzzy barrier when it exits the critical region. In HPR, a local retire-list is scanned once its threshold is exceeded; the threshold is $100 + \sum_{i=0}^p K_i*2$ where $p$ is the number of threads and $K_i$ is the number of hazard pointers for the thread with index $i$.
Scalability with Threads {#thread-scalability}
------------------------
We first study the effect of increasing the number of threads that share a single instance of some data structure.
Figure \[fig:threads-queue\] shows the performance of the reclamation schemes in the Queue benchmark. Surprisingly, LFRC performs by far the best on Sparc and on XeonPhi, but is by far the worst on Intel. On AMD, HPR has a huge performance drop when running with the maximum number of threads. A similar effect can be seen by the other schemes as well, especially NER and Stamp-it, but less significant. Apart from these exceptions, all schemes seem to scale largely equally well in this scenario.
For the results of the List benchmark in Figure \[fig:threads-list-20\], LFRC has been excluded because it performs exceedingly poor in this scenario. On AMD, Intel and XeonPhi, all schemes are more on less on par, but on Sparc ER and NER show a significant degradation when the number of threads grows beyond 128. We did not investigate the reasons for this in more detail.
Finally, the results for the HashMap benchmark are shown in Figure \[fig:threads-hash\_map\]. QSR has been excluded because it scales very poorly on all architectures in this update-heavy scenario. On AMD, ER, NER, Stamp-it and DEBRA scale almost perfectly, while LFRC’s and HPR’s performance starts to degrade once the number of threads grows beyond 16. On Intel, LFRC scales very poorly while all other schemes scale more or less equally well, but not as well as on AMD. On XeonPhi on the other hand, LFRC scales best while HPR’s performance starts degrading with more than 16 threads, but it again improves with more than 128 threads. The other schemes continuously loose performance when the number of threads grows from 16 to ${\sim}80$, but then stays more or less the same. DEBRA’s performance drastically breaks down with more than 128 threads.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
The biggest surprise is the result on Sparc. Here, the performance of HPR, ER, NER and DEBRA degrades dramatically, while LFRC and Stamp-it scale almost perfectly. With 512 threads the performance difference between LFRC/Stamp-it and the other schemes is a factor of ${\sim}4000$. The reason for this will become clear when we look at the results of the reclamation efficiency analysis in the next section.
Reclamation Efficiency {#perf-memory}
----------------------
This analysis focuses on how efficiently (fast) the various schemes actually reclaim retired nodes. An increased reclamation efficiency can drastically reduce memory pressure, which in turn can have a significant impact on the overall application performance. Nonetheless, this aspect is usually disregarded in analyses of concurrent reclamation schemes.
To measure reclamation efficiency we use thread-local performance counters that track the number of allocated and reclaimed nodes. By calculating the differences, we get the number of unreclaimed nodes, which is our measurement for efficiency; a smaller number of unreclaimed nodes means that the reclamation scheme works more efficiently.
The plots in this analysis show the development of the number of unreclaimed nodes over time. Each configuration is run with five trials, each with a runtime of eight seconds. During each trial a total of 50 samples are collected. Since the benchmarks are randomized each configuration with the five trials is run 20 times to account for any fluctuation in the measured samples. The plots show the smoothed conditional means of the measured samples of those 20 runs over the number of samples recorded during each run.
For reclamation efficiency, reference counting is the “gold standard”. In contrast to all other schemes there is no delay: A node is reclaimed immediately when the last thread drops its reference to that node. So in all the plots, LFRC can bee seen as the baseline against which all other schemes have to be measured. One has to keep in mind, though, that LFRC is not a general reclamation scheme, since the reclaimed nodes cannot be returned to the memory manager, but are stored in a global free-list.
Figure \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-hash\_map-Sparc\] shows the results for the HashMap benchmark on Sparc. The number of unreclaimed nodes for HPR, ER, NER, QSR and DEBRA is constantly increasing and does not even go down at the end of the trials when all threads are stopped. When a thread terminates, all schemes add the remaining nodes to a global list. But who is responsible to reclaim them, and when? In Stamp-it the responsibility is transferred to the “last” thread. Other schemes do not have a notion of a “last” thread, so the global retire-list is checked by each thread when it performs reclamation on its local retire-list. When a thread tries to reclaim nodes from the global list it steals the whole list, reclaims all reclaimable nodes and then re-adds the remaining nodes to the global list. This leads to a race during the end of a trial; whoever steals the list might not be able to reclaim all nodes yet, but when the remaining nodes are re-added to the global list, there might be no threads left. Stamp-it mitigates this race as only the last thread reclaims the global list. In addition, we can easily check whether the global stamp has changed since reclamation has started, so we can restart reclamation with the new stamp value. Obviously, the effects of this race get more pronounced the more threads are involved. The failure to efficiently reclaim nodes increases memory pressure, which has a direct impact on the runtime. Figure \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-hash\_map-runtime\] shows the development of the runtime over the five trials. On Sparc we can see that the runtime of HPR, ER, NER, QSR and DEBRA is increasing with each trial, while with LFRC and Stamp-it it is decreasing. On the other architectures runtime is decreasing for all schemes except QSR. This would be the expected behavior since more results can be reused once the hash-map has been filled.
The results for the other benchmarks and machines can be found in the appendix.
Concluding Remarks {#sec:conclusion}
==================
This paper introduced *Stamp-it*, a new, general purpose memory reclamation scheme with attractive features. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first non-reference counting based scheme that does not have to scan all other threads to determine reclaimability of a node. We presented a large scale experimental study, comparing the performance of Stamp-it against six other reclamation schemes on four different architectures in various scenarios. Our empirical results show that Stamp-it matches or outperforms the other analyzed reclamation schemes in almost all cases. All of the analyzed schemes are implemented in portable, standard conform C++, based on the standardized interface proposed by Robison [@Robison:2013]; the full source code is available at <https://github.com/mpoeter/emr>.
For future work it would be interesting to look for other data structures that could replace the doubly-linked list, [i.e., ]{}data structures that have less overhead while providing all the required properties. In this context we might also try to relax some of these properties (e.g., use a partial order instead of a strict order for thread entries) in order to reduce contention on the data structure.
Additional Code and Results
===========================
|
In this appendix, we expand on some of the (mostly implementation) details that were only briefly discussed in the main text. We also provide additional benchmark results on the reclamation efficiency that were omitted from the main text due to space limitations.
Code for important methods
--------------------------
The implementation of the |push| method is shown in Listing \[lst:push\].
push(thread_control_block* block)
block->next.store(head);
marked_ptr my_prev, head_prev = head->prev.load();
size_t stamp;
for (;;) {
marked_ptr head_prev2 = head->prev.load();
if (head_prev != head_prev2) {
head_prev = head_prev2; continue;
}
stamp = head->stamp.fetch_add(StampInc);
block->stamp.store(stamp-(StampInc-PendingPush));
if (head->prev.load() != head_prev) continue;
my_prev = head_prev;
block->prev.store(my_prev);
if (head->prev.CAS(head_prev, block)) break;
}
block->stamp.store(stamp);
auto link = my_prev->next.load();
for (;;) {
if (link.get() == block ||
link.mark() & DeleteMark ||
block->prev.load() != my_prev) ||
my_prev->next.CAS(link, block))
break;
}
The implementation of the |remove| operation is shown in Listing \[lst:remove\].
bool remove(marked_ptr block)
{
marked_ptr prev = set_mark_flag(block->prev);
marked_ptr next = set_mark_flag(block->next);
bool fully_removed = remove_from_prev_list(prev, block, next);
if (!fully_removed)
remove_from_next_list(prev, block, next);
auto stamp = block->stamp.load();
block->stamp.store(stamp + NotInList);
bool was_last = block->prev.load().get() == tail;
if (was_last) update_tail_stamp(stamp + StampInc);
return wasTail;
}
Listing \[lst:remove-from-next\] shows the implementation of the |remove\_from\_next\_list| helper function.
void remove_from_next_list(
marked_ptr prev, marked_ptr removed, marked_ptr next)
{
const auto my_stamp = removed->stamp.load();
marked_ptr last = nullptr;
for (;;) {
auto next_prev = next->prev.load();
auto next_stamp = next->stamp.load();
if (next_prev != next->prev.load()) continue;
if (next_stamp & (NotInList | PendingPush)) {
if (last.get() != nullptr) {
next = last; last.reset();
}
else next = next->next.load();
continue;
}
auto prev_next = prev->next.load();
auto prev_stamp = prev->stamp.load();
if (prev_stamp > my_stamp ||
prev_stamp & NotInList)
return;
if (prev_next.mark() & DeleteMark) {
prev = prev->prev.load(); continue;
}
if (next.get() == prev.get()) return;
if (remove_or_skip_marked_block(
next, last, next_prev, next_stamp))
continue;
if (next_prev.get() != prev.get()) {
move_next(next_prev, next, last); continue;
}
if (next_stamp <= my_stamp ||
prev_next.get() == next.get())
return;
if (next->prev.load() == next_prev &&
prev->next.CAS(prev_next, next) &&
(next->next.load().mark() & DeleteMark) == 0)
return;
}
}
Listing \[lst:mark-next\] shows the implementation of the |move\_next| helper function (used in |remove\_from\_prev\_list| and |remove\_from\_next\_list|).
mark_next(marked_ptr block, size_t stamp)
{
auto link = block->next.load();
while (block->stamp.load() == stamp) {
auto mark = link.mark()
if (mark & DeleteMark ||
block->next.compare_exchange_weak(link,
marked_ptr(link.get(), mark | DeleteMark)))
return true;
}
return false;
}
The implementation of the |remove\_or\_skip\_marked\_block| helper function is shown in Listing \[lst:remove-or-skip-marked-block\].
bool remove_or_skip_marked_block(
marked_ptr& next, marked_ptr& last, marked_ptr next_prev, stamp_t next_stamp)
{
if (next_prev.mark() & DeleteMark) {
if (last.get() != nullptr) {
if (mark_next(next, next_stamp) &&
last->prev.load() == next)
last->prev.CAS(next, next_prev);
next = last; last.reset();
}
else next = next->next.load();
return true;
}
return false;
}
Listing \[lst:update-tail\] shows the implementation of the |update\_tail\_stamp| method.
update_tail_stamp(size_t stamp)
{
auto last = tail->next.load();
auto last_prev = last->prev.load();
auto last_stamp = last->stamp.load();
if (last_stamp > stamp &&
last_prev.get() == tail &&
tail->next.load() == last)
{
if (last.get() != head)
stamp = last_stamp;
else
{
if (stamp < last_stamp - StampInc &&
head->prev.compare_exchange_strong(last_prev,
make_marked(last_prev.get(), last_prev)))
stamp = last_stamp;
}
}
auto tail_stamp = tail->stamp.load();
while (tail_stamp < stamp) {
if (tail->stamp.compare_exchange_weak(tail_stamp, stamp))
break;
}
}
Reclamation efficiency {#appendix:reclamantion-efficiency}
----------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
This section contains additional results that could not be included in the main text. The results are shown in Figures \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-queue\], \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-list-20\], \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-list-80\], and \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-hash\_map\]. What can be seen in all scenarios is that HPR’s efficiency is inversely proportional to the number of threads. This is due to the threshold for the local retire-list being calculated to achieve amortized constant time. But this causes the number of unreclaimed nodes in the local retire-lists to be quadratic in the number of threads. Even for the Queue benchmark (Figure \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-queue\]) and List benchmarks (Figures \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-list-20\] and \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-list-80\]) show this behavior, even though the number of hazard pointers per thread is constant in these scenarios. In the HashMap benchmark (Figure \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-hash\_map\]) a dynamic number of hazard pointers is used, which makes the situation even worse.
The situation is similar for DEBRA. In order to advance the global epoch, DEDRA does not check all $p$ threads at once, but only checks a single thread on each critical region entry, thus distributing the costs over $p$ critical regions. But obviously with a large number of this significantly delays the update of the global epoch, resulting in poor reclamation efficiency.
In the Queue benchmark (see Figure \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-queue\]) on AMD QSR and Stamp-it perform relatively bad. The results for the other architectures are dominated by the bad results of DERBA. On Sparc, HPR performs similarly bad as DEBRA.
In the List benchmark (see Figures \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-list-20\] and \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-list-80\]) DEBRA and HPR perform significantly worse than the other schemes on all architectures. On Sparc, HPR performs by far the worst.
In the HashMap benchmark (Figure \[fig:unreclaimed-nodes-hash\_map\]) we can see that QSR basically fails completely to reliably reclaim nodes on all the architectures. The number of nodes is constantly increasing and does not even go down at the end of the trials when all threads are stopped. This is also the reason why QSR showed such bad performance in the previous analysis in Section \[thread-scalability\]. DEBRA performs quite good on AMD, but very poor on the other architectures.
For HPR we can also see a consistent increase in the number of unreclaimed nodes over time, even though this number sharply drops right at the beginning of a new trial, but also increases again very rapidly. The only exception is Sparc, where no such drop occurs and the number of nodes is increasing all the time. The other schemes all perform relatively good on all architectures; the exception again being Sparc. On Sparc HPR, ER, NER QSR and DEBRA are all performing equally bad. The number of unreclaimed nodes is constantly increasing and does not even go down at the end of the trials when all threads are stopped. This effect is probably caused by the fact that in these schemes every thread is responsible for reclaiming its own retired nodes. In Stamp-it we know if there is some other thread lagging behind, so we can add nodes to a global list and let that thread take responsibility for reclaiming them. This allows Stamp-it to more reliably reclaim nodes, especially at the end of each trial.
Results for `libc` {#appendix:libc-results}
------------------
This section contains the same results as shown in Section \[sec:experiments\] and Appendix \[appendix:reclamantion-efficiency\], but using the standard `libc` memory manager on AMD, Intel and XeonPhi. On Sparc we still used `jemalloc` since the `libc` memory manager on Solaris uses a global lock.
The results do not show significant differences. The overall performance is somewhat lower compared to the `jemalloc` results, especially on Intel, but the distribution of the measured runtime/operation is very similar for all schemes, in all experiments and on all machines, i.e., the impact of the memory manager is equally big/small for all schemes.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The results of the paper concern the topological structure of complete riemannian manifolds with cyclic holonomy groups and low-dimensional orientable complete flat manifolds. We also discuss related results such as the affine classification of orientable complete flat $4$-manifolds, an algebraic criterion of an affine equivalence and the relationship between holonomy homomorphisms and some algebraic and geometric invariants.'
address: ' Department of Mathematics Gdańsk University 80-952 Gdańsk, Wita Stwosza 57 Poland '
author:
- Michał Sadowski
title: Topological and affine structure of complete flat manifolds
---
Introduction
============
The aim of this paper is to collect some results concering topological and affine structure of complete flat manifolds([*cf-manifolds*]{}). We recall particularly important known results in Section \[sec-holonomy-repr\]. The others seem to be new. Complete flat manifolds play a particular role in geometry. On one hand they are natural generalizations of euclidean spaces, having the same local properties. On the other hand the study of some complicated questions, arising in differential geometry and related fields, often starts with the examination of them in the case of manifolds of constant curvature. A cf-manifold is the orbit space $M=\wt M/\Gamma $ of a properly discontinuous, isometric, and free action of a discrete group $\Gamma $ on an euclidean space $\wt M. $ The [*holonomy homomorphism*]{} of $M$ is the map $\Phi $ carrying $\gamma \in
\Gamma $ onto linear part of $\gamma $ and $\Phi (\Gamma )$ is the holonomy group of $M.$ The linear isometry $\Phi (\gamma )$ can be written as $ \Phi _X (\gamma ) \times \Phi _U (\gamma ),$ where $\Phi _X(\gamma )$ acts on the universal covering space $\wt X$ of the totally geodesic submanifold $X$ of $M$, homotopy equivalent to $M,$ and $\Phi _U(\gamma )$ acts on the orthogonal complement of $\wt X.$ If $M$ is compact, then $M=X$ and $\Phi _X=\Phi .$ In this case we say that $M$ is a [*Bieberbach manifold*]{}. If $M$ is noncompact, then $M$ is determined by the Bieberbach group $\Gamma $ and the vertical holonomy homomorphism $\Phi _U$ so that the theory of cf-manifolds can be treated as the theory of orthogonal representations of Bieberbach groups. The manifold $M$ is the total space of a flat riemannian vector bundle $\xi :M\to X$ whose structure group can be reduced to $\Phi _U(\Gamma ) . $ The main difference between the noncompact case and the compact one is that $\Phi (\Gamma )$ is not always finite and $\Phi (\Gamma )$ is not a topological invariant of $M$ (cf. Section \[sec:affeq\] below).
0.2cm The main difficulty in the classification of Bieberbach manifolds is that it is based on the classification of conjugacy classes of finite subgroups of $\gl (n,\zzz ).$ This is a hard problem in integral representaion group theory, solved for cyclic groups of prime order $p$, for cyclic groups of order $p^2$, and for small values of $n$ only. Bieberbach manifolds are described when the holonomy groups of them are cyclic groups of prime order and when the dimensions of them are smaller than $7.$ The complexity of the problem is also connected with the fact that the number $\nu _f (n)$ of $n$-dimensional closed flat manifolds increases rapidly with $n.$ It is known that $\nu _f (2)=2,$ $\nu
_f(3) =10$ ([@wolf Section 3.5]), $\nu _f(4) =74,$ $\nu _f(5)
=1060$ ([@cidschulz]), and $\nu _f(6) =38746$ ([@cidschulz]).
0.2cm In this paper we study cf-manifolds in two particular important cases: when they have cyclic holonomy groups and when their dimensions are smaller than $5.$ These particular cases are starting points in the investigation of more general ones. In the affine classification it is convenient to use a criterion of affine equivalence formulated in Section \[sec:affeq\]. We also answer some natural questions concerning algebraic and geometric invariants that are used in the paper. Flat manifolds were investigated in many books and papers. Only few of them deal with the noncompact case (see e.g. [@gw], [@wolf], [@ktflat], [@ow], [@tapp-thesis], [@tapp], [@wilking]). Related results can be found in papers dealing with flat vector bundles, for instance in [@cg], [@ds], [@gh], [@gw], [@ht], and [@kt].
0.3cm Throughout this paper the following notation will be used. The universal covering space of a topological space $Y$ will be denoted by $\widetilde Y.$ If $H$ is a group, $h_1,...,h_k\in H$, then $\langle h_1,...,h_k\rangle $ will denote the subgroup of $H$ generated by $h_1,...,h_k$. $\diff (M)$ is the group of diffeomorphisms of a smooth manifold $M$ and $\aff V$ is the group of affine diffeomorphisms of $V.$ By $\hol X$ we denote the holonomy group of a riemannian manifold $X$. The symbol $ \Pi _{ab} $ stands for projection of a Bieberbach group $\Gamma $ onto its abelianization $H_1(\Gamma )$ and $E\xi $ for the total space of a vector bundle $\xi .$ Real and complex $d$-dimensional trivial vector bundles will be denoted by $\Theta ^d _\rrr $ and $\Theta ^d _\ccc $ respectively.
Holonomy representations and vector bundles {#sec-holonomy-repr}
===========================================
The aim of the first part of this section is to reformulate some known results in a more convenient for our purposes form. The results will be expressed in terms of vector bundles associated with coverings. To describe these bundles consider a covering map $\Pi : \widehat X \to X $ and its covering transformation group $H$. Let $\ff $ be the field of reals or the field of complex numbers, and let $\rho :H \to \gl (s,\ff ) $ be an $s$-dimensional representation of $H.$ Take the diagonal action $h(x,u)=(hx,\rho (h)u)$ on $\widehat X \times \ff ^s$ and the orbit space $\Pi [\rho ]=
(\widehat X\times \ff ^s)/H.$ Let $p: \Pi [\rho ] \to X $ be the map determined by the projection $p_0 :
\widehat X \times \ff ^s \ni (x,u) \to x \in \widehat X $. Then the triple $(\Pi [\rho
], X,p) $ is a vector bundle associated to the principal bundle $\Pi $ with typical fiber $\ff ^s.$ In the sequel we identify this bundle with $\Pi [\rho ]. $ We often use the following.
\[propclosedflatsubmanifold\] Let $M$ be a connected $m$-dimensional cf-manifold and let $X$ be a closed totally geodesic submanifold of $M$, homotopy equivalent to $M.$ Denote $\Phi (\Gamma )$ by $H$, $\dim X $ by $n$, and $m-n$ by $s.$ Then there are a riemannian covering $\Pi : \widehat X \to X$ and an orthogonal representation $\rho :H\to {\rm O}(s)$ such that $M=\Pi [\rho ].$ The projection $p: \Pi [\rho ] \to X$ is affine. The action of $\gamma \in \Gamma $ on $\widetilde M$ can be written as $(t_{v(\gamma )} \circ \Phi _X (\gamma ) )\times \Phi _U (\gamma ),$ where $\Phi _X (\gamma ) :\widetilde X \to \widetilde X $ and $\Phi _U (\gamma ) :\widetilde X ^\perp \to \widetilde X ^\perp .$
There are different proofs of Proposition \[propclosedflatsubmanifold\]. For instance it follows from the arguments used in the proof of Theorem 3.3.3 in [@wolf ch. 3]. The homomorphism $\Phi _U$ is the [*vertical holonomy homomorphism*]{} od $M.$
\[corsplitcommutativeflatbundles\] If the holonomy group $H$ of $M$ is abelian, then the bundle $p: M \to X$ is isomorphic to $$\bigoplus _{j} \Pi [\rho _j]
\oplus \bigoplus _{k} \Pi [\lambda _k] ,$$ where $\rho _j$ are 1-dimensional complex representations of $H$ and $\lambda _k$ are 1-dimensional real representations of $H.$
Proposition \[propclosedflatsubmanifold\] and the following observation show that cf-manifolds correspond to orthogonal representations of Bieberbach groups.
\[prop-cf-man-and-repr\] If $X=\widetilde X/\Gamma $ is a Bieberbach manifold, $\rho :\Gamma \to {\rm O}(s)$ is an orthogonal representation of $\Gamma ,$ and the action of $\gamma \in \Gamma $ on $\wt \Gamma \times \rrr ^s$ is given by the formula $$\gamma (x,u) =(\gamma x,\rho (\gamma )u )$$ then the orbit space $ M(\rho ) = (\widetilde X \times \rrr ^s)/\Gamma $ is a complete flat manifold homotopy equivalent to $X.$
If $\rho ^\prime :\Gamma \to {\rm O}(s)$ is another orthogonal representation of $\Gamma ,$ then it is natural to ask when $M(\rho )$ is diffeomorphic (affinely diffeomorphic) to $M(\rho ^\prime )$. We consider this question in the next sections. In particular, we give an algebraic criterion of an affine equivalence.
0.2cm The following three simple lemmas are known.
\[lem-complexif-and-restr-for-bundles\] [(cf. [@husemoller ch. 16, § 11]).]{} If $Y$ is a topological space, $\xi :M\to Y $ is a real vector bundle and $\zeta : V\to Y $ is a complex vector bundle, then $$(r \circ c)([\xi ]_\rrr ) =2[\xi ]_\rrr \quad \hbox {and} \quad
(c \circ r)([\zeta ])=[\zeta \oplus \zeta ^\ast ] .$$
The maps $r$ and $c$ carrying $ [\zeta ]_\ccc \in KU(X) $ onto $[\zeta ]_\rrr \in KO(X) $ and $ [\xi ]_\rrr \in KO(X)$ onto $[\xi \otimes \ccc ]_\ccc \in KU(X)$ are called the restriction and the complexification.
\[lem-stability-for-bundles\] [(cf. [@husemoller ch. 8, Theorem 2.6]).]{} Let $Y$ be a topological space homotopy equivalent to a finite $n$-dimensional CW-complex.
0.1cm If $\xi $ and $\xi ^\prime $ are two real vector bundles over $Y$, $\dim _\rrr \xi =\dim _\rrr \xi ^\prime \geq n+1,$ and $[\xi ]_\rrr =[\xi ^\prime ]_\rrr $, then $\xi \cong \xi ^\prime .$
0.1cm If $\zeta $ and $\zeta ^\prime $ are two complex vector bundles over $Y$, $\dim _\rrr \zeta =\dim _\rrr \zeta ^\prime \geq n,$ and $[\zeta ]_\ccc =[\zeta ^\prime ]_\ccc $, then $\zeta \cong \zeta ^\prime .$
\[lem-flat-bun-are-torsion-elem-in-k-theory\] Let $X^n$ be a closed flat manifold. Assume that $\xi :M\to X $ is an $s$-dimensional real flat vector bundle and $\zeta : V\to X $ is a $q$-dimensional complex flat vector bundle. Then
0.1cm $M$ and $V$ have the structures of complete flat manifolds,
0.1cm the image of the total Chern class ${\rm c}(\zeta )$ in $H^\ast (X, \qqq )$ is equal to $1,$
0.1cm $ch(\zeta )=1,$
0.1cm $[\zeta ] -[\Theta _\ccc ^q] \in \tors KU(X),$
0.1cm $[\xi ] -[\Theta _\rrr ^s] \in \tors KO(X).$
The proof of a) can be found in [@milnor] (see also [@ow]). Parts b) and c) are consequences of the flatness of $\zeta $, which implies that Chern forms representing Chern classes of $\zeta $ are equal to $0$ (see e.g. [@kn ch. 11] and [@milnorstasheff Appendix C, Corollary 2]). Parts d) and e) follows from the fact that $ch : KU(X) \otimes \qqq \to H^{ev} (X,\qqq )$ is a monomorphism (cf. [@karoubi ch. 5, Theorem 3.25], [@dyer ch. 1, Section B, § 4]), from the equality $ch([\zeta ] - [\Theta _\ccc ^q])=0$, and from Lemma \[lem-complexif-and-restr-for-bundles\]. 0.2cm Now we formulate a particular case of a result of Wilking ([@wilking Corollaries 6.4 and 6.5]). It is a generalization of the second Bieberbach theorem.
\[thm-finiteness-for-cf-man\] The set $\diffeq (m)$ of diffeomorphism classes of $m$-dimensional cf-manifolds is finite and each element of $\diffeq (m)$ contains a cf-manifold with finite holonomy group.
An affine variant of Theorem \[thm-finiteness-for-cf-man\] is false because the holonomy groups of affinely diffeomorphic flat manifolds are isomorphic.
Complete flat manifolds with cyclic holonomy groups {#sec-cfch-manifolds}
===================================================
The aim of this section is to give a topological classification of complete flat manifolds whose holonomy groups are cyclic and whose fundamental groups are isomorphic to a fixed group $\Gamma .$
A flat riemannian manifold with cyclic holonomy group will be called a [*fch-manifold*]{}. A [*nolcyc bundle*]{} is a nonorientable line bundle $L :EL \to X$ such that $EL$ is a complete fch-manifold and $X$ is a totally geodesic submanifold of $ EL $.
The main here are the following.
\[thmflatvectorbundlescyclicholonomy\] Let $M$, $X$, $\Pi [\rho ],$ $\Gamma ,$ and $s$ be as in Proposition \[propclosedflatsubmanifold\] and let $\epsilon (\gamma ) =\det \Phi _U (\gamma ).$ Assume that $\Phi (\Gamma )$ is a cyclic group.
0.1cm If $\, \Pi [\rho ]$ is an orientable bundle, then $\Pi [\rho ] \cong
\Theta _\rrr ^s.$
0.1cm If $\, \Pi [\rho ]$ is a nonorientable bundle, then $\Pi [\rho ] \cong \Theta _\rrr ^{s-1} \oplus \Pi [\epsilon ].$
\[thmtopstructurefchmanifolds\] Let $M$ be a complete, connected, $m$-dimensional riemannianmanifoldwith cyclicholonomygroupandlet $X$beaclosed\
$n$-dimensional flat manifold homotopy equivalent to $M$. Suppose that $L$ is a nolcyc-bundle over $X$ and $\dim M > \dim X$. Then $M$ is diffeomorphic either to $X\times \rr {m-n}$ or to the total space of $(X\times \rr {m-n-1} ) \oplus L.$
Theorem \[thmtopstructurefchmanifolds\] shows that there are exactly two diffeomorphism classes of complete, noncompact fch-manifolds having the same fundamental group. It reduces the classification of complete fch-manifolds to the classification of compact ones. Recall that the classification of Bieberbach manifolds with a fixed cyclic holonomy group $C$ is a difficult problem solved only when $C$ has prime order ([@charlap] [@charlapb]).
0.2cm Theorem \[thmflatvectorbundlescyclicholonomy\] is a consequence of the following algebraic property of the deck groups of fch-manifolds.
\[lemholonomyiszeroontorsion\] If $\Phi (\Gamma ) $ is a finite cyclic group, then there are $a\in H_1(\Gamma )$ and a subgroup $B$ of $ H_1(\Gamma )$ such that $H_1(\Gamma )=\la a \ra \oplus B,$ $\la a \ra \cong \zzz ,$ $\Psi (\la a \ra ) = \Phi (\Gamma ) ,$ and ${\rm Tors}\, H_1(\Gamma ) \subset B\subset {\rm ker \, } \Psi . $
Theorem \[thmflatvectorbundlescyclicholonomy\] implies that if the bundle $M\to X$ is orientable, then $M$ is diffeomorphic to $X\times \rr {m-n}$. The case when the bundle $M\to X$ is nonorientable is more difficult. It follows from the fact that any two nolcyc bundles $\lambda $ and $\lambda ^\prime $, with the same base space $X$, belong to the same orbit of the action of ${\rm Diff}(X)$ on $X.$
0.2cm Theorem \[thmflatvectorbundlescyclicholonomy\] is a generalization of a result of Thorpe stating that $X$ is parallelizable or $TX$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of a trivial bundle and a line bundle (cf. [@th]). Using Theorem \[thmflatvectorbundlescyclicholonomy\] it is easy to verify a more general version of the last statement.
\[thm-variant-of-thorpe-for-complete-flat\] Let $M$ be a complete fch-manifold.
0.1cm If $M$ is orientable, then $M$ is parallelizable.
0.1cm If $M$ is nonorientable, then $TM \cong \Theta _\rrr ^{m-1} \oplus \lambda $ for some nolcyc-bundle $\lambda $ over $M$.
If $M$ is a complete flat manifold and $\hol {M}$ is a cyclic group of odd order, then $M$ is parallelizable.
Affinely equivalent complete flat manifolds {#sec:affeq}
===========================================
The aim of this section is to describe algebraic invariants corresponding to affine equivalence classes of noncompact cf-manifolds. For details and for the proofs we refer to [@msb].
\[thm-criterion-aff-eq\] Let $M$ and $M^\prime $ be two $m$-dimensional cf-manifolds with isomorphic fundamental groups. Let $X\subseteq M$ and $X^\prime \subseteq M^\prime $ be totally geodesic submanifolds of $M$ and $M^\prime $ homotopy equivalent to $M$. Assume that $n=\dim X,$ $\widetilde M=\widetilde X \times U $ and $\widetilde M^\prime =\widetilde X^\prime \times U^\prime . $ Let $\Phi _U : \pi _1(X) \to {\rm O}(m-n),$ $\Phi _U^\prime :\pi _1(X^\prime ) \to {\rm O}(m-n)$ be the vertical holonomy homomorphisms of $M$ and $M^\prime .$ Then the following conditions are equivalent.
$M$ is affinely diffeomorphic to $M^\prime ,$
there is an isomorphism $f: \pi _1(X) \to \pi _1(X^\prime )$ and a linear isomorphism $L:U\to U^\prime $ such that $$\Phi _U ^\prime (f(\gamma )) =
L \circ \Phi _U (\gamma ) \circ L^{-1}$$ for $\gamma \in \pi _1(X)$.
Let $m,$ $\Gamma ,$ and $n$ be as in the formulation of Theorem \[thm-criterion-aff-eq\]. For a fixed discrete group $G$ consider the set ${\mathcal I}(\Gamma ,G,m)$ of all pairs $(\epsilon ,\rho ),$ where $\epsilon :\Gamma \to G$ is an epimorphism and $\rho :G \to {\rm O}(s)$ is a representation.
Two elements $(\epsilon ,\rho )$ and $(\epsilon ^\prime ,\rho ^\prime )$ of ${\mathcal I}(\Gamma ,G,m)$ are [*equivalent*]{} if there are $f\in {\rm Aut}(\Gamma ) $ and a linear isomorphism $L: \rr s \to \rr s $ such that $$L(\rho )\circ \epsilon =
\rho ^\prime \circ \epsilon ^\prime \circ f ,$$ where $ L (\rho )(g) = L\circ \rho (g) \circ L^{-1} .$
Let $\inv $ be the set of equivalence classes of the elements of ${\mathcal I}(\Gamma ,G,m) ,$ let $\epi $ be the set of epimorphisms from $\Gamma $ to $G$, and let $\rep $ be the set of conjugacy classes of representations of $G$ in $\rr s.$ Applying Theorem \[thm-criterion-aff-eq\] we have.
\[thm-alg-inv\] If $\Gamma $ is a Bieberbach group, then there is a bijection $\nu : \inv \to \affeq (\Gamma ,G ,m).$
\[cor-estimate-aff-eq-classes\] If $\vert G\vert <\infty ,$ then $$\card \affeq (\Gamma ,G ,m) \leq
\card \epi \, \card \rep
.$$
Let $\affeq (\Gamma ,m)$ be the set of affine diffeomorphism classes of $m$-dimensional complete flat manifolds with the same fundamental group $\Gamma $ and let $n$ be as above.
\[thm-uncountable-many-aff-eq\] If $m\geq n+2$ and $H_1(\Gamma ,\zzz )$ is infinite, then $\affeq (\Gamma ,m)$ is uncountable.
\[prop-infin-many-aff-classes\] Let $\Gamma $ be a Bieberbach group. Then there are infinitely many affine equivalence classes of cf-manifolds whose fundamental groups are isomorphic to $\Gamma $ and whose holonomy groups are finite.
Topological and affine classification of low-dimensional\
orientable cf-manifolds {#sec:classif-low-dim}
=========================================================
The aim of this section is to describe topological and affine equivalence classes of cf-$4$-manifolds. For simplicity we deal with the orientable case. A nonorientable case is somewhat more complicated and will be considered elsewhere. For the classification of cf-$m$-manifolds $(m\leq 3)$ we refer to [@wolf]. We shall use the fact that there are $10$ affine diffeomorphism classes of closed flat $3$-manifolds $X_1,...,X_{10}$ (see e.g. [@wolf Theorems 3.5.5 and 3.5.9]\] for the description of them). For the classification of closed $4$-manifolds we refer to [@bullow] or [@hillman].
\[thm-top-class-dim4\] There are $14$ diffeomorphism classes of orientable, noncompact cf-$4$-manifolds. They are represented by: $$\rrr ^4 , \quad
S^1 \times \rrr ^3 , \quad
T^2 \times \rrr ^2 , \quad
TK, \quad
and \quad \Lambda ^3 X_j, \; j=1,...,10 .$$
Here $K$ is the Klein bottle and $TK$ is the tangent bundle of $K.$ To deal with affine classification of cf-$4$-manifolds we need some definitions. Consider the action of $\sl (2,\zzz )$ on $T^2$, induced by the standard action of $\gl (2,\zzz )$ on $\rrr ^2$, and the arising orbit space $T^2/ \gl (2,\zzz )$. Let $\rho $ be the equivalence relation in $T^2$ such that $$(e^{i\alpha }, e^{i\beta })\rho
(e^{i\alpha ^\prime }, e^{i\beta ^\prime})$$ if and only if $e^{i\alpha }= e^{i \epsilon _1 \alpha ^\prime }$ and $e^{i\beta }=e^{i\epsilon _2( \beta ^\prime -k \alpha ^\prime )} $ for some $(\epsilon _1 ,\epsilon _2) \in \{ -1,1 \}^2 $ and some $k\in \zzz .$
\[thm-aff-class-dim4\] Affine equivalence classes of orientable noncompact cf-$4$-manifolds, not diffeomorphic to $T^2\times \rrr ^2$, $TK,$ or $S^1\times \rrr ^3,$ are represented by $\rrr ^4$ and $\Lambda ^3 X_j, j=1,...,10.$ Affine equivalence classes of cf-manifolds, diffeomorphic to $T^2\times \rrr ^2$, $TK,$ or $S^1\times \rrr ^3$ correspond to the elements of $T^2/\gl (2,\zzz )$, $T^2/ \rho $, and $S^1/z\sim -z .$
Diffeomorphism classes of some cf-manifolds
===========================================
In this chapter we discuss the problem of the topological classification of cf-manifolds in a more general context than in Chapter \[sec:classif-low-dim\]. We consider cf-manifolds homotopy equivalent to some low-dimensional Bieberbach manifolds. We also deal with stable diffeomorphism classes of some cf-manifolds.
\[def-stble-diffeom\] Two manifolds $M_1$ and $M_2$ are [*stably diffeomorphic*]{} if there is a positive integer $k$ such that $M_1\times \rrr ^k$ is diffeomorphic to $M_2\times \rrr ^k.$
Given a Bieberbach manifold $X$ and $f_0\in {\rm Aut }\, (\pi _1(X)),$ there is a diffeomorphism $f \in {\rm Diff }(X) $ such that $f_\ast =f_0 $ ([@charlapb ch. 2, Theorem 5.3], [@wolf ch. 3, Theorem 3.2.2]). This induces an action of ${\rm Aut }\, (\pi _1(X))$ on $\wt KO(X).$ Let $[\xi ]^\ast _\rrr $ be the class of a flat bundle $\xi $ over $X$ in $\tors \wt {KO}(X)/{\rm Aut}(\pi _1(X)).$ The investigation of stable diffeomorphism classes of cf-manifolds is based on the following consequence of a result of Mazur (cf. [@mazur Theorem 2]).
\[prop-KO-descr-of-stable-diff\] Let $M_1,$ $M_2$ be two cf-$m$-manifolds homotopy equivalent to the same Bieberbach manifold $X$ and let $\xi _j : M_j \to X, j=1,2,$ be the arising flat bundles. Assume that $m >2\dim X.$ Then the following conditions are equivalent
0.1cm [**a)**]{} $M_1$ and $M_2$ are diffeomorphic,
0.1cm [**b)**]{} $[\xi _1 ]^\ast _\rrr = [\xi _2]^\ast _\rrr .$
As an immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop-KO-descr-of-stable-diff\] we have
\[cor-KO-and-stable-diff\] Let $M_1,$ $M_2$ be two cf-$m$-manifolds homotopy equivalent to the same Bieberbach manifold $X$ and let $\xi _j : M_j \to X, j=1,2,$ be the arising flat bundles. Then the following conditions are equivalent
0.1cm [**a)**]{} $M_1$ and $M_2$ are stably diffeomorphic,
0.1cm [**b)**]{} $[\xi _1 ]^\ast _\rrr =[\xi _2]^\ast _\rrr .$
\[cor-SW-classes-and-diffem-of-line-bun\] Diffeomorphism classes of complete flat $(n+1)$-manifolds, homotopy equivalent to a fixed Bieberbach $n$-manifold $X$, correspond to the elements of $H^1(X, \zzz _2)/{\rm Aut}(\pi _1(X)).$
Let $g:\rrr ^2 \ni (x,y) \to (-x,y+1)$, let $\mu $ be the Möbius bundle: $$E\mu =\rrr ^2 /\la g \ra \ni [x,y] \to [y] \in \rrr /\zzz =S^1 ,$$ let $P_j : S^1\times S^1 \ni (z_1,z_2) \to z_j, j=1,2,$ $\mu _j =P^\ast _j \mu $, and let $a,b$ be the generators of the deck group of the Klein bottle $K$ defined by the formulas
0.2cm
$ a(x,y)=(x +1,y) \quad {\rm and} \quad
b(x,y)=(-x, y + \frac { 1}{ 2} ) .$
0.2cm
Consider the generators $\alpha, \beta $ of $H^1(K,\zzz _2)$, dual to the images of $a,b$ in $H_1(K,\zzz _2 ) $, and line bundles $\lambda _1, \lambda _2 $ such that $\w _1(\lambda _1)=\alpha $ and $\w _1(\lambda _2) =\beta .$ We have
\[prop-class-cf-over-S1\] Let $M$ be a cf-$m$-manifold homotopy equivalent to $S^1.$ If $m\geq 2 $, then $M$ is diffeomorphic to $ S^1\times \rrr ^{m-1}$ or $E\mu \times \rrr ^{m-2} .$
\[thm-class-cf-over-T2\] [**a)**]{} If $m\geq 5 $, then the diffeomorphism classes of cf-$m$-manifolds homotopy equivalent to $T^2$ are represented by $ T^2\times \rrr ^{m-2},$ $E(\mu _1 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{m-3}), $ $E(\mu _1 \oplus \mu _2 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{m-4}), $ and $E(\mu _1 \oplus \mu _2 \oplus \mu _1\mu _2 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{m-5}).
$
0.1cm [**b)**]{} Diffeomorphism classes of cf-$4$-manifolds homotopy equivalent to $T^2$ are represented by $ T^2\times \rrr ^{2},$ $E(\mu _1 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{1}), $ and $ E(\mu _1 \oplus \mu _2 ). $
\[thm-class-cf-over-K\] [**a)**]{} If $m\geq 5 $, then the diffeomorphism classes of cf-$m$-manifolds homotopy equivalent to the Klein bottle $K$ are represented by $ K\times \rrr ^{m-2},$ $E(\lambda _1 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{m-3}), $ $E(\lambda _2 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{m-3}, $ $ E(\lambda _1 \oplus \lambda _2 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{m-4}), $ and\
$E(\lambda _2 \oplus \lambda _1\lambda _2 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{m-5}).
$
[**b)**]{} Diffeomorphism classes of cf-$4$-manifolds homotopy equivalent to the Klein bottle are represented by $ K\times \rrr ^{2}, $ $ E(\lambda _1 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{1}), $ $ E(\lambda _2 \oplus \Theta _\rrr ^{1} ) , $ $ E(\lambda _1 \oplus \lambda _2 ), $ and $ E(\lambda _2 \oplus \lambda _1\lambda _2 ). $
The proof of Proposition \[prop-class-cf-over-S1\] is easy. To describe the idea of the proofs of the other results denote $T^2$ and $K$ by $X.$ The $3$ and $4$-dimensional case follows from a direct argument. By Lemma \[prop-class-cf-over-S1\], the isomorphism classes of flat vector bundles over $X$ whose dimension is greater than $2$ correspond to their images in ${\rm Tors}\, KO(X).$ Using the Atiyah-Hirzebruch $KO$-spectral sequence of the fibration $X\to S^1$ one can check that the map $$W : {\rm Tors}\, KO(X) \to H^1(X,\zz 2)\oplus H^2(X,\zz 2)
\cong \zz 2^3,$$ carrying the class of the bundle $\xi $ onto $(\w_1(\xi ), \w _2(\xi ) ) ,$ is a bijection. Now it suffices to find the orbit space of the action of $\pi _1(X)$ on $ H^1(X,\zz 2)\oplus H^2(X,\zz 2).$
Holonomy homomorphisms and geometric invariants
===============================================
In this section we express characteristic classes of some flat bundles in terms of their holonomy homomorphisms. We also discuss how to calculate cohomology groups containing some invariants arising in this paper. By Corollary \[corsplitcommutativeflatbundles\], any cf-manifold with abelian vertical holonomy group is the total space of the direct sum of complex line bundles $L_1,...,L_k $ and real line bundles $\lambda _1,...,\lambda _l.$ These line bundles are determined by their Chern classes and Stiefel-Whitney classes, respectively.
\[lem-SW-and-holonomy\] Let $ \lambda :E\lambda \to X$ be a real flat line bundle over a closed flat manifold $X.$ Assume that $\Phi =\Phi _X \times \Phi _U $ is the holonomy homomorphism of $\lambda $ and $ \Phi _X \times \Phi _U =(\Psi _X \times \Psi _U )\circ \Pi _{ab} .$ Let $P:H_1(X,\zzz ) \to H_1(X,\zz 2)$ be the projection and let $\mu :O(1)\to \zz 2$ be the isomorphism. Then 0.17cm
$ w_1(\lambda )\circ P = \mu \circ \Psi _U . $
To state an analogous description of the Chern classes write the first homology group of a Bieberbach manifold $X=\widetilde X/\Gamma $ as $\zzz ^{b_1(X)} \oplus S,$ where $S={\rm Tors }\, H_1(X,\zzz ).$ Let $k_X$ be the order of the holonomy group of $X$ and let $S_2$ be the torsion subgroup of $H^2(X, \zzz ).$ The set $\flbx $, of isomorphism classes of flat complex line bundles over $X$, is a commutative group with tensor product as a group operation. It is known that $c_1 : \flbx \to H^2(X,\zzz )$ is a monomorphism (cf. [@husemoller ch. 16, Theorem 3.4]) and $c_1(\flbx )=S_2 $ ([@kt Theorem 6.1]). For every $\Psi \in {\rm Hom \, } (S, \zz {k_X}) $ the formula $$\Psi ^H (x) =\begin{cases}
\Psi (x) & \text{for} \; x\in S \\
0 & \text{for} \; x\in \zzz ^{b_1(X)}
\end{cases}$$ defines $\Psi ^H \in {\rm Hom \, } (H_1(X,\zzz ) , \zz {k_X})=
H^1(X, \zz {k_X}).$ Consider the coboundary homomorphism $\delta :H^1(X, \zz {k_X}) \to H^2(X, \zzz ) $ induced by the short exact sequence $$0 \to \zzz \buildrel {\lambda } \over \rightarrow
\zzz \buildrel {j } \over \rightarrow \zz {k_X} \to 0
, \leqno {(*)}$$ where $\lambda (x)=k_Xx $ and $j$ is the canonical projection.
\[lem-first-chern-and-holonomy\] Let $X$ be a Bieberbach manifold and let $k_X,$ $\Psi ^H$, and $\delta $ be as above. Let $L$ be a complex flat line bundle over $X$ with holonomy homomorphism $\Phi _L$. Take the factorization $$\Phi _L :\Gamma \buildrel {\Pi _{ab} } \over {\longrightarrow }
H_1(\Gamma ) \buildrel {\Psi _{L} } \over {\longrightarrow }
{\rm U}(1)$$ of $\Phi _L$. Then
0.1cm [**a)**]{} $ \delta _S : {\rm Hom }\, (S, \zz {k_X}) \to \tors \, H^2(X,\zzz )$ carrying $ \Psi \in {\rm Hom }\, (S, \zz {k_X})$ onto $ \delta (\Psi ^H )$ is an isomorphism,
0.1cm [**b)**]{} $ c_1(L ) = \delta _S (\Psi _L\vert _S ) . $
The proof of Lemma \[lem-SW-and-holonomy\] is an easy exercise. We do not know a reference to the statement and proof of Lemma \[lem-first-chern-and-holonomy\].
\[cor-first-chern-and-tor-H1\] [**a)**]{} $c_1(\flbx ) \cong {\rm Hom \, }(S,\zz {k_X}).$
0.1cm [**b)**]{} If $\tors H_1(X,\zzz ) =\{ 0\} ,$ then all complex flat line bundles over $X$ are trivial.
0.1cm [**c)**]{} If $\tors H_1(X,\zzz ) =\{ 0\} $ and $M$ is a cf-manifold homotopy equivalent to $X$, having abelian vertical holonomy group, then $M$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of the direct sum of some real line bundles over $X.$
There are different methods allowing to calculate first and second cohomology groups of a Bieberbach $n$-manifold $X$. One can use a general approach based on the Smith normal form of an integer matrix (cf. [@kamroz], [@sims]). We discuss another simple approach that can be applied if the holonomy group of $X$ is a cyclic group of order $k$. In this case $X$ is affinely diffeomorphic to the mapping torus $M(g)$ of an affine diffeomorphism $g:T^{n-1} \to T^{n_1}$ such that $g^k=id.$
\[thm-H1(G,A)-is-TorsH1(G,Z)\] Let $G$ be a group isomorphic to $\zzz _k $ acting on $A\cong \zzz ^{n-1} $ and let $g_0$ be a generator of $G.$ Assume that $g$ is an affine diffeomorphism of $T^{n-1} $ such that $g_\ast =g_0$ and $M(g)$ is the mapping torus of $g.$ Then $$\tors H_1(M(g),\zzz ) \cong H^1(G,A) \cong \tors A_G .$$
Here $A_G=A/{\rm im}(g_0-id).$ The cohomology group $H^1(G,A)$ is of interest in its own right. To see this denote by $n_{CC}(G,V)$ the number of connected components of the fixed point set of a smooth action of $G$ on a manifold $V$ homotopy equivalent to $T^{n-1}.$ Identifying $\pi _1(T^{n-1})$ with $A$ we can treat $A$ as a $\zzz [G]$-module. If $G$ is a $p$-group, then $$n_{CC}(G,V) =\card H^1(G,A)$$ ([@cora Theorem A.10]). Recall that a [*$G $-lattice*]{} is a $G$-module that is also a free abelian group of finite rank.
\[thm-cal-1st-homology\] Let $G$ be a finite group and let $A$ be a $G$-lattice. Assume that $m = \vert G \vert $ and $q$ is a positive integer relatively prime to $m.$ Then $$\card H^1(G, A) =
\card (A\otimes \zz m )^G \,
\, m^{ - {\rm rank} _{\zz q } (A\otimes \zz q)^G }
.$$
\[cor-h1-for-zp\] Let $p$ and $q$ be two different prime numbers and let $A$ be a $\zz p$-lattice. Then $$\card H^1(G, A) =
p^{\dim _{\zz p} (A\otimes \zz p)^{\zz p} -
\dim _{\zz q } (A\otimes \zz q)^{\zz p} }
.$$
Corollary \[cor-h1-for-zp\] is particularly convenient because it reduces the calculation of $\card H^1(G, A) $ to the determination of the number of solutions of systems of linear equations in finite fields $\zzz _p$ and $\zzz _q .$ Applying Theorem \[thm-H1(G,A)-is-TorsH1(G,Z)\] and Lemma \[lem-first-chern-and-holonomy\] we have
\[cor-relat-homol-coh\] Let $X$ be closed flat manifold, whose holonomy group is isomorphic to $\zzz _{k} ,$ let $g$ be an affine diffeomorphism of $T^{n-1}$ such that $X$ is diffeomorphic to $M(g)$, and let $A$ denote $\pi _1(T^{n-1})$ with the induced $\zzz _k$-action on it. Then $${\rm Tors }\, H^2(X,\zzz ) \cong
H^1(\zzz _k,A) \quad {\it and } \quad
H^1(X,\zzz _2) \cong \zzz _2^{b_1(X)} \oplus
H^1(\zzz _k,A)\otimes \zzz _2 .$$
Now we give a convenient criterion of the triviality of $H^1(G,A).$
\[prop-conditions-H1-trivial\] Let $G$ be a finite group, let $A$ be a $G$-lattice, and let $q$ be a prime number such that $(\vert G \vert , q ) =1 $ . Assume that for every prime divisor $p$ of $\vert G \vert $ we have $$\dim _{\zz p }(A\otimes \zz p)^G=
\dim _{\zz q }(A\otimes \zz q)^G.$$ Then $H^1(G,A)=\{ 0\} $.
[21]{}
H. Brown, R. Büllow, J. Nebüser, H. Wondratschek, H.Zassenhaus, [*Crystalographic groups of four dimensional space,*]{} Wiley, New York, 1978.
L. Charlap, [*Compact flat Riemannian manifolds I,*]{} Ann. Math. 81(1965), 15-30.
L. Charlap, [*Bieberbach groups and flat manifolds,*]{} Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
J. Cheeger, D. Gromoll, [*On the structure of complete manifolds of nonnegative curvature,*]{} Ann. of Math., 96(1972), 413-443.
C. Cid, T. Schulz, Computation of five- and six-dimensional Bieberbach groups, Experiment. Math. [**10 (1)**]{} 2001, 109-115.
P.E. Conner, F. Raymond, [*Manifolds with few periodic homeomorphism*]{}, Proc. 2nd Conf. on Compact Transformation Groups, Lecture Notes in Math. 299 (Springer, Berlin 1972) 1-75.
P. Deligne, D. Sullivan, [*Fibr' es vectoriels complexes à groupe structural discret,*]{} C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 281(1975), 1081-1083.
E. Dyer, [*Cohomology theories*]{}, Benjamin, New York 1969.
W.M. Goldman, M.W. Hirsch, [*Flat bundles with solvable holonomy,*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 82(1981), 491-494.
L. Guijarro, G. Walschap, [*The metric projection onto the soul,*]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352(2000), 55-69.
J.A. Hillman, Flat $4$-manifold groups, New Zealand J. Math., [**21**]{} (1995), 29-40.
M. Hirsch, W. Thurston, [*Foliated bundles, invariant measures and flat nanifolds,*]{} Ann. of Math. **101** (2) (1975), 369-390.
D. Husemoller,[*Fibre bundles,*]{} Mc-Graw-Hill, New York 1966.
T. Kaczynski, K. Mischaikow, M. Mrozek, [*Computational homology*]{}, Springer, Berlin, 2004.
F. Kamber, Ph. Tondeur, [*Flat bundles and characteristic classes of group-representations,*]{} Amer. J. Math., 89 (1967), 857-886.
F. Kamber, Ph. Tondeur, [*Flat manifolds,*]{} Lecture Notes in Math. 67, Springer, Berlin 1968,
M. Karoubi, [*K-theory. An Introduction*]{}, Springer, Berlin 1978.
S. Kobayashi, K. Nomizu, [*Foundations of differential geometry,*]{} Interscience Publishers, v. 1; 1963, v. 2; 1969.
B. Mazur, [*Stable equivalence of differentiable manifolds*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 67 (1961), 377-384.
J. Milnor, [*On the existence of a connection with curvature $0$,*]{} Comment. Math. Helv. 32(1958), 215-223.
J. Milnor, J. Stasheff, [*Characteristic classes,*]{} Princeton University Press, Princeton 1974.
M. Özaydin, G. Walschap, [*Vector bundles with no soul,*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 120(1994), 565-567.
M. Sadowski, [*Affinely equivalent complete flat manifolds*]{}, Cent. Eur. J. Math. [**2**]{}(2) 2004, 332-338.
Ch.C. Sims, [*Computation with finitely presented groups*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1994.
K. Tapp, [*The geometry of open manifolds of nonnegative curvature*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1999.
K. Tapp, [*Finiteness theorems for bundles*]{}, preprint, University of Pennsylvania, 2004.
J.A. Thorpe, [*Parallelizability and flat manifolds,*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 16(1965), 138-142.
B. Wilking, [*On fundamental groups of manifolds of nonegative curvature,*]{} Differential Geom. Appl. [**13**]{} (2) (2000), 129-165.
J. Wolf, [*Spaces of constant curvature,*]{} McGraw-Hill, 1967.
0.2cm
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Sebastian Peitz
- 'Kai Sch[ä]{}fer'
- 'Sina Ober-Bl[ö]{}baum'
- Julian Eckstein
- 'Ulrich K[ö]{}hler'
- Michael Dellnitz
bibliography:
- 'arXiv\_bibliography.bib'
title: A Multiobjective MPC Approach for Autonomously Driven Electric Vehicles
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
In many applications from industry and economy, the simultaneous optimisation of several criteria is of great interest. In transportation, for example, one wants to reach a destination as fast as possible while minimising the energy consumption. This example illustrates that in general, the different objectives contradict each other. Therefore, the task of computing the set of optimal compromises between the conflicting objectives, the so-called *Pareto set*, arises, leading to a multiobjective optimisation problem (MOP) or multiobjective optimal control problem (MOCP). Based on the knowledge of the Pareto set, a *decision maker* can design improved systems or even allow for changes in control parameters during operation as a reaction on external influences or changes in the system state itself. There exist various algorithms for the solution of MOCPs such as scalarisation techniques (cf. [@Ehr05] for an overview), evolutionary algorithms ([@CLV07]) or set oriented methods ([@SWO+13]). All approaches have in common that a large number of function evaluations is typically needed. Thus, the direct computation of the Pareto set is time consuming and a computation in real-time is not possible. However, in particular the design of optimal drive strategies requires online adaption of control strategies. This is even more the case now that autonomous driving and battery electric vehicles (EVs) with comparatively low ranges are both gaining increased attention, requiring advanced control algorithms.
Control theory has been influenced significantly by the advances in computational power during the last decades. For a large variety of systems, it is nowadays possible to use model based optimal control algorithms to design sophisticated feedback laws. This concept is known as model predictive control (MPC) (see e.g. [@Mac02; @GP11]). The general goal of MPC is to stabilise a system by using a combination of open and closed-loop control: using a model of the system dynamics, an open-loop optimal control problem is solved in real-time over a so-called *prediction horizon*. The first part of this solution is then applied to the real system while the optimisation is repeated to find a new control function, with the prediction horizon moving forward (for this reason, MPC is also referred to as moving horizon control or receding horizon control).
Due to the huge success of MPC, a large variety of algorithms has been established, where a first distinction can be made between linear and non-linear MPC. The first category refers to schemes in which linear models and quadratic objective functions are used to predict the system dynamics. The resulting optimisation problems are convex, i.e. global solutions can be computed very fast. Linear MPC approaches have been very successful in a large variety of industrial applications (see e.g. [@QB97] and [@LC97] for an overview in applications and theory). The advantage of non-linear MPC ([@GP11]), on the other hand, is that the typically non-linear system behaviour can be approximated in a more accurate way. Furthermore, special optimality criteria and non-linear constraints can be incorporated easily. However, the complexity and thus the time to solve the resulting optimisation problem increases such that it is often difficult to preserve real-time capability (see e.g. [@EPS+16]). Further extensions are, for example, *economic MPC* (see e.g. [@RA09; @DAR11]) or *explicit MPC* (see e.g. [@AB09]). In the first approach alternative, *economic* objectives are pursued instead of stabilising the system. In the second approach the problem of real-time applicability is addressed by introducing an offline phase during which the open-loop optimal control problem is solved for a large number of possible situations, using e.g. multi-parametric non-linear programming. The solutions are then stored in a library such that they are directly available in the online phase.
Another way for optimal strategy planning is the concept *motion planning with motion primitives* going back to [@FDF05] (see also [@Kob08; @FOK12]). The challenge of online applicability is addressed with a two-phase approach similar to explicit MPC but here, valid control as well as state trajectories are obtained by combining several short pieces of simply controlled trajectories that are stored in a motion planning library. These motion primitives can be sequenced to longer trajectories in various combinations. In the online phase, the optimal sequence of motion primitives is determined from the motion planning library using e.g. graph search methods (see e.g [@Kob08]). To reduce the computational effort, the motion primitive approach extensively relies on exploiting symmetries in the dynamical control system such that a motion primitive can be used in multiple situations, e.g. by performing a translation or rotation under which the dynamics are invariant.
In this article, we present a new algorithm for multiobjective MPC of non-linear systems. Problems with multiple criteria have been addressed by several authors using scalarisation techniques (see e.g. [@BP09] for a weighted sum or [@ZFT12] for a reference point approach). For non-convex problems, scalarisation approaches often face difficulties such that we here want to compute the entire Pareto set in advance. To this end, we combine elements from multiobjective optimal control, explicit MPC and motion planning with motion primitives. The resulting algorithm consists of an offline phase during which multiobjective optimal control problems are solved and stored in a library for a wide range of possible scenarios (i.e. constant velocity, braking, accelerating). Invariances in the optimal control problem are exploited in order to reduce the number of problems that need to be solved. In the online phase, the currently active scenario is identified and the corresponding Pareto set is selected from the library. According to a decision maker’s preference, an optimal compromise is then selected from the Pareto set and the first part of the solution is applied to the system. Similar to MPC, this is done repeatedly such that a feedback control behaviour is realised. The difference to other approaches is the possibility to interactively choose between different objectives such that the system behaviour can be modified easily. This can be very useful for autonomous driving, where one is interested in reaching a destination as fast as possible while minimising the energy consumption.
The outline of the article is as follows. In Section \[sec:Problem\_formulation\], we introduce the multiobjective MPC problem and the concept of Pareto optimality before describing the algorithm in detail and comparing it to other MPC approaches. In Section \[sec:Application\_EV\], we describe the application of the algorithm to an electric vehicle. The aim is to realise autonomous driving where the passenger can decide between the objectives fast and energy efficient driving. We present the results in Section \[sec:Results\] before drawing a conclusion in Section \[sec:Conclusion\].
Problem Formulation and Methodology {#sec:Problem_formulation}
===================================
Before describing the algorithm, we will briefly introduce the two main concepts we will be making use of, namely multiobjective optimal control and model predictive control. For more detailed introductions, we refer to [@Ehr05] and [@GP11], respectively.
A *multiobjective optimal control* problem (MOCP) can be formulated mathematically using differential(-algebraic) equations describing the physical behaviour of the system together with optimisation criteria and optimisation constraints in the following way $$\min_{x,u,t_f} J(x,u,t_f) = \int_{t_0}^{t_f} C(x(t),u(t))\, dt + \Phi(x(t_f))\label{eq:J}$$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& \dot{x}(t) = f(x(t),u(t))\quad \forall t \in [t_0,t_f],\quad x(t_0)=x_0 \label{eq:diff}\\
& h(x(t),u(t)) \le 0 \quad \forall t \in [t_0,t_f],\label{eq:constraints}
\end{aligned}$$ where $x(t)\in \mathcal{X}$ is the system state (e.g. the position and velocity of a car) and $u(t)\in \mathcal{U}$ the control (e.g. the engine torque or the steering wheel position). $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{U}$ are the spaces of feasible states and controls, respectively. The constraints may depend on the state as well as the control, e.g. limiting the velocity or energy consumption. $J$ describes criteria that have to be optimised. When there exists a unique solution $x(t) \in \mathcal{X}$ for every $u(t) \in \mathcal{U}$ and $x_0 \in \mathcal{X}$ and we fix the time frame, we can introduce a reduced objective $J: \mathcal{U} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$, where $k$ is the number of objectives, and the corresponding reduced problem: $$%\min_{u} J(u) = \int_{t_0}^{t_f} C(x(t),u(t))\, dt + \Phi(x(t_f))\label{eq:Jred}.
\min_{u} J(u, x_0) = \int_{t_0}^{t_f} C(\varphi_u(x_0,t))\, dt + \Phi(\varphi_u(x_0,t_f)). \label{eq:Jred}$$ Here $\varphi_u(x_0,t)$ is the flow of the dynamical control system .
In many applications from industry and economy, one is interested in simultaneously optimising not only one but *several* criteria and hence, $k>1$ and $J$ is vector-valued. In this situation the solution does in general not consist of isolated optimal points but of the *set of optimal compromises*, the so-called *Pareto set* (cf. [@Ehr05] for a detailed introduction). The set consists of all functions $u(t)$ that are *nondominated*, i.e. for which there does not exist a solution $u^*(t)$ that is superior in all objectives (cf. Figure \[fig:MOP\]).
For the solution of , we here use a scalarisation technique by which the Pareto set is approximated by a finite set of points that are computed consecutively by minimising the euclidean distance between a point $J(u, x_0)$ and a so-called *target point* $T$ which lies outside the reachable set in image space (see Figure \[fig:ReferencePoint\] for an illustration). Since a point computed this way lies on the boundary of the reachable set, there exists no point which is superior in all objectives and hence, the point is Pareto optimal. Starting with one point (e.g. the scalar minimum of one of the objectives), the next points can be computed recursively until the other end of the Pareto front (i.e. the other scalar minimum) is reached. In [@DEF+16], this method is used to compute the Pareto set for the conflicting objectives driven distance and energy consumption for EVs. The scalar optimal control problems are solved using an SQP method (cf. [@NW06]).
![Sketch of the MPC methodology. While the first part of the predicted control is applied to the system, the next control is predicted (via open-loop optimal control) on a shifted horizon.[]{data-label="fig:MPC"}](Figures/MPC.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
The algorithm presented here builds on these results, but we need to extend them in order to construct a feedback controller. This is realised by an *MPC* approach, where the problem is solved repeatedly for varying time frames ($t_0 = t_s$, $t_f = t_{s+p}$, $s = 1,2,\ldots$) while the system is running at the same time. Then, the first interval of the predicted control, $u(t_s)$, is applied to the real system and the optimal control problem is solved again with a time frame shifted by one. The procedure is illustrated in Figure \[fig:MPC\]. The concept of MPC was initially developed to stabilise a system ([@GP11]), i.e. to drive the system state to a (potentially time dependent) reference state. However, stabilisation is not always the main concern. Considering the EV, for example, we only require a part of the state, namely the velocity, to remain within prescribed bounds, which then gives us the opportunity to pursue additional objectives such as minimising the energy consumption. This concept is known as *economic MPC* (see e.g. [@RA09; @DAR11]).
The Offline-Online Multiobjective MPC Concept {#subsec:Algorithm}
---------------------------------------------
Since MOCPs are considerably more expensive to solve than scalar problems, it is computationally infeasible to directly include them in an MPC framework. A simple way to circumvent this problem is to scalarise the objective function by introducing a weighting factor (i.e. $\widehat{J}=\sum_{i=1}^k \rho_i J_i, \rho_i\in[0,1]$). In this case however, an assumption has to be made in advance which can in practice lead to unfavourable results. A slight increase in one objective might allow for a strong reduction in another one, for example. Hence, we are interested in providing the entire Pareto set during the MPC routine. To avoid large computing times during execution, we therefore split the computation in an *offline* and an *online phase*, similar to explicit MPC approaches (cf. [@AB09]).
The *offline phase* consists of several steps. First, various *scenarios* are identified for which MOCPs need to be solved. The scenarios are determined by the system states and the constraints. Secondly, in order to reduce the number of scenarios, the dynamical control system is analysed with respect to invariances, which are formally described by a finite-dimensional Lie group $G$ and its group action $\psi: \mathcal{X} \times G \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$. A dynamical control system, described by , is invariant under the group action $\psi$, or equivalently, $G$ is a symmetry group for the system , if for all $g\in G$, $x_0\in \mathcal{X}$, $t\in [t_0,t_f]$ and all piecewise-continuous control functions $u:[t_0,t_f]\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ it holds $$\psi(g,\varphi_u(x_0,t)) = \varphi_u(\psi(g,x_0),t) \quad \forall g\in G. \label{eq:Invariance}$$ That means that the group action on the state commutes with the flow. Invariance leads to the concept of [*equivalent trajectories*]{}. Two trajectories are equivalent if they can be exactly superimposed through time translation and the action of the symmetry group. In the classical concept of motion primitives ([@FDF05]), all equivalent trajectories are summed up in an equivalence class, i.e. only a single representative is stored that can be used at many different points when transformed by the symmetry action. In other words, controlled trajectories that have been computed for a specific situation are suitable in many different (equivalent) situations as well. In our approach, we extend this concept by identifying symmetries in the solution of the MOCP with respect to the initial conditions $x_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\arg \min_{u} J(u, x_0) = \arg \min_{u} J(u, \psi(g,x_0)) \quad \forall g \in G. \label{eq:Invariance_MOCP}
%&\arg \min_{u} \int_{t_0}^{t_f} C(\varphi_u(x_0,t))\, dt + \Phi(\varphi_u(x_0,t_f)) \notag \\
%= &\arg \min_{u} \int_{t_0}^{t_f} C(\varphi_u(\psi(g,x_0),t))\, dt + \Phi(\varphi_u(\psi(g,x_0),t_f)) \notag \\
%&\quad \hspace{6cm} \forall g \in G. \label{eq:Invariance_MOCP}
\end{aligned}$$ This means that we require the *Pareto set* to be invariant under group actions on the initial conditions. If the objective function is also invariant under the same group action, then all trajectories contained in an equivalence class defined by will also be contained in an equivalence class defined by . However, this class may contain more solutions since we do not explicitly pose restrictions on the state but only require the solution of to be identical. Alternatively, if the objective function is linear in the states and the group action corresponds to translations in initial states, we do not require invariance of the objective function to satisfy .
Identifying invariances according to , the number of MOCPs can be reduced. If the system is invariant under translation of the initial position $p(t_0)$, for example, we do not need to solve multiple MOCPs that only differ in the position. Once these equivalence classes have been identified, we can reduce the number of possible scenarios accordingly. We then solve the resulting MOCPs on the prediction horizon $T_p$, introduce a parametrisation $\rho$ (which can then be chosen by the decision maker in the online phase) and store the Pareto sets and fronts in a library such that they can be used in the online phase. Since in general there is an infinite number of feasible initial conditions, there consequently exists an infinite number of scenarios that we have to consider. In practice, this obviously cannot be realised and we have to introduce a finite set of scenarios. In the online phase, we then pick the scenario that is closest to the true initial condition. If a violation of the state constraints has to be avoided (the EV, e.g., is not allowed to go faster than the maximum speed), then a selection towards the ”safe” side can be made. In case of the EV, we would consequently pick a solution corresponding to a velocity slightly higher than the actual velocity. This way, the maximally allowed acceleration would be bounded such that exceeding the speed limit is not possible.
The *online phase* is now basically a standard MPC approach, the difference being that we obtain the solution of our control problem from a library instead of solving it in real-time, similar to explicit MPC approaches:
- measure the current system states that are necessary for the identification of the current scenario,
- choose the corresponding Pareto set from the library, i.e. the one with initial conditions closest to the current system state. (Due to the approximation, we cannot formally guarantee that the constraints are not violated. However, as a start we consider applications where this is acceptable.)
- choose one optimal compromise $u$ from the set, according to a decision maker’s preference $\rho$,
- apply the first step (i.e. the sample time) of the solution $u$ to the real system and go back to 1.
The resulting algorithm thus provides a feedback law. In the offline phase, we define the scenarios in such a manner that the system cannot be steered out of the set of feasible states. This means that only controls $u$ are valid that do not lead to a violation of the constraints. Additionally, we include scenarios which steer the system into the set of feasible states from any initial condition. In the literature, this is known as *viability*, cf. [@GP11]. In case of the EV, for example, we have to include controls such that the velocity can be steered to values satisfying the constrains from any initial velocity.
The presented algorithm can be seen as an extension of (extended) MPC approaches to multiple objectives. We consider *economic* objectives (cf. [@RA09]) and do not focus on the stabilisation of the system. This allows us to pursue multiple objectives between which a decision maker can choose dynamically, e.g. in order to react on changes in the environment or the system state itself. In contrast to weighting methods, the entire Pareto set is known, providing increased system knowledge.
Application to Electric Vehicle {#sec:Application_EV}
===============================
In this section the algorithm is utilised to control the longitudinal dynamics of an EV, thereby extending prior work, see [@DEF+14] for a scalar optimal control problem, [@DEF+16] for a multiobjective optimal control problem and [@EPS+16] for a comparison of two scalar MPC approaches.
Vehicle Model {#subsec:EV_model}
-------------
The EV model is derived by coupling the equations for the electrical and the mechanical subsystem via efficiency maps. This yields a system of four coupled, non-linear ordinary differential equations for the system state $x(t) = \left( v(t), S(t), U_{d,L}(t), U_{d,S}(t) \right)$. Here, $v$ is the vehicle velocity, $S$ is the battery state of charge and $U_{d,L}$ and $U_{d,S}$ are the long and short term voltage drops, respectively. The system is controlled by setting the torque $u(t)$ of the front wheels. Additionally, the battery current $I(t)$ is computed from the state $x(t)$ via an algebraic equation and the position by integrating the velocity: $p(t) = \int_{t_0}^{t}v(\tau)d\tau$. For the derivation and the exact formulation of the dynamical system, we refer the reader to [@EPS+16].
Based on the system dynamics, we formulate the MOCP for the EV with variable final time: $$\begin{aligned}
&min_{u} \left( \begin{array}{c} \label{eq:MOCP_EV_J}
S(t_0)-S(t_f) \\ t_f - t_0
\end{array} \right), \\
\dot{x}(t)&=f(x(t),u(t)), \label{eq:MOCP_EV_diff}\\
v_{min}(t) &\le v(t) \le v_{max}(t), \quad &t \in [0,t_f] \label{eq:MOCP_EV_constraints1} \\
I_{min}(t) &\le I(t) \le I_{max}(t), \quad &t \in [0,t_f] \label{eq:MOCP_EV_constraints2} \\
x(0) &= x_0, \ p(t_f) = p_f. \label{eq:MOCP_EV_x0}
\end{aligned}$$ We set the final position $p_f$ to $100$m, which means that we here define the prediction horizon based on the position. Correspondingly, the sample time is also specified with respect to the position, $\delta = 20$m. The conflicting objectives are to reach $p_f$ as fast as possible ($J_2$) while minimising the energy consumption ($J_1$). The battery current $I$ is limited in order to avoid damaging the battery which results in implicit constraints on the control $u$. The velocity constraints are part of the scenarios which are defined in the offline phase.
Offline Phase: System Analysis and Solution of Multi- objective Optimal Control Problems {#subsec:EV_offline_phase}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we describe how the different steps of the offline phase are applied to the EV.
### Symmetry Analysis {#subsec:EV_symmetries}
\
The more invariances the MOCP possesses (in the sense of Equation ), the fewer problems need to be solved which significantly reduces the computational effort. Hence, we numerically analyse the system in this regard. Since the position $p$ does not occur in the dynamical system , the dynamics are obviously invariant under translations in $p$. Moreover, when exemplary looking at the velocity $v$ and the state of charge $S$ (cf. Figures \[fig:Invariances\]a and \[fig:Invariances\]b), we see that, on the one hand, the trajectories are almost invariant for a wide range of translated initial values of the state of charge $S(0)$. Note that this is not a strict invariance. However, as argued in Section \[subsec:Algorithm\], we do not require invariances according to Equation but according to the weaker condition which is satisfied much more accurately for the EV application. When looking at Figure \[fig:Invariances\]c on the other hand, we observe that the dynamics are clearly not invariant under translations in the initial velocity $v(0)$. After performing the same analysis with regards to the other state variables $U_{d,L}$ and $U_{d,S}$, we can conclude that we only need to define scenarios with respect to the initial velocity $v(0)$ and the active constraints $v_{min}(t)$ and $v_{max}(t)$.
### Constraints {#subsec:EV_constraints}
A constraint on the velocity is given by the current speed limit $v_{max}(p)$ which depends on the current vehicle position. Since we need to avoid interfering with other vehicles by driving too slow, we define a minimal velocity $v_{min}(p) = 0.8\cdot v_{max}(p)$. (Here we have written the velocities as functions of the position because they are given by the problem formulation this way. In the MOCP, they have to be reformulated as functions of time.) Our *set of feasible states* is now determined by the velocity constraints, i.e. $v_{min}(t)\le v(t) \le v_{max}(t)$, which determine the different scenarios. We distinguish between four cases (see Figure \[fig:Constraints\]a). While the cases constant velocity (box constraints) and stopping ($v=0$ at the stop sign) are easily implemented, we introduce a linear constraint for the scenarios (b) and (c), respectively (see Figure \[fig:Constraints\]b) where, depending on the current velocity, a minimal increase $\overline{a}_{min} = (dv/dp)_{min}$ or decrease, respectively, must not be violated. An example is shown in Figure \[fig:PS\_accel\], where the Pareto set (\[fig:PS\_accel\]a) and the resulting velocity profiles (\[fig:PS\_accel\]b) are shown for the scenario $v(0) = 60\ km/h$ and $\overline{a}_{min} = 0.05\ \frac{km/h}{m}$. Note that here, we have chosen the control $u$ to be constant over the prediction horizon in order to reduce the numerical effort. As mentioned in Section \[subsec:Algorithm\], we cannot solve an MOCP for every initial condition. Solving an MOCP for every step of $0.1$ in the initial velocity leads to 1727 MOCPs in total.
Online Phase: Multiobjective MPC with Paretooptimal Control Primitives {#subsec:EV_online_phase}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The online phase is now exactly as described in Section \[subsec:Algorithm\]. In each sample time, the current velocity and the active constraints (for the current position) are evaluated in order to determine the valid scenario. The corresponding Pareto set is then selected from the library and according to the weighting parameter $\rho \in [0,1]$ determined by the decision maker, an optimal compromise is chosen which is then applied to the system. On a standard computer, this operation takes in the order of $10^{-3}$ seconds in Matlab.
Results and Discussion {#sec:Results}
======================
![Different trajectories computed by the MPC approach. The dashed lines use a constant weight $\rho$ whereas the green line possesses dynamic weighting ($\rho = 0 / 0.5 / 1.0$, respectively)[]{data-label="fig:Road_var_rho"}](Figures/road_allprefs_voverp_posdyn-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
In Figure \[fig:Road\_var\_rho\], several solutions with different weights $\rho$ are shown for an example track including two stop signs. The *set of feasible states* is bounded by the red lines $v_{min}$ and $v_{max}$. The dashed lines correspond to constant weights, varying from $\rho=0$ (energy efficiency) to $\rho = 1$ (high velocity) and the solid green line is a solution where the weighting is changed from 0 over 0.5 to 1 during driving. We clearly see that the vehicle is driving according to the decision maker’s preference. This means that we have realised a closed-loop control for which the objectives can be adjusted dynamically. This can either be done manually or by an additional algorithm, which for example takes into account the track, the battery state of charge and the current traffic. The objective function values for the entire track and different values of $\rho$ are depicted in Figure \[fig:PF\]a.
In order to evaluate the quality of our solution, we compare it to a control computed via dynamic programming (DP, see [@BD15] for an introduction and [@SG09] for the algorithm that is used): For computational reasons, the comparison is performed on a shorter track without stop signs and a relatively coarse discretisation leading to a 100-dimensional problem. In the DP problem, we use a simplified linear model (cf. [@EPS+16]) and the objective is a weighted sum of the MOCP , $J= t_f + \beta E(t_f)$, where $E$ is the consumed energy computed by integrating over the wheel torque and $\beta = 6\cdot10^{-5}$. In Figure \[fig:PF\]b, we see that the solution obtained via DP is superior to our MPC approach. This is not surprising since in MPC, we only consider a finite horizon such that the results are at best suboptimal ([@GP11]), whereas the entire track is considered at once in DP. Consequently, the DP algorithm is not real-time applicable and does not possess feedback behaviour. Additionally, we have until now only considered constant torques over the prediction horizon in our approach. We intend to refine the discretisation in future work and expect an improved performance.
![Validation of the approach versus a Dynamic Programming solution (blue). Green line: dynamic weighting according to the lower plot.[]{data-label="fig:Road_var_rho_dyn"}](Figures/Track_rhoDynamic_vs_DP-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
When using a simple, manually tuned heuristic for the preference $\rho$ instead of fixed values (larger values for $\rho$ at low velocities, lower values at high velocities and linear changes in $\rho$ when approaching braking manoeuvres, see Figure \[fig:Road\_var\_rho\_dyn\], bottom), we see that we can improve the quality of our solution significantly which is now comparable to the global optimum obtained by DP. We see in Figures \[fig:Road\_var\_rho\_dyn\] (top) and \[fig:PF\]b, respectively, that the resulting trajectories as well as the function values $J_1$ and $J_2$ almost coincide. By this, we obtain two different ways to utilise the results. On the one hand, a decision maker can select the preference according to his wishes and on the other hand, $\rho$ can be determined by a heuristic, leading to solutions of a quality comparable to the global optimum.
Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion}
==========
We present an algorithm for MPC of non-linear dynamical systems with respect to multiple criteria. The algorithm utilises elements from economic and explicit MPC, multiobjective optimal control and motion planning. According to a decision maker’s preference, the system is controlled in real-time with respect to an optimal compromise between conflicting objectives. Using a simple heuristic for the weighting factor $\rho$, we obtain solutions of equivalent quality compared to a global optimum computed by open loop DP. In the future, we intend to analyse the proposed method from a more theoretical point of view, addressing questions concerning feasibility and stability for systems where these aspects are critical. Furthermore, we want to improve our control strategies by developing intelligent heuristics for the preference weighting function $\rho$.\
**Acknowledgement:** This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Leading-Edge Cluster *Intelligent Technical Systems OstWestfalenLippe (it’s OWL)*.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Operator precedence grammars define a classical Boolean and deterministic context-free family (called Floyd languages or FLs). FLs have been shown to strictly include the well-known visibly pushdown languages, and enjoy the same nice closure properties. We introduce here Floyd automata, an equivalent operational formalism for defining FLs. This also permits to extend the class to deal with infinite strings to perform for instance model checking.\
\
[**Keywords:** ]{} Operator precedence languages, Deterministic Context-Free languages, Omega languages, Pushdown automata.
author:
- 'Violetta Lonati, Dino Mandrioli, Matteo Pradella'
bibliography:
- 'VPDbib.bib'
title: 'Precedence Automata and Languages[^1]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The history of formal language theory has always paired two main and complementary formalisms to define and process –not only formal– languages: grammars or syntaxes and abstract machines or automata. The power and the complementary benefits of these two formalisms are so evident and well-known that it is certainly superfluous to remind them here. Also universally known are the conceptual relevance and practical impact of the family of context-free languages and the corresponding grammars paired with pushdown automata.
Among the many subfamilies that have been introduced throughout the last decades with various goals, operator precedence grammars, herewith renamed Floyd grammars (FGs) in honor of their inventor [@Floyd1963], represent a pioneering model mainly aimed at deterministic –and therefore efficient– parsing. Visibly pushdown languages (VPLs) are a much more recent subfamily of (deterministic) context-free languages introduced in the seminal paper [@AluMad04] with the goal of extending the typical closure properties of regular languages to larger families of languages accepted by infinite-state machines; a major practical result is the possibility of extending such powerful verification technique as model checking beyond the scope of finite state machines. Along the usual tradition, VPLs have been characterized both in terms of abstract machines, the visibly pushdown automata (VPAs), and by means of a suitable subclass of context-free grammars.
Rather surprisingly, instead, investigation of the basic –and nice, indeed– properties of FGs has been suspended, probably as a consequence of the advent of other, more general, parsing techniques, such as LR parsing [@GruneJacobs:08]. Although FGs generate obviously a subclass of deterministic CF languages and therefore can be parsed by any deterministic pushdown machine, typically a shift-reduce one [@GruneJacobs:08], we are not aware of a family of automata that perfectly matches the generative power of this class of grammars. On the other hand, operator precedence parsers are still used today, thanks to their elegant simplicity and efficiency. For instance, they are present in Parrot, Perl 6’s virtual machine, as part of the Parser Grammar Engine (PGE); in GCC’s C and C++ hand-coded parsers, for managing arithmetic expressions.[^2]
Quite recently we realized strong relations between these two seemingly unrelated families of languages; precisely we showed that: VPLs are a proper subclass of languages defined by FGs (i.e. Floyd Languages, or FLs in short), and coincide with those languages that can be generated by FGs characterized by a well precise shape of operator precedence matrix (OPM). The inclusion relation is effective in that a FG can be algorithmically derived form a VPA and conversely a VPA can be obtained by a FG whose OPM satisfies the restriction [@CrespiMandrioliWORDS2009].
FLs enjoy all typical closure properties of regular languages that motivated the study of VPLs and other related families [@Berstel:2001:BGT; @conf/mfcs/NowotkaS07; @caucal:DSP:2008:1743]. Precisely, closure w.r.t. Boolean operations was proved a long time ago in [@Crespi-ReghizziMM1978], whereas closure under concatenation, Kleene star, and other typical algebraic operations has been investigated only recently under the novel interest ignited by the above remark [@Crespi-ReghizziM10]. Thus, the old-fashioned FLs turned out to be the largest known class of deterministic context-free languages that enjoy closure under all traditional language operations. Another reason why, in our opinion, FLs are far from obsolete and uninteresting in these days is that, unlike most other deterministic languages of practical use, they can be parsed not necessarily left-to-right, thus offering interesting opportunities, e.g., to exploit parallelism and incrementality [@GruneJacobs:08].
In this paper we provide another missing tile of the “old and new puzzle”, namely we introduce a novel class of stack-based automata perfectly carved on the generation mechanism of FGs, which too we name in honor of Robert Floyd. Not surprisingly they inherit some features of VPAs (mainly a clear separation between push and pop operations) and maintain some typical behavior of shift-reduce parsing algorithms; however, they also exhibit some distinguishing features and imply some non-trivial technicalities to derive them automatically from FGs and conversely.
The availability of a precise family of automata allows to apply to FLs the now familiar $\omega$-extension –a further extension of Kleene $*$ operation–, i.e., the definition of languages of infinite strings and the various criteria for their acceptance or rejection by recognizing devices. $\omega$-languages are now more and more important to deal with never-ending computations such as operating systems, web-services, embedded applications, etc. Thus, we also introduce the $\omega$-version of FLs and we show their potential in terms of modeling the behavior of some realistic systems.
The paper is structured as follows: Section \[sec:prelim\] recalls basic definitions on Floyd’s grammars; Section \[sec:aut\] introduces Floyd automata (FAs) and shows that, as well as FSMs and VPAs, but unlike pushdown automata, their deterministic version is not less powerful than the nondeterministic counterpart; Section \[sec:aut\_gr\] provides effective constructions to derive a FA from a FG and conversely; Section \[sec:omega\] extends the definition of FLs to sets of infinite strings by applying to FAs the well-known concepts of $\omega$-behavior and acceptance; finally Section \[sec:conclusions\] draws some conclusions.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
Let $\Sigma$ be an alphabet. The empty string is denoted $\varepsilon$. A *context-free* (CF) grammar is a 4-tuple $G=(N, \Sigma, P, S)$, where $N$ is the nonterminal alphabet, $P$ the rule (or production) set, and $S$ the axiom. An *empty rule* has $\varepsilon$ as the right hand side (r.h.s.). A *renaming rule* has one nonterminal as r.h.s. A grammar is *reduced* if every rule can be used to generate some string in $\Sigma^\ast$. It is *invertible* if no two rules have identical r.h.s.
The following naming convention will be adopted, unless otherwise specified: lowercase Latin letters $a,b,\ldots$ denote terminal characters; uppercase Latin letters $A,B, \ldots$ denote nonterminal characters; letters $u,v,\ldots$ denote terminal strings; and Greek letters $\alpha, \ldots, \omega$ denote strings over $\Sigma \cup N$. The strings may be empty, unless stated otherwise.
A rule is in *operator form* if its r.h.s has no adjacent nonterminals; an *operator grammar* (OG) contains just such rules. Any CF grammar admits an equivalent OG, which can be also assumed to be invertible [@Harrison78; @Salomaa73].
The coming definitions for operator precedence grammars [@Floyd1963], here renamed *Floyd Grammars* (FG), are from [@Crespi-ReghizziMM1978]. We refer the reader unfamiliar with precedence grammars and parsing techniques to [@GruneJacobs:08], that contains an easily readable, practical description of FGs.
For an OG $G$ and a nonterminal $A$, the *left and right terminal sets* are $$\mathcal{L}_G(A) = \{a\in\Sigma \mid A \stackrel \ast \Rightarrow B a\alpha\} \qquad
\mathcal{R}_G(A) = \{a\in\Sigma \mid A \stackrel \ast \Rightarrow \alpha a B\}$$ where $B\in N\cup\{\varepsilon\}$ and $\Rightarrow$ denotes the derivation relation. The grammar name $G$ will be omitted unless necessary to prevent confusion.
R. Floyd took inspiration from the traditional notion of precedence between arithmetic operators in order to define a broad class of languages, such that the shape of the derivation tree is solely determined by a binary relation between terminals that are consecutive, or become consecutive after a bottom-up reduction step.
For an OG $G$, let $\alpha, \beta$ range over $(N \cup \Sigma)^{\ast}$ and $a,b\in \Sigma$. Three binary operator precedence (OP) relations are defined: \[PrecRelat\] $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \text{equal in precedence: } & a\doteq b \iff& \exists A\to\alpha aBb\beta, B\in N\cup\{\varepsilon\} \\
\text{takes precedence: } & a\gtrdot b \iff &\exists A\to\alpha Db\beta, D\in N \text{ and } a\in \mathcal{R}_G(D) \\
\nonumber \text{yields precedence: }& a\lessdot b \iff & \exists A\to\alpha aD\beta, D\in N \text{ and } b\in \mathcal{L}_G(D)\end{aligned}$$ For an OG $G$, the *operator precedence matrix* (OPM) $M=OPM(G)$ is a $|\Sigma| \times |\Sigma|$ array that with each ordered pair $(a,b)$ associates the set $M_{ab}$ of OP relations holding between $a$ and $b$.
\[defFloydGr\] $G$ is an *operator precedence* or *Floyd grammar* (FG) if, and only if, $M=OPM(G)$ is a *conflict-free* matrix, i.e., $\forall a,b$, $|M_{ab}|\leq 1$.
\[ex:expr\] Arithmetic expressions with prioritized operators, a classical construct, are presented in a simple variant without parentheses. Figure \[fig:exp\] presents the productions of the grammar (left) and the derivation tree of expression $n + n \times n$ (center). We see that $\times \ \dot= \ n$ because they appear in the right-hand side of the same production. Analogously, $+ \lessdot
n$ since $+$ is sibling of a node with label $T$ and $n \in \mathcal{L}_G(T)$. The complete OPM is shown in Figure \[fig:exp\] (right).
[m[0.3]{}m[0.25]{}m[0.2]{}]{} $\begin{array}{l}
S\to E\\
E\to E + T \mid T \times n \mid n\\
T\to T \times n \mid n
\end{array}$ &
child [ node [$E$]{} child [ node [$E$]{} child[ node[$n$]{} ]{} ]{} child [ node [$+$]{} ]{} child [ node [$T$]{} child [ node [$T$]{} child [ node [$n$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} child[ node [$\times$]{} ]{} child[ node [$n$]{} ]{} ]{} ]{};
& $
\begin{array}{c|ccc}
& n & + & \times \\
\hline
n & & \gtrdot & \gtrdot \\
+ & \lessdot &\gtrdot & \lessdot \\
\times& \dot= & & \\
\end{array}
$
The equal in precedence relations of a FG alphabet are connected with an important parameter of the grammar, namely the length of the right hand sides of the rules. Clearly, a rule $A \to A_1 a_1 \ldots A_t a_t A_{t+1}$, where each $A_i$ is a possibly missing nonterminal, is associated with relations $a_1 \dot=
a_2\dot= \ldots \dot= a_t$. If the $\dot=$ relation is cyclic, there is no finite bound on the length of the r.h.s of a production. Otherwise the length is bounded by $2\cdot c+1$, where $c\geq 1$ is the length of the longest $\dot=$-chain. In this paper, for the sake of simplicity and brevity we assume that all precedence matrices are $\doteq$-cycle free. In the case of FGs this prevents the risk of r.h.s of unbounded length [@Crespi-ReghizziMM1978], in the case of FAs we will see that it avoids a priori the risk of an unbounded sequence of push operations onto the stack matched by only one pop operation. The hypothesis of $\doteq$-cycle freedom could be replaced by weaker ones, such as a bound on r.h.s, as it happens with FGs, at the price of heavier notation, constructions, and proofs.
\[defNormalForms\] A FG is in *Fischer normal form* [@Fischer69] if it is invertible, the axiom $S$ does not occur in the r.h.s. of any rule, no empty rule exists except possibly $S\to \varepsilon$, the other rules having $S$ as l.h.s are renaming, and no other renaming rules exist.
OPMs play a fundamental role in deterministic parsing of FGs. Thus in the view of defining automata to parse FLs we pair them with the alphabet somewhat mimicking VPL’s approach where the terminal alphabet is partitioned into calls, returns, and internals [@jacm/AlurM09]. To this goal, we use a special symbol \# not in $\Sigma$ to mark the beginning and the end of any string. This is consistent with the typical operator parsing technique that requires the lookback and lookahead of one character to determine the precedence relation [@GruneJacobs:08]. The precedence relation in the OPM are extended to include \# in the normal way.
An *operator precedence alphabet* is a pair $(\Sigma, M)$ where $\Sigma$ is an alphabet and $M$ is a conflict-free *operator precedence matrix*, i.e. a $|\Sigma \cup \{ \# \}|^2$ array that with each ordered pair $(a,b)$ associates at most one of the operator precedence relations: $\doteq$, $\lessdot$ or $\gtrdot$.
For $u,v \in\Sigma^*$ we write $u \lessdot v$ if $u = xa$ and $v = by$ with $a \lessdot b$. Similarly for the other precedence relations.
Floyd automata {#sec:aut}
==============
A nondeterministic *precedence automaton* (or Floyd automaton) is given by a tuple: $\mathcal A = \langle \Sigma, M, Q, I, F, \delta \rangle $ where:
- $(\Sigma, M)$ is a precedence alphabet,
- $Q$ is a set of states (disjoint from $\Sigma$),
- $I \subseteq Q$ is a set of initial states,
- $F \subseteq Q$ is a set of final states,
- $\delta : Q \times ( \Sigma \cup Q) \rightarrow 2^Q$ is the transition function.
The transition function can be seen as the union of two disjoint functions: $$\delta_{\text{push}}: Q \times \Sigma \rightarrow 2^Q
\qquad
\delta_{\text{flush}}: Q \times Q \rightarrow 2^Q$$ A nondeterministic precedence automaton can be represented by a graph with $Q$ as the set of vertices and $\Sigma \cup Q$ as the set of edge labellings: there is an edge from state $q$ to state $p$ labelled by $a \in \Sigma$ if and only if $p \in \delta_{push}(q,a)$ and there is an edge from state $q$ to state $p$ labelled by $r \in Q$ if and only if $p \in \delta_{flush}(q,r)$. To distinguish flush transitions from push transitions we denote the former ones by a double arrow.
To define the semantics of the automaton, we introduce some notations. We use letters $p, q, p_i, q_i, \dots $ for states in $Q$ and we set ${{\Sigma}'} = \{{{a}'} \mid a \in \Sigma \}$; symbols in $\Sigma'$ are called [*marked*]{} symbols. Let $\Gamma = (\Sigma \cup {{\Sigma}'} \cup \{\#\}) \times Q$; we denote symbols in $\Gamma$ as ${[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q}]}$, ${[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q}]}$, or ${[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q}]}$, respectively. We set ${\mathop{symbol}({[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q}]})} = {\mathop{symbol}({[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q}]})} = a$, ${\mathop{symbol}({[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q}]})}=\#$, and ${\mathop{state}({[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q}]})} = {\mathop{state}({[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q}]})} = {\mathop{state}({[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q}]})} = q$. Given a string $\beta = B_1 B_2 \dots B_n$ with $B_i \in \Gamma$, we set ${\mathop{state}(\beta)} = {\mathop{state}(B_n)}$.
We call a *configuration* any pair $C = {\langle \beta\ , \ w \rangle}$, where $\beta = B_1 B_2 \dots B_n\in \Gamma^*$, ${\mathop{symbol}(B_1)} = \#$, and $w = a_1 a_2 \dots a_m \in \Sigma^*\#$. A configuration represents both the contents $\beta$ of the stack and the part of input $w$ still to process. We also set ${\mathop{top}(C)} = {\mathop{symbol}(B_n)}$ and ${\mathop{input}(C)} = a_1$.
A computation of the automaton is a finite sequence of moves $C \vdash C_1$; there are three kinds of moves, depending on the precedence relation between ${\mathop{top}(C)}$ and ${\mathop{input}(C)}$:
[**push move:**]{}
if ${\mathop{top}(C)} \doteq {\mathop{input}(C)}$ then $
{\langle \beta\ , \ aw \rangle} \vdash {\langle \beta {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q}]} \ , \ w \rangle}, \
\forall q \in \delta_{push}({\mathop{state}(\beta)},a)$;
[**mark move:**]{}
if ${\mathop{top}(C)} \lessdot {\mathop{input}(C)}$ then $
{\langle \beta\ , \ aw \rangle} \vdash {\langle \beta {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q}]} \ , \ w \rangle}, \
\forall q \in \delta_{push}({\mathop{state}(\beta)},a)$;
[**flush move:**]{}
if ${\mathop{top}(C)} \gtrdot {\mathop{input}(C)}$ then let $\beta = B_1 B_2 \dots B_n$ with ${B_j} = {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{x_j}'}
}{x_j}}\ {q_j}]}$, $x_j \in \Sigma \cup {{\Sigma}'}$ and let $i$ the greatest index such that $B_i$ belongs to ${{\Sigma}'} \times Q$. Then $${\langle \beta\ , \ aw \rangle} \vdash {\langle B_1 B_2 \dots B_{i-2}{[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{x_{i-1}}'}
}{x_{i-1}}}\ {\ }]}, \ aw \rangle}, \
\forall q \in \delta_{flush}(q_n,q_{i-1}).$$
Push and mark moves both push the input symbol on the top of the stack, together with the new state computed by $\delta_{push}$; such moves differ only in the marking of the symbol on top of the stack. The flush move is more complex: the symbols on the top of the stack are removed until the first marked symbol (*included*), and the state of the next symbol below them in the stack is updated by $\delta_{flush}$ according to the pair of states that delimit the portion of the stack to be removed; notice that in this move the input symbol is not relevant and it remains available for the following move.
Finally, we say that a configuration ${[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_I}]}$ is [*starting*]{} if $q_I \in I$ and a configuration ${[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_F}]}$ is [*accepting*]{} if $q_F \in F$. The language accepted by the automaton is defined as: $$L(\mathcal A) = \left\{ x \mid {\langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_I}]}\ , \ x\# \rangle} { \stackrel {{*}} \vdash }
{\langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_F}]}\ , \ \# \rangle} , q_I \in I, q_F \in F \right\}.$$
The automaton depicted in Figure \[ex:primo\] accepts the Dyck language $L_D$ of balanced strings of parentheses, with two parentheses pairs $a, \underline{a}$, and $b, \underline{b}$. The same figure also shows an accepting computation on input $aba\underline{a}\underline{b}\underline{a}a\underline{a}$.
[l]{}
\(S) [[$q_0$]{}]{}; (E) \[right of=S, xshift=0cm\] [[$q_1$]{}]{};
\(S) edge \[bend left\] node [$a, b$]{} (E) (E) edge \[loop below\] node [$a, \underline{a}, b, \underline{b}$]{} (E) (E) edge \[loop right, double\] node [$ q_1$]{} (E) (E) edge \[double, below\] node [$q_0$]{} (S) ;
\
$
\begin{array}{c|ccccc}
& a & \underline{a} & b & \underline{b} & \# \\
\hline
a & \lessdot & \dot= & \lessdot & & \\
\underline{a} & \lessdot & \gtrdot & \lessdot &\gtrdot & \gtrdot \\
b & \lessdot & & \lessdot & \dot= & \\
\underline{b} & \lessdot & \gtrdot & \lessdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot \\
\# & \lessdot & & \lessdot & & \dot= \\
\end{array}
$
$
\begin{array}{llcr}
& \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} & , &
aba\underline{a}\underline{b}\underline{a}a\underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{mark} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} & , & ba\underline{a}\underline{b}\underline{a}a\underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{mark} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{b}'}
}{b}}\ {q_1}]} & , & a\underline{a}\underline{b}\underline{a}a\underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{mark} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{b}'}
}{b}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} & , & \underline{a}\underline{b}\underline{a}a\underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{push} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{b}'}
}{b}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]}
{[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\underline{a}}'}
}{\underline{a}}}\ {q_1}]} & , & \underline{b}\underline{a}a\underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{flush} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{b}'}
}{b}}\ {q_1}]} & , & \underline{b}\underline{a}a\underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{push} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{b}'}
}{b}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\underline{b}}'}
}{\underline{b}}}\ {q_1}]} & , & \underline{a}a\underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{flush} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} & , & \underline{a}a\underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{push} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\underline{a}}'}
}{\underline{a}}}\ {q_1}]} & , & a\underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{mark} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\underline{a}}'}
}{\underline{a}}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} & , & \underline{a}\# \rangle \\
\text{push} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\underline{a}}'}
}{\underline{a}}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\underline{a}}'}
}{\underline{a}}}\ {q_1}]} & , & \# \rangle \\
\text{flush} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {q_1}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\underline{a}}'}
}{\underline{a}}}\ {q_1}]} & , & \# \rangle \\
\text{flush} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_0}]} & , & \# \rangle \\
\end{array}
$
A Floyd automaton is called *deterministic* when $\delta_{\text{push}}(q,a)$ and $\delta_{\text{flush}}(q,p)$ have at most one element, for every $q,p \in Q$ and $a \in \Sigma$, and $I$ is a singleton. Here we prove that deterministic Floyd automata are equivalent to nondeterministic ones, with a power-set construction similar to the one used for classical finite state automata.
\[th:nondet\] Deterministic Floyd automata are equivalent to nondeterministic ones.
Given a nondeterministic automaton $\mathcal A = \langle \Sigma, M, Q, I, F, \delta \rangle $, consider the deterministic automaton $\tilde{\mathcal A} = \langle \Sigma, M, \tilde Q, \tilde I, \tilde F, \tilde \delta \rangle $ where:
- $\tilde Q = \hat{\Sigma} \times 2^{Q \times (Q \cup \{\bot\} )}$, where $\hat{\Sigma} = (\Sigma \cup \left\{ \# \right\} )$, $Q \cap \{ \bot \} = \emptyset$, and $\bot$ is a symbol that stands for the baseline of the computations (i.e. the pseudo-state before the initial states),
- $\tilde I = \langle \# , I \times \{ \bot \} \rangle $ is the initial state of $\mathcal {\tilde{A}}$,
- $\tilde F$ is the set of pairs ${\langle {\#},{K}\rangle}$ such that there exists $q \in F$ with ${( {q},{\bot} )} \in K.$
- $\tilde\delta : \tilde Q \times ( \Sigma \cup \tilde Q) \rightarrow \tilde Q$ is the transition function defined as follows. The push transition ${\tilde\delta}_{\text{push}}: \tilde Q \times \Sigma \rightarrow \tilde Q$ is defined by $${\tilde \delta}_{\text{push}} ({\langle {b},{K}\rangle}, a) =
\left\langle a,
\bigcup_{ {( {q},{p} )} \in K} \left\{
{( {h},{t} )} \mid h \in \delta_{\text{push}}(q,a) \text{ and } t = \left[
\begin{array}{ll}
q & \text{if } b \lessdot a\\
p & \text{if } b \doteq a
\end{array}
\right. \\
\right\}
\right\rangle$$ The flush transition ${\tilde\delta}_{\text{flush}}: \tilde Q \times \tilde Q \rightarrow \tilde Q$ is defined as follows: $${\tilde{\delta}}_{\text{flush}} ({\langle {b},{K_1}\rangle}, {\langle {a},{K_2}\rangle}) =
\left\langle a,
\bigcup_{ {( {r},{q} )} \in K_1, {( {q},{p} )} \in K_2} \left\{ {( {h},{p} )} \mid h \in \delta_{\text{flush}} (r,q) \right\}
\right\rangle.$$
The proof of the equivalence between $\mathcal A$ and $\tilde{\mathcal A}$ is given in Appendix.
Floyd automata vs Floyd grammars {#sec:aut_gr}
================================
The main result of this paper is the perfect match between FGs and FAs.
From Floyd grammars to Floyd automata {#sec:gr2aut}
-------------------------------------
\[GtoA\] Any $L$ generated by a Floyd grammar can be recognized by a Floyd automaton
We provide a constructive proof of the theorem: given a Floyd grammar $G$ we build an equivalent nondeterministic Floyd automaton $\mathcal A = \langle \Sigma, M, Q, I, F, \delta \rangle$, whose precedence matrix $M$ is the same as the one associated with $G$. A successful computation of $\mathcal A$ will correspond to a derivation tree in $G$: intuitively, a push transition tries to guess the parent of the symbol currently under the input head (i.e. it determines the l.h.s of a rule of $G$ whose r.h.s contains the current symbol); a flush transition is performed whenever the r.h.s of a rule is completed, and determines the corresponding l.h.s., thus confirming some previous guesses.
In order to keep the construction as simple as possible, we avoid introducing any optimization. Also, without loss of generality, we assume that the grammar $G = \langle \Sigma, N, P, S \rangle$ satisfies the following properties: the axiom $S$ does not occur in the r.h.s. of any rule, no empty rule exists except possibly $S\to \varepsilon$, the other rules having $S$ as l.h.s are renaming, and no other renaming rules exist (in other words, we assume that the $G$ is in Fischer normal form except it is not necessarily invertible).
First of all, we introduce some notation. Enumerate the productions as follows: for any nonterminal $A \in N$, let $P_1(A),$ $P_2(A),$ $\dots P_{n(A)}(A)$ be the productions having $A$ as l.h.s. (i.e. $n(A)$ is the number of productions having $A$ as l.h.s.). Then, consider the set of *extended nonterminals* $EN = \{ A_i \mid A \in N, i = 1, 2, \dots n(A) \}$ and define $Q = EN \times (EN \cup \{ \perp \}) $, where $\perp$ is a new symbol whose meaning is *undefined*. To distinguish between nonterminals and extended nonterminals, we will use capital letters $A,B,C, \dots$ and $X,Y,Z, \dots$, respectively.
When considering derivation trees of $G$, we label internal nodes with extended nonterminals (where the subscript of the nonterminal corresponds to the rule applied in the node). Moreover, with a slight abuse of notation, we sometimes confuse nodes and their labels, using the above convention also for internal nodes and leaves.
To define the push transition function $\delta_{push} : Q \times \Sigma \to 2^Q$, consider any derivation tree $\tau$ of $G$ with any leaf $a$ and let $X$ be $a$’s parent in $\tau$. Figure \[fig:tree\_push\] represents the various configurations that $\tau$ may exhibit.
- Case 0: if there is no leaf that precedes $a$ in the in-order visit of $\tau$ and has depth not greater than $a$’s depth, then let $Y$ be the topmost ancestor of $X$, i.e., $Y =S_i$ for some $i$; this also means that $\# \lessdot a$;
- Otherwise, let $b$ be the rightmost such leaf, and let $Y$ be $y$’s parent. Notice that, $G$ being an operator grammar, $Y$ is the nearest common ancestor of $a$ and $b$. Then there are two possibilities:
- Case 1: $X = Y$, i.e. $b \doteq a$;
- Case 2: $X \neq Y$, and in this case $b$ has lower depth than $a$, so $b \lessdot a$.
In all cases, node $Z$ may be missing, or there may be other leaves between $b$ and $a$ (namely, $Z$’s descendants); let $\hat Z = \perp$ if $Z$ is missing, $\hat Z = Z$ otherwise. Then, for each such triple $(a,X,Y)$, define the *$(a,X,Y)$-push transition*: $$\delta_{push}( (Y, \hat Z), a ) \ni
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(X, X) & \text{if $a$ is the rightmost child of $X$,}\\
(X, \perp) & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$ Hence, a push transition essentially determines the parent of the symbol under the input head (actually, a “candidate” parent, since the automaton is non-deterministic).
[ccc]{}
child [ node [$X$]{} edge from parent \[path\] child [ node [$Z$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] child[ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} child [ node [$a$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} child [node [$\dots$]{}]{};
&
child [ node [$X = Y$]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} ]{} child [ node [$b$]{} ]{} child [ node [$Z$]{} child[ node [$\dots$]{} ]{} ]{} child [ node [$a$]{} ]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} ]{} ]{};
&
child [ node [$Y$]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} ]{} child [ node [$b$]{} ]{} child [ node [$W$]{} child [ node [$X$]{} edge from parent \[path\] child [ node [$Z$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] child[ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} child [ node [$a$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} child[ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} ]{} ]{};
\
Case 0 &Case 1 &Case 2\
A similar construction holds for the flush transition function $\delta_{flush}: Q \times Q \to 2^Q$. For every derivation tree with internal node $X$, let $f$ and $\ell$ be the first and last child, respectively, of node $X$. Notice that both $f$ and $\ell$ may be either internal nodes or leaves. Then there are two possibilities, as depicted in Figure \[fig:tree\_flush\]:
- Case 3: there is no leaf at the left of $X$, then let $Y$ be the topmost ancestor of $X$, i.e., $Y=S_i$ for some $i$;
- Case 4: otherwise, let $b$ be the rightmost leaf at the left of $X$ and let $Y$ be $b$’s parent (again, notice that $Y$ is the nearest common ancestor of $X$ and $b$, $G$ being an operator grammar).
Also, let $\ell_{/\!X}$ be $\ell$ if $\ell$ is an internal node, $X$ otherwise; let $\tilde f$ be $f$ if $f$ is an internal node, $\perp$ otherwise. Then, for each such pair $(X,Y)$ define the *$(X,Y)$-flush transition*: $$\delta_{flush}( (X, \ell_{/\!X}), (Y, \tilde f) ) \ni (Y, X).$$ Hence, the state computed by a flush transition contains two pieces of information: the first component determines the nearest ancestor of both $X$ and $b$ (or the axioms if $b$ does not exist), while the second component determines the nonterminal corresponding to the r.h.s. just completed.
[ccc]{}
child [ node [$X$]{} edge from parent \[path\] child [ node [$f$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] child[ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} child [ node [$\ell$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] child[ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} ]{} child [node [$\dots$]{}]{};
&
child [ node [$Y$]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} ]{} child [ node [$b$]{} ]{} child [ node [$W$]{} child [ node [$X$]{} edge from parent \[path\] child [ node [$f$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] child[ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} child [ node [$\ell$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] child[ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} ]{} child[ node [$\dots$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} ]{} child [ node [$\dots$]{} ]{} ]{};
\
Case 3 &Case 4\
Finally, initial and final states are defined as follows. $$I = \{(S_i, \perp) \mid 1 \le i \le n(S)\},
\qquad
F = \{(S_i, A_j) \mid S \to
A \in P, 1 \le i \le n(S), 1 \le j \le n(A)\}.$$
Notice that the above construction is effective. All triples $(a,X,Y)$ involved by some push transition can be found starting from any rule $X \to \alpha$ with $\alpha$ containing $a$: if $a$ is not the leftmost terminal of $\alpha$, then take the triple $(a, X, X)$, else apply backwards any rule with r.h.s starting with $X$ and extend this process until all productions have been examined. Similarly for the flush transitions.
Let $G$ be the grammar introduced in Example \[ex:expr\]. Following the above construction, number the rules of the grammar in the order they appear in the definition of $G$ (for instance, $P_2(E)$ is $E \to T \times a$). The transitions defined by the derivation tree of string $a \times a +a$, depicted in Figure \[fig:string\] (left), are the following: $$\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{l}
\delta_{push}( (S_1, \perp), a ) \ni (T_2, T_2) \\
\delta_{push}( (S_1, T_2), \times ) \ni (E_2, \perp)\\
\delta_{push}( (S_1, E_2), + ) \ni (E_1, \perp)\\
\delta_{push}( (E_2, \perp), a ) \ni (E_2, E_2)\\
\delta_{push}( (E_1, \perp), a ) \ni (T_2, T_2) \\
\end{array}
& \qquad
\begin{array}{l}
\delta_{flush}( (T_2, T_2), (E_1, \perp) ) \ni (E_1, T_2) \\
\delta_{flush}( (T_2, T_2), (S_1, T_2) ) \ni (S_1, T_2)\\
\delta_{flush}( (E_2, E_2), (S_1, T_2) ) \ni (S_1, E_2)\\
\delta_{flush}( (E_1, T_2), (S_1, E_2) ) \ni (S_1, E_1)\\
\end{array}
\end{array}$$ The first one is the $(a, T_2, S_1)$-push transition obtained by starting from the left-most leaf (Case 0). Case 0 occurs also for the second and third push transitions, obtained considering the leaves labeled by $\times$ and $+$, respectively. The other push transitions represent instances of Cases 1 and 2, in this order. As far as flush transitions are concerned, Case 4 occurs only in the first stated transition, with $X=T_2$, $b=+$ and $Y=E_1$, whereas all other productions represent instances of Case 3. Hence, on input $a \times a +a$, the automaton $\mathcal A$ obtained from $G$ may execute the computation represented in Figure \[fig:string\] (right).
[m[.2]{}m[.1]{}m[.65]{}]{}
child [ node [$E_1$]{} child [ node [$E_2$]{} child [ node [$T_2$]{} child[ node [$a$]{} ]{} ]{} child [ node [$\times$]{} ]{} child [ node [$a$]{} ]{} ]{} child [ node [$+$]{} ]{} child [ node [$T_2$]{} child [ node [$a$]{} ]{} ]{} ]{};
& & $
\begin{array}{llcr}
& \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1, \perp)}]} & , & a \times a + a\ \# \rangle \\
\text{mark} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1, \perp)}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {(T_2, T_2)}]} & , & \times \ a + a\ \# \rangle \\
\text{flush} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1, T_2)}]} & , & \times \ a + a\ \# \rangle \\
\text{mark} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1, T_2)}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{\times}'}
}{\times}}\ {(E_2, \perp)}]} & , & a + a\ \# \rangle \\
\text{push} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1, T_2)}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{\times}'}
}{\times}}\ {(E_2, \perp)}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {(E_2,E_2)}]} & , & + \ a\ \# \rangle \\
\text{flush} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1,E_2)}]} & , & +\ a\ \# \rangle \\
\text{mark} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1,E_2)}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{+}'}
}{+}}\ {(E_1,\perp)}]} & , & a\ \# \rangle \\
\text{mark} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1,E_2)}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{+}'}
}{+}}\ {(E_1,\perp)}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {(T_2,T_2)}]} & , & \# \rangle \\
\text{flush} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1,E_2)}]} {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{1}{1}}{{{+}'}
}{+}}\ {(E_1,T_2)}]} & , & \# \rangle \\
\text{flush} & \langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {(S_1,E_1)}]} & , & \# \rangle \\
\end{array}
$
The equivalence between $G$ and the automaton described above is based on the following lemma, whose proof is omitted because of space reasons. As usual we set $\Gamma = (\Sigma \cup {{\Sigma}'}) \times Q = (\Sigma \cup {{\Sigma}'}) \times (EN \times (EN \cup \{\perp\}))$ and we denote an element in $\Gamma$ as ${[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{a}'}
}{a}}\ {(X,Y)}]}$. To avoid an excessively cumbersome notation, when describing the transitions between configurations, we omit the extreme parts (i.e. the lower part of the stack and a suffix of the input string) which are not affected by the computation.
We define the *depth of a computation* $C_1 { \stackrel {{*}} \vdash } C_2$ as the maximum number of marked symbols in one of the traversed configurations, minus the number of marked symbol on the stack in configuration $C_1$; we define the *depth of a derivation* $W { \stackrel {{*}} \Rightarrow} \alpha$ as the depth of the corresponding derivation tree. When useful, we make the depth $h$ of a computation or a derivation explicit as in $C_1 { \stackrel {[{h}]} \vdash } C_2$ and $X { \stackrel {[{h}]} \Rightarrow} \alpha$.
\[lemma:violi\] Let $Y,W$ be extended nonterminals of $G$, $v \in \Sigma^*$, $a \lessdot v \gtrdot b$, and $\bar a \in \{a, {{a}'}\}$. Then for all $h \geq 1$: $$\label{main}
{\langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\bar a}'}
}{\bar a}}\ {(Y,\perp)}]}\ , \ vb \rangle}
{ \stackrel {[{h}]} \vdash }
{\langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\bar a}'}
}{\bar a}}\ {(Y,W)}]}\ , \ b \rangle}
\quad
\text{ iff }
\quad
\exists \alpha, \beta \text{ such that } Y \to \alpha a W
\beta, \ W { \stackrel {[{h}]} \Rightarrow} v \text { in } G.$$
The lemma is equivalent to the following two properties.
(i) \[down\] For every $Y,X$, $a \lessdot c \, \underline{\lessdot}\, x \gtrdot d$, $\mathcal A$ admits the computation $${\langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\bar a}'}
}{\bar a}}\ {(Y,\perp)}]}\ , \ c x d \rangle}
{ \stackrel {[{k}]} \vdash }
{\langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\bar a}'}
}{\bar a}}\ {(Y,X)}]}\ , \ d \rangle}$$ if and only if there exist $W, \alpha, \beta, \gamma,\epsilon$ such that $Y \to \alpha a W \beta,\ W { \stackrel {{*}} \Rightarrow} X \gamma,\ X \to c \epsilon,\
\epsilon { \stackrel {[{k}]} \Rightarrow} x$.
(ii) \[up\] For every $Y,X,Z$, $a \lessdot d\, \underline{\lessdot}\, z \gtrdot e$, $\mathcal A$ admits the computation $${\langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\bar a}'}
}{\bar a}}\ {(Y,X)}]}\ , \ d z e \rangle}
{ \stackrel {[{k}]} \vdash }
{\langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\bar a}'}
}{\bar a}}\ {(Y,Z)}]}\ , \ d \rangle}$$ if and only if there exist $W, \alpha, \beta,\mu, \lambda$ such that $Y \to \alpha a W \beta,\ W { \stackrel {{*}} \Rightarrow} Z \mu,\ Z \to X d \lambda, \lambda { \stackrel {[{k}]} \Rightarrow} z$.
[ccc]{}
child [node [$\alpha$]{}]{} child [node [$a$]{}]{} child [node [$W$]{} child [ node [$v$]{} edge from parent \[path\] ]{} ]{} child [node [$\beta$]{}]{} ;
&
child [node [$\alpha$]{}]{} child [node [$a$]{}]{} child [node [$W$]{} child [node [$X$]{} edge from parent \[path\] child [ node [$c$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} child [ node [$\epsilon$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] child [ node [$x$]{} edge from parent \[path\] ]{} ]{} ]{} child [node [$\gamma$]{} edge from parent \[path\] ]{} ]{} child [node [$\beta$]{} ]{} ;
&
child [node [$\alpha$]{}]{} child [node [$a$]{}]{} child [node [$W$]{} child [node [$Z$]{} edge from parent \[path\] child [ node [$X$]{} edge from parent \[normal\] ]{} child [ node[$d$]{} edge from parent \[path\] ]{} child [ node [$\lambda$]{} edge from parent \[path\] child [ node[$z$]{} edge from parent \[path\] ]{} ]{} ]{} child [ node [$\mu$]{} edge from parent \[path\] ]{} ]{} child [node [$\beta$]{}]{} ;
\
Statement of Lemma & Property & Property
Notice that in $W$ and $X$ may coincide (i.e., $\gamma$ may be empty), and in $W$ and $Z$ may coincide (i.e., $\mu$ may be empty). For $h = 1$, the lemma is given by property with $W=X$ and $k = 0$ (for $cx = v$, $d=b$); for $h > 1$ we have $v= cx d_1 z_1 d_2 \dots d_n z_n$ for some $c \, \underline\lessdot \, x \gtrdot d_1$, $d_i \, \underline\lessdot z_i \gtrdot d_{i+1}$ (with $x$, $z_i$ possibly empty). Then, applying first property and then, repeatedly, property , one gets the lemma.
We prove property reasoning by induction on $k$. First let $k = 0$; in this case $\epsilon = x$, i.e. $X \to cx$. Hence, if $x = c_1 \dots c_n$, during the computation defined in , $\mathcal A$ has to execute the following series of moves: a marked $(c,X_0,Y)$-push transition (case 2 without $Z$), then a sequence of $(c_i,X_0,X_0)$-push transitions (case 1 without $Z$), and finally a $(X_0,Y)$-flush transition, for a suitable $X_0$: $${\langle \eta
{[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\bar a}'}
}{\bar a}}\ {(Y,\perp)}]}
{[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{{{c}'}}'}
}{{{c}'}}}\ {(X_0,\perp)}]}
{[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{c_1}'}
}{c_1}}\ {(X_0,\perp)}]}
\dots
{[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{c_n}'}
}{c_n}}\ {(X_0,X_0)}]}\ , \ d \rangle}
\vdash
{\langle \eta
{[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\bar a}'}
}{\bar a}}\ {(Y,X_0)}]} \ , \ d \rangle}.$$ To end in the right configuration, we necessarily have $X_0 = X$. Moreover, by the definition of transitions in $\mathcal A$, $X$ must satisfy exactly the relations defined in . Vice versa, if the grammar admits the derivation defined in , then obviously the automaton $\mathcal A$ admits the previous moves.
One can prove similarly property for $k=0$: in this case, both the marked $(d,Z,Y)$-push transition and the $(Z,Y)$-flush transition involve the extended nonterminal $X$ (i.e., the second component of the state on the top of the stack).
Now, assuming that properties and hold for depths lower than $k$, we prove them for $k$. First consider and let $x = u_0 c_1 u_1 c_2 \dots c_m u_m$ with $c \lessdot u_0$, $u_{i-1} \gtrdot c_i \lessdot u_i$ (with any $u_i$ possibly empty), and $c_i \doteq c_{i+1}$. By the definition of the transition function, $\mathcal A$ admits the computation in if and only if there exist $W, \alpha, \beta, \gamma,\epsilon$ as in and moreover there exist $U_0, \cdots U_m$ such that $\epsilon = U_0 c_1 U_1 \dots c_m U_m$ and $U_i { \stackrel {[{k_i}]} \Rightarrow} u_i$ with $k_i < k$ ($U_i$ is missing iff $u_i$ is empty). Hence one can apply the inductive hypothesis and get the result.
One can prove similarly property for $k$ greater than 0: again, in this case, both the marked $(d,Z,Y)$-push transition and the $(Z,Y)$-flush transition involve the extended nonterminal $X$.
From the lemma the theorem easily follows by using a special case $S \to A$ (with implicit $\#$ as $a$ and $b$).
From Floyd automata to Floyd grammars
-------------------------------------
Given a Floyd automaton $\mathcal A = \langle \Sigma,M, Q, I, F, \delta \rangle $, we show how to build an equivalent Floyd grammar $G$ having operator precedence matrix M. In order to keep the construction as easy as possible, w.l.o.g we assume that $M$ is $\dot=$-acyclic. Remind that, as discussed in Section \[sec:prelim\], this hypothesis could be replaced by weaker ones.
We need some notation and definitions. First of all, we shall represent a push transition with a simple arrow $\rightarrow$, a flush transition with a double arrow $\Rightarrow$, and a path defined by a sequence of transitions with a wavy arrow $\leadsto$.
We define *chains* in $\mathcal A$ recursively. A *simple chain* is a word $a_0 a_1 a_2 \dots a_n a_{n+1}$, written as $
{\langle^{a_0} a_1 a_2 \dots a_n {}^{a_{n+1}} \rangle},
$ such that: $a_0, a_{n+1} \in \Sigma \cup \{\#\}$, $a_i \in \Sigma$ for every $i = 1,2, \dots n$, $M_{a_0,a_{n+1}} \neq \emptyset$, and $a_0 \lessdot a_1 \doteq a_2 \dots a_{n-1} \doteq a_n \gtrdot a_{n+1}$. A *composed chain* in $\mathcal A$ is a word $a_0 x_0 a_1 x_1 a_2 \dots a_n x_n a_{n+1}$, where ${\langle^{a_0} a_1 a_2 \dots a_n {}^{a_{n+1}} \rangle}$ is a simple chain, and $x_i \in \Sigma^*$ is the empty word or is such that ${\langle^{a_i} x_i {}^{a_{i+1}} \rangle}$ is a chain (simple or composed), for every $i = 0,1, \dots, n-1$. Such a composed chain will be written as ${\langle^{a_0} x_0 a_1 x_1 a_2 \dots a_n x_n {}^{a_{n+1}} \rangle}$.
We call a *support* for the simple chain ${\langle^{a_0} a_1 a_2 \dots a_n {}^{a_{n+1}} \rangle}$ any path in $\mathcal A$ of the form $$\label{eq:simplechain}
q_0
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{q_1}
{\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}}q_{n-1}
{\stackrel{a_{n}}{\longrightarrow}}{q_n}
{\stackrel{q_0}{\Longrightarrow}} {q_{n+1}}
$$ Notice that the label of the last (and only) flush is exactly $q_0$, i.e. the first state of the path; this flush is executed because of relation $a_n
\gtrdot a_{n+1}$. We call a *support for the composed chain* ${\langle^{a_0} x_0 a_1 x_1 a_2 \dots a_n x_n {}^{a_{n+1}} \rangle}$ any path in $\mathcal A$ of the form $$\label{eq:compchain}
q_0
{\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{q'_0}
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{q_1}
{\stackrel{x_1}{\leadsto}}{q'_1}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}} {q_n}
{\stackrel{x_n}{\leadsto}}{q'_n}
{\stackrel{q'_0}{\Longrightarrow}}{q_{n+1}}
$$ where, for every $i = 0, 1, \dots, n$:
- if $x_i \neq \epsilon$, then $q_i {\stackrel{x_i}{\leadsto}}{q'_i} $ is a support for the chain ${\langle^{a_i} x_i {}^{a_{i+1}} \rangle}$, i.e., it can be decomposed as $q_i{\stackrel{x_i}{\leadsto}}{q''_i} {\stackrel{q_i}{\Longrightarrow}}{q'_i}$.
- if $x_i = \epsilon$, then $q'_i = q_i$.
Notice that the label of the last flush is exactly $q'_0$.
We are now able to define a Floyd grammar $G = \langle \Sigma, N, S, P \rangle$. Nonterminals are the 4-tuples $(a, q, p, b) \in \Sigma \times Q \times Q \times \Sigma$, written as ${\langle^{a} p, q {}^{b} \rangle}$, plus the axiom $S$. Rules are built as follows:
- for every support of type (\[eq:simplechain\]) of a simple chain, add the rule $${\langle^{a_0} q_0, q_{n+1} {}^{a_{n+1}} \rangle}\longrightarrow a_1 a_2 \dots a_n\ ;$$ if also $a_0 = a_{n+1} = \#$, $q_0$ is initial, and $q_{n+1}$ is final, add the rule $S \rightarrow {\langle^{\#} q_0, q_{n+1} {}^{\#} \rangle}$;\
- for every support of type (\[eq:compchain\]) of a composed chain, add the rule $${\langle^{a_0} q_0, q_{n+1} {}^{a_{n+1}} \rangle} \longrightarrow N_0 a_1 N_1 a_2 \dots a_n N_n \ ;$$ where, for every $i = 0,1, \dots, n$, $N_i = {\langle^{a_i} q_i, q'_i {}^{a_{i+1}} \rangle}$ if $x_i \neq \epsilon$ and $N_i =
\epsilon$ otherwise.
Notice that the above construction is effective thanks to the hypothesis of $\dot=$-acyclicity of the OPM. This implies that the length of the r.h.s. is bounded (see Section \[sec:prelim\]); on the other hand, the cardinality of the nonterminal alphabet is finite. Hence there is only a finite number of possible productions for $G$ and only a limited number of chains to be considered.
$\omega$-languages {#sec:omega}
==================
Having an operational model that defines Floyd Languages, it is now straightforward to introduce extensions to $\omega$-languages.
For instance, the classical Büchi condition of acceptance can be easily adapted to FAs. Consider an infinite word $x \in \Sigma^\omega$, and an [*infinite computation*]{} of the automaton $\mathcal A_{M} = \langle \Sigma, M, Q, I, F, \delta \rangle $ on $x$, i.e. an $\omega$-sequence of configurations $\mathcal S = {\langle \beta_0\ , \ x_0 \rangle} {\langle \beta_1\ , \ x_1 \rangle} \ldots$, such that ${\langle \beta_0\ , \ x_0 \rangle} = {\langle {[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_I}]}\ , \ x \rangle}$, $q_I \in I$ and ${\langle \beta_i\ , \ x_i \rangle} \vdash {\langle \beta_{i+1}\ , \ x_{i+1} \rangle}$. We say that $x \in L(\mathcal A)$ if and only if there exists $q_F \in F$ such that configurations with stack ${[{\ifthenelse{\equal{0}{1}}{{{\#}'}
}{\#}}\ {q_F}]}$ occur infinitely often in $\mathcal
S$.
Quite naturally, $\omega$-VPLs are a proper subset of this class of languages, as it is shown by the following example.
We define here the stack management of a simple programming language that is able to handle nested exceptions. For simplicity, there are only two procedures, called $a$ and $b$. Calls and returns are denoted by $call_a$, $call_b$, $ret_a$, $ret_b$, respectively. During execution, it is possible to install an exception handler $hnd$. The last signal that we use is $rst$, that is issued when an exception occur, or after a correct execution to uninstall the handler. With a $rst$ the stack is “flushed”, restoring the state right before the last $hnd$. The automaton is presented in Figure \[ex:omega\] (notice that it is an extension of the automaton in Figure \[ex:primo\]). It is easy to modify this example to model the case of [*unnested*]{} exceptions, to fit with other application contexts.
[m[.4]{}m[.45]{}]{} $
\begin{array}{c|cccccc}
& call_a & ret_a & call_b & ret_b & hnd & rst \\
\hline
call_a & \lessdot & \dot= & \lessdot & & \lessdot & \gtrdot \\
ret_a & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot \\
call_b & \lessdot & & \lessdot & \dot= & \lessdot & \gtrdot \\
ret_b & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot \\
hnd & \lessdot & \lessdot & \lessdot & \lessdot & & \dot= \\
rst & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot & \gtrdot \\
\# & \lessdot & & \lessdot & & \lessdot \\
\end{array}
$ &
\(S) [[$q_0$]{}]{}; (E) \[right of=S, xshift=3cm\] [[$q_1$]{}]{};
\(S) edge \[bend left\] node [$call_a, call_b, hnd$]{} (E) (E) edge \[loop right, double\] node [$q_1$]{} (E) (E) edge \[loop below\] node [$call_a, ret_a, call_b, ret_b, hnd, rst$]{} (E) (E) edge \[below, double\] node [$q_0$]{} (S) ;
Conclusions and further research {#sec:conclusions}
================================
Recently, we advocated that operator precedence grammars and languages, here renamed after their inventor Robert Floyd, deserve renewed attention in the realm of formal languages. The main reasons to support our claim are:
- The fact that this family of languages properly includes visibly pushdown languages [@jacm/AlurM09], a new family that has been proposed with the main motivation of extending powerful model checking techniques beyond the limits of finite state machines.
- The fact that it enjoys all closure properties with respect to the main algebraic operations that are exhibited by regular languages and VPLs.
- The fact that, unlike other deterministic languages -either strictly more powerful than them, or incomparable with them- such as LR, LL, and simple precedence ones, FLs can be parsed without applying a strictly left-to-right order; this feature becomes particularly relevant in these days since it allows to exploit much better the gains in efficiency offered by massive parallelism.
In this paper we filled a rather surprising “hole” in the theory of these languages, namely the lack of an appropriate family of automata that perfectly matches the generative power of their grammars. We defined FAs with such a goal in mind and we proved their equivalence with FGs. Both facts turned out to be non-trivial jobs and showed further interesting peculiarities of this pioneering family of deterministic languages. A first “byproduct” of the new automata family is the extension of FLs to $\omega$-languages, i.e., languages consisting of infinite strings, a more and more important aspect of formal language theory needed to deal with never ending computations. In this case too FL $\omega$-languages proved to augment the descriptive capabilities of the original VPLs.
As a first step towards applicability of the results presented in this paper, and also to validate our approach with several practical examples, we implemented a simple prototypical tool, called [*Flup*]{}. Flup contains an interpreter for non-deterministic Floyd Automata, and a Floyd Grammar to Automata translator, that directly applies the construction presented in Section \[sec:gr2aut\]. All the examples presented in the paper were tried on, or generated by the tool.[^3]
We are confident that suitable future research will further strengthen the importance of, and motivation for, re-inserting FLs in the main stream of formal language literature. In particular it would be interesting to complete the parallel analysis and comparison with VPLs by investigating a characterization in terms of suitable logic formulas [@jacm/AlurM09]; by this way motivation for, and application of, strong model checking techniques would be further enhanced.
#### Acknowledgement.
We thank Federica Panella for her comments and suggestions, especially with respect to the construction of Theoremref[th:nondet]{} and $\omega$-languages.
Appendix: proof of Theorem \[th:nondet\] {#appendix-proof-of-theoremthnondet .unnumbered}
========================================
#### Notation.
We use $J, \bar J, J', J_i \dots$ to denote states in $\tilde Q$ and $K, \bar K, K', K_i, \dots$ to denote set of pairs in $Q \times (Q \cup \{\bot\})$. We use arrows ${\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow}}{}$ and ${\stackrel{}{\Longrightarrow}}{}$ to denote push and flush transitions, respectively, both in $\mathcal A$ and in $\tilde{\mathcal A}$.
#### Remarks
i) \[rem:flush\] By the definition of $\delta_{\text{flush}}$, if ${\langle {b},{\bar K}\rangle} {\stackrel{{\langle {a},{K}\rangle}}{\Longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a},{K'}\rangle}}$ in $\tilde{\mathcal A}$ and ${( {q'},{p} )} \in K'$, then there exists a pair ${( {r},{q} )} \in \bar K$ such that ${( {q},{p} )} \in K$ and $r {\stackrel{q}{\Longrightarrow}}{q'}$ in $\mathcal A$.
ii) \[rem:push1\] By the definition of $\delta_{\text{push}}$, if ${\langle {b},{\bar K}\rangle} {\stackrel{a}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a},{K}\rangle}}$ in $\tilde{\mathcal A}$, ${( {r},{q} )} \in K$, and $b \doteq a$, then there exists a state $\bar q \in Q$ such that $\bar q {\stackrel{a}{\longrightarrow}} r$ in $\mathcal A$ and ${( {\bar q},{q} )} \in \bar K$.
iii) \[rem:push2\] By the definition of $\delta_{\text{push}}$, if ${\langle {b},{\bar K}\rangle} {\stackrel{a}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a},{K}\rangle}}$ in $\tilde{\mathcal A}$, ${( {\bar q},{q} )} \in K$, ${( {q},{p} )} \in \bar K$, and $b \lessdot a$, then $q {\stackrel{a}{\longrightarrow}}{\bar q}$ in $\mathcal A$.
\[lem:rem\] Let $\mathcal C = {\langle^{a} y {}^{b} \rangle}$ be a chain and let ${\langle {a},{K}\rangle} {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}} {\langle {a'},{K'}\rangle} $ be a support for $\mathcal C$ in $\mathcal{\tilde{A}}$. Then $a' = a$ and the support has the form [$$\label{eq:support}
{\langle {a},{K}\rangle}
{\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{{\langle {a},{\bar K_0}\rangle}}
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a_1},{K_1}\rangle}}
{\stackrel{x_1}{\leadsto}}{{\langle {a_1},{\bar K_1}\rangle}}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}} {{\langle {a_n},{K_n}\rangle}}
{\stackrel{x_n}{\leadsto}}{{\langle {a_n},{\bar K_n}\rangle}}
{\stackrel{{\langle {a},{\bar K_0}\rangle}}{\Longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a},{K'}\rangle}}$$ ]{}where $y = x_0 a_1 x_1 a_2 \dots a_n x_n $ and ${\langle^{a} a_1 a_2 \dots a_n {}^{b} \rangle}$ is a simple chain. Any word $x_i$ may be empty and in this case $\bar K_i = K_i$.
We argue by induction on the number of flush transitions in the support. If there is only one flush transition, then the chain is simple, i.e. $y = a_1 a_2 \dots a_n$ with $a \lessdot a_1 \doteq a_2 \doteq \dots \doteq a_n \gtrdot b$, and by the definition of $\tilde\delta_{\text{push}}$, the support can be rewritten as$$\label{eq:supportsimple}
{\langle {a},{K}\rangle}
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a_1},{K_1}\rangle}}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_{n-1}}{\longrightarrow}}{\langle {a_{n-1}},{K_{n-1}}\rangle}
{\stackrel{a_{n}}{\longrightarrow}}{\langle {a_n},{K_n}\rangle}
{\stackrel{{\langle {a},{K}\rangle}}{\Longrightarrow}} {\langle {a'},{K'}\rangle}$$ By the definition of $\tilde\delta_{\text{flush}}$, we get $a'=a$.
Now assume that the statement holds for supports with $k$ flush transitions at most. Let $y = x_0 a_1 x_1 a_2 \dots a_n x_n $, where ${\langle^{a} a_1 a_2 \dots a_n {}^{b} \rangle}$ is a simple chain, and consider the support $${\langle {a},{K}\rangle}
{\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{{\bar J}_0}
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a_1},{K_1}\rangle}}
{\stackrel{x_1}{\leadsto}}{{\bar J}_1}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}} {{\langle {a_n},{K_n}\rangle}}
{\stackrel{x_n}{\leadsto}}{{\bar J}_n}
{\stackrel{{\bar J}_0}{\Longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a'},{K'}\rangle}}$$ where, for every $i = 0,1,2,\dots n$, the support labeled by $x_i$ contains $k$ flush transitions at most. The inductive hypothesis implies that $\bar J_i$ has the form ${\langle {a_i},{\bar K_i}\rangle}$ for some $\bar K_i$ (where $a_0 =a$). In particular the state $\bar J_0$ has the form ${\langle {a},{\bar K_0}\rangle}$ hence, by the definition of $\tilde\delta_{\text{flush}}$, we have $a'=a$.
\[lem:chainnondet\] Let $\mathcal C = {\langle^{a} y {}^{b} \rangle}$ be a chain and $q {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}}{q'}$ be a support for $\mathcal C$ in $\mathcal{A}$. Then, for every $p \in Q$ and $K \subseteq Q\times(Q \cup \{\bot\})$, if $K \ni {( {q},{p} )}$, there exists a support $${\langle {a},{K}\rangle} {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}} {\langle {a},{K'}\rangle}$$ for $\mathcal C$ in $\mathcal{\tilde{A}}$ with $K' \ni {( {q'},{p} )}$.
We argue by induction on the number of flush transitions contained in the support $q {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}}{q'}$. If there is only one flush transition, then $y = a_1 a_2 \dots a_n$ with $a \lessdot a_1 \doteq a_2 \doteq \dots \doteq a_n \gtrdot b$ and the support can be rewritten as $$q = q_0
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{q_1}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_{n-1}}{\longrightarrow}}q_{n-1}
{\stackrel{a_{n}}{\longrightarrow}}{q_n}
{\stackrel{q_0}{\Longrightarrow}} {q'}$$ Set $K_0 = K$, $a_0 = a$, and $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle {a_i},{K_i}\rangle} &=& \tilde\delta_{\text{push}} ( {\langle {a_{i-1}},{K_{i-1}}\rangle} , a_i ) , \text{ for every } i=1, 2, \dots, n\\
{\langle {a},{K'}\rangle} &=& \tilde\delta_{\text{flush}} ({\langle {a_n},{K_n}\rangle}, {\langle {a},{K}\rangle})\end{aligned}$$ Then $${\langle {a},{K}\rangle}
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a_1},{K_1}\rangle}}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_{n-1}}{\longrightarrow}}{\langle {a_{n-1}},{K_{n-1}}\rangle}
{\stackrel{a_{n}}{\longrightarrow}}{\langle {a_n},{K_n}\rangle}
{\stackrel{{\langle {a},{K}\rangle}}{\Longrightarrow}} {\langle {a},{K'}\rangle}$$ is a support for $\mathcal C$ in $\mathcal{\tilde{A}}$. Moreover, since $K \ni {( {q},{p} )}$, by the definition of $\tilde\delta$ we have: $$\begin{array}{ll}
K_1 \ni {( {q_1},{q} )}
&\text{since } a \lessdot a_1 \text{ and } \delta_{\text{push}}(q,a_1) \ni q_1\\
K_i \ni {( {q_i},{q} )}
&\text{since } a_{i-1} \doteq a_i \text{ and } \delta_{\text{push}}(q_{i-1},a_i) \ni q_i\\
K' \ni {( {q'},{p} )}
&\text{since } a_n \gtrdot b \text{ and } \delta_{\text{flush}}(q_n,q) \ni q'
\end{array}$$
Now assume that the statement holds for supports with $k$ flush transitions at most. Let $y = x_0 a_1 x_1 a_2 \dots a_n x_n $, where ${\langle^{a} a_1 a_2 \dots a_n {}^{b} \rangle}$ is a simple chain, and consider the support $$q = q_0
{\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{{\bar q}_0}
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{q_1}
{\stackrel{x_1}{\leadsto}}{{\bar q}_1}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}} {q_n}
{\stackrel{x_n}{\leadsto}}{{\bar q}_n}
{\stackrel{{\bar q}_0}{\Longrightarrow}}{q'}$$ where ${\bar q}_i = q_i$ whenever $x_i$ is the empty word and, for every $i = 0,1,2,\dots n$, the support labeled by $x_i$ contains $k$ flush transitions at most.
Set $J_0 = {\langle {a},{K}\rangle}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\bar J_i &=& \tilde\delta (J_i,x_i) \text{ for every } i= 0, 1, \dots, n\\
J_i &=& \tilde\delta_{\text{push}} (\bar J_{i-1},a_i) \text{ for every } i=1, 2, \dots, n\\
J' &=& \tilde\delta_{\text{flush}} (\bar J_n, \bar J_0).\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\label{eq:supportJ}
{\langle {a},{K}\rangle}
{\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{{\bar J}_0}
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{J_1}
{\stackrel{x_1}{\leadsto}}{{\bar J}_1}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}} {J_n}
{\stackrel{x_n}{\leadsto}}{{\bar J}_n}
{\stackrel{{\bar J}_0}{\Longrightarrow}}{{J'}}$$ is a support of $\mathcal C$ in $\mathcal{\tilde A}$. By Lemma \[lem:rem\], there exist $K_i, \bar K_i, K'$ such that $\bar J_i = {\langle {a_i},{\bar K_i}\rangle}$, $J_i = {\langle {a_i},{K_i}\rangle}$, and $J' = {\langle {a},{K'}\rangle}$, where $a_0 = a$, i.e., the support is .
Moreover, since $K \ni {( {q},{p} )}$, by the definition of $\tilde\delta$ we have: $$\begin{array}{ll}
\bar K_0 \ni {( {\bar q_0},{p} )} &
\text{by inductive hypothesis on the support } q = q_0 {\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{{\bar q}_0}\\
K_1 \ni {( {q_1},{\bar q_0} )} &
\text{since } a_0 \lessdot a_1 \text{ and }\delta_{\text{push}}({\bar q}_0,a_1) \ni q_1\\
\bar K_1 \ni {( {\bar q_1},{\bar q_0} )} &
\text{by inductive hypothesis on the support }q_1 {\stackrel{x_1}{\leadsto}}{{\bar q}_1}\\
K_i \ni {( {q_i},{\bar q_0} )}&
\text{since } a_{i-1} \doteq a_i \text{ and } \delta_{\text{push}}({\bar q}_{i-1},a_i) \ni q_i\\
\bar K_i \ni {( {\bar q_i},{\bar q_0} )} &
\text{by inductive hypothesis on the support } q_i {\stackrel{x_i}{\leadsto}}{{\bar q}_i}\\
K' \ni {( {q'},{p} )} &
\text{since } \delta_{\text{flush}}(q_n,{\bar q}_0) \ni q'
\end{array}$$
\[lem:chaindet\] Let $\mathcal C = {\langle^{a} y {}^{b} \rangle}$ be a chain and ${\langle {a},{K}\rangle} {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}}{\langle {a},{K'}\rangle}$ be a support for $\mathcal C$ in $\mathcal{\tilde{A}}$. Then, for every $p,q' \in Q$, if $K' \ni {( {q'},{p} )}$ there exists a support $q {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}}{q'}$ for $\mathcal C$ in $\mathcal{A}$ with ${( {q},{p} )} \in K$.
We argue by induction on the number of flush transitions contained in the support ${\langle {a},{K}\rangle} {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}}{\langle {a},{K'}\rangle}$. If there is only one flush transition, then $y = a_1 a_2 \dots a_n$ with $a_0 \lessdot a_1 \doteq a_2 \doteq\dots\doteq a_n \gtrdot a_{n+1}$ and the support can be rewritten as in . Let $K' \ni {( {q'},{p} )}$; then, by remark there exists a pair ${( {q_n},{q} )} \in K_n$ such that ${( {q},{p} )} \in K$ and $q_n {\stackrel{q}{\Longrightarrow}}{q'}$ in $\tilde{\mathcal A}$. Moreover, ${( {q_n},{q} )} \in K_n$, ${\langle {a_{n-1}},{K_{n-1}}\rangle} {\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a_n},{K_n}\rangle}}$ and $a_{n-1} \doteq a_n$ imply by remark the existence of a state $q_{n-1} \in Q$ such that ${( {q_{n-1}},{q} )} \in K_{n-1}$ and $q_{n-1}{\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}}{q_n}$. Similarly one can verify that for every $i = n-2, \dots 1$ there exists $q_i \in Q$ such that ${( {q_i},{q} )} \in K_i$ and $q_i {\stackrel{a_{i+1}}{\longrightarrow}}{q_{i+1}}$. In particular, ${\langle {a},{K}\rangle} {\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a_1},{K_1}\rangle}}$, ${( {q_1},{q} )} \in K_1$, ${( {q},{p} )} \in K$, and $a \lessdot a_1$ imply by Remark that $q {\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{q_1}$ in $\mathcal A$. Thus, we built backward a path $$q
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{q_1}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{q_2}
{\stackrel{a_3}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}}{q_n}
{\stackrel{q}{\Longrightarrow}} {q'}$$ with ${( {q},{p} )} \in K$, and this concludes the proof of induction basis.
Now assume that the statement holds for supports with $k$ flush transitions at most. Let $y = x_0 a_1 x_1 a_2 \dots a_n x_n $, where ${\langle^{a} a_1 a_2 \dots a_n {}^{b} \rangle}$ is a simple chain, and consider a support of the form $${\langle {a},{K}\rangle}
{\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{{\bar J}_0}
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{J_1}
{\stackrel{x_1}{\leadsto}}{{\bar J}_1}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}} {J_n}
{\stackrel{x_n}{\leadsto}}{{\bar J}_n}
{\stackrel{{\bar J}_0}{\Longrightarrow}}{{{\langle {a},{K'}\rangle}}}$$ where ${\bar q}_i = q_i$ whenever $x_i$ is the empty word and, for every $i = 0,1,2,\dots n$, the support labeled by $x_i$ contains $k$ flush transitions at most. Then by Lemma \[lem:rem\] the support can be rewritten as in .
Let ${( {q'},{p} )} \in K'$. Since ${\langle {a_n},{\bar K_n}\rangle} {\stackrel{{\langle {a},{\bar K_0}\rangle}}{\Longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a},{K'}\rangle}}$, by Remark there exists a pair ${( {\bar q_n},{\bar q_0} )} \in \bar K_n$ with ${( {\bar q_0},{p} )} \in \bar K_0$ and $\bar q_n {\stackrel{\bar q_0}{\Longrightarrow}}{q'}$ in $\tilde{\mathcal A}$. By the inductive hypothesis, since ${( {\bar q_n},{\bar q_0} )} \in \bar K_n$ there exists a support $q_n {\stackrel{x_n}{\leadsto}}{\bar q_n}$ with ${( {q_n},{\bar q_0} )}\in K_n$.
Similarly one can see that, for all $i = n-1, \dots 2,1$, there exist $\bar q_i$ and $q_i$ such that $$q_i {\stackrel{x_i}{\leadsto}}{\bar q_i} {\stackrel{a_{i+1}}{\longrightarrow}}{q_{i+1}}$$ with $
{( {\bar q_i},{\bar q_0} )} \in \bar K_i
$ by Remark (since ${\langle {a_i},{\bar K_i}\rangle} {\stackrel{a_{i+1}}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a_{i+1}},{K_{i+1}}\rangle}}$ in $\tilde{\mathcal A}$, ${( {q_{i+1}},{\bar q_0} )} \in K_{i+1}$, and $a_i \lessdot a_{i+1}$), and $
{( {q_i},{\bar q_0} )} \in K_i
$ by the inductive hypothesis (since ${\langle {a_i},{K_i}\rangle} {\stackrel{x_i}{\leadsto}}{{\langle {a_i},{\bar K_i}\rangle}}$ in $\tilde{\mathcal A}$ and ${( {\bar q_i},{\bar q_0} )} \in \bar K_i$).
In particular $q_1 {\stackrel{x_1}{\leadsto}}{\bar q_1}$ with ${( {q_1},{\bar q_0} )} \in K_1$. Then, since also ${\langle {a},{\bar K_0}\rangle} {\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{{\langle {a_1},{K_1}\rangle}}$, ${( {\bar q_0},{p} )} \in \bar K_0$, and $a \lessdot a_1$, by Remark we get $\bar q_0 {\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{q_1}$. Finally, since ${( {\bar q_0},{p} )} \in \bar K_0$ and ${\langle {a},{K}\rangle} {\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{{\langle {a},{\bar K_0}\rangle}}$, the inductive hypothesis implies the existence of a state $q\in Q$ such that $q {\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{\bar q_0}$ in $\tilde{\mathcal A}$ with ${( {q},{p} )} \in K$. Hence we built a support $$q
{\stackrel{x_0}{\leadsto}}{{\bar q}_0}
{\stackrel{a_1}{\longrightarrow}}{q_1}
{\stackrel{x_1}{\leadsto}}{{\bar q}_1}
{\stackrel{a_2}{\longrightarrow}}{}
\dots
{\stackrel{a_{n-1}}{\longrightarrow}}{q_{n-1}}
{\stackrel{x_{n-1}}{\leadsto}}{\bar q_{n-1}}
{\stackrel{a_n}{\longrightarrow}} {q_n}
{\stackrel{x_n}{\leadsto}}{{\bar q}_n}
{\stackrel{{\bar q}_0}{\Longrightarrow}}{q'}$$ with ${( {q},{p} )} \in K$ and this concludes the proof.
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[th:nondet\], i.e., we prove that there exists an accepting computation for $y$ in $\mathcal A$ if and only if there exists an accepting computation for $y$ in $\mathcal{\tilde A}$.
Let $c$ be an accepting computation for $y$ in $\mathcal A$. Then for $K = I \times \{\bot\} \ni {( {q_0},{\bot} )}$ Lemma \[lem:chaindet\] implies the existence of a support $\tilde I = {\langle {\#},{K}\rangle} {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}}{{\langle {\#},{K'}\rangle}}$ for $y$ in $\mathcal{\tilde A}$ with $K' \ni {( {q'},{\bot} )}$. $q' \in F$ implies ${\langle {\#},{K'}\rangle}\in \tilde F$, hence the support defines an accepting computation for $y$ in $\mathcal{\tilde A}$.
Vice versa, let $c$ be an accepting computation for $y$ in $\mathcal{\tilde A}$. Then ${\langle^{\#} y {}^{\#} \rangle}$ is a chain that admits a support $\tilde I {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}}{J'}$ in $\mathcal{\tilde A}$, with $J' \in \tilde F$. This means that there exists $q' \in F$ such that $\langle \#, q', \bot \rangle \in J'$. Hence, by Lemma \[lem:chainnondet\], there exists a support $q {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}}{q'}$ in $\mathcal A$ with $\langle \#, q, \bot \rangle \in \tilde I$, and this implies $q \in I$. Thus the support $q {\stackrel{y}{\leadsto}}{q'}$ defines an accepting computation for $y$ in $\mathcal A$.
[^1]: This is an extended version of the paper which appeared in Proceedings of CSR 2011, 6th International Computer Science Symposium in Russia, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6651, pp. 291-304, 2011. In particular, Theorem \[th:nondet\] has been corrected and a complete proof is given in Appendix.
[^2]: The interested reader may find more information at [*http://gcc.gnu.org*]{}, and [*http://www.parrot.org*]{}, respectively.
[^3]: The prototype is freely available at [*http://home.dei.polimi.it/pradella*]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'What is the luminosity needed for discovering new physics if the electroweak scale is to remain stable? In this work we study this question, with the example of a real singlet scalar which couples to the Higgs field already at the renormalizable level. Observing that the electroweak scale remains stable if the two scalars couple in a seesawic fashion, we show that the HL-LHC, expected to deliver an integrated luminosity around $3\ {\rm ab^{-1}}$, can discover scalars weighing up to 800 GeV. The FCC-hh, on the other hand, can discover scalars as heavy as 2.3 TeV at $100\ {\rm ab^{-1}}$ luminosity. It thus follows that the new physics that does not destabilize the electroweak scale can be accessed only at high luminosities, and is not possible exclude by the current LHC results.'
author:
- 'Kerem Canko[ç]{}ak$^a$'
- 'Durmu[ş]{} Demir$^b$'
- Canan Karahan$^a$
- 'Sercan [Ş]{}en$^c$'
title: Electroweak Stability and Discovery Luminosities for New Physics
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The standard model of elementary particles (SM), experimentally completed by the discovery of the Higgs boson at the ATLAS and CMS [@higgs], has shown excellent agreement with all the available data so far [@sm-sofar]. The TeV domain seems to be devoid of any new particles beyond the SM spectrum [@exotica]. There are, however, astrophysical (dark matter, dark photon), cosmological (dark energy, inflation) and structural (neutrino masses, flavor, unification $\cdots$) phenomena which require the SM to be extended. Each extension comes with its own scale and mechanisms, and tends to pull up the SM towards its own scale. In fact, if $\Lambda$ is a UV cutoff lying above all the aforementioned extensions then loops of matter lead to the masses $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gam-g}
\delta m_{\gamma,g}^2 = c_{\gamma,g} \Lambda^2 \end{aligned}$$ for the photon $\gamma$ and gluon $g$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{higg}
\delta m_h^2 = c_h \Lambda^2 + \sum_{\psi^\prime} c_{\psi^\prime} \lambda_{h \psi^\prime} m^2_{\psi^\prime} \log \frac{m^2_{\psi^\prime}}{\Lambda^2}\end{aligned}$$ for the Higgs boson $h$ [@veltman] such that $c_i$ and $c_i^\prime$ are ${\mathcal{O}}(10^{-2})$ loop factors, and $\lambda_{h\psi^\prime}$ is a coupling between the Higgs boson $h$ and the non-SM field $\psi^\prime$.
In the gauge sector, the correction (\[gam-g\]) completely destructs the SM by breaking the color and the electric charge [@demir2016; @ccb]. The destruction can be prevented only if the quadratic corrections $c_g \Lambda^2$ and $c_\gamma \Lambda^2$ are eradicated.
In the Higgs sector, with similar corrections for $W$ and $Z$ masses, even if $c_h \Lambda^2$ is alleviated along with the gluon and photon masses, the logarithmic part remains to destabilize the SM with its quadratic sensitivity to $m_{\psi^\prime}$ [@veltman].
If $\Lambda$ does not correspond to a physical scale then the quadratic $c_i \Lambda^2$ terms in (\[gam-g\]) and (\[higg\]) can all be ignored but the logarithmic part of (\[higg\]) remains as a physical contribution. The simplest way to see this is to switch from cutoff to dimensional regularization (it is a regularization because $\Lambda$ is unphysical) to dimensional regularization in which color and charge conservation is automatic [@cut-dim].
In reality $\Lambda$ is physical. The reason is that gravity exists and need be incorporated into the SM. Indeed, incorporation of gravity into the SM rests on a Poincare-breaking scale (as a feature of curved geometry) and such a scale does necessarily form a momentum cutoff (as it breaks Poincare symmetry) [@demir2017]. This means that gravity requires a physical UV cutoff $\Lambda$ to be implemented in the flat spacetime theory (the SM), and this cutoff renders the QFT effective with corrections like (\[gam-g\]) and (\[higg\]). To this end, the mechanism of [@demir2019] (see also [@demir2017] and [@demir2016]), the so-called symmergence, incorporates gravity into the SM such that [*(i)*]{} it predicts a BSM sector (containing the $\psi^\prime$ fields in (\[higg\])), [*(ii)*]{} it restores color and electric charge by curving away (\[gam-g\]), [*(iii)*]{} it converts $c_h \Lambda^2$ into Higgs-curvature coupling, [*(iv)*]{} it predicts Einstein gravity, and it results in dimensionally-regularized SM+BSM in curved spacetime. It accomplishes all this by establishing an equivalence relation between $\Lambda^2$ and affine curvature (as an extension of the usual equivalence relation between the flat and the curved metrics). What is left untouched by symmergence is the logarithmic part of (\[higg\]). It remains as a physical contribution to Higgs boson mass. This might give the impression that symmergence makes no real progress in electroweak stability. No, actually it makes a crucial progress. It makes progress because workings of the symmergence does not necessitate any SM-BSM coupling. It is free and, in view of perturbativity, it can be much smaller than the SM couplings. To see the progress, it suffices to contrast to situation in supersymmetry, extra dimensions and compositeness [@macar] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{normal-coupl}
\lambda_{\psi \psi^{\prime}} \simeq \lambda_{SM} \Longrightarrow m_{\psi^\prime} \simeq m_h \Longrightarrow {\rm BSM\ can't\ be\ heavy}\end{aligned}$$ with the situation in symmergence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{symm-coupl}
\lambda_{\psi \psi^{\prime}} \ll \lambda_{SM} \Longrightarrow m_{\psi^\prime} \gg m_h \Longrightarrow {\rm BSM\ can\ be\ heavy}\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that the LHC can exclude sparticles (the BSM of supersymmetry), Kaluza-Klein levels (the BSM of extra dimensions) and technifermions (the BSM of compositeness) but not the BSM of the symmergence. In fact, SM-BSM couplings of the size $$\begin{aligned}
\label{seesaw-coupl}
\lambda_{h \psi^\prime} \lesssim \frac{m_H^2}{m^2_{\psi^\prime}}\end{aligned}$$ allow the Higgs mass correction in (\[higg\]) to remain within the bounds, and symmergence allows this bound while the others can’t. This coupling scheme, which implies that heavier the BSM smaller its couplings to the SM, gives way to a novel approach to collider and other searches for the BSM physics. It is true that the seesawic relation (\[seesaw-coupl\]) is imposed empirically but it is a natural requirement since $\lambda_{h \psi^\prime}$ renormalizes multiplicatively and maintains its size. In this sense, the relationship in (\[seesaw-coupl\]) can be viewed as a natural “electroweak stability" criterion.
In the present work, our goal is to analyze collider (LHC and FCC, in particular) searches for BSM sectors coupling to the SM as in (\[seesaw-coupl\]). For definiteness and simplicity, we focus on a BSM sector made up only of a single real SM-singlet scalar $S$, which couples to the Higgs field at the renormalizable level with a coupling like (\[seesaw-coupl\]). We then raise the question: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\rm What\ energy\ and\ luminosity\ does\ it\ take\ to\ discover\ of\ a\ singlet}\nonumber\\ && {\rm scalar}\ S\ {\rm of\ mass}\ m_S\ {\rm if\ the\ electroweak\ scale\ is\ to\ remain\ stable?}
\label{question}\end{aligned}$$ and investigate it in detail by first modeling (Sec. II) then computing one-loop corrections like (\[higg\]) (Sec. III), and finally performing a collider study at the LHC and FCC energies (Sec. IV). Our analysis is expected to put an electroweak stability bound on different discovery limits at colliders. In Sec. V we conclude.
The Model
=========
In view of the question (\[question\]), the most general, renormalizable, symmetric Lagrangian density extending the SM with a real singlet scalar field $S$ is given by [@singlets] \_[HS]{}&=&(D\_H)\^D\^H+\_S\^S-V\_[HS]{}, where \[eq:pot\] V\_[HS]{}=m\_H\^2H\^H+\_H(H\^H)\^2+S\^2+S\^4+H\^HS\^2 is the potential, and $H$ is the usual SM Higgs doublet \[Higgs-doublet\] H=( \_1+i\_2\
\_H+h+i\_0 ). with the Higgs boson $h$ remaining as a CP-even scalar after the Goldstone bosons $\phi_i$ are swallowed as longitudinal components of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons. Indeed, for $\lambda_H>0$ and $\lambda_S>0$, the potential gets bounded from below and the minimum of the potential breaks the electroweak symmetry spontaneously via the Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV) $\upsilon_H\neq0$. If the scalar $S$ is not inert (see for instance [@non-inert]), that is, if it gets a VEV $\upsilon_S\neq 0$ then the minimum of the potential (\[eq:pot\]) occurs at \_H\^2= , \_S\^2=. \[minimum\] with the singlet boson $s$ defined as $S=\upsilon_S + s$ in parallel to (\[Higgs-doublet\]).
In the vicinity of the vacuum (\[minimum\]), the mass-squared matrix of the $h$ and $s$ bosons M\^2=( 2\_H\_H\^2 & \_[HS]{}\_H\_S\
\_[HS]{} \_H\_S & 2\_S\_S\^2 ) assume two eigenvalues \[eq:mh2msig2\] m\_[h\_1]{}\^2=\_H\_H\^2+ \_S\_[S]{}\^2 -,&&\
m\_[h\_2]{}\^2=\_H\_H\^2+ \_S\_[S]{}\^2 +&& corresponding to the two physical eigenstates $h_1$ (which should be identified with the scalar boson observed at the LHC [@higgs]) and $h_2$ (the extra scalar boson under search at the LHC and to be searched for at future colliders like the FCC). The key parameter is their mixing angle \[eq:tantheta\] 2= which is proportional to $\lambda_{HS}$ – the strength of the SM-BSM coupling.
One-Loop Corrections and Model Space
====================================
In this section, we give a detailed analysis of the logarithmic corrections mentioned in (\[higg\]). The Feynman diagrams which contributes the logarithmic corrections are depicted in Fig.\[fig:0\].
![The one-loop diagrams leading to the $m^2_{h_1}$ corrections in (\[higg\]).[]{data-label="fig:0"}](feynman.pdf){width="15cm"}
Leaving aside the quadratic corrections $c_h \Lambda^2$ in view of the symmergence mechanism mentioned in the Introduction, we keep only the logarithmic corrections ($\Lambda\gg m_{h_2}\gg m_{h_1}$) \[eq:logcontr\] (m\_[h\_1]{}\^2)\_[log]{}&=&((6\_[h\_1h\_1h\_1h\_1]{}+3\_[h\_1h\_1]{})m\_[h\_1]{}\^2 +(9\_[h\_1h\_1h\_1]{}\^2 +3\_[h\_1]{}\^2))()\
&+&(2\_[h\_1h\_1h\_2h\_2]{}m\_[h\_2]{}\^2 + 2\_[h\_1h\_2h\_2]{}\^2 + \_[h\_1h\_1h\_2]{}\^2) () where the various couplings (like the quartic coupling $\lambda_{h_ih_jh_kh_l}$) are listed explicitly in the Appendix as functions of $\lambda_H$, $\lambda_S$, $\lambda_{HS}$ and the mixing angle $\theta$.
The $h_1$ mass receives non-trivial corrections from the $h_2$ loops. This feature, explicated in (\[eq:logcontr\]), requires $\lambda_{HS}$ to be bounded appropriately. The vacuum stability already gives a bound \_[HS]{}\^2 16\_H\_S \[bound1\] which means that $|\lambda_{HS}|$ is typically at the $30\%$ level depending on precise values of $\lambda_H$ and $\lambda_S$. We will consider different parameter ranges during the analysis.
The bound above is however not sufficient to ensure electroweak stability. The reason is that $h_2$ can be too heavy to keep $h_1$ mass within the LHC bound. To this end, one comes back to the see-sawic bound in (\[seesaw-coupl\]). In what follows thus we require thus $\lambda_{HS}$ to have the value \[lamhs\] \_[HS]{} = after expressing
m\_H\^2&=&(2\_S\_S\^4-4\_H\_H\^4-\_S\^4 +)\
m\_S\^2&=& (-(1+2\_S)\_S\^2+ )
as functions of the $H$ and $S$ VEVs. Trading two model parameters for the VEVs in this form leads us to the physical shell set by the VEVs. In fact, we hereon specialize to the LHC values $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{HS} = 0.13\;,\;\;\; \upsilon_H = 246.2\ {\rm GeV}\end{aligned}$$ and analyze the model in terms of the remaining two free parameters: the $S$ quartic coupling $\lambda_S$ and the $S$ VEV $\upsilon_S$.
The allowed ranges of the model parameters can be determined numerically. In doing so we consider $\upsilon_S$ values as large as 20 TeV in view of the sensitivity of the exotica searches at the LHC [@exotica]. To this end, we plot in Fig. \[fig:range1\] variation of $\lambda_{HS}$ with $\upsilon_S$ in the small $\lambda_S$ regime of $0.01\leq \lambda_S \leq0.1$. It is seen that $\lambda_{HS}$, which decreases with $m_S^2$ due to its see-sawic structure in (\[lamhs\]), in magnitude, remains below $\lambda_S$ at least by two orders of magnitude.
![Variation of $\lambda_{HS}$ with $\upsilon_S\ ({\rm TeV})$ and $\lambda_S$ for $0.01\leq \lambda_S \leq0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:001"}](001-01_lamhs_v2.pdf){width="15cm"}
\[fig:range1\]
Shown in Fig. \[fig:range2\] is the variation of $\lambda_{HS}$ with $\upsilon_S$ in the large $\lambda_S$ regime of $0.1\leq \lambda_S \leq0.5$. It is clear that $\lambda_{HS}$, in magnitude, remains below $\lambda_S$ at least by two orders of magnitude.
![Variation of $\lambda_{HS}$ with $\upsilon_S\ ({\rm TeV})$ and $\lambda_S$ for $0.1\leq \lambda_S \leq0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:002"}](01-05_lamhs_v2.pdf){width="15cm"}
\[fig:range2\]
For larger $\lambda_S$, from 0.5 to 0.9, we find that $\lambda_{HS}$ takes unacceptably large values (a thousand), we do not consider therefore $\lambda_S$ values above $0.5$. In fact, hereon we set $\lambda_S=0.1$ as a nominal value revealing the physics implications of the heavy scalar.
To see the difference between setting $\lambda_{HS}$ to a fixed (albeit small) value as in most phenomenological analyses [@non-inert] and requiring $\lambda_{HS}$ to obey the see-sawic bound in (\[lamhs\]) we plot in Fig.(\[fig:1\]) $\delta m^2_{h_1}$ in TeV as a function of $v_S$. It is clear that the see-sawic structure provides us with a rather stable electroweak scale.
![Corrections to the Higgs mass as a function of $\upsilon_S$ for $\lambda_{HS}=-0.01$ (red), $\lambda_{HS}=0.01$ (blue) and $\lambda_{HS}=m_H^2/m_S^2$ (green)[]{data-label="fig:1"}](SON_tot_log_v2.pdf){width="15cm"}
To see further how $\lambda_{HS}$ varies with $\upsilon_S$ we list in Table \[Tab:1\] $\lambda_{HS}$ values as $\upsilon_S$ ranges from 2 TeV to 20 TeV. In agreement with Figs. \[fig:range1\] and \[fig:range2\], $\lambda_{HS}$ remains negative throughout and well satisfies the vacuum stability bound (\[bound1\]). It is clear that larger the $m_S$ of scalar field, the weaker its interaction with Higgs. This decrease could explain why we have not observed any fingerprint of BSM physics (the scalar $S$ here) at LHC experiments.
[0.45]{} [ | >X | >X | >X | ]{} $\upsilon_S$ (GeV) & $m_{h_2}$ (GeV) & $\lambda_{HS}$\
2000 & 894.428 & $-4.9\times 10^{-3}$\
3000 & 1341.64 & $-2.2\times10^{-3}$\
4000 & 1788.85 & $-1.2\times10^{-3}$\
5000 & 2236.07 & $-8.0\times 10^{-4}$\
6000 & 2683.28 & $-5.5\times 10^{-4}$\
7000 & 3130.5 & $-4.0 \times10^{-4}$\
8000 & 3577.71 & $-3.0\times 10^{-4}$\
9000 & 4024.92 &$-2.4\times 10^{-4}$\
10000 & 4472.14 & $-2.0 \times 10^{-4}$\
15000 & 6708.2 & $-8.7\times10^{-5}$\
20000 & 8944.27 & $-4.9\times10^{-5}$\
\[Tab:1\]
Collider Phenomenology {#Collider-pheno}
======================
Now, we come to the question of investigation (\[question\]). The production cross section of real singlet scalar depends on its mass and its coupling to the SM Higgs field. In view of the see-sawic coupling (\[lamhs\]) the production cross section is directly set by $m_{h_2}$ (or $v_S$). It sets also branching fractions of $h_2$ decays.
For analysis purposes, we have modified the SM package in LanHEP-3.2.0 [@lanhep] by including the real singlet $S$, and exported the extended model to CalcHEP-3.7.5 [@CalcHEP]. The parton distribution functions are evaluated by using LHAPDF6 [@Buckley:2014ana], and simulations are performed with cteq6l1 PDF set [@cteq6l1].
![Branchings of the heavy scalar $h_2$ into various SM particles. The decay rates remain constant essentially or decrease with $m_{h_2}$ due to the see-sawic coupling in (\[seesaw-coupl\]).[]{data-label="fig:3"}](Fig3-h2BR_v5.pdf){width="15cm"}
As revealed by Fig.(\[fig:3\]), the most dominant decay channels of singlet scalar are $h_2 \rightarrow WW$ ($49\%$), $h_2 \rightarrow h_1 h_1$ ($25\%$) and $h_2 \rightarrow Z Z$ ($24\%$), and they are almost independent of $m_{h_2}$. This constancy of the branching fractions proves useful for putting discovery limits (as in simplified models [@simplified].
![Production cross sections for $h_2$ as a function of its mass. The horizontal lines at the top show the requisite cross section reach.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](Fig4-h2Production_v6.pdf){width="15cm"}
In Fig.\[fig:4\], $h_2$ production cross sections as a function of the $h_2$ mass are shown for the LHC with a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV (solid lines) and for the FCC with a center-of-mass energy of 100 TeV (dashed lines). In both cases, gluon-gluon fusion dominates the cross section, as expected. In the figure, the gray lines indicate the cross sections that would produce 10 events assuming integrated luminosities of $150\ {\rm fb^{-1}}$ (LHC), $3\ {\rm ab^{-1}}$ (HC-LHC), and $100\ {\rm ab^{-1}}$ (FCC)[@Schmidt:2016jra; @Aleksa:2019pvl; @Atlas:2019qfx]. With $\sim 150\ {\rm fb^{-1}}$, the total integrated luminosity recorded at 13 TeV during Run 2, the LHC does not seem to be able to produce a sufficient amount of $h_2$’s above $\sim 1$ TeV. The amount of data that experiments can collect during high luminosity LHC (HL-LHC), 3 ${\rm ab^{-1}}$, may not reveal any $h_2$ signature in multi-TeV region. Here it should be noted that proton-proton collisions at the HL-LHC will actually occur at 14 TeV, however, the conclusion remains the same.
The prospects are more promising for a 100 TeV proton-proton collider, for example the . $h_2$ events can already be produced with 3 ${\rm ab^{-1}}$ data to be collected at the , and moreover, with an integrated luminosity of 100 ${\rm ab^{-1}}$, more than 10 $h_2$ events are produced in gluon-gluon fusion for $h_2$ masses up to 2.3 TeV. A larger amount of integrated luminosity extends the reach into the higher multi-TeV regions. The gluon fusion channel is highly effective for discovering $h_2$ scalars as heavy as about 2.3 TeV. Certain other $h_2$ production mechanisms, such as $qq\rightarrow qqh_2$ and $qq \rightarrow qth_2$, are also capable of producing $h_2$ events with $m_{h_2}>1$ TeV.
In Table \[Tab:2\], upper limits on the $h_2$ scalar mass are given in various production channels for center-of-mass energies of 13 and 100 TeV with total integrated luminosities 3 and $100\ {\rm ab^{-1}}$. According to the table, it may be possible to produce $h_2$ events with $m_{h_2}<1$ TeV at the HL-LHC, however, an $h_2$ scalar in a multi-TeV region can only be produced at FCC-hh energies, at $\sqrt{s}=100$ TeV.
Process $\sqrt{s}$ (TeV) Integrated luminosity (${\rm ab^{-1}}$) $m_{h_2}$ (GeV) Number of events $\geq 10$
------------------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------
$gg \rightarrow h_2$ $13$ $3$ $\leq805$ $\surd$
$qq \rightarrow W h_2$ $13$ $3$ $\leq447$ $\surd$
$qq \rightarrow qq h_2$ $13$ $3$ $\leq715$ $\surd$
$qb \rightarrow qt h_2$ $13$ $3$ $\leq 447$ $\surd$
$gg \rightarrow h_2$ $100$ $100$ $\leq 2325$ $\surd$
$qq \rightarrow W h_2$ $100$ $100$ $\leq 894$ $\surd$
$qq \rightarrow qq h_2$ $100$ $100$ $\leq 2057$ $\surd$
$qb \rightarrow qt h_2$ $100$ $100$ $\leq 1520$ $\surd$
: Upper limits on the $h_2$ scalar mass given in various production channels for $\sqrt{s}=13$ and 100 TeV with total integrated luminosities 3 and $100\ {\rm ab^{-1}}$.
\[Tab:2\]
At this point one may ask: Has the seesawic coupling in (\[seesaw-coupl\]) really stabilized the electroweak scale? If yes, to what extend has it been possible? This is exemplified in Fig.\[fig:5\], which ensures that $h_1$ boson remains nearly the SM Higgs boson for a wide range of $h_2$ masses at both $\sqrt{s}=13$ and $100$ TeV.
![The BSM to SM ratio of $h_1$ pair production cross sections as a function of $mh_2$ is given for $\sqrt{s}= 13$ TeV (dashed line) and $\sqrt{s}=100$ TeV (solid line). []{data-label="fig:5"}](Fig5-ratio_v7.pdf){width="15cm"}
Conclusion
==========
In this work we have studied impact of the electroweak stability on the collider discovery of the BSM physics, with the example of a single SM-singlet scalar. Our general discussion in the Introduction and more specific analysis in Sec. III have revealed that bounding the SM-BSM coupling $\lambda_{SM}$ as in (\[lamhs\]), admissible only for symmergence, has important implications for new particle searches. It tells us that there can exist heavy particles like $h_2$ and they can directly couple to the SM Higgs boson but they do not destabilize the electroweak scale thanks to see-sawic structure in (\[lamhs\]). This empirical structure has a room only in symmergence.
Our phenomenological analysis in Sec. III and simulations in Sec. IV show that electroweak stability (Higgs mass stability) puts stringent limits on the luminosity budget to discover the BSM physics. Indeed, as shown by Fig.\[fig:4\], the center-of-mass energy of the pp collisions and integrated luminosity ($\sim 150\ {\rm fb^{-1}}$) by the experiments, are not sufficient to observe a BSM signal with a mass of above $\sim 1$ TeV at the LHC. On the other hand, higher energies and increased luminosities at the HL-LHC (14 TeV, ${\mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\rm \tiny{int}}}}= 3\ {\rm ab^{-1}}$) and at the FCC-hh (100 TeV, ${\mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\rm \tiny{int}}}}= 100\ {\rm ab^{-1}}$), are promising for discovering such symmergence-favored BSM particles. The latter allows a discovery in the multi-TeV mass region.
It must be emphasized that the limits we report here are optimistic in that we did not perform a background analysis. It is after eliminating the background that discovery limits can be more realistic. We nevertheless expect that discovery limits for 10 events give a satisfactory account of the collider discovery limits. (We will give complete background analysis that in our follow-up work [@workinprogress]). It must also be emphasized that the scalar field we studied is not linked to dark matter. It would be a dark matter candidate if its VEV vanishes and if it possesses correct relic density. In that case bounds on the model parameter space would increase, and its phenomenology would be affected accordingly.
Appendix {#App}
========
The vertex factors in (\[eq:logcontr\]) have the following expressions:
\[eq:l1111\] \_[h\_1h\_1h\_1h\_1]{}&=&\^4+\^4+\^22\
\_[h\_1h\_1]{}&=&\_[h\_1h\_1\_0\_0]{}=\_[h\_1h\_1\_1\_1]{}=\_[h\_1h\_1\_2\_2]{}=\^2+\^2\
\_[h\_1h\_1h\_2h\_2]{}&=&(\_H+\_S)\^22+(\^4+\^4-\^22)\
\_[h\_1h\_1h\_1]{}&=&\_H\_H\^3-\_S\_S\^3-(\_S-\_H)2\
\_[h\_1]{}&=&\_[h\_1\_0\_0]{}=\_[h\_1\_1\_1]{}=\_[h\_1\_2\_2]{}=\_H\_H-\_S\
\_[h\_1h\_2h\_2]{}&=&(\_H\_H-\_S\_S)2+((2-\^3)\_S +(\^3- 2)\_H)\
\_[h\_1h\_1h\_2]{}&=&(\_H\_H+\_S\_S)2+((\^3-2)\_S+(\^3- 2)\_H)
**Acknowledgments**\
This work is supported in part by the T[Ü]{}B[İ]{}TAK grant 118F387 and by the [İ]{}TU BAP grant TAB-2020-42312. We thank Beyhan Puli[ç]{}e for her contributions at the initial stage of this work.
[9]{}
G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS and CMS Collaborations\], JHEP [**1608**]{}, 045 (2016) \[arXiv:1606.02266 \[hep-ex\]\]. M. Tanabashi [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, 030001 (2018). B. Vachon \[ATLAS and CMS Collaborations\], Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**31**]{}, 1630034 (2016).
L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D [**20**]{} (1979) 2619; M. J. G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**12**]{} (1981) 437; G. F. Giudice, PoS EPS (2013) 163 \[arXiv:1307.7879 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. Hagiwara, S. Ishihara, R. Szalapski and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 2182 (1993); G. Cynolter and E. Lendvai, [*Cutoff Regularization Method in Gauge Theories*]{}, arXiv:1509.07407 \[hep-ph\]. D. A. Demir, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2016**]{}, 6727805 (2016) \[arXiv:1605.00377 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, [*An Introduction to quantum field theory*]{}, Reading, USA: Addison-Wesley (1995); M. D’Attanasio and T. R. Morris, Phys. Lett. B [**378**]{} (1996) 213 \[hep-th/9602156\]; P. H. Chankowski, A. Lewandowski and K. A. Meissner, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**48**]{}, 5 (2017) \[arXiv:1608.01214 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Demir, arXiv:1703.05733 \[hep-ph\]. D. Demir, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2019**]{}, 4652048 (2019) \[arXiv:1901.07244 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Csaki, C. Grojean and J. Terning, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**88**]{}, 045001 (2016) \[arXiv:1512.00468 \[hep-ph\]\]; C. Csaki and P. Tanedo, [*Beyond the Standard Model*]{}, arXiv:1602.04228 \[hep-ph\]. J. D. Bjorken, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**7**]{}, 4189 (1992); D. A. Demir, Phys. Lett. B [**450**]{}, 215 (1999) \[hep-ph/9810453\].
G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept. [**516**]{}, 1 (2012) \[arXiv:1106.0034 \[hep-ph\]\]; C. Y. Chen, S. Dawson and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 015018 (2013) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 039901 (2013)\] \[arXiv:1305.1624 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Y. Chen, S. Dawson and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 015018 (2013) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 039901 (2013)\] \[arXiv:1305.1624 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 1729 \[arXiv:1207.6082 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**201**]{} (2016) 167 \[arXiv:1412.5016 \[physics.comp-ph\]\], A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstrom, B. Page, M. Rafenacht, M. Schonherr and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{} (2015) 132 \[arXiv:1412.7420 \[hep-ph\]\], J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky and W. K. Tung, JHEP [**0207**]{} (2002) 012 \[hep-ph/0201195\], D. Alves [*et al.*]{} \[LHC New Physics Working Group\], J. Phys. G [**39**]{}, 105005 (2012) \[arXiv:1105.2838 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Aleksa [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1912.09962 \[physics.ins-det\], B. Schmidt, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**706**]{} (2016) no.2, 022002. ATLAS and CMS Collaborations \[ATLAS and CMS Collaborations\], CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. [**7**]{} (2019) Addendum \[arXiv:1902.10229 \[hep-ex\]\], K. Cankocak, D. Demir, C. Karahan, S. Sen, [*Search for heavy singlet scalars at the HL-LHC and FCC*]{} (in progress, 2020)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Track detectors in high energy physics experiments require an accurate determination of a large number of alignment parameters. A general method has been developed, which allows the determination of up to several thousand alignment parameters in a simultaneous linear least squares fit of an arbitrary number of tracks. The sensitivity of the method is demonstrated in an example of the simultaneous alignment of a 56-plane drift chamber and a 2-plane silicon tracker. About 1400 alignment parameters are determined in a fit of about fifty thousand tracks.'
author:
- Volker Blobel and Claus Kleinwort
title: 'A NEW METHOD FOR THE HIGH-PRECISION ALIGNMENT OF TRACK DETECTORS'
---
ALIGNMENT PROBLEMS OF TRACK DETECTORS
=====================================
Alignment problems for large detectors, especially track detectors, in particle physics often require the determination of a large number of alignment parameters, typically of the order of $100$ to $1000$. Alignment parameters for example define the accurate space coordinates and orientation of detector components. In addition drift chambers require the determination of the drift velocity $v_{\text{drift}}$ and of local variations of the drift velocity, and of the Lorentz angle. Figure \[fig:corra\] shows an example of residuals in a silicon vertex track detector before and after an alignment.
In the alignment usually special alignment measurements are combined with data of particle reaction, typically tracks from physics interactions and from cosmics. In this paper the alignment parameters are called *global* parameters; they contribute to all the data. Usually these parameters are *corrections* to default values and are thus relatively small, and the value zero is the initial approximation. Parameter sets valid for a single track are called *local* parameters, examples are track slopes and curvatures.
An approximate alignment method is to perform least squares fits on the data *ignoring* initially the alignment parameters. The *deviations* between the fitted and measured data, the *residuals*, are then used to determine the alignment parameters afterwards. Single fits depend only on the small number of local parameters like slope or curvature of the track, and are easy to perform. This approximate method however is not a statistically correct method, because the (local) fits depend on a wrong model (namely: ignoring the global parameters), and the result are biased. In addition the results may be unstable due to detector inefficiencies. The adjustment of parameters based on the observed (biased) residuals will then result in biased alignment parameters. If these alignment parameters are applied as corrections in repeated fits, the remaining residuals will be reduced, as desired. However, the fitted parameters will still be biased, even more, if this approximate procedure is applied iteratively. The simple residual method is also unable to determine correlated parameters, for example a geometrical shift of a detector position and a shift in drift velocity in a drift chamber.
A better method is an overall fit, with all the (global) alignment parameters and local parameters, perhaps from thousands or millions of events, determined simultaneously. The most important general method for the determination of parameters from measured data is the linear least squares model. It is usually stable, fast and accurate, requires no initial values of parameters and is able to take into account all the correlations between different parameters, even if there are many parameters. There is of course a practical limit in the number of parameters in simultaneous fits, because of space and time limitations. In an alignment fit the size of the vectors and matrices in the least squares solution will be large, of the order of $10^4$ or $10^6$. With standard methods such a solution is impossible.
In this paper a special method of solution for this kind of problems is derived. Due to the special structure of the matrices with one set of global parameters and many sets of local parameters the problem can in fact be reduced to a solvable size, without making any approximations. The rather general method is realized in a program called [**Millepede**]{} [@millepede].
STANDARD LEAST SQUARES
======================
[**Linear models.**]{} In a linear model the measured quantity $z_k$ has an expectation value which is a *linear* combination of the parameters ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}$ with fixed factors (e.g. from geometry) which are combined to a vectore ${\mbox{\boldmath${d}$}}_k$. The difference between the measured value and the expectation value is the residuum $r_k$: $$z_k = {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}^T \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath${d}$}}_k + r_k \; .$$ The measured data are assumed to be *independent*; the result of a measurement $z_k$ does not depend on any other measurement. Thus the covariance matrix of the measured data is a diagonal matrix, which simplifies the treatment. The accuracy of the measurement $z_k$ is given by the variance $\sigma^2_k$ or the standard deviation $\sigma_k$. It is assumed, that the precision is at least approximately known.
The solution of the method of least squares is determined by the minimum of the weighted sum of the square of the residuals $$S({\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}) = \sum_k \frac{\left(z_k -
{\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}^T \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath${d}$}}_k
\right)^2}{\sigma_k^2} \; ,$$ where the sum (index $k$) is over all measurements. This sum is a quadratic function of the parameters ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}$, and the solution is obtained from a set of linear equations (so-called normal equations of least squares), which can be written in matrix form $$\label{eq:solemio}
{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}} {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}} = {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}
\quad \quad \text{with} \quad
{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}} = \sum_k w_k \left( {\mbox{\boldmath${d}$}}_k \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath${d}$}}_k^T \right)
\quad \quad \text{and} \quad
{\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}} = \sum_k w_k z_k {\mbox{\boldmath${d}$}}_k$$ with a symmetric $n$-by-$n$ matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}$ and a right-hand-side $n$-vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}$; the elements of ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}$ are sums with *independent* contributions from each measurement (because the measured data are independent). There is no limitation on the number of measured data; it is not necessary to keep all input data in memory, because the complete information from a single measurement is contained in the contributions to ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}$, which have a fixed size. The solution vector is ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}} = {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}$ with the inverse of the matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}$, which, by error propagation, is equal to the covariance matrix of the parameters ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}$. What are the limits for the number $n$ of parameters, if the matrix equation is solved by standard methods? The symmetry property of the matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}$ may be used to store only the $(n^2+n)/2$ elements on and above the diagonal, and also to reduce the computer time to almost half the time for a non-symmetric matrix. Matrix inversion is an explicit process and requires a CPU time proportional to $n^3$ for a $n$-by-$n$ matrix. For a $1000$-by-$1000$ symmetric matrix in double precision (about 4 Mbyte) the CPU time is a few minutes on a standard PC. The time ($\propto n^3$) and space ($\propto n^2$) requirements imply at present a practical limit of the size of the matrix (and number of parameters) between $n = $ 1 000 and $n = $ 10 000.
The accuracy of the computation of the inverse matrix is a critical point, and often computation in double precision is required, especially for large matrices. The accuracy is generally low for a large condition number of the matrix (the condition number is defined as the ratio of the largest to the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix). From the interpretation of the inverse matrix as covariance matrix it is clear, that the condition number will be large if the correlation between parameters is high. The matrix is singular (one or more eigenvalues are zero) in case of a complete correlation between parameters. In this case and also in cases of missing data (e.g. dead channels in an alignment fit) a standard matrix inversion program will fail. A singular value decomposition (SVD) would allow to recognize the cases of zero or small eigenvalues, which would *destroy* the full solution. The standard method in case of zero or very small eigenvalues is to set their inverse to zero; this means essentially to remove parameters or linear combinations of parameters from the solution (i.e. the resulting parameter values are zero); if the parameters are in fact *corrections* this is clearly acceptable. In the program [**Millepede**]{} [@millepede] a similar, but simpler and faster strategy is used to avoid the effects of a bad condition number. This strategy also works in cases, where due to missing input data[^1] one or more parameters are undefined; the parameters will become zero in this case. The strategy allows in addition to remove certain parameters from the least squares fit without the necessity to reorganize the numbering.
[**Solution by partitioning.**]{} The special structure of the matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}$ to be inverted may allow to move the limit of solvable problems further (see also [@blolohr]). Below the matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}$ is partitioned into submatrices, and the vectors ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}$ are partitioned into two subvectors; then the matrix equation becomes $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc|c}
& & & \\
& {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{11} & & {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{12} \\
& & & \\ \hline
& {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{21} & & {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}
\end{array}
\right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
~\\ {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_1 \\ ~\\ \hline {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2
\end{array} \right) =
\left( \begin{array}{c}
~\\ {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_1 \\ ~\\ \hline {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_2
\end{array} \right) \; ,$$ where the submatrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{11}$ is a $p$-by-$p$ square matrix and the submatrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}$ is a $q$-by-$q$ square matrix, with $p+q=n$. If the sub-vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_1$ would not exist, the solution for the sub-vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2$ would be defined by the matrix equation $${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22} \; {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2^{*} = {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_2
\quad \quad \quad \text{with solution} \quad
{\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2^{*} = {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1} \; {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_2 \; ,$$ where the star indicates the special character of this solution. Only the $q$-by-$q$ sub-matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}$ has to be inverted. The solution ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2^{*}$ of course differs from the final solution ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2$ and is called the *local* solution.
Now, having inverted the sub-matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}$, the submatrix of the complete inverse matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}$ correponding to the upper left part ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{11}$, called ${\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}$, is obtained by the formula $$\label{eq:modinv}
{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}} = \left( {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{11} - {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{12} {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1}
{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{12}^T\right)^{-1} \; ,$$ which requires in addition to some matrix products the calculation of the inverse of a $p$-by-$p$ sub-matrix. With this matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}$ the solution of the whole matrix equation can written in the form $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
~\\ {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_1 \\ ~\\ \hline {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2
\end{array} \right) =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc|c}
& & & \\
& {\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}} & & - {\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}} {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{12} {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1} \\
& & & \\ \hline
& - {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{12}^T {\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}}
& & {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1} - {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1}
{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{12}^T {\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}} {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{12} {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1}
\end{array}
\right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
~\\ {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_1 \\ ~\\ \hline {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_2
\end{array} \right) \; ,$$ which can be used to obtain the complete result (${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_1$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2$). Note that to solve the matrix equation two smaller matrices, a symmetric $p$-by-$p$ and a symmetric $q$-by-$q$ matrix, have to be inverted. The sub-vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_1$ is obtained by the product $$\label{eq:finala1}
{\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_1 = {\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}} {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_1 -
{\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}} {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{12}
{\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_2
= {\mbox{\boldmath${B}$}} \left( {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_1 - {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{12} {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2^* \right)
\; ,$$ which is simplified by using the special local solution ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2^* = {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_2 $. If the interest is the determination of this sub-vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_1$ only, while the sub-vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}_2$ is not needed, then only the equation has to be solved. Some computer time can be saved by this method, especially if the matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_{22}^{-1}$ is easily calculated or already known before. In special cases the method can be applied repeatedly, and therefore problems with a huge number of parameters become solvable. The method is not an approximation, but is exact and it takes into account all the correlations. This type of application is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
It seems that this possibility of removing unnecessary parameters, but still getting the correct solution for the remaining parameters in least squares problems was already known and has been used in the nineteenth century; one example is [@schreiber].
[**Constraints.**]{} If there are explicit relations between the parameters of a least squares fit, then they should be explicitly taken into account in the solution. The case of a single linear constraint between parameters of the form ${\mbox{\boldmath${f}$}}^T \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}} = {\mbox{\boldmath${f}$}}_0$ is assumed here. The Lagrange multiplier method is the standard method to include constraints in a least squares solution; one additional vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${\lambda}$}}$ is introduced, with one element per constraint. The equation is modified by the additional parameters to the form $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc|c}
& & & \\
& {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}} & & {\mbox{\boldmath${f}$}} \\
& & & \\ \hline
& {\mbox{\boldmath${f}$}}^T & & {\mbox{\boldmath${0}$}}
\end{array}
\right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
~\\ {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}} \\ ~\\ \hline {\mbox{\boldmath${\lambda}$}}
\end{array} \right) =
\left( \begin{array}{c}
~\\ {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}} \\ ~\\ \hline {\mbox{\boldmath${f}$}}_0
\end{array} \right) \; ,$$ where the matrix on the left hand side is still symmetric. *Linear* least squares problems with *linear* constraints can be solved direcly, without iterations and without the need for initial values of the parameters.
LEAST SQUARES WITH GLOBAL AND LOCAL PARAMETERS
==============================================
[**Local parameters.**]{} Local parameters are denoted by $\alpha_j, \; j=1, \, 2,\ldots \nu$. A set of measurements $z$ is considered. A single value $z$ from the set is ideally given by a linear expression $z = \alpha_1 \cdot \delta_1 +
\alpha_2 \cdot \delta_2 +
\ldots
\alpha_{\nu} \cdot \delta_{\nu}$, depending on the parameters $\alpha_j$ and on (known) constant factors $\delta_j$. More complete, the dependence can be written as $$\label{eq:zetka2}
z_k = \alpha_1 \cdot \delta_{1k} +
\alpha_2 \cdot \delta_{2k} +
\ldots
\alpha_{\nu} \cdot \delta_{\nu k}
= \sum_{j=1}^{\nu} \alpha_j \cdot \delta_{jk} \; ,$$ with an additional index $k$ indicating the $k$-th measured value.
As an example the measurement of a straight particle track is considered, where each $z_k$ is a coordinate measurement at plane $k$. The local parameters are intercept ($\alpha_1$) and slope ($\alpha_2$) of the particle track. If the distance of the plane is denoted by $S_k$, the linear track model can be written as $$z_k = \alpha_1 \cdot 1 + \alpha_2 \cdot S_k \; .$$ From a least squares fit of the model to the set of measured $z$-values the local parameters intercept and slope can be determined. The formalism of least squares allows to take into account the different precision of the different measurements, by assigning a weight to each measurement of $w_k = 1/\sigma_k^2$. The least squares solution, minimizing the weighted sum of squared residuals, is defined by the so-called normal equations, which can be written in terms of matrices $$\label{eq:solvenormal}
{\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}} \, {\mbox{\boldmath${\alpha}$}} = {\mbox{\boldmath${\beta}$}}\, ,
\quad \quad \text{solved by} \quad
{\mbox{\boldmath${\alpha}$}} = {\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath${\beta}$}} \; .$$ The elements of the matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}$ and the vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${\beta}$}}$ are formed by sums $$\label{eq:normaleq}
\Gamma_{ij} = \sum_k w_k \cdot \delta_{ik} \delta_{jk}
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad
\beta_j = \sum_k w_k \cdot z_k \delta_{jk} \; .$$ These formulas are valid in the case of *uncorrelated* $z$-measurements (uncorrelated measurements are assumed thoughout this paper). The inverse matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}^{-1}$ is the covariance matrix of the parameter vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${\alpha}$}}$.
[**Global parameters.**]{} Now global parameters are considered, which contribute to *all* the measurements. They are assumed to be *alignment parameters* here, although the formalism is general and can also be applied to other problems. Aligment parameters are defined to represent *corrections* to ideal (design) values; this parametrization adds further terms to the equations $$\label{eq:zetall}
z =
\underbrace{a_1 \cdot d_1 +
a_2 \cdot d_2 +
\ldots
a_n \cdot d_n}_{\text{global parameters}}
+
\underbrace{\alpha_1 \cdot \delta_1 +
\alpha_2 \cdot \delta_2 +
\ldots
\alpha_{\nu} \cdot \delta_{\nu}}_{\text{local parameters}}
= \sum_{i=1}^n a_j \cdot d_j +
\sum_{j=1}^{\nu} \alpha_j \cdot \delta_j \; .$$ Usually only few terms containing global parameters are nonzero for a single $z$ measurement. In the following it is assumed that, as written in equation , the dependence on the global parameters is *linear*. A non-linear relationship for the global parameters would require iterations, starting with reasonable initial values for the parameters, and assuming a linearized expression in each iteration.
[**The simultaneous fit of global and local parameters.**]{} In the following it is assumed that there is a set of $N$ partial measurements. Each partial measurement, with index $i$, depends on local parameters ${\mbox{\boldmath${\alpha}$}}_i$, and all of them depend on the global parameters. In a simultaneous fit of all global parameters plus local parameters from $N$ subsets of the data there are in total $(n+N\cdot\nu)$ parameters, and the standard solution requires the solution of $(n+N\cdot\nu)$ equations with a computation proportional to $(n+N \cdot \nu)^3$. Below it is shown, that the problem can be reduced to $n$ equations with a computation proportional $n^3$.
Generalizing the formalism of equations to the complete measurement, starting from equations of the type of , one obtains a system of normal equations with large dimensions, as is shown in equation . The matrix on the left side of equation has, from each partial measurement, three types of contributions. The first part is a contribution of a symmetric matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_i$, of dimension $n$ (number of global parameters). All the matrices ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_i$ are added up in the upper left corner of the big matrix of the normal equations. The second contribution is the symmetric matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}_i$ (compare equation ), which gives a contribution to the diagonal of the big matrix and is depending only on the $i$-th partial measurement. The third contribution is a rectangular matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${G}$}}_i$, with a row number of $n$ (global) and a column number of $\nu$ (local).
There are two contributions to the vector of the normal equations, ${\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_i$ for the global and ${\mbox{\boldmath${\beta}$}}_i$ for the local parameters. The complete matrix equation is given by $$\label{eq:huge} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc||ccc|c|ccc}
& & & & & & & & & \\
& \sum {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_i & & & \cdots & & {\mbox{\boldmath${G}$}}_i & & \cdots & \\
& & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline
& & & & & & & & & \\
& \vdots & & & \ddots & & 0 & & 0 & \\
& & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
& {\mbox{\boldmath${G}$}}^T_i & & & 0 & & {\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}_i & &0 & \\ \hline
& & & & & & & & & \\
& \vdots & & & 0 & & 0 & & \ddots & \\
& & & & & & & & & \\
\end{array}
\right)
. \left( \begin{array}{c}
\\ {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}} \\ \\ \hline \hline
\\ \vdots \\ \\ \hline
{\mbox{\boldmath${\alpha}$}}_i \\ \hline
\\ \vdots \\ \\
\end{array} \right)
=
. \left( \begin{array}{c}
\\ \sum {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_i \\ \\ \hline \hline
\\ \vdots \\ \\ \hline
{\mbox{\boldmath${\beta}$}}_i \\ \hline
\\ \vdots \\ \\
\end{array} \right) $$ In this matrix equation the matrices ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_i$, ${\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}_i$, ${\mbox{\boldmath${G}$}}_i$ and the vectors ${\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_i$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath${\beta}$}}_i$ contain contributions from the $i$-th partial measurement. Ignoring the global parameters one could solve the normal equations $ {\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}_i {\mbox{\boldmath${\alpha}$}}_i^* = {\mbox{\boldmath${\beta}$}}_i$ for each partial measurement separately by $$\label{eq:ignore}
{\mbox{\boldmath${\alpha}$}}_i^* = {\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}_i^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath${\beta}$}}_i \, .$$ The complete system of normal equations has a special structure, with many vanishing sub-matrices. The only connection between the local parameters of different partial measurements is given by the sub-matrices ${\mbox{\boldmath${G}$}}_i$ und ${\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_i$,
The aim of the fit is solely to determine the global parameters; final best parameters of the local parameters are not needed. The matrix of equation is written in a partitioned form. The general solution can also be written in partitioned form. Many of the sub-matrices of the huge matrix in equation are zero and this has the effect, that the formulas for the sub-matrices of the inverse matrix are very simple. By this procedure the normal equations $$\label{eq:nsb} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
& & \\
& {\mbox{\boldmath${C'}$}} & \\
& & \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\\ {\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}} \\ \\
\end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\\ {\mbox{\boldmath${b'}$}} \\ \\
\end{array} \right) \; ,$$ are obtained, which only contain the global parameters, with a modified matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C'}$}}$ and a vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${b'}$}}$, $$\label{eq:nsc}
{\mbox{\boldmath${C'}$}} = \sum_i {\mbox{\boldmath${C}$}}_i - \sum_i
{\mbox{\boldmath${G}$}}_i {\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}_i^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath${G}$}}_i^T
\quad \quad
{\mbox{\boldmath${b'}$}} = \sum_i {\mbox{\boldmath${b}$}}_i - \sum_i
{\mbox{\boldmath${G}$}}_i \left( {\mbox{\boldmath${\Gamma}$}}_i^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath${\beta}$}}_i\right) \; .$$ This set of normal equations contains explicitly only the global parameters; implicitly it contains, through the correction matrices, the complete information from the local parameters, influencing the fit of the global parameters. The parentheses in equation represents the solution for the local parameters, ignoring the global parameters. The solution ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}} = {\mbox{\boldmath${C'}$}}^{-1}\, {\mbox{\boldmath${b'}$}}$ represents the solution vector ${\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}$ with covariance matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath${C'}$}}^{-1}$. The solution is direct, no iterations are required. Iterations may be necessary for other reasons, namely
- the equations depend *non-linearly* on the global parameters; the equations have to be linearized;
- the data contain outliers which have to be removed in a sequence of cuts, becoming narrower during the iteration;
- the accuracy of the data is not known before, and has to be determined from the data (after the alignment).
[**Application.**]{} A very important point in problems discussed above is the definition of the set of global parameters. It is essential to define them in a way which is sensitive to the data used to determine them. Computing the inverse of a huge (symmetric) matrix can be a delicate numerical problem. The matrix will be singular or close to a singular matrix, if one or more of the global parameters are not really determined (and constrained) by the data, and this could destroy the whole determination. This will happen in case of a strong correlation between different global parameters.
It is wise to start with a few global parameters and to observe the correlations between them, before adding more global parameters. For example if too many global parameters are used in a detector alignment, the whole detector may *shift* and *rotate* freely in the fit. In those cases one could either fix certain global parameters or one has to introduce constraints (e.g. average displacement and rotation equal to zero).
Experience with the method shows that it is essential to make a simultaneous alignment of all track detector components, which are also used for the measurement of tracks, while independent internal alignment of the single track detector components may not lead to a good overall result. It is also important to use, if possible, different data sets simultaneously. For example in a track detector alignment high-momentum cosmic muons may be useful, which traverse the whole detector and thus relate (and constrain) different parts of the detector. But this should be done simultaneously with tracks from physics events, because these events finally require a good alignment.
The method described here has been realized in the program [**Millepede**]{} [@millepede], written in Fortran77. It provides a set of subroutines for the mathematical methods and allows to adapt the method to a particular problem. The program allows to adjust the dimension of vectors and matrices via `PARAMETER`-statements and to introduce linear constraints. Throughout the program use is made of the sparse character of the vectors and matrices in order to reduce the execution time. The program includes a method for outlier rejection, which in practice may be essential in alignment problems especially if some detector components have a bad initial alignment. This feature requires to iterate, realized with an intermediate data file, which is written during the first iteration and read during the other iterations.
Sometimes the model underlying the alignment is *nonlinear* and also constraints may be nonlinear. The standard method to treat these problems is linearization: the nonlinear equation is replaced by a linear equation for the correction of a parameter (Taylor expansion); this requires a good approximate value of the parameter.
ALIGNMENT OF THE CENTRAL TRACK DETECTORS IN THE H1 EXPERIMENT
=============================================================
The example described is the alignment in the $r \varphi$-plane perpendicular to the beam line of a 56-plane drift chamber and a 2-plane silicon vertex detector in the H1 detector at HERA [@h1]. Both are cylindrical detectors; the drift chamber has a length ($z$) of about 2 m, and extending from 20.3 cm to 84.4 cm in radius $r$. The silicon vertex detector [@cst] has two planes around the beampipe made of 0.15 mm Aluminium and 0.9 mm carbon fiber. The drift chamber and the silicon vertex detector have a $r \varphi$ resolution of about 150 $\mu$m and 15 $\mu$m, respectively. These detectors are interspersed by additional chambers for the $z$-measurement.
row. number parameter $\sigma$ unit
------ -------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- -----------
1 2 $\Delta x$ 1 $\mu$m
2 2 $\Delta x/\Delta z_r$ 2 $\mu$m
3 2 $\Delta y$ 1 $\mu$m
4 2 $\Delta y/\Delta z_r$ 2 $\mu$m
5 2 $\Delta \varphi$ 10 $\mu$rad
6 2 $\Delta \varphi/\Delta z_r$ 10 $\mu$rad
7 2 $\Delta \alpha_{\text{Lor}}$ 100 $\mu$rad
8 2 $\Delta v_{\text{drift}-}/v_{\text{drift}}$ $10^{-5}$
9 2 $\Delta v_{\text{drift}+}/v_{\text{drift}}$ $10^{-5}$
10 2 $\Delta T_0 \times v_{\text{drift}}$ $< 1$ $\mu$m
11 2 wire staggering in wire plane few $\mu$m
12 2 wire staggering perp wire plane few $\mu$m
13 2 sagging in wire plane few $\mu$m
14 2 sagging perp. wire plane few $\mu$m
15 180 $\Delta v_{\text{drift}}/v_{\text{drift}}$ per cell half few $10^{-4}$
16 112 $\Delta v_{\text{drift}}/v_{\text{drift}}$ per layer half few $10^{-4}$
17 330 $\Delta T_0\times v_{\text{drift}} $ per group 10 $\mu$m
18 56 wire position in driftdir. per layer 10 $\mu$m
19 56 $\Delta T_0 \times v_{\text{drift}}$ per layer 10 $\mu$m
20 56 $\Delta x_W$ per layer few 10 $\mu$m
21 112 $\Delta v_{\text{drift}}/v_{\text{drift}}$ for $I_e/50$ mA few $10^{-4}$
22 90 $\Delta v_{\text{drift}}/v_{\text{drift}}$ per layer few $10^{-4}$
23 90 $\Delta y_W$ per layer few 10 $\mu$m
24 90 $(\Delta y_W)^2$ per layer$^2$ few 10 $\mu$m
25 64 $\Delta$ in ladder few $\mu$m
26 64 $\Delta$ perp. ladder few $\mu$m
27 64 rel. $\Delta$ in ladder ($z_r$) few $\mu$m
28 64 rel. $\Delta$ perp. ladder ($z_r$) 10 $\mu$m
29 64 rel. $\Delta$ perp. ladder ($\varphi$) few $\mu$m
: Alignment parameters determined in the [**Millepede**]{} fit. \[aliparm\] The [**Millepede**]{} accuracy is given by one standard deviation $\sigma$. The different parameters are discussed in the text.
The central jet chambers CJC1 and CJC2 ([@h1]) with an active length of 2200 mm and an outer radius of 844 mm have in total 2640 anode sense wires parallel to the beam with two adjacent cathode planes (wires) shaping the drift field. A jet chamber cell extends azimuthally from the sense wire plane to both adjacent cathode wire planes, and radially extends over the full radial span of CJC1 and CJC2 with no further subdivision. The jet cells are tilted by about $30^{\circ}$ such that in the presence of the magnetic field (1.1 Tesla) the ionization electrons drift approximately perpendicular to high momentum vertex tracks.
The silicon vertex detector CST consists of two cylindrical layers of double sided, double metal silicon sensors read out by a custom designed analog pipeline chip. The two layers of the CST are formed from 12 and 20 faces at radii of 5.75 cm and 9.75 cm, respectively. One face or ’ladder’ consists of six silicon sensors and aluminium nitride hybrids at each end. A double layer of carbon fiber strips with a total thickness of 700 $\mu$m and a height of 4.4 mm is glued to the edges. The position of the ladders in a layer are shifted tangentially to ensure an overlap in $r \varphi$ of adjacent active areas. The active length in $z$ is 35.6 cm for both layers.
Data taken with the H1 detector are reconstructed online and the reconstruction modules also determine important parameters like average drift velocities, Lorentz-angle and $T_0$ of the CJC1 and CJC2. In addition beam parameters like the $r \varphi$ position of the primary interaction point are recorded.
In the alignment procedure, using the program [**Millepede**]{}, a large number of parameters is determined; these parameter are in general corrections to detector parameters and represent *small* corrections. It turned out that a *common* alignment of the drift chamber and the silicon detector is essential, after an internal detector alignment, which already determines reasonable starting values for alignment parameters. For each of the drift chambers CJC1 and CJC2 14 global parameters representing an overall shift or tilt are introduced. Local variations of the drift velocity $v_{\text{drift}}$ for cells halfs and layers halfs are observed, which are parametrized by 180 + 112 corrections, which change with the HV configuration. For each wire group (8 wires) corrections to $T_0$ are introduced (330 corrections). For the silicon vertex detector CST an internal alignment has already been done, using the same techniques, with in total 384 local parameters. In the common alignment fit 5 parameters per half ladder representing shifts are introduced (320 parameters). Table \[aliparm\] contains all parameters. A far as possible the parameters are defined with the dimension *length*. For example the time-zero parameters are multiplied by the mean drift time. Angles are parametrized as shifts relative to a normalized length parameter. For example $z_r$ is defined as $z/z_{max}$ and has a range –1 to +1. The shift $\Delta x$ with $z$ is parametrized as $\Delta x/z_r$ and has the dimension length.
In addition to physics events (ep interactions) also cosmic tracks with and without $B$-field were simultaneously used as input to the alignment. With combined fits to both halfs of cosmic tracks parts of the detectors opposite in $\varphi$ angle are strongly correlated. This allows an accurate interpolation from the drift chamber to the silicon tracker with an accuracy $\sigma = 30$ to 40 $\mu$m, which is of the same order of magnitude as the silicon tracker accuracy. In total about 50 000 events are used as input. Constraints require e.g. a zero overall shift of the detector. The CJC2 is fixed (first five parameters) vs. the cryostat on the basis of external survey data as reference.
An overview about the corrections determined in the alignment fit is given in Table \[aliparm\], which has 29 rows of different corrections. In detail these corrections are as follows.
Rows 1 – 6
: These rows contain geometrical parameters; in an external survey the positions are measured with an accuracy of a few 100 $\mu$m and angles with an accuracy of a few 10 $\mu$rad. This accuracy is increased by a large factor in the alignment fit.
Row 6
: This parameter is determined from $B=0$ cosmics (straight line track model).
Rows 11 – 14
: The parameters are determined only as a check. Their actual values are determined from hit triplets as a function of angle $\beta$ and $z_r$ ($\beta$ is the angle between the track and the normal to the drift direction).
Row 15,16
: The parameters change with the HV configuration.
Row 18,20
: Corrections for the wire position in and perpendicular to the drift direction. These corrections are determined in a cross check with $B=0$ cosmic tracks, otherwise the data from a survey of flanges are used ($ < 10 \mu$m).
Row 21
: These correction are used to describe the changes of drift velocity $v_{\text{drift}}$ by variations of the electron beam current $I_e$ due to space charge effects; they are determined once.
Row 22 – 24
: These parameters change with repair/breakdown of HV cards. They are introduced in order to correct for bad cathode HV.
Row 25 – 29
: Corrections for the silicon vertex detector, five per half ladder, determined in and perpendicular to ladder, on average and as function of $z$ and of $\varphi$.
The alignment is done for run ranges and repeated after e.g. a change of the HV configuration. Run-to-run variations of parameters (e.g. the average drift velocity $v_{\text{drift}}$) are taken into account by the data from the online reconstruction as mentioned above.
track fit $\sigma(d_{\text{ca}}) \; [\text{cm}]$ $\sigma(1/p_t) \; [\text{(GeV/c)}^{-1}]$ remark
------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ --------------------------
only 1 track with Si hits 0.0209 $5.58 \cdot 10^{-3}$ drift chamber resolution
both tracks with at least 1 Si hit 0.0032 $2.26 \cdot 10^{-3}$ Si tracker resolution
both tracks with at least 2 Si hits 0.0028 $2.17 \cdot 10^{-3}$ Si tracker resolution
: Standard deviations in the parameters $d_{ca}$ and $1/p_t$, determined from the difference between the two parts of cosmic tracks. \[tab:sigmas\]
The alignment procedure allows to reach the intrinsic resolution not only locally but also for complete tracks. For the drift chambers CJC1 and CJC2 the local hit resolution can be determined from local hit triplets as a function of drift distance; the minimum is about 120 $\mu$m for 1 cm drift distance. The minimum value from track residuals is about 125 $\mu$m. For the CST the intrinsic point resolution of 15 $\mu$m from hits overlaps is also reached globally. Figure \[fig:mille2\] shows the improvement for track parameters, determined from data in the comparison of parameters between the two parts of cosmic tracks. A significant improvement is visible for larger track momenta. In Table \[tab:sigmas\] the standard deviations in the parameters $d_{ca}$ and $1/p_t$, determined from the difference between the two parts of cosmic tracks, are given for three different track classes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank the organizers of the conference on Advanced Statistical Techniques in Particle Physics for their hospitality and the stimulating atmosphere in Durham.
[9]{} V. Blobel and E. Lohrmann, Statistische und numerische Methoden der Datenanalyse, Teubner, Stuttgart und Leipzig (1998) A program description for [**Millepede**]{} and the code is available via `http://www.desy.de/~blobel/`. Schreiber, O. (1877): Rechnungsvorschriften für die trigonometrische Abteilung der Landesaufnahme, Ausgleichung und Berechnung der Triangulation zweiter Ordnung. Handwritten notes. Mentioned in W. Jordan (1910): Handbuch der Vermessungskunde, Sechste erw. Auflage, Band I, §III: 429-433. J.B.Metzler, Stuttgart. H1 Collaboration, The H1-detector at HERA, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., [**A386**]{}, 310 – 396 (1997) D. Pitzl et al., The H1 silicon vertex detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., [**A454**]{}, 334 – 349 (2000)
[^1]: Large detectors may have dead channels, which means missing data.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The POINT-AGAPE collaboration is currently searching for massive compact halo objects (MACHOs) towards the Andromeda galaxy (M31). The survey aims to exploit the high inclination of the M31 disk, which causes an asymmetry in the spatial distribution of M31 MACHOs. Here, we investigate the effects of halo velocity anisotropy and flattening on the asymmetry signal using simple halo models. For a spherically symmetric and isotropic halo, we find that the underlying pixel-lensing rate in far-disk M31 MACHOs is more than 5 times the rate of near-disk events. We find that the asymmetry is increased further by about 30% if the MACHOs occupy radial orbits rather than tangential orbits, but is substantially reduced if the MACHOs lie in a flattened halo. However, even for haloes with a minor-to-major axis ratio $q = 0.3$, the numbers of M31 MACHOs in the far-side outnumber those in the near-side by a factor of $\sim$2. There is also a distance asymmetry, in that the events on the far-side are typically further from the major axis. We show that, if this positional information is exploited in addition to number counts, then the number of candidate events required to confirm asymmetry for a range of flattened and anisotropic halo models is achievable, even with significant contamination by variable stars and foreground microlensing events. For pixel-lensing surveys which probe a representative portion of the M31 disk, a sample of around 50 candidates is likely to be sufficient to detect asymmetry within spherical haloes, even if half the sample is contaminated, or to detect asymmetry in haloes as flat as $q = 0.3$ provided less than a third of the sample comprises contaminants. We also argue that, provided its mass-to-light ratio is less than 100, the recently observed stellar stream around M31 is not problematic for the detection of asymmetry.'
author:
- |
E. Kerins, J. An, N. W. Evans, P. Baillon, B.J. Carr, Y. Giraud-H[é]{}raud, A. Gould, P. Hewett, J. Kaplan, S. Paulin-Henriksson, S.J. Smartt, Y. Tsapras, D. Valls-Gabaud\
(The POINT–AGAPE Collaboration)
title: |
Theory of pixel lensing towards M31 –\
II. The velocity anisotropy and flattening of the MACHO distribution
---
Introduction
============
Continuing disagreement as to whether Massive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) have been detected by microlensing experiments looking towards the Magellanic Clouds highlights the need for other microlensing targets (e.g., Kerins 2001). The Andromeda Galaxy (M31) presents an opportune target in this respect. The disk of M31 is highly inclined ($i\sim 77\degr$), with the consequence that lines of sight to disk stars in the north-west or near side of M31 are shorter than those to the south-east or far side. Microlensing by a spheroidal dark halo will have a characteristic signature with an excess of events on the far side of the M31 disk (Crotts 1992; Baillon et al.1993). This asymmetric signal is absent for variable stars or stellar microlenses in the disk of M31. A number of groups (e.g., Aurière et al. 2001; Riffeser et al. 2001; Calchi-Novati et al. 2002; Crotts et al. 2001) are now carrying out large-scale surveys of M31 to search for this near-far disk asymmetry. This is a mammoth task as the individual stars in M31 are not resolved, so that new techniques based on the super-pixel method (Ansari et al. 1997) or difference imaging (e.g., Crotts & Tomaney 1996) have been exploited to measure the flux changes on unresolved stars. Nonetheless, convincing candidate events are now being discovered, for example by the POINT-AGAPE collaboration (e.g., Aurière et al. 2001; Paulin-Henriksson et al. 2002, 2003). Therefore, this is a timely moment to consider what factors affect the near-far disk asymmetry and how many events are likely to be needed for a convincing detection.
The aim of this paper is to estimate the size of candidate event samples needed to detect asymmetry for different halo models. In Sections 2 and 3 of the paper we show how the magnitude of the asymmetry signal is affected by the velocity anisotropy and the flattening of the M31 baryonic dark halo respectively. There are few ways known to us for measuring the properties of the orbits of dark objects in the halo of any galaxy or for ascertaining the flattening of the baryonic dark component of the halo. Hence, any clues gleaned from pixel lensing experiments will be invaluable. In Section 4, we present some simple, non-parametric statistical estimators of asymmetry and calculate how many candidates are needed to give convincing detections.
The Effects of Velocity Anisotropy {#pixelrate}
==================================
Anisotropic Models
------------------
Here, we investigate the microlensing properties of haloes in which the velocity distribution of the MACHOs is anisotropic. We use models in which the halo density $\rho$ is isothermal and the rotation curve is flat: $$\rho \propto \frac{v_0^2}{r^{2}}, \ \ \ v_0^2 = {\rm constant}.
\label{halo}$$ For these models, the velocity dispersions in the spherical polar coordinate system are given by (see e.g., White 1981; Evans, Häfner & de Zeeuw 1997) $$\sigma_\phi^2 = \sigma_\theta^2 = (1+\alpha)\,\sigma_r^2 =
\frac{v_0^2}{2},
\label{vel}$$ where $\alpha > -1$ is the anisotropy parameter. If $\alpha < 0$, then the velocity distribution is referred to as ‘radially anisotropic’; if $\alpha > 0$, then it is ‘tangentially anisotropic.’ Whilst $\sigma_r^2$ in equation (\[vel\]) diverges as $\alpha \rightarrow
-1$, velocity dispersion ratios are rarely observed to be more extreme than 3:1, implying $-8/9 < \alpha < 8$. We assume a circular velocity of $v_0 = 235\ \mbox{km s$^{-1}$}$ for M31’s halo (Emerson 1976) and we compute the cutoff radius to give a total halo mass of $1 \times
10^{12}\ {\mbox{M}_{\odot}}$ (e.g., Evans & Wilkinson 2000). The sources are drawn from the M31 disk which is adequately modelled as a sheet inclined at 77 to the line of sight. The source velocity is assumed to be dominated by the disk rotation speed of 235 $\mbox{km
s$^{-1}$}$.
For each halo model, we calculate a theoretical estimate of the pixel-lensing rate $\Gamma_{\rm p}$. Unlike the classical (resolved star) microlensing rate, $\Gamma_{\rm p}$ depends additionally on the surface brightness of the M31 disk and the luminosity function of the M31 sources (c.f., Kerins et al. 2001). The calculations here are performed for a $V$-band luminosity function and surface brightness distribution. The surface brightness of M31 is tabulated in Walterbos & Kennicutt (1987). The M31 disk luminosity function is assumed to be the same as for the Milky Way and we use the data of Wielen, Jahreiß& Kruger (1983) to characterise the faint end ($M_V > 5$) and that of Bahcall & Soneira (1980) for the bright end. For each source star of flux $F$ at sky position ($x$,$y$) on the M31 disk, we compute the maximum impact parameter, $u_{\rm T}$, needed to ensure that the magnified source star noticeably enhances the local flux contribution from the background galaxy and sky background. Motivated by the POINT-AGAPE experiment (e.g., Paulin-Henriksson et al. 2002, 2003), we assume that detection is performed on a “super-pixel” array of pixels of size $2\farcs1 \times 2\farcs1$ which typically encloses 40% of the total flux from a point source. In addition to the background due to the M31 surface brightness we allow for a sky background of 19.5 $\mbox{mag arcsec$^{-2}$}$. We assume an event is detectable if the flux change caused by microlensing is $\ga 1\%$ of the background flux on the super-pixel. The pixel lensing rate is then $$\Gamma_{\rm p}(x,y) =
\langle u_{\rm T}(x,y) \rangle \Gamma_{\rm c}(x,y),\label{prate}$$ where $\Gamma_{\rm c}$ is the classical microlensing rate (Paczyński 1986; Kiraga & Paczyński 1994) and $\langle u_{\rm T} \rangle$ is the maximum impact parameter averaged over the luminosity function $\phi$ of the source stars. Explicitly, we can write that $$\langle u_{\rm T}(x,y) \rangle =
{\int \phi(F)\,u_{\rm T}(F,x,y)\,dF \over \int \phi(F)\,dF}.$$ This is an upper limit to the observed pixel lensing rate for any real experiment, as it does not take into account the effects of sampling, changing observing conditions or event identification algorithms. These effects may alter the spatial distribution of events, but they can be corrected via the calculated detection efficiency. In fact, the efficiency is largely controlled by the local surface brightness and so is approximately symmetric with respect to the major axis. The ratio of the number of far-disk to near-disk events therefore does not depend on the efficiency to lowest order.
Finally, the spatially-averaged pixel-lensing rate ${\langle\Gamma_{\rm p}\rangle}$ is obtained by weighting the rate with the M31 disk surface brightness. The central portions of the M31 disk are omitted, partly because stellar lenses in the M31 bulge dominate here and partly because the halo model is singular at the centre. So, a central region of 5 radius is excised from the M31 disk before performing the spatial averaging separately for events above and below the M31 major axis. None of the current experiments is surveying the entire M31 disk, but their fields do span the large majority of the minor axis and we therefore expect any underlying asymmetry in their fields to be representative of the globally-averaged asymmetry computed here.
Results
-------
Figure \[fig:pix\] shows the spatially-averaged theoretical pixel-lensing rate, ${\langle\Gamma_{\rm p}\rangle}$, for lenses of mass $M$, normalised to the value $\Gamma_0 = 7.6 \times 10^{-7}\ (M/{\mbox{M}_{\odot}})^{-1/2}$ events per star per year. When $\alpha < 0$, the velocity distribution is radially anisotropic and the rate ${\langle\Gamma_{\rm p}\rangle}\propto v_0 /
\sqrt{1+\alpha}$. When $\alpha >0$, the velocity distribution is tangentially anisotropic and the rate ${\langle\Gamma_{\rm p}\rangle}\propto v_0$, so the total rate in radially anisotropic models is somewhat higher. However, we are primarily interested in the differences between the near and far disk. Such asymmetries may manifest themselves in the numbers, locations and time-scales of the events. Accordingly, Figure \[fig:pix\] also shows the far-to-near disk ratios for the pixel-lensing rates ($A =
{{\langle\Gamma_{\rm p}\rangle}_{\rm f}}/ {{\langle\Gamma_{\rm p}\rangle}_{\rm n}}$), the mean Einstein crossing times (${\langle{t_{\rm E}}\rangle_{\rm f}/\langle{t_{\rm E}}\rangle_{\rm n}}$) and the ratio of mean projected distances of events to the major axis ($D$).
All models show a strong excess of far-disk events, with $A$ increasing from 5.3 to 7 as the models go from tangential to radial anisotropy. It is also evident from $D$ in Figure \[fig:pix\] that far-disk events lie systematically farther from the major axis than near-disk events, providing a second signature of asymmetry. However $D$ is nearly constant across the range of $\alpha$ so this spatial signature does not provide a probe of the degree of velocity anisotropy.
There is also an asymmetry in the Einstein crossing times of M31 MACHOs. If MACHOs have radially distended orbits, then their motion tends towards being parallel to the line of sight for the near disk but orthogonal to it for the far disk. Events on the near side therefore last longer. In other words, the ratio of the typical time-scales of far-disk to near-disk events decreases with increasing radial anisotropy. Consequently, the ratio of the numbers of events in the far-disk to the near-disk is enhanced in radially anisotropic models compared to isotropic model. This can be seen from the fact that the spatially-averaged microlensing optical depth, $\langle \tau \rangle
\propto \langle {t_{\rm E}}\rangle {\langle\Gamma_{\rm p}\rangle}$, is independent of the velocity distribution. From Figure \[fig:pix\], the expected enhancement in the number asymmetry $A$ is $\sim$30%.
For the isotropic model ($\alpha = 0$), the time-scales are typically shorter in the far disk than in the near disk. The reason for this is that the typical separation between lens and source is larger for near-disk MACHOs. For far-disk events, the typical lens-source separation is biased towards the location where the density peaks along the line of sight, which is at a distance $\sim |y| \tan i$ in front of the sources, where $y$ is the projected distance along the minor axis. The situation is different for near-disk MACHOs, where the line of sight density is always a monotonically decreasing function of lens-source separation. Here, the typical separation is $\sim$20–30 kpc for $y > 5\arcmin$, so ${\langle{t_{\rm E}}\rangle_{\rm f}/\langle{t_{\rm E}}\rangle_{\rm n}}$ is less than unity for an isotropic model, as shown in Figure \[fig:pix\].
Unfortunately, the Einstein crossing time is not generally measurable for pixel-lensing events. Instead experiments measure the full-width half-maximum ($t_{1/2}$) of the lightcurve, which is additionally correlated with the source luminosity and background surface brightness distribution. The resulting $t_{1/2}$ distributions are therefore predicted to be broad and any asymmetries in the time-scale distribution are unlikely to be easily observable.
The Effects of Flattening
=========================
Flattened Models {#tilt}
----------------
Self-consistent solutions of the self-gravitation equations for the density, potential and velocity distributions of flattened halo models are rare. Even solving the Jeans equations for the second velocity moments can lead to cumbersome results. Baltz, Gyuk & Crotts (2003) have computed pixel-lensing rates explicitly for simple analytic flattened halo models. However, if we are merely interested in comparing the effects of flattening on the ratios of quantities in the near- and far-disk, then there is a quick alternative to carrying out computations with a fully axisymmetric halo model.
Figure \[fig:schematic\] shows lines of sight passing through an elliptical halo with axis ratio $q$ and eccentricity $(1-q^2)^{1/2}$. The lines strike the disk of M31 at an angle $i$. The ratios of the optical depths in the near and far disk are proportional to the line segments NP and FP. Also shown is an equivalent spherical halo. By extending N vertically to N’ and F to F’, we can construct lines of sight that pass through the spherical halo and strike the disk at a different angle $i'$. Similarly, the ratios of the optical depths are proportional to the line segments N’P and F’P. From the elementary properties of the ellipse, it follows that the two ratios are the same (NP/FP = N’P / F’P). By straightforward trigonometry, one has $q \tan i = \tan i'$. In other words, the asymmetry signal of a flattened halo with axis ratio $q$ is the same as that of an equivalent spherical halo, provided the disk is viewed not at angle $i$ but at an angle $i'$.
This transformation takes into account the geometric effects of flattening. The first-order changes in the velocity distribution can be computed using the tensor virial theorem (Binney & Tremaine 1987; Han & Gould 1995). Strictly speaking, the tensor virial theorem applies globally and relates the components of the total kinetic energy tensor $T$ to the components of the total potential energy tensor $W$. If we assume that the virial theorem holds at each spot, then it follows that $${\sigma_x^2 \over \sigma_z^2} \approx {T_{xx} \over T_{zz}} = {W_{xx}
\over W_{zz}} \approx {1 \over q^2}.$$ Here, we have assumed that the figure is oblate spheroidal, with the the short axis being in the $z$ direction and the $(x,y)$ plane being equatorial. Although this is only an approximate relation, valid for small flattening, it shows that the first-order changes in the velocity distribution are also accounted for by the transformation.
This means that a quick way to study the asymmetry properties of flattened haloes is to take isotropic spherical models and vary the inclination angle of the M31 disk. We stress that the transformation does not allow us to calculate absolute quantities like the rate, but only the ratios of such quantities in the near and far disk.
Results
-------
Figure \[fig:flatpix\] shows the variation in the far-to-near-disk ratios for the pixel lensing rates $A$, the means of vertical distances $D$ and the time-scales. The asymmetry signal $A$ for a halo with flattening $q$ is linearly related to the asymmetry signal for a spherical halo $A_0$, that is $$A \simeq 1 + q(A_0-1).$$ The asymmetry signal clearly diminishes with flattening; it is obvious that, in the completely flat limit where the halo becomes a razor-thin disk, the asymmetry must vanish. The change in $A$ with flattening is almost entirely caused by the change in the ratio of optical depths. Therefore the ratio of the average time-scales is largely unaffected by flattening.
The distance asymmetry $D$ also decreases with increasing flattening, as is again obvious in the razor-thin limit. The distance asymmetry arises in a spherical model because of two effects. First, lines of sight are longer as we move from near to far disk. Second, the line of sight with greatest column density goes through the centre in the near-disk but lies away from the centre in the far-disk. So the distribution of distances of events is monotonically decreasing in the near disk, but rises to a maximum and then decreases in the far disk. As the flattening increases, all lines of sights become shorter and the density becomes more concentrated towards the centre. The distributions of distances in both the near and far disk shrink and the maximum moves towards the centre in the far disk. This latter effect is the dominant one, and so the distance asymmetry signals falls with increasing flattening.
Signal Detection
================
The Number Asymmetry Signal
---------------------------
In this section, we ask whether one can detect the asymmetry signals in the presence of contaminating events and how the velocity anisotropy and the halo flattening affect this detectability. That is, we ask how many candidates are needed to detect the asymmetry at a certain confidence level.
First, we consider the number asymmetry $A$ between the far and near side. One problem is that none of the experiments will be able to obtain pure samples of M31 MACHO events; some microlensing contamination from Milky Way MACHOs and M31 stars, as well as non-microlensing contamination from variable stars and supernovae in background galaxies will be inevitable. Contamination by periodic variables can be minimized by observing over a sufficiently long time. Colour information can also be used to eliminate variable stars. Fortunately, the other contaminants are equally likely to occur in the near and far regions of the M31 disk. Whether or not an asymmetry can be detected is therefore a question of the size of the sample, the magnitude of the underlying M31 MACHO asymmetry and the level of contamination.
Let us denote the numbers of M31 MACHO events in the near and far disk by ${N_{\rm n}}$ and ${N_{\rm f}}$ respectively, and the number of contaminants by ${N_{\rm c}}$. The condition for a detection of the asymmetry signal at the $s$-$\sigma$ level is that the difference between the far and the near counts be greater than $s$ times the Poisson error, which is given by the square root of the total number of the events. Therefore $${{N_{\rm f}}^\prime - {N_{\rm n}}^\prime \over \sqrt{{N_{\rm f}}+ {N_{\rm n}}+ {N_{\rm c}}}} > s
\label{asymm_c}$$ where ${N_{\rm f}}'$ and ${N_{\rm n}}'$ are the total number of candidates on the far and near sides, respectively, including contaminant events. In the case where the contaminants are distributed evenly between the far and near disk, ${N_{\rm f}}' - {N_{\rm n}}' = {N_{\rm f}}- {N_{\rm n}}$. Straightforward manipulation of the above condition leads to a condition on the total number of candidate events, $${N_{\rm t}}> s^2 \left({A+1 \over A-1}\right)^2 (1 + {f_{\rm c}})^2,
\label{asymm}$$ where $A = {N_{\rm f}}/{N_{\rm n}}$ is the underlying asymmetry of the M31 MACHO events, ${f_{\rm c}}= {N_{\rm c}}/({N_{\rm f}}+{N_{\rm n}})$ is the contamination factor, and ${N_{\rm t}}=
{N_{\rm f}}+{N_{\rm n}}+{N_{\rm c}}$ the total number of candidate events. Figure \[fig:crit\] shows the expected number of events (including the contaminants) required to detect an asymmetry at the 99% confidence level ($s=2.58$) for various contamination factors. We see immediately that the size of the asymmetry signal is crucial. If $A \la 2$, then even with low contamination the number of M31 microlensing events needed to give a convincing detection of asymmetry exceeds $60$. On the other hand, if the asymmetry is $\sim$5, then more than 15 candidates are required. Reassuringly, on referring to Figures \[fig:pix\] and \[fig:flatpix\], we see that $A$ typically lies between 5 and 7 for spherical models, and only becomes as small as 2 for models with $q = 0.3$. In fact, haloes flatter than this are not likely on dynamical grounds, as they are susceptible to bending instabilities (e.g., Merritt & Sellwood 1994). Samples of $\sim$15 candidate events are well within reach of the current surveys if MACHOs contribute significantly to the dark matter budget. However, this number is only the contribution of the M31 halo, as we have cut out the central parts of the M31 disk.
If the contribution of MACHOs to the dark matter mass budget is significant in M31, we expect a similar MACHO contribution for the Milky Way. For interesting MACHO fractions, the foreground Milky Way MACHOs may well provide the dominant contribution to ${f_{\rm c}}$. If the typical MACHO mass and halo density contributions are universal, then the magnitude of ${f_{\rm c}}$ will be determined, to first order, by the relative masses of the M31 and Milky Way haloes. If the M31 halo is twice as massive as the Milky Way’s, then ${f_{\rm c}}\sim 0.4$ (Kerins et al. 2001), whilst we should expect ${f_{\rm c}}$ to be closer to unity if the two haloes are equally massive (Evans & Wilkinson 2000). In any case, the total number of candidates required to confirm asymmetry scales as $(1+{f_{\rm c}})^2$ from equation (\[asymm\]), so we require four times as many candidates to detect the asymmetry when ${f_{\rm c}}= 1$ as when ${f_{\rm c}}= 0$.
The Distance Asymmetry Signal
-----------------------------
Motivated by the variation in mean distances of events between the near and far disk seen in Figures \[fig:pix\] and \[fig:flatpix\], we can go beyond the asymmetry in number counts by considering a distance asymmetry signature.
To quantify differences between the near-disk and far-disk event positions, we apply the Mann-Whitney rank-sum test (Mann & Whitney 1947). This is a non-parametric test for differences between the medians of two samples. The Mann-Whitney test exploits the fact that two samples drawn from identical distributions exhibit the property that, if one combines them and then ranks the elements by size, the two samples are uniformly intermingled on average within the ranked combined sample. For two samples of large enough size $n_a$ and $n_b$, the sum of the rank numbers for sample $a$ is normally distributed about a mean $\mu_a = n_a (n_a + n_b)/2$ with a variance $\sigma_a^2 = n_a n_b
(n_a+n_b+1)/12$. The null hypothesis of similarity (or, in our case, symmetry) is therefore straightforward to quantify.
In the case of M31 pixel lensing, we can apply the Mann-Whitney test to the distribution of $y$, the projected distance from the M31 major axis, for candidates in the near- and far-disk sub-samples. We can also combine the Mann-Whitney test with the number asymmetry test, since the Mann-Whitney statistic probes the spatial distribution of events, not the relative sizes of the samples. If the far-disk event positions are designated as sample $a$ and the sum of their rank numbers within the combined near- and far-disk sample is $\theta_a$, then we can define $s_{\rm MW} = (\theta_a -
\mu_a)/\sigma_a$. Taking $s_{\rm N}$ to be the significance of the number asymmetry statistic, as defined by the left-hand side of equation (\[asymm\_c\]), then the overall significance of the combined sample is $s = (s_{\rm MW}^2 +s_{\rm N}^2)^{1/2}$. A value of $s = 2.58$ would indicate a near-far asymmetry favoured at the 99% confidence level.
We have performed Monte Carlo simulations to determine the number of candidates required to secure a 99% confidence detection of asymmetry. The simulations test a range of anisotropic and flattened halo models and a range of contaminations. For a given model, event position realisations are generated using the theoretical pixel-lensing rate of equation (\[prate\]), weighted by source number density. For each new event realisation, the overall significance, $s$, of the cumulative sample is computed from both the Mann-Whitney statistic ($s_{\rm MW}$) and the number asymmetry statistic ($s_{\rm N}$). When there are fewer than five events in either the far- or near-disk sub-samples, only the number asymmetry statistic is used because the distribution of rank sums for small data-sets can deviate strongly from Gaussianity. We assume the contaminating populations are symmetrically distributed about the M31 major axis, though we adopt the most difficult case when they have a comparable spatial dispersion to the M31 MACHO events. The extent to which this is true depends upon whether Milky Way MACHOs, on the one hand, or variable stars and stellar microlenses, on the other hand, provide the dominant contribution to ${N_{\rm c}}$. If the latter population dominates, then contaminants are likely to be more spatially concentrated than M31 MACHOs, making the MACHO asymmetry easier to measure for a given ${f_{\rm c}}$. So for each pixel-lensing realisation, a uniform random number in the interval \[0,1\] is chosen. If it is less than ${f_{\rm c}}/[2(1+{f_{\rm c}})]$, then the position of the event is flipped about the M31 major axis. This means that, on average, a fraction ${f_{\rm c}}/(1+{f_{\rm c}})$ of the total sample is symmetrically distributed, as required. A full trial, $i$, is terminated either when the cumulative sample of $N_{{\rm
t},i}$ candidates provides at least a 99% confidence detection of asymmetry, or when the program estimates that the required sample is likely to exceed 500 events. This whole process is repeated 1000 times for each model and the median value of $N_{{\rm t},i}$ (excluding trials which are prematurely terminated) is adopted as the estimate for ${N_{\rm t}}$.
The upper panel of Figure \[fig:monte\] shows the median number of candidate events (including the contaminants) required to detect an asymmetry with 99% confidence, as a function of the halo velocity anisotropy parameter $\alpha$. In the absence of contamination, a sample size between 11 to 14 events is typically sufficient to detect asymmetry. The raggedness of this line is partly due to Monte Carlo noise but also partly due to the fact that ${N_{\rm t}}$ necessarily takes only a few discrete values in the limit of small data-sets. From equation (\[asymm\_c\]), the smallest sample needed give rise to a 99% confidence detection of asymmetry is 7 events, all of which must be located in the far disk (assuming the asymmetry is caused by M31 MACHOs). When one candidate lies in the near disk we need ${N_{\rm t}}= 11$, and when two candidates lie in the near disk we require ${N_{\rm t}}=
14$. The leaps in the thick solid line between 11 and 14 events reflect this discrete behaviour, though the oscillation back and forth for $-2< \ln (1+\alpha) < -1$ is due to Monte-Carlo noise. In the worst case considered in Figure \[fig:monte\], where contaminants outnumber M31 MACHOs by 3:1, a median sample of $\sim$120 events is required to detect asymmetry. For $\alpha = 0$ and ${f_{\rm c}}= 3$, we find that the expectation value of ${N_{\rm t}}$ is around 190. Using $s = 2.58$, ${f_{\rm c}}= 3$ and an asymmetry $A = 5.5$ when $\alpha = 0$ (Figure \[fig:pix\]), equation (\[asymm\]) indicates that we should require ${N_{\rm t}}= 220$ if we use number-count information alone. Therefore the addition of distance information allows around a 15% reduction in the required number of candidates in this case.
Overall, ${N_{\rm t}}$ does not appear to be particularly sensitive to $\alpha$. This is to be expected when contamination levels are high because the 30% contrast in $A$ between the radially- and circularly-anisotropic models (see Figure \[fig:pix\]) is strongly diluted.
The lower panel of Figure \[fig:monte\] shows the situation for flattened halo models. The larger range in $A$ for the flattened models ($1.3 < A < 5.5$) means that the median ${N_{\rm t}}$ shows a greater sensitivity to flattening than to velocity anisotropy. In the absence of contaminants, ${N_{\rm t}}\la 25$ is typically needed to confirm asymmetry for models rounder than $q = 0.3$. A sample of 100 candidates would permit asymmetry to be detected even if ${f_{\rm c}}\simeq 1$. Adding distance information is particularly effective at reducing the required size of candidate samples for highly flattened models. As an extreme example, when $q = 0.1$ and ${f_{\rm c}}= 0$, the expectation of ${N_{\rm t}}$ is around 80 if distance information is used along with number counts. From equation (\[asymm\]), 750 candidates are required if only number counts are used. This shows the value of the Mann-Whitney statistic.
It is of course much more difficult to measure an asymmetry than to detect one. Suppose an experiment has gathered ${N_{\rm t}}\ga 100$ events (including contaminants). With reference to Figure \[fig:crit\], if there has been no detection of asymmetry at the 99% confidence level, then – as $A \ga 3$ for all models we have considered with $q > 0.5$ – we can infer that the signal has been overwhelmed by contaminants (${f_{\rm c}}> 1$). The degree of contamination must be greater than a critical value which is given by computing the curve which passes through the point ($A =3, {N_{\rm t}}$). So, a null signal can be used to give a constraint on the contamination. On the other hand, if there has been a detection, then the measured signal $A' \simeq ({N_{\rm f}}+ {\frac{1}{2}}{N_{\rm c}})/ ({N_{\rm n}}+ {\frac{1}{2}}{N_{\rm c}})$ is merely a lower limit to the true signal. It should be possible to estimate the contamination fraction statistically even if we do not know the individual contaminating events, so the true asymmetry signal can be matched to models using standard Bayesian likelihood methods (Kerins et al 2001). Current surveys should therefore be able to discriminate between halo models with different degrees of flattening and may, if the spatial distribution of contaminant populations is well characterized, be able to distinguish between radially-anisotropic halo models and tangentially-anisotropic or isotropic models.
Confusion from M32 and its Stream
---------------------------------
Additional confusion of the asymmetry signal may come from microlensing by stars which belong to streams or tidal debris from disrupted satellite galaxies cannibalized by M31 and/or by stars belonging to the intervening dwarf elliptical M32.
Ibata et al. (2001) have traced out a giant stream in the M31 stellar halo in red giant branch star counts. The stream is $\sim$1 wide in projection. It seemingly originates from the satellite galaxy M32 and possibly also incorporates NGC 205. The average surface brightness of the stream is $\sim$30 $\mbox{mag arcsec$^{-2}$}$ in the $V$-band. It has been suggested by Ferguson et al. (2002) that this may confuse the detection of the near-far disk asymmetry in the microlensing experiments. For sources in M31 and lensing populations at roughly the same distance from the sources, the optical depth of the stream is $$\tau \sim 4.3 \times 10^{-10} \left( {d \over 20\ \mbox{kpc} }\right)
\left ( {{\rm M/L} \over {\mbox{M}_{\odot}}/ \mbox{L}_{\odot}} \right) 10^{12 -0.4
\mu}$$ where $\mu$ is the surface brightness in magnitude per arcsec$^2$, $d$ the separation of the stream from M31 disk along the line of sight and M/L is the MACHO mass-to- light ratio of the stream. This ratio must exceed 100 for the optical depth of the stream to be comparable to the other lensing populations. Accordingly, the presence of such streams is not likely to be problematic for asymmetry detection.
More problematic may be the intervening dwarf elliptical galaxy M32. The POINT-AGAPE collaboration has already found a candidate which lies $\sim$3 in projection away from the centre of M32 and argued that the lens most probably lies in M32 itself (Paulin-Henrikkson et al. 2002). The optical depth of M32 is estimated to be (Paulin-Henrikkson et al. 2003) $$\tau \sim 1.4 \times 10^{-6} \left( {d \over 20\ \mbox{kpc} }\right)
\left ( {{\rm M/L} \over 3{\mbox{M}_{\odot}}/ \mbox{L}_{\odot} }\right)$$ where $d$ is the separation of M32 from M31 along the line of sight and $M/L$ is the stellar mass-to-light ratio of M32. This is comparable to the signal expected from the baryonic halo (assuming a 20% MACHO fraction). Although microlensing associated with M32 is a potentially significant contaminent the affected region can be readily excluded from the statistics using an appropriate mask.
Conclusions
===========
Pixel-lensing experiments targeting M31 are hoping to exploit the favourably high disk inclination in order to detect an asymmetry in the spatial distribution of microlensing events. If such a signal is found, it will provide powerful evidence for the existence of MACHOs.
For a spherically symmetric and isotropic halo, the numbers of M31 MACHOs in the far-disk outnumber those in the near-disk by more than 5 to 1. This asymmetry is increased by about 30% if M31 MACHOs occupy radial orbits rather than tangential ones. The signal is diminished if M31 MACHOs lie in a flattened halo. However, even for haloes as flat as $q = 0.3$, the numbers of M31 MACHOs in the far side will outnumber those in the near side by a factor of $\sim$2.
The key to detecting asymmetry is to isolate microlensing events solely due to M31 MACHOs. There is likely to be significant contamination from other microlensing populations, as well as from variable stars and supernovae mistaken for microlensing, which will dilute the observed signal. The combination of number-count and distance information permits asymmetry to be detected for a wide range of halo models, even in the presence of significant levels of contamination. For models with high levels of asymmetry, such as spherical haloes or haloes with a high degree of radial velocity anisotropy, number count information alone provides a sensitive diagnostic. The addition of distance information allows $\sim$15% reduction in the size of samples needed to confirm asymmetry. For models with low levels of asymmetry, such as strongly flattened haloes, distance information can reduce the required size of candidate samples by a factor 2 or more.
A sample of 50 events is typically sufficient to detect asymmetry in the M31 MACHO distribution within spherical haloes, even if only half the sample is due to M31 MACHO events. For flattened halo models, a sample of 50 candidates would likely allow asymmetry to be seen, provided that the halo axis ratio $q \geq 0.3$ and the contaminants do not contribute more than a third of the sample. The term “contaminants” covers Milky Way MACHOs, M31 disk stellar lensing events and variable star populations, all of which are assumed to be symmetrically distributed with respect to the major axis. For comparison, Paulin-Henriksson et al. (2003) have already found 362 lightcurves compatible with microlensing from the first two years of the POINT-AGAPE survey, though the contamination factor may still be very large. Samples of 50 events with modest contamination are easily achievable with the current generation of pixel-lensing surveys.
NWE and JA thank the Royal Society and the Leverhulme Foundation respectively for financial support.
Ansari R. et al., 1997, A&A, 324, 843
Aurière M. et al., 2001, ApJ, 553, L137
Bahcall J. N., Soneira R. M., 1980, ApJ, 238, L17
Baillon P., Bouquet A., Giraud-Héraud Y., Kaplan J., 1993, A&A, 277, 1
Baltz E., Gyuk G., Crotts A., 2003, ApJ, 582, 30
Binney J., Tremaine S., 1987, Galactic Dynamics. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
Calchi-Novati S. et al., 2002, A&A, 381, 848
Crotts A. P. S., 1992, ApJ, 399, L43
Crotts A. P. S., 2001, in Menzies J.W., Sackett P.D., eds., ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 239, Microlensing 2000: A New Era of Microlensing Astrophysics. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Francisco, p.318
Crotts A. P. S., Tomaney A. B., 1996, ApJ, 473, L87
Emerson, D. T., 1976, MNRAS, 176, 321
Evans N. W., Häfner R. M., de Zeeuw P. T., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 315
Evans N. W., Wilkinson M., 2000, MNRAS, 316, 929
Ferguson A. M. N., Irwin M. J., Ibata R. A., Lewis G. F., Tanvir N. R., 2002, AJ, 124, 1452
Han C., Gould A., 1995, ApJ, 449, 521
Ibata R. A., Irwin M. J., Lewis G. F., Ferguson A. M. N., Tanvir N. R., 2001, Nat, 412, 49
Kerins E. J., 2001, in Trân Thanh Van J., Mellier Y., Moniez M., eds., Cosmological Physics with Gravitational Lensing. EDP Sciences, Paris, p.43
Kerins E. J. et al., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 13
Kiraga M., Paczyński B., 1994, ApJ, 430, L101
Mann H., Whitney D., 1947, Ann. Math. Statist., 18, 50
Merritt D., Sellwood J. A., 1994, ApJ, 425, 551
Paczyński B., 1986, ApJ, 304, 1
Paulin-Henriksson S. et al., 2002, ApJ, 576, L121
Paulin-Henriksson S. et al., 2003, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0207025)
Riffeser A. et al., 2001, A&A, 379, 362
Walterbos R., Kennicutt R., 1987, A&AS, 69, 311
Wielen R., Jahreiß H., Krüger R., 1983, in Davis Philip A.G., Upgren A.R., eds., Proc. IAU Colloq. 76, The Nearby Stars and the Stellar Luminsoity Function. L. Davis Press, Schenectady, NY, p.163
White S. D. M., 1981, MNRAS, 195, 1037
![The spatially-averaged pixel-lensing rate ${\langle\Gamma_{\rm p}\rangle}$ ([*solid line*]{}) as a function of anisotropy parameter $\alpha$ and normalised to the value for the isotropic model $\langle \Gamma_0 \rangle =
7.6 \times 10^{-7}\ \mbox{stars$^{-1}$ year$^{-1}$}$. Also shown is the M31 MACHO number asymmetry $A$ ([*dashed line*]{}), the ratio of near-disk to far-disk average durations ${\langle{t_{\rm E}}\rangle_{\rm f}/\langle{t_{\rm E}}\rangle_{\rm n}}$ ([*dot-dashed line*]{}), and the ratio of projected distances to the major axis $D$ ([*dotted line*]{})](anisofig.ps)
.
\[fig:pix\]
![This shows lines of sight through a spherical and an elliptical halo. From the properties of an ellipse, we know that the ratios NP:FP and N’P:F’P are equal. This enables us to relate the asymmetry signal of a disk viewed through a flattened halo at inclination $i$ to the same disk viewed through a spherical halo at inclination $i'$.[]{data-label="fig:schematic"}](schematic.eps)
![The far-to-near-disk ratio for the pixel lensing rate $A$ ([*dashed line*]{}), the mean vertical distance $D$ ([*dotted line*]{}) and the time-scales ([*dot-dashed line*]{}), shown as a function of flattening. This diagram is drawn using the transformation introduced in Section \[tilt\].[]{data-label="fig:flatpix"}](flat.ps)
![The number of candidate events (M31 MACHOs and contaminants) required to confirm asymmetry with 99% confidence, based upon number-count information alone, plotted as a function of the underlying M31 MACHO number asymmetry $A$. The different lines correspond to contamination factors, ${f_{\rm c}}= 0$ ([*thick solid line*]{}), 0.3 ([*thin solid line*]{}), 0.5 ([*dashed line*]{}), 1 ([*dot-dashed line*]{}) and 3 ([*dotted line*]{}).[]{data-label="fig:crit"}](criteria.ps)
![The median number of candidates (M31 MACHOs and contaminants) required for a 99% confidence detection of asymmetry. Line coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:crit\]. [*Upper panel*]{} shows ${N_{\rm t}}$ as a function of halo velocity anisotropy for a spherical halo. [*Lower panel*]{} shows ${N_{\rm t}}$ for flattened halo models, using the equivalence between the halo flattening parameter $q$ and disk inclination $i$ discussed in Section \[tilt\].[]{data-label="fig:monte"}](mw-anisop.ps "fig:") ![The median number of candidates (M31 MACHOs and contaminants) required for a 99% confidence detection of asymmetry. Line coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:crit\]. [*Upper panel*]{} shows ${N_{\rm t}}$ as a function of halo velocity anisotropy for a spherical halo. [*Lower panel*]{} shows ${N_{\rm t}}$ for flattened halo models, using the equivalence between the halo flattening parameter $q$ and disk inclination $i$ discussed in Section \[tilt\].[]{data-label="fig:monte"}](mw-flat.ps "fig:")
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The class ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$ consists of Boolean functions computable by size-$s$ de Morgan formulas whose leaves are any Boolean functions from a class $\mathcal{G}$. We give *lower bounds* and (SAT, Learning, and PRG) *algorithms* for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{1.99}]\circ \mathcal{G}$, for classes $\mathcal{G}$ of functions with *low communication complexity*. Let $R^{(k)}(\mathcal{G})$ be the maximum $k$-party number-on-forehead randomized communication complexity of a function in $\mathcal{G}$. Among other results, we show that:
- The Generalized Inner Product function $\mathsf{GIP}^k_n$ cannot be computed in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ \mathcal{G}$ on more than $1/2+\varepsilon$ fraction of inputs for $$s = o \! \left ( \frac{n^2}{ \left(k \cdot 4^k \cdot {R}^{(k)}(\mathcal{G}) \cdot \log (n/\varepsilon) \cdot \log (1/\varepsilon) \right)^{2}} \right).$$ This significantly extends the lower bounds against bipartite formulas obtained by [@Tal17]. As a corollary, we get an average-case lower bound for $\mathsf{GIP}^k_n$ against ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{1.99}]\circ {{\sf PTF}}^{k-1}$, i.e., sub-quadratic-size de Morgan formulas with degree-$(k-1)$ PTF (polynomial threshold function) gates at the bottom. Previously, only sub-linear lower bounds were known [@Nis94; @Vio15] for circuits with PTF gates.
- There is a PRG of seed length $n/2 + O\left( \sqrt{s} \cdot R^{(2)}(\mathcal{G}) \cdot\log(s/\varepsilon) \cdot \log (1/\varepsilon) \right)$ that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$. For the special case of ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ {{\sf LTF}}$, i.e., size-$s$ formulas with LTF (linear threshold function) gates at the bottom, we get the better seed length $O\left(n^{1/2}\cdot s^{1/4}\cdot \log(n)\cdot \log(n/\varepsilon)\right)$. In particular, this provides the first non-trivial PRG (with seed length $o(n)$) for intersections of $n$ half-spaces in the regime where $\varepsilon \leq 1/n$, complementing a recent result of [@OST19].
- There exists a randomized $2^{n-t}$-time $\#$SAT algorithm for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$, where $$t = \Omega\left(\frac{n}{\sqrt{s} \cdot \log^2(s)\cdot R^{(2)}(\mathcal{G})}\right)^{1/2}.$$ In particular, this implies a nontrivial \#SAT algorithm for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{1.99}]\circ {{\sf LTF}}$.
- The Minimum Circuit Size Problem is not in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{1.99}] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$; thereby making progress on hardness magnification, in connection with results from [@OPS19; @Magnification_FOCS19]. On the algorithmic side, we show that the concept class ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{1.99}] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ can be PAC-learned in time $2^{O(n/\log n)}$.
author:
- 'Valentine Kabanets[^1]'
- 'Sajin Koroth[^2]'
- 'Zhenjian Lu[^3]'
- 'Dimitrios Myrisiotis[^4]'
- 'Igor C. Oliveira[^5]'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: ' Algorithms and Lower Bounds for de Morgan Formulas of Low-Communication Leaf Gates '
---
Introduction
============
A (de Morgan) Boolean formula over $\{0,1\}$-valued input variables $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ is a binary tree whose internal nodes are labelled by AND or OR gates, and whose leaves are marked with a variable or its negation. The power of Boolean formulas has been intensively investigated since the early years of complexity theory (see, e.g., [@subbotovskaya1961realization; @Nec66; @khrapchenko1971method; @andreev1987method; @DBLP:journals/rsa/PatersonZ93; @DBLP:journals/rsa/ImpagliazzoN93; @Has98; @Tal14; @DM18]). The techniques underlying these complexity-theoretic results have also enabled algorithmic developments. These include learning algorithms [@Rei11b; @DBLP:conf/innovations/ServedioT17], satisfiability algorithms (cf. [@DBLP:journals/eccc/Tal15]), compression algorithms [@DBLP:journals/cc/ChenKKSZ15], and the construction of pseudorandom generators [@IMZ12] for Boolean formulas of different sizes. But despite many decades of research, the current non-trivial algorithms and lower bounds apply only to formulas of less than cubic size, and understanding larger formulas remains a major open problem in circuit complexity.
In many scenarios, however, understanding smaller formulas whose leaves are replaced by certain functions would also be very useful. Motivated by several recent works, we initiate a systematic study of the ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ model, i.e., Boolean formulas whose leaves are labelled by an arbitrary function from a fixed class $\mathcal{G}$. This model unifies and generalizes a variety of models that have been previously studied in the literature:
- Oliveira, Pich, and Santhanam [@OPS19] show that obtaining a refined understanding of formulas of size $n^{1 + \varepsilon}$ over parity (XOR) gates would have significant consequences in complexity theory. Note that de Morgan formulas of size $n^{3 + \varepsilon}$ can simulate such devices. Therefore, a better understanding of the ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ model even when $\mathcal{G} = \mathsf{XOR}$ is *necessary* before we are able to analyze super-cubic size formulas.[^6]
- Tal [@Tal17] obtains almost quadratic lower bounds for the model of bipartite formulas, where there is a fixed partition of the input variables into $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ and $y_1, \ldots, y_n$, and a formula leaf can compute an *arbitrary* function over either $\vec{x}$ or $\vec{y}$. This model was originally investigated by Pudlák, Rödl, and Savický [@PRS88], where it was referred to as graph complexity. The model is also equivalent to [PSPACE]{}-protocols in communication complexity (cf. [@DBLP:journals/cc/GoosPW18]).
- Abboud and Bringmann [@DBLP:conf/icalp/AbboudB18] consider formulas where the leaves are threshold gates whose input wires can be arbitrary functions applied to either the first or the second half of the input. This extension of bipartite formulas is denoted by $\mathcal{F}_2$ in [@DBLP:conf/icalp/AbboudB18]. Their work establishes connections between faster $\mathcal{F}_2$-SAT algorithms, the complexity of problems in [P]{} such as Longest Common Subsequence and the Fréchet Distance Problem, and circuit lower bounds.
- Polytopes (i.e. intersection of half-spaces), which corresponds to $\mathcal{G}$ being the family of linear-threshold functions, and the formula contains only AND gates as internal gates. The constructing of PRGs for this model has received significant attention in the literature (see [@OST19] and references therein).
We obtain in a unified way several new results for the $\mathsf{FORMULA} \circ \mathcal{G}$ model, for natural classes $\mathcal{G}$ of functions which include parities, linear (and polynomial) threshold functions, and indeed many other functions of interest. In particular, we show that this perspective leads to stronger lower bounds, general satisfiability algorithms, and better pseudorandom generators for a broad class of functions.
Results
-------
We now describe in detail our main results and how they contrast to previous works. Our techniques will be discussed in Section \[sec:techniques\], while a few open problems are mentioned in Section \[sec:concluding\].
We let ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$ denote the set of Boolean functions computed by formulas containing at most $s$ leaves, where each leaf computes according to some function in $\mathcal{G}$. The set of parity functions and their negations will be denoted by $\mathsf{XOR}$.
We use the following notation for communication complexity. For a Boolean function $f \colon \{0,1\}^{n} \to \{0,1\}$, we let $D(f)$ be the two-party deterministic communication complexity of $f$, where each party is given an input of $n/2$ bits. Similarly, for a Boolean function $g \colon \{0,1\}^{n} \to \{0,1\}$, we denote by $R^{(k)}_{\delta}(g)$ the communication cost of the best $k$-party *number-on-forehead* (NOF) communication protocol that computes $g$ with probability at least $1-\delta$ on every input, where the probability is taken over the random choices of the protocol. For simplicity, we might omit the superscript $(k)$ from $R^{(k)}_{\delta}(g)$ when $k = 2$. One of our results will also consider $k$-party *number-in-hand* (NIH) protocols, and this will be clearly indicated in order to avoid confusion. We always assume a canonical partition of the input coordinates in all statements involving $k$-party communication complexity, unless stated otherwise. We generalize these definitions for a class of functions $\mathcal{G}$ in the natural way. For instance, we let $R^{(k)}_{\delta}(\mathcal{G})=\max_{g\in\mathcal{G}} R^{(k)}_{\delta}(g)$.
Our results refer to standard notions in the literature, but in order to fix notation, Section \[sec:preliminaries\] formally defines communication protocols, Boolean formulas, and other notions relevant in this work. We refer to the textbooks [@Kushilevitz-Nisan97] and [@Juk12] for more information about communication complexity and Boolean formulas, respectively. To put our results into context, here we only briefly review a few known upper bounds on the communication complexity of certain classes $\mathcal{G}$.
#### Parities ($\mathsf{XOR}$) and Bipartite Formulas.
Clearly, the deterministic two-party communication complexity of any parity function is at most $2$, since to agree on the output it is enough for the players to exchange the parity of their relevant input bits. Moreover, note that the bipartite formula model discussed above precisely corresponds to formulas whose leaves are computed by a two-party protocol of communication cost at most $1$.
#### Halfspaces and Polynomial Threshold Functions (PTFs).
Recall that a halfspace, also known as a Linear Threshold Function (LTF), is a Boolean function of the form $\mathsf{sign} (\sum_i^n a_i \cdot x_i - b )$, where each $a_i, b \in \mathbb{R}$ and $x \in \{0,1\}^n$, and that a degree-$d$ PTF is its natural generalization where degree-$d$ monomials are allowed. It is known that if $g(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ is a halfspace, then its randomized two-party communication complexity, namely $R^{(2)}_\delta(g)$, satisfies $R^{(2)}_\delta(g) = O(\log (n) + \log (1/\delta))$ [@Nis94]. On the other hand, if $g(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ is a degree-$d$ PTF, then $R^{(d+1)}_\delta(g) = {O}\big((d \log d)(d \log n + \log(1/\delta))\big)$ [@Nis94; @Vio15].
#### Degree-${\bm d}$ Polynomials over $\mathsf{GF}(2)$.
It is well known that a degree-$d$ $\mathsf{GF}(2)$-polynomial admits a $(d+1)$-party deterministic protocol of communication cost $d + 1$ under *any* variable partition, since in the number-on-forehead model each monomial is entirely seen by some player. In particular, the Inner Product function $\mathsf{IP}_{n}(x,y) = \sum_i x_i \cdot y_i~(\mathsf{mod}\;2)$ satisfies $R^{(3)}_{1/3}(\mathsf{IP}_n) = O(1)$.
### Lower bounds
Prior to this work, the only known lower bound against ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$ or bipartite formulas was the recent result of [@Tal17] showing that $\mathsf{IP}_n$ is hard (even on average) against nearly sub-quadratic formulas. In contrast, we obtain a significantly stronger result and establish lower bounds for different Boolean functions. We define such functions next.
#### $\mathsf{GIP}^k_n$.
The Generalized Inner Product function ${{\sf GIP}}^k_{n}\colon \{0,1\}^{n} \to \{0,1\}$ is defined as $${{\sf GIP}}_{n}^{k}\left(x^{(1)},x^{(2)},\dots,x^{(k)}\right) = \sum_{j=1}^{n/k} \bigwedge_{i=1}^{k} x_{j}^{(i)}~(\mathsf{mod}\;2),$$ where $x^{(i)}\in \{0,1\}^{n/k}$ for each $i\in [k]$.
#### $\mathsf{MKtP}$.
In the Minimum Kt Problem, where $\mathsf{Kt}$ refers to Levin’s time-bounded Kolmogorov complexity[^7], we are given a string $x \in \{0,1\}^n$ and a string $1^\ell$. We accept $(x,1^\ell)$ if and only if $\mathsf{Kt}(x) \leq \ell$.
#### $\mathsf{MCSP}$.
In the Minimum Circuit Size Problem, we are given as input the description of a Boolean function $f \colon \{0,1\}^{\log n} \to \{0,1\}$ (represented as an $n$-bit string), and a string $1^\ell$. We accept $(f,1^\ell)$ if and only the circuit complexity of $f$ is at most $\ell$.
\[thm:main\_lbs\] The following unconditional lower bounds hold:
- If $\mathsf{GIP}^k_n$ is $(1/2 + \varepsilon)$-close under the uniform distribution to a function in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$, then $$s \;=\; \Omega \! \left ( \frac{n^2}{k^2 \cdot 16^k \cdot \big ({R}^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2n^2)}(\mathcal{G}) + \log n \big )^2 \cdot \log^2 (1/\varepsilon)} \right ).$$
- If $\mathsf{MKtP} \in {{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$, then $$s \;=\; \widetilde{\Omega} \! \left( \frac{n^2}{k^2\cdot16^{k}\cdot R^{(k)}_{1/3}(\mathcal{G})}\right).$$
- If $\mathsf{MCSP} \in {{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$, then $s = \widetilde{\Omega}(n^2)$, where $\widetilde{\Omega}$ hides inverse $\mathsf{polylog}(n)$ factors.
Observe that, while [@Tal17] showed that the Inner Product function $\mathsf{IP}_n$ is hard against sub-quadratic bipartite formulas, Theorem \[thm:main\_lbs\] Item 1 yields lower bounds against formulas whose leaves can compute bounded-degree PTFs and $\mathsf{GF}(2)$-polynomials, including $\mathsf{IP}_n$. PTF circuits were previously studied by Nisan [@Nis94], who obtained an almost linear $\Omega_d(n^{1-o(1)})$ gate complexity lower bound against circuits with degree-$d$ PTF gates. Recently, [@KKL17] gave a super-linear *wire* complexity lower bound for constant-depth circuits with constant-degree PTF gates. However, it was open whether we can prove lower bounds against any circuit model that can incorporate a linear number of PTF gates. In fact, it was open before this work to show a super-linear gate complexity lower bound against ${{\sf AND}}\circ {{\sf PTF}}$.
Let us now comment on the relevance of Items 2 and 3. Both $\mathsf{MCSP}$ and $\mathsf{MKtP}$ are believed to be computationally much harder than $\mathsf{GIP}_n^k$. However, it is more difficult to analyze these problems compared to $\mathsf{GIP}_n^k$ because the latter is mathematically “structured,” while the former problems do not seem to be susceptible to typical algebraic, combinatorial, and analytic techniques.
More interestingly, $\mathsf{MCSP}$ and $\mathsf{MKtP}$ play an important role in the theory of hardness magnification (see [@OPS19; @Magnification_FOCS19]). In particular, if one could show that $\mathsf{MCSP}$ restricted to an input parameter $\ell \leq n^{o(1)}$ is not in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{1 + \varepsilon}] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ for some $\varepsilon > 0$, then it would follow that $\mathsf{NP}$ cannot be computed by Boolean formulas of size $n^c$, where $c \in \mathbb{N}$ is arbitrary. Theorem \[thm:main\_lbs\] makes partial progress on this direction by establishing the first lower bounds for these problems in the ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ model. (We note that the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\_lbs\] Item 3 requires instances where the parameter $\ell$ is $n^{\Omega(1)}$.)
### Pseudorandom generators {#sec:intro_prg}
We also get pseudorandom generators (PRGs) against ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$ for various classes of functions $\mathcal{G}$. Recall that a PRG against a class of functions $\mathfrak{C}$ is a function $G$ mapping short Boolean strings (seeds) to longer Boolean strings, so that every function in $\mathfrak{C}$ accepts $G$’s output on a uniformly random seed with about the same probability as that for an actual uniformly random string. More formally, $G\colon\{0,1\}^{\ell}\to\{0,1\}^n$ is a PRG that $\varepsilon$-fools $\mathfrak{C}$ if for every Boolean function $h \colon \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}$ in $\mathfrak{C}$, we have $$\left|\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{z\in\{0,1\}^{\ell}}[h(G(z))=1] - \operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\in\{0,1\}^n}[h(x)=1]\right| \;\leq\; \varepsilon.$$ Furthermore, we require $G$ to run in deterministic time $\mathsf{poly}(n)$ on an input string $z \in \{0,1\}^\ell$. The parameter $\ell = \ell(n)$ is called the seed length of the PRG and is the main quantity to be minimized when constructing PRGs.
There exists a PRG that fools formulas of size $s$ and that has a seed of length $s^{1/3 + o(1)}$ [@IMZ12]. In particular, there are non-trivial PRGs for $n$-variate formulas of size nearly $n^3$. Unfortunately, such PRGs cannot be used to fool even linear size formulas over parity functions, since the naive simulation of these enhanced formulas by standard Boolean formulas requires size $n^3$. Moreover, it is not hard to see that this simulation is optimal: Andreev’s function, which is hard against formulas of nearly cubic size (cf. [@Has98]), can be easily computed in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[O(n)] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$. Given that a crucial idea in the construction of the PRG in [@IMZ12] (shrinkage under restrictions) comes from this lower bound proof, new techniques are needed in order to approach the problem in the ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$ model.
More generally, extending a computational model for which strong PRGs are known to allow parities at the bottom layer can cause significant difficulties. A well-known example is $\mathsf{AC}^0$ circuits and their extension to $\mathsf{AC}^0$-$\mathsf{XOR}$. While the former class admits PRGs of poly-logarithmic seed length (see e.g. [@ST19]), the most efficient PRG construction for the latter has seed length $(1 - o(1)) \cdot n$ [@DBLP:journals/toc/FeffermanSUV13]. Consequently, designing PRGs of seed length $\leq (1 - \Omega(1)) \cdot n$ can already be a challenge. We are not aware of previous results on PRGs for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ for any non-trivial class $\mathcal{G}$.
By combining ideas from circuit complexity and communication complexity, we construct PRGs of various seed lengths for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$, where $\mathcal{G}$ ranges from the class of parity functions to the much larger class of functions of bounded randomized $k$-party communication complexity.
\[thm:main\_PRG\] Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a class of $n$-bits functions. Then,
- In the context of parity functions, there is a *PRG* that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ of seed length $$\ell \; = \; O \! \left (\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon) + \log(n)\right).$$
- In the context of two-party randomized communication complexity, there is a *PRG* that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$ of seed length $$\ell \; = \; n/2+O \! \left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\left(R^{(2)}_{\varepsilon/(6s)}(\mathcal{G})+\log(s)\right)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)\right).$$ More generally, for every $k(n) \geq 2$, let $\mathcal{G}$ be the class of functions that have $k$-party number-in-hand *(NIH)* $(\varepsilon/6s)$-error randomized communication protocols of cost at most $R^{(k\text{-}\mathsf{NIH})}_{\varepsilon/(6s)}$. There exists a *PRG* that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ \mathcal{G}$ with seed length $$\ell \; = \; n/k+O \! \left(\sqrt{s}\cdot \left (R^{(k\text{-}\mathsf{NIH})}_{\varepsilon/(6s)} +\log (s) \right )\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon) +\log(k)\right)\cdot\log(k).$$
- In the setting of $k$-party *NOF* randomized communication complexity, there is a *PRG* that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$ of seed length $$\ell \; = \; n-\frac{n}{O \! \left(\sqrt{s}\cdot k \cdot 4^k \cdot \left( R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2s)}(\mathcal{G})+\log(n)\right)\cdot\log(n/\varepsilon)\right)}.$$
A few comments are in order. Under a standard connection between PRGs and lower bounds (see e.g. [@kabanets2002derandomization]), improving the dependence on $s$ in the seed length for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ (Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 1) would require the proof of super-quadratic lower bounds against ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$. We discuss this problem in more detail in Section \[sec:concluding\]. Note that the additive term $n/2$ is necessary in Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 2, since the model computes in particular every Boolean function on the first $n/2$ input variables (i.e. a protocol of communication cost $1$). Similarly, $\ell \geq (1 - 1/k) \cdot n$ in Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 3. Removing the exponential dependence on $k$ would also require advances in state-of-the-art lower bounds for multiparty communication complexity.
Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 2 has an interesting implication for fooling a well-studied class of functions: *intersections of halfspaces*.[^8] Note that an intersection of halfspaces is precisely a polytope, or equivalently, the set of solutions of a $0$-$1$ integer linear program. Such objects have found applications in many fields, including optimization and high-dimensional geometry. After a long sequence of works on the construction of PRGs for bounded-weight halfspaces, (unrestricted) halfspaces, and generalizations of these classes,[^9] the following results are known for the intersection of $m$ halfspaces over $n$ input variables. Gopalan, O’Donnell, Wu, and Zuckerman [@GOWZ10] gave a PRG for this class for error $\varepsilon$ with seed length $$O\big (m\cdot\log(m/\varepsilon)+\log n)\cdot\log(m/\varepsilon) \big).$$ Note that the seed length of their PRG becomes trivial if the number of halfspaces is linear in $n$. More recently, O’Donnell, Servedio and Tan [@OST19] constructed a PRG with seed length $$\poly(\log(m),1/\varepsilon)\cdot\log(n).$$ Their PRG has a much better dependence on $m$, but it cannot be used in the small error regime. For example, the seed length becomes trivial if $\varepsilon = 1/n$. In particular, before this work it was open to construct a non-trivial PRG for the following natural setting of parameters (cf. [@OST19 Section 1.2]): intersection of $n$ halfspaces with error $\varepsilon = 1/n$.
We obtain the following consequence of Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 2, which follows from a result of Viola [@Vio15] on the $k$-party *number-in-hand* randomized communication complexity of a halfspace.
\[cor:PRG\_LTF\] For every $n, m \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, there is a pseudorandom generator with seed length $$O\! \left(n^{1/2}\cdot m^{1/4}\cdot \log(n)\cdot \log(n/\varepsilon)\right).$$ that $\varepsilon$-fools the class of intersections of $m$ halfspaces over $\{0,1\}^n$.
We note that the PRG from Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 3 can fool, even in the exponentially small error regime, not only intersections of halfspaces, but also small formulas over bounded-degree PTFs. Finally, Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 2 yields the first non-trivial PRG for formulas over symmetric functions. Let $\mathsf{SYM}$ denote the class of symmetric Boolean functions on any number of input variables.
\[cor:PRG\_FORM\_SYM\] For every $n, s \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, there is a pseudorandom generator with seed length $$O \! \left(n^{1/2}\cdot s^{1/4}\cdot \log(n)\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon) \right).$$ that $\varepsilon$-fools $n$-variate Boolean functions in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ {{\sf SYM}}$.
Prior to this work, Chen and Wang [@DBLP:conf/innovations/ChenW19] proved that the number of satisfying assignments of an $n$-variate formula of size $s$ over symmetric gates can be approximately counted to an additive error term $\leq \varepsilon\cdot 2^n$ in deterministic time $\exp{\!(n^{1/2}\cdot s^{1/4 + o(1)} \sqrt{(\log (n) + \log (s))} )}$, where $\varepsilon >0$ is an arbitrary constant. While their upper bound is achieved by a white-box algorithm, Corollary \[cor:PRG\_FORM\_SYM\] provides a (black-box) PRG for the same task.
### Satisfiability algorithms
In the $\#$SAT problem for a computational model $\mathcal{C}$, we are given as input the description of a computational device $D(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ from $\mathcal{C}$, and the goal is to count the number of satisfying assignments for $D$. This generalizes the SAT problem for $\mathcal{C}$, where it is sufficient to decide whether $D$ is satisfiable by some assignment.
In this section, we show that $\#$SAT algorithms can be designed for a broad class of functions. We consider the ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ model for classes $\mathcal{G}$ that admit two-party communication protocols of bounded cost. We establish a general result in this context which can be used to obtain algorithms for previously studied classes of Boolean circuits.
To put our $\#$SAT algorithms for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ into context, we first mention relevant related work on the satisfiability of Boolean formulas. Recall that in the very restricted setting of CNF formulas, known algorithms run (in the worst-case) in time $2^{n - o(n)}$ when the input formulas can have a super-linear number of clauses (cf. [@dantsin2009worst]). On the other hand, for the class of general formulas, there is a better-than-brute-force algorithm for formulas of size almost $n^3$. In more detail, for any $\varepsilon >0$, there is a deterministic $\#$SAT algorithm for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{3 - \varepsilon}]$ that runs in time $2^{n - n^{\Omega(\varepsilon)}}$ [@DBLP:journals/eccc/Tal15]. No results are known for formulas of cubic size and beyond, and for the reasons explained in Section \[sec:intro\_prg\], the algorithm from [@DBLP:journals/eccc/Tal15] cannot even be applied to ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$.
Before stating our results, we discuss the input encoding in the $\#$SAT problem for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$. The top formula $F$ is represented in some canonical way, while for each leaf $\ell$ of $F$, the input string contains the description of a protocol $\Pi_\ell$ computing a function in $\mathcal{G}$. Our results are robust to the encoding employed for $\Pi_\ell$. Recall that a protocol for a two-party function is specified by a protocol tree and a sequence of functions, where each function is associated with some internal node of the tree and depends on $n/2$ input bits. Since a protocol of communication cost $o(n)$ has a protocol tree containing at most $2^{o(n)}$ nodes, it can be specified by a string of length $2^{n/2 + o(n)}$. Our algorithms will run in time closer to $2^n$, and using a fully explicit input representation for the protocols is not an issue. Another possibility for the input representation is to use “computational efficient” protocols. Informally, the next bit messages of such protocols can be computed in polynomial time from the current transcript of the protocol and a player input. An advantage of this representation is that an input to our $\#$SAT problem can be succinctly represented. We observe that these input representations can be generalized to randomized two-party protocols in natural ways. We refer to Section \[sec:preliminaries\] for a formal presentation.
We obtain non-trivial satisfiability algorithms assuming upper bounds on the two-party deterministic and randomized communication complexities of functions in $\mathcal{G}$.
\[thm:main\_sat\] The following results hold.
- There is a deterministic $\#$*SAT* algorithm for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$ that runs in time $$2^{n - t},~\text{where}~t = \Omega\! \left ( \frac{n} {\sqrt{s} \cdot \log^2(s) \cdot D(\mathcal{G}) }\right).$$
- There is a randomized $\#$*SAT* algorithm for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$ that runs in time $$2^{n - t},~\text{where}~t = \Omega\! \left ( \frac{n} {\sqrt{s} \cdot \log^2(s) \cdot R_{1/3}(\mathcal{G}) } \right )^{\! 1/2}.$$
Theorem \[thm:main\_sat\] readily provides algorithms for many circuit classes. For instance, since one can effectively describe a randomized communication protocol for linear threshold functions [@Nis94; @Vio15], the algorithm from Theorem \[thm:main\_sat\] Item 2 can be used to count the number of satisfying assignments of Boolean devices from ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{1.99}] \circ \mathsf{LTF}$.
\[cor:sat\_formula\_ltf\] There is a randomized $\#$*SAT* algorithm for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathsf{LTF}$ that runs in time $$2^{n - t},~\text{where}~t = \Omega\! \left ( \frac{n} {\sqrt{s} \cdot \log^2(s) \cdot \log(n)} \right )^{\! 1/2}.$$
In connection with Corollary \[cor:sat\_formula\_ltf\], prior to this work essentially two lines of research have been pursued. $\#$SAT and/or SAT algorithms were known for bounded-depth circuits of almost-linear size whose gates can compute LTFs or sparse PTFs (see [@DBLP:conf/approx/KabanetsL18] and references therein), and for sub-exponential size $\mathsf{ACC}^0$ circuits with two layers of LTFs at the bottom, assuming a sub-quadratic number of them in the layer next to the input variables (see [@ACW16] for this result and further related work). Corollary \[cor:sat\_formula\_ltf\] seems to provide the first non-trivial SAT algorithm that operates with unbounded-depth Boolean devices containing a layer with a sub-quadratic number of LTFs.
Theorem \[thm:main\_sat\] can be seen as a generalization of several approaches to designing SAT algorithms appearing in the literature, which often employ ad-hoc constructions to convert bottlenecks in the computation of devices from a class $\mathcal{C}$ into non-trivial SAT algorithms for $\mathcal{C}$. We observe that, before this work, [@DBLP:conf/soda/PatrascuW10] had made a connection between faster SAT algorithms for CNFs and the 3-party communication complexity of a specific function. Their setting is different though: it seems to work only for CNFs, and they rely on conjectured upper bounds on the communication complexity of a particular problem. More recently, [@DBLP:conf/innovations/ChenW19] employed quantum communication protocols to design *approximate counting* algorithms for several problems.[^10] In comparison to previous works, to our knowledge Theorem \[thm:main\_sat\] is the first unconditional result that yields faster $\#$SAT algorithms via communication complexity in a generic way. [^11]
### Learning algorithms
We describe a learning algorithm for the ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$ class in Leslie Valiant’s challenging PAC-learning model [@Val84]. Recall that a (PAC) learning algorithm for a class of functions $\mathcal{C}$ has access to labelled examples $(x,f(x))$ from an unknown function $f \in \mathcal{C}$, where $x$ is sampled according to some (also unknown) distribution $\mathcal{D}$. The goal of the learner is to output, with high probability over its internal randomness and over the choice of random examples (measured by a confidence parameter $\delta$), a hypothesis $h$ that is close to $f$ under $\mathcal{D}$ (measured by an error parameter $\varepsilon$). We refer to [@KV94] for more information about this learning model, and to Section \[sec:preliminaries\] for its standard formalization.
It is known that formulas of size $s$ can be PAC-learned in time $2^{\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{s})}$ [@Rei11b]. Therefore, formulas of almost quadratic size can be non-trivially learned from random samples of an arbitrary distribution. A bit more formally, we say that a learning algorithm is *non-trivial* if it runs in time $2^n/n^{\omega(1)}$, i.e., noticeably faster than the trivial brute-force algorithm that takes time $2^n \cdot \mathsf{poly}(n)$. Obtaining non-trivial learning algorithms for various circuit classes is closely connected to the problem of proving explicit lower bounds against the class [@OS17] (see also [@DBLP:conf/innovations/ServedioT17] for a systematic investigation of such algorithms). We are not aware of the existence of non-trivial learning algorithms for super-quadratic size formulas. However, it seems likely that such algorithms exist at least for formulas of near cubic size. As explained in Section \[sec:intro\_prg\], this would still be insufficient for the learnability of classes such as (linear size) ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$.
We explore structural properties of ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$ employed in previous results and boosting techniques from learning theory to show that sub-quadratic size devices from this class can be PAC-learned in time $2^{O(n/\log n)}$.
\[thm:main\_learning\] For every constant $\gamma > 0$, there is an algorithm that *PAC* learns the class of $n$-variate Boolean functions ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{2 - \gamma}]\circ\mathsf{XOR}$ to accuracy $\varepsilon$ and with confidence $\delta$ in time $\mathsf{poly}\big (2^{n/\log n}, 1/\varepsilon, \log(1/\delta) \big )$.
Note that a sub-exponential running time cannot be achieved for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ when we consider the communication complexity of $\mathcal{G}$. Again, the class is too large, for the same reason discussed in Section \[sec:intro\_prg\]. It might still be possible to design a non-trivial learning algorithm in this case, but this would possibly require the introduction of new lower bound techniques for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$.
In contrast to the algorithm mentioned above that learns (standard) formulas of size $s \leq n^{2 - o(1)}$ in time $2^{\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{s})}$, the algorithm from Theorem \[thm:main\_learning\] does not learn smaller formulas over parities in time faster than $2^{O(n/\log n)}$. We discuss this in more detail in Sections \[sec:techniques\] and \[sec:concluding\].
Finally, we mention a connection to cryptography that provides a conditional upper bound on the size of ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$ circuits that can be learned in time $2^{o(n)}$. It is well known that if a circuit class $\mathcal{C}$ can compute pseudorandom functions (or some variants of this notion), then it cannot be learned in various learning models (see e.g. [@KV94]). It has been recently conjectured that depth-two $\mathsf{MOD}_3 \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ circuits of linear size can compute weak pseudorandom functions of exponential security [@BIP+18 Conjecture 3.7]. If this conjecture holds, then such circuits cannot be learned in time $2^{o(n)}$. Since $\mathsf{MOD}_3$ gates over a linear number of input wires can be simulated by formulas of size at most $O(n^{2.8})$ [@sergeev2017upper], under this cryptographic assumption it is not possible to learn ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{2.8}] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ in time $2^{o(n)}$, even if the learner only needs to succeed under the uniform distribution.
Techniques {#sec:techniques}
----------
In order to explain our techniques, we focus for the most part on the design of PRGs for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ when $\mathcal{G}$ is of bounded two-party randomized communication complexity (a particular case of Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 2). This proof makes use of various ingredients employed in other results. After sketching this argument, we say a few words about our strongest lower bound (Theorem \[thm:main\_lbs\] Item 1) and the satisfiability and learning algorithms (Theorems \[thm:main\_sat\] and \[thm:main\_learning\], respectively).
We build on a powerful result showing that any small de Morgan formula can be approximated pointwise by a low-degree polynomial:
**(A)** For every formula $F(y_1, \ldots, y_m)$ of size $s$, there is a polynomial $p(y_1, \ldots, y_m) \in \mathbb{R}[y_1, \ldots, y_m]$ of degree $O(\sqrt{s})$ such that $|F(a) - p(a)| \leq 1/10$ on every $a \in \{0,1\}^m$.
The only known proof of this result [@Rei11b] relies on a sequence of works [@BBC+01; @DBLP:journals/cc/LaplanteLS06; @DBLP:conf/stoc/HoyerLS07; @DBLP:journals/toc/FarhiGG08; @DBLP:conf/focs/Reichardt09; @DBLP:journals/siamcomp/AmbainisCRSZ10; @DBLP:journals/toc/ReichardtS12] on quantum query complexity, generalizing Grover’s search algorithm for the OR predicate [@DBLP:conf/stoc/Grover96] to arbitrary formulas. The starting point of many of our results is a consequence of **(A)** which is implicit in the work of Tal [@Tal17].
**(B)** Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a distribution over $\{0,1\}^m$, and $F \in {{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$. Then, for every function $f$, $$\text{if~} \Pr_{x\sim \mathcal{D}}[F(x) = f(x)] \geq 1/2 + \varepsilon\text{~~then~~} \Pr_{x \sim \mathcal{D}}[h(x) = f(x)] \geq 1/2 + \exp{\!(-t)}
\vspace{-0.15cm}$$ for some function $h$ which is the XOR of at most $t$ functions in $\mathcal{G}$, where $t = \widetilde{\Theta}(\sqrt{s} \cdot \log(1/\varepsilon))$.
Intuitively, if we could understand well enough the XOR of any small collection of functions in $\mathcal{G}$, then we can translate this into results for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$, as long as $s \ll n^2$. We adapt the techniques behind $\textbf{(B)}$ to provide a general approach to constructing PRGs against ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$:
**Main PRG Lemma.** In order for a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ to $\varepsilon$-fool the class ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$, it is enough for it to $\exp{\!(-t)}$-fool the class $\mathsf{XOR}_t \cdot \mathcal{G}$, where $t = \widetilde{\Theta}(\sqrt{s} \cdot \log(1/\varepsilon))$.
Recall that, in Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 2, we consider a class $\mathcal{G}$ of functions that admit two-party randomized protocols of cost $R = R^{(2)}_{\varepsilon/6s}(\mathcal{G})$. It is easy to see that the XOR of any $t$ functions from $\mathcal{G}$ is a function that can be computed by a protocol of cost at most $t \cdot R$. Thus the lemma above shows that it is sufficient to fool, to exponentially small error, a class of functions of bounded two-party randomized communication complexity. Moreover, since a randomized protocol can be written as a convex combination of deterministic protocols, it is possible to prove that fooling functions of bounded deterministic communication complexity is enough.
Pseudorandom generators in the two-party communication model have been known since [@INW94]. Their construction exploits that the Boolean matrix associated with a function of small communication cost can be partitioned into a not too large number of monochromatic rectangles. We provide in Appendix \[appendix:prg\_cc\] a slightly modified and self-contained construction based on explicit extractors. It achieves the following parameters: There is an explicit PRG that $\delta$-fools any $n$-bit function of two-party communication cost $D$ and that has seed length $n/2 + O(D + \log(1/\delta))$. This PRG has non-trivial seed length even when the error is exponentially small, as required by our techniques. One issue here is that the INW PRG was only shown to fool functions with low *deterministic* communication complexity. To obtain our PRGs for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$ when $\mathcal{G}$ admits low-cost *randomized* protocols, we first extend the analysis of the INW PRG to show that it also fools functions with low *randomized* communication complexity. Combining this construction with the aforementioned discussion completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] Item 2.
The argument just sketched reduces the construction of PRGs for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ when functions in $\mathcal{G}$ admit low-cost *randomized* protocols to the analysis of PRGs for functions that admit relatively low-cost *deterministic* protocols. Our lower bound proof for $\mathsf{GIP}^k_n$ in Theorem \[thm:main\_lbs\] Item 1 proceeds in a similar fashion. We combine statement **(B)** described above with other ideas to show:
**Transfer Lemma (Informal).** If a function correlates with some small formula whose leaf gates have low-cost *randomized* $k$-party protocols, then it also non-trivially correlates with some function that has relatively low-cost *deterministic* $k$-party protocols.
Given this result, we are able to rely on a strong average-case lower bound for $\mathsf{GIP}^k_n$ against $k$-party deterministic protocols from [@BNS92] to conclude that $\mathsf{GIP}^k_n$ is hard for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$.
Our $\#$SAT algorithms combine the polynomial representation of the top formula provided by **(A)**, for which we show that such a polynomial can be obtained *explicitly*, with a decomposition of the Boolean matrix at each leaf that is induced by a corresponding low-cost randomized or deterministic two-party protocol. A careful combination of these two representations allows us to adapt a standard technique employed in the design of non-trivial SAT algorithms (fast rectangular matrix multiplication) to obtain non-trivial savings in the running time. Finally, our learning algorithm for $\mathsf{FORMULA} \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ is a consequence of statement **(B)** above coupled with standard tools from learning theory. In a bit more detail, since a parity of parities is just another parity function, **(B)** implies that, under any distribution, every function in $\mathsf{FORMULA}[n^{1.99}] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ is weakly correlated with some parity function. Using the agnostic learning algorithm for parity functions of [@KMV08], it is possible to weakly learn $\mathsf{FORMULA}[n^{1.99}] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ in time $2^{O(n/\log n)}$. This weak learner can then be transformed into a (strong) PAC learner using standard boosting techniques [@Fre90], with only a polynomial blow-up over its running time.
Concluding remarks {#sec:concluding}
------------------
The main message of our results is that the *computational power* of a subquadratic-size top formula is *not* significantly enhanced by leaf gates of *low communication complexity*. We believe that the idea of decomposing a Boolean device into a computational part and a layer of communication protocols will find further applications in lower bound proofs and algorithm design.
One of our main open problems is to discover a method that can analyze ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathcal{G}$ when $s \gg n^2$. For instance, is it possible to adapt existing techniques to show an explicit lower bound against ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{2.01}] \circ \mathcal{G}$, or achieving this is just as hard as breaking the cubic barrier for formula lower bounds? Results in this direction would be interesting even for $\mathcal{G} = \mathsf{XOR}$.
Finally, we would like to mention a few questions connected to our results and their applications. Is it possible to combine the techniques behind Corollary \[cor:PRG\_LTF\] and [@OST19] to design a PRG of seed length $n^{o(1)}$ and error $\varepsilon = 1/n$ for the intersection of $n$ halfspaces? Can we design a satisfiability algorithm for formulas over $k$-party number-on-forehead communication protocols? Is it possible to learn ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ in time $2^{\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{s})}$? (The learning algorithm for formulas from [@Rei11b] relies on techniques from [@DBLP:journals/siamcomp/KalaiKMS08], and it is unclear how to extend them to the case of ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$.)
Organization
------------
Theorem \[thm:main\_lbs\] Item 1 is proved in Section \[sec:lower-bounds\], while Items 2 and 3 rely on our PRG constructions and are deferred to Section \[sec:prgs\]. The latter describes a general approach to constructing PRGs for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$. It includes the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\_PRG\] and other applications. Our satisfiability algorithms (Theorem \[thm:main\_sat\]) appear in Section \[sec:sat\]. Finally, Section \[sec:learning\] discusses learning results for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$ and contains a proof of Theorem \[thm:main\_learning\].
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
Notation
--------
Let $n\in\mathbb{N}$; we denote ${\left\{1,\dots,n\right\}}$ by $[n]$, and denote by ${U}_n$ the uniform distribution over ${\left\{0,1\right\}}^n$. We use $\widetilde{O}(\cdot)$ (and $\widetilde{\Omega}(\cdot)$) to hide polylogarithmic factors. That is, for any $f\colon\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}$, we have that $\widetilde{O}(f(n))=O{\!\left(f(n)\cdot\polylog{\!\left(f(n)\right)}\right)}$.
In this paper, we will mainly use ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}$ as the Boolean basis. In some parts of this paper, we will use the ${\left\{0,1\right\}}$ basis for the simplicity of the presentation. This will be specified in corresponding sections.
De Morgan formulas and extensions
---------------------------------
An $n$-variate *de Morgan formula* is a directed rooted tree; its non-leaf vertices (henceforth, *internal gates*) take labels from ${\left\{{\rm AND},{\rm OR},{\rm NOT}\right\}}={\left\{\land,\lor,\neg\right\}}$ and its leaves (henceforth, *variable gates*) take labels from the set of variables ${\left\{x_1,\dots,x_n\right\}}$. Each internal gate has bounded in-degree (henceforth, *fan-in*); the [NOT]{} gate in particular has fan-in $1$ and every variable gate has fan-in $0$. The *size* of a de Morgan formula is the number of its leaf gates.
In this work, we denote by ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]$ the class of Boolean functions computable by size-$s$ de Morgan formulas. Let $\mathcal{G}$ denote some class of Boolean functions; then, we denote by ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$ the class of functions computable by some size-$s$ de Morgan formula where its leaves are labelled by functions in $\mathcal{G}$.
Approximating polynomials
-------------------------
For a Boolean function $f\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}$, we say that the function $\tilde{f}\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$ $\varepsilon$-approximates $f$ if for every $z\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$, $$\left| f(z)-\tilde{f}(z)\right| \leq \varepsilon.$$
We will need the following powerful result for the approximating degree of de Morgan formulas.
\[thm:approx-polynomial\] Let $s>0$ be an integer and $0<\varepsilon<1$. Any de Morgan formula $F\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}$ of size $s$ has a $\varepsilon$-approximating polynomial of degree $d=O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon))$. That is, there exists a degree-$d$ polynomial $p\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$ over the reals such that for every $z\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$, $$\left| p(z)-F(z)\right| \leq \varepsilon.$$
Note that still holds if we use ${\left\{0,1\right\}}$ as the Boolean basis.
Communication complexity
------------------------
We use standard definitions from communication complexity. In this paper we consider the standard two party model of Yao and its generalizations to multiparty setting. We denote deterministic communication complexity of a Boolean function by $D(f)$ in the two party setting. We refer to [@Kushilevitz-Nisan97] for standard definitions from communication complexity.
Let $f\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n}\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}$ be a Boolean function. The *communication matrix of $f$*, namely $M_f$, is a $2^{n/2}\times2^{n/2}$ matrix defined by ${\left(M_f\right)}_{x,y}:=f(x,y)$.
A *rectangle* is a set of the form $A\times B$, for $A,B\subseteq{\left\{0,1\right\}}^n$. A *monochromatic rectangle* is a rectangle $S$ such that for all pairs $(x,y)\in S$ the value $f(x,y)$ is the same.
Let $\Pi$ be a protocol that computes $f\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n}\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}$ with at most $D$ bits of communication. Then, $\Pi$ induces a partition of $M_f$ into at most $2^D$ monochromatic rectangles.
Given a protocol, its *transcript* is the sequence of bits communicated.
For every transcript $z$ of some communication protocol, the set of inputs $(x,y)$ that generate $z$ is a rectangle.
Below, we recount the definitions of two multiparty communication models used in this work, namely the number-on-forehead and the number-in-hand models.
In the $k$-party “number-on-forehead” communication model, there are $k$ players and $k$ strings $x_1,\dots,x_k\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/k}$ and player $i$ gets all the strings except for $x_i$. The players are interested in computing a value $f{\!\left(x_1,\dots,x_k\right)}$, where $f\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n}\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}$ is some fixed function. We denote by $D^{(k)}(f)$ the number of bits that must be exchanged by the best possible number on forehead protocol solving $f$.
We also use the following weaker communication model.
In the $k$-party “number-in-hand” communication model, there are $k$ players and $k$ strings $x_1,\dots,x_k\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/k}$ and player $i$ gets only $x_i$. The players are interested in computing a value $f{\!\left(x_1,\dots,x_k\right)}$, where $f\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n}\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}$ is some fixed function. We denote by $D^{(k\text{-}\mathsf{NIH})}(f)$ the number of bits that must be exchanged by the best possible communication protocol.
Note that $D^{(k\text{-}\mathsf{NIH})}(f)\leq{\left(1-1/k\right)}\cdot n+1$, for any $n$-variate Boolean function $f$, as if $k-1$ players write on the blackboard their string, then the player that did not reveal her input may compute $f{\!\left(x_1,\dots,x_k\right)}$ on her own and then publish it.
For the communication models mentioned above, there are also bounded-error randomized versions, denoted by $R_\delta$, $R_\delta^{(k)}$, and $R^{(k\text{-}\mathsf{NIH})}_\delta$, respectively, where $0<\delta<1$ is an upper bound on the error probability of the protocol. In this setting, the players have access to some shared random string, say $r$, and the aforementioned error probability of the protocol is considered over the possible choices of $r$. Moreover, we require the error to be at most $\delta$ on each fixed choice of inputs.
We can extend the definitions of the communication complexity measures, defined above, to classes of Boolean functions, in a natural way. That is, for any communication complexity measure $M\in{\left\{D,D^{(k)},D^{(k\text{-}\mathsf{NIH})},R_\delta,R_\delta^{(k)},R_\delta^{(k\text{-}\mathsf{NIH})}\right\}}$ and for any class of Boolean functions $\mathcal{G}$, we may define $$M{\!\left(\mathcal{G}\right)}:=\max_{g\in\mathcal{G}}M{\!\left(g\right)}.$$ We note that throughout this paper, we denote by $n$ the number of input bits for the function regardless the communication models. In the $k$-party communication setting (either NOF or NIH), we assume without loss of generality that $n$ is divisible by $k$.
Pseudorandomness
----------------
A PRG against a class of functions $\mathfrak{C}$ is a deterministic procedure $G$ mapping short Boolean strings (seeds) to longer Boolean strings, so that $G$’s output “looks random" to every function in $\mathfrak{C}$.
Let $G\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^{\ell}\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$ be a function, $\mathfrak{C}$ be a class of Boolean functions, and $0<\varepsilon<1$. We say that $G$ is a *pseudorandom generator of seed length $\ell$ that $\varepsilon$-fools $\mathfrak{C}$* if, for every function $f\in\mathfrak{C}$, it is the case that $${\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{z\sim{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^\ell}{\!\left[f{\!\left(G{\!\left(z\right)}\right)}\right]}-
\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n}{\!\left[f{\!\left(x\right)}\right]}\right|}\leq\varepsilon.$$
A PRG $G$ outputting $n$ bits is called *explicit* if $G$ can be computed in $\poly(n)$ time. All PRGs stated in this paper are explicit.
Learning
--------
For a function $f:{\left\{0,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}$ and a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ supported over ${\left\{0,1\right\}}^n$, we denote by ${\rm EX}{\!\left(f,\mathcal{D}\right)}$ a randomized oracle that outputs independent identically distributed labelled examples of the form ${\left(x,f(x)\right)}$, where $x\sim\mathcal{D}$.
\[def:pac\] Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a class of Boolean functions. We say that a randomized algorithm $A$ *learns* $\mathcal{C}$ if, when $A$ is given oracle access to ${\rm EX}{\!\left(f,\mathcal{D}\right)}$ and inputs $1^n$, $\varepsilon$, and $\delta$, the following holds. For every $n$-variate function $f \in \mathcal{C}$, distribution $\mathcal{D}$ supported over ${\left\{0,1\right\}}^n$, and real-valued parameters $\varepsilon > 0$ and $\delta > 0$, $A^{{\rm EX}{\left(f,\mathcal{D}\right)}}(1^n, \varepsilon, \delta)$ outputs with probability at least $1-\delta$ over its internal randomness and the randomness of the example oracle ${\rm EX}{\!\left(f,\mathcal{D}\right)}$ a description of a hypothesis $h:{\left\{0,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}{\!\left[f{\!\left(x\right)}=h{\!\left(x\right)}\right]} \;\geq\; 1-\varepsilon.
\end{aligned}$$ The *sample complexity* of a learning algorithm is the maximum number of random examples from ${\rm EX}{\!\left(f,\mathcal{D}\right)}$ requested during its execution.
Lower bounds {#sec:lower-bounds}
============
In this section, we prove an average-case lower bound for the generalized inner product function against ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$, where $\mathcal{G}$ is the set of functions that have low-cost randomized communication protocols in the number-on-forehead setting. This corresponds to Item 1 of Theorem \[thm:main\_lbs\]. Items 2 and 3 rely on our PRG constructions, and the proofs are deferred to Section \[sec:prgs\].
\[thm:lb-main\] For any integer $k\geq 2$, $s>0$ and any class of functions $\mathcal{G}$, let $C\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^{n}\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}$ be a function in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$ such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^{n}}\left[C(x)={{\sf GIP}}_{n}^{k}(x)\right]\geq 1/2+\varepsilon.$$ Then $$s = \Omega\left( \frac{n^2}{k^2\cdot16^{k}\cdot\left(R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2n^2)}(\mathcal{G})+\log n\right)^2\cdot\log^2(1/\varepsilon)}\right).$$
We need a couple useful lemmas from [@Tal16], whose proofs are presented in ( and ) for completeness.
\[lem:lb-Tal-1\] Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a distribution over ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$, and let $f,C\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}$ be such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[C(x)=f(x)]\geq 1/2+\varepsilon.$$ Let $\tilde{C}\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a $\varepsilon$-approximating function of $C$, i.e., for every $x\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$, $|C(x)-\tilde{C}(x)|\leq \varepsilon$. Then, $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[\tilde{C}(x)\cdot f(x)]\geq \varepsilon.$$
\[lem:lb-Tal-2\] Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a distribution over ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$ and let $\mathcal{G}$ be a class of functions. For $f\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}$, suppose that $D\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}\in {{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$ is such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[D(x)=f(x)]\geq 1/2+\varepsilon_0.$$ Then there exists some $h\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}\in {{\sf XOR}}_{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon_0)\right)}\circ \mathcal{G}$ such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[h(x)\cdot f(x)]\geq \frac{1}{s^{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon_0)\right)}}.$$
We also need the following communication-complexity lower bound for ${{\sf GIP}}$.
\[thm:lb-GIP-bound\] For any $k\geq 2$, any function that computes ${{\sf GIP}}_{n}^{k}$ on more than $1/2+\delta$ fraction of the inputs (over uniformly random inputs) must have $k$-party deterministic communication complexity at least $\Omega \! \left(n/(k \cdot 4^k) - \log(1/\delta)\right)$.
We first show that if a function correlates with some small formula, whose leaves are functions with low *randomized* communication complexity, then it also correlates non-trivially with some function of relatively low *deterministic* communication complexity.
\[thm:lb-proof-1\] For any distribution $\mathcal{D}$ over ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$, and any class of functions $\mathcal{G}$, let $f\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}$ and $C\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}\in {{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$ be such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[C(x)=f(x)]\geq 1/2+\varepsilon.$$ Then there exists a function $h$, with $k$-party deterministic communication complexity at most $$O\left(R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2s)}(\mathcal{G})\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)\right),$$ such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[h(x)=f(x)]\geq 1/2+1/s^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon))}.$$
Let $C=F(g_1,g_2\dots,g_s)$ be the function in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$, where $F$ is a formula and $g_1,g_2,\dots,g_s$ are leaf functions from the class $\mathcal{G}$. For each $g_i$, consider a $k$-party randomized protocol $ \Pi_i$ of cost at most $R=R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2s)}(\mathcal{G})$ that has an error $\varepsilon/(2s)$. Now consider the following function $$\tilde{C}(x) \vcentcolon=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{\Pi_1,\Pi_2,\dots,\Pi_s}\left[D(x)\right],$$ where $$D(x) \vcentcolon= F(\Pi_1(x),\Pi_2(x),\dots,\Pi_s(x)).$$ Note that for any fixed choice of $(\Pi_1,\Pi_2,\dots,\Pi_s)$, $D$ is a formula whose leaves are functions with *deterministic* communication complexity at most $R$. Next, we show the following.
\[claim:lb-approximating\] The function $\tilde{C}$ $\varepsilon$-approximates $C$.
First note that since each $\Pi_i$ is a $(\varepsilon/(2s))$-error randomized protocol, by taking the union bound over the $s$ leaf functions, we have that for every input $x\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$, $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{\Pi_1,\Pi_2,\dots,\Pi_s}[\Pi_1(x)=g_1(x) \land \Pi_2(x)=g_2(x) \land\dots\land\Pi_s(x)=g_s(x)]\geq 1-\varepsilon/2.$$ Denote by $\mathcal{E}$ the event $\Pi_1(x)=g_1(x) \land \Pi_2(x)=g_2(x)\land\dots\land\Pi_s(x)=g_s(x)$. We have for every $x\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{C}(x) &= \operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{\Pi_1,\Pi_2,\dots,\Pi_s}\left[D(x)\right]\\
&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[D(x){\mid}\mathcal{E}\right]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\mathcal{E}]+\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[D(x){\mid}\neg\mathcal{E}\right]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\neg\mathcal{E}]\\
&=C(x)\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\mathcal{E}]+\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[D(x){\mid}\neg\mathcal{E}\right]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\neg\mathcal{E}].
\end{aligned}$$ On the one hand, we have $$\tilde{C}(x)=C(x)\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\mathcal{E}]+\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[D(x){\mid}\neg\mathcal{E}\right]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\neg\mathcal{E}]\leq C(x) + \varepsilon/2.$$ On the other hand, we get $$\tilde{C}(x)=C(x)\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\mathcal{E}]+\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[D(x){\mid}\neg\mathcal{E}\right]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\neg\mathcal{E}]\geq C(x)\cdot(1-\varepsilon/2)+(-1)\cdot(\varepsilon/2)\geq C(x)-\varepsilon.$$ This completes the proof of the claim.
Now by and , we have $$\label{eq:lb-eq-1}
\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[\tilde{C}(x)\cdot f(x)]\geq \varepsilon.$$ By the definition of $\tilde{C}$, implies that there exists some $D$, which is a formula whose leaves are functions with *deterministic* communication complexity at most $R$, such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[D(x)\cdot f(x)]\geq \varepsilon,$$ which implies $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[D(x)=f(x)]\geq 1/2+ \varepsilon/2.$$ Then by , there exists a function $h$, which can be expressed as the ${{\sf XOR}}$ of at most $O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon))$ leaf functions in $D$, such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[h(x)\cdot f(x)]\geq \frac{1}{s^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon))}},$$ which again implies $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[h(x)=f(x)]\geq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{s^{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)\right)}}.$$ Finally, note that the $k$-party deterministic communication complexity of $h$ is at most $$O(R\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)),$$ where $R=R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2s)}(\mathcal{G})$.
We are now ready to show .
Consider with $f$ being ${{\sf GIP}}_{n}^{k}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ being the uniform distribution. Consider with $\delta=1/s^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon))}$. We have $$O\left(R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2s)}(\mathcal{G})\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)\right)\geq n/(k4^k) - O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon))\right),$$ which implies $$s\geq \Omega\left( \frac{n^2}{k^2\cdot 16^{k}\cdot\left(R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2n^2)}(\mathcal{G})+\log n\right)^2\cdot\log^2(1/\varepsilon)}\right).\qedhere$$
Pseudorandom generators {#sec:prgs}
=======================
Some of our PRGs are obtained from a general framework that allows us to reduce the task of fooling ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$ to the task of fooling the class of functions which are the parity or conjunction of few functions from $\mathcal{G}$.
The general framework
---------------------
We show that in order to get a PRG for the class of subquadratic-size formulas with leaf gates in $\mathcal{G}$, it suffices to get a PRG for very simple sublinear-size formulas: either ${{\sf XOR}}\circ\mathcal{G}$ or ${{\sf AND}}\circ\mathcal{G}$.
\[thm:prg-main\] Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a class of gates on $n$ bits. For any integer $s>0$ and any $0<\varepsilon<1$, there exists a constant $c>0$ such that the following holds. If a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ over ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$ $\left(2^{-c\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot\log (s)\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon)}\right)$-fools the ${{\sf XOR}}$ (parity) or the ${{\sf AND}}$ (conjunction) of $c\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon)$ arbitrary functions from $\mathcal{G}$, then $\mathcal{D}$ also $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$.
We first show the case where $\mathcal{D}$ fools the parity of a few functions from $\mathcal{G}$. The proof can be easily adapted to the case of conjunction.
Let $C=F(g_1,g_2\dots,g_s)$ be a function in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$, where $F$ is a formula, and $g_1,g_2,\dots,g_s$ are functions from the class $\mathcal{G}$. Let ${U}$ be the uniform distribution over ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$. We need to show $$\label{eq:prg-1}
\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[C(\mathcal{D})] {\ensuremath{\stackrel{\varepsilon}{\approx}}} \operatorname*{{\bf E}}[C({U})].$$ Let $p$ be a $(\varepsilon/3)$-approximating polynomial for $F$ given by . Note that the degree of $p$ is $$d=O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)).$$ Let us replace $F$, the formula part of $C$, with $p$ and let $$\tilde{C}\vcentcolon=p(g_1,g_2\dots,g_s).$$ Since $\tilde{C}$ point-wisely approximates $C$, we have $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[\tilde{C}({U})] {\ensuremath{\stackrel{\varepsilon/3}{\approx}}} \operatorname*{{\bf E}}[C({U})],$$ and $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[\tilde{C}(\mathcal{D})] {\ensuremath{\stackrel{\varepsilon/3}{\approx}}} \operatorname*{{\bf E}}[C(\mathcal{D})].$$ Then to show , it suffices to show $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[\tilde{C}(\mathcal{D})] {\ensuremath{\stackrel{\varepsilon/3}{\approx}}} \operatorname*{{\bf E}}[\tilde{C}({U})].$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:prg-2}
\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim \mathcal{D}}[\tilde{C}(x)]&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim D}\left[\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\hat{p}(S)\cdot\prod_{i\in S}g_i(x)\right]\\
&=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\hat{p}(S)\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim \mathcal{D}}\left[\prod_{i\in S}g_i(x)\right].
{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\end{aligned}$$ Now note that for each $S\subseteq[s]$, $\prod_{i\in S}g_i(x)$ computes the ${{\sf XOR}}$ of at most $d$ functions from $\mathcal{G}$. Using the fact the distribution $\mathcal{D}$ $\left(\delta=1/2^{c\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot\log (s)\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon)}\right)$-fools the ${{\sf XOR}}$ of any $d$ functions from $\mathcal{G}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim \mathcal{D}}[\tilde{C}(x)]&=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\hat{p}(S)\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim D}\left[\prod_{i\in S}g_i(x)\right]\\
&=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\hat{p}(S)\cdot\left(\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim {U}}\left[\prod_{i\in S}g_i(x)\right]+\delta_S\right) \tag{where $|\delta_S|\leq \delta$} \\
&=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\left(\hat{p}(S)\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim {U}}\left[\prod_{i\in S}g_i(x)\right]+\hat{p}(S)\cdot\delta_S\right)\\
&=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\hat{p}(S)\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim {U}}\left[\prod_{i\in S}g_i(x)\right]+\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}} \hat{p}(S)\cdot\delta_S\\
&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim {U}}[\tilde{C}(x)]+\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}} \hat{p}(S)\cdot \delta_S.
\end{aligned}$$ It remains to show $$\left| \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}} \hat{p}(S)\cdot \delta_S \right| \leq \varepsilon/3.$$ Note that because $p(z)\in[1-\varepsilon/3,1+\varepsilon/3]$ for every $z\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^s$, we have $$|\hat{p}(S)|=\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{z\sim {\left\{-1,1\right\}}^s}\left[p(z)\cdot\prod_{i\in S} z_i\right]\right| \leq 1+\varepsilon/3 < 2.$$ Then, $$\left|\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}} \hat{p}(S)\cdot \delta_S \right| \leq \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}} |\hat{p}(S)|\cdot |\delta_S|\leq \delta \cdot \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}} |\hat{p}(S)| \leq \delta\cdot s^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon))} \leq \varepsilon/3,$$ where the last inequality holds for some sufficiently large constant $c$.
To show the case of conjunction, we can write the approximating polynomial as the sum of all degree-$d$ monomials, each of which is the ${{\sf AND}}$ of at most $d$ variables. One way to do this is to use the domain ${\left\{0,1\right\}}$ instead of ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}$ in the above argument. We need to show that the coefficients in this case still have small magnitude.
\[claim:prg-magnitude\] Let $p\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^{n}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a degree-$d$ polynomial of the form $$p(x)=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[n]: \\ |S|\leq d}} \hat{p}(S)\cdot \prod_{i\in S} x_i,$$ and let $q\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be the corresponding polynomial of $p$ over the domain $\{0,1\}^n$, of the form $$q(y)=\sum_{\substack{T\subseteq[n]: \\ |T|\leq d}} \hat{q}(T)\cdot \prod_{i\in T} y_i.$$ Then, $$|q|_1 = \sum_{\substack{T\subseteq[n]: \\ |T|\leq d}} |\hat{q}(T)| \leq n^{O(d)}\cdot \max_{\substack{S\subseteq[n]: \\ |S|\leq d}} |\hat{p}(S)|.$$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
q(y_1,y_2,\dots,y_n) &= p(1-2y_1,1-2y_2,\dots,1-2y_n)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[n]: \\ |S|\leq d}} \hat{p}(S)\cdot \prod_{i\in S} (1-2y_i)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[n]: \\ |S|\leq d}} \hat{p}(S)\cdot \left(\sum_{\ell\in \{0,1\}^{|S|}}\prod_{\substack{j\in S:\\ \ell_j=1}}-2y_j \right)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[n]: \\ |S|\leq d}} \sum_{\ell\in \{0,1\}^{|S|}} \hat{p}(S)\cdot(-2)^{|\ell|}\cdot \prod_{\substack{j\in S:\\ \ell_j=1}} y_j. \tag{where $|\ell| = \sum_{i=1}^{|S|}\ell_i$}
\end{aligned}$$ For a pair $(S,\ell)$ where $S \subseteq[n]$, $|S|\leq d$ and $\ell\in\{0,1\}^{|S|}$, let us define the polynomial $q_{(S,\ell)}$ as $$q_{(S,\ell)}(y)= \hat{p}(S)\cdot(-2)^{|\ell|}\cdot \prod_{\substack{j\in S:\\ \ell_j=1}} y_j.$$ Note that there are at most $n^{d}\cdot2^{d}$ many pairs of such $(S,\ell)$’s and for each $(S,\ell)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|q_{(S,\ell)}|_1 = \left|\hat{p}(S)\cdot(-2)^{|\ell|}\right|\leq 2^{d}\cdot |\hat{p}(S)|.
\end{aligned}$$ Finally we have $$|q|_1 = \left|\sum_{(S,\ell)} q_{(S,\ell)}\right|_1\leq \sum_{(S,\ell)} |q_{(S,\ell)}|_1\leq n^{d}\cdot 2^d \cdot 2^d \cdot \max_{\substack{S\subseteq[n]: \\ |S|\leq d}} |\hat{p}(S)|,$$ as desired.
This completes the proof of .
Formulas of low-communication functions in the number-in-hand setting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we will use ${\left\{0,1\right\}}$ as the Boolean basis.
\[thm:prg-formula-lc\] For any integers $k\geq 2$, $s>0$ and any $0<\varepsilon<1$, let $\mathcal{G}$ be the class of functions that have $k$-party number-in-hand $(\varepsilon/6s)$-error randomized communication protocols of cost at most $R$. There exists a PRG that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ \mathcal{G}$ with seed length $$n/k+O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot (R +\log (s))\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon) +\log(k)\right)\cdot\log(k).$$
We need the following PRG that fools single functions with low communication complexity in the number-in-hand model. The proof is presented in () for completeness.
\[thm:prg-lc\] For any $k\geq 2$, there exists a PRG that $\delta$-fools any $n$-bits functions with $k$-party number-in-hand deterministic communication complexity of at most $D'$, with seed length $$n/k+O\left(D' + \log(1/\delta)+\log(k)\right)\cdot\log(k).$$
Next, we show a PRG for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$, where $\mathcal{G}$ is the class of functions with low-cost communication protocols in the number-in-hand setting. We first show for the case of deterministic protocols.
\[thm:prg-formula-lc-det\] For any integers $k\geq 2$ and $s>0$, let $\mathcal{G}$ be the class of functions whose $k$-party number-in-hand deterministic communication complexity are at most $D$. There is a PRG that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ \mathcal{G}$ of size $s$ with seed length $$n/k+O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon)\cdot (D +\log (s)) +\log(k)\right)\cdot\log(k).$$
By , it suffices to show a PRG that $\left(\delta=1/2^{c\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot\log (s)\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon)}\right)$-fools every function that is the ${{\sf XOR}}$ of $t=c\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon)$ arbitrary functions from $\mathcal{G}$. Note that such a function has deterministic communication complexity at most $D'=t\cdot D$. Then follows from .
We now establish the randomized case.
Let $C$ be a function in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ \mathcal{G}$. For each of the leaf functions in $C$, consider a $k$-party number-in-hand randomized protocol of cost at most $R$ that has an error at most $\varepsilon/(6s)$. By taking a union bound over the $s$ leaf functions and by viewing a randomized protocol as a distribution of deterministic protocols (as shown in the proof of ), we get the following which is a (point-wisely) $(\varepsilon/3)$-approximating function for $C$: $$\tilde{C}(x) \vcentcolon=\sum_{i} p_i \cdot D_i(x),$$ where each $p_i\in[0,1]$ is some probability density value (so $\sum_i p_i =1$), and each $D_i$ is a formula whose leaves are functions with *deterministic* communication complexity at most $R$. Then to $\varepsilon$-fool $C$, it suffices to $(\varepsilon/3)$-fool its $(\varepsilon/3)$-approximating function $\tilde{C}$. Also, since $\tilde{C}$ is a convex combination of the $D_i$’s, it suffices to $(\varepsilon/3)$-fools all the $D_i$’s. We will do this using the PRG form . We get that there exists a PRG that $(\varepsilon/3)$-fools each $D_i$ with seed length $$n/k+O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot(R+\log(s))\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)+\log(k)\right)\cdot\log(k),$$ as desired.
Applications: Fooling formulas of SYMs, LTFs, XORs, and ACAC0
-------------------------------------------------------------
### FORMULA-SYM and FORMULA-LTF
Here, we show how the PRG in implies PRGs for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ{{\sf LTF}}$ and ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ{{\sf SYM}}$.
\[thm:prg-formula-sym\] For any size $s>0$ and $0<\varepsilon<1$, there exists a PRG that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ {{\sf LTF}}$ with seed length $$O\left(n^{1/2}\cdot s^{1/4}\cdot \log(n)\cdot \log(n/\varepsilon)\right).$$ For ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ {{\sf SYM}}$, the seed length is $$O\left(n^{1/2}\cdot s^{1/4}\cdot \log(n)\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon) \right).$$
We need the fact that the class of ${{\sf LTF}}$ has low communication complexity in the number-in-hand model. Consider the following $k$-party ${{{\uppercase{\rmSUM\text{-}GREATER}}}}_m$ problem where the $i$-th party holds a $m$-bit number $z_i$ in hand and they want to determine whether $\sum_{i=1}^k z_i > \theta$, where $\theta$ is a fixed number known to all the parties. Nisan [@Nis94] gave an efficient randomized protocol (with public randomness) for this problem.
\[thm:prg-k-party-sum\] Let $m>0$ be an integer. For any integer $2\leq k\leq m^{O(1)}$, and any $0<\delta<1$, there exists a $\delta$-error randomized protocol of cost $O(k\cdot\log(m)\cdot\log(m/\delta))$ for the $k$-party ${{{\uppercase{\rmSUM\text{-}GREATER}}}}_m$ problem.
By and the fact that every linear threshold function on $n$ bits has a representation such that the weights are $O(n\log(n))$ integers [@MTT61], we get the following.
\[cor:prg-k-party-LTF\] For every $k\geq 2$ and $0<\delta<1$, the $k$-party number-in-hand $\delta$-error randomized communication complexity of ${{\sf LTF}}$ is $O(k\cdot\log(n)\cdot\log(n/\delta))$.
By and , for *every* $k\geq 2$ we get a PRG for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ{{\sf LTF}}$ of seed length $$n/k+O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot k\cdot \log(n) \cdot\log(ns/\varepsilon)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)+\log(k)\right)\cdot\log(k).$$ By choosing $$k=\frac{n^{1/2}}{s^{1/4}\cdot\log(n)\cdot\log(n/\varepsilon)},$$ the claimed seed length follows from a simple calculation.
For ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ{{\sf SYM}}$, note that every $n$-bit symmetric function has a deterministic $k$-party number-in-hand communication protocol of cost at most $k\cdot\log(n)$. Then the rest can be shown using a similar argument as above (by choosing $k=n^{1/2}/\left(s^{1/4}\cdot\log(n)\right)$).
### FORMULA-XOR
For the case of ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ{{\sf XOR}}$, we get a PRG with better seed length.
\[thm:prg-formula-xor\] For any size $s>0$ and $0<\varepsilon<1$, there exists a PRG that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ {{\sf XOR}}$ with seed length $$O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)+\log(n)\right).$$
By , to fool ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$, it suffices to $\left(\delta=1/2^{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log (s)\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon)\right)}\right)$-fool the ${{\sf XOR}}$ of a few functions from $\mathcal{G}$, where $\mathcal{G}$ in this case is the set of all ${{\sf XOR}}$ functions. Note that the ${{\sf XOR}}$ of any set of ${{\sf XOR}}$ functions simply computes some ${{\sf XOR}}$ function. Therefore, we can use small-bias distribution, which fools every ${{\sf XOR}}$ function, to fool ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ{{\sf XOR}}$. Finally, note that there are known constructions for $\delta$-bias distributions that use $O(\log(n/\delta))$ random bits (see e.g. [@AGHP92]).
Using the “locality” of this PRG for ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ{{\sf XOR}}$, we get a lower bound for ${{{\uppercase{\rmMCSP}}}}$ against subquadratic-size formulas of XORs.
\[thm:prg-formula-xor-mcsp\] For every integer $s>0$, if ${{{\uppercase{\rmMCSP}}}}$ on $N$-bit can be computed by some function in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ {{\sf XOR}}$, then $s=\tilde{\Omega}(N^2)$.
There is a standard construction of $\delta$-bias distribution that is local (see e.g. [[@AGHP92 Construction 3]]{} and [[@CKLM19 Fact 7]]{}) in the following sense: there exists a circuit of size at most $\tilde{O}(\log(n/\delta)\cdot \log(n))$ such that given a seed of length $O(\log(n/\delta))$ and a index $j\in[n]$, outputs the $j$-th bit of the distribution. Local PRGs imply ${{{\uppercase{\rmMCSP}}}}$ lower bounds (see [@CKLM19 Section 3]).
### FORMULA-AC0
Another application of is to take $\mathcal{G}$ to be the set all functions that can be computed by small constant-depth circuits ($\AC^0$). Note the state-of-the-art PRG against size-$M$ depth-$d$ $\AC^0$ has a seed length of $\log^{d+O(1)}(Mn)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)$ [@ST19]. Below, let $\AC^0_{d,M}$ denote the class of depth-$d$ circuits of size at most $M$.
\[thm:prg-formula-ac0\] For any size $s,m>0$ and $0<\varepsilon<1$, there exists a PRG that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \AC^0_{d,M}$ of size $s$ with seed length $$\log^{d+O(1)}(Mn)\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon).$$
Moreover, by inspecting the construction of PRG in [@ST19], it is not difficult to see that the PRG is also local; there exists a circuit of size at most $\lambda=\log^{d+O(1)}(Mn)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)$ such that given a seed of length $O\log^{d+O(1)}(Mn)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)$ and a index $j\in[n]$, outputs the $j$-th bit of the PRG. As a result, we get ${{{\uppercase{\rmMCSP}}}}$ lower bounds from the this PRG.
\[thm:prg-formula-ac0-mcsp\] For every $s,d,M \in \mathbb{N}$, if ${{{\uppercase{\rmMCSP}}}}$ on $N$-bit can be computed by some function in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ \AC^0_{d,M}$, then $$s\geq N^2/\log^{2d+O(1)}(Mn).$$
Formulas of low number-on-forehead communication leaf gates
-----------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we show a PRG with mild seed length for formulas of functions with low *multi-party number-on-forehead* communication complexity.
\[thm:mild-prg\] Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a class of $n$-bits functions. For any size $s>0$, there exists a PRG that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ \mathcal{G}$, with seed length $$n-\frac{n}{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot k\cdot4^k\cdot \left( R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2s)}(\mathcal{G})+\log(n)\right)\cdot\log(n/\varepsilon)\right)}.$$
The PRG is constructed using the hardness vs. randomness paradigm.
### Hardness based PRGs
We show how to construct the PRG using the average-case hardness result for formulas of functions with low multi-party communication complexity (). We start with some notations. For $x\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^m$ and an integer $k$ such that $k$ divides $m$, we consider a partition of $x$ into $k$ equal-sized consecutive blocks and write $x=x^{(1)},x^{(2)},\dots,x^{(k)}$, where $x^{(i)}\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^{m/k}$ for each $i\in [k]$.
\[lem:mild-prg\] For any integers $m,t,k>0$ such that $k$ divides $m,t$, let $\mathcal{G}$ be a class of functions on $mt+t$ bits, and let $G\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^{m\times t}\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^{mt+t}$ be $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad G(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_t) \\
&=\left(x_1^{(i)},x_2^{(i)},\dots,x_t^{(i)},{{\sf GIP}}_{m}^{k}\left(x_{(i-1)\cdot(t/k)+1}\right),{{\sf GIP}}_{m}^{k}\left(x_{(i-1)\cdot(t/k)+2}\right),\dots, {{\sf GIP}}_{m}^{k}\left(x_{i\cdot(t/k)+1}\right)\right)_{i\in[k]},
\end{aligned}$$ where $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_t\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^m$. Then $G$ is a PRG that $(t\cdot \varepsilon)$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ of size $$s=\Omega\left( \frac{m^2}{k^2\cdot16^{k}\cdot\left(R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2m^2)}(\mathcal{G})+\log m\right)^2\cdot\log^2(1/\varepsilon)}\right).$$
The high level idea is as follows. We argue that if there is a ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ of the claimed size that breaks the PRG, then there is a ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G'}$ of the same size that computes ${{\sf GIP}}$ on $m$ bits, where $\mathcal{G'}$ has a $k$-party communication complexity that is at most that of $\mathcal{G}$ *with respect to the $m$-bit input*, and hence contradicts the ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G'}$ complexity of the generalized inner product function. The resulting formula is obtained by fixing some input bits of the original ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ which breaks the PRG.
We use a hybrid argument. First consider the distribution given by $G$, where we replace each ${{\sf GIP}}(x_j)$ ($j\in[t]$) with a uniformly random bit; let us denote those random bits as ${U}_{j}$ for $j\in[t]$ (note that this is just the uniform distribution). Then for each $j\in[t]$, define $H_j$ to be the distribution that we substitute back ${{\sf GIP}}(x_1),{{\sf GIP}}(x_2),\dots,{{\sf GIP}}(x_{j})$ for the corresponding uniform bits in the previous distribution.
For the sake of contradiction, suppose there exists a ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ $C$ of size $s$ such that $$\left| \operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[C(H_t)=1]-\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[F(H_0)=1] \right| > t\cdot\varepsilon.$$ By the triangle inequality, there exists a $1\leq j\leq k$ such that $$\left| \operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[C(H_j)=1]-\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[C(H_{j-1})=1] \right| >\varepsilon.$$ Then by averaging, there exist some fixings of $x_1,\dots,x_{j-1},x_{j+1},\dots,x_{t}$ and ${U}_{j+1},\dots,{U}_{t}$ to $C$ such that the above inequality still holds. Let us denote by $C'$ the circuit obtained by $C$ after such fixings and assume without loss of generality $(k-1)t/k\leq j \leq t$. Then we have $$\label{eq:distinguish}
\left| \operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}\left[C'\left(x_j^{(1)},x_j^{(2)},\dots,x_j^{(k)},{{\sf GIP}}(x_j)\right)=1\right]-\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}\left[C'\left(x_j^{(1)},x_j^{(2)},\dots,x_j^{(k)},{U}_j\right)=1\right] \right| > \varepsilon.$$ By a standard “unpredictability implies pseudorandomness" argument [@Yao82], we can show that there is some circuit $C''$, obtained from $C'$ by fixing some value for the last bit, that computes the generalized inner product function on $m$ bits with probability greater than $1/2+\varepsilon$ over uniformly random inputs. Note that the size of $C''$ is the same as $C'$ (hence also $C$) , and also $C''$ can be computed by some ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G'}$, where $R^{(k)}_{\delta}(\mathcal{G'})\leq R^{(k)}_{\delta}(\mathcal{G})$ for every $\delta$. This contradicts hardness of ${{\sf GIP}}$ for such circuits ().
We are now ready to prove .
Consider . Let $n=mt+t$, and we have $m=\left(\frac{n}{t}-1\right)$. Then gives a PRG that $\varepsilon$-fools ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$ of size $$\begin{aligned}
s &= \Omega\left( \frac{m^2}{k^2\cdot16^{k}\cdot\left(R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2m^2)}(\mathcal{G})+\log m\right)^2\cdot\log^2(t/\varepsilon)}\right)\\
&\geq \Omega\left(\left(\frac{n}{t}\right)^2/\left(k^2\cdot16^{k}\cdot\left(R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2n^2)}(\mathcal{G})+\log n\right)^2\cdot\log^2(n/\varepsilon)\right)\right),
\end{aligned}$$ which yields $$t\geq \Omega\left(\frac{n}{\sqrt{s}\cdot k\cdot4^{k}\cdot\left(R^{(k)}_{\varepsilon/(2n^2)}(\mathcal{G})+\log n\right)\cdot\log(n/\varepsilon)}\right).$$ Note that the seed length in this case is $n-t$.
### MKtP lower bounds
The PRG in is sufficient to give an ${\mathrm{MKtP}}$ lower bound for formulas of functions with low multi-party communication complexity.
\[thm:prg-mktp\] For any integer $s>0$ and any class of $N$-bit function $\mathcal{G}$, if ${\mathrm{MKtP}}$ on $N$-bit can be computed by some function ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ \mathcal{G}$, then $$s= \frac{N^2}{k^2\cdot16^{k}\cdot R^{(k)}_{1/3}(\mathcal{G})\cdot \polylog(N)}.$$
Let $C$ be a function in ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$ of size less than $$\frac{N^2}{k^2\cdot16^{k}\cdot R^{(k)}_{1/3}(\mathcal{G})\cdot\log^c(N)}$$ where $c>0$ is some sufficiently large constant. By , we have that there is a PRG that $(1/3)$-fools $C$ and its seed length is $$N-\polylog(N).$$ Also, since the PRG is polynomial-time computable, we get that for every seed, the output of the PRG has $\mathrm{Kt}$ complexity at most $\theta=N-\polylog(N)$. However, consider the ${\mathrm{MKtP}}$ function with a threshold parameter $\theta$; this function is not fooled by such a PRG, since it accepts every output of the PRG and rejects a uniformly random string with high probability.
Satisfiability algorithms {#sec:sat}
=========================
In this section, we will use ${\left\{0,1\right\}}$ as the Boolean basis.
Computational efficient communication protocols
-----------------------------------------------
Let $t\colon{\mathbb{N}}\times{\mathbb{N}}\to{\mathbb{N}}$. We say that a two-party communication protocol is *$t$-efficient* if for each of the parties, given an input $x$ and some previously sent messages $\pi\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{*}$, the next message to send can be computed in time $t(|x|,|\pi|)$ ($\bot$ is being output if there is no next message). We say that such a protocol is *explicit* if $t(|x|,|\pi|)=2^{o(|x|+|\pi|)}$.
\[lem:sat-time-efficient\] Let $f\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^n\to 1$ and let $\Pi$ be a $t$-efficient communication protocol for $f$ with communication cost at most $D$. Then the protocol tree of $\Pi$ can be output in time $O\left(D\cdot t{\!\left(n/2,D\right)}\cdot2^{n}\cdot2^D\right)$. That is, there exists an algorithm that outputs a list of all (partial and full) transcripts of length at most $D$ and the rectangles associated with each of the transcripts.
It suffices to show that, given an input $x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/2}$ and a transcript $\ell\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{\leq D}$, we can decide whether $x$ belongs to the rectangle indexed by $\ell$ in time $D\cdot t{\!\left(n/2,D\right)}$. Suppose $x$ is the input for Alice (resp. Bob), and we want to decide whether $x$ belongs to the rectangle indexed by $\pi$. We can carry out the communication task by simulating the behavior of Alice (resp. Bob) using the protocol $\Pi$ and simulating Bob’s (resp. Alice’s) behavior using the transcript $\pi$, and check whether the messages sent by Alice (resp. Bob) is consistent with the transcript $\pi$. This takes time at most $D\cdot t{\!\left(n/2,D\right)}$. To construct the tree, we do the above for every (partial and full) transcript $\pi\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{\leq D}$ and every input $x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/2}$ for Alice (resp. Bob). The total running time is $O\left(D\cdot t{\!\left(n/2,D\right)}\cdot2^{n}\cdot2^D\right)$.
For a protocol $\Pi$, we denote by $\mathrm{Leaves}(\Pi)$ the set of full transcripts of $\Pi$.\
**Remark.** We note that, in the *white-box* context of the satisfiability problem, there is no need to assume a canonical partition of the input variables among the players. For instance, a helpful partition can either be given as part of the input, or computed by the algorithm. As a consequence, in instantiations of Theorem \[thm:main\_sat\] for a particular circuit class $\mathcal{C}$, it is sufficient to be able to convert the input circuit from $\mathcal{C}$ into some device from ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathcal{G}$ for which protocols of bounded communication cost can be described.
Explicit approximating polynomials for formulas
-----------------------------------------------
From , we know that every size-$s$ formula has a degree-$O(\sqrt{s})$ polynomial that point-wisely approximates it. In our SAT algorithms, we will need to *explicitly construct* such an approximating polynomial given a formula. One way to do this is to use an *efficient* quantum query algorithm for formulas. It is known that a quantum query algorithm for a function $f$ using at most $T$ queries implies an approximating polynomial for $f$ of degree at most $2T$ [@BBC+01], and by classically simulating such an quantum algorithm, one can show that the approximating polynomial can be obtained in time that is polynomial in the number of its monomials, in addition to the time for the classical simulation. For our task, we can use the result of Reichardt [@Rei11a] which showed an *efficient* quantum algorithm for evaluating size-$s$ formulas with ${O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot \log s\right)}$ queries[^12]. Here, we present an alternate way to construct approximating polynomials for de Morgan formulas which rely only on the *existence* of such polynomials, without requiring an efficient quantum query algorithm. This “black-box” approach was suggested to us by an anonymous reviewer.
We first need the following structural lemma for formulas.
\[lemma:sat-decomposing\] For every integer $s>0$, there exists an algorithm such that given a size-$s$ de Morgan formula $F$, runs in $\poly(s)$ time and outputs a top formula $F'$ with $O(\sqrt{s})$ leaves and each leaf of $F'$ is a sub-formula with $O(\sqrt{s})$ input leaves.
\[thm:sat-explicit-polynomial\] For any integer $s>0$ and any $0<\varepsilon<1$, there exists an algorithm of running time $s^{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon)\right)}$ such that given a de Morgan formula $F$ of size $s$, outputs an $\varepsilon$-approximating polynomial of degree $O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon))$ for $F$. That is, the algorithm outputs a multi-linear polynomial (as sum of monomials) over the reals such that for every $x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^n$, $$\left| p(x)-F(x)\right| \leq \varepsilon.$$
We first note that it suffices to construct a $(1/3)$-approximating polynomial for $F$ with degree $D=O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s))$. This is because given a $(1/3)$-approximating polynomial one can obtain explicitly an $\varepsilon$-approximating polynomial of degree $D\cdot O(\log(1/\varepsilon))$, by feeding $O(1/\varepsilon)$ copies of the $(1/3)$-approximating polynomial to the polynomial computing MAJORITY on $O(1/\varepsilon)$ bits [@BNRdW07] (see also [[@Tal14 Appendix B]]{}).
We first invoke on $F$ to obtain a top formula $F'$ with $t=O(\sqrt{s})$ leaves, each of which is a sub-formula of size $O(\sqrt{s})$. We construct a $(1/20)$-approximating (multi-linear) polynomial $P$ for the top formula $F'$, which has degree $d_1=O(s^{1/4})$ by . Note that $P$ can be constructed in time $2^{O(\sqrt{s})}$ because $F'$ has at most $O(\sqrt{s})$ leaves. Next, for each of the $t$ sub-formulas, denoted as $F_1,F_2,\dots,F_t$, we construct a $(1/(20t))$-approximating polynomial. Note that these polynomials have degree $d_1=O(s^{1/4}\cdot\log(s))$ and can be constructed in time $2^{O(\sqrt{s})}$. Let’s denote these $t$ polynomials as $Q_1, Q_2,\dots,Q_{t}$. Now for each $Q_i$ ($i\in[t]$), we define $$q_i(x)=\frac{Q_i(x)+1/(20t)}{1+1/(10t)}.$$ The final approximating polynomial for $F$ is given as $$p(x)=P\left(q_1(x),q_2(x),\dots,q_t(x)\right).$$ Note that $p$ has degree $d_1\cdot d_2=O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s))$ and can be constructed (as sum of monomials) in time $s^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s))}$. It remains to show that $p$ $(1/3)$-approximates $F$.
For $0\leq q\leq 1$, let $N_q$ be the distribution over ${\left\{0,1\right\}}$ such that $\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{y\sim N_q}[y=1]=q$. Then for an fixed input $x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^s$, we have $$\label{sat-bb1}
p(x)=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{y_i\sim N_{q_i(x)}}[P(y_1,y_2,\dots,y_t)].$$ Let $\mathcal{E}$ be the event that $y_i=F_i(x)$ for all $i\in[t]$. Note that $$\label{sat-bb2}
\delta \vcentcolon=\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{y_i\sim N_{q_i(x)}}[\neg \mathcal{E}]\leq 1/10.$$ To see , note that for every $i\in[t]$, if $F_i(x)=0$, then $0\leq q_i(x)\leq 1/(10t)$, which implies $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{y_i\sim N_{q_i(x)}}[y_i\neq F_i(x)]\leq 1/(10t).$$ Similar for the case when $F_i(x)=1$ (which implies $1-1/(10t)< q_i(x)\leq 1$). Then follows from a union bound. Now we can re-write as $$\begin{aligned}
p(x) &= \operatorname*{{\bf E}}[P(y_1,y_2,\dots,y_t)\mid \mathcal{E}]\cdot \operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\mathcal{E}] + \operatorname*{{\bf E}}[P(y_1,y_2,\dots,y_t)\mid \neg\mathcal{E}]\cdot \operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[\neg\mathcal{E}]\\
&=\left(F'(F_1(x),F_2(x),\cdot F_t(x))\pm 1/20 \right)\cdot(1-\delta)+ \operatorname*{{\bf E}}[P(y_1,y_2,\dots,y_t)\mid \neg\mathcal{E}]\cdot\delta.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $P(y)\in[-1/(20t),1+1/(20t)]$ for every $y\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^t$, and that $\delta \leq 1/10$. A simple calculation shows that $$p(x) = F'(F_1(x),F_2(x),\dots, F_t(x))\pm \frac{1}{3},$$ as desired.
The \#SAT algorithm
-------------------
In this subsection, we present our \#SAT algorithm.
\[thm:sat-main\] For any integer $s>0$, there exists a deterministic \#SAT algorithm for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$, where $\mathcal{G}$ is the class of functions with explicit two-party deterministic protocols of communication cost at most $D$, that runs in time $$2^{n-\frac{n}{\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot D}}.$$ In the case $\mathcal{G}$ is the class of functions with explicit randomized protocols of communication cost at most $R$, there exists an analogous randomized algorithm with a running time $$2^{n-\left(\frac{n}{\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot R}\right)^{1/2}}.$$
The algorithm is based on the framework for designing satisfiability algorithms developed by Williams [@Wil14]. The idea is to transform a given circuit into a “sparse polynomial” and solve satisfiability by evaluating the polynomial on all points in a faster-than-brute-force manner.
We first need the following fast matrix multiplication algorithm for “narrow” matrices.
\[thm:sat-fast-matrix-mul\] Multiplication of an $N\times N^{.172}$ matrix with an $N^{.172}\times N$ matrix can be done in $O(N^2 \log^2 N)$ arithmetic operations over any field.
For an even number $n>0$, and $x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n}$, we denote by ${x^{\mathrm{L}}}$ (resp. ${x^{\mathrm{R}}}$) the first half of $x$ and ${x^{\mathrm{R}}}\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/2}$ the second half. We now prove .
We first prove the deterministic case.
Let $C=F(g^1,g^2\dots,g^s)$ be a device in ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$ where $F$ is a formula and $g^1,g^2,\dots,g^s$ are functions that have a explicit communication protocol of cost at most $D$. The first step is to output the protocol tree for each $g^i$ ($i\in[s]$). Since each $g^i$ has explicit protocol of cost at most $D$, by , these protocol trees can be output in time $s\cdot 2^{n/2+D+o(n)}\leq 2^{n/1.9}$ (here we assume $D = o(n)$ otherwise the theorem holds trivially).
Let $n'$ be an integer whose value is determined later. Let $T$ be a set of $n'$ variables such that $T$ contains $n'/2$ variables from the first half of the $n$ variables and the rest are from the second half. For a partial assignment $z\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n'}$ to $T$, denote by $C_z$ the restricted function of $C$ where the variables in $T$ are fixed according to $z$. To count the number of satisfying assignments of $C$, we need to compute the following quantity: $$\label{eq:sat-1}
\sum_{x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n-n'}} \sum_{z\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n'}} C_z(x).$$ Now consider $$Q(x) = \sum_{z\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n'}} C_z(x).$$ We will try to obtain the value of $Q(x)$ for every $x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n-n'}$, in time about $2^{n-n'}$, which will allow us to compute the quantity in in time $O(2^{n-n'})$ by summing $Q(x)$ over all the $x$’s. We do this by first transforming $Q$ into an *approximating* polynomial with not-too-many monomials, and each monomial is a product of *functions that only rely on either the first or the second half of $x$*. With such a polynomial, we can perform fast multipoint evaluation using the fast matrix multiplication algorithm in .
For each $z\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n'}$, we view the formula $C_z$ as $F(g^1_z,g^2_z,\dots,g^s_z)$, where $F$ is the de Morgan formula part of $C_z$ and $g^1_z,g^2_z,\dots,g^s_z$ are the leaf gates. Let us now replace $F$ by a $\varepsilon$-approximating polynomial $p$, where $\varepsilon = 1/\left(3\cdot 2^{n'}\right)$, using . Note that the degree of $p$ is at most $$d\leq O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon))\leq O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot n').$$ Now consider the following $$Q'(x)= \sum_{z\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n'}} p(g^1_z(x),g^2_z(x),\dots,g^s_z(x)).$$ First, note that by the value that we’ve chosen for the approximating error $\varepsilon$, we have that, for every $x$, $$\left|Q'(x)-Q(x)\right|\leq 2^{n'}\cdot \varepsilon= 1/3.$$ In other words, given $Q'(x)$, we can recover the value of $Q(x)$, which is supposed to be an integer.
Next, we perform fast multipoint evaluation on $Q'$. First of all, we re-write $Q'$ as follows: $$\label{eq:sat-2}
Q'(x) = \sum_{z\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n'}} \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\hat{p}(S)\cdot\prod_{i\in S}g^i_z(x).$$ Now let $\Pi_i$ be the protocol of $g^i$, we can re-write $g^i_z$ as follows: $$\label{eq:sat-3}
g^i_z(x)=\sum_{\pi_i\in\mathrm{Leaves}(\Pi_i)} \alpha^i\left({z^{\mathrm{L}}}{x^{\mathrm{L}}},\pi_i\right)\cdot \beta^{i}\left({z^{\mathrm{R}}}{x^{\mathrm{R}}},\pi_i\right),$$ where $\alpha^i\left({z^{\mathrm{L}}}{x^{\mathrm{L}}},\pi_i\right)$ (resp. $\beta^{i}\left({z^{\mathrm{R}}}{x^{\mathrm{R}}},\pi_i\right)$) is $1$ if and only if $\left({z^{\mathrm{L}}}{x^{\mathrm{L}}}\right)$ (resp. $\left({z^{\mathrm{R}}}{x^{\mathrm{R}}}\right)$) belongs to the rectangle indexed by $\pi_i$ and the function value of that rectangle is $1$. Note that for each $i\in[s]$, given the pre-computed protocol tree of the $\Pi_i$, $\alpha^{i}$ and $\beta^{i}$ can be computed in polynomial time (for example, using binary search). After plugging into for every $i\in[s]$ and rearranging, we get $$\label{eq:sat-4}
Q'(x) = \sum_{z\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n'}} \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}} \sum_{\substack{\vec{\pi}=(\pi_i)_{i\in S}: \\ \pi_i\in\mathrm{Leaves}(\Pi_i)}} \hat{p}(S)\cdot \prod_{i\in S} \alpha^i\left({z^{\mathrm{L}}}{x^{\mathrm{L}}},\pi_i\right)\cdot \prod_{i\in S} \beta^{i}\left({z^{\mathrm{R}}}{x^{\mathrm{R}}},\pi_i\right).$$ Note that $Q'$ can be expressed as the sum of at most $m$ terms, where $$m\leq 2^{n'}\cdot s^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot \log(s)\cdot n')}\cdot 2^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot \log(s)\cdot n'\cdot D)}\leq 2^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot D\cdot n')}.$$ Note that given , we can obtain $Q'$ in time $$\label{eq:sat-time-1}
2^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot D\cdot n')}.$$ Next, we construct a $2^{(n-n')/2} \times m$ matrix $A$ and a $m \times 2^{(n-n')/2}$ matrix $B$ as follows: $$A_{{x^{\mathrm{L}}},(z,S,\vec{\pi})}=\hat{p}(S)\cdot\prod_{i\in S} \alpha^i\left({z^{\mathrm{L}}}{x^{\mathrm{L}}},\pi_i\right),$$ and $$B_{(z,S,\vec{\pi}),{x^{\mathrm{R}}}}=\prod_{i\in S} \beta^{i}\left({z^{\mathrm{R}}}{x^{\mathrm{R}}},\pi_i\right).$$ It is easy to see that for each $x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n-n'}$, $$Q'(x) = (A\cdot B)_{{x^{\mathrm{L}}},{x^{\mathrm{R}}}}.$$ We now want to compute $A\cdot B$. Therefore, we want $m \leq 2^{.172(n-n')/2}$ so that computing $A\cdot B$ can be done in time $\tilde{O}(2^{n-n'})$ using . For this we can set $n'$ to be $$n'=\frac{n}{c\cdot\sqrt{s}\cdot \log^{2}(s)\cdot D},$$ where $c>0$ is some sufficiently large constant. Together with the running time in , The total running time of the algorithm is therefore $$2^{n-\frac{n}{\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot D}}.$$
For the randomized case, for each $g^i$ ($i\in[s]$), we consider a randomized protocol $\Pi_i$ that has error $\varepsilon'\leq 1/(3\cdot s\cdot2^{n'})$, and replace $g^i$ with a randomly picked protocol from $\Pi_i$, so we can say that for every $x\in{n-n'}$, the algorithm computes $Q(x)$ (or $Q'(x)$) with probability at least $2/3$ (via a union bound over all the $g^i$’s and a union bound over all the $z$’s in ${\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n'}$). Then we can repeat the above algorithm $\poly(n)$ times and obtain $Q(x)$ for all $x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n-n'}$ correctly with high probability. Note that the error of any randomized protocol with communication complexity $R$ can be reduced to $\varepsilon'$ by blowing up the communication complexity by a factor of $O(\log(1/\varepsilon'))$. In this case the, (as we are considering longer transcripts) the number of terms in $Q'$ (as in ) will be $$2^{O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot R\cdot (n')^2)},$$ and we need to set accordingly $$n'=\Omega\left(\frac{n}{\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot R}\right)^{1/2},$$ which gives the claimed running time for the randomized case.
In fact, using the ideas above we can also get a randomized \#SAT algorithm for the more expressive class ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\AC^{0}_{d,M}\circ\mathcal{G}$, where $\AC^{0}_{d,M}$ is the class of depth-$d$ size-$M$ circuits and $\mathcal{G}$ is the class of functions that have low-communication complexity[^13], by combining with the fact that $\AC^0$ circuits have low-degree *probabilistic polynomials over the reals* (a probabilistic polynomial of a function $f$ is a distribution on polynomials such that for every input $x$, a randomly picked polynomial from the distribution agrees with $f$ on the input $x$). More specifically, we have the following.
\[thm:sat-formula-ac0-lc\] For any integers $s,d,M>0$, there exists a randomized \#SAT algorithm for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\AC^{0}_{d,M}\circ\mathcal{G}$, where $\mathcal{G}$ is the class of functions with explicit two-party deterministic protocols of communication cost at most $D$, the algorithm outputs the number of satisfying assignments in time $$2^{n-\left(\frac{n}{\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot (\log M)^{O(d)} \cdot D}\right)^{1/2}}.$$ In the case $\mathcal{G}$ is the class of functions with explicit randomized protocols of communication cost at most $R$, there exists an analogous randomized algorithm with a running time $$2^{n-\left(\frac{n}{\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot (\log M)^{O(d)} \cdot R}\right)^{1/3}}.$$
We show the case where $\mathcal{G}$ has low randomized communication complexity. Let
- $\varepsilon_1 = 1/\left(3\cdot2^{n'}\right)$,
- $\varepsilon_2 = 1/\left(6\cdot s\cdot2^{n'}\right)$ and
- $\varepsilon_3 = 1/\left(6\cdot M\cdot2^{n'}\right)$.
As in the proof of , we can replace the formula part of ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ\AC^{0}_{d,M}\circ\mathcal{G}$ with a $\varepsilon_1$-approximating polynomial of degree $$O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon_1))= O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(s)\cdot n').$$ Then we replace the $\AC^{0}_{d,M}$ circuit with a randomly picked polynomial from a $\varepsilon_2$-error probabilistic polynomial. By [@HS19], such a probabilistic polynomial is constructive and has degree at most $$(\log M)^{O(d)}\cdot \log(1/\varepsilon_2)= (\log M)^{O(d)}\cdot (n' + \log(s)).$$ Finally, we replace each of the bottom functions, which is from $\mathcal{G}$, with a randomly picked protocol from a randomized protocol with error $\varepsilon_3$, and hence has cost at most $$R\cdot O(\log(1/\varepsilon_3))= O(R\cdot(n'+\log(M))).$$ As a result, we can express $Q'$ as a polynomial with at most $$2^{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot (\log M)^{O(d)} \cdot R\cdot (n')^3\right)}$$ monomials, whose variables are functions that depend on either the first half or the second half of $x$. Note that with our choices of $\varepsilon_2$ and $\varepsilon_3$, for every $x\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n-n'}$, the algorithm computes $Q(x)$ correctly that with probability at least $2/3$ (by union bounds). By the same reasoning as in the proof of , we get a randomized \#SAT algorithm with running time $$2^{n-\left(\frac{n}{\sqrt{s}\cdot\log^2(s)\cdot (\log M)^{O(d)} \cdot R}\right)^{1/3}},$$ as desired.
It is worth noting that unlike , the algorithm in is *randomized* even if $\mathcal{G}$ is the class of functions with low *deterministic* communication complexity, because of the use of probabilistic polynomials for the $\AC^0$ circuits.
Learning algorithms {#sec:learning}
===================
In this section, we prove the following learning result for the ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ \mathsf{XOR}$ model.
\[thm:learn-formula-xor\] For every constant $\gamma > 0$, there is an algorithm that *PAC* learns the class of $n$-variate Boolean functions ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{2 - \gamma}]\circ\mathsf{XOR}$ to accuracy $\varepsilon$ and with confidence $\delta$ in time $\mathsf{poly}\big (2^{n/\log n}, 1/\varepsilon, \log(1/\delta) \big )$.
We first review some useful results that pertain to agnostically learning parities as well as boosting of learning algorithms.
Agnostically learning parities and boosting
-------------------------------------------
For a parameter $n \geq 1$, let $\Delta$ be a distribution on labelled examples ${\left(x,y\right)}$ supported over ${\left\{0,1\right\}}^n\times{\left\{0,1\right\}}$, and assume that for each $x$ there is at most one $y$ such that $(x,y) \in \mathsf{Support}(\Delta)$. For a function $h \colon {\left\{0,1\right\}}^n \to {\left\{0,1\right\}}$, we denote by $\operatorname*{err}_\Delta{\!\left(h\right)}$ the error of $h$ under this distribution: $$\operatorname*{err}_{\Delta}{\!\left(h\right)} \;=\; \operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{{\left(x,y\right)}\sim \Delta}{\!\left[h{\!\left(x\right)}\neq y\right]}.$$ Similarly, for a class of functions $\mathcal{C}$, we let $\operatorname*{opt}_\Delta{\!\left(\mathcal{C}\right)}$ be the error of the best function in the class: $$\operatorname*{opt}_\Delta{\!\left(\mathcal{C}\right)} \;=\; \min_{h\in\mathcal{C}}\;\operatorname*{err}_\Delta{\!\left(h\right)}.$$ We will need a result established by Kalai, Mansour, and Verbin [@KMV08], which gives a non-trivial time agnostic learning algorithm for the class of parities.
\[lem:parity-learner\] Let $\mathsf{XOR}$ be the class of parity functions on $n$ variables. Then, for any constant $\zeta > 0$, there is a randomized learning algorithm $W$ such that, for every parameter $n\geq1$ and distribution $\Delta$ over labelled examples, when $W$ is given access to independent samples from $\Delta$ it outputs with high probability a circuit computing a hypothesis $h:{\left\{0,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}$ such that $$\operatorname*{err}_\Delta{\!\left(h\right)} \;\leq\; \operatorname*{opt}_\Delta{\!\left(\mathsf{XOR}\right)}+2^{-n^{1-\zeta}}.$$ The sample complexity and running time of $W$ is $2^{O{\left(n/\log n\right)}}$.
Recall that a boosting procedure for learning algorithms transforms a weak learner that outputs a hypothesis that is just weakly correlated with the unknown function into a (strong) PAC learning algorithm for the same class (i.e., a learner in the sense of Definition \[def:pac\]). We refer for instance to [@KV94] for more information about boosting in learning theory. We shall make use of the following boosting result by Freund [@Fre90].
\[lem:freund-boosting\] Let $W$ be a *(*weak*)* learner for a class $\mathcal{C}$ that runs in time $t(n)$ and outputs *(*under any distribution*)* a hypothesis of error up to $1/2-\beta$, for some constructive function $\beta(n) > 0$. Then, there exists a *PAC* learning algorithm for $\mathcal{C}$ that runs in time $\mathsf{poly}(n,t,1/\varepsilon,1/\beta,\log (1/\delta))$.
PAC-learning small formulas of parities
---------------------------------------
We are ready to show that sub-quadratic size formulas over parity functions can be learned in time $2^{O(n/\log n)}$. First, we argue that Lemma \[lem:parity-learner\] provides a weak learner that works under any distribution $\mathcal{D}$ supported over $\{0,1\}^n$. This will follow from Lemma \[lem:lb-Tal-2\], which shows that any function in ${{\sf FORMULA}}[s] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ is correlated with some parity function with respect to $\mathcal{D}$. We then obtain a standard PAC learner via the boosting procedure from Lemma \[lem:freund-boosting\].
Let $\mathcal{C} = \mathsf{FORMULA} \circ \mathsf{XOR}$, where $s = n^{2 - \gamma}$ for some constant $\gamma > 0$. For any function $f \in \mathsf{FORMULA}[s] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ and distribution $\mathcal{D}$ supported over $\{0,1\}^n$, Lemma \[lem:lb-Tal-2\] shows that there exists a parity function $\chi = \chi(f,\mathcal{D})$ such that $$\Pr_{x \sim \mathcal{D}}[f(x) = \chi(x)] \;\geq\;\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^{n^{1 - \lambda}}},$$ for some $\lambda = \lambda(\gamma) > 0$ independent of $n$, under the assumption that $n$ is sufficiently large. Let $\Delta = \Delta(\mathcal{D},f)$ be the distribution over labelled examples induced by $\mathcal{D}$ and $f$. Note that $\operatorname*{opt}_\Delta{\!\left(\mathsf{XOR}\right)} \leq 1/2 - \exp{\!(n^{1 - \lambda})}$. Consequently, by invoking Lemma \[lem:parity-learner\] with parameter $\zeta = \lambda$, it follows that ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{2 - \gamma}] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ can be learned under an arbitrary distribution to error $\beta(n) \leq 1/2 - \exp(n^{1 - \Omega(1)})$ in time $t(n) = 2^{O(n/\log n)}$. Consequently, we can obtain a PAC learner algorithm for ${{\sf FORMULA}}[n^{2 - \gamma}] \circ \mathsf{XOR}$ via Lemma \[lem:freund-boosting\] that runs in time $\mathsf{poly}(n,t(n),1/\varepsilon,1/\beta,\log(1/\delta)) = \mathsf{poly}(2^{n/\log n}, 1/\varepsilon, \log(1/\delta))$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Rocco Servedio for bringing to our attention the work by Kalai, Mansour, and Verbin [@KMV08], which is a central ingredient in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\_learning\]. We also thank Mahdi Cheraghchi for several discussions on the analysis of Boolean circuits with a bottom layer of parity gates.
This work was funded in part by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship (URF$\setminus$R1$\setminus$191059).
Proofs of useful lemmas
=======================
Useful lemmas for formulas {#subsec:formula-lemmas}
--------------------------
The proofs in this section are essentially the same as that of [@Tal16].
\[lem:lb-Tal-1-app\] Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a distribution over ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$, and let $f,C\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}$ be such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[C(x)=f(x)]\geq 1/2+\varepsilon.$$ Let $\tilde{C}\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a $\varepsilon$-approximating function of $C$, i.e., for every $x\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$, $|C(x)-\tilde{C}(x)|\leq \varepsilon$. Then, $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[\tilde{C}(x)\cdot f(x)]\geq \varepsilon.$$
Note that since $\tilde{C}$ $\varepsilon$-approximate $C$, we have for every $x\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$ $$\tilde{C}\cdot C(x)\geq 1-\varepsilon,$$ and $$\tilde{C}\cdot (1-C(x))\geq -1-\varepsilon.$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[\tilde{C}(x)\cdot f(x)]&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[\tilde{C}(x)\cdot f(x){\mid}C(x)=f(x)]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[C(x)=f(x)]\\
&\qquad+\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[\tilde{C}(x)\cdot f(x){\mid}C(x)\ne f(x)]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[C(x)\ne f(x)]\\
&\geq(1-\varepsilon)\cdot \operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[C(x)=f(x)] + (-1-\varepsilon)\cdot \left(1-\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[C(x)=f(x)]\right)\\
&=2\cdot \operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[C(x)=f(x)] - 1 -\varepsilon\\
&\geq 2\cdot (1/2+\varepsilon) - 1 - \varepsilon \geq \varepsilon,
\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
\[lem:lb-Tal-2-app\] Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a distribution over ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n$ and let $\mathcal{G}$ be a class of functions. For $f\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}$, suppose that $D\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}\in {{\sf FORMULA}}[s]\circ\mathcal{G}$ is such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[D(x)=f(x)]\geq 1/2+\varepsilon_0.$$ Then there exists some $h\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^n\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}\in {{\sf XOR}}_{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon_0)\right)}\circ \mathcal{G}$ such that $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[h(x)\cdot f(x)]\geq \frac{1}{s^{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon_0)\right)}}.$$
Let $$D = F(g_1,g_2\dots,g_s)$$ be a device in ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\mathcal{G}$ where $F$ is a formula and $g_1,g_2,\dots,g_s$ are function from $\mathcal{G}$.
Let $p\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^s\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a $\varepsilon_0$-approximating polynomial for $F$ of degree $d=O(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon_0))$. Note that we can write $$p(z)=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\hat{p}(S)\cdot\prod_{i\in S}z_i.$$ Also, for each $S\subseteq[s]$, we have $$|\hat{p}(S)|=\left| \operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{z\in{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^s}[p(z)\cdot\prod_{i\in S}z_i] \right| \leq 1+\varepsilon_0.$$ Now let $$\tilde{D} \vcentcolon= p(g_1,g_2\dots,g_s).$$ Note that $\tilde{D}$ is a $\varepsilon_0$-approximating function for $D$. Therefore, by , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_0 &\leq \operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}[D(x)\cdot f(x)]\\
&= \operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}\left[\left(\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\hat{p}(S)\cdot\prod_{i\in S}g_i \right) \cdot f(x)\right]\\
&=\sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}}\hat{p}(S)\cdot \operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}\left[\prod_{i\in S}g_i\cdot f(x)\right]\\
&\leq \sum_{\substack{S\subseteq[s]: \\ |S|\leq d}} (1+\varepsilon_0) \cdot \left| \operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}\left[\prod_{i\in S}g_i\cdot f(x)\right] \right|.
\end{aligned}$$ The above equation is the sum of at most $s^{O(d)}$ summands. Therefore, there exists some $S\subseteq[s]$ such that $$\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}\left[\prod_{i\in S}g_i\cdot f(x)\right]\right| \geq \frac{\varepsilon_0}{(1+\varepsilon_0)\cdot s^{O(d)}}\geq \frac{1}{s^{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon_0)\right)}},$$ which implies that there exists some $h$, such that either $h=\prod_{i\in S}g_i$ or $h=-\prod_{i\in S}g_i$, and $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}_{x\sim\mathcal{D}}\left[h(x)\cdot f(x)\right] \geq \frac{1}{s^{O\left(\sqrt{s}\cdot\log(1/\varepsilon_0)\right)}}.$$ Finally, note that such $h$ can be expressed as the ${{\sf XOR}}$ of at most $d$ functions from $\mathcal{G}$.
PRG for low-communication functions in the number-in-hand setting {#appendix:prg_cc}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we show how to fool functions with low communication complexity in the number-in-hand model.
\[lem:prg-lc-app\] For any $k\geq 2$, there exists a PRG that $\delta$-fools any $n$-bits functions with $k$-party number-in-hand deterministic communication complexity at most $D'$, with seed length $$n/k+O\left(D' + \log(1/\delta)+\log(k)\right)\cdot\log(k).$$
The PRG in is based on the PRG by Impagliazzo, Nisan and Wigderson [@INW94] that is used to derandomize “network algorithms" and space-bounded computation. We will need to use randomness extractors, which we review below.
Let $X$ be a random variable. The *min-entropy* of $X$, denoted by $H_\infty(X)$, is the largest real number $k$ such that $\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}{\!\left[X=x\right]}\leq2^{-k}$ for every $x$ in the range of $X$. If $X$ is a distribution over ${\left\{-1,1\right\}}^{\aleph}$ with $H_\infty{\!\left(X\right)}\geq k$, then $X$ is called a [*${\left({\aleph},k\right)}$-source*]{}.
A function $\mathrm{Ext}\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^{\aleph}\times{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^d\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^m$ is an *$(k,\varepsilon)$-extractor* if, for any ${\left({\aleph},k\right)}$-source $X$, and any test $T\colon{\left\{-1,1\right\}}^m\to{\left\{-1,1\right\}}$, it is the case that $$\left|\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[T(\mathrm{Ext}{\!\left(X,{U}_d\right)}X)=1]-\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[T({U}_m)=1]\right|\leq \varepsilon.$$
\[thm:prg-ext\] For any integer $m,\kappa>0$ and $0<\delta'<0$, there exists an explicit $(\kappa,\delta')$ extractor $\mathrm{Ext}\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{m}\times{\left\{0,1\right\}}^d\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{m}$ with $d=O(m-k+\log(1/\delta'))$.
We are now ready to show .
We first describe the construction of the PRG. In fact, we will construct a sequence of PRGs $G_0,G_1,\dots,G_{\log(k)}$. We begin by specifying the parameters of these PRGs. Let $t=\log(k)$, and let $$d=O\left(D'+\log(1/\delta)+t\right).$$ For $i=0,1,\dots,t$, let
- $r_0=n/k$,
- $r_i=r_{i-1}+d$.
Note that we have $r_i=n/k+i\cdot d$. Also, let $$\mathrm{Ext}_i\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{r_i}\times{\left\{0,1\right\}}^d\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{r_i}$$ be a $(\kappa_i,\delta')$-extractor from , where $$\kappa_i=r_i-D'-2t - \log(1/\delta)$$ and $$\delta'=\delta/\left(3^t\cdot 2^{D'}\right).$$ Note that the seed length of the extractors is $d=O\left(D'+\log(1/\delta)+t\right)$. Finally, define $G_i\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{r_i}\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/2^{t-i}}$ recursively as follows
- $G_{0}(a)=a$, where $a\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/k}$.
- $G_i(a,z)=G_{i-1}(a)\circ G_{i-1}(\mathrm{Ext}_{i-1}(a,z))$, where $a\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{r_{i-1}}$ and $z\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^d$.
We will show that $G_t\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{r_t=n/k+t\cdot d}\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}^n$ fools any functions $f$ with $k$-party number-in-hand deterministic communication complexity at most $D'$. First, note that such $f$ can be written as $$f(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_k)=\sum_{i=1}^{2^{D'}} h^{(i)}_{1}(x_1)\cdot h^{(i)}_{2}(x_2)\cdot\ldots\cdot h^{(i)}_{k}(x_k),$$ for some $h^{(i)}_{j}\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/k}\to {\left\{0,1\right\}}$ ($i\in\left[2^{D'}\right], j\in[k]$). Therefore, to show that the PRG $G_t$ $\delta$-fool $f$, it suffices to show that $G_t$ $\left(\delta/2^{D'}\right)$-fools every function $g$ of the form $$g(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_k)=h_1(x_1)\cdot h_2(x_2)\cdot\ldots\cdot h_k(x_k).$$ More specifically we show the following.
\[lem:prg-lc-claim-1\] For every $k \geq 2$ and $ 0\leq i \leq t$, the generator $G_i$ defined above $\left(3^{i}\cdot \delta'\right)$-fools every function $g_i\colon{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/2^{t-i}}\to{\left\{0,1\right\}}$ of the form $$g_i(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k/2^{t-i}})=h_1(x_1)\cdot h_2(x_2)\cdot\ldots\cdot h_{k/2^{t-i}}(x_{k/2^{t-i}}),$$ where $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k/2^{t-i}}\in{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{n/k}$.
The proof is by induction on $i$. The base case is $i=0$, which is trivial given the definition of $G_{0}$. Now suppose the claim holds for $i-1$, we show the case for $i$. This is done using a hybrid argument. Consider the following four distributions
- $\mathcal{D}_1=U_{n/2^{t-i}}$,
- $\mathcal{D}_2=U_{n/2^{t-i+1}}\circ G_{i-1}(U_{r_{i-1}})$,
- $\mathcal{D}_3=G_{i-1}(U_{r_{i-1}}) \circ G_{i-1}(U'_{r_{i-1}})$ ($U$ and $U'$ are two independent uniform distributions),
- $\mathcal{D}_4=G_i(U_{r_i})$.
We want show show that $$\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_1)]-\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_4)]\right|\leq 3^{i}\cdot \delta'.$$ By the triangle inequality, it suffices to show that $$\label{eq:prg-lc-triangle}
\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_1)]-\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_2)]\right| + \left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_2)]-\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_3)]\right| + \left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_3)]-\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_4)]\right| \leq 3^{i}\cdot \delta'.$$ We show by upper bounding each of the three summands.
#### First summand.
We show that $$\label{eq:prg-lc-triangle-1}
\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_1)]-\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_2)]\right| \leq 3^{i-1}\cdot \delta'.$$ Let us re-write $g_i$ as $$g_i(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k/2^{t-i}})={h^{\mathrm{L}}}(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k/2^{t-i+1}})\cdot {h^{\mathrm{R}}}(x_{k/2^{t-i+1}+1},x_{k/2^{t-i+1}+2},\dots,x_{k/2^{t-i}}),$$ where $${h^{\mathrm{L}}}(y)\vcentcolon=\prod_{j=1}^{k/2^{t-i+1}}h_i(y) \text{\quad and\quad } {h^{\mathrm{R}}}(y)\vcentcolon=\prod_{j=k/2^{t-i+1}}^{k/2^{t-1}}h_i(y).$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_2)]&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[{h^{\mathrm{L}}}(U_{n/2^{t-i+1}})\cdot {h^{\mathrm{R}}}(G_{i-1}(U_{r_{i-1}}))\right]\\
&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[{h^{\mathrm{L}}}(U_{n/2^{t-i+1}})\right]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[{h^{\mathrm{R}}}(G_{i-1}(U_{r_{i-1}}))\right]\\
&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[{h^{\mathrm{L}}}(U_{n/2^{t-i+1}})\right]\cdot\left(\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[{h^{\mathrm{R}}}(U_{n/2^{t-i+1}})\right]\pm 3^{i-1}\cdot \delta'\right)
\tag{By the induction hypothesis}\\
&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[{h^{\mathrm{L}}}(U_{n/2^{t-i+1}})\right]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[{h^{\mathrm{R}}}(U_{n/2^{t-i+1}})\right] \pm 3^{i-1}\cdot \delta'\\
&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_1)]\pm 3^{i-1}\cdot \delta',
\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
#### Second summand.
By a similar argument, it can be shown that $$\label{eq:prg-lc-triangle-2}
\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_2)]-\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_3)]\right| \leq 3^{i-1}\cdot \delta'.$$ We omit the details here.
#### Third summand.
We show that $$\label{eq:prg-lc-triangle-3}
\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_3)]-\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_4)]\right| \leq \delta'.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_4)]&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(G_i(U_{r_i}))]\\
&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}\left[{h^{\mathrm{L}}}(G_{i-1}(X))\cdot {h^{\mathrm{R}}}(G_{i-1}(\mathrm{Ext}_{i-1}(X,Z)))\right]
\tag{where $X\sim{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{r_{i-1}}$ and $Z\sim{\left\{0,1\right\}}^{d}$}\\
&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[A(X)\cdot B(\mathrm{Ext}_{i-1}(X,Z))]
\tag{where $A(\cdot)= {h^{\mathrm{L}}}(G_{i-1}(\cdot))$ and $B(\cdot)= {h^{\mathrm{R}}}(G_{i-1}(\cdot))$}\\
&=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[B(\mathrm{Ext}_{i-1}(X,Z)){\mid}A(X)=1]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[A(X)=1].
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we get $$\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_3)]=\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[B(U_{r_{i-1}}){\mid}A(X)=1]\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[A(X)=1].$$ As a result, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:prg-lc-triangle-3.1}
&\quad\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_4)]-\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[g_i(\mathcal{D}_3)]\right|\\
&=\left|\left(\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[B(\mathrm{Ext}_{i-1}(X,Z)){\mid}A(X)=1]-\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[B(U_{r_{i-1}}){\mid}A(X)=1]\right)\cdot\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[A(X)=1]\right|.
{\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\end{aligned}$$ On the one hand, if $\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[A(X)=1]\leq \delta'$, then is at most $\delta'$. On the other hand, if $\operatorname*{{\bf Pr}}[A(X)=1]> \delta'$, then $$H_{\infty}{\!\left(X{\mid}A(X)=1\right)} > r_{i-1}-\log(1/\delta')> r_{i-1}-D'-2t -\log(1/\delta)=\kappa_{i-1}.$$ Then by the fact that $\mathrm{Ext}_{i-1}$ is a $(\kappa_{i-1},\delta')$-extractor, we have $$\left|\operatorname*{{\bf E}}[B(\mathrm{Ext}_{i-1}(X,Z)){\mid}A(X)=1] - \operatorname*{{\bf E}}[B(U_{r_{i-1}}){\mid}A(X)=1]\right| \leq \delta'.$$ Therefore, is at most $\delta'$ and this complete the proof of . Finally, note that follows from , and . This completes the proof of .
Given , now follows by letting $i=t$.
[^1]: School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada; `[email protected]`.
[^2]: School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada; `[email protected]`.
[^3]: School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada; `[email protected]`.
[^4]: Department of Computing, Imperial College London, UK; `[email protected]`.
[^5]: Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, UK; `[email protected]`.
[^6]: We remark that even a single layer of $\mathsf{XOR}$ gates can compute powerful primitives, such as error-correcting codes and hash functions.
[^7]: For a string $x \in \{0,1\}^*$, $\mathsf{Kt}(x)$ denotes the minimum value $|M| + \log t$ taken over $M$ and $t$, where $M$ is a machine that prints $x$ when it computes for $t$ steps, and $|M|$ is the description length of $M$ according to a fixed universal machine $U$.
[^8]: Clearly, the intersection of $s$ functions can be computed by an enhanced formula of size $s + 1$.
[^9]: We refer to the recent reference [@OST19] for an extensive review of the literature in this area.
[^10]: Recall that approximately counting satisfying assignments is substantially easier than solving $\#$SAT, for which the fastest known algorithms run in time $2^{(1-o(1))n}$.
[^11]: It has been brought to our attention that Avishay Tal has independently discovered a SAT algorithm for bipartite formulas of sub-quadratic size (see the discussion in [@DBLP:conf/icalp/AbboudB18 Page 7]), which corresponds to a particular case of Theorem \[thm:main\_sat\].
[^12]: It is also known that there exists a quantum query algorithm for evaluating size-$s$ formulas with ${O\left(\sqrt{s}\right)}$ queries [@Rei11b], which implies the existence of an approximating polynomial for size-$s$ formulas of degree ${O\left(\sqrt{s}\right)}$ (see ). However, because this algorithm is not known to be efficient, it is unclear whether such an approximating polynomial can be constructed efficiently with respect to the number of monomials.
[^13]: Here we define the size of a $\AC^{0}_{d,M}$ circuit to be the number of wires. Note that a circuit in ${{\sf FORMULA}}\circ\AC^{0}_{d,M}\circ\mathcal{G}$ can have $M$ functions from $\mathcal{G}$ at the bottom.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
\
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchroton DESY, 22603 Hamburg, Germany\
E-mail:
title: |
Transverse momentum of partons:\
from low to high pT
---
Motivation
==========
This talk is concerned with the transverse-momentum dependence of particles produced in scattering processes involving a hard momentum scale. Specifically, I will discuss semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering, $e p \to e + h + X$, where the momentum of the hadron $h$ is measured. Using crossing symmetry, the results can be carried over to Drell-Yan or $W$ or $Z$ production in $pp$ and $p\bar{p}$ collisions, as well as to hadron pair production in electron-positron annihilation, $e^+
e^- \to h_1 + h_2 + X$. Details can be found in the recent paper [@Bacchetta:2008xw].
The transverse-momentum spectrum of produced particles may be regarded as a basic feature of the final state. Even in the simple processes just mentioned, its investigation reveals a number of nontrivial aspects of QCD dynamics. There are two theoretical frameworks to describe the distribution of a suitably defined transverse momentum $\vec{q}_T$ in the final state. The description sketched in Fig. \[fig:mechanisms\]a is based on the “intrinsic transverse momentum” of partons within a hadron and uses transverse-momentum dependent (i.e. unintegrated) parton densities and fragmentation functions. This description can be used for $q_T \ll Q$, where $Q$ is the virtuality of the photon or electroweak boson, which I assume to be large throughout this talk. The description represented in Fig.\[fig:mechanisms\]b uses collinear (i.e. $k_T$ integrated) parton densities and fragmentation functions, generating finite $q_T$ by perturbative radiation of partons into the final state. This description is adequate for $q_T \gg M$, where $M$ stands for a generic nonperturbative scale. In the following I refer to the two descriptions as “low-$q_T$” and “high-$q_T$”, respectively. It has long been known that both mechanisms give rise to a nonzero cross section for longitudinal photon polarization and to a nontrivial dependence on the azimuth of $\vec{q}_T$ [@Cahn:1978se; @Georgi:1977tv; @Oganesian:1997jq].
![\[fig:mechanisms\] The low-$q_T$ description $\mathbf{(a)}$ and the high-$q_T$ description $\mathbf{(b)}$ for the transverse-momentum distribution of the produced particle $h$ in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering, $e p \to e + h + X$.](low-tree.eps "fig:"){width="43.00000%"} ![\[fig:mechanisms\] The low-$q_T$ description $\mathbf{(a)}$ and the high-$q_T$ description $\mathbf{(b)}$ for the transverse-momentum distribution of the produced particle $h$ in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering, $e p \to e + h + X$.](high.eps "fig:"){width="43.00000%"}\
$\mathbf{(a)}$ $\mathbf{(b)}$
Insight from power counting {#sec:power}
===========================
It is natural to ask how these two descriptions are related to each other. A first answer can be obtained from a careful look at the power counting in the region of intermediate transverse momentum, $M \ll q_T \ll Q$, where both approaches can be applied. The low-$q_T$ approach starts with an expansion in the small parameter $q_T/Q$ and involves coefficients depending on $M/q_T$, which for $q_T \gg M$ can be further expanded in $M/q_T$. For an observable $F$ with mass dimension $-2$ one thus has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pow-low}
F(q_T,Q) \;\stackrel{q_T \ll Q}{=}\; \frac{1}{M^2}\,
\sum_{\text{twist}~n}\,
\biggl[\frac{q_T}{Q}\biggr]^{n-2}\,
l_{n} \biggl(\frac{M}{q_T}\biggr)
& \;\stackrel{M \ll q_T \ll Q}{=}\; \frac{1}{M^2}\,
\sum_{n,k} l_{n,k}\;
\biggl[\frac{q_T}{Q}\biggr]^{n-2}\,
\biggl[\frac{M}{q_T}\biggr]^{k} \,.\end{aligned}$$ By contrast, the high-$q_T$ approach first expands an observable in $M/q_T$, with coefficients that for intermediate $q_T$ can be further expanded in $q_T/Q$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pow-hi}
F(q_T,Q) \;\stackrel{M \ll q_T}{=}\; \frac{1}{M^2}\,
\sum_{\text{twist}~n}\,
\biggl[\frac{M}{q_T}\biggr]^{n}\,
h_{n} \biggl(\frac{q_T}{Q}\biggr)
& \;\stackrel{M \ll q_T \ll Q}{=}\; \frac{1}{M^2}\,
\sum_{n,k} h_{n,k}\;
\biggl[\frac{M}{q_T}\biggr]^{n}\,
\biggl[\frac{q_T}{Q}\biggr]^{k-2} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The simultaneous validity of both approaches in the region $M \ll q_T \ll
Q$ implies $l_{n,k} = h_{k,n}$. The first index $n \ge 2$ in each expansion characterizes the twist of the corresponding calculation. In practice only terms with $n=2$ and possibly $n=3$ can actually be calculated.
For observables with nonzero $l_{2,2} = h_{2,2}$, the leading terms in the two calculations coincide for intermediate $q_T$, where they provide complementary descriptions of the same physics. One may then try to construct a smooth interpolation between the two descriptions that is valid at all $q_T$. There are, however, observables with $l_{2,2} = h_{2,2} = 0$, where the leading term $l_{2,4}$ of the low-$q_T$ result is distinct from the leading term $h_{2,4}$ of the high-$q_T$ result. With both calculations only performed at leading-twist accuracy, one can then add their results at intermediate $q_T$ without double counting; which of them is more important at given $q_T$ depends on the relative size of $q_T/Q$ and $M/q_T$. We will encounter examples for both cases in section \[sec:compare\].
Structure functions for semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering
================================================================
To describe the kinematics we use the standard scaling variables $x$ and $z$, the inelasticity $y$, the photon virtuality $Q$, the scaled transverse momentum $q_T = P_{h\perp} /z$ of the produced hadron in the $\gamma^*p$ c.m., and the azimuthal angle $\phi$ between the lepton and hadron planes in that frame. Precise definitions are given in [@Bacchetta:2008xw]. The unpolarized cross section can then be parameterized in the form $$\label{str-fcts}
\frac{d\sigma(ep\to ehX)}{d\phi\, dq_T^2\, dx\, dy\, dz} =
\text{(kin.~factor)}
\times \Bigl[
F_{T} + \varepsilon F_{L}
+ \sqrt{2\varepsilon (1+\varepsilon)} \cos\phi\, F^{\cos\phi}
+ \varepsilon \cos 2\phi\, F^{\cos2\phi} \Bigr] \,,$$ where the ratio of longitudinal and transverse photon flux is given by $\varepsilon = (1-y) /(1-y + y^2/2)$ in the Bjorken limit. The semi-inclusive structure functions $F_{\ldots}$ depend on $x$, $z$, $q_T^2$, $Q^2$, and the subscripts $T$ and $L$ are respectively associated with transverse and longitudinal photon polarization.
High-$q_T$ calculation
----------------------
The high-$q_T$ calculation gives the structure functions as convolutions $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\ldots} &= \frac{1}{Q^2{\mskip 1.5mu}z^2}\;
\sum_{i,j = q,\,\bar{q},\,g}\;
\int_{x}^1 \frac{d\hat{x}}{\hat{x}}\,
\int_{z}^1 \frac{d\hat{z}}{\hat{z}}\, f_1^i\Bigl(\frac{x}{\hat{x}}\Bigr)\,
D_1^j\Bigl(\frac{z}{\hat{z}}\Bigr)\,
K^{ij}_{\ldots} \Bigl(\hat{x},\hat{z}, \frac{q_T}{Q}\Bigr)\end{aligned}$$ in longitudinal momentum fractions, where $f_1^i$ and $D_1^j$ respectively denote the usual unpolarized collinear distribution and fragmentation functions, and the $K^{ij}_{\ldots}$ are perturbatively calculable hard-scattering kernels. Expanding these kernels in $q_T/Q$, one readily obtains the result of the high-$q_T$ mechanism for intermediate $q_T$. At order $\alpha_s$, all structure functions in contain a term proportional to $f_1(x)\, D_1(z)\, \log (Q/q_T)$ after this expansion. Higher orders provide terms going like $\alpha_{s}^n
\log{}^{2m-1} (Q/q_T)$ with $m\le n$. To obtain a stable perturbative result in the region where $\log (Q/q_T)$ is large, these logarithms should be resummed to all orders. We will come back to this in sect. \[sec:low\].
Low $q_T$ {#sec:low}
---------
In the low-$q_T$ description, factorization is fairly well understood at twist-two accuracy [@Collins:1981uk; @Ji:2004wu] and leads to a representation of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CS-fact}
F_{\ldots} = \sum_{i=q,\,\bar{q}}\, x e_i^2
& \int d^2 \vec{p}_T^{}\, d^2 \vec{k}_T^{}\, d^2 \vec{l}_T^{}\,
\delta(\vec{p}_T^{}-\vec{k}_T^{}+\vec{l}_T^{}+\vec{q}_T^{})\,
w_{\ldots}(\vec{p}_T, \vec{k}_T)\,
f^i(x,p_T^2)\, D^i(z,k_T^2)\, U({l}_T^{2})\end{aligned}$$ with known functions $w_{\ldots}{\mskip 1.5mu}$, where for simplicity I have omitted a hard factor representing $\alpha_s$ corrections from virtual graphs. In addition to transverse-momentum dependent distribution and fragmentation functions $f^i(x,p_T^2)$ and $D^i(z,k_T^2)$, the expression contains a soft factor $U(l_T^2)$ describing soft gluon exchange between partons moving in the direction of the target and partons moving in the direction of the observed hadron $h$. At twist-three accuracy, soft gluon exchange has not been analyzed, so that we do not have a full understanding of factorization for structure functions going like $1/Q$. However, there are detailed calculations at tree level [@Mulders:1995dh; @Boer:2003cm], which give results very similar in form to without the factor $U(l_T^2)$.
![\[fig:pdfs\] Example graphs for the calculation of an unintegrated parton distribution at high $p_T$ in terms of a collinear distribution $f(x)$ and a hard-scattering subprocess. The double line represents an eikonal propagator, which comes from the Wilson line $P
\exp\bigl[ -ig \int_0^\infty d\lambda\, n\cdot A(\xi + \lambda n)\bigr]$ in the definition of the parton density [@Collins:1981uk; @Ji:2004wu; @Collins:2008ht].](pdf-gluon.eps "fig:"){width="43.00000%"} ![\[fig:pdfs\] Example graphs for the calculation of an unintegrated parton distribution at high $p_T$ in terms of a collinear distribution $f(x)$ and a hard-scattering subprocess. The double line represents an eikonal propagator, which comes from the Wilson line $P
\exp\bigl[ -ig \int_0^\infty d\lambda\, n\cdot A(\xi + \lambda n)\bigr]$ in the definition of the parton density [@Collins:1981uk; @Ji:2004wu; @Collins:2008ht].](pdf-wilson.eps "fig:"){width="43.00000%"}\
$\mathbf{(a)}$ $\mathbf{(b)}$
To evaluate for intermediate $q_T$, one notes that for $q_T
\gg M$ at least one of the momenta $p_T$, $k_T$ or $l_T$ has to be large. In this region, the corresponding factor can be calculated using collinear factorization, with the large transverse momentum generated by perturbative parton radiation as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:pdfs\]. As shown in [@Bacchetta:2008xw], general symmetry considerations allow one to determine the power behavior at high $p_T$ for the different parton densities parameterizing the spin and momentum dependence of the quark distribution in a proton. In particular one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{power-pdfs}
f_1(x,p_T^2) &\sim \frac{1}{p_T^2}\, \alpha_s\,
\sum_{i= q,\,\bar{q},\,g}\, [ f_1^i\otimes K_1^i ] \,,
\qquad\qquad
x f^\perp(x,p_T^2) \sim \frac{1}{p_T^2}\, \alpha_s\,
\sum_{i= q,\,\bar{q},\,g}\, [ f_1^i\otimes K^{\perp i} ] \,,
\nonumber \\
h_1^\perp(x,p_T^2) &\sim \frac{M^2}{p_T^4}\, \alpha_s\;
\sum_{i}\,
[ \text{collinear twist-three distributions} \otimes K_3^i ] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $K_1^i$, $K^{\perp i}$, and $K_3^i$ are calculable hard-scattering kernels and $\otimes$ denotes a convolution in longitudinal momentum fractions. The Boer-Mulders function $h_1^\perp$ describes the distribution of transversely polarized quarks in an unpolarized proton, whereas $f^\perp$ is a distribution of twist three (involving one good and one bad light-cone component of the quark field). Explicit calculation of $f_1(x,p_T^2)$ and $f^\perp(x,p_T^2)$ reveals the rapidity divergences discussed in [@Collins:2008ht]. They have the form $$\label{eikonal}
\frac{1}{(l-p)\cdot n} = \frac{1}{n^-}\,
\frac{1}{(l-p)^+ + \frac{n^+_{}}{n^-}\, (l-p)^-}
\qquad\qquad \text{with}~~~
(l-p)^- = \frac{\vec{p}_T^2}{2(l-p)^+}$$ and come from the Wilson line in Fig. \[fig:pdfs\]b, or equivalently from the gluon propagator in Fig. \[fig:pdfs\]a if one uses the gauge $n\cdot A=0$ where the Wilson line is unity. In a parton density for a fast right-moving proton, the loop variable $l^+$ is integrated down to its lower kinematic limit $p^+$. To avoid a logarithmic divergence in one must hence keep $n^+$ nonzero (complications arising for spacelike $n$ are discussed in [@Bacchetta:2008xw; @Collins:2008ht]). The light-cone gauge $A^+=0$ or a purely lightlike Wilson line cannot be used in this context. It should be instructive to investigate how this affects formulations of QCD based on light-cone gauge. Note that in the context of light-cone quantization, configurations with $(l-p)^+ =0$ in Fig. \[fig:pdfs\]a correspond to zero modes of the gluon field.
Keeping $n^+$ finite in cuts off the region of negative gluon rapidities, where $(l-p)^+ \to 0$ and $(l-p)^- \to \infty$. This is physically reasonable, since fast left-moving gluon modes should not be included in the parton distribution of a fast right-moving hadron. The dependence of unintegrated parton distributions on $n^+/n^-$ is described by the Collins-Soper equation [@Collins:1981uk], whose solution can be written as the product of an $n^+/n^-$ independent initial condition and a Sudakov factor.
Power laws analogous to those in are obtained for the fragmentation functions $D_1(z,k_T^2)$, $D^\perp(z,k_T^2)$, and the Collins function $H_1^\perp(z,k_T^2)$. Together with the perturbative expression for $U(l_T^2)$ at high $l_T$ one can then determine the behavior of the semi-inclusive structure functions for $M \ll q_T \ll Q$. The terms going with $n^+/n^-$ in the distribution and fragmentation functions give rise to a $\log (Q/q_T)$ in the structure functions, which we also encountered in the high-$q_T$ calculation. The Collins-Soper equation allows one to resum such logarithms to all orders and is at the origin of the CSS formalism [@Collins:1984kg], which plays a prominent role in collider phenomenology. The need to keep $n^+/n^-$ finite in is thus not a mere technicality but has practical implications for physical observables.
Comparing the low- and high-$q_T$ calculations {#sec:compare}
==============================================
----------------------- ------------------------------ ------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ -------
power twist contributing functions power twist
$F_T \sim$ ${1}/{q_T^2}$ 2 [$f_1(x,p_T^2), D_1(z,k_T^2)$]{} ${1}/{q_T^2}$ 2
$F_L \sim$ ${1}/{Q^2}$ 4 result unknown ${1}/{Q^2}$ 2
$F^{\cos 2\phi} \sim$ ${M^2}/{q_T^4} \phantom{+}$ 2 [$h_1^\perp, H_1^\perp$]{} ${1}/{Q^2}$ 2
$+{1}/{Q^2}$ 4 result unknown
$F^{\cos\phi} \sim$ ${1}/{(Q{\mskip 1.5mu}q_T)}$ 3 [$f_1, f^\perp, ${1}/{(Q{\mskip 1.5mu}q_T)}$ 2
D_1, D^\perp$]{}
----------------------- ------------------------------ ------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ -------
: \[tab:power-results\] Behavior of semi-inclusive structure functions in the intermediate region $M\ll q_T \ll Q$.
The behavior for $M\ll q_T \ll Q$ of the unpolarized structure functions obtained in the low- and high-$q_T$ calculations is given in Table \[tab:power-results\]. Explicit evaluation shows that for $F_T$ the results of the two calculations exactly coincide; this is an example of the case where at intermediate $q_T$ the leading term in the expansions and goes with $l_{2,2} = h_{2,2}$. The agreement between the two calculations can be seen at the level of diagrams: roughly speaking, the graph of Fig. \[fig:mechanisms\]b corresponds to the graph in Fig. \[fig:low-qt\]a if the gluon moves fast in the direction of the hadron $h$, and to the graph in Fig. \[fig:low-qt\]b if the gluon moves fast in the direction of the target.
The leading term in the low-$q_T$ result for $F^{\cos 2\phi}$ involves the Boer-Mulders and Collins functions. This structure function provides an example for the case where $l_{2,2} = h_{2,2} =0$ and where the leading contributions $l_{2,4}$ and $h_{4,2}$ in the two calculations are different and can be added at intermediate $q_T$. From power counting it is clear that the $1/Q^2$ behavior obtained in the high-$q_T$ calculation for both $F^{\cos 2\phi}$ and $F_L$ corresponds to twist-four contributions in the low-$q_T$ framework, whose computation is well beyond the state of the art. As a consequence, one cannot invoke the CSS method [@Collins:1984kg] to resum the logarithms in $Q/q_T$ that appear in the high-$q_T$ result. Terms going like $1/Q^2$ are obtained if one calculates $F_L$ and $F^{\cos 2\phi}$ in the parton model [@Cahn:1978se], considering the graph in Fig. \[fig:mechanisms\]a with only the functions $f_1(x,p_T^2)$ and $D_1(z,k_T^2)$. However, the results do not match with the high-$q_T$ calculation at intermediate $q_T$ and can hence only be regarded as partial evaluations of the complete (unknown) twist-four terms.
If we perform the twist-three calculation for $F^{\cos\phi}$ at low $q_T$ using the tree-level result of [@Mulders:1995dh] supplemented with the soft factor $U(l_T^2)$ of the twist-two factorization formula , we obtain agreement with the high-$q_T$ result for intermediate $q_T$ *except* for a missing term proportional to $f_1(x)\, D_1(z)$. Such a term comes from kinematics where both the plus- and the minus-momentum of the gluon in Fig. \[fig:low-qt\] is negligible. This shows that, if a proper factorization formula for twist three can be established, the soft-gluon sector will have to be treated with particular care.
![\[fig:low-qt\] Example graphs for the low-$q_T$ calculation in the region $q_T\gg M$, where a factorized description as in Fig. \[fig:pdfs\] is valid for the fragmentation function $\smash{\mathbf{(a)}}$ or the parton distribution $\smash{\mathbf{(b)}}$.](low-gluon.eps "fig:"){width="43.00000%"} ![\[fig:low-qt\] Example graphs for the low-$q_T$ calculation in the region $q_T\gg M$, where a factorized description as in Fig. \[fig:pdfs\] is valid for the fragmentation function $\smash{\mathbf{(a)}}$ or the parton distribution $\smash{\mathbf{(b)}}$.](low-wilson.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}\
$\mathbf{(a)}$ $\mathbf{(b)}$
Summary
=======
The descriptions of transverse-momentum spectra based either on intrinsic transverse momentum of partons or on perturbative radiation are not disconnected. They can be related in an intermediate region $M\ll q_T \ll
Q$ by describing transverse-momentum dependent distribution and fragmentation functions themselves in terms of perturbative radiation, as indicated in Fig. \[fig:pdfs\]. Understanding the connection between the two approaches for a given observable enables one to devise descriptions that may be used in the full region of $q_T$. As shown in [@Bacchetta:2008xw], the interplay of the two mechanisms has also nontrivial consequences in observables that are integrated over $q_T$.
A varied picture arises already for the angular distribution of the measured hadron in unpolarized semi-inclusive scattering, with the results obtained at leading-power accuracy in the low- and high-$q_T$ calculations coinciding for some observables but not for others. An even richer phenomenology emerges if one includes polarization effects [@Bacchetta:2008xw; @Ji:2006br].
The calculation of unintegrated parton densities or fragmentation functions at perturbatively large transverse momenta leads to divergences from gluonic zero modes if naively performed in light-cone gauge. Proper regularization of these divergences physically ensures that left-moving gluon modes are not included in distribution or fragmentation functions for right-moving hadrons and provides a powerful method for resumming logarithms of $Q/q_T$ into a Sudakov factor. It remains to be understood how this physics can be treated within light-cone quantization.
[99]{}
A. Bacchetta, D. Boer, M. Diehl and P. J. Mulders, *JHEP* [**0808**]{} (2008) 023 \[[arXiv:0803.0227]{}\]. R. N. Cahn, *Phys. Lett. B* [**78**]{} (1978) 269; *Phys. Rev. D* [**40**]{} (1989) 3107;\
M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia and A. Prokudin, *Phys. Rev. D* [**71**]{} (2005) 074006 \[[hep-ph/0501196]{}\]. H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**40**]{} (1978) 3;\
A. Méndez, A. Raychaudhuri and V. J. Stenger, Nucl. Phys. B [**148**]{} (1979) 499;\
A. König and P. Kroll, *Z. Phys. C* [**16**]{} (1982) 89;\
J. G. Chay, S. D. Ellis and W. J. Stirling, *Phys. Rev. D* [**45**]{} (1992) 46;\
P. M. Nadolsky, D. R. Stump and C. P. Yuan, *Phys. Lett. B* [**515**]{} (2001) 175 \[[hep-ph/0012262]{}\]. K. A. Oganesian, H. R. Avakian, N. Bianchi and P. Di Nezza, *Eur. Phys. J. C* [**5**]{} (1998) 681 \[[hep-ph/9709342]{}\];\
M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, A. Prokudin and C. Türk, *Eur. Phys. J. A* [**31**]{} (2007) 373 \[[hep-ph/0606286]{}\];\
U. D’Alesio and F. Murgia, *Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.* [**61**]{} (2008) 394 \[[arXiv:0712.4328]{}\]. J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, *Nucl. Phys. B* [**193**]{} (1981) 381, Erratum *ibid. B* [**213**]{} (1983) 545. X. D. Ji, J. P. Ma and F. Yuan, *Phys. Rev. D* [**71**]{} (2005) 034005 \[[hep-ph/0404183]{}\];\
J. C. Collins, T. C. Rogers and A. M. Stasto, *Phys. Rev. D* [**77**]{} (2008) 085009 \[[arXiv:0708.2833]{}\]. J. Collins, these proceedings \[[arXiv:0808.2665]{}\]. P. J. Mulders and R. D. Tangerman, *Nucl. Phys. B* [**461**]{} (1996) 197, Erratum *ibid. B* [**484**]{} (1997) 538 \[[hep-ph/9510301]{}\];\
A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mulders and M. Schlegel, *JHEP* [**0702**]{} (2007) 093 \[[hep-ph/0611265]{}\]. D. Boer, P. J. Mulders and F. Pijlman, *Nucl. Phys. B* [**667**]{} (2003) 201 \[[hep-ph/0303034]{}\]. J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. Sterman, *Nucl. Phys. B* [**250**]{} (1985) 199. X. Ji, J. W. Qiu, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, *Phys. Lett. B* [**638**]{} (2006) 178 \[[hep-ph/0604128]{}\];\
Y. Koike, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, *Phys. Lett. B* [**659**]{} (2008) 878 \[[arXiv:0711.0636]{}\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the hope of stimulating discussion, we present a heuristic decision tree that designers can use to judge the likely suitability of a P2P architecture for their applications. It is based on the characteristics of a wide range of P2P systems from the literature, both proposed and deployed.'
author:
- |
Mema Roussopoulos\
\
TJ Giuli\
- |
Mary Baker\
\
Petros Maniatis\
- |
David S. H. Rosenthal\
\
Jeff Mogul\
title: '2 P2P or Not 2 P2P?'
---
\[sec:Intro\]Introduction
=========================
Academic research in peer-to-peer (P2P) systems has concentrated largely on algorithms to improve the efficiency [@Stoica2001short], scalability [@Malkhi2002short], robustness [@Gummadi2003b], and security [@Wallach2002short] of query routing in P2P systems, services such as indexing and search [@li2003short], and dissemination [@Kostic2003short] for applications running on top of these systems, or even all of the above [@Kubiatowicz2000short]. While these improvements may be essential to enhancing the performance of some P2P applications, there has been little focus on what makes an application “P2P-worthy,” or on which other, previously ignored applications may benefit from a P2P solution. What questions should an application designer ask to judge whether a P2P solution is appropriate for his particular problem?
In this position paper, we hope to stimulate the discussion by distilling the experience of a broad range of proposed and deployed P2P systems into a methodology for judging how suitable a P2P architecture might be for a particular problem. In Section \[sec:characteristics\], we identify some salient characteristic axes in typical distributed problems. In Section \[sec:problems\], we describe a spectrum of specific problems for which P2P solutions have been proposed. In Section \[sec:decision\], we propose an arrangement of problem characteristics into a heuristic decision tree. We walk through the tree explaining its choices and why we believe certain paths may lead to successful P2P solutions to important problems, while other paths may encounter difficulties.
Characteristic Problem Axes {#sec:characteristics}
===========================
In this section, we describe the characteristics of distributed problems we believe are important in assessing their P2P-worthiness. As seems to be the consensus in the research community [@Milojicic2002short], we identify as peer-to-peer those environments that satisfy the following three criteria:
- *Self-organizing*: Nodes organize themselves into a network through a process in which they discover other peers.
- *Symmetric communication*: Peers are considered equals; they both request and offer services, rather than being confined to either client or server roles.
- *Decentralized*: There is neither a global directory nor a central controller dictating behavior to individual nodes. Instead, peers rely on communication with each other for discovery of other peers, resources and services, and determine their course of action autonomously.
Our axes are the problem’s budget, the relevance of resources to individual peers, the rate of system change, the level of mutual trust, and the criticality of the resources handled. In more detail:
[**Budget**]{}: If the budget for a solution is ample, a designer is unlikely to consider worthwhile the inefficiencies, latencies and testing problems of a P2P solution. If the budget is limited, a key motivator in the choice of P2P architectures is the lowest possible cost of entry for individual peers, despite increased total system cost. Assembling a system from local, often surplus, components can be justified as a small part of many budgets and may be the only feasible approach.
[**Resource relevance to participants**]{}: Relevance is the probability that a peer is interested in data from other peers. If it is high, P2P cooperation evolves naturally. If it is low, artificial or extrinsic incentives may be needed.
[**Trust**]{}: Mutual distrust between peers may be essential to the problem or of little concern. However, the cost of mutual distrust in P2P systems is high and needs to be justified by specific problem requirements.
[**Rate of system change**]{}: The participants, resources and parameters of the system may be stable or rapidly changing. Rapid change in P2P systems can make it difficult to provide consistency guarantees and defenses against flooding and other attacks.
[**Criticality**]{}: If the problem being solved is critical to the users, they may demand centralized control irrespective of technical criteria. Even if P2P is not ruled out, the need for expensive security or massive over-provisioning may make it uneconomic.
We have excluded other characteristics which, while important, did not affect the decision tree as far as we have elaborated it. Among these are whether the resources are public or private, whether the resources are naturally distributed, whether the time horizon of the application is long or short, and whether participants are homogeneous or heterogeneous.
Candidate Problems {#sec:problems}
==================
Our candidate problems for a P2P architecture come from routing, backup, monitoring, data sharing, data dissemination, and auditing.
Routing Problems {#sec:problems:routing}
----------------
All distributed systems need a routing layer to get messages to their intended recipients. Routing takes on P2P characteristics when the scale is large enough (e.g., the Internet) or when centralization is ruled out (e.g., wireless ad hoc networks).
### Internet Routing
Internet routers must communicate to cope with dynamically changing network topology to determine how to route outbound packets to their destination. They are arranged into “autonomous systems” which “peer” with each other across organizational boundaries, frequently between competitors.
Routing protocols have historically assumed that economic incentives and legal contracts are sufficient to discourage misbehavior. At the application layer (e.g., Resilient Overlay Networks (RON) [@Andersen2001short]) or at the network layer (e.g., BGP [@BGP]), routers trust information from known peers. They cooperate because the information being exchanged is of interest to all peers and important to their function. This cooperation tends to fail if error, misbehavior or usage patterns cause the data to change too fast. To scale to the size of the Internet, BGP tries to limit the rate of change by aggregating routes instead of having ISPs propagate internal routing updates. Aggregation reduces the ability to detect path outages quickly [@Labovitz2000short]. RON instead gives up scaling to large numbers of nodes in favor of more fine-grained route information exchanges.
### Ad hoc Routing in Disaster Recovery
The ad hoc routing problem is to use transient resources, such as the wireless communication devices of a disaster recovery crew, to deploy temporary network infrastructure for a specific purpose. Because each individual node’s wireless range does not reach all other nodes, peers in the network forward packets on behalf of each other. The costly alternative is to provide more permanent infrastructure for all possible eventualities in all possible locations. The network is of relevance and critical to all participants, and pre-configured security can give a high level of mutual trust. Once established, the participants (humans in the crew) typically change and move slowly, and do not exchange huge volumes of data.
### Metropolitan-area Cell Phone Forwarding
Ad hoc routing has also been proposed in less critical settings, such as that of public, ad hoc cellular telephony in dense metropolitan areas. The motivation is to reduce the costs of deploying enough base stations and to avoid payment for air time where traffic does not pass through base stations. Unlike the disaster recovery problem, the participants do not trust each other, they change and move rapidly, and their local resources such as battery power are limited. In its current state, this problem suffers from the “Tragedy of the Commons" [@Hardin1968]. We doubt that a practical P2P solution to this problem exists, unless either on-going research [@Bansal2003short; @Buttyan2003short] devises strong, “strategy-proof” mechanisms to combat selfishness, or the scope of the problem is limited to close-knit communities with “built-in” incentives for participation.
Backup
------
Backup, the process in which a user replicates his files in different media at different locations to increase data survivability, can benefit greatly from the pooling of otherwise underutilized resources. Unfortunately, the fact that each peer is interested only in its own data opens the way to selfish peer behavior.
### Internet Backup
The cost of backup could be reduced if Internet-wide cooperation [@Cox2003short; @dabek01short] could be incentivized and enforced. For example in Samsara [@Cox2003short] peers must hold real or simulated data equivalent to the space other peers hold for them. But there is no guarantee an untrusted node will provide backup data when requested, even if it has passed periodic checks to ensure it still has those data. Such a misbehaving or faulty node may in turn have its backup data elsewhere dropped in retaliation. If misbehaving, it may already have anticipated this reaction and, if faulty, it is exactly why it would participate in a backup scheme in the first place. We believe that data backup is poorly suited for a P2P environment running across trust boundaries.
### Corporate Backup
In contrast, when participants enjoy high mutual trust, e.g., within the confines of an enterprise intranet, P2P backup makes sense (HiveCache [@HiveCache] is one such commercial offering). This is because selfish behavior is unlikely when a sense of trusting community or a top-down corporate mandate impose participation, obviating the need for enforceable compliance incentives.
Distributed Monitoring
----------------------
Monitoring is an important task in any large distributed system. It may have simple needs such as “subscribing” to first-order events and expecting notification when those events are “published” (e.g., Scribe [@Rowstron2001Scribeshort]); it may involve more complicated, on-line manipulation, for instance via SQL queries, of complex distributed data streams such as network packet traces, CPU loads, virus signatures (as in the on-line network monitoring problem motivating PIER [@Huebsch2003short]); it may be the basis for an off-line, post mortem longitudinal study of many, high-volume data streams, such as the longitudinal network studies performed by Fomenkov et al. [@LongitudinalCaidashort].
Although the abstract monitoring problem is characterized by natural distribution of the data sources monitored, specific instances of the problem vary vastly. A longitudinal off-line network study, though important, is not necessarily critical to its recipients, and has low timeliness and rate-of-change constraints. In contrast, an ISP may consider the on-line, on-time monitoring of its resources and those of its neighbors’ extremely critical for its survival. Similarly, the mechanisms for complex network monitoring described by Huebsch et al. [@Huebsch2003short] may be appropriate for administratively closed, high-trust environments such as PlanetLab, and they may be quite inappropriate in environments lacking mutual trust and rife with fraud or subversion; whereas an off-line long-term network study affords its investigators more time for data validation against tampering.
Data Sharing
------------
### File sharing
In file sharing systems, participants offer their local files to other peers and search collections to find interesting files. The cost of deployment is very low since most peers store only items that they are interested in anyway. Resource relevance is high; a great deal of content appeals to a large population of peers. In typical file sharing networks, peer turnover and file addition is high, leading to a high rate of change of the system. Peers trust each other to deliver the advertised content and most popular file sharing networks do not have the capacity to resist malicious peers. File sharing is mainly used to trade media content, which is not a critical application.
### Censorship Resistance
The goal of the FreeNet project [@Clarke2000short] is to create an anonymous, censorship-resistant data store. Both publishing and document requests are routed through a mix-net and all content is encrypted by the content’s creator. These steps are necessary because peers are mutually suspicious and some peers may be malicious. Peers share their bandwidth as well as disk space, which puts FreeNet on the low end of the budget axis. FreeNet is intended to provide a medium for material that some group wishes to suppress, thus data are relevant to many consumers as well as attackers. It is critical that the content in the system be protected from censorship. Published material does not need to be available immediately, so FreeNet can work with a low rate of change.
Tangler [@mazieres01short] has similar goals. A peer stores his document by encoding the document using erasure codes and distributing the resulting fragments throughout the community. To prevent an adversary from biasing where those fragments are distributed, a peer must combine his document with pseudo-randomness before erasure coding; he uses other peers’ documents as a source of pseudo-randomness. To retrieve his own document, a peer must store locally the randomness used at storage time, i.e., other peers’ documents. Although the problem lacks inherent incentives for participation, this solution ingeniously supplies them.
Data Dissemination
------------------
Data dissemination is akin to data sharing, with the distinction that the problem is not to *store* data indefinitely but, instead, to *spread* the data for a relatively short amount of time. Often storing is combined with spreading.
### Usenet
Usenet, perhaps the oldest and most successful P2P application, is a massively distributed discussion system in which users post messages to “newsgroups.” These articles are then disseminated to other hosts subscribing to the particular newsgroup, and made available to local users. Usenet has been a staple of the Internet for decades, arguably because of the low cost barrier to peer entry and the high relevance of the content to participating peers. Unfortunately, although the system flourished at a time when mutual trust was assumed, it remains vulnerable to many forms of attack, perhaps jeopardizing its future in less innocent times.
### Non-critical Content Distribution
Dissemination of programs, program updates, streaming media [@Cohen2003short; @Kostic2003short], and even cooperative web caching [@Wolman1999short] are all non-critical applications of content distribution. The problem involves content with generally low rates of change, although the participants may change wildly.
One successful application is BitTorrent [@Cohen2003short], which mitigates the congestion at the download server when a popular new program or update is posted. Its tit-for-tat policy is effective despite low peer trust, and the option of postponing download until later reduces its criticality.
Collaborative web caching, although superficially attractive, has not succeeded. As the system scales up, relevance of the content decreases, making it less useful. When the scale is small enough to make the content relevant, the system’s complexity is unjustified [@Wolman1999short].
### Critical Flash Crowds
Other specific instances of dissemination have been proposed to address flash crowds [@Stading2002short; @Stavrou2002short] which could be used to distribute critical data, such as news updates during a major disaster.
Auditing
--------
### Digital Preservation
The *LOCKSS* system preserves academic e-journals in a network of autonomous web caches. Peers each obtain their own complete replicas of the content by crawling the publisher’s web site. If the content becomes unavailable from the publisher, the local copy is supplied to local readers. The replicas are preserved using a P2P protocol [@Maniatis2003lockssSOSPshort] that provides mutual audit and repair, but this is not time critical; thus the rate of change is low. The content being preserved is highly relevant to many peers. The audit process uses “opinion polls” so that peers trust the consensus of other peers but not any individual peer. Mutual distrust is essential to prevent cascade failures which could destroy every copy of the preserved content. The automatic audit and repair process allows peers to be built from cheap, unreliable hardware with very little need for administration, which is important in the budget-constrained world of libraries.
### Distributed Time Stamping
A secure time stamping service [@Haber1991short] acts as the digital equivalent of a notary public: it maintains a history of the creation and contents of digital documents, allowing clients who trust the service to determine which document was “notarized” first. Correlating the histories of multiple, mutually distrustful secure time stamping services [@Maniatis2002bshort] is important, because not everyone doing business in the world can be convinced to trust the same centralized service; being able to map time stamps issued elsewhere to a local trust domain is essential for critical documents (such as contracts) from disparate jurisdictions. Luckily, sensitive documents such as contracts change little or not at all at very low rates, and high latencies for obtaining or verifying secure time stamps are acceptable, facilitating the development of an *efficient-enough* P2P solution to the problem.
2 P2P or Not 2 P2P? {#sec:decision}
===================
Figure \[fig:DecisionTree\] is a decision tree organizing our characteristics to determine whether a particular application is P2P-worthy. We examine our example applications traversing this tree in a breadth-first manner.
At the top of the tree we have the “budget” axis. We believe that limited budget is the most important motivator for a P2P solution. With limited budget, the low cost for a peer to join a P2P solution is very appealing. Otherwise, a centralized or centrally controlled distributed solution will provide lower complexity and higher performance for the extra money. Our tree thus continues only along the “limited” budget end of the axis.
Our next most important characteristic is the “relevance” of the resource in question. The more relevant (important to others) the resource, the more motivated peers in a P2P architecture are to participate. Applications of low relevance with good P2P solutions exist, but only where other inherent reasons for a P2P solution are strong, as we explain below.
The next axis in the tree is “mutual trust.” Successful P2P solutions with trusting peers exist, as do those whose other characteristics justify the performance and complexity cost of measures to cope with mutual distrust. Those applications with low relevance and low trust have the burden of incentivizing cooperation. While Tangler is a good example of this, we believe that metropolitan ad hoc wireless networks and Internet backup have not yet succeeded. The motivations for these applications seem inadequate to overcome the low relevance of the resources and the overheads of protecting against uncooperative or malicious peers. Where peers are assumed to cooperate, applications such as corporate backup may succeed, since corporate mandate compensates for low relevance. Unfortunately, no such external compensation appears to exist for cooperative web caching; its marginal performance benefits due to low relevance at large scales renders it unnecessary [@Wolman1999short].
Where relevance is high, the level of trust between nodes still has an impact on the suitability of a P2P solution for the application. Creating artificial economies or “trading” schemes to provide extrinsic incentives for cooperation (as in MojoNation) is generally unsuccessful [@McCoy2002short]. The overhead in terms of complexity and performance for managing mutually distrustful nodes suggests that applications will be difficult to implement successfully in a P2P system, unless other characteristics intercede to simplify the problem.
Such a characteristic is the rate of change in the system. Applications with a low rate of change, such as LOCKSS, FreeNet, and distributed time stamping, may succeed despite mutually distrusting peers. For these applications, mutual distrust between peers is an inherent part of the problem, and thus its cost must be born by any proposed solutions. The cost, however, is reduced by the low rate of change, which makes it possible to detect problems in the system in time to address them, and reduces the performance impact of the measures to protect against malicious peers. P2P applications with a high rate of change in untrustworthy environments are unlikely to succeed.
The rate of change in the system remains important even for applications in which peers may trust each other to cooperate. If the rate of change is low, then both non-critical applications (such as off-line network studies, Usenet, and content distribution) and critical applications (such as ad hoc wireless network deployment for disaster recovery and flash crowd mitigation) may succeed. If the system moves quickly, we believe that it is easier to deploy non-critical applications such as song file sharing. When the problem involves critical information that also changes quickly (as in the case of Internet routing and on-line network monitoring), the designer should consider whether the application benefits sufficiently from other features. To the degree that Internet routing is successful, it is because it is amenable to trading accuracy for scalability through techniques such as aggregation of data. If network monitoring succeeds, it will be because the natural distribution and high volume of the data allow few other appropriate solution architectures beyond P2P.
Conclusions
===========
To summarize, the characteristics that motivate a P2P solution are limited budget, high relevance of the resource, high trust between nodes, a low rate of change in the system, and a low criticality of the solution. We believe that the limited budget requirement is the most important motivator. Relevance is also very important but can be compensated for by “saving graces” such as assumed trust between nodes or strong imposed incentives. Lacking these, we believe that applications of low relevance are not appropriate for P2P solutions. Trust between nodes greatly eases P2P deployment, however there are some applications, such as LOCKSS, FreeNet and distributed time stamping, where deployment across trust domains is an inherent requirement. These applications must pay the overhead of distrust between nodes, but are feasible in a P2P context because a low rate of change makes these costs manageable.
While P2P solutions offer many advantages, they are inherently complex to get right and should not be applied blindly to all problems. In providing a framework in which to analyze the characteristics of a problem, we hope to offer designers with some guidance as to whether their problem warrants a P2P solution.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work is supported by the NSF (Grant No. 9907296), by Sun Microsystems Laboratories, by DARPA (contract No. N66001-00-C-8015), and by MURI (award No. F49620-00-1-0330).
[10]{}
D. Andersen, H. Balakrishnan, F. Kaashoek, and R. Morris. . In [*SOSP*]{}, 2001.
S. Bansal and M. Baker. . Technical report, Stanford University, 2003.
L. Buttyán and J.-P. Hubaux. . , 2003.
I. Clarke, O. Sandberg, B. Wiley, and T. W. Hong. . In [*Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability*]{}, 2000.
B. Cohen. . In [*P2P Econ Workshop*]{}, 2003.
L. P. Cox and B. D. Noble. . In [*SOSP*]{}, 2003.
F. Dabek, M. F. Kaashoek, D. Karger, R. Morris, and I. Stoica. . In [*SOSP*]{}, 2001.
M. Fomenkov, K. Keys, D. Moore, and kc claffy. . <http://www.caida.org/outreach/papers/2003/nlanr/>.
K. Gummadi, R. Gummadi, S. Gribble, S. Ratnasamy, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. . In [*SIGCOMM*]{}, 2003.
S. Haber and W. S. Stornetta. . , 3(2):99–111, 1991.
Garrett Hardin. . , 162:1243–1248, 1968.
. Available at <http://www.hivecache.com/>.
R. Huebsch, J. M. Hellerstein, N. Lanham, B. T. Loo, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. . In [*VLDB*]{}, 2003.
D. Kostić, A. Rodriguez, J. Albrecht, and A. Vahdat. . In [*SOSP*]{}, 2003.
J. Kubiatowicz, D. Bindel, Y. Chen, S. Czerwinski, P. Eaton, D. Geels, R. Gummadi, S. Rhea, H. Weatherspoon, W. Weimer, C. Wells, and B. Zhao. . In [*ASPLOS*]{}, 2000.
C. Labovitz, A. Ahuja, A. Abose, and F. Jahanian. . In [*SIGCOMM*]{}, 2000.
J. Li, B. T. Loo, J. Hellerstein, F. Kaashoek, D. R. Karger, and R. Morris. . In [*IPTPS*]{}, 2003.
K. Lougheed and Y. Rekhter. : [Border Gateway Protocol 3]{}, October 1991.
D. Malkhi, M. Naor, and D. Ratajczak. . In [*[CHI]{}*]{}, [1989]{}.
P. Maniatis and M. Baker. . In [*USENIX Security*]{}, 2002.
P. Maniatis, M. Roussopoulos, TJ Giuli, D. S. H. Rosenthal, M. Baker, and Y. Muliadi. . In [*SOSP*]{}, 2003.
J. McCoy. . Personal Communication, April 2002.
D. S. Milojicic, V. Kalogeraki, R. Lukose, K. Nagaraja, J. Pruyne, B. Richard, S. Rollins, and Z. Xu. . Technical Report HPL-2002-57, HP Labs, 2002.
A. I. T. Rowstron, A.-M. Kermarrec, M. Castro, and P. Druschel. : The design of a large-scale event notification infrastructure. In [*Networked Group Communication*]{}, 2001.
T. Stading, P. Maniatis, and M. Baker. . In [*IPTPS*]{}, 2002.
A. Stavrou, D. Rubenstein, and S. Sahu. . In [*ICNP*]{}, 2002.
I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Karger, M. F. Kaashoek, and H. Balakrishnan. . In [*SIGCOMM*]{}, 2001.
M. Waldman and D. Mazi[è]{}res. . In [*[ACM]{} Conf. on Computer and Communications Security*]{}, 2001.
D. Wallach. . In [*Intl. Symposium on Software Security*]{}, 2002.
A. Wolman, G. Voelker, N. Sharma, N. Cardwell, A. Karlin, and H. Levy. . In [*SOSP*]{}, 1999.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Florian Goertz
title: 'An Indirect Handle on the Down-Quark Yukawa Coupling'
---
Introduction
============
While the LHC and a future linear collider are expected to determine the Yukawa couplings of the heavy third-generation fermions at the ${\cal O}$(%) level, see e.g. [@Peskin:2012we; @Peskin:2013xra], the diagonal Yukawa couplings of the first generation seem to be out of our direct reach in the near future. In this paper, we will demonstrate how we can nevertheless gain valuable information about the possible size of the up and in particular the down-quark yukawa couplings in the mass basis, $Y_{u,d}$, in an indirect way. For that purpose we employ the fact that modifications of the Standard-Model (SM) Yukawa matrices that change $Y_d$ generically also induce modifications in the off-diagonal entries in the mass basis and thus lead to flavor-changing neutral currents (FCNCs). In particular, tree-level Higgs exchange can now mediate meson-antimeson oscillations. These are however severely constrained from flavor-physics experiments, see e.g. [@Bona:2007vi].
Setup
=====
We want to examine a possible misalignment between the quark-mass and Yukawa matrices. In order to keep the discussion general and to respect gauge invariance, we introduce this misalignment via the $D=6$ operators $$\label{eq:D6}
{\cal L}_6^Y =\frac{1}{v^2}\left( (\Phi^\dagger \Phi)\,\bar q_L \bm{C}_u \Phi^c u_R + (\Phi^\dagger \Phi)\, \bar q_L
\bm{C}_d \Phi\,d_R\right)\,.$$ Here, $\Phi$ denotes the Higgs doublet, which we will parametrize in unitary gauge as $\Phi=1/\sqrt 2 \left(0,h+v\right)^T$, where $v$ is the vacuum expectation value $\langle \Phi \rangle = 1/\sqrt 2\,\left(0,v\right)^T $, $h$ is the physical Higgs field, and $q_L, u_R, d_R$ are the chiral SM-quark doublet and singlets, each 3-vectors in flavor space. Inserting this decomposition of the Higgs doublet into (\[eq:D6\]) as well as into the SM Yukawa terms with couplings $\hat{\bm{Y}}^{u,d}_{\rm SM}$, we arrive at the fermion masses and Higgs couplings in the flavor basis $$\label{eq:LM}
{\cal L} \supset - u_L \left( \hat{\bm{M}}^u + \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \hat{\bm{Y}}^u\, h \right) u_R
-d_L \left( \hat{\bm{M}}^d + \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \hat{\bm{Y}}^d\, h \right) d_R\, ,$$ where $\hat{\bm{Y}}^{u,d} =\hat{\bm{Y}}^{u,d}_{\rm SM} + \frac 3 2\, \bm{C}_{u,d}$ and $\hat{\bm{M}}^{u,d} =\frac{v}{\sqrt 2}(\hat{\bm{Y}}^{u,d}_{\rm SM} + \frac 1 2\bm{C}_{u,d})= \frac{v}{\sqrt 2}
( \hat{\bm{Y}}^{u,d} - \bm{C}_{u,d})$ are now independent parameters.
In this article, we focus on the light quarks and compare our predictions with the strongest constraints on corresponding quark FCNCs available to date. The only “assumption” we make is that the Wilson coefficients $\bm{C}_{u,d}$ exhibit an anarchic flavor structure, in a sense that they feature arbitrary complex entries, up to a certain allowed scale. While a full comprehensive channel-by-channel analysis, including a detailed survey of the impact of further assumptions we could make on the structure of the dimension-6 operators (\[eq:D6\]), as well as an extension to the lepton (and heavy quark) sector, would be interesting, here we just want to point out the predictive power of the approach. A corresponding global analysis is left for future work [@GinPrep].
Let us nevertheless already note that abandoning the chosen anarchic approach by assuming a special flavor structure like an (approximate) alignment of the $D=6$ operators with the Yukawa matrices, $\hat{\bm{M}}^{u,d} \propto \hat{\bm{Y}}^{u,d} $, results in a scenario that can easily be accessed and excluded directly at the LHC. In fact, such an alignment would lead to (approximately) the same relative shift in the down and bottom Yukawa couplings. Our method thus offers a complementary indirect access to the diagonal Yukawa coupling of light quarks, given that the LHC finds no large deviation in the bottom Yukawa. In that case, which excludes large contributions from a potentially flavor-aligned deviation in the Yukawa couplings (evading FCNCs), our approach has a high power in constraining $Y_d$. In the following we will indeed assume the absence of sizable corrections in $Y_b$ of $> {\cal O}(20 \%)$ and then our predictions can be considered generic.
We thus start from arbitrary complex Yukawa matrices $\hat{\bm{Y}}^{u,d}$ in the flavor basis and introduce a misalignment with the mass matrices $\hat{\bm{M}}^{u,d}$ via the coefficients of the anarchic $D=6$ operators $\bm{C}_{u,d}$, see (\[eq:D6\]) and (\[eq:LM\]). The only restriction we impose on $\hat{\bm{M}}^{u,d}$ is that they reproduce the correct mass eigenvalues and the CKM matrix after diagonalization, [*i.e.*]{}, $$\bm{U}_L^d = \bm{U}_L^u\, \bm{V}_{\rm CKM},$$ where $$\hat{\bm{M}}^d = \bm{U}_L^d\,{\rm diag}(m_d,m_s,m_b)\,\bm{U}_R^{d\, \dagger}\, , \quad
\hat{\bm{M}}^u = \bm{U}_L^u \,{\rm diag}(m_u,m_c,m_t)\, \bm{U}_R^{u\, \dagger}.$$ The Higgs-coupling matrices in the physical basis ${\bm{Y}}^{u,d}$ are then obtained via $${\bm{Y}}^d = \bm{U}_L^{d\, \dagger} \hat{\bm{Y}}^d \bm{U}_R^d$$ and $${\bm{Y}}^u = \bm{U}_L^{u\, \dagger} \hat{\bm{Y}}^u \bm{U}_R^u
= \bm{V}_{\rm CKM} \bm{U}_L^{d\, \dagger} \hat{\bm{Y}}^u \bm{U}_R^u\,.$$ It is just the diagonal (1,1) entries of these Higgs couplings $ Y_{u,d} \equiv (\bm{Y}^{u,d})_{11}$, that we want to constrain from experimental input in the following.
It is important to note that in general one basis for the mass matrices is as good as the other, and only the misalignment between $\hat{\bm{M}}^u$ and $\hat{\bm{M}}^d$ is physically observable through the CKM matrix. In consequence, it seems reasonable to assume the most general modifications of the SM values for the Yukawa couplings in the original basis. In particular, in an anarchic approach, it would be unnatural for $\bm{C}_{u,d}$ to be diagonal in the same basis as $\hat{{\bm{Y}}}^{u,d}_{\rm SM}$. In the following section we will present our numerical results. We will first employ arbitrary complex numbers in the range $v/\sqrt 2 |(\bm{C}_{u,d})_{ij}|= \left[0,5\right]$MeV, evaluated at the low scale of the experiments, and demonstrate the correlation between $Y_{u,d}$ and FCNCs. To show that our obtained constraints on $Y_{u,d}$ from flavor-physics experiments are to good approximation insensitive to our assumptions for the Wilson coefficients, we will study two further scenarios. In the first we consider a larger scale $v/\sqrt 2 |(\bm{C}_{u,d})_{ij}|=
\left[0,0.1\right]$GeV and in the second we only put $v/\sqrt 2|(\bm{C}_{u,d})_{1,1}|= \left[0,5\right]$MeV, and the other entries vanishing, in order to demonstrate that we do not feed in special off-diagonal transitions “by hand”.
Results
=======
{height="2.25in"}
In Figure \[fig:dbbd\], we show the flavor changing combination of couplings $|(\bm{Y}^{d})_{13}(\bm{Y}^{d})_{31}|$ in dependence on the absolute value of the ratio of the physical down-quark Yukawa coupling $Y_d$ and its value in the SM (with $\bm{C}_{u,d}=
\bm{0}$), $Y_d^{\rm SM}=m_d \sqrt 2/v$. Here and in the following we scan the parameterspace uniformly in the complex plane within $|(\bm{C}_{u,d})_{ij}|= \left[0,5\right]$MeV, fixing ${\bm{Y}}^{u,d}_{\rm SM}$ in an agnostic way that reproduces the correct quark masses and mixings. We note that the crucial lower contour of the scatter plots is to good approximation independent of continuous changes of the range of the paramters, see below. It should nevertheless be stressed that the analysis is meant to examine the general picture and does not take into account all fine-tuned parameterpoints that might be possible. We also give the experimental upper limit on the corresponding off-diagonal Yukawa couplings from flavor physics ($B_d^0$ oscillations) as presented in [@Harnik:2012pb], $|(\bm{Y}^{d})_{13}(\bm{Y}^{d})_{31}|_{\rm exp}<3.3\times 10^{-9}$, as an orange dashed line (see [@Bona:2007vi] for the corresponding measurements).
One can clearly see that already deviations of the order of $10\%$ in $Y_b$ lead generically to non-negligible flavor changing effects of $|(\bm{Y}^{d})_{13} (\bm{Y}^{d})_{31}|>10^{-12}$ which are however not yet excluded by experiment. A vanishing $Y_d$ would on the other hand result in $|(\bm{Y}^{d})_{13}(\bm{Y}^{d})_{31}|>10^{-10}$. So while with current data on $B_d^0$ oscillations, one can not yet discard the $Y_d=0$ hypothesis, a modest experimental improvement in the limit of around one order of magnitude to $|(\bm{Y}^{d})_{13}(\bm{Y}^{d})_{31}|_{\rm exp}<10^{-10}$, depicted by the green dot-dashed line, could already strongly disfavor the $Y_d=0$ hypothesis. However, we conclude that current limits on $B_d^0$ oscillations are not yet capable of constraining $Y_d$ in an interesting range of modest deviations from the SM.
{height="1.89in"} {height="1.89in"}
This situation changes when we take into account Kaon physics. In the left (right) panel of Figure \[fig:K\], we show the magnitude of the real part (imaginary part) of the squared $ds$ transitions $|{\rm Re}\left[(\bm{Y}^{d\, \ast})_{12}(\bm{Y}^{d})_{21}\right]|$, $|{\rm Im}
\left[(\bm{Y}^{d\, \ast})_{12}(\bm{Y}^{d})_{21}\right]|$ versus the absolute value of the ratio of the physical down-quark Yukawa coupling $Y_d$ over $Y_d^{\rm SM}$. We also give the experimental upper limit on the corresponding off-diagonal Yukawa couplings from Kaon physics, $|{\rm Re}\left[(\bm{Y}^{d\, \ast})_{12}(\bm{Y}^{d})_{21}\right]|_{\rm exp}<5.6\times 10^{-11}$, $|{\rm Im}\left[(\bm{Y}^{d\, \ast})_{12}(\bm{Y}^{d})_{21}\right]|_{\rm exp}<2.8\times 10^{-13}$ [@Harnik:2012pb], as an orange dashed line. We note that we make no special assumption on the phases present in (\[eq:D6\]). It is evident from the plots that, while the constraint on the real part of the couplings has only a marginal constraining power so far, the limit on the imaginary part already allows the conservative estimate $$0.4<|Y_d/Y_d^{\rm SM}|<1.7\,.$$ While this is not a limit that one can not avoid via fine-tuning the structure of the Yukawa matrices, it however provides us with a rather stringent range where we expect $Y_d$ to lie, given the FCNC data. Let us stress that no other measurement so far exhibits a comparable power in unveiling information on $Y_d$. Future improvements in FCNC measurements are expected to provide even tighter constraints on $Y_d$.
Turning our attention to the up-quark sector, we note that the most promising limits from $D^0$ oscillations $|(\bm{Y}^{u})_{12}(\bm{Y}^{u})_{21}|_{\rm exp}<7.5 \times 10^{-10}$ [@Harnik:2012pb] are not yet providing strong constraints on $Y_u$. This is visualized in Figure \[fig:D\], where we show $|(\bm{Y}^{u})_{12}(\bm{Y}^{u})_{21}|$ versus the absolute value of the ratio of the physical up-quark Yukawa coupling $Y_u$ over $Y_u^{\rm SM}$. The experimental limit is again indicated by the orange dashed line. Here, an improvement of 2-3 orders of magnitude, indicated by the green dot-dashed line, is necessary in order to derive stringent constraints on $Y_u$.
{height="2.22"}
Finally, to show that our findings are robust with respect to continuous deformations of our setup, we will now study two such possible modifications [^1]. First, we will raise the scale of the operators by considering $v/\sqrt 2 |(\bm{C}_{u,d})_{ij}|= \left[0,0.1\right]$GeV. Then, in order to show that we do are not putting in off-diagonal transitions artificially in an ad hoc way, we are considering $v/\sqrt 2
|(\bm{C}_{u,d})_{1,1}|= \left[0,5\right]$MeV, and the other entries vanishing. The results are given in Figures \[fig:2\] and \[fig:3\], respectively, which contain all plots shown so far with an adjusted parameterspace, as discussed above. The plots confirm that the lower contours, which provide the important connection between limits on FCNCs and the physical Yukawa couplings $Y_{u,d}$ are rather independent of the particular assumptions on the operators.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have shown how negative search results for FCNCs transitions can be turned into valuable constraints on the first generation Yukawa couplings. While it seems hopeless to get direct information on these couplings from Higgs physics in the near future, given we find no large deviations in $Y_b$, our method provides the estimate $0.4<|Y_d/Y_d^{\rm SM}|<1.7$. To obtain statements of similar quality for the up-quark sector, some improvements in experimental limits on FCNCs are required.
{height="3.85"}
{height="3.85"}
#### Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Babis Anastasiou, Adam Falkowski, and Uli Haisch for useful comments. The research of the author is supported by the Swiss National Foundation under contract SNF 200021-143781.
[99]{}
M. E. Peskin, “Estimation of LHC and ILC Capabilities for Precision Higgs Boson Coupling Measurements,” arXiv:1312.4974 \[hep-ph\]. M. E. Peskin, “Comparison of LHC and ILC Capabilities for Higgs Boson Coupling Measurements,” arXiv:1207.2516 \[hep-ph\]. M. Bona [*et al.*]{} \[UTfit Collaboration\], JHEP [**0803**]{} (2008) 049 \[arXiv:0707.0636 \[hep-ph\]\].
F. Goertz, in preparation
R. Harnik, J. Kopp and J. Zupan, JHEP [**1303**]{} (2013) 026 \[arXiv:1209.1397 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: Note that the drastic scenario of a full generation of the mass matrices via a different source than the Higgs boson, which would lead to a vanishing $Y_{u,d}$ without necessarily introducing new FCNCs, invalidating our approach, is already highly disfavored from Higgs physics at the LHC.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper presents a non-parametric classification technique for identifying a candidate bi-allelic genetic marker set that best describes disease susceptibility in gene-gene interaction studies. The developed technique functions by creating a mapping between inferred haplotypes and case/control status. The technique cycles through all possible marker combination models generated from the available marker set where the best interaction model is determined from prediction accuracy and two auxiliary criteria including low-to-high order haplotype propagation capability and model parsimony. Since variable-length haplotypes are created during the best model identification, the developed technique is referred to as a variable-length haplotype construction for gene-gene interaction (VarHAP) technique. VarHAP has been benchmarked against a multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) program and a haplotype interaction technique embedded in a FAMHAP program in various two-locus interaction problems. The results reveal that VarHAP is suitable for all interaction situations with the presence of weak and strong linkage disequilibrium among genetic markers.
*Keywords:* Case-control studies; Gene-gene interaction; Haplotype; Linkage disequilibrium; Non-parametric classification
author:
- |
A. Assawamakin, N. Chaiyaratana, [*Member, IEEE*]{}, C. Limwongse, S. Sinsomros, P.-T. Yenchitsomanus\
and P. Youngkong
title: |
\
**Variable-Length Haplotype Construction for Gene-Gene Interaction Studies [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]**
---
Introduction
============
Genetic epidemiology is a research field which aims to identify genetic polymorphisms that involve in disease susceptibility. Usual candidate polymorphisms include restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs), variable numbers of tandem repeats (VNTRs) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). In recent years, SNPs are the most common choices due to simplicity and cost reduction in identification protocols. SNPs in diploid organisms are excellent bi-allelic genetic markers for various studies including genetic association, gene-gene interaction and gene-environment interaction. The availability of multiple SNPs on the same gene can also lead to haplotype analysis where genotypes of interest can be phased into pairs of haplotypes.
Traditional techniques for identification of relationship between a single SNP and disease susceptibility status involve various univariate statistical tests including $\chi^2$ and odds ratio tests [@Lewis; @Montana]. However, many complementary computational techniques have been developed in the past decade to handle problems that involve multiple SNPs. Heidema et al. [@Heidema] have categorised these multi-locus techniques, which are capable of identifying a candidate SNP set from possible SNPs, into parametric and non-parametric methods. Examples of parametric method cover logistic regression techniques [@Nagelkerke] and neural networks [@Ritchie]. On the other hand, examples of non-parametric method include a set association approach [@Hoh], combinatorial techniques [@Nelson; @Culverhouse; @Hahn] and recursive partitioning techniques [@Lunetta; @Bureau]. In some of mentioned parametric [@Nagelkerke; @Ritchie] and non-parametric [@Hahn] methods, pattern recognition and classification approaches have been successfully implemented as their core engines.
In addition to single and multiple SNP analysis, haplotype analysis has also gained attention from genetic epidemiologists. Haplotypes provide a record of evolutionary history more accurately than individual SNPs. Further, haplotypes can capture the patterns of linkage disequilibrium (LD)—a phenomenon where SNPs that are located in close proximity tend to travel together—in genome more accurately. Therefore, haplotypes may enable susceptibility gene identification in complex diseases more effectively than individual SNPs [@Silverman]. In lieu of this evidence, haplotype analysis should also be considered in addition to direct genotype analysis. Many computational techniques use haplotypes, which are inferred from multiple SNPs, as problem inputs. For instance, Sham et al. [@Sham] proposes a logistic regression technique that produces a mapping model between haplotypes and disease status while Becker et al. [@Becker] combine haplotype explanation probabilities of given genotypes from multiple gene or unlinked region data into a scalar statistic for a univariate test. Nonetheless, haplotypes have rarely been used as inputs for non-parametric classifiers for genetic association and interaction studies.
In this paper, a variable-length haplotype construction for gene-gene interaction (VarHAP) technique is proposed. The technique will involve non-parametric classification where haplotypes inferred from multiple SNP data are the classifier inputs. The chosen architecture for non-parametric classifier is the multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) technique [@Hahn]. Similar to the original MDR technique, the proposed technique would be able to identify appropriate candidate SNPs from possible SNPs and can be used in case-control genetic interaction studies. However, the technique would also be able to handle the situation where disease susceptibility is detectable in different haplotype backgrounds.
The organisation of this paper is as follows. In section \[sec:MDRandHaplotype\], a brief explanation of MDR and the techniques for inferring haplotypes and obtaining haplotype explanation probability is given. The proposed VarHAP technique is then described in section \[sec:VarHAP\]. The test data and their description is given in section \[sec:DataSets\]. Next, the results and discussions are described in section \[sec:Results\]. Finally, the conclusions are drawn in section \[sec:Conclusions\].
MDR, Haplotype Inference and Haplotype Explanation Probability {#sec:MDRandHaplotype}
==============================================================
MDR {#subsec:MDR}
---
MDR is a classifier-based technique that is capable of identifying the best genetic marker combination among possible markers for the separation between case and control samples. Similar to other classification systems, a $k$-fold cross-validation technique provides a means to determine the classification accuracy of the candidate marker model. Basically, the combined case and control samples are randomly divided into $k$ folds where $k-1$ folds of samples are used to construct a decision table for the classifier while the remaining fold of samples is used to identify the prediction capability of the constructed decision table. The decision table construction and testing procedure is repeated $k$ times. Hence, the samples in each fold will always be utilised both to construct and to test the decision table. The number of cells in a decision table is given by $G^{n_c}$ where $n_c$ is the number of candidate markers selected from possible markers and $G$ is the number of possible genotypes according to the marker. For a SNP, which is a bi-allelic marker, $G$ is equal to three. During the decision table construction, each cell in the table is filled with case and control samples that have their genotype corresponds to the cell label. The ratio between numbers of case and control samples will provide the decision for each cell whether the corresponding genotype is a disease-predisposing or protective genotype. An example of decision table construction is illustrated in Figure \[fig:MDRTable\]. The prediction accuracy of the decision table is subsequently evaluated by counting the numbers of case and control samples in the testing fold that their disease status can be correctly identified using the constructed decision rules. The process of decision table construction and evaluation must be cycled through all or some of possible $2^{n_m}-1$ combinations where $n_m$ is the total number of available markers in the study. The best genetic marker combination is determined from three criteria: prediction accuracy, cross-validation consistency and a sign test [*p*]{}-value. Each time that a testing fold is used for prediction accuracy determination, the accuracy of the interested marker combination model can be compared with that from other models that also contain the same number of markers. The model that consistently ranks the first in comparison to other choices with the same amount of markers would have high cross-validation consistency. The non-parametric sign test [*p*]{}-value is calculated from the number of testing folds with accuracy greater than or equal to 50%. This single-tailed [*p*]{}-value is given by $$p = \sum_{i=n_a}^{n_f}\binom{n_f}{i}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{n_f}
\label{eq:SignTest}$$ where $n_f$ is the total number of cross-validation folds and $n_a$ is the number of cross-validation folds with testing accuracy $\geq 50\%$ [@Hahn]. Among three criteria, prediction accuracy is the main criterion for decision making while the other criteria are only used as auxiliary measures. Cross-validation consistency generally confirms that the high rank model can be consistently identified regardless of how the samples are divided for cross-validation. On the other hand, a sign test [*p*]{}-value indicates the number of testing folds with acceptable prediction accuracy and hence describes the usability of the model in the classification task. In the situation where two or more models with different number of markers are equally good in terms of prediction accuracy, cross-validation consistency and sign test [*p*]{}-value, the most parsimonious model—the combination with the least number of markers—will be the best model.
![An MDR decision table which is constructed using 1,200 case-control samples. The genotype of each sample is determined from two SNPs. The table consists of nine cells where each cell represents a unique genotype. The left (black) bar in each cell represents the number of case samples while the right (white) bar represents the number of control samples. The cells with genotypes [*AaBb*]{}, [*aaBb*]{}, [*Aabb*]{} and [*aabb*]{} are labelled as predisposing genotypes while the cells with genotypes [*AABB*]{}, [*AaBB*]{}, [*aaBB*]{}, [*AABb*]{} and [*AAbb*]{} are labelled as protective genotypes.[]{data-label="fig:MDRTable"}](mdrtab.eps){width="5.0cm"}
Haplotype Inference {#subsec:HaplotypeInfer}
-------------------
With the availability of multiple SNPs from the same gene, haplotypes can be inferred from given genotypes. Let ‘`0`’ and ‘`1`’ denote the major (common) and minor (rare) alleles at a SNP location in a haplotype. A genotype can then be represented by a string, which consists of three characters: ‘`0`’, ‘`1`’ and ‘`2`’. In the genotype string, ‘`0`’ denotes a homozygous wide-type site, ‘`1`’ denotes a heterozygous site and ‘`2`’ denotes a homozygous variant or homozygous mutant site. A genotype with all homozygous sites or single heterozygous site can always be phased into one pair of haplotypes. On the other hand, a genotype with multiple heterozygous sites can be phased into multiple haplotype pairs. For example, genotype `0102` leads to haplotypes `0001` and `0101` while genotype `0112` leads to two possible haplotype pairs: `0001/0111` and `0011/0101`. Many algorithms exist for haplotype inference [@Excoffier; @Stephens; @Niu]. In this paper, an expectation-maximisation algorithm [@Excoffier] is the chosen technique due to its simplicity and implementation efficacy. Regardless of the inference technique employed, the usual result from an inference algorithm covers haplotype frequencies and possible haplotype phases of each genotype.
Haplotype Explanation Probability {#subsec:HaplotypeExplain}
---------------------------------
In a genomic region with multiple heterozygous sites, multiple pairs of haplotypes can be inferred from a given genotype. The probability of a genotype to be phased into one specific pair of haplotypes would depend on the frequencies of haplotypes constituting the pairs [@Becker]. This probability is given by $$w_{ij} = \frac{f_if_j}{\sum_{(h_k,h_l)\in H}f_kf_l}
\label{eq:Probability}$$ where $w_{ij}$ is the probability for haplotype pair $ij$, $f_i$ denotes the frequency of the $i$th haplotype, $h_k$ is the $k$th haplotype and $H$ represents the set of haplotype explanations which are compatible with the genotype of interest. For example, genotype `0110` can be phased into two haplotype pairs: `0000/0110` $(h_1/h_4)$ and `0010/0100` $(h_2/h_3)$. If the frequencies for haplotypes `0000`, `0010`, `0100` and `0110` are respectively 0.5, 0.2, 0.2 and 0.1, the probabilities for the pairs `0000/0110` and `0010/0100` are 0.556 and 0.444. Obviously, the probability of a genotype with all homozygous sites or single heterozygous site to be phased into a pair of haplotypes would be equal to one. In genetic interaction studies where the number of genes or unlinked regions is greater than one, the haplotype explanation probabilities from all regions can be combined together. An overall contribution by one sample to haplotype configuration $(h_j^1,h_j^2,\dots,h_j^{n_u})$ in a study with $n_u$ genes/unlinked regions is given by $$c_{(h_j^1,h_j^2,\dots,h_j^{n_u})} = 2\prod_{i=1}^{n_u}w_{jk}^i\frac{(1+\delta_{jk}^i)}{2}
\label{eq:Contribution}$$ where $c_{(h_j^1,h_j^2,\dots,h_j^{n_u})}$ is the contribution value and $\delta$ is defined as $\delta_{jk} = 1$ for $j = k$ and $\delta_{jk} = 0$ for $j \neq k$. In the previous example where haplotypes from only one region are considered, $c_{h_1} = 0.556$ , $c_{h_2} = 0.444$, $c_{h_3} = 0.444$ and $c_{h_4} = 0.556$. Notice that the sum of contribution values is equal to two; this reflects the fact that each genotype is made up from two haplotypes. Becker et al. [@Becker] use this contribution value in the construction of a contingency table where a $\chi^2$ test statistic is subsequently calculated. With the use of a Monte Carlo simulation, an estimated [*p*]{}-value is then obtained for the test statistic. Similar to the model exploration strategy in MDR, the process of contingency table construction and [*p*]{}-value calculation can also be cycled through all or some of possible interaction models. The model with appropriate candidate SNPs taken from possible SNPs is the one with minimum [*p*]{}-value and is said to be the best model for interaction explanation. This statistics-based procedure can be found as an integral part of the FAMHAP program [@FAMHAP].
![A VarHAP decision table which is constructed from 1,200 case-control samples. Haplotypes in the first gene are obtained from one SNP while haplotypes in the second gene are inferred from two SNPs. The table consists of eight cells where each cell represents a unique haplotype configuration. The left (black) bar in each cell represents the accumulative contribution from case samples while the right (white) bar represents the accumulative contribution from control samples. The cells with haplotype configurations $(h_2^1,h_1^2)$, $(h_1^1,h_2^2)$, $(h_2^1,h_2^2)$, $(h_2^1,h_3^2)$, $(h_1^1,h_4^2)$ and $(h_2^1,h_4^2)$ are labelled as predisposing haplotype configurations while the cells with haplotype configurations $(h_1^1,h_1^2)$ and $(h_1^1,h_3^2)$ are labelled as protective haplotype configurations.[]{data-label="fig:VarHAPTable"}](vartab.eps){width="5.0cm"}
VarHAP {#sec:VarHAP}
======
VarHAP is proposed for case-control interaction studies. Similar to MDR, the technique is also a classifier-based technique. However, instead of using a genotype data analysis as a means to identify the best SNP combination, the decision table for classification is constructed from the haplotype contribution value described earlier. As a result, haplotypes with different lengths must be inferred during the search for the best model. The number of decision cells during the consideration on haplotypes constructed from a specific set of SNPs is governed by the total number of possible haplotype configurations as illustrated in Figure \[fig:VarHAPTable\]. In brief, VarHAP would maintain the ability to find the best SNP combination while also be able to identify possible disease-predisposing and protective haplotype configurations.
Since VarHAP is essentially a classification system, the principal criterion for choosing the optimal SNP combination model is still the prediction accuracy. However, with the use of haplotype contribution value as a means for decision rule construction, an additional model selection criterion that exploits the nature of haplotype can be formulated. This criterion can be referred to as haplotype propagation capability. Basically, if a haplotype constructed from a specific set of SNPs is related to disease susceptibility status, haplotypes constructed from a SNP set which is a superset of the previously specified SNPs should also predict the same relationship. This implies that predisposing and protective haplotypes in a low-order model must be able to propagate into haplotypes in high-order models. For example, consider a single-gene problem with four possible SNPs: `X1`, `X2`, `X3` and `X4`. If haplotypes in the model with SNPs `(X2, X4)` are related to disease susceptibility, haplotypes in the models with SNPs `(X1, X2, X4)`, `(X2, X3, X4)` and `(X1, X2, X3, X4)` should produce the same result. The haplotype propagation capability, which is a dichotomous criterion, can be determined from the evidence that the sign test [*p*]{}-value and the prediction accuracy can be maintained throughout the process of model order increment. Again, in the situation where two or more models with different number of SNPs are equally good in terms of both prediction accuracy and haplotype propagation capability, the most parsimonious model will be the best model.
[lcccccccccccc]{} Model & $d_{22}$ & $d_{21}$ & $d_{20}$ & $d_{12}$ & $d_{11}$ & $d_{10}$ & $d_{02}$ & $d_{01}$ & $d_{00}$ & $p_1$ & $p_2$ & $\phi$\
Ep-1 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.210 & 0.210 & 0.707\
Ep-2 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.600 & 0.199 & 0.778\
Ep-3 & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.577 & 0.577 & 0.900\
Ep-4 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & 0.372 & 0.243 & 0.911\
Ep-5 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.349 & 0.349 & 0.799\
Ep-6 & 0 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & 0.190 & 0.190 & 1.000\
Het-1 & $\psi$ & $\psi$ & $\phi$ & $\psi$ & $\psi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & 0.053 & 0.053 & 0.495\
Het-2 & $\psi$ & $\psi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & 0.279 & 0.040 & 0.660\
Het-3 & $\psi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & 0.194 & 0.194 & 1.000\
S-1 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & 0.052 & 0.052 & 0.522\
S-2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & $\phi$ & $\phi$ & 0 & 0.228 & 0.045 & 0.574\
S-3 & 1 & 1 & $\phi$ & 1 & $\phi$ & 0 & $\phi$ & 0 & 0 & 0.194 & 0.194 & 0.512\
\[tab:2-locus\]
Data Sets {#sec:DataSets}
=========
The performance of the proposed VarHAP technique is evaluated through benchmark trials. 12 simulated data sets, which represent various gene-gene interaction phenomena including epistasis and heterogeneity, are considered [@Becker; @Knapp]. Each data set contains 600 case samples and 600 control samples. Each sample consists of 10 total SNPs from two genes where five SNPs exist in each gene. All SNPs in control samples are in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium [@Hardy]. Only one SNP from each gene is interacted with one another. The two-locus interaction models are illustrated in Table \[tab:2-locus\]. The epistatic models Ep-1–Ep-6 and the heterogeneity models Het-1–Het-3 have been discussed by Neuman and Rice [@Neuman], who also provide examples of diseases for which these models may be applicable. The heterogeneity models S-1 and S-2 and the epistatic model S-3 have been investigated by Schork et al. [@Schork]. From Table \[tab:2-locus\], if the frequency of the disease allele at a locus is greater than 0.5, the major allele is the disease allele. Otherwise, the minor allele is the disease allele. These interaction models describe disease susceptibility status in terms of penetrance. Penetrance of a genotype with a specific number of disease alleles is the probability that a subject with this genotype has the disease. The test data sets are simulated by a genomeSIM package [@Dudek] with the default setting. As a result, it is also possible to vary the LD pattern among SNPs in the same gene. This leads to two main case studies that need to be explored: strong LD and weak LD cases. In the strong LD case, the susceptibility-causative SNP in each gene and its two adjacent SNPs are in linkage disequilibrium where Lewontin’s $D'$ value [@Lewontin] is in the range of 0.80–0.95. In contrast, the Lewontin’s $D'$ value for each pairwise LD measurement between susceptibility-causative SNP and its adjacent SNPs is in the range of 0.50–0.60 in the weak LD case. In the strong LD case, an interaction detection technique should be able to identify both the actual two-locus model that directly leads to disease susceptibility and other alternative models which consist of SNPs in strong LD patterns. The ability to detect these other models is important. This is because it is not always straightforward to identify SNPs which are responsible for disease susceptibility in real case-control interaction studies. In contrast, an interaction detection technique should narrow the search to the original two-locus model in weak LD case since it is the only usable model.
[lcccc]{} & MDR & VarHAP & Correct & Alternative\
& Prediction & Prediction & Model & Model\
& Accuracy & Accuracy & Identification & Identification\
& (%) & (%) & Technique & Technique\
Ep-1 & 98.00 & 73.92 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-2 & 98.58 & 78.39 & MDR(2), VarHAP(4), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-3 & 99.50 & 87.50 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-4 & 99.25 & 78.96 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-5 & 98.42 & 75.19 & MDR(2), VarHAP(3), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-6 & 100.00 & 85.10 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
Het-1 & 93.75 & 73.29 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2)\
Het-2 & 97.33 & 78.40 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
Het-3 & 100.00 & 84.40 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
S-1 & 94.00 & 72.98 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2)\
S-2 & 97.58 & 79.81 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
S-3 & 96.75 & 79.15 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
\[tab:WeakLD\]
Results and Discussions {#sec:Results}
=======================
VarHAP is benchmarked against MDR and FAMHAP. Since the test data contains 10 SNPs, all three techniques have to explore $2^{10} - 1 = 1,023$ possible SNP combination models. An initial investigation reveals that with the use of minimum [*p*]{}-value as the sole model selection criterion, FAMHAP reports a large number of models with the estimated [*p*]{}-value equals to zero. As a result, haplotype propagation capability is also implemented as an additional model selection criterion. Further, the parsimony criterion is also utilised when there is a tie between multiple models with different number of SNPs. The results from all three techniques in weak and strong LD case studies are summarised in Tables \[tab:WeakLD\] and \[tab:StrongLD\], respectively.
The prediction accuracy of MDR is higher than that of VarHAP in both case studies. This is because VarHAP uses contribution values which are obtained from inferred haplotypes instead of inferred diplotypes—pairs of haplotypes that together describe correct phases of given genotypes—to create decision rules. Consider a situation where disease susceptibility can be determined from a single SNP where the predisposing genotype is the homozygous variant. In other words, the disease susceptibility can be described by a recessive genetic model. MDR can easily classify the heterozygous and homozygous wide-type genotypes as protective genotypes. However, VarHAP would only correctly classify both homozygous genotypes since each genotype is made up from two copies of the same haplotype: two major alleles for the homozygous wide-type and two minor alleles for the homozygous variant. VarHAP would partially misclassify samples with heterozygous genotype. This is because VarHAP identifies the major allele as the protective allele and the minor allele as the predisposing allele. In order to increase the prediction accuracy of VarHAP, it may be necessary to construct decision tables from diplotype information instead of haplotype contribution values. Nonetheless, this will also rapidly increase the dimensions of decision tables in VarHAP.
In the weak LD case study, both MDR and VarHAP are able to identify correct sets of SNPs that lead to disease susceptibility. On the other hand, FAMHAP reports both actual and alternative interaction models. This is undesirable since it would not be possible to further explain disease susceptibility from multiple candidate models in the absence of strong linkage disequilibrium among SNPs. In other words, FAMHAP is quite sensitive in this situation. Further analysis reveals that MDR is marginally better than VarHAP in two epistasis problems: Ep-2 and Ep-5. MDR correctly identifies models which contain two SNPs while the models located by VarHAP contain a few extra SNPs. Nonetheless, these two models identified by VarHAP are still useful to susceptibility explanation.
All three techniques are able to locate correct interaction models in the strong LD case study. However, only FAMHAP and VarHAP are capable of identifying alternative models. Since MDR suggests one candidate model for each fixed-number SNP set, it would not be possible for MDR to produce any alternative models. Recall that these alternative models are equally important since SNPs in the principal two-locus interaction model and SNPs from an alternative model are in strong linkage disequilibrium. This implies that disease susceptibility can be explained using either the original interaction model or the alternative models. This disadvantage in MDR can be overcome if the cross-validation consistency criterion can be replaced by other decision criteria. In this case study, FAMHAP is marginally better than VarHAP in terms of alternative model identification in three epistasis and heterogeneity problems: Ep-3, Ep-6 and Het-3. This means that FAMHAP is at its best when SNPs are in strong linkage disequilibrium. Nonetheless, the overall results from both case studies suggest that VarHAP is the best technique. This is concluded from the fact that VarHAP does not report ambiguous results in weak LD case study while is also capable of producing alternative models in strong LD case study. This is crucial because it is impossible to know beforehand whether susceptibility-causative SNPs are in weak or strong linkage disequilibrium with other SNPs in real case-control interaction studies. In other words, a technique that performs satisfactorily in both weak and strong LD cases would have an advantage over a technique that functions well in only one scenario.
[lcccc]{} & MDR & VarHAP & Correct & Alternative\
& Prediction & Prediction & Model & Model\
& Accuracy & Accuracy & Identification & Identification\
& (%) & (%) & Technique & Technique\
Ep-1 & 98.00 & 73.92 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & VarHAP(2),\
& & & & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-2 & 98.58 & 77.02 & MDR(2), VarHAP(4), FAMHAP(2) & VarHAP(4),\
& & & & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-3 & 99.50 & 87.50 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-4 & 99.25 & 78.96 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & VarHAP(2),\
& & & & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-5 & 98.42 & 75.87 & MDR(2), VarHAP(3), FAMHAP(2) & VarHAP(3),\
& & & & FAMHAP(2)\
Ep-6 & 100.00 & 85.10 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
Het-1 & 93.75 & 75.41 & MDR(2), VarHAP(3), FAMHAP(2) & VarHAP(3),\
& & & & FAMHAP(2)\
Het-2 & 97.33 & 78.40 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & VarHAP(2),\
& & & & FAMHAP(2)\
Het-3 & 100.00 & 84.40 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & FAMHAP(2)\
S-1 & 94.00 & 72.98 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & VarHAP(2),\
& & & & FAMHAP(2)\
S-2 & 97.58 & 79.81 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & VarHAP(2),\
& & & & FAMHAP(2)\
S-3 & 96.75 & 79.15 & MDR(2), VarHAP(2), FAMHAP(2) & VarHAP(2),\
& & & & FAMHAP(2)\
\[tab:StrongLD\]
Conclusions {#sec:Conclusions}
===========
In this paper, a non-parametric pattern recognition/classification technique for case-control gene-gene interaction studies is presented. Instead of using direct genotype inputs in classification, inferred haplotypes, which are obtained through an expectation-maximisation algorithm [@Excoffier], are used as inputs. Each case/control sample contributes values derived from inferred haplotypes to decision tables which are constructed and tested for all possible gene-gene interaction models. The technique primarily uses prediction accuracy obtained from [*k*]{}-fold cross-validation as a means for identifying candidate SNPs which are responsible for disease susceptibility. The technique also employs haplotype propagation capability as an additional criterion. If the selection procedure ends in a tie between two or more models with different number of SNPs, the most parsimonious model is then reported as the interaction model. Since haplotypes with different length must be constructed during model identification, the proposed technique can be referred to as a variable-length haplotype construction for gene-gene interaction (VarHAP) technique. VarHAP has been benchmarked against two interaction model detection programs namely MDR [@Hahn] and FAMHAP [@Becker; @FAMHAP] in 12 two-locus epistasis and heterogeneity problems [@Becker; @Knapp]. The results reveal that FAMHAP reports multiple ambiguous models in the presence of weak linkage disequilibrium among input SNPs while MDR is not suitable for alternative interaction model identification when input SNPs are in strong linkage disequilibrium. In contrast, VarHAP emerges as the most suitable technique in both situations involving weak and strong linkage disequilibrium. Suggestions for further improvement of MDR and VarHAP are also included.
Supplementary Information {#supplementary-information .unnumbered}
=========================
VarHAP, which is implemented in Java, and the simulated data sets used in the article are available upon request `(email: [email protected])`. In addition to the use of the genomeSIM package [@Dudek], the data sets can also be generated by a SNaP package [@Nothnagel]. Readers might also be interested in applying the techniques discussed in this article to examples of case-control data sets, which are publicly available from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium [@WTCCC].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
A. Assawamakin was supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) through the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Programme (Grant No. PHD/4.I.MU.45/C.1) and the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC), the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA). N. Chaiyaratana was supported by the Thailand Research Fund. C. Limwongse was supported by the Mahidol Research Grant. P. Youngkong was supported by the Commission on Higher Education (CHE). The authors acknowledge S.M. Dudek at the Vanderbilt University for providing an access to the genomeSIM package.
[99]{} C.M. Lewis, “Genetic association studies: Design, analysis and interpretation," [*Briefings in Bioinformatics*]{}, vol. 3, pp. 146–153, June 2002.
G. Montana, “Statistical methods in genetics," [*Briefings in Bioinformatics*]{}, vol. 7, pp. 297–308, Sep. 2006.
A.G. Heidema, J.M.A. Boer, N. Nagelkerke, E.C.M. Mariman, D.L. Van der A, and E.J.M. Feskens, “The challenge for genetic epidemiologists: How to analyze large numbers of SNPs in relation to complex diseases," [*BMC Genetics*]{}, vol. 7, art. no. 23, Apr. 2006.
N. Nagelkerke, J. Smits, S. Le Cessie, and H. Van Houwelingen, “Testing goodness-of-fit of the logistic regression model in case-control studies using sample reweighting," [*Statistics in Medicine*]{}, vol. 24, pp. 121–130, Jan. 2005.
M.D. Ritchie, B.C. White, J.S. Parker, L.W. Hahn, and J.H. Moore, “Optimization of neural network architecture using genetic programming improves detection and modeling of gene-gene interactions in studies of human diseases," [*BMC Bioinformatics*]{}, vol. 4, art. no. 28, July 2003.
J. Hoh, A. Wille, and J. Ott, “Trimming, weighting, and grouping SNPs in human case-control association studies," [*Genome Research*]{}, vol. 11, pp. 2115–2119, Dec. 2001.
M.R. Nelson, S.L.R. Kardia, R.E. Ferrell, and C.F. Sing, “A combinatorial partitioning method to identify multilocus genotypic partitions that predict quantitative trait variation," [*Genome Research*]{}, vol. 11, pp. 458–470, Mar. 2001.
R. Culverhouse, T. Klein, and W. Shannon, “Detecting epistatic interactions contributing to quantitative traits," [*Genetic Epidemiology*]{}, vol. 27, pp. 141–152, Sep. 2004.
L.W. Hahn, M.D. Ritchie, and J.H. Moore, “Multifactor dimensionality reduction software for detecting gene-gene and gene-environment interactions," [*Bioinformatics*]{}, vol. 19, pp. 376–382, Feb. 2003.
K.L. Lunetta, L.B. Hayward, J. Segal, and P. Van Eerdewegh, “Screening large-scale association study data: Exploiting interactions using random forests," [*BMC Genetics*]{}, vol. 5, art. no. 32, Dec. 2004.
A. Bureau, J. Dupuis, K. Falls, K.L. Lunetta, B. Hayward, T.P. Keith, and P. Van Eerdewegh, “Identifying SNPs predictive of phenotype using random forests," [*Genetic Epidemiology*]{}, vol. 28, pp. 171–182, Feb. 2005.
E.K. Silverman, “Haplotype thinking in lung disease," [*Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society*]{}, vol. 4, pp. 4–8, Jan. 2007.
P.C. Sham, F.V. Rijsdijk, J. Knight, A. Makoff, B. North, and D. Curtis, “Haplotype association analysis of discrete and continuous traits using mixture of regression models," [*Behavior Genetics*]{}, vol. 34, pp. 207–214, Mar. 2004.
T. Becker, J. Schumacher, S. Cichon, M.P. Baur, and M. Knapp, “Haplotype interaction analysis of unlinked regions," [*Genetic Epidemiology*]{}, vol. 29, pp. 313–322, Dec. 2005.
L. Excoffier and M. Slatkin, “Maximum-likelihood estimation of molecular haplotype frequencies in a diploid population," [*Molecular Biology and Evolution*]{}, vol. 12, pp. 921–927, Sep. 1995.
M. Stephens, N.J. Smith, and P. Donnelly, “A new statistical method for haplotype reconstruction from population data," [*American Journal of Human Genetics*]{}, vol. 68, pp. 978–989, Apr. 2001.
T. Niu, Z.S. Qin, X. Xu, and J.S. Liu, “Bayesian haplotype inference for multiple linked single-nucleotide polymorphisms," [*American Journal of Human Genetics*]{}, vol. 70, pp. 157–169, Jan. 2002.
T. Becker and M. Knapp, “A powerful strategy to account for multiple testing in the context of haplotype analysis," [*American Journal of Human Genetics*]{}, vol. 75, pp. 561–570, Oct. 2004.
M. Knapp, S.A. Seuchter, and M.P. Baur, “Two-locus disease models with two marker loci: The power of affected-sib-pair tests," [*American Journal of Human Genetics*]{}, vol. 55, pp. 1030–1041, Nov. 1994.
G.H. Hardy, “Mendelian proportions in a mixed population," [*Science*]{}, vol. 28, pp. 49–50, July 1908.
R.J. Neuman and J.P. Rice, “Two-locus models of disease," [*Genetic Epidemiology*]{}, vol. 9, pp. 347–365, 1992.
N.J. Schork, M. Boehnke, J.D. Terwilliger, and J. Ott, “Two-trait-locus linkage analysis: A powerful strategy for mapping complex genetic traits," [*American Journal of Human Genetics*]{}, vol. 53, pp. 1127–1136, Nov. 1993.
S.M. Dudek, A.A. Motsinger, D.R. Velez, S.M. Williams, and M.D. Ritchie, “Data simulation software for whole-genome association and other studies in human genetics," in [*Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2006*]{}, R.B. Altman, A.K. Dunker, L. Hunter, T. Murray, and T.E. Klein, eds., Singapore: World Scientific, 2006, pp. 499–510.
R.C. Lewontin, “On measures of gametic disequilibrium," [*Genetics*]{}, vol. 120, pp. 849–852, Nov. 1988.
M. Nothnagel, “Simulation of LD block-structured SNP haplotype data and its use for the analysis of case-control data by supervised learning methods," [*American Journal of Human Genetics*]{}, vol. 71 (Suppl.), pp. A2363, Oct. 2002.
Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, “Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls," [*Nature*]{}, vol. 447, pp. 661–678, June 2007.
[^1]: A. Assawamakin, N. Chaiyaratana and C. Limwongse are with the Division of Molecular Genetics, Department of Research and Development, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Prannok Road, Bangkoknoi, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
[^2]: N. Chaiyaratana, S. Sinsomros and P. Youngkong are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, 1518 Piboolsongkram Road, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand (phone: 66-2913-2500 ext 8410; fax: 66-2585-6149; email: [email protected]).
[^3]: P.-T. Yenchitsomanus is with the Division of Medical Molecular Biology, Department of Research and Development, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Prannok Road, Bangkoknoi, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
[^4]: This article has been accepted for publication in [**IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine**]{} on 19 November 2007.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Bar Light[^1] and Andres Perlroth[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'alphaconvex.bib'
title: |
The Family of Alpha,\[a,b\] Stochastic Orders:\
Risk vs. Expected Value
---
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Abstract</span>:
> In this paper we provide a novel family of stochastic orders, which we call the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders, that generalizes second order stochastic dominance. These stochastic orders allow us to compare two lotteries, where one lottery has a higher expected value and is also riskier than the other lottery. The main motivation for introducing the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic orders is that they allow us to derive novel comparative statics results for important applications in economics that could not be derived using previous stochastic orders. In particular, our comparative statics results are useful when an increase in the lottery’s riskiness increases the agent’s optimal action, but an increase in the lottery’s expected value decreases the agent’s optimal action. For this kind of situation, we provide a tool to determine which of these two forces dominates – riskiness or expected value. We apply our results in consumption-savings problems, self-protection problems, and in a Bayesian game.
[Keywords: ]{}stochastic orders; risk; comparative statics.
Introduction
============
Stochastic orders are fundamental in the study of decision making under uncertainty and in the study of complex stochastic systems. They have been used in various fields, including economics, finance, operations research, and statistics (for a textbook treatment of stochastic orders and their applications, see [@muller2002comparison], [@shaked2007stochastic], and [@levy2015stochastic]). In this paper we provide a novel family of stochastic orders, which allows us to compare two random variables, where one random variable has a higher expected value and is also riskier than the other random variable.
For instance, consider the following two lotteries $\tilde{Y}$ and $\tilde{X}$ described in Figure \[fig:1\].
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} \[fig:1\]
Lottery $\tilde{Y}$ yields $a$ dollars with probability $\lambda^{\alpha}$ and $b$ dollars with probability $1 -\lambda^{\alpha}$ where $b>a$, $\lambda \in [0,1]$, and $\alpha \geq 1$. Lottery $\tilde{X}$ yields $\lambda a +\left (1 -\lambda \right )b$ dollars with probability $1$. If $\alpha $ is not very high, it is reasonable to assume that most risk-averse decision makers would prefer lottery $\tilde{X}$ over lottery $\tilde{Y}$. For example, if $\alpha =1.152$, $\lambda =0.5$, $a =0$, and $b =1,000 ,000$, then lottery $\tilde{X}$ yields $500,000$ dollars with probability $1$ while lottery $\tilde{Y}$ yields $1,000,000$ dollars with probability $0.55$ and $0$ dollars with probability $0.45$. Lottery $\tilde{Y}$ has a higher expected value ($550 ,000$ dollars) than lottery $\tilde{X}$ but a high probability (a probability of $0.45$) of receiving $0$ dollars. Thus, in this case, it seems reasonable that most risk-averse decision makers would prefer lottery $\tilde{X}$ over lottery $\tilde{Y}$. Note that for every $\alpha >1$, lottery $\tilde{Y}$ has a higher expected value and is riskier than lottery $\tilde{X}$. Thus, standard stochastic orders cannot compare the two lotteries. In particular, since the expected value of $\tilde{Y}$ is higher than the expected value of $\tilde{X}$, $\tilde{X}$ does not dominate $\tilde{Y}$ in most popular stochastic orders because these stochastic orders impose a ranking over expectations to determine whether $\tilde{X}$ dominates $\tilde{Y}$. In particular, $\tilde{X}$ does not dominate $\tilde{Y}$ in the second order stochastic dominance ([@hadar1969rules] and [@rothschild1970increasing]), third order stochastic dominance [@whitmore1970third], higher order stochastic dominance [@ekern1980increasing], decreasing absolute risk aversion stochastic dominance [@vickson1977stochastic], or in the almost second order stochastic dominance [@leshno2002preferred]. In Section \[sec:2.2\], however, we show that the stochastic orders provided in this paper can compare $\tilde{X}$ and $\tilde{Y}$.
In this paper we provide a novel family of stochastic orders indexed by $\alpha,[a,b]$ where $\alpha \geq 1$ and $[a,b]$ is a subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$, which we call the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders. The family of $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders generalizes second order stochastic dominance (SOSD),[^3] which corresponds to the $1,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order. A key advantage of our stochastic orders is that they allow us to derive comparative statics results for important applications in economics that could not be derived using other standard stochastic orders.
The main idea of the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders is that the inequality $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$ is required to hold only for a subset of the concave and increasing functions (and not for all of them) in order to determine that a random variable $Y$ dominates a random variable $X$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order. In particular, the inequality $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$ is not required to hold for a function $u$ that is affine or for a function $u$ that is “nearly affine" in the sense that the elasticity of $u'$ with respect to $u$ is bounded below by a number that depends on $\alpha$ (here $u'$ is the derivative of $u$, see Section \[sec:2.2\] for a precise statement). More precisely, let $\alpha\ge 1$ and let $[a,b]$ be a set in ${\mathbb{R}}$. Normalize $u(b)=0$ for every $u:[a,b] \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$. We say that $Y$ dominates $X$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order if for every decreasing function $u:[a,b] \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $u^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}$ is convex (functions we call $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions) we have $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$. Similarly, $Y$ dominates $X$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order if for every increasing function $u:[a,b] \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $(-u)^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}$ is convex we have $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$ (recall that we normalize $u(b)=0$ so $-u$ is positive when $u$ is increasing). For every $\alpha >1$, the inequality $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$ is not required to hold for linear functions nor for a convex function $u$ such that $u^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}$ is not convex in order to determine that $Y$ dominates $X$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order. Thus, domination in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order requires that the expected utility of the “more convex” functions in the set of all convex functions be higher under $Y$ than under $X$. When $\alpha$ is higher, we require that $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$ hold for a smaller subset of functions, and thus, the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order is weaker when $\alpha$ grows.
An important feature of the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders is that for $\alpha>1$, $Y$ dominating $X$ in these orders does not imply that ${\mathbb{E}}[Y]$ has to be lower than ${\mathbb{E}}[X]$, nor does it imply the opposite. In Section \[sec:2.2\] we provide examples of random variables $X$ and $Y$ where $X$ has a higher expected value and is riskier than $Y$, and $Y$ dominates $X$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order. For instance, in Section \[sec:2.2\], we show that $\tilde{X}$ dominates $\tilde{Y}$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order for the example presented in Figure \[fig:1\].
For general random variables it is not trivial to check whether a random variable dominates another random variable in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders. For an integer $\alpha$, we provide a sufficient condition for domination in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order that is based on an integral inequality (see Section \[sec:2.3\]). Similar conditions are used to determine whether a random variable dominates another random variable in other popular stochastic orders. In Section 2.5 we study the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions that are thrice differentiable. We characterize a well known stochastic order that is based on the semi-variance functions (these functions are also called lower partial second moment, see [@bawa1975optimal] and [@fishburn1976continua]). We show that ${\mathbb{E}}[\max(c-Y,0)^{2}] \geq {\mathbb{E}}[\max(c-X,0)^{2}]$ for all $c \in [a,b]$ if and only if ${\mathbb{E}}[u(X)] \geq {\mathbb{E}}[u(Y)]$ for every $u$ such that $-u$ is a $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing function and $u$ has a positive third derivative. Thus, we characterize the maximal set that agrees with the stochastic order that is generated by the semi-variance functions (see more details in Section \[sec:2.4\]). A decision maker’s utility function’s third derivative being positive implies that the decision maker prefers positive skewness over negative skewness. This property is appealing from a decision theory point of view (see [@menezes1980increasing]).
To illustrate the usefulness of the family of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders, we derive novel comparative statics results in three applications. The first application is a two-period consumption-savings problem with labor income uncertainty. It is well known that a prudent agent (i.e., an agent whose utility function has a positive third derivative) saves more if the labor income risk increases in the sense of SOSD (see [@leland1968saving]). It is also easy to establish that the agent’s current savings increase if the labor income’s expected present value increases. We do not know of any comparative statics results for the case when both the present value and the risk of future labor income increase. We show that under certain conditions on the agent’s marginal utility (the marginal utility must be “very convex”), if the labor income risk is higher in the sense of the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order, then the agent saves more under the riskier labor income. That is, the precautionary saving motive is stronger than the permanent income motive. This result is useful for analyzing how an increase in the risk of future labor income together with an increase in the expected present value of future labor income influence savings decisions.
The second application deals with self-protection problems. We consider a standard self-protection problem (e.g., [@ehrlich1972market]) where choosing a higher action is more costly but reduces the probability of a loss. The choice whether to increase or decrease the level of self-protection can be complicated and is not monotone with the level of risk-aversion (see [@dionne1985self]). This is because an increase in the level of self-protection might increase the risk of future loss, and at the same time, might decrease the expected value of future loss. Stochastic orders can be used as a tool to decide whether the level of self-protection should be higher or lower. For a decision maker that make decisions according to the decision rule implied by the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order, we provide conditions that imply a lower level of self-protection.
In our third application, we show that the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order can be used in a non-cooperative framework as well. We consider the search model studied in [@diamond1982aggregate] and in [@milgrom1990rationalizability]. In this model, there are two players that exert a costly effort to achieve a match, and the probability of a match occurring depends on the effort exerted by both. We assume that one agent has private information about the cost of his effort. This represents a case with a long-lived agent, whose cost function is common knowledge, interacting with a new entrant whose cost function is private information. We study how different beliefs regarding the entrant’s cost function affect the equilibrium probability of matching. Under certain technical conditions, we show that if there is a shift in the beliefs about the entrant’s cost function, in the sense of the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order, then the equilibrium probability of matching increases.
The $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders are also useful in proving inequalities that involve convex functions. To show the usefulness of these stochastic orders in proving inequalities, we prove a novel Hermite-Hadamard type inequality for decreasing functions $u:[a,b] \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that the square root of $u(x)-u(b)$ is convex (see Section \[sec:hh ineq\]).
There is extensive literature on stochastic orders and their applications (for a survey see [@muller2002comparison] and [@shaked2007stochastic]). The stochastic orders we study in this paper are integral stochastic orders [@muller1997stochastic]. Integral stochastic orders $\succeq _{\mathfrak{F}}$ are binary relations over the set of random variables that are defined by a set of functions $\mathfrak{F}$ in the following way: for two random variables $X$ and $Y$ we have $Y\succeq _{\mathfrak{F}}X$ if and only if $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$ for every $u \in \mathfrak{F}$ and the expectations exist. Many important stochastic orders are integral stochastic orders. SOSD corresponds to the stochastic order $\succeq _{\mathfrak{F}}$ where $\mathfrak{F}$ is the set of all concave and increasing functions.
The integral stochastic orders we present in this paper are related to stochastic orders that weaken SOSD by restricting the set of utility functions under consideration. Third order stochastic dominance [@whitmore1970third] requires that the functions have a positive third derivative. Higher stochastic orders (see [@ekern1980increasing], [@denuit1998s], and [@eeckhoudt2006putting]) restrict the sign of the functions’ higher derivatives. [@leshno2002preferred], [@tsetlin2015generalized], and [@muller2016between] restrict the values of the functions’ derivatives. [@vickson1977stochastic] and [@post2014linear] add the assumption that the functions are in the decreasing absolute risk aversion class. [@post2016standard] requires additional curvature conditions on the functions’ higher derivatives.
The above stochastic orders are significantly different from the stochastic orders we introduce in this paper. All these stochastic orders impose a ranking over expectations, while the stochastic orders presented in this paper do not impose a ranking over expectations. Other known stochastic orders that do not impose a ranking over expectations are introduced in [@fishburn1976continua] and in [@meyer1977choice]. [@meyer1977choice] imposes a lower and an upper bound on the Arrow-Pratt absolute risk-aversion measure (see more details on this stochastic order in Section \[section:maximal\]). [@fishburn1976continua; @fishburn1980stochastic] studies a stochastic order that is based on lower partial moments. The main disadvantage of these stochastic orders is that the maximal generator of these stochastic orders is not known (see more details in Sections \[section:maximal\] and \[sec:2.4\]).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:2.1\] we define the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions and study their properties. In Section \[sec:2.2\] we introduce the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders. In Section \[section:maximal\] we compare the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order to other stochastic orders. In Section \[sec:2.3\] we present a sufficient condition for domination in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic orders, which is simple to check for $\alpha =1,2,\ldots$. In Section \[sec:2.4\] we define the semi-variance stochastic order and discuss its connection to the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order. We provide a complete characterization of the semi-variance stochastic order in terms of $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions. In Section \[sec:3\] we study the applications discussed above. Section \[sec:con\] contains concluding remarks. The Appendix contains all the proofs.
The $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order {#sec:2}
=====================================================
In this section we introduce and study the family of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders. In Section 2.1 we define and discuss the set of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions. In Section 2.2 we define the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order and provide a few examples. In Section 2.3 we introduce an integral condition that guarantees that a distribution $F$ dominates a distribution $G$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order.
The set of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions {#sec:2.1}
-----------------------------------------------------
In this section we introduce the concept of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions and provide some properties of these functions. The set of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions is a subset of the set of convex functions. We will use the set of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions in order to introduce a novel family of integral stochastic orders in the next section.
We first introduce the set of $\alpha$-convex functions.
\[definition:1\] Let $\alpha\ge 1$. We say that $u:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is $\alpha$-convex, if $u^{\frac 1 \alpha}$ is a convex function.
Notice that an $\alpha$-convex function is restricted to being non-negative. In addition, it is easy to see that if $u$ is an $\alpha$-convex function, then $u$ is a convex function so the set of $\alpha$-convex functions is a subset of the set of convex functions (see Proposition \[prop:2\]).
If $u$ is $\alpha$-convex and twice differentiable, then $u$ is $\alpha$-convex if and only if $(u(x)^{\frac 1 \alpha})'' \ge 0$. Thus, a twice differentiable function $u:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is $\alpha$-convex if and only if $$u(x) u''(x)\ge{ u'(x)^2 \frac{\alpha - 1}\alpha }\; \mbox{ for every }x.$$
The space of $\alpha$-convex functions has been studied in the field of convex geometry (see [@lovasz1993random] and [@fradelizi2004extreme]).[^4] The main idea behind the concept of $\alpha$-convexity is to parameterize the degree of convexity of a function. To see this, notice that when $\alpha=1$ the set of $1$-convex functions is the same as the set of convex functions, whereas as $\alpha\to \infty$, the set of $\alpha$-convex functions approaches the set of log-convex functions.
In the context of stochastic orders, one disadvantage of the set of $\alpha$-convex functions is that this set does not include the negative constant functions. This fact implies that the maximal generator of the stochastic order generated by the set of $\alpha$-convex functions might not be equal to the set of $\alpha$-convex functions (see Section \[section:maximal\] for more details). In Section \[section:maximal\] we show that the stochastic order generated by the set of $\alpha$-convex functions is essentially equivalent to the second order stochastic dominance.
We now introduce two sets of functions that generate the family of stochastic orders that we study in this paper. Importantly, the sets $\mathcal {D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ and $\mathcal {I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ are convex, closed and contain all the constant functions (see Proposition \[prop:2\]). We will discuss the importance of these properties in Section \[section:maximal\].
Let $\mathcal{B}_{[a,b]}$ be the set of bounded and measurable functions from $[a,b]$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$.[^5]
Fix $\alpha\ge 1$ and $[a,b]\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$. We define the following subsets of $\mathcal{B}_{[a,b]}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}&=\{u\in \mathcal{B}_{[a,b]}\;| \; u \mbox{ is decreasing}, \ g_u(x)= u(x)-u(b) \mbox{ is } \alpha\mbox{-convex} \} \\
\mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}&=\{u\in \mathcal{B}_{[a,b]}\;| \; u \mbox{ is increasing}, \ g_u(x)= u(b)-u(x) \mbox{ is } \alpha\mbox{-convex} \} \end{aligned}$$ We say that $u$ is a $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing function if $u \in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ and that $u$ is a $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing function if $u \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$.
Note that $\mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}= - \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$. That is, $u \in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ if and only if $-u\in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$.
The following Proposition provides some properties of $[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $[a,b]$-concave increasing functions that will be used in the next sections.
\[prop:2\] The following properties hold:
1. $\mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ are convex cones and are closed in the pointwise topology.
2. Let $\beta>\alpha$, then $\mathcal{D}_{\beta,[a,b]} \subseteq \mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]} $. (Similarly, $\mathcal{I}_{\beta,[a,b]} \subseteq \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]} $.) In particular, if $u\in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$, then $u$ is convex for all $\alpha>1$.
3. If $u\in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ then for every $c\in {\mathbb{R}}$, the function $g_c(x):=u(x+c)$ is in $\mathcal{D}_{\alpha_{[a+c,b+c]}}$. (Similarly, if $u\in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ then for every $c\in {\mathbb{R}}$, the function $g_c(x):=u(x+c)$ is in $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha_{[a+c,b+c]}}$.)
4. Consider $u\in D_{\alpha,[a,b]}$, twice differentiable with a continuous second derivative on $[a,b]$.[^6] Then, $u'(b)=0$.
5. For $\alpha>1$, the sets $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ and $ \mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ do not contain linear functions that are not constants. Moreover, $u\in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}} \cap \mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ if and only if $u$ is a constant function.
The family of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic orders {#sec:2.2}
----------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we introduce the family of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders.
The family of $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders generalizes second order stochastic dominance (SOSD), which corresponds to the $1,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order. The idea of the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders is that the inequality $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$ is required to hold only for a subset of the concave and increasing functions (and not for all of them) in order to determine that a random variable $Y$ dominates a random variable $X$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order. The inequality $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$ is required to hold for all the functions that belong to the set $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$.
Fix $\alpha\ge1$ and $a<b$. Let $F$ and $G$ be two cumulative distribution functions on $[a,b]$.[^7]
1. We say that $F$ dominates $G$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order, denoted by $F \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} G$, if for every $u\in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ we have $$\int_a^b u(x) dF(x)\ge \int_a^b u(x)dG(x).$$
2. We say that $F$ dominates $G$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order, denoted by $F \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-I} G$, if for every $u\in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ we have $$\int_a^b u(x) dF(x)\ge \int_a^b u(x)dG(x).$$
For two random variables $X$ and $Y$ with distribution functions $F$ and $G$, respectively, we write $X \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} Y$ if and only if $F \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} G$, and $X \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-I} Y$ if and only if $F \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-I} G$.
The $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders introduced in this paper differ significantly from other popular stochastic orders studied in the previous literature. The reason for the difference is that the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order [*rules out linear functions*]{}: a linear function is $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing if and only if $\alpha=1$ (see Proposition \[prop:2\]). For $\alpha=1$, the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order is the same as SOSD. However, for $\alpha>1$, the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order is weaker than SOSD in the sense that if $X$ dominates $Y$ in the SOSD, then $X$ dominates $Y$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order but the converse is not true. The $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order does not necessarily imply a ranking over the expected value of the distributions: $F$ can dominate $G$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order and still have a lower expected value (see the examples below). This key feature is critical in the applications that we study in Section \[sec:3\]. It allows us to derive novel comparative statics results that are not possible using other stochastic orders.
When $\alpha$ increases there are fewer decision makers that need to prefer $Y$ to $X$ in order to conclude that $Y$ dominates $X$ in the $\alpha ,[a ,b]$-concave stochastic order. That is, for $\alpha _{2} >\alpha _{1}$ we have $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha _{2} ,[a ,b]} \subset \mathcal{I}_{\alpha _{1} ,[a ,b]}$ (see Proposition \[prop:2\]). Informally, the decision makers $u \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha _{1} ,[a ,b]}\backslash \mathcal{I}_{\alpha _{2} ,[a ,b]}$ that are excluded from the set $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha _{1} ,[a ,b]}$ when using the $\alpha_{2},[a ,b]$-concave stochastic order instead of using the $\alpha _{1},[a,b]$-concave stochastic order are the decision makers that are the closest to being risk neutral in the set $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha _{1} ,[a ,b]}$. In other words, the decision makers $u \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha _{1} ,[a ,b]}\backslash \mathcal{I}_{\alpha _{2} ,[a ,b]}$ have the least concave function in the set $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha _{1} ,[a ,b]}$ where the degree of concavity is measured by the elasticity of the marginal utility function with respect to the utility function. To see this, note that for a twice continuously differentiable function $u$, we have $u \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a ,b]}$ if and only if $$\frac{\partial \ln (u^{ \prime }(x))}{ \partial \ln (u(b) -u(x))} =-\frac{(u(b) -u(x))u^{ \prime \prime }(x)}{\left (u^{ \prime }(x)\right )^{2}} \geq \frac{\alpha -1}{\alpha } \label{Ineq: p-convex}$$ for all $x \in (a ,b)$. That is, the elasticity of the marginal utility function with respect to the utility function is bounded below by $(\alpha -1)/\alpha $.[^8] The elasticity of $u^{\prime}$ with respect to $u$ is natural measure of the convexity of $u$. When the elasticity at a point $x$ is $0$, then $u$ is essentially linear around $x$. When the the elasticity at a point $x$ is large then the concavity of $u$ around $x$ is large. When $\alpha $ is higher, the effect of a change in the utility function on the marginal utility function is bounded below uniformly by a higher number.
The following examples show that the family of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders allows us to compare lotteries that are not comparable by other popular stochastic orders. In particular, the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders can compare two lotteries, where one lottery has a higher expected value and is also riskier than the other lottery. In Example \[Example 1\] we show that $Y \succeq _{\alpha ,[a ,b] -I}X$ for the random variables in Figure \[fig:1\] (see Section 1). We provide two more examples of random variables $X$ and $Y$ where $X$ has a higher expected value and is riskier than $Y$, and $Y$ dominates $X$ in the $\alpha ,[a ,b]$-concave stochastic order. The second example involves compound lotteries and the third example involves a uniform distribution.
\[Example 1\] Consider two lotteries $X$ and $Y$. Lottery $X$ yields $a$ dollars with probability $\lambda^{\alpha}$ and $b$ dollars with probability $1 -\lambda^{\alpha }$ where $b>a$ and $\alpha \geq 1$. Lottery $Y$ yields $\lambda a +\left (1 -\lambda \right )b$ dollars with probability $1$. Then $Y \succeq _{\alpha ,[a ,b] -I}X$.
Let $u \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a ,b]}$, $0 <\lambda <1$ and $\alpha \geq 1$. The $\alpha $-convexity of $u\left (b\right ) -u\left (x\right )$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
\left [u\left (b\right ) -u\left (\lambda a +\left (1 -\lambda \right )b\right )\right ]^{\frac{1}{\alpha }} & \leq \lambda \left [u\left (b\right ) -u\left (a\right )\right ]^{\frac{1}{\alpha }} +\left (1 -\lambda \right )\left [u\left (b\right ) -u\left (b\right )\right ]^{\frac{1}{\alpha }} \\
& \Leftrightarrow \left .u\left (b\right ) -u\left (\lambda a +\left (1 -\lambda \right )b\right )\right . \leq \lambda ^{\alpha }u\left (b\right ) -\lambda ^{\alpha }u\left (a\right ) \\
& \Leftrightarrow \lambda ^{\alpha }u\left (a\right ) +\left (1 -\lambda ^{\alpha }\right )u\left (b\right ) \leq u\left (\lambda a +\left (1 -\lambda \right )b\right ) \\
& \Leftrightarrow \int _{a}^{b}u\left (x\right )dG(x) \leq \int _{a}^{b}u\left (x\right )dF(x)\end{aligned}$$where $F$ is the distribution function of $Y$ and $G$ is the distribution function of $X$. We conclude that $Y \succeq _{\alpha ,[a ,b] -I}X$.[^9]
(Compound lotteries). Consider two lotteries $Y$ and $X$. Lottery $Y$ yields $x_{i} : =\lambda _{i}a +\left (1 -\lambda _{i}\right )b$ with probability $0 <p_{i} <1$, $i =1 ,\ldots ,n$ where $0 <\lambda _{1} <\ldots <\lambda _{n} <1$. Lottery $X$ yields $a$ with probability $\sum _{i}p_{i}\lambda _{i}^{\alpha }$ and $b$ with probability $1 -\sum _{i}p_{i}\lambda _{i}^{\alpha }$. We show that $Y \succeq _{\alpha ,[a ,b] -I}X$.
Let $u \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a ,b]}$, $0 <\lambda <1$ and $\alpha \geq 1$. From Example \[Example 1\] we have $$u\left (x_{i}\right ) \geq \lambda _{i}^{\alpha }u(a) +\left (1 -\lambda _{i}^{\alpha }\right )u(b)$$ for all $0 <\lambda <1$. Multiplying each side of the last inequality by $p_{i}$ for $i =1 ,\ldots ,n$ and summing the inequalities yield $$\begin{aligned}
\sum _{i =1}^{n}p_{i}u\left (x_{i}\right ) & \geq \sum _{i =1}^{n}\left (p_{i}\lambda _{i}^{\alpha }u(a) +p_{i}u(b) -p_{i}\lambda _{i}^{a}u\left (b\right )\right ) \\
& \Leftrightarrow \sum _{i =1}^{n}p_{i}u\left (x_{i}\right ) \geq \sum _{i =1}^{n}p_{i}\lambda _{i}^{\alpha }u\left (a\right ) +\left (1 -\sum _{i =1}^{n}p_{i}\lambda _{i}^{\alpha }\right )u\left (b\right ) \\
& \Leftrightarrow \int _{a}^{b}u(x)dF(x) \geq \int _{a}^{b}u\left (x\right )dG(x)\end{aligned}$$ where $F$ is the distribution function of $Y$ and $G$ is the distribution function of $X$. We conclude that $Y \succeq _{\alpha ,[a ,b] -I}X$.
(Uniform distribution). Consider two lotteries $Y$ and $X$. Lottery $X$ yields $a$ dollars with probability $\frac{1}{\alpha +1}$ and $b$ dollars with probability $\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +1}$ where $b >a$ and $\alpha \geq 1$. Lottery $Y$ is uniformly distributed on $[a ,b]$. We claim that $Y \succeq _{\alpha ,[a ,b] -I}X$.
From Example \[Example 1\], for any $u \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a ,b]}$ and $\alpha \geq 1$ we have $$u\left (\lambda a +\left (1 -\lambda \right )b\right ) \geq \lambda ^{\alpha }u(a) +\left (1 -\lambda ^{\alpha }\right )u(b)$$ for all $0 <\lambda <1$. Integrating both sides yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int _{0}^{1}u\left (\lambda a +\left (1 -\lambda \right )b\right )d\lambda & \geq u(a)\int _{0}^{1}\lambda ^{\alpha }d\lambda +u\left (b\right )\int _{0}^{1}\left (1 -\lambda ^{\alpha }\right )d\lambda \\
& \Leftrightarrow \frac{1}{b -a}\int _{a}^{b}u(x)dx \geq \frac{1}{\alpha +1}u(a) +\frac{\alpha }{a +1}u(b) \\
& \Leftrightarrow \int _{a}^{b}u(x)dF(x) \geq \int _{a}^{b}u\left (x\right )dG(x)\end{aligned}$$ where $F$ is the distribution function of $Y$ and $G$ is the distribution function of $X$. We conclude that $Y \succeq _{\alpha ,[a ,b] -I}X$.
For general distribution functions $F$ and $G$ it is not trivial to check whether $F$ dominates $G$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing or $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders. In Section \[sec:2.3\] we provide a sufficient condition which guarantees that $F$ dominates $G$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order in the case that $\alpha$ is an integer.
We now prove some properties of the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders.
\[prop:2.5\] The following properties hold:
1. $F\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} G$ if and only if $G \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-I} F$ .
2. Let $\beta>\alpha$, if $F \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D}G$ then $F\succeq_{\beta,[a,b]-D}G$. In particular if $F\succeq_{1,[a,b]-D}G$, then $F\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} G$. Similarly, if $F \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-I}G$ then $F\succeq_{\beta,[a,b]-I}G$. In particular, $F\succeq_{1,[a,b]-I}G$, implies $F\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-I} G$. That is, the $\alpha ,[a,b]$-concave order is weaker than the second order stochastic dominance for every $\alpha > 1$.
3. Suppose that $X\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D}Y$. Then $X+c\succeq_{\alpha,[a+c,b+c]-D}Y+c$ for every $c\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Similarly, $X\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-I}Y$ implies $X+c\succeq_{\alpha,[a+c,b+c]-I}Y+c$ for every $c\in {\mathbb{R}}$.
4. Suppose that $F$ and $G$ are distributions on $[a,b]$. Then for every $b'\ge b$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F \succeq_{\alpha,[a,b']-D} G &\Longrightarrow F\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} G \\
F \succeq_{\alpha,[a,b']-I} G &\Longrightarrow F\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-I} G.
\end{aligned}$$
The maximal generator and other stochastic orders {#section:maximal}
-------------------------------------------------
In this section we discuss the maximal generator of an integral stochastic order and discuss other stochastic orders that do not impose a ranking over the expectations of the random variables in consideration. We now define the maximal generator of an integral stochastic order.
Define $F \succeq _{\mathfrak{F}}G$ if $$\int _{a}^{b}u(x)dF(x) \geq \int _{a}^{b}u(x)dG(x)$$ for all $u \in \mathfrak{F}$ where $\mathfrak{F}\subseteq\mathcal{B}_{[a,b]}$. The stochastic order $\succeq _{\mathfrak{F}}$ is called an integral stochastic order.
The maximal generator $R_{\mathfrak{F}}$ of the integral stochastic order $ \succeq _{\mathfrak{F}}$ is the set of all functions $u$ with the property that $F \succeq _{\mathfrak{F}}G$ implies $$\int _{a}^{b}u(x)dF(x) \geq \int _{a}^{b}u(x)dG(x).$$
[@muller1997stochastic] studies the properties of the maximal generator. In our context, Muller’s results imply that the following Proposition holds.
\[Prop: maximal generator\] (Corollary 3.8 in [@muller1997stochastic]). Suppose that $\mathfrak{F}$ is a convex cone containing the constant functions and is closed under pointwise convergence. Then $R_{\mathfrak{F}}=\mathfrak{F}$.
From a decision theory point view, when using a stochastic order to determine whether a random variable is better or riskier than another random variable, it is important to characterize the maximal generator. If the maximal generator is not known, it is not clear what utility functions are under consideration when deciding if a random variable is better or riskier than another random variable.
From Proposition \[prop:2\], we have that $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ is a convex cone that is closed in the topology of pointwise convergence. Also, the set $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ contains all the constant functions. Hence, from Proposition \[Prop: maximal generator\] we conclude that the maximal generator of the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order $\succeq_{ {\alpha, [a,b]}-D }$ is the set $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}} $. Similarly, the maximal generator of the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order $\succeq_{ {\alpha, [a,b]}-D }$ is the set $\mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$.
We now discuss one known stochastic order that does not impose a ranking over expectations: SOSD with respect to a function. This stochastic order was studied in [@meyer1977second]. Let $k:[a,b] \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ be a strictly increasing function. Meyer shows that $$\int _{a}^{c}\left (F \left (x\right ) -G(x)\right )dk(x) \leq 0$$ for all $c \in [a ,b]$ if and only if $\int _{a}^{b}u(x)dF(x) \geq \int _{a}^{b}u\left (x\right )dG(x)$ for all functions $u:[a,b] \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$-\frac{u^{ \prime \prime }}{u^{ \prime }} \geq -\frac{k^{ \prime \prime }}{k^{ \prime }}.$$
Although SOSD with respect to a function is easy to characterize, its downside is that the maximal generator of this stochastic order is unknown. For some functions $k$ the set of functions that satisfy $-\frac{u^{ \prime \prime }}{u^{ \prime }} \geq -\frac{k^{ \prime \prime }}{k^{ \prime }}$ does not include the constant functions. This can significantly affect the maximal generator, as the following example shows.
We now show that a stochastic order that is based on the $\alpha$-convex and decreasing functions is not a useful stochastic order. The reason is that the maximal generator of this stochastic order includes all the convex, positive, differentiable and decreasing functions (see Proposition \[prop:alpha-maximal\] below).
Consider two distributions $F$ and $G$ on $[a,b]$. We say that $F$ dominates $G$ in the $\alpha$-convex stochastic order, denoted by $F\succeq_{\alpha-DCX}G$, if for every decreasing and $\alpha$-convex function $u:[a,b] \to {\mathbb{R}}_+$, we have $$\int_a^b u(x) dF(x) \ge \int_a^b u(x) dG(x)\;.$$
Notice that the functions under consideration in this order have a constraint over the range: every function $u$ has to be non-negative.
\[prop:alpha-maximal\] Let $\alpha > 1$. Then $F \succeq_{\alpha-DCX} G$ implies that for every convex and decreasing function $u:[a,b] \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ such that $u'(a)$ exists and is finite we have $$\int_a^b u(x) dF(x) \ge \int_a^b u(x) dG(x).$$
The above proposition shows that the $\alpha$-convex stochastic order is essentially the same as the well studied convex and decreasing stochastic order. Note that the set of decreasing $\alpha$-convex functions is a closed convex cone that is a strict subset of the set of decreasing convex functions. This, nevertheless, is not a contradiction of Proposition \[Prop: maximal generator\], because negative constant functions do not belong to the set of $\alpha$-convex functions. This fact also explains the proof of Proposition \[Prop: maximal generator\]. Informally, for every convex function $u$ a constant $c > 0$ exists such that $u+c$ is essentially $\alpha$-convex.
The above discussion is the reason that we introduce the sets of functions $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ and $\mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}} $ which include all the constant functions. One limitation of these sets is that if $u \in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ and $u$ is twice differentiable, then $u'(b)=0$ (see Proposition \[prop:2\]). That is, the decision makers under consideration when comparing two random variables have a $0$ marginal utility at the point $b$. One way to overcome this is to choose a large $b'$ such that it is plausible to assume that $u'(b^{\prime})=0$. Then, if $F$ and $G$ are distributions on $[a,b]$, we can use the fact that $F \succeq_{\alpha,[a,b']-D} G \Longrightarrow F\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} G$ (see Proposition \[prop:2.5\]) to conclude that $F\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} G$.
A sufficient condition for domination in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order {#sec:2.3}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we present a simple integral condition to check whether a distribution $F$ dominates a distribution $G$ in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order.
We introduce a new stochastic order $\succeq_{n,[a,b]-S}$ for $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, which we call the $n,[a,b]$-sufficient stochastic order.
Consider two distributions $F$ and $G$ over $[a,b]$. We say that $F$ dominates $G$ in the $n,[a,b]$-sufficient stochastic order, and write $F \succeq_{n,[a,b]-S} G$ for $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, if and only if for all $c =(c_{1} , . . . ,c_{n})\in [a,b]^n$, $$\int_a^b \prod_{i=1}^n \max\{c_i-x,0\} dF(x) \ge \int_a^b \prod_{i=1}^n \max\{c_i-x,0\} dG(x)\;.$$
Note that $F$ dominates $G$ in the $1,[a,b]$-sufficient stochastic order if and only if the following condition holds: $$\mbox{for every } c \in[a,b], \; \int_a^b \max\{c-x,0\} dF(x) \ge \int_a^b \max\{c-x,0\} dG(x)\;.$$ That is, $F$ dominates $G$ in the $1,[a,b]$-sufficient stochastic order if the integral of every piecewise linear function $\max\{c-x,0\}$ under the distribution function $F$ is higher than under the distribution function $G$. It is well known that this is equivalent to the condition that $\int_{a}^{b}u(x)dF(x) \ge \int_{a}^{b}u(x)dG(x)$ for every convex and decreasing function $u$ (for example, see Theorem 1.5.7. in [@muller2002comparison]).
That is, we have $$\begin{aligned}
F\succeq_{1,[a,b]-D} G &\iff \mbox{for every } c \in[a,b], \; \int_a^b \max\{c-x,0\} dF(x) \ge \int_a^b \max\{c-x,0\} dG(x)\\& \iff \mbox{for every } c \in[a,b], \; \int_a^{c} F(x)dx \ge \int_a^{c} G(x)dx \;.\end{aligned}$$
The main result of this section is an extension of the result above. We show that if $F$ dominates $G$ in the $n,[a,b]$-sufficient stochastic order, then $F$ dominates $G$ in the $n,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
\[prop:3\] Consider two distributions $F$ and $G$ over $[a,b]$. If $F$ dominates $G$ in the $n,[a,b]$-sufficient stochastic order, then $F$ dominates $G$ in the $n,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order. That is, for every $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ if $F \succeq _{n,[a,b]-S}G$ then $F\succeq_{n,[a,b]-D} G$.
Note that for $n>1$ the converse of Proposition \[prop:3\] does not hold. That is, $F\succeq_{n,[a,b]-D} G$ does not imply $F\succeq_{n,[a,b]-S} G$. For example, for $n=2$ it can be checked that the function $\max\{c_{1}-x,0\}\max\{c_{2}-x,0\}$ is not a $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing function for $c_{2} \neq c_{1}$. Since the maximal generator of the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order is the set of $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions (see Section \[section:maximal\]) we conclude that $F\succeq_{2,[a,b]-D} G$ does not imply $F\succeq_{2,[a,b]-S} G$. In Section \[sec:2.4\] we fully characterize the stochastic order that is generated by the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions with a negative third derivative.
To show the usefulness of the $n,[a,b]$-sufficient stochastic order, we study the case of $n=2$. We provide a sufficient condition that ensures that $F$ dominates $G$ in the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order by applying Proposition \[prop:3\]. Checking this condition is as straightforward as evaluating simple integrals. Similar conditions are used to determine if $F$ dominates $G$ in other popular stochastic orders such as the second order stochastic dominance and the third order stochastic dominance.
\[prop:4\] Consider two distributions $F$ and $G$ over $[a,b]$. We have that $F\succeq_{2,[a,b]-S} G$ if and only if for all $c\in [a,b]$ the following two inequalities hold: $$\begin{aligned}
& (b-c)\bigg[\int_a^{c} F(x) dx -\int_a^{c} G(x) dx \bigg] + 2\int_a^{c} \bigg(\int_a^x F(z)dz-\int_a^x G(z)dz\bigg)dx \ge 0 \label{ine:1} \\
& \int_a^{c} \bigg(\int_a^x F(z)dz-\int_a^x G(z)dz\bigg)dx \ge 0 \label{ine:2}\;.
\end{aligned}$$
From Proposition \[prop:4\] we can see that the sufficient condition for $F$ to dominate $G$ in the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order is related to the second [*moment*]{} and the third [*moment*]{} of the distributions. Here we relate $\int_a^c F(z)dz$ to the second moment and $\int_a^c \int_a^x F(z)dzdx$ to the third moment. Thus, the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order trades off the different effects of riskiness in a non-linear way. Interestingly, the second condition of Proposition \[prop:4\] inherently relates to third order stochastic dominance, which corresponds to that condition and to the condition ${\mathbb{E}}_G[X]\ge {\mathbb{E}}_F[X]$. In contrast, in the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order we do not impose any constraint on expectations, but there is a constraint on the second moment. In Section \[sec:2.4\] we further study the second condition of Proposition \[prop:4\].
In some cases, the $2$-sufficient stochastic order provides a necessary and sufficient integral condition to conclude that $F\succeq_{2,[a,b]-D} G$. If condition implies condition then condition holds if and only if $F\succeq_{2,[a,b]-D} G$. To see this, note that the function $\max\{c-x,0\}^{2}$ is a $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing function and that $$\int_a^b \max\{c-x,0\}^{2} dF(x)=2\int_a^{c} \bigg(\int_a^x F(z)dz\bigg)dx$$ (see Lemma \[lemma:0\] in the Appendix). Thus, if $F\succeq_{2,[a,b]-D} G$ holds, then condition holds. On the other hand, if condition implies condition , then from Proposition \[prop:4\] we have $F\succeq_{2,[a,b]-D} G$. We summarize this result in the following Corollary.
\[coro:1\] Let $F$ and $G$ be two distributions over $[a,b]$. Suppose that if condition holds then condition also holds. Then condition holds if and only if $F\succeq_{2,[a,b]-D} G$.
In Section \[sec:2.4\] we show that condition holds if and only if $\int_a^b u(x) dF(x)\ge \int_a^b u(x)dG(x)$ for every $u\in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$ that is thrice differentiable and has a negative third derivative.
To close this section, using the $2,[a,b]$-sufficient stochastic order, we provide two examples in which a random variable dominates another random variable in the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order. These examples demonstrate that checking domination in the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order is a matter of algebraic computations, similar to checking domination in first, second and third order stochastic dominance. We will use these examples in Section \[sec:3\].
In the first example we consider two uniform random variables. Suppose that $F\sim U[a_1,b_1]$ and $G\sim U[a_2,b_2]$ where $U[a,b]$ is the continuous uniform random variable on $[a,b]$.
\[assu:1\] We assume that $a_1<a_2<b_2<b_1$ and $\frac{a_1+b_1}2>\frac{a_2+b_2}2$.
If Assumption \[assu:1\] does not hold then the expected value of $G$ is higher or equal to the expected value of $F$, q so we clearly have $F\succeq_{1,[a_1,b_1]-D} G$. In other words, $G$ dominates $F$ in the second order stochastic dominance.
The following Lemma provides a necessary and sufficient condition on the parameters $(a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2)$ so that $F\succeq_{2,[a_1,b_1]-D} G$.
\[Lemma:1\] Suppose that $F\sim U[a_1,b_1]$ and $G\sim U[a_2,b_2]$ and that Assumption \[assu:1\] holds. Then $F\succeq_{2,[a_1,b_1]-D} G$ if and only if $$\label{ine:dist}
b_1 \le \frac{3(a_2+b_2)-2a_1 + \sqrt{a_2^2+10a_2b_2+b_2^2-12a_1(a_2+b_2-a_1)}}4 \;.$$
Lemma \[Lemma:1\] can be used to prove non-trivial inequalities that involve convex functions. The Lemma implies that if inequality (\[ine:dist\]) holds, then for every $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing function $u$ we have $$\int_{a_{1}}^{b_{1}} u(x) dF(x)\ge \int_{a_{2}}^{b_{2}} u(x)dG(x).$$ We leverage this fact to prove Hermite-Hadamard inequalities in Section \[sec:hh ineq\].
In the second example we consider two-point distributions, i.e., the support of the distributions has two elements. We will use this example to study self-protection problems (see Section \[sec:self-prot\]).
\[Lemma:two-point\] Suppose that $X$ yields $x_{1}$ with probability $p$ and $x_{3}$ with probability $1-p$. $Y$ yields $x_{2}$ with probability $q$ and $x_{4}$ with probability $1-q$.
Suppose that the expected value of $X$ is higher than the expected value of $Y$, i.e., $$\label{Ineq:two-point-expectation}
px_{1}+(1-p)x_{3} \geq qx_{2}+(1-q)x_{4}.$$
Then $X\succeq_{2,[x_{1},x_{4}]-D} Y$ if and only if $$p(x_{4}-x_{1})^{2} +(1 -p)(x_{4}-x_{3})^{2} \geq q(x_{4} -x_{2})^{2}. \label{Ineq:two-point-iff}$$
The semi-variance stochastic order {#sec:2.4}
----------------------------------
In this section we study the semi-variance stochastic order. Some properties of the semi-variance stochastic order were provided in [@fishburn1976continua; @fishburn1980continua]. We show that the semi-variance stochastic order is closely related to the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order. In particular, we characterize the semi-variance stochastic order and show that its maximal generator includes the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions with a negative third derivative. We now define the semi-variance stochastic order.
Consider two distributions $F$ and $G$ over $[a,b]$. We say that $F$ dominates $G$ in the semi-variance stochastic order and write $F \succeq_{[a,b]-SVF} G$, if and only if for all $c \in [a,b]$, we have $$\label{equation:SVF}
\int_a^b \max\{c-x,0\}^{2} dF(x) \ge \int_a^b \max\{c-x,0\}^{2} dG(x)\;.$$ That is, $F \succeq_{[a,b]-SVF} G$ if for every semi-variance function on $[a,b]$, $u_{c}(x)=\max\{c-x,0\}^{2}$, $c \in [a,b]$, we have $\int_a^b u_{c}(x) dF(x)\ge \int_a^b u_{c}(x)dG(x)$.
To the best of our knowledge, the maximal generator (see Section \[section:maximal\]) of the semi-variance stochastic order is unknown. From the facts that every semi-variance function on $[a,b]$ is a $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing function and that the set of $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions is a closed convex cone that contains the constant functions (see Proposition \[prop:2\]), we conclude from Proposition \[Prop: maximal generator\] that the maximal generator of the semi-variance stochastic order is included in the set of $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions. On the other hand, consider a function $f$ that is thrice differentiable with $f''(x) \geq 0$ and $f'''(x)\le 0$. That is, the first derivative of $f$ is concave and increasing. Note that the first derivative of a semi-variance function is the piecewise linear function $-\max\{c-x,0\}$ for some $c \in [a,b]$. It is well known that every concave and increasing function can be approximated by the sum of piecewise linear functions, and hence it is intuitive that $f$ belongs to the maximal generator of the semi-variance stochastic order.
In Theorem \[thm:semi-variance\] we show that $F \succeq_{[a,b]-SVF} G$ if and only if $\int_a^b u(x) dF(x)\ge \int_a^b u(x)dG(x)$ for every function $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ that is thrice differentiable, with $u \in D_{2,[a,b]}$ and $u'''(x)\le 0$ for every $ x\in [a,b]$, i.e., every $u \in \mathcal{F}_1$ (see the definition below). Since $D_{2,[a,b]}$ is a convex cone that contains the constant functions, it is immediate that $\mathcal{F}_1$ is a convex cone that contains the constant functions. Thus, from Proposition \[Prop: maximal generator\] we conclude that the closure in the pointwise topology of $\mathcal{F}_1$ is the maximal generator of the semi-variance stochastic order.
We define the set $\mathcal{F}_1$ to be the set of all functions $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ that are thrice differentiable, with $u \in D_{2,[a,b]}$ and $u'''(x)\le 0$ for every $ x\in [a,b]$.
\[thm:semi-variance\] Consider two distributions $F$ and $G$ over $[a,b]$. Then $F \succeq_{[a,b]-SVF} G$ if and only if $$\int_a^b u(x) dF(x)\ge \int_a^b u(x)dG(x)$$ for every function $u \in \mathcal{F}_1$.
From Theorem \[thm:semi-variance\] we have $F \succeq_{[a,b]-SVF} G$ if and only if $\int_a^b u(x) dG(x)\ge \int_a^b u(x)dF(x)$ for every function $u$ that is a $2,[a,b]$-concave increasing function and has a positive third derivative. That is, $F \succeq_{[a,b]-SVF} G$ if and only if every risk-averse decision maker with a VNM utility function $u$ that has a positive third derivative, and for which the square root of $u(b)-u(x)$ is concave, prefers $F$ over $G$.[^10] The property of having a positive third derivative implies that the decision maker prefers positive skewness over negative skewness. From a theoretical perspective this property is appealing, as it implies aversion to downside risk (see [@menezes1980increasing]). The semi-variance stochastic order $\succeq_{[a,b]-SVF}$ is also appealing from a computational perspective (see [@post2016portfolio]).
It is interesting to note that the set of $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions with a negative third derivative has a simple characterization. This set equals the set of convex and decreasing functions with a negative third derivative that satisfy $u'(b)=0$. Thus, it is easy to find $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions with a negative third derivative. Suppose that $u$ is a convex, thrice differentiable function with a negative third derivative. Then $\tilde{u}(x)=u(x)-xu'(b)$ is convex and decreasing, $\tilde{u}'(b)=0$, and $\tilde{u}''' \leq 0$, and hence, $u$ is a $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing function.
\[prop:F1F2\] We define the set $\mathcal{F}_2$ as the set of functions $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ that are thrice differentiable, convex, decreasing, $u'(b)=0$, and $u'''(x)\le 0$ for every $ x\in [a,b]$.
We have $\mathcal{F}_1 = \mathcal{F}_2$.
As mentioned in Section \[section:maximal\], one limitation of the semi-variance stochastic order and, more generally, of the $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders, is that the decision makers under consideration when comparing two random variables have a $0$ marginal utility at the point $b$. One possible solution to this limitation is to choose a large $b'$ and it is offered in Section \[section:maximal\]. We note that if the distributions under consideration have unbounded supports, and hence, inequality (\[equation:SVF\]) holds for all $c \in [a,\infty)$, then the expected values of the random variables are ranked (see [@fishburn1980stochastic]). Thus, in the case of unbounded supports, the semi-variance stochastic order is equivalent to third order stochastic dominance.
Applications {#sec:3}
============
In this section, we discuss four applications in which we use the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders: a consumption-savings problem with an uncertain future income, self-protection problems, a Diamond-type search model with one-sided incomplete information, and Hermite-Hadamard inequalities.
Precautionary saving when the future labor income is riskier and has a higher expected value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers have devoted a great deal of attention to analyzing the impact of future income uncertainty, in particular, on savings decisions.[^11] In their seminal papers, [@leland1968saving] and [@sandmo1970effect] show that in a two-period consumption-savings problem for a prudent agent (i.e., an agent whose marginal utility is convex), if the labor income [*risk*]{} increases in the sense of second order stochastic dominance, then the agent’s savings increase. The agent’s savings are also affected by the [*expected present value*]{} of future labor income: an increase in the expected present value decreases current savings. Up to now, to the best of our knowledge, no stochastic order has been provided that can be used to derive comparative statics results for the case when both the present value and the risk of future income increase. For instance, consider the two labor income distributions described in Figure 2.
{width="4cm"} {width="4cm"} \[fig:2\]
Under which distribution should we expect to observe higher savings? For $c\ge 15$, $\tilde{Y}$ is riskier than $\tilde{X}$, in the sense of SOSD. Thus, in the expected utility framework, savings are higher under $\tilde{Y}$ than under $\tilde{X}$ (see [@sandmo1970effect]). In the case that $c< 15$, it is easy to see that $\tilde{X}$ and $\tilde{Y}$ cannot be compared by SOSD. In this case, there is a [*trade-off*]{} between the agent’s future income [*risk*]{} versus the agent’s future income [*present value*]{}. In this section we use the family of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic orders to derive comparative statics results in the presence of this trade-off. We now describe the two-period consumption-savings problem that we study.
An agent decides how much to save and how much to consume while his next period’s income is uncertain. If the agent has an initial wealth of $x$ and he decides to save $0 \leq s \leq x$, then the first period’s utility is given by $u(x-s)$ and the second period’s utility is given by $u(Rs +y)$ where $y$ is the next period’s income, $R$ is the rate of return, and $u$ describes the agent’s utility from consumption. The agent chooses a savings level to maximize his expected utility: $$h (s ,F):=u (x -s) + \int _{0}^{\overline{y}}u(Rs +y)dF(y)$$ where the distribution of the next period’s income $y$ is given by $F$. The support of $F$ is given by $[0 ,\overline{y}]$. We assume that the agent’s utility function $u$ is strictly increasing, strictly concave, and continuously differentiable.
Let $g (F) =\ensuremath{\operatorname*{argmax}}_{s \in C(x)}h(s ,F)$ be the optimal savings under the distribution $F$ where we denote by $C(x) : =[0,x]$ the interval from which the agent may choose his level of savings when his wealth is $x$.
Let $ \succeq _{I}$ be the increasing stochastic order and $ \succeq _{CX}$ be the convex stochastic order.[^12] Two well known facts about the effect of the future income’s distribution on savings decisions are the following:
\(i) If $F\succeq _{I}G$ then $g(F) \geq g(G)$.
\(ii) If $F\succeq _{CX}G$ and $u^{ \prime }$ is convex then $g(F) \geq g(G)$.
Part (i) of the last Proposition states that if the future income’s distribution is better in the sense of first order stochastic dominance, then the current savings are lower. The additional consumption follows from the permanent income motive, i.e., the agent wants to smooth consumption. Part (ii) of the last Proposition states that when the future income’s distribution is riskier in the sense of the convex stochastic order, then the current savings are higher. The additional savings are called precautionary saving.
In the following Proposition we consider the case that the income’s distribution is better and riskier. We show that when the agent’s marginal utility is a $2,[0 ,Rx +\overline{y}]$-convex function then the precautionary saving motive is stronger than the permanent income motive, i.e., $F \succeq _{2 ,[0 ,Rx +\overline{y}] -S}G$ implies $g(F) \geq g(G)$. The condition that $u'$ is a $2,[0 ,Rx +\overline{y}]$-convex function guarantees that the agent’s marginal utility is “very" convex (that is, the agent is “very" prudent), so that the agent prefers to save more under the riskier income distribution even though it has a higher expected value. This condition is not satisfied by the important class of constant relative risk aversion functions. However, a closely related class of utility functions satisfies this condition. We show that $u'$ is a $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing function for the utility function $$u(x)=\frac{x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma} + \frac{\gamma x^{2}}{2b^{\gamma+1}}$$ for $\gamma \geq 0$, $\gamma \neq 1$ and $u(x)= \log(x) +x^{2}/2b^{2}$ for $\gamma = 1$. Note that for a large $b$ the utility function defined above is close to a constant relative risk aversion utility function.
\[prop:consumption-savings\] (i) Suppose that $u^{ \prime }$ is a $2 ,[0 ,Rx +\overline{y}]$-convex function and that $F \succeq _{2 ,[0 ,Rx +\overline{y}] -S}G$. Then $g(F) \geq g(G)$, i.e., the savings under $F$ are greater than or equal to the savings under $G$.
\(ii) Define $u:[0,b] \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$u(x)=\frac{x^{1-\gamma}}{1-\gamma} + \frac{\gamma x^{2}}{2b^{\gamma+1}}$$ for $\gamma \geq 0$, $\gamma \neq 1$ and $u(x)= \log(x) +x^{2}/2b^{2}$ for $\gamma = 1$. Then $u'$ is a $2,[0,b]$-convex decreasing function for all $b>0$ and all $\gamma \geq 0$.
For a thrice differentiable utility function, the condition that $u'$ is a $2,[0,b]$-convex decreasing function is equivalent to the condition that $(u'(x)-u'(b))u'''(x)/(u''(x))^{2} \geq 0.5$ for all $x \in [a,b]$.
We state the result in Proposition \[prop:consumption-savings\] with respect to the sufficient stochastic order. Proposition \[prop:consumption-savings\] holds also when the sufficient stochastic order is replaced by the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order or by the semi-variance stochastic order.
Self-protection problems {#sec:self-prot}
------------------------
Self-protection is a costly action that reduces the probability for a loss (see [@ehrlich1972market]). Since the work of [@ehrlich1972market], self-protection problems are widely studied in the literature on decision making under uncertainty.[^13] Should a decision maker choose more or less self-protection? One way to answer this question is based on stochastic orders. A risk-averse decision maker can decide to prefer less self-protection if most risk-averse decision makers prefer less self-protection. In this section we study a standard self-protection problem and provide a decision rule to answer the question above based on the $2,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic order. We find conditions that imply that an agent prefers to decrease the level of self-protection even when the increase in self-protection is profitable in expectation.
We study a simple self-protection problem (as in [@ehrlich1972market] and [@eeckhoudt2005impact]) where there are two possible outcomes: a loss of fixed size or no loss at all. We now provide the formal details.
There are two lotteries $X$ and $Y$. Lottery $X$ yields $w-L-e_{2}$ with probability $p$ and $w-e_{2}$ with probability $1-p$. Lottery $Y$ yields $w-L-e_{1}$ with probability $q$ and $w-e_{1}$ with probability $1-q$. $w$ is the wealth that the decision maker has, $L$ is the fixed loss, $p$ and $q$ are the probabilities of loss that depend on the level of expenditure on self-protection $e_{i}$ for $i=1,2$. We assume that $e_{2}>e_{1}$ and $q>p$. That is, if the decision maker chooses a higher expenditure on self protection, then the probability of a loss decreases. We also assume that $w-e_{2} > w-L-e_{1}$. If the last inequality does not hold, every rational decision maker would clearly prefer $X$ to $Y$. The following Proposition follows immediately from Lemma \[Lemma:two-point\] and part (i) of Proposition \[prop:2.5\].
Suppose that the expected value of $X$ is higher than the expected value of $Y$, i.e., $-pL-e_{2} \geq -qL -e_{1}$. Then $$\label{Ineq:self-protection}
p(e_{2}-e_{1}+L)^{2}+(1-p)(e_{2}-e_{1})^{2} \geq qL^{2}$$ if and only if $Y\succeq_{2,[w-L-e_{2},w-e_{1}]-I} X$, i.e., $Y$ dominates $X$ in the $2,[w-L-e_{2},w-e_{1}]$-concave increasing stochastic order.
The interpretation of inequality (\[Ineq:self-protection\]) is straightforward. The random variable $\tilde{Y}$ that yields $L$ with probability $q$ and $0$ with probability $1-q$ represents the future loss if the agent does not spend more on self-protection. The random variable $\tilde{X}$ that yields $e_{2}-e_{1}-L$ with probability $p$ and $e_{2}-e_{1}$ with probability $1-p$ represents the future loss if the agent chooses to spend more on self-protection (in this case the agent loses $e_{2}-e_{1}$ in any outcome). If the second moment of $\tilde{X}$ is higher than the second moment of $\tilde{Y}$ then the decision maker should not spend more on self-protection according to the decision rule that is based on the $2,[w-L-e_{2},w-e_{1}]$-concave stochastic order. That is, if the increase in expenditure on self-protection increases the risk (second moment) of future loss, then the decision maker does not increase the expenditure on self-protection even when the increase the expenditure on self-protection increases the expected value of the decision maker’s final wealth.
A Diamond-type search model with one-sided incomplete information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we a study a Diamond-type search model studied in [@diamond1982aggregate] and [@milgrom1990rationalizability] to a one-sided incomplete information framework. Consider the case of two agents that benefit from a match. We analyze the case where one player has better information than the other. For instance, one player has been in the market for a long time and his type is known, whereas the second player just entered the market, so his type is unknown. We show that a shift (in the sense of the $\alpha,[a ,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order) in the uninformed player’s beliefs about the informed player’s type leads to an increase in the highest equilibrium probability of matching. We now describe the Bayesian game.
There are two players who exert efforts in order to find a match. Each player exerts a costly effort $e_{i} \in E:=[0 ,1]$, in order to achieve a match. For each player, the value of a match is one. The probability of matching is $e_{1} e_{2}$, given the efforts $e_{1} ,e_{2}$. The cost of Player $1$’s (the uninformed player) effort is given by a strictly convex and strictly increasing function $c_{1} (e)$ that is known to both players. The cost of Player $2$’s effort is given by $c_{2} (e ,\theta ):=\frac{e_{2}^{k +1}}{(k +1)(1 -\theta )^{l}}$ where $\theta \in [0 ,1)$ is Player $2$’s type which is not known to Player $1$, and $k ,l >0$ are some parameters. Player $1$’s beliefs about the value of $\theta $ are given by a distribution $F$ with support on $[0 ,1]$. A Bayesian Nash equilibrium (BNE) of the game is given by $(e_{1}^{ \ast } ,e_{2}^{ \ast } (\theta ))$ where $$e_{1}^{ \ast } =\underset{e_{1} \in E}{\ensuremath{\operatorname*{argmax}}}\int _{0}^{1}e_{1} e_{2}^{ \ast } (\theta ) d F (\theta ) -c_{1} (e_{1})$$and $$e_{2}^{ \ast } (\theta ) =\underset{e_{2} \in E}{\ensuremath{\operatorname*{argmax}}} \ e_{1}^{ \ast } e_{2} -\frac{e_{2}^{k +1}}{(k +1)(1 -\theta )^{l}} ,\text{\ for\ }\theta \in [0 ,1).$$ Standard arguments show that this game is a supermodular game, and thus the highest and the lowest equilibria exist (see [@topkis1979equilibrium] and the Appendix for more details). Define $\bar{m} (F) =\bar{e}_{1}^{ \ast } \bar{e}_{2}^{ \ast } (\theta )$ to be the highest equilibrium probability of matching. We show that a shift in Player 1’s beliefs, in the sense of the $\alpha ,[0 ,1]$-convex decreasing stochastic order, leads to an increase in the highest equilibrium probability of matching.
\[prop:7\] \[Prop: game\]Fix $\alpha \geq 1$. Suppose that $l \geq \alpha k$. If $F^{ \prime } \succeq _{\alpha ,[0 ,1] -D}F$ then $\bar{m} (F^{ \prime }) \geq \bar{m} (F)$. That is, the highest equilibrium probability of matching is increasing with respect to the $\alpha,[0,1]$-convex decreasing stochastic order.
We note that Proposition \[Prop: game\] allows us to derive non-trivial comparative statics results. Assume that the uninformed player’s beliefs change in the sense of the $\alpha,[0,1]$-convex decreasing stochastic order, i.e., $F^{ \prime } \succeq _{\alpha ,[0 ,1] -D}F$. $F^{ \prime }$ might have a higher expected value than $F$, which means that the uninformed player thinks that the informed player’s cost has a higher expected value. Thus, the uninformed player should decrease his effort, since he is expecting that the informed player will decrease his effort. On the other hand, $F^{ \prime }$ is riskier than $F$ and this induces the uninformed player to increase his effort. Proposition \[Prop: game\] shows that ultimately, in equilibrium, the latter effect is stronger. Thus, the efforts of both players increase and the equilibrium probability of matching increases.
Hermite-Hadamard inequalities for $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing functions {#sec:hh ineq}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Convex functions are fundamental in proving many well-known inequalities. The convex stochastic order is a powerful tool for proving inequalities that involve convex functions (see [@rajba2017some] for a survey). In this section we prove Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities for convex functions that belong to the set $\mathcal{D}_{2 ,[a ,b]}$ using the $2 ,[a ,b]$-convex stochastic order. Hermite-Hadamard inequalities are important in the literature on inequalities and have numerous applications in various fields of mathematics (see [@peajcariaac1992convex] and [@dragomir2003selected]).
Recall that the classical Hermite-Hadamard inequality states that for a convex function $f :\left [a ,b\right ] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ we have$$f\genfrac{(}{)}{}{}{a +b}{2} \leq \frac{1}{b -a}\int _{a}^{b}f(x)dx \leq \frac{f\left (a\right ) +f(b)}{2} . \label{Ineq: HH}$$ Inequality (\[Ineq: HH\]) is an easy consequence of the convex stochastic order. The left-hand-side of the inequality states that the uniform random variable on $[a ,b]$ dominates the random variable that yields an amount of $(a +b)/2$ with probability $1$ in the sense of the convex stochastic order. The right-hand-side of the inequality states that the uniform random variable on $[a ,b]$ is dominated by the random variable that yields $a$ and $b$ with probability $1/2$ each in the sense of the convex stochastic order. Using Lemma \[Lemma:1\] we show that the continuous uniform random variable on $[a ,b]$ dominates the random variable that yields an amount of $\gamma a +(1 -\gamma )b$ with probability $1$ in the $2 ,[a ,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order, even for $\gamma <0.5$. Thus, we obtain a novel inequality for convex functions that belong to the set $\mathcal{D}_{2 ,[a ,b]}$.
\[prop:HH ineq\] Suppose that $f \in \mathcal{D}_{2 ,[a ,b]}$ where $a <b$. Then $$f\left (\gamma b +\left (1 -\gamma \right )a\right ) \leq \frac{1}{b -a}\int _{a}^{b}f\left (x\right )dx \leq tf\left (a\right ) +\left (1 -t\right )f(b)$$for all $t \geq \frac{1}{3}$ and for all $\gamma \geq \frac{2}{3 +\sqrt{3}}$.
Concluding Remarks {#sec:con}
==================
In this paper, we introduce the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing and $\alpha,[a,b]$-concave increasing stochastic orders, a new family of stochastic orders that extends the second order stochastic dominance. The $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic orders are particularly useful for comparing two random variables where one random variable has a higher expected value and is also riskier than the other random variable. We provide sufficient conditions to ensure domination in the $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order when $\alpha$ is a positive integer. We also characterize the semi-variance stochastic order and show that this stochastic order is related to the $2,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic order. We derive comparative statics results in applications from the economics literature. We foresee additional beneficial applications of $\alpha,[a,b]$-convex decreasing stochastic orders, especially for comparing lotteries that have different expected values and different levels of risk.
Appendix
========
Proofs of Section \[sec:2.1\]
-----------------------------
The statements regarding the set $\mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ follows from proving the statements regarding the set $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ and then using the fact that $\mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}= - \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$. Thus, we only prove the results for the set $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$.
1. First, notice that if $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ is a closed convex cone, then $\mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}=-\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ is a closed convex cone.
Consider $u,v \in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ and $\lambda >0$. Clearly, $u+\lambda v$ is decreasing. Notice that, $$(u+\lambda v) (x) - (u+\lambda)(b)=u(x)-u(b) + \lambda (v(x)-v(b))\;,$$ hence, $(u+\lambda v) (x) - (u+\lambda)(b)$ can be written as the sum of two $\alpha$-convex function. The sum of $\alpha$-convex function is $\alpha$-convex (see the online Appendix of [@jensen2017distributional]). Hence, $u+\lambda v\in\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$, which shows that $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ is a convex cone.
To show that $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ is closed under pointwise convergence consider a sequence $(u_n)$ in $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ such that $u_n\to u$ (pointwise). Clearly, $u$ is decreasing. The function $u(x)-u(b)$ is the limit of the $\alpha$-convex functions $u_n(x) -u_n(b)$, and hence, $u(x)-u(b)$ is $\alpha$-convex, (see the online Appendix of [@jensen2017distributional]). Thus, $u \in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$.
2. Consider $u \in \mathcal{D}_{\beta,[a,b]}$. Then $u$ is decreasing and $f(x):=(u(x)-u(b))^{\frac 1 \beta}$ is convex. Because $\beta>\alpha$, the function $g(x):=x^{\frac \beta \alpha}$ is increasing and convex. Therefore, $g(f(x))$ is convex. We conclude that, $(u(x)-u(b))^{\frac 1 \alpha}$ is convex. Thus, $u\in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$.
3. Because $u\in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ the function $g_c$ is decreasing on $[a+c,b+c]$. Take $x_1,x_2\in [a+c,b+c]$ and $\lambda\in [0,1]$. Since $u(x)-u(b)$ is $\alpha$-convex we have $$\bigg(u(\lambda (x_1-c) + (1-\lambda) (x_2-c)) - u(b)\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha} \le \lambda \bigg(u(x_1-c) - u(b)\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha} + (1-\lambda ) \bigg(u(x_2-c) - u(b)\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha}\;.$$ Since $ g_c(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda x_2))= u(\lambda (x_1-c) + (1-\lambda) (x_2-c))$, $g_c(b+c)= u(b)$, $g_c(x_1)=u(x_1-c)$, and $g_c(x_2)=u(x_2-c)$, we conclude that $g_c(x)-g_c(b+c)$ is $\alpha$-convex. Thus, $g_c\in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha,[a+c,b+c]}$.
4. Suppose for the sake of a contradiction that $u'(b)\neq 0$. Because $u'$ is continuous, a $\delta>0$ exists such that $\lim_{x\to b^-}u'(x)^2>\delta$. Notice that $$\lim_{x\to b^-} (u(x)-(b))u''(x)=\underbrace{\lim_{x\to b^-} (u(x)-u(b))}_{0}\underbrace{\lim_{x\to b^-} u''(x)}_{u''(b)}=0\;.$$ Thus, $$\lim_{x\to b^-} \frac{(u(x) - u(b))u''(x)}{u'(x)^2} = \frac{\lim_{x\to b^-} (u(x) - u(b))u''(x)}{\lim_{x\to b^-} u'(x)^2} =0\;.$$ Because $u$ is twice differentiable with a continuous second derivative, a $\epsilon>0$ exists such that for $x\in (b-\epsilon,b)$, $\frac{(u(x) - u(b))u''(x)}{u'(x)^2} < \frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}$. Using the $\alpha$-convex characterization for a twice differentiable function, we conclude that $u(x)-u(b)$ is not $\alpha$-convex. Therefore, $u\notin D_{\alpha,[a,b]}$ which is a contradiction. We conclude that $u'(b)=0$.
5. Let $\alpha>1$. Consider $u$ to be a linear function that is decreasing and not a constant. Notice that $u(x)-u(b)$ is twice-differentiable, and that for every $x\in[a,b]$ $u'(x)<0$ and $u''(x)=0$. We conclude that $\frac{(u(x)-u(b))u''(x)}{u'(x)^2}=0$. Thus, $u(x)-u(b)$ is not $\alpha$-convex, i.e., $u \notin \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$.
Suppose that $u\in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}\cap \mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$, then $u$ is convex, concave and measurable. Hence, $u$ is a linear function. From the argument above, we conclude that $u$ must be a constant. Constant functions are always in the set $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}},\mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$. Hence, if $u\in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}\cap \mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$ then $u$ is a constant function.
Proofs of Section \[sec:2.2\]
-----------------------------
1. We have $u\in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}} $ if and only if $-u\in \mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}} $. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
F\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} G& \iff {\mathbb{E}}_F[u]\ge {\mathbb{E}}_G[u] \quad \forall u \in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}} \\
& \iff {\mathbb{E}}_F[u]\le {\mathbb{E}}_G[u] \quad \forall u \in \mathcal{I}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}} \iff G\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-I} F \;.\end{aligned}$$
The following statements regarding the stochastic order $\succeq_{\alpha,[a,b]-I}$ are trivially proved by showing them on the stochastic order $\succeq_{\alpha,[a,b]-D}$ and then using the fact that $\mathcal{D}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}= - \mathcal{I}_{\alpha ,[a,b]}$. Thus, we only prove the results for the stochastic order $\succeq_{\alpha,[a,b]-D}$.
- Suppose that $F \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D}G$ and that $u\in \mathcal{D}_{\beta,[a,b]}$. Because $\beta>\alpha$, Proposition \[prop:2\] implies that $u\in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}} $. Hence, ${\mathbb{E}}_F[u]\ge {\mathbb{E}}_G[u]$. Given that $u$ is an arbitrary function that belongs to the set $\mathcal{D}_{\beta,[a,b]}$, we conclude that $F \succeq_{\beta,[a,b]-D}G$.
- Consider $X \succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D}Y$ and $u\in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha,[a+c,b+c]}$. Suppose that the distributions of $X$ and $Y$ are $F$ and $G$, respectively. From Proposition \[prop:2\] we have that $g_c(x):=u(x+c)$ belongs to the set $\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}} $. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_a^b g_c(x)dF(x)\ge \int_a^b g_c(x)dG(x) &\iff \int_a^b u(x+c)dF(x)\ge \int_a^b u(x+c) dG(x)\\
&\iff \int_{a+c}^{b+c}u(z)dF(z-c)\ge \int_{a+c}^{b+c}u(z)dG(z-c)\;.
\end{aligned}$$ The last equivalence comes from using the change of variables $z=x+c$. We conclude that $X+c\succeq_{\alpha,[a+c,b+c]-D}Y+c$.
- Let $b' > b$. Assume that $F\succeq_{ \alpha,[a,b']-D}G$ and $u\in \mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$. We extend $u$ to the domain $[a,b']$ as follows: $$\hat u (x)=\begin{cases}
u(x) &\mbox{ if } x\in[a,b]\\
u(b) &\mbox{ if } x\in[b,b']
\end{cases} \;.$$ We assert that $\hat u \in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha,[a,b']}$. Clearly, $\hat u$ is decreasing, it remains to prove that $\hat u(x)-\hat u (b')$ is $\alpha$-convex. For this extent, we claim that for $ x_1,x_2\in[a,b']$ and $\lambda\in[0,1]$ the following inequality holds: $$\label{inequality: max u}
\bigg(\hat u(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda) x_2) - \hat u(b')\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha} \le \lambda \bigg(\hat u(x_1) - \hat u(b')\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha} + (1-\lambda ) \bigg(\hat u(x_2) - \hat u(b')\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha}\;.$$ We prove this by separating our analysis in three cases:
- For $x_1,x_2 \in [a,b]$, we have that $\hat u(x_1)=u(x_1)$, $\hat u(x_2)=u(x_2)$, $\hat u(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda) x_2)= u(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda) x_2)$, and $\hat u(b')= u(b)$. Thus, because $u(x)-u(b)$ is $\alpha$-convex inequality (\[inequality: max u\]) holds.
- For $x_1,x_2\in [b,b']$, we have that $\hat u(x_1)=\hat u(b')$, $\hat u(x_2)=\hat u(b')$, $\hat u(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda) x_2)= \hat u(b')$, and therefore, inequality (\[inequality: max u\]) holds.
- The last case is when $x_1\in [a,b]$ and $x_2\in (b,b']$ (or analogously, when $x_1\in(b,b']$ and $x_2\in[a,b]$). Because $x_1 \in [a,b]$, from the first case we have that $$\bigg(\hat u(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda) b) - \hat u(b')\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha} \le \lambda \bigg(\hat u(x_1) - \hat u(b')\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha} + (1-\lambda ) \bigg(\hat u(b) - \hat u(b')\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha}\;.$$ Because $\hat u$ is decreasing we have that $\hat u(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda) b) - \hat u(b')\ge \hat u(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda) x_2) - \hat u(b')$. We also have that $\hat u(b)= \hat u (x_2)$. Thus, $$\bigg(\hat u(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda) x_2) - \hat u(b')\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha} \le \lambda \bigg(\hat u(x_1) - \hat u(b')\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha} + (1-\lambda ) \bigg(\hat u( x_2) - \hat u(b')\bigg)^{\frac 1 \alpha}\;.$$ Which proves our claim.
Because $\hat u \in \mathcal{D}_{\alpha,[a,b']}$ and $F \succeq_{\alpha,[a,b']-D}G$, we have that $\int_a^{b'}\hat u (x)dF(x)\ge \int_a^{b'}\hat u (x)dG(x)$. Since $F$ and $G$ are distributions with support contained on $[a,b]$, we have that $\int_a^{b'}\hat u (x)dF(x)= \int_a^{b}\hat u (x)dF(x)=\int_a^{b} u (x)dF(x)$ and $\int_a^{b'}\hat u (x)dG(x)= \int_a^{b}\hat u (x)dG(x)=\int_a^{b} u (x)dG(x)$. Therefore, for any $u\in\mathcal{D}_{{\alpha, [a,b]}}$, we have ${\mathbb{E}}_F[u]\ge {\mathbb{E}}_G[u]$. We conclude that if $F \succeq_{\alpha,[a,b']-D} G$ then $F\succeq_{{\alpha, [a,b]}-D} G $.
Proofs of Section \[section:maximal\]
-------------------------------------
Suppose that $F \succeq_{\alpha-DCX} G$. We proceed in four steps.
**Step 1** We assert that if $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is decreasing, nonnegative, twice differentiable, with $u''>0$ (i.e., $u$ is strictly convex), then there exists a $C>0$ large enough such that $u+C$ is alpha convex.
From compactness there exists an $\epsilon >0$ such that for every $x\in [a,b]$, we have $u''(x)>\epsilon$. Let $M=\frac {\alpha-1}{\alpha}\max_{\{x\in [a,b]\}} u'(x)^2$. Because $u$ is nonnegative, we have that $$\big(u(x) +\underbrace{\frac{M}{\epsilon}}_{C}\big) u''(x) \ge u'(x)^2 \frac {\alpha-1}{\alpha} \mbox{ for every }x\in [a,b] \;.$$ We conclude that the function $\tilde u := u +C$ is an $\alpha$-convex function.
**Step 2** We assert that if $F\succeq_{\alpha-DCX}G$, then for every decreasing, twice differentiable, and strictly convex function $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ we have $$\int_a^b u(x) dF(x) \ge \int_a^b u(x) dG(x)\;.$$ Let $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ be decreasing, twice differentiable, and strictly convex. From Step 1, there exists a $C>0$ such that $u+C$ is $\alpha$-convex. Therefore, if $F\succeq_{\alpha-DCX}G$ we have $$\int_a^b u(x) +C dF(x) \ge \int_a^b u(x) +C dG(x) \iff \int_a^b u(x) dF(x) \ge \int_a^b u(x) dG(x)\;.$$
**Step 3** Define $u_n(x)= u(x) + \frac 1 n (x-b)^2$. Clearly $u_n$ is decreasing, twice differentiable, and $u_n''(x)=u''(x) +\frac {2}{n}\ge\frac {2}{n}$, where the last inequality holds because $u$ is convex. Because the sequence $u_n$ is bounded and converges pointwise to $u$. From the dominated convergence theorem we get that $$\lim \int_a^b u_n(x) dF(x) = \int_a^b u(x) dF(x) \mbox{ and } \lim \int_a^b u_n(x) dG(x) = \int_a^b u(x) dG(x)\;.$$
**Step 4** From Step 2 and Step 3, we have that if $F\succeq_{\alpha-DCX}G$ then for every decreasing, twice-differentiable, and convex function $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ we have $\int_a^b u(x) dF(x) \ge \int_a^b u(x) dG(x)$. From Lemma \[lemm:aux\], and a similar argument to the argument in Step 3, the last inequality holds for every convex and decreasing function $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that $u'(a)$ exists and is finite.
Proofs of Section \[sec:2.3\]
-----------------------------
Fix $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Let $u\in \mathcal{D}_{n,[a,b]}$ with $u(b)=0$. Then ${u}^{\frac{1}{n }}$ is convex. Thus, from Theorem \[theo:approx\] (see below), we have that $u^{\frac{1}{n }}$ may be approximated by the functions $\{c :\max \{c -x ,0\}\}$, in the sense that there exists a sequence of functions $\{u_{m}\}_{m}$ such that $$u_{m}(x) =\sum \limits _{j =1}^{m}\gamma _{jm}\max \{c_{jm} -x ,0\}$$ and $u_{m}$ converges uniformly to $ u^{\frac{1}{n }}$ for some constants $\gamma _{jm} \geq 0$, $c_{jm} \in [a,b]$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\int _{a}^{b}(u_{m}(x))^{n }dG(x)
& =\int _{a}^{b}\left (\sum \limits _{j =1}^{m}\gamma _{jm}\max \{c_{jm} -x ,0\}\right )^{n }dG(x)\\
& =\int _{a}^{b}\sum _{k_{1} + . . . +k_{m} =n }\frac{n !}{\prod \limits _{j =1}^{m}k_{j} !}\;\prod \limits _{j =1}^{m}\gamma _{jm}^{k_{j}}\max \{c_{jm} -x ,0\}^{k_{j}}dG(x)\\
& \leq \int _{a}^{b}\sum _{k_{1} + . . . +k_{m} =n }\frac{n !}{\prod \limits _{j =1}^{m}k_{j} !}\;\prod \limits _{j =1}^{m}\gamma _{jm}^{k_{j}}\max \{c_{jm} -x ,0\}^{k_{j}}dF(x) & =\int _{a}^{b}(u_{m}(x))^{n }dF(x).
\end{aligned}$$ The second equality follows from the multinomial theorem. The inequality follows from the fact that $F \succeq _{n,[a,b]-S}G$. Applying the dominated convergence theorem yields $$\int _{a}^{b}u(x)dF(x) \geq \int _{a}^{b}u(x)dG(x),$$ for every $u\in D_{n,[a,b]}$ with $u(b)=0$. To complete the proof, take an arbitrary function $v \in D_{n,[a,b]}$. Then $u(x):=v(x)-v(b)$ belongs to the set $D_{n,[a,b]}$ and satisfies $u(b)=0$. Thus, $$\int _{a}^{b}(v(x)-v(b))dF(x) \geq \int _{a}^{b}(v(x)-v(b))dG(x) \iff \int _{a}^{b}v(x)dF(x) \geq \int _{a}^{b}v(x)dG(x)\;,$$ which completes the proof.
We now provide a proof of a well-known result in the literature about approximation of convex and decreasing functions.
\[theo:approx\] Let $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ a continuous convex and decreasing function such that $u(b)=0$. Then, there is a sequence ($u _n$) of the form $u_{n}(x) =\sum \limits _{j =1}^{n}\gamma _{j}\max \{c_{j} -x ,0\}$ for some $\gamma_{j}\ge 0$ and $c_j\in [a,b]$, such that $u_m$ converges uniformly to $u$.
Every decreasing convex function can be approximated by decreasing continuous and convex functions.
The proof is by construction and is based on the paper [@russell1989representative].
Consider a partition of the interval of the interval $[a,b]$, $P_n=[c_n,c_{n-1},\ldots,c_0]$ such that $c_i=b-\frac i n (b-a)$ for $i=1,\ldots, n$. For $i=0,\ldots,n-1$ we define $$\begin{aligned}
c_{-1}&=b\;\\
\beta_{i}&=u(c_i)-u(c_{i-1})\\
\gamma_{i}&=\frac 1 {c_{i}-c_{i+1}} (\beta_{(i+1)}-\beta_{i})\;.
\end{aligned}$$
Because $c_{i-1}$ is the average point between $c_{i},c_{i-2}$, by convexity of $u$ we have that $$u(c_{i})+u(c_{i-2})\ge 2 u(c_{i-1})\;,$$ which implies that $\beta_{i}\ge \beta_{(i-1)}$ and $\gamma_i\ge 0$.
Also, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^i \gamma_{j}(c_j-c_{i+1})&=\sum_{j=0}^i \frac{c_{j}-c_{i+1}}{c_{j}-c_{j+1}} (\beta_{(j+1)}-\beta_{j})\\
&=\sum_{j=0}^i (i+1-j)(\beta_{(j+1)}-\beta_{j})=-(i+1)\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}+\ldots+\beta_{(i+1)}\\
&=\beta_{1}+\ldots+\beta_{(i+1)}=u(c_{i+1})-u({c_0})
\end{aligned}$$ Because $u(c_0)=u(b)=0$, we get that $$\label{a2}
u(c_{i+1})=\sum_{j=0}^i \gamma_{j}(c_{j}-c_{i+1}) \mbox{ for every } i=0,1,\ldots, n-1\;.$$
Define $\hat u_n(x):= \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \gamma_{j}\max\{c_{j}-x,0\}$. We claim that for every $\epsilon>0$ there is a sufficiently large $n$ such that for every $x\in[a,b]$ we have $|u(x)-\hat u_n(x)|<\epsilon$. Indeed, consider $x\in[a,b]$, there is $0\le k\le n-1$ such that $x\in [c_{k+1},c_k]$. Because $\hat u _n$ is decreasing ($\gamma_{j}$ are nonnegative), we have $\hat u _n(c_{k})\le \hat u _n(x)\le \hat u _n(c_{k+1})$. Now, $$\hat u _n(c_{k})= \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \gamma_{j}\max\{c_{j}-c_{k},0\} = \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \gamma_{j}(c_{j}-c_{k}) = u(c_k)\;,$$ where the second equality comes from Equation . The same argument implies that $\hat u _n(c_{k+1})=u(c_{k+1})$. Hence, for every $k=0,1,\ldots, n-1$ we have that $$\label{eq:apv}
u(c_{k})\le \hat u _n(x)\le u(c_{k+1}) \mbox{ for every } x\in [c_{k+1},c_k]\;.$$
Because $u$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, $u$ is uniformly continuous. Thus, there is a sufficiently high $n$ such that $|u(c_{k+1}) - u(c_k)|\le \epsilon$. Second, because $u$ is decreasing we have that $ u (c_{k})\le u (x)\le u (c_{k+1})$. Using these two facts on inequality allow us to conclude that $$|u(x)-\hat u_n(x)|\le \epsilon \mbox{ for every }x\in[a,b]\;.$$
From Lemma \[lemma:0\] (see below), we have that for $c_1,c_2\in [a,b]$ with $c_2\ge c_1$ the expression $$\int_a^{b} \max\{c_1-x,0\}\max\{c_2-x,0\} dF(x) - \int_a^{b} \max\{c_1-x,0\}\max\{c_2-x,0\} dG(x)$$ is equal to $$(c_2-c_1)\bigg[\int_0^{c_1} F(x) dx -\int_0^{c_1} G(x) dx \bigg] + 2\int_0^{c_1} \bigg(\int_0^x F(z)dz-\int_0^x G(z)dz\bigg)dx \ge 0\;.$$
Because the above inequality is linear in $c_2$, we have that it holds for every $c_2\in[c_1,b]$ if and only if it holds for $c_2=b$ and for $c_2=c_1$. Evaluating it at these two points we obtain the first and the second inequalities of Proposition \[prop:4\], respectively.
\[lemma:0\] Consider a distribution $F$ on $[a,b]$. For every $c_1\le c_2$ in $[a,b]$ we have that $$\int_a^{b} \max\{c_1-x,0\}\max\{c_2-x,0\} dF(x)= (c_2-c_1)\int_a^{c_1} F(x)dx + 2 \int_a^{c_1}\int_a^{x} F(z)dzdx\;.$$
Because $c_1\le c_2$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_a^{b} \max\{c_1-x,0\}\max\{c_2-x,0\} dF(x) &= \int_a^{c_1}(c_1-x)(c_2-x)dF(x)\\
&=c_2\int_a^{c_1}(c_1-x)dF(x)-\int_a^{c_1} x(c_1-x)dF(x)\;. \label{eq:0}
\end{aligned}$$ Using integration by parts for Lebesgue-Stieltjes integrals, we have that $$\label{eq:aux1}
\int_a^{c_1}(c_1-x)dF(x)= (c_1-x)F(x)\Big|_{a^-}^{c_1^+}+ \int_a^{c_1} F(x)dx = \int_a^{c_1} F(x)dx \;,$$ where the second equality comes from $F(a^-)=0$.
To tackle the second term in Equation , define $ v(x):=\int_a^{x} (c_1-z)dF(z)$ for $x\in [a,c_1]$. Using integration by parts and the fact that $F(a^-)=0$, we have that $v(x)=(c_1-x)F(x)+\int_a^{x}F(z)dz$. Define $u(x)=x$. We have that $\int_a^{c_1} x(c_1-x)dF(x)=\int_a^{c_1}u(x) dv(x)$. Using integration by parts and the fact that $v(a^-)=0$, we obtain $$\int_a^{c_1} x(c_1-x)dF(x)=\int_a^{c_1} x F(x) dx - \int_a^{c_1}\int_a^{x} F(z)dzdx\;.$$
Once again, using integration by parts, we have that $\int_a^{c_1} x F(x) dx =c_1\int_a^{c_1}F(x)dx-\int_a^{c_1}\int_a^{x} F(z)dzdx$. Thus, $$\label{eq:aux2}
\int_a^{c_1} x(c_1-x)dF(x)=c_1\int_a^{c_1}F(x)dx- 2 \int_a^{c_1}\int_a^{x} F(z)dzdx\;.$$
Therefore, plugging and into Equation we get that $$\int_a^{c_1}(c_1-x)(c_2-x)dF(x) = (c_2-c_1)\int_a^{c_1} F(x)dx + 2 \int_a^{c_1}\int_a^{x} F(z)dzdx\;.$$
The proof has two steps. We first show that inequality is a necessary and sufficient condition for condition to hold. We next prove that it also implies condition . From Corollary \[coro:1\], we conclude that $F\succeq_{2,[a_1,b_1]-D} G$.
Before heading to the proof, by simple algebraic manipulations we obtain that $$\int_{a_1}^c F(x)dx= \frac{(c-a_1)^2}{2(b_1-a_1)}
\; \mbox{ and } \; {
\int_{a_1}^c G(x)dx= \begin{cases}
0 &\mbox{ if } c\in[a_1,a_2)\\
\frac{(c-a_2)^2}{2(b_2-a_2)} &\mbox{ if } c\in [a_2,b_2)\\
c-\frac{a_2+b_2}2 &\mbox{ if } c\in[b_2,b_1]
\end{cases}\;.}$$ And similarly, $$\int_{a_1}^c\int_{a_1}^x F(z)dzdx=\frac{(c-a_1)^3}{6(b_1-a_1)}
\; \mbox{ and } \; {
\int_{a_1}^c\int_{a_1}^x G(z)dzdx= \begin{cases}
0 &\mbox{ if } c\in[a_1,a_2)\\
\frac{(c-a_2)^3}{6(b_2-a_2)} &\mbox{ if } c\in [a_2,b_2)\\
\frac{(b_2-a_2)^2}{6}+\frac{(c-a_2)(c-b_2)}{2} &\mbox{ if } c\in[b_2,b_1]
\end{cases}\;.}$$
**Step 1.** Define $h(c):= \int_{a_1}^c\int_{a_1}^x F(z) - G(z) dzdx$, we look for $(a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2)$ for which $h$ is non-negative on $[a_1,b_1]$. We separate our analysis in the following subintervals of $[a_1,b_2]$:
- For $[a_1,a_2]$, clearly $h(c)$ is non-negative (independent of the parameters).
- For $(a_2,b_2)$, we claim that $h$ does not have any local minimum. To see this, suppose by contradiction that there is such a minimum $c^*$. Then, because $h$ is twice differentiable we must have that $h'(c^*)=0$ and $h''(c^*)\ge 0$. This two conditions are mutually impossible: $$\begin{aligned}
h'(c^*)=0\iff \frac{(c^*-a_1)^2}{2(b_1-a_1)} - \frac{(c^*-a_2)^2}{2(b_2-a_2)} =0\;, \end{aligned}$$ dividing the equation, in each side, by $\frac{(c^*-a_1)}2$ we have that $$\frac{c^*-a_1}{b_1-a_1} - \frac{c^*-a_2}{c^*-a_1}\frac{ c^*-a_2}{b_2-a_2} =0 \;.$$ Because $a_1<a_2$ and $c^*\in (a_1,a_2)$, we have that $ \frac{c^*-a_2}{c^*-a_1} < 1$. Hence, $$\frac{c^*-a_1}{b_1-a_1} - \frac{c^*-a_2}{b_2-a_2} <0 \iff h''(c^*)<0 \;.$$ We conclude that $h$ does not have a local minimum on $(a_2,b_2)$.
- For $[b_2,b_1]$, we claim that $h$ is strictly concave. Indeed, simple computations lead us to $h''(c) = -1 + \frac{c-a_1}{b_1-a_1}$, which is negative for $c\in (b_2,b_1)$. By the concavity of $h$, we have that $h\ge 0$ if and only if $h(b_2)$ and $h(b_1)$ are positive.
Suppose that $h'(b_2)\le 0$. By the concavity of $h$ we have that $h$ is decreasing over $[b_2,b_1]$. Thus $h\ge 0$ over $[b_2,b_1] $ if and only if $h(b_1)\ge 0$.
We assert that if $h'(b_2)>0$ then $h(b_2)\ge 0$. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that $h(b_2)<0$. Because $h(b_2)<0$, $h'(b_2)>0$ and $h(a_2)>0$, a local minimum exists over $(a_2,b_2)$. This contradicts the second bullet. Hence if $h'(b_2)>0$, then a necessary and sufficient condition for $h\ge0$ over $[b_2,b_1]$ is that $h(b_1)\ge 0$.
We conclude that $h\ge 0$ over $[b_2,b_1] $ if and only if $h(b_1)\ge 0$.
From the above discussion, we conclude that $h(c)\ge 0$ on $[a_1,b_1]$ if and only if $h(b_1)\ge 0$. Thus, condition holds if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
(b_1-a_1)^2 -3 (b_1-b_2)(b_1-a_2) \ge (b_2-a_2)^2 \label{ine_unif_2} \;.
\end{aligned}$$ Solving for $b_1$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
b_1&\ge \frac{3(a_2+b_2)-2a_1 - \sqrt{a_2^2+10a_2b_2+b_2^2-12a_1(a_2+b_2-a_1)}}4\\
b_1&\le \frac{3(a_2+b_2)-2a_1 + \sqrt{a_2^2+10a_2b_2+b_2^2-12a_1(a_2+b_2-a_1)}}4\;.
\end{aligned}$$ From Assumption \[assu:1\] we have that $b_1> b_2+a_2-a_1$. We assert that this implies that the first inequality always holds. Indeed, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
& b_2+a_2-a_1 - \frac{3(a_2+b_2)-2a_1 - \sqrt{a_2^2+10a_2b_2+b_2^2-12a_1(a_2+b_2-a_1)}}4\\& \quad > b_2+a_2-a_1 - \frac{3(a_2+b_2)-2a_1 }4
=\frac{b_2+a_2-2a_1}4 >0\;,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from $a_1<a_2<b_2$. Therefore, condition holds if and only inequality holds.
**Step 2.** We show that condition (\[ine:2\]) implies condition (\[ine:1\]). Define $g(c):= (b_1-c) \int_{a_1}^c F(x) - G(x) dx +2 (\int_{a_1}^c\int_{a_1}^x F(z) - G(z) dzdx)$. Similar to the first step, we separate our analysis in the following subintervals of $[a_1,b_2]$:
- For $[a_1,a_2]$, trivially, $g$ is non-negative.
- For $[b_2,b_1]$, we claim that $g$ is strictly convex. Indeed, $g''(c)=\frac {b_1-c}{b_1-a_1}>0$. Because $g'(b_1)= \frac{b_2+a_2-(b_1-a_1)}{2}$, which is strictly negative by Assumption \[assu:1\], we have that $g$ is decreasing on $[b_2,b_1]$. Therefore, $g\ge 0$ on $[b_2,b_1]$ if and only if $0\le g(b_1)=h(b_1)$.
- For the case $(a_2,b_2)$, we claim that $g$ does not have a local minimum. To prove this, we show that $g$ is concave. Indeed, for $c\in (a_2,b_2)$ we have that $g''(c)= (b_1-c)(\frac 1{b_1-a_1}- \frac 1{b_2-a_2})<0$.
From the above discussion we conclude that condition holds if and only if $h(b_2)\ge 0$ which is equivalent to inequality .
Let $F$ be the distribution function of $X$ and let $G$ be the distribution function of $Y$. Let $c \in [x_{1} ,x_{4}]$.
In Step 1 we show that condition holds if and only if inequality (\[Ineq:two-point-iff\]) holds. In Step 2 we show that if condition holds then condition also holds. Thus, from Corollary \[coro:1\] inequality (\[Ineq:two-point-iff\]) holds if and only if $F\succeq_{2,[a,b]-D} G$.
**Step 1.** Condition holds if and only if inequality (\[Ineq:two-point-iff\]) holds. We consider two cases.
Case 1. $x_{1} \leq c \leq x_{3}$. If $c \leq x_{2}$ condition trivially holds. Suppose that $c >x_{2}$.
Note that $\int _{a}^{c}\max (c -x ,0)^{2}dF(x) =p(c -x_{1})^{2}$ and $\int _{a}^{c}\max (c -x ,0)^{2}dG(x) =q(c -x_{2})^{2}$. Thus, condition holds if $\sqrt{p}(c -x_{1}) \geq \sqrt{q}(c -x_{2})$ for all $x_{2} \leq c \leq x_{3}$. The last inequality is linear in $c$ and clearly holds for $c =x_{2}$. So it holds for all $x_{2} \leq c \leq x_{3}$ if it holds for $c =x_{3}$, i.e., the following inequality holds: $$\sqrt{p}(x_{3} -x_{1}) \geq \sqrt{q}(x_{3} -x_{2}) . \label{Lemma:2 in.1}$$
Case 2. $x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}$. In this case $\int _{a}^{c}\max (c -x ,0)^{2}dF(x) =p(c -x_{1})^{2} +(1 -p)(c -x_{3})^{2}$ and $\int _{a}^{c}\max (c -x ,0)^{2}dG(x) =q(c -x_{2})^{2}$.
Thus, condition holds if $$p(c-x_{1})^{2} +(1 -p)(c -x_{3})^{2} \geq q(c-x_{2})^{2} \label{Lemma:2 in.2}$$ for all $x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}$. Clearly, inequality (\[Lemma:2 in.2\]) with $c =x_{3}$ is the same as inequality (\[Lemma:2 in.1\]), so inequality (\[Lemma:2 in.2\]) holds for all $x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}$ if and only if condition holds.
Consider the convex optimization problem $$\min _{x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}}k(c) : =p(c -x_{1})^{2} +(1 -p)(c -x_{3})^{2} -q(c -x_{2})^{2} .$$Note that $k^{ \prime }(x_{4}) \leq 0$ if and only if $(1 -q)x_{4} +qx_{2} \leq px_{1} +(1 -p)x_{3}$ which holds from our assumption (see inequality (\[Ineq:two-point-expectation\])). Because $k$ is convex, $k^{ \prime }$ is increasing on $[x_{3} ,x_{4}]$, so $k^{ \prime }(c) \leq 0$ for all $x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}$. Thus, the optimal solution for the optimization problem $\min _{x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}}k(c)$ is $c =x_{4}$.
This implies that inequality (\[Lemma:2 in.2\]) holds for all $x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}$ if and only if $k(x_{4}) \geq 0$, i.e., $$p(x_{4}-x_{1})^{2} +(1 -p)(x_{4}-x_{3})^{2} \geq q(x_{4} -x_{2})^{2}. \label{Lemma:2 in.3}$$ We conclude that condition holds if and only if inequality (\[Lemma:2 in.3\]) holds.
[**Step 2.**]{} Condition implies condition . We again consider two cases.
Case 1. $x_{1} \leq c \leq x_{3}$. If $c \leq x_{2}$ condition trivially holds. Suppose that $c >x_{2}$.
Note that $\int _{a}^{c}\max \{c -x ,0\}\max \{x_{4} -x ,0\}dF(x) =p(c -x_{1})(x_{4} -x_{1})$ and $\int _{a}^{c}\max (c -x ,0)\max (x_{4}-x ,0)dG(x) =q(c -x_{2})(x_{4} -x_{2})$. Thus, condition holds if $p(c -x_{1})(x_{4} -x_{1}) \geq q(c -x_{2})(x_{4} -x_{2})$ for all $x_{2} \leq c \leq x_{3}$. The last inequality is linear in $c$ and clearly holds for $c =x_{2}$. So it holds for all $x_{2} \leq c \leq x_{3}$ if it holds for $c =x_{3}$, i.e., the following inequality holds: $$p(x_{3} -x_{1})(x_{4} -x_{1}) \geq q(x_{3} -x_{2})(x_{4} -x_{2}) . \label{Lemma:2 in.4}$$
Case 2. $x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}$. In this case, $$\int _{a}^{c}\max (c -x ,0)\max (x_{4}-x ,0)dF(x) =p(c -x_{1})(x_{4}-x_{1}) +(1-p)(c -x_{3})(x_{4}-x_{3})$$
and $\int _{a}^{c}\max (c-x ,0)\max (x_{4} -x ,0)dG(x) =q(c -x_{2})(x_{4} -x_{2})$. Thus, condition holds if $$w(c) : =p(c -x_{1})(x_{4} -x_{1}) +(1 -p)(c -x_{3})(x_{4} -x_{3}) -q(c -x_{2})(x_{4} -x_{2}) \geq 0$$ for all $x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}$. Because $w(c)$ linear in $c$ it is enough to check for $c =x_{3}$ and $c =x_{4}$ to verify that $w(c) \geq 0$ holds for all $x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
w^{ \prime }(c) &=p(x_{4} -x_{1}) +(1 -p)(x_{4} -x_{3}) -q(x_{4} -x_{2}) \\
&=qx_{2} +(1 -q)x_{4} -px_{1} -(1 -p)x_{3} \leq 0\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from our assumption. Thus, if $w(x_{4}) \geq 0$ then $w(c) \geq 0$ holds for all $x_{3} \leq c \leq x_{4}$. Inequality (\[Lemma:2 in.3\]) implies that $w(x_{4}) \geq 0$ so $w(x_{3}) \geq 0$, i.e., inequality (\[Lemma:2 in.4\]) holds.
Now note that inequality (\[Lemma:2 in.3\]) holds if and only if $w(x_{4}) \geq 0$. We conclude that condition implies condition .
Proofs of Section \[sec:2.4\]
-----------------------------
We first need the following Lemma:
\[lemm:aux\] Consider a convex and decreasing function $u:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $u'(a)$ exists and is finite. Then there is a sequence of infinitely differentiable, decreasing and convex functions $u_n:[a,b]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $u_n$ converges uniformly to $u$.
We first extend $u$ to be defined on all ${\mathbb{R}}$. Define $\hat u:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\hat u(x)=\begin{cases}
u(a)+u'(a)(x-a) &\mbox{ if } x <a \\
u(x) &\mbox{ if } x\in[a,b]\\
u(b) &\mbox{ if } x>b
\end{cases}.$$ By construction the restriction of the function $\hat u$ to $[a,b]$, $\hat u|_{[a,b]}$, is the function $u$. We claim that $\hat u$ is decreasing and convex.
- Monotonicity: Because $u'(a)\le0$, we have that $\hat u$ is decreasing for $x<a$. For $x\in [a,b]$, $\hat u$ is decreasing because $u$ is decreasing. For $x>b$, the function is constant. Because $\lim_{x\to a+}\hat u(x)=u(a)$ and $\lim_{x\to b^-} \hat u(x)=u(b)$, we conclude that $\hat u$ is decreasing on ${\mathbb{R}}$.
- Convexity: Take $x_1,x_2\in {\mathbb{R}}$, with $x_1<x_2$, and $\lambda \in (0,1)$.
For $\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2\ge b$, by the monotonicity of $\hat u$, we have that $$\hat u (\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2)=u(b)=\min_{x\in {\mathbb{R}}} \hat u(x).$$ Hence, $\hat u (\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2) \le \lambda \hat u ( x_1) +(1-\lambda) \hat u(x_2)$.
For $\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2\in [a,b]$, we split to three subcases. If $x_1,x_2 \in [a,b]$, we have $\hat u(\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2) \le \lambda \hat u ( x_1) +(1-\lambda) \hat u(x_2)$ because $u$ is convex.
If $x_1<a$ and $x_2\in[a,b]$, then $\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2 = \hat \lambda a+(1-\hat \lambda)x_2$, with $\hat \lambda =\lambda \frac{x_2-x_1}{x_2-a}$.[^14] The convexity of $u$ implies that[^15] $$\begin{aligned}
& \hat u (x_2)-\hat u(a)\ge u'(a) (x_2-a)\\ \Longleftrightarrow & \underbrace{(x_1-a)}_{(x_1-x_2)+(x_2-a)} (\hat u (x_2)-\hat u(a)) \le (x_1-a)\quad u'(a) (x_2-a) \\
\Longleftrightarrow & (x_1-x_2) (\hat u (x_2)-\hat u(a)) \le (x_2-a) (\underbrace{u'(a)(x_1-a) + \hat u(a)}_{\hat u(x_1)} - \hat u (x_2))\\
\Longleftrightarrow & \frac{x_2-x_1}{x_2-a} (\hat u (a)-\hat u(x_2))\le \hat u(x_1) - \hat u (x_2) \qquad \\ \Longleftrightarrow & \underbrace{\lambda\; \frac{x_2-x_1}{x_2-a}}_{\hat \lambda} \;(\hat u (a)-\hat u(x_2)) \le \lambda \; (\hat u(x_1) - \hat u (x_2))\;\\
\Longleftrightarrow & \hat \lambda \hat u(a)+(1- \hat \lambda) \hat u(x_2) \le \lambda \hat u(x_1)+(1- \lambda) \hat u(x_2)\;.\end{aligned}$$ Using that $\hat u$ is convex over $[a,b]$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\hat u(\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2 )&= \hat u(\hat \lambda a+(1-\hat \lambda)x_2)\le \hat \lambda \hat u(a)+(1-\hat \lambda) \hat u(x_2)\end{aligned}$$
which proves subcase (ii).
Finally, if $x_2>b$ we have $$\hat u(\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2) \le \hat u (\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)b) \le \lambda \hat u ( x_1) +(1-\lambda) \hat u( b) = \lambda \hat u ( x_1) +(1-\lambda) \hat u( x_2)$$
which proves subcase (iii). The first inequality follows because $\hat u$ is decreasing. The second inequality follows from subcases (i) and (ii).
For, $\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2 <a$ we claim that $$\hat u(\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2)=\lambda \hat u(x_1) +(1-\lambda)(u'(a)(x_2-a)+u(a)) \le \lambda \hat u(x_1) +(1-\lambda) \hat u(x_2) \;.$$
Thus, we need to show that $u'(a)(x_2-a)+u(a)\le \hat u(x_2)$. If $x_2<a$, the inequality holds from the definition of $\hat u$. If $x_2\in [a,b]$ the inequality holds from the convexity of $u$. If $x_2>b$ we have that $$u'(a)(x_{2}-a)+u(a) \leq u'(a)(b-a)+u(a) \leq \hat u(b)=\hat u(x_{2}).$$ The first inequality follows because $u'(a) \leq 0$. The second inequality follows from the convexity of $u$.
We prove that $\hat u$ is decreasing and convex. In particular, since a convex function is continuous in the interior of the domain, we have that $\hat u$ is a continuous function.
The next step is based on a mollification argument (see Appendix C in [@evans10]). Consider a mollifier $g$, with a compact support and define $g_n(x)=ng(nx)$. Then, $$\hat u_n(x)=\hat u * g_n (x)=\int \hat u(x-y)g_n(y)dy$$ is infinitely differentiable. Since $\hat u$ is continuous, we have that $\hat u_n$ converges uniformly to $\hat u$ on compact subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$ (see Appendix C, Theorem 6, in [@evans10]). In particular, we have that $\hat u_n$ converges uniformly to $ \hat u =u $ on $[a,b]$.
We assert that $\hat u_n$ is convex, decreasing, which implies that $u_n:=\hat u _n|_{[a,b]}$ is convex decreasing, infinitely differentiable, such that $u_n$ converges uniformly to $u$.
Indeed, take $x_1<x_2$ and $\lambda\in (0,1)$, then:
- Monotonicity: Because $\hat u$ is decreasing and $g\ge 0$, we have that for every $y$, $$\hat u(x_1-y)g_n(y) \ge \hat u(x_2-y)g_n(y)\;.$$ Hence, integrating over $y$, we obtain that $\hat u_n(x_1)\ge \hat u_n(x_2)$.
- Convexity: Because $\hat u$ is convex and $g\ge 0$, we have that for every $y$, $$\hat u(\lambda x_1 + (1-\lambda) x_2-y)g_n(y) = \hat u(\lambda (x_1-y) +(1-\lambda)(x_2-y))g_n(y) \le \lambda \hat u(x_1-y)g_n(y) +(1-\lambda)\hat u(x_2-y)g_n(y)\;.$$ Hence, integrating over $y$, we obtain that $\hat u_n(\lambda x_1 +(1-\lambda )x_2)\le \lambda \hat u_n(x_1) +(1-\lambda)\hat u_n(x_2)$.
Assume that $F \succeq_{[a,b]-SVF} G$.
Let $u \in \mathcal{F}_{1}$. Using integration by parts for a Lebesgue-Stieltjes integral multiple times yield $$\begin{aligned}
\int _{a}^{b}u(x)d(F-G)(x) & =u(x)\left (F(x) -G(x)\right ) \Big|_{a^-}^{b^+} -\int _{a}^{b}u^{ \prime }(x)\left (F(x) -G(x)\right )dx \\
& = -u^{ \prime }(x)\int _{a}^{x}\left (F(z) -G(z)\right )dz \Big |_{a}^{b} +\int _{a}^{b}u^{ \prime \prime }(x)\int _{a}^{x}\left (F(z) -G(z)\right )dzdx \\
& = u^{ \prime \prime }(x)\int _{a}^{x}\int _{a}^{y}\left (F(z) -G(z)\right )dzdy \Big |_{a}^{b} -\int _{a}^{b}u^{ \prime \prime \prime }(x)\int _{a}^{x}\int _{a}^{y}\left (F(z) -G(z)\right )dzdydx \\
& =u^{ \prime \prime }(b)\int _{a}^{b}\int _{a}^{y}\left (F(z) -G(z)\right )dzdy -\int _{a}^{b}u^{ \prime \prime \prime }(x)\int _{a}^{x}\int _{a}^{y}\left (F(z) -G(z)\right )dzdydx \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ which proves the only if part of the theorem. In the second equality we use the fact that $F(b^+) -G(b^+) =F(a^-) -G(a^-) =0$. In the third equality we use the fact that $u \in \mathcal{F}_{2}$ implies that $u^{ \prime }(b) =0$ (see Proposition \[prop:2\]). The inequality follows from $u^{ \prime \prime } >0$, $u^{ \prime \prime \prime } \leq 0$, and the fact that $$\int _{a}^{b}\max (x -y ,0)^{2}dF(y) \geq \ensuremath{\operatorname*{}}\int _{a}^{b}\max (x -y ,0)^{2}dG(y)$$for all $x \in [a ,b]$ if and only if $\int _{a}^{x}\int _{a}^{y}\left (F(z) -G(z)\right )dzdy \geq 0$ for all $x \in [a ,b]$ (see Lemma \[lemma:0\]).
Now assume that $\int_a^b u(x) dF(x)\ge \int_a^b u(x)dG(x)$ for every function $u \in \mathcal{F}_1$.
Consider a semi-variance function $u_{c}(x)=\max\{c-x,0\}^2$ on $[a,b]$. We claim that there exists a sequence of functions $(u_n)\in\mathcal{F}_1$ such that $u_n$ converges to $u_{c}$ weakly.
Clearly the function $u_{c}$ is differentiable and the derivative of $u_{c}$ is given by $u'(x)=-2\max\{c-x,0\}$. The function $u'_{c}$ is concave and increasing and $u'_{c}(a)$ exists. Hence, from Lemma \[lemm:aux\] there exists a sequence $g_n$ of increasing, concave, and infinitely differentiable functions such that $g_{n}$ converges uniformly to $u'_{c}$.[^16]
Define $u_n(x)=\int_a^x g_n(z)dz - g_n(b)x + u_{c}(a)$, we assert that $u_n \in \mathcal{F}_1$. Indeed, $u_n'(x)=g_n(x)-g_n(b)$ is nonpositive because $g_n$ is increasing. Moreover, $u_n'(b)=0$. Also, $u_n''(x)=g_n'(x)$ is nonnegative because $g_n$ is increasing. Finally, $u_n'''(x)=g_n''(x)$ is nonpositive because $g_n$ is concave. From Proposition \[prop:F1F2\] we conclude that $u_n \in \mathcal{F}_1$.
We claim that $u_n$ converges weakly to $u_{c}$. That is, for any distribution function $F$ on $[a,b]$ we have $\int_a^b u_n(x)dF(x) \to \int_a^b u_{c}(x) dF(x)$.
Using the dominated convergence theorem and using the fact that $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} g_n(b)=u'(b)=0$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\int_a^b u_n(x)dF(x) &= \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \int_a^b \int_a^x g_n(z) dzdF(x) - \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} g_n(b) \int_{a}^{b} x dF(x) + u_{c}(a) \\
&= \int_a^b \int_a^x u'_{c}(z)dzdF(x) + u_{c}(a) \\
&=\int_a^b (u_{c}(x) - u_{c}(a)) dF(x) + u_{c}(a) = \int_a^b u_{c}(x) dF(x).
\end{aligned}$$
That is, $u_n$ converges weakly to $u_{c}$. Using the fact that $u_n \in \mathcal{F}_1$ yields
$$\int_a^b u_{c}(x) dF(x) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\int_a^b u_n(x)dF(x) \geq \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\int_a^b u_n(x)dG(x)=\int_a^b u_{c}(x) dG(x)$$ which proves that $F \succeq_{[a,b]-SVF} G$.
We first show that $\mathcal{F}_1\subseteq\mathcal{F}_2$. Let $u\in \mathcal{F}_{1}$, then $u \in D_{2,[a,b]}$ with a continuous second derivative. Statements 3. and 5. from Proposition \[prop:2.5\] assert that $u$ is convex and decreasing and $u'(b)=0$, respectively. Because $u \in \mathcal{F}_1$ we have $u'''(x)\le 0$. We conclude that $u\in \mathcal{F}_2$.
We now show the other inclusion $\mathcal{F}_2\subseteq\mathcal{F}_1$. First consider $u\in \mathcal{F}_2$ such that $u''(x)>0$ for $x\in[a,b]$, in the following four steps we show that $u\in \mathcal{F}_1$.
**Step 1** Consider the function $R(x)=\frac{(u(x)-u(b) )u''(x)}{u'(x)^2}$ on $(a,b)$. Because $u''(x)>0$, and $u'(b)=0$, we have that $u'(x)<0$ for $x\in (a,b)$. Thus, $R$ is well-defined. Moreover, since $u$ is thrice differentiable we have that $R$ is differentiable on $(a,b)$. We claim that $$\label{eq:R}
R'(x)=\frac 1 {u'(x)^2}\bigg[-u'(x)u''(x)(2R(x)-1) + (u(x)-u(b))u'''(x) \bigg]\;.$$ Indeed, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R'(x)&=\frac{1}{u'(x)^4}\bigg[u'(x)^3 u''(x) + (u(x)-u(b))u'(x)^2u'''(x) - 2 (u(x)-u(b))u'(x)u''(x)^2\bigg]\\
&= \frac{1}{u'(x)^2}\bigg[u'(x) u''(x) + (u(x)-u(b))u'''(x) - 2 \frac{(u(x)-u(b))u''(x)^2}{u'(x)}\bigg]\\
&= \frac{1}{u'(x)^2}\bigg[ u'(x)u''(x)\bigg(1-2 \underbrace{\frac{(u(x)-u(b))u''(x)}{u'(x)^2}}_{R(x)}\bigg) + (u(x)-u(b))u'''(x) \bigg]\\
&=\frac 1 {u'(x)^2}\bigg[-u'(x)u''(x)(2R(x)-1) + (u(x)-u(b))u'''(x) \bigg].\end{aligned}$$
**Step 2** We claim that $\liminf_{x\to b^-}R(x)\ge \frac 1 2$. To prove it, notice that $\lim_{x\to b^-}{(u(x)-u(b)) u''(x)}=0$ and that $\lim_{x\to b^{-}} u'(x)^2=u'(b)^2=0$. Hence, to compute the $\liminf_{x\to b^-}R(x)$ we use a generalization of the L’Hopital rule. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{x\to b^-}\frac{(u(x)-u(b)) u''(x)}{u'(x)^2} &\geq \liminf_{x\to b^-}\frac{u'(x) u''(x) + (u(x)-u(b))u'''(x)} {2u'(x)u''(x)}\\
&=\frac 1 2 + \liminf_{x\to b^-} \frac{(u(x)-u(b))u'''(x)} {2u'(x)u''(x)} \\
&\ge \frac 1 2. \end{aligned}$$ The first inequality follows from using a generalization of the L’Hopital rule. To show that the inequality holds, we assert that for every $x<b$, we have $\frac{(u(x)-u(b))u'''(x)} {2u'(x)u''(x)}\ge 0$. To see this, because $u''(x)>0$ then $u$ is strictly decreasing, i.e., $u'(x)<0$, and $u(x)-u(b)>0$. Because $u\in \mathcal{F}_2$ we have that $u'''(x)\le 0$. Thus, $\frac{(u(x)-u(b))u'''(x)} {2u'(x)u''(x)}\ge 0$. We conclude that $\liminf_{x\to b^-} \frac{(u(x)-u(b))u'''(x)} {2u'(x)u''(x)} \geq 0 $ which proves Step 2.
**Step 3** We claim that for every $x\in (a,b)$ we have $R(x)\ge \frac 1 2$. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that there is $y \in (a,b)$ such that $R(y)<\frac 1 2$. Let $z=\inf\{w\in [y,b]| R(w)>R(y)\}$. From Step 2, we have that $\liminf_{x\to b^-}R(x) \ge \frac 1 2 > R(y)$. Hence, $z\in [y,b)$. The continuity of $R$ implies that $R(z)=R(y)<\frac 1 2$. From the definition of the infimum we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con1}
\forall \epsilon>0 \; \exists w_\epsilon\in (z,z+\epsilon)\mbox{ such that } R(w_\epsilon)>R(y)=R(z).\end{aligned}$$
Because $u\in \mathcal{F}_2$ and $u''(x)>0$, we have that $u(z)-u(b)>0$, $u'(z)<0$, $u''(z)>0$, and $u'''(z)\le0$. These inequalities together with $R(z)<\frac 1 2$, imply that $R'(z)<0$ (see Equation (\[eq:R\]) in Step 1). Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con2}
\exists \epsilon>0 \mbox{ such that }\forall w \in (z,z+\epsilon)\; R(w) < R(z).\end{aligned}$$ conditions and are mutually impossible. Therefore, we conclude that for every $x\in (a,b)$, $R(x)\ge \frac 1 2$.
**Step 4** We claim that $u\in \mathcal{F}_1$. From Step 3, we have that for every $x\in (a,b)$, $R(x)\ge \frac 1 2$. Using characterization for an $\alpha$-convex function that is twice differentiable, we conclude that $u\in D_{2,[a,b]}$. Because $u\in \mathcal{F}_2$, we have that $u'''(x)\le 0$ for every $x\in[a,b]$. We conclude that if $u'' > 0$ and $u \in \mathcal{F}_2$, then $u\in \mathcal{F}_1$.
We are in position to prove that $\mathcal{F}_2\subseteq\mathcal{F}_1$. Take any $u\in \mathcal{F}_2$. For $\epsilon>0$ define $\tilde u_\epsilon= u+\epsilon(b-x)^2$. Clearly, $\tilde u_\epsilon$ is thrice differentiable. Notice that for every $x\in [a,b]$ we have that $\tilde u_\epsilon'(x)=u'(x)-2\epsilon (b-x)\le 0$, $\tilde u_\epsilon'(b)=u'(b)=0$, $\tilde u_\epsilon''(x) = u''(x) + 2\epsilon>0$, and $\tilde u_\epsilon'''(x)=u'''(x) \leq 0$. Thus, $\tilde u_\epsilon\in \mathcal{F}_2$ satisfying $\tilde u_\epsilon''(x)>0$ for $x\in (a,b)$. From the previous four steps we conclude that $\tilde u_\epsilon \in \mathcal{F}_1$. Thus, $\tilde u_\epsilon \in D_{2,[a,b]}$. Because $\tilde u_\epsilon \to u$ when $\epsilon \to 0$ under the pointwise topology, Proposition \[prop:2.5\] (Statement 2) implies that $u\in D_{2,[a,b]}$. Because $u'''\le 0$, we conclude that $u\in \mathcal{F}_1$.
Proofs of Section \[sec:3\]
---------------------------
\(i) Define the function $g_{s} :[0 ,\overline{y}] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{ +}$ by $g_{s}(y) : =u^{ \prime }(Rs +y)$ for all $0 \leq s \leq x$. First note that $g_{s}(y)$ is a $2 ,[0 ,Rx +\overline{y} -Rs]$-convex function.
To see this, note that $$g_{s}(y) -g_{s}(Rx +\overline{y} -Rs) =u^{ \prime }\left (Rs +y\right ) -u^{ \prime }(Rx +\overline{y})$$ is $2$-convex because $u^{ \prime }$ is $2 ,[0 ,Rx +\overline{y}]$-convex and $0 \leq Rs +y \leq Rx +\overline{y}$ for $0 \leq y \leq Rx -Rs +\bar{y}$.
From Lemma \[Lemma: suff prop\] (see below), $F \succeq _{2 ,[0 ,Rx +\overline{y}] -S} G$ implies that $F \succeq _{2 ,[0 ,Rx -Rs +\overline{y}] -S}G$ for all $s \in [0 ,x]$. Let $h_{s} (s ,q)$ be the derivative of $h$ with respect to $s$. Let $s \in [0 ,x]$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
h_{s}(s ,F) & = -u^{ \prime }\left (x -s\right ) +\beta \int _{0}^{\overline{y}}u^{ \prime }(Rs +y)dF(y) \\
& = -u^{ \prime }(x -s) +\int _{0}^{\overline{y}}g_{s}\left (y\right )dF(y) \\
& \geq -u^{ \prime }\left (x -s\right ) +\int _{0}^{\overline{y}}g_{s}(y)dG(y) =h_{s}(s ,G) ,\end{aligned}$$where the inequality follows from the facts that $F \succeq _{2 ,[0 ,Rx -Rs +\overline{y}] -S}G$ and that $g_{s}(y)$ is $2 ,[0 ,Rx -Rs +\bar{y}]$ convex. Theorem 6.1 in [@topkis1978] implies that $g(F) \geq g(G)$.
\(ii) Let $b > 0$ and $\gamma \geq 0$. Note that $u^{ \prime }(x) =x^{ -\gamma } +\gamma b^{ -\gamma -1}x$, $u^{ \prime \prime }(x) = -\gamma x^{ -\gamma -1} +\gamma b^{ -\gamma -1}$, $u^{ \prime \prime \prime }(x) =\gamma (\gamma +1)x^{ -\gamma -2}$, and $u^{ \prime \prime \prime \prime }(x) = -\gamma (\gamma +1)(\gamma +2)x^{ -\gamma -3}$.
Thus, $u^{ \prime \prime } \leq 0$, $u^{ \prime \prime \prime } \geq 0$, $u^{ \prime \prime \prime \prime } \leq 0$ and $u^{ \prime \prime }(b) =0$. Now apply Proposition \[prop:F1F2\] to conclude that $u^{ \prime }$ is a $2,[0,b]$-convex function.
\[Lemma: suff prop\]Let $F$ and $G$ be two distributions. Suppose that $F \succeq _{2 ,[a ,b] -S}G$. Then $F \succeq _{2 ,[a ,b^{ \prime }] -S}G$ for all $b^{ \prime } \in (a ,b)$.
Assume that $F \succeq _{2 ,[a ,b] -S}G$. Let $b^{ \prime } \in (a ,b)$ and $c \in [a ,b^{ \prime }]$.
Note that $F \succeq _{2 ,[a ,b] -S}G$ implies $\int _{a}^{c}\left (\int _{a}^{x}(F(z) -G(z))dz\right )dx \geq 0$. Thus, condition (\[ine:2\]) holds.
If $\int _{a}^{c}(F(x) -G(x))dx \geq 0$ then $$(b^{ \prime } -c)\left [\int _{a}^{c}(F(x) -G(x))dx\right ] +2\int _{a}^{c}\left (\int _{a}^{x}(F(z) -G(z))dz\right )dx \geq 0.$$If $\int _{a}^{c}(F(x) -G(x))dx <0$ then $$\begin{aligned}
(b^{ \prime } -c)\left [\int _{a}^{c}(F(x) -G(x))dx\right ] +2\int _{a}^{c}\left (\int _{a}^{x}(F(z) -G(z))dz\right )dx \\
\geq (b -c)\left [\int _{a}^{c}(F(x) -G(x))dx\right ] +2\int _{a}^{c}\left (\int _{a}^{x}(F(z) -G(z))dz\right )dx \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows because $F \succeq _{2 ,[a ,b] -S}G$. So condition (\[ine:1\]) holds.
We conclude that condition (\[ine:1\]) and (\[ine:2\]) hold for all $c \in [a ,b^{ \prime }]$. Thus, $F \succeq _{2 ,[a ,b^{ \prime }]-S}G$.
\[Proof of Proposition \[Prop: game\]\] **Step 1**. $e_{2} (\theta ) =\underset{e_{2} \in E}{\ensuremath{\operatorname*{argmax}}}\ e_{1} e_{2} - \frac{e_{2}^{k +1}}{(k+1)(1 -\theta )^{l}}$ is decreasing and $\alpha ,[0 ,1]$-convex. Let $h(e_{2}) =e_{1} e_{2} - \frac{e_{2}^{k +1}}{(k+1)(1 -\theta )^{l}}$ . It is easy to see that $h$ is strictly concave. Because $\theta \in [0 ,1)$, we have $h^{ \prime }\left (1\right ) =e_{1} -\frac{1}{\left (1 -\theta \right )^{l}} \leq 0$ for all $e_{1} \in E$. In addition $h^{ \prime } (0) =e_{1} \geq 0$ for all $e_{1} \in E$.
We conclude that the first order condition $h^{ \prime} (e_{2}) =0$ holds for all for all $e_{1} \in E$. The first order condition implies that $e_{1} -\frac{e_{2}^{k}}{\left (1 -\theta \right )^{l}} =0$. Thus, $e_{2} (\theta ) =e_{1}^{1/k}\left (1 -\theta \right )^{l/k}$ is a decreasing and an $\alpha ,[0 ,1]$-convex function when $l \geq \alpha k$.
**Step 2.** Denote by $ \Delta ([0 ,1])$ the set of all distributions over $[0 ,1]$. Define the operator $y :E \times \Delta ([0 ,1]) \rightarrow E$ by $$\begin{aligned}
y(e,F) =\underset{e_{1} \in E}{\ensuremath{\operatorname*{argmax}}} & \int _{0}^{1} (e_{1} \tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,e) -c_{1} (e_{1}))d F (\theta ) \\
& \text{s.t.\ }\tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,e) =\underset{e_{2} \in E}{\ensuremath{\operatorname*{argmax}}}\ e e_{2} - \frac{e_{2}^{k +1}}{\left (k +1\right )\left (1 -\theta \right )^{l}}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ We now show that the operator $y$ is increasing on $E \times \Delta ([0 ,1])$ where $ \Delta ([0 ,1])$ is endowed with the $\alpha ,[0 ,1]$-convex stochastic order, i.e., $y (e^{ \prime } ,F^{ \prime }) \geq y (e ,F)$ for all $e^{ \prime } \geq e$ and $F^{ \prime } \succeq _{\alpha ,[0 ,1] -D}F$.
Suppose that $e^{ \prime } \geq e$ and fix $F \in \Delta ([0 ,1])\text{.}$ Since $\tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,e)$ is increasing in $e$ for all $\theta \in [0 ,1)$ (this follows from a standard comparative statics argument, see [@topkis1978]), we have $\int _{0}^{1}\tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,e^{ \prime })d F (\theta ) \geq \int _{0}^{1}\tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,e)d F (\theta )$, which implies that $y (e ,F) \geq y (e^{ \prime } ,F)$. Now suppose that $F^{ \prime } \succeq _{\alpha ,[0 ,1] -D }F$, and fix $e \in E$. From Step 1, $\tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,e)$ is $\alpha ,[0 ,1]$-convex and decreasing. Thus, $\int _{0}^{1}\tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,e^{ \prime })d F^{ \prime } (\theta ) \geq \int _{0}^{1}\tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,e)d F (\theta )$, which implies that $y (e ,F^{ \prime }) \geq y (e,F)$.
**Step 3.** From Step 2, $y :E \times \Delta ([0 ,1]) \rightarrow E$ is an increasing map from the complete lattice $E$ into $E$. From Corollary 2.5.2 in [@topkis2011supermodularity], the greatest fixed point of $y$ exists and is increasing in $F$ on $ \Delta ([0 ,1])$.
Let $\bar{e}_{1} (F) =y (\bar{e}_{1} (F) ,F)$ be the greatest fixed point of $y$. Let $(\bar{e}_{1} (F) ,\bar{e}_{2} (\theta ,F))$ be the corresponding BNE, i.e., $\bar{e}_{1} (F) =y (\bar{e}_{1} (F) ,F)$ and $\bar{e}_{2} (\theta ,F)=\tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,\bar{e}_{1} (F))$. Thus, if $F^{ \prime } \succeq _{\alpha ,[0 ,1]-D}F$ we have $$m(F^{ \prime }) =\bar{e}_{1} (F^{ \prime }) \bar{e}_{2} (\theta ,F^{ \prime }) =\bar{e}_{1} (F^{ \prime }) \tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,\bar{e}_{1} (F^{ \prime })) \geq \bar{e}_{1} (F) \tilde{e}_{2} (\theta , \bar{e}_{1} (F^{ \prime })) \geq \bar{e}_{1} (F) \tilde{e}_{2} (\theta ,\bar{e}_{1} (F)) =m (F).$$ The first inequality follows from the fact that the greatest fixed point of $y$ is increasing in $F$. The second inequality follows from the fact that $\tilde{e}_{2}(\theta ,e)$ is increasing in $e$.
This concludes the proof of the Proposition.
For $t =1/3$ the right-hand-side inequality follows from Example 3. For $t \geq \frac{1}{3}$ the right-hand-side inequality follows from the fact that $f$ is decreasing.
We now prove the left-hand-side of the inequality. Let $f \in \mathcal{D}_{2 ,[a ,b]}$ and $a <b$.
From Lemma \[Lemma:1\] we have $$\frac{1}{b -a}\int _{a}^{b}f(x) \geq \frac{1}{b_{n} -a_{n}}\int _{a_{n}}^{b_{n}}f\left (x\right )dx \label{Ineq: H pf1}$$for all $(a_{n} ,b_{n})$ such that $$4b \leq 3\left (a_{n} +b_{n}\right ) -2a +\sqrt{a_{n}^{2} +10a_{n}b_{n} +b_{n}^{2} -12a\left (a_{n} +b_{n} -a\right )} \label{Ineq: H pf2}$$ and $a <a_{n} <b_{n} <b$. Now suppose that $(a_{n} ,b_{n})_{n =1}^{\infty }$ is a sequence of numbers such that $a_{n} \rightarrow \theta $ and $b_{n} \rightarrow \theta $, and inequality (\[Ineq: H pf2\]) and the inequalities $a <a_{n} <b_{n} <b$ hold for all $n$. We have $$\frac{1}{b -a}\int _{a}^{b}f\left (x\right )dx \geq \lim _{n \rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{b_{n} -a_{n}}\int _{a_{n}}^{b_{n}}f(x)dx =\lim _{n \rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{b_{n} -a_{n}}f(\zeta _{n})(b_{n} -a_{n}) =f\left (\theta \right ). \label{Ineq: H pf3}$$ The first equality follows from the mean value theorem for integrals (note that $f$ is continuous on $[a_{n} ,b_{n}]$ because it is convex on $[a ,b]$). The second equality follows since $\zeta _{n} \in \left (a_{n} ,b_{n}\right )$ for all $n$.
Let $0 <\lambda <1$ be such that $\theta =\lambda b +(1 -\lambda )a$. Suppose that $0 <\lambda <1$ is chosen such that inequality (\[Ineq: H pf2\]) holds as equality when $a_{n} \rightarrow \theta $ and $b_{n} \rightarrow \theta$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
4b & =6\theta -2a +\sqrt{12 \theta^{2} -12a(2\theta -a)} \\
& = 6\left (\lambda b +\left (1 -\lambda \right )a\right ) -2a +\sqrt{12\left (\lambda b +\left (1 -\lambda \right )a\right )^{2} -12a(2(\lambda b +\left (1 -\lambda \right )a) -a)} \\
& \Leftrightarrow 4b -4a =6\lambda \left (b -a\right ) +\sqrt{12(\lambda b +\left (1 -\lambda \right )a -a)^{2}} \\
& \Leftrightarrow 2b -2a =3\lambda \left (b -a\right ) +\sqrt{3}\lambda \left (b -a\right ) \\
& \Leftrightarrow \lambda =\frac{2}{3 +\sqrt{3}} .\end{aligned}$$From inequality (\[Ineq: H pf3\]) and the fact that $f$ is decreasing we have $$f\left (\gamma b +\left (1 -\gamma \right )a\right ) \leq f\left (\frac{2}{3 +\sqrt{3}}b +\left (1 -\frac{2}{3 +\sqrt{3}} \right )a\right ) \leq \frac{1}{b -a}\int _{a}^{b}f\left (x\right )dx$$ for all $\gamma \geq \frac{2}{3 +\sqrt{3}}$. This completes the proof of the Proposition.
[^1]: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. e-mail:
[^2]: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. e-mail:
[^3]: Recall that $Y$ dominates $X$ in the second order stochastic dominance if $\mathbb{E}[u(Y)] \ge \mathbb{E}[u(X)]$ holds for every concave and increasing function $u:[a,b] \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$.
[^4]: The $\alpha$-convex functions are also used in [@acemoglu2015robust] and [@jensen2017distributional] to derive comparative statics results in consumption-savings problems.
[^5]: For the rest of the paper we say that a function $u$ is decreasing if it is weakly decreasing, i.e., $x<y$ implies $u(x) \geq u(y)$. We say that $u$ is increasing if $-u$ is decreasing.
[^6]: The derivatives at the extreme points $a,b$ are defined by taking the left-side and right-side limits, respectively (see Definition 5.1 [@rudin1964principles]).
[^7]: In the rest of the paper, all functions are assumed to be integrable.
[^8]: From a decision theory point of view, we can normalize $u(b)=0$ without changing the preferences of the decision maker. Thus, under the normalization $u(b)=0$, the elasticity of the marginal utility function with respect to the function $u(b)-u(x)$ is the same as its elasticity with respect to the function $-u(x)$.
[^9]: Note that Example \[Example 1\] implies that when $\alpha$ tends to infinity we have $u(b) \leq u(\lambda a + (1 -\lambda)b$. Hence, $u$ is a constant function.
[^10]: As we explain in Section \[sec:2.2\], because we can normalize $u(b)=0$, the condition that the square root of $u(b)-u(x)$ is concave relates to the elasticity of the marginal utility function with respect to the utility function. This elasticity can be interpreted as a measure of convexity.
[^11]: For recent results on precautionary saving, see [@crainich2013even], [@nocetti2015robust], [@light2017precautionary], and [@bommier2018risk]. We note that our comparative statics results are significantly different from the results in the papers above, because we consider the case that both the present value and the risk of future income increase. In the papers mentioned above, stochastic orders that impose a ranking over expectations such as the second order stochastic dominance or higher order stochastic dominance are used.
[^12]: Recall that $F \succeq _{I}G$ if and only if $\int u(x)dF(x) \geq \int u(x)dG(x)$ for every increasing function $u$ and $F \succeq _{CX}G$ if and only if $\int u(x)dF(x) \geq \int u(x)dG(x)$ for every convex function $u$.
[^13]: For example, see [@dionne1985self], [@eeckhoudt2005impact], [@meyer2011diamond], [@denuit2016tradeoffs], and [@liu2017increasing].
[^14]: Because $\lambda x_1+(1-\lambda)x_2\in [a,x_{2}]$, we have that $\hat \lambda \in [0,1]$.
[^15]: Because $u$ is convex and differentiable at $a$, we have $u'(a)(x-a)+u(a)\le u(x)$ for every $x \in [a,b]$.
[^16]: The Lemma states the result for $f$ that is convex, decreasing, such that $f'(a)$ exists. Clearly, it extends to a concave, increasing function such that $f'(a)$ exists.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent surveys seem to support bulk peculiar velocities well in excess of those anticipated by the standard cosmological model. In view of these results, we consider here some of the theoretical implications of large-scale drift motions. We find that observers with small, but finite, peculiar velocities have generally different expansion rates than the smooth Hubble flow. In particular, it is possible for observers with larger than the average volume expansion at their location, to experience apparently accelerated expansion when the universe is actually decelerating. Analogous results have been reported in studies of inhomogeneous (nonlinear) cosmologies and within the context of the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi models. Here, they are obtained within the linear regime of a perturbed, dust-dominated Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology.'
author:
- 'Christos G. Tsagas'
title: '**Large-scale peculiar motions and cosmic acceleration**'
---
Introduction
============
In idealised Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmologies, comoving observers simply follow the universal expansion. In more realistic models, the smooth Hubble flow is distorted and matter acquires ‘peculiar’ velocities. The dipolar anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has been traditionally interpreted as the result of our peculiar motion relative to the cosmic rest-frame: the frame that redshifts with the expansion and in which the dipole vanishes. Our Local Group of galaxies drifts with respect to the CMB frame at roughly 600 km/sec [@P; @D; @SW]. Analogous velocities, but for bulk motions on much larger scales, were also recently reported in the surveys of [@WFH; @FWH] and those of [@KA-BKE1; @KA-BKE2; @KA-BEEK]. The latter group, in particular, finds coherent peculiar flows as strong as 1000 km/sec out to scales of 450 and 800 Mpc. Both surveys appear in disagreement with the current concordance $\Lambda$CDM scenario (e.g. see [@Pe]).
This report considers the theoretical implications of such drift velocities for the kinematics of the associated observers by focusing on the scalars that describe their average volume expansion. The key question is whether observers drifting relative to the CMB and those following the Hubble expansion (in a dust-dominated FRW universe) can ‘measure’ different deceleration parameters. Whether, in particular, it is theoretically possible for a peculiarly moving observer to ‘experience’ accelerated expansion while the universe is decelerating. We show that, even when the peculiar velocities are relatively small, the answer to this question is positive and explain why. Not surprisingly, we also find that the effects of the peculiar motions are local. Nevertheless, the affected scales can be large enough to give the impression that the universe had recently moved into an accelerating phase. Another way of interpreting our results is that accelerated expansion for an observer moving relative to the CMB does not necessarily imply the same for the universe itself.
Drift motions in perturbed FRW universes
========================================
![Observers with 4-velocity $\tilde{u}_a$ and peculiar velocity $v_a=ve_a$, relative to the reference $u_a$-frame. The (hyperbolic) angle $\beta$ determines the ‘tilt’ between $u_a$ and $\tilde{u}_a$.[]{data-label="fig:mfluid"}](mfluid){height="2.5in" width="5.5in"}
The Microwave Background introduces a preferred cosmological frame, relative to which large-scale peculiar velocities can be defined and measured. If $u_a$ is the reference 4-velocity of the CMB, typical observers in the universe have (see Fig. \[fig:mfluid\]) $$\tilde{u}_a= u_a+v_a\,, \label{eq:tua}$$ where $v_a$ (with $u_av^a=0$ and $v^2=v_av^a\ll1$) is their drift velocity [@KE].[^1] The CMB also defines the coordinate system where the universe is a dust-dominated FRW model. The ‘tilded’ frame, on the other hand, corresponds to a typical observer in a galaxy like the Milky Way.
The average kinematics of the tilded observers are determined by the volume scalar ($\tilde{\Theta}= \nabla^a\tilde{u}_a$) of their motion [@EvE; @TCM]. Positive values for $\tilde{\Theta}$ imply that the mean separation between these observers increases and therefore indicate expansion. Similarly, $\Theta$ (with $\Theta=\nabla^au_a>0$) monitors the expansion of the universe. To first order in $v_a$, the two scalars are related by [@M] $$\tilde{\Theta}= \Theta+ \vartheta\,, \label{eq:Thetas}$$ where $\vartheta=\tilde{\rm D}^av_a$. This scalar measures the average separation between neighbouring peculiar-flow lines.[^2] Expression (\[eq:Thetas\]) implies that, in regions where $\vartheta$ is positive, the peculiarly moving observers expand faster than the universe (i.e. $\tilde{\Theta}>\Theta$). For our purposes it is crucial that the drift motion ‘adds’ to the background expansion and the reasons should become clear as we proceed. We will therefore always consider sections where $\vartheta$ is positive.
In multi-systems, each group of observers has its own time direction. So, in our case, time can be measured relative to the CMB frame and along that of the tilded observers. The rate of the expansion along a given time direction is determined by the associated Raychaudhuri equation [@EvE; @TCM]. When the universe is a dust-dominated FRW model and the drift velocities are small, the Raychaudhuri equations in the CMB and the tilded frames are [^3] $$\Theta^{\prime}= -{1\over3}\,\Theta^2- {1\over2}\,\rho \hspace{15mm} {\rm and} \hspace{15mm} \dot{\tilde{\Theta}}= -{1\over3}\,\tilde{\Theta}^2- {1\over2}\,\tilde{\rho}+ \tilde{\rm D}^a\tilde{A}_a\,, \label{eq:Rays1}$$ respectively. Here, primes indicate time differentiation along $u_a$ and overdots are time derivatives with respect to the $\tilde{u}_a$-field. In other words, $\Theta^{\prime}=u^a\nabla_a\Theta$ and $\dot{\tilde{\Theta}}=\tilde{u}^a\nabla_a\tilde{\Theta}$, with the 4-velocity vectors related through Eq. (\[eq:tua\]). Also, $\rho$ and $\tilde{\rho}$ are the matter densities in the CMB and the tilded frames respectively (with $\tilde{\rho}=\rho$ to linear order in $v_a$ – see [@M]). Finally, $\tilde{A}_a$ is the 4-acceleration in the tilded frame. This vector vanishes in the CMB frame by definition (i.e. $A_a=0$) but is nonzero in every other relatively moving coordinate system. In particular, to linear order in $v_a$, we find that $\tilde{A}_a= \dot{v}_a+(\Theta/3)v_a$ [@M]. The 4-acceleration term in Eq. (\[eq:Rays1\]b) is central to our analysis. Its presence means that expressions (\[eq:Rays1\]a) and (\[eq:Rays1\]b) are different, even when matter is in the form of pressureless dust and the peculiar velocities are small. In other words, observers drifting relative to the CMB have expansion rates different than that of the actual universe simply because of their relative motion. This represents a significant theoretical deviation from the conventional single-fluid studies (e.g. see [@HS]).
The deceleration parameter of the drifting observer
===================================================
Expressed in terms of their volume scalars, the deceleration parameters associated with the $u_a$ and $\tilde{u}_a$ frames are respectively given by $$q= -\left(1+{3\Theta^{\prime}\over\Theta^2}\right) \hspace{15mm} {\rm and} \hspace{15mm} \tilde{q}= -\left(1+{3\dot{\tilde{\Theta}}\over\tilde{\Theta}^2}\right)\,. \label{eq:qs1}$$ Our main question is whether $\tilde{q}$ can take negative values while $q$ is still positive. If so, the tilded observers will experience accelerated expansion in a decelerating universe. To investigate this possibility, we first use definitions (\[eq:qs1\]) to recast expressions (\[eq:Rays1\]) into $$(1+q)\Theta^2= \Theta^2+ {3\over2}\,\rho \hspace{15mm} {\rm and} \hspace{15mm} (1+\tilde{q})\tilde{\Theta}^2= \tilde{\Theta}^2+ {3\over2}\,\tilde{\rho}- 3\tilde{\rm D}^a\tilde{A}_a\,, \label{eq:Rays2}$$ respectively. These already show that $q$ and $\tilde{q}$ are generally different, but it helps to relate the two deceleration parameters directly. Recall that $\tilde{\rho}=\rho$ and $\tilde{A}_a=\dot{v}_a+(\Theta/3)v_a$ to linear order in $v_a$. Then, employing definition $\vartheta=\tilde{\rm D}^av_a$, relation (\[eq:Thetas\]) and keeping up to $v_a$-order terms, expressions (\[eq:Rays2\]a) and (\[eq:Rays2\]b) combine to $$(1+\tilde{q})\tilde{\Theta}^2= (1+q)\Theta^2+ \Theta\vartheta-
3\tilde{\rm D}^a\dot{v}_a\,, \label{eq:tq1}$$ where $\Theta$, $\vartheta>0$ always. We may also involve the volume scalar of the peculiar motion further by using the (linear in $v_a$) relation $\dot{\vartheta}=\tilde{\rm D}^a\dot{v}_a -\Theta\vartheta/3$ [@ET]. Then, Eq. (\[eq:tq1\]) leads to $$1+ \tilde{q}= (1+q)
\left(1+{\vartheta\over\Theta}\right)^{-2}-
{3\dot{\vartheta}\over\Theta^2} \left(1+{\vartheta\over\Theta}\right)^{-2}\,, \label{eq:tq2}$$ given that $\tilde{\Theta}=\Theta+\vartheta$. The above relates the deceleration parameter in the tilded frame to that of the actual universe and it is our main result. It should now be clear that $q$ and $\tilde{q}$ are generally different. Moreover, as long as the right-hand side of (\[eq:tq2\]) remains below unity, positive values for $q$ do not a priori guarantee the same for $\tilde{q}$. In other words, it is theoretically possible for the tilded observer to experience accelerated expansion in a decelerating universe. [^4] Putting it differently, one could say that measuring negative deceleration parameter in a frame drifting relative to the CMB (like that of our Local Group for example) does not necessarily imply an accelerating universe.
At this point it is worth noting that, according to (\[eq:qs1\]b), condition $-1<\tilde{q}<0$ is equivalent to $-\tilde{\Theta}^2/3<\dot{\tilde{\Theta}}<0$. This means that both $\tilde{q}$ and $\dot{\tilde{\Theta}}$ can be simultaneously negative. Analogous relations also hold between $q$, $\Theta^2$ and $\Theta^{\prime}$. Given that, one should distinguish between accelerated expansion with simply $-1<\tilde{q}<0$ and that with $\dot{\tilde{\Theta}}>0$. We may therefore view $-1<\tilde{q}<0$ and $\dot{\tilde{\Theta}}>0$ (equivalently $\tilde{q}<-1$) as the conditions for ‘weakly’ and ‘strongly’ accelerated expansion respectively. Then, it is important to recognise that, as long as we only require $\tilde{q}$ to lie in the (-1,0) range, the 4-acceleration term in Eqs. (\[eq:Rays1\]b) and (\[eq:Rays2\]b) does not need to dominate the right-hand side of these expressions. This implies that peculiar motions can lead to weakly accelerated expansion within the limits of the linear (the almost-FRW) approximation. Given that, we will focus on the $-1<\tilde{q}<0$ case for the rest of this letter. Note that the supernovae results put the deceleration parameter close to $-0.5$ [@TR; @Retal2].
![The patch ($A$) has positive $\vartheta=\tilde{\rm D}^av_a$ and so expands faster than its surroundings (see Eq. (\[eq:Thetas\])). Inside region ($B$) the right-hand side of expression (\[eq:tq2\]) drops below unity and there the comoving observer ‘measures’ negative deceleration parameter.[]{data-label="fig:pvel"}](pmotion){height="2.5in" width="7.5in"}
Apparent acceleration in perturbed FRW universes
================================================
Let us now consider an extended spatial region ($A$) – see Fig. \[fig:pvel\], which largely complies with the FRW symmetries and expands with the Hubble flow, but is still endowed with a bulk peculiar velocity field that ‘adds’ to the background expansion (i.e. with $\vartheta>0$). Typical observers inside ($A$) have peculiar velocities close to the mean bulk flow of the patch. To linear order in $v_a$, the deceleration parameter for those observers obeys Eq. (\[eq:tq2\]). The simplest case corresponds to $3\dot{\vartheta}/\tilde{\Theta}^2\simeq0$, which occurs when $\vartheta$ varies very slowly with time (for example). Then, when the Hubble expansion dominates the kinematics, $\vartheta/\Theta\ll1$ and a straightforward Taylor expansion reduces Eq. (\[eq:tq2\]) to $$1+ \tilde{q}= \left(1+{1\over2}\,\Omega\right)
\left[1-2\left({\vartheta\over\Theta}\right)\right]\,.
\label{eq:ltq1}$$ Recall that $q=\Omega/2$ in dust-dominated FRW models, with $\Omega=3\rho/\Theta^2$ and $\rho$ representing the density of the matter in the $u_a$-frame. Noting that $\Omega$ may also be seen as the effective density parameter of patch ($A$), the tilded observers will experience accelerated expansion if $$\left(1+{1\over2}\,\Omega\right)
\left[1-2\left({\vartheta\over\Theta}\right)\right]< 1\,. \label{eq:con1}$$ Whether this condition is satisfied or not and the affected scale (i.e. the size of patch ($B$) in Fig. \[fig:pvel\]), depends on the value of $\Omega$ and on the ratio $\vartheta/\Theta$. To estimate the latter we need to know the bulk velocities of drift motions on scales far beyond that of our Local Group.
Peculiar velocities are difficult to measure, since direct measurements only provide their radial component. One also needs to subtract the Hubble expansion, which requires independent knowledge of the galaxy’s distance. As a result, bulk peculiar velocities are estimated by means of statistical methods [@SW]. Recent independent reports have claimed large-scale coherent drift velocities significantly higher than those anticipated by the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model. These surveys extend to lengths of 100$h^{-1}$Mpc [@WFH; @FWH], 300$h^{-1}$ Mpc and 500$h^{-1}$ Mpc [@KA-BKE1; @KA-BKE2; @KA-BEEK], with $h$ being the Hubble parameter in units of 100 km/secMpc. The results show bulk velocities as large as 500 km/sec [@WFH; @FWH] and up to 1000 km/sec [@KA-BKE1; @KA-BKE2; @KA-BEEK] on the corresponding scales. On smaller lengths (between 30 and 60 Mpc) the work of [@LS] suggests a (positive) variance in the local Hubble rate up to 10%. With the possible exception of the last survey, there is currently no way of knowing whether the reported bulk flows are of the desired type (i.e. with $\vartheta>0$). Nevertheless, in the absence of better data, we will use the magnitudes of the aforementioned peculiar velocities to infer reasonable (order-of-magnitude) estimates for $\vartheta$. In addition, mainly for algebraic simplicity and illustration purposes, we will also consider the intermediate value of 700 km/sec as a yardstick peculiar velocity. Note that this value is very close to the drift velocity of our Local Group.
Setting the Hubble parameter at 70 km/secMpc and extrapolating to 50 Mpc, 100 Mpc and 1000 Mpc, we find that $\vartheta/\Theta$ is close to 1/5, 1/10 and 1/100 respectively.[^5] Then, following condition (\[eq:con1\]), the tilded observer will ‘measure’ negative deceleration parameter within a region of up to 50 Mpc (in an otherwise decelerating universe) if $0<\Omega<1.3$. This condition strengthens to $0<\Omega<0.5$ at 100 Mpc, while further out, near the 1000 Mpc mark for instance, $\tilde{q}$ will remain positive unless $0<\Omega<0.04$. Inserting these numbers into Eq. (\[eq:ltq1\]) we obtain a range of values for the deceleration parameter of the tilded observer on the corresponding scales. Thus, provided (\[eq:con1\]) is satisfied, $\tilde{q}$ varies within (-0.4,0) on scales of 50 Mpc, between (-0.2,0) when we move to 100 Mpc and within (-0.02,0) near the 1000 Mpc threshold. So, in this example the size of accelerated region (i.e. that of patch ($B$) in Fig. \[fig:pvel\]) ranges between 50 Mpc and 1000 Mpc. Within these scales $\tilde{q}$ lies in the (-0.4,0) range, taking its minimum value in small-scale regions of low density and approaching zero as we move on to larger lengths. These estimates are not far from those inferred by the supernovae data, which value the deceleration parameter close to -0.5 and put the transition to deceleration near $z=0.5$ [@TR; @Retal2]. The picture does not change much when we adopt the results of [@LS], the surveys of [@WFH] and [@FWH], or those of [@KA-BKE1; @KA-BKE2; @KA-BEEK]. Substituted into expressions (\[eq:ltq1\]) and (\[eq:con1\]), the former give $-0.2<\tilde{q}<0$ in regions of 50 Mpc when $\Omega<0.5$ there. Similarly, close to 150 Mpc, the measurements of [@WFH] and [@FWH] put $\tilde{q}$ in the range (-0.1,0), provided $\Omega<0.2$ there. Finally on lengths of 450 and 800 Mpc, the results of [@KA-BKE1; @KA-BKE2; @KA-BEEK] suggest that $\tilde{q}$ varies the range (-0.07,0) and (-0.04,0) respectively, when $\Omega<0.15$ and $\Omega<0.07$ on the corresponding scales. Note that the same survey indicates bulk flows of 1500 km/sec on scales close to 150 Mpc. Inserted into Eqs. (\[eq:ltq1\]), (\[eq:con1\]) these values lead to $-0.3<\tilde{q}<0$ when $\Omega<0.8$. One should keep in mind, however, that on relatively small scales the peculiar-velocity errorbars are large (see [@KA-BKE1]).
Let us now turn to the last term of Eq. (\[eq:tq2\]). Qualitatively speaking, a positive $\dot{\vartheta}$ will assist the acceleration, relax the above given conditions and lead to lower values of $\tilde{q}$. So, here, we will assume that $\dot{\vartheta}$ is negative. We will also demand that $\dot{\vartheta}/\Theta^{\prime}\simeq\vartheta/\Theta\ll1$, to ensure that both $\vartheta$ and $\dot{\vartheta}$ are small perturbations relative to their background associates. The next step is to recast Raychaudhuri’s formula (see Eq. (\[eq:Rays1\]a)) in the form $$\Theta^{\prime}=-{1\over3}\,\Theta^2
\left(1+{1\over2}\,\Omega\right)\,, \label{eq:Ray}$$ with $\Theta^{\prime}<0$. Solving the above for $\Theta^2$, substituting into Eq. (\[eq:tq2\]) and employing some straightforward algebra we arrive at $$1+ \tilde{q}= \left(1+{1\over2}\,\Omega\right)
\left(1-{\vartheta\over\Theta}\right)\,. \label{eq:ltq2}$$ Using the previous values of $\vartheta/\Theta$, we find that negative $\tilde{q}$s on $\sim50$ Mpc scales need $\Omega<0.5$. Similarly, expression (\[eq:ltq2\]) translates into $\Omega<0.2$ close to 100 Mpc and into $\Omega<0.02$ near the 1000 Mpc mark, if $\tilde{q}$ is to become negative there. Under these conditions, the accelerated patch extends from 50 Mpc to 1000 Mpc, with $\tilde{q}$ varying within (-0.2,0). So, even with the last term of (\[eq:tq2\]) accounted for (and in an unfavourable way), negative values for $\tilde{q}$ are still possible. Conventional almost-FRW kinematics can accommodate accelerated expansion.
Summary and discussion
======================
To summarise, suppose that in a dust-dominated FRW universe a sufficiently large region ($A$) is endowed with a weak bulk peculiar velocity of positive divergence (i.e. $\vartheta>0$). When the right-hand side of (\[eq:tq2\]) drops below unity, around every point in ($A$) there is an essentially spherically symmetric patch ($B$) where the expansion is ‘weakly’ accelerated (i.e. $-1<\tilde{q}<0$ there).[^6] As a result, nearly every observer in ($A$) will experience accelerated expansion, although region ($A$) and the universe itself may be actually decelerating. The accelerating effect, in a given region, depends on the magnitude of the peculiar velocity and the density of the region in question. Overall, the larger the drift velocity and the lower the density the faster the acceleration.
Little more than a decade ago, observations of high-redshift supernovae indicated that our universe was expanding at an accelerating pace [@Retal1; @Petal]. This conclusion was reached after applying the observed luminosity distances of the supernovae to the distance-redshift relation, $$D_L= (1+z)H_0^{-1} \int_0^ze^{-\int_0^x(1+q)\mathrm{d}[\ln(1+y)]}\mathrm{d}x\,, \label{eq:DL}$$ of an FRW model. Note that in the above $q$ is the deceleration parameter of the universe and not that of an observer moving relative to the CMB.[^7] The results have repeatedly given negative values to $q$, indicating an accelerated expansion for our universe. In particular, the deceleration parameter was estimated close to -0.5. The same measurements also suggested that the accelerated phase was a relatively recent event, putting the transition from deceleration to acceleration around $z=0.5$ (i.e. between two and three thousand Mpc – [@TR; @Retal2]). The supernovae results were so unexpected that they have since dominated almost every aspect of contemporary cosmology. The main problem is that negative values for the deceleration parameter appear theoretically impossible in FRW (as well as in perturbed, almost-FRW) cosmologies, unless new physics or drastic changes to the matter content of the universe were introduced. Dark energy, an unknown and elusive form of matter with negative gravitational mass, has so far been the most popular answer.
The implications of peculiar velocity perturbations on the luminosity distance of distant galaxies, within the context of perturbed FRW models, has been investigated in the past (e.g. [@VFW]), in an attempt to reconcile expression (\[eq:DL\]) with positive values for the deceleration parameter. That work has investigated the impact of peculiar motions on $D_L$. Here, we have followed a different approach. Turning our attention to the deceleration parameter, the aim was to examine whether peculiar motions can ‘make’ the latter negative. Our results show that this is theoretically possible. Peculiar motions can locally mimic the kinematic effects of dark energy. Observers moving relative to the smooth Hubble flow can have local expansion rates appreciably different than that of the actual universe. This reflects the fact that the Raychaudhuri equations in the two coordinate systems (that of the CMB and that of a drifting observer) are not the same. The difference is due to a 4-acceleration term, which vanishes in the CMB frame but takes nonzero values in any other relatively moving reference system. As a result, accelerated expansion is possible even when the drift velocities are small and matter is simple pressure-free dust, namely within the limits of the linear (almost-FRW) approximation.
Extrapolating our drift velocity relative to the CMB frame, we found that peculiarly moving observers can measure negative deceleration parameter on scales between (roughly) 50 and 1000 Mpc, with $\tilde{q}$ varying in the range (-0.4,0). Based on the surveys of [@WFH], [@FWH] and particularly those of [@KA-BKE1; @KA-BKE2; @KA-BEEK], the deceleration parameter was confined within (-0.3,0). These results are qualitatively in the right direction, though quantitatively stop short of fully reproducing the current supernovae data. In particular, the largest scale considered here is between a half and a third of the typical scale of the accelerated domain [@TR; @Retal2]. Also, typically, the larger the scale the lower the required (effective) density parameter, putting the latter potentially at odds with the current observational constraints. On these grounds, this work should be seen as a proof of principle, rather than a full fit to the current supernovae data. Nonetheless, it is important to know that (based on estimates inferred from peculiar-flow observations) apparently accelerating expansion is possible in linearly perturbed FRW models with conventional (dust) matter.
Given that peculiar velocities are a byproduct of structure formation, their role can be seen as a ‘backreaction’ effect (e.g. see [@R1; @R2; @BMR; @CPZ; @KMR; @W4] and also [@B2] for a recent review). These scenarios consider the overall impact of inhomogeneity and anisotropy, go beyond the linear regime and usually employ an averaging scheme [@B1; @Z]. Averaging also raises issues related to the ‘fitting problem’ and the choice of a ‘background’ [@E1; @KMM], the ‘dressing’ of cosmological parameters [@BC1; @BC2], the propagation of light [@R3; @R4] and the ‘synchronisation of clocks’ [@W1; @W2; @W3]. Here, we have focused on peculiar motions without introducing any spatial averaging. We have also remained within the linear approximation. Nevertheless, the effects are of the same nature. Also, since we have looked at peculiar velocities that increase the volume expansion at the observer’s location, our model shares close analogies with a local void. The possibility of apparent acceleration in the void scenario has been studied by many authors both qualitatively and quantitatively (e.g. see [@MHE], [@C], [@T1; @T2], [@INN], [@AAG1; @AAG2], [@ZMS], [@CFL], [@BA], [@S] for a representative though incomplete list). Whereas the effects of large voids have been generally studied in the context of the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) solution,[^8] our analysis has been performed within a perturbed FRW model. The analogies between the two approaches found here, also seem to support the claim by [@EMR]: that LTB models fitting the supernovae data (with appropriate initial conditions) are equivalent to perturbed FRW spacetimes along the observer’s past light-cone. Although single void models appear unrealistic, given the complexity of the observed structure, the simple analysis and the results presented here suggest that (when more realistic averages are performed) identifying the deceleration parameter measured in the frame of a drifting observer with that of the universe itself could be misleading.
[**Acknowledgements**]{} The author wishes to thank George Ellis for helpful discussions.
Alnes H., Amarzguioui M. & Gron O., Phys. Rev. D **73**, 083519 (2006) Alnes H., Amarzguioui M. & Gron O., Phys. Rev. D **75**, 023506 (2007) Barausse E., Matarrese S. & Riotto A., Phys. Rev. D **71**, 063537 (2005) Bolejko K. & Anderson L., JCAP **10** 003 (2008) Buchert T., Gen. Rel. Grav. **105** 105 (2000) Buchert T., Gen. Rel. Grav. **40**, 467 (2008) Buchert T. & Carfora M., Class. Quantum Grav. **19**, 6109 (2002) Buchert T. & Carfora M., Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 031101 (2003) Celerier M.N., Astron. Astrophys. **353**, 63 (2000) Clarkson C., Clifton T. & February S., JCAP **06**, 025 (2009) Clifton T., Ferreira P.G. & Land K., Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 131302 (2008) Coley A.A., Pelavas N. & Zalaletdinov R., Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 151102 (2005) Dodelson S., Modern Cosmology (Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003) Ellis G.F.R, in [*General Relativity and Gravitation*]{}, Ed. B. Bertotti, F. de Felice and A. Pascolini (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984) 215 Ellis G.F.R. & Tsagas C.G., Phys. Rev. D **66**, 124015 (2002) Ellis G.F.R & van Elst H., in Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, Ed. M. Lachiéze-Ray (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998) 1 Enqvist K., Mattsson M. & Rigopoulos G., JCAP **09**, 022 (2009) Feldman H.A., Watkins R. & Hudson M.J., preprint arXiv:0911.551 Hirata C.M. & Seljac U., Phys. Rev. D **72**, 083501 (2005) Iguchi H., Nakamura T. & Nakao K.-i. Prog. Theor. Phys. **108**, 809 (2002) Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F., Kocevski D. & Ebeling H., Astrophys. J. **686**, L49 (2008) Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F., Kocevski D. & Ebeling H., Astrophys. J. **691**, 1479 (2009). Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F., Edeling H., Edge A. & Kocevski D., preprint arXiv:0910.4958 King A.R. & Ellis G.F.R, Commun. Math. Phys. **31**, 209 (1973) Kolb E.W., Matarrese S. & Riotto A., New. J. Phys. **8**, 322 (2006) Kolb. E.W., Marra V. & Matarrese S., preprint arXiv:0901.4566 Li N. & Schwarz D.J., Phys. Rev. D **78**, 083531 (2008). Maartens R., Phys. Rev. D **58**, 124006 (1998) Mustapha N., Hellaby C. & Ellis G.F.R., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. **292**, 817 (1997) Padmanabhan T., Structure Formation in the Universe (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993) Perlmutter S., et al, Astrophys. J. **517**, 565 (1999) Perivolaropoulos L., preprint arXiv:0811.4684 Plebanski J. & Krasinski A., An Introduction to Relativity and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006) Rasanen S., JCAP **02**, 003 (2004) Rasanen S., JCAP **11**, 003 (2006) Rasanen S., JCAP **04**, 026 (2008) Rasanen S., JCAP **02**, 011 (2009) Riess A.G., et al, Astrophys. J. **116**, 1009 (1998) Riess A.G., et al, Astrophys. J. **607**, 665 (2004). Strauss M.A. & Willick J.A., Phys. Rep. **261**, 271 (1995) Sussman R.A., preprint arXiv:0807.1145 Tomita K., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. **326**, 287 (2001) Tomita K., Prog. Theor. Phys. **106**, 929 (2001) Tsagas C.G., Challinor C. & Maartens R., Phys. Rep., **465**, 61 (2008). Turner M.S. & Riess A.G., Astrophys. J. **569**, 18 (2002) Vanderveld R.A., Flanagan E. & Wasserman I., Phys. Rev. D **76**, 083504 (2007) Watkins R., Feldman H.A. & Hudson M.J., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. **392**, 743 (2009) Wiltshire D.L., New J. Phys. **9**, 377 (2007) Wiltshire D.L., Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 251101 (2007) Wiltshire D.L., Phys. Rev. D **78**, 084032 (2008) Wiltshire D.L., Phys. Rev. D **80**, 123512 (2009) Zalaletdinov R., Gen, Rel. Grav. **24**, 1015 (1992) Zibin J.P., Phys. Rev. D **78**, 043504 (2008) Zibin J.P., Moss A. & Scott D. Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 251303 (2008)
[^1]: The $\tilde{u}_a$-field is also timelike, since $\tilde{u}_a\tilde{u}^a=-1$ irrespective of the magnitude of the peculiar velocity. Each frame defines its own time direction and 3-space (parallel and orthogonal to the corresponding 4-velocity respectively). The tensors $h_{ab}=g_{ab}+u_au_b$ and $\tilde{h}_{ab}=g_{ab}+ \tilde{u}_a\tilde{u}_b$, with $g_{ab}$ representing the spacetime metric, project orthogonal to $u_a$ and $\tilde{u}_a$ respectively. These tensors also define the orthogonally projected covariant derivative operators by means of ${\rm D}_a=h_a{}^b\nabla_b$ and $\tilde{\rm D}_a= \tilde{h}_a{}^b\nabla_b$ ($\nabla_a$ is the standard covariant derivative) [@EvE; @TCM].
[^2]: A more familiar form for Eq. (\[eq:Thetas\]) is the Newtonian expression $\tilde{u}_a=Hr_a+v_a$, where $\tilde{u}_a$ and $v_a$ are respectively the physical and the peculiar velocities of an observer with physical coordinates $r_a$ ($H=\Theta/3$ is the Hubble parameter). The (physical) divergence of the above leads to Eq. (\[eq:Thetas\]), with $\tilde{\Theta}$ and $\vartheta$ corresponding to $\partial^a\tilde{u}_a$ and $\partial^av_a$ respectively.
[^3]: We assume non-relativistic peculiar velocities and therefore drop terms of order $v^2$ and higher from (\[eq:Rays1\]b) and the rest of our equations. Also, throughout this letter we use geometrised units with $c=1=8\pi G$.
[^4]: Expression (\[eq:tq2\]) implies that two decelerating expansions can combine to give an accelerating one. Another way of showing this is by writing Eq. (\[eq:Thetas\]) as $\dot{\tilde{a}}/\tilde{a}= (\dot{a}/a)+(\dot{\alpha}/\alpha)$, where $\tilde{a}$, $a$ and $\alpha$ are the three scale factors (with $\dot{a},\,\dot{\alpha}>0$). Then, $\ddot{\tilde{a}}/\tilde{a}= (\ddot{a}/a)+(\ddot{\alpha}/\alpha)+ 2(\dot{a}/a)(\dot{\alpha}/\alpha)$, meaning that negative values for $\ddot{a}$ and $\ddot{\alpha}$ do not guarantee the same for $\ddot{\tilde{a}}$. Note that for simplicity we have used overdots for both time derivatives.
[^5]: Recall that $\Theta=3H$ and that $\vartheta=\tilde{\rm D}_av^a\simeq\partial_av^a$. Measuring the 3-divergence of the peculiar velocity is not feasible at present. We can obtain an estimate, however, using the approximate relation $\partial_av^a=\partial v^a/\partial r^a\sim3v/r$, where $v$ is the magnitude of the bulk velocity in a given region and $r$ the size of that region. Then, $\vartheta/\Theta\sim v/Hr$.
[^6]: This conclusion has been based on the average peculiar kinematics without incorporating anisotropies. For instance, the symmetry of region ($A$) and the observers position in it can induce anisotropy in the spatial distribution of $\tilde{q}$. Generally, the higher the spherical symmetry of ($A$) and the closer the observer at the centre the better. These matters are less of an issue, however, when ($A$) is considerably larger than ($B$), namely as long as patch ($B$) lies well within region ($A$). The direction of the peculiar motion can also introduce an anisotropy in the $\tilde{q}$-distribution. This effect is maximised when the peculiar velocity maintains the same magnitude and direction throughout the integration period (i.e. from $z\simeq0.5$ to the present – see expression (\[eq:DL\])). In the opposite case, when the $v_a$-field has been sufficiently randomised, the anisotropy will be negligible. Estimating effects like these is currently impossible, however, as it requires detailed data on the distribution of peculiar velocities within regions of several hundred Mpc.
[^7]: To account for the effects of our peculiar motion on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:DL\]), one should replace $q$ with $\tilde{q}$. To linear order in $v_a$, the latter is given by expression (\[eq:tq2\]), or by its simplified counterpart (\[eq:ltq1\]).
[^8]: The reader is directed to [@PK] for a general discussion on LTB cosmologies and also to [@Zi] and [@CCF] for perturbative studies of these models.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper is devoted to the study, with variational technique, of the following quasilinear elliptic problem: $$\begin{cases}
-\Delta_p u - \beta \Delta_q u =g(u) & \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},
\\
u(x)\to 0 & \hbox{as }|x|\to +\infty,
\end{cases}$$ where $N \ge 3$, $1<p<q$ and $p<N$. We are interested in the existence of positive solutions for general nonlinearities. Especially we obtain the existence result for the zero mass case, which includes a large class of pure power nonlinearities. More general quasilinear problems of Born-Infeld type are also considered.
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Meccanica, Matematica e Management Politecnico di Bari Via Orabona 4, 70125 Bari, Italy'
- ' Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Kyoto Sangyo University, Motoyama, Kamigamo, Kita-ku, Kyoto-City, 603-8555, Japan'
author:
- Alessio Pomponio
- Tatsuya Watanabe
title: ' Some quasilinear elliptic equations involving multiple $p$-Laplacians '
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we study, with variational technique, the following quasilinear elliptic problem: $$\label{eq:1.1}\tag{$\mathcal{P}$}
\begin{cases}
-\Delta_p u - \beta \Delta_q u =g(u) & \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},
\\
u(x)\to 0 & \hbox{as }|x|\to +\infty,
\end{cases}$$ where $N \ge 3$, $\beta >0$, $1<p<q$, $p<N$ and $\Delta_p u={\,\mathrm{div}}(|\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u)$ is the $p$-Laplacian. In the last decades, a lot of works has been done for the study of $(p,q)$-Laplace equation. However, most of them are devoted to the bounded domain case or problems with critical nonlinearities (see, for example, [@BCS; @CEM; @F; @MP] and references therein).
If $\beta=0$, reduces to the following scalar field equation: $$\label{eq:1.2}
-\Delta_p u =g(u) \ \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}}.$$ The existence of solutions of has been studied, among others, in [@BL; @DM; @FG]. Moreover when $p=2$, the almost optimal condition for the existence of nontrivial solutions has been obtained in [@BL]. However, a scaling property which plays an essential role in [@BL; @DM] is lost if $\beta \ne 0$ in [eq:1.1]{}, causing that the approach in [@BL; @DM] cannot be applied to [eq:1.1]{}. Thus it is an challenging problem to look for an optimal condition for the existence of nontrivial solutions of [eq:1.1]{}.
The aim of this paper is, therefore, to consider [eq:1.1]{} in the whole ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$ and for a general nonlinearity $g$. Especially, we do not assume any monotonicity conditions on $g$.
Our another motivation comes from the study of the [*Born-Infeld*]{} equation which appears in electromagnetism: $$\label{eq:1.3}
-{\,\mathrm{div}}\left( \frac{\nabla u}{\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{b^2}|\nabla u|^2}} \right) =g(u)
\ \mbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},$$ where $b$ is a positive constant and called [*the absolute field*]{} constant. (We refer to [@BDP] and references therein for more physical backgrounds of the Born-Infeld equation.) Indeed by the Taylor expansion, it follows that $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x}}=1+\frac{x}{2}+\frac{3}{2\cdot 2^2}x^2+\frac{5!!}{3!\cdot 2^3}x^3
+\cdots +\frac{(2k-3)!!}{(k-1)!2^{k-1}}x^{k-1}+\cdots \quad
\hbox{for} \ |x|<1.$$ Putting $x=\frac{|\nabla u|^2}{b^2}$ and $\beta=\frac{1}{2b^2}$ formally, we can see that the $0$-th order approximated problem of [eq:1.3]{} is exactly the scalar field equation [eq:1.2]{} with $p=2$. When we adopt the $1$-st order approximation, one has the following quasilinear elliptic equation: $$-\Delta u- \beta \Delta_4 u = g(u) \quad \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},$$ which can be obtained by taking $p=2$ and $q=4$ in [eq:1.1]{}. Furthermore the $k$-th order approximated problem is given by $$\label{eq:1.4}
-\Delta u-\beta \Delta_4u -\frac{3}{2} \beta^2\Delta_6 u
-\cdots -\frac{(2k-3)!!}{(k-1)!}\beta^{k-1}\Delta_{2k} u =g(u) \quad \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},$$ where $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $(2k-3)!!=(2k-3)(2k-5)\cdots 5 \cdot 3\cdot 1$, $(-1)!!=1$. Thus it is natural to ask if solutions of [eq:1.3]{} can be obtained as a limit of solutions for [eq:1.4]{}. This question has been considered in [@BDP] for the inhomogeneous Born-Infeld problem: $$\label{eq:1.5}
-{\,\mathrm{div}}\left( \frac{\nabla u}{\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{b^2}|\nabla u|^2}} \right) = \rho(x)
\quad \mbox{in} \ {\mathbb{R}}^N.$$ It is shown that under suitable assumptions on $\rho$, the unique minimizer of the action functional associated to [eq:1.5]{} can be obtained as a weak limit of the unique solution of the $k$-th order approximated problem for [eq:1.5]{}. (See [@BDP Theorem 5.2] and [@CK] for related results.) On the other hand, problem [eq:1.3]{} is much less studied. In [@BDD], the case $g(u)=|u|^{\alpha-2}u$ with $\alpha>\frac{2N}{N-2}$ has been considered. Then it was shown that [eq:1.3]{} has a positive radial solution and a sequence of radial solutions. Moreover, again by restricting the research to solutions with radial symmetry, in [@A2] the equation is reduced to an ODE for which the existence, non-existence and multiplicity of ground states (namely positive solutions going to zero at infinity) and bound states (i.e. solutions going to zero at infinity) are investigated for the Lane-Emden type equation. By the use of the shooting method, in [@A1] the existence of a ground state solution is also determined for the equation presenting a sign-changing nonlinearity.
Our purpose of this paper is to investigate the existence of positive solutions of [eq:1.1]{} and [eq:1.4]{} for a wide class of nonlinearities including the case $g(u)=u^{\alpha}$. We expect our existence results will be the next step for the further study of the Born-Infeld equation [eq:1.3]{}. Hereafter in this paper, we take $\beta=1$ for simplicity, since $\beta$ plays no essential role in the study of the existence of solutions.
In order to consider general nonlinear terms, we have to take into account behavior of $g(s)$ near zero and infinity. For the problem [eq:1.2]{} with $p=2$ and in the [*positive mass*]{} case, namely when $g(s)$ satisfies $$-\infty<\liminf_{s\to 0^+} \frac{g(s)}{s} \le
\limsup_{s \to 0^+} \frac{g(s)}{s} =-m \ \mbox{for some} \ m>0,$$ almost optimal condition for the existence of nontrivial solutions has been obtained in [@BL]. (See also [@HIT].) Conversely, whenever $m=0$, the so called [*zero mass*]{} case, some results are contained, among others, in [@Ta], if $g$ corresponds to the critical power $s^{(N+2)/(N-2)}$, and in [@AP07; @BPR; @BL], if $g$ is supercritical near the origin and subcritical at infinity (see also [@BM] for the case of exterior domain and [@AP3] for complex valued solutions).
We anticipate that our problem has two quite interesting features: we can treat the zero mass case and the positive mass one in a similar way and, moreover, in the zero mass case, we can treat several pure power nonlinearities. This is due to the particular functional setting that we will introduce to study . Indeed, while in presence of a single $p$-laplacian the natural framework is $D^{1,p}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, namely the completion of $C^\infty_0({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ with the respect of the $L^p$-norm of the gradient, and we know that $D^{1,p}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ is embedded only into $L^{p^*}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, where $p^*=(pN)/(N-p)$, in our case we will introduce a combination of Sobolev spaces, a sort of intersection between $D^{1,p}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ and $D^{1,q}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, which guarantees suitable embeddings properties into a large range of Lebesgue spaces (see Section \[se:vs\] for more details). Finally, we would like to stress that the unique assumption on $q$ is that it is strictly greater than $p$ but it can be large as we want, as this is a great help in order to better approximate the Born-Infeld operator.
We can now introduce our precise assumptions and results and we start dealing with the zero mass case. The following hypotheses can be regarded as a natural extension of the zero mass case for [eq:1.2]{} to the quasilinear problem [eq:1.1]{}.
On the nonlinearity $g$, we require that
1. \[g1\] $g\in C({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}})$, $g(s) \equiv 0$ if $s \le 0$;
2. \[g2\] for all $\ell\in [p,p^*]$, it holds $$-\infty
\le \limsup_{s \to 0^+} \frac{g(s)}{s^{\ell-1}} \le 0,$$ where $p^*=\frac{pN}{N-p}\in (p,+\infty)$;
3. \[g3\] if $q<N$, it holds that $$\label{eq:1.6}
\displaystyle -\infty \le \limsup_{s \to +\infty}
\frac{g(s)}{s^{q^*-1}} \le 0,$$ where $q^*=\frac{qN}{N-q}\in (p^*,+\infty)$; instead, if $q \ge N$, we assume [eq:1.6]{} holds for some $q^*> \max{ \{q,p^*\}}$;
4. \[g4\] there exists $\zeta>0$ such that $G(\zeta)=\int_0^{\zeta} g(s) \,ds >0$.
As we will see in Section \[se:vs\], the exponents $p^*$ and $q^*$ appear naturally if we consider embedding theorems for energy spaces associated with [eq:1.1]{}. Especially, if $q<N$, since $q^*$ can be seen as a critical exponent for [eq:1.1]{}, the condition (\[g3\]) implies that the nonlinear term $g(s)$ has $W^{1,q}$-subcritical growth at infinity. On the other hand, (\[g2\]) means that $g(s)$ has zero mass, as well as $W^{1,p}$-supercritical growth near zero. Here we list typical examples of $g(s)$.
- $g(s)= \min \{ |s|^{q^*-2}s, |s|^{\ell-2}s \}$ for $p^* < \ell < q^*$.
- $g(s)= |s|^{\ell-2}s$ for $p^* < \ell < q^*$.
- $g(s)= K|s|^{\ell_1-2}s-|s|^{\ell_2-2}s$ for $p^*<\ell_1 \le q^*$, $\ell_1<\ell_2$ and large $K>0$.
- $g(s)= -|s|^{\ell_1-2}s+|s|^{\ell_2-2}s$ for $p^* \le \ell_1<\ell_2<q^*$.
As the second example shows, we can consider a large class of pure power nonlinearities for our problem [eq:1.1]{}, which is impossible for [eq:1.3]{}. Especially in the case $q>N$, let $\ell>\frac{pN}{N-p}$ be arbitrarily given and consider the nonlinear term $g(s)=s^{\ell-1}$. Then choosing any $q^*> \max \{ \ell,q \}$, we see that - are all satisfied. In this setting, we have the following result.
\[thm:1.1\] Assume -. Then problem [eq:1.1]{} has a solution which is positive and radially symmetric and belongs to $C_{\rm loc}^{1,\sigma}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})\cap L^\infty ({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, for some $\sigma \in (0,1)$.
Moreover we will prove that there exists a [*radial ground state solution*]{}, namely a solution of which minimizes the action functional among all nontrivial radial solutions of (see Theorem \[thm:2.7\] for the precise statement).
Next we state a result for the positive mass case for [eq:1.1]{}. In this case, we assume the following condition [[instead of assumption ]{}]{}:
1. \[g2’\]there exist $\ell\in [p,p^*)$ and $m_{\ell}>0$ such that $$\label{eq:1.7}
-\infty<\liminf_{s\to 0^+} \frac{g(s)}{s^{\ell-1}} \le
\limsup_{s \to 0^+} \frac{g(s)}{s^{\ell-1}} =-m_\ell.$$
We note that if holds for $\ell=p^*$, (g2) is fulfilled. Then we obtain the following result.
\[thm:1.2\] Assume , , and . Then problem [eq:1.1]{} has a solution which is positive and radially symmetric and belongs to $C_{\rm loc}^{1,\sigma}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})\cap L^\infty ({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, for some $\sigma \in (0,1)$.
Also in this case, the existence of a radial ground state solution of [eq:1.1]{} can be also obtained, see Theorem \[thm:3.5\] below.
We believe that assumptions , -, and are almost optimal for the existence of non-trivial solutions of [eq:1.1]{} when $q<N$. We finally remark that very general quasilinear elliptic equations have been treat also, for example, in [@ADP; @FLS; @SS], but our problem does not fall in the studied cases.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[se:0\], we consider the zero mass case. First we prepare embedding theorems for energy spaces associated with [eq:1.1]{} and perform the variational setting in Section \[se:vs\]. Next in Section \[se:exi\], we prove the existence of a positive radial solution of [eq:1.1]{} by using the Mountain Pass Theorem together with Jeanjean’s Monotonicity trick [@J]. We consider the positive mass case in Section \[se:pos\] and, finally, we devote the Section \[se:appr\] to the study of the $k$-th order approximated problem .
The zero mass case {#se:0}
==================
Variational setting and preliminaries {#se:vs}
-------------------------------------
In this section, we give some preliminaries. First, we introduce the framework where we will study [eq:1.1]{} and present its embedding properties. Next, we introduce the energy functional associated with [eq:1.1]{} and modify the nonlinear term in order to find a nontrivial critical point.
We work on the functional space ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$ which is given by ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0= \overline{ C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})}^{\ \| \, \cdot \, \|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}}$, where $$\| u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}:= \|\nabla u\|_p +\|\nabla u\|_q.$$
In the following theorem we study the embeddings properties of ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$.
\[th:embedding\] Let $1<p<q$ and $p<N$. Then $${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0 \hookrightarrow L^r({{\mathbb{R}^N}}), \quad \hbox{ for any } \
\frac{pN}{N-p}\le r \
\begin{cases}
\le \frac{qN}{N-q} & \hbox{if }q<N,
\\
< + \infty & \hbox{if } q=N, \\
\le +\infty & \hbox{if } q> N.
\end{cases}$$
We distinguish three different cases.
[Case $1<p<q<N$.]{}\
By standard Sobolev inequalities, we have that $$\| u\|_{\frac{pN}{N-p}} \le C \| \nabla u\|_p \le C \|u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0},
\quad
\| u\|_{\frac{qN}{N-q}} \le C \| \nabla u\|_q\le C \|u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}$$ and so $${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0 \hookrightarrow L^{\frac{pN}{N-p}}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})\cap L^{\frac{qN}{N-q}}({{\mathbb{R}^N}}).$$
[Case $1<p<q=N$.]{}\
Going back the proof of the Sobolev inequality, if $u\in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, one has $$\label{eq:a.1}
\| u\|_{\frac{N}{N-1}} \le \prod_{i=1}^N
\left\| \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i} \right\|_1^{\frac{1}{N}}.$$ (See [@B (19), P.280].) Let $m \ge 1$. Applying [eq:a.1]{} to $|u|^{m-1}u$, we get $$\| u\|_{\frac{mN}{N-1}}^m
\le m \prod_{i=1}^N \left\| |u|^{m-1} \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i} \right\|_1^{\frac{1}{N}}
\le C \| \nabla u\|_N \| u\|_{\frac{(m-1)N}{N-1}}^{m-1}.$$ By the Young inequality, it follows that $$\label{eq:a.2}
\| u\|_{\frac{mN}{N-1}} \le C( \| u\|_{\frac{(m-1)N}{N-1}} + \| \nabla u\|_N)
\quad \hbox{for any} \ m \ge 1.$$ In [eq:a.2]{}, we first choose $\frac{(m-1)N}{N-1}=\frac{pN}{N-p}$, that is, $m= \frac{(N-1)p}{N-p}+1$. Writing $p^*=\frac{pN}{N-p}$ for simplicity, one has $m=\frac{N-1}{N}p^*+1$ and $\frac{mN}{N-1}=p^*+\frac{N}{N-1}$. Thus from [eq:a.2]{}, we obtain $$\| u\|_{p^*+\frac{N}{N-1}}
\le C( \| u\|_{p^*} + \| \nabla u\|_N)
\le C( \| \nabla u\|_p + \| \nabla u\|_N).$$ Iterating this procedure with $m=\frac{N-1}{N}p^*+j$ for $j \in \mathbb{N}$, and applying the interpolation inequality, one gets $$\| u\|_r \le C( \| \nabla u\|_p +\| \nabla u\|_N)
\quad \hbox{for all} \ u\in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})
\ \hbox{and} \ r\in[p^*,+\infty).$$ This completes the proof by a density argument.
[Case $1<p<N<q$.]{}\
We argue as in [@FOP]. Let $u\in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, $x\in {{\mathbb{R}^N}}$ and $Q$ be an open cube, containing $x$, whose sides -of length $1$- are parallel to the coordinate axes. Going back to the proof of the Morrey inequality, we have $$|\bar{u}-u(x)| \le \frac{q}{q-N} \| \nabla u\|_{L^q(Q)},$$ where $\bar{u}=\frac{1}{|Q|}\int_Q u(x) \,dx$. (See [@B (27), P.283] for the proof.) By the Hölder inequality, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
|u(x)| &\le \left| \frac{1}{|Q|} \int_Q u(x)\,dx \right| +C \| \nabla u\|_{L^q(Q)}
\le C \| u\|_{L^{p^*}(Q)} + C \| \nabla u\|_{L^q(Q)} \\
&\le C( \| u\|_{L^{p^*}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})} + \| \nabla u\|_{L^q({{\mathbb{R}^N}})})
\le C( \| \nabla u\|_{L^p({{\mathbb{R}^N}})} + \| \nabla u\|_{L^q({{\mathbb{R}^N}})}),\end{aligned}$$ from which we deduce that $$\| u\|_{\infty} \le C (\| \nabla u\|_p+\| \nabla u\|_q).$$ Again, we conclude by a density argument.
By Theorem \[th:embedding\], for any $1<p<q$ with $p<N$, according with the definitions of $p^*$ and $q^*$ given in the Introduction, one has $$\label{immersione}
{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0 \hookrightarrow L^r({{\mathbb{R}^N}})
\ \hbox{for any} \ r\in [p^*,q^*].$$
Moreover the following property will be useful later
Let $1<p<q$ with $p<N$. Then, for any $\ u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$ and $r\in [p^*,q^*]$, we have $$\label{eq:2.4}
\| u\|_r^r \le C( \| \nabla u\|_p^r+\| \nabla u\|_p^{p^*}+\| \nabla u\|_q^{q^*}).$$
Let $u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$ and $r\in [p^*,q^*]$. By Theorem \[th:embedding\], the interpolation inequality and the Young inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\| u\|_r^r &\le \| u\|_{p^*}^{\theta p^*} \| u\|_{q^*}^{(1-\theta)q^*}
\le C \| \nabla u\|_p^{\theta p^*} ( \| \nabla u\|_p+\| \nabla u\|_q)^{(1-\theta)q^*} \\
&\le C \| \nabla u\|_p^{\theta p^*}
( \| \nabla u\|_p^{(1-\theta)q^*}+\| \nabla u\|_q^{(1-\theta)q^*}) \\
&\le C( \| \nabla u\|_p^r+\| \nabla u\|_p^{p^*}+\| \nabla u\|_q^{q^*}).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\theta\in [0,1]$ is a constant chosen so that $r=\theta p^* +(1-\theta)q^*$.
Let us define the functional $I:{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0 \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$I(u)=\frac{1}{p} \|\nabla u\|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q} \|\nabla u\|_q^q
-\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G(u) \,dx.$$ By hypotheses [[-]{}]{}, we can see that $I$ is well-defined and of class $C^1$ on ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$. Moreover any critical points of $I$ are solutions of [eq:1.1]{}.
Next we truncate and decompose the nonlinear term $g$ similarly as in [@BL]. Let us put $$s_0:= \min\{ s\in [\zeta,+\infty) \mid g(s)=0 \}$$ and $s_0=+\infty$ if $g(s) \ne 0$ for all $s \ge \zeta$. We define $\tilde{g}:{\mathbb{R}}_+ \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\tilde{g}(s)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
g(s) & \hbox{on} \ [0,s_0],\\
0 & \hbox{on} \ (s_0,+\infty).
\end{array}
\right.$$ By the maximum principle, any positive solutions of [eq:1.1]{} with $\tilde{g}$ satisfy the original problem [eq:1.1]{}. Thus we may replace $g$ by $\tilde{g}$ in [eq:1.1]{}. Hereafter we write $g=\tilde{g}$ for simplicity. For $s \ge 0$, we set $$g_1(s):= g_+(s), \ \hbox{ and } \
g_2(s):=g_1(s)-g(s).$$ Then by and , one has $$\label{eq:2.7}
\lim_{s \to 0} \frac{g_1(s)}{s^{p^*-1}}=0, \quad
\lim_{s \to +\infty} \frac{g_1(s)}{s^{q^*-1}}=0.$$ Thus, for $s \ge 0$, we have from that $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\le {{\color{black} g_1(s)\le C(s^{p^*-1}+s^{q^*-1})}}, \label{eq:2.5}
\\
0&\le g_2(s). \label{eq:2.6}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, denoting $G_i(t)=\int_0^t g_i(s) \,ds$ for $i=1,2$, we get $$\label{eq:2.8}
G_2(s) \ge 0 \ \hbox{for all} \ s\in {\mathbb{R}},$$ and $$\label{eq:2.9}
{{\color{black} 0\le G_1(s) \le C (|s|^{p^*}+|s|^{q^*})}}
\ \hbox{for all} \ s\in {\mathbb{R}}.$$
Existence of a positive solution of [eq:1.1]{} {#se:exi}
----------------------------------------------
In all this section, we assume - and prove Theorem \[thm:1.1\]. To this end, we consider the following auxiliary problem: $$\label{eq:2.10}
-\Delta_p u- \Delta_q u+g_2(u) =\lambda g_1(u) \ \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}}$$ for $\lambda$ close to $1$. Our strategy is to find a solution of [eq:2.10]{} and pass the limit $\lambda \nearrow 1$. We define the functional $I_{\lambda}:{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0 \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$I_{\lambda}(u)=\frac{1}{p} \|\nabla u\|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q} \|\nabla u\|_q^q
+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(u) \,dx
-\lambda \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(u) \,dx.$$ In order to find a non-trivial critical point of $I_{\lambda}$, we apply a slightly modified version of the Monotonicity trick due to [@J] (see also [@AP]).
\[prop:2.1\] Let $\big(X,\|\cdot\|\big)$ be a Banach space and $J\subset{\mathbb{R}}^+$ an interval. Consider a family of $C^1$ functionals $I_{\lambda}$ on $X$ defined by $$I_{\lambda}(u)=A(u)- {\lambda}B(u) \ \hbox{for} \ {\lambda}\in J,$$ with $B$ non-negative and either $A(u)\to + \infty$ or $B(u)\to+\infty$ as $\|u\|\to+\infty$ and such that $I_{\lambda}(0)=0$. For any ${\lambda}\in J$, we set $$\label{eq:2.11}
\Gamma_{\lambda}:=\{\gamma\in C([0,1],X)\mid \gamma(0)=0, \ I_{\lambda}(\gamma(1))< 0\}.$$ Assume that for every ${\lambda}\in J$, the set ${\Gamma}_{\lambda}$ is non-empty and $$\label{eq:2.12}
c_{\lambda}:=\inf_{\gamma\in\Gamma_{\lambda}}\max_{t\in[0,1]} I_{\lambda}(\gamma(t)) >0.$$ Then for almost every ${\lambda}\in J$, there is a sequence $\{ v_n \} \subset X$ such that
- $\{ v_n \}$ is bounded in $X$;
- $I_{\lambda}(v_n)\to c_{\lambda}$;
- $(I_{\lambda})'(v_n)\to 0$ in the dual space $X^{-1}$ of $X$.
In our case, we set $X={\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}$, where $${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}=\{u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0\mid u \hbox{ is radially symmetric }\},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A(u)&=\frac{1}{p} \|\nabla u\|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q} \|\nabla u\|_q^q
+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(u) \,dx,
\\
B(u) &=\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(u) \,dx.\end{aligned}$$ To apply Proposition \[prop:2.1\], we begin with the following lemma.
\[lem:2.2\] There exists $\lambda_0 \in (0,1)$ such that the set $\Gamma_{\lambda}$ defined in [eq:2.11]{} is non-empty for every $\lambda \in J=[\lambda_0,1]$.
First by , there exists $z \in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}$ such that $ \displaystyle \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G(z) \,dx >0$. (See [@BL Proof of Theorem 2, P. 325].) Since $G(s)=G_1(s)-G_2(s)$, there exists $0<\lambda_0<1$ such that $$\label{eq:2.13}
\lambda_0 \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(z) \,dx
-\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(z) \,dx>0.$$ Let $\lambda \in J=[\lambda_0,1]$ and $t>0$. We compute $I_{\lambda}\left( z( \frac{\cdot}{t} )\right)$. From [eq:2.13]{}, one has $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\lambda}\left( z \left( \frac{\cdot}{t} \right)\right)
&=
\frac{t^{N-p}}{p} \|\nabla z\|_p^p
+\frac{t^{N-q}}{q} \|\nabla z\|_q^q
+t^N \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(z)\,dx
-\lambda t^N \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(z) \,dx\\
&\le
\frac{t^{N-p}}{p} \|\nabla z\|_p^p \,dx
+\frac{t^{N-q}}{q} \|\nabla z\|_q^q \,dx
-t^N \left(
\lambda_0 \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(z) \,dx
-\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(z) \,dx \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we can choose $\tau>1$ so that $I_{\lambda}\left( z( \frac{\cdot}{\tau})
\right)<0$ and consider a function $\gamma:[0,1] \to {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}$ which is defined by $$\gamma(t) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2t z \left( \dfrac{2 \ \cdot}{\tau} \right) & \hbox{if }t\in [0,1/2],
\\
\
\\
z \left( \dfrac{\cdot}{t\tau} \right) & \hbox{if }t\in [1/2,1].
\end{array}
\right.$$ Then it follows that $\gamma \in \Gamma_{\lambda}$ and hence the proof is complete.
\[lem:2.3\] For all $\lambda \in J=[\lambda_0,1]$, the condition [eq:2.12]{} holds.
For any $u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}$ and $\lambda \in J$, we have from [eq:2.8]{} and [eq:2.9]{} that $$I_{\lambda}(u) \ge \frac{1}{p} \| \nabla u\|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q}\| \nabla u\|_q^q {{\color{black} -C \|u \|_{p^*}^{p^*} -C \| u\|_{q^*}^{q^*} }}.$$ Thus by [[ applying [eq:2.4]{} with $r=p^*$ and $r=q^*$ respectively]{}]{}, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\lambda}(u) &\ge
\frac{1}{p} \| \nabla u\|_p^p +\frac{1}{q} \| \nabla u\|_q^q
-C \big( \| \nabla u\|_p^{p^*} + \| \nabla u \|_q^{q^*} \big)
-C( \| \nabla u\|_p^{p^*} + \| \nabla u\|_p^{q^*} + \| \nabla u\|_q^{q^*} \big) \\
&\ge \frac{1}{p} \| \nabla u\|_p^p
\Big(1-C\| \nabla u\|_p^{p^*-p}-C \| \nabla u\|_p^{q^*-p}\Big)
+\frac{1}{q} \| \nabla u\|_q^q \Big( 1-C\| \nabla u\|_q^{q^*-q}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Let $u \in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}$ be such that $\| u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}=\| \nabla u\|_p+\| \nabla u\|_q=\rho<1$. Since [[$q^* > p^*>p$]{}]{} and $q^*>q$, if $\rho>0$ is sufficiently small, it follows that $${{\color{black}1-C\| \nabla u\|_p^{p^*-p}-C \| \nabla u\|_p^{q^*-p}\ge \frac{1}{2}}}, \quad
1-C\| \nabla u\|_q^{q^*-q} \ge \frac{1}{2}.$$ Then from $p<q$ and $\| \nabla u\|_p \le \| u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0} <1$, we obtain $$I_{\lambda}(u) \ge \frac{1}{2p} \| \nabla u\|_p^p
+\frac{1}{2q}\| \nabla u \|_q^q
\ge \frac{1}{2p} \| \nabla u\|_p^q
+\frac{1}{2q} \| \nabla u\|_q^q
\ge C \| u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}^q.$$ Thus there exists $\delta>0$ such that $I_{\lambda}(u)\ge \delta$ for all $u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}$ with $\|u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}\le\rho$.\
Now we fix $\lambda \in J$ and $\gamma \in \Gamma_\lambda$. Since $\gamma(0)=0 \ne \gamma(1)$ and $I_{\lambda}(\gamma(1)) < 0$, it follows that $ \| \gamma(1) \|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0} > \rho$. By continuity, we deduce that there exists $t_{\gamma} \in (0,1)$ such that $\| \gamma(t_{\gamma})\| =\rho$. Thus for any $\lambda \in J$, we obtain $$\alpha \le \inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma} I_{\lambda}(\gamma(t_{\lambda}))
\le c_{\lambda}.$$ This completes the proof.
By Lemmas \[lem:2.2\] and \[lem:2.3\], we can apply Proposition \[prop:2.1\] to obtain a bounded Palais-Smale sequence $\{ u_n^{\lambda}\} \subset {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}$ of $I_{\lambda}$ for almost every ${\lambda}\in J$, that is, $$I_{\lambda}(u_n^{\lambda}) \to c_{\lambda}, \
I_{\lambda}'(u_n^{\lambda}) \to 0 \ \hbox{and} \
\{u_n^{\lambda}\} \ \hbox{is bounded in }{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$$ Hence, passing to a subsequence, there exists $u_{\lambda} \in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&u_n^{\lambda} \rightharpoonup u_{\lambda} \ \hbox{in} \ {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0,
\ \hbox{ as} \ n \to +\infty \nonumber
\\
\label{eq:2.14}
&u_n^{\lambda}(x) \to u_{\lambda}(x) \
\hbox{a.e.} \ x\in {{\mathbb{R}^N}}, \ \hbox{ as} \ n \to +\infty.\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:2.5\] The weak limit $u_{\lambda}$ satisfies $$u_{\lambda} \ne 0, \ I_{\lambda}'(u_{\lambda})=0 \ \hbox{and} \
I_{\lambda}(u_{\lambda}) \le c_{\lambda}.$$
First we claim that $$\label{eq:2.15}
\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(u_n^{\lambda}) \,dx
\to \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(u_{\lambda}) \,dx,$$ $$\label{eq:2.16}
\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(u_n^{\lambda})u_n^{\lambda} \,dx
\to \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(u_{\lambda})u_{\lambda} \,dx,$$ and, for any $\varphi \in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ and for $i=1,2$, $$\label{eq:2.17}
\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_i(u_n^{\lambda}) \varphi \,dx
\to \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_i(u_{\lambda}) \varphi \,dx.$$ To this end, we apply the compactness lemma due to Strauss. (See Lemma \[lem:a.2\] below.)\
Let $Q(s)=|s|^{p^*}+|s|^{q^*}$. Then from [eq:2.7]{}, it follows that $\frac{G_1(s)}{Q(s)} \to 0$ as $s \to 0$ and $s \to \infty$. Moreover from [eq:2.14]{}, we also have $G_1( u_n^{\lambda}(x)) \to G_1(u_{\lambda}(x))$ a.e. $x\in {{\mathbb{R}^N}}$ and, by $$\sup_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} Q(u_n^{\lambda}) \,dx
\le C \sup_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}
\left( \| u_n^{\lambda} \|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}^{p^*}
+\| u_n^{\lambda} \|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}^{q^*} \right)
<+\infty.$$ Finally since $u_n^{\lambda} \in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0, {\rm rad}}\subset D^{1,p}_{\rm rad}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, we have, by the radial lemma (see Lemma \[lem:a.1\] below), that $u_n^{\lambda}(x) \to 0$ as $|x| \to +\infty$ uniformly in $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Thus all assumptions in Lemma \[lem:a.2\] are satisfied. Then it follows that $G_1(u_n^{\lambda}) \to G_1(u_{\lambda})$ in $L^1({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ and hence [eq:2.15]{} holds. Arguing similarly, one can show that [eq:2.16]{} and [eq:2.17]{}.\
Now from [eq:2.17]{}, $I'_{\lambda}(u_n^{\lambda}) \to 0$ and $u_n^{\lambda} \rightharpoonup u_{\lambda}$ in ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$, one has $I_{\lambda}'(u_{\lambda})=0$. To prove $u_{\lambda} \ne 0$, we suppose by contradiction that $u_{\lambda}=0$. Since $I_{\lambda}'(u_n^{\lambda}) \to 0$, we have by the boundedness of $\{ u_n^{\lambda}\}$ in ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$ that $$\|\nabla u_n^{\lambda}\|_p^p
+ \| \nabla u_n^{\lambda} \|_q^q+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_2(u_n^{\lambda})u_n^{\lambda} \,dx
=\lambda \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(u_n^{\lambda}) u_n^{\lambda} \,dx
+o(1).$$ Then from and [eq:2.16]{}, it follows that $\| u_n^{\lambda} \|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0} \to 0$, which contradicts $I_{\lambda}(u_n^{\lambda}) \to c_{\lambda}>0$.\
Finally we show that $I_{\lambda}(u_{\lambda}) \le c_{\lambda}$. By [eq:2.14]{} and Fatou’s lemma, one has $$\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(u_{\lambda}) \,dx
\le \liminf_{n \to +\infty} \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(u_n^{\lambda}) \,dx.$$ By the weakly lower semi-continuity of $\| \cdot \|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}$ and from [eq:2.15]{}, we obtain $I_{\lambda}(u_{\lambda}) \le c_{\lambda}$. This completes the proof.
Lemma \[lem:2.5\] implies that, for almost every $\lambda\in J$, $u_{\lambda}$ is a non-trivial solution of [eq:3.1]{}. In order to obtain a non-trivial solution of the original problem [eq:1.1]{}, we next consider a sequence of such $\{ \lambda_n\}$ such that $\lambda_n \nearrow 1$ as $n \to +\infty$. Then by Proposition \[prop:2.1\] and Lemma \[lem:2.5\], there exists $\{v_n\} \subset {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}} \setminus \{ 0\}$ such that $$\label{eq:2.18}
I_{\lambda_n}'(v_n)=0, \
I_{\lambda_n}(v_n) \le c_{\lambda_n}.$$ Then we claim the following lemma.
\[lem:2.6\] The sequence $\{ v_n\} $ is bounded in ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$.
First we observe from $I_{\lambda_n}'(v_n)=0$ that $v_n$ satisfies $$-\Delta_p v_n- \Delta_q v_n +g_2(v_n)
-\lambda_n g_1(v_n)=0 \quad \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},$$ in the weak sense. Next we claim that $v_n$ satisfies the following Pohozaev identity: $$\label{eq:2.19}
\frac{N-p}{p} \|\nabla v_n \|_p^p +\frac{N-q}{q} \|\nabla v_n \|_q^q
+N \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(v_n) \,dx
-N\lambda_n \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(v_n) \,dx=0.$$ To this aim, we argue as in [@PS]. First adapting the the Moser type iteration as in [@HL], one can show that $v_n\in C_{\rm loc}^{1,\sigma}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ for some $\sigma \in (0,1)$.[^1] Next since $v_n \in C^{1,\sigma}_{loc}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ and the function ${\mathcal L}(\xi)=\frac{1}{p} |\xi|^p + \frac{1}{q}|\xi|^q$ associated with the differential operator in [eq:1.1]{} is convex, we can apply the Pohozaev identity for $C^1$ solutions due to [@DMS Lemma 1] by choosing $h(x)=h_k(x)=H(x/k)x \in C_0^1(B_{2k}(0),{\mathbb{R}}^N)$ for $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, where $H\in C_0^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ is such that $H(x)=1$ on $|x| \le 1$ and $H(x)=0$ for $|x| \ge 2$. Letting $k \to +\infty$ and taking into account that $|\nabla v_n|^p$, $|\nabla v_n|^q$, $G_1(v_n)$, $G_2(v_n) \in L^1({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, we obtain [eq:2.19]{} as claimed.\
Now from [eq:2.18]{}, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.20}
I_{\lambda_n}(v_n)
&=\frac{1}{p} \|\nabla v_n \|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q} \|\nabla v_n\|_q^q
+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(v_n) \,dx
-\lambda_n \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(v_n) \,dx \le c_{\lambda_n}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence from [eq:2.19]{}, [eq:2.20]{} and the monotonicity of $c_{\lambda}$ with respect to $\lambda$, it follows that $$\|\nabla v_n\|_p^p
+ \|\nabla v_n\|_q^q
\le N c_{\lambda_n} \le Nc_{\lambda_0}$$ from which we conclude that the assertion holds.
We can now prove our first main result.
By Lemma \[lem:2.6\], up to a subsequence, we may assume that there exists $v\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0, {\rm rad}}$ such that $v_n \rightharpoonup v$ in ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$. Our goal is to show that $v$ is a nontrivial critical point of $I$. First we prove that $I'(v)=0$. To this aim, we observe from $I_{\lambda_n}'(v_n)=0$ that $$I'(v_n)=I_{\lambda_n}'(v_n)+(\lambda_n-1)g_1(v_n)
=(\lambda_n-1)g_1(v_n).$$ Moreover arguing similarly as the proof of [eq:2.17]{}, one has $$\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(v_n) \varphi \,dx
\to \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(v) \varphi \,dx
\ \hbox{for any} \ \varphi \in C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}}).$$ This implies that $(\lambda_n-1)g_1(v_n)=o(1)$ and hence $\{ v_n \}$ is a Palais-Smale sequence for the functional $I$. Using the compactness lemma \[lem:a.2\] again, we can see that $I'(v)=0$.\
To conclude the proof, we claim that $v \ne 0$. Now from , and $I_{\lambda_n}'(v_n)=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.21}
\|\nabla v_n\|_p^p + \|\nabla v_n\|_q^q &\le
\|\nabla v_n\|_p^p + \|\nabla v_n\|_q^q
+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_2(v_n)v_n \,dx \nonumber \\
&= \lambda_n \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(v_n)v_n \,dx
{{\color{black} \le C \big( \|v_n\|_{p^*}^{p^*}+\| v_n \|_{q^*}^{q^*} \big)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Next we claim that $$\label{eq:2.22}
\liminf_{n \to +\infty} \| v_n \|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}>0.$$ Suppose by contradiction that $v_n \to 0$ in ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$. Now from [eq:2.4]{} and [eq:2.21]{}, one has $$\|\nabla v_n\|_p^p+\|\nabla v_n\|_q^q
\le C\left( {{\color{black} \|\nabla v_n\|_p^{p^*}+\|\nabla v_n\|_p^{q^*}+\| \nabla v_n \|_q^{q^*}}} \right).$$ Since $\| v_n\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}=\| \nabla v_n\|_p+\| \nabla v_n\|_q \to 0$, [[$p<p^*<q^*$]{}]{} and $q<q^*$, we may assume that $${{\color{black}C(\| \nabla v_n\|_p^{p^*} + \| \nabla v_n\|_p^{q^*})}}
\le \frac{1}{2} \| \nabla v_n\|_p^p,\quad
C\| \nabla v_n \|_q^{q^*} \le \frac{1}{2} \| \nabla v_n \|_q^q,$$ from which we reach a contradiction.
By the compactness lemma \[lem:a.2\], one can show that $$\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(v_n)v_n \,dx \to \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(v)v \,dx \ \hbox{as} \ n \to +\infty.$$ Then from and [eq:2.22]{}, we obtain $$0< \liminf_{ n \to +\infty} \left(\|\nabla v_n\|_p^p+ \|\nabla v_n\|_q^q \right)
\le \liminf_{n \to +\infty} \lambda_n \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(v_n)v_n \,dx
= \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(v) v \,dx.$$ This implies that $v \ne 0$ and so we obtain the existence of a nontrivial solution of [eq:1.1]{}. Applying the the Moser type iteration as in [@HL], one has $v \in C^{1,\sigma}_{loc}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ for some $\sigma \in (0,1)$. Then from $g(s) \equiv 0$ for $s\le 0$ and the Harnack inequality due to [@T], it follows that $v>0$ in ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$. Finally by the radial lemma \[lem:a.1\], $v \in L^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ and $v(x) \to 0$ as $|x| \to \infty$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:1.1\].
We conclude this section by showing the existence of a radial ground state solution of [eq:1.1]{}. Let us define by ${\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}$ the set of the nontrivial radial solutions of , namely $${\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}=\{u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{0,{\rm rad}}\setminus \{0\} \mid I'(u)=0\}.$$ By Theorem \[thm:1.1\], we know that ${\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}\ne \emptyset$. Arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:1.1\], we have $$\label{eq:2.23}
\inf_{u\in {\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}}\|u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}>0.$$ In a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:2.6\], any $u\in {\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}$ satisfies the following Pohozaev identity: $$\frac{N-p}{pN} \|\nabla u \|_p^p +\frac{N-q}{qN} \|\nabla u \|_q^q
= \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G(u) \,dx.$$ Thus we infer that $$\label{eq:2.24}
I(u)=\frac{1}{N} \left(\|\nabla u \|_p^p + \|\nabla u \|_q^q \right).$$ Combining and , we have that $$\sigma=\inf_{u\in {\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}}I(u)>0.$$
\[thm:2.7\] Assume -. Then [eq:1.1]{} has a [*radial ground state solution*]{}, namely there exists $\bar u\in {\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}$ such that $$I(\bar u)=\min_{u\in {\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}}I(u).$$
Let $\{u_n\}\subset {\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}$ be a minimizing sequence. Since $$I(u_n)=\frac{1}{N} \left(\|\nabla u_n \|_p^p + \|\nabla u_n \|_q^q \right)\to \sigma,$$ we infer that $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in ${\mathcal{H}_{0,{\rm rad}}^{p,q}}$. Therefore there exists $\bar u\in{\mathcal{H}_{0,{\rm rad}}^{p,q}}$ such that $u_n \rightharpoonup\bar u$ weakly in ${\mathcal{H}_{0,{\rm rad}}^{p,q}}$.\
Arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:1.1\], we have that $\bar u\in {\mathcal{S}_{0,{\rm rad}}}$ and so we conclude observing that, by the weak lower semicontinuity of the norms, $$\sigma \le I(\bar u)
=\frac{1}{N} \left(\|\nabla \bar u \|_p^p + \|\nabla \bar u \|_q^q \right)
\le \liminf_{n \to +\infty} \frac{1}{N} \left(\|\nabla u_n \|_p^p + \|\nabla u_n \|_q^q \right)
=\liminf_{n \to +\infty} I(u_n)=\sigma.$$ This completes the proof.
\[rem:2.8\] In Theorem \[thm:2.7\], we could only obtain the existence of a radial ground state solution. We expect that the existence of ground state solutions can be shown without restricting ourselves to the radial class. For this purpose, we have two possibilities.
One is to characterize the ground state solution as a constraint minimizer of suitable functional. Then the result on the symmetry of constraint minimizers due to [@M] enables us to conclude that any ground state solution is radially symmetric. For $0$-th order problem [eq:1.3]{}, the ground state solution can be characterized as the following constraint minimizer: $$\inf \left\{ \| \nabla u\|_2 \ \Big| \ u\in H^1({{\mathbb{R}^N}}), \ \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G(u) \,dx =1 \right\}.$$ However in order to characterize the ground state solution in this way, scaling property plays an essential role. Since scaling argument fails to work in our problem, we don’t know whether the ground state solution of [eq:1.1]{} can be characterized as a constraint minimizer of some suitable functional.
The other possibility is to apply the concentration compactness principle as in [@AP2]. But in order to adopt their argument, we also need the characterization of the ground state solution.
It is also worth pointing out that, if the nonlinearity $g(s)$ is locally Lipschitz continuous for $s \ge 0$, we can apply the symmetry result due to [@SZ] for the problem [eq:1.1]{}, to show that any non-negative decaying solution of class $C^1$ is radially symmetric.
Finally if we assume that $g(s)$ is odd as in [@BL], we are not able to say that any ground state solution of [eq:1.1]{} is positive. This is because generically, the proof of the positivity of ground state solutions is based on the characterization by constraint minimization, which is not available for our problem.
The positive mass case {#se:pos}
======================
This section is devoted to the study of , in the positive mass case, namely when $g$ satisfies instead of . In this case, we work on the function space ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}$ which is given by ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}= \overline{ C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})}^{\ \| \, \cdot \, \|_{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}}$, where $$\| u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}}:= \|\nabla u\|_p +\|u\|_\ell+\|\nabla u\|_q.$$ For all $N \ge 3$, it follows that ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}\hookrightarrow {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}\hookrightarrow L^{\ell}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$. Thus by Theorem \[th:embedding\] and since $\ell \in [p,p^*)$, we have $$\label{eq:3.1}
{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}\hookrightarrow L^r({{\mathbb{R}^N}}) \ \hbox{ for all }r\in [\ell,q^*].$$
For $u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}$, we define the functional $I:{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ associated with [eq:1.1]{} by $$I(u)=\frac{1}{p} \|\nabla u\|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q} \|\nabla u\|_q^q
-\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G(u) \,dx.$$ By hypotheses , , and from [eq:3.1]{}, we can see that $I$ is well-defined and of class $C^1$ on ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}$ and its critical points are solutions of .
As done in Section \[se:0\], we truncate and decompose the nonlinear term $g$. Let $$s_0:= \min\{ s\in [\zeta,+\infty) \mid \ g(s)=0 \}$$ and $s_0=+\infty$ if $g(s) \ne 0$ for all $s \ge \zeta$. We define $\tilde{g}:{\mathbb{R}}_+ \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\tilde{g}(s)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
g(s) & \hbox{on} \ [0,s_0],\\
0 & \hbox{on} \ (s_0,+\infty).
\end{array}
\right.$$ Also in this case, by the maximum principle, any positive solutions of [eq:1.1]{} with $\tilde{g}$ satisfy the original problem [eq:1.1]{} and thus we may replace $g$ by $\tilde{g}$ in [eq:1.1]{}. Hereafter we write $g=\tilde{g}$ for simplicity.
Next for $s \ge 0$, we set $$g_1(s):= (g(s)+m_\ell s ^{\ell-1})_+ \ \ \hbox{and} \ \
g_2(s):=g_1(s)-g(s).$$ Then one has $g_1(s)\ge 0$, $g_2(s) \ge 0$ for $s \ge 0$ and $$\label{eq:3.2}
\lim_{s \to 0} \frac{g_1(s)}{|s|^{\ell-1}}=0,$$ $$\label{eq:3.3}
\lim_{s \to +\infty} \frac{g_1(s)}{s^{q^*-1}}=0,$$ $$\label{eq:3.4}
g_2(s) \ge m_\ell s^{\ell-1} \ \hbox{for all} \ s\ge 0.$$ From [eq:3.2]{}-[eq:3.4]{}, for any $0<\varepsilon<1$, there exists $C_{\varepsilon}>0$ such that $$\label{eq:3.5}
g_1(s) \le C_{\varepsilon} |s|^{q^*-1} +\varepsilon g_2(s) \
\hbox{for} \ s \ge 0.$$ Moreover we put $G_i(t)=\int_0^t g_i(s) \,ds$ for $i=1,2$. Then from [eq:3.4]{} and [eq:3.5]{}, we also have $$\label{eq:3.6}
G_2(s) \ge \frac{m_\ell}{\ell}|s|^\ell \ \hbox{for all} \ s\in {\mathbb{R}},$$ $$\label{eq:3.7}
G_1(s) \le\frac{C_{\varepsilon}}{q^*} |s|^{q^*}+\varepsilon G_2(s)
\ \hbox{for all} \ s\in {\mathbb{R}}.$$
We follow the same strategy as in the previous section and so we consider the following auxiliary problem: $$\label{eq:3.8}
-\Delta_p u- \Delta_q u+g_2(u) =\lambda g_1(u) \ \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}}$$ for $\lambda$ close to $1$. We define the functional $I_{\lambda}:{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$I_{\lambda}(u)=\frac{1}{p} \|\nabla u\|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q} \|\nabla u\|_q^q
+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(u) \,dx
-\lambda \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(u) \,dx.$$ In order to find a non-trivial critical point of $I_{\lambda}$, we apply the Monotonicity trick (see Proposition \[prop:2.1\]), with $X={\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}}$, where $${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}}=\{u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}\mid u \hbox{ is radially symmetric }\},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A(u)&=\frac{1}{p} \|\nabla u\|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q} \|\nabla u\|_q^q
+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(u) \,dx,
\\
B(u) &=\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(u) \,dx.\end{aligned}$$
Now arguing as in Lemma \[lem:2.2\], we infer the following.
\[lem:3.1\] There exists $\lambda_0 \in (0,1)$ such that the set $\Gamma_{\lambda}$ defined in [eq:2.11]{} is non-empty for every $\lambda \in J=[\lambda_0,1]$.
Next we establish the following lemma by modifying the proof of Lemma \[lem:2.3\].
\[lem:3.2\] For all $\lambda \in J=[\lambda_0,1]$, the condition [eq:2.12]{} holds.
For any $u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}}$ and $\lambda \in J$, we have from and , and later by , that $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\lambda}(u) &\ge \frac{1}{p}\|\nabla u\|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q} \|\nabla u\|_q^q
+\frac{m_\ell(1-\varepsilon)}{\ell}\|u\|_\ell^\ell
-\frac{C_\varepsilon}{q^*} \|u\|_{q^*}^{q^*} \\
&\ge \frac{1}{p} \| \nabla u\|_p^p
\Big(1-C\| \nabla u\|_p^{p^*-p}-C \| \nabla u\|_p^{q^*-p}\Big)
+\frac{1}{q} \| \nabla u\|_q^q \Big( 1-C\| \nabla u\|_q^{q^*-q}\Big)
+\frac{m_\ell(1-\varepsilon)}{\ell}\|u\|_\ell^\ell.\end{aligned}$$ Let $u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}}$ such that $\|u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}}=\| \nabla u\|_p +\| u\|_{\ell}+\| \nabla u\|_q=\rho < 1$. Since [[$q^* > p^*>p$]{}]{} and $q^*>q$, if $\rho>0$ is sufficiently small, it follows that $${{\color{black}1-C\| \nabla u\|_p^{p^*-p}-C \| \nabla u\|_p^{q^*-p}\ge \frac{1}{2}}}, \quad
1-C\| \nabla u\|_q^{q^*-q} \ge \frac{1}{2}.$$ Then from $p \le \ell$ and $p<q$, we get $$I_{\lambda}(u) \ge C \| u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}}^{\bar{\ell}},$$ where $\bar{\ell}=\max \{ \ell,q\}$. Therefore there exists $\delta>0$ such that $I_{\lambda}(u)\ge \delta$ for all $u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}}$ with $\|u\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}}\le\rho$. The conclusion follows as in Lemma \[lem:2.3\].
By Lemmas \[lem:3.1\] and \[lem:3.2\], we can apply Proposition \[prop:2.1\] to obtain a bounded Palais-Smale sequence $\{ u_n^{\lambda}\} \subset {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}}$ of $I_{\lambda}$, for almost every $\lambda\in J$, that is, $$I_{\lambda}(u_n^{\lambda}) \to c_{\lambda}, \
I_{\lambda}'(u_n^{\lambda}) \to 0 \ \hbox{and} \
\{ u_n^{\lambda}\} \ \hbox{is bounded in }{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}$$ Hence, passing to a subsequence, there exists $u_{\lambda} \in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&u_n^{\lambda} \rightharpoonup u_{\lambda}\ \hbox{ in }\ {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}},
\ \hbox{ as } n \to +\infty, \nonumber \\
&u_n^{\lambda}(x) \to u_{\lambda}(x) \
\hbox{ a.e. } \ x\in {{\mathbb{R}^N}}, \ \hbox{ as} \ n \to +\infty. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:3.3\] The weak limit $u_{\lambda}$ satisfies $$u_{\lambda} \ne 0, \quad I_{\lambda}'(u_{\lambda})=0 \quad \hbox{and} \quad
I_{\lambda}(u_{\lambda}) \le c_{\lambda}.$$
The proof is almost same as that of Lemma \[lem:2.5\]. The only difference is the choice of $Q(s)$ to apply the Strauss’s compactness lemma. Indeed in the positive mass case, putting $Q(s)=|s|^{\ell}+|s|^{q^*}$, one has from [eq:3.2]{} and [eq:3.3]{} that $\frac{G_1(s)}{Q(s)} \to 0$ as $s \to 0$ and $s \to \infty$. The rest of the proof can be done in a similar way as Lemma \[lem:2.5\].
Lemma \[lem:3.3\] implies that, for almost every $\lambda\in J$, $u_{\lambda}$ is a non-trivial solution of [eq:3.8]{}. In order to obtain a non-trivial solution of the original problem [eq:1.1]{}, we next consider a sequence $\{ \lambda_n\}$ such that $\lambda_n \nearrow 1$ as $n \to +\infty$. Then by Proposition \[prop:2.1\] and Lemma \[lem:3.3\], there exists $\{v_n\} \subset {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}} \setminus \{ 0\}$ such that $$\label{eq:3.9}
I_{\lambda_n}'(v_n)=0, \
I_{\lambda_n}(v_n) \le c_{\lambda_n}.$$ Then we claim the following lemma.
\[lem:3.4\] The sequence $\{ v_n\} $ is bounded in ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}$.
The conclusion follows by the same argument as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:2.6\]. But in the positive mass case, we further need a bound for the $L^\ell$-norm of $\{ v_n \}$.\
Now since $I_{\lambda_n}'(v_n)=0$, it follows that $v_n$ satisfies $$-\Delta_p v_n- \Delta_q v_n +g_2(v_n)
-\lambda_n g_1(v_n)=0 \quad \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},$$ in the weak sense. Then as in the zero mass case, one can show that the following Pohozaev identity holds: $$\label{eq:3.10}
\frac{N-p}{p} \|\nabla v_n \|_p^p +\frac{N-q}{q} \|\nabla v_n \|_q^q
+N \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(v_n) \,dx
-N\lambda_n \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(v_n) \,dx=0.$$ Moreover from [eq:3.9]{}, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3.11}
I_{\lambda_n}(v_n)
&= \frac{1}{p} \|\nabla v_n \|_p^p
+\frac{1}{q} \|\nabla v_n\|_q^q
+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_2(v_n) \,dx
-\lambda_n \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} G_1(v_n) \,dx \le c_{\lambda_n}, \\
\label{eq:3.12}
I_{\lambda_n}'(v_n)[v_n]
&= \|\nabla v_n\|_p^p
+ \|\nabla v_n\|_q^q
+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_2(v_n)v_n \,dx
-\lambda_n \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(v_n)v_n \,dx =0.\end{aligned}$$ From [eq:3.10]{}, [eq:3.11]{} and the monotonicity of $c_{\lambda}$ with respect to $\lambda$, it follows that $$\|\nabla v_n\|_p^p
+ \|\nabla v_n\|_q^q
\le N c_{\lambda_n} \le Nc_{\lambda_0},$$ and hence $$\label{eq:3.13}
\|v_n\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0} \le C.$$ To conclude, we have to show that $\{v_n\}$ is bounded in $L^{\ell}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$. By [eq:3.4]{}, [eq:3.5]{} and [eq:3.12]{}, one has $$\begin{aligned}
0&=\|\nabla v_n\|_p^p
+ \| \nabla v_n\|_q^q
+\int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_2(v_n)v_n \,dx
-\lambda_n \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} g_1(v_n) v_n \,dx \\
&\ge (1-\varepsilon)m_\ell \| v_n \|^\ell_\ell
-C_{\varepsilon} \| v_n\|^{q^*}_{q^*}.\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[th:embedding\] and [eq:3.13]{}, we get $$\|v_n\|^\ell_\ell
\le C\| v_n\|^{q^*}_{q^*}
\le C \| v_n\|_{{\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_0}^{q^*}
\le C.$$ This, together with , completes the proof.
By Lemma \[lem:3.4\], up to a subsequence, we may assume that there exists $v\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}}$ such that $v_n \rightharpoonup v$ in ${\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}$. Arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:1.1\], we can see that $v$ is a nontrivial critical point of $I$. Moreover by the regularity theory and the Harnack inequality, it follows that $v>0$ in ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$.
To introduce the existence of a ground state solution, let us define ${\mathcal{S}_{\rm rad}}$ the set of the nontrivial radial solutions of , namely $${\mathcal{S}_{\rm rad}}=\{u\in {\mathcal{H}^{p,q}}_{{\rm rad}}\setminus \{0\} \mid I'(u)=0\}.$$ Arguing as Theorem \[thm:2.7\], one can show the following result.
\[thm:3.5\] Assume , , and . Then [eq:1.1]{} has a [*radial ground state solution*]{}, namely there exists $\bar u\in {\mathcal{S}_{\rm rad}}$ such that $$I(\bar u)=\min_{u\in {\mathcal{S}_{\rm rad}}}I(u).$$
$k$-th order approximated problem {#se:appr}
=================================
In this section, we consider the approximation, at $k$-th order, of the Born-Infeld equation , namely we deal with the following problem: $$\label{eq:4.1}\begin{cases}
-\Delta u-\Delta_4u
\cdots - \Delta_{2k} u =h(u) & \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},
\\
u(x)\to 0 & \hbox{as }|x|\to +\infty,
\end{cases}$$ where $N \ge 3$, $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ with $k \ge 2$. Here we normalized the coefficients $\frac{(2k-3)!!}{(k-1)!}\beta^{k-1}$ in [eq:1.4]{} because they are not essential for the existence of solutions. Moreover since we are interested in higher order approximation, we assume that $$\label{eq:4.2}
k \ge \max \left\{ \frac{N}{2}, \frac{N}{N-2} \right\}.$$ We impose the following assumptions on $h$.
1. \[h1\] $h\in C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}})$ and $h(s) \equiv 0$ for $s\le 0$.
2. \[h2\] Either (i) or (ii) is fulfilled:
1. for all $\ell\in [2, \frac{2N}{N-2}]$, it holds $$-\infty
\le \limsup_{s \to 0^+} \frac{h(s)}{s^{\ell-1}} \le 0;$$
2. there exist $\ell\in [2, \frac{2N}{N-2})$ and $m_{\ell}>0$ such that $$-\infty<\liminf_{s\to 0^+} \frac{h(s)}{s^{\ell-1}} \le
\limsup_{s \to 0^+} \frac{h(s)}{s^{\ell-1}} =-m_\ell.$$
3. \[h3\] There exists $\ell^*>2k\ge \frac{2N}{N-2}$ such that $$\displaystyle -\infty \le \limsup_{s \to +\infty}
\frac{h(s)}{s^{{\ell}^*-1}} \le 0.$$
4. \[h4\] There exists $\zeta>0$ such that $H(\zeta)=\int_0^{\zeta} h(s) \,ds >0$.
In this setting, we have the following result.
\[thm:4.1\] Assume [eq:4.2]{}, -[h4]{}. Then problem [eq:4.1]{} has a solution which is positive and radially symmetric and belongs to $C_{\rm loc}^{1,\sigma}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})\cap L^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ class, for some $\sigma \in (0,1)$. Furthermore, there exists a radial ground state solution of [eq:4.1]{}.
As a special case, let us study the problem: $$\label{eq:4.3}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle -\Delta u - \beta \Delta_4 u -\frac{3}{2}\beta^2 \Delta_6 u
\cdots -\frac{(2k-3)!!}{(k-1)!}\beta^{k-1} \Delta_{2k} u = |u|^{\alpha-1}u
& \hbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},
\\[4mm]
u(x)\to 0 & \hbox{as }|x|\to +\infty,
\end{cases}$$ for $N \ge 3$, $\alpha> \frac{2N}{N-2}$ and $\beta>0$. Under the assumption [eq:4.2]{}, we choose $\ell^*> \max \{ \alpha, 2k \}$ arbitrarily and, by Theorem \[thm:4.1\], we obtain the following result.
\[cor:4.2\] Assume [eq:4.2]{} and let $\alpha>\frac{2N}{N-2}$ and $\beta>0$ be arbitrarily given. Then the problem [eq:4.3]{} has a positive radial solution as well as a radial ground state solution.
We expect that under some smallness condition on $\beta$, a positive solution $u_k$ of [eq:4.3]{} converges to a positive solution of $$\label{eq:4.4}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle -{\,\mathrm{div}}\left( \frac{\nabla u}{\sqrt{1-2\beta|\nabla u|^2}} \right) =|u|^{\alpha-1}u
& \mbox{in} \ {{\mathbb{R}^N}},
\\[4mm]
u(x)\to 0 & \hbox{as }|x|\to +\infty,
\end{cases}$$ as $k \to +\infty$ in a certain sense. But we postpone this question to a future work.
We also note that the problem [eq:4.3]{} has no non-trivial $C^1$ solution if $1<\alpha \le \frac{2N}{N-2}$. Indeed for any non-trivial $C^1$ solution of [eq:4.3]{}, by adapting the argument in [@DMS], one can prove the following two identities hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \nabla u\|_2^2 + \beta \| \nabla u\|_4^4 \cdots
+ \frac{(2k-3)!!}{(k-1)!}\beta^{k-1} \| \nabla u\|_{2k}^{2k}&
=\| u\|_{\alpha}^{\alpha} \quad (\hbox{Nehari}) \\
\frac{N-2}{2} \| \nabla u\|_2^2 + \frac{N-4}{4} \beta \| \nabla u\|_4^4
\cdots + \frac{N-2k}{2k} \frac{(2k-3)!!}{(k-1)!}\beta^{k-1} \| \nabla u\|_{2k}^{2k} &
=\frac{N}{\alpha} \| u\|_{\alpha}^{\alpha}
\quad (\hbox{Pohozaev}).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the first equation for the second one, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:4.5}
\left( \frac{N-2}{2}-\frac{N}{\alpha} \right) \| \nabla u\|_2^2
+\left( \frac{N-4}{4}-\frac{N}{\alpha} \right) \beta \| \nabla u\|_4^4 \\
+\cdots +\left( \frac{N-2k}{2k}-\frac{N}{\alpha} \right)
\frac{(2k-3)!!}{(k-1)!}\beta^{k-1}\| \nabla u\|_{2k}^{2k}=0.\end{gathered}$$ If $1<\alpha \le \frac{2N}{N-2}$, it follows that $\frac{N}{\alpha} \ge \frac{N-2}{2}$ and hence $$\frac{N-2j}{2j}-\frac{N}{\alpha} \le \frac{N-2j}{2j}-\frac{N-2}{2}
=-\frac{(j-1)N}{2j} \le 0 \quad \hbox{for} \ j \ge 1.$$ This implies that all terms in the left hand side of [eq:4.5]{} are non-negative, yielding that $\nabla u \equiv 0$ and hence $u \equiv 0$. We note that the non-existence of positive radial solutions of [eq:4.4]{} for the case $1<\alpha \le \frac{2N}{N-2}$ has been obtained in [@A2] by the ODE technique. The proof of Theorem \[thm:4.1\] is almost the same as those of Theorems \[thm:1.1\]-\[thm:1.2\], \[thm:2.7\] and \[thm:3.5\]. Here we consider the zero mass case (h2-i) and only give a sketch of the proof.
First we set a function space $\mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_{0}$ defined by $\mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_{0}=
\overline{ C_0^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})}^{\ \| \, \cdot \, \|_{\mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_{0}}}$, where $$\| u\|_{\mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_{0}} := \| \nabla u\|_2 + \| \nabla u\|_{2k}.$$ Since $2k \ge N$, it follows by Theorem \[th:embedding\] that $\mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_{0} \hookrightarrow L^r({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ and $$\label{eq:4.6}
\| u\|_r \le C( \| \nabla u\|_2 + \| \nabla u\|_{2k})
\ \hbox{for any} \ u\in \mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_{0} \ \hbox{and} \
r\in \left[\frac{2N}{N-2},+\infty\right).$$ We define the functional $I_k:\mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_{0} \to \mathbb{R}$ by $$I_k(u)=\frac{1}{2} \| \nabla u\|_2^2+\frac{1}{4} \| \nabla u\|_4^4
\cdots + \frac{1}{2k} \| \nabla u\|_{2k}^{2k} - \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} H(u) \,dx,$$ which is well-defined and $C^1$ by -. Moreover we truncate and decompose $h(s)$ as in Section \[se:vs\]. We apply the Monotonicity trick to $X=\mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_{0,{\rm rad}}$, where $$\mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_{0,{\rm rad}}=\{u\in \mathcal{H}^{2,2k}_0\mid u \hbox{ is radially symmetric }\},$$ and consider the modified functional $I_{k,\lambda}$ which is given by $$I_{k,\lambda}(u)=\frac{1}{2} \| \nabla u\|_2^2+\frac{1}{4} \| \nabla u\|_4^4
\cdots + \frac{1}{2k} \| \nabla u\|_{2k}^{2k}
+ \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} H_2(u) \,dx - \lambda \int_{{{\mathbb{R}^N}}} H_1(u) \,dx$$ for $\lambda \in (0,1]$.
The arguments from now on are similar to those of the previous sections and we omit the details.
In this appendix, we collect some well known lemmas which we used in this paper.
\[lem:a.1\]
Suppose $1<p<N$. Then there exists $C=C(N,p)>0$ such that for any $u \in D^{1,p}_{\rm rad}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$, $$|u(x)| \le C |x|^{-\frac{N-p}{p}} \| \nabla u\|_p.$$
Next we recall a variant of the Strauss’ compactness lemma due to [@AP]. (See also [@BL Theorem A.1], [@Str].) It will be a fundamental tool in our arguments.
\[lem:a.2\] Let $P$ and $Q:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be two continuous functions satisfying $$\lim_{s\to\infty}\frac{P(s)}{Q(s)}=0,$$ $\{v_n\},$ $v$ and $z$ be measurable functions from ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$, with $z$ bounded, such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}^N}}| Q(v_n(x))z|\,dx <+\infty,
\\ &P(v_n(x))\to v(x) \:\hbox{a.e. in }{{\mathbb{R}^N}}. $$ Then $\|(P(v_n)-v)z\|_{L^1(B)}\to 0$, for any bounded Borel set $B$.
Moreover, if we have also $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{s\to 0}\frac{P(s)}{Q(s)} &=0,\\ \lim_{x\to\infty}\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} |v_n(x)| &= 0, $$ then $\|(P(v_n)-v)z\|_{L^1({{\mathbb{R}^N}})}\to 0.$
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for useful suggestions. The first author is partially supported by a grant of the group GNAMPA of INdAM. The second author is supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 15K04970).
[99]{}
A. Azzollini, [*Ground state solution for a problem with mean curvature operator in Minkowski space*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. [**266**]{} (2014), 2086–2095.
A. Azzollini, [*On a prescribed mean curvature equation in Lorentz-Minkowski space*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. [**106**]{} (2016), 1122–1140.
A. Azzollini, P. d’Avenia, A. Pomponio, [*Quasilinear elliptic equations in ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$ via variational methods and Orlicz-Sobolev embeddings*]{}, Calc. Var. PDEs, [**49**]{}, (2014), 197–213.
A. Azzollini, A. Pomponio, [*On a “zero mass” nonlinear Schrödinger equation*]{}, Adv. Nonlinear Stud. [**7**]{}, (2007), 599–627.
A. Azzollini, A. Pomponio, [*Compactness results and applications to some “zero mass" elliptic problems*]{}, Nonlinear Anal. [**69**]{} (2008), 3559–3576.
A. Azzollini, A. Pomponio, [*Ground state solutions for the nonlinear Schrödinger-Maxwell equations*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**345**]{} (2008), 90–108.
A. Azzollini, A. Pomponio, [*On the Schrödinger equation in $R^N$ under the effect of a general nonlinear term*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**58**]{} (2009), 1361–1378.
M. Badiale, L. Pisani, S. Rolando, [*Sum of weighted Lebesgue spaces and nonlinear elliptic equations*]{}, NoDEA Nonlinear Diff. Equ. Appl. [**18**]{} (2011), 369–405.
R. Bartolo, A. M. Candela, A. Salvatore, [*On a class of superlinear $(p,q)$-Laplacian type equations on ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**438**]{} (2016), 29–41.
V. Benci, A. M. Micheletti, [*Solutions in exterior domains of null mass nonlinear field equations*]{}, Adv. Nonlinear Stud. [**6**]{} (2006), 171–198.
H. Berestycki, P. L. Lions, [*Nonlinear scalar fields equations, I. Existence of a ground state*]{}, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. [**82**]{} (1983), 313–345.
D. Bonheure, P. d’Avenia, A. Pomponio, [*On the electrostatic Born-Infeld equation with extended charges*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**346**]{} (2016), 877–906.
D. Bonheure, C. De Coster, A. Derlet, [*Infinitely many radial solutions of a mean curvature equation in Lorentz-Minkowski space*]{}, Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste. [**44**]{} (2012), 259–284.
H. Brezis, [*Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations*]{}, Springer, New York, 2011. H. Carley, M. K. H. Kiessling, [*Constructing graphs over ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$ with small prescribed mean-curvature*]{}. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. [**18:11**]{} (2015), 25 pages.
M. F. Chaves, G. Ercole, O. H. Miyagaki, [*Existence of a nontrivial solution for the $(p,q)$-Laplacian in ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$ without the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition*]{}, Nonlinear Anal. [**114**]{} (2015), 133–141.
M. Degiovanni, A. Musesti, M. Squassina, [*On the regularity of solutions in the Pucci-Serrin identity*]{}, Calc. Var. [**18**]{} (2003), 317–334.
J. M. Do Ó, E. Medeiros, [*Remarks on least energy solutions for quasilinear elliptic problems in ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$*]{}, Elect. J. Diff. Eqns. [**83**]{} (2003), 1–14.
A. Ferrero, F. Gazzola, [*On subcriticality assumptions for the existence of ground states of quasilinear elliptic equations*]{}, Adv. Diff. Eqns. [**8**]{} (2003), 1081–1106.
G. M. Figueiredo, [*Existence of positive solutions for a class of $p\& q$ elliptic problems with critical growth on ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$.*]{} J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**378**]{} (2011), 507–518.
D. Fortunato, L. Orsina, L. Pisani, [*Born-Infeld type equations for electrostatic fields*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**43**]{} (2002), 5698–5706.
B. Franchi, E. Lanconelli, J. Serrin, [*Existence and uniqueness of nonnegative solutions of quasilinear equations in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$*]{}, Adv. Math. [**118**]{} (1996), 177–243.
C. He, G. Li, [*The regularity of weak solutions to nonlinear scalar field elliptic equations containing $p\& q$-Laplacians*]{}, Anal. Acad. Sci. Fenn. [**33**]{} (2008), 337–371.
J. Hirata, N. Ikoma and K. Tanaka, [*Nonlinear scalar field equations in ${{\mathbb{R}^N}}$: mountain pass and symmetric mountain pass approaches*]{}, Top. Methods in Nonlinear Anal. [**35**]{} (2010), 253–276.
L. Jeanjean. [*On the existence of bounded Palais-Smale sequences and application to a Landesman-Lazer-type problem set on ${\mathbb{R}}$*]{}, Proc. Royal Soc. Edin. [**129A**]{} (1999), 787–809.
M. Mari[ş]{}, [*On the symmetry of minimizers*]{}, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. [**192**]{} (2009), 311–330.
D. Mugnai, N. S. Papageorgiou, [*Wang’s multiplicity result for superlinear $(p,q)$-equations without the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**366**]{} (2013), 4919–4937.
B. Pellacci, M. Squassina, [*Mountain pass solutions for quasi-linear equations via a monotonicity trick*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**381**]{} (2011), 857–865.
J. Santos, S. Soares, [*Radial solutions of quasilinear equations in Orlicz-Sobolev type spaces*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**428**]{} (2015), 1035–1053.
J. Serrin, H. Zou, [*Symmetry of ground states of quasilinear elliptic equations*]{}, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. [**148**]{} (1999), 265–290.
W. A. Strauss, [*Existence of solitary waves in higher dimensions*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**55**]{} (1977), 149–162.
J. Su, Z. Q. Wang, M. Willem, [*Weighted Sobolev embedding with unbounded and decaying radial potentials*]{}, J. Diff. Eqns. [**238**]{} (2007), 201–219.
G. Talenti, [*Best constant in Sobolev inequality*]{}, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. [**110**]{} (1976), 353–372.
N. S. Trudinger, [*On Harnack type inequalities and their applications to quasilinear elliptic equations*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**20**]{} (1967), 721–747.
[^1]: First we notice that the argument used in the proof of Theorem 2 in [@HL] only requires that $v_n \in W^{1,q}_{\rm loc}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ because they adopt a cut-off function to obtain desired estimates. Thus if $q<N$, we can apply Theorems 1-2 in [@HL] directly. If $q>N$, we already have $v_n \in L^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ so that we can use Theorem 1 in [@HL]. Finally when $q=N$, we have to show that $v_n\in L^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$ first. But checking the proof of Theorem 2 in [@HL] carefully, the argument of the proof works even for $q=N$. Then we can apply Theorem 1 of [@HL] to conclude that $v_n \in C_{\rm loc}^{1,\sigma}({{\mathbb{R}^N}})$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We sift the impact of the recent Higgs precise measurements, and recent dark matter direct detection results, on the dark sector of an electroweak extension of the Standard Model that has a complex scalar as dark matter. We find that in this model the Higgs decays with a large branching ratio into dark matter particles, and charged scalars when these are kinematically available, for any coupling strength differently from the so called Higgs portal. Moreover, we compute the abundance and spin-independent WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section, which are driven by the Higgs and $Z^{\prime}$ boson processes. We decisively exclude the $1-500$ GeV dark matter window and find the most stringent lower bound in the literature on the scale of symmetry breaking of the model namely $10$ TeV, after applying the LUX-2013 limit. Interestingly, the projected XENON1T constraint will be able to rule out the entire $1$ GeV-$1000$ GeV dark matter mass range. Lastly, for completeness, we compute the charged scalar production cross section at the LHC and comment on the possibility of detection at current and future LHC runnings.'
author:
- 'D. Cogollo$^{a}$'
- 'Alma X. Gonzalez-Morales$^{b}$'
- 'Farinaldo S. Queiroz$^{b}$'
- 'P. Rebello Teles$^{c}$'
title: Excluding the Light Dark Matter Window of a 331 Model Using LHC and Direct Dark Matter Detection Data
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The nature of the dark matter (DM) is one of the greatest puzzles in current science, once the DM constitutes approximately $23\%$ of the Universe budget. There are promising ongoing searches aimed to detect and find the nature of the DM that permeates the Universe. There are many dark matter candidates in the literature, but the most seemingly promising ones are the so called WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) for having a thermal cross section at the electroweak scale, naturally addressing the structure formation process, and being predicted in many interesting particle physics models.
There are four different methods to infer the presence or detect theses WIMPs known as indirect detection, direct detection, colliders and cosmological observations. Indirect detection searches have found some excess events in the gamma-ray emission [@gammaray] and in the cosmic ray emission [@cosmicray] which might be explained by annihilation of WIMPs in our galaxy [@IDexplanations], which is in contradiction with recent dwarf galaxies constraints [@dwarfsAlma]. Likewise, some direct detection experiments such CoGeNT [@cogent], DAMA [@dama], CRESST [@cresst] and most recently CDMSII-Si [@cdms] have observed some excess events consistent with WIMP scatterings [@ddwimps]. Due to some possible leakage of background events into the signal region at low energies and the non-observation of such events in the XENON [@xenon] and LUX [@lux] experiments, those events do not constitute an irrefutable DM signal [@backgrounds]. Furthermore, there are cosmological measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background that revealed some degree of dark radiation observed in the Planck data [@planck], among other satellites, [@satelites] that may constitute an evidence for a sub-dominant non-thermal production of DM [@nonthermal]. Lastly, collider data, which provide an important and complementary method to infer the nature of the dark matter have not observed any positive signal for a stable particle and just bounds on the mass and coupling strengths had been derived [@Willshepherd].
In this work we will focus on a compelling extension of the Standard Model (SM) namely 331LHN, that might address these evidences. 331LHN stands for a electroweak extension of the SM where doublets are replaced by triplets, both in the scalar and the fermion sector. This proposal has been able to endure all electroweak precise measurements and reproduce the SM results concerning the Higgs signal strength [@331DM2] as oppose to other 331 model extensions which predict a $H\rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ enhancement [@hgamma]. It also has a rich particle spectrum comprised of charged scalars , gauge bosons, sterile neutrinos and exotic quarks, with interesting phenomenological aspects, which had been investigated elsewhere [@gaugebosonsLHC]. Furthermore, this model does have a plausible DM candidate able to explain the gamma-ray excess observed in the Fermi-LAT data at the Galactic Center [@gammaray] differently to other versions [@331minimal; @331econo; @331susyecono; @331two; @331susyecono2; @331g2muon; @Caetano:2012qc; @Ferreira:2013nla; @Dias:2013kma; @Dong:2014wsa]; and offers a plausible mechanism to account for the dark radiation observed by the Planck Collaboration, through a sub-dominant non-thermal production of WIMPs, while evading structure formation, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and CMB bounds among others [@331darkradiation]. An extensive analysis concerning the heavy fermions present in the model has been done, and stringent bounds on the mass of the lightest sterile neutrino have been found as a function of the $Z^{\prime}$ mass in Ref.[@331DM3], and in a model independent fashion in Ref.[@DarkZp]. It is important to stress that such constraints on the $Z^{\prime}$ mass [*do apply, at some level, to all 331 models*]{}, that have fermions as DM candidates, as discussed in Fig.7 of Ref.[@331DM3], and are complementary to others coming from colliders [@331collider; @331collider2], FCNC [@331FCNC], muon decay [@331muon], top decay [@331top] analyses, and oblique STU parameters [@Liu:1993fwa; @Martinez:2009ik].
That being said, here we will discuss the 331LHN model which has two not co-existing DM candidates [@331DM2; @331DM1]. Our purpose is to derive constraints on the dark sector of this well motivated model in the light of the present bounds in the Higgs signal strength and DM observables. In particular, we will exclude DM masses below $500$ GeV, and discuss the impact of this exclusion on the dark sector of the model with focus on the charged scalar which predicted in this model.
The paper is organized as follows: in section \[sec1\] we briefly introduce the 331LHN model. In section \[darksector\] we derive bounds on the dark sector of the model, and in section \[LHC\] we comment about the possibility of detection at current and future LHC runnings. Finally we present our conclusions in section \[sec:conclusion\]
The 3-3-1LHN Model {#sec1}
==================
As we mentioned before, 3-3-1 stands for an extension of the electroweak sector of the SM where the electroweak sector $SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)_Y$ is enlarged to $SU(3)_L \otimes U(1)_N$. As a result the doublets in the electroweak sector of the SM are replaced by triplets. This extension is motivated by important matters not fully addressed by the SM , namely the number of generations, the neutrinos masses, and the lack of a plausible DM candidate. Moreover, it reproduces precisely the SM results, including the Higgs properties as shown in Ref.[@331DM2]. Hence, the 3-3-1LHN remains as a compelling extension of the SM. In what follows, we will not dwell on unnecessary details but shortly review the key points of this model, which will allow the reader to follow our reasoning.
Leptonic Sector {#leptonic-sector .unnumbered}
---------------
The leptons are displayed in triplet and singlet representations as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{aL} & = & \left (
\begin{array}{c}
\nu_{a} \\
e_{a} \\
N_{a}
\end{array}
\right )_L\sim(1\,,\,3\,,\,-1/3)\nonumber\\
&e_{aR}& \sim(1,1,-1)\,,\, N_{aR}\,\sim(1,1,0),
\label{L}\end{aligned}$$ where $a=1,2,3$ runs over the three lepton families, and $N_{a(L,R)}$ are the heavy fermions added to the SM particle spectrum. The shortened representation $(1\,,\,3\,,\,-1/3)$ simply refers to the quantum numbers of the symmetry group $SU(3)_c \otimes SU(3)_L\otimes U(1)_N$.
The SM mass spectrum will be reproduced. In particular, the charged leptons will acquire mass terms through the first term of the Yukawa Lagrangian in Eq.(\[yukawa1\]), whereas the neutrinos through a dimension 5 effective operators according to Eq.(\[numasses\]).
$${\cal L}^Y \supset G_{ab}\bar f_{aL} \rho e_{bR}+g^{\prime}_{ab}\bar{f}_{aL}\chi N_{bR}+ \mbox{h.c},
\label{yukawa1}$$
$${\cal L}^Y \supset \frac{y_{ab}}{\Lambda}\bar{f^c}_{aL}\eta^{\star}\eta^{\dagger} f_{bL} + \mbox{h.c},
\label{numasses}$$
where $\rho, \eta$ and $\chi$ are the scalar triplets introduced in Eq.(\[scalarcont\]).
We do not show explicitly the masses of the SM particles in this work and just present the mass of the heavy fermions ($N_a$) introduced by the 3-3-1 symmetry as follows,
M\_[N\_a]{}=v\_[\^]{}, \[mneut\] where $g^{\prime}_{aa}$ are the Yukawa couplings that appear in the last term of Eq.(\[yukawa1\]). We assume all Yukawa couplings to be diagonal with a normal hierarchy throughout this work. The hierarchy adopted does not lead to any impact on our conclusions.
Hadronic Sector {#hadronic-sector .unnumbered}
---------------
The quarks in the theory are also arranged in triplets. The third generation lives in a triplet representation while the other two generations are in anti-triplet representations of $SU(3)_L$, so that triangle anomalies are canceled as follows [@331minimal], $$\begin{aligned}
&&Q_{iL} = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
d_{i} \\
-u_{i} \\
q^{\prime}_{i}
\end{array}
\right )_L\sim(3\,,\,\bar{3}\,,\,0)\,, \nonumber \\
&&
u_{iR}\,\sim(3,1,2/3),\,\,\,
\,\,d_{iR}\,\sim(3,1,-1/3)\,,\,\,\,\, q^{\prime}_{iR}\,\sim(3,1,-1/3),\nonumber \\
&&Q_{3L} = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
u_{3} \\
d_{3} \\
q^{\prime}_{3}
\end{array}
\right )_L\sim(3\,,\,3\,,\,1/3)\,, \nonumber \\
&&
u_{3R}\,\sim(3,1,2/3),
\,\,d_{3R}\,\sim(3,1,-1/3)\,,\,q^{\prime}_{3R}\,\sim(3,1,2/3)
\label{quarks} \end{aligned}$$ where the index $i=1,2$ refers to the first two generations. The primed quarks $(q^{\prime})$ are heavy quarks with the following electric charges, $Q(q^{\prime}_1)= -1/3 ,Q(q^{\prime}_2)=-1/3, Q(q^{\prime}_3)=2/3$. These quarks do not couple with the SM gauge bosons but couple with the extra gauge bosons introduced by the 3-3-1 symmetry that we will discuss further [^1]
The masses of all quarks are derived from the Yukawa Lagrangian in Eq.(\[yukawa2\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
&-&{\cal L}^Y \supset \alpha_{ij} \bar Q_{iL}\chi^* q^{\prime}_{jR} +f_{33} \bar Q_{3L}\chi q^{\prime}_{3R} + g_{ia}\bar Q_{iL}\eta^* d_{aR} \nonumber \\
&&+h_{3a} \bar Q_{3L}\eta u_{aR} +g_{3a}\bar Q_{3L}\rho d_{aR}+h_{ia}\bar Q_{iL}\rho^* u_{aR} + \mbox{h.c}., \nonumber \\
%\nonumber \\
\label{yukawa2}\end{aligned}$$
with $i,j=1,2$. and $a=1,2,3$.
Again, the SM quarks masses are equal to the usual ones, once $v_{\rho}=v_{\eta}=v$, where $v=v_{SM}/\sqrt{2}$ GeV [^2]. As for the three new quarks $q^{\prime}_a$ they have their masses given by the first two terms of Eq.(\[yukawa2\]) with,
M\_[q\^\_a]{}=v\_[\^]{}. \[mquarks\]
One can clearly see that the masses of the new quarks are proportional to the scale of symmetry breaking of the model, which we assumed to lie at the TeV scale. Anyway, the new quarks do not play any role in the current work and will be thus completely ignored henceforth.
Gauge Bosons {#gaugebosons .unnumbered}
------------
Due to the enlarged electroweak gauge group, $SU(2)_L \rightarrow SU(3)_L$, extra gauge bosons will arise in the 3-3-1LHN model, namely: $Z^{\prime}, W^{\prime \pm},$ and $U^{0}$ and $U^{0\dagger}$. These bosons have masses proportional to the scale of symmetry breaking of the model as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
M^2_{Z^\prime} & = & \frac{g^{2}}{4(3-4s_W^2)}[4c^{2}_{W}v_{\chi^\prime}^2 +\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}_{W}}+\frac{v^{2}(1-2s^{2}_{W})^2}{c^{2}_{W}}]
\nonumber \\
M^2_{W^{\prime}} & = & M^2_{U^0} = \frac{1}{4}g^2(v_{\chi^\prime}^2+v^2)\,,
\label{massvec}\end{aligned}$$where we used the shortened notation $\sin_{\theta_W} =s_W$ and $\cos_{\theta_W} =c_W$. Notice that their masses are also balanced by the scale of symmetry breaking of the model ($v_{\chi}^{\prime}$).
These gauge bosons give rise to the neutral and charged current below,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{NCeq}
&&{\cal L}^{NC} =-\frac{g}{2 \cos\theta_W}\sum_{f} \Bigl[\bar
f\, \gamma^\mu\ (g^\prime_V + g^\prime_A \gamma^5)f \, { Z_\mu^\prime}\Bigr],\end{aligned}$$
\_[NH]{} &=& - \[CC\] where ($g^{\prime}_V$) and ($g^{\prime}_A$) are the vector and axial couplings with quarks/leptons as shown in [@331DM3]. Now we presented the masses and the current involving these gauge bosons we discuss the current collider and electroweak constraints.
LHC and Electroweak Constraints {#lhc-and-electroweak-constraints .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
Stringent bounds on the mass of these bosons can be found in the literature. We will rigorously adopt them throughout this work [@gaugebosonsLHC]. However we would like to mention that the $Z^{\prime}$ [*does not*]{} couple to the SM fermions in the same way the Z boson does. In fact, the couplings of the $Z^{\prime}$ with the SM quarks and charged leptons are dwindled in $\sim 50\%$, while with SM neutrinos are $80\%$ suppressed in comparison with the respective SM Z couplings ones. In other words, the general neutral current written in Eq.(\[NCeq\]) has vector and axial couplings with quarks, and leptons, suppressed in comparison with the Z couplings aforesaid.
It is important to emphasize this fact because recent solid limits were derived on the mass of the $Z^{\prime}$ boson for the 3-3-1 model with right handed neutrinos using CMS data: $M_{Z^{\prime}} > 2.2$ TeV [@331collider]. However, this constraint does not directly apply to our model because the $Z^{\prime}$ decays mostly into missing energy (heavy neutral fermions). For the regime where $M_{N_{a}}< M_{Z^{\prime}}/2$, the $Z^{\prime}$ decays at $100\%$ into fermion pairs ($\overline{N_a}N_a$) as opposed to Ref.[@331collider], which assumed that the $Z^{\prime}$ decays primarily into quarks and charged leptons. Nevertheless, when $\overline{N_a}N_a$ channel is not kinematically accessible, the results found in Ref. [@331collider] do apply to our model. Either way, as we mentioned earlier we will always take this face value limit throughout this work. For complete analyses concerning the phenomenology of this neutral boson see Ref.[@gaugebosonsLHC].
As for the gauge bosons present in the charged current, there is a lack of collider bounds on the mass of the gauge boson $U^0$. Albeit, since the mass terms of $W^{\prime}$ and $U^0$ bosons are the same, according to Eq.(\[massvec\]), any constrain found on the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ is applicable to $U^0$ as well. The $W^{\prime}$ has been vastly searched at the LHC [@Wprime1; @Wprime2]: from LEP-II we have $M_{W^{\prime}} > 105$ GeV, because this charged boson could have been easily produced via drell Yan processes; and from the ATLAS Collaboration we know that a $W^{\prime}$ boson has been ruled out for $M_{W^{\prime}} < 2.55$ TeV at $95\%$ C.L, assuming SM coupling with fermions. Similarly to the $Z^{\prime}$ case, we [*will strictly use the face value bound from ATLAS*]{}, but we would like to stress that this limit does not directly apply to our model for the following reasons:
\(i) The boson $W^{\prime}$ does not couple similarly to the SM W boson as can be seen in Eq.(\[CC\]).
\(ii) $W^{\prime}$ decays predominantly into sterile neutrino plus electron ($N e$) pairs;
\(iii) In proton-proton collisions, the $W^{\prime}$ production is different from the W one. There are other processes in addition to Drell-Yan processes that contribute, such as a t-channel process mediated by new quark $q^{\prime}_1$, and three s-channel processes mediated by the Higgs, the scalar $S_2$ and the $Z^{\prime}$.
Therefore one cannot straightforwardly apply the $Z^{\prime}$ and $W^{\prime}$ limits into this model. Anyhow, at which degree these bounds are applicable to the 331LHN is far beyond the scope of this paper but we will be conservative and adopt those limits in the present analysis.
In summary the LHC bounds read:
- $M_{Z^{\prime}} > 2.2$ TeV,
- $M_{W^{\prime}} > 2.55$ TeV.
Those limits can be translated into $v_{\chi^{\prime}} > 5.5$ TeV, which will be respected throughout since in the forthcoming results we use $v_{\chi^{\prime}} \geq 8$ TeV. Additional limits coming from electroweak precision such as those from STU oblique parameters do not offer competitive bounds [@Liu:1993fwa; @Martinez:2009ik]
Here we aim to derive lower limits on the mass of the charged scalars of the model, which could be lighter than the mass of this boson at the cost of some tuning in the couplings, as we shall see in the next section.
Scalar Content {#scalarcontent .unnumbered}
--------------
The symmetry breaking pattern $ SU(3)_L\otimes U(1)_N \rightarrow SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y$ $\rightarrow$ $U(1)_{QED}$ is accomplished by three scalar triplets, namely
$$\begin{aligned}
\eta = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
\eta^0 \\
\eta^- \\
\eta^{\prime 0}
\end{array}
\right ),\,\rho = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
\rho^+ \\
\rho^0 \\
\rho^{\prime +}
\end{array}
\right ),\,
\chi = \left (
\begin{array}{c}
\chi^0 \\
\chi^{-} \\
\chi^{\prime 0}
\end{array}
\right )\,,
\label{scalarcont} \end{aligned}$$
which form the following scalar potential,
$$\begin{aligned}
V(\eta,\rho,\chi)&=&\mu_\chi^2 \chi^2 +\mu_\eta^2\eta^2
+\mu_\rho^2\rho^2+\lambda_1\chi^4 +\lambda_2\eta^4
+\lambda_3\rho^4+ \nonumber \\
&&\lambda_4(\chi^{\dagger}\chi)(\eta^{\dagger}\eta)
+\lambda_5(\chi^{\dagger}\chi)(\rho^{\dagger}\rho)+\lambda_6
(\eta^{\dagger}\eta)(\rho^{\dagger}\rho)+ \nonumber \\
&&\lambda_7(\chi^{\dagger}\eta)(\eta^{\dagger}\chi)
+\lambda_8(\chi^{\dagger}\rho)(\rho^{\dagger}\chi)+\lambda_9
(\eta^{\dagger}\rho)(\rho^{\dagger}\eta) \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{f}{\sqrt{2}}\epsilon^{ijk}\eta_i \rho_j \chi_k +\mbox{H.c}.
\label{potential}\end{aligned}$$
with $\eta$ and $\chi$ both transforming as $(1\,,\,3\,,\,-1/3)$ while $\rho$ as $(1\,,\,3\,,\,2/3)$ under $SU(3)_c \otimes SU(3)_L \otimes U(1)_N$ and $f$ assumed to be equal to $v_{\chi^ {\prime}}$.
The scalar triplets above are invoked in order to generate masses for all fermions in the model after the spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism represented by the non-zero vacuum expectation value (vev), of the scalars $\eta^0, \rho^0\ \mbox{and}\ \chi^{\prime 0}$ as, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^0 , \rho^0 , \chi^{\prime 0} \rightarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (v_{\eta ,\rho ,\chi^{\prime}}
+R_{ \eta ,\rho ,\chi^{\prime}} +iI_{\eta ,\rho ,\chi^{\prime}})\,.
\label{vacua} \end{aligned}$$ There are additional neutral scalars in the spectrum, namely $\eta^{\prime 0}$ and $\chi^{0}$, which are enforced not to develop vev’s in order to preserve the discrete symmetry given by, $$\begin{aligned}
(N_L\,,\,N_R\,,\,d^{\prime}_i\,,\,u^{\prime}_3\,,\,\rho^{\prime +}\,,\,\eta^{\prime 0}\,,\,\chi^{0}\,,\,\chi^-\,,\, V^+\,,\,U^{0 \dagger}) \rightarrow -1.\nonumber\\
\label{discretesymmetryI}\end{aligned}$$ where $d^{\prime}_i$ and $u^{\prime}_3$ are new heavy quarks predicted in the model due to the enlarged gauge group. The remaining fields all transforms trivially under this symmetry. We indicate it with $P=(-1)^{3(B-L)+2s}$, where $B$ is the baryon number, $L$ is the lepton number and $s$ is spin of the field; this parity symmetry can be understood as a R-parity symmetry like the one in the minimal supersymmetric standard model. Note that the heavy fermions (N’s) do not carry a lepton number.
This discrete symmetry induce three distinct consequences. First, it stabilizes the lightest particle charged under the symmetry. Second, it simplifies the scalar mass spectrum of the model. Last but not least, it prohibits Yukawa mass terms that would mix the new quarks with the SM ones. The downside is that we rely on the assumption that the remaining neutral scalars $\eta^{\prime 0}$ and $\chi^{0}$ do not develop a vev. This is a crucial assumption in what follows, and an important discussion on this topic has been given in Refs.[@331DM3; @3311; @DMeconomic2]. Moreover, a more elegant way to explain the WIMP stability would be gauging this discrete symmetry as discussed in Ref.[@3311]. Less appealing DM scenarios in 331 models have been studied elsewhere [@DMelsewhere].
In the 3-3-1LHN model there are two possible DM candidates: a complex scalar $\phi$ (the mass eigenstate resulting from $\eta^{0 \prime}$ and $\chi^0$), and a heavy fermion $N_i$ (the lightest of the new heavy fermions). We will restrain ourselves to the case where the scalar is the lightest particle, protected by the parity symmetry. We investigate its consequences on the dark sector of the model under the assumption that such scalar is a plausible DM candidate, i.e. it must be able to reproduce the DM abundance, as well as satisfy the direct detection bounds. Anyhow, once the pattern of symmetry breaking has been established one can straightforwardly derive the mass eigenstates of the model. After spontaneous symmetry breaking the [*three CP-even neutral scalars*]{} mass eigenstates ($H,S_1,S_2$) are found to be, $$\begin{aligned}
M^{2}_{S_{1}} & = & \frac{v^{2}}{4}+2v_{\chi^\prime}^{2}\lambda_{1}\,, \nonumber \\
M^{2}_{S_{2}} & = & \frac{1}{2}(v_{\chi^\prime}^{2}+2v^{2}(\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{6}))\,, \nonumber \\
M^{2}_{H} & = & v^{2}(\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{6})\,,
\label{massashiggs}\end{aligned}$$where $S_1$ and $S_2$ are new CP-even scalars and have masses proportional to the scale of symmetry breaking of the model $v_{\chi^\prime}$, while $H$ is the SM Higgs boson. The vev [*v*]{} which appears in Eq.(\[massashiggs\]) must be equal to $246/\sqrt{2}$ GeV, in order to reproduce the right masses of the SM gauge bosons. We used in Eq.(\[massashiggs\]) $\lambda_4=\lambda_{5}=1/4$ simply to simplify the mass terms, but we emphasize that throughout this work we performed a numerical analysis without assuming any simplifying assumption regarding the couplings.
Besides the three CP-even scalars, a [*CP-odd scalar*]{} ($P_1$) remain in the spectrum with mass: $$\begin{aligned}
M^{2}_{P_{1}} = \frac{1}{2}(v_{\chi^\prime}^{2}+\frac{v^{2}}{2}).
\label{massP1}\end{aligned}$$
An additional complex neutral scalar also rises from the spectrum namely $\phi$, with mass given by $$\begin{aligned}
M^2_{wimp} & = & \frac{(\lambda_{7} + \frac{1}{2} )}{2}[v^{2}+v_{\chi^\prime}^{2}].\end{aligned}$$
Lastly, because of the presence of charged scalar fields in the triplet of scalars in Eq.(\[scalarcont\]), the models contains two massive charged scalars $h_1$ and $h_2$ with masses $$\begin{aligned}
M^{2}_{h^{-}_{1}} & = & \frac{\lambda_{8}+\frac{1}{2} }{2}(v^{2}+v_{\chi^\prime}^{2})\,, \nonumber \\
M^{2}_{h^{-}_{2}} & = & \frac{v_{\chi^\prime}^{2}}{2}+\lambda_{9}v^{2}\,.
\label{massash1h2}\end{aligned}$$
As one can see, the scalar sector of the 331LHN model is rather rich. We have discussed and presented the mass spectrum and identified the WIMP of the model so far. Further, we will derive bounds on the dark sector by using direct dark matter detection and LHC data.
Bounding the Dark Sector {#darksector}
========================
As we discussed in the previous section, the 3-3-1LHN model has a complex scalar ($\phi$) as DM. The stability of our dark matter candidate is guaranteed by a parity symmetry described in Eq.(\[discretesymmetryI\]). In this work we revisit the DM phenomenology and derive new robust bounds on this complex DM scalar. We begin by studying the connection with Higgs.
Higgs Constraints {#higgs-constraints .unnumbered}
-----------------
Interestingly it has been pointed out in the literature that such complex scalar could be a potential explanation for the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess for the case that $M_{WIMP}\simeq 20$ GeV annihilating to bb [@331DM2]. Albeit, such a light DM particle might quite constrained in models which the DM couples directly to the Higgs. Now that the Higgs discovery has been anchored and its properties well measured at $10\%$ level, we are able to constrain in a trivial way the mass of any particle directly coupled to the Higgs by imposing the predicted branching ratio of the Higgs into new species not exceed the current bounds. Since in this 331 model the Higgs couples to all scalars in the spectrum we can trivially constraint the masses of the scalars. The masses of the scalars $P_1$, $S_1$, and $S_2$ discussed in the Section \[sec1\] are of the order of the symmetry breaking scale of the model, $v_{\chi^{\prime}}$. As aforesaid, we are taking $v_{\chi^{\prime}}$ to be of $\sim 10 TeV$, hence the final states which contains one of these scalars are kinematically forbidden. Thus the only scalars the Higgs might decay into are the charged scalar $h_1^{\pm}$ and the dark matter candidate $\phi$ with the following decay widths,
$$\Gamma_{H \rightarrow 2WIMPs}= \frac{\lambda_{\phi}^2}{32 \pi} \frac{ \sqrt{M_H^2 - 4 M_{WIMP}^2}}{M_H^2},
\label{GammaWIMP}$$
$$\Gamma_{H \rightarrow h_1^{+} + h_1^{-}}= \frac{\lambda_{h1}^2}{32 \pi} \frac{ \sqrt{M_H^2 - 4 M_{h_1}^2}}{M_H^2},
\label{Gammah1}$$
where,
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\phi}=\frac{-v}{\sqrt{2}(1+\frac{v^2}{v_{\chi^{\prime}}^2 })} \left( \frac{M_H^2}{v^2}+ \frac{M_{wimp}^2}{v_{\chi^{\prime}}^2} \right) \nonumber
\label{couplingfi}\end{aligned}$$
$$\lambda_{h1}=\frac{-v}{\sqrt{2}(1+\frac{v^2}{V^2})} \left( \frac{M_H^2}{v^2}+ \frac{M_{h_1}^2}{v_{\chi^{\prime}}^2} \right).
\label{couplingh1}$$
Notice that the Higgs width into WIMPs and charge scalar pairs are identical when the WIMP and the charged scalar masses are equal. That being said, we exhibit in FIG.\[fig1\] the branching ratio of the Higgs in these channels as a function of their masses. Now we have derived the new Higgs decay rates some remarks are in order:
\(i) The WIMP and charged scalar decay modes overwhelm all other decay channels yielding an unacceptable branching ratio. Hence, from FIG.\[fig1\], we conclude that the WIMP as well as the charged higgs must be heavier than $M_H/2$, i.e $62.5$ GeV.
\(ii) Differently from the so called “Higgs portal” [@hportal] where one can just use suppressed couplings to avoid the invisible width bound, in our model such alternative is not possible because the Higgs-WIMP-WIMP coupling is completely determined by the masses according to Eqs.(\[GammaWIMP\])-(\[couplingfi\]).
\(iii) Recent results from LHC exclude branching ratios into invisible particles larger than $10\%$ [@higgsinvisible], assuming the Higgs production cross section equals its SM value. In this 331 model, the new quarks do not couple to the Higgs, therefore the production cross section is the same. In other words, from precise measurements of the Higgs signal strength at the LHC we know that there is no room for a large branching ratio into missing energy in our model. Therefore, we close the light DM window in our model, namely $M_{WIMP} < M_H/2$ in order to obey the LHC bound concerning the Higgs invisible width.
![Branching ratio of the Higgs into a pair of WIMPs/Charged scalar as a function of their masses. This result is independent of the scale of symmetry breaking of the model as long as $v_{\chi^{\prime}} \gg v$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](BRnew.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
At this point it is important to note that, because $\phi$ is enforced to be our DM candidate, the whole 331 mass spectrum is automatically heavier than our WIMP. Therefore this lower bound might turn out to be much stronger depending on the mass of the WIMP we are considering. Also, in order to have scalars with a mass around $60$ GeV some tunning is required in the coupling $\lambda_8$, according to Eq.(\[massash1h2\]). The level of fine-tunning is dictated and proportional to the scale of symmetry breaking of the 331 gauge symmetry. Now we will turn our attention to the DM observables and derive much stronger bounds.
Abundance and Direct Dark Matter Detection {#abundance-and-direct-dark-matter-detection .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------
In this section we present our results concerning the abundance and direct detection observables. We have implemented the model in the Micromegas package [@micromegas], and our findings are based on it. The abundance is determined by numerically solving the Boltzmann equation. Despite having many diagrams contributing to the abundance of our WIMP, we can clearly understand the role of the most relevant diagrams in Fig.\[figchannels\].
![Possible annihilation channels for a light WIMP.[]{data-label="figchannels"}](channels.jpeg){width="\columnwidth"}
As we know, the abundance of a generic WIMP is inversely proportional to the annihilation cross section. Hence, the resonances in the annihilation cross section set the depths of the abundance. For instance, in Fig.\[fig01\] we have shown the abundance of our WIMP as a function of its mass for $v_{\chi^{\prime}}=8$ TeV (left panel) and $v_{\chi^{\prime}}=10$ TeV (right panel). We have drawn the horizontal line in order to easily show the parameter space that reproduces the right abundance $0.11 \leq \Omega h^2 \leq 0.12$ according to Planck [@planck]. One can clearly see a resonance at $M_H/2$ in both panels. This resonance remains independently of the value of the symmetry breaking used. As we increase/ decrease the latter the curve barely changes. For this reason, shifting the scale of symmetry breaking will not change our results, neither, and most importantly, the resonance at $M_H/2$. Therefore, for a light WIMP the Higgs mass determines the abundance.
The second resonance in Fig.\[figchannels\] occurring at $M_{wimp}=1580$ GeV (left) and $M_{wimp}=1975$ GeV (right) is due to the s-channel $Z^{\prime}$ mediated process, since $M_{Z^{\prime}}=3160,3950$ GeV for $v_{\chi}=8,10$ TeV respectively. After the $Z^{\prime}$ resonance the abundance drops again due to a resonance caused by the scalar $S_2$ whose mass is about $v_{\chi^{\prime}}/\sqrt{2}$ according to Eq.(\[massashiggs\]).
We have explained our findings regarding the DM abundance thus far, and now we will move on to the direct detection observable namely, scattering cross section. Because we have a scalar DM candidate only spin-independent scattering is induced. In Fig.\[fig02\] we present the WIMP-nucleon spin independent scattering cross section for $v_{\chi}=8,10,12,14$ TeV. The dark points delimit the parameter space that yields the right abundance in accordance with Fig.\[fig01\]. The dashed red (black) curve is the LUX 2013 (XENON 1 Ton projected [@xenon1tprojected]) bound. It means that everything above the curve is excluded by the non-observation of dark matter scatterings by the LUX (XENON1T) collaboration.
It is obvious from Fig.\[fig02\] that the light WIMP scenario is excluded by the current direct detection data, and for this reason our WIMP is not able to explain the few GeV gamma-ray Galactic Center excess observed in the Fermi-LAT data as claimed in Ref.[@331DM2]. In particular we observe that only WIMPs heavier than $1$ TeV are allowed by current data for $v_{\chi^{\prime}}=8$ TeV. Moreover, only for $v_{\chi^{\prime}}>12$ TeV WIMP masses of around $500$ GeV are not ruled out by current LUX limits. Interestingly, projected limits from XENON1T will be able to literally exclude whole dark matter mass range below $1$ TeV.
![WIMP-nucleon spin independent scattering cross section for $v_{\chi}=8,10,12,14$ TeV. The dark points delimit the parameter space that yields the right abundance in accordance with Fig.\[fig01\]. The dashed red (black) curve is the LUX2013 (XENON1T-projected) limit. Notice that only heavy WIMPs survive LUX bounds and XENON1T projected limit will be able to exclude the dark matter mass range below $1$ TeV. []{data-label="fig02"}](SIcomplete2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In summary the Higgs and DM constraints, which constitute the main findings of this work are:\
(i) Close DM masses below 500GeV;\
(ii) Exclude light WIMPs as an explanation for the Galactic Center excess;\
(iii) Find a lower bound of 10 TeV on the symmetry breaking scale;
Besides limits coming from the Higgs and DM abundance and direct detection observables there are relevant ones stemming from indirect detection.
CMB and Indirect Detection Bounds {#cmb-and-indirect-detection-bounds .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
The injection of secondary particles produced by DM annihilation at redshift $100 \lesssim z \lesssim 1000$ affects the process of recombination, leaving an imprint on Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies. Therefore, using the current measurements on the CMB power spectrum bounds on the DM annihilation cross section have been placed namely, $\sigma v \lesssim 5 \times 10^{-27} cm^{-3}/s$ [@Galli:2013dna]. We have seen in the Figs.\[fig02\] that only WIMPs heavier than $500$ GeV are not ruled out by direct detection constraints. Hence, in our model, WIMPs that yield the right abundance, i.e with a thermal cross section of $\sim 3 10^{-26}cm^3/s$ obey the CMB limits. Similarly, WIMPs that reproduce the right abundance heavier than $500$ GeV are consistent with indirect detection constraints coming Fermi-LAT [@fermilatbounds].
We have seen that our model has a dark matter candidate heavier than $500$ GeV which obeys the direct, indirect dark matter detection limits as well as the collider bounds on the extra gauge bosons present in the model. Those constitute relevant findings and are the goal of this work. Further, for completeness, we comment on the charged scalar production at the LHC.
Scalar production at the LHC {#LHC}
============================
The WIMP and charged scalars discussed previously could in principle be detected at the LHC. The detection of our WIMP at the LHC is less likely due to the featureless signal, i.e, a large amount of missing energy. Additionally, current LHC bounds on complex scalars are rather weak [@Willshepherd]. Hence the purpose of this section is to provide some results on the possible detection of the charged scalar at the LHC.
We emphasize that this section serves to give a complementary information on the dark sector of the model and the proper background analysis is out of the scope of this manuscript since our main goal is the derivation of bounds coming from the Higgs and dark matter observables.
That being said, we begin showing in Fig.\[widthh1\] the total width of these charged scalars. There we see that the charged scalars decay with a branching ratio of $100\%$ into the neutral heavy fermion (N) plus charged lepton pair (l). This feature is true as long as $M_{h_1} > M_{N_a}$, where $M_{N_a}$ are the masses of the heavy fermions which are assumed to be equal for simplicity. The coupling $h_1^+l^+N_{a}$ is proportional to the masses of the heavy fermions and the charged leptons involved. Therefore, in the regime of degenerate heavy neutrinos masses, the $\tau N_3$ channel overwhelms the other channels. It is important to point out tough, that for sufficient heavy charged scalars the final states $V^+Z,\; V^+Z^{\prime},\;V^+h,\;\mbox{and}\; U^0 W^+$, among others are kinematically possible. Nevertheless as we see in FIG.\[fig3\], once we increase the mass of the charged scalars their production cross section becomes too suppressed, making their observation quite unlikely at the LHC.
We point out that some deviations of the partonic level prediction are expected when detector effects and showering are included. Although the efficiency of the LHC detectors for events with hard electrons and muons, and large missing transverse energy can reach 96%-99%, the tau leptons are more difficult to detect due to the larger background from misidentified jets. Anyway, tau identification efficiency is larger than 65% for $P_{T}^{\tau}>20$ GeV.
In Fig.\[widthh1\] we have plotted the total width for $M_{N_a}=100$ GeV (solid) and $M_{N_a}=300$ GeV (dashed). Moreover, we have adopted $v_{\chi^{\prime}} = 10$ TeV. For such symmetry breaking scale, the remaining particles of the 331 model are heavier than $h_1$. Therefore, the charged scalars decay with a branching ratio of 100% into the neutral heavy fermion (N) plus charged lepton pair (l). For the same reason, when $M_{h_1} < M_{N_a}$ the total decay width of the charged scalar is zero. The latter regime is problematic though, because long lived charged scalars would form the so called *heavy Hidrogen* that have strong abundance limits as discussed in Ref.[@CHAMPS].
With that bear in mind, in Fig.\[fig3\] we have computed the production cross section $\sigma (pp \rightarrow h_1^+ h_1^- \rightarrow l N_a l N_a)$ at LO, using CalhHEP 3.4.3, with CTEQ6L as the default parton distribution function, for the LHC operating with center of mass energy of $7, 8$ and $14$ TeV with $M_{Z^{\prime}}=5,6~TeV$ fixed. This production cross section is mostly driven by the $Z^{\prime}$ mass. The relevance of this particle comes from its s-channel production. Additionally, due to the decay models aforesaid the benchmark final state predicted in this scenario is the resonance production of charged leptons plus missing.
![Total decay width of the charged scalar $h_1$ as a function of its mass, for $M_{N_a}=100$ GeV (solid) and $M_{N_a}=300$ GeV (dashed). The only kinematically decay channel is $h_1 \rightarrow l_a N_a$ for $v_{\chi^{\prime}} \geq 8$ TeV. See text for details.[]{data-label="widthh1"}](widthh1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
From Fig.\[fig3\] we recognize that the charged scalar production cross section falls steeply when the charged scalar mass meets $M_{Z^{\prime}}/2$, which is what one would naively expect regarding pair production resonances.
During the LHC Run I, from 2010 to 2012, one has reached an integrated luminosity of $L = 23\mbox{fb}^{-1}$ for center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV in the CMS and ATLAS experiments.
According to Fig.\[fig3\], for the 8 TeV scenario, both production cross sections for $M_{Z_{1}}=5$ TeV and 6 TeV range up to around $\sigma = 57$ fb. Hence this new particle discovery is seemingly attainable at the LHC collider since, for the $M_{h1}=100$ GeV scenario and assuming the previous $\tau$-lepton detection efficiency, one would expect around N = 553 signal events.
After attaining the maximum center of mass energy of 14 TeV, it is expected that the LHC will reach its design luminosity of $L = 10^{34}\;\mbox{cm}^{-2}\;\mbox{s}^{-1}$. This peak value should give a total integrated luminosity over a one year of about $40\;\mbox{fb}^{-1}$. Therefore, knowing from the Fig.\[fig3\] that, for the 14 TeV scenario, one would have cross sections in the order of $\sigma = 100$ fb for a charged scalar with mass of 100 GeV then we would expect to yield at least 2000 signal events just during the first year of LHC14 running.
Moreover, in the first 10 years, the LHC shall produce a total integrated luminosity of $300\;\mbox{fb}^{-1}$, improving even more the yield of the charged scalar, mainly considering the relatively high masses scenarios. In fact, in the case of $M_{h1}=300$ GeV, with $\sigma=2$ fb, we would expect N = 253 yielded events.
After discussing the some LHC phenomenology concerning the charged scalar production we come to our conclusions.
![Production cross section of the charged scalar $h_1$ at 7, 8 and 14 TeV at the LHC as a function of its mass for $M_{Z^{\prime}}=5~TeV$ (upper panel) and $M_{Z^{\prime}}=6~TeV$ (lower panel). For the regime $M_{h_1} > M_{Ni}$, $M_{Ni}$ being the masses of the heavy neutrinos the branching ratio $h_1 \rightarrow lN$ is $100\%$. From the figure we conclude that this charged scalar would have a signature similar to the W boson with higher missing energy though. Given the order of magnitude of the production cross section this charged scalar is seemingly within reach of LHC at $14$ TeV. See text for more details.[]{data-label="fig3"}](XS_Mh1_Zprime5TeV.pdf "fig:") ![Production cross section of the charged scalar $h_1$ at 7, 8 and 14 TeV at the LHC as a function of its mass for $M_{Z^{\prime}}=5~TeV$ (upper panel) and $M_{Z^{\prime}}=6~TeV$ (lower panel). For the regime $M_{h_1} > M_{Ni}$, $M_{Ni}$ being the masses of the heavy neutrinos the branching ratio $h_1 \rightarrow lN$ is $100\%$. From the figure we conclude that this charged scalar would have a signature similar to the W boson with higher missing energy though. Given the order of magnitude of the production cross section this charged scalar is seemingly within reach of LHC at $14$ TeV. See text for more details.[]{data-label="fig3"}](XS_Mh1_Zprime6TeV.pdf "fig:")
![Production cross section of the charged scalar $h_1$ at 14 TeV at the LHC as a function of the $Z^{\prime}$ and charged higgs ($h_1^+$) masses. The $Z^{\prime}$ mass drives the pair production through a s-channel diagram.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Mh1_MZ1_14TeVNEW.pdf)
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:conclusion}
===========
We have examined bounds on the dark sector of a 331 model known as 331LHN, which contains heavy neutral fermions ($N_{a}$) and a complex scalar dark matter particle in its spectrum, based on the current Higgs and direct dark matter detection data. The model is comprised of three scalar triplets, and interestingly, all of them couple to the Higgs boson. Therefore, we found a lower bound on the mass of these scalars by imposing the LHC constraints concerning the Higgs signal strength. In particular, we found that it requires the mass of the WIMP ($\phi$) and the charged scalars $(h_1^{\pm})$ to be all heavier than $M_H/2$ GeV, regardless of the coupling values used, differently from the so called Higgs portal.
We have also computed numerically the abundance and scattering cross section of the WIMP taking into account all possible amplitudes. Combining the Higgs and DM constraints we found the most stringent constraints in the literature on this model. Our main results read:
\(i) Close DM masses below 500GeV;\
(ii) Exclude light WIMPs as an explanation for the Galactic Center excess;\
(iii) Find a lower bound of 10 TeV on the symmetry breaking scale;
Moreover, the projected XENON1T bounds are expected to fiercely rule out the entire 1GeV-1TeV dark matter region. Therefore, combining the Higgs and dark matter data, we decisively close the light dark matter window in this model and showed that the scale of symmetry breaking of this model has to live at the $\sim 10$ TeV in order to have a viable DM candidate.
Lastly, for completeness we have computed the production cross section of the charged scalars $h_1^{\pm}$ at the LHC, which is driven by the $Z^{\prime}$ mass, and concluded that these charged scalars might be within reach of the LHC at 14 TeV as shown in FIGS.\[fig3\] and \[fig4\].
DC is partly supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) Grant 484157/2013-2, AXGM by the UCMEXUS-CONACyT Post-doctoral Fellowship, FSQ by Department of Energy Award SC0010107 and CNPq, and P.R.T. by CAPES. It is a pleasure to thank Alex Dias and Alexandre Alves for reading the paper and important comments. The authors also thank Patrick Draper, Will Shepherd, Carlos Pires and Paulo Rodrigues for useful discussions.
[99]{}
D. Hooper, T. Linden,Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 123005 (2011),\[arXiv:1110.0006\]; K. N. Abazajian, M. Kaplinghat,Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 083511 (2012), \[arXiv:1207.6047\]; D. Hooper, L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett. B [**697**]{}, 412 (2011), \[arXiv:1010.2752\]; C. Gordon, O. Macias, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 083521 (2013), \[arXiv:1306.5725\]; C. Gordon, O. Macias,\[arXiv:1312.6671\];W. -C. Huang, A. Urbano and W. Xue, arXiv:1307.6862 \[hep-ph\];T. Lacroix, C. Boehm and J. Silk, arXiv:1403.1987 \[astro-ph.HE\]; K. N. Abazajian, N. Canac, S. Horiuchi and M. Kaplinghat, arXiv:1402.4090 \[astro-ph.HE\]; T. Daylan, D. P. Finkbeiner, D. Hooper, T. Linden, S. K. N. Portillo, N. L. Rodd and T. R. Slatyer, arXiv:1402.6703 \[astro-ph.HE\].
AMS Collaboration, Phys.Rev.Let 110, 141102 (2013); PAMELA Collaboration, \[arXiv:0810.3508\].
J. A. R. Cembranos, V. Gammaldi, A. L. Maroto, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 103506 (2012),\[arXiv:1204.0655\]; F. Chen, J. M. Cline, A. Fradette, A. R. Frey, C. Rabideau, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 043523 (2010), \[arXiv:0911.2222\].
A. X. Gonzalez-Morales, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, arXiv:1406.2424 \[astro-ph.HE\].
CoGeNT Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 012002 (2013), \[arXiv:1208.5737\]; C.E. Aalseth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 141301 (2011), \[arXiv:1106.0650\]; CoGeNT Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 131301 (2011),\[arXiv:1002.4703\].
R. Bernabei, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**28**]{}, 1330022 (2013), \[arXiv:1306.1411\]; R. Bernabei, \[arXiv:1301.6243\];
G. Angloher et al, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{}, 1971 (2012), \[arXiv:1109.0702\]; A. Brown, S. Henry, H. Kraus, C. McCabe,Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 021301 (2012), \[arXiv:1109.2589\].
CDMS Collaboration, \[arXiv:1304.4279\].
C. Kelso, D. Hooper, M. R. Buckley, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 043515 (2012), \[arXiv:1110.5338\]; J. Kopp, Thomas Schwetz, Jure Zupan, JCAP [**1203**]{}, 001 (2012),\[arXiv:1110.2721\]; S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, JCAP [**1405**]{}, 038 (2014) \[arXiv:1401.4253 \[hep-ph\]\].
XENON100 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 181301 (2012), \[arXiv:1207.5988\];
D. S. Akerib [*et al.*]{} \[LUX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 091303 (2014) \[arXiv:1310.8214 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
M. Kuzniak, M.G. Boulay, T. Pollmann, Astropart. Phys. [**36**]{}, 77 (2012), \[arXiv:1203.1576\]; J. Pradler, B. Singh, I. Yavin, Phys. Lett. B [**720**]{}, 399 (2013), \[arXiv:1210.5501\].
Planck Collaboration, \[arXiv:1303.5076\];
Z. Hou et al, Z. Hou et al. 2014 ApJ 782 74, \[arXiv:1212.6267\]; G. Hinshaw et al, Astrophys.J.Suppl. 208 (2013) 19, \[arXiv:1212.5226\].
C. Kelso, S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz,Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 023511 (2013), \[arXiv:1304.5243\]; D. Hooper, F. S. Queiroz, N. Y. Gnedin, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 063513 (2012), \[arXiv:1111.6599\]; J. Hasenkamp, J. Kersten, J. Hasenkamp, Jorn Kersten, JCAP [**1308**]{}, 024 (2013), \[arXiv:1212.4160\]; W. Fischler, J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 063520 (2011), \[arXiv:1011.3501\].
Arvind Rajaraman, William Shepherd, Tim M.P. Tait, Alexander M. Wijangco, Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 095013, \[arXiv:1108.1196 \]; Jessica Goodman, Masahiro Ibe, Arvind Rajaraman, William Shepherd, Tim M.P. Tait, Hai-Bo Yu, Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 116010,\[arXiv:1008.1783\]; A. Alves, S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz and W. Shepherd, arXiv:1403.5027 \[hep-ph\].
J.D. Ruiz-Alvarez, C.A. de S.Pires, Farinaldo S. Queiroz, D. Restrepo, P.S.Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 075011 (2012),\[arXiv:1206.5779\].
A. Alves, E. Ramirez Barreto, A.G. Dias, C.A. de S.Pires, F.S. Queiroz, P.S. Rodrigues da Silva,Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{}, 2288 (2013), \[arXiv:1207.3699\]; A. Alves, E. Ramirez Barreto, A.G. Dias, C.A. de S.Pires, F.S. Queiroz, P.S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 115004 (2011), \[arXiv:1109.0238\]; Chong-Xing Yue, Qiu-Yang Shi, Tian Hua,Nucl. Phys. B [**876**]{}, 747 (2013), \[arXiv:1307.5572\]. W. A. Ponce, J. D. Gomez, R. H. Benavides, Phys. Rev. D 87, 053016 (2013), \[arXiv:1303.1338\]; W. A. Ponce, R. H. Benavides, Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{}, 1641 (2011), \[arXiv:1104.5475\]; A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, R. Martinez, Jorge Nisperuza, \[arXiv:1401.0937\]; A. E. Carcamo Hernandez, R. Martinez, F. Ochoa,\[arXiv:1309.6567\].
E. Ramirez Barreto, Y.A. Coutinho, J. Sa Borges,Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 075001, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 075001 (2011), \[arXiv:1103.1267\]; E. Ramirez Barreto, Y.A. Coutinho, J. Sa Borges, Braz.J.Phys. 38 (2008) 495-498; E. Ramirez Barreto, Y.A. Coutinho, J. Sa Borges, Nucl. Phys. B [**810**]{}, 210 (2009), \[arXiv:0811.0846\].
F. Pisano and V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 410 (1992),\[hep-ph/9206242\]; P. H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, (1992) 2889; F. Queiroz, C.A. de S.Pires, P.S.Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 065018 (2010), \[arXiv:1003.1270\].
Alex G. Dias, C. A. de S. Pires, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 115009 (2003), \[hep-ph/0309058\]; P. Van Dong, H. Ngoc Long, D. Van Soa, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 075005 (2006), \[hep-ph/0603108\].
P.V. Dong, D.T. Huong, M.C. Rodriguez, Hoang Ngoc Long, Nucl. Phys. B [**772**]{}, 150 (2007), \[hep-ph/0701137\].
J.G. Ferreira, Jr, P.R.D. Pinheiro, C.A.de S. Pires, P.S.Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 095019 (2011), \[arXiv:1109.0031\].
H. Ngoc Long,Adv. Stud. Theor. Phys. [**4**]{}, 173 (2010), \[arXiv:0710.5833\].
Chris Kelso, P.R.D. Pinheiro, Farinaldo S. Queiroz, William Shepherd,\[arXiv:1312.0051\];D. Cogollo, Farinaldo S. Queiroz, P. Vasconcelos, \[arXiv:1312.0304\].
W. Caetano, D. Cogollo, C. A. de S.Pires and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 055021 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.5741 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. G. Ferreira, C. A. de S.Pires, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva and A. Sampieri, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, no. 10, 105013 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.0575 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. G. Dias, P. R. D. Pinheiro, C. A. de S.Pires and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, arXiv:1309.6644 \[hep-ph\].
P. V. Dong, D. T. Huong, F. S. Queiroz and N. T. Thuy, arXiv:1405.2591 \[hep-ph\].
C. Kelso, C. A. de S. Pires, S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, \[arXiv:1308.6630\]; Farinaldo S. Queiroz, \[arXiv:1310.3026\].
S. Profumo, F. S. Queiroz,\[arXiv:1307.7802\].
A. Alves, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, JHEP [**1404**]{}, 063 (2014) \[arXiv:1312.5281 \[hep-ph\]\]; H. An, X. Ji, Lian-Tao Wang, JHEP [**1207**]{}, 182 (2012), \[arXiv:1202.2894\]; E. Dudas, L. Heurtier, Y. Mambrini and B. Zaldivar, JHEP [**1311**]{}, 083 (2013) \[arXiv:1307.0005 \[hep-ph\]\];G. D. La Rochelle and M. Elmer, arXiv:1406.2547 \[hep-ph\]; O. Lebedev and Y. Mambrini, arXiv:1403.4837 \[hep-ph\].
Y.A. Coutinho, V. Salustino Guimarães, A.A. Nepomuceno, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 115014 (2013), \[arXiv:1304.7907\]; E. Ramirez Barreto, Y.A. Coutinho, J. Sa Borges, Phys. Lett. B [**689**]{}, 36 (2010),\[arXiv:1004.3269\].
R. Martinez and F. Ochoa, arXiv:1405.4566 \[hep-ph\].
H. Ngoc Long, Vo Thanh Van, J.Phys. G25 (1999) 2319-2324, \[hep-ph/9909302\]; D. Gomez Dumm, F. Pisano, V. Pleitez, Mod.Phys.Lett. A9 (1994) 1609-1615; James T. Liu, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 542 (1994), \[ hep-ph/9312312\]; J. Alexis Rodriguez, M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 117702 (2004), \[hep-ph/0407248\]; R. H. Benavides, Y. Giraldo, W. A. Ponce, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 113009 (2009), \[arXiv:0911.3568\]; J.M. Cabarcas, D. Gomez Dumm, R. Martinez, J. Phys. G [**37**]{}, 045001 (2010), \[arXiv:0910.5700\]; J.M. Cabarcas, J. Duarte, J-Alexis Rodriguez, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2012**]{}, 657582 (2012) ,\[arXiv:1111.0315\]; D. Cogollo, A. Vital de Andrade, F.S. Queiroz, P. Rebello Teles, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{}, 2029 (2012),\[arXiv:1201.1268\]; A.C.B. Machado, J.C. Montero, V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 113002 (2013), \[arXiv:1305.1921\]; P. R. Teles, \[arXiv:1201.1268\].
D. Ng, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 4805 (1994), \[hep-ph/9212284\]; David L. Anderson, Marc Sher, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 095014 (2005), \[hep-ph/0509200\].
I. Cortes-Maldonado, G. Hernandez-Tome, G. Tavares-Velasco, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 014011 (2013), \[arXiv:1305.2606\].
J. T. Liu and D. Ng, Z. Phys. C [**62**]{}, 693 (1994) \[hep-ph/9302271\].
R. Martinez and F. Ochoa, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 075020 (2009) \[arXiv:0909.1121 \[hep-ph\]\].
J.K. Mizukoshi, C.A. de S.Pires, F.S. Queiroz, P.S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 065024 (2011),\[arXiv:1010.4097\].
ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B [**705**]{}, 28 (2011), \[arXiv:1108.1316\].
ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{}, 2241 (2012), \[arXiv:1209.4446\].
P. V. Dong, H. T. Hung, T. D. Tham, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 115003 (2013), \[arXiv:1305.0369\].
P.V. Dong, T. Phong Nguyen, D.V. Soa, Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 095014, \[arXiv:1308.4097\].
P.V. Dong, T. Phong Nguyen, D.V. Soa, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 095014 (2013), \[arXiv:1308.4097\].
D. Fregolente, M. D. Tonasse, Phys.Lett. B555 (2003) 7-12, \[hep-ph/0209119\]; H. N. Long, N. Q. Lan, Europhys. Lett. [**64**]{}, 571 (2003), \[hep-ph/0309038\]; S. Filippi, W. A. Ponce, L. A. Sanchez, Europhys.Lett. 73 (2006) 142-148,\[hep-ph/0509173\].
G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, A. Semenov, \[arXiv:1305.0237\].
C.A. de S.Pires, P.S. Rodrigues da Silva, JCAP [**0712**]{}, 012 (2007), \[arXiv:0710.2104\].
Rafael Lang, KITP Conference: Identifying and Characterizing Dark Matter via Multiple Probes, [$http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/dmatter-c13$]{}.
F.J. Sanchez-Salcedo, E. Martinez-Gomez, J. Magana, JCAP [**1002**]{}, 031 (2010),\[arXiv:1002.3145\].
P. P. Giardino, K. Kannike, M. Raidal, A. Strumia, JHEP 1206 (2012) 117, \[arXiv:1203.4254\].
J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, P. Scott and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 055025 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.4710 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Djouadi, A. Falkowski, Y. Mambrini and J. Quevillon, Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{}, 2455 (2013) \[arXiv:1205.3169 \[hep-ph\]\]; C. A. de S.Pires, F. S. Queiroz and P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 105014 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.4601 \[hep-ph\]\]; F. S. Queiroz and K. Sinha, Phys. Lett. B [**735**]{}, 69 (2014) \[arXiv:1404.1400 \[hep-ph\]\]; B. L. Sánchez-Vega, J. C. Montero and E. R. Schmitz, arXiv:1404.5973 \[hep-ph\].
S. Galli, T. R. Slatyer, M. Valdes and F. Iocco, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 063502 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.0563 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone, A. Melchiorri, Phys.Rev.D84:027302,2011, \[arXiv:1106.1528\].
D. Hooper, C. Kelso, F. S. Queiroz,Astropart. Phys. [**46**]{}, 55 (2013), \[arXiv:1209.3015\]; M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 042001 (2014) \[arXiv:1310.0828 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
[^1]: As for quark physics studies we refer to Refs.[@quarkstudies].
[^2]: One might consider scenarios where $v_{\rho} \neq v_{\eta}$, and in those setups different conclusions might be found.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the present study, the anisotropic resistivity of the monolayer graphene has been obtained in semiclassical regime beyond the Dirac point approximation. In particular, detailed investigations were made on the dependence of conductivity on the Fermi energy. At low energies, in the vicinity of the Dirac points, band energy of the monolayer graphene is isotropic at the Fermi level. Meanwhile, at the intermediate Fermi energies anisotropic effects such as trigonal warping is expected to be the origin of the anisotropic resistivity. However, besides the band anisotropy there also exists an other source of anisotropic resistivity which was introduced by scattering matrix. At high energies it was shown that the band anisotropy is less effective than the anisotropy generated by the scattering matrix. It was also shown that there exist two distinct regimes of anisotropic resistivity corresponding the trigonal warping and connected Fermi curve at intermediate and high energies respectively.'
address: 'Department of Physics, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, 53714-161, Tabriz, Iran'
author:
- 'J. Azizi'
- 'A. Phirouznia'
- 'K. Hasanirokh'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Anisotropic resistivity of the monolayer graphene in the trigonal warping and connected Fermi curve regimes
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Two-dimensional crystals of carbon atoms (a single sheet of graphite) [@1] was first fabricated in 2004 by Novoselov et. al. [@2]. Discovery and fabrication of graphene provided a matchless opportunity for novel experimental observation of electronic transport properties which has also provided a rich field of theoretical studies over the last ten years. The experimental realization of a graphene has prompted much excitement and emotion in both the experimental and theoretical physics. From a fundamental point of view, discovery of graphene was important not only in providing the first realization of Dirac Hamiltonian and relativistic massless particles [@14; @15; @16; @17; @18] but also in providing a way for designing graphene-based electronic devices. The discovery of these extraordinary properties in graphene-based systems in recent years opens unprecedented expectancy for the investigation of low dimensional systems.\
The energy bands of graphene touch together in the edge of the hexagonal Brillouin zone, known as Dirac points. Energy spectrum of carriers is linear at the Dirac points. This fact has many significant consequences especially on the electric transport in graphene. Therefore the electrical transport in graphene becomes very active research field in recent years because of its potential application in nano-material and instrumentation of nano-scale materials. It should be noted that it was shown that the graphene based nano-structures such as nano-ribbons could have finite energy gap at the Dirac points [@33; @35; @36; @38; @39; @40; @41; @42; @44; @45; @46; @47; @48; @Chen].\
As mentioned before in the pure graphene the energy band in the edge of the hexagonal Brillouin zone meet each other. This fact provides a theoretical perception to realize unusual transport properties in this material. Graphene is a gapless semiconductor with a minimal conductivity which can be considered as the nearly universal value of the order of $4e^2/h$ [@23; @24; @25; @26; @27; @28]. Meanwhile this conductivity depends on externally imposed conditions such as the temperature and doping. The band structure of the graphene has been obtained in the 1947 by Wallace [@10] however, the universal value of the minimal conductivity in the pure graphene is not completely understood until the recent years.\
In the present work it was shown that the Fermi energy, $\epsilon_F$, determines different transport regimes. Unlike the linear energy dispersion at low energies (typically when $0<\epsilon_F\leq 1 eV$) in the vicinity of the Dirac points, small corrections, such as second order of Dirac equation, [@11] would lead to revision in effective Hamiltonian of graphene at higher energies. These corrections which appears in the energy dispersion by introducing an additional quadratic term results in deformation of the Fermi line. The deformation of the Fermi circle around a K-point in which the circular Fermi curve at the Dirac points changes to a trigonal known as trigonal warping. In fact breaking the symmetry of the effective Hamiltonian at the Dirac points results in trigonal warping [@11; @13; @29; @30]. This effect has been reported in graphene-related structures such as bilayer and multi-layer graphene and even in carbon nano-tubes [@trig1; @trig2; @trig3]. It was also shown that, by increasing the Fermi energy beyond the hopping energy, $t$, another regime will appear in which the shape of the Fermi curves and the behavior of the anisotropic resistivity (AR) are changed simultaneously.
Model
=====
Anisotropic transport generally has been discussed in term of the asymmetry of the scattering between two states on the Fermi surface. In the present work we have employed an analytical approach which was introduced by Výborný and et al in [@12]. They have described an analytical approach in which the anisotropic transport can be obtained within the semiclassical Boltzmann method [@12]. If we consider the Boltzmann equation for non-equilibrium distribution function, $f_\lambda(\vec{k},\varepsilon )$, as $$\begin{aligned}
-e\vec{\varepsilon} .\vec{v}_\lambda(\vec{k})(-{{\partial }_{\epsilon }}{{f}_{0}})=\sum_{\lambda'}\int{\frac{{{d}^{2}}{{k}^{'}}}{{{(2\pi )}^{2}}}}\omega_{\lambda\lambda'} (\vec{k},{{\vec{k}}^{'}})[f_\lambda(\vec{k},\varepsilon )-f_{\lambda'}({{\vec{k'}}},{{\varepsilon }})],\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{\lambda\lambda'}(\vec{k},\vec{k}')$ denotes the scattering rate between the following states: $|\vec{k}\lambda>$ and $|\vec{k'}\lambda'>$. In this approach the following solution has been proposed for non-equilibrium distribution function $$\begin{aligned}
f_\lambda(\phi ,\theta )-{{f}_{0}}=-e\varepsilon v_\lambda(-{{\partial }_{\epsilon }}{{f}_{0 \lambda}})(a_\lambda(\phi )\cos (\theta)+b_\lambda(\phi )\sin (\theta ))\end{aligned}$$ Where $\phi$ and $\theta$ are angles along the $\vec{k}$ (wave vector) and $\vec{\varepsilon}$ (electrical field ) respectively. $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$ are the band index, $f_0$ is the equilibrium distribution function and the velocity, $\vec{v}_\lambda$, $(\vec{v}_\lambda=\frac{1}{\hbar }{{\nabla }_{k}}{{\epsilon }_{\vec{k}}})$ is given by the band dispersion energy. The electric field and wave vector have been denoted by ${\vec{\varepsilon}}=\varepsilon (\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ), {\vec{k}}=k(\cos \phi ,\sin \phi )$ respectively.\
By writing the Taylor series of the distribution function $$\begin{aligned}
f(\vec{k},\vec{\varepsilon} )={{f}_{0}}+{{\varepsilon }_{x}}{{\partial }_{{{\varepsilon }_{x}}}}f+{{\varepsilon }_{y}}{{\partial }_{{{\varepsilon }_{y}}}}f+\sum{{{\varepsilon }_{i}}{{\varepsilon }_{j}}{{\partial }_{{{\varepsilon }_{i}}}}{{\partial }_{{{\varepsilon }_{j}}}}f}+...\end{aligned}$$ For a two band system ($\lambda=\pm$) by using the above equations it can be shown that in order to have the non-equilibrium distribution function following relations have to be satisfied [@12]. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{main1}
\cos (\phi )&=&{{\overline{\omega} }_{\pm}}(\phi ){{a}_{\pm}}(\phi )\\&&-{{\int{d{{\phi }^{'}}[{{\omega }_{\pm\pm}}(\phi ,\phi }}^{'}}){{a}_{\pm}}({{\phi }^{'}})+{{\omega }_{\pm\mp}}(\phi ,{{\phi }^{'}}){{a}_{\mp}}(\phi )] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{main2}
\sin (\phi )&=&{{\overline{\omega} }_{\pm}}(\phi ){{b}_{\pm}}(\phi )\\&&-{{\int{d{{\phi }^{'}}[{{\omega }_{\pm\pm}}(\phi ,\phi }}^{'}}){{b}_{\pm}}({{\phi }^{'}})+{{\omega }_{\pm\mp}}(\phi ,{{\phi }^{'}}){{b}_{\mp}}(\phi )] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In which we have assumed $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\omega }_{\lambda}(\phi )&=&\sum_{\lambda'}\int{d{{\phi' }}\omega_{\lambda\lambda'} (\phi ,{{\phi'}})}\\
\omega_{\lambda\lambda'} (\phi ,{{\phi' }})&=&{{(2 \pi )}^{-2}}\int{{{k'}}d{{k'}}\omega_{\lambda\lambda'} (k,{{k'}})}\end{aligned}$$ Where $a_{\pm}(\phi)$ and $b_{\pm}(\phi)$ take the form of the Fourier series that can be describe by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\pm}\,(\phi \,)\,&=&\,{{a}_{0 }}\,+\,{{a}^{\pm}_{c1}}\,cos\,\phi \,+\,{{a}^{\pm}_{c2}}\,cos2\phi \,+\,\ldots \nonumber\\
&&+\,{{a}^{\pm}_{s1 }}\,sin\,\phi \,+\,{{a}^{\pm}_{s2 }}\,sin2\,\phi \,+\,\ldots \\
b_{\pm}(\phi \,)\,&=&\,{{b}_{0 }}\,+\,{{b}^{\pm}_{c1 }}\,cos\,\phi \,+\,{{b}^{\pm}_{c2}}\,cos2\phi \,+\,\ldots \nonumber\\
&&+\,{{b}^{\pm}_{s1}}\,sin\,\phi \,+\,{{b}^{\pm}_{s2 }}\,sin2\,\phi \,+\,\ldots\end{aligned}$$\
Provided that the coefficients ${a}_{\pm}$ and ${b}_{\pm}$ are known by solving the equations (\[main1\])-(\[main2\]) the non-equilibrium distribution functions are given for each band as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{{f}_{+}}(\phi ,\theta )-{{f}_{0+}}&=&-e\varepsilon v_+(-{{\partial }_{\epsilon }}{{f}_{0 +}})\left[ {{a}_{+}} cos \theta +{{b}_{+}}(\phi )sin\theta \right] \nonumber\\
{{f}_{-}}(\phi ,\theta )-{{f}_{0-}}&=&-e\varepsilon v_-(-{{\partial }_{\epsilon }}{{f}_{0- }})\left[ {{a}_{-}}(\phi )cos \theta +{{b}_{-}}(\phi ) sin\theta \right]\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
Anisotropic conductivity beyond the Dirac point
===============================================
Tight binding Hamiltonian of pure graphene in the nearest neighbor approximation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_0=-t\sum_{<i,j> }\,({{a}^{\dagger }}_{i}{{b}_{j}}+h.c)\end{aligned}$$ In which the operators $a_{i}^{\dagger }$ and ${{b}_{j}}$ refer to the creation and annihilation of an electron in sublattices A and B respectively and $t=2.7$ eV denotes the hopping parameter.\
Matrix representation of the Hamiltonian in the bases $\psi
=({{\psi }_{A }},
{{\psi }_{B}})$ is as follows\
$$\begin{aligned}
\,{{H_0}}=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
0 ~~& H_{AB}(\textbf{k}) \\
H_{AB}^*(\textbf{k}) & ~~0 \\
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $H_{AB}(\textbf{k})
=t(e^{-i\textbf{k}.{{{\vec{\delta}}}_{1}}}+e^{-i\textbf{k}.{{{\vec{\delta}}}_{2}}}+e^{-i\textbf{k}.{{{\vec{\delta}}}_{3}}})$ and we have defined nearest neighbors position vectors by ${{\vec{\delta}}_{1}}=\frac{a}{2}(1,\sqrt{3}),\,{{\vec{\delta}}_{2}}=\frac{a}{2}(-1,\sqrt{3}),\,{{\vec{\delta}}_{3}}=a(-1,0)$ in which the carbon-carbon distance is denoted by $a=1.42$[Å]{}.\
The eigen-states may then be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\lambda{{e}^{i\bar{\varphi }_k}} \\
1 \\
\end{array} \right),\end{aligned}$$ In which $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\varphi_k}(\phi)={{\tan }^{-1}}(\frac{{Im}H_{AB}(\vec{k})}{{Re}H_{AB}(\vec{k})}),\\
%{\bar{\varphi_{k'}}}(\phi')={{\tan }^{-1}}(\frac{{Im}{H_{AB}(\vec{k}')}}{{Re}{H_{AB}(\vec{k}')}})\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\phi}&=&{{\tan }^{-1}}(\frac{k_y}{k_x}),\\
%{\phi'}&=&{{\tan }^{-1}}(\frac{k'_y}{k'_x})\end{aligned}$$ Then the band energies are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{k\lambda}&=&\lambda t (1+4 \cos(3 a/2k_x )\cos( \sqrt{3}a/2k_y)\nonumber\\
&&+4\cos^2( \sqrt{3}a/2)k_y)^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ Where $\lambda=\pm 1$ is the band index. Unlike the Dirac point Hamiltonian here the energy spectrum is anisotropic in k-space.\
In the presence of the impurities the hamiltonian of the system reads $$\begin{aligned}
H=H_0+V_{im}.\end{aligned}$$ In which $V_{im}(\vec{r})=v\sum_j\delta(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_j)$ stands for short range impurity potential in which summation is over the position of the impurities and $v$ is the strength of the impurity potential. The scattering rates are defined through the relations: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\omega }_{++}}(\phi,\phi')=\frac{\pi}{\hbar}n_i({{v}^{2}}+{{v}^{2}}\cos (\bar{\varphi_k }-\bar{\varphi_{k'} })))\nonumber \\
{{\omega }_{--}}(\phi,\phi')=\frac{\pi}{\hbar}n_i({{v}^{2}}+{{v}^{2}}\cos (\bar{\varphi_k }-\bar{\varphi_{k'} }))) \\
{{\omega }_{+-}}(\phi,\phi')=\frac{\pi}{\hbar}n_i({{v}^{2}}-{{v}^{2}}\cos (\bar{\varphi_k }-\bar{\varphi_{k'} })))\nonumber \\
{{\omega }_{-+}}(\phi,\phi')=\frac{\pi}{\hbar}n_i({{v}^{2}}-{{v}^{2}}\cos (\bar{\varphi_k }-\bar{\varphi_{k'} }))).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Where $n_i$ is the density of the impurities. Scattering rates can be expressed in a compact form as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{{\omega }_{\lambda\lambda'}}(\phi,\phi')=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}n_i{v}^{2}F_{\lambda\lambda'}(kk').\end{aligned}$$ In which $F_{\lambda\lambda'}(kk')=({1}+\lambda\lambda'\cos (\bar{\varphi_k }-\bar{\varphi_{k'} }))/2$ is the form factor of the given states $|k\lambda>$ and $|k'\lambda'>$.\
A two-dimensional Fourier decomposition of the scattering rates has been performed in order to figure out the equations for $a_\lambda$ and $b_\lambda$. Then we can write $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\lambda\lambda'}(\phi ,{{\phi }^{'}})&=&{{A}^{\lambda\lambda'}_{0}}+\sum_{mn}{A^{\lambda\lambda'}_{mn}\cos(m\phi +n{{\phi }^{'}})}\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{mn}{B^{\lambda\lambda'}_{mn}\sin (m\phi +n{{\phi }^{'}})}\end{aligned}$$ If the above Fourier expansion has been continued up to $m,n\leq N$. In this case the equations (\[main1\])-(\[main2\]) results in $8\times N$ linear equations which can be described by the following linear matrix equations $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{M}\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\textbf{{\textit{a}}}_{c}}^{+} \\
{\textbf{{\textit{a}}}_{s}}^{+} \\
{\textbf{{\textit{a}}}_{c}}^{-} \\
{\textbf{{\textit{a}}}_{s}}^{+} \\
\end{array}\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\textbf{1}_{N\times 1} \\
\textbf{0}_{N\times 1} \\
\textbf{1}_{N\times 1} \\
\textbf{0}_{N\times 1} \end{array}\right)
\\
\textbf{M}'\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\textbf{{\textit{b}}}_{s}}^{+} \\
{\textbf{{\textit{b}}}_{c}}^{+} \\
{\textbf{{\textit{b}}}_{s}}^{-} \\
{\textbf{{\textit{b}}}_{c}}^{-} \\
\end{array}\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\textbf{1}_{N\times 1} \\
\textbf{0}_{N\times 1} \\
\textbf{1}_{N\times 1} \\
\textbf{0}_{N\times 1} \end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ In which $$\begin{aligned}
&&\textbf{M}=
\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\gamma_1 I-\pi {\textbf{A}}^{++}& -\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{+-} & -\pi {\textbf{B}}^{++} & -\pi{{\textbf{B}}}^{+-} \\
-\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{-+} & \gamma_2 I-\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{--}& -\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{-+} &-\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{--} \\
-\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{++} & -\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{+-} & \gamma_1 I+\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{++}& \pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{+-} \\
-\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{-+} & -\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{--} &\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{-+} &{{\gamma }_{2}} I+\pi{{\textbf{A}}}^{--} \\
\end{array} \right),\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\textbf{M}'=
\\
\nonumber\\
&&\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\gamma_1 I+\pi {\textbf{A}}^{++}& \pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{+-} & -\pi {\textbf{B}}^{++} & -\pi{{\textbf{B}}}^{+-} \\
\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{-+} & \gamma_2 I+\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{--}& -\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{-+} &-\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{--} \\
-\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{++} & -\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{+-} & \gamma_1 I-\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{++}& -\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{+-} \\
-\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{-+} & -\pi {{\textbf{B}}}^{--} &-\pi {{\textbf{A}}}^{-+} &{{\gamma }_{2}} I-\pi{{\textbf{A}}}^{--} \\
\end{array} \right),\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\textbf{A}^{\lambda\lambda'}=[A_{mn}^{\lambda\lambda'}]$ and $\textbf{B}^{\lambda\lambda'}=[B_{mn}^{\lambda\lambda'}]$ are $N \times N$ matrices of the Fourier coefficients, $\gamma_1 =\pi(A_0^{++}+A_0^{-+})$, ${{\gamma }_{2}}=\pi(A_0^{--}+A_0^{+-})$ and $I$ is a $N\times N$ unit matrix. Meanwhile the unknown coefficients of the distribution function are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\textbf{{\textit{a}}}^{\pm}_{\eta}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
{{a}^{\pm}_{\eta 1}} \\
{{a}^{\pm}_{\eta 2}} \\
{{a}^{\pm}_{\eta 3}} \\
\vdots \\
{{a}^{\pm}_{\eta N}} \\
\end{array}\right)_{N\times 1}
\\
{\textbf{{\textit{b}}}^{\pm}_{\eta}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
{{b}^{\pm}_{\eta 1}} \\
{{b}^{\pm}_{\eta 2}} \\
{{b}^{\pm}_{\eta 3}} \\
\vdots \\
{{b}^{\pm}_{\eta N}} \\
\end{array}\right)_{N\times 1},\end{aligned}$$ in which $\eta=s$ or $c$.\
Once ${\textbf{{\textit{a}}}^{\pm}_{\eta}}$ and ${\textbf{{\textit{b}}}^{\pm}_{\eta}}$ are determined, by solving the given linear equations, we can obtain the non-equilibrium distribution function for each band. This can be achieved by inserting the obtained coefficients $a_{\eta}(\phi)$ and $b_{\eta}(\phi)$ in $f_\lambda(\phi ,\theta )={f}_{0}-e\varepsilon v_\lambda(-{{\partial }_{\epsilon }}{{f}_{0 \lambda}})(a_\lambda(\phi )\cos (\theta )+b_\lambda(\phi )\sin (\theta ))$. Then current and conductivity of the sample are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{j}(\varepsilon,\theta)&=&\sum_\lambda\int\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2}e\vec{v}_\lambda(\vec{k})f_\lambda(\phi ,\theta )\nonumber\\
\sigma_{xx}&=&{j}(\varepsilon,\theta=0)/\varepsilon\\
\sigma_{yy}&=&{j}(\varepsilon,\theta=\pi/2)/\varepsilon.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ And finally the anisotropic resistivity of the system can be defined as $$\begin{aligned}
AR=-\frac{\sigma_{xx}-\sigma_{yy}}{\sigma_{xx}+\sigma_{yy}}\end{aligned}$$
Anisotropic resistivity at Dirac points
=======================================
Most of the interesting physical properties of graphene are the manifestations of the linear energy dispersion relation at the Dirac points. The Hamiltonian of the gapped graphene can be expressed by the following expression at the Dirac point $$\begin{aligned}
H=-i\hbar v_F(\sigma_x\partial_x+\sigma_y\partial_y)+\alpha {{\sigma }_{z}}\end{aligned}$$ $\alpha$ is the amount of the energy gap, $\sigma_i$ is the Pauli matrix representing pseudospin degree of freedom and $v_f$ is Fermi velocity. The corresponding eigenvectors can be easily obtained as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mid \psi_{\pm}(k)>=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
{{m}_{\pm }}\,{{e}^{-i\phi }}\\
\,\,\,\,\,\,1\,\,\, \\
\end{array}\right)\,{e}^{ik.r},\end{aligned}$$ where ${{m}_{\pm }}=(\alpha \,\pm \,\sqrt{{{\alpha }^{2}}\,+{{(\hbar \,k\,{{v }_{f}})}^{2}}})/\hbar k{{v }_{f}}$. Using the forgoing approach it can be easily shown that $AR=0$ i.e. at low Fermi energies transport in graphene is direction-free and absolutely isotropic.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
=====================
We take typical parameters such as $v=0.4$ eV for the strength of the impurities and $t=2.7$ eV for hopping amplitude. Accuracy of the numerical solution of the linear equations directly depends on the number of the terms in $a_\eta(\phi)$ and $b_\eta(\phi)$ expansions. We have shown that good convergence between the different results can be obtained when $N>6$. In the current case we take $N=7$ which results in $56$ linear equations.\
The real-space hexagonal symmetry in graphene reflects itself in k-space as well. This type of the discrete symmetry clearly removes the spatial isotropy along the $x$ and $y$ directions. Therefore anisotropic response function has been expected when the external electric field is directed along these directions. Since the band anisotropy changes at different Fermi energies it is expected that the anisotropy of the response function should be a function of Fermi energy (Fig. \[fig1\]). Anisotropic resistivity, $AR$, measures this difference in response function.\
![Fermi curves of the monolayer graphene at different Fermi energies. Each band has been labeled by the value of corresponding Fermi energy in term of eV. When $0\leq \epsilon_F<t$ Fermi curves appear as distinct circles or deformed triangles. Meanwhile at higher Fermi energies ($t<\epsilon_F$) Fermi curve appears as a continues and connected curve. []{data-label="fig1"}](fermi2.eps)
We have calculated the anisotropic resistivity by numerical solution of the semiclassical Boltzmann equation in the presence of the impurities in the graphene. Calculation within the Dirac point approximation shows that there is no anisotropic resistivity for this type of the effective Hamiltonian ($AR=0$).\
Regarding the value of the Fermi energy two distinct regimes could be recognized. As it was shown in Fig. \[fig2\](a) there are two different type of the Fermi curves corresponding to these regimes. At low energies when $\epsilon_F<t$ the Fermi curve of the system appears as separated islands in which by increasing the Fermi energy, $\epsilon_F$, the circular Fermi cross section changes into the trigonal one (Fig. \[fig2\](a)). This range of Fermi energies which includes the circular Dirac cones up to the trigonal Fermi curves has been called trigonal warping regime. Meanwhile at high Fermi energies, when $\epsilon_F>t$ Fermi curve is given by a closed hexagonal or closed smooth loop depending on the value of the Fermi energy (Fig. \[fig2\](b)). This case could be called connected Fermi curve regime.
{width="95.00000%"}
\
In the limit of the elastic scatterings in a single scattering process or even in a series of multiple sequential scatterings the initial and final states in k-space contributing in scattering should lie on the given Fermi curve. Meanwhile the form factor of the initial and final pseudospin states determines the amplitude of scattering between these states. The dependence of the scattering rates on the form factors introduces the contribution of the scattering matrix in the anisotropic resistivity of the system. As mentioned before there is also another contribution in the anisotropic resistivity of the system which characterizes by the anisotropy of the band energy. From the numerical point of view this contribution traces back to the Dirac delta function included in the expression: $f_\lambda(\phi ,\theta )={f}_{0}-e\varepsilon v_\lambda(-{{\partial }_{\epsilon }}{{f}_{0 \lambda}})(a_\lambda(\phi )\cos (\theta )+b_\lambda(\phi )\sin (\theta ))$ (where $-{{\partial }_{\epsilon }}{{f}_{0 \lambda}}=\delta(\epsilon_k-\epsilon_F)$) which selects the elastic scatterings among the other type of transitions. Meanwhile it should be noted that the Fermi velocity, which can be obtained directly from the band energy, ${{v}_{i}(\vec{k}_F)}=\frac{\partial E(k)}{\hbar \partial {{k}_{i}}}|_{k=k_F}$, contributes in the band-dependent anisotropy as well.\
As it was shown in Fig. \[fig3\] when we restrict ourselves to the low Fermi energies of the trigonal wrapping regime i.e. when $\epsilon_F<<t$, known as Dirac approximation limit. In this limit Fermi curves appear as isotropic circles and anisotropic resistivity identically vanishes. At higher energies of this regime Fermi circles continuously come to change into the anisotropic trigonal curves. As mentioned before initial and final states in k-space which contributing in the elastic scattering process lie on a Fermi curve therefore in the trigonal warping regime in which the scattering cannot cover all of the possible orientations of the wave number, $k$, and anisotropy could have an accountable contribution in the anisotropic resistivity of the monolayer graphene. In this regime anisotropic resistivity characterizes by the sharp jumps as indicated in Fig. \[fig3\]. Almost all of these sharp peaks are positive in this range of Fermi energies. A sharp peak has been found at the transition point the trigonal warping regime.\
On the other hand at the limit of high Fermi energies i.e. in the connected Fermi curve regime Fermi curve appears as a continues hexagonal-like shape where increasing the Fermi energy deforms this shape into the circular or nearly circular Fermi curve. Therefore in this case all of the orientations in $k$-space are possible, however, except at low energies in which the Fermi curve is hexagonal-like the anisotropy of the band energy at high energies is really low for circular Fermi curves. Meanwhile as indicated in Fig. \[fig3\] anisotropic resistivity oscillates by increasing the Fermi energy and the anisotropic resistivity of the system is absolutely negative in the range of Fermi energies corresponding to this regime. Since as mentioned before the contribution of band anisotropy is really low (except at limit of low energies) therefore it can be inferred that the anisotropy of their scattering has the main contribution in the AR. The dependence of the scattering rates on the form factors leads to these rapid oscillations in the AR. These oscillations could not be regarded as a contribution of the band anisotropy. This is due to the fact that the band anisotropy is less significant especially at low energies and more evidently the change of the Fermi curve by increasing the Fermi energy takes place very smoothly.\
Band anisotropy in the connected Fermi curve regime should be very low since as depicted in Fig. \[fig2\] (b) the band energy is nearly circular at high energies. At first look it seems that trigonal warping could generate high anisotropic resistivity, however, results of the current study shows that the anisotropy introduced by the scattering matrix is of significant importance.\
![Anisotropic resistivity as a function of the Fermi energy. There are two distinct regimes of the anisotropic resistivity which are identified by the value of the Fermi energy ($\epsilon_F$) with respect to the hopping amplitude ($t$). []{data-label="fig3"}](AR.eps)
\
It is interesting to know that the different behavior of the anisotropic resistivity in these two regimes can be employed for the determination of the hopping amplitude, $t$. Since we have demonstrated that the transition point between these two regimes is $\epsilon_F=t$. Therefore full electric measurements of the conductivity in $x$ and $y$ directions could determine the nearest-neighbor hopping amplitude in monolayer graphene. This electric measurement of the hopping amplitude could be realized by determination of the transition point in the anisotropic resistivity curvature when depicted as a function of the Fermi energy (Fig. \[fig3\]). At this point anisotropic resistivity undergoes a sign change after a sharp positive peak and starts to oscillate rapidly with Fermi energy (Fig. \[fig3\]). It should be noted that the Fermi energy could also be controlled by an electric setup in which an external gate voltage controls the density of carriers and the amount of the Fermi energy. The above discussion would be fully fall down in the presence of the inelastic scatterings when the energy levels of the initial and final states of a single scattering is not the same and scattering rate gets more contribution in the anisotropic resistivity in both of these regimes.
Conclusion
==========
In the current study we have shown that, the anisotropic resistivity in the graphene shows quite different behavior in two different regimes which were identified by ratio of the Fermi energy with respect to the hopping amplitude ($\epsilon_F/t$). At each of these regimes the functionality of anisotropic resistivity changes at the transition point of these two regimes. Results of the current study could be employed for determination of the hopping amplitude by full electric measurements of the conductivity in different directions.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The signal measured with a curvature sensor is here analyzed. In the outset, we derive the required minimum number of sensing elements at the pupil edges, in dependence on the total number of sensing elements. The distribution of the sensor signal is further characterized in terms of its mean, variance, kurtosis and skewness. It is established that while the approximation in terms of a gaussian distribution is correct down to fairly low photon numbers, much higher numbers are required to obtain meaningful sensor measurements for small wavefront distortions. Finally, we indicate a closed expression for the error propagation factor and for the photon-noise induced Strehl loss.'
address: |
Institute for Astronomy,\
640 N. A’ohoku Place, HI, Hilo 96720, USA\
[email protected]
author:
- Aglae Kellerer
title: 'Curvature sensors: noise and its propagation'
---
Introduction
============
In an adaptive optics system, a wavefront sensor measures phase distortions in real-time. These measurements are used to update the shape of a deformable mirror located upstream in the optical beam. One such wavefront sensor was developed by F.Roddier and presented for the first time in 1988 [@roddier1988]. In a curvature sensor (C-S), two defocused images are recorded, one on each side of the nominal focal plane. The wavefront distortion is then inferred from the difference in intensity between the two images. F.Roddier and his group at the Institute of Astronomy, Hawaii, implemented a low-order adaptive-optics (AO) system based on a curvature WFS with 13 actuators [@roddier1991]. In the following years many other curvature based AO systems were successfully implemented [@PUEO], [@NICI], [@MACAO], [@Subaru].
However, as adaptive optic systems evolve towards increasingly large numbers of sensing elements and actuators, curvature sensors tend to be discarded in favor of Shack-Hartmann (S-H) sensors. This is mainly based on the assertion that the effect of measurement errors on the corrected phase increases steeply with the number of sensing elements in C-S. This steep, linear increase of the error propagation term was established by N. Roddier through simulations[@NicolasDiploma]. The author further reported on concurring analytic calculations by J.B. Shellan for more than 10 000 actuators. These calculations are however not publicly available. High-order curvature systems have been simulated by e.g. O.Lai et al.[@Lai] and Q.Yang et al.[@Yang]. Both authors conclude in general favor of high-order C-S systems. Yang et al. conclude: “No degradation of the phase transfer function with increasing actuator number is observed, implying that still higher actuator number systems are possible with no significant modification of the basic concept and design”. We feel that, in addition to these results, it is necessary to analyze the effect of measurement noise on the performance of curvature systems, and in particular on the performance of high-order systems.
Sec.\[sec:2\] of this article considers the special role of the sensing elements that lie on the pupil edge. The minimum number of such edge elements is derived in dependence on the total number of sensing elements. This result is then used in section\[sec:4\] where C-S with up to 225 elements are simulated. Sec.\[sec:3\] analyzes the measurement noise in curvature sensors: the quantity measured by curvature sensors is $v=(x-y)/(x+y)$, where the photon numbers $x, y$ follow a Poisson distribution. Can the distribution of $v$ be approximated by a Gaussian and is the 68%-confidence interval well approximated by $\overline{v}\pm\sigma_v$? Sec.\[sec:3\] further derives the number of photons needed to obtain meaningful measurements of $v$. Sec.\[sec:4\] studies the effect of measurement noise on the phase reconstruction. We agree with N. Roddier’s result, that were obtained for a fixed size of the sensing elements and a fixed defocus length. However, for a constant pupil surface – hence a decreasing sensing-element size – and with an adjusted extrafocal distance, the error propagation factor is found to be almost independent of the number of sensing elements. Sec.\[sec:4\] concludes with a closed expression for the error propagation factor and an estimate of the Strehl decrease due to photon noise.
Minimum number of edge sensors {#sec:2}
==============================
Signal measured by a curvature sensor
-------------------------------------
The output signal of a curvature wavefront sensor is the intensity difference $v=(x-y)/(x+y)$, where $x$ and $y$ are the photon numbers measured on either side of the focal plane. In closed-loop AO observations, $v$ tends towards 0 and can therefore be expressed as a function of the wavefront phase, $\phi$: [@NOAO] $$\label{eq:Roddier}
v(\vec r) = \frac{-\lambda f (f-l)}{2 \pi l} [ \vec{\nabla}(P(\frac{f}{l} \vec r)) \cdot \vec{\nabla}(\phi(\frac{f}{l} \vec r)) + P(\frac{f}{l} \vec r) \cdot \nabla ^2 \phi(\frac{f}{l} \vec r)]$$ $\vec r$ is the position vector in the detector plane. $f$ is the focal length, $l$ the distance between the detector and the focal plane and $f/l\,\vec r$ is thus the position vector in the pupil plane. $\lambda$ is the wavelength and $P$ – the pupil transmission function – equals 1 inside and 0 outside the pupil. Eq.\[eq:Roddier\] makes use of the Fresnel approximation: $D^2/((f-l)\lambda) \geq 1$, where $D$ is the pupil diameter. Eq.\[eq:Roddier\] further assumes the size of the diffraction patterns to be negligible compared to the characteristic scales of intensity fluctuations in the detector plane. This sets a condition on the extra focal distance: $\lambda f^2 << r_0^2 \, l$, where $r_0$ is the Fried parameter. In regions where the pupil transmission is uniform, the measured signal is the laplacian of the wavefront phase. On the pupil edge – i.a. along the central obstruction and along the telescope spiders – curvature sensors measure curvature and radial tilt. Phase aberrations with a laplacian equal to zero are sensed solely at the pupil edges.
Zero-laplacian Zernike modes
----------------------------
The phase of the distorted wavefront is expressed in terms of a series of Zernike polynomials: $$\label{eq:zernike}
\phi =\sum_{n \geq 0} \sum_{ m=-n} ^{n} a_n^m\,Z_n^m$$ $n$ and $m$ are integers and $n-|m|$ is even. $a_n^m$ is the coefficient of the Zernike polynomial $Z_n^m$. In atmospherically distorted wavefronts, the lowest order Zernike modes have the highest variance and need to be corrected by the AO system first. The first order Zernike mode, piston, is an exception: it corresponds to a constant phase change over the whole pupil and does not affect the image quality. Table \[tab:laplacians\] lists the laplacian of the fifteen lowest Zernike polynomials. Eight out of fourteen polynomials (piston excluded) have zero laplacian, and their contribution to the distorted wavefront is therefore only measured at the pupil edges. In an ideal AO system $K+1$ ‘sensor-actuator’ pairs (i.e. $K+1$ sub-apertures) are required to sense and correct $K$ modes of the wavefront phase. It is assumed that the lowest Zernike modes are corrected first (piston excluded). $K$ is the number of corrected modes and $n$ the radial index of the highest, corrected mode. Since there are $p+1$ Zernike polynomials for each radial index $p$, $K$ and $n$ are related by the following inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:radial}
\frac{n (n+1)}{2}-1 < K \leq \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} -1\end{aligned}$$
\[tab:laplacians\]
The Zernike modes for which the absolute value of the meridional index, $m$, equals the radial index, $n$, have zero laplacian. There are, consequently, two zero-laplacian polynomials per radial index, hence in order to correct the first $K$ Zernike polynomials, a curvature sensor needs at least $N_e=2\,n$ sensors at the aperture edge, where $n$ is determined by Eq.\[eq:radial\]: $$\begin{aligned}
N_e = 2 \cdot \left\lfloor \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{8K+9} -1) \right\rfloor
\label{eq:min}\end{aligned}$$ $\lfloor\,\rfloor$ is the floor function. Figure\[fig:edge\] traces the minimum number of edge sensors in dependence on the number of modes to be corrected. Instead of increasing the number of edge sensors, it is also possible to smoothen the pupil edges. This distributes the radial tilt signal over more sensors, at the expense of smaller signal in each individual sensor.
![Minimum number of sensing elements at the aperture edge required to sense the $N$ lowest Zernike modes.[]{data-label="fig:edge"}](Kellerer1.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Uncertainty of the sensor measurement {#sec:3}
=====================================
In this section, a single sub-aperture of the sensor is considered. Be $x$ and $y$ the photon numbers measured on either side of the focal plane. Be $X$ and $Y$ their expected values, i.e. the number of photons that one would measure in average under frozen atmospheric conditions and repeated measurements. The difference between $x, y$ and $X, Y$ is taken to be solely due to photon noise. This is a valid approximation if the sky background signal is low and if the detector readout noise and dark current are negligible. Existing curvature sensors use avalanche photo-diodes where the readout noise and dark current are indeed negligible.
The variable $v=(x-y)/(x+y)$ serves as estimate of the deviation $V=(X-Y)/(X+Y)$. $x$ and $y$ are independent Poisson distributed random variables with mean value $X$ and $Y$. To judge the precision of the estimate the parameters of the distribution of $v$ need to be known, i.e. the mean, the variance, the skewness and the kurtosis. These are closely related to the moments or, more specifically, the cumulants, $\kappa_i$, of the distribution. In closed-loop AO observations, $V$ tends towards 0. Furthermore the photon numbers, $Z=X+Y$, are usually large. The parameters of the distribution of $v$ are then, as will be seen, simple: the mean and the skewness are zero and both the variance and the excess kurtosis are $1/Z$. It is nevertheless of interest to derive the exact solution for the more general case where $V$ is not zero, and $Z$ is not very large.
Non-central moments of $x/z$
----------------------------
It is convenient to deal first with the variable $x/z$, rather than $v=2x/z-1$. The cumulants, $\kappa_i$ of $v$ are subsequently expressed in terms of the cumulants, $k_i$, of $x/z$: $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_1&=& 2\,k_1-1\\\label{eq:cum1}
\kappa_2&=& 4\,k_2\\\label{eq:cum2}
\kappa_3&=& 8\,k_3\\\label{eq:cum3}
\kappa_4&=& 16\,k_4\label{eq:cum4}\end{aligned}$$ The joint distribution of $x$ and $z$ equals the product of the Poisson probability, $p(z; Z)$, for the variable $z$ with mean value $Z$, and the binomial probability, $b(x; z,p)$, that out of the z events $x$ are of the type that occurs with relative probability $p=X/Z$: $$\begin{aligned}
f(x, z) = p(z, Z) \; b(x; z,p)\end{aligned}$$ The outcome $z=0$ is excluded since $v$ is then undefined. The probabilities $p(z; Z)$ are thus normalized to the positive integers $z$, i.e. are increased by the factor $1/(1-\exp(-z))$ relative to the familiar Poisson probabilities.
The $i$-th moment, $u_i=<(x/z)^i>$ can be written in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
<(x/z)^i> &=& \sum_{z>0} ( \sum_{x = 0}^{ z} x^i \; b(x; z,p)) z^{-i} \; \frac{ p(z, Z) }{1-e^{-z}}\\
&=& \sum_{z>0} \mu_i(z,p) \; z^{-i} \; \frac{ p(z, Z) }{1-e^{-z}} \label{eq:mom}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_i(z,p)$ are the moments about zero of the binomial distribution with mean value $z$ and parameter $p$. Using the familiar equations for these moments one obtains the expressions: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1 / z &=& p\\\label{eq:m1}
\mu_2 / z^2 &=& (p-p^2)/z + p^2\\\label{eq:m2}
\mu_3 / z^3 &=& (p-3\,p^2 + 2\,p^3)/z^2 + 3\, (p^2 - p^3)/ z + p^3\\\label{eq:m3}
\mu_4 / z^4 &=& (p-7\,p^2 + 12\,p^3-6\,p^4)/z^3 + (7\,p^2 - 18\,p^3+11\,p^4)/ z^2 +6\,(p^3-p^4)/z + p^4\label{eq:m4}\end{aligned}$$ The moments $u_i=<(x/z)^i>$ of the variable $x/z$ are obtained by summation over $z$ according to Eq.\[eq:mom\]. The problem is thus reduced to the determination of the Poisson mean values $<z^{-i}>$. Since there are no closed expressions, one needs to evaluate those mean values numerically, which is conveniently done in term of the ratios: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_i &=& <z^{-i}> / Z^{-i} \\
&=& Z ^i \;\sum_{z>0} z^{-i} \; \frac{ p(z, Z) }{1-e^{-z}} \\
&=& Z ^i \;\sum_{z>0} z^{-i} \; \frac{e^{-Z}\cdot Z^z }{z!} \cdot \frac{1}{1-e^{-z}} \label{eq:rho}\end{aligned}$$ The $\rho_i$ converge to unity at large $Z$.
Transition to the cumulants
---------------------------
The cumulants of the distribution of $x/z$ stand in a general relation to the moments: $$\begin{aligned}
k_1&=& u_1\\
k_2&=& u_2-u_1^2\\
k_3&=& u_3-3\,u_2 \,u_1 + 2\,u_1^3\\
k_4&=& u_4-4\,u_3 \,u_1 + 6\,u_2\,u_1^2 -3\,u_1^4 - u_3 + 3\,u_2\,u_1 - 2\,u_1^3\\\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs.\[eq:m1\]-\[eq:rho\] and switching in terms of Eqs.\[eq:cum1\]-\[eq:cum4\] to the cumulants of $v$ one obtains: $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_1 &=& 2\,p-1 \\
\kappa_2&=&4 \; (p-p^2) \rho_1 / Z \\
\kappa_3 &=& 8 \; (p-3\,p^2 +2\,p^3) \rho_2 / Z^2\\
\kappa_4 &=& 16\,(p-7\,p^2+12\,p^3-6\,p^4)\,Z^2+16 \; (3p^2-6\,p^3 +3\,p^4) \,(\rho_2-\rho_1^2) / Z^2\end{aligned}$$ Instead of the parameter $p=X/Z$, i.e. the mean value of $x/z$, one wishes to use the parameter $V=(X-Y)/(X+Y)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_1 &=& V \\
\kappa_2 &=& (1-V^2) \; \rho_1 / Z\\
\kappa_3&=& -2\,V\,(1-V^2)\,\rho_2/Z^2\\
\kappa_4&=& (-2+8\,V^2-6\,V^4)\,\rho_3/Z^3 + 3(1-V^2)^2(\rho_2-\rho_1^2)/Z^2\end{aligned}$$ The commonly used parameters of the distribution of $v$, i.e. the mean value $<v>=\kappa_1$, the variance, $\sigma^2_v=\kappa_2$, the skewness, sk$_v=\kappa_3/\kappa_2^{1.5}$ and the (excess) kurtosis, kur$_v=\kappa_4/\kappa_2^2$ are, therefore: $$\begin{aligned}
<v> &=& V \\
\sigma^2_v &=& (1-V^2) \; \rho_1 / Z\\
\rm{sk}_v &=& -\frac{2\,V}{\sqrt{1-V^2}}\,\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1^{1.5}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{Z}}\\
\rm{kur}_v &=& (\frac{4\,V^2}{1-V^2}-2)\frac{\rho_3}{\rho_1^2}\frac{1}{Z} + 3\,(\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1^2}-1)\end{aligned}$$ For large $Z$, $\rho_1$ tends to unity, and, as can be shown, $(\rho_2/\rho_1^2-1)$ converges to $1/Z$. The formulae then reduce to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:s1}
\sigma^2_v &=& (1-V^2) / Z\\\label{eq:s2}
\rm{sk}_v &=& -\frac{2\,V}{\sqrt{1-V^2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{Z}} \\\label{eq:s3}
\rm{kur}_v &=& (\frac{4\,V^2}{1-V^2}+1)\frac{1}{Z} \label{eq:s4}\end{aligned}$$ As stated in the outset, the parameters become very simple for small $V$, i.e. for nearly equal light intensities in the two images, and if $Z$ is large. The mean and skewness of $v$ are then zero and the variance and the (excess) kurtosis are $1/Z$.
Visualisation
-------------
Fig.\[fig:a1\] gives the standard deviation and the excess kurtosis of the measured $v$ for the case of equal light intensity of the two AO images, i.e. for $V=0$. It shows that the kurtosis is close to zero even for fairly low photon numbers, $Z$. The approximation in terms of the Gaussian distribution is, thus, justified and the standard error range in terms of the 68%-confidence range for a measured value $v$ can be set equal to $v\,\pm\,\sigma$ while the 95%-confidence range is $v\,\pm\,2\,\sigma$. Since $\sigma$ still has the substantial value 0.1 for $Z=100$, one requires much higher photon numbers to obtain meaningful measurements at small values of $V$. Even at the large photon number $Z=10^4$ the standard error of $v$ is 0.01, i.e. one needs a measured value $v\geq0.02$ to reject the null-hypothesis of equal light intensity in the two images ($V=0$) on the 95%-confidence level. This is not trivial, since the measured $v$-values tend to be small in curvature-sensor systems for AO.
![The standard deviation and the kurtosis of $v$ in dependence on $Z$ for $V=0$: The approximation in terms of the Gaussian distribution is justified down to fairly low photon values ([*right panel*]{}), but much higher photon numbers are required to obtain meaningful measurements at small values of $V$, i.e. for small wavefront distortions ([*left panel*]{}).[]{data-label="fig:a1"}](Kellerer2.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![The standard deviation and the kurtosis of $v$ in dependence on $Z$ for $V=0$: The approximation in terms of the Gaussian distribution is justified down to fairly low photon values ([*right panel*]{}), but much higher photon numbers are required to obtain meaningful measurements at small values of $V$, i.e. for small wavefront distortions ([*left panel*]{}).[]{data-label="fig:a1"}](Kellerer3.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
This being a critical issue, it is useful to consider the distribution parameters not just for $V=0$. While fairly low values of $V$ are important in practice, it is instructive to take a broader view and consider the full range of possible intensity differences. Fig.\[fig:a2\] gives for $Z=100$ the standard error, the skewness and the kurtosis in dependence on $V$. As seen in Eqs.\[eq:s2\]-\[eq:s4\], the shape of these dependencies remains the same for higher photon numbers, $Z$, while the absolute values of the standard deviation and the skewness decrease proportionally to $1/\sqrt{Z}$ and the kurtosis decreases proportionally to $1/Z$. At the large photon numbers $Z$ that are required the Gaussian approximation remains thus valid inspite of the increase of the absolute value of the skewness and the kurtosis at large intensity differences. The decrease of the standard error is helpful in principle, but is not substantial at moderate values of $V$.
![The standard deviation (solid line), the skewness (dashed) and the kurtosis (dotted) of $v$ in dependence on $V$ for $Z=100$. The decrease of the standard error is not substantial in the \[0,0.2\] range representative of closed-loop adaptive optics observations. At the large photon numbers that are thus required, the Gaussian approximation remains valid despite the increase of the skewness and kurtosis.[]{data-label="fig:a2"}](Kellerer4.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Fig.\[fig:a3\] illustrates the need for large photon numbers directly. It gives for any measured value $v$ and for different photon numbers the 68%-confidence range of the estimated value $V$.
![The need for large photon numbers: percent standard error in dependence on the measured value $v$ for photon numbers $Z=X+Y=$100 (solid line), $10^3$ (dashed), $10^4$ (dotted) and $10^5$ (dashed-dotted).[]{data-label="fig:a3"}](Kellerer5.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Error propagation {#sec:4}
=================
Definition and context
----------------------
An error on the sensor measurement translates into an error on the reconstructed or corrected wavefront: Inside a correction loop, the error on the sensor measurement propagates on the voltages through the [*command matrix*]{}, onto the mirror surface through the actuator [*influence functions*]{} and finally to the phase as the wavefront reflects on the mirror. If the sensor is not part of an AO control-loop, the error propagates through a phase reconstruction algorithm. The error propagation factor equals the phase variance due to statistically independent random measurements of unit variance. It is defined by the following relation. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:G}
G=\frac{\sigma_\phi^2}{\sigma_v^2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_v^2$ is the variance of the sensor measurements and $\sigma_\phi^2$ the induced variance of the corrected or reconstructed phase.
The error propagation factor in Shack-Hartmann sensors has been analyzed by Hudgin [@hudgin1977] and Fried [@fried1977]. Both, Hudgin’s and Fried’s wavefront-reconstruction algorithms lead to a logarithmic increase of the error propagation term with the number of sensing elements: $G\propto \ln (N)$. Both authors assume that the size of the sampling elements is constant with changing $N$.
Curvature sensors {#sec:curvprop}
-----------------
Simulations by N. Roddier for actuator numbers in the 5-100 range have shown that the error propagation term in curvature sensors increases linearly with $N$ [@NicolasDiploma]. The behavior of the error propagation term is here analyzed. It is found – in agreement with N. Roddier’s simulations – that $G$ increases linearly with the number of sub-apertures, if the pupil size increases with $N$ and if the defocus distance is kept fixed. The behavior of the error propagation term for a given pupil surface and an increasing defocus distance is then examined and a closed expression for the error propagation factor is indicated.
### Phase reconstruction
To obtain an expression for the error propagation factor in curvature sensors, we adapt Hudgin’s phase-reconstruction algorithm. Let us briefly recall the principle of this algorithm[@hudgin1977]: A S-H sensor determines the phase difference, e.g. d$\phi_x(l, n) = \phi(l+1, n) - \phi(l, n)$ and d$\phi_y(l, n) = \phi(l, n+1) - \phi(l, n)$. For a set of noiseless slope measurements, the phase value at a grid point $(i,k)$ relates to the phase values of its four nearest neighbors : $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(l,n) = ( \phi(l-1,n) + {\rm d}\phi_x(l-1,n)+ \phi(l+1,n) - {\rm d}\phi_x(l,n) + \nonumber \\
\phi(l,n-1) +{\rm d}\phi_y(l,n-1) + \phi(l,n+1) -{\rm d}\phi_y(l,n) ) / 4 \label{eq:p2}\end{aligned}$$ This relation only applies to inner grid points and Hudgin did consider an infinitely large pupil. For corner (resp. border) points we modify this relation to use only the two (resp. three) nearest neighbors. The denominator in Eq.\[eq:p2\] is accordingly changed to 2 (resp. 3).
For slope values with measurement errors there is no perfect fit that fulfills this condition, but the best fit minimizes the mean squared deviations from the equality. Hudgin referred, accordingly, to a reconstruction method where one starts with an arbitrary phase estimate, $\phi(i,k)$. In each iteration cycle the phase estimates on each grid point are replaced by the average of the phase values of its four closest neighbors, each adjusted by the fixed values of the phase differences: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(l,n) \leftarrow \; ( \phi(l-1,n) + {\rm d}\phi_x(l-1,n)+ \phi(l+1,n) - {\rm d}\phi_x(l,n) + \nonumber \\
\phi(l,n-1) +{\rm d}\phi_y(l,n-1) + \phi(l,n+1) -{\rm d}\phi_y(l,n) ) / 4
\label{eq:p3}\end{aligned}$$
The new value $\phi(l,n)$ is the one that best fits the 4 latest phase estimates for the nearest neighbors and the values of the associated slopes. Eq.\[eq:p3\] suggests a simplification: The sum of the 4 phase-difference terms in the equation is an estimate of the second-order phase-difference at grid point $(l,n)$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm d}^2\phi(l,n) = ( {\rm d}\phi_x(l-1,n) - {\rm d}\phi_x(l,n) + {\rm d}\phi_y(l,n-1) - {\rm d}\phi_y(l,n) ) / 4
\label{eq:p4}\end{aligned}$$ And Eq.\[eq:p3\] can, accordingly, be written in the simplified form: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(l,n) \leftarrow \; ( \phi(l-1,n) + \phi(l+1,n) + \phi(l,n-1) + \phi(l,n+1) ) / 4 + {\rm d}^2\phi(l,n)
\label{eq:p5}\end{aligned}$$ with the modification that has been noted for the border and corner points.
For a set of $N$ sensor measurements $v(l,n)$ ($l,n=1..\sqrt{N}$) the second-order phase-differences are obtained through: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm d}^2\phi(l,n) = \nabla^2 \phi (l,n)\cdot a^2/4 = -\frac{\pi\,l\,a^2}{2\,\lambda\,f\,(f-l)}\cdot v(l,n)
\label{eq:vtoc}\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is the distance between two adjacent grid points. The $N$ phase values are obtained via the iteration method described by Eq.\[eq:p5\].
Sensing elements of constant surface and fixed extra-focal distance {#sec:nicolas}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The error propagation factor is computed for the parameter values listed in the first column of Table\[tab:par1\]: a fixed sub-aperture size $a$ and extra-focal distance $l$. In agreement with N.Roddier’s[@NicolasDiploma], $G$ increases linearly with the number of sensing elements: $$\begin{aligned}
G= (2.20\pm0.05)\,10^3\cdot N - (2.03\pm0.05)\,10^4
\label{eq:linearG}\end{aligned}$$
Sec.\[sec:nicolas\] Sec.\[sec:constant\] Sec.\[sec:yao\]
---------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- --------------------
Pupil shape: square square circular
Pupil size, $D$: $a\cdot\sqrt{N}$ 8m 3m
Sub-aperture size, $a$: 1m $D/\sqrt{N}$ $D/\sqrt{N}$
Extra-focal distance, $l$: 0.5m 0.05$\sqrt{N}$\[m\] 0.8$\sqrt{N}$\[m\]
Wavelength, $\lambda$ $0.7\,\mu$m $0.7\,\mu$m $0.7\,\mu$m
focal length, $f$: 120 120 180
Number of sensing elements, $N$: 25..225 25..225 25..225
: Parameter values for the computation of the error propagation term.[]{data-label="tab:par1"}
Fixed pupil surface and adjusted extra-focal distance {#sec:constant}
-----------------------------------------------------
On a given telescope and for a constant pupil surface, the sub-aperture size decreases with the number of sensing elements: $a=D/\sqrt{N}$. The measurements would eventually get blurred by diffraction if the extra-focal distance was kept constant, because the diffraction pattern has a fixed size in the image plane: $\lambda f/r_0$, where $r_0$ is the Fried parameter. The extra-focal distance therefore needs to be increased, $l\propto \sqrt{N}$, so that the size of the sensing elements in the imaging plane, $a \,l/f$, stay constant.
The error propagation factor is thus computed for the parameter values listed in the second column of Table\[tab:par1\]: a constant pupil surface and an adjusted extra-focal distance. As seen on Fig.\[fig:G\], $G$ is then almost independent of the number of sensing elements. A general expression for the error propagation factor is deduced from these numerical results, using Eq.\[eq:vtoc\]: $$\begin{aligned}
G = \frac{\sigma^2_{\phi} }{\sigma_v^2} = G_0\cdot \left[ (0.85\pm 0.05) - \frac{(6.0 \pm 0.5)}{N}\right] \\
G_0= (\frac{l}{\sqrt{N}})^2\cdot(\frac{D}{f})^4 \cdot \frac{1}{\lambda^2}
\label{eq:G0}\end{aligned}$$ This equation translates that the error propagation factor increases linearly with $N$ for a unit sampling size and a constant extra-focal distance (Eq.\[eq:linearG\]), and that it is almost independent of $N$ when the pupil surface is constant and the extra-focal distance is adjusted (see Fig.\[fig:G\]).
![Error propagation term, $G$, in dependence on the number of sub-apertures. [*Full line*]{}: in terms of the iterative method for the parameters values listed in the second column of Table\[tab:par1\] (square pupil). [*Dotted line*]{}: in terms of the adaptive-optics simulation package [*yao*]{} for the parameter values listed in the third column of Table\[tab:par1\] (circular pupil). $G_0$ is defined by Eq.\[eq:G0\].[]{data-label="fig:G"}](Kellerer8.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Comparison against an adaptive-optics simulation package {#sec:yao}
--------------------------------------------------------
In this section, the values obtained in sec.\[sec:nicolas\] and \[sec:constant\] are checked against those obtained with the adaptive-optics simulation package [*Yao*]{}[@yao]. In sections\[sec:nicolas\] and \[sec:constant\] the error propagation factor has been calculated on square grids, while with [*Yao*]{} the pupil is circular. The sampling geometry is inspired by Roddier et al. [@roddier1991]: the sub-apertures are distributed along concentric rings and cover equal surfaces. The outer elements have the highest error propagation factors and it is therefore desirable to minimize their number[^1]: we choose the number of outer elements to be above the minimum required number (Eq.\[eq:min\]) by 10-20%. Figure\[fig:configurations\] shows two of the eleven generated sensor configurations.
![Configurations of two of the simulated sensors: the wavefront is sampled over 25 and 225 elements. [*Dashed line*]{}: Pupil edge.[]{data-label="fig:configurations"}](Kellerer6.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Configurations of two of the simulated sensors: the wavefront is sampled over 25 and 225 elements. [*Dashed line*]{}: Pupil edge.[]{data-label="fig:configurations"}](Kellerer7.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
The procedure adopted to calculate the error propagation factor under [*Yao*]{} is the following:
- given $N$ sub-apertures, [*Yao*]{} computes $N$ [*influence functions*]{}: $N$ wavefronts resulting from unit voltages applied to actuators $i=1... N$.
- the [*command matrix*]{}, which converts a set of $N$ sensor measurements into $N$ voltage values, is determined from its inverse, the [*interaction matrix*]{}.
- for statistically independent random measurements of standard deviation $\sigma_v=0.1$, the set of corresponding voltage values is obtained through the command matrix. The wavefront is the sum of the $N$ influence functions weighted by the $N$ voltages. It is expressed in radians.
- $\sigma_{\phi}^2(i)$ is the phase variance of the $i$-th wavefront realization. The error propagation factor is determined from the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
G= \frac{1}{1000} \sum_{i=1}^{1000} \sigma_{\phi}^2(i) / \sigma_v^2\end{aligned}$$
As seen on Fig.\[fig:G\], the error propagation factors obtained with [*Yao*]{} are in good agreement with the values obtained in terms of the iterative method (sec.\[sec:nicolas\] and \[sec:constant\]). The fact that they do not coincide is probably due to the iterative method and [*Yao*]{} considering square and circular pupils respectively. A general expression for the error propagation factor on a circular pupil is derived: $$\begin{aligned}
G = \frac{\sigma^2_{\phi} }{\sigma_v^2} = (\frac{l}{\sqrt{N}})^2\cdot(\frac{D}{f})^4 \cdot \frac{1}{\lambda^2} \cdot \left[ (0.64\pm 0.04) - \frac{(2.7\pm 0.3)}{N}\right]\end{aligned}$$ The decrease in Strehl due to photon noise is then given by the following relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{S_1}{S_0} &=& \exp (- \sigma^2_{\phi}) = \exp (-G\cdot \frac{N} {Z}) \\
\frac{S_1}{S_0} &=& \exp (- \frac{G_0}{Z} \cdot \left[ (0.64\pm 0.04)\,N - (2.7\pm 0.3) \right] ) \end{aligned}$$ where $S_1$ and $S_0$ are the Strehl ratios with and in absence of photon noise. $G_0$ is defined by Eq.\[eq:G0\], $N$ is the number of sensing elements and $Z$ the total number of photons collected by the sensor during the acquisition of the two extra-focal images. Figure\[fig:strehl\] traces the Strehl loss due to photon noise for an 8m telescope, in dependence on the number of sensing elements and on the photon number.
![Decrease of the instantaneous Strehl ratio due to photon noise in dependence on the number of sensing elements $N$ and on the average number of photons, $Z$, received by the sensor during the acquisition of the two extra-focal images. Other parameter values are: $l=0.05 \sqrt{N}$ \[m\], $D=8$m, $f=120$m and $\lambda=0.7\mu$m.[]{data-label="fig:strehl"}](Kellerer9.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
In this article, we have derived – for any given curvature sensor – a minimum required number of sub-apertures on the pupil-edge, in dependence on its total sub-aperture number.
We further examined the distribution of the sensor signal in terms of its mean, variance, skewness and kurtosis. The approximation in terms of a Gaussian distribution is found to be correct, even for fairly low photon numbers in the 50-100 range (mean photon number per sub-aperture and iteration). Yet, one requires much higher photon numbers (in the $10^3-10^4$ range) to obtain meaningful measurements at small signal values, i.e. at small wavefront phase distortions.
Finally, and in accordance with N.Roddier, the error propagation term has been shown to increase linearly with $N$ – the number of sub-apertures – if the sampling-surface stays constant. That is, if the pupil-surface likewise increases linearly with $N$. For a given telecope, however, and a fixed pupil-surface, the error propagation term is almost independent of $N$. This has been derived by an iterative method inspired by Hudgin’s phase-reconstruction algorithm, and has been validated with an adaptive optics simulations software. A closed expression for the error propagation factor has been suggested.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I thank Mark Chun and Christ Ftaclas for many helpful discussions, and I am grateful for the referees’ constructive suggestions. Financial support from the United States Air Force Office of Scientific Research is likewise acknowledged.
[99]{}
F. Roddier, “Curvature sensing and compensation: a new concept in adaptive optics”, Applied Optics, vol. 27, i. 7, p.1223-1225 (1988)
F. Roddier, M. Northcott, J.E. Graves, “A simple low-order adaptive optics system for near-infrared applications”, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Publications (ISSN 0004-6280), vol. 103, p. 131-149 (1991)
J. E. Graves, M. J. Northcott, F.J. Roddier, C.A. Roddier, L.M. Close, “First light for Hokupa’a: 36-element curvature AO system at UH”, in Adaptive Optical Systems Technologies, D. Bonaccini and R.K. Tyson, eds. Proc. SPIE, vol. 3353, p. 34-43 (1998)
M. Chun, D. Toomey, Z. Wahhaj, B. Biller, E. Artigau, T. Hayward, M. Liu, L. Close, M. Hartung, F. Rigaut, C. Ftaclas, “Performance of the near-infrared coronagraphic imager on Gemini-South”, Adaptive Optics Systems. Edited by N. Hubin, C. Max, P. Wizinowich, Proc. SPIE, vol. 7015, p. 70151V-70151V-9 (2008)
R. Arsenault, A. Jaime, H. Bonnet, J. Brynnel, B. Delabre, R. Donaldson, C. Dupuy, E. Fedrigo, J. Farinato, N. Hubin, L. Ivanescu, M. Kasper, J. Paufique, S. Rossi, S. Tordo, S. Stroebele, J.L. Lizon, P. Gigan, F. Delplancke, A. Silber, M. Quattri, R. Reiss, “MACAO-VLTI: An Adaptive Optics system for the ESO VLT interferometer”, Adaptive Optical System Technologies II. Edited by P. L. Wizinowich, D. Bonaccini. Proceedings of the SPIE, vol. 4839, p. 174-185 (2003)
M. Watanabe, S. Oya, Y. Hayano, H. Takami, M. Hattori, Y. Minowa, Y. Saito, M. Ito, N. Murakami, M. Iye, O. Guyon, S. Colley, M. Eldred, T. Golota, M. Dinkins, “Implementation of 188-element Curvature-based Wavefront Sensor and Calibration Source Unit for the Subaru LGSAO System”, Adaptive Optics Systems. Edited by N. Hubin, C. Max, P. Wizinowich, Proc. SPIE, vol. 7015, p. 701564-701564-8 (2008)
N. Roddier, “Curvature sensing for adaptive optics: a computer simulation”, thesis for the degree of master of science submitted to the University of Arizona (1989)
O. Lai, T. V. Craven-Bartle, “ Simulations of high order curvature adaptive optics”, Conference Information: Conference on High-Contrast Imaging for Exo-Planet Detection, high contrast imaging for exo-planet detection, SPIE proc, vol. 4860, p. 334-342 (2003)
Q. Yang, C. Ftaclas, M. Chun , “Wavefront correction with high-order curvature adaptive optics systems”, JOSA A, vol. 23, I. 6, p. 1375-1381 (2006)
F. Roddier, “Curvature sensing: a diffraction theory”, NOAO advanced development program, n. 87-3, (1987)
R. Hudgin, “Wave-front reconstruction for compensated imaging”, JOSA, vol. 67, p. 375-378 (1977)
D. Fried, “Least-square fitting a wave-front distortion estimate to an array of phase-difference measurements”, JOSA, vol. 67, p. 370-375 (1997)
www.maumae.net/yao/
[^1]: Without any sensing element on the pupil edge, the error propagation factor is reduced by a factor of about 5.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The nonnegativity of the density operator of a state is faithfully coded in its Wigner distribution, and this places constraints on the moments of the Wigner distribution. These constraints are presented in a canonically invariant form which is both concise and explicit. Since the conventional uncertainty principle is such a constraint on the first and second moments, our result constitutes a generalization of the same to all orders. Possible application in quantum state reconstruction using optical homodyne tomography is noted.'
address: |
$^1$The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, C.I.T. Campus, Madras 600 113, India\
$^2$Centre for Theoretical Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India and\
Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Jakkur, Bangalore 560 064, India
author:
- 'R. Simon$^{1}$ and N. Mukunda$^{2}$'
title: Moments of the Wigner Distribution and a Generalized Uncertainty Principle
---
The uncertainty principle exhibits a fundamental manner in which the quantum description of nature departs from the classical one. For the canonical pair of variables $(\hat{q} , \hat{p})$ the Heisenberg commutation relation $\left[ \hat{q}\,, \hat{p} \right] = {\rm i} \hbar$ leads, for any state $\left| \psi \right. \rangle$, to the unbeatable limitation $$\left\langle \left( \Delta \hat{q} \right) ^2 \right\rangle
\left\langle \left( \Delta \hat{p} \right) ^2 \right\rangle
-
\left\langle \frac{\Delta \hat{q} \Delta \hat{p}
+
\Delta \hat{p} \Delta \hat{q} }{2} \right\rangle ^2
\ge \frac{\hbar ^2}{4}\,,
\label{UNCERTAINTY}$$ where $\langle \hat{q}\rangle$ $= \langle \psi \left| \hat{q} \right| \psi \rangle$, $\Delta \hat{q} = \hat{q} - \langle \hat{q} \rangle$, and so on. Every Gaussian pure state saturates this inequality. An important attribute of the uncertainty principle (\[UNCERTAINTY\]) is that it is invariant under all real linear canonical transformations, just as the canonical commutation relation is.
This inequality can be generalized in a naive manner to higher orders in $\hat{q}$, $\hat{p}$. For any pair of hermitian operators $\hat{A}$, $\hat{B}$ and state $\left| \psi \right. \rangle$ we have the Schwartz inequality $$\left\langle \hat{A} ^2 \right\rangle \left\langle \hat{B} ^2
\right\rangle \ge
\left\langle \frac{\hat{A} \hat{B} + \hat{B} \hat{A} }{2}
\right\rangle ^2 +
\left\langle \frac{\hat{A} \hat{B} - \hat{B} \hat{A} }{2{\rm i}}
\right\rangle ^2\,. \label{SCHWARTZ}$$ It is saturated if an only if $\hat{A} \left| \psi \right. \rangle$ and $\hat{B} \left| \psi \right. \rangle$ are linearly dependent as vectors. Clearly, (\[UNCERTAINTY\]) is a particular case of (\[SCHWARTZ\]) corresponding to $\hat{A} = \hat{q} - \langle \hat{q} \rangle$, $\hat{B} = \hat{p} - \langle \hat{p} \rangle$. Clearly, the choice $\hat{A} = \hat{q} ^2 - \langle \hat{q} ^2 \rangle$, $\hat{B} = \hat{p} ^2 - \langle \hat{p} ^2 \rangle$ will lead to a higher order uncertainty principle involving $\langle \hat{q} ^4 \rangle$, $\langle \hat{p} ^4 \rangle$; the Fock states $\left| n \right. \rangle$, being eigenstates of $\hat{q} ^2 + \hat{p} ^2$, will be expected to saturate this higher order uncertainty principle. That they indeed do so can be explicitly verified.
One may indeed produce any number of such naive generalized uncertainty principles by making various choices for $\hat{A}$, $\hat{B}$ in (\[SCHWARTZ\]). But every one of them will suffer from the deficiency of not being invariant under linear canonical transformations. Further, there seems to be no reasonable sense in which the set of all such generalizations based on (\[SCHWARTZ\]) can be considered to be complete.
The purpose of this Letter is to present a generalization of the uncertainty principle which largely overcomes these difficulties. This is achieved by applying to the Wigner quasiprobability [@Wigner] concepts and results from the classical problem of moments[@Shohat]. The final result is a nested sequence of constraints on the moments of the Wigner distribution. These constraints are tailored to capture the positivity of the density operator of a quantum state. Equivalently, a given real phase space distribution has to necessarily meet these constraints in order to qualify to be a bonafide Wigner distribution.
It should be appreciated that the higher moments of the Wigner distribution are no more objects of purely academic interest. An enormous progress in quantum state reconstruction using optical homodyde tomography has been achieved in the last few years: the Wigner distribution of a state can now be fully mapped out [@Vogel], as has been demonstrated by several groups [@Smithey; @Breitenbach; @Dunn; @Leibfried].
There exist rigorous and mathematically sophisticated approaches to the quantum mechanical moment problem [@Kastler]. But our considerations here are explicit and take full advantage of the canonical invariance underlying the Heisenberg commutation relation.
Details of a classical probability density $\rho ( x )$ are coded in its moments $\gamma _n = \int d x x^{n} \rho ( x )$. An important result in the problem of moments is this [@Shohat]: given a sequence of numbers it qualifies to be the moment sequence of a bonafide probability distribution if and only if the symmetric matrix defined below is nonnegative: $$\Gamma =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\gamma _0 & \gamma _1 & \gamma _2 & \cdots \\
\gamma _1 & \gamma _2 & \gamma _3 & \cdots \\
\gamma _2 & \gamma _3 & \gamma _4 & \cdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \cdots \\
\end{array}
\right) \ge 0\,.
\label{GAMMA}$$ This can be broken into a sequence of positivity conditions on the determinants of the submatrices of $\Gamma$, which in turn can be viewed as a nested sequence of constraints on the moments $\gamma _n$; and these constraints are tailored to capture the pointwise nonnegativity of $\rho ( x )$. Reconstruction of $\rho ( x )$ from its moment sequence is the other part of the classical problem of moments [@Shohat].
In quantum mechanics, the state is described not by a true probability density in phase space, but by one of several possible quasiprobabilities [@Wigner]. The earliest, and probably the most prominent, quasiprobability is the one introduced by Wigner [@Wigner]. It is intimately related to the Weyl ordering rule of association between the algebra ${\cal A}$ of functions $f \left( q , p \right)$ of the phase space variables and the algebra $\hat{\cal A}$ of operator valued functions $\hat{F} \left( \hat{q} , \hat{p} \right)$ of the canonical operators. The rule is specified first through the one to one correspondence $e ^{\theta q + \tau p} \longleftrightarrow
e ^{\theta \hat{q} + \tau \hat{p}}$ for [*plane waves*]{}, and then extended linearly to the entire algebra using Fourier techniques.
The Weyl rule could equally well be specified in the monomial basis instead of the plane wave basis through the association $q^m p^n \longleftrightarrow
\hat{T} _{m , n}$ for $m$, $n = 0$, $1$, $2, \cdots$ where the Weyl ordered monomial $\hat{T} _{m , n}$ is the coefficient of $\left( m ! n ! \right) ^{- 1} \theta ^m \tau ^n$ in the Taylor expansion of $e ^{\theta \hat{q} + \tau \hat{p}}$. This is an isomorphism between ${\cal A}$ and $\hat{\cal A}$ only at the level of vector spaces but not at the level of algebras. In particular, the product of two $\hat{T} _{m , n}$’s is not another monomial but a linear combination of monomials [@Bender]: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{T} _{m , n} \hat{T} _{m ' , n '}
& = &
\sum _{r , s} d _{r , s} \,
\hat{T} _{ m + m ' - r -s\, , n + n ' - r - s}, \nonumber \\
d _{r , s} & = &
\frac{ ( - 1 ) ^r {\left(\frac{{\rm i} \hbar}{2} \right)} ^{s + r}\,
m !\, n !\,}
{
\left(m - s \right) !\,
\left(n - r \right) !\, }
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
m ' \\
r
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n ' \\
s
\end{array}
\right)\,.
\label{MONOMIAL}\end{aligned}$$
The intimate connection between Weyl ordering and Wigner distribution is this: $${\rm tr} ( \hat{\rho} \hat{T} _{m , n} )
=
\int d q\, d p\, q ^m p ^n W \left( q , p \right)\,.
\label{WEIGHT}$$ That is, the quantum mechanical expectation of the Weyl ordered monomial $\hat{T} _{m , n}$ is precisely the $m n$-th moment of the Wigner function. By linearity, similar relation holds for any pair $f \left( q , p \right)$, $\hat{F} \left( \hat{q} , \hat{p} \right)$ related by Weyl ordering.
The monomials $\hat{T} _{m , n}$ are hermitian, and transform in a simple manner under the group ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$ of real linear canonical transformations. This group can be identified with ${\rm SL}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$, the group of $2 \times 2$ real matrices with unit determinant. ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$ acts identically on the pairs $\left(q , p \right)$ and $\left(\hat{q} , \hat{p} \right)$, and this action induces linear transformation in the algebras ${\cal A}$ and $\hat{\cal A}$ in the natural manner.
The set of homogeneous polynomials of order $2j$ in $q$ and $p$ (being linear combinations of $q ^{j -s} p ^{j + s}$ for $s = - j$, $- j + 1\,, \cdots\,, j$ ) transform linearly among themselves under this transformation, leading to the spin-$j$ representation of ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$ in ${\cal A}$. The $\hat{T} _{m , n}$’s in $\hat{\cal A}$ transform in the same manner as the $q ^m p ^n$’s in ${\cal A}$, and thus the vector space $\hat{\cal A}$ decouples into a direct sum of invariant subspaces under ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$: $
\hat{\cal A} = \hat{V} ^{( 0 )} \oplus\,
\hat{V} ^{( \frac{1}{2} )} \oplus\, \hat{V} ^{( 1 )} \oplus\, \cdots$ Clearly, $\hat{V} ^{( j )}$ is of dimension $2 j + 1$, and is spanned by $\hat{\xi} _{j s} = \hat{T} _{j - s , j + s}$ with $s$ running over the range $s = - j$, $- j + 1\,, \cdots\,, j$. It acts as the carrier space for the spin-$j$ representation of ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$ in $\hat{\cal A}$. Thus, every spin-$j$ representation of ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$ occurs in $\hat{\cal A}$ once and only once.
It is convenient to arrange the $\hat{\xi} _{j , s}$’s for fixed $j$ into a $2j + 1$ dimensional column vector $\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( j )}$ and then, for any chosen $J$, arrange these columns into a grand column vector $\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} _J$ of dimension $(J + 1)(2J + 1)$.
Let the $\left( 2 j + 1 \right)\,\times\,\left( 2 j + 1 \right)$ matrix $K ^{( j )} \left( S \right)$ denote the spin-$j$ representation for $S \in {\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$. Since the defining representation of ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$ is the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ representation, we have $K ^{(\frac{1}{2})} \left( S \right) = S$. Let $K _J \left( S \right)$ be the block diagonal matrix of order $\left(J + 1 \right)\,\times\,\left( 2 J + 1 \right)$ with diagonal blocks $K ^{( 0 )} \left( S \right) = 1$, $K ^{(\frac{1}{2})} \left( S \right)$, $\cdots$, $K ^{( J )} \left( S \right)$. Then the action of ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$ in $\hat{\cal A}$ has the concise description $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} _J \longrightarrow
K _J ( S ) \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} _J\,, \quad \quad
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( j )} =
K ^{( j )} ( S ) \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( j )}\,.
\label{COMPACT}\end{aligned}$$
We are now in a position to present the generalized uncertainty principle. For each $J = 0$, $\frac{1}{2}$, $1, \cdots$ form the square matrix $\hat{\Omega} _J$, of order $\left( J + 1 \right) \left( 2 J + 1 \right)$, with operator entries, through the definition ($\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} _J ^{\dagger}$ is a row vector with the same entries as the column vector $\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} _J$) $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Omega} _J =
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} _J\,
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} _J ^{\dagger}\,, \qquad
\left( \hat{\Omega} _J \right) _{j s , j' s'}
=
\hat{\xi} _{j s} \hat{\xi} _{j' s'}\,.
\label{COLUMN}\end{aligned}$$ We may write $\hat{\Omega} _J$ in more detail in the block form $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Omega} _J =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( \frac{1}{2} ) ^{\dagger}}
& \cdots
& \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( J ) ^{\dagger}}
\\
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( \frac{1}{2} )}
& \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( \frac{1}{2} )}
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( \frac{1}{2} ) ^{\dagger}}
& \cdots
& \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( \frac{1}{2} )}
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( J ) ^{\dagger}}
\\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots
\\
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( J ) }
& \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( J )}
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( \frac{1}{2} ) ^{\dagger}}
& \cdots
& \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( J )}
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( J ) ^{\dagger}} \\
\end{array}
\right)\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is to be understood that each element of $\hat{\Omega} _J$ is written as a linear combination of the $\hat{T} _{m , n}$’s using (\[MONOMIAL\]). For purpose of illustration, we detail one of these blocks: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( 1 )}\,
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{( \frac{1}{2} ) ^{\dagger}} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\hat{T} _{3 , 0}
& \quad \hat{T} _{2 , 1} + {\rm i} \hbar \hat{T} _{1 , 0} \\
\\
\hat{T} _{2 , 1} - \frac{{\rm i} \hbar}{2} \hat{T} _{1 , 0}
& \quad \hat{T} _{1 , 2} + \frac{{\rm i} \hbar}{2} \hat{T} _{0 , 1} \\
\\
\hat{T} _{1 , 2} - {\rm i} \hbar \hat{T} _{0 , 1}
& \quad \hat{T} _{0 , 3} \\
\end{array}
\right)\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Let $M _J = \langle \hat{\Omega} \rangle$ be the hermitian $c$-number matrix obtained from $\hat{\Omega} _J$ by taking (entrywise) quantum mechanical expectation value in the given state $\hat{\rho}$: $$\begin{aligned}
M _J
& = &
{\rm tr} ( \rho\, \hat{\Omega} _J )\,
= \langle
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} _J
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} _J ^{\dagger}
\rangle\,; \nonumber \\
\left( M _ J \right) _{j s , j' s'}
& = &
{\rm tr} ( \hat{\rho}\, \hat{\xi} _{j s}\,
\hat{\xi} _{j' s'} )
\label{TRACE}\end{aligned}$$ It will prove useful to write $M _J$ in the block form $$\begin{aligned}
M _J =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & M ^{0 , \frac{1}{2}} & \cdots & M ^{0 , J}
\\
M ^{\frac{1}{2} , 0} & M ^{\frac{1}{2} , \frac{1}{2}}
& \cdots & M ^{\frac{1}{2} , J}
\\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
M ^{J , 0} & M ^{J , \frac{1}{2}} & \cdots & M ^{J , J} \\
\end{array}
\right)\,,
\label{BLOCK}\end{aligned}$$ where $M ^{j , j'}$ $ = \langle \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{\left( j \right)}
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{\left( j ' \right) ^{\dagger}} \rangle$ is a $\left( 2 j + 1 \right)\,\times\,\left( 2 j ' + 1\right)$ dimensional block, and $M ^{j ' , j}$ $= \left( M ^{j , j'} \right) ^{\dagger}$. Since $\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}} ^{\left( 0 \right)} = 1$, $M
^{0 , 0} = 1$ for all states. For purpose of illustration, we write out a few leading blocks of $M _J$ explicitly: it is clear that the row vectors $M ^{0 , \frac{1}{2}}$ and $M ^{0 , 1}$ have entries $\left( \overline{q} , \overline{p} \right)$ and $( \overline{q ^2} , \overline{q p} , \overline{p ^2} )$ respectively; further $$\begin{aligned}
M ^{\frac{1}{2} , \frac{1}{2}}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\overline{q ^2} & \quad \overline{q p} + \frac{{\rm i} \hbar}{2} \\
\\
\overline{q p} - \frac{{\rm i} \hbar}{2} & \quad \overline{p ^2} \\
\end{array}
\right)\,, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M ^{1 , \frac{1}{2}}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\overline{q ^3}
& \overline{q ^2 p} + {\rm i} \hbar \overline{q} \\
& \\
\overline{q ^2 p} - \frac{{\rm i} \hbar}{2} \overline{q}
& \overline{q p ^2} + \frac{{\rm i} \hbar}{2} \overline{p} \\
& \\
\overline{q p^2} - {\rm i} \hbar \overline{p} & \overline{p ^3} \\
\end{array}
\right)\,; \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and finally, the $3 \times 3$ hermitian block $M ^{1 ,1}$ has the form $$\begin{aligned}
%& & M ^{1 , 1}
%= \nonumber \\
%& &
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{q ^4}
& \overline{q ^3 p} + {\rm i} \hbar \overline{q ^2}
& \overline{q ^2 p ^2} + 2 {\rm i} \hbar \overline{q p}
- \frac{\hbar ^2}{2} \\
& & \\
\overline{q ^3 p} - {\rm i} \hbar \overline{q ^2}
& \overline{q ^2 p ^2} + \frac{\hbar ^2}{4}
& \overline{q p ^3} + {\rm i} \hbar \overline{p ^2} \\
& & \\
\overline{q ^2 p ^2} - 2 {\rm i} \hbar \overline{q p}
- \frac{\hbar ^2}{2}
& \overline{q p ^3} - {\rm i} \hbar \overline{p ^2}
& \overline{q ^4} \\
\end{array}
\right)\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\overline{q ^m p ^n} = \langle \hat{T} _{m , n} \rangle$ stands for the average of $q^m p ^n$ with the Wigner distribution as the weight as in (\[WEIGHT\]). In other words, $M _J$ is the [*matrix formed out of the moments of the Wigner distribution function, of order atmost $2J$*]{}.
We now prove the important fact that the nonnegativity of the density operator $\hat{\rho}$ forces the hermitian matrix $M _J$ to be a nonnegative matrix, for every $J$. For a given fixed value of $J$ consider the operator $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\eta} =
\sum _{j = 0} ^{J} \,
\sum _{s = - j} ^{j}\,
c _{j s}\, \hat{\xi} _{j s}\,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $c _{j s}\,$ are arbitrary $c$-number expansion coefficients which can be arranged into a $\left( J + 1 \right) \left( 2 J + 1 \right)$ dimensional column vector $C$. Now form the operator $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\zeta} =
\hat{\eta} ^{\dagger}\, \hat{\eta}\, =
\sum _{j , s} \, \sum _{j' , s'}\,
c _{j s} ^{*}\, c _{j' s'}\, \hat{\xi} _{j s}\, \hat{\xi} _{j' s'}\,,
\label{OPERATOR}\end{aligned}$$ which is hermitian nonnegative by construction. Since $\hat{\rho} \ge 0$, we necessarily have ${\rm tr} ( \hat{\rho}\, \hat{\zeta} ) \ge 0$, for every choice of the coefficients $\{ c _{j , s} \}$. But from (\[TRACE\]), (\[OPERATOR\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm tr} ( \hat{\rho}\, \hat{\zeta} )\, & = &
\sum _{j , s} \, \sum _{j' , s'}\,
c _{j s} ^{*}\, c _{j' s'}\, M _{j s , j' s'}\,.
%\left( \hat{\rho}\, \hat{\xi} _{j s}\, \hat{\xi} _{j' s'} \right)\,.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ That is, ${\rm tr} (\hat{\rho}\, \hat{\zeta} )$ $=$ $C ^{\dagger} M C$ for every $C$. This completes the proof that $\hat{\rho} \ge 0$ implies $M _J \ge 0$ for every $J$.
A little reflection should convince the reader that this is the generalized form of the uncertainty principle we have been after, and we state it as follows:
[*Generalized Uncertainty Principle:*]{}– Let $M _J$ be the hermitian $c$-number matrix formed out of the moments of the Wigner distribution of a state $\hat{\rho}$ in accordance with the prescription (\[TRACE\]). Then $$\begin{aligned}
M _J \ge 0\,, \qquad
J = 0\,, \frac{1}{2}\,,
1\,, \cdots\,
\label{M}\end{aligned}$$ For a given state not all moments will exist in general. It is clear that in such a case where $M _J$ is finite only for all $J \le J _{\rm max}$, our generalized uncertainty principle should be modified to read $M _J \ge 0$, $J = 0$, $\frac{1}{2}$, $\cdots$, $J _{\rm max}$.
While the hermiticity and unit trace properties of $\hat{\rho}$ are reflected in the reality and normalization of the Wigner distribution, the generalized uncertainty principle presented in the concise matrix form (\[M\]) exhibits the constraints on the moments $\overline{q ^m p ^n}$ of the Wigner distribution resulting from the nonnegativity of $\hat{\rho}$. While the conventional uncertainty principle is such a constraint on the first and second moments, ours is a generalization [*to all orders*]{}. It should be appreciated that the canonical commutation relation enters $M_{J}$ in (\[M\]) through (\[MONOMIAL\]).
The following mathematical lemma is helpful in analyzing the content of this generalized uncertainty principle: A hermitian matrix $Q$ of the block form $$\begin{aligned}
Q =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A & C ^{\dagger} \\
C & B \\
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is positive definite if and only if $A$ and $B - C\, A ^{- 1}\, C ^{\dagger}$ are positive definite. The proof simply consists in recognizing the congruence $$\begin{aligned}
Q \sim Q' = L \, Q\, L ^{\dagger}\,, \quad \quad
L =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
- C\, A ^{- 1} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $Q'$ is a block diagonal matrix with diagonal blocks $A$ and $B - C A ^{- 1} C ^{\dagger}$.
The usual uncertainty principle (\[UNCERTAINTY\]) is contained in (\[M\]) as a particular case: it is equivalent to the condition ${\rm det} M _{J = \frac{1}{2}} \ge 0$. Next consider the case $J = 1$. Use of the lemma with $C ^{\dagger}$ $= ( M ^{0 , \frac{1}{2}} \, M ^{0 , 1} )$ renders $M _J \sim M _J '$, where $$\begin{aligned}
%& &
M _J '\, = %\nonumber \\
%& &
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & M ^{\frac{1}{2} , \frac{1}{2}}
- M ^{\frac{1}{2} , 0}\, M ^{0 , \frac{1}{2}}
& M ^{\frac{1}{2} , 1} - M ^{\frac{1}{2} , 0}\, M ^{0 , 1} \\
0 & M ^{1 , \frac{1}{2}} - M ^{1 , 0}\, M ^{0 , \frac{1}{2}}
& M ^{1 , 1} - M ^{1 , 0}\, M ^{0 , 1} \\
\end{array}
\right)\,. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Now $M _J \ge 0$ implies $M _J ' \ge 0$ which in turn implies that its diagonal block $
M ^{\frac{1}{2} , \frac{1}{2}}
- M ^{\frac{1}{2} , 0} \, M ^{0 , \frac{1}{2}} \ge 0$. Written in terms of the moments, the last condition reads $$\begin{aligned}
%B - C\, A ^{- 1}\, C ^{\dagger} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\overline{q ^2} - \overline{q} ^2 & \quad \overline{q p}
- \overline{q}\, \overline{p}
+ \frac{{\rm i} \hbar}{2} \\
& \\
\overline{q p} - \overline{q}\, \overline{p}
- \frac{{\rm i} \hbar}{2} & \quad
\overline{p ^2} - \overline{p} ^2 \\
\end{array}
\right)\, \ge 0\,,
\label{CONDITION-1}\end{aligned}$$ which is precisely the usual uncertainty principle (\[UNCERTAINTY\]).
One more application of the lemma on the nontrivial part of $M _J '$ further strengthens the positivity requirement on the other diagonal block $M ^{1 , 1} - M ^{1 , 0}\, M ^{0 , 1}$ to $$\begin{aligned}
M ^{1 , 1} - M ^{1 , 0} M ^{0 , 1}
& \ge &
C
\left(
M ^{\frac{1}{2} , \frac{1}{2}} - M ^{\frac{1}{2} , 0}
M ^{0 , \frac{1}{2}} \right) ^{ - 1}
C ^{\dagger}\,, \nonumber \\
C & = &
\left(
M ^{1 , \frac{1}{2}}
-
M ^{1 , 0}
M ^{0 , \frac{1}{2}}
\right)\,.
\label{CONDITION-2}\end{aligned}$$ This $3 \times 3$ matrix condition, together with the $2 \times 2$ matrix condition (\[CONDITION-1\]), constitutes a complete statement of the generalised uncertainty principle involving moments of all order upto and including the fourth.
It is clear that yet another application of the lemma, starting with $M _{J = \frac{3}{2}}$, will lead to a positivity statement on a $4 \times 4$ matrix which, together with (\[CONDITION-1\]) and (\[CONDITION-2\]), will constitute a complete statement of our uncertainty principle on moments of all orders upto and including the sixth. Evidently, this reduction algorithm based on the above lemma can be continued to any desired value of $J$, and hence upto any desired (even) order of the moments,[*eventually rendering $M _J$ block diagonal*]{}.
We see from (\[COMPACT\]), (\[TRACE\]) that $M _J$ transforms in the following manner under $S \in {\rm Sp}
\left(2 , \Re \right)$: $$\begin{aligned}
S: \quad \quad
M _J \longrightarrow K _J ( S )\, M _J\, K _J ( S ) ^T\,.
\label{CANONICAL}\end{aligned}$$ The nonnegativity of $M _J$ is manifestly preserved under this transformation. Thus, our generalized uncertainty principle is invariant under linear canonical transformations. Further, the reduction algorithm suggested by the lemma is invariant under linear canonical transformations, for it follows from (\[COMPACT\]) and (\[CANONICAL\]) that $M ^{j , j '}$ transforms to $K ^j ( S ) M ^{j , j '} K ^{j '}( S ) ^{T}$ under $S \in {\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$.
An evidently useful way of reading (\[CANONICAL\]) is that the components of $M _J$, just as the ${\hat{T} _{m , n}}$’s, transform as tensors under ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$. And the fact that our generalized uncertainty principle is invariant under ${\rm Sp}\left( 2 , \Re \right)$ means that it is implicitly stated in terms of the invariants of these tensors. These invariants, in the classical case, have been studied in great detail by Dragt and coworkers [@Dragt].
While the nonnegativity of $\hat{\rho}$ implies the nonnegativity of $M _J$ for all $J$, it is of interest to know if nonnegativity of $M _J$ for all $J$ implies nonnegativity of $\hat{\rho}$. Phrasing it somewhat differently, we may ask: Given a real normalized phase space distribution whose moments satisfy the condition $M _J \ge 0$, for all $J$, does it follow that the phase space distribution is a bonafide Wigner distribution?
From the very construction of $M_J$, it is clear that ${\rm tr} ( \hat{\rho} \hat{\cal O} ) \ge 0$ when $\hat{\cal O}$ is of the form $\hat{\zeta}$ in (\[OPERATOR\]). By linearity, this is true also when $\hat{\cal O}$ is a (convex) linear combination of operators of this type(with nonnegative coefficients). Thus, (\[M\]) will be sufficient to characterise the Wigner distribution if the set of all such convex combinations is dense in the space of nonnegative operators. Intuitively, this may appear to be the case. However, the monomials $\hat{T} _{m , n}$ are generically noncompact, and hence a careful analysis of the issue of convergence should be made before one can make any claim in this direction.
We have already referred to the intensity with which current experimental research dealing with measurement of the Wigner distribution is being pursued [@Smithey; @Breitenbach; @Dunn; @Leibfried]. Since measurements are always accompanied by errors of various origins, it will be of interest to see to what extent the Wigner distribution reconstructed in a real experiment respects the generalised uncertainty principle. Further, it may be of interest to examine the possibility of incorporating these fundamental inequalities in the algorithm for tomographically reconstructing the Wigner distribution from measured data, in such a way as to improve the reconstruction itself. Finally, our analysis applies equally well to any other quasiprobability, provided we choose suitably ordered momomials and modify the product formula (\[MONOMIAL\]) accordingly.
[99]{}
E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. [**40**]{}, 749 (1932); H. J. Groenwold, Physica [**12**]{}, 405 (1946); J. E. Moyal, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. [**45**]{}, 99 (1949); K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. [**177**]{}, 1857, 1882 (1969); G. S. Agarwal and E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. [**D 2**]{}, 2161, 2187 (1970). J. A. Shohat and J. D. Tamarkin, [*The Problem of Moments*]{}, (American Mathematical Society, 1943).
K. Vogel and R. H. Risken, Phys. Rev. [**A 40**]{}, 2847 (1989). M. Freyberger and W. P. Schleich, Nature [**386**]{}, 121 (1997).
D. T. Smithey, M. Bech, M. G. Raymer and A. Faridani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1244 (1993); D. T. Smithey, M. Bech, J. Cooper and M. G. Raymer, Phys. Rev. [**A 48**]{}, 3159 (1993); M. Munroe, D. Boggavarapu, M. E. Anderson and M. G. Raymer, Phys. Rev. [**A 52**]{}, R 924 (1995).
G. Breitenbach, T. Müller, S. F. Pereira, J.–Ph. Poizat, S. Schiller, and J. Mylnek, J. Opt. Soc. Am. [**12**]{}, 2304 (1995); S. Schiller, G. Breitenbach, S. F. Pereira, T. Müller and J. Mylnek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{} 2993 (1996); Ch. Kurtseifer, T. Pfau and J. Mylnek, Nature [**386**]{}, 150 (1997); G. Breitenbach, S. Schiller, and J. Mylnek, Nature [**387**]{}, 471 (1997).
T. J. Dunn, I. A. Walmsley and S. Mukamel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 884 (1995).
D. Leibfried, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4281 (1996).
D. Kastler, Commun. Math. Phys. [**1**]{}, 14 (1965); G. Loupias and S. Miracle-Sole, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincarè [**6**]{}, 39 (1967); F. J. Narcowich and R. F. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. [**A 34**]{}, 1 (1986); F.J. Narcowich, J. Math. Phys.[**28**]{}, 2873 (1987); C.T. Lee, Phy. Rev. [**A 45**]{}, 6586 (1992).
C. M. Bender and G. Dunne, Phys. Rev. [**D 40**]{}, 3504 (1989); I. M. Gelfand and D. B. Fairlie, Commun. Math. Phys. [**136**]{}, 487 (1991).
A. J. Dragt, F. Neri and G. Rangarajan, Phys. Rev. [**A 45**]{}, 2572 (1992).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a class of single-field, slow-roll inflation models in which a typical number of [$e$-folds]{}can be extremely large. The key point is to introduce a very shallow local minimum near the top of the potential in a hilltop inflation model. In particular, a typical number of [$e$-folds]{}is enhanced if classical behavior dominates around the local minimum such that the inflaton probability distribution is drifted to the local minimum as a whole. After the inflaton escapes from the local minimum due to the stochastic dynamics, the ordinary slow-roll inflation follows and it can generate the primordial density perturbation consistent with observation. Interestingly, our scenario inherits the advantages of the old and new inflation: the typical [$e$-folds]{}can be extremely large as in the old inflation, and slow-roll inflation naturally follows after the stochastic regime as in the new inflation. In our numerical example, the typical number of [$e$-folds]{}can be as large as $10^{10^8}$, which is large enough for various light scalars such the QCD axion to reach the Bunch-Davies distribution.'
author:
- Naoya Kitajima
- Yuichiro Tada
- Fuminobu Takahashi
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
nocite: '\nocite{}'
title: 'Stochastic inflation with an extremely large number of [$e$-folds]{}'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
How long can inflation last? From the observational point of view, the total number of [$e$-folds]{}, $N$, must be larger than $\sim 50\text{--}60$, which weakly depends on the inflation scale and thermal history after inflation. On the other hand, an extremely long duration of inflation is often required in certain scenarios, e.g., the relaxion model [@Graham:2015cka], the stochastic axion scenario [@Graham:2018jyp; @Guth:2018hsa; @Ho:2019ayl; @Takahashi:2019pqf], etc. The purpose of this Letter is to provide a simple single-field, slow-roll inflation model whose [*typical*]{} number of [$e$-folds]{}is extremely large.
There is a variety of inflation models which last very long. In the string/axion landscape [@Bousso:2000xa; @Susskind:2003kw; @Freivogel:2005vv; @Higaki:2014pja; @Higaki:2014mwa; @Wang:2015rel; @Masoumi:2016eqo; @Bachlechner:2019vcb], there are many local minima where the old inflation takes place and continues until the inflaton tunnels toward one of the adjacent local minima with a lower energy through bubble formation. In this case, the typical [$e$-folding]{}number can be exponentially large. However, one needs slow-roll inflation after the bubble formation to explain the observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature/polarization anisotropies. For this, one may need another light scalar, in which case the two inflation scales are not related to each other, in general.
It is also well known that a large class of inflation models can be eternal [@Linde:1982ur; @Steinhardt:1982kg; @Vilenkin:1983xq; @Linde:1986fc; @Linde:1986fd; @Goncharov:1987ir] (see also [@Guth:2000ka; @Guth:2007ng; @Linde:2015edk]). The stochastic dynamics of the inflaton plays a crucial role in eternal inflation: quantum fluctuations of the inflaton drive it upward or downward compared to the classical motion. In particular, upward quantum fluctuations keep the inflaton from rolling down the potential, leading to eternal inflation.[^1] In eternal chaotic inflation [@Linde:1986fc; @Linde:1986fd], quantum fluctuations overcome the classical motion at sufficiently large fields values, typically much larger than the Planck scale. Eternal inflation also occurs in the new or hilltop inflation [@Linde:1982ur; @Steinhardt:1982kg; @Vilenkin:1983xq]. This is because the inflaton dynamics becomes stochastic in the vicinity of the potential maximum where the classical motion is suppressed. In both cases, once the universe enters the stochastic regime, the inflation continues and never ends in some regions. The volume of the universe is dominated by such regions where the inflation continues. In this sense the inflation is eternal.
It is worth noting that the eternal inflation is based on the idea that the inflating region expands and dominates the volume at later times. In fact, if one randomly picks up a point in space where the inflaton dynamics is in the stochastic regime, the expected [$e$-folds]{}there is not infinite but finite [@Barenboim:2016mmw] (see also Ref. [@Assadullahi:2016gkk]). In other words, one needs to initially choose a specific point in space to have a sufficiently long inflation. Such a special choice or fine-tuning can be compensated by large physical volume due to the prolonged inflation. Thus, the eternity of the eternal inflation relies on the volume measure.
The purpose of this Letter is to show that one can make the [*typical*]{} number of [$e$-folds]{}extremely large in a context of a simple single-field, slow-roll inflation. In particular, it does not rely on the volume measure. In Sec. \[sec:stochastic\] we address our scenario after a brief review on the stochastic formalism. In Sec. \[sec:model\] we provide an example model which exhibits an extremely long inflation. The last section is devoted for discussion and conclusions.
Stochastic inflation with large $N$ {#sec:stochastic}
===================================
In the simplest setup, the inflationary phase in the early universe can be realized by the potential energy of some scalar field inflaton, $\phi$, homogeneously filling the universe. For a sufficiently long inflationary phase, however, the inflaton field must be extremely light, in which case its homogeneity beyond the horizon scale is no longer guaranteed. Specifically, superhorizon inhomogeneities are sourced by subhorizon fluctuations which continuously exit the horizon during inflation. Even though the subhorizon fluctuations originate from the quantum zero-point oscillation, they are well approximated to be classical ones after the horizon exit due to the gravitational decoherence. Accordingly the evolution of the local inflaton field value can be described by a diffusion process. This is known as the stochastic approach [@Starobinsky:1986fx; @Starobinsky:1994bd], in which the probability distribution function $P(\phi)$ follows the Fokker-Planck (FP) equation, [$$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\partial P}{\partial N}}={\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{FP}}(\phi)\cdot P, \quad {\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{FP}}=-{\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi}}h(\phi)+\frac{1}{2}{\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \phi^2}}D(\phi).
\end{aligned}$$]{} Here $N$ is the [$e$-folding]{}number used as a time variable, and it is related to the Hubble parameter $H$ and the cosmic time $t$ by ${\mathrm{d}}N=H{\mathrm{d}}t$. For single-field slow-roll inflation, the drift and diffusion coefficients are given by $h=-{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^2V^\prime/V$ and $D=V/12\pi^2{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^2$ in terms of the inflaton potential $V(\phi)$, respectively. Due to such a random walk behavior, the [$e$-folds]{}${\mathcal{N}}(\phi)$ elapsed for the first passage from an initial field value $\phi$ to $\phi_{\mathrm{f}}$ at the end of inflation also becomes a random parameter. Its generating function $\chi_{\mathcal{N}}(\phi;J)=\braket{{\mathrm{e}}^{i J{\mathcal{N}}(\phi)}}$ is known to follow the adjoint FP equation [@Vennin:2015hra; @Pattison:2017mbe], [$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{FP}}^\dagger\cdot\chi_{\mathcal{N}}=-iJ\chi_{\mathcal{N}}, \quad {\mathcal{L}}_{\mathrm{FP}}^\dagger=h(\phi){\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi}}+\frac{1}{2}D(\phi){\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \phi^2}},
\end{aligned}$$]{} with the boundary condition $\chi_{\mathcal{N}}=1$ at the end of inflation. The bracket represents an average over realizations. An arbitary moment of ${\mathcal{N}}$ is obtained from this generating function by $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}^n}=\left.\left(\frac{1}{i}{\frac{\partial }{\partial J}}\right)^n\chi_{\mathcal{N}}\right|_{J=0}$. Thus, one can estimate the *typical* [$e$-folding]{}number of inflation by calculating the average of the elapsed [$e$-folds]{}, $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}$.
For the single-field slow-roll inflation, these FP equations are reduced to the ordinary differential equations, for which the moments of ${\mathcal{N}}$ have recursive analytic solutions. For example, the expectation value of ${\mathcal{N}}$ is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: calN}
\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}(\phi)=\int^\phi_{\phi_{\mathrm{f}}}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}x}{{M_\mathrm{Pl}}}\int^{\bar{\phi}}_x\frac{{\mathrm{d}}y}{{M_\mathrm{Pl}}}\frac{1}{v(y)}\exp\left[\frac{1}{v(y)}-\frac{1}{v(x)}\right],
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $v=\frac{V}{24\pi^2{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^4}$ is the normalized potential in the Planck unit, and $\bar{\phi}$ represents a constant of integration at which the first derivative vanishes $\partial_\phi\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}|_{\bar{\phi}}=0$. For a $Z_2$-symmetric hilltop model we consider later, $\bar{\phi}=0$ is obviously suitable for this boundary condition. As shown in Ref. [@Vennin:2015hra], when the following conditions are satisfied, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: classicality condition}
v\ll1 \quad \text{and} \quad \eta_{\mathrm{cl}}=\left|\frac{v^{\prime\prime}v^2}{{v^\prime}^2}\right|\ll1,
\end{aligned}$$]{} one can use the saddle-point approximation to simplify this analytic solution (\[eq: calN\]) to the well-known formula for the classical drift-dominated case, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Ncl}
\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}(\phi)\simeq N_{\mathrm{cl}}(\phi)=\int^\phi_{\phi_{\mathrm{f}}}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}x}{{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^2}\frac{v(x)}{v^\prime(x)}.
\end{aligned}$$]{} Note that this formula is valid as long as the conditions (\[eq: classicality condition\]) are satisfied everywhere between $\phi$ and $\phi_{\mathrm{f}}$. Since the first condition in Eq. (\[eq: classicality condition\]) is trivially satisfied in our context, it is the classicality parameter $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}$ that controls the stochastic effect on the averaged [$e$-folding]{}number.
For a better understanding of the second condition in Eq. (\[eq: classicality condition\]), let us consider the change of the inflaton potential value due to the inflaton dynamics in one Hubble time: $\delta v \simeq v' \delta\phi + \frac{1}{2}v'' \delta\phi^2$, where $\delta\phi$ is the sum of the classical motion $\delta\phi_{\mathrm{cl}}\sim h = -{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^2 v'/v$ and the quantum jump $\delta\phi_{\mathrm{sto}}\sim \sqrt{D} = \sqrt{2v}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}$. Note that the ensemble average and the variance of $\delta\phi$ are respectively given by $\langle \delta \phi\rangle = \delta\phi_{\mathrm{cl}}$ and $\langle \delta\phi^2 \rangle = \delta\phi_{\mathrm{cl}}^2 + \delta\phi_{\mathrm{sto}}^2$, and hence one obtains $\langle \delta v \rangle \approx v' \delta\phi_{\mathrm{cl}}+ \frac{1}{2}v''(\delta\phi_{\mathrm{cl}}^2+\delta\phi_{\mathrm{sto}}^2)$. Thus, the second condition in Eq. (\[eq: classicality condition\]) requires that the averaged-change of the inflaton potential value is dominated by the linear term of the classical motion, i.e. $|v' \delta\phi_{{\mathrm{cl}}}| \gg |v''\delta\phi_{\mathrm{sto}}^2|$. Note that $v'\delta\phi_{\mathrm{cl}}\gg v''\delta\phi_{\mathrm{cl}}^2$ is satisfied under the second slow-roll condition: $\eta_V \ll 1$ with the second slow-roll parameter $\eta_V={M_\mathrm{Pl}}^2v^{\prime\prime}/v$.
Let us emphasize here that the above classical formula (\[eq: Ncl\]) can be valid even if there is a highly stochastic region between $\phi$ and $\phi_{\mathrm{f}}$, as long as the curvature of the potential is sufficiently small. To see this, let us first define the stochasticity of the inflaton dynamics, $\xi_{\mathrm{sto}}\equiv\delta\phi_{\mathrm{sto}}^2/\delta\phi_{\mathrm{cl}}^2\,(\equiv h^2/D) = 2v^3/{v^\prime}^2{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^2$, which is nothing but the amplitude of the curvature perturbations in the classical limit. For $\xi_{\mathrm{sto}}\gtrsim 1$, the size of the quantum jump is greater than the classical field excursion over one Hubble time, and the inflaton dynamics is in the stochastic regime. The stochasticity parameter is related to $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}$ by $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{1}{2}|\eta_V|\xi_{\mathrm{sto}}$. Therefore, the conditions (\[eq: classicality condition\]) can be satisfied in a highly stochastic region $\xi_{\mathrm{sto}}\gtrsim 1$ if $\eta_V\ll1$, in which case the expected [$e$-folds]{}can be well approximated by the classical formula (\[eq: Ncl\]).
As an extreme example, let us consider a slightly tilted linear potential for which $\xi_{\mathrm{sto}}\gtrsim 1$ and $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}$ vanishes by definition. Suppose that the inflaton is initially located at some point. Then, the inflaton distribution spreads out due to the quantum diffusion because of $\xi_{\mathrm{sto}}\gtrsim 1$. However, the quantum diffusion does not change the inflaton potential value on average because up and downhills occur with the same probability. It is the classical motion that changes the potential value on average, as it uniformly drifts the whole inflaton distribution. Thus, in this simple example, the averaged [$e$-folding]{}number is entirely determined by the classical motion as in Eq. (\[eq: Ncl\]).
If $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}\gtrsim 1$, the diffusion dynamics overcomes the uniform drift due to the classical motion. In other words, the evolution of the universe relies upon the stochastic process, and the classical dynamics is irrelevant. In the usual hilltop model (without a local minimum), $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}$ is large around the potential maximum, and the stochastic diffusion sweeps out the inflaton from the hilltop. This is the reason why the averaged [$e$-folds]{}are saturated and does not grow as the initial value $\phi$ approaches the hilltop (see Fig. \[fig: Nvsphi\]).
In fact, one can slightly modify the hilltop potential to realize an extremely large [$e$-folds]{}. To this end, we introduce a shallow local minimum surrounded by a region with $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}\ll 1$ around the hilltop. There, the inflaton distribution tends to be pushed back to the local minimum as a whole even in the stochastic regime, and then the expected [$e$-folds]{}can be significantly enhanced. In such a case, the escape rate can be analytically estimated by the expansion around the local minimum and maximum for $x$ and $y$ integrals respectively in Eq. (\[eq: calN\]), as given by [@Noorbala:2018zlv] [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Nesc}
\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}_\text{esc}\simeq\frac{\pi v(\phi_+)}{2{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^2\sqrt{v^{\prime\prime}(0)|v^{\prime\prime}(\phi_+)|}}{\mathrm{e}}^{\frac{1}{v(0)}-\frac{1}{v(\phi_+)}},
\end{aligned}$$]{} for a symmetric potential. Here $\phi_+$ denotes the local maximum and we take the local minimum at the origin $\phi=0$. As suggested by the Hawking-Moss factor ${\mathrm{e}}^{1/v(0)-1/v(\phi_+)}$ [@Hawking:1981fz], this escape time can be extremely large for a sufficient low scale potential $v\ll1$. In the next section, we concretely provide such a model which generates the primordial density perturbations consistent with the CMB observations after exiting the local minimum.
Example model {#sec:model}
=============
Let us explicitly show a concrete model of the extreme long inflation. We consider a $Z_2$-symmetric hilltop model given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{vphi}
V(\phi)=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi^2-\frac{1}{4}\lambda\phi^4+\left(\Lambda^2-g\frac{\phi^6}{{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^4}\right)^2,
\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\Lambda$ determines the inflation scale, $\lambda$ and $g$ are positive coupling constants, and $m$ is the mass at the origin. For a positive mass-squared in the range of $0<m^2 < H^2$, this potential has a shallow local minimum around the origin $\phi=0$, where the inflaton spends a large number of [$e$-folds]{}. After diffusing out from the shallow local minimum, the inflaton dynamics is driven by the tilt of the quartic and hexic terms as an ordinary hilltop inflation, toward the true minimum at $\phi_\mathrm{min}\simeq(\Lambda^2{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^4/g)^{1/6}$. Some of the parameters are fixed by the CMB data. For example, the following parameters [$$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\frac{\Lambda}{{M_\mathrm{Pl}}},\,\lambda,\,\left(\frac{\Lambda^2{M_\mathrm{Pl}}^4}{g}\right)^{1/6}\right) \nonumber \\
&\qquad=\left(0.998\times10^{-4},\,3.39\times10^{-14},\,0.1{M_\mathrm{Pl}}\right),
\end{aligned}$$]{} result in the curvature perturbations with the amplitude $A_s=2.1\times10^{-9}$ and spectral index ${n_{{}_\mathrm{S}}}=0.958$ consistent with the recent Planck observation [@Aghanim:2018eyx].[^2]
We show in Fig. \[fig: Nvsphi\] the results of the numerical integration of $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}(\phi)$ in Eq. (\[eq: calN\]) for different masses. One can see that, at sufficiently small $\phi$, the expected [$e$-folds]{}is saturated due to the stochastic effects, which sweep out the inflaton from the hilltop, $\phi\lesssim10^{-5}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}$. For $\phi\gtrsim10^{-5}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}$, the inflaton already passes to the right of the local maximum (in the case of $m^2 > 0$), and $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}$ is reduced to the classical formula $N_{\mathrm{cl}}$ in Eq. (\[eq: Ncl\]) even though the stochasticity $\xi_{\mathrm{sto}}$ itself is large until around $\phi\lesssim10^{-4}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}$. The usual standard slow-roll inflation will take place afterwards, generating the primordial density perturbations consistent with the CMB observation. There is a slight wiggling around $\phi\sim10^{-2}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}$, which, however, is caused by the numerical error, and not due to any physical effect. For $m^2/H^2\gtrsim7\times10^{-6}$, the local minimum becomes deep enough for the *classical* region with $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}< 1$ to appear at $\phi$ to the left of the local maximum. The classical region efficiently pushes the inflaton back to the local minimum and therefore, the expected [$e$-folds]{}becomes enhanced significantly for sufficiently small $\phi$.
We show in Fig. \[fig: meanN\] the $m^2$-dependence of the [$e$-folds]{}from the origin $\phi=0$. We have confirmed that the analytic estimate of the escape time (\[eq: Nesc\]) agrees well with our numerical result. One can see that an extremely large number of [$e$-folds]{}as $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}\sim10^{10^8}$ can be realized with a deep enough local minimum. Even in such a case, the inflaton mass-squared itself is still smaller than the Hubble scale, so that the slow-roll stochastic approach remains valid. The typical [$e$-folds]{}in this model is large enough for various light scalars such the QCD axion to reach the Bunch-Davies distribution [@Bunch:1978yq]. For instance, the required [$e$-folds]{} for the axion to reach the so-called Bunch-Davies distribution is $N \gtrsim 10^{26} (H_{\rm inf}/100 {\rm MeV})^2/(m_a/10^{-5}{\rm eV})^2$ [@Graham:2018jyp; @Guth:2018hsa].[^3] For comparison, we also show the result for the usual case with the negative mass-squared, where the averaged [$e$-folding]{}number decreases as expected.
![The averaged [$e$-folds]{}$\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}(\phi)$ given by Eq. (\[eq: calN\]) for different masses, $m^2/H^2=(10^{-5},\,7\times10^{-6},\,0,\,-10^{-2})$, where $H=\Lambda^2/\sqrt{3}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}$ is the Hubble parameter around the potential maximum. The shaded region and the orange line represent $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}>1$ and $N_{\mathrm{cl}}(\phi)$ given by Eq. (\[eq: Ncl\]), respectively, for $m^2/H^2=7\times10^{-6}$. For $\phi\gtrsim10^{-5}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}$, the inflaton is to the right of the local maximum, and $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}$ is reduced to the classical formula $N_{\mathrm{cl}}$ without the diffusion. Then, a sufficiently long standard slow-roll inflation follows. Note that it is the appearance of a *classical* region with $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}<1$ to the left of the local maximum that significantly increase the expected [$e$-folds]{}for $m^2/H^2 \geq 7\times10^{-6}$, because the inflaton is pushed back to the local minimum by the classical dynamics.[]{data-label="fig: Nvsphi"}](Nvsphi.pdf){width="\hsize"}
![The dependence of $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}(\phi=0)$ on $m^2$. For sufficiently large and positive mass squared (solid line) (but still smaller than $H^2$), extremely long inflation is realized. Typical [$e$-folds]{}can be as large as $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}\sim10^{10^8}$. The numerical result is consistent with the analytic estimate (\[eq: Nesc\]). The case of the negative mass squared (dashed line) is also shown for comparison. []{data-label="fig: meanN"}](meanN.pdf){width="\hsize"}
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec:conculsion}
==========================
So far we have studied a simple hilltop inflation with a shallow local minimum at the origin. One can realize a hilltop inflation in terms of an axion field which enjoys discrete symmetry [@Czerny:2014wza; @Czerny:2014xja]. In this case a small modulation(s) can be introduced, which may induce multiple local minima around the hilltop. See Refs. [@Flauger:2009ab; @Kobayashi:2010pz; @Takahashi:2013tj] for cosmological implications of such small modulations on the inflaton potential. More comprehensive study for wider classes of the inflaton potential is left for future work.
If $m^2$ is taken to be larger than $H^2$ in the inflation model (\[vphi\]), the local minimum becomes deeper, and the stochastic formalism breaks down. The inflaton trapped in the local minimum may tunnel to the right of the potential barrier by the bubble formation, followed by slow-roll inflation as in the case of the original new inflation [@Linde:1981mu; @Albrecht:1982wi]. For even larger $m^2$, the situation will be similar to the old inflation [@Guth:1980zm; @Starobinsky:1980te; @Sato:1980yn]. In this sense, our scenario corresponds to a limit of the shallow local minimum for which the stochastic formalism can be applied. Interestingly, our scenario inherits the advantages of the old and new inflation: the typical [$e$-folds]{}can be extremely large as in the old inflation, and slow-roll inflation naturally follows afterward as in the new inflation.
In this Letter, we have studied a possibility to realize extremely long inflation in the simple single-field slow-roll framework. In particular we work on a small-field inflation, which can be well described by an effective field theory. In the usual eternal inflation picture, the quantum diffusion dominates over the classical dynamics, and it keeps the inflaton from rolling down the potential in some spatial regions. The inflation continues in such regions, which subsequently dominate the volume of the universe even if the probability to continue inflation is small. On the other hand, we have explored a possibility to realize an extremely large number of *typical* [$e$-folds]{} $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}$, i.e. the expected [$e$-folding]{}number without resort to the volume measure. We have shown that this is indeed possible by introducing a shallow local minimum around the hilltop, which was numerically confirmed using a simple toy model: see Fig. \[fig: meanN\] showing the dependence of $\braket{{\mathcal{N}}}$ on the curvature of the local minimum, which can be understood as the Hawking-Moss decay rate (\[eq: Nesc\]) [@Hawking:1981fz; @Noorbala:2018zlv]. It is the classical region with $\eta_{\mathrm{cl}}<1$ to the left of the local maximum that pushes back the inflaton to the local minimum, and forces the inflaton to stay there for an extremely long time. Although extremely unlikely, it is possible for the inflaton to move to the right of the local maximum due to the accumulated quantum diffusion. Then, after moving to the right of the local maximum, standard slow-roll inflation follows as shown in Fig. \[fig: Nvsphi\] and generates the primordial density perturbation consistent with observation.
We emphasize that our scenario does not rely on the volume measure and thus does not need any fine-tuning of the spatial position to realize extremely long inflation. Moreover, the eternal inflation and the slow-roll inflation phases are smoothly connected in a single-field regime, without any processes of tunneling and bubble nucleation. Therefore, it provides an alternative possibility to naturally realize extremely large number of e-folds, which is often necessary in some cosmological scenarios.
F.T. thanks Wen Yin for discussion on the eternal inflation. This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP15H05889 (F.T.), JP15K21733 (F.T.), JP17H02875 (F.T.), JP17H02878 (F.T.), JP18J01992(Y.T.), JP19K14707 (Y.T.), JP18H01243 (N.K.), JP19K14708 (N.K.), JP19H01894 (N.K.), and by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan.
[^1]: We note that the downward fluctuations help the inflaton to escape from the eternal inflation regime.
[^2]: By adding a linear term [@Takahashi:2013cxa] or the Coleman-Weinberg correction [@Nakayama:2012dw], one can increase $n_s$ to give a better fit to observation.
[^3]: The typical [$e$-folds]{}can be even larger if one considers a lower inflation scale.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the quasispecies description of a population evolving in both the “master sequence” landscape (where a single sequence is evolutionarily preferred over all others) and the REM landscape (where the fitness of different sequences is an indipendent, identically distributed, random variable). We show that, in both cases, the error threshold is analogous to a [*first order*]{} thermodynamical transition, where the overlap between the average genotype and the optimal one drops discontinuously to zero.'
author:
- |
Silvio Franz\
ICTP, Strada Costiera 10, I-34100 Trieste (Italy)\
\
and\
\
Luca Peliti\
Groupe de Physico-Chimie Théorique, URA 1382, ESPCI\
10, rue Vauquelin, F-75231 Paris Cedex 05 (France)\
and\
Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche and Unità INFM\
Mostra d’Oltremare, Pad. 19, I-80125 Napoli (Italy)
title: Error threshold in simple landscapes
---
An equation describing the behavior of populations of self reproducing entities, subject to natural selection and to mutations, was introduced by Manfred Eigen in 1971 [@Eigen]. The inheritable structure (“genotype”) of these entities is described by a sequence of length $L$ of symbols belonging to an alphabet of $\kappa$ characters ($\kappa=4$ in the case of nucleic acids). In the simple case in which one such sequence is selectively preferred with respect to all others, Eigen was able to show that his equation (the [*quasispecies equation*]{}) implies a transition (called the [*error threshold*]{}) between two different behaviors:
- At low mutation rate, the population is made up, at equilibrium, of sequences close to the preferred one ([*master sequence*]{}): it forms therefore a [*quasispecies*]{};
- At higher mutation rate, the distribution becomes uniform over sequence space.
This behavior is reminiscent of a phase transition in statistical mechanics. Indeed, I. Leuthäusser [@Leuth] showed that the quasispecies equation is equivalent to a statistical mechanical model. The error threshold corresponds in this language to a thermodynamical transition of the statistical mechanical system.
Later, Tarazona [@Tara] qualified this correspondence, by pointing out that the properties which described the behavior of the evolving population corresponded to [*surface*]{} observables of the statistical mechanical model. In particular he argued that in the simple situation mentioned above, with a single master sequence, while the naive application of statistical mechanics predicted a first-order phase transition, the transition was continuous for the evolutionary model. The discrepancy between the two predictions was attributed to a surface phenomenon akin to wetting [@Dietrich], where the disordered state is favored on a surface layer whose thickness diverges as the phase transition is approached.
The statistical mechanics approach to the quasispecies equation was later used by Franz et al. [@FPS] to solve it in a “rugged fitness landscape” (in which the selective value of each different sequence is an independent random variable) modelled by Derrida’s Random Energy Model (REM) [@Derrida]. In this case, a first-order transition between the quasispecies and the uniform behavior was found. This result has been challenged by P. G. Higgs and G. Woodcock [@Higgs96].
The aim of this letter is to point out that the discrepancy between predictions is due to the fact that one’s attention is directed towards different observables in the different cases: a careful consideration of the “infinite genome” ($L\to \infty$) limit, necessary to obtain a sharp phase transition, shows that, in the “master sequence” model, the error threshold is a first-order phase transition. This does not rule out the fact that, in the same limit, the fraction of individuals whose genotype is equal to the master sequence (or, for that matter, is at any finite Hamming distance away from it) goes smoothly to zero at the transition. In particular, the “wetting phenomenon” described by Tarazona does not take place, at least in this case. Similar results hold for the rugged fitness landscape.
Let us consider the $\kappa{=}2$ “master sequence” model, defined as follows. The genotype $s$ is described by $L$ units $s_i=\pm 1$, $i=1,\ldots,L$. The quasispecies equation, which describe the evolution of the fraction $x_s(t)$ of individuals having the genotype $s$ at generation $t$, takes the form $$x_s(t+1)=\frac{1}{Z(t)}\sum_{s'}Q_{ss'}w_{s'}x_s(t),\label{QS}$$ where $w_s$ is the fitness of sequence $s$ and $\|Q_{ss'}\|$ is the mutation matrix. The normalization factor $Z(t)$ is given by $$Z(t)=\sum_sw_s x_s(t).$$ The matrix element $Q_{ss'}$ is the conditional probability that a reproduction event of an individual with genotype $s'$ produces one with genotype $s$. If one assumes pointwise mutations with uniform probability one has $$Q_{ss'}=\mu^{d_{\rm H}(s,s')}(1-\mu)^{L-d_{\rm H}(s,s')},\label{mutation}$$ where $$d_{\rm H}(s,s')=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^L\left(1-s_is'_i\right)$$ is the Hamming distance between the sequences $s$ and $s'$, and $\mu$ is the mutation rate. The “master sequence” is denoted by $s^0=(s^0_i)$. The fitness $w_s$ is then given by $$w_s=\cases{\exp(kL),&if $s=s^0$;\cr
1,&otherwise.}\label{fitness}$$ In this expression, $k>0$ is a “selective” inverse temperature. We have chosen to take $\ln\, w_{s^0}\propto L$ in order to obtain the infinite genome limit in close analogy with the thermodynamical limit. We shall discuss later the scaling considered by Eigen [@Eigen] and followers, in which $w_{S^0}\to {\rm const.}$
As pointed out by Leuthäusser and Tarazona [@Leuth; @Tara], the solution of eq. (\[QS\]) can be expressed in terms of a statistical mechanical model. Let us consider a population evolving for $T$ generations from an initial condition in which $x_s=\delta_{ss^0}$. One has $$\begin{aligned}
x_s(T)&=&\frac{1}{{\cal Z}}\sum_{s(1),s(2),\ldots,s(T-1)}
Q_{s(T)s(T-1)}w_{s(T-1)}\cdots Q_{s(1)s^0}{w_{s^0}}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{{\cal Z}}\sum_{s(1),s(2),\ldots,s(T-1)}
\exp\left[\sum_{t=1}^T\left(\ln Q_{s(t)s(t-1)}+\ln w_{s(t-1)}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ We have set $s(T)=s$, $s(0)=s^0$, and we have defined the normalization constant ${\cal Z}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Z}
&=&\sum_{s(1),s(2),\ldots,s(T-1),s(T)}
\exp\left[\sum_{t=1}^T\left(\ln Q_{s(t)s(t-1)}+\ln w_{s(t-1)}\right)\right]\\
&\equiv&\sum_{s(1),s(2),\ldots,s(T-1),s(T)}\exp(-H\{s(t)\}).\end{aligned}$$ The last line defines the symbol $H$. It now turns out that, for the “master sequence” model, $$\begin{aligned}
-H\{s(t)\}&\equiv&\sum_{t=1}^T\left(\ln Q_{s(t)s(t-1)}+\ln\, w_{s(t-1)}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&TL\ln\,(1-\mu)\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{t=1}^T\left(\beta\sum_{i=1}^L s_i(t)s_i(t-1)+k\delta_{s(t-1)s^0}\right),\label{Hamilton}\end{aligned}$$ where the “mutation” inverse temperature $\beta$ is defined by $$\beta=\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{1-\mu}{\mu}.$$ The expression (\[Hamilton\]) looks like the Hamiltonian (times the temperature) of an Ising system of $TL$ spins, arranged in $T$ layers of $L$ spins each. The interlayer interactions, representing the correlation effects due to the heredity, are proportional to $\beta$, while the intralayer interactions, representing the selection, are proportional to $k$. Tarazona [@Tara] pointed out that the intralayer interaction term corresponding to layer $T$ is lacking in this expression: the system corresponds therefore to a statistical mechanical model with a free surface.
It is now easy to see that, in the limit $L\to\infty$ followed by $T\to\infty$, a phase transition separates an ordered (“frozen”) regime in which one has $s(t)=s^0$ for all layers $t$ except the last one, from a disordered (“free”) one, in which all sequences $s$ have the same probability, and the system behaves like a collection of $L$ independent one-dimensional Ising models at temperature $\beta^{-1}$. The transition line can be obtained by comparing the free energies $F$ defined by $F=-\ln\,{\cal Z}$:
1. For the ordered regime one has $$F_1=-TL\,(k+\beta)+{\rm \ boundary\ terms};$$
2. For the disordered regime one has $$F_2=-TL\,\ln( 2\cosh\beta)+{\rm\ boundary\ terms},$$ corresponding to the free energy per spin of a one-dimensional Ising model.
The transition line is given by the condition $F_1=F_2$ (where the boundary terms are neglected) and reads $$k_{\rm t}(\beta)=\ln (2\cosh\beta)-\beta.$$ In terms of the mutation rate $\mu$, this corresponds to $k_{\rm t}=|\ln(1-\mu)|$, as originally obtained by Eigen [@Eigen].
We now show in more detail that all layers but the last one (corresponding to $t=T$) are “frozen" for $k>k_{\rm t}(\beta)$, in the sense that the only configurations which contribute in the infinite genome limit are those for which $s(t)=s^0$ for $t<T$. Let us consider the last-but-one layer ($t=T-1$), and let us momentarily assume that the preceding layer is frozen. The last layer is free, because there are no contributions from the intralayer interactions at $t=T$ [@Tara]. There are two possibilities for $s(T-1)$:
1. “Frozen": $s(T-1)=s^0$: this yields a contribution $\exp\left[L(k+\beta)\right]\times(2\cosh\beta)^L$ to the partition sum; the second factor comes from the sum over the configurations of the last layer;
2. “Free”: summing also over the configurations of the last-but-one layer, one obtains the contribution $(2\cosh\beta)^{2L}$.
Because one has, by hypothesis, $k>k_{\rm t}(\beta)=\ln (2\cosh\beta)-\beta$, the first contribution dominates for $L\to\infty$. By induction, one can show in the same way that it is not possible that there is a label $t_0<T$ separating “frozen” layers (for $t<t_0$) from “free” ones (for $t\ge t_0$).
Let us now define, following Tarazona [@Tara], the order parameter $m$ as the overlap of the average sequence $\left(\left<s_i\right>\right)$ with the master sequence $s^0$: $$m=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{i=1}^L\left<s_i\right>s^0_i=1-2\left<d_{\rm H}(s,s^0)\right>/L.$$ The angular brackets denote the population average: $$\left<A(s)\right>=\sum_sx_s A(s),$$ where we have taken into account that $\sum_s x_x=1$.
In the ordered phase, all layers but the last one are frozen to the master sequence. It is then a simple matter to show that $$m=\tanh \beta=1-2\mu.\label{ordpar}$$ On the other hand, $m=0$, obviously, in the disordered phase. We have thus obtained the result that the phase transition is of [*first order*]{}, and that $m$ drops discontinuously from $1-2\mu$ to 0 as $k$ falls below the transition value $k_{\rm t}$. Let us also remark that eq. (\[ordpar\]) predicts that $m=0$ for $\beta=0$, even for $k>k_{\rm t}(0)=\ln 2$, as it is reasonable to expect on intuitive grounds.
This analysis is supported by the numerical solution of the quasispecies equation for finite $L$. We show in fig. 1 the order parameter as a function of $\mu$ for different values of $L$. The value of $k$ is such that the error threshold takes place for $\mu=\mu_{\rm t}=0.25$. One clearly sees that the curve approaches a discontinuous behavior as $L$ increases, contrary to the statements contained in ref. [@Tara]. Let us remark that, properly speaking, the weight $x_{s^0}(T)$ in the population approaches 0 in the thermodynamical limit ($L\to\infty$, $k,\beta={\rm const.}$). Nevertheless the population forms a [*bona fide*]{} quasispecies, in the sense of ref. [@Eigen].
Eigen [@Eigen], Leuthäusser [@Leuth], and Tarazona [@Tara] have considered a situation in which the fitness ratio $w_{s^0}/w_s$ is kept constant as $L$ increases. In this case, if the mutation rate $\mu$ (and hence $\beta$) is kept constant, one eventually crosses over smoothly to a “disordered” regime, independently of the value of this ratio. This is the point that Eigen wanted to make when he introduced the quasispecies equation, back in 1971: that the error threshold prevented biological information to be maintained, if genome length exceeded a certain value.
In this situation, there is no sharp phase transition, and the question whether it be of first or second order is pointless. However, even in this case, one can obtain a phase transition in the limit $L\to\infty$, if one mantains constant the average number $\mu L$ of mutations. This corresponds to take $\ln\,\beta\propto L$. It is possible to solve the problem in this limit, and the results concide with what one obtains by taking the same limit in the equations we haver written above. In particular, the transition is still of first order, but now the order parameter $m$ jumps from 1 to 0: just above the transition, the [*whole*]{} population lies a finite Hamming distance away from the master sequence (even though the weight of the master sequence goes smoothly to zero).
On the other hand, this behavior does contradict the fact that the weight $x_{s^0}(T)$ of the master sequence (which does not vanish if $\mu$ is small enough) approaches 0 [*continuously*]{} at the error threshold, as exhibited by fig. 2. The limit behavior is indeed given by [@Higgs93] $$x_{s^0}=\cases{1-u/u_{\rm t},&for $u<u_{\rm t}$;\cr
0,&otherwise;}$$ where $u=1-\exp(-\mu L)$ is the total mutation probability, and $u_{\rm t}$ is the corresponding transition value. However, even in the infinite genome limit, the whole population is the offspring of master sequence individuals at each generation, and has therefore a finite overlap with the master sequence, as soon as one is above the transition.
Let us now consider the REM fitness landscape. In this case the fitness $w_s$ is given by $$w_s=\exp\left(-kE(s)\right),$$ where the “energies” $E(s)$ of different sequences are independent normally distributed random variables, with zero average and variance equal to $L/2$. We have correspondingly $${\cal Z}=\sum_{s(1),\ldots,s(T)}\exp\left[\sum_{t=1}^{T-1}
\left(\beta\sum_{i=1}^Ls_i(t)s_i(t+1)-kE(s(t))\right)\right],$$ where, as before, we assume that $s(0)$ corresponds to an energy minimum. The bulk properties of this model have been studied in [@FPS] with the replica method. We briefly illustrate here the results, using the argument originally developed by Derrida to solve the REM [@Derrida]. Suppose to consider two neighboring layers, $t$ and $t+1$, whose overlap $q$, defined by $$q=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{i=1}^Ls_i(t)s_i(t+1),$$ has a fixed value. The average number of these configurations with energy equal to $E$ is given by $${\cal N}(E,q)\sim \exp\left(LS(q)-E^2/L\right),\label{nu}$$ where $S(q)=\ln\,2-\frac{1}{2}\left[(1+q)\ln(1+q)+(1-q)\ln(1-q)\right].$ The typical value is equal to the average value if the latter is exponentially large, and vanishes otherwise. We can thus write for a typical sample: $${\cal Z}=\int_{(LS(q)-E^2/L)>0}
{\mathop{\rm d}}E{\mathop{\rm d}}q\,{\cal N}(E,q)\,\exp\left[T(-kE+L\beta q)\right].$$ This expression is dominated by the saddle point in the free phase, and by the smallest value of the energy (and $q=1$) in the frozen phase. The typical value can be obtained by eq. (\[nu\]), by setting ${\cal N}(E,0)\sim O(1)$, and is equal to $-L\sqrt{\ln\,2}$. The free energy is thus given $$F=\cases{-TL\left[\ln(2\cosh\beta)+k^2/4\right],&in the free phase;\cr
-TL\,(k\sqrt{\ln\,2}+\beta),&in the frozen phase.}\label{fre}$$ By comparison of the free energies, the transition line is located at [@FPS] $$k_{\rm t}(\beta)=2\left(\sqrt{\ln\,2}-\sqrt{\beta-\ln(\cosh \beta)}\right).$$ We remark [*en passant*]{} that, contrary to the REM and other systems with discontinuous glass transitions [@KT], here the transition is thermodynamically of first order, with a latent heat that can be easily computed from eq. (\[fre\]).
The surface (evolutionary) properties can be worked out as in the “master sequence” case. Let us consider the frozen phase, and let us assume that layer $T-2$ is frozen into one of the REM ground states. We focus on layer $T-1$ and assume that layer $T$ is free. Layer $T$ has then no influence on layer $T-1$, whose contribution to the free energy is given by $${\cal Z}_{T-1}=\sum_{s(T-1)}\exp\left(-kE(s(T-1))+\beta\sum_is_i(T-2)
s_i(T-1)\right).\label{lyer}$$ Analyzing eq. (\[lyer\]) as above, we find a freezing transition into the ground state, with the same conditions as for the bulk. Therefore, as long as $k>k_{\rm t}$, all layers but the last one are frozen in the energy ground state. It is clear at this point that all along the frozen phase $m=(1/L)\sum_i\left<s_i(0)s_i(t)\right>$ is independent of $t$ for $t>0$, and is given by $m=\tanh\beta$. In the same way the weight of the optimal sequence behaves as in the “master sequence” model.
Summarizing, we have shown that in the “master sequence” and in the REM landscapes for the quasispecies equation, in the limit in which one can speak of sharp phase transitions, surface phenomena do not appear. Indeed the surface passively follows the behavior of the bulk. This is due to the pathology of the model, that is one-dimensional in the time direction, but mean-field like in the sequence direction. The analysis also shows that “master sequence” and REM landscapes, apart from details, have very similar evolutive properties.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
SF thanks the Laboratoire de Physique Théorique of the Ecole Normale Supérieure (Paris) for hospitality and support during the elaboration of this work. LP is Associato to the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Napoli, and acknowledges the support of a Chaire Joliot of the ESPCI.
[99]{}
Figure captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
1. Order parameter $m$ in the “master sequence” model as a function of the mutation rate $\mu$ for $L=10,20,40,80$. The selective temperature $k$ equals $\ln\,(4/3)$. Also plotted the prediction of eq. (\[ordpar\]).
2. Weight $x_{s^0}=x_0$ of the master sequence as a function of the total mutation rate $u=1-\exp(-\mu L)$ for $L=10,20,40,80$. We have chosen $kL=1/4$ so that $\mu_{\rm t}L=1/4$. Also plotted the prediction [@Higgs93] $x_{s^0}=1-u/u_{\rm t}$, where $u_{\rm t}$ is the value of $u$ at the transition.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work, we investigate four-dimensional planar black hole solutions in anti-de Sitter spacetimes in light of the so-called scale-dependent scenario. To obtain this new family of solutions, the classical couplings of the theory, i.e., the gravitational coupling $G_0$ and the cosmological constant $\Lambda_0$, are not taken to be fixed values anymore. Thus, those classical parameters evolve to functions which change along the “height” coordinate, $z$. The effective Einstein field equations are solved, and the results are analyzed and compared with the classical counterpart. Finally, some thermodynamic properties of the presented scale–dependent black hole are investigated.'
author:
- Ángel Rincón
- Ernesto Contreras
- Pedro Bargueño
- Benjamin Koch
title: 'Scale-dependent planar Anti-de Sitter black hole'
---
Introduction
============
Although a consistent formulation of quantum gravity remains an open task, there are several promising approaches in this direction. Even though those candidate theories differ in their approach, their variables, and techniques, they have a usefull common feature. Their low energy effective action for the gravitational field acquires a scale dependence. This is observed through the coupling constants which evolve from constant values to scale–dependent functions with respect to certain energy scale. Similar approaches have been considered before, but the motivation and implementation in those approaches is quite different. This is the case of the Brans–Dicke (BD) theory [@Brans:1961sx], which treats the Newton coupling constant as an auxiliary scalar field. Thus, adopting this formalism, the link between $G$ and $\phi$ is just $\phi \rightarrow G^{-1}$ which means that the Einstein coupling constant takes the equivalent form $\kappa \equiv 8 \pi \phi^{-1}$. This deviation from the classical Einstein Gravity take into account that Newton coupling could be a field and not a fixed value. Despite of it, BD theory is still a classical theory and it does not include the possibility for the other parameters included in the action to evolve to scale–dependent functions. What is more, it is very–well known that an effective description takes the effective action as a functional whose coefficients show a scale dependence, which is a generic result of quantum field theory.
In this sense, the aforementioned effective action $\Gamma[g_{\mu \nu}, k]$ contains a set of couplings inherited from the classical theory but incorporating the scale dependence, where $k$ stands for an undetermined scale–dependence. Specifically, $\{G_k, (\cdots)_k\}$ comes from $\{G_0, (\cdots)_0\}$ (where $(\cdots)$ denotes any other coupling present in the theory). The probably most successful implementation of those ideas was achieved within the so called Asymptotic Safety (AS) program, where a non-trivial ultra violet fixed point for the leading dimensionless gravitational couplings was conjectured [@Weinberg:1976xy] and found [@Wetterich:1992yh; @Morris:1993qb; @Reuter:1996cp; @Reuter:2001ag; @Litim:2002xm; @Litim:2003vp; @Niedermaier:2006wt; @Niedermaier:2006ns; @Gies:2006wv; @Machado:2007ea; @Percacci:2007sz; @Codello:2008vh; @Benedetti:2009rx; @Manrique:2009uh; @Manrique:2010am; @Manrique:2010mq; @Eichhorn:2010tb; @Litim:2011cp; @Falls:2013bv; @Dona:2013qba; @Falls:2014tra; @Eichhorn:2018yfc; @Eichhorn:2017egq].
Recently, scale–dependent gravity has been used to construct black hole backgrounds both by improving classical solutions with the scale dependent couplings from AS [@Bonanno:1998ye; @Bonanno:2000ep; @Emoto:2005te; @Bonanno:2006eu; @Reuter:2006rg; @Koch:2007yt; @Hewett:2007st; @Litim:2007iu; @Burschil:2009va; @Falls:2010he; @Casadio:2010fw; @Reuter:2010xb; @Cai:2010zh; @Falls:2012nd; @Becker:2012js; @Koch:2013owa; @Koch:2014cqa; @Gonzalez:2015upa; @Torres:2017ygl; @Pawlowski:2018swz] and by solving the gap equations of a generic scale dependent action [@Contreras:2013hua; @Koch:2013rwa; @Rodrigues:2015hba; @Koch:2015nva; @Koch:2016uso; @Rincon:2017goj; @Rincon:2017ypd; @Rincon:2018sgd; @Contreras:2018dhs; @Rincon:2018dsq; @Contreras:2018gct; @Contreras:2018gpl; @Rincon:2018lyd; @Contreras:2018swc]. Even more, regular black holes [@Contreras:2017eza] and traversable (vacuum) wormholes [@Contreras:2018swc] have been shown to exist within this approach. In this sense, scale–dependent gravity might shed light on how to cure, in an effective way, some of the classical problems which appear in classical general relativity. From the cosmological side, the impact of scale dependence has been explored in various ways [@Bonanno:2001xi; @Weinberg:2009wa; @Tye:2010an; @Bonanno:2010bt; @Bonanno:2001hi; @Koch:2010nn; @Grande:2011xf; @Copeland:2013vva; @Bonanno:2015fga; @Bonanno:2017gji; @Hernandez-Arboleda:2018qdo; @Bonanno:2018gck; @Canales:2018tbn].
It is important to note that almost all the exact black hole solutions found in the context of scale–dependent gravity (but the cosmological and a rotating scale–dependent BTZ black hole which has been recently reported [@Rincon:2018lyd] belong to the spherically symmetric case. Therefore, the role of different geometries for scale–dependent black hole solutions (if any), remains to be investigated. This is the purpose of the present work, with emphasis in planar black hole geometries. Although this work could be easily extended to the the toroidal case, we do not expect substantial differences with respect to the spherically symmetric case. On the contrary, the planar nature of the scale-dependent black hole we will present in the present work makes it an ideal candidate to see the effects of scale dependence when a non–compact event horizon is present.
The manuscript is organized as follows. In Sect. \[classAdS\] we review the main aspects of the classical planar AdS black hole solution. Section \[scale\_setting\] is devoted to introduce the scale–dependent model. In sections \[BlackHoleSolution\] and \[IT\] we obtain the scale–dependent solution and study their geometrical and thermodynamical aspects. Some final comments are given in the last section.
Classical planar Anti-de Sitter theory and black hole solution {#classAdS}
==============================================================
The Einstein-Hilbert action is, in four dimensions, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{classical_action}
I_0[g_{\mu\nu}] &= \int \mathrm{d}^{4}x \sqrt{-g}
\bigg[
\frac{1}{2 \kappa_0}
\bigg(R - 2\Lambda_0 \bigg)
\bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_0 \equiv 8 \pi G_0$ is the gravitational coupling, $G_0$ is Newton’s constant, $\Lambda_0$ is the cosmological coupling, $g$ is the determinant of the metric and $R$ the Ricci scalar. In what follow we assume that the space-time is plane-symmetric and time-independent. Besides, we assume the coordinate set $x^{\mu} = \{ t, x, y, z \}$, we use the metric signature $(-, +, +, +)$, and natural units $(c = \hbar= k_B = 1)$ such that the action is dimensionless. The line element is then written according to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d}s^2 &= -f_0(z) \mathrm{d}t^2 + f_0(z)^{-1}\mathrm{d}z^2 + (L z)^2(\mathrm{d}x^2 + \mathrm{d}y^2).\end{aligned}$$ Please, note that the term $L z$ is dimensionless. In addition, it is remarkable that the cosmological coupling is usually related to $L$ by $ 3 L^2 \equiv -\Lambda_0 > 0 $ (where $\Lambda_0$ denotes the negative cosmological constant). This constraint is, however, relaxed in order to obtain a more general set of solutions. To be consistent with the classical scale setting, we take $G_0=1$. Varying the classical action \[classical\_action\] yields the equations of motion, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{\mu \nu} &= -\Lambda_0 g_{\mu \nu}.% + \kappa_0 T_{\mu \nu}.\end{aligned}$$ For a vacuum solution we only have the cosmological constant contribution, and the lapse function becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f0cl}
f_0(z) &= - \frac{1}{3}\Lambda_0 z^2 -\frac{4 M_0}{L z} \end{aligned}$$ or, in terms of the event horizon, $z_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_0(z) &= -\frac{1}{3}\Lambda_0 z ^{2} \bigg[ 1- \bigg(\frac{z_0}{z}\bigg)^3\bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where the aforementioned horizon is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
z_0^3 &= -\frac{12 M_0}{\Lambda_0 L}. \end{aligned}$$ Due to the cubic nature of the line element there are three possible horizons, however, only one of them is real and it is defined as the classical event horizon. The two extra imaginary roots of (\[f0cl\]) have no physical meaning. Notice that $M_0$ is the classical black hole mass. What is more, given the noncompactibility of the coordinates $x$ and $y$, we only consider the mass per unit area in the $x-y$ plane [@Cai:1996eg]. At this point we move to thermodynamics of the black plane solutions. The starting point is the Euclidean action method [@Cai:1994np; @Gibbons:1976ue]. First, note that the metric can be written in terms of the Euclidean time $\tau$ after the change $t \rightarrow -i \tau$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta}
\mathrm{d}s^2 &= f_0(z) \mathrm{d}\tau^2 + f_0(z)^{-1}\mathrm{d}z^2 + (L z)^2(\mathrm{d}x^2 + \mathrm{d}y^2).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, in order to obtain the Hawking temperature, the requirement of the absence of the conical singularity in the Euclidean space-time causes the Euclidean time $\tau$ to have a period $\beta_0$, which verifies that the temperature is given by T\_0(z\_0) &=& | \_[z z\_0]{} |\
&=& | ()\^[1/3]{} (M\_0)\^[1/3]{} | M\_0\^[1/3]{}. Following the same line, the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy is given by the usual relation $$\begin{aligned}
S_0(z_0) &= \frac{1}{4} \sigma_0 =
\frac{3}{2} \pi \Bigg(\frac{L}{3 \Lambda_0^2}\Bigg)^{1/3} \Bigl( 4 M_0\Bigl)^{2/3}
\ \propto \ M_0^{2/3},\end{aligned}$$ where the area of the horizon $\sigma_0$, per unit length, is in this case given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{0} &= 2 \pi L z_0^2.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, The heat capacity is $$\begin{aligned}
C_0(z_0) &= T \ \frac{\partial S}{\partial T} \ \Bigg{|}_{z_0} =-S_0.\end{aligned}$$ It is remarkable that the temperature goes as $M_0^{1/3}$, which strongly differs from the Schwarzschild black hole [@Frolov:1998wf]. In this sense, both the negative cosmological constant and the planar topology of the horizon introduce a strong deviation from the Schwarzschild black hole case. In addition, it should be noted that, when $3L^2 = -\Lambda_0$, the aforementioned results are precisely those given in Ref. [@Fatima:2011dr].
Scale–dependent gravity {#scale_setting}
=======================
As was previously commented in the introduction, one possible way of obtaining a self–consistent theory beyond General Relativity is, roughly speaking, by promoting the classical coupling constants to scale–dependent quantities. In this sense, effective quantum corrections to well–known black hole solutions are typically incorporated in two different ways: i) starting from the effective action, we vary $\Gamma[g_{\mu \nu},k]$ to obtain the effective Einstein equations, and ii) starting from the solution, we replace the classical couplings with scale–dependent couplings. In particular, we focus on the first situation. The purpose of this section is to summarize the equations of motion for the scale–dependent Anti-de Sitter theory. Along this paper, we will follow the idea and notation adopted in Ref. [@Rincon:2017ypd; @Rincon:2017ayr; @Contreras:2017eza; @Contreras:2018dhs; @Koch:2014joa; @Hernandez-Arboleda:2018qdo; @Contreras:2018swc; @Rincon:2018lyd; @Rincon:2018sgd]. After recognizing both the scale–dependent couplings of the theory, which are the Newton’s coupling $G_k$ (which can be related with the gravitational coupling by $\kappa_k \equiv 8 \pi G_k$), and the cosmological coupling $\Lambda_k$ and the two independent fields, i.e., the metric field $g_{\mu \nu}(x)$ and the energy scale $k$, the scale–dependent Einstein–Hilbert effective action reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{action}
\Gamma[g_{\mu\nu},k]=\int \mathrm{d}^{4}x\sqrt{-g}
\bigg[\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{k}} \bigg(R-2\Lambda_{k}\bigg)\bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ is a scale-dependent field related to a renormalization scale, and $G_{k}$ and $\Lambda_{k}$ stand for the scale–dependent gravitational and cosmological couplings, respectively. First, taking variations with respect to the metric field $g_{\mu\nu}$ leads to modified Einstein’s equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{einstein}
G_{\mu\nu}+g_{\mu\nu}\Lambda_{k}=-\Delta t_{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ where we use the so–called non–matter energy–momentum tensor, $\Delta t_{\mu\nu}$, defined according to [@Reuter:2003ca; @Koch:2010nn] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nme}
\Delta t_{\mu\nu}=G_{k}\left(g_{\mu\nu}\square -\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\right)G_{k}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
We note that the strength of the gravitational and cosmological couplings, $G_k$ and $\Lambda_{k}$, determine the deviation of the theory with respect to the corresponding classical case, as expected. Second, taking the variation of the effective action with respect to the field $k(x)$, one imposes [@Koch:2014joa] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scale}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} k} \Gamma[g_{\mu \nu}, k] =0.\end{aligned}$$ This condition can be seen as an a posteriori condition towards background independence [@Stevenson:1981vj; @Reuter:2003ca; @Becker:2014qya; @Dietz:2015owa; @Labus:2016lkh; @Morris:2016spn; @Ohta:2017dsq]. We must emphasize that the aforementioned equation gives a restriction between $G_k$ and $\Lambda_k$ which reveals that the cosmological parameter is indeed required to produce self–consistent scale–dependent solutions, at least when the matter sector is absent.
However, in order to solve these equations, we need the knowledge of the precise beta functions of the problem. Given that, in general, an unique solution for the beta functions is still an open question, we can avoid to assume any particular form for those. This means that we do not have enough information in order to find both $g_{\mu\nu}(x)$ and $k(x)$. One possibility to circumvent this issue is by considering that the couplings $\{G_k$, $\Lambda_k\}$ inherit the dependence on space–time coordinates from the space-time dependence of $k(x)$, thus the couplings are written as $\{G(x)$, $\Lambda(x)\}$ [@Koch:2014joa; @Rincon:2017goj; @Rincon:2017ypd], in combination with a simplifying ansatz for the line element. Although this procedure allows to solve the problem, a high degree of symmetry is usually necessary in order to obtain exact solutions.
In the next section we shall apply this method in order to obtain planar black hole solutions.\
Scale-dependent planar AdS black hole {#BlackHoleSolution}
=====================================
In order to obtain the complete solution with planar symmetry, we need to find the set $\{G(z), \Lambda(z)\}$. The running of the gravitational coupling introduces the tensor $\Delta t_{\mu \nu}$ and the effective Einstein field equations are
$$\mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu} \equiv G_{\mu\nu}+g_{\mu\nu}\Lambda(z)+\Delta t_{\mu\nu}=0.$$
The so–called non–matter energy momentum tensor, which encodes the running of the Newton coupling, is demanded to be zero in the classical limit. Therefore, a well–defined classical limit for the gravitational coupling should be imposed. This is achieved through the integration constants which play a crucial role here. Now we will move to the line element used to properly describe the geometry of this problem. Specifically, we will consider the line element parametrized as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Metric}
\mathrm{d}s^2 &= -f(z) \mathrm{d}t^2 + f(z)^{-1}\mathrm{d}z^2 + \left( L z \right)^2(\mathrm{d}x^2 + \mathrm{d}y^2),\end{aligned}$$ where both $\Lambda$ and $G$ depend only on the $z$–coordinate due to the planar symmetry. First, the scale–dependent gravitational coupling solving one of the gravitational field equations has to obey $$\begin{aligned}
G(z)\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}G(z)}{\mathrm{d}z^{2}} - 2\left(\frac{\mathrm{d} G(z)}{\mathrm{d}z}\right)^2=0,\end{aligned}$$ which allows us to obtain the now well-know scale–dependent solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gsol}
G(z) &= \frac{G_0}{1 + \epsilon z},\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ controls the intensity of the running of the gravitational coupling. The rest of the field equations allow us to find the solution for the lapse function, which we write as $$\begin{aligned}
f(z) &= f_0(z) + \frac{6 M_0}{L}\epsilon Y(z)\end{aligned}$$ where the auxiliary function $Y(z)$ is defined to be $$\begin{aligned}
Y(z) & \equiv 1 - 2 \epsilon z + 2 (\epsilon z)^2 \ln \left(1 + \frac{1}{\epsilon z} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the cosmological scale–dependent coupling is obtained when the corresponding algebraic equation is used, which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\Lambda(z) & = \ \Lambda_0
+
\epsilon
\Bigg( \frac{1}{L z (1 + \epsilon z)^2} \Bigg)
\lambda(z),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined another supplementary function, $\lambda(z)$, written as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\lambda(z) &=
\Lambda_0 L z^2 (1 + \epsilon z )
+
6 M_0 \epsilon (1 + 12 z \epsilon (1 + \epsilon z))
\\
&
-
36 M_0 z \epsilon ^2 (z \epsilon +1) (2 z \epsilon +1) \ln \left(\frac{1}{z \epsilon }+1\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the integration constants have been chosen such that we recover the classical solution after turning off the running parameter in the functions involved, as can be revealed in Fig. (\[fig:1\]). Specifically, taking $\epsilon\to0$ in the scale–dependent solution we recover $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} G(z) &= G_0 = 1,
\\
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} f(z) &= f_0(z) = \bigl(L z \bigl)^{2} \bigg[ 1- \bigg(\frac{z_0}{z}\bigg)^3\bigg],
\\
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \Lambda(z) &= \Lambda_0.\end{aligned}$$ Even more, as in general the scale–dependent effects are assumed to be weak, the running parameter is assumed to be small with respect to the other scales entering the problem such as $M_0$ and $G_{0}$ [@Koch:2014joa], we can write $$\begin{aligned}
G(z) & \approx G_0(1 - \epsilon z )+ \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2),
\\
f(z) & \approx f_0(z) + \frac{6 M_0}{L} \epsilon
%(1 - 2 \epsilon z)
+
\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2),
\label{f_small_epsilon}
\\
\Lambda(z) & \approx \Lambda_0 (1 + \epsilon z) + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2).\end{aligned}$$ Interestingly, as pointed out in [@Koch:2014joa] regarding other scale–dependent geometries, the solution here employed reveals novel long-range effects due to the scale–dependence because, for $\epsilon \to 0$, the coordinate $z$ would have to be very large in order to note a deviation from the classical solution. Within this limit we have $$\begin{aligned}
f(z) &= -\frac{1}{3}\Lambda_0 z^2 - \frac{3 M_0}{L \epsilon z^2} + \mathcal{O}{(z^{-3})} ,\end{aligned}$$ which indicates that the AdS radius is not modified, in contrast with [@Koch:2014joa], but an effective electric charge appears when $\epsilon<0$, as can be shown due to the planar charged black hole $z^{-2}$ dependence for the lapse function. Finally, we note that the singular behaviour at $z\to 0$ persists, as a straightforward computation of the curvature invariants reveals.
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
Invariants and Thermodynamics {#IT}
=============================
A useful way of exploring possible problems in a black hole solution is to investigate the corresponding invariants of the geometry. In principle, they can reveal if any problem arises in certain sector of the solution. For instance, the Ricci scalar for the classical black hole solution is given in terms of the lapse function as: $$\begin{aligned}
R_0 &= -f_0''(z) -\frac{4 f_0'(z)}{z}-\frac{2 f_0(z)}{z^2},\end{aligned}$$ and it turns out that $R_0= 4 \Lambda_0$ is a constant for any value of $z$. In contrast, in the scale–dependent scenario, the Ricci scalar becomes extremely complicated and indeed we observe that the $z=0$ singularity, which was already present in the Kretschmann scalar for the classical solution, now appears also in the Ricci scalar. This characteristic is intrinsically related to our formalism and, as far as we known, cannot be avoided. Before analyzing the thermodynamics, we must focus our attention on the horizon radius. In this case, the event horizon is obtained using the condition $f(z_H) = 0$. In general, the task of obtaining an exact horizon is not always possible. This is our case because there is a logarithmic contribution to the line element. Still, we can obtain a numerical solution for the event horizon and, using that, we can analyse the effect of scale–dependent couplings on the AdS planar black hole solution. Moreover, we still can make some progress if we take advantage of the small parameter $\epsilon$. As has been mentioned, any deviation with respect to the classical solution should be very small, reason why we can assume that $\epsilon$ small provide us an acceptable solution. Thus, using the approximation given by Eq. we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
z_H &= z_0 \left(1 - \frac{1}{2}\epsilon z_0 \right) + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2),\end{aligned}$$ where we again observe that the horizon is smaller that the one corresponding to the classical AdS planar solution. Note that this can also be shown in Fig. \[fig:2\] (left).
Although it is important to note the appearance of a shifted horizon with respect to its classical counterpart, we do not expect substantial deviations from classical black hole thermodynamics since, as commented previously, only long–range effects might show scale–dependent modifications in an appreciable way. In this sense, black hole thermodynamics remains robust [@Contreras:2013hua; @Koch:2013rwa; @Rodrigues:2015hba; @Koch:2015nva; @Koch:2016uso; @Rincon:2017goj; @Rincon:2017ypd; @Rincon:2018sgd; @Contreras:2018dhs; @Rincon:2018dsq; @Contreras:2018gct; @Contreras:2018gpl; @Rincon:2018lyd; @Hernandez-Arboleda:2018qdo; @Contreras:2018swc].
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
Regarding black hole thermodynamics, some comments are in order. First, the Hawking temperature is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T_H(z_H) &=
\frac{1}{4 \pi}
\Bigg|
\frac{12 M_0}{L z_H^2 (1 + \epsilon z_H )}
\Bigg|, \end{aligned}$$ showing that it has a correction via the scale–dependent gravitational coupling. When we demand $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, the standard solution is, of course, recovered. In order to get some insight about how the scale–dependent scenario affects the temperature with respect to the classical solution, we expand for small values of $\epsilon$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
T_H(z_H) &= T_0(z_0) \left(1 - \frac{3}{4} (\epsilon z_0)^2 \right) + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^3).\end{aligned}$$ The previous expression reveals that the temperature decreases with respect to the classical case, $T_{0}(z_{0})$, which is in agreement with the behaviour shown in Fig. \[fig:2\] (right). Second, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy have the well-known relation inherited from Brans-Dicke theory [@Kang:1996rj] which, in 3+1 dimensions, reads $$\begin{aligned}
S(z_H) = S_0(z_H) (1 + \epsilon z_H)\end{aligned}$$ and this quantity, as opposed to the temperature, increases when $\epsilon > 0$ and decreases when $\epsilon < 0$. It is thus remarkable that, although the expression for entropy admits both positive and negative values for the parameter $\epsilon$, we must be careful since $S$ must be positive. Therefore, this could be considered a point against considering negative values for $\epsilon$. Finally, the heat capacity is easily computed with help of the relation $$\begin{aligned}
C_H(z_H) &= T \ \frac{\mathrm{d}S}{\mathrm{d}T} \bigg|_{z_H} = -S_H(z_H),\end{aligned}$$ where we notice that always $C_H < 0$, which means that the black hole is indeed unstable. We shown the entropy in Fig. \[fig:3\] (left) and the heat capacity in Fig. \[fig:3\] (right) for different values of the running parameter $\epsilon$. In these figures we can see that the scale–dependent effect is only appreciated when $M_0$ is large.
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
Concluding remarks
==================
In this article we have studied the scale dependence of four dimensional Anti de–Sitter Planar black holes. After presenting the model and the classical black hole solution, we have allowed for a scale dependence of the cosmological as well as the gravitational coupling, and we have solved the corresponding generalized field equations in four-dimensional spacetimes with planar symmetry. We have analysed in detail some black hole properties such as horizon structure, Hawking temperature, Bekenstein-Hawking entropy as well as the heat capacity. In the previous thermodynamics quantities we observe that the running correction appears when $M_0$ is large, opposite to what is usually found in solutions based on the asymptotic safety program. If one compares our result for the running gravitational coupling with the corresponding results provided by the AS program [@Wetterich:1992yh; @Morris:1993qb; @Reuter:1996cp; @Reuter:2001ag; @Litim:2002xm; @Litim:2003vp; @Niedermaier:2006wt; @Niedermaier:2006ns; @Gies:2006wv; @Machado:2007ea; @Percacci:2007sz; @Codello:2008vh; @Benedetti:2009rx; @Manrique:2009uh; @Manrique:2010am; @Manrique:2010mq; @Eichhorn:2010tb; @Litim:2011cp; @Falls:2013bv; @Dona:2013qba; @Falls:2014tra; @Eichhorn:2018yfc; @Eichhorn:2017egq] one finds that a matching is straight forward for the scale setting choice $k(z)\sim z$. This choice seems peculiar, since one usually expects $k \sim 1/z$ for dimensional reasons. Similar results have been found in [@Contreras:2013hua; @Koch:2013rwa; @Rodrigues:2015hba; @Koch:2015nva; @Koch:2016uso; @Rincon:2017goj; @Rincon:2017ypd; @Rincon:2018sgd; @Contreras:2018dhs; @Rincon:2018dsq; @Contreras:2018gct; @Contreras:2018gpl; @Rincon:2018lyd; @Contreras:2018swc] but the deeper reason behind this result is still unknown . An important hint for solving this riddle could come from considering the dimensionless product $G(k)\cdot \Lambda(k)$ instead of the individual dimensionful quantities as discussed in [@Canales:2018tbn].
Another interesting feature of our solution is that the event horizon is attenuated in the scale–dependent scenario, which means that the black hole is smaller that the classical solution. Regarding the temperature, we notice that it is lower than in the classical case, whereas the entropy is larger than that of the non-running case. Finally, we have noted that the heat capacity is negative, which implies that the black hole is unstable. All these features give a better comprehension of the effect of scale–dependent couplings in well known black hole solutions.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author A. R. was supported by the CONICYT-PCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2015-21151658. The author B. K. was supported by Fondecyt 1161150 and Fondecyt 1181694. The author P. B. was supported by the Faculty of Science and Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones of Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
[15]{}
C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. [**124**]{}, 925 (1961). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.124.925
S. Weinberg, doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-0931-4 1
C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B [**301**]{}, 90 (1993) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90726-X \[arXiv:1710.05815 \[hep-th\]\].
T. R. Morris, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**9**]{}, 2411 (1994) doi:10.1142/S0217751X94000972 \[hep-ph/9308265\].
M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 971 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.971 \[hep-th/9605030\].
M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 065016 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.065016 \[hep-th/0110054\].
D. F. Litim and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 025030 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.025030 \[hep-th/0202188\].
D. F. Litim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 201301 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.201301 \[hep-th/0312114\].
M. Niedermaier and M. Reuter, Living Rev. Rel. [**9**]{}, 5 (2006). doi:10.12942/lrr-2006-5
M. Niedermaier, Class. Quant. Grav. [**24**]{}, R171 (2007) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/18/R01 \[gr-qc/0610018\].
H. Gies, Lect. Notes Phys. [**852**]{}, 287 (2012) doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27320-9 6 \[hep-ph/0611146\].
P. F. Machado and F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 124045 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.124045 \[arXiv:0712.0445 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Percacci, In \*Oriti, D. (ed.): Approaches to quantum gravity\* 111-128 \[arXiv:0709.3851 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Codello, R. Percacci and C. Rahmede, Annals Phys. [**324**]{}, 414 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2008.08.008 \[arXiv:0805.2909 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Benedetti, P. F. Machado and F. Saueressig, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**24**]{}, 2233 (2009) doi:10.1142/S0217732309031521 \[arXiv:0901.2984 \[hep-th\]\]. E. Manrique and M. Reuter, Annals Phys. [**325**]{}, 785 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2009.11.009 \[arXiv:0907.2617 \[gr-qc\]\].
E. Manrique, M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, Annals Phys. [**326**]{}, 463 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.11.006 \[arXiv:1006.0099 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Manrique, M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, Annals Phys. [**326**]{}, 440 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.11.003 \[arXiv:1003.5129 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Eichhorn and H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 104010 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.104010 \[arXiv:1001.5033 \[hep-th\]\].
D. F. Litim, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**369**]{}, 2759 (2011) doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0103 \[arXiv:1102.4624 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Falls, D. F. Litim, K. Nikolakopoulos and C. Rahmede, arXiv:1301.4191 \[hep-th\]. P. Donˆ, A. Eichhorn and R. Percacci, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 8, 084035 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084035 \[arXiv:1311.2898 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Falls, D. F. Litim, K. Nikolakopoulos and C. Rahmede, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 10, 104022 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.104022 \[arXiv:1410.4815 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Eichhorn, arXiv:1810.07615 \[hep-th\].
A. Eichhorn, Found. Phys. [**48**]{}, no. 10, 1407 (2018) doi:10.1007/s10701-018-0196-6 \[arXiv:1709.03696 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 084011 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.084011 \[gr-qc/9811026\].
A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 043008 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043008 \[hep-th/0002196\].
H. Emoto, hep-th/0511075.
A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 083005 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.083005 \[hep-th/0602159\].
M. Reuter and E. Tuiran, doi:10.1142/9789812834300 0473 hep-th/0612037.
B. Koch, Phys. Lett. B [**663**]{}, 334 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.04.025 \[arXiv:0707.4644 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Hewett and T. Rizzo, JHEP [**0712**]{}, 009 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/12/009 \[arXiv:0707.3182 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. F. Litim and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 131301 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.131301 \[arXiv:0707.3983 \[hep-ph\]\].
T. Burschil and B. Koch, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**92**]{}, 219 (2010) \[JETP Lett. [**92**]{}, 193 (2010)\] doi:10.1134/S0021364010160010 \[arXiv:0912.4517 \[hep-ph\]\].
K. Falls, D. F. Litim and A. Raghuraman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**27**]{}, 1250019 (2012) doi:10.1142/S0217751X12500194 \[arXiv:1002.0260 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Casadio, S. D. H. Hsu and B. Mirza, Phys. Lett. B [**695**]{}, 317 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.10.060 \[arXiv:1008.2768 \[gr-qc\]\].
M. Reuter and E. Tuiran, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 044041 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044041 \[arXiv:1009.3528 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. F. Cai and D. A. Easson, JCAP [**1009**]{}, 002 (2010) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/09/002 \[arXiv:1007.1317 \[hep-th\]\].
K. Falls and D. F. Litim, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 084002 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084002 \[arXiv:1212.1821 \[gr-qc\]\].
D. Becker and M. Reuter, JHEP [**1207**]{}, 172 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)172 \[arXiv:1205.3583 \[hep-th\]\].
B. Koch and F. Saueressig, Class. Quant. Grav. [**31**]{}, 015006 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/1/015006 \[arXiv:1306.1546 \[hep-th\]\]. B. Koch and F. Saueressig, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**29**]{}, no. 8, 1430011 (2014) doi:10.1142/S0217751X14300117 \[arXiv:1401.4452 \[hep-th\]\]. C. González and B. Koch, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**31**]{}, no. 26, 1650141 (2016) doi:10.1142/S0217751X16501414 \[arXiv:1508.01502 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Torres, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 12, 124004 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124004 \[arXiv:1703.09997 \[gr-qc\]\].
J. M. Pawlowski and D. Stock, Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, no. 10, 106008 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.106008 \[arXiv:1807.10512 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Contreras, B. Koch and P. Rioseco, Class. Quant. Grav. [**30**]{}, 175009 (2013) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/17/175009 \[arXiv:1303.3892 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
B. Koch, C. Contreras, P. Rioseco and F. Saueressig, Springer Proc. Phys. [**170**]{}, 263 (2016) doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20046-0 31 \[arXiv:1311.1121 \[hep-th\]\].
D. C. Rodrigues, B. Chauvineau and O. F. Piattella, JCAP [**1509**]{}, no. 09, 009 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/09/009 \[arXiv:1504.05119 \[gr-qc\]\].
B. Koch and P. Rioseco, Class. Quant. Grav. [**33**]{}, 035002 (2016) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035002 \[arXiv:1501.00904 \[gr-qc\]\].
B. Koch, I. A. Reyes and Á. Rincón, Class. Quant. Grav. [**33**]{}, no. 22, 225010 (2016) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/22/225010 \[arXiv:1606.04123 \[hep-th\]\].
Á. Rincón, E. Contreras, P. Bargueño, B. Koch, G. Panotopoulos and A. Hernández-Arboleda, Eur. Phys. J. C [**77**]{}, no. 7, 494 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5045-9 \[arXiv:1704.04845 \[hep-th\]\].
Á. Rincón, B. Koch and I. Reyes, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**831**]{}, no. 1, 012007 (2017) doi:10.1088/1742-6596/831/1/012007 \[arXiv:1701.04531 \[hep-th\]\].
Á. Rincón and G. Panotopoulos, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 2, 024027 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.024027 \[arXiv:1801.03248 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Contreras, Á. Rincón, B. Koch and P. Bargueño, Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, no. 3, 246 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5709-0 \[arXiv:1803.03255 \[gr-qc\]\].
Á. Rincón, E. Contreras, P. Bargueño, B. Koch and G. Panotopoulos, Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, no. 8, 641 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6106-4 \[arXiv:1807.08047 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Contreras, Á. Rincón and J. M. Ramírez-Velasquez, arXiv:1810.07356 \[gr-qc\].
E. Contreras and P. Bargueño, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**33**]{}, no. 32, 1850184 (2018) doi:10.1142/S0217732318501845 \[arXiv:1809.00785 \[gr-qc\]\].
Á. Rincón and B. Koch, Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, no. 12, 1022 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6488-3 \[arXiv:1806.03024 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Contreras and P. Bargueño, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**27**]{}, no. 09, 1850101 (2018) doi:10.1142/S0218271818501018 \[arXiv:1804.00988 \[gr-qc\]\].
E. Contreras, Á. Rincón, B. Koch and P. Bargueño, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**27**]{}, no. 03, 1850032 (2017) doi:10.1142/S0218271818500323 \[arXiv:1711.08400 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 043508 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.043508 \[hep-th/0106133\].
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 083535 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.083535 \[arXiv:0911.3165 \[hep-th\]\].
S.-H. H. Tye and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 127302 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.127302 \[arXiv:1008.4787 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Bonanno, A. Contillo and R. Percacci, Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{}, 145026 (2011) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/14/145026 \[arXiv:1006.0192 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Lett. B [**527**]{}, 9 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01522-2 \[astro-ph/0106468\]. B. Koch and I. Ramirez, Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{}, 055008 (2011) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/5/055008 \[arXiv:1010.2799 \[gr-qc\]\].
J. Grande, J. Sola, S. Basilakos and M. Plionis, JCAP [**1108**]{}, 007 (2011) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/08/007 \[arXiv:1103.4632 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
E. J. Copeland, C. Rahmede and I. D. Saltas, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 10, 103530 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.103530 \[arXiv:1311.0881 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Bonanno and A. Platania, Phys. Lett. B [**750**]{}, 638 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.10.005 \[arXiv:1507.03375 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Bonanno, S. J. Gabriele Gionti and A. Platania, Class. Quant. Grav. [**35**]{}, no. 6, 065004 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aaa535 \[arXiv:1710.06317 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Hernández-Arboleda, Á. Rincón, B. Koch, E. Contreras and P. Bargueño, arXiv:1802.05288 \[gr-qc\].
A. Bonanno, A. Platania and F. Saueressig, Phys. Lett. B [**784**]{}, 229 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.047 \[arXiv:1803.02355 \[gr-qc\]\].
F. Canales, B. Koch, C. Laporte and Á. Rincón, arXiv:1812.10526 \[gr-qc\].
R. G. Cai and Y. Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 4891 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.4891 \[gr-qc/9609065\].
R. G. Cai, R. K. Su and P. K. N. Yu, Phys. Lett. A [**195**]{}, 307 (1994). doi:10.1016/0375-9601(94)90034-5
G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 2752 (1977). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2752
V. P. Frolov and I. D. Novikov, Fundam. Theor. Phys. [**96**]{} (1998). doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5139-9
A. Fatima and K. Saifullah, Astrophys. Space Sci. [**341**]{}, 437 (2012) doi:10.1007/s10509-012-1098-2 \[arXiv:1108.1622 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Rincon and B. Koch, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**1043**]{}, no. 1, 012015 (2018) doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1043/1/012015 \[arXiv:1705.02729 \[hep-th\]\].
B. Koch, P. Rioseco and C. Contreras, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 2, 025009 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.025009 \[arXiv:1409.4443 \[hep-th\]\].
P. M. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. D [**23**]{}, 2916 (1981). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.2916 M. Reuter and H. Weyer, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 104022 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.104022 \[hep-th/0311196\].
D. Becker and M. Reuter, Annals Phys. [**350**]{}, 225 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2014.07.023 \[arXiv:1404.4537 \[hep-th\]\].
J. A. Dietz and T. R. Morris, JHEP [**1504**]{}, 118 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)118 \[arXiv:1502.07396 \[hep-th\]\].
P. Labus, T. R. Morris and Z. H. Slade, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 2, 024007 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.024007 \[arXiv:1603.04772 \[hep-th\]\].
T. R. Morris, JHEP [**1611**]{}, 160 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2016)160 \[arXiv:1610.03081 \[hep-th\]\].
N. Ohta, PTEP [**2017**]{}, no. 3, 033E02 (2017) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptx020 \[arXiv:1701.01506 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Kang, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 7483 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.7483 \[gr-qc/9606020\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
The detection of gravitational radiation by either laser interferometers or resonant cryogenic bars will, it is widely stated, usher in a new era of gravitational-wave astronomy [@Thorne1987]. Furthermore, according to conventional wisdom, it will yield new and interesting tests of general relativity (GR) in its radiative regime. These tests are generally based on three aspects of gravitational radiation: its back-reaction on the source, its polarization, and its speed.
[*(i) Gravitational back-reaction.*]{} This plays an important role only in the inspiral of compact objects. The equations of motion of inspiral include the non-radiative, non-linear post-Newtonian corrections of Newtonian motion, as well as radiation back-reaction and its non-linear post-Newtonian corrections. The evolution of the orbit is imprinted on the phasing of the inspiral waveform, to which broad-band laser interferometers are especially sensitive through the use of matched filtering of the data against theoretical templates derived from GR. A number of tests of GR using matched filtering of binary inspiral have been discussed, including putting a bound on scalar-tensor gravity [@willbd], measuring the non-linear “tail term” in gravitational radiation damping [@lucsathya], and testing the GR “no hair” theorems by mapping spacetime outside black holes [@ryan; @eric]. A concrete test of gravitational back-reaction, albeit at the lowest order of approximation, has already been provided by the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16, where the tracer of the orbital phase was the radio emission from a pulsar rather than matched filtering of gravitational waves [@taylor].
[*(ii) Polarization of gravitational waves.*]{} In GR, gravitational waves come in at most two polarization states, independently of the source, while in alternative theories of gravity, there are as many as six polarizations [@polarize; @tegp]. Using a sufficiently large number of gravitational antennas suitably oriented, it is possible to determine or limit the polarization content of an incident wave, and thereby to test theories. For example, should an incident wave be shown definitively to have three polarizations, the result would be devastating for GR. Although some of the details of implementing such polarization observations have been worked out for arrays of resonant cylindrical, disk-shaped, and spherical detectors [@polarize; @paik], rather little has been done to assess whether the ground-based laser-interferometers (LIGO, VIRGO, GEO600, TAMA) could perform interesting polarization measurements. The results depend sensitively on the relative orientation of the detectors’ arms, which are now cast (literally) in concrete.
[*(iii) Speed of gravitational waves.*]{} According to GR, in the limit in which the wavelength of gravitational waves is small compared to the radius of curvature of the background spacetime, the waves propagate along null geodesics of the background spacetime, [*i.e.*]{} they have the same speed, $c$, as light. In other theories, the speed could differ from $c$ because of coupling of gravitation to “background” gravitational fields. For example, in the Rosen bimetric theory [@rosen] with a flat background metric $\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}$, gravitational waves follow null geodesics of $\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}$, while light follows null geodesics of ${\bf g}$ [@caves; @tegp].
Another way in which the speed of gravitational waves could differ from one is if gravitation were propagated by a massive field (a massive graviton), in which case, $v_g$ would be given by, in a local inertial frame, $${v_g^2 \over c^2} = 1- {m_g^2c^4 \over E^2} \,,
\label{eq1}$$ where $m_g$ and $E$ are the graviton rest mass and energy, respectively.
The most obvious way to test this is to compare the arrival times of a gravitational wave and an electromagnetic wave from the same event, [*e.g.*]{} a supernova. For a source at a distance $D$, the resulting value of the difference $1-v_g/c$ is $$1- {v_g \over c}= 5 \times 10^{-17} \left (
{{200 {\rm Mpc}} \over D} \right ) \left ( {{\Delta t}
\over {1 {\rm s}}} \right )
\,,
\label{eq2}$$ where $\Delta t$ is the “time difference”, given by $$\Delta t \equiv \Delta t_a - (1+Z) \Delta t_e \,,
\label{eq3}$$ where $\Delta t_a$ and $\Delta t_e$ are the differences in arrival time and emission time, respectively, of the two signals, and $Z \simeq DH_0/c$ is the redshift of the source, with $H_0$ the Hubble parameter. In many cases, $\Delta t_e$ is unknown, so that the best one can do is employ an upper bound on $\Delta t_e$ based on observation or modelling. The result will then be a bound on $1-v_g/c$.
If the frequency of the gravitational waves is such that $hf \gg m_gc^2$, where $h$ is Planck’s constant, then $v_g/c \approx 1- {1 \over 2} (c/\lambda_g
f)^{2}$, where $\lambda_g= h/m_gc$ is the graviton Compton wavelength, and the bound on $1-v_g/c$ can be converted to a bound on $\lambda_g$, given by $$\lambda_g > 3 \times 10^{12}{\rm km} \left ( {D \over {200 {\rm
Mpc}}}
{{100 {\rm Hz}} \over f} \right )^{1/2} \left ({1 \over
{f\Delta t}} \right )^{1/2} \,.
\label{eq4}$$
The foregoing discussion assumes that the source emits [*both*]{} gravitational and electromagnetic radiation in detectable amounts, and that the relative time of emission can be established (by one means or another) to sufficient accuracy, or can be shown to be sufficiently small.
However, there is a situation in which a bound on the graviton mass can be set using gravitational radiation alone. That is the case of the inspiralling compact binary. Because the frequency of the gravitational radiation sweeps from low frequency at the initial moment of observation to higher frequency at the final moment, the speed of the gravitons emitted will vary, from lower speeds initially to higher speeds (closer to $c$) at the end. This will cause a distortion of the observed phasing of the waves and result in a shorter than expected overall time $\Delta t_a$ of passage of a given number of cycles. Furthermore, through the technique of matched filtering, the parameters of the compact binary can be measured accurately [@jugger], and thereby the emission time $\Delta t_e$ can be determined accurately. Roughly speaking, the “phase interval” $f\Delta t$ in Eq. (\[eq4\]) can be measured to an accuracy $1/\rho$, where $\rho$ is the signal-to-noise ratio.
Thus we can estimate the bounds on $\lambda_g$ achievable for various compact inspiral systems, and for various detectors. For stellar-mass inspiral (neutron stars or black holes) observed by the LIGO/VIRGO class of ground-based interferometers, we have $D \approx
200 {\rm Mpc}$, $f \approx 100 {\rm Hz}$, and $f\Delta t \sim
\rho^{-1} \approx 1/10$ [@LIGO]. The result is $\lambda_g > 10^{13}
{\rm km}$. For supermassive binary black holes ($10^4$ to $10^7
M_\odot$) observed by the proposed laser-interferometer space antenna (LISA), we have $D \approx 3 {\rm Gpc}$, $f \approx 10^{-3} {\rm Hz}$, and $f\Delta t \sim
\rho^{-1} \approx 1/1000$ [@LISA]. The result is $\lambda_g > 10^{17}
{\rm km}$.
[cccc]{} $m_1$&$m_2$&Distance (Mpc)&Bound on $\lambda_g$ (km)\
\
1.4&1.4&300&$4.6 \times 10^{12}$\
1.4&10&630&$5.4 \times 10^{12}$\
10&10&1500&$6.0 \times 10^{12}$\
\
$10^7$&$10^7$&3000&$6.9 \times 10^{16}$\
$10^6$&$10^6$&3000&$5.4 \times 10^{16}$\
$10^5$&$10^5$&3000&$2.3 \times 10^{16}$\
$10^4$&$10^4$&3000&$0.7 \times 10^{16}$\
\[summary\]
We have refined these crude estimates by explicit calculations using matched filtering (Table \[summary\]). We first calculate the effect of the frequency-dependent massive graviton velocity on the observed gravitational-wave phasing. We assume that the evolution of the system, driven by gravitational back-reaction, is given correctly by general relativity, apart from corrections of fractional order $(r/\lambda_g)^2$, where $r$ is the size of the binary system; these corrections can be shown to be negligible for the cases of interest. Including GR post-Newtonian (PN) and tail terms (1.5PN) in the phasing, and assuming circular orbits and non-spinning bodies, we determine the accuracy with which the parameters of the system can be measured (“chirp” mass of the system, reduced mass, fiducial phase, and fiducial time), and simultaneously find the accuracy with which the effect of a graviton mass can be bounded (effectively, we find an upper bound on $\lambda_g^{-1}$). We use noise curves appropriate for the advanced LIGO detectors, and for the proposed LISA observatory. It is interesting to note that, despite the apparent distance dependence in Eq. (\[eq4\]), the bound for a given system is independent of its distance, because the signal-to-noise ratio, which determines the accuracy of $f\Delta t$, is inversely proportional to distance. As a result, the bound on $\lambda_g$ depends only on the measured masses of the objects and on detector characteristics. The only effect of distance is a weak $Z$-dependence arising from cosmological effects. The results for the two kinds of detectors, and for various sources are given in Table \[summary\]. These correspond to bounds on the graviton rest mass of order $2.5 \times 10^{-22}$ eV for ground-based, and $2.5 \times 10^{-26}$ eV for space-based observations.
Can bounds be placed on $\lambda_g$ using other observations or experiments? If the graviton is massive, then one expects that, in the non-radiative near zone of a body like the Sun, the gravitational potential will be modified from $GM /r$ to the Yukawa form $$V(r) = {GM \over r} \exp(-r/\lambda_g) \,.
\label{yukawa}$$ Strictly speaking, such a conclusion would require a complete gravitational theory of a massive graviton, capable of making predictions both in the radiative and non-radiative regimes, and which otherwise agrees with observation. However, as several authors have pointed out [@vandam; @hare; @nieto; @visser], construction of such a theory is a non-trivial question. Thus, in the absence of a well-defined theoretical foundation, we shall make the phenomenological assumption that, if the graviton is massive in the propagation of gravitational waves, the Newtonian potential takes the form of Eq. (\[yukawa\]), with the same value of $\lambda_g$.
With this assumption, one can place bounds on $\lambda_g$ using solar-system dynamics. Essentially, the orbits of the inner planets agree with standard Newtonian gravity (including its post-Newtonian GR corrections) to an accuracy of order $10^{-8}$. Since the observed corrections to Newtonian gravity in the limit $\lambda_g \gg r$ go as $(r/\lambda_g)^2$ (it is the acceleration, not the potential that is important), this implies a rough bound $\lambda_g > 10^4$ astronomical units, or $10^{12}\, {\rm km}$. Talmadge [*et al.*]{} [@talmadge] surveyed solar system data in the context of bounding the range and strength of a “fifth force”, a Yukawa term [*added*]{} to Newtonian gravity. The best bound comes from observations that verify Kepler’s third law for the inner planets: from observations of Mars, we find $\lambda_g > 2.8 \times 10^{12}$ km. Bounds from other planets are summarized in Table \[solarsystem\]. Apart from the Yukawa potential assumption, this bound is solid and model independent.
Thus the bound inferred from gravitational radiation observations of stellar mass compact binary inspiral could be twice as large as the solar-system bound, while that from supermassive binary inspiral as observed by LISA could be $2 \times 10^4$ times larger.
Some have argued for a larger bound on $\lambda_g$ from galactic and cluster dynamics [@hiida; @hare; @nieto], noting that the evidence of bound clusters and of clear tidal interactions between galaxies argues for a range $\lambda_g$ at least as large as a few Megaparsecs ($6 \times 10^{19}$ km). Indeed this is the value quoted by the Particle Data Group [@particle]. However, in view of the uncertainties related to the amount of dark matter in the universe, and the absence of a theory that can encompass a massive graviton and cosmology, these bounds should be viewed with caution.
The remainder of this paper provides the details underlying these results. In section II, we study the propagation of a massive graviton in a cosmological background, to find the relation between emission interval and arrival interval. In section III, using the standard “restricted PN approximation”, in which the gravitational waveform is expressed as an amplitude accurate to the lowest, quadrupole approximation, and a phase accurate through 1.5PN order \[$O(v/c)^3$\] beyond the quadrupole approximation, we determine the effect of graviton propagation time on the Fourier transform of the waveform, which is the central ingredient in matched filtering. In section IV, we calculate the Fisher information matrix and determine the accuracy with which the compact binary’s parameters can be measured, including a bound on the effect of graviton mass. This approach is a reasonable approximation to real matched filtering for Gaussian noise and large signal-to-noise ratio. We apply the results to specific noise curves and binary systems appropriate for ground-based (LIGO/VIRGO) and space-based (LISA) detectors. Section V discusses bounds on the graviton mass using solar-system dynamics. Henceforth, we use units in which $G=c=1$.
Propagation of a massive graviton {#propagation}
=================================
Because some of the detectable compact binaries could be at cosmological distances, we study the propagation of a massive graviton in a background Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) homogeneous and isotropic spacetime. We take the line element to have the form [@mtw] $$ds^2=-dt^2+a^2(t)[d \chi^2 +\Sigma^2(\chi)(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta
d\phi^2)] \,,
\label{cosmometric}$$ where $a(t)$ is the scale factor of the universe and $\Sigma(\chi)$ is equal to $\chi$, $\sin \chi$ or $\sinh \chi$ if the universe is spatially flat, closed or open, respectively. For a graviton moving radially from emitter $\chi=\chi_e$ to detector $\chi=0$, it is straightforward to show that the component of 4-momentum $p_\chi =$ constant. Using the fact that $m_g^2=-p^\alpha p^\beta
g_{\alpha\beta}=E^2-a^{-2}p_\chi^2$, where $E=p^0$, together with $p^\chi/E=d\chi/dt$, we obtain $${d\chi \over dt} = - {1 \over a} \left ( 1+{m_g^2a^2 \over p_\chi^2}
\right )^{-1/2} \,,
\label{speed}$$ where $p_\chi^2=a^2(t_e)(E_e^2-m_g^2)$. Assuming that $E_e \gg m_g$, expanding Eq. (\[speed\]) to first order in $(m_g/E_e)^2$, and integrating, we obtain $$\chi_e= \int_{t_e}^{t_a} {dt \over a(t)} - {1 \over 2} {m_g^2 \over
{a^2(t_e)E_e^2}} \int_{t_e}^{t_a} a(t)dt \,.
\label{chi}$$ Consider gravitons emitted at two different times $t_e$ and $t_e^\prime$, with energies $E_e$ and $E_e^\prime$, and received at corresponding arrival times ($\chi_e$ is the same for both). Assuming that $\Delta t_e \equiv
t_e-t_e^\prime \ll a/\dot a$, and noting that $m_g/E_e = (\lambda_g
f_e)^{-1}$, where $f_e$ is the emitted frequency, we obtain, after eliminating $\chi_e$, $$\Delta t_a = (1+Z) \left [ \Delta t_e + {D \over 2\lambda_g^2} \left (
{1 \over f_e^2} -{1 \over {f_e^\prime}^2} \right ) \right ] \,,
\label{time}$$ where $Z \equiv a_0/a(t_e)-1$ is the cosmological redshift, and $$D \equiv {(1+Z) \over a_0}\int_{t_e}^{t_a} a(t) dt \,,
\label{D}$$ where $a_0=a(t_a)$ is the present value of the scale factor. Note that $D$ is not a conventional cosmological distance measure, like the luminosity distance $D_L \equiv a_0 \Sigma(\chi_e)(1+Z)$, or the proper distance $D_P \equiv a_0\chi_e$. For $Z \ll 1$, it is given by the standard formula $D=Z/H_0$; for a matter dominated, spatially flat universe, $D$ and $D_L$ are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
D &= & (2 / 5H_0) (1+Z)(1-(1+Z)^{-5/2}) \,. \label{2Da}\\
D_L &= & (2 / H_0) (1+Z)(1-(1+Z)^{-1/2}) \,. \label{2Db}\end{aligned}$$
\[2D\]
The ratio $D/D_L$ will play a role in our analysis of the bound on $\lambda_g$. It has the following representative behavior: $${D \over D_L} = \cases{1-Z+O(Z^2) \,,&$Z \ll 1$, all $\Omega_0$\cr
{{1+(2+Z)(1+Z+\sqrt{1+Z})} \over {5(1+Z)^2}} \,,&$\Omega_0=1$, all
$Z$}
\label{DbyDL}$$ where $\Omega_0$ is the density parameter. At $Z=1$, the factor $D/D_L$ varies from 0.5 for $\Omega_0=0.01$ to 0.6 for $\Omega_0=2$. For simplicity, we shall henceforth assume that $\Omega_0 \equiv 1$.
Massive graviton propagation and the phasing of gravitational waves
===================================================================
We shall treat the problem of a binary system of compact bodies of locally measured masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ in a quasi-circular orbit, that is an orbit which is circular apart from an adiabatic inspiral induced by gravitational radiation reaction within GR. We ignore tidal interactions and spin effects. For matched filtering of gravitational waves using LIGO/VIRGO or LISA type detectors, it is sufficient for our purpose to write the gravitational waveform $h(t)$ in the “restricted post-Newtonian form” [@cutlerflan; @finn; @jugger], in terms of an amplitude $A(t)$ expressed to the lowest, quadrupole approximation, and a phase $\Phi(t)$, expressed as a post-Newtonian expansion several orders beyond the quadrupole approximation,
$$\begin{aligned}
h(t) &\equiv& A(t)e^{-i\Phi(t)} \,,
\label{hbasic}\\
\Phi(t) &\equiv& \Phi_c + 2\pi \int_{t_c}^t f(t) dt \,,
\label{Phi}\end{aligned}$$
where $f(t)$ is the observed frequency of the waves, and $\Phi_c$ and $t_c$ are “fiducial” phase and time respectively. The amplitude $A$ is given by $$A(t) = {2\mu \over {a_0 \Sigma(\chi_e)}}
{m \over r(t)}F(i,\theta,\phi,\psi) \,,
\label{amplitude}$$ where $m \equiv m_1+m_2$ and $\mu \equiv m_1m_2/m$ are the total and reduced mass of the system (we also define the reduced mass parameter $\eta \equiv \mu/m$), $r(t)$ is the orbital separation, and $F$ is an angular function related to the orientation of the orbit (angles $i$, $\psi$) and the direction of the source relative to the antenna (angles $\theta$, $\phi$), given by $$F^2(i,\theta,\phi,\psi)= {1 \over 4}(1+\cos^2 i)^2 F_+^2 +\cos^2 i
F_\times^2 \,,
\label{F}$$ where $F_+(\theta,\phi,\psi)$ and $F_\times(\theta,\phi,\psi)$ are beam pattern factors quoted, for example in Eqs. (104) of [@Thorne1987]. For simplicity, we shall average over all four angles, and use the fact that $\langle F^2 \rangle = 4/25$.
We next compute the Fourier transform of $h(t)$. Expanding $h(t)$ about the time $\tilde t$ at which the observed frequency is $\tilde f$, [*i.e.*]{} $f(\tilde t)\equiv \tilde f$, and using the stationary-phase approximation, we obtain $$\tilde h (\tilde f) = {A(\tilde t) \over \sqrt{\dot f (\tilde t)}}
e^{i\Psi(\tilde f)} \,,
\label{htilde}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
A(\tilde t) &=& {4 \over 5}{{\cal M}_e
\over {a_0 \Sigma(\chi_e)}} (\pi{\cal M}_e
\tilde f_e)^{2/3} \,,\label{A}\\
\Psi(\tilde f) &=& 2\pi\int_{f_c}^{\tilde f} (t-t_c)df +2\pi \tilde f t_c
-\Phi_c-\pi/4 \,,
\label{Psi}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\cal M}_e=\eta^{3/5}m$ is the “chirp” mass of the emitter, and where we have used the Newtonian relation $m/r(\tilde t) = (\pi m \tilde f_e)^{2/3}$. The subscript “e” denotes “at the emitter”. We next substitute Eq. (\[time\]) into (\[Psi\]) to relate the time at the detector to that at the emitter, noting that, because of the cosmological redshift, $f_e = (1+Z)f$. The result is $$\Psi(\tilde f) = 2\pi\int_{\tilde f_{ec}}^{\tilde f_e} (t_e-t_{ec})df_e
-{{\pi D} \over {f_e \lambda_g^2}}+2\pi \tilde f \bar t_c - \bar
\Phi_c - {\pi \over 4} \,,
\label{Psif}$$ where $\bar t_c=t_c-D/[2(1+Z)\lambda_g^2 f_c^2]$, and $\bar \Phi_c=\Phi_c-2\pi D/[(1+Z)\lambda_g^2 f_c]$. To find $t_e-t_{ec}$ as a function of $f_e$, we integrate the equation for radiation reaction between $t_{ec}$ and $t_e$: $$\begin{aligned}
{df_e \over dt_e} = {96 \over {5\pi {\cal M}_e^2}} (\pi {\cal M}_ef_e)^{11/3}
&& \biggl [ 1- \left ( {743 \over 336}+{11 \over 4}\eta \right ) (\pi m
f_e)^{2/3} \nonumber \\
&&+ 4\pi(\pi mf_e) \biggr ] \,,
\label{fdot}\end{aligned}$$ where we have included the first post-Newtonian (PN) term and the 1.5PN “tail” term in the radiation-reaction equation (see, [*e.g.*]{} [@cutlerflan]). After absorbing further constants of integration into $\bar t_c$ and $\bar \Phi_c$, dropping the bars on those two quantities, and re-expressing everything in terms of the [*measured*]{} frequency $\tilde f$ \[note that $(\dot f)^{1/2}=(df_e/dt_e)^{1/2}/(1+Z)$\], we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde h (\tilde f) &=& \cases{ \tilde A(\tilde f)
e^{i\Psi(\tilde f)} \,,& $0<\tilde f< \tilde f_{\rm max} $\cr
0 \,,& $\tilde f> \tilde f_{\rm max} $} \label{tildehnew}\\
A(\tilde f) &\equiv&
{\cal A} \tilde f^{-7/6} = \sqrt{\pi \over 30}{{\cal M}^2 \over D_L} u^{-7/6}
\,, \label{Anew}\\
\Psi(\tilde f) &=& 2\pi \tilde f t_c
-\Phi_c-\pi/4 +{3 \over 128} u^{-5/3} - \beta u^{-1} \nonumber\\
&&+{5 \over 96} \left ( {743\over 336}+{11\over 4}\eta \right )
\eta^{-2/5} u^{-1} \nonumber \\
&&- {3\pi \over 8} \eta^{-3/5} u^{-2/3} \,,
\label{Psinew}\end{aligned}$$
\[fourierfinal\]
where $u \equiv \pi {\cal M} \tilde f$, and $\cal M$ is the “measured chirp mass”, related to the source chirp mass by a redshift: ${\cal M} =
(1+Z) {\cal M}_e$. The parameter $\beta$ is given by $$\beta \equiv {{\pi^2 D {\cal M}} \over {\lambda_g^2 (1+Z)}} \,.
\label{beta}$$ The frequency $\tilde f_{\rm max}$ represents an upper cut-off frequency where the PN approximation fails. Equations (\[fourierfinal\]) are the basis for an analysis of parameter estimation using matched filtering.
Before turning to matched filtering, we must address our approximation of the motion and gravitational radiation damping as being general relativistic up to corrections of order $(r/\lambda_g)^2$. In the radiation-reaction formula Eq. (\[fdot\]), we included corrections to the quadrupole formula at 1.5PN order, corresponding to corrections of order $v^3$. Thus our neglect of massive graviton effects amounts to assuming that $r^2 \lambda_g^{-2} v^{-3}
\ll 1$ for all systems of interest. Because $v^2 \simeq m/r$ for circular orbits, we can rewrite this condition as $(m/\lambda_g)v^{-5/2} \ll 1$. Since typically $v > 10^{-2}$ for all systems of interest, and $\lambda_g > 10^{12} \,{\rm km}$ from solar-system bounds, this condition is easily satisfied.
Bounds on the graviton mass using matched filtering
===================================================
Matched-filter analysis
-----------------------
To obtain a more reliable estimate of the bound that can be placed on the graviton mass, we carry out a full matched-filter analysis following the method outlined for compact binary inspiral by Cutler and Flanagan [@cutlerflan] and Finn and Chernoff [@finn]. The details here parallel those of [@pnfilters].
With a given noise spectrum $S_n(f)$, one defines the inner product of signals $h_1$ and $h_2$ by $$(h_1|h_2) \equiv 2\int_0^\infty {{\tilde h_1^* \tilde h_2 +\tilde
h_2^* \tilde h_1 } \over S_n(f)} df \,,
\label{innerproduct}$$ where $\tilde h_a$ is the Fourier transform of the waveform defined in Eqs. (\[fourierfinal\]) (henceforth, we drop the tilde on frequencies). The signal-to-noise ratio for a given signal $h$ is given by $$\rho[h] \equiv S/N[h] = (h|h)^{1/2} \,.
\label{signaltonoise}$$ If the signal depends on a set of parameters $\theta^a$ which are to be estimated by the matched filter, then the rms error in $\theta^a$ in the limit of large $S/N$ is given by $$\Delta \theta^a \equiv \sqrt{\langle (\theta^a - \langle \theta^a
\rangle )^2 \rangle } = \sqrt{ \Sigma^{aa}} \,,
\label{deltatheta}$$ where $\Sigma^{aa}$ is the corresponding component of the inverse of the covariance matrix or Fisher information matrix $\Gamma_{ab}$ defined by $$\Gamma_{ab} \equiv \left ( {{\partial h} \over {\partial \theta^a}}
\big | {{\partial h} \over {\partial \theta^b}} \right ) \,.
\label{fisher}$$ The correlation coefficient between two parameters $\theta^a$ and $\theta^b$ is $$c^{ab} \equiv \Sigma^{ab}/\sqrt{\Sigma^{aa}\Sigma^{bb}} \,.
\label{correlation}$$
We estimate the following six parameters, $\ln {\cal A}$, $\Phi_c$, $f_0
t_c$, $\ln {\cal M}$, $\ln \eta$, and $\beta$, where $f_0$ is a frequency characteristic of the detector, typically a “knee” frequency, or a frequency at which $S_n(f)$ is a minimum. The corresponding partial derivatives of $\tilde h (f)$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\partial \tilde h(f)} \over {\partial \ln {\cal A} }} &=& \tilde
h(f)
\,, \\
{{\partial \tilde h(f)} \over {\partial \Phi_c }} &=& -i\tilde
h(f)
\,, \\
{{\partial \tilde h(f)} \over {\partial f_0t_c }} &=& 2\pi i (f/f_0) \tilde
h(f)
\,, \\
{{\partial \tilde h(f)} \over {\partial \ln {\cal M} }} &=& -\left (
{5i \over 128} u^{-5/3} + {5i \over 96} \gamma(\eta) u^{-1} \right .
\nonumber \\
&& \left . -{i\pi
\over 4} \eta^{-3/5} u^{-2/3} \right )\tilde h(f)
\,, \\
{{\partial \tilde h(f)} \over {\partial \ln\eta }} &=& \left (
{5i \over 96} \eta \gamma^\prime (\eta) u^{-1} \right . \nonumber
\\
&& \left . +{9i\pi \over 40}
\eta^{-3/5} u^{-2/3} \right ) \tilde
h(f)
\,, \\
{{\partial \tilde h(f)} \over {\partial \beta }} &=& -i u^{-1} \tilde
h(f)
\,,\end{aligned}$$
\[partials\]
where $\gamma(\eta) \equiv (743/336 + 11\eta/4)\eta^{-2/5}$, and $\gamma^\prime \equiv d\gamma/d\eta$. Since we plan to derive the error in estimating $\beta$ about the nominal or [*a priori*]{} GR value $\beta=0$, we have set $\beta=0$ in all the partial derivatives.
We assume that the detector noise curve can be approximated by an amplitude $S_0$, which sets the overall scale of the noise, and a function of the ratio $f/f_0 \equiv x$, which may include additional parameters, that is $S_n(f) = S_0 g_\alpha (x)$, where the subscript $\alpha$ denotes a set of parameters. Then from Eqs. (\[fourierfinal\]) and (\[signaltonoise\]) we find that the signal-to-noise ratio is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &=& 2 {\cal A} f_0^{-2/3} (I(7)/S_0)^{1/2} \nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{2 \over 15} {{\cal M}^{5/6} \over D_L} (\pi
f_0)^{-2/3} \left ( {I(7) \over S_0} \right )^{1/2} \,,
\label{SN}\end{aligned}$$ where we define the integrals $$I(q) \equiv \int_0^\infty { x^{-q/3} \over g_\alpha(x)} dx \,.
\label{Iq}$$ Note that any frequency cut-offs are to be incorporated appropriately into the endpoints of the integrals $I(q)$. If we define the coefficients $I_q \equiv
I(q)/I(7)$, then all elements of the covariance matrix turn out to be proportional to $\rho^2$ times linear combinations of terms of the form $u_0^{-n/3}I_q$ for various integers $n$ and $q$, where $u_0 = \pi {\cal M} f_0$. This overall $\rho$ dependence is characteristic of the large $S/N$ limit. As a result, the rms errors $\Delta \theta^a$ are inversely proportional to $\rho$, while the correlation coefficients are independent of $\rho$. Defining $\Delta \beta \equiv \Delta^{1/2} /\rho$, viewing $\Delta \beta$ as an upper bound on $\beta$, and combining this definition with Eqs. (\[beta\]) and (\[SN\]) we obtain the [*lower*]{} bound on $\lambda_g$: $$\lambda_g > \left ( {2 \over 15}{I(7) \over S_0} \right )^{1/4} \left ( {D \over (1+Z)D_L} \right )^{1/2} {{\pi^{2/3} {\cal M}^{11/12}} \over
{f_0^{1/3} \Delta^{1/4}}} \,.
\label{lambdabound}$$ Note that the bound on $\lambda_g$ depends only weakly on distance, via the $Z$ dependence of the factor $[D/(1+Z)D_L]^{1/2}$, which varies from unity at $Z=0$ to 0.45 at $Z=1.5$. This is because, while the signal strength, and hence the accuracy, falls with distance, the size of the arrival-time effect increases with distance. Otherwise, the bound depends only on the chirp mass and on detector noise characteristics. We now apply this formalism to specific detectors.
Ground-based detectors of the LIGO/VIRGO type
---------------------------------------------
The proposed advanced version of LIGO is expected to detect compact binary inspiral to distances of 200 Mpc to 1 Gpc. The sensitive frequency band extends from around 10 Hz to several hundreds of Hz. We adopt the benchmark advanced LIGO noise curve, given by $$S_n(f) = \cases{\infty \,,&$f< 10 {\rm Hz} $\cr
S_0 [(f_0/f)^4+2+2(f/f_0)^2]/5 \,,&$f> 10{\rm Hz} $}
\label{ligonoise}$$ where $S_0=3 \times 10^{-48} \,{\rm Hz}^{-1}$, and $f_0=70 \,{\rm
Hz}$. The cutoff at 10 Hz corresponds to seismic noise, while the $f^{-4}$ and $f^2$ dependences denote thermal and photon shot-noise, respectively [@LIGO]. We choose an upper cut-off frequency, where the PN approximation fails, corresponding to the innermost stable circular orbit. Although this is known rigorously only for test body motion around black holes [@kww], a conventional estimate is given by $f_{\rm
ISCO} \approx [6^{3/2} \pi (m_1+m_2)]^{-1}$. Converting this to the measured frequency and chirp mass, we have $x_{\rm max} = [6^{3/2}\pi \eta^{-3/5}
{\cal M} f_0]^{-1}$. For this case, we thus have $g(x)=(x^{-4}+2+2x^2)/5$, and $I(q)=\int_{1/7}^{x_{\rm max}} [x^{-q/3}/g(x)]dx$. We then calculate and invert the covariance matrix and evaluate the errors in the five relevant parameters (the parameter $\ln {\cal A}$ decouples from the rest and is relevant only for the calculation of $\rho$), and the correlation coefficients between $\cal M$, $\eta$ and $\beta$. For various “canonical” compact binary systems observable by advanced LIGO, the results are shown in Table \[tableLIGO\]. Note that, in determining the bound on $\lambda_g$, we must include the $Z$ dependence embodied in Eq. (\[lambdabound\]). To do so, we take our assumed value for signal-to-noise ratio $\rho=10$, determine the luminosity distance using Eq. (\[SN\]), and convert that to a redshift using Eq. (\[2Db\]), with an assumed value $H_0=50 \, {\rm km~s}^{-1}{\rm
Mpc}^{-1}$ and $\Omega_0=1$. We then substitute it, along with Eq. (\[2Da\]) into Eq. (\[lambdabound\]).
It is useful to compare these results to those from parameter estimation calculations using pure GR to 1.5PN order [*including*]{} spin-orbit effects (see [*e.g.*]{} [@cutlerflan; @pnfilters]). There, an additional parameter related to the spin-orbit effect (also called $\beta$, with a nominal value of zero) was estimated, although it produced a different $u$-dependent term in the phasing formula ($u^{-2/3}$ instead of $u^{-1}$). Nevertheless, the errors in the fiducial phase $\Delta \Phi_c$, time $\Delta t_c$ and chirp mass $\Delta \ln {\cal M}$ are virtually identical in both cases, and somewhat larger than if no additional $\beta$ parameter were estimated (compare Table \[tableLIGO\] with Table I and II of [@cutlerflan] or Table II of [@pnfilters]). But in our case, the errors in the reduced mass parameter $\eta$ are significantly larger, a result of the nearly perfect correlation ($u^{-1}$ dependence) between the 1PN term and the $\beta$-term in the phasing, Eq. (\[Psinew\]). The error grows dramatically with total mass because the smaller number of observed gravitational-wave cycles reduces the ability of the tail term ($\propto u^{-2/3}$) to break the degeneracy.
Space-based detectors of the LISA type
--------------------------------------
The proposed Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) is expected to be able to detect the inspiral of supermassive black hole binaries to cosmological distances, with very large signal-to-noise ratio. The sensitive frequency band extends from around $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-1}$ Hz, with a typical integration time of the order of one year. We adopt a noise curve described in the LISA pre-Phase A report [@LISA], augmented by a fit to “confusion noise” generated by a population of close white dwarf binaries in our galaxy [@bender], given by the equations: $$\begin{aligned}
S_0 &=& 4.2 \times 10^{-41} {\rm Hz}^{-1} \,, \nonumber \\
f_0 &=& 10^{-3} {\rm Hz} \,, \nonumber \\
g_(x) &=& \sqrt{10} x^{-14/3} +1+ x^2/1000 \nonumber \\
&&+ 313.5 x^{-(6.398+3.518
\log_{10} x )} \,.
\label{lisanoise}\end{aligned}$$ In order, the four terms in $g(x)$ correspond to: temperature fluctuations, photon shot noise, loss of sensitivity when the arm lengths exceed the gravitational wavelength, and a fit to the white-dwarf binary confusion noise. For the maximum frequency, we again adopt that of the innermost stable circular orbit. The minimum frequency is set by the characteristic integration time for LISA, nominally chosen to be one year. We calculate the time $T_e$ remaining until the system reaches the innermost stable orbit by integrating Eq. (\[fdot\]) using only the dominant, Newtonian contribution, convert from time at the emitter to observation time $T$ using Eq. (\[time\]) (ignoring the small correction due to massive graviton propagation), and obtain $$x_{\rm min} \approx {1 \over {\pi {\cal M} f_0}} \left ( {5{\cal M}
\over 256T} \right )^{3/8} \,.
\label{lisaxmin}$$
For supermassive binaries ranging from $10^4$ to $10^7 M_\odot$, and for integration time $T=$ 1 year, we estimate the errors in the five parameters and determine a bound on $\lambda_g$. We choose the signal-to-noise ratio $\rho$ for each case such that the luminosity distance to the source $\simeq 3$ Gpc, so that cosmological effects do not become too severe. The results are shown in Table \[tableLISA\].
Solar-system bounds on the graviton mass
========================================
If the Newtonian gravitational potential is modified by a massive graviton to have the Yukawa form of Eq. (\[yukawa\]), then the acceleration of a test body takes the form $${\bf g} = -{{\bf n} \over r^2} \mu(r) \,,
\label{acceleration}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(r) &\equiv& M(1+r/\lambda_g)\exp (-r/\lambda_g) \nonumber \\
&=& M \left [ 1 - {1 \over 2} \left ({r \over \lambda_g} \right )^2
+O\left ({r \over \lambda_g} \right )^3 \right ] \,.
\label{kepler}\end{aligned}$$ For a planet with semi-major axis $a_p$ and period $P_p$, Kepler’s third law gives $a_p (2\pi/P_p)^{2/3} = \mu(a_p)^{1/3}$. For a pure inverse-square law, $\mu \equiv {\rm constant}$, and its value is determined accurately using the orbit of the Earth. Thus, by checking Kepler’s third law for other planets, one can test the constancy of $\mu$. For a given planet, we define the parameter $\eta_p$ by $$1+\eta_p \equiv \left ({\mu(a_p) \over \mu(a_\oplus)} \right )^{1/3} \,.
\label{eta}$$ Combining Eq. (\[eta\]) and (\[kepler\]), we obtain a bound on $\lambda_g$ in terms of $\eta_p$ $$\lambda_g > \left ( {1-a_p^2} \over {6\eta_p} \right )^{1/2} \,,
\label{lambdasolar}$$ where $\lambda_g$ and $a_p$ are expressed in astronomical units ($1.5 \times
10^8$ km). Table \[solarsystem\] lists the observed bounds on $\eta_p$ for Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter compiled by Talmadge [*et al.*]{} [@talmadge], and the resulting bounds on $\lambda_g$.
Planet $a_p$ Bound on $\eta_p$ $\lambda_g$
--------- ------- ------------------------ -------------
Mercury 0.387 $1.4 \times 10^{-8}$ 0.5
Venus 0.723 $1.5 \times 10^{-9}$ 1.1
Mars 1.523 $-6.5 \times 10^{-10}$ 2.8
Jupiter 5.203 $-6 \times 10^{-8}$ 1.3
: Bounds on $\lambda_g$ in units of $10^{12}$ km from Kepler’s third law applied to the solar system. Semi-major axes are in astronomical units, and the appropriate one-sided, $2\sigma$ bound on $\eta_p$ from Talmadge [*et al.*]{} [@talmadge] is shown.
\[solarsystem\]
A Yukawa violation of the inverse square law will also produce anomalous perhelion shifts of orbits, of the form $\delta \omega
\approx \pi (a_p/\lambda_g)^2$. By comparing measured shifts with the general relativistic prediction for Mercury and Mars (Venus and Jupiter are unsuitable for this purpose) [@talmadge], one obtains bounds a factor two weaker than those from Kepler’s law.
Systems like the binary pulsar do not yield useful bounds, mainly because they are so compact. Since the deviations from GR go as $(a/\lambda_g)^2$, where $a$ is the size of the system, the bound is roughly $\lambda_g > a/\epsilon^{1/2}$, where $\epsilon$ is the accuracy of agreement with observations. Since $a \sim 10^6$ km, and $\epsilon \sim 10^{-3}$, the bound is far from competitive with that from the solar system.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We are grateful to the Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where part of this work was carried out. This work was supported in part by the J. S. Guggenheim Foundation, and by the National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY 96-00049.
Email address: [email protected] K.S. Thorne, in [*300 Years of Gravitation*]{}, edited by S.W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1987), p. 330. C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{} 6058 (1994). L. Blanchet and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Class. Quantum Grav. [**11**]{}, 2807 (1994); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1067 (1995). F. D. Ryan, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 5707 (1995). E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 5939 (1996). J. H. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 711 (1994). D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, A. P. Lightman, R. V. Wagoner, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{}, 884 (1973); D. M. Eardley, D. L. Lee, and A. P. Lightman, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 3308 (1973). C. M. Will, [*Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993). R. V. Wagoner and H. J. Paik, in [*Proceedings of the International Meeting on Experimental Gravitation*]{}, edited by B. Bertotti (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, 1977), p. 257; H. J. Paik, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 409 (1977); J. A. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 591 (1995). N. Rosen, Gen. Relativ. and Gravit. [**4**]{}, 435 (1973). C. M. Caves, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**125**]{}, 35 (1980). C. Cutler, T. A. Apostolatos, L. Bildsten, L. S. Finn, É. E. Flanagan, D. Kennefick, D. M. Marković, A. Ori, E. Poisson, G. J. Sussman, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2984 (1993). A. Abramovici, W.E. Althouse, R.W.P. Drever, Y. G[" u]{}rsel, S. Kawamura, F.J. Raab, D. Shoemaker, L. Siewers, R.E. Spero, K.S. Thorne, R.E. Vogt, R. Weiss, S.E. Whitcomb, and M.E. Zucker, Science [**256**]{}, 325 (1992). P. Bender, I. Ciufolini, K. Danzmann, W. Folkner, J. Hough, D. Robertson, A. Rüdiger, M. Sandford, R. Schilling, B. Schutz, R. Stebbins, T. Summer, P. Touboul, S. Vitale, H. Ward, and W. Winkler, [*LISA: Laser Interferometer Space Antenna for the Detection and Observation of Gravitational Waves*]{}, Pre-Phase A Report, December 1995 (unpublished). H. van Dam and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. [**B22**]{}, 397 (1970). M. G. Hare, Can. J. Phys. [**51**]{}, 431 (1973). A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto, Phys. Rev. D [**9**]{}, 1119 (1974). M. Visser, Class. Quantum Grav., in press (gr-qc/9705051). C. Talmadge, J.-P. Berthias, R. W. Hellings, and E. M. Standish, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1159 (1988). K. Hiida and Y. Yamaguchi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., extra number, 261 (1965). Particle Data Group, [*Review of Particle Properties*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 1 (1996). We use the conventions and notation of C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973) C. Cutler and É. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 2658 (1994). L.S. Finn and D.F. Chernoff Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 2198 (1993). E. Poisson and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 848 (1995). L. E. Kidder, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 3281 (1993). P. L. Bender and D. Hils, Class. Quantum Grav. [**14**]{}, 1439 (1997).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A multi-cell mobile edge computing network is studied, in which each user wishes to compute the product of a user-generated data matrix with a network-stored matrix through data uploading, distributed edge computing, and output downloading. Assuming randomly straggling edge servers, this paper investigates the interplay among upload, compute, and download times in high signal-to-noise ratio regimes. A policy based on cascaded coded computing and on coordinated and cooperative interference management in uplink and downlink is proposed and proved to be approximately optimal for sufficiently large upload times. By investing more time in uplink transmission, the policy creates data redundancy at the edge nodes to reduce both computation times by coded computing, and download times via transmitter cooperation. Moreover, it allows computing times to be traded for download times.'
author:
- '[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'refer.bib'
title: 'Multi-Cell Mobile Edge Coded Computing: Trading Communication and Computing for Distributed Matrix Multiplication'
---
=2.1pt =2.1pt
[1.0]{}
Introduction
============
Mobile edge computing (MEC) is an emerging network architecture that enables cloud-computing capabilities at the edge nodes (ENs) of mobile networks[@MEC]. MEC makes it possible to offer mobile users applications, such as recommendation or gaming services, that require significant storage and computing resources, by task offloading. A key problem, which is the subject of this paper, is to understand the interplay and performance trade-offs between communication (in both uplink and downlink) and computing during the offloading process in multi-cell MEC networks (see Fig. \[sysModel\]).
To this end, this study focuses on the baseline problem of computing the product between user-generated data vectors $\mathbf{u}$’s and a network-stored matrix $\mathbf{A}$. Examples of applications include recommendation systems based on collaborative filtering, in which the user-generated data $\mathbf{u}$ corresponds to user profile vectors, while the network-side matrix $\mathbf{A}$ collects the profile vectors of a certain class of items, e.g., movies. Note that matrix $\mathbf{A}$ may be very large in practice, preventing a simple solution whereby users download and store the matrix for local computation. Matrix multiplication, as many other more complex computations[@bekkerman2011scaling], can be decomposed into subtasks and distributed across multiple servers. In MEC networks, the servers are embedded in distinct ENs, and hence distributed computation at the edge requires input data uploading via the uplink, computation at the ENs, and output result downloading via the downlink.
In the process discussed above, the overall latency is the sum of three components, namely, the times needed for uploading, for computing at the ENs, and for downloading. This paper is devoted to studying the interplay and trade-offs among these three components from an information-theoretic standpoint. The key idea is that investing more time in any one of the three steps may be instrumental in reducing the time needed for subsequent steps thanks to coded computing [@fundamental_tradeoff; @Speeding_Up; @songzestraggler; @jingjing; @stagglerexploit; @8006960; @improvedJingjing] and cooperative transmission [@7857805; @sengupta2017fog; @FanXu; @TaoCache]. As explained next, both coded computing and cooperative transmissions leverage forms of spatial redundancy.
{width="4.4in" height="2.4in"}
\[sysModel\]
Coded computing was introduced in [@Speeding_Up] for a master-slave system with ideal communication links and linear computations. It aims at reducing the average latency caused by distributed servers with random computing times, i.e., the problem of so-called *straggling servers*[@dean2013tail], through linear coding of the rows of matrix $\mathbf{A}$. Linear coding assigns each server a flexible number of encoded rows of matrix $\mathbf{A}$. Thanks to coding, specifically to Maximum Distance Separable (MDS) codes, assigning more coded rows at the servers reduces the number of servers that need to complete their computations in order to recover the desired outputs.
A simple way to ensure spatial redundancy is to assign repeatedly the same rows of matrix $\mathbf{A}$ across multiple ENs. While this does not provide the same robustness against stragglers as MDS coding, it allows ENs to compute common outputs, i.e., computation replication. This in turn makes it possible for the ENs to cooperate for transmission to the users in the downlink, which can reduce the download latency in an interference-limited system such as that in Fig. \[sysModel\]. This idea has been explored by [@8007057; @jingjing; @KKLMEC] for task offloading in multi-cell MEC systems and by [@li2019wireless] for data shuffling in wireless MapReduce systems. Note that the same idea has also been explored in the context of multi-cell caching systems for content delivery in [@7857805; @sengupta2017fog; @FanXu; @TaoCache].
In fact, in the MEC system of Fig. \[sysModel\], investing more time for uplink communication allows the same user-generated input vectors to be received by more ENs, which enhances spatial redundancy. The spatial redundancy generally introduces a heavier computation load, which in turn can increase the robustness against straggling servers via coded computing and reduce download latency by enhancing transmission cooperation opportunities at the ENs.
Based on these observations, this paper tackles the question: *Given an upload latency, what is the optimal trade-off between computing and download latencies?* We focus on the high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) regime in order to highlight the role of interference management as enabled by spatial redundancy. The main prior works in this regard are [@jingjing] and [@KKLMEC]. The work [@jingjing] proposed a computing and downloading strategy by making the simplified assumption that the upload time is unconstrained so that the input vectors from all users are available at all ENs. The work [@KKLMEC], on the other hand, characterized the trade-off between upload and download latencies by assuming that the computing time at each EN is deterministic (in contrast to random) so that coded computing is not needed. Moreover, [@KKLMEC] adopts a general task model, rather than matrix multiplication as studied in this work.
In contrast to [@jingjing] and [@KKLMEC], in this paper, we parameterize the trade-off region between computing and download latencies in terms of the upload latency. We propose a joint task assignment, input upload, compute, and output download policy that generalizes that of [@jingjing] and [@KKLMEC], which is based on a cascade of MDS and repetition codes[@improvedJingjing], by accounting also for the more sophisticated coordination strategies proposed in [@FanXu]. Furthermore, we provide a converse result, which demonstrates that the achievable upload time is optimal, and the compute time and download time are within constant multiplicative gaps to their respective lower bounds.
Paper organization: Sec. \[problemformu\] presents the problem formulation and definitions. Main results are presented in Sec. \[mainresults\]. The proposed achievable schemes are summarized in Sec. \[AchievableScheme\].
Notations: $[a\!:\!b]$ denotes the set $\{a\!+\!1,a\!+\!2,\dots,b\}$, $[K]$ denotes the set $[1\!:\!K]$, and $(x)^+$ denotes $\max\{x,0\}$.
Problem Formulation {#problemformu}
===================
MEC Network Model
-----------------
As shown in Fig. \[sysModel\], we consider a multi-cell MEC network consisting of $K$ single-antenna ENs communicating with $M$ single-antenna users via a shared wireless channel. Denote by $\mathcal{K}\!=\!\{1,2,\ldots,K\}$ the set of ENs and by $\mathcal{M}\!=\!\{1,2,\ldots,M\}$ the set of users. Each EN is equipped with an edge server. Let $h^u_{ki}$ denote the uplink channel fading from user $i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$ to EN $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}$, and $h^d_{ik}$ denote the downlink channel fading from EN $k\!\in\! \mathcal{K}$ to user $i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$, both of which are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) for all pairs $(i,k)$ according to some continuous distribution. All users and ENs can acquire the full channel state information about uplink channel $\mathbf{H}^u\!\triangleq\!\{h^u_{ki}\!:k\!\in\!\mathcal{K},i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}\}$ and downlink channel $\mathbf{H}^d\!\triangleq\!\{h^d_{ik}\!:i\!\in\!\mathcal{M},k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}\}$.
We consider the matrix-vector product computation task $\mathbf{v}\!=\!\mathbf{A}\mathbf{u}$, where $\mathbf{u}\!\in\!\mathbb{F}^{n\times1}_{2^B}$ is the user-generated input vector, $\mathbf{v}\!\in\!\mathbb{F}^{m\times 1}_{2^B}$ is the output vector, $\mathbf{A}\! \in\!\mathbb{F}^{m\times n}_{2^B}$ is a data matrix available at the network end, and $B$ is the size (in bits) of each element. Each user $i$ has $N$ input vectors $\mathbf{u}_{i,j}$, $j\!\in\![N]$, and wishes to compute the $N$ output vectors $$\label{output}
\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\!=\! \mathbf{A}{\mathbf{u}_{i,j}},~\text{for}~j\!\in\![N].$$ The matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is partially stored across the ENs, which conduct the product operations in a distributed manner. To this end, each EN $k$ has a storage capacity of $\mu m nB$ bits, and it can hence store a fraction $\mu\!\in\![\frac{1}{K},1]$ of the rows of matrix $\mathbf{A}$. Specifically, during an offline storage phase, an encoding matrix $\mathbf{E}_k\!\in\!\mathbb{F}^{\mu m\times m}_{2^B}$ is used to generate a coded matrix $\mathbf{A}_k\!=\!\mathbf{E}_k\mathbf{A}$, which is then stored at EN $k$, as in [@songzestraggler; @improvedJingjing].
Task Offloading Procedure
-------------------------
The task offloading procedure proceeds via task assignment, input uploading, edge computing, and output downloading.
### Task Assignment
A task assignment scheme is defined through sets $\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!:i\!\in\!\mathcal{M},\mathcal{K}^{'}\!\subseteq\! \mathcal{K}\}$, where $\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!\subseteq\!\{\mathbf{u}_{i,j}\}^N_{j=1}$ denotes the subset of input vectors from user $i$ that are assigned only to the subset of ENs $\mathcal{K}^{'}$ for computation. Since each input vector must be computed, we have the condition $\bigcup_{\mathcal{K}^{'}\!\subseteq \mathcal{K}} \mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!=\!\{\mathbf{u}_{i,j}\}^N_{j=1}$ for $i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$. Furthermore, by definition, we have the relation $\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!\bigcap \mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{''}}\!=\!\varnothing$ for $\mathcal{K}^{'}\!\neq\!\mathcal{K}^{''}$. The subset of input vectors from all users assigned to each EN $k$ is denoted as $\mathcal{U}_k\!=\!\bigcup_{{i}\in\mathcal{M},\,\mathcal{K}^{'}\!\subseteq \mathcal{K}:\,k\in\mathcal{K}^{'}} \mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}$.
\[defenition1\] (Repetition Order) For a given task assignment scheme $\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},\mathcal{K}^{'}\subseteq\mathcal{K}}$, the repetition order $r$, with $1\!\le\!r \!\le \!K$, is defined as average input data redundancy, i.e., the total number of input vectors assigned to the $K$ ENs (counting repetitions) divided by the total number of input vectors of the $M$ users, i.e., $r\!\triangleq\!\frac{\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}}|\mathcal{U}_{k}|}{MN}$.
### Input Uploading
At run time, each user $i$ maps its input vectors $\{\mathbf{u}_{i,j}\}^N_{j=1}$ into a codeword $\mathbf{X}^u_i\!\triangleq\!\left(X^u_i(t)\right)^{T^{u}}_{t=1}$ of length $T^u$ symbols under the power constraint $(T^{u})^{-1}\mathbb{E}\big[||\mathbf{X}^u_i||^2\big]\!\le\! P^u$. Note that $X^u_i(t)\!\in\! \mathbb{C}$ is the symbol transmitted at time $t\!\in\![T^{u}]$. At each EN $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}$, the received signal $Y^u_k(t) \!\in\! \mathbb{C}$ at time $t\!\in\![T^{u}]$ can be expressed as $Y^u_k(t)\!=\!\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}}h^u_{ki}(t)X^u_i(t)\!+\!Z^u_{k}(t)$, where $Z^u_{k}(t)\!\sim\!\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$ denotes the noise at EN $k$. Each EN $k$ decodes the sequence $\left(Y^u_k(t)\right)^{T^u}_{t=1}$ into an estimate $\{\widehat{\mathbf{u}}_{i,j}\}$ of the assigned input vectors $\{\mathbf{u}_{i,j}\!:\mathbf{u}_{i,j}\!\in\!\mathcal{U}_k\}$.
### Edge Computing
After the uploading phase is completed, each EN $k$ computes the products of the assigned estimated input vectors in set $\mathcal{U}_{k}$ with its stored coded model $\mathbf{A}_k$. The computing time for EN $k$ to complete the computation of the corresponding $\mu m |\mathcal{U}_{k}|$ row-vector products is modeled as $$\label{computingtime}
T^c_k = \mu m |\mathcal{U}_{k}| \omega_k, ~\text{for}~k\in\mathcal{K}.$$ In (\[computingtime\]), random variable $\omega_k$ represents the time needed by EN $k$ to compute a row-vector product, and is modelled as an exponential distribution with mean $1/\eta$ (see, e.g., [@Speeding_Up; @songzestraggler; @8006960]). The MEC network waits until the fastest $q$ ENs, denoted as subset $\mathcal{K}_q\!\subseteq\!\mathcal{K}$, have finished their tasks before returning the results back to users in the downlink. The cardinality $|\mathcal{K}_q|\!=\!q$ is referred to as *the recovery order*. The rest of $K\!-\!q$ ENs are known as *stragglers*. The resulting (random) duration of the edge computing phase is hence given by $T^c=\max_{k\in\mathcal{K}_q} T^c_k$.
### Output Downloading
At the end of the edge computing phase, each EN $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}_q$ obtains the coded outputs $\mathcal{V}_k\!\triangleq\!\left\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j,k}\!=\!\mathbf{A}_k\widehat{\mathbf{u}}_{i,j}\!:\mathbf{u}_{i,j}\!\in\!\mathcal{U}_{k}\right\}$. Every EN $k$ in $\mathcal{K}_q$ then maps $\mathcal{V}_k$ into a length-$T^d$ codeword $\mathbf{X}^{d}_k\!\triangleq\!\left(X^{d}_{k}(t)\right)^{T^{d}}_{t=1}$ with an average power constraint $(T^{d})^{-1}\mathbb{E}\big[||\mathbf{X}^d_k||^2\big]\!\le\! P^d$. For each user $i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$, its received signal $Y^{d}_i(t) \!\in\! \mathbb{C}$ at time $t\!\in\![T^{d}]$ is given by $Y^{d}_i(t)\!=\!\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}_q}h^d_{ik}(t)X^{d}_{k}(t)\!+\!Z^{d}_{i}(t)$, where $Z^{d}_{i}(t)\!\sim\!\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$ is the noise at user $i$. Each user $i$ decodes the sequence $(Y^{d}_i(t))^{T^d}_{t=1}$ to obtain an estimate $\{\widehat{\mathbf{v}}_{i,j,k}\}_{j\in[N],k\in\mathcal{K}_q}$ of the coded outputs, from which it obtains an estimate $\{\widehat{\mathbf{v}}_{i,j}\}_{j\in[N]}$ of its desired outputs. This is possible if the estimated coded outputs $\{\widehat{\mathbf{v}}_{i,j,k}\}_{j\in[N],k\in\mathcal{K}_q}$ contain enough information to guarantee the condition $H(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{j\in[N]}|\{\widehat{\mathbf{v}}_{i,j,k}\}_{j\in[N],k\in\mathcal{K}_q})\!=\!0$. The overall error probability is given as $\mathrm{P}_e\!\triangleq\!\mathbb{P}\big(\bigcup^{M~~N}_{i=1,j=1} \left\{\widehat{\mathbf{v}}_{i,j}\!\neq\!\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\right\}\!\big)$. A task offloading policy is said to be feasible when the error probability $\mathrm{P}_e\!\to\!0$ as $B\!\to\!\infty$.
Performance Metric
------------------
The performance of the considered MEC network is characterized by the latency triplet due to task uploading, computing, and downloading, which we measure in the high-SNR regime by following [@sengupta2017fog].
\[defenition2\] The normalized uploading time (NULT), normalized computing time (NCT), and normalized downloading time (NDLT) achieved by a feasible policy with repetition order $r$ and recovery order $q$ are defined, respectively, as
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau^{u}(r) &\triangleq \lim_{P_u\to\infty} \lim_{B\to\infty} \frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{H}^u}[T^u]}{ NnB/\log P^u}, \label{NULTtau}\\
\tau^c (r,q) &\triangleq \lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}\left[T^c\right]}{ Nm/\eta},\label{NCTtau}\\
\tau^{d}(r,q) &\triangleq \lim_{P_d\to\infty}\lim_{m\to\infty}\lim_{B\to\infty} \frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{H}^d}[T^d]}{NmB/\log P^d}. \label{NDLTtau}\end{aligned}$$
The definitions (\[NULTtau\]) and (\[NDLTtau\]) have been also adopted in [@KKLMEC], by normalizing the delivery times to those of reference interference-free systems (with high-SNR rates $\log P^u$ and $\log P^d$, respectively). Similarly, the computing time in definition (\[NCTtau\]) is normalized by the average time needed to compute over all the input vectors of a user. To avoid rounding complications, in definition (\[NCTtau\]) and (\[NDLTtau\]), we let the output dimension $m$ grow to infinity.
For a given NULT $\tau^u$, the compute-download latency region is defined as the union of the set for all NCT-NDLT pairs $(\tau^c, \tau^d)$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{region}
\!\!\!\mathscr{T}^{*}(\tau^u)\!\triangleq\!\big\{\!(\tau^c, \tau^{d})\!: (\tau^u(r),\tau^c(r,q),\tau^{d}(r,q))~&\text{is achievable for}~\text{some $(r,q)$ and}\,\,\tau^u\!\le\!\tau^u(r),\nonumber\\
\!&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\tau^{c}\!\ge\!\tau^{c}(r,q),~\text{and}~\tau^{d}\!\ge\!\tau^{d}(r,q)\big\}\!.\!\!\end{aligned}$$
\[remarkconvex\] (Convexity of compute-download latency region.) For an input data assignment policy $\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},\mathcal{K}^{'}\subseteq\mathcal{K}}$ with a repetition order $r$, fix an input uploading strategy achieving NULT $\tau^u$. Consider two policies $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ that differ may in their computation and download pahses, and achieve NCT-NDLT pairs $\left(\tau^c_{1}, \tau^d_{1}\right)$ and $\left(\tau^c_{2}, \tau^d_{2}\right)$, respectively. For any ratio $\lambda\!\in\![0,1]$, there exists a policy that achieves the NCT-NDLT pair $\lambda\left(\tau^c_{1}, \tau^d_{1}\right) \!+\!(1\!-\!\lambda)\left(\tau^c_{2}, \tau^d_{2}\right)$ for the same NULT $\tau^u$. To this end, assuming $m$ is sufficiently large, matrix $\mathbf{A}$, correspondingly, all output vectors (\[output\]) are split horizontally so that $N\lambda m$ and $N(1\!-\!\lambda)m$ outputs are processed by using policies $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$, respectively. By the linearity of the NCT (\[NCTtau\]) and NDLT (\[NDLTtau\]) with respect to the output size, the claimed pair of NCT and NDLT is achieved. This implies the region (\[region\]) is convex.
The region $\mathscr{T}^{*}(\tau^u)$ captures the trade-offs between computation and download communication latencies for a fixed upload communication latency. The region in (\[region\]) is convex thanks to time- and memory-sharing arguments in a manner similar to[@sengupta2017fog Lemma 1] (the same is not true for the region of achievable triplets $(\tau^u, \tau^c, \tau^d)$).
{width="3.8in" height="2.3in"}
\[mds\_repetition\]
Main Results {#mainresults}
============
In this section, we first present the inner and outer bounds on the compute-download latency region, and then discuss some consequences of the main results in terms of the tradeoffs among upload, compute, and download latencies. Then, we specialize the main results to a number of simple set-ups to illustrate the connections with existing works.
Key Ideas {#keyidea}
---------
We start by outlining the main ideas that underpin the proposed policy. For a repetition-recovery order pair $(r,q)$, as shown in Fig. \[mds\_repetition\], during task assignment, matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is encoded by a cascade of an MDS code of rate $1/\rho_1$ and a repetition code of rate $1/\rho_2$. As in [@Speeding_Up; @songzestraggler; @jingjing], MDS codes can alleviate the impact of stragglers on the computation latency by decreasing the admissible values for the number $q$ of non-straggling ENs. Repetition coding can instead reduce the download latency by enabling cooperative transmission among multiple ENs computing the same outputs[@jingjing; @KKLMEC], as discussed below.
In the input upload phase, each user divides its $N$ input vectors into $\binom{K}{r}$ subsets $\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\}$, with each subset uploaded to a distinct subset $\mathcal{K}^{'}$ of $r$ ENs. Thus, as shown in Fig. \[mds\_repetition\], in the computing phase, each input vector of any user is computed by a subset of $p_1$ non-straggling ENs with $p_1$ being at least $r\!-(\!K\!-q)$ and at most $\min\{r,q\}$. Therefore, since each encoded row of $\mathbf{A}$ is replicated at a subset of $\rho_2$ ENs, after computation, each MDS-encoded row-vector product result for a user will be replicated at a subset of $p_2$ non-straggling ENs, with $p_2$ being at least $\max\{\rho_2\!-\! K\!+\!p_1,1\}$ and at most $\min\{p_1,\rho_2\}$.
In the output download phase, as proposed in [@FanXu], each subset of $p_2$ ENs computing the same coded outputs can first use zero-forcing (ZF) precoding to null the interfering signal caused by common outputs at a subset of $p_2-\!1$ undesired users. When the number of undesired users does not exceed $p_2-\!1$, i.e., when $M\!-\!1\!\le\!p_2-\!1$, by ZF precoding, each user only receives its desired outputs with all undesired outputs being cancelled out. When this condition is violated, i.e., when $M\!>\!p_2$, after ZF precoding, each output still causes interferences to $M\!-\!p_2$ undesired users. As detailed in [@FanXu], interference alignment can be applied in cascade to the ZF precoders in order to mitigate the impact of these interfering signals.
Bounds
------
The scheme summarized above and detailed in Sec. \[AchievableScheme\] achieves the following region.
\[achievableresults\] (Inner bound). For the described MEC network with $M$ users and $K$ ENs, each with storage capacity $\mu\!\in\![\frac{1}{K},1]$, the following communication-computation latency triplet $\big(\tau^{u}_a(r),$ $\tau^c_a(r,q),\tau^{d}_a(r,q)\big)$ is achievable
$$\begin{aligned}
\!\tau^{u}_a(r)&\!=\! \frac{(M\!-\!1)r \!+\! K}{K}, \label{achieveUpoad} \\
\!\tau^c_a(r,q)&\!=\!\frac{Mr\mu(H_k\!-\!H_{K-q})}{K}\!, \label{achievecompute}\\
\!\tau^d_a(r,q)&\!=\!\sum\limits^{\min\{r,q\}}_{p_1\!=r-\!K\!+q}\!\!\!\!\!B_{p_1}\!\!\left(\sum\limits^{l_{max}}_{p_2=l_{p_1}}\!\!\frac{B_{p_2}}{d^d_{p_1,M,p_2}}\!+\!
\!\frac{B_{l_{p_1}\!-1}}{d^d_{p_1,M,l_{p_1}\!-1}}\!\right)\!, \label{achievedownload}\end{aligned}$$
for any repetition order $r$ and recovery order $q$ in the set
$$\label{regionR}
\mathcal{R}\!\triangleq\!\big\{(r,q)\!:r\!\in\![K],q\!\in\![K],~\text{and}~ (r\!-\!K\!+\!q)\mu\!\ge\!1\big\},$$
where
$H_K\!=\!\sum^K_{k=1}\frac{1}{k}$, $B_{p_1}\!=\!\binom{q}{p_1}\binom{K-q}{r-p_1}\frac{1}{\binom{K}{r}}$, $B_{p_2}\!=\!\binom{p_1}{p_2}\binom{K-p_1}{\rho_2-p_2}\frac{\rho_1}{\binom{K}{\rho_2}}$, $B_{l_{p_1}\!-1}\!=\!1\!-\!\!\sum^{l_{max}}_{p_2=l_{p_1}}\!\!B_{p_2}$
;
$$\label{dofdd}
d^d_{p_1,M,p_2}=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&1, &p_2\!\ge\!M~~~~\\
&\frac{\binom{p_1}{M-1}(M\!-\!1)}{\binom{p_1}{M-1}(M\!-\!1)+1}, &~~p_2\!=\!M\!-\!1\\
&\max\left\{d', \frac{p_2}{M}\right\}, &~~p_2\!\le\!M\!-\!2
\end{aligned}
~,\right.$$
with $d'\!\triangleq\!\max_{1\le t\le p_2}\frac{p_1-t+1}{M+p_1-2t+1}$;
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{theoremcoderate}
\!\!\rho_2\!=\!\inf\!\bigg\{\rho\!:\!\!\binom{K}{\rho}\!-\!\binom{2K\!-\!r\!-\!q}{\rho}\!\ge\! \frac{1}{\rho_1}\binom{K}{\rho},\rho_1\rho\!=\!K\mu,\rho_1\!\in\!\big\{1,K\mu/(K\mu\!-\!1),K\mu/(K\mu\!-\!2)\cdots,K\mu\big\}\!\bigg\};\!\!\end{aligned}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{replicationmin}
\!\!\!l_{p_1} \!\!=\! \inf\!\bigg\{l\!:\!\!\sum\nolimits^{l_{max}}_{p_2=l}\!\!B_{p_2}m\!\le\!m, l\!\in\![l_{min}\!:\!l_{max}], l_{max}\!=\!\min\{p_1,\rho_2\}, l_{min}\!=\!\max\{\rho_2\!-\! K\!+\!p_1,1\} \bigg\}.\!\end{aligned}$$
For an NULT $\tau^u\!=\!\tau^u_a(r)$ given in (\[achieveUpoad\]) for some $r$, an inner bound $\mathscr{T}_{in}(\tau^{u})$ on the compute-download latency region is given as the convex hull of the set $\big\{\!\left(\tau^c_a(r,q),\tau^d_a(r,q)\right)\!:\!q\!\in\!\big[\lceil\!\frac{1}{\mu}\!\rceil\!+\!K\!-\!r\!:\!K\big]\!\big\}$.
We also have the following converse.
\[lower\_bound\] (Converse). For the same MEC network, the set of all admissible pairs $(r,q)$ is included in the set $\mathcal{R}$ in (\[regionR\]). Furthermore, any feasible communication-computation latency triplet $\left(\tau^{u}(r),\tau^{c}(r,q),\tau^{d}(r,q)\right)$ for pairs $(r,q)$ in $\mathcal{R}$ is lower bounded as
$$\begin{aligned}
\!\tau^{u}(r)&\!\ge\! \tau^u_a(r),\!\label{lowerupload}\\
\!\tau^{c}(r,q)&\!\ge\!\tau^{c^*}\!(r,q)\!=\!\max\limits_{t\in[q-1]}\!\!\frac{(H_K\!-\! H_{K-q+t})(r\!-\!K\!+\!t)^{+}M\mu }{t}\!,\!\label{lowercompute} \\
\!\tau^{d}(r,q)&\!\ge\!\tau^{d^*}\!(r,q)\!=\!\max_{t\in\{1,\cdots,\min\{q,M\}\}}\!\!\!\frac{M\!-\!(M\!-\!t)(q\!-\!t)\frac{r}{K}\mu}{t}\!.\! \label{lowerdownload}\end{aligned}$$
For an NULT $\tau^u\!=\!\tau^u_a(r)$ in (\[achieveUpoad\]) for some $r$, an outer bound $\mathscr{T}_{out}(\tau^{u})$ of the compute-download latency region is given as the convex hull of set $\big\{\!\!\left(\tau^{c^*}\!\!(r,q),\tau^{d^*}\!\!(r,q)\right)\!\!:\!q\!\in\!\!\big[\lceil\!\frac{1}{\mu}\!\rceil\!+\!K\!-r\!:\!\!K\big]\!\big\}$.
*Proof:* By considering all possible task assignments and the effect of random stragglers, bound (\[lowerupload\]) is derived via genie-aided arguments; (\[lowercompute\]) is derived by some basic inequalities; The proof of (\[lowerdownload\]) follows and generalizes steps in [@sengupta2017fog Eq. (63)-(65)]. The detailed proof is available in the Appendix. Fig. \[latencytriples\] plots the derived inner and outer bounds on the compute-download latency region $\mathscr{T}^{*}(\tau^{u})$ for $M\!\!=\!\!K\!\!=\!\!10$ and for two different values of $\tau^u$. First, we observe that, *as $q$ increases, the NDLT is reduced at the expense of an increasing NCT*: A larger $q$ enables more opportunities for transmission cooperation at the ENs during output downloading, while increasing, on average, the time required for $q$ ENs to complete their tasks. Furthermore, comparing Fig. \[bR\] with Fig. \[sR\], we also see that *allowing for a longer upload time increases the compute-download latency region*. This is because more information is uploaded to ENs over a larger latency $\tau^u$. Thus, on the one hand, users can wait for fewer ENs to finish their computing tasks, reducing the NCT; and, on the other hand, the increased duplication of outputs also increases opportunities for transmission cooperation to reduce the NDLT.
Optimality
----------
\[gapLemma\] (Optimality). For a given $r\!\in\![1,K]$, it is not possible to reduce the achievable NULT $\tau^u_a(r)$ in (\[achieveUpoad\]) while still guaranteeing the feasibility of a triplet $\left(\tau^{u}_a(r),\tau^{c},\tau^{d}\right)$. Furthermore, for a sufficiently large NULT $\tau^u\!\ge\!\tau^u_a(K\!-\!n_1)$ and small recovery order $q\!\le\!K(1\!-\!1/n_2)\!+\!1$, with integers $0\!\le\!n_1\!\!<\!q/2$ and $n_2\!\ge\!1$, the multiplicative gap between the achievable NCT in (\[achievecompute\]) and its lower bound $\tau^{c^*}$ in (\[lowercompute\]) satisfies the inequality $\tau^{c}/\tau^{c^*}\!\le\!(1\!+\!n_1) (1\!+\!n_2)$. Finally, for a sufficiently large NULT $\tau^u\!\ge\!\tau^u_a(K\!-\!n)$, with integer $n\!\ge\! 0$, the multiplicative gap between the achievable NDLT in (\[achievedownload\]) and its lower bound $\tau^{d^*}$ in (\[lowerdownload\]) satisfies the inequality $\tau^d/\tau^{d^*}\!\le\!2(1\!+\!n\mu)$, and hence, if $r\!=\!K$, we have $\tau^d/\tau^{d^*}\!\le\!2$.
The multiplicative gaps in Fig. \[latencytriples\] are consistent with Lemma \[gapLemma\], since $\tau^c/\tau^{c^*}\!=\!3.61\!<\!22$ at $(r,q)\!=\!(9,10)$ (i.e., $n_1\!=\!1$ and $n_2\!=\!10$) and $\tau^d/\tau^{d^*}\!=\!1.32\!<\!3.2$ at $(r,q)\!=\!(9,3)$ (i.e., $n\!=\!1$).
Special Cases
-------------
In the special case when $r\!=\!K$, hence ignoring limitations on the uplink transmission, the achievable NDLT (\[achievedownload\]) reduces to the normalized communication delay in [@jingjing Eq. (13)], when using only ZF precoding in downlink. Furthermore, when setting $q\!=\!K$, hence ignoring stragglers[’]{} effects, and $\mu\!=\!1$, i.e., ignoring ENs[’]{} storage constraint, the achievable NDLT (\[achievedownload\]) reduces to $\tau^d\!=\!M/\min\{K,M\}$, which recovers the communication load in [@8007057 Remark 5], and the NDT with cache-aided EN cooperation in [@sengupta2017fog Eq. (25)].
Details on The Proposed Policy {#AchievableScheme}
==============================
Consider $\mu\!\in\!\!\{1/K,2/K,\cdots\!,1\}$[^2], a repetition order $r\!\in\![K]$, and a recovery order $q\!\in\![K]$ in the feasible set $\mathcal{R}$ in (\[regionR\]). Note that each input vector is replicated on at least $r\!-\!(K\!-\!q)$ non-stragglers, so set $\mathcal{R}$ ensures that any subset of $r\!-\!K\!+\!q$ ENs can store at least $m$ coded rows of $\mathbf{A}$ to multiply each input.
### Task Assignment {#achieveuploadscheme}
Following the discussion in Sec. \[keyidea\], each EN $k$ is assigned $M\binom{K\!-\!1}{r-\!1}N/\binom{K}{r}\!=\!MNr/K$ inputs corresponding to subsets $\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!: i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{K}^{'}\!\subseteq\!\mathcal{K}, |\mathcal{K}^{'}|\!=\!r, k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{'}\}$.
### Input Uploading {#uploadtime}
For uplink transmissions, each user needs to communicate with all $\binom{K}{r}$ subsets of ENs of cardinality $r$. Therefore, the uplink channel is an X-multicast channel with $M$ transmitters, $K$ receivers, and size-$r$ multicast group. As proved in [@DOfNiesen Theorem 2], its optimal per-receiver DoF is given by $d^{u}_{r}\!=\!Mr\!/(Mr\!+\!K\!\!-\!r)$. The per-receiver rate of this channel in the high SNR regime can be approximated as $d^{u}_{r}\!\times\!\log\!P_u\!+\!o(\log\!P_u)$, so the uploading time can be approximately expressed as $T^u\!=\!\frac{MNr}{K}nB/(d^{u}_{r}\log\!P_u\!+o(\log\!P_u))$. Let $P_u\!\to\!\infty$ and $B\!\to\!\infty$, by Definition \[defenition2\], the NULT at repetition order $r$ is obtained as in (\[achieveUpoad\]).
### Edge Computing
Following Sec. \[keyidea\], the cascaded MDS-repetition code rate pair satisfies $\rho_1\!\!\in\!\!\left\{1,K\mu/(K\mu\!-\!1),K\mu/(K\mu\!-\!2),\cdots,K\mu\right\}$ and $\rho_2\!\!=\!\!K\mu/\rho_1$ under the constraint of the total storage size $k\mu$. Then, we split the coded matrix $\mathbf{A}_c$ into $\binom{K}{\rho_2}$ submatrices $\{\mathbf{A}_{c,\mathcal{K}^{''}}\!\}$, each stored at a distinct subset $\mathcal{K}^{''}\!$ of $\rho_2$ ENs. Then, as shown in Fig. \[mds\_repetition\], any subset of $r\!-\!K\!+\!q$ non-straggling ENs must store at least $m$ encoded rows to compute all outputs, which is ensured by condition $\rho_1m\!-\!\binom{K\!-(r\!-\!K\!+q)}{\!\rho_2\!}\rho_1m/\binom{\!K\!}{\!\rho_2\!}\!\ge\!m$ given in (\[theoremcoderate\]). Further, in order to create more spatial redundancy, the parameter $\rho_2$ is maximize as in (\[theoremcoderate\]) under the recovery condition. As an example, in Fig. \[downlinkchannel\], for $K\!\!=\!\!M\!\!=\!\!5$, $m\!=\!40$, $\mu\!\!=\!\!3/5$, $q\!\!=\!\!3$, and $r\!\!=\!\!4$, by (\[theoremcoderate\]), we have $(\rho_1,\rho_2)\!=\!(3/2,2)$ such that $\mathbf{A}$ is encoded into $60$ rows and then split into $\binom{5}{2}\!\!=\!\!10$ submatrices, each with $6$ rows replicated at $2$ ENs. By the given task input assignment $\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\}$, each EN $k$ computes $MNr\mu m/K$ row-vector products. Thus, by Definition \[defenition2\] and [@arnold2008first Eq. (4.6.6)], the NCT is given by $\tau^c(r,q)\!=\lim\limits_{m\to\infty}\!\frac{\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{\frac{MNr\mu m}{K}\omega_k\right\}_{q:K}\right]}{Nm/\eta}
\!=\!\frac{Mr\mu\mathbb{E}\left[\{\omega_k\}_{q:K}\right]\!\eta}{K}
\!=\!\frac{Mr\mu(H_k\!-\!H_{K-q})}{K}$.
{width="4.1in" height="2.5in"}
\[downlinkchannel\]
### Output Downloading
Following Sec. \[keyidea\], for each user, the number of input vectors computed by $p_1$ non-straggling ENs equals $\binom{K\!-q}{r-p_1}N/\binom{K}{r}\!=\!\big(B_{p_1}/\binom{q}{p_1}\big)N$. Furthermore, the number of encoded rows of $\mathbf{A}$ replicated at $p_2$ non-straggling ENs is $\binom{K-p_1}{\rho_2-p_2}\rho_1m/\binom{K}{\rho_2}\!=\!\big(B_{p_2}/\binom{p_1}{p_2}\big)m$. Thus, as discussed in Sec. \[keyidea\], when $p_2\!\ge\!M$, each subset of $p_2$ ENs computing the same $M\big(B_{p_1}/\binom{q}{p_1}\big)N\big(B_{p_2}/\binom{p_1}{p_2}\big)m$ outputs can cooperatively transmit these outputs to $M$ users via ZF precoding. In contrast, when $p_2\!<\!M$, each subset of $p_2$ ENs partitions each common output into $\binom{M-1}{p_2-1}$ submessages, and first use ZF precoding to null the interference caused by each submessage at a distinct subset of $p_2\!-\!1$ undesired users. Then, by cascading ZF precoding with asymptotic interference alignment, the rest of the interfering signals from each subset of $t-\!1$ ENs can be aligned into a distinct subspace at each user. For example, for $p_2\!=\!M\!-\!1$, each submessage only causes interference to one user, so all interfering signals at each user can be aligned into one common subspace. The resulting downlink is a cooperative-X channel with $p_1$ transmitters, $M$ receivers, and size-$p_2$ cooperation group. By [@FanXu Lemma 1], an achievable per-receiver DoF of this channel is given as (\[dofdd\]). Similar to the calculation of NULT in Sec. \[uploadtime\], by Definition \[defenition2\], the NDLT for each user to download the outputs replicated at $p_2$ non-stragglers is given by $$\tau^d_{p_1,p_2}\!=\!\frac{B_{p_1}B_{p_2}/\binom{q}{p_1}}{d^d_{p_1,M,p_2}}. \label{p_1,p_2}$$
Due to the MDS coding, the total number of coded outputs available on the $p_1$ ENs may exceed the number $m$ needed to recover the outputs of each input vector. Denote by $l_{p_1-1}$, $\max\{\rho_2\!-\!K\!+\!p_1,1\}\!\le\!l_{p_1-1}\!\le\!\min\{p_1,\rho_2\}$, the minimum degrees of replication of needed coded outputs on the $p_1$ ENs, it is determined by (\[replicationmin\]), so the number of needed coded outputs replicated at $l_{p_1}\!\!-\!1$ ENs equals $M(B_{p_1}/\binom{q}{p_1})NB_{l_{p_1}\!-1}m$, where $B_{l_{p_1}-1}\!=\!1\!-\!\!\sum^{l_{max}}_{p_2=l_{p_1}}\!\!B_{p_2}$. Note that $B_{l_{p_1}\!-\!1}m/\binom{p_1}{l_{p_1}\!-1}$ can be seen as an integer for infinitely large $m$ since $\big(\!B_{l_{p_1}\!-1}m\!\!\!\mod{\!\binom{p_1}{l_{p_1}\!-1}}\big)/m\!\le\!\binom{p_1}{l_{p_1}\!-1}/m\!\to\! 0$ as $m\!\to\!\infty$. Hence, any exclusive subset of $l_{p_1}\!-\!1$ ENs can cooperatively transmit $\big(B_{p_1}/\binom{q}{p_1}\big)N\big(B_{l_{p_1}\!-1}/\binom{p_1}{l_{p_1}\!-1}\big)m$ common outputs to each of $M$ users, so the downlink channel is also a cooperative-X channel with $p_1$ transmitters, $M$ receivers, and cooperation group size $l_{p_1}\!-\!1$. Similar to (\[p\_1,p\_2\]), the NDLT for each user to download the outputs replicated at $l_{p_1}\!\!-\!1$ non-stragglers is given by $$\tau^d_{p_1,l_{p_1}-1}\!=\!\frac{B_{p_1}B_{l_{p_1}-1}/\binom{q}{p_1}}{d^d_{p_1,M,l_{p_1}-1}}.$$ Therefore, by considering all the inputs computed by $p_1$ ENs, with $p_1$ from $r\!-\!(K\!-\!q)$ to $\min\{r,q\}$, and all the outputs replicated at $p_2$ ENs, with $p_2$ from $l_{p_1-1}$ to $\min\{p_1,\rho_2\}$, and by summing all download times, the NDLT is obtained in (\[achievedownload\]).
For example, in Fig. \[downlinkchannel\], for inputs $\{\mathbf{u}_{i,1}\}^5_{i=1}$ computed by $p_1\!\!=\!\!2$ ENs, there are $30$ outputs $\{\mathbf{a}_{25}\mathbf{u}_{i,1},\ldots,\mathbf{a}_{30}\mathbf{u}_{i,1}\}^5_{i=1}$ replicated at $p_2\!=\!2$ ENs. These $30$ outputs can be cooperatively transmitted back to the users via ZF precoding, resulting in a 2-transmitter 5-receiver MISO broadcast channel that is a special case of cooperative-X channels under full transmitter cooperation. As a result, an NDLT of $3/40$ is achieved. After this round of transmission, users still need $34\!\times\!5\!=\!170$ outputs inside the blue dashed rectangle in Fig. \[downlinkchannel\], which can be transmitted by the 2 ENs via interference alignment. The downlink is a 2-transmitter 5-receiver X channel that is a special case of cooperative-X channels with size-$1$ cooperation group, yielding the NDLT of $51/100$. Thus, the NDLT for outputs of $\{\mathbf{u}_{i,1}\}^5_{i=1}$ is $3/40\!+\!51/100\!=\!117/200$. Then, the input vectors $\{\mathbf{u}_{i,2}\}^5_{i=1},\{\mathbf{u}_{i,3}\}^5_{i=1}$ are also computed by $p_1\!\!=\!\!2$ ENs, their outputs can be transmitted in a similar way, which achieves an NDLT of $(117/200)\!\times\!2\!=\!117/100$. Likewise, for the inputs $\{\mathbf{u}_{i,4}\}^5_{i=1},\{\mathbf{u}_{i,5}\}^5_{i=1}$ computed by $p_1\!\!=\!\!3$ ENs, the 3-transmitter 5-receiver cooperative X-channel with size-$2$ cooperation group, and 3-transmitter 5-receiver X-channel are formed to transmit the total $400$ outputs, yielding an NDLT of $(21/100\!+\!77/300)\!\times\! 2\!=\!14/15$. Thus, in this example, the total NDLT at $(r,q)\!=\!(4,3)$ is $14/15\!+\!(117/200)\!\times\!3\!=\!1613/600$.
### Inner Bound of Compute-Download Latency Region
For an NULT $\tau^u\!=\!\tau^u_a(r)$ given in (\[achieveUpoad\]) for some $r\!\in\!\mathcal{R}$, where $\mathcal{R}$ is given by (\[regionR\]), the feasible values of recovery order $q$’s should satisfy $\lceil\frac{1}{\mu}\rceil\!+\!K\!-r\!\le\!q\!\le\!K$. The non-integer $q$ can be rewritten as $q\!=\!\lambda\lceil q\rceil\!+\! (1\!-\!\lambda)\lfloor q\rfloor$ for some $\lambda\!\in\![0,1]$. Based on Remark \[remarkconvex\], we can combine our proposed policies at $(r,\lceil q\rceil)$ and $(r,\lfloor q\rfloor)$ via time- and memory-sharing methods to achieve the NCT-NDLT pair $\left(\tau^{c}_a(r,q),\tau^{d}_a(r,q)\right)\! = \!\lambda \left(\tau^{c}_a(r,\lceil q\rceil),\tau^{d}_a(r,\lceil q\rceil)\right) \!+ (1\!-\!\lambda)\!\left(\tau^{c}_a(r,\lfloor q\rfloor),\tau^{d}_a(r,\lfloor q\rfloor)\right)$. In fact, for any two integer-valued $q_1$ and $q_2$, any convex combination of achievable pairs $(\tau^{c}_a(r,q_1),\tau^{d}_a(r,q_1)$ and $(\tau^{c}_a(r,q_2),\tau^{d}_a(r,q_2))$ can also be achieved. So an inner bound $\mathscr{T}_{in}(\tau^{u})$ of the compute-download latency region is given as the convex hull of set $\big\{\!\left(\tau^{c}_a(r),\tau^d_a(r,q)\right)\!:\!q\!\in\!\big[\lceil\frac{1}{\mu}\rceil\!+\!K\!-\!r\!:\! K\big]\big\}$.
Appendix: Converse Proofs {#appendix-converse-proofs .unnumbered}
=========================
In this appendix, we prove the lower bounds in Theorem \[lower\_bound\] and the multiplicative gaps in Lemma \[gapLemma\]. For a repetition-recovery order pair $(r,q)$, as discussed, each input will be replicated on at least $r\!-\!(K\!-\!q)$ non-stragglers. The condition $(r-\!K\!+q)\mu\!\ge\!1$ must be satisfied such that any subset of $r\!-\!K\!+\!q$ non-stragglers are able to provide sufficient information to compute the outputs of all users. This proves that no pair $(r,q)$ is feasible outside the feasible set $\mathcal{R}$ in (\[regionR\]). Consider an arbitrary user input assignment policy $\big\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!: i\!\in\!\mathcal{M},\mathcal{K}^{'}\!\subseteq\!\mathcal{K}, |\mathcal{K}^{'}|\!=\!r\big\}$. The input vectors from user $i$ assigned to EN $k$ are denoted as set $\mathcal{I}_{i,k}\!\triangleq\!\big\{\mathcal{U}_{i, \mathcal{K}^{'}}\!\big\}_{\mathcal{K}^{'}\subset\mathcal{K}:k\in\mathcal{K}^{'}}$ for $i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$ and $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}$, and the size of $\mathcal{I}_{i,k}$ is denoted as $\gamma_{i,k}NnB$ bits, where the ratio $\gamma_{i,k}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{K}}\gamma_{i,k} = r ,~ i \in\mathcal{M} \label{cons111}\\
&~0\le \gamma_{i,k} \le 1,~i \in\mathcal{M},~\text{and}~k\in\mathcal{K}. \label{cons222}\end{aligned}$$ In the rest of this appendix, we first derive the lower bounds on the NULT, NCT, and NDLT for a particular task assignment policy $\big\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!\big\}$ with repetition-recovery order $(r,q)\!\in\!\mathcal{R}$. Then, we minimize these lower bounds over all feasible task assignment policies to obtain the minimum NULT $\tau^{u^*}$, NCT $\tau^{c^*}$, and NDLT $\tau^{d^*}$. Then, for a fixed lower bound of NULT at $r\!\in\!\big[\lceil\frac{1}{\mu}\rceil,K\big]$, by convexity of the compute-download latency region, an outer bound of this region is given as described in Theorem \[lower\_bound\].
Lower Bound and Optimality of NULT
----------------------------------
For a particular task assignment policy $\big\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!\big\}$, we use genie-aided arguments to derive a lower bound on the NULT. Specifically, for any EN $k$ and user $i_o$, consider the following three disjoint subsets of task input vectors (or messages): $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{W}_{r} &= \{\mathcal{U}_{i, \mathcal{K}^{'} }: i\in\mathcal{M}, k\in\mathcal{K}^{'}\},\\
\mathcal{W}_{t} &= \{\mathcal{U}_{i, \mathcal{K}^{'} }:i=i_o,k\notin \mathcal{K}^{'} \},\\
\overline{\mathcal{W}} &= \{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}: i\ne i_o~\text{and}~k\notin \mathcal{K}^{'}\}.\end{aligned}$$ The set $\mathcal{W}_{r}$ indicates the input messages from all users assigned to EN $k$ or all input messages that EN $k$ needs to decode, which satisfies $|\mathcal{W}_{r}|\!=\!\sum_{i\in\mathcal{M}}\gamma_{i,k}NnB$. The set $\mathcal{W}_{t}$ indicates the input messages from user $i_o$ assigned to all ENs in $\mathcal{K}$ excluding EN $k$, which satisfies $|\mathcal{W}_{t}|\!=\!(1\!-\!\gamma_{i_o,k})NnB$. The last set $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ indicates all input messages from users in $\mathcal{M}$ excluding user $i$ assigned to ENs in $\mathcal{K}$ excluding EN $k$.
Let a genie provide the messages $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ to all ENs, and additionally provide messages $\mathcal{W}_{r}$ to ENs in $\mathcal{M}/\{k\}$. The received signal of EN $j$ can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y}_j &= \sum\limits^{M}_{i=1,i\ne i_o}\mathbf{H}^u_{ji}\mathbf{X}_{i} + \mathbf{H}^u_{ji_o}\mathbf{X}_{i_o}+\mathbf{Z}^u_j,
$$ where the diagonal matrices $\mathbf{H}^u_{ji}$, $\mathbf{X}_{i}$, and $\mathbf{Z}^u_j$ denotes the channel coefficients from user $i$ to EN $j$, the signal transmitted by user $i$, and the noise received at EN $j$, respectively, over the block length $T^u$. The ENs in $\mathcal{M}/\{k\}$ have messages $\overline{\mathcal{W}}\!\cup\!\mathcal{W}_{r}$, which include the input messages that EN $k$ should decode and input messages transmitted by all users excluding user $i_o$. By this genie-aided information, each EN $j\!\in\!\mathcal{M}/\{k\}$ can construct the transmitted symbols $\{\mathbf{X}_i\!:i\!\ne\!i_o\}$ and subtract them from the received signal. So we can rewrite the signal received at EN $j\!\ne\!k$ as $$\label{equation1122}
\bar{\mathbf{y}}_j = \mathbf{y}_j - \sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}/\{i_o\}}\mathbf{H}^u_{ji}\mathbf{X}_{i} = \mathbf{H}^u_{ji_o}\mathbf{X}_{i_o} + \mathbf{Z}^u_j.$$ Each EN $j\!\in\!\mathcal{M}/\{k\}$ needs to decode the input messages in subset of $\mathcal{W}_{t}$ assigned to it, denoted as $\mathcal{W}^j_{t}$. By Fano[’]{}s inequality and (\[equation1122\]), we have $$\label{fano1}
H(\mathcal{W}^j_{t}|\mathbf{y}_j,\overline{\mathcal{W}},\mathcal{W}_{r}) \le T^u \epsilon, ~~j\in\mathcal{M}/\{i\}.$$ Since EN $k$ can decode the input messages $\mathcal{W}_{r}$ assigned to it, by Fano[’]{}s inequality, we also obtain $$\label{Fano11}
H(\mathcal{W}_{r}|\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k,\overline{\mathcal{W}}) \le T^u\epsilon .$$ Then, EN $k$ can construct the transmitted symbols $\{\mathbf{X}_i\!:i\!\ne\!i_o\}$ based on genie-aided messages $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ and its decoded messages $\mathcal{W}_{r}$, and subtract them from its received signal, obtaining
$$\bar{\mathbf{y}}_k = \mathbf{y}_k - \sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}/\{i_o\}}\mathbf{H}^u_{ki}\mathbf{X}_{i} = \mathbf{H}^u_{ki_o}\mathbf{X}_{i_o} + \mathbf{Z}^u_k.$$
Reducing the noise in the constructed signal $\bar{\mathbf{y}}_k$ and multiplying it by $\mathbf{H}^u_{ji_o}\left(\mathbf{H}^u_{ki_o}\right)^{-1}$, we obtain $$\bar{\mathbf{y}}^{j}_k = \mathbf{H}^u_{ji_o}\left(\mathbf{H}^u_{ki_o}\right)^{-1} \bar{\mathbf{y}}_k = \mathbf{H}^u_{ji_o}\mathbf{X}_{i_o} + \hat{\mathbf{Z}}^u_j,$$ where $\hat{\mathbf{Z}}^u_j$ is the reduced noise. By (\[equation1122\]), we see that $\bar{\mathbf{y}}^{j}_k $ is a degraded version of $\bar{\mathbf{y}}_j $ for EN $j\!\in\!\mathcal{M}/\{i\}$. Hence, for the messages that ENs in $\mathcal{M}/\{i\}$ can decode, EN $k$ must also be able to decode them, and we have $$\label{fano2}
\!\!\!H(\mathcal{W}^j_{t}|\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k,\!\overline{\mathcal{W}},\!\mathcal{W}_{r})\!\le\! H(\mathcal{W}^j_{t}|\mathbf{y}_j,\!\overline{\mathcal{W}},\!\mathcal{W}_{r})\! \le\! T^u \epsilon, j\!\!\in\!\!\mathcal{M}\!/\!\{i\}\!.\!\!$$ Using genie-aided information, receiver cooperation, and noise reducing as discussed above can only improve channel capacity. Thus, we obtain the following chain of inequalities,
$$\begin{aligned}
&|\mathcal{W}_{r}|+|\mathcal{W}_{t}|\nonumber\\
&= H(\mathcal{W}_{r},\mathcal{W}_{t}) \nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}\!H(\mathcal{W}_{r},\mathcal{W}_{t}|\overline{\mathcal{W}})\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{=}\!I(\mathcal{W}_{r},\mathcal{W}_{t};\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k|\overline{\mathcal{W}}) + H(\mathcal{W}_{r},\mathcal{W}_{t}|\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k,\overline{\mathcal{W}})\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{=}\!I(\mathcal{W}_{r},\mathcal{W}_{t};\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k|\overline{\mathcal{W}}) + H({\mathcal{W}_{r}|\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k,\overline{\mathcal{W}}})+H({\mathcal{W}_{t}|\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k,\mathcal{W}_{r},\overline{\mathcal{W}}})\nonumber\\
& \le I(\mathcal{W}_{r},\mathcal{W}_{t};\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k|\overline{\mathcal{W}})+ H({\mathcal{W}_{r}|\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k,\overline{\mathcal{W}}})\!+\! \!\!\!\sum\limits_{j\in\mathcal{M}/\{k\}}\!\!\!\!\!H({\mathcal{W}^j_{t}|\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k,\mathcal{W}_{r},\overline{\mathcal{W}}})\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(d)}{\le} I(\mathcal{W}_{r},\mathcal{W}_{t};\hat{\mathbf{y}}_k|\overline{\mathcal{W}}) + T^u \epsilon+ \sum\limits_{j\in\mathcal{M}/\{k\}} T^u\epsilon\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(e)}{\le} I(\mathbf{x}_1,\mathbf{x}_2,\cdots,\mathbf{x}_{a_i},\mathbf{x}_{i_o}:\hat{\mathbf{y}}_i|\overline{\mathcal{W}}) + M T^u\epsilon \nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(f)}{\le}T^u \log P_u + M T^u\epsilon, \label{inequality}\end{aligned}$$
where (a) is due to the independence of messages, (b) and (c) are based on the chain rule, (d) follows Fano[’]{}s inequalities (\[Fano11\]) and (\[fano2\]), (e) uses the data processing inequality, and (f) follows the DoF bound of MAC channels. Dividing (\[inequality\]) by $NnB\!/\!\log\!P_u$, and let $P_u\!\to\!\infty$ and $\epsilon\!\to\!0$ as $B\to\infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\tau^u\!&\ge\!\frac{|\mathcal{W}_{r}|\!+\!|\mathcal{W}_{t}|}{NnB}\!=\!\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}}\!\!\gamma_{i,k} \!+\! 1\!-\gamma_{i_o,k}\! = \!\sum_{i\in\mathcal{M}/\{i_o\}}\!\!\!\gamma_{i,k}\! +\!1.\!\!\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the NULT for a particular task assignment $\boldsymbol{\gamma}\!\triangleq\![\gamma_{i,k}]_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{K}}$ satisfies $\tau^u \!\ge\! \sum_{i\in\mathcal{M}/\{i_o\}}\!\gamma_{i,k} \!+\! 1$ for $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K},i_o\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$, i.e., the minimum NULT for task assignment policy $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ is lower bounded by
$$\tau^{u^*}(r,\boldsymbol{\gamma}) \ge \max\limits_{ k\in\mathcal{K},\forall i_o\in\mathcal{M}}~ \sum_{i\in\mathcal{M}/\{i_o\}}\gamma_{i,k} + 1.$$
Furthermore, the minimum NULT over all feasible task assignment is given as $\tau^{u^*}\!(r)\!=\!\min\limits_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\tau^{u^*}\!(r,\boldsymbol{\gamma})$, i.e., it can be lower bounded by the optimal solution of the optimization problem
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_1:\quad&\min\limits_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}~\max\limits_{ k\in\mathcal{K},\forall i_o\in\mathcal{M}}~ \sum_{i\in\mathcal{M}/\{i_o\}}\gamma_{i,k} + 1 \nonumber\\
\mathnormal{s.t.}&\quad (\ref{cons111}), (\ref{cons222}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
By defining a new variable $\lambda_{k,\bar{i}_o}\!=\!\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}/\{i_o\}}\gamma_{i,k}$, Problem $\mathcal{P}_1$ can be transformed into
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_2:\quad&\min\limits_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}~\max\limits_{ k\in\mathcal{K},\forall i_o\in\mathcal{M}} \lambda_{k,\bar{i}_o} + 1 \nonumber\\
\mathnormal{s.t.}&\quad \sum_{k \in\mathcal{K}}\lambda_{k,\bar{i}_o} = r(M-1), ~ i_o\in\mathcal{M} \\
&\quad ~0\le \lambda_{k,\bar{i}_o} \le M-1,~ k \in\mathcal{K}.\end{aligned}$$
We can easily prove that the optimal solution to $\mathcal{P}_2$ is given by $\lambda^*_{k,\bar{i}_o}\!=\!r(M\!-\!1)/K$ for $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}$ and $i_o\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$, which is unique and can be proved by contradiction. In turn, we use $\{\lambda^*_{k,\bar{i}_o}\}$ to construct a feasible solution to $\mathcal{P}_1$ by letting $\gamma^*_{i,k}\!=\!\lambda^*_{k,\bar{i}_o}/(M\!-\!1)$ for $i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$ and $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}$, and hence obtain the optimal solution to $\mathcal{P}_1$ as $\gamma^*_{i,k}\!=\!r/K$. Therefore, at repetition order $r$, the minimum NULT $\tau^{u^*}(r)$ is lower bounded by
$$\label{lowerbound_tauu}
\tau^{u^*}(r)\ge \frac{r(M-1)+K}{K}.$$
The lower bound of NULT in Theorem \[lower\_bound\] is thus proved. It is seen that (\[lowerbound\_tauu\]) is the same as (\[achieveUpoad\]) in Theorem \[achievableresults\], so the achievable NULT in (\[achieveUpoad\]) is optimal, which proves the optimality of upload times stated in Lemma \[gapLemma\].
Lower Bound and Multiplicative Gap Analysis of NCT {#binaryconverseup}
--------------------------------------------------
### Lower bound
Let $\{X_k\}_{q:K}$ denote the $q$-th smallest value of $K$ variables $\{X_k\}^{K}_{k=1}$ and $q\!:\!K$ denote the index of $q$-th smallest variable. For a particular task assignment policy $\big\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!\big\}$ satisfying (\[cons111\]) and (\[cons222\]) and a recovery order $q$, the computing time when the $q$-th fastest EN finishes its assigned tasks is lower bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
T^c_{q:K} &= \bigg\{\!\mu m\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}}\gamma_{i,k}N \omega_k\!\bigg\}_{\!\!q:K}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(g)}{\ge} \max\limits_{t\in[q-1]}\bigg\{\!\mu m \bigg\{\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}}\gamma_{i,k}N \bigg\}_{\!\!t:K}\!\!\!\cdot\left\{\omega_k\right\}_{q-t:K}\!\bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ where $(g)$ follows the fact that for $K$ product values like the form $\{x_ky_k\}^K_{k=1}$, there must exist $q$ values whose product term (either $x_k$ or $y_k$) is not larger than that of $\{x_ky_k\}_{q:K}$. We thus have $\{x_ky_k\}_{q:K}\!\ge\!\{x_k\}_{t:K}\{y_k\}_{q-t:K}$, $t\!\in\![q\!-\!1]$. Taking the expectation on $T^c_{q:K}$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ T^c_{q:K} \right] & \ge \mathbb{E}\left[\max\limits_{t\in[q-1]}\bigg\{\!\mu m \bigg\{\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}}\gamma_{i,k}N \bigg\}_{\!\!t:K}\!\!\!\cdot\left\{\omega_k\right\}_{q-t:K}\!\bigg\}\right]\nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(h)}{\ge} \max\limits_{t\in[q-1]}\bigg\{\!\mu m \bigg\{\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}}\gamma_{i,k}N \bigg\}_{\!\!t:K}\!\!\!\cdot\mathbb{E}\left[\left\{\omega_k\right\}_{q-t:K}\right]\!\bigg\} \nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(i)}{=} \max\limits_{t\in[q-1]}\frac{(H_K - H_{K-q+t})\mu m}{\eta} \left\{\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}}\gamma_{i,k}N \right\}_{\!\!t:K},\end{aligned}$$
where (h) follows $\mathbb{E}\big[\max\limits_{t}x_t\big]\!\ge\!\max\limits_{t}\mathbb{E}\left[x_t\right]$, (i) uses the $(q\!-\!t)$-th order statistic of $K$ i.i.d exponential random variables. The second term denotes the $t$-th smallest value among $K$ EN workload sizes. By (\[cons111\]) and (\[cons222\]), for $\forall i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$, we let $\gamma_{i,k}\!=\!1$, $k\!=\!t\!+\!1\!:\!K,t\!+\!2\!:\!K,\cdots,K\!:\!K$, so the sum of the $t$ smallest values (i.e., $1\!:\!K$, $\cdots$,$t\!:\!K$) is lower bounded by $(r\!-\!K\!+\!t)^{+}NM$. Since the second term also represents the largest value among those $t$ smallest EN workload sizes, so this term can be further lower bounded by the average value $(r\!-\!K\!+\!t)^{+}NM/t$. So the average time for the $q$ fastest ENs to finish their tasks is lower bounded by $T^c(r,q)\!\ge\!\max\limits_{t\in[q-1]}\frac{(H_K - H_{K-q+t})\mu m}{\eta}\frac{(r-\!K\!+t)^{+}NM}{t}$. Normalizing it by $Nm/\eta$, the lower bound of the NCT is given by $$\tau^{c^*}(r,q)\ge \max\limits_{t\in[q-1]}\frac{(H_K - H_{K-q+t})(r-\!K\!+t)^{+}M\mu }{t}. \label{low_compu}$$
### Multiplicative gap
The multiplicative gap between the achievable NCT in Theorem \[achievableresults\] and the lower bound (\[low\_compu\]) satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tau^c(r,q)}{\tau^{c*}(r,q)} &\le \min\limits_{t\in[q-1]}\frac{Mr\mu(H_k\!-\!H_{K-q})t}{K(H_K - H_{K-q+t})(r-\!K\!+t)^{+}M\mu}\nonumber \\
&\le \min\limits_{t\in[q-1]} \frac{t}{(r-\!K\!+t)^{+}} \cdot\left(1+\frac{H_{K-q+t}\!-\!H_{K-q}}{H_K - H_{K-q+t}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\le \frac{q/2}{(r-\!K\!+q/2)^{+}} \cdot \left(1+\frac{\sum^{K-q/2}_{K-q+1}1/i}{\sum^{K}_{K-q/2+1}1/i}\right)\nonumber\\
&\le \frac{q/2}{(r-\!K\!+q/2)^{+}} \cdot \left(1+\frac{\frac{q}{2}\frac{1}{K-q+1}}{\frac{q}{2}\frac{1}{K}}\right) \nonumber\\
&= \frac{q/2}{(r-\!K\!+q/2)^{+}} \cdot \left(1+\frac{K}{K-q+1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ When $r\!\ge\!K\!-\!n_1$ and $q\!\le\!K(1\!-\!1/n_2)\!+\!1$ with integers $0\!\le\!n_1\!<\!q/2$ and $n_2\!\ge\!1$, we have $\frac{q/2}{(r-\!K\!+q/2)^{+}}\!\le\!\frac{q/2}{q/2-n_1}\!\le\!n_1\!+\!1$ and $K/(K\!-q+\!1)\!\le\!n_2$, respectively, and consequently, we have $\tau^c/\tau^{c*}\!\le\!(1\!+n_1 )(1\!+n_2)$. Since the upload time is optimal and increases strictly with $r$, the repetition order satisfies $r\!\ge\!\!K\!-n_1$ when the upload time $\tau^u\!\ge\!\tau^u_a(K\!-\!n_1)$.
Lower Bound and Multiplicative Gap Analysis of NDLT {#binaryconverseup}
---------------------------------------------------
### Lower bound
For a particular task assignment policy $\big\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!\big\}$ satisfying (\[cons111\]) and (\[cons222\]), and a particular subset of $q$ ENs denoted as $\mathcal{K}_q\!\subseteq\!\mathcal{K}$ whose outputs are available, each EN $k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}_q$ is assigned $r_{i,k}N$ input vectors from each user $i\!\in\!\mathcal{M}$ and can store $\mu m$ rows of $\mathbf{A}$. Since each user $i$ wants $mN$ row-vector product results $\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\!=\!\mathbf{A}_{m\times n}\mathbf{u}_{i,j}\}_{j\in[N]}$, it is equivalent to state that each EN $k$ can store $r_{i,k}\mu$ fractional outputs desired by each user $i$, denoted as $\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\!\triangleq\!\{\mathbf{A}_k\mathbf{u}_{i,j}\!:\mathbf{u}_{i,j}\!\in\!\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}},k\!\in\!\mathcal{K}^{'}\}$ and with size $|\mathcal{S}_{i,k}|\!=\!\gamma_{i,k}\mu NmB$ bits, where $\gamma_{i,k}$ satisfies (\[cons111\]) and (\[cons222\]). Thus, the policy $\big\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!\big\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{K}}$ with an available EN set $\mathcal{K}_q$ is equivalent to a particular computation results distribution $\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{K}_q}$. Let $\mathcal{M}_t\!\subseteq\!\mathcal{M}$ denote an arbitrary subset of $t$ users and $\mathcal{Q}_{q-t}\!\subseteq\!\mathcal{K}_q$ denote an arbitrary subset of $q\!-\!t$ ENs. Also, we have $\mathcal{M}_{M-t}\!=\!\mathcal{M}/\mathcal{M}_t$ and $\mathcal{Q}_t\!=\!\mathcal{K}_q/\mathcal{Q}_{q-t}$. For a particular computation results distribution $\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{K}_q}$, we adopt the arguments proved in [@sengupta2017fog Lemma 6] to derive the lower bound of the NDLT, i.e., intuitively, *given any subset of $t$ signals received at $t\!\le\!\min\{q,M\}$ users, denoted as $\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}$, and the stored computation results information of $q-t$ ENs, denoted as $\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q-t}}$, all transmitted signals $\{X_{k}\}_{k\in\mathcal{K}}$ and all the desired outputs $\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]}$ can be resolved in the high-SNR regime.* First, we have the following equality,
$$\begin{aligned}
&MNmB \!= \! H\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]}\right) \nonumber\\
\!&= \! I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t},\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\right) \!+ \! H\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]}|\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t},\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\right).\label{ineq1}\end{aligned}$$
For the first term, following steps in [@sengupta2017fog Eq. (64)], we have
$$\begin{aligned}
&I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t},\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\right) \nonumber\\
&=I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right) + I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}|\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right)\nonumber\\
&\le I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right) +
I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}},\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t,j\in[N]}|\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right)\nonumber\\
&=I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right) +
I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t,j\in[N]}|\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right)
\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\!+\!I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}},|\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t,j\in[N]},\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right)\nonumber\\
&\le I\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]};\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right) +
H\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t,j\in[N]}|\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right)
\nonumber\\
&~~~+H\left(\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}|\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t,j\in[N]},\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right)
-H\left(\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}|\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]},\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right)\nonumber\\
&\!\stackrel{(j)}{\le}\!h\left(\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}\right)-h\left(\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}|\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]}\right) +
tNmB\epsilon + H\left(\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}|\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t,j\in[N]}\right)\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(k)}{\le} tT\log\left(2\pi e(\Lambda P^d+1)\right) - h\left(\{n_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t}|\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]}\right) +
tNmB\epsilon + \sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}H\left(\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}}|\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t,j\in[N]}\right)\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(l)}{\le}\!tT\log\left(2\pi e(\Lambda P^d+1)\right) - tT\log\left(2\pi e \right) +
tNmB\epsilon + \sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{M\!-\!t}}H\left(\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\right)\nonumber\\
&\le tT\log\left(\Lambda P^d+1\right) + tNmB\epsilon + \sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{M\!-\!t}}\gamma_{i,k}\mu NmB, \label{ineq2}
\end{aligned}$$
where, in step $(j)$, $\{Y_i\}$ are continuous random variables, the third term uses Fano[’]{}s inequality, the fourth term is because dropping the condition increases the entropy, the last term in last step is 0 since the storage information $\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}$ are the functions of $\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t,j\in[N]}$; In step $(k)$, the first term uses [@sengupta2017fog Lemma 5], and note that $\Lambda$ defined in [@sengupta2017fog Lemma 5] is a constant only depending on downlink channel coefficients in $\mathbf{H}^d$. For the second term, by [@sengupta2017fog Lemma 6] that proves the adopted argument, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!H\left(\{\mathbf{v}_{i,j}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},j\in[N]}|\{Y_i\}_{i\in\mathcal{M}_t},\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\right)
\!\le\!tNmB\epsilon\!+\!T\log\det\left( \mathbf{I}_{M-t} +\tilde{\mathbf{H}}^d(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}^d)^{H}\right)\!,\!\! \label{ineq3}\end{aligned}$$ where the $(M\!-\!t)\!\times\!(M\!-\!t)$ matrix $\tilde{\mathbf{H}}^d$ defined in [@sengupta2017fog Lemma 6] only depends on the channel matrix $\mathbf{H}^d$, and $\mathbf{I}_{M\!-\!t}$ is a $(M\!-\!t)\!\times\!(M\!-\!t)$ identity matrix. The expressions of $\tilde{\mathbf{G}}$ and $\Lambda$ are omitted here since they can be treated as constants.
Substituting (\[ineq2\]) and (\[ineq3\]) into (\[ineq1\]), we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!M NmB\!\le\!tT\log\left(\Lambda P^d+1\right) + 2tNmB\epsilon \! +\!\!\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{M\!-\!t}}\!\!\! \! \gamma_{i,k}\mu NmB\!+\! T\log\det\! \left( \mathbf{I}_{M-t}\!+\!\tilde{\mathbf{H}}^d(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}^d)^{H}\right)\!,\!\!\end{aligned}$$
Moving $T$ to the left side and dividing by $\frac{NmB}{\log P^d}$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{T}{NmB/\log P^d}\ge \frac{M\!-\!\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{M\!-\!t}}\!\!\gamma_{i,k}\mu\!-\!2t\epsilon}{t}
\cdot\!\frac{t\log P^d}{t\log\left(\Lambda P^d\!+\!1\right)\!+\!\log\det\left( \mathbf{I}_{M-t} \!+\!\tilde{\mathbf{H}}^d(\tilde{\mathbf{H}}^d)^{H}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
Taking $P^d\to\infty$ and $\epsilon\to 0$ as $B\to\infty$, the NDLT under the output distribution $\{\mathcal{S}_{i,k}\}_{i\in\mathcal{M},k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}$ is lower bounded by $$\tau^{d^*}\!(\mathcal{K}_{q},\mathcal{Q}_{q-t},r) \ge \frac{M\!-\!\!\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{M\!-\!t}}\!\!\!\gamma_{i,k}\mu}{t},~ \forall \mathcal{Q}_{q-t}\subseteq\mathcal{K}_q.\!\!$$ Note that the adopted argument holds for any subset of $q\!-\!t$ ENs. Thus, by tasking the sum over all possible subset $\mathcal{Q}_{q-t}\subseteq\mathcal{K}_q$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\binom{q}{q\!-\!t}\tau^{d^*}(\mathcal{K}_{q},q-t,r)& \ge \sum\limits_{\mathcal{Q}_{q-t}\subseteq\mathcal{K}_q} \!\!\!\frac{M\!-\!\!\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{M\!-\!t}}\!\!\!\gamma_{i,k}\mu}{t}\nonumber\\
& = \frac{\binom{q}{q-t}M\!-\!\!\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{M\!-\!t}}\sum\limits_{\mathcal{Q}_{q-t}\subseteq\mathcal{K}_q}\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{Q}_{q\!-\!t}}\!\!\!\gamma_{i,k}\mu}{t}\nonumber\\
& = \frac{\binom{q}{q-t}M\!-\!\!\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{M\!-\!t}}\binom{q-1}{q-t-1}\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{K}_q}\!\!\gamma_{i,k}\mu}{t}.\!\!\end{aligned}$$ For the particular policy $\big\{\mathcal{U}_{i,\mathcal{K}^{'}}\!\big\}$ with repetition order $r$ and satisfying (\[cons111\]) and (\[cons222\]), this lower bound also holds for any subset $\mathcal{K}_{q}$ since $K\!-\!q$ stragglers occur randomly, by taking the sum over all possible subsets $\mathcal{K}_{q}\subseteq\mathcal{K}$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\binom{\!K\!}{\!q\!}\!\binom{\!q\!}{\!q\!-\!t\!}\tau^{d^*}\!(q,q\!-\!t,r)
& \ge \sum\limits_{\mathcal{K}_{q}\subseteq\mathcal{K}}\!\!\!\frac{\binom{q}{q-t}M\!-\!\!\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{\!M\!-\!t}}\!\!\!\!\binom{q-1}{q-t-1}\!\!\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{K}_q}\!\!\gamma_{i,k}\mu}{t}\nonumber\\
& = \frac{\binom{K}{q}\binom{q}{q-t}M\!-\!\!\!\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{\!M\!-\!t}}\!\!\!\binom{q-1}{q-t-1}\!\sum\limits_{\mathcal{K}_{q}\subseteq\mathcal{K}}\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{K}_q}\!\!\gamma_{i,k}\mu}{t}\nonumber\\
& = \frac{\binom{K}{q}\binom{q}{q-t}M\!-\!\!\!\sum\limits_{i\in\mathcal{M}_{M\!-\!t}}\!\!\!\binom{q-1}{q-t-1}\binom{K-1}{q-1}\!\!\sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal{K}}\!\!\gamma_{i,k}\mu}{t}\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(m)}{=}\frac{\binom{K}{q}\binom{q}{q-t}M\!\!-\!(\!M\!\!-\!t)\binom{q-1}{q-t-1}\binom{K-1}{q-1}r\mu}{t},\!\!\label{eq46}\end{aligned}$$
where $(m)$ is due to (\[cons111\]). Remanaging (\[eq46\]), the lower bound of NDLT at the pair $(r,q)$ is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau^{d^*}(q,q-t,r)&\ge \frac{M-(M\!-\!t)(q-t)\frac{r}{K}\mu}{t}, \label{tau_t}\end{aligned}$$
Since the argument we adopt to derive (\[tau\_t\]) holds for $1\!\le\!t\!\le\!\min\{q,M\}$, the lower bound of NDLT at $(r,q)$ can be optimized as $$\label{lowerbound_taud}
\tau^{d^*}(r,q)\ge \max_{t\in\{1,\cdots,\min\{q,M\}\}}\frac{M-(M\!-\!t)(q-t)\frac{r}{K}\mu}{t}.$$
### Multiplicative gap
By (\[achievedownload\]), the achievable NDLT is upper bounded by
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau^d&=\sum\limits^{\min\{r,q\}}_{p_1=r-K+q}B_{p_1}\left(\sum\limits^{l_{max}}_{p_2=l_{min}}\frac{B_{p_2}}{d^d_{p_1,M,p_2}}\!+\!\frac{B_{l_{p_1}\!-\!1}}{d^d_{p_1,M,l_{p_1}\!-\!1}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(m)}{\le}\sum\limits^{\min\{r,q\}}_{p_1=r-K+q}B_{p_1}\frac{\sum\limits^{l_{max}}_{p_2=l_{min}}\!B_{p_2}\!+\!B_{l_{p_1}\!-\!1}}{d^d_{p_1,M,1}}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(n)}{\le}\sum\limits^{\min\{r,q\}}_{p_1=r-K+q}\binom{q}{p_1}\binom{K-q}{r-p_1}\frac{1}{\binom{K}{r}}\cdot\frac{1}{d^d_{r-K+q,M,1}}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{d^d_{r-K+q,M,1}},\end{aligned}$$
where $(m)$ is because $d^d_{p_1,M,p_2}$ increases with $p_2$ [@gckkl Lemma 1] and $(n)$ is because $d^d_{p_1,M,1}\!=\!p_1/(p_1\!+\!M\!-\!1)$ increases with $p_1$. By (\[lowerbound\_taud\]), we have $\tau^{d^*}(r,q)\!\ge\!M/\min\{q,M\}$, so the multiplicative gap satisfies
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tau^d}{\tau^{d^*}}&\le\frac{\min\{q,M\}}{d^d_{r-K+q,M,1}} =\frac{\min\{q,M\}(r\!-\!K\!+\!q\!+\!M\!-\!1)}{(r\!-\!K\!+\!q)M}.\end{aligned}$$
If $q\!\le\!M$, we have $\frac{\tau^d}{\tau^{d^*}}\!\le\!\frac{q}{r-K+q}(\frac{q}{M}\!+\!\frac{M-1}{M}\!-\!\frac{K-r}{M})\!\le\!\frac{2q}{r-K+q}\!\le\!\frac{2q}{q-n}\!\le\!2(n\mu\!+\!1)$ for $r\!\ge\!K\!-\!n$; Otherwise, we have $\frac{\tau^d}{\tau^{d^*}}\!\le\!1\!+\!\frac{M-1}{r-K+q}\!\le\!1\!+\!\frac{q-1}{q-n}\!\le\!2\!+\!(n\!-\!1)\mu$ for $r\!\ge\!K\!-\!n$. Here, integers $n$ satisfies $n\!\le\!q\!-\!\frac{1}{\mu}$ due to $(r\!-\!K\!+\!q)\mu\!\ge\!1$. In summary, since $2(n\mu\!+\!1)\!>\!2\!+\!(n\!-\!1)\mu$, we have $\frac{\tau^d}{\tau^{d^*}}\!\le\!2(n\mu\!+\!1)$ for $r\!\ge\!K\!-\!n$. Furthermore, when the upload time $\tau^u\!\ge\!\tau^u_a(K\!-n)$, the repetition order satisfies $r\!\ge\!K\!-\!n$. Thus, when $r\!=\!K$, or equivalently, $\tau^u\!\ge\!\tau^u_a(K)$, we have $\frac{\tau^d}{\tau^{d^*}}\!\le\!2$.
### Outer Bound of Compute-Download Latency Region
By the feasible set $\mathcal{R}$ in (\[regionR\]) and the convexity of $\mathscr{T}^{*}(\tau^{u})$ in Remark \[remarkconvex\], for an NULT $\tau^u\!=\!\tau^u_a(r)$ in (\[achieveUpoad\]) for some $r$, an outer bound $\mathscr{T}_{out}(\tau^{u})$ of the compute-download latency region is given as the convex hull of set $\big\{\!\!\left(\tau^{c^*}\!\!(r,q),\tau^{d^*}\!\!(r,q)\right)\!\!:\!q\!\in\!\!\big[\lceil\!\frac{1}{\mu}\!\rceil\!+\!K\!-r\!:\!\!K\big]\!\big\}$.
[^1]: A short version is to appear in IEEE ISIT 2020. The work by K. Li and M. Tao is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61941106 and the National Key R$\&$D Project of China under Grant 2019YFB1802702. The work by J. Zhang and O. Simeone is funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (Grant Agreement No. 725731).
[^2]: For general $u\!\in\![\frac{1}{K},1]$ satisfying $K\mu\!=\!\beta \lceil K\mu\rceil\!+\!(1\!-\!\beta)\lfloor K\mu\rfloor$, we can use memory- and time-sharing methods to achieve the linear combinations of the latency triplets achieved at integers $\lceil K\mu\rceil$ and $\lfloor K\mu\rfloor$ for a fixed $r$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In engineering applications almost all processes are described with the aid of models. Especially forming machines heavily rely on mathematical models for control and condition monitoring. Inaccuracies during the modeling, manufacturing and assembly of these machines induce model uncertainty which impairs the controller’s performance. In this paper we propose an approach to identify model uncertainty using parameter identification and optimal design of experiments. The experimental setup is characterized by optimal sensor positions such that specific model parameters can be determined with minimal variance. This allows for the computation of confidence regions, in which the real parameters or the parameter estimates from different test sets have to lie. We claim that inconsistencies in the estimated parameter values, considering their approximated confidence ellipsoids as well, cannot be explained by data or parameter uncertainty but are indicators of model uncertainty. The proposed method is demonstrated using a component of the , a multi-technology forming machine that combines spindles with eccentric servo drives.'
address:
- |
Tristan Gally\
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Department of Mathematics, Research Group Optimization\
Dolivostraße 15, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
- |
Peter Groche\
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institute for Production Engineering and Forming Machines\
Otto-Berndt-Straße 2, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
- |
Florian Hoppe\
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institute for Production Engineering and Forming Machines\
Otto-Berndt-Straße 2, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
- |
Anja Kuttich\
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Department of Mathematics, Research Group Optimization\
Dolivostraße 15, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
- |
Alexander Matei\
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Department of Mathematics, Research Group Optimization\
Dolivostraße 15, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
- |
Marc E. Pfetsch\
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Department of Mathematics, Research Group Optimization\
Dolivostraße 15, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
- |
Martin Rakowitsch\
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institute for Production Engineering and Forming Machines\
Otto-Berndt-Straße 2, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
- |
Stefan Ulbrich\
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Department of Mathematics, Research Group Optimization\
Dolivostraße 15, 64293 Darmstadt, Germany
author:
- Tristan Gally
- Peter Groche
- Florian Hoppe
- Anja Kuttich
- Alexander Matei
- 'Marc E. Pfetsch'
- Martin Rakowitsch
- Stefan Ulbrich
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Identification of Model Uncertainty via Optimal Design of Experiments applied to a mechanical press
---
Acknowledgement
===============
This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) – project number 57157498 – CRC 805. The authors would like to thank the DFG for funding.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$, which is ferromagnetic for Sr concentration $x$ $>$ 0.3, has been studied by x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) in Ru $3p$ and O $1s$ core-level x-ray absorption. XMCD signals appear at $x$ $\sim$ 0.3 and monotonically increases with $x$ in the ferromagnetic phase. While the monotonic increase of the XMCD signals with $x$ is of a typical Stoner-type, the absence of appreciable change in the spectral line shapes of both the Ru 3$p$ and O 1$s$ XMCD spectra indicate that the itinerant-electron ferromagnetism in Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ is influenced by strong electron correlation.'
author:
- 'J. Okamoto,$^{1,2}$ T. Okane,$^1$ Y. Saitoh,$^1$ K. Terai,$^1$ S.-I. Fujimori,$^1$ Y. Muramatsu,$^1$ K. Yoshii,$^1$ K. Mamiya,$^3$ T. Koide,$^3$ A. Fujimori,$^{1,4}$ Z. Fang,$^5$ Y. Takeda,$^6$ and M. Takano$^7$'
title: 'Soft x-ray magnetic circular dichroism study of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ across the ferromagnetic quantum phase transition'
---
Recently a number of novel unconventional superconductors in the vicinity of magnetic phases have been discovered, such as UGe$_2$,[@UGe2] URhGe[@URhGe] and ZrZn$_2$.[@ZrZn2] Although the pairing mechanism has not been established in these materials, it is presumed that quantum critical fluctuations are involved for the coexisting/competing ferromagnetism and superconductivity. Magnetic quantum critical transitions have also been observed in Ru oxides. The single-layer Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ is a spin-triplet superconductor with quasi-two-dimensional Fermi liquid state,[@Maeno] while non-Fermi-liquid behavior appears in Sr$_2$Ru$_{1-x}$Ti$_x$O$_4$ in the vicinity of antiferromagnetic ordering for the critical impurity concentration of $x_c$$\simeq$ 0.0025.[@Sr2RuTiO4] The bilayer perovskite Sr$_3$Ru$_2$O$_7$ shows metamagnetism for a field of $\sim$ 5.5 T below 10 K, and near the metamagnetic field the resistivity shows non-Fermi-liquid bahavior at low temperature.[@Sr3Ru2O7]
SrRuO$_3$, the $n$=$\infty$ member of the Ruddelsden-Popper type Ru oxides Sr$_{n+1}$Ru$_n$O$_{3n+1}$, is one of few ferromagnetic metallic oxides ($T_C$ $\sim$ 160 K),[@Callanghan; @Longo] and its unique ferromagnetism has fascinated many researchers for several decades. Neuimeier $et$ $al$.[@Neumeier] have shown that the Curie temperature decreases under hydrostatic pressure. The Rhodes-Wohlfarth ratio $\mu_{eff}/\mu_{ord}$ $\sim$ 1.3 for SrRuO$_3$ is similar to Ni metal, indicating that the magnetic properties of SrRuO$_3$ are close to those of localized electron systems.[@Fukunaga] According to photoemission studies of SrRuO$_3$, electron-correlation effects in the Ru 4$d$ bands are relatively strong.[@Fujioka; @Okamoto] Recent optical studies have shown that SrRuO$_3$ is strongly deviated from a conventional Fermi liquid.[@Kostic; @Ahn; @Dodge1; @Dodge2] With substitution of Ca for Sr, the Curie temperature decreases and a ferromagnetic-to-paramagnetic transition occurs at the Sr concentration of $x$ $\sim$ 0.3.[@Fukunaga] With Ca substitution, the Ru-O-Ru bond angle decreases from $\sim$ 165$^{\circ}$ to 150$^{\circ}$ but no change in the Ru-O distance has been observed,[@Kobayashi] which means that the Ca substitution decreases the Ru 4$d$ band width and that electron correlation within the Ru $4d$ band is enhanced. CaRuO$_3$ is also metallic but does not show long-range magnetic order down to 4.2 K.[@Gibbs] At high temperatures, it shows a negative Weiss temperature, suggesting antiferromagnetic correlations. Mukuda $et$ $al$., however, using NMR deduced that CaRuO$_3$ is close to a ferromagnetic metal since the Stoner factor was estimated to be close to 1.[@Mukuda] He and Cava have reported that ferromagnetic interaction is observed by replacing Ru by nonmagnetic Ti (Ti$^{4+}$ has electron configuration 3$d^0$) by as small amount as 2 %.[@Cava] Therefore, CaRuO$_3$ is considered to be a metal close to a ferromagnetic instability, and ferromagnetic transition in Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ is expected to be a paramagnetic to ferromagnetic quantum phase transition.
Recently, Park $et$ $al$.[@Park] and Takizawa $et$ $al$.[@Takizawa] have studied the electronic structures of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ using epitaxial thin films by photoemission and x-ray absorption spectroscopy and confirmed that electron-correlation effects increase in going from SrRuO$_3$ to CaRuO$_3$ due to the spectral weight transfer from the coherent to incoherent parts of the Ru 4$d$-band spectra. However, the relationship between the systematic change in the electron correlation strength and the change in the magnetic properties is not clear. In this paper, in order to gain further information about the magnetic properties of the system, a series of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ samples (0$\leq$$x$$\leq$1) have been studied by soft x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) in core-level soft x-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS).
![\[SQUID\] (Color Online) Magnetization curves of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ (0$\leq$$x$$\leq$1) measured using a SQUID magnetometer at 30 K. The inset shows the magnetization at 2 T as a function of $x$.](Fig1c){width="8"}
Sintered polycrystalline samples of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ were prepared in the following procedure. A stoichiometric mixture of RuO$_2$, SrCO$_3$ and CaCO$_3$ powders was prefired at 1000 $^{\circ}$C for 24 hours in air. Then the mixture was pressed into a pellet and fired at 1200 $^{\circ}$C for 48 hours in air. The product was milled, pressed into a pellet again ($\sim$ 2000 Kg/cm$^2$) and fired again at 1400 $^{\circ}$C for 48 hours in air. XAS and XMCD spectra from the Ru $3p$ and O $1s$ core levels were measured at the soft x-ray beamline BL23-SU of SPring-8 in the total-electron-yield mode. The energy resolution was $\sim$ 130 meV at $h\nu$ $\sim$ 700 eV and the degree of circular polarization was estimated to be $\geq$ 95 $\%$ at the Ni $L_{2,3}$ edge from comparison with Ni 2$p$ XMCD reported in the literature.[@Chen] The base pressure of the measurement chamber was 1$\times 10^{-8}$ Pa. A fresh surface was obtained before each series of measurements by scraping the samples under an ultra-high vacuum at 30 K. XMCD was measured by switching the helicity of the incident circularly polarized light under a fixed applied magntic field of 2 T. Then, the magnetic field was inverted and the two XMCD spectra were averaged to eliminate suspicious signals. Magnetization of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ were measured using a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer.
Figure \[SQUID\] shows the magnetization curves of the Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ samples (0$\leq$$x$$\leq$1) measured at 30 K. Hystereses loops were observed for $x$$\geq$ 0.4, i.e., in the ferromagnetic phase. The magnetization was not saturated up to 2 T, which can be attributed to the increase of the exchange splitting of the Ru $4d$ $t_{2g}$ band under the high magnetic field. Even though hystereses loops were not observed for $x$$\leq$ 0.3, the magnetization at 2 T increases gradually with Sr concentration as shown in the inset of Fig. \[SQUID\]. Above the critical concentration of $x$$\sim$ 0.3, the magnetization at 2 T increases strongly compared with that in the paramagnetic phase of $x$ $\leq$ 0.3. Coercive force also increases with the Sr concentration for $x$ $\geq$ 0.4. This is in accordance with the scenario that ferromagnetic transition in Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ is a paramagnetic to ferromagnetic transition and that the ferromagnetic interaction increases with Sr concentration in the ferromagnetic phase.
![\[RuMCD\] (Color online) Ru 3$p$ XAS spectra $\mu^+$ and $\mu^-$ and XMCD spectra $\Delta \mu = \mu^+ - \mu^-$ of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ (0$\leq$x$\leq$1). (a) XAS and XMCD spectra of SrRuO$_3$. Vertical lines correspond to the position of XAS and XMCD peaks. The broken line shows the background of XAS spectrum. (b) Ru 3$p$ XAS \[($\mu^+ + \mu^-$)/2\] spectra. In the inset of (b), the Ru 3$p_{3/2}$ XAS spectra of CaRuO$_3$ and SrRuO$_3$ are compared with the Ru 4$d$ partial density of states broadened with a Gaussian function (of 1 eV FWHM). (c) Ru 3$p$ XMCD spectra. All the spectra have been normalized to the Ru 3$p_{3/2}$ XAS peak height. The horizontal lines in (c) show zero levels of the XMCD spectra.](Fig2c){width="8"}
Figure \[RuMCD\](a) shows the Ru 3$p$ XAS spectra for photon helicity parallel ($\mu^{+}$) and antiparallel ($\mu^{-}$) to the Ru 4$d$ majority-spin direction and the XMCD spectrum $\Delta \mu = \mu^+ - \mu^-$ of SrRuO$_3$. The absorption peaks at $\sim$ 463 eV and $\sim$ 485 eV are due to transitions from the Ru 3$p_{3/2}$ and 3$p_{1/2}$ core levels into the Ru 4$d$ band. Other structures located around $\sim$ 476 eV and $\sim$ 498 eV are attributed to transitions into Ru 5$s$ states. The background is due to transition to the continuum above the Fermi level and is composed of two step functions at the Ru $3p_{3/2}$ (463 eV) and $3p_{1/2}$ (485 eV) XAS peaks with the intensity proportional to the degeneracy of the core level. The Ru 3$p$ XAS \[($\mu^+ + \mu^-$)/2\] spectra and XMCD spectra of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ (0$\leq$$x$$\leq$1) are shown in Figs. \[RuMCD\] (b) and (c), respectively. In both Ru 3$p_{3/2}$ and 3$p_{1/2}$ XAS spectra, not only peaks but also shoulder structures were observed on the lower photon energy sides of the peaks. In the inset of Fig. \[RuMCD\](b), the Ru 3$p_{3/2}$ XAS spectra of CaRuO$_3$ and SrRuO$_3$ are compared with the Ru 4$d$ partial density of states of CaRuO$_3$ and SrRuO$_3$.[@calc1] They have been broadened with a Gaussian function of 1 eV FWHM and shifted by 461.3 eV for CaRuO$_3$ and 461.7 eV for SrRuO$_3$. We attribute these peaks and shoulders to the transition to the Ru 4$d$ $e_g$ and $t_{2g}$ bands, respectively. The fact that Ru 3$p$ XMCD signals were only observed for the shoulder structures is consistent with this assignment. The XMCD signal showed symmetric peaks and no appreciable change was observed in the whole Sr concentration range. As for the Ru 3$p$ XAS spectra, their line shape changes throughout the whole Sr concentration range. The energy separation between the shoulder structure and the peak position for CaRuO$_3$ seems to be larger than that for SrRuO$_3$ and this separation gradually becomes smaller as the Sr concentration increases. This agrees with the result of the band-structure calculations[@Mazin] that the tilting of the RuO$_6$ octahedra increases the energy separation between the antibonding Ru 4$d$ $t_{2g}$ and $e_g$ bands. In addition, as the Sr concentration increases, the intensity of the shoulder structure increases. This well corresponds to the observation that in the Ru 3$p$ XAS of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ the density of states near the Fermi level increases with Sr concentration.[@Lin]
For $x$ $>$ 0.3 XMCD signal increased in proportion to the increased Sr concentration as shown in the inset of Fig. \[RuMCD\](c) and in Fig. \[SumRule\]. This is consistent with the above observation (Fig. \[SQUID\]) that the magnetization in the Ru 4$d$ band increased linearly as the Sr concentrantion $x$ increased beyond the critical value of $x$ $\sim$ 0.3. Such a behavior is different from the simple Stoner model of itinerant ferromagnetism, according to which changes in the line shape of the XMCD spectra are expected to occur across the ferromagnetic transtion due to the exchange splitting of the Ru 4$d$ band.
![\[OKXAS\] (Color online) O 1$s$ XAS spectra $\mu^+$ and $\mu^-$ and XMCD spectra $\Delta \mu = \mu^+ - \mu^-$ of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ (0$\leq$x$\leq$1). (a) XAS and XMCD of SrRuO$_3$. Vertical lines correspond to the position of XAS and XMCD peaks. (b) O 1$s$ XAS spectra \[($\mu^+ + \mu^-$)/2\]. (c) O 1$s$ XMCD spectra. All the spectra have been normalized to the O 1$s$ XAS peak height at $\sim$ 529 eV. The horizontal lines in (c) show the zero levels of the XMCD spectra.](Fig3c){width="8"}
In order to investigate the influence of the magnetization on the ligand O $2p$ states, XMCD measurements were also made in O 1$s$ XAS. Figure \[OKXAS\] shows the O 1$s$ XAS and XMCD spectra of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$. The O 1$s$ XAS spectra represent the unoccupied part of the Ru 4$d$ band mixed with O $2p$ orbitals: Transitions into the Ru 4$d$ $t_{2g}$ and $e_g$ bands are in the regions $528-530.5$ eV and $530.5-534$ eV, respectively.[@Imp] The peak at $\sim$ 529 eV and the shoulder structure around 530 eV correspond to the coherent and incoherent parts of the Ru 4$d$ $t_{2g}$ bands, respectively, as reported by Takizawa $et$ $al$.,[@Takizawa] indicating strong electron correlation in the Ru $4d$ $t_{2g}$ band. The Sr 4$d$ and Ca 3$d$ states are in the region $534-540$ eV, and the Ru $5s$ states are in the region $540-550$ eV. Significantly, a large negative XMCD structure was observed in the Ru 4$d$ $t_{2g}$ band region, indicating that the influence of the magnetization is strong only in the Ru $4d$ $t_{2g}$ band region and negligibly small in the other regions. The XMCD signal became the largest at $x$ = 1 amounting to $\sim$ 7 % of the O 1$s$ peak intensity.
Figure \[OKXAS\](b) shows that as the Sr concentration $x$ increases, the intensity of O 1$s$ XAS decreases in the incoherent part and increases in the coherent part. Since the number of electrons in the Ru 4$d$ band does not change with $x$, this means that spctral weight is transferred from the incoherent part to the coherent part within the Ru 4$d$ $t_{2g}$ band, i.e., electron correlation strength decreases within the Ru 4$d$ $t_{2g}$ band. As for the O $1s$ XMCD spectra shown in Fig. \[OKXAS\](c), the XMCD intensity increases linearly as the Sr concentration $x$ increases in the ferromagnetic phase ($x \geq 0.3$) without any appreciable change in the spectral line shape. Since the energy-integrated intensity of the O 1$s$ XMCD spectrum is proportional to the orbital magnetic moment of the O 2$p$ states,[@Thole1] the orbital magnetic moment of the O 2$p$ states increases linearly in the ferromagnetic phase.
By applying the orbital[@Thole1] and spin sum rules[@Carra1] to the Ru 3$p$ XMCD spectra, we can estimate the orbital and spin magnetic moments of the Ru 4$d$ states. In the case of compounds, especially, transition-metal oxides, however, magnetic moments estimated by the XMCD sum rules tend to be smaller than the magnetization measured by SQUID.[@LSCO; @SFCO] One of the cause of the discrepancy is the mixing of $p_{3/2}$ and $p_{1/2}$ components. In order to compensate the underestimation of the spin magnetic moment due to the electron–core-hole interaction, which mixes $p_{3/2}$ and $p_{1/2}$ components, correction factors were calculated.[@Teramura] Although these correction factors were calculated only for the 3$d$ transition-metal ions, expected correction factor for the Ru 3$p$ XMCD would be smaller and cannot explain this discrepancy, because the influence of the electron–core-hole interaction decreases along the transition-metal series with increasing spin-orbit splitting[@Teramura; @Schwitalla] and the spin-orbit splitting in the Ru 3$p$ core level is as large as $\sim$ 20 V.
Another possible cause of the discrepancy is that the magnetization of the O $2p$ electrons is also substantial. The magnetic moment of the O $2p$ orbitals is induced by charge transfer from the O $2p$ orbitals to the spin-polarized Ru 4$d$, however, there is no method to estimate the spin magnetic moment of the O $2p$ electrons. Another possible cause is that the magnetization is reduced at the surface compared to that in the bulk. Since the effective probing depth of the XAS measurement is at most 10 nm in the total electron yield mode, the estimated magnetization may be substantially influenced by electronic states at the surface. The estimated magnetization may increase by using cleaved samples or single-crystalline film samples.[@Terai] Finally, the use of the XMCD sum rules is strictly valid for atomic wave functions and may not be quantitatively applicable to the itinerant Ru 4$d$ electrons.
We have estimated the orbital ($M_{orb}$) and spin ($M_{spin}$) magnetic moments of the Ru 4$d$ states using the XMCD sum rules as follows: $$M_{orb} = -2\frac{\Delta A_{M_3} + \Delta A_{M_2}}{3(A_{M_3}+A_{M_2})}(10 -N_{4d}),
\label{Morb}$$ $$M_{spin} + 7M_T= -\frac{\Delta A_{M_3} - 2\Delta A_{M_2}}{A_{M_3}+A_{M_2}}(10 -N_{4d}),
\label{Mspin}$$ where $M_{orb}$, $M_{spin}$ and the magnetic-dipole moment $M_T$ are given in units of $\mu_{B}$/atom, $N_{4d}$ is the 4$d$ electron occupation number which is assumed to be 4, $\Delta A_{M_3}$ and $\Delta A_{M_2}$ are the energy integrals of the 3$p_{3/2}$ and 3$p_{1/2}$ XMCD intensities, and $A_{M_3}$ and $A_{M_2}$ are the energy integrals of the 3$p_{3/2}$ and 3$p_{1/2}$ XAS intensities, respectively. In estimating the XAS intensities, background has been subtracted from the XAS specrtra as shown in Fig. \[RuMCD\](a). In estimating the spin magnetic moment from the XAS and XMCD spectra, we have to separate the Ru 3$p$ XMCD spectra into the 3$p_{3/2}$ and 3$p_{1/2}$ components. We have divided the Ru 3$p$ spectra into the two components at 478 eV, where the Ru 3$p$ XAS shows a minimum. Since our measurements were made on polycrystalline samples, the angle average would result in a vanishing magnetic-dipole term[@Stohr] and therefore we have ignored $M_T$ in estimating the spin magnetic moment using Eq. (\[Mspin\]).
![\[SumRule\] (Color online) Orbital and spin magnetic moments of the Ru 4$d$ states estimated from the Ru 3$p$ XMCD compared with the magnetization measurements at 30 K under 2 T.](Fig4c){width="8"}
In Fig. \[SumRule\], we compare the XMCD intensities of Ru 3$p_{3/2}$ ($\sim$ 461.5 eV) and O 1$s$ ($\sim$ 529 eV) with the magnetization measured at 2 T and the orbital and spin magnetic moments of Ru 4$d$ estimated from the Ru 3$p$ XMCD spectra. In the paramagnetic phase ($x$ $\leq$ 0.3), however, no orbital magnetic moment is estimated from the Ru 3p XMCD spectra since no XMCD signals are observed in the Ru 3$p$ within experimental error in as shown in Fig. \[RuMCD\](c). This indirectly means that the magnetism of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ is strongly influenced by the change of electron correlation through magnetic transition. As for the O 2$p$ states, the O 1$s$ XMCD spectra were relatively sharp but the energy integral of the XMCD intensity was very tiny compared with that of the XAS intensity, leading to nearly the same orbital moment as that of the Ru 4$d$. The orbital magnetic moment of O 2$p$ was estimated to be as small as $\leq$ 1$\times$10$^{-2}$ $\mu_B$/atom in the entire Sr concentration range on the assumption that the number of holes in the O 2$p$ orbitals is $\sim$1. Although the absolute value estimated from XMCD was only $\sim$ 60 $\%$ of the magnetization, the overall $x$ dependence of the XMCD intensities and estimated magnetic moments qualitatively followed the $x$ dependence of the magnetization.
The XMCD peak intensities and the magnetization increased linearly above $x$ $\sim$ 0.3 as shown in Fig. \[SumRule\]. These observations are consistent with the Stoner-type ferromagnetism. On the other hand, as no appreciable spectral change in the Ru 3$p$ and O 1$s$ XMCD spectra was observed as a function of $x$, there was no clear indication of the exchange splitting of the Ru 4$d$ band. These observations as well as the large Rhodes-Wohlfarth ratio mean that ferromagnetism in Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ is strongly influnced by electron correlation of the Ru $4d$ $t_{2g}$ band and is different from the Stoner-type itinerant ferromagnetism.
The authors would like to thank the staff of BL23-SU for their valuable technical support and M. Takizawa and D. J. Huang for fruitful discussions. This work was partially supported by a Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Priority Area “Invention of Anomalous Quantum Materials” and S17105002 from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan.
[99]{} S. S. Saxena, P. Agarwal, K. Ahilan, F. M. Grosche, R. K. W. Haselwimmer, M. J. Steiner, E. Pugh, I. R. Walker, S. R. Julian, P. Monthoux, G. G. Lonzarich, A. Huxley, I. Sheikin, D. Braithwaite, and J. Flouquet, Nature (London) [**406**]{}, 587 (2000).
D. Aoki, A. Huxley, E. Ressouche, D. Braithwaite, J. Flouquet, J. P. Brison, E. Lhotel, and Carley Paulsen, Nature (London) [**413**]{}, 613 (2001).
C. Pfleiderer, M. Uhlarz, S. M. Hayden, R. Vollmer, H. v. L[ö]{}hneysen, N. R. Bernhoeft, and G. G. Lonzarichk, Nature (London) [**412**]{}, 58 (2001).
Y. Maeno, H. Hashimoto, K. Yoshida, S. Nishizaki, T. Fujita, J. G. Bednortz, and F. Lichtenberg, Nature (London) [**372**]{}, 532 (1994).
N. Kikugawa and Y. Maeno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 117001, (2002).
R. S. Perry, L. M. Galvin, S. A. Grigera, L. Capogna, A. J. Schofield, A. P. Mackenzie, M. Chiao, S. R. Julian, S. I. Ikeda, S. Nakatsuji, Y. Maeno, and C. Pfleiderer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2661 (2001).
A. Callanghan, C. W. Moeller and R. Ward, Inorg. Chem. [**5**]{}, 1572 (1966).
J. M. Longo, P. M. Raccah and J. B. Goodenough, J. Appl. Phys. [**39**]{}, 1327 (1968).
J. J. Neumeier, A. L. Cornelius, and J. S. Schilling, Physica B [**198**]{}, 324 (1994).
F. Fukunaga and N. Tsuda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**63**]{}, 3798 (1994).
K. Fujioka, J. Okamoto, T. Mizokawa, A. Fujimori, I. Hase, M. Abbate, H. J. Lin, C. T. Chen, Y. Takeda, and M. Takano, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 6380 (1997).
J. Okamoto, T. Mizokawa, A. Fujimori, I. Hase, M. Nohara, H. Takagi, Y. Takeda, and M. Takano, Phys. Rev. B 60, 2281 (1999).
P. Kostic, Y. Okada, N.C. Collins, Z. Schlesinger, J.W. Reiner, L. Klein, A. Kapitulnik, T.H. Geballe, and M.R. Beasley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 2498 (1998). J.-S. Ahn, J. Bak, H.S. Choi, T.W. Noh, J.E. Han, Yunkyu Bang, J.H. Cho, and Q.X. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 5321 (1999). J.S. Dodge, E. Kulatov, L. Klein, C.H. Ahn, J.W. Reiner, L. Mieville, T.H. Geballe, M.R. Beasley, A. Kapitulnik, H. Ohta, Yu. Uspenskii, and S. Halilov, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, R6987 (1999).
J.S. Dodge, C.P. Weber, J. Corson, J. Orenstein, Z. Schlesinger, J.W. Reiner, and M.R. Beasley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4932 (2000).
H. Kobayashi, M. Nagata, R. Kanno, and Y. Kawamoto, Mat. Res. Bull. [**29**]{}, 1271 (1994).
T. Gibbs, R. Greatrex, N. N. Greenwood, D. C. Puxley, and K. G. Snowden, J. Solid State Chem. [**11**]{}, 17 (1974).
H. Mukuda, K. Ishida, Y. Kitaoka, K. Asayama, R. Kanno, and M. Takano, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 12279 (1999).
T. He and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 172403 (2001).
J. Park, S.-J. Oh, J.-H. Park, D. M. Kim, and C.-B. Eom, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{} 85108 (2004).
M. Takizawa, D. Toyota, H. Wadati, A. Chikamatsu, H. Kumigashira, A. Fujimori, M. Oshima, Z. Fang, M. Lippmaa, M. Kawasaki, and H. Koinuma, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 060404 (2005).
C. T. Chen, N. V. Smith and F. Sette, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, R6785 (1991).
The calculation have been done using the generalized gradient approximation method.
I. I. Mazin and D. J. Singh, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 2556 (1997).
B. N. Lin, C. Y. Lin, Y. S. Wu, and H. C. Ku, J. Mag. Mag. Mat. [**272-276**]{}, 479 (2004).
In the O 1$s$ XAS spectra of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$RuO$_3$ in Fig. \[OKXAS\], the dip structure at $\sim$ 534 eV may be due to the contamination state owing to carbon oxides. Because of little influence on the region mixed with the Ru 4$d$ states we ignore it in the following discussion.
B. T. Thole, P. Carra, F. Sette, and G. van der Laan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1943 (1992).
P. Carra, B. T. Thole, M. Altarelli, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 694 (1993).
J. Okamoto, H. Miyauchi, T. Sekine, T. Shidara, T. Koide, K. Amemiya, A. Fujimori, T. Saitoh, A. Tanaka, Y. Takeda, and M. Takano, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 4455 (2000).
J. Okamoto, K. Mamiya, S.-I. Fujimori, T. Okane, Y. Saitoh, Y. Muramatsu, K. Yoshii, A. Fujimori, A. Tanaka, M. Abbate, T. Koide, S. Ishiwata, S. Kawasaki, and M. Takano, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 104401 (2005).
Y. Teramura, A. Tanaka, and T. Jo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**65**]{}, 1053 (1995).
J. Schwitalla and H. Ebert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 4586 (1998).
In our preliminary study of a single-crystalline thin film of SrRuO$_3$, XMCD signal in Ru $3p$ XAS became stronger than the present polycrystalline work by $\sim$ 10 %.
J. St[ö]{}hr and H. K[ö]{}nig, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3748 (1995).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a fast and robust cluster update algorithm that is especially efficient in implementing the task of image segmentation using the method of superparamagnetic clustering. We apply it to a Potts model with spin interactions that are are defined by gray-scale differences within the image. Motivated by biological systems, we introduce the concept of neural inhibition to the Potts model realization of the segmentation problem. Including the inhibition term in the Hamiltonian results in enhanced contrast and thereby significantly improves segmentation quality. As a second benefit we can - after equilibration - directly identify the image segments as the clusters formed by the clustering algorithm. To construct a new spin configuration the algorithm performs the standard steps of (1) forming clusters and of (2) updating the spins in a cluster simultaneously. As opposed to standard algorithms, however, we share the interaction energy between the two steps. Thus the update probabilities are not independent of the interaction energies. As a consequence, we observe an acceleration of the relaxation by a factor of 10 compared to the Swendson and Wang procedure.'
address: |
${}^{(1)}$Institut für Theoretische Physik, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany\
${}^{(2)}$Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland
author:
- 'C. von Ferber${}^{(1)}$ and F. Wörgötter${}^{(2)}$'
title: Cluster update and recognition
---
The segmentation of images into connected areas or objects is a formidable task and an important step in the process of recognition. Nature provides us with many examples of biological systems that solve this and other tasks related to the recognition problem in highly efficient ways. Taken as such, the problem is ill-defined: one will distinguish different numbers of objects in a noisy picture depending on the level of contrast and resolution. A physicists answer to the problem has been presented by the method of ‘superparamagnetic clustering of data’ [@Blatt96; @Domany99] where the pixels of an image are represented by a Potts model of spins which interact in such a way that neighboring spins corresponding to similar pixels tend to align. Then the image-segments (or objects) may be identified as subsets or clusters of correlated spins at a given temperature. At high temperature one will find a disordered paramagnetic phase while, when lowering the temperature, superparamagnetic phases occur with clusters of aligned spins.
From a theoretical point of view any method of simulating a given spin system is equivalent as long as it preserves general concepts such as detailed balance. For practical purposes it is of course desirable to choose a method that is efficient and best adapted to the model. Cluster update algorithms are commonly used to to accelerate the equilibration of large spin systems [@Swendsen87; @Edwards88; @Redner98]. As opposed to single spin updates following a Metropolis procedure, these algorithms provide a method to update connected clusters of aligned spins simultaneously.
Our approach to the problem is twofold: On the one hand we introduce to the spin model the concept of (1) [*global inhibition*]{}, motivated by the analogy to neural visual systems[@Berman92], on the other hand (2) we have developed a novel cluster algorithm that utilizes the energy landscape, which underlies the equilibration process, in a more efficient way.
\(1) The concept of global inhibition is found in many biological neural networks and has successfully been applied also in neural computation [@Wang97]. We implement it by adding a small global penalty for spins to align. It serves to identify different clusters by different spin labels without need to observe the spin correlations over a longer time period.
\(2) In a cluster update algorithm the clusters are formed by “freezing” bonds between aligned spins with some probability. Commonly the clusters are then updated independently. We update the clusters taking into account also the interactions on bonds that were not frozen. In addition the inner surface of the larger clusters is reduced by incorporating islands that they might contain. Both of our improvements are implemented while preserving detailed balance. As a result, we observe a significant increase in quality and speed.
Without loss of generality in the following we will use the problem of segmenting an image into individual objects as an example to describe our approach. Specifically, given a picture in form of color (or gray-scale) values $g_1,\ldots,g_N$ on the $N$ sites of a finite $2d$ lattice, we have the clustering problem: find ‘objects’ i.e. clusters of almost the same color.
We define for each pair of nearest neighbors or [*bond*]{} $(i,j)$ on the lattice the distance $\Delta_{ij}=|g_i-g_j|$ and the mean distance $\overline{\Delta_{ij}}$ averaged over all bonds.
To perform the clustering task we assign a spin variable $\sigma_i$ to each site $i$ and for each bond $(i,j)$ an interaction strength $$\label{gray}
J_{ij}=1-\Delta_{ij}/\overline{\Delta_{ij}}$$ With the normalization in eq.(\[gray\]) the color of sites $i,j$ is assumed to be similar when the gray value distance $\Delta_{ij}$ is smaller than the average. Then the interaction strength is positive with a maximum value of $1$ for equal color. We implement the spin model in such a way that for neighboring sites with similar color the spins have the tendency to align. For this purpose we use a $q$-state Potts model with the Hamiltonian $$\label{potts}
H=-\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}J_{ij}\delta_{\sigma_i\sigma_j}+
\frac{\kappa}{N}\sum_{i,j}\delta_{\sigma_i\sigma_j}$$ Here, $\langle i,j\rangle$ denotes that $i,j$ are nearest neighbors connected by a bond $(i,j)$ and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function. The second term is introduced in analogy to neural systems, where it is generally called “global inhibition”. It serves to favor different spin values for spins in different clusters as explained below. This is a concept realized in many neural systems that perform recognition tasks. The segmentation problem is then solved by finding clusters of correlated spins in the low temperature equilibrium states of the Hamiltonian $H$.
We perform this task by implementing a clustering algorithm: In a first step the ‘satisfied’ bonds, i.e. those that connect nearest neighbor pairs of identical spins $\sigma_i=\sigma_j$ are identified. The satisfied bonds $(i,j)$ are then ‘frozen’ with some probability $p_{ij}$.
Sites connected by frozen bonds define the clusters. Each cluster is then updated by assigning to all spins inside the cluster the same new value. Commonly this is done independently for each cluster [@Swendsen87]. In that sense the external bonds connecting the clusters are ‘deleted’. Here, we use a more general cluster algorithm. When choosing a new spin configuration we take these bonds into account. To preserve detailed balance, we adjust the bond freezing probabilities $p_{ij}$ and the interaction on the external bonds.
Our cluster update algorithm, which we call energy-sharing cluster update (ECU) is divided in two basic steps. Similar to the Swendson & Wang cluster algorithm [@Swendsen87] also in our approach the temperature remains fixed and no annealing takes place between the iterations.
- As for any cluster update we first identify the [ *satisfied*]{} bonds $(i,j)$ with $\sigma_i=\sigma_j$ and freeze these with probability $$p^{(1)}_{ij}=1-e^{-\beta q^{(1)}_{ij} E_{ij}}$$ when $J_{i,j}>0$ and $E_{ij}=J_{ij}\delta_{\sigma_i\sigma_j}$. Here $1/\beta=k_B T$ is the product of the Boltzmann constant $k_B$ and temperature $T$.\
The additional coefficients $$q^{(1)}_{ij}=\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
\alpha^{(1)}& {\rm if}& (i,j) \mbox{is a bond}\\
0 & & {\rm else} \end{array}\right.$$ with $\alpha^{(1)}\leq 1$ allow us to “share” the interaction energy with the following additional steps. If one chooses $\alpha^{(1)}=1$ then one obtains the usual Swendson-Wang clusters which may then be updated independently.
- In an intermediate step we identify ‘invisible’ islands i.e. clusters according to step (1a) that have a boundary only with [*one*]{} other cluster and have the same spin value. These islands often delay the spin flip of the larger cluster in step (2) as their total boundary may be large. For this reason we want to remove them with some finite probability. This step is not indispensable for our algorithm but it further improves its performance. We freeze the bonds between an island and the surrounding cluster with probability $$p^{(2)}_{ij}=1-e^{-\beta q^{(2)}_{ij} E_{ij}}$$ where $q^{(2)}_{ij}=\alpha^{(2)}$ if $(i,j)$ is a bond connecting an island with a surrounding cluster after step (1) and otherwise $q^{(2)}_{ij}=0$. We impose the condition $\alpha^{(1)}+\alpha^{(2)}\leq 1$. Note that we do not increase the bond freezing probability beyond the Swendson-Wang probability and no size limit for the islands is implied.
- Finally we identify the clusters $c_1,\ldots,c_k$ of spins connected by frozen bonds after steps (1a) and (1b). On this system of clusters that in similar approaches is referred to as a hyperlattice [@Niedermayer88] we perform a Metropolis update that updates all spins in each cluster simultaneously to a common new label. The Metropolis rate is calculated using the modified Hamiltonian $$\label{3}
\tilde{H}(\sigma)=
-\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}q^{(0)}_{ij}J_{i,j}
\delta_{\sigma_i\sigma_j}+
\frac{\kappa}{N}\sum_{i,j}\delta_{\sigma_i\sigma_j}$$ As has been shown on general grounds in [@Kandel91] detailed balance is preserved under the condition that in the modified Hamiltonian one uses $q^{(0)}_{ij}+q^{(1)}_{ij}+q^{(2)}_{ij}=1$. This amounts to sharing the interaction energy between the clustering and updating steps. Note that the inhibition term in eq. (\[3\]) does not enter the bond freezing probabilities. For the cluster update it has the effect of favoring a different spin value for each cluster.
We have tested the performance of the proposed segmentation method based on the Hamiltonian $H$ in eq. (2) with a finite inhibition of $\kappa=0.2$ in combination with the ECU cluster update algorithm with energy sharing parameters $\alpha^{(1)}=\alpha^{(2)}=0.5$. To our experience the efficiency of the algorithm does not depend sensitively on these parameters. Further refinements may be added to improve the segmentation delivered by the ECU algorithm to cope with more delicate recognition problems [@Opara98]. We have compared the algorithm to the performance of other known segmentation methods. As methods of reference we have used in particular the method of simulated annealing and the method of superparamagnetic clustering [@Blatt96] without inhibition ($\kappa=0$) using the standard Swendson&Wang (SW) update. In addition we have tested a variant of the SW update that allows to freeze anti-ferromagnetic bonds $(i,j)$ when $J_{ij}<0$.
An example that illustrates the different solutions to the segmentation problem is shown in Fig. 1. Let us explain this comparison in some detail. The gray scale values that define the interactions $J_{ij}$ according to eq. (1) are taken from Fig. 1A.
Some noise is included in this input. All segmentation methods that we consider use $q=10$ state spin variables $\sigma_i=1,\ldots,10$. A random initial configuration of the spins is shown in terms of a gray scale picture in Fig. 1B. As a first reference we show the sequence of a simulated annealing procedure in Fig. 1C and 1D. Here, the Hamiltonian $H$ in eq. (2) with $\kappa=0$ is used to define the Metropolis rate of local spin updates [@Metropolis53; @Note1]. After each sweep of $N$ spin updates the temperature is lowered by a constant factor $\lambda$ [@Geman90]. We started with a temperature $k_BT_0=1.0$ and lowered by $\lambda=0.99992$ in 1C and $\lambda=0.8$ in 1D for each sweep. The spin configurations at intermediate steps are shown in Fig. 1C and 1D. In the slower annealing procedure the two large rectangles in the image are segmented according to the original picture while the finer structure is not recognized by this algorithm. When the faster schedule is applied as in 1D then even the larger connected areas are divided into artificial segments. Obviously the simulated annealing method is inefficient for the segmentation task and due to slowing down at low temperatures the local update is very time consuming. Even optimizing the annealing rate during the schedule cannot change this picture as an extremely slow rate is needed to indentify the fine structure of the thin border line.
In Fig. 1E-G we compare different cluster update algorithms that avoid the problem of slowing down and we test the influence of the inhibition term and the energy sharing that are included only in Fig. 1G. Comparing the series of spin configurations in Fig. 1E and 1G one notices that the inhibition term in 1G indeed introduces a forced contrast between different segments as compared to 1E, in particular at $k_BT=0.25$ and $k_BT=0.2$. Also the increase in speed is remarkable.\
In Fig. 1F we test a cluster update algorithm [@Wang89; @Wang90] that includes anti-ferromagnetic clustering where in the clustering step (1a) anti-ferromagnetic bonds with $J_{ij}<0$ and $\sigma_i\neq \sigma_j$ are frozen with probability $p_{ij}=1-\exp[\beta J_{ij}]$. The clusters defined by ferro- and anti-ferromagnetic bonds are updated while preserving $\sigma_i=\sigma_j$ on the ferro- and $\sigma_i\neq \sigma_j$ on the anti-ferromagnetic bonds. This method introduces additional contrast between areas of different input color but it fails at low temperature where artifacts are generated due to the noise in the input. The convergence characteristic of the different algorithms is shown in Fig. \[compare\]H, where the energy of the spin-lattice is plotted as a function of time at fixed temperature. The relaxation time of the ECU-algorithm is about 10 times faster than that of the other algorithms.
Let us note that the only parameters that enter our segmentation method are the factors of proportionality $\alpha^{(1)},\alpha^{(2)}$ that determine the share of energy for the bond freezing steps and the inhibition strength $\kappa$. Mainly the $\alpha$-parameters are relevant for the efficiency of the segmentation while $\kappa$ indroduces some contrast to the representation of the clusters in terms of spin values. We have not attempted to optimize the choice of the parameters to speed the segmentation of Fig. 1A. Rather we are interested in a general purpose algorithm and we have successfully tested the robustness of the ECU segmentation with the present choice of parameters for many different pictures. To demonstrate this robustness we show three examples in Fig. 2. Despite the bad quality of the input a usable segmentation was found within a small number of iterations. A seemingly continuous gray scale background in Fig. 2A is segmented into only few clusters identifying the foreground character. In Fig. 2B we illustrate that for practical purposes, in this case detection of the license plate, even an intermediate iteration step, here $k=12$, may be used without need to wait for equilibration (at $k\approx 30$). Fig.2C shows the quality of segmentation for a highly complicated picture.
Data clustering becomes tremendously complicated when the intrinsic correlation between the data points which belong to the same cluster is small. A situation like this always occurs if the clusters extend into a thin, thread-like shape or an almost fractal structure, for example when dealing with images of biomolecules, polymers, or stellar structures. The ECU makes better use of the energy landscape which underlies the clustering problem by [*sharing energy*]{} between the bond-freezing and the spin-update steps of the algorithm. The additionally introduced global inhibition enhances contrast. As a consequence the quality of the results improves and, most notably, energy sharing leads to an acceleration of the segmentation by about a factor of ten (Fig. \[compare\] H).
In the course of development of the modern cluster update algorithms similar ideas have been proposed on sometimes more general grounds. Kandel and Domany [@Kandel91] lay out how to preserve detailed balance for a broad class of algorithms and they show how several other proposed update variants [@Edwards88] may be rephrased to comply with this. The ECU algorithm is also embedded in this framework. Niedermayer [@Niedermayer88] shows that in the clustering step (1a) any function $p^{(1)}_{ij}(E_{ij})$ can be used in principle, but proposes for practical purposes to apply $p^{(1)}_{ij}=1-\exp[-\beta(E_{ij}-E_0)]$ with some appropriately chosen $E_0$. With this choice the contribution of the non-frozen bonds to the update is clipped at $E_0$. In our case we share the energies in a proportional way between the clustering and update steps. The alignment of clusters is thus enhanced by also including the stronger bonds with higher energy content.\
In summary, the recognition task of segmenting an image may be performed with high efficiency by a simple cluster update algorithm if global inhibition is implemented. Furthermore, we believe that our cluster update approach may also be useful for the simulation of other spin models as its efficiency is not dependent on the special properties of the Potts model we use here.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, F.W. by grant SFB509 and C.v.F. by SFB237.
[10]{} M. Blatt, S. Wiseman, and E. Domany. , 76:18, 1996.
E. Domany. , 263:158, 1999.
R. H. Swendsen and S. Wang. , 58:86–88, 1987.
R. G. Edwards and A. D. Sokal. , 38:2009, 1988. U. Wolff. , 62:361–364, 1989. D. Kandel, E. Domany, and A. Brandt. , 40:330, 1989.
O. Redner, J. Machta, and L. F. Chayes. , 58:2749, 1998.
D. Wang and D. Terman. , 9, 1997.
N. J. Berman, R. J. Douglas, and K. A. C. Martin. 90:443-476, 1992. A. M. Sillito and P. C. Murphy. 11:167-185, 1988.
D. Kandel and E. Domany. , 43:8539, 1991.
F. Niedermayer. , 61:2026, 1988.
R. Opara and F. Wörgötter , 10:1547, 1998.
N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller. , 21:1087–1091, 1953.
D. Geman, S. Geman, C. Graffigne, and Dong. , 12:609–628, 1990.
S. Wang and R. H. Swendsen. , 63:109–112, 1989.
S. Wang, R. H. Swendsen, and R. Kotecky. , 42(4):2465–2474, 1990.
Here, we generalize the sum over $\langle i,j \rangle$ in eq. (2) to include all sites $i,j$ with lattice coordinates $(x_i,y_i)$ and $(x_j,y_j)$ such that $|x_i-x_j|\le \xi$ and $|y_i-y_j|\le \xi$. To achieve a visible segmentation in Fig. 1C and 1D we use $\xi=5$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We comment on the implications of the recently measured CP asymmetry in $B \to \Phi K_S$ decay. The data disfavor the Standard Model at 2.7 $\sigma$ and -if the trend persists in the future with higher statistics - require the existence of CP violation beyond that in the CKM matrix. In particular, the $b \to s \bar s s$ decay amplitude would require new contributions of comparable size to the Standard Model ones with an order one phase. While not every model can deliver such a large amount of CP and flavor violation, those with substantial FCNC couplings to the $Z$ can reproduce the experimental findings.'
address: ' Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309, USA '
author:
- 'Gudrun Hiller [^1]'
title: 'First hint of non-standard CP violation from $B \to \Phi K_S$ decay\'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The breakdown of CP symmetry in the $b$-system has been established from measurements of time-dependent asymmetries in $B \to J/\Psi K$ [^2] decays [@sin2betababar; @sin2betabelle]. In the Standard Model (SM) the phenomenon of CP violation originates from the CKM three generation quark mixing matrix [@ckm]. It is an impressive success of this CKM picture of CP and flavor violation that the world average of the asymmetry in $B \to J/\Psi K$ decays [@yossi] $$\label{eq:avePsi}
\sin (2 \beta (J/\Psi K_{S,L}))_{world-ave}=+0.734 \pm 0.054$$ agrees with the value extracted from experimental constraints from very different processes such as those in the Kaon sector, $\sin (2 \beta (J/\Psi K))_{fit}=+0.64 \ldots +0.84$ at $95 \%$ C.L. [@CKM-fit]. However, this CKM paradigm is now challenged by the recently reported measurements of CP asymmetries in $B \to \Phi K_S$ decays by BaBar [@babarphi] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:babar}
\sin (2 \beta (\Phi K_S))_{BaBar}=-0.19 ^{+0.52}_{-0.50} \pm 0.09 \end{aligned}$$ and Belle [@bellephi] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:belle}
\sin (2 \beta (\Phi K_S))_{Belle}=-0.73 \pm 0.64 \pm 0.18\end{aligned}$$ with resulting error weighted average $$\label{eq:ave}
\sin (2 \beta (\Phi K_S))_{ave}=-0.39 \pm 0.41 \; .$$ with errors added in quadrature. The value in (\[eq:belle\]) corresponds to the coefficient of the sine term in the time dependent CP asymmetry, see e.g. [@Anikeev:2001rk]. Belle also quotes a value for the direct CP asymmetry, i.e., the cosine term $A_{\Phi K_S}=-0.56 \pm 0.41 \pm 0.12$ [@bellephi], which is consistent with zero. In view of the current large experimental uncertainties, we neglect direct CP violating effects on the decay amplitudes in reporting the result of (\[eq:ave\]). With increasing precision they will become sensible and yield additional information [@Fleischer:2001pc].
In the SM the above decay modes are related such that the difference $D_{CP}$ of their asymmetries obeys [@Grossman:1996ke]-[@Grossman:1997gr] $$\label{eq:diff}
D_{CP}\!=\! | \!\sin (2 \beta (\Phi K))-
\sin (2 \beta (J/\Psi K)\!)| \!{\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}\! O(\lambda^2 \!)$$ where $\lambda \simeq 0.2$ appears in Wolfenstein’s parameterization of the CKM matrix. Evaluation of (\[eq:avePsi\]), (\[eq:ave\]) yields $D_{CP}=1.12 \pm 0.41$ hence violates the SM at 2.7 $\sigma$. The impact of these experimental results on the validity of CKM and SM is currently statistics limited. Future prospects at the $B$-factories are that the statistical error $\sigma_{\Phi K_S}(stat)$ can be expected to improve roughly by a factor of three with an increase of integrated luminosity from $0.1ab^{-1}$ to $1ab^{-1}$ [@Eigen:2001mk] and it will take some time before we know $D_{CP}$ with sufficient significance to draw final conclusions.
In the following we entertain the possibility of a would-be measurement of $\sin (2 \beta(\Phi K_S))=-0.39$ or a similar value which departs drastically from the SM expectation of (\[eq:diff\]). We discuss the generic requirements to new physics (NP) models to explain these values in Section \[sec:weak\]. In Section \[sec:new\] we work out and discuss the reach of specific models in the observable $\sin (2 \beta(\Phi
K_{S,L}))$ and conclude in Section \[sec:end\].
CONTRIBUTIONS TO $b \to s \bar s s$ FROM THE WEAK SCALE AND BEYOND \[sec:weak\]
===============================================================================
Time dependent measurements in $B_0, \bar B_0$ decays into a CP eigenstate $f$ such as $J/\Psi K_S$, $\Phi K_S$ return the value of $\sin (2 \beta(f))=\sin ( 2 \beta_{eff}+\triangle \Phi_f)$. (As commented in the Introduction, we fix $|\bar A/A|=1$ to first approximation.) Here, $\beta_{eff}$ is the phase from $B_0-\bar B_0$ mixing and is common to all $B_0, \bar B_0 \to f$ decays and $\triangle \Phi_f \equiv \arg(\frac{\bar A}{A})$ is the phase from the decay amplitudes. In the SM $\beta_{eff}= \beta$ and $\triangle \Phi_{J/\Psi K}$ and $\triangle \Phi \equiv \triangle \Phi_{\Phi K_S}\simeq
O(\lambda^2)$[@Grossman:1996ke]-[@Fleischer:2001cw]. The “golden-plated” mode $B \to J/\Psi K$ is mediated at the quark level by $b \to c \bar c s $ decay and receives a large contribution from tree level $W$ exchange. Hence, we expect $\triangle \Phi_{J/\Psi K}$ to be subleading even in the presence of NP. On the other hand, the rare $B \to \Phi K$ decay appears in the SM only at the loop level, see Fig. \[fig:SM\], and therefore is generically more susceptible to (new) physics from the weak and higher scales.
Measurements of $\sin (2 \beta (\Phi K_S))$ and $\sin (2 \beta (J/\Psi
K_S))$ fix $\triangle \Phi$ up to a 4-fold ambiguity and in general have 8 pairs $(\beta_{eff}, \triangle \Phi)$ as solutions. For example, let’s take the good $O(10 \%)$ agreement between data on $\sin 2 \beta(J/\Psi K_{S,L}))$ and the SM fit for $\sin 2 \beta$ as an indication that the value of $\beta_{eff}$ extracted is in the same branch as the one from the SM fit, i.e. we assume that $b \to c \bar c s $ decays and $B_0-\bar B_0$ mixing are dominated by the SM contribution. (This concerns discrete ambiguities and barring accidental cancellations does not affect our conclusions about large phases in $b \to s \bar s s $ decays.) Then, $\beta_{eff}=24^\circ$ and $\triangle \Phi=-70^\circ,-204^\circ$ using central values. This requires a large source of CP violation in the $b \to s \bar s s$ amplitude outside of the SM. We recall that there is no conflict with a small direct CP asymmetry as measured by BaBar $A_{CP}(B^\pm \to \Phi K^\pm)=-0.05 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.03$ [@Aubert:2001rp]. While a large value for $A_{CP}$ would inambiguously indicate the presence of NP, a small or vanishing one could be caused by small or vanishing strong phases.
0.0truein
=1.3in
-0.3truein
Lets illustrate what kind of scales could be invoked for an interpretation of an $O(1)$ phase in the $b \to s \bar s s$ decay amplitude. The measured branching ratio ${\cal{B}}(B_0 \to \Phi K_0)=(8.1 ^{+3.1}_{-2.5} \pm 0.8) \times
10^{-6}$ [@PDG2002] is in agreement with the SM assuming factorization [@Ali:1998eb], which has however substantial errors from hadronic physics. In the absence of a first principle precision calculation of hadronic 2-body $B$ decays into light mesons we will not perform here a detailed study of the $B \to \Phi K$ matrix element. Instead we assume that $b \to s \bar s s$ decays proceeds via a single flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) operator with appropriate Dirac structures $\Gamma_{i}$ $$\label{eq:O}
O=\xi_F g_X^2 \frac{\bar s \Gamma_1 b \bar s \Gamma_2 s}{M_X^2}$$ generated from an interaction at scale $M_X$ with coupling $g_X$ and $\xi_F$ contains all flavor mixing information. In the SM, $X$ is the weak scale, i.e. $M_X=M_W$, $g_X=g_W$ and $\xi_F =V_{tb} V_{ts}^*$ contains the CKM angles. The operator contributes with Wilson coefficient $C_O$ renormalized at the $\sim m_b$ scale of size of a few times $10^{-2}$ [@Ali:1998eb; @BBL]. The NP contribution to $O$ has to be roughly of comparable size to the SM one to explain the observed $B_0 \to \Phi K_0$ branching ratio and has an order one CP phase in the overall mixing coefficient $\xi_F$ to explain a large CP asymmetry induced by the $b \to s \bar s s$ decay amplitude.
0.0truein
=1.3in
-0.3truein
Examples of contributions from physics beyond the SM to $b \to s \bar s s$ decays are shown in Fig. \[fig:BSM\]. The left diagram displays the effect of a new boson $X$ in the FCNC loop with matter $q_i$ in close analogy to the SM mechanism. If $g_X=g_W$, flavor angles $|\xi_F| =1$ and an $O(1)$ CP phase, and $C_{O}$ is SM-like, then this requires $M_X \simeq
400$ GeV to satisfy the conditions on size and CP breaking discussed above. Assuming a larger Wilson coefficient of order 1 requires $M_X \simeq 2-3$ TeV. Another possibility is tree level FCNC at the weak scale, where $M_X=m_Z$, $g_X=g_W$ and $\xi_F=U_{bs}$. This is illustrated in the right diagram of Fig. \[fig:BSM\]. The $sZb$ coupling has to be dominantly imaginary and satisfy $|U_{bs}|\simeq 10^{-3}$ to be in the right ball park.
WHICH NEW PHYSICS IN $B \to \Phi K$ ? \[sec:new\]
==================================================
In this section we examine the reach of different models in the phase of the $b \to s \bar s s$ decay amplitude. In particular we study the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), a variant of the 2 Higgs doublet model (2HDM) III which contains an extra source of CP violation and a model with a vector-like down quark (VLdQ). The CP reach in $b \to s \bar s s$ is estimated using the effective Hamiltonian description and factorization [@Ali:1998eb; @BBL]. While this latter approach contains model dependence it gives the right pattern in which NP enters the rare decays. Our findings are summarized in Table \[tab:pattern\]. Only those models with $\triangle \Phi \sim O(1)$ are able to reproduce $\sin(2 \beta (\Phi K_S))=-0.39$ or a value similarly different from $\sin(2 \beta (J/\Psi K_S))$.
What is the explanation in supersymmetry (SUSY) ? To depart significantly from the SM with $\triangle \Phi {\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}O(\lambda^2)$ one has to go beyond the MSSM with minimal flavor violation (MFV), i.e. allow for more CP and flavor violation than the one present in the SM that is in the Yukawas. Recall that gauge and anomaly mediation are MFV, whereas in general SUSY GUTS [@Barbieri:1995rs] and effective SUSY models [@Cohen:1996sq; @Hisano:2000wy] are not.
Allowing for arbitrary mixing in the down squark sector, the effect of gluino contributions in $b \to s \bar s s$ decay has been analyzed in Refs. [@Bertolini:1987pk; @Ciuchini:1997zp; @Lunghi:2001af]. As shown in [@Lunghi:2001af], an order one NP contribution to the QCD penguins at the weak scale can give at most a 10 $\%$ contribution at the scale $\mu \sim m_b$. Imposing experimental constraints from $b \to s \gamma$ a range $\triangle \Phi {\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}0.7$ has been obtained [@Ciuchini:1997zp]. A most important contribution in a generic MSSM without MFV stems from up squark mixing between the second and third generation which flips chirality, parametrized by $\delta^U_{23 LR}$. This parameter is essentially unconstrained $|\delta^U_{23 LR}| {\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}O(1)$, can be complex and induces an effective $sZb$ vertex $|Z_{sb}| {\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}0.1 |\delta^U_{23 LR}|$ defined as [@GGG; @Lunghi:1999uk] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{L}}_{Z}=\frac{g^2}{4 \pi^2} \frac{g}{2 \cos \theta_W}
\bar b_L \gamma_\mu s_L Z_{sb}\end{aligned}$$ These $Z$ penguins are constrained by $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays $|Z_{sb}| \leq 0.1$ [@GGG]-[@aghl]. The contribution to $b \to \Phi s$ is then $\propto (-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{3} \sin^2 \theta_W)
\frac{g^2}{4 \pi^2} Z_{sb}$. If the penguins are sizeable- indicating the presence of large, complex up squark mixing in the MSSM- they access values of $\triangle \Phi$ of $O(1)$. The effect of R-parity violating operators $\lambda^{\prime \prime}_{ijk} \bar u_i \bar d_j \bar d_k$ is small because there are no tree level contributions to the $b \to s \bar s s$ operator (\[eq:O\]) due to the symmetry properties of the super potential [@Grossman:1996ke].
We study the 2 HDM III as an example of a NP scenario with an extended Higgs sector. The relevant model parameters are the charged Higgs mass and the “wrong” Higgs couplings of the third generation (we neglect all entries except the $(3,3)$ one) and their relative phase. This new CP phase enters predominantly the dipole operators such as the one with a gluon $O_8 \simeq \bar s \sigma_{\mu \nu} b G^{\mu \nu}$, see [@Bowser-Chao:1998yp] for details. This operator contributes to the $b \to s \bar s s$ amplitude, though in the SM at subleading level compared to the QCD penguins, e.g. [@Lunghi:2001af]. The 2HDM III model is constrained by non-observation of the charged Higgs $m_{H^\pm}> 80$ GeV, the $b \to s \gamma$ branching ratio, $B_0-\bar B_0$ mixing, the $\rho$ parameter and the neutron electric dipole moment. We scan over the allowed parameter space and obtain $\triangle \Phi \leq 0.2$.
A simple model beyond the SM with an enlarged matter sector is the one with an additional vector-like down quark $D_4$. The $(3 \times 4)$ dimensional extended CKM matrix $V$ includes mixing between $D_4$ and the SM quark doublets and causes tree level FCNC couplings to the $Z$ [@Nir:1999mg]. These are given as $U_{bs}=-V^d_{b4} V_{s4}^{d*}$ for $b \to s$ transitions, where $V^d$ diagonalizes the down sector. This gives also the amount of CKM unitarity violation $U_{bs}=\sum_{i=u,c,t} V_{ib}^* V_{is}$ which vanishes in the SM. Following the discussion for the SUSY models with $Z$-penguins, we relate $U_{bs} =-g^2/(4 \pi^2) Z_{sb}$ and get $|U_{bs}| {\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}10^{-3}$, slightly better than the bound from [@Barenboim:2001fd]. The reach of the VLdQ model in $\triangle \Phi$ is $O(1)$ in agreement with the estimates at the end of Section \[sec:weak\].
SM, MSSM with MFV generic MSSM 2HDM III VLdQ
----------------------- ------------------------ ---------------- ---------------------------- ------------------
$| \triangle \Phi | $ ${\cal{O}}(\lambda^2)$ ${\cal{O}}(1)$ ${\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}0.2$ $ {\cal{O}}(1) $
CONCLUDING REMARKS\[sec:end\]
=============================
We have examined the implications of the experimental results [@babarphi; @bellephi] on CP violation from interference between mixing and decay in $B \to \Phi K_s$ decays . These data are in conflict with the SM at $2.7 \sigma$ [*and* ]{} with many NP scenarios without $\triangle \Phi$ of $O(1)$, as compiled in Table \[tab:pattern\], such as the MSSM with MFV. As we find, models with sizeable and complex $sZb$ couplings do have the required CP reach in $b \to s \bar s s$ decays. Note that anomalous couplings generically lead to large effects in the $sZb$ vertex [@Burdman:1999fw]. The $Z$-penguins contribute also to $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays, $b \to s \nu \bar \nu$ decays and $B_s-\bar B_s$ mixing [@GGG].
A new CP violating NP contribution to the operator (\[eq:O\]) will leak into other decays such as $B\to K \eta, K \eta^\prime$ which do have a $s \bar s$ admixture. Belle reported for the time-dependent asymmetry parameters $\sin ( 2 \beta (\eta^\prime K_S))=0.76 \pm 0.36^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ and $A_{\eta^\prime K_S}=+0.26 \pm 0.22 \pm 0.03$ [@belleeta],[@bellephi]. Due to the anomalously large branching ratio of $B \to (K, X_s) \eta^\prime$ decays [@Ali:1998eb; @etaprime] the effect of NP in the $(\bar s b)(\bar s s)$ vertex can be diluted in these channels by an enhanced SM contribution. Hence, it is conceivable that $\sin ( 2 \beta (\eta^\prime K_S))$ is closer to $\sin ( 2 \beta (J/\Psi K_S))$ than $\sin ( 2 \beta (\Phi K_S))$ in agreement with the data and the hypothesis of sizeable NP in $B \to \Phi K_S$ decays. There might be as well already NP in the CP asymmetry in $B \to J/\Psi K_{S,L}$ decays (\[eq:avePsi\]). Excluding the possibility that NP in $b \to c \bar c s$ and/or $B_0- \bar B_0$ mixing conspires such that the fit $\beta$ lives on a different branch than $\beta_{eff}$, this effect is at the 10 percent level. Since ${\cal{B}}(B \to \Phi K)/{\cal{B}}(B \to J/\Psi K)
\simeq 10^{-2}$ [@PDG2002] and assuming approximate flavor universality an order one NP contribution to $B \to \Phi K_S$ is roughly a $10 \%$ correction to $B \to J/\Psi K$ which is within the errors. Sensitivity to NP from measuring $\beta$ in different decays is limited by the error on $\sin 2 \beta_{fit}$, which can be improved if the error on $|V_{ub}|$ decreases and the SM background from $b \to u \bar u s$ contributions to $B \to \Phi K$ which has been suggested to bound by $SU(3)$ analysis [@Grossman:1997gr].
[**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**]{} It is a pleasure to thank David Atwood, Susan Gardner and Martin Schmaltz for stimulating discussions. I am grateful to Yossi Nir for communication.
[9]{} B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[BABAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 091801 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0107013\]; B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[BABAR Collaboration\], arXiv:hep-ex/0207042. K. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 091802 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0107061\]; T. Higuchi \[Belle Collaboration\], arXiv:hep-ex/0205020.
N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 531 (1963). M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**49**]{}, 652 (1973). Y. Nir, talk given at ICHEP 2002, Amsterdam, July 24-31, 2002.
A. Höcker, talk given at FBCP May 16-18, 2002, Philadelphia, USA.
Aubert [*et al.*]{}(BABAR Collaboration), hep-ex/0207070.
T. Augshev, talk given at ICHEP 2002 (Belle Collaboration), BELLE-CONF-0232; Abe [*et al.*]{}, BELLE-CONF-0201 hep-ex/0207098.
K. Anikeev [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:hep-ph/0201071. R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, Phys. Lett. B [**511**]{}, 240 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0103121\].
Y. Grossman and M. P. Worah, Phys. Lett. B [**395**]{}, 241 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9612269\]. R. Fleischer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**12**]{}, 2459 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9612446\].
D. London and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B [**407**]{}, 61 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9704277\]. Y. Grossman, G. Isidori and M. P. Worah, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 057504 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9708305\]. R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, Phys. Lett. B [**506**]{}, 311 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0101276\].
G.Eigen [*et al.*]{}, in [*Proc. of Snowmass 2001*]{}, hep-ph/0112312. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[BABAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 051101 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0111087\].
K.Hagiwara [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 010001(2002).
A. Ali, G. Kramer and C. D. Lu, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 094009 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9804363\]. G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 1125 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9512380\]. R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B [**449**]{}, 437 (1995), hep-ph/9504373; K. S. Babu and J. C. Pati, arXiv:hep-ph/0203029; D. Chang, A. Masiero and H. Murayama, arXiv:hep-ph/0205111. A. G. Cohen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2300 (1997), hep-ph/9610252. J. Hisano, K. Kurosawa and Y. Nomura, Nucl. Phys. B [**584**]{}, 3 (2000), hep-ph/0002286. S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati and A. Masiero, Nucl. Phys. B [**294**]{}, 321 (1987).
M. Ciuchini [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 978 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9704274\].
E. Lunghi and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B [**521**]{}, 320 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0109149\]. G. Buchalla, G. Hiller and G. Isidori, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 014015 (2001), hep-ph/0006136. E. Lunghi, A. Masiero, I. Scimemi and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B [**568**]{}, 120 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9906286\]. A. Ali [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 074024 (2000), hep-ph/9910221. A. Ali [*et al.*]{}, hep-ph/0112300, to appear in Phys. Rev. D. D. Bowser-Chao, K. m. Cheung and W. Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 115006 (1999), hep-ph/9811235. Y. Nir, arXiv:hep-ph/9911321. G. Barenboim, F. J. Botella and O. Vives, Nucl. Phys. B [**613**]{}, 285 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0105306\]. G. Burdman, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and S. F. Novaes, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 114016 (2000), hep-ph/9906329. K. F. Chen [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:hep-ex/0207033. See, for example, D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B [**405**]{}, 150 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9704357\]; A. Ali, J. Chay, C. Greub and P. Ko, Phys. Lett. B [**424**]{}, 161 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9712372\].
[^1]: Work supported by the Department of Energy, Contract DE-AC03-76SF00515
[^2]: Throughout this paper $J/\Psi$ stands for all $c\bar c$ states included in the experimental analyses for $\sin (2 \beta (J/\Psi K))$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Closed Cluster method (CC method) is applied to find solutions for various calculation problems of the energy band structure of graphene. The essence of the CC method consists in the addition of closing bonds between edge atoms to the usual cluster method in order to eliminate the “dangling” bonds on the edges of the cluster. We study the cases of an “infinite” layer of graphene as well as nanoribbons, nanotubes and bilayer graphene. Results for these cases are in agreement to that what was obtained by means of other methods (tight binding approximation and others). By means of the CC method we also study the problem of point defects in graphene and obtain the distortion of the energy spectrum. The energy spectrum of the layer C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$ $(0\leq x \leq 1)$ is found as well as the dependence of the energy gap on the concentration of silicon. We show that the energy band structure of C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$ looks like a tunnel transition. Wave functions of graphene in the symmetry points of Brillouin zone are also obtained.'
author:
- 'Ilja I. Taljanskij'
title: Closed clusters approach to graphene
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Studies of various properties of graphene and it‘s applications have attracted much attention in the last years, as it is well-known [@Wakabayashi1]. In this paper, it is proposed for an approach based on the use of closed clusters (CC) to calculate the energy band structure of graphene. We have developed this approach earlier in application to the one-dimensional and three-dimensional crystals with diamond structures [@Tal1]. The essence of the CC approach is to bring together all bonds of atoms which are located on the edge of a cluster in order to eliminate the “dangling” bonds. This approach is found to be especially useful for calculation of the energy spectrum of crystals with point defects, such as vacancies or impurity atoms. The simplest and most widespread approach to calculate such impurity states is known to be the effective mass method. This approximation works sufficiently well in cases of impurity levels being located along the borders of the energy zones. However, it is inapplicable to the description of so-called “deep levels”, which lie far from the zone borders [@Lannoo]. One of the methods used for those levels is the cluster approach, in which a group of atoms - the cluster - is mentally picked from a crystal lattice.
This cluster is considered as a separate “molecule” and for it‘s calculation the usual quantum chemistry methods are applied. The advantage of the clusters approach is it‘s applicability for modelling real situations of impurity atoms and - if necessary - taking into consideration a possible distortion of the crystal lattice.
However, the usual cluster approach has a deficiency. Is the “infinity” crystal substituted by a group of atoms, a problem with atoms lying on the edge of the cluster arises. The presence of such atoms with torn bonds distorts the energy spectrum of the crystal. This distortion can be diminished by increasing the size of the cluster, but the approximation to the exact value is very slow.
This deficiency can instead be removed by connecting the torn bonds with each other and hereby closing them. A similar procedure, the so-called “periodical boundary conditions”, is applied in studying the energy spectrum of the infinite ideal crystals. The special feature of our approach is the application the closing procedure of these bonds to small clusters to study crystals with distorted regularity properties (such as impurity, edges and other). In this paper, the CC approach is applied to graphene, a relatively new material with numerous of unique properties [@Geim]. In section\[sec:essence\] the fundamental idea of the CC approach is presented as well as the rules for the construction of diagrams corresponding to the various clusters. In section\[sec:Ham\] examples of building Hamiltonian matrices and solutions for the secular equations in case of periodical structures without edges and defects are given. The aim of this section is to test our approach by means of comparison of the results with those obtained by other methods. In section\[sec:Bilayer graphene\] the CC approach is applied to bilayer graphene. In section\[sec:Wave functions\] we present wave functions at symmetry points of the Brillouin zone. In section\[sec:Nanoribbons and nanotubes\] we study nanoribbons and nanotubes by means of closed clusters. Section\[sec:Impurity\] contains the calculations of the graphene energy spectrum in the presence of impurity. Finally, in \[sec:monoatomic layer\] we study the energy band structure of the hypothetic monoatomic layer C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$ $ \; (0\leq x \leq 1)$. Section\[sec:Con\] concludes with a discussion of the obtained results and furthermore describes a possibility for making the approach more precise as well as the application of the CC approach to other problems.
The essence of the CC approach and a rule for constructing the diagrams {#sec:essence}
=======================================================================
By the term “closed cluster” we mean a group of N atoms which reflects the structure of the crystal and furthermore the atom bonds which are present within the group - at the same time the torn bonds are absent. A similar procedure of closing the bonds known as “periodical boundary conditions’ is often used in one-dimensional atom chains when atom N+1 is identical to the first one. Such a procedure is also possible for 3D-systems, but is rarely applied here, since closing a 3D cluster is much more difficult. In 2D cases however, closing can be realized very easily - therefore, application of the CC approach to graphene and other 2D structures seems to be very effective.
While constructing clusters corresponding to graphene one must start out from it‘s crystal structure. The latter is well-known, a hexagonal layer which is formed by two sublattices, here A and B [@Wallace]. The simplest unclosed cluster corresponding to such a structure is shown in Fig.\[Fig1a\].
The main idea of the closed cluster approach is the necessity of closing the torn bonds shown in Fig.\[Fig1a\] in the way shown in Fig.\[Fig1b\]. In case of an endless graphene layer the structure of the lattice requires the following rules regarding the construction of a closed cluster with approximation of the nearest neighbors.
- ***Rule 1.*** Each atom of sublattice A is bonded with three atoms of sublattice B and vice versa.
- ***Rule 2.*** All real and closing bonds have the same energy levels.
- ***Rule 3.*** The number of atoms in a cluster N must be divisible by six.
The last rule is explained in detail in section\[sec:Wave functions\].
All three rules in fact are satisfied within the construction in Fig.\[Fig1b\], although the second rule seems to be broken at first sight: for example, the closing bond between atoms 1 and 4 looks different from that between 1-2 or 1-6, since atom 4 is further away from 1. However, it must be kept in mind that the bond 1-4 is not a real bond. In distinction from Fig.\[Fig1c\], the closed cluster 1(b) must be understood as a diagram or graph, which makes it easier to obtain the Hamiltonian matrix. Furthermore, if these Hamiltonian matrix elements corresponding to the closing bonds are chosen the same as for existing bonds, then the “interaction” between atoms like 1 and 4 in 1(b) in fact describes the interaction between 1 and 1’ in 1(c), latter of which is absent in cluster $N=6$.
It must be noted, that for the numbers of atoms in sublattices A and B it is necessary to be equal, as closing bonds is only possible between atoms of different sublattices. For example, in cluster 1(b) it is only possible to close the bonds of atom 1 with atom 4, but not with 3 or 5. This restriction is necessary to satisfy Rule 1.
We also note that energy values obtained from the solution of secular equations are independent from the choice of the cluster in case of an “infinite” ideal lattice, but are only dependent from the number N. They are as well independent from the numeration of the atoms, since changes in numeration only cause determinant permutations.
Fig.\[Fig2\] shows some of the possible clusters with $N=12$ with dissimilar ways of closing.
To conclude this section, we note, that the name “closed cluster” which we use is different from the term “closed walk” used in graph theory [@Trinajstic]. For example, the cluster shown in Fig.\[Fig1a\] is a “closed walk”, but not a closed cluster - the latter is shown in Fig.\[Fig1b\].
One definition of a closed cluster can be given as a cluster, where each atom is linked to the same number of neighbor atoms as in the corresponding crystal.
Building of a Hamiltonian matrix and solution of secular equations {#sec:Ham}
==================================================================
The basic idea underlying the CC approach is the same as in the usual molecular orbital approach (MO) [@Heilbronner]. In particular, this is the representation of the wave function of the cluster $\Psi (\underline{r})$ as a linear combination of the wave functions of the atoms $$\label{eq:1}
\Psi (\textbf{r}) = \sum\limits_{n=1}^{N} c_n \varphi (\bold{r} - {\bold a_n}).$$
Functions $\varphi$ in graphene are $\ket{p_z}$ - orbitals of carbon atoms, with axis z being perpendicular to the layer. We designate wave functions along and opposed this axis as “+” and “-”.
The standard procedure of obtaining secular equations leads to a system of linear equations which help to find the coefficients $c_n$ in $$\label{eq:2}
\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N} M_{mn} c_n = 0 , \qquad m= 1,2,\ldots , N ,$$
where $$\label{eq:3}
M_{mn} = \varepsilon \delta_{mn} + (1-\delta_{mn}) \eta_{mn},$$
$\delta_{mn} = \begin{cases} 1, m=n \\ 0, m \neq n, \end{cases}$
$\eta_{mn} = \begin{cases} 1, \textnormal{if atom m is bound with atom n} \\ 0, \textnormal{if atom m is not bound with atom n,} \end{cases} $
$$\varepsilon = \frac{E-E_0} {\gamma_0}$$
with
$E$ - energy of an electron
$E_0$ - energy of an electron in the $\ket{2p_z}$ state in an isolated carbon atom. We use $E_0=0$
and
$-\gamma_0$ - the transfer integral between neighbor atoms with wave functions with the same sign, $\gamma_0 > 0$.
The problem of calculating the corresponding values of energy $\varepsilon$ (in $\gamma_0$ units) is then reduced to solving the secular equation $$\label{eq:4}
\det {M_{mn} = 0}.$$
Now we consider some examples of applications of the approach. We begin with the simplest closed cluster $N=6$, which is shown in Fig.\[Fig1b\]. The secular equation (4) has the form (empty matrix cells standing here and further for zeroes):\
$$\label{eq:5}
D_{6} = \left|
\begin{array} {rrrrrr}
\varepsilon & 1 & & 1 & & 1 \\
1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & 1 & \\
& 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & 1 \\
1 & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & \\
& 1 & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 \\
1 & & 1 & & 1 & \varepsilon \\
\end{array}
\right| = 0.$$
Calculating the determinant leads to the following equation for finding $\varepsilon$: $$\label{eq:6}
\varepsilon^4 (\varepsilon^2 - 9) = 0.$$
The solutions of $\pm$3,0,0,0,0 are exactly those energy values at bottom, top and Dirac points of two energy bands, which are obtained from a tight binding and nearest neighbor approximations \[5\].
The fact, that the CC approach provides exact values of energy band boundaries already at a minimal cluster size is very important in the calculation of the energy of impurity states, as the energy of such states are counted from the bands’ boundaries.
Let us consider the next example with $N=12$. If we proceed from the clusters from Fig.\[Fig2\], then the secular equation has the form\
$$\label{eq:7}
D_{12} = \left|
\begin{array} {rrrrrrrrrrrrr}
\varepsilon & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & & & 1\\
1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & & & & & & & 1 &\\
& 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & & & & & 1 & &\\
& & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & & & 1 & & &\\
& & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & 1 & & & &\\
1 & & & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & & & &\\
& & & & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & & &1\\
& & & & 1 & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & &\\
& & & 1 & & & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1& &\\
& & 1 & & & & & & 1 & \varepsilon& 1&\\
& 1 & & & & & & & & 1 & \varepsilon& 1 \\
1& & & & & & 1 & & & & 1 &\varepsilon \\
\end{array}\right|
=0.$$
\
The solution of equation is given by following values of energy $\varepsilon$: $\pm 3, \pm 2, \pm 2, \pm 1, 0, 0, 0, 0$.
The determinant of cluster N=24 has a form which is analogous to $D_{12}$. The obtained energy values are shown in Table\[Table1\].
[N]{}
-------- ------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------- ------- ------- -------
[6]{} [$\pm$ 3]{} [0]{} [0]{} [0]{} [0]{}
[12]{} [$\pm$ 3]{} [$\pm$ 2]{} [$\pm$ 2]{} [$\pm$ 1]{} [0]{} [0]{} [0]{} [0]{}
[24]{} [$\pm$]{} 3 [$\pm (\sqrt{3}$+1)]{} [$\pm (\sqrt{3}$+1)]{} [$\pm$ 2]{} [$\pm$ 2]{} [$\pm$ 1]{} [$\pm$ 1]{} [$\pm$ 1]{} [$\pm (\sqrt{3}$-1)]{} [$\pm (\sqrt{3}$-1)]{} [0]{} [0]{} [0]{} [0]{}
\[Table1\]
The main conclusion which may be drawn from the comparison of cases $N=6$, $12$ and $24$ is the fact, that the energy values of the bottoms and tops of the lower $(-3,0)$ and upper band $(0,3)$ are equal in each case, therefore they are independent of the cluster size. With the growth of the cluster size new energy levels arise, however, previous levels remain the same.
Each energy value in Tab.\[Table1\] is corresponding with some point of the Brillouin zone. More in-detail discussion on that issue is presented in sec.\[sec:Wave functions\]At this point we just briefly discuss the fourfold degeneration of level $\varepsilon=0$ at all $N$.
At first glance it seems not to be in accordance with $\varepsilon$ being 0 at six corners of the Brillouin zone (points $K_1$, $K_2$, …, $K_6$ in Fig.\[Fig3\]).
![Brillouin zone of graphene [@Wallace].[]{data-label="Fig3"}](./Fig3){width="3.5cm"}
However, it must be kept in mind, that only two of these six points, $K_1$ and $K_2$ for example, belong to the first Brillouin zone, others belonging to the next zones. The twofold degeneration at points $K_1$ and $K_2$ is what leads to fourfold degeneration of the level $\varepsilon=0$.
In conclusion of this section it should be noticed, that the rules for diagram construction formulated in sec.\[sec:Ham\] does not require these diagrams to be plane. Therefore, they also can be applied to nanotubes as well as spherical surfaces (fullerene). Stratified cluster can also be used. For example, the diagram in Fig.\[Fig2a\] can be rearranged to a hexahedron without breaking the bonds. The application for the space diagram is useful for studying many-layer graphene. In the next section we use a three-dimensional diagram to study bilayer graphene.
Bilayer graphene {#sec:Bilayer graphene}
================
For $N=12$, the 3D closed cluster corresponding to bilayer graphene is shown in Fig.\[Fig4\]. In addition to the closing bonds within the layers (energy $\gamma_0$), also the bonds describing the interactions between those layers (energy $\gamma_1$ in $\gamma_0$-units) are present in the cluster.
Note, that Fig.\[Fig4\] does not show the displacement of the upper layer towards the lower, since this Figure doesn´t reproduce a real atomic structure, but is solely a diagram which is used for building a Hamiltonian matrix.
![Cluster $N=12$ for bilayer graphene.[]{data-label="Fig4"}](./Fig4){width="5.5cm"}
The secular equation corresponding to Fig.\[Fig4\] has the form
$$\label{eq:8}
D_{12}^{(2)} = \left|
\begin{array} {rrrrrrrrrrrrr}
\varepsilon & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & & & & & \gamma_1\\
1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & 1 & & & & & & \gamma_1 &\\
& 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & 1 & & & & \gamma_1 & &\\
1 & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & & & \gamma_1 & & &\\
& 1 & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & \gamma_1 & & & &\\
1 & & 1 & & 1 & \varepsilon & \gamma_1 & & & & &\\
& & & & & \gamma_1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & 1 & &1\\
& & & & \gamma_1 & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & & 1 &\\
& & & \gamma_1 & & & & 1 & \varepsilon & 1& &1\\
& & \gamma_1 & & & & 1 & & 1 & \varepsilon& 1&\\
& \gamma_1 & & & & & & 1 & & 1 & \varepsilon& 1 \\
\gamma_1& & & & & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 &\varepsilon \\
\end{array}\right|=0.$$
Solving equation leads to following energy levels:
$$\label{eq:9}
\varepsilon = \pm (3+\gamma_1), \pm (3-\gamma_1), \pm \gamma_1, \pm \gamma_1, \pm \gamma_1, \pm \gamma_1.$$
The main result that ensues from is that there is an energy gap $\varepsilon_g = 2\gamma$. The presence of this gap in bilayer graphene is a fact discussed in many papers [@Castro][@Seyller]. In the model which we are using, the energy gap is caused by the interaction between the layers and disappears if we set $\gamma_1$=0.
Wave functions {#sec:Wave functions}
==============
Within our considered model the cluster wave functions are determined by the totality of coefficients $c_n$, according to . To obtain the latters one must solve the system of equations under defined energy values $\varepsilon$. For $\varepsilon = 3$ and $\varepsilon = -3$ the result is obvious and shown in Tab.\[table2\]. Let us now consider the cases $\varepsilon = \pm $1 and $\varepsilon$ = 0 in more detail. Latter is most interesting, since at this point the valence band meets the conduction band.
As an example, let us consider the cluster $N=12$, which is shown in Fig.\[Fig2b\], but with a different atoms numbering (Fig.\[Fig5\]).
![Cluster $N=12$ for calculation of graphene wave functions.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](./Fig5){width="6cm"}
To determine the coefficients $c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_{12}$ in we must solve a system of twelve linear equations. For cluster in Fig.\[Fig5\] it has the form
$$\begin{cases}
(1) \qquad \varepsilon c_1 + c_2 + c_6 + c_7 = 0 \\
(2) \qquad c_1 + \varepsilon c_2 + c_3 + c_8 = 0\\
(3) \qquad c_2 + \varepsilon c_3 + c_4 + c_9 = 0 \\
(4) \qquad c_3 + \varepsilon c_4 + c_5 + c_{10}= 0 \\
(5) \qquad c_4 + \varepsilon c_5 + c_6 + c_{11} = 0 \\
(6) \qquad c_1 + c_5 + \varepsilon c_6 + c_{12} = 0 \\
(7) \qquad c_1 + \varepsilon c_7 + c_8 + c_{12} = 0 \\
(8) \qquad c_2 + c_7 + \varepsilon c_8 + c_9 = 0 \\
(9) \qquad c_3 + c_8 + \varepsilon c_9 + c_{10} = 0 \\
(10) \qquad c_4 + c_9 + \varepsilon c_{10} + c_{11} = 0 \\
(11) \qquad c_5 + c_{10} + \varepsilon c_{11} + c_{12} = 0 \\
(12) \qquad c_6 + c_7 + c_{11}+\varepsilon c_{12} = 0 \\
\end{cases}
\label{eq:10}
$$
As we can see from Fig.\[Fig5\] our cluster is reflection-symmetric in the axes $y$ and $x$, due to the closing bonds 1-6 and 7-12. Hence, wave functions must be symmetric ($S_x, S_y$) or antisymmetric ($A_{x}A_y$) to reflection in the $x$ and y axis. All together there are four possible symmetries of wave functions: $S_{x}S_y, S_{x}A_y, A_{x}S_y$ and $A_{x}A_y$.
First we consider the $S_{x}S_y$ case. Following relations among the coefficients must be satisfied
$$S_{x}S_y:
\begin{cases}
c_1 = c_7\\
c_2 = c_6 = c_8 = c_{12}\\
c_3 = c_5 = c_9 = c_{11}\\
c_4 = c_{10}.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:11}$$
Then the task is to solve just four equations instead of twelve.
If we take , the equations have the form
$$S_{x}S_y:
\begin{cases}
1. (\varepsilon+1)c_1 + 2c_2 & = 0\\
2. \quad c_1 + (\varepsilon+1)c_2 + c_3 & = 0\\
3. \qquad c_2 + (\varepsilon+1)c_3 + c_4 & = 0\\
4. \qquad \qquad 2c_3 + (\varepsilon+1) c_4 & = 0.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:12}$$
The determinant of has to be zero and therefore we obtain
$$S_x S_y: \varepsilon = -3, -2,0, 1.$$
In other symmetry cases we have
$$S_{x}A_y:
\begin{cases}
c_1 = -c_7,\\
c_2 = c_6 =-c_8= -c_{12},\\
c_3 = c_5 =-c_9= -c_{11},\\
c_4=-c_{10}.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:14}$$
$$A_{x}S_y:
\begin{cases}
c_1 = c_7 =0,\\
c_2 = - c_6 =c_8= -c_{12},\\
c_3 = -c_5 =c_9= -c_{11},\\
c_4=c_{10}=0.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:15}$$
$$A_{x}A_y:
\begin{cases}
c_1 = c_7 =0,\\
c_2 = - c_6 =-c_8=c_{12},\\
c_3 = -c_5 =-c_9= c_{11},\\
c_4=c_{10}=0.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:16}$$
In the latter two cases there is $c_1=c_4=c_7=c_{10}=0$ due to the antisymmetry to axis $x$ ($A_x$). Therefore, only two equations remain in each case, namely those of the coefficients $c_2$ and $c_3$, and consequently only two values of energy for each $A_x S_y$ and $A_x A_y$.
The energy levels for various symmetries are shown in Tab.\[table2\], Tab.\[table3\] shows the values of the coefficients $c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_{12}$. These coefficient values are obtained by solving the system of equations like and analogous systems for other symmetries for the energies $\varepsilon = 0. \pm 1, \pm 3$. The set of these coefficients determines the wave functions for various symmetries within our considered model. Tab.\[table2\] and \[table3\] also show the Brillouin zone symmetry points, which can also be seen in Fig.\[Fig3\].
For the purpose of illustration one can represent these functions graphically by extending the cluster over the whole graphene layer. In the case $\varepsilon = \pm 1$ the functions coincide with those in [@Wallace]. For the case $\varepsilon = 0$, wave functions for various symmetries are shown in Fig.\[Fig6\].
[>m[3.5 cm]{}|>m[1.0 cm]{}>m[1.0 cm]{}>m[1.0 cm]{}>m[1.0cm]{}>m[1.0cm]{}>m[1.0cm]{}>m[1.0cm]{}>m[1.0cm]{}>m[1.0cm]{}>m[1.0cm]{}>m[1.0cm]{}>m[1.0cm]{}]{} & $\varepsilon_1$ & $\varepsilon_2$ & $\varepsilon_3$ & $\varepsilon_4$ & $\varepsilon_5$ & $\varepsilon_6$ & $\varepsilon_7$ & $\varepsilon_8$ & $\varepsilon_9$ & $\varepsilon_{10}$ & $\varepsilon_{11}$ & $\varepsilon_{12}$\
$S_x S_y$ & & & & & & & & & & & &\
$S_x Y_y$ & & & & & & & & & & & &\
$A_x S_y$ & & & & & & & & & & & &\
$A_x A_y$ & & & & & & & & & & & &\
Point of BZ & $\Gamma$ & & & $M - 0$ & $K_1$ & $K_2$ & $K_1$ & $K_2$ & $M + 0$ & & & D\
\[table2\]
-3 -1 0 0 0 0 1 3
------------- ----------- ----------- --------------------- --------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
$c_1$ 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
$c_2$ 1 1 -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ 1 1 -1 -1
$c_3$ 1 1 -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ -1 1 1 1
$c_4$ 1 1 1 -1 0 0 -1 -1
$c_5$ 1 1 -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ 1 -1 1 1
$c_6$ 1 1 -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ $\nicefrac {1}{2}$ -1 -1 -1 -1
$c_7$ 1 -1 1 -1 0 0 1 -1
$c_8$ 1 -1 -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ $\nicefrac {1}{2}$ 1 -1 -1 1
$c_9$ 1 -1 -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ $\nicefrac {1}{2}$ -1 -1 1 -1
$c_{10}$ 1 -1 1 1 0 0 -1 1
$c_{11}$ 1 -1 -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ $\nicefrac {1}{2}$ 1 1 1 -1
$c_{12}$ 1 -1 -$\nicefrac {1}{2}$ $\nicefrac {1}{2}$ -1 1 -1 1
Symmetry $S_x S_y$ $S_x A_y$ $S_{x} S_{y}$ $S_x A_y$ $A_x S_y$ $A_x A_y$ $S_x S_y$ $S_x A_y$
Point of BZ $\Gamma$ $M-0$ $K_{1}$ $K_{2}$ $K_{1}$ $K_{2}$ $M+0$ $D$
\[table3\]
From Fig.\[Fig6\] it is easy to see, that in cases \[Fig6a\] and \[Fig6b\] the wave functions are plane waves with $\lambda = \frac{3}{2} a$, where $a$ is the length of the vector connecting the nearest neighbors of atoms A and B. The fronts of these waves are parallel to axis $x$, which means that the wave vector ***k*** is directed along the axis $y$.
The length of the wave vector of these waves $k = \frac{2\pi}{\lambda} = \frac{4\pi}{3a}$ coincides with the length of ***k*** in Brillouin zone point $K_1$ (Fig.\[Fig3\]) - thus, Figures \[Fig6a\] and \[Fig6b\] show the wave functions at point $K_1$. In cases \[Fig6c\] and \[Fig6d\] one can easily see, that the fronts of the wave of each sublattice are at an $120^\circ$ angle to the $x$ axis. Therefore, the waves vectors are directed at a $30^\circ$ angle to the $x$ axis, that is the point $K_2$ in Fig.\[Fig3\]. The length of these waves is also $\frac{3}{2} a$. As a consequence, Fig\[Fig6c\] and Fig.\[Fig6d\] show the wave functions at point $K_2$.
The fact that all four wave functions shown in Fig.\[Fig6\] correspond to the energy $\varepsilon = 0$ can be directly deduced from the form of these functions. Namely, the total energy of the interactions of the atoms with their respective nearest neighbors is equal to zero, taking into consideration the values and signs of $c_n$ from Fig.\[Fig6\].
In Fig.\[Fig6\] it is also apparent, that those structure elements, which are periodically repeated within the wave functions at $\varepsilon = 0$ are triplets of atoms: $1,-1,0$ (Fig.\[Fig6b\]), $1, -\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2}$ (Fig.\[Fig6a\]) etc. Consequently, the energy value $\varepsilon = 0$ is only possible in clusters, in which the number of atoms $N$ is divisible by three. Since $N$ also has to be even, due to the equal number of atoms in sublattice A and B, the number $N$ finally has to be divisible by six. This is the base for rule 3 of cluster building from section\[sec:essence\].
It is easy to see that in clusters $N=8,10$ and other $N$ not divisible to six, energy values $\varepsilon = 0$ are absent. Therefore, only clusters with by six divisible $N$ must be taken into consideration in the case of endless layers.
Nanoribbons and nanotubes {#sec:Nanoribbons and nanotubes}
=========================
The CC approach is especially applicable to impurities, as well as nanotubes and nanoribbons. In the latter two cases a group of atoms lying across the tubes or ribbons is a natural cluster, in which the number of atoms depends on the diameter of the tube respectively the width of the ribbon (Fig.\[Fig7\]). Let us now consider the armchair ribbon with $N=12$. As zigzag nanoribbons are not analogous to carbon nanotubes [@Wakabayashi2] the former will not be discussed in this work. The above mentioned cluster is shown in (Fig.\[Fig7b\]). This cluster differs from the cluster in Fig.\[Fig2b\] in a single, yet very significant aspect: the cluster in Fig.\[Fig7b\] has no closing bonds between atoms 1-6 and 7-12. This reflects the fact, that the latter atoms are situated on the edge and therefore are connected to the ribbon by means of two, not three bonds.
As one can see, the cluster in Fig.\[Fig7b\] belongs to a well known ladder type. The determinant $D_N$ of this cluster may be written in block form for any even $N$
$$\label{eq:17}
D_N = \left| \begin{matrix} L_{N_1} (\varepsilon)&I_{N_1}\\ I_{N_1}&L_{N_1} (\varepsilon) \end{matrix} \right|,$$
where
$$N_1 = \frac {N}{2},$$
$$\label{eq:18}
\begin{aligned}
L_{N_1} (\varepsilon) = \left.\begin{array}{l}\left| \begin{matrix} \varepsilon& 1 &&&&&&\\
1&\varepsilon&1&&&&& \\
&1&\varepsilon&1&&&& \\
&&&\bold{.}&&&& \\
&&&&\bold{.}&&& \\
&&&&&\bold{.}&& \\
&&&&&1&\varepsilon&1 \\
&&&&&&1&\varepsilon
\end{matrix} \right|\end{array}\right\}
\end{aligned}
N_1$$
\
and $I_{N_1}$ being the unity matrix of order $N_1$.\
The determinant can be brought into a quasi-triangular form. For this, we need to add row number $(N_1+1)$ to the first row, row $(N_1+2)$ to the second and so on until row $N_1$ is added to row $2N_1$. Then, the first column is subtracted from column $(N_1+1)$, second from $(N_1+2)$ and analogously column $N_1$ from $2N_1$.\
As result we obtain
$$\label{eq:19}
D_N = L_{N_1} (\varepsilon + 1) L_{N_1} (\varepsilon - 1),$$
where $L_n(x)$ are well-known polynomials, expressions of which are given in \[10\] (for $g_n(x)$ there) for $n \leq 20$. It is also known that representation of $L_n(x)$ via the trigonometrical functions is \[11\]
$$\label{eq:20}
L_n (x) = \frac{sin ((n+1) \theta)}{sin \theta},$$
where $x=2cos \theta$.
Then, for obtaining the energy values $D_N (\varepsilon) = 0$ is reduced to conditions, which need to satisfy at least one of two of the following equations:
$$\label{eq:21}
L_{N_1} (\varepsilon + 1) = 0$$
or
$$\label{eq:22}
L_{N_1} (\varepsilon - 1) = 0.$$
In view of , these equations lead to
$$\label{eq:23}
sin[(N_1 + 1) \theta_+] = 0$$
and
$$\label{eq:24}
sin[(N_1 + 1) \theta_-] = 0,$$
where the $\theta_{\pm}$ are determined from
$$\label{eq:25}
2cos \theta_{\pm} = \varepsilon \pm 1 .$$
The solutions of and are $$\label{eq:26}
\theta_{\pm} = \frac{n_\pm \pi}{N_1 + 1},$$
where $n_{\pm}$ = 1,2,…,$N_1$.
Then, from we get the formula for the energy values of a closed cluster with $2N_1$ atoms, which describes the nanoribbon
$$\label{eq:27}
\varepsilon_{n_\pm} = 2cos \frac{n_\pm \pi}{N_1 + 1} \pm 1 .$$
Taking into account that $n_+$ and $n_-$ both may possess $N_1$ values and due to the $\pm 1$ part we see from , that $\varepsilon_{n_\pm}$ possesses $2N_1=N$ values, as this has to be the case for a cluster with $N$ atoms.
If the ribbon is transformed to an infinite layer $(N_1 \rightarrow \infty)$, then we get the boundary energy spectrum values from , which are $\varepsilon_{max} = 3$ at $n_+=1$ and $\varepsilon_{min} = - 3$ at $n_-=N_1$. These values also coincide with the result in section\[sec:Ham\].
Using equation one can easily find the values of $N_1$, under which the solutions $\varepsilon_{n \pm}=0$ exist, that is the ribbon is metallic. The condition for this is $cos \frac{n_-\pi}{N_1+1} = \frac{1}{2}$ or $cos \frac{n_+ \pi}{N_1+1} = -\frac{1}{2}$, otherwise $\frac{n_- \pi}{N_1+1} = \frac{\pi}{3}$, $\frac{n_+ \pi}{N_1+1} = \frac{2\pi}{3}$; $n_+ = 2n$. Denoting $n_{-} = M$ one can write the both latter equations as
$$\label{eq:28}
N_1 = 3M - 1,$$
with M being an integer.
The formula is the same as has been obtained by means of the tight binding model in [@Fujita] and [@Nakada].
The wave functions of nanoribbons with metallic conductivity can be found by using the symmetry like it is done for the infinite layer in section\[sec:Wave functions\].
We consider as an example the case $N_1= 5$. The closed clusters for the description of the ribbon are shown in figures \[Fig8a\] and \[Fig8b\]. According to the graph theory terminology [@Trinajstic], these clusters are isomorphic to each other as well as to the ladder graph shown in Fig.\[Fig8c\]. The energy spectra of these graphs are therefore the same.
Likewise to the case of infinite layer one can also obtain the energy values of the cluster, which are corresponding to various symmetries. Results for $N_1=5$ are shown in Tab.\[table4\].
[>m[1.2 cm]{}|>m[1.2 cm]{}|>m[1.2cm]{}|>m[1.2cm]{}|>m[1.2cm]{}|>m[1.2cm]{}|>m[1.2cm]{}|>m[1.2cm]{}|>m[1.2cm]{}|>m[1.2cm]{}|>m[1.2cm]{}]{}
&\
& [$-\sqrt{3} -1$ ]{}& & [-1]{} & & & & [$\sqrt{3} -1$ ]{}& & &\
& & & & [$-\sqrt{3} + 1$ ]{} & & & & [1]{} & & [ $\sqrt{3} + 1$ ]{}\
& & [-2]{} & & & [0]{} & & & & &\
& & & & & & [0]{} & & & [2]{} &\
\[table4\]
If only the energy spectrum is required it can be directly obtained from equation .
The cases for other $N_1$ can be considered analogously. Figure \[Fig9\] shows the wave functions of the symmetry $A_x S_y$ for the $N_1=8$ ribbon at $\varepsilon = 0$.
![Wave functions of symmetry $A_x S_y$ for the ribbon $N_1=8$ at $\varepsilon=0$.[]{data-label="Fig9"}](./Fig9){width="4.2cm" height="4cm"}
If we compare the ribbons shown in Figures \[Fig8d\] and \[Fig9\] we can see the meaning of the metallic conductivity condition : when increasing $N_1$, in order to keep the energies of each atom at zero, it is necessary to add two rows of atoms, with positive and negative $\ket{p_z}$. The latter must however be separated from the previous row by including a row of zeroes. Altogether, we need to add three rows, which is where the term $3M$ in derives from. From Figures \[Fig8\] and \[Fig9\] one can also see that the distance between the nodes $\frac{\lambda}{2}=\frac{3}{4} a$ and the wave front is parallel to axis $x$. This corresponds to the wave vector ${\boldsymbol{k}}$ at point $K_1$ of the Brillouin zone. It is easy to see, that in case of the symmetry $A_x A_y$ the energy value $\varepsilon = 0$ is corresponding to the point $K_2$, similar to the infinite layer.
Using $N_1$ is not the only way to describe the criterion for metallic conductivity. It also can be written by the means of the width of the ribbon $L$. Figures \[Fig8d\], \[Fig9\] and equation show that it is possible to obtain the connection between $M$, $N_1$ and $L$ as in Table\[table5\].
$M$ $N_1$ $L^{met}$
----- ------- -------------------
1 2 $\nicefrac{1}{2}$
2 5 2
3 8 $\nicefrac{7}{2}$
4 11 5
… … …
: The connection between the ribbon width $L$ (scaled by a), $N_1$ and $M$ in the case of metallic conductivity.
\[table5\]
The relation between $L$ and $M$ in Table\[table5\] can be written as
$$\label{eq:29}
L^{met} = \frac{3M - 2}{2}, \qquad \textnormal{$M = 1,2,3$ \ldots} \quad.$$
This formula differs from $L = 3M +1$ in [@Brey], which is maybe due to the different definition of the ribbon width in [@Brey].
Figure shows the dependence between the energy gap $\varepsilon_g$ and the ribbon width. Here it is $\varepsilon = 2\varepsilon_1$, where $\varepsilon_1$ is the nearest level to zero and is found via .
![Dependence between the energy gap $\varepsilon_g$ and the ribbon width.[]{data-label="Fig10"}](Fig10)
The values of $N_1$ and L, where $\varepsilon_g = 0$ are not marked, they can be obtained from equations and .
This described approach of the calculation of nanoribbons by the means of ladder clusters may also be applied to nanotubes, with some modifications. The formal transition from the nanoribbon to the nanotube consists in closing a cluster of the type shown in Fig.\[Fig7b\], so that closing happens between atoms 1-6 and 7-12 - this way we get the cluster from, Fig.\[Fig2b\]. If we wrap it up into a cylinder form, we obtain a cluster with three hexagons. It can be easily verified that in clusters of this type the number of hexagons in the cylinder section is always an integer.
However, a cluster of type as in Fig.\[Fig8\] cannot be wrapped up in such a way, because the atoms of the upper and lower edge are from the same sublattice, A or B - and nearest neighbors always have to be from different sublattices.
Therefore, in order to wrap up a cluster into a cylinder one must add a row of atoms. These atoms need to belong to a different sublattice than the atoms at the edges of the initial cluster. In an $N_1=5$ example this means that the number $N_c$ of atoms situated along the circle cylinder section must equal six.
It may also be easily verified that for clusters of both types $N_c$ must be even (which is a consequence of the equal number of A and B atoms) and the number of hexagons $N_S$ along the circle has to be an integer. Hereat, beginning with the smallest value $N_s=2$ it is $N_c=2N_s$.
In case of metallic conductivity ($\varepsilon_g =0$) as well as in the infinite layer (section\[sec:Wave functions\]), it is necessary for $N_c$ to contain an integer number of atomic triplets $+,-,0$, that is, $N_c$ needs to be not only even but also divisible by three. All in all $N_c $ has to be divisible by six, and therefore we can write the criterion of metallic conductivity of nanotubes as
$$N_c^{met} = 6 M, \qquad M=1,2,3\ldots.
\label{eq:30}$$
For all other values of $N_c$ there is $\varepsilon \neq 0$. For example, in case of the least values $N_s=2, N_c=4$ one must consider the closed cluster $N=8$. It is possible to calculate a cluster of type from Figure \[Fig2b\], but for $N=8$.
Solving equation for this case gives us the following energy spectrum:
$$\varepsilon^c = \pm 1, \pm 1, \pm 1, \pm 3.
\label{eq:31}$$
Hence, the value of the energy gap for $N_c=4$ is $\varepsilon^c_g = 2$, which is the maximum value of $\varepsilon^c_g$ for nanotubes. With an increasing $N_c$ the value of $\varepsilon^c_g$ decreases.
It should be noted, that $\varepsilon^c$ in and $\varepsilon^c_g$ are scaled by $\gamma_0^c$: $\varepsilon_c = \frac{E_c}{\gamma_0^c}$, where $\gamma_0^c$ is the tube’s transfer integral (hopping energy). This latter value is different from the value of $\gamma_0$ for the infinite layer and is dependent from $N_c$, which should be taken into the account when $\varepsilon _g ^c$ in $eV$ needs to be obtained. However, this dependence does not exert any influence on the criterion $\varepsilon_g = 0$.
Impurity in graphene {#sec:Impurity}
====================
The cluster approach is, as already mentioned, especially appropriate for studying the impurities in crystals. That is connected with the fact that the impurity influence on the crystal depends mainly on the interaction with atoms, which are located in the nearest environment of this impurity. Exactly those atoms together with the impurity are the ones which can be considered as a cluster with N atoms. The study of this cluster is the essence of the impurity problem in the present approach.
In this paper we restrict the consideration to the simplest cluster $N=6$. Let us assume, that in the first lattice point of this cluster atom C is substituted by another one. This atom only differs from C in terms of the $\ket{p_z}$-electron energy of an isolated atom, which is $E_0 + \Delta E_0$ instead of just $E_0$. It is also assumed, that this impurity atom is silicon, although is also might be germanium or any other atom with the same outer electron shell structure as C. Furthermore, we assume the transfer integral $\gamma_0$ equal between all neighbor atoms. In order to account for the difference in these parameters within the cluster approach, one simply has to replace the ones in the corresponding Hamiltonian matrix elements with parameters, which characterize the transfer integral between the impurity and the surrounding atoms. The issue of the influence of these parameters on the energy spectrum in 3D crystals has been investigated by us earlier by means of Green’s functions [@Tal2]. For the purpose of this paper, however, this problem is not of a fundamental meaning, in so far as the main parameter is $\Delta E_0$.
An example of a closed cluster with one impurity atom Si is shown in Fig.\[Fig11\].
![Closed cluster $N=6$ with one impurity atom Si.[]{data-label="Fig11"}](./Fig11){width="2.3cm"}
The secular equation for this cluster has the form
$$D_{6} = \left|
\begin{matrix}
(\varepsilon-\Delta) & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 \\
1 & \varepsilon & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} \\
\hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 \\
1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} \\
\hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 \\
1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \varepsilon
\end{matrix}
\right|=0,
\label{eq:32}$$
where $\Delta = \frac{\Delta E_0}{\gamma_0}$.
This sixth degree equation is reduced to a cubic equation, which can be solved analytically. As result we get following solutions
$$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{1,2,3} &= 0.\\
\varepsilon_{4,5,6} &= \frac{1}{3} \left[ \Delta + 2 \sqrt{\Delta^2 + 27} \ \cos \left( \frac{\varphi}{3} + n \frac{2 \pi}{3} \right) \right],\\
&\textit{} \quad n=0,1,2\ldots
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:33}$$
where
$$\cos \varphi = \frac{\Delta \left(\Delta^2 - \frac{3^4}{2} \right)}{\left( \Delta^2 + 27 \right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}.
\label{eq:34}$$
It is easy to see that under $\Delta = 0$ there is
$$\varepsilon^0_4 = 3, \varepsilon^0_5 = -3, \varepsilon^0_6 = 0,$$
that is we obtain the result .\
The numerical calculations of the dependence of $\varepsilon$ from $\Delta$, which may be obtained from and or, simpler, directly from the calculation of the determinant , are shown in Figure \[Fig12\].
As one can see, we get a result which is typical for the perturbation process: the fourfold degenerate level $\varepsilon=0$ splits partially and the non-degenerate level moves. At the same time level $\varepsilon=0$ still remains threefold degenerate. That is why there is no arising gap between the valence and conduction bands. The level, which is split from the originally fourfold degenerated level $\varepsilon=0$ is the impurity level in the conduction band, that is the resonance level.
The energy bands of monoatomic layer C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$ $(0\le x \le 1)$ {#sec:monoatomic layer}
========================================================================
By means of the CC approach one may as well calculate the energy spectrum of a hypothetical object, a monoatomic layer of the type C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$. That such an object can be created results from the following reasoning: by obtaining by means of epitaxi, graphene can be formed on the surface of SiC. The monolayer of Si, which appear hereat as a buffer layer, has also a hexagonal structure [@Trauzettel]. That is why by means of epitaxi, perhaps not only graphene can be formed but also the monoatomic layer of the type C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$ $(0\le x \le 1)$, with a hexagonal structure similar to graphene.
In the study of this problem we restrict ourselves to consider only the simplest structure $N=6$. This is found to be sufficient for describing in outline the energy band structure of C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$.
We consider the cases separately when in a cluster of 6 C-atoms one, two, three, four or five atoms are replaced by Si-atoms. This corresponds to the values $x=\frac{1}{6};\frac{1}{3};\frac{1}{2}; \frac{2}{3};\frac{5}{6}$, respectivaly. The case of $x=\frac{1}{6}$ has been already considered in the preceding section. It should be noted that under “impurity” we mean the atoms which are present in a lesser number. That is at $x=\frac{1}{3}$ the impurity atoms are those of Si and at $x=\frac{2}{3}$ those of C.
The clusters, corresponding to these $x$-values, can be of two types. Namely, by $x=\frac{1}{3}$ two impurity Si-atoms can interact with each other (type $II$) or not interact (type $I$). The same can be obtained for C-atoms by $x=\frac{2}{3}$. First we study the clusters of type $I$, which are shown in Fig.\[Fig13\].
The secular equations for clusters shown in Fig.\[Fig13\] can easily be estimated. For example, by $x=\frac{1}{3}$ we obtain
$$\begin{vmatrix}
(\varepsilon-\Delta) & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 \\
1 & \varepsilon & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} \\
\hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & (\varepsilon-\Delta) & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 \\
1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} \\
\hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \varepsilon & 1 \\
1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \hspace*{0.7 cm} & 1 & \varepsilon \\
\end{vmatrix} =0.
\label{eq:35}$$
For other values of $x$ the equations have the similar form. In all cases the equations of the sixth degree are to be reduced to equations of the third degree and are solved analytically.
The results of these calculations are:
$$x=\frac{1}{3}: \qquad \varepsilon_{1,2}=0;\ \varepsilon_{3}=\Delta$$
$\varepsilon_{4,5,6}$ are determined by formula , but with other $\varphi$, namely
$$\cos \varphi=\frac{\Delta^{3}}{(\Delta^{2}+27)^\frac{3}{2}}.
\label{eq:36}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
x=\frac{1}{2},\quad (\mbox{SiC}):\\
&\varepsilon_{1,2} = 0;\\
&\varepsilon_{3,4} = \Delta;\\
&\varepsilon_{5,6} = \frac{\Delta\pm\sqrt{\Delta^2 + 36}}{2}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:37}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
x=\frac{2}{3}: \qquad
&\varepsilon_{1} = 0;\\
&\varepsilon_{2,3} = \Delta;\\
&\varepsilon_{4,5,6} = \frac{2}{3} \left[ \Delta - \sqrt{\Delta^2 + 27} \ \cos \left( \frac{\varphi}{3} + n \frac{2 \pi}{3} \right) \right];\\
& n=0,1,2\ldots
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:38}$$
where $\varphi$ is the same as in
$$\begin{aligned}
x=\frac{5}{6}: \qquad
&\varepsilon_{1,2,3} = \Delta;\\
&\varepsilon_{4,5,6} = \frac{2}{3} \left[ \Delta + \sqrt{\Delta^2 + 27} \ \cos \left( \frac{\varphi}{3} + n \frac{2 \pi}{3} \right) \right];\\
\text{where}\\
&
\cos\varphi=\frac{\Delta(\Delta^{2}-\frac{1}{2}3^4)}{(\Delta^{2}+27)^\frac{3}{2}};\\
&\textit{} n=0,1,2\ldots
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:39}$$
The dependence of the energy bands of C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$ on $x$ is shown in form of a diagram in Fig.\[Fig14\]. This diagram is obtained from formulas ,,- for $\Delta=3.5$ which corresponds roughly to the value of $\Delta$ for Si in graphene.
![Energy spectrum of the mono-atomic layer C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$. checkered: valence band; striped: conduction band; plain: forbidden band[]{data-label="Fig14"}](./Fig14){width="7cm" height="11.5cm"}
The main feature of this band structure rises from forbidden band with the typical tunnel form. From this one can suggest, that in principle it is possible to create a tunnel diode on the basis on a C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$ layer. In the ground of such a diode can be a tunnelling between Si- and C-domains of the layer in which the concentration of $x$ changes with the coordinate $x$. That is, if in Fig\[Fig14\] $x$ is not only the concentration, but as well the coordinate $x$.
Next we study the clusters of type $II$ in which impurity atoms interact not only with basic atoms of the layer but also with each other. The latter is possible, if the impurities are in the lattice points of different sublattice: A and B, because the atoms of the same sublattice do not interact with each other in the nearest neighbors approximation.
In case of $x=\frac{1}{3}$ the cluster of type $II$ can be obtained from the cluster in Fig.\[Fig13a\], if place the atoms Si in the lattice points, for example 2 and 5 instead of 1 nad 3. C-atoms with $x=\frac{2}{3}$ in the cluster in Fig.\[Fig13c\] can be treated the same way. As a result we obtain following solutions for clusters of type $II$:
$$\begin{aligned}
x=\frac{1}{3}: \qquad
\varepsilon_{1,2} &= 0;\\
\varepsilon_{3,4} &= \frac{1}{2} \left( \Delta - 3 \pm \sqrt{\Delta^2 + 2\Delta + 9} \right);\\
\varepsilon_{5,6} &= \frac{1}{2} \left( \Delta + 3 \pm \sqrt{\Delta^2 - 2\Delta + 9} \right).\\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:40}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
x=\frac{2}{3}: \qquad
\varepsilon_{1,2} &= \Delta;\\
\varepsilon_{3,4} &= \frac{1}{2} \left( \Delta - 3 \pm \sqrt{\Delta^2 - 2\Delta + 9} \right);\\
\varepsilon_{5,6} &= \frac{1}{2} \left( \Delta + 3 \pm \sqrt{\Delta^2 + 2\Delta + 9} \right).\\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:41}$$
From formulas \[eq:40\] and \[eq:41\] one can obtain the energy of impurity states, which at $\Delta=3.5$ can be found most within valance and conduction bands. The single level which can be found in the forbidden band appears when $x=\frac{1}{3}$. This level can take part in tunnelling, which we discussed above.
Conclusions {#sec:Con}
===========
In this paper, the CC approach has been applied to some problems of calculation of the grpahene energy spectrum. This approach seems to be especially appropriate both for problems of the breach of the graphene’s periodical structure (point defects, boundaries) and for problems besides monolayer graphene (bilayer graphene, compound C$_{1-x}$ Si$_{x}$).
As for the precision of the approach, it may easily be increased by considering clusters of larger sizes and interaction not only with the nearest neighbors. Besides, it is not difficult to study the cluster with a distortion of the lattice near the point defect. One can also consider the conglomerates of point defects in a graphene lattice.
Except various problems with the calculation of electron energy spectrum, the closed cluster approach may as well be applied to calculate of the vibration spectrum in graphene, likewise as it is done for one-dimensional and three-dimensional crystals in [@Tal3], [@Tal4].
Acknowledgments {#sec:X}
===============
I would like to thank Olga Talianska and Raisa Kociurzynski for the interest and informative support, Alexander Talyanski for help with the numerical calculations and Ludmila Swarytsch for the motivation of this work. Especially, I wish to thank André and Raisa Kociurzynski for helping preparing the publication.
[beliebigesWort]{}
K. Wakabayashi, in *Graphene nanoelectronics: Metrology, synthesis, properties and applications*, edited by Hassan Raza, (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012). I.I. Taljanskij, Physiceskaja Electronica, **28**, 8 (1984) (Russ.). M. Lannoo, J. Bourgoin. *Point Defects in Semiconductors, I. Theoretical Aspects*, (Springer, 1981). A. K. Geim and K.S. Novoselov, Nature. Mat. **6**, 183 (2007). P.R. Wallace, Phys. Rev. **71**, 622 (1947). N. Trinajstic. textit[Chemical Graph Theory]{}, (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1983), Vol. I. E. Heilbronner, H. Bock. *The HMO Model and its Application.* (Wiley & Sons Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, 1976). A.H. Castro, F. Guinea, N.M.R. Peres, K.S. Novoselov and A.K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 109 (2009). T. Seyller, Phys. Journ. **9**, n.8/9, 53 (2010). T. Au-Chin, K. Yuan-Sun, Y. Guo-Sen and T. Shu-San. *Graph Theoretical Molecular Orbitals*, (Science Press, Beijing, China, 1986). I.O. Vakarchuk, *Quantum Mechanics*, (Ivan Franko National University, Lviv, 2007), 3rd Edition. K. Wakabayashi, K. Sasaki, T. Nakanishi, T. Enoki, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. **11**, 054504 (2010). M. Fujita, K. Wakabayashi, K. Nakada and K. Kusakabe, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. **65**, 1920 (1996). K. Nakada, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhans and M. Dresselhans, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 17954 (1996). L. Brey and H.A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 235411 (2006). I.I. Taljanskij and B.L. Yudanin, Physica Tverdogo Tela **19**, 3040 (1977) (Russ.). B. Trauzettel, Phys. Journ. **6**, n.7, 39 (2007). I.I. Taljanskij, Journ. Phys. Studies, **1**, 106 (1996) (Ukr.). I.I. Taljanskij and A.T. Maksymov, Journ Phys. Studies, **1**, 564 (1997) (Ukr.).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Building on the success of Quantum Monte Carlo techniques such as diffusion Monte Carlo, alternative stochastic approaches to solve electronic structure problems have emerged over the last decade. The full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo (FCIQMC) method allows one to systematically approach the exact solution of such problems, for cases where very high accuracy is desired. The introduction of FCIQMC has subsequently led to the development of coupled cluster Monte Carlo (CCMC) and density matrix quantum Monte Carlo (DMQMC), allowing stochastic sampling of the coupled cluster wave function and the exact thermal density matrix, respectively. In this article we describe the HANDE-QMC code, an open-source implementation of FCIQMC, CCMC and DMQMC, including initiator and semi-stochastic adaptations. We describe our code and demonstrate its use on three example systems; a molecule (nitric oxide), a model solid (the uniform electron gas), and a real solid (diamond). An illustrative tutorial is also included.'
author:
- 'James S. Spencer'
- 'Nick S. Blunt'
- Seonghoon Choi
- Jiří Etrych
- 'Maria-Andreea Filip'
- 'W. M. C. Foulkes'
- 'Ruth S.T. Franklin'
- 'Will J. Handley'
- 'Fionn D. Malone'
- 'Verena A. Neufeld'
- Roberto Di Remigio
- 'Thomas W. Rogers'
- 'Charles J.C. Scott'
- 'James J. Shepherd'
- 'William A. Vigor'
- Joseph Weston
- RuQing Xu
- 'Alex J.W. Thom'
bibliography:
- 'hande.bib'
title: 'The HANDE-QMC project: open-source stochastic quantum chemistry from the ground state up'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods, in their many forms, are among the most reliable and accurate tools available for the investigation of realistic quantum systems[@Foulkes2001]. QMC methods have existed for decades, including notable approaches such as variational Monte Carlo (VMC)[@mcmillan_ground_1965; @Umrigar1988; @Umrigar2007; @Neuscamman2012; @Neuscamman2016], diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC)[@Grimm1971; @Anderson1975; @Umrigar1993; @Foulkes2001; @qmcpack] and auxiliary-field QMC (AFQMC)[@zhang_quantum_2003]; such methods typically have low scaling with system size, efficient large-scale parallelization, and systematic improvability, often allowing benchmark quality results in challenging systems.
A separate hierarchy exists in quantum chemistry, consisting of methods such as coupled cluster (CC) theory[@cizek_correlation_1966], M[ø]{}ller-Plesset perturbation theory (MPPT),[@moller_note_1934] and configuration interaction (CI), with full CI (FCI)[@knowles_new_1984] providing the exact benchmark within a given single-particle basis set. The scaling with the number of basis functions can be steep for these methods: from $N^{4}$ for MP2 to exponential for FCI. Various approaches to tackle the steep scaling wall have been proposed in the literature: from adaptive selection algorithms[@Huron1973-wv; @Scemama2013; @Schriber2016-xz; @Tubman2016-rc; @Holmes2016-qw; @Garniron2017] and many-body expansions for CI[@Eriksen2017-qg] to the exploitation of the locality of the one-electron basis set[@Saebo1993-qx] for MP2 and CC.[@Hampel1996-yy; @Riplinger2013-mz; @Ziolkowski2010-oo] Such approaches have been increasingly successful, now often allowing chemical accuracy to be achieved for systems comprising thousands of basis functions.
In 2009, Booth, Thom and Alavi introduced the full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo (FCIQMC) method[@BoothAlavi_09JCP]. The FCIQMC method allows essentially exact FCI results to be achieved for systems beyond the reach of traditional, exact FCI approaches; in this respect, the method occupies a similar space to the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) algorithm[@White1992; @Chan2004; @Amaya2015] and selected CI approaches.[@Huron1973-wv; @Scemama2013; @Schriber2016-xz; @Tubman2016-rc; @Holmes2016-qw; @Garniron2017] Employing a sparse and stochastic sampling of the FCI wave function greatly reduces the memory requirements compared to exact approaches. The introduction of FCIQMC has led to the development of several other related QMC methods, including coupled cluster Monte Carlo (CCMC)[@Thom_10PRL; @SpencerThom_16JCP], density matrix quantum Monte Carlo (DMQMC)[@blunt_density-matrix_2014; @malone_interaction_2015], model space quantum Monte Carlo (MSQMC)[@ten-no_stochastic_2013; @Ohtsuka2015; @Ten-no2017], clock quantum Monte Carlo[@McClean2015-de], driven-dissipative quantum Monte Carlo (DDQMC)[@Nagy2018-kh], and several other variants, including multiple approaches for studying excited-state properties[@Booth2012_excited; @ten-no_stochastic_2013; @Humeniuk2014; @Blunt2015].
In this article we present HANDE-QMC (Highly Accurate N-DEterminant Quantum Monte Carlo), an open-source quantum chemistry code that performs several of the above quantum Monte Carlo methods. In particular, we have developed a highly-optimized and massively-parallelized package to perform state-of-the-art FCIQMC, CCMC and DMQMC simulations.
An overview of stochastic quantum chemistry methods in HANDE-QMC is given in \[sec:stochastic\_qc\]. \[sec:hande\] describes the HANDE-QMC package, including implementation details, our development experiences, and analysis tools. Applications of FCIQMC, CCMC and DMQMC methods are contained in \[sec:results\]. We conclude with a discussion in \[sec:discussion\] with views on scientific software development and an outlook on future work. A tutorial on running HANDE is provided in the Supplementary Material.
Stochastic quantum chemistry {#sec:stochastic_qc}
============================
Full Configuration Interaction Quantum Monte Carlo
--------------------------------------------------
The FCI ansatz for the ground state wavefunction is $\ket{\Psi_{\ensuremath{\textrm{CI}}}} = \sum_{\textbf{i}}c_{\textbf{i}} \ket{D_{\textbf{i}}}$, where $\{D_{\textbf{i}}\}$ is the set of Slater determinants. Noting that $(1-\delta\tau \hat{H})^N \ket{\Psi_0} \propto \ket{\Psi_{\ensuremath{\textrm{CI}}}}$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$, where $\Psi_0$ is some arbitrary initial vector with $\braket{\Psi_0|\Psi_{\ensuremath{\textrm{CI}}}} \ne 0$ and $\delta\tau$ is sufficiently small[@Spencer2012], the coefficients $\{c_{\textbf{i}}\}$ can be found via an iterative process derived from a first-order solution to the imaginary-time Schrödinger equation[@BoothAlavi_09JCP]: $$c_{\textbf{i}}(\tau+\delta\tau) = c_{\textbf{i}}(\tau) - \delta\tau\sum_{\textbf{j}} \braket{D_{\textbf{i}}|\hat{H}|D_{\textbf{j}}} c_{\textbf{j}}(\tau).
\label{eqn:fciqmc}$$
A key insight is that the action of the Hamiltonian can be applied stochastically rather than deterministically: the wavefunction is discretized by using a set of particles with weight $\pm 1$ to represent the coefficients, and is evolved in imaginary time by stochastically creating new particles according to the Hamiltonian matrix (\[sec:sd\_qmc\]). By starting with just particles on the Hartree–Fock determinant or a small number of determinants, the sparsity of the FCI wavefunction emerges naturally. The FCIQMC algorithm hence has substantially reduced memory requirements[@BoothAlavi_09JCP] and is naturally scalable[@Booth2014] in contrast to conventional Lanczos techniques. The sign problem manifests itself in the competing in-phase and out-of-phase combinations of particles with positive and negative signs on the same determinant[@Spencer2012]; this is alleviated by exactly canceling particles of opposite sign on the same determinant, a process termed ‘annihilation’. This results in the distinctive population dynamics of an FCIQMC simulation, and a system-specific critical population is required to obtain a statistical representation of the correct FCI wavefunction[@Spencer2012]. Once the ground-state FCI wavefunction has been reached, the population is controlled via a diagonal energy offset[@Umrigar1993; @BoothAlavi_09JCP] and statistics can be accumulated for the energy estimator and, if desired, other properties.
The stochastic efficiency of the algorithm (determined by the size of statistical errors for a given computer time) can be improved by several approaches: using real weights, rather than integer weights, to represent particle amplitudes[@Petruzielo2012; @Overy2014]; a semi-stochastic propagation, in which the action of the Hamiltonian in a small subspace of determinants is applied *exactly*[@Petruzielo2012; @Blunt2015_semistoch]; and more efficient sampling of the Hamiltonian by incorporating information about the magnitude of the Hamiltonian matrix elements into the selection probabilities[@holmes_efficient_2016; @Neufeld2018].
The initiator approximation[@ClelandAlavi_10JCP] (often referred to as i-FCIQMC) only permits new particles to be created on previously unoccupied determinants if the spawning determinant has a weight above a given threshold — this introduces a systematic error which is reduced with increasing particle populations, but effectively reduces the severity of the sign problem. This simple modification has proven remarkably successful and permits FCI-quality calculations on Hilbert spaces orders of magnitude beyond exact FCI.
Coupled Cluster Monte Carlo
---------------------------
The coupled cluster wavefunction ansatz is $\ket{\Psi_{\ensuremath{\textrm{CC}}}} = N e^{\hat{T}} \ket{D_{\ensuremath{\textrm{HF}}}}$, where $\hat{T}$ is the cluster operator containing all excitations up to a given truncation level, $N$ is a normalisation factor and $\ket{D_{\ensuremath{\textrm{HF}}}}$ the Hartree–Fock determinant. For convenience, we rewrite the wavefunction ansatz as $\ket{\Psi_{\ensuremath{\textrm{CC}}}} = t_{\ensuremath{\textrm{HF}}}e^{\hat{T}/t_{\ensuremath{\textrm{HF}}}} \ket{D_{\ensuremath{\textrm{HF}}}}$, where $t_{\ensuremath{\textrm{HF}}}$ is a weight on the Hartree–Fock determinant, and define $\hat{T} = \sum_{\textbf{i}}^\prime t_{\textbf{i}} \hat{a}_{\textbf{i}} $, where ${}^\prime$ restricts the sum to be up to the truncation level, $\hat{a}_{\textbf{i}} $ is an excitation operator (excitor) such that $\hat{a}_{\textbf{i}} \ket{D_{\ensuremath{\textrm{HF}}}}$ results in $\ket{D_{\textbf{i}}}$ and $t_{\textbf{i}}$ is the corresponding amplitude. Using the same first-order Euler approach as in FCIQMC gives a similar propagation equation: $$t_{\textbf{i}}(\tau+\delta\tau) = t_{\textbf{i}}(\tau) - \delta\tau \sum_{\textbf{j}} \braket{D_{\textbf{i}}|\hat{H}|D_{\textbf{j}}} \tilde{t}_{\textbf{j}}(\tau).
\label{eqn:ccmc}$$ The key difference between \[eqn:fciqmc,eqn:ccmc\] is $\tilde{t}_{\textbf{j}} = \braket{D_{\textbf{j}} | \Psi_{\ensuremath{\textrm{CC}}}}$ contains contributions from clusters of excitors[@Thom_10PRL] whereas the FCI wavefunction is a simple linear combination. This is tricky to evaluate efficiently and exactly each iteration. Instead, $\tilde{t}_{\textbf{j}}$ is sampled and individual contributions propagated separately[@Thom_10PRL; @Spencer2018; @Scott2017]. Bar this complication, the coupled cluster wavefunction can be stochastically evolved using the same approach as used in FCIQMC.
Density Matrix Quantum Monte Carlo
----------------------------------
FCIQMC and CCMC are both ground-state, zero-temperature methods (although excited-state variants of FCIQMC exist[@Booth2012_excited; @ten-no_stochastic_2013; @Humeniuk2014; @Blunt2015]). The exact *thermodynamic* properties of a quantum system in thermal equilibrium can be determined from the (unnormalized) $N$-particle density matrix, $\hat{\rho}(\beta) = e^{-\beta \hat{H}}$, where $\beta=1/k_B T$. A direct evaluation of $\hat{\rho}(\beta)$ requires knowledge of the full eigenspectrum of $\hat{H}$, a hopeless task for all but trivial systems. To make progress we note that the density matrix obeys the (symmetrized) Bloch equation $$\frac{d\hat{\rho}}{d\beta} = -\frac{1}{2} \left[ \hat{H}\hat{\rho} + \hat{\rho}\hat{H} \right].
\label{eq:dmqmc}$$ Representing $\hat{\rho}$ in the Slater determinant basis, $\rho_{\textbf{ij}} = \braket{D_{\textbf{i}} | \hat{\rho} | D_{\textbf{j}}}$ and again using a first-order update scheme results in similar update equations to FCIQMC and CCMC: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\textbf{ij}}(\beta+\delta\beta) &= \rho_{\textbf{ij}}(\beta) - \frac{\delta\beta}{2} \sum_{\textbf{k}}
\left[
\braket{ D_{\textbf{i}} | \hat{H} | D_{\textbf{k}} } \rho_{\textbf{kj}}(\beta) \right. \\
&+ \left. \rho_{\textbf{ik}}(\beta)\braket{ D_{\textbf{k}} | \hat{H} | D_{\textbf{j}} }
\right].
\end{aligned}$$ It follows that elements of the density matrix can be updated stochastically in a similar fashion to FCIQMC and CCMC. $\rho(\beta)$ is a single stochastic measure of the exact density matrix at inverse temperature $\beta$. Therefore, unlike FCIQMC and CCMC, multiple independent simulations must be performed in order to gather statistics at each temperature. The simplest starting point for a simulation is at $\beta=0$, where $\rho$ is the identity matrix. Each simulation (termed ‘$\beta$-loop’) consists of sampling the identity matrix and propagating to the desired value of $\beta$. Averaging over multiple $\beta$-loops gives thermal properties at all temperatures in the range $[0,\beta]$.
While this scheme is exact (except for small and controllable errors due to finite $\delta \beta$), it suffers from the issue that important states at low temperature may not be sampled in the initial ($\beta=0$) density matrix, where all configurations are equally important[@malone_interaction_2015]. To overcome this, we write $\hat{H} = \hat{H}^0 + \hat{V}$ and define the auxiliary density matrix $\hat{f}(\tau) = e^{-(\beta-\tau)\hat{H}^0} \hat{\rho}(\tau)$ with the following properties: $$\begin{gathered}
\hat{f}(0) = e^{-\beta\hat{H}^0}, \\
\hat{f}(\beta) = \hat{\rho}(\beta), \\
\frac{d\hat{f}}{d\tau} = \hat{H}^0 \hat{f} - \hat{f} \hat{H}.
\label{eq:ipdmqmc}\end{gathered}$$ We see that with this form of density matrix we can begin the simulation from a mean-field solution defined by $\hat{H}_0$, which should (by construction) lead to a distribution containing the desired important states (such as the Hartree–Fock density matrix element) at low temperature. Furthermore, if $\hat{H}^0$ is a good mean field Hamiltonian then $e^{\beta\hat{H}^0} \hat{\rho}$ is a *slowly varying* function of $\beta$, and is thus easier to sample. Comparing \[eq:dmqmc,eq:ipdmqmc\], we see that $\hat{f}$ can be stochastically sampled in a similar fashion to DMQMC, with minor modifications relative to using the unsymmetrized Bloch equation[@blunt_density-matrix_2014]:
the choice of $\hat{H}^0$ changes the probability of killing a particle (\[sec:sd\_qmc\]);
the $\tau=0$ initial configuration must be sampled according to $\hat{H}^0$ rather than the identity matrix;
evolving to $\tau=\beta$ gives a sample of the density matrix at inverse temperature $\beta$ *only* - independent simulations must be performed to accumulate results at different temperatures.
We term this method interaction-picture DMQMC (IP-DMQMC).
Commonality between FCIQMC, CCMC and DMQMC {#sec:sd_qmc}
------------------------------------------
FCIQMC, CCMC and DMQMC have more similarities than differences: the amplitudes within the wavefunction or density matrix are represented stochastically by a weight, or particle. These stochastic amplitudes are sampled to produce states, which make up the wavefunction or density matrix. For FCIQMC (DMQMC), a state corresponds to a determinant (outer product of two determinants), and for CCMC corresponds to a term sampled from the cluster expansion corresponding to a single determinant. The stochastic representation of the wavefunction or density matrix is evolved by
spawning
: sampling the action of the Hamiltonian on each (occupied) state, which requires random selection of a state connected to the original state. The process of random selection (‘excitation generation’) is system-dependent, as it depends upon the connectivity of the Hamiltonian matrix; efficient sampling of the Hamiltonian has a substantial impact on the stochastic efficiency of a simulation[@Petruzielo2012; @holmes_efficient_2016; @Neufeld2018].
death
: killing each particle with probability proportional to its diagonal Hamiltonian matrix element.
annihilation
: combining particles on the same state and canceling out particles with the same absolute weight but opposite sign.
Energy estimators can be straightforwardly accumulated during the evolution process. A parallel implementation distributes states over multiple processors, each of which need only evolve its own set of states. The annihilation stage then requires an efficient process for determining to which processor a newly spawned particle should be sent[@Booth2014]. For CCMC an additional communication step is required to ensure that the sampling of products of amplitudes is unbiased[@Spencer2018].
Hence, FCIQMC, CCMC and DMQMC share the majority of the core algorithms in the HANDE-QMC implementations. The primary difference is the representation of the wavefunction or density matrix, and the action of the Hamiltonian in the representation. These differences reside in the outer-most loop of the algorithm and so do not hinder the re-use of components between the methods. This remains the case even for linked coupled cluster Monte Carlo, which applies the similarity-transformed Hamiltonian, $e^{-T}He^{T}$, and the interaction picture formulation of DMQMC.
It is important to note that this core paradigm also covers different approaches to propagation[@ten-no_stochastic_2013; @Petruzielo2012; @ClelandAlavi_10JCP; @tubman_deterministic_2016], the initiator approximation[@ClelandAlavi_10JCP; @SpencerThom_16JCP; @malone_accurate_2016], excitation generators[@holmes_efficient_2016; @Neufeld2018], excited states and properties[@Overy2014; @Blunt2015; @Blunt2017], and can naturally be applied to different wavefunction Ansätze[@shepherd_sen0_2016], which can be added relatively straightforwardly on top of a core implementation of FCIQMC. Due to this, improvements in, say, excitation generators can be immediately used across all methods in HANDE.
HANDE-QMC {#sec:hande}
=========
Implementation
--------------
HANDE-QMC is implemented in Fortran and takes advantage of the increased expressiveness provided by the Fortran 2003 and 2008 standards. Parallelization over multiple processors is implemented using OpenMP (CCMC-only for intra-node shared memory communication) and MPI. Parallelization and the reusability of core procedures have been greatly aided by the use of pure procedures and minimal global state, especially for system and calculation data.
We attempt to use best-in-class libraries where possible. This allows for rapid development and a focus on the core QMC algorithms. HANDE-QMC relies upon MurmurHash2 for hashing operations[@smhasher], dSFMT for high-quality pseudo-random number generation[@dsfmt], numerical libraries (cephes[@cephes], LAPACK, ScaLAPACK, TRLan[@trlan; @Yamazaki2010-xq]) for special functions, matrix and vector procedures and Lanczos diagonalization, and HDF5 for file I/O[@hdf5]. The input file to HANDE-QMC is a Lua script[@Ierusalimschy2016-cz]; Lua is a lightweight scripting language designed for embedding in applications and can easily be used from Fortran codes via the AOTUS library[@aotus]. Some of the advantages of using a scripting language for the input file are detailed in \[sec:discussion\].
Calculation, system settings and other metadata are included in the output in the JSON format[@json], providing a good compromise between human- and machine-readable output.
HANDE can be compiled either into a standalone binary or into a library, allowing it to be used directly from existing quantum chemistry packages. CMake[@cmake] is used for the build system, which allows for auto-detection of compilers, libraries and available settings in most cases. A legacy Makefile is also included for compiling HANDE in more complex environments where direct and fine-grained control over settings is useful.
Integrals for molecular and solid systems can be generated by Hartree–Fock calculations using standard quantum chemistry programs, such as Psi4[@parrish_psi4_2017], HORTON[@HORTON], PySCF[@Sun2018], Q-Chem[@shao_advances_2015], and MOLPRO[@MOLPRO], in the plain-text FCIDUMP format. HANDE can convert the FCIDUMP file into an HDF5 file, which gives a substantial space saving and can be read in substantially more quickly. For example, an all-electron FCIDUMP for coronene in a Dunning cc-pVDZ basis[@Dunning_89JCP] is roughly 35GB in size and takes 1840.88 seconds to read into HANDE and initialise. When converted to HDF5 format, the resulting file is 3.6GB in size and initialising an identical calculation takes only 60.83 seconds. This is useful in maximizing resource utilization when performing large production-scale calculations on HPC facilities. The memory demands of the integrals are reduced by storing the two-electron integrals only once on each node using either the MPI-3 shared memory functionality or, for older MPI implementations, POSIX shared memory.
In common with several Monte Carlo methods, data points from consecutive iterations are not independent, as the population at a given iteration depends on the population at the previous iteration. This autocorrelation must be removed in order to obtain accurate estimates of the standard error arising from FCIQMC and CCMC simulations and is most straightforwardly done via a reblocking analysis[@Flyvbjerg1989]. This can be performed as a post-processing step[@pyblock] but is also implemented as an on-the-fly algorithm[@kent_efficient_2007], which enables calculations to be terminated once a desired statistical error has been reached.
It is often useful to continue an existing calculation; for example to accumulate more statistics to reduce the error bar, to save equilibration time when investigating the effect of calculation parameters or small geometry changes, or for debugging when the bug is only evident deep into a calculation. To aid these use cases, calculations can be stored and resumed via the use of restart files. The state of the pseudo-random number generator is included in the restart files such that restarted calculations follow the same Markov chain as if they had been run in a single calculation assuming the same calculation setup is used. We use the HDF5 format and library for efficient I/O and compact file sizes. A key advantage of this approach is that it abstracts the data layout into a hierarchy (termed *groups* and *datasets*). This makes extending the restart file format to include additional information whilst maintaining backward compatibility with previous calculations particularly straightforward. Each calculation is labeled with a universally unique identifier (UUID)[@uuid], stored in the restart file and included in the metadata of subsequent calculations. This is critical for tracing the provenance of data generated over multiple restarted calculations.
Extensive user-level documentation is included in the HANDE-QMC package[@hande-doc] and details compilation, input options, running HANDE and calculation analysis. The documentation also includes several tutorials on FCIQMC, CCMC and DMQMC, which guide new users through generating the integrals (if required), running a QMC calculation along with enabling options for improving stochastic efficiency, and analysing the calculations. The HANDE source code is also heavily commented and contains extensive explanations on the theories and methods implemented (especially for CCMC), and data structures. Each procedure also begins with a comment block describing its action, inputs and outputs. We find this level of developer documentation to be extremely important for onboarding new developers and making HANDE accessible to modifications by other researchers.
Development methodology
-----------------------
The HANDE-QMC project is managed using the Git distributed version control system. A public Git repository is hosted on GitHub[@hande-git] and is updated with new features, improvements and bug fixes. We also use a private Git repository for more experimental development and research; this allows for new features to be iterated upon (and potentially changed or even removed) without introducing instability into the more widely available code. We regularly update the public version, from which official releases are made, with the changes made in the private repository. Further details of our development practices such as our development philosophy and the extensive continuous integration set up using Buildbot[@buildbot] are outlined in Ref. .
pyhande
-------
Interpretation and analysis of calculation output is a critical part of computational science. While we wrote scripts for performing common analyses, such as reblocking to remove the effect of autocorrelation from estimates of the standard error, we found that users would write ad-hoc, fragile scripts for extracting other useful data, which were rarely shared and contained overlapping functionality. This additional barrier also hindered curiousity-driven exploration of results. To address this, the HANDE-QMC package includes pyhande, a Python library for working with HANDE calculation outputs. pyhande extracts metadata (including version, system and calculation parameters, calculation UUID) into a Python dictionary and the QMC output into a Pandas[@McKinney2017-dz] `DataFrame`, which provides a powerful abstraction for further analysis. pyhande includes scripts and functions to automate common tasks, including reblocking analysis, plateau and shoulder[@SpencerThom_16JCP] height estimation, stochastic inefficiency estimation[@Vigor2016] and reweighting to reduce the bias arising from population control[@Umrigar1993; @Vigor2015]. We have found that the development of pyhande has aided reproducibility by providing a single, robust implementation for output parsing and common analyses, and has made more complex analyses more straightforward by providing rich access to raw data in a programmable environment. Indeed, many functions included in pyhande began as exploratory analysis in a Python shell or a Jupyter notebook. The HANDE-QMC documentation also details pyhande and the tutorials include several examples of using pyhande for data analysis. pyhande makes extensive use of the Python scientific stack (NumPy[@Oliphant2015-pq], SciPy[@scipy], Pandas[@McKinney2017-dz] and Matplotlib[@Hunter:2007]).
License
-------
HANDE-QMC is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1. The LGPLv2.1 is a weak copyleft license,[@Rosen2004-aw; @St_Laurent2004-fa] which allows the QMC implementations to be incorporated in both open- and closed-source quantum chemistry codes while encouraging developments and improvements to be contributed back or made available under the same terms. pyhande is licensed under the 3-Clause BSD License, in keeping with many scientific Python packages.
Example results {#sec:results}
===============
In this section we present calculations to demonstrate the core functionality included in HANDE-QMC: we consider a small molecule (nitric oxide); the uniform electron gas in the zero-temperature ground state and at finite temperatures; and a periodic solid, diamond, with $\pmb{k}$-point sampling. The supplementary material includes a tutorial on running and analyzing FCIQMC on the water molecule in cc-pVDZ basis, which is easily accessible by deterministic methods and can be easily performed on any relatively modern laptop.
Computational details
---------------------
All calculations in this section were run with HANDE versions earlier than version 1.3. Integrals were generated using PySCF, Psi4 and Q-Chem. Input, output and analysis scripts are available under a Creative Commons License at [ https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.31933]( https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.31933) containing specifics on which version is used for some calculations, and which SCF program is used.
Molecules: Nitric oxide
-----------------------
Nitric oxide is an important molecule, perhaps most notably as a signalling molecule in multiple physiological processes. Here, we consider NO in a cc-pVDZ basis set[@Dunning_89JCP], correlating all $15$ electrons. The FCI space size is $\sim 10^{12}$, and so is somewhat beyond the reach of exact FCI approaches. We consider initiator FCIQMC, using a walker population of $8 \times
10^6$, which is more than sufficient to achieve an accuracy of $\sim
0.1$m$E_{\textrm{h}}$. This is then compared to CCMC results for the CCSD, CCSDT and CCSDTQ Ansätze. An unrestricted Hartree–Fock (UHF) molecular orbital basis is used. The computational resources to perform this study are modest compared to state-of-the-art FCIQMC simulations, never using more than about $100$ processing cores.
In Figure \[fig:NO\] and Table \[tab:NO\], results are presented for this system at varying internuclear distances. Remarkably good agreement between CCSDTQ-MC and the i-FCIQMC is achieved, with CCSDT-MC also performing extremely well. Statistical errors do not pose any issue in these results, as is typically the case for FCIQMC and CCMC simulations; all such error bars are naturally of order $0.1$m$E_{\textrm{h}}$ or less. For i-FCIQMC results the semi-stochastic adaptation was used[@Petruzielo2012; @Blunt2015_semistoch], choosing the deterministic space by the approach of Ref. . Fig. (\[fig:semistoch\]) demonstrates such simulations before and after enabling semi-stochastic propagation, and the benefits are clear. Indeed, i-FCIQMC results here have statistical errors of order $\sim 1 \mu E_{\textrm{h}}$ or smaller.
CCMC calculations were performed with real weights using the even selection algorithm[@Scott2017]. For the largest calculations, CCSDTQ-MC, heatbath excitation generators were used with up to $4.5\times10^6$ occupied excitors, parallelizing over 96 cores. For comparison, deterministic single reference CCSDTQ calculations performed with the MRCC program package[@MRCC] required storage of $2.1\times10^7$ amplitudes, but did not converge beyond $R=1.7$Å.
Table (\[tab:NO\]) also shows the percentage of correlation energy captured by the various levels of CC, compared to i-FCIQMC. CCSD and CCSDT capture $> 92\%$ and $> 98\%$ of the correlation energy, respectively, with CCSDTQ essentially exact, and the percentage decreasing with increasing bond length as expected. The CCMC approach is particularly appropriate for such high-order CC calculations, where stochastic sampling naturally takes advantage of the sparse nature of the CC amplitudes.
![The binding curve of NO in a cc-pVDZ basis set, correlating all electrons. Stochastic error bars are not visible on this scale, but all are smaller than $1\,\mathrm{mE_h}$. For better resolution in the differences between methods, see Table (\[tab:NO\]).[]{data-label="fig:NO"}](results/NO/no){width="\linewidth"}
------------------ -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------- ------------ ----------- -----------
$R/\textrm{\AA}$ CCSD CCSDT CCSDTQ i-FCIQMC CCSD CCSDT CCSDTQ
0.9 -0.328507(1) -0.3346(1) -0.33523(4) -0.335225(2) 97.7330(6) 99.78(5) 100.00(1)
1.0 -0.5162(2) -0.52478(2) -0.525448(6) -0.525470(2) 97.06(8) 99.779(6) 99.993(2)
1.1 -0.582684(9) -0.59317(8) -0.59447(3) -0.594565(3) 96.435(3) 99.58(2) 99.973(9)
1.154 -0.5904(5) -0.6018(3) -0.6035(2) -0.603772(2) 96.1(2) 99.43(9) 99.92(5)
1.2 -0.58653(3) -0.6005(4) -0.6018(2) -0.602136(3) 95.541(8) 99.5(1) 99.89(7)
1.3 -0.5622(2) -0.5782(4) -0.5790(6) -0.580833(3) 94.67(5) 99.2(1) 99.5(2)
1.4 -0.5256(2) -0.5451(10) -0.5471(7) -0.548340(3) 93.34(7) 99.1(3) 99.6(2)
1.7 -0.43299(10) -0.4503(5) -0.4543(1) -0.455765(4) 92.13(3) 98.1(2) 99.48(4)
2.0 -0.39816(6) -0.40800(9) -0.41010(6) -0.411350(2) 94.45(2) 98.59(4) 99.47(2)
2.5 -0.39132(5) -0.39371(8) -0.39434(2) -0.3954786(4) 98.05(2) 99.17(4) 99.467(8)
------------------ -------------- ------------- -------------- --------------- ------------ ----------- -----------
![Example simulations in HANDE-QMC using the semi-stochastic FCIQMC approach of Umrigar and co-workers[@Petruzielo2012]. Vertical dashed lines show the iteration where the semi-stochastic adaptation is begun, and the resulting reduction in noise is clear thereafter. (a) NO in a cc-pVDZ basis set, with all electrons correlated, at an internuclear distance of $1.154\textrm{\AA}$. The deterministic space is of size $2 \times 10^4$. (b) A half-filled two-dimensional $18$-site Hubbard model at $U/t=1.3$, using a deterministic space of size $10^4$.[]{data-label="fig:semistoch"}](results/semistoch/semistoch){width="\linewidth"}
Model Solid: Uniform electron gas
---------------------------------
HANDE also has built-in capability to perform calculations of model systems commonly used in condensed matter physics, specifically the uniform electron gas (UEG)[@Loos2016; @Giuliani2005; @MartinUEGChapter], the Hubbard model[@Gutzwiller1963; @Hubbard1963; @Kanamori1963], and the Heisenberg model[@AltlandSimons; @blunt_density-matrix_2014]. Such model systems have formed the foundation of our understanding of simple solids and strongly correlated materials, and are a useful testing ground for new computational approaches. Studying the UEG, for example, has provided insight into the accuracy of many-body electronic structure methods and has been a critical ingredient for the development of many of the exchange-correlation kernels used in Kohn–Sham density functional theory[@ceperley_ground_1980; @perdew_self-interaction_1981; @Giuliani2005dft].
The UEG has been used recently as a means to benchmark and test performance of new methods, such as modifications to diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC), as well as low orders of coupled cluster theory[@Freeman1977; @Bishop1978; @Bishop1982; @Shepherd2012c; @Shepherd2013; @Roggero2013; @SpencerThom_16JCP; @McClain2016; @Shepherd2016a] and FCIQMC[@Shepherd2012-ki; @Shepherd2012-wx; @Neufeld2017; @Luo2018; @Ruggeri2018; @Blunt2018].
A recent CCMC study [@Neufeld2017] employing coupled cluster levels up to CCSDTQ5 used HANDE to compute the total energy of the UEG at $r_s=[0.5,5]{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a_0}}}$, the range relevant to electron densities in real solids[@MartinUEGChapter]. The results suggest that CCSDTQ might be necessary at low densities beyond $r_s=3{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a_0}}}$[@Neufeld2017] in order to achieve chemical accuracy, whilst CCSDTQ5 was necessary to reproduce FCIQMC to within error bars[@Shepherd2012-ki; @Shepherd2012-wx; @Neufeld2017; @Luo2018].
HANDE was also used in the resolution of a discrepancy between restricted path-integral Monte Carlo and configuration path-integral Monte Carlo data for the exchange-correlation energy of the UEG necessary to parametrize DFT functionals at finite temperature.[@malone_accurate_2016; @BrownUEG1; @SchoofPRL; @GrothUEG; @DornheimUEG; @DornheimPlsm; @BrownUEG2; @KarasievPRL; @DornheimPRL; @GrothPRL]. The UEG at finite temperatures is parametrized by the density and the degeneracy temperature, $\Theta = T/T_F$, where $T_F$ is the Fermi temperature[@DORNHEIM20181]. When both $r_s\approx 1 $ and $\Theta \approx 1$ the system is said to be in the warm dense regime, a state of matter which is to found in planetary interiors[@Fortney2009] and can be created experimentally in inertial confinement fusion experiments[@PhysRevB.84.224109].
Here, we show that use of HANDE can facilitate straightforward benchmarking of model systems at both zero and finite temperature. In \[fig:UEGrs1\] we compare DMQMC data for the 14-electron, spin-unpolarized UEG at finite $\Theta$ to zero temperature ($\Theta=0$) energies found using CCMC and FCIQMC[@Neufeld2017] for $r_s = 1{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a_0}}}$. We compute the exchange-correlation internal energy $$E_{\mathrm{XC}}(\Theta) = E_{\mathrm{QMC}}(\Theta) - T_0(\Theta),
\label{eq:xcenergy}$$ where $E_{\mathrm{QMC}}(\Theta)$ is the QMC total energy of the UEG and $T_0$ is the ideal kinetic energy of the same UEG. Even at $r_s=1{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a_0}}}$, coupled cluster requires contributions from triple excitations to obtain FCI-quality energies; CCSD differs by about 1mHa. DMQMC results tend to the expected zero temperature limit given by both FCI and CC. Ground-state values from coupled cluster and FCIQMC are presented in Table. (\[tab:UEG\]), to make the small differences between high-accuracy methods clearer.
![The exchange-correlation energy ($E_{\textrm{xc}}$) for the UEG at $r_s=1{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a_0}}}$ as a function of temperature $\Theta$ using DMQMC (Ref. ). The horizontal lines represent basis set extrapolated CCSD, CCSDT and FCIQMC exchange-correlation energies energies (Ref. ). Error bars on CCMC and FCIQMC results are too small to be seen on this scale. CCSDT and FCIQMC values cannot be distinguished on this scale. See Table. (\[tab:UEG\]) for numerical values for CCSD to CCSDTQ5 in the ground state.[]{data-label="fig:UEGrs1"}](results/ueg/rs1){width="\linewidth"}
Method $E_{\textrm{xc}} / E_{\textrm{h}}$
------------ ------------------------------------
CCSD-MC -0.551128(6)
CCSDT-MC -0.55228(1)
CCSDTQ-MC -0.55231(1)
CCSDTQ5-MC -0.55232(1)
FCIQMC -0.55233(1)
: Ground-state exchange-correlation energies ($E_{\textrm{xc}}$) for the UEG at $r_s=1{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a_0}}}$, comparing various levels of coupled cluster theory with FCIQMC. Exchange-correlation energies were calculated using data from Ref.[@Neufeld2017].[]{data-label="tab:UEG"}
Solids: Diamond
---------------
Finally, we apply HANDE-QMC to a real periodic solid, diamond, employing $\pmb{k}$ point sampling. CCMC has been applied to 1$\times$1$\times$1 (up to CCSDTQ), 2$\times$1$\times$1 (up to CCSDT), 2$\times$2$\times$1 and 2$\times$2$\times$2 (up to CCSD) $\pmb{k}$ point meshes and non-initiator FCIQMC to a 1$\times$1$\times$1 $\pmb{k}$ point mesh in a GTH-DZVP[@VandeVondele2005] basis, and a GTH-pade pseudo-potential[@Goedecker1996; @Hartwigsen1998]. There were 2 atoms, 8 electrons in 52 spinorbitals per $\pmb{k}$ point. Integral files have been generated with PySCF[@Sun2018] using Gaussian density fitting[@Sun2017a]. Orbitals were obtained from density functional theory using the LDA Slater-Vosko-Vilk-Nusair (SVWN5) exchange-correlation functional[@Vosko1980a] to write out complex valued integrals at different $\pmb{k}$ points, and HANDE’s read–in functionalities were adapted accordingly. Details of this will be the subject of a future publication on solid-state calculations. The *heat bath uniform singles*[@holmes_efficient_2016; @Neufeld2018] or the *heat bath Power–Pitzer ref.* excitation generator[@Neufeld2018] and even selection[@Scott2017] or multi-spawn[@Spencer2018] sampling were used.
Deterministic coupled cluster has been applied to diamond previously; Booth et al.[@Booth2013] have investigated diamond with CCSD, CCSD(T)[@Raghavachari1989] and FCIQMC in a basis of plane waves with the projector augmented wave method[@Blochl1994]; McClain et al.[@McClain2017] studied diamond with CCSD using GTH pseudo-potentials in DZV, DZVP, TZVP basis sets[@Goedecker1996; @Hartwigsen1998; @VandeVondele2005]; Gruber et al.[@Gruber2018] used CCSD with (T) corrections in an MP2 natural orbital basis[@Gruneis2011].
The lattice constant was fixed to 3.567Å, as in the study by McClain et al.[@McClain2017]. Figure \[fig:diamond\] shows the correlation energy as a function of number of $\pmb{k}$ points comparing the CCMC and FCIQMC results to the CCSD results obtained using PySCF and the CCSD results of McClain et al.[@McClain2017]. The correlation energy given here is calculated with respect to the HF energy, as the correlation energy from using DFT orbitals, added to the difference of energy of reference determinant consisting of DFT orbitals and HF SCF energy.
![Difference between the total and Hartree-Fock energy per $\pmb{k}$ point for diamond using CCMC (CCSD to CCSDTQ) and (non-initiator) FCIQMC based on DFT orbitals. The CCSDTQ and the FCIQMC data point overlap to a large extent. The CCSD-PySCF data was run with Hartree-Fock orbitals. In the case of CCMC, FCIQMC and CCSD-PySCF the mesh has been shifted to contain the $\Gamma$ point. CCSD-McClain et al. is data from Figure 1 in McClain et al.[@McClain2017] using PySCF; we show only their data up to 12 k-points for comparison. Both studies used the DZVP basis set and GTH pseudopotentials.[]{data-label="fig:diamond"}](results/diamond/corr_diamond){width="\linewidth"}
Differences in convergences are due to the use of differently optimized orbitals, and a different treatment of the exchange integral (which will feature in a future publication). In the case of CCMC, FCIQMC and CCSD-PySCF the $\pmb{k}$ point mesh has been shifted to contain the $\Gamma$ point, while McClain et al.[@McClain2017] used $\Gamma$ point centered (not shifted) meshes, which explains the larger difference between CCSD-McClain et al. and the rest of the data. An accuracy of (0.01-0.1) eV/unit ((0.00037-0.0037) $\mathrm{E}_h$/unit) might be required to accurately predict, for example crystal structures[@Wagner2016], so these limited $\pmb{k}$-point mesh results suggest that at least CCSDT level is required for reasonable accuracy, possibly CCSDTQ. Nonetheless, we have not considered larger basis sets, additional $\pmb{k}$ points, and other important aspects required for an exhaustive study.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
This article has presented the key functionality included in HANDE-QMC: efficient, extensible implementations of the full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo, coupled cluster Monte Carlo and density matrix quantum Monte Carlo methods. Advances such as semi-stochastic propagation in FCIQMC[@Petruzielo2012; @Blunt2015_semistoch] and efficient excitation generators[@holmes_efficient_2016; @Neufeld2018] are also implemented. HANDE-QMC can be applied to model systems – the Hubbard, Heisenberg and uniform electron gas models – as well as molecules and solids.
We have found using a scripting language (Lua) in the input file to be extremely beneficial – for example, in running multi-stage calculations, enabling semi-stochastic propagation after the most important states have emerged, irregular output of restart files, or for enabling additional output for debugging at a specific point in the calculation. As with (e.g.) Psi4, PySCF and HORTON, we find this approach far more flexible and powerful than a custom declarative input format used in many other scientific codes.
We are strong supporters of open-source software in scientific research and are glad that the HANDE-QMC package has been used in others research in ways we did not envisage, including in the development of Adaptive Sampling Configuration Interaction (ASCI)[@tubman_deterministic_2016], understanding the inexact power iteration method[@lu_full_2017] and in selecting the $P$ subspace in the CC(P;Q) method[@Deustua2017]. We believe one reason for this is that the extensive user- and developer-level documentation makes learning and developing HANDE-QMC rather approachable. Indeed, five of the authors of this paper made their first contributions to HANDE-QMC as undergraduates with little prior experience in software development or computational science. In turn, HANDE-QMC has greatly benefited from existing quantum chemistry software, in particular integral generation from Hartree–Fock calculations in Psi4[@parrish_psi4_2017], Q-Chem[@shao_advances_2015] and PySCF[@Sun2018]. We hope in future to couple HANDE-QMC to such codes to make running stochastic quantum chemistry calculations simpler and more convenient. To this end, some degree in standardization of data formats to make it simple to pass data (e.g. wavefunctions amplitudes) between codes would be extremely helpful in connecting libraries, developing new methods[@Deustua2017] and reproducibility.
We close by echoing the views of the Psi4 developers[@parrish_psi4_2017]: ‘the future of quantum chemistry software lies in a more modular approach in which small, independent teams develop reusable software components that can be incorporated directly into multiple quantum chemistry packages’ and hope that this leads to an increased vibrancy in method development.
JSS and WMCF received support under EPSRC Research Grant EP/K038141/1 and acknowledge the stimulating research environment provided by the Thomas Young Centre under Grant No. TYC-101. NSB acknowledges St John’s College, Cambridge, for funding through a Research Fellowship, and Trinity College, Cambridge for an External Research Studentship during this work. JE acknowledges Trinity College, Cambridge, for funding through a Summer Studentship during this work. RSTF acknowledges CHESS for a studentship. WH acknowledges Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge for funding through a Research Fellowship during this work. NSB and WH are grateful to for Undergraduate Research Opportunities Scholarships in the Centre for Doctoral Training on Theory and Simulation of Materials at Imperial College funded by EPSRC under Grant No. EP/G036888/1. FDM was funded by an Imperial College President’s scholarship and part of this work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344. VAN acknowledges the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Computational Methods for Materials Science for funding under grant number EP/L015552/1 and the Cambridge Philosophical Society for a studentship. RDR acknowledges partial support by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence scheme, project number 262695 and through its Mobility Grant scheme, project number 261873. CJCS acknowledges the Sims Fund for a studentship. JJS is currently supported by an Old Gold Summer Fellowship from the University of Iowa. JJS also gratefully acknowledges the prior support of a Research Fellowship from the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 and a production project from the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS) under project ID s523. WAV acknowledges EPSRC for a PhD studentship. AJWT acknowledges Imperial College London for a Junior Research Fellowship, the Royal Society for a University Research Fellowship (UF110161 and UF160398), Magdalene College for summer project funding for M-AF, and EPSRC for an Archer Leadership Award (project e507). We acknowledge contributions from J. Weston during an Undergraduate Research Opportunities Scholarships in the Centre for Doctoral Training on Theory and Simulation of Materials at Imperial College funded by EPSRC under Grant No. EP/G036888/1. The HANDE-QMC project acknowledges a rich ecosystem of open-source projects, without which this work would not have been possible.
An introductory tutorial to HANDE-QMC
=====================================
In the following we present an introductory tutorial, demonstrating how to perform basic FCIQMC and i-FCIQMC simulations with the HANDE-QMC code. More extensive tutorials, including for CCMC and DMQMC, exist in the HANDE-QMC documentation. Here we take the water molecule at its equilibrium geometry, in a cc-pVDZ basis set[@Dunning_89JCP] and correlating all electrons. This is a simple example, but has a Hilbert space dimension of $\sim 5 \times 10^8$, making an exact FCI calculation non-trivial to perform.
A basic i-FCIQMC simulation
---------------------------
The input file for HANDE-QMC is a Lua script. The basic structure of such an input file is shown in Fig. (\[fig:input\_1\]).
sys = read_in {
int_file = "INTDUMP",
}
fciqmc {
sys = sys,
qmc = {
tau = 0.01,
tau_search = true,
rng_seed = 8,
init_pop = 500,
mc_cycles = 5,
nreports = 3*10^3,
target_population = 10^4,
excit_gen = "heat_bath",
initiator = true,
real_amplitudes = true,
spawn_cutoff = 0.1,
state_size = -1000,
spawned_state_size = -100,
},
}
In this the system is entirely determined by the integral file, “INTDUMP”, which stores all of the necessary $1$- and $2$-body molecular integrals. For this tutorial, the integral file was generated through the Psi4 code[@parrish_psi4_2017]. Both the “INTDUMP” file, and the Psi4 script used to generate it, are available in additional material. As discussed in the main text, the integral file may be generated by multiple other quantum chemistry packages[@HORTON; @Sun2018; @shao_advances_2015; @MOLPRO].
In general, the system may be defined by specifying additional parameters, including the number of electrons, the spin quantum number ($M_s$), the point group symmetry label, and a CAS subspace, for example:
sys = read_in {
int_file = "INTDUMP",
nel = 10,
ms = 0,
sym = 0,
CAS = {8, 23},
}
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
The input file then calls the [fciqmc{...}](fciqmc{...}) function, which performs an FCIQMC simulation with the provided system and parameters. There are several options here; most are self-evident and are described in detail in the HANDE-QMC documentation. [tau](tau) specifies the time step size, and [tau\_search = true](tau_search = true) updates this time step to an optimal value during the simulation. [init\_pop](init_pop) specifies the initial particle population, and [target\_population](target_population) the value at which this population will attempt to stabilize. [excit\_gen](excit_gen) specifies the excitation generator to be used. This option is not required, although the heat-bath algorithm of Umrigar and co-workers[@holmes_efficient_2016] that we have adapted for HANDE-QMC as explained in Ref.[@Neufeld2018], as used here, is a sensible choice in small systems. [initiator = true](initiator = true) ensures that the initiator adaptation, i-FCIQMC, is used. [real\_amplitudes = true](real_amplitudes = true) ensures that non-integer particle weights are used. This leads to improved stochastic efficiency, and so is always recommended. Lastly, [state\_size](state_size) and [spawned\_state\_size](spawned_state_size) specify the memory allocated to the particle and spawned particle arrays, respectively - a negative sign is used to specify these values in megabytes (thus 1GB and 100MB, here).
The input file is run with
``` {frame="none" language="Bash"}
$ mpiexec hande.x hande.lua > hande.out
```
with the MPI command varying between implementations in the usual way. The results of the input file in Fig. (\[fig:input\_1\]) and presented in Fig. (\[fig:tutorial\_1\]).
Because of the correlated nature of the QMC data, care must be taken when estimating error bars; a large number of iterations must typically be performed, allowing data to become sufficiently uncorrelated. This task can be error-prone for new users (and old ones). HANDE-QMC includes a Python script, [reblock\_hande.py](reblock_hande.py), which performs a rigorous blocking analysis of the simulation data, automatically detecting if sufficient iterations have been performed and, if so, choosing the optimal block length to provide final estimates.
This final energy estimate can be obtained by
$ reblock_hande.py --quiet hande.out
The usual estimator for the correlation energy ($E_{\textrm{corr}}$) is the Hartree–Fock projected estimator: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\textrm{corr}} &= \frac{ \braket{D_0 | (\hat{H} - E_{\textrm{HF}} \, \mathbb{1}) | \Psi_0§} }{ \braket{D_0 | \Psi_0} }, \\
&= \frac{ \sum_{i \ne 0} C_i \braket{D_0 | \hat{H} | D_i} }{ C_0 },\end{aligned}$$ where $\ket{D_0}$ is the Hartree–Fock determinant and $E_{\textrm{HF}}$ is the Hartree–Fock energy. $C_i$ are the particle amplitudes, with $C_0$ being the Hartree–Fock amplitude. Because both the numerator and denominator are random variables, they should be averaged separately, *before* performing division. It is therefore important that data be averaged from the point where both the numerator and denominator have converged individually; in some cases the energy itself may appear converged while the numerator and denominator are still converging. This does not occur in the current water molecule case, as can be seen in Fig. (\[fig:tutorial\_1\]), where the numerator and denominator are plotted in (b) and (c), respectively. Here, all relevant estimates appear converged by iteration $\sim 1000$.
The [reblock\_hande.py](reblock_hande.py) script will automatically detect when the required quantities have converged, in order to choose the iteration from which to start averaging data. However, a starting iteration may be manually provided using [--start](--start). In general it is good practice to manually plot simulation data, as in Fig. (\[fig:tutorial\_1\]), to check that behavior is sensible. In this case, the [reblock\_hande.py](reblock_hande.py) script automatically begins averaging from iteration number $1463$, which is appropriate.
sys = read_in {
int_file = "INTDUMP",
}
targets = {2*10^3, 4*10^3, 8*10^3, 1.6*10^4, 3.2*10^4, 6.4*10^4, 1.28*10^5}
for i,target in ipairs(targets) do
fciqmc {
sys = sys,
qmc = {
tau = 0.01,
rng_seed = 8,
init_pop = target/20,
mc_cycles = 5,
nreports = 3*10^3,
tau_search = true,
target_population = target,
excit_gen = "heat_bath",
initiator = true,
real_amplitudes = true,
spawn_cutoff = 0.1,
state_size = -1000,
spawned_state_size = -100,
},
}
end
----------- --- ---------------- ------------ ------------------- ----------- ------------ --------------
Block from \# H psips $\sum H_{0j} N_j$ $N_0$ Shift Proj. Energy
hande.out 0 1.83000000e+03 2292(4) -36.77(8) 172.6(5) -0.210(3) -0.2131(3)
1 1.81800000e+03 4602(5) -56.4(1) 262.5(6) -0.213(2) -0.2148(2)
2 1.47300000e+03 9108(7) -88.29(9) 408.2(5) -0.213(1) -0.2163(2)
3 1.78100000e+03 19050(10) -151.5(1) 697.0(6) -0.217(1) -0.2173(2)
4 1.97200000e+03 38150(10) -276.7(1) 1270.0(6) -0.2188(5) -0.21784(6)
5 2.06500000e+03 74310(30) -528.3(2) 2428(1) -0.2193(6) -0.21761(8)
6 1.82500000e+03 152900(30) -1081.4(4) 4964(2) -0.2186(4) -0.21787(5)
----------- --- ---------------- ------------ ------------------- ----------- ------------ --------------
![Initiator convergence for the water molecule in a cc-pVDZ basis set, with all electrons correlated. Results were obtained by running the input file of Fig. (\[fig:input\_2\]).[]{data-label="fig:tutorial_2"}](results/init_converge/converge){width="\linewidth"}
Converging initiator error
--------------------------
After running the [reblock\_hande.py](reblock_hande.py) script, the correlation energy estimate can be read off simply as $E_{\textrm{corr}} = -0.2166(2)E_{\textrm{h}}$. This compares well to the exact FCI energy of $E_{\textrm{FCI}} = -0.217925E_{\mathrm{h}}$, in error by $\sim 1.3\textrm{m}E_{\textrm{h}}$, despite using only $\sim 10^4$ particles to sample a space of dimension $\sim 5 \times 10^8$.
Nonetheless, an important feature of i-FCIQMC is the ability to converge to the exact result by varying only one parameter, the particle population. This is possible by running multiple i-FCIQMC simulation independently. However, one can make use of the Lua input file with HANDE-QMC to perform an arbitrary number of simulations with a single input file, as shown by example in Fig. (\[fig:input\_2\]). Here, [targets](targets) is a table containing particle populations from $2 \times 10^3$, and doubling until $1.28 \times 10^5$. We loop over all target populations and perform an FCIQMC simulation for each.
Running the [reblock\_hande.py](reblock_hande.py) script on the subsequent output file gives the results in Table (\[tab:tutorial\]). The final column gives the projected energy estimate of the correlation energy, and is plotted in Fig. (\[fig:tutorial\_2\]), with comparison to the FCI energy. Accuracy within $1\textrm{m}E_{\textrm{h}}$ is reached with $N_{\textrm{w}} = 2 \times10^4$, and an accuracy of $0.1\textrm{m}E_{\textrm{h}}$ by $N_\textrm{w} = 2 \times 10^5$.
It is simple to perform a semi-stochastic i-FCIQMC simulation. To do this, as well as passing [sys](sys) and [qmc](qmc) parameters to the [fciqmc](fciqmc) function, one should also pass a [semi\_stoch](semi_stoch) table. The simplest form for this table, which is almost always appropriate, is the following:
semi_stoch = {
size = 10^4,
start_iteration = 2*10^3,
space = "high",
},
The ["high"]("high") option generates a deterministic space by choosing the most highly-weighted determinants in the FCIQMC wave function at the given iteration (which in general should be an iteration where the wave function is largely converged), $2 \times 10^3$ in this case. The total size of the deterministic space is given by the [size](size) parameter, $10^4$ in this case.
Parallelization
===============
In this appendix, we describe two techniques that can optimize the FCIQMC parallelization, *load balancing* and *non-blocking communication*. Parallelization of CCMC has been explained in Ref. but does not yet make use of *non-blocking communication*.
By and large, HANDE’s FCIQMC implementation follows the standard parallel implementation of the FCIQMC algorithm, a more complete description of which can be found in Ref. . In short, each processor stores a sorted main list of instantaneously occupied determinants containing the determinant’s bit string representation, the walker’s weight as well as any simulation dependent flags. For each iteration every walker is given the chance to spawn to another connected determinant, with newly spawned walkers being added to a second spawned walker array. After evolution a collective `MPI_AlltoAllv` is set up to communicate the spawned walker array to the appropriate processors. The annihilation step is then carried out by merging the subsequently sorted spawned walker array with the main list.
During the simulation every walker needs to know which processor a connected determinant resides on but naturally can not store this mapping. In order to achieve a relatively uniform distribution of determinants at a low computational cost, each walker is assigned to a processors $p$ as $$\label{eq:hash}
p(\ket{D_{\textbf{i}}}) = \mathrm{hash}(\ket{D_{\textbf{i}}}) \bmod N_{\mathrm{p}},$$ where $N_{\mathrm{p}}$ is the number of processors and hash is a hash function[@smhasher].
Load Balancing
--------------
The workload of the algorithm is primarily determined by the number of walkers on a given processor, but the above hashing procedure distributes work to processors on a determinant basis. For the hashing procedure to be effective we require that the average population for a random set of determinants to be roughly uniform. Generally hashing succeeds in this regard and one finds a fairly even distribution of both walkers and determinants. When scaling a problem of a fixed size to more processors, i.e. strong scaling, one observes that the distribution loses some of its uniformity with certain processors becoming significantly under and over populated which negatively affects the parallelism [@Booth2014]. This is to be expected as in the limit $N_{\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow N_{\mathrm{Dets}}$ there would be quite a pronounced load imbalance unless each determinant’s coefficient was of a similar magnitude (which can often be the case for strongly correlated systems). Naturally this limit is never reached, but the observed imbalance is largely a consequence of this increased refinement.
In HANDE we optionally use dynamic load balancing to achieve better parallel performance. In practice, we define an array $p_{\mathrm{map}}$ as $$p_{\mathrm{map}}(i) = i \bmod N_{\mathrm{p}},$$ so that its entries cyclically contain the processor IDs, $0,\dots,N_{\mathrm{p}}-1$. Determinants are then initially mapped to processors as $$\label{eq:p_map}
p(\ket{D_{\textbf{i}}}) = p_{\mathrm{map}}\Big(\mathrm{hash}(\ket{D_{\textbf{i}}})\bmod N_{\mathrm{p}} \times M\Big),$$ where $M$ is the bin size. \[eq:p\_map\] reduces to \[eq:hash\] when $M = 1$.
The walker population in each of these $M$ bins on each processor can be determined and communicated to all other processors. In this way, every processor knows the total distribution of walkers across all processors. In redistributing the $N_{\mathrm{p}} \times M$ bins we adopt a simple heuristic approach by only selecting bins belonging to processors whose populations are either above or below a certain user defined threshold. By redistributing bins in order of increasing population we can, in principle, isolate highly populated determinants while also allowing for a finer distribution.
This procedure translates to a simple modification of $p_{\mathrm{map}}$ so that its entries now contain the processor IDs which give the determined optimal distribution of bin.
Finally, the walkers which reside in the chosen bins have to be moved to their new processor, which can simply be achieved using a communication procedure similar to that used for the annihilation stage. Some care needs to be taken that all determinants are on their correct processors at a given iteration so that annihilation takes place correctly.
Once the population of walkers has stabilised the distribution across processors should be roughly constant, although small fluctuations will persist. With this in mind redistribution should only occur after this stabilisation has occurred and also should not need to occur too frequently. This ensures that the computational cost associated with performing load balancing is fairly minor in a large calculation. Additionally as $M$ is increased the optimal distribution of walkers should be approached, although with an increase in computational effort.
Non-blocking communication
--------------------------
HANDE also makes use of non-blocking asynchronous communication to alleviate latency issues when scaling to large processor counts[@gillanpeta]. Using asynchronous communications is non-trivial in HANDE due to the annihilation stage of FCIQMC-like algorithms. We use the following algorithm: Consider the evolution of walkers from $\tau$ to $\tau + \Delta\tau$, then for each processor the following steps are carried out:
1. Initialise the non-blocking receive of walkers spawned onto the current processor from time $\tau$.
2. Evolve the main list to time $\tau+\Delta\tau$.
3. Complete the receive of walkers.
4. Evolve the received walkers to $\tau+\Delta\tau$.
5. Annihilate walkers spawned from the evolution of the two lists as well as the evolved received list with the main list on this processor.
6. Send remaining spawned walkers to their new processors.
While this requires more work per iteration, it should result in improved efficiency if the time take to complete this work is less than the latency time. This also ensures faster processors can continue doing work, i.e. evolving the main list, while waiting for other processors to finish evolving their main lists. For communications to be truly overlapping the slowest processor would need to complete the steps above before the fastest processor reaches step (3), otherwise there will be latency as the received list cannot be evolved before all walkers spawned onto a given processor are received.
It should be pointed out that walkers spawned onto a processor at time $\tau$ are only annihilated with the main list after evolution to $\tau+\Delta\tau$, which differs from the normal algorithm. While annihilation is vital to attaining converged results [@BoothAlavi_09JCP; @Spencer2012] the times at which it takes place is somewhat arbitrary, once walkers are annihilated at the same point in simulation time. Communication between processors is also required when collecting statistics, however the usual collectives required for this can simply be replaced by the corresponding non-blocking procedures. This does require that information is printed out in a staggered fashion but this is of minor concern.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the approval-based model of elections, and undertake a computational study of voting rules which select committees whose size is not predetermined. While voting rules that output committees with a predetermined number of winning candidates are quite well studied, the study of elections with variable number of winners has only recently been initiated by Kilgour [@kil:j:variable-size-committee]. This paper aims at achieving a better understanding of these rules, their computational complexity, and on scenarios for which they might be applicable.'
author:
- |
\
[AGH University]{}\
[Krakow, Poland]{}
- |
\
[University of Auckland]{}\
[Auckland, New Zealand]{}
- |
\
[Weizmann Institute of Science]{}\
[Rehovot, Israel]{}
bibliography:
- 'grypiotr2006.bib'
- 'grypiotr2006.bib'
title: The Complexity of Multiwinner Voting Rules with Variable Number of Winners
---
Introduction
============
We study the setting where a group of agents (the voters) want to select a set of candidates (a committee) based on these agents’ preferences. Agents are asked which candidates they approve of for the inclusion into the committee and this input data needs to be aggregated. However, as opposed to the quickly growing body of work on electing committees of a fixed size [@elk-fal-sko-sli:j:multiwinner-properties; @fal-sko-sli-tal:c:hierarchy-committee; @azi-gas-gud-mac-mat-wal:c:approval-multiwinner; @ama-bar-lan-mar-rie:c:minisum-to-minimax; @kil:chapter:approval-multiwinner], here we are interested in rules that derive both the size of the winning committee and its members from the voters’ preferences. Recently, Kilgour [@kil:j:variable-size-committee] and Duddy et al. [@Duddy2016] initiated a systematic study of such voting rules; here we are interested in the complexity of computing their winners and in experimentally analyzing the sizes of the elected committees (for some early axiomatic results, we also point the reader to the work of Brandl and Peters [@bra-pet:i:borda-mean]).
When Not To Fix the Size of the Committee?
------------------------------------------
There is a number of settings where it is not natural to fix the size of the committee to be elected and it is better to deduce it from the votes. Since so far committee elections with variable number of winners did not receive much attention in the AI literature, below we provide a number of examples of such settings. We do not mention this repeatedly, but one may wish to automate the processes in the examples below using AI techniques.
**Initial Screening.**Consider a situation where we need to select one item—among many possible ones—that has some desirable features. The final decision can only be done by a qualified expert, but we have a number of easy to evaluate (but imperfect) criteria that the selected items should satisfy (these criteria are soft and it may be that the best item actually fails some of them). We view each criterion as a voter (who “approves” the items that satisfy it) and we seek a committee, hopefully of a small size, of candidates from which the qualified expert will choose the final item.[^1] Initial screening is closely related to shortlisting [@bar-coe:j:non-controversial-k-names; @elk-fal-sko-sli:j:multiwinner-properties]. We use a different name for it to emphasize that we do not fix the number of candidates to choose, as is the case with shortlisting.
**Finding a Set of Qualifying Candidates.** Finding a set of candidates that satisfy all or almost all criteria is a common problem. Real-life examples include selecting baseball players for inclusion into the Hall of Fame and selecting students to receive an honors degree. In the former case, eligible voters (baseball writers) approve up to ten players and those approved by at least 75% of the voters are chosen to the Hall of Fame. In the latter case, the voting process is typically implicit; the university announces a set of criteria of excellency—which act as voters, “approving” the students that satisfy them[^2]—and set rules such as “a student receives an honors degree if he or she meets at least five out of six criteria”. It is often desirable that the selected committee is small (say, at most a few people for the Hall of Fame and some not-too-large percentage of the students for the honors degree), but this is not always the case. E.g, consider the task of selecting people for an in-depth medical check based on a number of simple criteria that jointly indicate elevated risk of a certain disease; everyone who is at risk should be checked regardless of the number of those patients.
One of the first procedures formally proposed for the task of selecting a group of qualifying candidates was the majority rule (MV), suggested by Brams, Kilgour, and Sanver [@brams2007minimax]. The majority rule outputs the committee that includes all the candidates that are approved by at least half of the voters (satisfy at least half of the criteria). It is, of course, natural to consider MV with other thresholds, as, for example, in the Hall of Fame example.
**Partitioning into Homogeneous Groups.** For the case of partitioning candidates into *homogeneous* groups, we can no longer focus only on one of the groups (the committee), but rather we care about a partition into two groups so that each of them contains candidates that are as similar as possible. A prime example here is partitioning students in some class into two groups, e.g., a group of beginners and a group of advanced ones (say, regarding, their knowledge of a foreign language; depending on the setting, it may or may not be important to keep the sizes of these two groups close). The students are partitioned in this way to facilitate a better learning environment for everyone; in the context of voting, the issue of partitioning students was raised by Duddy et al. [@Duddy2016].
**Choosing Committees with Implicit Proferences on Size.** Consider the problem of choosing a group of specialists to hire. This problem is similar to that of partitioning the candidates into two non-homogeneous groups, where the first group constitutes the team of specialists to be hired (e.g., a group of software developers for a project, evaluated on their knowledge of PHP, Java, previous experience, etc.), but we additionally have implicit preferences regarding the committee size (e.g., we may wish to hire at least five developers, but from prior experience we know that a team of more than ten people is hard to manage).
For another example in this group, consider a factory that can produce a number of different items. The factory should produce those that are most popular on the market (that are “approved” by many possible customers), but it should not produce too many different kinds as it may involve increased costs of various kinds (e.g., adding a new product may require expensive extension of the factory, which would only pay off if the new product were very popular).
**Finding a Representative Committee.** An elected committee is representative if each voter approves at least one committee member (who then can represent this voter). The idea of choosing a representative committee of a fixed size received significant attention in the literature (see the works of Chamberlin and Courant [@cha-cou:j:cc], Monroe [@mon:j:monroe], Elkind et al. [@elk-fal-sko-sli:j:multiwinner-properties], and Aziz et al. [@azi-bri-con-elk-fre-wal:j:justified-representation] as some examples). However, as pointed out by Brams and Kilgour [@brams2014satisfaction], committees of fixed size simply cannot always provide adequate representation. Thus, in some applications, it is natural to elect committees without prespecified sizes (while in others, fixing the committee size may be necessary).
A representative committee may be desired when some authorities are revising existing regulations and need to consult citizens, for which purpose they would like to select a representative focus groups in various cities. The people in a focus group do not have to represent the society proportionally (their role is to voice opinions and concerns and not to make final decisions), but should cover all the spectrum of opinions in the society. Usually, small representative committees are more desirable than larger ones.
Our Contribution
----------------
Our main goal is to study computational aspects of voting rules tailored for elections with a variable number of winners. This direction was pioneered by Fishburn and Pekeč [@fishburn2004approval], who introduced the class of threshold rules and studied their computational complexity (somewhat surprisingly, only for the case when the committee size is fixed). We are not aware of other computational studies that followed their work. In this paper we study the threshold rules of Fishburn and Pekeč [@fishburn2004approval], as well as a number of other rules, including those discussed by Kilgour [@kil:j:variable-size-committee]. We obtain the following results:
1. For each of the rules, we establish whether finding a winning committee under this rule is in ${{\mathrm{P}}}$ or is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard (in which case we seek ${{\mathrm{FPT}}}$ algorithms parameterized by the numbers of candidates and by the number of voters).
2. We evaluate experimentally the average sizes of committees elected by our rules. We consider a basic model of preferences, where each voter approves each candidate independently, with some probability $p$ (we focus on $p=\nicefrac{1}{2}$ but for some representative rules we consider a larger spectrum of probability values).
We only make preliminary comments regarding suitability of our rules for the tasks outlined above. While specifying the applications is important to facilitate future research, we believe that we are still at the level of identifying voting rules and gathering basic knowledge about them.
Preliminaries
=============
An approval-based election $E = (C,V)$ consists of a set $C = \{c_1,
\ldots, c_m\}$ of candidates and a collection $V = (v_1, \ldots,
v_n)$ of voters. Voters express their preferences by filling approval ballots. The approval ballot of a voter specifies the subset of candidates that this voter approves. To simplify notation, we denote voter $v_i$’s approval ballot also as $v_i$ (whether we mean the voter or the subset of approved candidates will always be clear from the context). A collection $V$ of voters, interpreted as a collection of approval ballots in a certain election, is called the [*preference profile*]{}. For a given subset $S$ of the candidates from set $C$, by $\overline{S}$ we mean the candidates not in $S$, i.e., $\overline{S} = C \setminus S$. By the [*approval score*]{} of a candidate in an election, we mean the number of voters that approve of this candidate.
A voting rule for elections with a variable number of winners is a function ${\mathcal{R}}$ that, given an election $E = (C,V)$, returns a family of subsets of $C$ (the set of committees which tie as winners). The main point of difference between the type of voting rules that we study here and the voting rules typically studied in the context of multiwinner elections is that we do not fix the size of the committee to be elected and we let it be deduced by the rule. For an overview of multiwinner election procedures using approval balloting, we point to the works of Kilgour [@kil:chapter:approval-multiwinner; @kil:j:variable-size-committee], both for the discussions of rules with fixed and variable number of winners; Duddy et al. [@bra-pet:i:borda-mean] and Brandl and Peters [@Duddy2016] discuss the polynomial-time computable Borda mean rule (not included in our discussion).
Our hardness results follow by reductions from the ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-complete problem <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span>. An instance of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> consists of a set $U = \{u_1, \ldots, u_n\}$ of elements, a family ${\mathcal{S}}= \{S_1, \ldots, S_m\}$ of subsets of $U$, and an integer $k$; we ask whether exist at most $k$ sets from ${\mathcal{S}}$ whose union is $U$.
Simple Approval Rule
====================
We start our discussion by considering the Approval rule (AV), one of the arguably simple rules for the setting with variable number of winners.
Approval Voting (AV).
: Under AV we output the (unique) committee of candidates with the highest approval score.
In essence, AV is the single-winner Approval rule which instead of breaking ties (among winning candidates) outputs all the candidates with the highest score. The rule is, of course, polynomial-time computable.
There is a polynomial-time algorithm that computes the unique winning committee under the AV rule.
We should expect the winning committees for this rule to be very small and, indeed, the following experiment confirms this intuition (the AV rule is so simple that the experiment is not really necessary; we include it for the sake of completeness and to provide the setup for experiments regarding less intuitive rules).
\[exp:main\] We consider elections with $m=20$ candidates and $n=20$ voters, where for each candidate $c$, each voter approves $c$ with probability $p =
\nicefrac{1}{2}$. We have generated $10,000$ elections and the average committee size was $1.52$ with standard deviation $0.89$. (See Table \[tab:collection\] for the list of average committee sizes in this setting for our rules; to see how the number of voters affects the average committee sizes, we also included experiments for $20$ candidates and $100$ voters). We repeat this experiment for all the rules in this paper.
We have chosen a fairly small number of candidates and voters for our experiments as the results for such elections are fast to compute (even for ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard voting rules) and, yet, they appear to be sufficient to show the effects that we are interested in. We chose the model where each candidate is approved or disapproved independently by each voter because it is the most basic scenario which, we believe, one should start with (other scenarios should be considered in future works).
(Generalized) Net-Approval Voting {#sec:gnav}
=================================
In the framework where the size of the target committee is fixed, one may ask for a committee of candidates whose sum of approval scores is the highest. To adapt this idea to the variable number of winners, Brams and Kilgour [@brams2014satisfaction] suggested the Net-Approval Voting (NAV) rule. This rule pays attention not only to approvals but also to disapprovals.
Net Approval Voting (NAV).
: The score of a committee $S$ in election $E = (C,V)$ under NAV is defined to be $ \sum_{v_i \in
V}\big(|S \cap v_i| - |S \cap \overline{v_i}|\big)$; the committees with the highest score tie as co-winners.
Note that this rule is very close to the MV rule [@brams2007minimax] mentioned in the introduction; the winning committees under NAV consist of all candidates approved by a strict majority of the voters and any subset of those approved by exactly half of the voters (MV includes all candidates approved by at least half of the voters).
There is a polynomial-time algorithm that computes the unique smallest[^3] winning committee under the NAV rule.
Repeating Experiment \[exp:main\] for NAV, we obtain $8.25$ as the average size of the smallest elected committee with standard deviation $2.19$. This confirms the intuition that slightly fewer than half of the candidates would be elected in a typical election, where each candidate is approved independently with probability $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ (since in the smallest winning committee it is necessary to be approved by *more than* half of the voters). We also computed the average size of a NAV committee for the case where voters approve candidates with other probabilities. Specifically, for each $p \in \{0.05, 0.1, \ldots,
0.95\}$ we generated $10,000$ elections with $20$ candidates and $20$ voters, where each voter approves each candidate with probability $p$, and we computed the average size of the NAV committee. We repeated the same experiment for $20$ candidates and $100$ voters. The results are presented in Figure \[fig:size\]. We see that when the number of voters becomes large, the graph becomes very close to the step function. This means that NAV should only be used in very specific settings (such as the baseball Hall of Fame example).
It turns out that, using the main idea behind the NAV rule, it is possible to express many different voting rules. Below we suggest a language for describing such rules.
Generalized NAV.
: Let $f$ and $g$ be two non-decreasing, non-negative-valued functions, $f,g \colon
{{{\mathbb{N}}}}\rightarrow {{{\mathbb{N}}}}$, such that $f(0)=g(0)=0$. We define the $(f,g)$-NAV score of a committee $S$ in election $E = (C,V)$ to be: $$\textstyle
\sum_{v_i \in V}\big(f(|S \cap v_i|) - g(|S \cap
\overline{v_i}|)\big).$$ The committees with the highest score tie as co-winners. The intuition for this rule is that we would like to be able to count approvals and disapprovals differently. E.g., this can be explained as follows: at times, the lack of approval of a candidate is not really a disapproval but lack of information about him/her or simply no firm opinion.
It would also be reasonable to include the terms $f'(|\overline{S}
\cap \overline{v_i}|)$ and $-g'(|\overline{S} \cap v_i|)$ (for two additional functions $f'$ and $g'$) in the definition of the score above. The first term, for example, would reflect the utility that voter $v_i$ has from exclusion of candidates whom he/she did not approve.
$(f,g)$-NAV rules are quite diverse. For example, if $f$ and $g$ are linear functions (e.g., $f(x) = x$ and $g(x) = 2x$) then $(f,g)$-NAV is a variant of the MV rule with a different threshold of approval (for the given example, a candidate would be included in the committee if it were approved by at least a $\nicefrac{2}{3}$ fraction of the voters; thus, we refer to this rule also as $\nicefrac{2}{3}$-NAV). Such rules seem quite appropriate for the task of choosing a set of qualifying candidates as, for each candidate $c$, the decision whether to include $c$ in the committee or not is made based on approvals for $c$ only (indeed, the decision if a patient should be sent for an in-depth medical check should not depend on the health of other patients).[^4] Below we show that for nonlinear functions $f$ and $g$, $(f,g)$-NAV rules might no longer have this independence property.
Let us consider the function $t_1(x)$, where $t_1(0)=0$ and $t_1(k) = 1$ for each $k \geq 1$. Then, the rule $(t_1,0)$-NAV, where we write $0$ to mean the function that takes value $0$ for all its inputs, seeks committees where each voter approves at least one committee member. In consequence, the committee that consists of all candidates is always winning under this rule (and, of course, also polynomial-time computable). However, it is far more interesting to seek the smallest $(t_1,0)$-NAV winning committee and we refer to the rule that outputs such committees as the Minimum Representation Rule (MRC). A more intuitive description of this rule follows.
Minimal Representing Committee rule (MRC).
: Under the MRC rule, we output all the committees of smallest size such that each voter (with a nonempty approval ballot) approves at least one of the committee members.
Intuitively, MRC is very close to the approval variant of the Chamberlin–Courant rule [@cha-cou:j:cc; @pro-ros-zoh:j:proportional-representation; @bet-sli-uhl:j:mon-cc]; we refer to the approval-based Chamberlin–Courant rule as CC. Under CC, we are given an approval election $E = (C,V)$, a committee size $k$, and our goal is to find a committee of size $k$ such that as many voters as possible approve at least one of the committee members (for the case of CC, typically the fact that a voter approves a candidate is interpreted as saying that the voter would feel represented by this candidate). MRC is, in a sense, a variant of CC where we insist that each voter be represented, but we want to keep the committee as small as possible.
Since computing an MRC winning committee means, in essence, solving the minimization version of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> problem, we next proposition follows (missing hardness proofs are available in the supplementary material).
Given an election $E$ and a positive integer $k$, it is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard to decide if there is an MRC winning committee of size at most $k$.
It suffices to note that our problem is equivalent to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> problem. To see this, consider a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> instance with $I =
(U,{\mathcal{S}}, k)$, where $U = \{u_1, \ldots, u_n\}$ is a set of elements, ${\mathcal{S}}= \{S_1, \ldots, S_m\}$ is a family of subsets of $U$, and $k$ is an integer. We form an election $E = (C,V)$ where for each set $S_i$ we have a candidate $s_i$ and for each element $u_j$ we have a voter that approves exactly those candidates $s_i$ for which $u_j \in S_i$. There is a winning MRC committee of size at most $k$ if and only if there is a collection of at most $k$ sets that cover $U$.
Fortunately, computing MRC winning committees is fixed-parameter tractable (is in ${{\mathrm{FPT}}}$) when parameterized by either the number of candidates or the number of voters (we omit the proof due to space restriction, but mention that the ideas are similar to those that we use for Theorem \[thm:threshold-ilp\]).
\[mrchard\] The problem of deciding if there is an MRC winning committee of size at most $k$ (in a given election $E$) is in ${{\mathrm{FPT}}}$, when parameterized either by the number of candidates or the number of voters.
The result for the number of candidates follows via a straightforward brute-force algorithm. For parameterization by the number of voters, we invoke the “candidate types” idea of Chen et al. [[@che-fal-nie-tal:c:few-voters]]{}: There are at most $2^n$ “candidate types” (where the type of a candidate is simply the set of voters that approve of him or her). Then, we observe that it suffices to consider at most one candidate of each type, since a winning committee certainly never contains two candidates of the same type because we could remove one). In ${{\mathrm{FPT}}}$-time, we try all possible committees of at most $2^n$ candidates (of different types).
By applying Experiment \[exp:main\] to MRC, we obtain that the average committee size is $2.68$ with standard deviation $0.46$. Since the rule is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard, we have used the brute-force algorithm to try all possible committees. We also present results for other probabilities of approving each candidate (see Figure \[fig:size\]). A positive feature of this rule is that the size of a winning committee does not depend much on the number of voters.
We can also use the standard greedy algorithm for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> to find approximate MRC committees; indeed, we view this algorithm as a voting rule in its own right.
GreedyMRC.
: Under GreedyMRC, we start with an empty committee and perform a sequence of iterations. In each iteration we (a) add to the current committee a candidate $c$ that is approved by the largest number of voters, and (b) we remove the voters that approve $c$ from consideration. After we have removed all voters with nonempty approval ballots, we output the resulting committee (formally, the rule outputs all the committees that can be obtained by breaking the internal ties in some way).
By connection to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span>, GreedyMRC is guaranteed to find a committee that is at most a factor $O(\log m)$ larger than the one given by the exact MRC (where $m$ is the number of candidates). In our experiment, with approval probabilities in $\{0.05, 0.1, \ldots, 0.95\}$, the average sizes of the GreedyMRC committees where no more than 8% larger than the average sizes of the MRC ones (for the case of 20 voters) or no more than 11% larger (for the case of 100 voters).
MRC and GreedyMRC appear to be well suited for choosing small committees of representative; our experiments confirm this intuition.
Recall that the function $t_1(x)$ is such that $t_1(0)=0$ and $t_1(k) = 1$ for each $k \geq 1$. Then, consider the $(0,t_1)$-NAV rule, which elects all the committees that contain candidates approved by all the voters. While the empty set is trivially a winning committee under this rule, it is more interesting to ask about the largest winning committee; we refer to the rule that outputs the largest winning $(0,t_1)$-NAV rule as the unanimity rule:
Unanimity Voting (UV).
: Under the unanimity rule, we output the committee of all the candidates approved by all the voters.
While computing the smallest $(t_1,0)$-NAV winning committee is hard (Proposition \[mrchard\]), it is easy to compute the (unique) largest $(0,t_1)$-NAV winning committee in polynomial time (i.e., there is a polynomial-time algorithm for UV).
As expected, in our experiment it never happened that some candidate was approved by all the voters (the probability of some candidate being approved by all $20$ voters is $20\cdot 2^{-20}$ and we considered only 10,000 elections).
Both for $(t_1,0)$-NAV and for $(0,t_1)$-NAV, it is trivial to compute *some* winning committee (the set of all candidates in the former case and the empty set in the latter). In general, however, this is not the case.
\[thm:hard-nav\] There exists an $(f,g)$-NAV rule for which deciding if there exists a committee with at least a given score is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard.
We consider specific functions $f$ and $g$ and show that for the corresponding $(f,g)$-NAV rule it is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard to decide if there exists a committee with at least a given score. The specific functions $f$ and $g$ we consider are as follows: $$f(x) =
\begin{cases}
0, & x = 0 \\
4, & x \geq 1
\end{cases}
\quad\quad g(x) =
\begin{cases}
0, & x = 0 \\
1, & x = 1 \\
2, & x \geq 2
\end{cases}$$
To show ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hardness, we reduce from the ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">X3C</span> problem. In it, we are given sets $\mathcal{S} = \{S_1, \ldots, S_n\}$ over elements $b_1, \ldots, b_n$. Each set contains exactly three integers and each elements is contained in exactly three sets. The task is to decide whether there is a set of sets $S' \subseteq \mathcal{S}$ such that each element $b_i$ is covered exactly once. We assume, without loss of generality, that $n > 39$.
Given an instance of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">X3C</span> we create an election as follows. For each set $S_j$ we create a candidate $S_j$. For each element $b_i$ we create three voters: $v_i^1$ $v_i^2$, and $v_i^3$; $v_i^1$ and $v_i^2$ are referred to as *set voters* while $v_i^3$ is referred to as *antiset voter*. Both voters $v_i^1$ and $v_i^2$ approve exactly the candidates corresponding to the sets which contain $b_i$, while the voter $v_i^3$ approves exactly the candidates corresponding to the sets which do not contain $b_i$. With respect to the reduced election, we ask whether a committee with score at least $7n$ exists. This finishes the description of the reduction. Next we prove its correctness.
Let $C$ be a committee for the reduced election and let $b_i$ be some element of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">X3C</span> instance. First we show that $C$ has at least six candidates in it. If it is not the case, then, since each set $S_j$ covers exactly three elements, it follows that there are at least $n - 18$ elements not covered by $C$.
Let $b_i$ be an element not covered by $C$. Then, the voters $v_i^1$, $v_i^2$, and $v_i^3$ corresponding to $b_i$ give at most $2$ points to $C$. If $C = \emptyset$ then each voter corresponding to $b_i$ gives $0$ points to $C$. Otherwise, if $C \neq \emptyset$, then each set voter (each of $v_i^1$ or $v_i^2$) gives at most $-1$ points to $C$, while the antiset voter gives at most $4$ points. Thus, the voters corresponding to $b_i$ give at most $2$ points to $C$.
There are at most $18$ elements which are covered by $C$. For each $b_i$ which is covered by $C$, each of the voters $v_i^1$, $v_i^2$, and $v_i^3$ corresponding to $b_i$ give at most $4$ points to $b_i$ (since this is the maximum number of points any voter gives to any committee). Thus, the voters corresponding to $b_i$ give at most $12$ points to $C$.
Summarizing the above two paragraphs, we have that the total score of $C$ which has at most six candidates is at most $(3k - 18) \cdot 2 + 18 \cdot 12$. Since we assume, without loss of generality, that $n > 39$, we have that this quantity is strictly less than $7n$. Therefore, from now on we assume that $C$ has at least six candidates in it.
Thus, let $C$ be a committee with at least six candidates in it and let $b_i$ be an element. Let $V_i = \{v_i^1, v_i^2, v_i^3\}$ and consider the following four cases depending on the number of times $b_i$ is covered by the sets $S_j$ corresponding to the candidates in $C$.
- **$\boldsymbol b_i$ is not covered by $C$:** In this case, the score given to $C$ by $V_i$ is at most $(-2) + (-2) + 4 = 0$. To see this, observe that each of the set voters ($v_i^1, v_i^2$) gives to $C$ exactly $-2$ points, since they do not approve any candidate from $C$ but disapprove all candidates in $C$; further, observe that the antiset voter ($v_i^3$) gives to $C$ at most $4$ points, as this is the maximum number of points any voter can give to any committee.
- **$\boldsymbol b_i$ is covered exactly once by $C$:** In this case, the score given to $C$ by $V_i$ is $2 + 2 + 4 - 1 = 7$. To see this, observe that each of the set voters ($v_i^1, v_i^2$) gives to $C$ exactly $2$ points, since they approve one candidate from $C$ (the one candidate corresponding to the one set covering $b_i$) and disapprove all other candidates in $C$; further, observe that the antiset voter ($v_i^3$) gives to $C$ exactly $3$ points, since it approves at least one candidate in $C$ and disapprove exactly one candidate in $C$ (the one candidate corresponding to the one set covering $b_i$).
- **$\boldsymbol b_i$ is covered more than once by $C$:** In this case, the score given to $C$ by $V_i$ is $2 + 2 + 4 - 2 = 6$. To see this, observe that each of the set voters ($v_i^1, v_i^2$) gives to $C$ exactly $2$ points, since they approve more than one candidate from $C$ (the two or three candidates corresponding to the two or three sets covering $b_i$) and disapprove all other candidates in $C$; further, observe that the antiset voter ($v_i^3$) gives to $C$ exactly $2$ points, since it approves at least one candidate in $C$ and disapprove two or three candidates in $C$ (the two or three candidates corresponding to the two or three sets covering $b_i$).
As there are exactly $n$ elements, it follows from the case analysis above that a committee $C$ with score at least $7n$ shall correspond to an exact cover.
Naturally, one can come up with many other interesting variants of the generalized Net-Approval voting rules. We recommend analysis of this class of rules for future research.
(Net-)Capped Satisfaction and FirstMajority
===========================================
Kilgour and Marshall [@kil-mar:b:approval-committees] introduced the following rule in the context of electing committees of fixed size, and Kilgour [@kil:j:variable-size-committee] recalled it in the context of elections with a variable number of winners, suggesting its net version.
Capped Satisfaction Approval (CSA).
: The Capped Satisfaction Approval (CSA) score of a committee $S$ is defined to be $ \sum_{v_i
\in V}\frac{|S \cap v_i|}{|S|}.$ The committees with the highest score tie as co-winners.
Net Capped Satisfaction Approval (NCSA).
: The NCSA rule uses the “net” variant of CSA score; specifically, the score of a committee $S$ is defined to be $
\sum_{v_i \in V}\frac{|S \cap v_i|}{|S|} - \frac{|S \cap \overline{v_i}|}{|S|}
$ and the committees with the highest score tie as co-winners.
In the definitions above, the idea behind dividing the scores by the size of the committee is to ensure that committees which are too large will not be elected. Unfortunately, for the rules as defined by Kilgour [@kil:j:variable-size-committee], this effect is too strong, leading mostly to committees containing only the candidate(s) with the highest approval score. We explain why this is the case and suggest a modification.
Consider an election $E = (C,V)$ with candidate set $C = \{c_1,
\ldots, c_m\}$ and preference profile $V=(\row vn)$. Let ${{\mathrm{s}}}(c_1), \ldots, {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_m)$ be the approval scores of the candidates, and, without loss of generality, assume that ${{\mathrm{s}}}(c_1) \ge {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_2)\ge \ldots\ge {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_m)$. Note that, if there are no ties regarding the approval scores, then for each $k$, the highest-scoring CSA committee of size $k$ is simply $S_k = \{c_1, \ldots, c_k\}$ and its score is $ \sum_{v_i \in
V}\frac{|S_k \cap v_i|}{|S_k|}= \frac{1}{k} \sum_{v_i \in V} |S_k
\cap v_i|=\frac{{{\mathrm{s}}}(c_1)+\ldots+{{\mathrm{s}}}(c_k)}{k}. $ This value, however, never increases with $k$ and, so, typically CSA outputs very small committees (which contain only the candidates with the highest approval score; the same reasoning applies to NCSA). Thus, we introduce the $q$-CSA and the $q$-NCSA rules, where $q$ is a real number, $0 \leq q \leq 1$, and (a) the $q$-CSA score of a committee $S$ in election $E = (C,V)$ is $ \sum_{v_i \in V}\frac{|S
\cap v_i|}{|S|^q}$, and (b) the $q$-NCSA score of this committee is $ \sum_{v_i \in V}\frac{|S \cap v_i|}{|S|^q} - \frac{|S \cap
\overline{v_i}|}{|S|^q}$. We note that for $q=1$ these rules are, simply, CSA and NCSA, whereas $0$-NCSA is NAV and $0$-CSA is a rule that outputs the committee that includes all the candidates that receive any approvals.
By the reasoning above, for each rational value of $q$, both $q$-CSA and $q$-NCSA are polynomial-time computable (using notation from previous paragraph, it suffices to consider the committees $S_1, S_2,
\ldots, S_m$ and output the one with the highest $q$-CSA or $q$-NCSA score, respectively).
For each rational value of $q$, there is a polynomial-time algorithm that, given an election, computes a winning committee for $q$-CSA and for $q$-NCSA.
-------------- ---------------
\(a) $q$-CSA \(b) $q$-NCSA
-------------- ---------------
To obtain some better understanding of the influence of the parameter $q$ on the size of the committees elected according to $q$-CSA and $q$-NCSA, we have repeated Experiment \[exp:main\] (with approval probability $p = \nicefrac{1}{2}$) for these rules for $q$ values between $0$ and $1$ with step $0.01$. The sizes of the average committee that we obtained are presented in Figure \[fig:csa-ncsa-sizes\]. The figures show results for the case of $20$ candidates and either $20$ or $100$ voters. While the average committee size for $q$-NCSA does not depend very strongly on the number of voters (and its dependence on $q$ is appealing), the results for $q$-CSA are worrying. Not only does the rule elect (nearly) all candidates for most values of $q$, but also for the values where it is more selective (e.g., $q=0.9$), the average size of its committees depends very strongly on the number of voters. In Figure \[fig:size\] we show average sizes of $0.9$-CSA and of $0.9$-NCSA committees, depending on the probability of candidate approval. These figures confirm our worries regarding $q$-CSA rules. While the dependence of the average committee size on the candidate approval probability for $0.9$-NCSA has the same nature irrespective of the number of voters (it is, roughly speaking, convex both for $20$ and $100$ voters), the same dependence for $0.9$-CSA changes its nature (from roughly convex for the case of $20$ voters to roughly concave for the case of $100$ voters). In Table \[tab:collection\] we also show average committee sizes for $0.5$-CSA and $0.5$-NCSA for the candidate approval probability $p=\nicefrac{1}{2}$.
Given the above experiments, we believe that for practical applications, where we may have limited control on the number of candidates, the number of voters, and the types of the votes cast, choosing an appropriate value of the parameter $q$ for $q$-CSA rules (e.g., to promote committees close to a particular size) would be very difficult. On the other hand, $q$-NCSA might be robust enough as to be practical.
One could consider generalized variants of the $q$-CSA and $q$-NCSA rules in the same way as we have considered generalized NAV rules. We leave this as future work and we conclude the section by considering a different rule of Kilgour [@kil:j:variable-size-committee], which is not an (N)CSA rule, but which is somewhat similar since it also chooses a certain number of candidates with the highest approval scores.
FirstMajority.
: Consider an election with candidates $C = \{c_1, \ldots, c_m\}$. For each $c_i \in C$ denote by $s(c_i)$ the approval score of $c_i$. Reorder the candidates so that ${{\mathrm{s}}}(c_1) \geq
{{\mathrm{s}}}(c_2) \geq \cdots \geq {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_m)$. The FirstMajority rule outputs the smallest committee of the form $\{c_1,c_2, \ldots,
c_j\}$ such that $\sum_{t=1}^{j} {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_t) > \sum_{q=j+1}^{m}
{{\mathrm{s}}}(c_q)$. Note that if some candidates are approved by the same number of voters then this rule may return more than one committee, corresponding to the various possible ways of reordering the candidates.
The very definition of FirstMajority gives a polynomial-time algorithm for computing its winning committees.
There is a polynomial-time algorithm that finds some winning committee under the FirstMajority rule.
Under our experimental setup (see Experiment \[exp:main\]), on the average, the FirstMajority rule outputs committees of size $9.51$ (with standard deviation $0.43$). Further, the size of the committee is almost independent of the number of voters and the candidate approval probability (see Figure \[fig:size\]).
Threshold Rules
===============
We conclude our discussion by considering the threshold rules of Fishburn and Pekeč [@fishburn2004approval]. Let $t \colon {{{\mathbb{N}}}}\rightarrow {{{\mathbb{N}}}}$ be some function referred to as the *threshold function*. The $t$-Threshold rule is defined as follows.
$\boldsymbol{t}$-Threshold.
: Consider an election $E =
(C,V)$. Under the $t$-Threshold rule, we say that a voter $v_i \in
V$ approves a committee $S$ if $|S \cap v_i| \geq t(|S|)$. The $t$-Threshold rule outputs those committees that are approved by the largest number of voters.
We consider the following three (in some sense extreme) examples of threshold functions: (a) the unit function $t_{{\mathrm{unit}}}= t_1$ (recall the discussion of generalized net-approval rules); (b) the majority function, $t_{{{\mathrm{maj}}}}(k) = \nicefrac{k}{2}$; and (c) the full function, $t_{{{\mathrm{full}}}}(k) = k$.
The $t_{{\mathrm{unit}}}$-Threshold rule is very similar to MRC because, under the $t_{{\mathrm{unit}}}$ threshold function, a voter approves a committee if it includes at least one candidate that this voter approves. Thus the rule outputs all committees $S$ such that each voter with a nonempty approval ballot approves some member of $S$ (MRC outputs the smallest of these committees). Thus finding the largest winning committee is easy (take all the candidates), but finding the smallest one is hard (as then we have the MRC rule).
On the other hand, the $t_{{\mathrm{full}}}$-Threshold rule outputs exactly those committees $S$ that (a) each candidate in $S$ has the highest approval score and (b) all the candidates in $S$ are approved by the same group of voters. It seems, however, that AV is a simpler and more natural rule than the $t_{{\mathrm{full}}}$-Threshold rule. Finally, we consider the $t_{{\mathrm{maj}}}$-Threshold rule, introduced and studied by Fishburn and Pekeč [@fishburn2004approval]; $t_{{\mathrm{maj}}}$-Threshold winning committees receive broad support from the voters, and—as suggested by Fishburn and Pekeč—should be “of moderate size”. Computing $t_{{\mathrm{maj}}}$-Threshold winning committees is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard, but there are ${{\mathrm{FPT}}}$ algorithms.
The problem of deciding if there is a nonempty committee that satisfies all the voters under the $t_{{{\mathrm{maj}}}}$-threshold rule is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard.
We give a reduction from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> problem. Let our input instance be $I = (U,{\mathcal{S}},k)$, where $U = \{u_1, \ldots,
u_n\}$ is a set of elements, ${\mathcal{S}}= \{S_1, \ldots, S_m\}$ is a family of subsets of $U$, and $k$ is a positive integer. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $m > k$ (otherwise there would be a trivial solution for our input instance).
We form an election with the candidate set $C = F \cup {\mathcal{S}}$, where $F
= \{f_1, \ldots, f_k\}$ is a set of filler candidates and ${\mathcal{S}}$ is a set of candidates corresponding to the sets from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> instance (by a small abuse of notation, we use the same symbols for ${\mathcal{S}}$ and its contents irrespective if we interpret it as part of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> instance or as candidates in our elections). We introduce $kn+2$ voters:
1. The first voter approves of all the filler candidates and the second voter approves all the set candidates. We refer to these voters as the balancing voters.
2. For each element $u_i \in U$, we have a group of $k$ voters, so that the $j$th voter in this group ($j \in [k]$) approves of all the filler candidates except $f_j$, and also of exactly those set candidates that correspond to sets containing $u_i$.
We claim that there is a nonempty committee $S$ such that every voter approves at least half of the members of $S$ (i.e., every voter is satisfied) if and only if $I$ is a *yes*-instance. Let us assume that $S$ is a committee that satisfies all the voters. We note that $S$ must contain the same number of filler and set candidates. If it contained more set candidates than filler candidates then the first balancing voter would not be satisfied, and if it contained more filler candidates than set candidates, then the second balancing voter would not be satisfied. Thus, there is a number $k'$ such that $|S| = 2k'$, $k' \leq k$, and $S$ contains exactly $k'$ filler and $k'$ set candidates.
We claim that these $k'$ set candidates correspond to a cover of $U$. Consider some arbitrary element $u_i$ and some filler candidate $f_j$ such that $f_j$ does not belong to $S$ (since $m > k \geq k'$ such candidates must exist). There is a voter that approves all the filler candidates except $f_j$ and all the set candidates that contain $u_i$. Thus, the committee contains exactly $k'-1$ filler candidates that this voter approves and—to satisfy this voter—must contain at least one set candidate that contains $u_i$. Since $u_i$ was chosen arbitrarily, we conclude that the set candidates from $S$ form a cover of $U$. There are at most $k$ of them, so $I$ is a *yes*-instance.
On the other hand, if there is a family of $k' \leq k$ sets that jointly cover $U$, then a committee that consists of arbitrarily chosen $k'$ filler candidates and the set candidates corresponding to the cover satisfies all the voters.
\[thm:threshold-ilp\] Let $t$ be a linear function (i.e., $t(k) = \alpha k$ for some $\alpha \in [0,1]$). There are ${{\mathrm{FPT}}}$ algorithms for computing the smallest and the largest winning committees under the $t$-Threshold rule in ${{\mathrm{FPT}}}$ time for parameterizations by the number of candidates and by the number of voters.
For parameterization by the number of candidates it suffices to try all possible committees. For parameterization by the number of voters, we combine the candidate-type technique of Chen et al. [@che-fal-nie-tal:c:few-voters] and an integer linear programming (ILP) approach. The *type* of candidate $c$ is the subset of voters that approve $c$. For an election with $n$ voters, each candidate has one of at most $2^n$ types. We describe an algorithm for computing a committee approved by at least $N$ voters (where $N$ is part of the input; it suffices to try all values of $N \in [n]$ to find a committee with the highest score). We focus on computing the largest winning committee.
Let $E = (C,V)$ be the input election with $n$ voters. We form an instance of the ILP problem as follows. For each candidate type $i$, $i \in [2^n]$, we introduce integer variable $x_i$ (intuitively $x_i$ is the number of candidates of type $i$ that are included in the winning committee). For each $i \in [2^n]$, we form constraint $0 \leq x_i \leq n_i$, where $n_i$ is the number of candidates of type $i$ in election $E$. We also add constraint $\sum_{i \in
[2^n]}x_i \geq 1$ as the winning committee must be nonempty.
For each voter $j \in [n]$, we define an integer variable $v_j$ (the intention is that $v_j$ is $1$ if the $j$th voter approves of the committee specified by variables $x_0, \ldots, x_{2^n-1}$ and it is $0$ otherwise; see also comments below). For each $j \in [n]$, we introduce constraints $0 \leq v_j \leq 1$, and: $$\label{eq:ilp}
\textstyle
\left(\sum_{i \in \textrm{types}(v_j)} x_i\right) -
t\left(\sum_{i \in [2^n]} x_i\right) \geq -(1-v_j)n,$$ where $\textrm{types}(v_j)$ is the set of all candidate types approved by voter $v_j$. To understand these constraints, note that $\sum_{i \in [2^n]} x_i$ is the size of the selected committee, $\sum_{i \in \textrm{types}(v_j)} x_i$ is the number of committee members approved by the $j$th voter, and, thus, Eq. is satisfied either if $v_j = 0$ or $v_j = 1$ and there is an integer $k$ such that the $j$th voter approves at least $t(k)$ members of the selected size-$k$ committee. We add constraint $v_1
+ \cdots + v_n \geq N$ (i.e., we require that at least $N$ voters are satisfied with the selected committee; this also prevents satisfying Eq. by setting $v_j = 0$ for all $j \in
[n]$).
To compute the largest committee approved by at least $N$ voters, we find a feasible solution (for the above-described integer linear program) that maximizes $\sum_{i \in [2^n]}x_i$ (we use the famous ${{\mathrm{FPT}}}$-time algorithm of Lenstra [@len:j:integer-fixed]).
[0.5]{}
[0.5]{}
---------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------
(20 voters) (100 voters)
\[1mm\] $\nicefrac{2}{3}$-NAV $1.02 \pm 1.01$ $0.01\pm 0.09$ ${{\mathrm{P}}}$
AV $1.52 \pm 0.89$ $1.20 \pm 0.50$ ${{\mathrm{P}}}$
$0.9$-NCSA $1.52 \pm 0.89$ $1.50 \pm 0.78$ ${{\mathrm{P}}}$
MRC $2.63 \pm 0.48$ $4.08 \pm 0.26$ ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard
GreedyMRC $2.75 \pm 0.46$ $4.55 \pm 0.53$ ${{\mathrm{P}}}$
$t_{{{\mathrm{maj}}}}$-Thr (min) $2.75 \pm 1.33$ $\boldsymbol{2.05 \pm 0.34}$ ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard
$0.5$-NCSA $5.57 \pm 2.14$ $5.57 \pm 2.18$ ${{\mathrm{P}}}$
$0.9$-CSA $5.63 \pm 3.02$ $\boldsymbol{14.67 \pm 2.75}$ ${{\mathrm{P}}}$
$t_{{{\mathrm{maj}}}}$-Thr (max) $7.68 \pm 3.27$ $\boldsymbol{2.20 \pm 0.78}$ ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard
NAV $8.25 \pm 2.19$ $9.19 \pm 2.23$ ${{\mathrm{P}}}$
FirstMajority $9.51 \pm 0.43$ $9.50 \pm 0.25$ ${{\mathrm{P}}}$
$0.5$-CSA $19.74 \pm 0.52$ $20.00 \pm 0.00$ ${{\mathrm{P}}}$
---------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------
: \[tab:collection\]Average committee sizes (see Experiment \[exp:main\] for information on how the elections were generated). Rules are sorted with respect to the average committee size for $20$ voters (results in bold are those that would change their position if we sorted for the average committee size with $100$ voters). $t_{{\mathrm{maj}}}$-Thr. (min) and $t_{{\mathrm{maj}}}$-Thr (max) refer to the smallest and largest committees under the $t_{{\mathrm{maj}}}$-Threshold rule.
In our experiments, the average size of the smallest $t_{{\mathrm{maj}}}$-Threshold committee was $2.84$. On the other hand, the largest committee contained, on average, $7.52$ candidates. Yet, for the case of $100$ voters the difference between the sizes of the largest committee and the smallest committee are much more modest (see Table \[tab:collection\]).
Largest winning committees under $t_{{\mathrm{maj}}}$-Threshold are typically of even size (if $S$ is a winning committee of odd size then it still wins after adding an arbitrary candidate).
Conclusion and Further Research
===============================
We have argued that elections with variable number of winners are useful and we have analyzed a number of such rules already present in the literature and provided generalizations for some of them, finding polynomial algorithms in most cases, but also identifying interesting ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard rules. Further analysis (both axiomatic and computational) is the most pressing direction for future research. We also note that in many practical cases there is a societal preference on the size of the committee to be elected, which is usually single-peaked. Incorporating this preference into the voting rules is an interesting direction of research. Finally, as in principle multiwinner voting rules with variable number of winners cluster the candidates into two sets (those in the winning committee, and the rest), adapting ideas from data and cluster analysis might prove useful in designing other rules better tailored for this task.
Material that Piotr Wants to Go Over
====================================
Approval-based Elections
------------------------
An approval-based election $E = (C,V)$ consists of a set $C = \{c_1, \ldots, c_m\}$ of candidates and of a collection $V = (v_1, \ldots, v_n)$ of voters, called a [*profile*]{}. Each voter $v_i$ specifies his or her preferences by naming a subset of candidates that he or she approves of; to simplify notation, we refer to the set of candidates approved by $v_i$ simply as $v_i$ (whether we mean the voter or the set of candidates that he or she approves will always be clear from the context). For a given subset $S$ of the candidate set $C$, by $\overline{S}$ we mean the candidates not in $S$, that is, $\overline{S} = C \setminus S$.
A voting rule for elections with variable number of winners is a function ${\mathcal{R}}$ that, given an election $E = (C,V)$, returns a family of subsets of $C$ (the set of committees which tie as winners). The main point of difference between the type of voting rules we study in the current paper and the voting rules which select a committee of some specified size $k$ is that the size of winning committees might depend on the profile $V$ and it can be even empty.[^5]
For a general review of multi-winner election procedures using approval balloting, see Kilgour [@kil:chapter:approval-multiwinner].
Voting Rules with Variable Number of Winners
--------------------------------------------
Kilgour [@kil:j:variable-size-committee] describe a number of rules which select a variable number of winners. In this paper we consider most of the rules described by Kilgour [@kil:j:variable-size-committee], some of which we generalize in a natural way and some of which tweak to make them meaningful.
In the following definitions, we denote the input election by $E =
(C,V)$.
Approval Voting (AV).
: Under AV we output a single committee that consists of the candidates approved by the largest number of voters; that is, the unique selected committee consists of all candidates with the highest approval score.
Net Approval Voting (NAV).
: The score of a committee $S$ under NAV is defined to be $$\sum_{v_i \in V}\big(|S \cap v_i| - |S \cap \overline{v_i}|\big),$$ where the committees with the highest score tie as co-winners. Interestingly, we will see that, under NAV, there is always a unique winning committee. It is easy to see that this is the same as the minisum or MV [@brams2007minimax].
Generalized NAV.
: We generalize the NAV rule as follows. Let $f$ and $g$ be two functions, $f,g \colon {{{\mathbb{N}}}}\rightarrow {{{\mathbb{N}}}}$. We define the $(f,g)$-NAV score of a committee $S$ to be $$\sum_{v_i \in V}\big(f(|S \cap v_i|) - g(|S \cap \overline{v_i}|)\big),$$ where the committees with the highest score tie as co-winners.
Indeed, it would also be natural to include the terms $f'(|\overline{S} \cap \overline{v_i}|)$ and $-g'(|\overline{S} \cap v_i|)$ (for two additional functions $f'$ and $g'$) in the definition of the score above. The former would measure the number of not-included committee members that $v_i$ did not want to include, while the latter would measure the number of not-included committee members that $v_i$ did want to include. While such a generalization would be natural, we do not discuss it due to limited space.
Capped Satisfaction Approval (CSA).
: The Capped Satisfaction Approval (CSA) score of a committee $S$ is defined to be $$\sum_{v_i \in V}\frac{|S \cap v_i|}{|S|},$$ where the committees with the highest score tie as co-winners.
Net Capped Satisfaction Approval (NCSA).
: The NCSA rule works quite similary to CSA, except that it uses the “net” variant of score, specifically, where the score of a committee $S$ is defined to be $$\sum_{v_i \in V}\frac{|S \cap v_i|}{|S|} - \frac{|S \cap \overline{v_i}|}{|S|},$$ and the committees with the highest score tie as co-winners.
Threshold Rules [@fishburn2004approval].
: Let $t \colon {{{\mathbb{N}}}}\rightarrow {{{\mathbb{N}}}}$ be some function, which is referred to as the *threshold function*. Under the $t$-Threshold rule, we say that a voter $v_i$ approves a committee $S$ if $|S \cap v_i| \geq t(|S|)$. The $t$-Threshold rule outputs those committees that are approved by the largest number of voters. As several natural threshold functions, in this paper we consider the following.
1. *The unit threshold function:* $$t_{\mathrm{unit}}(k) = \begin{cases} 1, & k \geq 1 \\
0, & k = 0
\end{cases}.$$
2. *The majority threshold function:* $$t_{\mathrm{maj}}(k) = \nicefrac{k}{2}.$$
3. *The full threshold function:* $$t_{\mathrm{full}}(k) = k.$$
MinimaxAV.
: Let $S$ and $T$ be two subsets of the candidate set $C$. The Hamming distance between $S$ and $T$ is defined to be $d(S,T) = |S \setminus T| + |T \setminus S|$. Under the MinimaxAV rule, we output the committees $S$ for which the score $\max_{v_i \in V} d(S, v_i)$ is the smallest.
FirstMajority.
: For each candidate $c_i$, let ${{\mathrm{s}}}(c_i)$ be the number of voters that approve $c_i$, i.e., the approval score of $c_i$. Let us reorder the candidates so that ${{\mathrm{s}}}(c_1) \geq {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_2) \geq \cdots \geq {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_m)$. The FirstMajority rule outputs the smallest committee of the form $\{c_1,c_2, \ldots, c_j\}$ such that $\sum_{t=1}^{j} {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_t) > \sum_{q=j+1}^{m} {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_q)$. Notice that, if some candidates are approved by the same number of voters, then this rule may return more than one committee, since in this case there would be several possible reorderings of the candidates.
Minimal Representative Committee (MRC)
: We say that a committee is representative if every voter approves at least one of its members. The rule that outputs such a committee must be computationally hard. Is it?
Winner Determination
====================
The main purpose of all multiwinner voting rules, and of multiwinner voting rules which select variable number of winners in particular, is to identify the winning committees. Thus, the first computational problem whose complexity we study in this paper is the winner determination problem.
The *winner determination* problem for a voting rule ${\mathcal{R}}$ which select a variable number of winners is, given an election $E$, to compute any one winning committee for $E$ under ${\mathcal{R}}$.
Indeed, we might also ask for computing all winning committees, and even for computing the smallest and the largest winning committees under a particular rule. In fact, asking for the smallest committee seems very natural and may affect the complexity of the rule; in this paper, however, we concentrate on the variant of the winner determination problem as defined above, which seems to be the simplest variant of this problem.
We begin by describing several efficient algorithms which compute a winning committee under some of the rules we consider in this paper.
There are polynomial-time winner determination algorithms for (N)AV, FirstMajority, as well as for threshold rules with either $t_{unit}$ or $t_{full}$.
Let us consider the various voting rules one by one.
AV.
: For AV, we can compute the approval scores of all candidates, and pick those candidates with the highest approval scores.
NAV.
: For NAV, the (unique) winning committee consists of those candidates which are approved by at least half of the voters, thus can be found by considering each candidate on its own.
CSA and NCSA.
: For CSA and for NCSA, let us fix the size $k$ of the committee $0 \leq k \leq m$. Then the rule will pick the committee consisting of the $k$ candidates with the highest approval scores. This will, indeed, maximise $$\sum_{v_i \in V}\frac{|S \cap v_i|}{|S|}= \frac{1}{k} \sum_{v_i \in V} |S \cap v_i|.$$ As in the discussion of the FirstMajority rule, let ${{\mathrm{s}}}(c_i)$ be the number of voters that approve $c_i$, i.e., the approval score of $c_i$. Let us reorder the candidates so that ${{\mathrm{s}}}(c_1) \geq {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_2) \geq \cdots \geq {{\mathrm{s}}}(c_m)$. Then for $k=1$ the maximum will be ${{\mathrm{s}}}(c_1)$, for $k=2$ it will be $\frac{1}{2} ({{\mathrm{s}}}(c_1)+{{\mathrm{s}}}(c_2))$, etc. Then, when $k$ varies, clearly, the rule will pick the committee of one, i.e., the candidate with the highest approval score.
The same will be true for NCSA and the highest net approval score. The goal of this rule was to make large committees unattractive but it makes them too unattractive. We will try to fix this rule later.
FirstMajority.
: The definition of the FirstMajority rule already gives an iterative polynomial-time winner determination algorithm.
Threshold Rule with either $t_{unit}$ or $t_{full}$.
: For threshold rule with $t_{unit}$, we can select as a winning committee the committee consisting of all candidates. For threshold rule with $t_{full}$, we can select as a winning committee a committee consisting of only one candidate, specifically a candidate with the highest approval score.
While the theorem above shows that there are efficient algorithms which select a winning committee under some of the rules we consider in this paper, for some other rules this is (presumably) not the case.
We reduce from a restricted variant of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> problem, denoted by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span>. In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span> problem, we are given a set $X = \{x_1, \ldots, x_{3n}\}$ of elements and a family ${\mathcal{S}}= \{S_1, \ldots, S_{3n}\}$ of sets, such that (a) each set contains exactly three elements and (b) each element belongs to exactly three sets. We ask whether there is a family of $n$ sets from ${\mathcal{S}}$ whose union is exactly $X$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span> is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard [@gonzalez1985clustering].
Given an instance of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span>, we construct an instance of winner determination for GNAV, specifically $(f,g)$-NAV with the functions $$f(i) = \begin{cases}
0, & i = 0 \\
1, & i \geq 1
\end{cases}$$ and $$g(i) = \begin{cases}
0, & i < n \\
1, & i \geq n.
\end{cases}$$
For each set $S_j$ in $G$ we create a candidate $S_j$. For each element $x_i \in S_j' \cap S_j'' \cap S_j'''$ we create a voter $x_i$ approving $S_j'$, $S_j''$, and $S_j'''$. Next we argue that there is a winning committee with score at least $3n$ in the constructed election if and only if the instance of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span> is a yes-instance.
For the first direction, given an exact cover, we select those sets which form the cover. There are exactly $n$ sets in the cover, and each voter is approving at least one set of the cover. Thus, each voter increases the score of the committee by $1$ due to the function $f$, and do not decrease it, due to the function $g$.
For the second direction, notice that, (1) choosing an exact cover achieves the best score out of those committees of size $n$; (2) no committee of size less than $n$ can cover all voters, so it cannot get $1$ point from all voters; and (3) any committee with more than $n$ candidates (as long as there is at least one element not covered by more than one set) will get a decrease of its score by at least one, due to the function $g$.
It is worthwhile to notice that, while the previous theorem shows that GNAV is NP-hard for some functions $f$ and $g$, there are some $(f,g)$-NAV rules for which computing a winning committee can be done in polynomial-time problem, albeit computing the smallest winning committee is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard. Consider the GNAV rule defined via the following functions: $$f(i) = \begin{cases}
0, & i = 0 \\
1, & i \geq 1
\end{cases}$$ and $$g(i) = 0.$$ While the committee consisting of all candidates achieves the highest score, since it gets $1$ point from each voter (which is the maximum it can get from each voter), computing the smallest winning committee is equivalent to solving (the minimization version of) Set Cover, and thus, NP-hard (we do not include a formal proof of this claim due to space restrictions).
The winner determination problem for MRC rule is NP-hard.
it’s basically the maximization version of Set Cover. Fishburn & Pekeč [@fishburn2004approval], in particular, prove that determining whether there exists a committee of size $k$ approved by all voters is NP-complete.
The problem of deciding if there is a committee that satisfies all the voters under the $t_{maj}$-threshold rule is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard.
We give a reduction from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> problem. Let our input instance be $I = (U,{\mathcal{S}},k)$, where $U = \{u_1, \ldots,
u_n\}$ is a set of elements, ${\mathcal{S}}= \{S_1, \ldots, S_m\}$ is a family of subsets of $U$, and $k$ is a positive integer. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $m > k$ (otherwise there would be a trivial solution for our input instance).
We form an election with candidate set $C = F \cup {\mathcal{S}}$, where $F
= \{f_1, \ldots, f_k\}$ is a set of filler candidates and ${\mathcal{S}}$ is a set of candidates corresponding to the sets from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> instance (by a small abuse of notation, we use the same symbols for ${\mathcal{S}}$ and its contents irrespective if we interpret it as part of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> instance or as candidates in our elections). We introduce $kn+2$ voters:
1. The first voter approves of all the filler candidates and the second voter approves all the set candidates. We refer to these voters as the balancing voters.
2. For each element $u_i \in U$, we have a group of $k$ voters, so that the $j$th [ where?]{} voter in this group ($j \in [k]$) approves of all the filler candidates except $f_j$, and of exactly those set candidates that correspond to sets containing $u_i$.
We claim that there is a committee $S$ that satisfies all the voters in the above election (i.e., each voter approves of at least half of the members of $S$) if and only if $I$ is a *yes*-instance of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span>.
Let us assume that $S$ is a committee that satisfies all the candidates. We note that $S$ must contain the same number of filler and set candidates. If it contained more set candidates than filler candidates then the first balancing voter would not be satisfied, and if it contained more filler candidates than set candidates, then the second balancing voter would not be satisfied. Thus there is a number $k'$ such that $|S| = 2k'$, $k' \leq k$, and $S$ contains exactly $k'$ filler and $k'$ set candidates.
We claim that these $k'$ set candidates correspond to a cover of $U$. Consider some arbitrary element $u_i$ and some filler candidate $f_j$ such that $f_j$ does not belong to $S$ (since $m > k \geq k'$ such candidate must exist). There is a voter that approves all the filler candidates except $f_j$ and all the set candidates that contain $u_i$. Thus the committee contains exactly $k'-1$ filler candidates that this voter approves and—to satisfy this voter—must contain at least one set candidate that contains $u_i$. Since $u_i$ was chosen arbitrarily, we conclude that the set candidates from $S$ form a cover of $U$. They are at most $k$ of them, so $I$ is a *yes*-instance.
On the other hand, if there is a family of $k' \leq k$, sets that jointly cover the elements from $U$, then a committee that consists of arbitrarily chosen $k'$ filler candidates and the set candidates corresponding to the cover satisfies all the voters.
Consider $t_{maj}$-threshold rule. For fixed $m$ and $n$ let us denote by $s_k$ the score of the committee of size $k$ that is approved by the largest number of voters. We ask if the sequence $\row sm$ is single-peaked? ( This might have some algorithmic consequences.)
Another voting rule for which (presumably) no efficient algorithm exist is the MinimaxAV voting rule.
Winner determination for MinimaxAV is NP-hard.
MinimaxAV is equivalent to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closest String</span> problem, in which we are given $n$ strings, each of length $m$, and the task is to find a string of length $m$ whose Hamming distance to all the given strings is at most some given value $d$. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closest String</span> problem is known to be NP-hard [@frances1997covering; @lanctot2003distinguishing] even for binary alphabets. The equivalence is quite straight-forward, by matching each given string to a voter and each candidate to a position in each string (such that a candidate is approved by some voter if, say, its corresponding position in the respective string is $1$).
Interestingly, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Closest String</span> problem is fixed-parameter tractable for either the allowed distance $d$ or the number of strings $n$ [@gramm2003fixed]; in our setting, this means that there are algorithms which compute a winning committee under MinimaxAV which run in some specific polynomial time as long as either the maximum hamming distance between any voter to the winning committee is small or the number $n$ of voters is small.
Election Control
================
There are various well-studied control problems, all of which can be understood by taking the point of view of the election organizer (or some other external agent), where the goal is usually to make some preferred candidate become a winner in a modified election (or prevent some despised candidate from being a winner). The allowed control operations are usually adding voters, deleting voters, adding candidates, or deleting candidates.
Here we consider the operations of deleting voters and deleting candidates, but the goal of the election organizer (or the external agent) is to either increase the size of the winning committee of decrease its size. Interestingly, this type of control goal makes sense only in elections with variable number of winners, and this is the main reason why we chose to study this control goal.
To formally define the election control problems we consider in this paper, we use the following definitions.
Let $E$ be an election and let ${\mathcal{R}}$ be a voting rule. Then, we define $lb_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E)$ to be the size of the smallest winning committee for $E$ under ${\mathcal{R}}$. Similarly, we define $ub_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E)$ to be the size of the largest winning committee for $E$ under ${\mathcal{R}}$.
Now we are ready to formally define the election control problems we consider in this paper.
Let $E$ be an election, let ${\mathcal{R}}$ be a voting rule, and let $b$ be a positive integer (the budget). We define the following election control problems.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">${\mathcal{R}}$-DelVInc.</span>]{} The question is whether there is an election $E'$, created from $E$ by deleting at most $b$ voters from $E$, for which $ub_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E') > ub_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E)$.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">${\mathcal{R}}$-DelVDec.</span>]{} The question is whether there is an election $E'$, created from $E$ by deleting at most $b$ voters from $E$, for which $ub_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E') < ub_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E)$.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">${\mathcal{R}}$-DelCInc.</span>]{} The question is whether there is an election $E'$, created from $E$ by deleting at most $b$ candidates from $E$, for which $ub_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E') > ub_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E)$.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">${\mathcal{R}}$-DelCDec.</span>]{} The question is whether there is an election $E'$, created from $E$ by deleting at most $b$ candidates from $E$, for which $ub_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E') < ub_{{\mathcal{R}}}(E)$.
We consider the election control problems defined above, for those voting rules considered in this paper for which winner determination is polynomial-time computable (we do so since winner determination is equivalent to each of those election control problems, for $b = 0$; thus, NP-hardness of winner determination implies NP-hardness of each of those election control problems). Our results are summarized in Table \[table:results\].
${\mathcal{R}}$ DelVDec DelVInc DelCDec DelCInc
----------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- -- -- --
AV NP-h NP-h P P
NAV NP-h NP-h P P
FM P P P P
We begin with the AV rule.
\[theorem:AV-DelVInc\] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AV-DelVDec</span> is NP-hard.
We reduce from a restricted variant of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> problem, denoted by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span>. In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span> problem, we are given a set $X = \{x_1, \ldots, x_{3n}\}$ of elements and a family ${\mathcal{S}}= \{S_1, \ldots, S_{3n}\}$ of sets, such that (a) each set contains exactly three elements and (b) each element belongs to exactly three sets. We ask whether there is a family of $n$ sets from ${\mathcal{S}}$ whose union is exactly $X$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span> is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard [@gonzalez1985clustering].
Given an instance of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span>, we construct an instance for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AV-DelVDec</span>, as follows. For each element $x_i$ we have a candidate $x_i$ and a candidate $x_i'$. Further, we have a candidate $a$, a candidate $a'$, and a candidate $p$. For each set $S_j = \{x_{j1}, x_{j2}, x_{j3}\}$ we have a voter $S_j$ approving the candidates $x_{j1}$, $x_{j1}'$, $x_{j2}$, $x_{j2}'$, $x_{j3}$, $x_{j3}'$, $a$, and $a'$. Further, we have $2n - 2$ voters, each approving $x_1, x_1' \ldots, x_{3n}, x_{3n}'$ and another $2n + 1$ voters, each approving only $p$. We set the budget to $n$.
Notice that, initially, the score of both $a$ and $a'$ is $3n$, the score of each candidate $x_i$ and $x_i'$ is $2n + 1$, and the score of $p$ is $2n + 1$. Specifically, the size of the winning committee is two, containing $a$ and $a'$.
First, given an exact cover, we delete all those voters corresponding to the exact cover. As a result, the score of $a$ and $a'$ decreases to $2n$, the score of each $x_i$ decrease by $1$ (since it is an exact cover) to $2n$, and the score of $p$ remains the same, at $2n + 1$. Specifically, the size of the winning committee is one, containing only $p$.
Second, we shall make $p$ a unique candidate with maximal approval score, since in any modified election the score of $a$ will be equal to the score $a'$ and the score of each $x_i$ will be equal to the score of $x_i'$. Thus, it follows that we shall decrease the score of $a$ and $a'$ by at least $n$, while also decreasing the score of each $x_i$ and $x_i'$ by at least $1$. Finally, with a budget of $n$ this must correspond to an exact cover.
The following result is achieved by modifying the reduction described in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:AV-DelVInc\]; specifically, by further cloning $a$ and each $x_i$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AV-DelVInc</span> is NP-hard.
While the last two results show that, for AV, changing the size of the winning committee by deleting voters is computationally hard, it turns out that this task is computationally easy when deleting candidates instead of voters.
There are polynomial-time algorithms for both <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AV-DelCDec</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AV-DelCInc</span>.
This follows by computing the approval scores of all candidates and ordering the candidates accordingly, specifically grouping the candidates. Then, we can check whether it is possible to achieve your goals or not.
We go on to consider NAV. Similarly to AV, also for NAV, changing the size of the winning committee by deleting candidates is computationally easy.
There are polynomial-time algorithms for both <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NAV-DelCDec</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NAV-DelCInc</span>.
For decreasing, we shall consider all candidates which are currently winning (i.e., those candidates for which at least half of the voters approve), and out of these candidates select some to delete. For increasing, we simply cannot do anything, so we can just reject.
Changing the size of the committee by deleting voters, however, is computationally hard for NAV.
\[theorem:NAV-DelVInc\] <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NAV-DelVDec</span> is NP-hard.
The proof resembles the proof of Theorem \[theorem:AV-DelVInc\]. We reduce from a restricted variant of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set Cover</span> problem, denoted by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span>. In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span> problem, we are given a set $X = \{x_1, \ldots, x_{3n}\}$ of elements and a family ${\mathcal{S}}= \{S_1, \ldots, S_{3n}\}$ of sets, such that (a) each set contains exactly three elements and (b) each element belongs to exactly three sets. We ask whether there is a family of $n$ sets from ${\mathcal{S}}$ whose union is exactly $X$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span> is ${{\mathrm{NP}}}$-hard [@gonzalez1985clustering].
Given an instance of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Restricted X3C</span>, we construct an instance for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AV-DelVDec</span>, as follows. For each element $x_i$ we have a candidate $x_i$ and a candidate $x_i'$. Further, we have a candidate $a$, a candidate $a'$, and a candidate $p$. For each set $S_j = \{x_{j1}, x_{j2}, x_{j3}\}$ we have a voter $S_j$ approving the candidates $x_{j1}$, $x_{j1}'$, $x_{j2}$, $x_{j2}'$, $x_{j3}$, $x_{j3}'$, $a$, and $a'$. Further, we have $2n - 2$ voters, each approving $p, x_1, x_1' \ldots, x_{3n}, x_{3n}'$ and another $3$ voters, each approving only $p$. We set the budget to $n$.
Notice that the number of voters in the original election is $5n + 1$. The committee consists of $a$ and $a'$, with approval score of $3n$ each; the approval scores of $p$ and of each $x_i$ and $x_i'$ is $2n + 1$.
Given an exact cover, we delete those voters corresponding to the sets of the exact cover. As a result, the number of voters decreases to $4n + 1$. The committee consists only of $p$, with approval score of $2n + 1$; the approval score of $a$ and of each $x_i$ and $x_i'$ is $2n$.
For the other direction, notice that (1) any deleted voter shall delete $a$ and (2) any $x_i$ which is not covered will be in the winning committee.
The following result is achieved by modifying the reduction described in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:NAV-DelVInc\]; specifically, by cloning $p$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NAV-DelVInc</span> is NP-hard.
We move on to consider FM. It turns our that, for FM, greedy algorithms optimally (and efficiently) solve the task of changing the size of the winning committee, for both deleting voters and deleting candidates.
There are polynomial-time algorithms for both <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FM-DelCDec</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FM-DelCInc</span>.
Both algorithms are greedy. We begin by computing a winning committee $S$. Without loss of generality, let us assume that $S = \{c_1, \ldots, c_k\}$.
For <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FM-DelCDec</span> we keep on deleting candidates from the vector $[c_{k + 1}, \ldots, c_m]$, in the order of this vector; after each deletion, we check whether the size of the committee increases. If it increases, then we accept. Otherwise, we compute a new winning committee $S$ (which might be different than the old $S$), and start a new iteration. If we exhaust the budget before increasing the size of the committee, then we reject.
For <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FM-DelCInc</span> we keep on deleting candidates from the vector $[c_1, \ldots, c_k]$, in the order of this vector; after each deletion, we check whether the size of the committee decreases. If it decreases, then we accept. Otherwise, we compute a new winning committee $S$ (which might be different than the old $S$), and start a new iteration. If we exhaust the budget before decreasing the size of the committee, then we reject.
Correctness of both algorithms shall follow by some nice argument, saying that (1) this is the best that we can achieve in each iteration and (2) there is no point in doing several iterations at once.
There are polynomial-time algorithms for both <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FM-DelVDec</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FM-DelVInc</span>.
Quite similarly to the last theorem, we also use the greedy approach. Again, look at the number sequence which is the approval scores of the candidates, in decreasing order, and consider the “cutoff” point as defined by FM; that is, this number sequence looks like $a_1,\ldots,a_x,b_1,\ldots,b_y$, such that the winning committee consists exactly of $a_1,\ldots,a_x$.
Now, consider <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FM-DelVDec</span>, and consider a voter to delete. Each voter would change the number sequence by something, specifically at several points. The crucial observation is that, again, only the number sequence matters. Even more, consider the sums $A = \sum_{i \in [x]} a_i$ and $B = \sum_{i \in [x]} b_i$. Now, to decrease the size of the winning committee it is the best thing to decrease $A$ by as much as possible while not decreasing $B$ too much; that is, decrease the difference $A - B$ as maximally as possible. Thus, we can simply pick the voter which causes this difference to be the maximum. This would be the first iteration of the greedy algorithm, after which we compute again the partition of the candidate and the corresponding sums $A$ and $B$, and reiterate $b$ times.
Similarly, when the goal is to increase the size of the committee, in each iteration we would delete the voter which minimizes the difference $A - B$; or, equivalently, maximizes the difference $B - A$.
“Normal Control”
----------------
We can also study electoral control where the goal is to have a specific candidate $p$ to be a winner in the modified election. The situation turns out to be quite similar to control for changing the committee size, but not identical; the results are quite easy to get. The results are given in Table \[table:normalcontrol\].
${\mathcal{R}}$ DelV DelCDec
----------------- ------ --------- -- -- -- -- -- --
AV NP-h P
NAV P P
FM P P
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AV-DelV-p</span> is NP-hard.
Reduction from the restricted version of Set Cover, with elements $x_1, \ldots, x_{3n}$, sets $S_1, \ldots, S_{3n}$, and $h$: for each set $S_j$ introduce a voter $S_j$ which approves the elements contained in $S_j$; add two more voters, each of which approving only $p$; set the budget $b$ to be $n$. Initially, each $x_i$ candidate has $3$ approvals. Deleting the voters corresponding to an exact cover causes each $x_i$ to have $2$ approvals, which is also the number of approvals that $p$ has.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AV-DelC-p</span> is in P.
Delete (if possible) all candidates with strictly more approvals than $p$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NAV-DelV-p</span> is in P.
Delete $b$ arbitrary voters which do not approve $p$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NAV-DelC-p</span> is in P.
It is never possible.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FM-DelV-p</span> is in P.
Quite similar to control for changing the committee size: denoting the candidates as $[a_1,\ldots,a_x,b_1,\ldots,b_y]$, by decreasing order of their approval score, denoting $A = \sum a_i$ and $B = \sum b_i$; Then, greedily and iteratively delete the voter maximizing the value $A - B$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FM-DelC-p</span> is in P.
Quite similar to control for changing the committee size: greedily and iteratively delete the most-approved candidate.
Approximation Algorithms
========================
First, since there is a PTAS for ClosestString [@li2002closest], it follows that there is a PTAS for MinimaxAV; it means that the PTAS would select a committee with higher distance than the optimal.
Second, for MRC it is not clear what does it mean to approximate it? do we allow to select a larger committee and/or committee with less coverage?
Third, GNAV is probably can be approximated for some nice functions (convex?).
Parameterized Complexity
========================
Let us mention some parameterized complexity observations.
All reasonable rules (specifically, all the rules considered within the current paper) are FPT for $m$.
Check all possible committees.
For $n$, it is known that ClosestString is FPT for $n$, so we have that MinimaxAV is also FPT for $n$.
MinimaxAV is FPT for $n$.
GNAV is FPT for $n$.
There are $2^n$ types of candidates. Then, we can guess which types are in the winning committee. Then, the crucial observation is that, for each type, either it is in completely or out completely, that is, either all candidates of that type are in the winning committee or all candidates of that type are not in the winning committee.
Outlook
=======
Elections with variable number of winners are useful for various applications and scenarios. While much is known about the complexity of multiwinner voting rules which select a committee of some fixed, specified size $k$, prior to this paper, almost nothing was known about voting rules which select committees of unspecified size.
We have described several voting rules which are useful for elections with variable number of winners, designed polynomial-time winner determination algorithms for some of them, and proved that (presumably) no efficient winner determination algorithms exist for others. Moreover, we have considered several election control problems, specifically studying their computational complexity for the voting rules discussed in this paper.
We view this paper as the first computational step towards understanding elections with variable number of winners, and the voting rules which are used on such elections. Much is still to be discovered. For example, there are numerous other voting rules which are useful for such elections, whose computational complexity is still unknown. Further, there are various other kinds of election control problems which one might study, as well as issues such as manipulability and bribery, as well as post-election analysis for such elections.
Moreover, it is worthwhile to study axiomatic properties (and hopefully characterizations) of such voting rules, and, more generally, to better understand how they behave in various settings, including in restricted domains.
[^1]: One of the authors of this paper was once tasked with the problem of classifying a collection of daggers for a museum. The solution was to compute a number of partitions of the set of daggers into clusters, evaluate their qualities without reference to ethnographical knowledge on the daggers, and to present the best ones to the museum’s experts, who chose one partition that led to an ethnographically meaningful classification.
[^2]: The criteria may include, e.g., never receiving a low grade from a course, taking some advanced classes, never being suspended, etc.
[^3]: In fact, there is a polynomial-time algorithm that computes a winning committee of any size, if exists.
[^4]: As a side comment, we mention that such rules are also typical in the lobbying scenarios [@chr-fel-ros-sli:j:lobbying; @bin-erd-fer-gol-mat-rei-rot:j:probabilistic-lobbying; @neh:c:lobbying-threshold].
[^5]: Kilgour [@kil:j:variable-size-committee] strongly argues in favour of this type of voting rules, specifically giving an example concerning inclusion into the Hall of Fame.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A group is said to be strongly amenable if each of its proximal topological actions has a fixed point. We show that a finitely generated group is strongly amenable if and only if it is virtually nilpotent. More generally, a countable discrete group is strongly amenable if and only if none of its quotients have the infinite conjugacy class property.'
address: California Institute of Technology
author:
- Joshua Frisch
- Omer Tamuz
- Pooya Vahidi Ferdowsi
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Strong amenability and the infinite conjugacy class property
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $G \cc X$ be a continuous action of a countable discrete group on a compact Hausdorff space. This action is said to be [*proximal*]{} if for any $x,y \in X$ there exists a net $\{g_i\}$ in $G$ such that $\lim_i g_i x=\lim_i g_i y$. $G$ is said to be [*strongly amenable*]{} if every such proximal action of $G$ has a fixed point. Glasner introduced these notions in [@glasner1976proximal], and proved a number of results: he showed that every virtually nilpotent group is strongly amenable, and that non-amenable groups are not strongly amenable. He also gave some examples of amenable groups that are not strongly amenable.[^2] Since then, a number of papers have studied strong amenability [@glasner1983proximal; @glasner2002minimal; @melleray2015polish; @hartman2016thompson; @dai2017universal], but none have made significant progress on relating it to other group properties.
Our main result is a characterization of strongly amenable groups. Recall that a group has the infinite conjugacy class property (ICC) if each of its non-trivial elements has an infinite conjugacy class.
\[thm:main\] A countable discrete group is strongly amenable if and only if it has no ICC quotients. In particular, a finitely generated group is strongly amenable if and only if it is virtually nilpotent.
For example, this implies that the group $S_\infty$ of finite permutations of ${\mathbb{N}}$ is not strongly amenable. Likewise, the alternating subgroup of $S_\infty$ is not strongly amenable, as is every infinite simple group.
Groups that have no ICC quotients—which by Theorem \[thm:main\] are exactly the strongly amenable groups—are also known as [ *hyper-FC-central*]{} [@mclain1956remarks] or [ *hyper-FC*]{} [@duguid1960class]. This implies that subgroups of strongly amenable countable discrete groups are again strongly amenable. A finitely generated group is hyper-FC if and only if it is virtually nilpotent [@mclain1956remarks; @duguid1960class][^3], from which the second part of the theorem follows.
The case of groups with no ICC quotients is a straightforward consequence of Glasner’s work. To prove that groups with ICC quotients are not strongly amenable, we consider an ICC group $G$, and a certain class of symbolic dynamical systems for $G$. Using a topological genericity argument, we show that in this class there is a proximal action without a fixed point.
In light of Theorem \[thm:main\], it is natural to ask whether, in some larger class of topological groups, a group is strongly amenable if and only if each of its quotients has a non-trivial element with a compact (or perhaps precompact) conjugacy class.
The strongly amenable radical, the universal minimal proximal action, and the group von Neumann algebra {#the-strongly-amenable-radical-the-universal-minimal-proximal-action-and-the-group-von-neumann-algebra .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can define the [*FC-series*]{} of a group $G$ as $$1\leq F_1\leq F_2 \leq \cdots \leq F_\alpha \leq \cdots \leq G,$$ where $F_{\alpha+1}/F_\alpha$ is the normal subgroup of $G/F_\alpha$ consisting of the elements of the finite conjugacy classes, and $F_\beta = \cup_{\alpha<\beta} F_\alpha$ for $\beta$ a limit ordinal [@haimo1953FC; @mclain1956remarks]. The group $\cup_\alpha F_\alpha$ is called the [*hyper-FC-subgroup*]{} of $G$. Note that the hyper-FC-subgroup of $G$ is in fact the [*strongly amenable radical*]{} of $G$, i.e. the largest normal strongly amenable subgroup of $G$.
In [@glasner1976proximal Section II.4] Glasner defines the universal minimal proximal action of a group $G$; this is the unique minimal proximal action of $G$ which has every minimal proximal action as a factor. We denote this action by $G\cc \partial_p G$. In Proposition \[prop:faithful\] we show that every ICC group has a minimal proximal faithful action. On the other hand, the proof of Proposition \[prop:non-icc\] shows that the strongly amenable radical of $G$ acts trivially on $\partial_p G$. Combining these gives us:
\[cor:kernel\] For a countable discrete group $G$, $\ker(G\cc \partial_p G)$ is equal to the strongly amenable radical of $G$.
Glasner also defines the universal minimal [*strongly proximal*]{} action of a group $G$, which is the unique minimal strongly proximal action of $G$ which has every minimal strongly proximal action as a factor[^4]. We denote this action by $G \cc \partial_s G$. Furman [@furman2003minimal Proposition 7] shows that the kernel of $G \cc \partial_s G$ is the amenable radical of $G$. Thus Corollary \[cor:kernel\] is the analogous statement, for strong amenability.
It is known that the group von Neumann algebra of a group $G$ has a unique tracial state iff $G$ is ICC, and we show that ICC groups are precisely the groups with faithful universal minimal proximal actions. We thus have the following dynamical characterization of the unique trace property of the group von Neumann algebra:
\[cor:von Neumann unique trace\] For a countable discrete group $G$, the following are equivalent:
1. The group von Neumann algebra of $G$ has a unique tracial state.
2. $G\cc \partial_p G$ is faithful.
Analogously, it has been recently shown by Breuillard, Kalantar, Kennedy, and Ozawa [@breuillard2017c Corollary 4.3] that the reduced $\mathrm{C}^*$-algebra of $G$ has a unique tracial state if and only if $G \cc \partial_s G$ is faithful.
Following this analogy raises an interesting question. We know from [@kalantar2017boundaries Theorem 1.5] that simplicity of the reduced $\mathrm{C}^*$-algebra of a group $G$ is equivalent to the freeness of $G\cc \partial_s G$. We also know from [@breuillard2017c Corollary 4.3] that unique trace property of the reduced $\mathrm{C}^*$-algebra of a group $G$ is equivalent to faithfulness of $G\cc \partial_s G$. On the other hand, for von Neumann algebras, simplicity and the unique trace property are equivalent. So it is natural to ask whether freeness of $G\cc \partial_p G$ is equivalent to its faithfulness.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We would like to thank Benjamin Weiss for correcting a mistake in an earlier draft of this paper. We would also like to thank Yair Hartman and Mehrdad Kalantar for drawing our attention to the relation of our results to the unique trace property of group von Neumann algebras.
Overview of the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]
=============================================
That a group with no ICC quotients is strongly amenable follows immediately from from the following proposition.
\[prop:non-icc\] Let $G$ be a countable discrete group that acts faithfully, minimally and proximally on a compact Hausdorff space $X$. Then each non-trivial element of $G$ has an infinite conjugacy class.
Let $g$ be a non-trivial element of $G$. Assume by contradiction that $g$ has a finite conjugacy class. Let $H$ be the centralizer of $g$, so that $H$ has finite index in $G$. By [@glasner1976proximal Lemma 3.2] $H$ acts proximally and minimally on $X$. Since $g$ is in the center of $H$, it acts trivially on $X$, by [@glasner1976proximal Lemma 3.3]. This contradicts the assumption that the action in faithful.
Thus, to prove Theorem \[thm:main\], we consider any $G$ that is ICC, and prove that it has a proximal action that does not have a fixed point. This is without loss of generality, since if $G$ has a proximal action without a fixed point, then so does any group that has $G$ as a quotient.
Existence by genericity
-----------------------
Our general strategy for the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] is to consider a certain space $\mathcal{S}$ of non-trivial actions of $G$. We show that this space includes a proximal action without a fixed point by showing that, in fact, a [*generic*]{} action in this space is minimal and proximal. Genericity here is in the Baire category sense.
To define the space $\mathcal{S}$, let $A$ be a finite alphabet of size at least 2. The [*full shift*]{} $A^G$, equipped with the product topology, is a space on which $G$ acts continuously by left translations. Enumerate elements of $G = \{g_1, g_2, \ldots \}$ and endow $A^G$ with the metric $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ given by $d(s,t)=1/k$ where $k=\inf\{n \,:\, s(g_n)\neq t(g_n)\}$. An element of $A^G$ is called a [*configuration*]{}.
The closed, $G$-invariant non-empty subsets of $A^G$ are called [*shifts*]{}. The space of shifts is endowed with the subspace topology of the Hausdorff topology (or Fell topology) on the closed subsets of $A^G$. This topology is also metrizable: take, for example, the metric that assigns to a pair of shifts $S,T \subseteq A^G$ the distance $1/(n+1)$, where $n$ is the largest index such that $S$ and $T$ agree on $\{g_1,\ldots,g_n\}$; by agreement on a finite $X\subseteq G$ we mean that the restriction of the configurations in $S$ to $X$ is equal to the restrictions of the configurations in $T$ to $X$. Note that for any shift $S\subseteq A^G$, the sets of the form $\{T\subseteq A^G \:|\: T \text{ agrees with } S \text{ on } X\}$ for different finite subsets $X\subseteq G$ form a basis of the neighborhoods for $S$.
We define the space $\mathcal{S}$ to be the closure, in the space of shifts, of the strongly irreducible shifts, with the $|A|$ trivial (i.e., singleton) shifts removed. Strongly irreducible shifts are defined as follows:
A shift $S\subseteq A^G$ is said to be strongly irreducible if there exists a finite $X\subseteq G$ including the identity such that for any two subsets $E_1,E_2 \subseteq G$ with $E_1 X \cap E_2 X = \emptyset$ and any two configurations $s_1,s_2\in S$ there is a configuration $s\in S$ such that $s$ restricted to $E_1$ equals $s_1$ restricted to $E_1$, and $s$ restricted to $E_2$ equals $s_2$ restricted to $E_2$.
To show that the proximal actions are generic in $\mathcal{S}$, we define ${\varepsilon}$-proximal actions; proximal actions will be the actions which are ${\varepsilon}$-proximal for each ${\varepsilon}>0$.
An action $G \cc X$ on a compact metric space with metric $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is ${\varepsilon}$-proximal if for all $x,y \in X$ there exists a $g \in G$ such that $d(g x,g y) < \varepsilon$.
To show that minimal actions are generic in $\mathcal{S}$, we similarly define the notion of ${\varepsilon}$-minimality.
An action $G \cc X$ on a compact metric space with metric $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is ${\varepsilon}$-minimal if for all $x,y\in X$ there exists a $g\in G$ such that $d(g x, y)<\varepsilon$.
A subset of a topological space is generic (in the Baire category sense) if it contains a dense $G_\delta$. To prove our main result, we show that the proximal actions are a dense $G_\delta$ in $\mathcal S$. The proof of density is the main challenge of this paper, while proving that this subset is a $G_\delta$ is straightforward.
\[clm:G-delta\] The set of ${\varepsilon}$-proximal shifts is an open set in $\mathcal S$. Thus the set of proximal shifts is a $G_\delta$ set in $\mathcal S$.
Similarly, the set of ${\varepsilon}$-minimal shifts is an open set in $\mathcal{S}$. Thus the set of minimal shifts is a $G_\delta$ set in $\mathcal{S}$.
The Baire Category Theorem guarantees that for well behaved spaces (such as our locally compact space $\mathcal S$), a countable intersection of dense open sets is dense. Thus, to prove that the proximal shifts are dense in the closure of the strongly proximal shifts, it suffices to show that the ${\varepsilon}$-proximal shifts are dense in $\mathcal S$ for each ${\varepsilon}$. That is, fixing ${\varepsilon}$, we must show that for each strongly irreducible subshift $S \subseteq A^G$ and each finite subset $X \subseteq G$ there exists a strongly irreducible subshift $S'$ that agrees with $S$ on $X$, and is ${\varepsilon}$-proximal.
To this end, we construct a class of subshifts of $\{0,1\}^G$ (which we denote by $2^G$) which are ${\varepsilon}$-proximal. Furthermore, for these shifts ${\varepsilon}$-proximality is witnessed by a particular configuration around the origin: one having a 1 at the origin, and zeros close to it. For a finite symmetric subset $X \subset G$ and $g,h \in G$ we say that $g$ and $h$ are [*$X$-apart*]{} if $g^{-1}h \not \in X$.
Let $X$ be a finite symmetric subset of $G$. A shift $S \subset 2^G$ is an [*$X$-witness*]{} shift if
1. For each $s \in S$, $s(a)=1$ and $s(b)=1$ implies that $a$ and $b$ are $X$-apart.
2. For each $s,t \in S$ there exists an $a \in G$ such that $s(a)=t(a)=1$.
The construction of $X$-witness shifts in Propositions \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\] and \[prop:r-witness si\] contains the main technical effort of this paper.
A toy example {#sec:informal}
-------------
To give the reader some intuition and explain the role of ICC in the construction of $X$-witness shifts, we now explain how to construct a single configuration in $2^G$ with an $X$-witness [*orbit*]{}, and show that such configurations do not exist for groups that are not ICC. Note that the closure of this orbit is not necessarily an $X$-witness shift; the construction of $X$-witness shifts requires more work and a somewhat different approach, which we pursue later, in the formal proofs.
Given a configuration $u \in 2^G$, we denote by $G u = \{g u\,:\, g \in G\}$ the $G$-orbit of $u$. Given a finite symmetric $X \subset G$, we say that a configuration $u\in 2^G$ is an [*$X$-witness configuration*]{} if
1. For each $s \in G u$, $s(a)=1$ and $s(b)=1$ implies that $a$ and $b$ are $X$-apart.
2. For each $s,t \in G u$ there exists an $a \in G$ such that $s(a)=t(a)=1$.
We now informally explain that when $G$ is ICC then for every such $X$ there exist $X$-witness configurations, and that when $G$ is not ICC then there such an $X \subset G$ for which there are no such configurations.
Suppose first that $G$ is not ICC. Then there cannot exist an $X$-witness shift for every $X$. To see this, suppose that $g\in G$ is an element with finitely many conjugates, and let $X$ be a finite symmetric subset of $G$ that contains all the conjugates of $g$. Assume towards a contradiction that there exists an $X$-witness configuration $u$. So, by the second property of $X$-witness configurations, there exists an $a\in G$, such that $[gu](a)=u(a)=1$, which means $u(g^{-1}a)=u(a)=1$. Now, by the first property of $u$, we need to have that $g^{-1}a$ and $a$ are $X$-apart, which means $(g^{-1}a)^{-1}a = a^{-1}ga \notin X$. This is a contradiction, since we let $X$ contain all the conjugates of $g$.
Consider now the case that $G$ is ICC. Given a finite symmetric $X$, we choose a random configuration $u \in 2^G$ as follows. Assign to each element of $G$ an independent uniform random variable in $[0,1]$. Let $V_a$ be the random variable corresponding to $a\in
G$. For each $a\in G$, let $u(a) = 1$ iff $V_a > V_{a x}$ for all $x\in X\setminus \{e\}$; i.e., $u(a)=1$ if $V_a$ is maximal in its $X$-neighborhood. Note that if $g$ and $h$ are $X^2$-apart then the event $u(g)=1$ and the event $u(h)=1$ are independent.
We claim that $u$ is, with probability one, an $X$-witness shift. By construction $u$ almost surely satisfies the first property: if $s = g^{-1} u$ and $s(a)=s(b)=1$ then $u(g a)=u(g b)=1$, hence $g a$ and $g b$ are $X$-apart, and so $a$ and $b$ are $X$-apart. To satisfy the second property, it must hold that for every $g \neq h \in G$ there is some $a \in G$ such that $u(ga) = u(ha)=1$. By the ICC property, we can choose an $a \in G$ to make $g a$ and $h a$ arbitrarily far apart, as this corresponds to finding an $a$ such that $a^{-1} (h^{-1}g) a$ is large. For such a choice of $a$, the events $u(g a)=1$ and $u(h a)=1$ are independent, and, since we have infinitely many such $a$’s that we can use, with probability one at least one of them will give us the desired result.
Constructing $X$-witness shifts
-------------------------------
We now return to the construction of $X$-witness shifts, which are the main tool in our proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. The first step is to construct a single configuration which is an $X$-witness in a large finite set.
\[prop:r-witness for finite sets\] Let $G$ be an ICC group. For each finite symmetric $X \subset G$ there exists an $s \in 2^G$ and a finite symmetric $Y \supset X$ such that
1. For every $a,b \in G$, if $s(a)=s(b)=1$ then $a$ and $b$ are $X$-apart.
2. For every $g,h \in Y^{100}$ there exists some $a \in Y$ such that $s(g a) = s(h a) = 1$.
The proof of this proposition—along with Proposition \[prop:r-witness si\] below—contains the main technical effort of this paper. The proof elaborates on the ideas of the informal construction of §\[sec:informal\]: we choose the configuration $s$ at random, and then show that it has the desired properties with positive probability. This stage crucially uses the assumption that the group is ICC, which translates to independence of some events that arise in the analysis of this random choice. This is the only step in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] in which we use the ICC property of $G$.
We use the configuration constructed in Proposition \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\] to construct $X$-witness shifts. These shifts will additionally (and importantly) be strongly irreducible.
\[prop:r-witness si\] Let $G$ be a group for which, for each finite symmetric $X \subset G$, there exists a configuration that satisfies the conditions of Proposition \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\]. Then for each such $X$ there also exists a strongly irreducible $X$-witness shift.
The combination of Propositions \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\] and \[prop:r-witness si\] immediately yields the following.
\[prop:r-witness si amenable icc-rf\] Let $G$ be an ICC group. Then for each finite symmetric $X \subset G$ there exists a strongly irreducible $X$-witness shift $S \subset 2^G$.
${\varepsilon}$-proximal shifts
-------------------------------
Finally, we use these strongly irreducible $X$-witness shifts to construct approximations to a given strongly irreducible shift $S$ that are both ${\varepsilon}$-proximal and ${\varepsilon}$-minimal.
\[prop:eps-proximal approx\] Let $G$ be a group for which there exists, for each finite symmetric $X \subset G$, a strongly irreducible $X$-witness shift. Let $T \subseteq A^G$ be a strongly irreducible shift. Then for each ${\varepsilon}$ and finite $X\subset G$ there exists a strongly irreducible shift $T' \subseteq 2^G$ that is ${\varepsilon}$-proximal, ${\varepsilon}$-minimal, and agrees with $T$ on $X$.
An immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop:eps-proximal approx\] and Claim \[clm:G-delta\] is the following.
\[prop:dense-G\_delta\] Let $G$ be an ICC group. Then there is a dense $G_\delta$ set in $\mathcal S$ for which the action $G \cc S$ is minimal and proximal.
In the next proposition we show that this result can be strengthened to show that a generic shift is additionally faithful.
\[prop:faithful\] Let $G$ be an ICC group. Then there is a dense $G_\delta$ set in $\mathcal S$ for which the action $G \cc S$ is [*faithful*]{}, minimal, and proximal.
Given all this, the proof of our main theorem follows easily.
That groups with no ICC quotients are strongly amenable follows immediately from Proposition \[prop:faithful\]. Let $G$ be ICC. By Proposition \[prop:dense-G\_delta\] the proximal minimal shifts are a dense $G_\delta$ in $\mathcal S$, and in particular exist, since $\mathcal S$ is non-empty (e.g., the full shift $A^G$ is strongly irreducible and non-constant). Since there are no trivial shifts in $\mathcal S$, and since non-trivial minimal shifts have no fixed points, we have proved that $G$ is not strongly amenable.
Proofs
======
Proof of Proposition \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\]
-------------------------------------------------------
Let $G$ be an ICC group, and let $X$ be a finite, symmetric subset of $G$. We choose a random configuration $u \in 2^G$ as follows. Assign to each element of $G$ an independent uniform random variable in $[0,1]$. Let $V_a$ be the random variable corresponding to $a\in G$. For each $a\in G$, let $u(a) = 1$ iff $V_a > V_{ax}$ for all $x\in X\setminus \{e\}$. That is, let $u(a)=1$ if $V_a > V_b$ whenever $a^{-1}b\in X$ and $b\neq a$. The following claim is an immediate consequence of the definition of $u$.
\[clm:independence\] If $a_1,\ldots, a_n$ are $X^2$-apart[^5] for $a_i\in G$, then $\{u(a_i)=1\}$ are independent events.
Clearly, for all values of the random configuration, $u(a)=u(b)=1$ implies that $a^{-1}b\notin X$ for all $a,b\in G$, which means that $a$ and $b$ are $X$-apart. So the random configuration $u$ almost surely satisfies the first part of the proposition. It thus remains to find a finite symmetric subset $Y \supset X$ such that for each $g,h \in Y^{100}$ there exists some $a \in Y$ such that $u(g a) = u(h a) = 1$.
The next lemma claims that there exists a subset $Y$ with certain useful properties. We use this lemma to prove our proposition, and then prove the lemma.
\[lem:Y\] There exists a $Y \supset X$ with the following properties.
1. $$|Y|^{200} (1-|X|^{-2})^{|Y|/(10|X^2|+5)} < 1.$$
2. For each $g,h \in G$ there exists a subset $Y_{g,h} \subseteq Y$ with the following properties.
1. $|Y_{g,h}| \geq |Y|/(10|X^2|+5)$.
2. For $y_1, y_2\in Y_{g,h}$, $g y_1$ and $h y_2$ are $X^2$-apart.
For $c,d,y \in G$, let $E_c$ be the event that $u(c)=1$, and let $E_{c,d}^y = E_{c y} \cap E_{d y}$. Now fix $g,h \in G$.
1. By the second property of $Y_{g,h}$, $g y$ and $h y$ are $X^2$-apart for any $y\in Y_{g,h}$. Hence $E_{gy}$ and $E_{hy}$ are independent, by Claim \[clm:independence\].
2. $\Pr{E_c} = 1/|X|$ for all $c\in G$.
3. Combining the previous two results: $\Pr{E_{g,h}^y} = |X|^{-2}$ for all $y\in Y_{g,h}$. So $\Pr{\neg E_{g,h}^y} = 1-|X|^{-2}$.
4. $E_{g,h}^y$ are independent events for different values of $y\in Y_{g,h}$. This is because $g y_1$ and $h y_2$ are $X^2$-apart for any $y_1, y_2\in Y_{a,b}$, which means $\{ E_{g y}, E_{h y} \:|\: y\in Y_{g,h}\}$ are independent events. And finally, since $E_{g,h}^y = E_{gy} \cap E_{hy}$, we get that $E_{g,h}^y$ are independent events for $y\in Y_{g,h}$.
5. We say that the pair $(g, h)$ [*fails*]{} if $E_{g,h}^y$ does not happen for any $y\in Y_{g,h}$. So, by the previous two results, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr{(g, h) \text{ fails}} & = \Pr{E_{g,h}^y \text{ for no } y\in Y_{g,h}} \\
& = (1-|X|^{-2})^{|Y_{g,h}|} \\
& \leq (1-|X|^{-2})^{|Y|/(10|X^2|+5)},
\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from the first property of $Y_{g,h}$.
By the last inequality, union bound, and the first property of $Y$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr{(g,h) \text{ fails for some } g,h\in Y^{100} } & \leq |Y^{100}|^2(1-|X|^{-2})^{|Y|/(10|X^2|+5)} \\
& \leq |Y|^{200}(1-|X|^{-2})^{|Y|/(10|X^2|+5)} < 1.
\end{aligned}$$ So, there is at least one configuration, say $s$, for which no $(g,h)$ fails for $g,h\in Y^{100}$. Therefore, for all $g,h\in Y^{100}$ there is an $a\in Y$ such that $s(ga) = s(ha) = 1$. So this $s$ satisfies the second part of the proposition, which concludes the proof of Proposition \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\], except the proof of Lemma \[lem:Y\], to which we turn now.
We call an element $g\in G$ [*switching*]{} if for all non-identity $x \in X^2$ we have $g^{-1} x g\notin X^2$.
There exists at least one switching element $g_s\in G$.
Let $C_x$ be the centralizer of $x$ for each $x\in X^2$. Then there are finitely many cosets of $C_x$, say $g^x_1 C_x, \ldots, g^x_{n_x} C_x$, such that $g^{-1}xg\in X^2$ only if $g\in g^x_i C_x$ for some $i\in \{1,\ldots,n_x\}$. So, non-switching elements are in the union of finitely many cosets of subgroups with infinite index, i.e. $g$ is non-switching only if $g\in g^x_i C_x$ for some $x\in X^2$ and some $i\in\{1,\ldots, n_x\}$. Since $G$ is ICC, each $C_x$ has infinite index in $G$. By [@neumann1954groups Lemma 4.1] a finite collection of cosets of infinite index does not cover the whole group $G$, so, there is at least one switching element in $G$.
Let $g_s$ be a switching element. We can choose an arbitrarily large finite subset $Y_1\subseteq G$ which includes the identity and such that $Y_1\cap Y_1 g_s=\emptyset$. Choose such a $Y_1$ that is large enough so that $$(5 |Y_1|)^{200}(1-|X|^{-2})^{2|Y_1|/(10|X^2|+5)} < 1 \;\text{ and }\; |Y_1|\geq |X|$$ and let $Y = (Y_1\cup Y_1 g_s) \cup (Y_1\cup Y_1 g_s)^{-1} \cup X$. Note that $Y$ is symmetric and $5|Y_1| \geq |Y| \geq 2 |Y_1|$, which implies $$|Y|^{200} (1-|X|^{-2})^{|Y|/(10|X^2|+5)} < 1.$$ This establishes the first property of $Y$.
Fix $g,h\in G$ with $g\neq h$. We say $y\in G$ is [*distancing*]{} for the pair $(g,h)$ if $gy$ and $hy$ are $X^2$-apart.
If $y\in G$ is not distancing for $(g,h)$ then $y g_s$ is distancing for $(g,h)$.
Since $y$ is not distancing for $(g,h)$, $(g y)^{-1}(h y) = y^{-1}g^{-1}h y \in X^2$. By the definition of a switching element $g_s^{-1} [(g y)^{-1}(h y)] g_s = (g y g_s)^{-1}(h y g_s) \notin X^2$, which means that $y g_s$ is distancing for $(g,h)$.
By this observation, if $y_1\in Y_1$ is not distancing for $(g,h)$ then $y_1 g_s\in Y_1 g_S$ is distancing for $(g,h)$. So at least half of the elements in $Y_1 \cup Y_1 g_s$ are distancing for $(g,h)$ and thus at least one fifth of the elements in $Y$ are distancing for $(g,h)$. Let $Y'_{g,h}$ be the collection of elements in $Y$ that are distancing for $(g,h)$. We just saw that $|Y'_{g,h}|\geq |Y|/5$.
Now define a graph on $Y'_{g,h}$ by connecting $y_1\neq y_2\in Y'_{g,h}$ if either $g y_1$ and $h y_2$ are not $X^2$-apart or $g y_2$ and $h y_1$ are not $X^2$-apart. Call this graph $G'_{g,h}$. Note that the degree of each $y\in Y'_{g,h}$ in $G'_{g,h}$ is at most $2|X^2|$. So, we can find an independent set of size at least $|Y'_{g,h}|/(2|X^2|+1) \geq |Y|/(10|X^2|+5)$ in $G'_{g,h}$. Call this independent set $Y_{g,h}$.
$|Y_{g,h}| \geq |Y|/(10|X^2|+5)$ and for $y_1, y_2\in Y_{g,h}$, we have that $g y_1$ and $h y_2$ are $X^2$-apart.
The bound on the size of $Y$ is established in the previous paragraph. To see the second property, note that in the case that $y_1 \neq y_2$, this follows from independence of $Y_{g,h}$ in $G'_{g,h}$. In the case $y_1=y_2$, it follows from the fact that all elements of $Y'_{g,h}$ are distancing for $(g,h)$ and that $Y_{g,h}\subseteq Y'_{g,h}$.
This establishes the two properties of $Y_{g,h}$, and thus concludes the proof of the lemma.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:r-witness si\]
------------------------------------------
Let $Z_1,\ldots,Z_n$ be finite subsets of $G$. A [*$\{Z_1,\ldots,Z_n\}$-packing*]{} is a $p\in \{Z_1,\ldots,Z_n,\emptyset\}^G$ with $h\:p(h)\cap g\:p(g)=\emptyset$ for all $g,h\in G$; note that $h\:p(h)$ and $g\:p(g)$ are each a translate, by $h$ and $g$ respectively, of some element of $\{Z_1,\ldots,Z_n,\emptyset\}$. When $p(g) \neq \emptyset$, we call the translate $g\:p(g)$ a [*block*]{}.
By an abuse of notation, we use the term $Z$-packing instead of $\{Z\}$-packing when we have only one subset.
Let $Z_1,\ldots,Z_n$ be finite subsets of $G$. We say that a $\{Z_1,\ldots,Z_n\}$-packing $p$ is [*saturated*]{} if there is no $\{Z_1,\ldots,Z_n\}$-packing $p'\neq p$ such that $p(g)\neq \emptyset$ implies $p'(g)=p(g)$.
Saturated Z-packings are packings to which one cannot add any blocks (i.e., $Z$-translates) without removing at least one (note, however, that it may be possible to add more $Z$ translates by first removing some).
The proof of the following claim is standard.
Let $Z$ be a finite subset of $G$. The set of all saturated $Z$-packings is a shift. We denote this shift by $P_Z$.
The following claim will be useful in the construction of strongly irreducible $X$-witness shifts.
\[clm:P-Z-strongly-irreducible\] $P_Z$ is strongly irreducible.
A similar claim with a similar proof appears in [@frisch2017symbolic Lemma 2.2].
Let $X = Z \cup Z^{-1}$. Let $F_1,F_2 \subset G$ be any two subsets of $G$ that are $X^4$-apart. To prove the claim, it suffices to show that for any $p_1,p_2 \in P_Z$ there is a $p \in P_Z$ that agrees with $p_1$ on $F_1$ and with $p_2$ on $F_2$. Let $F_1' = F_1 X$ and $F_2'=F_2 X$. Then $F_1'$ and $F_2'$ are disjoint, and furthermore, if $a_1 \in F_1'$ and $a_2 \in F_2'$ then $p_1(a_1)$ and $p_2(a_2)$ are disjoint. Thus there is a packing that is equal to $p_1$ on $F_1'$ and to $p_2$ on $F_2'$. Consider the set of all such saturated packings. This set is non-empty by Zorn’s Lemma. Furthermore, it is easy to see that each packing in this set agrees with $p_1$ on $F_1$, agrees with $p_2$ on $F_2$, and is saturated, i.e. is an element of $P_Z$. Thus $P_Z$ is strongly irreducible.
We can now start the proof of proposition \[prop:r-witness si\]. Assume that $X$, a finite symmetric subset of $G$, is given. We now seek to construct a strongly irreducible $X$-witness shift $T$. Since $G$ satisfies proposition \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\], we can let $Y$ and $s$ be a finite symmetric subset of $G$ and a configuration on $G$ that satisfy the statement of proposition \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\] for $X\subseteq G$.
Define $\phi:P_{Y^{100}X} \times P_{YX} \to \{Y^{100}X,YX,\emptyset\}^G$ as follows. For $p_1\in P_{Y^{100}X}$ and $p_2\in P_{YX}$ let $$\phi(p_1, p_2)(g) =
\begin{cases}
p_1(g) & \text{if } p_1(g)\neq \emptyset\\
p_2(g) & \text{if } p_2(g)\neq \emptyset \text{ and}\\
& \quad g\:p_2(g)\cap h\:p_1(h) = \emptyset \text{ for all } h\in G \\
\emptyset & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ So $\phi$ receives a $Y^{100}X$-packing $p_1$ and a $YX$-packing $p_2$, and produces a $\{Y^{100}X, YX, \emptyset\}$-packing $\phi(p_1,p_2)$, which can be informally described as follows. Add all the blocks in $p_1$ to $\phi(p_1, p_2)$. For any block in $p_2$, if it does not intersect with any of the blocks in $p_1$, add it to $\phi(p_1, p_2)$, and otherwise ignore it. In other words, $\phi(p_1, p_2)$ consists of all the blocks in $p_1$, and all the blocks in $p_2$ that are disjoint from the blocks in $p_1$.
It is easy to verify that $\phi$ is continuous and equivariant, and that $P=\phi(P_{Y^{100}X}\times P_{YX})$ is a saturated $\{Y^{100}X, YX\}$-packing. Since $P$ is a factor of a product of strongly irreducible shifts it is also strongly irreducible.
Define $\psi: P\to 2^G$ by $$[\psi(p)](g) =
\begin{cases}
s(h^{-1} g) & \text{if } g\in h\:Y^{100} \text{ for some } h\in G\\
& \quad \text{with } p(h) = Y^{100}X \\
s(h^{-1} g) & \text{if } g\in h\:Y \text{ for some } h\in G\\
& \quad \text{with } p(h) = YX \\
0 & \text{ otherwise }
\end{cases}$$ What $\psi$ does is produce a configuration which is 0 outside of the $X$-interior[^6] of blocks, and is equal to translates of $s|_{Y^{100}}$ and $s|_Y$ inside the interior of blocks.
It is again easy to see that $\psi$ is continuous and equivariant, so $T=\psi(P)$ is a strongly irreducible shift. The following claim completes the proof of proposition \[prop:r-witness si\].
$T$ is an $X$-witness shift.
The claim follows immediately from the following two lemmas. The first of the lemmas is straightforward from our construction, while the second is less immediate.
For all $t\in T$, the $1$’s in $t$ are $X$-apart.
Let $t\in T$ and $a,b\in G$ with $t(a)=t(b)=1$. Since $t\in T$, there is a $p\in P$ with $\psi(p)=t$. By the definition of $\psi$, since $[\psi(p)](a)=[\psi(p)](b)=1$, we get that $a\in h\:p(h)$ and $b\in g\:p(g)$ for some $h,g\in G$. If $g=h$, i.e. $a$ and $b$ are in the same block of $p$, then $s(h^{-1}a)=t(a)=1$ and $s(h^{-1}b)=t(b)=1$. But, since $s$ satisfies proposition \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\] (in particular, the $1$’s in $s$ are $X$-apart), $h^{-1}a$ and $h^{-1}b$ are $X$-apart, which implies $a$ and $b$ are $X$-apart. If $g\neq h$, then $h\:p(h)$ and $g\:p(g)$ are disjoint, so the $X$-interior of $h\:p(h)$ and the $X$-interior of $g\:p(g)$ are $X$-apart. We also know that $a$ is in the $X$-interior of $h\:p(h)$ and $b$ is in the $X$-interior of $g\:p(g)$. Therefore, $a$ and $b$ are $X$-apart.
For any $t_1, t_2\in T$ there is an $a\in G$ with $t_1(a)=t_2(a)=1$.
We essentially prove this lemma by a series of reductions.
Let $t_1, t_2\in T$. So there are $p_1, p_2\in P$ with $\psi(p_1)=t_1$ and $\psi(p_2)=t_2$. Pick an $a_1\in G$ with $p_1(a_1)=Y^{100}X$. This means that $a_1^{-1}p_1$ has a block of shape $Y^{100}X$ centered at the identity. Let $p_1'=a_1^{-1}p_1$, $p_2'=a_1^{-1}p_2$, and let $t_1'=\psi(p_1')$, $t_2'=\psi(p_2')$. So, $p_1'$ has a block of shape $Y^{100}X$ centered at the identity.
Since $p_2'$ is saturated, we know there is an $a_2\in Y^4$ such that either (I) $a_2$ is in the $YX$-interior of a block of shape $Y^{100}X$ in $p_2'$, or (II) $a_2$ is the center of a block of shape $YX$ in $p_2'$. Let $p_1''=a_2^{-1}p_1'$, $p_2''=a_2^{-1}p_2'$, and let $t_1''=\psi(p_1'')$, $t_2''=\psi(p_2'')$. Observe that in $p_1''$ the identity is in the $YX$-interior of a block of shape $Y^{100}X$, say $e\in k_1 Y^{99}$ for some $k_1\in G$ with $p_1''(k_1)=Y^{100}X$. Moreover, in $p_2''$ the identity is either (I) in the $YX$-interior of a block of shape $Y^{100}X$ or (II) in the center of a block of shape $YX$.
![\[fig:caseI\]Case (I).](prop_2_7_caseI.pdf)
In case (I), since in $p_2''$ the identity is in the $YX$-interior of a block of shape $Y^{100}X$, $e\in k_2\:Y^{99}$ for some $k_2\in G$ with $p_2''(k_2)=Y^{100}X$. So $k_2^{-1}\in Y^{99}$. By the second part of proposition \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\] applied to $g=k_1^{-1}$ and $h=k_2^{-1}$, we know that there is an $a_3\in Y$ such that $s(k_1^{-1}a_3) = s(k_2^{-1} a_3) = 1$. So, by the definition of $\psi$, the fact that $k_1^{-1}a_3\in Y^{100}$, and the fact that $p_1''(k_1)=Y^{100}X$, we get $t_1''(a_3) = s(k_1^{-1} a_3) = 1$, and similarly, we get $t_2''(a_3) = s(k_2^{-1} a_3) =1$. Therefore, $t_1(a_1 a_2 a_3) = t_1''(a_3) = 1$ and $t_2(a_1 a_2 a_3) = t_2''(a_3) = 1$. Case (I) is schematically depicted in Figure \[fig:caseI\].
![\[fig:caseII\]Case (II).](prop_2_7_caseII.pdf)
In case (II), $p_2''(e)=YX$. Again, if we apply the second part of proposition \[prop:r-witness for finite sets\] to $g=k_1^{-1}$ and $b=e$, we get that there is an $a_3\in Y$ such that $s(k_1^{-1}a_3) = s(a_3) = 1$. So, by the definition of $\psi$, the fact that $k_1^{-1}a_3\in Y^{100}$, and the fact that $p_1''(k_1)=Y^{100}X$, we get $t_1''(a_3) = s(k_1^{-1} a_3) = 1$. Also, by the definition of $\psi$, the fact that $a_3\in Y$, and the fact that $p_2''(e)=YX$, we get $t_2''(a_3)=s(a_3)=1$. Therefore, $t_1(a_1 a_2 a_3)=t_1''(a_3)=1$ and $t_2(a_1 a_2 a_3) = t_2''(a_3) = 1$. Case (II) is schematically depicted in Figure \[fig:caseII\].
In both cases we showed there is an $a\in G$ with $t_1(a)=t_2(a)=1$. This completes the proof.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:eps-proximal approx\]
-------------------------------------------------
Fix $\epsilon>0$ and $X$ a finite symmetric subset of $G$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $X$ includes the identity, and is large enough so that any two configurations that agree on $X$ have distance less than ${\varepsilon}$.
Since $T\subseteq A^G$ is a strongly irreducible shift, there is a finite symmetric $U\subseteq G$ including the identity such that for any two subsets $E_1,E_2 \subseteq G$ with $E_1 U \cap E_2 U = \emptyset$ and any two configurations $t_1,t_2\in T$ there is a configuration $t\in T$ such that $t$ restricted to $E_1$ equals $t_1$ restricted to $E_1$, and $t$ restricted to $E_2$ equals $t_2$ restricted to $E_2$
Given a shift $S \subseteq A^G$ and a finite $Y \subset G$, we call a map $p \colon Y \to A$ a [*$Y$-pattern of $S$*]{} if it is equal to $s|_Y$, the restriction of some $s \in S$ to $Y$. In this case we say that $s$ contains the $X$-pattern $p$.
By strong irreducibility of $T$, we can find a $u\in T$ whose orbit $\{g u\,:\, g \in G\}$ contains all the $X$-patterns of $T$. Furthermore, since there are only finitely many $X$-patterns in $S$, there must be a finite $V \subset G$ (which we assume w.l.o.g. to be symmetric and contain the identity) such that $\{g u\,:\, g \in \text{ the } X\text{-interior of } V\}$ contains all the $X$-patterns of $T$. By making $V$ even larger, we can assume that $d(t,t') < {\varepsilon}$ for any two configurations $t,t' \in T$ that agree on $V$, where $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the metric on $T$.
Let $Z=(VU^2X)(VU^2X)^{-1}$. By the assumption in the statement, there is a strongly irreducible $Z$-witness shift for $G$. Call this shift $S$.
Now, define a continuous equivariant function $\phi: S\times T \to A^G$. Let $s\in S, t\in T$. Let $t'=\phi(s,t)$ be defined as follows, in the following cases:
1. $g = k h$ for some $k\in G$ with $s(k)=1$ and some $h\in V$:
In this case, let $t'(g) = u(h)$.
2. $g = k h$ for some $k\in G$ with $s(k)=1$ and some $h\in VU^2\setminus V$:
In this case let $E_1=kV$ and $E_2 = \text{ complement of } k VU^2$. Since $E_1 U\cap E_2 U=\emptyset$, there is a $v\in T$ with $v|_{E_1} = (ku)|_{E_1}$ and $v|_{E_2} = t|_{E_2}$. If there are multiple choices for $v$, choose the lexicographically least configuration for a fixed ordering of $G$ and a fixed ordering of $A$. Let $t'(g) = v(kh)$.
3. $g\neq kh$ for $s(k)=1$ and $h\in VU^2$:
In this case, let $t'(g) = t(g)$.
Since the $1$’s in $S$ are $Z$-apart, this leads to a well-defined definition for $t'$. Informally, $t'$ is constructed from $t$ as follows: the configuration $t'$ mostly agrees with $t$. The first exceptions are the $V$-neighborhoods of any $k \in G$ such that $s(k)=1$, where we set $t'$ to equal the pattern that appears around the origin in $u$. The second exceptions are the borders of these $V$-neighborhoods, where some adjustments need to be made so that—as we explain below—$t'$ and $t$ agree on any translate of $X$. This construction is schematically depicted in Figure \[fig:phi eps-prox approx\].
![\[fig:phi eps-prox approx\]$t'=\phi(s,t)$ for $s\in S$ and $t\in T$.](prop_2_9.pdf)
The following hold:
- $\phi$ is continuous and equivariant. So $T'=\phi(S\times T)$ is a subshift.
- Since strong irreducibility is closed under taking products and factors, we see that $T'$ is strongly irreducible.
- Let $t'_1 = \phi(s_1, t_1), t'_2 = \phi(s_2, t_2) \in T'$. Since $S$ is a $(VU^2X)(VU^2X)^{-1}$-witness shift, there is a $g\in G$ with $s_1(g) = s_2(g) = 1$. So, $t'_1|_{gV}$ and $t'_2|_{gV}$ are both translates of $u|_V$, which means $(g^{-1} t'_1)|_V = (g^{-1} t'_2)|_V$. So from the definition of $V$, we get $d(g^{-1}t'_1, g^{-1}t'_2) < \epsilon$. Hence $T'$ is $\epsilon$-proximal.
- Now we claim that the set of $X$-patterns of $T'$ and $T$ are equal.
First notice that since $u|_V$ has all the $X$-patterns in $T$, and $u|_V$ appears in $T'$. So we get that all the $X$-patterns of $T$ appear in $T'$.
Now let $t'=\phi(s,t)\in T'$ and fix an $X$-pattern in $t'$, located at $gX$. If $gX$ does not meet any $k (VU^2X)$ for $s(k)=1$, then $t'|_{g X} = t|_{g X}$ and so the pattern appears in $T$. If, on the other hand, $g X$ intersects $k (VU^2X)$ for some $k$ with $s(k)=1$, by the definition of $t'$ around $k$, we again see that the pattern in $g X$ appears in $T$.
- To see ${\varepsilon}$-minimality of $T'$, let $t'_1,t'_2\in T'$. We know that $t'_2|_X$ is one of the $X$-patterns in $T$, so it appears somewhere in $t'_1$, i.e. there exists a $g\in G$ such that $(g t'_1)|_X$ agrees with $t'_2|_X$. We assumed that any two configurations that agree on $X$ have distance less than ${\varepsilon}$. So, $d(g t'_1, t'_2)<{\varepsilon}$.
This concludes the proof of Proposition \[prop:eps-proximal approx\].
Proof of Claim \[clm:G-delta\]
------------------------------
First we prove proximal shifts are a $G_\delta$. Given a shift $S$, an ${\varepsilon}>0$ and a $g \in G$, let $P_g \subset S \times S$ be the set of pairs of configurations $s_1,s_2$ such that $d(g s_1,g s_2)<{\varepsilon}$. Since $P_g$ is the preimage of an open set under a continuous map $P_g$ is open. Thus, whenever $S$ is ${\varepsilon}$-proximal the collection $\{P_g\,:\, g \in G\}$ forms an open cover of $S \times S$ and thus, by compactness, whenever a shift is ${\varepsilon}$-proximal there is a finite subset $X \subset G$ which suffice to demonstrate this. For each $X \subset G$, whether $X$ demonstrates ${\varepsilon}$-proximality is determined by the restriction of $S$ to a finite set of elements of $G$. But this is exactly the definition of a clopen set in the topology on the space of shifts. Thus the set of ${\varepsilon}$-proximal shifts is the union of a collection of clopen sets and is therefore open.
Now we prove minimal shifts are a $G_\delta$. To do this, since minimal shifts are exactly the shifts that are ${\varepsilon}$-minimal for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, it is enough to show that the set of ${\varepsilon}$-minimal shifts is open. Note that by compactness of $X$, a shift is ${\varepsilon}$-minimal iff its ${\varepsilon}$-minimality is demonstrated by a finite set. Thus ${\varepsilon}$-minimality is determined by the set of $Z$-patterns for a finite large enough $Z\subseteq G$. So, as above, the set of ${\varepsilon}$-minimal shifts is a union of clopen sets, so it is open.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:faithful\]
--------------------------------------
By Proposition \[prop:dense-G\_delta\] the minimal proximal shifts are a dense $G_\delta$ in $\mathcal S$. It thus remains to be shown that faithfulness is also generic. Given an element $g\in G$ call a shift [*$g$-faithful*]{} if $g$ acts non-trivially on the shift. It is easy to see that $g$-faithfulness is an open condition, and so the intersection over all non-trivial $g \in G$, which is faithfulness of the action of $G$, is a $G_\delta$ set. It remains to show that it is dense. To do this we show that each non-trivial $g \in G$ acts non-trivially on every non-trivial strongly irreducible shift. Suppose $g$ is not the identity and acts trivially on a shift $S$. Then all conjugates of $g$ also act trivially on $S$, so that $hs=s$ for every $h$ a conjugate of $g$ and $s\in S$. In particular, $s(h^{-1})$ must be the same for every $h$ a conjugate of $g$ and every $s \in S$. Since $g$ has an infinite conjugacy class this holds for infinitely many such $h$. But if $S$ is strongly irreducible and non-trivial, then there is some finite $X \subset G$ such that, if $h \notin X$ then there is an $s \in S$ such that $s(h) \neq s(e)$. Thus $g$ must act non-trivially on every non-trivial strongly irreducible shift, and so we have proved the claim.
[^1]: This work was supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (\#419427, Omer Tamuz)
[^2]: Glasner attributes one of these examples to Furstenberg.
[^3]: For a self-contained proof see [@frisch2018virtually].
[^4]: A topological action $G \cc X$ is [*strongly proximal*]{} if for each Borel probability measure $\mu$ on $X$ there exists a net $\{g_i\}$ such that $\lim_i g_i\mu$ is a point mass.
[^5]: Recall that given a finite symmetric subset $X \subset G$ and $g, h \in G$, we say that $g$ and $h$ are $X$-apart if $g^{-1}h \not \in X$.
[^6]: The $X$-interiors of $Y^{100}X$ and $YX$ are $Y^{100}$ and $Y$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In an incoherent dictionary, most signals that admit a sparse representation admit a unique sparse representation. In other words, there is no way to express the signal without using strictly more atoms. This work demonstrates that sparse signals typically enjoy a higher privilege: each nonoptimal representation of the signal requires far more atoms than the sparsest representation—unless it contains many of the same atoms as the sparsest representation. One impact of this finding is to confer a certain degree of legitimacy on the particular atoms that appear in a sparse representation. This result can also be viewed as an uncertainty principle for random sparse signals over an incoherent dictionary.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'sparsity-gap.bib'
title: |
The Sparsity Gap:\
Uncertainty Principles Proportional to Dimension
---
Introduction
============
The purpose of this paper is to develop a new class of uncertainty principles for sparse representation that hold even when the sparsity level approaches the ambient dimension. We begin with a discussion of the background and related results before moving on to the new contributions.
Sparse Representation in Dictionaries
-------------------------------------
Let $\Fee$ be an $m \times N$ matrix with normalized columns: $$\enorm{ \atom_j } = 1,
\quad j = 1, 2, \dots, N.$$ We refer to $\Fee$ as a and to its columns as . Assume the atoms span the ambient space $\Cspace{m}$. There are two simple geometric quantities associated with a dictionary. The first is a measure of : $$\rho = \norm{\Fee}^2,$$ where $\norm{\cdot}$ denotes the spectral, or $\ell_2 \to \ell_2$ operator norm, of a matrix. We always have $\rho \geq N/m$. Equality holds if and only if $\Fee$ is a . The second quantity is the : $$\mu = \max_{j \neq k} \absip{ \atom_j }{ \atom_k }.$$ The coherence is small when the angle between each pair of atoms is large. Strohmer and Heath [@SH03:Grassmannian-Frames] have observed that $$\label{eqn:grassmann}
\mu \geq \sqrt{\frac{N - m}{m(N-1)}}.$$ In the typical case $N \geq 2m$, the inequality indicates that the coherence cannot be very small: $\mu \gtrsim m^{-1/2}$.
Let $S$ be a subset of $\{1,2,\dots, N\}$, and define $\Fee_S$ to be the column submatrix of $\Fee$ whose columns are listed in $S$. We say that $S$ is if it lists a linearly independent family of atoms. Note that $\Fee_S$ is injective if and only if $S$ is linearly independent. Suppose that a signal $\vct{u} \in \Cspace{m}$ can be written as $$\vct{u} = \Fee \vct{x}
\quad\text{where $\supp{\vct{x}} \subset S$}.$$ We call the vector $\vct{x}$ a of the signal $\vct{u}$, and we say that $\vct{u}$ can be When $S$ is linearly independent, $\vct{x}$ is the unique representation of $\vct{u}$ over $S$.
In a redundant dictionary ($N > m$), each signal has an infinity of representations. The sparse representation problem asks us to express $\vct{u}$ with the fewest number of atoms: $$\label{eqn:p0}
\min \pnorm{0}{\vct{z}}
\quad\subjto\quad
\vct{u} = \Fee \vct{z},$$ where $\pnorm{0}{\cdot}$ counts the number of nonzero components in its argument. If $\vct{x}$ is a minimizer of this mathematical program, the set $S = \supp{\vct{x}}$ must be linearly independent. Otherwise, we could remove an atom to obtain a sparser representation. As a result, when studying sparse representation, we focus on linearly independent sets of atoms.
Uniqueness of Sparse Representations {#sec:uniqueness}
------------------------------------
One might wonder when the problem has a unique solution. The sparse approximation literature took up this inquiry about ten years ago, although one can trace some of the ideas to the late 1980s [@DS89:Uncertainty-Principles]. The early research led to the following result for deterministic signals.
\[prop:l0-uniqueness\] Assume that $$\label{eqn:l0-uniqueness}
\abs{S} < \frac{1}{2}( \mu^{-1} + 1 ).$$ If a signal $\vct{u} = \Fee \vct{x}$ with $\supp{\vct{x}} \subset S$, then $\vct{x}$ is the unique minimizer of .
Donoho and Huo established this result for dictionaries consisting of two orthonormal bases [@DH01:Uncertainty-Principles]; Gribonval and Nielsen proved that it holds for *every* dictionary [@GN03:Sparse-Representations]. Subsequently, Donoho and Elad showed that Proposition \[prop:l0-uniqueness\] follows from a more general result, phrased in terms of the , or , of the dictionary [@DE03:Optimally-Sparse]. Another line of work [@EB02:Generalized-Uncertainty; @GN03:Sparse-Representations] sharpened the condition for dictionaries consisting of multiple orthonormal bases. See [@Tro08:Linear-Independence] for a detailed discussion of the spikes and sines dictionary.
The requirement is very stringent: it typically demands that the sparsity level $\abs{ S } \lesssim \sqrt{m}$. In spite of this apparent shortcoming, the condition cannot be improved in general. For example, when $m$ is a perfect square, the Dirac comb can be represented perfectly using $\sqrt{m}$ spikes or $\sqrt{m}$ sines [@DS89:Uncertainty-Principles]. To move past the square-root threshold, we must place additional restrictions on the sparse signals we are willing to consider.
A natural approach is to introduce some randomness. Let $S$ be linearly independent, and let $\vct{x} \in \Cspace{S}$ be a random vector whose distribution is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\Cspace{S}$. We say that a random signal of the form $\vct{u} = \Fee_S \vct{x}$ is , and we refer to the (unique) representation of $\vct{u}$ over $S$ as the *natural representation*. To obtain interesting uniqueness results for generic signals, we impose some additional hypotheses. We say that the dictionary $\Fee$ is a if $$\label{eqn:weak-incoherence-intro}
\normsq{\Fee} = \frac{N}{m}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\mu \leq \frac{\cnst{c}}{\log N},$$ where $\cnst{c}$ is an absolute constant. Assume the sparsity level $$\label{eqn:s-bound-intro}
s \leq \frac{\cnst{c} m}{\log N}.$$ In this setting, we have the following result.
\[prop:weak-unique\] Assume the dictionary $\Fee$ satisfies and the sparsity $s$ satisfies . Draw a uniformly random set $S$ of $s$ atoms from the dictionary. Except with probability $\bigO(N^{-1})$, the following statement holds.
Let $\vct{u} = \Fee_S \vct{x}$ be a generic signal. With probability one, the natural representation of $\vct{u}$ is the unique minimizer of .
Roughly speaking, Proposition \[prop:weak-unique\] states that a generic sparse signal over a random set of atoms is unlikely to have any other representation that is equally sparse—even when the sparsity level is nearly proportional to the ambient dimension. Candès and Romberg established the first theorem of this type in the specific case of the spikes and sines dictionary [@CR06:Quantitative-Robust]. Using different methods, the present author showed that analogous results hold for any strongly incoherent dictionary [@Tro08:Conditioning-Random Sec. 7]. The extension to weakly incoherent dictionaries requires additional ideas from [@Tro08:Norms-Random Sec. 5].
Uncertainty Principles
----------------------
Historically, the sparse approximation community has viewed uniqueness through the lens of *uncertainty principles*. Suppose that a signal has two (different) representations: $$\vct{u} = \Fee_S \vct{x} = \Fee_T \vct{y}.$$ The Donoho–Elad dictionary uncertainty principle [@DE03:Optimally-Sparse Thms. 3 and 5] states[^1] that $$\label{eqn:donoho-elad}
\abs{S} + \abs{T} > \mu^{-1}.$$ In particular, if a signal $\vct{u}$ can be represented with a set $S$ that satisfies , then every alternative representation requires strictly more atoms.
Since the coherence usually satisfies $\mu \gtrsim m^{-1/2}$, the dictionary uncertainty principle only operates in the regime of very sparse representations: $\abs{S} \lesssim \sqrt{m}$. Except for very structured (or very random) dictionaries, it does not seem possible to obtain dictionary uncertainty principles for arbitrary signals that hold at sparsity levels near the ambient dimension.
The Sparsity Gap
----------------
This paper describes uncertainty principles for *generic signals*. It is easy to appreciate why generic signals might behave better than adversarially chosen signals. If there are small sets $S$ and $T$ of atoms for which $\range(\Fee_S)$ and $\range(\Fee_T)$ intersect, there exists a signal that has sparse representations over both $S$ and $T$. (Witness the Dirac comb!) On the other hand, it is hard for a generic signal to have two sparse representations because $\range(\Fee_T)$ rarely *contains* $\range(\Fee_S)$! This fact offers a plausible route to reach uncertainty principles at sparsity levels far greater than $\sqrt{m}$.
Our first result extends the dictionary uncertainty principle to generic signals. The proof appears in Section \[sec:strong-incoherence\].
\[thm:strong-intro\] Suppose that $S$ is linearly independent, and draw a generic signal $\vct{u}$ in $\range(\Fee_S)$. Then, almost surely, we cannot represent $\vct{u}$ with a set $T$ disjoint from $S$ *unless* $$\abs{S} + \abs{T} > \mu^{-1} \sqrt{ \abs{S} }.$$
When $\abs{S} = 1$, our result coincides with the dictionary uncertainty principle , but it becomes increasingly strict requirements as the sparsity level $\abs{S}$ increases! Indeed, an equivalent condition is $$\abs{T} > \left( \frac{\mu^{-1}}{\sqrt{\abs{S}}} - 1 \right) \cdot \abs{S},$$ so a generic signal that uses $\abs{S} \ll \mu^{-2}$ atoms cannot be represented with any disjoint set $T$ of atoms unless $\abs{T} \gg \abs{S}$. In the extreme case where $\mu^{-2} \sim m$, we obtain an uncertainty principle that operates at sparsity levels proportional to the ambient dimension!
Our second result is an uncertainty principle that parallels Proposition \[prop:weak-unique\], just as Theorem \[thm:strong-intro\] parallels Proposition \[prop:l0-uniqueness\]. This proof appears in Section \[sec:weak-incoherence\].
\[thm:weak-intro\] Assume that $\Fee$ is a weakly incoherent tight frame that satisfies , and assume further that $N > 2m$. Suppose that $S$ is a randomly chosen set of $s$ atoms, where $s$ satisfies . Except with probability $\bigO(N^{-1})$, the following holds.
Draw a generic signal $\vct{u}$ in $\range(\Fee_S)$. Then, almost surely, $\vct{u}$ cannot be represented with a set $T$ disjoint from $S$ *unless* $$\abs{T} > \left( 1 + \frac{2}{\rho} \right) \cdot \abs{S}.$$ The redundancy $\rho = N/m$, by hypothesis.
In words, Theorem \[thm:weak-intro\] considers a generic signal over a random set of atoms. It is likely that every (disjoint) alternative representation requires a constant factor more atoms than the natural representation, where the extra factor decreases as the dictionary becomes more redundant. We see that there is typically a *sparsity gap* between the natural representation and the the sparsest representation that uses different atoms.
This result provides an interesting guarantee for a huge class of dictionaries because of the weak bound for the incoherence. On the other hand, it holds for a smaller class of signals than Theorem \[thm:strong-intro\] because we have randomized the set of atoms in addition to choosing generic coefficients.
Rank and File
=============
Although a generic signal has many representations aside from the natural one, there is a large class of representations that we can almost surely rule out. As a first step toward our main results, we develop an algebraic condition that describes which representations can and cannot occur.
To motivate the discussion, let us recall a standard argument for establishing dictionary uncertainty principles. Suppose that both $S$ and $T$ are linearly independent. A few moments of thought reveals that the following conditions are equivalent:
1. We have $\range(\Fee_S) \cap \range(\Fee_T) = \emptyset$.
2. The matrix $\Fee_R$ has full rank, where $R = S \cup T$.
For a fixed set $S$, suppose that Condition 2) holds whenever $\abs{R} < r_{\star}$. We conclude that, if there exists a signal that has representations over both $S$ and $T$, then $\abs{S} + \abs{T} \geq r_{\star}$. Read the paper [@DE03:Optimally-Sparse] to see this argument in action.
We can extend this methodology by *quantifying* the rank of the matrix $\Fee_R$. These bounds allow us to count how many extra atoms are needed to represent a generic sparse signal.
\[lem:subspace-cond\] Suppose that both $S$ and $T$ are linearly independent. The following conditions are equivalent.
1. We have $\range(\Fee_S) \cap \range(\Fee_T) \subsetneq \range(\Fee_S)$.
2. We have $\abs{T} < \rank( \Fee_R )$, where $R = S \cup T$.
Define the subspaces $\coll{S} = \range(\Fee_S)$ and $\coll{T} = \range(\Fee_T)$, which implies that $\coll{S} + \coll{T} = \range(\Fee_R)$. Note that $\coll{S} \cap \coll{T}$ is a proper subspace of $\coll{S}$ if and only if $$\label{eqn:subspace-*}
\dim( \coll{S} \cap \coll{T} ) < \dim( \coll{S} ) %\tag{$*$}$$ The algebra of subspaces yields $$\dim( \coll{S} \cap \coll{T} ) = \dim(\coll{S}) + \dim(\coll{T}) - \dim( \coll{S} + \coll{T} ).$$ Therefore, the condition is equivalent with $$\dim(\coll{T}) < \dim(\coll{S} + \coll{T}).$$ Since $T$ is linearly independent, $\dim(\coll{T}) = \abs{T}$. Meanwhile, $$\dim(\coll{S} + \coll{T}) = \dim( \range(\Fee_R) ) \\
= \rank(\Fee_R).
%= \rank( \Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R).$$ This is the required conclusion.
Let us translate the previous result from the language of subspaces to the language of probability.
\[cor:generic-signal\] Suppose that both $S$ and $T$ are linearly independent. The following conditions are equivalent.
1. A generic signal $\vct{u} = \Fee_S \vct{x}$ almost surely has no representation of the form $\vct{u} = \Fee_T \vct{y}$.
2. We have $\abs{T} < \rank( \Fee_R )$, where $R = S \cup T$.
Lemma \[lem:subspace-cond\] states that Condition 2) is the same as $$\label{eqn:range-*}
\range(\Fee_S) \cap \range(\Fee_T) \subsetneq \range(\Fee_S), %\tag{$*$}$$ so we prove that Condition 1) is the same as . To that end, let $\vct{u} = \Fee_S \vct{x}$ be a generic signal, which means that $\vct{x}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\Cspace{S}$. Let $\nu$ denote the Lebesgue measure on $\range(\Fee_S)$.
First, assume holds. A proper subspace has zero Lebesgue measure, so $$\nu( \range(\Fee_S) \cap \range(\Fee_T) ) = 0.$$ The set $S$ is linearly independent, so $\Fee_S$ is injective. As a result, the distribution of $\vct{u}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$. It follows immediately that $$\Prob{ \vct{u} \in \range(\Fee_S) \cap \range(\Fee_T) } = 0.$$ We conclude that $$\Prob{ \vct{u} \in \range(\Fee_T) } = 0$$ because the signal $\vct{u} \in \range(\Fee_S)$.
Conversely, suppose is false. Then $\range(\Fee_S) \subset \range(\Fee_T)$, so the signal $\vct{u}$ can be represented over $T$.
It is convenient to remove the assumption of linear independence from the previous result.
\[cor:generic-ld\] Suppose that $S$ is linearly independent, and let $T$ be any other set of atoms. Assume that $$\abs{T} < \rank( \Fee_{R} ),
\quad\text{where $R = S \cup T$.}$$ Draw a generic signal $\vct{u} = \Fee_S \vct{x}$. Then $$\Prob{ \vct{u} \in \range(\Fee_T) } = 0.$$
When $T$ is linearly independent, the claim follows directly from Corollary \[cor:generic-signal\]. Otherwise, extract a maximal linear independent subset $T'$ from $T$, and write $R' = S \cup T'$. Apply the result to $T'$ to obtain the statement $$\abs{T'} < \rank(\Fee_{R'}) \quad\Longrightarrow\quad
\Prob{ \vct{u} \in \range(\Fee_{T'}) } = 0.$$ Since $T'$ is maximal, $\rank(\Fee_{R'}) = \rank(\Fee_R)$ and also $\range(\Fee_{T'}) = \range(\Fee_T)$. To complete the proof, note that the hypothesis $\abs{T} < \rank(\Fee_R)$ implies $\abs{T'} < \rank(\Fee_R)$ because $T' \subset T$.
Analytic Rank Estimates
=======================
The main challenge is that we only possess analytic/geometric information about the dictionary, encapsulated in the redundancy $\rho$ and the coherence $\mu$. But the rank is fundamentally an algebraic quantity. Our approach will be to construct *analytic* estimates for the rank that we can compute from the data at hand.
Schatten Norms
--------------
A primary tool is the Schatten class of matrix norms. Let $\mtx{A}$ be a matrix, and write $\vct{\sigma}(\mtx{A})$ for the vector of singular values of $\mtx{A}$, arranged in weakly decreasing order. The is defined as $$\pnorm{S_p}{\mtx{A}} = \pnorm{p}{ \vct{\sigma}(\mtx{A}) },$$ where $\pnorm{p}{\cdot}$ is the usual $\ell_p$ vector norm. In particular, $S_2$ is the Frobenius norm, and $S_\infty$ is the spectral norm. The norm $S_1$ is often called the because $$\pnorm{S_1}{\mtx{A}} = \trace(\mtx{A})
\quad\text{when $\mtx{A}$ is psd}.$$ The term abbreviates . For general matrices, the Frobenius norm is the only Schatten-class norm computable directly from the matrix entries: $$\fnorm{\mtx{A}} = \left[ \sum\nolimits_{jk} \abssq{a_{jk}} \right]^{1/2}.$$
Rank Bounds via Norm Ratios
---------------------------
A simple but powerful method for estimating rank is to compare two different Schatten norms of the same matrix.
Suppose that $p < q$. For each matrix $\mtx{A}$, $$\rank(\mtx{A}) \geq \left[ \frac{ \pnorm{S_p}{\mtx{A}} }{ \pnorm{S_q}{\mtx{A}}} \right]^{pq/(q-p)}.$$
For each vector $\vct{x} \in \Cspace{r}$, we have the inequality $$\frac{\pnorm{p}{\vct{x}}}{\pnorm{q}{\vct{x}}} \leq r^{1/p - 1/q}.$$ Indeed, one can use Lagrange multipliers to verify that the left-hand side is maximized when $\vct{x}$ is a constant vector.
Suppose that $\rank(\mtx{A}) = r$. Then the vector $\vct{\sigma}$ of nonzero singular values of $\mtx{A}$ lies in $\Cspace{r}$. By definition of the Schatten norms, $$\frac{\pnorm{S_p}{\mtx{A}}}{\pnorm{S_q}{\mtx{A}}}
= \frac{\pnorm{p}{\vct{\sigma}}}{\pnorm{q}{\vct{\sigma}}}
\leq r^{1/p - 1/q}.$$ Take the $(1/p - 1/q)$ root and simplify the exponent to reach the conclusion.
The following simple corollary is fantastically useful.
\[cor:alon-bourgain\] Let $\mtx{A}$ be a matrix. Then $$\rank(\mtx{A}) \geq \frac{\pnorm{S_1}{\mtx{A}}^2}{ \fnormsq{\mtx{A}} }
\quad\text{and}\quad
\rank(\mtx{A}) \geq \frac{\fnormsq{\mtx{A}}}{\normsq{\mtx{A}}}.$$
Alon has applied the first estimate in his work on extremal combinatorics [@Alo03:Problems-Results]. The second estimate arises in a paper of Bourgain and Tzafriri on restricted invertibility [@BT87:Invertibility-Large].
A Schur Complement Rank Identity
--------------------------------
Suppose that $\mtx{X}$ is a psd matrix, partitioned so that its diagonal blocks are square: $$\mtx{X} = \begin{bmatrix} \mtx{A} & \mtx{B} \\ \mtx{B}^\adj & \mtx{C} \end{bmatrix}.$$ Provided that the block $\mtx{A}$ is nonsingular, the of $\mtx{A}$ in $\mtx{X}$ is the matrix $$\mtx{X}/\mtx{A} = \mtx{C} - \mtx{B} \mtx{A}^{-1}\mtx{B}^\adj.$$ For our purposes, the relevant fact is that $$\label{eqn:schur-rank-ident}
\rank( \mtx{X} ) = \rank( \mtx{A} ) + \rank( \mtx{X} / \mtx{A} ).$$ See [@PSWZ07:Huas-Matrix Sec. 2] for more Schur complement identities.
Sparsity Gap under Strong Incoherence {#sec:strong-incoherence}
=====================================
Corollary \[cor:generic-ld\] indicates that we can obtain uncertainty principles for generic signals by developing lower bounds on the rank of a subdictionary $\Fee_R$. This section describes the simplest approach to this problem, which proceeds via Corollary \[cor:alon-bourgain\]. This method is most effective when the coherence $\mu$ is small.
Let $R$ be a set of atoms. Since $$\label{eqn:rank-gram}
\rank( \Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R ) = \rank( \Fee_R ),$$ we may as well work with the Gram matrix of $\Fee_R$. This substitution allows us to exploit geometric information about the dictionary. Indeed, the diagonal entries of $\Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R$ equal one because the atoms have unit $\ell_2$ norm, and the off-diagonal entries are bounded in magnitude by $\mu$ because they contain the inner products between distinct atoms.
\[lem:simple-result\] Let $R$ be a set of $r$ atoms. Then $$\rank( \Fee_R ) \geq \frac{r}{1 + (r - 1) \mu^2}.$$
Relation and Corollary \[cor:alon-bourgain\] imply that $$\label{eqn:rank-alon}
\rank(\Fee_R) = \rank(\Fee^\adj \Fee_R)
\geq \frac{\pnorm{S_1}{\Fee_R^\adj\Fee_R}^2}{\fnormsq{\Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R}}.
% \geq \frac{r^2}{r + r(r-1) \mu^2}.$$ Owing to the properties of the Gram matrix, $$\pnorm{S_1}{ \Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R}^2 = (\trace \Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R )^2 = r^2$$ and $$\fnormsq{ \Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R } \leq r + r(r-1)\mu^2$$ Introduce these bounds into to complete the proof.
When the coherence $\mu$ is small, Lemma \[lem:simple-result\] provides excellent estimates for the rank of $\Fee_R$. By combining this bound with Corollary \[cor:generic-ld\], we obtain our first main result.
\[thm:simple-result\] Suppose that $S$ indexes a linearly independent set of $s$ atoms and that $T$ lists $t$ atoms. Assume that the size $\delta$ of their intersection $$\label{eqn:overlap-bd}
\delta = \abs{S \cap T} < s \left[1 - \frac{t-1}{s} \cdot \frac{t \mu^2}{1 - t\mu^2} \right].$$ Let $\vct{u} = \Fee_S \vct{x}$ be a generic signal in $\range(\Fee_S)$. Then $$\Prob{ \vct{u} \in \range(\Fee_T) } = 0.$$ A fortiori, there is zero probability that $\vct{u}$ can be represented using *any* set $T$ of $t$ atoms whose overlap with $S$ equals $\delta$.
Define the set $R = S \cup T$. Observe that $$r := \abs{R} = \abs{S} + \abs{T} - \abs{S \cap T} = s + t - \delta.$$ Corollary \[cor:generic-ld\] states that $t < \rank( \Fee_R )$ implies $$\label{eqn:simple-*}
\Prob{ \vct{u} \in \range(\Fee_T) } = 0. %\tag{$*$}$$ According to Lemma \[lem:simple-result\], $$\frac{r}{1 + (r-1)\mu^2} \leq \rank( \Fee_R ).
% > \frac{r}{1 + r\mu^2}.$$ Therefore, another sufficient condition for is $$t < \frac{r}{1 + (r-1) \mu^2} = \frac{s + t - \delta}{1 + (s+t-\delta - 1) \mu^2}.$$ Solving this relation for $\delta$ results in the bound $$\delta < s - \frac{(t-1) t \mu^2}{1 - t\mu^2}.$$ If $\delta$ satisfies this condition, then is in force.
Since only a finite number of sets $T$ meet the hypotheses of the theorem, there is zero chance that $\vct{u}$ is representable using *any* such set $T$ of atoms.
In words, Theorem \[thm:simple-result\] states that a generic signal constructed using a set of $s$ atoms almost surely has no representation using another set of $t$ atoms unless there is a substantial overlap between the two sets.
For example, suppose $\mu \leq m^{-1/2}$, and let $\vct{u}$ be a generic signal in $\range(\Fee_S)$, where $\abs{S} \leq m/3$. Take $t = s$ in the overlap condition to see that, almost surely, *every* representation of $\vct{u}$ with $s$ atoms requires at least $s/2$ atoms from $S$!
To obtain an uncertainty principle, note that the relation is quadratic in $t$. By reverting this inequality, we obtain a sufficient condition on $t$ as a function of $s$ and $\delta$.
\[cor:simple-result\] With the notation of Theorem \[thm:simple-result\], assume $$t < (s-\delta -1) \left[ \sqrt{ \left(1 + \frac{1}{s-\delta-1}\right) \frac{\mu^{-2}}{s-\delta-1} + \frac{1}{4} } - 1 \right].$$ Then $\Prob{ \vct{u} \in \range(\Fee_T) } = 0$.
After a considerable amount of algebra, Corollary \[cor:simple-result\] simplifies to a new uncertainty principle.
\[cor:tropp-up\] Suppose $S$ is linearly independent. A generic signal $\vct{u}$ in $\range(\Fee_S)$ almost surely has no representation over a set $T$ with overlap $\delta = \abs{S \cap T}$ *unless* $$\abs{S} + \abs{T} > \delta + \mu^{-1}\sqrt{\abs{S} - \delta}.$$
Theorem \[thm:strong-intro\] follows from Corollary \[cor:tropp-up\] by setting $\delta = 0$.
Sparsity Gap under Weak Incoherence {#sec:weak-incoherence}
===================================
In this section, we use a different technique to bound the rank of $\Fee_R$ below. This approach relies on the Schur complement identity and the second part of Corollary \[cor:alon-bourgain\]. We also require some information about the properties of random sets of atoms, drawn from [@Tro08:Conditioning-Random; @Tro08:Norms-Random]. The conclusions are most interesting for weakly incoherent dictionaries.
Assume $S$ is linearly independent, which implies that the Gram matrix $\Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S$ is invertible. Let $V$ be an index set disjoint from $S$, and write $R = S \cup V$. Then the Gram matrix has the block structure $$\Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R = \begin{bmatrix}
\Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S & \Fee_S^\adj \Fee_V \\
\Fee_V^\adj \Fee_S & \Fee_V^\adj \Fee_V
\end{bmatrix}.$$ The identity shows that we can control the rank of the Gram matrix by controlling the rank of the northwest block and its Schur complement. To state the result, we recall that $$\label{eqn:orth-proj}
\mtx{P}_S = \Fee_S (\Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S)^{-1} \Fee_S^\adj$$ is the orthogonal projector onto $\range(\Fee_S)$.
\[lem:schur-rank-decomp\] Suppose that $S$ is linearly independent; let $V$ be disjoint from $S$; and define $R = S \cup V$. Then $$\rank(\Fee_R) = \abs{S} + \rank( (\Id - \mtx{P}_S) \Fee_V ).$$
The Schur complement identity shows that $$\rank(\Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R) = \rank( \Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S ) + \rank(\Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R / \Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S).$$ The set $S$ is linearly independent, so $$\rank(\Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S) = \rank(\Fee_S) = \abs{S}.$$ Next, recall the definition of the Schur complement: $$\Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R / \Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S
= \Fee_V^\adj \Fee_V - \Fee_V^\adj \Fee_S (\Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S)^{-1} \Fee_S^\adj \Fee_V.$$ Identify the orthogonal projector onto $\range(\Fee_S)$ to see that $$\Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R / \Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S = \Fee_V^\adj (\Id - \mtx{P}_S) \Fee_V.$$ We conclude that $$\rank( \Fee_R^\adj \Fee_R / \Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S )
= \rank( (\Id - \mtx{P}_S) \Fee_V )$$ because $(\Id - \mtx{P}_S)^2 = (\Id - \mtx{P}_S)$.
The next result provides a lower bound on the second term in Lemma \[lem:schur-rank-decomp\]. Here and elsewhere, the dagger $\psinv$ denotes the pseudoinverse of a matrix.
\[lem:schur-comp-rank\] Suppose that $S$ is linearly independent, and let $V$ be disjoint from $S$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\rank( (\Id - \mtx{P}_S) \Fee_V ) \geq \\
\rho^{-1} \abs{V}
\left(1 - \smnorm{}{\Fee_S^\psinv}^2 \max\nolimits_{v \notin S} \enormsq{ \Fee_S^\adj \atom_v } \right).\end{gathered}$$
Corollary \[cor:alon-bourgain\] states that $$\label{eqn:schur-bourgain}
\rank( (\Id - \mtx{P}_S)\Fee_V )
\geq \frac{\fnormsq{(\Id - \mtx{P}_S)\Fee_V}}{\normsq{(\Id - \mtx{P}_S)\Fee_V}}.$$ The spectral norm satisfies the bound $$\normsq{ (\Id - \mtx{P}_S) \Fee_V } \leq \normsq{ \Fee_V } \leq \rho$$ because $\Fee_V$ is a column submatrix of $\Fee$. With a little more work, we can produce a lower bound on the Frobenius norm. $$\begin{aligned}
\fnormsq{ (\Id - \mtx{P}_S) \Fee_V }
&= \sum\nolimits_{v \in V} \enormsq{ (\Id - \mtx{P}_S) \atom_v } \\
&= \sum\nolimits_{v \in V} (1 - \enormsq{ \mtx{P}_S \atom_v } ) \\
&\geq \sum\nolimits_{v \in V} \left(1 - \smnorm{}{ \Fee_S^\psinv }^2 \enormsq{ \Fee_S^\adj \atom_v } \right) \\
&\geq \abs{V} \left(1 - \smnorm{}{ \Fee_S^\psinv }^2 \max_{v \notin S} \enormsq{ \Fee_S^\adj \atom_v } \right).\end{aligned}$$ The first inequality follows by expanding the projector via and invoking the usual operator norm bound. Introduce the two norm estimates into to complete the argument.
Lemma \[lem:schur-comp-rank\] is interesting because a *random* set $S$ of atoms from a *weakly incoherent* dictionary usually leads to small values for the mysterious quantities in the rank bound.
\[prop:tropp\] Suppose that $S$ is a uniformly random subset of $\{1,2,\dots, s\}$ with cardinality $s$. For $\beta \geq 1$, $$\Prob{ \max_{v \notin S} \enorm{ \Fee_S^\adj \atom_v }
> \cnst{C} \beta \left[ \mu \sqrt{\log N} + 2\sqrt{\frac{\rho s}{N}} \right] } \leq 2N^{-\beta}.$$ and $$\Prob{ \smnorm{}{ \Fee_S^\adj \Fee_S - \Id } < \cnst{C} \beta \left[ \mu \log N + \sqrt{\frac{\rho s \log N}{N}} \right] } \leq 2N^{-\beta}.$$ The number $\cnst{C}$ is an absolute constant.
Proposition \[prop:tropp\] follows from the results in [@Tro08:Norms-Random Sec. 5] after some standard arguments. We use Markov’s inequality to convert the moment bounds into tail bounds. Then we invoke a simple decoupling argument (see [@Tro08:Linear-Independence Lem. 14] for a model) to transfer the result for a random set with *expected* cardinality $s$ to a random set with exact cardinality $s$.
To take advantage of Proposition \[prop:tropp\], we restrict our attention to a specific class of dictionaries. Assume that $\Fee$ is a weakly incoherent tight frame, as defined in . Suppose furthermore that the sparsity $s$ satisfies . If we fix a sufficiently small value for constant $\cnst{c}$ and take $\beta = 1$, Proposition \[prop:tropp\] ensures that $$\max\nolimits_{v \notin S} \enorm{ \Fee_S^\adj \atom_v } \leq 1/2 \quad\text{and}\quad
\smnorm{}{ \Fee_S^\psinv } \leq \sqrt{2},$$ except with probability $\bigO(N^{-1})$. The upshot of this discussion is the following bound.
\[cor:weak-incoherence-rank-2\] Assume the hypotheses of Lemma \[lem:schur-comp-rank\] are in force. Let $R = S \cup V$. Then $$\rank( \Fee_R ) \geq \abs{S} + \frac{2m\abs{V}}{N}.$$
We reach our final major result by introducing this bound into Corollary \[cor:generic-ld\].
\[thm:sparsity-gap\] Assume that $\Fee$ satisfies the weak incoherence conditions , and assume further that $N > 2m$. Draw a random set $S$ of $s$ atoms, where $s$ satisfies . Except with probability $\bigO(N^{-1})$, the following result holds.
Suppose that $T$ lists $t$ atoms. Let $\delta = \abs{S \cap T}$ be the size of the overlap with $S$, and assume that $$t < \left( s - \frac{2 \delta m}{N} \right) \left( 1 - \frac{2m}{N} \right)^{-1}.$$ Draw a generic signal $\vct{u} = \Fee_S \vct{x}$. Then $$\Prob{ \vct{u} \in \range(\Fee_T)} = 0.$$ A fortiori, there is zero probability that $\vct{u}$ has a representation over *any* such set $T$ of atoms.
Draw a random set $S$ of $s$ atoms. Corollary \[cor:weak-incoherence-rank-2\] guarantees that, with probability $\bigO(N^{-1})$, the following result holds. For any given set $T$ of $t$ atoms, define $V = T \setminus S$ and select $R = S \cup V$. Then $$\label{eqn:gap-rank-bd}
\frac{2m\abs{V}}{N} \leq \rank( \Fee_R ).$$
Now, suppose that $T$ is a specific set of $t$ atoms. According to Corollary \[cor:generic-ld\], the condition $t < \rank( \Fee_R )$ implies that a generic signal in $\range(\Fee_S)$ almost surely has no representation using the atoms in $T$. It follows from that $$t < s + \frac{2m\abs{V}}{N}$$ is a stricter sufficient condition that $\vct{u}$ almost surely cannot be represented with $T$. Introduce the identity $\abs{V} = t - \delta$ into the last relation and rearrange to obtain the equivalent condition $$t < \left(s - \frac{2\delta m}{N} \right) \left( 1 - \frac{2m}{N} \right)^{-1}.$$ As usual, we may take a union bound over the finite number of admissible $T$ to obtain a uniform result.
The message may be clearer if we make additional simplifications to the sufficient condition in Theorem \[thm:sparsity-gap\]. First, subtract and add $2sm/N$ in the first parenthesis to reach $$t < \left[ s \left(1- \frac{2 m}{N}\right) + \frac{2(s - \delta)m}{N} \right]
\left( 1 -\frac{2 m}{N} \right)^{-1}.$$ Since $1 < (1 - 2 m/N)^{-1}$, we find that a further sufficient condition is $$\label{eqn:sparsity-gap}
t \leq s + \frac{2(s-\delta)m}{N}$$ In words, there is zero probability that a generic signal in $\range(\Fee_S)$ has a representation using $t$ atoms unless $t$ is somewhat larger than $s$ or the alternative representation uses many atoms from $S$. Take $\delta = 0$ in to reach Theorem \[thm:weak-intro\].
[^1]: Donoho and Elad express their uncertainty principle [@DE03:Optimally-Sparse Thm. 3] in terms of the Kruskal rank of the dictionary, which is notoriously difficult to estimate. The result quoted here provides the best general bound.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present HORNET, a system that enables high-speed end-to-end anonymous channels by leveraging next-generation network architectures. HORNET is designed as a low-latency onion routing system that operates at the network layer thus enabling a wide range of applications. Our system uses only symmetric cryptography for data forwarding yet requires no per-flow state on intermediate routers. This design enables HORNET routers implemented on off-the-shelf hardware to process anonymous traffic at over 93 Gb/s. [HORNET]{}is also highly scalable, adding minimal processing overhead per additional anonymous channel.'
author:
- |
Chen Chen\
[email protected]\
CMU/ETH Zürich
- |
Daniele E. Asoni\
[email protected]\
ETH Zürich
- |
David Barrera\
[email protected]\
ETH Zürich
- |
George Danezis\
[email protected]\
University College London
- |
Adrian Perrig\
[email protected]\
ETH Zürich
title: '[HORNET]{}: High-speed Onion Routing at the Network Layer'
---
\[Security and protection\]
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Recent revelations about global-scale pervasive surveillance [@pervasive_monitoring_rfc] programs have demonstrated that the privacy of Internet users worldwide is at risk. These revelations suggest massive amounts of private traffic, including web browsing activities, location information, and personal communications are being harvested in bulk by domestic and foreign intelligence agencies.
To protect against these threats, several anonymity protocols, tools, and architectures have been proposed. Among the most secure schemes for anonymous communications are mix networks [@DBLP:conf/ndss/GulcuT96; @mixmaster-spec; @DBLP:conf/sp/DanezisDM03; @Danezis2009], which provide high-latency asynchronous messaging. Onion routing networks (most notably Tor [@dms04]), offer a balance between security and performance, enabling low-latency anonymous communication suitable for typical Internet activities ([e.g.,]{}web browsing, instant messaging, etc.). Tor is the system of choice for over 2 million daily users [@tormetric], but its design as an overlay network suffers from performance and scalability issues. Tor’s design requires per-connection state to be maintained by intermediate nodes, limiting the total number of concurrent anonymous connections that can take place simultaneously.
The scalability and performance limitations of anonymous networks have been partially addressed by building protocols into the network layer rather than implementing them as overlays. Among these high-performing schemes are LAP [@Hsiao2012] and Dovetail [@Sankey2014], which offer network-level low-latency anonymous communication on next-generation network architectures. The high performance of both schemes, however, results in significantly degraded security guarantees; endpoints have little to no protection against adversaries that are not confined to a single network location, and payload protection relies on upper layer protocols which increases complexity.
In this paper, we present [HORNET]{}(High-speed Onion Routing at the NETwork layer), a highly-scalable anonymity system that leverages next-generation Internet architecture design. [HORNET]{}offers payload protection by default, and can defend against attacks that exploit multiple network observation points. [HORNET]{}is designed to be highly efficient: it can use short paths offered by underlying network architectures, rather than the long paths due to global redirection; additionally, instead of keeping state at each relay, connection state (including, [e.g.,]{}onion layer decryption keys) is carried within packet headers, allowing intermediate nodes to quickly forward traffic without per-packet state lookup.
While this paper proposes and evaluates a concrete anonymity system, a secondary goal herein is to broadly re-think the design of low-latency anonymity systems by envisioning networks where anonymous communication is offered as an in-network service to all users. For example, what performance trade-offs exist between keeping anonymous connection state at relays and carrying state in packets? If routers perform anonymity-specific tasks, how can we ensure that these operations do not impact the processing of regular network traffic, especially in adversarial circumstances? And if the network architecture should provide some support for anonymous communication, what should that support be? Throughout the paper we consider these issues in the design of our own system, and provide intuition for the requirements of alternative network-level anonymity systems.
Specifically, our contributions are the following:
- We design and implement [HORNET]{}, an anonymity system that uses source-selected paths and shared keys between endpoints and routers to support onion routing. Unlike other onion routing implementations, [HORNET]{}routers do not keep per-flow state or perform computationally expensive operations for data forwarding, allowing the system to scale.
- We analyze the security of [HORNET]{}, showing that it can defend against passive attacks, and certain types of active attacks. [HORNET]{}provides stronger security guarantees than existing network-level anonymity systems.
- We evaluate the performance of [HORNET]{}, showing that its anonymous data processing speed is close to that of LAP and Dovetail (up to 93.5 Gb/s on a 120 Gb/s software router). This performance is comparable with that of today’s high-end commodity routers [@ciscorouters].
Problem Definition {#sec:probldef}
==================
We aim to design a network-level anonymity system to frustrate adversaries with mass surveillance capabilities. Specifically, an adversary observing traffic traversing the network should be unable to link (at large scale) pairs of communicating hosts . This property is known as relationship anonymity [@pfitzmann2001].
We define *sender anonymity* as a communication scenario where anonymity is guaranteed for the source, but the destination’s location is public ([e.g.,]{}web sites for The Guardian or Der Spiegel). We define *sender-receiver anonymity* as a scenario where the anonymity guarantee is extended to the destination ([e.g.,]{}a hidden service that wishes to conceal its location). Sender-receiver anonymity therefore offers protection for both ends, implying sender anonymity. Depending on users’ needs, [HORNET]{}can support either sender anonymity or sender-receiver anonymity.
Since our scheme operates at the network layer, network location is the only identity feature we aim to conceal. Exposure of network location or user identity at upper layers ([e.g.,]{}through TCP sessions, login credentials, or browser cookies) is out of scope for this work.
Network Model {#sec:network_model}
-------------
We consider that provisioning anonymous communication between end users is a principal task of the network infrastructure. The network’s anonymity-related infrastructures, primarily routers, assist end users in establishing temporary *anonymous sessions* for anonymous data transmission.
We assume that the network layer is operated by a set of nodes. Each node cooperates with sources to establish anonymous sessions to the intended destinations, and processes anonymous traffic within the created sessions. We require that the routing state of a node allows it to determine only the next hop. In particular, the destination is only revealed to the last node and no others. This property can be satisfied by IP Segment Routing [@segment_routing], Future Internet Architectures (FIAs) like NIRA [@Yang2007NIRA] and SCION [@Xin2011SCION; @scion2015], or Pathlets [@godfrey2009pathlet]. In practice, our abstract notion of a node could correspond to different entities depending on the architecture on which [HORNET]{}is built. For instance, in [NIRA]{}and [SCION]{}, a node corresponds to an Autonomous System (AS); in Pathlets, a node maps to a *vnode*.
#### Path and certificate retrieval
A path is the combination of routing state of all nodes between the source and the intended destination. We assume the underlying network architecture provides a mechanism for a source to obtain such a path to a given destination. Additionally, we assume that the same mechanism allows the source to fetch the public keys and certificates[^1] of on-path nodes. Note that the mechanism should be privacy-preserving: the source should not reveal its network location or intent to communicate with a destination by retrieving paths, public keys, and certificates. In Section \[sec:discussion:retrieve\_path\], we further discuss how to obtain required information anonymously in selected FIAs. While a general solution represents an important avenue for future work, it remains outside of our present scope.
#### Public key verification
We assume that end hosts and on-path nodes have public keys accessible and verifiable by all entities. End hosts can retrieve the public keys of other end hosts through an out-of-band channel (e.g., websites) and verify them following a scheme like HIP [@hip], in which the end hosts can publish hashes of their public keys as their service names. Public keys of on-path nodes are managed through a public-key infrastructure (PKI). For example, the source node can leverage Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [@rpki] to verify the public keys of on-path nodes.
Threat Model
------------
We consider an adversary attempting to conduct mass surveillance. Specifically, the adversary collects and maintains a list of “selectors” ([e.g.,]{}targets’ network locations, or higher-level protocol identifiers), which help the adversary trawl intercepted traffic and extract parts of it for more extensive targeted analysis [@selector_story]. An anonymity system should prevent an adversary from leveraging bulk communication access to select traffic that belongs to the targets. Thus an adversary has to collect and analyze all traffic and cannot reliably select traffic specific to targets unless it has access to the physical links adjacent to the targets.
We consider an adversary that is able to compromise a fraction of nodes on the path between a source and a destination. For sender anonymity, the adversary can also compromise the destination. For sender-receiver anonymity, the adversary can compromise at most one of the two end hosts. By compromising a node, the adversary learns all keys and settings, observes all traffic that traverses the compromised node, and is able to control how the nodes behave including redirecting traffic, fabricating, replaying, and modifying packets.
However, we do not aim to prevent targeted de-anonymization attacks where an adversary invests a significant amount of resources on a single or a small set of victims. Like other low-latency schemes, we cannot solve targeted confirmation attacks based on the analysis of flow dynamics [@SS03; @timing-fc2004; @murdoch-pet2007]. Defending against such attacks using dynamic link padding [@wang2008dependent] would be no more difficult than in onion routing, although equally expensive. We defer the discussion and analysis of such measures to future work.
Desired Properties {#sec:desired_properties}
------------------
[HORNET]{}is designed to achieve the following anonymity and security properties:
1. **Path information integrity and secrecy**. An adversary cannot modify a packet header to alter a network path without detection. The adversary should not learn forwarding information of uncompromised nodes, node’s positions, or the total number of hops on a path.
2. **No packet correlation.** An adversary who can eavesdrop on multiple links in the network cannot correlate packets on those links by observing the bit patterns in the headers or payloads. This should hold regardless of whether the observed traffic corresponds to the same packet (at different points on the network), or corresponds to different packets from a single session.
3. **No session linkage.** An adversary cannot link packets from different sessions, even between the same source and destination.
4. **Payload secrecy and end-to-end integrity**. Without compromising end hosts, an adversary cannot learn any information from the data payload except for its length and timing among sequences of packets.
[HORNET]{}Overview {#sec:overview}
==================
The basic design objectives for [HORNET]{}are *scalability* and *efficiency*. To enable Internet-scale anonymous communication, [HORNET]{}intermediate nodes must avoid keeping per-session state ([e.g.,]{}cryptographic keys and routing information). Instead, session state is offloaded to end hosts, who then embed this state into packets such that each intermediate node can extract its own state as part of the packet forwarding process.
Offloading the per-session state presents two challenges. First, nodes need to prevent their offloaded state from leaking information ([e.g.,]{}the session’s cryptographic keys). To address this, each [HORNET]{}node maintains a local secret to encrypt the offloaded per-session state. We call this encrypted state a *Forwarding Segment* (FS). The FS allows its creating node to dynamically retrieve the embedded information ([i.e.,]{}next hop, shared key, session expiration time), while hiding this information from unauthorized third parties.
The second challenge in offloading the per-session state is to combine this state ([i.e.,]{}the FSes) in a packet in such a way that each node is able to retrieve its own FS, but no information is leaked about the network location of the end hosts, the path length, or a specific node’s position on the path. Learning any of this information could assist in de-anonymization attacks (see Section \[sec:ilt\]). To address this challenge, the source constructs an *anonymous header* ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}) by combining multiple FSes, and prepends this header to each packet in the session. An [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}grants each node on the path access to the FS it created, without divulging any information about the path except for a node’s previous and next nodes (see Section \[sec:aheader\]).
For efficient packet processing, each [HORNET]{}node performs one Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchange operation once per session during setup. For all data packets within the session, [HORNET]{}nodes use only symmetric cryptography to retrieve their state, process the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}and onion-decrypt (or encrypt) the payload. To reduce setup delay, [HORNET]{}uses only two setup packets within a single round trip between the source and the destination. Therefore, session setup only incurs $O(n)$ propagation delay in comparison to $O(n^2)$ by the telescopic setup method used in Tor (where $n$ is the number of anonymity nodes traversed on the path). While for Tor the default value of $n$ is 3, for [HORNET]{}$n$ might be as large as 14 (4.1 in the average case, and less or equal to 7 in over 99% of cases [@iplane_dataset]), which emphasizes the need to optimize setup propagation delay.
Sender Anonymity {#sec:senderanonymity}
----------------
Anonymous sessions between a source and a destination require the source to establish state between itself and every node on the path. The state will be carried in subsequent data packets, enabling intermediate nodes to retrieve their corresponding state and forward the packet to the next hop. We now describe how the state is collected without compromising the sender’s anonymity, and how this state is used to forward data packets.
#### Setup phase
To establish an anonymous session between a source $S$ and a public destination $D$, $S$ uses a single round of Sphinx [@Danezis2009], a provably secure mix protocol (an overview of Sphinx is given in Section \[sec:sphinx\]). This round consists of two Sphinx packets (one for the forward path and one for the backward path) each of which will anonymously establish shared symmetric keys between $S$ and every node on that path. For [HORNET]{}, we extend the Sphinx protocol to additionally anonymously collect the forwarding segments (FSes) for each node. Our modified Sphinx protocol protects the secrecy and integrity of these FSes, and does not reveal topology information to any node on the path. We note that using Sphinx also for data forwarding would result in low throughput due to prohibitively expensive per-hop asymmetric cryptographic operations. Therefore, we use Sphinx only for session setup packets, which are amortized over the subsequent data transmission packets. We explain the details of the setup phase in Section \[sec:setupphase\].
#### Data transmission phase
Having collected the FSes, the source is now able to construct a forward [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}and a backward [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}for the forward and backward paths, respectively. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}s carry the FSes which contain all state necessary for nodes to process and forward packets to the next hop. When sending a data packet, the source onion-encrypts the data payload using the session’s shared symmetric keys, and prepends the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}. Each node then retrieves its FS from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}, onion-decrypts the packet and forwards it to the next hop, until it reaches the destination. The destination uses the backward [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}(received in the first data packet[^2]) to send data back to $S$, with the only difference being that the payload is encrypted (rather than decrypted) at each hop. We present the details of the data transmission phase in Section \[sec:datatransmission\].
Sender-Receiver Anonymity {#sec:recv_anonymity}
-------------------------
Sender-receiver anonymity, where neither $S$ nor $D$ knows the other’s location ([e.g.,]{}a hidden service), presents a new challenge: since $S$ does not know $D$’s location (and vice versa), $S$ cannot retrieve a path to $D$, precluding the establishment of state between $S$ and nodes on the path to $D$ as described in Section \[sec:senderanonymity\].
A common approach to this problem (as adopted by [Tor]{}[^3], [LAP]{}, and [Dovetail]{}) is to use a public *rendezvous point* (RP) to forward traffic between $S$ and $D$ without knowing either $S$ or $D$. This solution would also work for [HORNET]{}, but would require RPs to maintain per-session state between sources and destinations. For instance, when receiving a packet from $S$, an RP needs the state to determine how to send the packet to $D$. Maintaining per-session state on RPs increases complexity, bounds the number of receivers, and introduces a state exhaustion denial-of-service attack vector.
**Nested [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}s.** Our proposal for sender-receiver anonymity requires no state to be kept at the RP by nesting the necessary state for RPs to forward a packet within the packet’s header: a forward [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}from $S$ to a RP will include the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}from the RP to $D$; a backward [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}from $D$ to a RP will include the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}from the RP back to $S$.
Briefly, to establish a [HORNET]{}session between $S$ and $D$ keeping both parties hidden from each other, $D$ selects a public rendezvous point $R$ and completes a [HORNET]{}session setup between $D$ and $R$. $D$ publishes ${\textsc{ahdr}\xspace}_{R\rightarrow{}D}$ to a public directory. Note that this [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}leaks no information about $D$’s location and can only be used to send data to $D$ through $R$ within a specific time window.
When $S$ wants to send traffic to $D$, $S$ retrieves (from a public directory) ${\textsc{ahdr}\xspace}_{R\rightarrow{}D}$. $S$ then establishes a [HORNET]{}session between $S$ and $R$ and constructs a nested [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}with ${\textsc{ahdr}\xspace}_{R\rightarrow{}D}$ inside ${\textsc{ahdr}\xspace}_{S\rightarrow{}R}$. Thus, when $R$ receives a packet from $S$, $R$ can retrieve ${\textsc{ahdr}\xspace}_{R\rightarrow{}D}$ from ${\textsc{ahdr}\xspace}_{S\rightarrow{}R}$ and forward the packet to $D$. $S$ also includes ${\textsc{ahdr}\xspace}_{R\rightarrow{}S}$ in the data payload of the first data packet to $D$, allowing $D$ to create a return path to $S$.
One of the advantages of our scheme is that any node on the network can serve as a rendezvous point. In fact, multiple points can be selected and advertised, allowing the source to pick the RP closest to it. Moreover, once a [HORNET]{}session has been established, $S$ and $D$ can negotiate a better (closer) RP ([e.g.,]{}using private set intersection [@Freedman2004]). A disadvantage of the nested [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}technique is that it doubles the size of the header.
Packet Structure {#sec:packetstructure}
----------------
[HORNET]{}uses two types of packets: *setup packets* and *data packets* (see Figure \[fig:setup\_pkts\]). Both types of packets begin with a common header ([${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$]{}) which describes the packet type, the length of the longest path that the session supports, and a type-specific field. For session setup packets, the type-specific field contains a value ${\mbox{\sc exp}}$ which indicates the intended expiration time of the session. For data packets, the specific value is a random nonce generated by the sender used by intermediate nodes to process the data packet.
Session setup packets include a nested [Sphinx]{}packet and an FS payload. Data packets carry an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}and an onion-encrypted data payload. We explain each field in detail in Section \[sec:protocol\].
![[HORNET]{}packet formats. For both setup packet and data packet, the shaded fields represent the common header ([${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$]{}).[]{data-label="fig:setup_pkts"}](laplus_hdr_fmt){width="8cm"}
Formal Protocol Description {#sec:protocol}
===========================
We now describe the details of our protocol, focusing on sender anonymity. We begin with notation (Section \[sec:notation\]) and initialization requirements (Section \[sec:initialization\]). We then describe the establishment of anonymous communication sessions (Section \[sec:setupphase\]) and data transmission (Section \[sec:datatransmission\]).
Notation {#sec:notation}
--------
Let $k$ be the security parameter used in the protocol. For evaluation purposes we consider $k = 128$. $\mathcal{G}$ is a prime order cyclic group of order $q$ ($q\sim2^{2k}$), which satisfies the Decisional Diffie-Hellman Assumption. $\mathcal{G}^*$ is the set of non-identity elements in $\mathcal{G}$ and $g$ is a generator of $\mathcal{G}$. Throughout this section we use the multiplicative notation for $\mathcal{G}$.
Let $r$ be the maximum length of a path, [i.e.,]{}the maximum number of nodes on a path, including the destination. We denote the length of an FS as $|FS|$ and the size of an block, containing an FS and a MAC of size $k$, as $c=|FS| + k$.
[HORNET]{}uses the following cryptographic primitives:
- ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}: \{0,1\}^k \times \{0,1\}^*\rightarrow\{0,1\}^k$: Message Authentication Code (MAC) function.
- ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}, {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG1}}}, {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG2}}}: \{0,1\}^k \rightarrow \{0,1\}^{rc}$: Three cryptographic pseudo-random generators.
- ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}: \{0,1\}^k \times \{0,1\}^a \rightarrow \{0,1\}^a$: A pseudo-random permutation, implementable as a block cipher. The value of $a$ will be clear from the context.
- ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{ENC}}}: \{0,1\}^k \times \{0,1\}^k \times \{0,1\}^{mk} \rightarrow \{0,1\}^{mk}$: Encryption function, with the second parameter being the Initialization Vector (IV) ([e.g.,]{}stream cipher in CBC mode). $m$ is a positive integer denoting the number of encrypted blocks.
- ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{DEC}}}: \{0,1\}^k \times \{0,1\}^k \times \{0,1\}^{mk} \rightarrow \{0,1\}^{mk}$: Decryption function, inverse of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{ENC}}}$.
- $h_{\mathsf{op}}: \mathcal{G}^* \rightarrow \{0,1\}^k$: a family of hash functions used to key $\mathsf{op}$, with $\mathsf{op} \in \{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}, {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}, {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG1}}}, {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}, {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ENC}}}, {\ensuremath{\mathsf{DEC}}}\}$.
We denote by [[rand]{}]{}$(a)$ a function that generates a new uniformly random string of length $a$.
Furthermore, we define the notation for bit strings. $0^a$ stands for a string of zeros of length $a$. $|\sigma|$ is the length of the bit string $\sigma$. $\sigma_{[a\ldots{}b]}$ represents a substring of $\sigma$ from bit $a$ to bit $b$, with sub-index $a$ starting from 0; $\sigma_{[a\ldots{}end]}$ indicates the substring of $\sigma$ from bit $a$ till the end. $\varepsilon$ is the empty string. $\sigma{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\sigma'$ is the concatenation of string $\sigma$ and string $\sigma'$. We summarize protocol notation and typical values for specific parameters in Table \[tab:notation\].
In the following protocol description, we consider a source $S$ communicating with a destination $D$ using forward path $p^f$ traversing nodes $n^f_0, n^f_1, \ldots, n^f_{l^f-1}$ and backward path $p^b$ traversing nodes $n^b_0, n^b_1, \ldots, n^b_{l^b-1}$, with $l^f, l^b \le r$, where $n^f_0$ and $n^b_{l^b-1}$ are the nodes closest to the source. Without loss of generality, we let the last node on the forward path $n_{l^f-1}^f = D$ and refer to the destination by these two notations interchangeably. In general we use $dir \in \{f,b\}$ as superscripts to distinguish between notation referring to the forward and backward path, respectively. Finally, to avoid redundancy, we use $\{sym_i^{dir}\}$ to denote $\{sym_i^{dir} | 0\le i \le l^{dir} - 1\}$, where $sym$ can be any symbol.
[c|m[6.5cm]{}]{} Term & Definition\
$k$ & Security parameter (length of keys and MACs). $k=128$ bits (16 B).\
$|FS|$ & Length of a forwarding segment (FS). $|FS|=256$ bits (32 B).\
$c$ & Length of a typical block made of an FS and a MAC. $c=|FS| + k =384$ bits (48 B) .\
$r$ & Maximum path length, including the destination. From our evaluation, $r=7$.\
$S, D$ & Source and destination.\
$p^f, p^b$ & The forward path (from S to D) and the backward path (from D to S).\
$l^f, l^b$ & Lengths of the forward and backward path ($l$, when it is clear from the context to which path it refers). From our evaluation, $1 \le l \le 7$.\
$n_i^f, n_j^b$ & The $i$-th node on the forward path and the $j$-th node on the backward path, with $0 \le i < l^f$ and $0 \le j < l^b$.\
$g^{x_n}, x_n$ & Public/private key pair of node $n$.\
$s_i^f$ & Secret key established between S and node $n_i^f$.\
$R$ & Routing information, which allows a node to forward a packet to the next hop.\
${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$ & Common header. First three fields of both setup packets and data packets (see Figure \[fig:setup\_pkts\]).\
${{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}, {{\mbox{\sc sp}}}$ & Sphinx header and payload.\
${{P}}$ & FS payload, used to collect the FSes during the setup phase.\
${\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}$ & Anonymous header, used for every data packet. It allows each node on the path to retrieve its FS.\
${O}$ & Onion payload, containing the data payload of data packets.\
${\mbox{\sc exp}}$ & Expiration time, included in each FS.\
Initialization {#sec:initialization}
--------------
Suppose that a source $S$ wishes to establish an anonymous session with a public destination $D$. First, $S$ anonymously obtains (from the underlying network) paths in both directions: a forward path $p^f = \{R^f_0, R^f_1, \cdots, R^f_{l^f - 1}\}$ from $S$ to $D$ and a backward path $p^b = \{R^b_0, R^b_1, \cdots, R^f_{l^b - 1}\}$ from $D$ to $S$. $R^{dir}_{i}$ denotes the routing information needed by the node $n_i^{dir}$ to forward a packet. $S$ also anonymously retrieves and verifies a set of public keys $g^{x_{n_i^{dir}}}$ for the node $n^{dir}_i$ on path $p^{dir}$ (see Section \[sec:network\_model\]). Note that $g^{x_D}$ is also included in the above set (as $n_{l^f - 1}^{f} = D$). Finally, $S$ generates a random DH public/private key pair for the session: $x_{S}$ and $g^{x_{S}}$. The per-session public key $g^{x_{S}}$ is used by the source to create shared symmetric keys with nodes on the paths later in the setup phase. $S$ locally stores $\left\{ \left(x_S, g^{x_{S}} \right), \left\{ g^{x_{n_i^{dir}}}\right\} , p^{dir} \right\}$, and uses these values for the setup phase.
Setup Phase {#sec:setupphase}
-----------
As discussed in Section \[sec:overview\], in the setup phase, [HORNET]{}uses two [Sphinx]{}packets, which we denote by and , to traverse all nodes on both forward and backward paths and establish per-session state with every intermediate node, without revealing $S$’s network location. For $S$ to collect the generated per-session state from each node, both [Sphinx]{}packets contain an empty FS payload into which each intermediate node can insert its FS, but is not able to learn anything about, or modify, previously inserted FSes.
### [Sphinx]{}Overview {#sec:sphinx}
[Sphinx]{} [@Danezis2009] is a provably-secure mix protocol. Each [Sphinx]{}packet allows a source node to establish a set of symmetric keys, one for each node on the path through which packets are routed. These keys enable each node to check the header’s integrity, onion-decrypt the data payload, and retrieve the information to route the packet. Processing [Sphinx]{}packets involves expensive asymmetric cryptographic operations, thus [Sphinx]{}alone is not suitable to support high-speed anonymous communication.
#### [Sphinx]{}packets
A [Sphinx]{}packet is composed of a [Sphinx]{}header [${{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}$]{}and a [Sphinx]{}payload [${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}$]{}. The [${{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}$]{}contains a group element ${{y_i}}^{dir}$ that is re-randomized at each hop. Each ${{y_i}}^{dir}$ is used as $S$’s ephemeral public key in a DH key exchange with node $n_i^{dir}$. From this DH exchange, node $n_i^{dir}$ derives a shared symmetric key $s_i^{dir}$, which it uses to process the rest of the [${{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}$]{}and mutate ${{y_i}}^{dir}$. The rest of the [${{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}$]{}is an onion-encrypted data structure, with each layer containing routing information and a MAC. The routing information indicates to which node the packet should be forwarded to next, and the MAC allows to check the header’s integrity at the current node. The [Sphinx]{}payload [${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}$]{}allows end hosts to send confidential content to each other. Each intermediate node processes [${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}$]{}by using a pseudo-random permutation.
#### [Sphinx]{}core functions
We abstract the [Sphinx]{}protocol into the following six functions:
- . The source uses this function to generate two [Sphinx]{}headers, [${{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{f}}}$]{}and [${{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{b}}}$]{}, for the forward and backward path, respectively. It also outputs the symmetric keys $\{s_i^{dir}\}$, each established with the corresponding node’s public key $g^{x_{n^{dir}_i}}$.
- . The function allows the source to generate an onion-encrypted payload [${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^{f}$]{}encapsulating confidential data to send to the destination.
- [${\mbox{{\sc unwrap\_sphx\_pl\_send}}}$]{}. The function removes the last encryption layer added by [${\mbox{{\sc gen\_sphx\_pl\_send}}}$]{}, and allows the destination to decrypt the [${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^{f}$]{}.
- . The function enables the destination to cryptographically wrap a data payload into [${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^{b}$]{}before sending it to the source.
- [${\mbox{{\sc unwrap\_sphx\_pl\_recv}}}$]{}. The function allows the source to recover the plaintext of the payload that the destination sent.
- . Intermediate nodes use this function to process a [Sphinx]{}packet, and establish symmetric keys shared with the source. The function takes as inputs the packet $({{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}, {{\mbox{\sc sp}}})$, and the node’s DH public key $g^{x_{n_i^{dir}}}$. The function outputs the processed [Sphinx]{}packet $({{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}', {{\mbox{\sc sp}}}')$ and the established symmetric key $s_{i}^{dir}$.
### Forwarding Segment {#sec:fs}
We extend Sphinx to allow each node to create a Forwarding Segment (FS) and add it to a data structure we name FS payload (see below). An FS contains a node’s per-session state, which consists of a secret key $s$ shared with the source, a routing segment $R$, and the session’s expiration time [${\mbox{\sc exp}}$]{}. To protect these contents, the FS is encrypted with a PRP keyed by a secret value $SV$ known only by the node that creates the FS. A node seals and unseals its state using two opposite functions: [${\mbox{{\sc fs\_create}}}$]{}and [${\mbox{{\sc fs\_open}}}$]{}. They are defined as follows: $$\label{eq:fs_definition}
\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}& {}= {\mbox{{\sc fs\_create}}}(SV, s, R, {\mbox{\sc exp}}) = \\
& = {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}(h_{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}(SV); \{s {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}R {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{\mbox{\sc exp}}\})
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\{s {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}R {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{\mbox{\sc exp}}\} & {}= {\mbox{{\sc fs\_open}}}(SV, {\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}) \\
& = {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}^{-1}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}}(SV); {\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace})
\end{aligned}$$
### FS Payload {#sec:fs_payload}
At the end of each [HORNET]{}setup packet is a data structure we call FS payload (see Figure \[fig:setup\_pkts\]). The FS payload is an onion-encrypted construction that allows intermediate nodes to add their FSes as onion-layers.
Processing the FS payload leaks no information about the path’s length or about an intermediate node’s position on the path. All FS payloads are padded to a fixed length, which is kept constant by dropping the right number of trailing bits of the FS payload before an FS is added to the front. Moreover, new FSes are always added to the beginning of the FS payload, eliminating the need for intermediate nodes to know their positions in order to process FS payloads.
An FS payload also provides both secrecy and integrity for the FSes it contains. Each node re-encrypts the FS payload after inserting a new FS and computes a MAC over the resulting structure. Only the source, with symmetric keys shared with each node on a path, can retrieve all the FSes from the FS payload and verify their integrity.
#### Functions
There are three core functions for the FS payload: [${\mbox{{\sc init\_fs\_payload}}}$]{}, [${\mbox{\sc add\_fs}}$]{}, and [${\mbox{\sc retrieve\_fses}}$]{}.
*[${\mbox{{\sc init\_fs\_payload}}}$]{}*. A node initializes an FS payload by using a pseudo-random generator keyed with a symmetric key $s$ to generate $rc$ random bits: $$\begin{aligned}
{{P}}= {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG1}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG1}}}}(s))\end{aligned}$$ where $c=|FS| + k$ is the size of a basic block of the FS payload (consisting of an FS and a MAC).
*[${\mbox{\sc add\_fs}}$]{}*. Each intermediate node uses [${\mbox{\sc add\_fs}}$]{}to insert its FS into the payload, as shown in Algorithm \[alg:add\_fs\]. First, the trailing $c$ bits of the current FS payload, which are padding bits containing no information about previously added FSes, are dropped, and then the FS is prepended to the shortened FS payload. The result is encrypted using a stream cipher (Line \[alg:add\_fs:encrypt\]) and MACed (Line \[alg:add\_fs:mac\]). Note that no node-position information is required in [${\mbox{\sc add\_fs}}$]{}, and verifying that the length of the FS payload remains unchanged is straightforward.
Input: $s$, ${\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}$, $P_{in}$ Output: $P_{out}$ $P_{tmp} \gets \left\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{P_{in}}_{[0 .. (r-1)c-1]}\right\}$ \[alg:add\_fs:encrypt\] [ tempdima 3tempdima]{} $\;\,\vphantom{}\oplus {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}}(s))_{[k .. end]}$ $\alpha \gets {\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}}(s); P_{tmp})$ $P_{out} \gets \alpha {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}P_{tmp}$ \[alg:add\_fs:mac\]
*[${\mbox{\sc retrieve\_fses}}$]{}*. The source uses this function to recover all FSes $\{FS_i\}$ inserted into an FS payload [${{P}}$]{}. [${\mbox{\sc retrieve\_fses}}$]{}starts by recomputing the discarded trailing bits (Line \[alg:retrieve\_fses:pad\]) and obtaining a complete payload $P_{full}$. Thus, intuitively, this full payload is what would remain if no nodes dropped any bits before inserting a new FS. Afterwards, the source retrieves the FSes from $P_{full}$ in the reverse order in which they were added by [${\mbox{\sc add\_fs}}$]{}(see lines \[alg:retrieve\_fses:mac\] and \[alg:retrieve\_fses:decrypt\]).
Input: ${{P}}$, $s$, $\{s_i\}$ Output: $\{FS_i\}$ $P_{init} \gets {\mbox{{\sc init\_fs\_payload}}}(s)$ $\psi \gets {P_{init}}_{[(r-l)c .. rc - 1]}$ [ tempdima 2tempdima]{} $\vphantom{0} \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}}(s_0))_{[(r-l+1)c .. end]} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}0^{c}$ [ tempdima 2tempdima]{} $\vphantom{0} \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}}(s_1))_{[(r-l+2)c .. end]} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}0^{2c}$ [ tempdima 3tempdima]{} $\cdot\cdot\cdot $ [ tempdima 2tempdima]{} $\vphantom{0} \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}}(s_{l-2}))_{[(r-1)c .. end]} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}0^{(l-1)c}$ \[alg:retrieve\_fses:pad\] $P_{full} = {{P}}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\psi$ **check** ${P_{full}}_{[0 .. k-1]} = \vphantom{0}$ \[alg:retrieve\_fses:mac\] [ tempdima 5tempdima]{} ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}}(s_i); {P_{full}}_{[k .. rc -1]})$ $P_{full} \gets P_{full} \oplus ({\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}}(s_i)) {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}0^{(i+1)c})$ ${\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i \gets {P_{full}}_{[k .. c - 1]}$ \[alg:retrieve\_fses:decrypt\] $P_{full} \gets {P_{full}}_{[c .. end]}$
### Setup Phase Protocol Description
#### Source processing
With the input $$I = \left\{ \left(x_S, g^{x_{S}} \right), \left\{ g^{x_{n_i^{dir}}}\right\} , p^{dir} \right\}$$ the source node $S$ bootstraps a session setup in 5 steps:
1. $S$ selects the intended expiration time [${\mbox{\sc exp}}$]{}for the session and specifies it in the common header [${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$]{}(see Section \[sec:packetstructure\]).[^4]
2. $S$ generates the send and the reply [Sphinx]{}headers by: $$\begin{aligned}
\{{{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{f}}}, {{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{b}}}\} = {\mbox{{\sc gen\_sphx\_hdr}}}(I, {\mbox{\sc chdr}})
\end{aligned}$$ The common header [${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$]{}(see Figure \[fig:setup\_pkts\]) is passed to the function to extend the per-hop integrity protection of Sphinx over it. [${\mbox{{\sc gen\_sphx\_hdr}}}$]{}also produces the symmetric keys shared with each node on both paths $\{s_i^{dir}\}$.
3. In order to enable the destination $D$ to reply, $S$ places the reply [Sphinx]{}header [${{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{b}}}$]{}into the [Sphinx]{}payload: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^f = {\mbox{{\sc gen\_sphx\_pl\_send}}}(\{s_i^f\}, {{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{b}}})
\end{aligned}$$
4. $S$ creates an initial FS payload ${{P}}^f = {\mbox{{\sc init\_fs\_payload}}}(x_S)$.
5. $S$ composes $\mbox{{\textsf{P}\ding{202}\xspace}}=\{{\mbox{\sc chdr}}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{f}}}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^f{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{P}}^f\}$ and sends it to the first node on the forward path $n_0^f$.
#### Intermediate node processing
An intermediate node $n_i^{f}$ receiving a packet $\mbox{{\textsf{P}\ding{202}\xspace}}=\{{\mbox{\sc chdr}}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{f}}}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^f {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{P}}^f\}$ processes it as follows:
$n_i^{f}$ first processes ${{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{f}}}$ and ${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^f$ in according to the [Sphinx]{}protocol (using ). As a result $n_i^{f}$ obtains the established symmetric key $s_i^f$ shared with $S$, the processed header and payload $({{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{f}}}', {{{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^f}')$ as well as the routing information $R_i^f$. During this processing the integrity of the [${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$]{}is verified.
$n_i^f$ obtains ${\mbox{\sc exp}}$ from [${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$]{}and checks that ${\mbox{\sc exp}}$ is not expired. $n_i^f$ also verifies that $R_i^f$ is valid.
$n_i^f$ generates its forwarding segment ${\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_{i}^f$ by using its local symmetric key $SV_i^f$ to encrypt $s_i^f$, $R_i^f$, and ${\mbox{\sc exp}}$ (see Equation \[eq:fs\_definition\]): $${\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^f = {\mbox{{\sc fs\_create}}}(SV_i^f, s_i^f, R_i^f, {\mbox{\sc exp}})$$
$n_i^f$ adds its ${\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^f$ into the FS payload ${{P}}^f$. $${{{P}}^f}' = {\mbox{\sc add\_fs}}(s^f_i, FS_i^f, {{P}}^f)$$
Finally node $n_i^f$ assembles the processed packet $\mbox{{\textsf{P}\ding{202}\xspace}} = \{{\mbox{\sc chdr}}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{f}}}'{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^f}'{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{{P}}^f}'\}$ and routes it to the next node according to the routing information $R^f_i$.
#### Destination processing {#sec:dst_proc}
As the last node on the forward path, $D$ processes in the same way as the previous nodes. It first processes the [Sphinx]{}packet in and derives a symmetric key $s_{D}$ shared with $S$, and then it encrypts per-session state, including $s_D$, into $FS_D$, and inserts $FS_D$ into the FS payload.
After these operations, however, $D$ moves on to create the second setup packet as follows:
1. $D$ retrieves the [Sphinx]{}reply header using the symmetric key $s_D$: $${{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{b}}}= {\mbox{{\sc unwrap\_sphx\_pl\_send}}}(s_D, {{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^f)$$
2. $D$ places the FS payload ${${{P}}$\xspace}^f$ of into the [Sphinx]{}payload [${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^{b}$]{}of (this will allow $S$ to get the FSes $\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^f\}$): $${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^b = {\mbox{{\sc gen\_sphx\_pl\_recv}}}(s_D, {{P}}^f)$$ Note that since $D$ has no knowledge about the keys $\{s_i^f\}$ except for $s_D$, $D$ learns nothing about the other FSes in the FS payload.
3. $D$ creates a new FS payload ${{{P}}^{b}}= {\mbox{{\sc init\_fs\_payload}}}(s_D)$ to collect the FSes along the backward path.
4. $D$ composes $\mbox{{\textsf{P}\ding{203}\xspace}} = \{{\mbox{\sc chdr}}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{{{\mbox{{\sc shdr}}}}^{b}}}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^b {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{{{P}}^{b}}\}$ and sends it to the first node on the backward path, $n_0^b$.
The nodes on the backward path process in the exact same way nodes on the forward path processed . Finally reaches the source $S$ with FSes $\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^b\}$ added to the FS payload.
#### Post-setup processing
Once $S$ receives it extracts all FSes, [i.e.,]{}$\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^f\}$ and $\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}^b_i\}$, as follows:
1. $S$ recovers the FS payload for the forward path ${{P}}^{f}$ from [${{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^{b}$]{}: $${{P}}^f = {\mbox{{\sc unwrap\_sphx\_pl\_recv}}}(\{s_i^b\}, {{\mbox{\sc sp}}}^b)$$
2. $S$ retrieves the FSes for the nodes on the forward path $\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^f\}$: $$\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^f\} = {\mbox{\sc retrieve\_fses}}(\{s_i^f\}, {{P}}^f)$$
3. $S$ directly extracts from [${{{P}}^{b}}$]{}the FSes for the nodes on the backward path $\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^b\}$: $$\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^b\} = {\mbox{\sc retrieve\_fses}}(\{s_i^b\}, {{{P}}^{b}})$$
With the FSes for all nodes on both paths, $\big\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^f\big\}$ and $\big\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^b\big\}$, $S$ is ready to start the data transmission phase.
Data Transmission Phase {#sec:datatransmission}
-----------------------
Each [HORNET]{}data packet contains an anonymous header [${\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}$]{}and an onion-encrypted payload [${O}$]{}as shown in Figure \[fig:setup\_pkts\]. Figure \[fig:a\_header\] illustrates the details of an [${\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}$]{}. The [${\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}$]{}allows each intermediate node along the path to retrieve its per-session state in the form of an FS and process the onion-encrypted data payload. All processing of data packets in [HORNET]{}only involves symmetric-key cryptography, therefore supporting fast packet processing.
![Format of a [HORNET]{}anonymous header with details of a forwarding segment (FS).[]{data-label="fig:a_header"}](laplus_path_fmt){width="8cm"}
At the beginning of the data transmission phase, $S$ creates two s, one for the forward path ([${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}$]{}) and one for the backward path ([${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{b}}}$]{}), by using FSes collected during the setup phase. [${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}$]{}enables $S$ to send data payloads to $D$. To enable $D$ to transmit data payloads back, $S$ sends [${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{b}}}$]{}as payload in the first data packet. If this packet is lost, the source would notice from the fact that no reply is seen from the destination. If this happens the source simply resends the backward using a new data packet.
### Anonymous Header {#sec:aheader}
Like an FS payload, an is an onion-encrypted data structure that contains FSes. It also offers the same guarantees, [i.e.,]{}secrecy and integrity, for the individual FSes it contains, for their number and for their order. Its functionalities, on the other hand, are the inverse: while the FS payload allows the source to collect the FSes added by intermediate nodes, the enables the source to re-distribute the FSes back to the nodes for each transmitted data packet.
#### Functions
The life cycle of s consists of two functions: the header construction ([${\mbox{{\sc create\_ahdr}}}$]{}) and the header processing ([${\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}$]{}). We begin with the description of [${\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}$]{}since it is simpler, and its helps understand the construction of [${\mbox{{\sc create\_ahdr}}}$]{}.[${\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}$]{}allows each intermediate node to verify the integrity of an incoming , and to check that the corresponding session has not expired. [${\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}$]{}also retrieves the key $s$ shared with the source, as well as the routing information $R$, from the FS of the node invoking the function. Finally, [${\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}$]{}also returns the processed header ${\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}'$, which will be used by the next hop. The details of this function can be seen in Algorithm \[alg:get\_fs\].
Input: $SV$, [${\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}$]{} Output: $s$, $R$, ${\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}'$ $\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\gamma {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\beta\} \gets {\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}$ \[alg:get\_fs:fs\] $\{s {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}R {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{\mbox{\sc exp}}\} \gets {\mbox{{\sc fs\_open}}}(SV, {\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace})$ \[alg:get\_fs:key\] **check** $\gamma = {\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}}(s); {\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\beta)$ **check** $t_{curr} < {\mbox{\sc exp}}\quad$ ${\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}' \gets \{\beta {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}0^c \} \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG2}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG2}}}}(s))$ \[alg:get\_fs:decrypt\]
Our construction resembles the [Sphinx]{}packet header construction [@Danezis2009]. For each path (forward and backward), [${\mbox{{\sc create\_ahdr}}}$]{}enables $S$ to create an given the keys $\{s_i\}$ shared with each node on that path, and given the forwarding segments $\{FS_i\}$ of those nodes. All these keys and FSes are obtained during the setup phase (see Section \[sec:setupphase\]). The details are shown in Algorithm \[alg:construct\_aheader\]. In essence, [${\mbox{{\sc create\_ahdr}}}$]{}is equivalent to a series of [${\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}$]{}iterations performed in reverse. Initially, the paddings $\phi$ are computed, each of which is the leftmost part of an that results from the successive encryptions of the zero-paddings added in [${\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}$]{}($\phi_0$ is the empty string since no padding has been added yet). Once the last padding is computed (the one for the received by the last hop, $\phi_{l-1}$), the operations in [${\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}$]{}are reversed, obtaining at each step the s as will be received by the nodes, from the last to the first. This also allows the computation of the per-hop MACs.
Input: $\{s_i\}$, $\{FS_i\}$ Output: $({\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_0, \gamma_0, \beta_0)$ $\phi_0 \gets \varepsilon$ $\phi_{i+1} \gets (\phi_{i} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}0^{c})$ [ tempdima 4tempdima]{} $\vphantom{0}\oplus \left\{ {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG2}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG2}}}}(s_{i}))_{[(r-1-i)c .. end]} \right\}$ $\beta_{l-1} \gets \mbox{{{\sc rand}}}\left((r-l)c\right) {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\phi_{l-1} $ \[alg:create\_aheader\_start\] $\gamma_{l-1} \gets {\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}}(s_{l-1}); {\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_{l-1} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\beta_{l-1})$ $\beta_{i} \gets \left\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_{i+1} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\gamma_{i+1} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{\beta_{i+1}}_{[0 .. (r-2)c-1]}\right\} $ [ tempdima 4tempdima]{} $\vphantom{0} \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG2}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG2}}}}(s_i))_{[0 .. (r-1)c-1]} $ \[alg:create\_aheader:beta\] $\gamma_{i} \gets {\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}}(s_{i}); {\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\beta_{i})$ \[alg:create\_aheader:gamma\]
### Onion Payload {#sec:onion_payload}
[HORNET]{}data payloads are protected by onion encryption. To send a data payload to the destination, the source adds a sequence of encryption layers on top of the data payload, one for each node on the forward path (including the destination). As the packet is forwarded, each node removes one layer of encryption, until the destination removes the last layer and obtains the original plaintext.
To send a data payload back to the source, the destination adds only one layer of encryption with its symmetric key shared with the source. As the packet is forwarded, each node on the backward path re-encrypts the payload until it reaches the source. With all the symmetric keys shared with nodes on the backward path, the source is capable of removing all encryption layers, thus obtaining the original data payload sent by the destination.
#### Functions
Processing onion payloads requires the following two functions: [${\mbox{{\sc add\_layer}}}$]{}and [${\mbox{{\sc remove\_layer}}}$]{}.
*[${\mbox{{\sc add\_layer}}}$]{}*. The function’s full form is: $$\{O', IV'\} = {\mbox{{\sc add\_layer}}}(s, IV, O)$$ Given a symmetric key $s$, an initial vector $IV$, and an input onion payload $O$, [${\mbox{{\sc add\_layer}}}$]{}performs two tasks. First, [${\mbox{{\sc add\_layer}}}$]{}encrypts $O$ with $s$ and $IV$: $$O' = {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ENC}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ENC}}}}(s); IV; O)$$ Then, to avoid making the IV an identifier across different links, [${\mbox{{\sc add\_layer}}}$]{}mutates the $IV$ for the next node: $$IV' = {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}}(s); IV)$$
*[${\mbox{{\sc remove\_layer}}}$]{}*. The function is the inverse of [${\mbox{{\sc add\_layer}}}$]{}, decrypting the onion payload at each step, and mutating the $IV$ using the inverse permutation ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}^{-1}$ keyed with $h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRP}}}}(s)$. Its full form is the following: $$\{O', IV'\} = {\mbox{{\sc remove\_layer}}}(s, IV, O)$$
### Initializing Data Transmission
To start the data transmission session, $S$ generates [${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}$]{}and [${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{b}}}$]{}as follows:$$\begin{aligned}
{{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}&=& {\mbox{{\sc create\_ahdr}}}(\{s_i^f\}, \{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^f\})\\
{{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{b}}}&=& {\mbox{{\sc create\_ahdr}}}(\{s_i^b\}, \{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i^b\})\end{aligned}$$ $S$ then sends ${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{b}}}$ to $D$ as payload of the first data packet (which uses ${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}$), as specified in the following section.
### Data Transmission Protocol Description {#sec:DataTransmissionProtocolDescription}
#### Source processing
With [${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}$]{}, $S$ can send a data payload $M$ with the following steps:
1. $S$ ensures that the session is not expired by checking that the current time $t_{curr} < {\mbox{\sc exp}}$.
2. $S$ creates an initial $IV$. With the shared keys $\{s_i^f\}$, $S$ onion encrypts the data payload $M$ by setting $O_{l^f} = M$ and $IV_{l^f}=IV$ and computing the following for $i \gets (l^f - 1) .. 0$: $$\{O_{i}, IV_{i}\} = {\mbox{{\sc add\_layer}}}(s_{i}, IV_{i+1}, O_{i+1})$$
3. $S$ places $IV_{0}$ in the common header [${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$]{}.
4. $S$ sends out the resulting data packet $\{ {\mbox{\sc chdr}}, {{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}, O_0\}$.
#### Processing by intermediate nodes
Each intermediate node $n_i^f$ on the forward path processes a received data packet of the form $\{{\mbox{\sc chdr}}, {{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}, O\}$ with its local secret key $SV_i^f$ as follows:
1. $n_i^f$ retrieves the key $s^f_i$ shared with $S$ and the routing information $R^f_i$ from ${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}$: $$\{s_i^f, R_i^f, {{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}'\} = {\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}(SV_i^f, {{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}})$$ [${\mbox{{\sc proc\_ahdr}}}$]{}also verifies the integrity of ${\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}$, and checks that the session has not expired.
2. $n_i^f$ obtains $IV$ from ${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$ and removes one layer of encryption from the data payload: $$\{O', IV'\} = {\mbox{{\sc remove\_layer}}}(s_i^f, IV, O)$$
3. $n_i^f$ updates the IV field in [${\mbox{\sc chdr}}$]{}with $IV'$.
4. $n_i^f$ sends the resulting packet $\{{\mbox{\sc chdr}}', {{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{f}}}', O'\}$ to the next node according to $R_i^f$.
The above procedures show that the intermediate node processing requires only symmetric-cryptography operations.
#### Destination processing {#destination-processing}
$D$ processes incoming data packets as the intermediate nodes. Removing the last encryption layer from the onion payload $D$ obtains the original data payload $M$ sent by $S$. Additionally, for the first data packet $D$ retrieves [${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{b}}}$]{}from the payload, and stores the $\{s_D, R_0^b, {{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{b}}}\}$ locally so that $D$ can retrieve [${{{\mbox{{\sc ahdr}}}^{b}}}$]{}when it wishes to send packets back to $S$.
#### Processing for the backward path
Sending and processing a [HORNET]{}packet along the backward path is the same as that for the forward path, with the exception of processing involving the data payload. Because $D$ does not possess the symmetric keys that each node on the backward path shares with $S$, $D$ cannot onion-encrypt its payload. Therefore, instead of [${\mbox{{\sc remove\_layer}}}$]{}, $D$ and the intermediate nodes use [${\mbox{{\sc add\_layer}}}$]{}to process the data payload, and the source node recovers the data with [${\mbox{{\sc remove\_layer}}}$]{}.
Nested Anonymous Header Construction
------------------------------------
As discussed in Section \[sec:recv\_anonymity\], the main difference of the protocols between sender anonymity and sender-receiver anonymity is that the latter requires nested s. We present in detail the process of composing an with a nested in Algorithm \[alg:create\_nested\_aheader\].
Constructing a new based on a nested $A$ has essentially the same procedures as constructing a normal from ASes, except for the initialization process and the size of the resulted . For the initialization in Line \[alg:line:init\] in Algorithm \[alg:create\_nested\_aheader\], the nested $A$ is perpended to the random bits generated. Thus, when the last node $n_l^{dir}$ (RP) decrypts the , $A$ is revealed to the node. For the size of the resulting , instead of $r$ for a normal , the length of the generated with a nested is $2r$, doubling the bandwidth cost incurred by the protocol headers.
Input: $\{s_i\}$, $r$ Output: $\phi_{l-1}$ $\phi_0 \gets \varepsilon$ $\phi_i \gets (\phi_{i-1} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}0^{c}) \oplus$ $\quad \quad$ $\left\{ {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}}(s_{i-1}))_{[(2r-i)c .. 2rc]} \right\}$
Input: $\{s_i\}$, $\{FS_i\}$, $A$ Output: $\quad$ $({\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_0, \gamma_0, \beta_0)$ $\phi_{l-1} \gets$ [create\_padding\_string\_nested]{}$(\{s_i\})$ $\beta_{l-1} \gets \big\{ \left\{ A {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\mbox{{{\sc rand}}}(c(r-l))\right\}$ [ tempdima 3tempdima]{} $\vphantom{0} \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}}(s_{l-1}))_{[0 .. c(2r-l) - 1]} \big\} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\phi_{l-1}$ \[alg:line:init\] $\gamma_{l-1} \gets {\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}}(s_{l-1}); {\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_{l-1} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\beta_{l-1})$ $\beta_{i} \gets \left\{{\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_{i+1} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\gamma_{i+1} {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}{\beta_{i+1}}_{[0 .. c(2r-1)-1]}\right\} $ [ tempdima 4tempdima]{} $\vphantom{0} \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{PRG0}}}}(s_i))_{{[0 .. c(2r -l) - 1]}} $ $\gamma_{i} \gets {\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}(h_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{MAC}}}}(s_{i}); {\ensuremath{\mathit{FS}}\xspace}_i {\ensuremath{\mathbin{\|}}}\beta_{i})$
Security Analysis {#sec:security}
=================
In this section, we first present formal proofs showing that [HORNET]{}satisfies the correctness, security, and integrity properties defined by Camenisch and Lysyanskaya [@camenisch2005formal]. Then, we describe how [HORNET]{}defends against well-known de-anonymization attacks and meets the design goals of Section \[sec:desired\_properties\]. We also present defenses against denial of service attacks.
Formal Proof of Security for HORNET Data Transmission Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
We prove [HORNET]{}’s data transmission phase realizes ideal onion routing functionalities in the Universal Composability (UC) framework [@canetti2001universally]. Conceptually, with an ideal onion routing protocol, adversaries have no access to the routing information or the message within packets except for opaque identifiers that vary across links.
As demonstrated by Camenisch and Lysyanskaya [@camenisch2005formal], to prove that a protocol conforms to an ideal onion routing model, it is sufficient to show that the protocol provides four properties: *correctness*, *integrity*, *wrap-resistance*, and *security*.
### Correctness
Proving the correctness property requires that [HORNET]{}protocol functions correctly in the absence of adversaries. A scrutiny of protocol description in Section \[sec:protocol\] should suffice.
### Integrity
To prove the integrity property, we need to prove that an adversary cannot forge a message that can traverse more than $N$ uncompromised nodes, where $Q$ is a fixed upper bound for [HORNET]{}. Equivalently, we demonstrate that an adversary, with significantly less than $2^k$ computation, can only produce a requisite message with a negligible probability. In our proof, we choose $Q=r+1$.
Suppose that an adversary can construct a [HORNET]{}($FS_0$, $\gamma{}_0$, $\beta{}_0$) that can succeed in traversing $r+1$ honest nodes $n_0$, $n_2$, $\dots$, $n_r$, without knowing secrets $SV_0$, $\dots$, $SV_r$. According to Algorithm \[alg:construct\_aheader\], $FS_r$, $\beta_r$, and $\gamma_r$ satisfy: $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_r = MAC(h_{MAC}(PRP^{-1}(h_{PRP}(SV_r); FS_r)_{[0..c]}); \beta_r) \label{eq:int_cond_1}\end{aligned}$$
For convenience, for $i\le j \le r-1$, we introduce the following notation: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(SV, FS) &=& PRP^{-1}\left(h_{PRP}\left(SV\right); FS\right)\\
\rho(SV, FS) &=& PRG\left(h_{PRG}\left(\phi\left(SV,FS\right)\right)\right)\\
\rho_i &=& \rho(SV_i, FS_i^*)\\
\rho^{FS}_i &=& \left\{\rho_i\right\}_{[c(r-1-i) .. c(r-1-i)+l_{FS}-1]}\\
\rho^{\gamma}_i &=& \left\{\rho_i\right\}_{[c(r-1-i) + l_{FS} .. c(r-i)-1]}\\
\rho^{\beta}_i &=& \left\{\rho_i\right\}_{[0 .. c(i+1)-1]} || 0^{c(r-1-i)}\\
\rho^{c}_{i,j} &=& \left\{\rho_i\right\}_{[jc .. (j+1)c-1]} \label{eq:rho_c}\end{aligned}$$ where $FS_i^*$ are defined recursively as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
FS_0^* &=& FS_0\\
FS_i^* &=& FS_i \oplus \bigoplus_{j=0}^{i-1} \left\{\rho_i\right\}_{[c(j+i-1) .. c(j+i-1)+l_{FS}-1]}\label{eq:fs_start}\end{aligned}$$ We observe that $FS_i^*$ is a function of $\{FS_j~|~\forall 0\le j \le i\}$ and $\{SV_j~|~\forall 0\le j \le i-1\}$. Accordingly, $\rho^{FS}_i$, $\rho^{\gamma}_i$, and $\rho^{\beta}_i$ are all functions of $\{FS_j~|~\forall 0\le j \le i\}$ and $\{SV_j~|~\forall 0\le j \le i-1\}$.
With a detailed inspection of Algorithm \[alg:construct\_aheader\], we can express $FS_r$, $\beta_r$, and $\gamma_r$: $$\begin{aligned}
FS_r &=& \bigoplus_{i=0}^{r-1} \rho^{FS}_i \label{eq:FS_r}\\
\gamma_r &=& \bigoplus_{i=0}^{r-1} \rho^{\gamma}_i\label{eq:gamma_r}\\
\beta_r &=& \bigoplus_{i=0}^{r-1} \rho^{\beta}_i \label{eq:beta_r}\\\end{aligned}$$
With Equation \[eq:FS\_r\], \[eq:gamma\_r\], \[eq:beta\_r\] and \[eq:int\_cond\_1\], we can prove the following lemma:
\[lem:1\] With less than $2^k$ work, an adversary can only distinguish $MAC(h_{MAC}(\phi(SV_r, FS_r)_{[0..c]}); \beta_r)$ from a random oracle with negligible probability.
#### Proof
(Sketch) We will show that an adversary cannot find two sets of [ $$(SV_0, \dots, SV_r, FS_0 \dots, FS_{r-1}) \neq (SV_0', \dots, SV_r', FS_0' \dots, FS_{r'-1})$$ ]{} that lead to the same value of $MAC(h_{MAC}(\phi(SV_r, FS_r)_{[0..c]}); \beta_r)$ with significant less than $2^k$ work. Assume that the adversary, with much less than $2^k$ work, finds two sets, $$(SV_0, \dots, SV_r, FS_0 \dots, FS_r) \neq (SV_0', \dots, SV_r', FS_0' \dots, FS_r')$$ that results in the same value of $$MAC(h_{MAC}(\phi(SV_r, FS_r)_{[0..c]}); \beta_r)$$ We will show the assumption leads to a contradiction.
Because $MAC$ is a random oracle, the only way for an attacker to distinguish the target function from a random oracle with much less than $2^k$ work is to ensure $$\phi(SV_r, FS_r)_{[0..c]}= \phi(SV_r', FS_r')_{[0..c]}$$ and $\beta_r = \beta_r'$. Because $PRP$ is a pseudo-random permutation and $h_{PRP}$ is collision resistant, we have $SV_r=SV_r'$.
Note that the last $c$ bits of $\beta_r$ and $\beta_r'$ are $\rho^{c}_{r-1, r-1}$ and ${\rho^{c}_{r-1, r-1}}'$ respectively. Therefore, we have $\rho^{c}_{r-1, r-1} = {\rho_{r-1, r-1}^c}'$. According to Equation \[eq:rho\_c\], because $PRG$ is a pseudo-random generator, we have $SV_{r-1}=SV_{r-1}$ and $FS^*_{r-1} = {FS^*_{r-1}}'$. Hence, $\rho^c_{r-1, j} = {\rho^c_{r-1, j}}'$, $\forall 0\le j \le r-1$.
A careful calculation shows that the $c$ bits before the last $c$ bits in $\beta_r$ and $\beta_r'$ are $\rho^c_{r-2, r-2} \oplus \rho^c_{r-1, r-2}$ and ${\rho^c_{r-2, r-2}}' \oplus {\rho^c_{r-1, r-2}}'$. Similarly, we have $SV_{r-2} = {SV_{r-2}}'$ and $FS_{r-2}^* = {FS_{r-2}^*}'$.
Continuing the logic as above, we finally have $SV_{i}=SV_{i}'$ and $FS_{i}^* = {FS_{i}^*}'$, $\forall 0 \le i \le r-1$. However, given Equation \[eq:fs\_start\], $SV_{i}=SV_{i}'$, and $FS_0^* = {FS_0^*}'$, we have $FS_i = FS_i'$, $\forall 0 \le i \le r-1$. This results in [ $$(SV_0, \dots, SV_r, FS_0 \dots, FS_{r-1}) = (SV_0', \dots, SV_r', FS_0' \dots, FS_{r'-1})$$ ]{} Therefore, we obtain a contradiction.
We can substitute Equation \[eq:FS\_r\], \[eq:gamma\_r\], and \[eq:beta\_r\] into Equation \[eq:int\_cond\_1\], and rewrite the equation into: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{\gamma}_0= MAC(h_{MAC}(\phi(SV_r, FS_r)_{[0..c]}); \beta_r) \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^{r-1}\rho^{\gamma}_i \label{eq:wrap_contradict}\end{aligned}$$ Because $MAC$ is not used in $\rho^{\gamma}_i$, the right side of Equation \[eq:wrap\_contradict\] is a random oracle with respect to $SV_i$ and $FS_i$, $\forall 0\le i\le r-1$.
We can further simplify the notation by denoting $\rho^{\gamma}_0$ as $f_0(SV_0, FS_0)$ and the right side of Equation \[eq:wrap\_contradict\] as $$f_1(FS_0, \dots, FS_{r-1}, SV_0, \dots, SV_{r-1})$$ Both $f_0$ and $f_1$ are random oracles with range $\{0,1\}^k$. As a result, by creating a traversing $r+1$ honest nodes, the adversary equivalently finds a solution to $$f_0(SV_0, FS_0)=f_1(FS_0, \dots, FS_{r-1}, SV_0, \dots, SV_{r-1})$$ which can only be solved with negligible probability with significantly less than $2^k$ work. Hence, with much less than $2^k$ work, the adversary can only generate a packet that traverse $r+1$ hops with negligible probability.
### Wrap-resistance
To prove the wrap-resistance property, we show that given a data packet $(FS, \gamma, \beta, P)$, an adversary, with significant less than $2^k$ work, cannot generate a message $(FS', \gamma', \beta', P)$ so that processing $(FS', \gamma', \beta', P)$ on an uncompromised node yields data packet $(FS, \gamma, \beta, P)$.
To succeed, it is necessary that: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \oplus \{\beta'_{c .. cr - 1}|| 0^c\} = \rho(SV', FS')
\label{eq:wrap_resistance_1}\end{aligned}$$ Consider the last $c$ bits of the left side of Equation \[eq:wrap\_resistance\_1\], we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{[c(r-1)..cr-1]} = \rho(SV', FS')_{[c(r-1)..cr-1]}
\label{eq:wrap_resistance_2}\end{aligned}$$ Because $PRG$, $PRP$, $h_{PRG}$, and $h_{PRP}$ are all random oracles, an adversary could generate $FS'$ and $SV'$ that satisfy Equation \[eq:wrap\_resistance\_2\] only with negligible probability if the adversary performs much less than $2^k$ work.
### Security
To demonstrate the security property, we need to prove that an adversary with control over all nodes on a path except one node $N$, cannot distinguish among data packets entering $N$. The adversary is able to select paths for the packets traversing $N$ and payloads of the packets. The adversary can also observe packets entering and leaving node $N$ except for packets whose headers match the challenge packets.
We construct the following game $G$. The adversary picks two paths $(n_0, n_1, \dots, n_{\nu-1})$ $0 < \nu \le r$ and $(n_0', n_1', \dots, n_{\nu'-1}')$ $0 \le \nu' \le r$, where $n_i = n_i' \; \forall 0\le i \le j$ and $n_j = n_j' = N$. Note that the nodes after $N$ in both paths are not necessarily the same set of nodes, and the lengths of the paths can also be different. The adversary chooses the public/private key pairs and $SV_i$($SV_i'$) for all nodes except $N$ and can arbitrarily select payload $M$.
The challenger picks randomly a bit $b$ and proceeds in one of the following two ways:
[**$b=0$**]{}: The challenger creates an $(FS_0, \gamma_0, \beta_0)$ through the [HORNET]{}setup phase using the path $(n_0, n_1, \dots, n_{\nu-1})$ and uses it to construct a data packet with onion encrypted payload $M^e$ from $M$. The challenger outputs $(FS_0, \gamma_0, \beta_0, M^e)$, which could be sent to $n_0$.
[**$b=1$**]{}: The challenger creates an $(FS_0, \gamma_0, \beta_0)$ using the alternative path $(n_0', n_1', \dots, n_{\nu-1}')$ instead and outputs\
$(FS_0, \gamma_0, \beta_0, M^e)$, which could be sent to $n_0'$.
Given the output $(FS_0, \gamma_0, \beta_0)$, the adversary’s goal is to determine $b$. The adversary can also input any messages $(FS', \gamma', \beta', {M^e}')$ to the honest node $N$ and observes the output messages as long as $(FS', \gamma', \beta') \neq (FS_j, \gamma_j, \beta_j)$.[^5]
We define the adversary’s advantage as the difference between $\frac{1}{2}$ and the probability that the adversary succeeds. We will show that the adversary’s advantage is negligible. Therefore, the adversary has no better chance to determine $b$ than random guessing.
#### Proof
(Sketch) We adopt the hybrid-game method. First, we construct a modified game $G_1$ with exactly the same definition, except that we require $j=0$. An adversary who can win $G$ can thus immediately win $G_1$. On the other hand, because the adversary controls nodes $(n_0, \dots, n_{j-1})$ ($(n_0', \dots, n_{j-1}')$) and can thus emulate their processing, the adversary can also win game $G$ if he/she can win game $G_1$. Therefore, the adversary can win game $G$ if and only if the adversary can win game $G_1$.
We create a second game $G_2$, which is the same as $G_1$ except that $FS_0$, $\beta_0$, and $\gamma_0$ are all randomly generated from their corresponding domains. If the adversary can distinguish $G_2$ from $G_1$, we have:
1. The adversary can distinguish $$FS_0 = PRP(h_{PRP}(SV_0); R_0||s_0)$$ from randomness. Then it must be that the adversary is able to tell the output of a pseudo-random permutation with a random key ($h_{PRP}(SV_0)$) from random bits. The probability of success for the adversary is negligible.
2. The adversary can distinguish $$\beta_0 = PRG(h_{PRG}(SV_0)) \oplus \{FS_1||\gamma_1||\beta_1\}$$ from randomness. Then it must be the adversary is able to distinguish the output of a secure pseudo-random number generator with a random key ($h_{PRG}(SV_0)$) from randomness. The probability that the adversary succeeds is negligible.
3. The adversary can distinguish $$\gamma_0 = MAC(h_{MAC}(SV_0); \beta_0)$$ from randomness. Then it must be the adversary is able to distinguish the output of $MAC$ with a random key $h_{MAC}(SV_0)$ from randomness. Under our random oracle assumption for $MAC$, the probability of success is negligible.
Therefore, the adversary cannot distinguish $G_2$ from $G_1$.
Lastly, because in $G_2$, $(FS_0, \gamma_0, \beta_0)$ are all random, the adversary’s advantage is 0. Moreover, in our chain of game $G\rightarrow G_1 \rightarrow G_2$, the adversary can only distinguish a game from its previous game with negligible probability. As a result, the adversary’s advantage in game $G$ is negligible.
Passive De-anonymization
------------------------
#### Session linkage
Each session is established independently from every other session, based on fresh, randomly generated keys. Sessions are in particular not related to any long term secret or identifier of the host that creates them. Thus, two sessions from the same host are unlinkable, [i.e.,]{}they are cryptographically indistinguishable from sessions of two different hosts.
#### Forward/backward flow correlation
The forward and backward headers are derived from distinct cryptographic keys and therefore cannot be linked. Only the destination is able to correlate forward and backward traffic, and could exploit this to discover the round-trip time (RTT) between the source and itself, which is common to all low-latency anonymity systems. Sources willing to thwart such RTT-based attacks from malicious destinations could introduce a response delay for additional protection.
#### Packet correlation
[HORNET]{}obfuscates packets at each hop. This prevents an adversary who observes packet bit patterns at two points on a path from linking packets between those two points. In addition to onion encryption, we also enforce this obfuscation by padding the header and the payload to a fixed length, thwarting packet-size-based correlation.[^6] While this does not prevent the adversary from discovering that the same flow is passing his observation points using traffic analysis, it makes this process non-trivial, and allows upper-layer protocols to take additional measures to hide traffic patterns. The hop-by-hop encryption of the payload also hides the contents of the communication in transit, protecting against information leaked by upper layer protocols that can be used to correlate packets.
#### Path length and node position leakage
[HORNET]{}protects against the leakage of a path’s length and of the nodes’ positions on the path ([i.e.,]{}the relative distance, in hops, to the source and the destination). In the setup phase, this protection is guaranteed by [Sphinx]{}, so only the common header and FS Payload are subject to leakage (see Section \[sec:packetstructure\] for the exact structure of the packets). It is straightforward to see that the common header does not contain path or position information. The FS Payload length is padded to the maximum size, and remains constant at each hop (see Algorithm \[alg:add\_fs\]). After adding its FS to the front of the FS Payload, each node re-encrypts the FS payload, making it infeasible for the next nodes to see how many FSes have previously been inserted.
During data transmission, neither the common header nor the data payload contain information about path length or node position, so only the (anonymous header) needs to be analyzed. The is padded to a maximum length with random bytes, and its length remains constant as it traverses the network (see Algorithm \[alg:get\_fs\]). The FSes contained in the are onion encrypted, as is the padding added at each hop. Thus, it is not possible to distinguish the initial random padding from the encrypted FSes, and neither of these from encrypted padding added by the nodes.
#### Timing for position identification
A malicious node could try to learn its position on the path of a session by measuring timing delays between itself and the source (or the destination) of that session. [HORNET]{}offers two possible countermeasures. In the first, we assume that the malicious node wishes to measure the network delay between itself and the source. To perform such a measurement, the node must observe a packet directed to the source ([i.e.,]{}on the backward path) and then observe a response packet from the source (on the forward path). However, [HORNET]{}can use asymmetric paths [@he2005routing], making this attack impossible if the single node is not on both forward and backward paths.
The second countermeasure is that, even if the node is on both paths, it is still non-trivial to discover that a specific forward flow corresponds to a certain backward flow, since the forwarding segments for the two paths are independent. To link the forward and backward flows together the node would need to rely on the traffic patterns induced by the upper-layer protocols that are running on top of [HORNET]{}in that session.
Active De-anonymization
-----------------------
#### Session state modification
The state of each node is included in an encrypted FS. During the session setup, the FSes are inserted into the FS payload, which allows the source to check the integrity of these FSes during the setup phase. During data transmission, FSes are integrity-protected as well through per-hop MACs computed by the source. In this case, each MAC protecting an FS is computed using a key contained in that FS. This construction is secure because every FS is encrypted using a PRP keyed with a secret value known only to the node that created the FS: if the FS is modified, the authentication key that the node obtains after decryption is a new pseudo-random key that the adversary cannot control. Thus, the probability of the adversary being able to forge a valid MAC is still negligible.
#### Path modification
The two [HORNET]{}data structures that hold paths ([i.e.,]{}FS payloads in the setup phase and s), use chained per-hop MACs to protect path integrity and thwart attacks like inserting new nodes, changing the order of nodes, or splicing two paths. The source can check such chained per-hop MACs to detect the modifications in the FS payload before using the modified FS payload to construct s, and similarly intermediate nodes can detect modifications to s and drop the altered packets. These protections guarantee path information integrity as stated in Section \[sec:desired\_properties\].
#### Replay attacks
Replaying packets can facilitate some types of confirmation attacks [@Raymond2001]. For example, an adversary can replay packets with a pre-selected pattern and have a colluding node identify those packets downstream. [HORNET]{}offers replay protection through session expiration; replayed packets whose sessions have expired are immediately dropped. Replay of packets whose sessions are not yet expired is possible, but such malicious behavior can be detected by the end hosts. Storing counters at the end hosts and including them in the payload ensures that replays are recognizable. The risk of detection helps deter an adversary from using replays to conduct mass surveillance. Furthermore, volunteers can monitor the network, to detect malicious activity and potentially identify which nodes or group of nodes are likely to be misbehaving. Honest ASes could control their own nodes as part of an intrusion detection system.
Payload Protection
------------------
#### Payload secrecy
Data packet payloads are wrapped into one layer of encryption using the key shared between the source and the destination, both for packets sent by the source on the forward and for packets sent by the destination on the backward path (see Section \[sec:DataTransmissionProtocolDescription\]). Assuming that the cryptographic primitives used are secure, the confidentiality of the payload is guaranteed as long as the destination is honest. In Section \[sec:limitations\] we discuss the guarantees for perfect forward secrecy for the data payload.
#### Payload tagging or tampering
[HORNET]{}does not use per-hop MACs on the payload of data packets for efficiency and because the destination would not be able to create such MACs for the packets it sends (since the session keys of the nodes are known only to the source). The lack of integrity protection allows an adversary to tag payloads. Admittedly, the use of tagging, especially in conjunction with replay attacks, allows the adversary to improve the effectiveness of confirmation attacks. However, end-to-end MACs protect the integrity of the data, making such attacks (at a large scale) detectable by the end hosts.
Denial-of-Service (DoS) Resilience
----------------------------------
#### Computational DoS
The use of asymmetric cryptography in the setup phase makes [HORNET]{}vulnerable to computational DoS attacks, where adversaries can attempt to deplete a victim node’s computation capability by initiating a large number of sessions through this node. To mitigate this attack, [HORNET]{}nodes can require each client that initiates a session to solve a cryptographic puzzle [@dean2001puzzle] to defend against attackers with limited computation power. Alternatively, ISPs offering [HORNET]{}as a service can selectively allow connections from customers paying for the anonymity service.
#### State-based DoS
[HORNET]{}is not vulnerable to attacks where adversaries maintain a large number of active sessions through a victim node. One of [HORNET]{}’s key features is that all state is carried within packets, thus no per-session memory is required on nodes or rendezvous points.
Topology-based Analysis {#sec:ilt}
-----------------------
Unlike onion routing protocols that use global re-routing through overlay networks ([e.g.,]{}Tor [@dms04] and I2P [@zantout2011i2p]), [HORNET]{}uses short paths created by the underlying network architecture to reduce latency, and is therefore bound by the network’s physical interconnection and ISP relationships. This is an unavoidable constraint for onion routing protocols built into the network layer [@Hsiao2012; @Sankey2014]. Thus, knowledge of the network topology enables an adversary to reduce the number of possible sources (and destinations) of a flow by only looking at the previous (and next) hop of that flow. For example, in Figure \[fig:as\_position\], assume that AS0 is controlled by a passive adversary. The topology indicates that any packet received from AS1 must have originated from a source located at one of {AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, AS5}.
We evaluate the information leakage due to the above topology constraints in the scenario where a single AS is compromised. We derive AS-level paths from iPlane trace-route data [@iplane_dataset], and use AS-level topology data from CAIDA [@caida_dataset]. For each AS on each path we assume that the AS is compromised and receives packets from a victim end host through that path. We compute the end host’s anonymity set size learned by the adversary according to the topology. For instance, in Figure \[fig:as\_position\], if AS0 is compromised and receives from AS1 packets originally sent by a user in AS4, we compute the size of the anonymity set composed of all the ASes that can establish valley-free paths traversing the link from AS1 to AS0. In this example, the anonymity set size would be the sum of the sizes of AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, and AS5.
Similar to Hsiao [et al.]{} [@Hsiao2012], we use the number of IPv4 addresses to estimate the size of each AS. Figure \[fig:anonymityset\_subtree\_cdf\] plots the CDF of the anonymity set size for different distances (in number of AS hops) between the adversary and the victim end host. For adversarial ASes that are 4 hops away, the anonymity set size is larger than $2^{31}$ in 80% of the cases. Note that the maximum anonymity set size is $2^{32}$ in our analysis, because we consider only IPv4 addresses.
#### Implications of path knowledge
Knowledge about the path, including the total length of the path and an adversarial node’s position on the path, significantly downgrades the anonymity of end hosts. Considering again Figure \[fig:as\_position\], if the adversary controlling AS0 sees a packet incoming from AS1 and knows that it is 4 hops away from the source host, he learns that the source host is in AS4. Compared with the previous case, we see that the anonymity set size is strongly reduced.
We quantify additional information leakage in the same setting as the previous evaluation. Figure \[fig:anonymityset\_subtree\_hops\_cdf\] represents the CDFs of the anonymity set sizes of end hosts according to the distance to the compromised AS. The anonymity set sizes are below $2^{28}$ in 90% of the cases when the adversarial ASes are 4 hops away, with an average size of $2^{23}$. This average size decreases to $2^{17}$ for the cases where the adversarial ASes are 7 hops away from the target hosts.
Previous path-based anonymity systems designed for the network layer either fail to hide knowledge about the path [@Sankey2014] or only partially obscure the information [@Hsiao2012]. In comparison, [HORNET]{}protects both the path length and the position of each node on the path, which significantly increases the anonymity-set size.
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
==========
We implemented the [HORNET]{}router logic in an Intel software router using the Data Plane Development Kit (DPDK) [@dpdk]. To our knowledge, no other anonymity protocols have been implemented in a router SDK. We also implemented the [HORNET]{}client in Python. Furthermore, we assembled a custom crypto library based on the Intel AESNI cryptographic library [@aesnilibrary], the curve25519-donna library [@curve25519donna], and the PolarSSL libraries [@polarssl]. We use IP forwarding in DPDK as our performance baseline. For comparison, we implemented the data forwarding logic from [Sphinx]{}, [LAP]{}, [Dovetail]{}, and [Tor]{}using DPDK and our cryptographic library.
Fairly comparing the performance of anonymity systems at the application layer with those that operate at the network layer is challenging. To avoid penalizing [Tor]{}with additional propagation delay caused by longer paths and processing delay from the kernel’s network stack, we implemented [Tor]{}at the network layer (as suggested by Liu [et al.]{} [@liu2011tor]). [Tor]{}’s design requires relay nodes to perform SSL/TLS and transport control. SSL/TLS between neighboring relays at the application layer maps to link encryption between neighboring nodes at the network layer, which we consider orthogonal but complementary to [HORNET]{}(see Section \[sec:comp\_other\_protocol\]). Hence, for fair comparison, we implemented the network-layer [Tor]{}without SSL/TLS or transport control logic. Throughout our evaluation we refer to this implementation of [Tor]{}as L3 Tor.
Our testbed contains an Intel software router connected to a Spirent TestCenter packet generator and analyzer [@spirent]. The software router runs DPDK 1.7.1 and is equipped with an Intel Xeon E5-2680 processor (2.70 GHz, 2 sockets, 16 logical cores/socket), 64 GB DRAM, and 3 Intel 82599ES 40 Gb/s network cards (each with 4 10 Gb/s ports). We configured DPDK to use 2 receiving queues for each port with 1 adjacent logical core per queue.
Data Forwarding Performance
---------------------------
#### Forwarding latency
We measure the CPU cycles consumed to forward a data packet in all schemes. Figure \[fig:latency\] shows the average latency (with error bars) to process and forward a single data packet in all schemes (except [Sphinx]{}[^7]) when payload sizes vary. We observe that [HORNET]{}, even with onion encryption/decryption over the entire payload and extensive header manipulation, is only 5% slower than [LAP]{}and [Dovetail]{}for small payloads (64 bytes). For large payloads (1200 bytes[^8]), [HORNET]{}is 71% slower (about 400 nanoseconds slower per packet when using a single core) than [LAP]{}and [Dovetail]{}. However, the additional processing overhead enables stronger security guarantees.
#### Header overhead
Scheme Header Length Sample Length (Bytes)
-------------- ------------------ ----------------------- --
[LAP]{} $12 + 2s\cdot r$ 236
[Dovetail]{} $12 + s\cdot r$ 124
[Sphinx]{} $32 + (2r + 2)s$ 296
[Tor]{} $3 + 11 \cdot r$ 80
[HORNET]{} $ 8 + 3r\cdot s$ 344
: Comparison between the length of different packet header formats in bytes. $s$ is the length of symmetric elements and $r$ is the maximum AS path length. For the sample length, we select $s=16$ Bytes and $r=7$. Analysis of iPlane paths shows that more than 99% of all paths have fewer than $7$ AS hops.[]{data-label="tab:packet_header_size"}
As a result of carrying anonymous session state (specifically cryptographic keys) within packet headers, [HORNET]{} headers are larger than [Sphinx]{}, [L3 [Tor]{}]{}, [LAP]{}, and [Dovetail]{}headers (see Table \[tab:packet\_header\_size\]). While larger headers reduce net throughput ([i.e.,]{}goodput), this tradeoff appears acceptable: compared to [L3 [Tor]{}]{}, no state is required at relay nodes, enabling scalability; compared to [Sphinx]{}, data processing speed is higher; compared to [LAP]{}and [Dovetail]{}, [HORNET]{}provides stronger security properties.
![Per-node data forwarding latency on a 10 Gbps link. Lower is better.[]{data-label="fig:latency"}](latency.eps){width="45.00000%"}
#### Goodput
We further compare all the schemes by goodput, which excludes the header overhead from total throughput. Goodput is a comprehensive metric to evaluate both the packet processing speed and protocol overhead. For example, a scheme where headers take up a large proportion of packets yields only low goodput. On the other hand, a scheme with low processing speed also results in poor goodput.
Figure \[fig:goodput\_small\] and Figure \[fig:goodput\_large\] demonstrate the goodput of all schemes (except [Sphinx]{}[^9]) on a 10 Gb/s link when varying the number of hops $r$, with 40-byte and 1024-byte payloads, respectively. Larger $r$ means larger header sizes, which reduces the resulting goodput.
When the payload size is small, the goodput of all protocols remains stable. This is due to the fact that no scheme can saturate the link, and accordingly the goodput differences between the three schemes mainly reflect the different processing latencies among them. Consequently, [L3 [Tor]{}]{}’s and [HORNET]{}’s goodput is 32% less than that of [LAP]{}and [Dovetail]{}. On the other hand, when the payload size is large, all schemes except [Sphinx]{} can saturate the 10 Gb/s link. [HORNET]{}can reach 87% of [LAP]{}’s goodput while providing stronger security guarantees.
Max Throughput on a Single Router {#sec:throughput}
---------------------------------
To investigate how our implementation scales with respect to the number of CPU cores, we use all 12 ports on the software router, generating [HORNET]{}data packets at 10 Gb/s on each port. Each packet contains a 7 AS-hop header and a payload of 512 bytes, and is distributed uniformly among the working ports. We monitor the aggregate throughput on the software router.
The maximal aggregate throughput of HORNET forwarding in our software router is 93.5 Gb/s, which is comparable to today’s switching capacity of a commercial edge router [@asr1000]. When the number of cores ranges from 1 to 4, our [HORNET]{}implementation can achieve full line rate ([i.e.,]{}10 Gb/s per port). As the number of cores increases to 5 and above, each additional port adds an extra 6.8Gb/s.
Session Setup Performance
-------------------------
We evaluate the latency introduced by processing setup packets on each border router. Similar to measuring the latency of data forwarding, we also instrument the code to measure CPU cycles consumed to process packets in the session setup phase. Table \[tab:latency\_conn\_init\] lists the average per-node latency for processing the two setup packets in [HORNET]{}’s session setup phase. Due to a Diffie-Hellman key exchange, processing the two setup packets in the session setup phase increases processing latency (by about 240$\mu$s) compared to data packet processing. However, [HORNET]{}must only incur this latency once per session.
Packet Latency (K cycles) Latency ($\mu$s)
-------- -------------------- --------------------
661.95 $\pm$ 30.35 245.17 $\pm$ 11.24
655.85 $\pm$ 34.03 242.91 $\pm$ 12.60
: Per-node latency to process session setup packets with standard errors.[]{data-label="tab:latency_conn_init"}
Network Evaluation {#sec:network_evaluation}
------------------
#### Distribution of AS-level path length
The bandwidth overhead of a [HORNET]{}packet depends on the number of ASes traversed by the packet. Figure \[fig:as\_path\_len\] demonstrates the CDF of AS-level path lengths of the paths extracted from our data source. We observe that 99% of the paths have a path length smaller than 7, and the mean AS-level path length is 4.2. Thus, to achieve 128 bits of security, 48 bytes per AS hop are required, leading to an average overhead of 201.6 bytes.
![CDF of AS-level path length.[]{data-label="fig:as_path_len"}](cdf_as_path_len.eps){width="8cm"}
#### Non-scalability of a stateful design
We evaluate the memory capacity needed to maintain state required by a stateful design to support Internet-scale anonymous communication. We consider the design of Tor, one of the most popular onion routing systems today [@dms04], and assume that each Tor node (*onion router* or OR) would correspond to an autonomous system (AS), as proposed by Liu [et al.]{} [@liu2011tor]. Analyzing the CAIDA Internet Traces [@caida-passive2014], we found that a 10 GbE backbone link handles about 1M new flows every minute under normal operating conditions. Since the largest inter-AS links today have up to ten times that capacity (100 Gbps)[^10], this means that at the core of the network there are edge routers of ASes that handle about 10M new flows per minute.
If we assume that half of these flows would use a Tor circuit, because of the default lifetime of circuits of 10 minutes[^11] we obtain that ORs on such edge routers would need to store state for approximatively 50M circuits at any given time. Since Tor stores at least 376 bytes per circuit, this translates to almost 20 GB of memory. This might still be acceptable for high-end devices, but there are a number of additional factors that make keeping state unfeasible, even for ASes handling less traffic:
- The growing number of users on the Internet and the increasing number of devices per user result in an increasing number of traffic flows;
- The state for each circuit would actually be larger, as for active circuits the ORs need to store the packets being transmitted until they are acknowledged by the next hop;
- A DDoS attack could force an OR to store much more state by opening a large number of new circuits through that OR.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Retrieving Paths Anonymously in FIAs {#sec:discussion:retrieve_path}
------------------------------------
[HORNET]{}assumes that the source can obtain a forward path and a backward path to an intended destination anonymously in FIAs. We briefly discuss how a source host using [HORNET]{}can retrieve two such paths in [NIRA]{}, [SCION]{}and Pathlets.
[SCION]{}hosts rely on path servers to retrieve paths. In [SCION]{}, each destination node registers on a central server its “half” path: the path to/from the network “core”. To compose full paths (forward and backward paths) between a source and a destination, the source only needs to anonymously fetch the destination’s half paths from/to the network core and combine them with its own half paths.
To anonymously retrieve a destination’s half paths, the source can use one of the following two methods. As a first method, the source can obtain the path to/from a path server through an unprotected query using other schemes, from resolver configuration, or from local services similar to DHCP. The source then establishes an anonymous [HORNET]{}session to the server. Once a [HORNET]{}session is created, the source can proceed to anonymously request half paths of the destination. Though it is possible to reuse the established [HORNET]{}session to a path server to query multiple paths (for different destinations) for better efficiency, using a separate session to retrieve each path is more secure because it prevents profiling attacks.
Alternatively, the source can leverage a private information retrieval (PIR) scheme [@Chor1998] to retrieve the path anonymously from the path server, so that the path server cannot distinguish which destination the source connects to. However, a PIR scheme will inevitably add bandwidth and computational overhead to both the source and the path server, increasing session setup phase latency [@mittal2011pir].
In [NIRA]{}and Pathlets, the situation is different because routing information ([i.e.,]{}inter-domain addresses and route segments, and pathlets, respectively) is disseminated to users. The source can therefore keep a database local path database, querying it (locally) on demand.
Integrating with Security Mechanisms\
at Different Layers {#sec:comp_other_protocol}
-------------------------------------
At the network layer, [HORNET]{}can benefit from ASes that offer traffic redirection to mitigate topology-based attacks (see Section \[sec:ilt\]). For instance, ASes can allow paths that deviate from the valley-freeness policy to increase the anonymity set size of end hosts. This enables a trade-off between path length and anonymity, as described by Sankey and Wright [@Sankey2014].
In addition, upper-layer anonymity protocols can be used in conjunction with [HORNET]{}to provide stronger anonymity guarantees. For example, to entirely remove the concerns of topology-based attacks, a single-hop proxy or virtual private network (VPN) could be used to increase the size of the anonymity sets of end hosts. Similar solutions could also protect against upper-layer de-anonymization attacks, in particular fingerprinting attacks on the transport protocol [@Smart2000].
At lower layers, [HORNET]{}is also compatible with link-layer protection such as link-level encryption. The role of link-level encryption in [HORNET]{}is comparable to SSL/TLS in Tor. Link encryption prevents an adversary eavesdropping on a link from being able to distinguish individual sessions from each other, therefore making confirmation attacks much harder for this type of adversary.
Limitations {#sec:limitations}
-----------
#### Targeted confirmation attacks
When for a certain session an adversary controls both the node closest to the source and the node closest to the destination (or the destination itself), it can launch confirmation attacks by analyzing flow dynamics.These attacks can be made more effective by replaying packets.
[HORNET]{}, like other low-latency onion routing schemes [@dms04], cannot prevent such confirmation attacks targeting a small number of specific users [@SS03; @DBLP:conf/ccs/JohnsonWJSS13]. However, [HORNET]{}raises the bar of deploying such attacks at scale: the adversary must be capable of controlling a significant percentage of ISPs often residing in multiple geopolitical areas. In addition, the packet obfuscation measures built into [HORNET]{}(discussed in Section \[sec:security\]) make it non-trivial to link two flows, since it is not possible to simply match packets through bit patterns. Timing intervals for packet sequences need to be stored and compared, thus performing such operations for a large fraction of the observed flows is expensive. Furthermore, it is difficult for attackers to perform active attacks (e.g., packet replay) at scale while remaining undetected. For instance, a downstream benign AS can detect replayed packets by a compromised upstream AS; end hosts can also detect and report packet tagging attacks when (a threshold number of) end-to-end MACs do not successfully verify.
#### Perfect forward secrecy
A drawback of [HORNET]{}’s efficiency-driven design is that it does not provide perfect forward secrecy for the link between communicating parties. This means that an adversary could record the observed traffic (the setup phases, in particular), and if it later compromises a node, it learns which node was next on the path for each recorded session. This is an unavoidable limitation of having a setup that consists of a single round-trip.
Other systems (e.g., [Tor]{}) use a telescopic setup[^12], which achieves perfect forward secrecy at the cost of diminished performance (in particular higher latency, and also an additional asymmetric cryptographic operation per node). Using a telescopic setup is also possible for [HORNET]{}, but in addition to the performance cost it also requires that all paths be reversible. However, this requirement does not hold in today’s Internet, where a significant fraction of AS-level paths are asymmetric [@he2005routing].
It is important to note that in [HORNET]{}it is still possible to achieve perfect forward secrecy for the contents of the communication, i.e., for the data exchanged between sources and destinations. The destination needs to generate an ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key pair, and derive an additional shared key from it.[^13] Destinations also need to generate a new local secret $SV$ frequently, so in the event of a destination being compromised it is not possible for the adversary to decrypt FSes used in expired sessions.
Related Work {#sec:relatedwork}
============
#### Anonymity systems as overlays
The study of anonymous communication began with Chaum’s proposal for mix networks [@Chaum81]. A number of message-based mix systems have been proposed and deployed since [@DBLP:conf/ndss/GulcuT96; @mixmaster-spec; @DBLP:conf/sp/DanezisDM03; @Danezis2009]. These systems can withstand an active adversary and a large fraction of compromised relays, but rely on expensive asymmetric primitives, and message batching and mixing. Thus, they suffer from large computational overhead and high latency.
Onion routing systems [@ReSyGo98; @Boucher2000Freedom; @brown2002cebolla; @dms04] were proposed to efficiently support interactive traffic. In general, low-latency onion routing systems are vulnerable to end-to-end confirmation attacks [@timing-fc2004], and may fail to provide relationship anonymity when two routers on the path are compromised [@DBLP:conf/ih/GoldschlagRS96; @DBLP:conf/ccs/JohnsonWJSS13]. [HORNET]{}shares these limitations.
One specific onion routing system, Tor, has a number of security advantages over [HORNET]{}. Tor can prevent replays and has perfect forward secrecy for its sessions. Additionally, due to its overlay design which uses global redirection, Tor is not constrained by the underlying network topology. However, global redirection enables the attack vector that allows even single compromised ASes to perform confirmation attacks [@murdoch-pet2007; @bauer2007low], as one AS can be traversed multiple times. This attack is not possible in [HORNET]{}since packets traverse each AS on the path only once.
In addition, [HORNET]{}’s performance also distinguishes it from all existing schemes based on overlay networks: first, [HORNET]{}can directly use short paths provided by underlying network architectures, reducing propagation latency; second, [HORNET]{}requires only a single round trip to establish a session, reducing the setup delay; third, [HORNET]{}eliminates the processing and queuing delays both on relay nodes and in the kernel’s network stack; finally, edge routers in [HORNET]{}offer higher throughput compared to voluntarily-contributed end hosts, increasing the total throughput of anonymous traffic.
#### Anonymity systems in FIAs
Hsiao [et al.]{} [@Hsiao2012] explored the design space of efficient anonymous systems with a relaxed adversary model. In their scheme, [LAP]{}, the adversary can compromise only a single node, and the first hop must always be honest. Sankey and Wright proposed Dovetail [@Sankey2014] (based on Pathlets [@godfrey2009pathlet] and SCION [@Xin2011SCION; @scion2015]) which has the same attacker model as LAP, except it allows the first hop to be compromised. Moreover, neither [LAP]{}nor [Dovetail]{}can support asymmetric paths where packets traverse different sets of nodes in different directions. [HORNET]{}offers three improvements over [LAP]{}and [Dovetail]{}: 1) [HORNET]{}fully hides path information, [i.e.,]{}total path length and nodes’ positions, in packet headers; 2) [HORNET]{}protects and obfuscates packet contents by onion-encryption/decryption, thwarting correlating packets of the same flow by selectors; 3) [HORNET]{}supports asymmetric paths and allows the first hop ASes to be compromised. Though [HORNET]{}introduces additional overhead in comparison with [LAP]{}and [Dovetail]{}, our evaluation results show that [HORNET]{}can still support high-speed packet forwarding at nearly 80% of line rate.
The research community has also explored applying onion routing to FIAs. Liu [et al.]{} [@liu2011tor] proposed Tor instead of IP as an FIA that regards anonymity as the principal requirement for the network architecture. However, details on how to scale Tor’s current design (requiring per-circuit state) to Internet scale were not addressed.
DiBenedetto [et al.]{} [@dibenedetto2011andana] proposed ANDaNA, to enable onion routing in Named Data Networking (NDN) [@zhang2014named]. NDN focuses on content delivery and thus inherently different from the FIAs we considered.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we address the question of “what minimal mechanism can we use to frustrate pervasive surveillance?” and study the design of a high-speed anonymity system supported by the network architecture. We propose [HORNET]{}, a scalable and high-speed onion routing scheme for future Internet architectures. [HORNET]{}nodes can process anonymous traffic at over 93 Gb/s and require no per-flow state, paving the path for Internet-scale anonymity. Our experiments show that small trade-offs in packet header size greatly benefit security, while retaining high performance.
Acknowledgments
===============
We are grateful for insightful discussions with Ian Goldberg, Michael Markus, and the members of the ETH Zürich Network Security group for their discussions and feedback.
The research leading to these results received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement 617605. George Danezis is supported by the EU H2020 Project PANORAMIX (653497) and EPSRC Project on “Strengthening anonymity in messaging systems” (EP/M013286/1). We also gratefully acknowledge support by ETH Zürich, and by Intel for their equipment donation that enabled the high-performance experiments.
[^1]: Depending on the underlying PKI scheme, the source might need to fetch a chain of certificates leading to a trust anchor to verify each node’s public key.
[^2]: If the first packet is lost the source can simply resend the backward [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahdr</span>]{}using a new data packet (see Section \[sec:datatransmission\]).
[^3]: [Tor]{}additionally uses an introduction point, which enables $S$ to negotiate a rendezvous point with $D$. This design provides additional scalability and attack resistance [@dms04], but increases the delay of setting up a session. [HORNET]{}’s design favors simplicity and performance, but nothing fundamentally prevents [HORNET]{}from using [Tor]{}’s approach.
[^4]: [${\mbox{\sc exp}}$]{}must not become an identifier that allows matching packets of the same flow across multiple links. Since [${\mbox{\sc exp}}$]{}does not change during setup packet forwarding, a coarser granularity (e.g., 10s) is desirable. In addition, the duration of the session should also have only a restricted set of possible values ([e.g.,]{}10s, 30s, 1min, 10min) to avoid matching packets within long sessions. For long-lived connections, the source can create a new session in the background before expiration of the previous one to avoid additional latency.
[^5]: We follow the definition of security property [@camenisch2005formal] and only care about header uniqueness.
[^6]: A bandwidth-optimized alternative would be to allow two or three different payload sizes, at the cost of decreased anonymity.
[^7]: We omit Sphinx from the comparison for better readability. In our experiments, processing a [Sphinx]{}packet takes more than 640K cycles due to asymmetric cryptographic operations. This is 3 orders of magnitude slower than that of [HORNET]{}, [L3 [Tor]{}]{}, [LAP]{}, and [Dovetail]{}.
[^8]: Because [LAP]{}, [Dovetail]{}, and [HORNET]{}all have large packet headers of 300+ bytes, we limit the largest payload in our experiments to be 1200 bytes.
[^9]: [Sphinx]{}’s goodput is less than 10 Mb/s in both cases because of its large packet headers and asymmetric cryptography for packet processing.
[^10]: E.g., see [www.seattleix.net/participants.htm](www.seattleix.net/participants.htm).
[^11]: We measure the number of flows taking this lifetime into account, in particular we expire flows only if no packets where seen on them for over 10 minutes. Also note that in our setting it would not be possible to have multiple streams per circuit, unless the destinations of those streams are all within the same AS.
[^12]: In the telescopic setup, a source iteratively sets up a shared key with each AS: the source sets up a shared key with the first-hop AS; the source sets up a shared key with the $n$th-hop AS through the channel through 1st-hop AS to $(n-1)$th-hop AS.
[^13]: This feature, though omitted in Section \[sec:protocol\] for simplicity, is part of our implementation. It is done in such a way that the forward secret shared key is included in the destination’s FS during the setup, without any additional packet being required.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Very light pseudoscalars can arise from the symmetry-breaking sector in many extensions of the Standard Model. If their mass is below $200$ MeV, they can be long-lived and have interesting phenomenology. We discuss the experimental constraints on several models with light pseudoscalars, including one in which the pseudoscalar is naturally fermiophobic. Taking into account the stringent bounds from rare $K$ and $B$ decays, we find allowed parameter space in each model that may be accessible in direct production experiments. In particular, we study the photoproduction of light pseudoscalars at Jefferson Lab and conclude that a beam dump experiment could explore some of the allowed parameter space of these models.'
author:
- 'David L. Anderson'
- 'Christopher D. Carone'
- Marc Sher
date: March 2003
title: ' Probing the Light Pseudoscalar Window 0.1in'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In many extensions of the standard model, the electroweak symmetry-breaking sector includes additional weak doublets or singlets. New CP-even, CP-odd and charged scalar states may be present in the physical spectrum. The masses of these particles are typically of the same order as the weak scale, and fine-tuning is required to make them much lighter. An exception occurs if the theory possesses an approximate global symmetry: a CP-odd scalar may become a massless goldstone boson in the limit that such a symmetry is exact, and a massive state that is naturally light in the case where the symmetry is only approximate. We will henceforth refer to such CP-odd states as light pseudoscalars.
The most familiar example of a light pseudoscalar is the axion [@pq; @axion]. This pseudo-goldstone boson arises in a two-Higgs-doublet model with a global symmetry that allows independent phase rotations of the two Higgs fields. The axion arises as a consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking and is exactly massless in the absence of gauge interactions. The axion acquires a small mass due to the QCD anomaly, which breaks this global symmetry at the quantum level.
In other models, a global symmetry may be broken more significantly by a small parameter that appears explicitly in the Lagrangian. For example, consider the Higgs potential for two Higgs doublets [@hhg], with a $\Phi_2\leftrightarrow -\Phi_2$ symmetry: $$V= \mu_1^2
\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1 + \mu_2^2 \Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2 +
\lambda_1(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1)^2 + \lambda_2
(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2)^2 + \lambda_3
\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2 + \lambda_4
|\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2|^2 +{\lambda_5 \over 2}((\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2)^2
+ {\rm h.c.})
\label{eq:hpot}$$ In the limit $\lambda_5\rightarrow 0$, this potential has a $U(1)
\times U(1)$ symmetry in which each doublet rotates by an independent phase. The spontaneous breaking of the diagonal U(1) symmetry yields a goldstone boson that is “eaten” when the theory is gauged; the remaining U(1), which rotates each doublet by an opposite phase, yields a physical goldstone boson state. When $\lambda_5$ is nonvanishing, this pseudoscalar develops a mass given by $m^2_A=-\lambda_5v^2$, where $v=246$ GeV is the electroweak scale. In this paper, we will consider pseudoscalars with masses in the $100-200$ MeV range, for phenomenological reasons explained below. This can be achieved by setting $\lambda_5$ equal to a small number that is comparable to a light fermion Yukawa coupling—a light pseudoscalar would then be no more or less unnatural than a muon or light quark.
Of course, one can construct models in which the light fermion Yukawa couplings arise only via higher-dimensions operators in a more complete high-energy theory. The Yukawa couplings are identified with powers of the ratio of a symmetry breaking scale to the cut off of the theory, and therefore can be naturally small. By analogy, the U(1) symmetry present in the $\lambda_5=0$ limit of Eq. (\[eq:hpot\]) may be broken by a field $\eta$ that acquires a vacuum expectation value at some high scale and contributes to the term of interest only through Planck-suppressed operators. Given this dynamical assumption, one predicts that the pseudoscalar mass is of the order $(\langle \eta
\rangle/ M_*)^{n/2}\, v$, where $n$ is a positive integer, and $M_* =
2 \times 10^{18}$ GeV is the reduced Planck mass. Interestingly, for $n=2$, and $\langle \eta \rangle\sim 10^{15}$ GeV (the nonsupersymmetric GUT scale), one obtains a pseudoscalar mass of approximately $100$ MeV. One can imagine a variety of high energy theories in which similar results are obtained.
Our interest in pseudoscalar masses between $100$ and $200$ MeV is motivated by the pseudoscalar decay length and production cross section. We hope to have both in optimal ranges for detection of the pseudoscalar in possible photoproduction experiments at Jefferson Lab. As far as production is concerned, existing direct searches yield bounds on the pseudoscalar couplings that are weakest in this mass range, and a wide variety of experiments [@dawson; @sundrum; @direct; @hhg] severely constrain the pseudoscalar couplings for masses below $100$ MeV. On the other hand, if the pseudoscalars are produced in significant but not overwhelming numbers, we hope for a decay length that is long enough to clearly separate the pseudoscalar decay signal from possible mesonic backgrounds. Pseudoscalars with masses above $200$ MeV decay rapidly into muon pairs with a branching fraction near $100\%$, making detection via a separated vertex impossible. Thus, the $100-200$ MeV mass window seems particularly promising for the experimental search that we propose in Section IV.
To proceed with our phenomenological analysis, we must decide on the pseudoscalar’s couplings to standard model fermions; the pattern of these couplings is in fact quite model-dependent. In the standard two-Higgs-doublet models, the pseudoscalar couplings are proportional to Yukawa matrices multiplied by a ratio of the vacuum expectation values $v_1$ and $v_2$. On the other hand, one can employ simple discrete symmetries to construct three-doublet models in which only two doublets couple to quarks and do not mix with a third doublet coupling to the leptons. In this case, the pseudoscalar in the quark-two-doublet sector is entirely leptophobic. An analogous three-doublet model with a lepton-two-doublet sector yields a pseudoscalar that has no couplings to quarks and is, hence, hadrophobic. Such models illustrate the range of the possible, but are not particularly well motivated. A much more appealing possibility is that the pseudoscalar may have no direct couplings to quarks or leptons at all. Let us comment on the motivation for such a fermiophobic pseudoscalar in more detail.
One could imagine a number of reasons why a pseudoscalar may have suppressed couplings to standard model fermions. The suppression could be [*parametric*]{}, as in the type-I two Higgs doublet model when $\tan\beta$ is taken large. On the other hand, the suppression could be [*geometric*]{}, as in extra-dimensional scenarios in which fields have wave functions that are localized at different points in an extra dimension. Let us focus on a concrete realization of this second idea. Consider an $S^1/Z_2$ orbifold of radius $R$, with standard model matter fields located at the $y=0$ fixed point, and gauge fields in the 5D bulk. Here $y$ is the extra-dimensional coordinate. Assume that there exists additional vector-like matter in complete SU(5) representations (to preserve gauge coupling unification) as well as a gauge-singlet scalar field $S$, all isolated at the $y=\pi R$ fixed point. A spontaneously broken approximate global symmetry of the singlet potential leads to a light pseudoscalar state that couples directly to the exotic matter multiplets only. The geometry of this scenario prevents mixing between the ordinary and exotic matter fields, which communicate with each other only via gauge interactions in the bulk. The scale of compactification can be taken large enough so that the effects of Kaluza-Klein excitations are irrelevant to the low-energy theory.
Given the simplicity of the fermiophobic singlet scenario described above, we will focus our discussion on light pseudoscalars in the two-Higgs-doublet models of type-I and II and in the fermiophobic singlet scenario. We comment on the other possibilities where appropriate. In Section II, we analyze the experimental constraints on the light pseudoscalar in the conventional two-Higgs-doublet models, placing particular emphasis on the bounds from $K$ and $B$ meson decays. In Section III, the fermiophobic singlet scenario is studied, and in Section IV we study the possibility of detecting pseudoscalars of either type in photoproduction experiments at Jefferson Lab. Section V contains our conclusions.
Constraints in Two-Doublet Models
=================================
As we have described in the previous section, light pseudoscalars can arise in two-Higgs-doublet extensions of the standard model. Two popular options exist in which a discrete symmetry is imposed to forbid tree-level flavor changing neutral currents [@glashowweinberg]: In Model I, all of the fermions couple to a single Higgs doublet, but none to a second. In Model II, the charge $Q=2/3$ quarks couple to one Higgs doublet while the $Q=-1/3$ quarks and the leptons couple to another. A third possibility is that all fermions couple to both Higgs doublets, without the restriction of any discrete symmetry. An ansatz is then employed to make tree-level flavor changing Higgs couplings sufficiently small [@chengsher]. However, in this case it has been shown that a very light pseudoscalar will still lead to unacceptably large flavor-changing neutral currents [@sheryuan].
The coupling of the pseudoscalar Higgs to fermions is of the form $-{m_f\over v}X_f\bar{f}\gamma_5fA$ where $v=246$ GeV and $X_f=\cot\beta$ for all fermions in Model I, and $X_f=\cot\beta\
(\tan\beta)$ for the $Q=2/3$ quarks ($Q=-1/3$ quarks and leptons) in Model II. Here $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets, and is a free parameter.
There have been numerous discussions of the bounds on a light pseudoscalar, most recently by Larios, Tavares-Velasco and Yuan [@cpyuan]. In Model II, the combined bounds from the nonobservation of $J/\Psi\rightarrow A\gamma$ and $\Upsilon\rightarrow
A\gamma$ force $\tan\beta$ to be close to $1$, since the former decay implies $\tan\beta\lesssim 1$ and the latter implies $\cot\beta\lesssim 1$ [@hhg]; theoretical uncertainties don’t quite allow the model to be excluded. In Model I, both decays imply only that $\cot\beta\lesssim 1$. Bounds from $\eta$, $\eta^\prime$ and $\pi$ decays also force $\tan\beta\sim 1$ in Model II and $\cot\beta\lesssim 1$ in Model I [@pich]. Bounds from $g-2$ are in flux at the moment, but do not appreciably change these results. (In addition, the $g-2$ bound is only valid if one makes a strong assumption that there are no other possible nonstandard contributions at one loop.) Bounds from $b\rightarrow s\gamma$, $\Delta\rho$, $R_b$ and $A_b$ can all be avoided by constraining the neutral and charged scalar masses [@cpyuan]. Thus, we will consider two cases: Model II with $\tan\beta\sim 1$ and Model I with $\cot\beta\lesssim 1$. After reviewing the decay modes and decay lengths of the light pseudoscalar, we consider the bounds from $K$ and $B$ meson decays, which present the strongest constraints on these models.
Decay Modes
-----------
For a pseudoscalar lighter than twice the muon mass, there are only two possible decay modes, $A\rightarrow e^+e^-$ and $A\rightarrow
\gamma\gamma$. The decay width into an electron pair is given by $$\Gamma_{A\rightarrow e^+e^-} = {m_e^2\over 8\pi v^2}M_A X_e^2\left(
1-4{m^2_e\over M^2_A}\right)^{1/2} \,\, .$$ For $\tan\beta=1$, this gives a decay length of $0.6-1.2$ centimeters in the pseudoscalar rest frame, for $M_A$ ranging from $100$ to $200$ MeV. This result scales as $\tan^2\beta$ in Model II and $\cot^2\beta$ in Model I.
The decay into two photons proceeds at one loop with the width $$\Gamma_{A\rightarrow \gamma\gamma} = {|\sum_f N_cQ^2_fX_f|^2 \alpha^2
M_A^3 \over 64\pi^3v^2} \,\, ,
\label{eq:twophot}$$ where $N_c$ is $3$ for quarks and $1$ for leptons and $Q_f$ is the fermion charge. This expression is valid if the mass of the fermion in the loop is much larger than the momentum in the decay. When this is not the case then the exact expression given in Refs. [@cpyuan; @hhg] should be used. Note that Eq. (\[eq:twophot\]) is independent of the heavy fermion mass. For the top quark contribution alone, with $\tan\beta=1$, one obtains a decay length in the pseudoscalar rest frame of $30$ centimeters for $m_A=100$ MeV. Note that if one considers all quarks and leptons except the first generation fields, then the decay width is increased by a factor of $16$, which would correspond to a decay length of 2 centimeters. For $\tan\beta\sim 1$, the branching ratio into photons is $10\%$ for $M_A=100$ MeV and $40\%$ for $M_A=200$ MeV. Thus, we see that typical decay lengths, for $\tan\beta=1$, are on the order of a centimeter. For Model I with small $\cot\beta$, this decay length is increased by a factor of $\tan^2\beta$. These decay lengths will, of course, be increased by a relativistic factor if the pseudoscalar has a large momentum (as it does in $B$-decays).
K decays
--------
It is has been long known that the strongest bounds on axion models come from the decay $K\rightarrow \pi A$ [@hallwise; @frere]; one expects that the same process will significantly constrain the light pseudoscalar scenarios of interest to us here. While many early analyses (that did not take into account the heaviness of the top quark) seemed to exclude the possibility of a light pseudoscalar in the standard two-doublet scenarios, more recent work suggests that an allowed window remains. It was pointed out by Grzadkowski and Pawelczyk that there are two contributions to the decay amplitude and that the sum may vanish for some choices of model parameters [@grz]. The first is a direct decay contribution involving the top quark and charged Higgs bosons at one loop; the second is an indirect contribution following from mixing between the axion and the $\pi^0$, $\eta$ and the $\eta'$.
3.3 in
We refer the reader to Ref. [@grz] for the full expressions. As an example, the amplitude for $K^+\rightarrow \pi^+ A$ in Model I can be written schematically as $$\lambda_w\cot\beta\ F(m_K,m_\pi,m_A,m_\eta,m_{\eta^\prime})
+ \cot\beta\ G(\beta,m_{top},m_{H^+},U_{CKM}) \,\, .
\label{eq:schematic}$$ The first term depends only on meson masses and is due to the pseudoscalar mixing; $\lambda_w$ is a chiral Lagrangian parameter that is fixed by the data to be $|\lambda_w|=3.2\times
10^{-7}$ [@manohar]. The sign of $\lambda$ can be determined by matching chiral Lagrangian amplitudes to electroweak results [@hhg] and is negative (the imaginary part is proportional to the CP violating factor $\epsilon$ [@goity] and is thus negligible). The second term represents the direct, one-loop decay amplitude, and depends on the top mass, the charged Higgs mass, and on CKM angles. Specifically, the second term may be written $$-{1\over 2}(m^2_{\pi}-m_K^2){\xi\over v}$$ where $$\xi=-{G_F\over 16\pi^2}\sum_q U_{qs}U_{qd}^*m_q^2\cot\beta
(A_1+\cot^2\beta A_2) \,\,\, .
\label{eq:a1a2}$$ Here $A_1$ and $A_2$ are functions of the top, charged Higgs and W masses and are given explicitly in Ref. [@frere]. Numerically, the first term of Eq. (\[eq:a1a2\]) is typically a few times $10^{-11}$ GeV and the second is typically $10^{-9}$ GeV. However, Grzadkowski and Pawelczyk show that the second term changes sign as the charged Higgs mass varies from $50$ GeV to $1000$ GeV, and thus at some value the total amplitude vanishes. We have plotted their results for the $K_L$ decay in Fig. 1, setting $\tan\beta=1$ (so our results then apply to both Model I and Model II), and also $\tan\beta=50$ in Model I. Consideration of $K^+$ and $K_S$ decays leads to qualitatively similar results.
\[ht\]
>From Fig. \[klong\] we see that there is a very narrow region of parameter space in which the branching ratio is suppressed. We now must consider whether the experimental bounds on $K_S$, $K_L$ and $K^\pm$ decays can be satisfied simultaneously. The Higgs Hunters Guide [@hhg] refers to two experiments [@kone; @ktwo] that search for the decay chain $K^+\rightarrow\pi^+ A$, $A\rightarrow
e^+e^-$, and obtain upper limits on the $\pi A$ branching ratio of order $10^{-8}$. However, it is important to point out that a region between $m_A=100-150$ MeV remains unconstrained due to the large background from the standard decay $K^+\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^0$, followed by $\pi^0$ Dalitz decays. Without precise vertex detection, this can not be distinguished from the pseudoscalar signal. In the particular case of Model I with large $\tan\beta$, the decay length increases by $\tan^2\beta$, and can be several meters. The pseudoscalar would then escape the detector. In that event, bounds from $K^+\rightarrow \pi^+ \,\, nothing$ [@kthree; @kfour; @bazarko], which range from $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-10}$, would apply. Again, the weaker ${\cal O}(10^{-7})$ bound applies to a mass interval between $m_A=130-160$ MeV, as a consequence of larger experimental backgrounds. On the other hand, the experimental bounds on the decay $K_L\rightarrow \pi^0 A$, are uniformly strong over the entire range of pseudoscalar masses [@klongdecay]. Fortunately, one can fine-tune the charged Higgs mass to avoid contradiction with both charged or neutral kaon decay bounds. In Table I, we show the required range of charged Higgs masses for $K^+$, $K_L$ and $K_S$ decays. It has been assumed that the $A$ mass is $150$ MeV, so that the tighter experimental bounds in charged K decays apply; if the mass is between $100$ MeV and $150$ MeV, these bounds are relaxed and the ranges for $K^+$ and $K_S$ decays are much wider. For all values of $\tan\beta$ shown in Table \[table1\], the allowed ranges for charged Higgs mass overlap and all the bounds can be satisfied with a single fine tuning. For Model II, in which $\tan\beta\sim 1$, the charged Higgs mass must be tuned to approximately one percent precision, but in Model I with larger $\tan\beta$, relatively mild fine-tuning is sufficient. Thus, kaon decays cannot completely exclude the existence of a pseudoscalar in the $100-200$ MeV mass range.
B decays
--------
In B decays into $K A$, the pseudoscalar will have a relativistic gamma factor of $12-24$, depending on its rest mass. Thus, the decay length into electrons will be approximately $25$ centimeters (times $\tan^2\beta$). Because of the larger CKM mixing with the top quark, the Higgs-top loop contribution to the amplitude generally dominates over the mixing term by a larger amount than in the case of kaons. A simple estimate illustrates that the branching fraction is potentially large: The loop term involves CKM factors that are comparable to those found in tree-level semileptonic decays, while the $16\pi^2$ in the loop is partly compensated by the smaller two-body phase space. The resulting prediction has a shape very similar to that for $K$ decays in Fig. 1. Again, there is a narrow region of parameter-space where the rate vanishes, and this region matches the narrow region in K-decays. This is not surprising since the analog of Eq. (\[eq:a1a2\]) for $B$ decays has the same functional dependence on the charged Higgs mass, up to an overall factor. One might hope that higher order corrections would separate the $K$ and $B$ decay allowed mass windows, but a one-percent effect would not be sufficient to alter our qualitative results.
What are the experimental limits? Recently, the BELLE Collaboration published a value for the branching fraction for $B\rightarrow
Ke^+e^-$ of $0.75\pm 0.2\ \times 10^{-6}$ [@belle]. Since this is in agreement with theory, a bound on new physics contributions of approximately $2\times 10^{-7}$ can be obtained. However, the BELLE analysis included a mass cut on the electron-positron pair of $140$ MeV, to suppress background from photon conversions and $\pi^0$ Dalitz decays. Thus, the bound does not apply to the $100-140$ MeV window. The CLEO Collaboration has searched for $B^\pm \rightarrow K^\pm \,\,
nothing$ and $B^0 \rightarrow K^0_S \,\, nothing$ decays, and obtains a bound on the branching ratios of $5\times 10^{-5}$ [@urheim]. While this does cover the mass range in which the BELLE analysis does not apply, it is only relevant if all the pseudoscalars escape detection. For masses between $100$ and $140$ MeV, one can ask what fraction of the $A$’s will escape the detector. For $\tan\beta=50$, the decay length will be over 10 meters and almost all of the $A$’s would escape; the CLEO bound would then apply. In general, approximately $e^{-4\cot^2\beta}$ of the $A$’s escape the detector, which is a barrel calorimeter of roughly a meter radius. The bound would then be weaker by this factor, or $5\times
10^{-5}e^{4\cot^2\beta}$ for the branching ratio. Using this experimental bound, we find the allowed charged Higgs mass range given in Table I. We see that the same fine-tuning needed (for $\tan\beta\sim 1$) for kaon decays will automatically suppress the B-decay rate.
We conclude that neither model I nor II can be definitively excluded from the bounds from $B$ decay, although fine-tuning is needed if $\tan\beta\sim 1$, as required in Model II.
Leptophobic Pseudoscalars
-------------------------
As noted in the introduction, it is simple to have a three Higgs model in which two of the Higgs doublets couple to quarks (with Model I or Model II couplings) and a third couples to leptons. If the third doublet does not mix with the others, the leptonic couplings of the light pseudoscalar are eliminated. The $K$ and $B$ decays discussed in the previous two subsections will generally not be affected in such a model. However, the decay of the pseudoscalar will now be entirely into photon pairs and the lifetime will generally be 2-3 times larger than the usual case. Note that in the $100-140$ GeV mass window, the stronger bounds from $K_L$ decays and from CLEO will certainly apply (without any significant exponential correction for decays inside the detector). Again, these bounds can be evaded with a suitable fine tuning of the charged Higgs mass.
Fermiophobic Pseudoscalars
==========================
We have seen in the previous sections that a pseudoscalar state in the $100$ to $200$ MeV mass range is consistent with the stringent bounds from $K$ and $B$ meson decays. However, in the conventional scenarios considered thus far, this result follows from an accidental zero in the decay amplitudes, as well as a willingness to accept fine tuning. In this section we consider another possibility, that the couplings of the pseudoscalar to matter are naturally suppressed. After discussing the experimental bounds, we argue that a natural place to search for such a state is in a low-energy photoproduction experiment, such as those possible at Jefferson Lab. We estimate the production rate and comment on the relevant discovery signal in Section IV.
We have already stated the motivation for considering a pseudoscalar state that is light: it might be the would-be goldstone boson associated with a global symmetry that is only approximate. In the introduction, we outlined a plausible scenario with a singlet scalar and a vectorlike multiplet in a complete $SU(5)$ representation, taken to be a $5+\bar{5}$ for simplicity.
Since the exotic matter is vector-like, it can be made arbitrarily heavy and integrated out of the theory. This leads to nonrenormalizable interactions between the pseudoscalar and the standard model gauge fields. If $M_F$ is the mass scale of the vector-like matter $\psi$, and the pseudoscalar coupling is given by $(i A \lambda/\sqrt{2}) \bar\psi \gamma^5 \psi$, then one obtains $${\cal L} = \frac{q^2 \lambda}{32 \sqrt{2} \pi^2
M_F}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\, A F_{\mu\nu} F_{\rho\sigma}
\label{eq:effop}$$ for the effective coupling of the pseudoscalar to two photons. Here $q$ represents the electric charge of $\psi$, and $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the electromagnetic field strength. Note that this can be generalized to any non-Abelian gauge group by replacing $q^2$ with the Casimir $T_F$ (defined by $\mbox{Tr}[T^a T^b]= T_F \delta^{ab}$) and by summing over the field strengh tensors. For a fermiophobic pseudoscalar in the mass range of interest to us, the only possible decay is to two photons, and from Eq. (\[eq:effop\]) we obtain the decay width $$\Gamma(A\rightarrow \gamma\gamma) = \frac{16}{9}\cdot \frac{\alpha^2
\lambda^2}{128 \pi^3} \frac{m_A^3}{M_F^2} \,\,\, .
\label{eq:aggwidth}$$ If $M_F$ is not far above the top quark mass, say $200$ GeV, and $\lambda=1$, then one obtains a lifetime $$\tau (M_f=200\mbox{ GeV}) = 1.1 \times 10^{-3}\mbox{ sec } \left(
\frac{\mbox{MeV}}{m_a}\right)^3 \,\,\, .$$ For energies of a few GeV, typical of the photoproduction experiments that we will mention later, the pseudoscalar can travel a macroscopic distance before it decays. A pseudoscalar with a mass of $150$ MeV and an energy of $3$ GeV will have a decay distance of $160$ centimeters.
One might think that the scenario described above is relatively insensitive to the bounds from meson decays due to the weakness of the pseudoscalar’s coupling to ordinary matter. However, the experimental bounds on the branching fraction of $K$ or $B$ mesons to $\pi+$ pseudoscalar are so stringent that operators like Eq. (\[eq:effop\]) are potentially significant, even when they contribute only at one loop. Here we estimate the contribution to $K
\rightarrow \pi A$ in order to constrain the parameter space of the model. We comment on the constraints from $B$ decays at the end of this section.
The operator with the largest potential effect on low-energy hadronic decays is the gluonic version of Eq, (\[eq:effop\]). We use a chiral lagrangian approach to estimate the branching fraction of interest [@grz]. First we represent the light pseudoscalar nonet via the nonlinear representation $$\Sigma = \exp(2i \pi/f_\pi)$$ where $f_\pi=93$ MeV is the pion decay constant, and where $\pi$ is the matrix of fields $$\pi = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{\pi^0}{2}+\frac{\eta}{2\sqrt{3}}+\frac{\eta'}{\sqrt{6}} &
\frac{\pi^+}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{K^+}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\frac{\pi^-}{\sqrt{2}} &
-\frac{\pi^0}{2}+\frac{\eta}{2\sqrt{3}}+\frac{\eta'}{\sqrt{6}} &
\frac{1}{2} (K^0_s+K^0_L) \\ \frac{K^-}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{2}
(K^0_L-K^0_s) & -\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{3}}+\frac{\eta'}{\sqrt{6}}
\end{array}\right)$$ Here we have ignored CP violation and expressed the neutral kaons in terms of their CP eigenstates. Also note that we have chosen to include the $\eta'$, so that $\Sigma$ is an element of U(3) rather than SU(3). The $\Sigma$ field transforms simply under the chiral SU(3) symmetry $$\Sigma \rightarrow U_L^\dagger \Sigma U_R$$ leading to the usual lowest order effective Lagrangian $${\cal L}_0 = \frac{f^2}{4} \mbox{Tr } \partial_\mu \Sigma^\dagger
\partial^\mu \Sigma +\frac{1}{2} f^2 \mu \mbox{Tr }(M \Sigma^\dagger +
\Sigma M^\dagger) \,\,\, ,
\label{eq:lzero}$$ where $M$ represents the light quark current mass matrix. However, Eq. (\[eq:lzero\]) does not take into account the QCD anomaly, which relates the divergence of the axial current to the product of gluon field strength tensors $G^{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}_{\mu\nu}$. A possible method of incorporating this effect into the chiral lagrangian is to introduce the additional terms [@chiralanom] $${\cal L}_{anom} = \frac{1}{2} i q(x)
\log\frac{\det\Sigma}{\det\Sigma^\dagger} + c q(x)^2
\label{eq:anoml}$$ where $q(x)$ represents $$q(x) = \frac{g^2}{32\pi^2} G_{\mu\nu}^a \tilde{G}_a^{\mu\nu} \,\,\, .$$ Under an axial U(1) rotation, the field $\Sigma$ is multiplied by an overall phase, and it is not hard to show that ${\cal L}_0 + {\cal
L}_{anom}$ yields the appropriate divergence of the axial vector current [@chiralanom]. Now, one may treat $q(x)$ as an auxilliary “glueball” field, and remove it using its equation of motion. One then finds $${\cal L}_{anom}=-\frac{1}{4c} \left( \frac{i}{2} \log \frac{\det \Sigma}
{\det \Sigma^\dagger}\right)^2 \,\,\, .
\label{eq:almost}$$ This term determines the $\eta'$ mass, and the parameter $c$ can be chosen accordingly. If one now includes the pseudoscalar coupling to gluons, an additional term must be added to Eq. (\[eq:anoml\]), namely $A q(x)/(2\sqrt{2}M_F)$, in which case Eq. (\[eq:almost\]) is modified $${\cal L}_{anom}=-\frac{1}{4c} \left( \frac{i}{2} \log \frac{\det \Sigma}
{\det \Sigma^\dagger} + \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}M_F} A \right)^2 \,\,\, .$$ This interaction leads to mass mixing between the pseudoscalar and the $\eta'$; we find that the mixing angle is given approximately by $$\theta_{A\eta'} \approx \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}\frac{f_\pi}{M_F} \,\,\,$$ or numerically, $7 \times 10^{-5}\cdot (200 \mbox{ GeV}/M_F)$. We may extract the $\Delta S=1$ $K\pi\eta'$ vertex from the chiral Lagrangian term $${\cal L}_{\Delta S=1} = \frac{f_\pi^2}{4} \mbox{Tr }(\lambda_w h \partial_\mu
\Sigma \partial^\mu \Sigma^\dagger)$$ where $h$ is octet-dominant $\Delta S = 1$ spurion $$h = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0
& 0
\end{array}\right) \,\,\, ,$$ and $\lambda_w=3.2 \times 10^{-7}$ is a parameter that takes into account the strength of the weak interactions [@manohar]. We find $$\Gamma(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ A) = \frac{1}{384\pi}\,\frac{\lambda_w^2
\, \theta_{A\eta'}^2}{m_K^3 f_\pi^2} \,(m_A^2+2 m_K^2)^2
\,[(m_K^2-m_\pi^2+m_A^2)^2-4 m_K^2 m_A^2]^{1/2} \,\, .$$ As a point of reference, if one sets $m_A=100$ MeV, one obtains the branching fraction $5.6 \times 10^{-7} \cdot (200 \mbox{ GeV}/M_F)^2$.
Different experimental bounds are relevant depending on the lifetime and boost of the pseudoscalar. If the pseudoscalar decays inside the experimental detector, the relevant bound on the $K^+$ branching fraction is [@hhg] $$BF(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \gamma \gamma) < 1.4 \times 10^{-6} \,\,\, .
\label{kbound1}$$ If the pseudoscalar escapes the detector unobserved, one must contend with more stringent bounds, ranging from $\sim 10^{-7}$ to $\sim 10^{-10}$, depending on the pseudoscalar mass [@bazarko].
3.3 in
In Fig. \[paramfig\] we display the allowed region of the model’s parameter space. Within the two excluded regions toward the top of the figure, the pseudoscalar is long lived enough to escape the detector, while the branching fraction exceeds the bounds given in Ref. [@bazarko]. The gap between these regions corresponds to a mass interval in which there are larger experimental backgrounds. Immediately below each of these excluded regions, the pseudoscalar decays to two photons within the detector (assumed to have a fiducial length scale of $1.45$ meters [@bazarko2]) and the weaker bound in Eq. (\[kbound1\]) becomes relevant. However, one never reaches the region of parameter space excluded by the $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+\gamma\gamma$ bound since the vector-like matter would itself become light enough to be detected in direct collider searches. We will restrict ourselves to the allowed regions of Fig. \[paramfig\] with smallest $M_F$ in discussing pseudoscalar production rates, in the next section.
Finally, we should comment on the bounds from the analogous decays of neutral kaons and $B$ mesons. First, the $K^0_s$ indeed may decay into $\pi^0 \, A$; however, the total width of the $K^0_s$ is approximately two orders of magnitude larger that that of the $K^+$, so the branching fraction to the decay mode of interest is suppressed by this factor relative to our previous results. We therefore obtain no further bounds. The $K^0_L$, on the other hand, has a total width that is about a factor of four smaller than that of the charged kaon. However, the decay $K^0_L\rightarrow \pi^0 A$ is CP violating, so that the decay amplitude is suppressed by an additional CP-violating spurion factor of $\sim 10^{-3}$ [@goity], and again no further bound is obtained. In the $B$ system, the decay $B\rightarrow K \eta'$ is observed, and has a branching fraction of order $10^{-5}$ [@rpp]. Using our previous result for the $A \eta'$ mixing angle, we estimate that the branching fraction for $B \rightarrow K A$ is ${\cal O}(10^{-15})$ and no further bound is obtained.
Production at Jefferson Lab
===========================
We have seen that there is a window for light pseudoscalars in the $100-200$ MeV mass range. For the two-doublet Model II (or Model I with $\tan\beta\sim 1$) the window requires substantial fine-tuning of the charged Higgs mass; for the two-doublet Model I with large $\tan\beta$, there is less fine-tuning, and for the fermiophobic case there is a very large region of allowed parameter space. How can one detect these pseudoscalars?
A number of authors have considered light pseudoscalar detection at high-energy colliders [@cpyuan; @others]. Larios, Tavares-Velasco and Yuan [@cpyuan] discussed production at the Tevatron, the LHC and future colliders. They focused on the two-photon decay mode, which at high energies registers as a single photon signature. In this section, we consider the possibility of detecting the pseudoscalars we have discussed in a beam dump experiment at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab).
Jefferson Lab has a high intensity photon beam directed into the CLAS detector in Hall B. The maximum energy is currently 6 GeV with an upgrade to 12 GeV planned. The photon beam has a bremstrahlung spectrum with a luminosity of approximately $10^{34}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\
{\rm sec}^{-1}$ if the photons are untagged. At the 12 GeV upgrade a monochromatic 9 GeV photon beam will also be available, with a luminosity of approximately $10^{33}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm sec}^{-1}$. The amplitude for pseudoscalar photoproduction may receive two possible contributions. In the conventional two-Higgs-doublet models, one can photoproduce the pseudoscalar most copiously off the strange quark sea in the proton. Second, in all the models we have discussed, the pseudoscalar may bremstrahlung off the incident photon via the loop-induced $A\gamma\gamma$ vertex. Once produced, the pseudoscalar will travel some distance and then decay into either $e^+e^-$ or $\gamma\gamma$, depending on the model. If the beam dump consists of a meter or more of material, then most of the $\gamma\gamma$ background events will be suppressed. It is thus important that the lifetime of the $A$ be sufficiently long that a substantial number make it through the beam dump.
We first concentrate on production. Consider photoproduction of the pseudoscalar off the strange quark in the proton. The parton level cross section in the center of mass frame is $$\begin{aligned}
{d\hat{\sigma}\over d\cos\theta}& =& {h^2e^2 p\over 144 \pi \hat{s}^{3/2}}
\left[\frac{m_s^2-\hat{t}}{\hat{s}-m_s^2}+\frac{2 m_s^2 m_A^2}{(\hat{s}-m_s^2)^2}
+\frac{\hat{s}-m_s^2}{m_s^2-\hat{t}} \nonumber \right. \\
&+&\left.\frac{2m_s^2 m_A^2}{(m_s^2-\hat{t})^2}
+\frac{\hat{t}\hat{s}-(m_A^2+m_s^2)(\hat{s}+\hat{t}
)+m_s^4+m_A^4}{(\hat{s}-m_s^2)(m_s^2-\hat{t})} \right] \,\,\, .\end{aligned}$$ Here, $h$ is the Yukawa coupling of the $A$ to the strange quark, $p$ is the $A$ momentum; we have approximated the initial photon momentum as $\sqrt{\hat{s}}/2$ in the phase space factors to simplify the expression. In finding the full cross section for photoproduction, we multiply by the parton distribution function for the strange quark and integrate. However, since the parton model becomes less reliable at small momentum transfers, one must keep in mind that there is significant theoretical uncertainty from the small $x$ region of integration, where the partonic cross section is largest. We therefore cut off the $x$ integration at a value where $\hat{s}=xs= 1$ GeV$^2$. We believe that this choice is reasonable. At lower $\hat{s}$ there will not be enough energy to produce $\phi$, $\eta$ and $K$ mesons, and thus one expects an additional suppression from the electromagnetic form factor due to the decrease in available exclusive channels. The resulting cross section is rather insensitive to the beam energy, varying from $3.6\cot^2\beta$ to $2.0\cot^2\beta$ femtobarns as the photon energy varies from $2$ to $12$ GeV. For a luminosity of $10^{34}\ {\rm
cm}^{-2}\ {\rm sec}^{-1}$, this will yield approximately $800\cot^2\beta$ events per year. In order to be detected, these pseudoscalars must travel through a beam dump. The lifetime, as discussed in Section II, gives a decay length for a $100$ MeV pseudoscalar of $1.2\tan^2\beta$ centimeters times the relativistic factor of $E/M_A$. Consider a $6$ GeV beam and $\tan\beta=1$. The decay length is then $72$ centimeters, and roughly $25\%$ of the particles, or $200$ particles/year, will travel through a one-meter beam dump. Since the differential cross section has a $t$-channel pole in the massless quark limit, it is forward peaked and this estimate will not suffer a substantial solid angle dilution. As $\tan\beta$ increases, the production cross section drops, but the decay length increases. In Table II, we show the number of events that traverse a one-meter beam dump per year, assuming $10^{34}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm sec}^{-1}$ luminosity. These pseudoscalars will primarily decay into an electron-positron pair. One should keep in mind that the uncertainties caused by the low $x$ cutoff could be substantial, and thus these event rates are approximate. Also, for larger beam energies and larger $\tan\beta$, the decay length will be too long for a substantial number of events to occur in a detector. Nonetheless, the relatively high event rate indicates that further experimental analysis is warranted.
\[ht\] \[table2\]
The second production mechanism is through the $A\gamma\gamma$ vertex. In the two-Higgs-doublet models, the production mechanism already considered strongly dominates, but in the fermiophobic model, pseudoscalar bremstrahlung off the incident photon is the only possibility. The parton level cross section is $${d\hat{\sigma}\over d\cos\theta}=-{\lambda^2Q^2e^6
p(
2m^2_qm^4_A+\hat{t}^3-2(m^2_A-\hat{s})\hat{t}^2+
((m^2_A-m^2_q)^2+m^4_q+2\hat{s}
^2-2(m^2_A+2m^2_q)\hat{s})\hat{t}
)\over
2048\pi^5M^2_F\hat{t}^2\hat{s}^{3/2}}$$ where $\lambda$ is the coupling of the fermion in the loop to the $A$, $M_F$ is the mass of the fermion in the loop, $p$ is the final state 3-momentum of the $A$, and $Q$ is the quark charge in units of $e$. In deriving this expression, we have assumed that $M_F$ is much greater than the photon energy (certainly true for the fermiophobic case). For $\sqrt{\hat{s}} >> m_q+m_A$, we find that $\hat{\sigma}$ is well approximated by $$\hat{\sigma} \approx \frac{\alpha^3 Q^2 \lambda^2}{64 \pi^2 M_F^2}\,
\frac{1}{\hat{s}}
\left[ (2\hat{s}-m_A^2)^2 \log \frac{(\hat{s}-m_A^2)^2}{m_q^2 m_A^2}-
3(\hat{s}-m_A^2)^2 \right] \,\,\, .
\label{eq:sghtapprox}$$ The exact parton-level total cross section is shown in Fig. \[pro1\].
3.3 in
The approximate expression given in Eq. (\[eq:sghtapprox\]) yields results that are visually indistinguishable from those shown in Fig. \[pro1\]. Using CTEQ set 5L structure functions for the up and down sea and valence quarks we obtain the total production cross section shown in Fig. \[pro2\]. Assuming a monochromatic photon beam and a Jlab-like luminosity of $10^{34}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, one estimates 315 production events per year per femtobarn of total cross section; qualitatively speaking, Fig. \[pro2\] suggests ${\cal O}(10^2)$ events per year at an energy-upgraded Jlab, or at some similar facility.
3.3 in
A more realistic analysis would take into account that the highest luminosity photon beam at Jlab is not monoenergetic, but has a bremstrahlung spectrum. We approximate this effect by assuming a total luminosity of $10^{34}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, with a distribution $dL/dE_\gamma \propto
1/E_\gamma$, with $E_\gamma$ ranging from $1$ GeV up to the beam energy; the event rate is determined by the integral $$\int \sigma \frac{dL}{dE_\gamma} d E_\gamma \,\,\,.
\label{eq:events}$$ Table III shows the events per year for a number of different choices for the beam energy and pseudoscalar mass.
$E_\gamma$ (GeV) $m_A=100$ MeV $m_A=200$ MeV
------------------ -- --------------- -- ---------------
6 99 79
12 108 87
24 117 96
: Photoprodution event rate per year in the fermiophobic scenario, with $M_F=200$ GeV and $\lambda=1$. The total luminosity is taken to be $10^{34}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and a Bremstrahlung photon spectrum is assumed between $1$ GeV and the beam energy.
\[prodtable\]
Unlike the two-doublet model, the lifetime discussed in Section III is sufficiently long that most of these pseudoscalars will traverse a one-meter beam dump. Another major difference is that these pseudoscalars will decay into two photons, i.e. they will look like long-lived $\pi^0$’s. A more detailed analysis taking into account possible experimental acceptances and cuts would be needed to determine whether this signal could be separated from background under realistic conditions.
Conclusions
===========
We have considered light, elementary pseudoscalars with masses between $100$ and $200$ MeV. We have argued that such states may evade the stringent bounds from $K$ and $B$ meson decays, while remaining of interest in searches at low-energy photoproduction experiments, such as those possible at Jefferson Lab. In conventional two-Higgs doublet models, light pseudoscalars may evade the strange and bottom meson decay bounds due to a possible cancellation in the decay amplitude. In this case, the coupling of the pseudoscalar to quarks is substantial and one can produce the pseudoscalar state copiously via photoproduction off the strange quark sea in a nucleon target. On other hand, if one wishes to avoid fine tuning in evading the decay bounds, one can consider very natural scenarios in which the pseudoscalar is fermiophobic. We have presented one concrete realization of this idea, motivated by extra dimensions, and have isolated the allowed parameter space of the model. In the fermiophobic scenario, the pseudoscalar-two photon coupling leads to production via pseudoscalar bremstrahlung off the incoming photon line. The event rate is substantial enough to make accelerator searches of potential interest.
We thank Andrew Bazarko, Morton Eckhause, Keith Griffioen, Bohdan Grzadkowski, Jon Urheim and C.P. Yuan for useful comments. We thanks the National Science Foundation (NSF) for support under Grant No. PHY-9900657. In addition, C.D.C. thanks the NSF for support under Grant Nos. PHY-0140012 and PHY-0243768.
[99]{}
R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**38**]{}, 1440 (1977). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**40**]{}, 223 (1978); F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**40**]{} 279 (1978). J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane and S. Dawson, [*The Higgs Hunter’s Guide*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA 1990). S. Dawson, J. Gunion and H. Haber, Phys. Rev. [**D41**]{}, 2844 (1990). S. Egli, et al., SUNDRUM Collaboration, Phys. Lett. [**B323**]{}, 533 (1989) M. Davier and H. Nguyen Ngoc, Phys. Lett. [**B229**]{}, 150 (1989). S.L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**D15**]{}, 1958 (1977). T.P. Cheng and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. [**D35**]{}, 3484 (1987). M. Sher and Y. Yuan, Phys. Rev. [**D44**]{}, 1461 (1991). F. Larios, G. Tavares-Velasco and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. [**D64**]{}, 055004 (2001); Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{}, 075006 (2002). A. Pich and J. Prades, Phys. Lett. [**B245**]{}, 117 (1990); A. Pich, J. Prades and P. Yepes, Nucl. Phys. [**B388**]{}, 31 (1992). L.J. Hall and M.B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. [**B187**]{}, 397 (1981). J. M. Frere, J.A.M. Vermaseren and M. B. Gavela, Phys. Lett. [**B103**]{}, 129 (1981). B. Grzadkowski and J. Pawelczyk, Phys. Lett. [**B300**]{}, 387 (1993). A. G. Cohen and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. [**B143**]{}, 481 (1984). J. L. Goity, Nucl. Phys. [**B315**]{}, 361 (1984). N. Baker, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 2832 (1987). C. Alliegro, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 278 (1992). Y. Asano, et al., Phys. Lett. [**B107**]{}, 159 (1981). M. S. Atiya et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 21 (1990). S. Adler, [*et al.*]{} (E787 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B537**]{}, 211 (2002).
G. D. Barr et al., Phys. Lett. [**B235**]{}, 356 (1990). K. Abe, et al., BELLE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 021801 (2002). R. Ammar, et al., CLEO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 271801 (2001).
C. Rosenweig, J. Schechter and C.G. Trahern, Phys. Rev. [**21**]{}, 3388 (1980); P. DiVecchia and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. [**B171**]{}, 253 (1980); E. Witten, Ann. Phys. [**128**]{}, 363 (1980).
A. Bazarko, private communication.
K. Hagiwara, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 010001 (2002).
A. Akeroyd, Phys. Lett. [**B368**]{}, 89 (1996), Nucl. Phys. [**B544**]{}, 557 (1999); L. Brucher and R. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. [**C12**]{}, 87 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider asymptotically autonomous semilinear parabolic equations $$u_t + Au = f(t,u).$$ Suppose that $f(t,.)\to f^\pm$ as $t\to\pm\infty$, where the semiflows induced by $$\label{eq:140602-1511}
u_t + Au = f^\pm(u) \tag{*}$$ are gradient-like. Under certain assumptions, it is shown that generically with respect to a perturbation $g$ with $g(t)\to 0$ as ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}\to\infty$, every solution of $$u_t + Au = f(t,u) + g(t)$$ is a connection between equilibria $e^\pm$ of with $m(e^-)\geq m(e^+)$. Moreover, if the Morse indices satisfy $m(e^-) = m(e^+)$, then $u$ is isolated by linearization.
address: 'Institut für Mathematik, Universität Rostock, 18051 Rostock, Germany'
author:
- 'A. Jänig'
title: 'The generic gradient-like structure of certain asymptotically autonomous semilinear parabolic equations'
---
[Introduction]{} Let $\Omega\subset \IR^m$, $m\geq 1$ be a bounded domain with smooth boundary. As an illustrative example for the abstract result in the following section, consider the following problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dirichlet}
\partial_t u - \Delta u &= f(t,x,u(t,x),\nabla u(t,x)) \\
\notag u(t,x) & = 0 & x\in\partial\Omega\\
\notag u(t,x) & = u_0(x) & x\in\Omega
\end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $f$ is sufficiently regular and $f(t,x,u,v)\to f^\pm(x,u)$ as $t\to\pm\infty$ uniformly on compact subsets. Note that the limit nonlinearities $f^\pm$ are independent of the gradient $\operatorname{\nabla}u$. The limit problems $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dirichlet2}
\partial_t u - \Delta u &= f^\pm(x,u(t,x)) \\
\notag u(t,x) & = 0 & x\in\partial\Omega\\
\notag u(t,x) & = u_0(x) & x\in\Omega
\end{aligned}$$ define local gradient-like semiflows on an appropriate Banach space $\tilde X$. It is well-known that for generic $f^\pm$, every equilibrium of is hyperbolic. Hence, a solution $u:\;\IR\to \tilde X$ is either an equilibrium solution or a heteroclinic connection.
It has been proved [@brunpol] that for a generic $f$ the semiflow induced by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t u - \Delta u &= f(x,u(t,x),0) \\
\notag u(t,x) & = 0 & x\in\partial\Omega\\
\notag u(t,x) & = u_0(x) & x\in\Omega
\end{aligned}$$ is Morse-Smale. For the above equation, the Morse-Smale property means the following.
1. Every bounded subset of $\tilde X$ contains only finitely many equilibria.
2. Given a pair $(e^-,e^+)$ of equilibria, the stable manifold $W^s(e^+)$ and the unstable manifold $W^u(e^-)$ intersect transversally.
An easy consequence of property (2) is stated below.
1. A connection[^1] between $e^-$ and $e^+$ can only exist if the respective Morse-indices satisfy $m(e^+)<m(e^-)$.
The aim of this paper is to investigate if and how property (1) and (2’) can be generalized to semilinear parabolic equations which are asymptotically autonomous, for example . Roughly speaking, the general situation is as follows: Equilibria in the autonomous case correspond to connections between two equilibria having the same Morse-index, and every bounded set contains only finitely many such connections. Furthermore, a connection between equilibria $e^-$ and $e^+$ can only exist if $m(e^+)\leq m(e^-)$.
The proof of our results is similar to the relevant parts of [@brunpol], applying an abstract transversality theorem to a suitable differential operator. As a result, we know that for a dense subset of possible perturbations, $0$ is a regular value of this operator.
Using the framework of [@brunpol], namely the characterization of transversality in terms of the existence of exponential dichotomies on halflines [@brunpol Corollary 4.b.4], we could try to prove that an appropriate generalization of (2) (see [@carvalho2015non; @czaja2017definition]) holds with respect to a perturbation for which the abstract differential operator has $0$ as a regular value. Following the approach of [@brunpol], we would have to assume that the evolution operator defined by the linearized equation at a heteroclinic solution is injective [@brunpol Lemma 4.a.12]. (1) and (2’) can be proved to hold for a generic perturbation without the injectivity assumption. For this reason, (2) is replaced by (2’).
We will now apply Theorem \[th:140410-1618\] to the concrete problem . Let $p>m\geq 1$, $X:=L^p(\Omega)$, which is reflexive, and define an operator $$\begin{aligned}
A &:& &W^{2,p}(\Omega) \cap W^{1,p}_0(\Omega) \to L^p(\Omega) \\
Au &:=& &-\Delta u.
\end{aligned}$$ $A$ is a positive sectorial operator and has compact resolvent. As usual, define the fractional power space $X^\alpha$ as the range of $A^{-\alpha}$ equipped with the norm ${\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_\alpha := {\mathord{\left\VertA^\alpha x\right\Vert}}_X$. For $\alpha<1$ sufficiently large, the space $X^\alpha$ is continuously imbedded in $C^1(\bar \Omega)$ (see for instance [@sellyou Lemma 37.8]). Hence, $f$ gives rise to a Nemitskii operator $\hat f:\; \IR\times X^\alpha \to X$, where $$\hat f(t,u)(x) := f(t,x,u(x),\operatorname{\nabla}u(x)).$$ Suppose that for some $\delta>0$
1. $f(t,.)\to f^\pm$ uniformly on sets of the form $\Omega\times B_\eta(0)\times B_\eta(0)\subset\Omega\times\IR\times\IR^m$, where $\eta>0$ and $f^\pm:\; \Omega\times\IR\to \IR$ is continuously differentiable in its second variable with $\partial_u f^\pm(x,u)$ being continuous,
2. $f(t,x,.,.)$ is $C^\infty$, and
3. each partial derivative of $f(t,x,.,.)$ is continuous in $x$ and Hölder-continuous in $t$ with Hölder-exponent $\delta$ uniformly on sets of the form $\IR\times\Omega\times B_\eta(0)\times B_\eta(0)\subset \IR\times\Omega\times\IR\times\IR^m$, $\eta>0$.
Let $C^{0,\delta}_0(\IR\times\bar \Omega)$ denote the set of all in $t$ Hölder-continuous (with exponent $\delta>0$) functions $g:\; \IR\times\Omega\to \IR$ with $g(t,x)\to 0$ as $t\to\pm\infty$ uniformly on $\Omega$. $C^{0,\delta}_0(\IR\times\bar \Omega)$ is endowed with the norm $${\mathord{\left\Vertg\right\Vert}} := \sup_{(t,x)\in\IR\times\Omega} {\mathord{\left\lvertg(t,x)\right\rvert}} + \sup_{(t,x)\neq (t',x)\in\IR\times\Omega} \frac{{\mathord{\left\lvertg(t,x) - g(t',x)\right\rvert}}}{{\mathord{\left\lvertt-t'\right\rvert}}^\delta}.$$
In addition to the hypotheses above, assume that every equlibrium of the equations $$u_t + Au = \hat f^{\pm}(u)$$ is hyperbolic.
Then there is a residual subset $Y\subset C^{0,\delta}_0(\IR\times\bar\Omega)$ such that for all $g\in Y$ and for every bounded solution of $u:\; \IR\to W^{2,p}(\Omega)$ of $$u_t + Au = \hat f(t,u) + \hat g(t),$$ it holds that:
1. There are equilibria $e^\pm$ of $$u_t + Au = \hat f^\pm(u)$$ such that $u(t)\to e^\pm$ in $C(\bar\Omega)$ as $t\to\pm\infty$.
2. $m(e^-)\geq m(e^+)$ and $m(e^-) = m(e^+)$ only if $$v_t + Av = D\hat f(t,u(t))v$$ does not have a non-trivial ($L^p(\Omega)$-) bounded solution.
Since there are continuous imbeddings $X^1\subset C(\bar\Omega, \IR)\subset X^0$, the above theorem follows immediately from Corollary \[co:140602-1439\].
[Abstract formulation of the result]{} Let $X$ and $Y$ be normed spaces and $X_0\subset X$ be open. $\mathcal{L}(X,Y)$ is the space of all continuous linear operators $X\to Y$ endowed with the usual operator norm. The open ball with radius $\eps$ and center $x$ in $X$ is denoted by $B_\eps(x)$ and the closed ball with the same radius and center by $B_\eps[x]$.
$C^k_B(X_0,Y)$ denotes the space of all $k$-times continuously differentiable mappings $X_0\to Y$ with bounded derivatives up to order $k$. The spaces are endowed with the usual norm $${\mathord{\left\Verty\right\Vert}} := \sup_{x\in X_0} \max \{{\mathord{\left\Verty(x)\right\Vert}},\dots,{\mathord{\left\VertD^ky(x)\right\Vert}}\}$$ The space $C^{k,\delta}_B(X_0, Y)$ is the subspace of $C^k_B(X_0, Y)$ consisting of all functions in $C^k_B(X_0, Y)$ whose $k$-order derivative is Hölder-continuous with exponent $\delta>0$. In the case $\delta=0$, we simply set $C^{k,0}_B(X_0, Y) := C^{k}_B(X_0, Y)$. On $C^{k,\delta}_B(X_0, Y)$, we consider the norm $${\mathord{\left\Verty\right\Vert}} := {\mathord{\left\Verty\right\Vert}}_{C^k_B(\IR, X)} + \sup_{x,x'\in X_0\:x\neq x'} \frac{{\mathord{\left\VertD^ky(x) - D^ky(x')\right\Vert}}}{{\mathord{\left\Vertx-x'\right\Vert}}^\delta}.$$
Let $\eta>0$ and $i_\eta:\; B_\eta(0)\cap X_0\to X_0$ the inclusion mapping. Let $C^{k,\delta}_b(X_0, Y)$ denote the set of all functions $f:\; X_0\to Y$ such that $f\circ i_\eta \in C^{k,\delta}_b(X_0\cap B_\eta(0), Y)$ for all $\eta>0$. We also write $C^k_b(X_0,Y) := C^{k,0}_b(X_0,Y)$ and $C_b(X_0,Y) := C^0_b(X_0,Y)$ for short. These spaces are equipped with an invariant metric $$d(f,f') := d(f-f',0) := \sum_{n\in\IN} 2^{-n}\frac{{\mathord{\left\Vert(f-f')\circ i_\eta\right\Vert}}}{1+{\mathord{\left\Vert(f-f')\circ i_\eta\right\Vert}}}.$$ This metric induces the respective topology of uniform convergence on bounded sets, that is, $f_n\to f$ in $C^k_b(X_0, Y)$ (resp. $C^{k,\delta}_b(X_0, Y)$) if $f_n\circ i_\eps \to f\circ i_\eps$ in $C^{k,\delta}_B(X_0\cap B_\eps(0),Y)$ for every $\eps>0$. $C^{k,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR,Y)$ denotes the closed subspace of $C^{k,\delta}_B(\IR,Y)$ containing all functions $x$ with $x(t)\to 0$ as ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}\to\infty$.
A family $T(t,s)$ defined for real numbers $t\geq s$ of continuous linear operators is called a [*linear evolution operator*]{} if $T(r,t)T(t,s) = T(r,s)$ for all $r\geq t\geq s$.
\[df:140519-1839\] We say that an evolution operator $T(t,s)$ on a normed space $X$ admits an [*exponential dichotomy*]{} on an interval $J$ if there are constants $\gamma,M>0$ and a family $(P(t))_{t\in J}$ in $\mathcal{L}(X,X)$ such that:
1. $T(t,s)P(s) = P(t)T(t,s)$ for $t\geq s$.
2. The restriction $T(t,s):\; \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P(s))\to\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P(t))$ is an isomorphism. Its inverse is denoted by $T(s,t)$, where $s<t$.
3. ${\mathord{\left\VertT(t,s)(I-P(s))\right\Vert}}_{\mathcal{L}(X,X)} \leq M e^{-\gamma (t-s)}$ for $t\geq s$.
4. ${\mathord{\left\VertT(t,s)P(s)\right\Vert}}_{\mathcal{L}(X,X)}\leq M e^{\gamma (t-s)}$ for $t<s$.
We also refer to the the family of projections as an exponential dichotomy.
\[df:140509-1746\] Let $\pi$ be a semiflow on a normed space $X$. We say that $\pi$ is [*simple gradient-like*]{} if:
1. Every equilibrium $e$ of $\pi$ is isolated[^2].
2. For every bounded solution $u:\;\IR\to X$, one has $u(t)\to e^-$ as $t\to-\infty$ and $u(t)\to e^+$ as $t\to\infty$.
3. There is a partial order $\prec$ on the set $E$ of all equilibria such that $e^+\prec e^-$ whenever $u$ satisfies (b).
4. If $u$ is given by (b) and $e^- = e^+$, then $u\equiv e$.
Unless otherwise stated, let $X$ be a reflexive Banach space and $A$ a positive sectorial operator defined on subspace $X^1\subset X$. $X^\alpha := \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(A^{-\alpha})$ denotes the $\alpha$-th fractional power space with the norm ${\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_\alpha := {\mathord{\left\VertA^\alpha x\right\Vert}}$. We will assume that the operator $A$ has compact resolvent.
Fix some $\delta\in\left]0,1\right[$, and let $f\in C^{1,\delta}_b(\IR\times X^\alpha, X)$ be asymptotically autonomous, that is, there are $f^\pm\in C^{1,\delta}_b(X^\alpha, X)$ such that $f(t,.)\to f^\pm$ in $C^{1,\delta}_b(X^\alpha,X)$ as $t\to\pm\infty$. We consider solutions of $$\label{eq:140410-1557}
u_t + Au = f(t,u)$$ and its limit equations $$\label{eq:140410-1558}
u_t + Au = f^\pm(u).$$ The above equations define evolution operators (respectively semiflows in the autonomous case) on $X^\alpha$.
By an equilibrium $e$ of , we mean a point $e\in X^\alpha$ such that $u:\;\IR\to X^\alpha$, $t\mapsto e$, solves . We say that an equilibrium $e$ is [*hyperbolic*]{} if the linearized equation $$u_t + Au = Df^\pm(e)u$$ admits an exponential dichotomy $(P(t))_{t\in\IR}$. The Morse-index of $e$ is the dimension of the exponential dichotomy, respectively the dimension of the range of its associated projection i.e., $m(e) := \dim\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}P(t)$, where $t\in\IR$ can be chosen arbitrarily.
\[th:140410-1618\] Assume that:
1. Every equilibrium $e$ of is hyperbolic.
2. $f\in C_b(\IR\times X^\alpha, X)$
3. $f(t,.)\to f^\pm$ in $C^1_b(X^\alpha,X)$ as $t\to\pm\infty$.
4. $f(t,.)$ is $C^\infty$ for each $t\in\IR$, $t\mapsto D^kf(t,.)$ Hölder-continuous with Hölder-exponent $\delta$ uniformly on sets of the form $\IR\times B_\eta(0)\subset \IR\times X^\alpha$, and ${\mathord{\left\VertD^kf(t,x)\right\Vert}} \leq C(k,{\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_\alpha)$ for all $k\in\IN\cup\{0\}$ and all $(t,x)\in\IR\times X^\alpha$.
5. The semiflows induced by are gradient-like.
Let $\beta\in\left[0,1\right]$, and let $C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, X^\beta)$ denote the complete subspace of all $x\in C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^\beta)$ with ${\mathord{\left\Vertx(t)\right\Vert}}_\alpha\to 0$ as ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}\to\infty$. Then, for a generic[^3] $g\in C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, X^\beta)$, every bounded solution $u:\;\IR\to X^\alpha$ of $$\label{eq:140530-1823}
u_t + Au = f(t,u) + g(t)$$ satisfies:
1. There are equilibria $e^-$, $e^+$ of the respective limit equation such that ${\mathord{\left\Vertu(t) - e^-\right\Vert}}_\alpha \to 0$ as $t\to-\infty$ and ${\mathord{\left\Vertu(t) - e^+\right\Vert}}_\alpha \to 0$ as $t\to\infty$.
2. $m(e^+)\leq m(e^-)$ and $m(e^-) = m(e^+)$ only if the linear equation $$\label{eq:140410-1736}
v_t + Av = Df(t,u(t))v$$ does not have a non-trivial bounded solution $v:\;\IR\to X^\alpha$.
Note that (2) is equivalent to the existence of an exponential dichotomy for (cf. the proof of Lemma \[le:131219-1505\]).
1. Since the limit equations are gradient-like, this is a consequence of Lemma \[le:140307-1751\].
2. This follows from Theorem \[th:131127-1503\] together with Lemma \[le:140107-1701\].
\[co:140602-1439\] Let $E$ be a normed space such that $X^1\subset E\subset X^0$, the inclusions being continuous.
Moreover, assume the hypotheses of Theorem \[th:140410-1618\]. Then the conclusions of Theorem \[th:140410-1618\] hold for a generic $g\in C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, E)$.
Let $\Phi$ be defined as in Section \[sec:surjectivity\], preceding Theorem \[th:131127-1503\]. Let $Y$ denote the set of all $g\in C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, X)$ such that $0$ is a regular value of $\Phi(.,g)$. It follows from Theorem \[th:131127-1503\] that $Y = \bigcap_{n\in\IN} Y_n$, where each $Y_n$ is open and dense in $C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, X)$. A second application of Theorem \[th:131127-1503\] proves that $Y\cap C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, X^1)$ is dense in $C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, X)$.
By the continuity of the inclusions, each of the sets $Y_n \cap C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, E)$ is open in $C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, E)$. Moreover, $Y\cap C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, X^1)$ is a dense subset of each $Y_n \cap C_{B,0}(\IR, E)$, which proves that $\bigcap_{n\in\IN} (Y_n \cap C_{B,0}(\IR, E)) = Y\cap C_{B,0}(\IR, E)$ is residual.
[A skew-product semiflow and convergence of solutions]{} Let $Y\subset C_b(\IR\times X^\alpha, X)$ denote the subspace, that is, equipped with a metric of convergence uniformly on bounded sets, of all functions $f:\;\IR\times X^\alpha\to X$ such that:
1. $f(t,.)\in C^1_b(X^\alpha, X)$ for all $t\in\IR$
2. $t\mapsto Df(t,.)$ is a Hölder-continuous function $\IR\to C^1_b(X^\alpha, X)$
The above assumptions are rather strong, but we do not strive for maximum generality here. It is easy to prove
For every $f\in Y$, the translation $t\mapsto f^t(s,x) := f(t+s,x)$, $\IR\to Y$ is continuous.
Let $Y_0\subset Y$ be a compact subspace of $Y$ which is invariant with respect to translations. We consider solutions of the semilinear parabolic equation $$\label{eq:semilin}
\dot u + Au = y(t,u).$$ These induce a skew-product semiflow $\pi:=\pi_{Y_0}$ on $Y_0\times X^\alpha$, where we set $(y,x)\pi t := (y^t, u(t))$ if there exits a solution $u:\;\left[0,t\right]\to X^\alpha$ of with $u(0) = x$. It follows from [@sellyou Theorem 47.5] that $\pi$ is continuous.
Now suppose that $y^t\to y^-$ as $t\to-\infty$ and $y^t\to y^+$ as $t\to\infty$, where $y^-, y^+\in Y$ are autonomous. It is easily seen that the set $Y_0 := \operatorname{cl}_Y \{y^t:\;t\in\IR\} = \{y^t:\;t\in\IR\}\cup\{y^-,y^+\}$ is compact. Moreover for $y^+$ (resp. $y^-$), defines a semiflow on $X^\alpha$, which is denoted by $\chi_{y^+}$ (resp. $\chi_{y^-}$).
It is easy to see that the two lemmas still hold true in a more general setting, replacing the boundedness in $X^\alpha$ by an asymptotic convergence assumption, admissibility [@ryb] for example.
\[le:140307-1751\] Assume that $\chi_{y^+}$ (resp. $\chi_{y^-}$) is simple gradient-like, and let $u:\;\IR\to X^\alpha$ be a bounded solution of . Then, $u(t)$ converges to an equilibrium of $\chi_{y^+}$ (resp. $\chi_{y^-}$) as $t\to\infty$ (resp. $t\to -\infty$).
In the following proof, we use as before infix notation for the semiflows, i.e. given an arbitrary semiflow $\pi$ on a metric space $X$, we write $x\pi t$ instead of $\pi(t,x)$. A solution of $\pi$ or with respect to $\pi$ is a continuous mapping $u:I\to X$ such that $I\subset\IR$ is an interval and $u(t) = u(t_0)\pi (t-t_0)$ whenever $\left[t_0,t\right]\subset I$. Given $N\subset X$, $\Inv^-_\pi(N)$ denotes the negatively invariant subset of $N$, i.e. $x\in \Inv^-_{\pi}(N)$ iff there exists a solution $u:\;\left]-\infty,0\right]\to N$ with $u(0) = x$.
We consider only the case $t\to\infty$ because $t\to-\infty$ can be treated analogously. Suppose to the contrary that $N\subset X^\alpha$ is bounded and $u:\;\IR\to Y_0\times N$ is a solution with $\omega(u)\neq\{(y^+,e_0)\}$, where $e_0$ denotes a minimal equilibrium in $\{x:\; (y^+,x)\in \omega(u)\}$. The minimality refers to the partial order $\prec$ introduced in Definition \[df:140509-1746\].
Let $E\subset\{y^+\}\times X^\alpha$ denote the set of all equilibria in $\omega(u)$. Pick an $\eps>0$ such that $B_\eps[(y^+,e_0)]\cap E = \{(y^+,e_0)\}$ and a sequence $t_n\to\infty$ with $u(t_n)\to (y^+,e_0)$. There are $s_n\geq t_n$ such that $d(u(s_n), (y^+,e_0))=\eps$ and $u(\left[t_n,s_n\right])\subset B_\eps\left[(y^+,e_0)\right]$.
We claim that ${\mathord{\left\lvertt_n-s_n\right\rvert}}\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. Otherwise, we may assume without loss of generality that $r_n:={\mathord{\left\lvertt_n-s_n\right\rvert}}\to r_0$. The continuity of the semiflow implies that $\partial B_\eps[(y^+,e_0)]\ni u(s_n) \to (y^+,e_0)\pi r_0$, which is a contradiction. Choosing a subsequence $(s'_n)_n$ of $(s_n)_n$, we can assume that $u(s'_n)\to (y^+,x_0)\in \partial B_\eps[(y^+,e_0)]\cap \Inv^-_{\pi}(B_\eps[(y^+,e_0)])$. Since $\chi_{y^+}$ is simple gradient-like, one has $(y^+,x_0)\pi t\to (y^+,e)$ as $t\to\infty$ for some $e\in E$, in contradiction to the minimality of $e_0$.
[Surjectivity]{} \[sec:surjectivity\]
The main result of this section is Theorem \[th:131127-1503\], applying an abstract transversality theorem. One of the key steps towards its proof Theorem \[th:131206-1658\] stating the surjectivity of certain linear operators. The main ingredient for the proof of Theorem \[th:131206-1658\] is Lemma \[le:131206-1558\], which relies on a geometric idea that can be sketched as follows. Let $u:\;\IR\to X^\alpha$ be a heteroclinic solutions that is, a solution connecting hyperbolic equilibria $e^-$ and $e^+$. The hyperbolicity of the equilibria implies the existence of exponential dichotomies on intervals of the form $\left]-\infty,\tau\right]$ and $\left[\tau,\infty\right[$ provided $\tau$ is large enough. The linear equation respectively its solution operators determines a connection between these dichotomies respectively their associated invariant spaces. Perturbing this connection is the idea behind Lemma \[le:131206-1558\].
We consider the following (Banach) spaces: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{X}}&:= C^{1,\delta}_B(\IR,X) \cap C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,X^1) \\
{\mathcal{Y}}&:= C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, X^\beta) := \{y\in C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,X^\beta):\; y(t)\to 0\text{ as }t\to\pm\infty\}\quad 0\leq\beta\leq 1\\
{\mathcal{Z}}&:= C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,X).
\end{aligned}$$ Here, we choose ${\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_{\mathcal{X}}:= {\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_{C^{1,\delta}_B(\IR, X)} + {\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_{C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^1)}$.
A function $f:\;\IR\times X^\alpha\to X^0$ gives rise to a Nemitskii operator $\hat f$ defined by $$\hat f(u)(t) := f(t,u(t)).$$
Under the hypotheses (b), (c) and (d) of Theorem \[th:140410-1618\], $\hat f$ maps bounded Hölder-continuous functions to bounded Hölder-continuous functions, that is, $\hat f(C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,X^\alpha)) \subset C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,X^0)$
\[le:140514-1755\] Under the hypotheses (b) and (d) of Theorem \[th:140410-1618\], the mapping $\hat f:\; C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^\alpha)\to C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X)$ as defined above is $C^\infty$.
Suppose that $u,u',v\in C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^\alpha)$ satisfy ${\mathord{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}},{\mathord{\left\Vertu'\right\Vert}}\leq M$, and set $B(t) := \mathrm{D}_xf(t,u(t))$.
By the assumptions on $\mathrm{D}_x f$ and $\mathrm{D}^2_x f$, there are constants $C_1 := C_1(M)$ and $C_2 := C_2(M)$ such that for arbitrary $v\in C^{0,\delta}(\IR,X^\alpha)$ and $t,s\in\IR^+$ $$\begin{array}{lcl}
{\mathord{\left\VertB(t)v(t)\right\Vert}}_{0} &\leq& C_1 {\mathord{\left\Vertv\right\Vert}}_{C_B(\IR,X^\alpha)} \\
{\mathord{\left\VertB(t+s)v(t+s) - B(t)v(t)\right\Vert}}_0 &\leq& C_2s^\delta{\mathord{\left\Vertv\right\Vert}}_{C_B(\IR, X^\alpha)}
+ C_1s^\delta{\mathord{\left\Vertv\right\Vert}}_{C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,X^\alpha)}.
\end{array}$$
Now, set $B'(t,y):=\mathrm{D}_xf(t,u(t)+y) - \mathrm{D}_xf(t,u(t))$. We have $$\begin{array}{lcl}
B'(t,y) &=& \int\limits^1_0 \mathrm{D}^2_x f(t,u(t)+\lambda y)y{\mathrm{d}}\lambda\\
B'(t,y_1) - B'(t,y_2) &=&
\left(\mathrm{D}_x f(t,x+y_1) - \mathrm{D}_x f(t,x)\right)\\
&&- \left(\mathrm{D}_x f(t,x+y_2) - \mathrm{D}_x f(t,x)\right)\\
&=& \int\limits^1_0 \mathrm{D}^2_x f(t,x+y_2+\lambda (y_1-y_2))(y_1-y_2){\mathrm{d}}\lambda\\
B'(t+s,y) - B'(t,y) &=&
\int\limits^1_0 \mathrm{D}^2_x f(t+s,u(t+s)+\lambda y)y\\
&&-\mathrm{D}^2_x f(t,u(t)+\lambda y)y{\mathrm{d}}\lambda\\
\end{array}$$
By the assumptions on $D^k_x f$, there are constants $C_3 := C_3(M)$ and $C_4 := C_4(M)$ such that for all $y,y_1,y_2 \in B_M(0)\subset X^\alpha$ and all $z, z_1, z_2\in X^\alpha$ $$\begin{array}{lcl}
{\mathord{\left\VertB'(t,y)z\right\Vert}}_0 &\leq& C_3 {\mathord{\left\Verty\right\Vert}}_\alpha{\mathord{\left\Vertz\right\Vert}}_\alpha\\
{\mathord{\left\VertB'(t+s, y_2)z_2 - B'(t,y_1)z_1\right\Vert}}_0 &\leq& C_4\bigl( {\mathord{\left\Verty_2\right\Vert}}_\alpha{\mathord{\left\Vertz_2-z_1\right\Vert}}_\alpha
+ {\mathord{\left\Verty_2-y_1\right\Vert}}_\alpha {\mathord{\left\Vertz_1\right\Vert}}_\alpha \\
&&+ s^\delta {\mathord{\left\Verty_1\right\Vert}}_\alpha {\mathord{\left\Vertz_1\right\Vert}}_\alpha + s^\delta {\mathord{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}}_{C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^\alpha)} {\mathord{\left\Verty_1\right\Vert}}_\alpha \bigl){\mathord{\left\Vertz_1\right\Vert}}_\alpha\\
\end{array}$$
It follows that $[D\hat f(u)]v(t) := Df(t,u(t))v(t)$ satisfies $$\label{eq:140515-1238}
{\mathord{\left\Vert\mathrm{D} \hat f(u+u') - \mathrm{D} \hat f(u)\right\Vert}}_{\mathcal{L}(C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^\alpha), C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X))} \leq C_5(M) {\mathord{\left\Vertu'\right\Vert}}_{C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^\alpha)}.$$
In particular, one has $$D\hat f\in C_b\big(C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^\alpha),\;\; \mathcal{L}(C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^\alpha), C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X))\big).$$
Moreover, $$f(t,x+y) = f(t,x) + \mathrm{D} f(t,x)y + \int\limits^1_0 \left(\mathrm{D} f(t,x+\lambda y) - \mathrm{D} f(t,x)\right)y\,{\mathrm{d}}\lambda ,$$ so $$\hat f(u+u') - \hat f(u) - \mathrm{D}\hat f(u)u' = \int\limits^1_0 \left(\mathrm{D}\hat f(u+\lambda u') - \mathrm{D}\hat f(u)\right) u'\,{\mathrm{d}}\lambda ,$$ and by , $${\mathord{\left\Vert\hat f(u+u') - \hat f(u) - \mathrm{D}\hat f(u)u'\right\Vert}} \leq C_5(M) {\mathord{\left\Vertu'\right\Vert}}^2,$$ which proves that $\hat f$ is continuously differentiable and $D\hat f$ as defined above is indeed the derivative. The higher derivatives can be treated analogously.
Define $\Phi := \Phi_f:\; {\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{Y}}\to {\mathcal{Z}}$ by $$\Phi(u,g)(s) := u_t(s) + Au(s) - f(s,u(s)) - g(s).$$ $\Phi$ is continuous by the choice of ${\mathcal{X}}$, ${\mathcal{Y}}$, and ${\mathcal{Z}}$.
Recall that a subset of a topological space is nowhere dense if the interior of its closure is empty. A countable union of nowhere dense sets is called meager and the complement of a meager set residual. The following theorem is the main result of this section.
\[th:131127-1503\] Under the hypotheses of Theorem \[th:140410-1618\], the set of all $y\in {\mathcal{Y}}$ such that $0$ is a regular[^4] value of $\Phi(.,y)$ is residual (in ${\mathcal{Y}}$).
In order to prove Theorem \[th:131127-1503\], we need to check the premises of the following theorem, which is a simplified version of [@brunpol Theorem 2.1] (see also [@henry2 Theorem 5.4]).
\[th:140515-1501\] Let $X,Y,Z$ be open subsets of Banach spaces, $r$ a positive integer, and $\Phi:\; X\times Y\to Z$ a $C^r$ map. Assume that the following hypotheses are satisfied:
1. For each $(x,y)\in \Phi^{-1}(\{0\})$, $D_x\Phi(x,y):\; X\to Z$ is a Fredholm operator of index less than $r$.
2. For each $(x,y)\in \Phi^{-1}(\{0\})$ $D\Phi(x,y):\; X\times Y\to Z$ is surjective.
3. The projection $p:(x,y)\mapsto y:\; \Phi^{-1}(\{0\})\to Y$ is $\sigma$-proper, that is, there is a countable system of subsets $V_n\subset \Phi^{-1}(\{0\})$ such that $\bigcup_{n\in\IN} V_n = \Phi^{-1}(\{0\})$ and for each $n\in\IN$ the restriction $p_n:\; V_n\cap \Phi^{-1}(\{0\})\to Y$ of $p$ is proper.
Then the set of all $y\in Y$ such that $0$ is a regular value of $\Phi(.,y)$ is residual in $Y$.
Using Lemma \[le:140514-1755\], it is easy to see that $\Phi$ is $C^\infty$. In particular, we have $$D\Phi(u_0,v_0)(u,v) = u_t + Au - D\hat f(u_0)u - v.$$
Now, suppose that $\Phi(u_0,v_0) = 0$, that is, $u_0$ is a solution of $$u_t + Au = \hat f(u) + v_0.$$ Under the assumptions of Theorem \[th:131127-1503\], it follows from Lemma \[le:140307-1751\] that $u(t)$ converges to a (hyperbolic) equilibrium $e^\pm$ of the respective limit equation as $t\to\pm\infty$.
Initially, define $${\mathcal{X}}_n := \{x\in {\mathcal{X}}:\; {\mathord{\left\Vertx(t)\right\Vert}}_\alpha < n\;\text{ for all } t\in\IR\}\quad n\in\IN.$$ It is clear that ${\mathcal{X}}= \bigcup_{n\in\IN} {\mathcal{X}}_n$.
Since each equilibrium of is hyperbolic, there are only finitely many equilibria $e$ with ${\mathord{\left\Verte\right\Vert}}_\alpha \leq n$. Hence, there is an $m\in\IN$ such that $m(e)\leq m$ whenever $e$ is an equilibrium of with ${\mathord{\left\Verte\right\Vert}}_\alpha \leq n$.
Furthermore, there is an $\eps=\eps(n)>0$ such that ${\mathord{\left\Verte-e'\right\Vert}}_\alpha>2\eps$ for every pair $(e,e')$ of equilibria with ${\mathord{\left\Verte\right\Vert}}_\alpha\leq n$ and ${\mathord{\left\Verte'\right\Vert}}_\alpha\leq n$. Define $${\mathcal{X}}_{n,m} := \{x\in {\mathcal{X}}_n:\; x(t)\in \bigcup_e B_\eps[e]\text{ for }{\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}\geq m\},$$ where the union is taken over all equilibria $e$ with ${\mathord{\left\Verte\right\Vert}}_\alpha\leq n$.
Let $(u_0, y_0)\in {\mathcal{X}}_n\times {\mathcal{Y}}$ be a solution of $\Phi(u_0,y_0) = 0$. By our assumptions and [@brunpol Lemma 4.a.11], assumption (CH) in Lemma \[le:131206-1558\] is satisfied. Hence, it follows from Theorem \[th:131206-1658\] and Lemma \[le:140327-1816\] that for every solution $u_0\in {\mathcal{X}}_n$, $D_x\Phi(u_0,y_0):\; {\mathcal{X}}\to {\mathcal{Z}}$ is a Fredholm operator and its (Fredholm) index is bounded by $m$. Furthermore, $$\label{eq:140317-1627}
L(u,v) := u_t + Au - D_u f(t,u_0)u + v$$ defines a surjective operator ${\mathcal{X}}\times W\to {\mathcal{Z}}$, where $W = \operatorname{span}\{w_1, \dots, w_m\}$ and $w_1,\dots, w_m\in {\mathcal{Y}}$ have compact support.
In order to apply Theorem \[th:140515-1501\], we need to show that the map $(x,y)\mapsto y:\; \Phi^{-1}(\{0\})\to {\mathcal{Y}}$ is $\sigma$-proper, that is, there is a family $(V_n)_n$ with $\Phi^{-1}(\{0\}) = \bigcup_{n\in\IN} V_n$ such that for each $n\in\IN$ the map $$\label{eq:131219-1128}
(x,y)\mapsto y:\; V_n \to {\mathcal{Y}}$$ is proper.
Let $(x,y)\in \Phi^{-1}(\{0\})$ with $x\in {\mathcal{X}}_n$. Since $y(t)\to 0$ as $t\to\pm\infty$, $x$ converges to an equilibrium as $t\to\pm\infty$ (Lemma \[le:140307-1751\]). Hence, $$\Phi^{-1}(\{0\}) = \bigcup_{(n,m)\in\IN\times\IN} \big(\Phi^{-1}(\{0\})\cap (\underbrace{{\mathcal{X}}_{n,m}\times {\mathcal{Y}}}_{=:V_{n,m}})\big).$$ Let $(x_n, y_n)$ be a sequence in $V_{n,m}$ with $y_n\to y_0$ in ${\mathcal{Y}}$. Using the compactness of the evolution operators on $X^\alpha$ defined by $$u_t + Au = f(t,u) + y\qquad y\in {\mathcal{Y}},$$ it follows that there is a solution $x_0:\;\IR\to X^\alpha$ and a subsequence $(x'_n)_n$ such that $x'_n\to x_0$ uniformly on bounded sets. Suppose that the convergence is not uniform with respect to $t\in\IR$. In this case, there are a subsequence $(x''_n)_n$, a sequence $(t_n)_n$ and an $\eta>0$ such that ${\mathord{\left\Vertx''_n(t_n)-x_0(t_n)\right\Vert}}\geq \eta$ for all $n\in\IN$. Moreover, we can assume without loss of generality that $t_n\to\infty$ or $t_n\to-\infty$.
By the choice of $V_{n,m}$, there are equilibria $e^\pm$ with $x''_n(t)\in B_\eps(e^\pm)$ for all $t$ with ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}\geq m$. Hence, one has $x_0(t)\in B_\eps[e^\pm]$ for ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}\geq m$. Using assumption (c) of Theorem \[th:140410-1618\] and [@sellyou Theorem 47.5], it follows that there is a solution $u:\IR\to B_\eps[e]$ (either $e=e^+$ or $e=e^-$) of one of the limit equations such that ${\mathord{\left\Vertu(0)-e\right\Vert}}_\alpha\geq\eta>0$. We can assume without loss of generality that $B_\eps[e]$ is an isolating neighborhood for $e$, which means that $u\equiv e$. This is an obvious contradiction, so $$\sup_{t\in\IR} {\mathord{\left\Vertx_n(t)-x_0(t)\right\Vert}}_\alpha \to 0\text{ as }n\to\infty.$$
By [@brunpol Lemma 4.a.6], one has $x_n\to x_0\in{\mathcal{X}}$, which proves that the map defined by is proper.
Now, it follows from Theorem \[th:140515-1501\] that there is a residual subset ${\mathcal{Y}}_n \subset {\mathcal{Y}}$ such that for every $y\in {\mathcal{Y}}_n$, $0$ is a regular value of $\Phi(.,y):\; {\mathcal{X}}_n\to{\mathcal{Z}}$.
This completes the proof since a countable intersection of residual sets is residual.
\[le:131206-1352\] For every $F\in\mathcal{L}(\IR^n,\IR^n)$ with $\det F>0$, there is an $\hat F\in C^{\infty}(\left[0,1\right], \mathcal{L}(\IR^n,\IR^n))$ such that $\hat F(0) = \id$, $\hat F(1) = F$, and $\det F(t)>0$ for all $t\in\left[0,1\right]$.
The proof is omitted.
\[le:131206-1558\] Suppose that:
1. $B\in C^{0,\delta}(\mathcal{L}(X^\alpha,X))$ with $B(t)\to B^+$ as $t\to\infty$ and $B(t)\to B^-$ as $t\to-\infty$. There further exists an $m^+\in\IN$ (resp. $m^-$) such that the evolution operator defined by solutions of $$\label{eq:131205-1729}
u_t + Au = B^+ u \text{ (resp. $B^- u$) }$$ admits an exponential dichotomy $P$ defined for $t\in\IR^+$ (resp. $t\in\IR^-$) with ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}$ large and $\dim \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P) = m^+$ (resp. $m^-$).
If $m^- = m^+ =: m$, then there exist $t_1\leq t_2$ and an $R\in C^{\infty}(\left[t_1,t_2\right],\mathcal{L}(X^\alpha, X))$ such that there does not exist a bounded non-trivial (mild) solution of $$\label{eq:131206-1213}
u_t + Au = B(t)u + \begin{cases}
R(t)u & t\in\left[t_1,t_2\right]\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
\[le:131216-1436\] Suppose that $A$ is a positive sectorial operator having compact resolvent. Let $X_1\subset X^1 = \operatorname{\mathcal{D}}(A)$ be an arbitrary finite-dimensional subspace.
Then, there are a closed subspace $X_2\subset X$ and $B'\in\mathcal{L}(X,X)$ such that $X = X_1\oplus X_2$, $(A-B')x = 0$ for all $x\in X_1$, and $(A-B')x \in X_2$ for all $x\in X_2\cap \operatorname{\mathcal{D}}(A)$.
The claim is trivial for $X_1=\{0\}$, so we will assume that $X_1\neq\{0\}$.
Let $P\in\mathcal{L}(X,X_1)$ denote an otherwise arbitrary projection, and let $R(\mu,A)\in\mathcal{L}(X,X)$ denote the resolvent of $A + \mu I$. We have [@pazy Theorem 5.2 in Chapter 2] $${\mathord{\left\VertR(\mu,A)\right\Vert}} \leq \frac{M}{{\mathord{\left\lvert\mu\right\rvert}}},$$ so every real $\mu>0$ sufficiently large is in the resolvent set of $$\label{eq:131216-1453}
A + \mu I - AP = (A+\mu I)(I - R(\mu,A)AP).$$
Moreover, the resolvent $R'(\mu)$ of is compact, and $\frac{1}{\mu}$ is an eigenvalue of $R'(\mu)$. Let $X = X'_1 \oplus X'_2$ be the associated decomposition of $X$, where $X'_1\supset X_1$ is the generalized eigenspace associated with $\frac{1}{\mu}$ and $X'_2$ is $R'(\mu)$ invariant.
Finally, let $Q\in\mathcal{L}(X,X'_1)$ denote the projection with kernel $X'_2$. The operator $$A - \underbrace{\left( AP + A(I-P)Q \right)}_{=:B'}$$ vanishes on $X'_1$. Let $C$ satisfy the relation $X'_1 = X_1 \oplus C$, and set $X_2 := C\oplus X'_2$.
Let the evolution operator $T(t,s)$ be defined by $$u_t + Au = B(t)u,$$ and consider the bundles $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{U}}:= \{&(s,x)\in\IR\times X^\alpha:\; \text{there exists a solution }u:\;\IR^-\to X\text{ with }u(s)=x\\
&\text{ and }\sup_{t\in\IR^-} {\mathord{\left\Vertu(t)\right\Vert}}_\alpha<\infty\}\\
{\mathcal{S}}:= \{&(s,x)\in\IR\times X^\alpha:\; \sup_{t\in\IR^+} {\mathord{\left\VertT(t,s)x\right\Vert}}_\alpha < \infty\}.
\end{aligned}$$
${\mathcal{U}}$ and ${\mathcal{S}}$ are positively invariant, that is, $(s,x)\in {\mathcal{U}}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{S}}$) implies $(t,T(t,s)x)\in {\mathcal{U}}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{S}}$) for all $t\geq s$.
It is well-known that, for small $t\in\IR$ (resp. large $t\in\IR$), $\dim {\mathcal{U}}(t) = m$ and $\operatorname{codim}{\mathcal{S}}(t) = m$ (see for instance [@brunpol Lemma 4.a.11]). Choose $t_1<t_2$ such that $\dim {\mathcal{U}}(t) = m$ for all $t\leq t_1$ and $\operatorname{codim}{\mathcal{S}}(t) = m$ for all $t\geq t_2$.
Let $X = {\mathcal{S}}(t_2) \oplus C_{{\mathcal{S}}}$, $X_1 := {\mathcal{U}}(t_1) + C_{\mathcal{S}}$, and $X = X_1\oplus X_2$ with $X_2\subset {\mathcal{S}}(t_2)$. For $t\geq s\geq t_2$, the evolution operator $T(t,s)$ induces an isomorphism $X/{\mathcal{S}}(s) \to X/{\mathcal{S}}(t)$, so $X = T(t,t_2)C_{\mathcal{S}}\oplus {\mathcal{S}}(t+t_2)$ for every $t\in\IR^+$. By standard regularity results and choosing $t_2$ larger if necessary, we can thus assume without loss of generality that $C_{\mathcal{S}}\subset X^1$ so that $X_1 = {\mathcal{U}}(t_1) + C_{\mathcal{S}}\subset X^1$.
Let $F:\;X_1\to X_1$ be a linear endomorphism with $\det F>0$ which takes ${\mathcal{U}}(t_1)$ to $C_{\mathcal{S}}$, let $\hat F$ be given by Lemma \[le:131206-1352\], and set $G(t_1 + \xi (t_2 - t_1)) := \hat F(\xi)$ for $\xi\in\left[0,1\right]$. Let $B'$ be defined by Lemma \[le:131216-1436\], and let $X = X_1 \oplus \tilde X_2$ with an $(A-B')$-invariant complement $\tilde X_2$. $\tilde P\in\mathcal{L}(X,X_1)$ denotes the projection along $\tilde X_2$. Consider the semigroup $S(t)$ defined by $$\dot u + Au = B'u.$$
We can now define the modified evolution operator $\hat T(t,s)$ by $$\hat T(t,s)(x) :=
\begin{cases}
G(t)G(s)^{-1} x & x\in X_1\text{ and }\left[s,t\right]\subset \left[t_1, t_2\right]\\
S(t-s) x & x\in \tilde X_2\text{ and }\left[s,t\right]\subset \left[t_1, t_2\right]\\
T(t,s) x & \left[s,t\right]\cap \left]t_1, t_2\right[ = \emptyset.
\end{cases}$$
One has $\hat T(t_2,t_1)x = F(x)$ for all $x\in{\mathcal{U}}(t_1)$, so $\hat T(t_2, t_1){\mathcal{U}}(t_1) \subset C_{\mathcal{S}}$, which proves that there does not exist a full bounded solution of $\hat T$.
Assume that $u$ is a solution of $\hat T$ defined for $t\in\left]a,b\right[\subset\left[t_1,t_2\right]$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde Pu_t
\label{eq:171130-1421a}
&= \underbrace{(-A + B')\tilde P u}_{=0} + G_t(t)G(t)^{-1} \tilde Pu \\
\label{eq:171130-1421b}
(1-\tilde P)u_t &= (-A + B') (1-\tilde P)u,
\end{aligned}$$ where the term $(-A + B')\tilde P u$ has been added deliberately. Consequently, every solution of $\hat T(t,s)$ is also a solution of , where $$R(t) := B' + G_t(t)G(t)^{-1}\tilde P - B(t)$$ is obtained by comparing the sum of and with .
\[le:131219-1505\] Let $B\in L^\infty(\IR, \mathcal{L}(X^\alpha, X))$ with $B(t)\to B^+$ as $t\to\infty$ and $B(t)\to B^-$ as $t\to-\infty$.
Assume there exists an $m\in\IN$ such that each of the evolution operators defined by solutions of $$u_t + Au = B^+ u \text{ (resp. $B^- u$) }$$ admits an exponential dichotomy $P$ defined for $t\in\IR^+$ (resp. $t\in\IR^-$) with ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}$ large and $\dim \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P) = m$.
Moreover, suppose that the only bounded mild solution $u:\;\IR\to X^\alpha$ of $$\label{eq:140325-1535}
u_t + Au = B(t)u$$ is $u\equiv 0$.
Then, for every $h\in L^\infty(\IR, X)$, there is a unique mild solution $u_0\in C_B(\IR,X^\alpha)$ of $$\label{eq:140325-1530}
u_t + Au = B(t)u + h.$$
It follows from [@sellyou Theorem 44.3] that generates a skew-product semiflow on a suitable phase space $W\times X^\alpha$, where $W := \operatorname{cl}\{B(t):\; t\in\IR\}$, $p$ is a sufficiently large integer, and the closure is taken in $L^p_{\mathrm{loc}}(\IR, \mathcal{L}(X^\alpha, X))$. Note that $W = \{\hat B^-, \hat B^+\} \cup \{B(t):\; t\in\IR\}$, where $\hat B^\pm(t)\equiv B^\pm$.
Now [@sacker_sell_dich Theorem C] implies that the evolution operator $T(t,s)$ defined by mild solutions of admits an exponential dichotomy. Our claim follows using the same formula as [@henry Theorem 7.6.3] (see also [@brunpol Lemma 4.a.7] and [@brunpol Lemma 4.a.8]).
\[th:131206-1658\] Suppose that (CH) holds, and let $m:=\max\{m^-,m^+\}$. Then there are $w_1,\dots, w_m\in {\mathcal{Y}}$ having compact support such that the operator $\tilde L:\; {\mathcal{X}}+ \operatorname{span}\{w_1,\dots, w_m\} \to {\mathcal{Z}}$ $$\tilde L(u,w) := L(u,w) = u_t + Au - B(t)u - w$$ is surjective.
Consider the spaces $$\begin{aligned}
X' &:= \IR^{{\mathord{\left\lvertm^--m^+\right\rvert}}} \times X\\
(X')^\alpha &:= \IR^{{\mathord{\left\lvertm^--m^+\right\rvert}}} \times X^\alpha\\
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{X}}' &:= C^{1,\delta}_B(\IR,X') \cap C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,(X')^1) \\
{\mathcal{Y}}' &:= C^{0,\delta}_{B,0}(\IR, \IR^{{\mathord{\left\lvertm^--m^+\right\rvert}}}) \times {\mathcal{Y}}\\
{\mathcal{Z}}' &:= C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,X').
\end{aligned}$$ We define an operator $L':\;{\mathcal{X}}'\times {\mathcal{Y}}'\to{\mathcal{Z}}'$, where $$L'((x,u),(w',w)) := (x_t + \mu \arctan(t)x - w', u_t + Au -B(t) u -w)$$ and $\mu = 1$ if $m^-<m^+$ and $\mu=-1$ otherwise.
In both cases and for both limit equations i.e., $t\to\pm\infty$, $(0,0)$ is an equilibrium having Morse index $m$. It follows easily that $L$ is surjective if we prove that $L'$ is surjective.
For the sake of simplicity, we will henceforth assume that $m^-=m^+$.
By Lemma \[le:131206-1558\], there are $t_1\leq t_2$ and $R\in C^\infty(\left[t_1,t_2\right], \mathcal{L}(X^\alpha, X))$ such that $$\label{eq:131206-1717}
u_t + Au - B(t)u =
\begin{cases}
R(t)u &t\in\left[t_1,t_2\right]\\
0 &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ does not have a non-trivial bounded solution. The evolution operator $T(t,s)$ defined by has an exponentially stable subspace of finite codimension for $t\geq s\geq t_2$, that is, $X = X_1\oplus X_2$ with $\operatorname{codim}X_2 = m^+$ and for some $M,\delta>0$ $$\label{eq:140321-1620}
{\mathord{\left\VertT(t,t_2)x\right\Vert}}_\alpha \leq Me^{-\delta(t-s)}{\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_\alpha \text{ for }x\in X_2\text{ and }t\geq t_2.$$ Suppose that $\tilde X := T(t_2, t_1)X^1 \subset X^1$, $\tilde X_2 := \tilde X\cap X_2$ and $\tilde X = \tilde X_1 \oplus \tilde X_2$.
\[le:140321-1534\] For every $\eta\in \tilde X_1$, there is a $w\in {\mathcal{Y}}$ and a solution $v:\;\left[t_1, t_2\right]\to X^\alpha$ of $$v_t + Av = B(t)v + w$$ with $v(t_1) = 0$ and $v(t_2)=\eta$.
Let $u:\;\left[t_1,t_2\right]\to X^\alpha$ be a solution of $T(t,s)$ with $u(t_2) = \eta\neq 0$. Note that, by standard regularity results, e.g. [@brunpol Lemma 4.a.6], one has $u\in C^{1,\delta}(\IR, X) \cap C^{0,\delta}(\left[t_1,t_2\right], X^1)$.
Let $x:\;\IR\to \IR$ be $C^\infty$ with $x(t) = 0$ for $t\leq t_1$ and $x(t)=1$ for $t\geq t_2$. Setting $v(t):=u(t)\cdot x(t)$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
v_t(s) &= u_t(s) \cdot x(t) + u(t) \cdot x_t(s)\\
&= (-A + B(s)) \underbrace{u(s) x(s)}_{=v(s)} + \underbrace{u(s) x_t(s)}_{=:w(s)}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{array}{lcl}
v(t_1) &=& x(t_1) \cdot\eta = 0\\
v(t_2) &=& x(t_2)\cdot \eta = \eta
\end{array}$$ as claimed.
Let $\eta_1,\dots,\eta_n$ be a basis for $\tilde X_1$, and choose $w_1,\dots, w_n$ and $v_1,\dots, v_n$ according to Sublemma \[le:140321-1534\]. It follows from Lemma \[le:131219-1505\] that for every $h\in{\mathcal{Z}}$, there exists a unique mild solution $u_0\in C_B(\IR,X^\alpha)$ of $$\label{eq:131206-1747}
u_t + Au - B(t)u = R(t)u + h.$$
Let $v_1:\;\left[t_1,\infty\right[\to X^\alpha$ denote the solution of $$v_t + Av - B(t)v = R(t)u_0\quad v(t_1) = 0,$$ and let $v_1(t_2) = \eta \oplus \eta' \in \tilde X_1\oplus \tilde X_2$.
There is a $w_0\in\operatorname{span}\{w_1,\dots,w_n\}$ such that the solution $v_2:\;\left[t_1,\infty\right[\to X^\alpha$ of $$v_t + Av - B(t)v = -w_0\quad v(t_1) = 0$$ satisfies $v_2(t_2) = \eta$.
It follows that $v_0 := v_1 - v_2$ is a solution of $$v_t + Av - B(t)v = R(t)u_0 + w_0 \quad v(t_1) = 0$$ with $v_0(t_2)\in\tilde X_2\subset X_2$.
Using , one concludes that $\sup_{t\in\IR}{\mathord{\left\Vertv_0(t)\right\Vert}}_\alpha <\infty$. Furthermore, $u_0-v_0$ is a bounded mild solution of $$u_t + Au - B(t)u - w_0 = h,$$ so by [@brunpol Lemma 4.a.6], one has $u_0-v_0\in{\mathcal{X}}$ and thus $L(u_0-v_0,w_0) = h$, which completes the proof of Theorem \[th:131206-1658\].
\[le:140327-1816\] Suppose that $A$ is a sectorial operator having compact resolvent and $B$ satisfies (CH). Let the operator $L := L_B$ be defined by $$L_B u := u_t + Au - B(t)u$$ Then $\dim \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}(L_B) \leq m^-$.
This is an immediate consequence of the existence of an exponentional dichotomy on an interval $\left]-\infty,t_0\right]$ for small $t_0$, which follows from [@brunpol Lemma 4.a.11].
[Adjoint equations]{} Throughout this section, suppose that $X$ is a reflexive Banach space, $A$ is a positive sectorial operator defined on $X^1\subset X$. As usual, we write ${\mathord{\langlex,x^*\rangle}} := x^*(x)$. The adjoint operator $A^*$ with respect to this pairing is a positive sectorial operator on the dual space $X^*$ [@pazy Theorem 1.10.6]. Let $A^{*,\alpha}$ denote the $\alpha$-th fractional power of the operator $A^*$ and $X^{*,\alpha}$ the $\alpha$-th fractional power space defined by $A^{*,\alpha}$.
For the rest of this section, fix some $\alpha\in\left[0,1\right[$, and suppose that (CH) holds. Recall that (CH) means in particular that $B(t)\to B^{\pm}$ as $t\to\pm\infty$. We also write $B(\pm\infty)$ to denote $B^\pm$.
We will exploit the relationship between $$\label{eq:140106-1522}
u_t + Au = B(t)u$$ and its adjoint equation, where the adjoint is taken formally with respect to the pairing $(x,y) := {\mathord{\langlex, A^{*,\alpha} y\rangle}}$ between $X$ and $X' := X^{*,\alpha}$. The adjoint equation for reads as follows. $$\label{eq:140106-1522b}
v_t + A^*v = (B(-t)A^{-\alpha})^* A^{*,\alpha} v =: B'(t)v$$
\[le:140407-1609\] $${\mathord{\langlex,A^{*,\alpha}y\rangle}}
= {\mathord{\langlex,(A^*)^{\alpha}y\rangle}}
= {\mathord{\langlex,(A^\alpha)^*y\rangle}} \quad\forall (x,y)\in X^\alpha\times X^{*,\alpha}
$$
Recall that $A^{*,\alpha} = (A^*)^\alpha$ by definition. We have [@pazy p. 70] $$A^{-\alpha} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \int\limits^\infty_0 t^{\alpha-1} e^{-At}\,{\mathrm{d}}t,$$ where the integral is taken in $\mathcal{L}(X,X)$.
Hence, for $x\in X$ and $y\in X^*$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathord{\langleA^{-\alpha} x, y\rangle}}
&= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \int\limits^\infty_0 t^{\alpha-1} {\mathord{\langlee^{-At}x,y\rangle}}\,{\mathrm{d}}t \\
&= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \int\limits^\infty_0 t^{\alpha-1} {\mathord{\langlex, e^{-A^*t}y\rangle}}\,{\mathrm{d}}t\\
&= {\mathord{\langlex, (A^*)^{-\alpha}y\rangle}}.
\end{aligned}$$
\[le:140108-1611\] Let $B\in \mathcal{L}(X^\alpha,X)$. Then $B' := (BA^{-\alpha})^* A^{*,\alpha} \in \mathcal{L}(X^{*,\alpha},X^*)$ with ${\mathord{\left\VertB'\right\Vert}} \leq {\mathord{\left\VertB\right\Vert}}$.
Let $(x,y)\in X\times X^{*,\alpha}$. We have $$\begin{split}
{\mathord{\left\lvert{\mathord{\langlex,B'y\rangle}}\right\rvert}}
&= {\mathord{\left\lvert{\mathord{\langleBA^{-\alpha}x,A^{*,\alpha}y\rangle}}\right\rvert}} \\
&\leq {\mathord{\left\VertB\right\Vert}}_{\mathcal{L}(X^\alpha,X)} {\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_X {\mathord{\left\VertA^{*,\alpha}y\right\Vert}}_{X^*},
\end{split}$$ which shows that ${\mathord{\left\VertB'y\right\Vert}}_{X^*} \leq {\mathord{\left\VertB\right\Vert}}_{\mathcal{L}(X^\alpha,X)} {\mathord{\left\Verty\right\Vert}}_{X^{*,\alpha}}$.
\[le:140108-1619\] Let $J\subset\IR$ be an open interval, let $u:\;J\to X^\alpha$ be a solution of and $v:\;-J\to X^{*,\alpha}$ be a solution of . Then $$(u(t),v(-t)) \equiv C\quad\text{for all } t\in J.$$
We consider the function $h(t) := (u(t),v(-t))$, which is defined for all $t\in J$. Note that $B$ is Hölder-continuous by (CH). Lemma \[le:140108-1611\] implies that $B'$ is also Hölder-continuous. Therefore, $u$ and $v$ are continuously differentiable in $X$ respectively $X^*$. One has $$\begin{split}
h_t(s) &= \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{1}{h}\left( {\mathord{\langleu(s+h) - u(s),A^{*,\alpha}v(-s-h)\rangle}} + {\mathord{\langleA^\alpha u(s), v(-s-h) - v(-s)\rangle}}\right)\\
&= {\mathord{\langleu_t(s), A^{*,\alpha}v(-s)\rangle}} + {\mathord{\langleA^\alpha u(s), -v_t(-s)\rangle}} \\
&= (-Au(s) + B(t)u(s), v(-s)) + {\mathord{\langleA^\alpha u(s), A^*v(-s) - B'(-t)v(-s)\rangle}} = 0\\
\end{split}$$
\[le:140409-1425\] Let $J\subset \IR$ be an interval and $P:\; J\to \mathcal{L}(X^\alpha, X^\alpha)$ an exponential dichotomy for the evolution operator $T(t,s)$ on $X^\alpha$ defined by .
Then $P':\; -J\to \mathcal{L}(X^{*,\alpha}, X^{*,\alpha})$, $P'(t) := A^{*,-\alpha}P(-t)^*A^{*,\alpha}$, is an exponential dichotomy for the evolution operator $T'(t,s)$ defined by .
It is easy to see that $P'$ is well-defined and continuous (Lemma \[le:140108-1611\]). We need to check the assumptions of an exponential dichotomy (Definition \[df:140519-1839\]).
Suppose that $(x,y)\in X^\alpha\times X^{*,\alpha}$ and $\left[s,t\right]\subset J$.
1. From Lemma \[le:140108-1619\], we obtain $$\begin{split}
(x,P'(-s)T'(-s,-t)y) &= (T(t,s)P(s)x, y)\\
&= (P(t)T(t,s)x, y) \\
&= (x, T'(-s,-t)P'(-t)y).
\end{split}$$ Since $A^\alpha:\; X^\alpha\to X$ is an isomorphism, it follows that $P'(-s)T'(-s,-t) = T'(-s,-t)P'(-t)$.
2. To show that $T'(-s,-t):\;\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P'(-t))\to \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P'(-s))$ is an isomorphism, it is sufficient to show that it is injective. Suppose that $T'(-s,-t)y = 0$ for some $y\in\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P'(-t))$. For $x\in X^\alpha$, we have $$0 = (x,T'(-s,-t)y) = (T(t,s)x,P'(-t)y) = (T(t,s)P(s)x,y),$$ so $(x,y) = 0$ for all $x\in \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P(t))$. This in turn implies $(x,y) = (x,P'(-t)y) = (P(t)x,y) = 0$ for all $x\in X^\alpha$, that is, $y = 0$.
3. The estimates for $y\in \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P'(-t))$ and $y\in \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(I-P'(-t))$ can be deduced using roughly the same arguments. Hence, we will treat only the case $y\in \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P'(-t))$.
Suppose that $${\mathord{\left\VertT(t,s)x\right\Vert}}_\alpha \leq M e^{-\gamma(s-t)} {\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_\alpha\quad s>t\quad x\in\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P(s)).$$ We have $$\begin{split}
{\mathord{\langlex, A^{*,\alpha}T'(-s,-t)y\rangle}}
&= (x,T'(-s,-t)P'(-t)y) \\
&= (P(s)x, T'(-s,-t)P'(-t)y) \\
&= (T(t,s)P(s)x, y) \\
& \leq CM e^{-\gamma(s-t)} {\mathord{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}}_X {\mathord{\left\VertA^{*,\alpha}y\right\Vert}}_{X^*}.
\end{split}$$ Thus, ${\mathord{\left\VertA^{*,\alpha}T'(-s,-t)y\right\Vert}}_{X^*} \leq CM e^{-\gamma(s-t)} {\mathord{\left\VertA^{*,\alpha}y\right\Vert}}_{X^*}$, where the constant $C$ is determined by the family $P(.)$ of projections.
To sum it up, we have proved that satisfies (CH). In comparison to , the Morse indices $m^-$ and $m^+$ are obviously swapped. This is caused by the reversal of the time variable.
Let the spaces ${\mathcal{X}}$, ${\mathcal{Y}}$, ${\mathcal{Z}}$ be defined as in the previous section, and let ${\mathcal{X}}'$, ${\mathcal{Y}}'$, ${\mathcal{Z}}'$ denote their dual counterparts, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{X}}' &:= C^{1,\delta}_B(\IR,X^*) \cap C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,X^{*,1}) \\
{\mathcal{Z}}' &:= C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR,X^*).
\end{aligned}$$ We consider the operators $L\in \mathcal{L}({\mathcal{X}},{\mathcal{Z}})$ (resp. $L'\in\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{X}}',{\mathcal{Z}}')$) defined by $$Lu := u_t + Au - B(t)u$$ and $$L'v := v_t + A^*v - B'(t)v.$$
\[le:140107-1702\] If $\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(L)\supset {\mathcal{X}}$, then $\operatorname{\mathcal{N}}(L') = \{0\}$. Analogously, if $\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(L')\supset {\mathcal{X}}'$, then $\operatorname{\mathcal{N}}(L) = \{0\}$.
Assume that $L'v = 0$ for some $v\in {\mathcal{X}}'$ and let $u\in{\mathcal{X}}$ satisfy $u(t)\to 0$ as ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}\to\infty$. Integration by parts shows that $$\begin{split}
&\int\limits^a_{-a} {\mathord{\langleLu(s), A^{*,\alpha}v(-s)\rangle}}\,{\mathrm{d}}s \\
&\quad= \int\limits^a_{-a} {\mathord{\langleu_t(s), A^{*,\alpha}v(-s)\rangle}} + {\mathord{\langleA^\alpha u(s), A^*v(-s) - B'(-s)v(-s)\rangle}}\,{\mathrm{d}}s\\
&\quad= (u(a),v(-a)) - (u(-a),v(-a)) + \int\limits^a_{-a} {\mathord{\langleA^\alpha u(s), \underbrace{v_t(-s) + (A^* - B'(-s))v(-s)}_{=(L'v)(-s) \equiv 0}\rangle}} \,{\mathrm{d}}s.\\
\end{split}$$ Consequently for all $u\in{\mathcal{X}}$ with $u(t)\to 0$ as ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}\to\infty$, one has $$\label{eq:140106-1748}
\int\limits^a_{-a} {\mathord{\langle(Lu)(s), A^{*,\alpha}v(-s)\rangle}}\,{\mathrm{d}}s \to 0\text{ as }a\to\infty.$$
Arguing by contradiction, suppose that $v(t_0)\neq 0$ for some $t_0\in\IR$. Since [@pazy Theorem 2.6.8] $X^1$ is dense in $X$, there is an $x_0\in X^1$ such that ${\mathord{\langlex_0,A^{*,\alpha}v(t_0)\rangle}}\neq 0$. Choose $w\in C^{1,\delta}_{B}(\IR, X^1)$ such that $w(t_0) = x_0$ and $w(t) = 0$ for all $t\in\IR$ with ${\mathord{\left\lvertt-t_0\right\rvert}}\geq \eps$. For small $\eps>0$, we have $$C := \int\limits^\infty_{-\infty} {\mathord{\langle\underbrace{w(s)}_{\in \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(L)}, A^{*,\alpha}v(-s)\rangle}} \,{\mathrm{d}}s \neq 0.$$ We further have $w\in {\mathcal{X}}\subset \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(L)$, that is, $w = Lu$ for some $u\in{\mathcal{X}}$. Since $w(t) = 0$ for ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}$ sufficiently large, it follows from (CH) respectively from the existence of exponential dichotomies at $\infty$ and $-\infty$ that $u(t)\to 0$ as ${\mathord{\left\lvertt\right\rvert}}\to 0$. Hence, one has $C=0$ by , which is a contradiction.
Using the Hahn-Banach theorem, the second claim can be treated similarly.
\[le:140107-1701\] Suppose that $L$ is surjective. Then:
1. $m^-\geq m^+$;
2. if $m^-=m^+$, then $L$ is also injective.
<!-- -->
1. Assume to the contrary that $m^-<m^+$. Let $P^-$ (resp. $P^+$) denote the projections associated with the exponential dichotomy at $-\infty$ (resp. $+\infty$), which are given by (CH). Let $(P^-)'$ and $(P^+)'$ defined by Lemma \[le:140409-1425\]. Note that $\dim\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P^-)' = m^-$ and $\dim\operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P^+)' = m^+$.
By $T'(t,s)$, we mean the evolution operator on $X^{\alpha,*}$ defined by . Let $t_1<0<t_2$ so that $(P^+)'(t_1)$ and $(P^-)'(t_2)$ are defined. Since $m^-<m^+$, the operator $(P^-(t_2))'T'(t_2,t_1):\; \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P^+)'(t_1)\to \operatorname{\mathcal{R}}(P^-)'(t_2)$ is not injective. Therefore, there exists a non-trivial bounded solution of , in contradiction to Lemma \[le:140107-1702\].
2. $L'$ is injective by Lemma \[le:140107-1702\]. We can now apply Lemma \[le:131219-1505\] to $L'$, showing that $L'$ is also surjective. Finally, Lemma \[le:140107-1702\] implies that $L$ is injective as claimed.
[1]{}
P. Brunovsky and P. Polacik, *The morse-smale structure of a generic reaction-diffusion equation in higher space dimensions*, J. Differential Equations **135** (1997), 129–181.
Alexandre N Carvalho, Jos[é]{} A Langa, and James C Robinson, *Non-autonomous dynamical systems.*, Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems-Series B **20** (2015), no. 3.
Radoslaw Czaja, Waldyr M Oliva, and Carlos Rocha, *On a definition of Morse-Smale evolution processes*, Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems **37** (2017), no. 7, 3601–3623.
D. Henry, *[Geometric theory of semilinear parabolic equations.]{}*, [Lecture Notes in Mathematics. 840. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag. IV, 348 p.]{}, 1981.
[to3em]{}, *Perturbation of the boundary in boundary-value problems of partial differential equations*, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. 318, 2005.
A. Pazy, *Semigroups of linear operators and applications to partial differential equations*, Springer-Verlag New York, 1983 (English).
K. P. Rybakowski, *[The homotopy index and partial differential equations]{}*, Springer, 1987.
R. J. Sacker and G. R. Sell, *Dichotomies for linear evolutionary equations in banach spaces*, J. Differential Equations **113** (1994), 17–67.
G. R. Sell and Y. You, *[Dynamics of evolutionary equations.]{}*, [Applied Mathematical Sciences 143. New York, NY: Springer. xiii, 670 p.]{}, 2002.
[^1]: non-trivial, that is, except for constant solutions
[^2]: The term [*simple*]{} refers to this hypothesis.
[^3]: i.e., there is a residual subset of $C^{0,\delta}_B(\IR, X^\beta)$ such that all $g$ in this subset have the stated property
[^4]: $D_x\Phi(x_0,y):\; {\mathcal{X}}\to {\mathcal{Z}}$ is surjective whenever $\Phi(x_0,y)=0$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the dust present in 56 Galactic planetary nebulae (PNe) through their iron depletion factors, their C/O abundance ratios (in 51 objects), and the dust features that appear in their infrared spectra (for 33 objects). Our sample objects have deep optical spectra of good quality, and most of them also have ultraviolet observations. We use these observations to derive the iron abundances and the C/O abundance ratios in a homogeneous way for all the objects. We compile detections of infrared dust features from the literature and we analyze the available [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS spectra. Most of the PNe have C/O ratios below one and show crystalline silicates in their infrared spectra. The PNe with silicates have C/O $<1$, with the exception of Cn 1-5. Most of the PNe with dust features related to C-rich environments (SiC or the 30 $\mu$m feature usually associated to MgS) have C/O $\ga0.8$. PAHs are detected over the full range of C/O values, including 6 objects that also show silicates. Iron abundances are low in all the objects, implying that more than 90% of their iron atoms are deposited into dust grains. The range of iron depletions in the sample covers about two orders of magnitude, and we find that the highest depletion factors are found in C-rich objects with SiC or the 30 $\mu$m feature in their infrared spectra, whereas some of the O-rich objects with silicates show the lowest depletion factors.'
author:
- 'Gloria Delgado-Inglada and Mónica Rodríguez'
title: 'C/O abundance ratios, iron depletions, and infrared dust features in Galactic Planetary Nebulae'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Planetary nebulae (PNe) are suitable sites to study the evolution of dust grains since their progenitors, asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, are among the most efficient sources of circumstellar dust in the Galaxy [@Whittet_03]. These stars lose large amounts of material and create circumstellar envelopes with both low temperatures (below 1500 K in the regions of dust formation) and high densities ($\sim$ 10$^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$), where dust grains are efficiently formed.
In @DelgadoInglada_09, we studied iron depletions into dust grains in a sample of 33 Galactic disk PNe. Iron is an important contributor to the mass of dust grains [@Sofia_94], and its gaseous abundance can be used as a proxy for the amount of depletion of other elements. We found low iron gaseous abundances in all the objects, suggesting that more than 90% of their iron atoms are located in grains. We also found that the range of iron depletions covers about two orders of magnitude, which may be a consequence of differences in the formation and evolution of the grains in the different nebulae. We did not find any obvious correlation between iron abundances and parameters related to the nebular age (such as the nebular radius or the surface brightness) or to the dominant chemistry in the nebulae (C-rich or O-rich) that could provide clues on the reasons behind the different depletions. However, the information available for the studied sample was scarce.
On the other hand, the dust features that appear in the infrared spectra of PNe provide information on the composition of their dust grains. In our galaxy, PNe with crystalline silicates, many of them also with PAHs, are the most numerous [@Gutenkunst_08; @PC_09; @Stanghellini_12]. Besides, a general correlation has been found between infrared features and C/O abundance ratios: Magellanic Clouds PNe with silicates have C/O $<1$, and those with carbonaceous dust have C/O $>1$, although for Galactic PNe the situation is less clear [@Casassus_01a; @Cohen_05; @Stanghellini_07; @Waters_98].
The relative abundances of carbon and oxygen in the envelope of an AGB star depends on the nucleosynthesis processes occurring in the inner regions, which in turn depends on the mass of the progenitor star and on its initial metallicity. In our galaxy, we expect stars to be born with an almost solar C/O ratio (C/O $\sim0.5$, @AllendePrieto_02), that may change during the evolution of the star depending on its initial mass. Theoretical models [see, e.g., @Marigo_03; @Karakas_09] predict that the less massive progenitors (M$_{*}$ $\lesssim1.5$–2 M$_\odot$) will remain O-rich during their whole evolution. Stars with masses in the range $\sim$ 2–4 M$_\odot$ may evolve from O-rich to C-rich due to the third dredge-up process that enriches the surface of the AGB star with carbon. In the most massive progenitors (M$_{*}$ $\gtrsim$ 4–5 M$_\odot$), the hot bottom burning process occurs efficiently and, since it converts carbon into nitrogen via the CN cycle, it can prevent the formation of a C-rich star.
The value of C/O in a dust-forming stellar envelope defines whether the dust particles will be C-rich or O-rich. If carbon is more abundant than oxygen, all the oxygen atoms will be trapped in CO molecules and carbon atoms will be available to form C-rich compounds, such as graphite, amorphous carbon, or silicon carbide (SiC). If oxygen is more abundant than carbon, all the carbon atoms will be trapped by CO and the remaining oxygen atoms will form O-rich grains like silicates and oxides.
Oxygen rich nebulae could have iron deposited in metallic iron grains, silicates and oxides, whereas C-rich nebulae are expected to have their iron atoms in the form of metallic grains, Fe$_3$C, FeSi, FeS, and FeS$_2$ [@Whittet_03]. Therefore, iron depletion factors could be different in C-rich and O-rich PNe. The C-rich or O-rich chemistry may be studied from the C/O abundance ratios or from the infrared dust features, and we expect both to be related. In principle, C-rich features such as SiC are expected in PNe with C/O $>1$ [but see @Bond_10] whereas O-rich features like silicates are expected in PNe with C/O $<1$. [*ISO*]{} and [*Spitzer*]{} telescopes allow us to detect and identify several dust species in the spectra of PNe and therefore, to classify PNe as C-rich or O-rich according to the observed features.
Here, we extend the work performed in @DelgadoInglada_09 by studying a sample of Galactic PNe that nearly doubles the previous one and also by analyzing possible correlations between their iron depletions, C/O abundance ratios, and infrared dust features.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe our sample of Galactic PNe, whereas in Section 3 we present the calculation of electron temperatures and densities for all the objects. Section 4 contains an extensive discussion of the iron abundance and depletion factor calculations. Section 5 details the calculation of C/O abundance ratios from collisionally excited lines (CELs) and recombination lines (RLs), and the comparison between these two estimates. The compilation of infrared dust features observed in the sample is presented in Section 6. In Section 7 we discuss our results and study the correlation between iron abundances, C/O values, and dust features in our sample of PNe. Our conclusions are presented in Section 8.
The Sample {#sec:sample}
==========
Our sample consists of 56 Galactic PNe with published spectra of relatively high spectral resolution and deep enough to detect the lines we need to calculate physical conditions and iron abundances. The sample includes 28 Galactic PNe studied in @DelgadoInglada_09, but we exclude nebulae with electron densities above 25000 [$\rm{cm}^{-3}$]{} since it is difficult to derive reliable physical conditions and chemical abundances in these objects [@DelgadoInglada_09]. Besides, we set an upper limit on the $I(\mbox{\ion{He}{2}~}\lambda4686)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)$ intensity ratio of 0.6, in order to avoid high excitation PNe for which the iron correction scheme adopted here may not apply [@Rodriguez_05]. The final sample of 56 PNe is presented in Table \[tab:1\].
[lllll]{} & $4200^{+1800}_{-1200}$ & $7300\pm200$ & $8800\pm100$ & 1\
& $7200^{+1800}_{-1200}$ & $7800\pm200$ & $7800\pm400$ & 2\
& $5300^{+3400}_{-1800}$ & $13100^{+600}_{-800}$ & $12300\pm300$ & 2\
& $1600^{+900}_{-500}$ & $9800^{+800}_{-900}$ & $9800\pm200$ & 1\
& $8700^{+2600}_{-1700}$ & $11500\pm1200$ & $10200\pm200$ & 1\
& $11200^{+2300}_{-1600}$ & $11000^{+400}_{-500}$ & $11000\pm200$ & 1\
& $1800\pm300$ & $11500^{+400}_{-300}$ & $12000\pm300$ & 2\
& $9000^{+7500}_{-2900}$ & $12300^{+700}_{-1300}$ & $11000^{+200}_{-300}$ & 2\
& $10300^{+1700}_{-1400}$ & $9400\pm300$ & $8900\pm200$ & 3\
& $3800^{+800}_{-600}$ & $12400^{+400}_{-500}$ & $10500\pm200$ & 2\
& $4500^{+600}_{-500}$ & $13100\pm500$ & $14600\pm400$ & 4\
& $2100^{+700}_{-500}$ & $18800^{+1200}_{-2900}$ & $11500\pm300$ & 5\
& $14800^{+2400}_{-2300}$ & $11300\pm500$ & $10300\pm200$ & 6\
& $2400^{+400}_{-300}$ & $10200\pm300$ & $10000\pm200$ & 6\
& $1700^{+700}_{-500}$ & $9800^{+900}_{-1000}$ & $8500^{+200}_{-300}$ & 7\
& $2500^{+1700}_{-900}$ & $19500^{+500}_{-4600}$ & $11800\pm300$ & 1\
& $10100^{+4000}_{-2400}$ & $12100^{+2000}_{-2100}$ & $10600\pm400$ & 8\
& $5100^{+1300}_{-1000}$ & $13700^{+3400}_{-2800}$ & $10800\pm400$ & 9\
& $400^{+600}_{-300}$ & $10300^{+900}_{-800}$ & $12700^{+2000}_{-1000}$ & 7\
& $12100^{+4900}_{-3200}$ & $11000^{+600}_{-700}$ & $9900\pm200$ & 1\
& $1400^{+300}_{-200}$ & $9100\pm200$ & $10000\pm200$ & 10\
& $4300^{+1600}_{-900}$ & $8800^{+200}_{-300}$ & $7300\pm100$ & 2\
& $8700^{+3100}_{-2200}$ & $10000^{+400}_{-500}$ & $8600\pm100$ & 1\
& $10300^{+6200}_{-3500}$ & $10600^{+600}_{-800}$ & $10100\pm200$ & 1\
& $13600^{+3500}_{-2300}$ & $8800^{+300}_{-400}$ & $8300\pm100$ & 1\
& $7700^{+2300}_{-1500}$ & $11400^{+400}_{-500}$ & $9900\pm200$ & 1\
& $3100^{+3600}_{-1600}$ & $9200^{+1000}_{-1300}$ & $8000\pm100$ & 1\
& $4700^{+700}_{-600}$ & $9200^{+400}_{-100}$ & $8400\pm100$ & 10\
& $4800^{+2400}_{-1600}$ & $10200^{+400}_{-500}$ & $8500\pm100$ & 1\
& $4700^{+2400}_{-1500}$ & $8600\pm300$ & $7700\pm100$ & 1\
& $800^{+400}_{-200}$ & $9000^{+600}_{-700}$ & $9200\pm200$ & 1\
& $2900^{+800}_{-600}$ & $17400\pm2500$ & $8900\pm200$ & 1\
& $9400^{+1700}_{-1300}$ & $9800\pm300$ & $7400\pm100$ & 6\
& $1300\pm200$ & $8600\pm200$ & $10600\pm200$ & 5\
& $2200^{+1900}_{-1000}$ & $12700^{+1600}_{-1300}$ & $14600^{+900}_{-1000}$ & 7\
& $700\pm200$ & $9700^{+200}_{-300}$ & $9600\pm200$ & 6\
& $2400\pm400$ & $12400\pm400$ & $11900\pm300$ & 6\
& $2400^{+1900}_{-1300}$ & $10900\pm1000$ & $11600\pm500$ & 7\
& $7100^{+1100}_{-900}$ & $10800^{+300}_{-400}$ & $12700\pm300$ & 6\
& $5100^{+700}_{-500}$ & $10600\pm300$ & $9400\pm200$ & 6\
& $3900^{+500}_{-400}$ & $10500\pm300$ & $9200\pm200$ & 11\
& $5800^{+4500}_{-2100}$ & $11000^{+400}_{-300}$ & $9600\pm200$ & 5\
& $6000^{+800}_{-700}$ & $9700\pm300$ & $10400\pm200$ & 1\
& $5800^{+2000}_{-1400}$ & $10000^{+500}_{-600}$ & $7900\pm200$ & 12\
& $1600\pm300$ & $10600\pm300$ & $10400\pm200$ & 1\
& $17900^{+4300}_{-2700}$& $12000^{+600}_{-700}$ & $10400\pm200$ & 5\
& $2900\pm400$ & $9000\pm200$ & $9600\pm200$ & 1\
& $700\pm200$ & $10600\pm300$ & $10700^{+300}_{-200}$ & 5\
& $6700\pm800$ & $10800^{+400}_{-300}$ & $12600\pm300$ & 5\
& $9300^{+1200}_{-900}$ & $10700\pm300$ & $9700\pm200$ & 2\
& $2300\pm300$ & $11400\pm400$ & $13400^{+400}_{-300}$ & 6\
& $2100\pm300$ & $10600\pm500$ & $9400\pm200$ & 5\
& $8900^{+1300}_{-1000}$ & $11600\pm400$ & $11100\pm300$ & 5\
& $7500^{+1100}_{-800}$ & $9700\pm300$ & $9300\pm200$ & 2\
& $3000\pm400$ & $13000^{+500}_{-400}$ & $13400\pm400$ & 5\
& $5400^{+2600}_{-1800}$ & $9300^{+100}_{-700}$ & $7900\pm100$ & 1
Physical conditions {#sec:phys_cond}
===================
We derive electron densities and temperatures, [$n_{\rm e}$]{} and [$T_{\rm e}$]{}, using the routine [*temden*]{} from the package [*nebular*]{} [@Shaw_95] in [IRAF]{}[^1]. For each object, we calculate two temperatures from the observed intensity ratios [\[\]]{} $\lambda5755/(\lambda6548+\lambda6584)$ and [\[\]]{} $\lambda4363/(\lambda4959+\lambda5007)$ to characterize the low- and high-ionization regions, respectively. We also derive an average density from the available diagnostic ratios among the following: [\[\]]{} $\lambda3726/\lambda3729$, [\[\]]{} $\lambda6716/\lambda6731$, [\[\]]{} $\lambda5518/\lambda5538$, and [\[\]]{} $\lambda4711/\lambda4740$. We use the default atomic data in [IRAF]{} except for Cl$^{++}$ and O$^+$: for these ions we find densities in better agreement with those obtained from the other diagnostic ratios using the collision strengths of @Krueger_70 and @Tayal_07 and the transition probabilities of @Mendoza_82 and @Zeippen_82.
@Rubin_86 found that a significant fraction of the intensity of the [\[\]]{} $\lambda$5755 line can arise from recombinations of N$^{++}$. If this effect is not taken into account, the value of [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{} can be overestimated in those objects where N$^{++}$ is an important contributor to the total abundance of nitrogen. The contribution of recombination to [\[\]]{} $\lambda$5755 can be estimated using the expression derived by @Liu_00, which depends on the N$^{++}$ abundance. This ionic abundance can be obtained either from infrared/ultraviolet collisionally excited lines or from optical recombination lines, leading in each case to different results. Thus, the correction is somewhat uncertain and we do not apply it here. However, we estimate an upper limit of the effect it could have on our results by using the highest possible values for the N$^{++}$ abundances, which are those implied by recombination lines. We find that in many of our objects [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{} would change by less than 10%. The objects with the largest differences in [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{} are DdDm 1, IC 3568, IC 4699, M 3-32, and NGC 3242, where they reach 30–50%. For these objects, this implies values of Fe/O up to 0.4 dex lower or up to 0.2 dex higher, depending on which ionization correction approach we use (see § \[sec:tot\_ab\]). Hence, the iron abundances derived for these 5 PNe have this additional amount of uncertainty.
We calculate the uncertainties of the physical conditions and the ionic and total abundances of O and Fe using Montecarlo simulations, which assume that the errors in the line intensities follow Gaussian distributions. The line intensity errors are those given in the references listed in Table \[tab:1\]. Each Montecarlo run samples the Gaussian distributions of all the lines in order to provide new values for [$T_{\rm e}$]{}, [$n_{\rm e}$]{}, and all the ionic and total abundances described in § \[sec:ionic\_ab\] and § \[sec:tot\_ab\] below. The errors listed for the calculated quantities define a confidence interval of 68$\%$ (equivalent to one standard deviation in a Gaussian distribution).
Table \[tab:1\] presents the physical conditions and their associated uncertainties for our sample PNe. The values are similar to the ones obtained in @DelgadoInglada_09 for the objects in common. The highest differences are for the values of [$n_{\rm e}$]{}, and there are two reasons for that. First, we use here one more diagnostic ratio for the density, \[\] $\lambda3726/\lambda3729$. Second, whereas @DelgadoInglada_09 derive the final [$n_{\rm e}$]{} as the weighted mean of the values implied by the available diagnostic ratios, here the final [$n_{\rm e}$]{} is the median value of the density distribution obtained from averaging the [$n_{\rm e}$]{} values calculated in each run of the Montecarlo simulation. One of the objects with significant differences is NGC 3587, where @DelgadoInglada_09 used the \[\] density diagnostic and found [$n_{\rm e}$]{} $<100$ [$\rm{cm}^{-3}$]{}, whereas here we also use the \[\] diagnostic and find [$n_{\rm e}$]{}$= 2400$ [$\rm{cm}^{-3}$]{}. This change in [$n_{\rm e}$]{} implies a change in [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{} from 9800 K to 10900 K. In general, [$T_{\rm e}$]{}differences are smaller, around 100 K in most of the objects. The new values derived for the physical conditions imply oxygen abundances that are within $\pm$0.15 dex of the old values. These differences illustrate the abundance uncertainties introduced by the approach chosen to perform the calculations.
Iron depletion factors {#sec:depletion}
======================
Ionic abundances {#sec:ionic_ab}
----------------
The total iron abundances of the sample PNe are calculated from the Fe$^{++}$ abundance (and Fe$^{+}$ in some cases) along with ionization correction factors (ICFs) based on the ionic and total oxygen abundances. On the other hand, the ICF we use for oxygen is based on the He$^{+}$ and He$^{++}$ abundances. Hence, we derive all these ionic abundances using the densities and temperatures from Table \[tab:1\], in particular [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{} for O$^{+}$, Fe$^{+}$, and Fe$^{++}$, and [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{} for O$^{++}$, He$^{+}$, and He$^{++}$.
The values of O$^{+}$/H$^{+}$ and O$^{++}$/H$^{+}$ are calculated using the intensities of the \[\] $\lambda\lambda3726+29$ and \[\] $\lambda\lambda4959,5007$ lines with respect to H$\beta$ and the routine [*ionic*]{} of the package [*nebular*]{} in [IRAF]{} with the changes in atomic data mentioned in § \[sec:phys\_cond\].
The values of He$^{+}$/H$^{+}$ are based on $\lambda$6678 and the calculations of @Benjamin_99. In DdDm 1 and IC 2165 we replace our computed He$^{+}$ abundances (He$^{+}$/H$^{+}=0.041$ and 0.042) with the average of the He$^{+}$ abundances derived from the $\lambda$$\lambda$4471, 5876 lines by @Hyung_94 and @Wesson_05, respectively. These authors suggest that the low values implied by the $\lambda$6678 line could be due to underlying absorption.
The values of He$^{++}$/H$^{+}$ are derived using $\lambda$4686 and the emissivities of @Storey_95. The emissivities are also from @Storey_95.
We estimate the Fe$^{+}$ abundances for eleven PNe using the emissivities of @Bautista_96 and \[\] $\lambda8616$, one of the few \[\] lines which are not affected by fluorescence [@Verner_00]. In some cases where this line is not available we use instead \[\] $\lambda7155$ and $I(\lambda8616)/I(\lambda7155) \sim 1$, as found by @Rodriguez_96 in several regions. The values of Fe$^{+}$/Fe$^{++}$ for these eleven PNe go from 0.06 (M 3-7) to 0.80 (NGC 6565 and NGC 6741). Only five of the sample PNe would require a value for the Fe$^{+}$ abundance in the ionization correction scheme described below, in § \[sec:tot\_ab\]. The two of them where it is available show that its contribution is not likely to be critical, since it only increases the value of Fe/H by 0.08 dex (in NGC 40) and 0.17 dex (in IC 418). Some of the calculated values of Fe$^{+}$/H$^{+}$ are also used in the calculations described in § \[withoutICF\].
The Fe$^{++}$ ionic abundances are derived by solving the equations of statistical equilibrium [@Osterbrock_06] for a 34-level model atom, using the collision strengths of @Zhang_96 and the transition probabilities of @Quinet_96. We used PyNeb [@Luridiana_12] to compare the results obtained with these atomic data with those implied by the recent calculations of @Bautista_10. In the three nebulae with the largest numbers of \[\] lines (Cn 1-5, M 2-4, and M 2-6), we find differences lower than 5% in the final Fe$^{++}$ abundances, but the older atomic data lead to a better agreement in the Fe$^{++}$ abundances derived from all the available \[\] lines, with standard deviations of 32%/39% for the old/new atomic data (Cn 1-5), 12%/25%(M 2-4), and 23%/25% (M 2-6). We performed a similar comparison using 14 out of the 15 \[\] lines measured by @Esteban_04 in the Orion Nebula (we excluded the line at 4926 Å because it leads to much higher abundances with both sets of atomic data). We find that the new atomic data lead to a Fe$^{++}$ abundance that is 15% lower, whereas the standard deviation changes from 15% to 30%. Hence, we perform our calculations using the older set of atomic data.
We use up to 9 \[\] lines for each object, excluding those suspected to be contaminated with nearby recombination lines. For the eight PNe in the sample with no \[\] lines in their spectra, we estimate upper limits to their Fe$^{++}$ abundances using the intensities reported for $\lambda$4658 or $\lambda$4661. These lines are close in wavelength to \[\] $\lambda$4658, the brightest \[\] line for the physical conditions of our PNe. We use $\lambda$4658 for IC 4406, IC 1747, JnEr 1, M 1-42, M 3-29, and NGC 7026, and $\lambda$4661 for H 1-41 and M 3-32. Some PNe show lines from higher iron ionization states; this will be discussed in § \[withoutICF\].
Table \[tab:2\] presents all the computed ionic abundances and their uncertainties. The last column shows the number of \[\] lines used to derive the Fe$^{++}$ abundance in each object. The PNe where only upper limits are available are distinguished either with “1?”, when the $\lambda$4658 line was used (note that this line could be a misidentification of \[\] $\lambda$4658), or with “–” when $\lambda$4661 was used.
[lllllllc]{} Cn 1-5 & $11.08\pm0.02$ & – & $8.36\pm0.11$ & $8.68\pm0.04$ & 5.23 & $6.29^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ & 8\
Cn 3-1 & $10.67\pm0.02$ & $7.52^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$ & $8.68^{+0.12}_{-0.09}$ & $7.26^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ & – & $5.57^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & 3\
DdDm 1 & $10.95\pm0.02$ & – & $7.38^{+0.31}_{-0.14}$ & $7.91^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & – & $5.76^{+0.08}_{-0.04}$ & 4\
H 1-41 & $10.96\pm0.02$ & $10.35\pm0.02$ & $7.27^{+0.19}_{-0.14}$ & $8.50\pm0.04$ & – & $<4.85$ & –\
H 1-42 & $11.05\pm0.02$ & $8.83\pm0.02$ & $7.10^{+0.23}_{-0.18}$ & $8.54\pm0.04$ & 4.50 & $4.67^{+0.17}_{-0.14}$ & 3\
H 1-50 & $10.99\pm0.02$ & $10.04\pm0.02$ & $7.50^{+0.12}_{-0.10}$ & $8.62\pm0.04$ & – & $4.54^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & 1\
Hu 1-1 & $10.93\pm0.02$ & $10.18\pm0.02$ & $8.00^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $8.40\pm0.04$ & – & $4.25^{+0.16}_{-0.22}$ & 1\
Hu 2-1 & $10.83\pm0.02$ & $8.39^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$ & $7.44^{+0.34}_{-0.07}$ & $8.19^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & – & $4.88^{+0.05}_{-0.08}$ & 4\
IC 418 & $10.97\pm0.02$ & – & $8.34^{+0.07}_{-0.12}$ & $8.06\pm0.04$ & 3.89 & $4.20^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & 5\
IC 1747 & $11.01\pm0.02$ & $10.04\pm0.02$ & $7.07^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$ & $8.56\pm0.04$ & – & $<4.34$ & 1?\
IC 2165 & $10.74\pm0.02$ & $10.73\pm0.02$ & $6.80\pm0.06$ & $8.10\pm0.04$ & 3.64 & $4.58^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$& 3\
IC 3568 & $10.96\pm0.02$ & $9.02\pm0.02$ & $5.69^{+0.24}_{-0.06}$ & $8.36\pm0.05$ & – & $3.90^{+0.17}_{-0.10}$ & 2\
IC 4191 & $11.04\pm0.02$ & $10.08\pm0.02$ & $7.51^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ & $8.64\pm0.04$ & – & $4.38^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & 1\
IC 4406 & $10.97\pm0.02$ & $10.08\pm0.02$ & $8.28\pm0.06$ & $8.58\pm0.04$ & – & $<4.58$ & 1?\
IC 4593 & $11.00\pm0.02$ & $8.53^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & $7.39^{+0.24}_{-0.16}$ & $8.54\pm0.06$ & – & $5.39^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ & 4\
IC 4699 & $10.92\pm0.02$ & $10.26\pm0.02$ & $6.14^{+0.36}_{-0.03}$ & $8.40\pm0.04$ & – & $3.90^{+0.27}_{-0.13}$ & 1\
IC 4846 & $10.96\pm0.02$ & $8.68^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$ & $7.03^{+0.40}_{-0.26}$ & $8.48\pm0.06$ & – & $4.54^{+0.26}_{-0.19}$ & 2\
IC 5217 & $10.84^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & $9.95\pm0.04$ & $6.59^{+0.41}_{-0.28}$ & $8.63\pm0.07$ & – & $4.61^{+0.27}_{-0.30}$ & 1\
JnEr 1 & $11.29^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ & $10.25\pm0.04$& $8.40^{+0.19}_{-0.18}$ & $7.83^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ & – & $<5.49$ & 1?\
M 1-20 & $10.99\pm0.02$ & $7.61^{+0.12}_{-0.16}$ & $7.46^{+0.21}_{-0.17}$ & $8.53\pm0.04$ & – & $4.39^{+0.16}_{-0.17}$ & 1\
M 1-42 & $11.22\pm0.02$ & $10.04\pm0.02$ & $7.61^{+0.16}_{-0.05}$ & $8.36^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & – & $<5.53$ & 1?\
M 1-73 & $11.02\pm0.02$ & $8.99\pm0.02$ & $8.13^{+0.13}_{-0.09}$ & $8.52\pm0.05$ & – & $5.42^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 2\
M 2-4 & $11.08\pm0.02$ & – & $7.82^{+0.18}_{-0.13}$ & $8.66\pm0.04$ & – & $5.49\pm0.07$ & 9\
M 2-6 & $11.05\pm0.02$ & $8.93\pm0.02$ & $7.70^{+0.26}_{-0.18}$ & $8.36\pm0.04$ & – & $5.34^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ & 8\
M 2-27 & $11.13\pm0.02$ & $8.84\pm0.02$ & $7.83^{+0.16}_{-0.12}$ & $8.82\pm0.04$ & – & $5.51^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$ & 2\
M 2-31 & $11.10\pm0.02$ & – & $7.30^{+0.13}_{-0.09}$ & $8.62\pm0.04$ & – & $5.55^{+0.14}_{-0.15}$ & 1\
M 2-33 & $11.01\pm0.02$ & $8.92\pm0.02$ & $7.34^{+0.41}_{-0.19}$ & $8.67\pm0.04$ & – & $5.30^{+0.24}_{-0.16}$ & 5\
M 2-36 & $11.01\pm0.02$ & $9.01\pm0.02$ & $7.64^{+0.10}_{-0.07}$ & $8.71\pm0.04$ & – & $4.37^{+0.13}_{-0.16}$ & 1\
M 2-42 & $11.05\pm0.02$ & $8.45^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & $7.37^{+0.15}_{-0.10}$ & $8.70\pm0.04$ & – & $5.16^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ & 2\
M 3-7 & $11.05\pm0.02$ & $9.20\pm0.02$ & $7.83^{+0.16}_{-0.11}$ & $8.62\pm0.04$ & 4.56 & $5.75^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & 2\
M 3-29 & $10.98\pm0.02$ & – & $7.68^{+0.17}_{-0.14}$ & $8.40\pm0.04$ & – & $<5.31$ & 1?\
M 3-32 & $11.09\pm0.02$ & $10.02\pm0.02$ & $6.18^{+0.20}_{-0.14}$ & $8.56\pm0.04$ & – & $<4.81$ & –\
MyCn 18 & $10.94\pm0.02$ & $8.66\pm0.02$ & $7.78^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ & $8.50\pm0.04$ & – & $5.47\pm0.05$ & 6\
NGC 40 & $10.80\pm0.02$ & $7.56^{+0.11}_{-0.14}$ & $8.61^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $7.06\pm0.05$ & 4.86 & $5.55^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & 5\
NGC 2392 & $10.89^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & $10.46\pm0.04$& $7.40^{+0.23}_{-0.24}$ & $8.06^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ & – & $5.63^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ & 5\
NGC 3132 & $11.04\pm0.02$ & $9.51\pm0.02$ & $8.39\pm0.05$ & $8.51\pm0.04$ & – & $5.19^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$ & 6\
NGC 3242 & $10.90\pm0.02$ & $10.33\pm0.02$ & $6.48^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $8.41^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & – & $4.03^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & 2\
NGC 3587 & $10.91^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$&$10.15^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$&$8.01^{+0.21}_{-0.18}$& $8.26^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$& – & $6.09^{+0.22}_{-0.37}$ & 1\
NGC 3918 & $10.84\pm0.02$ & $10.55\pm0.02$ & $7.71^{+0.10}_{-0.08}$ & $8.43\pm0.04$ & – & $4.28^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ & 3\
NGC 5882 & $11.02\pm0.02$ & $9.35\pm0.02$ & $6.91\pm0.06$ & $8.65\pm0.04$ & – & $4.74^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 6\
NGC 6153 & $11.05\pm0.02$ & $10.05\pm0.02$ & $7.16\pm0.06$ & $8.61\pm0.04$ & – & $4.56^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ & 2\
NGC 6210 & $11.02\pm0.02$ & $9.28\pm0.02$ & $7.26^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ & $8.53^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & – & $4.65^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & 1\
NGC 6439 & $11.09\pm0.02$ & $10.31\pm0.02$ & $7.73\pm0.07$ & $8.58\pm0.04$ & – & $4.96^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ & 2\
NGC 6543 & $11.05\pm0.02$ & – & $7.25^{+0.15}_{-0.13}$ & $8.74\pm0.06$ & – & $4.93\pm0.08$ & 6\
NGC 6565 & $11.00\pm0.02$ & $10.19\pm0.02$ & $8.06\pm0.05$ & $8.56\pm0.04$ & 4.90 & $5.40\pm0.06$ & 7\
NGC 6572 & $11.01\pm0.02$ & $8.53\pm0.02$ & $7.41^{+0.20}_{-0.10}$ & $8.56^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ & – & $4.53\pm0.08$ & 7\
NGC 6620 & $11.07\pm0.02$ & $10.33\pm0.02$ & $8.20\pm0.06$ & $8.69\pm0.04$ & 5.31 & $5.05^{+0.12}_{-0.16}$ & 1\
NGC 6720 & $10.96\pm0.02$ & $10.25\pm0.02$ & $8.24^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $8.46\pm0.05$ & 4.26 & $4.77\pm0.06$ & 4\
NGC 6741 & $10.89\pm0.02$ & $10.49\pm0.02$ & $8.10^{+0.19}_{-0.11}$ & $8.39\pm0.05$ & 5.58 & $5.68^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$& 7\
NGC 6803 & $11.04\pm0.02$ & $9.56\pm0.02$ & $7.38\pm0.08$ & $8.63\pm0.05$ & – & $4.87^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & 3\
NGC 6818 & $10.73\pm0.02$ & $10.72\pm0.02$ & $7.36^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & $8.35\pm0.04$ & – & $4.68\pm0.06$ & 1\
NGC 6826 & $11.00\pm0.02$ & $7.34^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$ &$6.99\pm0.09$ & $8.50\pm0.05$ & – & $4.69\pm0.08$ & 3\
NGC 6884 & $10.87\pm0.02$ & $10.19\pm0.02$ & $7.16^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ & $8.53\pm0.05$ & 4.04 & $4.72\pm0.06$ & 6\
NGC 7026 & $11.04\pm0.02$ & $10.11\pm0.02$ & $7.76^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $8.60\pm0.05$ & – & $<4.67$ & 1?\
NGC 7662 & $10.82\pm0.02$ & $10.58\pm0.02$ & $6.28\pm0.06$ & $8.23^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & – & $4.40\pm0.06$ & 4\
Vy 2-1 & $11.11\pm0.02$ & $8.71^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & $7.90^{+0.23}_{-0.06}$ & $8.72\pm0.04$ & – & $4.86^{+0.16}_{-0.07}$ & 2
Total abundances with an ICF {#sec:tot_ab}
----------------------------
The absence of lines in seven PNe of the sample indicates that their He$^{++}$ abundances are negligible, and since the ionization potentials of O$^{++}$ and He${^+}$ are very similar (54.93 eV and 54.42 eV, respectively), we do not expect an important amount of O$^{3+}$ in these nebulae. Therefore, in these low-ionization PNe, we simply add the ionic abundances of O$^{+}$ and O$^{++}$ to calculate the oxygen abundance. For the other PNe we use the expression
$$\label{eq:ICF_O}
\frac{\mbox{O}}{\mbox{H}} = \left( \frac{\mbox{O}^{+} + \mbox{O}^{++}}{\mbox{H}^{+}}\right)\left(\frac{\mbox{He}^{+} + \mbox{He}^{++}}{\mbox{He}^{+}}\right)$$
[@Peimbert_71]. The ICFs of oxygen in most of our sample PNe have values below 1.2. The exceptions are the PNe with the highest $I(\mbox{\ion{He}{2}~}\lambda4686)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)$ ratios: IC 2165 (ICF = $1.98$), NGC 3242 (1.28), NGC 3918 (1.51), NGC 6741 (1.40), NGC 6818 (1.97), and NGC 7662 (1.57). The differences between the values of O/H derived from equation (\[eq:ICF\_O\]) and those derived with the ICF suggested in @DelgadoInglada_14 are lower than 0.02 dex for most of the nebulae, and reach a maximum value of 0.13 dex for IC 2165 and NGC 6818. The differences are small because both ICFs lead to similar corrections for low ionization PNe, with $\mbox{He}^{++}/(\mbox{He}^{+}+\mbox{He}^{++})<0.5$.
In general, our values of O/H agree within 0.1 dex with those derived in the papers listed in Table \[tab:1\]. Ten PNe show differences of up to 0.4 dex, and are those with the highest differences in the adopted physical conditions and in the correction applied for the unobserved ions. Again, this illustrates the uncertainties introduced by the choices one has to make in order to calculate chemical abundances.
The \[\] lines are usually the brightest iron lines in photoionized nebulae. Therefore, total iron abundances are generally calculated using $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ abundances and ICFs derived from photoionization models. However the iron abundances computed in this way differ from the ones obtained by adding up the ionic abundances of Fe$^{+}$, Fe$^{++}$, and Fe$^{+3}$ in some regions and low-excitation PNe. @Rodriguez_05 studied the uncertainties involved in the calculations and proposed that the iron abundances can be constrained using two ICFs, one derived from photoionization models: $$\label{eq:1}
\frac{\mbox{Fe}}{\mbox{O}}=0.9\left(\frac{\mbox{O}^{+}}{\mbox{O}^{++}}\right)^{0.08}\frac{\mbox{Fe}^{++}}{\mbox{O}^{+}},$$ and the other computed from observational data: $$\label{eq:2}
\frac{\mbox{Fe}}{\mbox{O}}=1.1\left(\frac{\mbox{O}^{+}}{\mbox{O}^{++}}\right)^{0.58}\frac{\mbox{Fe}^{++}}{\mbox{O}^{+}}.$$
For low ionization objects, with $\log(\mbox{O}^+/\mbox{O}^{++})\geq-0.1$, equation (\[eq:2\]) should be replaced by $$\label{eq:3}
\frac{\rm {Fe}}{\rm {O}}=\frac{\mbox{Fe}^+ + \mbox{Fe}^{++}}{\mbox{O}^+},$$ since $\mbox{Fe}^{++}$ and $\mbox{O}^+$ will dominate the total abundances of Fe and O. This scheme provides three values for the iron abundance, each of them corresponding to one of the three possible explanations suggested by @Rodriguez_05 for the iron abundance discrepancy. The Fe/O values obtained from equation (2) should be used if the collision strengths for Fe$^{+3}$ are wrong. If the collision strengths for Fe$^{++}$ are incorrect, the best values are those obtained from equation (2) lowered by 0.3 dex. And third, if the recombination coefficient or the rate of charge-exchange reaction for Fe$^{+3}$ are wrong, the ICF from equation (3) should be used. If there is a combination of causes for the discrepancy, the real iron abundance for each object will be intermediate between the two extremes given by the three values. Since equations (2) and (3) lead to different abundance distributions, and since we want to explore possible correlations with other parameters, we keep the individual abundances obtained from each ionization correction scheme, instead of just providing the average value.
Table \[tab:3\] shows the final abundances of oxygen and iron. The results shown for iron are the values obtained from equations (\[eq:1\]) and (\[eq:2\]). The third set of values, needed to constrain the iron abundances in the manner described above, can be obtained by subtracting $\sim 0.3$ dex to the values in column (3). Taking into account these three values, we constrain the iron abundances to the abundance range shown in column (5).
[lllll]{} Cn 1-5 & $8.85^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $6.71^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$ & $6.63^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ & 6.4–6.7\
Cn 3-1 & $8.69^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ & $5.66^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $5.59^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & 5.4–5.7\
DdDm 1 & $8.02^{+0.11}_{-0.05}$ & $6.31^{+0.12}_{-0.16}$ & $6.13^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$ & 6.0–6.3\
H 1-41 & $8.62^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & $<6.05$ & $<5.52$ & $<6.0$\
H 1-42 & $8.55^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & $5.97\pm0.25$ & $5.34^{+0.19}_{-0.16}$ & 5.3–6.0\
H 1-50 & $8.69\pm0.04$ & $5.60^{+0.13}_{-0.16}$ & $5.13^{+0.10}_{-0.12}$ & 5.1–5.6\
Hu 1-1 & $8.61\pm0.03$ & $4.79^{+0.16}_{-0.23}$ & $4.68^{+0.15}_{-0.22}$ & 4.5–4.8\
Hu 2-1 & $8.26^{+0.10}_{-0.02}$ & $5.57^{+0.05}_{-0.23}$ & $5.29^{+0.04}_{-0.10}$ & 5.3–5.6\
IC 418 & $8.52^{+0.05}_{-0.08}$ & $4.36^{+0.08}_{-0.05}$ & $4.56^{+0.07}_{-0.04}$ & 4.1–4.6\
IC 1747 & $8.62\pm0.04$ & $<5.72$ & $<5.06$ & $<5.7$\
IC 2165 & $8.42\pm0.04$ & $6.05^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & $5.49^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 5.5–6.0\
IC 3568 & $8.37\pm0.05$ & $6.32^{+0.17}_{-0.24}$ & $5.07^{+0.16}_{-0.15}$ & 5.1–6.3\
IC 4191 & $8.72\pm0.04$ & $5.45\pm0.14$ & $4.97^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ & 5.0–5.4\
IC 4406 & $8.81^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $<5.04$ & $<4.97$ & $<5.0$\
IC 4593 & $8.57^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $6.43^{+0.22}_{-0.24}$ & $5.94^{+0.18}_{-0.14}$ & 5.9–6.4\
IC 4699 & $8.49^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $6.02^{+0.21}_{-0.35}$ & $4.98^{+0.24}_{-0.21}$ & 5.0–6.0\
IC 4846 & $8.50^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ & $5.85^{+0.33}_{-0.39}$ & $5.21^{+0.26}_{-0.24}$ & 5.2–5.8\
IC 5217 & $8.69^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$ & $6.50^{+0.35}_{-0.51}$ & $5.57^{+0.28}_{-0.36}$ & 5.6–6.5\
JnEr 1 & $8.54^{+0.18}_{-0.15}$ & $<5.63$ & $<5.63$ & $<5.6$\
M 1-20 & $8.57^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $5.36^{+0.22}_{-0.25}$ & $4.92^{+0.17}_{-0.19}$ & 4.9–5.4\
M 1-42 & $8.45^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $<6.28$ & $<5.99$ & $<6.3$\
M 1-73 & $8.68\pm0.06$ & $5.88\pm0.09$ & $5.78^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 5.6–5.9\
M 2-4 & $8.72^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $6.27^{+0.13}_{-0.15}$ & $5.94^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & 5.9–6.3\
M 2-6 & $8.45^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$ & $5.99\pm0.17$ & $5.74^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ & 5.7–6.0\
M 2-27 & $8.87^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $6.42\pm0.13$ & $6.02^{+0.10}_{-0.08}$ & 6.0–6.4\
M 2-31 & $8.64\pm0.04$ & $6.74^{+0.16}_{-0.20}$ & $6.16^{+0.14}_{-0.16}$ & 6.2–6.7\
M 2-33 & $8.69^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$ & $6.50^{+0.27}_{-0.37}$ & $5.92^{+0.23}_{-0.22}$ & 5.9–6.5\
M 2-36 & $8.75\pm0.04$ & $5.34^{+0.12}_{-0.17}$ & $4.90^{+0.12}_{-0.15}$ & 4.9–5.3\
M 2-42 & $8.72\pm0.04$ & $6.37^{+0.14}_{-0.16}$ & $5.79^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ & 5.8–6.4\
M 3-7 & $8.69^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $6.50^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ & $6.19^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & 6.2–6.5\
M 3-29 & $8.48^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ & $<6.01$ & $<5.73$ & $<6.0$\
M 3-32 & $8.60\pm0.04$ & $<6.99$ & $<5.89$ & $<7.0$\
MyCn 18 & $8.58\pm0.03$ & $6.17\pm0.09$ & $5.89^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & 5.9–6.2\
NGC 40 & $8.62^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $5.64^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $5.64\pm0.04$ & 5.3–5.6\
NGC 2392 & $8.30^{+0.12}_{-0.07}$ & $6.42^{+0.25}_{-0.17}$ & $6.17^{+0.16}_{-0.12}$ & 6.1–6.4\
NGC 3132 & $8.77^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $5.51\pm0.08$ & $5.54\pm0.08$ & 5.2–5.5\
NGC 3242 & $8.52\pm0.04$ & $5.87^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & $4.99^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ & 5.0–5.9\
NGC 3587 & $8.53^{+0.13}_{-0.08}$ & $6.54^{+0.38}_{-0.43}$ & $6.50^{+0.39}_{-0.35}$ & 6.2–6.5\
NGC 3918 & $8.68\pm0.04$ & $5.15^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & $4.88^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ & 4.9–5.2\
NGC 5882 & $8.66\pm0.04$ & $6.31^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ & $5.53^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & 5.5–6.3\
NGC 6153 & $8.65\pm0.04$ & $5.90\pm0.11$ & $5.25\pm0.09$ & 5.2–5.9\
NGC 6210 & $8.56\pm0.05$ & $5.80^{+0.13}_{-0.13}$ & $5.25^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & 5.2–5.8\
NGC 6439 & $8.70\pm0.04$ & $5.82\pm0.12$ & $5.48^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ & 5.5–5.8\
NGC 6543 & $8.76\pm0.06$ & $6.27^{+0.15}_{-0.16}$ & $5.61^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ & 5.6–6.3\
NGC 6565 & $8.74\pm0.03$ & $6.01\pm0.07$ & $5.84\pm0.06$ & 5.7–6.0\
NGC 6572 & $8.59^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ & $5.57^{+0.11}_{-0.18}$ & $5.09^{+0.08}_{-0.11}$ & 5.1–5.6\
NGC 6620 & $8.88\pm0.03$ & $5.65^{+0.13}_{-0.17}$ & $5.49^{+0.12}_{-0.16}$ & 5.4–5.6\
NGC 6720 & $8.74^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $5.21\pm0.08$ & $5.18^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 4.9–5.2\
NGC 6741 & $8.72^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$ & $6.22\pm0.05$ & $6.17^{+0.20}_{-0.04}$ & 5.9–6.2\
NGC 6803 & $8.67^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $6.01^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ & $5.47^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 5.5–6.0\
NGC 6818 & $8.68\pm0.04$ & $5.87\pm0.06$ & $5.47\pm0.05$ & 5.5–5.9\
NGC 6826 & $8.52\pm0.05$ & $6.05^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ & $5.38\pm0.09$ & 5.4–6.0\
NGC 6884 & $8.63^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $6.04^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & $5.44\pm0.07$ & 5.4–6.0\
NGC 7026 & $8.71\pm0.04$ & $<5.51$ & $<5.17$ & $<5.5$\
NGC 7662 & $8.43^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $6.35^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & $5.46\pm0.05$ & 5.5–6.4\
Vy 2-1 & $8.79^{+0.07}_{-0.03}$ & $5.64^{+0.13}_{-0.17}$ & $5.31^{+0.14}_{-0.08}$ & 5.3–5.6\
Total abundances without an ICF {#withoutICF}
-------------------------------
The ionization correction scheme for iron described above was derived for low-excitation objects. For high-excitation PNe, like IC 2165 (with a high value of He$^{++}$/He$^+$), the estimated iron abundances are less reliable. Besides, for those objects with low values of O$^+$/O$^{++}$, like IC 3568, our method does not constrain very well the iron abundance, since it remains uncertain by more than an order of magnitude. However, this is the only method that can be applied at the moment to study in a homogeneous way the iron abundances in a large sample of PNe. The main reason is that it is difficult to obtain reliable line intensities for higher ionization states of iron, because they are weak and prone to be blended.
Some of the nebulae do have detections of lines from iron ionization states higher than Fe$^{++}$, although there are problems with blends and misidentifications. Nevertheless, four of the sample PNe, seem to have reliable measurements of lines from most of their iron ionization states. For these nebulae, we have derived the iron abundances implied by the sum of the ionic abundances and compared them to those we obtain using the ICFs described in § \[sec:tot\_ab\].
The abundance of Fe$^{+3}$ is calculated by solving the equations of statistical equilibrium for 33 energy levels using the transition probabilities of @FroeseFischer_08 and the collision strengths of @Zhang_97. For Fe$^{+4}$ we use a 34-level atom with transition probabilities from @Nahar_00 and collision strengths from @Ballance_07. For Fe$^{+5}$ we use a 19-level atom with transition probabilities and collision strengths from @Chen_99 [@Chen_00]. Finally, for Fe$^{+6}$ we use a 9-level atom with transition probabilities and collision strengths from @Witthoeft_08. Energy levels are those listed in the NIST Atomic Spectra Database[^2]; the H$\beta$ emissivities are based on the empirical formula by @Aller_84. We use the values of [$n_{\rm e}$]{} and [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{} listed in Table \[tab:1\] for all these calculations. In what follows, we use air wavelengths from either the NIST database or from the Atomic Line List[^3] of Peter van Hoof.
NGC 6210, which is a low-excitation PNe with $I(\mbox{\ion{He}{2}~}\lambda4686)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)=0.015$, has measurements of \[\] $\lambda6739.8$, \[\] $\lambda4227.2$, and \[\] $\lambda5276.4$. We think that the last line is a misidentification, since (1) Fe$^{+4}$ is ionized at 75 eV and this is a low-excitation object, and (2) @Liu_04b identify the same feature in NGC 6741, where it leads to an abundance 13 times larger than the one we get from \[\] $\lambda4893.4$.
Besides \[\] $\lambda4893.4$, NGC 6741 (with $I(\mbox{\ion{He}{2}~}\lambda4686)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)=0.36$) has measurements of \[\] $\lambda4227.2$, and several \[\] lines at 4967.1, 4972.5, 5335.2, 5424.2, 5426.6, 5484.8, 5631.1, and 5677.0 Å. NGC 6741 also has upper limits for the intensities of the \[\] lines at 4906.6 and 5233.8 Å, which imply $\mbox{Fe}^{+3}/\mbox{H}^+<6\times10^{-7}$, in agreement with the value we estimate by averaging the abundances of Fe$^{++}$ and Fe$^{4+}$: $\mbox{Fe}^{+3}/\mbox{H}^+\simeq3.8\times10^{-7}$. We suspect that the two \[\] lines identified at 3839.3 and 3895.2 Å can be affected by blends or misidentifications because they lead to high abundances in this nebula and in NGC 6884 and IC 2165. On the other hand, note that Fe$^{6+}$ has an ionization potential of 125 eV and we do not expect it to be significantly ionized in any of our PNe.
NGC 6884 (with $I(\mbox{\ion{He}{2}~}\lambda4686)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)=0.18$) has measurements of \[\] $\lambda\lambda4900.0,6739.8$, \[\] lines at 5335.2, 5484.8, and 5631.1 Å, and \[\] $\lambda4942.5$. There is also an upper limit for the intensity of \[\] $\lambda4227.2$, which implies $\mbox{Fe}^{+4}/\mbox{H}^+<1.8\times10^{-7}$, in agreement with the average of the Fe$^{3+}$ and Fe$^{5+}$ abundances that we adopt: $\mbox{Fe}^{+4}/\mbox{H}^+\simeq1.1\times10^{-7}$.
Finally, IC 2165, our highest excitation object ($I(\mbox{\ion{He}{2}~}\lambda4686)/I(\mbox{H}\beta)=0.63$), has measurements of \[\] $\lambda4227.2$, \[\] lines at 4972.5, 5176.0, 5335.2, 5424.2, 5426.6, 5484.8, 5631.1, and 5677.0 Å, and \[\] $\lambda\lambda4988.6,5720.7$. The lines identified as \[\] $\lambda4969.0$, \[\] $\lambda5277.8$, and \[\] $\lambda4984.6$ are likely blends or misidentifications. The Fe$^{3+}$ abundance is estimated from the average of the Fe$^{++}$ and Fe$^{4+}$ abundances. The results obtained for NGC 6741 and NGC 6884 suggest that in this case this is a reasonable approximation.
We used all the lines listed above which are not affected or suspected of blends and misidentifications to derive ionic abundances in these four PNe. The resulting ionic and total abundances are presented in Table \[tab:3b\]. If we compare the iron abundances in this table with those shown in Table \[tab:3\], we find that in NGC 6741 all the derived values of Fe/H are very similar ($12+\log(\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H})_{\rm sum}=6.15$ versus $5.9\le12+\log(\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H})_{\rm ICF}\le6.2$ in Table \[tab:3\]), in NGC 6884 the value of Table \[tab:3b\] is intermediate between those of Table \[tab:3\] ($12+\log(\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H})_{\rm sum}=5.65$ versus $5.4\le12+\log(\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H})_{\rm ICF}\le6.0$), in NGC 6210 the iron abundance of Table \[tab:3b\] is similar to the upper limit to the iron abundance inferred from Table \[tab:3\] ($12+\log(\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H})_{\rm sum}=5.80$ versus $5.2\le12+\log(\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H})_{\rm ICF}\le5.8$), and in IC 2165 it is close to the lower limit ($12+\log(\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H})_{\rm sum}=5.28$ versus $5.5\le12+\log(\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H})_{\rm ICF}\le6.1$). This suggests that the process we follow to constrain the iron abundances within the ranges shown in the last column of Table \[tab:3\] is working well. The fact that we do not find one ICF working significantly better than the other might arise from the inherent limitations of all ionization correction schemes, or of this scheme in particular. On the other hand, further measurements of the main iron ionization states in other PNe might help in improving this ionization correction scheme or in defining a better one. In what follows we will check that all our results hold when using any of the iron ICFs that we have applied.
[llllll]{} & 4.62 & 4.66 & 4.58 & 4.35 & 5.28\
& 5.75 & 4.04 & – & – & 5.80\
& 5.58 & 5.45 & 5.10 & 4.67 & 6.15\
& 5.21 & 5.04 & 4.77 & 4.67 & 5.65
Iron depletions
---------------
Figure \[fig:1\] shows the values of Fe/O for all the PNe as a function of their degree of ionization, given by $\log$(O$^{+}$/O$^{++}$). The upper panel displays the values derived from equation (\[eq:1\]) and the bottom panel shows the values computed with equations (\[eq:2\]) and (\[eq:3\]). Note that the main difference between the results implied by the two ICFs lies in the iron abundances of those objects with the lowest values of O$^{+}$/O$^{++}$.
The right axis in Figure \[fig:1\] shows estimates of the depletion factors for Fe/O. The depletion of one particular element (X) is usually calculated as the difference between the observed and the expected values of : $[\mbox{X}/\mbox{H}]=\log(\mbox{X/H})-\log(\mbox{X/H})_{\rm ref}$. However, we will use Fe/O instead of Fe/H to calculate depletion factors, since the intrinsic value of Fe/O is expected to show less variations from object to object than either Fe/H or O/H [@Ramirez_07]. In principle, we could use a different reference element, but oxygen abundances require small ionization correction factors in most objects and hence are the ones that can be determined in a more reliable way. We adopted the solar value of $\log(\mbox{Fe/O})_{\odot}=-1.27\pm0.11$ [@Lodders_10] as the expected abundance ratio for our objects. For the range of metallicities covered by our sample PNe, the stellar values of Fe/O are found to decrease from solar to 0.4–0.5 dex below solar in the Galaxy [@Melendez_06; @Ramirez_07]. This means that the halo PN DdDm 1, that has the lowest metallicity and the highest Fe/O abundance ratio in our sample, could have a depletion factor close or equal to zero (but its infrared spectrum shows the presence of silicates, see § \[sec:dust\]).
We should also bear in mind that the oxygen atoms may be depleted into dust grains, and in such case our values of $[\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{O}]$ should be lowered by up to $\sim$0.15 dex if oxygen is trapped in oxides and silicates [@Whittet_10]. On the other hand, in @Rodriguez_11 we found that the oxygen abundances in a group of PNe from the solar neighborhood were systematically higher than the ones in nearby regions (calculated either from collisionally excited lines or recombination lines). We suggested that the difference could be due to oxygen depletion in organic refractory dust components, but another possible explanation for these overabundances is oxygen production in the PN progenitor stars, and if this production is important, it will change significantly the value of Fe/O. However, the amount of oxygen production by AGB stars is very uncertain and could be negligible [see the predictions of models by different authors in @Karakas_07]. Thus, we present our results for Fe/O, but in what follows we will check that our results hold both for the Fe/O and Fe/H abundance ratios.
As we mentioned above, our ionization correction scheme provides three values for the iron abundance, and the real value of Fe/O for each object is expected to lie in the range defined by these three values. We can see from Figure \[fig:1\] that iron abundances are better constrained for objects with a relatively low degree of ionization, $\log(\mbox{O}^+/\mbox{O}^{++})\gtrsim-1.0$, where the three values obtained with the different ICFs differ by less than 0.5 dex. The values of $\log(\mbox{Fe/O})$ in our sample range from $-4.5$ to $-1.7$, which are the most extreme upper and lower limits that we find. In the same way, the depletion factors \[Fe/O\] range from $-3.2$ for IC 418 to $-0.4$ for DdDm 1.
Even taking into account all the considerations mentioned above that could change the iron depletions factors shown in the right axes of Figure \[fig:1\], we can conclude that a significant fraction of our sample PNe have more than $\sim90\%$ of their iron atoms deposited into dust grains. In agreement with our previous findings in a smaller sample of PNe [@DelgadoInglada_09], the range of depletions is high, with differences reaching a factor of $\sim100$. These differences can be related to the PNe ages or grain compositions, maybe reflecting different efficiencies of the grain formation and destruction processes, an issue that we will explore further in the following sections.
The C/O abundance ratios {#sec:co}
========================
As we mentioned in § \[sec:intro\], one can expect a correlation between the C/O abundance ratios and the type of dust grains present in PNe. Unfortunately, obtaining accurate values of C/O for PNe is not easy [see, e.g., @Rola_94; @Henry_96]. The ionic abundances of carbon and oxygen can be derived from collisionally excited lines (CELs) or from recombination lines (RLs), and the abundances obtained with RLs are systematically higher than the ones derived from CELs, by factors that are around two for many PNe but can reach $\sim$70 [see @Liu_06]. The reason for this discrepancy is still a matter of debate and we do not know which lines lead to more representative abundances in PNe. The abundances derived from CELs are highly dependent on the electron temperature, but these lines are brighter than RLs and thus, more easily measured. On the other hand, RLs are weakly dependent on physical conditions, but they are faint and may suffer from other problems [see, e.g, @Rodriguez_10; @Escalante_12].
One important source of uncertainties in the C/O values derived from CELs is the normalization between ultraviolet and optical fluxes since carbon lines are found in the ultraviolet range whereas oxygen lines are better measured in the optical range. This correction introduces uncertainties in the values of C/O, which are more severe for extended objects, where ultraviolet and optical observations may cover different regions of the nebula. One advantage of using RLs is that this issue does not arise, since they are observed in the optical range.
A further complication is introduced by the ICFs needed to account for unobserved ions and estimate the total abundances. For oxygen we have used here the equation proposed by @Peimbert_71 to correct for the contribution of O$^{+3}$ to the total abundance. In the case of oxygen abundances based on RLs, only the O$^{++}$ abundances can be easily calculated, and we assume that the distribution of all ionization states is equal to the one inferred from CELs. As for carbon, one can apply the widely used correction scheme of @KB_94, consisting of several ICFs which are employed depending on the degree of ionization of the object and the detected ionization stages (up to four different ions can be observed in PNe: C$^{+}$, C$^{++}$, C$^{+3}$, and C$^{+4}$), although certain cases are not covered by this scheme. Therefore, the correction scheme of @KB_94 produces an inhomogeneous determination of carbon abundance when applied to different objects.
The other method that is frequently adopted to calculate C/O is $\mbox{C}/\mbox{O}=\mbox{C}^{++}/\mbox{O}^{++}$. However, this ICF generally overestimates the value of C/O, especially in low ionization PNe [@DelgadoInglada_14]. Here we calculate C/O in a homogeneous way using the ICF derived in @DelgadoInglada_14: $$\frac{{\rm C}}{{\rm O}} = \frac{{\rm C}^{++}}{{\rm O}^{++}}(0.05 + 2.21\omega -
2.77\omega^2 + 1.74\omega^3),
\label{icf_c}$$ where $\omega=\mbox{O}^{++}/(\mbox{O}^{+}+\mbox{O}^{++})$. This ICF is valid in the range $0.05<\omega<0.97$. In this range, the ICF is expected to reproduce the values of C/O to within $^{+0.13}_{-0.09}$ dex. However, the C/O values derived for NGC 40 (with $\omega=0.03$), and for IC 3568, IC 5217, NGC 3242, NGC 5882, M3-32, NGC 7662 (all of them with $\omega>0.97$) are more uncertain. For NGC 40, we estimate a confidence interval of $^{+0.26}_{-1.0}$ dex; for the objects with the highest values of $\omega$, we estimate confidence intervals of $^{+0.26}_{-0.22}$ dex. These uncertainties will be taken into account in the forthcoming analysis.
The value of the ICF in equation (5) is close to 1 for most of our objects, where $\omega\gtrsim0.8$, changing the C$^{++}$/O$^{++}$ ratio by less than 0.05 dex. However, in the low ionization PNe IC 418 and NGC 40, the differences between both estimates reach 0.9 dex.
We compared the values of C/O implied by the three different methods described above ($\mbox{C}/\mbox{O}=\mbox{C}^{++}/\mbox{O}^{++}$, the set of ICFs from @KB_94, and the ICF from @DelgadoInglada_14) and by the two types of lines we use (CELs or RLs). We find that the differences seem to be more related to whether we use CELs or RLs than to the correction scheme we apply. Hence we will restrict the forthcoming discussion to the values of C/O calculated with equation (5), derived either from RLs or from CELs.
C/O from CELs {#subsec1:co}
-------------
The C$^{++}$ abundances were calculated from the fluxes of the \] $\lambda1908$ doublet (provided in the same papers we use for the optical fluxes, see Table \[tab:1\]) through the [*IRAF*]{} routine [*ionic*]{} using the values of [$n_{\rm e}$]{} and [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{} listed in Table \[tab:1\]. Since the collision strengths for C$^{++}$, derived by @Berrington_85, are available only for [$T_{\rm e}$]{} $>12600$ K, we extrapolated them to lower temperatures in order to cover the [$T_{\rm e}$]{} range found for our sample PNe. Table \[tab:4\] shows the values we obtain for C$^{++}$/H$^{+}$.
The highest differences between our values of $\rm{C}^{++}/\rm{H}^{+}$ and the ones in the papers listed in Table \[tab:1\] are found for Hu 1-1 (0.35 dex) and IC 4406 (0.23 dex). For the other PNe the differences are lower than 0.15 dex. These disagreements are due to the different physical conditions adopted in the calculations, except for IC 4406, for which the value given in @Tsamis_03 is a typo, and their corrected value agrees with the one we derive (Y. Tsamis, private communication).
Using the values of O$^{++}$ from Table \[tab:2\], we calculate the C/O values listed in the third column of Table \[tab:4\]. Because these values are based on CELs located in the optical (\[\] $\lambda\lambda4959,5007$) and in the ultraviolet (\] $\lambda1908$), there are several important sources of uncertainty associated to them, namely, the adopted [$T_{\rm e}$]{}, the extinction correction, the normalization between ultraviolet and optical fluxes, and the aperture correction in extended nebulae. The uncertainties associated with the normalization of optical and ultraviolet fluxes are difficult to quantify. The other sources of uncertainty are discussed below.
The correction for interstellar extinction is important, and the extinction law for the bulge PNe, needed for some of our sample objects, is uncertain [see, e.g., @Liu_01; @Wang_07 and references therein]. Even a small error in the extinction coefficient, $\sigma\{c(\mbox{H}\beta)\}=0.1$, introduces an uncertainty of $\sim0.1$ dex in the intensity ratio of the \] $\lambda$1908 and \[\] $\lambda$4959 lines. However, the main effect of an error in the extinction coefficient will occur through its impact on the derived temperature. The determination of an accurate value of [$T_{\rm e}$]{} is a critical factor in obtaining reliable ionic abundances from CELs, and the emissivities of ultraviolet CELs are more dependent on [$T_{\rm e}$]{} than those of optical CELs. As an example, consider an error of 500 K, which can arise easily from errors in the extinction correction, the flux calibration or the line measurements that will not necessarily appear in the quoted line intensity errors. At [$T_{\rm e}$]{} $=10000$ K, this variation introduces a change of $0.18$ dex in C$^{++}$/H$^{+}$ and a change of $0.07$ dex in O$^{++}$/H$^{+}$; the final effect in the C$^{++}$/O$^{++}$ ratio will be around 0.1 dex.
Aperture corrections are needed in those nebulae that are more extended than the aperture of the International Ultraviolet Explorer ($\sim10\times20$ arsec$^2$), or that were observed in the optical with a long slit at a single position (as opposed to a long slit scanning the whole object). The scale factors applied by the different authors in our sample PNe go up to 13, with NGC 6720 (angular diameter of 76 arcsec) the PN with the highest aperture correction [@Liu_04a]. We use here the ultraviolet fluxes provided by the different authors, already scaled and normalized by them. The uncertainties related to this procedure are difficult to estimate, but might reach a factor of 2–3 for objects like NGC 6720.
Table \[tab:4\] shows the C$^{++}$ abundances and the values of C/O based on CELs and the ICF of equation (5). We only present in this table the uncertainties associated with the final values of C/O. We consider an uncertainty of 0.2 dex in $(\mbox{C}^{++}/\mbox{O}^{++})_{\rm CELs}$, based on the discussion above (it could be higher for some objects, such as extended nebulae with important aperture corrections), which is added quadratically to the uncertainty in the ICF computed from equations (40) and (41) in @DelgadoInglada_14.
[lcl|ccl]{} Cn 1-5 & 9.04 & $0.28^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$ & 9.08 & 8.90 & $0.09^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
Cn 3-1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.05 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$\
DdDm 1 & 6.78 & $-1.16^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$ & $\ldots$ & 8.43 & $\ldots$\
H 1-41 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.57 & 9.18 & $-0.56^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\
H 1-42 & 7.61 & $-0.86\pm0.22$ & 8.34 & 8.92 & $-0.52\pm0.10$\
H 1-50 & 7.82 & $-0.76^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 8.63 & 9.05 & $-0.38^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\
Hu 1-1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.94 & 8.54 & $0.33^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
Hu 2-1 & 8.53 & $0.34^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 8.62 & 8.71 & $-0.09^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$\
IC 418 & 8.35 & $0.04^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 8.73 & 8.21 & $0.26^{+0.06}_{-0.10}$\
IC 1747 & 9.04 & $0.55\pm0.22$ & 9.09 & 8.76 & $0.39\pm0.10$\
IC 2165 & 8.28 & $0.24\pm0.22$ & 8.53 & 8.63 & $-0.04^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\
IC 3568 & 8.05 & $-0.22\pm0.22$ & 8.49 & 8.75 & $-0.17\pm0.10$\
IC 4191 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.72 & 9.07 & $-0.30^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\
IC 4406 & 8.57 & $-0.10^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$ & 8.89 & 8.89 & $-0.09^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
IC 4593 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.63 & 8.65 & $0.02^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\
IC 4699 & 8.00 & $-0.32\pm0.22$ & 8.72 & 9.15 & $-0.35^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$\
IC 4846 & 7.86 & $-0.55\pm0.22$ & 8.16 & 8.76 & $-0.52\pm0.10$\
IC 5217 & 8.26 & $-0.29\pm0.22$ & 8.36 & 8.65 & $-0.20\pm0.10$\
JnEr 1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$\
M 1-20 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.66 & 8.63 & $0.08^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$\
M 1-42 & 7.92 & $-0.44^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 9.38 & 9.63 & $-0.25^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$\
M 1-73 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.73 & 9.00 & $-0.34^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
M 2-4 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.50 & 8.89 & $-0.37^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$\
M 2-6 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 7.90 & 8.62 & $-0.74^{+0.06}_{-0.10}$\
M 2-27 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.84 & 9.37 & $-0.50^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$\
M 2-31 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.79 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$\
M 2-33 & 8.59 & $-0.02\pm0.22$ & 8.30 & 9.04 & $-0.68^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$\
M 2-36 & 8.65 & $-0.03^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 9.36 & 9.51 & $-0.11^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$\
M 2-42 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 9.60 & $\ldots$\
M 3-7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 9.42 & $\ldots$\
M 3-29 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.51 & 9.25 & $-0.75^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$\
M 3-32 & 8.42 & $-0.06\pm0.22$ & 9.55 & 9.74 & $-0.10^{+011}_{-0.10}$\
MyCn 18 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.36 & 8.81 & $-0.47^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 40 & 8.01 & $-0.02^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$ & 8.81 & 8.61 & $-0.76^{+0.14}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 2392 & 7.69 & $-0.39^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & $\ldots$ & 9.81 & $\ldots$\
NGC 3132 & 8.18 & $-0.47^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$ & 8.82 & 8.80 & $-0.11^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 3242 & 8.04 & $-0.28\pm0.22$ & 8.79 & 8.78 & $0.09^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 3587 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 8.36 & 9.38 & $-1.13^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 3918 & 8.36 & $-0.07^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 8.70 & 8.75 & $-0.06^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 5882 & 8.11 & $-0.46\pm0.22$ & 8.58 & 8.93 & $-0.27\pm0.10$\
NGC 6153 & 8.38 & $-0.16\pm0.22$ & 9.35 & 9.51 & $-0.09\pm0.10$\
NGC 6210 & 7.87 & $-0.60\pm0.22$ & 8.80 & 9.53 & $-0.66\pm0.10$\
NGC 6439 & 8.32 & $-0.24^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 8.99 & 9.21 & $-0.21^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 6543 & 8.48 & $-0.19\pm0.22$ & 8.76 & 9.07 & $-0.24\pm0.10$\
NGC 6565 & 8.29 & $-0.32^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$ & 8.65 & 8.85 & $-0.25^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 6572 & 8.77 & $0.25^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 8.69 & 8.71 & $0.03^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 6620 & 8.16 & $-0.58^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$ & 8.94 & 9.24 & $-0.36^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 6720 & 8.38 & $-0.19^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$ & 8.94 & 8.90 & $-0.08^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 6741 & 8.40 & $-0.09^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$ & 8.79 & 8.74 & $-0.04^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 6803 & 8.24 & $-0.33\pm0.22$ & 8.79 & 9.05 & $-0.21^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 6818 & 8.17 & $-0.14\pm0.22$ & 8.66 & 8.57 & $0.12^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 6826 & 8.40 & $-0.03\pm0.22$ & 8.73 & 8.92 & $-0.11\pm0.10$\
NGC 6884 & 8.45 & $-0.02\pm0.22$ & 8.87 & 8.98 & $-0.05^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 7026 & 8.33 & $-0.26^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 8.93 & 9.07 & $-0.13^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$\
NGC 7662 & 7.99 & $-0.15^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 8.67 & 8.58 & $0.17\pm0.10$\
Vy 2-1 & 8.61 & $-0.11^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & 8.62 & 8.98 & $-0.34^{+0.07}_{-0.10}$
C/O from RLs {#subsec2:co}
------------
and RLs can be measured in the optical range and do not suffer from many of the uncertainties discussed above. Therefore, these lines will provide better estimates of the C/O abundance ratio, or they will do so if they can be considered to sample the abundances of the nebular gas. For example, these emission lines might not be representative of the nebular abundances if they arise mostly from metal-rich inclusions, whose existence in PNe has been postulated to explain the discrepant abundances implied by CELs and RLs [see, e.g., @Liu_04a].
The C$^{++}$/H$^{+}$ and O$^{++}$/H$^{+}$ abundance ratios implied by RLs are derived for all objects with available measurements of the required RLs using the values of [$n_{\rm e}$]{} and [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{} in Table \[tab:2\] and the effective recombination coefficients for H$\beta$ of @Storey_95. The C$^{++}$ abundances are calculated using the $\lambda$4267 line and the case B effective recombination coefficients of @Davey_00. The O$^{++}$ abundances are computed from the total intensity of multiplet 1 of and the recombination coefficients of @Storey_94. The multiplet intensity was corrected for the contribution of undetected lines with the formulae derived by @Peimbert_05. Typical errors in C$^{++}$/H$^{+}$ and O$^{++}$/H$^{+}$ arising from errors in the line intensities are $\pm0.02$ dex and $\pm0.06$ dex, respectively. Final errors in C$^{++}$/O$^{++}$ due to errors in the line intensities are around $\pm0.06$ dex. If we also consider the uncertainties in the ICF, as explained in § \[subsec1:co\], we obtain the final uncertainties presented in Table \[tab:4\] together with the ionic abundances of C$^{++}$ and O$^{++}$ obtained from RLs.
We found differences between our values and the ones in the reference papers that are in general lower than 0.06 dex but reach 0.17 dex for some nebulae. The highest differences are found for H 1-42 (with a difference of 0.32 dex in the value of C$^{++}$/H$^{+}$), M 2-42 (0.56 dex in O$^{++}$/H$^{+}$), and M 3-29 (0.49 dex in O$^{++}$/H$^{+}$) and are not due to differences in the physical conditions used in the calculations. We do not know the reasons for these discrepancies, but they do not affect our conclusions, since we do not have information about the types of grains present in H 1-42 and M 3-29, and we cannot calculate the C/O abundance ratio in M 2-42. Hence, these PNe are not included in the forthcoming analysis.
Figure \[fig:c2o2\] shows a comparison between the values of C/O obtained from CELs and RLs in those PNe where both types of lines are observed. We also plot in the figure the error bars associated with this abundance ratio for each object. The error bars take into account both the uncertainties in the line intensity ratios ($\pm0.2$ dex for the values derived from CELs and $\pm0.06$ dex for the ones derived from RLs) and the uncertainties in the ICF. Although there is general agreement between these two abundance ratios, a result previously found in several studies [see @Liu_04a and references therein], the differences are high for some objects. The highest differences reach $\sim0.7$ dex and are found for NGC 40 and M 2-33. NGC 40 is an extended PN (diameter of around 48 arcsec) with a Wolf-Rayet central star, thus, an incorrect aperture correction and/or contamination of the ultraviolet line fluxes with stellar winds could explain the discrepancy. M 2-33 is smaller (with a diameter of around 5.8 arcsec) and thus, we expect that the scaling of optical and ultraviolet observations is not that critical. The discrepancy could also be explained if the [$T_{\rm e}$]{} is underestimated by $\sim3000$ K, but we do not expect such a large error in [$T_{\rm e}$]{}. We have explored if the differences between the ionic abundance ratios derived from CELs and RLs are related to parameters such as [$T_{\rm e}$]{}[\[\]]{}, [$n_{\rm e}$]{}, the extinction coefficient, the nebular size, the type of dust, the abundance discrepancy factor, or the [$T_{\rm e}$]{} deduced from the recombination continuum Balmer discontinuity, but we do not find any obvious correlation.
As we mentioned above, the C/O abundance ratios in PNe tell us whether the ionized gas is carbon rich or oxygen rich. We find that both CELs and RLs imply that 20% of the PNe are C–rich. Most of the PNe in our sample seem to be O-rich objects. According to theoretical models [see, e.g., @Marigo_03], these PNe evolve either from the lowest mass progenitors (masses below 1.5 M$_{\odot}$) or from the highest mass progenitors (above 4–5 M$_{\odot}$), although the details depend on the metallicity and on the model assumptions.
Dust features from infrared spectra {#sec:dust}
===================================
We used the archive of the Infrared Spectrograph (IRS; @Houck_04), on board the [*Spitzer Space Telescope*]{} [@Werner_04], to download the spectra available for our sample PNe. We decided to look for the following dust features: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the broad features around 11 and 30 $\mu$m (usually associated with SiC and MgS, respectively), amorphous silicates, and crystalline silicates. We restricted the analysis to these features because they are relatively easy to identify and are, in principle, reliably associated with either a carbon-rich or an oxygen-rich environment (we will come back to this point later). A detailed analysis of all the dust features present in the PNe is beyond the scope of this paper. We also compiled dust identifications from the literature, mainly from spectra of the [*Infrared Space Observatory*]{} ([*ISO*]{}; @Kessler_96). The results are summarized in Table \[tab:5\] and are discussed below.
[lllcccccl]{} Cn 1-5 & $[-2.4, -2.1]$ & $+0.28$/$+0.09$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & [*ISO*]{} (1), [*Spitzer*]{} (2,3), UKIRT (7)\
DdDm 1 & $[-2.0, -1.7]$ & $-1.16$/$\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3,4)\
H 1-50 & $[-3.6, -3.1]$ & $+0.34$/$-0.09$ & $\surd$? & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (2,3)\
Hu 2-1 & $[-3.0, -2.7]$ & $+0.34$/$-0.09$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1), [*Spitzer*]{} (3), UKIRT (6)\
IC 418 & $[-4.5, -4.0]$ & $+0.04$/$+0.26$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1, 5), [*Spitzer*]{} (3), UKIRT (6)\
IC 2165 & $[-2.9, -2.4]$ & $+0.24$/$-0.04$ & $\times$ & $\surd$? & $\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3), UKIRT (6)\
IC 3568 & $[-3.3, -2.0]$ & $-0.22$/$-0.17$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1)\
IC 4406 & $<-3.8$ & $-0.10$/$-0.09$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1)\
IC 4846 & $[-3.3, -2.6]$ & $-0.55$/$-0.52$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$? & $\times$? & [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
M 1-20 & $[-3.6, -3.2]$ & $\hspace{0.21cm}\ldots$/$+0.08$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (2,3,8), UKIRT (7)\
M 1-42 & $<-2.2$ & $-0.44$/$-0.25$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & [*ISO*]{} (1), [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
M 2-27 & $[-2.8, -2.4]$ & $\hspace{0.21cm}\ldots$/$-0.50$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (2,3)\
M 2-31 & $[-2.5, -1.9]$ & $\hspace{0.21cm}\ldots$/$\ldots$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3,9)\
M 2-36 & $[-3.9, -3.4]$ & $-0.03$/$-0.11$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1)\
M 2-42 & $[-2.9, -2.4]$ & $\hspace{0.21cm}\ldots$/$\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
MyCn 18 & $[-2.7, -2.4]$ & $\hspace{0.21cm}\ldots$/$-0.47$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 40 & $[-3.3, -3.0]$ & $-0.02$/$-0.76$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & [*ISO*]{} (1, 5), [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 2392 & $[-2.2, -1.9]$ & $-0.39$/$\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 3132 & $[-3.6, -3.2]$ & $-0.47$/$-0.11$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 3242 & $[-3.5, -2.6]$ & $-0.28$/$+0.09$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 3918 & $[-3.8, -3.5]$ & $-0.07$/$-0.06$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1, 5, 10), [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 6153 & $[-3.4, -2.8]$ & $-0.16$/$-0.09$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\surd$? & $\times$? & [*ISO*]{} (1, 10)\
NGC 6210 & $[-3.3, -2.8]$ & $-0.60$/$-0.66$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$? & $\surd$ & [*ISO*]{} (1), [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 6439 & $[-3.2, -2.9]$ & $-0.24$/$-0.21$ & $\surd$? & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 6543 & $[-3.1, -2.5]$ & $-0.19$/$-0.24$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & [*ISO*]{} (1, 10)\
NGC 6572 & $[-3.5, -3.0]$ & $+0.25$/$+0.03$ & $\times$ & $\surd$? & $\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & [*ISO*]{} (1), UKIRT (6)\
NGC 6720 & $[-3.8, -3.5]$ & $-0.19$/$-0.08$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1), [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 6741 & $[-2.8, -2.5]$ & $-0.09$/$-0.04$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1), [*Spitzer*]{} (3), UKIRT (6)\
NGC 6818 & $[-3.2, -2.8]$ & $-0.14$/$+0.12$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$? & [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 6826 & $[-3.1, -2.5]$ & $-0.03$/$-0.11$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1, 5), [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 6884 & $[-3.2, -2.6]$ & $-0.02$/$-0.05$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1), [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 7026 & $<-3.2$ & $-0.26$/$-0.13$ & $\surd$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\surd$ & [*Spitzer*]{} (3)\
NGC 7662 & $[-3.0, -2.1]$ & $-0.15$/$+0.17$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & $\times$ & $\ldots$ & [*ISO*]{} (1), [*Spitzer*]{} (3)
Data from [*Spitzer*]{}
-----------------------
We found [*Spitzer*]{} IRS spectra for 27 PNe of our sample (we excluded the very noisy spectra of JnEr 1 and NGC 3587). The data belong to the following observing programs: ID 45 (PI: T. Roellig), ID 93 (PI: D. Cruikshank), ID 1406 (PI: L. Armus), ID 1427 (calibration program), ID 20049 (PI: K. Kwitter), ID 30285, 40115 (PI: G. Fazio), ID 30430, 40536 (PI: H. Dinnerstein), ID 30550 (PI: J. R. Houck), ID 3633 (PI: M. Bobrowsky), and ID 50261 (PI: L. Stanghellini). The [*Spitzer*]{} spectra of Cn 1-5, DdDm 1, H 1-50, IC 4846, M 1-20, M 2-27, M 2-42, M 2-31, and MyCn 18 have been studied already in several works [@PC_09; @Gutenkunst_08; @Henry_08; @Stanghellini_12], where some of the dust features in these objects are identified.
The PNe were observed with at least one of the four different modules of IRS (SL, LL, SH, and LH) and, therefore, the wavelength coverage and the spectral resolution are not the same for all the nebulae. Each module is named by its wavelength coverage and resolution as Short-Low (SL, covering the range 5.2–14.5 $\mu$m with a spectral resolution $\lambda$/$\Delta\lambda$ = 64–128), Long-Low (LL: 14.0–38 and the same spectral resolution as SL), Short-High (SH: 9.9–19.6 $\mu$m and $\lambda$/$\Delta\lambda$ $\sim$ 600), and Long-High (LH: 18.7–37.2 $\mu$m and the same spectral resolution as SH). We used the observations performed in the [*staring*]{} mode in which the object is placed at two different positions (nods) in the slit.
We retrieved the data from the [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS archive and we reduced them following the usual steps[^4]. We started the reduction from the Base Calibrated Data (BCD). First, we used the IDL procedure [doall\_coads]{} to produce a single coadded image for each nod position and module separately. Each of the low-resolution modules contains two slits; when one of them is observing the source, the other one is off-source. We used the off-source spectra to subtract the background in the on-source spectra. For the high-resolution modules, extra sky images are needed to remove this contribution in the source spectra. In some cases, there were no available images to remove the sky background, but this is not important for our identification purposes. Rogue pixels were removed with the [irsclean]{} tool. The spectra for each nod position was wavelength and flux calibrated, and extracted with the [*Spitzer*]{} IRS Custom Extractor (SPICE) using one of the two available extractions: point-source aperture or full-slit extraction, depending on the size of the PNe. Finally, we used the Spectroscopic Modeling Analysis and Reduction Tool (SMART, @Higdon_04 [@Lebouteiller_10]) to manually eliminate bad pixels, jumps, and to combine and merge into one final spectra the observations of each module. High-resolution spectra were smoothed using a box-car algorithm (of widths 0.06 $\mu$m and 0.08 $\mu$m for the SH and LH modules, respectively) to slightly lower the noise without losing information about the dust features.
Different regions of the final [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS spectra for the 27 sample PNe are shown in Figures \[fig:dust\_2\]–\[fig:dust\_5\]. For the convenience of the reader, we display all the [*Spitzer*]{} spectra available for our objects, although some of them have already been published, and some of the features of interest have been identified in the works we mentioned above. A total of 18 PNe have observations for the whole IRS spectral range, 5–37 $\mu$m, where many dust features can be observed (Figs. \[fig:dust\_3\] and \[fig:dust\_4\]). The other nebulae do not have data for the full spectral range that can be covered with [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS. On the other hand, some objects have wavelength ranges covered at both high and low spectral resolutions. In such cases, we show the spectra where the dust emission features can be seen more clearly.
Identification of dust features
-------------------------------
### C-rich features: SiC, the 30 $\mu$m feature, and PAHs
Using the IRS spectra, we identify the broad feature around 11.3 , associated with SiC grains, in Hu 2-1, IC 418, and M 1-20 (Figs. \[fig:dust\_2\]–\[fig:dust\_3\]). This feature was already detected by @Casassus_01a [@Casassus_01b] and @Cohen_05 in UKIRT and ISO spectra of these three PNe, and also in IC 2165 and NGC 6572. In the last two PNe, the feature is not as evident as for the other objects. In the case of IC 2165, there are [*Spitzer*]{}/IRS spectra, and we do not see clear evidence of the feature (Fig. \[fig:dust\_2\]). Therefore, we label the identification as doubtful in this PNe.
The 30 $\mu$m feature, often attributed to MgS grains, is present in the spectra of NGC 3242 and M 1-20 (see Fig. \[fig:dust\_4\]). Besides, @Hony_02 detected this feature in [*ISO*]{} spectra of IC 418, NGC 40, NGC 3918, and NGC 6826. We do not observe the feature in NGC 40, but this could be due to the different areas observed by [*ISO*]{} ($\sim$ 440 arcsec$^2$, covering almost the whole nebula) and [*Spitzer*]{} ($\sim$ 248 arcsec$^2$).
There are PAH features in the IRS spectra of 12 of the 27 PNe with available data (see Figs. \[fig:dust\_2\]–\[fig:dust\_3\]), and we cannot rule out their presence in at least 2 of the other PNe. Some of the PNe would require deeper spectra or a higher spectral resolution to reach more definitive conclusions. As an example, @Cohen_05 did not find PAHs in M 1-42 using [*ISO*]{} observations, but we think that the [*Spitzer*]{} spectra of this nebula shows evidence of these features (see Fig. \[fig:dust\_3\]). For this nebula, a higher spectral resolution would show the presence or absence of PAHs more clearly.
The detection of PAHs is not clear in some nebulae, in particular those with spectra of low spectral resolution, because of contamination with emission lines (see Fig. \[fig:dust\_5\] for some identifications). We see that in those PNe where PAHs are more conspicuous, such as NGC 40 and Cn 1-5 (Fig. \[fig:dust\_3\]), the broad feature at 11.3 $\mu$m is the PAH feature most easily seen. Hence we used the presence of this broad feature as the main criterion for the detection of PAHs.
Originally, PAHs were thought to appear only in those dust forming sources that are carbon-rich [@Whittet_03], but in recent years these molecules have also been observed in oxygen-rich AGB and post-AGB stars, and in oxygen-rich PNe [see, e.g., @Jura_06; @Cerrigone_09; @Guzman_11; @Gielen_11]. These so-called mixed-chemistry PNe show PAHs and crystalline silicate features together in their infrared spectra [see e.g. @Waters_98; @Cohen_99]. We will come back to this issue in § \[orich\].
Figure \[fig:dust\_5\] shows the 6–14 $\mu$m IRS spectra of NGC 6720, which has observations at three different locations. The upper panel shows the spectrum for a region that includes part of the outer halo of the nebula; the middle panel shows the spectrum for an aperture that crosses the halo; and the lower panel shows the spectrum for an aperture that crosses the bright region close to the center of the nebula. We do not see evidence for PAHs, SiC, nor amorphous silicates.
### O-rich features: amorphous and crystalline silicates {#orich}
We observe the broad features associated with amorphous silicates in 3–5 PNe of the 27 PNe with IRS/[*Spitzer*]{} spectra in the adequate wavelength range (see Figs. \[fig:dust\_3\] and \[fig:dust\_4\]). DdDm 1, MyCn 18, and H 1-50 show the feature at 9.7 $\mu$m and some indication of the 18 $\mu$m feature. We cannot rule out the presence of these features in IC 4846 and NGC 6210. Some PNe, like NGC 40, NGC 2392, and NGC 6210, show a small bump around 17–18 $\mu$m, but this feature is likely to be related with problems in the overlap of the SH and LH spectra. Finally, @BS_05 identified amorphous silicates in the [*ISO*]{} spectra of NGC 6543 and, probably, in NGC 6153.
We also identify the crystalline silicate features around 23$\mu$m, 27$\mu$m, and 33 $\mu$m in the IRS spectra of 12 PNe from the sample. We cannot rule out the presence of crystalline silicates in IC 4846 and NGC 6818 due to the low resolution or poor signal-to-noise ratio of their spectra. @BS_05 used [*ISO*]{} spectra and detected crystalline silicates in NGC 6543, whereas they could not rule out their presence in NGC 6153. Therefore, 13–16 nebulae from the 21 PNe with available spectra in the required wavelength range show crystalline silicates. The three PNe with amorphous silicates also show crystalline silicates.
Six out of the thirteen PNe that show silicate features belong to the mixed-chemistry class, objects that show both silicates and PAHs. Several scenarios have been proposed to explain the simultaneous presence of silicates and PAHs in PNe [see, e.g., @PC_09]. One of the preferred explanations is that the silicates were formed and ejected before the star experienced the third dredge-up, when it was still O-rich, whereas PAHs form later [@Waters_98]. According to this scenario, silicates are located in a O-rich disk/torus while PAHs occupy a more recent C-rich outflow. This could explain the mixed chemistry of Cn 1-5, where me measure C/O $>1$. However, this explanation is not valid for stars that remain O-rich during their whole evolution, either because the third dredge-up does not occur due to their low initial masses or because the effect of the third dredge-up is counteracted by the hot bottom burning process. In these PNe, it might apply the explanation proposed by @Guzman_11, in which the PAHs form in an O-rich and dense torus after the CO molecules are dissociated.
Discussion
==========
The values of $12+\log(\mbox{O}/\mbox{H})$ in our sample of PNe go from 8.02 (for the halo PN DdDm 1) to 8.88 (for NGC 6620). If we consider the values of O/H found for the PNe that have different dust features, they cover the ranges: 8.26–8.87 (PAHs), 8.26–8.68 (SiC or 30 $\mu$m feature), 8.02–8.87 (silicates), and 8.45–8.87 (mixed-chemistry objects: silicates and PAHs). Thus the sample PNe with silicate dust grains seem to arise from a broad population that includes the halo PN, DdDm 1, PNe from the Galactic disk, and objects that might belong to the bulge, like H 1-50 and M 2-31 [@Wang_07]. Our PNe with SiC and the 30 $\mu$m feature seem to arise from a more homogeneous population in the Galactic disk; only one of them, M 1-20, might belong to the bulge. This agrees with the results of @Stanghellini_12, who found that six of their compact Galactic PNe with C-rich dust features, for which they could estimate the dust temperature, follow a well defined sequence in their plots of dust temperature versus infrared luminosity or physical radii. @Stanghellini_12 conclude that this is an evolutionary sequence and that the progenitors of these PNe covered a narrow range in initial mass and metallicity. The high oxygen abundances found for the mixed-chemistry PNe also agree with the results of @Stanghellini_12, since they found that these nebulae are concentrated towards the Galactic center and are absent from the Magellanic Clouds.
The range of iron depletions we find in our sample of PNe covers about two orders of magnitude, suggesting differences in the formation and evolution of dust grains from one PN to another. As in @DelgadoInglada_09, we explored possible correlations between the iron depletions and different nebular and stellar parameters such as the electron density, the nebular radius, the surface brightness, the effective temperature of the central star, or the nebular morphology. In agreement with @DelgadoInglada_09, we do not find any obvious correlation. We investigate here if this large range of iron depletions is related to the type of dust grains found in the PN (i.e., C-rich or O-rich dust grains) or to the dominant chemistry present in the ionized gas (i.e., if the computed C/O ratio is lower or greater than one). In Figure \[fig:disc\_1\] we display the values of Fe/O and the depletion factors for Fe/O as a function of the C/O abundance ratios, derived from CELs and RLs, for all the PNe in our sample with available data. Note that the sample PNe can have two, one, or no values for C/O (depending on whether the required CELs and RLs are measured or not) and hence not all the PNe in Table \[tab:3\] appear in Figure \[fig:disc\_1\], and some objects only appear in the panels at the right (left). We present the results for the values of Fe/O derived with equations (\[eq:2\]) and (\[eq:3\]), but the values of Fe/O implied by equation (\[eq:1\]) lead to similar results.
We also identify in Figure \[fig:disc\_1\] the PNe showing dust features in their infrared spectra, as well as those with doubtful or no detection of dust features. Note that, given the uncertainties related to the calculation of C/O from emission lines, the type of dust grains (O-rich or C-rich excluding PAHs) might provide better information on whether the intrinsic value of C/O in the nebular gas is above 1 or not [unless grain components like SiC can form in slightly O-rich conditions, see @Bond_10].
The upper panels of Figure \[fig:disc\_1\] show the PAH identifications. The first studies on the relation between PAHs and the C/O abundance ratios found a trend of increasing strength of these features as C/O increases [@Cohen_05 and references therein], and it was suggested that these molecules are only present in PNe with C/O $>1$. Here we find some PNe with intense PAH features and low C/O ratios, such as NGC 7026 or NGC 6439. Besides, PAH emission is not restricted to PNe with C/O $>1$, in agreement with the idea that PAH molecules may form both in C-rich and O-rich environments [@Guzman_11]. We also see from this figure that PNe with PAHs are distributed over the whole range of iron depletions, suggesting that the presence of these molecules has no direct relation with the highest and lowest iron depletions found in the ionized gas.
The middle panels of Figure \[fig:disc\_1\] identify those PNe with SiC or the broad feature at 30 $\mu$m, usually associated with dust grains formed in a C-rich environment. Most of these PNe are located close to the region where C/O $>1$. NGC 40 has a C/O value from RLs that is not consistent within the errors with C/O $>1$, but its C/O value from CELs is consistent with C/O = 1. On the other hand, @Bond_10 find in their simulations of terrestrial planet formation that solid SiC can form when the C/O ratio is above 0.8. In this case, the range of C/O ratios for nebulae with C-rich dust can be somewhat wider.
The lower panels of Figure \[fig:disc\_1\] show the PNe with amorphous or crystalline silicates in their spectra. These dust features seem to be very common in our sample. All but one of those PNe with silicate features have values of C/O that are compatible with an O-rich environment. Cn 1-5 is the exception, showing silicates with a C/O value clearly above one, regardless of what lines are used in the abundance determination and regardless of the adopted ICF. One possible explanation for this is that the C$^{++}$/O$^{++}$ values derived from CELs and RLs are seriously wrong for this nebula. Another option, already mentioned in § \[sec:dust\], is that the computed C/O value in the ionized gas is correct, and the prominent silicate features are revealing an O-rich past where the silicate grains formed.
If we consider as C-rich those PNe with SiC or the 30 $\mu$m feature and as O-rich those with silicates, we can see in Figure \[fig:disc\_1\] that both C-rich and O-rich PNe cover a wide range of iron depletions. However, C-rich nebulae are not present in the region of lowest iron depletions (highest gaseous iron abundances), whereas O-rich PNe do not appear at the highest depletions. The PNe with the highest iron depletions that have identifications of dust features are IC 418 and NGC 3242, two PNe with C-rich dust features and no silicates. On the other hand, the PNe with the lowest depletions that also have identifications of dust features are Cn 1-5, DdDm 1, M 1-42, and NGC 2392, four PNe that show silicates and no C-rich dust features. In order to check whether this finding is due to small-number statistics, we performed a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test that compares the distributions of iron depletions for C-rich and O-rich PNe (as defined by the presence of SiC or the 30 $\mu$m feature, versus the presence of silicates). Using the values of Fe/O in Figure \[fig:disc\_1\] we find that the p-value (the probability of finding different distributions of Fe/O for C-rich and O-rich PNe if both arise from the same distribution) is 4%. We also performed the KS test using the values of Fe/O implied by equation (\[eq:1\]) and the values of Fe/H implied by both ionization correction schemes, finding probabilities in the range 0.2% to 7%, with the values of Fe/H implying the lowest values (0.2% and 1%). Therefore, the difference is significant at the 0.2–7% level.
An independent way to test this relation of iron depletions with C/O is by studying the correlation between the iron abundances and the values derived for C/O. We studied this correlation considering the two values of Fe/H and Fe/O implied by the two different ionization correction schemes we use, and the values of C/O implied by either CELs or RLs (making a total of 8 cases). We find weak Spearman rank correlation coefficients, in the range $-0.4$ to $-0.1$, and p-values that go from 0.1% (for iron abundances derived from eq. (\[eq:2\]) and (\[eq:3\]) and C/O values implied by RLs) to 30%. Hence, the relation between iron depletions and C/O abundances, although weak, seems to be significant. This relation could arise from changes in the composition of dust grains for environments characterized by different values of C/O.
Our results do not agree with the model results of @Ferrarotti_06 for dust production in AGB stars. Whereas most of our objects show high iron depletion factors, their calculations only show large degrees of condensation for iron, above 80%, in objects where the value of C/O is extremely close to 1 (see their Figs. A.3 and A.4). As discussed by @Mauron_10, who find strong depletions of elements like Fe and Ca in the circumstellar envelope of an AGB carbon star, adsorption of metals at the surface of the dust grains may be as important as the initial dust condensation processes considered by the models of dust formation in stellar envelopes.
Summary and conclusions
=======================
We have studied a sample of 56 PNe, belonging to the Galactic bulge, the halo, and the disk. The nebulae have available optical spectra of good quality and we constrain their iron abundances using \[\] lines and the ionization correction scheme derived by @Rodriguez_05. The iron depletion factors we find imply that most of the studied PNe have less than 10% of their iron atoms in the gas, the missing iron atoms are presumably condensed into dust grains.
We have calculated the C/O abundance ratios using both optical RLs (for 49 PNe) and ultraviolet and optical CELs (for 39 PNe). The differences between the two estimates reach $\sim0.7$ dex in some objects. Most of the sample PNe show C/O $<1$ which, according to theoretical models, indicates that they could either descend from stars with masses below $\sim1.5$ M$_{\odot}$ or from stars with masses above 4–5 M$_{\odot}$. Those PNe with C/O $>1$ are probably the result of intermediate mass stars.
We have also studied the infrared spectra of the PNe with available data in order to identify the following features: PAHs, SiC, the broad band at 30 $\mu$m, and amorphous and crystalline silicates. We find PAHs in 12–14 of the 33 PNe with infrared spectra. The presence of these features is not restricted to PNe with C/O $>1$. Silicates are found in 13–16 PNe; SiC and/or the 30 $\mu$m feature, which is also associated with C-rich environments, in 7–9 objects. The presence of silicates and SiC or the 30 $\mu$m feature does not agree in all cases with the values of C/O derived from emission lines, maybe reflecting the uncertainties related to the determination of the C/O abundance ratio. Note also that the C/O value we measure can be affected by the depletion of C or O atoms into dust grains.
The oxygen abundances, $12+\log(\mbox{O}/\mbox{H})$, found for the PNe that have different dust features cover the ranges: 8.26–8.87 (PAHs), 8.26–8.68 (SiC or 30 $\mu$m feature), 8.02–8.87 (silicates), and 8.45–8.87 (mixed-chemistry objects: silicates and PAHs). Therefore, the sample PNe with silicate dust grains seem to arise from a broad population that includes our halo PN, PNe from the Galactic disk, and objects that might belong to the bulge. Our PNe with SiC and the 30 $\mu$m feature seem to arise from a more homogeneous population in the Galactic disk, while the mixed-chemistry objects arise from PNe of relatively high metallicities, results that agree with those found by @Stanghellini_12 using measurements of the dust temperature and the distribution in the Galaxy of their sample objects.
We find a relation between the iron depletions and the type of chemistry in the nebulae, C-rich or O-rich. Both C-rich and O-rich PNe cover a wide range of iron depletions, but the PNe with the highest iron depletions have C-rich dust features (SiC and/or the 30 $\mu$m band) whereas those PNe with the lowest iron depletions have silicates in their infrared spectra. In accordance with this result, we find a weak but significant anticorrelation between the iron abundances and the C/O abundance ratios derived from emission lines. Some kind of correlation is expected from the different molecules and dust compounds that should form in environments with different values of C/O.
We thank the anonymous referee for valuable comments that helped to improved the paper. We acknowledge support from Mexican CONACYT grants 50359-F and 131610-F. We have used NASA’s Astrophysics Data System, and the SIMBAD database operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. This work is 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.
Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D. L., & Asplund, M. 2002, , 573, L137
Aller, L. H. 1984, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 112, Physics of Thermal Gaseous Nebulae. Reidel, Dordrecht
Ballance, C. P., Griffin, D. C., & McLaughlin, B. M. 2007, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 40, 327
, M. A. & [Pradhan]{}, A. K. 1996, , 115, 551
Bautista, M. A., Ballance, C. P., & Quinet, P. 2010, , 718, L189
, R. A., [Skillman]{}, E. D., & [Smits]{}, D. P. 1999, , 514, 307
Bernard-Salas, J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2005, , 431, 523
Berrington, K. A.B, Burke, P. G., Dufton, P. L., & Kingston, A. E. 1985, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 33, 195
Bond, J. C., O’Brien, D. P., & Lauretta, D. S. 2010, , 715, 1050
Casassus, S., Roche, P. F., Aitken, D. K., & Smith, C. H. 2001a, , 320, 424
Casassus, S., Roche, P. F., Aitken, D. K., & Smith, C. H. 2001b, , 327, 744
Cerrigone, L., Hora, J. L., Umana, G., & Trigilio, C. 2009, , 703, 585
Chen, G. X., & Pradhan, A. K. 1999, , 136, 395
Chen, G. X., & Pradhan, A. K. 2000, , 147, 111
Cohen, M., & Barlow, M. J. 2005, , 362, 1199
Cohen, M., Barlow, M. J., Sylvester, R. J., et al. 1999, , 513, L135
Davey, A. R., Storey, P. J., & Kisielius, R. 2000, , 142, 85
Delgado Inglada, G., Rodr[í]{}guez, M., Mampaso, A., & Viironen, K. 2009, , 694, 1335
Delgado Inglada, G., Morisset, C., & Stasińska, G. 2014, , in press (arXiv:1402.4852)
Escalante, V., Morisset, C., & Georgiev, L. 2012, , 426, 2318
Esteban, C., Peimbert, M., Garc[í]{}a-Rojas, J., Ruiz, M.-T., Peimbert, A., & Rodr[í]{}guez, M. 2004, , 355, 229
Ferrarotti, A. S., & Gail, H.-P. 2006, , 447, 553
Froese Fischer, C., Rubin, R. H., & Rodr[í]{}guez, M. 2008, , 391, 1828
Garc[í]{}a-Hern[á]{}ndez, D. A., Manchado, A., Garc[í]{}a-Lario, P., et al. 2010, , 724, L39
Gielen, C., Cami, J., Bouwman, J., Peeters, E., & Min, M. 2011, , 536, A54
Gutenkunst, S., Bernard-Salas, J., Pottasch, S. R., Sloan, G. C., & Houck, J. R. 2008, , 680, 1206
Guzmán-Ramírez, L., Zijlstra, A. A., N[í]{}chuim[í]{}n, R., et al. 2011, , 414, 1667
Henry, R. B. C., Kwitter, K. B., Dufour, R. J., & Skinner, J. N. 2008, , 680, 1162
Henry, R. B. C., Kwitter, K. B., & Howard, J. W. 1996, , 458, 215
Higdon, S. J. U., Devost, D., Higdon, J. L., et al. 2004, , 116, 975
Hony, S., Waters, L. B. F. M., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2002, , 390, 533
Houck, J. R., et al. 2004, , 154, 18
Hyung, S. 1994, , 90, 119
, S., [Aller]{}, L. H., [Feibelman]{}, W. A., & [Lee]{}, W.-B. 2001, , 122, 954
, S., [Aller]{}, L. H., & [Lee]{}, W.-B. 2001, , 113, 1559
Jura, M., Bohac, C. J., Sargent, B., et al. 2006, , 637, L45
Karakas, A. I. 2010, , 403, 1413
Karakas, A., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2007, PASA, 24, 103
Karakas, A. I., van Raai, M. A., Lugaro, M., Sterling, N. C., & Dinerstein, H. L. 2009, , 690, 1130
Kessler, M. F., Steinz, J. A., Anderegg, M. E., et al. 1996, , 315, L27
, R. L. & [Barlow]{}, M. J. 1994, , 271, 257
, T. K., & [Czyzak]{}, S. J. 1970, Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, 318, 531
Lebouteiller, V., Bernard-Salas, J., Sloan, G. C., & Barry, D. J. 2010, , 122, 231
Liu, X.-W., Barlow, M. J., Zhang, Y., Bastin, R. J., & Storey, P. J. 2006, , 368, 1959
, Y., [Liu]{}, X.-W., [Barlow]{}, M. J., & [Luo]{}, S.-G. 2004, , 353, 1251
, Y., [Liu]{}, X.-W., [Luo]{}, S.-G., & [Barlow]{}, M. J. 2004, , 353, 1231
Liu, X.-W., Luo, S.-G., Barlow, M. J., Danziger, I. J., & Storey, P. J. 2001, , 327, 141
, X.-W., [Storey]{}, P. J., [Barlow]{}, M. J., [Danziger]{}, I. J., [Cohen]{}, M., & [Bryce]{}, M. 2000, , 312, 585
Lodders, K. 2010, Principles and Perspectives in Cosmochemistry, 379
Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2012, IAU Symposium, 283, 422
Marigo, P. 2001, , 370, 194
Marigo, P., Bernard-Salas, J., Pottasch, S. R., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Wesselius, P. R. 2003, , 409, 619
Mauron, N., & Huggins, P. J. 2010, , 513, A31
Mel[é]{}ndez, J., Shchukina, N. G., Vasiljeva, I. E., & Ram[í]{}rez, I. 2006, , 642, 1082
, C., & [Zeippen]{}, C. J. 1982, , 198, 127
Nahar, S. N., Delahaye, F., Pradhan, A. K., & Zeippen, C. J. 2000, , 144, 141
, D. E., & [Ferland]{}, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (2nd. ed.; Sausalito, CA: University Science Books)
Peimbert, A., Peimbert, M., & Ruiz, M. T. 2005, , 634, 1056
Peimbert, M., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1971, , 168, 413
Perea-Calder[ó]{}n, J. V., Garc[í]{}a-Hern[á]{}ndez, D. A., Garc[í]{}a-Lario, P., Szczerba, R., & Bobrowsky, M. 2009, , 495, L5
, P. 1996, , 116, 573
Ram[í]{}rez, I., Allende Prieto, C., & Lambert, D. L. 2007, , 465, 271
, M. 1996, , 313, L5
, M. & [Delgado-Inglada]{}, G. 2011, , 733, L50
Rodr[í]{}guez, M. & Garc[í]{}a-Rojas, J. 2010, , 708, 1551
, M. & [Rubin]{}, R. H. 2005, , 626, 900
Rola, C., & Stasi[ń]{}ska, G. 1994, , 282, 199
, R. H. 1986, , 309, 334
, B., [Williams]{}, R., [Baldwin]{}, J. A., & [van Hoof]{}, P. A. M. 2003, , 149, 157
, R. A., [Dufour]{}, R. J. 1995, , 107, 896
, U. J., [Cardelli]{}, J. A., & [Savage]{}, B. D. 1994, , 430, 650
Stanghellini, L., Garc[í]{}a-Lario, P., Garc[í]{}a-Hern[á]{}ndez, D. A., et al. 2007, , 671, 1669
Stanghellini, L., Garc[í]{}a-Hern[á]{}ndez, D. A., Garc[í]{}a-Lario, P., et al. 2012, , 753, 172
Storey, P. J. 1994, , 282, 999
, P. J., & [Hummer]{}, D. G. 1995, , 272, 41
, S. S. 2007, , 171, 331
, Y. G., [Barlow]{}, M. J., [Liu]{}, X.-W., [Danziger]{}, I. J., & [Storey]{}, P. J. 2003, , 345, 186
Verner, E. M., Verner, D. A., Baldwin, J. A., Ferland, G. J., & Martin, P. G. 2000, , 543, 831
Wang, W., & Liu, X.-W. 2007, , 381, 669
Waters, L. B. F. M., Beintema, D. A., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 1998, , 331, L61
Werner, M. W., et al. 2004, , 154, 1
, R. & [Liu]{}, X.-W. 2004, , 351, 1026
, R., [Liu]{}, X.-W., & [Barlow]{}, M. J. 2005, , 362, 424
, D. C. B. 2003, Dust in the galactic environment (2nd ed.; Bristol: IoP)
Whittet, D. C. B. 2010, , 710, 1009
Witthoeft, M. C., & Badnell, N. R. 2008, , 481, 543
, C. J. 1982, , 198, 111
, H. 1996, , 119, 523
Zhang, H. L., & Pradhan, A. K. 1997, , 126, 373
[^1]: [IRAF]{} is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^2]: http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/asd.cfm
[^3]: http://www.pa.uky.edu/$\sim$peter/atomic/
[^4]: We used the packages and tools available at http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/SPITZER/docs/.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work we propose a new method to optimize the architecture of an artificial neural network. The algorithm proposed, called Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture, aims to minimize the complexity of the architecture search and the complexity of the final model selected without compromising the predictive performance. The reduction of the computational cost makes this approach appealing for two reasons. Firstly, there is a need from domain scientists to easily interpret predictions returned by a deep learning model and this tends to be cumbersome when neural networks have complex structures. Secondly, the use of neural networks is challenging in situations with compute/memory limitations. Promising numerical results show that our method is competitive against other hyperparameter optimization algorithms for attainable performance and computational cost. We also generalize the definition of adjusted score from linear regression models to neural networks. Numerical experiments are presented to show that the adjusted score can boost the greedy search to favor smaller architectures over larger ones without compromising the predictive performance.'
author:
- 'Massimiliano Lupo Pasini [^1], Junqi Yin [^2], Ying Wai Li [^3], Markus Eisenbach [^4]'
title: |
A greedy constructive algorithm for the optimization\
of neural network architectures
---
[This manuscript has been authored in part by UT-Battelle, LLC, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US Department of Energy (DOE). The US government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US government purposes. DOE will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (<http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan>).]{}
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Deep neural networks are nonlinear models used to approximate unknown functions based on observational data [@Minsky; @Neumann; @Rosenblatt; @Rosenblatt2] in deep learning (DL). Their broad applicability derives from a complex structure, which allows these techniques to reconstruct complex relations between quantities selected as inputs and outputs of the model [@Haykin]. From a mathematical perspective, a neural network is a directed acyclic graph where the nodes (also called neurons) are organized in layers. The type of connectivity between different layers is essential for the neural network to model complex dynamics between inputs and outputs. The structure of a graph is called architecture and is mainly summarized by the number of layers in the graph, the number of nodes at each layer and the connectivity between nodes of adjacent layers.
The performance of a neural network is very sensitive to the choice of the architecture for multiple reasons. Firstly, the architecture strongly impacts the prediction computed by a neural network. Indeed, neural networks with different structures can produce different outputs for the same input. On the one hand, too simple structures may not be articulate enough to reproduce complex relations. This may result in underfitting the data with high bias and low variance in the predictions. On the other hand, too complex architectures may cause numerical artifacts such as overfitting, leading to predictions with low bias and high variance. Secondly, the topology of a neural network affects the computational complexity of the model. Indeed, an increase of layers and nodes leads to an increase of floating point operations to train the model and to make predictions. Therefore, identifying an appropriate architecture is an important step that can heavily impact the predictive power and the computational complexity of the model. However, the space of neural network architectures is too large for an exhaustive search. In fact, the number of architectures grows exponentially with the number of layers, the number of neurons per layer and the connections between layers. This motivated the study and development of optimization algorithms to automatize the selection of an appropriate architecture design.
Several approaches have been proposed in the literature for hyperparameter optimization [@baker; @Bergstra; @reinforcement_NN; @fahlman; @Goodfellow; @zemel; @gupta; @progressive_NN; @luo; @Snoek; @zoph]. Grid Search (GS), or parameter sweep, searches exhaustively through a specified subset of hyperparameters. The subset of hyperparameters and the bounds in the search space are specified manually. Moreover, the search for continuous hyperparameters requires a manually prescribed discretization policy. Although this technique is straightforwardly parallelizable, it becomes more and more prohibitive for computational time and resources when the number of hyperparameters increases. Therefore, attempts to reduce the number of model evaluations are preferred. Random Search (RS) [@random_search] differs from GS mainly in that it explores hyperparameters randomly instead of exhaustively, since close points in the search space likely lead to similar models. Therefore, only randomly selected models are evaluated across different regions of the hyperparameter space. The major benefit resulting from this approach is a decreased processing time without compromising the performance attained. RS is likely to outperform GS, especially when only a small number of hyperparameters affects the final predictive power of DL model. However, the drawback of RS is unnecessarily high variance, as the method is entirely random. Moreover, a blind-folded approach for the selection of models to evaluate may lead to very expensive models to train and test. Sequential Model-Based Optimization (SMBO) algorithms [@Bergstra] have been used in many applications where evaluation of the fitness function is expensive. An example of SMBO algorithms is Bayesian Optimization (BO) [@Snoek; @Snoek2], which rely on all the information available from previously evaluated models to guide the choice of models to evaluate in following steps. This generally reduces the actual number of neural networks built and trained. In addition, BO provides an assessment of uncertainty incorporating the effect of data scarcity. However, results are highly sensitive to the choice of the prior distribution on the hyperparameter space as well as the acquisition function to select points in the hyperparameter space. Another class of hyperparameter optimization methods is represented by genetic algorithms [@Ettaouil; @gupta2; @Holland; @kitano; @koehn; @tsai] and evolutionary algorithms (EA) [@menndl_paper; @menndl_url], which evolve the topology of a neural network by alternatively adding or dropping nodes and connections based on results attained by previous neural networks. Earlier evaluated neural networks are treated as parents that generate new architectures treated as a generational offspring. However, genetic and evolutionary algorithms can suffer from the restricted areas explored in the hyperparameter space. Indeed, the small changes induced between architectures of successive generation can cause the algorithm to locally stagnate and not explore significant regions of the hyperparameter space.
All the approaches described above adopt powerful expedients to overcome theoretical and computational barriers [@domhan; @hinz] in the search for an optimal neural network architecture under some optimality criterion. However, none of these methods fully exploits traditional statistical tools to perform on-line model diagnostics. Moreover, some of the aforementioned algorithms select neural networks with complex architectures. This can cause expensive computations that cannot be afforded in absence of large scale computers, as well as the results of complex models are difficult to interpret from the perspective of domain scientists.
In this work we propose a novel neural network architecture optimization with the goal to identify a neural network that attains a desired performance with the minimal structural complexity. We will refer to this method as *Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture*. This approach minimizes the number of hidden layers needed in the neural network, which would generally result in a simpler architecture. The algorithm iteratively enriches the architecture of the neural network by expanding the number of hidden layers in an adaptive fashion. At each iteration the number of hidden layers is fixed at a specific number. For a fixed number of hidden layers, RS is performed to identify the number of nodes per layer as well as for other hyperparameters. The information about selected values of hyperparameters per layer is transferred across the iterations, so that the new neural networks are built by recycling the hyperparameter selection already performed for previous hidden layers during earlier iterations. Adaptive algorithms for neural network architectures have already been studied in the literature [@Cortes; @Kwok; @Liu] and share common features with adaptive methods for other types of regression models [@Friedman]. However, our method performs RS restricted to one hidden layer at each iteration, whereas other adaptive algorithms select the hyperparameters via gradient methods to minimize an obective function. Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture has appealing properties in terms of algorithmic and computational scalability, because RS is confined to a fixed number of hyperparameters at each iteration. On the one hand, the recycling of information from previously evaluated models guarantees a fine level of *exploitation*. On the other hand, the random nature of the algorithm at each iteration still guarantees a thorough (albeit not exhaustive) *exploration* of the hyperparameter space to prevent stagnations at local minima. In order to favor computationally cheap models that are also easy to interpret, we introduce a definition of the *adjusted score* for neural networks that generalizes the definition of adjusted score for linear models [@adjusted_r2]. The goal is to correct the score that measures the performance of a neural networks with information about the structural complexity of the DL model.
The paper is organized in five sections. Section \[stat\_background\] introduces the statistical background. Section \[adjusted\_r2\] characterizes the adjusted score for neural networks. Section \[adaptive\_algorithm\] explains our novel optimization algorithm for the architecture of neural networks. Section \[numerical\_results\] presents numerical experiments where we compare the performance of our hyperparameter optimization algorithm with other approaches, as well as we study how generalization of adjusted score for neural networks can benefit the hyperparameter optimization algorithm select smaller architectures. Section \[conclusions\] summarizes the results presented describes future directions to possibly pursue.
Statistical background {#stat_background}
======================
The goal of a regression or classification model is to approximate some unknown function $f$ of the form $$\mathbf{y}=f(\mathbf{x}),
\label{function}$$ where $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^p$, $\mathbf{y}\in \mathbb{R}^b$ and $f:\mathbb{R}^p\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^b$. This very general formulation incorporates situations where some components of the feature vector $\mathbf{x}$ and the output vector $\mathbf{y}$ may attain only discrete values. If the set of possible values for the output is finite, then the problem falls into a classification paradigm, whereas cases with infinite many possible values for the output are treated as regression problems. Statistical models aim to empirically reconstruct an approximation of $f$ using a set of data points that correspond to specific input values of $\mathbf{x}$ and related values of $\mathbf{y}$. The quantity $\mathbf{x}$ is generally referred to as *input*, *predictor* or *regressor*, whereas $\mathbf{y}$ is generally referred to as *output*, *response* or *target*.
Let us assume that we have a collection of $n$ data points $\{\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{y}_i\}_{i=1}^n$. The data set used may contain inaccurate evaluations of $f$ at specific values $\mathbf{x}$ and the inaccuracy in the measurements may be due to various factors (e.g. human error in collecting data, inaccuracy of a measurement device). One way to statistically model the presence of errors in the data points is by adding a term to formula as follows: $$\mathbf{y}_i = f(\mathbf{x}_i) + \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_i, \quad i=1,\ldots,n.
\label{function_error}$$ The term $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_i$ represents the error associated with the measurement of the $i$th data point.
In order to reconstruct an accurate approximation of $f$ in Formula , several approaches are viable and they differ from each other on two aspects. Firstly, they differ for the assumptions made on the complexity of the unknown $f$ that they attempt to reconstruct. Secondly, they differ on the assumptions made about the measurement error. For the discussion in this paper, we focus on the former, as the latter plays a role only for statistical inference and uncertainty quantification which goes beyond the scope of this work.
Linear regression models {#linear_model_section}
------------------------
The simplest statistical approach that uses data samples to model an unknown function $f$ is *linear regression*. Its use is mainly restricted to situations where the output variable $\mathbf{y}$ is continuous. The goal is to identify a set of coefficients $\mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{R}^p$ to express a linear relation between $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$. If the data set made of $n$ samples is collected experimentally, $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ are subject to measurement errors. Therefore, an experimentally guided linear relation between $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ is $$\mathbf{y}_i^T = \mathbf{x}_i^T \mathbf{w} + \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_i^T,\quad i=1,\ldots,n,
\label{linear_model}$$ where $\mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times b}$ is the tensor of regression weights and $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_i\in \mathbb{R}^b$ is a the tensor that models experimental errors in the measurement of $\mathbf{y}$. If we restructure the $\mathbf{x}_i$’s, $\mathbf{y}_i$’s and $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_i$’s over global quantities as follows: $$Y = \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{y}^T_1\\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{y}^T_n\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times b}, \quad
X = \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{x}_1^T \\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{x}_n^T
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times p}, \quad
E =
\begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_1^T\\
\vdots \\
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_n^T\\
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times b}$$ we obtain $$Y = X \mathbf{w} + E.
\label{ls}$$ The traditional way to select $\mathbf{w}$ is by solving an ordinary least squares problem to minimize the discrepancy between predicted values and observations in . Therefore, denoting with $\lVert \cdot \rVert_2$ the $\ell_2$-norm in a Euclidean space, the coefficient vector $\mathbf{w}$ is selected as follows: $$\hat{\mathbf{w}} = \underset{\mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times b}}{\operatorname{argmin}} \lVert Y - X\mathbf{w} \rVert_2.$$ A statistical analysis leading to interval estimates of $\hat{\mathbf{w}}$ requires assumptions on the nature of the errors $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_i$. However, such a discussion would go beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore we refer to [@Montgomery] for further details in this respect.
We denote with $\overline{\mathbf{y}}\in \mathbb{R}^b$ the sample mean of the output variable over the data set $$\overline{\mathbf{y}}=\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \mathbf{y}_i.$$ The prediction $\hat{\mathbf{y}}_i$ performed by the linear regression model for a data point $\mathbf{x}_i$ is computed as $$\hat{\mathbf{y}}_i^T = \mathbf{x}_i^T\hat{\mathbf{w}}.$$ If we denote with $\hat{Y}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times b}$ the set of predictions for the set of inputs X, we have that $$\hat{Y} = \begin{bmatrix}
\hat{\mathbf{y}}^T_1\\
\vdots \\
\hat{\mathbf{y}}^T_n\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times b}, \quad \hat{Y} = X \hat{\mathbf{w}}.$$ The performance of a regression model can be measured by monitoring the discrepancy between observed data $Y$ and predicted values $\hat{Y}$. To this goal, we introduce new quantities to measure the discrepancy. The first quantity we introduce is the *sum of squared errors in the model*: $$SSM=\sum_{i=1}^n\lVert\hat{\mathbf{y}}_i-\overline{\mathbf{y}}\rVert_2^2. \qquad
%\text{classification}:
%SSM=\sum_{i=1}^n\mathcal{I}(\hat{y}_i = y_i).$$ SSM expresses the variability of the data set that the statistical model is able to capture. The discrepancy between observations and predicted values reconstructed with the model is related to the portion of data variability that the model is not able to describe. Such a discrepancy is measured by the *sum of residual squared errors*: $$SSR=\sum_{i=1}^n\lVert \mathbf{y}_i-\hat{\mathbf{y}}_i \rVert_2^2
%\qquad
%\text{classification}:
%SSR=\sum_{i=1}^n\mathcal{I}(\hat{y}_i \ne y_i).$$ The *total sum of squared errors* captures the entire variability of the data set and is defined as $$SST=\sum_{i=1}^n\lVert \mathbf{y}_i-\overline{\mathbf{y}}\rVert_2^2 %\qquad \text{classification}: SST=n.$$ The following relation between SSM, SSR and SST holds for linear regression models: $$SST = SSM + SSR,
\label{ss_sum}$$ which can be described as a statistical reinterpretation of the Pythagorean theorem. These quantities can be used to measure the efficiency of the statistical model in describing the relation between inputs and outputs. This leads to the definition of *coefficient of determination* or $R^2$ to measure the performance of a regression model: $$R^2 = \frac{SSM}{SST} = 1-\frac{SSR}{SST}, \quad 0\le R^2 \le 1.
\label{r2}$$ The $R^2$ attains values between 0 and 1 and the more the value attained by $R^2$ approaches 1, the higher is the predictive power of the model. However, an improvement in predictive power may require a significant increase in computational complexity. This would translate into increasing the value of $p$, that is the number of regressors used to explain the trend of the target $\mathbf{y}$. The complexity of the statistical model may result in relations between $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ that are difficult to interpret from the perspective of domain scientists. Therefore, it is recommendable to prefer simpler models over complex ones, especially if the gain in performance is negligible. To counterbalance the predictive power of a linear regression model with its complexity, a correction of the coefficient of determination was proposed in [@adjusted_r2], named *adjusted coefficient of determination* or *adjusted-$R^2$*
$$R_{adj}^2 =
1 - (1-R^2)\frac{n-1}{n-p} = 1-\frac{SSR}{SST} \bigg ( \frac{n-1}{n-p} \bigg ).
\label{r2_adj}$$
The corrective term $\displaystyle \frac{n-1}{n-p} $ penalizes complex architectures over simpler ones and allows the following relation between standard and adjusted coefficient of determination: $$R^2_{adj}\le R^2\le 1.$$
Nonlinear regression models
---------------------------
Although linear regression conveniently relates monitored quantities in an easy way to communicate and understand, sometimes linear models are too simplistic and cannot capture complex dynamics. This shortcoming justified the introduction of nonlinear regression models in the literature.
### Logistic regression for classification {#logit_section}
A renown nonlinear regression model is the *logistic regression*, which is used for classification problems. In this section we focus on a situation where there are only two categories, labeled with 0 and 1. In this case, the output $y_i$ is one-dimensional binary quantity and it is treated as a Bernoulli random variable with expected value $\pi_i$, that is $$y_i\sim Be(\pi_i), \quad \pi_i=P(y_i=1), \quad E(y_i) = \pi_i.$$ It also follows that $P(y_i=0)=1-\pi_i$. For a binary classification problem, the linear regression model in Equation is modified as follows: $$\pi_i = g(\mathbf{x}_i^T \mathbf{w}) + \varepsilon_i,\quad i=1,\ldots,n,$$ where $\mathbf{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^p$, $\mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^p$, $\pi_i\in[0,1]$ and $\varepsilon_i\in \mathbb{R}$ still represents a possible error in the measurement of the response. The nonlinear function $g$ is chosen as follows: $$g(s)= \frac{\exp{(s)}}{1+\exp{(s)}}.
\label{logit}$$ The nonlinear regression model is transformed into a linear regression model through an auxiliary variable called linear predictor $\eta_i$ that is defined by the transformation $$\eta_i = g^{-1}(\pi_i) =\ln{\frac{\pi_i}{1-\pi_i}}.$$ The transformation is often called *logit transformation* of the probability $\pi_i$, and the ratio $\displaystyle \frac{\pi_i}{(1-\pi_i)}$ in the transformation is called the *odds*. This mean that the relation between observations $y_i$ and regression coefficients $\mathbf{w}$ is nonlinear $$\pi_i = g(\eta_i) = \frac{\exp{(\mathbf{x}_i^T \mathbf{w})}}{1+\exp{(\mathbf{x}_i^T \mathbf{w})}} + \varepsilon_i.$$ In this scope, the goal it to compute a regression coefficient vector $\hat{\mathbf{w}}$ that would allow the logistic model to accurately predict the binary outcome $y$ for any given set of features $\mathbf{x}$. Due to the nonlinear relation between inputs and outputs, computing the regression coefficient vector $\hat{\mathbf{w}}$ leads to an optimization problem with a solution that does not have closed analytic form. We refer to [@Montgomery Chapter 13 - Section 13.2] for more details about the optimization algorithm to compute $\hat{\mathbf{w}}$ in linear regression, other models for binary response data and generalizations of the classification problem from binary to multi-class data.
Several metrics can be used to measure the performance of a classification model. We describe some of them in the following. The *accuracy* ($ACC$) of a classification model quantifies the percentage of data points that are correctly labeled and it is defined as: $$ACC = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\mathcal{I}(\hat{y}_i = y_i)}{n} = \frac{\text{true positives + true negatives}}{\text{positives} + \text{negatives}}.$$ However, the accuracy is not recommended to measure the performance if the classes are represented through unbalanced data. To account for unbalanced classes, other metrics are usually preferred. The *precision* or *positive predicted value* ($PPV$) is $$PPV = \frac{\text{true positives}}{\text{true positives}+\text{false negatives}}$$ and the *sensitivity*, *recall*, *hit rate*, or *true positive rate* ($TPR$) is $$TPR = \frac{\text{true positives}}{\text{positives}}.$$ $PPV$ and $TPR$ can be combined to better describe the performance of a classification model in case of unbalanced class representations. To this goal, the *$F1$ score* is defined as the harmonic mean between $PPV$ and $TPR$: $$F1 = 2\frac{PPV \cdot TPR}{PPV + TPR}, \quad 0\le F1\le 1.$$ As for the coefficient of determination for regression problems, also in the case of classification problems one can introduce a definition of the F1 score that penalizes the model with respect to the number of predictors. We refer to this quantity as the *adjusted-$F1$ score*: $$F1_{adj} = 1 - (1-F1) \bigg(\frac{n-1}{n-p}\bigg), \quad F1_{adj}<F1.
\label{r2_classification}$$
Similarly to linear regression, also logistic regression has strong modeling limitations that prevent it from efficiently describing complex input-output relations. Therefore, the discussion of this paper mainly focuses on neural networks, a more versatile class of nonlinear regression models that can be used both for regression and classification. The linear regression model and the logistic regression described in Section \[linear\_model\_section\] and \[logit\_section\] are particular cases of neural networks, as we show in the next section.
### Dense feedforward neural networks (multilayer perceptron) {#NN_section}
A *deep feedforward network*, also called *feedforward neural network*, or *multilayer perceptron* (MLP) [@Goodfellow; @Haykin2] is a predictive statistical model to approximate some unknown function $f$ as in . In particular, feedforward neural networks compose together many different functions such as $$\hat{f}(\mathbf{x}) = f_L(\cdots f_{\ell+1}(f_\ell(f_{\ell-1}(\ldots f_0(\mathbf{x}))))),
\label{composition}$$ where $\hat{f}:\mathbb{R}^p\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^b$, $f_0:\mathbb{R}^a\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{p_1}$, $f_L:\mathbb{R}^{p_L}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{b}$ and $f_\ell:\mathbb{R}^{p_{\ell}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{p_{\ell+1}}$ for $\ell=1,\ldots,L-1$. The goal is to identify the proper number $\ell$ so that the composition in Equation resembles the unknown function $f$ in . The composition in Equation is modeled via a directed acyclic graph describing how the functions are composed together. The number $L$ that quantifies the complexity of the composition is equal to the number of hidden layers in the neural network. We refer to the input layer as the layer with index $\ell=0$. The indexing for hidden layers of the deep neural networks starts with $\ell=1$. In this section we consider a neural network with a total of $L$ hidden layers. The symbol $p_\ell$ is used to denote the number of neurons at the $\ell$th hidden layer. Therefore, $p_0$ coincides with the dimensionality of the input, that is $p_0 = p$. The very last layer with index $L+1$ represents the output layer, meaning that $p_{L+1}=b$ coincides with the dimensionality of the output. We refer to $\mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{R}^{N_{tot}}$ as the total number of regression coefficients. Following this notation, the function $f_0$ corresponds to the first layer of the neural network, $f_1$ is the second layer (first hidden layer) up to $f_L$ that represents the last layer (output layer). In other words, deep feedforward networks are nonlinear regression models and the nonlinearity is given by the composition in Equation to describe the relation between predictors $\mathbf{x}$ and targets $\mathbf{y}$.
This approach can be reinterpreted as searching for a mapping that minimizes the discrepancy between values $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ predicted by the model and given observations $\mathbf{y}$. The statistical model is described by a set of parameters that we represent as $\mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{R}^{N_{tot}}$. Given a dataset with $m$ data points, the process of predicting the outputs for given inputs via a feedforward neural network can thus be formulated as $$\mathbf{y} = F(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{w}) + \boldsymbol{\varepsilon},$$ where the operator $F:\mathbb{R}^{p_0}\times \mathbb{R}^{N_{tot}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^b$ is $$F(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{w}) = \varphi_{L+1}\bigg( \sum_{k_{L+1}}w_{k_{L+1} k_{L}}\varphi_L \bigg( \sum_{k_L} w_{k_L k_{L-1}}\varphi_{L-1}\bigg(\ldots \varphi_1\bigg( \sum_{i=1}^{}w_{k_1i}x_i \bigg) \bigg) \bigg) \bigg)
\label{F_entry}$$ and the vector $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}\in \mathbb{R}^{b}$ is used to model measurements errors. Using the matrix notation for the weights connecting adjacent layers as $$W_{\ell,\ell-1} \in \mathbb{R}^{p_\ell \times p_{\ell-1}}$$ we can rewrite as $$F(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{w}) = \varphi_{L+1}\bigg(W_{L+1, L}\bigg(\varphi_{L}\bigg( \ldots \bigg( \varphi_1\bigg (W_{1,0}\mathbf{x}\bigg ) \bigg) \bigg) \bigg )\bigg).
\label{F_matrix}$$ The notation in highlights that $N_{tot}$ is the total number of regression weights used by the neural network. This value must account for all the entries in $W_{\ell, \ell-1}$’s matrices, that is $$N_{tot} = \sum_{\ell=1}^{L+1} p_\ell p_{\ell-1}.$$ If the target values are continuous quantities, the very last layer is usually chosen to be linear. Therefore, $\varphi_{L+1}$ is picked as the identity function. If the target values are categorical, then $\varphi_{L+1}$ is usually set to be the logit function in Formula . If the number of hidden layers is set to $L=0$ and $\varphi_1$ is set to be the identity function, then the statistical model becomes a classical linear regression model. If the number of hidden layers is set to $L=0$ and $\varphi_1$ is set to be the logit function, then the statistical model becomes a logistic regression model.
Also for nonlinear models the weight matrices $W_{\ell, \ell-1}$’s are computed to minimize the discrepancy between predictions and observations. If we reorganize $\mathbf{x}_i$’s, $\mathbf{y}_i$’s and $\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_i$’s over global quantities as follows: $$Y = \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{y}^T_1\\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{y}^T_n\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times b}, \quad
X = \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{x}_1^T \\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{x}_n^T
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times p_0}, \quad
E =
\begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_1^T\\
\vdots \\
\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}_n^T\\
\end{bmatrix}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times b}$$ we obtain $$Y = \hat{F}(X,\mathbf{w}) + E, \quad \hat{F}:\mathbb{R}^{n\times p_0}\times \mathbb{R}^{N_{tot}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n\times b}.
\label{nls}$$ Given a specific configuration for the coefficients $\hat{\mathbf{w}}\in \mathbb{R}^{N_{tot}}$, we can refer to the prediction $\hat{\mathbf{y}}_i\in \mathbb{R}^{b}$ associated with the $\mathbf{x}_i$ as follows $$\hat{\mathbf{y}}_i = F(\mathbf{x}_i, \hat{\mathbf{w}}).$$ Therefore, the set of predictions $\hat{Y}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times b}$ generated by the neural networks on the set of inputs $X$ is $$\hat{Y} = \begin{bmatrix}
\hat{\mathbf{y}}^T_1\\
\vdots \\
\hat{\mathbf{y}}^T_n\end{bmatrix}, \quad\hat{Y} = \hat{F}(X, \hat{\mathbf{w}}).$$ The computation of $\hat{\mathbf{w}}$ requires solving a nonlinear optimization problem to minimize an objective function that measures the discrepancy between the set of observations $Y$ and the set of predictions $\hat{Y}$. The choice of the objective function to minimize depends on the nature of the observations. In the case of regression problems, the most common objective functions are the *mean squared error* (MSE) or the *mean absolute error* (MAE). For classification problems, the *Kullback-Leibler divergence* is the most common choice. We do not provide more details on these herein as this discussion would go beyond the aim of this work. We refer to [@Haykin Chapter 3 - Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.16, 10.5] for further details. As for linear regression models and logistic regression, it is also important for neural networks to define quantities that can measure the predictive power of the model. As we have discussed, the coefficient of determination and adjusted coefficient of determination are useful indicators that measure the performance of a linear regression model and logistic regression. The generalization and use of the former to neural networks is straightforward. We highlight the fact that the coefficient of determination for nonlinear regression models is not necessarily nonnegative as it was for linear regression models. Indeed, the coefficient of determination compares the fit of the chosen model with that of a horizontal straight line. If the chosen model fits worse than a horizontal line, then the coefficient of determination is negative. This situation cannot happen for linear regression models by definition, but it can occur for nonlinear regression models. So the coefficient of determination can attain negative values without violating any mathematical rules. The coefficient of determination is negative only when the chosen model does not follow the trend of the data, so it fits worse than a horizontal line. The definitions of SST, SSM, SSR, ACC, PPV and TPR are still valid for neural networks. However, the relation between SST, SSR and SSM does not hold for nonlinear regression models.
As for the adjusted coefficient of determination, its generalization to DL requires some insight in the architecture and computational complexity of the neural network.
Adjusted coefficient of determination and adjusted $F1$ score for neural networks {#adjusted_r2}
=================================================================================
Replicating the discussion for linear models and logistic regression, we propose a generalization of adjusted-$R^2$ and adjusted-$F1$ that combine metrics for the performance with metrics for the complexity of the neural network. More specifically, we consider the number of nodes per layers and the total number of hidden layers in a neural network as parameters that describe the complexity of the architecture. Consider a dataset with $n$ sample points and an MLP with $L$ hidden layers and $p_\ell$ neurons at the $\ell$th hidden layer for $\ell=1,\ldots,L$. The generalization of $R_{adj}^2$ to neural networks that we propose is $$R^2_{adj} = 1-(1-R^2)\bigg [ \frac{n-1}{n-\max_{\ell=0, \ldots,L} p_\ell} \bigg ]\bigg [ \frac{n-1}{n-(L+1)} \bigg ].$$ Analogously, the generalization of $F1_{adj}$ to neural networks that we propose is $$F1_{adj} = 1-(1-F1)\bigg [ \frac{n-1}{n-\max_{\ell=0, \ldots,L} p_\ell} \bigg ]\bigg [ \frac{n-1}{n-(L+1)} \bigg ].$$ As the absence of hidden layers in a neural networks reduces it to either a linear regression or a logistic regression model, the generalization of $R^2_{adj}$ and $F1_{adj}$ proposed above should account for this behavior. In fact, their definitions reduce to the standard definitions of $R^2_{adj}$ and $F1_{adj}$ for linear regression and logistic regression when $L=0$. The relations $$\lvert R^2_{adj}\rvert < \lvert R^2\rvert$$ and $$\displaystyle F1_{adj}<F1$$ still hold. The adjusted-$R^2$ and adjusted-$F1$ penalize neural networks with complex structure. Indeed, if two neural networks attain the same predictive performance and one has less neurons per layers and/or less hidden layers than the other, the simpler neural networks is awarded with a higher $R^2_{adj}$ or $F1_{adj}$. The definitions of $R^2_{adj}$ and $F1_{adj}$ that we just introduced can thus guide hyperparameter optimization algorithms to avoid complex structures in neural networks that can cause overfitting.
Adaptive selection of the number of hidden layers {#adaptive_algorithm}
=================================================
The search of a proper architecture for a neural network is a challenging task and hyperparameter optimization algorithms are still object of study. In this section we describe a novel approach to perform architecture optimization of neural networks, called *Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture*. A pseudocode that describes the procedure is presented in Algorithm \[asnna\]. The method relies on discriminating the hyperparameters of a neural network architecture based on their statistical interpretation. In particular, hidden layers model complex features to reconstruct articulate relations between input and output that a simpler model such as linear regression would not be able to reproduce. It is thus reasonable to think that more complex relations between inputs and output would require more hidden layers. A neuron in a hidden layer can be interpreted as an artificial regressor that relates different levels of nonlinearity to each other. In fact, neurons of a hidden layer are topologically connected with neurons residing on adjacent layers. The number of neurons needed to accurately reconstruct the nonlinearity may vary from layer to layer. It is thus possible that the neural network may have to alternatively expand and contract across the hidden layers to properly model the nonlinear relations between inputs and outputs.
A hyperparameter optimization algorithm that treats number of hidden layers and number of nodes per layer as two generic hyperparameters usually builds complex neural networks at intermediate steps to explore the hyperparameter space. However, building complex models is not recommendable unless strictly necessary, especially if such models are only an intermediate step and are later discarded to favor other models with a better predictive performance. Therefore, it may be beneficial to minimize the construction of complex architectures to only those situations where it is worthwhile, that is when an increase in complexity leads to a significant improvement in the predictions. To this goal, we exploit the interpretation of hidden layers explained above to build a greedy algorithm that optimizes the architecture of neural networks. The user needs to provide the maximum number of iterations (maximum number of hidden layers) and the range that must be spanned for any other hyperparameter to optimize. The approach we propose is greedy with respect to the number of hidden layers required for a prescribed performance, whereas it performs a stratified RS on the remaining hyperparameters to determine. Although RS can simultaneously optimize multiple hyperparameters, discussion in this section is limited to the hyperparameters that impact the computational complexity of the neural network. Therefore, we consider the case when RS is performed only over the number of neurons per layer. The method starts performing RS over neural networks with one hidden layer and it selects the neural network that attains the highest validation score. If the validation score of the selected neural network satisfies the performance requirements, such a neural networks is returned to the user and the algorithm stops. Otherwise, the number of hidden layers is increased by one, new neural networks with two hidden layers are built and a new RS takes place. The number of neurons at the first hidden layer is not object of optimization, as the structure of first hidden layers is recycled from the first iteration. Therefore, the neural networks built at the second iteration have the same number of neurons in the first hidden layers, whereas the number of neurons in the second hidden layer randomly changes across the neural networks due to the RS performed. The same rationale is applied to successive iterations until either the desired performance is obtained or the maximum number of hidden layers is reached. This means that the neural networks evaluated at each iteration are built by prolonging the best neural network of the previous iteration with an extra hidden layer at the end. Therefore, RS performed at each iteration only involves the number of neurons at the last hidden layers, since the structure of the previous hidden layers is inherited from the previous iterations. More specifically, the structure of the previous hidden layers is shared between all the neural networks evaluated at a given iteration. An illustration that explains how Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture proceeds is shown in Figure \[fig:fig4\]. The idea of recycling the structure of neural networks across successive iterations was already explored in previous works [@pham; @zoph2]. However, we need to highlight that our approach only transfers information about the architecture, not the value of the regression weights. Opposed to what is done in transfer learning [@Pratt; @Pratt2], our approach trains neural networks from scratch at each iteration by recomputing the regression weights across the entire architecture.
Incremental approaches like the one proposed in this paper are opposed to other regularizing techniques, where a complex structure is simplified via pruning the graph with a deletion of edges. Some of these techniques are pruning [@pruning; @compression] or random dropout [@srivastava]. Constructive or incremental approaches [@Treadgold] have some advantages over pruning approaches. First, for constructive algorithms, it is straightforward to specify an initial network, whereas for pruning algorithms, one does not know in practice how big the initial network should be. Second, constructive algorithms always search for small network solutions first. They are thus more computationally convenient than pruning algorithms, in which the majority of the training time is spent on networks larger than necessary. Third, as many networks with different sizes may be capable of implementing acceptable solutions, constructive algorithms are likely to find smaller network solutions than pruning algorithms. Smaller networks are more computationally efficient and can be described by simpler rules. Moreover, by searching for small networks, the amount of training data required for good generalization may be reduced. Some constructive algorithms also have hurdles that they struggle to overcome. For instance, constructive greedy algorithms may be suboptimal in some cases. This is due to the gradient descent techniques employed to identify the proper number of units per per hidden layer. However, the random search performed in our new approach should guarantee enough exhaustive exploration of the hyperparameter space to overcome this problem. Moreover, the localized random search performed at each iteration guarantees a certain level of parallelization, since the neural networks evaluated at each step can be trained concurrently.
Set number of hidden layers $\ell= 1$ Set as linear regression (for regression problems) or logistic regression (for classification problems) Compute $score$ Build $model\_eval\_iter$ neural networks with $\ell$ hidden layers each:
- Set number of nodes and activation functions for first $(\ell-1)$ hidden layers as in best\_model
- Perform random search for number of nodes in the last hidden layer and for the remaining hyper-parameters
$\ell = \ell+1$
\[asnna\]
![Illustration of Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture. The illustration explains how the architecture of the neural network is enriched at each iteration. The neural networks built at iteration (1) have only one hidden layer and the number of neurons inside the hidden layers is chosen via RS. Every neural network is trained and the validation score is measured. The neural network with the highest validation score is selected (circled in red). If the validation score meets the desired performance, the algorithms stops and returns the selected neural network. Otherwise, the number of neurons contained in the first hidden layer of the selected neural network is transferred to iteration (2). The neural networks built at iteration (2) have the same number of neurons at the first hidden layers as the best neural network from iteration (1), whereas the number of neurons at the second hidden layer is chosen randomly with another stratified RS. The neural networks are trained and the validation scores from each neural network are collected. The neural network with the highest validation score is selected (circled in red). If the validation score meets the desired performance, the algorithms stops and returns the selected neural network. Otherwise, the information about the numbers of neurons at the first and second hidden layer are transferred to iteration (3), so that another stratified RS takes place on the number of neurons inside the third hidden layer.[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](greedy_search_illustration.png){width="75.00000%"}
Reduction of dimensionality in the hyperparameter search
--------------------------------------------------------
The information transferred from smaller to bigger neural networks across successive iterations reduces the dimension of the hyperparameter space to explore. In this section we compare the cardinality (number of elements in a set) of the hyperparameter space explored by a standard hyperparameter optimization algorithm (e.g. GS, RS, SMBO, EA) with the cardinality of the hyperparameter space explored by Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture. For the sake of simplicity, we consider only the number of hidden layers and the number of neurons per layer as hyperparameters to tune. Denote with $[1,N_{max\_nodes}]$ the range of neurons per hidden layer and denote with $L$ the maximum number of hidden layers. Denote with $\mathcal{S}_{\text{Standard}}$ the hyperparameter space explored by a standard hyperparameter optimization algorithm and denote with $\#(\cdot)$ the cardinality of a discrete set. For a standard hyperparameter optimization algorithm, the total number of architectures contained in $\mathcal{S}_{\text{Standard}}$ increases exponentially with the number of hidden layers, that is $$\#(\mathcal{S}_{\text{Standard}})= N_{max\_nodes}^L.$$ The exponential increase of the cardinality of $\mathcal{S}_{\text{Standard RS}}$ with respect to the number of hidden layers is due to the *curse of dimensionality*. However, Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture performs a RS on a single layer (the last hidden layer) at each iteration. This leads to a significant reduction of the cardinality of the hyperparameter space. In fact, we have $$\#(\mathcal{S}_{\text{Greedy}})=N_{max\_nodes}.$$ The reduction of the cardinality allows the greedy search to efficiently explore $\mathcal{S}_{\text{Greedy}}$.
Numerical results {#numerical_results}
=================
In this section we restrict our experiments to fully connected neural networks. The extension to other types of architectures is going to be considered in future works. We first describe some numerical experiments that compare the Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture with state of the art hyperparameter optimization algorithms. We also present some numerical experiments that validate the effectiveness of the generalization of adjusted-$R^2$ and adjusted-$F1$ to neural networks and how this can benefit the selection of smaller architecture in the hyperparameter search.
Dataset description
-------------------
We describe the data sets used for numerical experiments as follows. For each data set employed, we specify the source or how it has been generated, the number of features, the nature of the target (regression or classification) and the size of the dataset.
### Artificially generated data {#artificially-generated-data .unnumbered}
- **Eggbox**\
*Type of problem*: regression.\
*Description*: each point of the dataset is made of two-dimensional coordinates and the scalar value that the function has at those coordinates.\
*Input features*: ($x,y$) coordinates\
*Target*: eggbox function - $f(x,y) = [2+ \cos(x/2) * \cos(y/2)]^5$\
*Number of data points*: $4,000$\
### Datasets from UCI - Machine Learning repository [@uci] {#datasets-from-uci---machine-learning-repository .unnumbered}
- **Computer hardware** [@computer_dataset; @uci]\
*Type of problem*: regression.\
*Description*: relative CPU performance data, described in terms of its cycle time, memory size, etc.\
*Input features*:
1. vendor name: 30 (adviser, amdahl,apollo, basf, bti, burroughs, c.r.d, cambex, cdc, dec, dg, formation, four-phase, gould, honeywell, hp, ibm, ipl, magnuson, microdata, nas, ncr, nixdorf, perkin-elmer, prime, siemens, sperry, sratus, wang)
2. model name: many unique symbols
3. MYCT: machine cycle time in nanoseconds (integer)
4. MMIN: minimum main memory in kilobytes (integer)
5. MMAX: maximum main memory in kilobytes (integer)
6. CACH: cache memory in kilobytes (integer)
7. CHMIN: minimum channels in units (integer)
8. CHMAX: maximum channels in units (integer)
9. PRP: published relative performance (integer)
*Target*: estimated relative performance (integer) from the original article [@computer_dataset]. The relative performance metrics are taken from the Published Relative Performance benchmarks (PRP), from the influential BYTE magazine, for 209 FDA Approved CPUs active on the market today. See [@computer_dataset] for more details on how the relative performance values were set.\
*Number of data points*: 209
- **Phishing websites** [@uci]\
*Type of problem*: classification.\
*Description*: this dataset collected mainly from: PhishTank archive, MillerSmiles archive, Google’s searching operators.\
*Input features*:
1. using the IP Address
2. long URL to hide the suspicious part
3. using URL shortening services “TinyURL”
4. URL’s having “@” symbol
5. redirecting using “//”
6. adding prefix or suffix separated by (-) to the domain
7. sub domain and multi sub domains
8. HTTPS (hyper text transfer protocol with secure sockets layer)
9. domain registration length
10. favicon
11. using non-standard port
12. the existence of “HTTPS” token in the domain part of the URL
13. request URL
14. URL of anchor
15. links in $<$Meta$>$, $<$Script$>$ and $<$Link$>$ tags
16. server form handler (SFH)
17. submitting information to email
18. abnormal URL
19. website forwarding
20. status bar customization
21. disabling right click
22. using pop-up window
23. IFrame redirection
24. age of domain
25. website traffic
26. PageRank
27. Google index
28. number of links pointing to page
29. statistical-reports based feature
*Target*: Binary variable, phishing (Yes = 1, No = -1)\
*Number of data points*: $11,055$
### Dataset from Kaggle [@kaggle] {#dataset-from-kaggle .unnumbered}
- **Graduate admission**\
*Type of problem*: regression.\
<https://www.kaggle.com/mohansacharya/graduate-admissions>\
*Input features*: GRE Score, TOEFL Score, University Rating, SOP, LOR, CGPA, Research (treated as a binary variable)\
*Target*: chance of admit (real value between 0 and 1)\
*Number of data points*: $400$\
Definition of the hyperparameter space
--------------------------------------
The hyperparameter search is performed over the number of hidden layers, the number of neurons per layer, the type of nonlinear activation function at each hidden layer and the batch size used to train the model with a first-order optimization algorithm. A discrete set of values is chosen to bound the hyperparameter search. The number of hidden layers spans from 1 to 5 and the discrete range of the number of neurons per layer spans from 1 to $\sqrt{n}$, where $n$ is the number of sample points inside the dataset. The set of activation functions is made of the sigmoid function, the hyperbolic tangent and the rectified linear unit function. The discrete range for the batch size spans from 10 to the closest integer to $\frac{n}{10}$. These ranges for the hyperparameters is fixed for every hyperparameter optimization algorithm used for the study.
Details about model evaluations
-------------------------------
The datasets are split in three components: the training set, the validation set and the test set. The training set is used to train every model, the validation set is used to select the best performing model at each iteration and the test set is used at the end to measure the predictive power of the neural network selected by each hyperparameter optimization algorithm. The test set is 10% of the original dataset, the remaining portion is partitioned into training and validation in the percentage of 90% and 10% respectively. For classification problems, a stratified splitting is performed to ensure that the proportion between classes is preserved across training, validation and test sets. The optimizer used to train the model is the Adam method [@adam] with an initial learning rate of 0.001.
Definition of the hyperparameter search algorithms
--------------------------------------------------
The code is implemented in `python` and the neural networks are built using `Keras.io` [@keras]. We compare the Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture described in this paper with the Tree-structured Parzen estimator (TPE) and Bayesian optimization (BO). The version of Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture that we implemented performs concurrent model evaluations for the RS at each step with a distributed memory parallelization paradigm that uses `mpi4py` [@mpi4py]. The version of TPE and BO used are provided by the `Ray Tune` library [@raytune] through the routines named `HyperOptSearch` and `BayesOptSearch` respectively. The version of Ray Tune used is 0.3.1. As to `BayesOptSearch`, the utility function is defined by setting `utility_kwargs=kind: ’ucb’, kappa: 2.5, xi: 0.0)`. For both `HyperOptSearch` and `BayesOptSearch`, the model selection and evaluations are scheduled using the asynchronous version of HyperBand [@Li] called `AsyncHyperBandScheduler`. The time attribute for the scheduler is the training iteration and the reward attribute is the validation score of the neural network. The validation score is also used as reward attribute for the stopping criterion of the hyperparameter optimization algorithm.
Hardware description
--------------------
The numerical experiments are performed using Summit [@summit], a supercomputer provided by the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Summit has a hybrid architecture, and each node contains two IBM POWER9 CPUs and six NVIDIA Volta GPUs all connected together with NVIDIA’s high-speed NVLink. Each node has over half a terabyte of coherent memory (high bandwidth memory + DDR4) addressable by all CPUs and GPUs plus 800GB of non-volatile RAM that can be used as a burst buffer or as extended memory. To provide a high rate of I/O throughput, the nodes are connected in a non-blocking fat-tree using a dual-rail Mellanox EDR InfiniBand interconnect.
Comparison for predictive performance and computational time
------------------------------------------------------------
The first set of numerical experiments compares the predictive power of the Greedy Search for Neural Networks Architecture with TPE and BO. The attributes used for the model selection are the $R^2$ validation score for regression problems and the $F1$ validation score for the classification problem. The number of concurrent model evaluations per iteration is set to 10, 50 and 100 for all the three hyperparameter optimization algorithms. The maximum number of iterations is set to 5 and the threshold imposed on the validation score as stopping criterion is 0.99. The test score of the neural network identified as best and the computational time in wall clock seconds are reported for each hyperparameter search algorithm in Figure \[fig:fig1\]. The results presented are averaged over 10 runs with 95% confidence intervals for the mean value.
The experiments with the `Eggbox` dataset exhibit better results for the greedy search with respect to TPE anf BO in terms of predictive power achieved. Moreover, we notice that the confidence band for the greedy search narrows as the number of concurrent evaluations increases. This happens because the inference on the attainable predictive performance becomes more accurate with a higher number of random samples for the stratified RS. A different trend is shown for the confidence band of TPE and BO. In this case, the confidence band does not narrow down by increasing the number of concurrent model evaluations. This highlights the benefit of using a stratified RS as performed by the Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture, which limits the the uncertainty of the random optimization by reducing the dimensionality of the search space. With regards to the `Graduate admission` dataset, the performance obtained with the three hyperparameter optimization algorithms is very similar. However, the performance in terms of computational time still shows that Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture outperforms TPE and BO. As to the `Computer hardware` dataset, results in terms of performance still display an improvement using the greedy approach with respect to TPE and BO. The confidence band for the greedy search exhibits a similar trend to what experienced for the `Eggbox` dataset, as the confidence band narrows by increasing the number of concurrent model evaluations. Moreover, the computational time spent to perform the greedy search is significantly less than the one required for the other hyperparameter optimization algorithms. The three hyperparameter optimization algorithms reach a similar performance in terms of attainable performance for the `Phishing websites` dataset. However, the greedy search displays a better scaling for an increasing number of concurrent model evaluations. The scaling of Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture proves that the stratified RS limits the computational cost of each iterations. Moreover, the parallelizability of the stratified RS enables to keep the computational time almost constant with respect to the number of model evaluations.
Sensitivity of greedy search to the number of concurrent model evaluations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Figure \[fig:fig2\] we show the performance obtained with the greedy search on the `Eggbox` dataset and the `Computer hardware` dataset as a function of the number of hidden layers for different numbers of concurrent model evaluations (10, 50 and 100). For both the experiments it is clear that the use of a small number of concurrent model evaluations leads to significant fluctuations in the score, as the stratified RS does not explore enough architectures for a fixed number of hidden layers. However, a progressive increase of the concurrent model evaluations leads to a better inference. This happens because an exhaustive exploration of the stratified hyperparameter space reduces the uncertainty in the attainable best performance of the model. Moreover, a sufficient exploration of the stratified hyperparameter space enables to highlight the dependence between the maximum attainable performance of the neural network and the total number of hidden layers. Indeed, the examples displayed in Figure \[fig:fig2\] confirm that nonlinear input-output relations can benefit from a higher number of hidden layers.
Efficacy of adjusted score in penalizing complex architectures
--------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we consider the `Graduate admission` dataset and we compare the value attained by the $R^2$ and the adjusted-$R^2$ across the iterations of the Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture. The score threshold is not used for early stopping in this case and all experiments are run for a total of five iterations, meaning that the neural networks built at the end of the iterative process have 5 hidden layers. Figure \[fig:fig3\] shows that the increase of hidden layers through successive iterations does not benefit the $R^2$ which remains almost constant. Because the performance of the model does not improve with more hidden layers, the adjusted-$R^2$ decreases when the number of hidden layers is increased. Indeed, the adjusted-$R^2$ penalizes larger neural networks over smaller neural networks when the performance is the same. Moreover, the selection of smaller neural networks with the adjusted-$R^2$ does not compromise the performance of the selected model, as shown by the regular test score that does not significantly change. Therefore, the adjusted score caps the dimensionality of the parameter space in the hyperparameter selection so that the complexity of the predictive model does not exceed what is justified by the amount of data available.
Use of adjusted score with Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we describe a set of experiments that compare the total number of parameters for the neural networks selected by the Greedy Search for Neural Network Architectures in two different cases: one uses the validation score as a criterion to select the model, whereas the other uses the validation adjusted score. We aim to prove that the adjusted score can help the hyperparameter search to favor simpler models over more complex ones by reducing the number of neurons per hidden layers (and therefore the model parameters). The result of the experiments are shown in Table \[tab:score\] as an average over 10 runs. The number of concurrent model evaluations per iteration is set to 100 and the code is forced to perform the maximum number of iterations, so that the performance isolates the impact of the adjusted score over the hyperparameter selection. The use of the adjusted-$R^2$ does not lead to significantly smaller architectures for the `Graduate admission` and the `Computer hardware` datasets because the number of data samples is small. Therefore, the architecture selected is relatively small regardless of whether the greedy search is guided by the regular score or by the adjusted score. However, different performances are noticed for the `Eggbox` dataset and for the `Phishing websites` dataset. In these cases, a larger number of data samples allows the hyperparameter search to explore a wider set of architectures and the combination of the greedy search with the adjusted score benefits the reduction in complexity of the model selected. Indeed, the total number of regression weights selected with the adjusted score is significantly lower. This means that the neural networks selected with the adjusted score have less neurons per hidden layers than the ones selected by the traditional definition of score.
[|\*6[c|]{}]{} & &\
& Score & Nb. parameters & Score & Adjusted Score & Nb. parameters\
Eggbox & 0.993 & 6,321 & 0.995 & 0.996 & 4,070\
Graduate admission & 0.831 & 1,250 & 0.845 & 0.803 & 1,115\
Computer hardware & 0.923 & 890 & 0.917 & 0.705 & 802\
Phishing websites & 0.920 & 15,749 & 0.916 & 0.905 & 5,803\
Remarks and future developments {#conclusions}
===============================
In this works we have presented a new greedy constructive algorithm for the selection of neural network architectures called Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture. The method aims to identify the simplest architecture that obtains the desired performance. The algorithms adopts a greedy technique on the number of hidden layers, which can benefit the reduction of computational time and cost to perform the hyperparameter search. This makes the algorithm appealing to perform DL when computational and memory resources are limited. Moreover, small architectures, which obtain the desired performance, facilitate the interpretation of results when the outcome of the model is used by domain scientists to conduct analyses in their field of expertise. The recycling of hidden layer configurations disregards an exponential number of architectures in the hyperparameter space. However, having a smaller search space makes the optimization a tractable problem. Moreover, experimental results show that this does not result in significance loss in the attainable accuracy of the model search. We also generalized the definition of adjusted score to neural networks to penalize architectures according to their complexity. Numerical experiments on fully connected neural networks are presented, where Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture outperforms Tree-structured Parzen Estimator and Bayesian Optimization to identify the best obtainable performance on datasets of different nature. The use of the adjusted score exhibits promising results in selecting small architectures that attain the desired predictive power.
For future developments we aim to extend the study to different types of architectures other than multilayer perceptrons, such as convolutional neural networks. Moreover, we are going to use Greedy Search for Neural Networks Architectures for specific problems by selecting customized attributes other than the score for the hyperparameter optimization. We are also going to conduct an uncertainty quantification analysis to estimate the sensitivity of the inference on the hyperparameters with respect to the dimension of the hyperparameter space and the number of concurrent model evaluations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
![Comparison between Greedy search, HyperOptSearch and BayesOptSearch. The comparison is performed for four datasets: the `Eggbox` dataset (first from the top), the `Graduate admission` dataset (second from the top), the `Computer hardware` dataset (third from the top) and the phishing dataset (last). The graphs on the left show the performance obtained by the model selected by the hyperparameter search on the test set. The graphs on the right shows a comparison for computational time. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](eggbox_accuracy "fig:"){width="7.8cm"} ![Comparison between Greedy search, HyperOptSearch and BayesOptSearch. The comparison is performed for four datasets: the `Eggbox` dataset (first from the top), the `Graduate admission` dataset (second from the top), the `Computer hardware` dataset (third from the top) and the phishing dataset (last). The graphs on the left show the performance obtained by the model selected by the hyperparameter search on the test set. The graphs on the right shows a comparison for computational time. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](eggbox_time.png "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}
![Comparison between Greedy search, HyperOptSearch and BayesOptSearch. The comparison is performed for four datasets: the `Eggbox` dataset (first from the top), the `Graduate admission` dataset (second from the top), the `Computer hardware` dataset (third from the top) and the phishing dataset (last). The graphs on the left show the performance obtained by the model selected by the hyperparameter search on the test set. The graphs on the right shows a comparison for computational time. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](graduate_accuracy "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![Comparison between Greedy search, HyperOptSearch and BayesOptSearch. The comparison is performed for four datasets: the `Eggbox` dataset (first from the top), the `Graduate admission` dataset (second from the top), the `Computer hardware` dataset (third from the top) and the phishing dataset (last). The graphs on the left show the performance obtained by the model selected by the hyperparameter search on the test set. The graphs on the right shows a comparison for computational time. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](graduate_time "fig:"){width="8.1cm"}
![Comparison between Greedy search, HyperOptSearch and BayesOptSearch. The comparison is performed for four datasets: the `Eggbox` dataset (first from the top), the `Graduate admission` dataset (second from the top), the `Computer hardware` dataset (third from the top) and the phishing dataset (last). The graphs on the left show the performance obtained by the model selected by the hyperparameter search on the test set. The graphs on the right shows a comparison for computational time. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](machine_cpu_accuracy.png "fig:"){width="7.9cm"} ![Comparison between Greedy search, HyperOptSearch and BayesOptSearch. The comparison is performed for four datasets: the `Eggbox` dataset (first from the top), the `Graduate admission` dataset (second from the top), the `Computer hardware` dataset (third from the top) and the phishing dataset (last). The graphs on the left show the performance obtained by the model selected by the hyperparameter search on the test set. The graphs on the right shows a comparison for computational time. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](machine_cpu_time.png "fig:"){width="8.1cm"}
![Comparison between Greedy search, HyperOptSearch and BayesOptSearch. The comparison is performed for four datasets: the `Eggbox` dataset (first from the top), the `Graduate admission` dataset (second from the top), the `Computer hardware` dataset (third from the top) and the phishing dataset (last). The graphs on the left show the performance obtained by the model selected by the hyperparameter search on the test set. The graphs on the right shows a comparison for computational time. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](phishing_accuracy.png "fig:"){width="7.9cm"} ![Comparison between Greedy search, HyperOptSearch and BayesOptSearch. The comparison is performed for four datasets: the `Eggbox` dataset (first from the top), the `Graduate admission` dataset (second from the top), the `Computer hardware` dataset (third from the top) and the phishing dataset (last). The graphs on the left show the performance obtained by the model selected by the hyperparameter search on the test set. The graphs on the right shows a comparison for computational time. []{data-label="fig:fig1"}](phishing_time.png "fig:"){width="8.0cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
![Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture. Coefficient of determination expressed in terms of the number of hidden layers for `Eggbox` and `Computer hardware` datasets using 10, 50 and 100 concurrent model evaluations. Results are shown for a single run.[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](eggbox_r2.jpg "fig:"){width="8.5cm"} ![Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture. Coefficient of determination expressed in terms of the number of hidden layers for `Eggbox` and `Computer hardware` datasets using 10, 50 and 100 concurrent model evaluations. Results are shown for a single run.[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](machineCPU_r2.jpg "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
![`Graduate admission` dataset. Comparison between $R^2$ and adjusted-$R^2$ for Greedy Search for Neural Network Architecture as a function of the number of hidden layers.[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](graduate_r2.png){width="8.5cm"}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported in part by the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and by the LDRD Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This work used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF), which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.
[9]{}
, *Instance-based prediction of real-valued attributes*, Computational Intelligence, Volume 5, p. 51, 1989.
, *Designing neural network architectures using performance prediction*, 2018 International Conference on Learning Representations, Workshop Track, 2018.
, *Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization*, Proceeding NIPS’11 Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2546–2554, 2011.
, *Random Search for hyper-parameter optimization*, Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 13, pp. 281–305, 2012.
, *Reinforcement learning for architecture search by network transformation*, arXiv:1707.04873, 2017.
, *AdaNet: adaptive structural learning of Artificial Neural Networks* Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 70:874–883, 2017.
, *Speeding up automatic hyperparameter optimization of deep neural networks by extrapolation of learning curves*, IJCAI’15 Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 3460–3468, 2016.
, *Architecture optimization model for the multilayer perceptron and clustering*, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, Volume 10, Volume 47, Number 1, 2013.
, *The cascade-correlation learning architecture*, Advances in neural information processing system, pp. 524–532, 1990.
, *Multivariate Adaptative Regression Splines*, Annals of Statistics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1–67, 1991.
, *Deep Learning*, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2016.
, *Gradient-based optimization of neural network architecture*, ICLR 2018 Workshop Track, 2018.
, *Adam: a method for stochastic optimization*, Conference Paper at International Conference on Learning Representations 2015.
, *Optimizing deep neural network architecture: a tabu search based approach*, arXiv:1808.05979, 2018
, *Optimizaiton of ANN architecture: A review on nature-inspired techniques*, Machine learning in Bio-signal and Diagnostic Imaging, Elsevier, 2018.
, *Neural Networks And Learning Machines, Third Edition*, Pearson Education Ltd, 2009.
, *Neural Networks and Learning Machines, Third Edition*, Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2009.
, *Speeding up the hyperparameter optimization of deep convolutional neural networks*, arXiv:1807.07362, 2018.
, *Genetic Algorithms,for the Science*, Scientific American Edition, Number 179, pp. 44–50, 1992.
, *Designing neural networks using genetic algorithms with graph generation system*, Complex Systems Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 461–476, 1990.
, *Combining Genetic Algorithms and Neural Networks: The Encoding Problem*, Master of Science Thesis, University of Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, 2991.
, *Constructive algorithms for structure learning in feedforward neural networks for regression problems*, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp. 630–645, 1997.
, *Hyperband: bandit-based configuration evaluation for hyperparameter optimization*, Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017.
, *A constructive algorithm for feedforward neural networks with incremental training*, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems—I: Fundamental Theory and Applications, Volume 49, Number 12, 2002.
, *Progressive neural architecture search*, arXiv:1712.00559, 2017.
, *Neural architecture optimization*, arXiv:1808.07233, 2018.
, *Some universal elements for finite automata*, In C. E Shannon & J. McCarthy (Eds.), Automata studies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 117–128, 1956.
, *Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis*, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, 2012.
, *The general and logical theory of automata*, In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior, New York: Wiley, pp. 1–41, 1951.
, *Efficient neural architecture search via parameter sharing*, arXiv:1802.03268, 2018.
, *Discriminability-based transfer between neural networks*, NIPS Conference: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 5, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 204–211, 1993.
, *Special Issue: Reuse of Neural Networks through Transfer*, Connection Science, Volume 8, Issue 2, 1996.
, *The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain*, Psychological Review, Volume 65, Number 6, 1958.
, *The perceptron: a theory of statistical separability in cognitive systems*, Buffalo: Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc. Report Number VG-1196-G-1, 1958.
, *Practical Bayesian optimization of Machine Learning algorithms*, Proceeding NIPS’12 Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2, pp. 2951–2959, 2012.
, *Scalable Bayesian optimization using deep neural networks*, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.05700.pdf
, *Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting*, Journal of Machine Learning Research, Volume 15, pp. 1929–1958, 2014.
, *The coefficient of determination and its adjusted version in linear regression models*, Econometric Reviews, Volume 14, No. 2, 1995.
, *Pruning backpropagation networks using modern stochastic optimization techniques*, Neural Computing and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 76–98, 1997.
, *Exploring Constructive Cascade Networks*, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Volume 10, Number 6, 1999.
, *Tuning the structure and parameters of a neural network by using hybrid Taguchi-genetic algorithm*, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 69–80, 2006.
, *Optimizing deep learning hyper-parameters through an evolutionary algorithm*, MLHPC ’15 Proceedings of the Workshop on Machine Learning in High-Performance Computing Environments, Article No. 4, 2015.
, *Neural architecture with reinforcement learning*, arXiv:1611.01578, 2016.
, *Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition*, Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018.
*Compressing and regularizing deep neural networks*,\
<https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/compressing-and-regularizing-deep-neural-networks>
*Kaggle: Your Home for Data Science*, <https://www.kaggle.com>
*Keras: The Python Deep Learning library*, <https://keras.io>
*Multi-node Evolutionary Neural Networks for Deep Learning (MENNDL)*,\
[<https://www.ornl.gov/division/csmd/projects/multi-node-evolutionary-neural-networks-deep-learning-menndl>]{}, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
*MPI for Python*, <https://mpi4py.readthedocs.io/en/stable/>
*Ray Tune: Hyperparameter Optimization Framework*,\
<https://ray.readthedocs.io/en/ray-0.3.1/tune.html>
*Summit - Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s 200 petaflop supercomputer*,\
<https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/olcf-resources/compute-systems/summit/>
*UCI Machine Learning Repository*, <https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/index.php>
[^1]: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, National Center for Computational Sciences, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 37831, email: <[email protected]>
[^2]: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, National Center for Computational Sciences, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 37831, email: <[email protected]>
[^3]: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Computer, Computational and Statistical Sciences Division, Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545, email: email: <[email protected]>
[^4]: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, National Center for Computational Sciences, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 37831, email: <[email protected]>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Xiaofeng Xue [^1]\
Beijing Jiaotong University\
Yumeng Shen [^2]\
Beijing Jiaotong University
title: '**Large and Moderate Deviation Principles for the SIR Epidemic in a Random Environment**'
---
[**Abstract:**]{} In this paper, we are concerned with SIR epidemics in a random environment on complete graphs, where every edges are assigned with i.i.d. weights. Our main results give large and moderate deviation principles of sample paths of this model.
[**Keywords:**]{} large deviation, moderate deviation, SIR, epidemic, random environment.
Introduction {#section one}
============
In this paper, we are concerned with large and moderate deviation principles of the stochastic SIR (Susceptible-Infected-Removed) epidemic in a random environment on the complete graph. First we introduce some basic definitions and notations. For any $n\geq 1$, we use $C_n$ to denote the complete graph with $n$ vertices. For later use, we identify $C_n$ with $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, then $C_m$ is a subset of $C_n$ for any $m<n$. Assuming that $\rho$ is a positive random variable such that $Ee^{\alpha\rho}<+\infty$ for some $\alpha>0$, then for any integers $1\leq i<j$, let $\rho(\{i,j\})$ be an independent copy of $\rho$. We further assume that $\{\rho(\{i,j\}):~i\neq j\}$ are independent. For simplicity, we write $\rho(\{i,j\})$ as $\rho(i,j)$, hence $\rho(i,j)=\rho(j,i)$. Note that $\rho(i,j)$ can be considered as an edge weight on the edge connecting $i$ and $j$.
After the edge weights $\{\rho(i,j):~i\neq j\}$ are given, the stochastic SIR model $\{\eta_t^n\}_{t\geq 0}$ on $C_n$ is a continuous-time Markov process with state space $\{0,1,-1\}^{C_n}$, i.e., at each vertex $i\leq n$, there is a spin $\eta(i)$ taking values in $\{1,0,-1\}$. For any $\eta\in \{0,1,-1\}^{C_n}, i\leq n$ and $l\in \{1,0,-1\}$, let $\eta^{i,l}$ be the configuration in $\{1,0,-1\}^{C_n}$ such that $$\eta^{i,l}(j)=
\begin{cases}
\eta(j) & \text{~if~}j\neq i,\\
l & \text{~if~}j=i,
\end{cases}$$ then, the generator function $\Omega_n$ of $\{\eta_t^n\}_{t\geq 0}$ is given by $$\Omega_n f(\eta)=\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{l\in \{1,0,-1\}}q(\eta,i,l)\big[f(\eta^{i,l})-f(\eta)\big]$$ for sufficiently smooth $f$ on $\{1,0,-1\}^{C_n}$, where $$q(\eta,i,l)=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{~if~}\eta(i)=1 \text{~and~}l=-1,\\
\frac{\lambda}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\rho(i,j)1_{\{\eta(j)=1\}} & \text{~if~} \eta(i)=0 \text{~and~}l=1,\\
0 & \text{~else},
\end{cases}$$ where $\lambda$ is a positive parameter called the infection rate while $1_A$ is the indicator function of the event $A$.
Intuitively, $\{\eta_t^n\}_{t\geq 0}$ describes the spread of an epidemic on $C_n$. Vertices in state $1$ are infected and those in state $0$ are susceptible while those in state $-1$ are removed. An infected vertex becomes removed at rate $1$ while a susceptible vertex $i$ is infected by an infected vertex $j$ at rate proportional to the weight $\rho(i,j)$ on the edge connecting $i$ and $j$. A removed vertex stays in its state forever.
When $\rho\equiv 1$, our processes reduce to the classic SIR model. Readers can see References [@Anderson1991] and [@Britton2017] for a survey of this classic case. When $\rho$ satisfies $$P(\rho=1)=p=1-P(\rho=0)$$ for some $p\in (0,1)$, our processes reduce to the SIR model on the Erdös-Rényi graph $G(n,p)$. For basic properties of $G(n,p)$, see Chapter 2 of [@Durrett2007].
The main results of this paper give large and moderate deviation principles for the above SIR model with random edge weights. For the large deviation part, our first motivation is to extend the result about the classic case given in [@Pardoux2017]. Our second motivation is to propose an available approach for the proofs of large deviation principles for some special examples of density-dependent Markov chains introduced in [@Kurtz1978]. For mathematical details, see Sections \[section two\], \[section three\] and \[section four\]. For the moderate deviation part, our result is an analogue of the moderate deviation principle given in [@Xue2019] for density-dependent Markov chains. The proof of our result follows a similar strategy with that given in [@Xue2019], except for some details modified according to the assumption of i.i.d. edge weights. For mathematical details, see Sections \[section two\] and \[section five\].
Main results {#section two}
============
In this section we give our main results. For later use, we introduced some notations, definitions and assumptions. Let $(X, \mathcal{F},P)$ be the probability space under which $\{\rho(i,j):1\leq i<j\}$ are defined. For any $\omega\in X$, let $P_{\lambda,n}^\omega$ be the probability measure of the process $\{\eta_t^n\}_{t\geq 0}$ with infection rate $\lambda$ and given edge weights $\{\rho(i,j,\omega):1\leq i<j\leq n\}$, i.e., $P_{\lambda,n}^\omega$ is the quenched measure of the process. We define $P_{\lambda,n}$ as $$P_{\lambda,n}(\cdot)=\int_X \big[P_{\lambda,n}^\omega(\cdot)\big] P(d\omega),$$ i.e., $P_{\lambda,n}(\cdot)$ is the annealed measure of the process. For any $t\geq 0$, we define $$S_t^n=\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta_t^n(i)=0\}} \text{~and~} I_t^n=\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta_t^n(i)=1\}},$$ i.e., $S_t^n$ is the number of susceptible vertices while $I_t^n$ is the number of infected vertices at moment $t$. For given $T_0>0$, we use $\mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ to denote the Skorokhod space of càdlàg functions $f:[0, T_0]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$. For later use, for any $f\in \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $0\leq t\leq T_0$ and $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$, we consider $f_t, x$ as column vectors and write $f_t, x$ as $$f_t=\big(s_t(f), i_t(f)\big)^T \text{~and~} x=(s_x,i_x)^T,$$ where $T$ is the transposition operator.
For any $f\in \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, we define $$\|f\|=\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_0}\big\{|s_t(f)|+|i_t(f)|\big\}.$$ For later use, we define $\mathcal{B}$ as the subset of $\mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ of $f$ with the following properties:
1\. $i_t(f), s_t(f)\geq 0$ for all $0\leq t\leq T_0$.
2\. $s_t(f)$ and $i_t(f)+s_t(f)$ are both decreasing with $t$.
3\. If $i_u(f)=0$ for some $u$, then $s_t(f)=s_u(f), i_t(f)=0$ for any $t\geq u$.
Throughout this paper, we adopt the following assumption.
Assumption **A**: $\{\eta_0^n(i)\}_{i=1}^n$ are independent and identically distributed such that $$P(\eta_0^n(1)=0)=p_0 \text{~and~} P(\eta_0^n(1)=1)=p_1$$ for some $p_0, p_1$ not depending on $n$ with $p_0, p_1>0$ and $p_0+p_1<1$.
Now we give our rate functions. For any $f\in \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
I_{dyn}(f)=&\sup_{g\in C^2\big([0,T_0],\mathbb{R}^2\big)}\Big\{f_{T_0}\cdot g_{T_0}-f_0\cdot g_0-\int_0^{T_0}f_t\cdot g_t^\prime dt\\
&-\int_0^{T_0}\big(e^{g_t\cdot l_1}-1\big)i_t(f)+\lambda(E\rho)\big(e^{g_t\cdot l_2}-1\big)s_t(f)i_t(f)dt\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $l_1=(0,-1)^T$, $l_2=(-1,1)^T$, $g_t^\prime=\big(\frac{d}{dt}s_t(g),\frac{d}{dt}i_t(g)\big)^T$ and $x\cdot y$ is the scalar product of $x, y$, i.e., $x\cdot y=s_xs_y+i_xi_y$. For any $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$, we define $$I_{ini}(x)=\sup_{y\in \mathbb{R}^2}\Big\{y\cdot x-\log\big(1-p_0-p_1+e^{s_y}p_0+e^{i_y}p_1\big)\Big\}.$$ For given $T_0>0$, we use $\vartheta^n$ to denote the path of $\{\big(\frac{S_t^n}{n},\frac{I_t^n}{n}\big)^T\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$. Now we give our main result about the large deviation of $\{\eta_t^n\}_{t\geq 0}$.
\[theorem 2.1 main LDP\] Under Assumption **A**, for any open set $O\subseteq \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $$\label{equ LDP lower}
\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda, n}\big(\vartheta^n\in O\big)\geq -\inf_{f\in O\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(I_{dyn}(f)+I_{ini}(f_0)\big),$$ while for any closed set $C\subseteq \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $$\label{equ LDP upper}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda, n}\big(\vartheta^n\in C\big)\leq -\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(I_{dyn}(f)+I_{ini}(f_0)\big).$$
If $\rho\equiv 1$, then our model reduces to the classic SIR model, the large deviation principle of which is a special case of the main theorem given in [@Pardoux2017]. The classic SIR model is an example of density-dependent Markov chains introduced in [@Kurtz1978]. For some integer $n\geq 1$, a density-dependent Markov chain $\{X_t^n\}_{t\geq 0}$ is with state space $\mathbb{Z}^d$ for some $d\geq 1$ and evolves as $$X_t^n\rightarrow X_t^n+l \text{~at rate~} nF_l(\frac{X_t^n}{n})$$ for any $l\in \mathcal{A}$, where $\mathcal{A}$ is a given subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\{F_l\}_{l\in \mathcal{A}}$ are smooth functions on $\mathbb{R}^d$. For instance, for the classic SIR model $\{(S_t^n, I_t^n)^T\}_{t\geq 0}$, $d=2$, $\mathcal{A}=\{(0,-1)^T, (-1,1)^T\}$ and $$F_{(0,-1)^T}(x)=i_x, F_{(-1,1)^T}(x)=\lambda s_xi_x$$ for any $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$. Large deviation principles of density-dependent Markov chains are given in References [@Agazzi2018; @Pardoux2017; @Schwartz1995] and so on respectively under different assumptions of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\{F_l\}_{l\in \mathcal{A}}$. We think our strategy of the proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.1 main LDP\] can also be utilized in giving large deviations of some special cases of density-dependent Markov chains which are not included in those given in the above references. For mathematical details, see the remark given at the end of Section \[section four\].
To give more clear expressions of $I_{dyn}$ and $I_{ini}$ , we have the following theorem.
\[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\] For $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$, if $I_{ini}(x)<+\infty$, then $s_x, s_y\geq 0$, $s_x+s_y\leq 1$ and $$I_{ini}(x)=s_x\log \frac{s_x}{p_0}+i_x\log \frac{i_x}{p_1}+(1-s_x-i_x)\log\frac{1-s_x-i_x}{1-p_0-p_1},$$ where $0\log 0$ is defined as $0$.
If $f\in \mathcal{B}$ and $I_{dyn}(f)<+\infty$, then $f$ is absolutely continuous and $$I_{dyn}(f)=\int_0^{T_0}L_t(f)+(i_t(f)+s_t(f))^\prime+i_t(f)+s_t^\prime(f)+\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f)s_t(f) dt,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
L_t(f)=&-(i_t(f)+s_t(f))^\prime\log(-(i_t(f)+s_t(f))^\prime)+(i_t(f)+s_t(f))^\prime\log i_t(f)\\
&-s_t^\prime(f)\log(-s^\prime_t(f))+s_t^\prime(f)\log\big(\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f)s_t(f)\big).\end{aligned}$$
Note that it is obviously that $P_{\lambda,n}(\vartheta^n\in \mathcal{B})=1$ according to the definitions of $S_t^n$ and $I_t^n$, hence we only care about $I_{dyn}(f)$ for $f\in \mathcal{B}$.
To give moderate deviations of our processes, we first state a law of large numbers. Let $\{\widehat{x}_t=(\widehat{s}_t,\widehat{i}_t)^T\in \mathbb{R}^2:~0\leq t\leq T_0\}$ be the unique solution to the ODE $$\begin{cases}
&\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{x}_t=l_1H_1(\widehat{x}_t)+l_2H_2(\widehat{x}_t), \\
&\widehat{x}_0=(p_0,p_1)^T,
\end{cases}$$ where $l_1=(0,-1)^T, l_2=(-1,1)^T$ as we have introduced and $H_1(x)=i_x, H_2(x)=\lambda(E\rho)s_xi_x$ for any $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$. Note that it is easy to check that this ODE satisfies Lipschitz’s condition and hence has a unique solution. The following lemma is an analogue of law of large numbers of density-dependent Markov processes given in [@Kurtz1978].
\[lemma 2.3 LLNofSIR\] For any $\epsilon>0$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}P_{\lambda,n}\big(\|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|\geq \epsilon\big)=0$.
By Lemma \[lemma 2.3 LLNofSIR\], $\vartheta^n$ converges to $\widehat{x}$ in probability as $n\rightarrow+\infty$ and hence moderate deviations of our processes are concerned with $\{\frac{(S_t^n,I_t^n)^T-n\widehat{x}_t}{a_n}\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ for any positive sequence $\{a_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ satisfying $\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{a_n}{n}=0$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{a_n}{\sqrt{n}}=+\infty$. To give the precise result, we define $$b_t=\sum_{i=1}^2l_i(\nabla^TH_i)(\widehat{x}_t)=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\lambda(E\rho)\widehat{i}_t & -\lambda(E\rho)\widehat{s}_t\\
\lambda(E\rho)\widehat{i}_t & \lambda(E\rho)\widehat{s}_t-1
\end{pmatrix}$$ and $$\sigma_t=\sum_{i=1}^2l_iH_i(\widehat{x}_t)l_i^T=
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda(E\rho)\widehat{i}_t\widehat{s}_t & -\lambda(E\rho)\widehat{i}_t\widehat{s}_t\\
-\lambda(E\rho)\widehat{i}_t\widehat{s}_t & \lambda(E\rho)\widehat{i}_t\widehat{s}_t+\widehat{i}_t
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $\nabla^T=(\frac{\partial}{\partial s_x},\frac{\partial}{\partial i_x})$. Then we give our rate functions. For any $f\in \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
J_{dyn}(f)=&\sup_{g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)}\Big\{f_{T_0}\cdot g_{T_0}-f_0\cdot g_0-\int_0^{T_0}f_t\cdot g_t^\prime dt \\
&-\int_0^{T_0}(b_tf_t)\cdot g_tdt-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}g_t^T\sigma_t g_tdt \Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ For any $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$, we define $J_{ini}(x)=\sup_{y\in \mathbb{R}^2}\Big\{y\cdot x-\frac{1}{2}y^TM_{_0}y\Big\}$, where $$M_{_0}=
\begin{pmatrix}
p_0(1-p_0) & -p_0p_1\\
-p_0p_1 & p_1(1-p_1)
\end{pmatrix}.$$ For given positive sequence $\{a_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ satisfying $\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{a_n}{n}=0$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{a_n}{\sqrt{n}}=+\infty$, we denote by $\nu^n$ the path of $\{\frac{(S_t^n, I_t^n)^T-n\widehat{x}_t}{a_n}\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$. Now we give our moderate deviations.
\[Theorem 2.4 MDPofSIR\] Under Assumption **A**, for any open set $O\subseteq \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $$\label{equ MDP lower bound}
\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in O\big)\geq-\inf_{f\in O}(J_{dyn}(f)+J_{ini}(f_0)),$$ while for any closed set $C\subseteq \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $$\label{equ MDP upper bound}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in C\big)\leq-\inf_{f\in C}(J_{dyn}(f)+J_{ini}(f_0)).$$
Theorem \[Theorem 2.4 MDPofSIR\] is an analogue of the main result given in [@Xue2019], where moderate deviations of density-dependent Markov chains are investigated. As an application, the moderate deviation of classic SIR model with deterministic initial condition can be given directly according to the main result in [@Xue2019], Theorem \[Theorem 2.4 MDPofSIR\] is an extension of which to the case where i.i.d weights are assigned on every edges.
To give more clear expressions of $J_{dyn}$ and $J_{ini}$, we have the following theorem.
\[theorem 2.5 JdynEpress\] For any $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$, $J_{ini}(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^TM_{_0}^{-1}x$. For any $f\in\mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, if $J_{dyn}(f)<+\infty$, then $f$ is absolutely continuous and $$J_{dyn}(f)=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}(f_t^\prime-b_tf_t)^T\sigma_t^{-1}(f_t^\prime-b_tf_t) dt.$$
Note that it is easy to check that $M_{_0}$ and $\sigma_t$ are invertible according to their definitions.
The proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.1 main LDP\] is divided into Sections \[section three\] and \[section four\] while an outline of the proof of Theorem \[Theorem 2.4 MDPofSIR\] is given in Section \[section five\]. In both proofs, an exponential martingale will be introduced and a generalized version of Girsanov’s theorem given in [@Schuppen1974] will be utilized. The strategy of our proofs is inspired by those introduced in [@Gao2003] and [@Xue2019].
As a preparation for the proof of Equation , Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\] is proved at the beginning of Section \[section three\]. The core idea of the proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\] is to show that $I_{dyn}(f)<+\infty$ implies that there exists $\psi$ such that $f$ is the solution to the ODE $f_t^\prime=l_1e^{\psi_t\cdot l_1}H_1(f_t)+l_2e^{\psi_t\cdot l_2}H_2(f_t)$. The proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.5 JdynEpress\] is given at the beginning of Section \[section five\], where Cauchy-Schwartz’s inequality and Riesz’s representation theorem will be utilized.
The proof of Equation {#section three}
======================
In this section, we give the proof of Equation . As a preparation, we first give the proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\]. For simplicity, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_f(g)=&f_{T_0}\cdot g_{T_0}-f_0\cdot g_0-\int_0^{T_0}f_t\cdot g_t^\prime dt \\
&-\int_0^{T_0}\big(e^{g_t\cdot l_1}-1\big)i_t(f)+\lambda(E\rho)\big(e^{g_t\cdot l_2}-1\big)s_t(f)i_t(f)dt\end{aligned}$$ for any $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ and $f\in \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, i.e., $$I_{dyn}(f)=\sup_{g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)}\{\Phi_f(g)\}.$$
For $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$ with $I_{ini}(x)<+\infty$, if $s_x<0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
I_{ini}(x)&\geq \sup_{y:i_y=0}\big\{y\cdot x-\log\big(1-p_0-p_1+e^{s_y}p_0+e^{i_y}p_1\big)\big\}\\
&=\lim_{s_y\rightarrow-\infty}\big[s_xs_y-\log\big(1-p_0+e^{s_y}p_0\big)\big]=+\infty,\end{aligned}$$ which is contradictory. Hence, $s_x\geq 0$. For the same reason, $s_y\geq 0$. If $s_x+s_y>1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
I_{ini}(x)&\geq \sup_{y:i_y=s_y}\big\{y\cdot x-\log\big(1-p_0-p_1+e^{s_y}p_0+e^{i_y}p_1\big)\big\}\\
&\geq \lim_{c\rightarrow+\infty} \big[c(s_x+i_x)-\log\big(1+(e^c-1)(p_0+p_1)\big)\big].\end{aligned}$$ Let $\beta_1(c)=c(s_x+i_x)-\log\big(1+(e^c-1)(p_0+p_1)\big)$, then $\lim_{c\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{d}{dc}\beta_1(c)=s_x+s_y-1>0$, hence $$I_{ini}(x)\geq \lim_{c\rightarrow+\infty} \big[c(s_x+i_x)-\log\big(1+(e^c-1)(p_0+p_1)\big)\big]=+\infty,$$ which is contradictory. Hence, $s_x+s_y\leq 1$. Let $\beta_2(y)=y\cdot x-\log\big(1-p_0-p_1+e^{s_y}p_0+e^{i_y}p_1$. When $s_x>0, s_y>0$ and $s_x+s_y<1$, since $\beta_2(y)=y\cdot x-\log\big(1-p_0-p_1+e^{s_y}p_0+e^{i_y}p_1\big)$ is concave with respect to each coordinate $s_y$ and $i_y$, $\beta_2$ gets its maximum at $y_0$ given by $\frac{\partial}{\partial s_y}\beta_2(y_0)=\frac{\partial}{\partial i_y}\beta_2(y_0)=0$, i,e, $$s_{y_0}=\log \big[\frac{s_x(1-p_0-p_1)}{p_0(1-s_x-s_y)}\big] \text{~and~} i_{y_0}=\log\big[\frac{i_x(1-p_0-p_1)}{p_1(1-s_x-s_y)}\big].$$ Hence, $$I_{ini}(x)=\beta_2(y_0)=s_x\log \frac{s_x}{p_0}+i_x\log \frac{i_x}{p_1}+(1-s_x-i_x)\log\frac{1-s_x-i_x}{1-p_0-p_1}.$$ The proof of $I_{ini}(x)=s_x\log \frac{s_x}{p_0}+i_x\log \frac{i_x}{p_1}+(1-s_x-i_x)\log\frac{1-s_x-i_x}{1-p_0-p_1}$ for the case where $s_xi_x(1-s_x-i_x)=0$ is similar. We omit the details.
For $f\in \mathcal{B}$ with $I_{dyn}(f)<+\infty$, if $s_t(f)$ is not absolutely continuous, then there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that for any integer $n\geq 1$, there exists $0\leq a_{1,n}<b_{1,n}<a_{2,n}<b_{2,n}<\ldots<a_{{k_n},n}<b_{{k_n},n}\leq T_0$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{k_n}(b_{i,n}-a_{i,n})\leq \frac{1}{n}$ and $$\sum_{i=1}^{k_n}|s_{b_{i,n}}(f)-s_{a_{i,n}}(f)|=-\sum_{i=1}^{k_n}(s_{b_{i,n}}(f)-s_{a_{i,n}}(f))\geq \epsilon.$$ For any $m>0$, let $K_t^{m,n}$ be defined as $K_s^{m,n}=-m$ when $s\in [a_{i,n},b_{i,n})$ for some $1\leq i\leq k_n$ and $K_s^{m,n}=0$ otherwise. For given $m,n$ and any $l\geq 1$, let $g^l\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ such that $i_t(g^l)=0$ and $\lim_{l\rightarrow+\infty}s_t(g^l)=K_t^{m,n}$ for all $0\leq t\leq T_0$. For $f\in \mathcal {B}$, $s(f)$ and $i(f)+s(f)$ are both decreasing and hence are both bounded variation functions. Then, $$f_{T_0}\cdot g^l_{T_0}-f_0\cdot g^l_0-\int_0^{T_0}f_t\cdot (g^l_t)^\prime dt=\int_0^{T_0}s_t(g^l)ds_t(f)$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{l\rightarrow+\infty}\Phi_f(g^l)\geq \int_0^{T_0}K_t^{m,n}ds_t(f)-\frac{1}{n}\lambda(E\rho)e^m\|f\|^2
\geq m\epsilon-\frac{1}{n}\lambda(E\rho)e^m\|f\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Then, $I_{dyn}(f)\geq \lim_{l\rightarrow+\infty}\Phi_f(g^l)\geq m\epsilon-\frac{1}{n}\lambda(E\rho)e^m\|f\|^2$. Since $n$ is arbitrary, $I_{dyn}(f)\geq m\epsilon$. Since $m$ is arbitrary, $I_{dyn}(f)=+\infty$, which is contradictory. Therefore, $s_t(f)$ is absolutely continuous. The proof of absolute continuity of $i_t(f)+s_t(f)$ is similar. Only one detail should be modified that we let $s_t(g^l)=i_t(g^l)$ such that $\lim_{l\rightarrow+\infty}s_t(g^l)=K_t^{m,n}$ in this case. We omit the details. As a result, $s_t(f), i_t(f)+s_t(f)$ are both absolutely continuous and hence $f$ is absolutely continuous.
For $f\in \mathcal{B}$ with $I_{dyn}(f)<+\infty$, since $f$ is absolutely continuous, $$\Phi_f(g)=\int_0^{T_0} g_t\cdot f_t^\prime dt-\int_0^{T_0}\big(e^{g_t\cdot l_1}-1\big)i_t(f)+\lambda(E\rho)\big(e^{g_t\cdot l_2}-1\big)s_t(f)i_t(f)dt.$$ For $f\in \mathcal{B}$, $s_t^\prime(f), \big(i_t(f)+s_t(f)\big)^\prime\leq 0$ while $i_t(f)=0$ implies that $\big(i_t(f)+s_t(f)\big)^\prime=0$ and $s_t(f)=0$ implies that $s_t^\prime(f)=0$, hence there exists $h_1(t), h_2(t)\in [0,+\infty)$ such that they are the solution of $$\begin{cases}
s_t^\prime(f)&=-h_2(t)\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f)s_t(f),\\
i_t^\prime(f)&=-h_1(t)i_t(f)+h_2(t)\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f)s_t(f).
\end{cases}$$ Let $h_1^n\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}\big)$ such that $h_1^n(t)>0$ for all $t\in [0, T_0]$ while $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\int_0^{T_0}|h_1^n(t)-h_1(t)|dt=0$$ and $h_2^n\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}\big)$ such that $h_2^n(t)>0$ for all $t\in [0, T_0]$ while $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\int_0^{T_0}|h_2^n(t)-h_2(t)|dt=0,$$ then we define $\psi^n\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ such that $s_t(\psi^n)$ and $i_t(\psi^n)$ satisfies $h_1^n(t)=\exp\big\{-i_t(\psi^n)\big\}$ and $h_2^n(t)=\exp\big\{i_t(\psi^n)-s_t(\psi^n)\big\}$ for all $t\in [0, T_0]$. As a result, $$\begin{aligned}
I_{dyn}(f) \geq &\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\Phi_f(\psi^n) \\
=&\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\int_0^{T_0} \psi^n_t\cdot f_t^\prime dt\\
&-\int_0^{T_0}h_1(t)i_t(f)-i_t(f)+\lambda(E\rho)h_2(t)s_t(f)i_t(f)-\lambda(E\rho)s_t(f)i_t(f)dt \\
=& \int_0^{T_0}L_t(f)+(i_t(f)+s_t(f))^\prime+i_t(f)+s_t^\prime(f)+\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f)s_t(f) dt\end{aligned}$$ according to the definition of $\psi^n$ and $L_t(f)$.
On the other hand, for any $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}\big)$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\Phi_f(g)
\leq \int_0^{T_0} \sup_{\theta\in \mathbb{R}^2} \big\{\theta\cdot f_t^\prime-\big(e^{\theta\cdot l_1}-1\big)i_t(f)-\lambda(E\rho)\big(e^{\theta\cdot l_2}-1\big)s_t(f)i_t(f)\big\}dt \\
&=\int_0^{T_0}L_t(f)+(i_t(f)+s_t(f))^\prime+i_t(f)+s_t^\prime(f)+\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f)s_t(f) dt\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$I_{dyn}(f)\leq \int_0^{T_0}L_t(f)+(i_t(f)+s_t(f))^\prime+i_t(f)+s_t^\prime(f)+\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f)s_t(f) dt.$$ Therefore, $$I_{dyn}(f)=\int_0^{T_0}L_t(f)+(i_t(f)+s_t(f))^\prime+i_t(f)+s_t^\prime(f)+\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f)s_t(f) dt$$ and the proof is complete.
According to a non-rigorous mean-field analysis, $S_t^n\rightarrow S_t^n-1$ at rate $$\frac{\lambda}{n}\sum_{i:\eta_t(i)=0}\sum_{j:\eta_t(j)=1}\rho(i,j)\approx \frac{\lambda}{n} S_t^nI_t^n(E\rho).$$ To give this mean-field analysis a rigorous description, we define $$\gamma(C,D)=\sum_{i\in C}\sum_{j\in D}\rho(i,j)$$ for any $C,D\subseteq C_n$ such that $C\bigcap D=\emptyset$ and $$\delta_n=\sup\Big\{\frac{\big|\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)\big|}{n^2}:~C,D\subseteq C_n, C\bigcap D=\emptyset\Big\},$$ where $|C|$ is the cardinality of $C$. Then, we have the following lemma.
\[lemma 3.1\] For any $\epsilon>0$, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P(\delta_n>\epsilon)=-\infty.$$
According to Markov’s inequality, for any $\theta>0$ and $C,D\in C_n$ such that $C\bigcap D=\emptyset$, $$P\big(\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)\geq n^2\epsilon\big)\leq e^{-\theta n^2\epsilon}\big[Ee^{\theta(\rho-E\rho)}\big]^{|C||D|}.$$ According to Jensen’ inequality, $Ee^{\theta(\rho-E\rho)}\geq e^{\theta E(\rho-E\rho)}=1$ and hence $$P\big(\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)\geq n^2\epsilon\big)\leq e^{-\theta n^2\epsilon}\big[Ee^{\theta(\rho-E\rho)}\big]^{n^2}
=\Big[e^{-\theta\epsilon}Ee^{\theta(\rho-E\rho)}\Big]^{n^2}.$$ According to our assumption of $\rho$, $e^{-\theta\epsilon}Ee^{\theta(\rho-E\rho)}$ is well-defined and differentiable for $\theta\in (-\infty,\alpha)$. Since $e^{-0\epsilon}Ee^{0(\rho-E\rho)}=1$ and $$\frac{d}{d\theta}e^{-\theta\epsilon}Ee^{\theta(\rho-E\rho)}\Big|_{\theta=0}=-\epsilon<0,$$ there exists $\theta_1>0$ such that $e^{-\theta_1\epsilon}Ee^{\theta_1(\rho-E\rho)}<1$ and $$P\big(\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)\geq n^2\epsilon\big)\leq \big[e^{-\theta_1\epsilon}Ee^{\theta_1(\rho-E\rho)}\big]^{n^2}.$$ Follows from a similar analysis, there exists $\theta_2>0$ such that $e^{-\theta_2\epsilon}Ee^{-\theta_2(\rho-E\rho)}<1$ and $$P\big(\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)\leq-n^2\epsilon\big)\leq \big[e^{-\theta_2\epsilon}Ee^{-\theta_2(\rho-E\rho)}\big]^{n^2}.$$ Therefore, there exists $\theta_3>0$ such that $$P\big(\big|\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)\big|\geq n^2\epsilon\big)\leq 2e^{-\theta_3n^2}$$ for any $C,D\subseteq C_n$ such that $C\bigcap D=\emptyset$. Since the number of subsets of $C_n$ is $2^n$, $$P\big(\delta_n\geq\epsilon\big)\leq 2e^{-\theta_3n^2}4^n$$ and hence $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P(\delta_n>\epsilon)\leq \log4-\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}n\theta_3=-\infty.$$
Our strategy of the proof of Equation is inspired by those introduced in [@Gao2003] and [@Xue2019], where an exponential martingale will be introduced. To give this martingale, we recall some properties of Markov processes. Let $\Omega_n$ be generator of $\{\eta_t^n\}_{t\geq 0}$ defined as in Section \[section one\] and $C^{2,1}\big([0, T_0]\times \{1,0,-1\}^{C_n}\big)$ be the set of functions $f:[0, T_0]\times \{1,0,-1\}^{C_n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $f(t,\eta)$ has continuous second-order partial derivative with respect to the coordinate $t$ and has continuous partial derivative with respect to the coordinate $\eta(i)$ for all $1\leq i\leq n$, then $\{\mathcal{M}_t(f)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ defined as $$\label{equ 3.0}
\mathcal{M}_t(f)=f(t,\eta_t^n)-f(0,\eta_0^n)-\int_0^t (\frac{\partial}{\partial u}+\Omega_n)f(u, \eta^n_u)du$$ is a martingale for any $f\in C^{2,1}\big([0, T_0]\times \{1,0,-1\}^{C_n}\big)$ and $$\label{equ 3.1}
<\mathcal{M}(f_1), \mathcal{M}(f_2)>_t=\int_0^{t}\Omega_n(f_1f_2)-f_1\Omega_nf_2-f_2\Omega_n f_1du$$ for any $f_1,f_2\in C^{2,1}\big([0, T_0]\times \{1,0,-1\}^{C_n}\big)$.
For any $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, let $$f_g(t,\eta)=i_t(g)\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta(i)=1\}}+s_t(g)\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta(i)=0\}},$$ then $f_g(t,\eta_t^n)=i_t(g)I_t^n+s_t(g)S_t^n=g_t\cdot \big(S_t^n, I_t^n\big)^T$. We further define $$H_g(t,\eta_t^n)=e^{f_g(t,\eta_t^n)} \text{~and~}\Lambda_t^n(g)=\frac{H_g(t,\eta_t^n)}{H_g(0,\eta_0^n)}\exp\Big(-\int_0^t\frac{(\frac{\partial}{\partial u}+\Omega_n)H_g(u,\eta_u^n)}{H_g(u,\eta^n_u)}du\Big),$$ then we have the following lemma.
\[lemma 3.2 LambdaIsMartingale\] For any $\omega\in X$ and $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $\{\Lambda_t^n(g)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ is a martingale with expectation $1$ under the quenched measure $P_{\lambda,n}^\omega$.
According to Ito’s formula, $$\label{equ 3.2}
d\Lambda_{t}^n(g)=\frac{\exp\Big(-\int_0^t\frac{(\frac{\partial}{\partial u}+\Omega_n)H_g(u,\eta_u^n)}{H_g(u,\eta^n_u)}du\Big)}{H_g(0,\eta_0^n)}d\mathcal{M}_{t}(H_g),$$ where $\mathcal{M}_t(H_g)$ is defined as in Equation and hence $\{\mathcal{M}_t(H_g)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ is a martingale. Therefore, $\{\Lambda_t^n(g)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ is a local martingale. Since $S_t^n, I_t^n\leq n$ for any $t\geq 0$, $\{\Lambda_t^n(g)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ are uniformly bounded, which ensures that this local martingale is a martingale.
By Lemma \[lemma 3.2 LambdaIsMartingale\], we define $\widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{\omega,g}$ as the quenched measure such that $$\frac{d\widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{\omega,g}}{dP_{\lambda,n}^\omega}=\Lambda_{T_0}^n(g)$$ for any $\omega\in X$ and $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$. We further define $\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}$ as the annealed measure such that $$\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}(\cdot)=\int_{X}\widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{\omega,g}(\cdot)P(d\omega).$$ For $a\geq 0$, we use $\lfloor a\rfloor$ to denote the largest integer not exceeding $a$. For $x,y\geq 0$ such that $x+y\leq 1$, we define $$\widehat{P}^{g,x,y}_{\lambda,n}(\cdot)=\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}\Big(\cdot\Big|S_0^n=\lfloor nx\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor ny\rfloor\Big).$$ Then, we have the following lemma, which is crucial for the proof of Equation .
\[lemma 3.3 LLNunderChangeMeasure\] For any $x,y\geq 0$ such that $x+y\leq 1$ and any $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $\{\big(\frac{S_t^n}{n},\frac{I_t^n}{n}\big)^T\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ converges in $\widehat{P}^{g,x,y}_{\lambda,n}$-probability to the solution $$\{\widetilde{x}_t=(\widetilde{s}_t,\widetilde{i}_t)^T:~0\leq t\leq T_0\}$$ to the ODE $$\begin{cases}
&\frac{d}{dt}\widetilde{s}_t=-e^{i_t(g)-s_t(g)}\lambda(E\rho)\widetilde{s}_t\widetilde{i}_t,\\
&\frac{d}{dt}\widetilde{i}_t=-e^{-i_t(g)}\widetilde{i}_t+e^{i_t(g)-s_t(g)}\lambda(E\rho)\widetilde{s}_t\widetilde{i}_t, \\
&(\widetilde{s}_0,\widetilde{i}_0)=(x,y).
\end{cases}$$
For $0\leq t\leq T_0$, we define $$\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t(H_g)=\int_0^t \frac{1}{H_g(u-,\eta_{u-}^n)}d\mathcal{M}_{u}(H_g),$$ then by Equation , $$\label{equ 3.4}
d\Lambda_t^n(g)=\Lambda_{t-}^n(g)d\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t(H_g).$$ According to Equation and Theorem 3.2 of [@Schuppen1974], which is a generalized version of Girsanov’s thoerem, for any martingale $\{M_t\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ under $P_{\lambda,n}^\omega$, $$\{\widetilde{M}_t=M_t-<M,\widehat{\mathcal{M}}(H_g)>_t:~0\leq t\leq T_0\}$$ is a martingale under $\widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{\omega,g}$ and $[\widetilde{M}, \widetilde{M}]=[M, M]$ under both $P_{\lambda,n}^\omega$ and $\widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{\omega,g}$.
Let $f_1(\eta)=\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta(i)=0\}}$ and $f_2(\eta)=\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta(i)=1\}}$, then, as we have recalled, $\{\mathcal{M}_t(f_1)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ and $\{\mathcal{M}_t(f_2)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ are martingales under $P_{\lambda,n}^\omega$, where $$\mathcal{M}_t(f_1)=S_t^n-\lfloor nx\rfloor -\int_0^t \Omega_nf_1(\eta_u^n)du$$ and $$\mathcal{M}_t(f_2)=I_t^n-\lfloor ny\rfloor-\int_0^t \Omega_nf_2(\eta_u^n)du.$$ Then, by the definition of $\Omega_n$ and direct calculation, $$\begin{aligned}
&S_t^n=\lfloor nx\rfloor-\frac{\lambda}{n}\int_0^t \gamma(\mathcal{S}_u^n, \mathcal{I}_u^n)du+\mathcal{M}_t(f_1),\\
&I_t^n=\lfloor ny\rfloor+\frac{\lambda}{n}\int_0^t \gamma(\mathcal{S}_u^n, \mathcal{I}_u^n)du-\int_0^tI_u^ndu+\mathcal{M}_t(f_2), \notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{S}_u^n=\{i:~\eta_u^n(i)=0\}$ and $\mathcal{I}_u^n=\{i:~\eta_u^n(i)=1\}$. We define $$\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_1)=\mathcal{M}_t(f_1)-<\mathcal{M}(f_1), \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(H_g)>_t$$ and $$\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_2)=\mathcal{M}_t(f_2)-<\mathcal{M}(f_2), \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(H_g)>_t,$$ then, as we have recalled, $\{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_1)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ and $\{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_2)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ are both martingales under $\widehat{P}^{\omega,g}_{\lambda,n}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&S_t^n=\lfloor nx\rfloor-\frac{\lambda}{n}\int_0^t \gamma(\mathcal{S}_u^n, \mathcal{I}_u^n)du+\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_1)+<\mathcal{M}(f_1), \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(H_g)>_t,\\
&I_t^n=\lfloor ny\rfloor+\frac{\lambda}{n}\int_0^t \gamma(\mathcal{S}_u^n, \mathcal{I}_u^n)du-\int_0^tI_u^ndu+\widetilde{\mathcal{M}_t}(f_2)+<\mathcal{M}(f_2), \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(H_g)>_t. \notag\end{aligned}$$ By Equation and direct calculation, $$\begin{aligned}
&d<\mathcal{M}(f_1), \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(H_g)>_t=\frac{1}{H_g(t-,\eta_{t-}^n)}d<\mathcal{M}(f_1), \mathcal{M}(H_g)>_t\\
&=-\frac{H_g(t-,\eta_{t-}^n)}{H_g(t-,\eta_{t-}^n)}\big(e^{i_t(g)-s_t(g)}-1\big)\frac{\lambda}{n}\gamma(\mathcal{S}_t^n, \mathcal{I}_t^n)dt=-\big(e^{i_t(g)-s_t(g)}-1\big)\frac{\lambda}{n}\gamma(\mathcal{S}_t^n, \mathcal{I}_t^n)dt.\end{aligned}$$ According to a similar calculation, $$d<\mathcal{M}(f_1), \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(H_g)>_t=\big[-(e^{-i_t(g)}-1)I_t^n+(e^{i_t(g)-s_t(g)}-1)\frac{\lambda}{n}\gamma(\mathcal{S}_t^n, \mathcal{I}_t^n)\big]dt.$$ As a result, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ StLDP}
\frac{S_t^n}{n}&=\frac{\lfloor nx\rfloor}{n}-\frac{\lambda}{n^2}\int_0^t e^{i_u(g)-s_u(g)}\gamma(\mathcal{S}_u^n, \mathcal{I}_u^n)du+\frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_1)\\
&=\frac{\lfloor nx\rfloor}{n}-\int_0^t\lambda e^{i_u(g)-s_u(g)}\big(\frac{S_u^n}{n}\frac{I_u^n}{n}(E\rho)+\varepsilon_{u}^n\big) du+\frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_1)\notag\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ ItLDP}
\frac{I_t^n}{n}&=\frac{\lfloor ny\rfloor}{n}+\int_0^t-e^{-i_u(g)}\frac{I_u^n}{n}+\frac{\lambda}{n^2}e^{i_u(g)-s_u(g)}\gamma(\mathcal{S}_u^n, \mathcal{I}_u^n)du+\frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_2)\\
&=\frac{\lfloor ny\rfloor}{n}+\int_0^t-e^{-i_u(g)}\frac{I_u^n}{n}+\lambda e^{i_u(g)-s_u(g)}\big(\frac{S_u^n}{n}\frac{I_u^n}{n}(E\rho)+\varepsilon_{u}^n\big)du+\frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_2), \notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_u^n=\frac{\gamma(\mathcal{S}_u^n, \mathcal{I}_u^n)-(E\rho)S_u^nI_u^n}{n^2}$.
As a result, to prove Lemma \[lemma 3.3 LLNunderChangeMeasure\], we only need to show that $\sup_{0\leq u\leq T_0}|\varepsilon_u^n|$ converges in $\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}$-probability to $0$ and $\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_0}|\frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_i)|$ converges in $\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}$-probability to $0$ for $i=1,2$.
Since $S_t^n, I_t^n\leq n$, there exists $K_2\in (0,+\infty)$ not depending on $n, \omega$ such $\Lambda_t^n(g)\leq e^{K_2n}$ for all $0\leq t\leq T_0$. Therefore, $$\label{equ 3.5}
\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}\big(\sup_{0\leq u\leq T_0}|\varepsilon_u^n|\geq \epsilon\big)
\leq e^{K_2n}P_{\lambda,n}\big(\sup_{0\leq u\leq T_0}|\varepsilon_u^n|\geq \epsilon\big).$$ Since $|\mathcal{S}_t^n|=S_t^n$ and $|\mathcal{I}_t^n|=I_t^n$, $\sup_{0\leq u\leq T_0}|\varepsilon_u^n|$ converges in $\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}$-probability to $0$ according to Equation and Lemma \[lemma 3.1\].
To prove $\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_0}|\frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(f_i)|$ converges in $\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}$-probability to $0$ for $i=1,2$, we only need to show that $$[\frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i), \frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i)]_{T_0}=\frac{1}{n^2}[\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i), \widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i)]_{T_0}$$ converges in $\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}$-probability to $0$ for $i=1,2$. As we have recalled, $[\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i), \widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i)]=[\mathcal{M}(f_i), \mathcal{M}(f_i)]$. Since $S_t^n, I_t^n\leq n$, there exists $K_3, K_4\in (0,+\infty)$ not depending on $n,\omega$ such that $\{[\mathcal{M}(f_i), \mathcal{M}(f_i)]_t\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ is stochastically dominated from above by $\{K_4Y_{nK_3t}\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ under $P_{\lambda,n}^\omega$, where $\{Y_t\}_{t\geq 0}$ is a Poison process with rate $1$. Then, for any $\epsilon>0$, $$P_{\lambda,n}\big(\frac{1}{n^2}[\mathcal{M}(f_i), \mathcal{M}(f_i)]_{T_0}\geq \epsilon\big)\leq e^{-n^2\epsilon}Ee^{K_4Y_{nK_3T_0}}=e^{-n^2\epsilon}e^{(e^{K_4}-1)nK_3T_0}$$ and hence $$\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}\big(\frac{1}{n^2}[\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i), \widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i)]_{T_0}\geq \epsilon\big)\leq e^{-n^2\epsilon}e^{(e^{K_4}-1)nK_3T_0}e^{K_2n}.$$ Therefore, $[\frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i), \frac{1}{n}\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(f_i)]_{T_0}$ converges in $\widehat{P}^g_{\lambda,n}$-probability to $0$ for $i=1,2$ and the proof is complete.
At the end of this section, we give the proof of Equation .
If $\inf_{O\bigcap \mathcal{B}}(I_{ini}(f_0)+I_{dyn}(f))=+\infty$, then the conclusion is trivial, so we only deal with the case where $\inf_{O\bigcap \mathcal{B}}(I_{ini}(f_0)+I_{dyn}(f))<+\infty$. For any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $f^\epsilon\in O\bigcap \mathcal{B}$ such that $$I_{ini}(f^\epsilon_0)+I_{dyn}(f^\epsilon)<\inf_{O\bigcap \mathcal{B}}(I_{ini}(f_0)+I_{dyn}(f))+\epsilon.$$ Hence, by Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\], $s_0(f^\epsilon)\geq 0, i_0(f^\epsilon)\geq 0$ and $s_0(f^\epsilon)+i_0(f^\epsilon)\leq 1$ while $f^\epsilon$ is absolutely continuous. As we have shown in the proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\], there exists $h_1^\epsilon(t), h_2^\epsilon(t)\geq 0$ such that $$\begin{cases}
s_t^\prime(f^\epsilon)&=-h_2^\epsilon(t)\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f^\epsilon)s_t(f^\epsilon),\\
i_t^\prime(f^\epsilon)&=-h_1^\epsilon(t)i_t(f^\epsilon)+h_2^\epsilon(t)\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f^\epsilon)s_t(f^\epsilon).
\end{cases}$$ Similarly with that in the proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\], we let $h_1^n\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}\big)$ such that $h_1^n(t)>0$ for all $t\in [0, T_0]$ while $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\int_0^{T_0}|h_1^n(t)-h_1^\epsilon(t)|dt=0$$ and $h_2^n\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}\big)$ such that $h_2^n(t)>0$ for all $t\in [0, T_0]$ while $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\int_0^{T_0}|h_2^n(t)-h_2^\epsilon(t)|dt=0$$ and define $g^n\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ such that $s_t(g^n)$ and $i_t(g^n)$ satisfies $$h_1^n(t)=\exp\big\{-i_t(g^n)\big\} \text{~and~} h_2^n(t)=\exp\big\{i_t(g^n)-s_t(g^n)\big\}$$ for all $t\in [0, T_0]$. Then we define $f^n\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ as the solution to the ODE $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
&s_t^\prime(f^n)=-h_2^n(t)\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f^n)s_t(f^n),\\
&i_t^\prime(f^n)=-h_1^n(t)i_t(f^n)+h_2^n(t)\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f^n)s_t(f^n),\\
&(s_0(f^n), i_0(f^n))=(s_0(f^\epsilon), i_0(f^\epsilon)).
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Then, according to our assumptions of $h_1^n, h_2^n$ and Grownwall’s inequality, $(f^n)^\prime$ converges to $(f^\epsilon)^\prime$ in $L_1\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ while $f^n$ converges to $f^\epsilon$ uniformly on $[0, T_0]$. Note that the definition of $f^n$ ensures that $f^n\in \mathcal{B}$. Since $g^n\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, according to a similar analysis with that in the proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\], $$\begin{aligned}
I_{dyn}(f^n)&=\Phi_{f^n}(g^n)\\
&=\int_0^{T_0}L_t(f^n)+(i_t(f^n)+s_t(f^n))^\prime+i_t(f^n)+s_t^\prime(f^n)+\lambda(E\rho)i_t(f^n)s_t(f^n) dt\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} I_{dyn}(f^n)=I_{dyn}(f^\epsilon).$$ Therefore, there exists $n_1\geq 1$ such that $|I_{dyn}(f^{n_1})-I_{dyn}(f)|<\epsilon$ and $f^{n_1}\in O\bigcap B$.
According to the definition of $g^{n_1}$ and $f^{n_1}$, $$\begin{cases}
&\frac{d}{dt}s_t(f^{n_1})=-e^{i_t(g^{n_1})-s_t(g^{n_1})}\lambda(E\rho)s_t(f^{n_1})i_t(f^{n_1}),\\
&\frac{d}{dt}i_t(f^{n_1})=-e^{-i_t(g^{n_1})}i_t(g^{n_1})+e^{i_t(g^{n_1})-s_t(g^{n_1})}\lambda(E\rho)s_t(f^{n_1})i_t(f^{n_1}), \\
&(s_0(f^{n_1}),i_0(f^{n_1}))=(s_0(f^\epsilon),i_0(f^\epsilon)).
\end{cases}$$ Therefore, according to Lemma \[lemma 3.3 LLNunderChangeMeasure\], $\vartheta^n$ converges in $\widehat{P}^{g^{n_1},s_0(f^\epsilon),i_0(f^\epsilon)}_{\lambda,n}$-probability to $f^{n_1}$ as $n\rightarrow+\infty$.
By direct calculation, $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^n_{T_0}(g^{n_1})=&\exp\Big\{n\vartheta^n_{T_0}\cdot g^{n_1}_{T_0}-n\vartheta^n_0\cdot g^{n_1}_0-\int_0^{T_0}n\vartheta^n_t\cdot (g_t^{n_1})^\prime dt\\
&-\int_0^{T_0}\big(e^{g_t^{n_1}\cdot l_1}-1\big)I_t^n+\big(e^{g_t^{n_1}\cdot l_2}-1\big)\frac{\lambda}{n}\gamma(\mathcal{S}_t^n, \mathcal{I}_t^n)dt\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\delta_n$ be defined as before Lemma \[lemma 3.1\]. According to the above expression of $\Lambda^n_{T_0}(g^{n_1})$, for given $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\delta_0>0$ not depending on $n$ such that $$\Lambda_{T_0}^n(g^{n_1})\leq \exp\big\{n(\Phi_{f^{n_1}}(g^{n_1})+\epsilon+\frac{\|g^{n_1}\|}{n})\big\}$$ conditioned on $\vartheta^n\in B(f^{n_1}, \delta_0)$ and $\delta_n\leq \delta_0$, where $B(f^{n_1}, r)$ is the ball concentrated on $f^{n_1}$ with radius $r$. Since $O$ is open, we can further assume that $\delta_0$ makes $B(f^{n_1}, \delta_0)\subseteq O$. As a result, $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{\lambda,n}\big(\vartheta^n\in O\big)\geq P_{\lambda,n}\big(\vartheta^n\in B(f^{n_1},\delta_0), \delta_n\leq \delta_0, S_0^n=\lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor ni_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor\big) \\
&=\widehat{E}_{\lambda,n}^{g^{n_1}}\Big[\frac{1}{\Lambda_{T_0}^n(g^{n_1})}1_{\{\vartheta^n\in B(f^{n_1},\delta_0), \delta_n\leq \delta_0, S_0^n=\lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor ni_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor\}}\Big] \\
&\geq \exp\big\{-n(\Phi_{f^{n_1}}(g^{n_1})+\epsilon+\frac{\|g^{n_1}\|}{n})\big\}\widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{g^{n_1}, s_0(f^\epsilon), i_0(f^\epsilon)}\big(\vartheta^n\in B(f^{n_1},\delta_0), \delta_n\leq \delta_0\big) \\
&\times \widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{g^{n_1}}\big(S_0^n=\lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor ni_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor\big).\end{aligned}$$ As we have shown, $\vartheta^n$ converges in $\widehat{P}^{g^{n_1},s_0(f^\epsilon),i_0(f^\epsilon)}_{\lambda,n}$-probability to $f^{n_1}$ as $n\rightarrow+\infty$. Further, according to the analysis in the proof of Lemma \[lemma 3.3 LLNunderChangeMeasure\], $\delta_n$ converges in $\widehat{P}^{g^{n_1},s_0(f^\epsilon),i_0(f^\epsilon)}_{\lambda,n}$-probability to $0$ as $n\rightarrow+\infty$. Therefore, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{g^{n_1}, s_0(f^\epsilon), i_0(f^\epsilon)}\big(\vartheta^n\in B(f^{n_1},\delta_0), \delta_n\leq \delta_0\big)=1$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\vartheta^n\in O\big)\geq \\
&-\Phi_{f^{n_1}}(g^{n_1})-\epsilon+\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{g^{n_1}}\big(S_0^n=\lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor ni_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor\big).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{\Lambda_t^{n}(g^{n_1})\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ is an exponential martingale with $\Lambda_0^{n}(g^{n_1})=1$, $\vartheta^n_0$ have the same distribution under $\widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{g^{n_1}}$ and $P_{\lambda,n}$. As a result, according to Assumption **A**, Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\] and Strling’s formula, $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \widehat{P}_{\lambda,n}^{g^{n_1}}\big(S_0^n=\lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor ni_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor\big)\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(S_0^n=\lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor ni_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor\big) \\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \Bigg\{{n \choose \lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor}{n-\lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor \choose \lfloor ni_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor}p_0^{\lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor}\\
&\text{~\quad\quad}\times p_1^{\lfloor ni_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor}(1-p_0-p_1)^{n-\lfloor ns_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor-\lfloor ni_0(f^\epsilon)\rfloor}\Bigg\}\\
&=-\Bigg(s_0(f^\epsilon)\log \frac{s_0(f^\epsilon)}{p_0}+i_0(f^\epsilon)\log \frac{i_0(f^\epsilon)}{p_1}\\
&\text{\quad\quad}+(1-s_0(f^\epsilon)-i_0(f^\epsilon))\log\frac{1-s_0(f^\epsilon)-i_0(f^\epsilon)}{1-p_0-p_1}\Bigg)=-I_{ini}(f^\epsilon_0).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\vartheta^n\in O\big)\geq -\Phi_{f^{n_1}}(g^{n_1})-\epsilon-I_{ini}(f^\epsilon_0) \\
&=-I_{dyn}(f^{n_1})-I_{ini}(f^\epsilon_0)-\epsilon\geq -I_{dyn}(f^\epsilon)-I_{ini}(f^\epsilon_0)-2\epsilon\\
&\geq -\inf_{O\bigcap \mathcal{B}}(I_{ini}(f_0)+I_{dyn}(f))-3\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, the proof is complete.
We think that the strategy of the above proof of Equation can be utilized in the study of large deviations for some other density-dependent Markov processes. Roughly speaking, the core idea of the proof is to show that $\vartheta^n$ converges to $f$ under $\widehat{P}^g$ and consequently the rate function $I(f)$ satisfies $nI(f)\approx -\log \frac{dP}{d\widehat{P}^g}\Big|_{\vartheta^n=f}$, where $$f^\prime=l_1e^{g\cdot l_1}H_1(f)+l_2e^{g\cdot l_2}H_2(f)$$ while $nH_i(f_t)$ is nearly the rate at which $\vartheta^n$ flips from $nf_t$ to $nf_t+l_i$. Similarly, for a density-dependent Markov process $\{X_t^n\}_{t\geq 0}$ with parameters $\{F_l\}_{l\in \mathcal{A}}$, let $$\begin{aligned}
I(f)=&\sup_{g\in C^2\big([0,T_0],\mathbb{R}^d\big)}\Big\{f_{T_0}\cdot g_{T_0}-f_0\cdot g_0-\int_0^{T_0}f_t\cdot g_t^\prime dt\\
&-\int_0^{T_0}\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}}\big(e^{g_t\cdot l}-1\big)F_l(f_t)dt\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ If one could show that $I(f)<+\infty$ implies that there exists $g$ such that $$f^\prime=\sum_{l\in \mathcal{A}}le^{g\cdot l}F_l(f),$$ which is an analogue of Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\] and intuitively holds according to a non-rigorous variational method, then the large deviation principle of $\{\frac{X_t^n}{n}\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ with rate function $I$ would hold according to the above strategy. We guess that this analysis may work for all the cases where $\mathcal{A}$ is finite and $\{F_l\}_{l\in \mathcal{A}}$ are bounded and smooth. However, we have not yet found a rigorous proof of the above analogue of Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\] for these general cases. We will work on this question as a further investigation.
The proof of Equation {#section four}
======================
In this section we give the proof of Equation . First we show that this equation holds for compact sets.
\[lemma 4.1\] For any compact set $C\subseteq \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda, n}\big(\vartheta^n\in C\big)\leq -\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(I_{dyn}(f)+I_{ini}(f_0)\big).$$
Let $\beta_{2,x}(y)=y\cdot x-\log\big(1-p_0-p_1+e^{s_y}p_0+e^{i_y}p_1$, then $I_{ini}(x)=\sup_{y\in \mathbb{R}^2}\beta_{2,x}(y)$. For any $\epsilon>0$, by Lemma \[lemma 3.1\] and the fact that $\vartheta\in \mathcal{B}$ almost surely, $$\label{equ 4.1}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda, n}\big(\vartheta^n\in C\big)=\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda, n}\big(\vartheta^n\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B},\delta_n\leq \epsilon\big).$$ For any $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ and $y\in \mathbb{R}^2$, by the expression of $\Lambda_{T_0}^n(g)$ given in Section \[section three\], conditioned on $\vartheta^n\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}$ and $\delta_n\leq \epsilon$, $$e^{ny\cdot \vartheta_0^n}\Lambda^n_{T_0}(g)\geq \exp\big\{n\big[\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(y\cdot f_0+\Phi_f(g)\big)-\lambda\epsilon e^{\|g\|+1}\big]\big\}.$$ Hence, by Lemma \[lemma 3.2 LambdaIsMartingale\], for any $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ and $y\in \mathbb{R}^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\lambda,n}e^{ny\cdot\vartheta_0^n}&=E_{\lambda,n}\big(e^{ny\cdot\vartheta_0^n}\Lambda_{0}^{n}(g)\big)\\
&=E_{\lambda,n}\big(e^{ny\cdot\vartheta_0^n}\Lambda_{T_0}^{n}\big)\geq E_{\lambda,n}\big(e^{ny\cdot\vartheta_0^n}\Lambda_{T_0}^{n}1_{\{\vartheta^n\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B},\delta_n\leq \epsilon\}}\big)\\
&\geq \exp\Big\{n\big(\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(y\cdot f_0+\Phi_f(g)\big)-\lambda\epsilon e^{\|g\|+1}\big)\Big\}\\
&\text{~\quad\quad}\times P_{\lambda,n}\big(\vartheta^n\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B},\delta_n\leq \epsilon\big).\end{aligned}$$ By Assumption **A**, $E_{\lambda,n}e^{ny\cdot\vartheta_0^n}=e^{n\log\big(1-p_0-p_1+e^{s_y}p_0+e^{i_y}p_1\big)}$, hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\vartheta^n\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B},\delta_n\leq \epsilon\big)\\
&\leq -\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(y\cdot f_0+\Phi_f(g)\big)+\log\big(1-p_0-p_1+e^{s_y}p_0+e^{i_y}p_1\big)+\lambda\epsilon e^{\|g\|+1}\\
&=-\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(\beta_{2,f_0}(y)+\Phi_f(g)\big)+\lambda\epsilon e^{\|g\|+1}.\end{aligned}$$ By Equation , $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda, n}\big(\vartheta^n\in C\big)\leq -\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(\beta_{2,f_0}(y)+\Phi_f(g)\big)+\lambda\epsilon e^{\|g\|+1}$$ and hence $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda, n}\big(\vartheta^n\in C\big)\leq -\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(\beta_{2,f_0}(y)+\Phi_f(g)\big)$$ since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary. Since $g$ and $y$ are arbitrary, $$\label{equ 4.2}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda, n}\big(\vartheta^n\in C\big)\leq -\sup_{y,g}\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(\beta_{2,f_0}(y)+\Phi_f(g)\big).$$ Since $\beta_{2,f_0}(y)+\Phi_f(g)$ is concave with $(g,y)$ while convex with $f$ and $C$ is compact, according to the minimax theorem given in [@Sion1958], $$\label{equ 4.3}
\sup_{y,g}\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\big(\beta_{2,f_0}(y)+\Phi_f(g)\big)
=\inf_{f\in C\bigcap \mathcal{B}}\sup_{y,g}\big(\beta_{2,f_0}(y)+\Phi_f(g)\big).$$ For given $f$, $$\sup_{y,g}\big(\beta_{2,f_0}(y)+\Phi_f(g)\big)=\sup_{y}\beta_{2,f_0}(y)+\sup_{g}\Phi_f(g)=I_{ini}(f_0)+I_{dyn}(f)$$ and hence Lemma \[lemma 4.1\] follows from Equations and .
At the end of this section, we give the proof of Equation .
By Lemma \[lemma 4.1\], we only need to show that $\{\vartheta^n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is exponential tight, which is equivalent to the following two properties (see the main theorem of [@Puhalskii1994]).
(**1**) $$\limsup_{M\rightarrow+\infty}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\|\vartheta^n\|>M\big)=-\infty.$$ (**2**) For any $\epsilon>0$, $$\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}|\frac{I_{t+\tau}^n-I_\tau^n}{n}|+|\frac{S_{t+\tau}^n-S_\tau^n}{n}|>\epsilon\big)=-\infty,$$ where $\mathcal{T}_0$ is the set of stopping times of $\{\eta_t^n\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ with upper bound $T_0$.
To check Property (**1**), note that $S_t^n+I_t^n\leq n$ implies that $$P_{\lambda,n}\big(\|\vartheta^n\|>1\big)=0,$$ Property (**1**) follows from which directly.
Now we only need to check Property (**2**). By Lemma \[lemma 3.1\], we only need to check (**2**): $$\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}|\frac{I_{t+\tau}^n-I_\tau^n}{n}|+|\frac{S_{t+\tau}^n-S_\tau^n}{n}|>\epsilon, \delta_n\leq M\big)=-\infty$$ for any $M,\epsilon>0$. Conditioned on $\delta_n\leq M$, $S_t^n ,I_t^n\leq n$ implies that $\{|I_{t+\tau}^n-I_\tau^n|+|S_{t+\tau}^n-S_\tau^n|\}_{t\geq 0}$ is stochastically dominated from above by $\{2Y_{K_5nt}\}_{t\geq 0}$ for some $K_5=K_5(M)\in (0,+\infty)$ not depending on $n$, where $\{Y_t\}_{t\geq 0}$ is the Poisson process with rate $1$. Therefore, by Chebyshev’s inequality, for any $\theta>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{\lambda,n}\big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}|\frac{I_{t+\tau}^n-I_\tau^n}{n}|+|\frac{S_{t+\tau}^n-S_\tau^n}{n}|>\epsilon, \delta_n\leq M\big) \\
&\leq P(e^{\theta Y_{K_5n\delta}}>e^{\frac{\theta n\epsilon}{2}})=e^{-\frac{\theta n\epsilon}{2}}e^{K_5n\delta(e^\theta-1)}\end{aligned}$$ and then, $$\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}|\frac{I_{t+\tau}^n-I_\tau^n}{n}|+|\frac{S_{t+\tau}^n-S_\tau^n}{n}|>\epsilon, \delta_n\leq M\big)\leq -\frac{\theta\epsilon}{2},$$ Property (**2**) follows from which since $\theta$ is arbitrary and hence Property (**2**) holds.
Since Properties (**1**) and (**2**) hold, $\{\vartheta^n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is exponential tight. Consequently, Equation follows from Lemma \[lemma 4.1\].
The outline of proof of Theorem \[Theorem 2.4 MDPofSIR\] {#section five}
========================================================
In this section, we give the outline of the proof of Theorem \[Theorem 2.4 MDPofSIR\]. For later use, we first prove Lemma \[lemma 2.3 LLNofSIR\] and Theorem \[theorem 2.5 JdynEpress\].
For $f\in \mathcal{B}$, we claim that $I_{ini}(f_0)+I_{dyn}(f)=0$ if and only if $f=\widehat{x}$, which we will prove at the end of this proof. Consequently, $\inf\{I_{ini}(f_0)+I_{dyn}(f):~f\in\mathcal{B}\text{~and~}\|f-\widehat{x}\|\geq \epsilon\}>0$ for any $\epsilon>0$ and Lemma \[lemma 2.3 LLNofSIR\] follows from Equation directly.
Hence, we only need to prove our claim. By Theorem \[theorem 2.2 Idyn Expression\], $I_{ini}(x)$ gets minimum $0$ when and only when $x$ is the solution to $\frac{\partial}{\partial s_x}I_{ini}(x)=\frac{\partial}{\partial i_x}I_{ini}(x)=0$, i.e, $s_x=p_0, i_x=p_1$. Then, for $f\in \mathcal{B}$ satisfying $I_{ini}(f_0)+I_{dyn}(f)=0$, i.e., $I_{ini}(f_0)=I_{dyn}(f)=0$, we have $s_0(f)=p_0$ and $i_0(f)=p_1$. For such $f$, since $I_{dyn}(f)=0$, $$\sup\{\Phi_f(cg):~c\in \mathbb{R}\}=\Phi_f(0g)=0$$ for any given $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$. Therefore, $\frac{d}{dc}\Phi_f(cg)\Big|_{c=0}=0$, i.e, $$\int_0^{T_0} \big(f_t^\prime-l_1i_t(f)-l_2\lambda(E\rho)s_t(f)i_t(f)\big)\cdot g_tdt=0$$ for any $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, where $l_1=(0,-1)^T, l_2=(-1,1)^T$ defined as in Section \[section two\]. Therefore, $f_t^\prime=l_1i_t(f)+l_2\lambda(E\rho)s_t(f)i_t(f)$ for $0\leq t\leq T_0$, i.e., $$\begin{cases}
&s_t^\prime(f)=-\lambda(E\rho)s_t(f)i_t(f),\\
&i_t^\prime(f)=-i_t(f)+\lambda(E\rho)s_t(f)i_t(f),
\end{cases}$$ $f=\widehat{x}$ follows from which and the fact that $s_0(f)=p_0, i_0(f)=p_1$.
For given $x\in \mathbb{R}^2, y\in \mathbb{R}^2\setminus \{(0,0)^T\}$ and any $c\in R$, $$(cy)\cdot x-\frac{1}{2}(cy)^TM_{_0}(cy)=c(y\cdot x)-\frac{c^2}{2}y^TM_{_0}y$$ and hence gets maximum $\frac{(y\cdot x)^2}{2y^TM_{_0}y}$ when $c=\frac{y\cdot x}{y^TM_{_0}y}$. Therefore, $$J_{ini}(x)=\sup\{\frac{(y\cdot x)^2}{2y^TM_{_0}y}:~y\neq (0,0)^T\}.$$ For any $y\in \mathbb{R}^2$, by Cauchy-Schwartz’s inequality, $$|y\cdot x|^2=|(M_{_0}y)\cdot (M_{_0}^{-\frac{1}{2}}x)|^2\leq y^TM_{_0}yx^TM^{-1}_{_0}x$$ and hence $J_{ini}(x)\leq \frac{1}{2}x^TM^{-1}_{_0}x$. On the other hand, let $y_{_0}=M_0^{-1}x$, then $$J_{ini}(x)\geq \frac{(y_0\cdot x)^2}{2y_0^TM_{_0}y_0}=\frac{1}{2}x^TM^{-1}_{_0}x.$$ Therefore, $J_{ini}(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^TM^{-1}_{_0}x$.
For $f\in \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ satisfying $J_{dyn}(f)<+\infty$, $$J_{dyn}(f)=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}(f_t^\prime-b_tf_t)^T\sigma_t^{-1}(f_t^\prime-b_tf_t) dt$$ holds as a special example of Equation (2.2) of Reference [@Xue2019], the proof of which utilizes Riesz’s representation Theorem to show that $J_{dyn}(f)<+\infty$ implies that $f$ is absolutely continuous and there exists $\varphi$ such that $$f^\prime_t-b_tf_t=\sigma_t\varphi_t$$ while $J_{dyn}(f)=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}\varphi_t^T\sigma_t\varphi_tdt$. Details of this proof could be checked in [@Xue2019], which we omit here.
As another preparation work, we need the following lemma, which is an analogue of Lemma \[lemma 3.1\].
\[lemma 5.1\] For any $\epsilon>0$, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P(\frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}>\epsilon)=-\infty.$$
According to Chebyshev’s’s inequality and similar analysis with that in the proof of Lemma \[lemma 3.1\], for any $C,D\in C_n$ such that $C\bigcap D=\emptyset$ and $\theta>0$, $$P\big(\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)>na_n\epsilon\big)\leq e^{-\theta a_n^2\epsilon}\big[Ee^{\frac{a_n}{n}\theta(\rho-E\rho)}\big]^{n^2}.$$ Since $\frac{a_n}{n}\rightarrow 0$, by Taylor’s expansion formula, $$\begin{aligned}
Ee^{\frac{a_n}{n}\theta(\rho-E\rho)}&=1+\frac{a_n}{n}\theta E(\rho-E\rho)+\frac{a_n^2}{2n^2}\theta^2{\rm Var}(\rho)+o(\frac{a_n^2}{n^2})\\
&=1+\frac{a_n^2}{2n^2}\theta^2{\rm Var}(\rho)+o(\frac{a_n^2}{n^2})\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$P\big(\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)>na_n\epsilon\big)\leq e^{-\theta a_n^2\epsilon+\frac{a_n^2}{2}[{\rm Var}(\rho)\theta^2+o(1)]}$$ according to the fact that $1+x\leq e^x$. Let $\theta=\frac{\epsilon}{{\rm Var}(\rho)}$, then $$P\big(\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)>na_n\epsilon\big)\leq e^{-\frac{a_n^2\epsilon^2}{2{\rm Var}(\rho)}[1+o(1)]}.$$ Note that $o(1)$ in the above inequality does not rely on $C,D$. According to a similar analysis, $$P\big(\gamma(C,D)-|C||D|(E\rho)<-na_n\epsilon\big)\leq e^{-\frac{a_n^2\epsilon^2}{2{\rm Var}(\rho)}[1+o(1)]}.$$ Then, since the number of subsets of $C_n$ is $2^n$, $$P(\frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}>\epsilon)\leq e^{4n}e^{-\frac{a_n^2\epsilon^2}{2{\rm Var}(\rho)}[1+o(1)]},$$ Lemma \[lemma 5.1\] follows from which directly since $\frac{n}{a_n^2}\rightarrow 0$.
Similarly with that in Section \[section three\], for any $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, we define $$\zeta_g(t,\eta)=\frac{a_n}{n}\Big[i_t(g)\big(\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta(i)=1\}}-n\widehat{i}_t\big)+s_t(g)\big(\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta(i)=0\}}-n\widehat{s}_t\big)\Big],$$ where $\widehat{x}_t=(\widehat{s}_t,\widehat{i}_t)^T$ defined as in Section \[section two\]. Then, $$\zeta_g(t,\eta_t^n)=\frac{a_n}{n}g_t\cdot\big[(S_t^n,I_t^n)^T-n\widehat{x}_t\big].$$ We further define $V_g(t,\eta_t^n)=e^{\zeta_g(t,\eta_t^n)}$ and $$\Xi_t^n(g)=\frac{V_g(t,\eta_t^n)}{V_g(0,\eta_0^n)}\exp\Big(-\int_0^t\frac{(\frac{\partial}{\partial u}+\Omega_n)V_g(u,\eta_u^n)}{V_g(u,\eta^n_u)}du\Big),$$ then we have the following lemma, which is an analogue of Lemma \[lemma 3.2 LambdaIsMartingale\].
\[lemma 5.2 XiIsMartingale\] For any $\omega\in X$ and $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $\{\Xi_t^n(g)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ is a martingale with expectation $1$ under the quenched measure $P_{\lambda,n}^\omega$.
The proof of Lemma \[lemma 5.2 XiIsMartingale\] is nearly the same as that of Lemma \[lemma 3.2 LambdaIsMartingale\], which we omit.
According to the definition of $\Omega_n$ and Taylor’s expansion formula, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ 5.1 ExpressionXi}
\Xi_t^n(g)=\exp\Bigg\{&\frac{a_n^2}{n}\Bigg(g_t\cdot \nu_t^n-g_0\cdot \nu_0^n-\int_0^tg_u^\prime\cdot \nu_u^n+(b_u^n\nu_n^n)\cdot g_u^n \notag\\
&+\lambda g_u\cdot l_2(\frac{n\varepsilon_u^n}{a_n})+\frac{1}{2}g_u^T\sigma_u^n g_u+\frac{\lambda}{2}g_u^T(l_2\varepsilon_u^nl_2^T)g_u du+o(1)\Bigg)\Bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_u^n=\frac{\gamma(\mathcal{S}_u^n, \mathcal{I}_u^n)-(E\rho)S_u^nI_u^n}{n^2}$ defined as in Section \[section three\], $$\sigma_u^n=\sum_{i=1}^2l_iH_i(\vartheta_t^n)l_i^T=
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda(E\rho)\frac{I_u^n}{n}\frac{S_u^n}{n} & -\lambda(E\rho)\frac{I_u^n}{n}\frac{S_u^n}{n}\\
-\lambda(E\rho)\frac{I_u^n}{n}\frac{S_u^n}{n} & \lambda(E\rho)\frac{I_u^n}{n}\frac{S_u^n}{n}+\frac{I_u^n}{n}
\end{pmatrix},$$ and $$b_u^n=\sum_{i=1}^2l_i(\nabla^TH_i)(\xi_u^n)=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\lambda(E\rho)i_u(\xi^n) & -\lambda(E\rho)s_u(\xi^n)\\
\lambda(E\rho)i_u(\xi^n) & \lambda(E\rho)s_u(\xi^n)-1
\end{pmatrix}$$ while $\xi^n_u$ is a convex combination of $\vartheta_u^n$ and $\widehat{x}_u$ satisfying $H_2(\vartheta_u^n)-H_2(\widehat{x}_u)=\nabla H_2(\xi^n_u)\cdot(\vartheta_u^n-\widehat{x}_u)$, the existence of which follows from Lagrange’s mean value theorem.
By Lemma \[lemma 5.2 XiIsMartingale\], we define $\widehat{Q}_{\lambda,n}^{\omega,g}$ as the quenched measure such that $$\frac{d\widehat{Q}_{\lambda,n}^{\omega,g}}{dP_{\lambda,n}^\omega}=\Xi_{T_0}^n(g)$$ for any $\omega\in X$ and $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$. We further define $\widehat{Q}^g_{\lambda,n}$ as the annealed measure such that $$\widehat{Q}^g_{\lambda,n}(\cdot)=\int_{X}\widehat{Q}_{\lambda,n}^{\omega,g}(\cdot)P(d\omega).$$ For $x,y\geq 0$ such that $x+y\leq 1$, we define $$\widehat{Q}^{g,x,y}_{\lambda,n}(\cdot)=\widehat{Q}^g_{\lambda,n}\Big(\cdot\Big|S_0^n=\lfloor np_0+a_nx\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor np_1+a_ny\rfloor\Big).$$ Then, we have the following lemma, which is an analogue of Lemma \[lemma 3.3 LLNunderChangeMeasure\] and crucial for the proof of Equation .
\[lemma 5.3 MDPLLNunderChangeMeasure\] For any $x,y\geq 0$ such that $x+y\leq 1$ and any $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $\nu^n$ converges in $\widehat{Q}^{g,x,y}_{\lambda,n}$-probability to the solution $$\{\overline{x}_t=(\overline{s}_t,\overline{i}_t)^T:~0\leq t\leq T_0\}$$ to the ODE $$\begin{cases}
&\frac{d}{dt}\overline{x}_t=b_t\overline{x}_t+\sigma_tg_t, \\
&(\overline{s}_0,\overline{i}_0)=(x,y).
\end{cases}$$
The following proof of Lemma \[lemma 5.3 MDPLLNunderChangeMeasure\] is similar with that of Lemma \[lemma 3.3 LLNunderChangeMeasure\], where the generalized version of Girsanov’s theorem is utilized.
Since $S_t^n, I_t^n\leq n$, there exists $K_8$ not depending on $n$ such that $\Xi_t^n(g)\leq e^{\frac{a_n^2}{n}K_8}$ for all $0\leq t\leq T_0$, then according to the analysis in the proofs of Lemmas \[lemma 2.3 LLNofSIR\], \[lemma 3.1\], \[lemma 5.1\] and Cauchy-Schwartzs’s inequality, $$\sup_{0\leq u\leq T_0}|\vartheta_u^n-\widehat{x}_u|, \sup_{0\leq u\leq T_0}|\varepsilon_u^n|, \sup_{0\leq u\leq T_0}|b_u^n-b_u| \text{~and~}
\sup_{0\leq u\leq T_0}|\sigma^n_u-\sigma_u|$$ converges to $0$ in both $P_{\lambda,n}$-probability and $\widehat{Q}^{g,x,y}_{\lambda,n}$-probability as $n\rightarrow+\infty$.
Then, by Equation , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ 5.2 ExpressionXiSecondversion}
\Xi_t^n(g)=\exp\Bigg\{&\frac{a_n^2}{n}\Bigg(g_t\cdot \nu_t^n-g_0\cdot (x,y)^T-\int_0^tg_u^\prime\cdot \nu_u^n+(b_u\nu_n^n)\cdot g_u^n \notag\\
&+\frac{1}{2}g_u^T\sigma_u g_udu+o(1)\Bigg)\Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ under both probability measures.
Similar with that in the proof of Lemma \[lemma 3.3 LLNunderChangeMeasure\], we define $$\zeta_1(t,\eta)=\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta(i)=0\}}-n\widehat{s}_t \text{~and~}\zeta_2(t,\eta)=\sum_{i=1}^n1_{\{\eta(i)=1\}}-n\widehat{i}_t.$$ Hence, $\zeta_1(t,\eta_t^n)=S_t^n-n\widehat{s}_t$ while $\zeta_2(t,\eta_t^n)=I_t^n-n\widehat{i}_t$. We further define $$\mathcal{M}_t(V_g)=V_g(t,\eta_t^n)-V_g(0,\eta_0^n)-\int_0^t (\frac{\partial}{\partial u}+\Omega_n)V_g(u, \eta^n_u)du,$$ $$\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_t(V_g)=\int_0^t \frac{1}{V_g(u-,\eta_{u-}^n)}d\mathcal{M}_{u}(V_g)$$ for $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ and $$\mathcal{M}_t(\zeta_i)=\zeta_i(t,\eta_t^n)-\zeta_i(0,\eta_0^n)-\int_0^t (\frac{\partial}{\partial u}+\Omega_n)\zeta_i(u,\eta_u^n)du,$$ $$\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(\zeta_i)=\mathcal{M}_t(\zeta_i)-<\mathcal{M}(\zeta_i), \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(V_g)>_t$$ for $i=1,2$.
Then, according to the generalized version of Girsanov’s theorem and a similar analysis with that in the proof of Lemma \[lemma 3.3 LLNunderChangeMeasure\], we have following analogue of Equations and , $$\label{equ ItStMDP}
\begin{cases}
&\nu_t^n=\nu_0^n+\int_0^t (b_u+o(1))\nu_u^n+(\sigma_u+o(1))g_udu+\frac{1}{a_n}(\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(\zeta_1),\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(\zeta_2))^T, \\
&\nu_0^n=\big(\frac{\lfloor np_0+a_nx\rfloor-np_0}{a_n},\frac{\lfloor np_1+a_ny\rfloor-np_1}{a_n}\big)^T.
\end{cases}$$ Note that, to obtain Equation , we should utilize Equation and the fact that $\varepsilon_u^n, \sigma_u^n-\sigma_u$ converges to $0$ to check that $$\big(<\mathcal{\mathcal{M}}(\zeta_1), \widehat{\mathcal{M}}(V_g)>_t,~<\mathcal{M}(\zeta_2), \widehat{M}(V_g)>_t\big)^T=(\sigma_t+o(1))g_t.$$ Since the calculation is not difficult but a little tedious, we omit details here.
With Equation , we only need to show that $\frac{1}{a_n}\sup_{0\leq t\leq T_0}|\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_t(\zeta_i)|$ converges to $0$ in $\widehat{Q}^{g,x,y}_{\lambda,n}$-probability as $n\rightarrow+\infty$ to complete this proof. To check this property, we only need to show that $$\frac{1}{a_n^2}\big[\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(\zeta_i),\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(\zeta_i)\big]_{T_0}=
\frac{1}{a_n^2}\big[\mathcal{M}(\zeta_i),\mathcal{M}(\zeta_i)\big]_{T_0}$$ converges to $0$ in $\widehat{Q}^{g,x,y}_{\lambda,n}$-probability, which holds according to a similar analysis with that at the end of the proof of Lemma \[lemma 3.3 LLNunderChangeMeasure\]. In detail, since $S_t^n, I_t^n\leq n$, $\big[\mathcal{M}(\zeta_i),\mathcal{M}(\zeta_i)\big]_{T_0}$ is stochastically dominated from above by $K_9Y_{nK_{10}T_0}$ under $P_{\lambda,n}$, where $K_9,K_{10}\in (0,+\infty)$ does not depend on $n$ and $\{Y_t\}_{t\geq 0}$ is the Poisson process with rate one. Therefore, by chebyshev’s inequality and the fact that $\Xi_{T_0}^n(g)\leq e^{K_8\frac{a_n^2}{n}}$, $$\widehat{Q}^{g,x,y}_{\lambda,n}\Big(\frac{1}{a_n^2}\big[\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(\zeta_i),\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}(\zeta_i)\big]_{T_0}\geq \epsilon\Big)\leq e^{-a_n^2\epsilon}e^{K_{8}\frac{a_n^2}{n}}e^{nK_{10}T_0(e^{K_9}-1)}\rightarrow 0$$ for any $\epsilon>0$ according to $\frac{a_n^2}{n}\rightarrow +\infty$ and the proof is complete.
Now we give the proof of Equation , which is similar with that of Equation .
We only need to deal with the case where $\inf_{f\in O}(J_{dyn}(f)+J_{ini}(f_0))<+\infty$. For any $\epsilon>0$, let $\widetilde{f}^\epsilon\in O$ such that $$J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)+J_{ini}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon_0)<\inf_{f\in O}(J_{dyn}(f)+J_{ini}(f_0))+\epsilon.$$ Then, according to the analysis in the proof of Theorem \[theorem 2.5 JdynEpress\], there exists $\widetilde{g}^\epsilon$ such that $$(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)^\prime_t=b_t\widetilde{f}^\epsilon_t+\sigma_t\widetilde{g}^\epsilon_t \text{~and~}J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)
=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}(\widetilde{g}^\epsilon)^T_t\sigma_t\widetilde{g}^\epsilon_tdt.$$ For $n\geq 1$, let $\widetilde{g}^n\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ such that $\widetilde{g}^n$ converges to $\widetilde{g}^\epsilon$ in $L^2$-norm and let $\widetilde{f}^n$ be the solution to the ode $$\begin{cases}
&\frac{d}{dt}\widetilde{f}^n_t=b_t\widetilde{f}^n_t+\sigma_t\widetilde{g}^n_t,\\
&\widetilde{f}^n_0=\widetilde{f}^\epsilon_0.
\end{cases}$$ Then, $\widetilde{f}^n$ converges to $\widetilde{f}^\epsilon$ uniformly on $[0,T_0]$ and $$J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^n)=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}(\widetilde{g}^n)^T_t\sigma_t\widetilde{g}^n_tdt
\rightarrow \frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}(\widetilde{g}^\epsilon)^T_t\sigma_t\widetilde{g}^\epsilon_tdt=J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon).$$ Hence, there exists integer $m_1>1$ such that $\widetilde{f}^{m_1}\in O$ and $|J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^{m_1})-J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)|<\epsilon$.
According to Equation and the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^{m_1})=&\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}(\widetilde{g}^{m_1})^T_t\sigma_t\widetilde{g}^{m_1}_tdt\\
=&\widetilde{f}^{m_1}_{T_0}\cdot \widetilde{g}^{m_1}_{T_0}-\widetilde{f}^{m_1}_0\cdot \widetilde{g}^{m_1}_0-\int_0^{T_0}\widetilde{f}^{m_1}_t\cdot (\widetilde{g}^{m_1}_t)^\prime dt\\
&-\int_0^{T_0}(b_t\widetilde{f}^{m_1}_t)\cdot \widetilde{g}^{m_1}_tdt-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}(\widetilde{g}^{m_1}_t)^T\sigma_t \widetilde{g}^{m_1}_tdt,\end{aligned}$$ there exists $\widetilde{\delta}>0$ such that $B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta})\subseteq O$ and $$\Xi_{T_0}^n({\widetilde{g}^{m_1}})\leq \exp\Big\{\frac{a_n^2}{n}\big(J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^{m_1})+\epsilon\big)\Big\}$$ conditioned on $\nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta})$, $\frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}\leq \widetilde{\delta}$ and $\|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|\leq \widetilde{\delta}$. As a result, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in O\big)
\geq e^{-\frac{a_n^2}{n}(J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^{m_1})+\epsilon)}
\widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1}}_{\lambda,n}\Big(\nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta}), \frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}\leq \widetilde{\delta},
\|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|\leq\widetilde{\delta}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ According to the analysis in the proofs of Lemmas \[lemma 2.3 LLNofSIR\], \[lemma 5.1\] and the fact that $\Xi^n_{T_0}(\widetilde{g}^{m_1})\leq e^{\frac{a_n^2}{n}K_8}$, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1}}_{\lambda,n}\big(\frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}>\widetilde{\delta}\text{~or~}
\|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|>\widetilde{\delta}\big)=-\infty.$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1}}_{\lambda,n}\big(\frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}\leq \widetilde{\delta},
\|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|\leq \widetilde{\delta}, \nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta})\big) \\
&=\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1}}_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta})\big)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{equ 5.4}
\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in O\big)
\geq -J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^{m_1})-\epsilon+\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1}}_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta})\big).$$ By Lemma \[lemma 5.3 MDPLLNunderChangeMeasure\], since $(\widetilde{f}^{m_1})^\prime_t=b_t\widetilde{f}^{m_1}_t+\sigma_t\widetilde{g}^{m_1}_t$, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1},s_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon),i_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)}_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta})\big)=1.$$ As a result, $$\begin{aligned}
&\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1}}_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta})\big) \\
&\geq \liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1}}_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta}), S_0^n=\lfloor np_0+a_ns_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor np_1+a_ni_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)\rfloor\big)\\
&=\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \Big[\widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1},s_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon),i_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)}_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta})\big)\\
&\text{~\quad\quad}\times P_{\lambda,n}\big(S_0^n=\lfloor np_0+a_ns_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor np_1+a_ni_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)\rfloor\big)\Big]\\
&=\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(S_0^n=\lfloor np_0+a_ns_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor np_1+a_ni_0(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)\rfloor\big).\end{aligned}$$ For given $x,y\in \mathbb{R}$, according to Strling’s formula and the definition of $M_{_0}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(S_0^n=\lfloor np_0+a_nx\rfloor, I_0^n=\lfloor np_1+a_ny\rfloor\big)\\
&=\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \Big[{n\choose \lfloor np_0+a_nx\rfloor}
{n-\lfloor np_0+a_nx\rfloor \choose \lfloor np_1+a_ny\rfloor}\\
&\text{\quad\quad}\times p_0^{\lfloor np_0+a_nx\rfloor}p_1^{\lfloor np_1+a_ny\rfloor}(1-p_0-p_1)^{n-\lfloor np_0+a_nx\rfloor-\lfloor np_1+a_ny\rfloor}\Big]\\
&=-\frac{1}{2}\big[\frac{1}{p_0}x^2+\frac{1}{p_1}y^2+\frac{(x+y)^2}{1-p_0-p_1}\big]=-\frac{1}{2}(x,y)M^{-1}_{_0}(x,y)^T.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \widehat{Q}^{\widetilde{g}^{m_1}}_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in B(\widetilde{f}^{m_1},\widetilde{\delta})\big)\geq -\frac{1}{2}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon_0)^TM^{-1}_{_0}\widetilde{f}^\epsilon_0
=-J_{ini}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon_0)$$ by Theorem \[theorem 2.5 JdynEpress\]. Then, by Equation , $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in O\big)
&\geq -J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^{m_1})-\epsilon-J_{ini}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon_0)\\
&\geq -\big(J_{dyn}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon)+J_{ini}(\widetilde{f}^\epsilon_0)\big)-2\epsilon \\
&\geq -\inf_{f\in O}(J_{dyn}(f)+J_{ini}(f_0))-3\epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ Equation follows from which directly since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary.
The proof of Equation is similar with that of Equation . First we show that the the Equation holds for compact sets.
\[lemma 5.4\] For any closed set $C\subseteq \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in C\big)\leq-\inf_{f\in C}(J_{dyn}(f)+J_{ini}(f_0)).$$
For any $f\in \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ and $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, let $$\mathcal{L}_{f}(g)=f_{T_0}\cdot g_{T_0}-f_0\cdot g_0-\int_0^{T_0}f_t\cdot g_t^\prime dt-\int_0^{T_0}(b_tf_t)\cdot g_tdt-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{T_0}g_t^T\sigma_t g_tdt,$$ then $J_{dyn}(f)=\sup_{g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)}\mathcal{L}_f(g)$.
By Equation , for given $\epsilon>0$, $g\in C^2\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$ and compact set $C\subseteq \mathcal{D}\big([0,T_0], \mathbb{R}^2\big)$, there exists $\widetilde{\delta}_2$ depending on $\epsilon, g, C$ such that $$\Xi^n_{T_0}(g)\geq \exp\Big\{\frac{a_n^2}{n}\big(\mathcal{L}_{\nu^n}(g)-\epsilon\big)\Big\}$$ for sufficiently large $n$ conditioned on $\frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2$, $\|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2$ and $\nu^n\in C$. Therefore, for any $y\in \mathbb{R}^2$, according to the fact that $\{\Xi_t^n(g)\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ is a martingale, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ 5.5}
&E_{\lambda,n}e^{\frac{a^2_n}{n}y\cdot \nu_0^n}=E_{\lambda,n}\big(e^{\frac{a^2_n}{n}y\cdot \nu_0^n}\Xi_{T_0}^n(g)\big)\notag \\
&\geq E\big(e^{\frac{a^2_n}{n}y\cdot \nu_0^n}\Xi_{T_0}^n(g)1_{\{\nu^n\in C, \|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2, \frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2\}}\big) \\
&\geq \exp\Big\{\frac{a^2_n}{n}\big(\inf_{f\in C}\{y\cdot f_0^n+\mathcal{L}_{f}(g)\}-\epsilon\big)\Big\}P_{\lambda,n}\big(f\in C, \|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2, \frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2\big). \notag\end{aligned}$$ By Assumption (**A**) and Taylor’s expansion formula, $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\lambda,n}e^{\frac{a^2_n}{n}y\cdot \nu_0^n}&=e^{-\frac{a_n(s_yp_0+i_yp_1)}{n}}\big(1-p_0-p_1+p_1e^{\frac{a_n}{n}i_y}+p_0e^{\frac{a_n}{n}s_y}\big)^n \\
&=\exp\big\{\frac{a_n^2}{2n}(y^TM_{_0}y+o(1))\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, by Equation , $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in C, \|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2, \frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2\big)\\
&\leq -\inf_{f\in C}\{y\cdot f_0-\frac{1}{2}y^TM_{_0}y+\mathcal{L}_{f}(g)\}+\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ According to the analysis in the proof of Lemmas \[lemma 2.3 LLNofSIR\] and \[lemma 5.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in C, \|\vartheta^n-\widehat{x}\|\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2, \frac{n\delta_n}{a_n}\leq \widetilde{\delta}_2\big)=\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in C\big)\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in C\big)\\
\leq -\inf_{f\in C}\{y\cdot f_0-\frac{1}{2}y^TM_{_0}y+\mathcal{L}_{f}(g)\}+\epsilon.$$ Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in C\big)\\
\leq -\inf_{f\in C}\{y\cdot f_0-\frac{1}{2}y^TM_{_0}y+\mathcal{L}_{f}(g)\}.$$ Since $y, g$ are arbitrary, $$\label{equ 5.6}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\nu^n\in C\big)\\
\leq -\sup_{y,g}\inf_{f\in C}\{y\cdot f_0-\frac{1}{2}y^TM_{_0}y+\mathcal{L}_{f}(g)\}.$$ Since $C$ is compact, according to the minimax theorem, $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{y,g}\inf_{f\in C}\{y\cdot f_0-\frac{1}{2}y^TM_{_0}y+\mathcal{L}_{f}(g)\}
=\inf_{f\in C}\sup_{y,g}\{y\cdot f_0-\frac{1}{2}y^TM_{_0}y+\mathcal{L}_{f}(g)\} \\
&=\inf_{f\in C}\big(\sup_{y}\{y\cdot f_0-\frac{1}{2}y^TM_{_0}y\}+\sup_{g}\mathcal{L}_{f}(g)\big)
=\inf_{f\in C}\big(J_{ini}(f_0)+J_{dyn}(f)\big),\end{aligned}$$ Lemma \[lemma 5.4\] follows from which and Equation directly.
At last, we give the proof of Equation .
With Lemma \[lemma 5.4\], we only need to show that $\{\nu^n\}_{n\geq 1}$ are exponential tight, which is equivalent to the following two properties.
(**1**) $$\limsup_{M\rightarrow+\infty}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\|\nu^n\|>M\big)=-\infty.$$ (**2**) For any $\epsilon>0$, $$\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}|\nu^n_{t+\tau}-\nu^n_\tau|_1>\epsilon\big)=-\infty,$$ where $\mathcal{T}_0$ is the set of stopping times of $\{\eta_t^n\}_{0\leq t\leq T_0}$ with upper bound $T_0$ and $|x|_1$ is the $l_1$-norm of $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$.
By Lemmas \[lemma 3.1\] and \[lemma 5.1\], Properties (**1**) and (**2**) are equivalent to
(**1**) $$\limsup_{M\rightarrow+\infty}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log P_{\lambda,n}\big(\|\nu^n\|>M,\delta_n\leq 1\big)=-\infty.$$ (**2**) For any $\epsilon>0$, $$\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}|\nu^n_{t+\tau}-\nu^n_\tau|_1>\epsilon, \frac{n\delta_n }{a_n}\leq 1\big)=-\infty.$$
To check (**1**), we utilize the analysis introduced in Chapter 11 of [@Ethier1986]. Since this is a well-known analysis, we only give an outline. According to the the generator $\Omega_n$ of our process, $S_t^n-n\widehat{s}_t$ and $I_t^n-n\widehat{i}_t$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
S_t^n-n\widehat{s}_t=&S_0^n-n\widehat{s}_0-\overline{Y}_2\big(\int_0^tn\lambda(E\rho\frac{S_u^n}{n}\frac{I_u^n}{n}+\varepsilon_u^n) du\big)\\
&-\int_0^t n\lambda E\rho(\frac{S^n_u}{n}\frac{I^n_u}{n}-\widehat{s}_u\widehat{i}_u) du-\int_0^tn\lambda \varepsilon_u^n du\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
I_t^n&-n\widehat{i}_t=I_0^n-n\widehat{i}_0-\overline{Y}_1\big(\int_0^t I_u^ndu\big)-\int_0^t n(\frac{I_u^n}{n}-\widehat{i}_u)du \\
&+\overline{Y}_2\big(\int_0^tn\lambda(E\rho\frac{S_u^n}{n}\frac{I_u^n}{n}+\varepsilon_u^n) du\big)+\int_0^tn\lambda E\rho(\frac{S_u^n}{n}\frac{I_u^n}{n}-\widehat{s}_u\widehat{i}_u)du+\int_0^tn\varepsilon_u^n\lambda du,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_u^n=\frac{\gamma(\mathcal{S}_u^n, \mathcal{I}_u^n)-(E\rho)S_u^nI_u^n}{n^2}$ and $\overline{Y}_i(t)=Y_i(t)-t$ such that $\{Y_i(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ is a Poisson process with rate one for $i=1,2$. Then, according to Grownwall’s inequality and the fact that $S_t^n, I_t^n\leq n$, $$\|\nu^n_t\|_1\leq \varepsilon_0e^{K_{11}T_0}$$ for all $0\leq t\leq T_0$ conditioned on $\delta_n\leq 1$, where $K_{11}\in (0,+\infty)$ does not depend on $n$ due to the Lipschitz’s condition of $H_1, H_2$ defined in Section \[section two\] while $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_0=& \frac{1}{a_n}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq nT_0}|\overline{Y}_1(t)|+2\sup_{0\leq t\leq nK_{12}T_0}|\overline{Y}_2(t)|\Big) \\
&+\frac{1}{a_n}\big(|I_0^n-n\widehat{i}_0|+|S_0^n-n\widehat{s}_0|\big)+\frac{n\lambda T_0}{a_n}\delta_n,\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{12}=\lambda(E\rho+1)$. Consequently, Property (**1**) holds according to well known moderate deviation principles of Poisson processes and sums of i.i.d. random variables and Lemma \[lemma 5.1\].
Now we only need to check Property (**2**). With Property (**1**), we only need to check that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ 5.7}
\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(&\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}|\frac{S^n_{t+\tau}-n\widehat{s}_{t+\tau}}{a_n}-\frac{S^n_\tau-n\widehat{s}_\tau}{a_n}|>\epsilon,\notag\\ &\frac{n\delta_n }{a_n}\leq 1, \|\nu^n\|\leq M\big)=-\infty\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ 5.8}
\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(&\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}|\frac{I^n_{t+\tau}-n\widehat{i}_{t+\tau}}{a_n}-\frac{I^n_\tau-n\widehat{i}_\tau}{a_n}|>\epsilon,\notag\\ &\frac{n\delta_n }{a_n}\leq 1, \|\nu^n\|\leq M\big)=-\infty\end{aligned}$$ for any $M>0$ and $\epsilon>0$.
Let $e_1=(1,0)^T$ and $\chi_1(t)\equiv e_1$, then for any $\theta>0$ and $\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0$, $\{\frac{\Xi^n_{\tau+t}(\theta\chi_1)}{\Xi^n_\tau(\theta\chi_1)}\}_{t\geq 0}$ is a martingale according to Lemma \[lemma 5.2 XiIsMartingale\]. By Equation , conditioned on $\frac{n\delta_n }{a_n}\leq 1$ and $\|\nu^n\|\leq M$, there exists $K_{13}, K_{14}\in (0,+\infty)$ not depending on $n$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Xi^n_{\tau+t}(\theta\chi_1)}{\Xi^n_\tau(\theta\chi_1)}
\geq \exp\Bigg\{\frac{a_n^2}{n}\Big[\theta\big(\frac{S^n_{t+\tau}-n\widehat{s}_{t+\tau}}{a_n}-\frac{S^n_\tau-n\widehat{s}_\tau}{a_n}\big) -\delta(\theta K_{13}+\theta^2K_{14})\Big]\Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ for sufficiently large $n$ and any $0\leq t\leq \delta$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}\big(\frac{S^n_{t+\tau}-n\widehat{s}_{t+\tau}}{a_n}-\frac{S^n_\tau-n\widehat{s}_\tau}{a_n}\big)>\epsilon, \frac{n\delta_n }{a_n}\leq 1, \|\nu^n\|\leq M\Big\} \\
& \subseteq \Big\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}\frac{\Xi^n_{\tau+t}(\theta\chi_1)}{\Xi^n_\tau(\theta\chi_1)}
\geq e^{\frac{a_n^2}{n}[\theta\epsilon-\delta(\theta K_{13}+\theta^2K_{14})]}\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ By Doob’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}\frac{\Xi^n_{\tau+t}(\theta\chi_1)}{\Xi^n_\tau(\theta\chi_1)}
\geq e^{\frac{a_n^2}{n}[\theta\epsilon-\delta(\theta K_{13}+\theta^2K_{14})]}\big)
&\leq e^{-\frac{a_n^2}{n}[\theta\epsilon-\delta(\theta K_{13}+\theta^2K_{14})]}E_{\lambda,n}\frac{\Xi^n_{\tau+t}(\theta\chi_1)}{\Xi^n_\tau(\theta\chi_1)}\\
&=e^{-\frac{a_n^2}{n}[\theta\epsilon-\delta(\theta K_{13}+\theta^2K_{14})]}\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(&\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}(\frac{S^n_{t+\tau}-n\widehat{s}_{t+\tau}}{a_n}-\frac{S^n_\tau-n\widehat{s}_\tau}{a_n})>\epsilon,\notag\\ &\frac{n\delta_n }{a_n}\leq 1, \|\nu^n\|\leq M\big)\leq -\theta\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\theta$ is arbitrary, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ 5.9}
\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(&\sup_{0\leq t\leq \delta}(\frac{S^n_{t+\tau}-n\widehat{s}_{t+\tau}}{a_n}-\frac{S^n_\tau-n\widehat{s}_\tau}{a_n})>\epsilon,\notag\\ &\frac{n\delta_n }{a_n}\leq 1, \|\nu^n\|\leq M\big)=-\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{\frac{\Xi^n_{\tau+t}(-\theta\chi_1)}{\Xi^n_\tau(-\theta\chi_1)}\}_{t\geq 0}$ is also a martingale for any $\theta>0$, according to a similar analysis, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ 5.10}
\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\limsup_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{n}{a_n^2}\log \sup_{\tau \in \mathcal{T}_0}
P_{\lambda,n}\big(&\inf_{0\leq t\leq \delta}(\frac{S^n_{t+\tau}-n\widehat{s}_{t+\tau}}{a_n}-\frac{S^n_\tau-n\widehat{s}_\tau}{a_n})<-\epsilon,\notag\\ &\frac{n\delta_n }{a_n}\leq 1, \|\nu^n\|\leq M\big)=-\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Equation follows from Equations and directly.
Let $e_2=(0,1)^T$ and $\chi_2(t)\equiv e_2$, then Equation follows from a similar analysis with that leading to Equation and the proof is complete.
**Acknowledgments.** The author is grateful to the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China with grant number 11501542.
Agazzi, A., Dembo, A. and Eckmann, J-P. (2018). Large deviations theory for Markov jump models of chemical reaction networks. *The Annals of Applied Probability* **28**, 1821-1855. Anderson, R. M. and May, R. M. (1991). *Infectious diseases of humans; dynamic and control.* Oxford University Press.
Britton, T. and Pardoux, E. (2017). Stochastic epidemics in a homogeneous community. Arxiv: 1808.05350. Durrett, R. (2007). *Random Graph Dynamics.* Cambridge University Press. Ethier, N. and Kurtz, T. (1986). *Markov Processes: Characterization and Convergence.* John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA. Gao, FQ. and Quastel, J. (2003). Moderate deviations from the hydrodynamic limit of the symmetric exclusion process. *Science in China (Series A)* **5**, 577-592. Kurtz, T. (1978). Strong approximation theorems for density dependent Markov chains. *Stochastic Processes and their Applications* **6**, 223-240. Pardoux, E. and Samegni-Kepgnou, B. (2017). Large deviation principle for epidemic models. *Journal of Applied Probability* **54**, 905-920. Puhalskii, A. (1994). The method of stochastic exponentials for large deviations. *Stochastic Processes and their Applications* **54**, 45-70. Schuppen, V. J. and Wong, E. (1974). Transformation of local martingales under a change of law. *The Annals of Probability* **2**, 879-888. Schwartz, A. and Weiss, A. (1995). *Large Deviations for Performance Analysis.* Chapman and Hall, London. Sion, M. (1958). On general minimax theorems. *Pacific Journal of Mathematics* **8**, 171-176. Xue, XF. (2019). The moderate deviation of the density-dependent population process. Arxiv: 1908.03762.
[^1]: **E-mail**: [email protected] **Address**: School of Science, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China.
[^2]: **E-mail**: [email protected] **Address**: School of Science, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Gromov constructed uncountably many pairwise non-isomorphic discrete groups with Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$. We will show that no separable $\mathrm{II}_1$-factor can contain all these groups in its unitary group. In particular, no separable $\mathrm{II}_1$-factor can contain all separable $\mathrm{II}_1$-factors in it. We also show that the full group $C^*$-algebras of some of these groups fail the lifting property.'
address: 'Department of Mathematical Science, University of Tokyo, 153-8914, Japan'
author:
- Narutaka OZAWA
date: 'November 1, 2002.'
title: 'There is no separable universal $\mathrm{II}_1$-factor'
---
[^1]
Results
=======
We recall that a discrete group ${\Gamma}$ is said to have Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$ if the trivial representation is isolated in the dual $\hat{{\Gamma}}$ of ${\Gamma}$, equipped with the Fell topology. This is equivalent to that there are a finite subset $E$ of generators in ${\Gamma}$ and a decreasing function $f\colon {{\mathbb R}}_+\to{{\mathbb R}}_+$ with $\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}f({\varepsilon})=0$ such that the following is true: if $\pi$ is a unitary representation of ${\Gamma}$ on a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}$ and $\xi\in{{\mathcal H}}$ is a unit vector with ${\varepsilon}=\max_{s\in E}\|\pi(s)\xi-\xi\|$, then there is a vector $\eta\in{{\mathcal H}}$ with $\|\xi-\eta\|<f({\varepsilon})$ (in particular $\eta\neq0$ when ${\varepsilon}$ is small enough) such that $\pi(s)\eta=\eta$ for all $s\in{\Gamma}$. We refer the reader to [@hv] and [@valette] for the information of Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$. We recall that a discrete group ${\Gamma}$ is said to be quasifinite if all its proper subgroups are finite, and is said to be infinite conjugacy classes (abbreviated to ICC) if all nontrivial conjugacy classes in ${\Gamma}$ are infinite. We note that a discrete group ${\Gamma}$ is ICC if and only if its group von Neumann algebra $L{\Gamma}$ is a factor. We also observe that a group which is quasifinite and ICC has to be simple.
Gromov (Corollary 5.5.E in [@gromov]) claimed that any torsion-free non-cyclic hyperbolic group has a quotient group all of whose proper subgroups are cyclic of prescribed orders (cf. Theorem 3.4 in [@valette]). This claim was partly confirmed by Olshanskii (Corollary 4 in [@olshanskii]). Actually, what Olshanskii proved there is that any torsion-free non-cyclic hyperbolic group has a nontrivial quasifinite quotient group. We observe that Olshanskii’s argument gives us the following.
\[hyp\] Any torsion-free non-cyclic hyperbolic group has uncountably many pairwise non-isomorphic quotient groups all of which are quasifinite and ICC. In particular, there is a discrete group ${\Gamma}$ with Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$ which has uncountably many pairwise non-isomorphic quotient groups $\{{\Gamma}_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in I}$ all of which are simple and ICC.
Connes conjectured that a discrete group $\Delta$ with Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$ and the ICC property is uniquely determined by its group von Neumann algebra $L\Delta$. The following theorem and its corollary, which was suggested by S. Popa, confirm Connes’ conjecture for $\{{\Gamma}_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in I}$ “modulo countable sets” and solve Problem 4.4.29 in [@sakai], Conjecture 4.5.5 in [@popa] and Problem III.45 in [@delaharpe]. See also Theorem 1 in [@popa2] and its remarks.
\[vna\] Let ${\Gamma}$ and $\{{\Gamma}_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in I}$ be as in Theorem \[hyp\] and let $M$ be a separable $\mathrm{II}_1$-factor. Then, the set $$\{ \alpha\in I : \mbox{the unitary group ${{\mathcal U}}(M)$ of $M$
contains a subgroup isomorphic to ${\Gamma}_\alpha$}\}$$ is at most countable.
Recall that two $\mathrm{II}_1$-factors $M$ and $N$ are said to be stably equivalent if there are $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ and a projection $p\in{{\mathbb M}}_n(M)$ such that $p{{\mathbb M}}_n(M)p$ is isomorphic to $N$.
\[corv\] Let ${\Gamma}$ and $\{{\Gamma}_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in I}$ be as in Theorem \[hyp\] and let $M$ be a separable $\mathrm{II}_1$-factor. Then, the set $$\{ \alpha\in I : \mbox{$M$ contains a subfactor
which is stably equivalent to $L{\Gamma}_\alpha$}\}$$ is at most countable.
In connection with Connes’ embedding problem [@connes], it would be interesting to know whether all (or at least one of) ${\Gamma}_\alpha$’s are embeddable into the unitary group ${{\mathcal U}}(R^\omega)$ of the ultrapower $R^\omega$ of hyperfinite $\mathrm{II}_1$-factors. Since each ${\Gamma}_\alpha$ arises as a limit of hyperbolic groups, we observe that if all hyperbolic groups are embeddable into ${{\mathcal U}}(R^\omega)$, then so is ${\Gamma}_\alpha$. We remark that whether all hyperbolic groups are residually finite (and thus embeddable into ${{\mathcal U}}(R^\omega)$) is one of the major open problems in geometric group theory.
Let us consider the category of unital $C^*$-algebras and unital completely positive maps. A $C^*$-algebra $A$ is said to be complementary universal for a class $\mathcal{C}$ of $C^*$-algebras if for every member $B$ of $\mathcal{C}$, there are unital completely positive maps $\psi\colon B\to A$ and $\varphi\colon A\to B$ such that $\varphi\psi={\mathrm{id}}_B$. It follows from Kirchberg’s theorem [@kirchberg] that any separable $C^*$-algebra of not type I is complementary universal for the class of separable nuclear $C^*$-algebras. The full group $C^*$-algebra $C^*{{\mathbb F}}_\infty$ of the free group ${{\mathbb F}}_\infty$ on countably many generators is complementary universal for the class of separable $C^*$-algebras with the lifting property (abbreviated to LP). See [@klp] for the information of the LP. It is not known whether there exists a separable complementary universal $C^*$-algebra for the class of separable exact $C^*$-algebras.
\[cst\] Let ${\Gamma}$ and $\{{\Gamma}_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in I}$ be as in Theorem \[hyp\] and let $\mathcal{C}=\{C^*{\Gamma}_\alpha : \alpha\in I\}$ or $\mathcal{C}=\{C^*_{\mathrm{red}}{\Gamma}_\alpha : \alpha\in I\}$. Then, there is no separable complementary universal $C^*$-algebra for $\mathcal{C}$.
From the above discussion, we immediately obtain the following corollary.
The full group $C^*$-algebra $C^*{\Gamma}_\alpha$ of ${\Gamma}_\alpha$ fails the LP for some $\alpha\in I$.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The author thanks Professor S. Popa for useful comments. This research was carried out while the author was visiting the University of California Berkeley under the support of the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad. He gratefully acknowledges the kind hospitality from UCB.
Proofs
======
Since there exists a torsion-free non-cyclic hyperbolic group with Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$ (e.g., a co-compact lattice in $Sp(n,1)$ or in $F_{4(-20)}$), the second part is a straight consequence of the first. We just indicate how to modify the proof of Corollary 3 in [@olshanskii] to obtain the first part of our Theorem \[hyp\]. So, we stick by the notations used in [@olshanskii]. Let $G=\{g_1,g_2,\ldots\}$ be a torsion-free non-cyclic hyperbolic group. It follows that $G$ is ICC since the set $E(G)$ of all $x\in G$ whose conjugacy class is finite is a finite subgroup in $G$ (cf. Proposition 1 in [@olshanskii]). Recall that the quasifinite quotient group $G'$ was the inductive limit of a sequence of epimorphisms $G=G_0\to G_1\to G_2\to\cdots$. By the construction, every $E(G_i)$ is trivial, or equivalently every $G_i$ is ICC. Hence, manipulating the construction, for every $i$ and $j\le i$, we can carry at least $i$ mutually distinct elements from the conjugacy class of $g_j$ in $G_i$ injectively into $G'$ unless $g_j=1$ in $G_i$. This ensures the ICC property of $G'$. In the construction, there has to be infinitely many $i$’s such that $g_i$ is torsion-free in $G_{2i-2}$. For such $i$, we may choose arbitrarily large number for the order of $g_i$ in $G_{2i-1}$ which will be equal to that in $G'$. Combined with a diagonal argument, this implies that there are uncountably many normal subgroups in $G$ all of whose corresponding quotient groups are quasifinite and ICC. Theorem \[hyp\] now follows from this result and Lemma III.42 in [@delaharpe].
To prove the theorem by reductio ad absurdum, suppose that $$I_0=\{ \alpha\in I : \mbox{${{\mathcal U}}(M)$ contains
a subgroup isomorphic to ${\Gamma}_\alpha$}\}$$ is uncountable. For each $\alpha\in I_0$, let $u_\alpha\colon{\Gamma}\to{{\mathcal U}}(M)$ be a non-trivial homomorphism which factors through ${\Gamma}_\alpha$. We fix a standard representation of $M$ on ${{\mathcal H}}$ with a unit cyclic separating trace vector $\xi$ in ${{\mathcal H}}$. It follows that there are $\delta>0$ and an uncountable subset $I_1$ of $I_0$ such that $\max_{s\in{\Gamma}}\|u_\alpha(s)\xi-\xi\|>\delta$ for all $\alpha\in I_1$.
Let a finite subset $E$ of generators in ${\Gamma}$ and a function $f$ be as in the above definition of Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$. Take ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough so that $2f({\varepsilon})<\delta$. Since ${{\mathcal H}}$ is separable and $I_1$ is uncountable, there are distinct $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in $I_1$ such that $\max_{s\in E}\|u_\alpha(s)\xi-u_\beta(s)\xi\|<{\varepsilon}$. We consider the unitary representation $\pi\colon{\Gamma}\ni s\mapsto u_\alpha(s)Ju_\beta(s)J\in{{\mathbb B}}({{\mathcal H}})$, where $J$ is the canonical conjugation on ${{\mathcal H}}$ associated with $M$ and $\xi$. Then, we have $\max_{s\in E}\|\pi(s)\xi-\xi\|<{\varepsilon}$. It follows from Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$ of ${\Gamma}$ that there is a vector $\eta\in{{\mathcal H}}$ with $\|\xi-\eta\|<f({\varepsilon})$ such that $\pi(s)\eta=\eta$ for all $s\in{\Gamma}$. Let $\Delta=\{ s\in{\Gamma}: u_\alpha(s)\eta=\eta \}$. It is easy to see that $\Delta$ is a subgroup of ${\Gamma}$ and that $\Delta$ contains the normal subgroups $\ker u_\alpha$ and $\ker u_\beta$. Since ${\Gamma}_\alpha$ and ${\Gamma}_\beta$ are simple and $\ker u_\alpha$ and $\ker u_\beta$ are distinct, we actually have $\Delta={\Gamma}$. It follows that $\max_{s\in{\Gamma}}\| u_\alpha(s)\xi-\xi\|<2f({\varepsilon})<\delta$, which is absurd.
It is not difficult to see that if $L{\Gamma}_\alpha$ is isomorphic to a (not necessarily unital) subfactor of $M$, then ${\Gamma}_\alpha$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${{\mathcal U}}(M)$. Therefore, it follows from Theorem \[vna\] that $$\{ \alpha\in I : \mbox{${{\mathbb M}}_n(M)$ contains a (not necessarily unital)
subfactor isomorphic to $L{\Gamma}_\alpha$}\}$$ is at most countable for every $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$, and the conclusion follows.
We only deal with the case where $\mathcal{C}=\{ C^*{\Gamma}_\alpha : \alpha\in I\}$. To prove the theorem by reductio ad absurdum, suppose that there is a separable $C^*$-algebra $A$ which is complementary universal for $\mathcal{C}$. We fix unital completely positive maps $\psi_\alpha\colon C^*{\Gamma}_\alpha\to A$ and $\varphi_\alpha\colon A\to C^*{\Gamma}_\alpha$ such that $\varphi_\alpha\psi_\alpha={\mathrm{id}}_{C^*{\Gamma}_\alpha}$. Let $E\subset{\Gamma}$ be a finite set of generators of ${\Gamma}$ containing $1$ and let $u_\alpha(s)$ be the unitary element in $C^*{\Gamma}_\alpha$ corresponding to $s\in{\Gamma}$. Let ${\varepsilon}>0$ be arbitrary. Since $A$ is separable and $I$ is uncountable, there are distinct $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in $I$ such that $\max_{s\in E}\|\psi_\alpha(u_\alpha(s))-\psi_\beta(u_\beta(s))\|<{\varepsilon}$. It follows that denoting the left regular representation of ${\Gamma}_\alpha$ by $\lambda_\alpha$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\frac{1}{|E|} &
\sum_{s\in E}\lambda_\alpha(u_\alpha(s))\otimes u_\beta(s)
\|_{C^*_{\mathrm{red}}{\Gamma}_\alpha\otimes_{\max}C^*{\Gamma}_\beta}\\
&\geq\| \frac{1}{|E|}\sum_{s\in E}
\lambda_\alpha(u_\alpha(s))\otimes\varphi_\alpha\psi_\beta(u_\beta(s))
\|_{C^*_{\mathrm{red}}{\Gamma}_\alpha\otimes_{\max}C^*{\Gamma}_\alpha}\\
&\geq\|\frac{1}{|E|}\sum_{s\in E}
\lambda_\alpha(u_\alpha(s))\otimes u_\alpha(s)
\|_{C^*_{\mathrm{red}}{\Gamma}_\alpha\otimes_{\max}C^*{\Gamma}_\alpha}-{\varepsilon}\\
&=1-{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\Gamma}$ has Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$, if we choose ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small, this implies that the trivial representation of ${\Gamma}$ is weakly contained in $C^*_{\mathrm{red}}{\Gamma}_\alpha\otimes_{\max}C^*{\Gamma}_\beta$ (cf. Proposition 4.9 in [@valette]). Reasoning in the same way as the proof of Theorem \[vna\], one can show that the trivial representation is weakly contained in $C^*_{\mathrm{red}}{\Gamma}_\alpha$. This is absurd.
[HV]{} A. Connes, *Classification of injective factors. Cases $II_1$, $II_\infty$, $III_\lambda$, $\lambda\neq1$*, Ann. of Math. (2) **104** (1976), no. 1, 73–115. M. Gromov, *Hyperbolic groups*, Essays in group theory, 75–263, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., **8**, Springer, New York, 1987. P. de la Harpe *Topics in geometric group theory*, Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2000. P. de la Harpe and A. Valette, *La propri[é]{}t[é]{} $(T)$ de Kazhdan pour les groupes localement compacts*, With an appendix by M. Burger. Ast[é]{}risque **175** (1989), 158 pp. E. Kirchberg, *On nonsemisplit extensions, tensor products and exactness of group $C^*$-algebras*, Invent. Math. **112** (1993), no. 3, 449–489. E. Kirchberg, *On subalgebras of the CAR-algebra*, J. Funct. Anal. **129** (1995), no. 1, 35–63. A. Yu. Olshanskii, *On residualing homomorphisms and $G$-subgroups of hyperbolic groups*. Internat. J. Algebra Comput. **3** (1993), no. 4, 365–409. S. Popa, *Correspondences*, Preprint 1986. S. Popa, *Some rigidity results in type $\mathrm{II}_1$ factors*, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. I Math. **311** (1990), 535–538. S. Sakai, *$C^*$-algebras and $W^*$-algebras*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band **60**. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1971. A. Valette, *Old and new about Kazhdan’s property $\mathrm{(T)}$*, Representations of Lie groups and quantum groups (Trento, 1993), 271–333, Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser., **311**, Longman Sci. Tech., Harlow, 1994.
[^1]: Partially supported by JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Discontinuous Galerkin Finite Element (DGFE) methods offer a mathematically beautiful, computationally efficient, and efficiently parallelizable way to solve partial differential equations (PDEs). These properties make them highly desirable for numerical calculations in relativistic astrophysics and many other fields. The BSSN formulation of the Einstein equations has repeatedly demonstrated its robustness. The formulation is not only stable but allows for puncture-type evolutions of black hole systems. To-date no one has been able to solve the full (3+1)-dimensional BSSN equations using DGFE methods. This is partly because DGFE discretization often occurs at the level of the equations, not the derivative operator, and partly because DGFE methods are traditionally formulated for manifestly flux-conservative systems. By discretizing the derivative operator, we generalize a particular flavor of DGFE methods, Local DG methods, to solve arbitrary second-order hyperbolic equations. Because we discretize at the level of the derivative operator, our method can be interpreted as either a DGFE method or as a finite differences stencil with non-constant coefficients.'
author:
- 'Jonah M. Miller'
- Erik Schnetter
bibliography:
- 'dgfe-for-bssn.bib'
date: '2016-04-14'
title: 'An Operator-Based Local Discontinuous Galerkin Method Compatible With the BSSN Formulation of the Einstein Equations'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In numerical relativity, Einstein’s equations are typically decomposed in one of several ways. Drawing on the constraint damping proposed by Gundlach et al. [@GundlachConstraintDamping], the generalized harmonic (GH) formulation was originally developed in second-order form by Pretorious [@PretoriuousGH]. Pretorious used it with finite differences to provide the first successful evolution and merger of a binary black hole system [@pretorius2005evolution]. Lindblom et al. [@LindblomGH] rewrote the generalized harmonic formulation in first-order form. Using pseudospectral methods, this formulation has successfully been used to accurately describe a wide variety of astrophysical situations. The literature is very extensive, but the interested reader can find much of the relevant work in [@BoyleBBH; @ScheelWaveforms; @SPeC; @BAMPS] and references therein.
The Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura (BSSN) formulation of the Einstein equations [@ShibataBSSN; @BaumgarteBSSN; @BrownBSSN; @AlcubierreConformalDecomp; @AlcubierreGammaDriver] is a second-order formulation. Some key ingredients of the BSSN formulation are the conformal re-scaling of geometric quantities, treating the trace of the connection coefficients as independent variables, and the separation of the trace of the extrinsic curvature tensor from its other components. These ingredients not only make the formulation well-posed [@SarbachBSSNHyperbolicity] but allow for so-called “moving puncture” evolutions, where the singularity within a black hole is not resolved on the computational grid, and where the thus non-physical interior of the black hole can be safely evolved thanks to the characteristic structure of the system [@CampanelliPunctures; @BakerPunctures]. In three dimensions, puncture solutions are very desirable because they are significantly easier to implement than the other techniques for avoiding singularities.
For these reasons, the BSSN formulation of the Einstein equations is used by many relativity groups and a great deal of expertise has been acquired. This is strong motivation for the development of efficient numerical methods for evolving the BSSN equations. For smooth problems, such as the Einstein equations, pseudospectral methods converge exponentially. They are therefore a very appealing approach to solving the Einstein equations. They have been successfully used with the GH formulation in a number of contexts, especially for compact binary mergers of all flavors [@BoyleBBH; @ScheelWaveforms; @SPeC]. They have also been enormously successful in generating initial data for numerical relativity [@LORENEPaper; @LORENE; @SpecInitialData; @TwoPunctures; @SopuertaToyModelFE; @PhysRevD.73.044028; @aksoylu2008FEEinstein; @KorobkinFE; @CaoTwoPunctureFE].[^1] If one imposes appropriately flux-conservative penalty-type boundary conditions and uses many small spectral domains, these techniques become nodal discontinuous Galerkin finite element (DGFE) methods [@gottlieb2001spectralReview].
DGFE methods combine the high-order accuracy of spectral methods with the flexibility and parallelizability of finite volume type methods [@hesthaven2008nodal]. In smooth regions they provide spectral accuracy and in non-smooth regions they can be combined with high-resolution shock capturing (HRSC) techniques to accurately resolve discontinuities. (See [@Dumbser20096991; @radice2011discontinuous; @Zhao2013138; @zanotti2015solving; @BugnerDGWENO; @kidder2016spectre] for some recent applications of DGFE combined with HRSC for relativistic hydrodynamics.) Importantly, DGFE methods allow for a domain decomposition which requires only a single layer of ghost points.
There are several extensions of DGFE methods for second-order and non flux-conservative systems. Using distributional theory, Vol’pert [@VolpertBV], LeFloch and collaborators [@maso1995definition; @lefloch1988entropy; @lefloch1989shock; @hou1994nonconservative], and Colombeau and coworkers [@colombeau2000new; @colombeau1988multiplications] have all developed different techniques to define shock wave solutions for hyperbolic systems of the form $$\partial_t \myvec{\psi} + g(\myvec{\psi}) \partial_i\myvec{\psi} = 0\ \forall\ i\in\{1,2,3\},$$ where $\myvec{\psi}$ is a collection of variables, each of which may be discontinuous. These techniques have been applied numerically first in a finite volume context [@cauret1989discontinuous; @TOUMI1992360; @toumi1996approximate; @castro2006high; @pares2006numerical] and later in a discontinuous Galerkin setting [@rhebergen2008discontinuous; @tassi2008discontinuous].
In [@teukolsky2015formulation], Teukolsky develops a formalism for DGFE methods in arbitrary curved spacetimes for both conservative and non-conservative first-order systems. In [@TaylorPenaltyWave], Taylor et al. derive a penalty method for the wave equation based on energy methods. *Interior Penalty discontinuous Galerkin* (IPDG) methods [@arnold1982interior; @ShahbaziInterior; @cheng2008discontinuous; @grote2006discontinuous; @GroteMaxwellIPDG; @HesthavenNodal1; @GroteThesis] discretize a second-order system by imposing additional penalty boundary terms. *Local discontinuous Galerkin* (LDG) methods, developed by Shu and collaborators [@LDG1; @LDG2; @LDG3] and based on the early work by Bassi et al. [@bassiDu1; @bassiDu2], introduce auxiliary variables to facilitate second-differentiation. These variables are evaluated at each time step but not evolved and allow penalty boundaries to be imposed as for a first-order system. For a review, see [@LDGReview].
DGFE methods exist within a rich ecosystem of penalty methods, including but not limited to: spectral penalty methods [@funaro1988new; @funaro1991convergence; @hesthaven2000SpectralPenalty], spectral finite volume methods [@spectralFV1; @spectralFV2; @spectralFV3; @spectralFV4; @spectralFV5; @spectralFV6], and spectral difference methods [@spectralDifference1; @spectralDifference2]. Indeed, nodal DGFE methods (and likely pseudospectral penalty methods in general) can be cast as multi-domain summation-by-parts finite differences methods [@Gassner-DG-SBP; @fernandez2014generalized]. In this formalism, the penalty boundary terms are called *simultaneous approximation terms* [@carpenter1993stability; @svardSBPReview; @fernandez2014review].
In [@tichy2006] and [@tichy2009], Tichy evolved a static black hole on a single spectral domain using the BSSN system and a pseudospectral scheme. Using a variational principle, Zumbusch developed a DGFE discretization in both space and time for the second-order GH formulation of the Einstein equations [@zumbuschHarmonicDGFE]. Field et al. developed a DGFE method for the second-order BSSN equations in spherical symmetry [@field2010discontinuous]. In [@radice2011discontinuous], Radice and Rezzola developed a DGFE formulation for fluids in a general relativistic setting. In the process, they use a DGFE method to solve the Einstein equations in spherical symmetry with maximal slicing and areal coordinates.[^2] In [@BugnerDGWENO], Bugner et al. build on this work to combine DGFE methods with an HRSC scheme based on weighted essentially nonoscillatory (WENO) algorithms for fluids on a fixed, curved, spacetime background. Motivated by the first-order-in-space nature of DGFE methods, Brown et al. developed a fully first-order version of the BSSN system and evolved a binary black hole in-spiral using finite differences. They also evolved a reduction of the system to spherical symmetry using a DGFE scheme [@BrownFOBSSN].
It is desirable to evolve the second-order BSSN equations in full 3+1 dimensions via DGFE methods. Unfortunately, to-date this has not been possible.
DGFE methods are typically formulated for manifestly flux-conservative systems of the form $$\label{eq:flux:conservative}
\partial_t \myvec{\psi} + \partial_j f^j(\myvec{\psi}) = 0,$$ where $\myvec{\psi}$ is a collection of variables and $\myvec{f}$ is a nonlinear flux, which is a function of $\myvec{\psi}$. In these systems, differentiation of the flux is the most natural operation. Therefore, one may discretize $\partial_j f^j$ all at once.
In contrast, the BSSN system is roughly of the form $$\label{eq:general:nonlinear:operator}
\partial_t \myvec{\psi} = \Lo\sqrbrace{\myvec{\psi},\partial_j\myvec{\psi},\partial_j\partial_k\myvec{\psi}},$$ where $\Lo$ is a nonlinear operator that acts on $\myvec{\psi}$ and its derivatives. In this case, the natural operation is to differentiate $\myvec{\psi}$ directly. Therefore, there is no reason to discretize the entire operator $\Lo$, which may be very cumbersome. Instead, it may be cleaner to discretize the differential operators $\partial_i$.
There are then two related difficulties in evolving the BSSN equation using DGFE methods. First DGFE methods are usually formulated for manifestly flux-conservative systems, which are first-order in space and time. The penalty-type boundary conditions imposed in DGFE methods must therefore be generalized to second-order systems. Second, DGFE methods are usually formulated at the level of the equations, not the level of the derivative operator. Given the complexity of the BSSN system, this is a serious impediment to the development of a working scheme.
In this work we develop a new generalization of DGFE methods, *operator-based local discontinuous Galerkin* (OLDG) methods, which address these problems and allows us to evolve the BSSN equations. We then subject our approach to a battery of community-developed tests for numerical relativity: the Apples-with-Apples tests [@AwA1; @AwA2]. So that we can handle second-order systems, we base our scheme off of LDG methods. We draw particular inspiration from the work of Xing et al. [@LDGTruncate], where they develop a superconvergent energy-conserving LDG method for the wave equation.
To avoid the complications of discretizing the BSSN equations, we perform our discretization at the level of the derivative operator, rather than at the level of the equations. This requires a different formalism for describing the piecewise polynomial space. Our formalism uses distributional theory and is inspired by a pedagogical exercise in [@hesthaven2008nodal], which we make rigorous. Because we focus our discretization at the level of the differential operator and not the equations, our method provides a *drop-in* solution for working relativity codes. All that is necessary to convert a finite differences code to a DGFE code is to replace the derivative operator with ours.
Discretizing at the level of the derivative requires special care with respect to the stability of our scheme. Integration by parts is often an integral step in proofs of the well-posedness of a continuum system of initial-value problems [@Alcubierre]. Essentially, one finds an energy norm and shows that it is non-increasing. Hyperbolic systems for which an energy norm exists are called *symmetrizable hyperbolic*. In their pioneering work, Sarbach et al. showed that the second-order BSSN system is a second-order version of a first-order strongly hyperbolic system [@SarbachBSSNHyperbolicity]. Strong hyperbolicity is weaker than symmetrizable hyperbolicity, but both imply stability.
The discrete analog of integration by parts is *summation by parts*, developed by Kreiss and Scherer [@Kreiss1974; @Kreiss1977], and it tremendously simplifies proofs of numerical stability. Indeed, a summation-by-parts operator, combined with strong or symmetrizable hyperbolicity and appropriate conditions on initial and boundary data, is often enough to demonstrate stability.
Given the complicated nature of the BSSN equations and their discretizations, we do not seek to prove the stability of our scheme. Rather we insist that our discretized derivative operator satisfy summation by parts. Given the strongly hyperbolic nature of the BSSN system, we expect this restriction to provide linear stability. Nonlinear stability is enforced both by a *truncation* scheme we develop and by more traditional filtering techniques as needed.
Our paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:methods\], we develop the formalism for OLDG methods and define the OLDG operator. For brevity, we skip the details of our results regarding summation-by-parts, stability, and convergence. The interested reader can find these in appendices \[sec:sbp:proof\], \[sec:stability:wave:equation\] and \[sec:convergence\] respectively. In section \[sec:asymptotics\], we describe some of the computational properties of interest, such as computation, communication, and memory access costs. In section \[sec:tests\], we describe the numerical tests we perform and their results. Finally, in section \[sec:conclusion\], we offer some concluding remarks.
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
[| l | Y |]{} **Symbol** & **Meaning**\
$\Omega = [X_l,X_r]$ & Our domain of interest\
\[1ex\] $\tilde{\Omega} = [X_l-\varepsilon,X_r+\varepsilon]$ & Our extended domain\
\[1ex\] $\Omega^k = [x_l^k,x_r^k]$ & An element within $\Omega$\
\[1ex\] $K$ & The number of elements in domain $\Omega$\
\[1ex\] $P^k$ & The maximum polynomial order of the test functions $\{\Phi^k_i\}$ used to represent a function within element $\Omega^k$\
\[1ex\] $h^k$ & The width of an element, $x^k_r - x^k_l$\
\[1ex\] $\psi,\phi$ & Piecewise smooth functions living on our broken domain\
$\chi^k$ & The characteristic function for $\Omega^k$\
\[1ex\] $\Theta^k_l$,$\Theta^k_r$ & The Heaviside function centred on $x^k_l$ and $x^k_r$ respectively\
\[1ex\] $\delta^k_l$,$\delta^k_r$ & The Dirac delta function centred on $x^k_l$ and $x^k_r$ respectively\
\[1ex\] $\psi^k$ & The restriction of $\psi$ onto $\Omega^k$\
\[1ex\] $\psi^k_l,\psi^k_r$ & $\psi^k$ evaluated at $x^k_l$ and $x^k_r$ respectively\
\[1ex\] $\Phi^k_i$ & The $i^{\text{th}}$ test function in $\Omega^k$\
$(\psi^*)^k_l, (\psi^*)^k_r$ & Weak boundary terms\
\[1ex\] $\tilde{\psi}_s^k,\tilde{\psi}_d^k$ & The smooth and discontinuous extensions of $\psi^k$ outside its element respectively\
$x^k_i$ & The $i^{\text{th}}$ collocation point ($0 \le i \le P^k$) on discretized element $\Omega^k$\
\[1ex\] $w^k_i$ & Weights for the discrete inner product within an element\
\[1ex\] $\psi^k_i$ & $\psi^k$ evaluated at $x^k_i$\
\[1ex\] $\hat{\psi}^k_i$ & The projection of $\psi^k$ onto $\Phi^k_i$\
\[1ex\] $\hat{d}^k$ & The change of basis matrix that maps the spectral coefficients for $\psi^k$ to those for its derivative\
\[1ex\] $\V^k$ & The Vandermonde matrix, which transforms between the modal and nodal bases\
\[1ex\] $d^k$ & The narrow nodal derivative operator\
$w^k$ & The discrete weights as a matrix\
\[1ex\] $b^k$ & The boundary operator, the discretization of a Dirac delta function over the boundary of an element $\Omega^k$\
\[1ex\] $F^k$ & The “fetch” operator, which pulls information from elements neighbouring element $\Omega^k$\
\[1ex\] $D^k$ & The wide derivative operator, which takes neighbouring elements into account\
In the usual formulation of DGFE methods one replaces the conserved flux through the boundary of a fixed volume with a *numerical flux*, which takes information from within the volume and from the boundaries of neighbouring volumes [@hesthaven2008nodal]. Here we take a different approach. We use distributional theory to replace the derivative of a smooth function with the *weak* derivative of a *piecewise smooth* function, appropriately chosen to recover the small communication overhead characteristic of these types of methods.
This approach was first proposed by Hesthaven and Warburton [@hesthaven2008nodal], who use it pedagogically to argue that the strong form of the canonical DGFE operator is just an encoding of the notion of a weak derivative. We make this assertion rigorous and argue that this weak derivative formulation provides a generic way to place arbitrary nonlinear hyperbolic equations into the DGFE framework, even if they are not manifestly flux-conservative.
This focus on the derivative operator has very practical consequences: It allows computer programmes that currently employ finite differences methods to replace the finite differences stencil with our OLDG stencil, converting a finite differences code to a DGFE code. This transition requires: implementing loop tiling (for efficiency) so that the band-diagonal finite differences operator can be replaced by our block-diagonal discontinuous Galerkin operator, implementing the truncation scheme described in section \[sec:truncation\], and replacing the Kreiss-Oliger dissipation operator with the right-hand-side filter operator discussed in section \[sec:filtering\]. We discuss those issues in this section below. This change from a finite difference to a DGFE method should improve the parallel efficiency significantly, as we discuss in the next section \[sec:asymptotics\].
In a DGFE method, there are two levels of discretization. At the top level, one breaks the domain of interest $\Omega$ into many subdomains, or *elements*, $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ which overlap on a set of measure zero (see figure \[fig:broken:domain\]). One must choose how to approximate the derivatives of a function that lives on this broken domain. At a lower level, one must choose how to approximate the piece of the global function that lives on each subdomain. From the perspective of a single element, one can think of the former as a choice of boundary conditions for the piece of the function living on the element and the latter as an ansatz for the types of functions that can live on the element. These two levels of discretization can be lumped into a single discretization step. However, making them explicit allows us to develop our discretization approach formally.
For the reader’s convenience we provide a reference for the notation used in our construction in table \[tab:notation\].
The Main Idea {#sec:main:idea}
-------------
Before we proceed with our construction, we present a toy problem which encapsulates some of the core ideas of our method. Consider two smooth functions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def:toy:phi}
\phi : [0,1] &\to& \R\\
\label{eq:def:toy:pi}
\text{and }\pi : [0,1] &\to& \R,\end{aligned}$$ each of which is defined on the interval $[0,1]$. From these two functions, we can construct a third function $\psi : [0,1]\to \R$ defined by $$\label{eq:def:toy:psi}
\psi(x) = \begin{cases}
\phi(x)&\text{if }0\leq x\leq x_0\\
\pi(x)&\text{if }x_0 < x \leq 1
\end{cases}$$ for some $0 < x_0 < 1$.
We wish to differentiate $\psi$. However, generically, $\psi$ has a discontinuity at $x_0$ and is not a differentiable function. If we treat $\psi$ as a *distribution* then its derivative can be defined *weakly*. To make this manifest, we write $\psi$ as the sum of two distributions: $$\label{eq:phi:toy:sum}
\psi(x) = \phi(x)\Theta(x_0-x) + \pi(x)\Theta(x-x_0),$$ where $$\label{eq:def:heaviside}
\Theta(x) = \begin{cases}0&\text{if }x < 0\\ 1&\text{if }x\geq 0\end{cases}$$ is the Heaviside function. Then the *weak*, or *distributional* derivative of $\psi$ is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_x \psi(x) &=& \sqrbrace{\partial_x\phi(x)}\Theta(x_0-x) - \phi(x)\delta(x-x_0) + \sqrbrace{\partial_x\pi(x)}\Theta(x-x_0) + \pi(x)\delta(x-x_0)\nonumber\\
\label{eq:toy:dphi}
&=& \sqrbrace{\partial_x\phi(x)}\Theta(x_0-x) + \sqrbrace{\partial_x\pi(x)}\Theta(x-x_0)+\sqrbrace{\pi(x)-\psi(x)}\delta(x-x_0),\end{aligned}$$
where we have used the fact that the distributional derivative of the Heaviside function $\Theta(x)$ is the Dirac delta function $\delta(x)$ [@duistermaat2010distributions].
Equation is well defined under integration with any smooth test function that has compact support over the interval $[0,1]$. In other words, $$\label{eq:toy:integral:dphi}
\int_0^1 \Phi\partial_x\psi dx = \int_0^{x_0}\Phi\partial_x\phi dx + \int_{x_0}^1 \Phi\partial_x\pi dx + \sqrbrace{\pi - \phi}\eval_{x_0}$$ for all smooth functions $\Phi$ such that $\Phi(0)=\Phi(1)=0$.
In the following sections, we will use a decomposition much like that given by equation . In this toy example, our decomposition relied on the existence of functions $\phi$ and $\pi$ which were defined on the *entire* interval $[0,1]$. More generally, these functions may not be given to us *a priori*, but they can be constructed.
The Broken Domain {#sec:methods:breakup}
-----------------
We now proceed with the main construction. For simplicity suppose that the domain of interest $\Omega$ is the real interval $[X_l, X_r]$, $X_l < X_r\in\R$. For higher dimensions, we simply assume a Cartesian product topology. We break our domain $\Omega$ into $K$ interior elements $$\label{eq:def:omega:k}
\Omega^k := [x_l^k, x_r^k],\ x^k_l < x^k_r \in\R$$ for all $k=1,\ldots,K$ and two boundary elements $$\label{eq:boundary:elements}
\Omega^0 := \{x^0_r\},\ \Omega^{K+1} := \{x^{K+1}_l\}$$ with $x^0_r=X_l$ and $x^{K+1}_l=X_r$ such that, $$\label{eq:element:boundary:condition}
x_r^{k-1} = x_l^k \text{ and } x_r^k = x_l^{k+1}$$ for all $k=1,\ldots,K$. (Note that these boundary elements are singleton sets.) We also demand that the union of all $K+2$ elements comprises the whole domain: $$\label{eq:domain:union}
\bigcup_{k=0}^{K+1} \Omega^k = \Omega.$$ For convenience, we define the element width $$\label{eq:def:hk}
h^k = x^k_r - x^k_l.$$ Figure \[fig:broken:domain\] shows the structure of $\Omega$ for three elements, e.g., when $K=3$.
![A broken domain with $K=3$.[]{data-label="fig:broken:domain"}](broken-domain){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
On our domain $\Omega$, we wish to represent the arbitrary function $\psi(x)$. $\psi$ may be either a scalar or vector quantity. For simplicity, we will assume here that it is a scalar. We call the restriction of $\psi$ onto a given element $\Omega^k$, $\psi^k$. We demand that each $\psi^k$ be smooth but we allow $\psi$ to have jump discontinuities at the domain boundaries $\{x_r^k = x_l^{k+1}\}$. Notice that in this description, each $\Omega^k$ overlaps with its neighbours $\Omega^{k-1}$ and $\Omega^{k+1}$ at exactly one point. These points of overlap are exactly the points where $\psi^k$ is allowed to be discontinuous and $$\label{eq:def:psi:k:lr}
\psi^k_r := \psi^k(x_r^k) \text{ and } \psi^{k+1}_l := \psi^{k+1}(x_l^{k+1})$$ can be thought of as the left- and right-hand limits of $\psi$ respectively. These conditions are equivalent to the standard choices one makes for a typical one-dimensional DGFE method.
For clarity, we define the following convention. Functions living on the domain $\Omega$ will be represented by lower-case Greek letters. Elements will be indexed by a superscript, and positions within an element will be denoted by a subscript.
We can formalize the restriction of $\psi$ to $\psi^k$ by defining the *characteristic function* $$\label{eq:def:selection:distribution}
\chi^k(x) := \begin{cases}1&\text{if }x\in\Omega^k\\0&\text{else}\end{cases}$$ such that $$\label{eq:restricted:function}
\psi(x)\chi^k(x) = \begin{cases}\psi^k(x)&\text{if }x\in\Omega^k\\0&\text{else}\end{cases}.$$ Note that product is defined pointwise as a function. However, since the product of two distributions is in general not well-defined, it is *not* a proper distribution. The techniques Colombeau and coworkers [@colombeau2000new] can be used to define such a distribution. However, we will not need to do so.
We also introduce two inner products, one local to a subdomain $\Omega^k$ and one for the entire domain. If $\psi^k$ and $\phi^k$ are functions on $\Omega^k$, then the subdomain inner product is $$\label{eq:subdomain:inner:product}
\braket{\psi^k, \phi^k}_{\Omega^k} = \int_{x_l^k}^{x_r^k} \psi^k(x) w^k(x) \phi^k(x) dx,$$ where $w^k(x)$ is an as-of-yet undecided weight function. If $\psi$ and $\phi$ are instead functions on the whole domain $\Omega$, then the overall inner product is: $$\label{eq:total:domain:inner:product}
\braket{\psi,\phi}_\Omega = \int_{X_l}^{X_r} \psi(x)w(x)\phi(x) dx= \sum_{k=1}^K \braket{\psi^k,\phi^k}_{\Omega^k},$$ where $w(x)$ is the weight function for the whole domain and $\psi^k$ and $\phi^k$ are the appropriate restrictions of $\psi$ and $\phi$.
We will sometimes be interested in a slightly extended integral. Let $$\label{eq:varepsilon:introduction}
\varepsilon > 0,\ \varepsilon\in\R.$$ Then we define the *extended domain* $$\label{eq:def:omega:tilde}
\tilde{\Omega} := [X_l-\varepsilon,X_r+\varepsilon]$$ and *extended inner product* $$\label{eq:def:extended:product}
\braket{\psi,\phi}_{\tilde{\Omega}} := \int_{X_l-\varepsilon}^{X_r+\varepsilon} \psi(x)w(x)\phi(x) dx.$$ This extension is useful for handling the discontinuities at $\Omega^0$ and $\Omega^{K+1}$.
![An example test function $\Phi^2_i$ for the domain $\Omega^2$ with $K=3$. When restricted to $\Omega^2$, the set $\{\chi^2 \Phi^2_i\}_{i=0}^\infty$ forms an orthonormal basis for $C^\infty(\Omega^2)$. However, each $\Phi^2_i$ is smooth over and has compact support on the *whole* interval $[X_l-\varepsilon,X_r+\varepsilon]$. The restriction $\chi^2
\Phi^2_i$ (for some $i$) is shown as a solid line. The remainder of the function is shown as a dashed line.[]{data-label="fig:test-functions"}](test-functions){width="\columnwidth"}
Since we allow functions on $\Omega$ to be piecewise smooth and therefore not everywhere differentiable, we are interested in their properties in a *weak* or *distributional* sense. Therefore for each $k=1,\ldots,K$ and each element $\Omega^k$, we define a set of smooth test functions, $\{\Phi_i^k\}_{i=0}^\infty$, each defined on the *whole* extended interval $\tilde{\Omega}=[X_l-\varepsilon,X_r+\varepsilon]$.
We demand that, for all $i\in\N$ and $k=1,\ldots,K$, $$\label{eq:compact:support}
\Phi_i^k(X_l-\varepsilon) = \Phi_i^k(X_r+\varepsilon) = 0$$ and that, for all $\phi^k\in C^\infty(\Omega^k)$, there exists a set of spectral coefficients $\{\hat{\phi}^k_i\}_{i=0}^\infty$, $\hat{\phi}^k_i\in\R$, such that $$\label{eq:span}
\phi^k(x) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \hat{\phi}^k_i \chi^k(x)\Phi^k_i(x).$$ In other words, every $\Phi_i^k$ has compact support on the interval $[X_l-\varepsilon,X_r+\varepsilon]$ and, for each $k$, the set of restrictions $\{\chi^k \Phi^k_i\}_{i=0}^\infty$ forms an orthonormal basis for $C^\infty(\Omega^k)$. Other than insisting on smoothness and compact support, we do not need to constrain our test functions outside of their respective elements. (From now on, we will represent spectral coefficients with hats.)
The choice of weight function $w^k$ is tied to the choice of basis functions $\Phi^k_i$. We may use it to ensure that our test functions are orthogonal. The weight function for the whole domain, $w(x)$ must be chosen for compatibility with $w^k$.
Note that our basis functions are quite different from those defined in a standard discontinuous Galerkin method. In the usual DGFE approach one can define the test functions as a set of piecewise smooth functions on $\Omega$ with discontinuities at element boundaries. However, if the test functions themselves are discontinuous, we cannot rigorously apply distribution theory.
In our case we define a set of test functions on each element. However, each test function is defined outside the element, with compact support on an appropriately extended domain, as shown in figure \[fig:test-functions\]. This construction ensures that all our test functions are smooth and that the standard results from distributional theory hold.
In particular, if $\Theta(x)$ and $\delta(x)$ are the Heaviside and Dirac delta functions respectively, then $$\label{eq:dheaviside:1}
\braket{\partial_x\Theta,\Phi_i^k}_{\tilde{\Omega}} = \braket{\delta,\Phi_i^k}_{\tilde{\Omega}}
% \label{eq:dheaviside:2}
% \braket{\ddII{x}\Theta,\Phi_i^k}_\Omega &=& \braket{\delta',\Phi_i^k}_\Omega$$ for all $i\in\N$ and $k=1,2,\ldots,K$ [@duistermaat2010distributions].
For convenience, we define the *shifted* Heaviside and Dirac delta functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:shifted:heaviside}
\Theta^k_l (x):= \Theta(x^k_l-x),&&\Theta^k_r(x) := \Theta(x-x^k_r),\\
\label{eq:shifted:dirac}
\delta^k_l (x):= \delta(x-x^k_l),&\text{ and }&\delta^k_r(x) := \delta(x-x^k_r),\end{aligned}$$ which are centred on the element boundaries $\{x^k_l,x^k_r\}_{k=1}^{K}$. (Note that $\Theta^k_l$ is inverted in $x$ so it is nonzero for $x<x^k_l$ and zero for $x> x^k_l$.) In this language, we can write the distributional derivative of the characteristic function as $$\label{eq:def:dchi}
\braket{\partial_x\chi^j,\Phi^k_i}_{\tilde{\Omega}} = \braket{\delta^j_l,\Phi^k_i}_{\tilde{\Omega}} - \braket{\delta^j_r,\Phi^k_i}_{\tilde{\Omega}}$$ for all $i\in\N$ and all $j,k = 1,2,\ldots,K$.
For the remainder of this paper, the restrictions $\chi^k \Phi^k_i$ of our test functions $\Phi^k_i$ to the interior of an element $\Omega^k$ are assumed to be the Legendre polynomials, defined in appendix \[sec:collocation\]. (It doesn’t matter what they are outside $\Omega^k$, as long as they are smooth and have compact support.) This means our element-wise weight function is $w^k = 1$.
We make this assumption partly to make contact with traditional nodal DGFE methods, where this is the norm, and partly for simplicity. Although we did not explore them, other choices such as Chebyshev polynomials are certainly possible and potentially desirable. Choice of (orthonormal) basis function and associated collocation points affect both the timestep and the conditioning of the linear operator that transforms between nodal and modal bases [@hesthaven2008nodal] (see section \[sec:movng:discrete\]). For more details on some of the effects varying the basis or collocation points can have, see [@hesthaven2008nodal] or [@press2007numerical].
As long as the collocation points include the boundaries of the element, as described appendix \[sec:collocation\], our main results are unchanged by the choice of basis or collocation points.
The Modified Derivative Operator {#sec:modified:derivative}
--------------------------------
To take the derivative of an arbitrary distribution $\phi$ defined on $\Omega$, we will decompose it into the sum of several distributions, just as in section \[sec:main:idea\]. However, to follow this procedure, each $\phi^k$ must be smoothly defined on the whole extended domain $\tilde{\Omega}$. Therefore, for each $\psi^k$, we define a *smooth continuation* $$\label{eq:def:psi:smooth}
\tilde{\psi}^k_s \in C^\infty(\tilde{\Omega}) : \tilde{\Omega} \to \R$$ such that $$\label{eq:extension:restriction}
\chi^k\tilde{\psi}^k_s = \chi^k\psi.$$ In other words, within $\Omega^k$, $\psi$ and $\tilde{\psi}^k_s$ must agree. However, outside of $\Omega^k$ they generically do not.
Armed with this machinery, we can perform a procedure analogous to that in section \[sec:main:idea\] to compute the the derivative of a piecewise smooth function $\phi$ on $\Omega$. To this end, consider the following *discontinuous continuation* of the restriction of $\psi^k$: $$\label{eq:modified:restriction}
\tilde{\psi}^k_d(x) := \tilde{\psi}^k_s(x)\chi^k(x)
+ (\psi^*)^k_l\Theta^k_l(x)
+ (\psi^*)_r^k\Theta^k_r(x),$$ where $(\psi^*)_l^k$ and $(\psi^*)_r^k$ are chosen to incorporate information about $\psi^{k-1}_r$ and $\psi^{k+1}_l$ respectively. Note that since $\tilde{\psi}^k_s$ is smooth, $\tilde{\psi}^k_d$ is a proper distribution with no ambiguities other than the choice of $\psi^*$, which is analogous to the choice of numerical flux in a traditional DGFE scheme.
We now approximate the derivative of $\psi$ as the weak derivative of $\tilde{\psi}_d^k(x)$ for $x\in\Omega^k$. To calculate this weak derivative, we differentiate and take the inner product with an arbitrary test function $\Phi_i^k$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\braket{\Phi_i^k, \partial_x \tilde{\psi}_d^k}_{\tilde{\Omega}}
&=& \braket{\Phi_i^k,\partial_x\sqrbrace{\chi^k(x)\tilde{\psi}^k_s(x)}}_{\tilde{\Omega}}
+ (\psi^*)^k_l \braket{\Phi_i^k,\partial_x\Theta^k_l(x)}_{\tilde{\Omega}}
+ (\psi^*)_r^k\braket{\Phi_i^k,\partial_x\Theta^k_r(x)}_{\tilde{\Omega}}\nonumber\\
&=& \braket{\Phi_i^k,\chi^k\partial_x\tilde{\psi}_s^k}_{\tilde{\Omega}}
+ \braket{\Phi^k_i,\tilde{\psi}^k_s\partial_x\chi^k}_{\tilde{\Omega}}
+ (\psi^*)^k_l \braket{\Phi_i^k,\partial_x\Theta^k_l(x)}_{\tilde{\Omega}}
+ (\psi^*)_r^k\braket{\Phi_i^k,\partial_x\Theta^k_r(x)}_{\tilde{\Omega}}\nonumber\\
\label{eq:weak:derivative:intermediate}
&=& \braket{\Phi_i^k,\partial_x\psi^k}_{\Omega^k}
- \sqrbrace{(\psi^*)^k_l-\psi^k_l}\braket{\Phi_i^k,\delta_l^k}_{\tilde{\Omega}}
+ \sqrbrace{(\psi^*)_r^k-\psi_r^k}\braket{\Phi_i^k,\delta_r^k}_{\tilde{\Omega}}\nonumber\\
&=& \braket{\Phi_i^k,\partial_x\psi^k}_{\Omega^k} + \Phi_i^k(x) \sqrbrace{(\psi^*)^k-\psi^k}\eval_{x^k_l}^{x^k_r}\nonumber\\
\label{eq:weak:derivative}
&=& \braket{\Phi_i^k,\partial_x\psi^k}_{\Omega^k} + \braket{\Phi_i^k,(\psi^*)^k-\psi^k}_{\partial\Omega^k},\end{aligned}$$
where in the first step we employ the product rule; in the second, we utilize equations , , and ; in the third, we utilize the definition of the Dirac delta function; and in the final step, we recognize $\braket{\phi,\psi}_{\partial\Omega^k}$ as the integral over the boundary of $\Omega^k$, defined in the usual way.
Note that, although $\partial_x \tilde{\psi}^k_d$ is well-defined as distribution, the product of distributions $g(\psi)\partial_x\tilde{\psi}^k_d$, for an arbitrary nonlinear function $g$, may not be. Therefore, although we have a distributional derivative, we may not be able to use it to weakly define a system of equations. This difficulty can be overcome on a system-by-system basis via the work of, e.g., LeFloch et al. [@maso1995definition; @lefloch1988entropy; @lefloch1989shock; @hou1994nonconservative] or Colombeau et al. [@colombeau2000new; @colombeau1988multiplications]. We are more interested in a general framework which may be used with any sufficiently well-behaved hyperbolic system. Therefore we do not address this issue here.
Moving to the Discrete {#sec:movng:discrete}
----------------------
Our description of the derivative so far assumes that the restriction $\psi^k$ is an arbitrary smooth function. Therefore, to obtain a discrete scheme, we must make an ansatz about $\psi^k$. We choose a pseudospectral ansatz. We briefly discuss some of the details of this ansatz in appendix \[sec:collocation\]. For a review of pseudospectral methods, see [@Grandclement2009].
To make our method a Galerkin method, for each element $\Omega^k$, we choose some $P^k\in\N$ and some subset $\{\Phi_i^k\}_{i=0}^{P^k}$ of the test functions $\Phi_i^k$ and demand that any function $\psi^k$ is a linear combination of the restriction of those test functions onto $\Omega^k$: $$\label{eq:uk:ansatz}
\psi^k(x) = \sum_{i=0}^{P^k} \hat{\psi}^k_i \Phi_i^k(x)\ \forall\ x\in\Omega^k,$$ where $\hat{\psi}^k_i\in\R$ are spectral coefficients. Note that since we have chosen our test functions to be the Legendre polynomials, $P^k$ is also the highest-order polynomial which can be represented within an element.
Then, we demand that the weak derivative relations and only hold for all $0 \leq i \leq P^k$, rather than for all $k\in\N$. In this modal representation, we can relate $\psi^k(x)$ to its derivative $\partial_x\psi^k(x)$ in the standard way, $$\label{eq:ukprime}
\partial_x\psi^k(x) = \sum_{i=0}^{P^k} \paren{\widehat{\partial_x\psi}}^k_i \Phi_i^k(x),$$ where the spectral coefficients are given by $$\label{eq:modal:derivative}
\paren{\widehat{\partial_x\psi}}^k_i = \sum_{j=0}^{P^k}\braket{\partial_x\Phi^k_i(x), \Phi^k_j(x)}_{\Omega^k} \hat{\psi}^k_j,$$ which can be thought of as a change-of-basis operation. For convenience, we define the matrix $\hat{d}^k$, whose components are given by $$\label{eq:def:dmodal}
\hat{d}^k_{ij} := \braket{\partial_x\Phi^k_i(x), \Phi^k_j(x)}_{\Omega^k}.$$
We also construct a nodal representation. Within each element, we assume a discrete set of points $\{x_i^k\}_{i=0}^{P^k}$ such that $x_0^k=x_l^k$ and $x_{(P^k)}^k = x_r^k$. One good choice for $\{x_i^k\}_{i=0}^{P^k}$ is the Gauss-Lobatto points of $\{\Phi_i^k\}_{k=0}^{P^k}$. Given a set of values $\psi^k_i$, $\psi^k(x)$ is assumed to interpolate the values such that $\psi^k(x_i^k) = \psi^k_i$. In this nodal representation, the element-wise inner product is approximated by the Gauss-Lobatto quadrature rule $$\label{eq:def:quadrature:rule}
\braket{\phi^k,\psi^k}_{\Omega^k} \approx \sum_{i=0}^{P^k} \phi^k_i \psi^k_i w_i^k,$$ where $w_i^k$ are the discrete weights of the inner product.
We emphasize that even when the continuum weights are trivial, as they are for the Legendre polynomials, the discrete weights $w^k_i$ will not be. Given a set of test functions and continuum weights, they are determined by the locations of collocation points, as described in appendix \[sec:collocation\]. Figure \[fig:weights:abcissas\] shows the approximate values of the weights and locations of the collocation points for an element of order $P^k=4$ and weight $h^k$.
$$\myvec{w}^k \approx \frac{h^k}{2} \left(\begin{array}{S[table-format=1.2]}0.1\\0.54\\0.71\\0.54\\0.1\end{array}\right)
\text{ and }
\myvec{x}^k \approx \frac{x^k_l + x^k_r}{2}
+ \frac{h^k}{2}\left(\begin{array}{S[table-format=2.2]}-1\\-0.65\\0\\0.65\\1\end{array}\right)$$
If we collect the $\phi^k_i$ and $\psi^k_i$ into vectors $\myvec{\phi}^k$ and $\myvec{\psi}^k$ respectively, we can define the quadrature rule as a matrix operation: $$\label{eq:quadrature:matrix}
\braket{\phi^k,\psi^k}_{\Omega^k} = (\myvec{\phi}^k)^T w^k \myvec{\psi}^k,$$ where $w^k_{ij} = w^k_i \delta_{ij}$. The inner product over the whole domain remains the sum over the element-wise inner products as in equation .
To move between the modal and nodal representations, we introduce the generalized Vandermonde matrix, $$\label{eq:def:vandermonde}
\V^k_{ij} := \Phi^k_j(x^k_i),$$ such that the vector of nodal coefficients is obtained by applying the Vandermonde matrix to the vector of modal coefficients: $$\label{eq:vandermonde:use}
\myvec{\psi}^k = \V^k \myvec{\hat{\psi}}^k.$$ This also gives us a nodal representation of element-wise differentiation. We define the element-wise derivative operator as $$\label{eq:elementwise:derivative}
d^k:= \V^k \hat{d}^k (\V^k)^{-1},$$ which is nothing more than the standard pseudospectral derivative operator for the domain $\Omega^k$. For reasons that will soon become clear, we call $d^k$ the *narrow* derivative operator.
At this point, we must make a choice about how to represent an inner product that integrates over the boundary of a domain. As a guiding principle, we will use the discrete analogue of integration by parts, summation by parts, for the inner product within a single element. In other words, we want the following to hold: $$\label{eq:integration:by:parts}
\braket{\phi^k,\partial_x\psi^k}_{\Omega^k} + \braket{\partial_x \phi^k,\psi^k}_{\Omega^k} = \braket{\phi^k,\psi^k}_{\partial\Omega^k}.$$ In the discrete case, we can write an inner product over the boundary of an element as a standard inner product where one of the operands is multiplied by a special matrix, $b^k$, which we call the *boundary operator*: $$\label{eq:boundary:inner:product}
\braket{\phi^k,\psi^k}_{\partial\Omega^k} = (\myvec{\phi}^k)^T w^k b^k \myvec{\psi}^k = \paren{b^k \myvec{\phi}^k}^Tw^k\myvec{\psi}^k.$$ The boundary operator is determined by equations and to be given by $$\label{eq:def:b:operator}
w^k b^k = w^k d^k + \paren{w^k d^k}^T,$$ where $w^k$ and $d^k$ are the element-wise weight and differentiation matrices respectively.
The matrix $b^k$ is essentially a discretization of the Dirac delta function centred on the boundary of $\Omega^k$. It has components given by $$\label{eq:form:bk}
b^k_{ij} = \frac{2 b^k_{0}}{h^k} \paren{\delta_{i,P^k}\delta_{j,P^k} - \delta_{i,0}\delta_{j,0}},$$ where $b_{0} > 0\in\R$ depends on $P^k$. The product $w^kb^k$ has the particularly simple form $$\label{eq:bk:wk:properties}
\paren{w^k b^k}_{ij} = \delta_{i,P^k}\delta_{j,P^k} - \delta_{i,0}\delta_{j,0}$$ so that the integral over the boundaries of an element matches the continuum result, $$\braket{\phi^k,\psi^k}_{\partial \Omega^k} = \phi^k_r\psi^k_r - \phi^k_l \psi^k_l.$$ Figure \[fig:bk:example\] provides an example of $b^k$ in matrix form for an element of width $h^k$ and order $P^k=4$.
$$b^k = \frac{1}{h^k}\left(\begin{array}{r r r r r}
-20 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 20
\end{array}\right)$$
We now set about the task of defining the discrete analog of equation which, in our scheme, will replace the pseudospectral derivative . We must first choose a definition of $\psi^*$, the quantity in equation that represents the information we pull from a neighbouring element. There are a number of choices one can make. However, we make the following, relatively simple, choice. Let the suggestively named $(b^k)^{-1}F^k$ be any operator that maps $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def:b:inverse:J:1}
\psi^k_l &\to& \psi^{k-1}_r\\
\label{eq:def:b:inverse:J:2}
\text{and }\psi^k_r&\to&\psi^{k+1}_l.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the name $(b^k)^{-1}F^k$ is an abuse of notation, as $b^k$ has no inverse. We then define the *fetch operator* $$\label{eq:def:J}
F^k := b^k \sqrbrace{(b^k)^{-1}F^k},$$ which performs the same role as $(b^k)^{-1}F^k$, but selects only boundary terms for integration, making any non-boundary properties of $(b^k)^{-1}F^k$ irrelevant.
Like the boundary operator $b^k$, the fetch operator $F^k$ is essentially a discretization of a delta function centred at the boundary of $\Omega^k$. However, since functions are allowed to be discontinuous at element boundaries, there is an ambiguity. The boundary operator selects for the values of a function within an element, the “inside limit,” while the fetch operator selects for values of a function outside an element, the “outside limit.” If we introduce the shorthand $$\label{eq:shorthand:indexing}
x^{k-1}_r = x^k_{-1}\text{ and } x^{k+1}_l = x^k_{P^k+1},$$ then the fetch operator has components $$\label{eq:jump:operator:explicit:form}
F^k_{ij} = \frac{2 b^k_0}{h^k}\paren{\delta_{i,P^k}\delta_{j,P^k+1} - \delta_{i,0}\delta_{j,-1}}$$ for all $i=0,1,\ldots,P^k$ and $j=-1,0,\ldots,P^k,P^k+1$.
Now let $$\label{eq:def:psi:star}
(\psi^*)^k = \half\xi \sqrbrace{(b^k)^{-1}F^k}\psi^k - \half \psi^k$$ so that $$\label{eq:def:b:psi:star}
b^k (\psi^*)^k = \half\sqrbrace{\xi F^k\psi^k - b^k\psi^k},$$ where $\xi\in\R$. Combining this choice of $(\psi^*)^k$ with equation results in the following discrete element-wise, *weak* derivative operator: $$\label{eq:def:Dk}
\partial_x\tilde{\psi}^k = D^k \psi^k := \sqrbrace{d^k - \half b^k + \half\xi F^k}\psi^k,$$ where we call $D^k$ the element-wise *wide derivative* operator because it takes information from neighbouring elements. $D^k$ is the differential operator for OLDG methods.
In general we define the following convention. Any operator that takes information from a *single* element we call *narrow*. Any operator that takes information from an element and its nearest neighbours, we call *wide*. Narrow operators will be represented by lower-case Latin symbols while wide operators will be represented by upper-case Latin symbols. In the functional notation of equations and , the addition of wide and narrow operators is unambiguous. In matrix notation, we simply pad the narrow operator with columns of zeros so that the matrices are the same shape.
Summation By Parts {#sec:methods:sbp}
------------------
We insist that our operator $D^k$ from equation satisfy summation by parts. Given the strongly hyperbolic nature of the BSSN system [@SarbachBSSNHyperbolicity], we expect this restriction to provide linear stability.
By construction, summation-by-parts is satisfied within each element $\Omega^k$. However, stability proofs require integration over the *whole domain* $\Omega$. We define the wide derivative operator over the whole domain $D$ such that, for all $\psi$ on $\Omega$, $$\label{eq:def:D}
D\psi(x) = (D^k\psi^k)(x)\ \forall\ x\in \Omega^k\ \forall\ 1\leq k \leq K.$$ We then seek a value of $\xi$, defined in equation , such that, for all $\psi,\phi$, $$\label{eq:def:summation:by:parts:omega}
\braket{\psi, D\phi}_\Omega + \braket{D\psi, \phi}_\Omega = \braket{\psi,\phi}_{\partial\Omega},$$ where $$\braket{\psi,\phi}_{\partial\Omega} = \psi\phi\eval_{x=X_r} - \psi\phi\eval_{x=X_l}.$$ Note that there are two collocation points at the physical position $X_l$: $x^0_r$ and $x^1_l$, and similarly for $X_r$. Therefore, we can reasonably expect summation by parts to average over these two values in some way. For example, we might accept the relationship $$\braket{\psi,\phi}_{\partial\Omega} =
\half \sqrbrace{ \paren{\psi^K_r\phi^{K+1}_l+\psi^{K+1}_l\phi^K_r}
-\paren{\psi^1_l\phi^0_r + \psi^0_r\phi^1_l }},$$ which is the mixed average of left- and right-hand limits of $\phi$ and $\psi$ at the boundary. (This combination is arbitrary. Other relationships might also be acceptable.)
We find that the only value of $\xi$ that satisfies summation by parts is $\xi =1$. (See appendix \[sec:sbp:proof\] for a proof.) Therefore, the final version of the derivative operator is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def:Dk:final}
D^k &=& d^k - \half \sqrbrace{b^k - F^k}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\xi = 1$ may not be the only stable choice. Depending on the continuum differential system, other values may result in a scheme that is dissipative at element boundaries so that the energy norm is non-increasing. Indeed, dissipation at element boundaries is typical of DGFE schemes [@Cockburn2003]. However, we did not explore this possibility.
In appendix \[sec:stability:wave:equation\], we provide an example of how summation-by-parts can be used to demonstrate the stability of an OLDG discretization of the wave equation in second-order form.
Properties {#sec:methods:properties}
----------
Given a set of collocation points $x^k_i$, $D^k$ maps the $P^k+3$ points $\{x_r^{k-1}\}\cup\{x_i^k\}_{i=0}^{P^k}\cup\{x_l^{k+1}\}$ to the $P^k+1$ points $\{x_i^k\}_{i=0}^{P^k}$. Physically, it maps a function on the exterior faces and interior of an element $\Omega^k$ to a function defined only on the interior. In this picture the OLDG stencil can be thought of as a finite differences stencil with non-constant coefficients and a special, weak, boundary operator. If we use our wide derivative to discretize the linear wave equation in first-order form, we recover a standard DGFE method in the strong formulation with a simple central flux. We demonstrate this in appendix \[sec:lax-friedrich\]. Therefore OLDG methods are truly a generalization of current DGFE methods.
Figures \[fig:Dk:order2\], \[fig:Dk:order3\], and \[fig:Dk:order4\] show examples of $D^k$ for elements of width $h^k$ and order $P^k=2$, 3, and 4 respectively. Here we use the shorthand described in equation such that $i$ ranges from $0$ to $P^k$ and $j$ ranges from $-1$ to $P^k+1$. The first and last columns pull information from the neighbouring elements. Because of space constraints, with the exception of the $P^k=2$ case, we show only the approximate numeric values of the coefficients of $D^k$. The full values are available in a public repository containing our supplemental materials [@dgfeSupp].
In the first column, only the first row is nonzero. And likewise in the last column, only the last row is nonzero. This indicates that collocation points in the neighbouring elements affect only the face of the element $\Omega^k$. The internal diagonal of the matrix vanishes, which indicates that the derivative of a function $\phi$ at a collocation point $x$ is independent of the value of $\phi$ at $x$. Finally, because $D^k$ represents a first derivative with respect to $x$, $D^k\phi \to -D^k\phi$ as $x\to -x$. This is reflected in the symmetry properties of the matrix, which obeys the relationship: $$\label{eq:Dk:symmetry:properties}
D^k_{ij} = -D^k_{(P^k-i)(P^k-j)}$$ for all $i=0,1,2,\ldots,P^k$ and $j=-1,1,2,\ldots,P^k+1$. These properties are generic in our scheme.
$$D^k = \frac{1}{h^k}
\left(\begin{array}{r r r r r}
-3&0&4&-1&0\\
0&-1&0&1&0\\
0&1&-4&0&3
\end{array}\right)$$
$$D^k \approx \frac{1}{h^k}
\left(\begin{array}{r S[table-format=3.2] S[table-format=3.2]
S[table-format=3.2] S[table-format=3.2] r}
-6&0&8.09&-3.09&1&0\\
0&-1.62&0&2.24&-0.62&0\\
0&0.62&-2.24&0&1.62&0\\
0&-1&3.09&-8.09&0&6
\end{array}\right)$$
$$D^k \approx \frac{1}{h^k}
\left(\begin{array}{r S[table-format=3.2] S[table-format=3.2] S[table-format=3.2] S[table-format=3.2] S[table-format=3.2] r}
-10&0&13.51&-5.33&2.82&-1&0\\
0&-2.48&0&3.49&-1.53&0.52&0\\
0&0.75&-2.67&0&2.67&-0.75&0\\
0&-0.52&1.53&-3.49&0&2.48&0\\
0&1&-2.82&5.33&-13.51&0&10
\end{array}\right)$$
Consistency {#sec:consistency}
-----------
It is important to check that, if we differentiate a smooth function, our OLDG derivative converges to the continuum derivative in the separate limits of $h^k\to 0$ and $P^k\to\infty$. We call this property *consistency*.
To check consistency, suppose we seek to approximately differentiate a smooth function $\phi$. Then $$D^k \phi^k = d^k \phi^k$$ and our OLDG derivative reduces to a pseudospectral derivative within the domain $\Omega^k$. Therefore the standard results for spectral methods apply and, as long as the physical solution is smooth, equation provides a consistent approximation of a derivative [@bernardi1992polynomial; @schwab1998p; @hesthaven2008nodal]. More generally, if the continuum function $\phi$ is continuous at element boundaries, the spectral consistency results hold. If the continuum solution is *discontinuous* at element boundaries, then the wide component of our operator contributes and the issue is more delicate. We do not address it here.
Higher Derivatives {#sec:higher:derivatives}
------------------
So far, we have only described how to approximate the continuum operator $\partial_x$. However, we’d also like to approximate higher derivatives. To approximate the second derivative $\partial_x^2 \psi$ of a function $\psi$, we introduce an auxiliary variable $$\label{eq:def:du}
\nabla\psi := D\psi,$$ where $D$ is the wide derivative operator defined in equation , which is not evolved, but calculated globally whenever a second derivative is required. We then calculate the second derivative as $$\label{eq:def:d2u:dx2}
\ddII{x} \psi \approx D \nabla\psi .$$ This may not be the most efficient way of calculating higher derivatives. However, it was the only generic approach we could find that produced second derivatives compatible with the first derivatives defined in section \[sec:methods:sbp\] in the summation by parts sense: $$\label{eq:second:order:sbp}
\braket{\psi,D^2 \phi}_\Omega + \braket{D\psi, D\phi}_\Omega = \braket{\psi,D\phi}_{\partial\Omega},$$ where $D^2$ refers to a wide second derivative operator.
We note that this approach to higher derivatives does come at a price. Since we must know $\nabla\phi$ on neighbouring elements before we can calculate $\partial_x^2\phi$, we must wait for this calculation to finish before proceeding with our calculation of the right-hand-side. This reduces the parallelism of the scheme.
Truncation {#sec:truncation}
----------
In this section, we make a connection to a recent development in the LDG methods of Shu and collaborators. Consider the linear first-order in time, second-order in space wave equation defined on the interval $[X_l,X_r]$, $$\label{eq:linear:wave:equation}
\begin{aligned}
\pd{\phi}{t} &= \psi\\
\pd{\psi}{t} &= c^2 \partial_x^2 \phi,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi,\psi\in L_2(\Omega)$ are subject to appropriate initial and boundary conditions. We seek to discretize equations using our DGFE scheme. This means replacing $\phi$ and $\psi$ by approximate representations $\phi^k$ and $\psi^k$ made up of the basis functions $\Phi_i^k$. We abuse notation here and denote by $\psi^k$ not only the restriction to element $\Omega^k$ but also the discretization.
Naively, one would use the same number of basis functions to represent $\phi$ and $\psi$ within each element. And indeed this is precisely the procedure Cockburn and Shu propose in [@LDG1]. In [@LDGTruncate], Xing et al. show that if $\psi$ is represented as a piecewise polynomial of order $P^k=p\in\N$ in each element $\Omega^k$, but $\phi$ is represented only as a piecewise polynomial of order $P^{k}=p-1$, it is possible to obtain an energy conserving method that is superconvergent such that the error in the solution is of order $\Ord{(h^k)^{P_k+3/2}}$. Whether or not a DGFE method is superconvergent depends strongly on the choice of numerical flux. For linear first-order systems, superconvergence is expected [@hesthaven2008nodal] but it is not always achieved in LDG methods [@LDGReview].
Motivated by this choice, we represent $\phi$ as a polynomial of order $P^k=p$ but we represent $\psi$ as a polynomial of order $P^k=p-1$. This matches with the observation due to Richardson [@richardson1911approximate] that in the numerical solution of a hyperbolic PDE, the $(h^k)^{-n}$ term in the solution introduced by differentiation $n$ times is exactly cancelled by multiplications by $h^k$ due to time integration (with a CFL factor). $\phi$ is $\psi$ integrated, so it is multiplied by $h^k$, reducing the error. We do not obtain superconvergence, but we have found this procedure to significantly improve convergence and stability.
More generally, given a system of equations, $$\partial_t \myvec{\psi} = \Lo\sqrbrace{\myvec{\psi},\partial_j \myvec{\psi},\partial_j\partial_k \myvec{\psi}},$$ we call all variables with no spatial derivatives in their right-hand-sides *primary variables* and all other variables *conjugate variables*. Within an element, we represent all variables as linear combinations of the $P^k$ basis functions. However, at each integrator substep and for each conjugate variable, we set the spectral coefficient associated with the $(P^k)^{\text{th}}$ mode of a conjugate variable to zero. We call this procedure *truncation*. The process of truncation acts as artificial dissipation, improving the nonlinear stability of our scheme. (OLDG methods are linearly stable, so the stability cannot be improved.) Truncation also eliminates terms of order $\Ord{(h^k)^{P^k+1}}$ in our pointwise error estimates, providing cleaner convergence results.
Time Integration {#sec:time:integration}
----------------
With our derivatives defined, we integrate our scheme via the method of lines and an explicit time integrator such as the fourth-order total variation diminishing Runge-Kutta scheme proposed by Gottlieb and Shu [@gottlieb1998total] or the 8(7) scheme due to Dormand and Prince [@dormand1980dupri; @prince1981high].
Unfortunately, the timesteps for a DGFE method must be smaller than for a finite differences method. Although there is no proof for high-order elements [@cockburn1999discontinuous], the time step size for DGFE methods for global timestepping is believed to obey $$\label{eq:CFL:factor}
\Delta t \leq \min_{0< k \leq K}\Delta t^k$$ where $$\label{eq:def:delta:t:k}
\Delta t^k := C_{\text{CFL}} \frac{h^k}{\paren{P^k+1}^2}$$ where $C_{\text{CFL}}>0\in\R $ is a constant that depends on the system being solved [@hesthaven2008nodal]. (The bound was proven for polynomial order $P^k=1$ [@cockburn1991runge].) In our simulations we choose $$\label{eq:our:delta:t}
C_{\text{CFL}} \le 0.45$$ however larger timesteps may be possible.
There exist several techniques for increasing the CFL factor beyond that implied by equations and , which we do not explore but which may be of use to the interested reader. For more details on these techniques, see [@kosloff1993modified; @warburton2008taming; @cockburn1999discontinuous] and references therein. Local time-stepping in the context of DGFE methods is discussed in [@qiu2005lotalTimeStepping]. We do not implement local time-stepping, however the implementation for OLDG methods should be the same as for standard DGFE methods.
Convergence
-----------
We do not prove convergence for the BSSN system. However, we know from section \[sec:consistency\] and appendix \[sec:stability:wave:equation\] that an OLDG discretization of the linear wave equation is both consistent and stable. Therefore by the Lax-Richtmyer theorem [@lax1956survey], it is convergent, with error bounded by the standard pseudospectral consistency bounds [@bernardi1992polynomial; @schwab1998p; @hesthaven2008nodal].
We can also obtain stronger, pointwise bounds. In appendix \[sec:convergence\] we show that, for the linear, second-order wave equation with arbitrary initial conditions, we have $$\label{eq:wavetoy:convergence:formula}
\phi^k_i = \phi(t,x^k_i) + \ME^k(t,x^k_i) \paren{h^k}^{P^k},$$ where $\phi^k_i$ is the numerical solution in element $\Omega^k$ with element width $h^k$ and element order $P^k$ at collocation point $x^k_i$. $\phi$ is the true solution, and $\ME^k$ is a function, which may depend on the location of the collocation points $x^k_i$ but is independent of $h^k$ and $P^k$, that determines the error. In this proof we show that convergence does not depend on whether or not we truncate as described in section \[sec:truncation\].
We argue that these convergence results provide analytic evidence that discretizations of more general systems are convergent to the appropriate order when discretized with our OLDG stencil. The numerical experiments discussed in section \[sec:tests\] support our claim.
Filtering {#sec:filtering}
---------
It is well known that a numerical scheme that is linearly stable may become unstable when used to solve a nonlinear system of equations, even when those equations are well-posed. In spectral and DGFE methods, we can interpret the loss of stability as emerging from the fact that the interpolating polynomial representing the derivative of a function is not the same as the derivative of an interpolating polynomial. This is usually called *aliasing error*. Stability can often be restored by *filtering* the spectral coefficients to remove energy from the short-wavelength modes [@kreiss1979stability].
These filtering techniques were originally motivated by the need to capture shocks in nonlinear flux-conservative systems and, more generally, to efficiently represent discontinuous functions spectrally [@Vandeven1991a]. However, they are often required even when the solution is smooth. If the system is nonlinear, aliasing error can drive an instability. The BSSN equations are no exception [@tichy2006; @tichy2009].
One can think of the truncation scheme described in section \[sec:truncation\] as a type of filter and we have found that, in many situations it provides all the required dissipation. However, since truncation is a projection-type operation, it is not tunable. We therefore develop a more traditional, tunable, filtering scheme which can be utilized if necessary.
We choose a modification of the spectral viscosity technique developed by Tadmor and collaborators for pseudospectral methods [@tadmor1989convergence; @maday1989analysis; @tadmor1990shock; @schochet1990rate]. Consider the semi-discrete system of the form $$\label{eq:nonlinear:PDE}
\pdd{t} \myvec{\phi} = \Lo\sqrbrace{\myvec{\phi},D\myvec{\phi},D^2\myvec{\phi}},\ x\in [X_l,X_r],$$ where $\Lo$ is some nonlinear operator that acts on $\myvec{\phi}$ and its first two wide OLDG derivatives, as defined in equation , subject to appropriate initial and boundary data. To make contact with traditional pseudospectral methods, we initially assume that $K=1$ such that there is a single element, of width $h^k=h$ and order $P^k=p$. In this limit, our discontinuous Galerkin scheme becomes a pseudospectral method with weak boundary conditions. Once we have developed filtering in this setting, we will generalize to the full case.
Tadmor modifies equation by including an artificial dissipation term which vanishes in the continuum limit: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nonlinear:PDE:artificial:viscosity}
\pdd{t} \myvec{\phi} &=& \mathcal{L}\sqrbrace{\myvec{\phi},D\myvec{\phi},D^2\myvec{\phi}}\\
&&+ \epsilon_p (-1)^{s+1}\sqrbrace{\partial_x(1-x^2)\partial_x}^s \myvec{\phi},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $s$ is the so-called order of the dissipation and strength of dissipation, and $\epsilon_p$ varies as $$\label{eq:epsilon_p:def}
\epsilon_p \sim \frac{C_s h}{p^{2s-1}}.$$ The constant $C_s$ depends on the regularity of the solution $\myvec{\phi}$. Roughly, it should be $$C_s\sim \max_{0\leq k\leq s}\|\myvec{\phi}\|_\infty^k,$$ where $\|\myvec{\phi}\|_\infty$ is the infinity-norm of $\myvec{\phi}$. Under these conditions, Tadmor shows that equation converges spectrally to the true solution. By inspection, we can see that Tadmor’s spectral viscosity technique is the spectral analog to the artificial dissipation proposed by Kreiss and Oliger [@kreiss1973methods].
Tadmor’s spectral viscosity technique is roughly equivalent to filtering the modes $\hat{\myvec{\phi}}$ of $\myvec{\phi}$ via the exponential filter first proposed by Vandeven [@Vandeven1991a]. In this case, the spectral representation of $\phi$ $$\phi(x) = \sum_{i=0}^p \hat{\phi}_i \Phi_i(x),$$ where $\Phi_i$ are the test functions, becomes $$\label{eq:filtered:phi}
\phi^\sigma(x) = \sum_{i=0}^p \sigma\paren{\frac{i}{p}}\hat{\phi}_i \Phi_i(x),$$ where $$\label{eq:exponential:filter}
\sigma(\eta) := \exp\sqrbrace{-(C_s p \Delta t) \eta^s},$$ where $\Delta t$ is the discrete time step used in evolution.
On the other hand, applying an exponential filter to the modes $\hat{\phi}$ is equivalent to solving equation but also solving the ordinary differential equation $$\label{eq:mode:damping:equation}
\frac{d}{dt} \hat{\phi}^i = - \epsilon_p i^{2s} \hat{\phi}^i,\ t\in [0,\Delta t]$$ for all $0 \leq i \leq p$ at each time step. We claim that equations and need not be solved in separate steps and that the artificial viscosity formulation of Tadmor can be well approximated by “filtering the right-hand-side” as $$\label{eq:filtering:rhs}
\pdd{t} \myvec{\phi} = \mathcal{L}\sqrbrace{\myvec{\phi},D\myvec{\phi},D^2\myvec{\phi}} - C_s p \V \F \V^{-1} \myvec{\phi},$$ where $\V$ is the Vandermonde matrix defined in equation and $$\label{eq:def:F}
\F_{ij} := \paren{\frac{i}{p}}^{2s}\delta_{ij}$$ is a diagonal matrix defining the decay coefficients of the modal representation of $\phi$.
Alternatively, we can use a modified version of $\F$: $$\label{eq:def:F:mod}
\F_{ij} := \begin{cases} 0&\text{if } i/p \leq \eta_\mathrm{crit}\\
\delta_{ij}\sqrbrace{\frac{i/p - \eta_\mathrm{crit}}{1 - \eta_\mathrm{crit}}}^{2s}&\text{ else}
\end{cases},$$ where $0 \leq \eta_\mathrm{crit} < 1$ [@hesthaven2008nodal]. Equation does not precisely correspond to the viscosity term provided in equation . Rather, it filters only the higher-order modes. Ideally, this is less destructive to the accuracy of the solution. We are currently using equation in our implementation, but further investigation is necessary to determine what approach is best.
Of course, a DGFE method usually has more than one element, and we would like the dissipation term in equation to scale appropriately with the number of elements. We therefore modify our dissipation term to the final form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:filtering:rhs:final}
\pdd{t} \myvec{\phi}^k &=& \mathcal{L}\sqrbrace{\myvec{\phi}^k,D^k\myvec{\phi}^k,(D^k)^2\myvec{\phi}^k} \\
&&\qquad - C_s\frac{P^k}{h^k} \V^k \F^k \paren{\V^k}^{-1}\myvec{\phi}^k,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have re-introduced the indexing for the element $\Omega^k$. In the full DGFE scheme, $C_s$ remains a global quantity, independent of the grid and $\F^k$ generalizes to multiple elements in the obvious way. Since the average distance between nodes is approximately $\Delta x^k := h^k/P^k$, the right-hand-side of equation manifestly has the appropriate units of $1/\Delta x^k$ for a hyperbolic problem.
Asymptotic Properties {#sec:asymptotics}
=====================
In this section we analyze the computational costs of OLDG methods and compare them to finite differences.
Floating Point Operations for First Derivatives {#sec:asymptotics:flops}
-----------------------------------------------
Here we ask how many floating point operations are required to approximate $\partial_x\phi$ for some function $\phi$. For simplicity, suppose a three-dimensional domain with $K$ elements on a side, for $K^3$ elements total. To make contact with finite differences, each element is of the same order $P^k=p$, $p$ even, such that the number of collocation points on a side is $n = (p+1)K$. Further suppose that we are evolving only one variable.
Our in-element wide derivative operator is dense with vanishing diagonal. Therefore, in one dimension, a first derivative requires $$2\sqrbrace{(p+1)^2 - (p+1) + 2} = 2 \sqrbrace{(p+1) p + 2}$$ floating point operations per element for the multiplication of the length $p+3$ in-element state vector by our differentiation matrix. (The overall factor of 2 comes from the fact that add and multiply are separate operations.) In three dimensions and over the whole domain, this translates to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nflops:dg:1}
\NF_{\DG}^{(1)} &:=& 2K^3 (p+1)^2 \sqrbrace{(p+1)p+2}\nonumber\\
&=& 2\frac{n^3}{p+1}\sqrbrace{(p+1)p+2}\nonumber\\
&=& 2n^3 \sqrbrace{p + \frac{2}{1+p}}\end{aligned}$$ floating point operations. In contrast, a $p^{th}$-order finite differences stencil requires $$\label{eq:nflops:fd:1}
\NF^{(1)}_{\FD} := 2n^3 p$$ floating point operations for a first derivative.
Figure \[fig:flops:overhead\] plots $\NF_{\DG}^{(1)}/\NF_{\FD}^{(1)}$, which tells us how much more a DGFE derivative costs compared to a finite differences derivative. To leading order, both DGFE and finite differences stencils require a number of operations equal to $\Ord{n^3p}$. However, the DGFE method has sub-leading terms which will contribute significantly when $p$ is small and which become negligible when $p$ is large.
Floating Point Operations for First and Second Derivatives {#sec:asymptotics:flops:2nd}
----------------------------------------------------------
For most wave-like systems such as the BSSN system, we need both the first and second derivatives of variables in the state vector. We therefore ask how many floating point operations are required to approximate both $$\label{eq:first:and:second:derivs}
\partial_i \phi \text{ and } \partial_i\partial_j \phi,\ i,j=1,2,3$$ for some continuum variable $\phi$. We make the same assumptions here as in section \[sec:asymptotics:flops\].
In the OLDG case, we take a first derivative, store it, and calculate a second derivative. Therefore the cost to approximate quantity is just the cost of calculating the three first derivatives of $\phi$ and then the cost of differentiating each of those quantities for a total of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:flops:dg:2}
\NF_{\DG}^{(1,2)} &:=& 3 \NF_{\DG}^{(1)} + 6 \NF_{\DG}^{(1)}\nonumber\\
&=& 18n^3 \sqrbrace{p+\frac{2}{1+p}} = \Ord{n^3 p}\end{aligned}$$ floating point operations.
Finite differences differentiation could be performed the same way, but it is typically not done. Usually $\partial^2_i \phi$ and $\partial_i\partial_j \phi,\ i\neq j$ are calculated independently as full stencils without any intermediate steps or storage. With this approach, approximating $\partial_i\partial_j\phi,\ i \neq j$ costs $2n^3p^2$ operations for each combination of $i$ and $j$. Approximating $\partial^2_i\phi$ to the same order of accuracy requires an extra two operations for the additional non-zero stencil point. So, for all three directions, the cost of approximating quantity is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:flops:fd:2}
\NF_{\FD}^{(1,2)} &:=& 3 \NF_{\FD}^{(1)} + 6 n^3 (p+1) + 6 n^3 p^2\nonumber\\
&=& 6n^3\sqrbrace{p+ (p+1) + p^2}\nonumber\\
&=& 6 n^3 \paren{p + 1}^2 = \Ord{n^3 p^2}\end{aligned}$$ operations.
Figure \[fig:flops:overhead\] plots $\NF_{\DG}^{(1,2)}/\NF_{\FD}^{(1,2)}$, which tells us how much more (or less) it costs to calculate both first and second derivatives using our OLDG stencil compared to finite differences. For $p\geq 3$, the cost of calculating all first and second derivatives for a function is larger for finite differences as usually implemented than for OLDG methods.
The standard finite differences implementation trades computational cost for memory and communication overhead. We note that finite differences implementations could calculate first derivatives and store them, just as we do in OLDG methods. See e.g. [@hu2015model] for much more advanced FD stencil algorithms that greatly reduce memory access cost. We are unable to make this trade-off in our OLDG scheme because we need to respect both the weak boundary conditions between elements and summation-by-parts over the whole domain.
![The ratio of the computation cost in floating point operations of our DGFE stencil compared to finite differences for the approximation of a first derivative (blue) and both first and second derivatives (green). The black line shows equal cost.[]{data-label="fig:flops:overhead"}](flops_overhead){width="\columnwidth"}
Communication Cost {#sec:communication:cost}
------------------
We now investigate the communication costs in a distributed memory environment. We are interested in *strong scaling*: given a three-dimensional problem of fixed size $S^3$, where $S$ is the number of collocation points in a single dimension, across how many separate memory domains can we efficiently distribute the calculation?
To differentiate at a collocation point $g$, a finite differences stencil of order $p$, $p$ even, needs $p/2$ collocation points on each side. For distributed memory, this translates to a layer of unevolved “ghost cells,” $p$ cells deep around the border of the memory domain, as shown in figure \[fig:cells:plot\]. These cells are synchronized whenever differentiation is required and cause a bottleneck for parallelization.
![A two-dimensional slice of the collocation cells on a single cpu. **Left:** DGFE methods of all orders have only one layer of ghost cells. **Right:** fourth-order finite differences methods use two layers of ghost cells.[]{data-label="fig:cells:plot"}](cells-standalone){width="0.87\linewidth"}
In contrast, a DGFE method requires a layer of ghost cells only *one* cell deep, no matter the order of the method, as shown in figure \[fig:cells:plot\]. This stems from the fact that, to differentiate within an element, one only needs data from the *boundaries* of neighbouring elements. The distributional derivative of the DGFE approximation couples the elements only weakly.
We quantify communication overhead by calculating the ratio $$\label{eq:def:overhead}
\OH := \frac{N_{\text{ghost cells}}}{N_{\text{interior cells}}},$$ or the number of ghost cells divided by the number of interior cells. This depends on the total problem size $S^3$ and the number of memory domains $D$ across which we want to distribute our problem. Additionally, in the finite differences case, it depends on the order of the method.
The number of interior cells is always $\floor{S^3/D}$. (It is impossible to have a fractional number of interior cells. However, for brevity of notation, we will suppress the floor term from now on.) This translates to an overhead of $$\label{eq:fd:overhead:comm:1}
\OH_{\FD} = \frac{D}{S^3}\paren{\frac{S}{D^{1/3}}+p}^3-1$$ for finite differences. At scale, $S^3$ and $D$ are of the same order, so even a moderate $p$ such as $p=4$ can produce very large overheads. In contrast, DGFE methods have an overhead of $$\label{eq:dg:overhead:comm:1}
\OH_{\DG} = \frac{D}{S^3}\paren{\frac{S}{D^{1/3}}+2}^3-1$$ independent of the order of the element.
Since our method is an LDG method, we introduce extra communication steps. We communicate when we calculate both first and second derivatives and when we perform the truncation operation described in section \[sec:truncation\]. This does not change the ratio of ghost to interior cells, but is an additional communication cost.
As a concrete example we plot in figure \[fig:cost:plot\] the overhead associated with a fixed problem size of $S^3=1000^3$ collocation points and for different values of $D$. We compare fourth- and eighth-order finite differences stencils with discontinuous Galerkin methods of any order. Perfect strong scaling has a constant overhead of 0 (blue line). If one arbitrarily assumes a maximum acceptable overhead of 1.0, meaning we have as many ghost cells as interior cells, then the eighth-order stencil scales to about $D =
3.5\times 10^4$ domains, fourth-order to $D = 2.7\times 10^5$, and DGFE to $D = 2.2\times 10^6$. In this particular situation, DGFE stencils of any order scale about ten times further than fourth-order finite differences.
![The communication overhead for computing the solution to a 3D problem of fixed size $1000^3$ cells compared between DGFE methods and fourth- and eighth-order finite differences methods. For comparison, we also include the unrealistic cost for an approach that scales perfectly.[]{data-label="fig:cost:plot"}](dgfe-v-fd-scaling){width="\linewidth"}
Memory Access Cost {#sec:memory:access}
------------------
Loading values from memory is a costly operation; accessing memory has on today’s systems a latency more than a hundred times larger than a floating point operation. It is thus important that as many memory load operations as possible can be served from a cache. To allow this, one simple optimization method arranges loops in such a way that one first loads a block of collocation points into the cache, and then performs as many operations as possible on this block without requiring additional memory accesses. This is called *loop blocking*.
Here we assume ideal loop blocking, and then calculate how many memory accesses are necessary to calculate a derivative. The small number of ghost zones required by DGFE methods also serves to improve performance.
To calculate a derivative at a collocation point $g$, its respective neighbours must also be present. This means that when we calculate a derivative within a block of collocation points, we once again have interior and ghost cells. To quantify the additional memory access cost due to ghost cells, we define a *memory access overhead* $$\label{eq:def:cache:overhead}
\MO := \frac{N_{\text{ghost cells}}}{N_{\text{interior cells}}}.$$ Here we calculate the memory access overhead for an idealized L3 cache of fixed size $C$ per process for OLDG methods and for finite differences.
A double-precision number requires $8\,\text{Bytes}$, so a cache of size $C$ can contain $$\label{eq:cache:grid:points:on:a:side}
N_{\text{total}} := N_{\text{ghost cells}}+N_{\text{interior cells}} =
\frac{C}{V\; (8\,\B)}$$ total points, where $V$ is the total number of variables required. If we define $l$ such that $$\label{eq:def:l:memory:access}
N_{\text{interior cells}} =: l^3,$$ then the total number of cells is $$\label{eq:def:ghost:for:fd}
N^{\FD}_{\text{total}} = (l+p)^3$$ for a finite differences stencil of order $p$ and $$\label{eq:def:ghost:for:dg}
N^{\DG}_{\text{total}} = (l+2)^3$$ for DGFE methods at any order. If we solve for $l$ we find that $$\label{eq:l:fd}
N^{\FD}_{\text{interior cells}} = \paren{N_{\text{total}}^{1/3} - p}^3$$ for finite differences and $$\label{eq:l:dg}
N^{DG}_{\text{interior cells}} = \paren{N_{\text{total}}^{1/3} - 2}^3$$ for DGFE methods. This gives us a memory access overhead of $$\label{eq:cache:overhead:fd}
\MO_{\FD} = \frac{N_{\text{total}}^{\FD}}{\sqrbrace{\paren{N_{\text{total}}^{\FD}}^{1/3}-p}^3}-1$$ for finite differences and $$\label{eq:cache:overhead:dg}
\MO_{\DG} = \frac{N_{\text{total}}^{\FD}}{\sqrbrace{\paren{N_{\text{total}}^{\FD}}^{1/3}-2}^3}-1$$ for DGFE methods.
As a concrete example, we calculate the memory access overhead for the BSSN system and a realistic cache size of $C=1.5\,\text{MByte}$ per core. Here we ignore details of a realistic cache and assume a simple $1.5\,\text{MB}$ “container.” The Einstein Toolkit [@loffler2012einstein; @EinsteinToolkit:web; @EinsteinToolkit:ascl] implementation of the BSSN system has 24 evolved variables [@AlcubierreConformalDecomp; @AlcubierreGammaDriver]. The cache must also contain the right-hand-side and everything we need to calculate it. In the case of finite differences, this is just the state vector and the right-hand-side. In the case of our discontinuous Galerkin scheme, this includes both first derivatives and temporary variables for the truncation operation described in section \[sec:truncation\]. Therefore we find that the BSSN system requires $$\label{eq:V:BSSN}
V^{\BSSN}_{\FD} = 48\text{ and }V_{\DG}^{\BSSN} = 92$$ for finite differences and OLDG stencils respectively.
Given these assumptions, we plot the memory access overhead points as a function of the stencil order for both finite differences and DGFE stencils in figure \[fig:cache:plot\]. At secnd-order, and for this cache size, finite differences utilizes the cache slightly better. But at higher order, our dicontinuous Galerkin scheme becomes significantly more efficient.
![The memory access overhead for the BSSN system with a fixed cache size of $C=1.5$ MB for both finite differences and DGFE stencils as a function of the stencil order. We assume the BSSN system requires 48 variables per collocation point for finite differences and 92 variables per collocation point for DGFE[]{data-label="fig:cache:plot"}](cache_interior){width="\columnwidth"}
Numerical Tests {#sec:tests}
===============
We have implemented our OLDG scheme as a thorn in the Einstein Toolkit [@loffler2012einstein; @EinsteinToolkit:web; @EinsteinToolkit:ascl], using Kranc for code generation [@Husa:2004ip; @Kranc:web]. We provide our implementation, which is based on the McLachlan thorn [@Brown:2008sb; @McLachlan:web], in a public repository [@MclachlanDGFE2]. We emphasize that our implementation is a proof-of-concept implementation and has not yet been optimized for performance. We are currently testing a more efficient implementation.
To establish the basic numerical properties of our method, we first investigate its applicability in the context of the second-order wave equation of section \[sec:tests:we\]. We then investigate in the context of the BSSN equations by performing some of the standard Apples-With-Apples tests [@AwA1; @AwA2], which we discuss in sections \[sec:tests:robust:stability\], \[sec:tests:gauge:wave\], and \[sec:tests:gamma:driver\].
The original Apples With Apples tests were intended to test not only the stability and convergence of a code, but also the formulation of the Einstein equations on which that code is based. In this work, we are interested only in establishing the numerical properties of our scheme. Thus we only perform those Apples with Apples tests which probe the numerical scheme rather than the formulation.
We discuss both stability and convergence. All our numerical tests are performed with truncation as described in section \[sec:truncation\] but *without* the filtering described in section \[sec:filtering\].
The Second-Order Equation {#sec:tests:we}
-------------------------
Recall the second-order wave equation : $$\begin{aligned}
\pd{\phi}{t} &=& \psi\nonumber\\
\pd{\psi}{t} &=& c^2 \partial_x^2\phi.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A DGFE method has two types of resolution: the order of the polynomial interpolant within each element and the total number of elements in the domain $K$. In appendix \[sec:convergence\], we show that the pointwise error obeys equation : $$\phi^k_i = \phi(t,x^k_i) + \ME^k(t,x^k_i) \paren{h^k}^{P^k},$$ however, because DGFE methods are defined only in a weak sense, and because the positions of collocation points change with resolution, equation best translates to the following statement over the whole domain $$\label{eq:wavetoy:convergence:formula:norm2}
\|E[\phi]\|_2 := \|\phi^k-\phi\|_2 \leq \|\ME^k\|_2 \paren{h^k}^{P^k},$$ where $\|\phi\|_2$ is the 2-norm of $\phi$ over the domain. (Here we abuse notation and allow $\phi^k$ to not only represent the restriction of $\phi$ onto the element $\Omega^k$ but the numerical solution.)
To investigate convergence of OLDG methods, we numerically solve equation with different numbers of elements and different in-element orders (the order stays fixed to $P^k=p$ over the whole grid.) The former is called $h$-*refinement*. The latter is called $p$-*refinement*. We solve equation in 1D over the domain $x\in\sqrbrace{-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}$ with periodic boundary conditions and initial conditions of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wave:equation:initial:data}
\phi(t=0,x) &=& A \sin(2\pi k x)\\
\psi(t=0,x) &=& -A \omega \cos(k x),\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega = \sqrt{k^2 c^2}$ for some amplitude $A$ and wavenumber $k$. For simplicity, we fix $c=k=A=1$. We plot our error at $t=0.75$.
![The $L_2$ error $\|E[\phi]\|_2$ of $\phi$ in the second-order wave equation under $h$-refinement for fourth-order elements at time $t=0.75$.[]{data-label="fig:we:h-refinement"}](trunc_rho_bssn_dg4_h_refinement){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:we:h-refinement\] shows the convergence under $h$-refinement using fourth-order elements. When we double the number of elements, we halve the element width $h$. Equation tells us that we should see the error scale as $h^{-p}$, or $h^{-4}$ in this case. And indeed measurements confirm this prediction.
![The $L_2$ error $\|E[\phi]\|_2$ of $\phi$ in the second-order wave equation under $p$-refinement with a fixed number of 8 elements at time $t=0.75$.[]{data-label="fig:we:p-refinement"}](trunc_rho_bssn_dg_p_refinement){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:we:p-refinement\] shows the convergence under $p$-refinement with a fixed element width $h=1/8$. The convergence given in equation now translates to exponential decay with $p$. This rapid convergence rate is often called “spectral” or “evanescent” convergence. Our measured convergence agrees with this expectation. We measure the convergence rate to be $$\|E[\phi]\|_2 = b e^{-a p}$$ for $b \approx e^{5.66}$ and $a \approx 3.34$.
![The pointwise errors for the second-order wave equation with OLDG (top) and finite differences (bottom) stencils respectively after 0.75 wave periods. These simulations were run with fourth-order stencils and 40 collocation points (or 8 elements).[]{data-label="fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise"}](wavetoy_erru_dg_fd_comparison){width="\columnwidth"}
![The pointwise errors for the second-order wave equation with OLDG (top) and finite differences (bottom) stencils respectively after 0.75 wave periods. (Note the differences in scale.) These simulations were run with eighth-order stencils and 36 collocation points (or 4 elements).[]{data-label="fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise:8th:order"}](wavetoy_erru_dg_fd_comparison_8th_order){width="\columnwidth"}
In figures \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise\] and \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise:8th:order\], we compare the pointwise error of our OLDG approach with the pointwise error of a finite differences scheme. For figure \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise\], we use a fourth-order stencil and 40 collocation points (or 8 elements). For figure \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise:8th:order\], we use an eighth-order stencil and 36 collocation points (or 4 elements). The curves are generated by using fourth-order and eighth-order interpolation respectively. In the OLDG case, this interpolation corresponds to the modal representation within an element. The dots are measured values at the collocation points. For the OLDG stencil, the vertical lines show element boundaries. For consistency, all simulations were run with the same CFL factor and time integrator.
For the OLDG stencil, element boundaries are visible by eye as locations where the function is no longer smooth. We find the pointwise error for the OLDG stencil is worse than for the finite differences stencil of the same order and resolution. For fourth-order stencils, the OLDG error is about ten times worse than the finite differences error. For eighth-order stencils it is almost fifty times worse at element boundaries. This error can be mitigated somewhat by the post-processing technique discussed in section \[sec:postprocessing\] below.
We also find that the error for the OLDG stencil is significantly higher frequency than the error for the finite differences stencil, even in the linear case. The high-frequency nature of the error indicates that artificial dissipation may reduce error, even in the linear case when it is not required for stability. However, we did not investigate this possibility. Our experiments indicate that these traits are roughly generic, although the factor by which the finite differences error is smaller may depend on the order of the method.
This is a weakness of our OLDG method compared to both traditional DGFE methods and finite differences methods. Traditional DGFE methods have significantly more freedom with their numerical flux and they can, for example, employ upwinding to reduce their error.
However, we emphasize that we have been “fair” to finite differences methods by comparing stencils of the same order. At first glance, one might assume that a spectral method would have less error than a finite differences method. However this is only true if the spectral method is allowed to utilize arbitrarily high-order polynomials. In the comparisons shown in figures \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise\] and \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise:8th:order\], we have restricted our discontinuous Galerkin elements to use polynomials of order fixed to that of the finite differences stencil.
![The pointwise errors for the wave equation with fourth- (top) and fifth-order (bottom) OLDG stencils respectively after 0.75 wave periods. The simulation for the fourth-order stencil was run with 14 elements and the simulation for the fifth-order stencil was run with seven. Note that the errors are comparable to the finite differences calculation in figure \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise\].[]{data-label="fig:dg4:vs:dg5"}](wavetoy_erru_dg4_dg5_comparison){width="\columnwidth"}
In the fixed order case, we need about 14 fourth-order elements (or 70 collocation points) to do as well as the fourth-order finite differences stencil with 40 points. (See the top panel in figure \[fig:dg4:vs:dg5\].) However, if we vary the polynomial order within elements, we can get comparable accuracy to the finite differences stencil at similar computational cost and, as discussed in section \[sec:asymptotics\], significantly improved communication and cache properties.
The bottom panel of figure \[fig:dg4:vs:dg5\] shows the pointwise error for the wave equation with 7 fifth-order elements, or 42 collocation points. The error is comparable to the fourth-order finite differences case shown in figure \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise\]. And if our code were optimized, the computational cost would be similarly comparable. This example highlights how, even though the pointwise error for OLDG methods may seem inferior to finite differences in a “fair” comparison, they will perform better in realistic situations.
Post-processing Element Boundaries {#sec:postprocessing}
----------------------------------
The pointwise error shown in figure \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise:8th:order\] highlights a conceptual difficulty with DGFE methods. The “continuum” function recovered by modal representation is not continuous. Rather, it is piecewise smooth. However, we often know from physical considerations that the function that we solve for should be smooth over the whole domain. How then do we recover a continuous function?
Given the collocation points $\phi^k_i$, we solve for the modal representation, and therefore the polynomial interpolant, within an element by solving equation $$\myvec{\phi}^k = \V^k \myvec{\hat{\phi}}^k$$ for the modal coefficients $\hat{\phi}^k_i$. However, we can replace equation by the following $$\label{eq:vandermonde:average}
A^k \myvec{\phi}^k_{\text{wide}} = \V^k \myvec{\hat{\phi}}^k,$$ where $\myvec{\phi}^k_{\text{wide}}$ is a length $P^k+3$ vector containing the points $$\{\phi^{k-1}_r\}\cup\{\phi^k_i\}_{i=0}^{P^k}\cup\{\phi^{k+1}_l\}$$ and $A^k$ is a wide operator that maps $\phi^k_{\text{wide}}$ to a length $P^k+1$ vector which represents $\phi^k$ but with the left- and right-hand limits of $\phi^k$ at element boundaries mapped to their average. $A_{ij}^k$ has components $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def:A:ij}
A_{ij}^k &:=& \delta_{ij} + \half \left(\delta_{i,0}\delta_{j,-1} - \delta_{i,0}\delta_{j,0} \right. \\
&&\qquad\qquad + \left. \delta_{i,P^k}\delta_{j,P^k+1} - \delta_{i,P^k}\delta_{j,P^k} \right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for all $i=0,1,2,\ldots,P^k$ and $j=-1,0,1,\ldots,P^k+1$. Here we use the shorthand introduced in equation . Figure \[fig:Ak:example\] shows an example of $A^k$ for polynomial order $P^k=4$.
$$\label{eq:A:ij:p4}
A_{ij}^k = \begin{pmatrix}
\half & \half & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \half & \half \\
\end{pmatrix}$$
If we solve equation to generate our interpolation, we produce a function that is continuous everywhere, though it may not be smooth everywhere. Figure \[fig:wavetoy:averaging:scheme\] shows the effects of this averaging scheme on pointwise errors for a simulation run with four eighth-order elements. As usual, the curves are the interpolated solution and the points are the collocation points. This procedure reduces pointwise error near element boundaries, but otherwise does not significantly change the pointwise error.
![The error in the interpolating polynomial for the second-order wave equation calculated using equation (top) and equation (bottom) respectively. This simulation was run with four eighth-order elements. The error is plotted at time $t=0.75$. In this case, the maximum pointwise error is reduced by a factor of two.[]{data-label="fig:wavetoy:averaging:scheme"}](wavetoy_average_no_average_comparison){width="\columnwidth"}
The Robust Stability Test {#sec:tests:robust:stability}
-------------------------
Our goal, of course, is not to solve the wave equation but to solve equations as complex as the BSSN system. To test our scheme’s properties in this more realistic and demanding setting, we perform the Apples-with-Apples tests developed by the community [@AwA1; @AwA2].
The most basic of the Apples-with-Apples tests is the robust stability test. The robust stability test is an experimental and numerical analog to the stability condition for hyperbolic systems. It discerns whether the numerical approximation of our formulation of the continuum equations is stable to linear perturbations.
We take a constant-time slice of vacuum Minkowski space and introduce random noise. We choose the amplitude of the noise such that the Hamiltonian constraint is linearly satisfied. We then evolve the spacetime and watch the deviation from Minkowski space for various resolutions. A method passes the test if the deviation grows at most exponentially in time, such that the *maximum* rate is *independent of the resolution.* Practically this means that the *rate of growth* in the deviation must *not increase* with increased resolution.
Figures \[fig:robust:stability:h:refinement\] and \[fig:robust:stability:p:refinement\] show the results of the robust stability test under $h$- and $p$-refinement respectively. We plot the $xy$-component of the spatial metric $\gamma$, which should vanish in the continuum. Therefore we measure error in the linear regime as a function of time. We find our discretization of the Einstein equations to be stable. By eye, the growth rate is at most linear and decreases with resolution under both kinds of refinement. For this test, we use a three-dimensional domain $\Omega = [-0.5,0.5]^3$.
![The robust stability test under $h$-refinement. We use $4^{th}$-order elements for this test. We find the growth rate to be at most linear and to decrease with resolution.[]{data-label="fig:robust:stability:h:refinement"}](robust_stability_dg4_with_truncation_gxy_2norm_href){width="\columnwidth"}
![The robust stability test under $p$-refinement. We use $4^3$ elements for this test. We find the growth rate to be at most linear and to decrease with resolution.[]{data-label="fig:robust:stability:p:refinement"}](robust_stability_rho_4_with_truncation_gxy_2norm_pref){width="\columnwidth"}
Gauge Wave Test {#sec:tests:gauge:wave}
---------------
As a test of the accuracy and convergence of our scheme for the BSSN system, we perform the *gauge wave* test [@AwA1; @AwA2]. The gauge wave test is a periodic coordinate transformation of Minkowski space, which provides a metric with a known analytic solution against which we can compare. The metric for the one-dimensional gauge wave test is $$\label{eq:def:gauge:wave:metric}
ds^2 = (1-H) (-dt^2 + dx^2) + dy^2 + dz^2$$ with $$\label{eq:def:gauge:H}
H = A \sin\paren{\frac{2\pi(x-t)}{d}},$$ for some amplitude $A$ and wavelength $d$. This can be converted to a three-dimensional wave by rotating about the $y$- and $z$-axes by $\pi/4$ each. Figure \[fig:gauge:wave:3D:slice\] shows a two-dimensional slice of $xx$-component of the spatial metric for the 3D gauge wave. The boundaries of the cells are the collocation points and the value in the cell is is the average value in that region. We have chosen a deliberately low resolution to highlight the structure of the grid. The non-uniform position of the collocation points can be seen in the varying cell sizes.
![A two-dimensional slice of the three-dimensional gauge wave at $t=0$, generated with $8^{th}$-order elements. We plot the $xx$-component of the metric as a function of space in the $z=0$ plane. The amplitude is commensurably smaller since $\gamma_{xx}$ is a projection of the rotated $\gamma$ onto the $x$-axis.[]{data-label="fig:gauge:wave:3D:slice"}](gauge_wave_3D_slice_lowres){width="\columnwidth"}
In all of our gauge wave simulations, we use an amplitude of $A=0.01$ and a period of $d=1$. In one dimension our domain is the interval $x\in [-0.5,0.5]$. In three dimensions, our domain is the box $(x,y,z)\in [-0.5,0.5]^3.$ For the one-dimensional gauge wave, we use fourth-order elements. For the three-dimensional gauge wave, we use eighth-order elements. For time integration we use an explicit fourth-order or eighth-order Runge-Kutta integrator, as appropriate.
![“Pointwise” convergence of the one-dimensional gauge wave under $h$-refinement, with a fixed order of $p=4$, at $t=3.75$. We plot the error in the $xx$-component of the metric, rescaled by the element width to the $4^{th}$ power. The left pane shows most of the domain, while the right panel stretches out the axes so that the error is more visible. Since the collocation points do not align, pointwise convergence can’t be expected. However, the fact that the envelopes of the errors align indicates good convergence. For the 32 element simulation, the absolute error is approximately $\Ord{ 10^{-8}}$. For the 64 element simulation, it is approximately $\Ord{10^{-10}}$.[]{data-label="fig:gauge:wave:pointwise:convergence"}](trunc_rho_bssn_dg4_gauge_wave_pointwise_errors){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:gauge:wave:pointwise:convergence\] shows the error in the $xx$-component of the metric for the one-dimensional gauge wave at $t=3.75$ light crossing times, rescaled by $h^{-4}$, where $h$ is the element width for each element. As in figure \[fig:dg:vs:fd:pointwise\], we generate the curves by interpolation using the modal representation within an element. The curves do not line up perfectly, but they are all contained within an envelope function, which converges at fourth-order, as expected.
![$L_2$-norm of the $xx$-component of the metric for the one-dimensional gauge wave, rescaled by $h^{-4}$. These simulations were run with a fixed element order of $p=4$. The curves align almost perfectly, indicating $4^{th}$-order convergence. For the 32 element run, the error is approximately $\Ord{10^{-8}}$. For the 64 element run, the error is approximately $\Ord{5\times 10^{-10}}$. For the 128 element run, it is approximately $\Ord{10^{-11}}$.[]{data-label="fig:gauge:wave:L2:convergence"}](trunc_rho_bssn_dg4_gauge_wave_l2_errors){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:gauge:wave:L2:convergence\] shows the $L_2$-norm of the error for the one dimensional gauge wave as a function of time. We once again re-scale the error by $h^{-4}$. The fact that the curves overlap demonstrates fourth-order convergence for the system as it evolves in time.
![The $L_2$-norm over space of the error of the $xx$-component of the metric for the 3D gauge wave, rescaled by $1/h^8$. The curves overlap, showing that the system is converging at $8^{th}$-order. This simulation was run with $8^{th}$-order elements. For the $2^3$ element run, the error is approximately $\Ord{10^{-8}}$. For the $4^3$ element run, the error is approximately $\Ord{10^{-10}}$. For the $6^3$ element run, the error is approximately $\Ord{10^{-12}}$.[]{data-label="fig:dg8:gauge:wave:3D:convergence"}](trunc_rho_bssn_dg8_gauge_wave_3d_norm2_error_of_t){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:dg8:gauge:wave:3D:convergence\] shows the $L_2$-norm of the error for the three-dimensional gauge wave, using eighth-order elements. We now rescale by $h^{-8}$ and, again, the fact that the curves overlap demonstrates convergence of the appropriate order under $h$-refinement. At eighth order, we need very few elements before we see good convergence.
We note that since the y-axis is rescaled in figures \[fig:gauge:wave:L2:convergence\] and \[fig:dg8:gauge:wave:3D:convergence\], it does not represent the true error. In particular, although the rescaled error is large, the absolute error is comparable to or better than that in [@AwA1; @AwA2].
Gamma Driver Gauge Wave Test {#sec:tests:gamma:driver}
----------------------------
The gauge wave prescription given in equation has a harmonic lapse and vanishing shift. We would like to test more realistic lapse and shift conditions in this simplified context, so we seek a generalization of the gauge wave. In [@AwA2], Babiuc et al. propose the *shifted gauge wave*, which generalizes the original gauge wave to include a nonzero shift.
This nonzero shift is harmonic however and, as discussed in [@AwA2], the BSSN system performs poorly in this setting. Physical evolutions of the BSSN system typically use the *Gamma driver* shift condition of the form [@AlcubierreGammaDriver] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma:driver:shift}
\paren{\partial_t - \Lie_\beta}\beta^i &=& B^i\\
\paren{\partial_t - \Lie_\beta }B^i &=& \alpha^2 \zeta \paren{\partial_t-\Lie_\beta}\tilde{\Gamma}^i - \eta B^i,\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta^i$ are the components of the shift, $\Lie_\beta$ is the Lie derivative in the $\beta$-direction, $\zeta,\eta\in\R$ are constants, and $$\label{eq:def:gamma:tilde}
\tilde{\Gamma}^i = - \partial_j \paren{\psi^4 \gamma^{ij}}$$ is the conformally rescaled connection for spatial metric $\gamma$ and conformal factor $\psi$. The Gamma driver shift is combined with the *1+log* slicing condition, first developed by Bernstein [@BernseinThesis] and Anninos et al. [@anninos1995three]. This is of the form [@AlcubierreConformalDecomp; @AlcubierreGammaDriver]: $$\label{eq:1+log:slicing}
\partial_t \alpha = -2\alpha K,$$ where $\alpha$ is the lapse and $K$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature tensor.
Motivated by these observations, we propose a new version of the shifted gauge wave test, the *Gamma driver gauge wave*, which tests our method using the gauge conditions typically used with the BSSN system. We use the same domains and initial conditions as the gauge wave test, but we impose 1+log slicing and a simplified version of the Gamma driver shift condition: $$\label{eq:gamma:driver:simple}
\partial_t \beta^i = \zeta \tilde{\Gamma}^i-\eta \beta^i,$$ where we choose $\zeta = \eta = 3/4$ [@AlcubierreConformalDecomp; @AlcubierreGammaDriver]. We do not know the analytic solution to this system of gauge conditions, but we can study convergence in this setting by comparing several coarse resolutions to a fine resolution instead of an analytic solution. This type of convergence test, which is weaker than convergence to a known solution, is called a *self-convergence test*.
In self-convergence, one must take care to rescale the error by the correct amount. A system is self-convergent to order $P$ if $$\label{eq:eq:phi:self:convergence:test}
\frac{(\gamma_{xx})_1 - (\gamma_{xx})_3}{h_1^P - h_3^P} = \frac{(\gamma_{xx})_2-(\gamma_{xx})_3}{h_2^P-h_3^P},$$ where $i$ indexes three resolutions, such that $i=1$ is the coarsest and $i=3$ is the finest. For notational simplicity, we assume all elements have the same width and order and we therefore suppress the element index $k$. We also suppress dependence on $x$ and $t$. For details of where equation comes from, see appendix \[section:self:convergence:derivation\].
![The $L_2$ norm of the difference between two coarse resolutions and one fine resolution for the Gamma driver gauge wave as a function of time, normalized by an appropriate factor based on the number and order of the elements. The fact that the curves overlap demonstrates $4^{th}$-order convergence. For this test, we use 64, 128, and 192 elements. These differences are small, approximately $\Ord{10^{-12}}$ for the comparison between 64 elements and 192 elements and approximately $\Ord{10^{-13}}$ for the comparison between 128 elements and 192 elements.[]{data-label="fig:dg4:gamma:gauge:wave:l2error"}](trunc_rho_bssn_dg4_shifted_gauge_wave_1plulog_self-convergence_over_time){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:dg4:gamma:gauge:wave:l2error\] shows the self-convergence for the one-dimensional Gamma driver gauge wave with fourth-order elements. We plot the $L_2$-norm over space of equation . Because our implementation is not yet optimized for performance, the 3D self-convergence test was too expensive. Therefore we do not perform the Gamma driver gauge wave test in 3D.
![The convergence order for $4^{th}$-order and $8^{th}$-order elements as a function of time, as extracted by solving for $P$ in equation .[]{data-label="fig:dgx:gamma:gauge:wave:richardson"}](trunc_rho_bssn_dgx_shifted_gauge_wave_1plulog_self-convergence_order){width="\columnwidth"}
As an additional check, we can treat $P$ in equation as a free variable, the *convergence order*, and solve for it numerically. If convergence is as we expect, we will recover that $P$ is the same as the order of the element. Indeed, we can perform this calculation globally by taking the $L_2$-norm of $(\gamma_{xx})_i-(\gamma_{xx})_3$ for $i=1,2$ at each timestep and solving for $P$. We then obtain a measure of convergence as a function of time. Figure \[fig:dgx:gamma:gauge:wave:richardson\] shows the result of this procedure for the Gamma driver gauge wave using both $4^{th}$- and $8^{th}$-order elements. The measured convergence order agrees very well with our expectations.
Concluding Remarks {#sec:conclusion}
==================
By performing an LDG discretization at the level of the differential operator, rather than at the level of the equations, we have developed a novel DGFE scheme that can be used to discretize arbitrary second-order hyperbolic equations, in particular also the BSSN formulation of Einstein’s equations. In the process, we have made the formalism proposed by Hesthaven and Warburton [@hesthaven2008nodal] rigorous and combined it with summation by parts.
We analyzed and tested our scheme and its stability and accuracy for a series of standard test problems in numerical relativity, and find the expected polynomial (for $h$-refinement) and exponential (for $p$-refinement) convergence. Compared to finite differencing methods, the solution error is larger when using the same number of collocation points, but as for other DGFE methods, our OLDG scheme requires significantly fewer memory accesses and has a significantly lower communication overhead, and is thus more scalable on current high performance computing architectures.
Moreover, our focus on the derivative operator allows codes that currently employ finite differences methods to straightforwardly replace the finite differences stencil with our OLDG stencil, converting a finite differences code to a DGFE code. This should improve the parallel efficiency of such codes.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors thank David Radice for many helpful discussions. The authors also thank: Federico Guercilena for help with developing the testing infrastructure; Saul Teukolsky and the SpECTRE collaboration for discussions on DGFE methods; and Scott Field, Wolfgang Tichy and Jan Hesthaven for their help with literature search.
The authors acknowledge support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and from the National Science Foundation of the USA (OCI 0905046, PHY 1212401). J. Miller acknowledges the support of the ACM/SIGHPC SC15 Student Travel Grant. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation.
We are grateful to the countless developers contributing to open source projects on which we relied in this work, including Cactus [@Goodale:2002a; @Cactuscode:web] and the Einstein Toolkit [@loffler2012einstein; @EinsteinToolkit:web; @EinsteinToolkit:ascl], Kranc [@Husa:2004ip; @Kranc:web], HDF5 [@hdf5], Python [@rossumPythonWhitePaper], numpy and scipy [@numpy; @scipyLib], Matplotlib [@hunterMatplotlib], and the yt-project [@TurkYTProject].
This research used computing facilities at the Perimeter Institute, the Center for Computation & Technology at LSU, the Shared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing Network (SHARCNET) and Compute Canada, the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) (TG-PHY100033), and the Blue Waters sustained-petascale computing project (PRAC\_jr6).
Legendre Polynomials, Collocation Points, and Gauss Lobatto Quadrature {#sec:collocation}
======================================================================
The following treatment can be found in standard textbooks such as [@press2007numerical] or [@hesthaven2008nodal]. Consider the domain $\Omega = [-1,1]$ and a function $\psi\in L_2(\Omega)$. We wish to approximate the continuum function $\psi$ and its derivatives in a reasonable way. One such approximation is that $$\label{eq:legendre:ansatz}
\psi(x) \approx \psi_{\text{modal}} := \sum_{i=0}^P \hat{\psi}_i \Phi_i(x),$$ where $P\in\N$, each $\Phi_i$ is some polynomial basis function such that $\{\Phi_i\}_{i=0}^\infty$ forms a complete orthonormal basis of $L_2(\Omega)$, and each $\hat{\psi}_i$ is a constant in $x$ defined by the projection $$\label{eq:legendre:def:psi:hat}
\hat{\psi}_i = \int_{-1}^1 \psi(x) \Phi_i(x) dx = \braket{\psi,\Phi_i}_\Omega.$$ Since the $\Phi_i$’s form a complete basis, equation becomes exact in the limit $P\to\infty$. The demand that each $\Phi_i$ is a polynomial is crucial, as we will soon see.
[| c | n[10]{}[2]{} | n[4]{}[2]{} |]{} **Order** $P$ & [**Collocation Points** $x_i$ ]{} & **Weights** $w_i$\
& 0 & $1.33$\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 1$ & $0.33$\
& 0 & $0.71$\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 0.65$ & $0.54$\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 1$ & $0.1$\
& 0 & $0.49$\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 0.47$ & 0.43\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 0.83$ & 0.27\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 1$ & 0.05\
& 0 & 0.37\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 0.36$ & 0.35\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 0.68$ & 0.27\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 0.90$ & 0.17\
\[1ex\] & $\pm 1$ & 0.03\
We can also approximate $\psi$ in a so-called *nodal* basis, where we treat it as the polynomial that interpolates between known points $\psi(x_i)$ for some set of points $x_i\in \Omega$, $i = 0,1,\ldots,N$, with $N\in\N$. We can write this as $$\label{eq:nodal:representation:lagrange:poly}
\psi(x) \approx \psi_{\text{nodal}}(x) := \sum_{i=0}^N \psi_i l_i(x),$$ where $\psi_i = \psi(x_i)$ and $l_i(x)$ are the $P^{th}$-order Lagrange polynomials, $$\label{eq:def:lagrange:poly}
l_i(x) = \prod_{\substack{0\leq j\leq N\\j\neq i}} \frac{x-x_j}{x_i-x_j}.$$ Interpolating polynomials are unique. So in the special case $N=P$, the two representations and in fact describe the same polynomial.
Suppose $N=P$. Crucially, if equations and are different representations of the same function, there should be a way to transform between them. This is the *Vandermonde* matrix defined by its action as a transformation operator $$\label{eq:vandermonde:simple:def}
\psi_i = \sum_{j=0}^P \V_{ij} \hat{\psi}_j.$$ From equation , it is easy to show that $$\label{eq:vandermonde:components}
\V_{ij} = \Phi_j(x_i).$$ In a realistic calculation, we will need both the Vandermonde matrix and its inverse $\V^{-1}$. Therefore, the matrix should be well-conditioned.
One basis for which $\V$ is well conditioned is the basis of *Legendre polynomials*. The Legendre polynomials are solutions to Legendre’s differential equation $$\label{eq:legendre:equation}
\dd{x} \sqrbrace{(1-x^2)\dd{x}\Phi_i(x)} + i(i+1)\Phi_i(x) = 0\ \forall\ i\in\N,$$ but they are most easily defined recursively as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:legendre:recursive:definition}
\Phi_0(x) &=& 1\\
\Phi_1(x) &=& x\\
(i+1)\Phi_i(x) &=& (2i+1)x\Phi_i(x) - i\Phi_{i-1}(x)\end{aligned}$$ for all $i\in\N$.
In general, we may not be able to compute the integral in equation with perfect accuracy or efficiency. Therefore, we would like to find a *quadrature rule* that allows us to efficiently calculate approximate integrals: $$\label{eq:def:quadrature:rule:elementwise}
\int_{-1}^1f(x) dx \approx \sum_{i=0}^P w_i f(x_i),$$ for some set of weights $w_i$ and collocation points $x_i$. Choosing a quadrature rule involves a choice both of weights $w_i$ and abscissas $x_i$. There are several good choices for quadrature rules. Because we are interested in using this discretization for a DGFE method, we want a rule where the abscissas include the endpoints of the domain $\Omega$. We therefore use *Gauss-Lobatto* quadrature. $$\label{eq:lobatto:quadrature:points}
x_i \in \{-1,1\}\cup \text{roots}\paren{\Phi_{P-1}'},$$ where $\text{roots}\paren{\Phi_{P-1}'}$ is the set of solutions to the equation $$\label{eq:def:root:P}
\Phi_{P-1}'(x) = 0.$$ The weights are then defined as the solutions to the linear system $$\int_{-1}^1 \Phi_j(x) dx = \sum_{i=0}^P w_i \Phi_j(x_i)$$ for all $j=0,1,\ldots,P$. In table \[tab:weights:coloc\], we provide approximate values for some of the Gauss-Lobatto quadrature points and their associated weights for different values of $P$. A procedure for calculating these points precisely can be found in any standard numerical text such as [@press2007numerical].
By setting the collocation points in equation equal to the abscissas defined by equation , we obtain the discrete approximation of $L_2(\Omega)$. This representation is exact for all polynomials of order no greater than $P$.
We are interested in performing this discretization within a DGFE element $$\Omega^k = [x^k_l,x^k_r],$$ which is related to the interval $[-1,1]$ by a simple linear coordinate transformation. This transformation introduces a factor of $h^k/2$ into each of the weights: $$\label{eq:weights:transformed}
w^k_i = \frac{h^k}{2} w_i$$ where the weights must be computed for the element order $P^k$. This coordinate transformation also introduces a factor of $2/h^k$ into the modal derivative operator defined in equation .
Proof That $\xi=1$ Satisfies Summation By Parts {#sec:sbp:proof}
===============================================
In this section, we prove that the scheme described in section \[sec:methods\] satisfies summation by parts if and only if $\xi
= 1$, as asserted in section \[sec:methods:sbp\]. We begin with the element-wise derivative operator defined in equation : $$\partial_x \tilde{\psi}^k = D^k \psi^k = \sqrbrace{d^k - \half b^k + \half\xi F^k}\psi^k,$$ where $d^k$ and $b^k$ are the element-wise differentiation and boundary operators respectively and the fetch operator $F^k$ produces information about the boundary of neighbouring elements as defined in equation . We seek the conditions on it such that equation holds: $$\braket{\psi, D\phi}_\Omega + \braket{D\psi, \phi}_\Omega = \braket{\psi,\phi}_{\partial\Omega},$$ where $D$ is the derivative operator defined on the whole domain as given by equation : $$D\psi(x) = (D^k\psi^k)(x)\ \forall\ x\in \Omega^k\ \forall\ 1\leq k \leq K.$$
In terms of the element-wise inner product, we demand that $$\label{eq:element:wise:sbp}
\sum_{k=1}^{K}\sqrbrace{\braket{D^k\psi^k,\phi^k}_{\Omega^k} + \braket{\psi^k,D^k\phi^k}_{\Omega^k}} = \phi\psi\eval_{\partial\Omega}$$ (or some equivalent relation) for all test functions $\phi$ and $\psi$ in $L^2(\Omega)$. For convenience, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def:phiL:psiL}
\phi_L = \phi(X_l),&\ \phi_R = \phi(X_r),\\
\text{and }\psi_L = \psi(X_l),&\ \psi_R = \psi(X_r),\end{aligned}$$ for the boundary elements $\Omega_0 = \{X_l\}$ and $\Omega_{K+1}=\{X_r\}$. Now, if we plug definition into condition , we find that $$\label{eq:sbp:expanded}
\phi\psi\eval_{\partial\Omega} = S_1 + S_2$$ where we have split the sum over elements into two sums $$\label{eq:def:S1}
S_1 = \sum_{k=1}^{K}\sqrbrace{\braket{\paren{d^k-\half b^k}\phi^k,\psi^k}_{\Omega^k}+\braket{\phi^k,\paren{d^k-\half b^k}\psi^k}_{\Omega^k}}$$ and $$\label{eq:def:S2}
S_2 = \half \xi\sum_{k=1}^{K}\sqrbrace{\braket{F^k\phi^k,\psi^k}_{\Omega^k} + \braket{\phi^k,F^k\psi^k}_{\Omega^k}},$$ which we will handle separately.
Let us examine $S_1$ first. Recall that $b^k$ is defined in equation by the relation: $$w^k b^k = w^k d^k + (d^k)^T w^k,$$ where $w^k$ is the element-wise weight operator. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:w:dmb}
w^k \paren{d^k - \half b^k} &=& w^k d^k - \half w^k b^k\nonumber\\
&=& w^k d^k -\half w^k (w^k)^{-1}\paren{w^kd^k+(d^k)^Tw^k}\nonumber\\
&=& \half\paren{w^k d^k-(d^k)^T w^k},\end{aligned}$$ and similarly $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:w:dmbT}
\paren{d^k - \half b^k}^Tw^k &=& (d^k)^Tw^k - \half \paren{(d^k)^T w^k+w^k d^k}\sqrbrace{(w^k)^{-1}}^Tw^k\nonumber\\
&=& -\half\paren{w^k d^k - (d^k)^T w^k},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that a diagonal matrix is its own transpose. Therefore, $$\label{eq:matrix:anticommute:elemetnwise}
w^k \paren{d^k - \half b^k} + \paren{d^k - \half b^k}^Tw^k = 0$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inner:product:anticommute:elementwise}
\braket{\paren{d^k-\half b^k}\phi^k,\psi^k}_{\Omega^k}+\braket{\phi^k,\paren{d^k-\half b^k}\psi^k}_{\Omega^k} &=& \paren{\myvec{\phi}^k}^T\paren{d^k - \half b^k}^Tw^k\myvec{\psi}^k + \paren{\myvec{\phi}^k}^Tw^k \paren{d^k - \half b^k}\myvec{\psi}^k\nonumber\\
&=& \paren{\myvec{\phi}^k}^T\sqrbrace{w^k \paren{d^k - \half b^k} + \paren{d^k - \half b^k}^Tw^k}\myvec{\psi}^k\nonumber\\
&=& 0 \end{aligned}$$ for all $\phi$ and $\psi$ and for all elements $\Omega^k$. Therefore, every term in the sum $S_1$ vanishes and $$\label{eq:S1:solution}
S_1 = 0.$$
We now focus our attention on $S_2$. Recall from equation that the fetch operator is $$F^k = b^k (b^{-1}F)^k,$$ where $(b^{-1}F)^k$ is defined in equations and such that $$\begin{aligned}
(b^{-1}F)\psi_l^k&=& \psi^{k-1}_r\nonumber\\
\text{and }(b^{-1}F)^k\psi^k_r&=&\psi^{k+1}_l.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The fetch operator does the same thing, but selects only the boundary term, thus making anything else $(b^{-1}F)^k$ does irrelevant. Furthermore, recall from equation that the product $w^k b^k$ is symmetric and has unit absolute value. So the sum $S_2$ becomes $$\label{eq:S2:soln}
S_2 = \half\xi \sum_{k=1}^{K}\sqrbrace{\paren{\psi^k_r\phi^{k+1}_l-\psi^k_l\phi^{k-1}_r}+\paren{\phi^{k+1}_l\phi^k_r-\psi^{k-1}_r\phi^k_l}},$$ which is a telescoping sum. The $k+1$ terms cancel with the $k-1$ terms, leaving $$\label{eq:S2:soln:2}
S2 = \half\xi \sqrbrace{\paren{\psi^K_r\phi_R + \psi_R\phi^K_r} - \paren{\psi^1_l\phi_L + \psi_L\phi^1_l}}.$$ We can interpret $$\paren{\psi^K_r\phi_R + \psi_R\phi^K_r}$$ and $$\paren{\psi^1_l\phi_L + \psi_L\phi^1_l}$$ as twice the average of $\phi$ and $\psi$ evaluated on the right and left boundaries of the domain respectively. Therefore their difference is a reasonable definition of the product $\phi\psi$ evaluated at the boundary of $\Omega$. And so $$\label{eq:S2:soln:3}
S2 = (\xi) \paren{\psi\phi}_{\partial\Omega}$$ and equation is satisfied if and only if $\xi = 1$. $\square$
Stability for the Wave Equation {#sec:stability:wave:equation}
===============================
Here we use summation-by-parts to demonstrate the stability an OLDG discretization of the linear first-order-in-time, second-order-in-space wave equation. This calculation provides an example of how one demonstrates stability with summation-by-parts.
Consider the second-order-in-space wave equation $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \phi &=& \psi\nonumber\\
\partial_t \psi &=& c^2 \partial_x^2\phi\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ on the domain $\Omega$ subject to appropriate initial and boundary conditions. Using the OLDG approach, this translates to the semi-discrete system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:discrete:wave:equation}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \phi^k &= \psi^k\\
\partial_t \psi^k &= c^2 D^k \pi^k\\
\pi^k &= D^k \phi^k,
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $D^k$ is the element-wise wide derivative operator. The continuum operator $\partial_t$ commutes with the discrete linear operator $D^k$ so that $$\label{eq:discrete:wave:constraint}
\partial_t\pi^k = D^k \partial_t\phi^k = D^k \psi^k,$$ where we have used the equations of motion to remove the time derivative. We do not use equation for evolution. Rather, we treat it as a *constraint* which is automatically satisfied.
This system admits the *energy norm* $$\label{eq:def:discrete:energy}
\MH= \half\sqrbrace{\braket{\psi,\psi}_{\Omega} + c^2\braket{\pi,\pi}_{\Omega}},$$ which is manifestly positive-definite. To show that our discretization is stable, we show that $\MH$ is non-increasing in time. We differentiate equation to find $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \MH &=& \braket{\psi,\partial_t\psi}_{\Omega} + c^2 \braket{\pi,\partial_t\pi}_{\Omega}\nonumber\\
\label{eq:dH:intermediate}
&=& c^2\braket{\psi,D \pi}_{\Omega} + c^2\braket{\pi,D\psi}_{\Omega},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the discrete equations of motion and the constraint .
Finally, we integrate by parts to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\MH &=& c^2 \sqrbrace{\braket{D\psi,\pi}_{\Omega} - \braket{D\psi,\pi}_{\Omega}} + c^2\braket{\psi,\pi}_{\partial\Omega}\nonumber\\
\label{eq:dH:is:zero}
&=& c^2\braket{\psi,\pi}_{\partial\Omega},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used equation . The value of this expression depends on the boundary condition. For a large class of boundary conditions, including periodicity, homogeneous Dirichlet ($\psi = 0$) or von Neumann ($\pi = 0$), or maximally dissipative boundary conditions, this term is either zero or negative.
In this case, we have $$\label{eq:eq:dH:le:zero}
\partial_t\MH \leq 0.$$ Then, since $\MH \ge 0$ and $\MH$ is non-increasing, equation provides a stable scheme. We note that, although we perform our calculation for a second-order system, it proceeds almost identically for a fully first-order system.
Convergence for the Wave Equation {#sec:convergence}
=================================
Here we present a calculation showing that the scheme described in section \[sec:methods\] is convergent for the linear wave equation.
Strategy {#sec:proof:strategy}
--------
The strategy of our proof is as follows. We use our discontinuous Galerkin scheme to solve the linear wave equation given arbitrary initial conditions and compare to the analytic solution. We write both the analytic solution and the “numerical” solution in terms of element width $h$ and element order $p$ so that we can write the error as a function of these two quantities. (As usual, we assume that all elements are the same width and order.)
We use Wolfram Mathematica [@Mathematica] to *symbolically* carry out the OLDG differentiation and Runge-Kutta integration, as described in section \[sec:methods\]. In this way, our initial conditions can be truly arbitrary, and we only need to provide it in terms of a finite number of arbitrary constants. We have made our Mathematica code public and placed it in an online repository, where it can be examined [@dgfeSupp].
The Continuum Problem {#sec:proof:continuum}
---------------------
Consider the one-dimensional domain $\Omega = \R$ and the interval $$\label{eq:def:tau}
\mT = \sqrbrace{0,T}\text{ for some }T>0\in\R.$$ We seek functions $\psi(t,x)$ and $\pi(t,x)$ which satisfy the linear wave equation in its first order in time reduction , $$\begin{aligned}
\pd{\phi}{t} &=& \psi\nonumber\\
\pd{\psi}{t} &=& c^2 \partial^2_x\phi\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in\Omega$ and all $t\in\mT$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $c=1$.
If $\phi$ is analytic in $x$, then at any time $t$ it can be well-approximated by a power series $$\label{eq:phi:power:series}
\phi(t=0,x) = a_0 + \sum_{i=1}^N (a_i+b_i) x^i,$$ where $a_i$ and $b_i$, $0\leq i\leq N$ are arbitrary constants that determine the initial profile. Of course, the solution to the wave equation given this initial condition is known. On the real line, $\psi$ is a superposition of right- and left-travelling waves that advect in each direction with speed $c$: $$\label{eq:phi:power:analytic}
\phi(t,x) = a_0 + \sum_{i=1}^N a_i (x+t)^i + \sum_{i=1}^N b_i (x-t)^i$$ with time-derivative $$\label{eq:psi:power:analytic}
\psi(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^N i a_i (x+t)^{i-1} + \sum_{i=1}^N i b_i (x-t)^{i-1}.$$ Therefore our initial condition for $\psi$ is given by $$\label{eq:psi:power:0}
\psi(t=0,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} i (a_i + b_i) x^{i-1}.$$ Note that the initial condition for $\psi$ contains one fewer modes than the initial condition for $\phi$. Enforcing this at each time step is equivalent to applying the truncation procedure discussed in section \[sec:truncation\].
The Discrete Setup {#sec:proof:setup}
------------------
To test the OLDG method developed in section \[sec:methods\], we use it to calculate a numerical approximation to the solution given by equations and with equations and as initial conditions. Crucially, we do not want to specify $a_i$ and $b_i$. Rather we want our solution in terms of them.
For simplicity we break $\Omega$ into a uniform “grid” of elements, all of the same width $h$ and order $p \leq N$. For initial data that is truly arbitrary, initial conditions and are accurate up to order $h^N$ and $h^{N-1}$ respectively. To simulate a realistic situation, where the initial conditions introduce error equivalent to the order of the discretization scheme, we set $N=p$.
In principle, we have an infinite number of elements since our domain is the real line. In practice, however, we can examine a finite number $K$ of elements, spanning some interval $\mI=[-A,A]\subset\Omega$ as long as that number is sufficiently large so that no information from elements near the boundary of $\mI$ has time to propagate to elements near the centre of $\mI$ in time $T$.
We then write the positions of the nodes within elements, $x^k_i$ as a multiple of the element width $h$, which can be calculated by finding how many elements away from the origin the element $\Omega^k$ is and the “local” coordinates of $x^k_i$ within $\Omega^k$. We also define $\phi^k_i$ and $\psi^k_i$ as the restrictions of the fields $\phi$ and $\psi$ onto the nodes within elements, $x^k_i$.
Comparing to the Continuum Solution {#sec:proof:comparison}
-----------------------------------
Once we define our fields, we integrate them using a $p^{th}$-order explicit Runge-Kutta scheme and compare to the analytic solution. We perform this calculation for both second- and fourth-order stencils and the results seem to be generic. We use an explicit integrator of the same order as the OLDG stencil we wish to test. Our implementation of a second-order Runge-Kutta, for example, integrator is given by the following code.
(* The CFL Factor *)
dt = cfl * h; (* factor is arbitrary *)
RK2::usage = "Integrate y via RK2. The state vector is y."
RK2[y_,t_,f_] := Module[{k1,k2,yNew,tNew},
k1=f[t,y];
k2=f[t+(2/3)*dt,y+(2/3)*dt*k1];
yNew = y + dt*((1/4)*k1+(3/4)*k2);
tNew=t+dt;
{tNew,yNew}];
Since the initial conditions are arbitrary, we only need to integrate by one time step. After integration, we subtract the true solution, given by equations and , from the integrated solution and calculate the error. Because the wave equation is homogeneous, it is sufficient to study an element in the center of $\mI$. For second-order elements (for example), this error is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phi:error:1}
\phi^k_0 &=& -h^2 \alpha (a_2 - b_2)\\
\label{eq:phi:error:2}
\phi^k_1 &=& 0\\
\phi^k_2 &=& - \phi^k_0\end{aligned}$$ for $\phi$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:psi:error:1}
\psi^k_0 &=& -h\alpha (a_2 - b_2)\\
\label{eq:psi:error:2}
\psi^k_1 &=& 0\\
\psi^k_2 &=& - \psi^k_0\end{aligned}$$ for $\psi$, where $\alpha$ is the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy factor in this context. For a second-order element, initial conditions and also have errors of leading order $h^2$ and $h^1$ respectively, so convergence is retained. More generally, we find that the error in $\phi$ is of order $\Ord{h^p}$ and that the error in $\psi$ is of order $\Ord{h^{p-1}}$.
Making Contact with Standard Discontinuous Galerkin Methods {#sec:lax-friedrich}
===========================================================
In this section we provide an example of how our wide derivative operator relates to more traditional DGFE formulations. This calculation also provides a simple example of how OLDG methods can be used to discretize more complicated systems.
Consider the linear wave equation in first-order, flux-conservative, form $$\label{eq:linear:wave}
\partial_t \phi + \partial_x f(\phi) = 0,$$ where we have introduced the complex variable $$\label{eq:wave:variables}
\phi = \psi + i \pi$$ and flux $$\label{eq:wave:flux}
f(\phi) = \paren{\pi + i c^2 \psi}$$ for some continuum functions $$\psi(t,x) : [0,T] \to \R$$ and $$\pi(t,x) : [0,T] \to \R$$ and constants $T > 0 \in\R$ and $c\in\R$ subject to appropriate initial and boundary conditions. For simplicity assume the domain is an interval $\Omega = [X_l,X_r]$.
With the usual choice of Legendre basis functions, this translates to the semi-discrete system $$0 = \partial_t \phi^k_i + D^k \sqrbrace{f(\phi)}^k_i$$ for all elements $\Omega^k$ and all $i=0,\ldots,P^k$, where $P^k$ is the order of the element. If we expand the wide derivative operator $D^k$, we obtain $$\label{eq:wave:semi-discrete:1}
0 = \partial_t \phi^k_i+ d^k f^k_i - \frac{1}{2}b^k\sqrbrace{1 - (b^{-1}F)^k}f^k_i,$$ where we have now suppressed the dependence of $f$ on $\phi$.
To obtain the usual representation of a DGFE method, we must take the inner product with respect to a test function $\Phi^k_j(x)$, which is its own interpolant. Recall from equation that $$\V^k_{ij} = \Phi^k_j(x^k_i)$$ and from equation that $$\phi^k(t,x) = \sum_{i=0}^N \phi^k_i l^k_i(x),$$ where the $l^k_i(x)$ are Lagrange interpolants. Finally recall that derivatives $d^k$ of polynomials of order $P^k$ and lower are exact, since this is how the narrow derivative operator is defined. We thus have
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:advection:inner:product}
0 &=& \braket{\Phi^k_j,\partial_t \phi^k}_{\Omega^k}
+ \braket{\Phi^k_j,d^kf^k}_{\Omega^k}
-\frac{1}{2} \braket{\Phi^k_j,b^k\sqrbrace{1-(b^{-1}F)^k}f^k}_{\Omega^k}\nonumber\\
&=& \sqrbrace{\sum_{i=0}^{P^k}\braket{\Phi^k_j(x),l^k_i(x)}_{\Omega^k}\partial_t \phi^k_i}
+ \sqrbrace{\sum_{i=0}^{P^k}\braket{\Phi^k_j,\partial_x l^k_i(x)}_{\Omega^k}f_i^k}
- \frac{1}{2}\braket{\Phi_j^k,b^k \paren{1-(b^{-1}F)f^k}}_{\Omega^k}\nonumber\\
&=& \Ma^k \partial_t \myvec{\phi}^k
+ \St^k \myvec{f}^k
- \frac{1}{2}\braket{\myvec{\Phi}^k,b^k \paren{1-(b^{-1}F)f^k}}_{\Omega^k},\end{aligned}$$
where $$\label{eq:mass:stiffness}
\Ma_{ij}^k = \braket{\Phi^k_j,l^k_i}\text{ and }\St_{ij}^k = \braket{\Phi^k_j \partial_x l^k_i}$$ are the *mass* and *stiffness* matrices from standard discontinuous Gaklerkin methods and where we have suppressed the index notation to recover a matrix form within each element.
The last term in equation still requires some massaging, however. Recall from equation that $w^k b^k$ is nonzero only on the boundary and it is always $\pm 1$. Then we can do away with the integral over the boundary and recover $$\Ma^k \partial_t \myvec{\phi}^k + \St (a\myvec{\phi}^k) = \frac{1}{2}\myvec{\Phi}^k\paren{ f^k_- - f^k_+}\eval_{x_l^k}^{x_r^k}$$ or $$\label{eq:advection:2}
\Ma^k \partial_t \myvec{\phi}^k + \St (a\myvec{\phi}^k) = \myvec{\Phi}^k\sqrbrace{ f^k_- - \half\paren{f^k_- + f^k_+}}\eval_{x_l^k}^{x_r^k}$$ where $f_-^k$ and $f^k_+$ are the interior and exterior values of the flux on an element respectively. In other words $f_-^k$ returns values on the boundary within an element and $f_+^k$ returns values on the boundary from neighbouring elements.
We recognize equation as a standard DGFE method in strong form with a simple central numerical flux $$\label{eq:def:central:flux}
f^*(\phi^k_-,\phi^k_+) = \frac{1}{2} C (\phi^k_++\phi^k_-),$$ for the interior and exterior values of $\phi$ at the boundary of $\Omega^k$. Therefore, in the simplest cases at least, our scheme matches traditional DGFE methods.\
Calculating Self-Convergence {#section:self:convergence:derivation}
============================
Here we derive the test for self convergence given in section \[sec:tests:gamma:driver\]. We follow a procedure first proposed by Richardson [@richardson1911approximate]. Suppose we are evolving the BSSN equations. Based on equation , suppose that the error in the $xx$-component of the metric is of the form: $$\label{eq:phi:self:convergence:base}
(\gamma_{xx})_{i} = \gamma_{xx} + \ME h_i^{P},$$ where $i$ indexes three resolutions, such $i=1$ is the coarsest and $i=3$ is the finest. $\gamma_{xx}$ is the true solution, $\ME$ is an “error” function, and $h$ and $P$ are the element width and order as usual. For notational simplicity, we assume all elements have the same width and order and we therefore suppress the element index $k$. We also suppress dependence on $x$ and $t$.
We now combine formula for different values of $i$: $$\begin{aligned}
(\gamma_{xx})_1 - (\gamma_{xx})_3 &=& \gamma_{xx} + \ME h_1^P - \gamma_{xx}-\ME h_3^P\nonumber\\
\label{eq:phi:self:convergence:1}
&=& \ME \paren{h_1^P - h_3^P}\end{aligned}$$ and similarly $$\label{eq:phi:self:convergence:2}
(\gamma_{xx})_2 - (\gamma_{xx})_3 = \ME\paren{h_2^P - h_3^P}.$$ If we combine equations and , we find equation : $$\frac{(\gamma_{xx})_1 - (\gamma_{xx})_3}{h_1^P - h_3^P} = \frac{(\gamma_{xx})_2-(\gamma_{xx})_3}{h_2^P-h_3^P},$$ so we can check for self convergence by constructing the left- and right-hand-sides of equation and comparing them. Self-convergence is a weaker statement than convergence, since it does not guarantee that a numerical solution converges to the *true* solution. It could, in principle, converge to something else.
[^1]: We note that the calculation of initial data involves solving an elliptic differential system, not a hyperbolic one. This requires different considerations than those we discuss here.
[^2]: In this gauge, the reduction of the Einstein equations to spherical symmetry is an elliptic, rather than hyperbolic, system.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we prove the following generalization of a result of Hartshorne: Let $T$ be a commutative Noetherian local ring of dimension at least two, $R=T[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, and $I=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$. Let $f$ be a homogeneous element of $R$ such that the coefficients of $f$ form a system of parameters for $T$. Then the socle of $H^n_I(R/fR)$ is infinite dimensional.'
address:
- |
University of Nebraska-Lincoln\
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Lincoln, NE 68588-0323
- |
University of Arkansas\
Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Fayetteville, AR 72701
author:
- Thomas Marley
- 'Janet C. Vassilev'
date: 'August 27, 2002'
title: Local cohomology modules with infinite dimensional socles
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The third of Huneke’s four problems in local cohomology [@Hu] is to determine when $H^i_I(M)$ is Artinian for a given ideal $I$ of a commutative Noetherian local ring $R$ and finitely generated $R$-module $M$. An $R$-module $N$ is Artinian if and only ${\operatorname{Supp}_R}N\subseteq \{m\}$ and ${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/m,N)$ is finitely generated, where $m$ is the maximal ideal of $R$. Thus, Huneke’s problem may be separated into two subproblems:
- When is ${\operatorname{Supp}_R}H^i_I(M) \subseteq \{m\}$?
- When is ${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/m,H^i_I(M))$ finitely generated?
This article is concerned with the second question. For an $R$-module $N$, one may identify ${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/m,N)$ with the submodule $\{x\in N\mid mx=0\}$, which is an $R/m$-vector space called the [*socle*]{} of $N$ (denoted ${\operatorname{soc}}_RN$). It is known that if $R$ is an unramified regular local ring then the local cohomology modules $H^i_I(R)$ have finite dimensional socles for all $i\ge 0$ and all ideals $I$ of $R$ ([@HS], [@L1], [@L2]). The first example of a local cohomology module with an infinite dimensional socle was given in 1970 by Hartshorne [@Ha]: Let $k$ be a field, $R=k[[u,v]][x,y]$, $P=(u,v,x,y)R$, $I=(x,y)R$, and $f=ux+vy$. Then ${\operatorname{soc}}_{R_P} H^2_{IR_P}(R_P/fR_P)$ is infinite dimensional. Of course, since $I$ and $f$ are homogeneous, this is equivalent to saying that ${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/P,H^2_I(R/fR))$ (the [*$^*$socle*]{} of $H^2_I(R/fR)$) is infinite dimensional. Hartshorne proved this by exhibiting an infinite set of linearly independent elements in the $^*$socle of $H^2_I(R)$.
In the last 30 years there have been few results in the literature which explain or generalize Harthshorne’s example. For affine semigroup rings, a remarkable result proved by Helm and Miller [@HM] gives necessary and sufficient conditions (on the semigroup) for the ring to possess a local cohomology module (of a finitely generated module) having infinite dimensional socle. Beyond that work, however, little has been done.
In this paper we prove the following:
\[mainthm\] Let $(T,m)$ be a Noetherian local of dimension at least two. Let $R=T[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be a polynomial ring in $n$ variables over $T$, $I=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$, and $f\in R$ a homogeneous polynomial whose coefficients form a system of parameters for $T$. Then the $^*$socle of $H^n_I(R/fR)$ is infinite dimensional.
Hartshorne’s example is obtained by letting $T=k[[u,v]]$, $n=2$, and $f=ux+vy$ (homogeneous of degree 1). Note, however, that we do not require the coefficient ring to be regular, or even Cohen-Macaulay. As a further illustration, consider the following:
[Let $R=k[[u^4,u^3v,uv^3,v^4]][x,y,z]$, $I=(x,y,z)R$, and $f=u^4x^2+v^8yz$. Then the $^*$socle of $H^3_I(R/fR)$ is infinite dimensional.]{}
Part of the proof of Theorem \[mainthm\] was inspired by the recent work of Katzman [@Ka] where information on the graded pieces of $H^n_I(R/fR)$ is obtained by examining matrices of a particular form. We apply this technique in the proof of Lemma \[keylemma\].
Throughout all rings are assumed to be commutative with identity. The reader should consult [@Mat] or [@BH] for any unexplained terms or notation and [@BS] for the basic properties of local cohomology.
The Main Result
===============
Let $R=\oplus R_{\ell}$ be a Noetherian ring graded by the nonnegative integers. Assume $R_0$ is local and let $P$ be the homogeneous maximal ideal of $R$. Given a finitely generated graded $R$-module $M$ we define the *$^*$socle of $M$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{^*\operatorname{soc}}_RM &= \{x\in M \mid Px=0\} \notag \\
&\cong {\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/P,M). \notag\end{aligned}$$*
Clearly, ${^*\operatorname{soc}}_R M\cong {\operatorname{soc}}_{R_P}M_P$. An interesting special case of Huneke’s third problem is the following:
\[Q1\] Let $n:=\mu_R(R_+/PR_+)$, the minimal number of generators of $R_+$. When is ${^*\operatorname{soc}}H^n_{R_+}(R)$ finitely generated?
For $i\in \mathbb N$ it is well known that $H^i_{R+}(R)$ is a graded $R$- module, each graded piece $H^i_{R_+}(R)_{\ell}$ is a finitely generated $R_0$-module, and $H^i_{R_+}(R)_{\ell}=0$ for all sufficiently large integers $\ell$ ([@BS 15.1.5]). If we know *a priori that $H^n_{R+}(R)_{\ell}$ has finite length for all $\ell$ (e.g., if ${\operatorname{Supp}_R}H^n_{R_+}(R)\subseteq \{P\}$), then Question \[Q1\] is equivalent to:*
\[Q2\] When is ${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/R_+,H^n_{R_+}(R))$ finitely generated?
We give a partial answer to these questions for hypersurfaces. For the remainder of this section we adopt the following notation: Let $(T,m)$ be a local ring of dimension $d$ and $R=T[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ a polynomial ring in $n$ variables over $T$. We endow $R$ with an $\mathbb N$-grading by setting $\deg T=0$ and $\deg x_i=1$ for all $i$. Let $I=R_+=(x_1,\dots,x_n)R$ and $P=m+I$ the homogeneous maximal ideal of $R$. Let $f\in R$ be a homogeneous element of degree $p$ and $C_f$ the ideal of $T$ generated by the nonzero coefficients of $f$.
Our main result is the following:
\[mainresult\] Assume $d\ge 2$ and the (nonzero) coefficients of $f$ form a system of parameters for $T$. Then ${^*\operatorname{soc}}_R H^n_I(R/fR)$ is not finitely generated.
The proof of this theorem will be given in a series of lemmas below. Before proceeding with the proof we make a couple of remarks:
(a) If $d\le 1$ in Theorem \[mainresult\] then ${^*\operatorname{soc}}H^n_I(R/fR)$ is finitely generated. This follows from [@DM Corollary 2] since $\dim R/I=\dim T\le 1$.
(b) The hypothesis that the nonzero coefficients of $f$ form a system of parameters for $T$ is stronger than our proof requires. One only needs that $C_f$ be $m$-primary and that there exists a dimension 2 ideal containing all but two of the coefficients of $f$. (See the proof of Lemma \[keylemma\].)
The following lemma identifies the support of $H^n_I(R/fR)$ for a homogeneous element $f\in R$. This lemma also follows from a much more general result recently proved by Katzman and Sharp [@KS Theorem 1.5].
\[support\] Let $f\in R$ be a homogeneous element. Then $$\operatorname{Supp}_RH^n_I(R/fR)=\{Q\in \operatorname{Spec}R \mid Q\supseteq I+C_f\}.$$
[*Proof:*]{} It is enough to prove that $H^n_I(R/fR)=0$ if and only if $C_f=T$. As $H^n_I(R/fR)_k$ is a finitely generated $T$-module for all $k$, we have by Nakayama that $H^n_I(R/fR)=0$ if and only if $H^n_I(R/fR)\otimes_T
T/m=0$. Now $$\begin{aligned}
H^n_I(R/fR)\otimes_T T/m&\cong H^n_I(R/fR\otimes_T T/m) \notag \\
&\cong H^n_{N}(S/fS) \notag\end{aligned}$$ where $S=(T/m)[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ is a polynomial ring in $n$ variables over a field and $N=(x_1,\dots,x_n)S$. As $\dim S=n$, we see that $H^n_N(S/fS)=0$ if and only if the image of $f$ modulo $m$ is nonzero. Hence, $H^n_I(R/fR)=0$ if and only if at least one coefficient of $f$ is a unit, i.e., $C_f=T$.
We are mainly interested in the case the coefficients of $f$ generate an $m$-primary ideal:
\[supportmax\] Let $f\in R$ be homogeneous and suppose $C_f$ is $m$-primary. Then $$\operatorname{Supp}_R H^n_I(R/fR)=\{P\}.$$
Our next lemma is the key technical result in the proof of Theorem \[mainresult\].
\[matrixlemma\] Suppose $u,v\in T$ such that $\operatorname{ht}
(u,v)T=2$. For each integer $n\ge 1$ let $M_n$ be the cokernel of $\phi_n:T^{n+1}\rightarrow T^n$ where $\phi_n$ is represented by the matrix $$A_n=\begin{pmatrix}
u & v & 0 &0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\
0 & u & v & 0& \cdots & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & u & v & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & u & v \\
\end{pmatrix}_{n\times (n+1)}.$$ Let $J=\cap_{n\ge 1}{\operatorname{ann}}_TM_n$. Then $\dim T/J=\dim T$.
[*Proof:*]{} Let $\hat T$ denote the $m$-adic completion of $T$. Then $\operatorname{ht} (u,v)\hat T=2$, ${\operatorname{ann}}_TM_n = {\operatorname{ann}}_{\hat T}(M_n\otimes_T\hat{T}) \cap T$, and $\dim T/(I\cap T)\ge \dim \hat T/I$ for all ideals $I$ of $\hat T$. Thus, we may assume $T$ is complete. Now let $p$ be a prime ideal of $T$ such that $\dim T/p=\dim T$. Since $T$ is catenary, $\operatorname{ht}(u,v)T/p=2$. Assume the lemma is true for complete domains. Then $\cap_{n \ge 1}{\operatorname{ann}}_{T/p}(M_n\otimes_TT/p)=p/p$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
J&=\cap_{n\ge 1}{\operatorname{ann}}_TM_n \notag \\
&\subseteq \cap_{n\ge 1}{\operatorname{ann}}_T (M_n\otimes_T T/p) \notag \\
&= p, \notag\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\dim T/J\ge \dim T/p=\dim T$. Thus, it suffices to prove the lemma for complete domains.
As $T$ is complete, the integral closure $S$ of $T$ is a finite $R$-module. Since $\operatorname{ht} (u,v)S=2$ ([@Mat Theorem 15.6]) and $S$ is normal, $\{u,v\}$ is a regular sequence on $S$. It is easily seen that $I_n(A_n)$, the ideal of $n\times n$ minors of $A_n$, is $(u,v)^nT$. By the main result of [@BE] we obtain ${\operatorname{ann}}_S (M_n\otimes_TS)=
(u,v)^nS$. Hence ${\operatorname{ann}}_TM_n\subseteq (u,v)^nS\cap T$. As $S$ is a finite $T$-module there exists an integer $k$ such that ${\operatorname{ann}}_TM_n\subseteq (u,v)^{n-k}T$ for all $n\ge k$. Therefore, $\cap_{n\ge 1}{\operatorname{ann}}_TM_n=(0)$, which completes the proof.
\[keylemma\] Assume $d\ge 2$ and let $f\in R$ be a homogeneous element of degree $p$ such that the coefficients of $f$ form a system of parameters for $T$. Then $\dim T/{\operatorname{ann}}_T H^n_I(R/fR) \ge 2$.
[*Proof:*]{} Let $c_1,\dots,c_d$ be the nonzero coefficients of $f$. Let $T'=T/(c_3,\dots,c_d)T$ and $R'=T'[x_1,\dots,x_n]\cong R/(c_3,\dots,c_d)R\cong R\otimes_TT'$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\dim T/{\operatorname{ann}}_T H^n_I(R/fR) &\ge
\dim T/ {\operatorname{ann}}_T (H^n_I(R/fR)\otimes_TT') \notag \\
&= \dim T'/{\operatorname{ann}}_{T'} H^n_{IR'}(R'/fR'), \notag\end{aligned}$$ we may assume that $\dim T=2$ and $f$ has exactly two nonzero terms.
For any $w\in R$ there is a surjective map $H^n_I(R/wfR)\to H^n_I(R/fR)$. Hence, ${\operatorname{ann}}_T H^n_I(R/wfR) \subseteq {\operatorname{ann}}_T H^n_I(R/fR)$. Thus, we may assume that the terms of $f$ have no (nonunit) common factor. Without loss of generality, we may write $R=T[x_1,\dots,x_k,y_1,\dots y_r]$ and $f=ux_1^{d_1}\cdots x_k^{d_k} + vy_1^{e_1}\cdots y_r^{e_r}=u\mathbf x^{\mathbf d}+v\mathbf y
^{\mathbf e}$, where $\{u,v\}$ is a system of parameters for $T$. As $f$ is homogeneous, $p=\sum_id_i=\sum_i e_i$.
Applying the right exact functor $H^n_I(\cdot)$ to $R(-p)\xrightarrow{f} R \to R/fR \to 0$ we obtain the exact sequence $$H^n_I(R)_{-\ell-p}
\xrightarrow{f} H^n_I(R)_{-\ell} \to H^n_I(R/fR)_{-\ell}\to 0$$ for each $\ell\in \mathbb Z$. For each $\ell$, $H^n_I(R)_{-\ell}$ is a free $T$-module with basis $$\{\mathbf x^{-\mathbf \alpha}\mathbf y^{-\mathbf \beta} \mid \sum_{i,j}\alpha_i+\beta_j
=\ell, \alpha_i>0, \beta_j>0 \ \forall \ i,j\}$$ (e.g., [@BS Example 12.4.1]). Let $q$ be an arbitrary positive integer and let $\ell(q)=qp+k+r$. Define $L_{-\ell(q)}$ to be the free $T$-summand of $H^n_I(R)_{-\ell(q)}$ spanned by the set $$\{\mathbf x^{-s\mathbf d-\mathbf 1}\mathbf y^{-t\mathbf e - \mathbf 1}
\mid s+t=q, s,t\ge 0\}.$$ Then the cokernel of $\delta_q:L_{-\ell(q+1)}\xrightarrow{f} L_{-\ell(q)}$ is a direct summand (as a $T$-module) of $H^n_I(R/fR)_{-\ell(q)}$. For a given $q$ we order the basis elements for $L_{-\ell(q)}$ as follows: $$x^{-s\mathbf d-\mathbf 1}\mathbf y^{-t\mathbf e - \mathbf 1} >
x^{-s'\mathbf d-\mathbf 1}\mathbf y^{-t'\mathbf e - \mathbf 1}$$ if and only if $s>s'$. With respect to these ordered bases, the matrix representing $\delta_q$ is $$\begin{pmatrix}
u & v & 0 &0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\
0 & u & v & 0& \cdots & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & u & v & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & u & v \\
\end{pmatrix}_{(q+1)\times (q+2)}.$$ By Lemma \[matrixlemma\], if $J=\cap_{q\ge 1} {\operatorname{ann}}_T \operatorname{coker}\delta_q$ then $\dim T/J=\dim
T=2$. As $\operatorname{coker}\delta_q$ is a direct $T$-summand of $H^n_I(R/fR)$, we have ${\operatorname{ann}}_T H^n_I(R/fR)\subseteq J$. This completes the proof.
\[notfg\] Under the assumptions of Lemma \[keylemma\], ${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/I,H^n_I(R/fR))$ is not finitely generated as an $R$-module. Consequently, ${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/I,H^n_I(R/fR))_{k}\neq 0$ for infinitely many $k$.
[*Proof:*]{} Suppose ${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/I,H^n_I(R/fR))$ is finitely generated. By Lemma 3.5 of [@MV] we have that $I+{\operatorname{ann}}_R H^n_I(R/fR)$ is $P$-primary. (One should note that the hypothesis in [@MV Lemma 3.5] that the ring be complete is not necessary.) This implies that ${\operatorname{ann}}_R H^n_I(R/fR)\cap T={\operatorname{ann}}_T
H^n_I(R/fR)$ is $m$-primary, contradicting Lemma \[keylemma\].
We now give the proof of our main result:
[*Proof of Theorem \[mainresult\]:*]{} By Corollary \[supportmax\], ${\operatorname{Supp}_R}H^n_I(R/fR)=
\{P\}$. Thus, ${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/I,H^n_I(R/fR))_k$ has finite length as a $T$-module for all $k$ and is nonzero for infinitely many $k$ by Lemma \[notfg\]. Consequently, $${\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/P,H^n_I(R/fR))_{k}={\operatorname{Hom}}_T(T/m,{\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/I,H^n_I(R/fR))_{k})$$ is nonzero for infinitely many $k$. Hence $${^*\operatorname{soc}}_R(H^n_I(R/fR))=
{\operatorname{Hom}}_R(R/P,H^n_I(R/fR))$$ is not finitely generated.
[99]{}
Brodmann, M., Katzman, M. and Sharp, R., [*Associated primes of graded component of local cohomology modules*]{}, Trans. A.M.S., to appear.
Brodmann, M. and Sharp, R., [*Local Cohomology: an algebraic introduction with geometric applications*]{}, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics no. [**60**]{}, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Bruns, W. and Herzog, J., [*Cohen-Macaulay Rings*]{}, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics no. [**39**]{}, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Buchsbaum, D. and Eisenbud, D., [*What annihilates a module?*]{}, J. of Alg. [**47**]{}, 231-243 (1977).
Delfino, D. and Marley, T., [*Cofinite modules and local cohomology*]{}, J. Pure and App. Alg. [**121**]{}, 45-52 (1997).
Hartshorne, R., [*Affine Duality and Cofiniteness*]{}, Inv. Math. [**9**]{}, 145-164 (1970).
Helm, D. and Miller, E., [*Bass numbers of semigroup-graded local cohomology*]{}, preprint.
Huneke, C., [*Problems on local cohomology*]{}, Free Resolutions in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry (Sundance, Utah, 1990), Research Notes in Mathematics [**2**]{}, Boston, MA, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994, 993-108.
Huneke, C. and Koh, J., [*Cofiniteness and vanishing of local cohomology modules*]{}, Math. Proc Camb. Phil. Soc. [**110**]{}, 421-429 (1991).
Huneke, C. and Sharp, R., [*Bass Numbers of local cohomology modules*]{}, Trans. A.M.S. [**339**]{}, 765-779 (1993).
Katzman, M., [*An example of an infinite set of associated primes of a local cohomology module*]{}, J. of Alg., to appear.
Katzman, M. and Sharp, R., [*Some properties of top graded local cohomology modules*]{}, preprint.
Lyubeznik, G., [*Finiteness Properties of local cohomology modules (An application of $D$-modules to commutative algebra)*]{}, Inv. Math. [**113**]{}, 41-55 (1993).
Lyubeznik, G., [*Finiteness properties of local cohomology modules for regular local rings of mixed characteristic: The unramified case*]{}, Comm. Alg. [**28**]{} no. 12, 5867-5882 (2000).
Marley, T. and Vassilev, J., [*Cofiniteness and associated primes of local cohomology modules*]{}, J. of Alg., to appear.
Matsumura, H., [*Commutative Ring Theory*]{}, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics no. [**8**]{}, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
[^1]: The first author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-0071008.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I review what we currently do and do not know about the masses of disk galaxies and their dark matter halos. The prognosis for disks is good: the asymptotic rotation velocity provides a good indicator of total disk mass. The prognosis for halos is bad: cuspy halos provide a poor description of the data, and the total mass of individual dark matter halos remains ill-constrained.'
author:
- Stacy McGaugh
title: 'Galaxy Masses: Disks and Their Halos'
---
Disk Masses
===========
The great regularity of the Tully-Fisher relation [@TF] has long been thought to originate from a strong mass-velocity relation and a near constancy of mass-to-light ratio. The latter requires a fair but not unreasonable amount of regularity in stellar populations. Put simply,[^1] $$L \sim {\cal M} \sim V^a \; .$$
There have long been indications (Sancisi 1995, private communication) that this simple scaling may fail at low luminosities. This has become more clear as data have improved [@MG],[@Stil]. This breakdown of the Tully-Fisher relation might arise because of the chaotic star formation histories of low mass galaxies, or as a result of a breakdown in the underlying mass-velocity relation. Another possibility is that optical luminosity ceases to trace mass because stars cease to be the dominant mass component in these disks [@Ken].
It has now become clear that this last possibility is in fact the case. Low mass galaxies are often dominated by gas rather than stars. If instead of luminosity or stellar mass, we plot disk (star + gas) mass against the flat rotation velocity, a nice mass-velocity relation is recovered over many orders of magnitude (Fig. 1). This ‘Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation’ (BTF) is [@MSBB] $${\cal M}_d = {\cal A} V_f^b \; ,$$ for which the data in Fig. 1 give
[A]{} = 50\_\^[-4]{}\^4\
b = 4.0 0.1 .
![The Tully-Fisher relation expressed in terms of (**a**) stellar mass and (**b**) baryonic disk mass (the sum of stars and gas). The luminous Tully-Fisher relation holds well for galaxies dominated by stars, but breaks down for low mass galaxies where the gas mass can often exceed the stellar mass (**a**). The sum of stars and gas provides a better correlation (**b**): the asymptotic flat rotation velocity is a good indicator of disk mass [@MSBB]. The data shown here are taken from a large compilation of high quality data [@SM]. Consequently, the scatter is greatly reduced from that in [@MSBB]. The galaxies shown here are drawn from the full range of disk Hubble types: mostly Sc, Sd, Sm, Im, but also a few Sa and Sb galaxies are present. The intrinsic scatter is small, with room only for scatter in the stellar mass-to-light ratio due to variations in star formation histories (probably not in the IMF), and scatter due to the modest ellipticities of disks [@Bersh]. []{data-label="fig1"}](mcgaughF1.eps){width=".9\textwidth"}
The normalization of the BTF is rather uncertain: formally acceptable values fall in the range $34 < {\cal A} < 85$. The precise value of the slope has been modestly controversial: $b= 4.0$ was given by [@MSBB] while $b=3.5$ was found by [@BJ]. This difference can be traced to different assumptions about the (rather goofy [@HSTKP]) distance to the UMa cluster for which some of the better rotation curve [@VS] and photometric data [@TVPHW] exist. As the distance increases, the gas mass increases faster than the stellar mass (as $D^2$ and as $D$, respectively). This boosts the total mass of gas dominated galaxies by a larger factor than star dominated galaxies. Since these reside at opposite ends of the relation, the slope tips to shallower values with increasing $D$. Nevertheless, the population models of [@BJ] are consistent with a slope of $b= 4.0$ (Fig. 2). While the calibration of the BTF can always be improved, it already provides an excellent indicator of disk mass. Moreover, continuity between gas-rich and star-rich galaxies constrains stellar population mass-to-light ratios. The favored values are reasonable in terms of population synthesis models (Fig. 2), but unpleasantly heavy for cuspy dark matter halos.
![The stellar mass-to-light ratios in (**a**) the $B$-band and (**b**) the $K'$-band predicted by a slope 4 BTF for the UMa galaxies [@Verh], [@TVPHW], [@VS]. These are plotted as a function of $B-V$ color, together with the Bruzual & Charlot, Salpeter IMF model from [@BJ] (the first model in their table 4). The population synthesis models are in good agreement with the BTF, indicating that we have a good handle on ${\cal M}_*/L$ and disk masses.[]{data-label="fig2"}](mcgaughF2.eps){width=".9\textwidth"}
Dark Matter Halos
=================
Rotation curves, by themselves, can only give a lower limit on the total halo mass: that enclosed by the last measured point. However, if the functional form of the halo were known, it might be possible to provide some constraint by fitting the observations to the known form. The NFW halo paradigm [@Moore],[@NFW] which has arisen from cosmological N-body simulations in principle gives a way to do this.
Unfortunately, if not surprisingly, observed rotation curves never extend far enough to constrain the circular velocity at the virial radius, $V_{200}$ [@MRB]. There is a great deal of degeneracy between the concentration $c$ and $V_{200}$. An example is given in Fig. 3, which shows how difficult it can be to distinguish between fits with NFW halos of rather different parameters.
![An example of an NFW halo fit to the LSB galaxy UGC 5750 [@BMR]. The best fit parameters in this case are $c=1.9$ and $V_{200}=117$ for ${\cal M}_*/L_R = 1.4\;
{\cal M}_{\odot}/L_{\odot}$. Another tolerable fit with $c=0.2$ and $V_{200} = 300$ is also shown (lower dotted curve) to illustrate the degeneracy between parameters. Though many models sort of fit, their concentrations are implausibly low for ${\mbox{{{\usefont{U}{psy}{m}{n}L}}}}$CDM. []{data-label="fig3"}](mcgaughF3.eps){width=".9\textwidth"}
Matters are made worse by the general failure of the NFW form to provide a good description of the data. The data just don’t look like NFW halos. Statistically, halos with constant density cores are almost always preferred over those with cusps [@BMR]. This is most clear in the best resolved cases [@BMBR].
The most important systematic concern at this point is not observational. Resolution has improved by an order of magnitude [@SMT], [@MRB], [@BB] over the original 21 cm data for LSB galaxies [@vdH], [@BMH]. The NFW shape has not become apparent as the data have improved. Instead, the systematics pointed out by [@MB98a],[@MB98b] as problematic for CDM (independent of the cusp issue) have only become more clear. Concern over slit mispositioning [@Swat] are misplaced: independent observers reproduce one anothers’ results [@MRB],[@BB]. While there are certainly cases in which the error bars are large enough to allow an NFW fit, isothermal fits are inevitably better. Simply changing the size of the error bars won’t change this: a systematic change in the shapes of $\sim 50$ high resolution rotation curves is required. One can certainly imagine ways in which this might happen [@Swat], but it is extremely unlikely that any of these ideas apply to real data, let alone to **all** of the data from various independent sources.
The most serious issue is in the mass models: stars have mass. Even in the limit of zero stellar mass, which is the most favorable to the NFW case, isothermal halos are statistically preferred [@BMR],[@BB]. The situation only becomes more grim if stars are allowed to have mass. Though LSB galaxies are dark matter dominated down to small radii, plausible ${\cal M}_*/L$ models do require that [*some*]{} of the velocity be attributed to luminous mass. This pulls the inferred dark matter distribution further away from the expected cusp slope.
We are hardly unique in reaching these conclusions, which are shared by **all** published analyses of high resolution long slit H$\alpha$ data [@BS],[@CCF],[@BB],[@BMBR],[@BMR],[@dong],[@Sal]. High resolution Fabry-Perot [@BAC],[@Ben],[@PP] and CO [@BSLB] data are also inconsistent with cuspy halos, as are a variety of data for the Milky Way itself [@BE]. The only analyses which are favorable to NFW are those of low resolution data with large error bars [@BRDB],[@vdBS]. When the error bars are large, any model can be driven through them. Though it has not been emphasized, constant density cores provide as good or better fits even in these cases.
The isothermal halo form, while effective, is an extremely flexible fitting function which lacks the motivation of the NFW halo form. So one might persists that the NFW fits are still more appropriate in that they can be related to cosmology. Standard ${\mbox{{{\usefont{U}{psy}{m}{n}L}}}}$CDM makes a clear prediction [@NFW] for what the concentrations of dark matter halos should be: $c = 9$ for $\Omega_m h = 0.2$. Scatter about this value should be modest — the largest estimate [@Bullock] finds a lognormal distribution with $\sigma_c = 0.18$. The median observed concentration is $c = 6.4$ [@BMR] which is different from the standard ${\mbox{{{\usefont{U}{psy}{m}{n}L}}}}$CDM prediction by many $\sigma$. The problem with NFW halos is not just a matter of getting fits to individual galaxies, but also of understanding how the observed concentrations can be so low. These low concentrations would be tolerable in a very low density universe with $\Omega_m h \approx 0.12$ [@MBB]. Even then there exists a significant tail of very low concentration ($c < 4$) galaxies which simply should not exist for any plausible cosmology.
The debate over halo profiles, while contentious, misses the real point. Many halo profiles are nominally viable because they have lots of degenerate free parameters. Mass modeling is a bit like fitting a high order polynomial to a few data points: the line goes through the data, but means nothing. One would prefer to have a minimal parameter description of the data. Such a prescription exists [@IAP]. It has long been noted that there is a strong coupling between mass and light.[^2] Oddly, this coupling persists for dark matter dominated LSB galaxies. One needs only a single parameter per galaxy, the stellar mass-to-light ratio, in order to fit the rotation curve in comparable or greater detail than can be matched by many-parameter halo models. The mass-to-light ratio in the $K$-band is close enough to constant that one can make a good zero parameter prediction with such data [@SV]. Until we come to terms with this observed phenomenology, debating the cusp slope of dark matter halos is rather akin to debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.\
**Acknowledgements:** I am most grateful to Vera Rubin, Erwin de Blok, and Albert Bosma for their work on the issues discussed here. I would also like to thank Renzo Sancisi, Marc Verheijen, Rob Swaters, and Frank van den Bosch for many lively and stimulating conversations. No doubt, I have yet to hear the end of it! The work of SSM is supported in part by NSF grant AST9901663.
[39.]{}
D.R. Andersen, M.A. Bershady, L.S. Sparke, J.S. Gallagher, E.M. Wilcots: ApJ, **551**, L131 (2001)
E.F. Bell, R.S. de Jong: ApJ **550**, 212 (2001)
J.J. Binney, N.W. Evans: MNRAS, submitted (2002)
S. Blais-Ouellette, P. Amram, C. Carignan: AJ **121**, 1952 (2001)
A.D. Bolatto, J.D. Simon, A. Leroy, L. Blitz: ApJ in press (2002)
A. Borriello, P. Salucci: MNRAS **323**, 285 (2001)
J.S. Bullock, T.S. Kolatt, Y. Sigad, R.S. Somerville, A.V. Kravtsov, A.A. Klypin, J.R. Primack, A. Dekel: MNRAS **321**, 559 (2001)
S. Côté, C. Carignan, K.C. Freeman: AJ **120**, 3027 (2000)
W.J.G. de Blok, A. Bosma: A&A submitted (2002)
W.J.G. de Blok, S.S. McGaugh, A. Bosma, V.C. Rubin: ApJ **552**, L23 (2001)
W.J.G. de Blok, S.S. McGaugh, V.C. Rubin: AJ **122**, 2396 (2001)
W.J.G. de Blok, S.S. McGaugh, J.M. van der Hulst: MNRAS **283**, 18 (1996)
E. D’Onghia, these proceedings
W.L. Freedman et al.: ApJ **553**, 47 (2001)
K.C. Freeman: ‘Historical Introduction’. In: [*The Low Surface Brightness Universe, IAU Colloquium 171*]{}, ed. J.I. Davies, C. Impey, S. Phillipps (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco 1999) pp. 3-8
S.S. McGaugh: ‘Dynamical Constraints on Disk Galaxy Formation’. In: [*Galaxy Dynamics: from the Early Universe to the Present*]{}, ed. F. Combes, G.A. Mamon, V. Charmandaris (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco 2000) pp. 153-160
S.S. McGaugh, M.K. Barker, W.J.G. de Blok: ApJ, submitted (2002)
S.S. McGaugh, W.J.G. de Blok: ApJ, **499**, 41 (1998)
S.S. McGaugh, W.J.G. de Blok: ApJ, **499**, 66 (1998)
S.S. McGaugh, V.C. Rubin, W.J.G. de Blok: AJ **122**, 2381 (2001)
S.S. McGaugh, J.M. Schombert, G.D. Bothun, W.J.G. de Blok: ApJ **533**, L99 (2000)
L.D. Matthews, W. van Driel, J.S. Gallagher 1998: AJ **116**, 1169
B. Moore, T. Quinn, F. Governato, J. Stadel, G. Lake: MNRAS **310**, 1147 (1999)
J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk, S.D.M. White: ApJ **490**, 493 (1997)
P. Palunas, T.B. Williams: AJ **120**, 2884 (2000)
P. Salucci: MNRAS **320**, L1 (2001)
R.H. Sanders, S.S. McGaugh: ARA&A in press (2002)
R.H. Sanders, M.A.W. Verheijen: ApJ **503**, 97 (1998)
J.M. Stil: PhD Thesis, Leiden University (1999)
R.A. Swaters, these proceedings
R.A. Swaters, B.F. Madore, M Trewhella: ApJ **531**, L107
R.B. Tully, J.R. Fisher: A&A **54**, 661 (1977)
R.B. Tully, M.A.W. Verheijen, M.J. Pierce, J. Huang, R.J. Wainscoat: AJ **112**, 2471 (1996)
F.C. van den Bosch, B.E. Robertson, J.J. Dalcanton, W.J.G. de Blok: AJ, 119, 1579 (2000)
F.C. van den Bosch, R.A. Swaters: MNRAS **325**, 1017 (2001)
J.M. van der Hulst, E.D. Skillman, T.R. Smith, G.D. Bothun, S.S. McGaugh, W.J.G. de Blok: AJ **106**, 548 (1993)
M.A.W. Verheijen: PhD thesis, University of Groningen (1997)
M.A.W. Verheijen, R. Sancisi: A&A **370**, 765 (2001)
B.J. Weiner, J.A. Sellwood, T.B. Williams: ApJ **546**, 931 (2001)
[^1]: “Stacy, you’re a genius! ...\[!\] ...when it comes to pepper grinders” (van den Bosch 2001, private communication).
[^2]: Renzo’s Rule: when you see a feature in the light, you see a corresponding feature in the rotation curve.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
[^1]\
Author affiliation\
E-mail:
title: Contribution title
---
...
===
[99]{} ....
[^1]: A footnote may follow.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Inspired by recent experiments and simulations on pattern formation in biomolecules by optical tweezers, a theoretical description based on the reference interaction site model (RISM) is developed to calculate the equilibrium density profiles of small polyelectrolytes in an external potential. The formalism is applied to the specific case of a finite number of Gaussian and rodlike polyelectrolytes trapped in a harmonic potential. The density profiles of the polyelectrolytes are studied over a range of lengths and numbers of polyelectrolytes in the trap, and the strength of the trap potential. For smaller polymers we recover the results for point charges. In the mean field limit the longer polymers, unlike point charges, form a shell at the boundary layer. When the interpolymer correlations are included, the density profiles of the polymers show sharp shells even at weaker trap strengths. The implications of these results are discussed.'
author:
- Sandipan Dutta
- 'and Y.S. Jho'
bibliography:
- 'trap.bib'
title: 'Shell formation in short like-charged polyelectrolytes in a harmonic trap'
---
Introduction
============
Optical tweezers are excellent tools to trap and manipulate colloidal particles [@weiss1999fluorescence]. Focusing an intense laser beam into a colloidal solution of nanoparticles [@fujii2011fabrication; @fu2014einstein; @park2014surface; @kim2011self] or polymers [@yoshikawa2012single; @nabetani2007effects; @nie2008patterning] generates a field gradient which can cause their aggregation. Due to this capability, it serves as a principal technique for controlled two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) pattern formations in biomolecules which has applications in optical sorting of biological systems, cells micromachines, and manipulation of biopolymers [@zhang2009self; @PhysRevA.73.031402; @fazal2011optical; @xavier2012controlled]. In recent experiments the polymers have been deposited on a 2D substrate by laser beams [@ito2001optical; @yoshikawa2012single]. The formation of microstructures in flexible biomolecules on metallic nanostructures has provided a mech- anism for their application in the development of biosensors [@jp305247a; @shoji2013permanent]. These biopolymers form ring structures under the laser radiation forces. Such kinds of pattern formations have also been observed in trapped liquid crystals [@murazawa2006laser; @brasselet2008statics; @jeong2014chiral; @jeong2015chiral] and in point-particle plasmas [@drewsen1998large; @arp2004dust; @PhysRevLett.96.075001; @PhysRevLett.93.165004; @Arp2005]. The pattern formations in the trapped systems are often a result of competing effects of the repulsive interactions, such as electrostatic or hydrophobic interactions and the trap potential, causing reversible phase transitions in polymer gels [@juodkazis2000reversible] or the shell structure in plasmas. Many biomolecules, for instance, the rodlike virus or liquid crystals or the helical DNA or RNA molecules, have finite sizes and their geometries play a critical role in the formation of these patterns [@jeong2014chiral; @jeong2015chiral; @zhang2009self; @PhysRevA.73.031402; @fazal2011optical]. It is very important to understand how the finite-sized particles behave in the trapping potential of the optical tweezers. While the theoretical and simulation studies on trapped point-charges are extensive [@wrighton2009theoretical; @bruhn2011theoretical; @wrighton2010shell; @koulakov1998charging; @bedanov1994ordering; @kong2003structural; @drocco2003structure; @apolinario2008multiple; @schweigert1995spectral], very few theories exist for finite-sized charges in traps. The objective of this work is to theoretically study the distribution of charged polymers in a trap potential to understand the underlying mechanisms of the structure formation in charged biomolecules. In many colloidal and plasma systems, the pattern formation is due to the presence of some short-ranged attractive forces in the system [@liu2006simulation; @euan2015structural; @rice2009structure; @campos2013structural; @nelissen2005bubble; @liu2008self; @evers2013colloids]. Here we show that the pattern formations can occur even in the absence of the attractive interactions, primarily due to the competing effects of the trap and the electrostatic repulsions.
In many optical traps the trapping potential can be well approximated by a harmonic well [@florin1998photonic; @roichman2008influence]; hence in this work we specialize to the case of harmonic traps. Wrighton et al. have developed a theory, based on classical density functional theory (DFT) and hypernetted chain approximation (HNC), to study the shell formation in a system of finite number of point charges in a harmonic trap [@wrighton2009theoretical; @bruhn2011theoretical; @wrighton2010shell]. They found that strong correlations are essential to the formation of shells they successfully predict the location, number, and filling of the shells. The extension of their theory to polymers is not straightforward because of the additional orientational degrees of freedom, constraints of connectivity, and finite size of the polymers. Additionally, in the case of polymers, due to their finite sizes, intrapolymer correlations have to be taken into account together with the interpolymer correlations. The reference interaction site model (RISM) by Chandler et al. provides a tool to calculate the density profile of the polymers in the presence of an external potential and include both kinds of correlations [@chandler1986density1; @chandler1986density2]. In this formalism the equilibrium density at each site of a polymer is a functional of the external potential and correlations at that site. This approach, however, is not very convenient, as a coupled set of nonlinear equations corresponding to each site needs to be solved to obtain the density profile at each site. For uniform polymer systems, Schweizer and Curro [@curro1987theory; @schweizer1987integral; @schweizer1994prism] have developed a theory by averaging over the sites of the polymers, popularly known as the polymer reference interaction site model (PRISM). The PRISM theory has been successfully applied to a variety of polymer systems, including polymer crystallization, symmetric as well as asymmetric polymer blends, and block copolymers. In the spirit of the PRISM formalism, we compute the average equilibrium polymer density in nonuniform systems by replacing the site quantities by their corresponding site averages. This vastly reduces the complexity of the problem of solving matrix equations in the RISM formalism. As a result of this we obtain a single equation for the site-averaged density of the polymers as a function of the site-averaged correlations and external potential.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[Sec1\] we phenomenologically derive an integral equation for the equilibrium site-averaged density of polymer in an external potential based on the RISM formalism. From this equation we obtain a closure relation to the PRISM equation similar to the one obtained by Laria, Wu, and Chandler (LWC) for the pair correlation functions [@laria1991reference], which is the molecular equivalent of the HNC equation. In the limit of small polymer length we recover the HNC equation for the point-particle density. We apply our formalism to the specific case of finite number of polyelectrolytes trapped in a harmonic potential. We derive the density profiles of Gaussian polyelectrolytes in the mean field approximation in Sec. \[Sec2\]. The polymer-polymer correlations are calculated using the LWC and PRISM equations in Sec. \[Sec3\]. We go beyond the mean field approximation and obtain the monomer densities with the full many-body correlations. The dependence of the correlated densities on the geometry of the polyelectrolytes and the strength of the trap potential are worked out. In Sec. \[Sec4\] we briefly look into the density profiles of rodlike polyelectrolytes and compare them with the Gaussian polyelectrolytes to investigate dependence of the shell formation on the polymer model. We discuss the limitations of the averaging procedure and the range of validity of our model in Sec. \[Sec5\].
The Formalism {#Sec1}
=============
Consider a system of $N$ polyelectrolytes each consisting of $L$ monomers. Each monomer has a length $\sigma$ and charge $q$. For simplicity we assume the hard core diameter of the polymers equals the monomer length $\sigma$. Thus the length and charge of each polymer would be $L\sigma$ and $Lq$ respectively. The polymers are confined by a harmonic potential of the form $\phi(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{2}Kr^2$. The schematic diagram of the system is shown in Fig \[Fig1.1\]. The Coulomb interaction potential is given by $V(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert) = 1/
\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert$. The coordinate of the polymers at the segment $s$ is parameterized by a field $\mathbf{x}(s)$. The Hamiltonian of the system reads $$H = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \int_{0}^{L}ds\phi(\mathbf{x}_i(s)) + \frac{q^2}{2\epsilon}\sum_{i\neq j}\int_0^L ds \int_0^Lds^{\prime}
V(\vert\mathbf{x}_i(s)-\mathbf{x}_j(s')\vert),
\label{eq1.1}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the dielectric constant of the medium. The average inter-monomer distance $r_0$ is related to the average monomer density $\bar{\rho}$ by $\frac{4\pi}{3}r_0^3\bar{\rho} = 1$. If $R$ is the size of the trap (the position of the outermost polymer in the trap), then the average monomer density is given by $\bar{\rho} = \frac{NL}{\frac{4\pi}{3}R^3}$. $R$ can be approximately obtained from a force balance condition or finding the position of the outermost polymer such that the average forces on it would be zero, $\frac{1}{\epsilon R^2}q^2LN = KR $ [@wrighton2009theoretical]. We define the dimensionless distance by $\mathbf{r}^{\ast} = \mathbf{r}/r_0$ and the dimensionless polymer segment field by $\mathbf{x}^{\ast}(s) = \mathbf{x}(s)/r_0$. The dimensionless monomer length is defined in a similar way, $\sigma^{\ast} = \sigma/r_0$. The dimensionless total potential becomes $$\beta V = \frac{\Gamma}{2}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{L}ds{x_i^{\ast}}^2(s) + \sum_{i\neq j}^{N}
\int_{0}^{L}ds\int_{0}^{L}d{s^{\prime}}\frac{1}{\vert\mathbf{x}_i^{\ast}(s)
- \mathbf{x}_j^{\ast}({s^{\prime}})\vert}\right],
\label{eq1.2}$$ where the inverse thermal energy is $\beta = 1/k_BT$ and $\Gamma = \beta q^2/\epsilon r_0$ is the strength of the Coulomb interactions among two monomers. The thermodynamic parameter $\Gamma$ measures the strength of the Coulomb potential between the monomers relative to the kinetic or thermal energy $k_BT$. For a given trap strength $K$, if some polymers are dropped into the trap they would come to equilibrium such that the electrostatic repulsions are balanced by the trap potential. Since $\Gamma$ is determined by the average inter-monomer distance which is obtained from the force balance condition, $K$ and $\Gamma$ are not independent. In fact they are same in the special case when the distances are scaled with respect to $r_0$ and the trap is harmonic as we see in equation . From now on we use $\Gamma$ for the strength of the trap.
We relate the potential to the density of the polymers through the reference interaction site model developed by Chandler *et al* [@chandler1986density2]. In the rest of the discussions we use only the dimensionless quantities and to keep their notations simple we drop $\ast$. The density at site $\alpha$, $\rho_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})$ can be expressed in terms of the intra-molecular pair correlation function $\omega_{\alpha\beta}(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)$, the local chemical potential $\psi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) = \mu_{\alpha} - \phi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})$ and the direct correlation function $c_{\alpha\beta}(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)$ (note we use the direct correlation function of an uniform system for simplicity) $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) = \prod\limits_{\gamma\neq\alpha}\omega_{\alpha\gamma}*\exp(f_{\gamma}),
\label{eq1.3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$f_{\gamma} = \psi_{\gamma} + \sum_{\eta}c_{\gamma\eta}*\rho_{\eta}.
\label{eq1.35}$$ We use the symbol $\ast$ for the convolution operation $p * q = \int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}p(\mathbf{r})q(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}
^{\prime}\vert)$ and have dropped the position dependence to keep notations simple. Like the PRISM theory [@curro1987theory; @schweizer1994prism] we replace the quantities at each site by the corresponding site averaged quantity. This simplifies the algebra of equation considerably. Summing over the index $\alpha$ and replacing $\omega_{\alpha\gamma}$ by $\omega = \frac{1}{L}\sum_{\alpha\gamma}\omega_{\alpha\gamma}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\rho & = \sum_{\alpha}\rho_{\alpha} \approx \prod\limits_{\gamma}\omega*\exp(f_{\gamma}).
\label{eq1.4}\end{aligned}$$ Chandler proposed an additional convolution on RHS of equation with the single polymer site-site pair correlations $\omega_{\alpha\beta}$ for polyatomic systems. Here we convolute with the site-averaged pair correlations instead [@chandler1986density2] $$\begin{aligned}
\ln\rho & \approx \sum_{\gamma}\ln\left(\omega*\exp(f_{\gamma})*\omega/L\right).
\label{eq1.5}\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the exponential on RHS of the above equation and keeping till the first order term we get $$\begin{aligned}
\ln\rho & \approx \sum_{\gamma}\ln\left( 1 + \omega*f_{\gamma}*\omega/L\right) \nonumber\\
& \approx \omega*\sum_{\gamma}f_{\gamma}*\omega/L \nonumber \\
& = \omega*f*\omega/L.
\label{eq1.6}\end{aligned}$$ In the first step of the derivation we have used of the identity $\int d\mathbf{r}\omega(\mathbf{r}) = 1$. Using the explicit form of $f$ in equation the final expression of the equilibrium density becomes $$\ln\rho = \omega*\psi*\omega + \omega*c*\rho*\omega/L,
\label{eq1.7}$$ where $\psi = \sum_{\alpha}\psi_{\alpha}$ and $\rho = \sum_{\alpha}\rho_{\alpha}$. When one of the polymers is fixed at the origin, it would act as a source of the external potential. In this case $\psi(r) = V(r)$ and the density in equation becomes the pair correlations $\rho(r) = \bar{\rho}g(r)$ [@hansen1990theory]
$$\ln g = \omega*(-\beta V)*\omega + \bar{\rho}\omega*c*(g-1)*\omega.
\label{eq1.8}$$
Using the PRISM equation [@schweizer1994prism] $$g - 1 = \omega * c * \omega + \bar{\rho}\omega * c * (g - 1),
\label{eq1.85}$$ we see that equation is identical to the HNC formalism of Laria, Wu, and Chandler (LWC) [@laria1991reference] for molecular systems, except for an extra convolution of $\omega$ in the second term on the RHS. If we put the distance dependence in equation we get the relation between the monomer density and the external potential $$\begin{aligned}
\ln\left(\rho(\mathbf{r})\lambda^3/z\right) = -\int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)\beta\phi(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\vert)
\omega(r^{\prime\prime}) + \int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime\prime}&\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)
c(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\vert)\times\nonumber\\&\rho(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime\prime}\vert)
\omega(r^{\prime\prime\prime})/L,
\label{eq1.9}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda = \sqrt{h^2/2\pi mk_BT}$ is the thermal wavelength and $z$ is the fugacity of the system. The direct correlation function $c(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)$ in the above equation is calculated using the LWC equation [@laria1991reference] $$\begin{aligned}
\ln g(r) = -\int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)\beta V(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}
\vert)\omega(r^{\prime\prime}) + h(r) -\int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)c(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\vert)
\omega(r^{\prime\prime}),
\label{eq1.10}\end{aligned}$$ and the PRISM equation $$g(r) - 1 = \int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)c(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\vert)
\omega(r^{\prime\prime}) + \int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)c(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\vert)
\bar{\rho}h(r^{\prime\prime}),
\label{eq1.11}$$ where $\bar{\rho} = \frac{1}{V_0}\int d\mathbf{r}\rho(\mathbf{r})$ and $h(r) = g(r) -1$. $V_0$ is the volume of the trap.
We can get rid of the unknown fugacity $z$ on LHS of equation by imposing the constraint that there are $N$ polymers on average in the system $$\int d\mathbf{r}\rho(\mathbf{r}) = NL.
\label{eq1.12}$$ This gives $$\rho(\mathbf{r}) = NL\frac{\exp(-\Gamma U(r))}{\int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\exp(-\Gamma U(r^{\prime}))},
\label{eq1.13}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
U(r,\Gamma,N) & = \int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)\phi(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime}
-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\vert)\omega(r^{\prime\prime}) + \frac{N}{\int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\exp(-\Gamma U(r^{\prime}))}\int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}
d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime\prime}\times\nonumber\\&\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)
\bar{c}(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\vert)\exp(-\Gamma U(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime\prime}\vert))
\omega(r^{\prime\prime\prime}),
\label{eq1.14}
\end{aligned}$$ with the notation $\bar{c}(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert) = -c(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)/\Gamma$.
In the rest of the Sections we demonstrate the above formalism by applying it to the case of Gaussian and rod-like polyelectrolytes in harmonic traps. In the small polymer limit we make connections to the point particle results obtained by Wrighton *et al.* [@wrighton2009theoretical]. We compare our findings with the existing literature on the pattern formation in colloidal systems.
Gaussian polyelectrolytes: Mean field approximation {#Sec2}
===================================================
In this Section we focus on the Gaussian polyelectrolytes trapped in a harmonic potential with mean field interactions among the polymers. We calculate their density profiles from equation and investigate their dependence on the geometry of the polymers as well as the strength of the trap (Coulomb coupling parameter) $\Gamma$ (or the inverse temperature). In the mean field approximation the direct correlation function in equation is replaced by the bare interaction potential $-\Gamma/r$ $$\begin{aligned}
U(r,\Gamma,N) & = \frac{1}{2}\int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime}
-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}\vert^2\omega(r^{\prime\prime}) + \frac{N}{\int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\exp(-\Gamma U(r^{\prime}))}\int d\mathbf{r}^{\prime}
d\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime\prime}\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert) \times\nonumber\\&
\biggl[\frac{1}{ r^{\prime}}\int_0^{r^{\prime}}dr^{\prime\prime}{r^{\prime\prime}}^2
\exp(-\Gamma U(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime\prime}\vert))\omega(r^{\prime\prime\prime})+
\int_{r^{\prime}}^Rdr^{\prime\prime}r^{\prime\prime}
\exp(-\Gamma U(\vert\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime\prime}\vert))\omega(r^{\prime\prime\prime})\biggr].
\label{eq2.1}
\end{aligned}$$ In the limit of point particles, $\omega(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert) = \delta(\vert\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\vert)$, we recover the point particle mean field equation of Wrighton *et al.* [@wrighton2009theoretical].
For Gaussian polymers the single chain structure factor $\hat{\omega}(\mathbf{k})$ in equations and is given by $$\hat{\omega}(\mathbf{k}) = \left(1-f^2-2f/L+2f^{L+1}/L\right)/\left(1-f\right)^2,
\label{eq2.2}$$ where $f = \exp(-k^2\sigma^2/6)$ [@schweizer1994prism]. The recursive integral equation for $U(r)$ is solved iteratively using the Picard’s method [@hansen1990theory] and using equation we obtain the density. In Figure \[Fig2.1\]-(a) we plot the monomer densities for the polymers of length $L = 8$ for different strengths of the interactions $\Gamma$. The dimensionless average monomer density is defined as $\bar{\rho}r_0^3 = 3/4\pi = 0.239$. In Figure \[Fig2.1\] we see that the polymers close to the center of the trap have a uniform density of $0.239$, while the outermost polymers form a shell which gets sharper with increasing $\Gamma$. Thus on increasing $\Gamma$ which maybe due to the decrease in the temperature of the system or the increase in the polymer charges, the polymers at the boundary would crystallize while the polymers at the center of the trap would still remain in a fluid state. Though the sharpness of the shells increases no new shells are formed. Unlike polymers, the density profile of point-particles is monotonically decreasing and no shells are formed for any value of $\Gamma$. The differences between the two cases can be understood from the fact that the point particles do not have any internal structure and in the mean field limit we do not get any shells. For polymers even through the inter-polymer correlations are neglected in the mean field, the stronger fluctuations within the polymer represented by $\omega(\mathbf{r})$ in equation cause the formation of shells for longer polymers at couplings $\Gamma \sim 8$ as shown in Figure \[Fig2.1\]-(b). In the other words the shells appear for the longer polymers when the Coulomb or trap energy is approximately $8$ times stronger the thermal energy. The plot clearly shows that for small polymers we recover the point particle limit. Increasing the length of the polymers at a fixed $\Gamma = 8$ makes the outermost shell sharper, hence it is easier for them to crystallize. From Figure \[Fig2.2\]-(a) we see that on increasing the number of polyelectrolytes the outermost shell moves outward. The added polymers move to the inner fluid layer instead of populating the outermost shell or forming any new shells. Figure \[Fig2.2\]-(b) depicts that thicker polymers or polymers with longer monomer lengths move inward because of having lower surface charge density and thus less electrostatic repulsions. When either the electrostatic interactions or the trap is strong, the mean field approximation which is valid at weak coupling strength, breaks down. In that case the inter-polymer correlations play an important role in their shell structure and can no longer be neglected.
Gaussian polyelectrolytes: Beyond mean field {#Sec3}
============================================
In this Section we explicitly consider the inter-polymer correlations and study their effects on the shell structure of Gaussian polymers. We solve for the direct correlation function self-consistently from the LWC equation and the PRISM equation by following the procedure outlined by Shew and Yethiraj [@shew1997integral]. The pair correlation functions in Figure \[Fig3.0\] clearly portray that the longer polymers are more strongly correlated as seen from the peaks in the correlation functions. The direct correlation function is then plugged into equation to obtain the effect potential $U(r)$ and from equation the complete density profile. Again Picard’s algorithm is used to compute $U(r)$ in equation . The convergence of the numerical computations becomes increasingly slow for longer polymers and at large values of $\Gamma$. In that case mixing of different solutions produces faster convergence [@hansen1990theory].
Figures \[Fig3.1\]-(a) and \[Fig3.1\]-(b) show that after taking into account the inter-polymer correlations, sharp shells can occur at lower $\Gamma$ or smaller lengths of the polymers. In Figure \[Fig3.1\]-(a) we see that on increasing the trap strength $\Gamma$ the shells become sharper, the trend we obtained earlier in the mean field case. In the experiments and simulations on trapped colloidal systems, the strength of the trap is the primary controlling parameter. Increasing the strength of the trap leads to the formation of sharper shells [@rice2009structure; @euan2015structural; @wrighton2009theoretical]. In this work $\Gamma$ measures the strength of the trap (as well as the Coulomb coupling) and thus our observations from Figure \[Fig3.1\]-(a) qualitatively agrees with these experimental and simulation results. As the shells become sharper and their overlap becomes zero, it becomes more and more difficult for the polymers to move from one shell to another. Thus the system is effective frozen in the radial direction but is in a fluid phase within each shell as concluded in References [@euan2015structural; @wrighton2009theoretical; @bruhn2011theoretical]. At still higher $\Gamma$ the system crystallizes and the liquid state theories are no longer valid.
Figure \[Fig3.1\]-(b) shows that while the shorter polymers essentially behave like point particles with no shells at moderate $\Gamma$’s, the longer polymers by virtue of being more strongly correlated produce sharp shells at such couplings. While in the mean field increasing the number of polymers in the trap does not produce any new structure, for the correlated case the behavior is different. New shells appear as the number of polymers in the trap increases as depicted in Figure \[Fig3.2\]. The new shells start forming at the origin and the outermost shell moves outward to accommodate the newer ones similar to the point particle case [@wrighton2009theoretical]. For the point particles however the shells start forming at large $\Gamma \ge 10$ values [@wrighton2009theoretical], whereas for longer polymers shells form as low as $\Gamma = 2$. Figure \[Fig3.2\] also shows the dependence of the density structure on the diameter (or monomer length) of the polymers. For thicker polymers the sharpness of the shells decreases slightly, although the effect of the variation of the polymer diameter is less pronounced after including the correlations.
Rod-like polyelectrolytes {#Sec4}
=========================
In this Section we look at rigid rod-like polymers which is the opposite limit to the flexibility of the Gaussian polymers we studied in the earlier Sections. For rod-like polymers the single chain structure factor $\hat{\omega}(\mathbf{k})$ in equations and is given by [@shew1997integral] $$\hat{\omega}(\mathbf{k}) = 1 + \frac{2}{L}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{L-1}(L-j)\frac{\sin jk\sigma}{jk\sigma}.
\label{eq4.1}$$ The mean field densities for the rods show a sharper outermost shell than the Gaussian polymers in Figure \[Fig4.1\]. This is due to the stronger correlations in the rods than the Gaussian polymers which result in their having sharper outermost shells. Figures \[Fig4.2\] and \[Fig4.3\] on the correlated densities show that the shells of rod-like polymers are sharper and are shifted outward than the Gaussian polymers. The rigidity causes strong repulsions among the rods compared to the Gaussian polymers and they move outward to minimize the repulsions. On changing the parameters $\Gamma$ and $L$ in Figures \[Fig4.2\]-(a) and \[Fig4.2\]-(b) the rod-like polymers qualitatively behave in the same way as Gaussian chains. However the correlated densities of rods in Figure \[Fig4.3\] have a strong dependence on the diameter of the rods (or monomer length) than the Gaussian polymers in Figure \[Fig3.2\]. This is again due to the rigidity of the rods a decrease in the charge density due to the increase in the diameter (or monomer lengths) have a stronger effect on the correlated densities.
Conclusions and discussions {#Sec5}
===========================
We presented a theoretical description of polymer systems in an external potential. We phenomenologically developed our theory for polymer systems in an external potential based on the RISM formalism of Chandler *et al.* [@chandler1986density1; @chandler1986density2] and obtained an integral equation for the equilibrium density. Unlike most polymer field theoretic approaches where most of the computations are done in mean field, this theory goes beyond mean field and incorporates correlations though the LWC and PRISM formalisms. We also looked at the specific case of the Gaussian and rod-like polymers trapped in a harmonic potential. In the small polymer limit we obtain the point particle results of Wrighton [@wrighton2009theoretical]. The density profiles both in the mean field approximation and beyond mean field are explored for different geometries of the polymers and the strength of the trap potential. This work is effectively a generalization of the formalism developed by Wrighton *et al.* [@wrighton2009theoretical; @bruhn2011theoretical] for trapped point charge systems to trapped polyelectrolyte systems.
This formalism would provide a useful description for the micro-structures that form in polymer colloids confined in optical traps. In recent years structural transitions in trapped colloids as well as plasmas have attracted the attention of experimentalists as well as theorists [@liu2006simulation; @euan2015structural; @rice2009structure; @campos2013structural; @nelissen2005bubble; @liu2008self]. The colloidal and dusty plasmas have been found to form shell structures in 3D and rings in 2D similar to the predictions by our model. At strong trap strength we get sharp shells where the inter-shell transitions do not occur while the polymers inside each shell remain in a fluid phase as was concluded in Reference [@euan2015structural; @rice2009structure]. In most of these studies the presence of an attractive potential or multiple species causes the formation of additional structures. Including attractive interactions in our model would enable us to explain the self-assembly of trapped colloids and these new phases. The studies on structural transitions of colloidal systems in traps have considered spherical particles and are simpler than the biomolecules for which we constructed our theory because of their complex geometries and additional length scales. Most experimental studies focus on trapping of single molecules. Although trapping of multiple charged molecules can done through a technique called optical bottle [@junio2010optical; @park2014surface], the analysis of the pattern formations like the one in this work have not been done yet, to the best of the authors’ knowledge. Simulations and experiments on pattern formations on charged biomolecules would provide important test for the many-body theories as the one developed here.
Since the theory is based on the averaging over polymer sites for inhomogeneous polymer systems, it would describe the smaller polymers more accurately. For short polymers, however, the end effects become important and the averaging process would run into problems. The problem with the averaging related to the effects of the end points would not arise in ring polymers. For longer polymers the computations of the correlations become increasing difficult. The equation for the density has been derived through linearization, which would be valid for weak to moderate couplings. Simulations have to be performed to check the accuracy of the model at strong coupling. Most real life systems are better described by semiflexible polymers of which the Gaussian and the rodlike polymers are special cases. The semiflexible polymers, however, have an additional directional degree of freedom which adds to the complexity of the problems. We will tackle these problems in a subsequent paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
==============
This research was supported by Basic Science Re- search Program through the National Research Founda- tion of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Edu- cation (Grants No. NRF2015R1D1A1A09061345 and No. NRFC1ABA00120110029960).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Johan Kåhrström
title: |
Tensoring with infinite-dimensional\
modules in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}_0$
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
When studying the category ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ for a semisimple Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}g$, tensoring with finite dimensional ${\mathfrak}g$-modules gives rise to a class of functors of high importance, the so called projective functors. These functors were classified in [@bg] and include the “translation functors”, [@jantzen], which can be used to prove equivalences of certain subcategories of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$.
In the following we study tensoring with arbitrary (not necessarily finite dimensional) modules in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$. There is an immediate obstacle, namely the fact that, in general, the result is no longer finitely generated (in other words, such functors do not preserve ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$). This can be remedied by projecting onto a fixed block of the category ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$. In particular, by composing with projection to the principal block ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, we obtain a faithful, exact functor $G\colon M\mapsto G_M{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}M\otimes{\underline{\phantom{J}}}{\delimiter"6223379}_0$ from ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ to the category $\operatorname{End}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$ of endofunctors on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$. By, defining $F_M$ and $H_M$ to be the left and right adjoints of $G_M$, we obtain a right exact contravariant functor $F\colon M\mapsto F_M$ and a left exact contravariant functor $H\colon M\mapsto H_M$ from ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ to $\operatorname{End}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$.
In Section \[sec:notation\] we introduce the required notions and notation, and provide a setting for studying the tensor product of arbitrary modules in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$. In Section \[sec:main\] we define the three functors, and determine some of their properties. The main properties are given by Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\], which shows that $F_M$ preserves projectives, $G_M$ preserves tilting modules, and $H_M$ preserves injectives, for any $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$. In Section \[sec:comonad\] we show that the particular functors $G_{\Delta(0)}$ and $G_{\nabla(0)}$ have natural comonad and monad structures, respectively. In Section \[sec:parabolic\] we show how the results from the previous section generalize to parabolic subcategories of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$. Finally, in Section \[sec:example\] we compute the ‘multiplication tables’ $G_{M}N$ and $F_{M}N$ for the case ${\mathfrak}g={\mathfrak}{sl}_3({\mathbb{C}})$, where $M$ and $N$ run over the simple modules in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} This paper develops some ideas of S. Ovsienko and V. Mazorchuk. The author thanks V. Mazorchuk for his many comments and suggestions.
Notation and preliminaries {#sec:notation}
==========================
For any Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}a$, we let ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}a)}$ denote its universal enveloping algebra. Fix ${\mathfrak}g$ to be a finite dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra, with a chosen triangular decomposition ${\mathfrak}g = {\mathfrak}n_-\oplus {\mathfrak}h\oplus {\mathfrak}n_+$, let ${\mathfrak}b = {\mathfrak}h\oplus {\mathfrak}n_+$ denote the Borel subalgebra, and let ${R}$ denote the corresponding root system, with positive roots ${R}_+$, negative roots ${R}_-$, and basis ${\Pi}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}$ denote the corresponding BGG-category (see [@bgg] for details), which can be defined as the full subcategory of the category of ${\mathfrak}g$-modules consisting of weight modules that are finitely generated as ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-modules
For a weight module $M$, we denote by $M_\lambda$ the subspace of $M$ of weight $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$, and by $\operatorname{Supp}M{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\{\,\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*\,\vert\,M_\lambda\neq{\ensuremath{\left\{0\right\}}}\,\}$ the support of $M$. For a weight vector $v\in M$, we denote by $\operatorname{w}(v)$ the weight of $v$, i.e. $v\in M_{\operatorname{w}(v)}$. Let ${\mathbb{N}}_0$ denote the non-negative integers, and let $\leqslant$ denote the natural partial order on ${\mathfrak}h^*$, i.e. $\lambda\leqslant\mu$ if and only if $\lambda-\mu\in{\mathbb{N}}_0{R}_-$.
Given an anti-automorphism $\theta\colon{\mathfrak}g\rightarrow {\mathfrak}g$ of ${\mathfrak}g$ we define the corresponding restricted duality $d$ on the category of weight ${\mathfrak}g$-modules as follows. For a weight ${\mathfrak}g$-module $M$, let $$dM{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\bigoplus_{\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathbb{C}}}\bigl(M_\lambda, {\mathbb{C}}\bigr),$$ with the action of ${\mathfrak}g$ given by $$(xf)(m) {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}f\bigl(\theta(x)m\bigr),$$ for $x\in {\mathfrak}g$, $f\in dM$ and $m\in M$.
We will use two different restricted dualities on weight ${\mathfrak}g$-modules: the duality given by the anti-automorphism ${\mathfrak}g\rightarrow {\mathfrak}g$, $x\mapsto -x$, which we will denote by $M^*$, and the duality given by the Chevalley anti-automorphism, which we will denote by $M^\star$. Note that $\operatorname{Supp}M^\star = \operatorname{Supp}M$, and thus $\star$ preserves the category ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}$, whereas $\operatorname{Supp}M^*=-\operatorname{Supp}M$. ‘The dual of $M$’, ‘$M$ is self-dual’ and similar statements will, unless otherwise stated, refer to the $\star$-duality.
Since ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ is not closed under tensor products (e.g. the tensor product of two Verma modules is never finitely generated and hence does not belong to ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$), it would be convenient to define the ‘enlarged’ category ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$, as the full subcategory of weight ${\mathfrak}g$-modules $M$ having the properties
1. there are weights $\lambda_1$, $\dotsc$, $\lambda_k\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ with $$\operatorname{Supp}M\subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^k\bigl(\lambda_i+{\mathbb{N}}_0{R}_-\bigr),$$
2. $\dim_{\mathbb{C}}M_\lambda<\infty$ for all $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$.
The category ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ is closed under tensor products.
Let $M, N\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$. Then $M\otimes N$ is a weight module, and since $$\label{eq:tensorsupp}
\operatorname{Supp}(M\otimes N) = \operatorname{Supp}M + \operatorname{Supp}N,$$ it is easy to see that the property (OT1) is preserved under tensor products. Also, $$\label{eq:dimotimes}
\dim(M\otimes N)_\lambda
= \sum_{\mathclap{\substack{\mu\in\operatorname{Supp}M,\\\nu\in\operatorname{Supp}N,\\ \mu+\nu=\lambda}}}
\dim M_\mu\cdot \dim N_\nu.$$ By (OT1) the set of pairs $\mu\in\operatorname{Supp}M$, $\nu\in\operatorname{Supp}N$ with $\mu+\nu=\lambda$ is finite for any $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$. By (OT2) we have that $\dim M_\mu<\infty$ and $\dim N_\nu<\infty$ for any $\mu$ and $\nu$, so it follows that the right hand side of is finite, i.e. $\dim(M\otimes N)_\lambda<\infty$.
\[lem:dualtens\] The duality $\star$ commutes with tensor products in ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$, that is $$(M\otimes N)^\star\cong M^\star\otimes N^\star,$$ natural in $M$ and $N$.
For $f^\star\in M^\star$ and $g^\star\in N^\star$, let $\psi(f^\star\otimes g^\star)\in (M\otimes N)^\star$ be defined by $$\psi(f^\star\otimes g^\star)(m\otimes n) {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}f^\star(m)g^\star(n),$$ for $m\in M$ and $n\in N$, and extended bilinearly to a map $M^\star\otimes N^\star\rightarrow (M\otimes N)^\star$. Straightforward verification shows that this is a homomorphism, natural in both $M$ and $N$. Let $m_1, m_2, \dotsc\in M$ and $n_1, n_2, \dotsc\in N$ be bases of weight vectors, and let $m_1^\star, m_2^\star, \dotsc\in M^\star$ and $n_1^\star, n_2^\star, \dotsc\in N^\star$ be the corresponding dual bases. Then we have that $\{\,m_i\otimes n_j\,\vert\,i, j=1, 2, \dotsc\,\}$ is a basis of $M\otimes N$, with the dual basis $\{\,(m_i\otimes n_j)^\star\,\vert\,i, j=1, 2, \dotsc\,\}$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(m_i^\star\otimes n_j^\star)(m_k\otimes n_l)
&= m_i^\star(m_k)n_j^\star(n_l) \\
&= \delta_{ik}\delta_{jl} \\
&= (m_i\otimes n_j)^\star(m_k\otimes n_l),
\end{aligned}$$ i.e. $\psi(m_i^\star\otimes n_j^\star) = (m_i\otimes n_j)^\star$, so $\psi$ is indeed an isomorphism.
Note that ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ is the full subcategory of ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ consisting of finitely generated modules, and in particular the simple objects of ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ coincide. For $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$, let $L(\lambda)$ denote the simple highest weight module with highest weight $\lambda$, and let $P(\lambda)$ denote the projective cover of $L(\lambda)$.
\[lem:findecomp\] All modules $M\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ admit a (possibly infinite) composition series. Furthermore, for each $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$, the number $[M: L(\lambda)]$ of occurrences of $L(\lambda)$ as a composition factor in a composition series is finite and independent of the choice of composition series.
Let $M\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$, and let $m_1$, $m_2$, $m_3$, $\dotsc$, $\in M$ be a basis of weight vectors such that $\operatorname{w}(m_i)\leqslant\operatorname{w}(m_j)$ implies that $j\leq i$. Such a basis exists due to (OT1) and (OT2). For $i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$, let $M^{(i)}$ denote the submodule of $M$ generated by ${\ensuremath{\left\{\,m_j\,\vert\,j\leq i\,\right\}}}$. We thus obtain a series of finitely generated modules $${\ensuremath{\left\{0\right\}}} = M^{(0)} \subseteq M^{(1)}\subseteq M^{(2)}\subseteq M^{(3)}\subseteq\cdots,$$ which, since the $m_i$:s constitute a basis of $M$, converge to $M$, i.e. $$\bigcup_{i=0}^\infty M^{(i)} = M.$$ Since the $M^{(i)}$:s are finitely generated, $M^{(i)}\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ for all $i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$. Thus, since all objects in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ have finite length, this series can be refined to a composition series.
Now, consider any composition series $(M^{(i)})$ of $M$, let $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ be any weight of $M$, and let $N$ denote the submodule of $M$ generated by the weight space $M_\lambda$. Since $\dim M_\lambda<\infty$ there exists an index $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $M_\lambda\subseteq M^{(k)}$, and in particular such that $N$ is a submodule of $M^{(k)}$. Then $\bigl(M^{(i)}/N\bigr)_\lambda={\ensuremath{\left\{0\right\}}}$ for all $i\geq k$, so $$\bigl[(M^{(i)}/N): L(\lambda)\bigr] = 0$$ for all $i\geq k$, and thus $$[M^{(i)}: L(\lambda)] = [N: L(\lambda)]$$ for all $i\geq k$. As $N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$, we get that $[M: L(\lambda)] = [N: L(\lambda)]$ is finite and independent of the choice of composition series.
Recall that ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ has a block decomposition $${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}= \bigoplus_{\mathclap{\chi\in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}({\mathfrak}g)}^*}}{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_\chi,$$ where ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}({\mathfrak}g)}$ denotes the centre of ${\mathfrak}g$ and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_\chi$ denotes the full subcategory of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ consisting of modules $M$ such that for all $z\in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}({\mathfrak}g)}$, $M$ is annihilated by some power of $\bigl(z-\chi(z)\bigr)$. Hence, each module $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ decomposes into direct sum $$\label{eq:odec}
M = \bigoplus_{\mathclap{\chi\in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}({\mathfrak}g)}^*}}M_\chi,$$ where $M_\chi\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_\chi$ and $M_\chi\neq{\ensuremath{\left\{0\right\}}}$ for only finitely many $\chi$.
From Lemma \[lem:findecomp\] it follows that we get a similar block decomposition for ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$, where each module $M\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ decomposes as in , but with possibly countably many non-zero summands (and with some restrictions on the weight spaces of the non-zero summands). This is similar to the situation for ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$-like categories over a Kac-Moody algebra, see for example [@neidhardt1; @rc-w]. More precisely, we have the following.
For all $M\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ and all $\chi\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}({\mathfrak}g)}^*$ there are unique modules (up to isomorphism) $M_1\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_\chi$, $M_2\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$, with $[M_2:L(\mu)]=0$ for all $\mu\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ with $L(\mu)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_\chi$, such that $$M \cong M_1\oplus M_2.$$
Recall that, for two ${\mathfrak}g$-modules $K$ and $N$, the trace $\operatorname{Tr}_KN$ is defined as the sum of images of all homomorphisms from $K$ to $N$. Now, let $$M_1 {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\sum_{\mathclap{\substack{\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*,\\ P(\lambda)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_\chi}}}
\operatorname{Tr}_{P(\lambda)}M,$$ and $$M_2 {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\sum_{\mathclap{\substack{\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*,\\ P(\lambda)\not\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_\chi}}}
\operatorname{Tr}_{P(\lambda)}M.$$ As ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ has enough projectives, from the proof of Lemma \[lem:findecomp\] it follows that $M = M_1 + M_2$. Since the central characters occuring in $M_2$ are different from $\chi$, this sum must be direct.
For each $\chi\in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}({\mathfrak}g)}^*$ we thus obtain an exact projection functor ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}{\delimiter"6223379}_\chi\colon{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_\chi$, such that $$\label{eq:otdec}
M = \bigoplus_{\chi\in {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}({\mathfrak}g)}^*}M{\delimiter"6223379}_\chi$$ for any $M\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$.
The tensor product commutes with infinite direct sums in ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$.
Let $N$, $M_1$, $M_2$, $\dotsc\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ with $$\bigoplus_{i=1}^\infty M_i\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}},$$ let $n_1$, $n_2$, $\dots\in N$ be a basis of $N$ and let $m_1^{(i)}$, $m_2^{(i)}$, $\dots\in M_i$ be a basis of $M_i$ for each $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then it is immediate that $$\bigl\{\,m_j^{(i)}\otimes n_k\,\big\vert\,i, j, k\in{\mathbb{N}}\,\bigr\}$$ constitute a basis of both $$\bigl(M_1\oplus M_2\oplus \dotsb\bigr)\otimes N$$ and $$(M_1\otimes N)\oplus (M_2\otimes N)\oplus\dotsb,$$ giving the required isomorphism.
For $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$, we denote by $\Delta(\lambda)$ the corresponding Verma module with highest weight $\lambda$, and $\nabla(\lambda){\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\Delta(\lambda)^\star$ the corresponding dual Verma module. Let ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)$ and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\nabla)$ denote the categories of modules $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ having a Verma filtration and dual Verma filtration, respectively, and let ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}={{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)\cap{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\nabla)$ denote the category of tilting modules (see [@ringel] for more details). Let ${\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$, ${\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\nabla)$ and ${\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}}$ denote the corresponding categories for ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$. As $\star$ commutes with direct sums, the decomposition implies that $M\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$ if and only if $M^\star\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\nabla)$. Note also that ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)$ and ${\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$ can be characterised as the objects in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ and ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ respectively which are free as ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-modules.
Similar to the situation in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$, we have the following result for ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ concerning tensor products involving (dual) Verma modules and tilting modules.
\[prop:preservestilt\] For any $M\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$, $N\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$, $K\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\nabla)$ and $T\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}}$ we have $M\otimes N\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$, $M\otimes K\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\nabla)$ and $M\otimes T\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}}$.
To show $M\otimes N\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$, it suffices to show that $M\otimes N\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$ for any $N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)$, since the general case then follows from the fact that any module in ${\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$ decomposes into a direct sum of modules in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)$. Let $m_1$, $m_2$, $\dotsc$ $\in M$ be a basis of $M$ constructed as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:findecomp\] and let $v_1, \dotsc, v_k\in N$ be a basis of $N$ as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module consisting of weight vectors. We will now show that $M\otimes N$ is ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-free with the basis $B{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\{\,m_i\otimes v_j\,\vert\,i \in{\mathbb{N}}, 1\leq j\leq k\,\}$.
We start by showing that $B$ generates $M\otimes N$ as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module. A set that certainly generates $M\otimes N$ over ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$ is $$\bar B{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\bigl\{\, m_i\otimes(uv_j)\,\big\vert\,i\in{\mathbb{N}}, u\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)},
1\leq j\leq k\,\bigr\},$$ since $\{m_1, m_2, \dotsc\}$ is a basis of $M$ and $$\sum_{j=1}^k\{\,uv_j\,\vert\,u\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}\,\}=N.$$ We will show that $\bar B$ is a subset of the set generated by $B$ by induction on the degree of $u$. So, consider an element $m_i\otimes(uv_j)\in \bar B$. If $u$ has degree $0$, then $u$ is a scalar, so $m_i\otimes(uv_j)=u(m_i\otimes v_j)$ is in the set generated by $B$. Now assume $u$ has degree $d\geq 1$. Then $$m_i\otimes(uv_j) = u(m_i\otimes v_j) + \sum_{l}(u'_lm_i)\otimes(u''_lv_j),$$ for some elements elements $u'_l, u''_l\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$ with degree strictly less than $d$. Since we can rewrite the elements $u'_lm_i$ as linear combinations of $m_1, m_2, \dotsc$, the right hand side is in the set generated by $B$ over ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$ by the induction hypothesis. Hence $B$ generates $\bar B$ as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module, so $B$ generates $M\otimes N$ as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module.
To see that $M\otimes N$ is free over $B$ as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module, let $L_l$ denote the ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-submodule of $M\otimes N$ generated by $$\bigl\{\,m_i\otimes v_j\,\big\vert\,i\in{\mathbb{N}}, i\leq l, 1\leq j\leq k\,\bigr\},$$ and let $\bar L_l$ denote the ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-submodule of $M\otimes N$ generated by $$\bigl\{\,m_l\otimes v_j\,\vert\,1\leq j\leq k\,\bigr\}.$$ By straightforward induction we see that any non-zero element in $L_l$ has a summand of the form $m_i\otimes n$ for some $1\leq i\leq k$, $n\in N$. On the other hand, no element of $\bar L_{l+1}$ has such a summand by the ordering of the $m_i$:s, and hence we have $$L_{l+1} = \bar L_{l+1}\oplus L_l.$$ Thus $$M\otimes N = \bigoplus_{l=1}^\infty \bar L_l$$ as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module. Finally, we note that $\bar L_l$ is ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-free with the generators $$\bigl\{\,m_l\otimes v_j\,\vert\,1\leq j\leq k\,\bigr\},$$ since $u(m_l\otimes v_j)$ has a summand of the form $m_l\otimes (uv_j)$ for all $u\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$. Hence $M\otimes N$ is ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-free, i.e. $M\otimes N\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$.
To show that $M\otimes K\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\nabla)$, note that since $K^\star\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$, by the previous paragraph we have $M^\star\otimes K^\star\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$. By Lemma \[lem:dualtens\], $\star$ commutes with tensor products, i.e. $M^\star\otimes K^\star=(M\otimes K)^\star$, and hence $M\otimes K\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\nabla)$.
Finally, since ${\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}}={\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)\cap{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\nabla)$, from the first two statements it follows that $M\otimes T\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}}$ for all $M\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ and $T\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}}$.
For $M\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)$ and $N\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\nabla)$ we have $M\otimes N\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}}$. Furthermore, if $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \dotsc\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ and $\mu_1, \mu_2, \dotsc\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ are the highest weights, with multiplicities, of the Verma (respectively dual Verma) modules occurring in the Verma and dual Verma filtrations of $M$ and $N$, then $$M\otimes N \cong \bigoplus_{i, j=1}^\infty\Delta(\lambda_i)\otimes \nabla(\mu_j).$$
By Proposition \[prop:preservestilt\], $M\otimes N\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\Delta)\cap{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}}(\nabla)={\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}}$. Furthermore, $\Delta(\lambda)\otimes\nabla(\mu)\in{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}}$ for all $\lambda, \mu\in{\mathfrak}h^*$. Since tensoring over a field, the second statement now follows from the fact that tilting modules do not have self-extensions [@ringel Corollary 3].
Following [@fiebig], for $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ and any weight module $M$ we define $$M^{\leqslant\lambda}{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}M/M^{\nleqslant\lambda},$$ where $M^{\nleqslant\lambda}$ is the submodule of $M$ generated by all the weight spaces $M_\mu$ with $\mu\not\leqslant\lambda$.
The assignment ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}^{\leqslant\lambda}\colon M\mapsto M^{\leqslant\lambda}$ defines a right exact functor on the category of weight ${\mathfrak}g$-modules.
Let $M$ and $N$ be weight ${\mathfrak}g$-modules, and let ${\varphi}:M\rightarrow N$ be a homomorphism. Since homomorphisms preserve weights, the generating set for $M^{\nleqslant\lambda}$ maps to the generating set for $N^{\nleqslant\lambda}$, and hence ${\varphi}\bigl(M^{\nleqslant\lambda}\bigr)\subseteq N^{\nleqslant\lambda}$. We thus obtain an induced homomorphism $${\varphi}^{\leqslant\lambda}\colon M^{\leqslant\lambda}\rightarrow N^{\leqslant\lambda}.$$ It is immediate that $(\operatorname{Id}_{M})^{\leqslant\lambda} = \operatorname{Id}_{M^{\leqslant\lambda}}$ and $({\varphi}\circ\psi)^{\leqslant\lambda}={\varphi}^{\leqslant\lambda}\circ\psi^{\leqslant\lambda}$, so ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}^{\leqslant\lambda}$ is indeed a functor.
Now, consider an exact sequence $$K\xrightarrow{\psi}M\xrightarrow{{\varphi}}N\rightarrow 0$$ of weight ${\mathfrak}g$-modules. For any element $n+N^{\nleqslant\lambda}\in N^{\leqslant\lambda}$, there is an element $m\in M$ with ${\varphi}(m)=n$, so $${\varphi}^{\leqslant\lambda}\bigl(m+M^{\nleqslant\lambda}\bigr) = n+N^{\nleqslant\lambda},$$ and thus ${\varphi}^{\leqslant\lambda}$ is surjective. Finally, consider an element $$m+M^{\nleqslant\lambda}\in\ker{\varphi}^{\leqslant\lambda},$$ i.e. ${\varphi}(m+M^{\nleqslant\lambda})\subseteq N^{\nleqslant\lambda}$. Since ${\varphi}$ is surjective, we have ${\varphi}(M^{\nleqslant\lambda})=N^{\nleqslant\lambda}$, so there is an element $\tilde m\in M^{\nleqslant\lambda}$ with ${\varphi}(\tilde m) = {\varphi}(m)$. Now let $m' = m-\tilde m$. Since $${\varphi}(m') = {\varphi}(m)-{\varphi}(\tilde m) = 0$$ we have $m'\in\ker{\varphi}$, and since $\tilde m\in M^{\nleqslant\lambda}$ we have $$m'+M^{\nleqslant\lambda}=m+M^{\nleqslant\lambda}.$$ By exactness, there is an element $k\in K$ with $\psi(k)=m'$, so $$\psi^{\leqslant\lambda}\bigl(k+K^{\nleqslant\lambda}\bigr)
= m'+M^{\nleqslant\lambda} = m+M^{\nleqslant\lambda}.$$ Hence $\operatorname{im}\psi^{\leqslant\lambda}=\ker{\varphi}^{\leqslant\lambda}$, and thus ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}^{\leqslant\lambda}$ is right exact.
\[prop:freeproj\] Let $M$ be an ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-free module, say $$M = \bigoplus_{i\in I}{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}v_i$$ as an ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module with ${\ensuremath{\left\{\,v_i\,\vert\,i\in I\,\right\}}}$ being weight vectors. Then $$M^{\leqslant\lambda} \cong
\bigoplus_{\substack{i\in I,\\ \mathclap{\operatorname{w}(v_i)\leqslant\lambda}}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}v_i.$$ as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module.
We claim that $$M^{\nleqslant\lambda} =
\sum_{\substack{i\in I,\\ \mathclap{\operatorname{w}(v_i)\nleqslant\lambda}}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}v_i.$$ To show this, let $N$ denote the set on the right hand side. We need to show that $N$ is indeed a submodule of $M$, i.e. closed under the action of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)}$. By the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt Theorem we know that ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)} = {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}\,{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}b)}$, so $$\begin{aligned}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)}N
&= \sum_{\substack{i\in I,\\ \mathclap{\operatorname{w}(v_i)\nleqslant\lambda}}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)}\,{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}v_i \\
&= \sum_{\substack{i\in I,\\ \mathclap{\operatorname{w}(v_i)\nleqslant\lambda}}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)}v_i \\
&= \sum_{\substack{i\in I,\\ \mathclap{\operatorname{w}(v_i)\nleqslant\lambda}}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}\,{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}b)}v_i \\
&\stackrel{(*)}{=} \sum_{\substack{i\in I,\\ \mathclap{\operatorname{w}(v_i)\nleqslant\lambda}}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}v_i \\
&= N,
\end{aligned}$$ where (\*) holds since if $\operatorname{w}(v_i)\nleqslant\lambda$, then $\mu\nleqslant\lambda$ for any $\mu\in\operatorname{Supp}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}b)}v_i)$. Thus, as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module, we have $$M^{\nleqslant\lambda} =
\bigoplus_{\substack{i\in I,\\ \mathclap{\operatorname{w}(v_i)\nleqslant\lambda}}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}v_i,$$ and hence we get that $$M^{\leqslant\lambda} \cong
\bigoplus_{\substack{i\in I,\\ \mathclap{\operatorname{w}(v_i)\leqslant\lambda}}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}v_i.$$ as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module.
\[prop:fpreservesdelta\] For any $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)$, $N\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ and $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ we have that $(M\otimes N^*)^{\leqslant\lambda}\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)$.
Let $m_1, \dotsc, m_k\in M$ be a basis of $M$ as a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-module consisting of weight vectors, and let $n_1, n_2, \dotsc\in N$ be a basis of $N$ constructed as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:findecomp\]. By an argument completely analogous to the case where $N$ is finite dimensional (see for instance the proof of Theorem 2.2 in [@jantzen]), it follows that $M\otimes N^*$ is ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-free over the set $$B=\bigl\{\,m_i\otimes n_j^*\,\vert\,1\leq i\leq k, j\in{\mathbb{N}}\,\bigr\}.$$ By Proposition \[prop:freeproj\] it follows that $(M\otimes N^*)^{\leqslant\lambda}$ is ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-free, with a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-basis consisting of the vectors in $B$ satisfying $\operatorname{w}(m_i\otimes n_j^*)\leqslant\lambda$. Since $N\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$, the number of such vectors is finite, and hence $(M\otimes N^*)^{\leqslant\lambda}\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$, i.e. $(M\otimes N^*)^{\leqslant\lambda}\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)$.
\[cor:tensdual\] For each $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$, $N\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ and $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ we have $$(M\otimes N^*)^{\leqslant\lambda}\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}.$$
Let $P\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ be the projective cover of $M$. As ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}^{\leqslant\lambda}$ is right exact, it suffices to prove that $(P\otimes N^*)^{\leqslant\lambda}\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$. But this follows from Proposition \[prop:fpreservesdelta\], since every projective in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$ has a Verma flag.
The functors {#sec:main}
============
We now restrict our attention to the principal block ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, i.e. the indecomposable block containing the trivial module $L(0)$. Let $\operatorname{PFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$, $\operatorname{TFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$ and $\operatorname{IFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$ denote the categories of endofunctors on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ which preserve the additive subcategories of projective, tilting and injective modules, respectively. Furthermore, let ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\Delta)={{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)\cap{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, and define ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\nabla)$ and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}_0$ similarly. This section will be devoted to proving the following theorem, the main result of this paper, along with some of its consequences.
\[thm:maintheorem\] There exist faithful functors $$\begin{aligned}
F&\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0\hookrightarrow\operatorname{PFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)^{\text{op}}, M\mapsto F_M,\\
G&\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0\hookrightarrow\operatorname{TFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0), M\mapsto G_M,\\
H&\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0\hookrightarrow\operatorname{IFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)^{\text{op}}, M\mapsto H_M,
\end{aligned}$$ all three satisfying $X_M\cong X_N$ if and only if $M\cong N$ (where $X=F, G, H$).
For $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, we define the functor $G_M:{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ by $$G_MN {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}(M\otimes N){\delimiter"6223379}_0$$ on objects, and $$\begin{aligned}
G_M{\varphi}&\colon G_MK\rightarrow G_ML, \\
G_M{\varphi}&= (\text{Id}_M\otimes {\varphi}){\delimiter"6223379}_0
{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\pi_{G_ML}\circ (\text{Id}_M\otimes {\varphi}) \circ \iota_{G_M K},\end{aligned}$$ on morphisms ${\varphi}\colon K\rightarrow L$, where $\pi_{G_ML}\colon M\otimes L{\twoheadrightarrow}(M\otimes L){\delimiter"6223379}_0$ and $\iota_{G_MK}\colon (M\otimes K){\delimiter"6223379}_0\hookrightarrow M\otimes K$ denote the natural projection and inclusion. This defines $G_M$ as an endofunctor on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$.
\[rem:ntransfactors\] By central character considerations (i.e. from the fact that $G_ML\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$), it follows that $\pi_{G_ML}\circ(\text{Id}_M\otimes {\varphi})$ factors through $G_M{\varphi}$, i.e. the diagram $$\includegraphics{ntransfactors.1}$$ commutes.
For a homomorphism ${\varphi}\colon M\rightarrow N$ between to objects $M, N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, we define the corresponding natural transformation $G_{{\varphi}}\colon G_M\rightarrow G_N$ by $$\begin{aligned}
G_{{\varphi}}K&\colon G_MK\rightarrow G_NK, \\
G_{{\varphi}}K&{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}({\varphi}\otimes\text{Id}_K){\delimiter"6223379}_0,\end{aligned}$$ for $K\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$. This defines $G$ as a functor from the category ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ to the category of endofunctors on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$.
Since both $M\otimes{\underline{\phantom{J}}}$ and ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}{\delimiter"6223379}_0$ are exact (as the tensor product is over a field), it follows that $G_M$ is exact. Recall that the category ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ is equivalent to $A$-mod, the category of $A$-modules, for some finite dimensional algebra $A$ (see [@bgg]). Hence $G_M$ can be seen as an exact functor on $A$-mod, and in particular $G_M$ is right exact on $A$-mod. By abstract theory (e.g. Theorem 2.3, [@bass]), $G_M$ is naturally isomorphic to a functor on the form $\overline M\otimes_A{\underline{\phantom{J}}}$ for some $A$-bimodule $\overline M$. We define $$H_M{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\operatorname{Hom}_A(\overline M, {\underline{\phantom{J}}}),$$ the right adjoint of $G_M$. The dual $\star$ is a self-adjoint contravariant endofunctor on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, so for any modules $K, L\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ we have the following natural isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0}\bigl(L,(G_{M^\star}K^\star)^\star\bigr)
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0}(G_{M^\star}K^\star, L^\star) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0}(K^\star, H_{M^\star}L^\star) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0}\bigl((H_{M^\star}L^\star)^\star, K\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, since $\star$ commutes with direct sums and tensor products, we see that $$(G_{M^\star}K^\star)^\star
= \bigl((M^\star\otimes K^\star){\delimiter"6223379}_0\bigr)^\star
= (M\otimes K){\delimiter"6223379}_0 = G_MK.$$ Thus $\star\circ H_{M^\star}\circ\star$ is the left adjoint of $G_M$, and we define $$\label{eq:fmdef}
F_M{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\star\circ H_{M^\star}\circ\star.$$
For any $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ we have that $F_M\in\operatorname{PFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$, $G_M\in\operatorname{TFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$ and $H_M\in\operatorname{IFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$.
That $G_M\in\operatorname{TFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$ follows from Proposition \[prop:preservestilt\]. Assume that $P\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ is projective, i.e. the functor $\operatorname{Hom}(P, {\underline{\phantom{J}}})$ is exact. We need to show that $F_MP$ is projective, i.e. that $\operatorname{Hom}(F_MP, {\underline{\phantom{J}}})$ is exact. But $$\operatorname{Hom}(F_MP, {\underline{\phantom{J}}})\cong\operatorname{Hom}(P, G_M{\underline{\phantom{J}}}),$$ and the right hand side is the composition of two exact functors, so it is exact. The statement $H_M\in\operatorname{IFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0)$ follows by duality.
\[thm:gadj\] The left adjoint $F_M$ of $G_M$ is given by $$F_MN = (M^*\otimes N)^{\leqslant 0}\big{\delimiter"6223379}_0,$$ and the right adjoint $H_M$ by $$H_M = \star\circ F_{M^\star}\circ\star.$$
The second statement follows immediately from the definition . The proof of the first assertion is a slight variation of the proof of Proposition 5.1 in [@fiebig], also due to Fiebig. We begin by showing that we have a natural isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(M^*\otimes K, L)\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(K, M\otimes L)$$ for all $K, L, M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$. Let $m_1, m_2, \dotsc\in M$ be a basis consisting of weight vectors, and let $m_1^*, m_2^*, \dotsc\in M^*$ denote the corresponding dual basis. For $f\in\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(M^*\otimes K, L)$, define $\hat f\in\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(K, M\otimes L)$ by $$\hat f(k) {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\sum_{i}m_i\otimes f(m_i^*\otimes k).$$ Since $\operatorname{Supp}L\leqslant 0$, we see that the sum on the right hand side is finite, since $f(m_i^*\otimes k)=0$ for all $i$ with $$\operatorname{w}(m_i^*\otimes k)\nleqslant 0.$$ For $g\in\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(K, M\otimes L)$, define $\tilde g\in\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(M^*\otimes K, L)$ by $$\tilde g(m_i^*\otimes k){\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\sum_jm_i^*(m_j)\cdot l_j,$$ where $g(k)=\sum_jm_j\otimes l_j$ for some weight vectors $l_j\in L$ , with $l_j=0$ for almost all $j$. The maps $\hat\cdot$ and $\tilde\cdot$ are indeed inverse to each other, since $$\tilde{\hat f}(m_i^*\otimes k) = \sum_jm_i^*(m_j)\cdot f(m_j^*\otimes k)
= f(m_i^*\otimes k),$$ and $$\hat{\tilde g}(k) = \sum_im_i\otimes \tilde g(m_i^*\otimes k)
= \sum_{i, j}m_i\otimes \bigl(m_i^*(m_j)\cdot l_j\bigr)
= \sum_im_i\otimes l_i = g(k),$$ where again $g(k)=\sum_jm_j\otimes l_j$. Hence $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(M^*\otimes K, L)\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(K, M\otimes L),$$ as claimed.
As we saw above, any element $f\in\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(M^*\otimes K, L)$ is zero on $(M^*\otimes K)^{\nleqslant 0}$, and hence $f$ factors uniquely through $(M^*\otimes K)^{\leqslant 0}$, so $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}\bigl((M^*\otimes K)^{\leqslant 0}, L\bigr)
\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(M^*\otimes K, L).$$ Also, since $L\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, any element in $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}\bigl((M^*\otimes K)^{\leqslant 0}, L\bigr)$ is zero on any block of $(M^*\otimes K)^{\leqslant 0}$ outside of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, so $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}\bigl((M^*\otimes K)^{\leqslant 0}, L\bigr)
\cong
\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}\bigl((M^*\otimes K)^{\leqslant 0}\big{\delimiter"6223379}_0, L\bigr).$$ Similarly, since $K\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ we have $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(K, M\otimes L)
\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(K, M\otimes L{\delimiter"6223379}_0).$$ Thus we have obtained a chain of natural isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(F_MK, L)
&= \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}\bigl((M^*\otimes K)^{\leqslant 0}\big{\delimiter"6223379}_0, L\bigr)
\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}\bigl((M^*\otimes K)^{\leqslant 0}, L\bigr) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(M^*\otimes K, L)
\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(K, M\otimes L) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(K, M\otimes L{\delimiter"6223379}_0)
=\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}(K, G_ML).
\end{aligned}$$
$F$ and $H$ are contravariant functors, right and left exact respectively, from the category ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ to the category of endofunctors on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$.
For $M, N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, we have by Theorem \[thm:gadj\] that $$F_MN = (M^*\otimes N)^{\leqslant 0}{\delimiter"6223379}_0.$$ Analogous to the definition of $G$, for a homomorphism ${\varphi}\colon M\rightarrow K$ between objects $M, K\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ we define the corresponding natural transformation $F_{\varphi}\colon F_K\rightarrow F_M$ by $$F_{\varphi}N{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}({\varphi}^*\otimes \text{Id}_N)^{\leqslant 0}{\delimiter"6223379}_0
\colon F_KN
\rightarrow F_MN.$$ Hence, fixing $N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, and denoting by $F_{{\underline{\phantom{J}}}}N$ the assignment $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\underline{\phantom{J}}}}M\colon x&\mapsto F_xM
\end{aligned}$$ ($x$ being an object or morphism of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$), we see that $$F_{{\underline{\phantom{J}}}}N =
({\underline{\phantom{J}}}{\delimiter"6223379}_0)\circ({\underline{\phantom{J}}}^{\leqslant0})
\circ({\underline{\phantom{J}}}\otimes N)\circ({\underline{\phantom{J}}}^*).$$ Since ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}^*$ is contravariant exact, ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}\otimes N$ is covariant exact, ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}^{\leqslant0}$ is covariant right exact, and ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}{\delimiter"6223379}_0$ is covariant exact, it follows that $F_{{\underline{\phantom{J}}}}N$ is a contravariant right exact endofunctor on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, which proves the statement for $F$. The statement for $H$ follows by duality.
\[rem:lzero\] Note that, since $L(0)^*\cong L(0)\cong{}_{{\mathfrak}g}{\mathbb{C}}$, with ${\mathfrak}g$ acting trivially on ${\mathbb{C}}$, we have isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
G_{L(0)}M &= M\otimes L(0){\delimiter"6223379}_0 \cong M{\delimiter"6223379}_0=M, \text{ and} \\
F_{L(0)}M &= \bigl(M\otimes L(0)^*\bigr)^{\leqslant 0}\big{\delimiter"6223379}_0
\cong M^{\leqslant 0}\big{\delimiter"6223379}_0 = M
\end{aligned}$$ natural in $M$, for any $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$. Hence we have natural isomorphisms $$G_{L(0)}\cong F_{L(0)}\cong H_{L(0)}\cong \operatorname{Id},$$ where $\operatorname{Id}$ denotes the identity functor on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$.
\[prop:acyclic\] For any $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ the following holds.
(a) $F_M$ and $G_M$ preserve ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\Delta)$ and are acyclic on it.
(b) $G_M$ and $H_M$ preserve ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\nabla)$ and are acyclic on it.
$G_M$ preserves ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\Delta)$ and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\nabla)$ by Proposition \[prop:preservestilt\]. $G_M$ is also acyclic on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\Delta)$ and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\nabla)$ since $G_M$ is exact.
$F_M$ preserves ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\Delta)$ by Proposition \[prop:fpreservesdelta\]. If $F_M$ is acyclic on $K$ and $Q$, and the sequence $$0\rightarrow K\rightarrow N\rightarrow Q\rightarrow 0$$ is exact, then it follows that $F_M$ is acyclic on $N$. Hence it suffices to show that $F_M$ is acyclic on Verma modules, by induction on the length of Verma flags.
A right exact functor is always acyclic on projective modules, so in particular $F_M$ is acyclic on $\Delta(0)$, since $\Delta(0)$ is projective. Now let $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ with $\lambda < 0$ and $\Delta(\lambda)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, and assume that $F_M$ is acyclic on $\Delta(\mu)$ for all $\mu\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ with $\lambda < \mu$ and $\Delta(\mu)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$. All Verma modules fit in a short exact sequence $$\label{eq:prop:acyclic}
0\rightarrow K\rightarrow P(\lambda)\rightarrow\Delta(\lambda)\rightarrow 0,$$ where $P(\lambda)$ is projective, and $K\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\Delta)$ is filtered by Verma modules $\Delta(\mu)$ with $\lambda<\mu$. In particular, $F_M$ is acyclic on $K$ by the induction hypothesis. Hence, in the induced long exact sequence $$\dotsb\rightarrow {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_{i+1}F_MP(\lambda)
\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_{i+1}F_M\Delta(\lambda)
\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_{i}F_MK
\rightarrow\dotsb$$ we have ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_{i+1}F_MP(\lambda)=0$ since $P(\lambda)$ is projective, and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_iF_MK=0$ by the induction hypothesis, so ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_{i+1}F_M\Delta(\lambda)=0$ for all $i>1$. It remains to show that ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_1F_M\Delta(\lambda)=0$.
Since ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_1F_MP(\lambda)=0$, we have that $$\label{eq:lonewhat}
0\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_1F_M\Delta(\lambda)
\rightarrow F_MK\rightarrow F_MP(\lambda)\rightarrow\Delta(\lambda)\rightarrow 0$$ is exact. Now, consider the short exact sequence $$0\rightarrow M^*\otimes K\rightarrow M^*\otimes P(\lambda)
\rightarrow M^*\otimes \Delta(\lambda)\rightarrow 0$$ obtained from by applying the functor $M^*\otimes {\underline{\phantom{J}}}$. The modules in the above sequence are all ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$-free, so by Proposition \[prop:freeproj\] we obtain an exact sequence $$\label{eq:lonezero}
0\rightarrow F_MK\rightarrow F_MP(\lambda)\rightarrow F_M\Delta(\lambda)\rightarrow 0$$ by applying ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}^{\leqslant 0}$, and thus ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}}_1F_M\Delta(\lambda)=0$, by comparing and .
Since $H_M=\star\circ F_{M^\star}\circ\star$, and $\star$ is a contravariant exact functor swapping ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\nabla)$ with ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\Delta)$, it follows by the dual argument to the previous paragraph that $H_M$ preserves ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\nabla)$ and is acyclic on it.
The functors $F$, $G$ and $H$ are faithful.
Let $M, N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ with a non-zero homomorphism ${\varphi}\colon M\rightarrow N$. By the symmetry of the tensor product, we have $G_{{\underline{\phantom{J}}}}K\cong G_K{\underline{\phantom{J}}}$ for any $K\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$. In particular, it follows from Remark \[rem:lzero\] that $G_{{\underline{\phantom{J}}}}L(0)=\operatorname{Id}$. Thus $G_{{\varphi}}L(0)=({\varphi}\otimes \text{Id}_{L(0)}){\delimiter"6223379}_0\neq 0$, so $G_{{\varphi}}$ is non-zero and hence $G$ is faithful.
Now, let $m^*\in M^*$, $m^*\neq 0$ be a lowest weight vector of weight $\mu\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ in the image of the map ${\varphi}^*\colon N^*\rightarrow M^*$, and let $n^*\in N^*$ with ${\varphi}^*(n^*)=m^*$. Let $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ be the antidominant weight, i.e. with $L(\lambda)=\Delta(\lambda)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, and consider $F_{{\varphi}}\Delta(\lambda)\colon F_{N}\Delta(\lambda)\rightarrow F_M\Delta(\lambda)$. Let $v\in\Delta(\lambda)$ denote a non-zero highest weight vector of $\Delta(\lambda)$.
Since $\mu$ is a lowest weight of ${\varphi}^*(N^*)$ and $N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, it follows that $\lambda+\mu\leqslant 0$ and $\Delta(\lambda+\mu)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$. In particular, by the proof of Proposition \[prop:freeproj\], both $n^*\otimes v$ and $m^*\otimes v$ represent non-zero elements $\overline{n^*\otimes v}$ and $\overline{m^*\otimes v}$ in $$(N^*\otimes \Delta(\lambda))^{\leqslant0}\big{\delimiter"6223379}_0 = F_N\Delta(\lambda)$$ and $$(M^*\otimes \Delta(\lambda))^{\leqslant0}\big{\delimiter"6223379}_0=F_M\Delta(\lambda),$$ respectively. In particular, since $$F_{{\varphi}}\Delta(\lambda) =
({\varphi}^*\otimes \operatorname{Id}_{\Delta(\lambda)})^{\leqslant 0}\big{\delimiter"6223379}_0$$ we see that $$\bigl(F_{{\varphi}}\Delta(\lambda)\bigr)(\overline{n^*\otimes v})
= \overline{{\varphi}^*(n^*)\otimes v}
= \overline{m^*\otimes v}\neq 0.$$ Hence $F_{{\varphi}}$ is non-zero, proving that $F$ is faithful. By duality, it follows that $H$ is faithful.
We now conclude the proof of Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\] by showing a slightly stronger statement than “$X_M\cong X_N$ if and only if $M\cong N$”.
Let $M, N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ with $M\ncong N$. Then
(a) $F_M\vert_\text{proj}\ncong F_N\vert_\text{proj}$,
(b) $G_M\vert_\text{tilt}\ncong G_N\vert_\text{tilt}$, and
(c) $H_M\vert_\text{inj}\ncong H_N\vert_\text{inj}$,
where $\vert_\text{proj}$, $\vert_\text{tilt}$ and $\vert_\text{inj}$ denote the restrictions to the additive categories of projective, tilting and injective modules, respectively.
We start by noting that if $G_M\cong G_N$, then $$\label{eq:gmcgn}
M \cong G_ML(0)\cong G_NL(0)\cong N.$$ Assume that $F_M\vert_\text{proj}\cong F_N\vert_\text{proj}$. Since $F_M$ and $F_N$ are right exact, it follows by taking projective presentations that $F_MK\cong F_NK$ for any $K\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, i.e. $F_N\cong F_M$. By the uniqueness of right adjoints, this implies that $G_M\cong G_N$ so $M\cong N$ by , and hence we have proved part (a). Part (c) follows from (a) by duality (as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:acyclic\]).
For part (b), assume that $G_M\vert_\text{tilt}\cong G_N\vert_\text{tilt}$. We recall that each projective module $P\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ has a tilting co-resolution, i.e. there are tilting modules $T_0, \dotsc, T_k\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ such that the sequence $$0\rightarrow P\rightarrow T_0\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow T_k\rightarrow 0$$ is exact (for details, see [@ringel Lemma 6]). Since $G_N$ and $G_M$ are exact and agree on the additive category of tilting modules, this induces the following commutative diagram with exact rows. $${\setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt}
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
0 & \rightarrow & G_MP & \rightarrow & G_MT_0 &
\rightarrow & \cdots & \rightarrow & G_MT_k & \rightarrow & 0 \\
& & & & \rotatebox[origin=c]{270}{$\cong$}
& & & & \rotatebox[origin=c]{270}{$\cong$} \\
0 & \rightarrow & G_NP & \rightarrow & G_NT_0 &
\rightarrow & \cdots & \rightarrow & G_NT_k & \rightarrow & 0
\end{array}}$$ By the Five Lemma this induces an isomorphism $G_MP\cong G_NP$, which furthermore is natural, since all isomorphisms in the above diagram are natural. Hence $G_M$ and $G_N$ are naturally equivalent on projective modules, so by the right exactness $G_M\cong G_N$ as in the proof of part (a). By we have $M\cong N$, as required.
\[prop:mdnnprojtiltinj\] For all $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\Delta)$, $N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\nabla)$ we have that
(a) $F_NM$ is projective,
(b) $G_MN\cong G_NM$ is a tilting module, and
(c) $H_MN$ is injective.
For part (a), we need to show that $\operatorname{Hom}(F_NM, {\underline{\phantom{J}}})$ is exact. Since $$\operatorname{Hom}(F_NM, {\underline{\phantom{J}}}) \cong \operatorname{Hom}(M, G_N{\underline{\phantom{J}}}),$$ it is equivalent to show that $\operatorname{Hom}(M, G_N{\underline{\phantom{J}}})$ is exact. By Proposition \[prop:preservestilt\], $G_N{\underline{\phantom{J}}}$ maps any module to a module with a dual Verma flag, since $N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\nabla)$. Hence, as $G_N{\underline{\phantom{J}}}$ is exact, it maps an exact sequence to an exact sequence of modules in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\nabla)$. Finally, $\operatorname{Hom}(M, {\underline{\phantom{J}}})$ is acyclic on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\nabla)$ since $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)$ (see [@ringel Corollary 2]), so applying $\operatorname{Hom}(M, {\underline{\phantom{J}}})$ to an exact sequence of modules in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\nabla)$ again yields an exact sequence, i.e. $\operatorname{Hom}(M, G_N{\underline{\phantom{J}}})$ is exact.
Part (c) follows from (a) by duality. Finally, part (b) follows directly from Proposition \[prop:preservestilt\].
For all $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}_0$, $F_M$ maps tilting modules to projective modules, and $H_M$ maps tilting modules to injective modules.
In general it is quite difficult to compute $F_MN$ and $H_MN$, but the following is a nice special case.
\[prop:fnd\] For each $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ with $\Delta(\lambda)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\nabla(\lambda)}\Delta(\lambda) &\cong \Delta(0), \text{ and} \\
H_{\Delta(\lambda)}\nabla(\lambda) &\cong \nabla(0).
\end{aligned}$$
Let $\mu\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ be such that $\mu<0$ and $L(\mu)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$. Since $\mu<0$ it follows that $\bigl(G_{\nabla(\lambda)}L(\mu)\bigr)_\lambda={\ensuremath{\left\{0\right\}}}$, so $$\dim\operatorname{Hom}\bigl(F_{\nabla(\lambda)}\Delta(\lambda), L(\mu)\bigr) \cong
\dim\operatorname{Hom}\bigl(\Delta(\lambda), G_{\nabla(\lambda)}L(\mu)) = 0.$$ On the other hand, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\dim\operatorname{Hom}\bigl(F_{\nabla(\lambda)}\Delta(\lambda), L(0)\bigr)
&\cong \dim\operatorname{Hom}\bigl(\Delta(\lambda), G_{\nabla(\lambda)}L(0)\bigr) \\
&\cong \dim\operatorname{Hom}\bigl(\Delta(\lambda), \nabla(\lambda)\bigr) \\
&= 1,
\end{aligned}$$ so $F_{\nabla(\lambda)}\Delta(\lambda)$ has simple top $L(0)$. By Proposition \[prop:mdnnprojtiltinj\] $F_{\nabla(\lambda)}\Delta(\lambda)$ is projective, and hence $$F_{\nabla(\lambda)}\Delta(\lambda)\cong\Delta(0).$$ The second statement follows by duality.
\[prop:nattrans\] There are natural transformations
(a) $G_{\Delta(0)}{\twoheadrightarrow}\operatorname{Id}$, $\operatorname{Id}\hookrightarrow G_{\nabla(0)}$,
(b) $\operatorname{Id}\hookrightarrow H_{\Delta(0)}$, $F_{\nabla(0)}{\twoheadrightarrow}\operatorname{Id}$.
Since $F_{L(0)}\cong G_{L(0)}\cong H_{L(0)}\cong\operatorname{Id}$, together with the fact that $F$ is right exact, $G$ is exact and $H$ is left exact, this follows by applying the functors $F$, $G$ and $H$ to the canonical homomorphisms $\Delta(0){\twoheadrightarrow}L(0)$ and $L(0)\hookrightarrow\nabla(0)$.
(Co-)Monad structures {#sec:comonad}
=====================
We briefly recall the definition of a monad and a comonad (sometimes called triple and cotriple, respectively), for details see [@maclane; @weibel]. A monad $(\mho, \nabla, \eta)$ on a category ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is an endofunctor $\mho\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ together with two natural transformations $\nabla\colon \mho^2\rightarrow \mho$ and $\eta\colon \operatorname{Id}\rightarrow \mho$ such that the diagrams
$$\label{eq:monaddiagrams}
{\savebox{\midalignbox}{\includegraphics{monad.1}} \raisebox{-0.5\ht\midalignbox}{\usebox{\midalignbox}}}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
{\savebox{\midalignbox}{\includegraphics{monad.2}} \raisebox{-0.5\ht\midalignbox}{\usebox{\midalignbox}}}$$
commute. Dually, a comonad $(\Omega, \Delta, \varepsilon)$ on a category ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is an endofunctor $\Omega\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}}$ together with two natural transformations $\Delta\colon \Omega\rightarrow \Omega^2$ and $\varepsilon\colon \Omega\rightarrow \operatorname{Id}$ such that the diagrams $$\label{eq:comonaddiagrams}
{\savebox{\midalignbox}{\includegraphics{monad.3}} \raisebox{-0.5\ht\midalignbox}{\usebox{\midalignbox}}}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
{\savebox{\midalignbox}{\includegraphics{monad.4}} \raisebox{-0.5\ht\midalignbox}{\usebox{\midalignbox}}}$$ commute.
Fix a non-zero highest weight vector $v$ of $\Delta(0)$. Recall that ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)}$ admits a coalgebra structure with counit $\tilde{\varepsilon}\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)}\rightarrow{\mathbb{C}}$ and comultiplication $\tilde\Delta\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)}\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)}\otimes{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g)}$. This induces two homomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:comone}
D&\colon\Delta(0)\hookrightarrow\Delta(0)\otimes\Delta(0),
uv\mapsto \tilde\Delta(u)(v\otimes v), \\
\label{eq:comtwo}
E&\colon\Delta(0){\twoheadrightarrow}L(0),
uv\mapsto \tilde{\varepsilon}(u),\end{aligned}$$ for $u\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$, where we identify $L(0)$ with ${\mathbb{C}}$ via $\overline v\mapsto 1$.
\[prop:comonad\] The homomorphisms and induce a comonad $(\Delta(0)\otimes{\underline{\phantom{J}}}, \Delta, {\varepsilon})$ on ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$ with $\Delta$ injective and ${\varepsilon}$ surjective, and dually a monad $(\nabla(0)\otimes{\underline{\phantom{J}}}, \nabla, \eta)$ with $\nabla$ surjective and $\eta$ injective.
Fix $M\in{\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$. Applying the functor ${\underline{\phantom{J}}}\otimes M$ to and we obtain the homomorphisms (where as above we identify $L(0)$ with ${\mathbb{C}}$) $$\Delta_M{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}D\otimes \text{Id}_M
\colon \Delta(0)\otimes M\hookrightarrow\Delta(0)\otimes\Delta(0)\otimes M,$$ and $${\varepsilon}_M{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}E\otimes \text{Id}_M\colon \Delta(0)\otimes M{\twoheadrightarrow}M.$$
By the proof of Proposition \[prop:preservestilt\], $\Delta(0)\otimes M$ is generated by elements of the form $v\otimes m$, $m\in M$. For such an element, it is trivial to show that $$\bigl(({\varepsilon}_{\Delta(0)\otimes M})\circ\Delta_M\bigr)(v\otimes m)
= \bigl((\text{Id}_{\Delta(0)}\otimes {\varepsilon}_M)\circ\Delta_M\bigr)(v\otimes m)
= v\otimes m,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl((\Delta_{\Delta(0)\otimes M})\circ\Delta_M\bigr)(v\otimes m)
&= \bigl((\text{Id}_{\Delta(0)}\otimes \Delta_M)\circ\Delta_M\bigr)(v\otimes m) \\
&= v\otimes v\otimes v\otimes m,
\end{aligned}$$ so the diagrams commute, proving that $(\Delta(0)\otimes{\underline{\phantom{J}}}, \Delta, {\varepsilon})$ is a comonad on ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$.
Applying $\star\circ({\underline{\phantom{J}}}\otimes M^\star)$ to and gives the homomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_M&{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}(\Delta_{M^\star})^\star\colon
\nabla(0)\otimes\nabla(0)\otimes M{\twoheadrightarrow}\nabla(0)\otimes M, \text{ and}\\
\eta_M&{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}({\varepsilon}_{M^\star})^\star\colon
M\hookrightarrow \nabla(0)\otimes M.
\end{aligned}$$ By duality, the diagrams commute.
We can refine this result to the category ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$.
\[thm:comonado0\] The homomorphisms and induce a comonad $(G_{\Delta(0)}, \bar\Delta, \bar{\varepsilon})$ on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, with $\bar\Delta$ injective and $\bar{\varepsilon}$ surjective, and dually a monad $(G_{\nabla(0)}, \bar\nabla, \bar\eta)$ on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, with $\bar\nabla$ surjective and $\bar\eta$ injective.
We prove Theorem \[thm:comonado0\] in parts, throughout the rest of this section. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\bar\Delta_M&\colon G_{\Delta(0)}M\rightarrow G_{\Delta(0)}G_{\Delta(0)} M,\text{ and} \\
\bar{\varepsilon}_M&\colon G_{\Delta(0)}M\rightarrow M,\end{aligned}$$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\bar\Delta_M&{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}\pi_{G_{\Delta(0)}G_{\Delta(0)}M}\circ\Delta_M\circ\iota_{G_{\Delta(0)}M},
\text{ and} \\
\bar{\varepsilon}_M&{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}{\varepsilon}_M\circ\iota_{G_{\Delta(0)}M},\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi_x$ and $\iota_x$ as before denotes natural projections and injections. Let $\bar\Delta$ and $\bar{\varepsilon}$ be the natural transformations corresponding to $\bar\Delta_M$ and $\bar{\varepsilon}_M$.
\[rem:comodfactors\] Similarly as in the case of Remark \[rem:ntransfactors\], by central character considerations we see that $\pi_{G_{\Delta(0)}G_{\Delta(0)}}\circ\Delta_M$ factors through $\bar\Delta_M$, and ${\varepsilon}_M$ factors through $\bar{\varepsilon}_M$, i.e. the diagrams $$\includegraphics{comodfactors.1}\qquad
\includegraphics{comodfactors.2}$$ commute.
\[lem:lcomm\] The left of the diagrams for the triple $(G_{\Delta(0)}, \bar\Delta, \bar{\varepsilon})$ commutes.
Fix $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, with a weight basis $m_1, m_2, \dots\in M$, and consider an element $$\sum_{i=1}^k(u_iv)\otimes m_i\in G_{\Delta(0)}M,$$ where $u_1$, $\dots$, $u_k\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}$. Applying $\Delta_M$ yields, after collecting the elements of the form $v\otimes {\underline{\phantom{J}}}\otimes {\underline{\phantom{J}}}$, $$\label{eq:blahhh}
\sum_{i=1}^kv\otimes (u_iv)\otimes m_i +
\sum_{i, j}(u'_{ij}v)\otimes (u''_{ij}v)\otimes m_i,$$ where $\tilde{\varepsilon}(u'_{ij})=0$ for all $u'_{ij}$ in the sum on the right. Hence, when applying $$({\varepsilon}\otimes\text{Id}_{G_{\Delta(0)}M})\circ
(\text{Id}_{\Delta(0)}\otimes \pi_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}),$$ the right hand sum of maps to zero, while the left hand sum of maps to $$\sum_{i=1}^k (u_iv)\otimes m_i.$$ Hence $\bar{\varepsilon}_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}\circ\bar\Delta_M=\text{Id}_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}$, so the upper triangle of the left diagram of commutes.
For the lower triangle, consider the following diagram. $$\includegraphics{monad_o0.3}$$ The left square and the triangle commutes by Remark \[rem:comodfactors\], and the right quadrangle commutes by Remark \[rem:ntransfactors\], and hence the diagram commutes. By Proposition \[prop:comonad\], the top row equals $\text{Id}_{\Delta(0)\otimes M}$, and hence the bottom row equals $\text{Id}_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}$, as required.
\[cor:injsur\] The homomorphism $\bar{\varepsilon}_M$ is surjective and the homomorphism $\bar\Delta_M$ is injective.
Since $\bar{\varepsilon}_M={\varepsilon}_M\circ\iota_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}$ it follows that $\bar{\varepsilon}_M$ is surjective as ${\varepsilon}_M$ is surjective. By Lemma \[lem:lcomm\] we have $G_{\Delta(0)}\bar{\varepsilon}_M\circ\bar\Delta_M=\text{Id}_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}$, so $\bar\Delta_M$ is injective since $\text{Id}_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}$ is injective.
\[lem:rcomm\] The right of the diagrams for the triple $(G_{\Delta(0)}, \bar\Delta, \bar{\varepsilon})$ commutes.
We claim that the diagrams $$\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{monad_o0.1}$$ and $$\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{monad_o0.2}$$ commute. For the first diagram, the left and top right squares commute by Remark \[rem:comodfactors\], and the bottom right square commutes by Remark \[rem:ntransfactors\]. For the second diagram, the left and bottom right squares commute by Remark \[rem:comodfactors\]. For the top right square, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\Delta(0)\otimes M} &= D\otimes \text{Id}_{\Delta(0)\otimes M}, \text{ and} \\
\Delta_{G_{\Delta(0)}M} &= D\otimes \text{Id}_{G_{\Delta(0)}M},
\end{aligned}$$ so the square commutes, since $$\begin{aligned}
D\otimes \pi_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}
&= (\text{Id}_{\Delta(0)\otimes \Delta(0)}\otimes \pi_{G_{\Delta(0)}M})
\circ (D\otimes \text{Id}_{\Delta(0)\otimes M}) \\
&= (D\otimes \text{Id}_{G_{\Delta(0)}M})
\circ (\text{Id}_{\Delta(0)}\otimes \pi_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus both diagrams commute. Hence, since $$(\text{Id}_{\Delta(0)}\otimes\Delta_M)\circ\Delta_M =
\Delta_{\Delta(0)\otimes M}\circ\Delta_M$$ by Proposition \[prop:comonad\], and the fact that projections commute, it follows that $$G_{\Delta(0)}\bar\Delta_M\circ \bar\Delta_M
= \bar\Delta_{G_{\Delta(0)}M}\circ\bar\Delta_M,$$ and thus the right of the diagrams commute.
From Lemma \[lem:lcomm\] and Lemma \[lem:rcomm\] it follows that $(G_{\Delta(0)}, \bar\Delta, \bar{\varepsilon})$ is a comonad on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$, and $\bar\Delta$ is injective and $\bar{\varepsilon}$ is surjective by Corollary \[cor:injsur\]. Finally, as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:comonad\], setting $$\begin{aligned}
\bar\nabla_M&{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}(\bar\Delta_{M^\star})^\star, \text{ and}\\
\bar\eta_M&{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}(\bar{\varepsilon}_{M^\star})^\star,\end{aligned}$$ gives a monad $(G_{\nabla(0)}, \bar\nabla, \bar\eta)$ with $\bar\nabla$ surjective and $\bar\eta$ injective, by duality, which concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm:comonado0\].
Parabolic subcategories {#sec:parabolic}
=======================
All the previous results can be generalized to the case of the parabolic analogue of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$, in the sense of Rocha-Caridi (see for example [@rc; @irving]). Let ${\mathfrak}p\subseteq {\mathfrak}b$ be a parabolic subalgebra of ${\mathfrak}g$, let ${\mathfrak}m\subseteq {\mathfrak}n_-$ with $${\mathfrak}g = {\mathfrak}m\oplus {\mathfrak}p,$$ and let $R_{{\mathfrak}m}$ be the roots of ${\mathfrak}m$. The parabolic analogies of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}$, ${\widetilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}}}$, ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}(\Delta)$, etc. are obtained by substituting ${\mathfrak}n_-$ by ${\mathfrak}m$, ${\mathfrak}b$ by ${\mathfrak}p$, and $R_-$ by $R_{{\mathfrak}m}$, in the corresponding definition. Thus, for example, ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}$ is defined as the full subcategory of the category of ${\mathfrak}g$-modules consisting of weight modules that are finitely generated as ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}m)}$-modules, and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}(\Delta)$ is the full subcategory of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}$ that are free as ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}m)}$-modules. Similarly, the partial order $\leqslant$ on ${\mathfrak}h^*$ is replaced by $\leqslant_{{\mathfrak}p}$ defined as $\lambda\leqslant_{{\mathfrak}p}\mu$ if and only if $\lambda-\mu\in{\mathbb{N}}_0R_{{\mathfrak}m}$, and so on.
Recall that a generalised Verma module in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}$ is an element of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}(\Delta)$ that is generated by a highest weight vector (for details, see [@lepowsky]). We denote the generalised Verma module generated by a highest weight vector of weight $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ by $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(\lambda)$. Furthermore, the objects in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}(\Delta)$ are precisely the objects in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}$ that have a generalised Verma filtration.
Almost all statements and proofs of the previous sections hold verbatim with these substitutions. The exception is Proposition \[prop:freeproj\], which needs to be restated in the following (rather complicated) way. Let ${\mathfrak}g^{{\mathfrak}p}$ denote the semisimple part of ${\mathfrak}p$.
\[prop:pfreeproj\] Let $M$ be a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}m)}$-free module with a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}m)}$-basis $$\bigl\{\,v_{ij}\,\big\vert\,i\in I, 1\leq j\leq k_i\,\bigr\}$$ for some index set $I$ and non-negative integers $k_i$ such that $$L_i {\mathrel{\mathop:}=}{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}g^{{\mathfrak}p})}\{\,v_{ij}\,\vert\,1\leq j\leq k_i\,\}$$ is a $k_i$-dimensional ${\mathfrak}g^{{\mathfrak}p}$-module with basis $v_{i1}, \dotsc, v_{ik_i}$. Then $$M^{\leqslant\lambda} = M^{\leqslant_{{\mathfrak}p}\lambda}
\cong
\bigoplus_{\substack{i\in I,\\ L_i\leqslant\lambda}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}\{v_{i1}, \dotsc, v_{ik_i}\},$$ where $L_i\leqslant\lambda$ if $\operatorname{w}(v_{ij})\leqslant\lambda$ for all $1\leq j\leq k_i$.
By completely analogous arguments as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:freeproj\], it follows that $$M^{\nleqslant\lambda} =
\sum_{\substack{i\in I,\\ L_i\nleqslant\lambda}}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}({\mathfrak}n_-)}\{v_{i1}, \dotsc, v_{ik_i}\},$$ and hence the claim follows.
All objects of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}(\Delta)$ satisfy the requirements of Proposition \[prop:pfreeproj\], and a straightforward argument shows that $M\otimes N^*$ does as well, for all $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}(\Delta)$ and $N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}^{{\mathfrak}p}$. In particular, we conclude that the arguments used in Sections \[sec:main\] and \[sec:comonad\] all translate to the parabolic setting.
The main results for the category ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}$ are thus the following.
There exist faithful functors $$\begin{aligned}
F^{{\mathfrak}p}&\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}\hookrightarrow\operatorname{PFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p})^{\text{op}},
M\mapsto F^{{\mathfrak}p}_M,\\
G^{{\mathfrak}p}&\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}\hookrightarrow\operatorname{TFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}),
M\mapsto G^{{\mathfrak}p}_M,\\
H^{{\mathfrak}p}&\colon{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}\hookrightarrow\operatorname{IFun}({{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p})^{\text{op}},
M\mapsto H^{{\mathfrak}p}_M,
\end{aligned}$$ all three satisfying $X_M\cong X_N$ if and only if $M\cong N$ (where $X=F^{{\mathfrak}p}, G^{{\mathfrak}p}, H^{{\mathfrak}p}$).
These are just the restrictions of $F$, $G$, and $H$ to ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}$.
\[prop:pacyclic\] For any $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}$ the following holds:
(a) $F^{{\mathfrak}p}_M$ and $G^{{\mathfrak}p}_M$ preserve ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}(\Delta)$ and are acyclic on it.
(b) $G^{{\mathfrak}p}_M$ and $H^{{\mathfrak}p}_M$ preserve ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}(\nabla)$ and are acyclic on it.
\[prop:pmdnnprojtiltinj\] For all $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}(\Delta)$, $N\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}(\nabla)$ we have that
(a) $F^{{\mathfrak}p}_NM$ is projective,
(b) $G^{{\mathfrak}p}_MN\cong G^{{\mathfrak}p}_NM$ is a tilting module, and
(c) $H^{{\mathfrak}p}_MN$ is injective.
For all $M\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}$, $F^{{\mathfrak}p}_M$ maps tilting modules to projective modules, and $H^{{\mathfrak}p}_M$ maps tilting modules to injective modules.
\[prop:pfnd\] For each $\lambda\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ with $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(\lambda)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F^{{\mathfrak}p}_{\nabla^{{\mathfrak}p}(\lambda)}\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(\lambda) &\cong \Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(0),
\text{ and} \\
H^{{\mathfrak}p}_{\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(\lambda)}\nabla^{{\mathfrak}p}(\lambda) &\cong \nabla^{{\mathfrak}p}(0).
\end{aligned}$$
The canonical homomorphisms $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(0){\twoheadrightarrow}L(0)$ and $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(0)\hookrightarrow\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(0)\otimes\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(0)$ induce a comonad $(G_{\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}(0)}, \Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}, {\varepsilon}^{{\mathfrak}p})$ on ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{{\mathfrak}p}$ with $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p}$ injective and ${\varepsilon}^{{\mathfrak}p}$ surjective, and dually a monad $(G_{\nabla^{{\mathfrak}p}(0)}, \nabla^{{\mathfrak}p}, \eta^{{\mathfrak}p})$ with $\nabla^{{\mathfrak}p}$ surjective and $\eta^{{\mathfrak}p}$ injective.
An example: ${\mathfrak}{sl}_3({\mathbb{C}})$ {#sec:example}
=============================================
In conclusion we will compute the ‘multiplication table’ given by $G_MN$ and $F_MN$, where $M$ and $N$ run through the simple modules of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ for the algebra ${\mathfrak}g={\mathfrak}{sl}_3({\mathbb{C}})$, see Tables \[tab:gmult\] and \[tab:fmult\]. Let $\alpha, \beta\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ denote the simple roots, let $s$ and $t$ be the corresponding simple reflections (i.e. with $s(\alpha)=-\alpha$ and $t(\beta)=-\beta$), and fix a Weyl-Chevalley basis $X_{\pm\alpha}$, $X_{\pm\beta}$, $X_{\pm(\alpha+\beta)}$, $H_\alpha$, $H_\beta$.
The ‘dot’ action of the Weyl group $W=S_3$ on ${\mathfrak}h^*$ is defined by $$w\cdot\lambda{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}w(\lambda+\rho)-\rho$$ for an element $w\in W$, where $\rho\in{\mathfrak}h^*$ is half the sum of the positive roots. We set $L(w){\mathrel{\mathop:}=}L(w\cdot 0)$ for $w\in W$. Let $e$ denote the identity in $W$. There are two proper parabolic subalgebras, ${\mathfrak}p^{\alpha}{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}{\mathfrak}b+\langle X_{-\alpha}\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}$ and ${\mathfrak}p^{\beta}{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}{\mathfrak}b+\langle X_{-\beta}\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}$.
$G_MN$ $L(e)$ $L(s)$ $L(t)$ $L(st)$ $L(ts)$ $L(sts)$
---------- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$L(e)$ $L(e)$ $L(s)$ $L(t)$ $L(st)$ $L(ts)$ $L(sts)$
$L(s)$ $L(s)$ $L(st)$ ${\phantom{\scriptstyleL(st)\,} \hbox{\vtop{\vbox{\hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyle L(sts)$}}\nointerlineskip\smallskip \hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyle L(st)\;L(ts)$}}}\nointerlineskip\smallskip \hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyleL(sts)$}}}}\phantom{\,\scriptstyleL(ts)}}$ $0$ $L(sts)$ $0$
$L(t)$ $L(t)$ ${\phantom{\scriptstyleL(st)\,} \hbox{\vtop{\vbox{\hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyle L(sts)$}}\nointerlineskip\smallskip \hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyle L(st)\;L(ts)$}}}\nointerlineskip\smallskip \hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyleL(sts)$}}}}\phantom{\,\scriptstyleL(ts)}}$ $L(ts)$ $L(sts)$ $0$ $0$
$L(st)$ $L(st)$ $0$ $L(sts)$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$L(ts)$ $L(ts)$ $L(sts)$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$L(sts)$ $L(sts)$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
: The “multiplication table” for the bifunctor $G$ on the simple modules in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ for ${\mathfrak}{sl}_3({\mathbb{C}})$.[]{data-label="tab:gmult"}
$F_MN$ $L(e)$ $L(s)$ $L(t)$ $L(st)$ $L(ts)$ $L(sts)$
---------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------------------
$L(e)$ $L(e)$ $L(s)$ $L(t)$ $L(st)$ $L(ts)$ $\Delta(sts)$
$L(s)$ $0$ $L(e)$ $0$ $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(s)$ $0$ $\Delta(ts)\oplus P(t)$
$L(t)$ $0$ $0$ $L(e)$ $0$ $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\alpha}(t)$ $\Delta(st)\oplus P(s)$
$L(st)$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(e)$ $0$ $\Delta(t)$
$L(ts)$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\alpha}(e)$ $\Delta(s)$
$L(sts)$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $\Delta(e)$
: The “multiplication table” for the bifunctor $F$ on the simple modules in ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0$ for ${\mathfrak}{sl}_3({\mathbb{C}})$.[]{data-label="tab:fmult"}
The first row and column for the $G$-table follow from Remark \[rem:lzero\]. The zero entries are obtained by weight arguments (e.g. and ). Similarly one finds that $L(s)\otimes L(s)$ has a higest weight vector of weight $st\cdot 0$. Since $L(s)$ is not ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}(\langle X_{-\beta}\rangle)}$-free, it follows that $G_{L(s)}L(s)\cong L(st)$. By symmetry, $G_{L(t)}L(t)=L(ts)$. Finally, for $G_{L(s)}L(t)\cong G_{L(t)}L(s)$, counting dimensions of the weight spaces shows that $L(st)$ and $L(ts)$ each occur once in the Jordan-Hölder decomposition, and $L(sts)$ occurs twice. Furthermore, since $L(s)$ is ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}(\langle X_{-\alpha}\rangle)}$-free and $L(t)$ is ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}(\langle X_{-\beta}\rangle)}$-free, it follows that $G_{L(s)}L(t)$ is both ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}(\langle X_{-\alpha}\rangle)}$-free and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}(\langle X_{-\beta}\rangle)}$-free. Hence neither $L(st)$ nor $L(ts)$ can occur in the socle of $G_{L(s)}L(t)$. Finally, we have $$\biggl(G_{L(s)}L(t)\biggr)^\star = G_{L(s)^\star}L(t)^\star = G_{L(s)}L(t),$$ i.e. $G_{L(s)}L(t)$ is self-dual, so neither $L(st)$ nor $L(ts)$ can occur in the top of $G_{L(s)}L(t)$. We conclude that the Loewy series of $G_{L(s)}L(t)$ is $$G_{L(s)}L(t)\cong
{\phantom{\scriptstyleL(st)\,} \hbox{\vtop{\vbox{\hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyle L(sts)$}}\nointerlineskip\smallskip \hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyle L(st)\;L(ts)$}}}\nointerlineskip\smallskip \hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyleL(sts)$}}}}\phantom{\,\scriptstyleL(ts)}}.$$
The corresponding table for $F$ is given in Table \[tab:fmult\]. Since $F_{L(0)}M=M$, the first row is immediate. Furthermore, by Proposition \[prop:fnd\], and the fact that $L(sts)=\Delta(sts)=\nabla(sts)$ we have $F_{L(sts)}L(sts)=\Delta(e)$. Similarly, by Proposition \[prop:pfnd\] and the fact that $L(st)=\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(st)=\nabla^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(st)$ we have $F_{L(st)}L(st)=\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(e)$ (and similarly for $F_{L(ts)}L(ts)$). Using the adjointness of $F$ and $G$, we can easily determine the top of $F_{L(i)}L(j)$, i.e. $L(k)$ is in the top of $F_{L(i)}L(j)$ if and only if $L(j)$ is in the socle of $G_{L(i)}L(k)$. In particular, this fact and the $G$-table gives us all the $0$’s in the table.
The remaining cases need some additional case by case arguments. We begin with $F_{L(s)}L(s)$. By adjointness, Table \[tab:gmult\] shows that $F_{L(s)}L(s)$ has a simple top $L(e)$. Since $L(s)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}_0^{\beta}$, it follows that the possible modules are $L(e)$ and $$\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(e)={\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{L(e)}{L(s)}}.$$ But by Proposition \[prop:pacyclic\] we have $G_{L(s)}\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(e)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0^\beta(\Delta)$, so by analysing the weights we see that $$G_{L(s)}\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(e)=\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(s) = {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{L(s)}{L(st)}}.$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\dim\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}\bigl(F_{L(s)}L(s), \Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(e)\bigr)
&= \dim\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}\bigl(L(s), G_{L(s)}\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(e)\bigr) \\
&= \dim\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathfrak}g}\bigl(L(s), \Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(s)\bigr) \\
&= 0,\end{aligned}$$ and so $F_{L(s)}L(s)\neq \Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(e)$ and we conclude that $F_{L(s)}L(s)=L(e)$. Analogously, we get $F_{L(t)}L(t)=L(e)$.
Since $L(sts)=\Delta(sts)$, we have $F_{L(st)}L(sts)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0(\Delta)$ by Proposition \[prop:acyclic\], and by the proof of Proposition \[prop:fpreservesdelta\] we know that the Verma modules $\Delta(\lambda)$ occuring in the Verma flag of $F_{L(st)}L(sts)$ are the ones satisfying $\lambda\in sts\cdot0 - \operatorname{Supp}L(st)$ and $\lambda\leqslant 0$, with multiplicity equal to the dimension of the weight space of $L(st)$ of weight $sts\cdot 0 - \lambda$. The only such weight is $t\cdot 0$, with multiplicity $1$. Hence, $F_{L(st)}L(sts)=\Delta(t)$. Analogously, $F_{L(ts)}L(sts)=\Delta(s)$.
Since $L(st)=\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(st)$, we have $F_{L(s)}L(st)\in{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}}_0^\beta(\Delta)$. By a similar analysis as for $F_{L(st)}L(sts)$, using the proof of Proposition \[prop:pfreeproj\], we find that $F_{L(s)}L(st)$ has only one generalised Verma quotient, $\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(s)$, so $F_{L(s)}L(st)=\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\beta}(s)$. Similarly, $F_{L(t)}L(ts)=\Delta^{{\mathfrak}p^\alpha}(t)$.
Finally, for $F_{L(s)}L(sts)$, by the same analysis as for $F_{L(st)}L(sts)$ we have that $F_{L(s)}L(sts)$ has a Verma flag with Verma quotients $\Delta(e)$, $\Delta(t)$ and $\Delta(ts)$, each with multiplicity $1$. Furthermore, using adjointness we find from Table \[tab:gmult\] that $F_{L(s)}L(sts)$ has top $L(ts)\oplus L(t)$. Thus, $F_{L(s)}L(sts)$ is a quotient of $P(ts)\oplus P(t)$. The module $P(ts)\oplus P(t)$ has the following standard filtration: $$P(ts)\oplus P(t) = {\phantom{\scriptstyle\Delta(t)\,} \hbox{\vtop{\vbox{\hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyle \Delta(ts)$}}\nointerlineskip\smallskip \hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyle \Delta(t)\;\Delta(s)$}}}\nointerlineskip\smallskip \hbox{\clap{$\scriptstyle\Delta(e)$}}}}\phantom{\,\scriptstyle\Delta(s)}}
\oplus {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{\Delta(t)}{\Delta(e)}}.$$ It is easy to see that this implies that $$F_{L(s)}L(sts) = \Delta(ts)\oplus P(t).$$ By symmetry, $F_{L(t)}L(sts) = \Delta(st)\oplus P(s)$, which completes the table.
[9]{}
H. Bass, [*Algebraic $K$-theory*]{}, Benjamin, 1968.
J. N. Bernstein, S. I. Gelfand, [*Tensor products of finite and infinite dimensional representations of semisimple Lie algebras*]{}, Compositio Mathematica, Vol. 41, Fasc. 2 (1980), pp. 245–285.
J. N. Bernstein, I. M. Gelfand, S. I. Gelfand, [*A certain category of ${\mathfrak}g$-modules*]{}, Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen. 10 (1976), no 2, pp. 1–8.
P. Fiebig, [*Centers and translation functors for the category ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}$ over Kac-Moody algebras*]{}, Mathematische Zeitschrift 243 (2003) no. 4, pp. 689–717.
R. S. Irving, [*Projective modules in the category ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}_S$: Self duality*]{}, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Volume 291, Number 2 (1985), pp. 701–732.
J. C. Jantzen, [*Moduln mit einem Höchsten Gewicht*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 750, Berlin (1979).
J. Lepowsky, [*A Generalization of the Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand Resolution*]{}, Journal of Algebra 49, (1977), pp. 496–511.
S. Mac Lane, [*Categories for the Working Mathematician*]{}, Springer, New York (1998).
W. Neidhardt, [*A translation principle for Kac-Moody algebras*]{}, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 100, no. 3, (1987), pp. 395–400.
W. Neidhardt, [*Translation to and fro over Kac-Moody algebras*]{}, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 139 (1989), pp. 107–153.
A. Rocha-Caridi, [*Splitting criteria for ${\mathfrak}g$-modules induced from a parabolic and the Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand resolution of a finite dimensional, irreducible ${\mathfrak}g$-module*]{}, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Volume 262, Number 2, December 1980, pp. 335–366.
A. Rocha-Caridi, N. R. Wallach, [*Projective Modules over Graded Lie Algebras. I*]{}, Mathematische Zeitschrift 180 (1982), pp. 151–177.
C. M. Ringel, [*The category of modules with good filtrations over a quasi-hereditary algebra has almost split sequences*]{}, Mathematische Zeitschrift 208 (1991), pp. 209–223.
C. A. Weibel, [*An Introduction to Homological Algebra*]{}, Cambrige University Press (1995).
Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University, Box 480,\
, Sweden. e-mail: [[email protected]]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A [*vector space partition*]{} is here a collection $\mathcal P$ of subspaces of a finite vector space $V(n,q)$, of dimension $n$ over a finite field with $q$ elements, with the property that every non zero vector is contained in a unique member of $\mathcal P$. Vector space partitions relates to finite projective planes, design theory and error correcting codes.
In the first part of the talk I will discuss some relations between vector space partitions and other branches of mathematics. The other part of the talk contains a survey of known results on the type of a vector space partition, more precisely: the theorem of Beutelspacher and Heden on $\mathrm{T}$-partitions, rather recent results of El-Zanati et al. on the different types that appear in the spaces $V(n,2)$, for $n\leq8$, a result of Heden and Lehmann on vector space partitions and maximal partial spreads including their new necessary condition for the existence of a vector space partition, and furthermore, I will give a theorem of Heden on the length of the tail of a vector space partition.
Finally, I will also give a few historical remarks.
author:
- Olof Heden
title: 'A survey of the different types of vector space partitions [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
We will mainly consider finite dimensional vector spaces over finite fields, and collections of subspaces, covering the whole space, and pairwise intersecting in just the zero vector. Such a configuration $\mathcal P$ of subspaces will be called a [*vector space partition*]{} of the vector space $V=V(n,q)$, where $n$ is the dimension of $V$ and $q$ the number of elements in the scalar field: $$U,U'\in{\mathcal P}\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad U\cap U'=\{\;\bar 0\;\}$$ and $$V=\bigcup_{U\in{\mathcal P}}\;U\;.$$ Let us first give two non trivial, and important examples of vector space partitions.
[**Example 1.**]{} Let $q=p^k$ be any power of a prime $p$. Consider the finite field $F=\mathrm{GF}(q^4)$ as a $4$-dimensional vector space $V=V(4,q)$ over the finite field $\mathrm{GF}(q)$. Let $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dots,\alpha_k$, where $k=(|F|-1)/(|\mathrm{GF}(q^2)|-1)$, denote a family of coset representatives of the multiplicative group of the subfield $\mathrm{GF}(q^2)$ in the multiplicative group of $F$. The following family of subspaces of $V$ $${\mathcal P}=\{\;\alpha_1\mathrm{GF}(q^2)\;,\;\alpha_2\mathrm{GF}(q^2)\;,\;\dots\;,\;\alpha_k\mathrm{GF}(q^2) \;\}\;$$ will constitute a vector space partition of $V$.
The next construction of a vector space partition is due to Bu [@bu] and independently Beutelspacher [@beutelspacher].
[**Example 2.**]{} Consider the finite field $\mathrm{GF}(q^k)$ as a vector space $W$ over $\mathrm{GF}(q)$, and let $U$ be a subspace of $W$. For each $\alpha\in\mathrm{GF}(q^k)$, we define a subspace $U_{\alpha}$ of $V=W\times U$ by $$U_{\alpha}=\{\;(\alpha u,u)\;\mid\;u\in U\;\}\;.$$ The following set $\mathcal P$ of subspaces to $V$ $${\mathcal P}=\{\;U_{\alpha}\;\mid\;\alpha\in\mathrm{GF}(q^k)\;\}\cup\{\;W\times\{\bar 0\}\;\}\;.$$ will constitute a vector space partition of $V$.
We will say that a vector space partition $\mathcal P$ is of [*type*]{} $$[d_1^{n_1}d_2^{n_2}\dots d_t^{n_t}]\;,$$ if $\mathcal P$ consists of $n_1$ spaces of dimension $d_1$, $n_2$ spaces of dimension $d_2$, etc., where $d_1$, $d_2$, ..., $d_t$ are $t$ distinct non negative integers. So the partition in Example 1 is of type $[2^{q^{2}+1}]$ and the partition in Example 2 is, in case $\dim(W)\neq\dim(U)$, of type $[\dim(W)^1\dim(U)^{|W|}]$.
It might seem to be an easy project to find all possible types of vector space partitions. However, already for finite vector spaces of dimension 8 over a finite field with two elements you get serious problems. In fact this particular case is the ”first” open case.
The problem with the possibilities for the different types of vector space partitions were studied in the 70’s and 80’s by Bu [@bu], Lindström [@bernt], Beutelspacher [@beutelspacher] and Heden [@heden], and during this millennium, and with many contributions by El-Zanati, Seelinger, Sissokho, Spence, and Vanden Eynden, see e.g. [@el], and also by Heden and Lehmann [@lehmann]. The subject at issue with this article is to survey these recent results, as well as the results from the 70’s and 80’s, on this problem.
As a motivation for the study of vector space partitions, we will in the first sections briefly discuss the relation between vector space partitions and projective planes as well as the relation to error correcting codes.
In the last section we will also give a few historical remarks to vector space partition problems, as well as to group partitions problem.
Vector space partitions and projective planes {#sec:2}
=============================================
A [*projective plane*]{} consists of lines and points, satisfying the following properties:
1\. Any two lines intersect in a unique point,
2\. Any two points are contained in a unique line,
3\. There are four points such that no line is incident with more than two of them.
Counting arguments show that the number of points will be equal to the number of lines, the integer $q^2+q+1$. The integer $q$ will be called the [*order*]{} of the plane. Through any point there are exactly $q+1$ lines and every line contains exactly $q+1$ points.
To any projective plane we may associate an [*affine plane*]{} by deleting one line of the projective plane, the ”line at infinity” (and the points on that line). What remains will consist of parallel classes of lines. Still, through any two of the remaining points there is a unique line, and further every point is contained in a unique member of every parallel class. Conversely, we may to every given affine plane associate a projective plane by completing with a line at infinity, the points on this line are the distinct parallel classes.
We will now show a construction due to André [@andre] of projective planes using vector space partitions.
Let $V=V(4,q)$ be a $4$-dimensional vector space over a finite field with $q$ elements. Let $\mathcal P$ be any vector space partition of $V$ consisting of solely $2$-dimensional subspaces of $V$: $${\mathcal P}=\{ \;U_1, U_2, \dots, U_t\;\},\quad\hbox{where}\quad \dim(U_i)=2\quad\hbox{for},\quad i=1,2,\dots,t=q^2+1\;.$$ (We might as well so far have considered the trivial partition of any $2$-dimensional space into $1$-dimensional spaces.)
By using this partition we first construct an affine plane. The points will be the $q^4$ distinct vectors of $V$. The lines will be the cosets of the spaces in the partition, i.e., $$L_{i,\alpha}=\alpha+U_i\;,\qquad \hbox{for}\qquad \alpha\in\mathrm{GF}(q^4)\;,$$ (duplications may occur) and, as distinct cosets of subgroups are disjoint and together cover the whole space, each element $U_i$ of the vector space partition gives a parallel class consisting of $q^4/q^2=q^2$ lines. Further, to show that there is a unique line through any two points $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of the affine plane $\mathrm{GF}(q^4)$, simply, find $U_i$ such that $$\alpha-\beta\in U_i\in{\mathcal P}\;.$$ Then, the line $L_{i,\beta}=\beta+U_i$ will both contain the point $\beta+0=\beta$ and the point $\beta+(\alpha-\beta)=\alpha$. The verification of the remaining properties of an affine plane are performed in a similar way. By using this affine plane, we may now get a projective plane, as described above, by adjoining a line at infinity.
The fact is that by using different vector space partitions and the construction of André, we get projective planes with different properties. The vector space partition described in Example 1 will give a projective plane that is Desarguessian. But it is rather easy to derive a Non-Desarguessian projective plane using other vector space partitions of the same type.
A vector space partition of the type $[2^{q^2+1}]$ of $V(4,q)$ is called a [*spread*]{}, or a [*line spread*]{}, as the members of the spread can be viewed as a family of mutually disjoint lines covering all points in the projective space $\mathrm{PG}(3,q)$ of dimension $3$.
It must also be remarked that far from every projective plane can be found in this way, see for example the classical book by Dembowski [@dembowski].
Maximal partial spreads
=======================
One of the most challenging, perhaps most important, but at least a very interesting problem is to make out whether or not there exists a project plane of an order $q$ that is not a power of prime. There are no projective planes of order 6, 10, 14 and for a following known infinite sequence of integer. More precisely: The only general restriction known on the order is given by the Bruck-Ryser-Chowla theorem [@bruckryser] which says that if the order $n$ of the projective plane is congruent to 1 or 2 mod 4, it must be the sum of two squares. E.g., 14 is not a sum of two squares. The first undecided case is $q=12$.
To construct such a plane, we can start with a family of parallel classes of lines, to get a so called [*partial net*]{}. For such a net it is required that, for every parallel class of lines, every point of the plane is contained in one line of the parallel class. One can get a partial net from an affine plane by deleting all lines in a family of parallel classes of lines.
It was proved by Bruck [@bruck] in 1963, that there is a bound $N(n)$, such that if you have a partial net with more than $N(n)$ parallel classes then you can complete with further parallel classes to get an affine plane of order $n$. More precisely, let $$p(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^4+x^3+x^2+\frac{3}{2}x\;,$$ and let $d=n-1-t$, where $t$ is the number of parallel classes in a partial net. If $$p(d-1)<n\;,$$ then the partial net can be completed to an affine plane. So, in other words and with $n=12$: if you find 9 mutually orthogonal latin squares of order 12, then you can always complete with another 2 to get a set of 11 mutually orthogonl latin squares of order 12, sufficiently many to describe a projective plane of order 12.
These kind of situations can in a natural way be transformed into the field of vector space partition problems, compare the construction of parallel classes of lines from $2$-dimensional subspaces of a $4$-dimensional vector space.
We define a [*maximal partial spread*]{} to be a collection $\mathcal S$ of 2-dimensional subspaces of $V=V(4,q)$ with the property that every 2-dimensional subspace of $V$ has a non trivial intersection with at least one member of $\mathcal S$.
The first to study maximal partial spreads was Mesner [@mesner], who in 1967 had his children to choose 2-dimensional spaces, with trivial intersection, ”randomly”. It turned out that if his children found more than a certain bound, they could always complete the lines they had found so far to a full spread.
Maximal partial spreads have been studied by a numerous of authors as for example Mesner [@mesner], Bruen [@bruen], Bruen and Thas [@thas], Heden [@heden93], Blokhuis [@blokhuis], Heden, Pambianco, Marcugino and Faina [@pambianco], Blokhuis and Metsch [@metsch], Ebert [@ebert], Beutelspacher [@albrecht], Gács and Szönyi [@gacs]. The best known upper bound for a maximal partial spread is by Blokhuis [@blokhuis]:
[*For every maximal partial spread $\mathcal S$ in $V(4,p)$, where $p$ is a prime number $$|{\mathcal S}|\leq p^2-\frac{p+1}{2}\;.$$*]{}
Bruen and Thas, Beutelspacher Ebert, and many other researchers, constructed maximal partial spreads of sizes $q^2-q+1$ and $q^2-q+2$; and it was conjectured by Bruen and Thas [@thas], that $q^2-q+2$ is the upper bound for the size of a non trivial maximal partial spread in $V(4,q)$. However, it was proved by Heden [@heden00] in 2000 that this conjecture is false, as he found, by using a computer search, a maximal partial spread of size 45 in $V(4,7)$.
We now consider the construction in the Example 2 in a very special, but important case.
[**Example 3.**]{} We consider the direct product $W\times U$, where $W$ is to be identified with the finite field $\mathrm{GF}(32)$, as a vector space over $\mathrm{GF}(2)$. The space $U$ will be a subspace of dimension 3 of $W$ and by using the construction of Bu, see Example 2, we get a vector space partition of type $[3^{32}5^1]$ of $V(8,2)$. We now continue and partition the subspace $W$ of dimension 5 into one subspace of dimension $3$ and the remaining subspaces of dimension 1. In this way we get a partition of type $[1^{24}3^{33}]$. This will be a partial 3-spread of size 33 in $V(8,2)$.
If a conjecture of Eisfeld and Storme as well as by Hong and Patel [@hong], was true, then this would be the largest possible size of a partial 3-spread in $V(8,2)$. However, recently, El-Zanati et al [@el] found, by using a computer search, a vector space partition of the type $[1^{17}3^{34}]$. This vector space partition will be of some importance below.
The above example confirms that it is very difficult to find all types of vector space partitions.
Let us also remark that maximal partial $t$-spreads in $V(n,q)$ have also been extensively studied. Contributions in this study have been given by Beutelspacher [@albrecht] in 1980 and during this millenium by Govaerts and Storme [@goeverts].
Vector space partitions and perfect codes {#sec:4}
=========================================
A [*perfect $e$-error correcting code*]{} is a subset $C$ of a direct product of sets $$C\subseteq {\mathcal A}_1\times{\mathcal A}_2\times\dots\times{\mathcal A}_t$$ such that any possible word $x$ of this direct product differs in at most $e$ coordinate positions from a unique word of $C$. Error correcting codes in general, not just perfect error correcting codes, is a well studied subject, originating in the late 40’s during the development of computers, but is also of great importance, in fact most important, in connection with information transmission.
Herzog and Schönheim [@herzog] observed in 1972 that vector space partitions can be used to construct perfect 1-error correcting codes. Take any vector space partition $${\mathcal P}=\{\;U_1, U_2, \dots, U_t\;\}$$ of the space $V=V(n,q)$. Consider the map $\varphi$ from the direct product of the spaces of $\mathcal P$, $$\varphi:\;U_1\times U_2\times\dots \times U_t\qquad \longrightarrow\qquad V$$ defined by $$(u_1,u_2,\dots,u_t)\quad\mapsto\quad u_1+u_2+\dots+u_t\;.$$ The kernel of this map, i.e., $$\ker(\varphi)=\{\;(u_1,u_2,\dots,u_t)\;\mid\;u_1+u_2+\dots+u_t=0\;\}$$ will be a perfect 1-error correcting code. In case the spaces in the vector space partition $\mathcal P$ are not all of the same size, or equivalently, not of the same dimension, then the codes are called [*mixed perfect codes*]{}.
Those acquainted with the ”ordinary” Hamming code may recognize the above construction as a generalization of the well known construction of a Hamming code as the null space of a matrix $\bf H$. For example, consider $${\bf H}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
0&0&0&1&1&1&1\\
0&1&1&0&0&1&1\\
1&0&1&0&1&0&1
\end{array}\right)$$ In fact the Hamming code we get as null space of this matrix, can be obtained by the vector space partition consisting of the following subspaces of $V(3,2)$: $${\mathcal P}=\{\;U_1=\{(0,0,0),(0,0,1)\}\,,\;U_2=\{(0,0,0),(0,1,0)\}\,,\;\dots,\;U_7=\{(0,0,0),(1,1,1)\}\;\}$$
All perfect codes, constructed in this way, will actually be linear codes, that is, vector spaces over the field $\mathrm{GF}(q)$.
Finally, as was observed by Herzog and Schönheim [@herzog], every linear perfect 1-error correcting code originates from a vector space partition, as described above.
On the types of vector space partitions
=======================================
As already mentioned, and perhaps also realized from the Example 3 above, to find all possible types of vector space partitions is a difficult task. It contains both finding new constructions and proving necessary conditions for a certain type to exist. So far no general necessary and sufficient conditions have been found.
Necessary conditions
--------------------
We will in this subsection always assume that if $[d_1^{n_1}d_2^{n_2}\dots d_k^{n_k}]$ is a type of a vector space partition then $d_1<d_2<\dots<d_k$.
As any vector is contained in a unique space of the partition, the following so called [*packing condition*]{} for a vector space partition of type $[d_1^{n_1}d_2^{n_2}\dots d_k^{n_k}]$ in $V=V(n,q)$ to exist must be true: $$n_1(q^{d_1}-1)+n_2(q^{d_2}-1)+\dots+n_k(q^{d_k}-1)=q^n-1\;.$$ As for any two members $U$ and $W$ of a vector space partition $\mathcal P$ of $V=V(n,q)$ we have that $\dim(\mathrm{span}\{U\cup W\})=\dim(U)+\dim(W)$ we get, as first observed by Bu [@bu], for any $i$ and $j$: $$d_i+d_j\leq n\;.$$ This condition will below be called the [*dimension condition*]{}. Example 2 shows that we can have equality above.
Spera [@spera] observed that from the packing condition follows that, $$\frac{q^n-1}{q^{d_k}-1}\leq \sum_{i=1}^kn_i=|{\mathcal P}|\leq \frac{q^n-1}{q^{d_1}-1}\;.$$ Heden and Lehmann [@lehmann] improved this bound for the number of spaces in a vector space partition: If we are not in the case of Example 2 of Section 1, then $$|{\mathcal P}|\geq q^{d_k}+q^{d_{k-1}}+1\;.$$
We used the so called second packing condition developed from the fact that if we intersect all spaces of a vector space partition $\mathcal P$ with a hyperplane $H$, then we get a vector space partition ${\mathcal P}_H$. To describe the second packing condition it will be convenient to use the following notation:
[*A $(m_k,m_{k-1},\dots,m_2,m_1)$-partition is the same as a $[1^{m_1}2^{m_2}\dots k^{m_k}]$-partition, (where we allow some of the non negative integer exponents to be zero).*]{}
A hyperplane $H$ will be of type $b=(b_k,\dots,b_2,b_1)$ if $H$ contains $b_i$ of the subspaces of dimension $i$ of $\mathcal P$. Let $s_b$ denote the number of hyperplanes of type $b$. The [*second packing condition*]{}, derived by Heden and Lehmann [@lehmann], is $$s_{b}\neq0\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad\sum_{d=1}^{k} b_{d}q^{d}=\sum_{d=1}^{k}m_{d} - 1\;.$$ Let $B$ denote the family of all feasible solutions to the diophantine equation above. By double counting incidences, Heden and Lehmann [@lehmann] proved the following necessary conditions:
[*For any $1\leq d,d'\leq n-2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{b\in B}b_{d}s_{b} & = & m_{d}\\
\sum_{b\in B}{{b_{d}}\choose{2}}s_{b} & = & {{m_{d}}\choose{2}}\\
\sum_{b\in B}b_{d}b_{d'}s_{b} & = & m_{d}m_{d'}\;.\label{eq:sum-sb-i-j}\end{aligned}$$*]{}
Using these necessary conditions, that we shall call the [*hyperplane conditions*]{}, Heden and Lehmann [@lehmann] derived the following
*Let $V=V(2t,q)$ and assume that $V$ has a partition of type $(m_t,\ldots,m_1)$, with $m_t=q^t+1-a$. Let $d<t$, such that $m_d>0$.*
If $$m_d<\frac{q^{t}-1}{q^{t-d}-1}\;,$$ then $$a\geq m_d-\mathrm{R}_q(t,d,m_d)\;.$$ where $$\mathrm{R}_q(t,d,m):=m(m-1)\frac{\frac{1}{2}(q^{2t-2d}-1)+1-q^{t-d}}{q^{t}-1-m(q^{t-d}-1)}\;.$$
We now evaluate this bound in a particular case. We consider as above $V(2t,q)$. We can easily, like in Example 1 of Section 1, find a spread consisting of $q^t+1$ spaces of dimension $t$. We can then substitute a number $a$ of these spaces, by vector spaces partitions of them, consisting of spaces of lower dimension. If $t/2<d<t$ then, in this way, we cannot get a vector space partition with more than $a$ subspaces of dimension $d$.
The problem Heden and Lehmann [@lehmann] considered was whether it is possible to get more than $a$ spaces of dimension $d$, still with $q^t+1-a$ of spaces of dimension $t$, (but then, as spaces of dimension $t$, taking other spaces than those from a complete spread.) However, they proved that if the number of spaces of dimension $d$ is small then this is not possible, more precisely:
[*Let $d=t-k$ and let $m_d$ be the number of spaces of dimension $d$. If $$m_{d}\leq \sqrt{2}q^{(t-2k)/2}\;,$$ then $a\geq m_{d}$.* ]{}
We close this subsection by discussing the length of the tail. The [*tail*]{} of a vector space partition is the set of spaces of lowest dimension. The [*length of the tail*]{} is the size of the tail. The size of the tail in the vector space partition in Example 3, which actually will be of importance below, is $17$.
By using the connection with perfect codes, as described in Section \[sec:4\], Heden [@h] proved the following bounds for the length of the tail of a vector space partition.
*For every vector space partition of type $[d_1^{n_1}d_2^{n_2}\dots d_k^{n_k}]$*
[ll]{} (i)&if $q^{d_2-d_1}$ does not divide $n_1$ and if $d_2< 2d_1$, then $n_1\geq q^{d_1}+1$.\
(ii)& if $q^{d_2-d_1}$ does not divide $n_1$ and $d_2\geq 2d_1$, then either& $d_1$ divides $d_2$ and $n_1=(q^{d_2}-1)/(q^{d_1}-1)$ or $n_1> 2 q^{d_2-d_1}$\
(iii)& if $q^{d_2-d_1}$ divides $n_1$ and $d_2<2d_1$ then $n_1\geq q^{d_2}-q^{d_1}+q^{d_2-d_1}$.\
(iv)& if $q^{d_2-d_1}$ divides $n_1$ and $d_2\geq2d_1$ then $n_1\geq q^{d_2}$.
It was shown in [@h] that the bounds in [*(i), (iii)*]{} and [*(iv)*]{} are tight.
$T$-partitions
--------------
A vector space partition $\mathcal P$ is a [*$T$-partition*]{} if $$T=\{\;\dim(W)\;\mid\;W\in{\mathcal P}\;\}\;.$$
The problem is to find conditions on a given set $T$ of positive integers, that guarantees the existence of a $T$-partition. We will always assume that $$T=\{\;t_1, t_2, \dots, t_k\;\} \qquad\hbox{where}\qquad t_1<t_2<\dots<t_k\;.$$
In the case $t_1=1$, it is trivial to find a $T$-partition of any space $V=V(n,q)$ where $t_k+t_{k-1}\leq n$. Simply, consider $V$ as a direct product of $W$ and $U$ where $d_2=\dim(W)=t_k$ and $d_1=\dim(U)=n-\dim(W)$, and so using the construction of Example 2 of a vector space partition, we get a partition of type $[d_1^{q^{d_2}}d_2^1]$. We now take $k-1$ of the subspaces of dimension $d_1$ and partition each of them into one space of dimension $t_i$ and the remaining subspaces of dimension $1$, respectively. We note that $k\leq d_2$ implies that $k<q^{d_2}$, so this type of $T$-partition will exist.
So the non trivial case is when $t_1\geq2$.
It was Beutelspacher [@beutelspacher] who in 1978 introduced the concept $T$-partition. He found a result on the existence of $T$-partitions that relates to the Frobenius number.
Let $A=\{\;a_1,a_2,\dots,a_k\;\}$ be a set of positive integers and assume that the greatest common divisors of these numbers is 1. The greatest integer $n$ that cannot be written as a linear combination of these integers $$n=x_1a_1+n_2x_2+\dots+n_ka_k\;$$ for some non negative integers $x_1$, $x_2$, ..., $x_k$, is the [*Frobenius number*]{} $g(A)$. It was proved by Selmer [@selmer] that $$g(A)\leq 2a_1\lfloor \frac{a_k}{k}\rfloor-a_1\;,$$ where $a_1$ is the smallest, and $a_k$ the largest among the integers in $A$.
Using the above result of Selmer, Beutelspacher [@beutelspacher] proved the following
[*Consider the vector space $V=V(n,q)$. For $$n>2t_1\lfloor \frac{t_k}{d\cdot t_k}\rfloor+t_2+\dots+t_k\;,$$ $V$ has a $T$-partition if and only if $gcd(T)$ divides $n$.* ]{}
It must be remarked that from the packing condition follows that if $V(n,q)$ admits a $T$-partition, then $\gcd(T)$ divides $n$.
Further, Beutelspacher [@beutelspacher] proved the next theorem for $T$-partitions, in the case $t_1=2$, and later, Heden [@heden] proved the result in its full generality:
[*The space $V(2t,q)$ admits a $T=\{t_1<t_2<\dots<t_k=t\}$-partition.* ]{}
An enumeration of the different types of vector space partitions in $V(n,2)$, for $n\leq 7$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This enumeration was completed by El-Zanati et al in [@esssv], although the investigation of almost all cases were ruled out already by Heden [@He3]. It was shown, partially by the use of a computer search for one particular vector space partition, that the following necessary conditions: the packing condition, the dimension condition and the tail condition also are sufficient in the case $V(n\leq7,2)$. For e.g. $n\leq5$ we thus get the following enumeration: $$\begin{array}{c|l}
n&\hbox{different types of vector space partitions in $V(n,2)$}\\
\hline
1&[1^1],\\
2&[1^3],\\
&[2^1],\\
3&[1^7],\;[1^42^1],\\
&[3^1],\\
4&[1^{15}],\;[1^{12}2^{1}],\;[1^92^2],\;[1^{6}2^{3}],\;[1^32^4],\\
&[2^5],\\
&[1^{8}3^1],\\
&[4^1],\\
5&[1^{31}],\;[1^{28}2^1],\;[1^{25}2^2],\;[1^{22}2^3],\;[1^{19}2^4]\;[1^{16}2^5],\;[1^{13}2^6],\;[1^{10}2^7],\;[1^72^8],\;[1^42^9],\\
&[1^{24}3^1],\;[1^{21}2^13^1],\;[1^{18}2^23^1],\;[1^{15}2^33^1],\;[1^{12}2^43^1],\;[1^92^53^1],\;[1^62^63^1],\;[1^32^73^1],\;[2^83^1],\\
&[1^{16}4^1],\\
&[5^1].
\end{array}$$
Together with Heden, El-Zanati et al [@hedenpapa] investigated the case $n=8$ and $q=2$ and vector space partitions consisting of spaces of dimension at least equal to $2$. It turned out that the packing condition, dimension condition and the tail condition, with just one exception, were both necessary and sufficient in this case. The exceptional case, that could not be excluded by these three conditions, was the existence of a vector space partition of type $[2^63^64^{13}]$, which however could be excluded by the use of the hyperplane conditions, specialized to this case. The non existence of that vector space partition thus also follows from the theorem of Heden and Lehmann [@lehmann].
Are there any conditions that are both necessary and sufficient?
----------------------------------------------------------------
It was shown by Heden and Lehmann [@lehmann], with the use of examples, that the four necessary conditions, the packing-, the dimension-, the tail-, and the hyperplane condition are not sufficient for the existence of a vector space partition. We now give the very few and very special instances, but general according to dimension and size of the scalar field, in which we have a complete picture of the different types.
As can easily be proved by elementary arguments, $q^d-1$ divides $q^n-1$, for a prime power $q$, if and only if $d$ divides $n$. Hence, by first packing condition, a necessary condition for a vector space partition of type $[d^m]$ to exist in $V(n,q)$ is that $d$ divides $n$. This is also sufficient, as then $\mathrm{GF}(q^n)$ has a subfield $\mathrm{GF}(q^d)$ and we can easily find a vector space partition, using the same construction as in Example 1, of type $[d^m]$ where $m=(q^n-1)/(q^d-1)$.
However, as soon as we leave the above simple case, the situation gets complicated, even in the case of just two different dimensions appearing in the vector space partition. As was indicated by Example 3, the case $[1^{n_1}d^{n_2}]$ is still far from completely investigated.
In his thesis, Heden [@heden09] proved the following
[*The packing condition, dimension condition together with the condition $$\dim(U_i)\geq c\;,\qquad\hbox{for $i\leq q$}\;,$$ are necessary and sufficient for the existence of a vector space partition $U_1$, $U_2$, ..., $U_k$ of $V(n,q)$, if $\dim(U_{q+1})=\dim(U_{q+2})=\ldots=\dim(U_k)=c$.* ]{}
This theorem is a generalization of a theorem of Lindström [@bernt], who proved the theorem in the case all but one of the subspaces have dimension $c$.
Some historical remarks
=======================
The first who investigated these kind of problems was George Abram Miller. In 1906 he published a paper [@miller] in which he proved that if an abelian group $G$ admits a partition into subgroups, then all elements of $G$ must have order $p$, for some prime number $p$.
The proof idea is simple. Assume that there are elements $h_i$ and $h_j$ of order $p$ and $q$ respectively, where $p$ is a prime, and such that $h_i$ and $h_j$ are elements of different subgroups $H_i$ and $H_j$ of $G$ in the partition of $G$. Then, $h_i+h_j=h_k$ is an element in a third group $H_k$ of the partition. The sum of $h_k$, a $p$ numbers of times, will give $$p\cdot h_k=(h_i+h_j)+(h_i+h_j)+\dots+(h_i+h_j)=p\cdot h_j\;,$$ which is an element of both $H_k$ and $H_j$, and hence zero. Miller also found a group partition of a group with $p^2$ elements into subgroups, each with $p$ elements.
Twenty years later John Wesley Young [@young], who had made his master thesis under the supervision of Miller, studied the problem of the partition of infinite groups into subgroups. A Russian, Kontorovich [@kontorovich] studied and published results in 1939 and 1940 about partitions of a group $G$ having a special property: $G=HK=KH$ for any two members $H$ and $K$ in the partition.
Let us give a simple example of a partition of a non abelian group. The group ${\mathcal S}_3$ has a partition $${\mathcal S}_3=\{\mathrm{id.},\;(1\;2)\}\cup\{\mathrm{id.},\;(1\;3)\}\cup\{\mathrm{id.},\;(2\;3)\}\cup\{\mathrm{id.},\;(1\;2\;3),\;(1\;3\;2)\}\;.$$
Later, the main problem studied, mainly by Reinhold Baer [@baer] and his student Otto Kegel [@kegel] and by Michio Suzuki [@szuzuki], was to classify those non abelian groups that admits a partition into subgroups.
A nice survey of this search for a classification was given by Zappa [@zappa] in 2003. Quoting Zappa, a group $G$ has a non trivial partition if and only if it satisfies one of the following conditions:
1. $G$ is a $p$-group with $H_P(G)\neq G$ and $|G|>p$;
2. $G$ is a Frobenius group;
3. $G$ is a group of Hughes-Thompson type;
4. $G$ is isomorphic with $\mathrm{PGL}(2,p^h)$, $p$ being an odd prime;
5. $G$ is isomorphic with $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p^h)$, $p$ being a prime;
6. $G$ is isomorphic with a Suzuki group $G(q)$, $q=2^h$, $h>1$.
We must remark that $H_p(G)$ is the so called [*Hughes subgroup*]{}, i.e., the subgroup of $G$ generated by those elements of $G$ that have not the order $p$. A [*Frobenius group*]{} is a transitive permutation group on a finite set, such that no non-trivial element fixes more than one point and some non-trivial element fixes a point. The group ${\mathcal S}_3$ is an example of a Frobenius group.
[12]{}
J. André, Über nicht-Desarguesschen Ebenen mit transitiven Translationsgruppe, Math. Zeitschr, 60(1954)156–186.
R. Baer, Partitionen endlicher Gruppen, Math Zeitschr., 75(1960/61)333–372.
A. Beutelspacher, Partitions of finite vector spaces: an application of the Frobenius number in geometry, Arch. Math., 31(1978)202–208.
A. Beutelspacher, Blocking sets and partial spreads in finite projective spaces, Geometriae Dedicata, 9(1980)425–449.
A.Blokhuis, On the size of a blocking set in $PG(2,p)$, Combinatorica, 4(1)(1994)111–114.
A. Blokhuis, K. Metsch, On the size of a maximal partial spread, Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 3(1993)187–191
R. H. Bruck, Finite nets. II. Uniqueness and imbedding. Pacific J. Math., 13(1963)421-457.
R. H. Bruck, H. J. Ryser, The non existence of certain finite projective planes, Canad. J. Math., 1(1949)88–93.
A. A. Bruen, Partial spreads and replaceable nets, Canad. J. Math., 23(1971)381–392.
A. A. Bruen, J Thas, Partial spreads, packings and Hermitian manifolds in $PG(3,q)$, Math. Zeitschr., 151 (1976), 207–214.
T. Bu, Partitions of a vector space, [Discrete Math.]{}, [31]{}(1980)79–83.
P. Dembowski, Finite Geometries, Springer, 1997.
G. Ebert, Maximal strictly partial spreads, Canad. J. Math, 30(1978)483–489.
S. El-Zanati, G. Seelinger, P. Sissokho, L. Spence, and C. Vanden Eynden, On partitions of finite vector spaces of small dimension over $GF(2)$, [Discrete Mathematics]{}, [309]{}(2009)4727–4735.
S. El-Zanati, G. Seelinger, P. Sissokho, L. Spence, and C. Vanden Eynden, The maximum size of a partial $3$-spread in a finite vector space over $\mathrm{GF}(2)$, Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 54(2010)101–107.
S. El-Zanati, O. Heden, G. Seelinger, P. Sissokho, L. Spence, C. Vanden Eynden, Partitions of the $8$-dimensional vector space over $GF(2)$, Journal of Combinatorial Designs, 18(2010)462–474.
A. Gács, T. Szönyi, On maximal partial spreads in $\mathrm{PG}(n,q)$, Des. Codes and Cryptogr, 29(2003)123–129.
P. Govaerts, L. Storme, On a particular class of minihypers and its applications. I. The result for general $q$, Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 28(2003)51–63.
O. Heden, The Frobenius number and partitions of a finite vector space, Arch. Math., 42(1984)185–192.
O. Heden, Partitions of finite abelian groups, [ Europ. J. Combin.]{}, [7]{}(1986)11–25.
O. Heden, Maximal partial spreads and the modular $n$-queen problem, Discrete mathematics, 120(1993), 75–91.
O. Heden, A maximal partial spread of size 45 in $\mathrm{PG}(3,7)$, Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 22(2000)331–334.
O. Heden, Necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a class of partitions of a finite vector space, Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 53(2009)69–73.
O. Heden, On the length of the tail of a vector space partition, Discrete mathematics, 309(2009)6196–6180.
O. Heden, G. Faina, S. Marcugini, F. Pambianco, The maximal size of a maximal partial spread in $PG(3,9)$, submitted (2006).
O. Heden, J. Lehmann, Some necessary conditions for vector space partitions, submitted.
M. Herzog and J. Schönheim, Group partition, factorization and the vector covering problem, Canad. Math. Bull., 15(2)(1972) 207–214.
S. Hong, A. Patel, A general class of maximal codes for computer applications, IEEE Trans. Comput., C-21,(1972)1322–1331.
O. Kegel, Nich-einfache Partitionen endlicher Gruppen, Arch. Math., 12(1961)170–175.
P. Kontorovich, On the representation of a group as a direct product of its subgroups II, Mat. Sb, 7(1940)27–33 (in Russia).
B. Lindström, Group partitions and mixed perfect codes, Canad. Math. Bull., 18(1)(1975)57–60.
D. Mesner, Sets of disjoint lines in $PG(3,q)$, Canad. J. Math., 19(1967)273–280.
G. A. Miller, Groups in which all operators are contained in series of subgroups such that any two have only identity in common, Bull. Amer. Math., 12(1905-1906)446–449.
E. S. Selmer, On the linear diophantine problem of Frobenius, J. reine angew. Math., 293(1977)1–17.
A. Spera, On partitions of finite vector spaces, arXiv:0902.3075v1, 18 Feb 2009.
M. Suzuki, On the finite groups with a complete partition, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 2(1950)165–185. J. W. Young, On the partition of a group and the resulting classification, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 35(1927)453–461.
G. Zappa, Partitions and other coverings of finite groups, Illinois Journal of Mathematics, 47(2003)571–580.
[^1]: This talk was presented at Matematiska kollokviet at Department of Mathematics at Linköping University on May 19, 2010.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Mingliang Zhang, Ling-Yi Huang, Xu Zhang and Gang Lu$^{\ast}$'
date: 'July 17, 2016'
title: 'Comment on Linear Scaling of the Exciton Binding Energy versus the Band Gap of Two-Dimensional Materials\'
---
In a recent Letter, Choi *et al.* have performed first-principles GW-Bethe-Salpeter equation (GW-BSE) calculations for a number of two-dimensional (2D) semiconductors and discovered a linear scaling relation between exciton binding energy $E_{b}$ and quasi-particle bandgap $E_{g}$ [@choi]. The authors further state that the linear scaling is expected to be applicable to essentially all existing and future 2D materials. In this Comment, we show that this linear scaling relation does not apply to all 2D materials, and a deviation from the linear scaling is predicted for small bandgap 2D materials.
We first note that the linear relation revealed in Fig. 4 of Choi’s work cannot extend to a vanishing $E_{g}$, because it would imply a negative optical bandgap (the difference between $E_{g}$ and $E_{b}$). Instead, $E_{b}$ should vanish as $E_{g}$ approaches zero, deviating from the linear relation. To support this claim, we have carried out the first-principles GW-BSE calculations with essentially the same computational parameters as Choi *et al.* for a number of *small bandgap* 2D semiconductors. The computational details can be found in Supporting Material. Specifically, we stretch the zero bandgap graphene with tensile strains to open small bandgaps, and compress the 2D phosphorene to reduce its bandgap. The results are summarized in Fig. 1 along with the original data points from Choi’s paper. First of all, we reveal that for small bandgaps ($E_{g} < 2$ eV), the linear scaling relation is clearly violated, and as expected, $E_{b}$ drops to zero much faster than what was predicted by the linear relation. Secondly, we confirm that the linear scaling remains valid for 2D semiconductors whose bandgap is greater than 2 eV. In fact, our data point of the largest $E_{g}$ coincides with that of Choi of the smallest $E_{g}$, which partially corroborates the calculations of Choi *et al.*
To shed light on the results, we have derived an analytic expression correlating $E_{g}$ and $E_{b}$. Our analysis is based on the same hydrogenic model as used in Choi’s paper, where $E_{b}\varpropto\mu/\varepsilon^{2}$ is assumed. $\mu=m_{e}m_{h}/(m_{e}+m_{h})$ is the reduced mass of the exciton, and $m_{e}$ and $m_{h}$ is the effective mass of the electron and the hole, respectively; $\varepsilon$ is the static dielectric constant of the 2D semiconductor [@choi]. In Choi’s paper, $\varepsilon$ was taken to be the vacuum dielectric constant ($\varepsilon$ =1), which is not justified in our opinion. Although there is no screening outside the atomic plane of the 2D material, the screening nonetheless exists within the plane and cannot be ignored. In general, $\varepsilon$ should depend on the electronic structure, thus the bandgap of the 2D materials. As realistic 2D semiconductors are quasi-two-dimensional (quasi-2D), the electrostatic potential is of $1/r$-type as opposed to $\ln r$-type in an ideal 2D system. Therefore, it is appropriate to treat a quasi-2D system as a 3D system with a very small out-of-plane dimension. Furthermore, we have shown in the Supporting Material that $\mu$ is a linear function of $E_{g}$, which is supported by experiments [@mit].
\[ph\]
Following a simple electrostatic analysis and the harmonic oscillator model of the static dielectric function [@pan], we can express $\varepsilon$ as a function of $E_{g}$; the frequency of the harmonic oscillator is given by $E_{g}/\hbar$. Substituting $\mu(E_{g})$ and $\varepsilon(E_{g})$ into the first Bohr-level of the 2D hydrogenic model [@yang], we obtain $E_{b}$ for a 2D semiconductor as following [@supp]:$$E_{b}=-\frac{2}{\hbar^{2}}(\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}})^{2}\mu\left[
1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\frac{\hbar^{2}\omega_{p}^{2}}{E_{g}^{2}}\frac{16t}{\pi
a_{0}}}{1+\sqrt{1+\frac{\hbar^{2}\omega_{p}^{2}}{E_{g}^{2}}\frac{16t}{\pi
a_{0}}}}\right] ^{-2},\label{2i}$$ where $a_{0}=4\pi\epsilon_{0}\hbar^{2}/(2\mu e^{2})$. $\omega_{p}^{2}=n_{v}e^{2}/(\epsilon_{0}m)$, $m$ is the mass of the electron; $n_{v}$ is the number density of the valence electrons, and $t$ denotes the thickness of the quasi-2D semiconductor. In Fig.\[fig1\], we fit the analytic expression of Eq.(\[2i\]) to the first-principles GW-BSE results, yielding a reasonable agreement between the two. The analytic model predicts that (i) the linear scaling relation applies to larger bandgaps ($>$ 2 eV); (ii) a deviation from the linear scaling relation happens for smaller bandgaps; (iii) As $E_{g}\rightarrow0$, $E_{b}\rightarrow0$. The last prediction is qualitatively consistent with the fact that no stable static exciton exists in metals. Recently, an effective 2D dielectric constant has been proposed by averaging electronic screening over the extend of the exciton, based on which the correlation between $E_{b}$ vs. $E_{g}$ has been examined for 51 transition metal dichalcogenides [@ols]. As shown in Fig. 2 of ref. [@ols], the results appear to agree with our finding, i.e., a deviation from the linear scaling is apparent for small bandgaps. We should emphasize however that the present model is too crude to be of a predictive power. In particular, the model does not apply to 2D semiconductors whose bandgap is vanishingly small. In these materials, nonlocal and dynamical screening is more important, hence the single-particle hydrogenic model is inadequate and one has to resort to many-body approaches.$^{\ast}$Corresponding author: [email protected]
[9]{}
J.-H. Choi, P. Cui, H. Lan, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 066403 (2015).
http://web.mit.edu/6.730/www/ST04/Lectures/Lecture24.pdf;
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/effective-massversus-bandgap.260086/.
W. K. H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, 2nd Ed., Dover Publication, N.Y. (2005).
X. L. Yang, S. H. Guo, F. T. Chan, K. W. Wong, and W. Y. Ching, Phys. Rev. A **43**, 1186 (1991).
Supplemental Material.
T. Olsen, S. Latini, F. Rasmussen, and K. S. Thygesen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 056401 (2016).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we give two characterisations of the class of reflexive graphs admitting [*distributive lattice polymorphisms*]{} and use these characterisations to address the problem of recognition: for a reflexive graph $G$ in which no two vertices have the same neighbourhood, we find a polynomial time algorithm to decide if $G$ admits a distributive lattice polymorphism.'
address: 'Kyungpook National University, Republic of Korea'
author:
- Mark Siggers
title: Distributive lattice polymorphism on reflexive graphs
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sect:results}
============
Motivation
----------
It is well known (see for example [@BJK]) that Constraint Satisfactions Problems, which provide a formulation for many combinatorial problems, can be stated as the problem of finding a homomorphism between structures. Moreover ([@FV98]) any such homomorphism problem can be reduced to the retraction problem for [*reflexive*]{} graphs- graphs in which every vertex has a loop.
The problem $\operatorname{Ret}(G)$ of retraction to $G$ is $NP$-complete for most reflexive graphs $G$ and in the case that the problem is known to be polynomial time solvable for some $G$, the polynomial time algorithm is tied to the existence of a [*polymorphism*]{} on $G$– an operation $f:V(G)^d \to V(G)$ that preserves edges– satisfying some nice identity.
A reflexive graph $G$ is a [*lattice*]{} graph if it has a [*compatible lattice*]{}, a lattice on its vertex set such that the meet and join operations, $\wedge$ and $\vee$, are polymorphisms of $G$. It is a [*distributive lattice graph*]{} or [*$\operatorname{DL}$-graph*]{} if the lattice $L$ is distributive; we call $(G,L)$ a [*$\operatorname{DL}$-pair*]{}.
It was shown in [@CDK] that $\operatorname{Ret}(G)$ can be solved, for a structure $G$, by a linear monadic Datalog program with at most one extensional predicate per rule, (i.e., $G$ has caterpillar duality), if and only if it is a retract of a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph.
To give a bit more context, a $d$-ary polymorphism $f:G^d \to G$ is a [*totally symmetric idempotent*]{} ($\operatorname{TSI}$) polymorphism if $f(v,v,\dots, v) = v$ for all $v \in V(G)$ and if $f(v_1, \dots, v_d) = f(u_1, \dots, u_d)$ whenever $\{v_1, \dots, v_d\} = \{u_1, \dots, u_d\}$. The class $\operatorname{TSI}$ of reflexive graphs $G$ admitting $\operatorname{TSI}$ polymorphisms of all aritites is important, as this is the class for which $\operatorname{Ret}(G)$ can be solved by a monadic Datalog program with at most one extensional predicate per rule, (i.e., $G$ has tree duality).
It is of interest to get a graph theoretic characterisation of the class $\operatorname{TSI}$. The two main sources of $\operatorname{TSI}$ polymorphisms, are near-unanimity ($\operatorname{NU}$) polymorphisms, and semilattice ($\operatorname{SL}$) polymorphisms. While $\operatorname{NU}$ polymorphisms have been well studied, and the classes of graphs admitting them have several nice characterisations, no such study had been attempted for $\operatorname{SL}$ polymorphisms until [@HS], where we looked at the family of reflexive graphs admitting $\operatorname{SL}$ polymorphisms.
A (meet) semilattice ordering on the vertices of a graph defines a $2$-ary operation $\vee$ on the vertex set. If this operation is a polymorphism of the graph then it is an [*$\operatorname{SL}$ polymorphism*]{} of the graph. The problem of characterising reflexive graphs admitting $\operatorname{SL}$ polymorphsims was difficult, and we restricted our attention to those graphs $G$ that admit $\operatorname{SL}$ polymorphisms for which the Hasse diagram of the semilattice ordering is a tree, and a subgraph of $G$. We showed that the class of such graphs extends the class of chordal graphs. We were unable to say much in the case that the semilattice was not a tree. The other extreme is when the ordering is a lattice– the Hasse diagram is not a tree except in the trivial case that the lattice it is a chain. This leads us to consider lattice polymorphisms.
Results
-------
In this paper we give two explicit characterisations of the class of reflexive $\operatorname{DL}$-graphs, and use these characterisations to address the problem of recognition.
For our first characterisation, we recall a well known result of Birkhoff [@Bi]. For a poset $P$, a subset $D$ is a [*downset*]{} if $b \in D$ and $a \leq b$ implies $a \in D$. The family $\cD(P)$ of all downsets of $P$ is a distributive lattice under the ordering $\subseteq$. The meet and join operations are $\cap$ and $\cup$, respectively. Birkhoff showed that for any distributive lattice $L$, $L$ is isomorphic to $\cD(J_L)$ for a unique poset $J_L$, (the poset of join irreducible elements of $L$).
Viewing a comparability $a \leq b$ as an arc $(a,b)$, a poset $P$ is just a transitive acyclic (except for loops) reflexive digraph. So we can talk of a sub-digraph $A$ of $P$.
\[def:GPA\] For a poset $P$ and a sub-digraph $A$ of $P$, let $G = G(P,A)$ be the graph on $\cD(P)$, in which two downsets $D, D' \in \cD(P)$ are adjacent if $A$ contains all arcs $(x,y)$ of $P$ for which $x$ and $y$ are in either $D {-}D'$ or $D' {-}D$.
See Figure \[fig:GPA\] for an example. The left side shows a poset $P$ represented by its Hasse diagram (defined in Section \[sec:def\]) in thick light edges, and a sub-digraph $A$ in dark edges, missing only the arc $(b,c)$. On the right is the downset lattice $\cD(P)$ again represented by its Hasse diagram, and the graph $G(P,A)$ missing only edges between vertices one of which contains $b$ and $c$ and the other of which contains neither of them.
(8,5)(0,0) (0,0)[![Poset $P$ and lattice $\cD(P)$ in thick light edges. Digraph $A$ and (the complement of) graph $G(P,A)$ in dark. []{data-label="fig:GPA"}](./DS1.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}]{} (1.3,0) (1.1,1.3) (2.6,1.3) (1.3,3.2) (2.7,3.2) (4.2,0) (5.6,0.4) (4.2,1.1) (6.3,1.1) (5.8,2.4) (7.6,2.4) (4.0,3.7) (6.3,3.7) (5.2,4.7)
Our first main theorem, Theorem \[thm:char2\] says that for any $\operatorname{DL}$-pair $(G,L)$, $G$ is isomorphic to $G(J_L,A)$ for some sub-digraph $A$ of $J_L$. Showing, in Lemma \[lem:pographiscompat\] that $G(P,A)$ is always a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph, we get the following characterisation of reflexive $\operatorname{DL}$-graphs.
\[cor:char2\] A reflexive graph $G$ is a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph if and only if there is there is a poset $P$ and a sub-digraph $A$ such that $G {\buildrel {} \over \cong}G(P, A)$.
In [@Ga] it was shown that a graph (without loops) is a [*proper interval graph*]{} if and only if there is an ordering of its vertices such that if it satisfies the so-called [*min-max*]{} identity: $$\label{id:minmax}
(u' \leq u \leq v \leq v' \mbox{ and } u' \sim v') \Rightarrow u \sim v$$ We take this as our definition of a proper interval graph in the reflexive context, and say a proper interval graph is in [*min-max form*]{} if its vertices are labelled $\{0,1, \dots, n\}$ for some $n$ so that it satisfies .
Simple arguments (see Fact \[fact:ids\]) show that any reflexive graph that is compatible with a chain lattice is a proper interval graph. As any distributive lattice is embeddable in a product of chains, it follows that any $\operatorname{DL}$-graph is a subgraph of a categorical product (defined in Section \[sec:def\]) of proper interval graphs. In fact Dilworth [@Di50] showed, and we recall this in more detail in Section \[sec:main2\], that any chain decomposition of $P$ yields an embedding of $\cD(P)$ into a product of chains. The embedding shown in Figure \[fig:GPA\] comes from the decomposition of $P$ into the chains $a\prec c$ and $b \prec d$. Figure \[fig:PI\] shows the embedding corresponding to the decomposition of $P$ into the chains $a$, $b \prec c$, and $d$. For the embedding in Figure \[fig:PI\] the graph $G(P,A)$ is an induced subgraph of proper interval graphs, in this case paths, on the chain factors. It turns out that this happens when certain edges in the complement of $A$ in $P$ are contained in the chain decomposition of $P$.
For any $\operatorname{DL}$-pair $(G,L)$, we get, in Theorem \[thm:embedding\], an embedding of $L$ into a product of chains such that $G$ is an induced subgraph of $\cG$. Further, it is an induced subgraph of quite a particular form.
The vertex set of a product $\cG = \prod_{i = 1}^d G_i$ of proper interval graphs $G_i$ is a set of $d$-tuples $x = (x_1, \dots, x_d) \in \prod_{i = 1}^d \{0,1, \dots, n_i\}$ for some $n_1, \dots, n_d$. A [*vertex interval*]{} of $\cG$ is the set $${{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}= \{ x \in V(\cG) \mid \alpha \leq x_i \mbox{ and } x_j \leq \beta \}$$ for some $i,j \in [d]$, $\alpha \leq n_i$ and $\beta \leq n_j$. (See right side of Figure \[fig:PI\].)
(14,5)(0,0) (6,0)[![Left: The lattice $\cD(P)$ from Figure \[fig:GPA\] embedded in a product of three chains, and the graph $G(P,A)$ from Figure \[fig:GPA\] embedded as an induced subgraph of the product of paths on those chains. Right: The usual labelling on the product of chains showing $\cD(P)$ as $\cP - {[{{1}_{[2]}}, {{0}^{[1]}}]} - {[{{2}_{[1]}}, {{0}^{[3]}}]}$.[]{data-label="fig:PI"}](./DS2a.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}]{} (8.1,-0.1) (9.7,.4) (10.9,1.5) (11.9,2.6) (11.9,3.7) (8, .7) (10, 4.4) (7.2, 2.0) (7.2, 2.0) (0,0)[![Left: The lattice $\cD(P)$ from Figure \[fig:GPA\] embedded in a product of three chains, and the graph $G(P,A)$ from Figure \[fig:GPA\] embedded as an induced subgraph of the product of paths on those chains. Right: The usual labelling on the product of chains showing $\cD(P)$ as $\cP - {[{{1}_{[2]}}, {{0}^{[1]}}]} - {[{{2}_{[1]}}, {{0}^{[3]}}]}$.[]{data-label="fig:PI"}](./DS2b.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}]{} (2.7,-0.1) (4,.5) (4.9,1.5) (5.9,2.5) (5.9,3.7) (3,2.1) (2.8,3.1) (4.6,3.25) (4.8,2.5) (2.3, .9) (2.1, 2.1) (4, 4.4)
Our following, second, characterisation of reflexive $\operatorname{DL}$-graphs is immediate from Theorem \[thm:embedding\].
\[cor:charPI\] A reflexive graph $G$ is a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph if and only if it is the induced subgraph of a product $\cG = \prod_{i = 1}^dG_i$ of proper interval graphs $G_i$ in min-max form, that we get by removing vertex intervals.
A reflexive graph $G$ is $R$-thin if no two vertices have the same neighbourhood. For questions of $\operatorname{Ret}(G)$, one may always assume that $G$ is $R$-thin as there are simple linear time reductions between $\operatorname{Ret}(G)$ and $\operatorname{Ret}(G^R)$ where $G^R$, defined formally in Section \[sub:NRThin\], is the $R$-thin graph we get from $G$ by removing all but one vertex from every set of vertices sharing the same neighbourhood. In Section \[sect:recog\] we prove the following.
\[thm:poly\] There is a polynomial time algorithm to decide whether or not an $R$-thin reflexive graph is a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph.
In fact, we give a polynomial time algorithm that not only decides if a given $R$-thin graph has a compatible distributive lattice, but if it does, finds one (actually all) such lattices.
While for questions about $\operatorname{Ret}(G)$ one may assume that $G$ is $R$-thin, distributive lattice polymorphisms are unusual in the fact that the existence of a compatible distributive lattice for $G^R$ does not imply the existence of one for $G$. We finish of Section \[sect:recog\] with some notes about deciding if a non $R$-thin graph is a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph.
Definitions, Notation, and Basic Observations {#sec:def}
=============================================
For any element $u$ of any ordering, ${\bm{\langle} u ]}$ is the set of elements below $u$, and ${[ u \bm{\rangle}}$ is the set of elements above it. We write $a \prec b$ if $b$ [*covers*]{} $a$; that is, if $a < b$ and there is no $x$ such that $a < x < b$. It is standard to depict a poset by it’s Hasse diagram– its sub-digraph of covers– and to depict direction of the covers simply by assuming that the greater element is higher on the page. As we draw a lattice and a graph on the same set of vertices, the edges of our Hasse diagram are the thicker lighter edges, and the graph edges are thin and dark.
Recall that a [*lattice*]{} $L$ is a partial ordering on a set such that the greatest lower bound and least upper bound are uniquely defined for any pair of elements. These define the meet, $\wedge$, and join, $\vee$, operations respectively. It is a basic fact that the operations $\wedge$ and $\vee$ and the lattice defined each other by the identities $$u \leq v \iff (u \wedge v) = u \mbox{ and } u \leq v \iff (u \vee v ) = v.$$ The lattice is [*distributive*]{} if the meet and join distribute. As our lattices are finite the meet and join operations are well defined for any set of elements and there is a maximum element, or [*unit*]{}, denoted ${\mathbf{1}}$, and a minimum element or [*zero*]{} denoted ${\mathbf{0}}$.
A lattice $L$ on the vertices of a graph $G$ was defined to be compatible if its meet and join operations $\wedge$ and $\vee$ are polymorphisms. Explicitly, $L$ is compatible with $G$ if and only if the following holds, where ‘$\sim$’ denotes adjacency in $G$: $$\label{id:poly}
( u \sim u' \mbox{ and } v\sim v') \Rightarrow
(u \wedge v \sim u' \wedge v' \mbox{ and } u \vee v \sim u' \vee v').$$
Along with , there is another useful property of an ordering of vertices. $$\label{id:vee}
u \sim v \sim w \mbox{ and } (u \leq v \geq w \mbox{ or } u \geq v \leq w)
\Rightarrow u \sim w$$
\[fact:ids\] For a compatible lattice ordering of a reflexive graph $G$ identities and hold for all vertices $u,v,w$ of $G$.
For , as $v \sim v$ we get $u = u \wedge v \sim w \wedge v = v$ and $v = u \vee v \sim w \vee v = w$, as needed. For , assuming that $u \leq v \geq w$, we get $u = (u \wedge v) \sim (v \wedge w) = w$.
The product $L_1 \times L_2$ of two lattices is the ordering on the set $L_1 \times L_2$ defined by $$(a_1,a_2) \leq (b_1, b_2) \mbox{ if } a_i \leq_i b_i \mbox{ for } i = 1,2,$$ and the operations $\vee$ and $\wedge$ of the product are defined componentwise from the corresponding operations of the factors. Thus the product of distributive lattices is a distributive lattice. The [*(categorical) product*]{} of two graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$, is the graph $G = G_1 \times G_2$ with vertex set $V(G_1) \times V(G_2)$ and edgeset $$\{ (u_1,u_2)(v_1,v_2) \mid u_iv_i \in G_i \mbox{ for } i = 1,2\}.$$
The following is standard.
\[lem:product\] If the reflexive graph $G_i$ is compatible with the lattice $L_i$ for $i = 1,2$ then $G_1 \times G_2$ is compatible with $L_1 \times L_2$.
Let $(u_1,u_2)\sim (v_1,v_2)$ and $(u'_1,u'_2)\sim (v'_1,v'_2)$ in $G_1 \times G_2$. Then $$(u_1,u_2) \wedge (u'_1,u'_2) = (u_1 \wedge u'_1, u_2 \wedge u'_2) \sim
(v_1 \wedge v'_1, v_2 \wedge v'_2) = (v_1,v_2) \wedge (v'_1,v'_2),$$ and similarly $(u_1,u_2) \vee (u'_1,u'_2) = (v_1,v_2) \vee (v'_1,v'_2)$.
A sublattice $L'$ of a lattice $L$ is any subset that is closed under the meet and join operations. The following is clear from the definition of compatibility.
\[fact:sublat\] If a graph $G$ is compatible with a lattice $L$, and $L'$ is a sublattice of $L$, then the subgraph $G'$ of $G$ induced by $L'$ is compatible with $L'$.
A [*conservative set*]{} (or subalgebra) in a reflexive graph $G$ is an subset $S \subset V(G)$ that is the intersection of sets of the form $\{ x \in V(G) \mid d(x,x_0) \leq d \}$ for some vertex $x_0$ and integer $d$. Components and maximal cliques are examples of conservative sets. It is a basic fact, (see [@BJK]), that a conservative set of a graph is closed under any polymorphism. We use this to prove the following, which allows us to restrict our attention to connected graphs.
\[lem:connected\] A graph is a (distributive) lattice graph if and only if each component is.
If a graph is disconnected, and each of its components has a compatible lattice $L_i$, then let $L$ be the [*simple join*]{} of the component lattices; that is, let $L$ be the lattice on the set $\bigcup_{i = 1}^d L_i$ with the ordering defined by $x \leq y$ if $x \leq y$ in some $L_i$ or if $x \in L_i$ and $y \in L_j$ for $i < j$. It is easy to check that this lattice is compatible with $G$, and that it is distributive if the component lattices are.
On the other hand, if a disconnected graph has a compatible lattice, then as each component is a subalgebra, and subalgebras are closed under polymorphisms, each component is closed under the lattice operations. Thus each component induces a sublattice, so is compatible with the component by Fact \[fact:sublat\]. If a lattice is distributive, then so is any sublattice.
The following, which does not hold for semilattices, is a huge simplifaction.
\[prop:HasseSubgraph\] For a connected reflexive graph $G$ with a compatible lattice $L$, the Hasse diagram of $L$ is a subgraph of $G$.
It is enough to show for any cover $v {\prec}u$, that $uv$ is an edge of $G$.
Observe first that the upset ${[ v \bm{\rangle}}$ is a connected subgraph of $G$. Indeed as $G$ is connected, for $u_0$ and $u_p$ in ${[ v \bm{\rangle}}$, there is a path $u_0 \sim u_1 \sim \dots \sim u_p$ between them in $G$. So $(v \vee u_0) \sim (v \vee u_1) \sim \dots \sim (v \vee u_p)$ is a walk between them in ${[ v \bm{\rangle}}$.
The same proof in connected ${[ v \bm{\rangle}}$ then shows that the downset ${\bm{\langle} u ]}$ in ${[ v \bm{\rangle}}$ is connected. But it contains only $u$ and $v$, so $uv$ is an edge.
Some Examples {#sect:examples}
=============
As all but the minimum and maximum vertex of a lattice must have at least one cover and be covered by one other vertex, the following is immediate from Proposition \[prop:HasseSubgraph\].
\[ex:degOne\] For a connected reflexive graph $G$ with a degree one vertex $v$, $v$ must be the minimum or maximum vertex of any compatible lattice $L$. In particular, the only reflexive trees with compatible lattices are paths.
(1,0.43333335)(-.2,0) (0,0)[![Graph (left) with compatible lattice (right) but no compatible distributive lattice[]{data-label="fig:LnotDL"}](./LnotDL.pdf "fig:"){width="\unitlength"}]{} (0.46666669,0.02500007)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.46666669,0.36666671)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.45833336,0.10833334)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.38553573,0.14279105)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.49388894,0.14195102)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.45693121,0.18394846)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.45273149,0.23854504)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.34437829,0.19822752)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.54596561,0.20326726)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.3905754,0.26206356)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.50396828,0.25366398)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.4636508,0.29230159)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
\[prop:badretracts\] Neither the class of graphs admitting compatible lattices, nor the class admitting compatible distributive lattices, are closed under retraction.
It is easy to see that the reflexive biclique $K_{1,4}$ is a retract of the product $P_2^2$ of two reflexive paths. $P_2^2$ has a distributive lattice by Lemma \[lem:product\], but $K_{1,4}$ does not, by Example \[ex:degOne\].
\[ex:bigone\] There are graphs that have compatible lattices but have no compatible distributive lattices.
Let $G$ be the graph on the left of Figure \[fig:LnotDL\]. It is easy but tedious to verify, using that the non-distributive lattice shown on the right is compatible. We show that there is no distributive lattice that is compatible with $G$.
Assume, towards contradiction, that $G$ has a compatible distributive lattice. By Proposition \[prop:HasseSubgraph\], ${\mathbf{0}}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}$ must be the vertices labelled $0$ and $1$ in the figure. Further ${\mathbf{0}}$ must have unique cover $a$ and ${\mathbf{1}}$ must cover $j$. So ${\bm{\langle} j ]} \cap {[ a \bm{\rangle}}$ is a distributive sublattice with zero $a$ and unit $j$.
As the set $\{d,e\}$ is the intersection of maximal cliques, it is a conservative set, so induces a sublattice. The only $2$ element lattices is the chain, so we may assume, without loss of generality, that $d \leq e$.
The set $\{d,e,h\}$ is also an intersection of maximal cliques, so induces a sublattice of three elements, so must also be a chain. If $h \leq e$ then by $a$ and $h$ are adjacent, so $h \geq e$. Similarly $b \leq d$.
The set $\{b,d,e,f,h\}$ is a maximal clique, so induces a lattice. As $b$ is not adjacent to $a$ or $j$, it follows from that it can neither be above or below $d$ or $e$, so it is incomparable with them. Thus the sublattice induced on $\{b,d,e,f,h\}$ is as shown in the figure. It is well known that no lattice with this lattice as a sublattice is distributive.
Downset Construction {#sec:downsets}
====================
Our main result of this section is Theorem \[thm:char2\]. Before we prove it, we make some easy observations about the construction $G(P,A)$ of Definition \[def:GPA\]. Recall that $A$ is a sub-digraph of a poset $P$; it will always have the same vertex set as $P$ We write $a \to b$ to mean that $(a,b)$ is an arc of $A$.
An arc $(x', y')$ of $P$ is [*useless*]{} in a sub-digraph $A$ if there is $(x,y) \not\in A$ with $x' \leq x \leq y \leq y'$ (and $x' \neq x$ or $y' \neq y$). Removing all useless arcs from $A$ it clearly satisfies the following directed version of $$\label{id:minmaxd}
(u' \leq u \leq v \leq v' \mbox{ and } u' \to v') \Rightarrow u \to v$$
\[lem:extension1\] The graph $G(P,A)$ is unchanged by adding or removing useless arcs from $A$. Thus $A$ may be assumed to satisfy .
Let $x' \leq x \leq y \leq y'$, and $x \not\to y$ in $A$. For any two downsets $D$ and $D'$ of $P$ with $x',y'$ in $D {-}D'$, we clearly have that $x,y$ are in $D {-}D'$ as well, and so $D \not\sim D'$ in $G(P,A)$ whether $x' \to y'$ or not.
For a sub-digraph $A$ of a poset $P$, let ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ be the sub-digraph of $P$ with arc set $$\{ (x, y) \mid (x,y) \in P {-}A \}.$$ The following is a useful alternate definition of adjacency in $G(P,A)$.
\[lem:altGPA\] Where $A$ is a sub-digraph of a poset $P$, and $D$ and $D'$ are in $\cD(P)$, $D$ and $D'$ are adjacent in $G(P,A)$ if and only if the following hold for all vertices $x$ and $y$.
- If $x \in D$ and $(y,x) \in {{A^{\rm c}}}$ then $y \in D'$, and
- If $x \in D'$ and $(y,x) \in {{A^{\rm c}}}$ then $y \in D$.
The definition of adjacency of $D$ and $D'$ is clearly equivalent to the statement that neither of $D {-}D'$ or $D' {-}D$ induce an edge of ${{A^{\rm c}}}$. That $D {-}D'$ induces no edge in ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ is equivalent to the statement that for all $(y, x)$ in ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ with $x,y$ in $D$, either $y \not\in D'$ or $x \not\in D'$. As $D$ and $D'$ are downsets, this reduces to the statement that for all $(y, x)$ in ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ with $x \in D$, $y \not\in D'$.
\[thm:char2\] For any reflexive graph $G$ compatible with a distributive lattice $L$, $G {\buildrel {} \over \cong}G(J_L, A)$ for a unique sub-digraph $A$ of $J_L$ satisfying .
Let $G$ be compatible with a distributive lattice $L$. By [@Bi] we have that $L {\buildrel {} \over \cong}\cD(J_L)$, so we denote vertices of $G$ by downsets of the poset $J_L$.
We define a sub-digraph $A = A(G,J_L)$ of $J_L$ as follows. For a vertex $p$ of $J_L$, let $$C_p = X {-}{[ p \bm{\rangle}} = \bigcup \{ X \in \cD \mid p \not\in X \}$$ be the maximum downset not containing $p$. For each arc $y \to x$ of $J_L$, let $y \to x$ be in $A$ if ${\bm{\langle} x ]} \cap C_y$ and ${\bm{\langle} x ]}$ are adjacent in $G$. We show that $G {\buildrel {} \over \cong}G(J_L, A)$.
Let $D$ and $D'$ be adjacent downsets of $J_L$. To show that $D$ and $D'$ are adjacent in $G(J_L,A)$, it is enough to show, without loss of generality, that any arc $(y,x) \in J_L$ for $x,y \in (D {-}D')$, is in $A$. So we must show that ${\bm{\langle} x ]} \cap C_y$ and ${\bm{\langle} x ]}$ are adjacent. As $D' \sim D$ and ${\bm{\langle} x ]} \sim {\bm{\langle} x ]}$ in $G$ we have that $$({\bm{\langle} x ]} \cap D') \sim ({\bm{\langle} x ]} \cap D) = {\bm{\langle} x ]}.$$ But as $y \not\in D'$ we have that $D' \leq C_y$, and so we also have $${\bm{\langle} x ]}\cap D' \leq {\bm{\langle} x ]} \cap C_y \leq {\bm{\langle} x ]};$$ and so by we get ${\bm{\langle} x ]} \sim ({\bm{\langle} x ]} \cap C_y)$, as needed.
On the other hand, let $D$ and $D'$ be non-adjacent downsets of $J_L$. Then we must show that there is some arc $(y,x) \in J_L$ for $x,y \in (D {-}D')$ or $x,y \in (D' {-}D)$ that is not in $A$. Assume that all such arcs with $x,y \in (D {-}D')$ are in $A$. Then for each, we saw above that ${\bm{\langle} x ]} \sim ({\bm{\langle} x ]} \cap C_y)$. Fixing $x$ and taking the intersection over all $y \leq x$ in $D {-}D'$, we get $${\bm{\langle} x ]} = \bigcap {\bm{\langle} x ]} \sim \bigcap ({\bm{\langle} x ]} \cap C_y) = \bigcap ({\bm{\langle} x ]} {-}{[ y \bm{\rangle}})
=:T_x$$ where $T_x = {\bm{\langle} x ]} {-}\bigcup {[ y \bm{\rangle}}$ is contained in ${\bm{\langle} x ]} {-}D'$ as the union is over all $y \leq x$ that are in $D {-}D'$. Now taking the union over all $x \in D {-}D'$ we get that $$D = \bigcup {\bm{\langle} x ]} \sim \bigcup T_x \subseteq \bigcup ({\bm{\langle} x ]} {-}D') \subseteq (D {-}D').$$ By we get that $D \sim D {-}D'$.
Similarily we get that $D' \sim (D \cap D')$. But as $D \cap D' \leq D, D'$ we get from that $D \sim D'$, a contradiction.
Now, Lemma \[lem:extension1\] allows us to assume that $A$ satisfies . The uniqueness of $A$ then follows by observing that $G(J_L,A')$ would be different for any other sub-digraph $A'$ of $J_L$ satisfying : this is simple let $(y,x)$ be an arc of $A'$ but not $A$. Then the edge ${\bm{\langle} x ]} \sim {\bm{\langle} y ]}$ is in $G(J_L,A')$ but not in $G(J_L,A)$.
Corollary \[cor:char2\] is immediate from Theorem \[thm:char2\] and the following lemma.
\[lem:pographiscompat\] If $P$ is a poset and $A \subseteq P$, then $\cD(P)$ is compatible with $G = G(P,A)$.
We use Lemma \[lem:altGPA\] for the definition of adjacency in $G$. Assume that $D \sim D'$ and $E \sim E'$. We must show that $(D \cup E) \sim (D' \cup E')$ and $(D \cap E) \sim (D' \cap E')$. For the former, let $x \in D \cup E$ and $(x, y)$ be in ${{A^{\rm c}}}$. Then $x \in D$ or $E$, so as $D \sim D'$ and $E \sim E'$, we have that $y \in D'$ or $E'$. Thus $y \in D' \cup E'$. That $x \in D' \cup E'$ implies $y \in D \cup E$ is the same, so $(D \cup E) \sim (D' \cup E')$. The proof of the latter is similar.
Now, consider $G(C,A)$ where $C$ is a chain. All downsets are of the form ${\bm{\langle} c ]}$ for some $c \in C$, or $\emptyset=:{\bm{\langle} -1 ]}$. As we may assume that $A$ satisfies , two downsets ${\bm{\langle} x ]}$ and ${\bm{\langle} y ]}$, for $y \leq x$ are adjacent if and only if $(y+1, x)$ is an arc of $A$. The following is then clear, and is the starting point of our next characterisation of reflexive $\operatorname{DL}$-graphs.
\[fact:PI\] For a chain $C$ and a sub-digraph $A$, $G(C,A)$ satisfies , so is a proper interval graph.
Assume that ${\bm{\langle} u ]} \subsetneq {\bm{\langle} v ]} \subsetneq {\bm{\langle} w ]} \mbox{ and } {\bm{\langle} u ]} \sim {\bm{\langle} w ]}$ in $G(C,A)$. So $u < v < w$ and $u+1 \to w$ in $A$. As we may assume that $A$ satisfies we have $u+1 \to v$ and $v+1 \to w$ in $A$, and so ${\bm{\langle} u ]} \sim {\bm{\langle} v ]}$ and ${\bm{\langle} v ]} \sim {\bm{\langle} w ]}$.
Reflexive $\operatorname{DL}$-graphs as subgraphs of products of Proper Interval Graphs {#sec:main2}
=======================================================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm:embedding\] and give some related results.
\[thm:embedding\] For any $\operatorname{DL}$-pair $(G,L)$, there is an embedding $L {\buildrel {} \over \cong}\cP {-}\cV$, where $\cV$ is a union of intervals of the form ${{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}$, of $L$ into a product $\cP = \prod P_i$ of chains. Further, for each $P_i$ there is a proper interval graph $G_i$ compatible with $P_i$ such that $G$ is the subgraph of $\cG = \prod_{i = 1}^dG_i$ induced by vertices in $L$.
Before proving this, we observe that this gives Corollary \[cor:charPI\].
If $G$ is a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph then Theorem \[thm:embedding\] gives us the necessary embedding of $G$ into a product of proper interval graphs.
On the other hand, assume we get $G$ from a product $\cG = \prod G_i$ of proper interval graphs $G_i$ in min-max form by removing vertex intervals ${{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}$. The ordering on the $G_i$ is a chain lattice $P_i$, so induces on $V(\cG)$ a lattice $\cP = \prod P_i$. By a result in [@Ri74], the subset induced by removing sets of the form ${{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}$ is a sublattice. By Fact \[fact:sublat\] it is therefore compatible with the subgraph $G$ of $\cG$ that it induces.
We start with some results from the literature that will help us prove Theorem \[thm:embedding\].
Setup for the proof of Theorem \[thm:embedding\]
------------------------------------------------
The first statement of Theorem \[thm:embedding\] is acually from [@Si15]. We explain, as we will have to build on this. Generalising the notion of a [*chain decomposition*]{} in which the subchains must be disjoint, a [*chain cover*]{} of a poset $P$ is family $\cC = \{C_1, \dots, C_d\}$ of subchains of $P$ such that every element of $P$ is in one chain. Given $\cC$, label the elements of $P$ so that the subchain $C_i$ is ${{1}^{(i)}} \prec\dots \prec {{{n_i}}^{(i)}}$ for some $n_i$; if an element is in more than one chain, it gets more than one label. It is clear that a downset $D$ of $P$ is uniquely defined by the tuple $e_\cC(D) = (x_1, \dots, x_d)$ where $x_i = |D \cap C_i|$. (Note that $D$ is thus the downset generated by the set $\{{{x_i}^{(i)}} \mid i \in [d] \}$.)
As Dilworth [@Di50] observed in the case that $\cC$ is a decomposition, we observed in [@Si15] that $e_\cC$ is in fact a lattice embedding of $\cD(P)$ into the product of chains $\cP_\cC = \prod_{i = 1}^d P_i$ where $P_i$ is the chain $0 \prec 1 \prec \dots \prec {n_i}$ with one more element than $C_i$. Thus by Birkoff’s result from [@Bi], every chain cover of $J_L$ gives an embedding $e_\cC$ of $L$ as a sublattice of a product $\cP_\cC$ of chains. In (Corollary 6.6 of) [@Si15] we showed that every embedding of $L$ as a sublattice of a product of chains such that $L$ contains the zero and unit of the product, is $e_\cC$ for some chain cover $\cC$ of $J_L$.
The following notation will also be useful, and explains the notation ${{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}$. Given a product of chains $\cP_\cC = \prod_{i = 1}^d P_i$, let $${{{\alpha}_{[i]}}}= (\underbrace{0,\dots,0,\alpha}_{i},0,\dots,0) \qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad {{{\beta}^{[j]}}}= (n_1, \dots,n_{j-1},\beta,n_{j+1}, \dots,n_d)$$ for all $i,j \in [d]$ and $\alpha,\beta$ with $0 \leq \alpha \leq n_i$ and $0 \leq \beta \leq n_j$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:embedding\]
----------------------------------
Let $(G,L)$ be a $\operatorname{DL}$-pair, so by Theorem \[thm:char2\], $G = G(J_L,A)$ for some sub-digraph $A$ of $J_L$, and let $\cC$ be a chain cover of $J_L$. For each chain $C_i \in \cC$ let $A_i$ be the subgraph of $A$ induced by the vertices of $C_i$. By Fact \[fact:PI\] we have that $G_i = G(C_i,A_i)$, on the chain $P_i$ is a proper interval graph. Let $\cG = \prod G_i$ be the product of these proper interval graphs. The embedding $e_\cC: \cD(J_L) \to \cP_\cC$ embeds $V(G)$ as a subset of $V(\cG)$.
In [@Si15], we observed the following, using a result of [@Ri74].
Where $L$ is the image of the embedding $e_\cC: \cD(J_L) \to \cP_\cC$, $$L = \cP_\cC {-}\cV$$ where $\cV$ is the union, over comparable pairs ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\leq {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ in $J_L$, of the intervals $${[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]} = \{ x \in \cP_\cC \mid \alpha \leq x_i \mbox{ and } x_j \leq \beta \}.$$
So any chain cover $\cC$ of $J_L$ yields an embedding of $L$ into $\cP_\cC$ as required by the first statement of Theorem \[thm:embedding\]. To show that $G$ can be taken as an induced subgraph of $\cG$ we need a similar statement about how the edges of $G$ relate to those of $\cG$. We get this by looking at how our construction $G(J_L,A)$ behaves notationally under the embedding $e_\cC$.
To finish proving Theorem \[thm:embedding\] we must show that $e_\cC$ embeds $G$ as an induced subgraph of $\cG$. This is not true of every chain cover $\cC$, but every chain cover embeds it as a subgraph.
For each $i,j\in [d]$ and $0 \leq \alpha \leq n_i$ and $0 \leq \beta \leq n_j$, let $${{[ {{\alpha}_{[i]}} \bm{\rangle}} \times {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{[j]}} ]}} := \left\{ \{x, y\} \mid \alpha \leq x_i \mbox{ and }
y_j \leq \beta \right\}.$$
\[lem:tight\] Where $\cC$ is a chain cover of $J_L$, $G = G(J_L,A)$ is a subgraph of the product $\cG = \prod G_i$ of proper interval graphs $G_i = (C_i,A_i)$. In fact $G = \cG {-}\cV {-}\cE$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\cV = \bigcup \{ {{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}\mid {{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\leq {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}\in J_L \} \\
\cE = \bigcup \{ {{{[ {{\alpha}_{[i]}} \bm{\rangle}} \times {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{[j]}} ]}}}\mid {{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\to {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}\in {{A^{\rm c}}} \}.
\end{gathered}$$
Let $D_x$ and $D_y$ be downsets of $J_L$ and let $x = e_\cC(D_x)$ and $y = e_\cC(D_y)$.
If $D_x \sim D_y$ we have in particular that for each $i$, ${{x_i+1}^{(i)}} \to {{y_i}^{(i)}}$ if $x_i < y_i$ and ${{y_i+1}^{(i)}} \to {{x_i}^{(i)}}$ if $y_i < x_i$. So ${{x_i}^{(i)}} \sim {{y_i}^{(i)}}$ in $G_i(C_i,A_i)$. This shows that $G$ is a subgraph of $\cG$.
As we mentioned above, it follows from [@Si15] that $V(G) = V(\cG) {-}\cV$ so we are done with the following claim.
Vertices $x$ and $y$ of $G$ are non-adjacent in $G$ if and only if there is some arc ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\to {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ in ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ such that $\{x,y\}$ is in the set ${{[ {{\alpha}_{[i]}} \bm{\rangle}} \times {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{[j]}} ]}}$ of edges of $\cG$.
Let $D_x$ and $D_y$ be the downsets of $J_L$ for which $e_\cC(D_x) = x$ and $e_\cC(D_y) = y$. Then $D_x \not\sim D_y$ if and only if there is some ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\to {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ in ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ with ${{{\alpha}^{(i)}}},{{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}$ in $D_x {-}D_y$ ( or $D_y {-}D_x$, but wlog we assume the former). This is true if and only if $$\label{edge1}
y_i < \alpha \leq x_i \mbox{ and } y_j \leq \beta < x_j.$$ But since ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\to {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ in ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ we certainly have that ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\leq {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ in $J_L$, so $x$ and $y$ are not in ${[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}$. This means that neither of $$\label{edge2}
(\alpha \leq x_i \mbox{ and } x_j \leq \beta) \mbox{ or } (\alpha \leq y_i \mbox{ and } y_j \leq \beta)$$ hold. As and the negation of are logically equivalent to $$\alpha \leq x_i \mbox{ and } y_j \leq \beta,$$ we get the claim.
This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now many of the sets ${{{[ {{\alpha}_{[i]}} \bm{\rangle}} \times {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{[j]}} ]}}}$ in the above lemma may not actually contain edges of $\cG$, so it begs the question: when is $G$ an induced subgraph of $\cG$. Clearly it is induced if and only if we can express it as $G = \cG {-}\cV$, but this does not mean that ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ must be empty. We have been using Lemma \[lem:extension1\] to remove edges to $A$ and assume that it satisfies ; we may also use it to add all useless edges, doing so the complement (in $J_L$) is a ’reduced’ version of ${{A^{\rm c}}}$: a graph ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ that generates the usual ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ by composition with $J_L$.
\[cor:tight\] Where $\cC$ is a chain cover of $J_L$, $G = G(J_L,A)$ is $\cG {-}\cV$ if and only if ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ is a sub-digraph of ${\bigcup \cC}= \bigcup C_i$.
On the one hand, let ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ be a subgraph of ${\bigcup \cC}$. We show that no edge of ${{{[ {{\alpha}_{[i]}} \bm{\rangle}} \times {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{[j]}} ]}}}$, for any ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\to {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ in ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$, is in $\cG$. Indeed, for any ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\to {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ in ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ there exist $k, \gamma$ and $\delta$ such that ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}= {{(\delta +1)}^{(k)}}$ and ${{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}= {{\gamma}^{(k)}}$, so ${{{\beta}^{[j]}}}= {{\delta}^{[k]}}$ and ${{{\alpha}_{[i]}}}= {{\gamma}_{[k]}}$ and so $${{{[ {{\alpha}_{[i]}} \bm{\rangle}} \times {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{[j]}} ]}}}= {{[ {{\gamma}_{[k]}} \bm{\rangle}} \times {\bm{\langle} {{\delta}^{[k]}} ]}}.$$ For any edge $\{x,y\}$ of ${{[ {{\gamma}_{[k]}} \bm{\rangle}} \times {\bm{\langle} {{\delta}^{[k]}} ]}}$ we have $\gamma \leq x$ and $y \leq \delta$, but $\{{{x}^{(k)}},{{y}^{(k)}}\}$ is not in $G_i$ as ${{(\delta +1)}^{(k)}} \not\to {{\gamma}^{(k)}}$ in $A_k$.
On the other hand, assume that ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ is not a subgraph of ${\bigcup \cC}$. Then there is some ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\to {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ in ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ such that ${{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ and ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}$ are not both in $C_k$ for some $k$. We show that the projection of ${\bm{\langle} {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}]} \not\sim {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{(j)}} ]}$ onto any of the $G_k$ is an edge of $G_k$, and so ${\bm{\langle} {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}]} \not\sim {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{(j)}} ]}$ is an edge of $\cG$. Indeed, $({\bm{\langle} {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}]} {-}{{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}) \sim {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{(j)}} ]}$, or otherwise there is an arc in ${{A^{\rm c}}}$ in $({\bm{\langle} {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}]} {-}{{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}) {-}{\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{(j)}} ]}$ which would contradict the existence of ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\to {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}$ in the reduced ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$. For any $k$ such that ${{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}\not\in C_k$, $({\bm{\langle} {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}]} {-}{{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}) \sim {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{(j)}} ]}$ projects onto the same edge in $G_k$ as does ${\bm{\langle} {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}]} \not\sim {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{(j)}} ]}$, implying that it is in $G_k$. Similarily ${\bm{\langle} {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}]} \sim {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{(j)}} ]} \cup \{{{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\}$ is an arc showing that the projection of ${\bm{\langle} {{{\alpha}^{(i)}}}]} \not\sim {\bm{\langle} {{\beta}^{(j)}} ]}$ onto $G_k$ is an edge of $G_k$ for any $k$ such that ${{{(\beta + 1)}^{(j)}}}\not\in C_k$.
Let $G$ be a reflexive $\operatorname{DL}$-graph and $L$ a compatible distributive lattice. Theorem \[thm:char2\] provides us a sub-digraph $A$ of $J_L$ such that $G {\buildrel {} \over \cong}G(J_L,A)$. As we mentioned above, we have from [@Si15] that every chain cover $\cC$ of $J_L$ yields an embedding $e_\cC: L {\buildrel {} \over \cong}\cP_\cC {-}\cV$ into a product of chains. By Corollary \[cor:tight\] it is induced if and only if ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ is a subgraph of ${\bigcup \cC}$. We can assure this by taking every arc of ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ as a two element chain in $\cC$ and then covering then rest of $J_L$ with one element chains.
Tight embeddings {#sub:nottight}
----------------
Theorem \[thm:embedding\] tells us that for every $\operatorname{DL}$-pair $(G,L)$ there is an embedding of $L$ into a product $\cP$ of chains $C_i$ such that $G$ is an induced subgraph of the product $\cG$ of proper interval graphs $G_i$. We simply refer to this as an [*induced embedding*]{} of $(G,L)$. An embedding is [*tight*]{} if every cover of $L$ is a cover of $\cP$. Classical results of Birkoff and Dilworth correspond tight embeddings of $L$ into products of chains to [*chain decompositions*]{} of $J_L$: chain covers $\cC$ consisting of disjoint chains. By Lemma \[lem:tight\] any $\operatorname{DL}$-pair $(G,L)$ has a tight embedding, but if ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ has any vertices with in-degree or out-degree greater than $2$, then by \[cor:tight\] this it is not induced. In fact, we will see at the end of the next section that there are $\operatorname{DL}$-graphs $G$ such that there are no compatible lattices $L$ for which $(G,L)$ has a tight induced embedding. This is why we had to consider non-tight embeddings, and why we wrote [@Si15].
Recognition of $R$-thin $\operatorname{DL}$-graphs {#sect:recog}
==================================================
Recall that a graph is [*$\R$-thin*]{} if no two vertices have the same neighbourhood. As our graphs are reflexive neighbourhoods and closed neighbourhoods are the same thing.
The factorization of a categorical product was shown to be unique (up to certain obviously necessary assumptions which include $R$-thinness) in [@DI70] by Dörfler and Imrich. Feigenbaum and Schäffer [@FS86] showed that a categorical product can be factored in polynomial time. On the other hand, it was shown in [@CKNOS] that proper interval graphs can be recognised in linear time. So products $\cG$ of proper interval graphs can be recognised in polynomial time.
Using techniques discussed in [@HIK] we will prove Theorem \[thm:poly\], which says that there is a polynomial time algorithm to decide whether or not an $R$-thin reflexive graph is a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph. We make no effort to optimise our algorithm. First we develop some properties of $\operatorname{DL}$-graphs.
Tightest embeddings and $R$-thinness
------------------------------------
As we mentioned in Subsection \[sub:nottight\], not all $\operatorname{DL}$-pairs $(G,L)$ have tight induced embeddings. We call an induced embedding [*tightest*]{} if it minimises then number of [*non-tight covers*]{}– covers of $L$ that are not covers of $\cP$. We prove some properties of tightest embeddings.
\[cl:6-1\] If $x \prec y$ is an non-tight cover in a tightest induced embedding of a $\operatorname{DL}$-pair $(G,L)$, then for every vertex $z$ of $G$ either $z \leq x$ or $y \leq z$.
Indeed, $x < z < y$ is impossible as $x \prec y$. If $x < z$ but $z {\parallel}y$ (i.e., $z$ and $y$ are incomparible) then $z_i > y_i$ for some $i$ and so $x_i < (z \wedge y)_i$ giving us that $x < z \wedge y < y$, which is again impossible as $x \prec y$. Similarily $x {\parallel}z$ and $x < y$ is impossible. Finally, if $x {\parallel}z$ and $y {\parallel}z$ then taking $z' = x \vee z$ we get that $x < z'$ and $z' {\parallel}y$, which we have already seen is impossible.
\[cl:6-2\] If $x \prec y$ is an non-tight cover in a tightest induced embedding of a $\operatorname{DL}$-pair $(G,L)$, then for all $i \in [d]$, $x_i$ and $y_i$ have different neighbourhoods in $G_i$.
Towards contradiction, assume that $x_i$ and $y_i$ have the same neighbourhoods, then replacing $G_i$ with the proper interval graph we get by contracting $x_i$ and $y_i$ into a point, and reducing the $i$-coordinate of every vertex in ${[ y \bm{\rangle}}$ by one, we get a tighter embedding of $(G,L)$, contradicting the fact that we started with a tigthest embedding.
\[lem:rthin\] If $G$ is $R$-thin then each $G_i$ in a tightest induced embedding of $(G,L)$ is $R$-thin.
Towards contradiction, assume that some $G_i$ contains vertices $a$ and $b$ with the same neighbourhoods. As $G_i$ is a proper interval graph, we may assume that $b = a + 1$. By Claim \[cl:6-2\] no non-tight cover projects onto $a \prec a+1$ so there is some $x \in \cG$ with $x_i = a$ such that $x$ and $x + e_i$ are both in $G$. But these have the same neighbourhoods in $\cG$, and so as $G$ is an induced subgraph, they have the same neighbourhood in $G$, contradicting the fact that $G$ is $R$-thin.
Removing dispensible edges to get the subgraph $S$
--------------------------------------------------
The following definition can also be found in [@HIK].
\[def:disp\] An edge $x \sim y$ of $G$ [*dispensable*]{} if it satisfies the following conditions.
1. $\exists z$ such that $N(x) \subsetneq N(z) \subsetneq N(y)$, or
2. $\exists z$ such that $N(y) \subsetneq N(z) \subsetneq N(x)$, or
3. $\exists z$ such that $N(x) \cap N(y) \subsetneq N(x) \cap N(z)$ and $N(x) \cap N(y) \subsetneq N(y) \cap N(z)$.
Observe that when $G$ is $R$-thin, we can replace the $\subsetneq$ in the first two conditions with $\subset$; they are equivalent.
In the proof of the following lemma we will assume an embedding of $(G,L)$ into some product $\cG = \prod G_i$ of proper inteval graphs $G_i$. We will ust the following notation. For a vertex $v_i$ of $G_i$ we let $v_i^+ = \max\{ N_{G_i}(v_i) \}$ be the greatest neighbour of $v_i$ in $G_i$ and $v_i^- = \min\{ N_{G_i}(v_i) \}$ be its least neighbour. As $G_i$ is proper interval $v_i \leq u_i$ implies that $v_i^+ \leq u_i^+$ and $v_i^- \leq u_i^-$. As $G_i$ is $R$-thin, strict inequality $v_i < u_i$ implies strict inequality in at least one of $v_i^+ \leq u_i^+$ and $v_i^- \leq u_i^-$.
\[lem:HHasse\] Let $(G,L)$ be a $\operatorname{DL}$-pair, $G$ be $R$-thin, and $S$ be the graph we get from $G$ by removing all dispensable edges. Then
1. Every edge of $S$ is between comparable vertices of $L$, and
2. $S$ contains the Hasse graph $H(L)$ of $L$.
First we prove part (a), by showing that any edge $xy$ between incomparable vertices $x$ and $y$ is dispensable. Indeed, as $x$ and $y$ are incomparable, we have that $x \wedge y$ and $x \vee y$ are distinct and different from $x$ and $y$. Further as $\wedge$ and $\vee$ are polymorphisms, any common neighbour of $x$ and $y$ is a neighbour of both of $x \wedge y$ and $x \vee y$, so $N(x) \cap N(y) \subseteq N(x \wedge y), N(x \vee y)$. By $R$-thinness, $N(x \wedge y)$ and $N(x \vee y)$ are distinct, so one of them properly contains $ N(x) \cap N(y)$. Thus $xy$ is dispensable.
Now, part (b) is harder. Let $x \prec y$ be a cover of $L$; we show that it is not dispensable. Assume some tightest induced embedding of $(G,L)$ into a product $\cG$ of proper interval graphs. We have two cases.\
[**Case: $x \prec y$ is a not tight cover.**]{} For any $z$ in $L {-}\{x,y\}$, we may assume by Claim \[cl:6-1\] that $x \prec y < z$. We show that item i. of Definition \[def:disp\] cannot hold. Any neighbour of $y$ in ${[ y \bm{\rangle}}$ is a neighbour of $z$ by (of Section \[sec:def\]) and so any $w$ in $N(y) {-}N(z)$ must be in ${\bm{\langle} x ]}$. But then by it is adjacent to $x$, contradicting that $N(x) \subset N(z)$. Items ii. and iii. cannot hold, as by any common neighbour of $x$ and $z$ is also a neighbour of $y$.\
[**Case: $x \prec y$ is a tight cover.**]{} By the $R$-thinness of $G$, we may assume without loss of generality that there is some $v \in N(y) {-}N(x)$. So immediately, condition (ii) of Definition \[def:disp\] does not hold. We may assume, by permuting indices of the interval graphs $G_i$, and possibly reversing the ordering on the first one, that $y_1 = x_1 + 1$ Assume that (i) holds, that is, that there is some $z$ with $N(x) \subsetneq N(z) \subsetneq N(y)$. As $z$ has some neighbour in $N(y) {-}N(x)$ we get that $x_1 < y_1 \leq z_1$, so in particular $y_1^+ < z_1^+$. As $x \sim y \sim z$ we have $z_1^- \leq y_1 \leq x_1^+$. There is some vertex $w$ adjacent to $y$ but neither $z$ nor $x$. As it is in $N(y) {-}N(x)$ we have $x_1^+ < w_1 < y_1^+$. Putting these together we have $$z_1^- \leq y_1 \leq x_1^+ < w_1 \leq y_1 < z_1^+$$ and so $w \not\sim z$ means we may assume that $w_2 \not\sim z_2$, and so that $z_2 < y_2 \leq z_2^+ < w_2$. Now let $w'$ be the vertex in $\cG$ we get from $x$ by replacing $x_1$ with $x_1^+$ and $x_2$ with $z_2^+ + 1$. So $w' \not\sim z$ in $\cG$, while $w \sim x$ and $x_2 = y_2 < w'_2 \leq w_2$ implies that $x_2 \sim w'_2$, so $w' \sim x$ in $\cG$. As $N(x) \subset N(z)$ in $G$, $w'$ cannot be in $G$, so is in some vertex interval ${{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}$ removed from $\cG$ to get $G$.
As $w$ is not in ${{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}$ we have that $j = 1$ and $x_1^+ \leq \beta < w_1$. Also, as $x$ is not in ${{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}$, we have that $i = 1$ or $2$. But a tightest embedding cannot have a vertex interval of the form ${[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[i]}}]}$ removed, so $i = 2$ and $x_2 < \alpha \leq w'_2 = z_2^+ + 1$. So $z_2 < x_2 < \alpha \leq z_2^+ + 1$.
Now we claim that the vertex $x'$ which we get from $x$ by reducing $x_2$ to $z_2$ has the same neighbourhood as $x$ in $G$, a contradiction. Indeed $N(x')$ contains $N(x) \cap N(z)$, so contains $N(x)$, and all vertices $v$ of $\cG$ that are adjacent to $x$ but not $x'$ have $ \alpha \leq z_2^+ + 1 \leq v_2$ and $v_1 \leq x_1^+ \leq \beta$ so are in ${[{{\alpha}_{[2]}}, {{\beta}^{[1]}}]}$ which has been removed. Thus we have our contradiction, so (i) cannot hold.
The argument that (ii) cannot hold is essentially the same. Finally, assume that (iii) holds. Clearly this implies that both $N(x) {-}N(y)$ and $N(y) {-}N(x)$ are non-empty, so $x_1^+ < y_1^+$ and $x_1^- < y_1^-$. Moreover, $z$ has a neighbour $a \in N(Y) {-}N(X)$, so having $a_1 > x_1^+$, and similarly another neighbour $b$ having $b_1 < y_1^-$. But then there is no viable value for $z_1$.
This completes the proof of (b) and so of the lemma.
Compare Lemma \[lem:HHasse\] to similar statements in [@HIK Chap 8], where they show that $S$ is closely related to what they call the [*Cartesian skeleton*]{} of a product graph $G$. Our proof is complicated by the fact that $G$ is not a product, but a subgraph of a product.
Orienting edges of $S$
----------------------
\[alg:2\] Given a graph $G$ and subgraph $S$ with designated vertices ${\mathbf{0}}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}$, let the sets $N_j$ and the graphs $D_j$ for all $j = 0, \dots, \operatorname{dist}({\mathbf{1}},{\mathbf{0}})$ be defined as follows. $N_j = \{ v \in G \mid \operatorname{dist}({\mathbf{1}},v) = j\}$, and $D_j$ is be the subgraph of $S$ induced by $\cup_{\alpha = 0}^j N_j$. Let $\vec{S}$ be the partial orientation of $S$ we get as follows. For $j = 1, \dots, \operatorname{dist}({\mathbf{1}},{\mathbf{0}})$ do the following. For an edge $uv$ of $S$, let $u \to v$ if
1. $u \in N_{j-1}$ and $v \in N_j$, or
2. $u, v \in N_j$ and any one of the following holds
1. $N(u) - N(v)$ has a vertex $u' \in D_{j-1}$ such that $u' > v'$ for all $v' \in N(v) \cap D_{j-1}$. (We consider $u' > v'$ if there is a directed path in $D_{j-1}$ from $u'$ to $v'$.)
2. $N(v) - N(u)$ has a vertex $v' \in D_{j-1}$ such that $u' > v'$ for all $u' \in N(u) \cap D_{j-1}$.
3. $N(v) - N(u)$ has a vertex in $N_j \cup N_{j+1}$ but not in $N_{j-1}$.
If every edge of $S$ is oriented in $\vec{S}$, and the transitive closure of $\vec{S}$ is a lattice $L$, then return $L$, otherwise, return ’NO’.
This algorithm is clearly polynomial in $n$.
\[lem:orient\] Let $(G,L)$ be a compatible pair; $G$ be $R$-thin; and let $S$ be a subgraph of $G$, containing the Hasse graph $H(L)$ of $L$, such that every edge of $S$ is between vertices that are comparible in $L$. Algorithm \[alg:2\], applied to $S$, ${\mathbf{1}}_L$, and ${\mathbf{0}}_L$, returns $L$.
It is enough to show that for any (non-loop) edge $uv$ of $S$ with $u > v$, the above algorithm [*properly orients $uv$*]{}; i.e., sets $u \to v$ and at the same time does not set $v \to u$.
Observe that by construction every edge of $S$ is either in $D_j$ for some $j$ or is between $D_{j-1}$ and $D_{j}$ for some $j$. We will prove by induction on $j$ that the $j^{th}$ step of the algorithm proper orients such edges, yielding a proper orientation of all the edges of $D_j$. Before we do this though, we first prove that it will never improperly orient an edge.
Let $u > v$ then the algorithm will not set $v \to u$.
We must check that none of the conditions of the algorithm are satisfied when the roles of $u$ and $v$ are reversed
To see that item (i) is not satisfied observe that if not both of $u$ and $v$ are in $N_j$, then clearly it is $u$ that is closer to $1$. Indeed, if $v = x_\l \sim x_{\l- 1} \sim \dots \sim x_1 = 1$ is a path in $G$, then so is $u = u \vee x_\l \sim u \vee x_{\l - 1} \sim \dots \sim u \vee x_1 = 1$. So $u \in N_{j-1}$ and $v \in N_j$. ( In fact this shows that the algorithm properly sets $u \to v$ in the case that $u$ and $v$ are not both in $N_j$.
To see that items (iia) and (iib) are not satisfied, it is enough to observe that if $u' \sim u$ and $v' \sim v$ and $v' \geq u'$ then $u' \sim v$ and $u \sim v'$. But this is clear, as the premises imply that $$u' = u' \wedge v' \sim u \wedge v = v$$ and $$v' = u' \vee v' \sim u \vee v = u.$$
To see that item (iic) is not satisfied, assume that there is some $w \in N(u) - N(v)$. As $N(u)$ is conservative, (recall the definition of conservative sets preceding Lemma \[lem:connected\]) it induces a sublattice of $L$, so has a maximum element $u'$. This element must also be in $N(u) - N(v)$; as if we had $w' \sim v$, then $$w = w \vee u' \sim u \vee v = v,$$ contradicting the fact that $w \not\in N(v)$. We now show that $u'$ is in $N_{j-1}$, so item (iic) is not satisfied. Indeed, some neighbour $x$ of $u$ must be in $N_{j-1}$, as $u \in N_j$. Let $x = x_{i-1} \sim x_{i-2} \sim \dots \sim x_0 = {\mathbf{1}}$ be a length $i-1$ walk from $x$ to ${\mathbf{1}}$. Then taking the join of each element in the walk with $u'$ we get a walk $u' = u' \vee x_{i-1} \sim u' \vee x_{i-2} \dots \sim u' \vee {\mathbf{1}}= {\mathbf{1}}$ from $u'$ to ${\mathbf{1}}$. This shows that $u'$ is in $N_i$ for some $i \leq j-1$, but being a neighbour of $u$, it must be in $N_{j-1}$.
Now we have just to verify that for $u > v$ the algorithm sets $u \to v$.
For the case $j = 1$ let $uv$ be an edge of $S$ in $D_1$ with $u > v$. Item (i) holds if and only if $u = {\mathbf{1}}$, and in this case gives $u \to v$, as needed. Assume therefore that $u,v \in N_1$. As all vertices in $N_1$ are adjacent to ${\mathbf{1}}$, items (iia) and (iib) are vacuous, so we must show that (iic) holds. To see this, observe that as $u \geq v$, we have that $u_i \geq v_i$ for all $i \in [d]$. As $u_i^+ = 1 = v_i^+$ for all $i$, we have by $R$-thinness that $N_G(1) \subsetneq N_G(u) \subsetneq N_G(v)$. The vertex in $N_G(v) {-}N_G(u)$ is thus in $N_2$ as needed.
Now assume that all edges of $D_{j-1}$ are properly oriented. We show that the $j^{th}$ round of the algorithm properly orients the heretofore unoriented edges of $D_j$.
Let $uv$ be an edge of $D_j {-}D_{j-1}$ with $u \geq v$. If not both of $u$ and $v$ are in $N_j$, then (as we showed in the claim) $u \to v$ is properly ordered by step (i) of the algorithm.
So we may assume that both of $u$ and $v$ are in $N_j$. As $u > v$ we have that for all $i$, $u_i \geq v_i$. By $R$-thinness there is a vertex $w$ in either $N(u) {-}N(v)$ or in $N(v) {-}N(u)$.
We show now that in the first case, (iia) is satisfied, and then that in the second case, (iib) or (iic) are satisfied.
If $w \in N(u) {-}N(v)$, then (iia) is satisfied.
Let $w \in N(u) {-}N(v)$. As we showed in the proof that item (iic) is not satisfied in the previous claim, we have that the maximum neighbour $u'$ of $u$ is in $D_{i-1} \cap (N(u) {-}N(v))$.
To see that (iia) is satisfied, we must show that $u' \geq v'$ for any neighbour $v'$ of $v$ in $D_{i-1}$. Indeed, $v' \sim v$ and $u' \sim u$ give $v' \vee u' \sim v \vee u = u$. As $u'$ is the maximal neighbour of $u$ this gives us that $u' \geq v' \vee u'$. This implies however that $u' = v' \vee u'$, and so $u' \geq v'$, as needed.
If $w \in N(v) {-}N(u)$, then (iib) or (iic) are satisfied.
We assume that (iic) does not hold, and then show that (iib) must.
Indeed, if (iic) does not hold, then $w \in D_{j-1} \cap (N(v) - N(u))$. As $D_{j-1} \cap N(v)$ is a conservative set it induces a sublattice, so has a minimum element $v'$. But then for any neighbour $u'$ of $u$ in $D_{j-1}$ we have from $v' \sim v$ and $u' \sim u$, that $v' \wedge u' \sim v \wedge u = v$. As $D_{j-1}$ is conservative, $v' \wedge u'$ is in $D_{j-1}$ so is in $D_{j-1} \cap N(v)$. Thus $v' \wedge u' \geq v'$ which implies that $u' \geq v'$. As $v' \not\in N(u)$ we have that $u' > v'$, as needed.
This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[thm:poly\].
Let $G$ be an $R$-thin graph. It is shown in [@HIK] that the subgraph $S$ we get by removing dispensible edges can be found in polynomial time. For every choice of ${\mathbf{0}}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}$ in $G$ apply Algorithm \[alg:2\] to $G,S$ and ${\mathbf{0}}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}$. As this is at most $n^2$ applications of a polynomial time algorithm, it is also polynomial. If for any choice of ${\mathbf{0}}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}$ a lattice $L$ is returned then by Lemmas \[lem:HHasse\] and \[lem:orient\], then $G$ is in $\operatorname{DL}$ and $L$ is a compatible distributive lattice. If ’No’ is returned for every choice, then by Lemmas \[lem:HHasse\] and \[lem:orient\], $G$ is not in $\operatorname{DL}$.
Here is an unexpected consequence of our algorithm.
\[cor:uniqueType2\] If $G$ is $R$-thin, then for a given choice of minimum and maximum vertices ${\mathbf{0}}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}$, there is at most one distributive lattice $L$ with minimum element ${\mathbf{0}}$ and maximum element ${\mathbf{1}}$ that is compatible with $G$.
With this we can get the following.
(1,0.43333335)(0,0) (0,0)[![Compatible pair $(G,L)$, poset $J_L$, and the graph ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$[]{data-label="fig:3not2"}](./3not2.pdf "fig:"){width="\unitlength"}]{} (0.47,0.017)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.72500005,0.017)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.21,0.017)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.20833334,0.37500001)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.16,0.02500002)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.40,0.12083341)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.40,0.21214294)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.40,0.29865747)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.40,0.38097229)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.57246034,0.06148159)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.58084656,0.15098546)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.57916668,0.23749999)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (0.5774868,0.31981481)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
\[prop:3not2\] There are distributive lattice graphs that are not tight.
Let $(G,L)$ be the $\operatorname{DL}$-pair shown with a tight but non-induced embedding in Figure \[fig:3not2\]. By Example \[ex:degOne\], the shown ${\mathbf{0}}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}$ are the only possible ${\mathbf{0}}$ and ${\mathbf{1}}$ for lattice $L$ compatible with $G$. As $G$ is $R$-thin, we have by Corollary \[cor:uniqueType2\] that $L$ is the only distributive lattice (upto isomorphism) compatible with $G$.
The poset $J_L$ and subdigraph ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ are also shown. As ${{\rm red}({A^{\rm c}})}$ has a vertex with up-degree two, we have, following remarks in Subsection \[sub:nottight\], that there is no tight induced embedding of $(G,L)$. So $G$ has no compatible distributive lattice with which it has a tight induced embedding.
Non $R$-thin graphs {#sub:NRThin}
-------------------
For a reflexive graph $G$ we define a relation $R$ on the vertex set by letting $uRv$ if $u$ and $v$ have the same neighbourhood. Clearly this is an equivalence relations. The [*$R$-thin reduction*]{} of a graph $G$ is the graph $G^R$ whose vertices are the sets $R$ and in which two sets are adjacent if there are any (and so all) edges between their member vertices.
The following shows our algorithm can be useful in showing that a non $R$-thin graph is not $\operatorname{DL}$.
\[lem:rthinred\] If a reflexive graph $G$ is a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph then its $R$-thin reduction is.
Assume that $G$ is a reflexive $\operatorname{DL}$-graph that is not $R$-thin. We will find pairs of vertices that are identified in $G^R$ and show that when we identify them, or reduce the number of coordinates in which they differ, we still have a $\operatorname{DL}$ graph. The fact that $G^R$ is $\operatorname{DL}$ then follows by induction.
For some compatible $L$ assume a tightest induced embedding of $(G,L)$ into $(\cG,\cP)$. Let $x$ and $y$ be vertices of $G$ with the same neighbourhood. By Lemma \[lem:rthin\] there is some $G_j$ such that $x_j$ and $y_j$ have the same neighbourhood in $G_j$. We may assume that $x_j = y_j - 1$. For any vertex $v$ in $G$ with $v_j \geq y_j$, reduce $v_j$ by $1$. If under this reduction, two vertices now have the same co-ordinates, then identity them- they had the same neighbourhood so are identified in $G^R$. Clearly there is an embedding of this reduced graph into $\cG' = \prod G'_i$ where $G'_i = G_i$ when $i \neq j$ and we get $G'_j$ from $G_j$ by identifying $x_j$ and $y_j$.
We conjecture the following.
\[conj:rthin\] For a reflexive graph $G$ there is a polynomial time algorithm to decide whether or not $G$ is a $\operatorname{DL}$-graph.
Notice that the graph $G$ in Figure \[fig:LnotDL\] is not $R$-thin. The vertices $d$ and $e$ have the same neighbourhoods. If we remove one of these vertices then the resulting lattice is distributive and is still compatible with the resulting $R$-thin reduction $G^R$. Thus the converse of the above lemma is, unfortunately, not true.
That said, one sees by reversing the operation in the proof of Lemma \[lem:rthinred\] that from an embedding of a $\operatorname{DL}$-pair, we can add a copy of every vertex that has the same value in some coordinate. Moreover one can argue that ’fattening’ the lattice in a new dimension can be replicated in the existing dimensions. So resolving the conjecture comes down solving a general version of the following game, described vaguely, but clear from Figure \[fig:Game\].
Given a set of numbers in a diamond tableau, decide if one can
- divide the regions with square lines, and
- make two decreasing walks from the top to the bottom,
so that the number of divided regions in each of the original regions between the walks equals the number proscribed in the tableau. With some students [@HPS], we show that this game has a polynomial time solution for tableaux of two dimentions.
(8,6)(0,0) (0,.5)[![The Game of Conjecture \[conj:rthin\][]{data-label="fig:Game"}](./Game.pdf "fig:"){width="8cm"}]{} (-1,0)[Diamond Tableau]{} (2.5,0)[Divided Tableau]{} (6,0)[Two walks]{}
A Question
==========
A partial characterisation of lattice graphs can be extracted from known literature. Indeed, it follows from [@HeThes] and [@JPM] (see also [@FHLLST]) that retracts of products of reflexive paths are exactly the reflexive graphs that admit majority, or $3$-NU polymorphisms, that is, polymorphisms $f:V(G)^3 \to V(G)$ satisfying
> $f(x,y,z) = c$ if at least two of $x,y$ and $z$ are $c$.
If a reflexive graph has a compatible lattice, then it also admits the following majority operation (seen, for example, in [@Band]) $$f(x,y,z) = (x \wedge y) \vee (y \wedge z) \vee (x \wedge z).$$ Thus all lattice graphs are retractions of products of paths. It would also be nice to see how our characterisations can be use to show this for $\operatorname{DL}$-graphs: that every $\operatorname{DL}$-graph is a retract of products of paths. In general, removing a vertex interval ${{[{{\alpha}_{[i]}}, {{\beta}^{[j]}}]}}$ is not a retraction.
[15]{}
H. Bandelt, [*Graphs with edge-preserving majority functions.*]{} Discrete Math. 103 (1992) pp 1–5
G. Birkhoff [*Rings of sets*]{} Duke Math. Jour. 3 (3) (1937) pp 443–454. (doi:10.1215/S0012-7094-37-00334-X).
A. Bulatov, P. Jeavons, A. Krokhin, [*Classifying the complexity of constraints using finite algebras.*]{} SIAM J. Comput. 34 (2005), no. 3, 720–7
C. Caravalho, V. Dalmau, A. Krokhin. [*Caterpillar duality for constraint satisfaction problems*]{} Proceed. LICS ’08 (2008) pp. 307-316
D. Corneil , H. Kim , S. Natarajan , S. Olariu , A. Sprague. [*Simple linear time recognition of unit interval graphs*]{} Information Processing Letters, 55 (2) (1995), pp. 99–104.
R. Dilworth. [*A decomposition theorem for partially ordered sets*]{} Annals of Math. 51 (1950) pp. 161-166.
W. Dorfler, W. Imrich, [*Über das starke Produkt von endlichen Graphen.*]{} Österreich. Akad. Wiss. Math.-Nature Kl.S.-B. II 18, pp.247-262.
T. Feder and M.Y. Vardi. [*The computational structure of monotone monadic [SNP]{} and constraint satisfaction: A study through [D]{}atalog and group theory.*]{} SIAM Journal on Computing, 28, (1998), pp. 57–104.
J. Feigenbaum, A.A.Schäffer, [*Finding the prime factors of strong direct product graphs in polynomial time*]{}
T. Feder, P. Hell, B. Larose, C. Loten, M. Siggers, C. Tardif, [*Graphs admitting k-NU operations. Part 1: The Reflexive Case.*]{} SIAM J. Discrete Math. 27(4), (2013) pp. 1639-2166.
F. Gardi, [*A note on the Roberts characterization of proper and unit interval graphs.* ]{} Discrete Math. 307, (2007), pp. 2906–2908.
R. Hammack, W. Imrich, S. Klacžer, [*Handbook of product graphs.*]{} CRC Press (2nd Edition 2011).
P. Hell [*Rétractions de graphes*]{} Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Montéal (1972).
P. Hell, M. Siggers, [*Semilattice Polymorphisms and Chordal Graphs*]{} Euro. Journ. of Comb. 36 (2014), pp 694–706.
D.Y. Hong, S.J. Pi, M. Siggers, [*A solution to the two-dimensional lattice blow-up game*]{} Manuscript.
E. Jawhari, M. Pouzet, D. Misane, [*Retracts: graphs and ordered sets from the metric point of view*]{} Combinatorics and ordered sets (Arcata, Calif., 1985), 175–226, Contemp. Math., [**57**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1986.
I. Rival, [*Maximal sublattices of finite distributive lattices. II.*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 44 (1974) pp. 263-268.
M. Siggers, [*On the representation of finite distributive lattices*]{} Submitted (Nov. 2014) [arXiv:1412.0011 \[math.CO\]]{}.
[^1]: Supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea (2014-06060000)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Accuracy of a simulation is strongly depend on the grid quality. Here, quality means orthogonality at the boundaries and quasi-orthogonality within the critical regions, smoothness, bounded aspect ratios, solution adaptive behaviour, etc. We review various functionals for generating high quality structured quadrilateral meshes in two dimensional domains. Analysis of Winslow and Modified Liao functionals are presented. Numerical examples are also presented to support our theoretical analysis. We will demonstrate the use of the Area functional for generating adaptive quadrilateral meshes.'
---
[1.0]{}
65M50, 76-08
[Grid Generation; Adaptation; Quadrilateral Mesh.]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Accuracy of numerical solutions of partial differential equations on a grid is very much depend on the quality of the underlying grid. There are various parameters for measuring grid quality. For example, orthogonality of grid lines and grid density in the regions of large solution gradients. A desired grid may be an orthogonal grid with high grid density in the areas of sharp solution gradients. Variational methods has been used for improving quality of a given grid [@gridbook]. In the variational methods, a grid functional is def[i]{}ned. Grid functional is an algebraic expression of the position vectors of the internal nodes of a mesh. Optimization of the grid functional may result in a grid with desired properties such as orthogonal grid lines, equal cell areas, linear or parallelogram cells [see @khattri_1] and untangled mesh [@knupp1; @knupp2; @knupp3]. There are many algebraic functionals for grid generation and optimization [cf. @Tinoco1; @Tinoco2; @knupp1; @knupp2; @khattri_1; @knupp3; @Tinoco3]. The first study of grid generation by algebraic functionals were done in [@Castillo]. Castillo and Steinberg introduced Length, Orthogonality and Area functionals [@Castillo]. Area functional are well known for producing robust quadrilateral meshes. For a detailed description of properties of area functionals, the interested readers are referred to [@Tinoco3]. Recently the area functional has been used for generating adaptive quadrilateral meshes [@khattri_2].
Let $x(\xi,\eta)$ and $y(\xi,\eta)$ be the coordinates of a node in a mesh. Let us further assume that $x$ and $y$ are twice differentiable functions of the independent variables $\xi$ and $\eta$. An integral functional $\mathcal{I}$ can be defined as follows $$\mathcal{I}(x,y) \overset{\textbf{def}}{=} \int_{[0,1]\times[0,1]}{\mathcal{F}(\xi,\eta,x,y,x_\xi,x_\eta,y_\xi,y_\eta)}\,d\xi\,d\eta\enspace{.}$$ We are interested in finding the functions $x(\xi,\eta)$ and $y(\xi,\eta)$ for which the integral functional $\mathcal{I}$ attains an extremal value. Such coordinates $x$ and $y$ define a mesh with desirable properties. The integral functional $\mathcal{I}$ is also referred to as control function for adaptive grid generation [@gridbook]. The conditions for the extremal value of the integral functional $\mathcal{I}$ are expressed by the Euler-Lagrange equations. The two Euler-Lagrange equations are $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\dfrac{\partial\mathcal{F}}{\partial{x}}-\dfrac{\partial}{\partial{\xi}}\left({\dfrac{\partial\mathcal{F}}{\partial{x_\xi}}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial}{\partial{\eta}}\left({\dfrac{\partial\mathcal{F}}{\partial{x_\eta}}}\right) = 0\enspace{,} \\
\dfrac{\partial\mathcal{F}}{\partial{y}}-\dfrac{\partial}{\partial{\xi}}\left({\dfrac{\partial\mathcal{F}}{\partial{y_\xi}}}\right)-\dfrac{\partial}{\partial{\eta}}\left({\dfrac{\partial\mathcal{F}}{\partial{y_\eta}}}\right) = 0\enspace{.}\end{aligned}$$
![[2D Structured Mesh. Node $k$ is surrounded by four quadrilaterals.]{}[]{data-label="fig:2d_mesh"}](2_examp.eps){width="130.00000%"}
![[2D Structured Mesh. Node $k$ is surrounded by four quadrilaterals.]{}[]{data-label="fig:2d_mesh"}](1_examp.eps){width="130.00000%"}
The functions $x$ and $y$, which satisfy the above Euler-Lagrangian equations, are called the extremals of the integral functional $\mathcal{I}$.
Let us def[i]{}ne some quantities of interest. Figure \[fig:quad\_cell\] shows a quadrilateral cell, and this cell belongs to a mesh. Let the co-variant vector at the node $o$ and in the direction $oa$ is $\mathbf{g}_1$, and another co-variant vector at the node $o$ but in the direction $ob$ is $\mathbf{g}_2$. These vectors are given as $$\mathbf{g}_1 = (x_a-x_o,y_a-y_o)^t \quad \text{and}\quad \mathbf{g}_2 = (x_b-x_o,y_b-y_o)^t\enspace{.}$$ Other interesting quantities such as the Jacobian and g-tensor matrix can be def[i]{}ned from the co-variant vectors. The columns of the Jacobian matrix are the co-variant vectors. The g-tensor matrix is the product of the Jacobian matrix with it’s transpose. Thus, the Jacobian matrix and the g-tensor at the node $o$ and for the cell shown in the Figure \[fig:quad\_cell\] are given as $$\boldsymbol{J} = \left[\mathbf{g}_1\,\,\mathbf{g}_2\right] \quad \text{and}\quad \boldsymbol{g} = \boldsymbol{J}^t\,\boldsymbol{J}\enspace{.}$$
The layout of the paper is as follows. In the Section \[discrete\_fun\], several functionals are presented. Continuous and discrete versions of the functionals are presented. Section \[num\_examp\] presents several numerical experiments, and finally Section \[conclusion\_\] concludes the paper.
Discrete Functionals {#discrete_fun}
====================
Let us f[i]{}rst introduce some quantities of interest. These will be used later in formulating algebraic functionals. Figure \[fig:2d\_mesh\] is a $2\times2$ structured mesh. We use this f[i]{}gure for def[i]{}ning these quantities.
$J(k_i)$ refers to the Jacobian (determinant of the Jacobian matrix $\boldsymbol{J}(k_i)$) at the node $k$ and for the cell $i$. Table \[jacobian\_table\] lists the Jacobian matrix for the four cells surrounding the node $k$. $\mathbf{g}_1(k_i)$ refers to the co-variant base vector at the node $k$ and for the cell $i$. The base vector $\mathbf{g}_1$ points along horizontal grid lines. Similarly, $\mathbf{g}_2(k_i)$ refers to the co-variant base vector at the node $k$ and for the cell $i$, and it points along the vertical grid lines. Table \[covec\_table\] lists the co-variant vectors for the Figure \[fig:2d\_mesh\]. It should be noted that column vectors of the Jacobian matrix are the co-variant base vectors. For example, the column vectors of $\boldsymbol{J}(k_1)$ are $\mathbf{g_1}{(k_1)}$ and $\mathbf{g_2}{(k_1)}$. That is $\boldsymbol{J}(k_1)=\left[\mathbf{g}_1{(k_1)}\,\,\mathbf{g}_2{(k_1)}\right]$.
$\boldsymbol{g}(k_i)$ refers to the co-variant metric tensor at the node $k$ and for the cell $i$. It is def[i]{}ned as $\boldsymbol{g}(k_i) = {\boldsymbol{J}(k_i)}^t\,\boldsymbol{J}(k_i)$. $g_{mn}(k_i)$ refers to the $(m, n)$ coeff[i]{}cient of the co-variant metric tensor $\boldsymbol{g}(k_i)$ for the node $k$ and for the cell $i$. It can be seen that $g_{11}(k_i)={\mathbf{g}_{1}(k_i)}^t\cdot\mathbf{g}_{1}(k_i)$ and $g_{12}(k_i)={\mathbf{g}_{1}(k_i)}^t\cdot\mathbf{g}_{2}(k_i)$. Similarly, other coeff[i]{}cients can be def[i]{}ned.
The coeff[i]{}cient $g_{ 12}$ is a measure of the angle between the co-variant base vectors $\mathbf{g}_1$ and $\mathbf{g}_2$. While, the coeff[i]{}cient $\mathbf{g}_{11}$ is a measure of the discrete $L_2$ length of the co-variant vector $\mathbf{g}_1$.
[ccccc]{}\
$\boldsymbol{J}{(k_1)}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
(x_4-x_k) & (x_1-x_k) \\
(y_4-y_k) & (y_1-y_k)
\end{array}
\right]$& $\boldsymbol{J}(k_2)=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
(x_2-x_k) & (x_1-x_k) \\
(y_2-y_k) & (y_1-y_k)
\end{array}
\right]$\
\
$\boldsymbol{J}(k_3)=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
(x_2-x_k) & (x_3-x_k) \\
(y_2-y_k) & (y_3-y_k)
\end{array}
\right]$ & $\boldsymbol{J}(k_4)=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
(x_4-x_k) & (x_3-x_k) \\
(y_4-y_k) & (y_3-y_k)
\end{array}
\right]$\
‘\
\[jacobian\_table\]
[ccccc]{}\
$\mathbf{g}_1(k_1)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_4-x_k \\
y_4-y_k
\end{array}
\right)$ & $\mathbf{g}_2(k_1)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1-x_k \\
y_1-y_k
\end{array}
\right)$ & $\mathbf{g}_1(k_2)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_2-x_k \\
y_2-y_k
\end{array}
\right)$ & $\mathbf{g}_2(k_2)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1-x_k \\
y_1-y_k
\end{array}
\right)$\
\
$\mathbf{g}_1(k_3)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_2-x_k \\
y_2-y_k
\end{array}
\right)$ & $\mathbf{g}_2(k_3)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_3-x_k \\
y_3-y_k
\end{array}
\right)$ & $\mathbf{g}_1(k_4)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_4-x_k \\
y_4-y_k
\end{array}
\right)$ & $\mathbf{g}_2(k_4)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_3-x_k \\
y_3-y_k
\end{array}
\right)$\
\
\[covec\_table\]
Let us consider a structured quadrilateral mesh (each internal node is surrounded by four quadrilaterals) consisting of $n$ internal nodes. The following functionals can be defined
Area Functional
---------------
The integral form of the standard Area functional is given as $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\mathcal{I}_\text{A} &\overset{\textbf{def}}{=} \dfrac{1}{2} \,\int_{[0,1]\times[0,1]}{\vert{\boldsymbol{J}}\vert}^2\,d\xi\,d\eta\enspace{,} \\
&=\int_{[0,1]\times[0,1]}({x_\xi\,y_\eta-x_\eta\,y_\xi})\,d\xi\,d\eta\enspace{.}\end{aligned}$$ The Euler-Lagrangian equations for the Area functional are $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\dfrac{\partial}{\partial{\xi}}(\vert{\boldsymbol{J}}\vert\,x_\eta) - \dfrac{\partial}{\partial{\eta}}(\vert{\boldsymbol{J}}\vert\,x_\xi) &= 0\enspace{,}\\
\dfrac{\partial}{\partial{\xi}}(\vert{\boldsymbol{J}}\vert\,y_\eta) - \dfrac{\partial}{\partial{\eta}}(\vert{\boldsymbol{J}}\vert\,y_\xi) &= 0\enspace{.}\end{aligned}$$ In the simplif[i]{}ed form the above equations can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
{y_\eta}^2\,{x_{\xi\xi}}-{x_\eta}\,y_\eta\,{y_{\xi\xi}}-2.0\,y_{\xi}\,y_\eta\,x_{\xi\eta}+(x_\xi\,y_\eta+x_\eta\,y_\xi)\,y_{\xi\eta}+{y_\xi}^2\,x_{\eta\eta}-x_\xi\,y_\xi\,y_{\eta\eta} = 0\enspace{,}\\
{x_\eta}^2\,{y_{\xi\xi}}-{x_\eta}\,y_\eta\,{x_{\xi\xi}}-2.0\,x_{\xi}\,x_\eta\,y_{\xi\eta}+(x_\xi\,y_\eta+x_\eta\,y_\xi)\,x_{\xi\eta}+{x_\xi}^2\,y_{\eta\eta}-y_\xi\,y_\xi\,x_{\eta\eta} = 0\enspace{,}\end{aligned}$$ [see @Tinoco3]. The above Euler-Lagrangian equations are non-elliptic, coupled and quasi-linear [cf. @Tinoco3]. For generating adaptive mesh, the author proposed the following variation in the Area functional $$\mathcal{F}_A (\mathbf{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left[{\sum_{i=1}^4{s(k_i)\left[J(k_i)\right]^2}}\right]\enspace{,}
\label{area_fun_1}$$ [@khattri_2]. In the above equation, $s(k)$ is called the adaptive function, and $s(k_i)$ is the value of the adaptive function at the node $k$ and for cell $i$.
Length Functional
-----------------
The integral form of the Length functional is given as $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\mathcal{I}_\text{L} &\overset{\textbf{def}}{=} \dfrac{1}{2} \int_{[0,1]\times[0,1]}\left[\,{g_{11}+g_{22}}\,\right]\,d\xi\,d\eta\enspace{,} \\
&=\dfrac{1}{2}\,{\int_{[0,1]\times[0,1]}{ \left[{(x_\xi)^2+{(x_\eta)^2}+(y_\xi)^2+(y_\eta)^2}\right]\,d\xi\,d\eta } }\enspace{,}\end{aligned}$$ [@Tinoco1; @Tinoco2; @Tinoco3 and references therein]. The conditions of extremality of the above length functional are given by the following Euler-Lagrangian equations $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\dfrac{\partial^2{x}}{\partial{\xi}^2}+\dfrac{\partial^2{x}}{\partial{\eta}^2} = 0\enspace{,}\\
\dfrac{\partial^2{y}}{\partial{\xi}^2}+\dfrac{\partial^2{y}}{\partial{\eta}^2} = 0\enspace{.}\end{aligned}$$ The above Laplace’s equations can be solved in the computational domain $[0,1]\times[0,1]$ with a specified value of $x$ and $y$ on the boundary. The Euler-Lagrangian equations associated with the Length functional are linear and uncoupled.
The discrete Length functional [@Castillo; @gridbook] is give as follows $$\mathcal{F}_\text{L}(\mathbf{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left[{\sum_{i=1}^4\left({{g_{11}(k_i)}+{g_{22}(k_i)}}\right)
}\right]\enspace{.}
\label{area_fun}$$
Orthogonality Functional
------------------------
The integral form of the Orthogonality functional [@Tinoco1; @Tinoco2; @Tinoco3 and references therein] is given as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\mathcal{I}_\text{O} &\overset{\textbf{def}}{=} \dfrac{1}{2}\,\int_{[0,1]\times[0,1]}{(g_{12})^2}\,d\xi\,d\eta\enspace{,}\\ &=\dfrac{1}{2}\,\int_{[0,1]\times[0,1]}{(\mathbf{g}_1\cdot\mathbf{g}_2)^2}\,d\xi\,d\eta, \\ &=\dfrac{1}{2}\,\int_{[0,1]\times[0,1]} {(x_\xi\,x_\eta+y_\xi\,y_\eta)^2}\,d\xi\,d\eta\enspace{.}\end{aligned}$$ The Euler-Lagrangian equations corresponding to the minimization of the above integral are $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\dfrac{\partial}{\partial\xi}\left(g_{12}\dfrac{\partial{x}}{\partial\eta}\right) + \dfrac{\partial}{\partial\eta}\left(g_{12}\dfrac{\partial{x}}{\partial\xi}\right) =0\enspace{,}\\
\dfrac{\partial}{\partial\xi}\left(g_{12}\dfrac{\partial{y}}{\partial\eta}\right) + \dfrac{\partial}{\partial\eta}\left(g_{12}\dfrac{\partial{y}}{\partial\xi}\right) =0\enspace{.}\end{aligned}$$ These Euler-Lagrangian equations are quasilinear, coupled and non-elliptic in nature [@Tinoco3]. A simplif[i]{}ed form the above Euler-Lagrangian equations is $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
{x_\eta}^2\,x_{\xi\xi}+x_{\eta}\,y_{\eta}\,y_{\xi\xi}+(4\,x_\xi\,x_\eta+2\,y_\xi\,y_\eta)\,x_{\xi\eta}+(x_\xi\,y_\eta+x_\eta\,y_\xi)\,y_{\xi\eta}+{x_\xi}^2\,x_{\eta\eta}+x_{\xi}\,y_{\xi}\,y_{\eta\eta}=0\enspace{,}\\
{y_\eta}^2\,y_{\xi\xi}+y_{\eta}\,x_{\eta}\,x_{\xi\xi}+(4\,y_\xi\,y_\eta+2\,x_\xi\,x_\eta)\,y_{\xi\eta}+(y_\xi\,x_\eta+y_\eta\,x_\xi)\,x_{\xi\eta}+{y_\xi}^2\,y_{\eta\eta}+y_{\xi}\,x_{\xi}\,x_{\eta\eta}=0\enspace{,}\end{aligned}$$ [see @Tinoco3]. This functional takes only non-negative values, and it would attain a minimum value of zero for a completely orthogonal grid. The discrete version of the above Orthogonality functional [@Castillo; @gridbook] is given as follows $$\mathcal{F}_\text{O}(\mathbf{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left[{\sum_{i=1}^4{(\mathbf{g_1(k_i)}}\cdot{\mathbf{g_2(k_i)}})^2}\right]\enspace{.}
\label{ortho-1}$$ It is found [cf. @Tinoco1; @Tinoco2; @gridbook; @Castillo; @combi_1; @combi_2] that a linear combination of Area, Length and Orthogonality functionals can produce robust grids in complicated 2D domains.
Combination of Length, Area and Orthogonality Functionals
---------------------------------------------------------
A combined functional is given as $$\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) = \Bbbk_\text{A}\,\mathcal{F}_\text{A}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})+\Bbbk_\text{L}\,\mathcal{F}_\text{L}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) + \Bbbk_\text{O}\,\mathcal{F}_\text{O}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})\enspace{,}$$ [@Tinoco1; @Tinoco2; @gridbook; @Castillo; @combi_1; @combi_2]. Here, the parameters $\Bbbk_\text{A}$, $\Bbbk_\text{L}$ and $\Bbbk_\text{O}$ satisfy$\colon$ $\Bbbk_\text{A}+\Bbbk_\text{L}+\Bbbk_\text{O} = 1.0$ and $\Bbbk_\text{A}\ge0$, $\Bbbk_\text{L}\ge0$, $\Bbbk_\text{O}\ge0$. A serious drawback of the above combined functional is a suitable choice of the parameters. It requires an experience in coming up with a good set of parameters [@Castillo]. It was found [@combi_1; @combi_2] that the following choice of parameters $$\Bbbk_\text{A} =0.50, \quad \Bbbk_\text{L} = 0.0, \quad \text{and}\quad \Bbbk_\text{O} = 0.50,$$ produces robust grid in many practical domains. The corresponding functional is referred as the Knupp’s functional. Presented numerical work shows that this functional can produce good grids. The Euler-Lagrangian [@Castillo] equations for the minimization of the Knupp’s functional are $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
({x_\eta}^2+{y_\eta}^2)\,x_{\xi\xi} + 4\,x_\xi\,x_\eta\,x_{\xi\eta}+2(x_\xi\,y_\eta+x_\eta\,y_\xi)\,y_{\xi\eta}+({x_\xi}^2+{y_\xi}^2)\,x_{\eta\eta} &=0\enspace{,}\\
({x_\eta}^2+{y_\eta}^2)\,y_{\xi\xi} + 4\,y_\xi\,y_\eta\,y_{\xi\eta}+2(x_\xi\,y_\eta+x_\eta\,y_\xi)\,x_{\xi\eta}+({x_\xi}^2+{y_\xi}^2)\,y_{\eta\eta} &=0\enspace{.}\end{aligned}$$
Winslow Functional
------------------
The Winslow functional is given as follows $$\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left[{\sum_{i=1}^4\left({\dfrac{g_{11}(k_i)+g_{22}(k_i)}{{\vert \boldsymbol{J}(k_i)\vert}}}\right)}\right]\enspace{,}
\label{winslow}$$ [@winslow; @gridbook; @shashkov1]. Here, ${\vert \boldsymbol{J}(k_i)\vert}$ is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix. One very important feature of the above functional is that it has barrier. It means the value of the functional approaches inf[i]{}nity when the cells degenerate. That is $\vert{\boldsymbol{J}}\vert\,\rightarrow\,0$. Thus, this functional produces unfolded grids. Numerical experiments also prove this feature of the Winlow functional. Since $g_{11}=\mathbf{g}_1\cdot \mathbf{g}_{1}$, and $g_{22}=\mathbf{g}_2\cdot \mathbf{g}_{2}$. It can be shown that the numerator ($g_{11}+g_{22}$) in the Winslow functional is the Frobenius norm of the Jacobian matrix. That is $$g_{11}(k_i)+g_{22}(k_i) = \sum_{n=1}^2{\sum_{m=1}^2 (J_{mn}(k_i)})^2 = (\Vert{\mathbf{J(k_i)}}\Vert)^2\enspace{,}$$ Here, $J_{mn}$ are the components of the Jacobian matrix $\boldsymbol{J}$. Thus, the Winslow functional can be written as follows $$\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left[{\sum_{i=1}^4{\dfrac{\Vert{\boldsymbol{J}(k_i)}\Vert^2}{{\vert \boldsymbol{J}(k_i)\vert}}}}\right]\enspace{.}
\label{winslow2}$$ It can be seen easily that the Frobenius norm a $2\times2$ matrix $\boldsymbol{A}$, and its inverse are related as $\Vert{\boldsymbol{A}^{-1}}\Vert=\dfrac{\Vert{\boldsymbol{A}}\Vert}{\vert{\boldsymbol{A}}\vert}$. Here, ${\vert{\boldsymbol{A}}\vert}$ is the determinant of the matrix $\boldsymbol{A}$. The condition number $\mathsf{K}(\boldsymbol{A})$ of a matrix $\boldsymbol{A}$ can be written as $\mathsf{K}(\boldsymbol{A})=\Vert{\boldsymbol{A}}\Vert\,\Vert{\boldsymbol{A}^{-1}}\Vert$. Here, the norm is the Frobenius norm. Thus, the Winslow functional can be written as follows $$\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left[{\sum_{i=1}^4{\mathsf{K}(\boldsymbol{J}(k_i))}}\right]\enspace{.}
\label{winslow3}$$ Thus, the minimization of the functional is equivalent to the minimization of the condition number of the Jacobian matrix. A detailed description of the above analysis can also be found in [@knupp1; @knupp2; @knupp3; @shashkov1]. The condition number $\mathsf{K}(\boldsymbol{J}(k_i))$ can also be expressed as $$\mathsf{K}(\boldsymbol{J}(k_i))=\dfrac{\mathbf{g_1}{(k_i)}^2+\mathbf{g_2}{(k_i)}^2}{\vert{\mathbf{g_1}{(k_i)}\times\mathbf{g_2}{(k_i)}}\vert}\enspace{.}$$ The $\boldsymbol{g}(k_i)$ tensor matrix is give as $$\boldsymbol{g}(k_i)=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
g_{11}(k_i) & g_{12}(k_i) \\
g_{21}(k_i) & g_{22}(k_i)
\end{array}
\right]\enspace{.}$$ Let $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ be the eigenvalues of the matrix $\boldsymbol{g}(k_i)$. Then $${\dfrac{g_{11}(k_i)+g_{22}(k_i)}{{\vert \boldsymbol{J}(k_i)\vert}}}=\dfrac{\lambda_1+\lambda_2}{\sqrt{\lambda_1\,\lambda_2}}\ge2.0\enspace{.}$$ Here, we have used the relation $\vert{\boldsymbol{J}}\vert^2=\vert\boldsymbol{g}\vert$. Thus, the Winslow functional is bounded from below.
Liao Functional
---------------
The Liao functional for grid generation was proposed in [@liao], and is give as follows $$\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left[{\sum_{i=1}^4({{g_{11}}^2+{g_{22}}^2+2\,{g_{12}}^2})}\right]\enspace{.}
\label{liao}$$
Modified Liao Functional
------------------------
The Liao functional can produce folded grids. We will explore it through numerical experiments. In the literature, following modification [@gridbook] of the Liao functional is given $$\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left[{\sum_{i=1}^4\left(\dfrac{g_{11}(k_i)+g_{22}(k_i)}{\sqrt{g(k_i)}}\right)^2}\right]\enspace{.}
\label{modliao}$$ In the above equation, $g(k_i)$ is the determinant of the covariant metric tensor $\boldsymbol{g}(k_i)$. It can be shown that $g=J^2$, where $J$ is the Jacobian (determinant of the Jacobian matrix), and g is the determinant of the co-variant metric tensor. Thus, this functional, similar to the Winslow functional , has a barrier. The value of the functional approaches inf[i]{}nity when the cells degenerate. That is $\vert\boldsymbol{J}\vert\,\rightarrow\,0$. Thus, this functional produces unfolded grids. Numerical experiments also prove this feature of the functional. The above functional can remove the folded grids produced by the Liao functional. The Modified Liao functional can also be written as follows $$\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left[{\sum_{i=1}^4{(\mathsf{K}(\boldsymbol{J}(k_i)))^2}}\right]\enspace{.}
\label{modlina_new}$$ The Modified Liao functional minimizes the square of the condition number where as the Winslow functional minimizes the condition number.
Numerical Examples {#num_examp}
==================
We are interested in f[i]{}nding such a mesh for which the gradient of the functionals vanish. The minimization of functionals can be performed by a line search algorithms such as Newton’s iteration. For the numerical experiments instead of performing the global optimization we solved the local minimization problems for a single node at a time [@sanjay4]. In all numerical examples, initial grid was generated by linear transfinite interpolation [@gridbook].
Adaptive Grid by Area Functional {#ex_area}
--------------------------------
It is generally not recommended to uniformly refine the whole mesh in the hope of capturing the underlying physics. It is desired to adapt a given grid to the requirement of the underlying problem. A grid generating algorithm should be able to allocate more grid nodes in the part of the domain where large solution gradients occur, and fewer grid nodes in the part of the domain where solution is flat. Such grids are called solution-adaptive. Behaviour of the underlying solution can be obtained by posteriori indicators [@posteriori]. These indicators can be computed on a coarse mesh, and they can be used to formulate adaptive function $s(x,y)$ in the equation . In the present work, the adaptive function $s(x,y)$ is given in the analytic form.
Figures \[fig:Example\_surf\_dist\] and \[fig:Example\_velo\_1\] report the outcome of our numerical experiments. It should be noted that even after adaptation the quadrilateral meshes are convex. One other advantage of mesh adaptation by Area functional is that it preserves the mesh topology, and writing a solver for a structured mesh is easier compared to unstructured mesh.
![Example (\[ex\_area\]) : Adapted Grid by Area Functional. Adapted Functional is give as $s(x,y) = 5.0+200.0\,\left[\sin(2\,\pi\,x)\,\sin(2\,\pi\,y)\right]$.[]{data-label="fig:Example_velo_1"}](area_00.eps){width="130.00000%"}
![Example (\[ex\_area\]) : Adapted Grid by Area Functional. Adapted Functional is give as $s(x,y) = 5.0+200.0\,\left[\sin(2\,\pi\,x)\,\sin(2\,\pi\,y)\right]$.[]{data-label="fig:Example_velo_1"}](area_01.eps){width="130.00000%"}
Winslow Functional vs Algebraic Method {#examp_2}
--------------------------------------
Algebraic grid generation methods such as transfinite interpolations [@gridbook] are extensively used for generating grids. Though, they are one of most simplest method of grid generation but algebraic methods can produce folded grids for curved domains as can be seen in the Figure \[labelFig1\]. One other disadvantage of algebraic grid generation is that boundary discontinuity can prorogate inside the domain. It is clear from Figure \[labelFig2\] that Winslow functional smooth the grid, and removes the folded grid lines.
![\[labelFig2\] Example (\[examp\_2\]) : Smooth Grid by Winslow Functional.](trans_00.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[labelFig2\] Example (\[examp\_2\]) : Smooth Grid by Winslow Functional.](elliptic_00.eps){width="8.0cm"}
Liao, Modified Liao and Area Functionals {#example_3}
----------------------------------------
In this example, we perform experiments for comparing Liao, Modified and Area functional on a simple domain. Outcome of our results are shown in Figures \[liao\_\], \[modliao\_\] and \[area\_001\]. It can be seen from these figures that Modified Liao functional does indeed removes the inverted elements from the mesh but still the quality of the mesh generated by the area functional shown in the Figure \[area\_001\] is certainly better than both Liao and Modified Liao.
![\[area\_001\] Example (\[example\_3\])$\colon$ Grid by the Area Functional with $s(x,y)=1.0$.](lio_00.eps){width="5cm"}
![\[area\_001\] Example (\[example\_3\])$\colon$ Grid by the Area Functional with $s(x,y)=1.0$.](mod_lio_00.eps){width="5.0cm"}
![\[area\_001\] Example (\[example\_3\])$\colon$ Grid by the Area Functional with $s(x,y)=1.0$.](area_lio_00.eps){width="5.0cm"}
Length, Area and Knupp’s Functionals {#example_4}
------------------------------------
In this example, we compare the Length, the Area and the Knupp functionals. Figures \[length\], \[area\] and \[area\_ortho\] are the outcome of our numerical work. The Figure \[length\] is a grid by the Length functional, the Figure \[area\] is a grid by the Area functional, and the Figure \[area\_ortho\] is a grid by the Knupp’s functional. It can be seen that grid by the Area and Knupp’s functional are better than the grid produced by the Length functional.
![\[area\_ortho\] Example (\[example\_4\])$\colon$ Grid by the Knupp’s functional.](length_00.eps){width="5cm"}
![\[area\_ortho\] Example (\[example\_4\])$\colon$ Grid by the Knupp’s functional.](area_00.eps){width="5.0cm"}
![\[area\_ortho\] Example (\[example\_4\])$\colon$ Grid by the Knupp’s functional.](ortho_area_00.eps){width="5.0cm"}
Length and Knupp’s Functionals {#example_5}
------------------------------
In this example, we are comparing Length, and the Knupp’s Functional. Outcome of our numerical work is reported in Figures \[length\_2\] and \[ortho\_area\]. Figure \[length\_2\] is a grid generated by the Length functional. Figure \[ortho\_area\] is grid generated by the Knupp’s functional. It can be seen that the grid generated by the Knupp’s functional is of superior quality.
![\[ortho\_area\] Example (\[example\_5\])$\colon$ Grid by the Knupp’s Functional.](length_11.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[ortho\_area\] Example (\[example\_5\])$\colon$ Grid by the Knupp’s Functional.](ortho_area_11.eps){width="8.0cm"}
Conclusions {#conclusion_}
===========
We have presented the formulation of various functionals for generating quadrilateral meshes, and an analysis of Winslow and Modified Liao functionals that is consistent with the numerical experiments. Numerical experiments show that Winslow and Modified Liao functionals can remove the folded grids as was expected from theoretical analysis. It has been shown that Area functionals can be used for generating robust adaptive meshes. Further research is required in formulating adaptive function from a posteriori error estimators.
[10]{} J.F. Thompson, B.K. Soni and N.P. Weatherill. Handbook of Grid Generation. , 1998. S.K. Khattri. A New Smoothing Algorithm for Quadrilateral and Hexahedral Meshes, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3992, Apr 2006, Pages 239 - 246, DOI 10.1007/11758525\_32, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11758525\_32. A. M. Winslow. Equipotential zoning of two dimensional meshes. , 1967. P.M. Knupp. , [Vol. 17]{}, No. 6, 1475–1490, 1996. P.M. Knupp. . , [Vol. 23]{}, 193–218, 2001. P.M. Knupp. Hexahedral Mesh Untangling and Algebraic Mesh Quality Metrics. , 173-183, 2002.
J.G. Tinoco-Ruiz and P. Barrera-S[á]{}nchez. ,[Vol. 103]{}, 19–32, [1999]{}. J.G. Tinoco-Ruiz and P. Barrera-S[á]{}nchez. , [Vol. 46]{}, 87–102, 1998. J.G. Tinoco, P. Barrera and A. Cortés. , 2001. J.E. Castillo. On Variational Grid Generation. , 1987. G. Liao and H. Liu. Existence and $C^{(0,\alpha)}$ regularity of a minimum of a functional related to grid generation problems. , [Vol. 9]{}, 1993. S.K. Khattri. An Effective Quadrilateral Mesh Adaptation. Submitted. Available at [http://www.mi.uib.no/$\sim$sanjay/publicatins.html]{} P. M. Knupp and S. Steinberg. P. M. Knupp. , [100]{}, [409–418]{}, 1992. S. K. Khattri. Hexahedral mesh by area functional. \[CA\] Simos, Theodore S. (ed.) et al., ICNAAM 2005. International conference on numerical analysis and applied mathematics 2005. Official conference of the European Society of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering (ESCMSE), Rhodes, Greek, September 16-20, 2005. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. 309-313 (2005). \[ISBN 3-527-40652-2/hbk\] P.M. Knupp, L. Margolin, and M. Shashkov. Reference Jacobian Optimization-Based Rezone Strategies for Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian Methods. . S. K. Khattri. Numerical Analysis of an Adaptive Finite Volume Method for Single Phase Flow in Highly Heterogenous Medium. Submitted. Available at
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Long ($>$ 200 ms) audio inpainting, to recover a long missing part in an audio segment, could be widely applied to audio editing tasks and transmission loss recovery. It is a very challenging problem due to the high dimensional, complex and non-correlated audio features. While deep learning models have made tremendous progress in image and video inpainting, audio inpainting did not attract much attention. In this work, we take a pioneering step, exploring the possibility of adapting deep learning frameworks from various domains inclusive of audio synthesis and image inpainting for audio inpainting. Also, as the first to systematically analyze factors affecting audio inpainting performance, we explore how factors ranging from mask size, receptive field and audio representation could affect the performance. We also set up a benchmark for long audio inpainting. The code will be available on GitHub upon accepted.'
author:
- |
Ya-Liang Chang$^*$ $\quad$ Kuan-Ying Lee$^*$ $\quad$ Po-Yu Wu $\quad$ Hung-yi Lee $\quad$ Winston Hsu\
\
National Taiwan University
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: Deep Long Audio Inpainting
---
Introduction
============
Audio inpainting is of significant importance in a broad range of applications to fill in audio gaps of different scales. Gaps of several to hundreds milliseconds often take place during transmission where packets are subject to frequent events of loss due to unreliable communication channel. Lots of research has been dedicated to packet loss during transmission and had success tackling gaps at the scale of milliseconds. For small rates of lost data, sparsity-based [@adler2011audio; @siedenburg2013audio] sinusodial-based [@lagrange2005long], and autoregressive [@oudre2018interpolation] methods are proposed. And for situations with high packet loss rates in speech, [@bahat2015self] proposed using an example-based method that exploits prior information from the same user to fill in the gaps.
![Illustration of the long audio inpainting problem. Given a sound clip with part of it being masked out ($>$ 200 ms), the goal is to recover the masked part. Audio inpainting could be done on either raw waveform (left) or spectrogram (right). Long audio inpainting could be widely used for sound editing tasks such as swear words removal, music editing, etc.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](teaser_with_highlight.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Larger gaps spanning for seconds could happen in various applications and cases, such as in music enhancement and restoration. [@perraudin2018inpainting] identifies the rather unrealistic assumption often made during shorter-range inpainting that the signal is stationary, which tends not to hold for longer gaps. They harness a similarity graph to obtain similarities between segments and enable second-scale gap filling by substituting the most suitable segment for the gap.
Though these methods have shown quite successes at multiple gap scales, to the best of our knowledge, none have tailored for audio editing, where user could mask out an unwanted segment of an audio, expecting the restoration to sound natural and meaningful (in cases of speech). While audio editing could be utilized to a broad range of applications, such as removal of environmental noises in a speech or removal of human sound during bird sound recordings, we show current algorithms that targets at second-scale gaps, such as [@perraudin2018inpainting] fails when applied onto the scenario[^1] (cf. Table \[tab:benchmark\]).
Long ($>$ 200 ms) audio inpainting for editing is a very challenging task. Firstly, gaps are commonly at the scale of seconds, rendering the algorithms for shorter gaps in vain. Secondly, in cases of speech, signals are mostly aperiodic and thereby invalidating example based methods such as [@perraudin2018inpainting]. Thirdly, data are in high dimension ($>$16k/sec) and the correlation between neighboring samples is rather low and thus directly applying state-of-the-art models in image or video inpainting tends not to work well.
Also, while image inpainting has been extensively and explored and promising results based on deep learning frameworks have been demonstrated on large mask inpainting, only a few papers [@marafioti2018context] have experimented deep learning on long audio inpainting, let alone discussing how different factors of a neural network could affect the inpainting performance.
Hence, in this work, we take a pioneering step toward long audio inpainting for editing purpose and beyond. As the first to explore the problem, we survey and experiment models from various domains such as image inpainting, Deep Image Prior [@ulyanov2018deep] and audio synthesis [@prenger2019waveglow]. We also propose two novel frameworks for unconstrained audio inpainting, where we systematically probe into how and to what extent various factors such as gap size, audio representation (either in waveform or spectrogram), receptive field and convolution type (dilated and gated convolution) could impact the inpainting performance, Also, we setup a benchmark for audio inpainting evaluation and hope it could facilitate future research in this domain. Our contributions could be summarized as follows:
- We setup a benchmark for long audio inpainting and compare different baselines, based on SC09 dataset of human voice and ESC-50 dataset of natural sound.
- We survey and evaluate the possibility of adapting models from different domains for audio inpainting.
- We designed novel waveform-based and spectrogram-based models for long audio inpainting.
- We experimented different components for deep long audio inpainting, including kernel sizes and model layers.
Related Work
============
#### **Image and video inpainting.**
Inpainting models aim to restore the masked areas in the image/video, which could be widely used in image/video editing, such as object removal [@criminisi2003object; @chang2019vornet]. The masked areas are usually given, either by human annotation or segmentation models. The masked area could be a bounding box [@wang2018videoinp; @yu2018generative], an object [@Huang-SigAsia-2016] or in arbitrary shape [@yu2018free; @liu2018image; @chang2019free]. Many approaches have been proposed to address the inpainting problems, such as diffusion-based ones [@bertalmio2000image; @bertalmio2001navier] and patch-based ones [@barnes2009patchmatch; @Huang-SigAsia-2016]. In recent years, deep learning methods become dominant approaches for image inpainting [@yu2018free; @nazeri2019edgeconnect] and video inpainting [@kim2019deep; @chang2019learnable] due to the ability to recover unseen parts in an image based on learned data distribution during training. As a baseline, we fine-tune state-of-the-art image inpainting model [@wang2018image] to recover missing parts on spectrogram for audio inpainting.
Apart from trained deep image inpainting frameworks, Deep Image Prior [@ulyanov2018deep] offers a way to utilize the underlying structure in a untrained network for image restoration and demonstrates a promising result. We also considers it as one of our baselines.
#### **Audio inpainting.**
is to fill gaps in audios, which has been extensively explored under different terminologies [@smaragdis2009missing; @wolfe2005interpolation]. Many work [@marafioti2018context; @bahat2015self] dedicates to gaps at the scale of several to tens of milliseconds that are due to packet loss in VoIP, clicks and impulsive noises. In these literature, gaps are at the scale of tens of milliseconds. For gaps ranging from hundreds of milliseconds to several seconds, [@bahat2015self] utilizes the statistics of recordings from the same user to perform inpainting and [@perraudin2018inpainting] proposes to use a graph to capture spectral similarity of different segments in the signal, where the most suitable one is used for inpainting. Nevertheless, [@perraudin2018inpainting] is only practical for signals with repeated patterns (e.g. music) and tends to fail on aperiodic signals like speech (cf. Table \[tab:benchmark\]), while [@bahat2015self] could only handle speech with the same identities. We still set [@perraudin2018inpainting] as one of the baselines since [@bahat2015self] is not suitable for datasets like ESC-50 [@piczak2015dataset] for audios inside are all natural sounds.
While there is also work on speech inpainting [@prablanc2016text], we do not compare with it as it requires text to perform inpainting.
#### **Audio synthesis.**
is to generate audios either unconditionally or based on given cues. A pioneering work is WaveNet [@oord2016wavenet] which achieves longer-range dependency with enlarged receptive fields through dilated convolution. Yet, one drawback for direct generation of audio samples through auto-regressive structures is its low speed. Hence, many work have since built upon it to improve the generation speed. Still under auto-regressive structure, WaveRNN [@kalchbrenner2018efficient] substitutes RNN for the stack of convolutions in [@oord2016wavenet]. Another prevalent approach is to generate an intermediate spectrogram before converting it to the final audio [@prenger2019waveglow; @donahue2018adversarial].
{width="\linewidth"}
Though the goal of audio synthesis is different than that of audio inpainting, they could both generate audios conditionally. Hence, we consider Waveglow [@prenger2019waveglow] as one of the baselines and train the vocoder to generate inpainted audio given a masked spectrogram instead of a complete one.
Proposed Method
===============
Definition
----------
For audio inpainting, we take an input audio sequence $\{A_t \mid t=1 \dots n\}$ with a mask $\{M_t \mid t=i \dots j, 1<i<j<n\}$ as input. The masked samples are set to be zeros. The model will recover the masked samples and generate the output audio $\{O_t \mid t=1 \dots n\}$, and the goal is to minimize the loss between $O_t$ and $A_t$.
Spectrogram Inpainting Model
----------------------------
For our spectrogram inpainting models, we first transform each the $A_t$ into a spectrogram $S_t$ by short-time Fourier transform (STFT) with window width $\omega$, treat it as a special image and thereby considering audio inpainting problem as a special image inpainting problem to recover the missing parts in the spectrogram. Then the recovered spectrogram will be transformed back to waveform as $O_t$ by Griffin-Lim algorithm [@griffin1984signal] for comparison.
The spectrogram inpainting model architecture is based on state-of-the-art image inpainting model [@yu2018free] (see Fig. \[fig:model\_architecture\] (b2)). However, unlike natural images where x and y dimensions have similar scale and meaning, the time and frequency dimension in spectrograms have a significant difference. Therefore, we explore different components to deal with convolutions on spectrogram (see Fig. \[fig:model\_architecture\]).
Waveform Inpainting Model
-------------------------
Our waveform inpainting models directly takes masked raw waveform as input and generate recovered waveforms as outputs. However, different from spectrograms, the raw waveforms are in much higher dimension ($>$16k/sec). If we have a one-second audio clip at a sample rate of 16 kHz, over 61 samples are needed to capture a single cycle of the 261.63 Hz sinusoid, C4 of the musical note. As discussed in the previous works [@aytar2016soundnet; @oord2016wavenet; @donahue2018adversarial], larger convolutional kernels and strided/dilated convolutions are often needed to deal with audio signals as they could increase the receptive field. On the proposed waveform inpainting model, we thus experiment with gated/dilated convolution,
#### **Gated convolutions.**
For each convolutional layer in waveform-based models (Fig. \[fig:model\_architecture\] (a2)), we adopt gated convolution [@yu2018free] to softly attend on the masked areas: $$Output = \sigma(W_g * x) \phi(W_f * x)$$ where $x$ is the input feature, $W_g$ is the gating kernel, $W_f$ is the feature kernel, $sigma$ is the sigmoid function to restrict the soft gating values between 0 (invalid) and 1 (valid), $\phi$ is the activation function (LeakyReLU), and $*$ is the convolution operation. Note that a similar idea, gated activation [@van2016conditional] is also found useful for the audio generation task such as WaveNet [@oord2016wavenet].
Loss Functions {#sec:loss_functions}
--------------
#### **Masked $l_1$ loss ($Ml_1$).**
The $l_1$ loss focuses on low-level features and is widely used for both image and video inpainting models [@liu2018image; @wang2018videoinp; @chang2019free]. We apply the $l_1$ loss on the masked area: $$\label{l1_loss}
L_{Ml_1} = \mathop{\mathbb{E}_{t}}[ M_{t} |O_{t} - A_{t}|]$$
#### **Perceptual loss on waveforms.**
$l_1$ loss often leads to blurry results [@yu2018free; @chang2019free], so we adopt the perceptual loss [@gatys2015neural] originally used for style transfer to enhance the audio quality. It is also used for image inpainting [@liu2018image; @yu2018free], video inpainting [@chang2019free] and super-resolution [@johnson2016perceptual; @ledig2017photo].
Similar as pre-trained VGG [@simonyan2014very] on ImageNet [@russakovsky2015imagenet] for image perceptual loss, we use pre-trained SoundNet and fine-tune it on our benchmark dataset with classification task for audio perceptual loss: $$\label{percputal_loss}
L_{perc} = \sum_{t=1}^{n} \frac{|\Psi^{O_{t}} - \Psi^{V_{t}}|}{N_{\Psi^{V_{t}}}}$$ where $\Psi$ is the features extracted from last layer before fully-connected of the fine-tuned SoundNet. Note that we follow a similar fashion as how [@chen2018visually] uses a pretrained SoundNet to compute audio perceptual loss.
#### **Perceptual loss on spectrograms.**
Aside from waveforms, we propose to consider perceptual loss on spectrograms, as image classification is relatively easier to learn. We transform waveforms to spectrograms with STFT, which are then used to fine-tune a ResNet50 [@he2016deep] pretrained on ImageNet [@russakovsky2015imagenet] for audio classification. The fine-tuned ResNet50 then serves as a feature extractor for perceptual loss on spectrograms, as shown in Equation \[percputal\_loss\].
Experimental Results
====================
Datasets
--------
#### **SC09.**
SC09 dataset is a subset of the Speech Commands Dataset [@warden2018speech] that contains single spoken word from zero to nine by different speakers in uncontrolled environments. Since its first proposal by [@donahue2018adversarial], it has been used in many audio generation research [@donahue2018adversarial; @marafioti2019adversarial] and often regarded as the most common baseline in the area. (just as MNIST dataset [@lecun1998mnist] in written digit recognition, although examples in SC09 are more complicated ($\mathbb{R}^{16000}$) than MNIST ($\mathbb{R}^{28*28=784}$))
#### **ESC-50.**
ESC-50 dataset [@piczak2015dataset] is a labeled dataset for environmental sound classification, including 2000 5-second long environmental audio recordings of 50 semantic classes (40 examples per class) from 5 categories: animals, natural soundscapes & water sounds, human non-speech sounds, interior/domestic sounds and exterior/urban noises. Compared to SC09, examples in ESC-50 are more repetitive and thus easier for patch- and example-based methods but harder for learning-based methods for it has more classes and fewer data per class.
Benchmark Procedure
-------------------
We setup the long audio inpainting benchmark to compare baselines, including WaveGlow [@prenger2019waveglow], SimilarityGraph [@perraudin2018inpainting], DeepPrior [@ulyanov2018deep] and GMCNN [@wang2018image]. For SC09, we train all the models on the whole training set with random masking of 0.2 second and without any data augmentation. We perform evaluation on the testing set with fixed mask from 0.4 $\sim$ 0.6 second. For the ESC-50 dataset, we train models with the first 1600 sound clips (first to fourth fold) with random masks of 0.4 second. Sound clips are copied twice to 10 seconds and then randomly cropped to 5 seconds during training. The first 200 sound clips of the fifth fold is used for validation while testing is done on the other 200 sound clips with fixed mask from 3.0 $\sim$ 3.4 second. For models that require longer inputs, we apply zero padding. Note that after inpainting, we paste the unmasked segments from input to the output.
Baseline Implementation Details
-------------------------------
### WaveGlow
is a flow-based vocoder that transforms a melspectrogram to its corresponding final waveform. It combines essence of WaveNet and Glow and directly learns the data distribution. We modify it to take a masked melspectrogram instead of a complete one as input, using the codes provided by NVidia[^2]. We train each model for 100000 epochs with batch size 2 and 4 for SC09 and ESC-50 respectively.
### Deep Image Prior
performs well on several image restoration tasks including inpainting by simply using the structure of a neural network and the corrupted image without any training beforehand. We harness the inpainting script in Github[^3] to inpaint the masked spectrogram. We change the target iteration from 6001 to 4001 to reduce the processing time while still maintaining the quality of the audio.
### GMCNN
is one of the state-of-the-art image inpainting framework that features a multi-column neural network that could model different image components and extract multi-level features to aid inpainting.
We experiment with the framework provided in Github [^4] and modify the model to take a masked spectrogram as input instead of a 256 \* 256 image with RGB channels. Since the spectrogram is one channel, we firstly modify the pretrained model by changing the first layer of the generator to a conv layer with one input channel, the last decoding layer to a conv layer with one output channel and the first layer of both the global and local discriminator to a conv layer with one input channel. These conv layers are all initialized randomly with normal distribution. We then finetune the model for 40 epochs using the default settings.
### SimilarityGraph
is an example-based framework that targets particularly at long gaps in music. It detects spectro-temporal similarities among unmasked data to the masked area, solving case when adjacent segments fail to provide a solution.
We harness the demo website[^5] to perform inpainting. Since their framework requires that the mask to be at least 3 seconds away from the start and the end of the audio, we perform duplication before uploading audio to the website. For SC09, we duplicate both the front and rear 0.4 second for 8 times, generating an audio that is 0.4 \* 16 + 0.2 = 6.6 second long (Hence, the mask is from 3.2 to 3.4 second). And for ESC-50, we duplicate only the rear 1.6 second twice, generating an audio that is 3 + 0.4 + 1.6 \* 2 = 6.6 second long (Hence, the mask is from 3 t o 3.4 second). After inpainting, we extract the segment that corresponds to the original audio. Note that since the algorithm replaces the masked part with a audio segment from the same signal, the position of the original audio might shift slightly.
Evaluation Metrics
------------------
To evaluate different methods numerically, we calculate the masked $l_1$ error (Eq. \[l1\_loss\]) and perceptual distance (Eq. \[percputal\_loss\]) between the outputs and ground truths on waveforms and sepctrograms, as explained in Sec. \[sec:loss\_functions\]. For fair comparison of perceptual distance on waveforms, we finetune another SoundNet [@aytar2016soundnet] and VGG16 [@simonyan2014very] for perceptual distance. Please see Table \[tab:perceptual\_loss\_classification\] for detailed settings of different backbones (pre-) trained on SoundNet and ResNet50 for perceptual loss on waveforms, spectrograms respectively. In addition, we also report the structural similarity (SSIM) index [@wang2004image] on spectrograms. The inference time is reported in terms of how many sound clip could be processed per second on Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6154 CPU 3.00GHz with a single V100 GPU.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
---------
Dataset
---------
: Sound classification accuracy for perceptual losses/metrics on SC09 and ESC-50 testing set.[]{data-label="tab:perceptual_loss_classification"}
&
------
Type
------
: Sound classification accuracy for perceptual losses/metrics on SC09 and ESC-50 testing set.[]{data-label="tab:perceptual_loss_classification"}
&
-------
Model
-------
: Sound classification accuracy for perceptual losses/metrics on SC09 and ESC-50 testing set.[]{data-label="tab:perceptual_loss_classification"}
&
--------
Pretr.
--------
: Sound classification accuracy for perceptual losses/metrics on SC09 and ESC-50 testing set.[]{data-label="tab:perceptual_loss_classification"}
&
--------
Param.
--------
: Sound classification accuracy for perceptual losses/metrics on SC09 and ESC-50 testing set.[]{data-label="tab:perceptual_loss_classification"}
&
------
Acc.
------
: Sound classification accuracy for perceptual losses/metrics on SC09 and ESC-50 testing set.[]{data-label="tab:perceptual_loss_classification"}
\
SC09 & Wave. & SoundNet & & 14.3M & 93.4%\
&& SoundNet & $\times$ & 14.3M & 91.0%\
&Spec. & VGG16 & & 134.3M & 96.0%\
&& ResNet50 & & 23.5M & 96.3%\
&& ResNet50 & $\times$ & 23.5M & 94.7%\
ESC-50 & Wave. & SoundNet & & 14.7M & 66.3%\
&& SoundNet & $\times$ & 14.7M & 61.0%\
&Spec. & VGG16 & & 134.4M & 83.5%\
&& ResNet50 & & 23.6M & 82.0%\
&& ResNet50 & $\times$ & 23.6M & 77.0%\
![Spectrograms of audio inpainting results. SimilarityGraph performs well as sounds in ESC-50 tend to embed repetitive structures for example-based method to exploit. Also, we show that despite its long processing time, DeepPrior also excels at spectrogram inpainting aside from image inpainting. []{data-label="fig:qualitative"}](audio_inpainting_qualitative_crop.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Quantitative Results
--------------------
#### **Sound classification.**
For perceptual losses evaluation, we finetune SoundNet or train ResNet from scratch on audio classification with cross entropy for waveform and spectrogram respectively. The classification accuracy of each model is reported in Table \[tab:perceptual\_loss\_classification\]. We could observe that for ESC-50, spectrogram based classification models outperform those based on waveform, while in SC09, this does not hold. This might be caused by the input dimension. That is, raw waveforms in ESC-50 have more samples (22050 $\times$ 5 = 110250 samples) than those in SC09, making it harder for models based on 1-d convolutions with limited receptive field size to extract high-level features. On the contrary, after STFT, spectrograms are only in 1024 $\times$ 400 and 1024 $\times$ 80 for ESC-50 and SC09 respectively, which are reasonable sizes for image classification models and the size difference is smaller for the two datasets.
Another interesting point is that the pre-trained weights on ImageNet boost spectrogram classification for about 5%, even though the applications and domains are quite different (3-channels natural images vs 1-channel spectrograms). It possibly imply that pre-training on other datasets such as Google Audio set [@gemmeke2017audio] could further improve the perceptual losses and metrics.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & & &\
Method & ML1 $\downarrow$ & SSIM $\uparrow$&
----------------------
Wave.
P. Dist.$\downarrow$
----------------------
&
-----------------------
Spec.
P. Dist. $\downarrow$
-----------------------
& ML1 $\downarrow$ & SSIM $\uparrow$&
----------------------
Wave.
P. Dist.$\downarrow$
----------------------
&
-----------------------
Spec.
P. Dist. $\downarrow$
-----------------------
&
----------------------
Infer.
Speed^\*^ $\uparrow$
----------------------
\
Masked Input & 0.011125 & 0.675040 & 0.006231 & 0.079655 & 0.067510 & 0.648608 & 0.007740 & 0.542866 & –\
Griffin-Lim GT & 0.021293 & 0.808092 & 0.004214 & 0.021372 & 0.004539 & 0.978142 & 0.000784 & 0.007324 & –\
WaveRNN & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
WaveGlow & 0.013689 & 0.730689 & 0.004494 & 0.077139 & 0.003048 & 0.929394 & 0.000821 & 0.035776 & 2.058\
Sim.Graph & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & 0.004478 & 0.697933 & 0.003229 & 0.115829 & 0.039\
GMCNN & **0.010769** & 0.695439 & 0.004866 & 0.073790 & 0.002738 & **0.935945** & 0.000728 & 0.031737 & 63.09\
DeepPrior & 0.010940 & 0.719634 & 0.004607 & 0.067535 & 0.004175 & 0.951980 & **0.000499** & **0.017755** & 0.002\
--------------
Ours (Spec.)
(L1)
--------------
& 0.012073 & 0.422832 & 0.008016 & 0.080591 & 0.003148 & 0.727943 &0.002362 & 0.154318 & **106.38**\
--------------
Ours (Spec.)
(L1+SpecP)
--------------
& 0.017605 & 0.384210 & 0.006532 & 0.066645 & 0.003159 & 0.721920 & 0.002334 & 0.152135 & **106.38**\
--------------
Ours (Wave.)
(L1)
--------------
& 0.010860 & 0.696274 & 0.005817 & 0.071622 & **0.002696** & 0.923965 & 0.000888 & 0.035509 & 92.93\
--------------
Ours (Wave.)
(L1+WaveP)
--------------
& 0.013796 & **0.775181** & **0.002909** & **0.051784** & 0.002931 & 0.923112 & 0.000859 & 0.035125 & 92.93\
#### **Long audio inpainting benchmark results.**
The long audio inpainting benchmark results are presented in Table \[tab:benchmark\]. We could observe that our models perform reasonably well on both SC09 and ESC-50 for all metrics. Still, we find that all the evaluation metrics could not totally reflect human perception. For example, the STFT + Griffin-Lim process would seriously damage the SSIM score even when the input is simply ground truth (see the Griffin-Lim GT column); the perceptual distances are not affected by the process, but it may not totally reflect the amplitude (see Fig. \[fig:qualitative\]: GMCNN has low perceptual distance). On the other hand, although results from SimlarityGraph are quite natural to humans (since the mask is pasted with the other part of the sound clip), its performance is not as good in all metrics as the filled in contents are different. Surprisingly, image inpainting models GMCNN and DeepPrior outperform other baselines in all metrics (note that DeepPrior does not require training), whereas vocoders like WaveGlow and WaveRNN are not as good. It indicates that general image inpainting models could highly likely be adapted to handle spectrogram as well and our spectrogram-based model still have a large space to improve, such as the kernel size, training loss, etc. Also, though the perceptual loss we apply does help a little bit, it generally does not lead to large improvement.
Qualitative Results
-------------------
We compare output spectrograms from different baselines qualitatively in Fig. \[fig:qualitative\]. The spectrograms show a sound of water filling a container in five seconds with a 0.4 second mask at three second. The sound of Griffin-Lim GT has no mask and thus depicts how the spectrogram would look like after undergoing Griffin-Lim algorithm.
In baselines, we discover that SimilarityGraph and DeepPrior perform well on inpainting the water sound. The environmental sounds in ESC-50 contain a lot of repeating structures. Due to this reason, the result of SimilarityGraph intuitively sounds great by with its copy and paste solution. Note that SimilarityGraph fails on most SC09 cases, as there are no repetitive structures that could be pasted in cases of zero to nine. With results from DeepPrior, which is good at extrapolating local correlation, we show that sounds, like images, have local property as well.
We found that DeepPrior does surprisingly well on audio inpainting, extrapolating implicit structures embedded in spectrograms. WaveGlow inpaints with sheer noise and GMCNN fails and inpaints sheer silence.
Our proposed method inpaints meaningful elements instead of sheer noise or pure silence in the masked part, as shown in Fig. \[fig:qualitative\]. Compared to baselines like DeepPrior and SimilarityGraph, where results are more clear and natural than that our results. Nevertheless, the DeepPrior needs much more inference time than other else and the SimilarityGraph highly constrains on specific tasks due to its copy and paste solution.
Ablation Study
--------------
In this section, we experiment with different parameters, inclusive of mask ratio and receptive field to explore how these factors may affect our model. Note that we perform all the following experiments on ESC-50.
We perform two set of experiments. In the first one, we fix the length of the mask and alter the receptive field by configuring the network architecture. And in the second experiment, we fix the receptive field and see how different mask sizes actually impact the performance.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
----------
Masked
Time (s)
----------
: L1 loss and Perceptual error of different masked time(sec) and receptive field on ESC-50. The masked field and receptive field are based on time axis. Error is calculated on validation set. Success presents whether the model successfully inpainted the whole masked part or failed on certain field. Fail means no change on the magnitude of inpainting part lasting a period even the model inpainted most of the masked field.[]{data-label="tab:mask_ratio_perceptive_field"}
&
--------
Masked
Field
--------
: L1 loss and Perceptual error of different masked time(sec) and receptive field on ESC-50. The masked field and receptive field are based on time axis. Error is calculated on validation set. Success presents whether the model successfully inpainted the whole masked part or failed on certain field. Fail means no change on the magnitude of inpainting part lasting a period even the model inpainted most of the masked field.[]{data-label="tab:mask_ratio_perceptive_field"}
&
-----------
Receptive
Field
-----------
: L1 loss and Perceptual error of different masked time(sec) and receptive field on ESC-50. The masked field and receptive field are based on time axis. Error is calculated on validation set. Success presents whether the model successfully inpainted the whole masked part or failed on certain field. Fail means no change on the magnitude of inpainting part lasting a period even the model inpainted most of the masked field.[]{data-label="tab:mask_ratio_perceptive_field"}
&
-------
L1
loss.
-------
: L1 loss and Perceptual error of different masked time(sec) and receptive field on ESC-50. The masked field and receptive field are based on time axis. Error is calculated on validation set. Success presents whether the model successfully inpainted the whole masked part or failed on certain field. Fail means no change on the magnitude of inpainting part lasting a period even the model inpainted most of the masked field.[]{data-label="tab:mask_ratio_perceptive_field"}
&
-------
SpecP
Error
-------
: L1 loss and Perceptual error of different masked time(sec) and receptive field on ESC-50. The masked field and receptive field are based on time axis. Error is calculated on validation set. Success presents whether the model successfully inpainted the whole masked part or failed on certain field. Fail means no change on the magnitude of inpainting part lasting a period even the model inpainted most of the masked field.[]{data-label="tab:mask_ratio_perceptive_field"}
&
------
Suc.
------
: L1 loss and Perceptual error of different masked time(sec) and receptive field on ESC-50. The masked field and receptive field are based on time axis. Error is calculated on validation set. Success presents whether the model successfully inpainted the whole masked part or failed on certain field. Fail means no change on the magnitude of inpainting part lasting a period even the model inpainted most of the masked field.[]{data-label="tab:mask_ratio_perceptive_field"}
\
0.1 & 40 & 21 & 0.0272 & 0.131 & $\times$\
0.1 & 40 & 29 & 0.0236 & 0.114 &\
0.1 & 40 & 45 & 0.0217 & 0.101 &\
0.1 & 40 & 61 & 0.0216 & 0.105 &\
0.1 & 40 & 77 & 0.0209 & 0.108 &\
0.1 & 40 & 93 & 0.0206 & 0.098 &\
0.1 & 40 & 109 & 0.0214 & 0.117 &\
0.1 & 40 & 125 & 0.0218 & 0.101 &\
0.15 & 60 & 77 & 0.0338 & 0.1571 &\
0.16 & 64 & 77 & 0.0380 & 0.1754 &\
0.17 & 68 & 77 & 0.0446 & 0.2102 & $\times$\
0.18 & 72 & 77 & 0.0447 & 0.2003 & $\times$\
0.19 & 76 & 77 & 0.0480 & 0.2305 & $\times$\
0.2 & 80 & 77 & 0.0552 & 0.2390 & $\times$\
0.25 & 100 & 77 & 0.0676 & 0.2855 & $\times$\
We evaluate on models that are trained for 50 epoch with L1 loss and Spectrogram perceptual metrics (see Table \[tab:mask\_ratio\_perceptive\_field\]).
#### **Receptive field.**
In our proposed structure, increasing the depth of the network enlarges the receptive field. According to our experiment results, the receptive field has to be larger than a certain threshold in order to inpaint the whole mask. Nevertheless, after reaching a certain size, enlarging the receptive field has little benefit or even negative effect for training. That indicates, after some threshold, our model is complicated enough and is able to restore the mask.
#### **Mask ratio.**
We train several models by altering the mask length from 0.1 to 0.25 second and keep the receptive field fixed. We found that our model could adapt to different mask lengths (from 0.1 to 0.16 seconds), with a fixed receptive field, as long as the mask size is smaller or equals to receptive field. This, on the other side, again confirms that the receptive field has to be at least similar to the mask size to perform successful inpainting. Also by observing the failure cases, the inpainted sound at the mask position trailed off at first, vanished at the middle, and then appeared in the end. It indicates that if the mask field is too big, the receptive field will not be sufficient to gather enough information to rebuild the whole masked part.
Discussion and Future Work
==========================
#### **Receptive field and model architecture.**
To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to evaluate different baselines and model architectures for deep long audio inpainting We also discuss the effect of different mask ratios and receptive field in the ablation study. However, compared to image classification/inpainting, there is very little research working on the model architecture of deep audio tasks. Current architectures are very diverse, including different stride/dilation/kernel sizes, while ESC-50 is not large and diverse enough as ImageNet for comparison. Further experiments could be done to find out a common structure for audio perceptual loss and waveform/spectrogram based audio inpainting, possibly through neural architecture search [@zoph2016neural].
#### **More general datasets or datasets with other clues.**
For the proposed benchmark, we compare methods on SC09 and ESC-50, corresponding to complicated short human voices and repetitive natural sounds. Nevertheless, in real-world scenarios, there are many more kind of sounds with longer periods and more complex/simple structures, such as speech and music. Our benchmark currently does not cover enough datasets for general audio editing. Also, in many cases other clues such as texts, images and videos are given at the same time, which could possibly assist long audio inpainting.
#### **Spectrograms to waveforms.**
In this work, we apply the Griffin-Lim algorithm to turn spectrograms back to waveforms as in the audio synthesis [@donahue2018adversarial] and text-to-speech [@tachibana2018efficiently] task. The reconstructed waveforms are similar to the original ones but with a slight loss (see the Griffin-Lim GT in Table \[tab:benchmark\]). It’s worth mentioning different from the two tasks, most phases in long audio inpainting are available and could be used for better phase estimation of the masked area to transform spectrograms back to waveforms. The model could learn better to recover the missing phases in the masked area with hints from the surrounding phases and thus better waveform reconstruction.
#### **GAN loss.**
Recently, many image/video inpainting [@yu2018free; @chang2019free] and audio synthesis works [@donahue2018adversarial] adopt the generative adversarial network (GAN) [@goodfellow2014generative] to enhance output realness. However, in our experiments, the GAN loss does not help much for our models. How to incorporate GAN and other loss functions to make output sounds more realistic is a possible future direction for audio inpainting.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we built up the first benchmark for long audio inpainting, which could flourish the audio editing tasks. We propose deep spectrogram-based and waveform-based audio inpainting models and compare with baselines from related research. Our model is learning based and could recover long audio mask with superior performance quantitatively and qualitatively against baseline methods on both SC09 and ESC-50. We also explore the affect of different mask ratios and model architecture, and discuss possible future direction for long audio inpainting.
[^1]: We do not compare with methods for packet loss since the scale difference is too large.
[^2]: <https://github.com/NVIDIA/waveglow>
[^3]: <https://github.com/DmitryUlyanov/deep-image-prior>
[^4]: <https://github.com/shepnerd/inpainting_gmcnn>
[^5]: <https://epfl-lts2.github.io/rrp-html/audio_inpainting/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We define a normal form for Clifford circuits, and we prove that every Clifford operator has a unique normal form. Moreover, we present a rewrite system by which any Clifford circuit can be reduced to normal form. This yields a presentation of Clifford operators in terms of generators and relations.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Dalhousie University'
author:
- Peter Selinger
bibliography:
- 'clifford.bib'
title: 'Generators and relations for $n$-qubit Clifford operators'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In quantum computation, an important subclass of quantum circuits is the class of [*Clifford circuits*]{} or [*stabilizer circuits*]{}. It is the smallest class of quantum circuits that includes the gates
$$\label{eqn-generators}
\omega = e^{i\pi/4},\quad
H = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\zmatrix{cc}{1&1\\1&-1},\quad
S = \zmatrix{cc}{1&0\\0&i},\quad
\displaystyle Z_c =
\zmatrix{cccc}{1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&-1},$$
identities, and closed under the operations of tensor product and composition. It is well-known that Clifford circuits can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer, and therefore they are not universal for quantum computing [[@Gottesman-1998]]{}. On the other hand, Clifford gates are transversal in many quantum error-correcting codes, and therefore they are particularly easy to implement fault-tolerantly. For this reason, universal gate bases for fault-tolerant quantum computation are often chosen to consist of the Clifford operators and one additional gate, for example the $\pi/8$-gate [[@Buhrman-Cleve-etal]]{}.
For all $n\geq 0$, the set of Clifford operators on $n$ qubits forms a group, known as the [*Clifford group*]{} on $n$ qubits, which we denote $\Clifford(n)$. It is well-known (and we will prove below) that the Clifford group on $n$ qubits is finite and has $$|\Clifford(n)| = 8\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{n} 2(4^i-1)4^i$$ elements; for example, the sizes for $n=1$, $2$, and $3$ are, respectively: $$|\Clifford(1)| = 192,\quad
|\Clifford(2)| = 92160,\quad
|\Clifford(3)| = 743178240.$$ In this paper, we define a normal form for Clifford circuits, and we prove that every Clifford operator has a unique normal form. Moreover, we present a rewrite system by which any Clifford circuit can be reduced to normal form. This yields a presentation of Clifford operators in terms of generators and relations, shown in Figure \[fig-relations\].
#### Related work.
Van den Nest [[@VandenNest]]{} gave a “normal” form for Clifford circuits, showing that every Clifford circuit can be written as a single layer of Hadamard gates, sandwiched between two circuits consisting only of gates that preserve the computational basis ($X$, $S$, controlled-$X$, and controlled-$Z$ gates). Since it is evident that such circuits can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer, this yields a direct proof of the Gottesman-Knill theorem [[@Gottesman-1998]]{} without relying on the stabilizer formalism. However, Van den Nest’s normal forms are not at all unique, and therefore cannot be used to derive an equational presentation of Clifford operators.
Backens [[@Backens]]{} showed completeness of the ZX-calculus, a graphical language (given by generators and relations) that generalizes quantum circuits and includes Clifford circuits as a proper subset. While this work is closely related, it does not yield a direct equational presentation of Clifford operators. This is because expressions of the ZX-calculus can denote general linear maps, and not just unitary ones.
Generators and relations
========================
Before continuing, it may be worthwhile to clarify what we mean by “generators and relations”. We do not mean this in the sense of the usual [*word problems*]{} studied in group theory, but in the sense of [*two-dimensional word problems*]{} appropriate for quantum circuits. The use of higher-dimensional systems of generators and relations was pioneered by Burroni [@Burroni-1993], and was used, for example, by Lafont to axiomatize various classes of boolean circuits [@Lafont-2003].
In a nutshell, higher-dimensional word problems are a generalization of word problems where one regards not only composition, but also tensor product as a basic structural operation. We already mentioned that the Clifford operators form a family of groups $\Clifford(0)$, $\Clifford(1)$, $\Clifford(2)$, etc. This family is equipped with the additional structure of a [*strict spatial monoidal groupoid*]{} (see [[@ML71; @Sel2009]]{}). The abstract definition of strict spatial monoidal groupoids is not of great importance here; for our purposes, it simply means the following: the Clifford operators are equipped with an associative tensor product $\otimes :
\Clifford(n)\times\Clifford(m)\to\Clifford(n+m)$, such that the identity group element of $\Clifford(0)$ also serves as the left and right unit for tensor, and satisfying the [*bifunctorial law*]{} $(f\otimes I_m)\circ(I_n \otimes g) = (I_n \otimes g)\circ(f\otimes
I_m)$ and the [*spatial law*]{} $\lambda\otimes I_n =
I_n\otimes\lambda$, where $f\in\Clifford(n)$, $g\in\Clifford(m)$, $\lambda\in\Clifford(0)$, and $I_n$, $I_m$ are the identity elements of $\Clifford(n)$ and $\Clifford(m)$, respectively. (From now on, we omit the subscript, writing $I$ for the identity matrix of any size, and in fact for the identity element of any group). In circuit notation: $$\mbox{Bifunctorial law:}~~
\mp{0.3}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3.5}{0,1}
\gate{$f$}{1,1}
\gate{$g$}{2.5,0}
\end{qcircuit}
}
~=~
\mp{0.3}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3.5}{0,1}
\gate{$g$}{1,0}
\gate{$f$}{2.5,1}
\end{qcircuit}
};
\qquad
\mbox{Spatial law:}~~
\mp{0.3}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3.5}{0}
\gate{$\lambda$}{1.75,1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
~=~
\mp{0.3}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3.5}{0}
\gate{$\lambda$}{1.75,-1}
\end{qcircuit}
}.$$
Thus, the notion of a strict spatial monoidal groupoid already has the notion of the tensor product “built in”, along with the fact that operators on disjoint sets of qubits commute with each other, and that scalars commute with everything.
Consequently, when we give generators and relations for Clifford operators [*as a strict spatial monoidal groupoid*]{}, the bifunctorial and spatial laws do not need to appear explicitly as part of the axiomatization. Moreover, unlike group theoretic axiomatizations, we only need one generator per basic gate, and not one generator per basic gate per qubit.
As a further illustration of this concept, consider the usual axiomatization of the braid group $\cB(n)$ on $n$ strands. If this is axiomatized as a group, one requires $n-1$ generators $\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_{n-1}$ (provided that $n\geq 2$), as well as $n-2$ instances of the Yang-Baxter equation $\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}$ (provided that $n\geq 3$), and $(n-2)(n-3)/2$ instances of commutativity $\sigma_i\sigma j=\sigma_j\sigma_i$ where $j\geq i+2$ (provided that $n\geq 4$). On the other hand, the axiomatization in terms of strict spatial monoidal groupoid requires only one generator $\sigma\in\cB(2)$ and one equation $(\sigma\times
I)(I\times\sigma)(\sigma\times I) = (I\times\sigma)(\sigma\times
I)(I\times\sigma)$, where $I\in\cB(1)$ is the group identity.
Action of the Clifford group on the Pauli group
===============================================
Let $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ be the usual Pauli operators $$\label{eqn-pauli}
X = \zmatrix{cc}{0&1\\1&0},\quad
Y = \zmatrix{cc}{0&-i\\i&0},\quad
Z = \zmatrix{cc}{1&0\\0&-1}.$$ The [*Pauli group on $n$ qubits*]{} consists of $2^n\times2^n$-matrices of the form $\lambda P_1\otimes\ldots\otimes
P_n$, where $\lambda\in\s{\pm1,\pm i}$ and $P_1,\ldots,P_n\in\s{I,X,Y,Z}$. We write $\Pauli(n)$ for the Pauli group on $n$ qubits.
We say that an $n$-qubit operator $U$ is a [*scalar*]{} if it is a scalar multiple of the identity operator, i.e., $U=\lambda I$. In this case, we also write $U=\lambda$ by a mild abuse of notation.
It is well-known that the Clifford group acts on the Pauli group by conjugation: whenever $C\in\Clifford(n)$ is a Clifford operator and $P\in\Pauli(n)$ is a Pauli operator, then $C\bullet P := CPC\inv
\in\Pauli(n)$ is another Pauli operator. Moreover, because $C\bullet
(PQ) = (C\bullet P)(C\bullet Q)$, the action of any fixed Clifford operator $C$ on $\Pauli(n)$ is a group automorphism of $\Pauli(n)$. Also, since $C\bullet\lambda=\lambda$, this automorphism fixes scalars. We will show in Proposition \[prop-automorphism\] below that, conversely, any such group automorphism arises from the action of some Clifford operator. We have the following well-known properties:
\[prop-clifford-unique\] Let $C\in\Clifford(n)$. If $C\bullet P = P$ for all $P\in\Pauli(n)$, then $C$ is a scalar.
First note that every complex $2\times 2$-matrix can be written in the form $aI+bX+cY+dZ$, for complex scalars $a,b,c,d$. It follows that the set of Pauli operators spans the set of $2^n\times
2^n$-operators as a vector space. By assumption, $CPC\inv = P$ for all Pauli operators $P$. It follows that $CMC\inv = M$, hence $CM=MC$, for all operators $M$. This implies that $C$ is a scalar.
\[cor-uniqueness\] If $C,D$ are two Clifford operators that act identically on the Pauli group, then $C,D$ differ only by a global phase, i.e., $C=\omega^iD$ for some $i$.
By Proposition \[prop-clifford-unique\], applied to $D\inv C$.
\[prop-clifford-exists\] Let $\phi:\Pauli(n)\to\Pauli(n)$ be an automorphism of the Pauli group that fixes scalars. Then there exists some Clifford operator $C\in\Clifford(n)$ (necessarily unique up to a phase by Corollary \[cor-uniqueness\]) such that for all $P$, $C\bullet P =
\phi(P)$.
Proposition \[prop-clifford-exists\] is an immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop-automorphism\], which we will prove below.
Normal forms for Clifford operators
===================================
We follow the usual practice of writing quantum circuits from left to right, i.e., in the opposite order of the notation for matrix multiplication. The qubits in a circuit are numbered from top to bottom. The gates $\omega$, $H$, $S$, and $Z_c$ were defined in , and are respectively called the omega-gate, Hadamard gate, $S$-gate, and controlled-$Z$ gate. We use the usual circuit notations for the Hadamard and $S$-gates. Because the controlled-$Z$ gate is symmetric in the two qubits it acts upon, we use a symmetric notation for it: $$\mbox{Hadamard gate:}~~
\mp{.2}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2}{0}
\gate{$H$}{1,0}
\end{qcircuit}
};
\quad
\mbox{$S$-gate:}~~
\mp{.2}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2}{0}
\gate{$S$}{1,0}
\end{qcircuit}
};
\quad
\mbox{Controlled $Z$-gate:}~~
\mp{0.3}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2}{0,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}}
=
\mp{0.4}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2}{0,1}
\controlled{\gate{$Z$}}{1,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}}
=
\mp{0.2}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2}{0,1}
\controlled{\gate{$Z$}}{1,1}{0}
\end{qcircuit}
}.$$ The Pauli operators are also Clifford operators, and are definable as $X=HSSH$, $Y=HSSHSS\omega^2$, $Z=SS$.
In this paper, we assume that controlled-$Z$ gates, and other binary gates, are only applied to [*adjacent*]{} qubits. This is without loss of generality, because gates on non-adjacent qubits can be equivalently expressed using swap gates: $$\label{eqn-adjacent}
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2}{0,1,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{2}
\end{qcircuit}
}
=
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{5}{2}
\grid{1}{0,1}
\gridx{2}{3}{0,1}
\gridx{4}{5}{0,1}
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1);
\draw (1,1) -- (2,0);
\draw (3,0) -- (4,1);
\draw (3,1) -- (4,0);
\controlled{\dotgate}{2.5,1}{2}
\end{qcircuit}~,
}$$ and swap gates can be further decomposed as $$\label{eqn-swap}
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\gridx{0}{1}{0,1}
\gridx{2}{3}{0,1}
\draw (1,0) -- (2,1);
\draw (1,1) -- (2,0);
\end{qcircuit}
}
=
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{8.5}{0,1}
\gate{$H$}{1.25,0}
\gate{$H$}{1.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{2.5,0}{1}
\gate{$H$}{3.75,0}
\gate{$H$}{3.75,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{5,0}{1}
\gate{$H$}{6.25,0}
\gate{$H$}{6.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{7.5,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}~.
}$$ The restriction of gates to adjacent qubits leads to a much cleaner presentation of normal forms.
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\defa
\end{array}
\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\defb
\end{array}
\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\defc
\end{array}$$$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\defd
\end{array}
\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\defe
\end{array}$$
We define new basic gates $A_i$, $B_j$, $C_k$, $D_{\ell}$, and $E_h$, where $i\in\s{1,2,3}$, $j,\ell,h\in\s{1,2,3,4}$, and $k\in\s{1,2}$. The meaning of these gates is given in Figure \[fig-def\]. Note that this gate set is highly redundant; for example, $A_1$, $C_1$, and $E_1$ are three different notations for the single-qubit identity gate. However, these gates will be convenient as building blocks for normal forms. They were chosen for their particular actions on Pauli operators, as will be explained in Section \[sec-existence-uniqueness\] and shown in Figure \[fig-pauli\].
We say that an $n$-qubit circuit is [*$Z$-normal*]{} if it is of the form $$\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\grid{3}{0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\widelgate{.75}{^{(n)}}{1.5}{0}{6}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{0.375,0.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{2.625,0.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{0.375,4.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{2.625,4.2}
\end{qcircuit}}
=
\mp{0.475}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\grid{9.8}{0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\agate{i}{1}{2}
\bgate{j_1}{2.5}{2}{3}
\bgate{j_2}{4}{3}{4}
\colgate{white, white}{$\bcdots$}{5.5,4}
\colgate{white, white}{$\bcdots$}{5.5,5}
\widebgate{0.75}{j_{m-1}}{7.15}{5}{6}
\cgate{k}{8.8}{6}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{1,0.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{8.8,0.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{1,4.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{8.8,4.2}
\end{qcircuit}~,}$$ for $1\leq m\leq n$. We say that an $n$-qubit circuit is [ *$X$-normal*]{} if it is of the form $$\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\grid{3}{0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\widemgate{.75}{^{(n)}}{1.5}{0}{6}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{0.375,1.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{2.625,1.2}
\end{qcircuit}}
=
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7] \grid{11}{0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\dgate{\ell_1}{1}{5}{6}
\dgate{\ell_2}{2.5}{4}{5}
\dgate{\ell_3}{4}{3}{4}
\dgate{\ell_4}{5.5}{2}{3}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{7}{2}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{7}{1}
\widedgate{.75}{\ell_{n-1}}{8.5}{0}{1}
\egate{h}{10}{0}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{1.75,1.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{10,1.2}
\end{qcircuit}~.}$$ Finally, an $n$-qubit circuit is [*normal*]{} if it is of the form $$\label{eqn-normal-form}
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\grid{3}{0,1,2,3}
\widengate{.75}{^{(n)}}{1.5}{0}{3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{0.375,1.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{2.625,1.2}
\end{qcircuit}}
=
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\grid{20.5}{0,1,2,3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{0.375,1.2}
\widelgate{.75}{^{(n)}}{1.5}{0}{3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{2.625,1.2}
\widemgate{.75}{^{(n)}}{3.75}{0}{3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{4.875,1.2}
\widelgate{.75}{^{(n-1)}}{6.0}{1}{3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{7.125,1.2}
\widemgate{.75}{^{(n-1)}}{8.25}{1}{3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{9.5,1.2}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{10.25}{3}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{10.25}{2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{11.0,1.2}
\widelgate{.75}{^{(2)}}{12.25}{2}{3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{13.375,1.2}
\widemgate{.75}{^{(2)}}{14.5}{2}{3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{15.625,1.2}
\widelgate{.75}{^{(1)}}{16.75}{3}{3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{17.875,1.2}
\widemgate{.75}{^{(1)}}{19.0}{3}{3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{20.125,1.2}
\end{qcircuit}}\cdot \omega^p,$$ where $p\in\s{0,1,\ldots,7}$.
Existence and uniqueness of normal forms {#sec-existence-uniqueness}
========================================
When $C$ is a Clifford operator, and $P=P_1\otimes\ldots\otimes P_n$ and $Q=Q_1\otimes\ldots\otimes Q_n$ are Pauli operators, we schematically write $$\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\grid{3}{0,1,2}
\leftlabel{$P_n$}{0,0}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{0.375,0.2}
\leftlabel{$P_2$}{0,1}
\leftlabel{$P_1$}{0,2}
\biggate{$C$}{1.5,0}{1.5,2}
\rightlabel{$Q_n$}{3,0}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{2.625,0.2}
\rightlabel{$Q_2$}{3,1}
\rightlabel{$Q_1$}{3,2}
\end{qcircuit}}$$ to indicate that $C\bullet P = Q$. With that convention, Figure \[fig-pauli\] shows the action of the operators $A_i$, $B_j$, $C_k$, $D_{\ell}$, and $E_h$ on selected Pauli operators.
$$\raisebox{.8in}{(a)}\m{$
\begin{array}{r}
\paulia
\end{array}
\begin{array}{r}
\paulib
\end{array}
\begin{array}{r}
\paulic
\end{array}
$}$$ $$\raisebox{.8in}{(b)}\m{$
\begin{array}{r}
\paulifx
\end{array}
\begin{array}{r}
\paulify
\end{array}
\begin{array}{r}
\pauliex
\end{array}
$}\quad
\raisebox{.8in}{(c)}\m{$
\begin{array}{r}
\paulifz
\end{array}
\begin{array}{r}
\pauliez
\end{array}
$}$$
\[lem-l\] Let $n\geq 1$, and let $P$ be an $n$-qubit Pauli operator satisfying $P^2=I$ and $P\neq \pm I$. Then there exists a unique $Z$-normal circuit $L$ such that $$L\bullet P = Z\tensor I\tensor\ldots\tensor I.$$
As a Pauli operator, $P$ is of the form $P=\lambda P_1\tensor
P_2\tensor\ldots\tensor P_n$, where $P_1,\ldots,P_n\in
\s{I,X,Y,Z}$. The requirement $P^2=I$ ensures that $\lambda$ is $\pm1$ (and not $\pm i$). Moreover, since $P\neq\pm I$, there must be some $m$ such that $P_m\neq I$; let $m$ be the largest such index. The claim then follows from the properties in Figure \[fig-pauli\](a), with reference to the following diagram: $$\mp{0}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\gridx{-1.5}{15.8}{0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\leftlabel{$P_1$}{-1.5,6}
\leftlabel{$P_2$}{-1.5,5}
\leftlabel{$P_{m-2}$}{-1.5,4}
\leftlabel{$P_{m-1}$}{-1.5,3}
\leftlabel{$\pm P_{m}$}{-1.5,2}
\leftlabel{$I$}{-1.5,1}
\leftlabel{$I$}{-1.5,0}
\agate{i}{-0.5}{2}
\whitegate{$\pm Z$}{1}{2}
\bgate{j_1}{2.5}{2}{3}
\whitegate{$\pm Z$}{4}{3}
\bgate{j_2}{5.5}{3}{4}
\whitegate{$\pm Z$}{7}{4}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{8.5}{5}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{8.5}{4}
\whitegate{$\pm Z$}{10}{5}
\widebgate{0.75}{j_{m-1}}{11.65}{5}{6}
\whitegate{$\pm Z$}{13.3}{6}
\cgate{k}{14.8}{6}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{-0.5,0.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{-0.5,4.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{14.8,0.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{14.8,4.2}
\rightlabel{$Z$}{15.8,6}
\rightlabel{$I$}{15.8,5}
\rightlabel{$I$}{15.8,4}
\rightlabel{$I$}{15.8,3}
\rightlabel{$I$}{15.8,2}
\rightlabel{$I$}{15.8,1}
\rightlabel{$I.$}{15.8,0}
\end{qcircuit}}$$ In particular, note that it follows from the properties in Figure \[fig-pauli\](a) that there exists a unique $A_i$ sending $\pm P_m$ to $\pm Z$; for each $p=1,\ldots,m-1$, there exists a unique $B_{j_p}$ sending $P_{m-p}\tensor \pm Z$ to $\pm Z\tensor I$; and there exists a unique $C_k$ sending $\pm Z$ to $Z$.
\[lem-m\] Let $n\geq 1$, and let $Q$ be an $n$-qubit Pauli operator satisfying $Q^2=I$ such that $Q$ anticommutes with $Z\tensor
I\tensor\ldots\tensor I$. Then there exists a unique $X$-normal circuit $M$ such that $$M\bullet Q = I\tensor \ldots\tensor I\tensor X.$$
As before, since $Q^2=I$, we know that $Q$ is of the form $Q = \pm
Q_1\tensor Q_2\tensor\ldots\tensor Q_n$. Moreover, since $Q$ anticommutes with $Z\tensor I\tensor\ldots\tensor I$, we have that $Q_1 \in \s{X,Y}$. The claim then follows from the properties in Figure \[fig-pauli\](b), with reference to the following diagram: $$\mp{0}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\gridx{1.5}{18.8}{1,2,3,4,5,6}
\leftlabel{$\pm Q_1$}{1.5,6}
\leftlabel{$Q_2$}{1.5,5}
\leftlabel{$Q_3$}{1.5,4}
\leftlabel{$Q_4$}{1.5,3}
\leftlabel{$Q_{n-1}$}{1.5,2}
\leftlabel{$Q_n$}{1.5,1}
\dgate{\ell_1}{2.5}{5}{6}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$\pm Q_1$}{4}{5}
\dgate{\ell_2}{5.5}{4}{5}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$\pm Q_1$}{7}{4}
\dgate{\ell_3}{8.5}{3}{4}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$\pm Q_1$}{10}{3}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{11.5}{3}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{11.5}{2}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$\pm Q_1$}{13}{2}
\widedgate{.75}{\ell_{n-1}}{14.65}{1}{2}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$\pm Q_1$}{16.3}{1}
\egate{h}{17.8}{1}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{2.5,2.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{17.8,2.2}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,6}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,5}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,4}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,3}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,2}
\rightlabel{$X.$}{18.8,1}
\end{qcircuit}}$$
\[lem-mz\] Every $X$-normal circuit $M$ satisfies $$M\bullet (Z\tensor I\tensor\ldots\tensor I) = I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z.$$
By using the properties from Figure \[fig-pauli\](c), with reference to the following diagram: $$\mp{0}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\gridx{1.5}{18.8}{1,2,3,4,5,6}
\leftlabel{$Z$}{1.5,6}
\leftlabel{$I$}{1.5,5}
\leftlabel{$I$}{1.5,4}
\leftlabel{$I$}{1.5,3}
\leftlabel{$I$}{1.5,2}
\leftlabel{$I$}{1.5,1}
\dgate{\ell_1}{2.5}{5}{6}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$Z$}{4}{5}
\dgate{\ell_2}{5.5}{4}{5}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$Z$}{7}{4}
\dgate{\ell_3}{8.5}{3}{4}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$Z$}{10}{3}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{11.5}{3}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{11.5}{2}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$Z$}{13}{2}
\widedgate{.75}{\ell_{n-1}}{14.65}{1}{2}
\widewhitegate{.55}{$Z$}{16.3}{1}
\egate{h}{17.8}{1}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{2.5,2.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{17.8,2.2}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,6}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,5}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,4}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,3}
\rightlabel{$I$}{18.8,2}
\rightlabel{$Z.$}{18.8,1}
\end{qcircuit}}$$
\[lem-pq\] Let $n\geq 1$, and let $P$ and $Q$ be $n$-qubit Pauli operators such that $P^2=Q^2=I$, and such that $P$, $Q$ anticommute. Then there exist unique circuits $M$ and $L$, where $M$ is $X$-normal and $L$ is $Z$-normal, such that $$ML \bullet P = I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z$$ and $$ML \bullet Q = I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor X.$$
By Lemma \[lem-l\], there exists a $Z$-normal circuit $L$ such that $L\bullet P = Z\tensor I\tensor\ldots\tensor I$. Since $P$ and $Q$ anticommute, so do $L\bullet P$ and $L\bullet Q$. Therefore, by Lemma \[lem-m\], there exists an $X$-normal circuit $M$ such that $M\bullet (L\bullet Q) = I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor X$, i.e., $ML\bullet Q = I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor X$. By Lemma \[lem-mz\], we also have $ML\bullet P = M\bullet (L\bullet
P) = M\bullet (Z\tensor I\tensor\ldots\tensor I) = I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z$. This proves the existence of $M$ and $L$. For uniqueness, assume that $M'$ and $L'$ are another pair of operators satisfying the conditions of the lemma. From $M'\bullet(L'\bullet P) = I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z$, we have $L'\bullet P=Z\tensor I\tensor\ldots\tensor I$ by Lemma \[lem-mz\]. Therefore, $L=L'$ by uniqueness of $L$ in Lemma \[lem-l\]. But then $M'\bullet(L\bullet Q) =
M\bullet(L\bullet Q)=X\tensor I\tensor\ldots\tensor I$, so that $M=M'$ by uniqueness of $M$ in Lemma \[lem-m\].
\[prop-automorphism\] Let $\phi:\Pauli(n)\to\Pauli(n)$ be an automorphism of the Pauli group such that $\phi$ fixes scalars. Then there exists a Clifford circuit $C$ in normal form such that for all $P$, $C\bullet P = \phi(P)$. Moreover, the normal form $C$ is unique up to the scalar $\omega^p$.
By induction on $n$. For $n=0$, all Pauli operators are scalars, so $\phi$ is the identity; we can set $C=1=\omega^0$; uniqueness up to a scalar follows because for $n=0$, all Clifford operators are scalars.
For the induction step, suppose the claim is true for $n-1$. We first prove existence. Let $P=\phi\inv(I\tensor\ldots\tensor
I\tensor Z)$ and $Q=\phi\inv(I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor
X)$. Note that $I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z$ and $I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor X$ each square to the identity and anticommute with each other; since $\phi$ is an automorphism, the same is true for $P$ and $Q$. By Lemma \[lem-pq\], there exists a circuit $ML$, where $M$ is $X$-normal and $L$ is $Z$-normal, such that $$\label{eqn-mlp}
ML\bullet P = I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z =
\phi(P)$$ and $$\label{eqn-mlq}
ML\bullet Q = I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor X = \phi(Q).$$ Now define a new automorphism $\phi'$ by $\phi'(U) =
\phi((ML)\inv\bullet U)$ for all $U\in\Pauli(n)$. Note that $\phi'$ fixes scalars; also, by and , $I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z$ and $I\tensor\ldots\tensor
I\tensor X$ are fixed points of $\phi'$. Let $R$ be an $n-1$-qubit Pauli operator, and consider $\phi'(R\tensor I)$. Since $R\tensor I$ commutes with both $I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z$ and $I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor X$, the same is true for $\phi'(R\tensor I)$; therefore, $\phi'(R\tensor I) = S\tensor I$, for some $S\in\Pauli(n-1)$. It follows that there exists an automorphism $\phi'':\Pauli(n-1)\to\Pauli(n-1)$ such that $\phi'(R\tensor I)=\phi''(R)\tensor I$, for all $R\in\Pauli(n-1)$. Together with the fact that $I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z$ and $I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor X$ are fixed points of $\phi'$, this implies that $\phi'=\phi''\tensor I$. By induction hypothesis, there exists a normal $n-1$-qubit Clifford circuit $C'$ such that for all $R$, $C'\bullet R=\phi''(R)$. Let $C=(C'\tensor I)ML$. Then for all $U$, we have $$C\bullet U = (C'\tensor I)ML\bullet U =
(C'\tensor I)\bullet(\phi'^{-1}(\phi(U)))
= (C'\tensor I)\bullet (\phi''^{-1}\tensor I)(\phi(U)) = \phi(U).$$ This proves the existence of the normal form $C$.
For uniqueness, suppose that $D$ is another normal form Clifford circuit with $D\bullet U = \phi(U)$ for all Pauli $U$. By definition of normal forms, $D$ is of the form $(D'\tensor I)M'L'$, where $M'$ is $X$-normal, $L'$ is $Z$-normal, and $D'$ is a normal Clifford circuit of $n-1$ qubits. Then $D\bullet P = \phi(P) =
I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z$. It follows that $M'L'\bullet P =
(D'\tensor I)\inv\bullet (I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z)=
I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor Z$, and by a similar argument, $M'L'\bullet Q=I\tensor\ldots\tensor I\tensor X$. From the uniqueness of Lemma \[lem-pq\], we get $M'=M$ and $L'=L$. Then by uniqueness in the induction hypothesis, $D'$ and $C'$ are equal up to a scalar, and hence the same is true for $D$ and $C$.
Proposition \[prop-clifford-exists\] is an immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop-automorphism\].
The Clifford group on $n$ qubits has exactly $$|\Clifford(n)| = 8\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{n} 2(4^i-1)4^i$$ elements.
From the definition of $Z$-normal circuits, there are exactly $$\sum_{m=1}^{n} 3\cdot 4^{m-1}\cdot 2 = 2 (4^n - 1)$$ circuits of the form $L^{(n)}$. Moreover, there are $4^n$ circuits of the form $M^{(n)}$, hence $2(4^n-1)4^n$ circuits of the form $M^{(n)}L^{(n)}$. Because there are exactly 8 scalars, it follows that there are $$8\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{n} 2(4^i-1)4^i$$ circuits of the form $N^{(n)}$ shown in . By Proposition \[prop-automorphism\], these are in one-to-one correspondence with the elements of the $n$-qubit Clifford group.
Normalization via rewrite rules
===============================
In this section, we will describe an explicit procedure for converting any given Clifford circuit to normal form by using only a finite number of equations. This yields a presentation of the Clifford group by generators and relations.
Consider an $n$-qubit Clifford circuit in normal form: $$\label{eqn-dirty-nf}
\mp{0.475}{\scalebox{0.9}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.78]
\gridx{-0.5}{24.1}{0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\alabel{0,6}
\alabel{0,5}
\alabel{0,4}
\alabel{0,3}
\alabel{0,2}
\alabel{0,1}
\alabel{0,0}
\agate{i}{1}{2}
\blabel{1.75,2}
\bgate{j_1}{2.5}{2}{3}
\blabel{3.25,3}
\bgate{j_2}{4}{3}{4}
\blabel{4.75,4}
\colgate{white, white}{$\bcdots$}{5.5,4}
\colgate{white, white}{$\bcdots$}{5.5,5}
\blabel{6.25,5}
\widebgate{0.75}{j_{m-1}}{7.3}{5}{6}
\begin{scope}[xshift=0.6cm]
\blabel{7.75,6}
\cgate{k}{8.5}{6}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{1,0.3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{8.5,0.3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{1,4.3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{8.5,4.3}
\clabel{9.5,6}
\alabel{9.5,5}
\alabel{9.5,4}
\alabel{9.5,3}
\alabel{9.5,2}
\alabel{9.5,1}
\alabel{9.5,0}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=10.1cm]
\dgate{\ell_1}{1}{5}{6}
\dlabel{1.75,5}
\dgate{\ell_2}{2.5}{4}{5}
\dlabel{3.25,4}
\dgate{\ell_3}{4}{3}{4}
\dlabel{4.75,3}
\dgate{\ell_4}{5.5}{2}{3}
\dlabel{6.25,2}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{7}{2}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{7}{1}
\dlabel{7.75,1}
\widedgate{.75}{\ell_{n-1}}{8.8}{0}{1}
\dlabel{9.85,0}
\egate{h}{10.6}{0}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{1.75,1.3}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{10.6,1.3}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=21.85cm]
\alabel{-0.25,6}
\alabel{-0.25,5}
\alabel{-0.25,4}
\alabel{-0.25,3}
\alabel{-0.25,2}
\alabel{-0.25,1}
\widengate{.75}{^{(n-1)}}{1}{1}{6}
\end{scope}
\end{qcircuit}},}$$ We say that a circuit is in [*dirty normal form*]{} if it is of the form , except that the circuit may contain some additional gates, subject to the following rules:
- $H$-gates may be added to any wire labelled $\circled{1}$;
- $S$-gates may be added to any wire labelled $\circled{1}$, $\circled{2}$, $\circled{3}$, or $\circled{4}$;
- $X$-gates may be added to any wire labelled $\circled{2}$;
- Controlled $Z$-gates may be added to any pair of adjacent wires, provided that the top wire is labelled $\circled{1}$, $\circled{2}$, or $\circled{3}$, and the bottom wire is labelled $\circled{1}$;
We recursively assume that $N^{(n-1)}$ is in dirty normal form as well.
\[lem-dirty-normal-form\] Any dirty normal form can be converted to an equivalent normal form by using the equations in Figures \[fig-rewrite-1\]–\[fig-rewrite-5\], in the left-to-right direction, a finite number of times.
By inspection. Let us call the gates of type $A$–$E$ [*“clean”*]{}, and the gates $H$, $S$, $X$, and $Z_c$ [*“dirty”*]{}. Given two gate occurrences $F$ and $G$ in a circuit, we say that $F$ is [ *immediately before*]{} $G$ if one of the outputs of $F$ is connected to one of the inputs of $G$. We say that $F$ is [*before*]{} $G$ if there exists a sequence of gates, starting with $F$ and ending with $G$, such that each is immediately before the next one.
By the definition of dirty normal forms, every dirty gate occurs before some clean gate. Therefore, as long as there is at least one dirty gate in the circuit, some dirty gate (for example, the rightmost one) must occur [*immediately*]{} before a clean gate. The left-hand sides of the equations in Figures \[fig-rewrite-1\]–\[fig-rewrite-5\] cover all possible cases of a dirty gate occurring immediately before a clean gate. So as long as there are dirty gates left, one of the equations can always be applied. Moreover, a straightforward but tedious inspection of the equations in Figures \[fig-rewrite-1\]–\[fig-rewrite-5\] shows that the left-to-right application of each equation to a dirty normal form yields another dirty normal form.
It remains to be shown that this procedure terminates. To this end, we associate to each dirty normal form a sequence $\vec v$ of natural numbers as follows. Suppose the dirty normal form has $r$ clean gates, which have been numbered $1,\ldots,r$ from left to right in the order in which they appear in . Then let $\vec v = (v_1,\ldots,v_r)$, where $v_i$ is the number of dirty gates before the $i$th clean gate. It is easy to see that, with the exception of the equation $\omega^8=1$, each left-to-right application of an equation from Figures \[fig-rewrite-1\]–\[fig-rewrite-5\] decreases the sequence $\vec v$ in the lexicographic ordering. Although the length $r$ of $\vec v$ is not constant, it is bounded by $n^2$, and since the set of all such sequences is well-ordered, it follows that the procedure terminates in a finite number of steps.
\[prop-presentation\] Consider a Clifford circuit expressed in terms of the generators $H$, $S$, and controlled-$Z$ gates on adjacent qubits. Any such circuit can be converted to its equivalent normal form by finitely many uses of the equations in Figures \[fig-rewrite-1\]–\[fig-rewrite-5\], together with the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2}{0}
\end{qcircuit}}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{5}{0}
\agate{1}{1}{0}
\cgate{1}{2.5}{0}
\egate{1}{4}{0}
\end{qcircuit},}
\label{eqn-ACE}
\\\nonumber\\[-1ex]
\mp{.66}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2}{0,1}
\cgate{1}{1}{0}
\end{qcircuit}}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{5}{0,1}
\bgate{1}{1}{0}{1}
\cgate{1}{2.5}{1}
\dgate{1}{4}{0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}.}
\label{eqn-BCD}
\end{aligned}$$
First, note that the normal form of the identity operator on $n$ qubit is $$\label{eqn-identity-nf}
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\grid{3}{2,3,4,5,6}
\wideidgate{.75}{^{(n)}}{1.5}{2}{6}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{0.375,4.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{2.625,4.2}
\end{qcircuit}}
~=~
\mp{0.475}{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.7]
\gridx{-0.5}{19.5}{2,3,4,5,6}
\agate{1}{1}{2}
\bgate{1}{2.5}{2}{3}
\bgate{1}{4}{3}{4}
\colgate{white, white}{$\bcdots$}{5.5,4}
\colgate{white, white}{$\bcdots$}{5.5,5}
\bgate{1}{7}{5}{6}
\cgate{1}{8.5}{6}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{1,4.2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{8.5,4.2}
\begin{scope}[xshift=9cm]
\dgate{1}{1}{5}{6}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{2.5}{5}
\whitegate{$\bcdots$}{2.5}{4}
\dgate{1}{4}{3}{4}
\dgate{1}{5.5}{2}{3}
\egate{1}{7}{2}
\wirelabel{$\bvdots$}{7,4.2}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=17cm]
\wideidgate{.75}{^{(n-1)}}{1}{3}{6}
\end{scope}
\end{qcircuit}.}$$ The identity circuit can be converted to this normal form by a finite number of applications of the equations and . By appending the normal form of the identity operator to the given Clifford circuit, we obtain a dirty normal form, which can then be converted to a normal form by Lemma \[lem-dirty-normal-form\].
An equational presentation of the Clifford groupoid
===================================================
As an immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop-presentation\], we know that the equations in Figures \[fig-rewrite-1\]–\[fig-rewrite-5\], together with the equations and , and the defining equations in Figure \[fig-def\], form a presentation of the Clifford groupoid by generators and relations. However, this formulation uses a large number of generators (namely all the gates of type $A$–$E$, as well as $\omega$, $S$, $H$, $X$, and $Z_c$), and also a very large number of equations. Naturally, it would be desirable to find a much smaller set of generators and relations. This is done in the following proposition.
The Clifford groupoid is presented, as a strict spatial monoidal groupoid, by the generators shown in and the relations shown in Figure \[fig-relations\].
First, we can use the defining equations of Figure \[fig-def\] to eliminate the generators of type $A$–$E$ from , , and from the equations in Figures \[fig-rewrite-1\]–\[fig-rewrite-5\]; we can also use the equation $X=HSSH$ to eliminate the gate $X$. This leaves only the generators $\omega$, $S$, $H$, and $Z_c$. It is then a tedious, but finite exercise to verify that , , and each of the equations in Figures \[fig-rewrite-1\]–\[fig-rewrite-5\] is a consequence of the equations from Figure \[fig-relations\]. A full, mostly machine-generated proof is available as a supplement to this paper [[@clifford-supplement]]{}.
It is not currently known to the author whether the equations in Figure \[fig-relations\] are independent.
Proving an equation about $2$-qubit circuits never requires any of the $3$-qubit axioms to be used; therefore, the equations of Figure \[fig-relations\](a)–(c) are sufficient to present the $2$-qubit Clifford operators in terms of generators and relations. Similarly, the equations of Figure \[fig-relations\](a)–(b) are sufficient to present the $1$-qubit Clifford operators, and, trivially, the relation of Figure \[fig-relations\](a) is sufficient to present the $0$-qubit Clifford operators. It is also interesting to note that there are no special axioms involving $4$ or more qubits; all equational properties of $n$-qubit Clifford circuits follow from axioms involving at most $3$ qubits.
$$\omega^8 = 1\hspace{0.5in}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\commHA
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\commSA
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{r@{}l@{~}l}
\commZZAI
\\
\commZZIABB
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\commHIB
\\
\commISB
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\commSIB
\\
\commIXB
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\commIZZBBI
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\commXC
\\
\commSC
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\commZZCI
\end{array}$$
$$\scalebox{0.87}{$
\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\commZZIIBBBBI
\end{array}
$}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\altIHDD
\\
\altSIDD
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\altISDD
\\
\altZZDD
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\altSE
\end{array}$$
$$\scalebox{0.87}{$
\begin{array}{l@{}l@{~}l}
\altIZZDDIIDD
\end{array}
$}$$
\(a) Equations for $n\geq 0$: $$\omega^8 = 1$$ (b) Equations for $n\geq 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
H^2 &=& 1\\
S^4 &=& 1\\
SHSHSH &=& \omega
\end{aligned}$$ (c) Equations for $n\geq 2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3}{0,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{2,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2}{0,1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
\\\nonumber\\[0ex]
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3.5}{0,1}
\gate{$S$}{1.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{2.5,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3.5}{0,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{1}
\gate{$S$}{2.25,1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
\\\nonumber\\[0ex]
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3.5}{0,1}
\gate{$S$}{1.25,0}
\controlled{\dotgate}{2.5,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3.5}{0,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{1}
\gate{$S$}{2.25,0}
\end{qcircuit}
}
\\\nonumber\\[0ex]
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{8}{0,1}
\gate{$H$}{1.25,1}
\gate{$S$}{2.75,1}
\gate{$S$}{4.25,1}
\gate{$H$}{5.75,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{7,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{8}{0,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{1}
\gate{$S$}{2.25,0}
\gate{$S$}{3.75,0}
\gate{$H$}{2.25,1}
\gate{$S$}{3.75,1}
\gate{$S$}{5.25,1}
\gate{$H$}{6.75,1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
\\\nonumber\\[0ex]
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{8}{0,1}
\gate{$H$}{1.25,0}
\gate{$S$}{2.75,0}
\gate{$S$}{4.25,0}
\gate{$H$}{5.75,0}
\controlled{\dotgate}{7,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{8}{0,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{1}
\gate{$S$}{2.25,1}
\gate{$S$}{3.75,1}
\gate{$H$}{2.25,0}
\gate{$S$}{3.75,0}
\gate{$S$}{5.25,0}
\gate{$H$}{6.75,0}
\end{qcircuit}
}
\\\nonumber\\[0ex]
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{4.5}{0,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{1}
\gate{$H$}{2.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{3.5,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\gridx{1.5}{10.5}{0,1}
\gate{$S$}{2.75,1}
\gate{$H$}{4.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{5.5,0}{1}
\gate{$S$}{6.75,0}
\gate{$S$}{6.75,1}
\gate{$H$}{8.25,1}
\gate{$S$}{9.75,1}
\end{qcircuit}
}\cdot\omega\inv
\\\nonumber\\[0ex]
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{4.5}{0,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{1}
\gate{$H$}{2.25,0}
\controlled{\dotgate}{3.5,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\gridx{1.5}{10.5}{0,1}
\gate{$S$}{2.75,0}
\gate{$H$}{4.25,0}
\controlled{\dotgate}{5.5,0}{1}
\gate{$S$}{6.75,1}
\gate{$S$}{6.75,0}
\gate{$H$}{8.25,0}
\gate{$S$}{9.75,0}
\end{qcircuit}
}\cdot\omega\inv
\end{aligned}$$ (d) Equations for $n\geq 3$: $$\begin{aligned}
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3}{0,1,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,0}{1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{2,1}{2}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{3}{0,1,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1,1}{2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{2,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
\\\nonumber\\[0ex]
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{12.50}{0,1,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1.25,2}{1}
\gate{$H$}{2.75,2}
\gate{$H$}{2.75,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{4.00,2}{1}
\gate{$H$}{5.25,1}
\gate{$H$}{5.25,0}
\controlled{\dotgate}{6.50,1}{0}
\gate{$H$}{7.75,1}
\gate{$H$}{7.75,0}
\controlled{\dotgate}{9.00,2}{1}
\gate{$H$}{10.25,2}
\gate{$H$}{10.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{11.50,2}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{12.50}{0,1,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1.25,0}{1}
\gate{$H$}{2.75,0}
\gate{$H$}{2.75,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{4.00,0}{1}
\gate{$H$}{5.25,1}
\gate{$H$}{5.25,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{6.50,1}{2}
\gate{$H$}{7.75,1}
\gate{$H$}{7.75,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{9.00,0}{1}
\gate{$H$}{10.25,0}
\gate{$H$}{10.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{11.50,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{21.00}{0,1,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1.00,1}{2}
\gate{$H$}{2.25,2}
\gate{$H$}{2.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{3.50,1}{2}
\gate{$H$}{4.75,2}
\gate{$H$}{4.75,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{6.00,0}{1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{8.00,1}{2}
\gate{$H$}{9.25,2}
\gate{$H$}{9.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{10.50,1}{2}
\gate{$H$}{11.75,2}
\gate{$H$}{11.75,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{13.00,0}{1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{15.00,1}{2}
\gate{$H$}{16.25,2}
\gate{$H$}{16.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{17.50,1}{2}
\gate{$H$}{18.75,1}
\gate{$H$}{18.75,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{20.00,0}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2.50}{0,1,2}
\end{qcircuit}
}
\\\nonumber\\[0ex]
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{21.00}{0,1,2}
\controlled{\dotgate}{1.00,1}{0}
\gate{$H$}{2.25,0}
\gate{$H$}{2.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{3.50,1}{0}
\gate{$H$}{4.75,0}
\gate{$H$}{4.75,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{6.00,2}{1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{8.00,1}{0}
\gate{$H$}{9.25,0}
\gate{$H$}{9.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{10.50,1}{0}
\gate{$H$}{11.75,0}
\gate{$H$}{11.75,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{13.00,2}{1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{15.00,1}{0}
\gate{$H$}{16.25,0}
\gate{$H$}{16.25,1}
\controlled{\dotgate}{17.50,1}{0}
\gate{$H$}{18.75,1}
\gate{$H$}{18.75,0}
\controlled{\dotgate}{20.00,2}{1}
\end{qcircuit}
}
&=&
\m{\begin{qcircuit}[scale=0.5]
\grid{2.50}{0,1,2}
\end{qcircuit}
}
\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: Research supported by NSERC
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Although blazar variability is probably dominated by emission from relativistic jets, accretion disks should be present in all blazars. These disks produce emission over most of the electromagnetic spectrum; various unstable processes operate in those disks which will lead to variable emission. Here I summarize some of the most relevant disk mechanisms for AGN variability. I also discuss some aspects of jet variability, focusing on the possibility that ultrarelativistic jets of modest opening angle can reconcile TeV blazar emission with the many subluminal VLBI knots seen in those sources. Finally, I present recently illuminated characteristics of optical microvariability of different classes of AGN which have important implications for the dominant processes involved.'
author:
- 'Paul J. Wiita'
title: 'Accretion Disks, Jets and Blazar Variability'
---
Introduction
============
Regardless of the exact fashion in which the jets which dominate blazar spectra are launched (e.g. Vlahakis, these proceedings; Meier, these proceedings; Hardee, these proceedings), all plausible models require them to either be anchored in accretion disks or to emerge from the immediate vicinity of black holes which are accreting. Most modes of accretion produce significant fluxes from the disks themselves, and most of those emissions will be variable. There are two key questions with respect to accretion disks and blazar variability. Can these disk emissions ever compete with the jet emissions so as to make detectable contributions? Can variations from these disks occur on timescales short enough to be detected over the timespans we are able to observe blazars? In this brief review I concentrate on these questions but also address a couple of specific points related to blazar jets. Czerny’s (2004) recent review also covers many aspects of accretion disks that will be stressed here; Czerny also provides nice discussions of other aspects of AGN variability not covered here and additional references. Key observations and basic theoretical points about disks are summarized in §§2–4. Aspects of blazar jets are discussed in §5 and results and implications of new optical microvariability studies of different AGN classes are noted in §6.
Contributions from Accretion Disks to AGN Spectra
=================================================
The most direct evidence for accretion disk (hereafter AD) emission comes from the quasi-thermal big blue bumps sometimes seen in AGN spectra, which are otherwise roughly characterized by power-law spectral energy distributions in the IR–UV. While these bumps are not uncommon in quasars, their presence in blazars is rare, presumably because the disk emission is usually swamped by the boosted nearly power-law continuum. New quasi-simultaneous multi-band observations of the blazar AO 0235+164 (Raiteri et al. 2005) do provide such strong evidence for a big blue bump. Additional recent evidence for AD emission in several quasars comes from the detection of an optically thick Balmer edge revealed in the polarized emission (e.g. Ton 202; Kishimoto et al. 2004). Other types of direct observational evidence for flattened geometries, presumably related to ADs, include the broad Fe K$\alpha$ lines seen in Narrow Line Seyfert 1 galaxies (e.g. Reynolds & Nowak 2003) and the variable double peaked emission lines seen in a substantial fraction of quasar spectra (e.g. Strateva et al. 2003).
The now fairly well accepted picture for accretion flows indicates that the relative thickness of an AD and its extent toward its central black hole (BH) are predominantly determined by its accretion rate, $\dot M$. For accretion flows where the accretion luminosity, $L$, is comparable to the Eddington limit, $L/L_E \sim 1$ ($L_E \simeq 1.3 \times 10^{46} M_8 \ {\rm ergs \ s}^{-1}$, with $M_{BH} = 10^8 M_{\odot} M_8$), the disk becomes geometrically and optically thick (e.g. Paczy[ń]{}ski & Wiita 1980) and the inner edge of the disk is inside the marginally stable orbit. These bloated “Polish donuts” are quite inefficient radiators, since much of the ample quasi-thermal radiation they produce is trapped within the AD and swept through the event horizon. For flows where $L/L_E \sim 0.1$ the “standard” geometrically thin, but optically thick, AD picture (e.g. Shakura & Sunyaev 1973) basically holds. For these, the most extensively studied class of AD, the inner edge is at the marginally stable orbit ($r_{ms} = 6 GM_{BH}/c^2 \equiv 3 r_s$ for a Schwarzschild BH) and the efficiency of mass to radiation conversion is high ($> 0.057$) since most of the radiation produced in the AD escapes.
At sufficiently low accretion rates, producing $L/L_E < 0.01$, a two temperature flow is likely to develop (e.g. Rees et al.1982); here the ions in the infalling plasma can reach virial temperatures, but their low densities mean that they fall into the BH before they can share their energy with the electrons, which do the bulk of the radiating. There are various possible detailed structures for such low ${\dot M}$ flows (e.g. Chakrabarti 1996), but they are often generically called ADAFs (for Advection Dominated Accretion Flows; e.g. Chen et al. 1995). These flows are characterized by a transition radius, $r_t > r_{ms}$, inside of which the flow is geometrically thick but optically thin, and outside of which it is physically thin but optically thick.
The common view is that AGN involve the first two categories of accretion flows with the thin disk category most common. On the other hand, starved BHs, such as the one in our Galactic nucleus, are of the last type. Less well accepted, but certainly possible, is the hypothesis that intermediate luminosity AGN, such as radio galaxies and normal Seyfert galaxies, may also have thin disks which terminate at $r \sim 100 r_s$ (see Czerny 2004 and references therein). It should be stressed that any particular galactic nucleus may (and probably does) exhibit different accretion modes at different times in its history and therefore can evolve from inactive, to one type of AGN, to another type of AGN.
Timescales for Accretion Disk Variability
=========================================
If one adopts cylindrical coordinates, $(r,z,\phi)$, assumes a quasi-Keplerian flow, and expresses distances in terms of the Schwarzschild radius, $r_s$, so that\
$R \equiv r/r_s$, one finds that the dynamical timescale in an AD is nearly the same as for a Keplerian orbit, and so is $$t_{dyn} = 2 \times 10^3 R^{3/2} M_8 \ {\rm s}.$$ Thus one should not observe variations faster than a few minutes for relatively low mass AGN (with $M_8 < 0.1$) or faster than several hours for very massive AGN (with $M_8 > 10$) if there are no bulk relativistic motions. Such fast variations associated with ADs would demand perturbations that affect a significant portion of the inner part of a disk and form and decay on orbital timescales.
Perhaps a more realistic timescale for many physical variations would be associated with the time needed for a sound wave to be transmitted across a radial region of extent $r$ for a disk of thickness $h$, $t_{sound} \simeq t_{dyn}(r/h)$; this is roughly an order of magnitude greater than $t_{dyn}$ for thin AD models.
Another key timescale on which one would expect to see changes in any AD is its thermal timescale, $t_{th}$, defined as the ratio of the disk’s internal energy to the heating or cooling rate. If, for simplicity, we assume the Shakura–Sunyaev $\alpha$-disk parameterization, where the shear stress is related to the total pressure by the expression $T_{r \phi} \equiv \alpha P$, then the thermal timescale is $$t_{th} = t_{dyn}/\alpha = 2 \times 10^4 \alpha^{-1}_{-1} R^{3/2} M_8 \ {\rm s},$$ where a typical value of $\alpha = 0.1 \alpha_{-1}$ has been used. These thermal timescales are of the order of days for $10^8 M_{\odot}$ BHs and are comparable to $t_{sound}$.
One of the most interesting longer timescales is related to the rate at which matter flows through the AD. This viscous timescale is simple to estimate if we stick to the $\alpha$-disk approximation (e.g. Czerny 2004): $$t_{visc} \simeq t_{th}\Bigl(\frac{r}{h}\Bigr)^2 = 2 \times 10^6 \alpha^{-1}_{-1}
\Bigl(\frac{r}{h_{-1}}\Bigr)^2 R^{3/2} M_8 \ {\rm s},$$ where we have assumed a typical value of $h = 0.1 h_{-1}$. Thus, substantial variations in flux over months to years (for $M_8 \sim 1$), could be related to viscous processes.
If there is an ADAF, with a hot inner flow and a cold outer disk, or if there is a strong X-ray producing corona sandwiching a standard thin disk, then the transition radius, $r_t$, may slowly change with time, either by evaporation or by a significant outflow of gas. The key question becomes: how fast can the cold disk be removed? In either event, the disk temperature must rise to roughly the virial temperature, and enough energy to perform this heating must be stored up in the disk. For an $\alpha$-disk, this gives $t_{evap} \equiv t_{visc}$, but more generally and realistically it can be shown that (Czerny 2004) $$t_{evap} \simeq 1000 \Bigl(\frac{r_t}{100 r_s}\Bigr)^2 {\dot m}_{-1} M_8 \ {\rm yr},$$ where the accretion rate, ${\dot m}_{-1}$ has been normalized to 0.1 of that needed to produce $L_E$: ${\dot m} \equiv {\dot M}/{\dot M_E}$. For reasonable values of $r_t$, such variations could only be relevant (over the decadal periods we can observe AGN) for relatively low values of BH mass or ${\dot M}$, such as those associated with Seyferts. But given the massive galactic hosts of most blazars (at least for $z > 0.5$; Kotilainen et al. 2005) and the nearly linear relation between galactic halo mass and that of the central BH, this timescale is likely to exceed $10^3$ yr for blazars.
The longest interesting timescale, $t_{fuel}$, is that over which the accretion rate changes through differences in the amount of gas available to the BH. While an occasional gas bolus may be come from a star disrupted in the vicinity of the BH, the fundamental availability time is comparable to the lifetime of the AGN phenomenon itself. Fueling should be driven by processes related to galactic mergers or harassment and will typically be $t_{fuel} \sim 10^7$–$10^8$ yr.
Physical Mechanisms for Accretion Disk Variability
==================================================
The radiation pressure instability has long been known to afflict $\alpha$-disks (Shakura & Sunyaev 1976). Since AGN ADs should be radiation pressure dominated over substantial ranges in $r$ and ${\dot M}$ this instability should yield fluctuations in emission, although it is unlikely to disrupt the disk. Recent simulations of these variations produce substantial flares on timescales of $t_{visc}(\sim 100 r_s)$ (e.g. Teresi et al. 2004). This class of variation may be the appropriate explanation for fluctuations in the microquasar GRS 1915+105 (Teresi et al. 2004) over minute timescales. If scaled to AGN masses, the radiation pressure instability may yield big AD outbursts from the X-ray through IR over years to decades.
The magneto-rotational instability (MRI) is now commonly agreed to be present in all ADs (e.g. Balbus & Hawley 1991). The MRI rapidly amplifies seed magnetic fields and is very likely to provide the dominant viscosity in most ADs, providing an effective, but fluctuating, $\alpha \sim 0.01$–$0.1$ (e.g. Armitage 1998; Miller & Stone 2000). These MRIs will produce strong turbulence which can yield significant changes in both the production of heat energy and effective $\dot M$ on rapid (a few $t_{dyn}(r_{ms})$) timescales, or hours for a $10^8 M_{\odot}$ BH, as shown by recent simulations (Armitage & Reynolds 2003). While they should also produce some disk clumping and some larger variations on longer timescales, the MRI is unlikely to destroy the disk. Changes in line profiles associated with ADs also may be produced by MRI.
The double-humped emission lines detected in $\sim 10$% of AGN spectra (e.g. Strateva et al. 2003) are frequently observed to show changes in the relative heights of the red and blue humps. These changes, and the shapes of the features themselves, are best explained by spiral shocks in ADs (Chakrabarti & Wiita 1994). The perturbation of a disk by a smaller BH in the vicinity of the AD can efficiently drive these shocks. These spiral shocks can also produce factor of a few variations in the AD emission on the orbital timescales of the perturbers, which, however, would typically be decades or longer (Chakrabarti & Wiita 1993).
Because ADs are almost certainly magnetized, there is a high probability that they are sheathed by coronae, which are certain to contribute substantially to the X-ray emission and should have some role to play in other bands. While understanding of coronal structure formation above ADs is still a long way off, simulations of MRI do illustrate the formation of large loops over the course of several $t_{dyn}$ (e.g. Miller & Stone 2000). These coronal structures probably play a significant part in the X-ray emission and variability of Seyfert galaxies, but their importance for quasars and blazars is much less clear. The variations in energy that can be released from coronal flares are probably too small to be detected, particularly outside the X-ray band, in that individual flares are limited in their powers (e.g. Krishan et al. 2003). Still, large groups of coordinated flares, produced by an avalanche mechanism or other form of self-organized-criticality (e.g. Mineshige et al. 1994) can produce the optical power-spectrum density observed in many AGN (Xiong et al. 2000).
Jets and Blazar Variability
===========================
As this key topic is the focus of many other papers in this volume, including those by M. Aller, B[ö]{}ttcher, Georganopoulos, Joshi, and Kazanas, here I make only a few general points. My focus is on two questions: Is there a need for coherent emission from blazar jets? Can subluminal VLBI motions be reconciled with TeV emission from blazars?
Clearly, relativistic shocks propagating down jets can explain much of the gross radio through optical variations via boosted synchrotron emission. Turbulence, instabilities, and magnetic inhomogeneities can probably explain the bulk of rapid variations. The inverse Compton (IC) mechanism, invoked either through synchrotron self-Compton, external Compton, or decelerating jets can explain particular observed high energy variations with respect to low energy ones. Still, no relatively simple model seems able to explain most broad band observations, and perhaps multiple sources of IC seed photons are needed.
Compact radio sources with intrinsic brightness temperatures, $T_{B,int} > 10^{11}$K exceed the self-absorbed source IC catastrophe limit (Singal & Gopal-Krishna 1985). Early observations of intraday variability (IDV) at cm-wavelengths seemed to imply $T_B \sim 10^{21}$K. Bulk relativistic motions with [*very*]{} high Lorentz factors ($\Gamma\equiv (1-\beta^2)^{-1/2} \sim 10^3$) are required to bring these into accord, as a factor of $\Gamma^3$ converts the intrinsic $T_B$ into the observed one. While these huge $\Gamma$ factors prevent the production of too many X-rays, they do so at the cost of very low synchrotron radiative efficiencies, and thus demand very high jet powers. This problem seemed to go away when later observations showed that most IDV is due to refractive interstellar scintillation (e.g. Kedziora-Chudczer et al. 2001); then $T_{B,int} \sim 10^{13}$K so modest $\Gamma$’s ($\sim 30$) remove the catastrophe. But a recent unpublished claim that the blazar J1819+3845 shows diffractive scintillation with a size $< 10 \mu$as (Macquart & de Bruyn 2005) implies $T_{B,int} \gg 10^{14}$K; if true, $\Gamma > 10^3$ is needed to allow incoherent synchrotron emission.
Coherent radiation induced by strong Langmuir turbulence in AGN jets can produce the needed huge $T_B$’s without requiring such extreme Lorentz factors (e.g. Krishan & Wiita 1990), but such coherent models (implicitly) assume $\nu_{plasma} > \nu_{cyclotron}$. Recently Begelman et al. (2005) have argued that the opposite is much more likely to be the case in blazar jets. Begelman et al. (2005) propose that many transient small-scale magnetic mirrors can be produced from hydromagnetic instabilities, shocks or turbulence. The electrons accelerated along these converging flux tubes can quite naturally produce the population inversion needed for a cyclotron maser. Fundamentally, this class of maser is pumped by turning kinetic and magnetic energy into ${\vec j}\cdot{\vec E}$ work. If future observations do wind up supporting the need for coherent emission processes in blazars, this cyclotron maser mechanism appears to be quite promising.
The only semi-direct probe of extragalactic jet speed comes from VLBI knot apparent motions, and quite surprisingly, $> 30\%$ of these turn out to be subluminal ($\beta_{app} < 1$) for TeV emitting blazars (Piner & Edwards 2004). On the other hand, to avoid excessive photon-photon collisions, these TeV blazars require ultrarelativistic jets (Krawczynski et al. 2002) with $15 < \delta < 100$; $\delta =
[\Gamma(1-\beta {\rm cos}\theta)]^{-1}$, with $\theta$ our viewing angle to the jet. Taking into account IR background absorption strongly implies $45 < \delta$ (Kazanas, these proceeding). And, while rare (Lister, these proceedings) some $\beta_{app} > 25$ components are seen in EGRET blazars (Piner et al., these proceedings).
Several ways have been proposed to reconcile the high $\delta$ factors with low apparent speeds. The leading idea is that jets might have fast cores (spines) which give rise to the $\gamma$-ray emission via IC while slower outer layers (sheaths) produce the radio knot emission (e.g. Ghisellini et al. 2005). Alternatively, jets could rapidly decelerate between sub-pc ($\gamma$-ray) and pc (VLBI knot) scales (Georganopoulos, Kazanas, these proceedings). Also, a few such cases could arise from viewing angles to within $\sim 1^{\circ}$, but there are too many slow knots for this to be the main explanation. Finally, it must be recalled that some of the motions may reflect pattern, not physical, speeds (Hardee, these proceedings).
We (Gopal-Krishna et al. 2004) have recently shown another way to reconcile the very high $\Gamma$s preferred by IC and variability arguments with the low $\beta_{app}$ values seen in TeV blazar jets. Instead of assuming that the jets are cylindrical as was done in all previous models, we allow them to have small opening angles, $\omega$. The resulting slightly different viewing angles to the finite jet emitting region require the computation of weighted fluxes and weighted $\beta_{app}$ values. The apparent transverse speeds peak at lower values and at significantly higher $\theta$ than for cylindrical jets (upper panels, Fig. 1). We find many sources with $\beta_{app} < 1$ and only a few with $\beta_{app} \sim \Gamma$ if $\Gamma > 25$ and $\omega > 5^{\circ}$ (lower panels, Fig. 1).
No Fundamental Difference Between Blazars and All Other AGN?
============================================================
We have recently completed an extensive monitoring campaign of optical microvariability for a group of 25 powerful AGN (Gopal-Krishna et al. 2003; Sagar et al. 2004; Stalin et al. 2004a,b). This program involved sets, matched in optical luminosity and redshift, of: radio-quiet quasars (RQQs); lobe-dominated radio-loud quasars (LDQs); core-dominated radio-loud quasars (CDQs); and BL Lacertae objects (BLLs). In the standard unified scheme, the first two groups should not be affected by beaming, but the latter two would be called blazars. Although there had been various earlier microvariability studies also using CCD differential photometry of most of these different classes, discrepant results were reported, particularly for RQQs. I believe all earlier results were suspect, because of poor choices of objects, comparison stars, observing techniques, or data reductions. We are confident that our observing techniques, which always involved at least 4 hours of frequent monitoring per source per night, along with our careful reductions, have often provided highly significant detections of variations as small as $\sim 0.01$ mag over the course of several hours.
One main result of this work is to confirm that BL Lacs (and the one high-polarization CDQ in our sample) show a high duty cycle for microvariability ($\sim$ 60%). These blazars showed variations of up to $\sim 0.14$ mag in the course of a single night (Sagar et al. 2004).
A more important result was the first clear detection of microvariability on several nights for different RQQs (Gopal-Krishna et al. 2003; Stalin et al. 2004a). Furthermore, the duty cycles for RQQs, LDQs and (low-polarization) CDQs were all $\sim$ 20% (Stalin et al. 2004a,b). All of the observed microvariations for these non-blazars ranged between 0.01 and 0.03 mag. The properties of the microvariability in RQQs and LDQs were indistinguishable in our studies, which would be unexpected if these optical variations were arising in jets, in that the RQQs were all very weak in the radio band. Our original motivation for searching for RQQ microvariability was the expectation that, if any were found, it could be logically attributed to AD fluctuations. Still, all of these new results can be understood in terms of the standard beaming picture, where the BLLs and high-polarization CDQs are viewed at small angles to the line-of-sight and the RQQs and LDQs are viewed at larger angles. The Doppler enhancement of the amplitude of the variations and the Lorentz time-dilation for sources viewed at small $\theta$ together can provide for the higher duty cycles and more powerful amplitude distributions of microvariability for the blazars, even if their rest-frame characteristics are identical to those of the non-blazars (Gopal-Krishna et al. 2003; Stalin et al. 2004a).
One possible explanation of this microvariation unification is that all these classes of AGN do possess jets, which, on sufficiently small scales, yield fluctuations which are seen in the optical; however, in RQQs these jets are somehow quenched before significant radio emission is produced. Another possibility is that these fluctuations do originate in the ADs, and are seen unbeamed from non-blazars; in the case of blazars these fluctuations propagate into jets launched from the ADs and are amplified by the relativistic motion. Additional observations will be needed to distinguish between these hypotheses.
Conclusions
===========
Accretion disks exist in all AGN, including blazars. They can contribute noticeable amounts to the fluxes emerging from blazars, at least in the IR–X-ray bands. Since ADs must vary on timescales we can observe, some fraction of detected blazar variability can arise from ADs. There are several ways to reconcile low VLBI knot speeds with high Lorentz factors in TeV blazars; if several degree opening angles are present, no variations in jet speed are necessary to do so. Microvariability of RQQs and blazars can be interpreted as arising from the same process; this either implies that jets are present in all AGN or that variations produced in a disk may be carried into, and amplified by, jets.
I thank my collaborators, G. Bao, P. Barai, S. K. Chakrabarti, S. Dhurde, Gopal-Krishna, V. Krishan, S. Ramadurai, R. Sagar, C. S. Stalin and Y. Xiong. I am most grateful for hospitality at Princeton University and acknowledge support from NASA, NSF and RPE funds at GSU.
Armitage, P. J. 1998, ApJ, 501, L189 Armitage, P. J., & Reynolds, C. S. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1041 Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 560 Begelman, M. C., Ergun, R. E., & Rees, M. J. 2005, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0502151) Chakrabarti, S. K. 1996, ApJ, 464, 664 Chakrabarti, S. K., & Wiita, P. J. 1993, ApJ, 411, 602 Chakrabarti, S. K., & Wiita, P. J. 1994, ApJ, 434, 518 Chen, X., Abramowicz, M. A., Lasota, J.-P., Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 428, L61 Czerny, B. 2004, in AGN Variability from X-rays to Radio, in press (astro-ph/0409254) Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., & Chiaberge, M. 2005, A&A, 432, 401 Gopal-Krishna, Dhurde, S. & Wiita, P. J. 2004, ApJ, 615, L81 Gopal-Krishna, Stalin, C. S., Sagar, R., & Wiita, P. J. 2003, ApJ, 586, L25 Kedziora-Chudczer, L. L., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1411 Kishimoto, M., Antonucci, R., Boisson, C., & Blaes, O. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1065 Kotilainen, J. K., Hyv[ö]{}nen, T., & Falomo, R. 2005, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0505443) Krawczynski, H., Coppi, P. S., & Aharonian, F., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 721 Krishan, V., & Wiita, P. J. 1990, MNRAS, 246, 597 Krishan, V., Ramadurai, S. & Wiita, P. J. 2003, A&A, 398, 819 Miller, K. A., & Stone, J. M. 2000, ApJ, 534, 398 Mineshige, S., Ouchi, B. N., & Nishimori, H. 1994, PASJ, 46, 97 Paczy[ń]{}ski, B., & Wiita, P. J. 1980, A&A, 88, 23 Piner, B. G., & Edwards, P. G. 2004, ApJ, 600, 15 Raiteri, C. M. et al. 2005, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0503312) Rees, M. J., Phinney, E.S., Begelman, M.C., & Blandford, R.D. 1982, Nature, 295, 17 Reynolds, C. S., & Nowak, M. A. 2003, Phys. Rep. 377, 389 Sagar, R., Stalin, C. S., Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 176 Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 613 Singal, K. A., & Gopal-Krishna 1985, MNRAS, 215, 383 Stalin, C. S., Gopal-Krishna, Sagar, R., & Wiita, P. J. 2004a, MNRAS, 350, 175 Stalin, C. S., Gopal-Krishna, Sagar, R., & Wiita, P. J. 2004b, JApA, 25, 1 Strateva, I. et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 1720 Teresi, V., Molteni, D., & Toscano, E. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 297 Xiong, Y., Wiita, P. J., & Bao, G. 2000, PASJ, 52, 1097
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Matthew Dowling, Jorge Mond[é]{}jar, and Andrzej Czarnecki\
University of Alberta, Department of Physics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G7\
E-mail: , , ,
title: |
\
Two-loop corrections to the Lamb shift
---
Introduction
============
The Lamb shift in hydrogen was discovered in 1947 [@Lamb:1947]. Since then, developments in spectroscopy have led to very precise experimental values for the $1S$ Lamb shift [@Berkeland:1995; @Weitz:1995zz; @Bourzeix:1996zz; @Udem:1997zz; @Schwob:1999zz], making it the best test of Quantum Electrodynamics for an atom. On the theory side, much effort has been put into the calculation of higher order corrections to match the experimental precision (cf. Ref. [@Eides:2000xc] for a review of the theory of light hydrogen-like atoms).
In the perturbative calculation it is important to correctly account for the presence of three different small parameters. $Z\alpha$ describes the binding effects of an electron to a nucleus with charge number $Z$. Self-interactions of the electron lead to additional powers of $\alpha$, but not of $Z$. Therefore, it is useful to keep a generic $Z$ to distinguish the two different effects, even though our main application is hydrogen where $Z$ is equal to one. The third small parameter is the ratio of electron and nucleus masses, $m/M$. The Lamb shift is of order $\alpha(Z\alpha)^4$. Corrections also include logarithms of $Z\alpha$ and $m/M$. At present, all second-order corrections in $\alpha$ and $Z\alpha$ are known, as well as some third order ones [@Pachucki:2001zz; @Eides:2006hg].
Another important correction is due to the spatial distribution of the nuclear charge. At the moment, the theoretical prediction for hydrogen is limited by the uncertainty in the measurement of the proton root mean square charge radius. However, new measurements [@Antognini:2005; @Lauss:2009ng] of the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen are expected to improve the knowledge of this parameter, soon. The advantage of muonic hydrogen is the greater sensitivity to the proton charge distribution due to the larger mass, and thus stronger binding, of the muon.
Here we present a new calculation of the second-order non-recoil corrections of order $\alpha^{2}(Z\alpha)^{5}$. The full result for these corrections was presented first in Ref. [@Pachucki:1994] and improved in Refs. [@Eides:1995ey; @Eides:1995gy]. Our result [@Dowling:2009md] is compatible with the previous ones and has better precision.
Calculation\[sec::calc\]
========================
![\[fig::eff\]The effective propagator for the interaction with the nucleus. Wavy and double lines denote photons and the nucleus, respectively.](figs/eff.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Since we are only interested in non-recoil corrections, we consider the scattering of an on-shell electron with an on-shell nucleus, where both external momenta have vanishing space-like components. Furthermore, we only have to calculate the leading term in the expansion around $M\to\infty$. In this particular case we can simplify the interaction with the nucleus when we consider the diagram with direct photon exchange together with the diagram with crossed photon exchange, as depicted in Fig. \[fig::eff\]. In the infinite mass limit, the nucleus propagators become static propagators. However, due to the different momentum flow in the two diagrams, the sum of the two becomes the difference of two terms which differ only in the sign of the ${i\varepsilon}$ prescription of these propagators. Neglecting the Dirac structure, we have $$\frac{1}{(N+k)^2 - M^2 + {i\varepsilon}} + \frac{1}{(N-k)^2 - M^2 + {i\varepsilon}}
\stackrel{M\to\infty}{\to} \frac{1}{2N\cdot k + {i\varepsilon}} -
\frac{1}{2N\cdot k - {i\varepsilon}} = \frac{i\pi}{M} \delta(k^0) \,,$$ where $N = (M,\vec{0})$ and $k$ are the nucleus and photon momentum, respectively. The latter is considered to scale like the electron mass, which is much smaller than the nucleus mass. Thus, we have to compute three-loop electron self-energy diagrams with two photons and one effective propagator, which is defined by Fig \[fig::eff\]. Sample diagrams are depicted in Fig. \[fig::dias\].
![\[fig::dias\]Sample diagrams. Solid, wavy, and dotted lines denote electrons, photons, and the effective propagator, respectively.](figs/dias.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Our calculation proceeds as follows. We use [QGRAF]{} [@Nogueira:1991ex] to generate the Feynman diagrams, and [q2e]{} and [exp]{} [@Harlander:1997zb; @Seidensticker:1999bb] to turn them into [FORM]{} [@Vermaseren:2000nd] readable code. Finally, we use [MATAD3]{} [@Steinhauser:2000ry] to do the Dirac algebra and express all diagrams in terms of scalar integrals, using self-made routines. The next step is the reduction to so-called master integrals using integration-by-parts identities [@Tkachov:1981wb; @Chetyrkin:1981qh]. For this we use the program [FIRE]{} [@Smirnov:2008iw], which is a [Mathematica]{} implementation of the so-called Laporta algorithm [@Laporta:1996mq; @Laporta:2001dd].
Sample master integrals are depicted in Fig. \[fig::masters\]. We used different methods for their evaluation. Simpler integrals like the one in Fig. \[fig::masters\]$(a)$ were computed with the Mellin-Barnes method [@Smirnov:1999gc; @Tausk:1999vh], using the [Mathematica]{} packages [MB]{} [@Czakon:2005rk] and [MBresolve]{} [@Smirnov:2009up]. For more complicated integrals, we used sector decomposition [@Binoth:2000ps; @Binoth:2003ak], as implemented in the program [FIESTA]{} [@Smirnov:2008py; @Smirnov:2009pb]. The most complicated master integral is the one in Fig. \[fig::masters\]$(c)$. Fortunately, this integral is finite, and we were able to derive a Feynman-parameter representation which could be integrated with the help of the [Cuba]{} library [@Hahn:2004fe]. Results for all master integrals are given in Ref. [@Dowling:2009md].
![\[fig::masters\]Sample master integrals. Solid and dashed lines denote scalar massive and massless propagators, respectively. Dotted double lines denote the delta function.](figs/masters.eps){width="80.00000%"}
Results\[sec::res\]
===================
In order to present our final result, we split the Feynman diagrams into two subsets: diagrams with closed electron loops (cf. Fig. \[fig::dias\]$(a)$ and $(b)$) are denoted by the subscript $vp$, and diagrams without closed electron loops (cf. Fig. \[fig::dias\]$(c)$ and $(d)$) are denoted by the subscript $nvp$. Our results for the corresponding energy shifts are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta E_{vp} & = & \frac{\alpha^{2}(Z\alpha)^{5}}{\pi n^{3}} \left(
\frac{\mu}{m} \right)^{3} m \, [ 0.86281422(3) ] \,, \\
\delta E_{nvp} & = & \frac{\alpha^{2}(Z\alpha)^{5}}{\pi n^{3}} \left(
\frac{\mu}{m} \right)^{3} m \, [ -7.72381(4) ] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu = mM/(m+M)$ denotes the reduced mass of the atom, and $n$ is the principal quantum number. Results for individual diagrams can be found in Ref. [@Dowling:2009md].
The best results for the two subsets prior to our calculation have been published in Ref. [@Pachucki:1993zz] (cf. Ref. [@Eides:2000xc] for references of partial results) and Ref. [@Eides:1995ey], respectively. Our results agree with the previous ones within the error bars. However, we improve the precision by two orders of magnitude for $\delta E_{vp}$, and a little over one order of magnitude for $\delta
E_{nvp}$.
The total result reads $$\delta E = \frac{\alpha^{2}(Z\alpha)^{5}}{\pi n^{3}} \left(
\frac{\mu}{m} \right)^{3} m \, [ -6.86100(4) ] \,,$$ and the corresponding energy shifts for the $1S$ and the $2S$ states in hydrogen are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta E_{1S} & = & -296.866(2)\,\mbox{kHz}\,,\\
\delta E_{2S} & = & -37.1082(3)\,\mbox{kHz}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We are grateful to A.V. and V.A. Smirnov for providing us with a beta version of [FIESTA 2]{} prior to publication. JHP thanks the organisers of “RADCOR 2009” for an interesting conference. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Alberta Ingenuity Foundation. The Feynman diagrams were drawn using `Axodraw` [@Vermaseren:1994je] and `Jaxodraw 2` [@Binosi:2008ig].
[99]{}
W. E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford, Phys. Rev. [**72**]{} (1947) 241. D. J. Berkeland, E. A. Hinds and M. G. Boshier, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 2470. M. Weitz [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{} (1995) 2664. S. Bourzeix [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{} (1996) 384. T. Udem, A. Huber, B. Gross, J. Reichert, M. Prevedelli, M. Weitz and T. W. H[ä]{}nsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 2646. C. Schwob [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{} (1999) 4960. M. I. Eides, H. Grotch and V. A. Shelyuto, Phys. Rept. [**342**]{} (2001) 63 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0002158\]. K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A [**63**]{} (2001) 042503. M. I. Eides and V. A. Shelyuto, Can. J. Phys. [**85**]{} (2007) 509 \[arXiv:physics/0612244\]. A. Antognini [*et al*]{}., AIP Conf. Proc. [**796**]{} (2005) 253. B. Lauss, Nucl. Phys. A [**827**]{} (2009) 401C \[arXiv:0902.3231 \[nucl-ex\]\]. K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72** (1994) 3154. M. I. Eides and V. A. Shelyuto, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{} (1995) 954 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9501303\]. M. I. Eides and V. A. Shelyuto, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**61**]{} (1995) 465 \[JETP Lett. [**61**]{} (1995) 478\]. M. Dowling, J. Mond[é]{}jar, J. H. Piclum and A. Czarnecki, arXiv:0911.4078 \[hep-ph\]. P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys. [**105**]{} (1993) 279. R. Harlander, T. Seidensticker and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B [**426**]{} (1998) 125 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9712228\]. T. Seidensticker, arXiv:hep-ph/9905298. J. A. M. Vermaseren, arXiv:math-ph/0010025. M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**134**]{} (2001) 335 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0009029\]; URL: http://www-ttp.particle.uni-karlsruhe.de/\~ms/software.html. F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. B [**100**]{} (1981) 65. K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, Nucl. Phys. B [**192**]{} (1981) 159. S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, Phys. Lett. B [**379**]{} (1996) 283 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9602417\]. S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**15**]{} (2000) 5087 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0102033\]. A. V. Smirnov, JHEP [**0810**]{} (2008) 107 \[arXiv:0807.3243 \[hep-ph\]\]. V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B [**460**]{} (1999) 397 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905323\]. J. B. Tausk, Phys. Lett. B [**469**]{} (1999) 225 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9909506\]. M. Czakon, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**175**]{} (2006) 559 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0511200\]. A. V. Smirnov and V. A. Smirnov, Eur. Phys. J. C [**62**]{} (2009) 445 \[arXiv:0901.0386 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Binoth and G. Heinrich, Nucl. Phys. B [**585**]{} (2000) 741 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0004013\]. T. Binoth and G. Heinrich, Nucl. Phys. B [**680**]{} (2004) 375 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0305234\]. A. V. Smirnov and M. N. Tentyukov, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**180**]{} (2009) 735 \[arXiv:0807.4129 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Tentyukov, arXiv:0912.0158 \[hep-ph\]. T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**168**]{} (2005) 78 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0404043\]. K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A [**48**]{} (1993) 2609. J. A. M. Vermaseren, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**83**]{} (1994) 45. D. Binosi, J. Collins, C. Kaufhold and L. Theussl, Comput. Phys. Commun. **180**, 1709 (2009) \[arXiv:0811.4113 \[hep-ph\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'DNA code design aims to generate a set of DNA sequences (codewords) with minimum likelihood of undesired hybridizations among sequences and their reverse-complement (RC) pairs (cross-hybridization). Inspired by the distinct hybridization affinities (or stabilities) of perfect double helix constructed by individual single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) and its RC pair, we propose a novel similarity significance (SS) model to measure the similarity between DNA sequences. Particularly, instead of directly measuring the similarity of two sequences by any metric/approach, the proposed SS works in a way to evaluate how more likely will the undesirable hybridizations occur over the desirable hybridizations in the presence of the two measured sequences and their RC pairs. With this SS model, we construct thermodynamically stable DNA codes subject to several combinatorial constraints using a sorting-based algorithm. The proposed scheme results in DNA codes with larger code sizes and wider free energy gaps (hence better cross-hybridization performance) compared to the existing methods.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: '[Thermodynamically Stable DNA Code Design using a Similarity Significance Model]{}'
---
Introduction
============
DNA code is an ensemble of $q$-ary ($q=4$) $n$-sequences subject to combinatorial biological constraints and with controlled maximum similarity among sequences and their reverse-complement (RC) pairs. Such sequences are sought after for wide applications including DNA computing [@adleman1994molecular], DNA memory, and DNA data storage [@organick2018random; @wang2019high]. The theoretical bound of DNA codes satisfying combinatorial biochemical constraints, such as GC content, word-word distance, and word-reverse complementary word distance have been explored in [@marathe2001combinatorial; @king2003bounds; @chee2008improved]. Concurrently, several code construction approaches have been proposed, including template-based construction [@arita2002dna; @kobayashi2002template; @king2007binary], search algorithm-based construction [@deaton1996genetic; @tulpan2002stochastic; @wang2018constructing], and coding theoretic construction [@gaborit2005linear; @milenkovic2005design].
In DNA code design, one major criterion to be controlled is the maximum similarity or minimum distance between DNA sequences or/and their reverse-complement (RC) sequences (i.e., DNA strands in the physical entity). This criterion has a significant impact on the cross-hybridization performance of a DNA code that can be evaluated thermodynamically. Conventionally, thermodynamic-based models and distance models have been used for DNA code construction, of which the latter approach is recognized with lower complexity [@phan2009codeword]. In particular, Hamming distance model has been widely used in theoretic-based code design [@gaborit2005linear; @marathe2001combinatorial; @king2003bounds; @chee2008improved; @tulpan2002stochastic; @kawashimo2006dna], while edit distance model has been either adopted in a straight-forward fashion [@wang2018constructing; @d2005new; @bennenni2019greedy] or generalized to pairwise alignment algorithms [@altschul1990basic] that are widely implemented in biological software [@wang2003selection; @nielsen2003design; @xu2009design; @ye2012primer]. In a nutshell, the existing similarity/distance models might discriminate in obtaining or quantifying the similarity value while they are all built upon directly comparing two unique sequences that are under consideration. In contrast, we introduce a new similarity significance (SS) model that involves not only the two compared sequences but also their RC pairs. In this model, the RC pairs are considered as the reference pairs for quantifying the affinity-mediate similarity of the two comparing sequences.
With the proposed SS model, we designed DNA codes using a maximum SS constraint to restrain the cross-hybridization performance of a set of synthesized DNA strands (i.e., the code). Specifically, by using SS, the similarity of two different DNA strands (e.g., $u, v$) is determined by evaluating how more likely will one strand ($u$ or $v$) hybridize with the RC pair of the other strand (denoted by $v'$ or $u'$) than hybridizing with its RC pair ($u'$ or $v'$). This differs from the classic sequence comparison approach where distance/similarity metrics are directly used to determine how similar two DNA sequences are. To quantify the SS of two sequences, we used a sequence alignment between two sequences with a biased similarity weight allocation for DNA symbols that are identical under the alignment. By a sorting-based exhaustive search algorithm, the DNA codes are attained. The constructed DNA codewords satisfy the predefined maximum SS parameters while complying with the balanced GC content and maximum homopolymer run. The existence of codes with larger code sizes and wider free energy gaps (better cross-hybridization performance) using the SS model rather than traditional metrics and existing measure implies a better approximation towards the thermodynamic property.
Definition, Notation
====================
A hybridization conformation is a double helix formation which is produced from single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) strand(s) with two chemically distinct ends (i.e., 5’- end and 3’- end) under the Watson-Crick (WC) complement rule where adenine (A) binds with thymine (T) and cytosine (C) binds with guanine (G). For a DNA sequence denoted by $u$, the desirable hybridization is the perfect hybridization that occurs between $u$ and its WC RC pair (denoted by $u'$). For instance, $u$ = 5’-TTCCGAT-3’ and $u'$ = 5’-ATCGGAA-3’. All other $u$-involved hybridizations are considered undesirable to $u$, rendering the cross-hybridization. The stability of a hybridization conformation could be predicted by a thermodynamic metric, termed Gibbs free energy, in which a lower value (usually negative) implies a more stable/possible helix conformation [@phan2009codeword]. As such, the hybridization affinity of DNA strand(s) could be inferred by the minimum free/Gibbs energy (MFE) that stands for the most possible conformation structure of the considered ssDNA strand(s). For simplicity, $\Delta G$ is used to denote MFE in the following context.
Consider a DNA code $\mathcal{C}$ consisting of unique sequences (e.g., $u, v \in \mathcal{C}$), there are three categories of undesirable hybridizations that might occur to sequence $u$. First, a self-complement hybridization that occurs within $u$, e.g., $u$ folds with itself. Second, a sequence-sequence (tag-tag) hybridization, which occurs between $u$ and the other candidate ssDNA strand $v$. Third, a sequence-RC (tag-target) hybridization, in which $u$ hybridizes with the RC pair of the other candidate ssDNA strand ($v'$).
MFE is widely used to characterize the hybridization affinity between two ssDNA strands. To estimate the cross-hybridization performance of a DNA code (i.e., a set of DNA sequences), generalized thermodynamic criteria based on MFE have been proposed in [@shortreed2005thermodynamic; @zhang2013novel]. Similarly, we use the *free energy gap* ($\delta$) to evaluate a DNA code, which is defined by,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:free energy gap}
\setlength\belowdisplayskip{-10pt}
\begin{aligned}
&&\delta = \min\limits_{u\in\mathcal{C}}\{\min\limits_{v\in\mathcal{C}, v \neq u}\{\Delta G(u,u),\Delta G(u,v),\\
&&\Delta G(u,v'),\Delta G(u',v')\}-\Delta G(u,u')\}
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$
[where $\Delta G(u, v)$ represents the MFE of two unique sequences $u$ and $v$ that pertain to a DNA code $\mathcal{C}$, and $u'$ and $v'$ are the WC RC pairs of $u$ and $v$, respectively. In , the first three $\Delta G$s within the inner $\min\{.\}$ correspondingly refer to the MFE of three undesirable hybridizations of strand $u$ as mentioned, i.e., self-fold hybridization ($\Delta G(u, u)$), sequence-sequence hybridization ($\Delta G(u, v)$), and sequence-RC hybridization ($\Delta G(u, v')$). Conversely, the $\Delta G(u, u')$ out of the inner $\min\{.\}$ represents the MFE of the desirable hybridization of strand $u$ (i.e., the complete duplex formation with its RC pair $u'$). Note that $\Delta G(u', v')$ which indicates the MFE of the undesirable hybridization constructed by the RC pairs of codeword strands (i.e., $u'$ and $v'$) is also included in (\[eq:free energy gap\]) to keep consistency with [@zhang2013novel]. Notably, $\delta$ used in this work is more stringent than the free energy gaps used in [@zhang2013novel] and [@shortreed2005thermodynamic], as their definitions exclude the MFE of self-fold hybridizations (i.e.,$\Delta G(u, u)$) and RC-RC hybridizations (i.e., $\Delta G(u', v')$), respectively. In this work, $\delta$ is calculated based on the MFEs attained from the online tool DINAMelt [@markham2005dinamelt]. According to , a larger $\delta$ represents a wider gap between the free energies of the desirable and undesirable hybridizations, and thus indicating a better DNA code. Therefore, the free energy gap $\delta$ defined in can be used to evaluate the cross-hybridization performance of a DNA code.]{}
Proposed similarity significance (SS) model
===========================================
The proposed similarity significance (SS) is inspired by the distinct affinities of individual perfect hybridization (between the WC complement pair, i.e., an ssDNA and its RC) and the definition of the free energy gap of a DNA code (i.e., the MFE difference between undesirable hybridizations and desirable hybridizations).
Unlike the conventional measures (e.g., Hamming distance) which quantify the distance/similarity of two different DNA sequences, the proposed SS quantifies the significance of the *mutual similarity* between two different sequences (which is undesirable) over the *self similarity* between identical sequences or to say sequences with themselves (which is desirable). This model inherently aligns with the thermodynamic metric of the code, i.e., the free energy gap between the undesirable hybridizations and desirable hybridizations. Specifically, $\tau(u,v)$ is attained by computing the ratio of the similarity of sequences $u$ and $v$ against the similarity of the sequences $u$ and $u$ or the similarity of sequences $v$ and $v$. Naturally, $\tau(u,u)=\tau(v,v)=1$, which shares the same essence with the normalization in this respect. However, unlike the normalized similarity where the normalization coefficient, i.e., the denominator, is usually fixed as the length of the sequences or resolved by the sequence alignment, the denominator in SS depends on the individually varied affinities of the perfect WC conformations that relate to the compared sequences.
By definition, we compare the proposed SS model with the traditional similarity models. Consider two sequences $s_1, s_2$, the similarity measured by a standard similarity model can be formed by $$\begin{aligned}
%\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{-3pt}
%\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{-20pt}
\tau_{\text{std}}(s_1,s_2) = \xi(s_1, s_2)
\label{eq:standard model}\end{aligned}$$ [in which $\xi(s_1, s_2)$ is obtained by comparing sequences $s_1$ and $s_2$ with any customized similarity model, such as Hamming model and Edit model.]{}
Likely, the similarity measured by a normalized similarity model can be formed by $$\begin{aligned}
%\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{-3pt}
%\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{-20pt}
\tau_{\text{norm}}(s_1,s_2) = \frac{\xi(s_1, s_2)}{M(s_1, s_2)}
\label{eq:normalized model}\end{aligned}$$ [in which $\xi(s_1, s_2)$ is same as (\[eq:standard model\]) and $M(s_1, s_2)$ is the normalization parameter that might depend on the alignment or the length of the two comparing sequences.]{}
In contrast, the similarity measured by the SS model is formed by $$\begin{aligned}
%\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{-3pt}
%\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{-20pt}
\tau(s_1,s_2) = \frac{\xi_{\text{w}}(s_1, s_2)}{\text{max}\{\xi_{\text{w}}(s_1, s_1), \xi_{\text{w}}(s_2, s_2)\}}
\label{eq:SS model}\end{aligned}$$ [in which $\xi_{\text{w}}(.,.)$ is obtained by comparing two sequences similar as $\xi(.,.)$ in (\[eq:standard model\]) while it differs from (\[eq:standard model\]) in quantification. To obtain $\xi_{\text{w}}(.,.)$ in (\[eq:SS model\]), a weighted similarity allocation (WSA) mechanism is indispensable. The WSA is built upon the biochemical characteristics, and it is of critical importance as it discriminates the SS from the normalized similarity.]{}
Quantifying similarity using SS model
-------------------------------------
The key concept of SS is to measure the similarity of two unique DNA sequences by quantifying the relative likelihood of undesirable hybridizations against perfect WC hybridizations with the presence of both sequences and their RC pairs. Particularly, the likelihood of hybridizations could be measured by thermodynamic models or approximated by any similarity model that reflects the distinct hybridization affinities. Hence, any existing measure that could differentiate the affinity of hybridizations among sequences could be used as the basis of SS computation [@altschul1990basic; @d2004weighted; @bishop2007free; @macula2008new; @d2014dna]. Here, we use a best alignment criteria (BAC) and a weighted similarity allocation (WSA) for quantifying similarity using SS, where the BAC initials the base-pair comparison, and the WSA discriminates the SS from the normalized similarity. There are four steps in SS computation. First, a BAC will be applied to determine the best alignment between two compared sequences. Then, based on the WSA mechanism, the similarity score is attained under the best alignment. Next, the similarity scores of each sequence with itself are calculated using the WSA mechanism. Lastly, the ratio of the score in step 2 to the minimum score in step 3 is calculated as the result. Before presenting the formal formulation of the proposed SS, the BAC and the WSA that form the basis of SS computation are briefly explained as follows.
The *best alignment criterion (BAC)* determines the best alignment of two DNA sequences (e.g., $u$ and $v$) in terms of approximating the alignment with which the most potential hybridization (between $u$ and $v'$) occurs. In an alignment, $l$ and $k$ denote the length of consecutively identical bases and the number of other identical bases between two compared sequences, respectively. With the insight of the biased effect of the continuous similarity $l$ over the discontinuous similarity $k$ on the conventional sequence alignment methods (e.g., BLAST [@altschul1990basic]), a BAC with priority to $l$ is used. Specifically, we derive the BAC by maximizing the continuous similarity while minimizing the dissimilarity using the objective function $f=l-(n-l-k)$, where $n$ is the length of the sequences, and $n-l-k$ is the dissimilarity. Let $L, K$ be the corresponding values of $l, k$ under the best alignment, the criterion can be summarized as, $$\begin{aligned}
(L,K)=\underset{(l,k)}{\arg\max}f(l,k)=\{(l,k) \mid f(l,k) = 2l+k \}
\label{eq:newbestalignment}\end{aligned}$$
The *weighted similarity allocation (WSA)* mechanism gives biased similarity scores to aligned base pairs that compose bases from the compared sequences. The aligned base-pair can be identified as identical base-pair or distinct base-pair. Only identical base-pairs are given non-zero similarity weights. Moreover, considering that the binding between G and C is tighter than A and T due to the three hydrogen bonds existing between G and C, the WSA allocates additional similarity weights to identical G or C base-pair whose last (or left) aligned base-pair is also an identical base-pair. Specifically, two additional weights $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are assigned to identical G/C base-pair whose last aligned base-pair is identical G/C base-pair and identical A/T base-pair, respectively. Henceforward, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are termed as *consecutive G/C weight* and *non-consecutive G/C weight*. Owing to this, the BAC related $l,k$ in (\[eq:newbestalignment\]) becomes $l(\alpha, \beta), k(\alpha, \beta)$, where $\alpha\in[0,1]$ and $\beta\in[0,1]$ are as defined. Hence, the similarity vector $\vec{S}(u,v)$ of each compared sequence pair ($u,v$) can be derived under the best alignment that has been determined by the BAC.
The entries of the vector $\vec{S}(.,.)$ are the similarity weights of the aligned base-pairs from left to right of the alignment (excluding the two overhang ends). Note that values of the additional weights $\alpha,\beta$ in the (undesirable) similarity vector of unique sequences (i.e., $\vec{S}(u,v,\alpha_1,\beta_1)$) and the (desirable) similarity vector of identical sequences (i.e., $\vec{S}(u,u,\alpha_2,\beta_2)$), can be inconsistent (i.e., $\alpha_1 \neq\alpha_2;\beta_1 \neq\beta_2$). Two instances of the similarity vectors are shown in Figure \[fig:similarity vector\], in which the best alignment region is gray-shadowed and the identical base-pairs under the best alignment are bold and italic. The $s_0$, $s_\alpha$, and $s_\beta$ correspondingly denote the state information transferred from the last aligned base-pair to the identical G/C base-pair for regulating the weight allocation. Specifically, $s_0$ indicates that there is no aligned base-pair in the left or the last/left aligned base-pair is not identical, thus no extra weight is added to the comparing identical G/C base-pair; $s_\alpha$ indicates that the left aligned base-pair is identical G base-pair or C base-pair, thus the *consecutive G/C weight* $\alpha$ is added to the comparing identical G/C base-pair; while $s_\beta$ indicates that the left is an identical A or T base-pair, thus the *non-consecutive G/C weight* $\beta$ is added to the comparing base-pair.
![Two examples of similarity vectors under best alignments.[]{data-label="fig:similarity vector"}](similarity_vector.png){width="45.00000%"}
With the similarity vector under the best alignment of two comparing sequences, the similarity score is obtained by accumulating the entries of the vector. According to the above-discussed definition of the SS, the SS $\tau(u,v)$ of two different sequences (i.e., $u\neq v$) of length $n$ is the ratio of undesirable similarity score (between $u$ and $v$ ) against the minimal desirable similarity score (between $u$ and $u$ or $v$ and $v$), and can be formulated by, $$\begin{aligned}
%\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-2pt}
\begin{aligned}
&\tau(u,v)=\tau(v,u) \\ & =\frac{\sum\limits^{n-\epsilon}\vec{S}(u,v,\alpha_1,\beta_1)}{\min \{\sum\limits^{n} \vec{S}(u,u,\alpha_2,\beta_2), \sum\limits^{n}\vec{S}(v,v,\alpha_2,\beta_2)\}}
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:similarity significance}\end{aligned}$$
[where $\sum\vec{S}(\cdot)$ denotes the accumulation of values in vector $\vec{S}(\cdot)$, in which the size of the vector is $n-\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is the length of overhanging bases with the best alignment. Note that for $\vec{S}(u,u,\alpha_2,\beta_2)$ and $\vec{S}(v,v,\alpha_2,\beta_2)$, $\epsilon=0$. ]{}
DNA codes with combinatorial constraints
========================================
We design DNA codes having combinatorial constraints using a sorting-based exhaustive search.
Code with balanced GC content and maximum homopolymer run constraints
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA sequences composing a balanced number of ’G’/’C’ and ’A’/’T’ symbols are desired by the parallel biological reactions because they are like to have a unified melting temperature ($T_m$). Besides, the maximum homopolymer run constraint that restricts the maximum allowable length of the consecutively repetitive symbols in the DNA sequence (named as continuity in [@shin2002evolutionary; @shin2005multiobjective; @zhang2013novel]), is also desirable for DNA code. Our previous result in [@wang2019construction] has shown an efficient construction of codes subject to these two constraints.
Code with minimum distance/maximum similarity
---------------------------------------------
The minimum distance (or maximum similarity) between sequences has been used as a constraint for the DNA code design [@gaborit2005linear; @marathe2001combinatorial; @king2003bounds; @chee2008improved; @tulpan2002stochastic; @kawashimo2006dna; @d2005new]. The sequence-sequence distance (SSD) and sequence-RC distance (SRCD), which correspondingly imply the sequence-RC hybridization affinity and sequence-sequence/RC-RC/self-fold hybridization affinity, are required to satisfy the predefined constraint. In this work, a similarity significance (SS) ($\tau$) is introduced to measure the similarity of two DNA sequences. Therefore, similar to previous works [@kawashimo2006dna; @phan2009codeword], the SS ($\tau$) could be categorized into the *sequence-sequence SS (SSSS)* and *sequence-RC SS (SRCSS)*. As such, the DNA code design problem can be summarized as searching for a set of constrained DNA sequences with length $n$ ($\mathcal{C} \subseteq A_4^n$) such that, $$\begin{aligned}
%\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{-3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{-20pt}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\max\limits_{u, v \in \mathcal{C}, u\neq v}\tau(u, v)\leq T_{th} & \\
\max\limits_{u, v \in \mathcal{C}}\tau(u, v')\leq T_{th} &
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:similarity}\end{aligned}$$
[where $A_4^n$ is the complete set of sequences of length $n$ with symbols from an alphabet set {A, T, C, G}; $\tau(u,v)$ and $\tau(u,v')$ are SSSS and SRCSS, respectively, with $u, v \in \mathcal{C}$; $T_{th}\in[0,1]$ is a predefined maximum SS parameter.]{}
With the approximated mapping existing in the SS measure $\tau$ and the MFE $\Delta G$, i.e.,$\tau(u,u')\leftrightarrow \Delta G(u,u); \tau(u,v')\leftrightarrow \Delta G(u,v),\Delta G(u',v'); \tau(u,v)\leftrightarrow \Delta G(u,v')$, the free energy gap $\delta$ defined in (\[eq:free energy gap\]) could be approximated using a SS gap $T_{gap}$ with a renewed formula in terms of $\tau$ as follows,
$$\begin{aligned}
%\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{-3pt}
%\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{-20pt}
\begin{aligned}
& T_{gap} = \max\limits_{u\in\mathcal{C}}\{\max\limits_{v\in\mathcal{C}, v \neq u}\{\tau(u,u'),\tau(u,v'),\tau(u,v)\} \\ &-\tau(u,u)\}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:similarity gap}\end{aligned}$$
[Since $\tau(u,u)=1$, (\[eq:similarity gap\]) becomes $T_{gap}=T_{th}-1$ for a DNA code generated based on (\[eq:similarity\]). Therefore, either $T_{th}$ or $T_{gap}$ can be set in advance for designing a DNA code. For simplicity, maximum SS $T_{th}$ was used as the design parameter in our DNA code design. ]{}
An exhaustive search of constrained DNA codes
---------------------------------------------
The initial candidate constrained DNA sequences are generated using our method in [@wang2019construction]. This constrained sequence initialization outperforms the random sequence initialization of most evolutionary search algorithms [@cervantes2013improving; @shin2005multiobjective] in terms of avoiding much search complexity. Leveraging by the initialization, the DNA code design problem is turned into an exhaustive search problem with the maximum SS $T_{th}$ as the only constraint. The following notations are used in Algorithm \[Algo: Search\]:
- $\mathcal{S}(n, w_{gc}, k)$: A set of $n$-length DNA sequences subject to GC content $w_{gc}\in (40\%, 60\%)$ and maximum homopolymer run $k=3$.
- $\mathcal{C}(n,T_{th})$: A set of n-length $(w_{gc},k)$ constrained DNA sequences with maximum SS $T_{th}$, i.e., DNA codes.
- $|.|$: The cardinality of a set.
- $s_i...s_j$: The sub-string starting from $i$th symbol to $j$th symbol of sequence $S$.
- $\mathcal{S}_x$: A subset of $\mathcal{S}(n, w_{gc}, k)$ built by grouping sequences with the same suffix, where x is an index indicator.
- $\mathcal{S}_x \leftrightarrow \mathcal{S}_y$: A neighboring group pair built by linking the groups with the minimum Hamming distance in the suffix.
$\mathcal{S}(n, w_{gc}, k)$, $T_{th}$ $\mathcal{C}(n,T_{th})$\
*Initialisation*: $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}(n, w_{gc}, k), \mathcal{C}=\{\}$\
*Pre-processing:* Grouping $S$ into $\mathcal{S}_x$ Sort the groups into $\sum\mathcal{S}=\{\mathcal{S}_{1}, \mathcal{S}_{2}, ...\}$ with an order of increasing $|\mathcal{S}_x|$ Link each $\mathcal{S}_x \in \sum\mathcal{S}$ a neighboring group pair $\mathcal{S}_y$\
*Searching:* Select a sequence $X \in \mathcal{S}_x$. Add the valid $X$ to $\mathcal{C}$, and eliminate $\mathcal{S}_x$ from $\sum\mathcal{S}$ Select a sequence $Y \in \mathcal{S}_y$, and verify the validity Update $\mathcal{C}, \sum\mathcal{S}$ as line 9 if valid back to line 7 $\mathcal{C}(n,T_{th})=\mathcal{C}$
Result
======
Given a specific sequence length, we investigate the code size and cross-hybridization performance of the codes constructed using different similarity/distance models. All codes are generated following the same searching process as discussed above except using different models as the similarity/distance measures of two sequences. The cross-hybridization is reflected by the free energy gap of $\delta$. The MFEs related to the $\delta$ were obtained from DINAMelt by setting the hybridization temperature to the universal $37^\circ$C. Note that as lower MFE values (negative) imply higher hybridization potentials, for convenience, the MFEs with positive values indicating nearly no hybridization potential are set to 0.
6 7 8 9 10
--------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Hamming 1.0 (4) 2.1 (9) 2.1 (22) 2.3 (18) 3.7 (15)
SS 2.4 (5) 2.1 (11) 2.3 (32) 3.5 (18) 4.8 (15)
: Comparing free energy gap (code size) with Hamming model[]{data-label="Tab:distance effect"}
### Comparison with Hamming-based codes
From Table \[Tab:distance effect\] where free energy gaps of the codes and the code sizes (parenthetical data) are shown, it could be found that, for all given lengths, the SS model enables codes constructed with no less free energy gaps and code sizes simultaneously. This indicates that by using the SS model, more DNA sequences with a given length could be generated with no adverse effect on the cross-hybridization performance. The thresholds used for different models might be varied provided that the codes generated are comparable in terms of code size and energy gap. The overall thresholds are chosen to avoid that the code sizes are too large to calculate the energy gaps. Notice that the energy gaps are currently calculated manually based on the free energy obtained from DINAMelt.
6 7 8 9 10
------ --------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------
Edit 2.7 (3) 1.1 (6) 2.4 (13) 4.2 (10) 5.4 (7)
SS 3.0 (3) 2.4 (6) 2.7 (13) 4.7 (10) 6.4 (7)
: Comparing free energy gap (code size) with Edit model[]{data-label="Tab:distance effect 2"}
### Comparison with Edit-based codes
The edit distance is a more stringent metric compared to Hamming distance. As such, with the equal minimum distance limit, codes constructed with edit distance are likely to have larger energy gaps due to the fewer components than Hamming-based codes. Therefore, for a fair comparison, we make the constructed SS-based codes have the same code sizes with the edit-based codes using expurgation. Table \[Tab:distance effect 2\] shows that for all lengths considered, SS-based expurgated codes have larger free energy gaps than edit-based codes under the assumption of the same code sizes, which implies that the SS-based codes have better cross-hybridization performance.
### Comparison with codes in [@zhang2013novel]
We set the maximum SS constraint $T_{th}$ based on the minimum distance $d$ (out of $n$) that was used in [@zhang2013novel]. We generate each DNA code with maximum SS $T_{th}=1-\frac{d}{n}$ with values of parameter $d$ and sequence length $n$ same as [@zhang2013novel]. All codes generated follow $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=1;\beta_1=\beta_2=0$, where a biased similarity weight is allocated to the consecutively identical G/C base-pairs. The free energy gap $\delta$ and the size of the codes are shown in Table \[Tab:comp1\] and Table \[Tab:comp2\], respectively. The parenthetical data are from [@zhang2013novel].
4 5 6 7 8
--- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
4 2.7 (1.54) - - - -
5 3.3 (1.94) 4.5 (2.45) - - -
6 2.4 (1.73) 5.5 (3.04) 4.5 (3.47) - -
7 2.1 (1.94) 4.1 (2.69) 6.3 (3.89) 6.5 (4.36) -
8 2.3 (2.59) 4.1 (3.25) 6.0 (3.98) 7.5 (5.12) 7.5 (5.59)
: Comparing the free energy gap of DNA codes[]{data-label="Tab:comp1"}
Table \[Tab:comp1\] shows that all generated codes except $\mathcal{C}(n=8,d=4)$ have better cross-hybridization performance (i.e., the free energy gap $\delta$) over the codes generated in [@zhang2013novel]. However, with a 11% decrease of the energy gap (i.e., 2.3 versus 2.59), the size of $\mathcal{C}(n=8,d=4)$ increases over 255% (3.5 fold) (i.e., 32 versus 9 in Table \[Tab:comp2\]). Generally, the gap $\delta$ is expected lower with a larger code size $M$. However, Table \[Tab:comp1\] together with Table \[Tab:comp2\] indicates that for specific sequence length $n$, the proposed method could generate DNA codes with larger size $M$ and wider gap $\delta$. More specifically, for $n=7$, we generate codes with $M=11, \delta=2.1$ and $M=3, \delta=4.1$ against $M=5, \delta=1.95$ and $M=2, \delta=3.89$ in [@zhang2013novel], respectively. For $n=8$, we generate codes with $M=7, \delta=4.1$ against $M=4, \delta=3.98$. Note that the thermodynamic property of DNA codes in [@zhang2013novel] might be worse in practice as they neglected the self-fold hybridizations in their code design and the free energy gap definition. Moreover, unlike [@zhang2013novel], our codes satisfy the maximum homopolymer run/continuity constraint that is desirable for achieving better stability, which explains the smaller sizes of codes for few cases in Table \[Tab:comp2\].
4 5 6 7 8
--- -------- ------- ------- ------- -------
4 1 (1) - - - -
5 1 (2) 1 (1) - - -
6 5 (5) 1 (2) 1 (1) - -
7 11 (5) 3 (4) 1 (2) 1 (1) -
8 32 (9) 7 (6) 2 (4) 1 (2) 1 (1)
: The comparison on the size of DNA codes[]{data-label="Tab:comp2"}
Conclusion
==========
We have introduced a new model for designing DNA codes with controlled cross-hybridization performance. This SS model weighs the significance of the undesirable similarity against the desirable similarity, leveraging the fact that bias exists in the hybridization affinities between individual oligo and its RC pair. An improved BAC and a biased similarity weight allocation were incorporated for the realization of SS. Based on the proposed model and a sorting-based search algorithm, DNA codes with different sequence lengths and maximum SS were generated, while satisfying several combinatorial constraints. The free energy gaps and code sizes of these codes imply that the proposed SS presents better approximation towards the thermodynamic property than the traditional models.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The space-like hypersurface of the Universe at the present cosmological time is a three-dimensional manifold. A non-trivial global topology of this space-like hypersurface would imply that the apparently observable universe (the sphere of particle horizon radius) could contain several images of the single, physical Universe. Recent three-dimensional techniques for constraining and/or detecting this topology are reviewed. Initial applications of these techniques using X-ray bright clusters of galaxies and quasars imply (weak) candidates for a non-trivial topology.'
author:
- |
Boudewijn F. Roukema$^{1,2}$ and Vincent Blanloeil$^3$\
[ $^1$Observatoire de Strasbourg, 11, rue de l’Université, Strasbourg F-67000, France]{}\
[$^2$Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center, ul. Bartycka 18, 00-716 Warsaw, Poland]{}\
[$^3$Institut de recherche mathématique avancée, Université Louis Pasteur et CNRS,]{}\
[7 rue René-Descartes, F-67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France]{}\
[*[email protected], [email protected]*]{}
title: 'Three-dimensional Topology-Independent Methods to Look for Global Topology'
---
Introduction
============
If the physical Universe is smaller than the “observable Universe”, i.e., if the fundamental polyhedron of the Universe is smaller than the sphere of horizon radius in the universal covering space, then some (or many) regions of space will be observable at several (or many) different “look-back” times ([@deSitt17] 1917; [@Lemait58] 1958). The word “Universe” can be taken here to refer either theoretically to the space-like hypersurface at the present cosmological time, or observationally to the observed past time cone considered in comoving coordinates. Since space-like hypersurfaces are three-dimensional, use of three-dimensional information on astrophysical objects known to exist in the covering space provides a straight-forward way to search for or constrain the global topology of the Universe.
The reader is referred to [@LaLu95] (1995) and to other contributions to this workshop for an introduction to cosmological topology and to [@Lum98] (1998) for an interesting historical introduction.
A brief mathematical description of the relationship between a universal covering space $X,$ a compact 3-manifold $M$ and its fundamental polyhedron $P$ is provided in §\[s-topol\]. For a fuller introduction to three-dimensional geometry and topology, see [@Thur82] (1982, 1997).
Three-dimensional topology detecting techniques are based on the required existence of multiple topological images of single physical objects. Techniques applicable to objects observed to successively larger scales are described in §\[s-crystal\] (“cosmic crystallography”, [@LLL96] 1996), §\[s-Xclus\] (“brightest X-ray clusters”, [@RE97] 1997) and §\[s-isomet\] (“local isometry detection”, [@Rouk96] 1996).
A Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric (implying constant curvature of any spatial hypersurface) is assumed throughout this paper. Comoving coordinates are used, i.e., positions of objects observed in our past time cone are projected to the (3-D) space-like hypersurface at the present epoch, $t=t_0$. Spectroscopic redshifts, denoted $z,$ are used to obtain radial distance estimates (termed “proper distances” by [@Wein72] 1972, eq.14.2.21[^1]) in the $t=t_0$ space-like hypersurface.
Topology of Compact 3-Manifolds: Covering Spaces and Fundamental Polyhedra {#s-topol}
==========================================================================
If we assume the Universe to have an FLRW metric and a trivial topology, then it is one of the three 3-manifolds $S^3,$ the $3$-sphere, $E^3,$ Euclidean $3$-space, or $H^3,$ the hyperbolic $3$-space (negatively curved). This apparent space is called the “universal covering space”, which we call $X.$
This can be related to the real 3-manifold of the Universe, which we call $M$ and which can be thought of physically in terms of a fundamental polyhedron $P$ as follows.
One can construct a complete geometric 3-manifold by choosing $\Gamma$, a discrete subgroup of the group of isometries of $X$, acting freely on $X$ (i.e., the set $\{ g\in \Gamma \ : \ gx=x \}$ is trivial for all $x$ in $X$) and take the quotient $X/\Gamma.$ Of course, at the present we know neither $X$ nor $\Gamma$ for the real Universe.
Observations favour $X=E^3$ \[$\Omega_0+\lambda_0=1$ in terms of standard metric parameters, where $\lambda_0 \equiv \Lambda c^2/(3H_0^2)$\] and $X=H^3$ ($\Omega_0+\lambda_0<1$), though as long as $\Omega_0+\lambda_0=1$ remains reconcilable with observations, $X=S^3$ is likely to remain a possibility where $\Omega_0+\lambda_0 = 1 + \epsilon$ and $\epsilon \ll 1$ if $\Omega_0$ and $\lambda_0$ are only measured by traditional, local physical properties such as density. \[An interesting global method is the effect predicted by [@BJS85] (1985, p937), who showed that compactness and a small amount of rotation of the observable Universe could in principle enable the case $\Omega_0+\lambda_0 = 1$ to be distinguished from the case $\Omega_0+\lambda_0 = 1 \pm \epsilon, \,(\epsilon \ll 1)$ by the presence of a “spiralling effect” which could be seen in the cosmological microwave background.\]
Then, [*a convex fundamental polyhedron*]{} for the discrete group $\Gamma$ of the group of isometries of $X$ is a convex polyhedron $P$ in $X$ such that its interior $P^\circ$ fulfils:
i\) the members of $\{ g P^\circ : g\in\Gamma\}$ are mutually disjoint,
ii\) $X=\cup\{gP : g\in\Gamma\}$
iii\) $\{gP : g\in\Gamma\}$ is a locally finite family of subsets of $X$.
To find a fundamental polyhedron, for all $g\not=1$ in $\Gamma$ and for $x$ in $X$, we define $H_g(x)=\{y\in X \ : \
d(x,y)<d(x,gy)\}$. Then [*the Dirichlet domain*]{} $D(x)$, with center $x$, for $\Gamma$ is: $D(x)
=\cap\{H_g(x) : g\not=1 \in \Gamma\}$ when $\Gamma$ is non trivial and $D(x) = X$ when $\Gamma$ is trivial. The closure $\overline{D}(x)$ is a convex fundamental polyhedron for $\Gamma.$
Using a fundamental polyhedron $P$ in $X$, one can build a 3-manifold $M$ by gluing together the sides of $P$. Poincaré’s fundamental polyhedron theorem proves that the inclusion of $P$ in $X$ induces an isometry from $M$ to $X/\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is the discrete subgroup of the group of isometries of $X$ such that $(S,R)$ is a group presentation for $\Gamma$ with $S$ the set of sides of $P$ and $R$ the set of relations determined by the gluing.
When $\Gamma$ is not trivial this construction gives non-trivial topology.
Let us be more precise. Choose a base point $x_0$ of $X$ and let $a : S^1 \rightarrow X/\Gamma$ be a loop based at $x_0$ ; let $b : [0,1] \rightarrow X$ be a lift of $a$ starting at $x_0$ and ending at $g_a\,x_0$ (note that $g_a$ is unique since $\Gamma$ acts freely). The map $l : \pi_1(X/\Gamma)\rightarrow \Gamma$ defined by $l(a) = g_a$ is a homomorphism which is obviously surjective (i.e., onto). Suppose for $a\in \pi_1(X/\Gamma)$ we have $l(a)=1.$ Then a lift of $a$ in $\pi_1(X)$ is equal to 1 since $X$ is simply connected, hence $a=1$ and $l$ is injective (i.e., 1:1). Therefore, $l : \pi_1(X/\Gamma)\rightarrow
\Gamma$ is an isomorphism.
Since $\Gamma$ is a non-trivial group, the fundamental group $\pi_1(X/\Gamma)$, which could be thought of as the group of non-shrinkable loops of $X/\Gamma,$ and hence of $M,$ is non-trivial. That is, $M$ has a non-trivial topology and can be referred to as multi-connected.
For an example of theoretical ideas for the physical meaning of $\Gamma,$ see [@eCF98] (1998). Here we merely consider observational detection of $\Gamma.$
Characterising the “size” of fundamental polyhedra of 3-manifolds in a way useful observationally requires at least two parameters. Here we adopt the “injectivity radius”, $\rinj,$ i.e., half of the smallest distance from an object to one of its topological images; and the out-radius, $r_+,$ which is the radius of the smallest sphere (in the covering space) which totally includes the fundamental polyhedron ([@Corn98a] 1998a). We refer here to $2\rinj$ as the injectivity diameter and $2r_+$ as the out-diameter. For a discussion of these and related size parameters, see [@Corn98a] (1998a), and note that $2\rinj$ and $2r_+$ are similar to the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ adopted by [@LaLu95] (1995, §10.3.3).
While both parameters represent in some sense the “size” of the fundamental polyhedron, it should particularly be remembered that many hyperbolic compact 3-D manifolds can have $\rinj \ll r_+.$ Since we live in the plane of a disc galaxy — which obscures most astronomical observations within several degrees of the plane — it would be difficult to measure $2\rinj$ if it’s the size of a geodesic at an angle “close” to the Galactic plane.
Multiple topological images of observable objects {#s-timages}
=================================================
In a multi-connected universe, the covering space, or “apparent” universe, is tiled by copies of the fundamental polyhedron (Dirichlet domain). So the basic principle of detecting multi-connectedness is to find multiple “topological images”.[^2]
In a flat covering space, the particle horizon radius, $R_H,$ is not geometrically constrained to $\rinj$ and $r_+$. In a hyperbolic covering space, the two quantities are both directly related to the curvature radius, $R_C,$ (at least in the orientable cases), by Mostow’s rigidity theorem which states that a homotopy equivalence between two orientable hyperbolic 3-manifolds is homotopic to an isometry. Hence, $\rinj$ and $r_+$ are bounded below by $R_C$ and hence by $R_H$ to within a few orders of magnitude (depending on which of the many compact hyperbolic manifolds applies to the universe).
So, if physical conditions in the very early Universe (quantum epoch) tend to minimise the volume and the “present-day” Universe is negatively curved, then the fundamental polyhedron may well be small enough that multiple topological images of points of space are likely to exist within the present-day observable sphere. Zero curvature provides no such constraint.
Since the Universe is of finite age, information (photons) can only be received from within a sphere (in the covering space) of finite radius around the observer. This sphere may contain several copies of the fundamental polyhedron, in which multiple topological images of single physical objects can be found. However, objects which are seen further towards this “horizon” are seen earlier in the history of the Universe, so are seen at different stages of the transition between a relatively smooth (to $\sim 0\.001\%$) material to the formation of high-density objects such as quasars, clusters of galaxies and galaxies. So any set of observable objects can only be seen in a certain sub-sphere (or a spherical shell) which is smaller than the observable sphere.
Depending on the metric parameters ($\Omega_0, \lambda_0$) of the Universe, the fraction of the comoving observable sphere covered by a set of observable objects varies.
Fig. \[f-sizes\] shows some characteristic distances to which different types of objects have so far been observed in significant quantities for a range of the metric parameters covering the values consistent with a wide range of observational cosmological tests. The redshifts used are indicative only.
The proper distance to a redshift $z$ can be evaluated in general as $$d(z) = {c\over H_0} \int_{1/(1+z)}^{1}
{\mbox{\rm d}a \over a \sqrt{\Omega_0/a - \kappa_0 + \lambda_0\, a^2}}
\label{e-dprop}$$ where $\kappa_0 \equiv \Omega_0 + \lambda_0 -1.$ [^3] This can be expressed in terms of the curvature radius $$R_C \equiv {c \over H_0 \sqrt{|\kappa_0|}} \label{e-defR_C}$$ and the proper motion distance $d_{pm}(z)$ as $$d(z) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
R_C \sinh^{-1} [d_{pm}(z)/R_C] , & \kappa_0 < 0 \\
d_{pm}(z) , & \kappa_0 = 0 \\
R_C \sin^{-1} [d_{pm}(z)/R_C] , & \kappa_0 > 0.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{e-d_dpm}$$ If $\Omega_0 > 0$ and $\lambda_0=0,$ then the closed expression $$d_{pm}(z) = {c \over H_0}
{ 2 [ z\Omega_0 + (\Omega_0-2)(\sqrt{\Omega_0 z + 1} -1) ]
\over \Omega_0^{\;2} (1+z) }$$ can be used ([@Wein72] 1972, p.485). Or, for $\kappa_0 \not=0,$ equations (\[e-dprop\]) and (\[e-defR\_C\]) can be combined to give
$${d(z) \over R_C} = \sqrt{|\kappa_0|} \int_{1/(1+z)}^{1}
{\mbox{\rm d}a \over a \sqrt{\Omega_0/a - \kappa_0 + \lambda_0\, a^2}}
\label{e-dpropR_C}$$
Only very bright galaxy clusters are seen to $z=0\.5,$ and systematic “all-sky” surveys for galaxy clusters \[e.g., to an X-ray luminosity of $L_X (0\.1-2\.4$keV$)\gtapprox 10^{45}$erg/s\] are only presently being carried out to $z \sim 0\.1.$ Quasars are in fact seen to redshifts higher than $z\approx 3$, but drop quickly in number density (e.g., [@Shaver98] 1998).
The fraction of the horizon distance covered by the sphere to $z=3$ only decreases slightly between the models with different metric parameters, from 50% in the $\Omega_0=1, \lambda_0=0$ (Einstein-de Sitter) model to 39% in the $\Omega_0=0\.2, \lambda_0=0$ model. If multiple copies of the fundamental polyhedron are to be detected in a radial direction, the relative efficiencies of 3-D methods using objects (e.g., quasars) visible to these redshifts does not change much. Due to the negative curvature, however, the number of copies of a fundamental polyhedron which could be placed alongside one another in a tangential direction around a sphere makes a search to $z\ltapprox 3$ much less efficient relative to a CMB (cosmic microwave background) search for an $\Omega_0=0\.2, \lambda_0=0$ universe relative to an Einstein-de Sitter universe.
Therefore, if the Universe is as negatively curved as to give $\Omega_0=0\.2, \lambda_0=0,$ then 3-D searches for topological images are going to be most efficient for multi-connected manifolds which have $\rinj \ll r_+.$ Since this is the case for many of the hyperbolic compact manifolds, a 3-D method which can be applied to objects seen to $z\ltapprox 3$ may be capable of detecting non-trivial topology of the Universe, i.e., at least one of the generators $g \in \Gamma,$ in this case.
On the other hand, the flat universe model dominated by a cosmological constant ($\Omega_0=0\.2, \lambda_0=0\.8$) shows nearly identical relative efficiencies of $z\ltapprox3$ and CMB methods as for the flat, $\lambda_0=0$ model, but the relative usefulness of objects seen to $z\ltapprox0\.5$ is much lower than in the model with a cosmological constant than in the model without.
Previous 3-D constraints and new 3-D methods
============================================
The out-diameter, $2r_+,$ is strongly bounded below by about 60 to 150 by the absence of secondary topological images of the Coma cluster of galaxies ([@Gott80] 1980) and by the existence of “large scale structure” (“great walls” and filaments formed by galaxies, [@deLapp86] 1986; [@GH89] 1989; [@daCosta93] 1993; [@Deng96] 1996; [@Einasto97] 1997). Equivalently, this is a constraint that $2r_+ \gtapprox R_H/100.$ Although mathematically not strictly excluded, it would seem difficult for the injectivity diameter, $2\rinj,$ to be as small as $2\rinj \ltapprox R_H/100$ in a way that would fit the spatial distribution and physical properties of observed objects.
At distances greater than $R_H/10,$ the formation and evolution of astrophysical objects becomes much more serious than at small scales.
In addition, catalogues of observed objects are limited to either wide-angle surveys to small radial distances, or “deep” surveys over small solid angles. The two types of surveys have complementary advantages for detecting topology, though the use of the wide-angle surveys is simpler. The increase in the characteristic radial distances and solid angular areas of these surveys will increase rapidly over the next few decades.
To avoid the problems of evolution, methods based primarily on the 3-D positions of the objects (rather than their physical properties) are needed. The methods of “cosmic crystallography” (§\[s-crystal\]) and of “local isometry searching” (§\[s-isomet\]) were created for use in catalogues of objects which are subject to evolutionary effects on the individual astrophysical objects. If the evolutionary effects are not too strong (and if viewing angle is not a problem), the former method is applicable. If many objects have only a subset of their topological images visible due to such effects, the latter method is necessary.
Nevertheless, the existence of a “unique” object (e.g., much more brilliant than all others of its class) at a large radial distance could still be useful in finding a lower bound to $r_+$ (particularly if a systematic survey over $4\pi$ steradians were available). This idea can be used by consideration of the “richest” galaxy cluster found by the X-ray emission emitted by its hot $T\sim 10^7K$ gas (§\[s-Xclus\]).
For simplicity, most of the discussion below is presented in the context of a flat, $\Omega_0=1, \lambda_0=0$ universe, but it should be kept in mind that physical ([@Corn96] 1996) and geometrical arguments favour a hyperbolic universe. For detailed discussions of the hyperbolic case, see the work of [@Fag85] (1985; 1989; 1996). For numerical representations of compact hyperbolic manifolds and visualisation software, [SnapPea]{} and [geomview]{} (http://www.geom.umn.edu/) are recommended.
For completeness, it should also be mentioned that attempts have been made to use the essentially two-dimensional information in the CMB to observationally bound $\rinj$ from below, by making assumptions on the distributions of amplitudes and phases of temperature fluctuations at the epoch of the CMB, by accepting foreground corrections as valid and by considering either particular cases of flat geometries ([@Stev93] 1993; [@Star93] 1993; [@JFang94] 1994; [@deOliv95] 1995; [@Levin98] 1998) or individual cases of hyperbolic geometries ([@BPS98] 1998). If the caveats of these techniques are accepted as correct, then $\rinj$ seems not much smaller than the horizon size. Indeed, the latter authors find a candidate hyperbolic manifold, for $\Omega_0=0\.8,$ which is “preferable to standard CDM” relative to the observed CMB ([@BPS98], §4.3), but the volume of its fundamental polyhedron is slightly larger than that of the observable sphere.
It should also be noted that non-trivial topology is usually adopted in $N$-body simulations of the formation of galaxies and large-scale structure, but for numerical rather than physical reasons (see [@FMel] 1990 for an explicit analysis).
Cosmic crystallography {#s-crystal}
----------------------
In a catalogue of objects in which multiple topological images of single physical objects are often seen, a histogram of object-object pair separations \[for all $N(N+1)/2$ pairs in a set of $N$ objects\] should show sharp peaks due to pairs of topological images separated by multiples of the vectors which generate the fundamental polyhedron from the covering space. [@LLL96] (1996) used simulations to show that this method should be efficient and independent of topology, at least for the case of zero curvature. The application of this method to the classical Abell and ACO cluster catalogues, to $z\approx 0\.25,$ didn’t show any obvious topological signal (but see also [@FG97] 1997). The method was devised to also work in the cases of non-zero curvature, but its practical application under astronomical conditions has yet to be carried out.
The Abell and ACO catalogues will soon be superceded by X-ray selected “all-sky”[^4] catalogues which suffer less serious systematic biases, but only to $z \sim 0\.1$ in programs already in progress for finding rich clusters.
The intrinsically brightest of these clusters should be found to a factor of several higher in redshift, though in numbers too small for the histogram method to show any peaks. In this case, the following method can be applied.
X-ray clusters as “standard candles” {#s-Xclus}
------------------------------------
If a small number of the brightest objects of a given class (in particular, galaxy clusters selected in X-rays) are known out to a given redshift, these can be considered to be unique objects if their evolutionary properties are simple enough.
In the case of the richest galaxy clusters, which are dominated by hot gas, these objects are unlikely to become any less luminous as time increases, though they are likely to increase somewhat in luminosity. This is because galaxy clusters are the largest gravitationally bound objects which have had time to collapse in the age of the Universe, and are dominated by their hot hydrogen gas which is in approximate kinetic equilibrium. Within cosmologically available time scales, it is difficult to see how a high enough fraction of this gas could either cool, escape or turn into galaxies in order for a secondary topological image at a lower redshift (i.e., at a more recent epoch) to be invisible in X-rays.
(1997) noticed that , which is probably the brightest X-ray cluster known (in the $0\.1-2\.4$keV frequency band) is quite distant from us (with respect to other known galaxy clusters). So, if we could be sure that there were no topological images of this cluster closer to us in any direction, then the distance to this cluster would give the lower limit $r_+ \gtapprox 1100\pm100$. (The uncertainty is due to the observational uncertainty in the metric parameters; the range shown in Fig. \[f-sizes\] is adopted.) However, since galactic obscuration is important, this is strictly speaking a weaker limit, i.e., $2r_+ \gtapprox 1100\pm100$.
Because the object is unique, the only topological image pair geodesics which are excluded are those extending from the known image to the borders of the observed volume. Small closed geodesics in other directions, e.g., roughly perpendicular to any large geodesic running from RX J1347.5-1147 to a distant point in the north galactic cone defined by $b^{II} > 20\deg, z \le 0\.451,$ would not contradict the existence of RX J1347.5-1147 as an (apparently) unique object. Hence, this method only constrains $2r_+$ rather than $2\rinj.$
Serendipitously, a candidate for the topology was noticed by comparing the 3-D positions of the several bright clusters listed by [@RE97] (1997). Three (of the seven clusters studied) form a right angle (to 2% accuracy) with side lengths equal within 1%. This is just what would be expected in the case of a $T^2 \ttimes X$ manifold where $X$ is unknown. There is no obvious physical motivation for this case to be favoured, though it is commonly used for pedagogical purposes, as in several of the early attempts at trying to constrain topology using the CMB as observed by the COBE satellite.
(1997) list several arguments against topological identity of the three clusters, but the cleanest observational test would be to verify or refute the existence of further implied topological images. While further implied topological images could exist at high redshifts, the cluster might not have formed at those early epochs. So implied images at low enough redshifts that the cluster is guaranteed to be in existence with a minimum luminosity should be considered.
Specific predictions of this (weak) candidate 3-manifold containing two known generators $g_1, g_2$ and one unknown generator $g_3$ are as follows. If this candidate as suggested by Roukema & Edge (1997) were correct, then the object seen by ROSAT, RX J203150.4 -403656, should be a galaxy cluster at $0\.38$ $< z$ $< 0\.40,$ and the Arp-Madore galaxy cluster AM 0750 -490 (which would be the low redshift topological image of MS 1054 -0321) would be at $0\.23$ $< z$ $< 0\.26.$
Local isometry searches {#s-isomet}
-----------------------
The previous methods can only be applied to objects whose evolution is relatively simple. The objects which can be easily seen to $z\sim3$ in significant numbers, quasars, have evolutionary properties which are not well understood. They are likely to have short lifetimes, either with recurrent bursts related to (maybe) mergers of galaxy dark matter haloes or differing lifetimes depending on individual quasar properties. In addition, according to the “unified model” of active galactic nuclei (AGN), a quasar seen from a very different angle appears much fainter, as a Seyfert galaxy, for example, with a very small chance of having already been observed in high-redshift galaxy searches.
One approach to using quasars is to consider special cases. [@Fag87] (1987) searched for images of the Galaxy seen as quasars in directions separated by 180or 90.
A more general method is to accept the problem of multiple topological image visibility and search in a large catalogue for the rare cases in which [*several*]{} objects in two different topological images of a single physical 3-D region are both visible. In other words, one searches for an isometry between two regions of the covering space, each of a few hundred in size.
If several such isometries are found, then these should be used to generate the full set of transformations from the covering space to the fundamental polyhedron. These would then be confirmed (or refuted) by the predictions of the 3-D positions of multiple topological images of other quasars, or by comparison with the CMB.
This method was first presented by [@Rouk96] (1996) and applied to a catalogue of $N\approx $ 5000 quasars at $z>1.$ Two isometries, i.e., two pairs of quasar quintuplets separated by more than 300, were found. Due to the number density distribution of quasars, this is not necessarily due to topological imaging. Simulated catalogues showed that there is about a 30% chance of finding two similar coincidences in a universe of trivial topology with the same observational selection criteria for finding quasars.
At best, these two isometries could be considered as defining a weak candidate for the 3-manifold in which we live. This candidate would be non-orientable.
The technique as presented by [@Rouk96] (1996) was only an initial implementation of the basic principle. The parameters chosen may not necessarily be optimal for obtaining a detection.
For example, although the number of isometries of $n$-tuplets is higher when $n$ is lower, it may well be possible that the signal (due to topological isometries) may increase faster than the noise (due to the number density distribution of the catalogue for a simply connected universe) when $n$ is lowered, so that the signal-to-noise ratio would increase.
Another use of the technique using the same size data set would be to test a series of universe models with incrementally different metric parameters (e.g., $\Omega_0=0\.20, 0\.21, 0\.22, ..., 1\.10$), in particular the negatively curved models. The increment should be chosen as a function of the uncertainty regarding quasars’ (3-D) positions.
Alternatively, one could allow for a scaling factor when comparing $n$-tuplets, in which case isometries due to any value of the curvature would automatically be detected. However, this would also increase the number of chance coincidences of $n$-tuplets, and is not strictly correct — it would distort the local geometrical relations if the $n$-tuplets are not small enough.
In the method of adopting successive values of the metric parameters, the successive signal-to-noise ratios (numbers of isometric $n$-tuplet pairs due to topology compared to numbers due to chance) are $S_i/N_i$ where $$S_i \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
= 0 , & (i \not\approx i^*)\\
> 0 , & (i \approx i^*)
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $(\Omega_0, \lambda_0)_{i^*}$ are the metric parameters of the real Universe. The signal-to-noise ratio $S_i/N_i$ is then zero except when the metric parameters are close to correct, i.e., $i\approx i^*,$ and has a maximum of $S_{i^*} / N_{i^*}.$ (The values of the metric parameters would then be quite tightly constrained.)
If a scaling factor is used instead, then the calculation should be much faster (since a single set of metric parameters is adopted), but the signal-to-noise ratio becomes $$\begin{array}{lll}
{\sum_i S_i \over
\sum_i N_i + \sum_{i\not= j} N_{ij}} &= &
{\sum_{i\approx i^*} S_i \over \sum_i N_i + \sum_{i\not= j} N_{ij}} \\
& \approx& {S_{i^*} \over \sum_i N_i + \sum_{i\not= j} N_{ij} } \\
& \ll& S_{i^*} / N_{i^*},
\end{array}$$ where $N_{ij}$ are numbers of chance coincidences for scaling factors which imply inconsistent curvature estimates. So, the signal-to-noise ratio is much lower if scaling is used. Even if the scaling is done requiring consistent values of the curvature between $n$-tuplets at different redshifts (which would probably slow down the calculation), the signal-to-noise ratio would still be lower than for the successive metric value method. Additionally, distortions due to the greater than zero size of $n$-tuplets would make $S_{i^*}$ in the scaling method slightly lower than for the successive metric method.
The other development of this method is that since quasars are visible to about $R_H/2,$ future quasar surveys will provide a more thorough sampling of this volume, so that the “rare” cases searched for will increase in number and the chances of detection (if the topology is detectable) will increase.
Conclusion
==========
Several methods have been developed in the last few years to either detect or constrain the topology of the spatial part of the Universe. The relative efficiency (in terms of fundamental polyhedron crossings) of 3-D to 2-D methods depends moderately on the precise values of the metric parameters $\Omega_0, \lambda_0.$ Objects seen to about $z\sim3$ would cross half the horizon distance for any presently accepted metric parameters, and in a cosmological constant dominated universe, objects seen to $z\sim 0\.1 -0\.5$ would cover many fewer copies of the fundamental polyhedron than the CMB.
Initial applications of 3-D methods to existing observational catalogues or individual observations indicate several (weak) candidates for the 3-manifold in which we live. (Or more precisely, for some of the generators of the 3-manifold.) These candidates are falsifiable with moderate observational investment in telescope time.
Moreover, further development of the local isometry search method is presently possible for application to existing observational quasar catalogues.
Looking to the future, new catalogues of objects made over the next few years, in particular all-sky surveys of quasars, will possibly allow the topology of the Universe to be detected to a high significance by the local isometry search method. Alternatively, the “circles method” of [@Corn98b] (1998b) applied to the observations by either MAP or Planck (planned CMB satellites) is likely to either reveal or constrain the topology of the Universe.
Within a decade, we should know whether or not the topology of the Universe is detectable, and if so what it is.
This research has been partially supported by the Polish Council for Scientific Research Grant KBN 2 P03D 008 13.
[99]{}
[Barrow, J.D., Juskiewicz, R., Sonoda, D.H., 1985, [, ]{}[213, ]{} 917]{} [Bond, J.R., Pogosyan, D., Souradeep, T., 1998, [Class.Quant.Grav, ]{}[this vol, ]{} ]{} (astro-ph/9804041)
[Cornish, N.J., Spergel, D.N., Starkman, G.D., 1996, [Phys.Rev.Lett., ]{}[77, ]{} 215]{} [Cornish, N.J., Spergel, D.N., Starkman, G.D., 1998a, astro-ph/9708225]{} [Cornish, N.J., Spergel, D.N., Starkman, G.D., 1998b, astro-ph/9801212]{}
da Costa, L.N., in Cosmic Velocity Fields, ed. Bouchet, F., Lachièze-Rey, M., (Gif-sur-Yvette, France: Editions Frontières), p475 [de Lapparent, V., Geller, M.J., Huchra, J.P., 1986, [, ]{}[302, ]{} L1]{} [Deng, X.-F., Deng, Z.-G., Xia, X.-Y., 1996, [Chin.Astron.Astroph., ]{}[20, ]{} 383]{}
[de Oliveira Costa, A., Smoot, G.F., 1995, [, ]{}[448, ]{} 477]{} [de Sitter, W., 1917, [, ]{}[78, ]{} 3]{} [e Costa, S.S., Fagundes, H.V., 1998, astro-ph/9801066]{} [Einasto, J., et al., 1997, [Nature, ]{}[385, ]{} 139]{} [Fagundes, H.V., 1985, [, ]{}[291, ]{} 450]{} [Fagundes, H.V., 1989, [, ]{}[338, ]{} 618]{} [Fagundes, H.V., 1996, [, ]{}[470, ]{} 43]{} [Fagundes, H.V., Gausmann, E., 1997, astro-ph/9704259]{} [Fagundes, H.V., Wichoski, U.F., 1987, [, ]{}[322, ]{} L5]{} [Farrar, K. & Melott, A.L., 1990, [Computers in Physics, ]{}[4, ]{} 185]{} [Geller, M.J., Huchra, J.P., 1989, [Science, ]{}[246, ]{} 897]{} [Gott, J.R.I., 1980, [, ]{}[193, ]{} 153]{} Jing, Y.-P., Fang, L.-Z., 1994, astro-ph/9409072
[Lachièze-Rey, M., Luminet, J.-P., 1995, [PhysRep, ]{}[254, ]{} 136]{}
[Lehoucq, R., Luminet, J.-P., Lachièze-Rey, M., 1996, [, ]{}[313, ]{} 339]{} Lemaître, G., 1958, in La Structure et l’Evolution de l’Univers, Onzième Conseil de Physique Solvay, ed. Stoops, R., (Brussels: Stoops), p1 [Levin, J., Scannapieco, E., Silk, J., 1998, astro-ph/9802021]{}
Luminet, J.-P., 1998, Conceptions de l’espace en physique, Ecole des Houches, Acta Cosmologica
Peebles, P.J.E., 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton, U.S.A.: Princeton Univ. Press
[Roukema, B.F., 1996, [, ]{}[283, ]{} 1147]{} (astro-ph/9603052)
[Roukema, B.F., Edge, A.C., 1997, [, ]{}[292, ]{} 105]{} (astro-ph/9706166)
[Shaver, P.A., Hook, I.M., Jackson, C.A., Wall, J.V., Kellermann, K.I., 1998, astro-ph/9801211]{} [Starobinsky, A.A., 1993, [JETPLett, ]{}[57, ]{} 622]{} [Stevens, D., Scott, D., Silk, J., 1993, [PhysRevLett, ]{}[71, ]{} 20]{}
[Thurston, W.P., 1982, [Bull.Am.Math.Soc., ]{}[6, ]{} 357]{} Thurston, W.P., 1997, Three-Dimensional Geometry and Topology, ed. Levy, S., Princeton, U.S.A.: Princeton University Press
Weinberg, S., 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology, New York, U.S.A.: Wiley
[^1]: The “proper distance” should not be confused with the quantity that [@Wein72] (1972, p.485) calls “proper motion distance” and that [@Peeb93] (1993, p.321, eq.13.36) calls “angular size distance”. The proper distance and proper motion distance are identical for zero curvature, but not otherwise.
[^2]: Also called “topological clones”. The terminology “ghosts” is not preferred since it implies that some images are less physically real than others.
[^3]: For readers of the popular [@Peeb93] (1993), $\Omega_0, \lambda_0$ and $\kappa_0$ correspond to Peebles’ $\Omega, \Omega_\Lambda$ and $-\Omega_R$ respectively.
[^4]: “All-sky” can mean as little as 2/3, though usually more, of $4\pi$ steradians, due to obscuration by the Galaxy.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note we address the problem of unconventional charmonium-like levels from the standpoint of level spacing theory. The level distribution of the newly discovered vector resonances is compared to that of standard charmonia analyzing their spectral rigidities. It is found that the unconventional charmonium-like states are significantly more compatible with the hypothesis of being levels from a Gaussian Orthogonal Ensamble of Random Matrices than the standard ones, which in turn seem more likely to be Poisson distributed. We discuss the consequences of this result and draw some hints for future investigations.'
author:
- 'ENM Cirillo$^{\dag}$, M Mori$^{*}$ and AD Polosa$^*$'
title: 'The $\Delta$-Statistics of Uncoventional Quarkonium-like Resonances'
---
[***Introduction***]{}. With the very recent observation of the charged resonances $Z(10610)$ and $Z(10650)$ by the Belle collaboration [@belle], the family of unconventional quarkonium-like states has further grown. Since the discovery of the $X(3872)$, now observed also in LHC experiments, a long list of new narrow resonances has been found. There is a vast consensus that most of them are multiquark structures although a general picture is still missing. Some of these states occur extremely close and some other far from open-charm or beauty thresholds. For the close-to-thresholds ones, several authors agree that the appropriate interpretation is in terms of $S-$wave $D^{(*)}D^{(*)}$ or $B^{(*)}B^{(*)}$ hadron molecules with a very small binding energy (compatible with zero), yet rather stable to be as narrow as the observation shows. Also the prompt production of $X(3872)$ in $p\bar p$ collisions at CDF has been observed making at least questionable the chances of a loosely bound molecule interpretation [@noiben]. On the other hand it has been claimed that final state interactions mechanisms could be at the core of the surprising stability of such a molecular object [@abrat]. Similarly the newly discovered states, the $Z(10610)$ and $Z(10650)$, have immediately been interpreted as hadron molecules [@volo] for their mass values happen to be exactly at the threshold values of $BB^*$ and $B^*B^*$ mesons.
Hadron molecules are meant to be [*extended tetraquark objects*]{} (several fermi in size) in which the strong interaction is conveyed by some long range pion exchange or rescattering mechanism. As opposed to this picture one could theorize the existence of [*compact tetraquark*]{} structures which are just new kind of hadrons with four quarks neutralizing the color within the typical range of strong interactions [@mainoi]. In principle, compact tetraquarks are not expected to be formed at the mass values of meson molecules; on the other hand some $Qq\bar Q\bar q$ bound state could fluctuate into $(Q\bar q)(\bar Q q) $ or $(Q\bar Q)(\bar q q)$ and the discrete levels of the unknown Hamiltonian binding $Qq\bar Q\bar q$ should, as a result, be coupled to hadron molecule levels.
In this letter we test the assumption that the known $1^{--}$ resonances located at the mass values ${\cal E}=\{3943, 4008, 4263, 4360, 4634, 4664\}$ MeV – all of them candidates to be exotic hadrons [@nb] – represent the discrete levels of some unknown compact tetraquark Hamiltonian along the same lines as the standard charmonia at ${\cal S}=\{3096~(J/\psi), 3686~(\psi(2S)), 3772, 4039, 4153, 4421\}$ MeV are the levels of the $c\bar c$ Hamiltonian with the Cornell potential. Resonances in ${\cal E}$ are all produced in $e^+e^-$ collisions with initial state radiation. Most of the levels of the exotic set ${\cal E}$ happen to be away from open charm threshold and thus represent a good laboratory to explore the possibility that we are observing the spectrum of a complicated multiquark Hamiltonian; for earlier attempts of this kind see [@vv].
A very much studied conjecture in the field of quantum chaotic systems [@bohigas84], states that [*spectra of quantum Hamiltonian systems whose classical analogs are described by (strongly) chaotic Hamiltonians show locally the same fluctuation properties as predicted by the so called Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE) for large dimensional Random Matrices*]{}. A portion of the quantum Hamiltonian spectrum is rescaled to spacing one and the levels so obtained turn out to be distributed as the eigenvalues of the GOE Random Matrices in the limit of large dimensions. In this limit indeed the local properties of Random Matrix eigenvalues are extracted, as the Wigner semicircle appears locally flat. As a consequence the probability distribution of the level spacings is expected to follow closely the Wigner law $$\label{wigner distribution}
W (s)= \frac{\pi s}{2} \, \exp \Big( {-\frac{\pi s^2}{4}}\Big)$$ The eigenvalues of GOE matrices following this distribution show the typical [*level repulsion*]{} features studied at length in the context of nuclear resonances.
Naive formulations of tetraquark semiclassical 4-body Hamiltonians are possible, for example relying on one-gluon-exchange models. Most likely all of them express a chaotic classical dynamics. The Hamiltonian describing the $c\bar c$ system is, on the other hand, very close to an integrable one. Thus it is expected to have the level clustering features of the Poisson spacing distribution $P(s)=\exp(-s)$, or at least a discrepant behavior with respect to the GOE eigenvalues.
Using the tool of the [*spectral rigidity*]{} also known as the $\Delta-$Statistics developed initially by Dyson and Mehta we study the short sets ${\cal E}$ and ${\cal S}$ in the attempt of confirming or disproving the picture according to which the ${\cal E}$ levels should more markedly match the expected behavior for the GOE ones than standard charmonia, ${\cal S}$, do. We surprisingly find that this is indeed the case although our explorative analysis has its natural limit in the very limited amount of data at hand - the method of $\Delta-$Statistics has been systematically applied for example in the discussion of nuclear resonances level spacing where the data sets contain order of hundreds of levels.
Yet we believe that this result is to be interpreted as an interesting suggestion which leads us to some speculative considerations we are still working on: $i)$ exotic hadrons (for example those in the ${\cal E}$ set) are just like the $c\bar c$ ones but with an additional light quark $q\bar q$ component; $ii)$ they fall on the levels of some tetraquark Hamiltonian; $iii)$ once a discrete tetraquark level happens to be located within the level width of a molecular level - centered at some meson; threshold - because of the coupling between the two spectra induced by fluctuations like $Qq\bar Q\bar q\to (Q\bar q)(\bar Q q) \to Qq\bar Q\bar q$, the molecular level, [*otherwise very broad*]{}, gets metastable because of a Feshbach-like mechanism.
[***$\Delta$–Statistics***]{}. The spectral rigidity (SR) is a measure of the deviation of a level set from uniform spacing: the more regular the set, the smaller the value of the spectral rigidity. Consider a set of $N$ levels $\{ E_i\}$ rescaled to unit spacing, namely $E_N -E_1 = N-1 \equiv 2L$, and centered with respect to the origin ($E_1=-L$ and $E_N=L$). The sample cumulative function is $$C(x) \equiv \sum_{E_i>0}\Theta \left( x-E_i\right)-\sum_{E_i<0}\Theta(E_i-x)$$ where $\Theta(x)=1$ if $x\ge 0$ and $\Theta(x)=0$ if $x<0$. The spectral rigidity, in its original form due to Dyson and Mehta, is defined as $$\label{Delta_3}
\Delta_3 \equiv \frac{1}{2L} \min_{A,\,B} \int_{-L}^{L} \left( C(s)-As-B\right)^2 \mathrm{d}s$$ following the notations introduced in [@dysonIV].
The conjecture above means that a sequence of $N$ experimental levels has to be compared with a sequence of $N$ eigenvalues extracted from an ensemble of random matrices with large dimension $D$. Calculations in [@metha] show that in the large $D$ limit the mean of the SR computed with the Poisson distribution is linear in the number of spacings, while that computed with the GOE [^1] eigenvalue distribution grows only logarithmically: it is therefore possible to discriminate between Poisson and GOE levels. This discrimination is more effective as the number of consecutive levels in the studied sequence grows. In practice, the number of levels available is often too low for $\Delta_3$ to provide a clear discrimination between Poisson and Gaussian Orthogonal Ensembles. It is therefore useful to consider a different notion of SR in order to reduce the variance. Following Bohigas *et al.* [@bohigas82] we set $$\label{Delta tilde}
\Delta_3 (x,y)\equiv \frac{1}{y} \min_{A,\,B} \int_{x}^{x+y} \left( C(s)-As-B\right)^2 \mathrm{d}s$$ where $\Delta_3 (x,y)$ is a generalization of the Dyson-Mehta estimator, recovered as $y=2L$ and $x=-L$. We thus define a new random variable $\Lambda (w,y)$ built on averaging the spectral rigidity of smaller portions of the dataset $$\label{Delta}
\Lambda (w,y) \equiv \frac{1}{2L-y+2w} \int_{-L-w}^{L+w-y} \Delta_3 (x,y) \mathrm{d}x$$ where $y$ takes continuous values between $0$ and $2L+2w$, which is the number of spacings of the sequence, while $x$ ranges from $-L-w$ to $L+w-y$. We have thus defined a family of statistical variables depending on $y$ and $w$. $\Delta_3$ looks at the whole data set whereas $ \Delta_3(x,y)$ checks a smaller number of levels and $\Lambda(w,y)$ is his average on the data set. The parameter $w$ is introduced in order to minimize possible finite size effects. The original definition of $\Delta_3$ is recovered in the limit $w=0\,,\;y \rightarrow 2L $.
[***Results***]{}. The data sets at hand are ${\cal E}=\{3943, 4008, 4263, 4360, 4634, 4664\}$ MeV, the candidate exotic levels, and the standard charmonia at ${\cal S}=\{3096~(J/\psi), 3686~(\psi(2S)), 3772, 4039, 4153, 4421\}$ MeV. ${\cal E}$ contains the masses in MeV of the $1^{--}$ states $G(3900)\, , \;
Y(4008) \, , \; Y(4260) \, , \; Y(4360) \, , \; X(4630)$ and $Y(4660)$. ${\cal S}$ contains the masses of the standard $1^{--}$ charmonia, from the $J/\psi$ to the $\psi (4415)$. A third set ${\cal E}^\prime=\{3943, 4008, 4263, 4360, 4661\}$ MeV is composed by the same resonances of the first set ${\cal E}$, where the $Y(4630)$ and the $Y(4660)$ are taken to coincide with the $Y_B(4660)$ state, as proposed in [@charmed_baryonium]. In this study we will neglect the uncertainties on the masses.
In order to choose the parameter $w$ we are introducing, we study the behavior of $\Lambda(w,y)$ on some test series. We choose $w=1$, because smaller values are insensitive to variations of the spacings at the extrema of the series, whereas greater values are useless as they do not add further information.
From now on we will use the notation $\Lambda(1,y)\equiv \Lambda(y)$. As we deal with 5 and 6 level sequences, we generate a large number of $\Lambda(y)$ samples from GOE and Poisson series. The GOE samples are obtained by diagonalizing 30 random GOE matrices $4000 \times 4000$ in size, obtaining 24000 series of 5 levels each and 19980 series of 6 levels each; the number of Poisson samples is similar (24000 and 20000). The integral in $\Delta_3(x,y)$ is evaluated analytically, whereas the $\Lambda$’s are obtained by a midpoint rectangle approximation. We choose to evaluate $\Lambda(y)$ for integers and half-integers, with $y\in[0.5,7]$ ($\Lambda(0)$ is identically zero). Note that each experimental data set has to be compared with samples of same cardinality.
A comparison between the statistical properties of $\Delta_3$ as a function of the number of spacings and our $\Lambda(y)$ is given in Figure \[fig:delta\_mean\]. There we introduce the ensemble averages $\langle \cdot \rangle_{_{\rm P, GOE}}$ where P stands for averaging against the Poisson Ensemble and GOE is for the Random Matrix ensemble. The ensemble average $\langle \Delta_3\rangle_{_{\rm P,GOE}}$ is computed exactly in [@metha]. The $\langle \Lambda(y)\rangle_{_{\rm P,GOE}}$ is computed via the Monte Carlo sampling described above.
The $\langle \Lambda(y)\rangle_{_{\rm P,GOE}}$ have respectively the same linear and logarithmic behavior as $\langle \Delta_3\rangle_{_{\rm P,GOE}}$, apart from the last points where finite-size effects dominate. A clear discrimination between GOE and Poisson sets is reached at $y$ large.
![[]{data-label="fig:delta_mean"}](deltameans.png){width="60.00000%"}
We now study the level properties of the experimental series ${\cal E}$ and ${\cal S}$. We observe that it is hard to discriminate between Poisson and non-Poisson sets because of the large variance of the Poisson $\Lambda(y)$ random variable. On the other hand the GOE distributions have a smaller variance, so a more significant discrimination is possible between GOE and non-GOE sets by looking at high values of $y$.
In Fig. \[fig:goe\_areas\] we show the experimental $\Lambda(y)$ for the ${\cal E}$ and ${\cal S}$ levels compared to the six level GOE averages. The results obtained for the sets ${\cal E}$ and ${\cal E^\prime}$ are compatible with the hypothesis of GOE distributed levels whereas this turns out not to be true for the ${\cal S}$ set.
Given the random variable $\Lambda(y)$ relative to the GOE ensemble we compute the related distribution function $f_y$ as depicted in Fig. \[fig:delta\_7\]. We thus introduce $$\alpha_y \equiv \int_{\{s : f_y(s)<\bar f_y\}} f_y(s) ds$$ where $\bar f_y$ is the value assumed by the distribution $f_y$ in correspondence of the SR $\Lambda(y)$ associated to the experimental data set ${\cal S}$. $\alpha_y$ takes values in the $[0,1]$ interval; in correspondence of small $\alpha_y$ values the null-hypothesis that ${\cal S}$ is a realization of the GOE ensemble has to be rejected.
We consider the most significant five cases $y=5,5.5,6,6.5,7$ and compute the corresponding $\alpha_y$ by constructing a binned distribution $f_y$. By averaging over different binning choices we obtain the data reported in Table. 1 where for $y\ge5$ the fraction $\alpha_y$ is smaller than 0.1.
$y$ $5$ $5.5$ $6$ $6.5$ $7$
------------ ---------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
$\alpha_y$ $0.097 $ $0.084$ $0.095$ $0.096$ $0.089$
: []{data-label="alpha_table"}
![In the two figures the experimental and sampled data for 5-levels (left panel) and 6-levels series are shown. Solid lines show the experimental $\Lambda(y)$ for the $\mathcal S$, $\mathcal E$ and $\mathcal{E}^\prime$ series. For any $y$, the black line indicates the point where the maximum of the distribution $f_y$ is attained; the colored areas indicate the regions that contain 50% or 90% of the $\Lambda(y)$ samples. Note that when $\Lambda(y)$ is outside the $90\%$ area, the parameter $\alpha_y$ is smaller than $0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:goe_areas"}](deltan5.png){width="7truecm"}
![In the two figures the experimental and sampled data for 5-levels (left panel) and 6-levels series are shown. Solid lines show the experimental $\Lambda(y)$ for the $\mathcal S$, $\mathcal E$ and $\mathcal{E}^\prime$ series. For any $y$, the black line indicates the point where the maximum of the distribution $f_y$ is attained; the colored areas indicate the regions that contain 50% or 90% of the $\Lambda(y)$ samples. Note that when $\Lambda(y)$ is outside the $90\%$ area, the parameter $\alpha_y$ is smaller than $0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:goe_areas"}](deltan6.png){width="7truecm"}
Computing the analogous quantity for the data sets ${\cal E}$ and ${\cal E^\prime}$ we get values larger than 0.4 for $y\ge 5$.
It is then reasonable to reject the hypothesis that ${\cal S}$ levels are extracted from the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble. Note that, because of the large variance of the Poisson samples, it is practically impossible to reject the hypothesis that a series of few levels ($\lesssim 20$) belongs to the Poisson Ensemble, but, as observed above, it is easier to state that they are not of the GOE type.
As an example in Fig. \[fig:delta\_7\] the sampled distributions for $\Lambda(7)$ are shown and the experimental values of the ${\cal S}$ and ${\cal E}$ sequences.
![[Sampled distributions for $\Lambda(7)$. The histograms are obtained with 19980 GOE samples and 20000 Poisson samples and rescaled to unit area. The vertical lines indicate the $\Lambda(7)$ value for the *standard* and the *exotica* series. The bin width is equal 0.008.]{}[]{data-label="fig:delta_7"}](delta76.png){width="60.00000%"}
[***Conclusions***]{}. Comparing the spectral rigidity of standard $S$-wave charmonia with that of the unconventional vector resonances recently discovered, we observe that the latter states are more significantly compatible with the hypothesis of being the levels of some multiquark Hamiltonian (whose classical analog exhibits chaotic dynamics and therefore having quantum levels distributed with the Wigner law) than the former, which, on the other hand, could be thought as the levels of some classically integrable one - as the simplest version of the Cornell potential Hamiltonian is. The limit of this analysis is in the small amount of experimental data available both in the standard and unconventional sectors. We have introduced a slight modification of the spectral rigidity estimators used in the literature to improve as much as possible the quality of our analysis with a small number of levels.
Molecular Hamiltonians, besides the fact that describe two-body systems, could as well be regulated by complicated potentials with Wigner distributed quantum level spacings. Yet there are states in the ${\cal E}$ sequence of unconventional $1^{--}$ resonances which do not match molecular thresholds whereas the most accredited hadron molecule model has $S$-wave molecules almost exactly at threshold. There are no clear hints on the form of these potentials neither and the main problem of the spectroscopy of the new $X,Y,Z$ resonances remains that of finding a unified description that accounts for both on and off-threshold particles.
[***Acknowledgements***]{}. We wish to thank A. Vulpiani for informative discussions.
Belle Collaboration, arXiv:1105.4583 \[hep-ex\]. C. Bignamini, B. Grinstein, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa, C. Sabelli, “Is the X(3872) Production Cross Section at Tevatron Compatible with a Hadron Molecule Interpretation?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 162001 (2009). \[arXiv:0906.0882 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. Artoisenet, E. Braaten, Phys. Rev. [**D83**]{}, 014019 (2011). \[arXiv:1007.2868 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. E. Bondar, A. Garmash, A. I. Milstein, R. Mizuk, M. B. Voloshin, \[arXiv:1105.4473 \[hep-ph\]\]; Y. Yang, J. Ping, C. Deng, H. -S. Zong, \[arXiv:1105.5935 \[hep-ph\]\]; J. Nieves, M. P. Valderrama, \[arXiv:1106.0600 \[hep-ph\]\]; J. Nieves, M. P. Valderrama, \[arXiv:1106.0600 \[hep-ph\]\]. A compact tetraquark interpretation is attempted in T. Guo, L. Cao, M. -Z. Zhou, H. Chen, \[arXiv:1106.2284 \[hep-ph\]\].
L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa, V. Riquer, “Diquark-antidiquarks with hidden or open charm and the nature of $X(3872)$,” Phys. Rev. [**D71**]{}, 014028 (2005). \[hep-ph/0412098\].
N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, B. K. Heltsley, R. Vogt, G. T. Bodwin, E. Eichten, A. D. Frawley, A. B. Meyer [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. [**C71**]{}, 1534 (2011). \[arXiv:1010.5827 \[hep-ph\]\].
H. Markum, W. Plessas, R. Pullirsch, B. Sengl, R. F. Wagenbrunn, “Quantum chaos in QCD and hadrons,” \[hep-lat/0505011\].
O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, C. Schmit, “Characterization of chaotic quantum spectra and universality of level fluctuation laws,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 1-4 (1984).
F. Dyson, M. L. Mehta, *Statistical Theory of the Energy Levels of Complex Systems. IV*. Journal of Mathematical Physics, Volume 4, Number 5, 701, 21 January 1963.
M. L. Mehta, *Random Matrices*, Elsevier Academic Press, 3rd Edition, 2004.
R. U. Haq, A. Pandey, O. Bohigas, “Fluctuations Properties of Nuclear Energy Levels: do Theory and Experiment Agree?”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1086 (1982).
G. Cotugno, R. Faccini, A. D. Polosa, C. Sabelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 132005 (2010). \[arXiv:0911.2178 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: As well the Gaussian Unitary and Symplectic Ensembles
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 2,\
D-85748 Garching bei München, Germany\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'G. Meylan'
title: The Internal Dynamics of Globular Clusters
---
Introduction
==============
There are about 150 globulars orbiting in the halo of our Galaxy. They look like huge swarms of stars, characterized by symmetry and apparent smoothness. Fig. 1 below displays an image of NGC 5139 $\equiv$ , the brightest and most massive galactic globular cluster. This 40 by 40 image from the Digital Sky Survey does not reach, in spite of its rather large angular size, the outer parts of the cluster. With its tidal radius of about 40-50, the apparent diameter of on the plane of the sky is significantly larger than the apparent 30 diameter of the full moon.
Globular clusters are old stellar systems, made of one single generation of stars. Although still somewhat uncertain, their individual ages range between about 10 and 15 Gyr, with possible significant differences, up to a few gigayears, from one cluster to the other. Other properties of globular clusters exhibit significant variations: e.g., their integrated absolute magnitudes range from = –1.7 to –10.1 mag; their total masses from = $10^3$ to 5 ; their galactocentric distances from 2 to 120 kpc.
![NGC 5139 $\equiv$ is the brightest and most massive galactic globular cluster. This image, from the Digital Sky Survey, has 40 by 40 in size. North is to the top, East to the left.[]{data-label=""}](fig1cendss.ps){width=".8\textwidth"}
A few dynamical time scales
=============================
The dynamics of any stellar system may be characterized by the following three dynamical time scales: (i) the crossing time $t_{cr}$, which is the time needed by a star to move across the system; (ii) the relaxation time $t_{rlx}$, which is the time needed by the stellar encounters to redistribute energies, setting up a near-maxwellian velocity distribution; (iii) the evolution time $t_{ev}$, which is the time during which energy-changing mechanisms operate, stars escape, while the size and profile of the system change.
In the case of globular clusters, $t_{cr}$ $\sim$ , $t_{rlx}$ $\sim$ 100 , and $t_{ev}$ $\sim$ 10 . It is worth mentioning that several (different and precise) definitions exist for the relaxation time. The most commonly used is the half-mass relaxation time $t_{rh}$ of Spitzer (1987, Eq. 2-62), where the values for the mass-weighted mean square velocity of the stars and the mass density are those evaluated at the half-mass radius of the system (see Meylan & Heggie 1997 for a review). It has been suggested that the combination of relaxation with the chaotic nature of stellar orbits in non-integrable potentials (e.g., most axisymmetric potentials) causes a great enhancement in the rate of relaxation (Pfenniger 1986, Kandrup & Willmes 1994). Another suggestion which, if confirmed, would revolutionise the theory of relaxation was made by Gurzadyan & Savvidy (1984, 1986) who proposed a much faster relaxation time scale than in standard theory, by a factor of order $N^{2/3}$. There is some support for this view on observational grounds (Vesperini 1992a,b).
From size, luminosity, and mass points of view, globular clusters are bracketed by open clusters on the lower side and dwarf elliptical galaxies on the upper side. Table 1 displays, for open clusters, globular clusters, and galaxies, some interesting relations between the above three time scales. For open clusters, crossing time $t_{cr}$ and relaxation time $t_{rlx}$ are more or less equivalent, both being significantly smaller than the evolution time $t_{ev}$. This means that most open clusters dissolve within a few gigayears. For galaxies, relaxation time $t_{rlx}$ and evolution time $t_{ev}$ are more or less equivalent, both being significantly larger than the crossing time $t_{cr}$. This means that galaxies are not relaxed, i.e., not dynamically evolved. It is only for globular clusters that all three time scales are significantly different, implying plenty of time for a significant dynamical evolution in these stellar systems, although avoiding quick evaporation.
Consequently, globular clusters represent an interesting class of dynamical stellar systems in which some dynamical processes take place on time scales shorter than their age, i.e., shorter than the Hubble time, providing us with unique dynamical laboratories for learning about two-body relaxation, mass segregation from equipartition of energy, stellar collisions, stellar mergers, and core collapse. All these dynamical phenomena are related to the internal dynamical evolution only, and would also happen in isolated globular clusters. The external dynamical disturbances — tidal stripping by the galactic gravitational field — influence equally strongly the dynamical evolution of globular clusters.
------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------- -- --
open clusters t$_{cr}$ $\sim$ t$_{rlx}$ $\ll$ t$_{ev}$ quickly dissolved
globular clusters t$_{cr}$ $\ll$ t$_{rlx}$ $\ll$ t$_{ev}$
galaxies t$_{cr}$ $\ll$ t$_{rlx}$ $\sim$ t$_{ev}$ not relaxed
------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------- -- --
Model building for globular clusters
======================================
Already before the pioneering work of von Hoerner (1960), who made the first $N$-body calculations with $N$ = 16, it was realized that computation of individual stellar motions could be replaced by statistical methods. Some parallels were drawn between a molecular gas and star clusters: the stars were considered as mass points representing the molecules in a collisionless gas. The analogy between a gas of molecules and a gas of stars is subject to criticisms, since the mean free path of a molecule is generally quite small compared with the size or scale height of the system, whereas the mean free path of a star is much larger then the diameter of the cluster; in addition molecules travel along straight lines, while stars move along orbits in the gravitational potential of all the other stars of the stellar system. Stellar collisions in clusters were studied by Jeans (1913), who remarked that they might be important in such stellar systems. The problem was then to seek the possible spherical distribution of such a gas in a steady state.
Boltzmann’s equation
----------------------
The commonest way of defining a model of a star cluster is in terms of its distribution function $f(\br,\bv,m)$, which is defined by the statement that $fd^3\br d^3\bv dm$ is the mean number of stars with positions in a small box $d^3\br$ in space, velocities in a small box $d^3\bv$ and masses in an interval $dm$. In terms of this description a fairly general equation for the dynamical evolution is Boltzmann’s equation, $${\partial f\over\partial t} + \bv.\nabla_{\br}f -
\nabla_{\br}\Phi.\nabla_{\bv}f = {\partial f\over\partial t}_{enc}, \eqno(1)$$ where $\Phi$ is the smoothed gravitational potential per unit mass, and the right-hand side describes the effect of two-body encounters. The distribution $f$ is a function of 7 variables if we take into account time. This is rather more than can be handle. But it is possible to reduce the complexity posed by Boltzmann’s equation by taking moments.
By taking moments of the Boltzmann’s equation with respect to velocities we obtain, for n = 0 and 1, the Jeans equations which are expressions describing the rotation and the velocity dispersion: $$\int Boltzmann \cdot v_j^n d^3{\bf v} = Jeans Equ. \eqno(2)$$ By taking moments of the Jeans equations with respect to positions, we obtain the Tensor Virial equations which are expressions relating the global kinematics to the morphology of the system, e.g., the ratio of ordered to random motions: $$\int Jeans \cdot x_j^n d^3{\bf x} = Tensor~ Virial \eqno(3)$$ In these ways, we obtain information about the general properties of solutions of Boltzmann’s equation without recovering any solutions.
Liouville’s equation and Jean’s theorem
-----------------------------------------
The general Boltzmann’s equation can be greatly simplified in other ways. Because $t_{cr}$ is so short, after a few orbits the stars are mixed into a nearly stationary distribution, and so the term $\partial
f/\partial t$ is practically equal to zero. In a similar way, because is so long, the collision term $(\partial f/\partial t)_{enc}$ can be ignored. What is left, i.e., $$\bv.\nabla_{\br}f - \nabla_{\br}\Phi.\nabla_{\bv}f = 0, \eqno(4)$$ is an equilibrium form of what is frequently called Liouville’s equation, or the collisionless Boltzmann’s equation, or the Vlasov equation.
In simple cases, the general solution of Equ. 4 is given by Jeans’ theorem, which states that $f$ must be a function of the constants of the equations of motion of a star, e.g., of the stellar energy per unit mass $\varepsilon = v^2/2 + \Phi$. Such quantities are also called integrals of the motion. If not all integrals of the motion are known, such functions are still solutions, though not the most general. For a self-consistent solution, the distribution function $f$ must correspond to the density $\rho$ required to provide the cluster potential $\Phi_c$, i.e.: $$\nabla^2\Phi_c = 4\pi G\rho
= 4\pi G\int mfd^3\br d^3\bv dm.
\eqno(5)$$ Many different kinds of models may be constructed with this approach. In the first place there is considerable freedom of choice over which integrals of the motion to include. In the second place one is free to choose the functional dependence of these integrals, i.e., the analytic form of the distribution function (see, e.g., Binney 1982, and Binney & Tremaine 1987).
King (1966) provided the first grid of models (with different concentrations where and are the tidal and core radii, respectively) that incorporate the three most important elements governing globular cluster structure: dynamical equilibrium, two-body relaxation, and tidal truncation. These models depend on one integral of the motion only — the stellar energy per unit mass $\varepsilon$ — and the functional dependence is based on the lowered maxwellian (see Equ. 6 below). Such models are spherical and their velocity dispersion tensor is everywhere isotropic.
Models more complicated have been built since then. Da Costa & Freeman (1976) generalized the simple single-mass King models to produce more realistic multi-mass models with full equipartition of energy in the centre. Gunn & Griffin (1979) developed multi-mass models whose distribution functions depend on the stellar energy per unit mass $\varepsilon$ and the specific angular momentum $l$. Such models are spherical and have a radial anisotropic velocity dispersion ($\overline {v_r^2}$ $\not=$ $\overline {v_{\theta}^2}$ = $\overline
{v_{\phi}^2}$). Called King-Michie models, they associate the lowered maxwellian of the King model with the anisotropy factor of the Eddington models: $$f(\varepsilon,l) \propto
(\exp(-2j^2\varepsilon)-\exp(-2j^2\varepsilon_t)) ~
\exp(-j^2 l^2/r_a^2) \eqno(6)$$ Lupton & Gunn (1987) developed multi-mass models whose distribution functions depend on a third integral of motion $I_3$, in addition to the stellar energy per unit mass $\varepsilon$ and the component of angular momentum parallel to the rotation axis $l_z$. Although no general analytical form for a third integral is available, the existence of an analytic third integral of motion $I_3$ in special cases has been known for decades, since the work by Jeans (1915). Because the rotation creates a non-spherical potential, $I_3$ = $l^2$ is in fact only an approximate integral and Lupton & Gunn’s distribution function does not obey the collisionless Boltzmann’s equation for equilibrium (Eq. 4).
[|l|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} && &\
&& &\
&& &\
& & & & & & &\
& & King & Michie- & 3-Integral & Gas & Fokker- & N-Body\
& & & King & & & Planck &\
& & & & & & &\
\
& & & & & & &\
Anisotropy& & ... & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$ & $\surd$\
Rotation & & ... & ... & $\surd$ & ... & $\surd$ & $\surd$\
Flattening& & ... & ... & $\surd$ & ... & $\surd$ & $\surd$\
& & & & & & &\
\
& & & & & & &\
Stellar &1-body& ... & ... & ... &$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$\
evolution& & & & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
Relaxation&2-body&$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$\
& & & & & & &\
Tidal & & & & & & &\
Interactions&2-body&... & ... & ... & ... &$\surd$&$\surd$\
Collisions& & & & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
Stellar&2-body&$\surd$& ... & ... & ... &$\surd$&$\surd$\
Escape & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
Primordial&3- and& ... & ... & ... &$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$\
Binaries &4-body& & & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
Stellar&collision-&$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$\
Motions&less & & & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
Steady&collision-&$\surd$&$\surd$&$\surd$& ... &$\surd$&$\surd$\
Tide&less & & & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
Disk&collision-& ... & ... & ... & ... &$\surd$&$\surd$\
Shocking&less & & & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
These were notable landmarks in these developments, among many others. Table 2 hereafter, from Meylan & Heggie (1997), list for the static models (King, King-Michie, 3-Integral) and for the evolutionary models (gas, Fokker-Planck, N-Body) the dynamical features and dynamical processes they take into account. Under the heading Dynamical Process, the second column in Table 2 states what kind of physical process it is that is named in the first column.
Parametric and non-parametric approaches
========================================
The method in the above section for analyzing globular cluster data is a model-building, or parametric, approach. One begins by postulating a functional form for the distribution function $f$ and the gravitational potential $\Phi$; often the two are linked via Poisson’s equation, i.e. the stars described by $f$ are assumed to contain all of the mass that contributes to $\Phi$. This $f$ is then projected into observable space and its predictions compared with the data. If the discrepancies are significant, the model is rejected and another one is tried. If no combination of functions $\{f,\Phi\}$ from the adopted family can be found that reproduces the data, one typically adds extra degrees of freedom until the fit is satisfactory. For instance, $f$ may be allowed to depend on a larger number of integrals of the motion (Lupton & Gunn 1987) or the range of possible potentials may be increased by postulating additional populations of unseen stars (Da Costa & Freeman 1976).
This approach has enjoyed considerable popularity, in part because it is computationally straightforward but also because, as King (1981) has emphasized, globular cluster data are generally well fitted by these standard models. But one never knows which of the assumptions underlying the models are adhered to by the real system and which are not. For instance, a deviation between the surface density profile of a globular cluster and the profile predicted by an isotropic model is sometimes taken as evidence that the real cluster is anisotropic. But it is equally possible that the adopted form for $f(\varepsilon)$ is simply in error, since by adjusting the dependence of $f$ on $\varepsilon$ one can reproduce any density profile without anisotropy. Even including the additional constraint of a measured velocity dispersion profile does not greatly improve matters since it is always possible to trade off the mass distribution with the velocity anisotropy in such a way as to leave the observed dispersions unchanged (Dejonghe & Merritt 1992). Conclusions drawn from the model-building studies are hence very difficult to interpret; they are valid only to the extent that the assumed functional forms for $f$ and $\Phi$ are correct.
These arguments suggest that it might be profitable to interpret kinematical data from globular clusters in an entirely different manner, placing much stronger demands on the data and making fewer ad hoc assumptions about $f$ and $\Phi$. Ideally, the unknown functions should be generated non-parametrically from the data. Such an approach pioneered by Merritt (see, e.g., Merritt 1993a,b, 1996) has rarely been tried in the past because of the inherent instability of the deprojection process. We provide here after the results of two studies (parametric and non-parametric, respectively) of the globular cluster , both studies using exactly the same observational data (surface brightness profile and stellar radial velocities).
Parametric approach applied to
-------------------------------
The mean radial velocities obtained with CORAVEL (Mayor 1997) for 469 individual stars located in the galactic globular cluster provide the velocity dispersion profile. It increases significantly from the outer parts inwards: the 16 outermost stars, located between 19.2 and 22.4 from the center, have a velocity dispersion = 5.1 1.6 , while the 16 innermost stars, located within 1 from the center, have a velocity dispersion = 21.9 3.9 . This inner value of about = 22 is the largest velocity dispersion value obtained in the core of any galactic globular cluster (Meylan 1995).
A simultaneous fit of these radial velocities and of the surface brightness profile to a multi-mass King-Michie dynamical model provides mean estimates of the total mass equal to = 5.1 , with a corresponding mean mass-to-light ratio = 4.1. The present results emphasize the fact that is not only the brightest but also, by far, the most massive galactic globular cluster (Meylan 1995).
The fact that only models with strong anisotropy of the velocity dispersion ( = 2-3 ) agree with the observations does not give a definitive proof of the presence of such anisotropy because of fundamental indetermination in the comparison between King-Michie models and observations. A strong anisotropy is nevertheless expected outside of the core of , given the large value of the half-mass relaxation time of about 26 $\leq$ $\leq$ 46 ) (Meylan 1995).
The reliability of the present application of King-Michie models might be questionable on a few fundamental points. In addition to the arbitrary choices of the two integrals of the motion and of the functional dependence of the distribution function on these two integrals, there is also the assumption of thermal equilibrium among the different mass classes in the central parts of the cluster. From a theoretical point of view, mass segregation has been one of the early important results to emanate from small N-body simulations. Since then, large N-body simulations and models integrating the Fokker-Planck equation for many thousands of stars have fully confirmed the presence of equipartition. Thanks to the high angular resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) cameras (FOC and WFPC2), mass segregation has now been observed in the core of a few galactic globular clusters (see, e.g., Anderson 1997, 1999). In the case of , the observed luminosity function by Anderson (1997, 1999) is in close agreement with equipartition-assuming King-Michie models and fails to fit the no-segregation models. This dichotomy is not as clear in the case of , probably because of its rather long central relaxation time.
The problem about mass segregation does not concern its existence — it is happening —, but rather its quantitative evolution. Can there be an end to mass segregation, i.e., does the system ever reach a stable thermal equilibrium ? Underlying is the problem of core collapse (see Spitzer 1969, Chernoff & Weinberg 1990), which is briefly described in § 7 below.
Non-parametric approach applied to
-----------------------------------
The stellar dynamics of is inferred from the same radial velocities of 469 stars used in § 4.1 (Mayor 1997). By assuming that the residual velocities are isotropic in the meridional plane, $\sigma_{\varpi}=\sigma_z\equiv\sigma$, Merritt (1997) derived the dependence of the two independent velocity dispersions $\sigma$ and $\sigma_{\phi}$ on various positions in the meridional plane. The central velocity dispersion parallel to the meridional plane is = $17^{+2.1}_{-2.6}$ . With this approach, there is no evidence for significant anisotropy anywhere in . Thus, this cluster can reasonably be described as an isotropic oblate rotator (Merritt 1997).
The binned surface brightness measurements from Meylan (1986) are plotted in Fig. 2a, where the solid line in is an estimate of the surface brightness profile $\Sigma(R)$, as the solution to the optimization problem. The estimate of space density profile $\nu(r)$ may be defined as the Abel inversion of the estimate $\Sigma(R)$: $$\nu(r) = -{1\over\pi}\int_r^{\infty} {d\Sigma\over dR}
{dR\over\sqrt{R^2-r^2}}. \eqno(7)$$ The dashed lines in Fig. 2b are 95% confidence bands on the estimate of $\nu(r)$. Here $r$ is an azimuthally-averaged mean radius. Both profiles are normalized to unit total number. This profile actually has a power-law cusp, $\nu\sim r^{-1}$, inside of 0.5; however the confidence bands are consistent with a wide range of slopes in this region, including even a profile that declines toward the center.
The gravitational potential and mass distribution in are consistent with the predictions of a model in which the mass is distributed in the same way as the bright stars, although the cluster is assumed to be oblate and edge-on but mass is not assumed to follow light. The central mass density is $2110^{+530}_{-510}M_{\odot}{\rm
pc}^{-3}$. However this result may be strongly dependent on the assumption that the velocity ellipsoid is isotropic in the meridional plane. This central mass density determination is in full agreement with the values deduced from King-Michie models by Meylan (1995).
There is no significant evidence for a difference between the velocity dispersions parallel and perpendicular to the meridional plane. The mass distribution inferred from the kinematics is slightly more extended than, though not strongly inconsistent with, the luminosity distribution. The derived two-integral distribution function $f(\varepsilon,l_z)$ for the stars in is fully consistent with the available data.
Large amount of kinematical data (radial velocities and proper motions for a few thousand stars) will soon allow the efficient use of the non-parametric approach in the case of the largest two galactic globular clusters, viz. and (Freeman , Meylan , both in preparation).
Systemic rotation of
======================
Systemic rotation in globular clusters has been expected for a long time, especially in , because of its significant flattening. The first clear evidence of such rotation was observed, in this cluster and in , by Meylan & Mayor (1986). More recently, rather than fitting the data to a family of models, estimate of the rotation was obtain non-parametrically, by direct operation on the data by Merritt (1997).
![Rotation in NGC 5139 $\equiv$ : estimate of the mean azimuthal velocity $\overline{v}_{\phi}$ in the meridional plane of , displayed here in the North-West quadrant. Distances are in arc minutes and contours are labeled in . From Merritt (1997). []{data-label=""}](fig3cenrot.ps){width=".7\textwidth"}
Fig. 3 displays the contours of constant $\overline{v}_{\phi}$ which are remarkably similar in shape to those of the parametric model postulated by Meylan & Mayor (1986), at least in the region near the center where the solution is strongly constrained by the data. The rotational velocity field is clearly not cylindrical; instead, $\overline{v}_{\phi}$ has a peak value of 8 at about 7from the center in the equatorial plane, and falls off both with increasing $\varpi$ and $z$. In the region inside the peak, the rotation is approximately solid-body; at large radii, the available data do not strongly constrain the form of the rotational velocity field. The mean motions are consistent with axisymmetry , once a correction is made for perspective rotation resulting from the cluster proper motion.
The above inferred rotational velocity field in agree remarkably with the predictions of the theoretical model by Einsel & Spurzem (1999), who have investigated the influence of rotation on the dynamical evolution of collisional stellar systems by solving the orbit-averaged Fokker-Planck equation in $(\varepsilon,l_z)$-space. However it is not clear that any relevant comparison exists: because of the long relaxation time in , the rotation probably still reflects to a large extent the state of the cluster shortly after its formation. The observed estimate of $\overline{v}_{\phi}(\varpi,z)$ might therefore be most useful as a constraint on cluster formation models.
But things may be even more complicated ! Using their calcium abundances for about 400 stars with radial velocities by Mayor (1997), Norris (1997) found that the 20% metal-rich tail of the \[Ca/H\] distribution is not only more centrally concentrated, but is also kinematically cooler than the 80% metal-poor component. While the metal-poorer component exhibits well-defined systemic rotation, the metal-richer one shows no evidence of it, in contradistinction to the simple dissipative enrichment scenario of cluster formation.
Rotation vs. velocity dispersion
==================================
All results about rotation depend on the value of the angle $i$ between the plane of the sky and the axis of symmetry of the cluster. This angle remains unknown. Since the two best studied clusters, viz. and , belong to the small group of clusters which, among the 150 galactic globular clusters, are the flattest ones, we can expect, from a statistical point of view, that their angles $i$ should not be very different from 0 $\leq$ $i$ $\leq$ 30, the clusters being seen nearly edge-on. The importance of rotation (namely, of its projection along the line of sight) increases as $i$ gets closer to 0.
The relative importance of rotational to random motions is given by the ratio , where $v_{\circ}^2$ is the mass-weighted mean square rotation velocity and $\sigma_{\circ}^2$ is the mass-weighted mean square random velocity. For $i$ = 90 and 60, in the ratio = 0.35 and 0.39 and in the ratio = 0.40 and 0.46, respectively (Meylan & Mayor 1986). Even with $i$ = 45, the dynamical importance of rotation remains weak compared to random motions. The ratio of rotational to random kinetic energies is $\simeq$ 0.1, confirming the fact that globular clusters are, above all, hot stellar systems.
Rotation has been directly observed and measured in twelve globular clusters (see Table 7.2 in Meylan & Heggie 1997). The diagram ( vs. ), of the ratio of ordered $v_{\circ}$ to random $\sigma_{\circ}$ motions as a function of the ellipticity , has been frequently used for elliptical galaxies and its meaning is extensively discussed in Binney & Tremaine (1987 Chapter 4.3). The low luminosity ($L$ 2.5 10$^{10}$ ) elliptical galaxies and spheroids have (,) values which are scattered along the relation for oblate systems with isotropic velocity-dispersion tensors, while the high luminosity ($L$ 2.5 10$^{10}$ ) elliptical galaxies have (,) values which are scattered below the above relation, indicating the presence of anisotropic velocity-dispersion tensors. Given their small mean ellipticities (0.00 $\leq$ $\leq$ 0.12), globular clusters are located in the lower-left corner of the ( vs. ) diagram, an area characterized by isotropy or mild anisotropy of the velocity-dispersion tensor.
Overwhole dynamical evolution towards core collapse
=====================================================
Till the late ninety seventies, globular clusters were thought to be relatively static stellar systems since most surface-brightness profiles of globular clusters were successfully fitted by equilibrium models. Nevertheless, it had been already known, since the early sixties, that globular clusters had to evolve dynamically, even when considering only relaxation, which causes stars to escape, consequently cluster cores to contract and envelopes to expand. But dynamical evolution of globular clusters was not yet a field of research by itself, since the very few theoretical investigations had led to a most puzzling paradox: core collapse (Hénon 1961, Lynden-Bell & Wood 1968).
It was only in the early eighties that the field grew dramatically. On the theoretical side, the development of high-speed computers allowed numerical simulations of dynamical evolution. Nowadays, Fokker-Planck and conducting-gas-sphere evolutionary models have been computed well into core collapse and beyond, leading to the discovery of possible post-collapse oscillations. In a similar way, hardware and software improvements of N-body codes provide very interesting first results for 10$^4$-body simulations (Makino 1996a,b, Spurzem & Aarseth 1996, Portegies Zwart 1999), and give the first genuine hope, in a few years, for 10$^5$-body simulations. On the observational side, the manufacture of low-readout-noise Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs), combined since 1990 with the high spatial resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), allow long integrations on faint astronomical targets in crowded fields, and provide improved data analyzed with sophisticated software packages.
Gravothermal instability, gravothermal oscillations
=====================================================
For many years (between about 1940 and 1960) secular evolution of globular cluster was understood in terms of the evaporative model of Ambartsumian (1938) and Spitzer (1940). In this model it is assumed that two-body relaxation attempts to set up a maxwellian distribution of velocities on the time scale of a relaxation time, but that stars with velocities above the escape velocity promptly escape. The next major step in understanding came when it was discovered that evolution arises also when stars escape from the inner parts of the cluster to larger radii, without necessarily escaping altogether. Antonov (1962) realised that these internal readjustments need not lead to a structure in thermal equilibrium, because thermal equilibrium may be unstable in self-gravitating systems (see Lynden-Bell & Wood 1968). The well known process of core collapse is interpreted as a manifestation of the gravothermal instability.
Core collapse has been first observed and studied in simulations using gas and Fokker-Planck models. For an isolated cluster (without a tidal field) the time scale for the entire evolution of the core (when the density has formally become infinite) is about 15.7 $t_{rh}$(0), when expressed in terms of the initial half-mass relaxation time (Cohn 1980). This result is for an isotropic code starting from a Plummer model with stars of equal mass, while for an anisotropic code the time extends to 17.6 $t_{rh}(0)$ (Takahashi 1995).
The collapse time is generally shorter in the presence of unequal masses (Inagaki & Wiyanto 1984, Chernoff & Weinberg 1990). Murphy & Cohn (1988) give surface brightness and velocity dispersion profiles at various times during collapse, for a system with a reasonably realistic present-day mass spectrum. Addition of effects of stellar evolution, modeled as instantaneous mass loss at the end of main sequence evolution, delays the onset of core collapse (Angeletti & Giannone 1980, Applegate 1986, Chernoff & Weinberg 1990, Kim 1992). The effect of a galactic time-dependent tidal field can be to accelerate core collapse (Spitzer & Chevalier 1973).
Examples of $N$-body models which illustrate various aspects of core collapse include Aarseth (1988), where $N = 1,000$, Giersz & Heggie (1993) ($N\le2,000$), Spurzem & Aarseth (1996) ($N = 10,000$), and Makino (1996a,b; see Fig. 4 hereafter) ($N\le32,000$).
![ Core collapse in systems with equal masses, from N-body integrations by Makino (1996b). The logarithm of the central density is plotted against time, scaled in proportion to the initial half-mass relaxation time. The successive curves, which correspond to different values of $N$, have been displaced vertically for clarity. For $N\le32,000$ the first core collapse is clearly followed by gravothermal oscillations. []{data-label=""}](fig4makino.ps){width="100.00000%"}
At one time, it was not at all certain that a cluster could survive beyond the end of core collapse, with as a singularity characterized by infinite central density. Thus, many experts doubted whether the study of post-collapse clusters had any relevance to the interpretation of observations. Hénon (1961, 1965) showed that a cluster without such a singularity would evolve into one that did, and he realised that, in a real system, a flux of energy might well be supplied by the formation and evolution of binary stars, governing a series of collapses and expansions of the cluster core.
Numerical simulations using gas and Fokker-Planck models show that systems with at least a few thousand stars (Goodman 1987, Heggie & Ramamani 1989, Breeden 1994) follow a complicated succession of collapses and expansions, called gravothermal oscillations by their discoverers (Sugimoto & Bettwieser 1983, Bettwieser & Sugimoto 1984). Quite apart from their relevance in nature, these oscillations are interesting in their own right, as an example of chaotic dynamics. From this point of view they have been studied by Allen & Heggie (1992), Breeden & Packard (1994), and Breeden & Cohn (1995).
In 1995 the genuine occurrence of gravothermal oscillations in $N$-body systems was spectacularly demonstrated by Makino (1996a,b). These results confirm that the nature of post-collapse evolution in $N$-body systems is far more stochastic than in the simplified continuum models on which so much of our understanding rests at present.
Observational evidence of core collapse
=========================================
In the eighties, CCD observations allowed a systematic investigation of the inner surface brightness profiles (within $\sim$ 3) of 127 galactic globular clusters (Djorgovski & King 1986, Chernoff & Djorgovski 1989, Trager 1995). These authors sorted the globular clusters into two different classes: (i) the King model clusters, whose surface brightness profiles resemble a single-component King model with a flat isothermal core and a steep envelope, and (ii) the collapsed-core clusters, whose surface brightness profiles follow an almost pure power law with an exponent of about –1. In the Galaxy, about 20% of the globular clusters belong to the second type, exhibiting in their inner regions apparent departures from King-model profiles. Consequently, they are considered to have collapsed cores.
The globular cluster M15 has long been considered as a prototype of the collapsed-core star clusters. High-resolution imaging of the centre of M15 has resolved the luminosity cusp into essentially three bright stars. Post-refurbishment HST star-count data confirm that the 2.2 core radius observed by Lauer (1991), and questioned by Yanny (1994), is observed neither by Guhathakurta (1996) with WFPC2 data nor by Sosin & King (1996) with FOC data. This surface-density profile clearly continues to climb steadily within 2. A maximum-likelihood method rules out a 2 core at the 95% confidence level. It is not possible to distinguish at present between a pure power-law profile and a very small core (Sosin & King 1996). Consequently, among the galactic globular clusters, M15 displays one of the best cases of clusters caught in a state of deep core collapse.
Tidal tails from wide-field imaging
=====================================
Tidal truncation
------------------
In addition to the effects of their internal dynamical evolution, globular clusters suffer strong dynamical evolution from the potential well of their host galaxy (Gnedin & Ostriker 1997, Murali & Weinberg 1997). These external forces speed up the internal dynamical evolution of these stellar systems, accelerating their destruction. Shocks are caused by the tidal field of the galaxy: interactions with the disk, the bulge and, somehow, with the giant molecular clouds, heat up the outer regions of each star cluster. The stars in the halo are stripped by the tidal field. All globular clusters are expected to have already lost an important fraction of their mass, deposited in the form of individual stars in the halo of the Galaxy (see Meylan & Heggie 1997 for a review).
Recent N-body simulations of globular clusters embedded in a realistic galactic potential (Oh & Lin 1992; Johnston 1999) were performed in order to study the amount of mass loss for different kinds of orbits and different kinds of clusters, along with the dynamics and the mass segregation in tidal tails. Grillmair (1995) in an observational analysis of star counts in the outer parts of a few galactic globular clusters found extra-cluster overdensities that they associated partly with stars stripped into the Galaxy field.
Tidal tails from wide-field observations
------------------------------------------
Leon, Meylan & Combes (2000) studied the 2-D structures of the tidal tails associated with 20 galactic globular clusters, obtained by using the wavelet transform to detect weak structures at large scale and filter the strong background noise for the low galactic latitude clusters. They also present N-body simulations of globular clusters in orbits around the Galaxy, in order to study quantitatively and geometrically the tidal effects they encounter (Combes, Leon & Meylan 2000).
Their sample clusters share different properties or locations in the Galaxy, with various masses and structural parameters. It is of course necessary to have very wide field imaging observations. Consequently, they obtained, during the years 1996 and 1997, photographic films with the ESO Schmidt telescope. The field of view is 5.5 5.5with a scale of 67.5/mm. The filters used, viz. BG12 and RG630, correspond to $B$ and $R$, respectively. All these photographic films were digitalized using the MAMA scanning machine of the Observatoire de Paris, which provides a pixel size of 10 . The astrometric performances of the machine are described in Berger (1991).
The next step — identification of all point sources in these frames — was performed using SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996), a software dedicated to the automatic analysis of astronomical images using a multi-threshold algorithm allowing good object deblending. The detection of the stars was done at a 3-$\sigma$ level above the background. This software, which can deal with huge amounts of data (up to 60,000 $\times$ 60,000 pixels) is not suited for very crowded fields like the centers of the globular clusters, which were simply ignored. A star/galaxy separation was performed by using the method of star/galaxy magnitude vs. log(star/galaxy area).
For each field, a ($B$ vs. $B-V$) color-magnitude diagram was constructed, on which a field/cluster star selection was performed, following the method of Grillmair (1995), since cluster stars and field stars exhibit different colors. In this way present and past cluster members could be distinguished from the fore- and background field stars by identifying in the CMD the area occupied primarily by cluster stars. The envelope of this area is empirically chosen so as to optimize the ratio of cluster stars to field stars in the relatively sparsely populated outer regions of each cluster.
Wavelet Analysis
------------------
With the assumption that the data can be viewed as a sum of details with different typical scale lengths, the next step consists of disentangling these details using the space-scale analysis provided by the Wavelet Transform (WT, cf. Slezak 1994; Resnikoff & Wells 1998). Any observational signal includes also some noise, which has a short scale length. Consequently the noise is higher for the small scale wavelet coefficients. Monte-Carlo simulations were performed to estimate the noise at each scale and apply a 3-$\sigma$ threshold on the wavelet coefficients to keep only the reliable structures. In this way it is possible to subtract the short-wavelength noise without removing details from the signal which has longer wavelengths. The remaining overdensities of the cluster-like stars, remaining after the application of the wavelength transform analysis to the star counts, are associated with the stars evaporated from the clusters because of dynamical relaxation and/or tidal stripping by the galactic gravitational field.
It is worth emphasizing that in this study, the following strong observational biases were taken into account: (i) bias due to the clustering of galactic field stars; (ii) bias due to the clustering of background galaxies; (iii) bias due to the fluctuations of the dust extinction, as observed in the IRAS 100- map.
![NGC 5139 $\equiv$ . In the upper panel, filtered image of color-selected star-count overdensities using the Wavelet Transform to be compared with the raw star counts in the lower panel. The upper panel displays the full resolution using the whole set of wavelet planes. From Leon (2000). []{data-label=""}](fig5wcenfilter.eps){width=".7\textwidth"}
Observational Results
-----------------------
The most massive galactic globular cluster, (Meylan 1995), currently crossing the disk plane, is a nearby globular cluster located at a distance of 5.0 kpc from the sun. Its relative proximity allows, for the star count selection, to reach the main sequence significantly below the turn-off. Estimates, taking into account the possible presence of mass segregation in its outer parts, show that about 0.6 to 1 % of its mass has been lost during the current disk shocking event. Although this cluster has, in this study, one of the best tail/background S/N ratios, it is by far not the only one exhibiting tidal tails.
Considering all 20 clusters of the sample, the following conclusions are reached (see Leon, Meylan & Combes 2000 for a complete description of this work):
- All the clusters observed, which do not suffer from strong observational biases, present tidal tails, tracing their dynamical evolution in the Galaxy (evaporation, tidal shocking, tidal torquing, and bulge shocking).
- The clusters in the following sub-sample (viz. NGC 104, NGC 288, NGC 2298, NGC 5139, NGC 5904, NGC 6535, and NGC 6809) exhibit tidal extensions resulting from a recent shock, i.e. tails aligned with the tidal field gradient.
- The clusters in another sub-sample (viz. NGC 1261, NGC 1851, NGC 1904, NGC 5694, NGC 5824, NGC 6205, NGC 7492, Pal 5, and Pal 12) present extensions which are only tracing the orbital path of the cluster with various degrees of mass loss.
- NGC 7492 is a striking case because of its very small extension and its high destruction rate driven by the galaxy as computed by Gnedin & Ostriker (1997). Its dynamical twin for such an evolution, namely Pal 12, exhibits, on the contrary, a large extension tracing its orbital path, with a possible shock which happened more than 350 Myr ago.
- The presence of a break in the outer surface density profile is a reliable indicator of some recent gravitational shocks.
Recent CCD observations with the Wide Field Imager at the ESO/MPI 2.2-m telescope and with the CFH12K camera at the Canada-France-Hawaii 3.6-m telescope will soon provide improved results, because of the more accurate CCD photometry. These observations will allow more precise observational estimates of the mass loss rates for different regimes of galaxy-driven cluster evolution.
Numerical Simulations
-----------------------
Extensive numerical N-body simulations of globular clusters in orbit around the Galaxy were performed in order to study quantitatively and geometrically the tidal effects they encounter and to try to reproduce the above observations. The N-body code used is an FFT algorithm, using the method of James (1977) to avoid the periodic images. With N = 150,000 particles, it required 2.7 seconds of CPU per time step on a Cray-C94.
![ Tidal tails mapped at different epochs with the wavelet algorithm applied to one of our simulations. The direction perpendicular to the galactic plane is indicated by the arrow. The time sequence starts with the lower-left panel and ends with the upper right one. The third panel exhibits tails which are quite reminiscent of what is observed in NGC 5139 $\equiv$ (see Fig. 5 above). From Combes (2000).[]{data-label=""}](fig6m1wave.ps){width=".84\textwidth"}
The globular clusters are represented by multi-mass King-Michie models, including mass segregation at initial conditions. The Galaxy is modeled as realistically as possible, with three components, bulge, disk and dark halo: the bulge is a spherical Plummer law, the disk is a Miyamoto-Nagai model, and the dark matter halo is added to obtain a flat galactic rotation curve.
The main conclusions of these simulations can be summarized as follows (see Combes, Leon & Meylan 2000 for a complete description of this work):
- All runs show that the clusters are always surrounded by tidal tails and debris. This is also true for those that suffered only a very slight mass loss. These unbound particles distribute in volumic density like a power-law as a function of radius, with a slope around –4. This slope is much steeper than in the observations where the background-foreground contamination dominates at very large scale.
- These tails are preferentially composed of low mass stars, since they are coming from the external radii of the cluster; due to mass segregation built up by two-body relaxation, the external radii preferentially gather the low mass stars.
- For sufficiently high and rapid mass loss, the cluster takes a prolate shape, whose major axis precesses around the z-axis.
- When the tidal tail is very long (high mass loss) it follows the cluster orbit: the observation of the tail geometry is thus a way to deduce cluster orbits. Stars are not distributed homogeneously through the tails, but form clumps, and the densest of them, located symmetrically in the tails, are the tracers of the strongest gravitational shocks.
Finally, these N-body experiments help to understand the recent observations of extended tidal tails around globular clusters (Grillmair et al. 1995, Leon et al. 2000): the systematic observations of the geometry of these tails should provide much information on the orbit, dynamics, and mass loss history of the clusters, and on the galactic structure as well.
G1 in M31: globular cluster or dwarf galaxy ?
===============================================
The globular cluster Mayall II $\equiv$ G1, recently observed with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) camera WFPC2 (Rich 1996, Jablonka 1999, 2000, Meylan 2000), is a bright star cluster which belongs to our companion galaxy, Andromeda $\equiv$ M31. Its integrated visual magnitude $V$ = 13.75 mag corresponds to an absolute visual magnitude $M_V$ = –10.86 mag, with $E(B-V)$ = 0.06 and a distance modulus $(m-M)_{M31}$ = 24.43 mag, implying a total luminosity of about $L_V$ $\sim$ 2 $\times$ $10^6 L_{\odot}$.
The coordinates of G1, viz. $\alpha_{G1}$(J2000.00) = 00 32 46.878 and $\delta_{G1}$(J2000.00) = +39 34 41.65, when compared to the coordinates of the center of M31, viz. $\alpha_{M31}$(J2000.00) = 00 42 44.541 and $\delta_{M31}$(J2000.00) = +41 16 28.77, place it at a projected distance of about 3, i.e. 39.5 kpc from the center of M31. In spite of this rather large projected distance, both color-magnitude diagrams and radial velocities of G1 and M31, viz. $V_r$(G1) = – 331 24 while $V_r$(M31) = – 300 4 (21-cm HI line) and $V_r$(M31) = – 295 7 (optical lines), completely support the idea that this cluster belongs to the globular cluster system of M31.
Our ($V$ vs. $V-I$) color-magnitude diagram reaches stars with magnitudes fainter than $V$ = 27 mag, with a well populated red horizontal branch at about $V$ = 25.25 mag; we confirm the existence of a blueward extension of the red horizontal branch clump as already observed by Rich et al. (1996). From model fitting, we determine a rather high mean metallicity of \[Fe/H\] = –0.95 0.09, somewhat between the previous determinations of \[Fe/H\] = –0.7 (Rich et al. 1996) and \[Fe/H\] = –1.2 (Bonoli 1987; Brodie & Huchra 1990).
From artificial star experiments, in order to estimate our true measurement errors, we observe a clear spread in our photometry that we attribute to an intrinsic metallicity dispersion among the stars of G1. Namely, adopting $E(V-I)$ = 0.10 implies a 1-$\sigma$ \[Fe/H\] dispersion of 0.50 dex; adopting $E(V-I)$ = 0.05 implies a 1-$\sigma$ \[Fe/H\] dispersion of 0.39 dex. In all cases, the intrinsic metallicity dispersion is significant and may be the consequence of self enrichment during the early stellar/dynamical evolution phases of this cluster.
![ Surface brightness profile of the globular cluster Mayall II $\equiv$ G1, from HST/WFPC2 shallow and deep images in F555W $\simeq$ $V$ filter; the continuous line represents a King-Michie model (first model in Table 3) fitted to the observed profile (Meylan 2000). []{data-label=""}](fig7G1SBprofile.eps){width="100.00000%"}
We have at our disposal two essential observational constraints allowing the mass determination of Mayall II $\equiv$ G1:
\(i) First, its surface brightness profile from HST/WFPC2 images, providing essential structural parameters: the core radius = 0.14 = 0.52 pc, the half-mass radius = 3.7 = 14 pc, the tidal radius $\simeq$ 54 = 200 pc, implying a concentration $\simeq$ 2.5 (Meylan 2000).
\(ii) Second, its central velocity dispersion from KECK/HIRES spectra, providing an observed velocity dispersion = 25.1 , and an aperture-corrected central velocity dispersion = 27.8 .
King model and Virial mass estimates
--------------------------------------
We can first obtain simple mass estimates from King models and from the Virial (see, e.g., Illingworth 1976). The first estimate, King mass, is given by the simple equation: $${\rm King~mass} ~=~ \rho_c r_c^3 \mu ~=~ 167~r_c \mu \sigma_{\circ}^2 \eqno(8)$$ where the core radius = 0.52 pc, the dimensionless quantity $\mu$ = 220 for = 2.5 (King 1966), and the central velocity dispersion = 27.8 . These values determine a total mass for the cluster of = 15 $\times$ with the corresponding $\simeq$ 7.5.
The second estimate, Virial mass, is given by the simple equation: $${\rm Virial~mass} ~=~ 670~r_h \sigma_{\circ}^2 \eqno(9)$$ where the half-mass radius = 14 pc and central velocity dispersion = 27.8 . These values determine a total mass for the cluster of = 7.3 $\times$ with the corresponding $\simeq$ 3.6.
King-Michie model mass estimate
---------------------------------
The existing observational constraints allow the use of a multi-mass King-Michie model as defined by Equ. 6 above. See §4.1 above and Meylan (1995) in the case of such a model applied to . In the case of G1, such a model is simultaneously fitted to the surface brightness profile from HST/WFPC2 and to the central velocity dispersion value from KECK/HIRES.
--------------- ----------------- ------------- ----------------- ------ -----
$x_{MS}^{up}$ $x_{MS}^{down}$ $M_{hr+wd}$ conc
% log ($r_t/r_c$) \[\]
1.35 -0.5 22 2.44 13.1 6.4
1.40 -0.2 21 2.49 13.9 6.8
1.40 +0.1 20 2.54 14.7 7.2
1.45 -0.3 20 2.48 14.0 6.9
1.45 +0.3 19 2.59 15.5 7.6
1.50 -0.4 20 2.48 14.1 7.0
1.50 +0.5 18 2.65 16.6 8.1
1.55 -0.5 20 2.47 14.1 7.0
1.55 +0.4 17 2.65 16.7 8.1
1.60 -0.3 19 2.53 15.0 7.4
1.60 +0.8 16 2.63 18.0 8.9
--------------- ----------------- ------------- ----------------- ------ -----
: Multi-mass King-Michie models for Mayal II $\equiv$ G1
An extensive grid of about 150,000 models was computed in order to explore the parameter space defined by the Initial Mass Function (IMF) exponent $x$, where $x$ would equal 1.35 in the case of Salpeter (1955), the central gravitational potential $W_{\circ}$, and the anisotropy radius . The IMF exponent consists actually of three parameters, $x_{hr}$, describing the heavy remnants, resulting from the already evolved stars with initial masses in the range between 0.85 and 100 ; $x_{MS}^{up}$, describing the stars still on the Main Sequence, with initial masses in the range between 0.25 and 0.85 ; and $x_{MS}^{down}$ describing the stars still on the Main Sequence, with initial masses in the range between 0.10 and 0.25 .
Table 3 presents eleven of the 50 models with the lowest , illustrating some of the input and output parameters. Good models are considered as such not only on the basis of the of the surface brightness fit (see Fig. 7), but also from their predictions of the observed integrated luminosity of the cluster and of the input mass-to-light ratio of the model. The different columns in Table 3 give, for each model, its IMF exponents $x_{MS}^{up}$ and $x_{MS}^{down}$; the fraction of its total mass in the form of heavy stellar remnants such as neutron stars and white dwarfs; its concentration ; its total mass of the cluster, in solar units; and its corresponding mass-to-light ratio also in solar units. Since the velocity dispersion profile is reduced to one single value — the central velocity dispersion — the models are not strongly constrained, providing equally good fits to rather different sets of parameters.
The IMF exponent $x_{hr}$, describing the amount of neutron stars, appears in all models to be very close to $x$ = 1.35 (Salpeter 1955). Given the lack of constraint from the absence of any velocity dispersion profile, the most reliable results are related to the concentration and the total mass. With a concentration somewhere between 2.45 and 2.65, G1 presents clearly and in all cases the characteristics of a collapsed cluster. This is completely different from , the most massive but losse galactic globular cluster, which, with a concentration of about 1.3, has a very large core radius of about 5 pc and is consequently very far from core collapse. With a total mass somewhere between 13 and 18 , and with the corresponding mass-to-light ratio between 6 and 9, G1 is significantly more massive than , maybe by up to a factor of three. The King-Michie mass estimates are in full agreement with the King mass estimate, while the Virial mass estimate is smaller by about a factor of two. It is worth mentioning that such a mass difference is not typical of G1: the same factor of about two is also observed between the King-Michie and Virial mass estimates of any cluster. See, e.g., Meylan & Mayor (1986) and Meylan (1995) in the case of .
Mayall II $\equiv$ G1 is a genuine globular cluster
-----------------------------------------------------
From these three various mass determinations (King, Virial, King-Michie), we can reach the following conclusions about Mayall II $\equiv$ G1:
\(i) All mass estimates give a total mass up to three times as large as the total mass of ;
\(ii) With $\simeq$ 2.5, G1 is more concentrated than , which is a massive galactic globular cluster considered on the verge of collapsing; G1 has a surface brightness profile typical of a collapsed cluster;
\(iii) G1 is the heaviest of the weighted globular clusters.
Given these results we can wonder if, even more than , G1 could be a kind of transition step between globular clusters and dwarf elliptical galaxies. There is a way of checking this hypothesis. Kormendy (1985) used the four following quantities — the central surface brightness , the central velocity dispersion , the core radius , and the total absolute magnitude M — in order to define various planes from combinations of two of the above four quantities, e.g., ( vs. log ). In all these planes, the various stellar systems plotted by Kormendy (1985) segregate into three well separated sequences: (i) ellipticals and bulges, (ii) dwarf ellipticals, and (iii) globular clusters. When plotted on any of these planes, G1 appears always on the sequence of globular clusters, and cannot be confused or assimilated with either ellipticals and bulges or dwarf ellipticals. The same is true for .
Consequently, Mayall II $\equiv$ G1 can be considered a genuine bright and massive globular cluster. Actually, G1 may not be the only such massive globular cluster in M31. This galaxy, which has about twice as many globular clusters as our Galaxy, has at least three other clusters with central velocity dispersion larger than 20 (Djorgovski 1997). Unfortunately, so far, G1 is the only such cluster imaged with the high spatial resolution of the HST/WFPC2 camera, and consequently the only such massive cluster with known structural parameters. G1 and the other three bright M31 globular clusters represent probably the high-mass and high-luminosity tails of the otherwise very normal mass and luminosity distributions of the rich M31 population of globular clusters.
Conclusion
============
This review summarizes only parts of the tremendous developments that have taken place during the last two decades. These recent developments are far from having exploited all the new capabilities offered by the impressive progress in computer simulations, made possible by more powerful single-purpose hardware and software (Hut & Makino 1999, Spurzem 1998).
Observations too have still a lot of information to provide, which will require more elaborate modeling before full interpretation is reached. The mere observation of globular cluster stellar populations presents some puzzles which are far from being understood (Anderson 1997, 1999).
The kinematical and dynamical understanding of globular clusters will need the exploitation of numerous radial velocities and proper motions of individual stars. Only small quantities of radial velocities have been painfully accumulated over the last two decades, while the proper motions have so far simply been ignored. But there is an enormous amount of untapped information locked in the radial velocities (for one third) and proper motions (for two thirds). Fortunately, a large amount of kinematical data (radial velocities and proper motions for a few thousand stars) will soon permit investigation of the 3-D space velocity distribution and rotation in the two largest galactic globular clusters, viz. and (Freeman , Meylan , both in preparation).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thank my following collaborators – T. Bridges (AAO), F. Combes (Paris), G. Djorgovski (Caltech), P. Jablonka (Paris), S. Leon (Paris), and A. Sarajedini (Wesleyan), – for allowing me to present some of our results in advance of publication.
[99]{}
Aarseth S.J., 1988, Bol. Acad. Nac. Cienc. Cordoba, 58, 189 Allen F.S., Heggie D.C., 1992, MNRAS, 257, 245 Ambartsumian V.A., 1938, Ann. Leningrad State Univ., 22, 19; English translation: Ambartsumian V.A., 1985, in Dynamics of Star Clusters, IAU Symp. 113, eds. Goodman J. & Hut P., (Dordrecht: Reidel), p. 521 Anderson J., 1999, in preparation (see also Ph.D. thesis, 1997, University of California, Berkeley) Angeletti L., Giannone P., 1980, A&A, 85, 113 Antonov V.A., 1962, Vest. leningr. gos. Univ., 7, 135; English translation: Antonov, V.A., 1985, in Dynamics of Star Clusters, IAU Symp. 113, eds. Goodman J. & Hut P., (Dordrecht: Reidel), p. 525 Applegate J.H., 1986, ApJ, 301, 132 Berger J., Cordoni J.P., Fringant A.M., Guibert J., Moreau, O., Reboul H., Vanderriest C., 1991, A&AS, 87, 389 Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, A&AS, 117, 393 Bettwieser E., Sugimoto D., 1984, MNRAS, 208, 493 Binney J., 1982, in Morphology and Dynamics of Galaxies, Saas-Fee Advanced Course 12, eds. Martinet L. & Mayor M., (Geneva: Geneva Observatory), p. 1 Binney J., Tremaine S., 1987, Galactic Dynamics, (Princeton: Princeton University Press) Bonoli F., Delpino F., Federici L., Fusi Pecci F., 1987, A&A, 185, 25 Breeden J.L., Cohn H.N., Hut P., 1994, ApJ, 421, 195 Breeden J.L., Cohn H.N., 1995, ApJ, 448, 672 Breeden J.L., Packard N.H., 1994, Int. J. Bifurcations and Chaos, 4, 311 Brodie J.P., Huchra J.P., 1990, ApJ, 362,503 Chernoff D.F., Djorgovski S.G., 1989, ApJ, 339, L904 Chernoff D.F., Weinberg M.D., 1990, ApJ, 351, 121 Cohn H., 1980, ApJ, 242, 765 Combes F., Leon S., Meylan G., 2000, A&A, in press Da Costa G.S., Freeman K.C., 1976, ApJ, 206, 128 Dejonghe H., Merritt D., 1992, ApJ, 391, 531 Djorgovski S.G., Gal R.R., McCarthy J.K., Cohen J.G., De Carvalho R.R., Meylan G., Bendinelli O., Parmeggiani, G., 1997, ApJ, 474, L19 Djorgovski S.G., King I.R., 1986, ApJ, 305, L61 Einsel C., Spurzem R., 1999, MNRAS, 302, 81 Giersz M., Heggie D.C., 1993, MNRAS, 268, 257 Gnedin O.Y., Ostriker J.P., 1997, ApJ, 474, 223 Goodman J., 1987, ApJ, 313, 576 Grillmair C.J., Freeman K.C., Irwin M., Quinn P.J., 1995, AJ, 109, 2553 Guhathakurta P., Yanny B., Schneider D.P., Bahcall J.N., 1996, AJ, 111, 267 Gunn J.E., Griffin R.F., 1979, AJ, 84, 752 Gurzadyan V.G., Savvidi G.K., 1984, Sov. Phys. Dokl., 29, 520 Gurzadyan V.G., Savvidy G.K., 1986, A&A, 160, 203 Heggie D.C., Ramamani N., 1989, 237, 757 Hénon M., 1961, Ann. d’Astrophys., 24, 369 Hénon M., 1965, Ann. d’Astrophys., 28, 62 Hut P., Makino J., 1999, Science, 283, 501 Illingworth G., 1976, AJ, 204, 73 Inagaki S., Wiyanto P., 1984, PASJ, 36, 391 Jablonka P., Bridges T.J., Sarajedini A., Maeder A., Meynet G., 1999, ApJ, 518, 627 Jablonka P., Courbin F., Meylan G., Sarajedini A., Bridges T.J., Magain P., 2000, ApJ, submitted James R.A., 1977, J. Comput. Phys. 25, 71 Jeans J.H., 1913, MNRAS, 74, 109 Jeans J.H., 1915, MNRAS, 76, 70 Johnston K.V., Sigurdsson S., Hernquist L., 1999, MNRAS, 302, 771 Kandrup H.E., Willmes D.E., 1994, A&A, 283, 59 Kim C.-H., Chun M.-S., Min K.W., 1992, As&SS, 196, 191 King I.R., 1966, AJ, 71, 64 King I.R., 1981, QJRAS, 22, 227 Kormendy J., 1985, ApJ, 295, 73 Lauer T.R., Holtzman J.A., Faber S.M., , 1991, ApJ, 369, L45 Leon S., Meylan G., Combes F., 2000, A&A, submitted Lupton R.H., Gunn J., 1987, AJ, 93, 1106 Lynden-Bell D., Wood R., 1968, MNRAS, 138, 495 Makino J., 1996a, in Dynamical Evolution of Star Clusters: Confrontation of Theory and Observations, IAU Symp. 174, eds. Hut P. & Makino J. (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 141 and p. 151 Makino J., 1996b, ApJ, 471, 796 Mayor M., Meylan G., Udry S., Duquennoy A., Andersen J., Nordström B., Imbert M., Maurice E., Prévot L., Ardeberg A., Lindgren H., 1997, AJ, 114, 1087 Meylan G., Heggie D.C., 1997, A&AR, 8, 1-143 Meylan G., Mayor M., 1986, A&A, 166, 122 Meylan G., Mayor M., Duqueynnoy A., Dubath P., 1995, A&A, 303, 761 Meylan G., Sarajedini A., Jablonka P., Djorgovski S.D., Bridges T.J., Rich R.M., 2000, ApJ, in preparation Merritt D., 1993a, ApJ, 413, 79 Merritt D., 1993b, in Structure, Dynamics and Chemical Evolution of Elliptical Galaxies, ed. I. J. Danziger, W. W. Zeilinger & K. Kjär (ESO: Munich), 275 Merritt, D. 1996, AJ, 112, 1085 Merritt D., Meylan G., Mayor M., 1997, AJ, 114, 1074-1086 Murali C., Weinberg M.D., 1997, MNRAS, 291, 717 Murphy B.W., Cohn H.N., 1988, MNRAS, 232, 835 Norris J.E., Freeman K.C., Mayor M., Seitzer P., 1997, ApJ, 487, L187 Oh K.S., Lin D.N.C., 1992, ApJ, 386, 519 Pfenniger D., 1986, A&A, 165, 74 Portegies Zwart S.F., Makino J., McMillan S.L.W., Hut P., 1999, A&A, 348, 117 Resnikoff H.L., Wells R.O., 1998, Wavelet Analysis, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg Rich R.M., Mighell K., Freedman W., Neill J.D., 1996, AJ, 111, 768 Salpeter E.E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Slezak E., Durret F., Gerbal D., 1994, AJ, 108, 1996 Sosin C., King I.R., 1996, in Dynamical Evolution of Star Clusters: Confrontation of Theory and Observations, IAU Symp. 174, eds. Hut P. & Makino J. (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 343 Spitzer L., 1940, MNRAS, 100, 396 Spitzer L., 1969, ApJ, 158, L139 Spitzer L., 1987, Dynamical Evolution of Globular Clusters, (Princeton: Princeton University Press) Spitzer L., Chevalier R.A., 1973, ApJ, 183, 565 Spurzem R., 1998, in Dynamics of Galaxies and Galactic Nuclei, Eds. W.J. Duschl & C. Einsel, (ITA: Heidelberg), p. 271 Spurzem R., Aarseth S.J., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 19 Sugimoto D., Bettwieser E., 1983, MNRAS, 204, 19P Takahashi K., 1995, PASJ, 47, 561 Trager S.C., King I.R., Djorgovski S.G., 1995, AJ, 109, 218 Vesperini E., 1992a, Europhys. Lett., 17, 661 Vesperini E., 1992b, A&A, 266, 215 von Hoerner S., 1960, Z. f. A., 50, 184 Yanny B., Guhathakurta P., Bahcall J.N., Schneider D.P., 1994, AJ, 107, 1745
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a high dispersion optical spectrum of St 34 and identify the system as a spectroscopic binary with components of similar luminosity and temperature (both M3$\pm$0.5). Based on kinematics, signatures of accretion, and location on an H-R diagram, we conclude that St 34 is a classical T Tauri star belonging to the Taurus-Auriga T Association. Surprisingly, however, neither component of the binary shows LiI 6708 Å absorption, the most universally accepted criterion for establishing stellar youth. In this uniquely known instance, the accretion disk appears to have survived longer than the lithium depletion timescale. We speculate that the long-lived accretion disk is a consequence of the sub-AU separation companion tidally inhibiting, though not preventing, circumstellar accretion. Comparisons with pre-main sequence evolutionary models imply, for each component of St 34, a mass of $0.37\pm0.08$ M$_\odot$ and an isochronal age of $8\pm3$ Myr, which is much younger than the predicted lithium depletion timescale of $\sim 25$ Myr. Although a distance 38% closer than that of Taurus-Auriga or a hotter temperature scale could reconcile this discrepancy at 21-25 Myr, similar discrepancies in other systems and the implications of an extremely old accreting Taurus-Auriga member suggest instead a possible problem with evolutionary models. Regardless, the older age implied by St 34’s depleted lithium abundance is the first compelling evidence for a substantial age spread in this region. Additionally, since St 34’s coeval co-members with early M spectral types would likewise fail the lithium test for youth, current membership lists may be incomplete.'
author:
- 'Russel J. White and Lynne A. Hillenbrand'
title: 'A Long-Lived Accretion Disk Around a Lithium-Depleted Binary T Tauri Star'
---
Introduction
============
T Tauri stars are a class of young ($\lesssim$ 1-10 Myr) low mass ($\sim
0.1 - 2$ M$_\odot$) stars. Those which show signatures of accretion from a circumstellar disk, such as optical veiling and/or strong emission lines (e.g. H$\alpha$) are called classical T Tauri stars while those without accretion signatures are called weak-lined T Tauri stars. Observational studies of these stars have provided the foundation upon which current theories of star and planet formation are based.
Initial efforts to find T Tauri stars primarily relied on objective-prism imaging surveys of dark clouds in search of strong emission line stars [e.g. @joy49]. This technique, while relatively effective, biased the discovered populations by mostly identifying classical T Tauri stars. Subsequent surveys that focused on proper motion [e.g. @jh79; @hartmann91], infrared excesses [e.g. @kenyon90], coronal/choromospheric indicators of youth such as x-ray emission [e.g. @walter88; @wichmann96] and CaII H&K emission [e.g. @herbig86], or location on an H-R diagram [e.g. @briceno98], helped to establish a more complete and less biased census of star forming regions (most notably, Taurus-Auriga). However, since some older binary star systems (e.g. RS CVn type stars) and post-main sequence stars (e.g. AGB stars) also exhibit many of these same properties, confirmation of T Tauri status (i.e. extreme youth) has usually necessitated measurement of the surface abundance of $^7$Li. During the pre-main sequence (PMS) contraction of a young star, $^7$Li is destroyed via p,$\alpha$ reactions in the stellar interior when the central temperature rises above $\sim 3\times10^6$ K [@bodenheimer65]. Because of rapid mixing in fully convective low mass T Tauri stars, lithium is completely depleted in a small fraction of the contraction timescale [@dm94; @bildsten97; @bcah98; @burke04]. The presence of the strong, easily observable LiI 6708 Å absorption feature therefore implies that the star must be very young. The depletion timescale is a strong function of mass, however, being quickest ($\sim 20$ Myr) for stars of mass $\sim 0.6$ M$_\odot$. The onset of a radiative core, which inhibits efficient mixing, prior to full lithium depletion in higher mass stars delays their depletion timescale. The cooler central temperatures of lower mass stars likewise delays their depletion timescale; lithium-burning temperatures are never reaches for substellar objects with M $\lesssim
0.06$ M$_\odot$. Thus at the highest and lowest T Tauri star masses, other diagnostics are needed to confirm a star’s extreme youth.
Here we present high-dispersion spectroscopic observations of St 34 (HBC 425; RA: 04 54 23.7, DEC: +17 09 54, J2000; V$=14.4$ mag), discovered as a strong H$\alpha$ emission line star in the objective prism survey of @s86 and later shown to be an early- to mid-M star [@dk88]. Because of its strong H$\alpha$ emission and location, it has been assumed to be a member of the Taurus-Auriga T Association [@kh95]. Our new measurements demonstrate that St 34 is a spectroscopic binary, a classical T Tauri star, and strengthen the case for its association with Taurus-Auriga. Unlike all other classical T Tauri stars and known members of Taurus-Auriga, however, St 34 has depleted its lithium. These results are used to assess the validity of evolutionary model predictions, the possibility of a lithium-depleted population in Taurus-Auriga, and the influence of sub-AU separation companions on circumstellar disk lifetimes.
Spectroscopic Observations and Inferred Properties
==================================================
The W. M. Keck I 10-m telescope and High-Resolution Echelle Spectrometer [@vogt94] were used on 2003 Feb 17 to obtain a high dispersion (R $\approx$ 34,000) optical spectrum (6330-8750 Å) of St 34. The observational setup, spectral calibration and extraction are as described in @wh04. Portions of the resulting spectrum of St 34 are shown in Figure 1. Its most distinguishing characteristics are strong, broad H$\alpha$ emission, double-lined photospheric features (implying binarity), and no LiI 6708 Å absorption. A LiI equivalent width upper limit of 0.06 Å for each spectroscopic component is determined by the size of features in the psuedo-continuum.
The stellar properties of St 34 are determined from analysis of each component’s spectral features[^1]. The procedure is described in @wh04, but is tailored here for the analysis of a spectroscopic binary. Visual inspection of St 34’s spectrum reveals that the two components are of similar brightness, well separated in velocity, and slowly rotating. This allows a more independent analysis of each component. Radial velocities and $v$sin$i$ values are measured by fitting the 2 peaks of the cross-correlation function determined using non-rotating early- and mid-M dwarf templates. Each component’s spectral type, the system flux ratio, and the continuum excess (or veiling, defined as $r = F_{excess}/(F_{prim}+F_{sec})$) are determined simultaneously by comparisons with synthetic spectroscopic binaries, generated by combining dwarf standards at the appropriate radial and rotational velocities. For the synthetic spectra, the spectral type of each component is allowed to vary from M0 to M5, the flux ratio from 0.5 to 2.0, and the continuum excess from 0.0 to 2.0. The best fit is determined by minimizing rms differences between St 34 and a synthetic binary spectrum over several temperature sensitive regions [see @wh04 for details]. The components have the same spectral type (both M3$\pm$0.5) and are of similar brightness. The primary is assumed to be the star that is slightly (10$\pm$4%) brighter at 6500 Å. Although the composite St 34 system appears to have a small amount of continuum excess at 6500 Å ($r_{6500}
= 0.13\pm0.05$), it is not possible to tell if this excess is associated with only one or both of the components. No continuum excess is detected at longer wavelengths ($r_{8400} < 0.09$). Weak, narrow HeI 6678 Å and CaII 8498, 8662 Å emission is observed (Figure 1), but no forbidden line emission (e.g. EW \[SII\]6716, 6731 Å $<$ 0.05 Å). Table 1 summarizes the spectroscopic properties of St 34.
Evidence for Adolescence
========================
The H$\alpha$ emission line profile of St 34 is both strong (equivalent width = -51.6 Å) and broad (full-width at 10% of the peak = 512 km/s). The breadth of this feature is not a consequence of binarity; the two peaks in the profile are separated in velocity by $\sim 180$ km/s, which is much greater than the velocity separation of the components (58.4 km/s). Although some late-type main sequence stars also display H$\alpha$ emission, caused by flares and other chromospheric activity, this emission is less intense and less broad than the profile of St 34 or any accreting young star [e.g. @wb03]. Chromospherically active main-sequence stars also tend to be rapidly rotating and X-ray bright, in contrast to the small $v$sin$i$ values and X-ray non-detection of St 34 [via ROSAT; @konig01]. Moreover, the observed strength of the H$\alpha$ emission is similar to that seen in previous low spectral resolution observations of St 34 [EW$=-78$ Å; @dk88; @kh95], suggesting the current epoch was not a transient flare-like event. The H$\alpha$ emission line profile of St 34, in light of its stellar properties, is most consistent with originating from a high velocity accretion flow [e.g. @muzerolle00]. The low level continuum excess at 6500 Å supports the interpretation that one or both components of the binary are accreting, though the accretion rate is low [$2.5\times10^{-10}$ M$_\odot$/yr, following a prescription similar to @wh04]. Based on this evidence for accretion, we conclude that St 34 is a classical T Tauri star.
[lccc]{} Obs. Julian Date & 2452688.85 & &\
EW\[H$\alpha$\] (Å) & -51.6 & &\
H$\alpha$ 10%-width (km/s)& 512 & &\
EW\[LiI\] (Å) & & $< 0.06$ & $< 0.06$\
$v$sin$i$ (km/s) & & $< 7.2$ & $< 7.0$\
Radial Velocity (km/s) & $17.9\pm0.6$ & $47.1\pm0.4$ & $-11.3\pm0.4$\
Spectral Type & & M3$\pm$0.5 & M3$\pm$0.5\
$[F_{prim}/F_{sec}]_{6500}$& $1.10\pm0.04$ & &\
$r_{6500}$ & $0.13\pm0.04$ & &\
$[F_{prim}/F_{sec}]_{8400}$& $0.99\pm0.07$ & &\
$r_{8400}$ & $< 0.09$ & &\
Mass (M$_\odot$) && 0.37$\pm$0.08 & 0.37$\pm$0.08\
Isochronal Age (Myr) && 8$\pm$3 & 8$\pm$3\
Lithium Depletion Age (Myr) && $>25$ & $>25$
The reservoir of accreting material has not yet been detected, however. St 34 has no measurable near-infrared ($K_s$) excess, based on comparing the observed $K_s$ magnitude to that predicted from the spectral type, extinction (determined below), and $J$ magnitude. Although @wj92 claim St 34 was detected by IRAS at $12 \mu$m, $25 \mu$m, and $60 \mu$m, inspection of the IRAS Sky Survey Atlas, even after the more up-to-date HiRes processing, reveals no point- or extended-source within several arcminutes of St 34. We suggest the @wj92 identification was spurious. St 34 was also not detected in the 1.3-mm survey by @ob95 [$F_{1.3mm} < 15$ mJy], which is sensitive to cool outer disk material. We emphasize, however, that the lack of detected excess emission is consistent with St 34’s low level accretion and cool stellar temperature; several low mass accreting stars in Taurus-Auriga have not yet been detected at far-infrared and millimeter wavelengths either [@kh95].
Kinematic information supports the assertion that St 34 is a member of the Taurus-Auriga T Association. Assuming that the spectroscopic binary components have the same mass, as suggested by their similar spectral type and brightness, the systemic radial velocity is $17.9\pm0.6$ km/s, which is identical to the mean of Taurus members [17.8 km/s; @hartmann86]. St 34 has a proper motion of $\mu_\alpha
=+1.8\pm3.5$ mas/yr and $\mu_\delta = -12.6\pm3.5$ mas/yr, which, in combination with its radial velocity and an assumed distance of 145$\pm$10 pc, corresponds to space motion of $U=-15.6\pm1.5, V=-8.4\pm2.2, W=-8.8\pm2.3$ km/s (E. Mamajek, priv. comm.). This motion is statistically most consistent with that of lithium-rich Taurus members [e.g. @jh79] as opposed to nearby moving groups [e.g. $\beta$ Pictoris; @zs04]. Thus, based on evidence for extreme youth, spatial proximity (within $1.5^\circ$ of L1558), and space motion, we conclude St 34 is a member of the Taurus-Auriga T Association.
Mass and age estimates for St 34 are determined by comparing the temperature and luminosity with the @bcah98 PMS evolutionary models. A temperature of 3415$^\circ$ K is assigned using the spectral type - temperature scale of @luhman03, which is slightly hotter than a typical dwarf temperature scale, but yields coeval cluster populations in combination with this evolutionary model. A visual extinction of 0.24 mag is determined by comparing the $J-H$ color to that expected for an M3 star [@km94], using a standard interstellar extinction law [@rl85]. The 2MASS magnitudes of St 34 are $J =
10.69\pm0.02$, $H = 10.08\pm0.02$, and $K_s = 9.79\pm0.02$; no reliable optical colors are available. Luminosity is computed by applying a bolometric correction of $+1.75$ to the reddening corrected $J$ magnitude, which is split assuming equal contribution from each component of the binary. A distance of 145$\pm$10 pc, corresponding to that of Taurus [@bertout99], yields log(L/L$_\odot$) = $-1.03\pm0.06$ for each component. In the top panel of Figure 2, St 34 is shown on an H-R diagram along with the @bcah98 evolutionary models. For each component, the implied age is $8\pm3$ Myr and mass is $0.37\pm0.08$ M$_\odot$. St 34 appears to be somewhat older than most stars in Taurus, which have an average age of 2-3 Myr [@wg01] and are all thought to be younger than 4 Myrs [@hartmann03].
In the bottom panel of Figure 2, the lithium abundance of St 34 is compared to the lithium depletion predictions of the same @bcah98 evolutionary models. The Li 6708 Å equivalent width of $\lesssim 0.06$ Å corresponds to a lithium abundance of log$n$(Li) $\lesssim 0.3$ dex, following the curves of growth shown in @song02 [Figure 2]. This amount of depletion implies an age $\gtrsim 25$ Myr. Comparisons with other evolutionary models yield lithium depletion ages that agree to within 20% [see e.g. @burke04].
Discussion and Implications
===========================
A Possible Problem for Lithium Depletion Predictions
----------------------------------------------------
Although the isochronal age inferred for St 34 is much younger than its lithium depletion age, a distance of 90 pc instead of the assumed 145 pc would increase the isochronal age to 25 Myr, consistent with the lithium depletion age. Similarly, if the assumed temperature is increased to 3600$^\circ$ K (which is 340$^\circ$ K hotter than a typical M3 dwarf temperature), the isochrone and lithium depletion ages agree at 21 Myr. At an age $\gtrsim 20$ Myrs, however, St 34 would be by far the oldest classical T Tauri star known; MP Mus in Scorpius-Centaurus [age $\sim
13$ Myr; @mamajek02] is currently thought to be one of the oldest. St 34 would also be older than typical cloud dispersal timescales [$< 10-20$ Myr; @pg97], which would call into question its association with Taurus-Auriga as location and kinematics suggest. This large age for St 34 seems unlikely. @song02 identified a similar discrepancy between isochronal and lithium depletion ages in the case of HIP 112312 A. The low lithium abundance of this M4 star implies an age $\gtrsim 35$ Myr, while its isochronal age, which is based on a Hipparcos determined distance, is $6\pm3$ Myrs (Figure 2). As with St 34, a hotter temperature could reconcile these ages at 20-25 Myr. Finally, we note that the lithium depletion ages of young open clusters, including the Pleiades, $\alpha$ Persei, IC 2391, and NGC 2547 [@burke04], are all systematically larger than the isochronal ages fitted to both low mass unevolved members and the upper main sequence near the nuclear turn-off [@stauffer01; @jn01]. Overall, the emerging observational evidence suggests a problem with lithium depletion ages, being systematically too old, though a problem with the pre-main sequence temperature scale, being too cool, can not be ruled out.
Implications for the Taurus Population
--------------------------------------
If St 34 is a member of the Taurus-Auriga T Association, as evidence suggests, it presents the first strong case for a significant age spread in this region. St 34 must be older than currently forming stars by an amount equal to the lithium depletion timescale. Evolutionary models suggest this could be as large as 21-25 Myr, but as noted above, these values appear to be extreme. The age spread would be more accurately constrained if additional older, possibly lithium depleted members are discovered. St 34 was easily identified because of its strong H$\alpha$ emission. Lithium depleted weak-lined T Tauri stars, on the other hand, even if identified and observed spectroscopically, would have thus far been dismissed as non-members. In order to estimate how many older weak-lined systems there could be in Taurus, we use the ratio of weak-lined to classical T Tauri stars in clusters of age $\sim 10$ Myr, which range from $\sim 90$% for the TW Hydrae Association [age $\sim 8$ Myr; @zs04] to $\sim 99$% for the Sco-Cen subgroups [age $\sim 13$ Myr; @mamajek02]. If surveys of these clusters are also biased by requiring the presence of lithium absorption for a member to be confirmed, these ratios could be even higher. This suggests that St 34 may have 10 and possibly many 10s of coeval co-members that are weak-lined T Tauri stars. Those of early-M spectral type will have likely depleted their lithium (Figure 2). Current membership lists of Taurus may therefore be incomplete.
The Einstein and ROSAT surveys may have identified some of these lithium poor stars. @walter88 and @wichmann96 together identified 17 stars with spectral types M1 - M3.5 in Taurus, nearly half of which have been subsequently dismissed as non-members because of depleted lithium. Some of these lithium-poor stars nevertheless have radial velocities consistent with Taurus [e.g. RX J0446.8+2255; @wichmann00], suggesting they could in fact be bona fide members. Confirmation of membership will require more accurate estimates of distance, proper motion, and surface gravity. We note that if this proposed older population is identified, it has significant implications for the duration of star formation in Taurus, which is generally believed to be less than $4$ Myr (Hartmann 2003, but see Palla & Stahler 2002), and for the initial mass function of Taurus, which apparently peaks at a mass [$\sim 0.8$ M$_\odot$; @luhman03] slightly larger than the mass where lithium depletion occurs first.
Long-Lived Accretion Disks in Close Binary Systems
--------------------------------------------------
With an age of $\gtrsim 8$ Myr, St 34 is one of a handful of old ($\gtrsim
10$ Myr) classical T Tauri stars. We speculate than in many cases these long-lived accretion disks are a consequence of a tidally inhibited accretion flow caused by a sub-AU separation companion. The properties of St 34, for example, imply a binary separation of $\lesssim 0.78$ AU. As has been identified in some spectroscopic binary systems [e.g. DQ Tau; @basri97], and predicted by numerical simulations [@as96], the orbital dynamics of a close binary does not preclude accretion from a circumbinary disk. Nevertheless, we suggest that it is less efficient. In support of this, there is some evidence for a higher frequency of spectroscopic binaries among old classical T Tauri stars than among younger T Tauri populations, for which the binary fraction is only $7\pm3$% [@mathieu94 for periods less than 100 days;]. Of the 4 classical T Tauri stars in the TW Hydrae Association, 50% are spectroscopic binaries [TWA 5A, Hen 3-600A; @muzerolle00; @mohanty03]. Of the remaining 2 accreting stars (TW Hya, TWA 14), only TW Hya has multiple high-dispersion measurements sensitive to radial velocity variations, but its pole-on orientation [@weinberger02] would significantly inhibit the detection of a close companion in a coplanar orbit. Both TWA 14 and TW Hya could be yet unidentified sub-AU binary systems. A more complete binary census of these and other old accretors [e.g. MP Mus; @mamajek02] is needed to confirm this hypothesis. One interesting implication is that planets would have a longer time to form in the circumbinary disk of sub-AU separation binary stars than around single stars.
We thank I. Baraffe, A. Ghez, and J. Stauffer for helpful discussions and are grateful to E. Mamajek for generously providing valuable kinematic information and insight. We appreciate the data provided by the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive and the privilege to observe on the revered summit of Mauna Kea.
Artymowicz, P. & Lubow, S. H. 1996, , 467, 77
Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A&A, 337, 403
Basri, G., Johns-Krull, C. M. & Mathieu, R. D. 1997, , 114, 781
Bertout, C., Robichon, N. & Arenou, F. 1999, , 352, 574
Bildsten, L., Brown, E. F., Matzner, C. D. & Ushomirsky, G. 1997, , 482, 442
Bodenheimer, P. 1965, , 142, 459
Briceño, C., Hartmann, L., Stauffer, J. & Martín, E. 1998, , 115, 2074
Burke, C. J., Pinsonnealult, M. H. & Sills, A. 2004, , 604, 272
D’Antona, F. & Mazzitelli, I. 1994, , 90, 467
Downes, R. A. & Keyes, C. D. 1988, , 96, 777
Gomez, M., Hartmann, L., Kenyon, S. J. & Hewett, R. 1993, , 105, 1927
Hartmann, L., Hewett, R., Stahler, S., & Mathieu, R. D., 1986, , 309, 275
Hartmann, L., Stauffer, J. R., Kenyon, S. J. & Jones, B. F. 1991, , 101, 1050
Hartmann, L. 2003, , 585, 398
Herbig, G. H., Vrba, F. J. & Rydgren, A. E. 1986, , 91, 575
Jeffries, R. D., & Naylor, T. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 243, From Darkness to Light: Origin and Evolution of Young Stellar Clusters, ed. T. Montmerle & P. André (San Francisco: ASP), 633
Jones, B. F. & Herbig, G. H. 1979, , 84, 1872
Joy, A. H. 1949, , 110, 424
Kenyon, S. J., Hartmann, L. W., Strom, K. M. & Strom, S. E. 1990, , 99, 869
Kenyon, S. J. & Hartmann, L. 1995
Kirkpatrick, J. D. & McCarthy, D. W. Jr. 1994, , 107, 333
König, B., Neuhäuser, R. & Stelzer, B. 2001, , 369, 971
Luhman, K. L., Briceño, C., Stauffer, J. R., Hartmann, L., Barrado y Navascués, D. & Caldwell, N. 2003, , 590, 348
Mamajek, E. E., Meyer, M. R. & Liebert, J. 2002, , 124, 1670
Mathieu, R. D. 1994, , 32, 465
Mohanty, S., Jayawardhana, R. & Barrado y Navascués, D. 2003, , 593, 109
Muzerolle, J., Calvet, N., Briceño, C., Hartmann, L. & Hillenbrand, L. 2000, , 535, 47
Osterloh, M. & Beckwith, S. V. W. 1995, , 439, 288
Palla, F. & Galli, D 1997, , 476, 35
Palla, F. & Stahler, S. W. 2002, , 581, 1194
Rieke, G. H. & Lebofsky, M. J. 1985, , 288, 618
Song, I., Bessell, M. S. & Zuckerman, B. 2002, , 581, 43
Stauffer, J. R., Jeffries, R. D., Martín, E. L., & Turndrup, D. M. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 223, Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun, Ed. R. J. Garcia López, R. Rebolo, & M. R. Zapatero Osorio (San Francisco: ASP), 399
Stephenson, C. B. 1986, , 300, 779
Vogt, S. S., et al. 1994, , 2198, 362
Walter, F. M., Brown, A., Mathieu, R. D., Myers, P. C. & Vrba, F. J. 1988, , 96, 297
Weaver, W. B. & Jones, G. 1992, , 78, 239
Weinberger, A. J. et al. 2002, , 566, 409
White, R. J. & Basri, G. 2003, , 582, 1109
White, R. J. & Ghez, A. M. 2001,
White, R. J. & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2004, , accepted
White, R. J. et al. 2004, in prep.
Wichmann, R. et al. 1996, , 312, 439
Wichmann, R. et al. 2000, , 359, 181
Zacharias, N., Urban, S. E., Zacharias, M. I., Wycoff, G. L., Hall, D. M., Monet, D. G. & Rafferty, T. J. 2004, , 127, 3043
Zuckerman, B. & Song, I. 2004, , 42, 685
[^1]: High spatial resolution imaging has identified a star at 12 distance from St 34, possibly making the system a hierarchical triple [@white04]. This candidate companion is much fainter than the primary pair at 2.2 $\mu$m ($\Delta K = 2.5$ mag), and thus unlikely to contaminate the optical spectrum.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that if the permittivity profile of a planar dielectric medium is an analytic function in the upper (lower) half complex *position* plane then it won’t reflect radiation incident from the left (right), whatever the angle of incidence. Consequently, using the spatial Kramers–Kronig relations one can derive a real part of a permittivity profile from some given imaginary part (or vice versa), such that the reflection is guaranteed to be zero. This result is valid for both scalar and vector wave theories, and may have relevance for efficiently absorbing radiation, or reducing the reflection from bodies.'
author:
- 'S. A. R. Horsley'
- 'M. Artoni'
- 'G. C. La Rocca'
title: 'Non–reflecting permittivity profiles and the spatial Kramers–Kronig relations'
---
A wave propagating through an inhomogeneous medium is almost always reflected to some degree. This is often practically undesirable, but it is well known that in the case of an abrupt jump in the material parameters the reflection can be suppressed through applying an anti–reflection coating [@macleod2001]. However, less seems to be understood about what is required for a generic inhomogeneous medium not to reflect any radiation. Having said this, there are some famous examples of non–reflecting material profiles. One long–known example is the hyperbolic secant profile, which can be found in Landau and Lifshitz [@volume3] and has been very clearly discussed by Lekner [@lekner2007] (see [@thekkekara2014] for an experimental realisation). More recently the design technique of transformation optics [@pendry2006; @leonhardt2006] has been a significant development, giving us a recipe for finding inhomogeneous, anisotropic materials (transformation media) that reflect no radiation whatever the incident field [@pendry2006; @valentine2009; @pendry2000]. In the same vein *perfectly matched layers* [@berenger1993], are a known family of anisotropic lossy media that are closely connected to transformation media, and absorb a wave without producing any reflection [@teixeira1999; @popa2011; @odabasi2011; @sainath2014]. Another property of inhomogeneous media that can give an absence of reflection is PT–symmetry [@kottos2010; @longhi2010; @makris2011]. This is a symmetry where the real and imaginary parts of the permittivity are engineered such that they are invariant under a simultaneous inversion of space and reversal of time. For complex permittivities this requires regions of gain (${\rm Im}[\epsilon(x)]<0$) as well as loss (${\rm Im}[\epsilon(x)]>0$). PT–symmetry guarantees zero reflection in some cases [@lin2011; @regensburger2012], and has been found to be related to the use of complex coordinates in transformation optics [@castaldi2013]. Metamaterials allow for the realisation of such inhomogeneous permittivity and permeability profiles [@cai2010] through the use of specially designed sub–wavelength elements, and this may allow for the exploration of these new methods for suppressing the reflection of waves. In particular recent work on so–called ‘*dispersion engineering*’ [@ye2013] has seen the simultaneous control of the real and imaginary parts of the permittivity and permeability which is necessary for the implementation of the following theory.
Here we investigate the general problem of finding *isotropic* permittivity profiles with a combination of real and imaginary parts such that the reflection is zero. For planar media we find the very general condition that when the profile is an analytic function in the upper or lower half complex position plane, and therefore obeys the Kramers–Kronig relations in space, the reflection from respectively the left or from the right vanishes, whatever the angle of incidence. We note at the outset that this condition is only sufficient and not necessary for zero reflection. As a corollary of our finding, if the real part of such a non-reflecting permittivity profile is symmetric about some point in space then the corresponding imaginary part always turns out to be antisymmetric about this point, thus exhibiting PT–symmetry. Therefore one aspect of this work is that, similar to the findings of Castaldi *et. al.*, it also points to a relationship between the use of complex coordinates, the absence of reflection, and PT–symmetry.
![(i) A wave propagates in the $x$–$y$ plane in a medium characterized by an inhomogeneous permittivity $\epsilon(x)$ (inhomogeneity indicated by the blue shading). (ii) Real (blue) and imaginary (red) parts of the permittivity profile $\epsilon(x)$ given by equation (\[eps\_example\]) for the parameters $A=2.0$ and $\xi=0.1\lambda$ with $\lambda=2\pi/k_{0}$.\[eps\_figure\]](fig-1.png){width="15cm"}
Consider a monochromatic electromagnetic wave propagating in the $x$–$y$ plane within a medium with an inhomogeneous permittivity $\epsilon(x)$ that tends to a constant positive value $\epsilon_{b}$ as $x\to\pm\infty$. The magnetic permeability is unity $\mu=1$. A schematic of this situation is shown in figure \[eps\_figure\](i). The two polarizations are TE (electric field along $z$) and TM (magnetic field along $z$). For the TE polarization we can write the electric field as $$E_{z}(x,y)=e_{z}(x){{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}k_{y}y}$$ and the $x$–dependent amplitude $e_{z}$ obeys the 1D Helmholtz equation $$\left[\frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}}+K^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\alpha(x)\right]e_{z}(x)=0.\label{1dwv}$$ In the above equation the permittivity has the assumed form of the positive background contribution $\epsilon_{b}$ plus a spatially varying part $$\epsilon(x)=\epsilon_{b}+\alpha(x),\label{eps}$$ and the wave–number $K$ is $$K=\sqrt{\epsilon_{b}k_{0}^{2}-k_{y}^{2}}$$ with $k_{0}=\omega/c$. The spatially varying part of the permittivity $\alpha(x)$ vanishes at large distances from the origin, where the field is made up of plane waves $\exp(\pm {{\rm i}}K x)$.
Now suppose that we have a right–going wave that comes from infinity $x=-\infty$ and is incident onto the inhomogeneous permittivity profile. The effect of the permittivity profile is to produce a scattered field $e_{s}$, and we can write the total field as $$e_{z}(x)=E_{0}{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}K x}+e_{s}(x).\label{field-form}$$ where $K>0$. Inserting (\[field-form\]) into (\[1dwv\]) we find the inhomogeneous differential equation that governs the scattered field $$\left[\frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}}+K^{2}+k_{0}^{2}\alpha(x)\right]e_{s}(x)=-k_{0}^{2}\alpha(x)E_{0}{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}K x}.\label{eseq}$$ One well–known way to solve equation (\[eseq\]) is to expand $e_{s}$ as a series $$e_{s}(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}e_{s}^{(n)}(x)\label{series}$$ where the $n^{\text{th}}$ term is proportional to the $n^{\text{th}}$ power of $\alpha$. The first term in this series—known as the Born approximation in scattering calculations—can be found immediately and is $$e_{s}^{(1)}(x)=-E_{0}k_{0}^{2}\int\frac{dk}{2\pi}G(k)\tilde{\alpha}(k-K){{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}k x}\label{e1},$$ where $\tilde{\alpha}$ is the spatial Fourier transform of $\alpha(x)$ and $G(k)$ is the retarded Green function $$G(k)=\frac{1}{(K+{{\rm i}}\eta)^{2}-k^{2}}$$
. The region between the vertical dashed lines in (i) indicates the region plotted in figure \[eps\_figure\](ii). Panels (iii) and (iv) are for identical parameters, but we have taken only the real and imaginary parts of the permittivity respectively. The absence of any oscillations in panel (i) shows that the reflection is completely suppressed for incidence from the left, for all incident angles.\[refl\_figure\]](fig-2.png){width="12cm"}
where $\eta$ is an infinitesimal positive number. Notice that if $\tilde{\alpha}(k<0)=0$ then the Born approximation to the scattered field (\[e1\]) is made up of only right–going waves, whatever the value of $K$ (i.e. whatever the angle of incidence). This means that to first order in $\alpha(x)$ there is no backscattering from such a permittivity profile. As a first order result this is not all that remarkable, but through examining all the other terms in the series (\[series\]) we can see that there is actually no backscattering to any order. To prove this consider the $n^{\text{th}}$ term in the scattering series $$e_{s}^{(n)}(x)=-k_{0}^{2}\int\frac{dk}{2\pi}\int\frac{dk'}{2\pi}G(k)\tilde{\alpha}(k-k')\tilde{e}_{s}^{(n-1)}(k'){{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}k x}.\label{es_series}$$ This term is also made up of only right–going waves if (i) the Fourier components of the scattered electric field $\tilde{e}^{(n-1)}$ are zero for left–going waves $\tilde{e}^{(n-1)}(k<0)=0$, and (ii) the Fourier components of the permittivity profile are also zero for left–going waves $\tilde{\alpha}(k<0)=0$. We have already established that the first term in the series (\[series\]) is made up of entirely right–going waves when $\tilde{\alpha}(k<0)=0$, and this argument shows that every successive term also contains only right–going waves. There is thus zero back–scattering to all orders when $\tilde{\alpha}(k<0)=0$. One way to understand this result is to think that when a wave scatters multiple times from an object, for each scattering event there is a momentum change $\Delta k$ that occurs with an amplitude proportional to $\tilde{\alpha}(\Delta k)$. A permittivity profile that has only positive Fourier components therefore cannot convert a right–going wave to a left–going one.
We have established that if the permittivity (\[eps\]) is such that the Fourier transform of its spatial dependence is zero for $k<0$, $\tilde{\alpha}(k<0)=0$ then a wave incident from the left onto such a medium does not give rise to any reflection, whatever the angle of incidence. It might appear that this argument relies on a smallness condition for $\alpha(x)$, but in the Supplementary Material we give an alternative argument that does not rely on a series expansion of the electric field, as well as deriving two exact solutions for propagation in such profiles that confirm the effect. The Supplementary Material also contains a numerical investigation to show that an order of magnitude increase in $\alpha(x)$ does not disturb the non–reflecting behaviour (this demonstration also shows that the real part of the permittivity can become negative and remain non–reflecting).
In light of these properties, such non–reflecting permittivity profiles can be generally written as $$\epsilon(x)=\epsilon_{b}+\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{d k}{2\pi}\tilde{\alpha}(k){{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}k x},\label{nrprofile}$$ which is necessarily a complex function of position. The spatial distribution of the reactive and dissipative parts of the material response *together* completely suppress reflection. To make use of this finding, we note that equation (\[nrprofile\]) is the same in form as the relationship between the susceptibility in the frequency and time domains which embodies the causality principle [@volume8], and one need only make the replacements $k\to t$ and $x\to\omega$ in (\[nrprofile\]) in order to recover this well known formula. As a consequence [@titchmarsh1948; @lucarini], the non–reflecting permittivity profile $\alpha(x)$ is an analytic function in the upper half complex position plane and satisfies the Kramers–Kronig relations in *space* $$\text{Re}[\alpha(x)]=\frac{1}{\pi}\text{P}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\text{Im}[\alpha(s)]}{s-x}ds.\label{spatialkk}$$ where ‘$\text{P}$’ indicates the principal part of the integral. Therefore if we were given some $\text{Im}[\alpha(s)]$, say as a (square integrable) function of position, a corresponding real part can be constructed from (\[spatialkk\]) such that the reflection from the complex susceptibility is zero. We note that if the imaginary part of $\alpha(x)$ is symmetric about $x=0$, then the real part calculated from (\[spatialkk\]) will be antisymmetric, and vice versa. Therefore the Kramers–Kronig relations generate a whole family of permittivity profiles that exhibit PT–symmetry ($\alpha(-x)=\alpha^*(x)$). Likewise, we also have a whole family of non–reflecting profiles where $\alpha(x)$ exhibits PT–*antisymmetry* ($\alpha(-x)=-\alpha^*(x)$), a property that has already been associated with zero back–scattering in optics [@ge], just as PT–symmetry [@feng]. Actually, even purely lossy periodic media can be engineered [@wu2014] such that their Bragg reflection from one side vanishes when the real and imaginary parts of their susceptibility are spatially out of phase, which is a characteristic property of Hilbert transform pairs. However, our findings are more general than these known results, as they are also compatible with non–reflecting profiles exhibiting no definite PT–symmetry at all.
As an initial illustration of this finding, we consider the simplest example: a permittivity profile with a single pole in the lower half position plane $$\epsilon(x)=\epsilon_{b}+A\frac{{{\rm i}}-x/\xi}{1+(x/\xi)^2}\label{eps_example}$$ where $\xi$ sets the spatial scale of the profile, and $A$ the amplitude. Equation (\[eps\_example\]) is plotted in figure \[eps\_figure\] and takes a form which would be very familiar if the $x$–axis represented frequency rather than space. The non–reflecting behaviour is demonstrated in figure \[refl\_figure\] which shows the absolute value of the electric field for a point source (a line source in 2D) placed either side of $x=0$, and compares the behaviour of the full profile (\[eps\_example\]), versus its real and imaginary parts separately.
We note that, as is well known, the Helmholtz equation (\[1dwv\]) is equivalent to a Schrödinger equation in which $-\alpha(x)$ plays the role of a potential profile. Thus, the spatial Kramers–Kronig relations generate a large family of *complex* non-reflecting potential profiles. Needless to say, as the relation given by Eq.(\[nrprofile\]) is a sufficient, but not necessary condition, real non–reflecting profiles also exist which are perfectly transparent (for example, as mentioned in the introduction the potential $V(x)=U_{0}\,\text{sech}^{2}(x/a)$ is known to be non-reflecting for quantum particles when $U_{0}$ takes specific values [@volume3; @lekner2007]).
The above analysis was carried out for TE polarization, but from our argument in terms of multiple scattering one might expect that these profiles are also non–reflecting for TM polarized waves. We now show that this is the case, given certain additional conditions on the permittivity. The TM polarization obeys the equation $$\boldsymbol{\nabla}\boldsymbol{\cdot}[\epsilon^{-1}(x)\boldsymbol{\nabla}H_{z}]+k_{0}^{2}H_{z}=0.\label{tmwave}$$ In analogy with the foregoing argument, we write $\epsilon^{-1}(x)=\epsilon_{b}^{-1}+\beta(x)$ and $H_{z}=h_{z}(x)e^{i k_{y}y}$. Equation (\[tmwave\]) then takes the form $$\frac{d^{2}h_{z}(x)}{dx^{2}}+K^{2}h_{z}(x)=-\epsilon_{b}\left[\frac{d}{dx}\left(\beta(x)\frac{dh_{z}(x)}{dx}\right)-k_{y}^{2}\beta(x)h_{z}(x)\right]$$ Comparing the above equation with that governing TE polarized waves (\[1dwv\]) it can be shown that the equivalent of (\[es\_series\]) is given by $$h_{s}^{(n)}(x)=\epsilon_{b}\int\frac{dk}{2\pi}\int\frac{dk'}{2\pi}G(k)\tilde{\beta}(k-k')(k_{y}^{2}+kk')\tilde{h}_{s}^{(n-1)}(k')e^{ikx}$$ Therefore if $\tilde{\beta}(k<0)=0$ then reflection of the TM polarization is also suppressed. However, it is not necessarily the case that both $\tilde{\alpha}(k<0)=0$ and $\tilde{\beta}(k<0)=0$. For both equations to hold simultaneously we need both $\epsilon(x)-\epsilon_{b}$ and $\epsilon^{-1}(x)-\epsilon_{b}^{-1}$ to be analytic functions in the upper half complex position plane. In particular, if $\epsilon(x)$ satisfies the spatial Kramers-Kronig relations it will be free of zeros in the upper half plane when $\text{Im}[\epsilon(x)]$ takes only one sign along the real axis (a proof of this property of analytic functions can be found in [@volume5]). Therefore lossy media obeying the Kramers–Kronig relations in space will not reflect radiation of either polarization for any angle of incidence, which establishes the generality of the finding illustrated in figure \[bragg\_figure\]. Meanwhile for profiles exhibiting a combination of loss and gain where there are zeros in the upper half position plane will suppress reflection for only one of the two polarizations. Note that because the TM polarization is sensitive to zeros in $\epsilon(x)$ then, unlike the TE polarization, the non–reflecting behaviour is sensitive to to the value of $\epsilon_{b}$.
As an example that demonstrates the generality of our finding we now take a permittivity profile with an imaginary part given by $$\text{Im}[\epsilon(x)]=\frac{h(L-x)}{L}[1+\text{erf}(x/\xi)][1+\text{erf}((L-x)/\xi)]\label{imeps}$$ which represents a smoothed triangle function, where ‘$\text{erf}$’ is an error function, $h$ is the height, $L$ the length, and $\xi$ characterizes the smoothness of the corners. Numerically calculating the integral (\[spatialkk\]) we obtain the real part of the permittivity that, when added to $i$ times (\[imeps\]) is necessary to reduce the reflection to zero. The full function is shown in figure \[bragg\_figure\](v), and unlike (\[eps\_example\]) has no definite parity symmetry. Figures \[bragg\_figure\](i–iv) then show that the resulting profile is non–reflecting for TM polarized waves incident from the left, but that there is reflection from the right and for the real and imaginary parts of $\alpha(x)$ taken separately.
![Panel (i) shows the absolute value of the field of a dipole source aligned along the $y$ axis, and placed at $x=-5\lambda$ in front of the permittivity profile shown in panel (iii). Panel (ii) the same situation, but with the dipole placed at $x=5\lambda$. Panels (iii) and (iv) show the behaviour when we retain only the real and imaginary parts of $\alpha(x)$ respectively. The imaginary part of the permittivity profile is given by (\[imeps\]) with $\epsilon_{b}=2$, $L=1.5\lambda$, $\xi=0.1\lambda$, and $h=1.0$. The real part of the profile was numerically calculated using (\[spatialkk\]). The scale on the axes of the field plots is the same as in figure \[refl\_figure\]\[bragg\_figure\].](fig-3.png){width="10cm"}
A general result in the theory of reflection [@lekner1987] is that when waves are incident onto a generic planar interface, at angles close to grazing ($k_{y}\sim k_{0}$) the reflectivity usually approaches unity. The above findings at first sight appear to contradict this result. There are some other somewhat surprising features of these profiles which are related to this. For instance if we could construct a medium with a permittivity profile that obeys the spatial Kramers–Kronig relations over all frequencies (this property does not obviously contradict the Kramers–Kronig relations in frequency), then it would be non–reflecting for all angles of incidence and all frequencies.
This surprising behaviour stems from the fact that strictly speaking the profiles we have calculated are of infinite extent so that there is no ‘interface’ to speak of, and no natural length scale associated with the profiles. The importance of the infinite extent of the profiles is indicated by the presence of the long tails evident in the real parts of $\epsilon(x)$ shown in figures \[eps\_figure\] and \[bragg\_figure\]. In practice we must confine these infinite profiles to a finite region of space through truncating these tails, which can be achieved through multiplying the profile by an envelope function $U(x)$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha'(x)=\alpha(x)U(x)\\
\to\;&\tilde{\alpha}'(k)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{dk'}{2\pi}\tilde{U}(k'-k)\tilde{\alpha}(k')
\end{aligned}$$ where $U(x)=0$ at some distance from the centre of the profile. This truncation naturally introduces a length scale into the permittivity profile, and through doing this we find that $\alpha'(k<0)\neq0$. However, if $\tilde{U}(\Delta k)$ is sharply peaked around $\Delta k=0$, $\tilde{\alpha}'$ will only be non–zero for negative $k$ of a small magnitude and nearly all of the non–reflecting behaviour can be retained. For example if we use $U(x)=\exp(-(x/a)^{2})$, then $\tilde{U}(\Delta k)=(a/2\sqrt{\pi})\exp(-a^{2}(\Delta k)^{2}/4)$, which rapidly goes to zero beyond around $\Delta k=-2/a$. The consequence of this is that waves close to grazing will now be reflected by the profile. The Supplementary Material contains a further discussion of this effect, where it is numerically demonstrated that it is possible to confine the profile (\[eps\_example\]) to a slab of a few wavelengths thickness, introducing reflection at close to grazing incidence, while otherwise retaining the non–reflecting behaviour.
While the non-reflecting property of specific classes of real potential profiles have long been studied [@kay], more recently the analogous behaviour of PT–symmetric complex susceptibility profiles have been considered in optics. Yet, to the best of our knowledge the simple and general relation here discussed between the one-sided absence of reflection and the analytic extension of the spatially dependent susceptibility to one half of the complex position plane has not been pointed out before. We have shown how the corresponding Kramers-Kronig relations in space can be used to generate a large family of non-reflecting profiles as they provide a sufficient condition for being non–reflecting on one side. If the profile is also free of zeros in the upper or lower half complex position plane (the half plane being determined by whether reflection vanishes from the left or the right) then the profile is also non–reflecting for both polarizations. In practice the catch is that the profiles have very long tails which must be truncated, and where one chooses to perform the truncation determines the range of angles and frequencies that are not reflected. Nevertheless, the advantage of this method is that it requires us only to be able to manipulate the real and imaginary parts of an isotropic permittivity, and is in principle valid for any wave equation, including the Schrödinger equation. While the Kramers-Kronig relations in the frequency domain are a cornerstone of optics, it is hoped that the spatial Kramers-Kronig relations will provide at least some guidance and insight in the development of metamaterials based on judiciously chosen susceptibility profiles.\
SARH acknowledges financial support from the EPSRC under Program Grant EP/I034548/1, and thanks Scuola Normale Superiore (Pisa) for its hospitality. The authors would like to thank J. B. Pendry, T. G. Philbin, C. King, T. C. Constant, A. Di Falco, J. R. Sambles, E. Hendry, I. R. Hooper, A. P. Hibbins, J.-H. Wu, V. Agranovich and V. Lucarini for useful discussions. In particular J. B. Pendry and J. R. Sambles are both to be thanked for separately pointing out the limit of grazing incidence.
[99]{} H. A. Macleod, *Thin–Film Optical Filters*, Institute of Physics Publishing, London (2001). L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *Quantum Mechanics*, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2003). J. Lekner, *Am. J. Phys.* **75**, 1151 (2007). L. V. Thekkekara, V. G. Achanta and S. D. Gupta, *Opt. Exp.* **22**, 17382 (2014). J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, and D. R. Smith, *Science* **312**, 1780 (2006). U. Leonhardt and T. G. Philbin, *New J. Phys.* **8**, 247 (2006). J. Valentine, J. Li, T. Zentgraf, G. Bartal and X. Zhang, *Nature Mat.* **8**, 568 (2009). J. B. Pendry, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **85**, 3966 (2000). J.-P. Berenger, *Journal of Computational Physics* **114**, 185 (1994). F. L. Teixeira and W. C. Chew, *J. Electro. Wav. Appl.* **13**, 665 (1999). B.-I. Popa and S. A. Cummer, *Phys. Rev. A* **84**, 063837 (2011). H. Odabasi, F. L. Teixeira, and W. C. Chew, *J. Opt. Soc. Am. B*, **28**, 1317 (2011). K. Sainath, F. L. Teixeira, W. C. Chew, *arXiv*:1405.6413 (2014). T. Kottos, *Nature Phys.* **6**, 166 (2010). K. G. Makris, R. El–Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides and Z. H. Musslimani, *Int. J. Theor. Phys.* **50**, 1019 (2011). S. Longhi, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **105**, 013903 (2010) Z. Lin, H. Ramezani, T. Eichelkraut, T. Kottos, H. Cao, and D. N. Christodoulides, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **106**, 213901 (2011). A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, G. Onishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, *Nature*, **488**, 167 (2012). G. Castaldi, S. Savoia, V. Galdi, A. Alù, and N. Engheta, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110**, 173901 (2013). W. Cai and V. Shalaev, *Optical Metamaterials*, Springer, New York (2010). D. Ye, Z. Wang, K. Xu, H. Li, J. Huangfu, Z. Wang and L. Ran, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **111**, 187402 (2013) L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *Electrodynamics of Continuous Media*, Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford (2004). E. Titchmarsh, *Introduction to the theory of Fourier integrals*, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1986). V. Lucarini, F. Bassani, K.-E. Peiponen and J. J. Saarinen, Rivista del Nuovo Cimento **26**, 12, 1 (2003). L. Ge and H.E. Türeci, *Phys. Rev. A* **88**, 053810 (2013). L. Feng, Y.-L. Xu, W.S. Fegadolli, M.-H. Lu, J.E.B. Oliveira, V.R. Almeida, Y.-F. Chen, and A. Scherer, Nat. Materials **12**, 108-113 (2012). J.-H. Wu, M. Artoni and G. C. La Rocca, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **113**,123004 (2014). L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *Statistical Physics (Part 1)*, Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford (2003). J. Lekner, *Theory of Reflection*, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht (1987). I. Kay and H.E. Moses, J. Appl. Phys. **27**, 1503 (1956).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Qian Lei
- 'Marek A. Abramowicz'
- 'P. Chris Fragile'
- 'Ji[ř]{}[í]{} Hor[á]{}k'
- Mami Machida
- Odele Straub
date: 'Received ????; accepted ???? '
subtitle: ' I. The angular momentum distribution and equipressure surfaces '
title: The Polish doughnuts revisited
---
Introduction
============
In accretion disk theory one is often interested in phenomena that occur on a “dynamical” timescale ${\cal T}_{0}$ much shorter than the “viscous” timescale ${\cal T}[{\cal L}]$ needed for angular momentum redistribution and the “thermal” timescale ${\cal
T}[{\cal S}]$ needed for entropy redistribution[^1], $$\label{timescales} {\cal T}_{0} \ll {\rm min}\left({\cal
T}[{\cal L}], {\cal T}[{\cal S}] \right).$$ The question whether it is physically legitimate to approximately describe the black hole accretion flows (at least in some “averaged” sense) in terms of stationary (independent on $t$) and axially symmetric (independent on $\phi$) dynamical equilibria, is not yet resolved. While observations seem to suggest that many real astrophysical sources experience periods in which this assumption is quite reasonable, several authors point out that the results of recent numerical simulations seem to indicate that the MRI and other instabilities make the black hole accretion flows genuinely non-steady and non-symmetric, and that the very concept of the separate timescales (\[timescales\]) may be questionable in the sense that locally ${\cal T}_{0} \approx {\cal T}[{\cal L}]
\approx {\cal T}[{\cal S}]$. However, this assumption has been made in [*all*]{} existing comparisons between theory and observations, be they by detailed spectral fitting [e.g. @sha-2007; @sha-2008 and references there], line profile fitting [e.g. @fab-2003], or studying small amplitude oscillations [see @abr-2005 for references]. It seems that the present understanding of the black hole accretion phenomenon rests, in a major way, on studies of stationary and axially symmetric models.
From the point of view of mathematical self-consistency, in modeling of these stationary and axially symmetric dynamical equilibria, distributions of the [*conserved*]{} angular momentum and entropy, $$\label{distribution-lagrangian} \ell = \ell(\xi, \eta),~~~ s =
s(\xi, \eta),$$ may be considered as being [*free functions*]{} of the Lagrangian coordinates [@ost-1970; @abr-1970; @bar-1970]. The Lagrangian coordinates $\xi, \eta$ are defined by demanding that a narrow ring of matter $(\xi, \xi + d\xi)$, $(\eta, \eta + d\eta)$ has the rest mass $dM_0 = \rho_0(\xi, \eta)d\xi d\eta$ with $\rho_0$ being the rest mass density. In the full physical description, the form of the functions in (\[distribution-lagrangian\]) is not arbitrary but given by the dissipative processes, like viscosity and radiative transfer. At present, several important aspects of these processes are still unknown, so there is still no practical way to calculate physically consistent models of accretion flows from first principles, without involving some ad hoc assumptions, or neglecting some important processes. Neither the hydrodynamical simulations (that e.g. use the ad hoc $\alpha\,=\,$const viscosity prescription), nor the present day MHD simulations (that e.g. neglect radiative transfer) could be considered satisfactory. Furthermore, the simplifications made in these simulations are mathematically equivalent to guessing free functions (such as the entropy distribution). Bohdan Paczy[ń]{}ski pointed out that it could often be more pragmatic to make a physically motivated guess of the final result, e.g. to guess the form of the angular momentum and entropy distributions.
In practice, it is far easier to guess and use the coordinate distributions of the [*specific*]{} angular momentum and entropy, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} &=& {\cal L}(r, \theta),
\label{momentum-distribution}\\
{\cal S} &=& {\cal S}(r, \theta),
\label{entropy-distribution}\end{aligned}$$ than the Lagrangian distributions (\[distribution-lagrangian\]). However, one does not known a priori the relation between the conserved $\ell$ and specific ${\cal L}$ angular momenta (and entropy), or the functions, $\xi = \xi(r,\theta)$, $\eta =
\eta(r, \theta)$. Thus, assuming (\[momentum-distribution\]) and (\[entropy-distribution\]) is not equivalent to assuming (\[distribution-lagrangian\]), and usually it should be a subject to some consistency conditions. We shall return to this point in Section \[discussion\].
In several “astrophysical scenarios” one indeed guesses a particular form of (\[momentum-distribution\]) and (\[entropy-distribution\]). For example, the celebrated @sha-sun-1974 [*thin disk*]{} model assumes the Keplerian distribution of angular momentum, $$\label{Keplerian} {\cal L}(r, \theta) = {\cal L}_K(r) \equiv
\frac{M^{1/2}\,\left(r^2 - 2aM^{1/2}r^{1/2} + a^2\right)} {r^{3/2}
- 2Mr^{1/2} + aM^{1/2}},$$ and the popular [*cold-disk-plus-hot-corona*]{} model assumes a low entropy flat disk surrounded by high entropy, more spherical corona. These models contributed considerably to the understanding of black-hole accretion physics.
The mathematically simplest assumption for the angular momentum and entropy distribution is, obviously, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}(r, \theta) &=& {\cal L}_0 = {\rm const},
\label{constant-momentum}
\\
{\cal S}(r, \theta) &=& {\cal S}_0 = {\rm const}.
\label{constant-entropy}\end{aligned}$$ This was used by Paczy[ń]{}ski and his Warsaw team to introduce the [*thick disk*]{} models [@abr-1978; @koz-1978; @jar-1980; @pac-wii-1980; @abr-1980; @abr-1981; @pac-1982]. Thick disks have characteristic toroidal shapes, resembling a doughnut. Probably for this reason, Martin Rees coined the name of [*Polish doughnuts*]{}[^2] for them.
Figure \[analytic-numerical\] shows a comparison of a state-of-art MHD simulation of black-hole accretion (time and azimuth averaged) with a Polish doughnut corresponding to a particular ${\cal L}_0$. Both models show the same characteristic features of black hole accretion: (i) a funnel along the rotation axis, relevant for jet collimation and acceleration; (ii) a pressure maximum, possibly relevant for epicyclic oscillatory modes; and (iii) a cusp-like self-crossing of one particular equipressure surface, relevant for an inner boundary condition, and for stabilization of the Papaloizou-Pringle [@bla-1987], thermal, and viscous instabilities [@abr-1971]. The cusp is located between the radii of marginally stable and marginally bound circular orbits, $$\label{cusp} r_{mb} < r_{cusp} < r_{ms} \equiv {\rm ISCO}.$$ Polish doughnuts have been useful in semi-analytic studies of the astrophysical appearance of super-Eddington accretion [see e.g. @sik-1971; @mad-1988; @szu-1996] and in analytic calculations of small-amplitude oscillations of accretion structures in connection with QPOs [see e.g. @bla-2006]. In the same context, numerical studies of their oscillation properties for different angular momentum distributions were first carried out by @rez-2003a [@rez-2003b]. Moreover, Polish doughnuts are routinely used as convenient starting initial configurations in numerical simulations [e.g. @haw-2001; @dev-2003]. Recently, @kom-2006 has constructed analytic models of magnetized Polish doughnuts.
![Equipressure surfaces in a very simple and analytic Polish doughnut (left, with linear spacing), and a sophisticated, state-of-art full 3D MHD numerical simulation (right, with logarithmic spacing). Although the shapes of equipressure surfaces are remarkably similar, in the numerical model the pressure gradient is seriously larger, and visibly enhanced along roughly conical surfaces, approximately $30^{\circ}$ from the equatorial plane. [Figure taken from @abr-fra-2008][]{data-label="analytic-numerical"}](1518.F01.eps){width="9cm"}
However, a closer inspection of Figure \[analytic-numerical\] reveals that the numerically constructed model of accretion has a (much) larger “vertical” pressure gradient than the analytic Polish doughnut, and that in the numerical model the gradient is visibly enhanced along roughly conical surfaces, approximately $30^{\circ}$ from the equatorial plane. This (and several other) detailed features of the accretion structure cannot be modeled by either the Keplerian nor the constant angular momentum assumption alone. We suggest and discuss in this paper a simple but flexible ansatz, that is a combination of the two standard distributions, Keplerian (\[Keplerian\]) and constant (\[constant-momentum\]). The new ansatz preserves the virtues of assuming the standard distributions where this is appropriate, but leads to a far richer variety of possible accretion structures, as are indeed seen in numerical simulations.
Assumptions and definitions
===========================
We assume that the accretion flow is stationary and axially symmetric. This assumption expressed in terms of the Boyer-Lindquist spherical coordinates states that the flow properties depend only on the radial and polar coordinates $r,
\theta$, and are independent on time $t$ and azimuth $\phi$. We also assume that the dynamical timescale is much shorter than the thermal and viscus ones (\[timescales\]). Accordingly, we ignore dissipation and assume the stress-energy tensor in the perfect fluid form, $$\label{perfect-fluid}
T^i_{~k} = (p + \epsilon)u^i\,u_k - p\delta^i_{~k},$$ with $p$ and $\epsilon$ being the pressure and energy density, respectively. The four velocity of matter $u^i$ is assumed to be purely circular, $$\label{circular-orbits}
u^i = (u^t, u^{\phi}, 0, 0).$$ The last assumption is not fulfilled close to the cusp (see Figure \[analytic-numerical\]), where there is a transition from “almost circular” to almost “free-fall” radial trajectories. Nevertheless, the transition could be incorporated in the form of the inner boundary condition [the relativistic Roche lobe overflow, see e.g. @abr-1985].
One introduces the specific angular momentum ${\cal L}$, the angular velocity $\Omega$, and the redshift factor $A$ by the well known and standard definitions, $$\label{definitions} {\cal L} = - \frac{u_{\phi}}{u_t}, ~~ \Omega =
\frac{u^{\phi}}{u^t}, ~~ A^{-2} = g_{tt} + 2\Omega g_{t\phi} +
\Omega^2 g_{\phi\phi}.$$ The specific angular momentum and angular velocity are linked by $$\label{velocity-momentum} {\cal L} = - \frac{\Omega\,g_{\phi\phi}
+ g_{t\phi}}{\Omega\,g_{t\phi} + g_{tt}}, ~~ \Omega = -
\frac{{\cal L}\,g_{tt} + g_{t\phi}}{{\cal L}\,g_{t\phi} +
g_{\phi\phi}}.$$ The conserved angular momentum $\ell$ is given by, $$\label{conserved-momentum} \ell = \frac{(p +
\epsilon)u_t}{\rho_0}\,{\cal L}.$$
The shapes of the equipressure surfaces
=======================================
In this section we briefly discuss one particularly useful result obtained by @jar-1980. It states that for a perfect fluid matter rotating on circular trajectories around a black hole, the shapes and location of the equipressure surfaces $p(r, \theta)
=~$const follow directly from the assumed angular momentum distribution (\[momentum-distribution\]) alone. In particular, they are independent of the equation of state, $p = p(\epsilon,
{\cal S})$, and the assumed entropy distribution (\[entropy-distribution\]).
For a perfect-fluid matter, the equation of motion $\nabla_i\,T^i_{~k} = 0$ yields, $$\label{Euler} \frac{\partial_i p}{p + \epsilon} = -\frac{1}{2}
\frac{\partial_i\,g^{tt} - 2{\cal L}\,\partial_i g^{t\phi} + {\cal
L}^2\,\partial_i g^{\phi\phi}}{g^{tt} - 2{\cal L}\,g^{t\phi} +
{\cal L}^2\,g^{\phi\phi}},$$ which may be transformed into, $$\label{von-Zeipel} \frac{\partial_i p}{p + \epsilon} = \partial_i
\ln A + \frac{{\cal L}\,\partial_i \Omega}{1 - {\cal L}\,\Omega}$$ From the second derivative commutator $\partial_r\partial_{\theta}
- \partial_{\theta}\partial_r$ of the above equation, $$\label{second-commutator-von-Zeipel} \frac{\partial_r
p\,\partial_{\theta}\epsilon -
\partial_{\theta}p\,\partial_r\epsilon}{(p + \epsilon)^2} =
\frac{\partial_r \Omega\,\partial_{\theta}{\cal L} -
\partial_{\theta} \Omega\,\partial_r{\cal L}}{(1 - {\cal
L}\,\Omega)^2},$$ one derives [see e.g. @abr-1971] the von Zeipel condition: $p(r,\theta)\,$$=\,$const surfaces coincide with those of $\epsilon(r,\theta)\,$$= $const, [*if and only if*]{} the surfaces ${\cal L}(r,\theta)\,$$=\,$const coincide with those $\Omega(r,\theta)\,$$=\,$const[^3]. Obviously, the constant angular momentum case satisfies the von Zeipel condition.
@jar-1980 have also discussed a general, non barytropic case. They wrote equation (\[Euler\]) twice, for $i = r$ and $i
= \theta$, and divided the two equations side by side to get $$\label{master} \frac{\partial_r\,p}{\partial_{\theta}\,p} =
\frac{\partial_r\,g^{tt} - 2{\cal L}\,\partial_r g^{t\phi} + {\cal
L}^2\,\partial_r g^{\phi\phi}}{\partial_{\theta}\,g^{tt} - 2{\cal
L}\,\partial_{\theta} g^{t\phi} + {\cal L}^2\,\partial_{\theta}
g^{\phi\phi}} \equiv - F\left(r, \theta \right).$$ For the Kerr metric components one knows the functions $g^{ik} =
g^{ik}(r,\theta)$, and therefore the function $F(r,\theta)$ in the right hand side of (\[master\]) is known explicitly in terms of $r$ and $\theta$, [*if*]{} one knows or assumes the angular momentum distribution ${\cal L} = {\cal L}(r, \theta)$. This has an important practical consequence.
Let $\theta = \theta(r)$ be the explicit equation for the equipressure surface $p(r, \theta) =$const. It is, $d\theta/dr =
-{\partial_r}p/\partial_{\theta}p$. If the function $F(r, \theta)$ in (\[master\]) is known, then equation (\[master\]) takes the form of an ordinary differential equation for the equipressure surface, $\theta = \theta(r)$, $$\label{differential} \frac{d\theta}{dr} = F(r, \theta),$$ with the explicitly known right hand side. It may be therefore directly integrated to get all the possible locations for the equipressure surfaces.
The angular momentum distribution {#section-angular-momentum}
=================================
Physical arguments: the radial distribution {#section-physical-arguments}
-------------------------------------------
@jar-1980 discussed general arguments showing that the slope of the specific angular momentum should be between two extreme: the slope corresponding to ${\cal L} =\,$const and the slope corresponding to $\Omega =\,$const. These two cases, together with the Keplerian one ${\cal L} = {\cal L}_K$, may be considered as useful archetypes in discussing arguments relevant to the angular momentum distribution.
Indeed, far away from the black hole $r \gg r_G$, these arguments are well known [see e.g. @fra-2002] and together with numerous numerical simulations show that typically (i.e. in a stationary case with no shocks) the specific angular momentum should be slightly sub-Keplerian ${\cal L}(r, \pi/2) \approx {\cal
L}_K(r)$. There is a solid consensus on this point.
The situation close to the black hole is less clear because there is not sufficient knowledge of the nature of the stress operating in the innermost part of the flow, i.e. approximately between the horizon and the ISCO. Formally, one may consider two extreme ideal cases, depending whether the stress is very small or very large.
In the first case, the almost vanishing stress implies that the fluid is almost free-falling, and therefore the angular momentum is almost constant along fluid lines. This leads to ${\cal L}(r,
\pi/2) \approx\,$const. Such situation is typical for the thin @sha-sun-1974 and slim [@abr-1988] accretion disks. In the second case, one may imagine a powerful instability like MRI, which occurs when $d\Omega/dr \ne 0$. It may force the fluid closer to the marginally stable state $\Omega =\,$const. This situation may be relevant for ADAFs [@nar-1995; @abr-1995].
{width="4.45cm" height="4.45cm"} {width="4.45cm" height="4.45cm"} {width="4.45cm" height="4.45cm"} {width="4.45cm" height="4.45cm"}
The new ansatz {#section-ansatz}
--------------
We suggest adopting the following assumption for the angular momentum distribution, $$\label{ansatz-general}
{\cal L}(r, \theta) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\cal L}_0\left( \frac{{\cal L}_K
(r)}{{\cal L}_0}\right)^{\beta}
\sin^{2\gamma}\theta & \mbox{~for~ $r \geq r_{ms}$}\\
~\\
{\cal L}_{ms}(r) \sin^{2\gamma}\theta & \mbox{~for~ $r < r_{ms}$}
\end{array} \right\}$$ The constant ${\cal L}_0$ is defined by ${\cal L}_0 \equiv
\eta\,{\cal L}_K(r_{ms})$. For the “hydrodynamical” case, the function ${\cal L}_{ms}(r)$ is constant, $$\label{constant-definitions-hydro}
{\cal L}_{ms}(r) = {\cal L}_0\,[{\cal L}_K(r_{ms})/{\cal L}_0]^{\beta}
= {\rm const},$$ while for the “MHD” case its is calculated from the $\Omega(r) =
\Omega_K(r_{ms}) =\,$const condition, $$\label{constant-definitions-MHD} {\cal L}_{ms}(r) = -
\frac{\Omega_{ms}\,g_{\phi\phi}(r, \pi/2) + g_{t\phi}(r,
\pi/2)}{\Omega_{ms}\,g_{t\phi}(r, \pi/2) + g_{tt}(r, \pi/2)}.$$ Thus, there are only [*three*]{} dimensionless parameters in the model: ($\beta$, $\gamma$, $\eta$). Their ranges are, $$\label{constants-range} 0 \le \beta \le 1, ~~-1 \le \gamma \le 1,
~~~~1 \le \eta \le \eta_{max}.$$ The function ${\cal L}_K(r)$ is the Keplerian angular momentum in the equatorial plane, $\theta =\pi/2$, which for the Kerr metric is described by formula (\[Keplerian\]) and $\eta_{max} = {\cal
L}_K(r_{mb})/{\cal L}_K(r_{ms})$. An equipressure surface that starts from the cusp is marginally bound for $\beta = 0$, $\gamma
= 0$ and $\eta = \eta_{max}$.
Angular momentum on the equatorial plane
----------------------------------------
On the equatorial plane, $\sin \theta = 1$, and therefore only $\beta$ and $\eta$ (through ${\cal L}_0$) enter the distribution formulae (\[ansatz-general\]). $$\label{ansatz-equatorial}
{\cal L}(r, \pi/2) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\cal L}_0\left( \frac{{\cal L}_K
(r)}{{\cal L}_0}\right)^{\beta}
& \mbox{~for~ $r \geq r_{ms}$}\\ ~\\
{\cal L}_{ms} & \mbox{~for~ $r < r_{ms}$}
\end{array} \right\}$$ When $\beta = 0$, the angular momentum is constant, ${\cal L} =
{\cal L}_0$, and when $\beta = 1$, it equals the Keplerian one, ${\cal L} = {\cal L}_K$.
For small values of $\beta$ the assumed equatorial plane angular momentum (\[ansatz-equatorial\]) reproduces the characteristic shape, shown in Figure \[fig:ang-mom\], which has been found in many numerical simulations of accretion flows — including stationary, axially symmetric, $\alpha$ viscosity, hydrodynamical “slim disks” [e.g. @abr-1988], and more recent, fully 3-D, non-stationary MHD simulations [e.g. @mac-2008; @fra-2008]. It corresponds to a distribution that is slightly sub-Keplerian for large radii, and closer to the black hole it crosses the Keplerian distribution twice, at $r_{center} > r_{ms}$ and at $r_{cusp} < r_{ms}$, forming a super-Keplerian part around $r_{ms}$. For $r < r_{cusp}$ the angular momentum is almost constant.
Angular momentum off the equatorial plane
-----------------------------------------
Numerical simulations show that away from the equatorial plane, the angular momentum falls off. Figure \[fig:ang-mom\] shows that indeed several MHD simulations [@mac-2008; @fra-2008 Figure 2c and 2d respectively], feature a drop of angular momentum away from the equatorial plane. This behavior is reflected by the term $\sin^{2\gamma}\theta$ in (\[ansatz-general\]). One may see that this form accurately mimics the outcome of the numerical simulations. @pro-2003a [@pro-2003b] also studied axisymmetric accretion flows with low specific angular momentum using numerical simulations. In their inviscid hydrodynamical case @pro-2003a found that the inner accretion flow settles into a pressure-rotation supported torus in the equatorial region and a nearly radial inflow in the polar funnels. Furthermore, the specific angular momentum in the equatorial torus was nearly constant. This behavior changes once magnetic fields are introduced, as shown in @pro-2003b. In the MHD case, the magnetic fields transport specific angular momentum so that in the innermost part of the flow, rotation is sub-Keplerian, whereas in the outer part, it is nearly Keplerian. Similar rotational profiles are also found in MHD simulations of the collapsar model of gamma-ray bursts [@pro-2003c; @bai-2008], which use a sophisticated equation of state and neutrino cooling (instead of a simple adiabatic equation of state). Therefore, it appears that the rotational profile assumed in our model is quite robust as it has been obtained in a number of numerical experiments with various microphysics.
Results
=======
Figures \[sequence-beta-gamma\] and \[sequence-beta-gamma-05\] show sequences of models calculated with the new ansatz (\[ansatz-general\]) for black-hole spins $a=0$ and 0.5, respectively. For these models we hold $\eta = \eta_{max}$ fixed, while $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are varied over the limits of their accessible ranges.
{width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"}
{width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"} {width="4.3cm"}
Equipressure surfaces on the axis of rotation
---------------------------------------------
Figures \[sequence-beta-gamma\] and \[sequence-beta-gamma-05\] show an interesting change of the behavior of equipressure surfaces close to the axis with increasing $\gamma$. No equipressure surface can cross the symmetry axis when the dependence of the angular momentum on $\theta$ is weak. This is the case for the first three columns of Figure \[sequence-beta-gamma\] where $\gamma\leq 0.5$. On the other hand, for the angular momentum distributions with higher $\gamma$ the equipressure surfaces cross the axis perpendicularly. This happens in plots of the last column of Figure \[sequence-beta-gamma\]. This behavior can be understood easily from the limit of $r d\theta/dr$ as $\theta\rightarrow0$. In Schwarzschild spacetime equations (\[master\]) and (\[differential\]) give $$\label{limit}
\lim_{\theta\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{r d\theta}{dr} =
-\frac{2\mathcal{L}^2_K(r)}{\mathcal{L}^2(r,\pi/2)}
\lim_{\theta\rightarrow0^{+}}\left(\sin^{4\gamma-3}\theta\right).$$ The limit on the right-hand side is either 0, 1 or $\infty$, depending on the value of $\gamma$. When $\gamma<3/4$, $rd\theta/dr =0$ and no equipressure surface goes across the axis. On the other hand, when $\gamma>3/4$ equipressure surfaces cross the axis perpendicularly. Of course, a stationary torus may exist only within an equipotential surface located inside the Roche lobe, i.e., the critical self-crossing equipotential within the cusp [@abr-1985].
Comparison with numerical simulations
-------------------------------------
Figure \[overlay\] illustrates that the results of the analytic models are well matched with results of modern 3-D MHD numerical simulations [here taken from @fra-2007; @fra-2008]. For the correct choice of parameters, the model can reproduce many of the relevant features of the numerical results, including the locations of the cusp and pressure maximum, as well as the vertical thickness of the disk. At this stage, such qualitative agreement is all that can be hoped for. One notable difference between the analytic and numerical solutions is the behavior inside the cusp. While the analytic equipressure surfaces formally diverge toward the poles, the numerical solution maintains a fairly constant vertical height, which is also evident in Figure \[analytic-numerical\]. This is because in the region inside the cusp, our assumption (\[circular-orbits\]) about the form of the velocity is not valid — velocity cannot be consistent with a pure rotation only, $u^i = (u^t, u^{\phi}, 0, 0)$. In this region the radial velocity $u^r$ must be non-zero and large. Thus, accuracy of our analytic models may only be trusted in the region outside the cusp, $r > r_{cusp}$.
Discussion
==========
In this paper we assumed a form of the angular momentum distribution (\[ansatz-general\]) and from this calculated the shapes and locations of the equipressure surfaces. This may be used in calculating spectra (in the optically thick case) by the same “surface” method as used in works by @sik-1971 and @mad-1988.
We plan to construct the complete physical model of the interior in the second paper of this series. Here, we only outline the method by considering a simplified toy model. Let us denote $\rho
= \epsilon + p$. We assume a toy (non-barytropic) equation of state and an entropy distribution, by writing, $$p = e^{K({\cal S})}\rho, \quad
K = K(r, \theta).
\label{toy-state}$$ Let us, in addition, define two functions connected to the entropy distribution, $$\partial_\theta\,K =\kappa(r, \theta).
\quad
\frac{\partial_r K}{\partial_{\theta} K} =
\lambda(r, \theta),
\label{two-functions-entropy}$$ From the obvious condition that the second derivative commutator of pressure vanishes, $(\partial_r\partial_{\theta} -
\partial_{\theta}\partial_r)p = 0$, and equations (\[toy-state\]), (\[two-functions-entropy\]) and (\[master\]) one derives, $$\kappa = -\frac{\partial_r\,G_{\theta} -
\partial_{\theta}\,G_r}{G_r - \lambda\,G_{\theta}},
\label{commutator-condition}$$ where $G_r$ and $G_{\theta}$ are defined as $$G_i(r,\theta) = \frac{\partial_i p}{\rho}
\label{definition-G}$$ and can be calculated from the angular momentum distribution using equation (\[Euler\]). From (\[commutator-condition\]) it is obvious that one cannot independently assume the functions $\kappa(r, \theta)$ and $\lambda(r, \theta)$[^4]. Assuming $\lambda(r, \theta)$ is equivalent with assuming the shapes of isentropic surfaces. Indeed, from (\[two-functions-entropy\]) one concludes that the function $\theta = \theta_{\cal S}(r)$ that describes an isentropic surface is given by the equation, $$\left[\frac{d\theta}{dr}\right]_{\cal S} =
-\lambda(r, \theta).
\label{isentropic}$$ that may be directly integrated. Then the condition (\[commutator-condition\]) gives the physical spacing (“labels”) to the isentropic surfaces, and through the equation of state (\[toy-state\]) also to equipressure surfaces and isopicnic ($\rho ={\rm const}$) surfaces.
Note, that a possible choice $\lambda = G_r/G_{\theta}$ corresponds, obviously, to the “von Zeipel” case in which equipressure and isentropic surfaces coincide. In this case the denominator in (\[commutator-condition\]) vanishes, implying a singularity unless the numerator also vanishes. The condition for the numerator to vanish is, however, equivalent to the von Zeipel condition.
0.2truecm ![Comparison of pressure distributions between the analytic model ([*dark lines*]{}) and numerical simulations ([*colors*]{}). The results of MHD simulations [taken from @fra-2007; @fra-2008] have been time-averaged over one orbital period at $r=25r_G$. [*Upper panel:*]{} Schwarzschild black hole ($a=0$); the analytic model parameters are $\eta=1.085$, $\beta=0.9$, and $\gamma=0.18$. [*Lower panel:*]{} Kerr black hole ($a=0.5$); the analytic model parameters are $\eta=1.079$, $\beta=0.7$, and $\gamma=0.2$. []{data-label="overlay"}](1518.F46.eps "fig:"){width="8.0cm"} 0.8truecm ![Comparison of pressure distributions between the analytic model ([*dark lines*]{}) and numerical simulations ([*colors*]{}). The results of MHD simulations [taken from @fra-2007; @fra-2008] have been time-averaged over one orbital period at $r=25r_G$. [*Upper panel:*]{} Schwarzschild black hole ($a=0$); the analytic model parameters are $\eta=1.085$, $\beta=0.9$, and $\gamma=0.18$. [*Lower panel:*]{} Kerr black hole ($a=0.5$); the analytic model parameters are $\eta=1.079$, $\beta=0.7$, and $\gamma=0.2$. []{data-label="overlay"}](1518.F47.eps "fig:"){width="8.0cm"}
Conclusions
===========
The new ansatz (\[ansatz-general\]) captures two essential features of the angular momentum distribution in black hole accretion disks:
1. On the equatorial plane and far from the black hole, the angular momentum in the disk differs only little from the Keplerian one being slightly sub-Keplerian, but closer in it becomes (slightly) super-Keplerian and still closer, in the plunging region, sub-Keplerian again and nearly constant.
2. Angular momentum may significantly decrease off the equatorial plane, and become very low (even close to zero, in a non-rotating “corona”).
Models of tori described here may be useful not only for accretion disks but also for tori that form in the latest stages of neutron star binary mergers. This is relevant for gamma ray bursts [@wit-1994] and gravitational waves [@bai-2008].
We thank Daniel Proga and Luciano Rezzolla for helpful comments and suggestions. Travel expenses connected to this work were supported by the China Scholarship Council (Q.L.), the Polish Ministry of Science grant N203 0093/1466 (M.A.A.), and the Swedish Research Council grant VR Dnr 621-2006-3288 (P.C.F.).
AbramowiczM.A., 1970, Ap. Lett. [**7**]{}, 73 AbramowiczM.A., 1971, Acta Astr., [**21**]{}, 81 AbramowiczM.A., 1981, Nature, [**294**]{}, 235 AbramowiczM.A., 1985, , [**37**]{}, 727 AbramowiczM.A., 2005, Astr. Nacht. [**326**]{}, a collection of articles on the twin, high frequency QPOs AbramowiczM.A., CzernyB., LasotaJ.-P., 1988, , [**332**]{}, 646 AbramowiczM.A., ChenX., KatoS., LasotaJ.-P., & RegevO., 1988, , [**438**]{}, L37 AbramowiczM.A., ChenX.-M., Granath,M. & Lasota J.-P., 1997, , [**471**]{}, 762 AbramowiczM.A. & FragileC.P. 2008, [*Black hole accretion disks*]{}, in preparation for the Living Reviews Abramowicz, M.A., Jaroszy[ń]{}ski, M., & Sikora, M. 1978, , [**63**]{}, 221 Abramowicz, M.A., CalvaniM. & NobiliL., 1980, , [**242**]{}, 772 BaiottiL., GiaccomazzoB., & Rezzolla L., 2008, Phys. Rev. D, [**78**]{}, 0804033 BardeenJ.M., 1970, , [**162**]{}, 71 BlaesO.M., 1987 , [**227**]{}, 975 BlaesO.M., ArrasP., & FragileP.C., 2006 , [**369**]{}, 1235 De Villiers, J.-P. & Hawley, J. F., 2003, , [**592**]{}, 1060 FabianA.C. & VaughanS., 2003, , [**340**]{}, L28 FragileP.C., BlaesO.M., AnninosP., & SalmonsonJ.D., 2007, , [**668**]{}, 417, FragileP.C., LindnerC.C., AnninosP., & SalmonsonJ.D., 2008, to appear in ApJ Jaroszy[ń]{}skiM., AbramowiczM.A. & Paczy[ń]{}skiB., 1980, Acta Astr., [**30**]{}, 1 FrankJ., KingA. & RaineD., 2002, [*Accretion Power in Astrophysics*]{}, Cambridge University Press (3rd edition) Hawley, J. F., Balbus, S. A., & Stone, J. M., 2001, , [**554**]{}, 49 KomissarovS., 2006 , 993 Koz[ł]{}owskiM. & AbramowiczM.A. & Jaroszy[ń]{}skiM. 1978, , [****]{}, MachidaM. & MatsumotoR. 2008, , [**60**]{}, 613 MadauP., 1988, , [**327**]{}, 116 MonteroP.J., RezzollaL., & YoshidaS., 2004, , [**354**]{}, 1040 NarayanR., YiI., 1988, , [**444**]{}, 231 OstrikerJ., BodenheimerP. & Lynden-BellD., 1966, , [**17**]{}, 816 Paczy[ń]{}ski B., 1982, Astr. Gesellschaft, [**57**]{}, 27 Paczy[ń]{}skiB. & WiitaP., 1980, , [**88**]{}, 23 Proga, D. & Begelman, M. C., 2003a, , [**582**]{}, 69 Proga, D. & Begelman, M. C., 2003, , [**592**]{}, 767 Proga, D., MacFadyen, A. I., Armitage, P. J., & Begelman, M. C., 2003, , [**599**]{}, L5 RezzollaL., YoshidaS., & ZanottiO., 2003a, , [**344**]{}, 978 RezzollaL., YoshidaS., MaccaroneT.J., & ZanottiO., 2003b, , [**344**]{}, L37 S[a]{}dowskiA., 2008, , submitted ShafeeR., McClintockJ.E., NarayanR., DavisS.W., LiL.-X.,\
& RemillardR.A., 2007, , [**636**]{}, L113 ShafeeR., McKinneyJ.C., NarayanR., TchekhovskoyA. GammieC.F. & McClintockJ.E., 2008, , [**687**]{}, L25 SikoraM., 1971, , [**196**]{}, 257 ShakuraN.I. & SunyaevR.A., 1973, , [**24**]{}, 337 SzuszkiewiczE., MalkanM. & AbramowiczM.A., 1996, , [**458**]{}, 474 TassoulJ.-L., 1978, [*Theory of Rotating Stars*]{}, Princeton University Press, Chapter 7.2 WittH.J., JaroszynskiM., HaenselP., PaczynskiB., WambsganssJ., 1994, , [**422**]{}, 219
[^1]: We use the spherical Boyer-Lindquist coordinates $t, \phi, r, \theta$, the geometrical units $c$ $=$ $1$ $=$ $G$ and the $+---$ signature. The Kerr metric is described by the “geometrical” mass $M$ and the “geometrical” spin parameter $0 < a < 1$, that relate to the “physical” mass and angular momentum by the rescaling, $M = GM_{\rm phys}/c^2$, $a = J_{\rm phys}/(M\,c)$. Partial derivatives are denoted by $\partial_i$ and covariant derivatives by $\nabla_i$.
[^2]: However, real Polish doughnuts (called [*p[a]{}czki*]{} in Polish) have spherical shapes. They are definitely non-toroidal — see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paczki .
[^3]: The best known Newtonian version of the von Zeipel condition states that for a barytropic fluid $p = p(\epsilon)$, both angular velocity and angular momentum are constant on cylinders, $\Omega = \Omega(R)$, $\cal L
= \cal L(R)$, with $R = r\sin\theta$ being the distance from the rotation axis.
[^4]: A somewhat similar situation in the case of rotating stars is known as the von Zeipel paradox [@tas-1978]: [*Pseudo-barytropic models in a state of permanent rotation cannot be used to describe rotating stars in strict radiative equilibrium.*]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work we construct a general class of exactly solvable non-relativistic bi-dimensional quantum systems with position-dependent masses (PDM). These systems are isospectral to a given system with constant mass. The case of a charged particle with a PDM interacting with an external magnetic field is included in the present investigation. We apply the approach in order to construct the SU(2) coherent states in some examples which are isospectral to the two-dimensional anisotropic harmonic oscillator, and discuss the impact of the introduction of special non-homogeneous external magnetic fields.'
author:
- |
$^{(a)}$ A. de Souza Dutra[^1] and $^{(b)}$ J. A. de Oliveira\
(a) UNESP Univ Estadual Paulista - Campus de Guaratinguetá - DFQ\
Av. Dr. Ariberto Pereira Cunha, 333 12516-410 Guaratinguetá, SP, Brazil\
(b) UNESP Univ Estadual Paulista - IGCE - DEMAC\
Av. 24A 1515, 13506-700 Rio Claro, SP, Brazil
title: '[Classes of bidimensional isospectral position-dependent mass systems]{}'
---
Introduction
============
The interest in the problem of position-dependent mass (PDM) systems has been growing in the last years, both from the non-relativistic and the relativistic point of view [@juliano2]-[@epl05]. In fact, there are many applications to different problems of physics like quantum dots [@dot1; @dot2], compositional graded crystals [@crystal], quantum liquids [@liq], metal clusters [@metal], neutron stars [@stars], among others. In particular, recently the Wigner function for some classes of position-dependent Schroedinger equations were constructed and analyzed in the one-dimensional case [@juliano1]. The approach used in that work is capable to generate a class of position-dependent mass systems, which is isospectral to a given exactly solvable potential with constant mass. In this work, we will extend that approach to higher dimensions. Moreover, as far as we know, the majority part of the works dedicated to the research of PDM systems [@juliano2], deals with one-dimensional systems. Although, there are physical systems like those where a magnetic field [@pra89] is present, which leads naturally to the need of a two-dimensional analysis. Finally, to our knowledge, no work in this subject has discussed the case of PDM in the presence of magnetic fields. In this work, we intend to partially fill this gap.
The method will be applied to the case of the anisotropic two-dimensional harmonic oscillator as well as in the case of those systems under the influence of some non-homogenous external magnetic fields. The $SU(2)$ coherent states will be constructed for a number of systems which we choose to illustrate our results.
In order to get the exact solutions for the two-dimensional Schroedinger equation we trace two routes. We begin by performing a general spatial variables change in the case of systems which are not under the effect of magnetic fields. Then, in the case of magnetic interaction, we begin by performing a time-dependent variable transformation followed by the spatial transformation. In the first case, we consider three examples of real variable transformations, which are respectively: the so-called polynomial one, the one using elliptic cylindrical coordinates and, finally, the bipolar coordinates transformation. Once we have the exact solutions for the eigenstates of the Schroedinger equation, we proceed with the construction of the $SU(2)$ coherent states [@juliano2; @1Chen2003; @3Chen2003; @Chen2004]. These last allow us to acquire a notion of the respective classical behavior of those position-dependent massive particles, similarly to what happens with the Wigner functions in one spatial dimension [@juliano1].
This work is organized as follows: In the section 2 we present the approach we are going to use. Then, in the section 3 we apply it to some special mass dependencies, constructing classes of two-dimensional PDM systems which are isospectral to the anisotropic bi-dimensional harmonic oscillator. In the section 4, the case of magnetic field is taken into account. Finally we trace our final comments in the section 5.
\[sec1\] Class of isospectral two-dimensional position-dependent mass quantum systems
=====================================================================================
In this section we present the approach which is capable to generate a class of models with position-dependent masses from a constant one, and which can also include the interaction with a magnetic field. In this case the two-dimensional Schroedinger equation is given by $$-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2\,m_{0}}\,\nabla ^{2}\,\psi +\frac{\hbar }{i}\left(
\overrightarrow{\nabla }\cdot \overrightarrow{A}+2~\overrightarrow{A}\cdot
\overrightarrow{\nabla }\right) ~\psi +\left( V\left( x,y\right) +\frac{e^{2}%
}{2~m_{0}}\overrightarrow{A}^{2}\right) \,~\psi =E\,\psi . \label{eq4a}$$ where the constant $m_{0}$ is the mass of the particle in the original system, $x$ and $y$ are the corresponding spatial coordinates, $p_{x}$ and $%
p_{y}$ are the respective momenta. Furthermore, we will work with magnetic fields in the Coulomb gauge, where $\overrightarrow{\nabla }\cdot \overrightarrow{A}=0$. Now, performing a general variable transformation in the spatial coordinates as $$x=f(u,v),~y=g(u,v), \label{eq4c}$$ one gets $$\,\partial _{u}\equiv \frac{\,\partial }{\,\partial u}=f_{u}\,\partial
_{x}+g_{u}\,\partial _{y},~\,\partial _{v}\equiv \frac{\,\partial }{%
\,\partial v}=f_{v}\,\partial _{x}+g_{v}\,\partial _{y}, \label{eq4f}$$ which can be written as $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\,\partial _{x} \\
\,\partial _{y}%
\end{array}
\right) =R^{-1}\,\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\,\partial _{u} \\
\,\partial _{v}%
\end{array}
\right) , \label{eq4h}$$ where $R=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
f_{u} & g_{u} \\
f_{v} & g_{v}%
\end{array}
\right) $ is the Jacobian matrix, and its Jacobian is $%
J=f_{u}~g_{v}-g_{u}~f_{v}$, from which it can be written that $$\,\partial _{x}=\frac{\,\partial }{\,\partial x}=\frac{g_{v}}{J}\frac{%
\,\partial }{\,\partial u}-\frac{g_{u}}{J}\frac{\,\partial }{\,\partial v}%
,~\partial _{y}=\frac{\,\partial }{\,\partial y}=-\frac{f_{v}}{J}\frac{%
\,\partial }{\,\partial u}+\frac{f_{u}}{J}\frac{\,\partial }{\,\partial v}.
\label{eq4j}$$ After straightforward calculations, one can obtain the following expression for the Laplace operator in the transformed coordinates, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla _{xy}^{2} &\equiv &\,\partial _{x}^{2}+\,\partial _{y}^{2}=\frac{1}{%
J^{2}}\left[ \left( g_{v}^{2}+f_{v}^{2}\right) \,\partial _{u}^{2}+\left(
g_{u}^{2}+f_{u}^{2}\right) \,\partial _{v}^{2}-2\left(
g_{u}g_{v}+f_{u}f_{v}\right) \,\partial _{uv}^{2}\right] + \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{J}\left[ g_{v}\,\partial _{u}\left( \frac{g_{v}}{J}\right)
-g_{u}\,\partial _{v}\left( \frac{g_{v}}{J}\right) +f_{v}\,\partial
_{u}\left( \frac{f_{v}}{J}\right) -f_{u}\,\partial _{v}\left( \frac{f_{v}}{J}%
\right) \right] \,\partial _{u}+ \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{J}\left[ g_{u}\,\partial _{v}\left( \frac{g_{u}}{J}\right)
-g_{v}\,\partial _{u}\left( \frac{g_{u}}{J}\right) +f_{u}\,\partial
_{v}\left( \frac{f_{u}}{J}\right) -f_{v}\,\partial _{u}\left( \frac{f_{u}}{J}%
\right) \right] \,\partial _{v}. \label{eq4o}\end{aligned}$$ In order to achieve a system where we have a new Schroedinger-type equation with a position dependent mass one must require that the crossed derivative term $\,\partial _{uv}^{2}$, must vanish, leading to the restriction $$g_{u}\,g_{v}+f_{u}~f_{v}=0. \label{eq4p}$$ Afterwards, we should also impose that $$g_{v}^{2}+f_{v}^{2}=g_{u}^{2}+f_{u}^{2}, \label{eq4q}$$ to guarantee that the mass term is the same in the both terms $\,\partial _{u}^{2}$ and $\,\partial _{v}^{2}$. Note that the equation (\[eq4p\]) once solved leads to $$f_{u}=-\frac{g_{u}\,g_{v}}{f_{v}}, \label{eq4r}$$ provided that $f_{v}\neq 0$. By substituting (\[eq4r\]) in (\[eq4q\]), one gets $$g_{v}^{2}+f_{v}^{2}=g_{u}^{2}+g_{u}^{2}\left( \frac{g_{v}}{f_{v}}\right)
^{2}=g_{u}^{2}~\left( 1+\frac{g_{v}^{2}}{f_{v}^{2}}\right) =g_{u}^{2}~\left(
\frac{f_{v}^{2}+g_{v}^{2}}{f_{v}^{2}}\right) . \label{eq4s}$$ Thus, from (\[eq4s\]) we conclude that $$f_{v}^{2}=g_{u}^{2},~f_{v}=\pm g_{u}. \label{eq4t}$$ Substituting (\[eq4t\]) in (\[eq4r\]), one obtains $$f_{u}=-\frac{g_{u}\,g_{v}}{\pm g_{u}}=\mp g_{v}. \label{eq4u}$$
In fact, in all the cases considered here, the terms linear in the derivatives in the transformed Laplace operator (\[eq4o\]) vanish. Moreover, the transformation will keep $\overrightarrow{\nabla }\cdot \overrightarrow{A}=0$ for all the cases considered. Thus the Schroedinger equation in those transformed variables is written as $$\left[ \frac{\hslash ^{2}}{2~M\left( u,v\right) }\left( \,\partial
_{u}^{2}+\,\partial _{v}^{2}\right) +V_{eff}\left( u,v\right) -\frac{i~\hbar
}{M\left( u,v\right) }\left( \overrightarrow{\tilde{A}}\cdot \overrightarrow{%
\nabla }\right) ~\right] \psi \left( u,v\right) =E~\psi \left( u,v\right) ,$$
where $$M\left( u,v\right) \equiv m_{0}\frac{J^{2}}{g_{u}^{2}+f_{u}^{2}}%
,~V_{eff}\left( u,v\right) \equiv V\left( f,g\right) +\frac{e^{2}}{2~M\left(
u,v\right) }\overrightarrow{\tilde{A}}^{2}\left( f,g\right) ,$$
with $\overrightarrow{\tilde{A}}\equiv M\left( u,v\right) ~%
\overrightarrow{A}\left( f(u,v),g(u,v)\right) $.
As an illustrative example, we will first deal with two-dimensional position-dependent systems which are isospectral to the anisotropic harmonic oscillator and, then, with the ones which are isospectral to the case of a isotropic harmonic oscillator under the influence of homogeneous magnetic fields.
2D PDM systems isospectral to the anisotropic oscillator
========================================================
As advertised, the first example which we will present here is the one of the anisotropic oscillator with constant mass governed by the equation $$-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2~\,m_{0}}\,\nabla ^{2}\,\psi +\frac{1}{2}m_{0}\left(
\omega _{1}^{2}~x^{2}+\omega _{2}^{2}~y^{2}\right) \psi =E~\psi .$$
In this case the eigenfunctions can be straightforwardly obtained, and are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{nm}(u,v) &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{(m+n+1)~}\pi ~n!~m!~X~Y}}~H_{m}\left(
\frac{\sqrt{2}\,f\left( u,v\right) }{X}\right) H_{n}\left( \frac{\sqrt{2}%
\,g\left( u,v\right) }{Y}\right) \times \nonumber \\
&&\times exp\left[ -\left( \frac{f\left( u,v\right) }{X}\right) ^{2}-\left(
\frac{g\left( u,v\right) }{Y}\right) ^{2}\right] , \label{eq4tt3}\end{aligned}$$
where $X=\sqrt{2\hbar /(m_{0}~\omega _{1})}$, $Y=\sqrt{2\hbar /(m_{0}~\omega _{2})}$, $\ \omega _{1}\equiv q$ and $\omega _{2}\equiv p$.
At this point we could make a study of the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues for the PDM systems which are isospectral to this one. However, we prefer to construct the so-called $SU(2)$ coherent states, as defined in [@1Chen2003]-[@Chen2004]. Those states present the interesting feature of having their highest probability density over a trajectory which corresponds to the classical one when $\hbar\rightarrow 0$. Furthermore, as the eigenstates, they are stationary wave-functions in contrast with the usual coherent states. As we are going to see, they will lead us to the conclusion that the isospectral PDM states will present a behavior which is very similar to the one of their “parent" anisotropic harmonic oscillator. Those coherent states can be written by using the definition introduced by Chen et al. [@1Chen2003]-[@Chen2004]
$$\Phi (u,v,\tau )=\frac{1}{(1+|\tau |^{2})^{\frac{N}{2}}}\sum_{K=0}^{L}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
L \\
K%
\end{array}
\right) ^{1/2}\tau ^{K}\psi _{nm}(f(u,v),g(u,v)), \label{eq4tt2}$$
where the quantum numbers are defined as $n=p~K,$ $m=q(L-K)$, with $K=0,1,2,...,L$, $p$ and $q$ being integer numbers. The complex parameter is such that $\tau=Ae^{i\,\phi }$, where $\phi =\frac{\pi }{2}$, written in terms of polar coordinates, is used in order to make the connection with the classical trajectory.
From now on, we will devote this section to develop explicit examples. As our first example of transformation functions, we deal with the second degree polynomials like
$$f(u,v)=\frac{1}{2}a_{1}u^{2}+\frac{1}{2}b_{1}v^{2}+c_{1}u\,v+d_{1},~g(u,v)=%
\frac{1}{2}a_{2}u^{2}+\frac{1}{2}b_{2}v^{2}+c_{2}u\,v+d_{2}. \label{eq4v}$$
After imposing the restrictions (\[eq4p\]) and (8), we are led to
$$f(u,v)=\mp \frac{1}{2}c_{2}u^{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}c_{2}v^{2}+c_{1}u%
\,v+d_{1},~g(u,v)=\pm \frac{1}{2}c_{1}u^{2}\mp \frac{1}{2}%
c_{1}v^{2}+c_{2}u\,v+d_{2}, \label{eq4b1}$$
where one can see that only four arbitrary constants are left, and one have that
$$f_{u}^{2}+g_{u}^{2}=f_{v}^{2}+g_{v}^{2}=(c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2})(u^{2}+v^{2}),
\label{eq4h1}$$
and the Laplace operator becomes
$$\nabla _{uv}^{2}=\,\frac{1}{J^{2}}\left[ \left( g_{v}^{2}+f_{v}^{2}\right)
\,\partial _{u}^{2}+\left( g_{u}^{2}+f_{u}^{2}\right) \,\partial _{v}^{2}%
\right] =\frac{1}{(c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2})(u^{^{2}}+v^{2})}(\partial
_{u}^{2}+\partial _{v}^{2}), \label{eq4m1}$$
from which one conclude that the position-dependent mass is given by
$$M\left( u,v\right) = m_{0}(c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2})(u^{^{2}}+v^{2}).$$
In this case, the effective anisotropic potential looks like$$V\left( u,v\right) =\frac{m_{0}}{2}\left[ \left( \frac{c_{2}}{2}\left(
u^{2}-v^{2}\right) +c_{1}u~v+d_{1}\right) ^{2}\omega _{1}^{2}+\left( \frac{%
c_{1}}{2}\left( v^{2}-u^{2}\right) +c_{2}u~v+d_{2}\right) ^{2}\omega _{2}^{2}%
\right] ,$$and the wavefunctions are written as$$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{nm}\left( u,v\right) &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{\left( m+n-1\right)
}m!n!P_{1}P_{2}}}H_{m}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{2}\left( \frac{c_{2}}{2}\left(
u^{2}-v^{2}\right) +c_{1}u~v+d_{1}\right) }{P_{1}}\right] \times \nonumber
\\
&&H_{n}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{2}\left( \frac{c_{1}}{2}\left( v^{2}-u^{2}\right)
+c_{2}u~v+d_{2}\right) }{P_{2}}\right] \times \\
&&\exp \left[ -\left( \frac{\left( \frac{c_{2}}{2}\left( u^{2}-v^{2}\right)
+c_{1}u~v+d_{1}\right) }{P_{1}}\right) ^{2}\right] \times \\
&&\exp \left[ -\left( \frac{\left( \frac{c_{1}}{2}\left( v^{2}-u^{2}\right)
+c_{2}u~v+d_{2}\right) }{P_{2}}\right) ^{2}\right] . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$In the Figures 1 and 2 (we use $A=\hbar=m_0=1$ and $L=20$, when generating the plots presented throughout this work), one can see the behavior of the system in some typical situations. At this point it is interesting to note that the transformation functions can be chosen as the ones related to the parabolic cylindrical coordinates in a plane, where $f=u~v$ and $g=\left(
u^{2}-v^{2}\right) /2$, which generate the following Laplace operator $$\nabla _{uv}^{2}=-~\frac{1}{(u^{^{2}}+v^{2})}(\partial
_{u}^{2}+\partial _{v}^{2}).$$
This make us remember that one could work with a general class of solutions as the ones coming from the orthogonal coordinate systems, where the metric is diagonal. As examples we will consider the case of the elliptic cylindrical coordinates on a plane where
$$f(u,v)=a~\sinh (u)~\sin (v),~g(u,v)=a~\cosh (u)~\cos (v). \label{eq4p1}$$
In this case, the Laplace operator is written as $$\nabla _{uv}^{2}=\,-\frac{2}{a^{2}[\cos (2v)-\cosh (2u)]}~(\partial
_{u}^{2}+\partial _{v}^{2}),$$
with the mass $M\left( u,v\right) =m_{0~}a^{2}[\cos (2v)-\cosh
(2u)]/2$. The corresponding effective potential is now given by$$V(u,v)=\frac{a^{2}m_{0}}{2}\left[ \sinh \left( u^{2}\right) \sin \left(
v\right) ^{2}\omega _{1}^{2}+\cosh \left( u^{2}\right) \cos \left( v\right)
^{2}\omega _{2}^{2}\right]$$The wavefuntions are written in this case as$$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{nm}\left( u,v\right) &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{\left( m+n-1\right)
}m!n!P_{1}P_{2}}}H_{m}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{2}\left( a~\sinh (u)~\sin
(v)\right) }{P_{1}}\right] \times \nonumber \\
&&H_{n}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{2}\left( a~\cosh (u)~\cos (v)\right) }{P_{2}}%
\right] \exp \left[ -\left( \frac{a~\sinh (u)~\sin (v)}{P_{1}}\right) ^{2}%
\right] \times \\
&&\exp \left[ -\left( \frac{a~\cosh (u)~\cos (v)}{P_{2}}\right) ^{2}\right] ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
whose typical behavior appears in the Figure 3.
Now, in the bispherical coordinates on a plane, the transformations are
$$f(u,v)=\frac{a~\sinh (u)}{\cosh (u)-\cos (v)},~g(u,v)=\frac{a~\sin (v)}{%
\cosh (u)-\cos (v)},$$
and the corresponding Laplace operator looks like $$\nabla _{uv}^{2}=\,\frac{[\cos (v)-\cosh (u)]^{2}}{a^{2}}~(\partial
_{u}^{2}+\partial _{v}^{2}),$$
and the position-dependent mass will be given by $M\left(
u,v\right) =m_{0}~a^{2}/[\cos (v)-\cosh (u)]^{2}$. In this last example of anisotropic system, the effective potential happens to be$$V(u,v)=\frac{a^{2}m_{0}}{2}\left[ \left( \frac{a~\sinh (u)}{\cosh (u)-\cos
(v)}\right) ^{2}\omega _{1}^{2}+\left( \frac{a~\sin (v)}{\cosh (u)-\cos (v)}%
\right) ^{2}\omega _{2}^{2}\right] ,$$
and the wavefunctions are correspondingly given by$$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{nm}\left( u,v\right) &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{\left( m+n-1\right)
}m!n!P_{1}P_{2}}}H_{m}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{2}}{P_{1}}\left( \frac{a~\sinh (u)}{%
\cosh (u)-\cos (v)}\right) \right] \times \nonumber \\
&&H_{n}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{2}}{P_{2}}\left( \frac{a~\sin (v)}{\cosh (u)-\cos
(v)}\right) \right] \exp \left\{ -\left[ \frac{1}{P_{1}}\left( \frac{a~\sinh
(u)}{\cosh (u)-\cos (v)}\right) \right] ^{2}\right\} \times \\
&&\exp \left\{ -\left[ \frac{1}{P_{2}}\left( \frac{a~\sin (v)}{\cosh
(u)-\cos (v)}\right) \right] ^{2}\right\} , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
whose typical behavior appears in the Figure 4.
\[sec2\] The case of interaction with a magnetic field
======================================================
In this section, we first construct the $SU(2)$ coherent state for the case of a particle with constant mass in the presence of a homogeneous magnetic field which, as far as we know, was not yet obtained in the literature. Then, we proceed by using that result in order to achieve the $SU(2)$ coherent states for the PDM particles under the presence of some non-homogeneous magnetic fields. All the results will be obtained in the Coulomb gauge. Starting with the Hamiltonian
$$H=\frac{1}{2~m_{0}}\overrightarrow{p}^{2}-\frac{e}{2~m_{0}}\left(
\overrightarrow{A}.\overrightarrow{p}+\overrightarrow{p}.\overrightarrow{A}%
\right) +\frac{e^{2}}{2~m_{0}}\overrightarrow{A}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}m_{0}\omega
^{2}~\left( x^{2}+~y^{2}\right) , \label{eq4rr1}$$
where $e$ is the electrical charge and $\overrightarrow{A}(x,y)$ is the vector potential.
Here we choose to work with a uniform magnetic field along the direction $z$, which is written as $\overrightarrow{B}=B_{0\;}\hat{z}$. In the so-called symmetrical gauge it is written as $$\overrightarrow{A}=\frac{B_{0}}{2}\left( -y~\hat{\imath}+x~\hat{\jmath}%
\right) , \label{eq4tt}$$Thus, beginning with the classical Hamiltonian defined in (\[eq4rr1\]) and quantizing it, one arrives at the following Schroedinger equation
$$-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2~\,m_{0}}\,\nabla ^{2}\,\psi +\frac{i~\hbar ~B_{0}}{%
2~m_{0}}\left( x~\partial _{y}-y~~\partial _{x}\right) \psi +\frac{1}{2}%
m_{0}\Omega ^{2}\left( x^{2}+~y^{2}\right) \psi =E\psi . \label{eq4uu1}$$
with $\Omega\equiv \omega_0^2+\frac{e^{2}B_{0}^{2}}{8~m_{0}}$.
In order to deal with the case of a constant mass in the presence of a homogeneous magnetic field, one can follow two alternative routes. One way is to write the system in polar coordinates and the another is keeping the cartesian coordinates and performing some convenient time-dependent transformations. This last is the one we will follow here [@pra89]. For this, we can start with the time-dependent Schroedinger equation
$$-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2\,m_{0}}\nabla ^{2}\sigma +\frac{i\,\hbar \,B_{0}\,e}{%
2\,m_{0}}\left( x\,\partial y-y\partial x\right) \sigma +\frac{1}{\,m_{0}}%
U_{eff}\,\sigma =i\,\hbar \,\frac{\partial \sigma }{\partial t},
\label{eq3vv2}$$
such that $\sigma =e^{-(i/\hbar )Et}\chi (x,y)$. Then, we perform the time-dependent rotation
$$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
X_{1} \\
Y_{1}%
\end{array}%
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
cos\alpha (t) & sen\alpha (t) \\
-\,sen\alpha (t) & cos\alpha (t)%
\end{array}%
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
x \\
y%
\end{array}%
\right) , \label{eq4aa1}$$
which, after some manipulations [@pra89], and choosing $\alpha$ to be given by
$$\alpha (T)=-\frac{e\,B_{0}}{2\,m_{0}}~T+c, \label{eq4uu2}$$
where $c$ is an arbitrary integration constant. One can finish with an effective isotropic two-dimensional harmonic oscillator such that
$$-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2~m_{0}}\nabla ^{2}\sigma +\left[ \left( \frac{%
e^{2}B_{0}^{2}}{8~m_{0}}+\frac{1}{2}m_{0}~\omega ^{2}\right) \left(
X_{1}^{2}+Y_{1}^{2}\right) \right] \,\sigma =i\,\hbar \,\frac{\partial
\sigma }{\partial T}. \label{eq4xx1}$$
This allow us to map the original problem into one where the differential equation is given by
$$-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2M_{0}}\,\nabla ^{2}\chi +U_{eff}\,\chi =E\,\chi ,
\label{eq3y1}$$
where $\chi =\chi (X_{1},Y_{1})$. Finally, using the usual variables separation procedure, one can arrive at the expression
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi _{nm}(X_{1},Y_{1}) &=&\phi (X_{1})~\psi (Y_{1})= \nonumber \\
&=&\phi \left[ cos(\alpha )\,x+\,sen(\alpha )\,y\right] \,\psi \left[
-sen(\alpha )\,x\,+\,cos(\alpha )\,y\right] = \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{(M\left[ cos(\alpha )\,x+\,sen(\alpha )~\,y,-sen(\alpha
)\,x\,+\,cos(\alpha )\,~y\right] )^{-1}}{R~\sqrt{2^{m+n-1}\pi n!m!}}~\times
\nonumber \\
&\times &H_{m}\left( \frac{\sqrt{2}[cos(\alpha )\,x+\,sen(\alpha )~\,y]}{R}%
\right) \times \label{wavemag} \\
&&~exp\left[ -\left( \frac{cos(\alpha )\,x+\,sen(\alpha )~\,y}{R}\right) ^{2}%
\right] \times \nonumber \\
&\times &~H_{n}\left( \frac{\sqrt{2}[-sen(\alpha )\,x\,+\,cos(\alpha )\,~y]}{%
R}\right) \times \nonumber \\
&\times &exp\left[ -\left( \frac{-sen(\alpha )\,x\,+\,cos(\alpha )\,~y}{R}%
\right) ^{2}\right] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Finally, by using the above wave-functions, the $SU(2)$ coherent states can be easily written. Their general aspect happens to be the same of the isotropic harmonic oscillator as presented in the left plot of Figure 2.
Now, we can study the cases of PDM particles in the presence of magnetic fields. Following the same lines developed in the previous section, we make the variables transformation $x=f(u,v)$ and $y=g(u,v)$ in the Schroedinger equation and, since we already now the corresponding transformation in the Laplace operator, we only need to verify the impact of the transformation over the linear differential operator coming from $\overrightarrow{A}.%
\overrightarrow{p}$, which comes to be
$$x\,\partial _{y}-y\,\partial _{x}=\frac{1}{J}\left\{
[~f(u,v)~\,f_{u}+g(u,v)~\,g_{u}~]~\partial
_{v}-[~f(u,v)\,f_{v}+g(u,v)\,g_{v}~]~\partial _{u}\right\} .$$
Then, we finish with the transformed Schroedinger equation in the spatial variables $u$ and $v$ appearing as $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2\,M(u,v)}\,\nabla _{uv}^{2}\psi +\frac{i\hbar B_{0}}{%
2~M(u,v)}\left[ R(u,v)\frac{\partial \psi }{\partial u}+S(u,v)\frac{\partial
\psi }{\partial v}\right] + \nonumber \\
&&+\left\{\frac{1}{2}m_{0}\Omega ^{2}\left[ ~f(u,v)^{2}+g(u,v)^{2}\right]
\right\} \psi =E\psi .\end{aligned}$$
The magnetic field will be then given by
$$\overrightarrow{B}=\overrightarrow{\nabla }\times \overrightarrow{A}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\overrightarrow{i} & \overrightarrow{j} & \overrightarrow{k} \\
\frac{\partial }{\partial _{u}} & \frac{\partial }{\partial _{v}} & \frac{%
\partial }{\partial _{w}} \\
R & S & 0%
\end{array}
\right) =\left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial u}-\frac{\partial R}{\partial v}%
\right) \overrightarrow{k}.$$
Again, the first example to be analyzed is the one defined in Equation ([eq4b1]{}). In this case we have that
$$\begin{aligned}
R(u,v) &=&-\frac{1}{2}\left( c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}\right) \left(
v^{3}+u^{2}\,v\right) -\left( c_{1}d_{1}+c_{2}d_{2}\right)
u-\left(
c_{1}d_{2}-c_{2}d_{1}\right) v, \nonumber \\
S(u,v) &=&\frac{1}{2}\left( c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}\right) \left(
u^{3}+u\,v^{2}\right) +\left( c_{2}d_{1}-c_{1}d_{2}\right)
u+\left( c_{1}d_{1}+c_{2}d_{2}\right) v. \label{eq4w2}\end{aligned}$$
Here, we will have a particle with mass $M\left( u,v\right) =
m_{0}(c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2})(u^{^{2}}+v^{2})$ moving in the presence of an axially symmetric field with a quadratically growing intensity,
$$\overrightarrow{B}=B_{0}~(c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2})(u^{2}+v^{2})~\overrightarrow{k%
}. \label{eq4w3}$$
Choosing the parameters $m_0=d_{1}=d_{2}=c_{1}=0$ and $c_{2}=1$, we restrict ourselves to the case of parabolic cylinder coordinates where
$$M(u,v)=u^{2}+v^{2}\,,~R(u,v)=-\frac{1}{2}v~(u^{2}+v^{2}),~S(u,v)=\frac{1}{2}%
u~(u^{2}+v^{2}),$$
and the potential governing the system is$$\begin{aligned}
V\left( u,v\right) &=&\frac{m_{0}~\omega ^{2}}{2}\left[ \frac{1}{4}\left(
u^{2}-v^{2}\right) ^{2}+\left( u~v\right) ^{2}\right] + \nonumber \\
&& \\
&&-e^{2}B_{0}\sqrt{u^{2}+v^{2}}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and the wavefunctions are$$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{nm}(u,v) &=&\frac{1}{R~\sqrt{2^{m+n-1}\pi n!m!}}~H_{m}\left( \frac{%
\sqrt{2}[\frac{\cos (\alpha )}{2}\left( u^{2}-v^{2}\right) +\,\sin (\alpha
)~\,u~v]}{R}\right) \nonumber \\
&&\times H_{n}\left( \frac{\sqrt{2}[-\frac{\sin (\alpha )}{2}\left(
u^{2}-v^{2}\right) +\cos (\alpha )~\,u~v]}{R}\right) \\
&&\times exp\left[ -\left( \frac{u^{2}-v^{2}}{2~R}\right) ^{2}-\left( \frac{%
u~v}{R}\right) ^{2}\right] , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
which, after plotting the probability density of the corresponding SU(2) coherent state, presents the profile which is very similar to the one appearing in the Figure 1.
Now, in the case of elliptical cylindrical coordinates one have $$R(v)=a^{2}~\cos (v)~\sin (v),~S(u)=a^{2}~\cosh (u)~\sinh (u). \label{eq4ff3}$$
and the magnetic field is given by
$$\overrightarrow{B}=~a^{2}[\cosh (2u)-\cos (2v)]~\overrightarrow{k}.$$
The potential under which the charged particle is moving is$$\begin{aligned}
V\left( u,v\right) &=&\frac{m_{0}~a^{2}~\omega ^{2}}{2}\left[ \sinh \left(
u^{2}\right) \sin \left( v\right) ^{2}+\cosh \left( u^{2}\right) \cos \left(
v\right) ^{2}\right] + \nonumber \\
&& \\
&&-e^{2}B_{0}~\frac{\sqrt{\left[ \cosh (4~u)-\cos (4~v)\right] }}{2~\left[
\cos (2v)-\cosh (2~u)\right] }, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and the wavefunctions can be straightforwardly obtained through direct substitution of the transformation functions in the expression of the wavefunctions (\[wavemag\]). After that, one can plot the probability density, which present the same general behavior as appearing in the Figure 3. There, one can see a sequence of regions where the highest probability density is over a closed curve, which reflects the periodicity of the transformation functions.
In the third and last example, we will deal with the bipolar coordinates. In this case the Laplace operator is written as $\nabla _{uv}^{2}=\,\frac{[\cos (v)-\cosh
(u)]^{2}}{a^{2}}~(\partial _{u}^{2}+\partial _{v}^{2})$, and we get $$R(u,v)=\frac{a^{2}~\cosh (u)~\sin (v)}{[\cos (v)-\cosh (u)]^{2}},~S(u,v)=-%
\frac{a^{2}~\cos (v)~\sinh (u)}{[\cos (v)-\cosh (u)]^{2}}. \label{eq4l3}$$
the corresponding magnetic field looks like
$$\overrightarrow{B}=\frac{2~a^{2}}{[\cos (v)-\cosh (u)]^{2}}~\overrightarrow{k%
},$$
and, in this last example, the potential is written as$$V(u,v)=\frac{a^{2}m_{0}~\omega ^{2}}{2}\frac{\left( \sinh (u)^{2}+\sin
(v)^{2}\right) }{\left( \cosh (u)-\cos (v)\right) ^{2}}-\frac{e^{2}B_{0}}{%
4~m_{0}}~\sqrt{\cosh (u)^{2}-\cos (v)^{2}}.$$
Once more, after constructing the wave-function for the $SU(2)$ coherent state, one can see that we arrive at a Figure which is very similar to the case (a) of the Figure 4 below.
\[sec3\]Final remarks
=====================
In this work we explored a method for generating exactly solvable position-dependent mass particle in the present of some potentials. This approach was recently introduced in the case of one-dimensional systems [@juliano1]. Here we see that the extension for higher dimensions is not trivial and allows one to analyze complex and interesting new systems. Moreover, we conduce our study by computing the so called $SU(2) $ coherent states, which are specially interesting wave-packets which present their maximum of probability over the classical trajectory [juliano2,1Chen2003,3Chen2003,Chen2004]{}. As particular examples of variable transformation, we used a polynomial example as well as the cases of the cylindrical elliptical and the bipolar coordinates.
In the case of a charged particle under the effect of pure homogeneous external magnetic field, despite the fact that the we are dealing with time-dependent wave-function solutions, it was verified that the corresponding $SU(2)$ coherent states do not present dependence in the time variable. In that case, the maximum of the probability density is over a circle. Then, performing the change in the spatial variables, we got those states for the case of some particular spatially dependent masses and non-homogenous magnetic fields. In the case where the transformation used was that of polynomial form, it was observed that when the zero degree coefficient of the polynomial used in the transformation was non-zero, the maximum of probability splits into two ones which become more and more distant from each other when that parameter increases. Furthermore, in the case of the other two transformations used here, the probability density was naturally periodic as a direct consequence of the periodicity of the transformation.
**Acknowledgements:** The authors thanks to CNPq and CAPES for partial financial support. J. A. O. thanks the DFQ of UNESP, Campus de Guaratinguetá, where this work was carried out. This work was partially done during a visit (ASD) within the Associate Scheme of the Abdus Salam ICTP.
[99]{} A. de Souza Dutra and J. A. de Oliveira, J. Phys. A **42** (2009) 025304.
B. Midya and B. Roy, Phys. Lett. A **373** (2009) 4117.
R. A. Kraenkel and M. Senthilvelan, J. Phys. A **42** (2009) 415303.
A. de Souza Dutra and J. A. de Oliveira, Phys. Scr. **78** (2008) 035009.
Z. Chen and G. Chen, Phys. Scr. **73** (2006) 354.
C. S. Jia and A. de Souza Dutra, Ann. Phys. (NY) **323** (2008) 566.
A. G. Schmidt, A. D. Azeredo and A. Gusso, Phys. Lett. A **372** (2008) 2774.
B. Bagchi, J. Phys. A **40** (2007) F1041.
S. Cruz y Cruz, J. Negro and L. M. Nieto, Phys. Lett. A **369** (2007) 400.
A. G. M. Schmidt, J. Phys. A **42** (2009) 245304; Phys. Scr. **75** (2007) 480; Phys. Lett. A **353** (2006) 459.
C. Quesne, Ann. Phys. (NY) **321** (2006) 1221.
C. S. Jia and A. de Souza Dutra, J. Phys. A **39** (2006) 11877.
A. de Souza Dutra and C. S. Jia, Phys. Lett. A **352** (2006) 484.
A. de Souza Dutra, J. Phys. A **39** (2006) 203.
A. de Souza Dutra and C. A. S. Almeida, Physics Letters A **275** (2000) 25.
A. de Souza Dutra, M. Hott and C. A. S. Almeida, Europhys. Lett. **62** (2003) 8.
A. R. Plastino, A. Rigo, M. Casas, F. Garcias and A. Plastino, Phys. Rev. A **60** (1999) 4318.
F. S. A. Cavalcante, R. N. Costa Filho, J. Ribeiro Filho, C. A. S. de Almeida and V. N. Freire, Phys. Rev. B **55** (1997) 1326.
G. Chen, Chin. Phys. **14** (2005) 460.
G. Chen and Z. D. Chen, Phys. Lett. A **331** (2004) 312.[ ]{}
A. A. Stahlhofen, J. Phys. A **37** (2004) 10129.
B. Bagchi, P. Gorain, C. Quesne and R. Roychoudhury, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **19** (2004) 2765.
K. Bencheikh, K. Berkane and S. Bouizane, J. Phys. A **37** (2004) 10719.
J. A. Yu, S. H. Dong, Phys. Lett. A **325** (2004) 194.
C, Quesne and V. M. Tkachuk, J. Phys. A **37** (2004) 4267.
Y. C. Ou, Z. Q. Cao and Q. H. Shen, J. Phys. A **37** (2004) 4283.
R. Koc and H. Tutunculer, Annalen der Physik **12** (2003) 684.
A. D. Alhaidari, Phys. Rev. A **66** (2002) 042116.
B. Roy and P. Roy, J. Phys. A **35** (2002) 3961.
S. Ramgoolam, B. Spence and S. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. B **703** (2005) 236.
A. de Souza Dutra, M. B. Hott and V. G. C. S. dos Santos, Europhys. Lett. **71** (2005) 166.
L. Serra and E. Lipparini, Europhys. Lett **40** (1997)
P. Harrison, 1999 “Quantum Wells, Wires and Dots”, Chchester, Wiley.
M. R. Geller and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70** (1993) 3103.
A. de Saavedra, F. Boronat, A. Polls and A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. B **50** (1994) 4248.
A. Puente, L. Serra and M. Casas, Z. Phys. D **31** (1994) 283.
N. Chamel, Nucl. Phys. A **773** (2006) 263.
A. de Souza Dutra and B. K. Cheng, Phys. Rev. A **39** (1989) 5897.
Y. F. Chen and K. F. Huang, J. Phys. A (2003) 7751; Phys. Rev. E **68** (2003) 066207.
Y. F. Chen, Y. P. Lan and K. F. Huang, Phys. Rev. A **68**(2003) 043803.
Y. F. Chen, C. H. Jiang, Y. P. Lan and K. F. Huang, Phys. Rev. A **69**(2004) 053807.
{width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"}
![*Probability density for the case of polynomial solutions. Here the parameters used are: $d_{1}=d_{2}=c_{1}=0$, $c_{2}=1$ and the frequencies are the following: a) $\protect\omega _{1}=1$ and $\protect\omega %
_{2}=1$ and c) $\protect\omega _{1}=2$ and $\protect\omega
_{2}=3$.*[]{data-label="para_cilin_uv"}](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![*Probability density for the case of polynomial solutions. Here the parameters used are: $d_{1}=d_{2}=c_{1}=0$, $c_{2}=1$ and the frequencies are the following: a) $\protect\omega _{1}=1$ and $\protect\omega %
_{2}=1$ and c) $\protect\omega _{1}=2$ and $\protect\omega
_{2}=3$.*[]{data-label="para_cilin_uv"}](fig2c.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"}
{width="5.5cm"}
![*Probability density for the case of bipolar coordinates. The used frequencies were: a) $%
\protect\omega _{1}=1$ and $\protect\omega _{2}=1$, b) $\protect\omega _{1}=1$ and $\protect\omega _{2}=2$ and c) $\protect\omega _{1}=2$ and $\protect\omega %
_{2}=3$.*[]{data-label="cilin_bipo"}](fig4a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![*Probability density for the case of bipolar coordinates. The used frequencies were: a) $%
\protect\omega _{1}=1$ and $\protect\omega _{2}=1$, b) $\protect\omega _{1}=1$ and $\protect\omega _{2}=2$ and c) $\protect\omega _{1}=2$ and $\protect\omega %
_{2}=3$.*[]{data-label="cilin_bipo"}](fig4b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![*Probability density for the case of bipolar coordinates. The used frequencies were: a) $%
\protect\omega _{1}=1$ and $\protect\omega _{2}=1$, b) $\protect\omega _{1}=1$ and $\protect\omega _{2}=2$ and c) $\protect\omega _{1}=2$ and $\protect\omega %
_{2}=3$.*[]{data-label="cilin_bipo"}](fig4c.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"}
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '> Coordinating agents to complete a set of tasks with intercoupled temporal and resource constraints is computationally challenging, yet human domain experts can solve these difficult scheduling problems using paradigms learned through years of apprenticeship. A process for manually codifying this domain knowledge within a computational framework is necessary to scale beyond the “single-expert, single-trainee" apprenticeship model. However, human domain experts often have difficulty describing their decision-making processes, causing the codification of this knowledge to become laborious. We propose a new approach for capturing domain-expert heuristics through a pairwise ranking formulation. Our approach is model-free and does not require enumerating or iterating through a large state space. We empirically demonstrate that this approach accurately learns multifaceted heuristics on a synthetic data set incorporating job-shop scheduling and vehicle routing problems, as well as on two real-world data sets consisting of demonstrations of experts solving a weapon-to-target assignment problem and a hospital resource allocation problem. We also demonstrate that policies learned from human scheduling demonstration via apprenticeship learning can substantially improve the efficiency of a branch-and-bound search for an optimal schedule. We employ this human-machine collaborative optimization technique on a variant of the weapon-to-target assignment problem. We demonstrate that this technique generates solutions substantially superior to those produced by human domain experts at a rate up to $9.5$ times faster than an optimization approach and can be applied to optimally solve problems twice as complex as those solved by a human demonstrator.'
author:
- |
Matthew Gombolay [email protected]\
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,\
77 Massachusetts Avenue,\
Cambridge, MA 02114 USA Reed Jensen [email protected]\
Jessica Stigile [email protected]\
MIT Lincoln Laboratory,\
244 Wood Street,\
Lexington, MA 02420 USA\
Toni Golen [email protected]\
Neel Shah [email protected]\
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center,\
330 Brookline Avenue,\
Boston, MA 02215 USA\
Sung-Hyun Son [email protected]\
MIT Lincoln Laboratory,\
244 Wood Street,\
Lexington, MA 02420 USA\
Julie Shah julie\_a\[email protected]\
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,\
77 Massachusetts Avenue,\
Cambridge, MA 02114 USA
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: |
Human-Machine Collaborative Optimization\
via Apprenticeship Scheduling
---
Introduction
============
Resource scheduling and optimization is a costly, challenging problem that affects almost every aspect of our lives. In healthcare, for example, patients with non-urgent needs who experience prolonged wait times have higher rates of treatment noncompliance and missed appointments [@Kehle:2011; @Pizer:2011]. In military engagements, the weapon-to-target assignment problem requires warfighters to deploy the minimal amount of resources in order to mitigate as many threats as possible while maximizing the duration of survival [@Lee:2003].
The problem of optimal task allocation and sequencing with upper- and lowerbound temporal constraints (i.e., deadlines and wait constraints) is NP-Hard [@Bertsimas:2005], and domain-independent approaches to real-world scheduling problems quickly become computationally intractable [@boese1994new; @streeter2006landscape; @do2003sapa]. However, human domain experts are able to learn from experience to develop strategies, heuristics and rules-of-thumb to effectively respond to these problems. The challenge we pose is to autonomously learn the strategies employed by these domain experts; this knowledge can be applied and disseminated more efficiently with such a model than with a “single-expert, single-apprentice" model.
Researchers have made significant progress toward capturing domain-expert knowledge from demonstration [@Berry:2011; @Abbeel:2004; @Konidaris:2011; @Zheng:2014; @Odom:2015; @Vogel:2012; @Ziebart:2008]. In one recent work [@Berry:2011], an AI scheduling assistant called PTIME learned how users preferred to schedule events. PTIME was subsequently able to propose scheduling changes when new events occurred by solving an integer program. Two limitations to this work exist, however: PTIME requires users to explicitly rank their preferences about scheduling options to initialize the system, and also uses a complete solver that, in the worst-case scenario, must consider an exponential number of options.
Research focused on capturing domain knowledge based solely on user demonstration has led to the development of inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) [@Abbeel:2004; @Konidaris:2011; @Zheng:2014; @Odom:2015; @Vogel:2012; @Ziebart:2008]. IRL serves the dual purpose of learning an unknown reward function for a given problem and learning a policy to optimize that reward function.
However, there are two primary drawbacks to IRL for scheduling problems, computational tractability and the need for an environment model. The classical apprenticeship learning algorithm, developed by Abbeel and Ng in 2004, requires repeated solving of a Markov decision process (MDP) until a convergence criterion is satisfied. However, enumerating a large state space, such as those common to large-scale scheduling problems involving hundreds of tasks and tens of agents, can quickly become computationally intractable due to memory limitations. Approximate dynamic programming approaches exist that essentially reformulate the problem as regression [@Konidaris:2011; @Mnih:2015], but the amount of data required to regress over a large state space remains challenging, and MDP-based scheduling solutions exist only for simple problems [@Wu:2011; @Wang:2005; @Zhang:1995].
IRL also requires a model of the environment for training. At its most basic, reinforcement learning uses a Markovian transition matrix that describes the probability of transitioning from an initial state to a subsequent state when taking a given action. In order to address circumstances in which environmental dynamics are unknown or difficult to model within the constraints of a transition, researchers have developed Q-Learning and its variants, which have had much recent success [@Mnih:2015]. However, these approaches require the ability to “practice," or explore the state space by querying a black-box emulator to solicit information about how taking a given action in a specific state will change that state.
Another prior method involves directly learning a function that maps states to actions [@Chernova:2007; @Terrell:2012; @Huang:2014]. For example, Ramanujam and Balakrishnan trained a discrete-choice model using real data collected from air traffic controllers, and showed how this model can accurately predict the correct runway configuration for an airport [@Ramanujam:2011]. Sammut et al. [@Sammut:1992] applied a decision tree model for an autopilot to learn to control an aircraft from expert demonstration. Action-driven learning techniques offer great promise for learning policies from expert demonstrators, but they have not been applied to complex scheduling problems. However, in order for these methods to succeed, the scheduling problem must be modeled in a way that allows for efficient computation of a scheduling policy.
In this paper, we propose a technique, which we call “apprenticeship sch eduling," to capture this domain knowledge in the form of a scheduling policy. Our objective is to learn scheduling policies through expert demonstration and validate that schedules produced by these policies are of comparable quality to those generated by human or synthetic experts. Our approach efficiently utilizes domain-expert demonstrations without the need to train with an environment emulator. Rather than explicitly modeling a reward function and relying upon dynamic programming or constraint solvers – which become computationally intractable for large-scale problems of interest – our objective is to use action-driven learning to extract the strategies of domain experts in order to efficiently schedule tasks.
The key to our approach is the use of pairwise comparisons between the actions taken (e.g., schedule agent $a$ to complete task $\tau_i$ at time $t$) and the set of actions not taken (e.g., unscheduled tasks at time $t$) to learn the relevant model parameters and scheduling policies demonstrated by the training examples. Our approach was inspired by cognitive studies of human decision-making, in which learning through comparisons – and, in particular, paired comparisons – was identified as a foundation of human multi-criteria decision-making [@saaty2008relative; @lombrozo2006structure]. Rather than explicitly query human experts about their preferences, our approach functions more like a human apprentice who learns by observing a sequence of actions performed by a demonstrator. Our approach automatically computes pairwise comparisons of the features describing the action taken at each moment in time relative to the corresponding set of actions not taken, producing sets of both positive and negative training examples. We formulate the apprenticeship scheduling problem as one of learning a pairwise preference model, and construct a classifier that is able to predict the rank of all possible actions and, in turn, predict which action the expert would ultimately take at each moment in time.
We validated our approach using both a synthetic data set of solutions for a variety of scheduling problems and two real-world data sets of demonstrations by human experts solving a variant of the weapon-to-target assignment problem [@Lee:2003], known as anti-ship missile defense (ASMD), and a hospital resource allocation problem [@Gombolay:2016b]. The synthetic and real-world problem domains we used to empirically validate our approach represent two of the most challenging classes within the taxonomy established by .
The first problem we considered was the vehicle routing problem with time windows, temporal dependencies and resource constraints (VRPTW-TDR). Depending upon parameter selection, this family of problems encompasses the traveling salesman (Type 1), job-shop scheduling, multi-vehicle routing and multi-robot task allocation problems, among others. We found that apprenticeship scheduling accurately learns multifaceted heuristics that emulate the demonstrations of experts solving these problems. We observed that an apprenticeship scheduler trained on a small data set of 15 scheduling demonstrations selected the correct scheduling action with up to $95\%$ accuracy. We also empirically characterized the extent to which our method is robust to errors that humans – even experts – may commonly make. We found that our method is able to learn a high-quality representation of the demonstrator’s underlying heuristic from a “noisy" expert demonstrator that selects an incorrect action up to $20\%$ of the time.
Next, we observed that apprenticeship scheduling learned a policy for ASMD that outperformed the average ASMD domain expert for a statistically significant portion of problem scenarios ($p < 0.05$) when trained on 15 perfect expert-generated schedules. Third, we trained a decision support tool to assist nurses in managing resources – including patient rooms, staff and equipment – in a Boston hospital. We found that $90\%$ of the high-quality recommendations generated by the apprentice scheduler were accepted by the nurses and doctors participating in the study.
In this work, we also introduce a new technique called Collaborative Optimization via Apprenticeship Scheduling (COVAS), which incorporates learning from human expert demonstration within an optimization framework to automatically and efficiently produce optimal solutions for challenging real-world scheduling problems. This technique applies apprenticeship scheduling to generate a favorable (if suboptimal) initial solution to a new scheduling problem. To guarantee that the generated schedule is serviceable, we augment the apprenticeship scheduler to solve a constraint satisfaction problem, ensuring that the execution of each scheduling commitment does not directly result in infeasibility for the new problem. COVAS uses this initial solution to provide a tight bound on the value of the optimal solution, substantially improving the efficiency of a branch-and-bound search for an optimal schedule.
We first presented the apprenticeship scheduling technique in a prior work [@Gombolay:2016a], and also previously discussed an application of the technique to the hospital scheduling problem [@Gombolay:2016b]. This paper incorporates multiple extensions to these original works: First, we improve the performance of the original technique through the use of hyperparamter tuning. Second, we incorporate the data set acquired from the hospital domain in the previous study [@Gombolay:2016b] to validate apprenticeship scheduling using a second real-world data set consisting of scheduling decisions generated by hospital nurses. Third, we present COVAS, an algorithmic extension that enables human-machine collaborative optimization. COVAS leverages apprenticeship scheduling to optimally solve scheduling problems, whereas apprenticeship scheduling alone does not provide guarantees for solution quality. We report here that COVAS is able to leverage viable (but imperfect) human demonstrations to quickly produce globally optimal solutions. Fourth, we show that COVAS can transfer an apprenticeship scheduling policy learned for a small problem to optimally solve problems involving twice as many variables as those observed during any training demonstrations, and also produce an optimal solution an order of magnitude faster than mathematical optimization alone.
Background
==========
In this section, we briefly review goal and policy learning, as well as methods for bridging machine learning (ML) and optimization. We also discuss the applicability and limitations of prior works related to learning through scheduling demonstration.
Goal Learning
-------------
Here, we review both IRL-based techniques and methods proposed for recommender and preference-learning systems within the realm of goal learning.
### Inverse Reinforcement Learning {#sec:LfD}
Learning from demonstration (LfD) is an active subfield of ML [@Abbeel:2004; @Berry:2011; @Ijspeert:2002; @Konidaris:2011; @Zheng:2014; @Odom:2015; @Terrell:2012; @Thomaz:2006; @Vogel:2012; @Ziebart:2008]. Arguably, the most ubiquitous approach to LfD is inverse reinforcement learning, which is founded on a Markov decision process $M = (S,A,T,\gamma,R)$ where:
- [S is a set of states.]{}
- [A is a set of actions.]{}
- [$T: S \times A \times S \rightarrow [0,1]$ is a transition function, where $T(s,a,s')$ is the probability of being in state $s'$ after executing action $a$ in state $s$.]{}
- [$R$: $S \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ ($S \times A \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$) is a reward function that takes the form of $R(s)$ or $R(s,a)$ depending upon whether the reward is assessed for being in a state or for taking a particular action within a state.]{}
- [$\gamma \in [0,1)$ is the discount factor for future rewards.]{}
In a Markov decision process, the goal is to learn a policy $\pi: S \rightarrow A$ that dictates which action to take in each state in order to maximize the infinite-horizon expected reward starting in state $s$. This reward is defined by a value function, $V^{\pi}(s)$, as shown in Equation \[eq:valueFunction\]:
$$V^{\pi}(s) = \mathbb{E}_{\pi} \left[\sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t R(s_t) | s_o = s\right]
\label{eq:valueFunction}$$
The value function satisfies the Bellman equation for all $s \in S$, as shown in Equation \[eq:BellmanEquation\]. $$V^{\pi}(s) = R(s) + \gamma \left[\sum_{s'\in S} T(s,\pi(s),s')V^{\pi}(s')\right]
\label{eq:BellmanEquation}$$ A policy $\pi$ is an optimal policy $\pi^*$ *iff* $\forall s\in S$ Equation \[eq:OptimalPi\] holds. $$\pi(s) = \operatorname*{arg\!max}_{a\in A} \left( \sum_{s' \in S} T(s,a,s')\left(R(s')+\gamma V^{\pi}(s')\right) \right)
\label{eq:OptimalPi}$$
The problem of inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) is to take as input 1) a Markov decision process without a known reward function $R$ and 2) a set of $m$ expert demonstrations $O = \{(s_o,a_o),(s_1,a_1),\ldots,(s_m,a_m)\}$, and to then determine a reward function $R$ that produces the expert demonstrations. IRL has previously been successfully applied to autonomous driving [@Abbeel:2004], aerobatic helicopter flight [@abbeel2007application], urban navigation [@Ziebart:2008], spoken dialog systems [@chandramohan2011user], and more. Researchers have also extended the capability of IRL algorithms to enable learning from operators with differing skill levels [@Ramachandran:2007] and identification of operator subgoals [@Michini:2012].
The computational bottleneck of IRL and dynamic programming, in general, is the size of the state space. Algorithms that solve the IRL problem [@lagoudakis2003least; @Sutton:1999; @tesauro1995temporal; @watkins1992q] typically work by iteratively updating the estimate of the future expected reward of each state until convergence. However, for many problems of interest, the number of states is too numerous to hold in the memory of modern computers, and the time required for the expected future reward to converge can be impractical [@Wu:2011; @Wang:2005; @Zhang:1995].
Even if one approximately solves the RL problem [@Konidaris:2011; @Sutton:1999], RL is still ill-suited for handling the temporal dependencies among tasks inherent in scheduling problems. Some researchers have attempted to extend the traditional Markov decision process to characterize temporal phenomena, but these techniques do not scale efficiently [@Bradtke:1994; @Das:1999; @Yu:2009]. The inherent challenge is that complex real-world scheduling problems are highly non-Markovian: the next state of the environment is dependent upon the history of actions taken to arrive at the current state and time. The few works that have addressed scheduling problems via RL assume models that are too restrictive: tasks must be periodic, occur with a regular frequency, and be independent, meaning there are no temporal dependencies between the tasks [@Zhang:1995; @Wu:2011]. Even work [@aydin2000dynamic] that relaxes the assumption of determinism and allows for tasks comprising predefined subtasks linked through precedence (as opposed to tasks representing atomic units of work) still does not consider wait-, deadline-, or resource-based constraints, nor does it consider problems in the **XD** complexity class [@Korsah:2013].
### Recommender/Preference-Learning Systems
While not typically considered LfD, recommender systems are important within the field of goal learning. Recommender systems – those that use collected information to predict a rating or degree of preference a consumer would give for an item (e.g., goods or services) – have become ubiquitous during the Internet age, including services such as Netflix, which predicts which movies a viewer would want to watch [@Koren:2009]. These systems generally fall into one of two categories: collaborative filtering (CF) or content-based filtering (CB) [@Park:2012]. In essence, collaborative filtering is a technique through which an algorithm learns to predict content for a single user based upon his or her history and that of other users who share his or her interests. However, CF suffers from problems related to data sparsity and scalability [@Park:2012]. CB works by comparing content that the user has previously viewed with new content [@Claypool:1999; @Herlocker:2004; @Sarwar:2000]. The challenge of content-based filtering lies in the difficulty of measuring the similarities between two items; also, these systems can often over-fit, only predicting content that is very similar to that which the user has previously used [@Basu:1998; @Schafer:2007]. Researchers have previously employed association rules [@Cho:2002], clustering [@Lihua:2005; @Berry:2004], decision trees [@Kim:2002], k-nearest neighbor algorithms [@Kim:2009], neural networks [@Anders:1999; @Ibnkahla:2000], link analysis [@Cai:2004], regression [@Malhotra:2010], and general heuristic techniques [@Park:2012] to recommend content to users.
Ranking the relevance of Web pages is a key focus within systems that recommend suggested topics to users [@Cao:2007; @Haveliwala:2002; @Herbrich:2000; @Jin:2008; @Page:1999; @Pahikkala:2007; @Platt:2007; @Valizadegan:2009; @Volkovs:2009]. The seminal paper on Web page ranking by Page et al. initiated the computational study of page ranking with an algorithm, PageRank, which assesses the relevance of a page by determining the number of other pages that link to the page in question [@Page:1999]. Since that paper, many have focused on developing better models for recommending Web pages to users; these models can then be trained using various ML algorithms [@Haveliwala:2002; @Herbrich:2000; @Jin:2008; @Pahikkala:2007].
There are three primary approaches to modeling the importance of a Web page: pointwise, pairwise, and listwise ranking. In pointwise ranking, the goal is to determine a score for a Web page via regression analysis, given features describing its contents [@Platt:2007; @Page:1999]. Pairwise ranking is typically a classification problem in which the aim is to predict whether one page is more relevant than another, given a user’s query [@Jin:2008; @Pahikkala:2007]. More recent efforts have focused on listwise ranking, in which researchers develop loss-functions based on entire lists of ranked Web pages, rather than individual pages or pairwise comparisons between pages [@Cao:2007; @Valizadegan:2009; @Volkovs:2009]. Our approach draws inspiration from the Web page pairwise ranking formulation in order to improve the tractability of learning scheduling policies from demonstration. We further discuss the relationship between prior work and our own approach in Section \[sec:TechnicalApproach\].
The recommender and preference-learning system most closely related to ours is that of Berry et al. [@Berry:2006; @Berry:2011], which focused specifically on scheduling applications. Their goal was to develop an autonomous scheduling assistant that learned the preferences of the user. Berry et al. produced a number of works over the course of a decade, culminating in the development of an automated scheduling assistant, called PTIME. The purpose of PTIME was to help human coworkers schedule meetings. Berry et al. incorporated extensive questionnaires to solicit the preferences of human workers regarding how they preferred to arrange their schedules. PTIME would take these preferences as input and map them to a mathematical objective function. When a new meeting needed to be arranged amongst the workers, PTIME would solve a mixed-integer mathematical program to determine the optimal time for this meeting to occur. However, after approximately a decade of work, the ultimate acceptance rate of PTIME’s suggestions was only $60\%$. These authors conducted a retrospective analysis of their work and presented the following guidance for future researchers [@Berry:2011]:
1. [“A personal assistant must build trust."]{}
2. [“An assistive agent must aim to support, rather than replace, the user’s natural process."]{}
These tenants have served as an inspiration for our own work, and we believe all future works should begin with these key design principles.
Other works have outlined alternate approaches to elicitation and utilization of user preferences. De Grano et al. presented a method for optimizing scheduling shifts among nurses by soliciting nurses’ preferences via an auction process [@Grano:2009]. In particular, De Grano et al. used an iterative approach in which nurses first bid on which shifts they would prefer; then, their algorithm matches nurses to shifts based on their collective bids. Next, the nurses view the results and adjust their bids to push the algorithm toward a more preferable result. This process repeats over a number of iterations. The need for this iterative approach is due to the fact that nurses’ preferences were not independent: each nurse’s preferences would change according to the preferences of others. Further, it was not feasible for De Grano et al. to codify a rule set or learn a policy for each nurse [@Grano:2009].
Boutilier et al. and others [@Boutilier:2004; @Boutilier:1999; @Ozturke:2005] alternatively focused on modeling preferences as a set of *ceteris paribus* (all other things being equal) preference statements. In these works, researchers solicited preferences from users, typically in the form of binary comparisons. For example, consider the problem of determining which food and drink to serve a guest [@Boutilier:2004]. In this scenario, one may already know the following:
- [The guest prefers to drink red over white wine when eating a steak.]{}
- [The guest prefers steak over chicken.]{}
- [The guest prefers to drink white wine when eating chicken.]{}
Determining the optimal food/drink pairing can be performed in polynomial-time; however, identifying the relative optimality two pairings is NP-complete [@Boutilier:2004].
Other researchers have focused on developing techniques for efficiently incorporating preferences into constraint satisfaction problems [@dubois1999computing; @lin2005solving; @rossi2009preferences; @rudova2002university; @schiex1995valued; @Soomer:2008]. A subset of this work has specifically addressed the unique challenges of solving such formulations for scheduling problems [@benton2012temporal; @khatib2001temporal; @minton1992minimizing; @morris2004strategies; @peintner2004low; @yorke2003temporal; @rossi2006uncertainty].
These methods, which are designed for scheduling problems, still suffer from issues with computational tractability. As mentioned previously, Berry et al. used a preference learning algorithm to codify an objective function, which could then be solved via mathematical optimization [@Berry:2006]. Similarly, Wilcox et al. used mathematical programming to maximize the incorporation of users’ scheduling preferences into the system [@Wilcox:2012]. However, mathematical programming is not a tractable solution technique for many real-world scheduling problems [@Bertsimas:2005], including the anti-ship missile defense and hospital resource allocation problems presented in this work. Solving these problems typically requires specification of domain-specific heuristics in order to focus the search space. In this work, we present a system designed to automatically learn a heuristic policy from expert demonstration, and then apply the heuristic in order to intelligently explore the search space, reducing computation time.
Policy Learning
---------------
One alternative approach to goal learning is policy learning, which focuses on learning a mapping from states to actions [@Chernova:2007; @Huang:2014; @Sammut:1992; @Ramanujam:2011]. This technique has been applied to learn cognitive decision-making tasks from human experts [@Ramanujam:2011; @Sammut:1992; @Silver:2016; @Inamura:1999; @Rybski:1999], including an air traffic control task [@Ramanujam:2011] and a piloting task [@Sammut:1992].
Ramanujam and Balakrishnan investigated learning a discrete-choice model for how air traffic controllers decide which runways to use for arriving and departing aircraft according to weather, arrival and departure demand, and other environmental factors. The authors trained a discrete-choice model on real data from air traffic controllers and showed how the model was able to accurately predict the correct runway configuration for the airport [@Ramanujam:2011].
Sammut et al. applied a decision tree model to train an airplane’s autopilot from expert demonstration. Their approach generates a separate decision tree for each of the following control inputs: elevators, ailerons, flaps, and thrust. In their investigation, Sammut et al. noted that each pilot demonstrator could execute a planned flight path differently. These demonstrations could be in disagreement, thus making the learning problem significantly more difficult. To cope with the variance between pilot executions, the system learned a separate model for each pilot [@Sammut:1992].
Other systems learn policies through interaction and feedback, as well as demonstration, from the user [@baranes2013active; @bullard2016grounding; @Chernova:2008; @grollman2008sparse; @Inamura:1999; @konidaris2011robot; @zeng2016learning]. For example, Chernova and Veloso developed a Gaussian mixture model able to interactively learn from demonstration [@Chernova:2007]. Their algorithm first learns a reasonable policy for a given task (e.g., driving a car along a highway), then solicits user feedback by constructing scenarios involving a high level of uncertainty. Support vector machines are then applied to learn when an autonomous agent should request additional demonstrations [@Chernova:2008].
Policy learning is an important complement to goal- or reward-learning. While goal- and reward-learning approaches are able to capture high-level goals in order to produce quality schedules [@Abbeel:2004; @Berry:2006], these methods are limited by their reliance on computational methods for exploring the search space to identify a high-quality schedule. IRL relies on dynamic programming, which requires state space enumeration, while approaches such as PTIME [@Berry:2006] rely upon mathematical programming. Policy learning, on the other hand, is well-suited to guiding exploration of a state space. With a function mapping states to actions, a system can construct a schedule by taking sequential scheduling actions (e.g., assigning a worker to a task at the present time). In this sense, a learned policy can serve as a type of domain-specific heuristic to intelligently guide a search within a large state space. However, we are unaware of any prior attempts to apply policy learning to the scheduling domain.
Blending Machine Learning and Optimization {#sec:COVASBackground}
------------------------------------------
Typically, reward and policy learning are limited by the quality of the relevant demonstrations. However, even if the demonstrations are high-quality, one cannot assume demonstrators nor their demonstrations will be optimal – or even uniformly suboptimal [@Aleotti:2006; @Sammut:1992]. As such, some have sought to directly model the sub-optimality of demonstrations. For example, Zheng et al. cleverly extended the work of Ramachandran and Amir [@Ramachandran:2007] to model the trustworthiness of the demonstrator within a softmax formulation transition function for reinforcement learning [@Zheng:2014], as shown in Equation \[eq:BIRL2\]. In this equation, $Q^{\pi^*(R)}(s,a)$ is the expected reward for taking action $a$ in state $s$, assuming reward function $\boldsymbol{R}$ with the associated optimal policy $\pi^*$: $$Pr((s,a)|\alpha;\boldsymbol{R}) = \frac{e^{\alpha Q^{\pi^*(\boldsymbol{R})}(s,a)}}{\sum_{a'}e^{\alpha Q^{\pi^*(\boldsymbol{R})}(s,a')}}
\label{eq:BIRL2}$$ Through such a mechanism, it is possible to learn a policy that outperforms human demonstrators by inferring the intended goal rather than the demonstrated goal. Zheng et al. showed that their approach was better able to capture the ground-truth objective function from imperfect training data than Bayesian IRL [@Ramachandran:2007], which does not include a trustworthiness parameter for demonstrations. They validated their approach using a synthetic data set in an experiment with the goal of identifying the best route through an urban domain. However, one limiting assumption from their work is that a system is able to accurately measure the trustworthiness of the demonstrations – especially the relative trustworthiness amongst the demonstrations.
AlphaGo is another well-known ML-optimization framework recently developed to play Go, a turn-based strategy game [@Silver:2016]. At its core, AlphaGo is based on policy learning; it uses a Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) that is guided by a neural network policy trained on a data set of 30 million examples of demonstrations by human Go experts. A policy $\pi$ is employed to initially explore the search tree, and two additional components are used to evaluate the quality of each branching point in the tree. The first component is a second policy, $\pi'$, which is identical to the first except that the neural network includes fewer nodes. This smaller size enables the second policy to rapidly play the Go game to completion in order to predict a winner [@Silver:2016].
The second component of AlphaGo is a value function trained via Q-learning. The developers rewired and duplicated the initial policy $\pi$ to enable improvement through self-play. These duplicated, rewired policies $\pi_{Self-Play}$ would repeatedly play Go against one another and use a policy gradient approach, developed by Sutton et al., to iteratively improve their policies; the developers then captured a data set of 30 million moves taken by these policies[@Sutton:1999]. They then used this data set to train a Q-learning algorithm to predict the expected value of taking a given action in a given state. Interestingly, the authors noted that these self-play policies actually performed worse than the original $\pi$ trained on actual human demonstrations, but did not have a cohesive theory for why this was the case. Nonetheless, AlphaGo serves as a key example for how policy learning, coupled with optimization techniques (e.g., Q-learning and policy gradient methods) can yield performance on strategy games that is superior to that of humans.
The learning-optimization system most related to our work is that developed by Banerjee et al., who considered a scheduling problem for aircraft carrier flight deck operations. The system repeatedly solved a scheduling problem wherein the variables remained the same (i.e., variables describing which workers performed which tasks and when), but the constraints relating the variables (e.g. temporal constraints between tasks) changed [@Banerjee:2011]. Using a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) formulation, they proposed a ML-optimization pipeline in which the system performed a branch-and-bound search over the integer variables, and used the prediction of a regression algorithm trained on examples of previously solved problems to provide a provable lowerbound for the optimality of the current integer variable assignments. This approach relied upon the generation of a large database of solutions to train the regression algorithm; however, this generation requires the costly exercise of repeatedly solving a large set of MILPs, which can be intractable for large-scale scheduling problems.
Model for Apprenticeship Learning {#sec:apprenticeshipScheduling}
=================================
In this section, we present a framework for learning, via expert demonstration, a scheduling policy that correctly determines which task to schedule as a function of task state.
Problem Domain
--------------
We intend for our apprenticeship learning model to address a variety of scheduling problem types. Korsah et al. provided a comprehensive taxonomy for classes of scheduling problems, which vary according to formulation of constraints, variables and objective or utility function [@Korsah:2013]. Within this taxonomy, there are four classes addressing interrelated utilities and constraints: No Dependencies (ND [@LiuRSS:2013]), In-Schedule Dependencies (ID [@Brunet08_GNC; @GombolayJAIS:2014; @Nunes:2015], Cross-Schedule Dependencies (XD [@GombolayRSS:2013]) and Complex Dependencies (CD [@Jones:2011]).
The Korsah et al. taxonomy also delineates between tasks requiring one agent (‘single-agent tasks" \[SA\]); and tasks requiring multiple agents (“multi-agent tasks" \[MA\]). Similarly, agents that perform one task at a time are “single-task agents" (ST), while agents capable of performing multiple tasks simultaneously are “multi-task agents" (MT). Lastly, the taxonomy distinguishes between “instantaneous assignment" (IA), in which all task and schedule commitments are made immediately, and “time-extended assignment" (TA), in which current and future commitments are planned.
In this work, we demonstrate our approach for two of the most difficult classes of scheduling problems defined within this taxonomy: **XD \[ST-SA-TA\]** and **CD \[MT-MA-TA\]**. The first problem we consider is the VRPTW-TDR, which is an **XD \[ST-SA-TA\]**-class problem. We next consider two real-world problems within the more-difficult **CD \[MT-MA-TA\]** class. The second problem (first real-world domain) is a variant of the weapon-to-target assignment problem (WTA) [@Lee:2003], known as anti-ship missile defense (ASMD). The third problem (second real-world problem) we address is one of hospital resource allocation on a labor and delivery unit, wherein one nurse, called the “resource nurse," is responsible for ensuring that the correct patient is in the correct type of room at the correct time, with the correct types of nurses present to care for those patients. The characteristics of the three problem domains we explore in evaluating the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm are shown in Table \[tab:myTable\].
-------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
{width="\linewidth"} {width="\linewidth"} {width="\linewidth"}
Problem Domain VRPTW-TDR ASMD Hospital Resource Mngmt.
Describing Section Section \[sec:DataSet\_VRP\] Section \[sec:ASMDDataSet\] Section \[sec:LaborAndDeliveryDataSet\]
Data Type Synthetic Real-world Real-world
Dependency Type XD CD CD
Agent Type ST MT MT
Task Type SA MA MA
Allocation Type TA TA TA
-------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
: This table summarizes the differing characteristics of the three problem domains used to empirically evaluate the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm.[]{data-label="tab:myTable"}
Technical Approach {#sec:TechnicalApproach}
------------------
Many approaches to learning via demonstration, e.g., IRL, are based on Markov models [@Busoniu:2008; @Barto:2003; @Konidaris:2007; @Puterman:2014]. Markov models, however, do not capture the temporal dependencies between states and are computationally intractable for large problem sizes. In order to determine which tasks to schedule at which times, we draw inspiration from the domain of Web page ranking [@Page:1999], or predicting the most relevant Web page in response to a search query. One important component of page ranking is capturing how pages relate to one another as a graph with nodes (representing Web pages) and directed arcs (representing links between those pages) [@Page:1999]. This connectivity is a suitable analogy for the complex temporal dependencies (precedence, wait and deadline constraints) relating tasks within a scheduling problem.
Recent approaches to page ranking have focused on pairwise and listwise models, which each have advantages over pointwise models [@Valizadegan:2009]. In listwise ranking, the goal is to generate a ranked list of Web pages directly [@Cao:2007; @Valizadegan:2009; @Volkovs:2009], while a pairwise approach determines ranking based on pairwise comparisons between individual pages [@Jin:2008; @Pahikkala:2007]. We chose the pairwise formulation to model the problem of predicting the best task to schedule at time $t$.
The pairwise model has key advantages over the listwise approach: First, classification algorithms (e.g., support vector machines) can be directly applied [@Cao:2007]. Second, a pairwise approach is non-parametric, in that the cardinality of the input vector is not dependent upon the number of tasks (or actions) that can be performed at any instance. Third, training examples of pairwise comparisons in the data can be readily solicited. From a given observation during which a task was scheduled, we only know which task was most important, not the relative importance between all tasks. Thus, we create training examples based on pairwise comparisons between scheduled and unscheduled tasks. A pairwise approach is more natural because we lack the necessary context to determine the relative rank between two unscheduled tasks.
We formulate the apprenticeship scheduling problem as one of learning a pairwise preference model, as follows. Consider a set of $m$ observations, $O=\{O_1,O_2,\ldots,O_m\}$. Each observation $O_m={\ensuremath{\left \langle \boldsymbol{\gamma},\tau_i,t_{\tau_i},A_{\tau_i},R_{\tau_i},\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}} \right \rangle }}$ is a six-tuple consisting of the following: a set of feature vectors $\boldsymbol{\gamma} = \{\gamma_{\tau_1},\gamma_{\tau_2},\ldots,\gamma_{\tau_n} \}$, where vector $\gamma_{\tau_j}$ describes the state of each task $\tau_j$; $\tau_i$, the task to be scheduled by the expert demonstrator at the current time step $t_{\tau_i}$; $A_{\tau_i} \subseteq \boldsymbol{A}$, the subset of agents allocated to task $\tau_i$ from the set of all agents $\boldsymbol{A}$; $R_{\tau_i} \subseteq \boldsymbol{R}$, the subset of resources allocated to task $\tau_i$ from the set of all resources $\boldsymbol{R}$; and $\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$, a set of context-specific and “task-independent” features that affect expert decision-making. The state feature vector for each task $\gamma_{\tau_j}$ incorporates features that affect the selection of the task for execution and may represent, for example, the deadline, the earliest time at which the task is available, the duration of the task, which resource $r$ the task requires, etc. The task-independent feature vector, $\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$, represents global state features, such as the proportion of agents that are currently idle.
An *agent* is defined as an entity that processes tasks and possesses the following set of attributes: time-varying physical location, travel speed, and task-specific proficiency (i.e., two agents may require different amounts of time to execute the same task). A *resource* is defined as an object required to process a task and possesses the following attributes: time-invariant physical location, a finite number of agents that can utilize the resource at any one time, and a task-specific proficiency (i.e., one resource may allow a task to be completed at a faster rate than another). In the event that no task is scheduled at time $t$, elements $\tau_i$, $A_{\tau_i}$, and $R_{\tau_i}$ in $O_m$ are null.
The goal is to learn a scheduling policy that selects a task ${\tau_i}$ to schedule at a selected time $t_{\tau_i}$ to be processed by agent a $a_{\tau_i}$ as a function of the task and problem state encoded by $\gamma_{\tau_i}$ and $\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$. Our formulation assumes at least one agent is required to process one task, with the assignment and scheduling of agents to tasks determined by the scheduler. The assignment of a resource to a task is assumed to be either pre-allocated based on the problem specification or assigned by the scheduler.
We assume that the cross product of the task-independent feature vectors and the task-dependent feature vector ($\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}} \times \gamma_{\tau_1} \times \gamma_{\tau_2} \times \ldots \times \gamma_{\tau_n}$) encodes sufficient information to make high quality scheduling decisions. Modeling choices may affect the dimensionalities of these feature vectors. For example, in one formulation the state of task $\tau_i$ may include a list of upper- and lowerbound temporal constraints between task $\tau_i$ and all other tasks $\tau_j$; alternatively, depending on the problem, a lower-dimensional representation of the same relevant information may simply include the latest possible time (i.e., the deadline) by which each task must start to satisfy the problem temporal constraints. We note that our approach relies upon the ability of domain experts to articulate an appropriate set of features for the given problem. We believe this to be a reasonable limitation. Results from prior work have indicated that domain experts are adept at describing the high-level, contextual, and task-specific features used in their decision making; however, it is more difficult for experts to describe how they reason about these features [@Cheng:2006; @Raghavan:2006]. In future work, we aim to extend our approach to include feature learning rather than relying upon experts to enumerate the important features they reason about in order to construct schedules.
Our learning approach de-constructs the problem into two steps: 1) For each agent, determine the candidate next task to schedule; and 2) For each candidate task, determine whether to schedule said task.
### Learning Task Priorities
In order to learn to correctly assign the next task to schedule, we transform each observation $O_m$ into a new set of observations by performing pairwise comparisons between the scheduled task $\tau_i$ and the set of unscheduled tasks (Equations \[eq:pairwisePos\]-\[eq:pairwiseNeg\]). Equation \[eq:pairwisePos\] creates a positive example for each observation in which a task $\tau_i$ was scheduled. This example consists of the input feature vector, $\phi_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_x \right \rangle }}}^m$, and a positive label, $y_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_x \right \rangle }}}^m=1$. Each element of input feature vector $\phi_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_x \right \rangle }}}^m$ is computed as the difference between the corresponding values in the feature vectors $\gamma_{\tau_i}$ and $\gamma_{\tau_x}$, describing scheduled task $\tau_i$ and unscheduled task $\tau_x$ concatenated with the high-level contextual feature vector $\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$. Equation \[eq:pairwiseNeg\] creates a set of negative examples with $y_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_x,\tau_i \right \rangle }}}^m=0$. For the input vector, we take the difference of the feature values between unscheduled task $\tau_x$ and scheduled task $\tau_i$ concatenated with the high-level contextual feature vector $\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$.
We note that it is necessary to separate the task-independent features as point-wise terms so as to preserve their information. Consider the example task-independent feature, $\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}^k$, representing the proportion of agents currently idle. If this feature would be encoded in each task-specific feature vector as $\gamma_{\tau_i}^k$, the result would be $\gamma_{\tau_i}^k-\gamma_{\tau_j}^k=0$ for all tasks $\tau_i$ and $\tau_k$. Thus, for their information to be preserved for the learning algorithm, one must concatenate a separate vector of contextual features to the pairwise differences.
$$\begin{gathered}
^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}} := \left[ \xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}},\gamma_{\tau_i}-\gamma_{\tau_j}\right],
y^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}} = 1,
\forall \tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau} \backslash \tau_i, \forall O_m \in \boldsymbol{O} | \tau_i \text{ scheduled in } O_m \label{eq:pairwisePos}\\ \nonumber \\
^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_j,\tau_i \right \rangle }}} := \left[ \xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}},\gamma_{\tau_j}-\gamma_{\tau_i}\right],
y^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_j,\tau_i \right \rangle }}} = 0,
\forall \tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau} \backslash \tau_i, \forall O_m \in \boldsymbol{O} | \tau_i \text{ scheduled in } O_m \label{eq:pairwiseNeg}\end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
\widehat{\tau_i^*} = \operatorname*{arg\!max}\limits_{\tau_i \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} \sum\limits_{\tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} f_{priority}\left(\tau_i,\tau_j\right)
\label{eq:priorityFn}\end{gathered}$$
Figure \[fig:FeatureSpace\] is a graphical depiction of the process for automatically generating positive and negative training examples for each $O_m \in \boldsymbol{O}$. For illustrative purposes, the graphic depicts the process considering two task-specific features, $\gamma_{\cdot}^k$ and $\gamma_{\cdot}^{k'}$, corresponding to the x- and y-axes, respectively.
In the left graphic, the node “$s_t$" represents the state of the scheduling domain at time $t$, mapped to the feature space ($\gamma_{\cdot}^k$, $\gamma_{\cdot}^{k'}$). At this time $t$, the apprentice scheduler observes the demonstrator scheduling task $\tau_i$ (denoted by the solid arrow vector $\gamma_{\tau_i | t}$). The apprentice scheduler observes that the demonstrator chose to not schedule the two other available tasks $\tau_1$ or $\tau_n$ at $t$ (denoted by the dashed vectors $\gamma_{\tau_1 | t}$ and $\gamma_{\tau_n | t}$, respectively). After the scheduling and execution of $\tau_i$, the scheduling domain is observed to be in the state represented by node “$s_{t+1}$". The figure shows the process repeating at time $t=1$.
The right graphic depicts the generation of training examples. For each time step, the apprenticeship scheduler constructs positive and negative training examples through vector subtraction of task-dependent feature vectors. The red dotted lines depict the vector difference of the scheduled task’s feature vector and each unscheduled task’s feature vector; the resulting vectors are applied to construct negative training examples. The blue dotted lines depict the *negative* vector difference of the scheduled task’s feature vector and each unscheduled task’s feature vector; the resulting vectors are applied to construct positive training examples. Recall that a contextual “task-independent" feature vector, $\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$, is appended to each pairwise term in the formation of each training example $^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \cdot,\cdot \right \rangle }}}$. This procedure then repeats for each observation (i.e., each time step for each demonstrated schedule) and task. The value of this approach is that the learner does not need to explicitly solicit pairwise comparisons from the demonstrator; instead, the pairwise comparisons are derived automatically through observation of the expert demonstrator.
### Learning to Schedule or Idle
Given these observations $O_m$ and their associated features, we can train a classifier, $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_x )\in\{0,1\}$, to predict whether it is better to schedule task $\tau_i$ as the next task rather than $\tau_x$. With this pairwise classifier, we can determine which single task $\tau_i$ is the highest-priority task $\tau_i^*$ according to Equation \[eq:priorityFn\] by determining which task has the highest cumulative priority in comparison to the other tasks in $\boldsymbol{\tau}$. In this work, we train a single classifier, $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j )$, to model the behavior of the set of all agents rather than train one $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ for each agent. $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ is a function of all features associated with the agents; as such, agents need not be interchangeable, and different sets of features may be associated with each agent.
Next, we must learn to predict whether $\tau_i^*$ should be scheduled or the agent should remain idle. To do so, we train a second classifier, $f_{act}(\tau_i )\in\{0,1\}$, that predicts whether or not $\tau_i$ should be scheduled. The observations set, $O$, consists either of examples in which a task was scheduled or those in which no task was scheduled. To train this classifier, we construct a new set of examples according to Equation \[eq:actFnc\], which assigns positive labels to examples from $O_m$ in which a task was scheduled and negative labels to examples in which no task was scheduled. $$\begin{gathered}
^{act}\phi^m_{\tau_i} := \left[\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}},\gamma_{\tau_i}\right],
y_{\tau_i}^m = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
1 : \tau_i \text{ scheduled in } O_m \text{ } \land \tau_i \text{ scheduled in } O_{m+1} \\
0 : \tau_{\emptyset} \text{ scheduled in } O_m
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:actFnc}\end{gathered}$$
Finally, we construct a scheduling algorithm to act as an apprentice scheduler (Algorithm \[alg:apprenticeScheduler\]). This algorithm takes as input the set of tasks, $\boldsymbol{\tau}$; agents, $\boldsymbol{A}$; temporal constraints (i.e., upper- and lowerbound temporal constraints) relating tasks in the problem, $\boldsymbol{TC}$; and the set of task pairs that require the same resources and can therefore not be executed at the same time, $\boldsymbol{\tau_R}$. Lines 1- 2 iterate over each agent at each time step. (In the event that resource-to-task assignments are not predefined, the algorithm would also iterate over each resource $r \in \boldsymbol{R}$ that could be assigned.) In Line 3, the highest-priority task, $\tau_i^*$, is determined for a particular agent. In Lines 4-5, $\tau_i^*$ is scheduled *if* $f_{act}(\tau_i^*)$ predicts that $\tau_i^*$ should be scheduled at the current time.
**ApprenticeScheduler**($\boldsymbol{\tau}$,$\boldsymbol{A}$,$\boldsymbol{TC}$,$\boldsymbol{\tau_R}$)
Note that iteration over agents (Line 2) can be performed according to a specific ordering, or the system can alternatively learn a more general priority function to select and schedule the best agent-task-resource tuple using $f_{priority}\left({\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,a,r \right \rangle }},{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_j,a',r' \right \rangle }}\right)$, $f_{act}\left({\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,a,r \right \rangle }}^*\right)$. In the latter case, the features $\gamma_{\tau_i}$ are mapped to agent-task-resource tuples rather than tasks $\tau_i$, which represent the atomic (i.e., lowest-level) job. For the synthetic evaluation, we use the original formulation, $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$. For the ASMD application, we use $f_{priority}\left({\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i^t,a,r \right \rangle }},{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_j^t,a',r' \right \rangle }}\right)$, where $\tau_i^t$ represents the objective of mitigating missile $i$ during time step $t$, $a$ is the decoy to be deployed, and $r$ is the physical location for that deployment. For the hospital domain evaluation, we use $f_{priority}\left({\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i^j,a,r \right \rangle }},{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_p^q,a',r' \right \rangle }}\right)$, where $\tau_i^j$ represents the $j^{th}$ stage of labor for patient $i$, $a$ is the assigned nurse, and $r$ is the room to which the patient is assigned. For convenience in notation, we refer to this tuple as a “scheduling action." Finally, note that multiple agent-resource pairs can be assigned to a single task, $\tau_i$. The apprentice scheduler would first pick the best agent (or agent-resource pair) to assign to a task according to the $f_{priority}$ metric. During the same time step (or a subsequent time step), another agent (or agent-resource pair) can be added. The algorithm will continue to add assignments to the task until the null assignment (i.e., no further changes to the current set of assignments) is the best option according to $f_{act}$.
Our model is a hybrid point- and pairwise formulation, which has several key benefits for learning to schedule form expert demonstration. First, we can directly apply standard classification techniques, such as a decision tree, support vector machine, logistic regression, or neural networks. Second, because this technique only considers two scheduling actions at a time, the model is non-parametric in the number of possible actions. Thus, the system can train on $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ schedules with $a$ agents and $n$ tasks, yet apply $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ to construct a schedule for a problem with $a'$ agents and $n'$ tasks where $a \neq a'$, $n \neq n'$, and $a*n \neq a'*n'$. Furthermore, it can even train $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ on demonstrations of a heterogeneous data set of scheduling observations with differing numbers of agents and tasks. Third, the pairwise portion of the formulation provides structure for the learning problem. A formulation that simply concatenated the features of two or more scheduling actions would need to solve the more complex problem of learning the relationships between features and then how to use those relationships to predict the highest-priority scheduling action. Such a concatenation approach would suffer from the curse of dimensionality and require a very large training data set [@Indyk:1998]. Note, however, that this method requires the designer to appropriately partition the features into pairwise and pointwise components such that the pairwise portion does not lose information by considering the differences between actions’ features. Fourth, the transformation of the observations into a pairwise model results in some features that are advantageous for learning from small data sets: the number of positive and negative training examples is balanced given that the algorithm simultaneously creates one negative label for every positive label, and the observations are bootstrapped to create $2*|\boldsymbol{\tau}|$ examples for each time step, rather than only $|\boldsymbol{\tau}|$ for a pointwise model, where $n = |\boldsymbol{\tau}|$.
Data Sets {#sec:data}
=========
Here, we validate that schedules produced by the learned policies are of comparable quality to those generated by human or synthetic experts. To do so, we considered a synthetic data set from the **XD \[ST-SA-TA\]** class of problems and two real-world data sets from the **CD \[MT-MA-TA\]** class of problems, as defined by Korsah et al. [@Korsah:2013]. We present each problem domain and describe the manner in which the data set of expert demonstrations for the domain was acquired.
Synthetic Data Set {#sec:DataSet_VRP}
------------------
For our first investigation, we generated a synthetic data set of scheduling problems in which agents were assigned a set of tasks. The tasks were related through precedence or wait constraints, as well as deadline constraints, which could be absolute (relative to the start of the schedule) or relative to another task’s initiation or completion time. Agents were required to access a set of shared resources to execute each task. Agents and tasks had defined starting locations, and task locations were static. Agents were only able to perform tasks when present at the corresponding task location, and each agent traveled at a constant speed between task locations. Task completion times were potentially non-uniform and agent-specific, as would be the case for heterogeneous agents. An agent that was incapable of performing a given task was assumed to have an infinite completion time for that task. The objective was to minimize the makespan or other time-based performance measures.
This problem definition spans a range of scheduling problems, including the traveling salesman, job-shop scheduling, multi-vehicle routing and multi-robot task allocation problems, among others. We describe this range as a vehicle routing problem with time windows, temporal dependencies, and resource constraints (VRPTW-TDR), which falls within the **XD \[ST-SA-TA\]** class in the taxonomy by : agents perform tasks sequentially (ST), each task requires one agent (SA), and commitments are made over time (TA).
To generate our synthetic data set, we developed a mock scheduling expert that applies one of a set of context-dependent rules based on the composition of the given scheduling problem. This behavior was based upon rules presented in prior work addressing these types of problems [@GombolayRSS:2013; @GombolayJAIS:2014; @Solomon:1987; @Tan:2001]. Our objective was to show that our apprenticeship scheduling algorithm learns both context-dependent rules and how to identify the associated context for their correct application.
The mock scheduling expert functions as follows: First, the algorithm collects all alive and enabled tasks $\tau_i\in\boldsymbol{\tau_{AE}}$ as defined by [@Muscettola:1998]. Consider a pair of tasks, $\tau_i$ and $\tau_j$, with start and finish times $s_i,f_i$ and $s_j,f_j$, respectively, such that there is a wait constraint requiring $\tau_i$ to start at least $W_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_j,\tau_i \right \rangle }}}$ units of time after $\tau_j$. A task $\tau_i$ is alive and enabled if $t \geq f_j + W_{\tau_j,\tau_i}$ for all such $\tau_j$ and $W_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_j,\tau_i \right \rangle }}}$ in $\boldsymbol{\tau}$.
After task collection, the heuristic iterates over each agent to identify the highest-priority task, $\tau_i^*$, to schedule for that agent. The algorithm determines which scheduling rule is most appropriate to apply for each agent. If agent speed is sufficiently slow ($\leq 1$ m/s), travel time will become the major bottleneck. If agents move quickly but utilize one or more resources $R$ heavily ( $\sum_{\tau_i}\sum_{\tau_j} 1_{R_{\tau_i} = R_{\tau_j}} \geq \text{c}$ for some constant c), use of these resources can become the bottleneck. Otherwise, task durations and associated wait constraints are generally most important.
If the algorithm identifies travel distance as the primary bottleneck, it chooses the next task by applying a priority rule well-suited for vehicle routing that minimizes a weighted, linear combination of features [@Gambardella:1999; @Solomon:1987] comprised of the distance and angle relative to the origin between agent $a$ and $\tau_j$. This rule is depicted in Equation \[eq:VRPRule\], where $\vec{l}_x$ is the location of $\tau_j$, $\vec{l}_a$ is the location of agent $a$, $\theta_{xa}$ is the relative angle between the vector from origin to the agent location and the origin to the location of $\tau_j$, and $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are weighting constants: $$\tau_i^* \leftarrow \operatorname*{arg\!min}\limits_{\tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau_{AE}}} \left( \|\vec{l}_x - \vec{l}_a\|+ \alpha_1 \theta_{xa} + \alpha_2 \|\vec{l}_x - \vec{l}_a\| \theta_{xa}\right)
\label{eq:VRPRule}$$ If the algorithm identifies resource contention as the most important bottleneck, it employs a rule to mitigate resource contention in multi-robot, multi-resource problems based on prior work in scheduling for multi-robot teams [@GombolayRSS:2013]. Specifically, the algorithm uses Equation \[eq:RCRule\] to select the high-priority task to schedule next, where $d_{\tau_j}$ is the deadline of $\tau_j$ and $\alpha_3$ is a weighting constant: $$\tau_i^* \leftarrow \operatorname*{arg\!max}\limits_{\tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau_{AE}}} \left(\left(\sum_{\tau_i}\sum_{\tau_j} 1_{R_{\tau_i} = R_{\tau_j}}\right) - \alpha_3 d_{\tau_j}\right)
\label{eq:RCRule}$$ If the algorithm decides that temporal requirements are the major bottleneck, it employs an Earliest Deadline First rule (Equation \[eq:EDFRule\]), which performs well across many scheduling domains [@Chen:2009; @GombolayRSS:2013; @GombolayJAIS:2014]: $$\tau_i^* \leftarrow \operatorname*{arg\!min}\limits_{\tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau_{AE}}} d_{\tau_j}
\label{eq:EDFRule}$$ After selecting the most important task, $\tau_i^*$, the algorithm determines whether the resource required for $\tau_i^*$, $R_{\tau_i^{*}}$, is idle and whether the agent is able to travel to the task location by time $t$. If these constraints are satisfied, the heuristic schedules task $\tau_i^{*}$ at time $t$. (An agent is able to reach task $\tau_i^*$ if $t \geq f_j + k\left(l_i - l_j\right)/\|l_i - l_j\|$ for all $\tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}$ that the agent has already completed, where $k$ is the agent’s speed.)
We constructed the synthetic data set for two homogeneous agents and 20 partially ordered tasks located within a 20 x 20 grid.
Real-World Data Set: Anti-Ship Missile Defense {#sec:ASMDDataSet}
----------------------------------------------
In ASMD, the goal is to protect one’s naval vessel against attacks by anti-ship missiles using “soft-kill weapons" (i.e., decoys) that mimic the qualities of a target in order to direct the missile away from its intended destination.
Developing tactics for soft-kill weapon coordination is highly difficult due to the relationship between missile behavior and soft-kill weapon characteristics. The control laws governing anti-ship missiles vary, and the captain must select the correct decoy types in order to counteract the associated anti-ship missiles. For example, a ship’s captain may deploy a decoy that emits a large amount of heat in order to cause an enemy heat-seeking missile to fly toward the decoy rather than the ship. Also, an enemy missile may consider the spatial layout of all targets in order to select the nearest or furthest targets; in doing so, the missile may consider the magnitude of the radar reflectivity, radar emissions, and heat emissions, either separately or in various combinations.
Further, decoys have different financial costs and timing characteristics: Some decoys, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are able to function throughout the entirety of an engagement, while others, such as an infrared (IR) flares, disappear after a certain time. As a result, a captain may be required to use multiple decoys in tandem in order to divert a single anti-ship missile, but may also be able to use a single decoy to defeat multiple missiles. There is a complex interplay between the types and locations of decoys relative to the control laws governing anti-ship missiles. For example, deployment of a particular decoy, while effective against one airborne enemy missile, may actually cause a second enemy missile that was previously homing in on a second decoy to now impact the ship.
The ASMD problem is characterized as the most complex class of scheduling problem according to the . taxonomy : **CD \[MT-MA-TA\]**. The problem considers multi-task agents (MA) in the form of decoys, each of which can work to divert multiple missiles at the same time. The problem also incorporates multi-agent tasks (MT); a feasible solution may require the simultaneous use of multiple agents in order to complete an individual task. Further, time-extended agent allocation (TA) must be considered, given the potential future consequences of scheduling actions taken at the current moment. Finally, the ASMD problem falls within the CD class, because each task can be decomposed in a variety of ways – each with their own cost – in order to accomplish the same goal, with each decomposition affecting the value and feasibility of the decompositions of other tasks. The full specification of the mixed-integer linear program formulation for the ASMD problem is provided in Appendix \[sec:AppendixASMD\].
### Data Collection
A real-world data set was collected, consisting of human demonstrators of various skill levels solving the anti-ship missile defense (ASMD) weapon-to-target assignment problem. Data was collected from domain experts playing a serious game, called Strike Group Defender[^1] (SGD), for ASMD training. Game scenarios involved five types of decoys and 10 types of threats. Threats were randomly generated for each played scenario, promoting the development of strategies that were robust to a varied distribution of scenarios. Each decoy had a specified effectiveness against each threat type.
Players attempted to deploy a set of decoys by using the correct types at the correct locations and times in order to distract incoming missiles. Threats were launched over time; an effective deployment at time $t$ could become counterproductive in the future as new enemy missiles were launched.
Games were scored as follows: $10,000$ points were received each time a threat was neutralized and $2$ points were received for each second a threat spent homing in on a decoy. Players lost $5,000$ points for each threat impact and $1$ point was deducted for each second a threat spent homing in on the player’s ship. At each decoy deployment, players lost $25$-$1,000$ points depending upon decoy type.
The collected data set consisted of $311$ games played by $35$ humans across $45$ threat configurations, or “levels." From this set, we also separately analyzed 16 threat configurations such that each configuration included at least one human demonstration in which the ship was successfully protected from all enemy missiles. For these 16 configurations, there were $162$ total games played by $27$ unique human demonstrators. The player cohort consisted of technical fellows and associates, as well as contractors at a federally funded research and development center (FFDRC), with expertise varying from “generally knowledgeable about the ASMD problem" to “domain experts" with professional experience or training in ASMD.
Real-World Data Set: Labor and Delivery {#sec:LaborAndDeliveryDataSet}
---------------------------------------
To further evaluate our approach, we applied our method to a second data set collected from a labor and delivery floor at a Boston hospital. In this domain, a “resource nurse” must solve a problem of task allocation and schedule optimization with stochasticity in the number and types of patients and the duration of tasks. Specifically, the resource nurse is responsible for ensuring that the correct patient is in the correct type of room at the correct time, with the correct types of nurses present to care for those patients. The functions of a resource nurse are to assign nurses to take care of labor patients; assign patients to labor beds, recovery room beds, operating rooms, antepartum ward beds or postpartum ward beds; assign scrub technicians to assist with surgeries in operating rooms; call in additional nurses if necessary; accelerate, delay or cancel scheduled inductions or cesarean sections; expedite active management of a patient in labor; and reassign roles among nurses.
Using our apprenticeship scheduling method in for the Labor and Delivery problem domain, a task $\tau_i$ represents the set of steps (subtasks) required to care for patient $i$, and each $\tau_i^j$ is a given stage of labor for that patient. Stages of labor are related by stochastic lowerbound constraints $W_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i^j,\tau_x^y \right \rangle }}}$, requiring the stages to progress sequentially. There are stochastic time constraints, $D^{abs}_{\tau_i^j}$ and $D^{rel}_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i^j,\tau_x^y \right \rangle }}}$, relating the stages of labor to account for the inability of resource nurses to perfectly control when a patient will move from one stage to the next. Arrivals of $\tau_i$ (i.e. patients) are drawn from stochastic distributions. The model considers three types of patients: scheduled cesarean patients, scheduled induction patients and unscheduled patients. The set of $W_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i^j,\tau_x^y \right \rangle }}}$, $D^{abs}_{\tau_i^j}$ and $D^{rel}_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}}$ are dependent upon patient type.
Labor nurses are modeled as agents with a finite capacity to process tasks in parallel, where each subtask requires a variable amount of this capacity. For example, a labor nurse may generally care for a maximum of two patients simultaneously. If the nurse is caring for a patient who is “full and pushing" (i.e., the cervix is fully dilated and the patient is actively trying to push out the baby) or in the operating room, he or she may only care for that patient.
Rooms on the labor floor (e.g., a labor room, an operating room, etc.) are modeled as resources, which process subtasks in series. Agent and resource assignments to subtasks are pre-emptable, meaning that the agent and resource assigned to care for any patient during any step in the care process may be changed over the course of executing that subtask.
In this formulation, $\tensor*[^t]{A}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}\in\{0,1\}$ is a binary decision variable for assigning agent $a$ to subtask $\tau_i^j$ for time epoch $[t,t+1)$. $\tensor*[^t]{G}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}$ is an integer decision variable for assigning a certain portion of the effort of agent $a$ to subtask $\tau_i^j$ for time epoch $[t,t+1)$. $\tensor*[^t]{R}{^r_{\tau_i^j}}\in\{0,1\}$ is a binary decision variable for whether subtask $\tau_i^j$ is assigned resource $r$ for time epoch $[t,t+1)$. $H_{\tau_i} \in \{0,1\}$ is a binary decision variable for whether task $\tau_i$ and its corresponding subtasks are to be completed. $U_{\tau_i^j}$ specifies the effort required from any agent to work on $\tau_i^j$. $s_{\tau_i^j}, f_{\tau_i^j}\in [0,\infty)$ are the start and finish times of $\tau_i^j$.
$$\begin{aligned}
&\min fn\left(\{\tensor*[^t]{A}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}\},\{\tensor*[^t]{G}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}\}, \{\tensor*[^t]{R}{^r_{\tau_i^j}}\}, \{H_{\tau_i}\}, \{s_{\tau_i^j},f_{\tau_i^j}\}\right)
\label{eq:objectiveNurseGeneral}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a \in A} \tensor*[^t]{A}{^a_{\tau_i^j}} &\geq 1- M\left(1-H_{\tau_i}\right),\forall \tau_i^j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}, \forall t
\label{eq:eachPatientGetsANurse} \\
M \left( 2-\tensor*[^t]{A}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}-H_{\tau_i}\right) &\geq
-U_{\tau_i^j} + \tensor*[^t]{G}{^a_{\tau_i^j}} \geq \nonumber \\ M\left(\tensor*[^t]{A}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}+H_{\tau_i}-2\right), \forall \tau_i^j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}, \forall t
\label{eq:eachPatinetGetsEnoughNursing1} \\
\sum_{\tau_i^j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} \tensor*[^t]{G}{^a_{\tau_i^j}} &\leq C_a, \forall a \in A, \forall t
\label{eq:agentCapacity} \\
\sum_{r \in R} \tensor*[^t]{R}{^r_{\tau_i^j}} &\geq 1 - M\left(1-H_{\tau_i}\right), \forall \tau_i^j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}, \forall t
\label{eq:fullResourceAssign}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\tau_i^j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} \tensor*[^t]{R}{^r_{\tau_i^j}} &\leq 1, \forall r \in R, \forall t
\label{eq:resourceCapacity}\\
ub_{\tau_i^j} \geq f_{\tau_i^j} - s_{\tau_i^j} &\geq lb_{\tau_i^j}, \forall \tau_i^j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}
\label{eq:taskUBLBNurse}\\
s_{\tau_x^y} - f_{\tau_i^j} &\geq W_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}}, \forall \tau_i, \tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau} |, \forall W_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}} \in \boldsymbol{TC}
\label{eq:WaitConstraintNurse} \\
f_{\tau_x^y} - s_{\tau_i^j} &\leq D^{rel}_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}}, \forall \tau_i, \tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau} | \exists D^{rel}_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}} \in \boldsymbol{TC}
\label{eq:RelativeDeadlineNurse} \\
f_{\tau_i^j} &\leq D^{abs}_{\tau_i}, \forall \tau_i \in \boldsymbol{\tau} | \exists D^{abs}_{\tau_i} \in \boldsymbol{TC}
\label{eq:AbsoluteDeadlineNurse}\end{aligned}$$ Equation \[eq:eachPatientGetsANurse\] enforces that each subtask $\tau_i^j$ during each time epoch $[t,t+1)$ is assigned a single agent. Equation \[eq:eachPatinetGetsEnoughNursing1\] ensures that each subtask $\tau_i^j$ receives a sufficient portion of the effort of its assigned agent $a$ during epoch $[t,t+1)$. Equation \[eq:agentCapacity\] ensures that agent $a$ is not oversubscribed. Equation \[eq:fullResourceAssign\] ensures that each subtask $\tau_i^j$ of each task $\tau_i$ that is to be completed (i.e., $H_{\tau_i}=1$) is assigned one resource $r$. Equation \[eq:resourceCapacity\] ensures that each resource $r$ is assigned to only one subtask during each epoch $[t,t+1)$. Equation \[eq:taskUBLBNurse\] requires the duration of subtask $\tau_i^j$ to be less than or equal to $ub_{\tau_i^j}$ and at least $lb_{\tau_i^j}$ units of time. Equation \[eq:WaitConstraintNurse\] requires that $\tau_x^y$ occurs at least $W_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i^j,\tau_x^y \right \rangle }}}$ units of time after $\tau_i^j$. Equation \[eq:RelativeDeadlineNurse\] requires that the duration between the start of $\tau_i^j$ and the finish of $\tau_x^y$ be less than $D^{rel}_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i^j,\tau_x^y \right \rangle }}}$. Equation \[eq:AbsoluteDeadlineNurse\] requires that $\tau_i^j$ finishes before $D^{abs}_{\tau_i^j}$ units of time have expired since the start of the schedule.
The functions of a resource nurse are to assign nurses to take care of labor patients and to assign patients to labor beds, recovery room beds, operating rooms, antepartum ward beds or postpartum ward beds. The resource nurse has substantial flexibility when assigning beds, and his or her decisions will depend upon the type of patient and the current status of the unit in question. He or she must also assign scrub technicians to assist with surgeries in operating rooms, and call in additional nurses if required. The corresponding decision variables for staff assignments and room/ward assignments in the above formulation are $\tensor*[^t]{A}{^a_{\tau_i^j}} $ and $\tensor*[^t]{R}{^r_{\tau_i^j}}$, respectively.
The resource nurse may accelerate, delay or cancel scheduled inductions or cesarean sections in the event that the floor is too busy. Resource nurses may also request expedited active management of a patient in labor. The decision variables for the timing of transitions between the various steps in the care process are described by $s_{\tau_i^j}$ and $f_{\tau_i^j}$. The commitments to a patient (or that patient’s procedures) are represented by $H_{\tau_i}$.
The resource nurse may also reassign roles among nurses: For example, a resource nurse may pull a nurse from triage, or even care for patients herself if the floor is too busy. Or, if a patient’s condition is particularly acute (e.g., the patient has severe preeclampsia), the resource nurse may assign one-to-one nursing. The level of attentional resources a patient requires and the level a nurse has available correspond to variables $U_{\tau_i^j} $ and $\tensor*[^t]{G}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}$, respectively. The resource nurse makes his or her decisions while considering current patient status $\Lambda_{\tau_i^j}$, which is manually transcribed on a whiteboard, as shown in Figure \[fig:resourceNurseDiagram1\].
The stochasticity of the problem arises from the uncertainty in the upper- and lowerbound of the durations $(ub_{\tau_i^j} \text{ and } lb_{\tau_i^j})$ of each of the steps in caring for a patient; the number and types of patients, $\boldsymbol{\tau}$; and the temporal constraints, $\boldsymbol{TC}$, relating the start and finish of each step. These variables are a function of the resource and staff allocation variables, $\tensor*[^t]{R}{^a_{\tau_i^j}} and \tensor*[^t]{A}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}$, as well as patient task state $\Lambda_{\tau_i^j}$, which includes information on patient type (i.e., presentation with scheduled induction, scheduled cesarean section, or acute unplanned anomaly), gestational age, gravida, parity, membrane status, anesthesia status, cervix status, time of last exam and the presence of any comorbidities. Formally, $\left(\{ub_{\tau_i^j}, lb_{\tau_i^j} | \tau_i^j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}\}, \boldsymbol{\tau},\boldsymbol{TC}\right) \sim P(\{\tensor*[^t]{R}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}, \tensor*[^t]{A}{^a_{\tau_i^j}}, \Lambda_{\tau_i^j}, \forall t \in [0,1,\ldots,T] \} )$.
The computational complexity of completely searching for a solution that satisfies the constraints in Equations \[eq:eachPatientGetsANurse\]-\[eq:AbsoluteDeadlineNurse\] is given by $O\left(2^{|A||R|T^2}C_a^{|A|T}\right)$, where $|A|$ is the number of agents, with each agent possessing an integer processing capacity of $C_a$. There are $n$ tasks $\tau_i$, each with $m_i$ subtasks, $|R|$ resources, and an integer-valued planning horizon of $T$ units of time. In practice, there are $\sim$ $10$ nurses (agents) who can care for up to two patients at a time (i.e., $C_a = 2, \forall a \in A$), $20$ different rooms (resources) of varying types, $20$ patients (tasks) at any one time, and a planning horizon of $12$ hours or $720$ minutes, yielding a worst-case complexity of $\sim 2^{10*20*720^2}2^{10*720} \geq 2^{10^6}$, which is computationally intractable for exact methods without the assistance of informative search heuristics.
### Data Collection {#sec:NurseDataSet}
To collect data from resource nurses about their decisions, a high-fidelity simulation of a labor and delivery floor was developed, as depicted in Figure \[fig:LDSimulation\]. We developed this simulation in collaboration with Beth Israel Medical Deaconess Hospital in Boston. The effort was part of a quality-improvement project at the hospital to develop training tools and involved a rigorous, year-long design and iteration process that included workshops with nurses, physicians, and medical students to ensure the tool accurately captured the role of a resource nurse. Parameters within the simulation (e.g., patient arrivals, timelines for labor progression) were drawn from medical textbooks and papers and modified through alpha and beta testing to ensure that the simulation closely mirrored the patient population and nurse experience at our partner hospital.
We invited expert resource nurses to play this simulation in order to collect a data set for training our apprenticeship scheduling algorithm. This data set was generated by seven resource nurses working with the simulation for a total of $2 \sfrac{1}{2}$ hours, simulating $60$ hours of elapsed time on a real labor floor and yielding a set of more than $3,013$ individual decisions.
Empirical Evaluation of Apprenticeship Scheduling
=================================================
In this section, we evaluate our prototype for apprenticeship scheduling using synthetic and real-world data sets.
Synthetic Data Set {#sec:syntheticDataSet}
------------------
We trained our model using a decision tree, KNN classifier, logistic regression (logit) model, a support vector machine with a radial basis function kernel (SVM-RBF), and a neural network to learn $f_{priority}(.,.)$ and $f_{act}(.)$. We randomly sampled $85\%$ of the data for training and $15\%$ for testing.
We defined the input features as follows: The high-level feature vector of the task set, $\xi_\tau$, was comprised of the agents’ speed and the degree of resource contention, $\sum_{\tau_i}\sum_{\tau_j} 1_{R_{\tau_i} = R_{\tau_j}}$. The task-specific feature vector, $\gamma_{\tau_i}$, was comprised of the task’s deadline, a binary indicator for whether or not the task’s precedence constraints had been satisfied, the number of other tasks sharing the given task’s resource, a binary indicator for whether or not the given task’s resource was available, the travel time remaining to reach the task location, the distance agent $a$ would travel to reach $\tau_i$, and the angular difference between the vector describing the location of agent $a$ and the vector describing the position of $\tau_i$ relative to agent $a$.
We compared the performance of our pairwise approach with pointwise and naïve approaches. In the pointwise approach, training examples for selecting the highest-priority task were of the form ${^{rank}}\phi_{\tau_i}^{m} := [\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}},\gamma_{\tau_i}]$. The label $\gamma_{\tau_i}^m$ was equal to $1$ if task $\tau_i$ was scheduled in observation $m$, and was $0$ otherwise. In the naïve approach, examples were comprised of an input vector that concatenated the high-level features of the task set and the task-specific features of the form $^{rank}\phi^m := [\xi_{\boldsymbol{\tau}},\gamma_{\tau_1},\gamma_{\tau_2},\ldots,\gamma_{\tau_n}]$; labels $y^m$ were given by the index of the task $\tau_i$ scheduled in observation $m$.
[.5]{}
[.5]{}
Figures \[fig:sensitivity\]-\[fig:specificity\] depict the sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity (true negative rate), respectively, of the model. We found that a pairwise model outperformed the pointwise and naïve approaches. Within the pairwise model, a decision tree yielded the best performance: The trained decision tree was able to identify the correct task and when to schedule that task $95\%$ of the time, and was able to accurately predict when no task should be scheduled $96\%$ of the time.
[.5]{} ![Figures \[fig:sensitivity\_noisy\]-\[fig:specificity\_noisy\] depict the sensitivity and specificity of a pairwise decision tree, varying the number and proportion of correct demonstrations.[]{data-label="fig:test2"}](Sensitivity_Noisy.png "fig:"){width="90.00000%"}
[.5]{} ![Figures \[fig:sensitivity\_noisy\]-\[fig:specificity\_noisy\] depict the sensitivity and specificity of a pairwise decision tree, varying the number and proportion of correct demonstrations.[]{data-label="fig:test2"}](Specificity_Noisy.png "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}
To more fully understand the performance of a decision tree trained with a pairwise model as a function of the number and quality of training examples, we trained decision trees with the pairwise model using 15, 150, and 1,500 demonstrations. The sensitivity and specificity depicted in Figures \[fig:sensitivity\_noisy\] and \[fig:specificity\_noisy\] for 15 and 150 demonstrations represent the mean sensitivity and specificity of 10 models trained via random sub-sampling without replacement.
We also varied the quality of the training examples, assuming the demonstrator was operating under an $\epsilon$-greedy approach with a $(1-\epsilon)$ probability of selecting the correct task to schedule, and selecting another task from a uniform distribution otherwise. Our goal in this evaluation was to empirically investigate the impact of noisy demonstrations (i.e., those in which the demonstrator does not always select the“best” tasks) on the quality of the learned policy. There are a number of possible models for introducing such noise, including an epsilon-greedy approach or a softmax model. An epsilon-greedy approach is expected to produce lower-quality demonstrations compared with a noisy human demonstrator, since a human would be more likely to select the second- or third-best task when making an error than to select a task at random, thus making the LfD problem more difficult. While no model will perfectly imitate an imperfect human demonstrator, we selected an epsilon-greedy approach as a reasonably conservative method of introducing more noise than might be generated by an imperfect human demonstrator.
Training a model from pairwise comparisons of between the scheduled and each unscheduled tasks produced a comparable policy to that of the synthetic expert. The decision tree model performed well due to the modal nature of the multifaceted scheduling heuristic. Note that this data set consisted of scheduling strategies with mixed discrete-continuous functional components; performance could potentially be improved upon in future work by combining decision trees with logistic regression. This hybrid learning approach has been successful in prior ML classification tasks [@Landwehr:2005] and can be readily applied to this apprenticeship scheduling framework. There is also an opportunity to improve performance through hyperparameter tuning (e.g., to select the minimum number of examples in each leaf of the decision tree). We leave comprehensive investigation of the relative benefits for a range of learning techniques for future work.
Note that the results presented in Figures \[fig:sensitivity\]-\[fig:specificity\_noisy\] were achieved without any hyperparameter tuning. For example, with the decision tree, we did not perform an inner cross-validation loop to estimate the minimum number of examples in each leaf to achieve the best performance. The purpose of this analysis was to show that, with our pairwise approach, the system can accurately learn expert heuristics from example. In the following section, we investigate how apprenticeship scheduling using a decision tree classifier can be improved upon via an inner cross-validation loop to tune the model’s hyperparameters.
### Performance of Decision Tree with Hyperparameter Tuning
We performed our initial analysis, detailed above, to identify which techniques have inherent advantages that can be realized without extensive hyperparameter tuning. Our results indicate that the pairwise formulation for apprenticeship scheduling, in conjunction with a decision tree classifier, has advantages over alternative formulations for learning a high-quality scheduling policy. Given evidence of this advantage, we further evaluated the potential of the pairwise formulation with hyperparameter tuning.
To improve the performance of the model, we manipulated the “leafiness" of the decision tree to find the best setting to increase the accuracy of the apprenticeship scheduler. Specifically, we varied the minimum number of training examples required in each leaf of the tree. As the minimum number required for each leaf decreases, the chance of over-fitting to the data increases. Conversely, as the minimum number increases, the chance of not learning a helpful policy (under-fitting) increases. To identify the best number of leaves for generalization, we tested values for the minimum number of examples required for each leaf of the decision tree in the set $\{1,5,10,25,50,100,250,500,1000\}$. If the minimum number of examples in each leaf exceeded the total number of examples, the setting was trivially set to the total number of examples available for training.
We performed $5$-fold cross-validation for each value of examples as follows: We trained an apprentice scheduler on four-fifths of the training data and tested on one-fifth of the data, and recorded the average testing accuracy across each of the five folds. Then, we used the setting of the minimum number of examples required for each leaf that yielded the best accuracy during cross-validation to train a full apprenticeship scheduling model on all of the training data ($85\%$ of the total data). Finally, we tested the full apprenticeship scheduling model on the $15\%$ of the total data reserved for testing. Thus, none of the data used to test the full model was used to estimate the best setting for the leafiness of the tree. We repeated this procedure 10 times, randomly sub-sampling the data and taking the average performance across the 10 trials.
The sensitivity and specificity of the fully trained apprenticeship scheduling algorithm are depicted in Figures \[fig:sensitivity\_noisy\_new\_homo\] and \[fig:specificity\_noisy\_new\_homo\] for 1, 5, 15, and 150 scheduling demonstrations with homogeneous agents, and in Figures \[fig:sensitivity\_noisy\_new\_hetero\] and \[fig:specificity\_noisy\_new\_hetero\] for demonstrations with heterogeneous agents. As before, we also varied the quality of the training examples, assuming the demonstrator was operating under an $\epsilon$-greedy approach with a $(1-\epsilon)$ probability of selecting the correct task to schedule and selecting another task from a uniform distribution otherwise.
[.5]{} ![Figures \[fig:sensitivity\_noisy\_new\_homo\]-\[fig:specificity\_noisy\_new\_homo\] depict the sensitivity and specificity for a pairwise decision tree tuned for leafiness, varying the number and proportion of correct demonstrations. The corresponding data set comprised schedules with homogeneous agents.[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](Sensitivity_Noisy_New_Homo.png "fig:"){width="90.00000%"}
[.5]{} ![Figures \[fig:sensitivity\_noisy\_new\_homo\]-\[fig:specificity\_noisy\_new\_homo\] depict the sensitivity and specificity for a pairwise decision tree tuned for leafiness, varying the number and proportion of correct demonstrations. The corresponding data set comprised schedules with homogeneous agents.[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](Specificity_Noisy_New_Homo.png "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}
[.475]{} ![Figures \[fig:sensitivity\_noisy\_new\_hetero\]-\[fig:specificity\_noisy\_new\_hetero\] depict the sensitivity and specificity for a pairwise decision tree tuned for leafiness, varying the number and proportion of correct demonstrations. The corresponding data set comprised schedules with heterogeneous agents.[]{data-label="fig:test4"}](Sensitivity_Noisy_New_Hetero.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.475]{} ![Figures \[fig:sensitivity\_noisy\_new\_hetero\]-\[fig:specificity\_noisy\_new\_hetero\] depict the sensitivity and specificity for a pairwise decision tree tuned for leafiness, varying the number and proportion of correct demonstrations. The corresponding data set comprised schedules with heterogeneous agents.[]{data-label="fig:test4"}](Specificity_Noisy_New_Hetero.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
For both the homogeneous and heterogeneous cases, we found that the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm was able to average $\geq 90\%$ sensitivity and specificity either with five perfect schedules or 15 schedules generated by an operator making mistakes $20\%$ of the time. Hyperparameter tuning substantially increased the sensitivity of the model from $59\%$ to $82\%$ for five scheduling examples generated by an operator making mistakes $20\%$ of the time. (Recall that a schedule consists of allocating 20 tasks to two workers and sequencing those tasks in time.)
Through our synthetic evaluation, we have shown that our apprentice scheduling algorithm is able to learn to make sequential decisions that accurately emulate the decision making process of a mock expert. The apprenticeship scheduler model shows a robust ability to learn from sparse, noisy data. In the following sections, we investigate the ability of the apprentice scheduler to learn from scheduling demonstrations produced by experts performing real-world scheduling tasks.
Real-World Data Set: ASMD {#sec:ASMD_Results}
-------------------------
We trained a decision tree with our pairwise scheduling model and tested its performance via leave-one-out cross-validation involving 16 real demonstrations in which a player successfully protected the ship from all enemy missiles. Each demonstration originated from a unique threat scenario. Features for each decoy/missile pair (or null decoy deployment due to inaction) included indicators for whether a decoy had been placed such that a missile was successfully distracted by that decoy, whether a missile would be lured into hitting the ship due to decoy placement, or whether a missile would be unaffected by decoy placement.
Across all 16 scenarios, the mean player score was $74,728$ $\pm$ $26,824$. With only 15 examples of expert human demonstrations, our apprenticeship scheduling model achieved a mean score of $87,540$, with a standard deviation of $16,842$. We hypothesized that scores produced by the learned policy would be statistically significantly better than the scores achieved by the human demonstrators. The null hypothesis stated that the number of scenarios in which the apprenticeship scheduling model achieved superior performance would be less than or equal to the number of scenarios in which the mean score of the human demonstrators was superior to that of the apprenticeship scheduler. We set the significance level at $\alpha = 0.05$, which means that the risk of identifying a difference between the mean scores earned by the apprenticeship scheduler and the set of human performers when no such difference exists is less than $5\%$.
Results from a binomial test rejected the null hypothesis, indicating that the learned scheduling policy performed better than the human demonstrators in significantly more scenarios ($12$ versus $4$ scenarios; $p < 0.011$). In other words, we can say with $95\%$ certainty that the apprenticeship scheduler outperformed the average human player for the majority of the presented missile defense scenarios. This promising result was achieved using a relatively small training set, and suggests that learned policy can form the basis for a training tool to improve the average human player’s score.
Real-World Data Set: Labor and Delivery {#real-world-data-set-labor-and-delivery}
---------------------------------------
Currently, nurse resource managers commonly operate without technological decision-making aids. As such, it is imprudent to introduce a fully autonomous solution for resource management, as doing so could have life-threatening consequences for practitioners unfamiliar with such automation. Rather, research has shown that a semi-autonomous system is preferable when integrating machines into human cognitive workflows [@kaber1997out; @wickens2010stages]. Such a system would provide recommendations that a human supervisor could then accept or modify, and would be placed within the “4-6" range on Sheridan’s 10-point scale for levels of automation [@Parasuraman:2000].
We found it prudent to test our apprenticeship scheduling technique with the algorithm offering recommendations to labor nurses who would evaluate how acceptable they found the quality of each recommendation. Specifically, we wanted to test whether the algorithm was able to learn to differentiate between high- and low-quality resource management decisions. If nurses accepted what the apprenticeship scheduler had learned to be high-quality advice while rejecting what the scheduler had learned to be low-quality advice, we could be reasonably confident that the apprentice scheduler had captured the desired resource management policy.
The first step, then, was to train a decision tree using the pairwise scheduling model based on the data set described in Section \[sec:NurseDataSet\] of resource nurses’ scheduling decisions. Recall that this data set consisted of the results of expert resource nurses playing the simulation for $2 \sfrac{1}{2}$ hours, simulating $60$ hours of elapsed time on a real labor floor, and yielding a data set of more than $3,013$ decisions.
Second, we invited 15 labor nurses, none of whom were among those involved in training the algorithm, to play the same simulation used to collect the data (Figure \[fig:LDSimulation\]). However, instead of purely soliciting decisions from the player, the simulation used the apprenticeship scheduling policy to offer recommendations about how to manage patients. Specifically, whenever a new patient arrived in the simulated waiting room, the apprenticeship scheduler would offer advice recommending 1) which of six wards to admit that patient to, 2) which bed within that ward to place that patient, and 3) which nurse should care for that patient. Nurses would then either accept the advice, automatically implementing the decision, or reject the advice and implement their own decisions.
In order to generate high-quality advice, the apprenticeship scheduler simply applied Equation \[eq:priorityFn\]. To generate low-quality advice, the apprenticeship scheduler applied Equation \[eq:policyInv\], which changes the maximization to a minimization, as follows: $$\tau_i^* = \operatorname*{arg\!min}\limits_{\tau_i \in \boldsymbol{\tau}}\sum\limits_{\tau_x \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_x)
\label{eq:policyInv}$$ However, such a minimization could create a straw-man counterpoint to the high-quality advice, demonstrating only that the apprenticeship scheduler learned at least hard constraints (e.g., “do not assign a patient to an occupied bed”) rather than a gradation over feasible actions (e.g., “assign a less-busy nurse to a new patient rather than a busier nurse”). As such, we also used the apprenticeship scheduler to generate low-quality but feasible advice by only considering $\tau_i \in \boldsymbol{\tau}$ such that $\tau_i$ was feasible, as determined through a manually-encoded schedulability test.
For each of the 15 nurse players, we conducted two trials with the simulation offering advice. In one trial, the advice was high-quality; in the other, the simulation offered low-quality advice randomly chosen to be low-quality but feasible or low-quality and infeasible. We hypothesized that nurses would accept advice during the high-quality trials and reject advice during the low-quality trials (regardless of feasibility). Each simulation trial was randomly generated, with each player experiencing different scenarios with differing advice. On average, a nurse would receive $8.5$ recommendations per trial, resulting in a total of 256 recommendations across all nurses and trials.
The nurses accepted high-quality advice 88.4% of the time (114 of 129 high-quality recommendations), while rejecting low-quality advice 88.2% of the time (112 of 127 low-quality recommendations), indicating that the apprenticeship scheduling technique is able to learn a high-quality model for resource management decision making in the context of labor and delivery. In other words, the apprenticeship scheduler was able to learn context-specific strategies for hospital resource allocation and apply them to make reasonable suggestions about which tasks to perform and when.
Anecdotally, some of the advice was not accepted for reasons that could be easily remedied: For example, upon initiation of the test, we were unaware that one room on the labor and delivery floor was unique because it uniquely contained cardiac monitoring equipment. As such, the algorithm did not know to reason about that feature and sometimes offered a recommendation that was feasible but less preferable for patients with cardiac-related comorbidities. It was not until later that we learned from the nurses about this particular feature. Such findings motivate the need for active learning for improved feature solicitation in future work. We also note that inter-operator agreement among nurse demonstrators is unlikely to be 100%. For these reasons, we believe learning a policy that can generate advice validated to be correct nearly 90% of the time is a favorable result.
Model for Collaborative Optimization via Apprenticeship Scheduling
==================================================================
Apprenticeship scheduling is designed to simply emulate human expert scheduling decisions; in this work, we also use the apprenticeship scheduler in conjunction with optimization to automatically and efficiently produce optimal solutions to challenging real-world scheduling problems. Our approach, called Collaborative Optimization via Apprenticeship Scheduling (COVAS), involves applying apprenticeship scheduling to generate a favorable (if suboptimal) initial solution to a new scheduling problem. To guarantee that the generated schedule is serviceable, we augment the apprenticeship scheduler to solve a constraint satisfaction problem, ensuring that the execution of each scheduling commitment does not directly result in infeasibility for the new problem. COVAS uses this initial solution to provide a tight bound on the value of the optimal solution, substantially improving the efficiency of a branch-and-bound search for an optimal schedule.
We show that COVAS is able to leverage good (but imperfect) human demonstrations to quickly produce globally optimal solutions. We also report that COVAS can transfer an apprenticeship scheduling policy learned for a small problem to optimally solve problems with twice as many variables as any shown during training, and produce an optimal solution an order of magnitude faster than mathematical optimization alone. Here, we provide an overview of the COVAS architecture and present its two components: the policy learning and optimization routines.
COVAS Architecture
------------------
The system (Figure \[fig:architecture\]) takes as input a set of domain expert scheduling demonstrations (e.g., Gantt charts) that contains information describing which agents complete which tasks, when and where. These demonstrations are passed to an apprenticeship scheduling algorithm that learns a classifier, [$f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$]{}, to predict whether the demonstrator(s) would have chosen scheduling action [$\tau_i$]{} over action [$\tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}$]{}. Next, COVAS uses $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ to construct a schedule for a new problem. The system creates an event-based simulation of this new problem and runs this simulation in time until all tasks have been completed. In order to complete tasks, COVAS uses $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ at each moment in time to select the best scheduling action to take. We describe this process in detail in the next section. COVAS then provides this output as an initial seed solution to an optimization subroutine (i.e., a MILP solver). The initial solution produced by the apprenticeship scheduler improves the efficiency of a search by providing a bound on the objective function value of the optimal schedule. This bound informs a branch-and-bound search over the integer variables [@Bertsimas:2005], enabling the search algorithm to prune areas of the search tree and focus its search on areas that can yield the optimal solution. After the algorithm has identified an upper- and lowerbound within some threshold, COVAS returns the solutions that have proven optimal within that threshold. Thus, an operator can use COVAS as an anytime algorithm and terminate the optimization upon finding a solution that is acceptable within a provable bound.
Apprenticeship Scheduling Subroutine
------------------------------------
In Section \[sec:apprenticeshipScheduling\], we presented our apprenticeship scheduling algorithm, which is centered around learning a classifier, $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$, to predict whether an expert would take scheduling action $\tau_i$ over $\tau_j$. With this function, we can then predict which single action $\tau_i^*$ amongst a set of actions $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ the expert would take by applying Equation \[eq:priorityFn\]. In this section, we build upon this formulation and integrate it into our collaborative-optimization via apprenticeship scheduling framework.
As a subroutine within COVAS, $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ is applied to obtain the initial solution to a new scheduling problem as follows: First, the user must instantiate a simulation of the scheduling domain; then, at each time step in the simulation, take the scheduling action predicted by Equation \[eq:priorityFn\] to be the action that the human demonstrators would take. This equation identifies the task $\tau_i$ with the highest importance marginalized over all other tasks [$\tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}$]{}. Unlike our original formulation in Section \[sec:apprenticeshipScheduling\], each selected action is validated using a schedulability test (i.e., solving a constraint satisfaction problem) to ensure that direct application of that action does not violate the constraints of the new problem. For example, in anti-ship missile defense, one would check to ensure that the given action does not result in a suicidal deployment (i.e., the decoy directly causes a missile to impact the ship). This test must be fast, so as to make the benefit to feasibility and optimality in the resulting schedule worth the additional complexity. If, at a given time step, [$\tau_i^*$]{} does not pass the schedulability test, COVAS uses Equation \[eq:priorityFn\] for all [$\tau_i \in \boldsymbol{\tau}\backslash \tau_i^*$]{} to consider the second-best action. If no action passes the schedulability test, no action is taken during that time step.
While the schedulability test forces the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm to follow a subset of the full constraints in the MILP formulation, it is possible that the algorithm may not successfully complete all tasks. Here, we model tasks as optional and use the objective function to maximize the total number of tasks completed. In turn, constraints for a task that the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm did not satisfactorily complete can be turned off, with a corresponding penalty in the objective function score. Thus, an initial seed solution that has not completed all tasks (i.e., satisfied all constraints to complete the task) can still be helpful for seeding the MILP.
Optimization Subroutine
-----------------------
For optimization, we employ mathematical programming techniques to solve mixed-integer linear programs via branch-and-bound search. COVAS incorporates the solution produced by the apprenticeship scheduler to seed a mathematical programming solver with an initial solution, which is a built-in capability provided by many off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art MILP solvers, including CPLEX[^2] and Gurobi[^3]. This seed provides a tight bound on the objective function value of the optimal solution, which serves cut the search space; these cuts allow COVAS to more quickly hone in on the optimal solution. Furthermore, this approach allows COVAS to quickly achieve a bound on the optimality of the solution provided by the apprenticeship scheduling subroutine. In such a manner, an operator can determine whether the apprenticeship scheduling solution is acceptable or whether waiting for successive solutions from COVAS is warranted.
Results and Discussion
======================
In this section, we empirically validate that COVAS is able to generate optimal solutions more efficiently than state-of-the-art optimization techniques. We also analyze the sensitivity of the computational time COVAS required to find an optimal solution as a function of the quality of the scheduling policy learned by the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm.
Validation Against Expert Benchmark
-----------------------------------
In this section, we empirically validate that COVAS is able to generate optimal solutions more efficiently than state-of-the-art optimization techniques. As a baseline benchmark, we solve a pure MILP formulation (Appendix \[sec:AppendixASMD\] Equations \[eq:objFunc\]-\[eq:trackingShipGEQ\]) using Gurobi, which applies state-of-the-art techniques for heuristic upperbounds, cutting planes and LP relaxation lowerbounds. We set the optimality threshold at $10^{-3}$. For the apprenticeship scheduling subroutine’s schedulability test, we apply Equations \[eq:suicide1\]-\[eq:suicide2\] as a constraint satisfaction check when testing the feasibility of action [$\tau_i^*$]{}, given by applying Equation \[eq:priorityFn\]. With regard to tasks within the apprenticeship scheduler’s seed solution that are not satisfactorily completed, the MILP can leave those tasks incomplete to start by initially setting [$V_{m} \leftarrow 0$]{}.
We trained COVAS’ apprenticeship scheduling algorithm on demonstrations of experts’ solutions to unique ASMD scenarios (save for one “hold-out" scenario) from the ASMD data set described in Section \[sec:ASMDDataSet\]. We then tested COVAS on the hold-out scenario. We also applied a pure MILP benchmark on this scenario and compared the performance of COVAS to the benchmark. We generated one data point for each unique demonstrated scenario (i.e., leave-one-out cross-validation) to validate the benefit of COVAS.
Figure \[fig:CombinedDeterministic\] consists of two performance indicators: The total computation time required for the MILP benchmark and COVAS to solve for the optimal solution is depicted on the left; to the right is the computation time required for the benchmark and COVAS to identify a solution better than that provided by a human expert. This figure indicates that COVAS was not only able to improve overall optimization time, but that it also substantially improved computation time for solutions superior to those produced by human experts. The average improvements in computation time with COVAS were $6.7$x the overall optimization time and $3.1$x the expert-generated solutions.
Next, we evaluated COVAS’ ability to transfer prior learning to more-challenging task sets. We trained on a level in the ASMD game in which a total of 10 missiles of varying types came from specific bearings at given times. We randomly generated a set of scenarios involving 15 and 20 missiles, with bearings and times randomly sampled with replication from the set of bearings used in the 10-missile scenario.
Figure \[fig:TransferLearning\] depicts the computation time required by COVAS and the MILP benchmark to identify the optimal solution for scenarios involving 10, 15 and 20 missiles. The average improvement to computation time with COVAS was $4.6$x, $7.9$x, and $9.5$x, respectively, demonstrating that COVAS is able to efficiently leverage the solutions of human domain experts to quickly solve problems twice as large as those the demonstrator provided for training.
Sensitivity Analysis of COVAS to Apprenticeship Scheduler’s Learned Policy {#sec:Advantage}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, we assess the sensitivity of the computational time COVAS required to find an optimal solution as a function of the quality of the scheduling policy learned by the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm.
### Sensitivity Analysis Design
We sought to understand how incorrect predictions generated by the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm’s classifier, $f_{priority}(.,.)$, would affect COVAS’ computational efficiency. We considered three classes of mistakes that the apprenticeship scheduler could make when creating an initial schedule: two types of mistakes related to agent allocation (swapping tasks among agents and the misallocation of agents to a particular task), as well as task sequencing errors. We generated a synthetic dataset involving these three error classes as follows:
- [*Allocation: Swapping*: Select two tasks with uniform probability, $\tau_i$ and $\tau_j$, such that the agent $a$ assigned to $\tau_i$ is different from the agent $a'$ assigned to $\tau_j$, and subsequently swap their assignment such that agent $a'$ now performs $\tau_i$ and vice-versa. ]{}
- [*Allocation: Stealing*: Select one task, $\tau_i$, with uniform probability, where $\tau_i$ is assigned to agent $a$, and reassign it to a different agent, $a'$.]{}
- [*Sequencing*: Select two tasks, $\tau_i$ and $\tau_j$, with uniform probability, such that $\tau_i$ precedes $\tau_j$ in the schedule, and reverse their order such that $\tau_j$ now precedes $\tau_i$.]{}
Table \[tab:expDesign\] depicts the experiment design for our sensitivity analysis. We incorporated the synthetic dataset because the scheduling problem has a well-defined objective function and set of constraints for use in the optimization component of COVAS, and also because the data set encompasses three different types of scheduling problems. The problem domain and the mock demonstrator’s heuristics for each problem were defined in Section \[sec:syntheticDataSet\]. We generated 15 problems for each problem type, misclassification type, and number of misclassifications. Five replicates were generated for each problem, with the replicates varying according to misclassification type (e.g., switching the ordering of $\tau_i$ and $\tau_j$ versus switching $\tau_p$ and $\tau_q$). In total, the analysis involved $3\times3\times3 =27$ different experimental settings and $27\times15\times5=2,025$ total data points.
------------------------ ----- --------------------- ---------------------- ---------- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----------
Resource Temporal
Contention Requirements
(Heuristic Applied) (Eq. \[eq:RCRule\]) (Eq. \[eq:EDFRule\])
Misclassification Type $\ldots$ $\ldots$
\# Misclassifications $1$ $2$ $3$ $1$ $2$ $3$ $1$ $2$ $3$ $\ldots$ $\ldots$
------------------------ ----- --------------------- ---------------------- ---------- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----------
: This table depicts the experimental design for COVAS’ sensitivity analysis.[]{data-label="tab:expDesign"}
### Statistical Model for the Analysis
We performed a mixed-effects multiple linear regression to quantify the sensitivity of COVAS with respect to the quality of the apprenticeship scheduling policy. The dependent variable was the *computational time* required by COVAS to identify the optimal solution. The independent variables were the *problem type* (vehicle routing, resource contention, and temporal requirements), the *misclassification type* (allocation-based swapping and stealing and sequencing-based errors), the *number of errors* (one, two, or three), and the *objective function value* of the schedule produced by the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm (normalized to the objective function value of the optimal solution). The aforementioned independent variables were modeled as fixed effects. We also included random effects for the individual problem and for the optimality of the apprenticeship scheduler’s solution as a function of the fixed-effects independent variables. We applied a Box-Cox transformation [@box1964analysis] to normalize the data for regression, which returned $\lambda = 0.223$ as the optimal transformation factor. We established statistical significance for the regression parameters at the $\alpha = 0.05$ level.
### Results and Discussion
Estimate Confidence Interval p-value
--------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------- -------------------
$-13.095$ $(-15.047,-11.143)$ $\mathbf{<0.001}$
$5.256$ $(3.937,6.575)$ $\mathbf{<0.001}$
$1.357$ $(0.630,2.083)$ $\mathbf{<0.001}$
Allocation vs. Sequencing Allocation $6.471$ $(4.942,7.999)$ $\mathbf{<0.001}$
Misclassification Sequencing - - -
Allocation Steal $1.018$ $(-0.448,2.484)$ $0.173$
Misclassification Type Swap - - -
Temporal Req. $3.074$ $(1.300,4.848)$ $\mathbf{<0.001}$
Resource Contention $0.271$ $(-1.893,2.435)$ $0.806$
Travel Distance - - -
: This table depicts the results of the regression analysis. Entries with dashes indicate that the associated parameter setting was the baseline. Statistically significant values are in bold.[]{data-label="tab:ANOVA"}
Table \[tab:ANOVA\] reports the statistical results of our sensitivity analysis.[^4] There are three key takeaways from these results: First, the primary driver of COVAS’ computational time was the objective function value of the schedule produced by the apprentice scheduler’s learned policy – not the number of misclassification errors made when constructing the schedule. As shown in the third and fourth rows of Table \[tab:ANOVA\], the impact of the objective function value on COVAS’ computational efficiency was $5.256/1.357\approx 4$ times more than for the individual classification errors made by $f_{priority}(.,.)$.
Second, there was a statistically significant effect for allocation- versus sequencing-based perturbations. The regression analysis shows that COVAS’s improvement in computation time lessens when considering allocation-based perturbations ($p < 0.001)$. However, there was no statistically significant effect present between allocation-based swapping and stealing errors ($p = 0.173$).
Third, we observed a sensitivity to the problem type / heuristic applied, with the problem type emphasizing temporal requirements (for which the heuristic in Equation \[eq:EDFRule\] is applied) representing the most challenging problem. There was not a significant difference between the resource contention and VRP-style problem types ($p = 0.806$).
Finally, note that COVAS showed an improvement in computation time relative to a commercial, state-of-the-art solver regardless of problem and misclassification type and number. We performed separate regression analyses for each problem type and as a function of whether the classification errors by the apprenticeship scheduler were allocation- or sequencing-based. Table \[tab:Individual\] depicts the objective function value of the apprenticeship scheduler’s schedule for which COVAS no longer demonstrates an advantage in computation time (relative to a state-of-the-art solver) when marginalizing over the number of errors. For example, if COVAS is scheduling a problem for which travel distance is key (and the apprentice scheduler was trained on a mock demonstrator applying Equation \[eq:VRPRule\]) and the apprentice scheduler makes a number of (1, 2, or 3) allocation-based swapping-type classification errors while constructing the schedule, COVAS is faster than a state-of-the-art benchmark, so long as the objective function value of the schedule produced by the apprentice scheduler is no worse than 1.88 times that of the optimal solution. The results show that COVAS demonstrates an advantage for all problem and misclassification types.
---------------------------------- ---------- ------------ --------------
Travel Resource Temporal
Distance Contention Requirements
Allocation-Based Swapping Errors 1.68 1.38 1.13
Allocation-Based Stealing Errors 1.88 1.43 1.14
Sequencing-Based Errors 1.34 1.27 1.12
---------------------------------- ---------- ------------ --------------
: This table depicts the maximum objective function value of the apprenticeship scheduler’s initial solution (normalized to that of the optimal solution) to provide COVAS’ optimization subroutine with an improvementin computation time.[]{data-label="tab:Individual"}
### Conclusion
The results from our sensitivity analysis support the hypothesis that COVAS is robust to misclassification errors by the apprenticeship scheduler’s learned policy. The data indicate that the apprenticeship scheduler’s solution quality is the dominating factor, rather than the number of individual mistakes made when generating that solution. While further investigation of other scheduling problems is warranted, the variants within this data set inform our understanding of the sensitivity of COVAS to imperfections in the learned policy across a range of problem types.
These results also provide insight into ways that we can potentially improve COVAS’ apprenticeship scheduling subroutine. For example, COVAS is more sensitive to the objective function value of the schedule produced by the apprenticeship scheduler’s policy, while being somewhat robust to the number of errors made by the apprenticeship scheduler when constructing the schedule. As such, imitation learning [@ross2011reduction; @cheng2018convergence] approaches, which attempt to bootstrap off of an initial, learned policy, may be able to improve the quality of the solutions produced by the apprenticeship scheduler. Further, a Bayesian IRL approach [@Michini:2012; @Ramachandran:2007], which seeks to infer a policy mimicking an “ideal demonstrator,” may also be able to leverage demonstrations to better guide COVAS’ optimization subroutine. In future work, we will seek to determine how to combine such approaches with our pairwise training procedure for COVAS’ apprenticeship scheduling subroutine.
Limitations and Future Work
===========================
The core of the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm is learning a classifier, $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$, to predict whether a human expert would take action $\tau_i$ over $\tau_j$. The output of $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ is a probability in $[0,1]$. This pairwise approach has a number of key advantages: For example, it is nonparametric with regard to the number of tasks, meaning one can learn from problems involving $n$ actions and apply that knowledge to problems with $n' \neq n$ actions. However, there are two interesting anomalies inherent in this approach: First, one could hypothetically evaluate $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ and find that it predicts that the expert has a higher probability of taking action $\tau_i$ than $\tau_j$; however, evaluating $\operatorname*{arg\!max}\limits_{\tau_i \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} \sum\limits_{\tau_j \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$ could predict that $\tau_j$ is the action most likely to be taken by the expert. The second anomaly entails the lack of a guarantee that the transitive property will hold for arbitrary $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j)$. For example, it could be that $f_{priority}(\tau_i,\tau_j) > 0.5$, $f_{priority}(\tau_j,\tau_k) > 0.5$, but also $f_{priority}(\tau_k,\tau_i) > 0.5$ for some $\tau_i$, $\tau_j$, and $\tau_k$. Through our evaluation, we have shown that the formulation for apprenticeship scheduling can learn high-quality policies from human domain experts’ demonstrations. However, an interesting aim for future work would be to study these anomalies, quantify their effects – if any – and develop a formulation to alter these effects. Appendix \[sec:AppendixTriangle\] provides an example formulation for how to mitigate such anomalies.
COVAS also has some interesting aspects that merit future investigation. COVAS is able to leverage expert scheduling demonstrations to speed up the computation of provable, globally optimal scheduling solutions. However, the approach is still limited by the quality of the demonstrations provided by experts, as well as the ability of the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm to generalize the information within those demonstrations. The MILP’s computation time is expedited by tight upperbounds (i.e., an initial seed) provided by the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm. If the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm is unable to provide a tight upperbound, the MILP’s computation time may not be significantly improved. In future work, we will explore potential extensions to the apprenticeship scheduling algorithm to improve its ability to learn from noisy demonstrations. One approach could be to incorporate a trustworthiness metric à la directly into the training of the classifier to uncover a latent action ranking. For example, instead of binary labels, we could reformulate the problem to be one of regression, where positive and negative labels are proportional and inversely proportional, respectively, to the fidelity of the demonstrator.
Finally, apprenticeship scheduling with heterogeneous demonstrators is an important area for future work. In this paper, we demonstrated the ability to learn from 1) homogeneous demonstrators with varying quality and quantity of training data in a synthetic domain and 2) heterogeneous demonstrators in multiple real-world domains (i.e., healthcare and ship defense). Future lines of research include learning clusters of operator archetypes through unsupervised or semi-supervised learning so that the apprenticeship scheduler can better account for individual differences between operators. If each demonstrator applies different strategies, it will be more difficult to generalize across operators [@Sammut:1992]. However, if there are a small number of demonstrator types relative to the number of demonstrators, it may be possible to leverage commonality within or across types to bootstrap the learning process.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we proposed a technique for apprenticeship scheduling that relies upon a pairwise comparison of scheduled and unscheduled tasks to learn a model for task prioritization. We validated that our apprenticeship scheduling algorithm is able to learn high-quality scheduling policies from demonstration across both synthetic data and real-world data sets. Specifically, apprenticeship scheduling can learn from nurse resource managers to make scheduling decisions that are accepted by resource nurses $90\%$ of the time, and can learn from military experts to solve a variant of the weapon-to-target assignment problems with better performance than the average human expert. Next, we embedded this apprenticeship scheduling algorithm within a ML-optimization framework. This algorithm, COVAS, leverages the ability of apprenticeship scheduling to capture the knowledge of human domain experts in order to produce optimal solutions for complex real-world scheduling problems. We validated our technique using a data set collected from human experts solving an anti-ship missile defense problem, and showed that our approach can substantially improve upon solutions produced by experts, at a rate up to $9.5$ times faster than an optimization approach that does not incorporate human expert demonstration.
0.2in
ASMD: Mathematical Program Formulation {#sec:AppendixASMD}
======================================
We readily formulate the ASMD as a mixed-integer linear program in Equations \[eq:objFunc\]-\[eq:trackingShipGEQ\]. This formulation incorporates a set of binary decision variables: [$A_{d,m,t}\in\{0,1\}$]{} is set to 1 to indicate that decoy $d$ is assigned to missile $m$ at time $t$, and is 0 otherwise. [$A_{d,t}\in\{0,1\}$]{} is set to 1 to indicate that decoy $d$ is assigned to some missile at time $t$, and is 0 otherwise. [$U_{d,m} \in \{0,1\}$]{} is set to 1 to indicate that decoy $d$ is used against missile $m$, and is 0 otherwise. [$U_d \in \{0,1\}$]{} is set to 1 to indicate that decoy $d$ is used in the solution, and is 0 otherwise. [$X_{d,l}\in \{0,1\}$]{} is set to 1 to indicate that decoy $d$ is deployed at location $l$, and is 0 otherwise. [$V_m\in\{0,1\}$]{} is set to 1 to indicate that missile $m$ has been effectively diverted, and is 0 otherwise. [$G_{g,m,t}\in\{0,1\}$]{} is set to 1 to indicate that missile $m$ is tracking the ship at time $t$. A single missile might have multiple, separate epochs during which it tracks the ship (e.g., it first tracks the ship, then a decoy, then the ship again after the decoy disappears); thus, the program can choose which index $g$ to represent the various epochs in [$G_{g,m,t}$]{}. [$J_{d,m}\in\{0,1\}$]{} is set to 1 to indicate that decoy $d$ is deployed after missile $m$’s flight (i.e., after it either hits the ship or is guided astray by a decoy).
The program contains the following continuous variables: [$S^{decoy}_{d,m}$]{} represents the start time of the assignment of decoy $d$ to missile $m$, and [$S^{decoy}_{d}$]{} is the time at which decoy $d$ is deployed from the ship. Likewise, [$F^{decoy}_{d,m}$]{} represents the finish time of the assignment of decoy $d$ to missile $m$, and [$F^{decoy}_{d}$]{} is either the time at which the decoy disappears or the end of the engagement. [$S^{ship}_{g,m}$]{} indicates the start time of missile $m$ tracking the ship during epoch $g$, and [$F^{ship}_{g,m}$]{} indicates the finish time of missile $m$ tracking the ship during epoch $g$. We include the constant, $M$, which is a large, positive number allowing one to formulate linear, conditional constraints.
The program also includes the following set of constants: [$dt^{re-target}_m$]{} is the length of time for which a missile will track a single target (i.e., a decoy or ship) before reassessing which target is best to track. Thus, if the missile begins tracking the ship at time $t$, no decoy can break its lock during the interval [$[t,t+dt^{re-target}_m)$]{}. [$ETA_m$]{} is the time at which missile $m$ will reach the ship’s immediate vicinity. [$t^{appear}_m$]{} is the time at which missile $m$ first becomes close enough to track the ship. [$c_d$]{} represents the financial cost of deploying decoy $d$. $\alpha,\alpha',$ and $\alpha''$ are predefined weighting terms for the objective function. The computational complexity of completely searching for the optimal solution via this formulation is dominated by the integer variables, which yields [$O(2^{dmt + dm + dt + dl + d + gmt + m})$]{}.
Equation \[eq:objFunc\] is a multi-criteria objective function that minimizes a weighted linear combination of the cost of all decoy deployments, less the total time during which missiles are tracking decoys and the number of missiles successfully guided away from the ship. Equations \[eq:AdmtAdt\]-\[eq:FSAdmtUdm\] ensure internal consistency between the variables. Equation \[eq:EvapTime\] ensures that a decoy, if deployed, is active for $dt_{d}^{evap}$ units of time given its timing characteristics. Equation \[eq:Xdl\] ensures that a decoy is deployed to no more than one location. Equation \[eq:GoodPos\] ensures that, if a decoy is deployed against a missile, its deployment location will be a more attractive target than the ship for that missile. Equation \[eq:AdmtGgmt\] requires that each missile track either a ship or decoy while within range. Equations \[eq:suicide1\]-\[eq:suicide2\] force a decoy, if deployed to a location that would cause missile $m$ to impact the ship, to either be deployed after the missile has already been diverted or reached the ship (Equation \[eq:suicide1\]) or to be deployed and disappear before the missile enters targeting range (Equation \[eq:suicide2\]).
Equation \[eq:Vm\] ensures that a missile must be tracking a decoy in the final seconds before it reaches the vicinity of the ship, or else the missile will impact the ship. The duration of this critical period is dependent upon missile dynamics and the target selection process. Equation \[eq:BetterLocation\] ensures that a missile will select the most attractive decoy according to that missile’s selection logic. Equation \[eq:Sweeping\] restricts decoy deployments such that the missile heading does not “sweep" across the ship in the final seconds of the missile’s flight. If a missile does not have enough time to change its direction toward a newly deployed decoy, that missile will fly into the ship.
Equations \[eq:SGgmt\]-\[eq:trackingShipGEQ\] ensure that the duration of epoch $g$ of missile $m$ while tracking the ship lasts exactly as long as the retargeting time for the missile. Equations \[eq:SGgmt\]-\[eq:GgmtF\] are akin to Equations \[eq:SdmAdmt\]-\[eq:FdmAdmt\] and relate the start and finish times of ship-tracking epoch $g$ to the decision variable [$G_{g,m,t}$]{}. Equation \[eq:FSGgmt\] is akin to Equation \[eq:FSAdmtUdm\] and relates the start and finish times of ship-tracking epoch $g$ to the decision variable [$G_{g,m,t}$]{}. Equation \[eq:trackingShipGEQ\] ensures that the tracking time is [$dt_{m}^{re-target}$]{} if the missile is airborne for at least [$dt_{m}^{re-target}$]{} seconds. Otherwise, the tracking time is equal to the time before impacting the ship (i.e., [$ETA^m-t-1$]{}). Finally, a term (i.e., [$-MG_{g,m,t-1}$]{}) disables the constraint for all $t$ except for the exact moment when $t$ begins tracking the ship. $$\begin{aligned}
\min z \text{, } z&= \alpha\sum_{d}c_dU_d-\alpha'\sum_{d,m,t} A_{d,m,t}-\alpha''\sum_{m}V_m \label{eq:objFunc} \\
A_{d,m,t} &\leq A_{d,t}, \forall d,m,t \label{eq:AdmtAdt}\\
A_{d,m,t} &\leq U_{d,m},\forall d,m,t \label{eq:AdmtUdm}\\
X_{d,l} &\leq U_d , \forall d,l \label{eq:XdlUd}\\
S^{decoy}_{d} &\leq S^{decoy}_{d,m} , \forall d,m \label{eq:SS}\\
S^{decoy}_{d,m} &\leq t + M(1-A_{d,m,t}), \forall d,m,t \label{eq:SdmAdmt}\\
F^{decoy}_{d,m} &\leq F^{decoy}_{d} , \forall d,m \label{eq:FF}\\
tA_{d,m,t} &\leq F^{decoy}_{d,m}, \forall d,m,t \label{eq:FdmAdmt}\\
M(U_{d,m}-1) & \leq S^{decoy}_{d,m}-F^{decoy}_{d,m}-1 + \sum_t A_{d,m,t} \leq M(1-U_{d,m}) \label{eq:FSAdmtUdm}\\
M(U_d-1) &\leq F^{decoy}_{d} - S^{decoy}_{d} - dt^{evap}_d \leq M(1-U_d) \label{eq:EvapTime}\\
\sum_l X_{d,l} &\leq 1 , \forall d \label{eq:Xdl}\\
U_{d,m} &\leq \sum_{ l | m \text{ seduced by decoy } d \text{ in location } l} X_{d,l} ,\forall d,m \label{eq:GoodPos}\\
1 &= \sum_d A_{d,m,t} + \sum_g G_{g,m,t}, \forall m,t \label{eq:AdmtGgmt}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
t_m^{appear}-F^{decoy}_d \geq M(X_{d,l}+V_m-J_{d,m}-2), \nonumber\\ \forall d,l,m \text{ s.t. decoy d in location l would cause missile $m$ to impact the ship.}
\label{eq:suicide1}\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
S^{decoy}_d - ETA_m \geq M(X_{d,l}+V_m+J_{d,m}-3), \forall d,l,m \text{ s.t. decoy d} \nonumber\\ \text{in location l would cause missile $m$ to impact the ship.}
\label{eq:suicide2}\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
V_m \leq \sum_d A_{d,m,t}, \forall m,t | t \text{ in critical region for missile } m \text{.}
\label{eq:Vm}\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
2 \geq A_{d,m,t} + X_{d,l} + X_{d',l'} , \forall d,d',l,l',m,t \text{ s.t. missile m is more} \nonumber \\ \text{attracted to decoy d' at location l' than decoy d at location l at time t.} \label{eq:BetterLocation}\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
1 \geq A_{d,m,t} + A_{d',m,t},\forall d,d',m,t \text{ s.t. } d\neq d' \nonumber\\
\text{ and t is in a critical region before impact.} \label{eq:Sweeping}\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S^{ship}_{g,m} &\leq t + M(1-G_{g,m,t}), \forall g,m,t \label{eq:SGgmt}\\
t*G_{g,m,t} &\leq F^{ship}_{g,m}, \forall g,m,t \label{eq:GgmtF} \\
M(U_{g,m}-1) & \leq S^{ship}_{g,m}-F^{ship}_{g,m}-1 + \sum_t G_{g,m,t} \leq M(1-U_{g,m}) \label{eq:FSGgmt} \\
F^{ship}_{g,m} - S^{ship}_{g,m} &\geq M(G_{g,m,t}-1) \nonumber \\
&+\begin{cases}
dt^{re-target}_m-1 &\text{if } t < ETA_m- dt^{re-target}_m,\\
ETA_m-t-1 &\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases} \nonumber \\
&+\begin{cases}
-MG_{g,m,t-1} &\text{if } t > t^{appear}_m,\\
0 &\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\nonumber \\
&\forall g,m,t | t^{appear}_m \leq t < ETA_m
\label{eq:trackingShipGEQ}\end{aligned}$$
As ASMD is a time-extended problem, the formulation must discretize time. However, note that the granularity with which the task of protecting the ship is decomposed as a function of time is a modeling choice with ramifications for the quality and computation time of a solution. Consider a missile that will hit the ship if it tracks the ship in some time interval $[t,t')$ for a duration $dt = t-t'$. The captain might, at time $t$, deploy a decoy $d$, such as a hovering UAV, that is able to last the entire duration $dt$. However, it may be preferable to deploy one or more decoys, $d'$, each of which remains active for a portion of the specified time interval. Furthermore, in a situation wherein another missile, $m'$, is launched before $m$, it may be best to have a decoy deployed before $t$ that can divert both $m$ and $m'$ during part or all of those missiles’ flights.
As we do not know a priori the best time to deploy a decoy that can be used for varying portions (i.e., subtasks) of the task of mitigating each missile, we must decompose the task into sufficiently small time steps. Discretizing time exponentially increases the search space, and thus the time to compute the solution; therefore, there is a balance between optimality (and feasibility) and computation time. In order to generate an exact solution, we chose the least-common multiple of the time constants, which is trivially $1$, as the unit of time in the simulation.
Mitigating Anomalies {#sec:AppendixTriangle}
====================
To mitigate anomalies inherent in a pairwise comparison approach, one could consider the following formulation in Equations \[eq:opTree1\] through \[eq:opTree6\] when learning a decision tree model, $T^*$, for apprenticeship scheduling:
$$T^* = \operatorname*{arg\!min}\limits_{T} \mathbb{E}_{\theta,y}[L(y^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}},T(^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}}))]
\label{eq:opTree1}$$
subject to $$\begin{aligned}
T(^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}}) & > 0.5 + M(1-Z_{i,j}), \forall \tau_i,\tau_j \label{eq:opTree2}\\
T(^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}}) & < 0.5 + M(Z_{i,j}), \forall \tau_i,\tau_j \label{eq:opTree3}\\
\sum\limits_{\tau_k \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} T(^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_k \right \rangle }}})
- \sum\limits_{\tau_k \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} T(^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_j,\tau_k \right \rangle }}}) &> M(1-Z_{i,j}), \forall \tau_i,\tau_j \label{eq:opTree4} \\
\sum\limits_{\tau_k \in \boldsymbol{\tau}} T(^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_k \right \rangle }}})
- \sum\limits_{\tau_k \in \boldsymbol{\tau}}T(^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_j,\tau_k \right \rangle }}}) &< M(Z_{i,j}), \forall \tau_i,\tau_j \label{eq:opTree5} \\
Z_{i,j} + Z_{j,k} - 1 &\geq Z_{i,k}, \forall \tau_i,\tau_j,\tau_k \label{eq:opTree6}\end{aligned}$$ Equation \[eq:opTree1\] states that we want to find the decision tree, $T^*$, among all possible trees, $T$, that minimizes an expected loss function, $L$. Recall from Section \[sec:TechnicalApproach\] that $y^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}}$ is the binary label given to an observation to indicate whether the human demonstrator took action $\tau_i$ or $\tau_j$. Further, $^{rank}\theta^m_{{\ensuremath{\left \langle \tau_i,\tau_j \right \rangle }}}$ is the corresponding feature vector from that observation. Equations \[eq:opTree2\] through \[eq:opTree5\] force the pairwise comparisons to agree with the cumulative ranking. $Z_{i,j}$ is a binary decision variable that is equal to 1 when $\tau_i$ is expected to be chosen over $\tau_j$ and 0 when $\tau_j$ is expected to be chosen over $\tau_i$. Recall that $M$ is a large positive number that allows one to formulate linear, conditional constraints. Finally, Equation \[eq:opTree6\] requires that the transitive property holds for $T$. Specifically, if $\tau_i$ is predicted to be more likely than $\tau_j$ (i.e, $Z_{i,j} = 1$), and $\tau_j$ (i.e, $Z_{j,k} = 1$) is more likely than $\tau_k$, then $\tau_i$ should also be predicted to be more likely than $\tau_k$ (i.e, $Z_{i,k }= 1$).
[^1]: SGD was developed by Pipeworks Studio in Eugene, Oregon, USA.
[^2]: IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio [http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ibmilogcpleoptistud]{}
[^3]: Gurobi Optimization, Inc. [http://www.gurobi.com]{}
[^4]: The Akaike information criterion [@akaike1974new] and Bayesian information criterion [@schwarz1978estimating] are 2,968.1 and 3,016, respectively. The log likelihood of the model is -1,474.1, and the deviance is 2,948.1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article, we study the fluctuation of linear eigenvalue statistics of symmetric circulant matrices $(SC_n)$ with independent entries which satisfy some moment conditions. We show that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \Tr \phi(SC_n)$ obey the central limit theorem (CLT) type result, where $\phi$ is a nice test function.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay\
Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076, India
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay\
Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076, India
author:
- Shambhu Nath Maurya
- Koushik Saha
date:
-
-
title: Fluctuation of eigenvalues of symmetric circulant matrices with independent entries
---
[**Keywords :**]{} Symmetric circulant matrix, linear statistics of eigenvalues, weak convergence, central limit theorem, Trace formula, Wick’s formula.
introduction and main results
==============================
Let $A_n$ be an $n\times n$ matrix with real or complex entries. The linear statistics of eigenvalues $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_n$ of $A_n$ is a function of the form $$\label{eqn:1}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}f(\lambda_k)$$ where $f$ is some fixed function. The function $f$ is known as the test function. One of the interesting object to study in random matrix theory is the fluctuation of linear statistics of eigenvalues of random matrices. The study of fluctuation of linear statistics of eigenvalues was initiated by Arharov [@arharov] in 1971 for sample covariance matrices. In 1975 Girko [@girko] studied the central limit theorem (CLT) of the traces of the Wigner and sample covariance matrices using martingale techniques. In 1982, Jonsson [@jonsson] proved the CLT of linear eigenvalue statistics for Wishart matrices using method of moments. After that the fluctuations of eigenvalues for various random matrices have been extensively studied by various people. For new results on fluctuations of linear eigenvalue statistics of Wigner and sample covariance matrices, see [@johansson1998], [@soshnikov1998tracecentral], [@bai2004clt], [@lytova2009central], [@shcherbina2011central]. For band and sparse random matrices, see [@anderson2006clt], [@jana2014], [@li2013central], [@shcherbina2015] and for Toeplitz and band Toeplitz matrices, see [@chatterjee2009fluctuations] and [@liu2012].
In a recent article [@adhikari_saha2017], the CLT for linear eigenvalue statistics has been established in total variation norm for circulant, symmetric circulant and reverse circulant matrices with Gaussian entries. In a subsequent article [@adhikari_saha2018], the authors extended their results for independent entries which are smooth functions of Gaussian variables. Here we consider the fluctuation problem for symmetric circulant matrices with general entries which are independent and satisfy some moment condition.
A sequence is said to be an [*input sequence*]{} if the matrices are constructed from the given sequence. We consider the input sequence of the form $\{x_i: i\geq 0\}$ and the symmetric circulant matrix is defined as $$SC_n=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
x_0 & x_1 & x_2 & \cdots & x_{2} & x_1 \\
x_1 & x_0 & x_1 & \cdots & x_{3} & x_{2}\\
x_{2} & x_1 & x_0 & \cdots & x_{4} & x_{3}\\
\vdots & \vdots & {\vdots} & \ddots & {\vdots} & \vdots \\
x_1 & x_2 & x_3 & \cdots & x_1 & x_0
\end{array}\right).$$ For $j=1,2,\ldots, n-1$, its $(j+1)$-th row is obtained by giving its $j$-th row a right circular shift by one positions and the (i,j)-th element of the matrix is $x_{\frac{n}{2}-|\frac{n}{2}-|i-j||}$. Also note that the symmetric circulant matrix is a Toeplitz matrix with the restriction that $x_{n-j}=x_j$.
Now we consider linear eigenvalue statistics as defined in for $SC_n$ with test function $f(x)=x^{p}$, $p\geq 2$. Therefore $$\sum_{k=1}^{n}f(\lambda_k)= \sum_{k=1}^{n}(\lambda_k)^{p}= \Tr(SC_n)^{p},$$ where $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_n$ are the eigenvalues of $SC_n$. We scale and centre $\Tr(SC_n)^{p}$ to study its fluctuation, and define $$\label{eqn:SCw_p}
w_p := \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \bigl\{ \Tr(SC_n)^{p} - \E[\Tr(SC_n)^{p}]\bigr\}.$$ For a given real polynomial $$Q(x)=\sum_{k=1}^da_kx^{k}$$ with degree $d$ where $d\geq 2$, we define $$\label{eqn:RCw_Q}
w_Q := \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \bigl\{ \Tr(Q(SC_n)) - \E[\Tr(Q(SC_n))]\bigr\}.$$
Note that $w_Q$ and $w_p$ depends on $n$. But we suppress $n$ to keep the notation simple. In our first result, we calculate the covariance between $w_p$ and $w_q$ as $n \tends \infty$.
\[thm:symcircovar\] Suppose $SC_n$ is the symmetric circulant matrix with independent input sequence $\{\frac{X_i}{\sqrt n}\}_{i\geq 0}$ such that $$\label{eqn:condition}
\E(X_i)=0, \E(X_i^2)=1, \E(X_i^4)=\E(X_1^4)\ \mbox{and}\ \sup_{i\geq 1}\E(|X_i|^k)=\alpha_k<\infty \ \mbox{for}\ k\geq 3.$$ Then for $p,q \geq2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:sigma_p,q}
\sigma_{p,q}&:=\lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \nonumber \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{a_1}{2^{\frac{p+q-4}{2}} } (\E X^4_1- 1) + \sum_{r=2}^{ \min\{ \frac{p}{2},\frac{q}{2} \} } \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! \ h_{2r}(s) & \text{if}\ p, q \mbox{ both are even,}\\\\
\displaystyle\sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \frac{b_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r-2}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r+1}\binom{2r+1}{s}^2 s!(2r+1-s)! \ h_{2r+1}(s) \\
\displaystyle+ pq \binom{p-1}{(p-1)/2}\binom{q-1}{(q-1)/2} \l((p-1)/2\r)! \l((q-1)/2\r)!\frac{1}{2^{(\frac{p+q}{2}-1)}} & \text{if}\ p, q \mbox{ both are odd,}\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}\right.
%\\
%&= \sigma_{p,q},\ \mbox{ say},\end{aligned}$$ where $a_r$ and $b_r$ are appropriate constants, will be given in proof, and $h_d(s)$ is given as $$h_d(s)=
\frac{1}{(d-1)!}\sum_{i=-\lceil\frac{d-s}{2}\rceil}^{\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\rfloor}\sum_{j=0}^{2i+d-s}(-1)^q\binom{d}{j}\l(\frac{2i+d-s-j}{2}\r)^{d-1}.$$
If $p=q$ then we denote $\sigma_{p,q}$ by $\sigma^{2}_{p}$. In our second result, we see the fluctuation of linear eigenvalue statistics of symmetric circulant matrices with polynomial test functions.
\[thm:symcirpoly\] Suppose input entry of $SC_n$ is independent sequence $\{\frac{X_i}{\sqrt n}\}_{i\geq 1}$ which satisfy \[eqn:condition\]. Then, as $n\to \infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
w_Q \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} N(0,\sigma_{Q}^2).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, for $Q(x)= x^{p}$ $$\begin{aligned}
w_p \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} N(0,\sigma_{p}^2),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\sigma_{Q}^2= \sum_{\ell=1}^d \sum_{k=1}^d a_{\ell} a_k \sigma_{\ell,k}, \ \ \sigma^2_{p}= \sigma_{p,p}$$ and $\sigma_{p,q}$ is as given in (\[eqn:sigma\_p,q\]).
In the above theorems we have considered the fluctuation of $w_p$ for $p\geq2$. For $p=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
w_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \bigl\{ \Tr(I) - \E[\Tr(I)]\bigr\} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}[n-n] = 0\end{aligned}$$ and hence it has no fluctuation. For $p=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
w_1 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \bigl\{ \Tr(SC_n) - \E[\Tr(SC_n)]\bigr\} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \big[n \frac{X_0}{\sqrt n} - \E(n\frac{X_0}{\sqrt n})\big] = X_0,\end{aligned}$$ as $\E(X_0)=0$. So $w_1$ is distributed as $X_0$ and its distribution does not depend on $n$. So we ignore these two cases, for $p=0$ and $p=1$.
In Section \[sec:cov\] we prove Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\]. We derived trace formula and state some results which will be used to prove Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\]. In Section \[sec:poly\] we prove Theorem \[thm:symcirpoly\]. We use method of moments and Wick’s formula to prove Theorem \[thm:symcirpoly\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\] {#sec:cov}
====================================
We first define some notation which will be used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:symcirpoly\]. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:A_p_SC}
A_{p}&=\{(j_1,\ldots,j_{p})\suchthat \sum_{i=1}^{p}\epsilon_i j_i=0\; \mbox{(mod n)}, \epsilon_i\in\{+1,-1\}, 1\le j_1,\ldots,j_{p}\le \frac{n}{2}\}, \\
\tilde{A}_{k}&=\{(j_1,\ldots,j_{k})\suchthat \sum_{i=1}^{k}\epsilon_i j_i=0\; \mbox{(mod } \frac{n}{2}) \mbox{ and } \sum_{i=1}^{k}\epsilon_i j_i \neq 0\; \mbox{(mod }n), \epsilon_i\in\{+1,-1\}, 1\le j_1,\ldots,j_{k}\le \frac{n}{2}\}, \nonumber
\\A_p^{(k)}&=\{(j_1,\ldots,j_p)\in A_p\suchthat j_1+\cdots+j_k - j_{k+1}-\cdots -j_p=0 \;\mbox{ (mod $n$)}\}, \nonumber
\\A_p'^{(k)}&=\{(j_1,\ldots,j_p)\in A_p\suchthat j_1+\cdots+j_k - j_{k+1}-\cdots -j_p=0 \;\mbox{ (mod $n$)}, j_1\neq \cdots \neq j_k \}, \nonumber
\\A_{p,s}^{(k)}&=\{(j_1,\ldots,j_p)\in A_p\suchthat j_1+\cdots+j_k - j_{k+1}-\cdots -j_p=sn\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In set $A_p$ and $\tilde{A}_p$, we collect $(j_1,\ldots,j_{p})$ according to their multiplicity.
Now we derive a convenient formula of trace for symmetric circulant matrices. First suppose $n$ is odd positive integers. We write $ n/2$ instead of $\lfloor n/2\rfloor $, as asymptotic is same as $n\to\infty$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\Tr(SC_n^p)&=\sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1}\lambda_\ell^p
=\sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1}\left(X_0+2\sum_{j=1}^{n/2}X_j\cos(\omega_\ell j)\right)^p
\\&=\sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k}X_0^{p-k}\sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n/2}X_j(e^{i\omega_\ell j}+e^{-i\omega_\ell j})\right)^{k},\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_\ell=\frac{2\pi \ell}{n}$. Since $\sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1}e^{i\omega_\ell j}=0$ for $j\in \mathbb Z\backslash \{0\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trace formula_SC_odd}
\Tr(SC_n^p)=n\sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{\ell}X_0^{p-k}\sum_{A_{k}} X_{j_1}X_{j_2}\ldots X_{j_{k}},\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{k}$ for $k=1,\ldots,p$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
A_{k}:=\l\{(j_1,\ldots,j_{k})\suchthat \sum_{i=1}^{k}\epsilon_i j_i=0\; \mbox{(mod n)}, \epsilon_i\in\{+1,-1\}, 1\le j_1,\ldots,j_{k}\le \frac{n}{2}\r\}\end{aligned}$$ and $A_0$ is an empty set with the understanding that the contribution from the sum corresponding to $A_0$ is 1. Note, in $A_{k}$, $(j_1,\ldots,j_{k})$ are collected according to their multiplicity.
Now suppose $n$ is even positive integers. We write $ n/2$ instead of $ n/2-1$, as asymptotic is same as $n\to\infty$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\Tr(SC_n^p)=\sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1}\lambda_\ell^p
&=\sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1} \Big\{X_0 + (-1)^\ell X_{\frac{n}{2}}+2\sum_{j=1}^{n/2}X_j\cos(\omega_\ell j) \Big\}^p\\
&=\sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1} \sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k} {(X_0 + (-1)^\ell X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} \Big\{ \sum_{j=1}^{n/2}X_j(e^{i\omega_\ell j}+e^{-i\omega_\ell j}) \Big\}^{k} \\
&=\sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k} \Big\{ {(X_0 + X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} \sum_{\ell=0, even}^{n-1} \Big[ \sum_{j=1}^{n/2}X_j (e^{i\omega_\ell j}+e^{-i\omega_\ell j}) \Big] ^{k} \\
& + {(X_0 - X_{\frac{n}{2}} )}^{p-k} \sum_{\ell=0, odd}^{n-1}
\Big[ \sum_{j=1}^{n/2}X_j (e^{i\omega_\ell j}+e^{-i\omega_\ell j}) \Big] ^{k} \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_\ell=\frac{2\pi \ell}{n}$. Since we know $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\ell=0, even}^{n-1} e^{i\omega_\ell j}
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{n}{2} & \text{if}& j =0\; \mbox{(mod } \frac{n}{2}) \\\\
0 & \text{if}& j \neq0\; \mbox{(mod } \frac{n}{2}),
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\ell=0, odd}^{n-1} e^{i\omega_\ell j}
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{n}{2} & \text{if}& j =0\; \mbox{(mod } \frac{n}{2}) \mbox{ and } j = 0\; \mbox{(mod n)} \\\\
-\frac{n}{2} & \text{if}& j =0\; \mbox{(mod } \frac{n}{2}) \mbox{ and } j \neq0\; \mbox{(mod n)} \\\\
0 & \text{if}& j \neq0\; \mbox{(mod } \frac{n}{2}) ,
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore from the above last two observations, $\Tr(SC_n^p)$ will be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trace formula_SC_even}
\Tr(SC_n^p) &=\frac{n}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k} \Big[ \Big\{ {(X_0 + X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} + {(X_0 - X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} \Big\} \sum_{A_k} X_{j_1}X_{j_2}\ldots X_{j_{k}} \nonumber\\
& \qquad + \Big\{ {(X_0 + X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} - {(X_0 - X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} \Big\} \sum_{ \tilde{A}_k} X_{j_1}X_{j_2}\ldots X_{j_{k}} \Big] \nonumber \\
%& = \frac{n}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k} \Big[ Y_k \sum_{A_k} X_{j_1}X_{j_2}\ldots X_{j_{k}} + \tilde{Y}_k \sum_{ \tilde{A}_k} X_{j_1}X_{j_2}\ldots X_{j_{k}} \Big]
& = \frac{n}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k} \Big[ Y_k \sum_{A_k} X_{J_{k}} + \tilde{Y}_k \sum_{ \tilde{A}_k} X_{J_{k}} \Big] , \mbox{ say}\end{aligned}$$ where for each $k=0, 1, 2,\ldots, p$, $A_{k}$ is same as $A_{k}$ of $n$ odd case and $\tilde{A}_{k}$ for $k=1,\ldots,p$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{A}_{k}:=\l\{(j_1,\ldots,j_{k})\suchthat \sum_{i=1}^{k}\epsilon_i j_i=0\; \mbox{(mod } \frac{n}{2}) \mbox{ and } \sum_{i=1}^{k}\epsilon_i j_i \neq 0\; \mbox{(mod }n), \epsilon_i\in\{+1,-1\}, 1\le j_1,\ldots,j_{k}\le \frac{n}{2}\r\}.\end{aligned}$$ Here note that $\tilde{A}_0$ is an empty set with the understanding that the contribution from the sum corresponding to $\tilde{A}_0$ is $1$ and in $\tilde{A}_k$, $(j_1,\ldots,j_{k})$ are collected according to their multiplicity. Also $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Y_k}
Y_k & = {(X_0 + X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} + {(X_0 - X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k}, \tilde{Y}_k = {(X_0 + X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} - {(X_0 - X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} \\
X_{J_{k}} & = X_{j_1}X_{j_2}\ldots X_{j_{k}}. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $A_k$ and $\tilde{A}_k$, observe that $|A_k|= O(n^{k-1})$, because the entries of $A_k$ has one constraint, whereas $|\tilde{A}_k|= O(n^{k-2})$, because the entries of $\tilde{A}_k$ has two constraints. Therefore $$\label{eqn:A,tildeA}
|\tilde{A}_k| < |A_k|.$$
The following result will be used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\].
\[result:def\_h\] Suppose $|A_{p,s}|$ denotes the cardinality of $A_{p,s}$. Then $$h_p(k):=
\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{|A_p^{(k)}|}{n^{p-1}}= \frac{1}{(p-1)!}\sum_{s=-\lceil\frac{p-k}{2}\rceil}^{\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\rfloor}\sum_{q=0}^{2s+p-k}(-1)^q\binom{p}{q}\l(\frac{2s+p-k-q}{2}\r)^{p-1},$$ where $\lceil x\rceil$ denotes the smallest integer not less than $x$.
For the proof of Result \[result:def\_h\], we refer to [@adhikari_saha2017 Lemma 14]. Now for a given vector $(j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_p)$, we define a term called [*opposite sign pair matched*]{} elements of the vector.
\[def:odd-even\] Suppose $(j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_p) \in A_p$. We say $j_k, j_\ell$ is [*opposite sign pair matched*]{}, if $\epsilon_k$ and $\epsilon_\ell$ corresponding to $j_k$ and $j_\ell$, respectively, are of opposite sign and $j_k= j_\ell$, where $\epsilon_k$ and $\epsilon_\ell$ are corresponds to (\[def:A\_p\_SC\]). For example; In $(2,3,5,2)$, entry $2$ is [*opposite sign pair matched*]{}, if $\epsilon_1=1$ and $\epsilon_4=-1$ or $\epsilon_1=-1$ and $\epsilon_4=1$ whereas if $\epsilon_1$ = $\epsilon_4= 1$ or $\epsilon_1$ = $\epsilon_4= -1$, then $2$ is not [*opposite sign pair matched*]{}. Similarly, we can also define [*opposite sign pair matched*]{} elements of $\tilde{A}_p$. We shall call, vector $(j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_p)$ is [*opposite sign pair matched*]{}, if all the entries of $(j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_p)$ are [*opposite sign pair matched*]{}.
Observe that, if $(j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_p)\in A_{p}$, that is, $\sum_{i=1}^{p}\epsilon_i j_i=0 \mbox{ (mod $n$) }$ and each entry of $\{j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_p\}$ has multiplicity greater than or equal to two. Then the maximum number of free variable in $(j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_p)$ will be $\frac{p}{2}$ only when $p$ is even and $(j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_p)$ is [*opposite sign pair matched*]{}. We shall use this observation in proof of Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\], for maximum contribution. Now assuming the above Result, we proceed to prove Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\]. We shall use trace formula of $SC_n$ to prove \[thm:symcircovar\]. Since for odd and even value of $n$, we have different trace formula, therefore we shall prove \[thm:symcircovar\] in two steps. In Step 1, we calculate limit of $\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)$ as $n\to\infty$ with odd $n$ and in Step 2, we calculate limit of $\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)$ as $n\to\infty$ with even $n$. We shall show that for both the cases, even and odd value of $n$, limit of $\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)$ is same.
Since $\E(w_p)=\E(w_q)=0$, therefore we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)&=\E[w_p w_q]
= \frac{1}{n} \Big\{ \E[\Tr(SC_n)^{p}\Tr(SC_n)^{q} ]- \E[\Tr(SC_n)^{p}]\E[\Tr(SC_n)^{q}] \Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$ First we suppose $\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)$ for odd value of $n$.\
**Step 1.** Suppose $n$ is odd, then by the trace formula (\[trace formula\_SC\_odd\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\E[\Tr(SC_n)^{p}]&= \E\Big[n\sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k}X_0^{p-k}\sum_{A_{k}}\frac{X_{i_1}}{ \sqrt{n}} \cdots \frac{X_{i_{k}}}{ \sqrt{n}} \Big]
= \frac{1}{ n^ {\frac{p}{2}-1}} \E\Big[ \sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k}X_0^{p-k}\sum_{A_{k}} X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}}\Big].
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:T_1+T_2_SC}
\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)&=\E[w_p w_q] \nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \Big[ \E\Big\{ \Big( \sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k} X_0^{p-k}\sum_{A_{k}} X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} \Big) \Big( \sum_{\ell=0}^{q}\binom{q}{\ell}X_0^{q-\ell}\sum_{A_{\ell}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} \Big) \Big\}\nonumber \\
&\qquad - \E \Big( \sum_{k=0}^{p}\binom{p}{k}X_0^{p-k}\sum_{A_{k}} X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} \Big) \E \Big( \sum_{\ell=0}^{q}\binom{q}{\ell}X_0^{q-\ell}\sum_{A_{\ell}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} \Big) \Big] \nonumber\\
% &=\frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{k, \ell =0}^{p, q}\binom{p}{k} \binom{q}{\ell} \sum_{A_{k}, A_{\ell}} \Big\{\E[ X_0^{p+q-k-\ell} X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} X_{j_1} X_{j_2}\cdots X_{j_{q}} ]\nonumber \\
% &\qquad -\E[X_0^{p-k} X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} ] \E[X_0^{q-\ell} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ] \Big\} \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{k, \ell =0}^{p, q}\binom{p}{k} \binom{q}{\ell} \sum_{A_{k}, A_{\ell}} \Big\{\E[ X_0^{p+q-k-\ell}] \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} X_{j_1} X_{j_2}\cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ]\\
&\qquad -\E[X_0^{p-k}]\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} ] \E[X_0^{q-\ell}]\E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ] \Big\}. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Depending on the values of $k$ and $\ell$, the following two cases arise.\
**Case I.** **Either $k=p, \ell \leq q$ or $\ell=q, k \leq p$ :** Since in this case, we always get $\E[ X_0^{p+q-k-\ell}]= \E[X_0^{p-k}] \E[X_0^{q-\ell}]$. Therefore, if $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{k}\}\cap \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{\ell}\}=\emptyset$ then from independence of $X_i$’s, we get $$\E[ X_0^{p+q-k-\ell}] \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} X_{j_1} X_{j_2}\cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ] -\E[X_0^{p-k}]\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} ] \E[X_0^{q-\ell}]\E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ] =0.$$ Hence in this case, we can get non-zero contribution from (\[eqn:T\_1+T\_2\_SC\]) only when there is at least one cross-matching among $\{i_1,\ldots,i_{k}\}$ and $\{j_1,\ldots,j_{\ell}\}$, i.e., $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{k}\}\cap \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{\ell}\}\neq\emptyset$ for some $k =0, 1, \ldots, p$ and $\ell=0, 1, \ldots, q$. So from the above observation, (\[eqn:T\_1+T\_2\_SC\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:T_k,l_SC}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) &=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{k, \ell =0}^{p, q}\binom{p}{k} \binom{q}{\ell} \sum_{m=1}^{ \min \{k,\ell\} } \sum_{I_m} \Big\{\E[ X_0^{p+q-k-\ell}] \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ]\nonumber \\
&\qquad -\E[X_0^{p-k}]\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} ] \E[X_0^{q-\ell}]\E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ] \Big\} \nonumber \\
& =\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{k, \ell =0}^{p, q}\binom{p}{k} \binom{q}{\ell} \sum_{m=1}^{ \min \{k,\ell\} } T^m_{k,\ell}, \mbox{ say},\end{aligned}$$ where for each $m=1,2, \ldots, \min\{p,q\}$, $I_m$ is defined as $$\label{def:I_k}
I_{m}:=\{((i_1,\ldots,i_{k}),(j_1,\ldots,j_{\ell}))\in A_{k}\times A_{\ell}\suchthat |\{i_1,\ldots,i_{k}\}\cap \{j_1,\ldots,j_{\ell}\}|=m\}.$$ Now we calculate the contribution due to the typical term $T^m_{k,\ell}$ of (\[eqn:T\_k,l\_SC\]) for some fixed value of $k= 1, 2, \ldots, p$, $\ell= 1, 2, \ldots, q$ and $m =1,2, \ldots, \min\{k,\ell\}$. Since from (\[eqn:condition\]), we have $$\E[X_i]= 0, \ \E(X^2_i)=1 \mbox{ and } \sup_{i \geq 1}\E(|X_i|^{k})= \alpha_k < \infty \mbox{ for } k \geq 3.$$ Therefore there exist $\gamma >0$, which depends only on $k$ and $\ell$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:gamma_1}
% \sum_{A_{k}, A_{\ell}} \E[ X_0^{p+q-k-\ell}] \E[X_{i_1}\ldots X_{i_{k}}X_{j_1}\ldots X_{j_{\ell}}]-\E[ X_0^{p-k}]\E[ X_0^{q-\ell}] \E[X_{i_1}\ldots X_{i_{k}}]\E[X_{j_1}\ldots X_{j_{\ell}}]
|T^m_{k,\ell}| & = \sum_{I_m} |\E[ X_0^{p+q-k-\ell} X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ] -\E[X_0^{p-k} X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} ] \E[X_0^{q-\ell} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ] | \nonumber \\
& \leq \gamma |B_{k,\ell}|,
\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{k,\ell} \subseteq A_k \times A_\ell$ with conditions that $\{ i_1, i_2,\ldots,i_k \} \cap \{ j_1, j_2,\ldots,j_\ell \} \neq \emptyset$ and each element of set $\{ i_1, i_2,\ldots,i_{k}\} \cup \{ j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_\ell\} $ has multiplicity greater than or equal to two. So, to solve (\[eqn:gamma\_1\]), it is enough to calculate the cardinality of $B_{k,\ell}$. Suppose $((i_1, i_2,\ldots,i_{k}), (j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{\ell}))\in B_{k,\ell}$ with $|\{i_1,\ldots,i_{k}\}\cap \{j_1,\ldots,j_{\ell}\}|=m$, for some $m=1,2,\ldots, \min\{k,\ell\}$, where $|\{\cdot\}|$ denotes cardinality of the set $\{\cdot\}$. Therefore typical element of $B_{k,\ell}$ will look like $$((d_1, d_2,\ldots, d_m, i_{m+1}, \ldots, i_{k}), (d_1,d_2,\ldots, d_m, j_{m+1}, \ldots, j_{\ell})).$$ Observe that, we shall get maximum number of free entries in $B_{k,\ell}$, if following conditions hold
1. each elements of $ \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{m}\}$ are distinct,
2. if $k-m$ is even. Then $(i_{m+1}, \ldots, i_{k})$ is [*opposite sign pair matched*]{} with $ \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{m}\} \cap \{i_{m+1},\ldots,i_{k}\}=\emptyset$. Similar condition also hold when $\ell-m$ is even,
3. if $k-m$ is odd. Then $\{i_{m+1},\ldots,i_{k}\} \setminus \{i^*\}$ is [*opposite sign pair matched*]{} and $ \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{m-2}\} \cap \{i_{m+1},\ldots,i_{k}\} \setminus \{i^*\}=\emptyset$, where $i^{*}$ is [*opposite sign pair matched*]{} with $d_s$ for some $s=1,2, \ldots, m$. Similar condition also hold when $\ell-m$ is odd.
Under the above assumption, the cardinality of $B_{k,\ell}$ will be
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{card_B_k_l}
|B_{k,\ell}| & = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O(n^{m-1+\frac{k-m}{2} +\frac{\ell -m}{2}}) & \text{if}\ (k-m) \mbox{ and } (\ell-m) \mbox{ both are even,}\\\\
O(n^{m-3+\frac{k-m+1}{2} +\frac{\ell -m+1}{2}}) & \text{if}\ (k-m) \mbox{ and } (\ell-m) \mbox{ both are odd,}\\\\
O(n^{m-2+\frac{k-m+\ell -m+1}{2}})& \text{otherwise},
\end{array}\right. \nonumber \\
& = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O(n^{\frac{k+\ell}{2}-1}) & \text{if}\ (k-m) \mbox{ and } (\ell-m) \mbox{ both are even,}\\\\
o(n^{\frac{k+\ell}{2}-1}) & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$
Now from (\[eqn:gamma\_1\]) and (\[card\_B\_k\_l\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{card_T_k,l}
|T^m_{k,\ell}| & = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O(n^{\frac{k+\ell}{2}-1}) & \text{if}\ k, \ell \mbox{ and } m \mbox{ all are even or } k, \ell \mbox{ and } m \mbox{ all are odd},\\\\
o(n^{\frac{k+\ell}{2}-1}) & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$ On using (\[eqn:T\_k,l\_SC\]) and (\[card\_T\_k,l\]), we get that $T^m_{k,\ell}$ has non-zero contribution in (\[eqn:T\_k,l\_SC\]) only when $k=p$ and $\ell=q$. In fact $T^m_{k,\ell}$ has non-zero contribution only when either $p,q, m$ all are even or $p,q, m$ all are odd. So, if we use (\[card\_T\_k,l\]) in (\[eqn:T\_k,l\_SC\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:lim_cov_SC}
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \nonumber \\
&= \displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{m=1}^{ \min \{p,q\} } \sum_{I_m} \Big\{\E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] -\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} ] \E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] \Big\} \nonumber \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{r=1}^{ \min\{ \frac{p}{2},\frac{q}{2} \} } \sum_{I_{2r}} \big( \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ]\\
\quad -\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} ] \E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] \big) & \text{if}\ p, q \mbox{ both are even,}\\\\
\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \sum_{I_{2r+1}} \big( \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ]\\
\qquad -\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} ] \E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] \big) & \text{if}\ p, q \mbox{ both are odd,}\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$ Now we calculate right hand side of (\[eqn:lim\_cov\_SC\]). Depending on values of $p,q$, following two subcases arise.\
\
**subcase (i)** **$p,q$ both are even:** First recall, the typical term of $I_{2r}$ is $$((d_1, d_2,\ldots, d_{2r}, i_{2r+1}, \ldots, i_{p}), (d_1,d_2,\ldots, d_{2r}, j_{2r+1}, \ldots, j_{q})).$$ For such an element of $I_{2r}$, the number of free entries in $I_{2r}$ will be maximum, if following conditions hold
1. $ \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{2r}\} \cap \{i_{2r+1},\ldots,i_{p}\}\cap \{j_{2r+1},\ldots,j_{q}\}=\emptyset$,
2. $(i_{2r+1}, \ldots, i_{p})$ and $(j_{2r+1}, \ldots, j_{q})$ are [*opposite sign pair matched*]{}.
Due to the above consideration, the constraints, $\sum_{t=1}^{2r}\epsilon_t d_t +\sum_{t=2r+1}^{p}\epsilon_t i_t =0\; \mbox{(mod n})$ and $\sum_{t=1}^{2r}\epsilon_t d_t + \sum_{t=2r+1}^{q}\epsilon_t j_t =0\; \mbox{(mod n})$ will change into one constraint $$\label{eqn:constraint_d_even}
\sum_{t=1}^{2r}\epsilon_t d_t =0\; \mbox{(mod n}).$$ Now first we consider $r\geq 2$, later we shall deal $r=1$ case. Note that for $r=2,3, \ldots, \min\{p,q\}$, if we assume each entries of $ \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{2r}\}$ are distinct, then cardinality of $I_{2r}$ will be of the order $O(n^{2r-1 +\frac{p-2r}{2} +\frac{q-2r}{2} })= O(n^{\frac{p+q}{2} -1}),$ where $(-1)$ is arising due to (\[eqn:constraint\_d\_even\]). In any other situation, cardinality of $I_{2r}$ will be $o(n^{p+q-1}).$ Also note that, as each entries of $ \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{2r}\}$ are distinct, therefore $$\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} ] \E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] =0.$$ Hence for each fixed $r\geq 2$, first part of (\[eqn:lim\_cov\_SC\]) ($p,q$ both even) will be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:I_2k2_SC}
% \lim_{n\to\infty} &\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)=
% &\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{I_{2r}} \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] -\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} ] \E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] \nonumber \\
& \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{I_{2r}} \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] \nonumber \\
& = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} a_r (n/2)^{\frac{p-2r}{2}+\frac{q-2r}{2}} \sum_{A_{2r}, A_{2r}} \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{2r}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{2r}} ] \nonumber \\
& = \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{2r-1}} \sum_{A_{2r}, A_{2r}} \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{2r}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{2r}} ],
\end{aligned}$$ where $ a_r= \binom{p}{p-2r}\binom{p-2r}{\frac{p-2r}{2}} (\frac{p-2r}{2})!\binom{q}{q-2r}\binom{q-2r}{\frac{q-2r}{2}} (\frac{q-2r}{2})!$. $a_r$ factor is arising for pair-matching of $(p-2r)$ many variables in $(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{p})$ and $(j_1,j_2,\ldots, j_{q})$ both with opposite sign. In $(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{p})$, we can choose $(p-2r)$ variables in $\binom{p}{p-2r}$ many ways. Out of $(p-2r)$ variables, $(\frac{p-2r}{2})$ many variables can be chosen with positive sign in $\binom{p-2r}{\frac{p-2r}{2}}$ many ways. After free choice of $(\frac{p-2r}{2})$ variables with positive sign, rest of the $(\frac{p-2r}{2})$ variables with negative sign can be chosen in $(\frac{p-2r}{2})!$ ways. Therefore for pair matching of $(p-2r)$ many variables in $(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{p})$ with opposite sign, we get $(\binom{p}{p-2r}\binom{p-2r}{\frac{p-2r}{2}} (\frac{p-2r}{2})!)$ factor. Similarly from $(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{q})$, we get $(\binom{q}{q-2r}\binom{q-2r}{\frac{q-2r}{2}} (\frac{q-2r}{2})!)$ factor. Now from , we get
$$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{I_{2r}} \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ]
& = \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{2r-1}} \sum_{A_{2r}, A_{2r}} \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{2r}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{2r}} ] \\
&=\frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n^{2r-1}}\sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! |A_{2r}'^{(s)}|\\
&= \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! \lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{|A_{2r}^{(s)}|}{n^{2r-1}}. \end{aligned}$$
The factor $\binom{2r}{s}^2$ appeared because in $\binom{2r}{s}$ ways we can choose $s$ many $+1$ from $\{\epsilon_1,\ldots,\epsilon_{2r}\}$ in one $A_{2r}'$. The factor $(s!(2r-s)!)$ appeared because for each choice of $(i_1,\ldots,i_{2r})$ we have $(s!(2r-s)!)$ many choice for $(j_1,\ldots,j_{2r})$. Now using Result \[result:def\_h\] in right side of the last above equality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:p,q_even1}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{I_{2r}} \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ]
&= \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! \ h_{2r}(s),
%\frac{1}{(2k)!}\sum_{s=-\lceil\frac{2k+1-\ell}{2}\rceil}^{\lfloor\frac{\ell}{2}\rfloor}\sum_{q=0}^{2s+2k+1-\ell}\binom{2k+1}{q}\l(\frac{2s+2k+1-\ell-q}{2}\r)^{2k}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{2r}(s)$ is defined in Result \[result:def\_h\].
Now we calculate first part of (\[eqn:lim\_cov\_SC\]) ($p,q$ both even) for $r=1$. Note that, if $r=1$ in this Case, then from (\[eqn:constraint\_d\_even\]), we get $d_1=d_2$, and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:p,q_even2}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{I_{2}} \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ]- \E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} ] \E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ]
&= \frac{a_1}{2^{\frac{p+q-4}{2}} } (\E X^4_1- (\E X^2_1)^2) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{a_1}{2^{\frac{p+q-4}{2}} } (\E X^4_1- 1),\end{aligned}$$ where $a_1=(\binom{p}{p-2}\binom{p-2}{\frac{p-2}{2}} (\frac{p-2}{2})!)(\binom{q}{q-2}\binom{q-2}{\frac{q-2}{2}} (\frac{q-2}{2})!)$. Therefore from (\[eqn:lim\_cov\_SC\]), (\[eqn:p,q\_even1\]) and (\[eqn:p,q\_even2\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:p,q_even}
\lim_{n\to\infty} &\frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{r=1}^{ \min\{ \frac{p}{2},\frac{q}{2} \} } \sum_{I_{2r}} \big( \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] -\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} ] \E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] \big) \\
&= \frac{a_1}{2^{\frac{p+q-4}{2}} } (\E X^4_1- 1) + \sum_{r=2}^{ \min\{ \frac{p}{2},\frac{q}{2} \} } \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! \ h_{2r}(s).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
**subcase II.** **$p,q$ both are odd:** In this case we calculate right hand side of (\[eqn:lim\_cov\_SC\]) for odd value of $p, q$ and $m$. If $m=2r+1$ for $r=0,1, \ldots, \min\{\frac{p-1}{2}, \frac{q-1}{2}\}$, then the typical term of $I_{2r+1}$ looks like $$((d_1, d_2,\ldots, d_{2r+1}, i_{2r+2}, \ldots, i_{p}), (d_1,d_2,\ldots, d_{2r+1}, j_{2r+2}, \ldots, j_{q}))$$ and for such an elements of $I_{2r+1}$, the number of free entries in $I_{2r+1}$ will be maximum, if following conditions hold
1. each entries of $ \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{2r+1}\}$ are distinct,
2. $ \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{2r+1}\} \cap \{i_{2r+2},\ldots,i_{p}\}\cap \{j_{2r+2},\ldots,j_{q}\}=\emptyset$,
3. $(i_{2r+2}, \ldots, i_{p})$ and $(j_{2r+2}, \ldots, j_{q})$ are [*opposite sign pair matched*]{},
and the contribution will be of the order $O(n^{2r+1-1 +\frac{p-2r-1}{2} +\frac{q-2r-1}{2} })= O(n^{\frac{p+q}{2} -1})$, where $(-1)$ is arising due to the constraint, $\sum_{t=1}^{2r+1}\epsilon_t d_t =0\; \mbox{(mod n}).$ In any other situation, the cardinality of $I_{2r+1}$ will be $o(n^{p+q-1}).$ Since each entries of $ \{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{2r+1}\}$ are distinct, as (ii) holds. Therefore $$\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} ] \E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] =0.$$ Now by the similar calculations as we have done in Case I, second part of (\[eqn:lim\_cov\_SC\]) ($p,q$ both odd) will be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:p,q_odd}
% \lim_{n\to\infty} &\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)=
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \sum_{I_{2r+1}} \big( \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] -\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} ] \E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] \big) \nonumber\\
& = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \sum_{I_{2r+1}} \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p}} X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{q}} ] \nonumber\\
& = \sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \frac{b_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r-2}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r+1}\binom{2r+1}{s}^2 s!(2r+1-s)! \ h_{2r+1}(s) ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{2r+1}(s)$ is defined in Result \[result:def\_h\] and $b_r= \binom{p}{p-2r-1}\binom{p-2r-1}{\frac{p-2r-1}{2}} (\frac{p-2r-1}{2})!\binom{q}{q-2r-1}\binom{q-2r-1}{\frac{q-2r-1}{2}} (\frac{q-2r-1}{2})!.$ Now, after combining both the sub-cases I and II, using (\[eqn:p,q\_even\]) and (\[eqn:p,q\_odd\]) in (\[eqn:lim\_cov\_SC\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_k=p_odd}
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \nonumber \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{a_1}{2^{\frac{p+q-4}{2}} } (\E X^4_1- 1) + \sum_{r=2}^{ \min\{ \frac{p}{2},\frac{q}{2} \} } \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! \ h_{2r}(s) & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are even},\\\\
\displaystyle\sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \frac{b_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r-2}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r+1}\binom{2r+1}{s}^2 s!(2r+1-s)! \ h_{2r+1}(s) & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are odd},\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$ **Case II.** **$k<p$ and $\ell<q$ :** First recall $\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)$ from (\[eqn:T\_1+T\_2\_SC\]) for $k<p$ and $\ell<q$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \mathbb I_{\{k<p,\ell<q\}}&=\frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{k, \ell =0}^{p-1, q-1}\binom{p}{k} \binom{q}{\ell} \sum_{A_{k}, A_{\ell}} \Big\{\E[ X_0^{p+q-k-\ell}] \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} X_{j_1} X_{j_2}\cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ]\nonumber \\
&\qquad -\E[X_0^{p-k}]\E[ X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{k}} ] \E[X_0^{q-\ell}]\E[ X_{j_1} \cdots X_{j_{\ell}} ] \Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Similar to Case I, we get maximum contribution when $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{k}\}\cap \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{\ell}\}=\emptyset$ and $(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{k}), (j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{\ell})$ are [*opposite sign pair matched*]{}. Since from (\[eqn:condition\]) we have that all moments are bounded, therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_k<p}
\sum_{A_{k}, A_{\ell}} \E[ X_0^{p+q-k-\ell}] \E[ X_{I_{k}} X_{J_{\ell}} ] -\E[X_0^{p-k}]\E[X_{I_{k}} ] \E[X_0^{q-\ell}]\E[ X_{J_{\ell}} ] = O(n^{[\frac{k}{2}]+ [\frac{\ell}{2} ]}).
\end{aligned}$$ Now using (\[eqn:cov\_k<p\]) and the fact that $\E(X_i)=0$ for each $i=1,2, \ldots,$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_k<p_odd}
\lim_{n\to\infty} & \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \mathbb I_{\{k<p,\ell<q\}} \nonumber \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \nonumber
\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{pq}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{A_{p-1}, A_{q-1}} \E[ X_0^{2}] \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p-1}} X_{j_1} X_{j_2}\cdots X_{j_{q-1}} ] & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are odd},\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}\right. \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle pq \binom{p-1}{(p-1)/2}\binom{q-1}{(q-1)/2} \l((p-1)/2\r)! \l((q-1)/2\r)!\frac{1}{2^{(\frac{p+q}{2}-1)}} & \text{if}\ p, q \mbox{ both are odd},\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $\binom{p-1}{(p-1)/2} \binom{q-1}{(q-1)/2}$ appeared because in $\binom{p-1}{(p-1)/2}$ many ways $\sum_{k=1}^{p-1} \epsilon_k=0$ in one $A_{p-1}$ and $\binom{q-1}{(q-1)/2}$ many ways $\sum_{k=1}^{q-1} \epsilon_k=0$ in $A_{q-1}$. $\l(\frac{p-1}{2}\r)!$ appeared because for each free choice of $(p-1)/2$ variables among $\{i_1,\ldots,i_{p-1}\}$ with positive sign, we can choose rest of the $(p-1)/2$ variables with negative sign in $\l(\frac{p-1}{2}\r)!$ ways to have pair matching. Using same argument for $\{j_1,\ldots,j_{q-1}\}$, we get another $\l(\frac{q-1}{2}\r)!$ factor. $\frac{1}{2^{(\frac{p+q}{2}-1)}}$ arises because $1\leq i_k,j_k\leq n/2$.
Now combining both the Cases, from (\[eqn:cov\_k=p\_odd\]), (\[eqn:cov\_k<p\_odd\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_odd}
\lim_{ \substack{{n\to\infty} \\ {n \mbox{ odd} } }} & \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \nonumber \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{a_1}{2^{\frac{p+q-4}{2}} } (\E X^4_1- 1) + \sum_{r=2}^{ \min\{ \frac{p}{2},\frac{q}{2} \} } \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! \ h_{2r}(s) & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are even},\\\\
\displaystyle\sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \frac{b_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r-2}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r+1}\binom{2r+1}{s}^2 s!(2r+1-s)! \ h_{2r+1}(s) \\
\displaystyle + pq \binom{p-1}{(p-1)/2}\binom{q-1}{(q-1)/2} \l((p-1)/2\r)! \l((q-1)/2\r)!\frac{1}{2^{(\frac{p+q}{2}-1)}} & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are odd},\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$
**Step 2.** Suppose $n$ is even, then by the trace formula (\[trace formula\_SC\_even\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_even}
& \lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \nonumber \\
&= \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{4n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{k, \ell =0}^{p, q}\binom{p}{k} \binom{q}{\ell} \Big[ \E \{ (Y_k \sum_{A_k} X_{I_{k}} + \tilde{Y}_k \sum_{ \tilde{A}_k} X_{I_{k}}) ( Y_\ell \sum_{A_\ell} X_{J_{\ell}} + \tilde{Y}_\ell \sum_{ \tilde{A}_\ell} X_{J_{\ell}} ) \} \nonumber\\
&\qquad - \E[(Y_k \sum_{A_k} X_{I_{k}} + \tilde{Y}_k \sum_{ \tilde{A}_k} X_{I_{k}} ] \E[Y_\ell \sum_{A_\ell} X_{J_{\ell}} + \tilde{Y}_\ell \sum_{ \tilde{A}_\ell} X_{J_{\ell}}] \Big] \nonumber \\
&= \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{4n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{k, \ell =0}^{p, q}\binom{p}{k} \binom{q}{\ell} \Big[ \E (Y_k Y_\ell \sum_{A_k,A_\ell} X_{I_{k}} X_{J_{\ell}}) + \E (\tilde{Y}_k Y_\ell \sum_{ \tilde{A}_k, A_\ell} X_{I_{k}} X_{J_{\ell}}) +\E( Y_k \tilde{Y}_\ell \sum_{A_k, \tilde{A}_\ell} X_{I_{k}} X_{J_{\ell}}) \\
&\qquad + \E( \tilde{Y}_k \tilde{Y}_\ell \sum_{ \tilde{A}_k, \tilde{A}_\ell} X_{I_{k}} X_{J_{\ell}} ) - \E[(Y_k \sum_{A_k} X_{I_{k}} + \tilde{Y}_k \sum_{ \tilde{A}_k} X_{I_{k}} ] \E[Y_\ell \sum_{A_\ell} X_{J_{\ell}} + \tilde{Y}_\ell \sum_{ \tilde{A}_\ell} X_{J_{\ell}}] \Big]. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ By the similar arguments as we have done in Step 1, we can show that right hand side of (\[eqn:cov\_even\]) has non-zero contribution only when $k=p, \ell=q$ with $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{k}\}\cap \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{\ell}\} \neq\emptyset$ and $k=p-1, \ell=q-1$ with $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{k}\}\cap \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{\ell}\}=\emptyset$.\
**Case I.** **$k=p$ and $\ell=q$ :** First recall $Y_k$ and $\tilde{Y}_k$ from (\[eqn:Y\_k\]) $$Y_k = {(X_0 + X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} + {(X_0 - X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k}, \ \ \tilde{Y}_k = {(X_0 + X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k} - {(X_0 - X_{\frac{n}{2}})}^{p-k}.$$ Since for $k=p$ and $\ell=q, Y_p=Y_q= 2$ and $\tilde{Y}_p=\tilde{Y}_q=0$. Therefore in this case, (\[eqn:cov\_even\]) will be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_even1}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) &= \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{4n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \Big[ \E (4\sum_{A_p,A_q} X_{I_{p}} X_{J_{q} }) - \E[ 2\sum_{A_p} X_{I_{p}}] \E[ 2\sum_{A_q} X_{J_{q}}] \Big] \nonumber \\
&= \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{A_p,A_q} \E[X_{I_{p}} X_{J_{q}}] - \E[ X_{I_{p}}] \E[X_{J_{q}}].
\end{aligned}$$ Note that (\[eqn:cov\_even1\]) is same as (\[eqn:lim\_cov\_SC\]). Therefore from (\[eqn:lim\_cov\_SC\]) and (\[eqn:cov\_k=p\_odd\]), (\[eqn:cov\_even1\]) will be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_k=p_even}
& \lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \nonumber \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{a_1}{2^{\frac{p+q-4}{2}} } (\E X^4_1- 1) + \sum_{r=2}^{ \min\{ \frac{p}{2},\frac{q}{2} \} } \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! \ h_{2r}(s) & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are even},\\\\
\sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \frac{b_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r-2}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r+1}\binom{2r+1}{s}^2 s!(2r+1-s)! \ h_{2r+1}(s) & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are odd},\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$\
**Case II.** **$k=p-1$ and $\ell=q-1$ :** Since for $k=p-1$ and $\ell=q-1, Y_{p-1}=Y_{q-1}= 2X_0$ and $\tilde{Y}_{p-1}=\tilde{Y}_{q-1}=2X_{\frac{n}{2}}$. Therefore in this case, (\[eqn:cov\_even\]) will be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov,even,k<p}
& \lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \\
&= \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{4n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} p q\Big[ \E (4X_0^2 \sum_{A_{p-1},A_{q-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} X_{J_{q-1}}) + \E ( 4 X_0 X_{\frac{n}{2}} \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{p-1}, A_{q-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} X_{J_{q-1}} ) \nonumber \\
&\qquad +\E( 4 X_0 X_{\frac{n}{2}} \sum_{A_{p-1}, \tilde{A}_{q-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} X_{J_{q-1}} ) + \E( 4 (X_{\frac{n}{2}})^2 \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{p-1}, \tilde{A}_{q-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} X_{J_{q-1}} ) \nonumber \\
& \qquad - \E[(2X_0\sum_{A_{p-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} + 2X_{\frac{n}{2}} \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{p-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} ] \E[ 2X_0\sum_{A_{q-1}} X_{J_{q-1}} + 2X_{\frac{n}{2}} \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{q-1}} X_{J_{q-1}}] \Big]. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ In this case, we get non-zero contribution when $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{p-1}\}\cap \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{q-1}\}=\emptyset$ and $(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_{p-1}), (j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{q-1})$ are [*opposite sign pair matched*]{}. Since from (\[eqn:condition\]) we have that all moments are bounded, therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_k<p,even}
\E[ X_0^2 \sum_{A_{p-1},A_{q-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} X_{J_{q-1}}] & = O(n^{[\frac{p-1}{2}]+ [\frac{q-1}{2} ]}), \\
\E [ X_0 X_{\frac{n}{2}} \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{p-1}, A_{q-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} X_{J_{q-1}} ] & = O(n^{[\frac{p-2}{2}]+ [\frac{q-1}{2} ]}), \nonumber \\
\E[ X_0 X_{\frac{n}{2}} \sum_{A_{p-1}, \tilde{A}_{q-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} X_{J_{q-1}} & = O(n^{[\frac{p-2}{2}]+ [\frac{q-1}{2} ]}), \nonumber \\
\E[ (X_{\frac{n}{2}})^2 \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{p-1}, \tilde{A}_{q-1}} X_{I_{p-1}} X_{J_{q-1}} ] & = O(n^{[\frac{p-2}{2}]+ [\frac{q-2}{2} ]}). \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Now using (\[eqn:cov\_k<p,even\]) and the fact that $\E(X_i)=0$ for each $i=1,2, \ldots$ in (\[eqn:cov,even,k<p\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov,k<p,even1}
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \nonumber
\displaystyle{\lim_{n\to\infty}} \frac{pq}{n^{\frac{p+q}{2}-1}} \sum_{A_{p-1}, A_{q-1}} \E[ X_0^{2}] \E[X_{i_1} \cdots X_{i_{p-1}} X_{j_1} X_{j_2}\cdots X_{j_{q-1}} ] & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are odd},\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that right hand side of (\[eqn:cov,k<p,even1\]) is same as (\[eqn:cov\_k<p\_odd\]). Therefore (\[eqn:cov,k<p,even1\]) will be
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_k<p_even}
& \lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}\nonumber
\displaystyle pq \binom{p-1}{(p-1)/2}\binom{q-1}{(q-1)/2} \l((p-1)/2\r)! \l((q-1)/2\r)!\frac{1}{2^{(\frac{p+q}{2}-1)}} & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are odd},\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$
Now combining both the Cases, from (\[eqn:cov\_k=p\_even\]), (\[eqn:cov\_k<p\_even\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov_even,2}
&\lim_{ \substack{{n\to\infty},\\ {n \mbox{ even} } }} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \nonumber \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2^{\frac{p+q-4}{2}} } (\E X^4_1- 1) + \sum_{r=2}^{ \min\{ \frac{p}{2},\frac{q}{2} \} } \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! \ h_{2r}(s) & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are even},\\\\
\displaystyle \sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \frac{b_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r-2}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r+1}\binom{2r+1}{s}^2 s!(2r+1-s)! \ h_{2r+1}(s) \\
\displaystyle + pq \binom{p-1}{(p-1)/2}\binom{q-1}{(q-1)/2} \l((p-1)/2\r)! \l((q-1)/2\r)!\frac{1}{2^{(\frac{p+q}{2}-1)}} & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are odd},\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$ Now combining both the Steps, from (\[eqn:cov\_odd\]) and (\[eqn:cov\_even,2\]), we get that for both the odd and even value of $n, \lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big)$ is same. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cov}
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \Cov\big(w_p,w_q\big) \nonumber \\
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2^{\frac{p+q-4}{2}} } (\E X^4_1- 1) + \sum_{r=2}^{ \min\{ \frac{p}{2},\frac{q}{2} \} } \frac{a_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r}\binom{2r}{s}^2 s!(2r-s)! \ h_{2r}(s) & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are even},\\\\
\displaystyle \sum_{r=0}^{ \min\{ \frac{p-1}{2},\frac{q-1}{2} \} } \frac{b_r}{2^{\frac{p+q-4r-2}{2}} } \sum_{s=0}^{2r+1}\binom{2r+1}{s}^2 s!(2r+1-s)! \ h_{2r+1}(s) \\
\displaystyle + pq \binom{p-1}{(p-1)/2}\binom{q-1}{(q-1)/2} \l((p-1)/2\r)! \l((q-1)/2\r)!\frac{1}{2^{(\frac{p+q}{2}-1)}} & \text{if}\ p, \mbox{} q \mbox{ both are odd},\\\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$ This complete the proof of the theorem \[thm:symcircovar\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:symcirpoly\] {#sec:poly}
===================================
First we begin with some notation and definitions. Recall $A_{p}$ and $\tilde{A}_p$ from in Section \[sec:poly\], $$\begin{aligned}
A_{p} & =\{(j_1,\ldots,j_{p})\suchthat \sum_{i=1}^{p}\epsilon_i j_i=0\; \mbox{(mod n)}, \epsilon_i\in\{+1,-1\}, 1\le j_1,\ldots,j_{p}\le \frac{n}{2}\}, \\
\tilde{A}_{k} &=\{(j_1,\ldots,j_{k})\suchthat \sum_{i=1}^{k}\epsilon_i j_i=0\; \mbox{(mod } \frac{n}{2}) \mbox{ and } \sum_{i=1}^{k}\epsilon_i j_i \neq 0\; \mbox{(mod }n), \epsilon_i\in\{+1,-1\}, 1\le j_1,\ldots,j_{k}\le \frac{n}{2}\}.\end{aligned}$$
For a vector $ J = (j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_{p})\in A_{p} \mbox{ or } \tilde{A}_p,$ we define a multi-set $S_J$ as $$\label{def:S_j}
S_{J} = \{j_1, j_2, \ldots,j_{p}\}.$$
\[def:connected\] Two vectors $J =(j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_{p})$ and $J' = (j'_1, j'_2, \ldots, j'_{p})$, where $J \in A_{p}$ and $J' \in A_{q}$, are said to be *connected* if $S_{J}\cap S_{J'} \neq \emptyset$.
\[def:cluster\] Given a set of vectors $S= \{J_1, J_2, \ldots, J_\ell \}$, where $J_i \in A_{p_i}$ for $1 \leq i \leq \ell$, a subset $T=\{J_{n_1}, J_{n_2}, \ldots, J_{n_k}\}$ of $S$ is called a *cluster* if it satisfies the following two conditions:
1. For any pair $J_{n_i}, J_{n_j}$ from $T$ one can find a chain of vectors from $T$, which starts with $J_{n_i}$ and ends with $J_{n_j}$ such that any two neighbouring vectors in the chain are connected.
2. The subset $\{J_{n_1}, J_{n_2}, \ldots, J_{n_k}\}$ can not be enlarged to a subset which preserves condition (i).
For more details about cluster, we refer the readers to Definition $12$ of [@maurya2019process], where the authors have explained the structure of cluster by using graph. Now we define a subset $B_{P_\ell}$ of the Cartesian product $ A_{p_1} \times A_{p_2} \times \cdots \times A_{p_\ell}$ where $A_{p_i}$ is as defined in .
\[def:B\_[P\_l]{}\] Let $\ell \geq 2$ and $P_\ell = (p_1,p_2, \ldots, p_\ell ) $. Now $ B_{P_\ell}$ is a subset of $ A_{p_1} \times A_{p_2} \times \cdots \times A_{p_\ell}$ such that $ (J_1, J_2, \ldots, J_\ell) \in B_{P_\ell} $ if
1. $\{J_1, J_2, \ldots, J_\ell\} $ form a cluster,
2. each element in $\displaystyle{\cup_{i=1}^{\ell} S_{J_i} }$ has multiplicity greater than or equal to two.
The next lemma gives us the cardinality of $B_{P_\ell}$.
\[lem:cluster\] For $\ell \geq 3 $, $$\label{equation:cluster}
|B_{P_\ell }| = o \big(n^{\frac{p_1+p_2 + \cdots + p_\ell -\ell}{2} }\big).$$
The proof of this lemma is similar to the proof of Lemma $15$ of [@maurya2019process], where the authors have a different set of constraints on the elements of $A_p$s. But the idea is same. We skip the details here.
The above lemma is not true if $\ell=2$ and $p_1= p_2$. Suppose $(J_1,J_2)\in B_{P_2}$. Then all $p_1$ entries of $J_1$ may coincides with $p_2(=p_1)$ many entries of $J_2$ and hence $$|B_{P_2}|=O(n^{p_1-1}).$$ So in this situation, $|B_{P_2}|>o(n^{\frac{p_1+p_2}{2}-1})$.
The following lemma is an easy consequence of Lemma \[lem:cluster\].
\[lem:maincluster\] Suppose $\{J_1, J_2, \ldots, J_\ell \} $ form a cluster where $J_i\in A_{p_i}$ with $p_i\geq 2$ for $1\leq i\leq \ell$ and $\{X_i\}_{i \geq 1}$ is independent which satisfies (\[eqn:condition\]). Then for $\ell \geq 3,$ $$\label{equation:maincluster}
\frac{1}{ n^{\frac{p_1+p_2+ \cdots + p_\ell - \ell}{2}}} \sum_{A_{p_1}, \ldots, A_{p_\ell}} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big] = o(1),$$ where $$J_k = (j^{k}_{1}, j^{k}_{2}, \ldots, j^{k}_{p_k} ) \ \mbox{and} \ X_{J_k} = X_{j^{k}_{1}} X_{j^{k}_{2}} \cdots X_{j^{k}_{p_k}}.$$
First observe that $\E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big]$ will be non-zero only if each $X_i$ appears at least twice in the collection $\{ X_{j^{k}_{1}}, X_{j^{k}_{2}}, \ldots ,X_{j^{k}_{2p_k}} ; 1\leq k\leq \ell\}$, because $\E(X_i)=0$ for each $i$. Therefore $$\label{eqn:equality_reduction}
\sum_{A_{p_1}, \ldots, A_{p_\ell}} \hspace{-3pt}\E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big]=\sum_{(J_1,\ldots,J_\ell)\in B_{P_\ell}} \hspace{-3pt} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big],$$ where $B_{P_\ell}$ as in Definition \[def:B\_[P\_l]{}\]. Since from (\[eqn:condition\]), we have $$\label{eqn:higher moment finite}
\E(X^2_i)=1 \mbox{ and } \sup_{i \geq 1}\E(|X_i|^{k})= \alpha_k < \infty \mbox{ for } k \geq 3.$$ Therefore for $p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_\ell \geq 2$, there exists $\beta_\ell>0$, which depends only on $p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_\ell$, such that $$\label{eqn:modulus finite}
\Big|\E\big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\big)\big]\Big|\leq \beta_\ell$$ for all $(J_1, J_2, \ldots, J_\ell)\in A_{p_1}\times A_{p_2}\times \cdots \times A_{p_\ell}$.
Now using and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{A_{p_1}, \ldots, A_{p_\ell}} \Big|\E\big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\big)\big]\Big|
& \leq \sum_{(J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_\ell)\in B_{P_\ell}} \beta_{\ell}
\ = |B_{p_\ell}| \ \beta_\ell.
\end{aligned}$$ By using Lemma \[lem:cluster\] in above expression, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{A_{p_1}, \ldots, A_{p_\ell}} \Big|\E\big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\big)\big]\Big| \leq o \big(n^{\frac{p_1+p_2 + \cdots + p_\ell -\ell}{2} }\big),
\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\frac{1}{ n^{\frac{p_1+p_2+ \cdots + p_\ell - \ell}{2}}} \sum_{A_{p_1}, \ldots, A_{p_\ell}} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big] = o(1).$$ This completes the proof of lemma.
\[lem:cluster,decompose\] Suppose $J_i\in A_{d_i}$ with $d_i\geq 2$ for $1\leq i\leq \ell$ and $\{X_i\}_{i \geq 1}$ is independent which satisfies (\[eqn:condition\]). Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{A_{d_1}, \ldots, A_{d_\ell}} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big]
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O( n^{\frac{d_1+d_2+ \cdots + d_\ell - \ell}{2}}) & \text{if} \ \{ J_1, J_2, \ldots, J_\ell\} \mbox{ decomposes } \\
& \mbox{ into clusters of length } 2 \\\\
o( n^{\frac{d_1+d_2+ \cdots + d_\ell - \ell}{2}}) & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$ where $$J_k = (j^{k}_{1}, j^{k}_{2}, \ldots, j^{k}_{d_k} ) \ \mbox{and} \ X_{J_k} = X_{j^{k}_{1}} X_{j^{k}_{2}} \cdots X_{j^{k}_{d_k}}.$$
First observe that for a fixed $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_\ell$, if there exists a $k\in\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}$ such that $J_k$ is not connected with any $J_i$ for $i\neq k$, then $$\E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big]=0,$$ due to the independence of $\{X_i\}_{i\geq 1}$.
Therefore for non-zero contribution, $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_\ell$ must form clusters with each cluster length greater than or equal to two, that is, each cluster should contain at least two vectors. Suppose $G_1,G_2,\ldots,G_s$ are the clusters formed by vectors $J_1,J_2,\ldots,J_\ell$ and $|G_i|\geq 2$ for all $1\leq i \leq s$ where $|G_i|$ denotes the length of the cluster $G_i$. Observe that $\sum_{i=1}^s |G_i|=\ell$.
If there exists a cluster $G_j$ among $G_1,G_2,\ldots,G_s$ such that $|G_j|\geq 3$, then from Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\] and Lemma \[lem:maincluster\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{A_{d_1}, \ldots, A_{d_\ell}} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big]=o(n^{\frac{d_1 + d_2 + \cdots +d_\ell -\ell}{2}}).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if $\ell$ is odd then there will be a cluster of odd length and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{A_{d_1}, \ldots, A_{d_\ell}} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big]=o(n^{\frac{d_1 + d_2 + \cdots +d_\ell -\ell}{2}}).
\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, if $\ell$ is even then from Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\] and Lemma \[lem:maincluster\], the contribution is $O(n^{\frac{d_1 + d_2 + \cdots +d_\ell -\ell}{2}})$ only when $\{ J_1, J_2, \ldots, J_\ell\}$ decomposes into clusters of length 2.
This completes the proof of lemma.
\[rem:main\_cluster,even\] Suppose $J_i\in F_{d_i}$ with $d_i\geq 2$ for $1\leq i\leq \ell$ and $\{X_i\}_{i \geq 1}$ is independent which satisfies (\[eqn:condition\]), where $F_{d_i}$ is $A_{d_i}$ or $\tilde{A}_{d_i}$. Then from (\[eqn:A,tildeA\]) and Lemma \[lem:cluster,decompose\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{F_{d_1}, \ldots, F_{d_\ell}} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big]
&= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O( n^{\frac{d_1+d_2+ \cdots + d_\ell - \ell}{2}}) & \text{if} \ \{ J_1, J_2, \ldots, J_\ell\} \mbox{ decomposes into clusters } \\
& \mbox{ of length }2 \mbox{ and } F_{d_i} =A_{d_i} \forall \ i=1, 2, \ldots, \ell \\\\
o( n^{\frac{d_1+d_2+ \cdots + d_\ell - \ell}{2}}) & \text{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$
We shall use the above lemmata, Remarks and Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\] to prove Theorem \[thm:symcirpoly\].
We use method of moments and Wick’s formula to prove Theorem \[thm:symcirpoly\]. Recall that from the method of moments, to prove $w_Q \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} N(0,\sigma_{Q}^2)$, it is sufficient to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \E[ (w_Q)^\ell] = \E[ (N(0, \sigma^2_{Q}))^\ell ] \ \ \forall \ \ell=1,2, \ldots.
\end{aligned}$$
Now to prove above equation, it is enough to show that, for $p_1, p_2, \ldots , p_\ell \geq 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:moment w_Q}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\E[w_{p_1}w_{p_2} \cdots w_{p_\ell}]=\E[N_{p_1}N_{p_2} \cdots N_{p_\ell}],
\end{aligned}$$ where $\{N_{p}\}_{p \geq 1}$ is a centered Gaussian family with covariance $\sigma_{p,q}$, that is, $\E[N_{p},N_{q}]= \sigma_{p,p}$, where $\sigma_{p,q}$ as in (\[eqn:sigma\_p,q\]). Since for odd and even value of $n$, we have different trace formula, therefore we show (\[eqn:moment w\_Q\]) is true for odd and even value of $n$. First suppose $n$ is odd. Since from trace formula (\[trace formula\_SC\_odd\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
w_{p_k} & = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \Big(\Tr(SC_n)^{p_k} - \E[\Tr(SC_n)^{p_k}]\Big)\\
%&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\Big( \frac{n}{n^{\frac{p_k}{2}}} \sum_{A_{p_k}}b_{j_{k,1}}(t_k)\cdots b_{j_{k,p_k}}(t_k) - \E[\frac{n}{n^{\frac{p_k}{2}}} \sum_{A_{p_k}}b_{j_{k,1}}(t_k)\cdots b_{j_{k,p_k}}(t_k)]\Big) \\
%
% &= \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_k -1}{2}}} \sum_{d_k=0}^{p_k}\binom{p_k}{d_k}\sum_{A_{d_k}} \Big( X_0^{p_k-d_k} X_{j_1}\ldots X_{j_{d_k}} - \E[X_0^{p_k-d_k} X_{j_1}\ldots X_{j_{d_k }}]\Big). \\
&= \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_k -1}{2}}} \sum_{d_k=0}^{p_k}\binom{p_k}{d_k}\sum_{A_{d_k}} (X_0^{p_k-d_k} X_{J_{d_k}} - \E [X_0^{p_k-d_k} X_{J_{d_k}}] ).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:expectation_thm2}
& \lim_{n\tends \infty} \E[w_{p_1}w_{p_2} \cdots w_{p_\ell}] \nonumber\\
&=\lim_{n\tends \infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_1 + p_2 + \cdots +p_\ell -\ell}{2}}} \sum_{d_1=0}^{p_1} \cdots \sum_{d_\ell=0}^{p_\ell} \binom{p_1}{d_1} \cdots \binom{p_\ell}{d_\ell} \sum_{A_{d_1}, \ldots, A_{d_\ell}} \E \Big[ \prod_{k=1}^{\ell} \Big(X_0^{p_k-d_k} X_{J_{d_k}} - \E [X_0^{p_k-d_k} X_{J_{d_k}}\Big) \Big] \nonumber \\
& = \lim_{n\tends \infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_1 + p_2 + \cdots +p_\ell -\ell}{2}}} \sum_{A_{p_1}, \ldots, A_{p_\ell}} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big],
\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality comes due to Lemma \[lem:cluster,decompose\]. Because $$\sum_{A_{d_1}, \ldots, A_{d_\ell}} \E \Big[ \prod_{k=1}^{\ell} \Big(X_0^{p_k-d_k} X_{J_{d_k}} - \E [X_0^{p_k-d_k} X_{J_{d_k}}\Big) \Big] \leq O(n^{\frac{d_1 + d_2 + \cdots +d_\ell -\ell}{2}}).$$
Now combining Lemma \[lem:cluster,decompose\] for $d_i=p_i$ and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:multisplit}
& \quad \lim_{n\tends \infty} \E[w_{p_1} w_{p_2}\cdots w_{p_\ell}]\\
& \quad =\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_1 + p_2 + \cdots +p_\ell -\ell}{2}}} \sum_{A_{p_1}, \ldots, A_{p_\ell}} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big]\\
& \quad =\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_1 + p_2 + \cdots +p_\ell -\ell}{2}}} \sum_{\pi \in \mathcal P_2(\ell)} \prod_{i=1}^{\frac{\ell}{2}} \sum_{A_{p_{y(i)}},\ A_{p_{z(i)}}} \E\big[ (X_{J_{y(i)}} - \E X_{J_{y(i)}}) (X_{J_{z(i)}} - \E X_{J_{z(i)}})\big],
\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi = \big\{ \{y(1), z(1) \}, \ldots , \{y(\frac{\ell}{2}), z(\frac{\ell}{2}) \} \big\}\in \mathcal P_2(\ell)$ and $\mathcal P_2(\ell)$ is the set of all pair partition of $ \{1, 2, \ldots, \ell\} $. Using Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\], from the last equation, we get $$\label{eqn:product of expectation}
\lim_{n\tends \infty} \E[w_{p_1}w_{p_2} \cdots w_{p_\ell}]
=\sum_{\pi \in P_2(\ell)} \prod_{i=1}^{\frac{\ell}{2}} \lim_{n\tends \infty} \E[w_{p_{y(i)}} w_{p_{z(i)}}].$$ Since from Theorem \[thm:symcircovar\], we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\E(w_p w_q) = \sigma_{p,q} (= \E(N_p N_q)).$$ Therefore using Wick’s formula, from we get $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{ \substack{{n\to\infty} \\ {n \mbox{ odd} } }} \E[w_{p_1}w_{p_2} \cdots w_{p_\ell}]
&=\sum_{\pi \in P_2(\ell)} \prod_{i=1}^{\frac{\ell}{2}} \lim_{n\tends \infty} \E[w_{p_{y(i)}} w_{p_{z(i)}}] \\
& =\sum_{\pi \in \mathcal P_2(\ell)} \prod_{i=1}^{\frac{\ell}{2}} \E[N_{p_{y(i)}} N_{p_{z(i)}} ] \\
&=\E[ N_{p_1}N_{p_2} \cdots N_{p_\ell} ].
\end{aligned}$$
Now suppose $n$ is even. Then by using trace formula (\[trace formula\_SC\_even\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
w_{p_k} & = \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_k -1}{2}}} \sum_{d_k=0}^{p_k}\binom{p_k}{d_k} \Big[ Y_k \sum_{A_{d_k}} X_{J_{d_k}} + \tilde{Y}_{d_k} \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{d_k}} X_{J_{d_k}} - \E [Y_{d_k} \sum_{A_{d_k}} X_{J_{d_k}} + \tilde{Y}_{d_k} \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{d_k}} X_{J_{d_k}} ] \Big] \\
& = \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_k -1}{2}}} \sum_{d_k=0}^{p_k}\binom{p_k}{d_k} \Big[ \sum_{A_{d_k}} Y_{d_k} X_{J_{d_k}} - \E[Y_{d_k} X_{J_{d_k}} ] + \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{d_k}} \tilde{Y}_{d_k} X_{J_{d_k}} - \E [\tilde{Y}_{d_k} X_{J_{d_k}}] \Big],\\
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:expectation_thm2,even}
& \lim_{n\tends \infty} \E[w_{p_1}w_{p_2} \cdots w_{p_\ell}] \nonumber\\
&= \lim_{n\tends \infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_1 + p_2 + \cdots +p_\ell -\ell}{2}}} \sum_{d_1=0}^{p_1} \cdots \sum_{d_\ell=0}^{p_\ell} \binom{p_1}{d_1} \cdots \binom{p_\ell}{d_\ell} \E\Big[ \prod_{k=1}^{\ell} \Big( \sum_{A_{d_k}} Y_{d_k} X_{J_{d_k}} - \E[Y_{d_k} X_{J_{d_k}} ] \nonumber \\
& \qquad + \sum_{ \tilde{A}_{d_k}} \tilde{Y}_{d_k} X_{J_{d_k}} - \E [\tilde{Y}_{d_k} X_{J_{d_k}}] \Big) \Big]\nonumber \\
& = \lim_{n\tends \infty} \frac{1}{n^{\frac{p_1 + p_2 + \cdots +p_\ell -\ell}{2}}} \sum_{A_{p_1}, \ldots, A_{p_\ell}} \E\Big[\prod_{k=1}^{\ell}\Big(X_{J_k} - \E(X_{J_k})\Big)\Big],
\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality comes due to Lemma \[lem:cluster,decompose\] and Remark \[rem:main\_cluster,even\]. Since (\[eqn:expectation\_thm2,even\]) is same as (\[eqn:expectation\_thm2\]), therefore by the the similar calculation as we have done for $n$ odd case, we get $$\lim_{ \substack{{n\to\infty} \\ {n \mbox{ even} } }} \E[w_{p_1}w_{p_2} \cdots w_{p_\ell}]
=\E[ N_{p_1}N_{p_2} \cdots N_{p_\ell} ].$$ This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:symcirpoly\] after combining odd and even cases of $n$.
[10]{}
Kartick Adhikari and Koushik Saha, *Fluctuations of eigenvalues of patterned random matrices*, J. Math. Phys. **58** (2017), no. 6, 063301, 20. [MR ]{}[3666201]{}
[to3em]{}, *Universality in the fluctuation of eigenvalues of random circulant matrices*, Statist. Probab. Lett. **138** (2018), 1–8. [MR ]{}[3788711]{}
Greg W. Anderson and Ofer Zeitouni, *A [CLT]{} for a band matrix model*, Probab. Theory Related Fields **134** (2006), no. 2, 283–338. [MR ]{}[2222385]{}
L. V. Arharov, *Limit theorems for the characteristic roots of a sample covariance matrix*, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR **199** (1971), 994–997. [MR ]{}[0309171]{}
Z. D. Bai and Jack W. Silverstein, *C[LT]{} for linear spectral statistics of large-dimensional sample covariance matrices*, Ann. Probab. **32** (2004), no. 1A, 553–605. [MR ]{}[2040792]{}
Sourav Chatterjee, *Fluctuations of eigenvalues and second order [P]{}oincaré inequalities*, Probab. Theory Related Fields **143** (2009), no. 1-2, 1–40. [MR ]{}[2449121]{}
Vyacheslav L. Girko, *Theory of stochastic canonical equations. [V]{}ol. [I,II]{}*, Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 535, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2001.
I. Jana, K. Saha, and A. Soshnikov, *Fluctuations of linear eigenvalue statistics of random band matrices*, Theory Probab. Appl. **60** (2016), no. 3, 407–443. [MR ]{}[3568789]{}
Kurt Johansson, *On fluctuations of eigenvalues of random [H]{}ermitian matrices*, Duke Math. J. **91** (1998), no. 1, 151–204. [MR ]{}[1487983]{}
Dag Jonsson, *Some limit theorems for the eigenvalues of a sample covariance matrix*, J. Multivariate Anal. **12** (1982), no. 1, 1–38. [MR ]{}[650926]{}
Lingyun Li and Alexander Soshnikov, *Central limit theorem for linear statistics of eigenvalues of band random matrices*, Random Matrices Theory Appl. **2** (2013), no. 4, 1350009, 50. [MR ]{}[3149439]{}
Dang-Zheng Liu, Xin Sun, and Zheng-Dong Wang, *Fluctuations of eigenvalues for random toeplitz and related matrices*, Electron. J. Probab **17** (2012), no. 95, 1–22.
A. Lytova and L. Pastur, *Central limit theorem for linear eigenvalue statistics of random matrices with independent entries*, Ann. Probab. **37** (2009), no. 5, 1778–1840. [MR ]{}[2561434]{}
Shambhu Nath Maurya and Koushik Saha, *Process convergence of fluctuations of linear eigenvalue statistics of random circulant matrices*, arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.00686 (2019).
M. Shcherbina, *Central limit theorem for linear eigenvalue statistics of the [W]{}igner and sample covariance random matrices*, Zh. Mat. Fiz. Anal. Geom. **7** (2011), no. 2, 176–192, 197, 199. [MR ]{}[2829615]{}
[to3em]{}, *On fluctuations of eigenvalues of random band matrices*, J. Stat. Phys. **161** (2015), no. 1, 73–90. [MR ]{}[3392508]{}
Ya. Sinai and A. Soshnikov, *Central limit theorem for traces of large random symmetric matrices with independent matrix elements*, Bol. Soc. Brasil. Mat. (N.S.) **29** (1998), no. 1, 1–24. [MR ]{}[1620151]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In recent experiments, the relaxation dynamics of highly oblate, turbulent Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) was investigated by measuring the vortex decay rates in various sample conditions \[Phys. Rev. A $\bf 90$, 063627 (2014)\] and, separately, the thermal friction coefficient $\alpha$ for vortex motion was measured from the long-time evolution of a corotating vortex pair in a BEC \[Phys. Rev. A $\bf 92$, 051601(R) (2015)\]. We present a comparative analysis of the experimental results, and find that the vortex decay rate $\Gamma$ is almost linearly proportional to $\alpha$. We perform numerical simulations of the time evolution of a turbulent BEC using a point-vortex model equipped with longitudinal friction and vortex-antivortex pair annihilation, and observe that the linear dependence of $\Gamma$ on $\alpha$ is quantitatively accounted for in the dissipative point-vortex model. The numerical simulations reveal that thermal friction in the experiment was too strong to allow for the emergence of a vortex-clustered state out of decaying turbulence.'
author:
- Joon Hyun Kim
- Woo Jin Kwon
- 'Y. Shin'
title: 'Role of thermal friction in relaxation of turbulent Bose-Einstein condensates'
---
Introduction
============
In a superfluid where vorticity is quantized, a turbulent flow is formed with a complex tangle of many vortex lines, which is referred to as quantum turbulence (QT) [@Skrbek12; @Tsubota13]. QT has been studied for many decades in superfluid helium, leading to an intriguing comparative study between QT and classical fluid turbulence [@Vinen020610]. Atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) are actively considered a new system for QT because of recent experimental advances in generating and imaging quantized vortices [@Henn09; @Neely10; @Freilich10; @Kwon14; @Neely13; @Moon15; @Wilson15; @Seo16]. QT is also discussed in the context of far-from-equilibrium quantum dynamics, which is one of the frontiers of current quantum gas research [@Eisert15].
Many of the recent works on QT in BECs address the decay of two-dimensional (2D) turbulence. The key question is whether a large-scale vortex structure emerges in decaying 2D QT. This phenomenon is known as the inverse energy cascade and is well established in 2D turbulence in a classical hydrodynamic fluid [@Kraichnan75; @Kraichnan80; @Tabeling02]. Based on the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation for the condensate wave function, many numerical efforts were made to answer the question, but there is still no consensus on the emergence of inverse energy cascades, especially in compressible 2D QT [@Numasato10; @Bradley12; @Chesler13; @Reeves13; @Billam14; @Chesler14; @Simula14; @Billam15]. In experiments, the 2D regime was addressed by employing BECs with oblate geometry, where the vortex line is energetically aligned along the tight confining direction and thus, vortex dynamics is effectively 2D [@Jackson09; @Rooney11]. Neely $\it{et~al.}$ [@Neely13] reported tantalizing experimental evidence of the inverse energy cascade by observing vortex pinning in an annular BEC under small-scale stirring. However, Kwon $\it{et~al.}$ [@Kwon14] observed no signature of large-scale vortex formation in their investigation of the relaxation dynamics of highly oblate, turbulent BECs over a wide range of sample conditions.
Our interest in this paper is in the effect of thermal damping in the evolution of a turbulent BEC, which arises because of the interaction between the condensate and the coexisting thermal atoms at finite temperatures [@Fedichev99; @Kobayashi06; @Berloff07; @Madarassy08; @Jackson09; @Rooney10; @Thompson12; @Gautam14]. So far, most of the theoretical works on 2D QT in BECs have concentrated on the low-temperature regime by studying the GP equation, if any, with a small phenomenological damping constant. Some of those works predicted clustering of same-sign vortices in decaying turbulent condensates [@Reeves13; @Billam14; @Simula14; @Billam15]. Because thermal damping has a tendency to drive a vortex state to a stationary state [@Billam15], there must be an upper bound of thermal damping for observing vortex clustering. It is practically important to figure out whether the temperature requirement is achievable in current experiments.
{width="14.0cm"}
In a recent experiment [@Moon15], Moon $\it{et~al.}$ demonstrated that vortex motion in a BEC at finite temperatures is well described by mutual friction between the condensate and the thermal component [@Hall56; @Barenghi83; @Schwarz8588; @Berloff14], and measured the dimensionless friction coefficient $\alpha$ as a function of temperature. In light of the $\alpha$ measurement, in this study, we revisit the experimental results of Kwon $\it{et~al.}$ [@Kwon14] and examine the dependence of the vortex decay rate in turbulent BECs on the friction coefficient $\alpha$. We find that the vortex decay rate is almost linearly proportional to $\alpha$, and observe that the finding is supported by numerical simulations using a point-vortex model including longitudinal thermal friction. Furthermore, the vortex decay rates obtained from the simulations are quantitatively consistent with those measured in the experiment, indicating that thermal friction is the dominant dissipation mechanism in decaying turbulence. One notable observation in the numerical simulations is that vortex clustering can occur in the absence of thermal friction, i.e., $\alpha=0$, but it is easily suppressed by small friction that is much weaker than the weakest one observed in Ref. [@Moon15]. This implies that there is a quite stringent temperature requirement for observing vortex clustering in decaying turbulent BECs, providing valuable guidance for experimental efforts in studying 2D QT in BECs.
In Sec. II, we present a comparative analysis of previous experimental results for the vortex decay rate [@Kwon14] and thermal friction coefficient [@Moon15] . In Sec. III, we describe our simulation study using a dissipative point-vortex model and discuss the effect of thermal friction on vortex clustering in decaying 2D turbulence in BECs. Finally, in Sec. IV, we provide a summary of this work.
Previous experimental results
=============================
Revisit of vortex decay rate
----------------------------
In Ref. [@Kwon14], Kwon $\it{et~al.}$ experimentally investigated the relaxation of superfluid turbulence in highly oblate BECs and observed a nonexponential decay behavior of the vortex number $N_v$, revealing many-vortex effects in the relaxation dynamics. The decay curve of $N_v$ was found to be phenomenologically well described by the rate equation $$\frac{dN_v}{dt}=-\Gamma_{1}N_v-\Gamma_{2}N_v^2,$$ where the decay constants $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ were observed to have different temperature dependence. From a simple kinetic consideration, Kwon $\it{et~al.}$ proposed that the linear and nonlinear decay terms in the rate equation are mainly attributed to the drift-out of vortices in the trapped BEC and the vortex-antivortex annihilation, respectively. Although the rate equation is useful in quantitatively characterizing the nonexponential vortex decay curve, it is not $\it{a~priori}$ clear whether the form of the rate equation is valid to represent the relaxation dynamics of turbulent BECs. Several numerical efforts were made after the experiment [@Stagg15; @Du15; @Cidrim16; @Groszek16], but without reaching an agreement on identifying the universal decay behavior of $N_v$.
Here, we introduce a new practical measure for quantifying the relaxation speed of a turbulent condensate. We consider a situation where a condensate has 32 vortices with zero net vorticity, and define a vortex decay rate $\Gamma$ as the inverse of the time $t_h$ for which the vortex number decreases by one half. The details of the nonexponential decay behavior of $N_v$ is completely ignored in the determination of $\Gamma$, but the value of $\Gamma$ faithfully reflects the relaxation speed of the turbulent BEC. In experiment, we can prepare a turbulent condensate with $N_v>32$ and determine $t_h$ from a curve fit of the rate equation in Eq. (1) to the measured $N_v(t)$. The reason why we set $N_v=32$ for the initial condition is that the smallest initial vortex number in the measurements of Ref. [@Kwon14] was about 30 with high temperature samples.
Figure 1 shows the vortex decay rate $\Gamma$ determined from the experimental data of Ref. [@Kwon14]. The sample condition is specified with $\delta=N_{th}/N_0$, $N_0$, and $\omega_{r(z)}$, where $N_{th}$ and $N_0$ are the atom numbers of the thermal cloud and the condensate, respectively, $\omega_{r(z)}$ is the radial (axial) trapping frequency of the trapping potential, and $\omega_z/2\pi=390~$Hz. In a mean-field description, the chemical potential $\mu$, condensate radial extent $R$, and temperature $T$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu&=\frac{\hbar \bar{\omega}}{2} \Big(\frac{15 N_0 a}{\bar{a}}\Big)^{2/5}\sim (N_0 \omega_z \omega_r^2)^{2/5} \\
&R&=\frac{1}{\omega_r}\sqrt{\frac{2\mu}{m}}\sim (N_0 \omega_z \omega_r^{-3})^{1/5} \\
&k_\mathrm{B} T&= 0.94~\hbar \bar{\omega} (\delta N_0)^{1/3}\sim (\delta N_0 \omega_z \omega_r^2)^{1/3},\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is the $s$-wave scattering length, $\bar{a}=\sqrt{\hbar/m\bar{\omega}}$, $\bar{\omega}=(\omega_r^2 \omega_z)^{1/3}$, and $m$ is the atomic mass. From the expectation that 2D vortex dynamics would show a scaling behavior with the characteristic energy and length scales of the system, we model the vortex decay rate by $\Gamma=\gamma\delta^a N_0^b \tilde{\omega}_r^c$ where $\gamma$ is the proportionality coefficient and $\tilde{\omega}_r=\omega_r/(2\pi \times 1~$Hz). The model fit to the data of $\Gamma$ in Fig. 1 gives the exponents $a=0.57(5)$, $b= -0.25(9)$, $c= 1.45(8)$, and $\gamma= 0.92(2)$ s$^{-1}$ .
Correlation between vortex decay rate and thermal friction coefficient
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Ref. [@Moon15], Moon $\it{et~al.}$ generated a doubly charged vortex in the center region of a trapped BEC using a topological imprinting method [@Leanhardt02; @Shin04] and investigated the long-time dynamics of the vortex state. The doubly charged vortex was split into a pair of corotating vortices and the pair separation monotonically increased over time. The pair separation evolution was consistent with a point-vortex model including longitudinal friction (see Sec. III A), and the dimensionless friction coefficient $\alpha$ was determined from the increasing rate of the pair separation.
![Vortex decay rate $\Gamma$ is estimated under the sample condition in the experiment of Ref. [@Moon15] and displayed as a function of the friction coefficient $\alpha$. The solid line is a linear fit to $\Gamma$, assuming $\Gamma=0$ at $\alpha=0$.](Fig2){width="6cm"}
The correlation between the vortex decay rate $\Gamma$ and the thermal friction coefficient $\alpha$ can be examined by estimating $\Gamma$ under the sample condition in the $\alpha$ measurement experiment, where $\delta$ ranges from 0.17 to 1.22, $N_0\approx 3.4 \times 10^6$, and $\omega_{r(z)}/2\pi \approx 19.7~(690)$ Hz. The sample condition is not far from the parameter window surveyed in the experiment of Ref. [@Kwon14], thus allowing to estimate $\Gamma$ from the power-law formula obtained in the previous subsection. However, the axial trapping frequency is different from that used in Ref. [@Kwon14], $\omega_z/2\pi=390~$Hz, and hence the power-law formula of $\Gamma$ cannot be directly applied to the sample condition of Ref. [@Moon15]. By noting that the characteristic system parameters $\mu$, $R$, and $T$ for 2D vortex dynamics are expressed as functions of $N_0 \omega_z$ in Eqs. (2)$-$(4), we propose a generalization of the power-law formula as $\Gamma=\gamma \delta^a N_{0,e}^b \tilde{\omega}_r^c$ by introducing the effective condensate atom number $N_0^e\equiv N_0 \omega_z/(2\pi\times 390~$Hz). Because the $N_0$ dependence of $\Gamma$ is weak, there is little room for an unexpected distortion, if any, by this generalization.
{width="15cm"}
Figure 2 displays the estimated values of $\Gamma$ under the sample condition in the $\alpha$ measurement experiment. Because $\alpha$ represents the relative magnitude of thermal damping in vortex dynamics, it is natural to anticipate that $\Gamma$ increases with increasing $\alpha$. Interestingly, our analysis result is suggestive of a linear relation between $\Gamma$ and $\alpha$. This is quite intriguing in that the two quantities $\Gamma$ and $\alpha$ are determined separately from different vortex dynamics of trapped BECs. Because relaxation of turbulent BECs would proceed even at $T=0$ via nonthermal dissipation mechanisms such as phonon radiation [@Parker04], the linear dependence of $\Gamma$ on $\alpha$ should not be hold down to $\alpha=0$, but we believe that the nonthermal contribution to $\Gamma$ is negligible in the temperature range of the experiment [@Stagg15].
Simulation
==========
To obtain more insights into the relation between $\Gamma$ and $\alpha$, we perform a numerical study of the time evolution of turbulent BECs using a dissipative point-vortex model. This model was successfully employed in the analysis of the long-time dynamics of a corotating vortex pair in Ref. [@Moon15], providing an essential basis for determining $\alpha$ in the experiment.
Dissipative point-vortex model
------------------------------
In the point-vortex model, a vortex is regarded as a point object that generates a circular velocity field around itself in a 2D fluid system, and its motion is determined by the velocity fields from all of the other vortices. We consider a homogeneous condensate with $N_v$ vortices in a cylindrical flat trap of radius $R$. The velocity of the $i$th point vortex is given by [@Onsager49; @Campbell91; @Yatsuyanagi05] $$\mathbf{v}_i^0= \sum_{j\neq i}^{N_v} \frac{\hbar}{m}s_j\mathbf{\hat{z}}\times \frac{(\mathbf{r}_i-\mathbf{r}_j)}{\left|\mathbf{r}_i-\mathbf{r}_j\right|^{2}}-\sum_{j}^{N_v}\frac{\hbar}{m}s_j\mathbf{\hat{z}}\times \frac{(\mathbf{r}_i-\bar{\mathbf{r}}_j)}{\left|\mathbf{r}_i-\bar{\mathbf{r}}_j\right|^{2}}$$ where $\mathbf{r}_j$ is the position vector of the $j$th point vortex from the trap center and $s_j$ is its circulation in units of $\hbar/m$. The second term corresponds to the velocity field from the image vortex located at $\bar{\mathbf{r}}_j\equiv (R/\left|\mathbf{r}_j\right|)^{2}\mathbf{r}_j$ with an opposite circulation of $-s_j$, which is imposed to satisfy the boundary condition that the flow component normal to the cylindrical wall is zero.
At finite temperatures, vortex motion is affected by mutual friction arising from the relative motion of the condensate to the thermal component [@Hall56; @Barenghi83; @Schwarz8588; @Berloff14]. Assuming a stationary thermal cloud, the longitudinal friction that is proportional to $-\mathbf{v}_i^0$ gives rise to an additional vortex motion orthogonal to $\mathbf{v}_i^0$, and the resultant velocity of the vortex is given by $$\frac{d\mathbf{r}_i}{dt}=\mathbf{v}_i^0-\alpha s_i\mathbf{\hat{z}}\times\mathbf{v}_i^0$$ with the dimensionless friction coefficient $\alpha$. The time evolution of the vortex state is obtained by numerically calculating $\mathbf{r}_i(t)$ using Eq. (6).
In the numerical simulations, we implement vortex-antivortex pair annihilation by removing two vortices of opposite circulations when they come close to each other within a certain threshold range [@Simula14; @Billam15]. The annihilation conditions for a vortex dipole were theoretically investigated [@Rorai13], and in our simulations we chose a critical pair separation $d_c=2\xi$ [@footnote1], where $\xi=\hbar/\sqrt{2 m \mu}$ is the condensate healing length, characterizing the density-depleted vortex core size. We also allow for vortex annihilation at the wall when a vortex collides with its image vortex, which might be regarded as the drifting-out process in the trapped BEC.
Here, we need to mention the limitations of our model in describing the experimental situation. First, in the experiments, the condensate was trapped in a harmonic potential and had an inhomogeneous density distribution. The density gradient induced additional precession motions of the vortices [@Middelkamp11; @Navarro13]. Moreover, the local density ratio of the thermal component to the condensate varied over the sample, resulting in position-dependent thermal friction. Second, the point-vortex model solely focuses on the motional dynamics of vortices in an ideal incompressible fluid, by completely ignoring vortex-phonon interactions [@Simula14; @Billam15; @Parker04]. In particular, vortex dynamics near the condensate boundary could be sufficiently complicated by involving density waves and surface mode excitations.
{width="7.5cm"}
Results
-------
Following the sample condition in the $\alpha$ measurement experiment, we set $R= 76~\mu$m and $\xi= 0.3~\mu$m in our numerical study. An initial vortex state is prepared by randomly choosing $N_v=32$ with $|s_i|=1$ and $\sum s_i =0$, where the distance to the nearest neighbor vortex is constrained to be larger than $7 \xi$ so as to prevent an unexpected, initial rapid decrease in the vortex number. In a regular vortex distribution, the intervortex distance is about $R/\sqrt{N_v}\sim 45\xi$. Figure 3 displays an example for the time evolution of a vortex state, where the vortex number decreases as the evolution proceeds.
Figure 4(a) shows the decay curves of $N_v(t)$ obtained for various values of $\alpha$ \[Fig. 4(a)\]. We used 40 different initial states for statistical averaging. The vortex number shows a nonexponential decay behavior, which is also well described by the rate equation in Eq. (1). The half decay time $t_h$ decreases with increasing $\alpha$, as expected, and the vortex decay rate $\Gamma=1/t_h$ is found to be linearly proportional to $\alpha$, as observed in the experiments \[Fig. 4(b)\]. The proportionality constant is measured to be $\Gamma/\alpha\approx 38$ s$^{-1}$. It is remarkable that the vortex decay rates obtained from the numerical simulations show good quantitative agreement with the experimental results. Recalling the limitations of our point-vortex model, this quantitative agreement should be taken with caution. Nevertheless, it appears that our point-vortex model reasonably captures the vortex dynamics of turbulent BECs.
To understand the linear relation between $\Gamma$ and $\alpha$, it is helpful to consider the motion of a single vortex dipole in a homogeneous system under thermal friction. A vortex dipole with a pair separation $d$ propagates linearly with the velocity of $v=\hbar/(m d)$. Because of thermal friction, the separation of the two vortices decreases as $\dot{d}(t) = -\alpha v =- \alpha \hbar /(m d)$ according to Eq. (6), and eventually the vortex dipole will be annihilated after the time $\tau= m/(2\alpha \hbar) (d^2-d_c^2)$ for $d(\tau)\leq d_c$. If we regard a turbulent BEC as a gas of vortex dipoles with mean pair separation of $\bar{d} \gg d_c$, then the vortex decay rate may be estimated as $\Gamma\sim \tau^{-1}\approx 2 \alpha \hbar/(m \bar{d}^2)$. This is consistent with the observed linear dependence of $\Gamma$ on $\alpha$. Furthermore, for the case of a condensate with $N_v=32$ vortices in a cylindrical trap of radius $R=76~\mu$m, we have $\Gamma/\alpha \sim (\hbar/m) (N_v/R^2)\approx 15$ s$^{-1}$ with $\bar{d}\sim R/\sqrt{N_v}$, which is quite compatible with the value of $\Gamma/\alpha$ observed in the numerical simulations.
{width="8.5cm"}
Effect of friction on vortex clustering
---------------------------------------
It is known that in a point-vortex model, vortex states above a critical vortex interaction energy $E_c(N_v)$, referred to as negative-temperature states, would evolve into a large vortex structure where like-sign vortices are clustered [@Yatsuyanagi05; @Onsager49]. It was argued that vortex-antivortex pair annihilation would reinforce the vortex clustering behavior because the energy of the vortex system does not change significantly after pair annihilation but the critical energy $E_c$ is lowered for smaller $N_v$ [@Simula14]. However, as demonstrated in previous numerical works using the damped GP equation [@Billam15], thermal dissipation would weaken the clustering tendency by decreasing the system energy below $E_c$. Emergence of vortex clustering might be critically determined by a competition between the two effects in the vortex dynamics.
In our simulations, we found that some of our 40 initial vortex states evolved into a state with two like-sign vortex clusters in the absence of thermal friction. Figure 5 displays an example for the time evolution with $\alpha=0$. Two clusters of same-sign vortices appear after a long evolution time with decreased vortex number \[Fig. 5(c)\]. Remarkably, we observed that the vortex clustering can be suppressed even by very small thermal friction. Indeed, Figure 3 shows the time evolution of the same initial vortex state for $\alpha=0.0025$, where the vortex positions are maintained in a random configuration over the evolution. This observation clearly demonstrates the adverse effect of thermal friction on the emergence of vortex clustering. In the experiment of Kwon $\it{et~al.}$ [@Kwon14], the vortex-clustered state could be suppressed in decaying turbulence because the value of $\alpha$ was estimated to be about 0.01 at the lowest temperatures, indicating that the turbulent BECs were in a strong dissipation regime, not allowing for the emergence of a vortex-clustered state out of decaying turbulence.
Summary
=======
We investigated the role of thermal friction in the relaxation dynamics of turbulent BECs. By examining the correlation between the vortex decay rate $\Gamma$ and the thermal friction coefficient $\alpha$, which have been separately measured in recent experiments [@Kwon14; @Moon15], we observed that $\Gamma$ is almost linearly proportional to $\alpha$. We performed numerical simulations of turbulent BECs using a dissipative point-vortex model and observed that the linear dependence of $\Gamma$ on $\alpha$ is quantitatively accounted for by the model. Furthermore, the simulation results showed that thermal dissipation in the experiment of Kwon $\it{et~al.}$ [@Kwon14] was too strong to observe vortex clustering in decaying turbulence. Ensuing important questions are what is the temperature requirement for observing vortex clustering and whether it can be achievable in current experiments. In many numerical studies using the GP equation, thermal dissipation was taken into account by introducing a phenomenological damping parameter $\gamma$ and its value was estimated in a wide range of $10^{-1}$ to $10^{-4}$ for typical experimental conditions [@Madarassy08; @Rooney10; @Bradley12; @Neely13; @Groszek16]. It is highly desirable to improve our quantitative understanding of the relation between $\gamma$ and $\alpha$ as well as the temperature dependence of $\gamma$.
This work was supported by the Research Center Program of IBS (Institute for Basic Science) in Korea (IBS-R009-D1).
L. Skrbek, K. R. Sreenivasan, Developed quantum turbulence and its decay, Phys. Fluids [**24**]{}, 011301 (2012).
M. Tsubota, M. Kobayashi, and H. Takeuchi, Quantum hydrodynamics, Phys. Rep. [**522**]{}, 191 (2013).
W. F. Vinen, An Introduction to Quantum Turbulence, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**145**]{}, 7 (2006); W. F. Vinen, Quantum Turbulence: Achievements and Challenges, [*ibid.*]{} [**161**]{}, 419 (2010).
E. A. L. Henn, J. A. Seman, G. Roati, K. M. F. Magalhães, and V. S. Bagnato, Emergence of Turbulence in an Oscillating Bose-Einstein Condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 045301 (2009).
T. W. Neely, E. C. Samson, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, and B. P. Anderson, Observation of Vortex Dipoles in an Oblate Bose-Einstein Condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 160401 (2010).
D. V. Freilich, D. M. Bianchi, A. M. Kaufman, T. K. Langin, and D. S. Hall, Real-Time Dynamics of Single Vortex Lines and Vortex Dipoles in a Bose-Einstein Condensate, Science [**329**]{}, 1182 (2010).
T. W. Neely, A. S. Bradley, E. C. Samson, S. J. Rooney, E. M. Wright, K. J. H. Law, R. Carretero-González, P. G. Kevrekidis, M. J. Davis, and B. P. Anderson, Characteristics of Two-Dimensional Quantum Turbulence in a Compressible Superfluid, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 235301 (2013).
W. J. Kwon, G. Moon, J. Choi, S. W. Seo, and Y. Shin, Relaxation of superfluid turbulence in highly oblate Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 063627 (2014).
G. Moon, W. J. Kwon, H. Lee, and Y. Shin, Thermal friction on quantum vortices in a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A [**92**]{}, 051601(R) (2015).
K. E. Wilson, Z. L. Newman, J. D. Lowney, and B. P. Anderson, $\it{In~situ}$ imaging of vortices in Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 023621 (2015).
S. W. Seo, W. J. Kwon, S. Kang, and Y. Shin, Collisional Dynamics of Half-Quantum Vortices in a Spinor Bose-Einstein Condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 185301 (2016).
J. Eisert, M. Friesdorf, and C. Gogolin, Quantum many-body systems out of equilibrium, Nature Phys. [**11**]{}, 124 (2015).
R. H. Kraichnan, Statistical dynamics of two-dimensional flow, J. Fluid Mech. [**67**]{}, 155 (1975).
R. H. Kraichnan, and D. Montgomery, Two-dimensional turbulence, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**43**]{}, 547 (1980).
P. Tabeling, Two-dimensional turbulence: a physicist approach, Phys. Rep. [bf 362]{}, 1 (2002).
R. Numasato, M. Tsubota and V. S. L’vov, Direct energy cascade in two-dimensional compressible quantum turbulence, Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 063630 (2010).
A. S. Bradley and B. P. Anderson, Energy Spectra of Vortex Distributions in Two-Dimensional Quantum Turbulence, Phys. Rev. X [**2**]{}, 041001 (2012).
P. M. Chesler, H. Liu, and A. Adams, Holographic Vortex Liquids and Superfluid Turbulence, Science [**341**]{}, 368 (2013).
P. M. Chesler and A. Lucas, Vortex annihilation and inverse cascades in two dimensional superfluid turbulence, arXiv:1411.2610.
M. T. Reeves, T. P. Billam, B. P. Anderson and A. S. Bradley, Inverse Energy Cascade in Forced Two-Dimensional Quantum Turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 104501 (2013).
T. P. Billam, M. T. Reeves, B. P. Anderson, and A. S. Bradley, Onsager-Kraichnan Condensation in Decaying Two-Dimensional Quantum Turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 145301 (2014).
T. Simula, M. J. Davis, and K. Helmerson, Emergence of Order from Turbulence in an Isolated Planar Superfluid, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 165302 (2014).
T. P. Billam, M. T. Reeves, and A. S. Bradley, Spectral energy transport in two-dimensional quantum vortex dynamics, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 023615 (2015).
B. Jackson, N. P. Proukakis, C. F. Barenghi, and E. Zaremba, Finite-temperature vortex dynamics in Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 053615 (2009).
S. J. Rooney, P. B. Blakie, B. P. Anderson, and A. S. Bradley, Suppression of Kelvon-induced decay of quantized vortices in oblate Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A [**84**]{}, 023637 (2011).
P. O. Fedichev and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Dissipative dynamics of a vortex state in a trapped Bose-condensed gas, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, R1779 (1999).
M. Kobayashi and M. Tsubota, Thermal Dissipation in Quantum Turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 145301 (2006).
N. G. Berloff and A. J. Youd, Dissipative Dynamics of Superfluid Vortices at Nonzero Temperatures, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 145301 (2007).
E. J. M. Madarassy and C. F. Barenghi, Vortex Dynamics in Trapped Bose-Einstein Condensate, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**152**]{}, 122 (2008).
S. J. Rooney, A. S. Bradley, and P. B. Blakie, Decay of a Quantum Vortex: Test of Nonequilibrium Theories for Warm Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 023630 (2010).
L. Thompson and P. C. E. Stamp, Quantum Dynamics of a Bose Superfluid Vortex, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 184501 (2012).
S. Gautam, A. Roy, and S. Mukerjee, Finite-temperature dynamics of vortices in Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 013612 (2014).
H. E. Hall and W. F. Vinen, The Rotation of Liquid Helium II. II. The Theory of Mutual Friction in Uniformly Rotating Helium II, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A [**238**]{}, 215 (1956).
C. F. Barenghi, R. J. Donnely and W. F. Vinen, Friction on Quantized Vortices in Helium II. A Review, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**52**]{}, 189 (1983).
K. W. Schwarz, Three-dimensional vortex dynamics in superfluid $^4$He: Line-line and line-boundary interactions, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{}, 5782 (1985); Three-dimensional vortex dynamics in superfluid $^4$He: Homogeneous superfluid turbulence, [*ibid.*]{} [**38**]{}, 2398 (1988).
N. G. Berloff, M. Brachet, and N. P. Proukakis, Modeling quantum fluid dynamics at nonzero temperatures, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. [**111**]{}, 4675 (2014).
G. W. Stagg, A. J. Allen, N. G. Parker, and C. F. Barenghi, Generation and decay of two-dimensional quantum turbulence in a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 013612 (2015).
Y. Du, C. Niu, Y. Tian, and H. Zhang, Holographic Thermal Relaxation in Superfluid Turbulence, J. High Energy Phys. [**12**]{} (2015) 018.
A. Cidrim, F. E. A. dos Santos, L. Galantucci, V. S. Bagnato, and C. F. Barenghi, Controlled polarization of two-dimensional quantum turbulence in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 033651 (2016).
A. J. Groszek, T. P. Simula, D. M. Paganin, and K. Helmerson, Onsager vortex formation in Bose-Einstein condensates in two-dimensional power-law traps, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 043614 (2016).
A. E. Leanhardt, A. Gölitz, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Imprinting Vortices in a Bose-Einstein Condensate using Topological Phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 190403 (2002).
Y. Shin, M. Saba, M. Vengalattore, T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, A. E. Leanhardt, M. Prentiss, D. E. Pritchard, and K. Ketterle, Dynamical Instability of a Doubly Quantized Vortex in a Bose-Einstein Condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 160406 (2004)
N. G. Parker, N. P. Proukakis, C. F. Barenghi, and C. S. Adams, Controlled Vortex-Sound Interactions in Atomic Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 160403 (2004).
L. Onsager, Statistical Hydrodynamics, Nuovo Cimento [**6**]{}, 279 (1949).
L. Campbell and K. O'Neil, Statistics of Two-Dimensional Point Vortices and High-Energy Vortex States, J. Stat. Phys. [**65**]{}, 495 (1991).
Y. Yatsuyanagi, Y. Kiwamoto, H. Tomita, M. M. Sano, T. Yoshida, and T. Ebisuzaki, Dynamics of Two-Sign Point Vortices in Positive and Negative Temperature States, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 054502 (2005).
C. Rorai, K. R. Sreenivasan, and M. E. Fisher, Propagating and annihilating vortex dipoles in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 134522 (2013).
We checked that the vortex decay rate is insensitive to the pair annihilation distance, $d_c$, up to $8\xi$.
S. Middelkamp, P. J. Torres, P. G. Kevrekidis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, R. Carretero-González, P. Schmelcher, D. V. Freilich, and D. S. Hall, Guiding-center dynamics of vortex dipoles in Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A [**84**]{}, 011605(R) (2011).
R. Navarro, R. Carretero-González, P. J. Torres, P. G. Kevrekidis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, M. W. Ray, E. Altuntas, and D. S. Hall, Dynamics of a Few Corotating Vortices in Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 225301 (2013).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The problem of detecting buried unexploded ordnance (UXO) is addressed with a sensor deployed from a shallow-draft surface vessel. This sonar system produces three-dimensional synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) imagery of both surficial and buried UXO across a range of environments. The sensor’s hardware design was based in part upon data created using a hybrid modeling approach that combined results from separate environmental scattering and target scattering models. This hybrid model produced synthetic sensor data where the sensor/environment/target space could be modified to explore the expected operating conditions. The simulated data were also used to adapt a set of existing signal processing algorithms for formation of three-dimensional acoustic imagery.
Recently, the sonar system has been integrated to a test platform, and experiments have been conducted at a trial site in the Foster Joseph Sayers Reservoir near Howard, PA. This test site has been prepared with several buried man-made objects. Initial results show that fully buried targets can be detected.
address: |
Applied Research Laboratory\
State College, PA 16804–0030
author:
- 'Daniel C. Brown'
- 'Shawn F. Johnson'
- 'Cale F. Brownstead'
title: 'Simulation and Testing Results for a Sub-Bottom Imaging Sonar'
---
Introduction
============
The remediation of unexploded ordnance (UXO) is a current environmental problem facing the United States Department of Defense [@SERDP:2007a; @SERDP:2013a; @SERDP:2018a]. UXO can be found in a number of aquatic environments, and over time the ordnance may become buried [@SERDP:2014a]. Those environments where the ordnance is near shore are of particular concern, and sensors capable of detailed survey are needed for detecting and localizing UXO in these environments.
The problem of buried UXO detection has been addressed in prior research with sonar imaging systems [@Schock:2001a; @Schock:2002a; @Schock:2005a; @Schock:2006a]. One advantage of the sonar sensing modality (over electromagnetic modalities) is that acoustic imaging offers the promise of higher potential area coverage rates and better localization. The prior sonar systems that have addressed the problem of buried UXO imaging have either been towed systems or deployed from unmanned underwater vehicles. This deployment method has limited their operation to waters typically deeper than .
The problem of UXO detection and classification is complicated by the very wide range of potential UXO targets. UXO remediation sites may have ordnance as small as individual bullets whose largest dimension is less than up to bombs that may exceed in length. Additionally, the ordnance may experience significant biofouling and corrosion after remaining in place for several decades. Finally, man-made clutter is commonly found in near-shore UXO surveys. The range of targets sizes, the variability of the target state, and the presence of clutter requires high-resolution imaging sensors for effective performance.
![The test platform is a nine-meter pontoon boat. The projector and receive array are shown here mounted in the forward portion of the boat. These components are mounted in a rectangular frame that is lowered into the water during testing.[]{data-label="fig:soundHunter"}](soundHunterQuarter_sm.jpg){width=".65\columnwidth"}
A prototype sensor, called the Sediment Volume Search Sonar (SVSS), has recently been developed to address the shallow-water buried UXO problem. This sonar system uses five discrete projectors and a two-dimensional receive array to create high-resolution three-dimensional imagery through synthetic aperture signal processing. This sensor is integrated in a nine meter pontoon boat, Figure \[fig:soundHunter\], to enable operation with water depths as shallow as .
The sensor’s array design is based in part upon a modeling and simulation collaboration with the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington (APL-UW)). This collaboration produced synthetic sensor data, where the sensor-environment-target space could be modified to explore the expected operating conditions. The approach utilized a pair of models; one for environmental scattering and one for target scattering. The field scattered from the environment is simulated using the Applied Research Laboratory / Penn State University (ARL/PSU) Point-based Sonar Scattering Model (PoSSM) [@Brown:2017b]. This model was combined with the APL-UW developed Target in the Environment Response (TIER) model [@Kargl:2015a]. PoSSM and TIER both produce calibrated, bistatic, frequency-dependent, element-level, time series suitable for coherent signal processing. Details of the hybrid modeling approach and results are provided in Section \[sec:modeling\].
The test site and experimental results are detailed in Section \[sec:fieldExperimentation\]. A prototype SVSS sensor was integrated to the test platform shown in Figure \[fig:soundHunter\]. Sensor testing occurred in late 2017 at a trial site in central Pennsylvania, which was prepared with several man-made objects buried up to depth.
Sensor Modeling {#sec:modeling}
===============
PoSSM & TIER Modeling Approach
------------------------------
Prior to hardware fabrication, design alternatives for a sub-bottom imaging sensor were evaluated using a hybrid modeling approach. This approach combined target scattering results from TIER with environmental scattering results from PoSSM. The integration of PoSSM and TIER provides a high-speed, coherent model for the simulation of the field scattered from buried UXO and the surrounding environment. This hybrid model enabled analysis of sensor performance as a function of array design, target properties and environmental properties.
PoSSM is a point-based scattering model, where the individual scattering amplitudes are calculated using deterministic physical models as well as a stochastic scale factor. Figures \[fig:compIntVol21\] and \[fig:compIntVol09\] show examples of scattering points with shading indicating the composite levels for very fine silt and medium sand, respectively. Geoacoustic properties for each sediment are provided in Table \[tab:hfevaSediments\]. These composite levels are calculated by combining models for propagation loss, sensor directivity, and diffuse interface and volume scattering. The coherent component of the scattered field is modeled using Eckhart’s approximation to the reflection coefficient [@Eckart:1953a]. Figures \[fig:possmTimeSeries21\] and \[fig:possmTimeSeries09\] show the time series resulting from the scatterer arrangement in the associated figures to the left. These plots show the individual time series components as well as the envelope of the composite result. The PoSSM model has a mathematically simple form which allows easy implementation and efficient computation. Results of this model have been compared to the sonar equation, and both the mean field and mean square field show good agreement. The spatial coherence of the scattered field was also shown to agree with the van Cittert-Zernike theorem for an idealized environment.
----------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------
**Sediment** **Medium** **Very Fine**
**Property** **Sand** **Silt**
Density $[\textrm{kg/m}^{3}]$ 1845 1147
Sound Speed \[m/s\] 1767 1476
Attenuation Coefficient \[dB/m\] 10.0 1.4
Spectral Strength $[\textrm{m}^{(4-\gamma)}]$ 1.410E-04 1.638E-05
Spectral Exponent \[unitless\] 3.25 3.25
Vol. Scat. Strength \[dB/m\] -20.0 -28.6
----------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------
: Sediment properties for the two bottom types used for the numerical modeling with the TIER and PoSSM simulations. Values are taken from [@APL-UW:1994a], and the attenuation coefficients are provided at .[]{data-label="tab:hfevaSediments"}
APL-UW’s TIER model provides a coherent simulation for target scattering that is needed in order to evaluate a sensor’s ability to image buried UXO. TIER’s propagation model assumes the water is a non-attenuating fluid, while the sediment is treated as an attenuating fluid, with properties given in Table \[tab:hfevaSediments\]. For simple shapes, TIER uses analytic form functions to model target scattering. For more complex shapes, a finite element model is employed to provide a lookup table. Both target scattering models include the full elastic field scattered from the targets.
Two noise sources were considered in the hybrid model. Ambient noise, which was assumed to be omnidirectional, was included at a level matching sea state 3 levels reported for deep water spectra in Urick [@Urick:1983a]. The other noise source is multipath interference. Multipath is known to limit sonar image quality for stripmap SAS [@Hansen:2011a], and the same mechanisms will interfere with a sub-bottom imaging sensor. In the definition employed here, multipath noise consists of all acoustic signals generated by the sonar transmitter that propagate out and return at the same time instant as the signal of interest. The level of the multipath returns are proportional to the transmit level; therefore, increasing source level does not improve the signal-to-noise ratio in multipath limited conditions.
A model for multipath interference for mid- and high-frequency SAS imagery has been proposed by Lowe and Brown [@Lowe:2012a]. In this model, the level of multipath interference is modeled using a simple ray-based approach. Each boundary interaction accumulates a loss factor along with an additional loss associated with the directivity of the transducers. Along each ray path, the losses are accumulated as a function of ray path length. If it is assumed that the air-water interface is perfectly flat, then the multipath model proposed by Lowe and Brown may be easily merged with PoSSM by exploiting the method of images [@Pierce:1991a]. In this approach, multipath reflections from a flat planar interface are simulated using an image source whose position is reflected about the boundary. Finally, experimental observations have shown that multipath interference in high frequency SAS imagery is highest at low sea surface roughness [@Hansen:2011a]. This is because the low roughness interface minimizes loss at the air-water boundary. Thus, the assumption of a flat air-water interface provides an upper bound on multipath interference.
The modeled sonar array consists of a 32-channel receive array with the elements arranged in a fully-populated two-dimensional grid with 4 channels in the along-track direction and 8 channels in the cross-track direction. The receiver elements are separated by in each direction. The transmit array consists of five discrete projectors, which are positioned forward of the receive array, separated by in the cross-track direction. The sonar is simulated with each projector transmitting independently, so that sound is only produced from one projector for each ping. At each ping location, the PoSSM and TIER models are executed for each of the receivers to produce 48 time series per ping. The sonar advances to the next location for a total of 51 ping locations. For a complete simulation of a sonar scan with a single transmitter, 2448 individual ping locations are simulated for the 5 transmitter SVSS configuration, 12,240 individual PoSSM+TIER simulations were produced. This process repeats for a range of sonar / target configurations.
Modeling Results
----------------
Several targets were modeled in the sensor analysis, but this section will focus on the results from a long diameter solid aluminum cylinder. In the simulation, the sensor operates at an altitude of above the sediment-water interface and the total water depth is . The RMS roughness of the interface is assumed to be for the purposes of calculating the coherent reflection coefficient. The target is buried at depth beneath the sediment water interface and directly beneath the sensor’s track. Finally, all beamforming is conducted assuming perfect knowledge of the sediment sound speed so that the effects of refraction are removed.
The beamformed results of the simulations for the buried target are shown in Figure \[fig:simTargetPair\]. In each of these images, three planar slices through the peak of the target response are shown in a three-dimensional view. Figure \[fig:simSilt\] shows the target buried in the very fine silt sediment. Because of the relatively low sediment attenuation and low volume scattering strength, the target is clearly distinguishable from the background.
Figure \[fig:simSand\] shows the same target for a medium sand sediment. Due to the sediment attenuation, a depth varying gain of is applied to this data for visualization purposes. The combination of an increased scattering strength and attenuation has increased the multipath interference level for this environment. The first-order multipath rays are seen at a sediment depth of . The second-order multipath ray appears at sediment depth. The target is visible at depth, but the signal excess is less than that found for the very fine silt case. A detailed look at the data shows the target is above the background in this environment. The target is detectable; however, it is apparent that if the target was buried at a slightly shallower depth it may have been obscured by the multipath interference.
Field Experimentation and Results {#sec:fieldExperimentation}
=================================
Test Site Development
---------------------
Foster Joseph Sayers Reservoir, near Howard, PA approximately 20 miles NNE of ARL/PSU, was created in 1971 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers for flood control. This lake covers roughly 1,700 acres and is eight miles in length. During the winter months, typically December to April, the pool height is lowered to accommodate springtime snowpack runoff. This procedure annually exposes a portion of the lakebed in the late winter. The test site was chosen due to its close proximity to ARL/PSU, and because the winter lowered pool height provided a unique opportunity for establishing an accurate ground truthed test bed. At low pool height during March 2017, two testing sites were prepared, with sonar testing being conducted during the summer of 2017 at full pool height. Figure \[fig:sayersZoom2006\] shows the lake level near the lowest level achieved during maximum winter drawdown. Figure \[fig:sayersZoom2014\] shows the lake at the full summer pool level. Additionally, the remnants of a road on the southwest edge of this field are still visible in the bottom left corner of Figure \[fig:sayersZoom2006\]. This road provides a firm bottom for staging equipment during test field installation.
An initial set of targets were deployed in early March of 2017. The installation process included one day of staging the targets and equipment along the exposed roadbed near the test sites. This staging exercise was followed by two days of target installation. A partial list of the deployed targets and their properties is provided in Table \[tab:sayersTargets\]. The target strengths listed in this table are high frequency ($ka\gg1$) approximations taken from Urick[@Urick:1983a Table 9.1]. These targets were selected to provide a range of sizes for evaluation of the SVSS while also being small enough to be manually transported 1.2 miles from the shore of the lake.
------------------------- ------------ -------------- -----------------------
**Target** **Target** **Target** **Approx. Broadside**
**Name** **Length** **Diameter** **Target Strength**
**\[cm\]** **\[cm\]** **\[dB\]**
Shot put - 12 lb. N/A 10.2 -31.9
Solid Al Short Cylinder 30.5 15.2 -11.9
Solid Al Long Cylinder 61.0 15.2 -5.9
------------------------- ------------ -------------- -----------------------
: Three target types were installed at the Foster Joseph Sayers Reservoir test site. The broadside target strength approximation is taken from Urick [@Urick:1983a].[]{data-label="tab:sayersTargets"}
SVSS Sensor and Signal Processing
---------------------------------
The SVSS receive array is made up of a series of eight-channel hydrophone modules. These modules are designed so that when flush mounted they create arrays with a center-to-center spacing. In the modeling and simulation phase, the array consisted of six of these eight-channel modules that were arranged in a 4x12 channel grid. Four new hydrophone modules were fabricated prior to field testing, and the array was expanded to add a 4x8 channel section forward of the originally planned 4x12 channel section. This layout is seen in Figure \[fig:arraySchematic\]. In this arrangement, the sonar array is roughly in the along-track direction and in the cross-track direction.
![A schematic diagram of the SVSS array configuration is shown. The array consists of 80 receive channels, which are labeled R, and six projectors, which are labeled $\textrm{TX}_\textrm{XX}$. The SVSS can also utilize a Doppler Velocity Log (DVL) which is mounted aft of the sonar array.[]{data-label="fig:arraySchematic"}](arrayPlateDrawing.pdf){width=".45\columnwidth"}
A backprojection beamformer is utilized to post-process SVSS data, creating imagery with voxels (i.e. three-dimensional pixels) that are along each dimension. For the SVSS data presented here, the image output size is cross-track, along-track, and depth. Using a resolution, the output imagery is a 100x750x100 data cube. Because individual tracks are all greater than along-track, each track is beamformed into a series of images of this length. This along-track length is a user-selected parameter and may be modified depending on the test conditions.
The detection of targets in the volumetric imagery is complicated by the reflectivity of the silt/clay boundary. Some points along the boundary actually exceed the peak scattering level observed for the cylindrical target. The use of a linear intensity limits visual interpretation of returns from the deeper sediment. The strong reflection from the silt/clay boundary, combined with the spreading loss and sediment attenuation, reduces the strength of the sub-bottom return to the point where it is not visible with this image. Mitigation of the wide dynamic range present in SVSS imagery requires background estimation (and normalization) to make the imagery interpretable. This type of processing is commonly used within the sonar machine learning community [@Dobeck:2010a; @Williams:2018a]. For data presented here, the background is estimated using a median filter with a three-dimensional kernel whose dimensions are cross-track by along-track by depth. These filter dimensions were determined heuristically through analysis of image interpretability. After the raw data are normalized by the background estimate, they are further processed with a dynamic range compression algorithm. This algorithm applies a combination of logarithmic mapping and nonlinear intensity mapping operators to further compress the most extreme sample values to aid visual inspection.
Results
-------
The depth slice shown in Figure \[fig:rocksAndSlice\] shows a pair of cylindrical targets at and along-track. There are also several additional returns that are nearly the same scattered level in the imagery. In particular, there is a bright return at along track and cross-track, and another bright return at along track and cross-track. During the installation of the second test field in March of 2018, the ends of two cylindrical targets were located and marked with flags. Using the sonar imagery, the locations of the two clutter objects relative to the two cylindrical targets were calculated. Upon placing flags at both calculated positions, the two flat rocks shown in the lower frames of Figure \[fig:rocksAndSlice\] were found and excavated. Each rock was found with a flat face oriented upward, which is the likely cause for the relatively strong acoustic return. This post-acoustic-survey localization and recovery of modest sized buried objects serves as a demonstration of the sensor’s potential for detection and localization of relatively small objects.
{width=".95\textwidth"}
The survey data has also been processed to form maximum intensity projections (MIPs) along the three principal axes [@Wallis:1991a]. A cross-track MIP is shown in Figure \[fig:targetsAndMip\] after the data were preprocessed with background normalization and dynamic range compression algorithms. Targets were placed every in the test field, and evidence of target return are seen at , , , , and along-track. The associated target installation photos are also shown in Figure \[fig:targetsAndMip\]. The large surface cylindrical target is distorted because it is truncated by the boundary of this image. Each of these targets shows a decaying return versus depth that extends far beyond the actual target dimension. It is hypothesized that these returns are due to elastic scattering phenomena. It is interesting that for the shot puts the level of the scattered elastic field appears to exceed that of the specular scattering. This result is a combination of two factors. First, in this location, the shot puts are placed near the silt/clay boundary which has a comparably strong acoustic reflection. This boundary reflection effectively masks the specular response of the shot put. The second factor is the result of the background normalization enhancing what is suspected to be the elastic response of the shot put. The result in this scenario is that the target return itself may not be directly observed in the imagery, yet the elastic response is clearly evident.
{width=".9\textwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
The problem of buried UXO detection is a current environmental problem facing the United States and other nations. Sensors do not exist to perform surveys in water depths less than , and these depths are critical due to the potential for human/UXO interaction. Operation in these very shallow depths complicates the use of sub-bottom imaging systems hosted on either unmanned underwater vehicles or towed platforms. Additionally, the presence of interference from multipath reverberation can be challenging in these shallow depths.
To address these design challenges, a hybrid environmental scattering and target scattering model was used to study sensor performance across a range of environments and target types. This hybrid model combined PoSSM (environmental scattering) and TIER (target scattering) to create a model capable of producing realistic time series for a range of sensor designs, environments, and UXO. These modeling results were then used to inform a prototype sensor design.
Based on the modeling results, the prototype sensor was fielded on a pontoon boat and tested at the Foster Joseph Sayers Reservoir in late 2017. Three different manmade objects as well as a few types of clutter targets were installed in the test area, across a range of water and sediment burial depths. In initial testing, the sensor was able to successfully image both proud and buried targets. The presence of elastic scattering phenomena are visible in numerous images collected by this sensor, and these scattering phenomena may provide a way to segment manmade targets from naturally occurring clutter [@Bucaro:2012a; @Hall:2018a].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Defense, through the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The SERDP support was provided under the munitions response portfolio of Dr. Herbert Nelson. This material is based upon work supported by the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity under Contract No. W912HQ-16-C-0006. This work was supported in part by the US Office of Naval Research contracts N00014-14-1-0539, N00014-14-1-0566, N00014-16-1-2313, and N00014-16-1-3022.
The authors were supported by numerous collaborators at ARL/PSU. We would like to thank Isaac Gerg and Steve Wagner for their efforts on the ASASIN beamformer, Norm Foster for supporting PoSSM development, and Zack Lowe for his work in developing and operating the sonar hardware on the test platform. The authors would also like to thank our collaborators at APL-UW, Aubrey España and Steve Kargl. Their work on the TIER model was critical to the modeling and simulation results. Finally, the authors thank Joe Calantoni and Ed Braithwaite for their support in sediment core analysis from the test site.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@rmstyle \[2\][\#2]{}
, “[SERDP]{} and [ESTCP]{} workshop on technology needs for the characterization, management, and remediation of military munitions in underwater environments,” *SERDP-ESTCP Final Report*, 2007.
——, “[SERDP]{}/[O]{}ffice of [N]{}aval [R]{}esearch workshop on acoustic detection and classification of [UXO]{} in the underwater environment,” *SERDP-ESTCP Final Report*, 2013.
——, “[SERDP]{} workshop on acoustic detection and classification of munitions in the underwater environment,” *SERDP-ESTCP Final Report*, 2018.
——, “Informal workshop on burial and mobility modeling of munitions in the underwater environment,” *SERDP-ESTCP Final Report*, 2014.
S. Schock, A. Tellier, J. Wulf, J. Sara, and M. Ericksen, “Buried object scanning sonar,” *[IEEE]{} J. Oceanic Eng.*, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 677–689, 2001.
S. G. Schock and J. Wulf, “Sonar for multi-aspect buried mine imaging,” in *MTS/IEEE OCEANS Conf.*, vol. 1, Oct 2002, pp. 479–484 vol.1.
S. G. Schock, J. Wulf, G. Quentin, and J. Sara, “Synthetic aperture processing of buried object scanning sonar data,” in *MTS/IEEE OCEANS Conf.*, Sept 2005, pp. 2236–2241 Vol. 3.
S. G. Schock, J. Wulf, and J. Sara, “Imaging performance of [BOSS]{} using [SAS]{} processing,” in *MTS/IEEE OCEANS Conf.*, Sept 2006, pp. 1–5.
D. C. Brown, S. F. Johnson, and D. R. Olson, “A point-based scattering model for the incoherent component of the scattered field,” *J. Acoust. Soc. Am.*, vol. 141, no. 3, pp. EL210–EL215, 2017.
S. G. Kargl, A. L. España, K. L. Williams, J. L. Kennedy, and J. L. Lopes, “Scattering from objects at a water-sediment interface: Experiment, high-speed and high-fidelity models, and physical insight,” *IEEE J. Oceanic Eng.*, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 632–642, July 2015.
C. Eckart, “The scattering of sound from the sea surface,” *J. Acoust. Soc. Am.*, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 566–570, 1953.
APL-UW, “[APL-UW]{} high-frequency ocean environmental acoustic models handbook,” Applied Physics Laboratory - University of Washington, Tech. Rep. TR 9407, Oct. 1994.
R. J. Urick, *Principles of Underwater Sound*, 3rd ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emLos Altos, CA: Peninsula Publishing, 1983.
R. E. Hansen, H. J. Callow, T. O. Sabo, and S. A. V. Synnes, “Challenges in seafloor imaging and mapping with synthetic aperture sonar,” *IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing*, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 3677–3687, Oct 2011.
Z. G. Lowe and D. C. Brown, “Multipath reverberation modeling for shallow water acoustics,” in *Proc. 11^th^ European Conference on Underwater Acoustics*, Edinburgh, Scotland, Jul. 2012, pp. 1285–1291.
A. D. Pierce, *Acoustics: [A]{}n introduction to its physical principles and applications*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emMelville, NY: Acoustical Society of America, 1991.
. (2018) [P]{}ennsylvania [I]{}magery [N]{}avigator. \[Online\]. Available: <http://www.pasda.psu.edu/>
G. J. Dobeck, “Adaptive large-scale clutter removal from imagery with application to high-resolution sonar imagery,” vol. 7664, 2010, pp. 76640X–76640X–10.
D. P. Williams, “The [M]{}ondrian detection algorithm for sonar imagery,” *IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing*, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 1091–1102, Feb 2018.
J. W. Wallis and T. R. Miller, “Three-dimensional display in nuclear medicine and radiology.” *Journal of Nuclear Medicine*, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 534–546, 1991.
J. A. Bucaro, Z. J. Waters, B. H. Houston, H. J. Simpson, A. Sarkissian, S. Dey, and T. J. Yoder, “Acoustic identification of buried underwater unexploded ordnance using a numerically trained classifier,” *J. Acoust. Soc. Am.*, vol. 132, no. 6, pp. 3614–3617, 2012.
J. J. Hall, M. R. Azimi-Sadjadi, S. G. Kargl, Y. Zhao, and K. L. Williams, “Underwater unexploded ordnance [(UXO)]{} classification using a matched subspace classifier with adaptive dictionaries,” *IEEE J. Oceanic Eng.*, pp. 1–14, 2018.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Olivier <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Garet</span>'
bibliography:
- 'ccv.bib'
date: |
Laboratoire de Mathématiques, Applications et Physique Mathématique d’Orléans UMR 6628\
Université d’Orléans\
B.P. 6759\
45067 Orléans Cedex 2 France\
E-Mail: [email protected]
nocite: '[@*]'
title: 'Limit theorems for the painting of graphs by clusters[^1] '
---
**Abstract**
[We consider a generalization of the so-called **divide and color model** recently introduced by Häggström . We investigate the behaviour of the magnetization in large boxes and its fluctuations. Thus, laws of large numbers and Central Limit theorems are proved, both quenched and annealed. We show that the properties of the underlying percolation process roughly influence the behaviour of the colorying model. In the subcritical case, the limit magnetization is deterministic and the Central Limit Theorem admits a Gaussian limit. A contrario, the limit magnetization is not deterministic in the supercritical case and the limit of the Central Limit Theorem is not Gaussian, except in the particular model with exactly two colors which are equally probable. ]{}
AMS Classifications: 60K35, 82B20, 82B43.\
KEY-WORDS: percolation, coloring model, law of large number, central limit theorem.\
Introduction
============
The aim of this paper is to give some results concerning a pretty and natural model for the dependent coloring of vertices of a graph. This model has been recently introduced by Häggström [@hag], who presented the first results, concerning essentially the presence (or absence) of percolation and the quasilocality properties. The model is easily described: choose a graph at random according to bond percolation, and then paint randomly and independently the different clusters, each cluster beeing monochromatic. There are several motivations for the study of such a model, the most relevant being its links with Ising or Potts models. We refer to the examples of the present article and to the introduction of Häggström’s paper for detailed motivations.
In Häggström’s model, the panel was constituted by a finite number of colours, which were chosen according to a measure $\nu$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ with finite support. For our purpose, the natural assumptions will only be the existence of a first or a second moment for $\nu$.
Actually, we will study the mean magnetization in large boxes: we will identify the limit $$M={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x),$$ and determinate its variations: we will prove central limit theorems for quantities such that $$\frac1{({\vert \Lambda_n \vert})^{1/2}}\big( (\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n}
X(x))-{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}M\big).$$ There are several natural questions: when is $M$ deterministic ? What is the influence of the underlying bond percolation ? When is there convergence to a normal law in the Central Limit Theorem ?
These questions can be asked in two different approach. We shall use here the vocabulary usually used in the theory of random media.
- The quenched point of view: limit theorems are formulated once the graph has been (randomly) fixed.
- The annealed point of view: limit theorems are formulated under the randomization of the graph.
Indeed, we will show that the properties of the underlying percolation process roughly influence the behaviour of the colorying model. In the subcritical case, the limit magnetization is deterministic and the Central Limit Theorem admits a Gaussian limit. A contrario, the limit magnetization is not deterministic in the supercritical case and the limit of the Central Limit Theorem is not Gaussian, except in the particular model with exactly two colors which are equally probable. As examples, we will study the case where $\nu$ is “+/-” valued and the case where $\nu$ is a Gaussian measure.
Notations
=========
We will deal here with stochastic processes indexed by ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$. Their definition will be related to some subgraphs of the $d$-dimensional cubic lattice ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}^d}}$, which is defined by ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}^d}}=({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}},E_d)$, where $E_d=\{ \{x,y\}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}};
\sum_{i=1}^{d}\vert x_i-y_i\vert=1\}$. In the following, the expression “subgraph of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}^d}}$” will always be employed for each graph of the form $G=({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}},E)$ where $E$ is a subset of $E_d$. We say that two vertices $x,y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$ are adjacent in $G$ if $\{x,y\}\in E$. Two vertices $x,y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$ are said to be connected in $G$ if one can find a sequence of vertices containing $x$ and $y$ such that each element of the sequence is connected in $G$ with the next one. A subset $C$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$ is said to be connected if each pair of vertices in $C$ are connected. The maximal connected sets are called the connected components. They partition ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$. The connected component of $x$ and is denoted by $C(x)$. Note that the connected components are also called clusters. Conversely, a subset $D$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$ is said to be independent if no pair in $D$ is constituted by adjacent vertices.
We will consider here subgraphs of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}^d}}$ which are generated by Bernouilli bond percolation on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}^d}}$. Thus, we will denote by $\mu_p$ the image mesure of $(\{0,1\}^{E_d},\mathcal{B}(\{0,1\}^{E_d}),((1-p)\delta_{0}+p\delta_{1})^{\otimes
E_d})$ by $$x\mapsto ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}},\{e\in E_d; x_e=1\}),$$ where $p\in
(0,1)$.
Let us choose a graph $G$ at random under $\mu_p$ and recall the definition of some basic objects in percolation theory.
- The probability that $0$ belongs to an infinite cluster:\
$\theta(p)=\mu_p({\vert C(0) \vert}=+\infty).$
- The critical probability:\
$p_c=\inf\{p\in (0,1); \theta(p)>0\}$.
- The mean size of a finite cluster:\
$\chi^f(p)=\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty} k
\mu_p({\vert C(0) \vert}=k).$
- The number of open clusters per vertex\
$\kappa(p)=\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}
k^{-1} \mu_p({\vert C(0) \vert}=k).$
The following results will be currently used:
- $\mu_p$ is translation-invariant. As it is isomorphic to $(\{0,1\}^{E_d},\mathcal{B}(\{0,1\}^{E_d}),((1-p)\delta_{0}+p\delta_{1})^{\otimes
E_d})$, its tail $\sigma$-field is trivial and the ergodic theorem can be employed with full power.
- If $p\in (0,p_c)$, then $G$ contains no infinite cluster.
- If $p\in (p_c,1)$, then $G$ contains $\mu_p$ almost surely one unique infinite cluster.
- If $p\ne p_c$, then $\chi^f(p)<+\infty$.
If $G$ is a subgraph of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}^d}}$ and if $\nu$ is a probability measure on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, we will define the color-probability $P^{G,\nu}$ as follows: $P^{G,\nu}$ is the only measure on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}))$ under which the canonical projections $X_i$ – defined, as usually by $X_i(\omega)=\omega_i$ – satisfy
- For each $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$, the law of $X_i$ is $\nu$.
- For each independent set $S\subset{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$, the variables $(X_i)_{i\in S}$ are independent.
- For each connected set $S\subset{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$, the variables $(X_i)_{i\in S}$ are identical.
The randomized color-measure is defined by $$P^{p,\nu}=\int
P^{G,\nu}\ d\mu_p(G).$$
We also note $\Lambda_n=\{-n,\dots,n\}^d$.
Laws of large numbers
=====================
Quenched Law of large numbers
-----------------------------
\[quenched\_lln\] Let $\nu$ be a probability measure on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ with a first moment. We put $m=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}} x\ d\nu(x)$. Let $p\in (0,1)\backslash\{p_c\}$
For $\mu_p$ almost $G$, we have the following result :
$${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to
+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)=(1-\theta(p))m+\theta(p)Z\quad P^{G,\nu}\text{
almost surely},$$ where $Z$ is the value taken by $X()$ along the infinite component if it exists, and 0 else.
The following lemma will be of higher importance in the following.
\[quoca\] For each subgraph $G$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}^d}}$, let us denote by $(A_i)_{i\in I}$ the partition of $G$ in connected component.
Then, if $p\ne p_c$, we have for $\mu_p$ almost $G$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{i\in I;{\vert A_i \vert}<+\infty}{\vert A_i\cap
\Lambda_n \vert}^2=\chi^f(p),$$
where
$$\chi^f(p)=\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty} k P(C(0)=k).$$
Let us define $C'(x)$ by
$$C'(x)= \begin{cases} C(x) & \text{ if }{\vert C(x) \vert}<+\infty\\
\varnothing & \text{else}
\end{cases}$$
and $C'_n(x)=C'(x)\cap \Lambda_n$.
It is easy to see that $$\label{remarquable}
\sum_{i\in I;{\vert A_i \vert}<+\infty}{\vert A_i\cap
\Lambda_n \vert}^2=\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n}{\vert C'_n(x) \vert}.$$ We have $C'_n(x)\le C(x)$, and the equality holds if and only if $C'(x)\subset \Lambda_n$.
The quantity residing in connected components intersecting the boundary of $\Lambda_n$ can be controlled using well-known results about the distribution of the size of finite clusters. In both subcritical case and supercritical case, we can found $K>0$ and $\beta>0$ such that $$P(+\infty>{\vert C(x) \vert}\ge n)\le\exp(-K
n^{\beta}).$$ (We can take $\beta=1$ when $p<p_c$ and $\beta=(d-1)/d$ if $p>p_c$. See for example the reference book of Grimmett [@MR2001a:60114] for a detailed historical bibliography. ) It follows from a standard Borel-Cantelli argument that for $\mu_p$ almost $G$, there exists a (random) $N$ such that $$\forall n\ge N\quad \max_{x\in \Lambda_n} {\vert C'(x) \vert}\le (\ln
n)^{2/\beta}.$$ If follows that for each $x\in \Lambda_{n-(\ln
n)^{2/\beta}}$, $C'(x)$ is completely inside $\Lambda_n$, and therefore $C'(x)=C'_n(x).$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{x\in \Lambda_{n-(\ln n)^{2/\beta}}}{\vert C'(x) \vert} & \le &
\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n}{\vert C'_n(x) \vert}\le \sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}{\vert C'(x) \vert}\\ \frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_{n-(\ln n)^{2/\beta}}}{\vert C'(x) \vert} & \le &
\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n}{\vert C'_n(x) \vert}\le
\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n}{\vert C'(x) \vert}\\\end{aligned}$$
By the ergodic theorem, we have $\mu_p$ almost surely $$\lim_{n\to
+\infty} \frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}{\vert C'(x) \vert}={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}{\vert C'(0) \vert}=\chi^f(p).$$ Since $\lim_{n\to +\infty}\frac{{\vert \Lambda_{n-(\ln
n)^{2/\beta}} \vert}}{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}=1$ , the result follows.
[**Remark**]{} If we forget technical controls, the key point of this proof is the identity (\[remarquable\]). It is interesting to note that Grimmett [@MR2001a:60114] used an analogous trick to prove that ${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}
k(n)/{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}=\kappa(p)$ almots surely, when $k(n)$ is the number of open clusters in $\Lambda_n$.
Let $(a_i)_{i\ge 1}$ be a sequence such that for each $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$, there exists exactly one $a_i$ connected to $x$ in $G$. Then $$\label{decomposition} \sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\vert C'_n(a_i) \vert}X(a_i)+Z{\vert \Lambda_n\cap
I \vert},$$ where $I$ is the infinite connected component ($\varnothing$ if there is none). Since $${\vert \Lambda_n\cap
I \vert}={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle x\in \Lambda_n}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{{\vert C(x) \vert}=+\infty},$$ it follows from the ergodic theorem that $$\label{in} {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to
+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}{\vert \Lambda_n\cap
I \vert}={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{{\vert C(0) \vert}=+\infty}=\theta(p)$$ for $\mu_p$ almost $G$. From now on, we will suppose that $G$ is a such a graph, and that, moreover, it is such that the conclusions of lemma \[quoca\] hold – $\mu_p$ almost all graph is such that.
Now, our goal is to apply a light improvement of the well-known proof of Etemadi [@MR82b:60027] for the law of large number. Let us state our result.
\[etemadi\] Let $(X_n)_{n\ge 1}$ be a sequence of pairwise independent and identically distributed variables. We suppose that $X_1$ is integrable and note $m={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1$. Let also be $(\alpha_{i,n})_{i,n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{+}}$ be a doubly indexed sequence of non-negative numbers such that
- $$\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{+}\quad k(n)={\vert \{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{+};\alpha_{i,n}\ne 0\} \vert}<+\infty.$$
- $$\forall i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{+}\quad\text{the sequence } (\alpha_{i,n})_{n\ge
1}\quad\text{is a non-decreasing converging sequence}.$$
- $$\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty}
\alpha_{i,n}^2}{\big(\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty}
\alpha_{i,n}\big)^2}=O(\frac1{k(n)}).$$
- $$\exists A>0,d\ge 1\quad k(n)\sim
An^d.$$
- $$\exists B>0,e>0\quad \sum_{i=1}^{+\infty}
\alpha_{i,n}\sim Bn^e.$$
Then, almost surely $$\lim_{n\to
+\infty}\frac{{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\alpha_{i,n}X_i}{{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\alpha_{i,n}}=m.$$
By linearity, it is sufficient to prove the theorem for nonnegative random variables. Assume then that $X_n\ge 0$. Moreover, we can assume without loss that $\alpha_{i,n}=0$ for $i>k(n)$. This can be done by permuting columns of the matrix $(\alpha_{i,n})$. Let $d(n)=\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty} \alpha_{i,n}.$ We define $S_n=\sum_{i=1}^{k(n)}\alpha_{i,n} X_i$ and $Q_n=S_n/d_n$. We also consider the truncated variables $Y_i=X_i{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{X_i\le k(i)}$ and associated sums and quotients: $S^{*}_n=\sum_{i=1}^{k(n)}\alpha_{i,n} Y_i$ and $Q^{*}_n=S^{*}_n/d_n$.
$$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Var }}S_n^{*} & = & \sum_{i=1}^{k(n)}\alpha_{i,n}^2 {\text{Var }}Y_i\\
& \le & \sum_{i=1}^{k(n)}\alpha_{i,n}^2 {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}Y_i^2\\
& \le & \sum_{i=1}^{k(n)}\alpha_{i,n}^2 {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_i^2{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{X_i\le k(i)}\\
& \le & \big(\sum_{i=1}^{k(n)}\alpha_{i,n}^2\big) {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1^2{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{X_1\le k(n)}\\\end{aligned}$$
It follows that there exists $K>0$ such that $$\forall n\ge 1\quad
{\text{Var }}Q_n^{*}\le K\frac1{k(n)} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1^2{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{X_1\le k(n)}.$$ Now, fix $\beta>1$ and define $u_n$ to be the integer which is the closest to $\beta^n$. Then $$\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}{\text{Var }}Q_{u_n}\le K{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X^2_1\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\frac1{k(u_n)}{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{X_1\le k(u_n)}$$ But since $k(u_n)\sim A\beta^{nd}$, it is easy to prove that $$\sum_{n=N}^{+\infty}\frac1{k(u_n)}=O(\frac1{k(u_n)}).$$ Then, there exists $C>0$ such that $$\forall N\ge 1\quad\sum_{n=N}^{+\infty}\frac1{k(u_n)}\le C
\frac1{k(u_n)}.$$ Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}{\text{Var }}Q_{u_n}^{*} & \le & K{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X^2_1\sum_{n:k(u_n)\ge X_1 }\frac1{k(u_n)}\\ & \le & KC{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X^2_1
\frac1{k(\inf\{ n;k(u_n)\ge X_1\})}\\ & \le & KC{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X^2_1
\frac1{X_1}=KC{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1<+\infty\\\end{aligned}$$ It follows from Chebyshev’s inequality and the first Borel-Cantelli lemma that $$Q_{u_n}^{*}-{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}Q_{u_n}^{*}\to 0\text{
a.s.}$$ By monotone convergence, $$\lim_{n\to +\infty} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}Y_n=\lim_{n\to +\infty} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{X_1\ge k(n)}={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1.$$ Let $N$ be such that $\vert{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}Y_k-{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1\vert\le{\varepsilon}$ for $k>N$. Then, for $n\ge N$ $$\vert{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}Q_{u_n}-{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1\vert\le\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1}
{d_n}\big(\sum_{i=1}^N \lim_{k\to +\infty}
\alpha_{i,k}\big)+{\varepsilon}.$$ Then, ${\overline{\lim}}_{n\to +\infty}\vert
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}Q_n^{*}-{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1\vert\le{\varepsilon}$, and since ${\varepsilon}$ is arbitrary, $\lim {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}{Q_n^{*}}={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1$. It follows that $$Q_{u_n}^{*}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1\text{ a.s.}$$ Now, we go back to not truncated variables. Since $A'=\sup_n {n/k(n)}<+\infty$, we have $$\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} P(X_n\ne Y_n)=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}
P(X_n>k(n) )=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} P(X_1>k(n)
)\le\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} P(X_1>A'n)\le A'{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1<+\infty$$ It follows that for almost all $\omega$, there exists $n(\omega)$ such that $X_k(\omega)=Y_k(\omega)$ for $k\ge n(\omega)$. Then, for $n\ge n(\omega)$ $$\vert
Q_{n}(\omega)-Q^{*}_{n}(\omega)\vert\le\frac1
{d_n}\sum_{i=1}^{n(\omega)}\big( \lim_{k\to +\infty}
\alpha_{i,k}\big) X_i(\omega)).$$ It follows that $$Q_{u_n}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1\text{ a.s.}$$ If $u_n\le k\le u_{n+1}$, then since $(S_n)_{n\ge 1}$ is non-decreasing, we have $$\frac{d_{u_n}}{d_{u_{n+1}}}Q_{u_n}\le
Q_k\le\frac{d_{u_{n+1}}}{d_{u_n}}Q_{u_{n+1}}.$$ Since $\frac{d_{u_{n+1}}}{d_{u_n}}\to \beta^e$, it follows that $$\frac1{\beta^e}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1\le{\underline{\lim}}_{k\to +\infty}Q_k
\le{\overline{\lim}}_{k\to +\infty}Q_k\le{\beta^e}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1$$ Since this is true for each $\beta>1$, we have proved that $$\lim_{k\to
+\infty}Q_k={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}X_1\text{ a.s.}$$
Our goal is to apply this result to the sequence $(\alpha_{i,n})$ defined by $\alpha_{i,n}={\vert C'_n(a_i) \vert}$. Since the sequences $(C'_n(x))_{n\ge 1}$ are non-decreasing, so are the sequences $(\alpha_{i,n})_{n\ge 1}$. Indeed, we have ${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to
+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}} \alpha_{i,n}={\vert C(a_i) \vert}<+\infty$. Moreover, $$\label{comper}
{{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\alpha_{i,n}}={\vert \Lambda_n\backslash
I \vert}.$$ Since the $\alpha_{i,n }$’s are natural numbers, it follows that $k(n)$ is finite. In fact, $k(n)$ is the number of finite components which intersect $\Lambda_n$. Together with the ergodic theorem, (\[comper\]) gives $$\label{hum} {{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\alpha_{i,n}}\sim
(1-\theta(p)){\vert \Lambda_n \vert}\sim (1-\theta(p))2^d n^d.$$ As already mentioned, Grimmett has proved that $$\label{kappa} {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}
k(n)/{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}=\kappa(p).$$ Then, we have $$\label{kappa2} k(n)\sim\kappa(p)2^d n^d$$ We must now prove that $$\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty}
\alpha_{i,n}^2}{\big(\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty} \alpha_{i,n}\big)^2}
k(n)$$ is bounded. But $$\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty}
\alpha_{i,n}^2}{\big(\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty} \alpha_{i,n}\big)^2}
k(n)\sim (1-\theta(p))^{-2} \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty}
\alpha_{i,n}^2}{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\frac{k(n)}{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}$$ Using the conclusions of lemma \[quoca\] and (\[kappa\]), we get $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty}
\alpha_{i,n}^2}{\big(\sum_{i=1}^{+\infty} \alpha_{i,n}\big)^2}
k(n)=\frac{\chi^f(p)}{(1-\theta(p))^{2}}\kappa(p) ,$$ which completes the checking of the assumptions. It follows that $$\label{morceau2} {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to
+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n\backslash I
\vert}}{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\vert C'_n(a_i) \vert}X(a_i)=m\text{ a.s}.$$ Since ${\vert \Lambda_n\backslash I \vert}\sim
(1-\theta(p)){\vert \Lambda_n \vert}$, it comes from (\[decomposition\]),(\[in\]) and (\[morceau2\]) that $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)=(1-\theta(p))m+\theta(p)Z\quad P^{G,\nu}\text{
almost surely}.$$
We will now formulate an easy, but important corollary.
\[pas\_trivial\_1\]
- $Z$ is measurable with respect to the tail $\sigma$-field $$\mathcal{T}={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\cap\\
{\scriptstyle n\ge
1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\mathcal{F}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}\backslash\Lambda_n},$$ where $\mathcal{F}_S$ is the $\sigma$-field generated by the $(X_i)_{i\in S}$.
- For $p>p_c$, $\mathcal{T}$ is not trivial under $P^{G,\nu}$ for $\mu_p$ almost every $G$ as soon as $\nu$ is not a Dirac measure.
The first point is a consequence of the formula given in theorem \[quenched\_lln\] and the second point is a consequence of the first one, because $Z$ is non constant as soon as $\nu$ is not a Dirac measure.
The fact that $Z$ is $\mathcal{T}$-measurable will be important for the formulation of annealed results, because the environment is forgotten once we have randomized under $\mu_p$. Indeed, whereas the infinite component can not always be recovered, the value of $X()$ along this component can.
Annealed Law of large numbers
-----------------------------
In this case, the annealed theorem is an easy consequence of the quenched one.
Let $\nu$ be a probability measure on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ with a first moment. We put $m=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}} x\ d\nu(x)$.
Then, for $p\in (0,1)\backslash\{p_c\}$ :
$${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)=(1-\theta(p))m+\theta(p)Z\quad P^{p,\nu}\text{
almost surely},$$ where $Z$ is the value taken by $X()$ along the infinite component if it exists, and 0 else.
Let $C=\{{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to
+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)=(1-\theta(p))m+\theta(p)Z\}$. We have $$P^{p,\nu}(C)=\int P^{G,\nu}(C)\ d\mu_p(G)=\int 1\ d\mu_p(G)=1,$$ since $P^{G,\nu}(C)=1$ for $\mu_p$ almost $G$.
Of course, the existence of the annealed limit is not an hard result: since $P^{p,\nu}$ is invariant under the translations, the ergodic theorem ensures that $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}[X_0\vert\mathcal{T}]\text{ almost surely}.$$ Indeed, the annealed law of large number could be rephrased in $$\label{reformule}
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}[X_0\vert\mathcal{T}]=(1-\theta(p))m+\theta(p)Z$$
Here is the annealed result analogous to corollary \[pas\_trivial\_1\]. It can be seen as a consequence of (\[reformule\]).
For $p>p_c$, $\mathcal{T}$ is not trivial under $P^{p,\nu}$ as soon as $\nu$ is not a Dirac measure.
Examples
--------
### “+/-” valued spin system
It is the simplest models that we can study: only two values are taken: “+1” and “-1”, with probability $\alpha$ and $1-\alpha$. In the terminology of Häggström [@MR2001b:60118], it is denoted as the $r+s$-state fractional fuzzy Potts model at inverse temperature $-\frac12\ln (1-p)$, with $r=\alpha$ and $s=1-\alpha$. This name refers to the fact that the fuzzy Potts model can be realized using random clusters by an analogous painting procedure. For more details, see Häggström [@MR2001b:60118].
We can also remark that for $\mu_p$ almost $G$, we have
$$P^{G,(1-\alpha)\delta_{-1}+\alpha\delta_{+1}}=\alpha{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle \beta\to+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\mathcal{I}^{+}_{G,\beta,h}
+(1-\alpha){\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle \beta\to+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\mathcal{I}^{-}_{G,\beta,h},$$ where ${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle \beta\to+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\mathcal{I}^{+}_{G,\beta,h}$ (resp. ${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle \beta\to+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\mathcal{I}^{-}_{G,\beta,h}$)is the Ising Gibbs measure on $G$ at inverse temperature $\beta$ with the external field $h=\frac12\ln(\alpha/(1-\alpha))$ which is maximal (resp. minimal) for the stochastic domination. Thus, $$P^{p,(1-\alpha)\delta_{-1}+\alpha\delta_{+1}}=
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle \beta\to+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\int\alpha\mathcal{I}^{+}_{G,\beta,h}
+(1-\alpha)\mathcal{I}^{-}_{G,\beta,h}\ d\mu_p.$$ In this sense, we can say that $P^{p,(1-\alpha)\delta_{-1}+\alpha\delta_{+1}}$ arises at the zero temperature limit of an Ising model on a randomly diluted lattice. For precise definitions and results relative to Ising ferromagnets on random subgraphs generated by bond percolation, see Georgii [@MR83g:82041] and also the recent article of Häggström, Schonmann and Steif [@MR1797305].
If we choose $\nu=(1-\alpha)\delta_{-1}+\alpha\delta_1$ with $\alpha\in (0,1)$, it follows that the magnetization is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{magnetisme} M={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to
+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n}X(x)=
\begin{cases} 2\alpha(1-\theta(p))+2\theta(p)-1 & \text{ with probability }\alpha\\
2\alpha(1-\theta(p))-1 & \text{ with probability }1-\alpha\\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ When $p\in (0,p_c)$, the magnetization is deterministic. Moreover, it follows from (\[magnetisme\]) that the signum of the magnetization is deterministic if and only if $$\max(\alpha,1-\alpha)(1-\theta(p))\ge\frac12.$$ Note that if $\theta(p)\ge\frac12$ the signum of the magnetization can not be deterministic.
Note that in the case $\alpha=\frac12$, the annealed law of the magnetization has been identified by Häggström ([@hag] Proposition 2.1) using a spin-flip argument.
### A quenched Gaussian system
Here we choose $\nu=\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. For each $G$, $P^{G,\nu}$ is a Gaussian measure. Here, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{magnetism} M={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to
+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)=\theta(p)Z.\end{aligned}$$
In other words, $M$ is almost surely null when $p<p_c$ and $M\sim
\mathcal{N}(0,\theta(p)^2)$ when $p>p_c$.
We emphasize that these large numbers theorems are valid both quenched and annealed. This will not more be so simple for Central Limit theorems.
Central Limit Theorems
======================
Quenched Central Limit Theorem
------------------------------
\[quenched\] Let $\nu$ be a probability measure on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ with a second moment. We put $m=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}} x\ d\nu(x)$ and $\sigma^2=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}} (x-m)^2\ d\nu(x)$.
For $\mu_p$ almost $G$, we have the following results:
- *The subcritical case*\
If $p\in (0,p_c)$, then $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to
+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\big(\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n
}(X(x)-m)\big)=\mathcal{N}(0,\chi^f(p)\sigma^2).$$
- *The supercritical case*\
If $p\in (p_c,1)$, then$${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to
+\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\big(\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n\backslash I }(X(x)-m)\big)=\mathcal{N}(0,
\chi^f(p)\sigma^2)$$ where $I$ is the infinite component of $G$.
For simplicity, we will give the proof in the supercritical case – which contains the proof of the subcritical case.
$$\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n\backslash I
}(X(x)-m)={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\vert C'_n(a_i) \vert}(X(a_i)-m)$$ Then $$\frac1{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n\backslash I
}(X(x)-m)=\big(\frac{s_n^2}{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}\big)^{1/2}\frac1{s_n}{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\vert C'_n(a_i) \vert}(X(a_i)-m),$$ with $$s_n^2={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\vert C'_n(a_i) \vert}^2.$$
By lemma \[quoca\], we have for $\mu^p$ almost $G$ $\lim_{n\to
+\infty}\frac{s_n^2}{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}=\chi^f(p)$.
Now, we have just to prove $$\frac1{s_n}{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle i=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\vert C'_n(a_i) \vert}(X(a_i)-m)\Longrightarrow\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2).$$ Therefore, we will prove that for $\mu^p$ almost $G$, the sequence $Y_{n,k}={\vert C'_n(a_i) \vert}(X(a_i)-m)$ satisfies the Lindeberg condition. For each ${\varepsilon}>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\frac1{s_n^2}\int_{\vert Y_{n,k}\vert\ge
{\varepsilon}s_n} Y_{n,k}^2\ d P^{G,\nu} & = &
\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\frac{{\vert C'_n(a_k) \vert}^2}{s_n^2}\int_{
{\vert C'_n(a_k) \vert}\vert x\vert\ge {\varepsilon}s_n} (x-m)^2\ d\nu(x)\\ &
\le & \int_{\vert x\vert\ge \frac{{\varepsilon}}{\eta_n}} (x-m)^2\
d\nu(x),\end{aligned}$$ with $\eta_n=\frac{\sup_{k\ge 1}{\vert C'_n(a_k) \vert}}{s_n}$. Then, the Lindeberg condition is fulfilled if $\lim \eta_n=0$. But we have already seen that $s_n\sim (\chi^f(p){\vert \Lambda_n \vert})^{1/2}$, whereas $\sup_{k\ge 1}{\vert C'_n(a_k) \vert}=O((\ln n)^{2/\beta})$. This concludes the proof.
Annealed Central Limit Theorem
------------------------------
\[annealed\] Let $\nu$ be a probability measure on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ with a second moment. We put $m=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}} x\ d\nu(x)$ and $\sigma^2=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}} (x-m)^2\ d\nu(x)$. Let $p\in (p_c,1)$. We emphasize that $G$ is randomized under $\mu_p$.
- *The subcritical case*\
If $p\in (0,p_c)$, then $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1
{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\big(\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)-m{\vert \Lambda_n \vert})\big)=\gamma$$ where $$\gamma=\mathcal{N}(0,\chi^f(p)\sigma^2)$$
- *The supercritical case*\
If $p\in (p_c,1)$, then
$${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1
{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\big(\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)-((1-\theta(p))m+\theta(p)Z){\vert \Lambda_n \vert})\big)=\gamma$$ where $$\gamma\text{ is the image of }
\mathcal{N}(0,\chi^f(p)\sigma^2)\times\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_p^2)\times\nu\text{
by }(x,y,z)\mapsto x+y(z-m),$$ with $$\sigma_p^2={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}(P(0\in I\text{and }k\in
I)-\theta(p)^2),$$ where $I$ is the infinite component of $G$.
In the subcritical case, the Annealed Central Limit Theorem is a simple consequence of the Quenched Central Limit Theorem.
In order to prove this result in the supercritical case, we will need a Central Limit Theorem related to the variations of the size of the intersection of the infinite cluster with large boxes.
\[newman\] Under $\mu_p$, we have $$\frac{{\vert \Lambda_n\cap
I \vert}-\theta(p){\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}{{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}}\Longrightarrow\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_p^2),$$ where $I$ is the infinite component of $G$.
$${{\vert \Lambda_n\cap
I(\omega) \vert}-\theta(p){\vert \Lambda_n \vert}}=\sum_{k\in\Lambda_n}
f(T^k\omega),$$ where $T^k$ is the translation operator defined by $T^k(\omega)=(\omega_{n+k})_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}$ and $f={1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{\{{\vert C(0) \vert}=+\infty\}}-\theta(p)$. Moreover $f$ is an increasing function and $\mu^p$ satisfies the FKG inequalities. Then, $(f(T^k \omega))_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}})$ is a stationary random field of square integrable satisfying to the FKG inequalities. Therefore, according to Newman [@MR81i:82070], the Central Limit Theorem is true if we prove that the quantity $$\sum_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}
{\text{Cov}}(f,f\circ T^k)$$ is finite. But ${\text{Cov}}(f,f\circ
T^k)={\text{Cov}}(Y_0,Y_k),$ with $Y_k={1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{\ {\vert C(k) \vert}<+\infty \}}$. Now, $$Y_k=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} F_{n,k},\text{with
}F_{n,k}={1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{\{{\vert C(k) \vert}=n\}}.$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Cov}}(Y_0,Y_k) & = & \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \sum_{p=0}^{+\infty}
{\text{Cov}}(F_{n,0}, F_{p,k})\\ & = &
\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}\big({\text{Cov}}(F_{n,0}, F_{n,k})+2 \sum_{p=0}^{n-1}
{\text{Cov}}(F_{n,0}, F_{p,k})\big)\\ & = & \sum_{n>\Vert
k\Vert/2-1}^{+\infty}\big({\text{Cov}}(F_{n,0}, F_{n,k})+2
\sum_{p=0}^{n-1} {\text{Cov}}(F_{n,0}, F_{p,k})\big)
\\
& = & \sum_{n>\Vert k\Vert/2-1}^{+\infty}{\text{Cov}}(F_{n,0}, F_{n,k}+2
\sum_{p=0}^{n-1}F_{p,k}),
\\\end{aligned}$$ because $F_{n,0}$ and $F_{p,k}$ are independent as soon as $\Vert
k\Vert\ge p+n+2$. Since $F_{n,0}\ge 0$ and $0\le F_{n,k}+2
\sum_{p=0}^{n-1}F_{p,k}\le 2$, we have $$\vert {\text{Cov}}(F_{n,0},
F_{n,k}+2 \sum_{p=0}^{n-1}F_{p,k})\vert\le 2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}F_{n,0}=2P({\vert C(0) \vert}=n).$$
Then, ${\text{Cov}}(Y_0,Y_k) \vert \le
\sum_{n>\Vert k\Vert/2-1}^{+\infty}2P({\vert C(0) \vert}=n)$ and $$\sum_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}} {\text{Cov}}(f,f\circ T^k)\le
2{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle +\infty}\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle n=1}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\vert \Lambda_{2(n+1)} \vert}P({\vert C(0) \vert}=n).$$
Since Kesten and Zhang [@MR91i:60278] have proved the existence of $\eta(p)>0$ such that $$\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{+}\quad
P({\vert C(0) \vert}=n)\le\exp(-\eta(p)n^{(d-1)/d}),$$ it follows that the series converges. Of course, a so sharp estimate is not necessary for our purpose. Estimates derived from Chayes, Chayes and Newman [@MR88i:60161], and from Chayes, Chayes, Grimmett, Kesten and Schonmann [@MR91i:60274] would have been sufficient.
Rearranging the terms of the sum, we easily obtain $$\big(\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)-((1-\theta(p))m+\theta(p)Z){\vert \Lambda_n \vert})\big)=\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n\backslash I
}(X(x)-m)+(Z-m)({\vert I\cap\Lambda_n \vert}-{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}\alpha)$$ We will now put $$Q_n=\frac1 {{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\big(\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)-((1-\theta(p))m+\theta(p)Z){\vert \Lambda_n \vert})\big),$$ and define $$\forall t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\quad \phi_n(t)={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}\exp(iQ_n)$$ and $$\forall t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\quad \phi_{n,z}(t)={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}\exp(iQ_n)\vert\{Z=z\}$$ As usually, it means that ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}(\exp(iQ_t)\vert Z)=\phi_{n,z}(Z)$. It is also important to emphasize that the following properties are fulfilled under $P^{p,\nu}$:
- $G$ is independent from $Z$.
- $(X_k {1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{k\notin I})_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}$ is independent from $Z$.
Therefore, we have $$\phi_{n,z}(t)={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}\exp(-
\frac{it}{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n\backslash I
}(X(x)-m)+(z-m)({\vert I\cap\Lambda_n \vert}-{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}\alpha))$$ Conditioning by $\sigma(G)$ and using the fact that $I$ is $\sigma(G)$-measurable, we get $\phi_{n,z}(t)={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}f_n(t,.)
g_{n}((z-m)t,.)$, with $$\begin{aligned}
f_n(t,\omega)& = & {\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}\exp(-
\frac{it}{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n\backslash I
}(X(x)-m)\vert\sigma(G)\\ & = & \int \exp(-
\frac{it}{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\sum_{x\in \Lambda_n\backslash
I(\omega) }(X(x)-m)\ dP^{G(\omega),\nu} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
g_{n}(t,\omega)& = & \exp(-
\frac{it}{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}({\vert I(\omega)\cap\Lambda_n \vert}-{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}\alpha))
\\ $$ By theorem \[quenched\] we have for each $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $P^{p,\nu}$ almost $\omega$: ${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to + \infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}
f_{n}(t,\omega) =\exp(-\frac{t^2}{2}\chi^f(p)\sigma^2)$ Then, by dominated convergence $$\lim_{n\to +\infty}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}(f_n(t,.)-\exp(-\frac{t^2}2\chi^f(p)\sigma^2))
g_{n}((z-m)t,.)=0.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to +\infty}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}f_n(t,.) g_{n}((z-m)t,.) & = & \lim_{n\to
+\infty}\exp(-\frac{t^2}2\chi^f(p)\sigma^2){\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}g_{n}((z-m)t,.)\\ &
= &
\exp(-\frac{t^2}2\chi^f(p)\sigma^2)\exp(-\frac{t^2}2(z-m)^2\sigma^2_p)\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from Proposition \[newman\]. We have just proved that $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}
\phi_{n,z}(t)=\exp(-\frac{t^2}2(\chi^f(p)\sigma^2+(z-m)^2\sigma^2_p)).$$ Since $\phi_{n}(t)=\int \phi_{n,z}(t)\ d\nu(z),$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}} \phi_{n}(t) & = & \int
\exp(-\frac{t^2}2(\chi^f(p)\sigma^2+(z-m)^2\sigma^2_p)) d\nu(z)\\
& = & \int \exp(itx) \ d\gamma(x).\end{aligned}$$ By the theorem of Levy , it follows that $Q_n\Longrightarrow\gamma.$
Examples
--------
### “+/-” valued spin system
If we choose $\nu=(1-\alpha)\delta_{-1}+\alpha\delta_1$ with $\alpha\in (0,1)$, it follows that
- In the subcritical case $p\in (0,p_c)$, then $$\gamma=\alpha\mathcal{N}(0,4\alpha(1-\alpha)\chi^f(p)).$$
- In the supercritical case $p\in (p_c,1)$, then $$\gamma=\alpha\mathcal{N}(0,4\alpha(1-\alpha)\chi^f(p)+4(1-\alpha)^2\sigma_p^2)+
(1-\alpha)\mathcal{N}(0,4\alpha(1-\alpha)\chi^f(p)+4\alpha^2\sigma_p^2).$$
**Remarks**\
1. For the “+/-” valued spin system in the subcritical case, the annealed Central Limit Theorem can be simply proved without using the quenched one: since $\int \omega_k \ dP^{G,\nu}=m$ for each $k$ and each $G$, it follows that the covariance of $X_0$ and $X_k$ under $P^{p,\nu}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Cov}}(X_0,X_k) & = & \int \big(\int (\omega_0-m)(\omega_k-m)\
dP^{G,\nu}\big)\ d\mu_p(G)\\ & = &\int\sigma^2{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{\{k\in
C(0)\}}d\mu_p(G)\\ & = & \sigma^2 P(k\in C(0))\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\text{Cov}}(X_0,X_k) & = &
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}} \int\sigma^2{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{\{k\in C(0)\}}d\mu_p(G)\\
& = & \sigma^2\int{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{1\hspace{-2.7mm}1}_{\{k\in
C(0)\}}d\mu_p(G)\\
\\ & = &
\sigma^2\int{\vert C(0) \vert}d\mu_p(G)\\ & = & \sigma^2\chi(p),\end{aligned}$$ with $\chi(p)={\ensuremath{\mathbb{E}\ }}{\vert C(0) \vert}=\chi^f(p)+\theta(p)(+\infty).$ ${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\text{Cov}}(X_0,X_k)$ is a convergent series when $p<p_c$ and a divergent one else.\
In the subcritical case, the theorem of Newman [@MR81i:82070] ensures that the Central Limit is valid as soon as the translation-invariant measure $P^{p,\nu}$ satisfy to the F.K.G. inequalities. Since Häggström and Schramm [@hag] have proved the F.K.G. inequalities for the “+/-” valued spin system, we get a simple proof for the annealed Central Limit Theorem in this particular case.
2. In the case were $\alpha=\frac12$, $\gamma$ is a Gaussian measure as well in the subcritical case ($\gamma=\mathcal{N}(0,\chi^f(p))$) as in the supercritical case ($\gamma=\mathcal{N}(0,\chi^f(p)+\sigma_p^2)$). It provides an example where there is a classical Central Limit Theorem whereas the “susceptibility” ${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}{\text{Cov}}(X_0,X_k)$ is infinite.\
It is the “only” case with a Gaussian limit in the supercritical case, as tell the following remark.
3. If $p\in (p_c,1)$, then $\gamma$ is Gaussian if and only if there exist $a,b\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that $\nu=\frac12(\delta_{a}+\delta_{b})$.
Using the characteristic function, it is easy to see that $\gamma$ is Gaussian if and only if $\gamma'=\int
{\mathcal{N}(0,(z-m)^2\sigma^2_p)}(t)d\nu(z)$ does. Let us define, for $k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{+}$: $m_k=\int z^{2k}\ d\gamma(z)$ . We have $$\begin{aligned}
m_k & = & \int {\mathcal{N}(0,(z-m)^2\sigma^2_p)}(x\mapsto
x^{2k})d\nu(z)\\ & = & \int \frac{(2k)!}{k!2^k}(z-m)^{2k}
d\nu(z)\\ & = & \frac{(2k)!}{k!2^k}\int (z-m)^{2k} d\nu(z)\end{aligned}$$ By definition of $\gamma'$, $\gamma'$ is a symmetric measure. So if $\gamma'$ if Gaussian, it is centered and we have $$\forall
k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{+}\quad m_k= \frac{(2k)!}{k!2^k} m_1^k.$$ Then, we have $$\forall k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{+}\quad\int (z-m)^{2k} d\nu(z)= m_1^k.$$ If we denote by $\nu'$ the image of $\nu$ by $z\mapsto (z-m)^{2}$, we have $$\forall k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{+}\quad\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{+}} z^{k} d\nu'(z)=m_1^k$$ Then, we have $$\text{supp ess }\nu'=\lim_{k\to +
\infty}\big(\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{+}} z^{k}
d\nu'(z)\big)^{1/k}=m_1=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{+}} z d\nu'(z)$$ It follow that for $\nu'$ almost $z$, $z=\text{supp ess }\nu'$: $\nu'$ is a Dirac measure. Therefore, ${\text{supp }}{\nu}\subset\{m-\sqrt{m_1},m+\sqrt{m_1}\}$. Since $m=\int z\
d\nu(z)$, we necessary have $\nu(m-\sqrt{m_1})=\nu(m+\sqrt{m_1})=\frac12$ and then $\nu=\frac12(\delta_{m-\sqrt{m_1}}+\delta_{m+\sqrt{m_1}})$.
### The quenched Gaussian system
In the case $\nu=\mathcal{N}(0,1)$, theorem \[annealed\] takes the following form:
- *The subcritical case*\
If $p\in (0,p_c)$, then $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1
{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\big(\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x))\big)=\gamma$$ where $$\gamma=\mathcal{N}(0,\chi^f(p)\sigma^2)$$
- *The supercritical case*\
If $p\in (p_c,1)$, then
$${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\lim\\
{\scriptstyle n\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac1
{{\vert \Lambda_n \vert}^{1/2}}\big(\sum_{x\in
\Lambda_n}X(x)-\theta(p)Z{\vert \Lambda_n \vert})\big)=\gamma$$ where $$\gamma\text{ is the image of } \mathcal{N}(0,I_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^3})\text{ by
}(x,y,z)\mapsto (\chi^f(p))^{1/2}x+\sigma_p yz,$$ with $$\sigma_p^2={\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\sum\\
{\scriptstyle k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}^d}}}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}(P(0\in I\text{and }k\in
I)-\theta(p)^2),$$ where $I$ is the infinite component of $G$.
In this case $\gamma$ is a Gaussian measure when $p<p_c$ whereas $\gamma$ is a Gaussian chaos of order $2$ for $p>p_c$.
[^1]: Preprint
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this Letter, we propose a new generalized Ricci dark energy (NGR) model to unify Ricci dark energy (RDE) and XCDM. Our model can distinguish between RDE and XCDM by introducing a parameter $\beta$ called weight factor. When $\beta=1$, NGR model becomes the usual RDE model. The XCDM model is corresponding to $\beta=0$. Moreover, NGR model permits the situation where neither $\beta=1$ nor $\beta=0$. We then perform a statefinder analysis on NGR model to see how $\beta$ effects the trajectory on the $r-s$ plane. In order to know the value of $\beta$, we constrain NGR model with latest observations including type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) from Union2 set (557 data), baryonic acoustic oscillation (BAO) observation from the spectroscopic Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data release 7 (DR7) galaxy sample and cosmic microwave background (CMB) observation from the 7-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP7) results. With Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, the constraint result is $\beta$=$0.08_{-0.21}^{+0.30}(1\sigma)_{-0.28}^{+0.43}(2\sigma)$, which manifests the observations prefer a XCDM universe rather than RDE model. It seems RDE model is ruled out in NGR scenario within $2\sigma$ regions. Furthermore, we compare it with some of successful cosmological models using AIC information criterion. NGR model seems to be a good choice for describing the universe.'
author:
- 'Kai Liao, Zong-Hong Zhu'
title: A unification of RDE model and XCDM model
---
$\text{Introduction}$
=====================
Various cosmic observations suggest our universe is undergoing an accelerated expansion [@acceleration]. To explain this phenomenon, people introduce an exotic component with negative pressure known as dark energy. The simplest dark energy model is cosmological constant ($\Lambda$) [@lambda] or XCDM model where dark energy has an arbitrary equation of state (EOS) $\omega_X$. It fits all kinds of observational data well while it is confronted with theoretical problems such as “coincidence” problem and “fine-tuning” problem [@problem]. As a result, other dark energy models have been widely proposed including quintessence [@quintessence], quintom [@quintom], phantom [@phantom], GCG [@GCG] and so on. In principle, dark energy is related to quantum gravity [@quantum]. But until now, a self-consistent quantum gravity theory has not established. Nevertheless, the holographic principle [@principle] is thought to be a reflection of quantum gravity. Motivated by this, holographic dark energy has been proposed. It embodies the relation between UV cut-off and IR cut off. However, how to choose the IR cut-off is a problem. Cohen et al. [@first] first chose Hubble scale as IR cut-off. Hsu and Li [@point] pointed out it can not give an acceleration solution. Li then suggested the future event horizon as IR cut-off [@FE]. Basing on causality, Cai proposed agegraphic dark energy [@AU] and new agegraphic dark energy [@CT]. Furthermore, Gao et al. [@RDE] proposed a holographic dark energy from Ricci scalar curvature. In RDE model, the IR cut-off is determined by a local quantity.
Nowadays, all the models above seem to be consistent with current observations. Usually, we estimate models through the $\chi^2$ or information criteria like BIC and AIC [@criteria]. In this Letter, we find XCDM model and RDE model can be related by a parameter $\beta$, thus we can estimate them through constraining $\beta$. The distribution of $\beta$ can reflect which model is better. For example, if the best-fit value of $\beta$ is close to 1 and 0 is not within 2-$\sigma$ range, we can say the observations support RDE model rather than XCDM model. We now give some similar examples. In order to know whether $\Lambda$CDM is right, people free the EOS parameter and constrain it with observations. If the result is close to -1, we can say $\Lambda$CDM is still a good choice. However, if the EOS parameter tends to -2, then $\Lambda$CDM should be suspected. Likewise, for purely dimensional reasons, Granda and Oliveros [@NIR] proposed a new IR cut-off. Wang and Xu [@NIR2] give the constraint results which suggest the coefficient of $H^2$ is two times larger than the one of $\dot{H}$, thus ruling out the SRDE model [@SRDE]. In RDE model, the density of dark energy is proportional to Ricci scalar or the sum of traces of energy-momentum tensors of each component. Since the trace of radiation is 0, we can ignore its impact on space-time curvature. RDE model suggests the weights of dark energy and matter are the same, while XCDM model suggests only the trace of dark energy can affect its density. Therefore, what on earth is the weight of matter (0.5 or 0?) is an interesting thing we want to know. Motivated by this, we free the weight of matter as an arbitrary parameter called weight factor.
The rest of the Letter is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give the dynamics of the new generalized Ricci dark energy model. In Section 3, we give a statefinder diagnostic. In Section 4, we introduce the observational data we use. The constraint results are shown in Section 5. At last, we give the discussion and conclusion in section 6. Throughout the Letter, the unit with light velocity $c=1$ is used.
$\text{New generalized Ricci dark energy model}$
================================================
We assume the universe is flat and described by Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric. For RDE model, the density of dark energy is proportional to Ricci scalar $$\rho_{de}\propto R.$$
Considering Einstein field equation can be expressed as $$R=8\pi G T,$$ where G is Newtonian constant, T is the sum of traces of each component, RDE model can be expressed as $$\rho_{de}\propto T_{de}+T_m\propto \rho_{de}-3p+\rho_m.$$
From this equation, the coefficients of $T_{de}$ and $T_m$ are both 1, which means the weights of dark energy and matter are the same. We now change the weight of matter, the equation becomes $$\rho_{de}=\alpha(T_{de}+\beta T_m)=\alpha(\rho_{de}-3p+\beta \rho_m),$$ $\beta$ here is the weight factor we introduce which reflects the relative weight of matter to dark energy. If $\beta=1$, it becomes the usual RDE model. When $\beta=0$ $$\rho_{de}=\alpha (\rho_{de}-3p),$$ equivalently, $$\rho_{de}\propto p,$$ the NGR model becomes XCDM model. For simplicity, we define dimensionless quantities $\Omega_m=\frac{\rho_m}{\rho_c}$, $\Omega_{de}=\frac{\rho_{de}}{\rho_c}$, where $\rho_c=\frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G}$ is the critical density of the universe. $H$ is Hubble parameter, subscript “0” represents the quantity today. The Friedmann equation can be expressed as $$E^2=\Omega_{de}+\Omega_m,$$ where $E=\frac{H}{H_0}$.
The energy-momentum conservation equation can be expressed as $$\dot{\Omega_{i}}+3H(1+\omega_i)\Omega_{i}=0,$$ subscript “i” represents dark energy or matter. Then we get $$\Omega_{de}'=\frac{(4\alpha-1)\Omega_{de}+\alpha\beta\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^3}{\alpha(1+z)},$$ where $\Omega_{de}'=\frac{d\Omega_{de}}{dz}$. With the initial condition $$\Omega_{de0}+\Omega_{m0}=1,$$ we can obtain the evolution of $\Omega_{de}$ with respect to redshift z $$\Omega_{de}=(1-\frac{(\alpha\beta+1-\alpha)\Omega_{m0}}{1-\alpha})(1+z)^{4-\frac{1}{\alpha}}+\frac{\alpha\beta\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^3}{1-\alpha}.$$
The EOS parameter can be obtained by $$\omega_{de}=-1+(1+z)\frac{\Omega_{de}'}{3\Omega_{de}},$$ and the deceleration parameter $$q=\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{3\omega_{de}\Omega_{de}}{\Omega_{de}+\Omega_{m}}).$$
In order to exhibit the effects of $\beta$, we fix $\Omega_{m0}=0.27$ and $\omega_{de0}=-1$ and plot the evolutions of $\omega_{de}(z)$, $q(z)$, Hubble parameter $H(z)$ and density parameters defined as $\Omega_i/E^2$ in Fig. \[fig1\] and Fig. \[figh\].
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Omega_{m0}$ $\alpha$ $\beta$ and $\chi_{\rm min}^2$
$*$ $0.284_{-0.035}^{+0.036}(1\sigma)_{-0.048}^{+0.050}(2\sigma)$ $0.235_{-0.039}^{+0.046}(1\sigma)_{-0.053}^{+0.068}(2\sigma)$ $0.08_{-0.21}^{+0.30}(1\sigma)_{-0.28}^{+0.43}(2\sigma)$ 531.710
$\beta=0$ $0.280_{-0.029}^{+0.032}(1\sigma)_{-0.041}^{+0.050}(2\sigma)$ $0.246_{-0.026}^{+0.029}(1\sigma)_{-0.037}^{+0.043}(2\sigma)$ $*$ 532.238
$\beta=0.5$ $0.287_{-0.031}^{+0.034}(1\sigma)_{-0.044}^{+0.053}(2\sigma)$ $0.195_{-0.019}^{+0.019}(1\sigma)_{-0.027}^{+0.029}(2\sigma)$ $*$ 539.734
$\beta=1$ $0.296_{-0.033}^{+0.037}(1\sigma)_{-0.047}^{+0.054}(2\sigma)$ $0.161_{-0.014}^{+0.016}(1\sigma)_{-0.021}^{+0.023}(2\sigma)$ $*$ 558.834
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\[tab1\]
![The evolutions of $w_{de}(z)$ (left) and $q(z)$ (right) with respect to z in NGR model. $\Omega_{m0}=0.27$, $\omega_{de0}=-1$. []{data-label="fig1"}](w.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"} ![The evolutions of $w_{de}(z)$ (left) and $q(z)$ (right) with respect to z in NGR model. $\Omega_{m0}=0.27$, $\omega_{de0}=-1$. []{data-label="fig1"}](q.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
![The evolutions of the Hubble parameter in units of $H_{\Lambda CDM}(z)$ (left) and the density parameters (right). $\Omega_{m0}=0.27$, $\omega_{de0}=-1$. []{data-label="figh"}](H.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"} ![The evolutions of the Hubble parameter in units of $H_{\Lambda CDM}(z)$ (left) and the density parameters (right). $\Omega_{m0}=0.27$, $\omega_{de0}=-1$. []{data-label="figh"}](density.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
$\text{Statefinder diagnostic}$
===============================
Statefinder diagnostic is a useful method to differentiate effective cosmological models since these models are all seen to be consist with current observations. It was first introduced by Sahni et al. [@statefinder]. This method probes the expansion dynamics of the universe through high derivatives of scale factor $\dddot a$. The dimensionless statefinder pair $\{ r, s\}$ is defined as $$r\equiv\frac{\dddot a}{aH^3}, \quad s\equiv\frac{r-1}{3(q-1/2)} .$$
Since the scale factor depends on the space-time manifold, the statefinder is a geometrical diagnostic. Different models are corresponding to different trajectories on the $r-s$ plane. For example, the spatially flat $\Lambda$CDM model are corresponding to a fixed point on the plane, $$\{s,r\}\bigg\vert_{\rm \Lambda CDM} = \{ 0,1\} ~.\label{lcdm}$$
Statefinder has been applied to various dark energy models including quintessence, quintom, GCG, braneworld model and so on [@applysf]. We now turn to statefindr diagnostic for NGR model and find the effects of $\beta$. The statefinder parameters can also be expressed in terms of the total energy density and the total pressure $$r = 1 + \frac{9(\rho_{tot}+p)}{2\rho_{tot}}\frac{\dot p}{\dot\rho_{tot}} \,, \quad s = \frac{(\rho_{tot}+p)}{p}\frac{\dot p}{\dot\rho_{tot}}
\, ,$$ where we ignore the pressure of matter.
Combined with the dynamics we discussed in section 2, we have $$s=\frac{\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^3+\frac{(1+z)\Omega_{de}'}{3}}{3(-\Omega_{de}+\frac{(1+z)\Omega_{de}'}{3})}\frac{3\beta\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^2+(1-\frac{1}{\alpha})\Omega_{de}'}{\Omega_{de}'+3\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^2},$$ and $$r=1+\frac{9}{2}\frac{-\Omega_{de}+\frac{(1+z)\Omega_{de}'}{3}}{\Omega_{de}+\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^3}s.$$
In order to plot the statefinder plane, we fix the current EOS of dark energy and the density of matter as $\omega_{de0}=-1$ and $\Omega_{m0}=0.27$, respectively.
In Fig. \[figsf\], we can see with the increase of the value of $\beta$, the corresponding s becomes smaller, and the range of the trajectory becomes larger. For XCDM model, we choose the initial condition as $\omega_{de0}=-1$, it is regarded as $\Lambda$CDM model here. The dots represent the points today which are linear to $\beta$. r=0.865, 1.135, 1.27 and 1.405 for $\beta=-1/3, 1/3, 2/3, 1$, respectively. Our results are consist with the RDE case [@sfRDE].
![The $r-s$ plane for NGR model with $\beta=-1/3, 0, 1/3, 2/3, 1$, respectively. []{data-label="figsf"}](statefinder.eps){width="15cm"}
$\text{Current observational data}$
===================================
Type Ia supernovae
------------------
SNe Ia has been an important tool for probing the nature of the universe since it first revealed the acceleration of the universe. The current data (Union2) is given by the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) collaboration including 557 samples [@Union2]. The distance modules can be expressed as $$\mu=5 \log(d_L/\rm{Mpc})+25~,$$ where $d_L$ is the luminosity distance. In a flat universe, it is related to redshift which is a observational quantity $$d_L={(1+z)} \int^{z}_0{dz'}/{H(z')}.$$
We choose the marginalized nuisance parameter [@MNP] for $\chi^2$: $$\label{chi2SN} \chi^2_{\rm
SNe}=A-\frac{B^2}{C},$$ where $A=\sum_i^{557}{(\mu^{\rm data}-\mu^{\rm
theory})^2}/{\sigma^2_{i}}$, $B=\sum_i^{557}{(\mu^{\rm
data}-\mu^{\rm theory})}/{\sigma^2_{i}}$, $C=\sum_i^{557}{1}/{\sigma^2_{i}}$, $\sigma_{i}$ is the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty of the observational data.
Baryon acoustic oscillation
---------------------------
For BAO, the distance scale is expressed as [@DV] $$D_V(z)=\frac{1}{H_0}\big
[\frac{z}{E(z)}\big(\int_0^{z}\frac{dz}{E(z)}\big
)^2\big]^{1/3}~,$$ and baryons were released from photons at the drag epoch. The corresponding redshift $z_d$ is give by $$z_{d}=\frac{1291(\Omega_{\mathrm{m0}}h^2)^{0.251}}{[1+0.659(\Omega_\mathrm{m0}h^2)^{0.828}]}[(1+b_{1}(\Omega_{b}h^2)^{b_2})],$$ where $b_1=0.313(\Omega_{\mathrm{m0}}h^2)^{-0.419}[1+0.607(\Omega_{\mathrm{m0}}h^2)^{0.674}]^{-1}$ and $b_2=0.238(\Omega_{\mathrm{m0}}h^2)^{0.223}$ [@BAOA]. For BAO observation, we choose the measurements of the distance radio ($d_z$) at $z=0.2$ and $z=0.35$ [@BAOB]. It can be defined as $$d_z=\frac{r_s(z_d)}{D_V(z)},$$ where $r_s(z_d)$ is the comoving sound horizon. The SDSS data release 7 (DR7) galaxy sample gives the best-fit values of the data set ($d_{0.2}$, $d_{0.35}$) [@BAOB] $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-.5cm}\bar{\bf{P}}_{\rm matrix} &=& \left(\begin{array}{c}
{\bar d_{0.2}} \\
{\bar d_{0.35}}\\
\end{array}
\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0.1905\pm0.0061\\
0.1097\pm0.0036\\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{aligned}$$
The $\chi^2$ value of this BAO observation from SDSS DR7 can be calculated as [@BAOB] $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^2_{\rm BAO}=\Delta
\textbf{P}_{\rm matrix}^\mathrm{T}{\bf
C_{\rm matrix}}^{-1}\Delta\textbf{P}_{\rm matrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\bf{P_{\mathrm{matrix}}} =
\bf{P_{\mathrm{matrix}}}-\bf{\bar{P}_{\mathrm{matrix}}}$, and the corresponding inverse covariance matrix is $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-.5cm} {\bf C_{\rm matrix}}^{-1}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
30124& -17227\\
-17227& 86977\\
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$
Cosmic microwave background
---------------------------
For CMB, the acoustic scale is related to the distance ratio. It can be expressed as $$l_a=\pi\frac{\Omega_\mathrm{k}^{-1/2}sinn[\Omega_\mathrm{k}^{1/2}\int_0^{z_{\ast}}\frac{dz}{E(z)}]/H_0}{r_s(z_{\ast})},$$ where $r_s(z_{\ast})
={H_0}^{-1}\int_{z_{\ast}}^{\infty}c_s(z)/E(z)dz$ is the comoving sound horizon at photo-decoupling epoch. The redshift $z_{\ast}$ corresponding to the decoupling epoch of photons is given by [@CMBz] $$z_{\ast}=1048[1+0.00124(\Omega_bh^2)^{-0.738}(1+g_{1}(\Omega_{\mathrm{m0}}h^2)^{g_2})],$$ where $g_1=0.0783(\Omega_bh^2)^{-0.238}(1+39.5(\Omega_bh^2)^{-0.763})^{-1}$, $g_2=0.560(1+21.1(\Omega_bh^2)^{1.81})^{-1}$. The CMB shift parameter $R$ is expressed as [@CMBR] $$R=\Omega_{\mathrm{m0}}^{1/2}\Omega_\mathrm{k}^{-1/2}sinn\bigg[\Omega_\mathrm{k}^{1/2}\int_0^{z_{\ast}}\frac{dz}{E(z)}\bigg].$$
For the CMB data, we choose the data set including the the acoustic scale ($l_a$), the shift parameter ($R$), and the redshift of recombination ($z_{\ast}$). The WMAP7 measurement gives the best-fit values of the data set [@CMB] $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-.5cm}\bar{\textbf{P}}_{\rm{CMB}} &=& \left(\begin{array}{c}
{\bar l_a} \\
{\bar R}\\
{\bar z_{\ast}}\end{array}
\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
302.09 \pm 0.76\\
1.725\pm 0.018\\
1091.3 \pm 0.91 \end{array}
\right).
\end{aligned}$$
The $\chi^2$ value of the CMB observation can be calculated as [@CMB] $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^2_{\mathrm{CMB}}=\Delta
\textbf{P}_{\mathrm{CMB}}^\mathrm{T}{\bf
C_{\mathrm{CMB}}}^{-1}\Delta\textbf{P}_{\mathrm{CMB}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\bf{P_{\mathrm{CMB}}} =
\bf{P_{\mathrm{CMB}}}-\bf{\bar{P}_{\mathrm{CMB}}}$, and the corresponding inverse covariance matrix is $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-.5cm} {\bf C_{\mathrm{CMB}}}^{-1}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
2.305 &29.698 &-1.333\\
29.698 &6825.270 &-113.180\\
-1.333 &-113.180 &3.414
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$
![The 2-D regions and 1-D marginalized distribution with the 1-$\sigma$ and 2-$\sigma$ contours of parameters $\Omega_{m0}$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in NGR model, for the data sets SNe+CMB+BAO. []{data-label="figNGR"}](NGR.eps){width="20cm"}
![The 2-D regions and 1-D marginalized distribution with the 1-$\sigma$ and 2-$\sigma$ contours of parameters $\Omega_{m0}$ and $\alpha$ in XCDM model, for the data sets SNe+CMB+BAO. []{data-label="figXCDM"}](wCDM.eps){width="20cm"}
![The 2-D regions and 1-D marginalized distribution with the 1-$\sigma$ and 2-$\sigma$ contours of parameters $\Omega_{m0}$ and $\alpha$ in NGR model where we fix $\beta=0.5$, for the data sets SNe+CMB+BAO. []{data-label="fighalf"}](half.eps){width="20cm"}
![The 2-D regions and 1-D marginalized distribution with the 1-$\sigma$ and 2-$\sigma$ contours of parameters $\Omega_{m0}$ and $\alpha$ in RDE model, for the data sets SNe+CMB+BAO. []{data-label="figRDE"}](RDE.eps){width="20cm"}
$\text{Constraint results}$
===========================
We choose the common cosmic observations including SNe Ia, BAO and CMB to constrain the NGR model. We use the usual maximum likelihood method of $\chi^2$ fitting with Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. The code is based on CosmoMCMC [@cosmc]. The total $\chi^{2}$ can be expressed as $$\chi^2=\chi^2_{\rm SNe}+\chi^2_{\rm BAO}+\chi^2_{\rm CMB}.$$
We show the 1-D probability of each parameter ($\Omega_{m0}$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$) and 2-D plots for parameters between each other for the NGR model in Fig. \[figNGR\]. The constraint results are $\Omega_{m0}=0.284_{-0.035}^{+0.036}(1\sigma)_{-0.048}^{+0.050}(2\sigma)$, $\alpha=0.235_{-0.039}^{+0.046}(1\sigma)_{-0.053}^{+0.068}(2\sigma)$, $\beta$=$0.08_{-0.21}^{+0.30}(1\sigma)_{-0.28}^{+0.43}(2\sigma)$. We can see $\beta=0$ is within 1-$\sigma$ range and $\beta=1$ is ruled out within $2\sigma$ regions. Moreover, we further fix the value of $\beta$ in three cases: $\beta=0$ (XCDM), $\beta=0.5$ (the situation NGR model permits) and $\beta=1$ (RDE). The results are plotted in Fig. \[figXCDM\], Fig. \[fighalf\] and Fig. \[figRDE\], respectively. Numerical results are shown in Table. \[tab1\]. We can see that when $\beta$ becomes larger, the corresponding $\chi_{\rm min}^2$ becomes larger quickly. The $\chi_{\rm min}^2$ of RDE model is 558.834 while $\chi_{\rm min}^2$ of XCDM model is only 532.238. We can also see when $\beta$ becomes larger, the density of matter becomes larger and parameter $\alpha$ becomes smaller. Our constraint results are consistent with [@consist].
$\text{Discussion and conclusion}$
==================================
In this Letter, we propose a new generalized Ricci dark energy model based on the weight of matter. This model contains both Ricci dark energy model and XCDM model through weight factor $\beta$. $\beta=0$ and $\beta=1$ are corresponding to XCDM model and RDE model, repectively. Moreover, NGR model permits an arbitrary value of $\beta$. If we fix the EOS parameter today $\omega_{de0}=-1$ and $\Omega_{m0}=0.27$, which seems reasonable for all kind of observations, the larger $\beta$ becomes, the faster EOS parameter $\omega_{de}$ tends to 0. Besides, deceleration parameter becomes smaller in the future, Hubble parameter becomes larger and density parameter of dark energy becomes larger. The observations can give us the distribution of $\beta$, which provides a criterion for testing XCDM and RDE. It is similar to testing the distance-duality relation [@DD]. Both of them set the key parameter free. We use the latest observational data including SNe Ia, BAO and CMB to constrain NGR model. The constraint results tend to supporting XCDM model or even $\Lambda$CDM model (corresponding to $\beta=0$ and $\alpha=0.25$) rather than RDE model. We can conclude that RDE model is ruled out by the observations we select in NGR scenario within $2\sigma$ regions. For future study on this problem, we hope more data and more independent cosmic methods can give a more confirmed discrimination. We further compare NGR model with some of current successful dark energy models including Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) parametrization [@CPL], generalized Chaplygin gas (GCG) and interacting dark energy (IDE) model [@IDE] through AIC information criterion. The AIC is defined as $AIC=\chi^2_{min}+2k$, where $k$ is the number of parameters. We show the comparisons in Table. \[tab2\]. NGR model as a three-parameter cosmological model can compete with CPL and IDE model. From the discussions above, we can see NGR model gives a good discrimination between RDE model and XCDM model. Besides, as a unification of RDE model and XCDM model, it can be a good choice for describing the universe itself.
Model Number of parameters $\chi_{\rm min}^2$ $\Delta AIC$
-------------- ---------------------- -------------------- -------------- --
$\Lambda$CDM 1 532.313 0
XCDM 2 532.238 1.925
RDE 2 558.834 28.521
GCG 2 532.159 1.846
CPL 3 531.804 3.491
IDE 3 531.712 3.399
NGR 3 531.710 3.397
: The comparisons among various cosmological models through the same method and observations.[]{data-label="tab2"}
** Acknowledgments** This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Distinguished Young Scholar Grant 10825313, the Ministry of Science and Technology National Basic Science Program (Project 973) under Grant No.2012CB821804, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and Scientific Research Foundation of Beijing Normal University.
[\*]{}
A.G. Riess et al, Astron. J. [**116**]{} 1009 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9805201\]; S. Perlmutter et al, Astrophys. J. [**517**]{} 565 (1999) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9812133\]; E. Komatsu et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**192**]{}, 18 (2011), arXiv:1001.4538; R. Amanullah et al., \[Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**716**]{}, 712 (2010).
M. Tegmark et al., Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 103501 (2004), astro-ph/0310723.
P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys, [**75**]{} 559 (2003).
P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra, ApJL [**325**]{} 17 (1988a); P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{} 3406 (1988b).
Z.K. Guo, Y.S. Piao, X. Zhang and Y.Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B [**608**]{} 177 (2005); B. Feng, X. Wang and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B [**607**]{} 35 (2005).
R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B [**545**]{} 23 (2002).
M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A.A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} 043507 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0202064\]; M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A.A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} 083519 (2002).
Carlo Rovelli, in: The 9th Marcel Grossmann Meeting, Roma, July 2000, arXiv:gr-qc/0006061.
Yun Soo Myung, Phys. Lett. B, [**610**]{} 18 (2005).
A. Cohen, D. Kaplan and A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**82**]{} 4971 (1999).
S.D.H. Hsu, Phys. Lett. B, [**594**]{} 13 (2004).
M. Li, Phys. Lett. B, [**603**]{} 1 (2004).
R.G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B, [**657**]{} 228 (2007).
H. Wei and R.G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B, [**660**]{} 113 (2008).
C. Gao, et al., Phys. Rev. D, [**79**]{} 043511 (2009).
Z.X. Zhai et al., JCAP, [**1108**]{} 019 (2011) \[arXiv:astro-ph/1109.1661\].
L.N. Granda and A. Oliveros, Phys. Lett. B, [**669**]{} 275 (2008).
Y. Wang and L. Xu, Phys. Rev. D, [**81**]{} 083523 (2010).
R.-J. Yang, Z.-H. Zhu and F. Wu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, [**26**]{} 317 (2011).
V. Sahni et al., JETP Lett. [**77**]{} 201 (2003).
U. Alam et al., Mon. Not. Roy. ast. Soc. [**344**]{} 1057 (2003); V. Gorini et al., Phys. Rev. D. [**67**]{} 063509 (2003); X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B, [**611**]{} 1 (2005); M. Malekjani et al., Astrophys. Space. Sci. [**334**]{} 193 (2011).
C-J. Feng, Phys. Lett. B, [**670**]{} 231 (2008).
R. Amanullah et al., Astrophys. J. [**716**]{} 712 (2010), \[arXiv:astro-ph/1004.1711\].
S. Nesseris and L. Perivolarropoulos, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} 123519 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0511040\].
D.J. Eisenstein et al., Astrophys. J. [**633**]{} 560 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0501171\].
D.J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Astrophys. J. [**496**]{} 605 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9709112\].
W.J. Percival et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**401**]{} 2148 (2010) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0907.1660\].
W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J. [**471**]{} 542 (1996) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9510117\].
J.R. Bond, G. Efstathiou and M. Tegmark, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**291**]{} L33 (1997) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9702100\].
E. Komatsu et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**192**]{} 18 (2011).
A. Lewis and S. Bridle Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} 103511 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0205436\],\
URL: http://cosmologist.info/cosmomc/.
M. Li, X-D. Li and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron, [**53**]{} 1631 (2010).
Z. Li, P. Wu and H. Yu, ApJ, [**729**]{} L14 (2011).
M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D,[**10**]{} 213 (2001); E.V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett, [**90**]{} 091301 (2003).
N. Dalal, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett, [**87**]{} (2001) 141302.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This technical report describes two methods that were developed for Task 2 of the DCASE 2020 challenge. The challenge involves an unsupervised learning to detect anomalous sounds, thus only normal machine working condition samples are available during the training process. The two methods involve deep autoencoders, based on dense and convolutional architectures that use mel-spectogram processed sound features. Experiments were held, using the six machine type datasets of the challenge. Overall, competitive results were achieved by the proposed dense and convolutional AE, outperforming the baseline challenge method.'
address: |
$^1$ EPMQ - IT Engineering Maturity and Quality Lab, CCG ZGDV Institute, Guimarães, Portugal,\
{alexandrine.ribeiro, andre.pilastri}@ccg.pt\
$2$ ALGORITMI Centre, Dep. Information Systems, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal,\
{luis.matos, pedro.pereira, pcortez}@dsi.uminho.pt\
{b12176}@algoritmi.uminho.pt\
$^3$ Bosch Car Multimedia, Portugal,{Andre.Ferreira2}@pt.bosch.com\
bibliography:
- 'dcase2.bib'
title: Deep Dense and Convolutional Autoencoders for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in Machine Condition Sounds
---
=1
DCASE 2020 Challenge, Autoencoder, Convolutional neural network.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
This work is motivated by a real-world task from the challenge on Detection and Classification of Acoustic Scenes and Events (DCASE): unsupervised Anomalous Sound Detection (ASD). The DCASE challenge had its first edition in 2013 and three more editions from 2016 to 2019, with distinct learning tasks, ranging from acoustic scene classification to sound event detection.
In this technical report, we address the second task from the current DCASE edition (2020): Unsupervised Detection of Anomalous Sounds for Machine Condition Monitoring [@koizumi2020]. The task aims to automatically detect, and as soon as possible, if a given machine is not working correctly by using only on the sound produced by the machine. Such an anomaly detection model is thus value for preventing future machine issues (e.g., equipment damage). The main challenge is to detect abnormal sounds using only standard working machine sound samples, assuming that the sounds produced by mechanical anomalies on the equipment are unknown. Although it may seem a binary classification problem (“normal” or “anomaly”), since the models can only be trained using data from one class, this task must be solved with an unsupervised learning anomaly detection approach.
For this task, a baseline system implementation was provided for comparison purposes [@koizumi2020]. The baseline consists of a dense Autoencoder (AE) with three layers, in both the encoder and decoder components, with $128$ units, and a latent space with $8$ units, all with the ReLU activation function. In this paper, we propose two deep learning models, based on a Dense and Convolutional architectures fed with mel-spectograms, which are further detailed in the next section.
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
Datasets
--------
The data used for this task comprises parts of ToyADMOS [@koizumi2019toyadmos] and the MIMII Dataset [@Purohit_DCASE2019_01] consisting of the normal and anomalous operating sounds of six types of toy/real machines. This data was provided in two datasets (development and evaluation) for 6 different machine types: ToyCar, ToyConveyor, slider, pump, fan, and valve. In the development dataset, each machine type has 4 different machines, except for ToyConveyor, which has only 3. Moreover, normal and anomaly labels were provided for the test data, such that the anomaly detection performance could be estimated and the model could be tuned accordingly. Regarding the evaluation data, it contains data for new machines in each machine type, both for model training and testing. Moreover, no labels are provided. A different number of approximately $10$ second Waveform Audio File (WAV) files is provided for each machine. Table \[tab:data\] summarizes the challenge datasets.
\[tab:data\]
-- -- ---- ------- ------
Train Test
01 1000 614
02 1000 615
03 1000 615
04 1000 615
05 1000 515
06 1000 515
07 1000 515
01 1000 1200
02 1000 1155
03 1000 1154
04 1000 555
05 1000 555
06 1000 555
00 911 507
02 916 549
04 933 448
06 915 461
01 934 426
03 912 458
05 1000 458
00 906 243
02 905 211
04 602 200
06 936 202
01 903 216
03 606 213
05 908 348
00 968 456
02 968 367
04 434 278
06 434 189
01 968 278
03 968 278
05 434 278
00 891 219
02 608 220
04 900 220
06 892 220
01 679 220
03 863 220
05 899 500
-- -- ---- ------- ------
: Summary of provided datasets
Autoencoders
------------
The base learner is based on a AE, which has obtained good results in several studies [@provotar2019unsupervised_1; @koizumi2018unsupervised_2; @tagawa2015structured_3; @kawaguchi2017can_4]. The AE is a specific artificial neural network in which the input is expected to be equal to the output and there are several hidden layers with fewer nodes than the number of inputs. The AE learning goal is to produce the same output for the same input, thus encoding and decoding the input signal via the hidden processing layers.
The encoder component of the AE maps the input vector (the features) into an hidden representation with a lower dimensional space, via a nonlinear transform. Then, the decoder component attempts to reconstruct the reverse transform, from the hidden representation to the original input signal. The difference between the original input vector and the AE output response is called the reconstruction error [@an2015variational_6].
In this challenge, the reconstruction error element is used to detect sound anomalies. Firstly, an AE is trained with only normal sound samples, aiming to minimize the reconstruction error. The obtained model is assumed to be capable of compressing the input features, learning their most relevant relationships. Secondly, the trained AE can be tested with unseen data. If the unseen data is similar to the trained patterns (related to the normal sounds), when the AE should reproduce the new input with good accuracy. However, if the unseen data is anomalous, the AE should not be able to reconstruct the input and the error will be greater. Thus, the magnitude of the reconstruction error can be used to detect anomalies. The proposed unsupervised anomaly detection approaches consist of simple AE networks. The systems were modeled to be generic, only changing the training data fed to the model, hence creating a generic model for anomaly detection in several machines.
Dense Autoencoder {#ssec:systemx}
-----------------
The first approach proposed, consists of a deep fully-connected AE (top of Figure \[fig:networks\]). After performing several preliminary experiments with different architectures (varying number of layers, hidden units, activation function and latent space dimensions), a final dense AE architecture was selected. The encoder and decoder networks consist of four fully-connected layers with $512$ hidden units, followed by Batch Normalization and ReLU as the activation function. The bottleneck layer is set as one fully-connected layer with $8$ hidden units, resulting in a $8$-dimensional latent space.
![Proposed AE Network architectures: Dense AE (top) and Convolutional AE (bottom).[]{data-label="fig:networks"}](figures/networks1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Convolutional Autoencoder {#ssec:systemy}
-------------------------
Recently, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have been increasingly applied for audio processing tasks by using audio spectrograms as features [@li2017comparison; @hershey2017cnn; @chen2020novelty]. CNNs are an effective way to capture spatial information from multidimensional data being naturally suitable for exploring image-like time-frequency representations of audio, such as spectrograms. The main goal of a CNN is to learn local structure in input data. Locality is a key property of CNNs. This is accomplished by convolutional filters that are applied to local regions of the previous layers to capture local patterns. Consequently, spatial features must be locally correlated. As time-frequency representations of audio are treated as images by CNN architectures, these features should be locally correlated in the sense of time and frequency.
The second approach proposed for the ASD task consists of a deep CNN AE (shown in the bottom of Figure \[fig:networks\]). Similarly to the dense AE network, preliminary experiments were used to adjust the CNN AE. The encoder and decoder networks are comprised of convolutional layers with Batch Normalization and the ReLU activation function after each convolution. The encoder network consists in a stack of five hidden layers with convolutional filters of $32$, $64$, $128$, $256$, and $512$, kernel sizes of $5$, $5$, $5$, $3$, and $3$, and strides of $(1,2)$, $(1,2)$, $(2,2)$, $(2,2)$, and $(2,2)$, respectively. The bottleneck consists of a convolutional layer with $40$ convolutional filters, reducing the encoder feature maps to a $40$-dimensional compressed representation of the input. Regarding the decoder network, first a fully-connected layer inflates the latent space to the shape the last layer of the encoder, followed by five transposed convolutional layers that mirror of the encoder layers.
Audio Features {#ssec:features}
--------------
Regarding the feature engineering process, we have initially considered two main sound processing methods: Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs) and Mel Frequency Energy Coefficients (MFECs). MFCCs, which are derived from the mel-cepstrum representation of the audio, are one of the best knowns and most popular audio processing features [@sharma2020trends]. However, when computing MFCCs, a Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) is applied to the logarithm of the filter bank outputs, resulting in decorrelated MFCC features. Therefore, they have the drawback of having non-local features, which makes them unsuitable for CNN processing. As such, in this work we explored a different feature for audio signal processing named MFECs, which are log-energies derived directly from the filter-banks energies. These are similar to MFCCs, however, they do not include the DCT operation. This feature provided good results in detecting different audio sounds and classification of sounds [@JAM2009; @TorfiIND17]. Therefore, MFECs were selected as audio features for the proposed systems.
EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS {#sec:results}
=======================
In this section, we describe our pipeline, including the feature preprocessing, model settings, hyperparameters and results obtained for both AE architectures.
Features Extraction {#ssec:extraction}
-------------------
In the Dense Autoencoder system, audio data is buffered in fixed-length $1$ second intervals with a $50\%$ overlap. For each audio buffer obtained, the segment is then divided into $64$ ms analysis frames, with a $50\%$ overlap and $128$ MFECs extracted from the magnitude spectrum of each frame. Then, a context window of size $5$ is used. Thus, $5$ frames are concatenated to form a $640$-dimensional input vector. This representation is depicted in Figure \[fig:features\_dense\].
![Feature extraction procedure of the dense AE.[]{data-label="fig:features_dense"}](figures/features_denseAE.png){width="0.97\columnwidth"}
In the Convolutional Autoencoder system, for each audio, $128$ log mel-band energy features are extracted from the magnitude spectrum, considering $64$ ms analysis frames with $50\%$ overlap. Then, each feature is normalized to zero mean and unit standard deviation by using statistics from the training data. Finally, the mel spectrogram is segmented about every second into $32$ column data with approximately $100$ ms of hop size. This extraction procedure is shown in Figure \[fig:features\_conv\].
![Feature extraction procedure of the CNN AE.[]{data-label="fig:features_conv"}](figures/features_convAE.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Training Settings {#ssec:procedure}
-----------------
The encoder and decoder were trained to minimize the Mean Squared Error (MSE) between input and its reconstruction. Both architectures were trained with a learning rate of $0.001$ and the Adam optimizer. The training process is stopped early when the validation loss has stopped improving for $10$ epochs and the best saved model is selected. The training procedure was iterated up to a maximum of $100$ epochs. The batch size for the Dense AE and Convolutional AE algorithms was set as 512 and 64, respectively.
Results and Discussion
----------------------
All developed architectures were implemented in Python programming language and experiments were conducted in several GPUs (Titan Xp and 1080Ti). To evaluate the model performance, both AUC and pAUC metrics were used, as defined in the task description [@koizumi2020]. Table \[tab:results\] presents the AUC and pAUC values for each specific machine and mean values for each machine type, obtained for the development dataset by both AE models. For comparison purposes, the baseline system results are also provided in the table.
\[tab:results\]
-- ------------- ------- ------- -- ----------- ----------- -- ----------- -----------
1 81.36 68.40 83.87 72.64 81.59 71.88
2 85.97 77.72 87.56 80.35 85.46 79.92
3 63.30 55.21 63.12 55.02 62.73 55.08
4 84.45 68.97 88.60 76.68 82.38 69.60
**Average** 78.77 67.58 **80.79** **71.17** 78.04 69.12
1 78.07 64.25 81.67 69.41 79.90 62.71
2 64.16 56.01 68.04 58.31 67.78 54.85
3 75.35 61.03 79.59 63.64 80.11 62.53
**Average** 72.53 60.43 **76.43** **63.79** 75.93 60.03
0 54.41 49.37 56.73 49.72 51.77 49.05
2 73.40 54.81 79.60 54.00 72.71 55.51
4 61.61 53.26 70.11 54.11 62.60 52.80
6 73.92 52.35 81.69 55.15 80.05 53.19
**Average** 65.83 52.45 **72.03** **53.25** 66.78 52.63
0 67.15 56.74 66.94 56.83 66.37 54.95
2 61.53 58.10 60.77 60.31 54.31 53.58
4 88.33 67.10 87.00 66.32 94.64 77.26
6 74.55 58.02 77.53 60.32 76.97 58.05
**Average** 72.89 59.99 **73.06** 60.94 72.07 **60.96**
0 96.19 81.44 96.12 82.30 98.86 94.47
2 78.97 63.68 79.55 64.42 84.06 69.33
4 94.30 71.98 95.44 76.14 97.69 87.82
6 69.59 49.02 77.22 49.56 86.46 53.16
**Average** 84.76 66.53 87.08 68.10 **91.77** **76.20**
0 68.76 51.70 74.61 52.28 78.69 52.59
2 68.18 51.83 76.68 52.72 85.02 55.92
4 74.30 51.97 79.58 50.96 82.59 53.68
6 53.90 48.43 57.78 48.73 69.03 50.22
**Average** 66.28 50.98 72.16 51.17 **78.83** **53.10**
-- ------------- ------- ------- -- ----------- ----------- -- ----------- -----------
In terms of mean AUC and pAUC values for each machine type, the Dense AE outperforms the baseline system in every machine type. Furthermore, the baseline system only achieved better results in a few specific machines, namely ToyCar ID 3, pump IDs 0, 2 and 4, and slider ID 0. Regarding the CNN AE, in general the model outperformed the baseline system, although the latter achieved higher mean AUC values for 2 of 6 machine types (ToyCar and pump). The two proposed AE are quite competitive in terms of mean AUC and pAUC values, with CNN AE outperforming Dense AE only in 2 of 6 machine types (slider and valve). Overall, both the dense and CNN AE outperform the baseline system in both anomaly detection metrics (AUC and pAUC). Considering that none of the proposed AE models obtained the best results for all machine types, we have created a third method for the competition, which is termed mixed approach. This third approach uses the best AE for each machine type, namely the CNN AE is used for the slider and valve machines, while the Dense AE is adopted for the other machine types. All the developed code is available on github.
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In this paper, we proposed two Autoencoder (AE) models for an unsupervised Anomalous Sound Detection (ASD), for the second task of the DCASE 2020 challenge. The AE models are based on Dense and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). Several preliminary experiments were conducted, resulting in two proposed AE architectures that use sound energy features from mel-spectograms. Using the provided challenge datasets, the two deep AE were trained and tested with the competition six machine types. Overall, competitive results were obtained when compared with the challenge baseline model. For two machine types (slider and valve), the best results were achieved by the CNN AE, while the Dense AE provided the best results for the other machines (ToyCar, ToyConveyor, fan and pump). Thus, a third method was proposed for the competition, which uses the best AE model for each machine type. We consider that the obtained AE results are of quality. For instance, the achieved test data AUC values range from 72% (good) to 92% (excellent discrimination).
As future work, we aim to explore with more depth the proposed AE structures. For instance, by adopting audio data augmentation techniques (e.g., pitching, time-shifting) to improve the training results. Furthermore, we intend to explore other neural network architectures for sound anomaly detection, such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) and Variational AEs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#sec:ack}
===============
This work is supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds in the FEDER component, through the Operational Competitiveness and Internationalization Programme (COMPETE 2020) - Project nº 039334; Funding Reference: POCI-01-0247-FEDER-039334.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
UMDEPP 09-029\
SUNY-O/672
[**A Superfield for Every Dash-Chromotopology** ]{}\
[**C.F.Doran$^a$, M.G.Faux$^b$, S.J.Gates, Jr.$^c$, T.Hübsch$^d$, K.M.Iga$^e$ and G.D.Landweber$^f$**]{}\
[ *$^a$Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences,\
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G1 Canada\
[[email protected]]{}\
$^b$Department of Physics,\
State University of New York, Oneonta, NY 13825\
[[email protected]]{}\
$^c$Center for String and Particle Theory,\
Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20472\
[[email protected]]{}\
$^d$Department of Physics & Astronomy,\
Howard University, Washington, DC 20059\
[[email protected]]{}\
$^e$Natural Science Division,\
Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA 90263\
[[email protected]]{}\
$^f$Department of Mathematics, Bard College,\
Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504-5000\
[[email protected]]{}* ]{}\
\
PACS: 11.30.Pb, 12.60.Jv
Introduction {#int}
============
The $N$-extended supersymmetry on the worldline and without central charges is defined by: $$\begin{gathered}
\{Q_I,Q_J\} = 2\,\delta_{IJ}\,H,\qquad
[H,Q_I]=0,\qquad I,J=1,\cdots,N,\\
(Q_I)^\dagger=Q_I,\qquad (H)^\dagger = H,
\end{gathered}
\label{eSuSy}$$ where $H$ is the worldline Hamiltonian, identifiable with $i\hbar\,\ddt$, and $Q_I$ is the $I^\text{th}$ supercharge. Physical interest in this algebra stems from three separate and logically independent applications:
1. Dimensional reduction of any supersymmetric theory in “actual” spacetime: supersymmetric Yang-Mills gauge theories, the supersymmetric Standard Model of particle physics, [*etc.*]{};
2. The [*underlying*]{} description or dimensional reduction thereof, in theories of extended objects, such as the worldsheet description of superstring theory, or the matrix version of $M$-theory;
3. Induced supersymmetry in the Hilbert space of a supersymmetric theory, in the Schrödinger picture; $H,Q_I$ are expressed in terms of particle state creation and annihilation operators.
While not limited in principle, $N\leq32$ seems to suffice in all known fundamental physics.
Although Eqs. are covariant with respect to an $\textsl{O}(N)$ symmetry, under which the $Q_I$ span the vector representation, we assume no part of any symmetry, other than $N$-extended supersymmetry itself. On occasion, such as in or, the full $\textsl{O}(N)$ will indeed turn out to be a symmetry; in other cases, such as in, this symmetry will be explicitly broken to a subgroup: in, $\textsl{O}(6)\to\textsl{O}(2)^{\otimes3}$. As usual, insisting on the [*least*]{} amount of symmetry provides for the [*most*]{} generality; imposing symmetries will narrow down our results.
The classification of off-shell supermultiplets of the algebra has remained an open problem for over three decades. Focusing on the worldline “shadow” of supersymmetric theories in higher dimensional spacetime avoids all technical and notational difficulties related to the Lorentz symmetry in actual, higher-dimensional spacetimes. Lorentz and other symmetry considerations can be treated as “internal”, unrelated to spacetime, and can be included subsequently in the reverse of the dimensional reduction, the oxidization of Ref.[@rGR0]. In this vein, Refs. [@rGR0; @rGR-1; @rGR1; @rGR2; @rGR3; @rGLPR; @rGLP] and then [@rA; @r6-1; @r6--1; @r6-3c; @r6-3; @r6-3.2; @r6-3.4] forged a novel approach, employing graph theory and error-correcting codes, which resulted in a combinatorially growing number of [*Adinkras*]{}|graphs that represent each supermultiplet. Application of these techniques to concrete and previously unsolved problems in supersymmetric physics was demonstrated in Ref. [@r6-2; @r6-3a; @r6-4; @r6-7a; @r6-4.2]. Ref.[@r6-1] also begun a rigorous translation between these novel, [*adinkraic*]{} results into the much more standard methods of superspace[@r1001; @rYM84New; @rPW; @rWB; @rYM97Gau; @rBK].
The purpose of this note is to complete the translation of the results of this adinkraic classification scheme[@r6-1; @r6-3; @r6-3.2; @r6-3.4] into superspace, begun in Ref.[@r6-1]. To that end, Section \[s:R\] briefly reviews these results, the so-obtained classification scheme, and the part of the translation known this far. In particular, Ref.[@r6-1] ends with a conjecture that we are now able to prove, in Section \[10\*12\], owing in part to the subsequent developments[@r6-3; @r6-3.2]. Section \[s:C\] collects a couple of clarifying examples and a few concluding comments.
Adinkraic Results and Translation into Superspace {#s:R}
=================================================
The adinkraic classification scheme of Refs.[@r6-1; @r6-3; @r6-3.2] focuses on [*adinkraic supermultiplets*]{}. These consist of bosons $\f_i(\t)$ and fermions $\j_\hi(\t)$, and supersymmetry acts amongst these so that for any fixed $Q_I$ and $\f_i(\t)$, $$Q_I\, \f_i(\t) = \pm\ddt^\l\, \j_\hi(\t),
\qquad \l=0,1,
\label{eQb}$$ for some definite fermionic component field, and conversely $$Q_I\, \j_\hi(\t) = \pm i\,\ddt^{1-\l}\, \f_i(\t).
\label{eQf}$$ The structure of an adinkraic supermultiplet may be faithfully depicted by an [*Adinkra*]{}: ([**1**]{}) Assign a node to every component field: white for bosons and black for fermions. ([**2**]{}) Draw an edge in the $I^\text{th}$ color from node $v_1$ to node $v_2$ precisely if the component field $F_2$ of $v_2$ is the $Q_I$-image of the component field $F_1$ of $v_1$ and $[F_2]=[F_1]+\frac12$, where $[F]$ is the engineering unit of $F$. ([**3**]{}) An edge is drawn solid for the choice of “$+$” in Eqs. (\[eQb\])–(\[eQf\]), and dashed for the “$-$” choice. See Table \[t:A\] for a dictionary.
[@ cc|cc @]{} & & &\
(5,9)(0,5) (0,0)[{height="11mm"}]{} (3,0)[$i$]{} (3,9)[$\hi$]{} (-1,4)[$I$]{}
depth4mm width0mm & $Q_I\begin{bmatrix}\psi_\hi\\\phi_i\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}i\dot\phi_i\\\psi_\hi\end{bmatrix}$ &
(5,9)(0,5) (0,0)[{height="11mm"}]{} (3,0)[$i$]{} (3,9)[$\hi$]{} (-1,4)[$I$]{}
depth4mm width0mm & $Q_I\begin{bmatrix}\psi_\hi\\\phi_i\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}-i\dot\phi_i\\-\psi_\hi\end{bmatrix}$\
(5,9)(0,5) (0,0)[{height="11mm"}]{} (3,0)[$\hi$]{} (3,9)[$i$]{} (-1,4)[$I$]{}
depth4mm width0mm & $Q_I\begin{bmatrix}\phi_i\\\psi_\hi\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}\dot\psi_\hi\\i\phi_i\end{bmatrix}$ &
(5,9)(0,5) (0,0)[{height="11mm"}]{} (3,0)[$\hi$]{} (3,9)[$i$]{} (-1,4)[$I$]{}
depth4mm width0mm & $Q_I\begin{bmatrix}\phi_i\\\psi_\hi\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}-\dot\psi_\hi\\-i\phi_i\end{bmatrix}$\
For clarity, we dispense with the arrows on the edges, but position the nodes so that all edges are oriented upward, and each node is placed at a height that is proportional to the engineering unit of the corresponding component field [@r6-1].
The connectivity between component fields provides a notion of topology to every supermultiplet; since edges corresponding to distinct $Q_I$’s are drawn in distinct colors and dashed for “$-$” in, the topology including this information is called the [*dash-chromotopology*]{} of the Adinkra and of the corresponding supermultiplet.
Ref.[@r6-1] then partitions the representations of $N$-extended worldline supersymmetry without central charges into “families” of Adinkras, wherein all members have the same dash-chromotopology, but differ in “hanging”. For example, $$\vC{\includegraphics[width=30mm]{Pix/B1331.pdf}}
\vC{\includegraphics[width=30mm]{Pix/F341.pdf}}
\vC{\includegraphics[width=30mm]{Pix/F242.pdf}}
\vC{\includegraphics[width=30mm]{Pix/F143.pdf}}
\vC{\includegraphics[width=30mm]{Pix/B44.pdf}}
\label{eN3Seq}$$ are some of the $N=3$ Adinkras; they all have the same dash-chromotopology, equal to the 3-cube with the indicated edges dashed. Each Adinkra in the sequence is obtained from the one on the left by raising one of the nodes. Theorems 5.1 and 5.3 of Ref.[@r6-1] and their respective corollaries rigorously prove that all Adinkras of the same dash-chromotopology may be obtained one from another in this fashion, and that each such family contains: ([**1**]{}) at least one [*Valise*]{}, where all bosons and all fermions are on two adjacent levels, as in the right-most Adinkra in, ([**2**]{}) at least one maximally extended Adinkra (“top Adinkra” in Ref.[@rA]) that appears to hang freely, hanged from a single highest node, such as the left-most Adinkra in, and ([**3**]{}) at least one maximally extended Adinkra that appears to float freely upward from a single lowest, anchoring node, such as is also the left-most Adinkra in. Theorem 7.6 of Ref.[@r6-1] then proves that for every given family (dash-chromotopology) of Adinkras|if any one of its members has a superfield representation|all others can be constructed from it, following the provided algorithm.
Refs.[@r6-3; @r6-3.2] prove that ([**1**]{}) the chromotopology of every Adinkra is $[0,1]^N/\sC$, where $\sC$ is a doubly-even linear binary block code encoding a $(\ZZ_2)^k$-action on $[0,1]^N$, and that ([**2**]{}) every such quotient, $[0,1]^N/\sC$, defines an Adinkra chromotopology. For a telegraphic review of this isomorphism, let $\sC$ be generated by the binary codewords $\bs{b}_a=(b_{a1},\cdots,b_{aN})$, each of which defines an operator: $$\bs{b}_a=(b_{a1},\cdots,b_{aN})\qquad\mapsto\qquad
\bs{Q}^{\bs{b}_a}:=Q_1^{b_{a1}}\cdots Q_N^{b_{aN}}\qquad
a=1,\cdots,k.$$ $\sC$ being a doubly-even binary linear block code means that $b_{aI}\in\{0,1\}$, the number of 1’s in each $\bs{b}_a$ is divisible by four, and the bitwise product of any two codewords has an even number of 1’s: $$\wt(\bs{b}_a)=0\pmod4;\qquad
\wt(\bs{b}_a):=\sum_{I=1}^Nb_{aI}\quad\text{is the {\em\/Hamming weight\/}}.$$ These in turn imply that $\bs{Q}^{\bs{b}_a}$ contains every $Q_I$ at most once, $(\bs{Q}^{\bs{b}_a})^2=+H^{\wt(\bs{b}_a)}$ for every $a$, and $[\bs{Q}^{\bs{b}},\bs{Q}^{\bs{b}'}]=0$, for any two $\bs{b},\bs{b}'\in\sC$, not just the generators.
Within any adinkraic supermultiplet $\bs{M}=(\f_1,\cdots,\f_m|\j_1,\cdots,\j_m)$, such operators act: $$\bs{Q}^{\bs{b}_a}(\f_i) = c(\ddt^{\l_{aij}}\f_j),\quad\text{(no summation!)}\qquad
\l_{aij}:= \wt(\bs{b}_a)+[\f_i]-[\f_j],
\label{eaij}$$ for some definite $\f_j\in\bs{M}$ on the right-hand side, some coefficient $c$, and where $[\f_i]$ denotes the engineering unit of $\f_i$. Analogous formulae for fermions define $\l_{a\hi\hj}:=\wt(\bs{b}_a)+[\j_\hi]-[\j_\hj]$.
If $\l_{aij}=\tfrac12\wt(\bs{b}_a)=\l_{a\hi\hj}$ for all $\sC$-generators $\bs{b}_a$ and all $\f_i,\j_\hi\in\bs{M}$, then $[\f_i]=[\f_j]$ for each pair of bosonic component fields associated by the relation; the analogous also holds for all fermionic pairs so connected. In that case, $$\hat\p^\pm_a(\f_i)=\pm\,c\,\f_j
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\hat\p^\pm_a(\f_j)=\pm\frac1{c}\,\f_i
\label{e}$$ defines for each generator, $\bs{b}_a\in\sC$ an engineering unit-preserving $\ZZ_2$-reflection symmetry within the supermultiplet. Corresponding to each generator $\bs{b}_a$, the projection $\f_i\mapsto(\f_i+\vs_a\,c\,\f_j)$ “halves” the supermultiplet; iterating this for each generator produces $$\bs{M}|_{\sC,\vec\vs},\qquad
\vec\vs=(\vs_1,\cdots,\vs_k),\quad \vs_a=\pm1,\quad a=1,\cdots,k,
\label{eM/C}$$ a collection of $2^k$ quotient supermultiplets, each with $1/2^k$ component fields of the original $\bs{M}$. A simple example of this is the $\sC=d_4$ case with a single generator corresponding to $Q_1Q_2Q_3Q_4$: $$\vC{\begin{picture}(70,30)(0,2)
\put(0,5){\includegraphics[height=28mm]{Pix/N4B682.pdf}}
\put(32,3){$\bs{M}$}
\end{picture}}
\buildrel{\textstyle\ZZ_2}\over\longrightarrow
\vC{\begin{picture}(34,30)(0,2)
\put(0,5){\includegraphics[height=28mm]{Pix/N4tB341.pdf}}
\put(12,3){$\bs{M}|_{d_4,+}$}
\end{picture}}
~\text{or}~
\vC{\begin{picture}(34,30)(0,2)
\put(0,5){\includegraphics[height=28mm]{Pix/N4B341.pdf}}
\put(12,3){$\bs{M}|_{d_4,-}$}
\end{picture}}
\label{eN4split}$$ where the Adinkra on the left-hand side has the chromotopology of a 4-cube and the $\ZZ_2$ symmetry is a left-right reflection; the two Adinkras on the right-hand side are the $\vs=+1$ and $\vs=-1$ projections with respect to this symmetry. That the equality $Q_1Q_2Q_3Q_4=\pm H^2$ holds throughout the supermultiplet corresponds to the fact that in the projected Adinkras on the right-hand side of, all 4-color quadrilaterals are closed, and moreover, the product of signs (dashedness) along each quadrilateral either equals the sign of the permutation of the colors along the quadrilateral (in $\bs{M}|_{d_4,+}$), or is opposite (in $\bs{M}|_{d_4,-})$.
Doubly-even binary linear block codes for $N\leq32$ have not all been listed so far, and Ref.[@r6-3] started a distributed supercomputing program, which has completed the $N\leq28$ listing and and is expected to compute some trillions of $N\leq32$ codes. Each such code corresponds to a family of Adinkras, one member of a family differing from another in how its nodes are hanged|such as those in the sequence. The number of distinct hanging arrangements for the Adinkras evidently grows combinatorially with their size and so with $N$. Among these, certain pairs correspond to isomorphic supermultiplets[@r6-3.2], but the total number of inequivalent supermultiplets for $N\leq32$ is still well beyond trillions: the complete list of Adinkras is beyond journal publication already for $N=5$; see Ref.[@r6-3.2] for more information, as well as for an algorithm for listing only the non-isomorphic supermultiplets.
By virtue of being an expansion over the exterior algebra generated by the $\q^I$, the familiar, unconstrained, real Salam-Strathdee superfield is the supermultiplet with the so-called ‘top’ Adinkra[@rA], with the chromotopology of the $N$-cube[@r6-1; @r6-3]. These are $\big(1\big|\binom{N}1\big|\binom{N}2\big|\cdots|\binom{N}{N-1}\big|1\big)$-dimensional representations of $N$-extended supersymmetry without central charges, unique up to the choice of the spin-statistics of the lowest component: $$\vC{\includegraphics[width=160mm]{Pix/N1-5X.pdf}} \label{eXSeq}$$ Besides these, Ref.[@r6-1] also identified the dash-chromotopology of the chiral and the twisted-chiral $N=4$ representations. These dash-chromotopologies differ only in the choice of edge-dashing and are equivalent to the two on the right-hand side of. The chiral and twisted-chiral multiplets themselves are represented by Adinkras obtained from the two Adinkras on the right-hand side of by raising one of the lowest scalar nodes to the top level in each.
However, Ref.[@r6-1] left open Conjecture 7.7: that a superfield of every dash-chromotopology can be somehow found, for Theorem 7.6 to construct from it superfield representations of all other supermultiplets of the same dash-chromotopology.
We prove in the next section that a superfield of every dash-chromotopology indeed exists, and provide an explicit construction for it.
Trillions of Superfields {#10*12}
========================
\[t.7.7\] For every $N$ and every Adinkra dash-chromotopology, there exists a super-differentially constrained superfield describing an adinkraic supermultiplet with that chromotopology.
In superspace, the supersymmetry algebra is augmented by introducing the super-differential operators $D_I$, which satisfy: $$\{D_I,D_J\} = 2\,\delta_{IJ}\,H,\qquad
[H,D_I]=0=\{Q_I,D_J\},\qquad I,J=1,\cdots,N.
\label{eSuSyD}$$ Acting on superfields, , functions over superspace $(\t|\q^I)$, these operators admit a differential operator representation: $$D_I=\vd_I+i\d_{IJ}\,\q^J\,\ddt,\qquad
Q_I=i\vd_I+\d_{IJ}\,\q^J\,\ddt,\qquad\text{where}\qquad
\vd_I:=\pd{}{\q^I}.
\label{eDQdiff}$$ Consequently, $$D_I = -iQ_I+2i\d_{IJ}\,\q^J\,\ddt,\qquad\text{and}\qquad
Q_I = iD_I+2\d_{IJ}\,\q^J\,\ddt.
\label{eQ=D}$$ Given a real, [*a priori*]{} unconstrained Salam-Strathdee superfield, $\IF$, its components are obtained by covariant projection: $$\f:=\IF\big|,\quad
\j_I:=-iD_I\IF\big|,\quad
F_{[IJ]}:=iD_{[I}D_{J]}\IF\big|,\quad
{\cal F}_{[I_1\cdots I_r]}:=(-i)^{\binom{r+1}2}D_{[I_1}\cdots D_{I_r]}\IF\big|,\cdots
\label{eProjD}$$ where the right-delimiting “$|$” denotes setting $\q^I\to0$. Since the $Q_I$’s and the $D_J$’s anticommute, the projections|and indeed any relationship written in terms of superfields and their $D$-derivatives|are covariant with respect to supersymmetry, generated by the $Q_I$’s.
For $\sC$ generated by the binary words $\bs{b}_a=(b_{a1},\cdots,b_{aN})$, and $\IF$ an [*a priori*]{} unconstrained Salam-Strathdee superfield, define $$\bs{b}_a\in\sC\quad\mapsto\quad D_1^{b_{a1}}\cdots D_N^{b_{a1}}
\label{eDba}$$ Owing to the anticommutivity of the distinct $D_I$’s, the monomials are in fact fully antisymmetric products.
To each code $\sC$ with a chosen set of $k$ generator codewords, there correspond $k$ super-differential monomials of the form. For doubly-even binary linear block codes, these super-differential monomials provide statistics-preserving maps between component fields, square to $+H^{\wt(\bs{b}_a)}$, and commute amongst each other.
The imposition of each one of the $k$ super-differential constraints $$\bs{b}_a\in\sC\quad\mapsto\quad
\big[H^{\frac12\wt(\bs{b}_a)} + \vs_a D_1^{b_{a1}}\cdots D_N^{b_{a1}}\big]\,\IF=0,
\qquad a=1,\cdots,k
\label{eCba}$$ halves the number of unrelated component fields in $\IF$. Owing to the mutual commutativity of the $D_1^{b_{a1}}\cdots D_N^{b_{a1}}$ monomials, these “halvings” may be applied jointly, resulting in a superfield where only $1/2^k$ of the initial components of the superfield $\IF$ remain unrelated. The relative signs $\vs_a$ in are the same ones from.
However, the constraint system is not [*strict*]{}: the mappings provided by the operators $[H^{\frac12\wt(\bs{b}_a)} + \vs_aD_1^{b_{a1}}\cdots D_N^{b_{a1}}]$ are not a strict homomorphisms[@r6-3.2], they leave behind certain “orphan” constants as remnants of almost completely eliminated component fields.
#### Example 1.
To illustrate this, consider the simplest, $N=4$ case with $\sC=d_4$. The super-differential constraint $$\big[H^2+D_1D_2D_3D_4\big]\IF=0,\qquad\text{for the choice }\vs=+1,
\label{eD40}$$ identifies, [*via*]{} Eqs.: $$\begin{gathered}
{\cal F}_{1234}=-\ddot\f,\qquad
\dot\J_{IJK}=\ve_{IJK}{}^L\ddot\j_L,\qquad
\ddot{F}_{[IJ]}=\inv{2!}\ve_{IJ}{}^{KL}\,\ddot{F}_{[KL]}.
\label{eIds}\end{gathered}$$ These can be used to express almost all of ${\cal F}_{1234},\J_{IJK}$ and $F_{14},F_{24},F_{34}$ in terms of $\f,\j_I,F_{12},F_{13},F_{23}$, except for the constant term in $\J_{IJK}$’s and the constant and $\tau$-linear terms in $F_{14},F_{24},F_{34}$. The result is that the super-differential constraint system defines:
\[eFD40\] $$\begin{gathered}
\IF|_{\text{(\ref{eD40})}}
=\big(\f(\t)\big|\j_I(\t)\big|
F_{12}(\t),F_{13}(\t),F_{23}(\t),f_{14}(\t),f_{14}(\t),f_{14}(\t)
\big|\J_{[IJK]}(0)\big|0\big),\\
\text{where}\quad
f_{[I4]}(\t):= f_{[I4]}(0)+f'_{[I4]}(0)\t,\quad\text{for }I=1,2,3.\end{gathered}$$
The result cannot be regarded an off-shell supermultiplet since the component fields $f_{[I4]}(\t)$ and $\J_{[IJK]}(0)$ satisfy $\t$-differential equations: $$\ddt^2\,f_{[I4]}~=~0~=~\ddt\,\J_{[IJK]}(0).$$
To remedy this, note that the last group of identifications is suggestive: one really needs $$\ddot{F}_{[IJ]}=\inv{2!}\ve_{IJ}{}^{KL}\,\ddot{F}_{[KL]}
\qquad\longrightarrow\qquad
F_{[IJ]}=\inv{2!}\ve_{IJ}{}^{KL}\,F_{[KL]},
\label{eSD}$$ which is obtained, using the component projections, as $$iD_{[I}D_{J]}\IF\big| = \inv2\ve_{IJ}{}^{KL}\,iD_{[K}D_{L]}\IF\big|.$$ This then suggests replacing the super-differential condition with either of the two systems: $$\big[D_{[I}D_{J]} \mp \inv2\ve_{IJ}{}^{KL}D_{[K}D_{L]}\big]\IF^\pm=0,
\qquad\textit{i.e.},\qquad
\left\{\begin{aligned}{}
[D_1D_2 \mp D_3D_4]\,\IF^\pm&=0,\\
[D_1D_3 \pm D_2D_4]\,\IF^\pm&=0,\\
[D_1D_4 \mp D_2D_3]\,\IF^\pm&=0.\\
\end{aligned}\right.
\label{eSysD4}$$ Not surprisingly, this insures the full component field identification, and with both signs $F^\pm_{[IJ]}=\pm\inv{2!}\ve_{IJ}{}^{KL}\,F^\pm_{[KL]}$, rather than the weaker conditions insured by the single constraint. Next, applying $D_I$ on the system and evaluating at $\q^I\to0$ results in $\J^\pm_{[IJK]} = \pm\ve_{IJK}{}^L\,\dot\j^\pm_L$, which again is precisely what is needed to fully eliminate $\J_{[IJK]}$ in terms of $\dot\j_I$, instead of the weaker identification. Finally, applying $D_{[I}D_{J]}$ on the system and evaluating at $\q^I\to0$ reproduces the final ${\cal F}^\pm_{1234}=\mp\ddot\f^\pm$.
This then leaves $(\f^\pm|\j^\pm_I|F^\pm_{12},F^\pm_{13},F^\pm_{23}|0|0)\subset (\f|\j_I|F_{IJ}|\J_{IJK}|\mathcal{F}_{1234})$, depicted as $$\IF|_{d_4,+}=\vC{\includegraphics[height=25mm]{Pix/N4B143p.pdf}}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\IF|_{d_4,-}=\vC{\includegraphics[height=25mm]{Pix/N4B143m.pdf}}$$ spanning the two $d_4$-projected off-shell supermultiplets. The distinction between them is easily spotted: the product of signs along every four-colored quadrilateral equals the sign of the permutation of the colors in that quadrilateral in $\IF|_{d_4,+}$ and is opposite in $\IF|_{d_4,-}$. Also, both superfields are evidently sub-superfields of the [*a priori*]{} unconstrained $\IF$, depicted by the fourth Adinkra in the sequence.width.4pt height6pt depth0pt
It is thus the super-differential constraint rather than the na"ve that properly “halves” the $N=4$ real, [*a priori*]{} unconstrained superfield $\IF$. In turn, the equation may be regarded as the integrability condition for the system. The foregoing generalizes straightforwardly to all $N$ and all codes:
\[eSFC\] [**Construction \[eSFC\]**]{}width.4pt height.4pt depth6pt
1. Let $\IF$ be a real, [*a priori*]{} unconstrained Salam-Strathdee superfield.
2. For every generator $\bs{b}_a$ of a code $\sC$, we define: $${\cal I}(\bs{b}_a) := \{\,I=1,\cdots,N\mid b_{aI}=1\,\}.$$ For example, ${\cal I}(110011)=\{1,2,5,6\}$ and ${\cal I}(101101)=\{1,3,4,6\}$.
3. Associate to $\bs{b}_a$ the system of $\inv2\binom{2w_a}{w_a}$ (anti)self-duality super-differential constraints: $$\Big\{\big[D_{[I_1}\cdots D_{I_{w_a}]}-
\frc{\vs_a}{w_a!}\ve_{I_1{\cdots} I_{w_a}}{}^{J_1\cdots J_{w_a}}
D_{[J_1}{\cdots} D_{J_{w_a}]}\big]\,\IF=0,\quad
I_1,{\cdots},J_{w_a}\in{\cal I}(\bs{b}_a)\Big\},
\label{eSysba}$$ where $w_a:=\inv2\wt(\bs{b}_a)$ and $\vs_a=\pm1$, for all $a$.
4. For every code generated by codewords $\{\bs{b}_1,\cdots,\bs{b}_k\}$, we impose a constraint system of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\IF|_{\sC,\vec\vs}:=
\Big\{\IF:~&\big[D_{[I_1}\cdots D_{I_{w_a}]}
-\frc{\vs_a}{w_a!}\ve_{I_1{\cdots} I_{w_a}}{}^{J_1\cdots J_{w_a}}
D_{[J_1}{\cdots} D_{J_{w_a}]}\big]\,\IF=0,\\
&~\text{for all }I_1,{\cdots},J_{w_a}\in{\cal I}(\bs{b}_a),~
\text{for each generator }\bs{b}_a\in\sC\Big\}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eSysC}$$ width.4pt height6pt depth0pt
Each super-differential constraint system has an [*integrability*]{} condition precisely of the form, where $$\frc12\big[ H^{\frac12\wt(\bs{b}_a)}+\vs_a D_1^{b_{a1}}\cdots D_N^{b_{aN}}\big]
\label{eP}$$ are a quasi-projection operators: for both $\vs_a=\pm1$, they square to a $H^{\frac12\wt(\bs{b}_a)}$-multiple of itself, and the two choices add up to $H^{\frac12\wt(\bs{b}_a)}\propto \ddt^{\frac12\wt(\bs{b}_a)}$. They are also in 1–1 correspondence with the code-generator projection operators of Refs.[@r6-3; @r6-3.2], which relates the two operators.
Finally, note that each super-differential constraint system corresponding to each generator codeword of $\sC$ has precisely one relative sign, $\vs_a=\pm1$, stemming from . For $\sC$ being generated by $k$ codewords, the definition churns out $2^k$ distinct superfields. Many of these may well be isomorphic, via a sign-redefinition on component fields. However, they do include all the inequivalent choices of edge-dashing in Adinkras, and so reproduce all the inequivalent dash-chromotopologies for Adinkras. Ref.[@r6-3.4] specifies a cohomology computation which tells if two given distinctly edge-dashed Adinkras are equivalent or not.
Examples and Conclusions {#s:C}
========================
To illustrate the foregoing construction, we close with a few examples.
#### Example 2.
Consider the next-simplest case of $\sC=d_6$, generated by $\bs{b}_1=(111100)$ and $\bs{b}_2=(001111)$. The super-differential constraint system is now: $$\IF|_{d_6,(\vs_1,\vs_2)}:~\left\{\begin{aligned}{}
[D_{[I}D_{J]}-\vs_1\inv2\ve_{IJ}{}^{KL}D_{[K}D_{L]}]\,\IF
&=0,\quad I,J,K,L\in{\cal I}(111100)=\{1,2,3,4\},\\
[D_{[I}D_{J]}-\vs_1\inv2\ve_{IJ}{}^{KL}D_{[K}D_{L]}]\,\IF
&=0,\quad I,J,K,L\in{\cal I}(001111)=\{3,4,5,6\}.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ Written out in full detail, this system becomes: $$\IF|_{d_6,(\vs_1,\vs_2)}:~
\left\{~\begin{aligned}
\big[D_1\,D_2-\vs_1D_3\,D_4\big]\IF&=0,\\
\big[D_1\,D_3+\vs_1D_2\,D_4\big]\IF&=0,~
\smash{\hbox{$\Bigg\}$}}~\text{for }\bs{b}_1=(111100),\\
\big[D_1\,D_4-\vs_1D_2\,D_3\big]\IF&=0,\\[2mm]
\big[D_3\,D_4-\vs_2D_5\,D_6\big]\IF&=0,\\
\big[D_3\,D_5+\vs_2D_4\,D_6\big]\IF&=0,~
\smash{\hbox{$\Bigg\}$}}~\text{for }\bs{b}_2=(001111),\\
\big[D_3\,D_6-\vs_2D_4\,D_5\big]\IF&=0,\\[2mm]
\end{aligned}\right.
\label{eD6}$$ Each of the two indicated groups of constraints independently halves the superfield $\IF$, so that jointly, they quarter it, from the initial $(1|6|15|20|15|6|1)$-dimensional representation to the minimal $(1|6|7|2)$-dimensional superfield, depicted by the Adinkra $$\IF|_{d_6,(--)}~=~\vC{\includegraphics[height=30mm]{Pix/N6B1672.pdf}}$$ The four different choices of signs, parametrized by $\vec\vs=(\pm1,\pm1)$, turn out to all yield choices of edge-dashing that are equivalent by field redefinition[@r6-3.4], whence we show only one of them.width.4pt height6pt depth0pt
#### Example 3.
Consider $\sC=h_8$, generated by $(11111111)$, and define the $N=8$ superfield: $$\IF|_{h_8,\vs}=
\big\{\IF:~\big[D_{[I}D_JD_KD_{L]}
-\vs\inv{4!}\ve_{IJKL}{}^{MNPQ}D_{[M}D_ND_PD_{Q]}\big]\IF=0\big\}.
\label{eH8}$$ The constraint system consists of a total of 35 equations; their [*single*]{} common integrability equation is $[H^4-\vs D_1\cdots D_8]\IF=0$. Jointly, they halve the original, $(1|8|28|56|70|56|28|8|1)$-dimensional representation to a $(1|8|28|56|35)$-dimensional superfield, representable by the Adinkra $$\vC{\begin{picture}(140,25)
\put(-20,0){\includegraphics[height=27mm]{Pix/N8H8.pdf}}
\end{picture}}$$ In this case, the two choices of the sign, $\vs=\pm1$, correspond to two inequivalent choices of edge-dashing[@r6-3.4], but we omit the other Adinkra since their size and complexity obscures an easy spotting of the differences. Since $h_8$ is not maximal, this is not a minimal $N=8$ superfield.width.4pt height6pt depth0pt
#### Example 4.
Finally, $\sC=e_8$ is generated by $\{(11110000),(00111100),(00001111),(01010101)\}$, and defines the $N=8$ superfield: $$\IF|_{e_8,\vec{\vs}}:~
\left\{~\begin{array}{r@{\>}l@{\quad}r@{\>}r@{\>}l}
\big[D_I\,D_J-\vs_1D_K\,D_L\big]\IF&=0, &I,J,K,L&\in{\cal I}(11110000)&=\{1,2,3,4\},\\
\big[D_I\,D_J-\vs_2D_K\,D_L\big]\IF&=0, &I,J,K,L&\in{\cal I}(00111100)&=\{3,4,5,6\},\\
\big[D_I\,D_J-\vs_3D_K\,D_L\big]\IF&=0, &I,J,K,L&\in{\cal I}(00001111)&=\{5,6,7,8\},\\
\big[D_I\,D_J-\vs_4D_K\,D_L\big]\IF&=0, &I,J,K,L&\in{\cal I}(01010101)&=\{2,4,6,8\}.\\
\end{array}\right.
\label{eE8}$$ This system consists of a total of 12 constraints; the integrability equation of each of the four indicated groups is of the form $[H^2-\vs_a D_ID_JD_KD_L]\IF=0$, with $I,J,K,L$ ranging over the corresponding four subsets ${\cal I}(\bs{b}_a)$, as specified in Eqs.. As a result, the $(1|8|28|56|70|56|28|8|1)$-dimensional [*a priori*]{} unconstrained superfield is chiseled down to a $(1|8|7)$-dimensional superfield, such as $$\IF|_{e_8,(--++)}~=~\vC{\includegraphics[height=30mm]{Pix/N8B187.pdf}}$$ which turns out to be closely related to the “ultra-multiplet” of Ref.[@rGR0]. The superfields are minimal. Noting that $(11110000)+(00001111)=(11111111)$, it follows that $h_8\subset e_8$, whereby $\IF|_{e_8,\vec\vs}\subset\IF|_{h_8}$. It is the combinatorial complexity of such embedding chains for $N>4$ that may be seen correlated with the surprising number of inequivalent supermultiplets[@r6-3; @r6-3.2]. width.4pt height6pt depth0pt To summarize, we have presented a “Construction \[eSFC\],” which from
1. a real, [*a priori*]{} unconstrained Salam-Strathdee $N$-extended worldline superfield $\IF$,
2. a doubly-even binary linear block code $\sC$ of length $N$ and with $k$ generators, and
3. a $k$-tuplet of signs $\vec\vs$,
custom-fashions a constrained sub-superfield $\IF|_{\sC,\vec\vs}\subset\IF$ with the $[0,1]^N/\sC$ chromotopology and the edge-dashing determined by $\vec\vs$. The collection of supermultiplets with all $\vec\vs$-choices include all inequivalent edge-dashings and we defer to Ref.[@r6-3.4] for the details of a cohomological computation that tells if two given $\vec\vs$-choices are equivalent or not, and how may inequivalent choices there exist.
Once we have the superfield $\IF|_{\sC,\vec\vs}$ resulting from Construction \[eSFC\], the construction in Theorem 7.6 of Ref.[@r6-1] produces from $\IF|_{\sC,\vec\vs}$ every supermultiplet with the same dash-chromotopology. Counting all such superfields as different|after all, the supermultiplets they represent [*are*]{} conventionally considered different|the total count of so-obtained superfields (one for every Adinkra) is well beyond trillions[@r6-3; @r6-3.2]. In another sense, for a given $N$ and a given chromotopology, Theorem 7.6 does effectively relate all superfields representing the differently “hanged” supermultiplets to one, such as the one obtained by Construction \[eSFC\]. In this sense, they are all related, whence the name “family” for their collection.
This situation is not quite as outlandish as it may seem: For example, it is well known that in 4-dimensional ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric spacetime, every chiral supermultiplet, $\F$, equals the super-derivative $D^2\IU$ of an [*a priori*]{} unconstrained, complex superfield $\IU$. Nevertheless, $\F$ and $\IU$ are regarded as different superfields for all practical purposes, and certainly provide inequivalent representations of supersymmetry.
In the same sense, the trillions or more of superfields defined by the use of Construction \[eSFC\] herein, Theorem 7.6 of Ref.[@r6-1], the doubly-even binary linear block code classification[@r6-3; @r6-3.2] and the cohomology computation of Ref.[@r6-3.4] are all just as different. Indeed, a comparison of the last two examples shows that $\IF|_{e_8,\vec\vs}\subset\IF|_{h_8}\subset\IF$ generalizes the relation $\F\subset\IU$ within 4-dimensional ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetry. The combinatorial complexity of embedding chains for $N>4$ such as $\IF|_{e_8,\vec\vs}\subset\IF|_{h_8}\subset\IF$ may thus be seen as surprisingly large number of inequivalent supermultiplets[@r6-3; @r6-3.2]. To this end, note also that a $\IF|_{h_8}$ generates, by way of Theorem 7.6, an entire family of supermultiplets and corresponding superfields, depicted by Adinkras that may be obtained from by hanging it from various subsets of nodes. The combinatorial complexity of this task|whence the enormous size of this resulting family|is evident, we trust.
The myriads of superfields obtainable by Construction \[eSFC\] are in many ways the higher-$N$, real analogues of $\F$, obtained with no symmetry assumed. Imposing symmetry relationships among the nodes evidently reduces the number of ways in which individual nodes can he raised or lowered. This then necessarily reduces the number of inequivalent Adinkras, superfields and supermultiplets: the bigger the additional symmetry requirements, the smaller the total number of inequivalent equivariant representations.
Of special interest are maximally projected, minimal supermultiplets, and all maximal codes usable to that end have been found[@r6-3]. It turns out that for $N<10$, such maximal codes and thus also the minimal supermultiplets are unique|but not so for $N\geq10$. For illustration, here are the two inequivalent minimal $N=10$ Adinkras: $$\begin{gathered}
\sC=d_{10}: \quad\vC{\includegraphics[width=110mm]{Pix/D10.pdf}} \label{D10}\\
\sC=t_2+e_8:\quad\vC{\includegraphics[width=110mm]{Pix/I2xE8.pdf}} \label{I2xE8}\end{gathered}$$ and Construction \[eSFC\] produces a super-differentially constrained superfield for each. Already the count of component fields per engineering unit-level proves that they cannot be isomorphic. However, the superfields corresponding to the valise Adinkras of the respective chromotopologies|which Theorem 7.6 of Ref.[@r6-1] represents in terms of super-derivatives of the superfields|turn out to be isomorphic[@r6-3.2]. In general, for $N\geq10$ there exist multiple minimal supermultiplets resulting from Construction \[eSFC\] and superfields|170 for $N=32$|but there will exist super-differential relations amongst them. We note in passing that the $N=16$ case also has two inequivalent minimal supermultiplets obtained by Construction \[eSFC\], and which correspond to the codes $e_8\oplus e_8$ and $e_{16}$[@r6-3], and which are in 1–1 correspondence with the 16-dimensional lattices $E_8{\times}E_8$ and $D_{16}$, respectively, and also the so-named Lie algebras.
Finally, this collection (trillions or so, for $N\leq32$) of superfields does not, by far, exhaust the listing of representations of $N$-extended worldline supersymmetry without central charges! Indefinitely more can be constructed by the usual methods of tensoring, (anti)symmetrizing and contracting|just as is the case with Lie algebras.
*…a brilliant diversity spread like stars,\
like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.\
— William H. Bush*
#### **Acknowledgments:**
This research was supported in part by the endowment of the John S. Toll Professorship, the University of Maryland Center for String & Particle Theory, National Science Foundation Grant PHY-0354401, and Department of Energy Grant DE-FG02-94ER-40854. The Adinkras were drawn with the aid of the [*Adinkramat*]{} ©2008 by G. Landweber.
[10]{} url \#1[[`#1`]{}]{} urlprefix
S. J. Gates, Jr., L. Rana, [*Ultramultiplets: A new representation of rigid 2-d, ${N}$=8 supersymmetry*]{}, Phys. Lett. B342 (1995) 132–137. [hep-th/9410150](hep-th/9410150)
S. J. Gates, Jr., L. Rana, [*On extended supersymmetric quantum mechanics*]{}, University of Maryland Report: UMDPP 93-194.
S. J. Gates, Jr., L. Rana, [*A theory of spinning particles for large [$N$]{}-extended supersymmetry*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 352 (1-2) (1995) 50–58. [hep-th/9504025](hep-th/9504025)
S. J. Gates, Jr., L. Rana, [*A theory of spinning particles for large [$N$]{}-extended supersymmetry. [II]{}*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 369 (3-4) (1996) 262–268. [hep-th/9510151](hep-th/9510151)
S. J. Gates, Jr., L. Rana, [*Tuning the [RADIO]{} to the off-shell 2[D]{} fayet hypermultiplet problem*]{}. [hep-th/9602072](hep-th/9602072)
S. J. Gates, Jr., W. Linch, J. Phillips, L. Rana, [*The fundamental supersymmetry challenge remains*]{}, Gravit. Cosmol. 8 (1-2) (2002) 96–100. [hep-th/0109109](hep-th/0109109)
S. J. Gates, Jr., W. D. Linch, III, J. Phillips, [*When superspace is not enough*]{}. [hep-th/0211034](hep-th/0211034)
M. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., [*Adinkras: A graphical technology for supersymmetric representation theory*]{}, Phys. Rev. D (3) 71 (2005) 065002. [hep-th/0408004](hep-th/0408004)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, [*On graph-theoretic identifications of [A]{}dinkras, supersymmetry representations and superfields*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22 (2007) 869–930. [math-ph/0512016](math-ph/0512016)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, [*Off-shell supersymmetry and filtered [C]{}lifford supermodules*]{}. [math-ph/0603012](math-ph/0603012)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, [*Relating doubly-even error-correcting codes, graphs, and irreducible representations of ${N}$-extended supersymmetry*]{}, in: F. Liu, et al. (Eds.), [*Discrete and Computational Mathematics*]{}, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, 2008. <http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051>
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, R. L. Miller, [*Topology types of [A]{}dinkras and the corresponding representations of ${N}$-extended supersymmetry*]{}. [ar{X}iv:0806.0050](ar{X}iv:0806.0050)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, R. L. Miller, [*Adinkras for clifford algebras, and worldline supermultiplets*]{}. [ar{X}iv:0811.3410](ar{X}iv:0811.3410)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, [*An application of cubical cohomology to [A]{}dinkras and supersymmetry representations*]{}. [forthcoming](forthcoming)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, [*Adinkras and the dynamics of superspace prepotentials*]{}, Adv. S. Th. Phys. 2 (3) (2008) 113–164. [hep-th/0605269](hep-th/0605269)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, [*A counter-example to a putative classification of 1-dimensional, ${N}$-extended supermultiplets*]{}, Adv. S. Th. Phys. 2 (3) (2008) 99–111. [hep-th/0611060](hep-th/0611060)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, [*On the matter of ${N}=2$ matter*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 441–446. [ar{X}iv:0710.5245](ar{X}iv:0710.5245)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, [*Super-[Z]{}eeman embedding models on [N]{}-supersymmetric world-lines*]{}. [ar{X}iv:0803.3434](ar{X}iv:0803.3434)
C. F. Doran, M. G. Faux, S. J. Gates, Jr., T. H[ü]{}bsch, K. M. Iga, G. D. Landweber, [*Frames for supersymmetry*]{}. [ar{X}iv:0809.5279](ar{X}iv:0809.5279)
S. J. Gates, Jr., M. T. Grisaru, M. Roček, W. Siegel, [*Superspace*]{}, Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., Reading, MA, 1983.
Y. I. Manin, [*New directions in geometry*]{}, Russian Math. Surveys 39 (6) (1984) 51–83.
P. West, [*Introduction to supersymmetry and supergravity*]{}, World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., Teaneck, NJ, 1990.
J. Wess, J. Bagger, [*Supersymmetry and supergravity*]{}, 2nd ed., Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992.
Y. I. Manin, [*Gauge Field Theory and Complex Geometry*]{}, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, 1997.
I. L. Buchbinder, S. M. Kuzenko, [*Ideas and methods of supersymmetry and supergravity*]{}, Studies in High Energy Physics Cosmology and Gravitation, IOP Publishing Ltd., Bristol, 1998.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'December Monocerotids and November Orionids are weak but established annual meteor showers active throughout November and December. Analysis of a high quality orbits subset of the SonotaCo video meteor database shows that the distribution of orbital elements, geocentric velocity and also the orbital evolution of the meteors and potential parent body may imply a common origin for these meteors coming from the parent comet C/1917 F1 Mellish. This is also confirmed by the physical properties and activity of these shower meteors. An assumed release of meteoroids at the perihelion of the comet in the past and the sky-plane radiant distribution reveal that the December Monocerotid stream might be younger than the November Orionids. A meteoroid transversal component of ejection velocity at the perihelion must be larger than 100m/s. A few authors have also associated December Canis Minorids with the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish. However, we did not find any connection.'
date: Released 2010 Xxxxx XX
title: 'Meteor showers of comet C/1917 F1 Mellish'
---
\[firstpage\]
comets, individual: C/1917 F1 Mellish – meteors, meteoroids – celestial mechanics – catalogues
Introduction
============
The comet C/1917 F1 Mellish, formerly designated as $1917\,\,a\,\,(Mellish)$ or $Mellish\,\,1917\,\,I$, was discovered by J.E. Mellish on March 20, 1917 and was observed for 96 days [@ask23; @ask32] from many places on the Earth. In the southern hemisphere, the comet reached up to +1 magnitude. Astronomer J.F. Skjellerup noted that the brightness of the cometary head was about +3 magnitude, with the diffuse coma and narrow tail about 10$^\circ$ long on April 19, 1917 [@orch03]. The comet is a Halley-type comet, with a relatively low inclination, and has one of the smallest perihelion distances. It was observed only at one apparition. Despite the relatively long observational arc, the precision of the orbital elements is questionable. @ask32 published a slightly modified orbit of the comet and noted that the orbit is given with a period of $145\pm0.8$yr [@cham97]. The nominal orbital elements, according to JPL Solar System Dynamics database [@cham97], are presented in Table 1. Although the ascending and descending node of the nominal orbit are currently far away from the orbit of the Earth, we noted a small difference in the eccentricity (e.g. $\Delta e\sim$ $-0.002$) would change the orbit into an Earth-crossing orbit as the heliocentric distance of the ascending node would become equal to 1AU. The orbit has a notably small perihelion distance ($0.19$AU). Several authors [@por52; @has62] determined that the comet–Earth distance is close enough to observe a meteor shower and predicted the radiant positions and activity of the shower on Dec. 15 (Dec. 20 respectively) and the geocentric velocity of meteors $\sim40\,$km/s. The first few meteors associated with the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish were obtained by the Harvard Super Schmidt photographic survey [@whip54; @mcc61]. Several candidates of this meteor stream, later designated as the December Monocerotids (MON), were also detected and distinguished by radar surveys [@nil64; @sek73]. Another study connecting the December Monocerotids with the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish was made by @drum81 [@olson87]. Surprisingly, the radar data published by @nil64 and @sek73 revealed that the meteors having similar radiant positions, activity and geocentric velocities appear to have 10$^\circ$ lower inclinations. @kres74 noted that December Monocerotids seem to have 2 components. The author also speculates that the stream may have a common origin with the Geminid meteor stream. Moreover, Harvard radio data revealed a possible meteor stream with low inclined orbits but almost the same orbital elements as the December Monocerotids, active between November 27 - December 7 [@nil64; @sek73]. The possible genetic connection between the comet and the December Monocerotids was studied by @fox85.
Various photographic searches confirmed the existence of a weak stream at $RA=90.6$$^\circ$, $DEC=15.7$$^\circ$ on November 27, with $v_{g}=43.7$km/s [@lind71]. The stream was named as $\xi$-Orionids (Xi-Orionids, $\omega-$Orionids), currently recognized as established meteor shower November Orionids (NOO) within the IAU Meteor Data Center (IAU MDC) catalogue [@oh89] and later by @lind99. Moreover, other photographic December Monocerotids were published [@oh89] and complex analysis of December Monocerotids and $\xi$-Orionids done by @lind90. Even some historical records of fireballs might confirm that December Monocerotids were active in past centuries [@fox85; @has99].
In [-@hind69], @hind69 published his telescopic meteor observation from Dec. 11, 1964 and assigned 5 meteors to the new stream called 11 Canis Minorids. @hind69 computed that these meteors have parabolic orbits and much higher inclinations (over 100$^\circ$). A year later, the author suggested a connection between the shower and comet C/1917 F1 Mellish [@hind70] and determined the activity during December 9-14. @kres74 revealed that 9 meteors that create the second component of the December Monocerotids might be 11 Canis Minorids activity within December 4-15. Their inclination was determined as $i=29.1$$^\circ$ and the perihelion distance as $q=0.092$, which is closer to the Sun compared to the nominal orbit of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish. The radiants might look like an extension of the MON activity, however, the shower might be active during the MON activity. The geocentric velocity is similar $v_{g}\sim 40$km/s. The maximum activity of 11 Canis Minorids is expected at $L_{\odot}=252.4$$^\circ$ (December 3).
Now, the December Monocetorids and November Orionids are weak (few meteors per hour at maximum) but annual established meteor showers. The shower 11 Canis Minorids, (December Canis Minorid according to IAU nomenclature) is classified as a “working” shower. Despite several investigations, past publications analyzed only a small number of orbits and provided disperse data on the mean orbit, the position of radiant, the activity and precision of orbits, and did not reveal the orbital evolution of the meteoroid particles released from the parent comet, in order to explain the current state of these meteor showers. A significant number of the analyzed orbits are hyperbolic or parabolic.
This work uses recent and precise video multi-station orbits, obtained by the SonotaCo video network in Japan, which provide the highest number of relatively precise meteor orbits detected continually between the years $2007-2009$. The network operates with over 25 similar video-optical systems and uses the same software for meteor detection and orbit analysis (UFOCapture, UFOAnalyser and UFOOrbit; @sonota09). Our goal is to provide a more complex description of meteor showers related to the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish and reveal some of their obscured characteristics. The eventual objective is the investigation of the orbital evolution of meteors and the parent comet, and determination of ejection velocities near the perihelion.
{width="8cm"}
{width="8cm"}
\[F1\]
{width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"}
{width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"}
{width="7.2cm"} {width="7.2cm"}
\[F3\]
element value
------------------------------------------ -------------------
a 27.6473325 AU
e 0.993121
q 0.190186 AU
i 32.6828$^\circ$
$\omega$ 121.3190$^\circ$
$\Omega$ 88.6683$^\circ$
M 0.0259325$^\circ$
epoch (JD) 2421334.0
heliocentric distance of Ascending Node 0.783556 AU
heliocentric distance of Descending Node 0.250005 AU
: Orbital elements of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish in equinox J2000 reference frame (JPL).[]{data-label="t1"}
December Monocerotids and November Orionids from SonotaCo database
==================================================================
The freely accessible database of the meteors detected by the SonotaCo network contains $64 540$ multi-station meteor orbits with additional parameters such as the beginning and terminal height, absolute magnitude, equatoreal and ecliptical coordinates of the radiant, the stream assignment, etc. Although the SonotaCo method uses its own shower assignment algorithm, we have demonstrated (@veres10) that its results are consistent with the widely-used Southworth-Hawkins D-criterion $D_{SH}$ (@south63) for meteor stream identification. In accordance with several restriction criteria developed in our previous work (@veres10), we selected a high quality subset of orbits for further analysis. The criteria fulfilled $111$ of $250$ December Monocerotids and $110$ of $333$ November Orionids detected in the years 2007-2009.
Of 111 MON meteors, only 8 have hyperbolic orbits and among 110 NOO meteors, 14 have semimajor axes larger than 100AU or eccentricity higher than $1.0$. We also employed $D_{SH}$ to distinguish possible rogue sporadic meteors among MON and NOO assigned to the showers by SonotaCo. In comparison with the nominal orbit of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish, all MON and NOO meteors fall within $D_{SH}<0.4$. Even within stricter $D_{SH}<0.15$, 105 MON and 97 NOO are found (according to SonotaCo shower assignment). Independently, we selected the MON and NOO shower members by using the iteration procedure according to @por94. In the iteration for the $D_{SH}$=0.15, 105 MON and 97 NOO were identified. This result is almost identical to SonotaCo assignment of both shower members. The showers appear very narrow in the orbital element space. The mean orbits are presented in Table 2, in comparison with the mean orbits by other authors. Each orbital element was calculated as the median, with given standard deviation. The photometric mass was computed for each meteor according to @bet99 and its mean value for the showers is mentioned in Table 2. The orbits of the meteor showers are given in Figure 1. Figure 2 depicts selected orbital elements of both meteor showers. Figure 3 shows the $q-i$ phase space of individual meteors and nominal orbit of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish.
The semimajor axes of both shower meteors seem to be much smaller than the nominal semimajor axis of the comet or even the range of semimajor axes derived from the 5000yr orbital evolution of cometary clones (the orbital evolution is described in chapter 3). The eccentricity, the perihelion distance and the inclination of MON are very close to the cometary orbit: the NOO meteors exhibit slightly lower but still high eccentricities, notably lower inclinations and lower perihelion distances. Generally, the orbits of MON and NOO are very similar. In $e$ and $q$ the values are the same within the standard deviation: a notable difference is seen only in the inclination. The gap between the MON and NOO is also visible in Figure 1. The $q-i$ phase space and the dispersion of orbits from the mean orbit of each shower imply that the NOO exhibit wider dispersion. The cometary orbit is located within MON elements and, therefore, the NOO meteoroids seem to be older than MON. The inclination exhibits interesting behavior. The nominal orbit of the parent comet lies within the MON orbits, while the NOO orbits are less inclined and are apparently well separated from the MON orbits. There seems to be no overlapping in the inclination between the two clumps representing the MON and NOO in Figure 2.
elements a e q i $\omega$ $\Omega$ $v_{g}$\[km/s\] mass\[g\] activity No author
---------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ---------- ---------- ----------------- ----------- ----------------- ----- -----------
**MON** 8.86 0.979 0.186 34.7 129.6 77.9 41.2 0.6 Nov 26 - Dec 21 111 this work
s.dev 0.018 0.029 3.9 4.3 5.4 1.7
19.88 0.991 0.188 34.9 128.9 80.1 41.6 15 OH89
s.dev 7.49 0.026 0.012 3.1 2.1 2.2 1.8
20.79 0.990 0.187 34.9 128.9 80.4 41.82 Nov 27 - Dec 17 12 LIND90
**NOO** 11.36 0.989 0.125 23.51 139.3 69.3 42.0 0.4 Nov 16 - Dec 16 110 this work
s.dev 0.019 0.033 4.47 5.8 5.9 2.1
12.86 0.9915 0.1093 24.7 140.4 67.2 42.6 Nov 16 - Dec 7 38 LIND99
12.7 0.088 26.9 145.8 60.0 43.3 Nov 16 - Nov 29 16 JEN06
![December Monocerotids, November Orionids and the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish in the phase space of perihelion distance and inclination.[]{data-label="F2"}](fig3.eps){width="8.0cm"}
As seen in Table 2 and Figures 1-3, the orbital distribution of the December Monocerotids and November Orionids have common features. There is good agreement in the geocentric velocity and minimal difference in the angular elements and eccentricity. The perihelion distance of the November Orionids is generally lower. It is worth pointing out that the perihelion distance of the MON and NOO showers is one of the lowest observed. Only a few meteor showers, among them the prominent Geminids, have such close perihelion distances. The dispersion of the MON and NOO orbital elements is relatively low, which gives the chance for good definition and differentiation of these showers.
The cumulative absolute magnitude distribution in Figure 4 shows that the population index of both showers is almost identical. However, NOO contains smaller particles, according to Figure 4. This finding is consistent with the radar data, where NOO are more significant than MON (@nil64, @sek73).
We determined the maximum activity of the MON for the longitude of the Sun $L_{\odot}=259.5$$^\circ$ (December 11) with the duration of the shower from November 26 to December 21. The maximum of MON occurs one day earlier in the SonotaCo data than in the IAU MDC catalogue. The radiant position during the maximum activity was determined as $RA=98.8$$^\circ$, $DEC=8.6$$^\circ$ and the daily motion is given by the following equations in the equatoreal and ecliptical coordinates:
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle RA=(101.4\pm0.1)\,^\circ + (0.65\pm0.01)~(L_{\odot}-259.5\,^\circ)\\
\displaystyle DC=(~8.0\pm0.1)\,^\circ ~~ - (0.14\pm0.02)~(L_{\odot}-259.5\,^\circ)\\
\end{array}
\label{eq:xdef}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \lambda=(101.7\pm0.1)~+(0.67\pm0.01)~(L_{\odot}-259.5\,^\circ)\\
\displaystyle \beta=(-14.9\pm0.1)-(0.09\pm0.01)~(L_{\odot}-259.5\,^\circ),\\
\end{array}
\label{eq:xdef}$$
where 259.5$^\circ$ represents the solar longitude of the December Monocerotid’s maximum, derived from the SonotaCo data (eq.2000.0).
According to SonotaCo data, the maximum activity of the NOO occurs on $L_{\odot}=249.5$$^\circ$ (December 1) and it is active from November 16 until December 16. The maximum occurrs 4 days after the maximum predicted by the IAU MDC catalogue ($L_{\odot}=245.0$$^\circ$). The motion of the radiant is given by equations (3) and (4):
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle RA=(92.6\pm0.2)\,^\circ + (0.62\pm0.03)~(L_{\odot}-249.5\,^\circ)\\
\displaystyle DC=(15.3\pm0.1)\,^\circ - (0.06\pm0.02)~(L_{\odot}-249.5\,^\circ)\\
\end{array}
\label{eq:xdef}$$
$$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \lambda=(92.5\pm0.1)\,^\circ ~+ (0.60\pm0.02)~(L_{\odot}-249.5\,^\circ)\\
\displaystyle \beta=(-8.1\pm0.1)\,^\circ - (0.06\pm0.02)~(L_{\odot}-249.5\,^\circ).\\
\end{array}
\label{eq:xdef}$$
The sky-plane positions of the radiants in the equatoreal and ecliptical grid are depicted in Figure 5. The radiant positions calculated using the nominal orbit of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish and computed by several methods by DOSMETH software (@nes98) are shown as well.
![Cumulative distribution of absolute magnitudes of December Monocerotids and November Orionids.[]{data-label="F4"}](fig4.eps){width="8.0cm"}
![Equatoreal and ecliptical radiants (Eq. 2000.0) of December Monocerotids and November Orionids. Upper and lower right graphs show the radiants corrected for daily motion and reduced to the solar longitude of the activity maximum. Theoretical geocentric radiants derived by DOSMETH from the nominal orbit of C/1917 F1 Mellish are displayed as well (open circles).[]{data-label="F5"}](fig5.eps){width="8.0cm"}
A possible common origin of both meteor showers can also be inferred from Figure 6 depicting the heliocentric distance of the ascending and descending nodes of the MON and NOO as a function of solar longitude. As expected, the ascending node lies very close to the value of 1AU but the descending node gradually rises with the solar longitude and both meteor showers overlap without any gap or visible difference in the descending node.
Other common properties might be derived from the beginning and terminal heights of individual meteors. Figure 7 shows clearly that heights of the MON and NOO are practically identical. The geocentric velocity and entry geometry is almost the same for both meteor showers; therefore, the beginning and terminal height would mostly depend on the physical properties of meteoroids, such as the mass, the bulk density and internal structure. The heights are given in Table 3 and the heights as a function of photometric mass in Figure 7. In Table, 3 we also compare the heights of MON and NOO with the high quality Geminids orbits from the SonotaCo database. Geminids from the SonotaCo database have beginning and terminal heights 5km lower than other video observations made by similar techniques (@koten04). MON and NOO meteors have beginning heights 6–7km higher than Geminids, which could indicate that meteors from C/1917 F1 Mellish have lower bulk densities and are more fragile. On the other, hand Geminids with similar geocentric velocities belong to the densest and most rigid meteors observed (@ren04).
shower beginning height\[km\] terminal height\[km\]
-------- ------------------------ -----------------------
MON $102.6\pm2.7$ $86.1\pm4.8$
NOO $101.5\pm3.9$ $85.1\pm5.3$
GEM $95.6\pm3.3$ $80.2\pm7.0$
: The beginning and terminal heights of the December Monocerotids and November Orionids in comparison with the Geminids using the high quality SonotaCo data.[]{data-label="t3"}
![The heliocentric distances of the ascending and descending nodes of the December Monocerotids and November Orionids as a function of the longitude of the Sun, compared with the ascending and descending nodes of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish. Range of the theoretical radiants computed by DOSMETH for the parent comet is displayed with a heavy line. Vertical lines represent the maxima of the meteor showers.[]{data-label="F6"}](fig6.eps){width="8.0cm"}
------------- --------------- --------------- ------------ --------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ----------- ----------
a \[AU\] e q \[AU\] i $\omega$ $\Omega$ $v_{g}$ $L_{\odot}$ RA DC
$1.8\pm1.5$ $0.95\pm0.02$ $0.11\pm0.02$ $30.2\pm7$ $144.7\pm4.9$ $78.6\pm3.1$ $39.7\pm2.4$ 254.1-261.6 $107\pm4$ $14\pm2$
------------- --------------- --------------- ------------ --------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- ----------- ----------
![The beginning and terminal heights of the December Monocerotids and November Orionids as a function of the photometric mass.[]{data-label="F7"}](fig7.eps){width="8.0cm"}
The database does not contain any December Canis Minorids, yet we tried to find some representatives among the high quality data set. The published mean orbit of December Canis Minorids has a very low semimajor axis, $\omega$ similar to a previously published value, and $i$ and $\Omega$ similar to MON. According to SonotaCo , the shower might be active from November 30 until December 9, with the maximum on December 4. Nevertheless, the database does not contain any meteors of this stream. Because of the little information there is about the stream, we tried to select candidates from the high quality subset of orbits. The subset was selected using the iteration method [@por94] with respect to the IAU MDC catalogue shower parameters. Only 6 meteors fulfilled our criteria (Table 4). Meteors were detected during the activity of both MON and NOO. The D-criterion of meteors was on average greater than 0.3 with respect to the assumed parent comet. It is even doubtful if the December Canis Minorids is a regular shower or if it is only an occasional shower observed when the Earth crosses a narrow filament of the meteoroid particles, or these meteors are just scattered meteors of the MON-NOO complex; or that even these meteors belong to the sporadic background.
Orbital evolution of the comet and meteoroids
=============================================
The first orbital evolution analysis of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish 800yr to the past [@car84] revealed that its orbit evolves slowly: notably, the nodes evolve very slowly. The inclined orbit avoids giant planet encounters and there is only a little chance of substantial gravitational interaction with the terrestrial planets near the perihelion. @fox85 and @has99 studied the option that the ancient fireballs observed between December 6 and 18 apparently emanated from the same radiant. They worked out that these bolides could not be connected to the Geminid meteor stream because of its rapid orbital evolution but might belong to the MON. @fox85 confirmed the slow evolution of the ascending node in the 2400yr integration of the cometary orbit to the past. Their work also confirmed that the heliocentric distance of the MON ascending node is stable as well and is close to 1AU one thousand years to the past or to the future.
![The orbital evolution of the heliocentric distance of the ascending and descending nodes of the nominal orbit of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish (solid line) and its clones (points). Up - clones generated within the 0.8yr orbital period error, down - clones altered in order to put ascending node close to 1AU at the present day.[]{data-label="F8"}](fig8-a.eps){width="8.0cm"}
![The orbital evolution of the heliocentric distance of the ascending and descending nodes of the nominal orbit of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish (solid line) and its clones (points). Up - clones generated within the 0.8yr orbital period error, down - clones altered in order to put ascending node close to 1AU at the present day.[]{data-label="F8"}](fig8-b.eps){width="8.0cm"}
{width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"}
{width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"}
\[F9\]
{width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"}
{width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"}
{width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"}
{width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"}
\[F10\]
{width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"}
{width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"}
{width="7.0cm"} {width="7.0cm"}
\[F11\]
As mentioned previously, the orbit of the parent comet was determined with a low precision. In our study, we set out to calculate the orbital evolution of nominal and cloned orbits of the parent comet. We created 100 clones within the 0.8yr uncertainty of the orbital period [@ask32], with fixed perihelion distance and altered semimajor axis and eccentricity accordingly. We could not modify other orbital elements because their uncertainties are unknown. Another set of 100 clones was made in order to create orbits with the heliocentric distance of ascending node close to 1AU while neither nominal orbit nor first 100 clones have the ascending node close enough to the orbit of the Earth to create an observed meteor shower. In this case, the eccentricity, the semimajor axis and the perihelion distance were altered. The beginning of the integration was set at the epoch of the perihelion passage of C/1917 F1 Mellish (JD 2421334.0, Eq. 2000.0). The multistep Adams-Bashforth-Moulton type up to 12th order numerical integrator, with variable step-width, was used. All planets were considered as perturbing bodies and the Earth and Moon were treated separately.
The integration shows that both sets of clones behave in a similar way. Figure 8 depicts the heliocentric distance of the ascending and descending node of the nominal orbit and the clones integrated 5000 years to the past. The ascending node of the nominal orbit gradually falls and retreats from the orbit of the Earth to $\sim0.4-0.6$AU from the Sun. The descending node is initially close to the Sun ($\sim0.25$AU) and rises slowly to ($\sim0.3\pm0.1$AU). Clones of the altered orbit, that start with the ascending node at the orbit of the Earth, behave the same way but remain within 0.05AU of the Earth’s orbit about 2000yr to the past.
The evolution of the orbital elements of the comet and its clones is depicted in Figure 9. The most probable value (1$\sigma$) of the semimajor axes of cloned orbits is in the range of $a\subset(25;30)$AU, while the nominal semimajor axis rises up to 40AU 2500 BC. The inclination of both clones and the nominal orbit falls from initial 32$^\circ$ down to $i\subset(26;30)$$^\circ$. Even at 3000yr BC, the inclination is not low enough to explain the low inclination of the NOO ($i\sim23.5$). The perihelion distance remains in the small heliocentric distances ($q\subset(0.14;0.23)$AU) and the summation of angular elements (longitude of perihelion – $\pi$) rises gradually from 210$^\circ$ to $\pi\subset(212;218)^\circ$ after 5000yr integration to the past. Clones derived from the uncertain orbital period did not encounter the Earth but had close flybies within the Hill sphere of Venus ($2\%$) and Mercury ($0.5\%$). This gives a non-zero chance that comet C/1917 F1 Mellish might encounter Venus or Mercury. In fact, this could cause a sudden change in its inclination at least within 5000yr in the past.
We also studied the orbital evolution of the MON and NOO meteors from the SonotaCo database. For a chosen subset of high quality orbits (non-hyperbolic, $a<100$AU), the integration uses a beta parameter representing the solar radiation pressure (@kla04) for each particle ($\beta=2\cdot10^{-5}$) derived from an assumed low bulk density ($\varrho=750\,kg/m^3$) and the typical photometric mass of observed meteors (0.5g) and starts for the epoch and the orbital elements valid for the moment of the meteor observation. The numerical integration computed the orbital evolution for 5000yr to the past (Figure 10 and Figure 11).
Unlike @fox85, perturbed orbits of the MON and NOO reduced their heliocentric distance of the ascending nodes as time goes to the past. It seems that it takes only two or three hundreds years until the ascending node reaches the nominal orbit of the parent comet. On the contrary, the semimajor axes of both the MON and NOO are generally constant over 5000yr, which might be due to low perturbations of giant planets and higher inclinations. Even with the beta parameter, the semimajor axes remain far away from the nominal or even cloned orbits of the parent comet. Meteoroids could be injected to these orbits directly after the ejection from the cometary core. The inclination of the MON is quite consistent with the current orbital inclination of the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish. The orbital evolution in inclination implies that MON were released recently, generally hundreds, or at most, 3000 years in the past. On the contrary, the NOO meteoroids have lower inclinations in the present day. The orbital evolution reveals that NOO meteoroids could have departed from the comet mostly 4000 years prior and almost all low inclined NOO could be explained by an orbital evolution within the last 5000 years – most of the NOO inclinations intersected the comet evolution path of its inclination. The longitudes of the perihelia of the MON attain the same values as the nominal cometary orbit in the recent centuries and then disperse. On the other hand, the longitudes of the perihelia of the NOO remain much longer along the evolved nominal orbit of the comet and disperse slowly after thousands of years, which could support the younger age of MON as well. A similar feature is visible for the perihelion distance of both showers. Currently the perihelion distance of MON fits well with the current orbit of the comet but gets more dispersed around 500 B.C. The perihelion distance of NOO is slightly different during the last 2000 years but generally intercepts the perihelion distance of the comet earlier than 1000 B.C. The eccentricity of MON is dispersed much more in the past than in the case of NOO. The heliocentric distance of the ascending node of MON lies close to the current ascending node of the comet but disperses fast in the past. This distance is currently lower for NOO but could be explained by the orbital evolution (Figure 11). These implications of the orbital evolution suggest that the NOO shower is older than the MON shower and both streams may originate from the same parent comet.
Resulting from the nodal distances of the comet and the relatively fast evolution of the ascending nodes of the showers (centuries), there is a possibility that we observe the outer edge of a widely evolved complex stream. The streams (MON and NOO) might be observed as two streams as a result of a geometric selection effect. Meteoroids with inclinations between the MON and NOO might have nodes on non-Earth crossing orbits.
Ejection of meteoroid particles from the parent comet
=====================================================
The relatively large heliocentric distance of the ascending node of the parent comet and the much lower and stable semimajor axes of the meteors indicate that these particles were injected into these orbits immediately after ejection from the comet, while the comet might not have been on the same orbit at that time. The derivation of the ejection velocity depends on the model used. If we assume a spherical cometary nucleus with an albedo of $0.04$, active surface $0.15\%$ (@ma02, bulk density $750\,kg/m^3$, a radius of the nucleus 3.1km (@jen06), ejection at the perihelion $q\sim0.19$AU; and if the meteoroids are escaping only from the Sun-facing hemisphere with the Gaussian distribution of velocities with the center on the subsolar point, the maximum ejection velocity might range from 5m/s [@imp01] to 112m/s [@crifo; @ma02]. The escape velocity of the meteoroid particle changes its orbital elements so that we may calculate according to @pec97.
On the other hand, if we know the orbital elements of the comet (before the ejection of the meteoroid) and the meteoroid after the ejection (assuming that the observed meteoroid escaped the comet recently and did not undergo rapid orbital changes due to gravitational and non-gravitational perturbations), we may directly derive the ejection velocities from equations by @pec97 as a low estimate. The ejection velocity affects, at most, the semimajor axis. In the perihelion, the semimajor axis change is ruled by the transversal component of the velocity vector $\Delta v_{t}$. The range of ejection velocities derived according to mean, the peak and minimum-maximum values of the semimajor axis (Figure 2) of each meteor shower, in comparison with the range of semimajor axes of the cometary clones, integrated 2000yr to the past is presented in Table 5. The mean and peak values of the transversal ejection velocity components are in good agreement with the ejection model by @ma02. While the eccentricity, the inclination and angular elements of the MON lie within the cometary clones’ range, the derivation of the radial and normal components of the velocity vector are ambiguous, following equations by @pec97. On the other hand, a difference in the inclination, the eccentricity and angular elements of the NOO could not be explained by the direct ejection of the particles into current orbits, but only by the following orbital evolution.
shower method a \[AU\] $-\Delta\,v_{t}$ \[m/s\]
-------- -------- ---------- --------------------------
MON mean 8.8 $104\pm8$
peak 6.5 $117\pm8$
range 3-17 $50-145$
NOO mean 11.36 $90\pm8$
peak 6.5 $117\pm8$
range 2-17 $50-150$
: The transversal component of the meteoroid ejection velocity derived from the the difference of the semimajor axis of meteor showers and the parent comet. The range of cometary semimajor axis lies within $a\subset(26;29)$AU.[]{data-label="t4"}
Conclusions
===========
We demonstrated that the December Monocerotids and November Orionids obtained from the SonotaCo database of 3 year observations (2007-2009) have most likely a common origin and come from the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish. The common origin is supported by their similar orbital characteristics, the activity, physical properties assumed from the beginning, and the terminal heights of the meteors, the descending nodes of both showers as a function of the solar longitude, and the narrow Southworth-Hawkins D-criterion for most December Monocerotids and November Orionids with respect to the parent comet ($D_{SH}<0.15$). Direct modeling of the stream was not an option, while the orbit uncertainty of the comet avoids the selection of reliable and real starting point of the numerical integration from the past to the current date. Therefore, we studied the orbital evolution of the nominal orbit of the comet, cometary clones within the known orbital uncertainties, and the orbital evolution of precise meteor orbits. The dispersion of the orbital elements, the radiants and nominal orbit of the parent comet, currently beyond the orbital elements, suggest that the November Orionids is an older stream than December Monocerotids. The orbital evolution of both streams, the nominal orbit of the comet and its clones imply that the orbital evolution is causing November Orionids to have 10$^\circ$ lower inclinations than December Monocerotids. There is a non-zero chance of a close encounter of the comet with Venus or Mercury which could cause a sudden change in the inclination of the parent comet. Furthermore, a close encounter with a planet might cause the tidal breakup of the comet and create a significant release of matter. The scenario of the cometary core disintegration might also be supported by the extremely low perihelion distance of the parent comet and both meteor showers.
Another option is a gradual shift in the inclination, demonstrated in the simulation. But a change in the inclination of more than $10\circ$ of the parent comet would be solved only through a longer orbital evolution. This option is also obscured while we do not observe any orbits between relatively well defined clumps of the December Monocerotids and November Orionids in the $q-i$ phase space and radiant sky-plane distributions. Eventually there is a wide and massive stream of the meteoroids but only some of them have ascending nodes close to the Earth’s orbit; and due to selectional effects, we may observe two distinguished streams and only the distant edge of the stream. The nodal distance of the comet is currently more than 0.2AU from the Earth’s orbit and it retreated in the past increasingly, as well as the ascending nodes of the observed meteors. The observed shower meteors might have left the cometary nucleus a few centuries ago but, due to the stable orbit of the comet, both streams might be replenished regularly and weak shower activity might be observed each year. The semimajor axes of both meteor streams are much lower than the nominal orbit of the comet or its clones’ evolution 5000yr to the past. Almost no change of the semimajor axes of meteoroids within the orbital evolution suggests that these particles were injected directly into these orbits right after ejection from the cometary nucleus. We determined that transversal component of the ejection velocity would be about $100 m/s$ if the ejection occurred at the perihelion. Further precise orbits and physical data of the December Monocerotids and November Orionids are needed for additional research.
The key question is the accuracy of the C/1917 F1 Mellish orbit. A new measurements of the photographic plates of the comet might reveal a more precise orbit and bring new light onto the orbital evolution of the comet and its meteors. Our work did not confirm any December Canis Minorids meteors in the SonotaCo database; however, 6 candidates were selected. Their connection to the comet C/1917 F1 Mellish is uncertain.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by Slovak Grant Agency VEGA, No. 1/0636/09 and by a grant of Comenius Uviversity, No. UK/245/2010.
Asklöf S., 1923, Arkiv för Mat. Astron. och Fys., 18, No. 7
Asklöf S., 1932, Arkiv för Mat. Astron. och Fys., 23A, No. 11
Betlem H., Jenniskens P., vant Leven J., ter Kuile C., Johannink C., Zhao H., Lei Ch., Li G., Zhu J., Evans S., Spurný P., 1999, Meteorit. Planet. Sci., 34, 979
Carusi A., Kresák L., Perozzi E. & Valsecchi G.B., 1984, IAS Internal Report no. 12, Rome
Chamberlin A.B., Yeomans D.K., Chodas P.W., Giorgini J.D., Jacobson R.A., Keesey M.S., Lieske J.H., Ostro S.J., Standish E.M. & Wimberly R.N., 1997, Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc. 29, 1014.
Crifo J.F. & Rodionov V., 1997, Icarus, 127, 319
Drummond, J., 1981, Icarus, 45, 545
Fox K. & Williams I.P., 1985, MNRAS 217, 407
Hasegawa I., 1962, General Index List of Theoretical Radiant Points of Meteors Associated with Comets, 3rd Ed., Doc. des Observateurs, Paris 14
Hasegawa I., 1999, in W.G. Baggaley & V. Porubčan, eds., Meteoroids 1998, Proc. Int. Conf. held at Tatranská Lomnica, Slovakia, Astron. Inst. Slov. Acad. Sci., p. 177
Hindley K.B. & Houlden M.A., 1970, Nature 225, 1232
Hindley K.B., 1969, J. British Astron. Assoc., 79, 138
Hoffmeister C., 1937, Die Meteore. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig
Imponente G. & Sigismondi C., 2001, WGN, 29, 176
Jenniskens P., Meteor Showers and Their Parent Comets, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Jones J., 1995, MNRAS, 275, 773
Klačka J., 2004, Celest. Mech. & Dyn. Astron., 89, 1
Koten P., Borovička J., Spurný P., Betlem H. & Evans S., 2004, Astron. Astrophys., 428, 683
Kresáková M., 1974, Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechosl., 9, 88
Lindblad B.A., 1971, Space Research, 11, 287
Lindblad B.A., 1987, in M.Fulchignoni & L. Kresák, eds., The Evolution of the Small Bodies of the Solar System, North Holland, p. 229
Lindblad, B.A., Olsson-Steel, D., 1990, Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechosl., 41, 193
Lindblad B.A., 1999, in W.G. Baggaley & V. Porubčan, eds., Meteoroids 1998, Proc. Int. Conf. held at Tatranská Lomnica, Slovakia, Astron. Inst. Slov. Acad. Sci., p. 227.
Ma Y., Williams I.P. & Chen W., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1081
McCrosky R.E. & Posen A., 1961, Smithson. Contr. Astrophys., 4, No. 2., 15
Nilsson C.S., 1964, Austral. J. Phys., 17, 205
Neslušan L., Svoreň J. & Porubčan V., 1998, Astron. Astrophys., 331, 411
Ohtsuka K., 1989, WGN 17, No. 3, 93
Olsson-Steel, D., 1987, Austral. J. Astron, 2, 21
Orchiston W. & Skjellerup J.F., 2003, MNSSA, 62, 54
Pecina P. & Šimek M., 1997, Astron. & Astrophys., 317, 594
Porter J.K., 1952, Comets and Meteor Streams, Chapman and Hall, London (p. 123)
Porubčan V. & Gavajdová M., 1994, Planet. Space Sci., 42, 151
Rendtel J., 2004, Earth, Moon & Planets, 95, 27
Sekanina Z., 1973, Icarus, 18, 253
SonotaCo, 2009, WGN 37, 55
Southworth R.R. & Hawkins G.S., 1963, Smithson. Contr. Astrophys., 7, 261
Vereš P. & Tóth J., 2010, WGN 38:2, 54
Whipple F.L., 1954, Astron. J., 69, 201
Whipple F.L. & Hakwins G.S., 1959, Meteors, in Flüge (Ed.) Handbuch der Physik, Bd LII, Astrophysik III., Springer Publ. House, Berlin
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Asiya Ejaz$^1$, H. Gohar$^1$, Hai Lin$^{2,3}$, K. Saifullah$^{1,2,4}$, Shing-Tung Yau$^{2,3}$\
$^1$Department of Mathematics, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan\
$^2$Department of Physics, and Center for the Fundamental Laws of Nature,\
Harvard University, MA 02138, USA\
$^3$Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, MA 02138, USA\
$^4$Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA\
\
Electronic address: [email protected], [email protected],\
[email protected]
title: 'Quantum tunneling from three-dimensional black holes'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum mechanical effects when studied in the background of classical general relativity give rise to many interesting phenomenon. These phenomena play an important role in understanding the theories of quantum gravity. One such process of significance is the evaporation of black holes as a result of Hawking radiations [@Hawking:1974sw; @Gibbons:1977mu]. These radiations have also been viewed as quantum tunneling of particles from the horizons of black holes [@Kraus:1994fh; @Parikh:1999mf; @Iso:2006ut]. Many well known black holes have been researched for these radiations \[6-12\]. In one of the procedures the wave equation governing the emission of particles is solved in the background of the black hole spacetimes by using complex path integration techniques and WKB approximation. This gives the tunneling probability of particles crossing the event horizon, which in turn gives the temperature and surface gravity of the black hole.
The study of (2+1)-dimensional black holes provides a valuable insight in understanding low-dimensional gravity theories and their quantum counterparts. The BTZ black hole [@Banados:1992wn] is such an example in (2+1)-dimensional gravity. This black hole is remarkably similar to (3+1)-dimensional black hole. Like the Kerr black hole it contains an inner and an outer horizon. It can be fully characterized by mass, angular momentum and charge. It also possesses thermodynamical properties analogous to the (3+1)-dimensional black hole. Its entropy is given by a law analogous to the Bekenstein bound in (3+1)-dimensions, where we replace the surface area by the circumference of the BTZ black holes . This black hole does arise from collapsing matter and can represent a gravitational collapse. The BTZ solution is also discussed in the realm of (2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity.
In this paper, first we consider the charged version of the BTZ black hole [@Banados:1992wn]. The charged BTZ black hole is characterized by a power-law curvature singularity generated by the electric charge of the hole. The curvature singularity gives rise to $\ln r$ terms when the gravitational field is expanded asymptotically and it has nontrivial boundary terms. This black hole solution exists in the presence of a negative or zero cosmological constant. In this paper we consider tunneling of charged scalar and charged fermionic particles from these black holes, and work out the Hawking temperature. We also study a class of topological three-dimensional black holes constructed from Sol geometry [@Scott]. In our approach we solve charged Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations and calculate the tunneling probabilities of particles crossing their horizons and work out the temperatures.
The organization of this paper is as follows. After an introduction of BTZ black holes in the next section, we discuss tunneling of charged scalar particles from charged BTZ black holes in Section \[sec\_ charge\_scalar\_charge\], and from charged rotating BTZ black holes in Sections \[sec\_ charge\_scalar\_charge\_rotation\]. After this, Section \[sec\_ charge\_fermionic\_charge\] and Section \[sec\_ charge\_fermionic\_charge\_rotation\] are devoted to the emission of charged fermions from charged black holes, and from charged rotating black holes, respectively. In Section \[sec\_ particle\_sol\], we investigate the topological black hole from the Sol geometry and work out the tunneling probability and Hawking temperature. We conclude our paper with a discussion and brief summary of results.
Charged BTZ black holes {#sec_ bh}
=======================
The BTZ black hole solutions in (2+1) spacetime dimensions are derived from a three-dimensional theory of gravity. The BTZ black holes [Banados:1992wn, Banados:1992gq]{} are solutions of the Einstein field equations with cosmological constant in three dimensions. These solutions represent one of the main recent advances for low energy in three dimensional gravity theories. The total Einstein action in three dimensional gravity in the presence of cosmological constant is given by $$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\int d^{3}x\sqrt{-g}\left( R-2\Lambda \right) , \label{E}$$where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $\Lambda =-1/{l^{2}}$, is the Cosmological constant, $R$, the Ricci scalar and $g$ is determinant of the metric tensor $g_{\mu \nu }$. We use units for both $G$ and $l$ as$~($length)$^{3}$ and we work in the units that $8G=1$ in this paper.
The corresponding line element in Schwarzschild coordinates is given by $$ds^{2}=-f\left( r\right) dt^{2}+f^{-1}\left( r\right) dr^{2}+r^{2}\left(
d\phi -\frac{J}{2r^{2}}dt\right) ^{2}, \label{BTZ_}$$where$$f\left( r\right) =-M+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}+\frac{J^{2}}{4r^{2}}.$$Here $M$ is the mass, $J$ is the angular spin of the BTZ black hole and $$-\infty <t<\infty ,\quad 0\leq r<\infty ,\quad 0\leq \phi <2\pi .$$The horizons, $r_{+}$ $($henceforth simply the black hole horizon) and $r_{-} $ respectively, concerning the positive mass black hole spectrum with spin $\left( J\neq 0\right) $ of the line element (\[BTZ\_\]) are given by putting $f\left( r\right) =0$, $$r_{\pm }^{2}=\frac{l^{2}}{2}\left( M\pm \sqrt{M^{2}-\frac{J^{2}}{l^{2}}}\right) ,$$where ‘+’ and ‘$-$’ denote the outer and inner horizons. The BTZ black hole without electric charge can be obtained as the quotient of AdS space.
One can obtain more general metrics by considering coupling of the pure Einstein gravity with other matter fields. For example, one can consider three-dimensional Einstein gravity with topological matter [@Carlip:1991zk]. One can also discuss the Einstein-Maxwell theory. If we include the Maxwell tensor also, the action is given by $$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\int d^{3}x\sqrt{-g}\left( R-2\Lambda -4\pi GF_{\mu \nu
}F^{\mu \nu }\right) , \label{Einstein_Maxwell}$$with $$F_{\mu \nu }=A_{\nu ,\mu }-A_{\mu ,\nu },$$ where $A_{\mu }$ is the electrical potential. In addition to the black hole solutions (\[BTZ\_\]) described above, charged black hole solutions similar to (\[BTZ\_\]) exist [@Banados:1992wn; @Martinez:1999qi]. These are solutions following from the action (\[Einstein\_Maxwell\]).
The electrically charged black hole solutions of Einstein-Maxwell theory take the form $$ds^{2}=-f\left( r\right) dt^{2}+f^{-1}\left( r\right) dr^{2}+r^{2}d\phi ^{2},
\label{bh_Q}$$ but with$$f(r)=-M+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}Q^{2}\ln \left( \frac{r}{l}\right) ,
\label{f_r_Q_}$$ where $Q$ is the electric charge of the black hole. For this charged black hole, there is a limit $l\rightarrow \infty ,\Lambda \rightarrow 0,~$in which it goes over to charged black hole asymptotic to flat space.
The electrically charged and rotating black holes take the form (\[BTZ\_\]), but with$$f(r)=-M+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}Q^{2}\ln \left( \frac{r}{l}\right) +\frac{J^{2}}{4r^{2}}, \label{f_r_Q__}$$where $Q$ is the electric charge, and $J$ is the angular momentum of the black hole.
Using the fact that for BTZ black hole electric potential, $A_{\mu }$, is given by $\left( A_{t},0,0\right) ,$ we have from (\[Einstein\_Maxwell\]) and (\[f\_r\_Q\_\]) $$\frac{Q}{r}=-A_{t,r}.$$After integration the above expression comes out to be$$A_{t}=-Q\ln (\frac{r}{l}).$$Since we are considering the case of charged BTZ black hole, we consider the line element (\[bh\_Q\]) with $f(r)$ given by (\[f\_r\_Q\_\]). The Maxwell field is given by $$F_{tr}=\frac{Q}{r}.$$
We see that unlike the uncharged case where horizons can be found easily, the function $f(r)$ is more complicated for the charged BTZ black hole.
Quantum tunneling of scalar particles from charged BTZ black hole {#sec_ charge_scalar_charge}
=================================================================
Here we treat the emission of scalar particles from charged BTZ black holes as tunneling phenomenon across the event horizon. This is done by solving charged Klein-Gordon equation for scalar field, $\Psi $, which is given by $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\left( \partial _{\mu }-\frac{iq}{\hbar }A_{\mu }\right)
\left( \sqrt{-g}g^{\mu \nu }(\partial _{\nu }-\frac{iq}{\hbar }A_{\nu })\Psi
\right) -\frac{m^{2}}{\hbar ^{2}}\Psi =0, \label{K_G_1}$$where $\nu $ and $\mu $ have values $0,1,2$ for the coordinates $t,r,\phi .$ The $m$ and $q$ are the mass and charge of the particle. We use WKB approximation and choose an ansatz of the form $$\Psi (t,r,\phi )=e^{\left( \frac{i}{\hslash }I(t,r,\phi )+I_{1}(t,r,\phi
)+O(\hslash )\right) }. \label{wave_factor_}$$Using this in (\[K\_G\_1\]) in leading powers of $\hbar $, dividing by the exponential term and multiplying by $\hbar ^{2},$ we get$$0=g^{tt}(\partial _{t}I-qA_{t})^{2}+g^{rr}(\partial _{r}I)^{2}+g^{\phi \phi
}(\partial _{\phi }I)^{2}+m^{2},$$or $$\begin{aligned}
0 &=&-\left( -M+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}Q^{2}\ln r\right)
^{-1}(\partial _{t}I-qA_{t})^{2}+ \nonumber \\
&&\left( -M+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}Q^{2}\ln r\right) (\partial
_{r}I)^{2}+r^{-2}(\partial _{\phi }I)^{2}+m^{2}. \label{wave_Q_}\end{aligned}$$
If we look at the symmetries of charged BTZ black hole then $\partial _{t}$ and $\partial _{\phi }$ are the Killing fields. So there exists a solution for this differential equation which in terms of the classical action $I$ can be written as $$I=-\omega t+W(r)+j\phi +K, \label{phase_}$$where $\omega $ and $j$ are the energy and angular momentum of the particle, and $K$ is a constant which can be complex. Using this function in the above expression we get $$W_{\pm }(r)=\pm \int \sqrt{-\frac{g^{tt}}{g^{rr}}\left( (\omega +qA_{t})^{2}+\frac{g^{\phi \phi }}{g^{tt}}j^{2}+\frac{1}{g^{tt}}m^{2}\right) }dr.$$Putting the values of $g^{tt}$ and $g^{rr},$ we can write $W_{\pm }(r)$ as$$W_{\pm }(r)=\pm \int \frac{\sqrt{\left( \omega +qA_{t}\right)
^{2}-f(r)\left( \frac{j^{2}}{r^{2}}+m^{2}\right) }}{f(r)}dr.$$Here, we have simple pole at $r=r_{+},$ so by using the residue theory for semi circles, we get $$W_{\pm }=\pm \frac{\pi i(\omega +qA_{t})}{f^{\prime }(r_{+})},
\label{phase_r_}$$since $f(r_{+})=0$. This implies that $$\mathrm{Im}W_{+}=\frac{\pi (\omega +qA_{t})}{f^{\prime }(r_{+})}.
\label{phase_imaginary_}$$
Hawking radiation from black holes can be studied as a process of quantum tunneling of particles from the black hole horizon. Using this approach we calculate the imaginary part of the classical action for this classically forbidden process of emission across the horizon. In this semi-classical method the probabilities of crossing the horizon from inside to outside, and from outside to inside, are given by [@Shankaranarayanan:2000gb; @Srinivasan:1998ty] $$\begin{aligned}
P_{emission} &\varpropto &\exp \left( \frac{-2}{\hbar }\mathrm{Im}I\right)
=\exp \left( \frac{-2}{\hbar }(\mathrm{Im}W_{+}+\mathrm{Im}K)\right) ,
\label{p_emit_} \\
P_{absorption} &\varpropto &\exp \left( \frac{-2}{\hbar }\mathrm{Im}I\right)
=\exp \left( \frac{-2}{\hbar }(\mathrm{Im}W_{-}+\mathrm{Im}K)\right) .
\label{p_absorb_}\end{aligned}$$We know that any outside particle will certainly fall into the black hole. Thus we must take Im$K=-$Im$W_{-}$. From (\[phase\_r\_\]), we have $W_{+}=-W_{-}$, and this means that the probability of a particle tunneling from inside to outside the horizon is $$\Gamma =\exp \left( \frac{-4}{\hbar }\mathrm{Im}W_{+}\right) .
\label{rate_phase_}$$Putting the value of Im$W_{+}$ from equation (\[phase\_imaginary\_\]) into (\[rate\_phase\_\]), we get $$\Gamma =\exp \left( -\frac{4\pi (\omega -qQ\ln \left( \frac{r_{+}}{l}\right)
)}{\hbar f^{\prime }(r_{+})}\right) . \label{rate_Q}$$This is the tunneling probability of scalar particles from inside to outside the event horizon of the charged BTZ black hole.
If we compare this equation (\[rate\_Q\]) with $\Gamma =\exp
\left( -\beta \omega \right) $, which is Boltzmann factor for particle of energy $\omega$, and $\beta $ is the inverse temperature of the horizon [Shankaranarayanan:2000gb, Srinivasan:1998ty]{}, we can derive the Hawking temperature for black holes. Comparing equation (\[rate\_Q\]) with the Boltzmann factor of energy, we can find the Hawking temperature (taking $\hbar =1$) as $$T_{H}=\frac{f^{\prime }(r_{+})}{4\pi }, \label{T_tunneling_01}$$where $f^{\prime }(r_{+})$ is the derivative of $f$ with respect to $r$ at $r=r_{+}.$ So from equation (\[T\_tunneling\_01\]), the temperature becomes$$T_{H}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left( \frac{2r_{+}}{l^{2}}-\frac{Q^{2}}{2r_{+}}\right)
. \label{T_tunneling_Q}$$This situation is similar to the Reissner-Nordström black hole in (3+1)-dimensions. It has the interesting Boltzmann factor (\[rate\_Q\]), with chemical potential conjugate to the charge.
Now we look at thermodynamic relations in this situation. From $f(r_{+})=0$, the mass of the black hole is given by $$M_{bh}(Q)=\frac{r_{+}^{2}}{l^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}Q^{2}\ln \left( \frac{r_{+}}{l}\right) .$$The entropy of the black hole is$$S=4\pi r^{+},$$which is the circumference, in the units $8G=1$. For the electric potential $ V$ $$\frac{\partial M}{\partial Q}|_{S}=V=-Q\ln \left( \frac{r_{+}}{l}\right)
=A_{t}.$$So that we have $$\frac{\partial M}{\partial S}|_{Q}=T=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left( \frac{2r_{+}}{l^{2}}-\frac{Q^{2}}{2r_{+}}\right) ,$$which is from the thermodynamic relation, and is the same as ([T\_tunneling\_Q]{}) by the above independent method of quantum tunneling.
Quantum tunneling of scalar particles from rotating charged BTZ black hole {#sec_ charge_scalar_charge_rotation}
==========================================================================
In this section, we consider emission of scalar particles from rotating charged BTZ black hole. The line element is given by$$ds^{2}=-f\left( r\right) dt^{2}+f^{-1}\left( r\right) dr^{2}+r^{2}\left(
d\phi +N^{\phi }(r)dt\right) ^{2},$$where$$\begin{aligned}
f(r) &=&-M+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}+\frac{J^{2}}{4r^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}Q^{2}\ln
\left( \frac{r}{l}\right) , \\
N^{\phi }(r) &=&\frac{-J}{2r^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ To deal with the quantum tunneling of scalar particles from this black hole, we will use the charged Klein-Gordon equation given by (\[K\_G\_1\]). Again assuming the function of the form in (\[wave\_factor\_\]) for the solution and following the earlier procedure, we get the differential equation$$g^{tt}(\partial _{t}I-qA_{t})^{2}+g^{rr}(\partial _{r}I)^{2}+g^{t\phi
}(\partial _{t}I\partial _{\phi }I-qA_{t}\partial _{\phi }I)+g^{\phi \phi
}(\partial _{\phi }I)^{2}+m^{2}=0.$$As before we assume the function $I$ of the form in (3.6) and obtain $$W^{\prime }(r)=\pm \sqrt{-\frac{g^{tt}}{g^{rr}}\left( (\omega +qA_{t})^{2}+\frac{g^{\phi \phi }}{g^{tt}}j^{2}-\frac{g^{t\phi }}{g^{tt}}j(\omega
+qA_{t})+\frac{1}{g^{tt}}m^{2}\right) }.$$Substituting the value of the metric tensor we get the integral $$W_{\pm }(r)=\pm \int \frac{\sqrt{(\omega +qA_{t})^{2}-(\frac{f(r)}{r^{2}}-\left( N^{\phi }\right) ^{2})j^{2}+2N^{\phi }(r)(\omega +qA_{t})j-f(r)m^{2}}}{f(r)}dr.$$ Here, we have simple pole at $r=r_{+}$, and therefore, from the residue theory for semi circles, we get on integration $$W_{\pm }=\pm \pi i\frac{\sqrt{(\omega +qA_{t})^{2}+\left( N^{\phi
}(r_{+})\right) ^{2}j^{2}+2N^{\phi }(r_{+})(\omega +qA_{t})j}}{f^{\prime
}(r_{+})}.$$ The above equation implies that $$\mathrm{Im}W_{+}=\pi \frac{\left( \omega +qA_{t}(r_{+})+jN^{\phi
}(r_{+})\right) }{f^{\prime }(r_{+})}. \label{phase_imaginary_Q}$$
As the probabilities of crossing the horizon from inside to outside and outside to inside is given by$$\begin{aligned}
P_{emission} &\varpropto &\exp \left( \frac{-2}{\hbar }\mathrm{Im}I\right)
=\exp \left( \frac{-2}{\hbar }(\mathrm{Im}W_{+}+\mathrm{Im}K)\right) , \\
P_{absorption} &\varpropto &\exp \left( \frac{-2}{\hbar }\mathrm{Im}I\right)
=\exp \left( \frac{-2}{\hbar }(\mathrm{Im}W_{-}+\mathrm{Im}K)\right) .\end{aligned}$$The probability of a particle tunneling from inside to outside the horizon is given by $\Gamma =\exp \left( \frac{-4}{\hbar }\mathrm{Im}W_{+}\right) $, which on substituting the value of Im$W_{+}$ from equation ([phase\_imaginary\_Q]{}) yields$$\Gamma =\exp \left( \frac{-4\pi }{\hbar }\frac{\left( \omega -qQ\ln \left(
\frac{r_{+}}{l}\right) -j\frac{J}{2r_{+}^{2}}\right) }{f^{\prime }(r_{+})}\right) . \label{tunneling_c_r}$$This is the tunneling probability of scalars across the event horizon of the charged rotating BTZ black hole. We note that this does not depend on the mass of the tunneling particle but only on its charge. By comparing this with the Boltzmann factor of energy of particle, we can find the Hawking temperature of this black hole $T_{H}=f^{\prime }(r_{+})/4\pi $ as $$T_{H}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left( \frac{2r_{+}}{l^{2}}-\frac{Q^{2}}{2r_{+}}-\frac{J^{2}}{2r_{+}^{3}}\right) . \label{T_tunneling_Q_J}$$Putting charge $Q=0$ will correspond to the temperature for uncharged BTZ black hole [@Li:2008ws].
Now we discuss the thermodynamic relations. The mass of the black hole is$$M_{bh}(Q,J)=\frac{r_{+}^{2}}{l^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}Q^{2}\ln \left( \frac{r_{+}}{l}\right) +\frac{J^{2}}{4r_{+}^{2}}.$$The entropy is$$S=4\pi r^{+},$$which is the circumference, in the unit $8G=1$. We see that$$\frac{\partial M}{\partial J}|_{Q,S}=\Omega =\frac{J}{2r_{+}^{2}},~~~~\ \
~~~J=2\Omega r_{+}^{2}.$$The mass of the black hole can also be expressed as$$M=\left( \frac{1}{l^{2}}+\Omega ^{2}\right) r_{+}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}Q^{2}\ln
\left( \frac{r_{+}}{l}\right) .$$For the electric potential $V$ we have $$\frac{\partial M}{\partial Q}|_{J,S}=V=-Q\ln \left( \frac{r_{+}}{l}\right)
=A_{t}.$$So that we have $$\frac{\partial M}{\partial S}|_{Q,J}=T=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left( \frac{2r_{+}}{l^{2}}-\frac{Q^{2}}{2r_{+}}-\frac{J^{2}}{2r_{+}^{3}}\right) ,$$which is from the thermodynamic relation, and is the same as obtained by the quantum tunneling method above. The $J=0$ limit of the temperature reduces to the result given by the quantum tunneling method in Section \[sec\_ charge\_scalar\_charge\], and by another method [@Medved:2001ca].
Quantum tunneling of fermionic particles from charged BTZ black holes {#sec_ charge_fermionic_charge}
=====================================================================
We will now calculate Dirac particle’s Hawking radiation from the charged BTZ black hole. In this case the function $f(r)~$will be, as in (\[bh\_Q\]) and (\[f\_r\_Q\_\]), $$f(r)=-M+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}-\frac{1}{2}Q^{2}\ln \left( \frac{r}{l}\right) .
\label{f_r_Q}$$
We consider the two-component massive spinor field $\psi $, with mass $\mu $ and charge $q$, which obeys the covariant Dirac equation $$i\hbar \gamma ^{a}e_{a}^{\mu }\left( \nabla _{\mu }-\frac{i}{\hbar }qA_{\mu
}\right) \psi -\mu \psi =0,$$where $\nabla _{\mu }$ is the spinor covariant derivative given by $\nabla
_{\mu }=\partial _{\mu }+\Omega _{\mu }$, where$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega _{\mu } &=&\frac{i}{2}\Gamma _{\mu }^{\alpha \beta }\Sigma _{\alpha
\beta }, \\
\Sigma _{\alpha \beta } &=&\frac{i}{4}\left[ \gamma ^{\alpha },\gamma
^{\beta }\right] ,~~~~~\Omega _{\mu }=\frac{-1}{8}\Gamma _{\mu }^{\alpha
\beta }\left[ \gamma ^{\alpha },\gamma ^{\beta }\right] .\end{aligned}$$The $\gamma $ matrices in three spacetime dimensions are selected to be$$\gamma ^{a}=\left( -i\sigma ^{1},\sigma ^{0},\sigma ^{2}\right) ,$$where $\sigma ^{i}$ are the Pauli sigma matrices. For the line element ([bh\_Q]{}) the vielbein field $e_{a}^{\mu }$ can be selected as $$\begin{aligned}
e_{0}^{\mu } &=&\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
f^{-\frac{1}{2}} & 0 & 0\end{array}\right) , \nonumber \\
e_{1}^{\mu } &=&\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & f^{\frac{1}{2}} & 0\end{array}\right) , \nonumber \\
e_{2}^{\mu } &=&\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{r}\end{array}\right) .\end{aligned}$$We use the ansatz for the two-component spinor $\psi $ as $$\psi =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
A\left( t,r,\phi \right) \\
B\left( t,r,\phi \right)
\end{array}\right) e^{\frac{i}{\hslash }I\left( t,\gamma ,\phi \right) }.$$In order to apply WKB approximation, we insert ansatz for spinor field $\psi $ into the Dirac equation. Dividing by the exponential term with $\hbar$, we have the following two equations$$A\left( \mu +\frac{1}{r}\partial _{\phi }I\left( t,r,\phi \right) \right) +B\left[ \sqrt{f}\partial _{r}I\left( t,r,\phi \right) +\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{f}}\partial _{t}I\left( t,r,\phi \right) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{f}}Qq\ln \left(
\frac{r}{l}\right) \right) \right] =0,$$$$A\left[ \sqrt{f}\partial _{r}I\left( t,r,\phi \right) -\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{f}}\partial _{t}I\left( t,r,\phi \right) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{f}}Qq\ln \left(
\frac{r}{l}\right) \right) \right] +B\left( \mu -\frac{1}{r}\partial _{\phi
}I\left( t,r,\phi \right) \right) =0.$$Note that although $A$ and $B$ are not constant, their derivatives and the component $\Omega _{\mu }$ are all of order $\hbar ,$ so they can be neglected to the lowest order in WKB approximation. These two equations have a non-trivial solution for $A$ and $B$ if and only if the determinant of coefficient matrix vanishes. Thus we get $$\frac{1}{r^{2}}\left( \partial _{\phi }I\left( t,r,\phi \right)
\right) ^{2}+\mu ^{2}+\left( \sqrt{f}\partial _{r}I\left( t,r,\phi
\right) \right) ^{2}-\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{f}}\partial _{t}I\left(
t,r,\phi \right) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{f}}Qq\ln \left(
\frac{r}{l}\right) \right) ^{2}=0. \label{wave__}$$
Because there are two Killing vectors $\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial t}\right) ^{\mu }$ and $\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial \phi }\right) ^{\mu }$ in the charged BTZ spacetime, so we can make the separation of variables for $I\left( t,r,\phi \right) $ as $$I=-\omega t+j\phi +W\left( r\right) +K,$$where $\omega $ and $j$ are Dirac particle’s energy and angular momentum respectively, and $K$ is a complex constant. Now putting $$\partial _{r}I=\partial _{r}W\left( r\right) ,~~~\partial _{\phi
}I=j,~~~\partial _{t}I=-\omega ,$$in (\[wave\_\_\]) we get $$\partial _{r}W\left( r\right) =\pm \frac{1}{f}\sqrt{\left( \omega -qQ\ln
\left( \frac{r}{l}\right) \right) ^{2}-f\left( \mu ^{2}+\frac{j^{2}}{r^{2}}\right) }.$$In view of (\[p\_emit\_\]) and (\[p\_absorb\_\]), we have that $W_{-}=-W_{+}$. Integration gives $$W_{+}\left( r\right) =\int \frac{dr}{f}\sqrt{\left( \omega -qQ\ln \left(
\frac{r}{l}\right) \right) ^{2}-f\left( \mu ^{2}+\frac{j^{2}}{r^{2}}\right) }. \label{phase_r__}$$Substituting the imaginary part of $W_{+}$ in tunneling probability we obtain $$W_{+}=\frac{\pi i}{f^{\prime }(r_{+})}\left( \omega -qQ\ln \left( \frac{r_{+}}{l}\right) \right) ,$$or in simplified form we have $$\mathrm{Im}W_{+}=\frac{\pi }{2\kappa }\left( \omega -qQ\ln \left( \frac{r_{+}}{l}\right) \right) ,$$where $\kappa =\left( \frac{r_{+}}{l^{2}}-\frac{2GQ^{2}}{r_{+}}\right) $ is the surface gravity of outer event horizon. This leads to the tunneling probability$$\Gamma =\exp \left[ -\frac{2\pi }{\hbar \kappa }\left( \omega -qQ\ln (\frac{r_{+}}{l})\right) \right] .$$Thus the Hawking temperature $T_{H}=f^{\prime }(r_{+})/4\pi $ is $$T_{H}=\frac{r_{+}}{2\pi l^{2}}-\frac{Q^{2}}{8\pi r_{+}}.$$This is the same as calculated in the case of scalar particles in ([T\_tunneling\_Q]{}) in Section \[sec\_ charge\_scalar\_charge\], and agrees with the thermodynamic relation.
Quantum tunneling of fermionic particles from rotating charged BTZ black holes {#sec_ charge_fermionic_charge_rotation}
==============================================================================
In this section we work out the tunneling probability of fermions from rotating charged BTZ black hole. We consider the Dirac equation for electromagnetic field $$i\gamma ^{\mu }\left( \partial _{\mu }+\Omega _{\mu }-\frac{i}{\hbar }qA_{\mu }\right) \psi -\frac{\mu }{\hbar }\psi =0,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega _{\mu } &=&\frac{i}{2}\Gamma _{\mu }^{\alpha \beta }\Sigma _{\alpha
\beta }, \\
\Sigma _{\alpha \beta } &=&\frac{i}{4}\left[ \gamma ^{\alpha },\gamma
^{\beta }\right] ,~~~~\Omega _{\mu }=\frac{-1}{8}\Gamma _{\mu }^{\alpha
\beta }\left[ \gamma ^{\alpha },\gamma ^{\beta }\right] .\end{aligned}$$ With the Pauli sigma matrices given by $$\sigma ^{0}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{array}\right) ,\sigma ^{1}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
i & 0\end{array}\right) ,\sigma ^{2}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1\end{array}\right) ,$$we choose the curved space $\gamma ^{\mu }$ matrices as $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma ^{t} &=&\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{f}} \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{f}} & 0\end{array}\right) ,\gamma ^{r}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \sqrt{f} \\
\sqrt{f} & 0\end{array}\right) , \nonumber \\
\gamma ^{\phi } &=&\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{r} & -\frac{4JG}{r^{2}\sqrt{f}} \\
\frac{4JG}{r^{2}\sqrt{f}} & -\frac{1}{r}\end{array}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$which also satisfy the condition $\left\{ \gamma ^{\mu },\gamma ^{\nu
}\right\} =2g^{\mu \nu }\times ~$ where I is the identity matrix.
Now inserting the value of electric potential for charged BTZ black hole the equation of motion becomes $$i\gamma ^{t}\left( \partial _{t}-\frac{i}{\hbar }qA_{t}\right) \psi +i\gamma
^{r}\left( \partial _{r}\right) \psi +i\gamma ^{\phi }\left( \partial _{\phi
}\right) \psi -\frac{\mu }{\hbar }\psi =0. \label{Dirac_}$$For a fermion with spin 1/2 the wave function has two states namely spin-up ($\uparrow $) and spin-down ($\downarrow $), and therefore, we can take the following ansatz for the solution $$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{\uparrow } &=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
A\left( t,r,\phi \right) \\
0\end{array}\right) e^{\frac{i}{\hslash }I_{\uparrow }\left( t,r,\phi \right) },
\label{spin_up_} \\
\psi _{\downarrow } &=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
B\left( t,r,\phi \right)
\end{array}\right) e^{\frac{i}{\hslash }I_{\downarrow }\left( t,r,\phi \right) },
\label{spin_down_}\end{aligned}$$where $\psi _{\uparrow }$ denotes the wave function of the spin-up particle and $\psi _{\downarrow }$ is for the spin-down case. Inserting equation ([spin\_up\_]{}) for the spin-up particle into the Dirac equation (\[Dirac\_\]) and dividing by exponential term and multiplying by $\hbar $, we get the following equation $$-\frac{A}{\sqrt{f}}\partial _{t}I_{\uparrow }\left( t,r,\phi \right) +\frac{qA_{t}}{\sqrt{f}}A-\sqrt{f}A\partial _{r}I_{\uparrow }\left( t,r,\phi
\right) -\frac{4JGA}{r^{2}\sqrt{f}}\partial _{\phi }I_{\uparrow }\left(
t,r,\phi \right) =0.$$Now considering the method of separation of variables for the spin-up case we have $$I_{\uparrow }=-\omega t+W(r)+\Theta (\phi )+K=-\omega t+W(r)+j\phi +K.
\label{spin_up_phase}$$Here $\omega $ and $j$ are the energy and angular momentum of the emitted particle, and $K$ is a complex constant. Using this expression in the above equation we get $$\frac{A}{\sqrt{f}}\omega +\frac{qA_{t}}{\sqrt{f}}A-\sqrt{f}A\partial _{r}W-\frac{4JGA}{r^{2}\sqrt{f}}\partial _{\phi }\Theta =0. \label{eqn_spin_}$$For simplification we put equation (\[spin\_up\_phase\]) in (\[eqn\_spin\_\]) to get $$\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{f}}+\frac{qA_{t}}{\sqrt{f}}-\sqrt{f}\partial _{r}W-j\frac{4JG}{r^{2}\sqrt{f}}=0,$$or $$\partial _{r}W=\frac{1}{f}\left( \omega +qA_{t}-j\frac{4JG}{r^{2}}\right) .
\label{spin_up_w}$$
If we look at the spin-down particle, its phase $I_{\downarrow }$ and its $r$-dependence have the similar expressions as equations ([spin\_up\_phase]{}) and (\[spin\_up\_w\]), respectively. Integration of equation (\[spin\_up\_w\]) gives $$W=\int \frac{dr}{f}\left( \omega +qA_{t}-j\frac{4JG}{r^{2}}\right) .$$We integrate along a semi circle around the pole at $r_{+}=0.$ Now, at the horizon the radial function can be given as$$W=\frac{\pi i(\omega +qA_{t}-j\frac{4JG}{r_{+}^{2}})}{\left( \frac{2r_{+}}{l^{2}}-\frac{4GQ^{2}}{r_{+}}-\frac{32G^{2}J^{2}}{r_{+}^{3}}\right) }.$$Tunneling probability for this is given by equation (\[rate\_phase\_\]) that is $$\Gamma =\exp \left( \frac{-\pi (\omega -qQ\ln \left( \frac{r_{+}}{l}\right)
-j\frac{4JG}{r_{+}^{2}})}{\left( \frac{r_{+}}{2l^{2}}-\frac{GQ^{2}}{r_{+}}-\frac{8G^{2}J^{2}}{r_{+}^{3}}\right) \hbar }\right) ,
\label{tunneling_c_r_f}$$where $\kappa =\left( \frac{r_{+}}{l^{2}}-\frac{2GQ^{2}}{r_{+}}-\frac{16G^{2}J^{2}}{r_{+}^{3}}\right) $ is the surface gravity. We work in the units $8G=1$. We see that this is the same as obtained by solving the Klein-Gordon equation in Section \[sec\_ charge\_scalar\_charge\_rotation\].
Quantum tunneling from three-dimensional topological black holes {#sec_ particle_sol}
================================================================
Some classes of three-manifolds have been studied for their interesting physical properties. One such example is the Sol geometry [@Scott] defined by $$ds^{2}=e^{2u}dx^{2}+du^{2}+e^{-2u}dy^{2}. \label{Sol_def_}$$It is the $^{2}~$bundle over , in which ($x,y$) is the $^{2}$, and $u$ is the . From this class we consider the following metric representing a three-dimensional topological black hole $$ds^{2}=\frac{-f}{Ml^{2}}dt^{2}+\frac{1}{l^{2}f}dr^{2}+\frac{M}{f}d\phi ^{2},
\label{bh_Sol_01}$$where $$f(r)=\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}-M. \label{sol_f}$$In the asymptotic region, when $f(r)\rightarrow r^{2}/l^{2}$, the above metric becomes$$ds^{2}=\frac{-r^{2}}{Ml^{4}}dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{r^{2}}+\frac{Ml^{2}}{r^{2}}d\phi ^{2}.$$We redefine $$\tilde{t}=\frac{t}{\sqrt{M}}=l^{2}x,~~~~~~r=e^{u},~~~~u=\ln r,~~~~\ \ y=\sqrt{M}l\phi .~~$$In this case (\[bh\_Sol\_01\]) is asymptotic to $$\begin{aligned}
ds^{2} &=&-\frac{f}{l^{2}}d\tilde{t}^{2}+\frac{1}{l^{2}f}dr^{2}+\frac{M}{f}d\phi ^{2} \\
&\rightarrow &-r^{2}dx^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{r^{2}}+\frac{1}{r^{2}}dy^{2} \\
&=&-e^{2u}dx^{2}+du^{2}+e^{-2u}dy^{2}. \label{Sol_lorentzian}\end{aligned}$$We see that (\[Sol\_lorentzian\]) is exactly the Lorentzian version of the Sol geometry (\[Sol\_def\_\]), by analytical continuation $x\rightarrow ix$. So the black hole in (\[bh\_Sol\_01\]) is asymptotic to the Sol geometry. The metric (\[bh\_Sol\_01\]) on three-manifolds can be interpreted as black holes or black hole like objects. They can arise from three dimensional gravity with matter fields.
Here we study the emission of particles from these Sol black holes described above. We use the Dirac equation $$i\hbar \gamma ^{a}e_{a}^{\mu }\tilde{\nabla}_{\mu }\psi -\mu \psi =0,$$where $\tilde{\nabla}_{\mu }$ is the spinor covariant derivative. It is worth mentioning here that using Klein-Gordon equation will also give the same results. We select the $\gamma $ matrices as before and write the vielbein field $e_{a}^{\mu }$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&&e_{0}^{\mu }=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{M^{1/2}l}{f^{1/2}} & 0 & 0\end{array}\right) , \nonumber \\
&&e_{1}^{\mu }=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & lf^{1/2} & 0\end{array}\right) , \nonumber \\
&&e_{2}^{\mu }=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \frac{f^{1/2}}{M^{1/2}}\end{array}\right) .\end{aligned}$$We use the ansatz for the two-component spinor $\psi $ as $$\psi =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
A\left( t,r,\phi \right) \\
B\left( t,r,\phi \right)
\end{array}\right) e^{\frac{i}{\hslash }I\left( t,\gamma ,\phi \right) }.$$In order to apply WKB approximation, we insert this ansatz for spinor field $\psi $ into the Dirac equation. Dividing by the exponential term with $\hbar $, one can get the following two equations $$\begin{aligned}
A\left( \mu +\sqrt{\frac{f}{M}}\partial _{\phi }I\left( t,r,\phi \right)
\right) +B\left( \sqrt{f}l\partial _{r}I\left( t,r,\phi \right) +\sqrt{\frac{M}{f}}l\partial _{t}I\left( t,r,\phi \right) \right) &=&0, \nonumber \\
&& \\
A\left( \sqrt{f}l\partial _{r}I\left( t,r,\phi \right) -\sqrt{\frac{M}{f}}l\partial _{t}I\left( t,r,\phi \right) \right) +B\left( \mu -\sqrt{\frac{f}{M}}\partial _{\phi }I\left( t,r,\phi \right) \right) &=&0. \nonumber \\
&&\end{aligned}$$Now as we have discussed in the previous sections, for nontrivial solution we put the determinant of coefficient matrix equal to zero $$\frac{M}{f}l^{2}\left( \partial _{t}I\right) ^{2}-\frac{f}{M}\left( \partial
_{\phi }I\right) ^{2}-l^{2}f\left( \partial _{r}I\right) ^{2}-\mu ^{2}=0.
\label{wave_}$$To calculate the classical action of trajectory we use the method of separation of variables and suppose$$\begin{aligned}
I &=&j\phi -\omega \tilde{t}+W(r)+K \\
&=&j\phi -\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\omega t+W(r)+K,\end{aligned}$$where $K$ is a complex constant and $j$ is the angular momentum of the particle. Now we put the relations $$\partial _{\phi }I=j,~~\partial _{t}I=-\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{M}},~~\partial
_{r}I=\partial _{r}W,$$in equation (\[wave\_\]) and obtain$$\partial _{r}W(r)=\frac{1}{f}\sqrt{\omega ^{2}-f\left( \frac{\mu }{l}\right)
^{2}-\frac{f^{2}}{M}\left( \frac{j}{l}\right) ^{2}}.$$So we see that$$\begin{aligned}
W &=&\int dr\frac{1}{f}\sqrt{\omega ^{2}-f\left( \frac{\mu }{l}\right) ^{2}-\frac{f^{2}}{M}\left( \frac{j}{l}\right) ^{2}} \\
&=&\frac{\pi i(\omega )}{f^{\prime }(r_{+})}, \label{R_}\end{aligned}$$where we have integrated along the semi-circle around the pole for $f=0$ at $r_{+}$.
This implies that the probability of a particle tunneling from inside to outside the horizon becomes $$\Gamma =\exp \left( -\frac{4}{\hbar }\mathrm{Im}W\right) =\exp \left( -\frac{4\pi \omega }{f^{\prime }(r_{+})\hbar }\right) .$$Comparing with the Boltzmann factor $\exp \left( -\beta \omega \right) $ we obtain the temperature $T=f^{\prime }(r_{+})/4\pi $. Substituting the expression of $f(r)$, for $r_{+}=\sqrt{M}l$, $$T=\frac{f^{\prime }(r_{+})}{4\pi }=~\frac{r_{+}}{2\pi l^{2}}=\frac{\sqrt{M}}{2\pi l}.$$From the thermodynamic relation$$\frac{\partial M}{\partial S}=T, \label{M_T}$$the entropy $S$ is$$S=4\pi r^{+}=4\pi \sqrt{M}l. \label{Sol_S}$$The temperature and thermodynamic behavior are similar to those of BTZ black hole.
Discussion
==========
The theory of three-manifolds has been studied for its interesting geometric and topological properties [@Scott], and classifications on one hand, and its physical applications on the other. Some of the metrics on three-manifolds have been interpreted as black holes or black hole like objects. They play a crucial role in understanding lower dimensional gravity theories.
Here we have analyzed the quantum tunneling approach of Hawking radiations for three-dimensional BTZ and other topological black holes. The charged BTZ black hole represents a solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. When we include the charge it becomes a three-dimensional analogue of the Reissner-Nordström black hole. We also computed the quantum tunneling for the topological black holes asymptotic to Sol geometry. Laws of black hole mechanics can be extended to these objects as well.
The BTZ spacetime also appears from the near horizon geometry of higher dimensional black holes. In the near horizon geometry of higher dimensional black holes, under appropriate limit, the time and radial direction of the black hole, and a circle direction in the extra dimensions, combine into a BTZ geometry [@Balasubramanian:2007bs; @Fareghbal:2008ar]. It is interesting to see the connection of this to the discussion in this paper.
We have studied the emission of charged scalar particles and fermions from charged BTZ black holes, with and without rotation. For this purpose we have solved the charged Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations using WKB approximation and symmetries of the background spacetime. Using complex path integration we worked out the tunneling probability of particles from charged BTZ black holes. This also yields Hawking temperature from these three dimensional objects. The temperature is given by $f^{\prime }(r_{+})/4\pi $, where the function $f(r)$ for the charged black hole is given by equation (\[f\_r\_Q\_\]) and that for the charged rotating black hole is given by (\[f\_r\_Q\_\_\]). The charged BTZ black holes have a -$\ln
r~$potential term which is very interesting. We also obtained the Boltzmann factors with chemical potentials conjugate to the charge and to the angular momentum of the particles. It is worth emphasizing here that for no value of the energy, charge and angular momentum of the particles will the tunneling probabilities be greater than 1. Thus they will not violate unitarity. This is taken care of by the temporal contribution to the imaginary part of the action [@Akhmedov:2008ru; @Akhmedova:2008dz].
A three-dimensional topological black hole which is asymptotic to a Sol three-manifold has also been investigated for its thermodynamical properties. We have studied the emission of particles and find that the Hawking temperature is again given by $f^{\prime }(r_{+})/4\pi $, for $f(r)$ given by (\[sol\_f\]), and it goes as the square root of $M$. These objects have some other interesting mathematical and physical properties as well.
A grant from the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES), Washington, DC, under the Fulbright Fellowship program is gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1159412, NSF grant PHY-0937443, NSF grant DMS-0804454, and by the Fundamental Laws Initiative of the Center for the Fundamental Laws of Nature, Harvard University. We thank R. de Mello Koch, S. Ramgoolam, J. Heckman, Y. Kimura for correspondence.
[99]{} S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. **43**, 199 (1975). G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D **15**, 2738 (1977). P. Kraus and F. Wilczek, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **09**, 3713 (1994) \[gr-qc/9406042\]. M. K. Parikh and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 5042 (2000) \[hep-th/9907001\]. S. Iso, H. Umetsu and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D **74**, 044017 (2006) \[hep-th/0606018\]. R. Kerner and R. B. Mann, Class. Quant. Grav. **25**, 095014 (2008) \[arXiv:0710.0612 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Shankaranarayanan, K. Srinivasan and T. Padmanabhan, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **16**, 571 (2001) \[gr-qc/0007022\]. K. Srinivasan and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D **60**, 024007 (1999) \[gr-qc/9812028\]. T. Damour and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D **14**, 332 (1976). U. A. Gillani, M. Rehman and K. Saifullah, JCAP **1106**, 016 (2011) \[arXiv:1102.0029 \[hep-th\]\]. H. Gohar and K. Saifullah, arXiv:1111.6239 \[hep-th\]. J. Ahmed and K. Saifullah, JCAP **1108**, 011 (2011) \[arXiv:1108.2677 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Bañados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. **69**, 1849 (1992) \[hep-th/9204099\]. P. Scott, Bull. London Math. Soc., **15** 401 (1983).
M. Bañados, M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D **48**, 1506 (1993) \[gr-qc/9302012\]. S. Carlip and J. Gegenberg, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 424 (1991). C. Martínez, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D **61**, 104013 (2000) \[hep-th/9912259\]. R. Li and J.-R. Ren, Phys. Lett. B **661**, 370 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.3954 \[gr-qc\]\]. A. J. M. Medved, Class. Quant. Grav. **19**, 589 (2002) \[hep-th/0110289\]. V. Balasubramanian, J. de Boer, V. Jejjala and J. Simon, JHEP **0805**, 067 (2008) \[arXiv:0707.3601 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Fareghbal, C. N. Gowdigere, A. E. Mosaffa and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, JHEP **0808**, 070 (2008) \[arXiv:0801.4457 \[hep-th\]\]. E. T. Akhmedov, T. Pilling and D. Singleton, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **17**, 2453 (2008). V. Akhmedova, T. Pilling, A. de Gill and D. Singleton, Phys. Lett. B **666**, 269 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we describe a new neuro-inspired, hardware-friendly readout stage for the liquid state machine (LSM), a popular model for reservoir computing. Compared to the parallel perceptron architecture trained by the *p*-delta algorithm, which is the state of the art in terms of performance of readout stages, our readout architecture and learning algorithm can attain better performance with significantly less synaptic resources making it attractive for VLSI implementation. Inspired by the nonlinear properties of dendrites in biological neurons, our readout stage incorporates neurons having multiple dendrites with a lumped nonlinearity (two compartment model). The number of synaptic connections on each branch is significantly lower than the total number of connections from the liquid neurons and the learning algorithm tries to find the best ‘*combination*’ of input connections on each branch to reduce the error. Hence, the learning involves network rewiring (NRW) of the readout network similar to structural plasticity observed in its biological counterparts. We show that compared to a single perceptron using analog weights, this architecture for the readout can attain, even by using the same number of binary valued synapses, up to $3.3$ times less error for a two-class spike train classification problem and $2.4$ times less error for an input rate approximation task. Even with $60$ times larger synapses, a group of $60$ parallel perceptrons cannot attain the performance of the proposed dendritically enhanced readout. An additional advantage of this method for hardware implementations is that the ‘choice’ of connectivity can be easily implemented exploiting address event representation (AER) protocols commonly used in current neuromorphic systems where the connection matrix is stored in memory. Also, due to the use of binary synapses, our proposed method is more robust against statistical variations.'
author:
- |
\
[^1]
title: '[**Liquid State Machine with Dendritically Enhanced Readout for Low-power, Neuromorphic VLSI Implementations**]{}'
---
Liquid State Machine, Readout, Binary Synapse, Nonlinear Dendrite, Supervised Learning, Neuromorphic Engineering.
Introduction and Motivation
===========================
Spiking neural networks, often referred to as the third generation of neural networks, are known to be more bio-realistic and computationally powerful than their predecessors. Since the neuronal communication is in the form of noise-robust, digital pulses or ‘spikes’, these networks are also amenable for low-power, low-voltage very large scale integrated circuit (VLSI) implementations. Hence, in parallel to the progress in theoretical studies of spiking neurons, neuromorphic engineers have been developing low-power VLSI circuits that emulate sensory systems [@AEREAR; @RALPH; @IMAGER] and higher cognitive functions like learning and memory. With the advent of brain-machine interfaces, there is also the need for ultra-low power spike train classifiers that can be used to decode, for example, motor intentions [@NITISH1; @NITISH2]. One of the major problems in using current neuromorphic designs for practical machine learning problems is the requirement for high-resolution, non-volatile, tunable synaptic weights [@Hungyi2012; @mill2011; @Koickal2007]. An architectural solution is partly provided by the Liquid State Machine (LSM) [@Maass2002], which requires training of very few weights while the others can be random.
![The first stage of LSM is the input layer. The input stage is followed by a pool of recurrent LIF neurons whose synaptic connections are not trained. The next stage is a simple linear classifier that is selected and trained in a task-specific manner.[]{data-label="fig:LSM"}](figure1){width="40.00000%"}
The LSM network, depicted in Fig.\[fig:LSM\], consists of three stages: an input layer which projects the input pattern into the second stage or the liquid, which is a recurrent neural network (RNN) with randomly weighted, mostly local interconnections performing the task of mapping the input to internal states. These states are then used by the third stage or the readout circuit to provide the overall system output. The readout is trained in a task-specific way which requires updating the weights of the synapses connecting the liquid and the readout. Hence, this does not entirely eliminate the need for high-resolution, non-volatile, tunable weights.
RNNs in general, though computationally very powerful, need updating of the weights of the synapses forming the network. Though several learning techniques for modifying the synaptic weights have been proposed [@Werbos; @Atiya00newresults; @Puskorius94; @MAJI; @Hochreiter:1997], an optimal solution is yet to be found. In this context, LSM provides a big advantage since only the weights of the synapses connecting the RNN to the readout need to be modified in an LSM, while the interconnections within the RNN pool are fixed. This is clearly useful for VLSI implementations since tunability or high resolution are not required for most weights. However, the number of tunable weights needed in the readout stage for good performance may become a bottleneck. The state of the art readout stage of LSM using a single layer network as readout, is usually composed of a single layer of parallel perceptrons (we denote LSM with a parallel perceptron readout as LSM-PPR) that are trained by the *p*-delta algorithm [@pdelta; @Maass2002; @zhang2009; @raey2011; @lengenstein2003]. For this readout stage of LSM-PPR, the number of tunable weights will be very high and equal to ( $L\times n$ ), where $L$ and $n$ are the number of liquid and readout neurons respectively, thereby making it infeasible for low-power smart sensors. To decrease the number of tunable synapses, neuromorphic systems often use an asynchronous multiplexing technique called address event representation (AER) where the connection matrix is stored in a configurable digital memory. Using AER, it is possible to have a large number of synapses for readout; however, the huge power dissipated in accessing memory for every spike makes this solution infeasible for low-power applications.
In this article, we propose a novel architecture and training procedure for the readout stage of LSM that is inspired by the nonlinear processing properties of dendrites and structural plasticity (forming or breaking of synapses, re-routing of axonal branches etc.) in biological neurons. This solution was motivated by the fact that the liquid neurons in LSM produce sparse, high dimensional spike train outputs which was a key requirement in our earlier work on structural plasticity[@shaista_ijcnn1]. The method proposed in this paper, which we refer to as LSM with dendritically enhanced readout (LSM-DER), has the following benefits:
- It can reduce the error as compared to *p*-delta which is the current state of the art algorithm for the training of LSM readout[@Hour2011], [@Vreeken2004].
- It uses an order of magnitude less synaptic resources than parallel perceptrons while achieving comparable performance thus making it feasible for implementation in low-power smart sensors.
- The synapses connecting the liquid and readout can even have binary values without compromising performance. This is also very useful in hardware implementations since it removes the need for high resolution weights.
We have earlier presented a dendritic neuron with Network Rewiring (NRW) rule for classifying high dimensional binary spike rate patterns[@shaista_ijcnn1]. The primary differences in our current work compared to the earlier one are as follows:
- We present a modified NRW rule that can be applied to arbitrary spike trains and not only rate encoded inputs.
- The modified rule can be used for solving approximation problems.
- For the first time, we demonstrate a dendritic neuron can be used as a readout for LSM.
- We demonstrate the stability of this architecture with respect to parameter variations making it suitable for low-power, analog VLSI implementations.
Some initial results for LSM-DER were presented earlier in [@roy_biocas1]. Here, we present a more detailed analysis of the reasons for improved performance of the algorithm as well as more results, a possible VLSI architecture and simulations to prove robustness of the proposed method to statistical variations plaguing VLSI implementations.
In the following section, we shall present a review about LSM, parallel perceptrons and the *p*-delta learning rule. Then, we shall provide details about the non-linear neuron model and finally propose the Network Rewiring algorithm for LSM-DER. In Section III we will first discuss the classification and approximation tasks used to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed architecture. Next, we shall provide the performance of LSM-DER on these problems and compare it with that of the traditional LSM-PPR. This section will also shed light on the dependance of the performance of LSM-DER on several key parameters. We will also present the robustness of the algorithm to variations in parameters, a quality that is essential for its adoption in low-power, sub-threshold neuromorphic designs which are plagued with mismatch. We will conclude the paper by discussing the implications of our work and future directions in the last section.
Background and Theory
=====================
In this section, we will first present, for the sake of completeness, some of the theory about the operation of the LSM, parallel perceptron readout and the *p*-delta training algorithm. Then, we shall introduce our dendritically enhanced readout stage and the corresponding NRW algorithm for training it.
Liquid State Machine
--------------------
LSM [@Maass2002] is a reservoir computing method developed from the viewpoint of computational neuroscience by Maass et al. It supports real time computations by employing a high dimensional heterogeneous dynamical system which is continuously perturbed by time varying inputs. The basic structure of LSM is shown in Fig.\[fig:LSM\]. It comprises three parts: an input layer, a reservoir or liquid and a memoryless readout circuit. The liquid is a recurrent interconnection of a large number of Leaky Integrate and Fire neurons (LIF) with biologically realistic parameters using dynamic synaptic connections in the reservoir. The readout is also implemented by a pool of LIF neurons which do not possess any interconnections within them. The LIF neurons of the liquid are connected to the neurons of the readout. The liquid does not create any output but it transforms the lower dimensional input stream to a higher dimensional internal state. These internal states act as an input to the memory less readout circuit which is responsible for producing the final output of the LSM.
Following [@Maass2002], if $u(t)$ is the input to the reservoir then the liquid neuron circuit can be represented mathematically as a liquid filter $L^M$ which maps the input function $u(t)$ to the internal states $x^M(t)$ as: $$\label{eq1}
x^M(t)=(L^Mu)(t)$$
![In LSM-PPR, the readout stage is composed of a single layer of perceptrons which do not have any lateral connections. The output of the liquid is connected to each perceptron of this parallel perceptron stage.[]{data-label="fig:PPR"}](figure2){width="50.00000%"}
The next part of LSM i.e. the readout circuit takes these liquid states as input and transforms them at every time instant $t$ into the output $y(t)$ given by: $$\label{eq2}
y(t)=f^M(x^M(t))$$
For tasks with similar input activity level and time constant, the liquid is general whereas the readout is selected and trained in a task-specific manner. Moreover, multiple readouts can be used in parallel for extracting different features from the internal states produced by the liquid. For more details on the theory and applications of LSM, we invite the reader to refer to [@Maass2002]. Also, many research works have been published recently which focus on either the improvement of the LSM framework [@Xue2013; @Ju2013; @Hourdakis2013; @Schliebs2012; @Wojcik2012; @Notley2012] or its applications in various real world problems [@Verstraeten; @Goodman; @Schliebs2012_cont; @Probst2012; @Jakimovski2011; @elmir2011].
Parallel Perceptron Readout and the p-delta learning algorithm
--------------------------------------------------------------
### Parallel Perceptron Readout
The readout stage employed in LSM-PPR is a layer of parallel perceptrons. A single layer composed of a finite number of perceptrons, each receiving the same input, is called a parallel perceptron as shown in Fig.\[fig:PPR\]. A single perceptron with input **x**=$[x_1,$ $x_2..x_m]$, considering that the constant bias has been converted to one input, computes a function $f:\mathbb{R}^{m} \rightarrow \{-1,1\}$ defined as: $$\label{pdelta}
f(\textbf{x})=
\begin{cases}
\; 1 \text{ if $\textbf{w}.\textbf{x} \geq0$} \\
-1 \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ where $\textbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ is the synaptic weight vector. To distinguish the neuronal functions in parallel perceptron readout (PPR) from dendritically enhanced readout (DER), we denote them by $f^{PPR}$ and $f^{DER}$ respectively. Let us now consider a parallel perceptron layer having $n$ number of perceptrons with outputs $f_1^{PPR}$, $f_2^{PPR}$,......,$f_n^{PPR}$ where $f_i^{PPR} :\mathbb{R}^{m} \rightarrow \{-1,1\}$. Then the output of the parallel perceptron readout is given by: $$\widehat{o}=g(p)=g(\sum_{i=1}^n f_i^{PPR}(\textbf{x}))
\label{eq:ppr}$$ where $p=\sum_{i=1}^n f_i^{PPR}(\textbf{x}) \in [-n,...,n]$ and $g:\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is the squashing function. The function $g()$ is chosen according to the type of computation.
### The *p*-delta learning algorithm
PPR is trained by a simple yet efficient method termed as *p*-delta rule proposed by Auer et al. in [@pdelta]. This simple rule can be utilized to approximate any boolean and continuous functions. Two advantages of this rule over traditional back propagation algorithm used in deep networks such as multi-layer perceptrons which can get stuck in local minima is that it is required to modify the weights of only a single layer of synapses and the computation and communication of high precision analog values are not required. We shall present some of the salient features of the algorithm here while inviting the reader to refer to [@pdelta] for details.
The *p*-delta learning rule has two constituents, the first of which is the traditional delta rule that is employed to modify the weights of a ‘subset’ of the individual neurons constituting the parallel perceptron layer. The next constituent is a rule which determines the subset. This rule states that the delta rule should be applied to those particular neurons which gives either the wrong output or the right output but with a small margin. Next, these two steps of the algorithm are discussed individually.
#### Obtaining Correct Outputs
Let $\textbf{x}$, $\widehat{o}$ and $o$ be the input, output and the desired output respectively. Furthermore, let $\textbf{w}_1$,$\textbf{w}_2$,....,$\textbf{w}_n$ be the synaptic weight vectors of the $n$ perceptrons. If $\epsilon$ is the desired accuracy, then the output is considered correct if $|\widehat{o}-o|<\epsilon$. In this case, the weights need not be modified. On the other hand, if $\widehat{o}>o+\epsilon$, then the output is larger than expected. Thus, to reduce $\widehat{o}$, the number of weight vectors with $\textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x}\geq0$ are to be reduced. Application of the traditional delta rule to such a weight vector will give the update $\textbf{w}_i \leftarrow \textbf{w}_i + \eta \Delta _{i}$ where $\eta$ is the learning rate and $\Delta _{i}=-\textbf{x}$.
Proceeding similarly for the case where $\widehat{o}<o-\epsilon$, we can arrive at the general update rule $\textbf{w}_i \leftarrow \textbf{w}_i + \eta \Delta _{i}$ where $\Delta _{i}$ is given by: $$\Delta _{i}=
\begin{cases}
-\textbf{x} \; if \; \widehat{o}>o+\epsilon \; \textrm{and} \; \textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x}\geq0 \\
+\textbf{x} \; if \; \widehat{o}<o-\epsilon \; \textrm{and} \; \textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x}<0 \\
\; 0 \:\: \textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
#### Output stabilization
In the preceding description, the weight vector of a particular perceptron is updated only when its output is incorrect. Hence, after the completion of the training phase, there are usually some weight vectors for which $\textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x}$ is very close to $0$. This implies a small perturbation of the input $\textbf{x}$ is capable of changing the sign of $\textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x}$ thereby reducing the generalization capabilities and the stability of the network output. In order to stabilize the output, the above rule needs to be modified in such a way that $\textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x}$ remains away from $0$. Thus, a new parameter $\gamma$ was introduced as the margin, i.e. the training tries to ensure $|\textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x}|>\gamma$.
The final learning rule described in [@pdelta] that incorporates all of these concepts is given by: $$\label{eq:pdelta_margin}
\textbf{w}_i \leftarrow \textbf{w}_i + \eta
\begin{cases}
(-\textbf{x}) \; if \; \widehat{o}>o+\epsilon \; \textrm{and} \; \textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x}\geq0 \\
(+\textbf{x}) \; if \; \widehat{o}<o-\epsilon \; \textrm{and} \; \textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x}<0 \\
\mu (+\textbf{x}) \; if \; \widehat{o}\leq o+\epsilon \; \textrm{and} \; 0\leq \textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x} < \gamma \\
\mu (-\textbf{x}) \; if \; \widehat{o}\geq o-\epsilon \; \textrm{and} \; -\gamma < \textbf{w}_i.\textbf{x} < 0 \\
\; 0 \:\: \textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ $$\textbf{w}_i \leftarrow \textbf{w}_i/\|\textbf{w}_i\|$$ where $\mu$ is a scaling factor. The parameters involved with *p*-delta algorithm can be gradually modified with the progress of learning as presented in [@pdelta] and implemented in the LSM toolbox described in [@Natschlaeger02].
Model of Nonlinear Dendrites {#monondend}
----------------------------
Mel and Poirazi [@Mel2001] showed that neurons with active dendrites i.e. individual dendrites equipped with lumped nonlinearity possess higher storage capacity than their linear counterpart. Such a nonlinear neuronal cell (NL-cell), depicted in Fig.\[fig:Model\_NL\], has $m$ identical branches connected to it with each branch having $k$ excitatory synapses. If **x** is an input vector to this system, then each synapse is excited by any one of the $d$ dimensions of the input vector where $d>>k$. The output response of $j^{th}$ dendritic branch is calculated as a nonlinear weighted sum of the currents of the $k$ synaptic points connected to the branch and is given by $z_j=b(\sum_{i=1}^k w_{ij} x_{ij})$, where $b()$ is the dendritic nonlinearity modeled as a nonlinear activation function, $w_{ij}$ is the synaptic weight of the $i^{th}$ synapse on the $j^{th}$ the branch and $x_{ij}$ the input arriving at that particular synaptic connection. We also define $v_j=\sum_{i=1}^k w_{ij} x_{ij}$ which is the weighted sum of the currents of the $k$ synaptic points of branch $j$ and is input to the branch’s dendritic nonlinearity. Combining all the dendritic responses, the overall output $f(\textbf{x})$ of the neuronal cell is given by:
$$\label{eq:NLcell_eq}
f(\textbf{x})=\sum_{j=1}^mz_j=\sum_{j=1}^mb(v_j)=\sum_{j=1}^mb(\sum_{i=1}^k w_{ij} x_{ij}).$$
where $f()$ denotes the neuronal current-frequency conversion function.
![A neuronal cell with active dendrites\[fig:Model\_NL\]](figure3){width="50.00000%"}
LSMs are typically employed to solve two types of tasks: classification and regression. For both these tasks, we employ two NL-cells and calculate the output by noting the difference of the output of the two NL-cells. The overall output of the circuit is given by $$\label{eq3}
y=g[f_+(\textbf{x})-f_-(\textbf{x})]$$
Liquid State Machine with dendritically enhanced readout {#lsm_der}
--------------------------------------------------------
In LSM-DER, the liquid described in [@Maass2002] is followed by the two neuronal cell architecture depicted in Fig.\[fig:DER\]. Here, we denote the output of each cell as $f_{+/-}^{DER}$ with the added superscript DER to contrast with the earlier figure for LSM-PPR. The earlier readout circuit consisting of the parallel perceptrons has now been replaced with the above mentioned circuit.
![In LSM-DER, the readout stage following the liquid is composed of two NL-cells. The final readout output y() is obtained by taking the difference of the output of the two cells and passing it through the function g().[]{data-label="fig:DER"}](figure4){width="50.00000%"}
For training the two-cell architecture, a much simpler and hardware friendly version of the learning algorithm proposed in [@Mel2001] has been employed. The key point of the NRW learning algorithm is removing a synapse which is contributing most to the classification errors and replacing it with a new synapse formed from a different afferent line. During training the NL-cells, a global teacher signal $t$ is also presented indicating the desired output to be obtained on the application of a particular input sample. If error $e=(t-y)$, then according to the gradient-descent algorithm the weight modification, $\triangle w_{ij}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle w_{ij}= & -\frac{\partial e^2}{\partial w_{ij}}\\
= & 2<(t-y) \frac{\partial y}{\partial w_{ij}}> \\
= & 2<(t-y) \frac{\partial g(f_+(x)-f_-(x))}{\partial w_{ij}}>
\end{aligned}$$ where $<.>$ signifies averaging over the entire training set. Hence, the weight modification for the positive and the negative neuronal cells are $\triangle w_{ij}=2<(t-y)g'b_j'x_{ij}>$ and $\triangle w_{ij}=-2<(t-y)g'b_j'x_{ij}>$ respectively where $g'$ and $b'$ are the derivatives of $g()$ and $b()$ respectively. However, we have used binary synapses in this work for robust hardware implementation. This implies our NRW learning procedure does not need any weight modification but requires the formation and elimination of synapses. Hence, we consider a fitness parameter $\phi_{ij}=\triangle w_{ij}$ to guide this process. The $\phi_{ij}$ used in [@Mel2001] was given by $\phi_{ij}=<x_{ij}b_j'g'signum(t-y)>$.Thus, an existing synapse with a low value of $\phi_{ij}$ needs to be eliminated. The learning procedure dictates the replacement of this poorly performing synapse with a synapse having a high value of $\phi_{ij}$ from a randomly chosen replacement set. The NRW learning rule thus creates a morphological change of the dendrites guided by the gradient descent rule. From the viewpoint of hardware implementation, we have further simplified the learning rule to use a performance index:
$$\label{eq4}
c_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
<x_{ij}b_{j}'(t-y)> \;\;\;\;\;\;\textrm{for positive cell} \\
-<x_{ij}b_{j}'(t-y)>\;\; \textrm{for negative cell}
\end{cases}$$
This is simpler since it does not require computing derivatives of $g()$ as in [@Mel2001]. The second difference from [@Mel2001] is the particular functional form of dendritic nonlinearity $b()$ that we used to simplify $c_{ij}$ further. The dendritic nonlinearity $b()$ used in our simulations was $b(x) = x^2/x_{thr}$ implying $b'(x)=2x/x_{thr}$. According to the notation for our model in \[eq:NLcell\_eq\], $b'(v_j)=2v_j/x_{thr}$. Hence, by ignoring the constants we finally get $c_{ij}=<x_{ij}v_j(t-y)>$ for the positive cell. This function can be easily implemented on-chip without needing extra calculations to obtain derivative of $b()$ since $v_j$ is already being computed for normal operation. Though we have not implemented spike based learning in this work, the motivation of choosing this learning rule is to utilize circuits that can compute these correlations [@Brink2012] on-chip in future.
However, a square law output of each dendritic branch will result in unrealistically large values for large inputs. In earlier work [@Mel2001], the authors had used nonlinearities like $b(x)=x^{10}$ which also have the same issue and will definitely be a problem in VLSI implementations, either analog or digital. Hence, we included a saturation level, $x_{sat}$ at the output such that for $b(x) > x_{sat}$, $b(x) = x_{sat}$. This models a more realistic scenario in hardware and also leads to power saving in analog hardware if the nonlinearity $b()$ is implemented in current mode. Incidentally, biological neurons also exhibit a saturating nonlinearity[@polsky_mel_04] due to similar constraints.
The output of the liquid were applied as input pattern to the setup of Fig.\[fig:DER\]. Thus, the dimension of the input pattern is now equal to the number of liquid neurons. For each $m$ branches, $k$ synaptic contacts with weight $1$ were formed by randomly selecting afferents from one of the $d = L$ input lines, where $L$ is the number of liquid neurons. The learning process comprised the following steps in every iteration:
1. For each pattern of the entire training set, the outputs of both the neuronal cells i.e $f_{+}^{DER}$ and $f_{-}^{DER}$ were calculated. This was followed by computing the overall response of the classifier as per Equation \[eq3\].
2. After each application of the entire training set, the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) was calculated as $\sum|(t-y)|/P$, where P is the size of the training set.
3. A random set $T$ of $n_T$ synapses were selected from $k\times m$ existing synapses per cell for probable replacement. The performance index $c_{ij}$ corresponding to $i^{th}$ synapse of the $j^{th}$ branch was calculated for each synapse in the set $n_T$ for both the neuronal cells.
4. The synapse with the lowest value of performance index ($c_{ij}$) in $T$ was labeled for replacement with the synapse with the highest value of performance index from an another randomly chosen replacement synapse set $R$ having $n_R$ of the $d$ input lines. The set $R$ was created by placing $n_R$ ‘silent’ synapses from $d$ input lines on the branch with the lowest $c_{ij}$ synapse. They do not contribute to the calculation in step (1).
5. The synaptic connections were updated if the replacement led to a decrease in MAE. If there are no such reduction of MAE, a new replacement set $R$ is chosen. If $max_{loc}$ such choices of $R$ do not reduce MAE, it is assumed that the algorithm has stuck to a local minima and connection changes are made in an attempt to escape the local minima even if it increases the MAE .
6. The above mentioned steps were repeated for a $max_{iter}$ number of iterations after which the algorithm is terminated and the connection corresponding to the best minima among all the iterations is saved as the final connection.
![An example of input generation for the proposed readout where the spike train $s(t)$ is first convolved with a kernel representing post-synaptic current to produce $s_a(t)$ and then sampled at a desired temporal resolution to give $s_a'(t)$.[]{data-label="fig:inpgen"}](figure5){width="50.00000%"}
![Task I is the classification of spike trains. Two different classes of spike trains and the corresponding liquid output when these spike trains are projected into it are shown. Also, a jittered version of a spike train belonging to Class 1 that will be used for testing is depicted.[]{data-label="fig:spikeclass"}](figure6){width="50.00000%"}
![Task II involves the approximation of a desired function. r(t) is a signal that modulates $4$ Poisson spike trains to generate the liquid input. The modulated spike trains to be given as input to the liquid and the liquid output are shown. The sum of rates corresponding to the modulated spike trains is also shown\[fig:sumrates\]](figure7){width="50.00000%"}
Spike trains as input to Neurons with active dendrites {#sec:spike_gen}
------------------------------------------------------
The output of the liquid neurons are spike trains, while the earlier theoretical description of the NL cells had inputs $\textbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$. Thus, to use the NL cells to act as readout, we need a method to transform spike trains to act as inputs to the NL cells. This process is described next.
Suppose, the arbitrary spike train $s(t)$ is given by: $$s(t)=\sum_{t_f} \delta(t-t_f)$$ where $t_f$ indicate the spike firing times. One way to convert this to an analog waveform is to convolve it with a low-pass filtering kernel. We choose a fast rising, slow decaying kernel function, $h(t)$, that mimics post-synaptic current (PSC) waveform and is popularly used in computational neuroscience[@tempotron]. The specific form of the function we use is given by: $$h(t)=I_0(e^{-\frac{t}{\tau_s}}-e^{-\frac{t}{\tau_f}})$$ where $\tau_f$ and $\tau_s$ denote the fast and slow time constants dictating the rise and fall times respectively and $I_0$ is a normalizing factor. Hence, the final filtered analog waveform, $s_a(t)$ corresponding to the spike train s(t) is given by: $$s_a(t)=\sum_{t_f} h(t-t_f)$$ Finally, to train the NL-cells in the readout, we need a set of discrete numbers which we obtain by sampling $s_a(t)$ at a desired temporal resolution $T_s$. The sampled waveform, $s'_a(t)$ is given by: $$s'_a(t)=s_a(t)\sum_i \delta(t-iT_s)$$ Therefore, for the $L$ spike trains produced by the liquid neurons, if the temporal duration of the spike trains are $T$, then it will result in a total of $\lfloor T\setminus T_s \rfloor$ samples $\bf{x_i} \epsilon \mathbb{R}^{L}$. For our simulations, we have chosen the temporal resolution $T_s=25$ ms. The whole process is shown for a spike train output from one random liquid neuron in Fig.\[fig:inpgen\].
Experiments and Results
=======================
Problem Description
-------------------
In this sub-section, we describe the two tasks used to demonstrate the performance of our algorithm. The reason for this choice is that both of these are standard problems that are shown in the original publication on LSM [@Maass2002] and are included as examples in the LSM toolbox [@Natschlaeger02]. Also, we chose one task to be a classification and the other to be an approximation since they are representative of the class of problems solved by LSM.
### Task I: Classification of spike trains
The first benchmark task we have considered is the Spike Train Classification problem [@Natschlaeger02]. The generalized Spike Train Classification problem includes $q$ arrays of $e$ Poisson spike trains having frequency $f$ and length $T_{max}$ which are labeled as templates $1$ to $q$. These spike trains are used as input to the LSM, and the readout is trained to identify each class. Next, a jittered version of each template is generated by altering each spike within the template by a random amount that is stochastically drawn from a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and standard deviation $STD$. This $STD$ is termed as the $jitter$. Given a jittered version of a particular spike train, the task is to correctly identify the class from which it has been drawn. In this article, we have considered $q=2$, $e=1$, $f=20$, $STD=4$ ms and $T_{max}=0.5$ sec. Fig.\[fig:spikeclass\] shows an example instance of two classes of spike trains and the output of the liquid when jittered versions of these spike trains are injected into it. The figure also shows a jittered input spike train to be used for testing. The training and testing sets are composed of same number of patterns.
### Task II: Retrieval of sum of rates
The next task is more difficult than the previous classification problem. The job of the network is to produce at its output the sum of firing rates of the input spike trains averaged over a past time window. $e$ Poisson spike trains are injected into the liquid, the firing rates of which are modulated by a randomly chosen function $r(t)=A+B sin(2 \pi f t + \alpha)$ lying in the range $(0,1)$. The parameters $A$, $B$ and $f$ were drawn randomly from the following intervals: $A$ \[0 Hz, 30 Hz\] and \[70 Hz, 100 Hz\], $B$ \[0 Hz, 30Hz\] and \[70 Hz, 100 Hz\], $f$ \[0.5 Hz, 1 Hz\] and \[3 Hz, 5 Hz\]. The phase was fixed at $\alpha = 0 $ deg. To generate the test input by a different distribution than the training examples the values of $A$, $B$ and $f$ in the testing case were kept as $50 Hz$, $50 Hz$ and $2 Hz$ respectively. The values of these parameters for the testing case were chosen in such a way that they lie in the middle of the gaps between the two intervals used for these parameters during training. At any point of time $t,$ the job of the network is then to give as output the normalized sum of rates averaged over the interval $(t-D-W,t-D)$ where the width of the interval is $W$ and $D$ is the delay. In our case we have taken $e=4$, $W= 30 ms$ and $D=0$ i.e. no delay. Fig.\[fig:sumrates\] shows the $4$ input Poisson spike trains, the function $r(t)$, the modulated spike trains and the liquid output when the modulated spike trains are projected into the liquid. The bottom plot in Fig.\[fig:sumrates\] shows the target function i.e. the sum of rates averaged over the last $30$ms.
Choice of Parameters
--------------------
The values of the parameters used by the LSM-DER architecture and NRW learning rule are reported in Table \[table:params\]. We shall next discuss the procedure for selecting these parameters.
#### Total number of synapses per neuronal cell (s)
The number of synapses required for connecting the liquid to the readout in case of LSM-PPR is $L \times n$ where $L$ and $n$ are the number of liquid neurons and number of perceptrons in the readout stage respectively. To demonstrate that LSM-DER uses synaptic resources efficiently, we employ for LSM-DER the same number of synaptic resources used by LSM-PPR when $n=1$ i.e. $L$ number of synapses. As described earlier, DER comprises two neuronal cells (to eliminate the need for negative weights); thus each has half of the total synapses i.e. $\frac{L}{2}$ synapses are allocated for the positive cell and $\frac{L}{2}$ for the negative cell.
#### Number of dendrites per neuronal cell (m)
In [@Mel2001] a measure of the pattern memorization capacity,$B_{N}$, of the NL-cell (Fig.\[fig:Model\_NL\]) has been provided by counting all possible functions realizable as:
$$\label{eq:BN}
B_{N} = log_2 \binom{\binom{k+d-1}{k}+m-1}{m} bits$$
where $s$, $m$, $k$ and $d$ are the total number of synapses, the number of dendrites, the number of synapses per dendrites and the dimension of the input respectively for this neuronal cell. As the readout of LSM-DER employs two such opponent cells, thus the overall capacity is twice this value.
In our case $d = L$ and $s = \frac{L}{2}$. Since $s=m \times k$, for a fixed $s$ all possible values which $m$ can take are factors of $s$. We calculate $B_N$ for these values of $m$ by Equation \[eq:BN\] and show it in Fig.\[fig:capacity\]. It is evident from the curve that the capacity is maximum when $m=14$. But, in our simulations, we found that the learning algorithm cannot train the NL-cell to attain this maximum capacity in a reasonable time due to the huge number of possible wiring configurations to choose from. Hence, as a compromise between capacity and trainability, we chose $m=7$ in the following simulations.
![Pattern memorization capacity of a NL-cell ($B_N$) is plotted as function of the number of dendritic branches ($m$) for a fixed number of synapses ($s$).\[fig:capacity\]](figure8){width="50.00000%"}
#### Number of synapses per branch (k)
After $s$ and $m$ has been set, the value of $k$ can be calculated as $k=\frac{s}{m}$.
#### The slow ($\tau_s$) and fast time constant ($\tau_f$)
The fast time constant ($\tau_f$) and the slow time constant $\tau_s$ have been defined in Section \[sec:spike\_gen\]. $\tau_f$ usually takes a small value in hardware realizations and is not tuned. As for $\tau_s$, if its value is too small, then the post synaptic current due to individual spikes die down rapidly and thus temporal summation of separated inputs do not take place. On the other hand large values of $\tau_s$ renders all spikes effectively simultaneous. So, in both extremes the extraction of temporal features from the liquid output is impaired. A detailed discussion on the selection of $\tau_s$ with respect to the inter spike interval (ISI) of the liquid output is given in Section \[dis\].
#### Threshold of nonlinearity: $x_{thr}$
It can be seen that the value of $x_{thr}$ (defined in Section \[lsm\_der\]) is different for the two tasks. For selecting $x_{thr}$, we need to note that the operating principle of the NRW learning rule is to favor those connection topologies where correlated inputs for synaptic connections on the same branch. The nonlinear function $b()$ should give a supra linear output when more than one synaptic inputs on the same branch are co-activated. For the nonlinear function $b(x)=\frac{x^2}{x_{thr}}$used here, $b(x)>x$ for $x>x_{thr}$. Hence, the choice of $x_{thr}$ is given by: $$\label{eq:xthr}
\overline{I_{syn}}<x_{thr}<2\overline{I_{syn}}$$ where $\overline{I_{syn}}$ denotes the average post-synaptic current from an active synapses. Performing this calculation for a large number of input patterns, we obtained the values of $\overline{I_{syn}}=1.65$ for Task I and $\overline{I_{syn}}=5.34$ for Task II. Thus, in our case we chose the value of $x_{thr}$ as $1.8$ for Task I and $7$ for Task II.
Moreover, an extensive study on the performance of the algorithm due to the variation of $x_{sat}$ will also be provided. For fair comparison, the number of liquid neurons used for both LSM-DER and LSM-PPR was $140$. In case of LSM-PPR, the readout stage consists of $n=40$ neurons which implies the use of $140\times 40$ synapses to connect the liquid neurons to the array of parallel perceptrons. Unless otherwise mentioned, these are the default values of parameters in this article.
Parameters Description Task I Task II
-------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- -------- ---------
$m$ Dendrites per neuronal cell 7 7
$k$ Synapses per dendrite 10 10
$L$ Number of Liquid neurons 140 140
$P$ Number of patterns in training set 200 200
$\tau_s$ Slow time constant 7.5ms 7.5ms
$\tau_f$ Fast time constant 30ms 30ms
$n_T$ Number of synapses in the target set for probable replacement 15 15
$n_R$ Number of synapses in the replacement set 25 25
$max_{iter}$ Maximum number of iterations 1000 1000
$max_{loc}$ Maximum number of iterations required to declare local minima 30 30
$x_{thr}$ Threshold of nonlinearity 1.8 7
$x_{sat}$ Dendritic branch saturation Level 75 75
: Parameter Values
\[table:params\]
#### Choice of g()
For Task I, one of the neuronal cells was trained to respond to $'+'$ patterns and the other to $'-'$ patterns. Thus, $g()$ in this case is $signum():\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \{0,1\}$ which operates on the combined activity of the two neurons to decide the category ($+$ or $-$) of the input pattern. The output of the $signum$ function i.e. $y$ can take a value of either $1$ or $0$ implying that the pattern belongs to $'+'$ or $'-'$ category respectively. For Task II, $g()$ is given by: $$\label{eqgx}
g(z)=\frac{1}{1+exp(-(z/2))}$$
Results: Performance of LSM-DER and NRW algorithm {#results}
-------------------------------------------------
The proposed readout is separately trained for Task I and Task II. Similar to the method followed in [@Natschlaeger02; @Maass2002], we calculate mean absolute error (MAE) by averaging the error in approximation or classification across all the patterns. We first demonstrate the convergence of the NRW algorithm by plotting in Fig.\[fig:comp\_tar\_out\_sor\] both the target function and the readout output after training (during a randomly selected time window) of LSM-DER for a test pattern in Task II. The figure shows that the readout is able to approximate the desired sum of rates very closely after convergence. Instead of the $(t-y)$ term if we use $signum(t-y)$ like [@Mel2001; @shaista_ijcnn1]in $c_{ij}$ then the MAE obtained by LSM-DER for Task II is 0.1496 instead of 0.0923.
![The output produced by the LSM-DER after training is superimposed on the target function for a randomly chosen time window and show a very close match.[]{data-label="fig:comp_tar_out_sor"}](figure9){width="45.00000%" height="4cm"}
\
Similar to [@Mel2001], it is important to understand the variation in error for both tasks as the architecture of the LSM-DER (characterized by $m$ and $k$) is varied. We have performed two different experiments to study this dependence. In the first experiment, the number of dendritic branches ($m$) is varied while keeping the number of synaptic connections per branch ($k$) at a constant value of $10$ (other parameters are fixed at the values mentioned in table \[table:params\]). This results in an increase in the total number of synaptic connections $s=m\times k$ from the liquid to each readout neuron as $m$ is increased. The results for this experiment are shown in Fig. \[fig:msedend\](a) and (c) for tasks I and II respectively. As expected, the MAE reduces with increasing $m$ since an increase in $m$ with constant $k$ results in more possible functions.
In the second experiment, we vary $m$ while keeping the total number of synapses allocated to a neuronal cell, $s$ constant at a value of $70$. The results for this procedure are plotted in Fig. \[fig:msedend\] (b) and (d) for tasks I and II respectively. The capacity of the readout of LSM-DER ($B_N$) is also plotted in these figures. The figures show that as $m$ increases $B_N$ first increases and attains a maxima after which $B_N$ decreases. The MAE should have been the lowest when $B_N$ attains the maximum value i.e. at $m=14$. But, this does not happen in practice and MAE is lowest for $m=7$. We suspect this is because at $m=10$ and $m=14$, the total number of distinct input-output functions that can be implemented by rewiring becomes too large and the NRW algorithm easily gets trapped in several equivalent local minima. We are currently trying to develop better optimization strategies to overcome this issue.
In our next experiment, we have analyzed the performance of LSM-DER with the variation of $x_{sat}$ (defined in Section \[lsm\_der\]). Fig.\[fig:satper\](a) and (b) demonstrates the dependence of MAE on $x_{sat}$ for tasks I and II respectively. As expected, small values of $x_{sat}$ lead to higher error since the branch outputs saturate and cannot encode changes in input. The ideal situation, like [@Mel2001], is defined when there is no $x_{sat}$ i.e. the dendritic branches produce a square law output without an upper bound and is denoted by the dashed lines in the figure.
![MAE vs iterations curve of LSM-DER and LSM-PPR for $200$ input patterns averaged over $10$ trials for Task I.[]{data-label="fig:maeiter"}](figure12){width="45.00000%"}
Results: Comparison between LSM-DER and LSM-PPR
-----------------------------------------------
Next, we compare the performance of LSM-DER with LSM-PPR. In Fig.\[fig:maeiter\], the profiles of MAE during the training procedure associated with Task I is shown for LSM-DER and LSM-PPR; the results and conclusions for Task II are qualitatively similar. It is evident from Fig.\[fig:maeiter\] that during Task I, the training error for LSM-PPR reduces swiftly and saturates before LSM-DER converges to its minimum error. On the other hand, LSM-DER takes more number of iterations to reach the minimum error but the minimum training error obtained by it is less than that of LSM-PPR. Thus, from the two curves of Fig.\[fig:maeiter\] we can mark three significant points:
1. $n_0$: Number of iterations at which the error for LSM-PPR saturates.
2. $n_1$: Number of iterations at which the error curve of LSM-DER and LSM-PPR intersects for the first time.
3. $n_2$: Number of iterations required by LSM-DER to achieve minimum error.
We have also compared the convergence in training for LSM-DER and LSM-PPR when the number of input patterns are $50$, $100$ and $200$. The average values $n_0$, $n_1$ and $n_2$ obtained for the three cases are depicted in Fig.\[fig:conv\_ana\] for Task I. From this figure, we can see that $n_0<n_2$ for all cases implying faster convergence for LSM-PPR. However, we can note that $n_1\approx n_2$ implying LSM-DER can always achieve same error as LSM-PPR in roughly similar number of iterations; it takes more time for LSM-DER to find *better* solutions.
Till now, for our simulations the number of liquid neurons $L$ was kept as $140$. Now, we will look into the effect of increasing liquid size on the performance and convergence of LSM-DER and LSM-PPR for Task I. For $L=560$ LSM-DER provides a testing error of $0.079$ and $n_2=1472$. On the other hand for $L=560$, LSM-PPR provides a testing error of $0.129$ and the average number of iterations it takes to saturate while training is ($n_0$) is $628$. For $L=1120$ LSM-DER and LSM-PPR provides testing error of $0.076$ and $0.12$ respectively. In this case, $n_2$ for LSM-DER is $2402$ and $n_0$ for LSM-PPR is $914$. Thus we see that for higher dimensional inputs, the NRW rule is still able to find suitable connections but requires a larger number of iterations.
![Convergence Analysis of LSM-DER and LSM-PPR for Task I: The average value of $n_0$, $n_1$ and $n_2$ obtained for $50$, $100$ and $200$ input patterns averaged over 10 trials. \[fig:conv\_ana\]](figure13){width="45.00000%"}
The earlier plots suggest LSM-DER can attain better error in training–however, error during testing is more important to show the ability of the system to generalize. These generalization plots depicted in Fig.\[fig:gen\_plot\](a) and (b) for Tasks I and II respectively show that for each case, LSM-DER outperforms LSM-PPR for different number of training patterns.
LSM-PPR also requires the setting of another parameter: $n$ denoting the number of readout neurons. Till now, LSM-DER has been compared with LSM-PPR keeping $n=40$. Next, we vary the number of readout neurons of LSM-PPR and compare the results with LSM-DER. The outcome of these experiments are shown in Fig.\[fig:pvar\](a) and (b). In both the figures, the training and testing error of LSM-DER is plotted as a constant line and is compared with the results of LSM-PPR for different values of $n$. During this experiment, we chose the values of $n$ as 1, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 thereby covering the most basic $n=1$ case to advanced cases employing more number of readout neurons. Note that the synaptic resource consumed by LSM-DER is same as the case for $n=1$ or a single perceptron. As evident from the figures, the error attained by LSM-PPR decreases with the increase in value of $n$ but finally becomes saturated at a value higher than the error attained by LSM-DER. The graph also shows that the saturation starts approximately when $n=40$ and this also explains why we have chosen this value of $n$ while comparing our LSM-DER algorithm to LSM-PPR.From these plots, we can conclude that LSM-DER attains $3.3$ and $2.4$ times less error than LSM-PPR with same number of high resolution weights in tasks I and II respectively. Also, LSM-PPR requires $40-60$ times more synapses to achieve similar performance as LSM-DER in Task II.
\
Discussion {#dis}
==========
![Histogram showing the distribution of weights of the synapses in the readout for LSM-PPR. It can be noted that most of the synapses have a non-zero weight implying that most of the synapses are active and add to resource consumption. \[fig:histo\]](figure16){width="35.00000%"}
It is surprising that even after using $140\times 40$ synapses, LSM-PPR cannot attain the performance of LSM-DER that utilizes only $140$ synapses. To verify if this is indeed an improvement, we need to check if LSM-PPR is really using up all the allocated synapses. Thus we provide a histogram in Fig.\[fig:histo\] which shows the final weight distribution of the synapses for Task I when trained on $200$ patterns. From the figure it is clear that most of the weights are non-zero thereby confirming that a large portion of the $140\times 40$ synapses are indeed active and being used. This is surprising since the function counting method (used to predict the capacity of the NL-cell) would predict a large capacity for the parallel perceptron case as well. Essentially, each of the perceptrons behave akin to a dendrite–in fact, they have more number of analog weights and hence could have better capacity. The differences between the DER and PPR readout are in the threshold nonlinearity and the training algorithm. Also, the sampled inputs $s_a'(t)$ for this stage are derived through a different convolution kernel. To tease apart the contribution of each difference to the poor performance, we consider two separate cases for training LSM-PPR on Task I. In case I, we consider PPR readout with same number of perceptrons as that of dendrites used by DER i.e. we take $n=2m=14$ but instead of the threshold nonlinearity, we use a saturating square non-linearity similar to LSM-DER. In this case, LSM-PPR is able to reduce the average MAE from $0.216$ to $0.133$ indicating the advantage of preserving some analog information at the output of each perceptron. In case II, we explore the impact of different states $s_a'(t)$. We keep $n=1$ for LSM-PPR, as for this case both the algorithms use same number of synaptic resources ($s=140$) for connecting the liquid and the readout, and use our convolution kernel instead of the one in the LSM toolbox. In this case, the average MAE reduces to $0.136$ showing the importance of choosing the kernel carefully. Next, combining both these modification, LSM-PPR with $n=2m=14$ perceptrons and the new kernel function could be trained by *p*-delta to achieve an average MAE of $0.071$ that is comparable to LSM-DER.
Given the importance of the convolution kernel for generating $s_a'(t)$ as described earlier, we now provide some insight to its choice. The state generation method discussed in Section \[sec:spike\_gen\] requires two parameters : $\tau_s$ and $\tau_f$. $\tau_f$ is the fast time constant which takes a small positive value in hardware implementations and is typically not tuned. $\tau_s$ is the slow time constant responsible for integration across temporally correlated spikes and we will analyze its effect on the performance of LSM-DER. If there are $L$ liquid neurons and the mean firing rate of the each liquid neuron is $\mu_f$, then the mean ISI across the entire liquid output is given by $N=1/ (L \times \mu_f)$. Intuitively, we expect $\tau_{s,opt}$, the optimal value of $\tau_s$, to be correlated with this quantity since it has to be long enough to integrate information of temporally correlated spikes across all the liquid neurons. In Fig.\[fig:tau\_var\_L\](a), the MAE attained by LSM-DER for Task I is shown for different values of $\tau_s$ when $N$ is varied by changing the value of $L$. A similar result is obtained by changing the value of $\mu_f$ keeping $L$ as constant and is not shown here to avoid repetition. From this figure, we see a strong correlation between $N$ and the best value of $\tau_s$, $\tau_{s,opt}$. A similar set of simulations are also done for Task II. The best $\tau_s$ is then chosen for each value of $N$ and plotted in Fig.\[fig:tau\_var\_L\](b). It can be seen that for both tasks and with $N$ spanning two orders of magnitude, $\tau_{s,opt}$ can be well described by the fit $\tau_{s,opt}=52.83N-3.1$.
\
VLSI Implementation: Effect of Statistical Variations
=====================================================
This section contains the description of a VLSI architecture to implement DER and PPR, Monte Carlo simulation results of the key sub-circuits to show their statistical variability and incorporation of these statistical variations in Matlab analytical models to analyze the stability of the algorithms. These circuits are designed in AMS $0.35$ $\mu$m CMOS technology.
{width="90.00000%"}
VLSI Architecture of the Spiking Neural Network
-----------------------------------------------
The VLSI architectures for implementing DER and PPR readouts for LSM are shown in Fig. \[fig:ArchitectureCircuitsNeuron\_Diagram\](a) and (b) respectively. For both cases, AER is used to provide the synaptic connections. For DER, there is one shared synapse for every dendritic branch while for PPR, there is one shared synapse per perceptron. The input spikes (output of the liquid) are applied to the circuit through an address decoder while Differential Pair Integrator (DPI) circuits are used to implement synaptic function. For one neuron of the DER case, there are $m$ dendritic branches connected to a NEURON block through $m$ Square Law Nonlinear circuits. The output of the spiking neuron can be converted to the analog output $y$ by considering the spike rate averaged over a pre-defined time period. For the case of classification, a winner-take-all circuit can be used instead of two neurons. The VLSI architecture for PPR with $n$ perceptrons is the combination of $n$ DPI circuits with current source outputs (for positive weights) and $n$ with current sink outputs (for negative weights). For each perceptron, if the current from the positive weight DPI is higher, the output voltage gets pulled high and vice versa. These voltages are the inputs to the MAX block that generates the output decision by voting. Compared to the NEURON or MAX blocks, the synapses and square law blocks are more numerous. Hence, their individual sizes are also kept small leading to them being more susceptible to variations. Next, we shall briefly describe circuit implementations of these blocks and show simulations of the effect of statistical variations.
### Differential Pair Integrator Synapse
The circuit schematic shown in Fig. \[fig:ArchitectureCircuitsNeuron\_Diagram\](c) is a DPI circuit that converts presynaptic voltage pulses into postsynaptic currents ($I_{syn}(t)$). In this circuit, transistors operate in subthreshold regime. As mentioned in [@Bartolozzi_Indiveri_SynapticDynamics], controlling the bias voltages $V_w$ and $V_{tau}$ we can set $I_w$$\gg$$I_{\tau}$, which simplifies this nonlinear circuit to a canonical first-order low pass filter. The bias voltages $V_{thr}$, $V_w$ can effectively control the weight of the synapse (maximum output synaptic current, denoted by $I_0$) and $V_{tau}$ controls the fall time constant ($\tau_s$) of the output current. For an input spike arriving at $t_i^-$ and ending at $t_i^+$ to the DPI synapse, the rise time of $I_{syn}$ is very small. The discharge profile can be modeled by the Equation \[eqn:SynapseBlockEquation\].
$$\label{eqn:SynapseBlockEquation}
\begin{array}{lcl}
I_{syn}(t)=I_0e^{(-\frac{t-t_i^+}{\tau_s})}
\end{array}$$
where $\tau_s$=$\frac{C_{SYN}U_T}{\kappa I_\tau}$, $\kappa$ is the subthreshold slope factor, and $U_T$ is the thermal voltage.
$\mu[I_0]$ $\sigma[I_0]$ $\frac{\sigma}{\mu}[I_0]$ $\mu[\tau_s]$ $\sigma[\tau_s]$ $\frac{\sigma}{\mu}[\tau_s]$
------------ --------------- --------------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------------------ --
4.21 nA 570 pA 13 % 912.5 $\mu s$ 91.9 $\mu s$ 10.1 %
1.06 nA 127 pA 12 % 903.1 $\mu s$ 90.7 $\mu s$ 10.0 %
7.74 nA 875 pA 11 % 4116 $\mu s$ 413.6 $\mu s$ 10.1 %
1.06 nA 127 pA 12 % 18335.7 $\mu s$ 1832.7 $\mu s$ 10.0 %
: Monte Carlo Simulation Results of DPI Synapse
\[table:MCsimulationResultsDPI\]
### Saturating Square Law Nonlinear circuit
We have designed the current mode squaring circuit given in Fig. \[fig:ArchitectureCircuitsNeuron\_Diagram\](d) as described in [@shaista_ijcnn1]. Transistors M$_{S2}$, M$_{S1}$, M$_{S3}$ and M$_{S5}$ form a translinear loop. Hence, the current through M$_{S5}$ is expressed as given in Equation \[eqn:SquareBlockEquation\]. The transistor M$_{S5}$ is biased to pass a maximum current of $I_{sat}$ (set by $V_{BSAT}$).
$$\label{eqn:SquareBlockEquation}
I_{out}=\frac{I_{in}^2}{I_{thr}}$$
$I_{thr}$ is the dc current through M$_{S4}$ set by its Gate voltage ($V_{BTHR}$). However, due to process parameter mismatch between the transistors M$_{S2}$, M$_{S1}$, M$_{S3}$ and M$_{S5}$, the output current deviates from the exact relationship given in Equation \[eqn:SquareBlockEquation\]. Since variation of threshold voltage ($\bigtriangleup V_{th}$) dominates other sources of variation in the subthreshold regime, the translinear loop equation for Fig. \[fig:ArchitectureCircuitsNeuron\_Diagram\](d) can be re-written as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:SquareBlockMismatchEquation}
I_{out}^\prime&=e^{\frac{(\bigtriangleup V_{th1}+\bigtriangleup V_{th2}-\bigtriangleup V_{th5}-\bigtriangleup V_{th3})}{U_T}} \times \frac{I_{in}^2}{I_{thr}}\notag\\
&=c_{ni}\times I_{out}\end{aligned}$$
where $I_{out}^\prime$ is the actual current, $I_{out}$ is the expected current without mismatch and $c_{ni}=e^{\frac{(\bigtriangleup V_{th1}+\bigtriangleup V_{th2}-\bigtriangleup V_{th5}-\bigtriangleup V_{th3})}{U_T}}$ models the nonideality term due to mismatch.
Monte Carlo Simulation Results
------------------------------
We have performed Monte-Carlo simulation of the DPI synapse and Square Law Nonlinear circuits considering transistor mismatch. The objective of the Monte-Carlo simulation is to capture the variation of $I_0$, $\tau_s$, $c_{ni}$ from one dendritic branch (or perceptron) to the other. Some of the representative results of the statistical simulation are listed in Table \[table:MCsimulationResultsDPI\] and \[table:MCsimulationResultsSquareBlock\]. For different settings of variable bias parameters ($V_{thr}$, $V_{tau}$, $V_w$ and $V_{BTHR}$), we obtained worst case variation of $I_0$ and $I_{out}^\prime$ as $13\%$ and $18\%$ respectively. The parameter $\frac{\sigma}{\mu}[I_{OUT}^\prime]$ given in Table \[table:MCsimulationResultsSquareBlock\] can also be written as $\frac{\sigma}{\mu}[c_{ni}]$.
$I_{thr}$ $I_{IN}$ $\mu[I_{OUT}^\prime]$ $\sigma[I_{OUT}^\prime]$ $\frac{\sigma}{\mu}[I_{OUT}^\prime]$ = $\frac{\sigma}{\mu}[c_{ni}]$
----------- ---------- ----------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
30 nA 20 nA 12.15 nA 2.20 nA 18.0 %
30 nA 60 nA 99.70 nA 13.6 pA 14.0 %
30 nA 100 nA 243.1 nA 26.4 pA 11.1 %
: Monte Carlo Simulation Results of Square Law circuit
\[table:MCsimulationResultsSquareBlock\]
The impact of global process variation on circuit performance has been neglected here, because performance drift due to global variations can be eliminated by tuning the bias parameters. The device sizing for the circuit blocks are given in Table \[table:WbyL\_sizingTransistors\] for reference.
Synapse Block in Fig. \[fig:ArchitectureCircuitsNeuron\_Diagram\] (c) Square Block in Fig. \[fig:ArchitectureCircuitsNeuron\_Diagram\] (d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
$\frac{W}{L}$ ($M_{d1}$, $M_{d2}$, $M_{d3}$) $\equiv$ $\frac{8 \mu}{1 \mu}$, $\frac{W}{L}$ ($M_{s1}$, $M_{s2}$) $\equiv$ $\frac{8 \mu}{2 \mu}$,
$\frac{W}{L}$ ($M_{d4}$) $\equiv$ $\frac{0.40 \mu}{0.35 \mu}$, $\frac{W}{L}$ ($M_{d5}$) $\equiv$ $\frac{10 \mu}{1 \mu}$ $\frac{W}{L}$ ($M_{s3}$, $M_{s5}$) $\equiv$ $\frac{8 \mu}{2 \mu}$,
$C_{syn}=1.1 pF$ $\frac{W}{L}$ ($M_{s4}$, $M_{s6}$) $\equiv$ $\frac{16 \mu}{2 \mu}$
: Design parameters of the Circuit Blocks in Fig. \[fig:ArchitectureCircuitsNeuron\_Diagram\]
\[table:WbyL\_sizingTransistors\]
Area comparison between LSM-DER and LSM-PPR
-------------------------------------------
Since the liquid area would be same for both LSM-DER and LSM-PPR, we will only concentrate on the area of the readout. Let us denote the areas of a neuron, dendritic non-linear square block and synapseby $A_{neu}$, $A_{den}$ and $A_{syn}$ respectively. Then, DER would have an area of $A_{DER}=A_{neu}+2m(A_{den}+A_{syn})$ whereas PPR would have an area of $A_{PPR}=n (A_{neu}+ 2A_{syn})$, where $n$ is the number of perceptrons in DER. In our VLSI implementation, $A_{neu}=68 \mu m \times 38 \mu m$, $A_{den}=75 \mu m \times 28 \mu m $ and $A_{syn}=75 \mu m \times 42 \mu m$. Considering $m=7$ and $n=40$, $A_{DER}=76084 (\mu m)^2$ and $A_{PPR}=355360(\mu m)^2$ i.e. $A_{PPR}\approx 4.67 A_{DER}$.
Stability Analysis in Software Simulations {#stab_ana}
------------------------------------------
To analyze the stability of the algorithms, the statistical variations described above are incorporated during the testing phase of the simulation. The non-idealities are included only in the testing phase (and not during the training phase) because in the actual implementation, the training will be done in software and the trained connections will be downloaded directly to the chip. Fig.\[non\_ideal\] shows the performance of both LSM-DER and LSM-PPR when the non-idealities are included for Task I. Since all the variations are across branch, for fair comparison the PPR architecture used in this analysis has the same number of perceptrons as that of the dendrites used by LSM-DER. Moreover, we have used the same convolution kernel for state generation in both cases. In Fig. \[non\_ideal\], the bars corresponding to $\tau_s$, $c_{ni}$, and $I_0$ denote the performance degradation when statistical variations of $\tau_s$, $c_{ni}$ and $I_0$ are included individually. Finally, to imitate the true scenario we consider the simultaneous implementations of all the non-idealities, which is marked by $(...)$. In the software simulations, the $\frac{\sigma}{\mu}$ of $\tau_s$ and $I_0$ has been taken to be the worst case scenario as displayed in Table \[table:MCsimulationResultsDPI\] i.e. $10.1\%$ and $13\%$ respectively. Similarly, the $\frac{\sigma}{\mu}$ of $c_{ni}$ in the software simulations has been taken to be the worst case scenario as portrayed in Table \[table:MCsimulationResultsSquareBlock\] i.e. $18\%$. From Fig. \[non\_ideal\] it is evident that when all the variations are included ,then the MAE of LSM-DER and LSM-PPR increases by $0.0233$ and $0.0470$ respectively. This concludes that the modifying connections of binary synapses in LSM-DER results in more robust VLSI implementations compared to the adaptation of high resolution weights in LSM-PPR.
Conclusion
==========
In this article we have proposed a novel architecture (LSM-DER) and an efficient learning rule (NRW) for the readout stage of Liquid State Machine. Inspired by the nonlinear properties of dendrites in biological neurons, the readout neurons of LSM-DER employs multiple dendrites with lumped nonlinearities. The results depict that the advantages of LSM-DER along with NRW over the state-of-the-art LSM-PPR [@Maass2002] are:
- The LSM-DER algorithm attains less error than LSM-PPR for both classification and approximation problems as shown in detail in Section III.
- If there are $L$ liquid neurons, then LSM-PPR required $L\times n$ synapses for connecting the liquid to the readout whereas LSM-DER can achieve comparable performance with far fewer synapses. Moreover, when same number of synapses are allocated to both LSM-DER and LSM-PPR, LSM-DER achieves $3.3X$ less error in classification and $2.4X$ less error in approximation.
- LSM-PPR requires analog synaptic weights whereas LSM-DER can achieve better performance even with binary synapses, thus being very advantageous for hardware implementations. Since the synapses are binary valued, the NRW learning rule chooses the best possible connection matrix between inputs and the dendritic branches.
Also, we have shown that the proposed architecture is more robust against statistical variation of parameters than LSM-PPR, a feature essential for VLSI implementations.
[10]{}
V. Chan, S.C. Liu, and A.V. Schaik, “[AER EAR]{}: A matched silicon cochlea pair with address event representation interface,” , vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 48 –59, jan. 2007.
E. Culurciello, R. Etienne-Cummings, and K.A. Boahen, “A biomorphic digital image sensor,” , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 281 – 294, feb 2003.
P. Lichtsteiner, C. Posch, and T. Delbruck, “[A 128x128 120 dB 15 us latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor]{},” , vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 566 –576, Feb. 2008.
V. Aggarwal, S. Acharya, F. Tenore, H. Shin, R. Etienne-Cummings, M.H. Schieber, and N.V. Thakor, “Asynchronous decoding of dexterous finger movements using m1 neurons,” , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3–14, feb. 2008.
S. Acharya, F. Tenore, V. Aggarwal, R. Etienne-Cummings, M.H. Schieber, and N.V. Thakor, “Decoding individuated finger movements using volume-constrained neuronal ensembles in the m1 hand area,” , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 15 –23, feb. 2008.
H. Y. Hsieh and K. T. Tang, “Vlsi implementation of a bio-inspired olfactory spiking neural network,” , vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1065–1073, July 2012.
R. Mill, S. Sheik, G. Indiveri, and S. L. Denham, “[[A]{} [M]{}odel of [S]{}timulus-[S]{}pecific [A]{}daptation in [N]{}euromorphic [A]{}nalog [V]{}[L]{}[S]{}[I]{}]{},” , vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 413–419, Oct 2011.
T. J. Koickal, L.C. Gouveia, and A. Hamilton, “A programmable time event coded circuit block for reconfigurable neuromorphic computing,” in [*9th International Work-Conference on Artificial Neural Networks*]{}, San Sebastian, Spain, 2007, vol. 1, pp. 430–437, Springer-Verlag.
W. Maass, T. Natschläger, and H. Markram, “Real-time computing without stable states: a new framework for neural computation based on perturbations,” , vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 2531–2560, Nov. 2002.
P. J. Werbos, “Backpropagation through time: what it does and how to do it,” , vol. 78, no. 10, pp. 1550 –1560, oct 1990.
A. F. Atiya and A. G. Parlos, “New results on recurrent network training: Unifying the algorithms and accelerating convergence,” , vol. 11, pp. 697–709, 2000.
G. V. Puskorius and L. A. Feldkamp, “Neurocontrol of nonlinear dynamical systems with [K]{}alman filter trained recurrent networks,” , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 279–297, 1994.
S. Ma and C. Ji, “Fast training of recurrent networks based on the em algorithm,” , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11 –26, jan 1998.
S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” , vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, Nov. 1997.
P. Auer, H. Burgsteiner, and W. Maass, “[A learning rule for very simple universal approximators consisting of a single layer of perceptrons]{},” , vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 786 – 795, 2008.
Yanduo Zhang and Kun Wang, “The application of liquid state machines in robot path planning,” , pp. 1182–1186, 2009.
P. Jakimovski and H. R. Schmidtke, “Delayed synapses: An lsm model for studying aspects of temporal context in memory,” in [*Modeling and Using Context*]{}, Michael Beigl, Henning Christiansen, ThomasR. Roth-Berghofer, Anders Kofod-Petersen, KennyR. Coventry, and HeddaR. Schmidtke, Eds., vol. 6967 of [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, pp. 138–144. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
R. Legenstein, H. Markram, and W. Maass, “[[I]{}nput prediction and autonomous movement analysis in recurrent circuits of spiking neurons]{},” , vol. 14, no. 1-2, pp. 5–19, 2003.
S. Hussain, R. Gopalakrishnan, A. Basu, and S. C. Liu, “[Morphological Learning: Increased Memory Capacity of Neuromorphic Systems with Binary Synapses Exploiting AER Based Reconfiguration]{},” in [*IEEE Intl. Joint Conference on Neural Networks*]{}, 2013.
E. Hourdakis and P. Trahanias, “[Improving the Classification Performance of Liquid State Machines Based on the Separation Property]{},” in [*Engineering Applications of Neural Networks*]{}, Lazaros Iliadis and Chrisina Jayne, Eds., vol. 363 of [*IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology*]{}, pp. 52–62. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
J. Vreeken, “[On real-world temporal pattern recognition using Liquid State Machines]{},” M.S. thesis, Utrecht University (NL), 2004.
S. Roy, A. Basu, and S. Hussain, “[Hardware efficient, Neuromorphic Dendritically Enhanced Readout for Liquid State Machines]{},” in [*IEEE BioCAS*]{}, Nov 2013, pp. 302–305.
F. Xue, Z. Hou, and X. Li, “Computational capability of liquid state machines with spike-timing-dependent plasticity,” , vol. 122, no. 0, pp. 324 – 329, 2013, Advances in cognitive and ubiquitous computing Selected papers from the Sixth International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing (IMIS-2012).
H. Ju, J. X. Xu, E. Chong, and A. M. J. Vandongen, “Effects of synaptic connectivity on liquid state machine performance,” , vol. 38, pp. 39–51, Feb. 2013.
E. Hourdakis and P. Trahanias, “Use of the separation property to derive liquid state machines with enhanced classification performance,” , vol. 107, pp. 40–48, May 2013.
S. Schliebs, M. Fiasch[é]{}, and N. Kasabov, “Constructing robust liquid state machines to process highly variable data streams,” in [*Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning - Volume Part I*]{}, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, ICANN’12, pp. 604–611, Springer-Verlag.
G. M. Wojcik, “Electrical parameters influence on the dynamics of the hodgkin–huxley liquid state machine,” , vol. 79, no. 0, pp. 68 – 74, 2012.
S. V. Notley and A. Gruning, “Improved spike-timed mappings using a tri-phasic spike timing-dependent plasticity rule,” in [*The 2012 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)*]{}, June 2012, pp. 1–6.
D. Verstraeten, B. Schrauwen, D. Stroobandt, and J. Van Campenhout, “Isolated word recognition with the liquid state machine: a case study,” , vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 521–528, Sept. 2005.
E. Goodman and D. Ventura, “Spatiotemporal pattern recognition via liquid state machines,” in [*International Joint Conference on Neural Networks*]{}, 2006, pp. 3848–3853.
S. Schliebs and D. Hunt, “Continuous classification of spatio-temporal data streams using liquid state machines,” in [*Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Neural Information Processing - Volume Part IV*]{}, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, ICONIP’12, pp. 626–633, Springer-Verlag.
D. Probst, W. Maass, H. Markram, and M.O. Gewaltig, “Liquid computing in a simplified model of cortical layer iv: Learning to balance a ball,” in [*Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning - Volume Part I*]{}, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, ICANN’12, pp. 209–216, Springer-Verlag.
P. Jakimovski and H. R. Schmidtke, “Delayed synapses: An lsm model for studying aspects of temporal context in memory,” in [*Proceedings of the 7th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context*]{}, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011, CONTEXT’11, pp. 138–144, Springer-Verlag.
Y. Elmir, Z. Elberrichi, and R. Adjoudjelmir2011, “Liquid state machine based fingerprint identification,” , vol. 5, 2011.
T. Natschl[ä]{}ger, H. Markram, and W. Maass, , chapter 9, Kluver Academic Publishers (Boston), 2002.
P. Poirazi and B. W. Mel, “Impact of active dendrites and structural plasticity on the memory capacity of neural tissue,” , vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 779–796, Mar. 2001.
S. Brink, S. Nease, P. Hasler, S. Ramakrishnan, R. Wunderlich, A. Basu, and B. Degnan, “A learning-enabled neuron array ic based upon transistor channel models of biological phenomena,” , vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1, 2012.
A. Polsky, B. W. Mel, and J. Schiller, “[Computational subunits in thin dendrites of pyramidal cells]{},” , vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 621–7, June 2004.
S. Gutig and H. Sompolinsky, “The tempotron: a neuron that learns spike timing-based decisions,” , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 420–428, feb. 2006.
C. Bartolozzi and G. Indiveri, “[Synaptic Dynamics in Analog VLSI]{},” , vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 2581–2603, 2007.
[^1]: The authors are with the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798.(e-mail:[email protected]). This work was supported by MOE through grants RG 21/10 and ARC 8/13.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Driven condensed matter systems consistently pose substantial challenges to theoretical understanding. Progress in the study of such systems has been achieved using the Floquet formalism, but certain aspects of this approach are not well understood. In this paper, we consider the exceptionally simple case of the rotating Kekulé mass in graphene through the lens of Floquet theory. We show that the fact that this problem is gauge-equivalent to a time-independent problem implies that the “quasi-energies" of Floquet theory correspond to a continuous symmetry of the full time-dependent Lagrangian. We use the conserved Noether charge associated with this symmetry to recover notions of equilibrium statistical mechanics.'
author:
- Thomas Iadecola
- Claudio Chamon
- Roman Jackiw
- 'So-Young Pi'
bibliography:
- 'floquet\_kekule\_paper.bib'
title: 'Generalized energy and time-translation invariance in a driven, dissipative system'
---
Driven quantum condensed matter systems have become a subject of great interest in recent years.[@hanggi1; @hanggi2; @platero] Solid state systems in particular have attracted much attention due to the possibility of using external driving to engineer novel properties in materials. Floquet theory,[@shirley; @sambe; @oka; @kitagawa; @fertig] which is one of the prevailing theoretical tools for studying such systems, has been used to achieve progress in this direction. For instance, a class of materials known as “Floquet topological insulators," which are normal materials that acquire topologically nontrivial features due to optical driving, has been proposed,[@lindner] and there is experimental evidence [@ftiexp] of its realization in photonic crystals.
Floquet theory is based on the following theorem, which is the time-domain analog of Bloch’s theorem: if a Hamiltonian $H(t)$ is periodic in time, $H(t)=H(t+T)$ where $T$ is the period, then the solutions $\ket{\Psi_\alpha(t)}$ of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation ${\ensuremath \left[}H(t)-i\partial_t{\ensuremath \right]}\ket{\Psi_\alpha(t)}=0$ can be written as $\ket{\Psi_\alpha(t)}=e^{-i\epsilon_\alpha t}\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t)}$, where the Floquet states $\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t)}$ are also periodic in time, $\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t)}=\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t+T)}$. The quantities $\epsilon_\alpha$, known as quasi-energies, are analogous to the crystal momenta of Bloch’s theorem in that they are only well defined modulo the characteristic frequency $\Omega= 2\pi/T$. It is also possible to define a time-independent Floquet effective Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}$ [@kitagawa; @kitagawa2010; @luca; @jiang] whose eigenvalues are the quasi-energies $\epsilon_\alpha$ and which therefore inherits the multivaluedness of the quasi-energy spectrum. Nevertheless, it is common practice to speak of the quasi-energy band structure [@lindner; @kitagawa2010; @rudner] of a system, which can be obtained by solving the Floquet eigenvalue problem $H_F\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t)}=\epsilon_\alpha\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t)}$, where $H_F\equiv H(t)-i\partial_t$ is known as the Floquet operator.
The apparent simplicity of Floquet theory belies certain conceptual difficulties.[@kohn] In particular, because quasi-energies are only well defined modulo $\Omega$, there is no way of defining a lowest quasi-energy. Consequently, there is no notion of the ground state of a driven system in Floquet theory. For systems placed in contact with a heat bath at finite temperature, it is possible to derive master equations for the time evolution of the reduced density matrix.[@blumel; @hanggi3; @hanggi4] This approach is only practicable on a case-by-case basis and frequently involves the use of various approximations, so that no general and intuitive notion of the occupation of a Floquet state exists for such systems. The inclusion of dissipation for many-body systems remains quite challenging.
In this paper, we study an exactly solvable model where these questions have clear answers. We consider the steady state reached by a system of Dirac fermions in graphene when coupled to a heat bath of acoustic phonons in the presence of a rotating Kekulé mass term. This problem can be solved exactly both with and without Floquet theory. Without Floquet theory, one can solve it by a mapping to a time-independent system via an axial gauge transformation, which preserves all transport properties of the system.[@rotatingkekule] In this work, we illustrate the equivalence of this approach to that of Floquet theory. In particular, we show that the quasi-energies defined above correspond in a simple way to the energy eigenvalues of the time-independent Hamiltonian $\tilde{\mathcal H}$ of Eq. , which describes the gauge-transformed system. In this way, we see that this time-independent Hamiltonian is indeed a Floquet effective Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}$ in the sense of Refs. and . We subsequently illustrate that these quasi-energies correspond to a conserved Noether charge in the time-dependent problem. This Noether charge differs from what we normally call “energy" in that it is associated with a generalized time-translation symmetry, which involves both a shift in time and a compensating chiral rotation of the Dirac spinors. We also show that it is possible to use this Noether charge to recover notions of equilibrium statistical mechanics by constructing an ensemble governing the probability distribution of the various states accessible to the system when the bath is held at finite temperature. At zero temperature, the “ground state" of the system can be determined by minimizing this generalized energy.
We consider a time-dependent Lagrangian of the form $\mathcal L_{\rm tot}=\mathcal L_{\rm sys}+\mathcal L_{A_5}+\mathcal L_{\rm bath}$, where
\[tlagrangian\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{\rm sys}&= \bar\Psi{\ensuremath \left[}\gamma^\mu\; i\partial_\mu - |\Delta|\; e^{-i\gamma_5(\Omega t+\varphi)}{\ensuremath \right]}\Psi \label{lsys}\\
\mathcal L_{A_5}&= j_5^i\; A_{5\; i}=j_5^i\; \bar A_{5\; i}+j_5^i\; \delta A_{5\; i}\nonumber\\
&=\mathcal L_{\rm strain}+\mathcal L_{\rm sys-bath}\label{la}\\
\mathcal L_{\rm bath}&= \frac{M}{2}|\dot{\bm u}|^2-\frac{1}{2}\; C_{ijkl}\; u_{ij}\; u_{kl}\label{lbath}\ .\end{aligned}$$
The physics of each term is briefly explained below. $\mathcal L_{\rm sys}$ is the low-energy Dirac field theory for fermions hopping on a hexagonal lattice against the background of a particular phonon mode with wave vector $\bm K_+$ and energy $\Omega$.[@rotatingkekule] This phonon mode leads to the time-dependent mass term in , whose magnitude is controlled by the magnitude of the complex Kekulé order parameter $\Delta=|\Delta|e^{i\varphi}$. We use Dirac spinors $\Psi^\dagger_{\bm p} = (b_{+,\bm p}^\dagger\; a_{+,\bm p}^\dagger\; a_{-,\bm p}^\dagger\; b_{-,\bm p}^\dagger)$, where $a_{\pm,\bm p}^\dagger$ creates a fermion on sublattice $A$ with momentum $\bm p$ and the chiral indices $\pm$ label the valley (and similarly for $b^\dagger_{\pm,\bm p}$). Our Dirac matrices are $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^0=\begin{pmatrix}0&\mathbbm1\\\mathbbm1&0\end{pmatrix}\ ,\indent \gamma^i = \begin{pmatrix}0&-\sigma_i\\ \sigma_i&0\end{pmatrix}\ ,\indent \gamma_5 = \begin{pmatrix}\mathbbm 1&0\\0&-\mathbbm 1\end{pmatrix}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbbm 1$ is the $2\times 2$ identity matrix and $\sigma_i$, $i=1,2$ are Pauli matrices, and we use the standard notation $\bar{\Psi}\equiv\Psi^\dagger\gamma^0$. The fermions in couple to the spatial components [^1] of an axial gauge field $A_{5\; \mu}$ in Eq. through the axial current operator $j_5^i\equiv \bar\Psi\gamma^i\gamma_5\Psi$. By calculating the changes in nearest-neighbor hoppings due to uniaxial strain (see Refs. and ) and linearizing the resulting Hamiltonian around the Dirac points, it can be shown that the fields $A_{5\; i}$ depend explicitly on the fields $u_i(\bm x,t)$ in Eq. , which measure locally the average displacement of the lattice sites from their equilibrium positions, via the relations $$\begin{aligned}
A_{5\; 1}=\frac{\alpha t_0}{d}\; \frac{3}{2}{\ensuremath \left(}u_{22}- u_{11}{\ensuremath \right)}\ , \indent A_{5\; 2}=\frac{\alpha t_0}{d}\; \frac{3}{2}{\ensuremath \left(}u_{12}+ u_{21}{\ensuremath \right)}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the strain field $ u_{ij}(\bm x,t)\equiv {\ensuremath \left(}\partial_iu_j+\partial_ju_i{\ensuremath \right)}/2$. Here, $\alpha\approx 3.7$ is the dimensionless electron-phonon coupling, $t_0\approx 2.8\text{ eV}$ is the uniform hopping amplitude in the absence of strain, and $d\approx 1.4\text{ \AA}$ is the nearest-neighbor spacing. The $A_{5\; i}$ thus encode the effects of strain in the graphene lattice—under constant uniaxial strain, they acquire a constant value $\bar A_{5\; i}$, around which there exist small time- and space- dependent fluctuations $\delta A_{5\; i}(\bm x,t)$ due to acoustic phonons. We take these acoustic phonons to constitute a heat bath which allows the fermions in to achieve a steady state in the presence of the time-dependent Kekul' e mass term, so that $\mathcal L_{\rm sys-bath}$ in constitutes a system-bath interaction. The Lagrangian for the bath is written in terms of the $u_i(\bm x,t)$ in Eq. , where in the first term $M$ sets the kinetic energy scale of the acoustic phonons and in the second term the elastic tensor $C_{ijkl}$ encodes the energy cost of strain along different directions.
The single-particle Hamiltonian corresponding to is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hsys}
\mathcal H_{\rm sys}(t)&=\begin{pmatrix}\bm \sigma\cdot\bm p &\Delta\; e^{i\Omega t}\; \mathbbm 1\\ \Delta^*\; e^{-i\Omega t} \; \mathbbm 1&-\bm \sigma\cdot\bm p \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm p=(p_x,p_y)$ is the momentum operator, and where the $2\times 2$ identity matrix $\mathbbm 1$ and the Pauli matrices $\bm\sigma=(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ act on sublattice indices.
Before proceeding, it is interesting to note that the Hamiltonian bears a striking resemblance to the famous Rabi problem,[@rabi] which concerns a single spin in a magnetic field that rotates about the $z$-axis. Here, the order parameter $\Delta$ plays the role of the magnetic field, and the valley degree of freedom plays the role of spin. Note, however, that the problem described by the Hamiltonian differs from the Rabi problem in several important ways. For example, describes a system of many non-interacting fermions, rather than a two-state system. Furthermore, the dispersion in the kinetic term implies that the resonance condition varies with $p\equiv|\bm p|$, so that the system has no single resonant frequency.
The time-dependent problem governed by Eq.s is particularly simple in that all explicit time dependence can be removed by defining $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gtrans}
\tilde\Psi = e^{-i\gamma_5\frac{\Omega t}{2}}\Psi,&\hspace{.25cm} \tilde A_{5\; 0}=-\frac{\Omega}{2},\hspace{.25cm} \tilde A_{5\; i}=A_{5\; i},\nonumber\\
\tilde u_i&=u_i,\hspace{.3 cm} \tilde u_{ij}= u_{ij}.\end{aligned}$$ This amounts to a time-dependent axial gauge transformation of $\mathcal L_{\rm tot}$ that maps the problem into a “rotating frame." The transformed Lagrangian for the fermions is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ltilde}
\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\rm sys} = \bar{\tilde{\Psi}}{\ensuremath \left(}\gamma^\mu\; i\partial_\mu -\gamma^0\gamma_5\; \frac{\Omega}{2}-|\Delta|\; e^{-i\gamma_5\varphi}{\ensuremath \right)}\tilde\Psi\ ,\end{aligned}$$ with the corresponding single-particle Hamiltonian given in matrix form by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{htilde}
\tilde{\mathcal H} = \begin{pmatrix}\bm \sigma\cdot\bm p +\frac{\Omega}{2}\; \mathbbm 1&\Delta\; \mathbbm 1\\ \Delta^*\; \mathbbm 1&-\bm \sigma\cdot\bm p - \frac{\Omega}{2}\; \mathbbm 1\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ The transformation ensures that $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{A_5}=\mathcal L_{A_5}$, and $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\rm bath}=\mathcal L_{\rm bath}$. Moreover, has no effect on the bath or the system-bath coupling. Therefore, the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are thermal states described by a density operator $\tilde\rho = \exp(-\beta\tilde{\mathcal H})/\text{tr }[\exp(-\beta\tilde{\mathcal H})]$, where $1/\beta$ is the temperature of the bath. Since the U(1) current operator $j^\mu = \bar\Psi\gamma^\mu\Psi$ is also invariant under , all transport properties of $\mathcal L_{\rm sys}$ are identical to those of the Hamiltonian . Because the spectrum of $\tilde{\mathcal H}$, which is given by the four energy bands $E_{\pm,\pm}=\pm\sqrt{(p\pm\Omega/2)^2+|\Delta|^2}$, is that of a semiconductor with gap $2|\Delta|$, we conclude that the same must be true of the time-dependent system described by $\mathcal L_{\rm sys}$. Taken together, these observations show that the transformation maps the non-equilibrium steady state of $\mathcal L_{\rm tot}$ to a thermal state in the rotating frame, and that the transport properties of this thermal state are identical to those of the full time-dependent problem.
The rotating Kekulé mass problem is also strikingly simple from the point of view of Floquet theory, as we now show. We wish to solve the Floquet eigenvalue problem $\mathcal H_F\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t)}=\epsilon_\alpha\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t)}$, where $\mathcal H_F =\mathcal H_{\rm sys}-i\partial_t$ and $\mathcal H_{\rm sys}$ is the Hamiltonian corresponding to $\mathcal L_{\rm sys}$, defined in . To do this, we note that because the Floquet states $\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t)}$ are periodic with frequency $\Omega$, we may expand them in a Fourier series: $\ket{\Phi_\alpha(t)}=\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty e^{-in\Omega t}\ket{\Phi_\alpha^n}$. Substituting this into the Floquet equation and applying the operator $\frac{1}{T}\int_0^Tdt\; e^{im\Omega t}$ to both sides, we obtain the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{floquet}
\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty {\ensuremath \left(}\mathcal H_{mn}-n\Omega\; \delta_{mn}{\ensuremath \right)}\ket{\Phi^n_\alpha}=\epsilon_\alpha\ket{\Phi^m_\alpha}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal H_{mn}=\frac{1}{T}\int_0^Tdt\; e^{i(m-n)\Omega t}\; \mathcal H_{\rm sys}(t)$. Because $\mathcal H_{\rm sys}$ contains only one harmonic of the driving frequency $\Omega$, we have
\[h\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal H_{m m}&\equiv \mathcal H_0 =\begin{pmatrix}\bm \sigma\cdot\bm p&0\\0&-\bm \sigma\cdot\bm p\end{pmatrix}\\
\mathcal H_{m\, m+1}&\equiv \mathcal H_1=\begin{pmatrix}0&\Delta\;\mathbbm 1\\0&0\end{pmatrix}\\
\mathcal H_{m\, m-1}&\equiv \mathcal H_{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\\Delta^*\;\mathbbm 1&0\end{pmatrix}\\
\mathcal H_{mn}&=0\indent\text{if $|m-n|>1$.}\end{aligned}$$
-.1cm In matrix form becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{floquetmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots& \\
\cdots & \mathcal H_0-\Omega\; \mathbbm 1&\mathcal H_1&0&\cdots&\\
\cdots & \mathcal H_{-1}&\mathcal H_0&\mathcal H_1&\cdots\\
\cdots&0&\mathcal H_{-1}&\mathcal H_0+\Omega\; \mathbbm 1&\cdots\\
&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\vdots\\ \ket{\Phi_\alpha^1}\\ \ket{\Phi^0_\alpha}\\ \ket{\Phi^{-1}_\alpha}\\ \vdots\end{pmatrix} = \epsilon_\alpha\begin{pmatrix}\vdots\\ \ket{\Phi_\alpha^1}\\ \ket{\Phi^0_\alpha}\\ \ket{\Phi^{-1}_\alpha}\\ \vdots\end{pmatrix}\ ,\end{aligned}$$
where now $\mathbbm 1$ is a $4\times 4$ identity matrix. Eq. defines an eigenvalue problem for an infinite-dimensional matrix, which is impossible to solve in general. The standard approach from this point forward is to truncate the number of harmonics at some $m=\pm m_0$ and let the sum in run from $-m_0$ to $m_0$ in order to find the quasi-energy spectrum in the truncated space (see, e.g., Refs. , and ). In fact, for the Floquet matrix , one can prove by construction (see Appendix) that for a given $m_0>0$ the $4(2m_0+1)$ quasi-energy eigenvalues are
\[qespec\] $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^0_{\pm,\pm}&=\pm p\pm m_0\Omega \label{spurious}\\
\epsilon^n_{\pm,\pm,\pm}&=\pm\sqrt{(p\pm\Omega/2)^2+|\Delta|^2}\pm\frac{n\Omega}{2} \label{qes},\end{aligned}$$
where $n=1,3,\dots,2m_0-1$. Note that the degeneracy (mod $\Omega$) of the linearly-dispersing modes in does not grow with $m_0$, while the degeneracy of the modes does. This suggests that the quasi-energy modes listed in are spurious artifacts of the truncation. Indeed, one can show that the characteristic equation of the infinite Floquet matrix, namely $\det(\mathcal H_F-\lambda\; \mathbbm 1)=0$, is unchanged under the substitution $\lambda\to \lambda+n\Omega$, where $n$ is an integer. [@shirley; @sambe] From this, one concludes that if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $\mathcal H_F$, then so is $\lambda+n\Omega$. The eigenvalues in exhibit this periodicity mod $\Omega$, whereas the eigenvalues in do not. We conclude that the latter modes are indeed spurious, and we take , with $n$ any positive odd integer, to constitute the true quasi-energy spectrum of $\mathcal H_F$. The spectrum of the system’s Floquet effective Hamiltonian $\mathcal H_{\rm eff}$ is obtained by choosing a single quasi-energy branch, say $n=1$ without loss of generality. Once this choice of branch is made, however, we see that the quasi energies $\epsilon_{\pm,\pm,+}^1$ are identical to the energy eigenvalues $E_{\pm,\pm}$ of $\tilde{\mathcal H}$, up to a constant shift by $-\Omega/2$ which is unimportant. This indicates that the rotating-frame Hamiltonian $\tilde{\mathcal H}$ of Eq. can in fact be identified with a Floquet effective Hamiltonian of the system. The time-dependent Hamiltonian $\mathcal H_{\rm sys}$ of Eq. is related to the time-independent Floquet effective Hamiltonian $\tilde{\mathcal H}$ of Eq. by a unitary transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal H}=U(t)\mathcal H_{\rm sys}(t)U^\dagger(t)-iU(t)\partial_tU^\dagger(t)\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $U(t)=e^{-i\gamma_5\Omega t/2}$. This implies that its quasi-energy spectrum, which we now identify with the energy spectrum $E_{\pm,\pm}$ of $\tilde{\mathcal H}$, corresponds to a continuous symmetry of the Lagrangian $\mathcal L_{\rm sys}$ according to the following argument. The Lagrangian $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\rm sys}$ of Eq. , which corresponds to the rotating-frame Hamiltonian $\tilde{\mathcal H}$, has no explicit time dependence. Under an infinitesimal time translation $t\to t-a$, we have $\delta\tilde\Psi=\partial_t\tilde\Psi$, so that to leading order in $\delta\tilde\Psi$ one obtains $\delta\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\rm sys}=\partial_t\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\rm sys}$, indicating that $t\to t-a$ is (expectedly) a symmetry of the action associated with $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\rm sys}$. A standard calculation using Noether’s theorem shows that the conserved quantity associated with this symmetry is indeed the Hamiltonian $\tilde{\mathcal H}$. However, we can also use the relation $\tilde{\Psi} = e^{-i\gamma_5\Omega t/2}\; \Psi$ from Eq. to obtain a corresponding transformation law for $\Psi$, namely $\delta\Psi = \partial_t\Psi -i\gamma_5(\Omega/2)\Psi$. This is the variation in $\Psi$ brought about by the infinitesimal version of the continuous symmetry $$\begin{aligned}
\label{symm}
t\to t-a,\indent \Psi(t)\to e^{-i\gamma_5\Omega a/2}\; \Psi(t+a),\end{aligned}$$ which combines a time translation with a compensating chiral rotation of the Dirac spinors. Because $\mathcal L_{A_5}$ and $\mathcal L_{\rm bath}$ are invariant under chiral rotations of the spinors, we see that is simply a time translation from the point of view of these terms in $\mathcal L_{\rm tot}$. Consequently, the remaining fields in $\mathcal L_{\rm tot}$ transform as $\delta A_{5\; i}=\partial_tA_{5\; i}$, $\delta u_i=\partial_t u_i$, and $\delta u_{ij}=\partial_t u_{ij}$ under .[^2] It is easily verified using these definitions, along with that of $\delta\Psi$ above, that $\delta\mathcal L_{\rm tot}=\partial_t\mathcal L_{\rm tot}$ under . We conclude that is indeed a symmetry of the action associated with $\mathcal L_{\rm tot}$. A straightforward calculation shows that the Noether charge corresponding to this symmetry is -1cm
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{qtot}
Q_{\rm tot} &=\int d^2x\; \left\{\Psi^\dagger{\ensuremath \left[}\alpha^ip_i+\gamma^0|\Delta|\; e^{-i\gamma_5(\Omega t+\varphi)}+\gamma_5\; \frac{\Omega}{2}{\ensuremath \right]}\Psi-j_5^iA_{5\; i}+\frac{M}{2}|\dot{\bm u}|^2+\frac{1}{2}C_{ijkl}\; u_{ij} u_{kl}\right\}\ ,\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha^i\equiv \gamma^0\gamma^i$. It can be checked using the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion that $\partial_t Q_{\rm tot}=0$. We partition $Q_{\rm tot}$ into contributions from the system, the bath, and the system-bath coupling as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\rm sys}&= \int d^2x\; \Bigl\{\Psi^\dagger\Bigl[\alpha^ip_i+\gamma^0|\Delta|\; e^{-i\gamma_5(\Omega t+\varphi)} \nonumber\\
&\indent +\gamma_5\; \frac{\Omega}{2}\;\Bigr]\Psi-j_5^i\bar A_{5\; i} \Bigr\}\label{qsys}\\
Q_{\rm sys-bath}&=-\int d^2x\; j_5^i\; \delta A_{5\, i}\label{qsysbath}\\
Q_{\rm bath}&= \int d^2x\; {\ensuremath \left(}\frac{M}{2}|\dot{\bm u}|^2+\frac{1}{2}C_{ijkl}\; u_{ij} u_{kl}{\ensuremath \right)}.\label{qbath}\end{aligned}$$
$Q_{\rm sys}$, which contains contributions from $\mathcal L_{\rm sys}$ and $\mathcal L_{\rm strain}$, defined in and , is a generalized energy corresponding to the generalized time-translation symmetry . Because this transformation is just a time translation from the point of view of the bath and the system-bath interaction, the quantities $Q_{\rm bath}$ and $Q_{\rm sys-bath}$ are identical to the physical energies corresponding to the familiar time-translation invariance.
The foregoing arguments have yielded a conserved quantity involving system and bath degrees of freedom. The fact that we have such a conserved quantity suggests that we can construct an equilibrium statistical ensemble for calculating thermodynamic averages. We now make these ideas more precise. We begin by noting that in the absence of a system-bath coupling, the quantity $Q_{\rm sys}$ of Eq. is conserved. When the system is coupled to the bath, the conserved quantity is $Q_{\rm tot}=Q_{\rm sys}+Q_{\rm sys-bath}+Q_{\rm bath}$. Because the fluctuations in $A_{5\; i}$ due to the acoustic phonons are small, we may approximate $Q_{\rm tot}\approx Q_{\rm sys}+Q_{\rm bath}$. In this picture, the system’s “energy" $Q_{\rm sys}$ is no longer conserved—instead, the system and bath exchange this “energy", while $Q_{\rm tot}$ remains constant. Suppose we wish to determine the probability $P(Q_n)$ of the system having $Q_{\rm sys}=Q_n$, where $n$ labels the state of the system, for a fixed $Q_{\rm tot}$. If we assume, in the spirit of equilibrium statistical mechanics, that this probability is proportional to the number $\mathcal N(Q_{\rm bath})=\mathcal N(Q_{\rm tot}-Q_n)$ of states available to the bath for a fixed value of $Q_{\rm bath}$, then we can deduce the form of $P(Q_n)$ as follows. If we assume that $Q_n\ll Q_{\rm tot}$, then we can expand $\ln \mathcal N(Q_{\rm bath})$ around $Q_{\rm bath}=Q_{\rm tot}$ to obtain -1.1cm
$$\begin{aligned}
\ln\mathcal N(Q_{\rm bath})&= \ln \mathcal N(Q_{\rm tot})+{\ensuremath \frac{\partial\ln\mathcal N(Q_{\rm bath})}{\partialQ_{\rm bath}}}\Bigg\vert_{Q_{\rm bath}=Q_{\rm tot}}\hspace{-.5cm}(Q_{\rm bath}-Q_{\rm tot})+\ldots\nonumber\\
&=\ln \mathcal N(Q_{\rm tot})-{\ensuremath \frac{\partial\ln\mathcal N(Q_{\rm bath})}{\partialQ_{\rm bath}}}\Bigg\vert_{Q_{\rm bath}=Q_{\rm tot}}\hspace{-.5cm}Q_n+\mathcal O(Q_n^2)\label{entropy}\end{aligned}$$
Recalling our earlier observation that $Q_{\rm bath}$ is just the energy of the bath, we see that the coefficient of $Q_{n}$ in can be identified with the familiar Lagrange multiplier $\beta$, where $1/\beta$ is the temperature of the bath. We conclude that $P(Q_n)$ assumes the form of a Boltzmann distribution with the usual system energies $E_n$ replaced by the generalized energies $Q_n$: $$\begin{aligned}
P(Q_n)=\frac{e^{-\beta Q_n}}{\sum_{n}e^{-\beta Q_n}},\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ runs over all states accessible to the system.
In summary, we have presented in this paper a study of the rotating Kekulé mass in graphene from the point of view of Floquet theory. We found that the time-independent Hamiltonian of the system in the rotating frame is in fact a Floquet effective Hamiltonian whose eigenvalues are quasi-energies. Exploiting the fact that the time-dependent Hamiltonian of the system is related to this effective Hamiltonian by a unitary transformation, we showed that these quasi-energies correspond to a continuous symmetry , with an associated Noether charge $Q$, of the time-dependent Hamiltonian. By explicitly coupling the system to a heat bath consisting of acoustic phonons, we constructed a statistical ensemble governing the probabilities of the various microstates accessible to the system. In this way, we recover notions of equilibrium statistical mechanics, despite the fact that the original problem of Eq. is manifestly out of equilibrium. In principle, such a construction is possible for any time-dependent Hamiltonian that is related by a unitary transformation to a time-independent Hamiltonian. Further investigations of this exceptional class of problems and its generalizations could be enormously beneficial to the study of non-equilibrium quantum systems.
We thank Luca D’Alessio, Herb Fertig, and Takashi Oka for helpful discussions. This work is supported by DOE grants DEF-06ER46316 (T.I. and C.C.), DE-FG02-05ER41360 (R.J.), and DE-SC0010025 (S-Y. P.).
We present here a constructive proof of the assertion that truncating the Floquet matrix $\mathcal H_F$ at some $m=\pm m_0$ yields the quasi-energy spectrum of Eq.s . The truncated eigenvalue problem reads $\mathcal H_F^{(m_0)}\Phi_\alpha^{(m_0)}=\epsilon_\alpha^{(m_0)}\Phi^{(m_0)}_\alpha$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal H_F^{(m_0)}=\begin{pmatrix}
\mathcal H_0-m_0\Omega\; \mathbbm 1&\mathcal H_1&0&\cdots\\
\vspace{-.18cm}\mathcal H_{-1}&\mathcal H_0-(m_0-1)\Omega\; \mathbbm 1&\mathcal H_1&\cdots\\
\vspace{-.18cm}0&\mathcal H_{-1}&\hspace{-1cm}\ddots&\hspace{-1.5cm}\ddots\\
\vdots&\hspace{1cm}\ddots&\hspace{.25cm}\ddots&\mathcal H_1\\
0&\hspace{-2cm}\cdots&\hspace{-1.25cm}\mathcal H_{-1}&\mathcal H_0+m_0\Omega\; \mathbbm 1
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ with $\mathcal H_0$ and $\mathcal H_{\pm 1}$ given in Eq.s . We construct the $4(2m_0+1)$ eigenvectors of $\mathcal H_F^{(m_0)}$ in the following way. We begin by noting that the $4\times 4$ matrix $\mathcal H_0$ has eigenvalues $\pm p$ (each with multiplicity 2) and unnormalized eigenvectors $$\begin{aligned}
\label{es}
e_\pm=\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\\pm e^{-i\theta}\\1\end{pmatrix}\indent\text{and}\indent e^\prime_{\pm}=\begin{pmatrix}
\pm e^{-i\theta}\\
1\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix}\ .\end{aligned}$$ These in turn are eigenvectors of the matrices $\mathcal H_0\pm m_0\Omega\;\mathbbm 1$ with eigenvalues $\pm p\pm m_0\Omega$. Furthermore, because $\mathcal H_{-1}\; e_\pm=\mathcal H_1\; e^\prime_\pm=0$, one verifies that the block-form vectors $$\begin{aligned}
\label{spur}
\Phi_{\pm,-}^{0,(m_0)}=\begin{pmatrix}
e_\mp\\0_4\\\vdots\\0_4
\end{pmatrix}\indent\text{and}\indent\Phi_{\pm,+}^{0,(m_0)}=\begin{pmatrix}0_4\\\vdots\\0_4\\e^\prime_{\pm}\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $0_4$ is a 4-dimensional column vector of zeroes, are eigenvectors of $\mathcal H_F^{(m_0)}$ with eigenvalues $\epsilon^0_{\pm,\pm}$ given by Eq. . The remaining $8m_0$ eigenvectors are constructed by considering the following generic $8\times8$ sub-block of $\mathcal H_F^{(m_0)}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sub}
\mathcal H_{8}^{(n)}&=\begin{pmatrix}
\mathcal H_0-n\Omega\;\mathbbm1&\mathcal H_1\\
\mathcal H_{-1}&\mathcal H_0-(n-1)\Omega\;\mathbbm1
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $-(m_0-1)\leq n\leq m_0$. One can show that the four relevant eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\mathcal H_8^{(n)}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal H_8^{(n)}\begin{pmatrix}f_{\pm,-}(p)\; e^\prime_+\\ e_+\end{pmatrix}&=\epsilon^{2n-1}_{\pm,-,-}\begin{pmatrix}f_{\pm,-}(p)\; e^\prime_+\\ e_+\end{pmatrix}\\
\mathcal H_8^{(n)}\begin{pmatrix}-f_{\mp,+}(p)\; e^\prime_-\\ e_-\end{pmatrix}&=\epsilon^{2n-1}_{\pm,+,-}\begin{pmatrix}-f_{\mp,+}(p)\; e^\prime_-\\ e_-\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\pm,\mp}(p)&=\frac{1}{2\Delta^*}{\ensuremath \left[}(2p\mp \Omega)\pm\sqrt{(2p\mp\Omega)^2+4|\Delta|^2}{\ensuremath \right]},\end{aligned}$$ $e_{\pm}$ and $e^\prime_{\pm}$ are as in , and $\epsilon^{2n-1}_{\pm,\pm,-}$ are defined as in Eq. . Moreover, because as previously noted $\mathcal H_{-1}\; e_\pm=\mathcal H_1\; e^\prime_\pm=0$, one verifies that the block-form vectors $$\begin{aligned}
\label{realtop}
\Phi^{2m_0-1,(m_0)}_{\pm,-,-}&=\begin{pmatrix}f_{\pm,-}(p)\; e^{\prime}_+\\ e_+\\0_4\\\vdots\\0_4\end{pmatrix}\indent\text{and}\indent \Phi^{2m_0-1,(m_0)}_{\pm,+,-}=\begin{pmatrix}-f_{\mp,+}(p)\; e^{\prime}_-\\ e_-\\0_4\\\vdots\\0_4\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ are eigenvectors of $\mathcal H_F^{(m_0)}$ with eigenvalues $\epsilon^{2m_0-1}_{\pm,\pm,-}$ in the notation of Eq. . Applying a similar argument to each sub-block of the form shows that the remaining $4(2m_0-1)$ eigenvectors are obtained by shifting the entries of the eigenvectors downward by four positions at a time. For instance, the eigenvectors corresponding to the quasi-energies $\epsilon^{2m_0-3}_{\pm,\pm,-}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{2m_0-3,(m_0)}_{\pm,-,-}&=\begin{pmatrix}0_4\\f_{\pm,-}(p)\; e^{\prime}_+\\ e_+\\0_4\\\vdots\\0_4\end{pmatrix}\indent\text{and}\indent \Phi^{2m_0-3,(m_0)}_{\pm,+,-}=\begin{pmatrix}0_4\\-f_{\mp,+}(p)\; e^{\prime}_-\\ e_-\\0_4\\\vdots\\0_4\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ This shifting process can be repeated a total of $2m_0-1$ times, until we reach $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{2m_0-1,(m_0)}_{\pm,-,+}&=\begin{pmatrix}0_4\\\vdots\\0_4\\f_{\pm,-}(p)\; e^{\prime}_+\\ e_+\end{pmatrix}\indent\text{and}\indent \Phi^{2m_0-1,(m_0)}_{\pm,+,+}=\begin{pmatrix}0_4\\\vdots\\0_4\\-f_{\mp,+}(p)\; e^{\prime}_-\\ e_-\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ which correspond to the quasi-energies $\epsilon_{\pm,\pm,+}^{2m_0-1}$. As a check that we have indeed exhausted all possible eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\mathcal H_F^{(m_0)}$, we count 4 eigenvectors $+$ 4 eigenvectors $+\ 4(2m_0-1)$ shifted eigenvectors $=8m_0+4$ eigenvectors in total, as desired.
[^1]: We take $A_{5\; 0}=0$ without loss of generality.
[^2]: Note that because $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{A_5}=\mathcal L_{A_5}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\rm bath}=\mathcal L_{\rm bath}$, these transformation rules also hold in the rotating frame.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a construction of quantum hypergroups using conditional expectations on compact quantum groups. Using this construction, we describe several series of non-trivial finite-dimensional quantum hypergroups via conditional expectations of Delsart type on non-trivial Kac algebras obtained by twisting of the finite groups.'
author:
- 'A.A.Kalyuzhnyi$^*$'
title: 'Conditional expectations on compact quantum groups and new examples of quantum hypergroups.'
---
addtoreset[equation]{}[subsection]{}
0. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
---------------
The compact quantum hypergroup was introduced in [@ChaVai] as a structure that simultaniosly generalies usual hypergroups ([@BK], [@BH]), compact quantum groups ([@Wor]) and bialgebras of biinvariant functions associated with quantum Gelfand pairs ([@Koo], [@ChaVai:double], [@Vai:double], [@Vai:double1]). A compact quantum hypergroup is a unital $C^*$-algebra equipped with a coassociative completely positive coproduct that preserves the unit element and satisfies some additional axioms. In [@ChaVai] a theory of corepresentations was studied and there was established an analog of the Peter-Weyl theory for compact quantum hypergroups.
Howewer, as we know, the only [*concrete*]{} nontrivial example of the compact quantum hypergroup was constucted in [@PVai]. The main purpose of this paper is to build a sufficient number of such examples. We propose a general construction of quantum hypergroups using conditional expectations on compact quantum groups and, using this construction, we carry, to the quantum case, the Delsart construction of hypergroups (recall that if $G$ is a locally compact group and $\Gamma$ is a compact group of automorphisms of $G$ with a Haar measure $\mu_\gamma$, then the algebra of continuous $\Gamma$-invariant functions on $G$ equipped with the coproduct $$(\Delta f)(x, y) = \int_{\Gamma} f(x\gamma (y)) d\mu_\gamma,$$ is a hypergroup).
Using the Delsart construction we build several series of non-trivial finite-dimensional quantum hypergroups from non-trivial Kac algebras obtained in [@Vai:twist], [@Nik:twist] by twisting the classical series of finite groups.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 contains neáessary preliminaries on compact quantum hypergroups and on twisting the finite groups. In Section 2 we describe the construction of compact quantum hypergroups using conditional expectations on quantum hypergroups (and, in particular, on compact quantum groups). In the commutative case, we compare this construction with orbital morphisms [@Jew]. In Section 3 we show that this construction includes the double coset construction in quantum groups [@ChaVai:double], [@Vai:double], [@Vai:double1] and an analogue of the Delsart construction for quantum hypergroup. We also give here sufficient conditions for an authomorphism of the initial group (or a certain automorphism constructed from it) to be an automorphism of the corresponding twisted Kac algebra. Section 4 contains five series of nontrivial examples of finite-dimensional Delsart quantum hypergroups associated with twistings of the classical series of finite groups.
I am deeply grateful to L. I. Vainerman and Yu. A. Chapovsky for many stimulating discussions.
1. Preliminaries {#preliminaries .unnumbered}
----------------
Let $(A,\cdot ,1,*)$ be a separable unital $C^*$-algebra. We denote by $A\otimes A$ the injective or projective $C^*$-tensor square of $A$. We will call $(A,\Delta ,\epsilon,\star)$ a [*hypergroup structure*]{} on the $C^*$-algebra $(A,\cdot ,1,*)$ if:
- $(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\star)$ is a $\star$-coalgebra with a counit $\epsilon$, i.e. $\Delta:A\to A\otimes
A$ and $\epsilon:A\to {\bf C}$ are linear mappings, $\star:A\to A$ is an antilinear mapping such that $$\begin{aligned}
&
(\Delta\otimes id)\circ \Delta=
(id\otimes \Delta)\circ \Delta,&
\label{co1}\\
&(\epsilon\otimes id)\circ \Delta=
(id\otimes \epsilon)\circ \Delta=id,&
\label{co2}\\
&\Delta\circ \star =\Sigma\circ ( \star \otimes
\star )\circ \Delta,&\label{co3}\\
&\star \circ \star =id,&\label{co4}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma:A\otimes A\to A\otimes A$ is the flip $\Sigma(a_1\otimes a_2)=a_2\otimes a_1$;
- the mapping $\Delta:A\to A\otimes A$ is positive, i.e. it maps the cone of positive elements of $A$ into the cone of positive elements of $A\otimes A$;
- the following identities hold $$\begin{aligned}
&
(a\cdot b)^\star=a^\star\cdot b^\star ,\qquad
\Delta\circ *=(*\otimes *)\circ \Delta,
&\label{hy:1}\\[2mm]
&
\epsilon(a\cdot b)=\epsilon(a)\epsilon(b),
\qquad
\Delta(1)=1\otimes 1,
&\label{hy:2}\\[2mm]
&
\star \circ *=*\circ \star.
&\label{hy:3}
\end{aligned}$$
[**1.2.**]{} Let $(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\star)$ be a hypergroup structure on a $C^*$-algebra $A$. By $A'$ we denote the set of all continuous linear functionals on the $C^*$-algebra $A$. For $\xi,\eta\in A' $ we define a product $\cdot $ and an involution $^+$ by $$\label{fun_alg}
\begin{array}{c}
(\xi\cdot \eta)(a)=(\xi\otimes \eta)\delta(a),\\[2mm]
\xi^+(a)=\overline {\xi(a^\star )},
\end{array}$$ $a\in A$, with the norm given by $$\label{fun_norm}
\|\xi\|=\sup_{\|a\|=1}|\xi(a)|.$$ Then $A'$ is a unital Banach $\ast$-algebra.
A state $\mu\in A' $ is called a [*Haar measure*]{} (with respect to the hypergroup structure) if $$\label{inv_int}
(\mu\otimes id)\circ \Delta(a)=(id\otimes
\mu)\circ \Delta(a)=\mu(a)1$$ for all $a\in A$.
Let $(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\star)$ be a hypergroup structure on the $C^*$-algebra $A$. An element $a\in A$ is called [*positive definite*]{} if $$\label{pos_def}
\xi\cdot \xi^+(a)\geq 0$$ for all $\xi\in A'$.
[**1.3. Theorem**]{} ([@ChaVai]). [*Let $(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\star)$ be a hypergroup structure on a $C^*$-algebra $A$. Suppose that the linear space spanned by positive definite elements is dense in $A$. Then there exists a Haar measure $\mu$, it is unique, and $\mu^+=\mu$.*]{}
[**1.4.**]{} Suppose that $(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\star )$ is a hypergroup structure on a $C^*$-algebra $(A,\cdot ,1,*)$ and $\mu$ is the corresponding Haar measure. We call ${\cal A}=(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\star ,\sigma_t,\mu)$ a [*compact quantum hypergroup*]{} if
- the mapping $\Delta$ is completely positive and the linear span of positive definite elements is dense in $A$;
- $\sigma_t$, $t\in {\Bbb R}$, is a continuous one-parameter group of automorphisms of $A$ such that
- there exist dense subalgebras $A_0 \subset A$ and $\tilde{A_0} \subset A\otimes A$ such that the one-parameter groups $\sigma_t$ and $\sigma_t\otimes \ \mbox{id}$, $\ \mbox{id}\otimes \sigma_t$ can be extended to complex one-parameter groups $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_z\otimes \ \mbox{id}$, $\ \mbox{id}\otimes \sigma_z$, $z\in{\Bbb C}$, of automorphisms of the algebras $A_0$ and $\tilde{A_0}$ respectively;
- $A_0$ is invariant with respect to $*$ and $\star $, and $\Delta(A_0)\subset \tilde{A_0}$;
- the following relations hold on $A_0$ for all $z\in {\Bbb C}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\displaystyle
\Delta\circ \sigma_z=(\sigma_z\otimes
\sigma_z)\circ \Delta,
&\label{s_d}\\
&\displaystyle
\mu(\sigma_z(a))=\mu(a);\label{s_inv_int}
&
\end{aligned}$$
- there exists $z_0\in {\Bbb C}$ such that the Haar measure $\mu$ satisfies the following strong invariance condition for all $a,b\in
A_0$: $$\label{s_inv}
(id \otimes \mu)\bigl[\bigl(( *\circ
\sigma_{z_0}\circ \star \otimes
id)\circ \Delta(a)\bigr)\cdot(1\otimes
b)\bigr] =(id\otimes
\mu)\bigr((1\otimes
a)\cdot\Delta(b)\bigr);$$
- the Haar measure $\mu$ is faithful on $A_0$.
It will be convenient to denote $$\label{k}
\kappa=*\circ \sigma_{z_0}\circ \star$$ and call it an [*antipode*]{}. Then for all $a, b \in A_0$, $$\label{k_prop}
\begin{array}{c}
\kappa(ab)=\kappa(b)\kappa(a),\qquad \delta\circ
\kappa=\Pi\circ (\kappa\otimes \kappa)\circ \delta,
\\ [2mm]
\nu\circ \kappa=\nu,\qquad \kappa(1)=1,\qquad
\epsilon\circ \kappa=\epsilon.
\end{array}$$ Note that $\kappa$ is invertible with $\kappa^{-1}=\star \circ
\sigma_{-z_0}\circ *$.
With such a notation, relation (\[s\_inv\]) becomes $$\label{s_inv_int'}
(id \otimes \mu)\bigl(( \kappa
\otimes
id)\circ \Delta(a)\cdot(1\otimes
b)\bigr) =(id\otimes
\mu)\bigr((1\otimes
a)\cdot\Delta(b)\bigr).$$
[**1.5.**]{} Compact quantum groups are quantum hypergroups. In detail, let ${\cal A} = (A,\Delta, \epsilon, \kappa)$ be a compact matrix pseudogroup with $A_0$ being the involutive subalgebra generated by matrix elements of the fundamental corepresentation [@Wor]. We will use the following notations $$\label{conv}
\xi\cdot a=(id\otimes \xi)\circ \Delta(a),\qquad
a\cdot \xi=(\xi\otimes id)\circ \Delta(a),\qquad
\xi\cdot \eta=(\xi\otimes \eta)\circ \Delta$$ for $\xi,\eta\in A'$ and $a\in A$. It readily follows from (\[conv\]) that $$\label{conv_ass}
\xi\,.\,(\eta\,.\,a)=(\xi\cdot \eta)\,.\,a,\qquad
(a\,.\,\eta)\,.\,\xi=a\,.\,(\eta\cdot \xi).$$
Let $U^\alpha=(u^\alpha_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{d_\alpha}$ be an irreducible unitary corepresentation of $A$. Then there exists a unique, up to a positive constant, positive definite matrix $M^\alpha=(m^\alpha_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{d_\alpha}$ such that $$\label{def:F}
M^\alpha\cdot U^\alpha=S^2(U^\alpha)\cdot M^\alpha,$$ where $\cdot $ here denotes the usual matrix multiplication [@Wor].
For each $z\in {\Bbb C}$, we denote by $m_{ij}^{\alpha (z)}$ the matrix elements of the matrix $(M^\alpha)^z$. It is known that there exists a one-parameter family of homomorphisms $f_z:A_0\to{\Bbb
C}$, $z\in {\Bbb C}$, where, as before, $A_0$ denotes the $*$-subalgebra generated by matrix elements of the fundamental corepresentation. These homomorphisms are defined by $$\label{def:f}
f_z(u^\alpha_{ij})=m^{\alpha(z)}_{ij}$$ and possess the following properties [@Wor]:
- $f_z(1)=1$ for all $z\in {\Bbb C}$;
- $f_z\cdot f_{z'}=f_{z+z'}$ and $f_0=\epsilon$;
- $f_z(\kappa(a))=f_{-z}(a)$;
- $f_z(a^*)=\overline {f_{-\overline z}(a)}$;
- $\kappa^2(a)=f_{-1}\cdot a\cdot f_1$;
- $\mu(a\cdot b)=\mu(b\cdot (f_1\cdot a\cdot f_1))$, where $\mu$ is the Haar measure on the compact quantum group $A$.
It was shown in [@ChaVai] that $(A, \Delta, \epsilon, \star, \sigma_t)$ is quantum hypergroup, where the mapping $\star :A_0\to A_0$ is defined by $$\label{def:star}
a^\star =f_{-1/2}\cdot S(a)^*\cdot f_{1/2},$$ the action of the group $\sigma_t$ is defined by $$\label{Wor:sigma}
\sigma_t (a) = f_{it}\cdot a\cdot f_{-it}$$ and $z_0 = -\frac 1 2 i$.
[**1.6.**]{} Here we briefly discuss the case of usual compact hypergroups, or equivalently, normal hypercomplex systems with basis unity ([@BK]). Let ${\cal A}$ be a commutative compact quantum hypergroup. Let $Q$ denote the spectrum of the commutative $C^*$-algebra $A$. Each element $\xi\in Q$ defines a linear operator on $A$ given by $$\label{def:gto}
R_\xi=(id\otimes \xi)\circ \Delta.$$ The operators $R_\xi$, $\xi\in Q$, constitute a family of generalized translation operators on $A\cong C(Q)$. For $\xi\in Q$ and $a\in A_0$, we define $$\label{char*}
\xi^\dagger(a)=\overline {\xi(a^\dagger)},$$ where $$\label{a*}
a^\dagger=\kappa(a)^* .$$ From the definition of $a^\dagger$, it immediately follows that $\xi^\dagger$ is a homomorphism $A_0\to {\Bbb C}$ and, hence, continuous. Being extended by continuity to $A$, it becomes a point in $Q$. In [@ChaVai] it was established that $Q$ is a basis of a normal hypercomplex system $L_1(Q,\mu)$ with a basis unit $\epsilon$.
[**1.7. Preliminary on twisting of Kac algebras.**]{} We recall the construction of a twisting of Kac algebras following [@EnVai], [@Vai:twist]. For our purposes, it suffices to deal only with the case of finite dimensional Kac algebras.
Let ${\cal A} = (A,
\Delta, \varepsilon, \kappa)$ be a finite dimensional Kac algebra. A [*2-cocycle*]{} of $A$ is a unitary $\Omega$ in $A\otimes A$ such that $$(\Omega\otimes 1)(\Delta\otimes
\ \mbox{id})(\Omega)=(1\otimes\Omega)(\ \mbox{id}\otimes
\Delta)(\Omega).$$ A [*2-pseudo-cocycle*]{} of $A$ is a unitary $\Omega$ in $A\otimes A$ such that $$\partial_2 \Omega = (\ \mbox{id}\otimes\Delta)(\Omega^*)
(1\otimes\Omega^*)(\Omega\otimes 1)(\Delta\otimes \ \mbox{id})(\Omega)$$ belongs to $(\Delta\otimes \ \mbox{id})\Delta (A)'$ ([@EnVai], 2.3). Let us put, for all $x$ in $A$ : $$\Delta_\Omega (x)=\Omega\Delta (x)\Omega^* .$$ Then $\Delta_\Omega$ is coassociative iff $\Omega$ is a 2-pseudo-cocycle of $A$; and we shall say that $\Delta_\Omega$ is [*twisted*]{} from $\Delta$ by $\Omega$.
For a unitary $u\in A$, let us put $\Omega^u = (u^*\otimes u^*)\Omega\Delta(u)$. Then $\Omega^u$ is a 2(-pseudo)-cocycle iff $\Omega$ is. Let $\Sigma(x\otimes y)=y\otimes x$ be the flip in $A\otimes A$. We shall say that a 2(-pseudo)-cocycle $\Omega$ is [*pseudo-co-involutive*]{} (resp., [*co-involutive*]{}) if $\Omega^u(\Sigma(\kappa\otimes\kappa)(\Omega^*))^*\in \Delta(A)'$ (resp.,$\Sigma(\kappa\otimes\kappa)(\Omega^*)=
\Omega^u)$. We shall say that $\Omega$ is [*strongly co-involutive*]{}, if $\Sigma(\kappa\otimes\kappa)(\Omega^*)=\Omega$. It should be noted that each [*counital*]{} 2-cocycle $\Omega$ of a finite dimensional Kac algebra (i. e. such that $(\varepsilon\otimes\ \mbox{id})\Omega = (\ \mbox{id}\otimes\varepsilon)\Omega = 1$) is coinvolutive with $u = m(\ \mbox{id}\otimes\kappa)\Omega = \kappa (u)$ and $\varepsilon(u) = 1$ (here $m$ denotes the multiplication in the algebra $A$). If $\Omega$ is a (pseudo)-co-involutive 2(-pseudo)-cocycle of a Kac algebra $A$, then the coalgebra $(A, \Delta_\Omega)$ possesses a coinvolution of the form $\kappa_\Omega (x) = u\kappa(x)u^*$. If $\Omega$ is a strongly coinvolutive 2-cocycle of a Kac algebra $A$, then $\kappa$ is a coinvolution of the coalgebra $(A, \Delta_\Omega)$.
Let $G$ be a finite group and $H$ be its Abelian subgroup. Let ${\Bbb C}(G)$ be the $C^*$-algebra generated by the left regular representation $\lambda$ of $G$. Then ${\Bbb C}(G)$ has a standart structure of cocommutative Kac algebra $({\Bbb C}(G), \Delta, \kappa, \mu)$, where $\Delta(\lambda(g)) = \lambda(g)\otimes\lambda(g)$, $\kappa(\lambda(g)) =
\lambda(g^{-1})$, $\mu(\lambda(f)) = f(e)$, $g\in G$ and $f$ is a continuous function on $G$. Denote by $\hat H$ the dual group of $H$. Then there exists a family of projections $P_{\hat h}$ generating an Abelian subalgebra ${\Bbb C}(H)$ in ${\Bbb C} (G)$ such that $$P_{\hat h}P_{\hat g}=\delta_{\hat h, \hat g}P_{\hat h},\
\lambda (h)=\sum_{\hat h\in \hat H}<\hat h, h>P_{\hat h},\
P_{\hat h}={1\over {||H||}}\sum_{h\in H}<\hat h, h>\lambda (h),$$ $$\Delta (P_{\hat h})=\sum_{\hat g\in \hat H}P_{\hat g}\otimes
P_{{\hat g}^{-1}\hat h},\ \kappa(P_{\hat h})=P_{{\hat h}^{-1}},$$ where $g,h\in H,\ \hat g, \hat h\in \hat H,\ ||H||$ is the order of $H$. Using these idempotents, one can write the following formulae for $\Omega$ and $u$: $$\Omega=\sum_{x,y\in\hat H}\omega(x,y)(P_x\otimes P_y),\
u=m(i\otimes\kappa)\Omega=\sum_{x\in\hat H}\omega(x,x^{-1})P_x,$$ where $\omega:\hat H \times \hat H \to{\Bbb T}$ is a 2-(pseudo)-cocycle. If $\omega$ is a 2-cocycle, then so is $\Omega$, but if $\omega$ is only a 2-pseudo-cocycle on $\hat H$, one should verify that $\Omega$ is a 2-pseudo-cocycle on $({\Bbb C}(G),\ \Delta,\ \kappa)$. If it is, and it is at least pseudo-coinvolutive, then we have already a new finite dimensional coinvolutive coalgebra. If it has a counit, then it is a Kac algebra. For this, one should choose $\omega$ to be counital, $\omega(e,x)=\omega(x,e)=1\ \forall x\in H$, which gives the counitality of $\Omega$.
2. Conditional expectations on quantum hypergroups {#conditional-expectations-on-quantum-hypergroups .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------
Let $(A,\Delta,\epsilon,\star ,\sigma_t,\mu)$ be a compact quantum hypergroup and $\kappa$ be the antipod defined by (\[k\]). Let $B$ be a unital $C^*$-subalgebra of $A$ and $P: A \to B$ be a corresponding $\mu$-invariant conditional expectation [@cond_exp] (i. e. $\mu\circ P = \mu$). The following Theorem 2.1 states that, under some conditions, we can define, on the algebra $B$, a new comultiplication $\tilde\Delta$ such that $(B, \tilde\Delta, \epsilon, \star,\sigma_t, \mu)$ is a compact quantum hypergroup.
[**2.1. Theorem.**]{}
*Let ${\cal A}$ be a compact quantum hypergroup, $B$ an unital $C^*$-subalgebra of a $C^*$-algebra $A$ and $P: A \to B$ a $\mu$-invariant conditional expectation. Then, let us put for all $x \in B$, $$\label{_Delta}
\tilde\Delta (x) = (P\otimes P) \Delta (x).$$ Suppose that the following conditions hold:*
- $(P\otimes P)\Delta (x) = (P\otimes P)\Delta (P(x))$ (or, equivalently, $\ker P$ is a coideal in $A$),
- $P\circ\star = \star\circ P$,
- the dense subalgebras $A_0 \subset A$ and $\tilde{A_0}\subset A\otimes A$ are invariant under $P$ and $P\otimes P$, respectively, and $P\circ\sigma_z =
\sigma_z\circ P$ for all $z\in {\Bbb C}$,
- the mapping $\epsilon$ is a counit of the coalgebra $(B, \tilde\Delta )$, i. e., the relation $$(\epsilon\otimes id)\circ \Delta=(id\otimes \epsilon)\circ \Delta=id$$ holds.
Then $(B, \tilde\Delta, \varepsilon,\star ,\sigma_t,\mu)$ is a compact quantum hypergroup.
[**Proof.**]{} First we prove that $(B, \tilde\Delta, \epsilon,\star )$ is a hypergroup structure. Using the first condition of the theorem, we have for all $x\in B$ $$\begin{aligned}
(\tilde\Delta\otimes \ \mbox{id})\tilde\Delta (x)
&=& (P\otimes P\otimes \ \mbox{id})(\Delta\otimes \ \mbox{id})(P\otimes P)\Delta(x)\\
&=& (\ \mbox{id}\otimes \ \mbox{id}\otimes P)((P\otimes P) \circ \Delta \circ P \otimes \ \mbox{id})\Delta(x) \\
&=& (P\otimes P\otimes P)(\Delta\otimes \ \mbox{id})\Delta(x)\\
&=& (P\otimes P\otimes P)(\ \mbox{id}\otimes \Delta)\Delta(x)
= (\ \mbox{id} \otimes \tilde\Delta)\tilde\Delta (x),\end{aligned}$$ i.e., the mapping $\tilde\Delta : B \to B\otimes B$ is coassociative. Relation (\[co2\]) follows from Condition 4 and relations (\[co3\]), (\[co4\]) easily follow from the second condition of the theorem. The mapping $\tilde\Delta $ is completely positive since $P$ is completely positive and $\Delta$ is a homomorphism. Finally, identities (\[hy:1\])-(\[hy:3\]) are obvious.
Let $A',\ B' $ be the spaces of continuous linear functionals on $A,\ B$, respectively, equipped with the multiplications $$\left<\xi\cdot\eta, a\right> = \left<\xi\otimes\eta, \Delta (a)\right>\qquad (\xi,\eta \in A'; a \in A)$$ and $$\left<\xi'\cdot\eta', b\right> = \left<\xi'\otimes\eta', \tilde\Delta (b)\right> \qquad (\xi',\eta' \in B'; b \in B).$$ In order to show that the linear span of positive definite elements is dense in $B$, let us define a mapping $P': B' \to A'$ as follows: $$\label{P'}
\left< P'\xi,\ a\right> = \left< \xi,\ Pa\right>,$$ where $a\in A, \xi \in B'$. If $a\in A$ is a positive definite element then $Pa\in B$ is a positive definite element (with respect to $\tilde\Delta$). Indeed, for all $\xi\in B'$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left<\xi\cdot\xi^+, P a\right>
&=& \left<\xi\otimes\overline{\xi}, (id\otimes \star)(P\otimes P)\Delta (P a)\right>\\
&=& \left<\xi\otimes\overline{\xi}, (P\otimes P)(id\otimes \star)\Delta (a)\right>\\
&=& \left<P' \xi\otimes\overline{P' \xi}, (id\otimes \star)\Delta (a)\right> \geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ because $\left<\eta\cdot \eta^+, a\right> =
\left<\eta\otimes\overline{\eta}, (id\otimes \star)\Delta (a)\right> \geq 0$ for all $\eta\in A'$. So the axiom ($QH_1$) holds for the hypergroup structure $(B, \tilde\Delta, \epsilon,\star )$. Since the linear span of $\{P a \in B\ |\ a \ \mbox{is positive definite in}\ A\}$ is dense in $B$, we get the result.
Define $B_0 = P A_0$ and $\tilde{B_0} = P\otimes P (\tilde{A_0})$. Conditions 2 and 3 of the theorem imply that $B_0$ and $\tilde{B_0}$ are dense subalgebras of $B$ and $B\otimes B$, respectively, such that axioms ($QH_2$)(a) - ($QH_2$)(c) hold.
Let us check the remaining axioms. The faithful state $\mu$ is a Haar measure of the hypergroup structure $(B,\tilde\Delta, \epsilon, \star) $, since $P$ is $\mu$-invariant. Let us show that $\mu$ is strongly invariant with respect to $\tilde\Delta$, i.e. relation (\[s\_inv\_int’\]) holds for the hypergroup structure $(B,\tilde\Delta, \epsilon, \star)$. It follows from Conditions 2 and 3 of the theorem, that $P$ commutes with the antipode $\kappa $ defined by (\[k\]). Using this fact, the fact that a Haar measure in a quantum hypergroup ${\cal A}$ is strongly invariant, and since $P$ is $\mu$-invariant, we have for all $a, b \in B$ that $$\begin{aligned}
& &(id\otimes\mu)[((\kappa\otimes id)\circ\tilde\Delta (a))\cdot(1\otimes b)]\\
&=& (id\otimes\mu)[((P\otimes P)\circ(\kappa\otimes id)\circ\Delta (a))\cdot(1\otimes b)] \\
&=& (id\otimes\mu)\circ (P\otimes P)[((\kappa\otimes id)\circ\Delta (a))\cdot(1\otimes b)]\\
&=& (P\otimes\mu)[((\kappa\otimes id)\circ\Delta (a))\cdot(1\otimes b)] \\
&=& (P\otimes\mu)[(1\otimes a)\cdot\Delta (b))]
= (id\otimes\mu)[(P\otimes P)((1\otimes a)\cdot\Delta (b)] \\
&=& (id\otimes\mu)[(1\otimes a)\cdot\tilde\Delta (b)].\end{aligned}$$$\Box$
[**2.2. Remark.**]{} We can simplify the hypothesis of Theorem 2.1 in case when ${\cal A}$ is a compact quantum group. Indeed, let ${\cal A} = (A, \Delta, \epsilon, \kappa)$ be a compact matrix pseudogroup with $A_0$ being the $\ast$-subalgebra generated by matrix elements of the fundamental corepresentation. Let $\mu$ be its Haar measure and $P: A\to B$ be a $\mu$-invariant conditional expectation that maps to a unital $C^*$-subalgebra $B$ of $A$. Let us define a new comultiplication $\tilde\Delta$ on $B$ in accordance with (\[\_Delta\]). Then the statement of Theorem 2.1 remains true if we replace the hypothesis 2 and 3 with the following condition:
- $A_0$ is invariant with respect to $P$ and $\kappa \circ P = P\circ\kappa$.
[**Proof.**]{} In this case we have that $\tilde{A_0}\subset A_0\otimes A_0$ and we only need to prove that $P$ commutes with $\star$ and $\sigma_t$. Using property $(F_5)$ of $f_z$ we have for all $a\in A_0$, $$P(f_{-1}\cdot a\cdot f_{1}) = P(\kappa^2 (a)) = \kappa^2 (P(a)) = f_{-1}\cdot Pa\cdot f_1,$$ whence $P(f_{-n}\cdot a\cdot f_n) = f_{-n}\cdot Pa\cdot f_n$ for all $n\in {\Bbb N}$. Since $f_z (a)$ is an entire function of exponential growth on the right half-plane for all $a\in A_0$, the vector-valued function $$f_{-z}\cdot u^\alpha_{kl}\cdot f_z = \sum_{r, s} f_{z}(\kappa(u^\alpha_{kr})) u^\alpha_{rs} f_z (u^\alpha_{sl})$$ is entire of exponential growth on the right half-plane in the weak sence, and we obtain (cf. [@Wor], Lemma 5.5) that $P(f_{-z}\cdot a\cdot f_z) =
(f_{-z}\cdot Pa\cdot f_z)$ for all $z\in {\Bbb C}$ and $a\in A_0 $, whence it follows from (\[Wor:sigma\]) that $P$ commutes with $\sigma_z$, $z\in {\Bbb C}$. Also, for $a\in A_0$ by using (\[def:star\]), we have $P(a^\star) = P(f_{-1/2}\cdot \kappa(a)^*\cdot f_{1/2}) =
f_{-1/2}\cdot P((\kappa(a))^*)\cdot f_{1/2} = f_{-1/2}\cdot (\kappa(Pa))^*\cdot f_{1/2} =
(Pa)^\star$. $\Box$
In order to clarify Condition 4 of Theorem 2.1, we establish sufficient conditions for the mapping $\epsilon $ be a counit of the coalgebra $(B,\tilde\Delta)$. The following Remark 2.3 is quite transparent, but its condition does not hold in some examples. Therefore, we establish Proposition 2.4 with less restrictive conditions on $\epsilon$ in the case where ${\cal A}$ is a finite dimensional Kac algebra (finite dimensional quantum groups are, in fact, Kac algebras [@Wor]).
[**2.3. Remark.**]{} Let a $\mu$-invariant conditional expectation $P: A\to B$ on a compact quantum hypergroup ${\cal A}$ satisfy Condition 1 of Theorem 2.1. If the mapping $\epsilon : A \to {\Bbb C}$ satisfies the relation $\epsilon \circ P = \epsilon$, then the mapping $\epsilon : B\to {\Bbb C}$ is a counit of the coalgebra $(B, \tilde\Delta)$, i. e. (\[co2\]) holds.
[**2.4. Proposition.**]{}
*Let a $\mu$-invariant conditional expectation $P: A\to B$ on a finite dimensional Kac algebra ${\cal A}$ satisfy Condition 1 of Theorem 2.1. Denote by $p_{\epsilon}$ the one-dimensional central projection in $A$ such that the relation $a p_{\epsilon} = \epsilon (a) p_{\epsilon}$ holds for all $a\in A$. Let the following conditions hold for all $b\in B$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p_epsilon1}
(P\otimes P) [(p_{\epsilon}\otimes 1)\cdot\Delta(b)]
&=&(P\otimes P) [(P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes 1)\cdot\Delta(b)]\\
\label{p_epsilon2}
(P\otimes P) [(1 \otimes p_{\epsilon})\cdot\Delta(b)]
&=&(P\otimes P) [(1 \otimes P(p_{\epsilon}))\cdot\Delta(b)].
\end{aligned}$$ Then the mapping $\epsilon : B\to {\Bbb C}$ is a counit of the finite dimensional coalgebra $(B, \tilde\Delta)$.*
[**Proof.**]{} First we prove that relations (\[co2\]) hold if and only if, for all $b\in B$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p_eps1}
(P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes 1)\tilde\Delta (b) &=& P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes b,\\
\label{p_eps2}
(1 \otimes P(p_{\epsilon}))\tilde\Delta (b) &=& b\otimes P(p_{\epsilon}).\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, from (\[p\_eps1\]) with the usual tensor notation $\tilde\Delta (b) = b_{(1)}\otimes b_{(2)}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes b &=& (P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes 1)\tilde\Delta (b)
= P(p_{\epsilon} b_{(1)})\otimes b_{(2)} \\
&=& \epsilon (b_{(1)})P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes b_{(2)}
= P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes \epsilon (b_{(1)})b_{(2)}\\
&=& P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes (\epsilon\otimes id)\tilde\Delta (b).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we have $b \otimes P(p_{\epsilon}) = (id\otimes \epsilon)\tilde\Delta (b)\otimes P(p_{\epsilon}).$ The converse statement follows by similar arguments.
Now by using (\[p\_epsilon1\]) we get (\[p\_eps1\]): $$\begin{aligned}
(P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes 1)\tilde\Delta (b)
&=& (P\otimes P) [(P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes 1)\cdot\Delta(b)]\\
&=& (P\otimes P) [(p_{\epsilon}\otimes 1)\cdot\Delta(b)]
= (P\otimes P) [(p_{\epsilon}\otimes b]\\
&=& P(p_{\epsilon})\otimes b.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, (\[p\_eps2\]) follows from (\[p\_epsilon2\]).$\Box$
[**2.5. Lemma.**]{} [*Let ${\cal A}$ be a compact quantum hypergroup and all hypothesis of Theorem 2.1 hold for a conditional expectation $P: A\to B$. Let $P': B'\to A'$ be defined by (\[P’\]). Then $P'$ is a $\ast$-homomorphism.* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} For any $\eta, \eta_1, \eta_2 \in B'$ and $a\in A$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left< P'(\eta_1\cdot\eta_2), a\right> &=& \left< \eta_1\cdot\eta_2, Pa\right>
= \left< \eta_1\otimes\eta_2, \tilde\Delta (Pa)\right>\\
&=& \left< \eta_1\otimes\eta_2, (P\otimes P) \Delta (Pa)\right>
= \left< \eta_1\otimes\eta_2, (P\otimes P) \Delta (a)\right> \\
&=& \left< P'(\eta_1)\otimes P'(\eta_2), \Delta (a)\right>
= \left< P'(\eta_1)\cdot P'(\eta_2), a\right>;\\
\left< P'(\eta^+), a\right> &=& \overline{\left< \eta, P(a)^\star\right>}
=\overline{\left< \eta, P(a^\star)\right>} = \left< (P'\eta)^+, a\right>.\end{aligned}$$ $\Box$
[**2.6.**]{} In what follows we discuss conditional expectations on usual hypergroups and a construction of orbital morphisms [@Jew]. For simplicity, we consider only the case of compact hypergroups. Let $Q$ be a compact DJS-hypergroup with involution $Q\ni p\mapsto p^\dagger \in Q$, comultiplication $\Delta : C(Q) \to C(Q)\otimes C(Q)$, neutral element (counit) $e$ and Haar measure $\mu$, and let $Y$ be a compact Hausdorff space. Let $\phi$ be an open continuous mapping from $Q$ onto $Y$ (orbital mapping). The closed sets $\phi^{-1} (y)$, $y\in Y$, are called [*$\phi$-orbits*]{}. Let $B$ be a $C^*$-subalgebra of $C(Q)$ consisting of functions constant on $\phi$-orbits. Obviously, a mapping $\phi : C(Y) \to B$ defined by $(\phi f)(x) = f(\phi (x))$ is an isomorphism of the $C^*$-algebras. Denote by $\phi_\ast : M(Q) \to M(Y)$ the corresponding mapping of Radon measures, $\left< \phi_\ast (\mu), f\right> =
\left< \mu, f\circ \phi \right>$, $\mu\in M(Q),\ f\in C(Y)$. The measure $\mu\in M(Q)$ is called [*$\phi$-consistent*]{}, if $\phi_\ast (\mu\ast\nu) = 0 = \phi_\ast (\nu\ast\mu)$ whenever $\phi_\ast (\nu) = 0$. The following proposition clarifies the concept of $\phi$-consistency.
[**2.7. Proposition.**]{}
*Let $\phi: Q\to Y$ be an orbital mapping and denote $\tilde e = \phi (e)$. Suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:*
- $\phi^{-1}(\tilde e) = \{e\}$,
- if $A$ is $\phi$-orbit then so is $A^\dagger$,
- for any $y\in Y$ there exists a probability measure $q_y \in M(Q)$ such that $\ \mbox{supp}\ q_y \subset \phi^{-1}(y)$,
- each measure $q_y$ is $\phi$-consistent.
Define the linear mapping $P: C(Q) \to B$ as follows: $$\label{P:orb}
(P f)(x) = \left< q_{\phi(x)}, f\right>.$$ Then $P$ is a conditional expectation and satisfies all hypothesis of Theorem 2.1. Conversely, if conditions $(a)$–$(c)$ hold and the linear mapping $P$ defined by (\[P:orb\]) is a conditional expectation from $C(Q)$ to $B$ satisfying all hypothesis of Theorem 2.1, then each $q_y$ is $\phi$-consistent.
[**Proof.**]{} By virtue of $(b)$ we can define an involutive homeomorphism $\dagger: Y\to Y$ as follows: if $y=\phi(x)$, then $y^\dagger = \phi (x^\dagger)$. Theorem 13.5A in [@Jew] states that there exists a unique convolution $\ast$ in $M(Y)$ such that $Y$ is a hypergroup and $\phi$ is an orbital morphism, i. e.,
- $\delta_y \ast \delta_z = \phi_* (q_y\ast q_z)$ for any $y, z \in Y$,
- $q_{y^\dagger} = (q_y)^\dagger$,
- $\ \mbox{supp}\ q_y = \phi^{-1}(y)$ and $$\label{recomp}
m = \int_Q q_{\phi(x)} m(dx),$$ where $m$ is a Haar measure on the hypergroup $Q$.
Thus we can define a mapping $\phi^*: M(Y)\to M(Q)$ by setting $\phi^* (\delta_y) = q_y$ and $$\phi^* (\nu) = \int_Y q_z \ \nu(dz),$$ for $y\in Y$ and $\nu\in M(Y)$. In virtue of Lemma 13.6A in [@Jew], the orbital morphism $\phi$ is consistent, i. e. the mapping $\phi^*$ is a $\ast$-homomorphism. It also follows from the proof of Theorem 13.5A cited above that the mapping $Y\ni y\mapsto q_y \in M(q)$ is continuous in the weak topology. Thus $P$ is well-defined and is, indeed, a conditional expectation. Let $f\in \ker P$. Then $\left<q_z, f\right> = 0$ for all $z\in Y$, and for $x_1, x_2 \in Q$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
((P\otimes P) \Delta f)(x_1, x_2) &=&
\left<q_{\phi(x_1)}\otimes q_{\phi(x_2)}, \Delta f\right>\\
&=& \left<q_{\phi(x_1)}\ast q_{\phi(x_2)}, f\right>
= \left<\phi^*(\delta_{\phi(x_1)})\ast \phi^*(\delta_{\phi(x_2)}), f\right> \\
&=& \left<\phi^*(\delta_{\phi(x_1)}\ast \delta_{\phi(x_2)}), f\right>
= \int_Y \left<q_z, f\right>\ (\delta_{\phi(x_1)}\ast \delta_{\phi(x_2)})(dz) \\
&=& \int_Y (Pf)(\phi(x)) \ (\delta_{\phi(x_1)}\ast \delta_{\phi(x_2)})(dz)=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $x\in\phi^{-1}(z)$. Hence, $\ker P$ is a coideal. In virtue of (iii), $P$ is $m$-invariant and the fourth condition of Theorem 2.1 follows from $(a)$. At last, the equality $P\circ\dagger = \dagger\circ P$ follows from $(b)$ (note that, for usual hypergroups, $f^\star (x) = \overline{f(x^\dagger)}$ and $\sigma_{z} = id$).
Let us prove the converse statement. Define the convolution in $M(Y)$ in accordance with (i). Since $B$ is isomorfic to $C(Y)$, it follows from Theorem 2.1 that $Y$ is a DJS-hypergroup. To prove the result, we need to show that $\phi$ is a consistent orbital morphism. Then the result follows from Theorem 13.6B in [@Jew]. Indeed, (ii) follows from $(b)$ and equality (\[recomp\]) follows from the fact that $P$ is $m$-invariant. Let us show that $\ \mbox{supp}\ q_y = \phi^{-1} (y)$. Suppose that $x_0\in \phi^{-1} (y)$ and $x_0 \not\in \ \mbox{supp}\ q_y$. Then there exists an open neighborhood $O_{x_0}$ of $x_0$ such that $O_{x_0}\cap\ \mbox{supp}\ q_y = \varnothing$. Let $f\in C(Q)$ be a positive function such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x) = 1$ for $x\in Q\backslash O_{x_0}$. Since $P f \in C(Q)$ and $(Pf)(x_0) = \left<q_y, f\right> = 1$, one can find, for an arbitrary $0 < \varepsilon < 1/2$, an open neighborhood $V \subset O_{x_0}$ of $x_0$ such that $f(x)<\epsilon$ and $(Pf)(x)>1-\varepsilon$ for $x\in V$. Denote by $i_V$ the indicator of $V$. Since $$\left< q_{\phi(x)}, i_V f\right> = \int_{V} f(t) q_{\phi(x)} (dt)
\geq (1-\varepsilon) q_{\phi(x)}(V),$$ we have, by using (\[recomp\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon m(V)&\geq & \int_{V} f(x) m(dx) =
\int_Q \left< q_{\phi(x)}, i_V f\right> m(dx)\\
&\geq& (1-\varepsilon)\int_{Q} q_{\phi(x)} (V) m(dx) = (1-\varepsilon) m(V).\end{aligned}$$ Since $m$ is positive on open sets, we have that $\ \mbox{supp}\ q_y = \phi^{-1} (y)$. The fact that the orbital morphism $\phi$ is consistent follows from Lemma 2.5. $\Box$
[**2.8. Remark.**]{} The first condition of Theorem 2.1 is not necessary for coassociativity of $\tilde\Delta$. Indeed, the decomposition of ${\Bbb Z}_6 = \{0\}\cup\{1, 2\}\cup\{3\}\cup\{4, 5\}$ on $\phi$-orbits is a DJS-hypergroup, but $\tilde\Delta(\delta_1-\delta_2) \neq 0 $, although $\delta_1-\delta_2 \in \ker P$.
3. Quantum double cosets and quantum Delsart hypergroups {#quantum-double-cosets-and-quantum-delsart-hypergroups .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------
In this section we use Theorem 2.1 to introduce double cosets of quantum groups [@ChaVai:double], [@Vai:double] and an analogue of Delsart construction for a quantum hypergroup.
[**3.1. Quantum double cosets.**]{} Let ${\cal A}_i = (A_i, \delta_i, \epsilon_i, \kappa_i)\ $, $i=1,2$, be two compact matrix pseudogroups and let $\pi: A_1\to A_2$ be a Hopf $C^*$-algebra epimorphism, i. e. $\pi$ is a $C^*$-algebra epimorphism satisfying $(\pi\otimes\pi)\circ\Delta_1 = \Delta_2\circ\pi$, $\epsilon_2\circ\pi = \epsilon_1$ and also $\pi({A_1}_0) \subset {A_2}_0 $ with $\pi\circ\kappa_1 = \kappa_2\circ\pi$, where ${A_i}_0$ is the $\ast$-subalgebra of $A_i$ generated by matrix elements of the fundamental corepresentation. It was established in [@ChaVai] that $\pi\circ\star =
\star\circ\pi$, where $\star$ is defined by (\[def:star\]), on each $A_i$, $i=1, 2$. Let $\mu_i$ be a Haar measure of ${\cal A}_i$, $i=1, 2$. The algebra $A_1$ possesses a structure of a left (right) comodule with respect to the coactions $\Delta_l (a) = (\pi\otimes \ \mbox{id})\Delta (a)$ (resp., $\Delta_r (a) = (\ \mbox{id}\otimes \pi)\Delta (a)$). Define $$\label{def:inv}
\begin{array}{c}
A_1/A_2=\{a\in A_1:(id\otimes \pi)\circ
\delta(a)=a\otimes 1\},\\[2mm]
A_2\backslash A_1=\{a\in A_1:(\pi\otimes id)\circ
\delta(a)=1\otimes a\},\\[2mm]
A_2\backslash A_1/A_2=A_2\backslash A_1 \bigcap
A_1/A_2.
\end{array}$$ It is immediate that $A_1/A_2$, $A_2\backslash A_1$, $A_2\backslash
A_1/A_2$ are involutive algebras with the unit $1$. Denote by $A^{\rm inv}$ the $C^*$-algebra completion of $A_2\backslash A_1/A_2$.
Define $P = \pi^l\circ\pi^r$, where $\pi^l = (\mu_2\circ\pi\otimes \ \mbox{id})\circ\Delta_1$, $\pi^r = (\ \mbox{id}\otimes \mu_2\circ\pi)\circ\Delta_1$ are commuting projections on $A_1$. Then [*$P: A_1\to A^{\rm inv}$ is a conditional expectation on $A_1$ satisfying hypotheses of Theorem 2.1. Hence ${\cal B} = (A^{\rm inv}, \tilde\Delta, \varepsilon_1, \star ,\sigma_t, \mu_1)$ is a compact quantum hypergroup, where $\sigma_t$ and $\star$ are defined by (\[def:star\]), (\[Wor:sigma\]). Also, for all $b\in A^{\rm inv}$, the following formula for the comultiplication $\tilde\Delta$ holds:*]{} $$\label{GP:delta}
\tilde\Delta (b) = (\ \mbox{id}\ \otimes \mu_2\circ\pi\otimes\ \mbox{id}\ )
(\Delta_1\otimes\ \mbox{id})\Delta_1 (b).$$
Indeed, the projections $\pi^l, \pi^r$ satisfy the equalities $$\label{pi:lr}
(\ \mbox{id}\ \otimes \pi^r)\circ\Delta = \Delta\circ\pi^r,\ \
(\pi^l\otimes \ \mbox{id}\ )\circ\Delta = \Delta\circ\pi^l.$$ By using these equalities and straightforward calculation, one can check that $\ker P$ is a coideal. Formula (\[GP:delta\]) easily follows from (\[pi:lr\]): $$\begin{aligned}
(P\otimes P)\Delta_1 (b) &=& (\pi^r\otimes\pi^l)\circ\Delta_1(\pi^l\circ\pi^r(b))
= (\pi^r\otimes\pi^l)\circ\Delta_1(b)\\
&=& (\pi^r\otimes\ \mbox{id}\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ(\ \mbox{id}\otimes\mu_2
\circ\pi\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ(\ \mbox{id}\otimes\Delta_1)\circ\Delta_1(b)\\
&=& (\pi^r\otimes\ \mbox{id}\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ(\ \mbox{id}\otimes\mu_2
\circ\pi\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ(\Delta_1\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ\Delta_1(b)\\
&=& (\pi^r\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ\Delta_1 (b)
= (\ \mbox{id}\ \otimes \mu_2\circ\pi\otimes\ \mbox{id}\ )\circ
(\Delta_1\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ\Delta_1 (b).\end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that $P$ is $\mu_1$-invariant: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\circ P(a) &=& (\mu_1\otimes\mu_2\circ\pi)\circ\Delta_1\circ(\mu_2\circ\pi\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ\Delta_1(a)\\
&=& (\mu_2\circ\pi\otimes\mu_1\otimes\mu_2\circ\pi)\circ(\ \mbox{id}\otimes\Delta_1)\circ\Delta_1(a)\\
&=& \mu_1(a) (\mu_2\circ\pi\otimes\mu_2\circ\pi)(1\otimes 1) = \mu_1(a).\end{aligned}$$ It is also obvious that $P$ commutes with $\kappa_1$ and that condition (A) of Remark 2.2 holds. In virtue of Remark 2.2 we only need to examine Condition 4 of Theorem 2.1. To prove Condition 4, we have by using (\[GP:delta\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
(\varepsilon_1\otimes\ \mbox{id}\ )\circ\tilde\Delta(a) &=&
(\varepsilon_1\otimes\ \mbox{id}\ )\circ(\ \mbox{id}\otimes\mu_2\circ\pi\otimes\ \mbox{id})
\circ(\Delta_1\otimes\ \mbox{id}\ )\circ\Delta_1(a)\\
&=& (\mu_2\circ\pi\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ(\varepsilon_1\otimes\ \mbox{id}\otimes\ \mbox{id})
\circ(\Delta_1\otimes\ \mbox{id})\circ\Delta_1 (b)\\
&=& (\mu_2\circ\pi\otimes\ \mbox{id})\Delta_1(b)
= \pi^l (b) = b\end{aligned}$$ for all $b\in A_2\backslash A_1/A_2$. Similarly, $(\ \mbox{id}\otimes\varepsilon_1)\circ\tilde\Delta(b) = b$. $\Box$
[**3.2. Remark.**]{} If quantum groups ${\cal A}_1, \ {\cal A}_2$ are finite dimensional, then [*condition 4 of Theorem 2.1 follows from Proposition 2.4.*]{} Indeed, it is obvious that $\pi^l$ (resp. $\pi^r$) is a conditional expectation from $A_1$ to $A_2\backslash A_1$ (resp. to $A_1/A_2$). Conditions (\[p\_epsilon1\]), (\[p\_epsilon2\]) of Proposition 2.4 then follow from the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
(P\otimes P)((a\otimes 1)(\tilde\Delta(b))) &=& (P\otimes P)((Pa\otimes 1)(\tilde\Delta(b)))\\
(P\otimes P)((1\otimes a)(\tilde\Delta(b))) &=& (P\otimes P)((1\otimes Pa)(\tilde\Delta(b))),\end{aligned}$$ which hold for all $b\in A_2\backslash A_1/A_2,\ a\in A_1$. The last relations follows by direct computations from the fact that $\pi^l$ and $\pi^r$ are conditional expectations.
[**3.3. Delsart hypergroups.**]{} Let ${\cal A} = (A, \delta, \epsilon, \kappa)\ $ be a compact matrix pseudogroup and let $\Gamma$ be a compact group of Hopf $C^*$-algebra automorphisms of ${\cal A}$, i. e. each $\gamma\in\Gamma$ is a $C^*$-algebra automorphism satisfying $(\gamma\otimes\gamma)\circ\Delta = \Delta\circ\gamma$, $\epsilon\circ\gamma = \epsilon$ and also $\gamma(A_0) \subset A_0 $ with $\gamma\circ\kappa = \kappa\circ\gamma$, where $A_0$ is the $\ast$-subalgebra of $A$ generated by matrix elements of the fundamental corepresentation. Let $\nu$ be a Haar measure of $\Gamma$ such that $\nu(\Gamma) = 1$. In what follows, we denote integration with respect to $\nu$ by $d\gamma$. Denote by $B=\{b\in A| \gamma(b)=b \}$ the fixed point algebra for the $\Gamma$-action. Define a mapping $P: A\to B$ by $P a = \int_\Gamma \gamma (a)$. Then [*$P$ is a conditional expectation on $A$ satisfying hypothesis of Theorem 2.1. Hence, ${\cal B} = (B, \tilde\Delta, \varepsilon, \star ,\sigma_t,\mu)$ is a compact quantum hypergroup (Delsart hypergroup), where $\sigma_t$ and $\star$ are defined by (\[def:star\]), (\[Wor:sigma\]). Also, for all $b\in B$, the following formula for the comultiplication $\tilde\Delta$ holds:*]{} $$\label{D:delta}
\tilde\Delta (b) = (\ \mbox{id}\ \otimes P)(\Delta(b).$$
Indeed, it is obvious that $P$ is a conditional expectation. Since, for any $\gamma\in \Gamma$ and $a\in A$, $$(\mu\circ\gamma)(a) 1 = (\ \mbox{id}\otimes\mu)\Delta(\gamma(a)) =
\gamma((\ \mbox{id}\otimes\mu\circ\gamma)\Delta(a)),$$ we have that $\mu\circ\gamma$ is a Haar measure. Since a normalized Haar measure is unique, we have that $\mu\circ\gamma = \mu$, whence it follows that $P$ is $\mu$-invariant. Since $\varepsilon\circ\gamma = \varepsilon$ we get that $\varepsilon\circ P = \varepsilon$ and condition 4 of Theorem 2.1 follows from Remark 2.3. The facts that $\ker P$ is a coideal and that $P$ commutes with $\kappa$ are obvious. Thus the statement follows from Remark 2.2. $\Box$
[**3.4.**]{} In order to construct nontrivial examples of finite dimensional quantum Delsart hypergroups, we need to know about automorphisms of nontrivial Kac algebras. A number of examples of nontrivial finite dimensional Kac algebras are constructed in [@Vai:twist], [@Nik:twist] as twistings of the Kac algebras of finite groups. It is natural to expect that automorphisms of twisted Kac algebras are related with automorphisms of the corresponding finite groups. In what follows, we state some results in this direction.
Let $({\Bbb C}(G), \Delta_\Omega, \varepsilon, \kappa_\Omega)$ be a Kac algebra obtained by twisting from the cocommutative Kac algebra $({\Bbb C}(G), \Delta, \varepsilon, \kappa)$ of a finite group $G$ with respect to an abelian subgroup $H$ of $G$. Let $\alpha$ be an automorphism of $G$. Define $\alpha(\lambda(g)) = \lambda(\alpha(g))$. Then $\alpha : {\Bbb C}(G)\to {\Bbb C}(G) $ is an automorphism of the Kac algebra $({\Bbb C}(G), \Delta, \varepsilon, \kappa)$. Denote by $\ \mbox{Ad} \ \Omega$ the automorphism of ${\Bbb C}(G)\otimes{\Bbb C}(G)$ given by $\ \mbox{Ad}\ \Omega (x) = \Omega x \Omega^*$, where $x\in {\Bbb C}(G)\otimes{\Bbb C}(G)$.
The next two propositions give sufficient conditions for $\alpha$ (or a certain automorphism constructed from $\alpha$) to be an automorphism of the twisted Kac algebra $({\Bbb C}(G), \Delta_\Omega, \varepsilon, \kappa_\Omega)$.
[**3.5. Proposition.**]{} [*Let $\Omega$ be a (pseudo)-coinvolutive 2-(pseudo)-cocycle of ${\Bbb C}(G)$. If $\alpha\otimes\alpha$ commutes with $\ \mbox{Ad} \ \Omega$, then $\alpha$ is an automorphism of the twisted Kac algebra $({\Bbb C}(G), \Delta_\Omega, \varepsilon, \kappa_\Omega)$. In particular, it is sufficient that $\alpha\upharpoonright H = \ \mbox{id}$.* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} The first statement is obvious. The last statement follows from the fact that $\Omega \in {\Bbb} C (H)\otimes {\Bbb C} (H)$. $\Box$
[**3.6. Proposition.**]{}
*Let $\Omega$ be a (pseudo)-coinvolutive 2-(pseudo)-cocycle of ${\Bbb C}(G)$ and $u = m(\ \mbox{id}\otimes\kappa)\Omega$ be the corresponding unitary in ${\Bbb C}(G)$. Denote by $\gamma$ the automorphism of this $C^*$-algebra defined by $\gamma(x) = u\alpha(x)u^*$ for $x\in {\Bbb C}(G)$. Suppose that the following conditions hold:*
- $\alpha (u) = u^*$,
- the element $(\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Omega^u)\Omega^* $ belongs to the commutant of $\Delta ({\Bbb C}(G))$,
- $\varepsilon(u) = 1$.
Then $\gamma$ is an automorphism of the coalgebra $({\Bbb C}(G), \Delta_\omega, \varepsilon)$, i. e. $(\gamma\otimes\gamma)\circ\Delta_\Omega = \Delta_\Omega\circ\gamma$, $\varepsilon\circ\gamma = \varepsilon$. If $\kappa (u) = u$, then $\gamma$ is an automorphism of the Kac algebra $({\Bbb C}(G), \Delta_\omega, \varepsilon, \kappa_\Omega)$. The last condition is always true when $\Omega$ is a counital 2-cocycle, but if $\Omega$ is only a 2-pseudococycle, then one should verify that $\gamma$ commutes with $\kappa_\Omega$.
[**Proof.**]{} It follows from the first condition of the proposition that $\gamma = \ \mbox{Ad}\ u\circ\alpha = \alpha\circ\ \mbox{Ad}\ u^*$. Following condition 2 one can find an element $Z$ in commutant of $\Delta ({\Bbb C}(G))$ such that $(\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Omega^u) = \Omega Z$. Then, for any $x\in {\Bbb C}(G)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_\Omega (\gamma(x)) &=& \Omega\Delta (u\alpha(x)u^*)\Omega^*
= \Omega\Delta (u)((\alpha\otimes\alpha)\Delta(x))\Delta (u^*)\Omega^* \\
&=& (\alpha\otimes\alpha)
\left((\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Omega\Delta(u)) \Delta(x)
(\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Delta(u^*)\Omega^*)\right)\\
&=& (\gamma\otimes\gamma)
\left((u\otimes u)(\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Omega\Delta(u)) \Delta(x)
(\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Delta(u^*)\Omega^*)(u^*\otimes u^*)\right)\\
&=& (\gamma\otimes\gamma)
\left((\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})((u^*\otimes u^*)\Omega\Delta(u)) \Delta(x)
(\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Delta(u^*)\Omega^*(u\otimes u))\right)\\
&=& (\gamma\otimes\gamma)
\left((\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Omega^u) \Delta(x)
(\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Omega^u)^*\right)\\
&=& (\gamma\otimes\gamma)(\Omega\Delta(x)\Omega^*) \\
&=& (\gamma\otimes\gamma)(\Delta_\Omega (x)).\end{aligned}$$ It follows from condition 3 of the proposition that $\varepsilon\circ\gamma = \varepsilon$. To prove the last statement, let us suppose that $\kappa (u) = u$. Then, for any $x\in {\Bbb C}(G)$, we have $\gamma(\kappa_\Omega (x))
= u\alpha (u\kappa (x) u^*)u^* = \alpha(\kappa(x)) =
\kappa(\alpha(x))$. On the other hand, $\kappa_\Omega (\gamma(x)) = u\kappa(u\alpha(x)u^*)u^*
= u\kappa(u^*)\kappa(\alpha(x))\kappa(u)u^* = \kappa(\alpha(x)).$ $\Box$
[**3.7. Remark.**]{} By using the action of an automorphism $\alpha$ on the group $\hat H$ which is dual to the Abelian subgroup $H$, $<\alpha (\hat h), h> = < \hat h, \alpha^{-1}(h)>$, one can rewrite condition 1 of Proposition 3.7 in terms of the 2-(pseudo)-cocycle $\omega$ on $\hat H\times\hat H$, $$\omega(\alpha(\hat x), \alpha(\hat x^{-1})) = \overline{\omega(\hat x, \hat x^{-1})} \quad (\hat x\in \hat H).$$ Condition 2 of Proposition 3.7 follows from the relation $(\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})(\Omega^u) = \Omega$ which can also be rewritten in terms of the 2-(pseudo)-cocycle $\omega$, $$\omega(\hat x, \hat x^{-1})\omega(\hat y, \hat y^{-1})\omega(\alpha(\hat x), \alpha(\hat y))
= \omega (\hat x, \hat y)\omega(\hat x\hat y, (\hat x\hat y)^{-1})\quad
(\hat x, \hat y\in \hat H).$$ One can also rewrite other equalities that contain $\Omega$ in such manner, for example, the relation $(\alpha^{-1}\otimes\alpha^{-1})\Omega = \Omega$ is sufficient for the statement of Proposition 3.6 to hold, $$\label{omega}
\omega(\alpha(\hat x), \alpha(\hat y)) = \overline{\omega(\hat x, \hat y)}.$$
4. Examples {#examples .unnumbered}
-----------
[**4.1. Quantum hypergroups associated with a twisting of the quasiquaternionic group.**]{} Let $G = Q_n$ ($n = 2, 3, \dots $) be the quasiquaternionic group generated by two elements, $a$ of order $2n$ and $b$ of order 4 such that $b^2 = a^n$ and $bab^{-1} = a^{-1}$. The group $Q_n = \{a^k, ba^k, k = 0, 1, \dots , 2n-1 \}$ and the group algebra $A = {\Bbb C}(G)$ is isomorphic to $${\Bbb C}\oplus{\Bbb C}\oplus{\Bbb C}\oplus{\Bbb C}
\oplus \underbrace{M_2({\Bbb C})\oplus\dots\oplus
M_2({\Bbb C})}_{n-1}.$$ Let $e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3$, $e_4, $$e^{j}_{11}$, $e^{j}_{12}$, $e^{j}_{21}$, $e^{j}_{22}\ (j=1,...,n-1)$, be the matrix units of this algebra. We can now write the left regular representation $\lambda$ of $G$ [@HR], $$\lambda (a^k)=e_1 +e_2 +(-1)^k(e_3+ e_4) +\sum_j
(\varepsilon^{jk}_n
e^{j}_{11}+\varepsilon^{-jk}_n e^{j}_{22}),$$ $$\lambda (a^k b)=e_1 -e_2 + (-1)^k(e_3- e_4) +\sum_j
(\varepsilon^{j(k-n)}_n e^{j}_{12}+\varepsilon^{-jk}_n e^{j}_{21}),$$ for even $n$, and $$\lambda (a^k b)=e_1 -e_2 + i(-1)^k(e_3- e_4) +\sum_j
(\varepsilon^{j(k-n)}_n e^{j}_{12}+\varepsilon^{-jk}_n e^{j}_{21}),$$ for odd $n$, where $\varepsilon_n=e^{i\pi/n}$.
Consider the subgroup $H={\Bbb Z}_4=\{e,b,b^2,b^3\}$. Since the dual group $\hat H$ is isomorphic to $H$, following [@Vai:twist], one can compute the orthogonal projections $P_{\hat h}\ \ (\hat h\in \hat H)$, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\hat e} &=& e_1+e_3+q_1,\ P_{\hat b} =p_1, \\
P_{{\hat b}^2}&=&e_2+e_4+q_2,\ P_{{\hat b}^3}=p_2,\ for\ even\ n,\\
P_{\hat e}&=&e_1+q_1,\ P_{\hat b} =e_4+p_1,\\
P_{{\hat b}^2}&=&e_2+q_2,\ P_{{\hat b}^3}=e_3+p_2,\ for\ odd\ n,\end{aligned}$$ where $p_1$, $p_2$, $q_1$, $q_2$ are the orthogonal projections defined by : $$\begin{aligned}
p_1&=&1/2 {\sum}'_j(e^{j}_{11}-ie^{j}_{12}+ie^{j}_{21}+
e^{j}_{22}),\\
p_2&=&1/2 {\sum}'_j(e^{j}_{11}+ie^{j}_{12}-ie^{j}_{21}+
e^{j}_{22}),\\
q_1&=&1/2 {\sum}''_j(e^{j}_{11}+e^{j}_{12}+e^{j}_{21}+ e^{j}_{22}),\\
q_2&=&1/2 {\sum}''_j(e^{j}_{11}-e^{j}_{12}-e^{j}_{21}+ e^{j}_{22}),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\sum}'$ (resp., ${\sum}''$) means that the corresponding index in the summation takes only odd (resp., even) values. One can see that $e_1$ is the projection given by the co-unit of $A$.
The Abelian subalgebra generated by $\lambda(e)$, $\lambda(b)$,$\lambda(b^2)$, $\lambda(b^3)$ is also generated by the mutually orthogonal orthogonal projections $P_{\hat e}, \ P_{\hat b},\ P_{{\hat b}^2}, \ P_{{\hat b}^3}$. The projections $P_{\hat e}+P_{{\hat b}^2}$ and $P_{\hat b}+ P_{{\hat b}^3}$ are central.
The unitary $\Omega\in A\otimes A$ is obtained by the lifting construction from the pseudo-cocycle $\omega$ on $\hat H\times\hat H$ such that, for all $u$, $h$ in $\hat H$, $$\omega({\hat e},u)=\omega(u,u)=1, \overline{\omega(h,u)}=
\omega (u,h)$$ and $\omega({\hat b}, {\hat b}^2)=\omega({\hat b}^2, {\hat b}^3)=
\omega({\hat b}^3,{\hat b})=i$. In [@Vai:twist] it was established that $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega &=& P_{\hat e}\otimes I+P_{\hat b}\otimes(P_{\hat e}+P_{\hat
b} + i(P_{{\hat b}^2}-P_{{\hat b}^3}))+P_{{\hat b}^2}\otimes(P_{\hat e}+
P_{{\hat b}^2}\\
&+& i(P_{{\hat b}^3}-P_{\hat b}))+P_{{\hat
b}^3}\otimes
(P_{\hat e}+P_{{\hat b}^3}++i(P_{\hat b}-P_{{\hat b}^2}))\end{aligned}$$ is a pseudo-coinvolutive 2-pseudo-cocycle with respect to the unitary $$u = P_{\hat e} + P_{{\hat b}^2} + i(P_{{\hat b}^3} - P_{\hat b})$$ such that ${\cal A}_\Omega = (A, \Delta_{\Omega}, \varepsilon, \kappa_{\Omega}, \mu)$ is a nonsymmetric Kac algebra (i. e. $\Sigma\circ\Delta_{\Omega}\neq\Delta_{\Omega}$).
Define an authomorphism $\alpha$ of order 2 on $G=Q_n$: $\alpha(a) = a$, $\alpha(b) = b^3$. Let us verify that $\alpha$ satisfyes the hypothesis of Proposition 3.7. Indeed, $\alpha (P_{\hat b}) =
P_{{\hat b}^3}$ and, hence, $\alpha (u) = u^*$. Let $Z = (\alpha\otimes\alpha)(\Omega^u) \Omega^*$. Then it is not hard to compute that $$Z = (P_{\hat e}+ P_{{\hat b}^2})\otimes I +
(P_{\hat b} + P_{{\hat b}^3})\otimes
((P_{\hat e}+ P_{{\hat b}^2}) - (P_{\hat b} + P_{{\hat b}^3})) \in
Z(A)\otimes Z(A)\subset \Delta(A)',$$ where $Z(A)$ is the center of $A$. In order to show that $\gamma(x) = u\alpha(x)u^*$, $x\in {\Bbb C}(G)$, is an authomorphism of the Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega $, we need to verify that $\gamma\circ\kappa_\Omega = \kappa_\Omega\circ\gamma$. Indeed, it is obvious that $\kappa (u) = u^*$. Then $\kappa_\Omega (\gamma(x)) = u^2 \alpha(\kappa(x)) (u^*)^2$ and $\gamma(\kappa_\Omega(x)) = \alpha(\kappa(x))$ for all $x\in A$. But $$u^2 = P_{\hat e} + - P_{\hat b} + P_{{\hat b}^2} - (P_{{\hat b}^3} = \lambda(b^2)\in Z(A).$$ Hence, $\gamma$ is an authomorphism of the Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$ of order 2.
Let us consider the group $\Gamma = \{\mbox{id}, \gamma\}$ of authomorphisms of the Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$ and define a conditional expectation $P$ on ${\cal A}_\Omega$ via the formula $P (x) = \frac 1 2 (x + \gamma (x))$. Thus we obtain a Delsart hypergroup $(B = P(A), \tilde\Delta_\Omega, \varepsilon,
\kappa_\Omega, \mu)$. In order to determine the structure of $B$, note that $\alpha(e_3) = e_4$ and $\alpha(e^j_{12}) = (-1)^j e^j_{12}\ (j = 1, \dots , n-1)$ for odd $n$ and $\alpha (e_i) = e_i\ (i=1,\dots , 4)$, $\alpha(e^j_{12}) = (-1)^j e^j_{12}$, $\alpha(e^j_{21}) = (-1)^j e^j_{21}
\ (j = 1, \dots , n-1)$ for even $n$. Since, for odd $n$, $$u = e_1 + e_2 + i (e_3 - e_4) + {\sum_j}' (e^j_{21} - e^j_{12}) +
{\sum_j}'' (e^j_{11} - e^j_{22})$$ and, for even $n$, $$u = e_1 + e_2 + e_3 + e_4 + {\sum_j}' (e^j_{21} - e^j_{12}) +
{\sum_j}'' (e^j_{11} - e^j_{22}),$$ we obtain an explicit formula for the action of $\gamma$. Indeed, for odd $n$, $ \gamma(e_3) = e_4 $, for even $j$, we have $\gamma(e^j_{kl}) = e^j_{kl}$, $k, l = 1, 2$, and for odd $j$, we have $\gamma(e^j_{11}) = e^j_{22}$, $\gamma(e^j_{12}) = e^j_{21}$ . For even $n$, we have $\gamma(e_k) = e_k$, $k = 1, \dots , 4$, $\gamma(e^j_{kl}) = e^j_{kl}$, $k, l = 1, 2$, for even $j$, and $\gamma(e^j_{11}) = e^j_{22}$, $\gamma(e^j_{12}) = e^j_{21}$ for odd $j$. Hence for odd $n$, we have $$B_n = \underbrace{{\Bbb C}\oplus\dots\oplus{\Bbb C}}_{n+2}\oplus
\underbrace{M_2({\Bbb C})\oplus\dots\oplus
M_2({\Bbb C})}_{\frac {n-1} 2}$$ and, for even $n$, $$B_n = \underbrace{{\Bbb C}\oplus\dots\oplus{\Bbb C}}_{n+4}\oplus
\underbrace{M_2({\Bbb C})\oplus\dots\oplus
M_2({\Bbb C})}_{\frac {n-2} 2}.$$ In any case, $\dim B = 3n$.
Let us show that the comultiplication $\tilde\Delta_\Omega$ is not symmetric. For this, it is enough to prove that $$\label{nococo}
(P\otimes P)(\Delta_\Omega)(\lambda(ab)) - \Sigma\Delta_\Omega (\lambda(ab)))\neq 0,$$ where $\Sigma$ is the flip in $A\otimes A$. It is useful to note that $\Omega = \Omega_1 + i\Omega_2$, where $\Sigma\Omega_1 = \Omega_1^* = \Omega_1$ and $\Sigma\Omega_2 = -\Omega_2^* = -\Omega_2$. Then relation (\[nococo\]) is equivalent to $$(P\otimes P)(\Omega_1(\lambda(ab)\otimes\lambda(ab))\Omega_2 - \Omega_2(\lambda(ab)\otimes\lambda(ab))\Omega_1) \neq 0.$$ By direct calculations one can obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
(P\otimes P)(\Omega_1(\lambda(ab)\otimes\lambda(ab))\Omega_2 - \Omega_2(\lambda(ab)\otimes\lambda(ab))\Omega_1) \\
= {\sum_k}' \cos \frac {\pi k} n (e^k_{11} + e^k_{22})\otimes {\sum_l}{''} \sin \frac {\pi l} n (e^l_{12} - e^l_{21})\neq 0\end{aligned}$$ for even $n$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(P\otimes P)(\Omega_1(\lambda(ab)\otimes\lambda(ab))\Omega_2 - \Omega_2(\lambda(ab)\otimes\lambda(ab))\Omega_1) \\
= {\sum_k}' \cos \frac {\pi k} n (e^k_{11} + e^k_{22})\otimes {\sum_l}{''} \sin \frac {\pi l} n (-e^l_{11} + e^l_{22})\neq 0\end{aligned}$$ for odd $n$, where $\Sigma'$ (resp. ${\Sigma}{''}$) means that the corresponding index in the summation takes only odd (resp. even) values.
[**4.2. Remark.**]{} The Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$ for $n=2$ is nothing else but the historical Kac-Paljutkin example of a non-trivial Kac algebra [@KP]. In this case, the algebra $B_2$ is commutative but the comultiplication $\tilde\Delta_\Omega$ is not symmetric. So $B_2$ is the usual noncommutative hypergroup of order $6$. For $n\geq 3$, the quantum hypergroups ${\cal B}_n$ are nontrivial. We obtain exact formulas for the comultiplication in $$B_3 = \underbrace{{\Bbb C}\oplus\dots\oplus{\Bbb C}}_5\oplus M_2({\Bbb C}).$$ Since $Q_3$ is isomorphic to ${\Bbb Z}_3\rtimes {\Bbb Z}_4$, one can use the left regular representation of ${\Bbb Z}_3\rtimes {\Bbb Z}_4$ instead of $Q_3$ (this means that the basis of matrix units of the algebra $A$ is changed up to corresponding authomorphism which does not permit two- dimensional minimal ideals). The formulas for comultiplication in the new basis become simplier. So, in the basis of $B_3$: $f_1 = P (e_1) = e_1, \ f_2 = P (e_2) = e_2, \
2 f_3 = P (e_3 ) = 1/2 (e_3 + e_4 ) = P (e_4 ), \
2 f_4 = P ( e^2_{11} ) = 1/2 ( e^2_{11} + e^2_{22} ) = P( e^2_{22} ), \
2 f_5 = P ( e^2_{12} ) = 1/2 ( e^2_{12} + e^2_{21} ) = P( e^2_{21} ), \
f_{ij} = P (e^1_{ij}) = e^1_{ij}$, $i, j = 1, 2$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\Delta_\Omega (f_1) &=& f_1 \otimes f_1 + f_2\otimes f_2 + 1/2 f_3 \otimes f_3
+ 1/4 f_4 \otimes f_4 + 1/4 f_5 \otimes f_5\\
&+& 1/2\left( f_{11}\otimes f_{22} + f_{12}\otimes f_{21}
+ f_{21}\otimes f_{12} + f_{22}\otimes f_{11} \right),
\\
\tilde\Delta_\Omega (f_2) &=& f_1 \otimes f_2 + 1/2 f_3 \otimes f_3 + f_2\otimes f_1
+ 1/4 f_4 \otimes f_4 + 1/4 f_5 \otimes f_5\\
&+& 1/2\left( f_{11} \otimes f_{22} - f_{12}\otimes f_{21}
- f_{21}\otimes f_{12} + f_{22}\otimes f_{11} \right),
\\
\tilde\Delta_\Omega (f_3) &=& (f_1 + f_2) \otimes f_3 + f_3 \otimes (f_1 + f_2)
+ 1/2\{ (f_{11} + f_{22})\otimes f_4\\
&+& f_4 \otimes (f_{11} + f_{22}) + (f_{11} - f_{22})\otimes f_5 - f_5 \otimes (f_{11} - f_{22}),
\\
\tilde\Delta_\Omega (f_4) &=& (f_1 + f_2) \otimes f_4 + f_4 \otimes (f_1 + f_2)
+ (f_{11} + f_{22}) \otimes f_3 + f_3 \otimes (f_{11} + f_{22})\\
&+& 1/2\{ (f_{11} + f_{22})\otimes f_4 + f_4 \otimes (f_{11} + f_{22})
- (f_{11} - f_{22})\otimes f_5\\
&+& f_5 \otimes (f_{11} - f_{22}) \},
\\
\tilde\Delta_\Omega (f_5) &=& (f_1 + f_2) \otimes f_5 + f_5 \otimes (f_1 + f_2)
- (f_{11} - f_{22}) \otimes f_3 + f_3 \otimes (f_{11} - f_{22})\\
&+& 1/2\{ (f_{11} - f_{22})\otimes f_4 - f_4 \otimes (f_{11} - f_{22})
- (f_{11} + f_{22})\otimes f_5\\ &-& f_5 \otimes (f_{11} + f_{22})\},
\\
\tilde\Delta_\Omega (f_{11}) &=& f_1 \otimes f_{11} + f_{11} \otimes f_1
+ f_2 \otimes f_{11} + f_{11}\otimes f_2
+ 1/2 f_3 \otimes \left( f_4 + f_5 \right)\\
&+& 1/2 \left( f_4 - f_5 \right) \otimes f_3
+ f_{22}\otimes f_{22} + 1/4 (f_4 + f_5) \otimes (f_4 - f_5),
\\
\tilde\Delta_\Omega (f_{12}) &=& f_1 \otimes f_{12} + f_{12} \otimes f_1
- f_2\otimes f_{12} - f_{12}\otimes f_2 + f_{21}\otimes f_{21},
\\
\tilde\Delta_\Omega (f_{21}) &=& f_1 \otimes f_{21} + f_{21} \otimes f_1
- f_2\otimes f_{21} - f_{21}\otimes f_2
+ f_{12}\otimes f_{12},
\\
\tilde\Delta_\Omega (f_{22}) &=& f_1 \otimes f_{22} + f_{22} \otimes f_1
+ f_2 \otimes f_{22} + f_{22}\otimes f_2
+ 1/2 f_3 \otimes \left( f_4 - f_5 \right)\\
&+& 1/2 \left( f_4 + f_5 \right) \otimes f_3
+ f_{11}\otimes f_{11} +
1/4 (f_4 - f_5) \otimes (f_4 + f_5).\end{aligned}$$
[**4.3. Quantum hypergroups associated with a twisting of the dihedral group.**]{} Let $G=D_{2n}={\Bbb Z}_{2n}\rtimes_\alpha{\Bbb Z}_2
\ (2\leq n\in {\Bbb N})$ be the dihedral group with the following action of ${\Bbb Z}_2=\{1,b\}$ on ${\Bbb Z}_{2n}=\{a^k\ (k=0,1,...,2n-1)\}$ $$\alpha_b(a^k)=a^{2n-k}\ (k=0,1,...,2n-1).$$ The group algebra $A = {\Bbb C}(G)$ is isomorphic to $${\Bbb C}\oplus{\Bbb C}\oplus{\Bbb C}\oplus{\Bbb C}
\oplus \underbrace{M_2({\Bbb C})\oplus\dots\oplus
M_2({\Bbb C})}_{n-1}.$$
Let $e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3$, $e_4, $$e^{j}_{11}$, $e^{j}_{12}$, $e^{j}_{21}$, $e^{j}_{22}\ (j=1,...,n-1)$ be the matrix units of this algebra; we can now write the left regular representation $\lambda$ of $G$ ([@HR], 27.61): $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda (a^k) &=& e_1 +e_2 +(-1)^k(e_3+ e_4) +\sum_j
(\varepsilon^{jk}_n
e^{j}_{11}+\varepsilon^{jk(2n-1)}_n e^{j}_{22}),\\
\lambda (ba^k) &=& e_1 -e_2 -(-1)^k(e_3- e_4) +\sum_j
(\varepsilon^{jk(2n-1)}_n
e^{j}_{12}+\varepsilon^{jk}_n e^{j}_{21}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_n=e^{i\pi/n}$.
Consider the Abelian subgroup $H=\{e,a^n,b,ba^n\}$ which is isomorphic to ${\Bbb Z}_2\times{\Bbb Z}_2$. Since the dual group $\hat H$ is isomorphic to $H$, one can compute the orthogonal projections $P_{\hat h},\ (\hat h\in \hat H)$ (see [@Vai:twist]): $$P_{\hat e} =e_1+{{1+(-1)^n}\over 2}e_4+q_1,$$ $$P_{\hat b} =e_2+{{1+(-1)^n}\over 2}e_3+q_2,$$ $$P_{{\hat a}^n}={{1-(-1)^n}\over 2}e_4+p_1,$$ $$P_{{{\hat b}{\hat a}}^n}={{1-(-1)^n}\over 2}e_3+p_2,$$ where $p_1$, $p_2$, $q_1$, $q_2$ are the orthogonal projections defined by : $$p_1=1/2 {\sum}'_j(e^{j}_{11}+e^{j}_{12}+e^{j}_{21}+ e^{j}_{22}),$$ $$p_2=1/2 {\sum}'_j(e^{j}_{11}-e^{j}_{12}-e^{j}_{21}+ e^{j}_{22}),$$ $$q_1=1/2 {\sum}''_j(e^{j}_{11}+e^{j}_{12}+e^{j}_{21}+ e^{j}_{22}),$$ $$q_2=1/2 {\sum}''_j(e^{j}_{11}-e^{j}_{12}-e^{j}_{21}+ e^{j}_{22}),$$ where ${\sum}'$ (resp., ${\sum}''$) means that the corresponding index in the summation takes only odd (resp., even) values. The orthogonal projections $P_{\hat e}+P_{\hat b}$ and $P_{{\hat
a}^n} + P_{{{\hat b}{\hat a}}^n}$ are central.
Let us consider the 2-cocycle $\omega$ on $\hat {H}
\times\hat H$ such that, for all $u$, $h$ in $\hat H$, $\ \omega({\hat e},u)=\omega(u,u)=1$, $\overline{\omega(h,u)}=\omega (u,h)$, and $\omega({\hat a}^n,{\hat b})=\omega({\hat b},{{\hat b}{\hat a}}^n)=
\omega({{\hat b}{\hat a}}^n,{\hat a}^n)=i$.
Let $\Omega$ be the 2-cocycle of $A \otimes A$ obtained by the lifting construction, $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega &=& P_{\hat e}\otimes I+P_{{\hat a}^n}\otimes (P_{\hat
e}+P_{{\hat a}^n}
+i(P_{\hat b}-P_{{\hat b}{\hat a}^n}))+P_{\hat b}\otimes(P_{\hat
e}+P_{\hat b}\\
&+& i(P_{{\hat b}{\hat a}^n}-P_{{\hat a}^n}))+P_{{\hat b}{\hat
a}^n}\otimes (P_{\hat e}+P_{{\hat b}{\hat a}^n}+i(P_{{\hat a}^n}-P_{\hat b})).\end{aligned}$$ We can also write $\Omega = \Omega_1 + i\Omega_2$, where $\Sigma\Omega_1 = \Omega_1 = {\Omega_1}^*$, and $\Sigma\Omega_2 = -\Omega_2 = -{\Omega_2}^* $, where $\Sigma$ is the flip in $A\otimes A$. It is clear that the 2-cocycle $\Omega$ is strongly co-involutive on $(A, \Delta,\kappa)$. So ${\cal A}_\Omega = (A, \Delta_\Omega, \varepsilon, \kappa, \mu)$ is a nontrivial Kac algebra [@Vai:twist].
Let $\gamma (a) = a^p$ be an involute automorphism of ${\Bbb Z}_{2n}$, where $p < 2n - 1$ has no common divisors with $2n$, $n \geq 4$, and $p^2-1=0$ modulo $2n$. It is clear that we can extend $\gamma$ to the group $G$ by setting $\gamma (b) = b$. Since $\gamma$ acts trivially on $H$, we have, by Proposition 3.6, that $\gamma$ is an automorphism of the Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$. Let us consider the group $\Gamma = \{\mbox{id}, \gamma\}$ of authomorphisms of the Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$ and define a conditional expectation $P$ on ${\cal A}_\Omega$ via the formula $P (x) = \frac 1 2 (x + \gamma (x))$. Thus we obtain a quantum Delsart hypergroup $(B = P(A), \tilde\Delta_\Omega, \varepsilon,
\kappa, \mu)$. Since $p\neq 2n-1$, we have that $B$ is noncommutative (note that, if $\gamma^2 \neq \mbox{id}$, this is not true in general). The dimension of $B$ equals the number of $\Gamma$-orbits, so we have $\dim B = 2n + r$, where $r$ is the number of solutions of the equation $x(p-1) = 0$ modulo $2n$. If $n$ is a prime number, then $\dim B = 2n + 2$.
For example, if $n=4$ and $\gamma(a) = a^3$, then we have $\gamma (e_i) = e_i$, $i = 1, \dots , 4$, $\gamma(e^1_{ij}) = e^3_{ij}$, $i, j = 1, 2$, and $\gamma(e^2_{11}) = e^2_{22}$, $\gamma(e^2_{12}) = e^2_{21}$. Thus $$B = \underbrace{{\Bbb C}\oplus \dots \oplus {\Bbb C}}_6 \oplus M_2 ({\Bbb C}).$$
Let us show that the comultiplication $\tilde\Delta_\Omega$ is not symmetric. For this it is enough to prove that $$(P\otimes P)(\Delta_\Omega)(\lambda(a)) - \Sigma\Delta_\Omega (\lambda(a)))\neq 0,$$ where $\Sigma$ is the flip in $A\otimes A$, or, equivalently, that $$(P\otimes P)(\Omega_1(\lambda(a)\otimes\lambda(a))\Omega_2 - \Omega_2(\lambda(a)\otimes\lambda(a))\Omega_1) \neq 0.$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_1 &=& \frac 1 2 \lambda (e)\otimes \lambda (e) +
\frac 1 8 \{\lambda (e)\otimes (\lambda (e) + \lambda (a^n) + \lambda (b) + \lambda (ba^n))\\
&+& \lambda (a^n)\otimes (\lambda (e) + \lambda (a^n) - \lambda (b) - \lambda (ba^n))\\
&+& \lambda (b)\otimes (\lambda (e) - \lambda (a^n) + \lambda (b) - \lambda (ba^n))\\
&+& \lambda (ba^n)\otimes (\lambda (e) - \lambda (a^n) - \lambda (b) + \lambda (ba^n))\}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_2 &=& \frac 1 4 \{\lambda (a^n)\otimes \lambda (b)
- \lambda (a^n)\otimes\lambda(ba^n) - \lambda(b)\otimes \lambda(a^n)
+ \lambda(b)\otimes\lambda(ba^n)\\
&+& \lambda(ba^n)\otimes \lambda(a^n) - \lambda(ba^n)\otimes\lambda(b)\},\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_2 \lambda(a)&\otimes&\lambda(a) \Omega_1 - \Omega_1 \lambda(a)\otimes\lambda(a) \Omega_2 \\
&=& \frac 1 4 \lambda(a^{n-1})\otimes (\lambda(a^{2n-1}) - \lambda(a^{n-1})
- \lambda(ba^{n+1}) + \lambda(ba))\\
&+& \frac 1 2 (\lambda(a^{n+1}) - \lambda(a^{2n-1}))\otimes
\lambda(b)[(\lambda(a) - \lambda(a^{n+1})) + (\lambda(a^{n-1}) - \lambda(a^{2n-1}))]\\
&+& \frac 1 2 \lambda(b)(\lambda (a^{n+1}) +
\lambda (a^{2n-1}))\otimes(\lambda(a^{n-1}) - a^{2n-1})\\
&+& \frac 1 2 \lambda(b)(\lambda(a) - \lambda(a^{n-1}))\otimes\lambda(b)(\lambda(a^{n+1}) - \lambda(a^{2n-1}))\\
&+& \frac 1 2 \lambda(b)(\lambda(a) + \lambda(a^{n-1}))\otimes (\lambda(a^{2n-1}) - \lambda(a^{n+1}))\\
&+& \frac 1 2 \lambda(b)(\lambda(a^{2n-1}) - \lambda(a^{n+1}))\otimes
\lambda(b)(\lambda(a) - \lambda(a^{n-1})).\end{aligned}$$ Apply $P\otimes P$ to the both sides of this equality. Then the sum of the first three summands is equal to zero iff $p=n+1$, while the sum of the second three summands is equal to zero iff $p = n-1$. Since $n\geq 4$, we obtain that the comultiplication $\tilde\Delta_\Omega$ is not symmetric.
[**4.4. Quantum hypergroups associated with a twisting of the symmetric group.**]{} The twisting of the symmetric group $S_n$, $n\geq 4$, by a 2-cocycle lifted from the Abelian subgroup $H\cong {\Bbb Z}_2\times{\Bbb Z}_2$ generated by the permutations $a = (12)$ and $b = (34)$ was constructed in [@Nik:twist]. The 2-cocycle $\omega$ on $\hat H\times\hat H$ is defined by $\omega(\hat a, \hat b) =
\omega (\hat b, \hat a\hat b) = \omega (\hat a\hat b, a) = i$, $\omega(\hat e, \hat x) = \omega(\hat x, \hat e) = \omega(\hat x, \hat x) = 1$, $\omega(\hat x, \hat y) = \overline{\omega(\hat y, \hat x)}$ for all $\hat x, \hat y \in \hat H$. Let $\Omega$ be the lifted counital 2-cocycle, as in 3.4. Then the twisted Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$ is non-symmetric.
Denote by $\gamma$ the inner automorphism of the group $S_n$ generating by the permutation $a$. Since $\gamma$ acts trivially on the subgroup $H$, by Proposition 3.6 we have that $\gamma$ is an automorphism of the twisted Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$ of order 2. Let $P$ be the conditional expectation on ${\cal A}_\Omega$ associated with the subgroup $\Gamma = \{\mbox{id}, \gamma\}$. Then $B = P({\Bbb C}(S_n))$ is a quantum hypergroup. The algebra $B$ is noncommutative, since $\lambda (b)$ does not commute with $P(\lambda(c))$, where $c = (2341)$. The dimension of $B$ equals the number of $\Gamma$-orbits, so we have $\dim B = \frac 1 2 (n^2 - n +2)(n-2)!$.
Let us show that the comuliplication $\tilde\Delta_\Omega$ is not symmetric. We can write $\Omega = \Omega_1 + i\Omega_2$, where $\Sigma\Omega_1 = \Omega_1 = {\Omega_1}^*$ and $\Sigma\Omega_2 = -\Omega_2 = -{\Omega_2}^* $, where $\Sigma$ is the flip in $A\otimes A$. Thus, as in the previous example, our statement follows from the inequality $$\label{Sn:noco}
(P\otimes P)(\Omega_1(\lambda(c)\otimes\lambda(c))\Omega_2 - \Omega_2(\lambda(c)\otimes\lambda(c))\Omega_1) \neq 0$$ which can be obtained by strightforward calculations with $c=(2341)$.
[**4.5. Quantum hypergroups associated with a twisting of the alternating group.**]{} A nontrivial twisting of the alternating group $A_n$, $n\geq 4$, by a 2-cocycle lifted from the abelian subgroup $H\cong {\Bbb
Z}_2\times{\Bbb Z}_2$ generated by the elements $a = (12)(34)$ and $b =
(13)(24)$ was constructed in [@Nik:twist]. The 2-cocycle $\omega$ on $\hat H\times\hat H$ is the same as in 4.5. Let $\Omega$ be the lifted counital 2-cocycle, as in 3.4. Then the twisted Kac algebra ${\cal
A}_\Omega$ is non-symmetric iff $n\geq 5$.
Let $\gamma$ be the restriction of the inner automorphism of the group $S_n$ generated by the permutation $(12)$ to the group $A_n$. It is easy to verify that relation (\[omega\]) holds for the choosen automorphism $\gamma$. Hence, $\gamma$ is an automorphism of the twisted Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$ by virtue of Remark 3.8. Let $P$ be the conditional expectation on ${\cal A}_\Omega$ associated with the subgroup $\Gamma = \{\mbox{id}, \gamma\}$. Then $B = P({\Bbb C}(A_n))$ is the quantum hypergroup. It is obvious that the algebra $B$ is noncommutative and $\dim B = \frac 1 4 (n^2 - n + 2)(n-2)!$.
We can obtain, by strightforward calculations, that ineqiality (\[Sn:noco\]) holds with $c = (345)\in A_n$, $n\geq 5$. Thus the comuliplication $\tilde\Delta_\Omega$ is not symmetric.
[**4.4. Quantum hypergroups associated with a twisting of the group ${\Bbb Z}^2_m\rtimes {\Bbb Z}_2$.**]{} Let $G = {\Bbb Z}^2_m\rtimes {\Bbb Z}_2$, $m\geq3$, be a finite group of order $2m^2$ with the following action $\alpha$ of ${\Bbb Z}_2 = \{\mbox{id}, s\}$ on $H = {\Bbb Z}_m^2 = \{(a, b)| a, b = 0, 1, \dots , m-1 \}$: $\alpha_s (a, b) = (b, a)$. The twisting of the group $G$ was constructed in [@Vai:twist] by using the 2-cocycle $\omega$ on $\hat H = \hat{{\Bbb Z}}_m^2 \times \hat{{\Bbb Z}}_m^2$: $$\omega (\hat a, \hat b; \hat c, \hat d)
= \exp \left(\frac {2\pi i} m (\hat a\hat d - \hat b\hat c)\right).$$ Let $\Omega$ be the counital 2-cocycle on ${\Bbb C}(G)\otimes {\Bbb C}(G)$ obtained by the lifting construction: $$\Omega = \sum_{\hat H\times\hat H}
\exp\left(\frac {2\pi i} m (\hat a\hat d - \hat b\hat c)\right) P_{(\hat a, \hat b)}\otimes P_{(\hat c, \hat d)}.$$ Then the twisted Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$ is not symmetric, for example, $\Delta_\Omega (\lambda(s)) \neq \Sigma \Delta_\Omega (\lambda(s))$.
Define an automorphism $\gamma$ of the group $G$ as follows: $\gamma (s) = s$ and $\gamma (a, b) = (ar, br)$, where $(a, b) \in H$ and $r^2 = 1$ modulo $m$. Then it is strightforward that $(\gamma\otimes\gamma)(\Omega) = \Omega$. Thus $\gamma$ is an automorphism of the twisted Kac algebra ${\cal A}_\Omega$ by Proposition 3.6. Let $P$ be the conditional expectation on ${\cal A}_\Omega$ associated with the subgroup $\Gamma = \{\mbox{id}, \gamma\}$. Then $B = P({\Bbb C}(G))$ is a quantum hypergroup. Since $\gamma (s) = s$, the algebra $B$ is noncommutative. The dimension of $B$ is equal to the number of $\Gamma$-orbits, hence $\dim B = m^2 + p^2$, where $p$ is the number of solutions of the equation $(r-1)k = 0$ modulo $m$.
If $r=m-1$, then the quantum hypergroup $B$ is non-symmetric. Indeed, it is easy to see that $(\gamma\otimes\mbox{id})(\Omega) = \Omega^* =
(\mbox{id}\otimes\gamma)(\Omega)$ and $\Sigma\Omega = \Omega^*$. Then, for any $a\in H$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(P&\otimes & P)(\Delta_\Omega (\lambda(as)) - \Sigma\Delta_\Omega (\lambda(as)))\\
&=& \frac 1 4 (\mbox{id}\otimes\mbox{id}+\mbox{id}\otimes\gamma +\gamma\otimes\mbox{id}+\gamma\otimes\gamma)
(\Omega\lambda(as)\otimes\lambda(as)\Omega^* - \Omega^*\lambda(as)\otimes\lambda(as)\Omega)\\
&=& (\lambda(a) - \lambda(a^{-1}))\otimes (\lambda(a) - \lambda(a^{-1}))
\left(\Omega\lambda(s)\otimes\lambda(s)\Omega^* - \Omega^*\lambda(s)\otimes\lambda(s)\Omega\right),\end{aligned}$$ since $\Omega$ commutes with ${\Bbb C}(H)$. Thus $\hat \Delta_\Omega$ is non-symmetric iff $(\lambda(a) - \lambda(a^{-1}))\otimes (\lambda(a) - \lambda(a^{-1}))
\left(\Omega^2\lambda(s)\otimes\lambda(s) - \lambda(s)\otimes\lambda(s)\Omega^2\right)\neq 0$. This inequality can be obtained by strightforward calculations.
[99]{} Yu. M. Berezansky, A. A. Kalyuzhnyi. [*Harmonic analysis in hypercomlex systems*]{}. — Kluwer Acad. Publ., Doldrecht/Boston/London, 1998, 483 p. W. R. Bloom, H. Heyer. [*Harmonic Analysis of Probability Measures on Hypergroups*]{}. — de Grueter, Berlin/New York, 1995. — vi + 602 p. Yu. A. Chapovsky, L. I. Vainerman. [*Compact quantum hypergroups*]{}. — J. Operator Theory. — 1999. — [**41**]{} , P. 261–289. Yu. A. Chapovsky, L. I. Vainerman. [*Hypergroup structures associated with a pair of quantum groups $(SU_q (n), U_q (n-1))$.*]{} — Methods of Functional Analysis in Problems of Math. PHysics. — 1992 — P. 47–69. M. Enock, L. I. Vainerman. [*Deformation of a Kac algebra by an Abelian subgroup*]{}. — Comm. Math. Phys. — 1996. —[**178**]{}, P. 571-596. E. Hewitt, K.A. Ross, [*Abstract Harmonic Analysis, v.II*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970. R. Jewett. [*Spaces with abstract convolution of measures*]{}. — Adv. in Math. — 1975. — [**18**]{}, no. 1, P. 1–101. G. I. Kac, V. G. Paljutkin. [*An example of a ring group of order eight*]{}. — Soviet Math. Surveys. — 1965. – [**20**]{}, no. 5. — 268–269 ([*in Russian*]{}). T. H. Koornwinder. [*Discrete hypergroups associated with compact quantum Gelfand pairs*]{}. — Contemp. Math. – 1995. –[**183**]{}. – 213–235. D. Nikshych. [*$K_0$ rings and twisting of finite dimensional semisimple Hopf algebras*]{}. — Communications in Algebra. — 1998. — [**26**]{}, no. 1. — 321–342. G. B. Podcolzin, L. I. Vainerman. [*Quantum Stiefel manifold and double cosets of quantum unitary group*]{}. — Pacific J. of Math. – 1999. – [**188**]{}, no. 1. – 179–199. S. Stratila. [*Modilar theory in operator algebras*]{}, Bucuresti: ARSR Tunbridge Wells: Abacus. — 1981. – 492 p. L. I. Vainerman. [*Gelfand pairs of quantum groups, hypergroups and $q$-special functions*]{}. — Contemp. Math. — 1995. — [**183**]{}. — P. 373–394. L. I. Vainerman [*2-cocycles and twisting of Kac algebras*]{}. — Comm. Math. Phys. — 1998. — [**191**]{}. — 697–721. L. I. Vainerman. [*Hypergroup structures associated with Gel’fand pairs of compact quantum groups*]{}. — Asterique. —1995. —[**232**]{}. — 231–242. S. L. Woronowicz. [*Compact matrix preudogroups*]{}. — Comm. Math. Phys. — 1987. — [**111**]{}. — P. 613–665.
[**Address:**]{}
A. A. Kalyuzhnyi, Institute of Mathematics, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, ul. Tereshchinkivs’ka, 3, Kiev 262601, Ukraine
E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We obtain the energy distribution of a Schwarzschild black hole in a magnetic universe in the Tolman prescription.
PACS: 04. 20.-q; 04. 70.-s
Keywords: energy, Schwarzschild black hole
author:
- 'I. Radinschi[^1]'
- '”Gh. Asachi” Technical University, Iasi, Romania'
title: Energy Distribution of a Schwarzschild Black Hole in a Magnetic Universe
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The localization of energy is a long-standing problem in the theory of general relativity. Numerous attempts have been made for a solution.
Virbhadra and his collaborators investigated the problem of the energy-momentum localization by using the energy-momentum complexes. The results obtained for several particular space-times (the Kerr-Newman, the Einstein-Rosen and the Bonnor-Vaidya) lead to the conclusion that different energy-momentum complexes give the same energy distribution for a given space-time \[1\]-\[6\]. Aguirregabiria, Chamorro and Virbhadra \[7\] showed that several energy-momentum complexes coincide for any Kerr-Schild class metric. Xulu obtained interesting results about the energy distribution of a charged dilaton black hole \[8\] and about the energy associated with a Schwarzschild black hole in a magnetic universe \[9\]. Also, recently, Xulu \[10\] obtained the total energy of a model of universe based on the Bianchi I type metric. The author calculated the energy distribution of a dyonic dilaton black hole \[11\] and the energy of the Bianchi type I solution \[12\]. Also, we obtained the energy distribution in a static spherically symmetric nonsingular black hole space-time \[13\]. Recently, Virbhadra \[14\] shows that different energy-momentum complexes give the same and reasonable results for many space-times.
Xulu \[9\] obtained the energy associated with a Schwarzschild black hole in a magnetic universe. Melvin’s magnetic universe \[15\] is a solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations corresponding to a collection of parallel magnetic lines of force held together by mutual gravitation. The physical structure of the magnetic universe and its dynamical behavior was studied by Thorne. Ernst \[16\] obtained axially symmetric exact solution to the Einstein-Maxwell equations representing a Schwarzschild black hole immersed in Melvin’s uniform magnetic universe.
The purpose of this paper is to compute the energy distribution for the Ernst space-time by using the Tolman prescription. We use the geometrized units $(G=1,c=1)$ and follow the convention that the Latin indices run from $%
0$ to $3$.
ENERGY IN TOLMAN’S PRESCRIPTION
================================
It is interesting to evaluate the energy distribution of a magnetic black hole. We know that the Einstein-Maxwell equations are
$$R_i^{\,\;k}-\frac 12g_i^{\;k}R=8\pi T_i^{\;k},$$
$$F_{ij,k}+F_{jk,i}+F_{ki,j}=0,$$
$$\frac 1{\sqrt{-g}}(\sqrt{-g}F^{ik})_{,k}=4\pi J^i.$$
The energy-momentum of the electromagnetic field is given by
$$T_i^{\;k}=\frac 1{4\pi }(-F_{im}F^{km}+\frac 14g_i^{\;k}F_{mn}F^{mn}).$$
Ernst \[16\] obtained the axially symmetric electrovac solution $(J^i=0)$ to the equations (1), (2) and (3) that corresponds to a Schwarzschild black hole in Melvin’s magnetic universe.
The metric is given by
$$ds^2=\Delta ^2[(1-\frac{2M}r)dt^2-(1-\frac{2M}r)^{-1}dr^2-r^2d\theta
^2]-\Delta ^{-2}r^2\sin ^2\theta d\varphi ^2.$$
The Cartan components of the magnetic field are given by
$$\begin{tabular}{c}
$H_r=\Delta ^{-2}B_0\cos \theta ,$ \\
$H_\theta =-\Delta ^{-2}B_0(1-\frac{2M}r)^{\frac 12}\sin \theta ,$%
\end{tabular}$$
where
$$\Delta =1+\frac 14B_0^2r^2\sin ^2\theta$$
and $M$ and $B_0$ are constants. We note that the Ernst solution is a black hole solution and $r=2M$ is the event horizon.
The Tolman energy-momentum complex \[17\] is given by
$$\Upsilon _i^{\;k}=\frac 1{8\pi }U_{i\;\;\;,}^{\;kl}{}_l,$$
where $\Upsilon _0^{\;0}$ and $\Upsilon _\alpha ^{\;\,0}$ are the energy and momentum components.
$$U_i^{\;kl}=\sqrt{-g}(-g^{pk}V_{ip}^{\;\;l}+\frac
12g_i^{\;k}g^{pm}V_{pm}^{\;\;\;\,l}),$$
with
$$V_{jk}^{\;\;i}=-\Gamma _{jk}^i+\frac 12g_j^{\;i}\Gamma _{mk}^m+\frac
12g_k^{\;i}\Gamma _{mj}^m.$$
Also, the energy-momentum complex $\Upsilon _i^{\;k}$ also satisfies the local conservation laws
$$\frac{\partial \Upsilon _i^{\;k}}{\partial x^k}=0.$$
The energy and momentum in Tolman prescription are given by
$$P_i=\iiint \Upsilon _i^{\;0}dx^1dx^2dx^3.$$
Using Gauss’s theorem we obtain
$$P_i=\frac 1{8\pi }\iint U_i^{\;0\alpha }n_\alpha dS,$$
where $n_\alpha =(\frac xr,\frac yr,\frac zr)$ are the components of a normal vector over an infinitesimal surface element $dS=r^2\sin \theta
d\theta d\varphi $.
The Tolman energy-momentum complex gives the correct result if the calculations are carried out in quasi-Cartesian coordinates. We transform the line element (1) to quasi-Cartesian coordinates $t,x,y,z$ according to
$$\begin{tabular}{c}
$r=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{\frac 12},$ \\
$\theta =\cos ^{-1}(\frac z{\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}}),$ \\
$\varphi =\tan ^{-1}(y/x).$%
\end{tabular}$$
The metric (1) becomes \[9\]
$$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 &=&\Delta ^2(1-\frac{2M}r)dt^2-[\Delta ^2(\frac{ax^2}{r^2})+\Delta
^{-2}(\frac{y^2}{x^2+y^2})]dx^2-[\Delta ^2(\frac{ay^2}{r^2})+ \\
&&+\Delta ^{-2}(\frac{x^2}{x^2+y^2})]dy^2-\Delta ^2[1+\frac{2Mz^2}{r^2(r-2M)}%
]dz^2-[\Delta ^2(\frac{2axy}{r^2})+\Delta ^{-2} \nonumber \\
&&(-\frac{2xy}{x^2+y^2})]dxdy-\Delta ^2[\frac{4Mxz}{r^2(r-2M)}]dxdz-\Delta
^2[\frac{4Myz}{r^2(r-2M)}]dydz, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where
$$a=\frac{2M}{r-2M}+\frac{r^2}{x^2+y^2}.$$
The components of the Tolman energy-momentum complex are calculated with the Maple GR Tensor II Release 1.50.
Because the components of the $U_i^{\;kl}$ are too many we give only those which are involved in the calculation of the energy
$$\begin{tabular}{c}
$U_0^{\;01}=\frac{2Mx}{r^3}+\frac{(\Delta ^4-1)}2[\frac x{x^2+y^2}],$ \\
$U_0^{\;02}=\frac{2My}{r^3}+\frac{(\Delta ^4-1)}2[\frac y{x^2+y^2}],$ \\
$U_0^{\;03}=\frac{2Mz}{r^3}.$%
\end{tabular}$$
Using (12), (17) and applying (13) we obtain the energy distribution for the Ernst space-time $$E(r)=M+\frac 1{8\pi }\int_{\theta =0}^0\int_{\varphi =0}^{2\pi }\frac{%
(\Delta ^4-1)}2r\sin \theta d\theta d\varphi .$$
We replace in (18) the value of $\Delta $ from (7) and consider the values of $G$ and $c$ and we have
$$E(r)=Mc^2+\frac 16B_0^2r^3+\frac 1{20}\frac G{c^4}B_0^4r^5+\frac 1{140}\frac{%
G^2}{c^8}B_0^6r^7+\frac 1{2520}\frac{G^3}{c^{12}}B_0^8r^9.$$
The relation (19) can be also written
$$E(r)=Mc^2+\frac 1{8\pi }\iiint B_0^2dV+\frac 1{20}\frac G{c^4}B_0^4r^5+\frac
1{140}\frac{G^2}{c^8}B_0^6r^7+\frac 1{2520}\frac{G^3}{c^{12}}B_0^8r^9.$$
In the expression of the energy distribution the first term represents the rest mass-energy of the Schwarzschild black hole, the second is the special relativistic value for the energy of the uniform magnetic field and the other terms that remain in the expression are due to the general relativistic effect.
DISCUSSION
==========
The main purpose of the present paper is to show that the problem of the localization of energy in relativity can be solved by using the energy-momentum complexes. The Bondi opinion \[18\] is that a nonlocalizable form of energy is not admissible in relativity so its location can in principle be found. Some interesting results which have been found recently \[7\]-\[13\], support the idea that the several energy-momentum complexes can give the same and acceptable result for a given space-time. Also, in his recent paper Virbhadra \[14\] emphasized that though the energy-momentum complexes are non-tensors under general coordinate transformations, the local conservation laws with them hold in all coordinate systems. Chang, Nester and Chen \[19\] showed that the energy-momentum complexes are actually quasilocal and legitimate expressions for the energy-momentum.
We calculated the energy distribution for the Ernst space-time in the Tolman prescription and find the same result as the result obtained by S. S. Xulu \[9\] in the Einstein prescription. The energy increases because of the presence of the magnetic field.
[99]{} K. S. Virbhadra, *Phys. Rev.* **D41** (1990) 1086.
K. S. Virbhadra, *Phys. Rev*. **D42** (1990) 2919.
F. I. Cooperstock and S. A. Richardson, in *Proc. 4th Canadian Conf. on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics *(World Scientific, Singapore, 1991).
N. Rosen and K. S. Virbhadra, *Gen. Rel. Grav*.* * **25** (1993) 429.
K. S. Virbhadra, *Pramana-J. Phys*. **45** (1995) 215.
A. Chamorro and K. S. Virbhadra, *Pramana-J. Phys*.* ***45** (1995) 181.
J. M. Aguirregabiria, A. Chamorro and K. S. Virbhadra,*Gen. Rel. Grav*. **28 **(1996) 1393.
S. S. Xulu, *Int. J. Mod. Phys*. **D7** (1998) 773.
S. S. Xulu, *Int. J. Mod. Phys*. **A,** in press
S. S. Xulu, *gr-qc*/9910015
I. Radinschi, *Acta Physica Slovaca*, **49**(5) (1999) 789.
I. Radinschi, *Acta Physica Slovaca,* in press
I. Radinschi, *Modern Physics Letters* **A**,(15), Nos. 11&12 (2000) 803.
K. S. Virbhadra, *Phys. Rev.* **D60** (1999) 104041.
M. A Melvin, *Phys. Lett*. **8** (1964) 65.
F. J. Ernst,* J. Math. Phys.* **15** (1974) 1409.
R. C. Tolman, *Relativity, Thermodinamics and Cosmology (*Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1934, 227)
H. Bondi, *Proc. R. Soc. London* **A427** (1990) 249.
Chia-Chen Chang, J. M. Nester and Chiang-Mei Chen, *Phys. Rev. Lett*. **83** (1999) 1897.
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The analysis of Proxima Centauri’s radial velocities recently led @nature to claim the presence of a low mass planet orbiting the Sun’s nearest star once every 11.2days. Although the a-priori probability that Proxima b transits its parent star is just 1.5%, the potential impact of such a discovery would be considerable. Independent of recent radial velocity efforts, we observed Proxima Centauri for 12.5days in 2014 and 31days in 2015 with the space telescope. We report here that we cannot make a compelling case that Proxima b transits in our precise photometric time series. Imposing an informative prior on the period and phase, we do detect a candidate signal with the expected depth. However, perturbing the phase prior across 100 evenly spaced intervals reveals one strong false-positive and one weaker instance. We estimate a false-positive rate of at least a few percent and a much higher false-negative rate of $20$-$40$%, likely caused by the very high flare rate of Proxima Centauri. Comparing our candidate signal to ground-based photometry reveals that the signal is somewhat, but not conclusively, disfavored (1-2$\sigma$) leading us to argue that the signal is most likely spurious. We expect that infrared photometric follow-up could more conclusively test the existence of this candidate signal, owing to the suppression of flare activity and the impressive infrared brightness of the parent star.'
author:
- |
David M. Kipping, Chris Cameron, Joel D. Hartman, James R. A. Davenport, Jaymie M. Matthews,\
Dimitar Sasselov, Jason Rowe, Robert J. Siverd, Jingjing Chen, Emily Sandford, Gáspár Á. Bakos,\
Andrés Jordán, Daniel Bayliss, Thomas Henning, Luigi Mancini, Kaloyan Penev, Zoltan Csubry,\
Waqas Bhatti, Joao Da Silva Bento, David B. Guenther, Rainer Kuschnig, Anthony F. J. Moffat,\
Slavek M. Rucinski, Werner W. Weiss
title: No Conclusive Evidence for Transits of Proxima b in photometry
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
OBSERVATIONS {#sec:data}
============
PRIORS, MODELS & TESTS {#sec:model}
======================
RESULTS {#sec:results}
=======
TYPE I & II ERROR RATES {#sec:tests}
=======================
CROSS-VALIDATING WITH HATSouth DATA {#sec:hats}
===================================
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS {#sec:discussion}
========================
Based on data from the MOST satellite, a Canadian Space Agency mission, jointly operated by Microsatellite Systems Canada Inc. (MSCI; formerly Dynacon Inc.), the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies and the University of British Columbia, with the assistance of the University of Vienna.
Based in part on observations from the HATSouth network, operated by a collaboration consisting of Princeton University (PU), the Max Planck Institute für Astronomie (MPIA), the Australian National University (ANU), and the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC). The station at Las Campanas Observatory (LCO) of the Carnegie Institute is operated by PU in conjunction with PUC, the station at the High Energy Spectroscopic Survey (H.E.S.S.) site is operated in conjunction with MPIA, and the station at Siding Spring Observatory (SSO) is operated jointly with ANU. Development of the HATSouth project was funded by NSF MRI grant NSF/AST-0723074, and operations have been supported by NASA grants NNX09AB29G and NNX12AH91H. J.H. acknowledges support from NASA grant NNX14AE87G.
Resources supporting this work were provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center.
This research has made use of the [corner.py]{} code by Dan Foreman-Mackey at [github.com/dfm/corner.py](http://github.com/dfm/corner.py).
We thank members of the Cool Worlds Lab for helpful conversations in preparing this manuscript. DMK & JC acknowledges support from NASA grant NNX15AF09G (NASA ADAP Program). DBG, JMM, AFJM, SMR acknowledge support from NSERC (Canada). JRAD is supported by an NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship under award AST-1501418. AJ acknowleges support from FONDECYT project 1130857, BASAL CATA PFB-06, and by the Ministry of the Economy, Development, and Tourism’s Programa Iniciativa Científica Milenio through grant IC120009, awarded to the Millenium Institute of Astrophysics (MAS).
[99]{}
, G., [Amado]{}, P., [Barnes]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2016, Nature, 536, 437
, G. [Á]{}., [Torres]{}, G., [P[á]{}l]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2010, , 710, 1724
, G. [Á]{}., [Csubry]{}, Z., [Penev]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2013, , 125, 154
, N. M., [Rowe]{}, J. F., [Bryson]{}, S. T., [et al.]{} 2013, , 204, 24
, G. F., [McArthur]{}, B., [Nelan]{}, E., [et al.]{} 1998, , 116, 429
, Z. K., [Irwin]{}, J., [Charbonneau]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2015, , 527, 204
, M. S. 1991, , 101, 662
, J., & [Kipping]{}, D. M. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.08614
, D. J., [Mathioudakis]{}, M., [Bloomfield]{}, D. S., [Dupuis]{}, J., & [Keenan]{}, F. P. 2004, , 612, 1140
, A. 2004, , 428, 1001
, A., [Dragomir]{}, D., & [Matthews]{}, J. M. 2014, , 567, A3
, J. R. A., [Kipping]{}, D. M., [Sasselov]{}, D., [Matthews]{}, J. M., & [Cameron]{}, C. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1608.06672
, J. R. A., [Hawley]{}, S. L., [Hebb]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2014, , 797, 122
, B.-O., [S[é]{}gransan]{}, D., [Forveille]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2009, , 505, 205
, D., [Matthews]{}, J. M., [Eastman]{}, J. D., [et al.]{} 2013, , 772, L2
, C. D., & [Charbonneau]{}, D. 2015, , 807, 45
, M., & [K[ü]{}rster]{}, M. 2008, , 488, 1149
, T. M., [Aigrain]{}, S., [Gibson]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2015, , 451, 680
, F., [Tuomi]{}, M., [Jones]{}, H. R. A., [Butler]{}, R. P., & [Vogt]{}, S. 2016, , 461, 2440
, F., & [Hobson]{}, M. P. 2008, , 384, 449
, F., [Hobson]{}, M. P., & [Bridges]{}, M. 2009, , 398, 1601
, N. P., [Aigrain]{}, S., [Roberts]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2012, , 419, 2683
, W.-C., [Henry]{}, T. J., [Subasavage]{}, J. P., [et al.]{} 2014, , 147, 21
, D. M. 2011, PhD thesis, PhD Thesis, 2011
, D. M., & [Sandford]{}, E. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.05662
, G., [Bakos]{}, G., & [Noyes]{}, R. W. 2005, , 356, 557
, K., & [Agol]{}, E. 2002, , 580, L171
, P. S., [Johnson]{}, J. A., [Apps]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2012, , 747, 144
, K., [Bakos]{}, G. [Á]{}., [Bayliss]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2013, , 145, 5
, J. F., [Matthews]{}, J. M., [Kuschnig]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2006, , 77, 282
, M., [Jones]{}, H. R. A., [Barnes]{}, J. R., [Anglada-Escud[é]{}]{}, G., & [Jenkins]{}, J. S. 2014, , 441, 1545
, F. 2007, , 474, 653
, A., [Montet]{}, B. T., [Johnson]{}, J. A., [et al.]{} 2015, , 800, 59
, G., [Matthews]{}, J., [Kuschnig]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2003, , 115, 1023
, J. N., [Matthews]{}, J. M., [Dawson]{}, R. I., [et al.]{} 2011, , 737, L18
, N., [Finch]{}, C. T., [Girard]{}, T. M., [et al.]{} 2013, , 145, 44
, M., [K[ü]{}rster]{}, M., & [Endl]{}, M. 2009, , 505, 859
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Roberto Vio\
Chip Computers Consulting s.r.l.\
Viale Don L. Sturzo 82, S.Liberale di Marcon, 30020 Venice, Italy\
\
Paola Andreani\
ESO\
Karl Schwarzschild strasse 2, 85748 Garching, Germany\
\
title: |
Comments on arXiv:1811.00154 \[astro-ph.IM\]\
“AGN Variability Analysis Handbook”
---
SDEs in astronomy
=================
The main aims in the analysis of a time series are forecasting and modeling. Although the latter could imply the former, the reverse is not true. For example, what matters a broker is a statistical-mathematical tool which permits him to forecast the future value of a given stock index. However, even in the case of correct predictions, such tool (e.g. a neural network) could have no relationship with the underlying dynamics. The correct forecast of a time series does not necessarily mean to have understood its true dynamics. A trivial example is represented by an object moving on the X-Y plane along a circular orbit of radius $r$ around a central point with constant angular velocity. It is easy to realize that two observers, one located on the Z-axis and the other on the X-Y plane at a distance greater than $r$ from the origin, can exactly forecast the time evolution of this system. However, while the first observer can correctly realize that the observed dynamics is due a uniform circular motion, the second observer can only conclude that the system evolves according to a harmonic motion. The point is that a time series provides information only on a projection of the dynamics of the system under investigation. Lacking of any additional information, the reconstruction of the true dynamics from one projection is not possible.
An example of the differences between forecasting and modeling in astronomy is represented by the Wölfer sunspot number. A huge literature exists on the forecasting of this number by means of statistical models such as AR, ARMA or more sophisticated tools as the neural networks (try a web search using“sunspot forecast” or “sunspot prediction”). Here, independently of the understanding of the involved physical processes, a reliable forecast is vital for the telecommunications since the Wölfer number is linked to the solar activity. Of course, predictions based on a physical dynamical model, as it happens with the weather forecast, should be preferable. But this is a much more complex issue. Physical models for the dynamics of the Wölfer sunspot number are available in literature, but they are not yet reliable for predictions (e.g. see [@all10; @cam17] and reference therein). Prediction is not the main scope of such models, but rather to get insights on the physical processes driving the time evolution of the investigated system.
In astronomy and astrophysics the main aim of the analysis of a time series is to understand why a given system behaves as it is observed. For this reason the use of statistical-mathematical tools developed for the forecasting makes no sense [@vio05]. The main limit in modeling the time series of astrophysical systems is that many of the involved physical processes are unknown. A possible way out is to assume that the dynamics of the system is driven by a small number of dominant physical processes whereas the ensemble of the unknown processes can be considered to constitute a stochastic perturbation. The rationale of such an approach is that the unknown processes usually are due to the interaction of the physical system of interest with its surroundings and/or the action of complex processes that cannot be directly included in the model (e.g. gas turbulence). In general, such processes are characterized by a huge number of degrees of freedom and therefore they can be assumed to have a stochastic nature. In practice, this means study of the time evolution of a given physical system in the context of the so called stochastic dynamics, i.e., through the modeling of the observed time series by means of stochastic differential equations (SDE). This approach is largely followed in many branches of science and engineering (e.g. [@dua2005]). Surprisingly this does not happen in astronomy where often statistical-mathematical models are still adopted without specifying the physical reason. This is the case of two recent papers [@kas17; @mor18] where the authors propose to use a LSDE called CARMA, which represents the continuous version of the classical discrete stochastic linear ARMA model, to extract information from the variability of AGNs. The point is that AGNs are certainly (probably highly) nonlinear systems. Hence, it is not clear the utility of LSDE to describe the time evolution of a nonlinear system. Actually, in appendix A of [@kas17] authors try to justify the use of the CARMA model as a consequence of the linearization of the true nonlinear dynamical equations due the small amplitude of the perturbative processes. However, this is a fact that should be proved and not a priori assumed.
As explained in [@vio05], an effective use of the SDEs for the analysis of experimental signals requires two distinct operations: a) fit of specific dynamical models to the time series; b) validation of the results through the generation of synthetic signals to compare with the experimental ones. These operations require the capability to estimate the parameters in SDE from discrete observations and the numerical solution of this kind of equations. Although the numerical integration of the SDEs is a well developed topic since many years (e.g. see [@klo94; @hig01; @mil04]), such tasks could appear problematic for non-experts of the field. Actually, nowadays free software is available not only for the numerical integration of the SDEs but also for their fit to experimental discrete signals (e.g. see the R packages Yuima and CTSMR).
Final remarks
=============
The time series usually available in astronomy are able to characterize only a subset of the system of equations that describe the dynamics of the physical system under study. For this reason, although in principle it is always possible to find a statistical model able to reproduce the experimental data, without any a priori physical model there are not many possibilities to obtain a reliable reconstruction of the physical scenario investigated. In general, this means that an approach to the analysis of time series exclusively based on the experimental data will provide inconclusive results, and that the practice to search for more and more sophisticated statistical techniques is not productive. In many situations, the only possibility for physical insights is to carry out the analysis in a well-defined physical context.
Allen, E.J., & Huff, C. 2010, A&A, 516, A114 Cameron, R.H., & Schüssler, M. 2017, ApJ, 843, 111 Duan, J. 2005, An Introduction to Stochastic Dynamics (New York: Cambridge University Press) Higham, D.J. 2001, SIAM Review, 43, 525 Kasliwal, V.P., Vogeley, M.S., & Richards, G.T. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3027 Kloeden, P.E., Platen, E., & Schurz H. 1994, Numerical Solution of SDE Through Computer Experiments (Berlin: Springer-Verlag) Milstein, G.N., & Tretyakov, M.V. 2004, Stochastic Numerics for Mathematical Physics (Berlin: Springer-Verlag) Moreno, J., Vogeley, M.S., & Richards, T.R. 2018, arXiv:1811.00154 \[astro-ph.IM\] Vio, R., Kristensen, N.R., Madsen, H., & Wamsteker, W. 2005, A&A, 435, 773
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we consider the localization of a five-dimensional gravitino field on $f(R)$ thick branes. We get the coupled chiral equations of the Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes of gravitino by choosing the gauge condition $\Psi_z=0$. It is found that the chiral equations of the gravitino KK modes are almost the same as the ones of the Dirac fermion. However, their chiralities are precisely opposite. The chiral KK modes of gravitino could be localized on some kinds of $f(R)$ thick branes if a coupling term is introduced. We investigate the localization of gravitino on three kinds of $f(R)$ thick branes through a Yukawa-like coupling term with background scalar fields. It has been shown that all the KK modes of gravitino can not be localized on the pure geometric $f(R)$ thick branes by adding a five-dimensional gravitino mass term. However, for the $f(R)$ thick branes generated by one or two background scalar fields, only the left- or right-handed zero mode could be localized on the branes and the massive KK resonant modes are the same for both left- and right-handed gravitinos, in spite of their opposite chiralities. All these results are consistent with that of the five-dimensional Dirac fermion except their chiralities, which may be an important sign to distinguish the gravitino field and the Dirac fermion field.'
author:
- 'Xiang-Nan Zhou$^{1}$[^1], Yun-Zhi Du$^{2}$[^2], Hao Yu$^{3}$[^3], and Yu-Xiao Liu$^{3}$[^4]'
title: 'Localization of Gravitino Field on $f(R)$ Thick Branes'
---
Introduction {#scheme1}
============
The extra dimensional theory has attracted more and more attention even though the visible world is a four-dimension spacetime [@Akama:1982jy; @Rubakov:1983; @ADD; @Antoniadis:1998ig; @Randall:1999ee; @Randall:1999vf; @ArkaniHamed:2000eg; @Kim:2000mc; @Nussinov:2001rb; @Pankov:2005ar; @Abulencia:2006kk; @Dey:2009xu; @Neupane:2010ey]. Some classical physical problems including the gauge hierarchy problem (the huge difference between the Planck scale and the weak scale) [@Antoniadis:1998ig; @Randall:1999ee; @Das:2007qn; @Yang:2012dd] and the cosmological problem [@Dvali:2000rv; @Starkman:2001xu; @Kim:2000mc; @Dey:2009xu; @Neupane:2010ey] could be solved via utilizing extra dimensions. In the 1920s, the Kaluza-Klein (KK) theory was proposed to unify Einstein’s gravity and electromagnetism by introducing a compact extra spacial dimension with Plank size [@Kaluza; @Klein]. Several decades later, Akama, Rubakov and Shaposhnikov proposed the idea of domain wall braneworld with an infinite extra dimension in five-dimensional flat spacetime [@Akama:1982jy; @Rubakov:1983]. In 1998, Antoniadis and Arkani-Hamed etc introduced the famous model with large extra dimension that attempts to solve the hierarchy problem [@ADD; @Antoniadis:1998ig]. One year latter, Randall and Sundrum (RS) suggested that the extra dimension with warped geometry could be [finite [ or]{} infinite, [corresponding to]{} the RSI [@Randall:1999ee] or RSII [@Randall:1999vf] thin braneworld model. In [both]{} braneworld scenarios,]{} our visible four-dimensional world is a brane [without]{} thickness along the extra dimension, [and]{} the matter fields of the Standard Model (SM) are confined on the brane [while]{} only gravity propagates in the five-dimensional [bulk]{} spacetime. [Subsequently]{}, more realistic thick branes generated dynamically by matter fields or pure gravity were introduced [@Gregory:2000jc; @Kaloper:2000jb; @Melfo:2002wd; @Bazeia:2004dh; @Cardoso:2006nh; @Liu:2011wi; @Liu:2012rc; @Liu:2012mia; @Bazeia:2015owa; @Yu:2015wma]. In these models, there exists a non-vanishing distribution of energy density along the extra dimension.
[The braneworld [scenario]{} with]{} [ warped]{} infinite extra dimensions [requires]{} a natural physical mechanism to trap the matter fields on the branes in order to not conflict with the current experiments. Thus, it is significant to investigate the localization of the matter fields on various kinds of branes [@Chang:1999nh; @Shiromizu:1999wj; @Kehagias:2000au; @Ringeval:2001cq; @Maity:2003im; @Chatterjee:2005cr; @Melfo:2006hh; @Liu:2007gk; @Davies:2007xr; @Liu:2009ve; @Guerrero:2009ac; @Fu:2012sa; @Xie:2013rka; @Liu:2013kxz; @Zhao:2014gka; @Guo:2014nja; @Du:2015pjw]. In order to rebuild the SM on the branes, the zero modes of these matter fields (the four-dimensional massless particles) should be localized on the branes. At the same time, [the localization of massive KK modes are crucial to provide a method to explore extra dimensions.]{} For example, we may observe some physical effects of these KK particles interacting with the SM particles in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [@Hung:2003cj; @Guo:2011qt; @Sahin:2014dua; @Bauer:2016lbe]. In some braneworld models, there are no bounded massive KK modes for some matter fields, [ while]{} there may be some resonant KK modes [quasi-localized]{} on the branes. These massive resonant KK modes may stay on the branes for a [ long]{} time and interact with other particles, which could provide us with opportunities to find the massive resonant KK modes and prove the existence of extra dimensions [@Liu:2009ve; @Xie:2013rka; @Guo:2014nja; @Almeida:2009jc; @Liu:2009mg; @Landim:2011ki; @Du:2013bx; @Zhang:2016ksq].
Gravitino is the gauge fermion supersymmetric partner of graviton in the supersymmetry theory. It has been suggested as a candidate for dark matter in cosmology [@Chun:1993vz; @Moroi:1995fs; @Steffen:2006hw; @Feng:2010ij; @Savvidy:2012qa]. It is a fermion of spin 3/2 and obeys the Rarita-Schwinger equation. The mass of [ a]{} light gravitino is always considered around 1eV [@Chun:1993vz], but there are still some challenges to its mass [@Feng:2010ij]. Its mass is widely investigated in the models of hot and cold dark matters [@Chun:1993vz; @Steffen:2006hw], and the possibility of finding light [gravitinos]{} at the LHC was discussed in Ref. [@Shirai:2009kn]. The behaviors of gravitino around a black hole also attract attentions [@Khlopov:2004tn; @Yale:2008kx; @Arnold:2013zva; @Chen:2015jga]. Besides, gravitino is a kind of matter [field]{} beyond the SM with many special properties that the SM matter fields do not possess. Therefore, the localization of a five-dimensional gravitino field on a brane will be very interesting and give us new perspective to investigate the gravitino. Compared to the matter fields of the SM such as the scalar and fermion fields, [the works on gravitino are few and not comprehensive]{} [@Liu:2007gk; @Du:2015pjw; @Bajc:1999mh; @Oda:2000dd; @Gherghetta:2000kr; @Oda:2000wa; @Hewett:2002uq; @Lee:2007ib]. The zero mode of a [ five-dimensional]{} free gravitino can be localized on a RS-like brane only when a bulk mass term is introduced [@Oda:2000dd]. In a $D$-dimensional spacetime with $D\geq5$, the zero mode of the gravitino with a coupling term can be localized on the brane, and the localization property is similar to that of the Dirac fermion [@Liu:2007gk; @Oda:2000wa]. In addition, the behavior of the gravitino KK modes with coupling terms was investigated in Ref. [@Hewett:2002uq]. Recently, the localization and mass spectrum of the gravitino KK modes on two kinds of thin branes (the RS branes and the scalar-tensor branes) were investigated in Ref. [@Du:2015pjw]. It should be noticed that most of these investigations focused on the RS-like thin branes.
In this paper, we pay our attention to the localization of a five-dimensional gravitino field on the $f(R)$ thick branes. Although general relativity is a very successful theory, its non-renormalization motives the investigation of modified gravity theories, particularly the gravity theories including higher-order curvature terms [@Sotiriou:2008rp]. $f(R)$ gravity is a kind of modified gravity whose Lagrangian is a function of the scalar curvature $R$. It always contains [higher-order curvature invariants]{}, which could make the theory to be renormalizable [@Sotiriou:2008rp]. [Furthermore]{}, the $f(R)$ gravity could be used to explain the dark energy or dark matter and answer the astrophysical and cosmological riddles. Therefore, it has been studied widely in cosmology and braneworld [@Liu:2011wi; @Yu:2015wma; @Sotiriou:2008rp; @DeFelice:2010aj; @Nojiri:2010wj; @Nojiri:2000gv; @Nojiri:2001ae; @Giovannini:2001xg; @Afonso:2007zz; @Dzhunushaliev:2009dt; @Liu:2011am; @Bazeia:2015oqa; @Zhong:2010ae; @Zhong:2012nt; @Zhong:2015pta]. In Ref. [@Yu:2015wma], the authors investigated various kinds of $f(R)$-branes and gave their general solutions. All of these solutions are also appropriate for the general relativity braneworlds, i.e., $f(R)=R$.
In this paper, we would [ like to]{} investigate the localization of a five-dimensional gravitino field on the $f(R)$ thick branes, whose solutions [have]{} been given in Ref. [@Yu:2015wma]. The conclusions of the localization of the gravitino will have some certain universality because they are also appropriate for the general relativity braneworlds. We believe it will give us some interesting results for the structure of thick branes that the thin branes do not have. Our work is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we consider the localization of a five-dimensional free massless gravitino field on a thick brane. We introduce the gauge condition [$\Psi_z=0$]{} and get the Schrödinger-like equations of [the gravitino]{} KK modes. Then we focus on the localization of a five-dimensional gravitino field with a coupling term on a thick brane in Sec. III. Three kinds of $f(R)$ thick branes are considered and the massive KK resonances are studied. Finally, discussion and conclusion are given in Sec. IV.
Localization of free gravitino field on thick branes {#sec2}
====================================================
Firstly, we consider the localization of a free massless gravitino field on a thick brane in a five-dimensional spacetime. Usually, it can be to assume the five-dimensional line-element as $$ds^2=g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=\text{e}^{2A(y)}\hat g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu + dy^2.\label{Le}$$ Here, $M$ and $N$ denote the curved five-dimensional spacetime indices, $\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric on the brane and the warp factor $\text{e}^{2A(y)}$ is only the function of the extra dimension $y$. For convenience, the following coordinate transformation $$\begin{aligned}
dz=\text{e}^{-A(y)}dy\label{ytoz}\end{aligned}$$ could be performed to transform the metric (\[Le\]) to be $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=\text{e}^{2A(z)}(\hat g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + dz^2).\label{LE}\end{aligned}$$
The action of a free massless gravitino field $\Psi$ in five-dimensional spacetime is given by [@Liu:2007gk; @Oda:2000wa; @Du:2015pjw] $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\frac}{3}{2}}=\int d^5 x \sqrt{-g}~\bar\Psi_M\Gamma^{[M}\Gamma^N\Gamma^{R]}D_N\Psi_R, \label{action}\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding equations of motion read as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{[M}\Gamma^N\Gamma^{R]}D_N\Psi_R=0.\label{motionequation}\end{aligned}$$ The Dirac gamma matrices $\Gamma^{M}$ in curved five-dimensional spacetime satisfy $\Gamma^M=e^M_{~~\bar M}\Gamma^{\bar M}$. $\Gamma^{\bar M}$ are the gamma matrices in flat five-dimensional spacetime and $\{\Gamma^{\bar M},~\Gamma^{\bar N}\}=2\eta^{\bar M\bar N}$, where $\bar M$ and $\bar N$ represent the five-dimensional local Lorentz indices. The vielbein satisfies $g_{MN}=e_M^{~~\bar M}e_N^{~~\bar N}\eta_{\bar M\bar N}$ and for the metric (\[LE\]) it is given by $$\begin{aligned}
e_M^{~~\bar M}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\text{e}^{A}\hat e_\mu^{~~\bar\mu}&
0\\
0&
\text{e}^{A}
\end{array}\right),~~~~
e^M_{~~\bar M}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\text{e}^{-A}\hat e^\mu_{~~\bar\mu}&
0\\
0&
\text{e}^{-A}
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ From the relations $e_{M\bar M}=g_{MN}e^{N}_{~~\bar M}$ and $e^{M\bar M}=g^{MN}e_{N}^{~~\bar M}$, we can get $$\begin{aligned}
e_{M\bar M}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\text{e}^{A}\hat e_{\mu\bar\mu}&0\\
0&\text{e}^{A}
\end{array}\right),~~~~~~
e^{M\bar M}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\text{e}^{-A}\hat e^{\mu\bar\mu}&0\\
0&\text{e}^{-A}
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\Gamma^M=\text{e}^{-A}(\hat e^\mu_{~~\bar\mu}\gamma^{\bar\mu},~\gamma^5)=\text{e}^{-A}(\gamma^{\mu},~\gamma^5)$, where $\gamma^{\mu}= \hat e^\mu_{~~\bar\mu}\gamma^{\bar\mu}$, $\gamma^{\bar\mu}$ and $\gamma^5$ are the flat gamma matrices in the four-dimensional Dirac representation. In this paper, we choose the following representation for the four-dimensional flat gamma matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^0=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0&-\text{i}\mathbb{I}\\
-\text{i}\mathbb{I}&0
\end{array}\right),~~
\gamma^i=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0&\text{i}\sigma^i\\
-\text{i}\sigma^i&0
\end{array}\right),~~
\gamma^5=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbb{I}&0\\
0&-\mathbb{I}
\end{array}\right).\label{Gamma}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\mathbb{I}$ is a two-by-two unit matrix and $\sigma^i$ are the Pauli matrices. In this paper, we only consider flat chick branes, i.e. $\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}$. So we have $\hat{e}^{\mu}_{~\bar{\mu}}=\delta^{\mu}_{~\bar{\mu}}$ and $\gamma^{\mu}=\gamma^{\bar{\mu}}$. In addition, the covariant derivative of a gravitino field is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
D_N\Psi_R=\partial_N\Psi_R-\Gamma^M_{~~NR}\Psi_M+\omega_N\Psi_R,\end{aligned}$$ where the spin connection $\omega_N$ is defined by $\omega_N=\frac{1}{4}\omega_{N}^{~~\bar N\bar L}
\Gamma_{\bar N}\Gamma_{\bar L}$ and $\omega_{N}^{~~\bar N\bar L}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{N}^{~~\bar N\bar L}
=\frac{1}{2}e^{M\bar N}(\partial_N e_M^{~~\bar L}-\partial_M e_N^{~~\bar L})
-\frac{1}{2}e^{M\bar L}(\partial_N e_M^{~~\bar N}-\partial_M e_N^{~~\bar N})
-\frac{1}{2}e^{M\bar N}e^{P\bar L}(\partial_M e_{P\bar R}-\partial_P e_{M\bar R})e^{~\bar R}_N.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we get the non-vanishing components of $\omega_N$: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_\mu=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_z A)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5+\hat\omega_\mu.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the four-dimensional spin connection $\hat\omega_\mu$ on a flat brane vanishes. The non-vanishing components of $D_N\Psi_R$ are $$\begin{aligned}
D_\mu\Psi_\nu
&=&\partial_\mu\Psi_\nu-\Gamma^M_{~~\mu\nu}\Psi_M+\omega_\mu\Psi_\nu\nonumber\\
&=&\hat D_\mu\Psi_\nu+(\partial_z A)\hat g_{\mu\nu}\Psi_z+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_z A)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\Psi_\nu,\label{G1}\\
D_\mu\Psi_z
&=&\partial_\mu\Psi_z-\Gamma^M_{~~\mu z}\Psi_M+\omega_\mu\Psi_z\nonumber\\
&=&\partial_\mu\Psi_z-(\partial_z A)\Psi_\mu+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_z A)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\Psi_z+\hat\omega_\mu\Psi_z,\label{G3}\\
D_z\Psi_\mu
&=&\partial_z\Psi_\mu-\Gamma^M_{~~z\mu}\Psi_M+\omega_z\Psi_\mu\nonumber\\
&=&\partial_z\Psi_\mu-(\partial_z A)\Psi_\mu,\label{G4}\\
D_z\Psi_z
&=&\partial_z\Psi_z-\Gamma^M_{~~zz}\Psi_M+\omega_z\Psi_z\nonumber\\
&=&\partial_z\Psi_z-(\partial_z A)\Psi_z.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[motionequation\]) includes five equations because $M$ runs over all five spacetime indices. There are two kinds of equations: $M=5$ and $M=\mu$. For the first case of $M=5$, the equation of motion reads as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{[5}\Gamma^{N}\Gamma^{R]}D_N\Psi_R&=&
\Gamma^{[5}\Gamma^{\mu}\Gamma^{\nu]}D_\mu\Psi_\nu\nonumber\\
&=&\big([\Gamma^{\mu},~\Gamma^{\nu}]-g^{\mu\nu}\big)
\Gamma^5\Big(\hat D_\mu\Psi_\nu+(\partial_z A)\hat g_{\mu\nu}\Psi_z+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_z A)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\Psi_\nu\Big) \nonumber\\
&=&0.\label{EOM1}\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, for convenience we prefer to choose the gauge condition $\Psi_z=0$, with which we introduce the KK decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_\mu=\sum\psi^{(n)}_\mu(x)\xi_n(z), \label{KKdecomposition}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi^{(n)}_\mu(x)$ is the four-dimensional gravitino field. Then Eq. (\[EOM1\]) is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\big([\gamma^{\mu},~\gamma^{\nu}]-\hat g^{\mu\nu}\big) \gamma^5~
\Big(\hat D_\mu\psi_\nu^{(n)}
+\frac{1}{2} (\partial_z A)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\psi_\nu^{(n)}
\Big)=0. \label{EqsGravitino5}\end{aligned}$$ For the four-dimensional massive gravitino field $\psi_\mu$, it should satisfy the following four equations [@Moroi:1995fs]
\[Eqs4DGravitino\] $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu]}\hat{D}_{\mu}\psi_{\nu}-m_{3/2}[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\mu}]\psi_{\mu}&=&0, \\
\gamma^{\mu}\psi_{\mu}&=&0,\\
\hat{D}^{\mu}\psi_{\mu}&=&0,\\
(\gamma^{\mu}\hat{D}_{\mu}+m_{3/2})\psi_{\nu}&=&0.\end{aligned}$$
Here, $m_{3/2}$ is the mass of a four-dimensional gravitino field $\psi_{\mu}$. Thus the left-hand side of Eq. is always vanished for a four-dimensional gravitino field $\psi_{\mu}^{(n)}$ [satisfying]{} the above equation . On the other hand, when we choose the gauge condition $\Psi_{z}=0$, the part $\Gamma^{[5}\Gamma^{N}\Gamma^{R]}D_N\Psi_R$ in the five-dimensional gravitino action has no contribution, so Eq. (\[EOM1\]) can be ignored. Then we will focus on the case of $M=\mu$, for which the equations of motion are $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{[\lambda}\Gamma^{N}\Gamma^{L]}D_N\Psi_L&=&
\Gamma^{[\lambda}\Gamma^{\mu}\Gamma^{\nu]}D_\mu\Psi_\nu+
\Gamma^{[\lambda}\Gamma^{\nu}\Gamma^{5]}D_\nu\Psi_z+
\Gamma^{[\lambda}\Gamma^{5}\Gamma^{\nu]}D_z\Psi_\nu\nonumber\\
&=&\text{e}^{-3A}\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu]}\hat{D}_{\mu}\Psi_{\nu}-\text{e}^{-3A}[\gamma^\lambda,~\gamma^\nu]\gamma_5
(\partial_z A+\partial_z)\Psi_{\nu}\nonumber\\
&=&0,
\label{EOM2}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the gauge condition $\Psi_z=0$. When we introduce the decomposition and consider the zero mode, which corresponds to the four-dimensional massless gravitino satisfying $\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu]}\hat{D}_{\mu}\psi^{(0)}_{\nu}=0$, we get the equation of motion for the extra-dimensional configuration $\xi_0(z)$: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu]}\hat{D}_{\mu}\psi^{0}_{\nu}(x)\xi_0(z)
-[\gamma^\lambda,~\gamma^\nu]\gamma_5\psi^{(0)}_\nu(x)
(\partial_z A+\partial_z)\xi_0(z)\nonumber\\
&=&-(\partial_z A+\partial_z)\xi_0(z)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, the solution is $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_0(z)=C\text{e}^{-A(z)},\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a normalization constant. By substituting the zero mode $\xi_0(z)$ into the gravitino action (\[action\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\frac}{3}{2}}^{(0)} =\mathcal{I}_0
\int d^4 x~\sqrt{-\hat g}~\bar\psi^{(0)}_\lambda
\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma^{\nu]}\hat D_\mu\psi^{(0)}_\nu(x),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{I}_0 \equiv \int dz~\text{e}^{2A}\xi^2_0(z)=C^2\int dz =C^2\int e^{-A(y)}dy$. In order to localize the spin 3/2 gravitino on a brane, the integral $\mathcal{I}_0$ must [be]{} finite. So if we consider a RS-type brane model, then only for a finite extra dimension the zero mode of a five-dimensional free massless gravitino can be localized on the brane.
For the massive modes, we need to introduce the following chiral decomposition: $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_\mu(x,z)
&=&\sum_n\left(\psi^{(n)}_{L\mu}(x)\xi_{Ln}(z)+\psi^{(n)}_{R\mu}(x)\xi_{Rn}(z)\right) \nonumber \\
&=&\sum_n\bigg(\left[
\begin{array}{c}
0\\ \tilde{\psi}^{(n)}_{L\mu}\xi_{Ln}
\end{array}\right]+\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{\psi}^{(n)}_{R\mu}\xi_{Rn}\\0
\end{array}\right]
\bigg),\label{CD}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\psi}^{(n)}_{L\mu}$ and $\tilde{\psi}^{(n)}_{R\mu}$ are both the two-component spinors. The effect of $P_{L,R}$ ($P_{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}[I \mp \gamma^5]$) on the gravitino field $\Psi_M$ is to single out the left- and right-handed parts, respectively, which is equivalent to the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^5\psi^{(n)}_{L\mu}=-\psi^{(n)}_{L\mu}, ~~~~~~\gamma^5\psi^{(n)}_{R\mu}=\psi^{(n)}_{R\mu}. \label{partiyrelation}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, substituting the chiral decomposition (\[CD\]) into Eq. (\[EOM2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma^{\nu]}\hat D_\mu\psi^{(n)}_{L\nu}\xi_{Ln}
+\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma^{\nu]}\hat D_\mu\psi^{(n)}_{R\nu}\xi_{Rn}
+[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\nu}]
(\partial_z A)\psi^{(n)}_{L\nu}\xi_{L n}\nonumber\\
&&-[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\nu}](\partial_z A)\psi^{(n)}_{R\nu}\xi_{Rn}
+[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\nu}]\psi^{(n)}_{L\nu}\partial_z\xi_{Ln}
-[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\nu}]\psi^{(n)}_{R\nu}\partial_z\xi_{Rn}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the product of three gamma matrices is oblique diagonal and the product of two gamma matrices is diagonal, two equations can be obtained from above equation:
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma^{\nu]}\hat D_\mu\psi^{(n)}_{L\nu}\xi_{Ln}
-[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\nu}](\partial_z A)\psi^{(n)}_{R\nu}\xi_{Rn}
-[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\nu}]\psi^{(n)}_{R\nu}\partial_z\xi_{Rn}=0,\\
\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma^{\nu]}\hat D_\mu\psi^{(n)}_{R\nu}\xi_{Rn}
+[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\nu}](\partial_z A)\psi^{(n)}_{L\nu}\xi_{L n}
+[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\nu}]\psi^{(n)}_{L\nu}\partial_z\xi_{Ln}=0.\end{aligned}$$
Through the method of separation of variance and defining a parameter $m_n$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma^{\nu]}\hat D_\mu\psi^{(n)}_{L\nu}}
{[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\alpha}]\psi^{(n)}_{R\alpha}}
=\frac{A'\xi_{Rn}+\partial_z\xi_{Rn}}{\xi_{Ln}}=m_n,\\
\frac{\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma^{\nu]}\hat D_\mu\psi^{(n)}_{R\nu}}
{[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\alpha}]\psi^{(n)}_{L\alpha}}
=-\frac{(\partial_z A)\xi_{Ln}+\partial_z\xi_{Ln}}{\xi_{Rn}}=m_n,\end{aligned}$$
i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma^{\nu]}\hat D_\mu\psi^{(n)}_{L\nu}
&=&m_n[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\alpha}]\psi^{(n)}_{R\alpha},~~~~
\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma^{\nu]}\hat D_\mu\psi^{(n)}_{R\nu}
=m_n[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\alpha}]\psi^{(n)}_{L\alpha},
\label{MLD}\\
(\partial_z+(\partial_z A))\xi_{Rn}&=&m_n\xi_{Ln},~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(\partial_z+(\partial_z A))\xi_{Ln}=-m_n\xi_{Rn}.
\label{MRD}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[MLD\]) are the ones that four-dimensional chiral gravitino fields satisfy and Eqs. (\[MRD\]) are the coupled ones which KK modes $\xi_{Ln}$ and $\xi_{Rn}$ satisfy. Performing the field transformations $\xi_{Rn}(z)=\chi^{R}_{n}(z)~\text{e}^{-A}$ and $\xi_{Ln}(z)=\chi^{L}_{n}(z)~\text{e}^{-A}$, we can obtain equations for the left- and right-handed KK modes of gravitino
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z^2\chi^{L}_n(z)=-m^2_n\chi^L_n(z),\label{chi1}\\
\partial_z^2\chi^{R}_n(z)=-m^2_n\chi^R_n(z).\label{chi2}\end{aligned}$$
When the following normalizable conditions are introduced $$\begin{aligned}
\int\chi^{L}_{m}(z)\chi^{R}_n(z)dz=\delta_{RL}\delta_{mn}, \label{normalizable condition}\end{aligned}$$ the effective action of the four-dimensional massless and massive gravitinos can be got $$\begin{aligned}
S^{m}_{\frac{3}{2}}&=&\sum_{n}\int d^4x
\bigg[\bar{\psi}^{(n)}_{L\lambda}(x)\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu]}\partial_{\mu}\psi^{(n)}_{L\nu}(x)
-m_n\bar{\psi}^{(n)}_{L\lambda}(x)[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\mu}]\psi^{(n)}_{R\mu}(x)\nonumber\\
&&~~~~+\bar{\psi}^{(n)}_{R\lambda}(x)\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu]}\partial_{\mu}\psi^{(n)}_{R\nu}(x)
-m_n\bar{\psi}^{(n)}_{R\lambda}(x)[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\mu}]\psi^{(n)}_{L\mu}(x)
\bigg]\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{n}\int d^4x\left(\bar{\psi}^{(n)}_{\lambda}(x)\gamma^{[\lambda}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu]}\partial_{\mu}\psi^{(n)}_{\nu}(x)
-m_n\bar{\psi}^{(n)}_{\lambda}(x)[\gamma^{\lambda},~\gamma^{\mu}]\psi^{(n)}_{\mu}(x)\right).\label{4Daction}\end{aligned}$$ However, obviously the solutions of Eqs. (\[chi1\]) and (\[chi2\]) are mediocre. Thus the four-dimensional massive gravitinos cannot be localized. This conclusion is the same as Dirac fermion.
Localization of gravitino field with coupling term on thick branes
==================================================================
As what we have pointed out in the previous section, the massive KK modes of a five-dimensional free massless gravitino field cannot be localized on RS-type thick branes. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a coupling term as the case of Dirac field. In the thin brane scenario [@Du:2015pjw], one usually introduces an additional mass term which is associated with the warp factor of the thin brane. In the scenario of thick brane generated by one or multiple background scalar fields, we could introduce a coupling term between the background scalar field and gravitino field. We consider the simplest coupling, i.e., a Yukawa-like coupling, for which the action of a five-dimensional gravitino field is $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\frac{3}{2}}=\int d^5x\sqrt{-g}\Big(\bar{\Psi}_M\Gamma^{[M}\Gamma^{N}\Gamma^{R]}D_N\Psi_R-\eta F(\phi)\bar{\Psi}_M [\Gamma^M,~\Gamma^N]\Psi_N\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $F(\phi)$ is a function of the background scalar field $\phi$ and $\eta$ is the coupling constant. The equations of motion derived from the above action [are]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{[M}\Gamma^N\Gamma^{R]}D_N\Psi_R-\eta F(\phi)[\Gamma^M,~\Gamma^N]\Psi_N=0.\end{aligned}$$ By using the gauge condition $\Psi_z=0$ and introducing the chiral decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_\mu(x,z)=\sum_n\text{e}^{-A(z)}\left(\psi^{(n)}_{L\mu}(x)\chi^{L}_{n}(z)+\psi^{(n)}_{R\mu}(x)\chi^{R}_{n}(z)\right),\end{aligned}$$ we can obtain the following first-order coupled equations
\[FirstOrderCoupledEquations\] $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_z-\eta\text{e}^{A}F(\phi))\chi^L_n(z)=&-&m_n\chi^R_n(z),\\
(\partial_z+\eta\text{e}^{A}F(\phi))\chi^R_n(z)=&&m_n\chi^L_n(z).\end{aligned}$$
From the above equation , the left- and right-handed KK modes of the gravitino field satisfy the following Schrödinger-like equations:
\[EoG\] $$\begin{aligned}
(-\partial^2_z+V^L(z))\chi^L_n(z)&=&m_n^2\chi^L_n(z),\label{EoL}\\
(-\partial^2_z+V^R(z))\chi^R_n(z)&=&m_n^2\chi^R_n(z),\label{EoR}\end{aligned}$$
where the effective potentials are given by
\[Vz\] $$\begin{aligned}
V^L(z)&=&(\eta\text{e}^{A}F(\phi))^2+\eta\partial_z(\text{e}^{A}F(\phi)),\\
V^R(z)&=&(\eta\text{e}^{A}F(\phi))^2-\eta\partial_z(\text{e}^{A}F(\phi)).\end{aligned}$$
For a five-dimensional free gravitino, we have obtained the effective action (\[4Daction\]) of the four-dimensional left- and right-handed gravitinos. It is interesting that the forms of these equations for the left- and right-handed KK gravitinos (\[EoL\]) and (\[EoR\]) are the same as those of the KK modes of a Dirac field, while the only difference is their chiralities. For a given background solution of a thick brane, if the function $F(\phi)$ and the coupling parameter $\eta$ are the same, it seems that the mass spectrum of the KK gravitinos will be the same as that of the Dirac field. Here, we should note the difference of chiralities, which will give an interesting result.
Next we first review some kinds of $f(R)$ thick branes [@Zhong:2015pta; @Yu:2015wma], and then investigate the localization of the five-dimensional gravitino on these branes and give their KK mass spectra.
In the five-dimensional spacetime, the action of a general $f(R)$ thick brane model reads [@Yu:2015wma] $$\begin{aligned}
S=\int d^{5}x\sqrt{-g}\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}_{5}}f(R)+L(\phi_{i},X_i)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa^{2}_{5}\equiv8\pi G^{5}$ is the five-dimensional gravitational constant and is set to one for convenience, $f(R)$ is a function of the scalar curvature $R$ and $L(\phi_{i},X_i)$ is the Lagrangian density of the background scalar fields $\phi_i$ with the kinetic terms $
X_i=-\frac{1}{2}g^{MN}\partial_{M}\phi_{i}\partial_N\phi_{i}$. It is predictable that the spectra of the KK modes of the gravitino field on these $f(R)$ thick branes will be almost the same as the ones of the Dirac field except their chiralities. These results could give us some important reference in the future experiments about extra dimension and gravitino.
Localization of gravitino field on the pure geometric $f(R)$ thick [branes]{} without background scalar field
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, we focus on the localization of the gravitino field on the pure geometric $f(R)$ thick branes. In Ref. [@Zhong:2015pta], the authors investigated the pure geometric $f(R)$ thick branes, where the Lagrangian density of the background scalar fields $L(\phi_{i},X_i)$ vanishes. For the flat pure geometric $f(R)$ thick branes, the background metric is given by (\[Le\]) with $\hat g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}$. The solution of the warp factor $A(y)$ is [@Zhong:2015pta] $$\begin{aligned}
A(y)=-n\ln(\cosh(ky)), \label{Ay_fR1}\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ is a positive real parameter that related to the curvature of the five-dimensional spacetime and $n$ is a positive integer number. The solutions of the function $f(R)$ for $n=1$ and $n=20$ are respectively [@Zhong:2015pta] $$\begin{aligned}
f(R)&=&\frac{1}{7}(6k^2+R)\cosh(a(w(R)))-\frac{2}{7}k^2\sqrt{480-\frac{36R}{k^2}-\frac{3R^2}{k^4}}\sinh(\alpha((w(R))),~~~(n=1)\\
f(R)&=&-\frac{377600}{7803}k^2+\frac{4196}{2601}R-\frac{83}{41616k^2}R^2+\frac{13}{39951360k^4}R^3,~~~(n=20)\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha(w)=2\sqrt{3}\arctan(\tanh(\frac{w}{2}))$ and $w(R)=\pm\text{arcsech}\left[\frac{\sqrt{20n^2+R/k^2}}{\sqrt{8n+20n^2}}\right]$. For arbitrary $n$, the [ function $f(R)$ has no a unified expression]{}, and it is hard to get [ an]{} analytical $y(z)$ from the following relation of $z(y)$ calculated from the solution : $$\begin{aligned}
z(y) =-\frac{\cosh^{n+1}(k y) \sinh(k y)
~{_2 F_1}\big(1/2, \frac{n+1}{2}, \frac{n+3}{2}, \cosh^2(k y)\big)}
{(n+1) k \sqrt{-\sinh^2(k y)}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since there is no background scalar [field]{} in the pure geometric brane model, we may try to take $\eta F$ as the five-dimensional mass $M$ of the gravitino field. Then, the effective potentials $V^L$ and $V^R$ can be expressed in terms of the extra dimension $y$ $$\begin{aligned}
V^L(z(y))&=& \text{sech}^{2n}(ky) \big(M^2-nkM\tanh(ky)\big),\label{VLforpure}\\
V^R(z(y))&=& \text{sech}^{2n}(ky) \big(M^2+nkM\tanh(ky)\big). \label{VRforoure}
\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that both potentials are asymmetric and their asymptotic behaviors are $$\begin{aligned}
V^L(0)&=&M^2,~~~~~~V^L(\pm\infty)=\text{e}^{2A(\pm\infty)}(M^2\mp Mkn)=0,\\
V^R(0)&=&M^2,~~~~~~V^R(\pm\infty)=\text{e}^{2A(\pm\infty)}(M^2\pm Mkn)=0,\end{aligned}$$ which indicates that there is no bound massive KK [mode]{}. The solutions for the left- and right-handed zero modes of the gravitino field are $\chi_0^{L,R} \propto e^{\pm My}$. It is clear that both zero modes are not normalizable, and hence cannot be localized on the pure geometric $f(R)$ thick branes.
Localization of gravitino field on the $f(R)$ thick [branes]{} with $L=X-V(\phi)$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let us consider the thick $f(R)$ branes generated by one background scalar field. For the Lagrangian density $L=X-V(\phi)=-\frac{1}{2}\partial^{M}\phi\partial_{M}\phi-V(\phi)$, the solution in this model with the Sine-Gordon potential is given by [@Yu:2015wma]
$$\begin{aligned}
f({{\hat{R}}})
\!&=&\! \hat{R}
+\!\alpha \bigg\{ \frac{24b^2\!+\!2{\hat{R}}\!+ \!2b{\hat{R}}}{2\!+\!5b}
\Big[P_{K_{-}}^{{b}/{2}}(\Xi)
\!-\! {\beta}Q_{K_{-}}^{{b}/{2}}(\Xi)
\Big] \nonumber \\
&-&\!\!
4(b^2\!-\!2bK_{+}) \Xi\Big[P_{K_{+}}^{{b}/{2}}(\Xi)
-\!\! \Xi P_{K_{-}}^{{b}/{2}}(\Xi) \nonumber \\
&+&\!\!\beta \Xi\left( Q_{K_{-}}^{{b}/{2}}(\Xi)
- Q_{K_{+}}^{{b}/{2}}(\Xi)\right)\Big] \bigg\} \Theta^{b/2}, \label{fRBrane2a} \\
V(\phi) \!&=&\! \frac{3b k^2}{8}\left[(1-4b)+(1+4b)\cos \Big(\sqrt{\frac{8}{3b}}\phi\Big)\right],~~~~\label{fRBrane2b}\\
\phi(y) \!&=&\! \sqrt{6b} \arctan \Big[\tanh\Big(\frac{ky}{2}\Big)\Big],\label{fRBrane2c}\\
A(y)\!&=&\! -b\ln\Big[\cosh (ky)\Big],\label{fRBrane2d}\end{aligned}$$
\[fRBrane2\]
where $b$ and $k$ are positive parameters related to the thickness of the brane, $\alpha$ is an arbitrary constant, $\hat{R}\equiv R/k^2$, $K_{\pm}\equiv\frac12\sqrt{(b-14) b+1}\pm1/2$, $\Xi=\sqrt{1-\Theta^2}$, $\Theta\equiv\frac{\sqrt{20b^2+{\hat{R}}}}{2\sqrt{2b+5b^2}}$, $P$ and $Q$ are the first and second kinds of Legendre functions, $\beta={P_{K_{+}}^{{b}/{2}}(0)}/{Q_{K_{+}}^{{b}/{2}}(0)}$. Note that the solution - is also appropriate for the case of $f(R)=R$. Thus our following results are also appropriate for the case of general relativity thick brane. As shown in the above subsection, it is very difficult to obtain analytical $y(z)$. Therefore, in the following we will solve the equations numerically. The effective potentials $V^L$ and $V^R$ in the physical coordinate $y$ become
\[Vzy\] $$\begin{aligned}
V^L(z(y))&=&(\eta\text{e}^{A}F(\phi))^2+\eta\text{e}^{2A}\partial_y F(\phi)+\eta(\partial_yA) \text{e}^{2A} F(\phi),\\
V^R(z(y))&=&V^L(z(y))|_{\eta\rightarrow-\eta}.\end{aligned}$$\[Vforphi\]
It is obvious that [for different forms of $F(\phi)$, the potentials $V^L$ and $V^R$ have different expressions]{}, which determine the mass spectra of the KK modes. In this paper, we would like to consider one kind of Yukawa coupling, i.e., $F(\phi)=\phi^\alpha$ with positive integer $\alpha$. For a kink configuration of the scalar $\phi$, since $V^L$ and $V^R$ are demanded to be symmetrical with respect to extra dimension $y$, $\alpha$ should be odd. Next we consider two cases: the simplest case $F(\phi)=\phi$ and the case for $\alpha>1$.
-5mm
### Case I: $F(\phi)=\phi$
For the case of $F(\phi)=\phi$, the effective potentials (\[Vforphi\]) read
$$\begin{aligned}
V^L(y)&=&\frac{1}{2}\cosh(ky)^{-1-2b}
\bigg [ 12b\eta^2\arctan\Big(\tanh(\frac{ky}{2})\Big)^2\cosh(ky)\nonumber\\
&+&\eta\sqrt{6b}k(1-2b\arctan\Big(\tanh(\frac{ky}{2})\Big)\sinh(ky)) \bigg] ,
\label{Vforphi1L} \\
V^R(y)&=&V^L(y)|_{\eta\rightarrow-\eta},\label{Vforphi1R}\end{aligned}$$
\[Vforphi1\]
which are symmetrical. The values of the potentials at the original point and infinity are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&V^R(0)=-\eta k\sqrt{\frac{3b}{2}}=-V^L(0),\\
&&V^R(\pm\infty)=0=V^L(\pm\infty).\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that both potentials have the same asymptotic behaviors as $y\rightarrow\pm\infty$, while their values at $y=0$ are opposite. Thus only the left- or right-handed gravitino zero mode (four-dimensional massless left- or right-handed gravitino) could be localized on the $f(R)$ thick brane. The shapes of the potentials (\[Vforphi1\]) are shown in Fig. \[fig:VLRCaseII1\], from which it can be seen that for any positive $b$, $k$ and $\eta$, $V^R(z(y))$ is a volcano type of potential and there may exist a localized zero mode and a continuous gapless spectrum of massive KK modes. Furthermore, the depth of the potential $V^R$ increases with values of the parameters $\eta$, $b$ and $k$. By solving Eq. (\[EoR\]) with the potential (\[Vforphi1R\]), the zero mode of the right-handed gravitino [becomes]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{R}_{0}(z)&\propto&\exp\left(-\eta\int_{0}^{z}e^{A(\bar{z})}
F(\phi)d\bar{z}\right) \nonumber \\
&=& \exp\left( -\eta\int_{0}^{y}\phi(\bar{y}) d\bar{y}\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \exp\left( -\eta\int_{0}^{y}\sqrt{6b} \arctan \left(\tanh\left(\frac{k\bar{y}}{2}\right)\right) d\bar{y}\right),
\label{fL0CaseI}\end{aligned}$$ and its normalization condition $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(\chi^R_{0}(z))^2 dz
&=& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(\chi^R_{0}(y))^2 e^{-A(y)} dy \nonumber \\
&\propto& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp\left( -A(y)-2\eta\int_{0}^{y} \phi(\bar{y}) d\bar{y}\right)dy \nonumber \\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp\left( b
\text{ln}(\cosh(ky))
-2\eta\int_{0}^{y}\sqrt{6b} \arctan \left(\tanh\left(\frac{k\bar{y}}{2}\right)\right) d\bar{y}
\right)dy
<\infty
\end{aligned}$$ is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\infty} \exp
\left( kby - \frac{\pi\eta}{2}\sqrt{6b}y \right)dy
<\infty
\label{NormalizationConditionfR0CaseI1}\end{aligned}$$ since $-A(y)\rightarrow kby$ and $\arctan(\tanh(\frac{ky}{2}))={\pi}/{4}$ as $y\rightarrow\infty$. The above normalization condition (\[NormalizationConditionfR0CaseI1\]) requires $$\begin{aligned}
\eta>\eta_0\equiv\frac{k}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{2b}{3}}.
\label{NormalizationConditionfR0CaseI1Foreta}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if the coupling constant is strong enough ($\eta>\eta_0$), the right-handed zero mode can be localized on the brane. It is not difficult to check that the left-handed zero mode can not be localized on the brane under the condition .
On the other hand, the potential $V^L(z(y))$ for positive $\eta$ is always positive and vanishes far away from the brane. This type of potential cannot trap any bound state, and hence there is no left-handed gravitino zero mode. The structure of the potential $V^L$ is determined by the parameters $k$, $b$ and $\eta$. For given $k$ and $b$, the potential $V^L$ has a barrier for a small $\eta$. When $\eta$ increases, there will be a quasi-potential well and the depth of the well will increase with the value of $\eta$. However, for given $\eta$ and $k$ (or $b$), the height of the potential $V^L$ increases with $b$ (or $k$) and the quasi-potential well changes into a barrier as the growth of $b$ (or $k$). The behavior of $V^L$ around the point $y=0$ is similar to that of the function $y^4$ and there will be three extreme points if a quasi-potential well exists around the point $y=0$. Doing third-order Taylor series expansion of $\partial_y V^L$ near the point $y=0$, we will get $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_y V^L &=&
\frac{1}{2} k^2 \eta \big[6b \eta-\sqrt{6b}k(1 + 4b)\big] y \nonumber \\
&+&\frac{1}{12} k^4 \eta \big[\sqrt{6b}k(1 + 2b) (5 + 18b) -24b\eta (1 + 3b) \big] y^3 + \mathcal{O}(z^5) .\end{aligned}$$ For $k=1$ and $b>\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}$, the above function has three roots and there is a quasi-potential well when $\eta>\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{\frac{6+48b+96b^2}{b}}$ (it equals 2.04124 when $b=1$).
For the case that there is a quasi-potential well for $V^L$, we could find resonance states of the gravitino, which are the massive four-dimensional gravitinos with finite lifetimes on the brane. To investigate the gravitino resonant modes, we give the definition of the relative probability by following Ref. [@Liu:2009ve]: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{L,R}(m^{2})=\frac{\int^{z_{b}}_{-z_{b}}|\chi^{L,R}(z)|^{2}dz}{\int^{z_{max}}_{-z_{max}}|\chi^{L,R}(z)|^{2}dz},\end{aligned}$$ where $2z_b$ is approximately the width of the brane, and $z_{max}=10z_b$. The left- and right-handed wavefunctions $\chi^{L,R}(z)$ are the solutions of Eqs. (\[EoG\]). The above definition could be explained that $|\chi^{L,R}(z)|^{2}$ is the probability density [@Liu:2009ve; @Almeida:2009jc]. There exists a resonant mode with mass $m_n$, if the relative probability $P(m^2)$ has a peak around $m=m_n$. These peaks should have full width at half maximum and the number of these peaks is the same as the number of the resonant modes. In order to get the solutions of Eqs. (\[EoG\]), we always need additional two types of initial conditions
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{even}
\chi^{L,R}_{\rm{even}}(0)\!\!&=&\!\!1, ~~~\partial_{z}\chi^{L,R}_{\rm{even}}(0)=0;\\
\label{odd}
\chi^{L,R}_{\rm{odd}}(0)\!\!&=&\!\!0, ~~~~\partial_{z}\chi^{L,R}_{\rm{odd}}(0)=1,\end{aligned}$$
\[EvenOddConditions\]
where $\chi^{L,R}_{\rm{even}}$ and $\chi^{L,R}_{\rm{odd}}$ correspond to the even and odd parity modes of $\chi^{L,R}(z)$, respectively.
![The probabilities $P_{L,R}$ (as a function of $m^{2}$) for finding massive resonant KK modes of the left- and right-handed gravitinos with mass $m^{2}$ on the thick brane for the coupling $F(\phi)=\phi$. Solid lines and dashed lines are plotted for the even-parity and odd-parity massive gravitinos, respectively. The parameters are set to $b=1$, $k=1$, $\eta=10$, and $z_{max} = 20$.[]{data-label="Pforphi"}](PphiforL.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="5cm"} ![The probabilities $P_{L,R}$ (as a function of $m^{2}$) for finding massive resonant KK modes of the left- and right-handed gravitinos with mass $m^{2}$ on the thick brane for the coupling $F(\phi)=\phi$. Solid lines and dashed lines are plotted for the even-parity and odd-parity massive gravitinos, respectively. The parameters are set to $b=1$, $k=1$, $\eta=10$, and $z_{max} = 20$.[]{data-label="Pforphi"}](PphiforR.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="5cm"}
-5mm
Our results are shown in Figs. \[Pforphi\], \[fig\_\_Eigenvalue1\] and Tab. \[Tableonephi\]. It is obvious that the mass spectra of the left- and right-handed gravitino resonant modes are almost the same while their parities are opposite. The first resonant mode of the left-handed gravitino is even and its shape around $z=0$ looks like a ground state. On the other hand, the first resonant mode of the right-handed gravitino is odd and it seems to be the first excited state. These results are reasonable because the effective potentials $V^L$ and $V^R$ are supersymmetric partners, which give the same spectra of the resonant modes. In fact, fermion resonances on branes have similar properties because Eqs. (\[EoG\]) of the KK modes of a gravitino are almost the same as the ones of a fermion. However, there is a difference between them, which will be explained as follows. For a five-dimensional Dirac fermion field with a coupling term, if we use the representation of the gamma matrices (\[Gamma\]) and parity relation (\[partiyrelation\]), the equations of motion of the left- and right-handed fermion KK modes $f^{L,R}$ are given by
\[Scheq\] $$\begin{aligned}
(-\partial_{z}^{2}+V^{L}(z))f^{L}&=&m^{2}f^{L},\label{ScheqLeft}
\\
(-\partial_{z}^{2}+V^{R}(z))f^{R}&=&m^{2}f^{R},
\label{ScheqRight}\end{aligned}$$
with the effective potentials
\[Vz\] $$\begin{aligned}
V^{L}(z)=\eta^{2} e^{2A}F^{2}(\phi)-\eta
e^{A}\partial_{z}F(\phi)-\eta
e^{A}(\partial_{z}A)F(\phi)\,, \label{VzL} \\
V^{R}(z)=\eta^{2} e^{2A}F^{2}(\phi)+\eta
e^{A}\partial_{z}F(\phi)+\eta
e^{A}(\partial_{z}A)F(\phi)\,. \label{VzR}\end{aligned}$$
It is obvious that the Schrödinger-like equation of the left-handed gravitino KK modes (\[EoL\]) is the one of the right-handed fermion KK modes (\[ScheqRight\]), and the Schrödinger-like equation for the right-handed gravitino KK modes (\[EoR\]) is the one of the left-handed fermion KK modes (\[ScheqLeft\]). Therefore, for a five-dimensional Dirac fermion, only the zero mode of the left-handed fermion can be localized on the $f(R)$ brane with the coupling $F(\phi)=\phi$, and the first resonant mode of the right-handed fermion is even. This difference between the fermion and gravitino KK modes comes from the difference of their field equations. For a five-dimensional Dirac fermion field with the Yukawa coupling, the field equation reads $$\left[\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}+\gamma^5(\partial_z+2\partial_zA)-\eta \text{e}^{A}F(\phi)\right]\Psi=0.$$ It should be noticed that the sign in front of $\gamma^5$ is plus. While for a bulk gravitino, Eq. (\[EOM2\]) tells us that the sign in front of $\gamma^5$ is minus, which leads to the swap of the above results. This difference is very meaningful and it could be a symbol of the distinction between Dirac fermion and gravitino fields.
In addition, the number of the resonant modes for the gravitino field increases with the coupling constant $\eta$ but decreases with the parameter $b$. The relative probability $P$ decreases when the mass of the resonant mode approaches the maximum of the potentials. Furthermore, the resonant modes become closer and closer as $m^2$ approaches the maximum of the potentials. These results are consistent with that of the Dirac fermion.
-5mm
$b$ $\eta$ $\mathcal{C}$ $\mathcal {P}$ $m^2$ $m$ $P$
-------------- -------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------- -------------------
even 21.9171 4.68157 0.988172
$\mathcal{L}$ odd 38.3348 6.19151 0.986425
10 even 47.9467 6.92436 0.423099
odd 21.9169 4.68155 0.999673
$\mathcal{R}$ even 38.3311 6.19121 0.981257
odd 47.9328 6.92335 0.423111
even 34.2006 5.84813 0.999212
odd 63.1603 7.94735 0.999998
\[0pt\][1]{} $\mathcal{L}$ even 86.4700 9.29892 0.993796
odd 102.7540 10.13680 0.632409
15 even 112.2329 10.59400 0.238222
odd 34.1964 5.84777 0.999959
even 63.1822 7.94872 0.992303
$\mathcal{R}$ odd 86.4490 9.29780 0.998145
even 102.7740 10.13780 0.631364
odd 112.0613 10.58590 0.232899
$\mathcal{L}$ even 35.3730 5.94752 0.982136
10 odd 54.7429 7.39884 0.287870
$\mathcal{R}$ odd 35.3712 5.94737 0.981886
even 54.4129 7.37651 0.285428
even 56.8585 7.54046 0.999979
$\mathcal{L}$ odd 98.8432 9.94199 0.922543
\[0pt\][3]{} 15 even 122.4728 11.06670 0.276112
odd 56.8515 7.53999 0.999923
$\mathcal{R}$ even 98.9253 9.94612 0.902362
odd 122.6000 11.07250 0.277316
: The eigenvalue $m^2$, mass $m$ and the relative probability of the left- and right-handed gravitinos with odd-parity and even-parity solutions for the coupling $F(\phi)=\phi$. In all tables of this paper, $\mathcal {C}$ and $\mathcal {P}$ stand for chirality and parity, $\mathcal {L}$ and $\mathcal {R}$ mean left- and right-handed, respectively. The parameter $k$ is set to $k=1$.[]{data-label="Tableonephi"}
\
### Case II: $F(\phi)=\phi^\alpha$ with $\alpha>1$
Next, we consider a natural generalization of the Yukawa coupling $F(\phi)=\phi^\alpha$ with $\alpha=3,~5,~7,~\cdots$. Note that $\phi^\alpha$ becomes a double-kink for $\alpha\geq3$ since the scalar field $\phi$ is a kink. For this case, the effective potentials (\[Vforphi\]) become
$$\begin{aligned}
V^L(y)&=& \frac{1}{2} 3^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} k\eta b^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}
\arctan^{\alpha-1}\left(\tanh\left(ky/2\right)\right)
\text{sech}^{2b+1}(k y)\left[\alpha-2b\arctan\left(\tanh(ky/2)\right)\sinh(ky)\right] \nonumber\\
&+& 6^\alpha\eta^2\left(\sqrt{b}\arctan\left(\tanh(ky/2)\right)\right)^{2\alpha}
\text{sech}^{2b}(ky),\\
V^R(y)&=&V^L(y)|_{\eta\rightarrow-\eta}.\end{aligned}$$
\[Vforphi2\]
It is obvious that both the potentials are symmetry and vanish at $y=0$ and $y\rightarrow\pm\infty$ and they are depicted in Fig. \[fig:VLRCaseII2\] for different values of $b$ and $\alpha$. There always exists a quasi-potential well for the left-handed potential $V^L$ and a double-potential well for the right-handed one. These wells for both potentials are deeper and deeper with the [increases]{} of the parameters $b$, $\eta$, and $\alpha$, which means that there are more and more resonances with the increases of $b$, $\eta$, and $\alpha$. Since the coupling function $\phi^\alpha$ trends to a constant as $y\rightarrow\pm\infty$, the zero mode of the right-handed gravitino $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{R}_{0}\propto\exp\left(-\eta\int_{0}^{z}e^{A(z)}
\phi^{\alpha}d z\right)
=\exp\left( -\eta\int_{0}^{y}\phi^{\alpha}d y\right)
\label{fL0CaseI}\end{aligned}$$ is equivalent to $ \exp\left(-\eta(\frac{\pi}{4}\sqrt{6b})^\alpha|y| \right)$ since $\phi^\alpha=\pm(\frac{\pi}{4}\sqrt{6b})^\alpha$ as $y\rightarrow\pm\infty$. It is not difficult to check that the normalization condition can be satisfied for any positive coupling constant $\eta$. Thus, the right-handed zero mode can be localized on the brane for any positive coupling constant [$\eta$]{}, and at the same time the [left-handed]{} one can not.
As for the massive modes, we consider the resonance states. As what we have done in the previous subsection, we solve the Schrödinger equations (\[EoG\]) numerically by using the two types of initial conditions (\[EvenOddConditions\]). The mass spectrum of the resonances is shown in Tab. \[Tableonephi3\]. It is clear that in this table the masses of the resonant modes of the left- and right-handed gravitinos are still almost same, while their parities are opposite. The number of the resonances increases with the increases of the parameters $b$, $\alpha$, and $\eta$. These resonances are closer to each other as $m^2$ increasing, which is the same as the conclusion of the case of $\alpha=1$.
-5mm
$\alpha$ $\mathcal{C}$ $\mathcal {P}$ $m^2$ $m$
---------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- --------------------
$\mathcal{L}$ even 1.07851 1.03851
\[0pt\][3]{} $\mathcal{R}$ odd 1.07771 1.03813
even 1.34176 1.15834
odd 3.84231 1.96018
$\mathcal{L}$ even 5.85206 2.41910
odd 7.30702 2.70315
even 8.79401 2.96547
\[0pt\][5]{} odd 1.32835 1.15254
even 3.83457 1.95821
$\mathcal{R}$ odd 5.84765 2.41819
even 7.31179 2.70403
odd 8.80562 2.96743
: The eigenvalue $m^2$ and mass $m$ of the left-and right-handed gravitinos with odd-parity and even-parity solutions for the coupling $F(\phi)=\phi^{\alpha}$. The parameters are set to $k=1$, $\eta$=1, and $b=1$.[]{data-label="Tableonephi3"}
\
Localization of the gravitino field on the $f(R)$ thick [branes]{} with $L=X_1+X_2-V(\phi_1,\phi_2)$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the previous subsection, the [$f(R)$-branes are]{} generated by a single canonical scalar field. In this subsection, we will analysis the localization of a bulk gravitino in the Bloch-$f(R)$ brane model, where the Lagrangian density of the scalar fields is given by $$\begin{aligned}
L=-\frac{1}{2}\partial^M\phi\partial_M\phi-\frac{1}{2}\partial^M\xi\partial_M\xi-V(\phi,\xi).\end{aligned}$$ The scalar fields $\phi$ and $\xi$ interact through the scalar potential $V(\phi,\xi)$. In the following, we consider the solution given in Ref. [@Yu:2015wma]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{BlochBrane1Phiy}
\phi(y) \!\!&=&\!\! v \tanh (2dvy),\\
\label{BlochBrane1Chiy}
\xi(y) \!\!&=&\!\!v \sqrt{\frac{\tilde{b}\!-\!2d}{d}}~\text{sech} (2dvy),\\
\label{BlochBrane1Ay}
A(y) \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{v^2}{9d}
\left[ (\tilde{b}\!-\!3d)\tanh^2 (2dvy)
\!-\!2\tilde{b} \ln \cosh(2dvy) \right],~~~~~~\end{aligned}$$
\[BlochBrane1\]
where $\tilde{b}>2d>0$, and the scalar potential is $$\begin{aligned}
V(\phi,\xi) = \frac12 \left[\left(\tilde{b} v^2-\tilde{b}\phi^2-d\xi^2\right)^2+4d^2 \phi^2 \xi^2 \right]-\frac43\left(\tilde{b}\phi v^2-\frac13 \tilde{b}\phi^3-d\phi\xi^2\right)^2.\end{aligned}$$ For certain given values of the parameters $v$ and $\tilde{b}$, the function $f(R)$ could have analytical expression. For example, when $v=\sqrt{3/2}$ and $\tilde{b}=3d$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f(R)=R+\frac{2\gamma}{7}\Big[\sqrt{3(R-48 d^2)(R+120 d^2)}\sin\mathcal{Y}(R)+2\left(R+36 d^2\right)\cos\mathcal{Y}(R)\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is a parameter and $\mathcal{Y}(R)=\sqrt{3}\ln \left(\frac{\sqrt{R-48 d^2}+\sqrt{R+120 d^2}}{2 \sqrt{42}d}\right)$.
Next, we investigate the localization of a bulk gravitino with the coupling [function]{} $F(\phi)=\phi^{p}\xi^{q}$ with $p=1,3,5,\cdots$ and $q$ any integer. Such coupling was also used to localize the Dirac fermion in Refs. [@Almeida:2009jc; @Liu:2009mg; @Xie2015].
### Case I: $F(\phi)=\phi^{p}\xi^{q}$ with $q>0$
Firstly, we consider the case of $F(\phi)=\phi^{p}\xi^{q}$ with $q>0$. For convenience we let $q=1$. The most simplest one is the Yukawa coupling between the two scalar fields and the gravitino, i.e., $-\eta\phi\xi \bar{\Psi}_M [\Gamma^M,~\Gamma^N]\Psi_N$. We also assume without loss of generality that the coupling constant $\eta$ is positive. The asymptotic behaviors of the potentials (\[Vforphi\]) in this case are similar to those in the last subsection. As $z$ (or $y$)$\rightarrow\infty$, both the potentials $V^L$ and $V^R$ vanish and their values are opposite at $z=0$: $$\begin{aligned}
V^L(0)=-V^R(0)=2\eta v^3\sqrt{(\tilde{b}-2d){d}},\end{aligned}$$ which shows that there is a potential well around $z=0$ for $V^R$. Thus, it seems that the left-handed zero mode of the gravitino can not be localized on the brane, while the right-handed zero mode can be localized. However, when substituting the solution of the right-handed zero mode $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{R}_{0}&\propto&\exp\bigg(-\eta\int_{0}^{z}d\bar{z}e^{A(\bar{z})}
\phi(\bar{z})\xi(\bar{z})\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=& \exp\bigg( -\eta\int_{0}^{y} d\bar{y}
\phi(\bar{y})\xi(\bar{y})\bigg)
= \exp\bigg(\frac{\eta v}{2d}\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{b}-2d}{d}}\text{sech}(2dv\bar{y})|^{y}_{0}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\propto& \exp\bigg(\frac{\eta v}{2d}\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{b}-2d}{d}}\text{sech}(2dvy) \bigg)\label{CRight0}\end{aligned}$$ into the normalization condition (\[normalizable condition\]), we find the integral $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(\chi^R_{0}(z))^2 dz
&=& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}(\chi^R_{0}(y))^2 e^{-A(y)} dy \nonumber \\
&\propto& \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp\bigg( -A(y)-2\eta\int_{0}^{y}
\phi(\bar{y})\xi(\bar{y})d\bar{y} \bigg)dy \nonumber \\
&=& \mathcal{C}^2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\cosh(2dvy)^{\frac{2v^2\tilde{b}}{9d}} \exp\bigg(\frac{2\eta v}{2d}\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{b}-2d}{d}}\text{sech}(2dvy)-\frac{v^2}{2d}(\tilde{b}-3d)\tanh^2(2dvy) \bigg)dy
\label{fL0CaseI}\end{aligned}$$ is divergent, which means that the right-handed zero mode can not be confined on the brane. Although the potential of the right-handed gravitino is a volcanic-type one, there still does not exist the zero mode on the brane. In fact, for any $q>0$ and $p=1,3,5\cdots$, the right-handed zero mode will be a constant as $y\rightarrow\infty$ since $F(\phi)=\phi^{p}\xi^{q}\varpropto\tanh^p(2dvy)\text{sech}^q(2dvy)\rightarrow 0$. Obviously, this kind of zero mode can not satisfy the normalization condition (\[normalizable condition\]). Thus, for any $q>0$, there [exists]{} no bounded zero mode of the gravitino on the brane (the left-handed zero mode can also not be localized). Since there is no localized zero mode on the brane, we turn to the case of $q<0$.
-5mm
### Case II: $F(\phi)=\phi^{p}\xi^{q}$ with $q<0$ (or $q=-1$)
We let $q=-1$ to represent the case of $q<0$ for convenience. The potentials (\[Vforphi\]) in this case are displayed in Fig. \[fig:VLRCaseIII\]. Both the potentials $V^L$ and $V^R$ have infinite wells. For the simplest case $p=1$, both two potentials vanish as $z$ (or $y$)$\rightarrow\infty$ and their values are opposite at $z=0$: $V^L(0)=-V^R(0)=\frac{2\eta dv}{\sqrt{(\tilde{b}-2d)/d}}$. The left-handed zero mode still can not be localized on the brane since it is divergent as $z\rightarrow\infty$. While the right-handed one $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{R}_{0}&\propto& \exp\bigg( -\eta\int_{0}^{y} d\bar{y}
\phi(\bar{y})\xi^{-1}(\bar{y})\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=& \exp\bigg(-\frac{\eta}{2}\left(\sqrt{{(\tilde{b}-2d)}{d}}~v\right)^{-1}\cosh(2dv\bar{y})|^{y}_{0}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\propto& \exp\bigg(-\frac{\eta}{2}\left(\sqrt{{(\tilde{b}-2d)}{d}}~v\right)^{-1}\cosh(2dv\bar{y}) \bigg)\end{aligned}$$ will vanish as $y\rightarrow\infty$ for any $\eta>0$. It is not difficult to check that for any $\eta>0$ this right-handed zero mode can be localized on the brane under the condition . And for any $q<0$ and $p=1,3,5\cdots$ the right-handed zero mode will be localized. For other case of $p\geqslant3$, both potentials vanish at $z=0$: $V^L(0)=V^R(0)=0$, and the left-handed potential $V^L$ is always non-negative while $V^R$ have a double-well. Therefore, only the right-handed zero mode could be localized on the brane.
There are infinite bounded massive KK modes in this case because both the effective potentials are infinite ones. Some of our results are shown in Tab \[Tabletwophi\]. It is obvious that the mass spectra of the left- and right-handed gravitino massive bounded KK modes are almost the same while their parities are opposite as shown in the previous section. When $p=1$, the mass of the first bounded state of the left-handed gravitino (or the mass of the first excited state of the right-handed one) increases with the value of $\eta$ because the minimum of the left-handed potential $V^L$ increases with $\eta$. On the other hand, the relative width of the effective potentials decreases with the value of $\eta$ and increases with the value of $m^2$. Thus, the gaps between the bounded states will extend with the growth of $\eta$ and become narrower and narrower as $m^2$ increases. When $p\geq3$, the mass of the first bounded state of the left-handed gravitino still increases with the growth of the $\eta$, even though the minimum of the left-handed potential $V^L$ is always zero. Other conclusions are the same with the case of $p=1$.
[||c|c|c|c|c|c||]{} $p$ & $\eta$ & $\mathcal{C}$ & $\mathcal {P}$ & $m_n^2$ & $m_n$ \
& & & even& 2.4489 & 1.5649\
& & & odd & 3.6790 & 1.9181\
& & $\mathcal{L}$ & even& 4.8069 & 2.1925\
& & & odd& 5.7380 & 2.3954\
& & & $\vdots$& $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
& 1 & & even & 0 & 0\
& & & odd & 2.4490 & 1.5649\
& & $\mathcal{R}$ & even & 3.6790 & 1.9181\
& & &odd & 4.8070 & 2.1925\
& & &even & 5.7381 & 2.3954\
& & &$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
\[0pt\][1]{} & & &even & 5.8846 & 2.4258\
& & &odd & 9.3857 & 3.0636\
& & $\mathcal{L}$ &even & 12.2642 & 3.5020\
& & &odd & 14.7436 & 3.8397\
& & &$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
& 2 & &even & 0 & 0\
& & &odd & 5.8849 & 2.4259\
& & $\mathcal{R}$ &even & 9.3860 & 3.0637\
& & &odd & 12.2640 & 3.5020\
& & &even & 14.7437 & 3.8398\
& & &$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
& & & even& 1.8861 & 1.3734\
& & & odd & 3.5178 & 1.8756\
& & $\mathcal{L}$ & even& 4.5436 & 2.1316\
& & & odd& 5.6248 & 2.3717\
& & & $\vdots$& $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
& 1 & & even & 0 & 0\
& & & odd& 1.8860 & 1.3733\
& & $\mathcal{R}$ &even & 3.5177 & 1.8756\
& & &odd & 4.5436 & 2.1316\
& & &even & 5.6248 & 2.3717\
& & &$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
\[0pt\][3]{} & & &even & 3.6985 & 1.9232\
& & &odd & 8.1171 & 2.8491\
& & $\mathcal{L}$ &even & 10.9629 & 3.3110\
& & &odd & 13.8026 & 3.7152\
& & &$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
& 2 & &even & 0 & 0\
& & &odd & 3.6981 & 1.9230\
& & $\mathcal{R}$ &even & 8.1170 & 2.8490\
& & &odd & 10.9624 & 3.3110\
& & &even & 13.8025 & 3.7152\
& & &$\vdots$ & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$\
\
Discussion and conclusion {#secConclusion}
=========================
In this manuscript, we investigated the localization and resonant modes of [ a]{} five-dimensional gravitino field on the $f(R)$ thick [branes]{}, and gave the Schrödinger equations for [ the gravitino KK modes]{} with the gauge condition $\Psi_z=0$. [As same as a]{} [five-dimensional free and massless Dirac fermion field]{}, the zero mode of a free massless five-dimensional gravitino field could be localized on a brane only for a compactification extra dimension and its massive KK modes can not realize the localization. Therefore we introduced the coupling term $-\eta F(\phi)\bar{\Psi}_M[\Gamma^M,~\Gamma^N]\Psi_N$ to investigate the localization of gravitino [on three kinds of $f(R)$ thick branes]{}. The relativity probability method has been applied to study the resonances of gravitino [on these $f(R)$ thick [branes]{}]{}. It has been shown that the localization and KK spectra of the five-dimensional gravitino field with the Yukawa coupling term $-\eta F(\phi)\bar{\Psi}_M[\Gamma^M,~\Gamma^N]\Psi_N$ are very similar to [those]{} of the Dirac fermion, but their chiralities are opposite. This difference may become a symbol of the distinction between a five-dimensional Dirac fermion field and gravitino field.
Firstly, we considered the localization of gravitino on the pure geometric $f(R)$ thick branes, whose the Lagrangian density $L(\phi_{i},X_i)$ of the background scalar fields is zero. With the addition of the five-dimensional mass term $\eta F(\phi)=M$, we found that in this system the KK modes of gravitino, both the zero mode and massive ones, could not be localized on the pure geometric $f(R)$ thick branes.
Then the $f(R)$ thick branes, which are generated by a single canonical background scalar field $\phi$, were considered. We introduced the Yukawa coupling function, $F(\phi)=\phi^\alpha$ with $\alpha=1,~3,~5,~7,~\cdots$ to study the localization of the gravitino field in the $f(R)$ thick brane model. There are [two types of coupling functions]{} $F(\phi)$, i.e., $\alpha=1$ and $\alpha\geq3$. For the case of $\alpha=1$, there could exist localized left- or right-handed zero mode on the brane as the coupling parameter $\eta$ satisfies $\eta>\frac{k}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{2b}{3}}$. Furthermore, for $k=1$ and $b>\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}$, we could obtain massive resonances of gravitino on the brane with the condition $\eta>\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{\frac{6+48b+96b^2}{b}}$. The results [indicate]{} that the left- and right-handed gravitinos almost have the same resonant spectra, while their parities are opposite. With relation (\[partiyrelation\]), the first resonance of the left-handed gravitino is even and the one of the right-handed gravitino is odd. There is only the right-handed zero mode of gravitino confined on the brane. These results are appropriate to other cases in this paper, while they are just opposite to the Dirac fermion. For a five-dimensional Dirac fermion field, only the left-handed zero mode of Dirac fermion could be localized on the $f(R)$ thick branes and the first resonance of the left-handed Dirac fermion is odd. The difference results between the gravitino field and the Dirac fermion field come from the different sign in front of $\gamma^5$ in their dynamic equations, which may be a symbol to distinguish the Dirac fermion field and the gravitino field as they have the same coupling function $F$ and parameter $\eta$. In addition, the number of KK resonant modes for gravitino [in this braneworld system]{} increases with the increase of the coupling parameter $\eta$ while decreases with the model parameter $b$. For other case ($\alpha\geq3$), there are no bounded zero modes for both left- and right-handed gravitinos, and the number of KK resonant modes increases with the growths of the parameters $b$, $\alpha$, and the coupling parameter $\eta$.
Finally, we focused on the [Bloch-$f(R)$]{} branes which are generated by two interacted real scalar fields. The coupling function $F(\phi)=\phi^{p}\xi^{q}$ with $p=1,3,5,\cdots$ and $q$ any integer was considered in this model. For the case of $q>0$, there exist no bounded zero modes. For the case of $q<0$, the right-handed zero mode could be localized on the brane for any $\eta>0$, and there exist infinite bounded massive KK modes for both the left- and right-handed gravitinos because both the effective potentials are infinite potential wells. The gaps between the bounded states extend with the growth of $\eta$ and become narrower and narrower as $m^2$ increases.
There are still some issues. As we showed in this paper, the spectra of the KK modes of a bulk gravitino are all most the same as the one of a bulk Dirac fermion except for chiralities. Thus all the results of localization of Dirac fermion on branes could be appropriate to gravitino by interchanging the chiralities. But for some kinds of branes, we found the localized KK modes of Dirac fermion by introducing a new kind of coupling term [@Liu:2013kxz; @Zhang:2016ksq]. It is not clear whether this kind of coupling term applies to gravitino and it will be our work in the future. In addition, we just consider Minkowski branes in this paper. Localization of gravitino on dS/AdS branes is also interesting.
[99]{} K. Akama, Lect. Notes Phys. [**176**]{}, 267 (1982), \[arXiv:hep-th/0001113\]. V. Rubakov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B [**125**]{}, 139 (1983).
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B **429** (1998) 263, \[arxiv:9803315 \[hep-ph\]\].
I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**436**]{}, 257 (1998), \[arXiv:hep-ph/9804398\]. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999), \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905221\]. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999), \[arXiv:hep-th/9906064\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, N. Kaloper, and R. Sundrum, Phys. Lett. B [**480**]{}, 193 (2000), \[arXiv:hep-th/0001197\].
J. E. Kim, B. Kyae, and H. M. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4223 (2001), \[arXiv:hep-th/0011118\]. S. Nussinov and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 171601 (2002), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0112337\]. A. A. Pankov and N. Paver, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 035012 (2005), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0501170\]. A. Abulencia [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 171802 (2006), \[arXiv:hep-ex/0605101\]. P. Dey, B. Mukhopadhyaya, and S. SenGupta, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 055029 (2009), \[arXiv:0904.1970 \[hep-ph\]\]. I. P. Neupane, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 086004 (2011), \[arXiv:1011.6357 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Das, D. Maity, and S. SenGupta, JHEP [**0805**]{}, 042 (2008), \[arXiv:0711.1744 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Yang, Y. X. Liu, Y. Zhong, X. L. Du, and S. W. Wei, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 127502 (2012), \[arXiv:1212.2735 \[hep-th\]\]. G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B [**484**]{}, 112 (2000), \[arXiv:hep-th/0002190\]. G. D. Starkman, D. Stojkovic, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 231303 (2001), \[arXiv:hep-th/0106143\]. T. Kaluza, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berl. Math. Phys. K. [**1**]{}, 966 (1921).
O. Klein, Z. Phys. [**37**]{}, 895 (1926).
R. Gregory, V. A. Rubakov, and S. M. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5928 (2000), \[arXiv:hep-th/0002072\]. N. Kaloper, J. March-Russell, G. D. Starkman, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 928 (2000), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0002001\]. A. Melfo, N. Pantoja, and A. Skirzewski, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 105003 (2003), \[arXiv:gr-qc/0211081\]. D. Bazeia and A. R. Gomes, JHEP [**0405**]{}, 012 (2004), \[arXiv:hep-th/0403141\]. A. Cardoso, K. Koyama, A. Mennim, S. S. Seahra, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 084002 (2007), \[arXiv:hep-th/0612202\]. Y. X. Liu, Y. Zhong, Z. H. Zhao, and H. T. Li, JHEP [**1106**]{}, 135 (2011), \[arXiv:arXiv:1104.3188 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. X. Liu, K. Yang, H. Guo, and Y. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 124053 (2012), \[arXiv:1203.2349 \[hep-th\]\]. F. W. Chen, Y. Zhong, Y. Q. Wang, S. F. Wu, and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 104033 (2013), \[arXiv:1201.5922 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Bazeia, A. S. Lobo$\bar{a}$o, and R. Menezes, Phys. Lett. B [**743**]{}, 98 (2015), \[arXiv:1502.04757 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Yu, Y. Zhong, B. M. Gu, and Y. X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, 195 (2016), \[arXiv:1506.06458 \[gr-qc\]\]. S. Chang, J. Hisano, H. Nakano, N. Okada, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 084025 (2000), \[arXiv:hep-ph/9912498\]. T. Shiromizu, K. i. Maeda, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 024012 (2000), \[arXiv:gr-qc/9910076\]. A. Kehagias and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. B [**504**]{}, 38 (2001), \[arXiv:hep-th/0010112\]. C. Ringeval, P. Peter, and J. P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 044016 (2002), \[arXiv:hep-th/0109194\]. D. Maity and S. SenGupta, Class. Quant. Grav. [**21**]{}, 3379 (2004), \[arXiv:hep-th/0311142\]. A. Chatterjee and P. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 066013 (2005), \[arXiv:hep-th/0507085\]. A. Melfo, N. Pantoja, and J. D. Tempo, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 044033 (2006), \[arXiv:hep-th/0601161\]. Y. X. Liu, L. Zhao, and Y. S. Duan, JHEP [**0704**]{}, 097 (2007), \[arXiv:hep-th/0701010\]. R. Davies, D. P. George, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 124038 (2008), \[arXiv:0705.1584 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. X. Liu, J. Yang, Z. H. Zhao, C. E. Fu, and Y. S. Duan, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 065019 (2009), \[arXiv:0904.1785 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Guerrero, A. Melfo, N. Pantoja, and R. O. Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 086004 (2010), \[arXiv:0912.0463 \[hep-th\]\]. C. E. Fu, Y. X. Liu, K. Yang, and S. W. Wei, JHEP [**1210**]{}, 060 (2012), \[arXiv:1207.3152 \[hep-th\]\]. Q. Y. Xie, J. Yang, and L. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 105014 (2013), \[arXiv:1310.4585 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. X. Liu, Z. G. Xu, F. W. Chen, and S. W. Wei, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 086001 (2014), \[arXiv:1312.4145 \[hep-th\]\].
Z. H. Zhao, Y. X. Liu, and Y. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 045031 (2014), \[arXiv:1402.6480 \[hep-th\]\]. H. Guo, Q. Y. Xie, and C. E. Fu, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 106007 (2015), \[arXiv:1408.6155 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Z. Du, L. Zhao, X. N. Zhou, Y. Zhong, and Y. X. Liu, “Localization of Gravitino Field on Thin Branes,” \[arXiv:1511.03102 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Q. Hung and N. K. Tran, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 064003 (2004), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0309115\]. H. Guo, A. Herrera-Aguilar, Y. X. Liu, D. Malagon-Morejon, and R. R. Mora-Luna, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 095011 (2013), \[arXiv:1103.2430 \[hep-th\]\]. İ. Şahin, M. Köksal, S. C. İnan, A. A. Billur, B. Şahin, P. TektaŞ, E. Alici, and R. Yildirim, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 035017 (2015), \[arXiv:1409.1796 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Bauer, C. Hoerner, and M. Neubert, JHEP [**07**]{}, 094 (2016), \[arXiv:1603.05978 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. A. S. Almeida, M. M. Ferreira, Jr., A. R. Gomes, and R. Casana, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 125022 (2009), \[arXiv:0901.3543 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. X. Liu, H. T. Li, Z. H. Zhao, J. X. Li, and J. R. Ren, JHEP [**0910**]{}, 091 (2009), \[arXiv:0909.2312 \[hep-th\]\]. Q.-Y. Xie, H. Guo, Z.-H. Zhao, Y.-Z. Du, and Y.-P. Zhang, [“Spectrum Structure of Fermion on Bloch Branes with two Scalar-fermion Couplings”]{}, \[arXiv:1510.03345\[hep-th\]\].
R. R. Landim, G. Alencar, M. O. Tahim, and R. N. Costa Filho, JHEP [**1108**]{}, 071 (2011), \[arXiv:1105.5573 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Z. Du, L. Zhao, Y. Zhong, C. E. Fu, and H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 024009 (2013), \[arXiv:1301.3204 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. P. Zhang, Y. Z. Du, W. D. Guo, and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 065042 (2016), \[arXiv:1601.05852 \[hep-th\]\]. Z. G. Xu, Y. Zhong, H. Yu, and Y. X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{}, 368 (2015), \[arXiv:1405.6277 \[hep-th\]\].
E. J. Chun, H. B. Kim, and J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1956 (1994), \[arXiv:hep-ph/9305208\]. T. Moroi, [“Effects of the gravitino on the inflationary universe"]{}, \[arXiv:hep-ph/9503210\]. F. D. Steffen, JCAP [**0609**]{}, 001 (2006), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0605306\]. J. L. Feng, M. Kamionkowski, and S. K. Lee, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 015012 (2010), \[arXiv:1004.4213 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. G. Savvidy and J. D. Vergados, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 075013 (2013), \[arXiv:1211.3214 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Shirai and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**680**]{}, 351 (2009), \[arXiv:0905.4034 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Y. Khlopov, A. Barrau, and J. Grain, Class. Quant. Grav. [**23**]{}, 1875 (2006), \[arXiv:astro-ph/0406621\].
A. Yale and R. B. Mann, Phys. Lett. B [**673**]{}, 168 (2009), \[arXiv:0808.2820 \[gr-qc\]\]. P. Arnold, P. Szepietowski, and D. Vaman, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 046001 (2014), \[arXiv:1311.6409 \[hep-th\]\]. C.-H. Chen, H. T. Cho, A. S. Cornell, G. Harmsen, and W. Naylor, Chin. J. Phys. [**53**]{}, 110101 (2015), \[arXiv:1504.02579 \[gr-qc\]\]. B. Bajc and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Lett. B [**474**]{}, 282 (2000), \[arXiv:hep-th/9912232\]. I. Oda, Phys. Lett. B [**508**]{}, 96 (2001), \[arXiv:hep-th/0012013\]. T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B [**602**]{}, 3 (2001), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0012378\]. I. Oda, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**105**]{}, 667 (2001), \[arXiv:hep-th/0008134\]. J. L. Hewett and D. Sadri, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 015001 (2004), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0204063\]. H. M. Lee and A. Papazoglou, Nucl. Phys. B [**792**]{}, 166 (2008), \[arXiv:0705.1157 \[hep-th\]\]. T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 451 (2010), \[arXiv:0805.1726 \[gr-qc\]\]. A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. [**13**]{}, 3 (2010), \[arXiv:1002.4928 \[gr-qc\]\]. S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. [**505**]{}, 59 (2011), \[arXiv:1011.0544 \[gr-qc\]\]. S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, JHEP [**0007**]{}, 049 (2000), \[arXiv:hep-th/0006232\]. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Ogushi, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 023521 (2002), \[arXiv:hep-th/0108172\]. M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 064008 (2002), \[arXiv:hep-th/0106131\]. V. I. Afonso, D. Bazeia, R. Menezes, and A. Y. Petrov, Phys. Lett. B [**658**]{}, 71 (2007), \[arXiv:0710.3790 \[hep-th\]\]. V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Kleihaus, and J. Kunz, JHEP [**1004**]{}, 130 (2010), \[arXiv:0912.2812 \[gr-qc\]\].
H. Liu, H. Lu, and Z. L. Wang, JHEP [**1202**]{}, 083 (2012), \[arXiv:1111.6602 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Bazeia, A. S. Lobão, L. Losano, R. Menezes, and G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 124006 (2015), \[arXiv:1505.06315 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. Zhong, Y. X. Liu, and K. Yang, Phys. Lett. B [**699**]{}, 398 (2011), \[arXiv:1010.3478 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. Zhong and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 024017 (2013), \[arXiv:1212.1871 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Zhong and Y. X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, 321 (2016), \[arXiv:1507.00630 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
[^4]: [email protected], corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Heavy vector-like quarks with electric charge $Q=2/3$ (also called *heavy tops*) appear naturally in many extensions of the Standard Model. Although these typically predict the existence of further particles below the TeV scale, direct searches for heavy tops have been performed assuming that they decay only into SM particles. The aim of this paper is to overcome this situation. We consider the most constraining experimental LHC searches for vector-like quarks, including analyses of the 36 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in the latest run at 13 TeV of center of mass energy, as well as searches sensitive to heavy tops decaying into a new scalar, $S$. Combining all these, we derive bounds for arbitrary values of the heavy top branching ratios. A simple code that automatizes this process is also provided. At the physics level, we demonstrate that bounds on heavy tops are not inevitably weaker in the presence of new light scalars. We find that heavy tops with masses below $\sim 900$ GeV are excluded by direct searches, independently of whether they decay into $Zt, Ht, Wb$ or $St$ (with $S$ giving either missing energy of bottom quarks) or into any combination of them.'
bibliography:
- 'notes.bib'
---
FTUV-17-0508.7937
IFIC/17-24
[Direct Bounds on Heavy Top-Like Quarks\
With Standard and Exotic Decays]{}
**Mikael Chala**\
Introduction
============
Heavy vector-like quarks with electric charge $Q=2/3$ and masses around the TeV scale appear naturally in many extensions of the Standard Model (SM). We will refer to them as *heavy tops* or *top partners* interchangeably. Since they are colored, they can be produced in pairs via QCD interactions; their signatures depending only on the way they decay. These have been widely studied assuming that these resonances decay only into SM particles [@AguilarSaavedra:2005pv; @AguilarSaavedra:2009es; @Aguilar-Saavedra:2013qpa], namely into $Zt$, $Ht$ and $Wb$ (charged-conjugated decays are also understood). However, many models of new physics predict also the existence of further particles, into which the heavy tops could decay. Consequently, these models can not be easily constrained in light of current analyses.
This is the case, for example, of composite Higgs models (CHM) [@Kaplan:1983fs; @Kaplan:1983sm; @Dimopoulos:1981xc] with partial compositeness [@Kaplan:1991dc]. Apart from the minimal setup, based on the symmetry-breaking pattern $SO(5)/SO(4)$ [@Agashe:2004rs], all realizations of the composite Higgs paradigm contain new scalars of electroweak (EW) mass. In particular singlets, as for example $SO(6)/SO(5)$ [@Gripaios:2009pe], $SO(7)/SO(6)$ [@Chala:2016ykx], $SO(7)/G_2$ [@Chala:2012af], $SO(6)/SO(4)$ [@Sanz:2015sua] or $SU(5)/SO(5)$ [@Vecchi:2013bja], among others. Note also that the minimal CHM is in no way preferred over the non-minimal realizations. More the contrary: non-minimal CHMs can provide dark matter candidates [@Frigerio:2012uc; @Mrazek:2011iu; @Chala:2012af; @Fonseca:2015gva; @Ma:2017vzm; @Ballesteros:2017xeg], explanations for the observed baryon-anti-baryon asymmetry [@Espinosa:2011eu; @Chala:2016ykx] and feasible UV completions [@Caracciolo:2012je; @Barnard:2013zea; @Ferretti:2014qta; @Vecchi:2015fma; @Ma:2015gra; @Ferretti:2016upr]. Therefore, the top partner phenomenology can be totally different from what current experimental analyses consider. As it has been anticipated in previous references [@Serra:2015xfa; @Anandakrishnan:2015yfa], new decay modes must be also taken into account.
Recent works [@Anandakrishnan:2015yfa; @Cacciapaglia:2015eqa; @Fan:2015sza; @Banerjee:2016wls; @Niehoff:2016zso] have made a first attempt to address this question by exploring the signatures of new channels. However, this approach is valid *only* when new decays are dominant and hence of little help. Likewise, standard analyses apply *only* when the top-partners decay mostly into SM particles, namely into $Ht, Zt$ and $Wb$. Overall, top-partners with both standard and exotic decays can be bounded by no means in regard of present analyses. Our aim in what follows is to fill this gap by extending previous efforts in two ways. First, we consider all possible sets of branching ratios for the top partners, counting not only new channels but also elusive decays, *i.e.* those that evade current searches. They have the sole (but so far rather unexplored) effect of making the branching ratios of all observable topologies not add to 1 (see ref. [@Barducci:2014ila] for previous considerations of this possibility). And second, we include LHC data acquired at both $8$ [@Aad:2015kqa] and $13$ [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-102; @ATLAS-CONF-2016-104; @ATLAS-CONF-2017-015; @CMS:2016hxa] TeV of center of mass energy (*c.m.e.*). All results are given in terms of tables and plots than can be trivially used to constrain generic top-like resonances. To simplify further this task, we also provide a very simple code that implements our findings. It can be found in <http://github.com/mikaelchala/vlqlimits>. We intend to update this program with the inclusion of incoming analyses and other signatures of top and also bottom partners.
Evidently, heavy tops can decay into several new channels without conflicting with the SM gauge symmetries. We do not explore all of them in this article, nor are they included in the mentioned code in its current form. Instead, we restrict ourselves to the standard channels plus the top-partners decaying into a neutral scalar and a top quark. We assume that the former either decays into bottom quarks or it escapes detectors. As a matter of fact, these production modes are expected to dominate over others in concrete CHMs. This is discussed in section \[sec:assumptions\]. The rest of the article is structured as follows. In section \[sec:smdecays\] we describe the status of experimental searches that bound the top-partner decays into SM particles. We also explain how these can be combined without necessarily recasting the corresponding analyses. In section \[sec:exotic\] we concentrate on searches for heavy tops with exotic decays. Different analyses are recast and applied to simulated events in these topologies and their expected collider signatures are obtained. In section \[sec:final\] we describe how to combine all previous outcomes to bound heavy tops of several masses. Plots for a broad set of branching ratios are provided. It is shown that bounds on heavy tops are not inevitably weaker in the presence of new light scalars. Finally, in appendix \[app:software\] we comment on how to obtain the code that implements the aforementioned results.
Assumptions {#sec:assumptions}
===========
Inspired by non-minimal CHMs, we assume that the relevant degrees of freedom at the TeV scale involve the SM particles, some new fermionic resonances and at least one real neutral scalar, $S$. The latter, as well as the Higgs, $H$, are supposed to be composite objects resulting from the confinement of a new strongly interacting sector at some scale $f\sim$ TeV. We will denote by $m_H$, $m_S$ and $M$ the masses of $H$, $S$ and the fermionic resonances, respectively. The phenomenological study presented in this article is based on the following assumptions.
**Assumption 1**: *The top partners, $T$, are among the lightest fermionic resonances*. This has been explained at length in the CHM literature. A sketch of the argument reads as follows. According to the partial compositeness paradigm [@Kaplan:1991dc], the elementary fermions, $q$, mix with vector-like resonances, $Q$, through the mixing Lagrangian $\sim \Delta \overline{q}Q+\text{h.c.}$ The latter fermions are the only which, in turn, couple to the Higgs boson, because they are all composite. In the physical basis, however, the massless particles (to be identified with the SM fermions) obtain Yukawa interactions of the order $\sim (\Delta/M)^2$. The smallest $M$ is then that of the fermionic resonance coupling to the SM fermion with the largest Yukawa. Namely the top quark, as we claim. More quantitative analyses can be found, for example, in refs. [@Contino:2006qr; @Matsedonskyi:2012ym; @Redi:2012ha; @Marzocca:2012zn; @Pomarol:2012qf; @Panico:2012uw].
**Assumption 2**: *$m_S > m_H$, being in general of a few hundreds GeV*. The scalar potential for $H$ and $S$ can be estimated to be [@Chala:2017sjk] $$V \sim \frac{3}{(4\pi)^2} f^2 M^2 \left[-\alpha \frac{H^2}{f^2} + \beta \frac{H^4}{f^4} + \gamma \frac{S^2}{f^2} \right] + ...$$ where $\alpha,\beta$ and $\gamma$ are dimensionless coefficients of order $\mathcal{O}(1)$, and the ellipsis stand for terms with higher powers of $S$. Experimental limits from Higgs searches [@Khachatryan:2016vau] and EW precision data [@Ghosh:2015wiz] impose $f \gtrsim 900 $ GeV, while natural arguments suggest that this can not be much larger. Thus, let us take $M\sim f\sim 1$ TeV. It turns out that $m_S$ ranges from $\sim 150$ GeV (for $\gamma \sim 0.5$) to $\sim 200$ GeV (for $\gamma\sim 1$). We can further strengthen this conclusion by focusing on particular models with computable $m_S$. Among these, we find CHMs in which $S$ is stable. The first such a model we consider is based on the coset $SO(6)/SO(5)$, with the third-generation $q_L$ and $t_R$ mixing with composite resonances transforming in the $\mathbf{20}$ and the $\mathbf{1}$ representations of $SO(6)$, respectively. The scalar potential at the leading order adopts the form [@Serra:2015xfa; @Chala:2017sjk] $$V = f^2\bigg[c_1 - \frac{7}{4}c_2\bigg] H^2 + (c_2 - c_1) H^4 - c_2 f^2 S^2 + \cdots$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are the only free parameters not constrained by the symmetries. These can be traded by the known values of the Higgs mass term, $\mu_H^2$, and the quartic coupling, $\lambda_H\sim 0.13$: $$V = \frac{1}{2}\mu_H^2 H^2 + \frac{1}{4}\lambda_H H^4 + \frac{1}{3}f^2 \left[1-2\frac{v^2}{f^2}\right] \lambda_H S^2 + \cdots$$ with $v\sim 246$ GeV the EW VEV. If we take $f\sim 1$ TeV, we obtain $m_S\sim 300$ GeV. The second model we consider is based on the larger coset $SO(7)/G_2$, with the third generation $q_L$ and $t_R$ mixing with the $\mathbf{35}$ and the $\mathbf{1}$ representations of $SO(7)$, respectively. The scalar potential can then be written as [@Ballesteros:2017xeg] $$V = \mu_H^2 H^2 + \lambda_H H^4 + \frac{1}{3} f^2 \bigg[1-\frac{8}{3}\frac{v^2}{f^2}\bigg]\lambda_H S^2 + \cdots$$ Again, for $f \sim 1$ TeV we obtain $m_S \sim 300$ GeV.
**Assumption 3**: *If $S$ is not stable, it decays mostly into bottom quarks*. $S$ is a composite particle, and therefore interacts stronger with the heavier particles. Thus, with tops and bottoms. However, in light of the discussion above, it is clear that there exists a natural regime in which $S$ has no kinematics space to decay into $t\bar{t}$, nor into $HH$. Besides, the latter can be further suppressed if $S$ is CP odd. As a consequence of these three assumptions, the heavy tops can only decay sizably into $Zt, Ht, Wb$ and $St$ (with $S$ either decaying into bottom quarks or escaping detection). With this in mind, in next sections we obtain bounds on $M$ for arbitrary branching ratios and for different values of $m_S$ in between 100 and 400 GeV. We focus on the pair production channel, because it is driven by model-independent QCD interactions. In this respect, however, two comments are in order. *(i)* In principle, spin-1 resonances, as for example heavy gluons, could also mediate this process [@Chala:2014mma; @Araque:2015cna; @Azatov:2015xqa]. Were this the case, the production cross section would be larger: our bounds considering only the QCD contribution would be conservative. *(ii)* Likewise, in the context of CHMs, the cross section for single production of heavy tops might be also large [@Matsedonskyi:2014mna; @Matsedonskyi:2015dns].
Searches for vector-like quarks with standard decays {#sec:smdecays}
====================================================
![*NNLO cross sections for pair production of top partners [@Aad:2015kqa; @ATLAS-CONF-2016-104] at 8 (left) and 13 (right) TeV of c.m.e.*[]{data-label="fig:xsecs"}](./Plots/xsecs8.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*NNLO cross sections for pair production of top partners [@Aad:2015kqa; @ATLAS-CONF-2016-104] at 8 (left) and 13 (right) TeV of c.m.e.*[]{data-label="fig:xsecs"}](./Plots/xsecs13.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
Standard searches for QCD pair-produced top partners assume that these decay *only* into SM particles, namely $$\label{eq:brs}
\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht) + \text{BR}(T\rightarrow Wb) + \text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt) = 1~.$$ In fact, bounds are typically given by plots showing excluded regions in the plane of the first two branching ratios (see for example all searches discussed in ref. [@Araque:2016jrb]). Consequently, bounds for top partners with elusive decays, for which this equality does not hold, cannot be read from current plots. Some constraints can be still obtained by rescaling the ones given for each channel separately. However, these disregard all signal events in which the two heavy tops decay into different particles. Bounds obtained in this way are hence highly underestimated. At first glance, any attempt of departing from eq. \[eq:brs\] requires reinterpreting the data from scratch (*e.g.* recasting the corresponding analyses).
Fortunately, this exercise can be greatly simplified in a counting experiment if limits are provided for at least three different sets of branching ratios. We will illustrate how to proceed in that case in the first SM channel to which we pay attention, namely $T\rightarrow Zt$.
$T\rightarrow Zt$ {#sec:zt}
-----------------
Let us consider a counting experiment for $T\overline{T}\rightarrow Zt + X$, with $X$ being any standard $T$ decay channel. Let us assume that bounds on the QCD model-independent pair-production cross section are known for $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt) = 1$. We will dub this quantity $\sigma_{1}$. Then, it is clear that the maximum amount of allowed signal events after cuts, $N$, can be written as $N = \sigma_1\, L \, \epsilon(Zt Zt)$, where $L$ stands for the integrated luminosity considered in the analysis and $\epsilon(Zt Zt)$ is the efficiency for selecting signal events in the $Zt + Zt$ channel.
Let us further assume that limits for the cases $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht) = \text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt) = 0.5$ (the *doublet* case) and $2~\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht) = 2~\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt) = \text{BR}(T\rightarrow Wb) = 0.5$ (the *singlet* case) are also known. We will name their values by $\sigma_D$ and $\sigma_S$, respectively. Then, we get that the following equations approximately hold: $$N \sim \sigma_D\, L\, \bigg[\frac{1}{4} \epsilon(ZtZt) + \frac{1}{2}\epsilon(ZtHt)\bigg] \sim \sigma_S\, L\, \bigg[\frac{1}{16} \epsilon(ZtZt) + \frac{1}{8}\epsilon(ZtHt) + \frac{1}{4}\epsilon(ZtWb)\bigg]~.$$ We have (conservatively) neglected $\epsilon(Ht Ht), \epsilon(Wb Wb)$ as well as $\epsilon(Ht Wb)$, given that the experimental search tags mainly $Zt+X$ events. From the equation above, all the relevant efficiencies can be estimated, and therefore the number of expected signal events passing all the analysis cuts, $N_\text{sig}$, for arbitrary values of the branching ratios: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:signal}\nonumber
N_\text{sig} \sim \sigma \, L \,\bigg[\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt)^2\epsilon(Zt Zt) &+ 2~\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt)\,\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht)~\epsilon(Zt Ht) \\
& + 2~\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt)\,\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Wb)~\epsilon(Zt Wb) \bigg]~.\end{aligned}$$ In this expression, $\sigma$ represents the theoretical cross section for pair-production of top partners. This is shown in fig. \[fig:xsecs\], assuming that is driven by QCD interactions. The number of signal events can be compared with the number of observed and predicted SM events. Altogether, this method can be used to obtain bounds on top-like resonances decaying into SM particles even when eq. \[eq:brs\] is not fulfilled. Conversely, if eq. \[eq:brs\] is satisfied, the constraints obtained using this approach are slightly conservative. Let us apply this procedure to a real example. This will allow us to check the goodness of the method. In addition, the results obtained in this way will be used in next parts of this article, when bounds combining different decay modes (including exotic $T$ decays) will be given.
[width=0.95]{}
efficiency (%) $M = 800$ GeV $M = 1000$ GeV $M = 1100$ GeV
---------------- --------------- ---------------- ----------------
$Zt + Zt$ 0.5 1.0 1.3
$Zt + Ht$ 0.3 0.8 0.9
$Zt + Wb$ 0.2 0.4 0.5
: *Relevant efficiencies of the analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-015] for three different masses of the heavy top as obtained using the procedure outlined in the text.*[]{data-label="tab:efficiencies"}
We consider the latest search for $Zt+X$ of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-015]. This is a counting experiment based on 36 fb$^{-1}$ of collected data at 13 TeV of c.m.e. at the ATLAS experiment. It focuses mainly on the invisible decay of the $Z$ boson. Among the most important cuts, the analysis requires the presence of exactly one light lepton (either electron or muon), missing transverse energy $E_T^{\text{miss}} > 350$ GeV, the presence of at least four hard small-radius jets and the presence of two large-radius jets with high $p_T$. The search is optimized for a heavy top with mass $M\gtrsim 1$ TeV, for which the selection efficiency is reported to be $\sim 1 \%$. (Note that this small efficiency takes into account all SM decay modes.) Bounds at the 95 % C.L. for the case $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt) = 1$ as well as for the singlet and the doublet cases are provided in fig. 6 of that reference for masses between 600 and 1400 GeV. Thus, following the procedure outlined above, we obtain the relevant efficiencies. These are written in tab. \[tab:efficiencies\] for three representative masses. Clearly, although the efficiencies in the $Zt+Zt$ channel are larger, the efficiencies in the mixed channels are not negligible. The number of predicted SM events passing all cuts is reported to be $N_{\text{SM}} \sim 6.5$, while the number of observed events is $N_{\text{O}} = 7$. The maximum number of allowed signal events can then be obtained using a simple CL$_s$ method [@Read:2002hq]. This method considers the statistic $$Q = \prod_i \frac{(s_i+b_i)^{\tilde{n}_i}e^{-(s_i+b_i)}}{b_i^{\tilde{n}_i}e^{-b_i}} = e^{-\sum_i s_i}\prod_i\left[1+\frac{s_i}{b_i}\right]^{\tilde{n}_i} = e^{-N_{\text{sig}}} \left[1 + \frac{N_\text{sig}}{N_{\text{SM}}}\right]^{\tilde{N}_{\text{O}}}~.$$ In the last equality we have used that the number of independent signal regions, over which the index $i$ runs, is exactly 1 in a counting experiment. Besides, $\tilde{N}_{\text{O}}$ represents a random Poisson distributed variable with mean $N_{\text{sig}}+N_{\text{SM}}$ in the signal+background hypothesis, and with mean $N_{\text{O}}$ in the background-only hypothesis. Let us call $P_{\text{sig+SM}}(Q)$ and $P_{\text{SM}}(Q)$ the random distribution followed by $Q$ in the first and second cases, respectively. Two confidence estimators are defined in the CL$_s$ method: $$\text{CL}_{s+b} = 1-\int_{Q_\text{obs}}^\infty P_\text{sig+SM}(Q) dQ, \qquad \text{CL}_b = 1-\int_{Q_\text{obs}}^\infty P_\text{SM}(Q) dQ~,$$ where $Q_{\text{obs}}$ is the value of $Q$ when $\tilde{N}_{\text{O}} = N_\text{O}$. A signal is said to be excluded at the 95 % C.L. if CL$_{s}=\text{CL}_{s+b}/\text{CL}_s < 0.05$. In this case, this occurs for $N_\text{sig} > 8$. Fixing eq. \[eq:brs\], we compute this ratio using the `TLimit` class of `ROOT` [@Brun:1997pa] for the three values of $M$ in tab. \[tab:efficiencies\] and for all values of $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht)$ and $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Wb)$ in the range $(0, 1)$ with steps of $0.01$. $N_\text{sig}$ is computed using eq. \[eq:signal\] and the efficiencies quoted in the table. The excluded regions are shown in orange in the three panels of fig. \[fig:valZt\]. The bounds obtained in (fig. 7 of) the experimental reference are superimposed with green dashed lines. Clearly, the agreement is excellent.
![*Left) Region of the plane of branching ratios excluded by the $Zt+X$ analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-015] for $M = 800$ GeV. The dashed green lines represent the constraints provided by the experimental collaboration, while the orange area is the one we obtain with the simplified method outlined in the text. Middle) Same as Left) but for $M = 1000$ GeV. Right) Same as Left) but for $M=1100$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:valZt"}](./Plots/val_Zt_800.pdf "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"} ![*Left) Region of the plane of branching ratios excluded by the $Zt+X$ analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-015] for $M = 800$ GeV. The dashed green lines represent the constraints provided by the experimental collaboration, while the orange area is the one we obtain with the simplified method outlined in the text. Middle) Same as Left) but for $M = 1000$ GeV. Right) Same as Left) but for $M=1100$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:valZt"}](./Plots/val_Zt_1000.pdf "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"} ![*Left) Region of the plane of branching ratios excluded by the $Zt+X$ analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-015] for $M = 800$ GeV. The dashed green lines represent the constraints provided by the experimental collaboration, while the orange area is the one we obtain with the simplified method outlined in the text. Middle) Same as Left) but for $M = 1000$ GeV. Right) Same as Left) but for $M=1100$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:valZt"}](./Plots/val_Zt_1100.pdf "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
$T\rightarrow Ht$ {#sec:ht}
-----------------
We follow the same approach as before to obtain the efficiencies for selecting $Ht+X$ events. We consider the experimental analysis of ref. [@Aad:2015kqa]. It is based on 20 fb$^{-1}$ of collected luminosity at 8 TeV of c.m.e. at the ATLAS experiment. Despite the bounds reported by the paper are based on a likelihood analysis of several signal regions, the sensitivity of the search is driven mainly by one of them. So, it can be approximated by a counting experiment. In this signal region, at least six light jets have to be present, of which at least four must be $b$-tagged. Again, exactly one light lepton is required. The analysis reports the observation of 84 events, while 81 were expected from the SM alone. Consequently, no more than 22 signal events are allowed. To validate the approach in this case, we consider a heavy top mass of 750 GeV. This choice is intended to combine the $Ht+X$ channel with the $Wb+X$ one, for which ref. [@Aad:2015kqa] provides bounds too. (For other masses, the regions excluded combining the $Ht+X$ and $Wb+X$ channels are just the trivial overlapping of those excluded by each search separately. We elaborate on this point in the next section.) The bounds that we obtain are shown in the left panel of fig. \[fig:val\]. The agreement is worse than in the $Zt+X$ case, the reason being that this analysis is not exactly a counting experiment. The results, however, are conservative.
On top of this analysis, we consider the latest ATLAS search for $Ht+X$ described in ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-104]. It is based on 13.2 fb$^{-1}$ of collected luminosity at 13 TeV of c.m.e. We consider the channel that requires the presence of exactly one light lepton. The search further imposes a stringent cut on the multiplicity of jets and $b$-tagged jets, as well as on the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of all final state objects. Boosted techniques are used to reconstruct hadronically-decaying resonances giving rise to large-radius jets. Contrary to the previous searches, the bounds obtained in this one rely on the several bins of the effective mass, defined as the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of the lepton, the selected jets and the $E_T^\text{miss}$. Consequently, we can not proceed as before. Instead, we consider just the reported excluded cross sections, $\sigma_\text{excl}$, for $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht) = 1$. Thus, a heavy top of a given mass $M$ is ruled out by this analysis if $$\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\overline{T})\times \text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht)^2 > \sigma_\text{excl}~.$$ Bounds obtained in this way can not be combined with the ones before, but they will be superimposed to them. As a matter of fact, when this branching ratio is close to 1, this search sets the most stringent constraint.
$T\rightarrow Wb$ {#sec:wb}
-----------------
A search for $Wb+X$ has been also carried out in ref. [@Aad:2015kqa]. Among the most important cuts, exactly one light lepton is required, as well as at least four light jets, one of which must be $b$-tagged. Besides, one jet with $p_T > 400$ GeV has to be present, too. This jet results typically from the hadronic decay of one $W$ boson. According to the study, 27.6 SM events are expected to pass all cuts, while 30 have been observed. This implies that no more than 15 signal events are allowed. The analysis does not provide bounds for the doublet case, so we only obtain the efficiency for selecting $Wb +Wb$ events using the simplified method explained above. The region excluded using this approach for $M = 750$ GeV is shown in the middle panel of fig. \[fig:val\]. It matches perfectly the one obtained by the experimental collaboration, which means that very few events result from the disregarded $Wb+Ht$ or $Wb+Zt$ channels.
![*Left) Region of the plane of branching ratios excluded by the $Ht+X$ analysis of ref. [@Aad:2015kqa] for $M = 750$ GeV. The dashed green lines represent the constraints provided by the experimental collaboration, while the orange area is the one we obtain with the simplified method outlined in the text. Middle) same as Left) but for the $Wb+X$ analysis. Right) Same as Left) but for the combination of both analyses.*[]{data-label="fig:val"}](./Plots/val_Ht.pdf "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"} ![*Left) Region of the plane of branching ratios excluded by the $Ht+X$ analysis of ref. [@Aad:2015kqa] for $M = 750$ GeV. The dashed green lines represent the constraints provided by the experimental collaboration, while the orange area is the one we obtain with the simplified method outlined in the text. Middle) same as Left) but for the $Wb+X$ analysis. Right) Same as Left) but for the combination of both analyses.*[]{data-label="fig:val"}](./Plots/val_Wb.pdf "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"} ![*Left) Region of the plane of branching ratios excluded by the $Ht+X$ analysis of ref. [@Aad:2015kqa] for $M = 750$ GeV. The dashed green lines represent the constraints provided by the experimental collaboration, while the orange area is the one we obtain with the simplified method outlined in the text. Middle) same as Left) but for the $Wb+X$ analysis. Right) Same as Left) but for the combination of both analyses.*[]{data-label="fig:val"}](./Plots/val_HtWb.pdf "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"}
Using the CL$_s$ method described at the beginning of this section, we obtain bounds combining the signal region of the 8 TeV $Ht+X$ analysis with that of the $Wb+X$ one (they are statistically independent). The result is shown in the right panel of the figure. Such a combination has been also provided by the experimental collaboration, and it is depicted by the green-dashed line. Our results are again conservative. On top of this, we also consider the latest search for $Wb+X$ described in ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-102], based on 14.7 fb$^{-1}$ of collected luminosity at 13 TeV of c.m.e. In the final plots, we will also superimpose constraints obtained from those reported for $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Wb) = 1$.
Searches for vector-like quarks with exotic decays {#sec:exotic}
==================================================
$T\rightarrow St, S\rightarrow b\overline{b}$ {#sec:bs}
---------------------------------------------
![*Left) Normalized distribution of $m_{bb}^{\text{min}\Delta R}$ for $M = 600$ GeV and $m_S = 200$ GeV in the $Ht+Wb$ (thick solid orange) and the $St+Wb$ (thin solid green) channels. The cut on $m_{bb}^{\text{min}\Delta R} > 100$ GeV is depicted with a vertical dashed line. Right) Same as Left) but for $M = 800$ GeV and $m_S = 300$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:mbb"}](./Plots/histo_1.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Left) Normalized distribution of $m_{bb}^{\text{min}\Delta R}$ for $M = 600$ GeV and $m_S = 200$ GeV in the $Ht+Wb$ (thick solid orange) and the $St+Wb$ (thin solid green) channels. The cut on $m_{bb}^{\text{min}\Delta R} > 100$ GeV is depicted with a vertical dashed line. Right) Same as Left) but for $M = 800$ GeV and $m_S = 300$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:mbb"}](./Plots/histo_2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
The search for $Ht+X$ [@Aad:2015kqa] relies on the Higgs decaying into bottom quarks. Hence, it is also sensitive to $St+X$ events with $S$ decaying into the same final state. In fact, if $m_S$ were of the size of the Higgs mass, the sensitivity of this search for both channels would be similar. A thorough inspection of this search reveals that the only variable that can distinguish both channels is actually $m_{bb}^{\text{min}\Delta R}$, defined as the invariant mass of the two $b$-tagged jets closest in $\Delta R$. It is required to be larger than 100 GeV.
The boost factor of $S$ grows as $\sim M/m_S$. Therefore, the larger its mass, the smaller the fraction of events for which the two bottom quarks resulting from its decay are the closest ones. Therefore, it could be expected that, for small $M$ and large $m_S$, the sensitivity of this search for $St+X$ reduced with respect to $Ht+X$. However, this effect turns out to be largely compensated by the smaller Higgs decay rate into bottom quarks and the fact that the invariant mass of the closest $b$-tagged jets peaks at much larger values in the $S$ case. This is made explicit in fig. \[fig:mbb\] for two different pairs of $M$ and $m_S$. The distributions are obtained out of QCD pair-produced heavy tops generated with `MadGraph v5` [@Alwall:2014hca] whose SM final state particles are subsequently decayed with `Pythia v6` [@Sjostrand:2006za]. The basic cuts of ref. [@Aad:2015kqa], described in section \[sec:wb\], have been applied. The efficiency with respect to the standard Higgs channel varies from $\sim 1.1$, for $(M, m_S) = (600, 200)$ GeV, to $\sim 1.2$, for $(M, m_S) = (1500, 200)$ GeV.
Similarly, the efficiency of the search for $Zt+X$ [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-015] examined in section \[sec:zt\] for the $Zt+St$ channel matches also the one for $Zt+Ht$ when $S$ decays to bottom quarks. As a result, we can safely add $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)+\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht)$ into a single variable that, abusing notation, we will still write as $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht)$. Bounds considering this new channel are then trivial to obtain. Hereafter, we shall only write $St$ explicitly for the case in which $S$ scapes detectors, to be discussed in the next section.
$T\rightarrow St, S\rightarrow E_T^\text{miss}$ {#sec:et}
-----------------------------------------------
The search for $Zt+X$ focuses on the invisible decay of the $Z$ boson. Therefore it is also sensitive to $St+X$ channels whenever $S$ is stable at detector scales. This analysis puts a stringent cut on the amount of $E_T^\text{miss}$. The efficiency depends notably on $M/m_S$, and hence, contrary to the previous case, $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)$ can not just be added to $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt)$. Instead, we need to recast the whole analysis. For this matter, we use homemade routines based on a combination of `MadAnalysis v5` [@Conte:2012fm; @Conte:2014zja], `ROOT v5` [@Brun:1997pa] and `Fastjet v3` [@Cacciari:2011ma]. QCD pair-produced heavy tops decaying into $St+Zt, St+Ht$ and $St+Wb$ are generated with `MadGraph v5` [@Alwall:2014hca] and `Pythia v6` [@Sjostrand:2006za]. Detector effects are disregarded, although an efficiency of 0.85 (0.9) for selecting electrons (muons) has been simulated. Among other variables, this analysis relies on $H_{T,\text{sig}}^{\text{miss}}= (H_T^\text{miss}-100~\text{GeV})/\sigma_{H_T^\text{miss}}$, where $H_T^\text{miss}$ stands for the $p_T$ of the vectorial sum of the jet and lepton momenta. Likewise, $\sigma_{H_T^\text{miss}}$ represents the resolution on $H_T^{\text{miss}}$. We take a conservative value of 7 %. In order to validate the implementation, we recalculate the efficiencies for the $Zt+Zt$ channel. We find very good agreement with those computed in section \[sec:zt\], some of which have been shown in tab. \[tab:efficiencies\].
![*Left) excluded region in the stop-neutralino mass plane by the CMS search of ref. [@CMS:2016hxa]. The area enclosed by the solid (dashed) orange (green) line is obtained with the recast analysis (by the experimental collaboration). Right) Bound on $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)$ for $m_S = 100$ (dashed green), $200$ (dashed orange), $300$ (solid orange) and $400$ (solid green) GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:validation"}](./Plots/val_srd.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Left) excluded region in the stop-neutralino mass plane by the CMS search of ref. [@CMS:2016hxa]. The area enclosed by the solid (dashed) orange (green) line is obtained with the recast analysis (by the experimental collaboration). Right) Bound on $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)$ for $m_S = 100$ (dashed green), $200$ (dashed orange), $300$ (solid orange) and $400$ (solid green) GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:validation"}](./Plots/br_StSt.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
Then, we obtain the efficiencies for $St+X$ for different values of $M$ and $m_S$. A representative set of these efficiencies is collected in the different tables of appendix \[app:tables\], together with those computed in the previous sections.
When both top partners decay into $St$, the resulting signal is identical to that explored by searches for stops decaying into tops and neutralinos. We recast one of the latest analyses carried out by CMS [@CMS:2016hxa] at 13 TeV of c.m.e. in the fully-hadronic channel (we also considered the homologous search by the ATLAS Collaboration [@ATLAS:2016jaa], but the validation was far less convincing). The large top decay rate into jets together with the current performance of boosted techniques make this channel optimal for probing large values of $M$ and $m_S$.
The study relies on 60 statistically independent signal regions. We find that the sensitivity is driven mainly by two of them. Roughly, the first one requires $E_T^\text{miss}$ to be between $250$ and $350$ GeV, as well as $n_t = 0$ and $n_W = 1$. $n_t$ (resp. $n_W$) is the number of fat jets with mass within 110 and 120 (resp. 60 and 110) GeV and $p_T > $ 400 (resp. 200) GeV. Fat jets are clustered out of hadronic traces with the anti-$k_t$ algorithm [@Cacciari:2008gp] with $R = 0.8$ and subsequently re-clustered with the Cambridge-Aachen algorithm [@Dokshitzer:1997in] with the same $R$. The analysis reports the observation of 14 events, while only 9.6 are expected from the SM alone (see tab. \[tab:effs\]). Consequently, any model giving more than 13 events in this signal region is excluded at the 95 % C.L. The second signal region, instead, requires $E_T^\text{miss}>500$ GeV, $n_t \geq 1$ and $n_W \geq 1$. The number of observed and expected events are 1 and 0.16, respectively. This sets an upper limit on the number of allowed signal events after cuts of 5. In both cases, at least five $R=0.4$ anti-$k_t$ jets and at least two $b$-tagged jets have to be present.
[width=0.95]{}
$Ht + X$ $Wb + X$ $Zt + X$ CMS
------------------ ----------------- ---------- ----------------- -----------
*c.m.e.* \[TeV\] 8 8 13 13
\[0.1cm\] $HtHt$, $HtWb$, $WbWb$ $ZtZt$, $ZtHt$, $StSt$
Channels $HtZt$ $ZtWb$, $StHt$,
$StZt$, $StWb$
$N_b$ 81 $27.6$ $6.5$ 9.6, 0.16
$N_d$ 84 30 $7$ 14, 1
$N_s$ 22 15 $8$ 13, 5
: *Experimental analyses considered in this work and channels for which efficiencies have been estimated. The number of observed and expected SM events in each signal region are also shown. Any signal leading to more than $N_s$ events in at least one analysis is excluded, although stronger bounds are obtained if the different analyses are combined into a shape analysis. See the text for details.*[]{data-label="tab:effs"}
![*Excluded regions in the space of branching ratios for $M = 700$ GeV and $m_S = 100$ GeV. The gray area results from a combined statistical analysis of all signal regions of tab. \[tab:effs\]. In the green area, the $St+X$ events are disregarded. The red region is excluded by the analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-104]. Likewise, the blue region is excluded by the analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-102].*[]{data-label="fig:700"}]({./Plots/plot_700_100_0.0}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Excluded regions in the space of branching ratios for $M = 700$ GeV and $m_S = 100$ GeV. The gray area results from a combined statistical analysis of all signal regions of tab. \[tab:effs\]. In the green area, the $St+X$ events are disregarded. The red region is excluded by the analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-104]. Likewise, the blue region is excluded by the analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-102].*[]{data-label="fig:700"}]({./Plots/plot_700_100_0.1}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Excluded regions in the space of branching ratios for $M = 700$ GeV and $m_S = 100$ GeV. The gray area results from a combined statistical analysis of all signal regions of tab. \[tab:effs\]. In the green area, the $St+X$ events are disregarded. The red region is excluded by the analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-104]. Likewise, the blue region is excluded by the analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-102].*[]{data-label="fig:700"}]({./Plots/plot_700_100_0.2}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Excluded regions in the space of branching ratios for $M = 700$ GeV and $m_S = 100$ GeV. The gray area results from a combined statistical analysis of all signal regions of tab. \[tab:effs\]. In the green area, the $St+X$ events are disregarded. The red region is excluded by the analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-104]. Likewise, the blue region is excluded by the analysis of ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-102].*[]{data-label="fig:700"}]({./Plots/plot_700_100_0.3}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
For the validation we produce again pairs of stops with `MadGraph v5` that are subsequently decayed *only* into tops and neutralinos with `Pythia v6`. We then obtain the number of survivor signal events in each of the 60 signal regions considered in the experimental analysis. We combine all them into a single statistics which is compared with the provided number of expected and observed events via a CL$_s$ analysis. The excluded region in the plane of stop and neutralino masses ($m_{\tilde{t}}-m_{\tilde{\chi}^0}$) is depicted by the orange region in the left panel of fig. \[fig:validation\]. The limits reported by the experimental collaboration are also shown for comparison, the agreement being apparent. We can therefore obtain the efficiency of this analysis for $St+St$ events for different values of $m_S$. As the rest of efficiencies, these are reported in appendix \[app:tables\]. In the right panel of fig \[fig:validation\] we plot the maximum value of $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)$ that is allowed by this analysis when it is applied to the $St+St$ channel alone taken into account only the two main important signal regions. Note that values of $M$ as large as 1100 GeV are excluded for $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St) = 1$. Much lighter resonances are still allowed if the branching ratio is smaller. In that case, however, decays into SM particles are also present. Consequently both standard and exotic $T$ decays have to be considered at once. We address this point in the next section.
Final results {#sec:final}
=============
At this stage, the number of signal events passing the cuts of the analyses reported in tab. \[tab:effs\] can be computed for arbitrary branching ratios of a heavy top $T$ into $Zt, Ht, Wb$ ot $St$. We recall that $St$ stands for an invisible $S$, while the $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St, S\rightarrow b\overline{b})$ is included in $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht)$. The number of expected and observed events for each analysis are also written in the table. Given this information, bounds combining all these searches can be obtained by using the CL$_s$ method as described in section \[sec:zt\]. These are shown in figs. \[fig:700\], \[fig:800\], \[fig:900\] and \[fig:1000\] for different values of $M$ and different choices of $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)$. Given the small dependence of searches for $St+St$ on the value of $m_S$ (see the right panel of fig. \[fig:validation\]), we have fixed $m_S=100$ GeV in all plots. We have also assumed $$\text{BR}(T\rightarrow Ht) + \text{BR}(T\rightarrow Wb) + \text{BR}(T\rightarrow Zt) + \text{BR}(T\rightarrow St) = 1~.$$ The different colors have the following meanings. The *gray* area enclosed by the solid black line shows the region excluded after combining all the (statistically independent) signal regions presented in tab. \[tab:effs\]. In the *green* one, enclosed by the dashed green line, we do the same, but neglecting the events resulting from $T\rightarrow St$. This region gives an idea of how constraining current searches are if $T$ decays also into some elusive channel (for example into very soft final state particles). In other words, it reflects departures from eq. \[eq:brs\] by an amount of $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)$. Clearly, in the limit in which $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St) = 0$, this region coincides with the gray one. In the limit $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St) = 1$, this region is empty. The *red* region enclosed by the dashed red line represents the area excluded by searches for $Ht+X$ at 13 TeV of c.m.e., as explained in section \[sec:ht\]. Finally, the blue region enclosed by the dashed blue line represents the area excluded by searches for $Wb+X$ at 13 TeV of c.m.e., as explained in section \[sec:wb\]. Let us discuss these results case by case.
![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 800$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:800"}]({./Plots/plot_800_100_0.0}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 800$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:800"}]({./Plots/plot_800_100_0.1}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 800$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:800"}]({./Plots/plot_800_100_0.2}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 800$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:800"}]({./Plots/plot_800_100_0.3}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
**$\mathbf{M = 700}$ GeV:** All combinations of branching ratios are excluded, independently on the value of $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)$. Note that we do not show results for values of this rate larger than 0.3. The reason is that, according to the plot in the right panel of fig. \[fig:validation\], such scenarios are already excluded by searches for stops decaying into neutralinos.
**$\mathbf{M = 800}$ GeV:** In this case, a small region of the plane when $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)< 0.1$ is still allowed by the data we are considering. We stress, however, that this region disappears when all signal regions in the search for $Ht+X$ (see ref. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-104]) are considered. It is also worth to emphasize the power of combining, in a single statistical analysis, the data from heavy tops with standard decays with those for top partners with exotic decays. Indeed, let us focus on the case $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St) = 0.2$ (left lower panel). The region excluded by searches for top partners decaying into $Zt, Ht$ or $Wb$ is depicted by the green area. Clearly, this is far from being the whole parameter space. On the other hand, $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St) = 0.2$ is perfectly allowed by searches for $St+St$ (right panel of fig. \[fig:validation\]). The combination of the various channels, however, gives much more stringent constraints than the mere superposition of those coming from the different searches alone.
![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 900$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:900"}]({./Plots/plot_900_100_0.0}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 900$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:900"}]({./Plots/plot_900_100_0.2}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 900$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:900"}]({./Plots/plot_900_100_0.4}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 900$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:900"}]({./Plots/plot_900_100_0.6}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
**$\mathbf{M = 900}$ and 1000 GeV:** In both cases, there are sizable regions of the parameter space not excluded by current searches for $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St) < 0.2$. For larger values of this branching ratio, however, the combination of standard and exotic decays forbids again the existence of top partners, independently of their branching ratio into SM channels.
![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 1000$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:1000"}]({./Plots/plot_1000_100_0.0}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 1000$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:1000"}]({./Plots/plot_1000_100_0.2}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 1000$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:1000"}]({./Plots/plot_1000_100_0.5}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![*Same as fig. \[fig:700\] but for $M = 1000$ GeV.*[]{data-label="fig:1000"}]({./Plots/plot_1000_100_0.8}.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
**$\mathbf{M > 1000}$ GeV:** independently of the value of $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)$, searches for $pp\rightarrow T\overline{T}\rightarrow t\overline{t} S S$ are no longer constraining (see fig. \[fig:validation\]). Likewise, standard searches loose sensitivity for $M > 1100$ GeV. For different values of $m_S$ and/or different values of the branching ratios, we refer the reader to appendix \[app:software\], in which we explain how to obtain experimental bounds straightforwardly using a simple `Python` script.
Conclusions
===========
Heavy tops, $T$, which are predicted by different extensions of the Standard Model (SM), can decay not only into SM final states such as $Zt, Ht$ or $Wb$, but also into new particles. Among others, new scalar singlets, $S$, are good candidates. These appear, for example, in non-minimal realizations of the composite Higgs model paradigm. In light of this, we have investigated the LHC signals of top partners with sizable decay rate also into $St$. We have focused on the pair-production mode, because it depends only on the model-independent QCD interactions. We have considered ATLAS and CMS experimental analyses performed at both 8 and 13 TeV of center of mass energy. These include searches for $Ht+X$ (which are also sensitive to $St+X$ final states when $S$ decays into bottom quarks) and $Wb+X$, as well as analyses of $Zt+X$ and supersymmetry searches for pair produced stops with neutralino decays (both of which are also sensitive to $St+X$ events if $S$ is a stable particle). We have obtained the expected number of signal events passing the cuts of these analyses for arbitrary combinations of branching ratios and for different masses of $T$ and $S$. Then, we have obtained bounds resulting from a combined statistical study of all signal regions. Besides, these two procedures have been implemented in a simple code that can be found in <http://github.com/mikaelchala/vlqlimits>. Details about the mode of use are provided in appendix \[app:software\]. On the physics side, we have found that heavy tops with masses below $\sim 900$ GeV are excluded by direct searches for any value of $\text{BR}(T\rightarrow St)$, while even larger masses are forbidden for larger values of this branching ratio. All in all, we can conclude that bounds on heavy tops are not necessarily weaker if these decay also into new particles.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
================
I am grateful to J. P. Araque and N. Castro for the useful discussions on the experimental side of this work. I would like to thank also G. Nardini and J. Santiago for useful comments on the manuscript. This work is partially supported by the Spanish MINECO under grant FPA2014-54459-P and by the Severo Ochoa Excellence Program under grant SEV-2014-0398.
Tables {#app:tables}
======
The efficiencies of the experimental analyses (see tab. \[tab:effs\]) for the different final states considered in this work for several values of $M$ are shown in rows $2-12$ of tab. \[tab:eff100\] ($m_S = 100$ GeV), tab. \[tab:eff200\] ($m_S = 200$ GeV), tab. \[tab:eff300\] ($m_S = 300$ GeV) and tab. \[tab:eff400\] ($m_S = 400$ GeV).
[width=0.95]{}
$M$ \[GeV\] 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
$Zt+Zt$ 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017
$Zt+Ht$ 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.009 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015
$Zt+Wb$ 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008
$Ht+Ht$ 0.056 0.083 0.104 0.139 0.167 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185
$Ht+Zt$ 0.039 0.068 0.105 0.151 0.179 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193
$Ht+Wb$ 0.026 0.053 0.066 0.149 0.208 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257
$Wb+Wb$ 0.021 0.025 0.027 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
$St+Ht$ 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
$St+Zt$ 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.011 0.014 0.017 0.019 0.020 0.020 0.021 0.021
$St+Wb$ 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.011
$St+St (1)$ 0.009 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
$St+St (2)$ 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
$Wb+Wb$ \[pb\] 0.170 0.130 0.070 0.048 0.025 0.019 0.017 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.013
$Ht+Ht$ \[pb\] 0.106 0.081 0.055 0.031 0.023 0.016 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.009
: *Efficiencies of the experimental analyses (see tab. \[tab:effs\]) for the different final states considered in this work for $m_S = 100$ GeV and several values of $M$ (rows $2-12$). The last two rows show the upper limit on the pair production of $T$ quarks with subsequent decay into the indicated final state at 13 TeV of c.m.e. obtained from refs. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-102] and [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-104], respectively.* []{data-label="tab:eff100"}
[width=0.95]{}
$M$ \[GeV\] 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
$Zt+Zt$ 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017
$Zt+Ht$ 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.009 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015
$Zt+Wb$ 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008
$Ht+Ht$ 0.056 0.083 0.104 0.139 0.167 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185
$Ht+Zt$ 0.039 0.068 0.105 0.151 0.179 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193
$Ht+Wb$ 0.026 0.053 0.066 0.149 0.208 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257
$Wb+Wb$ 0.021 0.025 0.027 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
$St+Ht$ 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.014
$St+Zt$ 0.002 0.005 0.009 0.011 0.017 0.020 0.022 0.023 0.023 0.024 0.024
$St+Wb$ 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.010 0.010 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.012
$St+St(1)$ 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005
$St+St (2)$ 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.012
$Wb+Wb$ \[pb\] 0.170 0.130 0.070 0.048 0.025 0.019 0.017 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.013
$Ht+Ht$ \[pb\] 0.106 0.081 0.055 0.031 0.023 0.016 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.009
: *Same as tab. \[tab:eff100\] but for $m_S = 200$ GeV.*[]{data-label="tab:eff200"}
[width=0.95]{}
---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
$M$ \[GeV\] 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
$Zt+Zt$ 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017
$Zt+Ht$ 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.009 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015
$Zt+Wb$ 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008
$Ht+Ht$ 0.056 0.083 0.104 0.139 0.167 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185
$Ht+Zt$ 0.039 0.068 0.105 0.151 0.179 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193
$Ht+Wb$ 0.026 0.053 0.066 0.149 0.208 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257
$Wb+Wb$ 0.021 0.025 0.027 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
$St+Zt$ 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.009 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.015
$St+Ht$ 0.003 0.005 0.010 0.016 0.019 0.023 0.024 0.026 0.025 0.026 0.026
$St+Wb$ 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.011 0.013 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.017 0.017
$St+St (1)$ 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
$St+St (2)$ 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.014
$Wb+Wb$ \[pb\] 0.170 0.130 0.070 0.048 0.025 0.019 0.017 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.013
$Ht+Ht$ \[pb\] 0.106 0.081 0.055 0.031 0.023 0.016 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.009
---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: *Same as tab. \[tab:eff100\] but for $m_S = 300$ GeV.*[]{data-label="tab:eff300"}
[width=0.95]{}
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
[width=0.95]{}
---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
$M$ \[GeV\] 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
$Zt+Zt$ 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017
$Zt+Ht$ 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.009 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.015
$Zt+Wb$ 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008
$Ht+Ht$ 0.056 0.083 0.104 0.139 0.167 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185
$Ht+Zt$ 0.039 0.068 0.105 0.151 0.179 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193 0.193
$Ht+Wb$ 0.026 0.053 0.066 0.149 0.208 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257
$Wb+Wb$ 0.021 0.025 0.027 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
$St+Zt$ 0.002 0.006 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.019 0.021 0.021 0.021
$St+Ht$ 0.004 0.006 0.012 0.018 0.021 0.023 0.028 0.030 0.029 0.030 0.030
$St+Wb$ 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.012 0.015 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.018 0.018
$St+St (1)$ 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
$St+St (2)$ 0.003 0.007 0.011 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.018 0.017 0.015 0.015
$Ht+Ht$ \[pb\] 0.170 0.130 0.070 0.048 0.025 0.019 0.017 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.013
$Wb+Wb$ \[pb\] 0.106 0.081 0.055 0.031 0.023 0.016 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.009
---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: *Same as tab. \[tab:eff100\] but for $m_S = 400$ GeV.*[]{data-label="tab:eff400"}
Software {#app:software}
========
A small `Python` script can be found in <http://github.com/mikaelchala/vlqlimits>. The usage is extremely simple. First, one needs to edit the file `input.dat` (the name can be of course changed). It reads: The non-commented line contains an example point. More points, corresponding to other possible quarks present in the spectrum, can be added (interference effects are disregarded). We recall that the branching ratios do not have to add to 1. This would reflect the existence of further decays for which there is no experimental information (for example, decays into very soft particles, which are hard to detect). Given this, one can compute whether the set of heavy tops indicated in the file is excluded at the 95 % C.L. or not. This can be done in two ways:
- `./code_indp.py input.dat`: returns `1` if the number of predicted signal events in at least one signal region is above that quoted in tab. \[tab:effs\], or if the cross sections in $Wb+Wb$ or $Ht+Ht$ exceed the ones reported by the corresponding analyses at 13 TeV of c.m.e. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-102; @ATLAS-CONF-2016-104]. It returns `0` otherwise.
- `./code_comb.py input.dat`: returns `1` if the CL$_s$ computed considering all signal regions in tab. \[tab:effs\] is below $0.05$. Or if the cross sections in $Wb+Wb$ or $Ht+Ht$ exceed the ones reported by the corresponding analyses at 13 TeV of c.m.e. [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-102; @ATLAS-CONF-2016-104]. It returns `0` otherwise. This code can be only run if `PyROOT` is properly installed.
In both cases, the `NumPy` and the `SciPy` libraries are mandatory. The cross sections and efficiencies for masses not considered in the Monte Carlo simulations are linearly interpolated from those included in the hidden file `.tables`. More sophisticated tools, that include also heavy fermions with different quantum numbers, are also publicly available (see for example `XQCAT` [@Barducci:2014ila; @Barducci:2014gna]). However, exotic decays and signals at 13 TeV are generally not considered. In this respect, this code complements previous works.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\
[**Proton Decay Signatures of Orbifold GUTs**]{}\
[Arthur Hebecker and John March-Russell]{}\
[*Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland*]{}\
(April 3, 2002)\
[**Abstract**]{}
In grand unified theories based on orbifold constructions in higher dimensions, Higgsino-mediated proton decay is absent. However, proton decay mediated by $X$ and $Y$ gauge bosons is typically enhanced to levels detectable by current and future experiments. We analyse the phenomenology of proton decay induced by the minimal coupling of $X,Y$ gauge bosons. In particular, we show that the novel realization of matter in orbifold GUTs can lead to unusual final state flavour structure, for example, the dominance of the $p\to K^0\mu^+$ mode. Furthermore, we discuss proton decay induced by higher-derivative brane operators, finding potentially observable rates for natural values of the operator coefficients.
Introduction
============
Grand unified theories (GUTs) provide an elegant explanation of the origin of the three Standard Model (SM) gauge interactions and the fermion quantum numbers [@GG]. In their minimal supersymmetric extension, GUTs also lead to a remarkably successful prediction of $\sin^2\th_w$. This supports both the existence of supersymmetry (SUSY), broken near the weak scale, and some form of gauge-coupling unification at a scale $M_{\rm GUT}
\simeq 10^{16}\gev$. The idea of GUTs can also naturally accommodate relations among Yukawa couplings, leading most notably to the quite successful prediction of $m_b/m_\tau$.
Among the less attractive features of GUTs are the complicated Higgs sector required for realistic breaking of the gauge group and the necessity of modifying the unsuccessful first and second generation analogues of the $m_b/m_\tau$ mass predictions. In addition, dimension-5 proton decay operators arising from the exchange of supermassive coloured Higgsinos severely constrain minimal SUSY GUT models (see e.g. [@hitoshi]).
Recently an elegant solution to these problems has been proposed in the context of SU(5) [@kaw; @AF; @HN; @HMR; @HMR2] and SO(10) [@abc; @hnos] unification. The GUT gauge symmetry is now realized in 5 or more space-time dimensions and broken to the SM group by compactification on an orbifold, utilizing boundary conditions that violate the GUT-symmetry. In the most studied case of 5 dimensions both the GUT group and 5d supersymmetry are broken by compactification on $S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2')$, leading to an N=1 SUSY model with SM gauge group. This construction allows one to avoid some unsatisfactory features of conventional GUTs with Higgs breaking, such as doublet-triplet splitting, dimension-5 proton decay, and Yukawa unification in the first two generations, while maintaining, at least at leading order, the desired gauge coupling unification [@HN; @HMR; @CPRT].
Higgsino mediated proton decay is absent because the triplets acquire mass via the KK expansion of 5d terms of the form d\^2(H\_3\^c \_5 H\_3 + H\_[|[3]{}]{}\^c\_5 H\_[|[3]{}]{}) + [h.c.]{} \[eq:tripletmass\] Thus, the mass couples the triplet Higgsino to a state in $H_3^c$, and not in $H_{\bar{3}}$. Unlike the $H_3$ and $H_{\bar{3}}$ states, the $H_3^c$ and $H_{\bar{3}}^c$ fields do not couple directly to the quark and lepton superfields and the dangerous dimension-5 operators are absent. This absence can be viewed as a consequence of a U(1)$_R$ symmetry of the 5d theory. An extension of the U(1)$_R$ to matter fields localized on the branes leads to $R$-parity, prohibiting baryon number violation at dimension 4 as well [@HN].
Although there is no dimension-4 or -5 proton decay, we argue in this letter that $X,Y$ gauge-boson mediated proton decay is now much more interesting. First, the mass scale $M_c=1/R$ of the $X$ and $Y$ gauge bosons in the orbifold GUT theories is lower than in conventional SUSY GUTs, possibly approaching $10^{14}\gev$.[^1] This enhances the dimension-6 proton decay processes to a level that may be seen in current and future experiments. Second, the novel realization of the matter multiplets in orbifold GUTs changes in a striking way the signatures of $X,Y$ mediated proton decay and leads to a clear experimental distinction between orbifold and 4d GUT predictions.[^2]
We begin in Sect. 2 by deriving the dimension-6 proton decay operators arising from the minimal couplings of $X,Y$ gauge bosons. We integrate out the 5d $X,Y$ states in a 4d superfield formalism. The advantage of this approach is that no ill-defined contact-interaction $\sim\delta(0)$ (cf. [@mp]) appears in the intermediate stages of the calculation. Using this formalism we then discuss the effect of higher-derivative brane operators involving the $X,Y$ gauge fields. Such interactions, which are not forbidden by the gauge symmetries of the model, can lead to sizeable proton decay rates even in scenarios which are otherwise safe due to the location of the matter multiplets. In Sect. 3, we calculate the corresponding proton decay rates for the two classes of operators. The obtained results depend crucially on the location of matter multiplets on the two branes or in the bulk. In particular, we point out that in one of the most attractive realizations of the SU(5) orbifold model, the minimal $X,Y$ couplings favour $p\to\mu^+K^0$ decay. This represents a striking orbifold GUT signature. We also show that, depending on the realization of matter, the higher-derivative operators involving $X,Y$ gauge bosons, can be the numerically dominant source of proton decay. Overall, $X,Y$-mediated proton decay can occur at rates observable in the current or next generation of proton decay experiments. Our conclusions are given in Sect. 4.
Integrating out the $X,Y$ gauge bosons
======================================
We begin by recalling the basic structure of the Kawamura model [@kaw], which is based on a 5d super Yang-Mills theory on $I\!\!R^4\times S^1$, where the $S^1$ is parameterized by $y\in[0,2\pi R)$. The field space is then restricted by imposing the two discrete $Z_2$ symmetries, $y\to -y$ and $y'\to -y'$ (with $y'=y-\pi R/2$). The action of the $Z_2$’s in field space is specified by the two gauge twists $P$ and $P'$. If the original gauge group is SU(5) and the gauge twists are chosen as $P=1$ and $P'=$ diag$(1,1,1,-1,-1)$, an effective low energy theory with SM gauge symmetry results.
The supersymmetric version of this model can be described in terms of 4d superfields [@mss]. A manifestly gauge-invariant form of the non-abelian action is given by [@heb] S=d\^4x\_0\^l dy{\_[\^2]{}W\^2+ +\_[\^2|\^2]{}(e\^[-2V]{}\_5e\^[2V]{})\^2 }, \[act\] where $V$ is a real superfield depending on the additional parameter $y=x^5$, $W$ is the corresponding field strength superfield, $\nabla_5=\partial_5+
\Phi$ is the covariant derivative in $x^5$ direction, and $\Phi$ is an $x^5$-dependent chiral superfield.
We will be interested in baryon-number-violating processes mediated by $X,Y$ gauge bosons in scenarios where SM fermions are localized on the SU(5) brane at $y=0$, on the SM brane at $y=l=\pi R/2$, or in the bulk. We begin with the simplest case of SU(5)-brane localized matter. The coupling to a chiral superfield $\Psi$ at $y=0$ is described by the lagrangian \_=(y)\_[\^2|\^2]{}|e\^[2V]{}= (y)\_[\^2|\^2]{}{|+2V\^AJ\^A+ [O]{}(V\^2)}, \[lps\] where $J^A=$tr$(\bar{\Psi}T^A\Psi)$ is the matter current. Note that the SU(5) generators $\{T^A\}$ fall into the two subsets $\{T^a\}$ and $\{T^{
\hat{a}}\}$, the first one being the SM generators and the second the basis of the orthogonal complement.
Given a current $J$ (corresponding to an external field $\Psi$), the equation of motion for $V$ is obtained by varying the action of Eqs. (\[act\]) and (\[lps\]). In the $\Phi=0$ gauge and to leading order in $V$ it reads (our superspace conventions are those of [@wb]) -D\_|[D]{}\^2D\^V-\_5\^2V+g\_5\^2J(y)=0. \[eom\] If $\Psi$ is on-shell, $D^2\Psi=0$, one finds $D^2J=0$. It is self-consistent to assume that, in the presence of an $x^\mu$-independent current ($\mu=0,..,3$), we have an $x^\mu$ independent solution $V$ with a superspace dependence given by $V\sim J$. Then the first term in Eq. (\[eom\]) vanishes and we need to solve -\_5\^2V\^+g\_5\^2J\^(y)=0 \[eomh\] for the $V$ components corresponding to $X,Y$ gauge bosons. Given the boundary conditions $\partial_5V^{\hat{a}}(y=0)=V^{\hat{a}}(y=l)=0$, the solution is $V^{\hat{a}}=-g_5^2(l-y)J^{\hat{a}}$ for $y>0$. The function is continuous at $y=0$ but has a discontinuous first derivative. Inserting this into the original lagrangian, the following effective operator in the low-energy 4d effective theory is generated: \_1=-lg\_5\^2\_[\^2|\^2]{}\_ (J\^)\^2. We have checked explicitly that the four-scalar interaction contained in the superfield operator ${\cal O}_1$ agrees with the result of [@mp], where the calculation was done by first integrating out auxiliary fields and then summing the exchanged KK modes in the component formalism. The advantage of our superfield approach is that no ill-defined contact-interaction $\sim\delta(0)$ appears in the intermediate stages of the calculation[^3]. This could also have been achieved by summing KK modes and making use of the cancellations between physical and auxiliary field contributions enforced by the unbroken 4d SUSY at each KK level.
The four-fermion interaction contained in ${\cal O}_1$ reads \_1-(|\_i |\_j)(\_k\_l)\_T\^\_[ik]{}T\^\_[jl]{}, \[fourfermi\] where $\psi$ is the fermion from $\Psi$, $g_4^2=g_5^2/l$ is the 4d gauge coupling, and $M_c=1/R$ is the compactification scale which, at the same time, is the mass of the lowest-lying KK mode of $X,Y$ gauge bosons. Note that, up to the prefactor $\pi^2/4$, this is precisely the result expected in a 4d GUT with gauge boson mass $M_c$. The prefactor can be easily understood as $2\,(\pi^2/8)$, where the 2 comes from the normalization of the KK modes due to their non-trivial bulk profile [@HN] and $\pi^2/8=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(2n-1)^{-2}$ accounts for exchanging the full KK tower rather than just the lowest-lying mode.
We now turn to the case where SM fermions are localized on the SM brane [@HMR].[^4] Although in this case, $X,Y$ mediated proton decay is no longer a generic prediction of the theory, it will occur if brane operators of the type \_=(y’)\_[\^2|\^2]{}|\_1 (\_5 e\^[2V]{})\_2+\[bbc\] are included in the action [@heb]. Here $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ are SM superfields and the multiplication with $(\nabla_5 e^{2V})$ is defined by using their standard embedding into SU(5) multiplets. Note that, even though the $X,Y$ components of $V$ vanish at the SM brane, their $\partial_5$ derivatives appearing in $(\nabla_5 e^{2V})$ are non-zero. The prefactor includes a dimensionless ${\cal O}(1)$ coefficient $c$ and the fundamental scale $M\gg M_c$, which is required for dimensional reasons. Parametrically, $M$ can not be larger than $\sim 1/g_5^2$, since this is the scale at which the 5d gauge theory becomes strongly coupled.
Following the same line of reasoning as in the case of SU(5)-brane fermions, one arrives at the analogue of Eq. (\[eomh\]), which is -\_5\^2V\^-J\^\_5(y)=0, with the current $J^{\hat{a}}=$tr$(\bar{\Psi}_1T^{\hat{a}}\Psi_2+$h.c.). The solution is given by V\^(y)=J\^\_y\^ld (). Inserting this into the original lagrangian, the following effective operator in the low-energy 4d effective theory is obtained: \_2=-\_[\^2|\^2]{}\_ (J\^)\^2\_0\^ldy(y)\^2=- \_[\^2|\^2]{}\_(J\^)\^2. \[deriv\] Here, to obtain the final expression, we have assumed the $\delta$ function to be localized on a scale $1/M$ and, accordingly, replaced the $y$ integral by $b M$, with $b$ an ${\cal O}(1)$ coefficient depending on the specific way in which the $\delta$ function is regularized. Thus, the operator ${\cal O}_2$ depends via $c^2$ on the a priori unknown strength of the brane-bulk coupling, Eq. (\[bbc\]), and via $b$ on the UV completion of the theory. This UV sensitivity can also be understood by observing that the derivative coupling of Eq. (\[bbc\]) enhances the contribution of higher KK modes so that the sum diverges. Parametrically, ${\cal O}_2$ is suppressed with respect to ${\cal O}_1$ by a factor $M/M_c$, which can be as small as $\sim 10$ (allowing at least some range of validity for the effective 5d theory) or as large as $\sim 10^3$ (extending the 5d theory all the way to its strong coupling scale). Nevertheless, as we argue in the next section, in models where the first generation is not on the SU(5) brane, ${\cal O}_2$ can be a competitive or even the dominant source of proton decay.
In models where both branes contain SM fermions, the combined effect of the couplings of Eqs. (\[lps\]) and (\[bbc\]) will give rise to further proton decay operators involving both SU(5)- and SM-brane fermions. The calculation is a straightforward combination of the two basic cases discussed above.
Proton decay rates
==================
In SU(5) orbifold GUTs, there are three possible locations for matter: the SU(5) brane, the bulk (which is also SU(5) symmetric), and the SM brane. The various possible models are characterized by the placement of the $T_i$ ($\bf 10$’s) and ${\bar F}_i$ ($\bf\bar{5}$’s) that make up the three ($i=1,2,3$) generations of quarks and leptons. To reproduce the successful SU(5) $m_b/m_\tau$ mass relation, $T_3$ and ${\bar F}_3$ must reside on the SU(5) brane. Furthermore, due to the different normalization of 4d and 5d fields, Yukawa interactions involving one or two bulk matter fields are effectively suppressed by factors $(M/M_c)^{1/2}$ and $(M/M_c)$ [@HMROS] (recall that $M$ is the fundamental UV scale of the theory). Thus, both the relative lightness of the 2nd and 1st generations and the failure of the SU(5) mass predictions indicate that for $i=1,2$ either $T_i$ or $\bar{F}_i$ or both should be in the bulk or on the SM brane.
First we consider the case of proton decay operators arising from minimal $X,Y$ gauge boson interactions.
Both for matter on the SM brane and in the SU(5)-symmetric bulk, minimally coupled $X,Y$ gauge bosons do [*not*]{} lead to dimension-6 baryon number violating operators [@Nomura; @Csaki]. For matter on the SM brane this is simply because the orbifold boundary conditions imply the vanishing of the $X,Y$ gauge boson wavefunctions on the SM brane. For bulk matter the situation is slightly more involved. Although 5d fields come in complete SU(5) multiplets, the orbifold projections $P$ and $P'$ imply that the zero modes under this action do not fill out full SU(5) multiplets. From a ${\bf 10}$ we just get ${\bar U}$ and ${\bar E}$ zero modes, while from a ${\bf\bar{5}}$ we get $\bar{D}$. The remaining components of a full SM generation are realized at the zero mode level by taking another copy of ${\bf 10}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$ in the bulk and flipping the overall sign of the action of $P'$ on these multiplets. As a result, we have zero modes which fill out the full matter content of $T$ or $\bar{F}$ at the zero mode level [@HN; @HMR]. However, since the components of $T$ or $\bar{F}$ arise from different 5d SU(5) parent multiplets, the interaction of $X$ and $Y$ gauge bosons with these ‘split’ multiplets do not convert SM quarks into SM leptons. Rather, they convert SM fermions into superheavy ($m\sim 1/R$) exotic partner states. Only with multiple $X,Y$ exchange can a baryon-number-violating operator involving only SM fields be produced. Such operators are at minimum of dimension 8 and are irrelevant for proton decay experiments in the foreseeable future.[^5] Thus, we now focus on proton decay due to interactions of $X,Y$ gauge bosons with SU(5)-brane matter.
The only $\De B= 1$ operators induced by single $X$ or $Y$ gauge boson exchange are \_[TF]{} &=& \_[i,j]{} a\_i b\_j |[d\_R]{}\_i |[u\_R]{}\_j L\_[Li]{} Q\_[Lj]{}\
[O]{}\_[TT]{} &=& \_[i,j]{} b\_i b\_j |[e\_R]{}\_i |[u\_R]{}\_j Q\_[Li]{} Q\_[Lj]{}. Here and below our Weyl spinor notation is such that $\psi_{\rm Dirac}=(
\psi_L,\bar{\psi}_R)^T$. The operators ${\cal O}_{TF}$ and ${\cal O}_{TT}$ arise from gauge exchange between $T$ and $\bar{F}$ and between two $T$ multiplets respectively. The generation indices $i,j$ label the matter fields in the ‘locality basis,’ [@HMROS] (in which the fields are defined by their location) so that $a_i=1$ or $a_i=0$ depending on whether $\bar{F}_i$ is on the SU(5) brane or not. Similarly $b_i=1,0$ depending on whether $T_i$ is localized on the SU(5) brane, or not.
The fields in the locality basis (which is also the gauge basis) get mass via Yukawa interactions characterized by the matrices $\lambda_u$, $\lambda_d$, and $\lambda_e$. Low-energy experiments determine only their diagonal form, $\lambda_u^{\rm diag}$, $\lambda_d^{\rm diag}$, $\lambda_e^{\rm diag}$, and the CKM matrix, $V_{\rm CKM}$: \_u\^[diag]{}=L\_u\^\_u R\_u , \_d\^[diag]{}=L\_d\^\_d R\_d , \_e\^[diag]{}=L\_e\^\_e R\_e , V\_[CKM]{}=L\_u\^L\_d . \[relations\] The diagonalizing unitary rotations of type $L$ and $R$ act in generation space and connect the gauge and mass eigenstate bases. Denoting the latter by primes, the above $\De B=1$ operators take the form \_[TF]{} = \_[i,j]{} a\_i b\_j ( (|[d’\_R]{}R\_d\^)\_i (|[u’\_R]{}R\_u\^)\_j (’\_L)\_i(L\_d d’\_L)\_j -(|[d’\_R]{}R\_d\^)\_i (|[u’\_R]{}R\_u\^)\_j (L\_e e’\_L)\_i(L\_u u’\_L)\_j ) \[op1\] (note that, for our purposes, neutrinos can be treated as massless) and \_[TT]{} = \_[i,j]{} b\_i b\_j (|[u’\_R]{}R\_u\^)\_j (|[e’\_R]{}R\_e\^)\_i (L\_u u’\_L)\_j (L\_d d’\_L)\_i . \[op2\] Here, in contrast to the minimal version of 4d GUTs, the coefficients of the operators involve combinations of elements of $L$ and $R$ matrices beyond those determined by $V_{\rm CKM}$.
We start our discussion with the case considered originally in [@kaw]: all generations located at the SU(5) brane. We use the approximation $L\simeq R\simeq \bf 1$ and focus on the mode $p\to\pi^0e^+$. The relevant operator reads =(2|[u\_R’]{}|[e\_R’]{}u\_L’d\_L’ -|[d\_R’]{}|[u\_R’]{}e\_L’u\_L’), with only first generation fields. This gives rise to the decay rate (see, e.g., [@his]) (p\^0e\^+)=()\^2(1+D+F)\^2()\^2. Taking the hadronic parameter $\alpha=0.015$ GeV$^3$ [@aok], the pion decay constant $f_\pi=0.13$ GeV, the chiral perturbation theory parameters $D=0.80$ and $F=0.47$, the unified gauge coupling $g_4^2/(4\pi)=1/25$, and the renormalization coefficient $A_R=2.5$, the resulting life time is 1/(p\^0e\^+)=1.410\^[34]{} ()\^4. Using the Super-Kamiokande limit of $5.3\times 10^{33}$ years [@shi; @suz], this leads to the bound $M_c\geq 0.8\times 10^{16}$ GeV [@HN] (see also [@dm]). Given the usual unifications scale $M_{\rm GUT}\simeq
2\times 10^{16}$ GeV, almost no validity range for the higher-dimensional field theory is left.
Let us now turn to a better motivated case where only the third generation is located on the SU(5) brane. This scenario predicts the large mass of the third generation, $b-\tau$ unification, and the absence of a similar mass relation in the first two generations. Given the observed structure of $V_{CKM}$, we assume that all matrices $L$ and $R$ are near the unit matrix. Thus, proton decay will be suppressed by the small off-diagonal elements of these matrices. To minimize the number of such elements, is advantageous to have an anti-neutrino and a strange quark in the final state. The relevant operator reads =|[s\_R’]{}|[u\_R’]{}\_[L]{}’ d\_L’(R\_d\^)\_[23]{}(R\_u\^)\_[13]{}(L\_d)\_[31]{}. The resulting decay rate, calculated using the analysis of [@aok] and including the phase space suppression due to the mass of the $K^+$, is (pK\^+|\_)=()\^2(D)\^2()\^2(1-)\^2 |(R\_d\^)\_[23]{}(R\_u\^)\_[13]{}(L\_d)\_[31]{}|\^2, with $m_\Lambda=1.1$ GeV and $m_{K}=0.5$ GeV. The parametric supression by small mixing angles agrees with the estimate of [@Nomura]. If, guided by $V_{CKM}$, one estimates the 2-3 and 1-3 mixing elements by 0.05 and 0.01 respectively, one finds a life time 1/(pK\^+|\_)6.610\^[38]{} ()\^4. Thus, to observe an effect, one requires either experimental progress beyond the currently considered multi-megaton detectors (see e.g. [@suz]), or a very low compactification scale, or off-diagonal elements of the unmeasured mixing matrices larger than the naive CKM-based estimate.
Finally, we consider what is arguably the best-motivated scenario, namely, a model with only $T_3$, $\bar{F}_3$ and $\bar{F}_2$ on the SU(5) brane. Following the discussion of [@HMROS], one finds that this model provides an explanation of all fermion mass hierarchies except for the lightness of the first-generation up-quark and electron and the neutrinos in terms of the single parameter $(M/M_c)^{1/2}$. The dominant decay modes are $p\to K^0\mu^+$ and $p\to K^+\nu_\mu$. For the striking $K^0\mu^+$ mode the relevant operator is =-|[s\_R’]{}|[u\_R’]{}\_L’u\_L’ (R\_u\^)\_[13]{}(L\_u)\_[31]{} . Similarly we find that the $K^+\nu_\mu$ mode is also supressed by two 1-3 mixings.[^6] This gives rise to the rate (pK\^0\^+)=()\^2(1+(D-F))\^2()\^2(1-)\^2|( R\_u\^)\_[13]{}(L\_u)\_[31]{}|\^2. The life time is 1/(pK\^0\^+)2.110\^[35]{} ( )\^4. Thus, in a phenomenologically well-motivated realization of this scenario, with $M\simeq 10^{17}$ GeV and $(M/M_c)^{1/2}\simeq 30$, the next generation of proton decay experiments could ‘discover’ orbifold GUTs via the striking signal of a $K^0\mu^+$ final state. (Note that in the case where $T_2$ but not ${\bar F}_2$ is on the SU(5) brane proton decay could also be discovered by the striking $p\to K^0 \mu^+$ mode. In this case the mixing supression is only by two 1-2 mixings [@Nomura].)
We now turn to the non-minimal case where proton decay arises from the higher-derivative interactions of the $X,Y$ bosons with matter on the SM brane. This is of interest especially in the minimal GUT models where all matter in localized on the SM brane [@HMR]. The proton decay rate that results from the operator Eq.(\[deriv\]) is 1/(p\^0e\^+)=3.510\^[34]{} ()\^2 ()\^2. Assuming natural ${\cal O}(1)$ values for the unknown coefficients $b$ and $c$, this leads to a potentially observable rate. This same mechanism can also apply to split multiplets, but in this case there is a further suppression of $M_c/M$ in the rate for each bulk field.
Conclusions
===========
Proton decay is one of the most characteristic and striking signatures of conventional 4d GUTs. In orbifold GUTs, although dimension 5 operators are naturally absent, proton decay induced by the exchange of $X,Y$ boson states is enhanced. Moreover, the minimal gauge interactions of $X,Y$ gauge bosons only induce $\De B=\De L=1$ operators for those matter multiplets localized to the SU(5)-invariant brane. For example, in models with the most realistic flavour structure, the 1st generation is not localized to the SU(5) brane, and proton decay arises from the mixing of brane and bulk matter to form mass eigenstates. As a result, minimal $X,Y$ gauge interactions favour unusual final states, e.g. $p\to K^0\mu^+$, at a potentially observable rate. Thus the rates and flavour structure of proton decay processes provide important probes of orbifold GUTs. In addition to minimal $X,Y$ couplings, there can exist higher-derivative brane-localized couplings of $X,Y$ gauge bosons directly to 1st generation states. Although formally suppressed by $M_c/M$, these new operators do not rely on mixing and can be the numerically dominant source of proton decay, with rates $\Ga(p\to \pi^0 e^+)$ observable in current and future experiments.
[99]{}
H. Georgi and S. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32**]{} (1974) 438;\
J. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. [**D8**]{} (1973) 1240.
H. Murayama and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 055009 (2002)\
\[arXiv:hep-ph/0108104\];\
G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio and I. Masina, JHEP [**0011**]{}, 040 (2000)\
\[arXiv:hep-ph/0007254\];\
R. Dermisek, A. Mafi and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 035001\
\[arXiv:hep-ph/0007213\];\
G. Bhattacharyya and K. Sridhar, arXiv:hep-ph/0111345.
Y. Kawamura, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**105**]{} (2001) 999 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0012125\].
G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Phys. Lett. B [**511**]{}, 257 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0102301\].
L. Hall and Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{} (2001) 055003 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0103125\].
A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B [**613**]{} (2001) 3\
\[arXiv:hep-ph/0106166\].
A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B [**625**]{} (2002) 128\
\[arXiv:hep-ph/0107039\].
T. Asaka, W. Buchmüller and L. Covi, Phys. Lett. B [**523**]{}, 199 (2001)\
\[arXiv:hep-ph/0108021\]. L. J. Hall, Y. Nomura, T. Okui and D. R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 035008 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0108071\]. R. Contino, L. Pilo, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini, Nucl. Phys. B [**622**]{}, 227 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0108102\].
Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 085036 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0108170\].
E. A. Mirabelli and M. E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{} (1998) 065002\
\[arXiv:hep-th/9712214\].
N. Marcus, A. Sagnotti and W. Siegel, Nucl. Phys. B [**224**]{} (1983) 159;\
N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Gregoire and J. Wacker, arXiv:hep-th/0101233;\
D. Marti and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{} (2001) 105025 \[arXiv:hep-th/0106256\].
A. Hebecker, arXiv:hep-ph/0112230, to appear, Nucl. Phys. B.
J. Wess and J. Bagger, [*Supersymmetry and Supergravity*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, 1983
J. Erdmenger, Z. Guralnik and I. Kirsch, arXiv:hep-th/0203020.
T. j. Li and W. Liao, arXiv:hep-ph/0202090;\
L. J. Hall and Y. Nomura, arXiv:hep-ph/0202107;\
S. Dimopoulos, D. E. Kaplan and N. Weiner, arXiv:hep-ph/0202136.
L. Hall, J. March-Russell, T. Okui and D. R. Smith, arXiv:hep-ph/0108161.
C. Csaki, G. D. Kribs and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 015004 (2002)\
\[arXiv:hep-ph/0107266\]. J. Hisano, H. Murayama and T. Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B [**402**]{}, 46 (1993)\
\[arXiv:hep-ph/9207279\];\
J. Hisano, arXiv:hep-ph/0004266.
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{} \[JLQCD Collab.\], Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 014506\
\[arXiv:hep-lat/9911026\].
M. Shiozawa [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collab.\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 3319 \[arXiv:hep-ex/9806014\];\
Y. Hayato [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collab.\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 1529 \[arXiv:hep-ex/9904020\].
Y. Suzuki [*et al.*]{} \[TITAND Working Group Collab.\], arXiv:hep-ex/0110005.
R. Dermisek and A. Mafi, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 055002 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0108139\].
[^1]: The reason for this is that the running of differences of gauge couplings does not stop at $M_c$, but continues in only a slightly modified way [@HN; @HMR]. So $M_c$ is lower than the unification scale.
[^2]: We thank Y. Nomura for bringing to our attention Ref. [@Nomura] where these interesting features of orbifold GUT theories were previously noted. In Sect. 3 we will comment on the relations of our respective findings.
[^3]: This observation has also been made in the context of a 3d superfield description of 4d SUSY theories with boundary [@erd].
[^4]: Following [@HMR] such realizations of matter have also been used in recent TeV scale SU(3) models [@su3].
[^5]: If some or all of the SM fermions come from split multiplets localized in the bulk, $X,Y$-boson-mediated proton decay via dimension-6 operators will occur if couplings analogous to Eqs. (\[lps\]) and (\[bbc\]) mixing different bulk SU(5) multiplets are present. One can think of such terms as non-diagonal brane-localized kinetic terms (in a basis chosen to make the bulk kinetic term diagonal). We do not consider this case in detail here.
[^6]: In Ref. [@Nomura] the modes $p\to K^+\nu_\mu$ and $p\to \mu^+\pi^0$ were stated to be dominant with amplitudes supressed by one 2-3 and two 1-3 mixings and by one 1-2 and two 1-3 mixings respectively.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The dynamics of a 2[*D*]{} site percolation model on a square lattice is studied using the hierarchical approach introduced by Gabrielov et al., [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**60**]{}, 5293-5300, 1999. The key elements of the approach are the tree representation of clusters and their coalescence, and the Horton-Strahler scheme for cluster ranking. Accordingly, the evolution of percolation model is considered as a hierarchical inverse cascade of cluster aggregation. A three-exponent time-dependent scaling for the cluster rank distribution is derived using the Tokunaga branching constraint and classical results on percolation in terms of cluster masses. Deviations from the pure scaling are described. An empirical constraint on the dynamics of a rank population is reported based on numerical simulations.'
author:
- 'Ilya Zaliapin, Henry Wong, Andrei Gabrielov'
title: 'Inverse cascade in percolation model: hierarchical description of time-dependent scaling'
---
Introduction
============
Percolation model is probably the simplest and best studied system that experiences (geometrical) phase transition of the second kind [@SA]. It is widely used as a toy model for spatially distributed stochastic processes, such as diffusion in disordered media, forest fires, gelation, semiconduction, etc. [@Sornette04; @SA]. Importantly for our study, percolation model presents a transparent mechanism of the process of hierarchical aggregation (coagulation). This process has been actively employed for describing the essential properties of material fracture and earthquake nucleation [@BSLA97; @BSL97; @GKZN00; @NS90; @NG91; @NTG95; @SB01; @ZKG03], starting from the pioneering works of Allegre et al. [@ALP82] and Newman and Knopoff [@NK82; @NK83; @KN83]. In this paper we describe the evolution of percolation model in terms of an inverse cascade of hierarchical cluster aggregation.
An early idea of hierarchical aggregation was introduced by Newman and Knopoff in the “crack-fusion” model for repetitive cycles of large earthquakes [@NK82; @NK83; @KN83; @NK90]. Their model focused on processes of small cracks fusions into successively larger ones, accommodating the influence of mainshocks and aftershocks, juvenile crack genesis from tectonic stresses, crack healing, and anelastic-creep induced time delays, plus other effects. Turcotte et al. [@Tur+99] have reinstated this line of research considering a log-binned description of hierarchical aggregation and performing numerical tests to study its scaling properties. Gabrielov et al. [@GNT99] first have employed the Horton-Strahler hierarchical ranking [@Horton45; @NTG97] to construct an exactly solvable model of a general inverse cascade process. The Horton-Strahler ranks (see Sect. \[HS\]) that came from hydrology and have been not well known in physical applications happened to be more natural than cluster masses (sizes, areas) in describing the aggregation process. Moreover, the ranks are shown essential for formulating the analytical models [@GNT99]. Recent efforts deal with studying the aggregation dynamics and its various scalings via exactly solvable hierarchical models and extensive simulations [@MNTG04].
Below we focus on the evolution of the first spanning cluster in the the classical site-percolation model, and decribe it as a consecutive hierarchical fusion of smaller clusters into larger ones. Noteworthy, we are interested not in a final solution of a percolation state, but in an evolutionary path leading from the juvenile single-particle clusters to a self-similar population of clusters of arbitrary large size (limited by the finiteness of the lattice), the percolation cluster included. Thus we depart from the steady-state assumption of [@GNT99; @MNTG04; @Tur+99] as well as from the asymptotic focus on the percolation onset typical for the classical percolation studies [@SA].
Specifically, we follow [@GNT99] and represent each cluster by a time-oriented tree that reflects the history of cluster formation. The model dynamics is then described in terms of the corresponding trees using the well-developed theory of hierarchical scaling complexities [@BP97; @NTG97]. An important role is played by the the Horton-Strahler scheme that provides a natural ranking for the tree-based structures. Another important element is the Tokunaga classification that defines a special subclass of trees with self-similar branching. A large number of hierarchies observed in nature are shown to be Tokunaga trees [@NTG97]; this is also the case for the clusters in percolation model [@GNT99; @MNTG04]. We use the Tokunaga constraint together with classical results on percolation dynamics (in terms of cluster masses) to derive time-dependent scaling laws for rank distribution of clusters. Importantly, we report a three-exponent scaling for the dynamics of a population of clusters of a given rank, in deviation from the two-exponent scaling well-known for the population of a given mass [@SA; @Margolina+84]. We also analyze deviations from the pure scaling and confirm our results by numerical simulations.
The inverse cascades and aggregation (coagulation) processes are important for evolution of many natural hazardous processes: earthquakes, landslides, and forest fires are argued to follow the hierarchical aggregation dynamics [@TMGR02; @MNTG04]. A general review of the theory and models of kinetics of irreversible aggregation is given by Leyvraz [@Leyvraz03]. An alternative approach to analytical modeling, based on ideas from [@GNT99], but using equations that are consistent with the mass action law of chemical kinetics, can be found in da Costa et al. [@CGW02].
The paper is organized as follows. The percolation model is described in Sect. \[model\]; this section also introduces tree representation of clusters and the Horton-Strahler ranking. In Sect. \[MRD\] we derive the average mass of clusters of a given rank using the Tokunaga constraint on cluster branching. This result will be actively used in consecutive sections. Section \[RD\] is devoted to the time-dependent rank distribution of clusters. First (Sect. \[rankdist\]), we establish the exponential rank distribution at percolation using the result of Sect. \[MRD\]. We then proceed with time-dependent rank distribution; Sect. \[dynrankdist\] introduces the three-exponent scaling for ranks and compares it to the well-known Stauffer’s two-exponent scaling for cluster masses. Scaling for ranks averaged over the entire evolution of the percolation cluster is derived in Sect. \[AS\]; this result is motivated by the heuristic studies that typically use averaged observations on a system. Time-dependent finite-size corrections to the established scalings are described in Sect. \[corrections\]. Our study of rank distributions is concluded in Sect. \[MDGR\] by describig the time-dependent behavior of the total mass of clusters of a given rank. Sect. \[CFS\] analyzes fractal properties of clusters and reports sharp increase of cluster fractal dimension in the vicinity of percolation. Sect. \[DC\] uses simulations to establish a notable constraint on the dynamics of a rank populations. The results are discussed in Sect. \[discussion\].
Model
=====
Dynamics
--------
We consider the classical 2[*D*]{} site-percolation model [@SA]. The model dynamics starts with an empty $L\times L$ square lattice. At each step a particle is dropped into a randomly chosen unoccupied site; thus each site can be either occupied by one and only one particle or empty. Two sites are considered [*neighbors*]{} if they share one side; each site on a square lattice has four neighbors. Cluster is defined as a group of occupied neighbor sites [@SA]. Time refers to the steps at which particles drop onto the lattice. Since we do not have annihilation of particles, time is formally equivalent to the number of particles on the lattice. It is convenient to normalize time by the lattice size $L^2$ so it varies from $\rho=0$ at the start to $\rho=1$ when all sites are occupied. During the system evolution, occupied sites start to aggregate and clusters begin to form. Once a sufficient number of particles is accumulated, a percolation cluster is formed connecting the opposite sides of the lattice vertically and/or horizontally.
The density $\rho$ increases monotonically from zero to its critical value $\rho_c$ at percolation. For an infinite lattice $\rho_c \approx 0.59274606$ [@NZ01], while for a finite lattice it is smaller [@SA]: $$\label{rhofin}
\rho_c(L) = \rho_c - cL^{-3}.$$
Many phenomena encountered in the percolation model mimic what we see when the phase transitions of the second kind occur. Note however that these phenomena are of purely geometrical and statistical rather than physical nature. Indeed, the physical percolation theory is largerly predicated in this geometrical model and there are many empirical links between them; this is why the percolation model is said to be an example of the [*geometrical*]{} phase transition of the second kind, and why its nomenclature emerges from that of the physical critical phenomena.
The theoretical description of the percolation dynamics is conventionally given in terms of the cluster masses [@SA]; and most of the universal scalings – a benchmark of phase transitions of second kind – deal with parameters expressed via the mass distribution of clusters. However, if one is interested in analytical description of the aggregation process, the mass description happens to be inferior to the hierarchical rank approach [@GNT99; @MNTG04]. Properly defined ranks not only allow one to construct exactly solvable models of aggregation, but also they are more feasible for observations in practice. In addition, they reflect the individual history of cluster formation. Below we follow the hierarchical approach of Gabrielov et al. [@GNT99] to study the percolation dynamics.
Tree representation of clusters
-------------------------------
Each cluster in our model is represented by a tree that reflects the time-dependent formation of a cluster (its history), and is a subject for quantitative analysis. Specifically, each one-particle cluster is represented by a trivial tree consisting of a single node. When two clusters are merged together their trees are also merged by adding a new node (parent) for which they become children (and siblings to each other.) In our model, the coalescence of two or more clusters can only be materialized by adding to the lattice a new particle which will be a neighbor to one or more existing clusters. Figure \[fig\_model1\]a illustrates the four possible types of coalescence. We call $k$-coalescence in a situation when a newly dropped particle (marked [**N**]{} in the figure) is a neighbor to $k$ existing clusters (gray numbered sites). Numerical simulations on a square lattice with $L=2,000$ suggest the following relative frequencies $Q_k$ of $k$-coalescences: $Q_1\approx0.628$, $Q_2\approx0.318$, $Q_3\approx0.052$, $Q_4\approx0.002$. Figures \[fig\_model1\]b,c illustrate how a tree is formed for different coalescence types. There are two basic situations: When a new particle is a neighbor to only one existing cluster, it is considered as an individual one-particle cluster that is connected to the existing one. The connecting node of the tree in this case does not correspond to a particle on the lattice (panel b). When a new particle is droped in a neighbor to two, three, or four existing clusters, it is not condidered as an individual cluster. Instead, it corresponds to the connecting node in the tree (panel c). Thus, the connecting node in a tree may or may not correspond to a lattice particle depending on the coalescence type. The branching parameter (number of children for a given parent) of a tree for any cluster varies between 2 and 4. Note that both 1- and 2-coalescences result in merging only two clusters; accordingly, most of the observed coalescences (about 95%) involve only two clusters while coalescence of three or four clusters is extremely rare.
The consecutive process of tree formation for a simple four-particle cluster is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_model2\]. Importantly, the individual evolution of a cluster is crucial in constructing the corresponding hierarchical tree. To construct the tree one needs to consider all consecutive coalescences that have formed the cluster, not only its final shape. Therefore, it is clear that the same tree may correspond to clusters of different shape: Figure \[fig\_model3\]a shows two 11-particle clusters that both correspond to the same tree shown in panel b. Therefore, working with trees, we unavoidably narrow the information about the cluster population. Notice however both trees capture an excessively larger amount of information than mere cluster masses. Summing up, the time evolution of a cluster is neccesary and sufficient to uniquely determine the corresponding tree, while the inverse is not true. The problems of describing the set of trees that might correspond to a given cluster, and the set of clusters that correspond to a given tree is beyond the scope of this paper. Next, we describe the ranking of clusters, presenting a conventional alternative to the logarithmic binning of cluster masses.
Horton-Strahler ranking {#HS}
-----------------------
The appropriate ordering of trees (clusters) is very important for meaningful description and analysis of the model dynamics. The problem of such an ordering is not trivial since the clusters may grow and coalesce in a variety of peculiar ways. An advantageous way to solve this problem is given by the Horton-Strahler topological classification of ramified patterns [@Horton45; @Strahler; @BP97] illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_model3\]b: One assigns ranks to the nodes of a tree, starting from $r=1$ at leaves (clusters consisting of one particle.) When two or more clusters with ranks $r_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$ merge together, a new cluster is formed with the rank [@BP97]: $$r=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
r_1+1,&\mbox{ if }r_i=r_1~\forall~i=1,\dots,n\\
\max{(r_i)},&\mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$ The rank of a cluster is that of the root of the corresponding tree. It is possible to consider an alternative definition of ranks: When at least two clusters with rank $r$ coalesce, and other coalescing clusters have a lower rank, the rank of a new cluster becomes $r+1$. Clearly, the two definition coincide when only two clusters coalesce. The results reported in this paper are independent of the particular definition, since coalescence of more than two clusters (especially of high ranks) is a rare event.
Originally introduced in geomorphology by Horton [@Horton45] and later refined by Strahler [@Strahler], this classification is shown to be inherent in various geophysical, biological, and computational applications [@BP97; @GNT99; @MNTG04; @NTG97; @Toro01; @TPN98].
Mass-rank distribution {#MRD}
======================
In this section we derive the distribution of the average mass $m_r$ of rank $r$ clusters. It will be used consequently to connect various mass and rank scaling laws. First, we define the branching ratio $T_{ij}$ for a given cluster (tree) as the number $N_{ij}$ of subclusters (nodes) of rank $i$ that joined subcluster (node) of rank $j$, averaged over subclusters (nodes) of rank $j$ [@NTG97; @Tokunaga]: $$T_{ij}=\frac{N_{ij}}{N_j}.$$
Next we note that the mass of a rank $r$ cluster is the sum of two $r-1$ cluster masses that formed the cluster (we ignore the possibility for three or more clusters to coalesce at the same step), plus a unit mass of a joining particle, plus the mass of all the lower-rank clusters that joined the considered cluster, hence: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mr}
m_1&=&1\nonumber\\
m_2&=&(2\,m_1+P)+T_{12}(m_1+P)\nonumber\\
m_3&=&(2\,m_2+1)+T_{23}(m_2+1)+T_{13}(m_1+P)\nonumber\\
&\dots&\nonumber\\
m_k&=&(2\,m_{k-1}+1)+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}T_{k-i\,k}(m_{k-i}+1)
-(1-P)T_{1\,k},~k\ge 3.\end{aligned}$$ Here the coefficient $P$ addresses the possibility for a one-particle cluster to join another cluster in two ways: via a one-particle connector (with probability $P$) or directly (with probability $1-P$); the clusters with $r>2$ can only join other clusters using a one-particle connector.
It was predicted by Gabrielov et al. [@GNT99] and later confirmed by simulations [@MNTG04] that clusters in percolation model obey the Tokunaga scaling [@Tokunaga] asymptotically in $k$: $$\label{tokunaga}
T_{i\,i+k}=T_k=s_0s^{k-1}.$$ This rewrites Eq. (\[mr\]) for $k\ge 3$ as $$m_k=(2\,m_{k-1}+1)+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}T_{i}(m_{k-i}+1)
-(1-P)T_{k-1}.$$ Assuming the mass-rank relation in the form $m_r=c^{r-1}$, $c>1$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mr1}
c\,^{k-1}&=&2c\,^{k-1}+1+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}s_0s\,^{i-1}
\left(c\,^{k-i-1}+1\right)-
(1-P)s_0\,s\,^{k-1}\nonumber\\
&=&c\,^{k-2}\left[
2+\frac{1}{c\,^{k-2}}
+s_0\frac{1-\left(s/c\right)^{k-1}}
{1-s/c}
+\frac{s_0}{c\,^{k-2}}\,\frac{s\,^{k-1}-1}{s-1}
-(1-P)s_0\left(s/c\right)^{k-2}\right].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is easily checked that this equation has a solution only if $c>s$; thus $s/c<1$ and for large $k$ then follows $$c^{k-1} = c^{k-2}\left[2+\frac{s_0}{1-s/c}\right]$$ leading to the final equation $$c^2-c(2+s+s_0)+2s=0$$ with solution: $$\label{c}
c=\frac{2+s+s_0\pm\sqrt{(2+s+s_0)^2-8s}}{2}.$$
Remarkably, the model of Gabrielov et al. [@GNT99] predicts in a Euclidean (assuming clusters of regular, non-fractal, shape) limit of an inverse cascade model $$s_0\approx 0.55495813,~~ s=1/s_0\approx1.80193774,
~~{\rm and~~} c=1/s_0^2\approx3.24697602.$$ The Eq. (\[c\]) in this case gives $c(s_0,s)=3.24697960$ (this is the only solution such that $c>s$), which is remarkably close (6 digits) to the result of [@GNT99]. Furthermore, the non-Eucledian (assuming fractal shape of clusters) steady-state simulations of Morein et al. [@MNTG04] suggest $$s\approx3.0253, \qquad s_0\approx0.6993,
\qquad c\approx4.325,$$ which exactly solves Eq. (\[c\]). We found it quite amazing that our complimentary set of assumptions used to derive (\[c\]) lead to the same numerical results as analytical study [@GNT99] and simulations of [@MNTG04]. This suggests an underlying connection between our approaches to describe the hierarchical aggregation.
The observed mass-rank distribution of clusters at percolation is shown in Fig. \[fig\_MR\]; it obeys the exponential relation $$\label{MR}
m_r= 10^{\,\gamma (r-1)} = c^{\,r-1},$$ with $\gamma\approx 0.625$, $c=10^{\gamma}\approx 4.2$. Our simulation suggest that the mass distribution within a given rank is approximately lognormal (not shown) with the mean given by Eq. (\[MR\]) and a rank-independent standard deviation.
The relation (\[MR\]) is a key element in our further analysis. As we will show, the distribution of cluster ranks at percolation (Sect. \[rankdist\]) and its finite-size corrections (Sect. \[corrections\]) are obtained from the corresponding classical laws for masses by simple substituting the relation (\[MR\]). At the same time, one of the most important results: the time dependent rank distribution can not be obtained this way and requires an additional treatment (Sect. \[dynrankdist\]).
The exponential relation of Eq. (\[MR\]) happens to be valid over the entire time interval $0<\rho\le\rho_c$. The corresponding dynamics of $c(\rho)$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_c\]: it grows with time from about 2.0 at the earliest stages to 4.2 at percolation. This growth reflects the fact that clusters become more weighty with time due to coupling with the clusters of lower ranks (which does not change the rank but increases the mass). The growth is not monotonous; it is accompanied by pronounced log-periodic oscillations which are associated with creation of new ranks. The log-periodic oscillations that accompany general power-law increase of observed parameters have been found in many systems including hierarchical models of defect development [@NTG95], biased diffusion on random lattices [@SS98], diffusion-limited aggregation (DLA) [@Sor+96], and others. Log-periodic oscillations can be naturally explained by the Discrete Scale Invariance (DSI) [@Sornette04], which occurs in a system whose observables scale only for a discrete set of values. A famous example of DSI is given by the Cantor set that pocesses a discrete scale symmetry: In order to superimpose its scaled image onto the original, one has to stretch it by the discrete factors $3^n$, $n=1,2,\dots$, not a continuous set of values. The Cantor set and percolation belong to systems with built-in geometrical hierarchy, leading to DSI. In our particular system, ranks take only a countable set of values. Creation of new ranks necessarily disrupt the system in a discontinuous way resulting in the log-periodicity.
Now we return to the numerical value of parameter $c$. In steady-state simulations of [@MNTG04] $c = 4.325$, which is reasonably close to what we observe at percolation. Recall that the models of [@GNT99; @MNTG04] use the “fractal correction” $\epsilon$ to the cluster shape; this correction affects the rate $r_{ij}$ of clusters coalescence: $$r_{ij}\approx \epsilon^{-|j-i|}L_iL_j,$$ where $L_i$ is the total boundary size of the clusters of rank $i$. The correction $\epsilon$ can be expressed as $$\epsilon=\frac{1}{\sqrt{c}}\,\frac{c-1}{c-2},$$ which, together with results of Fig. \[fig\_c\], shows that in the percolation model $\epsilon$ decreases in time passing the Euclidean limit $\epsilon=1$ [@GNT99] at $(\rho_c-\rho)\approx 0.14$ and approaching the steady-state “fractal” $\epsilon\approx 0.68$ [@MNTG04] at $\rho=\rho_c$. The interval $2< c \le 4.2$ observed during $0<\rho\le \rho_c$ corresponds to $0.68\le\epsilon<\infty$.
Rank distribution {#RD}
=================
This section is devoted to establishing various time-dependent scaling laws for clusters of a given rank. We will see that it is tipically impossible to derive such laws by applying the mass-rank relation (\[MR\]) to the coresponding well-known laws for cluster masses. This illustrates an original character and richness of the rank description and prompts for developing new methods of analysis. We start with the simplest problem: rank distribution at percolation.
Distribution at percolation {#rankdist}
---------------------------
We start recalling the well-known cluster mass distribution at percolation [@SA]: $$\label{GRm}
n_m(\rho_c)\sim q_0\,m^{-\tau},$$ where $n_m(\rho_c)$ is the number of clusters of mass $m$ per lattice site, and the Fisher exponent $\tau=187/91\approx 2.05$ is universal for 2[*D*]{} systems [@Fisher67; @SA]. Figure \[fig\_GRm\] illustrates the mass distribution at percolation for a system with $L=2000$; to smooth out statistical fluctuations it shows the number of clusters with mass equal to or larger than $m$: $\sum_{m'\ge m} n_m(\rho_c)$. Equation (\[GRm\]) suggests the slope $\tau-1\approx\,1.05$, while the observed slope $0.96$ is somewhat less than that. This is due to the impact of two concurrent phenomena: so-called “deviation from scaling” at small $m$ [@Hoshen+79] and finite-size effects at large $m$ [@Margolina+84; @Hoshen+79]; they are discussed below in Sect. \[corrections\].
Now, we use Eq. (\[GRm\]) to derive the distribution of the number $n_r(\rho_c)$ of the clusters of rank $r$ at percolation. Taking summation over all clusters of rank $r$ and mass $m$ we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nrm0}
n_r(\rho_c)&=&\sum n_{r,m}(\rho_c)
=q_0\,\sum_{m_{\rm lo}}^{m_{\rm up}}\,m^{-\tau}\nonumber\\
&\sim&\frac{q_0}{\tau-1}
\left[(m_{\rm lo})^{-\tau+1}-(m_{\rm up})^{-\tau+1}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{q_0}{\tau-1}
\left[\left(\frac{m_{\rm lo}}{ m_r }\right)^{-\tau+1}
-\left(\frac{m_{\rm up}}{ m_r }\right)^{-\tau+1}\right]
m_r^{-\tau+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Our simulations suggest (not shown) that the mass distribution within a given rank is lognormal with a rank-independent standard deviation. Thus, for arbitrary upper and lower quantiles $m_{\rm up}$, $m_{\rm lo}$ of this distribution the values $$\frac{m_{\rm lo(up)}}{m_r}$$ are rank independent. Using this, we finally express $n_r(\rho_c)$ via $m_r$: $$\label{nrm}
n_r(\rho_c)=p_0\, m_r ^{-\tau+1}
\propto m_r ^{-1.05}.$$
The power law (\[nrm\]) is observed in a steady-state aggregation model of [@MNTG04] with index $1.147$. This index increase comparing to our $1.05$ is due to the fact that in [@MNTG04] intermediate clusters are removed from the lattice providing extra space for a larger number of smaller clusters.
Combining the mass-rank relation (\[MR\]) with (\[nrm\]) we obtain the following exponential rank distribution at percolation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GRr}
n_r(\rho_c)&\sim& p_0\, m_r ^{-\tau+1}
=p_0\,\left(c^{-\tau+1}\right)^{r-1}
= p_1\,10^{-b\,r}\end{aligned}$$ with $$p_1=p_0\,c^{\tau-1},~b=(\tau-1)\,\log_{10}c\approx 0.62.$$
This is indeed what we observe in Fig. \[fig\_GRr\] where the rank distribution $n_r$ at percolation is shown by the dash-dotted line. The study [@MNTG04] suggests $c^{1-\tau}=0.186$ while our predictions and observations lead to $c^{1-\tau}\approx 4.2^{-1.05} = 0.22$. The two values are in good agreement, the slight difference is explained, as in Eq. (\[nrm\]), by removal of intermediate clusters in [@MNTG04]. Next we consider the rank distribution for $\rho\ne\rho_c$.
Dynamical rank distribution: three-exponent scaling {#dynrankdist}
---------------------------------------------------
Here we expand results of the previous section by establishing the time-dependent rank dustribution. First, we consider the dynamics of rank population.
### Temporal dynamics of rank population
The dynamics of the total number $(n_r\cdot L^2)$ of the clusters of a given rank $r$ is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_rank\] for $r=5,6,7$. The population follows a characteristic bell-shaped trajectory, with percolation at its rightward limb. As in the case of mass description, one does not observe steady-state behavior in the cluster dynamics: The population of each rank steadily develops to its peak as a result of merging of the clusters of lower ranks; then it starts decreasing, giving birth to the clusters of higher ranks. As naturally follows from the model definition, the peak of the population of a higher rank comes after the peak of a lower rank. Figure \[fig\_rank\_all\] shows the population dynamics for the ranks $1\le r \le 11$ in semilogarithmic scale. Here one clearly sees the similarity in the dynamics of different ranks. Note that this figure is remarkably similar to Fig. 7 from [@Tur+99] that shows the dynamics of clusters with logarithmically binned masses. We now proceed by establishing the appropriate time-dependent scaling laws.
### Time-dependent mass distribution
Recall that the temporal dynamics of the cluster mass distribution is given by the two-exponent scaling law [@Stauffer75; @SA; @Margolina+84]: $$\label{2exp}
n_m(\rho)\sim m^{-\tau}\,f_0(z),\qquad
z=(\rho_c-\rho)m^{\sigma}+z_0,$$ with $\sigma=1/2$. The function $f_0$ has a bell-shaped form with maximum to the left of percolation; it can be roughly approximated by a Gaussian function [@Hoshen+79; @Margolina+84]: $$\label{f0}
f_0(z)\propto \exp\left(-a\,z^2\right).$$ Note that the shift $z_0$ is independent of $m$.
Considered as a function of $m$, the two-exponent scaling explains the power law mass distribution (\[GRm\]) at percolation (with $q_0=f_0(z_0)$) as well as the downward bend for $\rho<\rho_c$, clearly observed in Fig. \[fig\_GRm\] (dashed line); while as a function of $\rho$ it describes the bell-shaped dynamics of clusters with given mass $m$.
### Time-dependent rank distribution {#rscale}
Combining the scaling laws (\[MR\]) and (\[2exp\]) one formally obtains the two-exponent scaling for rank dynamics. However, the two exponent scaling does not work for ranks; to show this we assume more generally $$\label{r2exp}
n_r(\rho)\sim g_0(z)10^{-br},~
z=(\rho_c-\rho)h(r)+z'_0,$$ which is consistent with the exponential rank distribution of Eq.(\[GRr\]) at percolation (with $p_0=g_0(z'_0)$). Possible deviations from the pure exponential law at $\rho<\rho_c$ (clearly observed in Fig. \[fig\_GRr\]) and dynamics of a given rank (see Figs. \[fig\_rank\],\[fig\_rank\_all\]) are described by specific form of the functions $g_0(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$. Following [@Hoshen+79] we define $$\label{nu}
\nu_r(z):=\frac{n_r(z)}{n_r(z'_0)}
=\frac{g_0(z)}{g_0(z'_0)}.$$ and choose $h(\cdot)$ in such a way that positions of the peaks of $\nu_r(z)$ coincide for different $r$; it is always possible by choosing the appropriate time change $h(r)$. Figure \[fig\_nu\]a shows the ratio $\nu_r(z)/\nu_1(z)$ for $r=2,3,6,8$. One can see that the two-exponent scaling does not work in our case: the curves do not coincide.
Nevertheless, the simple scaling picture is restored by introducing the additional, third, shift exponent: $$\label{r3exp}
h(r)= a_1\,10^{\sigma_1\,r},\qquad
z'_0(r)=a_2\, 10^{-\sigma_2\,r}.$$ Function $g_0$ still can be approximated by a Gaussian function $$\label{g0}
g_0(z)\propto \exp\left(-\frac{z^2}{2}\right).$$
Once the correct scaling form is established, the use of (\[MR\]) is again legitimate, and the exponent $\sigma_1$ in Eq. (\[r3exp\]) can be evaluated as: $$\sigma_1=\sigma\log_{10} \hat{c}
\approx 0.24,$$ where $\hat{c}\approx 3$ is the median of $c$ values observed during $\rho<\rho_c$. The observed exponent $\sigma_1\approx 0.23$ (not shown) is fairly close to its predicted value. The shift exponent is estimated as $\sigma_2\approx 0.03$; while scale coefficients are $a_1\approx 1.54$, $a_2\approx 1.43$. The function $g_0(z)$ that uses these estimates is shown in Fig. \[fig\_g0\] where different symbols depict clusters of different ranks. The collapse is obvious, confirming the validity of the three-exponent scaling (\[r2exp\]), (\[r3exp\]), (\[g0\]).
In the scaling for cluster masses, the time renormalization $(\rho_c-\rho)m^{\sigma}$ collapses the dynamics of mass $m$ clusters onto the master curve $f_0(z-z_0)$ with its only peak shifted by $z_0$ leftward from percolation; the shift $z_0$ is mass independent. Similarly, in the scaling for ranks the time renormalization $(\rho_c-\rho)10^{\sigma_1\,r}$ collapses the dynamics of rank $r$ clusters onto the master curve $g_0(z-z'_0)$, although the shift now is rank dependent and is given by $10^{\sigma_2\,r}$. To illustrate this, we show the position of percolation on the righthand limb of the Gaussian $g_0(z-0.51)$ in Fig. \[fig\_nu\]b. The higher the rank, the closer the position of percolation to the peak of $g_0$.
Averaged scaling {#AS}
----------------
In applications, it is often impossible to measure the size distribution of system elements at a given time instant. Moreover, sometimes the instantaneous size distribution does not exist at all: This is indeed the case for the systems described by marked point processes widely used to model seismicity, volcano activity, starquakes, etc. [@DVJ]. In such situations one uses the averaged measurements. For instance, the famed Gutenberg-Richter law [@GR54; @Tur97; @BZ03] that gives exponential approximation to the size distribution of earthquakes (via their magnitudes) is valid only after appropriate averaging over a wide spatio-temporal domain. This explains the importance of the question: How do the distributions of Eq. (\[2exp\]), (\[r2exp\]) change after temporal averaging?
We answer this question for averaging over $0\le\rho\le\rho_c$. For the mass distribution this leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{avem}
\widehat{n_m}&:=&\int_0^{\rho_c} n_m(\rho)d\rho
=\int_0^{\rho_c} f_0(z)\,m^{-\tau}d\rho\nonumber\\
&\propto&\int_0^{\rho_c}\exp\left\{-a\left[(\rho_c-\rho)m^{\sigma}
-z_0\right]^2\right\}m^{-\tau}d\rho\nonumber\\
&\propto& m^{-\tau-\sigma}\int_{u_1}^{u_2}
\exp\left\{u^2/2\right\}du\nonumber\\
&\propto& m^{-\tau-\sigma}~~(\approx m^{-5/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Here the last step neglects the weak dependence of the integral on $m$ (and uses the values $\tau\approx 2.0$, $\sigma=1/2$). The validity of (\[avem\]) is confirmed by the observed averaged mass distribution shown by the solid line in Fig. \[fig\_GRm\]. The averaged mass distribution is similar to that at percolation: it retains the power-law form while the slope is increased by $1/2$ due to averaging.
Similarly, we obtain for ranks: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aver}
\widehat{n_r}&:=&\int_0^{\rho_c} n_r(\rho)d\rho
=\int_0^{\rho_c} g_0(z)\,10^{-br}d\rho\nonumber\\
&\propto&\int_0^{\rho_c}\exp\left\{-a'\left[
(\rho_c-\rho)10^{\sigma_1\,r}-a\,10^{-\sigma_2\,r}\right]^2
\right\}10^{-b\,r}d\rho\nonumber\\
&\propto& 10^{-(\sigma_1+b)\,r}\int_{u_1}^{u_2}
\exp\left\{u^2/2\right\}du\nonumber\\
&\propto& 10^{-(\sigma_1+b)\,r} =
10^{r\,(1-\sigma-\tau)\log_{10}\tilde{c}}=
10^{-r\,\alpha_r}.\end{aligned}$$ The exponent $\alpha_r$ may vary from 0.71 to 0.93 depending on $3.0\le\tilde{c}\le 4.2$ (the range of $c$ values for the time when at least three ranks have been formed so the estimation of the distribution slope is meaningful). Simulations suggest (solid line in Fig. \[fig\_GRr\]) $\alpha_r=0.87$, which is in good agreement with our prediction. Again, the averaged rank distribution retains the exponential form of the distribution at percolation; while its index has increased due to averaging.
Correction to simple scaling {#corrections}
----------------------------
Due to finiteness of the lattice, the results of previous sections require some corrections to match exactly the simulated rank distributions. The appropriate corrections are described below.
### Corrected scaling at percolation
The pure power and exponential laws in Figs. \[fig\_GRm\], \[fig\_GRr\] are just first-order approximations to the observed cluster distributions at percolation. In both cases one sees the downward bending for small clusters and upward bending for large clusters. These are not due to statistical fluctuations. The downward bending for small clusters is explained by “deviations from scaling” [@Hoshen+79]: it can be shown analytically that the small clusters do not yet obey the general scaling law of Eqs. (\[GRm\]), (\[GRr\]) which holds only for large enough masses (ranks). The upward bend at large clusters is due to finite-size effects [@Hoshen+79; @Margolina+84]: each large cluster that reaches outside the lattice boundary is “seen” as a number of smaller clusters, thus creating the upward deviation from the pure power (exponential) law. This phenomenon is especially important when the system is close to percolation and clusters of arbitrary large sizes have already been formed. The appropriate scale corrections for the mass distribution were studied by Hoshen et al. [@Hoshen+79] and Margolina et al. [@Margolina+84].
To study the above phenomena it is convenient to consider the normalized functions $$N_m:=m^{\tau-1}\sum_{m'\ge m} n_{m'},\qquad
N_r:=10^{br} n_r,$$ which, in the absence of scale corrections, would become constants: $$N_m=\frac{q_0}{\tau-1},\qquad
N_r=p_1\,c^{\tau-1}.$$ The function $N_r$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_Nr\]a; it clearly deviates from the horizontal plateau at both sides.
In case of the mass distribution, the corrections to scaling are given by [@Margolina+84]: $$\label{GRmc}
n_m(\rho_c)\simeq m^{-\tau}
\left(q_0+q_1\,m^{-\Omega}+q_L\,m^{1/D}L^{-1}\right),$$ where $\Omega \approx 0.75$, $1/D=48/91$ is the universal mean cluster radius exponent, and $q_0,q_1,q_L$ are independent of $s$ and $L$. The first additional term describes the deviation from scaling for small clusters, while the second one is responsible for finite-size effects.
For rank distribution, the “deviations from scaling” at lower clusters are only observed for $r=1$; while the finite-size effects at large clusters are clearly present for many ranks. Accordingly, we propose the following correction to scaling for the rank distribution: $$\label{GRrc}
n_r(\rho_c)\simeq 10^{-br}
\left(p_0+p_L\,10^{d\,r}L^{-1}\right),~r>1.$$ with $$d=\frac{1}{D}\,\log_{10}c \approx 0.33.$$ The observed value of $d$ can be estimated by plotting $(n_r\,10^{br}-p_0)$ as a function of $r$ as shown in Fig. \[fig\_Nr\]b. The observed ranks $4\le r \le 9$ follow the predicted scaling (\[GRrc\]) nicely.
Importantly, the corrections to scaling (\[GRrc\]) act at all cluster sizes, so they can not be neglected even for the intermediate clusters, not only for the largest ones. Indeed, their effect decreases with $L$, but this decrease is very slow. Notably, as shown by Morein et al. [@MNTG04] (their Fig. 5) even for lattices as large as $L=30,000$ during the process when clusters as large as 2% of the lattice size are removed, the cluster size distribution clearly exhibits the upward deviations at large ranks ($r=11,12,13$.) For smaller systems these deviations become dominant and may lead to an artificial decrease of the observed slope of cluster size distribution; this is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig\_GRm\],\[fig\_GRr\] and is also seen in the analysis of Turcotte et al. [@Tur+99] (their Fig. 9).
### Dynamics of scaling corrections {#scalecorr}
Since the finite size effects play an important role in shaping the observed cluster size distribution, it is worth studying their dynamics. Specifically, we will be interested in transition of the cluster size distribution from the convex shape (in semi- or bilogarithmic scale) at $\rho\ll\rho_c$ to formation of the upward bend at percolation.
For this we introduce a measure of convexity for the rank distribution, defined as an area between $\log n_r(\rho)$ and a chord connecting its first and last points as shown in Fig. \[fig\_mu\] (the point $r=1$ is not considered being affected by the deviations from scaling): $$\label{mconv}
\mu(\rho):=\int_{2}^{r_{\rm max}}
\left[\log_{10} n_r(\rho)-(A\,r+B)\right]
\,d\,r,$$ with $$A=\frac{\log_{10}\left(n_{r_{\rm max}}/n_2\right)}
{r_{\rm max}-2},
~B=\log_{10}\,n_2-2A.$$ The values of $\mu$ are positive when $n_r(\rho)$ is convex in semilogarithmic scale, negative when it is concave, and vanish when it is linear. The measure $\mu(\rho)$ averaged over 1,000 runs on the lattice $L=2000$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_mu\]; the bell-shaped form of $\mu$ is decorated by the logperiodic oscillations for $(\rho_c-\rho)>10^{-2}$ explained by creation of new ranks, which temporarily increases convexity. Zero level is crossed at about $(\rho_c-\rho)=2\cdot 10^{-3}$, after that the rank distribution is concave. A detailed analysis (not shown) demonstrates that the distribution is never exactly linear; the transition from convex to concave shape is realized through the wave-shaped form when the distribution is still convex for the lower $r$, but is already concave for the higher ones. Qualitatively the same picture is observed for the mass distribution $n_m(\rho)$ (in bilogarithmic scale).
The transformation of the cluster size distribution prior to percolation is not unlike a well-known pattern “upward bend” first described by Narkunskaya and Shnirman [@NS90; @NS94] in an early static model of defect development. Later it was found in steel samples and seismicity of California [@RKB97], and confirmed by the dynamical modeling of failure in a hierarchical system (so-called colliding cascade models) [@GKZN00; @ZKG03].
Mass dynamics of a given rank {#MDGR}
-----------------------------
Here we consider the dynamics of total and average mass of rank $r$ clusters: $$\label{mass}
M_r=\sum m\,n_{rm},\qquad
m_r =\frac{\sum m\,n_{rm}}{\sum n_r}
=\frac{M_r}{n_r}.$$ Here $n_{rm}$ denotes the number of clusters of rank $r$ and mass $m$. Figure \[fig\_avem\] shows $n_r$, $M_r$, and $ m_r $ for rank 5; the similar picture is observed for other ranks. It is tempting to use Gaussian approximation for $M_r$ and predict the Gaussian dynamics of $ m_r $ (as a ratio of two Gaussians) and relate their parameters. Detailed analysis however demonstrates that under this approach the peak of $ m_r $ for ranks $r\ge 9$ should be observed after percolation; while in simulations this peak is always prior to percolation (not shown). Note that one still might approximate $M_r$ and $ m_r $ by Gaussians with properly scaled parameters; such approximations will be good for rough curve fitting, but will fail to reproduce deeper properties of cluster dynamics. This demonstrates the general limitations of Gaussian approximations in the percolation problem.
Cluster fractal structure {#CFS}
=========================
In this section we evaluate the fractal structure of clusters considering the mass-circumference relation $$\label{circum}
m \propto C^{D_r},$$ where $C$ is the number of empty neighbors of a cluster of mass $m$. For percolation cluster at infinite grid we have $D_r=1$, which shows that the percolation cluster is a “linear” rather than a space-filling object [@SA]. Figure \[fig\_D\]a shows the cluster masses as a function of their circumference for different ranks. It is easily seen how the linear scaling $D_r=1$ gradually develops as rank increases. Figure \[fig\_D\]b shows the index $D_r$ estimated for $1\le r\le 9$.
Figure \[fig\_fin\] shows the dynamics of $D_5$ prior to percolation; noteworthy, its steady state behavior is altered by a gradual increase as $\rho\to\rho_c$. Similar increase is observed for clusters of other ranks.
To explain the increase of $D_r$ we recall that the rate of cluster coalescence is proportional to their circumference (see e.g. [@GNT99]). Thus, for a given mass, clusters with a lower $D_r$ have larger circumference, and a higher chance to coalesce. When a sufficient number of rank $r$ clusters have been formed, the clusters with low $D_r$ start to coalesce leaving the high-$D_r$ clusters on the grid.
Another reason for the increase of $D_r$ is the finite-size effects. Specifically, this is an effect of having clusters that on an infinite grid have already gained higher ranks, but on our finite lattice are still small.
Dynamical constraint {#DC}
====================
Here we report an interesting regularity in rank dynamics that put a notable constraint on analytical modeling of percolation process. Specificaly, we consider the slope between two consecutive points of the rank distribution: $$\theta_r(\rho):=\log\,\frac{n_r(\rho)}{n_{r+1}(\rho)}.$$ Dynamics of $\theta_4$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_peaks\]a together with that of $n_6$. Noteworthy, the peaks of two curves (minimum of $\theta_4$ and maximum of $n_6$) coincide. This happens to be true for all ranks: positions of corresponding peaks are shown as a function of rank in Fig. \[fig\_peaks\]b. Such perfect matching is very unlikely to be accidental. Thus we conjecture that in order for $n_r(\rho)$ to properly describe the time-dependent behavior of rank population, the following system of differential equations must have a solution: $$\label{constraint}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\dot{\theta}_r=0\\
\dot{n}_{r+2}=0
\end{array}
\right.
\Rightarrow
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\dot{n_r}\,n_{r+1}-n_r\dot{n}_{r+1}=0\\
\dot{n}_{r+2}=0
\end{array}
\right.$$
Applying this constraint to the three-exponent scaling of Eqs. (\[r2exp\]),(\[r3exp\]),(\[g0\]) we find $$\label{sigmas}
\sigma_2=\sigma_1+\log_{10}\left(1-10^{-2\sigma_1}\right).$$ According to (\[sigmas\]), the observed value $\sigma_1=0.23$ gives $\sigma_2=0.04$, which is 33% larger than the observed value $\sigma_2=0.03$. The discrepancy is due to the approximate character of the Gaussian approximation (\[g0\]) for $g_0$.
Discussion
==========
The goal of this study was to describe the evolution of percolation model in terms of consecutive aggregation of smaller clusters into larger ones using the Horton-Strahler hierarchical scheme. First, this contributes to a novel understanding of the percolation phenomenon as a time-dependent hierarchical inverse cascade process. Second, this allows one to test the validity of the approach introduced by Gabrielov et al. [@GNT99] and further developed by Morein et al. [@MNTG04] for a steady-state approximation to a general aggregation process.
We considered dynamical and scaling properties of site-percolation on a 2[*D*]{} square lattice. Following [@GNT99] we described clusters by hierarchical trees that reflect the history of cluster formation; the Horton-Strahler scheme was used to rank the trees and thus the corresponding clusters. We concentrated on the development of the first percolation cluster, thus working with a system that does not exhibit the steady-state dynamics, contrary to the studies [@GNT99; @MNTG04] that have developed mean-field steady-state approximations to the system.
Combining the results obtained in the classical percolation studies with the Tokunaga constraint on the cluster branching structure we derived various rank-dependent scaling laws connecting the number $n_r$ of clusters of rank $r$, their average mass $m_r$, and the rank $r$. We have compared the parameters of these laws with those predicted and observed by [@GNT99; @MNTG04] in steady-state aggregation models. The values of parameters are shown to be in a perfect agreement, confirming the validity of the approach used in [@GNT99; @MNTG04]. In absence of the steady-state behavior, we derived the time-dependent versions of the scaling laws. We reported the three-index scaling (\[r2exp\]), (\[r3exp\]) for the number $n_r(\rho)$ of clusters of a given rank, which deviates from the classical two-exponent scaling for masses.
We studied in detail the transition of the system from earlier stages to the vicinity of percolation and reported several characteristic phenomena observed as $\rho\to\rho_c$. They include transformation of the cluster size distribution not unlike that observed in seismicity, steel samples, and previous models of hierarchical fractures [@NS90; @RKB97; @GKZN00; @ZKG03]; and increase of the cluster fractal dimension. In our simple model these phenomena are partly explained (qualitatively as well as quantitatively) by finite-size effects; nevertheless we believe that they should not be neglected as irrelevant side-effects of numerical simulation. In fact, in practice we often work with systems that are described by intermediate depth hierarchies (in other words they have intermediate number of degrees of freedom). The percolation results related to small and intermediate lattices might be of high relevance in describing such systems. In addition, simulations on large lattices ($L=30,000$) performed by Morein et al. [@MNTG04] show that finite-size effects are still present even for large $L$.
We have formulated an empirical constraint of Eq. (\[constraint\]) for the time-dependent behavior of rank population size $n_r(\rho)$; the constraint follows very clearly from the observed values of $n_r(\rho)$. It would be interesting to check this condition in real systems traditionally described by the percolation model.
Our closing remark is on the index $\tau$ of cluster mass distribution at percolation (Eq. (\[GRm\])). The studies of Gabrielov et al. [@GNT99] and Morein et al. [@MNTG04] predict $\tau=2$; which slightly deviates from the well established theoretical value of the Fisher exponent $\tau=187/91\approx 2.05$. The index of the mass distribution is an essential characteristic of a system, thus even this slight difference of 2.5% might seem disappointing implying the intrinsically approximate character of the modeling of [@GNT99; @MNTG04]. In fact, this implication is not true. To validate the approach of [@GNT99; @MNTG04] we notice that the Fisher exponent is tightly connected to the precise count of cluster particles on a site-level, hardly feasible in practice. At the same time, the studies [@ZLK99; @CZ03] have demonstrated that when we “characterize the size distribution of clusters in a way that circumvents the site-level description” considering any “macroscopic measure of the length scale of the cluster”, the exponent of the corresponding scaling law becomes $2$, universally for all 2[*D*]{} systems. An example of a “macroscopic measure” is the linear size in arbitrary direction, the radius of gyration, the diameter of the covering disk, etc. Clearly, the modeling of [@GNT99; @MNTG04] deals with such a macroscopic measure of cluster size, and hence predicts the correct scaling exponent.
We are sincerely grateful to Bill Newman for numerous focused discussions; his critics and advice have helped significantly in organizing and presenting the results. We thank Vladimir Keilis-Borok, Gleb Morein, and Donald Turcotte for their continuous interest to the work and David Shatto for help in preparing the manuscript. This study was partly supported by NSF, grant ATM 0327558.
[99]{}
Allegre, C.J., LeMouel, J.L., Provost, A. (1982) Scaling rules in rock fracture and possible implications for earthquake prediction. [*Nature*]{}, [**297**]{}, (5861): 47-49.
Badii, R., and Politi, A. (1997) [*Complexity: Hierarchical Structures and Scaling in Physics.*]{} Cambridge University Press. 318 pp.
Ben-Zion, Y. (2003) Appendix 2, Key Formulas in Earthquake Seismology, in [*International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology*]{}, Part B, 1857-1875, Academic Press.
Blanter, E.M., Shnirman, M.G., LeMouel, J.L., Allegre, C.J. (1997) Scaling laws in blocks dynamics and dynamic self-organized criticality. [*Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.*]{} [**99**]{} (3-4): 295-307.
Blanter, E.M., Shnirman, M.G., LeMouel, J.L. (1997) Hierarchical model of seismicity: scaling and predictability. [*Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.*]{}, [**103**]{} (1-2): 135-150.
Cardy, R., Ziff, R.M. (2003) Exact Results for the Universal Area Distribution of Clusters in Percolation,Ising,and Potts Models. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{}, [**110**]{} (1-2): 1-33.
da Costa, F.P., Grinfeld, M., Wattis, J.A.D. (2002) A hierarchical cluster system based on Horton-Strahler rules for river networks. [*Studies Appl. Math.*]{} [**109**]{} (3): 163-204.
Daley, D.J., Vere-Jones, D. (2003) [*An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes. Vol. I,*]{} 2nd ed., Springer, New-York, pp. 469.
Fisher, M. E. (1967) [*Physics*]{} [**3**]{}, 255.
Gabrielov, A., Keilis-Borok, V., Zaliapin, I., Newman, W.I. (2000) Critical transitions in colliding cascades. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**62**]{}, 237-249.
Gabrielov, A., Newman, W.I., Turcotte, D.L. (1999) An exactly soluble hierarchical clustering model: inverse cascades, self-similarity, and scaling. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**60**]{}, 5293-5300.
Gutenberg, B., Richter, C.F. (1954) [*Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2-nd ed.
Horton, R.E., (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: Hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology, [*Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.*]{}, [**56**]{}, 275-370.
Hoshen, J., Stauffer, D., Bishop, G.H., Harrison, R.J., and Quinn, G.D. (1979) Monte Carlo experiments on cluster size distribution in percolation. [*J. Phys. A*]{}, [**12**]{}, 1285-1303.
Knopoff, L., Newman, W.I. (1983) Crack fusion as a model for repetitive seismicity. [*Pure Appl. Geophys.*]{}, [**121**]{}, (3): 495-510.
Leyvraz, F. (2003) Scaling theory and exactly solved models in the kinetics of irreversible aggregation. [*Phys. Rep.*]{}, [**383**]{}, (2-3): 95-212.
Margolina, A., Nakanishi, H., Stauffer, D., and Stanley, H.E. (1984) Monte Carlo and series study of corrections to scaling in two-dimensional percolation. [*J. Phys. A*]{}, [**17**]{}, 1683-1701.
Morein, G., Newman, W.I., Turcotte, D.L., and Gabrielov A. (2004) An inverse cascade model for self-organized complexity and natural hazards. Preprint, pp. 9.
Narkunskaya, G. S. and Shnirman, M. G., (1990) Hierarchical model of defect development and seismicity. Phys. Earth. Planet. Inter., [**61**]{}, 29-35.
Narkunskaya, G. S. and Shnirman, M. G., (1994) An algorithm of earthquake prediction. Computational Seismology and Geodynamics (AGU, Washington, D.C.), [**1**]{}, 20-24.
Newman, W.I., Gabrielov, A. (1991) Failure of hierarchical distributions of fiber bundles. I. [*Internat. J. of Fracture*]{}, [**50**]{}, 1-14.
Newman, W.I., Knopoff, L. (1982) Crack fusion dynamics – a model for large earthquakes. [*Geophys. Res. Lett.*]{}, [**9**]{} (7): 735-738.
Newman, W.I., Knopoff, L. (1983) A model for repetitive cycles of large earthquakes. [*Geophys. Res. Lett.*]{}, [**10**]{} (4): 305-308.
Newman, W.I., Knopoff, L. (1990) Scale-invariance in brittle-fracture and the dynamics of crack fusion. [*Intl. J. of Fracture*]{}, [**43**]{} (1): 19-24.
Newman, M.E.J., Ziff, R.M. (2001) Fast Monte Carlo algortithm for site or bond percolation. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**64**]{}, 016706.
Newman, W.I., Turcotte, D.L., and Gabrielov, A. (1997) Fractal trees with side branching. [*Fractals*]{}, [**5**]{}, 603-614.
Newman, W.I., Turcotte, D.L., and Gabrielov, A. (1995) Log-periodic behavior of a hierarchical failure model with applications to precursory seismic activation. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**52**]{}, 4827-4835.
Rotwain, I., Keilis-Borok, V. and Botvina, L. (1997) Premonitory transformation of steel fracturing and seismicity, [*Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.*]{}, [**101**]{}, 61-71.
Shnirman, M.G., Blanter, E.M. (2001) Criticality in a dynamic mixed system. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**64**]{} (5): Art. No. 056123 Part 2.
Sornette, D., Johansen, A., Arneodo, A., Muzy, J.-F., and Sauleur, H. (1996) Complex fractal dimensions describe the internal hierarchical structure of DLA, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 251-254.
Sornette, D. (2004) [*Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences.*]{} 2-nd ed., Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, pp. 528.
Stauffer, D. (1975) Violation of dynamical scaling for randomly dilute Ising ferromagnets near percolation threshold. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**35**]{} (6): 394-397.
Stauffer, D., Sornette, D. (1998) Log-periodic oscillations for biased diffusion on random lattice, [*Physica A*]{}, [**252**]{} (3-4): 271-277.
Stauffer, D., Aharony, A. (1994) [*Introduction to percolation theory.*]{} 2-nd ed., Taylor & Francis.
Strahler A. N. (1957) Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. [*Trans. Am. Geophys. Un.*]{}, [**38**]{}, 913-920.
Tokunaga, E. (1978) Consideration on the composition of drainage networks and their evolution. [*Geographical Rep. Tokyo Metro. Univ.*]{}, [**13**]{}, 1-27.
Toroczkai, Z. (2001) Topological classification of the Horton-Strahler index on binary trees, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**65**]{}, 016130.
Turcotte, D.L. (1997) [*Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics.*]{} (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press. 398 pp.
Turcotte, D.L., Malamud, B.D., Morein, G., and Newman W.I. (1999) An inverse cascade model for self-organized critical behavior, [*Physica A*]{}, [**268**]{}, 629-643.
Turcotte, D.L., Malamud, B.D., Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P. (2002) Self-organization, the cascade model, and natural hazards. [*Proc. Natl. Ac. Sci.*]{}, [**99**]{}, 2530-2537.
Turcotte, D.L., Pelletier, J.D., Newman, W.I. (1998) Networks with side branching in biology. [*J. Theor. Biology*]{}, [**193**]{} (4): 577-592.
Ziff, R.M., Lorenz, C.D., Kleban, P. (1999) Shape-dependent universality in percolation [*Physica A*]{}, [**266**]{} (1-4): 17-26.
Zaliapin, I., Keilis-Borok, V., Ghil, M. (2003) A Boolean delay equation model of colliding cascades. Part II: Prediction of critical transitions. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**111**]{}, (3-4): 839-861.
![Multiple coalescence of clusters. a) Coalescence of clusters is materialized by adding to the lattice a new particle [**N**]{} (black) that is a neighbor to one, two, three, or four existing clusters (numbered gray sites). The relative frequencies $Q_k$ , $k=1,2,3,4$ of $k$-coalescences based on similations with $L=2,000$ are shown in the figure. The corresponding tree is constructed as shown in panel b) (for $k=1$) and c) (for $k=2$). The cases $k=3,4$ are analogous to $k=2$. Note that about 95% of coalescences result in merging two clusters. See text for details.[]{data-label="fig_model1"}](figure1.eps)
![Tree representation of clusters: scheme. The dynamics is from left to right. At first step particle [**A**]{} is dropped onto the lattice and a one-particle cluster is formed; it is represented by a one-node tree. At second step another one-particle cluster [**B**]{} is formed; it is represented by another one-node tree. At third step new particle [**C**]{} coalesces with cluster [**A**]{} to form two-particle cluster [**AC**]{}. This cluster is represented by a three-node tree; note that the connecting node of the tree does not correspond to any particle. At fourth step new particle [**D**]{} connects existing clusters [**AC**]{} and [**B**]{} to form four-particle cluster [**ABCD**]{}. This cluster correspond to a five-node tree.[]{data-label="fig_model2"}](figure2.eps)
![a) Non-uniqueness of tree representation. Two different 11-particle clusters that correspond to the same tree shown in panel b). Particles have been dropped according to their alphabet marks; so first was the particle [**A**]{}, then [**B**]{}, etc. b) Horton-Strahler ranking: illustration. The ranks are shown next to the tree nodes.[]{data-label="fig_model3"}](figure3.eps)
![Mass-rank distribution observed on a 2,000$\times$2,000 lattice at percolation. Dots – individual clusters, balls – average mass $m_r$ within a given rank. Line shows the relation $m_r=\left[10^{\,0.625}\right]^{\,r-1}=4.2^{\,r-1}$.[]{data-label="fig_MR"}](figure4.eps)
![Parameter $c$ of the mass-rank relation $m_r=c^{r-1}$ as a function of time. At percolation $c(\rho_c)\approx 4.2$; the Euclidean limit of [@GNT99] corresponds to $c=3.25$, it is reached at $\rho_c-\rho\approx 0.14$.[]{data-label="fig_c"}](figure5.eps)
![Mass distribution of clusters observed on a $2,000\times 2,000$ lattice at percolation $\rho=\rho_c$ (dash-dotted line), $\rho=0.48$ (dashed line), and averaged over $0<\rho<\rho_c$ (solid line). To smooth out statistical fluctuations we show the cumulative distribution: $\propto\sum_{m'>m}n_m$. For comparison, all curves are normalized to unity at $m=1$.[]{data-label="fig_GRm"}](figure6.eps)
![Rank distribution of clusters observed for $2,000\times 2,000$ lattice at percolation $\rho=\rho_c$ (dash-dotted line), $\rho=0.29$ (dashed line), and averaged over the percolation cycle $0<\rho<\rho_c$ (solid line). For comparison, all curves are normalized to unity at $r=1$.[]{data-label="fig_GRr"}](figure7.eps)
![Dynamics of population $n_r\cdot L^2$ of a given rank, $r=5,6,7$ for $L=2,000$. Moment of percolation is depicted by a vertical dashed line.[]{data-label="fig_rank"}](figure8.eps)
![Dynamics of population $n_r$ of a given rank, $1\le r\le11$ in semilogarithmic scale. Moment of percolation is depicted by a vertical dashed line. (Cf. Fig. 7 from [@Tur+99]).[]{data-label="fig_rank_all"}](figure9.eps)
![Scaling for rank dynamics. a) Ratios $\nu_r(z)/\nu_1(z)$ do not collapse thus rejecting the two-exponent scaling hypothesis; see details in Sect. \[rscale\]. b) Position of percolation on the normalized Gaussian $g_0(z-0.51)$; see details in Sect. \[rscale\].[]{data-label="fig_nu"}](figure10.eps)
![Three-exponent scaling for rank dynamics. The master Gaussians $g_0(z)$ for different ranks collapse when using the renormalization given by Eqs. (\[r2exp\]),(\[r3exp\]).[]{data-label="fig_g0"}](figure11.eps)
![Corrections to scaling. The pure exponential rank distribution of Eq. (\[GRr\]) suggests a horizontal plateau for the normalized function $N_r=10^{br}n_r$, while the observed values clearly deviate from the plateau at small and large clusters (panel a). The large cluster deviation is due to finite size efffects and is described by an exponential correction of Eq. (\[GRrc\]) with $d\approx 0.33$ (panel b).[]{data-label="fig_Nr"}](figure12.eps)
![Dynamics of scale corrections. A convexity measure $\mu(\rho)$ is defined by Eq. (\[mconv\]) and illustrated in the insert. It is positive for convex, and negative for concave rank distribution. The downward bend of the rank distribution observed at early stages ($\mu>0$) is changed to the upward one ($\mu<0$) for $(\rho_c-\rho)<2\cdot10^{-3}$. See details in Sect. \[scalecorr\].[]{data-label="fig_mu"}](figure13.eps)
![Dynamics of number of clusters $n_r$ (solid line), total mass $M_r$ (dashed line), and average mass $m_r$ (dash-dotted line) for clusters of rank $r=5$.[]{data-label="fig_avem"}](figure14.eps)
![Fractal structure of clusters. a) Mass-circumference relation for clusters of different ranks. The asymptotic power relation with slope 1.0 is gradually develops as rank increases. b) Values of fractal dimension $D_r$ (Eq. (\[circum\])) for different ranks. Both panels correspond to a $2,000\times2,000$ lattice at percolation.[]{data-label="fig_D"}](figure15.eps)
![Premonitory increase of cluster fractal dimension. The steady-state dynamics of fractal dimension $D_5$ (Eq. \[circum\]) changes, and $D_5$ starts to increase, as system approaches percolation. Similar phenomenon is observed for other ranks. []{data-label="fig_fin"}](figure16.eps)
![Dynamical constraint for $n_r(\rho)$. Dynamics of $\theta_4=\log(n_4/n_5)$ and $n_6$ is shown in panel a: peaks of two curves coincide. The similar phenomenon is observed for other ranks: panel b shows the times of maxima of $n_r$ (circles) and minima of $\theta_{r-2}$ (triangles) for $3\le r\le 9$.[]{data-label="fig_peaks"}](figure17.eps)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper presents a randomization-based framework for estimating causal effects under interference between units. We develop the case of estimating average unit-level causal effects from a randomized experiment with interference of arbitrary but known form. We illustrate and assess empirical performance with a naturalistic simulation using network data from American high schools. We discuss other applications and sketch approaches for situations where there is uncertainty about the form of interference.'
author:
- 'Peter M. Aronow and Cyrus Samii[^1]'
bibliography:
- '/Users/nlsamii/Dropbox/bib/all.bib'
title: Estimating Average Causal Effects Under Interference Between Units
---
Introduction
============
Experimental and observational studies often involve treatments with effects that “interfere” [@cox58] across units through spillover or other forms of dependency. Such interference is sometimes considered a nuisance, and researchers may strive to design studies that isolate units as much as possible from interference. However, such designs are not always possible. Furthermore, researchers may be interested in estimation of the spillover effects themselves, as these effects may be of substantive importance. Treatments may be applied to individuals in a social network, and we may wish to study how effects transmit to peers in the network. An urban renewal program applied to one town may divert capital from other towns, in which case the overall effect of the program may be ambiguous. Treatment effects may carry over from one time period to another and units have some chance of receiving treatment at any one of a set of points in time. In these cases, we need a method to estimate effects of both direct and [*indirect*]{} exposure to a treatment. This paper presents a general, randomization-based framework for estimating causal effects under these and other forms of interference. Interference represents a departure from the traditional causal inference scenario wherein units are assigned directly to treatment or control and the potential outcomes that would be observed for a unit in either the treatment or control condition are fixed and do not depend on the overall set of treatment assignments. The latter condition is what @rubin1990 refers to as the “stable unit treatment value assumption” (SUTVA). In the examples above, the traditional scenario is clearly an inadequate characterization, as SUTVA would be violated. A more sophisticated characterization of treatment exposure and associated potential outcomes must be specified.
Our estimation framework consists of three components: (i) the experimental (or quasi-experimental) “design,” which characterizes precisely the probability distribution of treatments [*assigned*]{}, (ii) an “exposure mapping,” which relates treatments assigned to exposures [*received*]{}, and (iii) a set of causal estimands selected to make maximal use of the experiment to answer questions of substantive interest. For the case of a randomized experiment under arbitrary but known forms of interference, we provide unbiased estimators of unit-level average causal effects induced by treatment exposure. We also provide estimators for the randomization variance of the estimated average causal effects. These variance estimators are assured of being conservative (that is, nonnegatively biased). We establish conditions for consistency and large-$N$ confidence intervals based on a normal approximation. We propose ratio estimator and covariate-adjusted refinements for increased efficiency. Finally, we sketch how one could apply this framework for more irregular forms of interference, alternative estimands, observational data, and situations when there is uncertainty about the form of interference.
Related literature and our contribution
=======================================
Our framework extends from the foundational work of @hudgens_halloran08, who study two-stage, hierarchical randomized trials in which some groups are randomly assigned to host treatments, treatments are then assigned at random to units within the selected groups, and interference is presumed to operate only within groups. Hudgens and Halloran provide randomization-based estimators for group-average causal effects, conditional on assignment strategies that determine the density of treatment within groups. @tchetgen_vanderweele2010 extend Hudgens and Halloran’s results, providing conservative variance estimators, a framework for finite sample inference with binary outcomes, and extensions to observational studies. Related to these contributions is work by @rosenbaum07_interference, which provides methods for inference with exact tests under partial interference. Under hierarchical treatment assignment and partial interference, estimation and inference can proceed assuming independence across groups. In some settings, however, the hierarchical structuring may not be valid, as with experiments carried out over networks of actors that share links as a result of a complex, endogenous process.
A key contribution of this paper is to go beyond the setting of hierarchical experiments with partial interference and generalize estimation and inference theory to settings that exhibit arbitrary forms of interference and treatment assignment dependencies. In addition, our framework allows the analyst to work with different estimands, including both the types of group-average causal effects defined by the authors above as well as unit-level causal effects. Unit-level causal effects are often the estimand of primary interest, as is the case, for example, when exploring unit-level characteristics that moderate the magnitude of treatment effects.
Treatment assignment and exposure mappings\[sec:exposure\_mapping\]
===================================================================
In this section, we define the first two components of our analytical framework: the experiment design and exposure mapping. We focus on the case of a randomized experiment with an arbitrary but known exposure mapping. The first step is to distinguish between (i) treatment assignments over the set of experimental units and (ii) each unit’s treatment exposure under a given assignment. Treatment assignments can be manipulated arbitrarily with the experimental design. However, treatment exposures may be constrained on the basis of the varying potential for interference of different experimental units. For example, interference or spillover effects may spread over a spatial gradient. If so, different treatment assignments may result in different patterns of interference depending on where treatments are applied on the spatial plane.
Formally, suppose we have a finite population $U$ of units indexed by $i=1,...,N$ on which a randomized experiment is performed. Define a treatment assignment vector, ${\mathbf{z}}= (z_1, ..., z_N)'$, where $z_i \in \{1,..,M\}$ specifies which of $M$ possible treatment values that unit $i$ receives. An [*experimental design*]{} contains a plan for randomly selecting a particular value of ${\mathbf{z}}$ from the $M^N$ different possibilities with predetermined probability $p_{\mathbf{z}}$. Restricting our attention only to treatment assignments that can be generated by a given experimental design, define $\Omega = \{{\mathbf{z}}: p_{\mathbf{z}}> 0\}$, so that ${\mathbf{Z}}= (Z_1, ..., Z_N)'$ is a random vector with support $\Omega$ and $\Pr({\mathbf{Z}}= {\mathbf{z}}) = p_{\mathbf{z}}$.
We define an [*exposure mapping*]{} as a unit-specific onto function that maps an assignment vector and unit specific traits to an exposure value: $f : \Omega \times \Theta \rightarrow \Delta$, where $\theta_i \in \Theta$ quantifies relevant traits of unit $i$.[^2] The codomain $\Delta$ contains all of the possible treatment exposures that might be induced in the experiment. The contents of $\Delta$ depend on the nature of interference or treatment heterogeneity. These exposures may be represented as vectors, discrete classes, or real numbers. As we will show formally below, each of the distinct exposures in $\Delta$ may give rise to distinct potential outcomes for each unit in $U$. The estimation of causal effects under interference or treatment heterogeneity amounts to using information about treatment [*assignments*]{}, which come from the experiment’s design, to estimate effects defined in terms of [*treatment exposures*]{}, which result from the interaction of the design (captured by ${\mathbf{Z}}$) and other underlying features of the population (captured by $f$ and the $\theta_i$s).
To make things more concrete, consider some examples of exposure mappings. The Neyman-Rubin causal model under SUTVA corresponds to assuming an exposure mapping in which we set $\Delta = \{1,...,M\}$ and $f({\mathbf{z}}, \theta_i) =f({\mathbf{z}}) = z_i$ for all $i$. This model has been a workhorse for much of the causal inference literature [@neyman23; @rubin78; @holland86; @imbens_rubin11]. An exposure mapping that allowed for completely arbitrary interference or treatment heterogeneity would be one for which $|\Delta| = |\Omega| \times N$, in which case each unit has a unique type of exposure under each treatment assignment, and $f({\mathbf{z}}, \theta_i)$ would be unique for each ${\mathbf{z}}$. If such an exposure mapping were valid, then it is clear that there would be no meaningful way to use the results of the experiment. Instead, the analyst must use substantive judgment about the extent of interference to fix a mapping somewhere between the traditional randomized experiment and completely arbitrary exposure mappings in order to carry out analyses under interference or treatment heterogeneity. For example, @hudgens_halloran08 consider a setting that allows unit $i$’s exposure to vary with each possible treatment assignment within $i$’s group, but conditional on the assignment for $i$’s group, $i$’s exposure does not vary in the treatment assignments of other groups. Then, $\theta_i$ would be unit $i$’s group index, and $|\Delta|$ would equal the largest number of assignment possibilities for any group. In the simulation study below and illustrative applications, we provide more examples of exposure mappings.
Units’ probabilities of falling into one or another exposure condition are crucial for the estimation strategy that we develop below. Define $D_i = f({\mathbf{Z}}, \theta_i)$, a random variable with support $\Delta_i \subseteq \Delta$ and for which $\Pr(D_i = d) = \pi_i(d)$. Note that because $|\Delta| \le |\Omega| \times N$, $\Delta$ is a finite set of $K \le |\Omega|\times N$ values, such that $\Delta=\{d_1, ..., d_K\}$. Then for each unit, $i$, we have a vector of probabilities, $(\pi_i(d_1),...,\pi_i(d_K))' = {\boldsymbol{\pi}}_i$. Invoking @imbens00’s [*generalized propensity score*]{}, we call ${\boldsymbol{\pi}}_i$ the [*generalized probability of exposure*]{} for $i$. A unit $i$’s generalized probability of exposure tells us the probability of $i$ being subject to each of the possible exposures in $\{d_1,...,d_K\}$. Because $f$ is onto, $$\pi_i(d_k) = \sum_{{\mathbf{z}}\in \Omega} {\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}},\theta_i)=d_k)\Pr({\mathbf{Z}}={\mathbf{z}}) = {\sum_{{\mathbf{z}}\in \Omega} p_{\mathbf{z}}{\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}},\theta_i)=d_k)}.$$ Given an experiment in which the design is known exactly (that is, $\Pr({\mathbf{Z}}= {\mathbf{z}})$ for all $z \in \Omega$ is known exactly), the generalized probability of exposure for unit $i$ is also known exactly. Each component probability, $\pi_i(d_k)$, is equal to the expected proportion of treatment assignments that induce exposure $d_k$ for unit $i$.
Below, we will refer to joint exposure probabilities when discussing variance estimators. That is, we define $\pi_{ij}(d_k)$ as the probability of the joint event that both units $i$ and $j$ are subject to exposure $d_k$, and we define $\pi_{ij}(d_k, d_l)$ as the probability of the joint event that units $i$ and $j$ are subject to exposures $d_k$ and $d_l$, respectively. To compute both individual and joint exposure probabilities from the experiment’s design, first define the $N \times |\Omega|$ matrix $$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathbf{I}}_{k} = [{\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}},\theta_i)=d_k)]_{\stackrel{{\mathbf{z}}\in \Omega}{i = 1,...,N}} = \\
\\
\qquad \qquad \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} {\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}}_1,\theta_1)=d_k) & {\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}}_2,\theta_1)=d_k) & \hdots & {\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}}_{|\Omega|},\theta_1)=d_k) \\
{\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}}_1,\theta_2)=d_k) & {\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}}_2,\theta_2)=d_k) & \hdots & {\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}}_{|\Omega|},\theta_2)=d_k) \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \\ {\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}}_1,\theta_N)=d_k) & {\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}}_2,\theta_N)=d_k) & & {\mathbf{I}}(f({\mathbf{z}}_{|\Omega|},\theta_N)=d_k) \end{array} \right],
\end{array}$$ which is a matrix of indicators for whether units are in exposure condition $k$ over possible assignment vectors. Define the $|\Omega| \times |\Omega|$ diagonal matrix ${\mathbf{P}}= \text{diag}(p_{{\mathbf{z}}_1}, p_{{\mathbf{z}}_2}, ..., p_{{\mathbf{z}}_{|\Omega|}})$. Then $${\mathbf{I}}_k {\mathbf{P}}{\mathbf{I}}_k' = \left[\begin{array}{cccc} \pi_1(d_k) & \hdots \\ \pi_{12}(d_k) & \pi_{2}(d_k) & \hdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \hdots\\ \pi_{1N}(d_k) & \pi_{2N}(d_k) & & \pi_{N}(d_k) \\ \end{array} \right],$$ is an $N \times N$ symmetric matrix with individual exposure probabilities, the $\pi_{i}(d_k)$’s, on the diagonal and joint exposure probabilities, the $\pi_{ij}(d_k)$’s, on the off-diagonals. The non-symmetric $N \times N$ matrix $${\mathbf{I}}_k {\mathbf{P}}{\mathbf{I}}_l' = \left[\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & \pi_{12}(d_k,d_l) & \hdots & \pi_{1N}(d_k,d_l) \\ \pi_{21}(d_k,d_l) & 0 & \hdots & \pi_{2N}(d_k,d_l) \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \\ \pi_{N1}(d_k,d_l) & \pi_{N2}(d_k,d_l) & & 0 \\ \end{array} \right],$$ yields all joint probabilities across exposure conditions $k$ and $l$. The zeroes on the diagonal are due to the fact that a unit cannot be subject to multiple exposure conditions at once.[^3]
Average potential outcomes and causal effects
=============================================
We develop the case of estimating average unit-level causal effects of exposures. An average unit level causal effect is defined in terms of a difference between the average of units’ potential outcomes under one exposure versus the average under another exposure. The starting point is the estimation of average potential outcomes under each of the exposure conditions. With that, the analyst is in principle free to compute a variety of causal quantities of interest, not just average unit-level causal effects. For example, one could consider effects that are defined as differences between the average of potential outcomes under one set of exposures versus the average under another set of exposures.[^4] Our focus on the average unit-level causal effect is due to it being the natural extension of the “average treatment effect” that is the focus of much current causal inference and program evaluation literature (e.g., [@imbens_wooldridge09]). Suppose all units have non-zero probability of being subject to each of the $K$ exposures: $0 < \pi_i(d_k) < 1$ for all $i$ and $k$.[^5] Then, each unit $i$ has $K$ potential outcomes, which we denote by $\{y_i(d_1),...,y_i(d_K)\}$, that do not depend on the value of ${\mathbf{Z}}$. We seek estimates for all $k$ of $\mu(d_k) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N y_i(d_k)=\frac{1}{N}y^T(d_k)$, where $y^T(d_k)$ is the total of the potential outcomes under $d_k$.[^6] The number of units in the population, $N$, is fixed, but we cannot estimate $y^T(d_k)$ directly, as we only observe $y_i(d_k)$ for those with $D_i = d_k$. However, by design, the collection of units for which we observe $y_i(d_k)$ is an unequal-probability without-replacement sample from $\{y_1(d_k),...,y_N(d_k)\}$, with the sampling probabilities known exactly. By @horvitz_thompson, an unbiased estimator for $y^T(d_k)$ is the inverse probability weighted estimator $$\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k) = \sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)}. \label{eq:ht_esimator}$$ With potential outcomes and the randomization plan fixed, the exact variance for $\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)] & = \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^N \Cov \left[{\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k),{\mathbf{I}}(D_j=d_k)\right]\frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \frac{y_j(d_k)}{\pi_j(d_k)} \nonumber\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^N \pi_i(d_k)[1-\pi_i(d_k)] \left[ \frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \right]^2 \nonumber \\ & \hspace{1em} + \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j \ne i} [\pi_{ij}(d_k)- \pi_i(d_k)\pi_j(d_k)]\frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \frac{y_j(d_k)}{\pi_j(d_k)}. \label{eq:total_variance}\end{aligned}$$ The estimator for the mean of all $N$ potential outcomes under exposure $d_k$ is thus $$\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k) = (1/N)\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k), \label{eq:exposure_mean}$$ with exact variance, $$\Var(\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)) = (1/N^2)\Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)].\label{eq:var_of_exposure_mean}$$ This allows us to construct the difference in estimated means $$\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l) = \widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k) - \widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_l) = \frac{1}{N}\left[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k) - \widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)\right] \label{eq:ht_causal_effect}$$ which is an unbiased estimate of $\tau(d_k,d_l) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\left[y_i(d_k)-y_i(d_l)\right]$, the average unit-level causal effect of exposure $k$ versus exposure $l$. The exact variance of the difference in estimated means is $$\begin{aligned}
\Var(\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)) = & \frac{1}{N^2}\left\{\Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)] + \Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)] \right. \nonumber \\ & \left. \hspace{3em} - 2\Cov[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)]\right\},\label{eq:tru_var}\end{aligned}$$ where [@wood08] $$\begin{aligned}
\Cov[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)] & = \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^N \Cov \left[{\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k),{\mathbf{I}}(D_j=d_l)\right]\frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \frac{y_j(d_l)}{\pi_j(d_l)} \nonumber\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j \ne i} \frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \frac{y_j(d_l)}{\pi_j(d_l)} \left[\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l)- \pi_i(d_k)\pi_j(d_l) \right] \nonumber \\ & \hspace{1em} - \sum_{i=1}^N y_i(d_k)y_i(d_l), \label{eq:totals_covariance}\end{aligned}$$ with $\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) = \Pr[{\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k),{\mathbf{I}}(D_j=d_l)]$, and the last line follows from the fact that $\pi_{ii}(d_k,d_l) = 0$.
Expressions and allow us to see the conditions under which exact variances are identified. So long as all joint exposure probabilities are non-zero (that is, $\pi_{ij}(d_k) > 0$ for all $i,j$), unbiased estimators for $\Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)]$ are identified for the population $U$. Because we only observe one potential outcome for each unit, the last term in is always unidentified, and thus $\Cov[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)]$ is always unidentified. This is a familiar problem in estimating the randomization variance for the average treatment effect—e.g., @neyman23 or @freedman_pisani_purves98 [A32-A34]. If $\pi_{ij}(d_k) = 0$ for some $i,j$, $\Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)]$ is unidentified. Similarly, if $\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) = 0$ for some $i,j$, then additional components of $\Cov[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)]$ are unidentified. Nonetheless, we can always identify estimators for $\Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)]$ and $\Cov[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)]$ that are guaranteed to have nonnegative bias. Thus, we can always identify a conservative approximation to the exact variances. We take this and related issues up in the next section.
Variance estimators {#varests}
===================
We derive conservative estimators for both $\Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)]$ and $\Var[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]$. Although not necessarily unbiased, the estimators we present here are guaranteed to have a nonnegative bias relative to the randomization distributions of the estimators. Given $\pi_{ij}(d_k) > 0$ for all $i,j$, the unbiased Horvitz-Thompson estimator for $\Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)]$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Var}[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)] & = \sum_{i \in U} \sum_{j \in U} {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k){\mathbf{I}}(D_j=d_k) \nonumber \\ & \hspace{4em} \times \frac{\Cov \left[{\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k),{\mathbf{I}}(D_j=d_k)\right]}{\pi_{ij}(d_k)}\frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \frac{y_j(d_k)}{\pi_j(d_k)}
\nonumber \\ & = \sum_{i \in U}{\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)[1-\pi_{i}(d_k)] \left[ \frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \right]^2 \nonumber \\ & \hspace{1em} + \sum_{i \in U} \sum_{j \in U \backslash i} {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k){\mathbf{I}}(D_j=d_k) \nonumber \\ & \hspace{4em} \times \frac{\pi_{ij}(d_k)-\pi_{i}(d_k)\pi_{j}(d_k)}{\pi_{ij}(d_k)}\frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \frac{y_j(d_k)}{\pi_j(d_k)}. \label{eq:ht_variance_estimator}\end{aligned}$$ Then an unbiased estimator for the variance of $\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)$ is $$\widehat{\Var}[\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)] = (1/N^2)\widehat{\Var}[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)].$$
In the case where $\pi_{ij}(d_k) = 0$ for some $i,j$, there exist no unbiased estimators for $\Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)]$. As demonstrated in @aronow_samii_zeropairwise [Proposition 1], the bias of $\widehat{\Var}[\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)]$, is $$A= \sum_{i \in U} \sum_{j \in \{U \backslash i:\pi_{ij}(d_k)=0\}} y_i(d_k)y_j(d_k).$$ $\widehat{\Var}[\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)]$ is guaranteed to have nonnegative bias when $y_i(d_k)y_j(d_k) \ge 0$ for all $i,j$ with $\pi_{ij}(d_k) = 0$. The bias will be small when the terms in the sum tend to offset each other, as when the relevant $y_i(d_k)$ and $y_j(d_k)$ values are centered on 0 and have low correlation with each other. (This notation requires that we maintain the assumption that ${0}/{0} = 0$.) Another option is to use the following correction term (derived via Young’s inequality), $$\widehat{A_2}(d_k) = \sum_{i \in U}\sum_{j \in \{ U \backslash i : \pi_{ij}(d_k) = 0\}} \left[\frac{{\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)y_i(d_k)^2}{2\pi_{i}(d_k)} + \frac{{\mathbf{I}}(D_j=d_k)y_j(d_k)^2}{2\pi_{j}(d_k)}\right],$$ noting that $\widehat{A_2}(d_k) = 0$ if $\pi_{ij}(d_k) > 0 \textrm{ for all } i,j$. By @aronow_samii_zeropairwise [Corollary 2], $$\E \left[ \widehat{\Var}[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)] + \widehat{A_2}(d_k) \right] \ge \Var[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)],$$ in which case, $$\widehat{\Var_A}[\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)] = (1/N^2)\left[\widehat{\Var}[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)] + \widehat{A_2}(d_k)\right],$$ provides a conservative estimator for the variance of the estimated average of potential outcomes under exposure $d_k$. As discussed above, $\Cov[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)]$ is unidentified, which is to say that there exist no unbiased or consistent estimators for this quantity. However, we can compute an approximation that is guaranteed to have expectation less than or equal to the true covariance, providing a conservative (here, nonnegatively biased) estimator for $\Var(\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l))$. For the case where $\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) > 0$ for all $i,j$ such that $i \neq j$, we propose the Horvitz-Thompson-type estimator for the covariance $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Cov}[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)] & = \sum_{i \in U} \sum_{j \in U \backslash i} \frac{{\mathbf{I}}(D_i = d_k){\mathbf{I}}(D_j = d_l)}{\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l)} \frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \frac{y_j(d_l)}{\pi_j(d_l)} \nonumber \\
& \hspace{5.5em} \times [\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) - \pi_i(d_k)\pi_j(d_l)]
\nonumber \\ & \hspace{1em} - \sum_{i \in U}\left[ \frac{{\mathbf{I}}(D_i = d_k) y_i(d_k)^2}{2\pi_i(d_k)} + \frac{{\mathbf{I}}(D_i = d_l) y_i(d_l)^2}{2\pi_i(d_l)}\right]. \label{eq:ht_cov_estimator}\end{aligned}$$ The term on the second line in expression has expected value less than or equal to the quantity in the last line of expression , again via Young’s inequality. This estimator is exactly unbiased if, for all $i \in U$, $y_i(d_l) = y_i(d_k)$, implying no effect associated with condition $l$ relative to condition $k$. For the case where $\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) = 0$ for some $i,j$ and $k,l$, we can refine the expression for the covariance given in to $$\begin{aligned}
\Cov[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)] = & \sum_{i \in U} \sum_{j \in \{U \backslash i : \pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) > 0\}} \frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)}\frac{y_j(d_l)}{\pi_j(d_l)}\nonumber \\ & \hspace{4em} \times [\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) - \pi_i(d_k)\pi_j(d_l)] \nonumber \\ & \hspace{1em} - \sum_{i \in U} \sum_{j \in \{U : \pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) = 0\}}y_i(d_k) y_j(d_l),\label{eq:totals_covariance_general}\end{aligned}$$ where the term on the last line subsumes the term on the last line in expression . This leads us to propose a more general estimator for the covariance $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Cov_A}[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)] & = \sum_{i \in U} \sum_{j \in \{ U \backslash i : \pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) > 0 \}} \frac{{\mathbf{I}}(D_i = d_k){\mathbf{I}}(D_j = d_l)}{\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l)} \nonumber \\ & \hspace{10em} \times \frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} \frac{y_j(d_l)}{\pi_j(d_l)} \nonumber \\
& \hspace{10em} \times [\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) - \pi_i(d_k)\pi_j(d_l)] \nonumber \\ & \hspace{1em} - \sum_{i \in U} \sum_{j \in \{ U : \pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) = 0\} }\left[ \frac{{\mathbf{I}}(D_i = d_k) y_i(d_k)^2}{2\pi_i(d_k)} \right. \nonumber \\ & \hspace{10em} \left. + \frac{{\mathbf{I}}(D_j = d_l) y_j(d_l)^2}{2\pi_j(d_l)}\right]. \label{eq:ht_cov_general_estimator}\end{aligned}$$ Again, the term in the last line in has expected value no greater than the term in the last line of by Young’s inequality.
Combining expressions we obtain a conservative variance estimator for $\Var(\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l))$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Var}[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)] & = \frac{1}{N^2} \left\{ \widehat{\Var}[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k)] + \widehat{A_2}(d_k) + \widehat{\Var}[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)] + \widehat{A_2}(d_l) \right.\nonumber \\ & \left.\hspace{3.75em} - 2\widehat{\Cov_A}[\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_k),\widehat{y^T_{HT}}(d_l)]
\right\} .\label{eq:ate_var_estimator}\end{aligned}$$
Asymptotics and intervals {#asymptot}
=========================
Consider a sequence of subpopulations, $U^{(b)}$, with $b=1,...,B$ [@brewer1979; @isaki_fuller82], where each subpopulation $U^{(b)}$ consists of $1 \leq n_b < \infty$ units. The $B$ subpopulations are collected into a population of $N_B =\sum_{b=1}^B n_b$ units, which we shall label $U_B$, and estimates are produced using values from this population. To define a notion of asymptotic growth, we let $B$ (and therefore $N$) tend to infinity, allowing for the design and exposure mapping to vary for each $U_B$. Consistency and the asymptotic validity of Wald-type confidence intervals will then follow from restrictions on the growth process of the design and exposure mapping.
Consistency {#consist}
-----------
We first establish conditions for the estimator $\widehat{\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)$ to converge to $\tau(d_k,d_l)$ as $N$ grows. We will show that, under two regularity conditions, $\widehat{\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l) - \tau(d_k,d_l) \overset{p}{\longrightarrow} 0$.
The ratio of each potential outcome to its exposure probability is bounded, so that for all values $i$ and $d_k$, $|y_i(d_k)| / \pi_i(d_k) \leq c < \infty$. \[cond1\]
Condition \[cond1\] can be relaxed, though condition \[cond2\] would need to be strengthened accordingly.
Define $g_{ij} = 0$ if $\pi_{ij}(d_k,d_l) = \pi_i(d_k) \pi(d_l)$, else fix $g_{ij} = 1$. Then we require that $\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^N g_{ij} = o(N^{2})$. \[cond2\]
Condition \[cond2\] entails that, as $N$ grows, the amount of clustering in exposure conditions induced by the design and exposure mapping is limited in scope. For example, in the case of a Bernoulli-randomized design, Condition 2 would be violated if changing one unit’s assigned treatment would affect the exposure received by all $N$ units. Consistency is straightforward to demonstrate when conditions \[cond1\] and \[cond2\] hold. A proof follows closely from the logic of @robinson82. $\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)$ is unbiased for $\mu(d_k)$, and thus we need only consider the variance. Substituting from , $N^2 \Var(\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)) \leq c^2 N + c^2 \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^N g_{ij}.$ Consistency of $\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)$ for $\mu(d_k)$ is therefore ensured when $\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^N g_{ij} = o(N^{2})$, as this implies that $\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k) - \mu_{HT}(d_k) \overset{p}{\longrightarrow} 0$. Consistency of $\widehat{\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)$ for $\tau(d_k,d_l)$ follows by Slutsky’s Theorem.
Confidence intervals
--------------------
We now establish conditions for the asymptotic validity of Wald-type confidence intervals under stricter conditions on the asymptotic growth process. Consistency for the variance estimators, asymptotic normality and therefore confidence intervals follow straightforwardly when the growth process involves designs and exposure mappings that are independent across subpopulations, implying partial interference [@sobel06]. These results are based on similar conditions as those studied by @hudgens2012_asymptotics_interference.
We shall assume that condition \[cond1\] holds, but will strengthen condition \[cond2\] as follows.
Each of the $B$ subpopulations of size $n_b$ hosts its own ${\mathbf{Z}}^{(b)}$ and an application of the exposure mapping, generating $B$ separate ${\mathbf{I}}_k^{(b)}$, independent across the $B$ subpopulations.
Condition 3 is inspired by @brewer1979, which describes a stricter asymptotic scaling produced by addition of independent subpopulations. Condition 2 is subsumed by condition 3, as $\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^N g_{ij} = O(N)$ when condition 3 holds.
Define $\widehat{\tau_{HT}}_b(d_k,d_l)$ as the causal effect estimator as applied to the subpopulation indexed by $b$. Assume that, for all $b$, $n_b^2 \Var[\widehat{\tau_{HT}}_b(d_k,d_l)] \geq \epsilon$, for some $\epsilon > 0$.
Condition 4 serves two purposes. First, given condition 1 (boundedness), each $n_b \widehat{\tau_{HT}}_b(d_k,d_l)$ is bounded and $\sum_{b=1}^B n_b^2 \Var[\widehat{\tau_{HT}}_b(d_k,d_l)] \rightarrow \infty$. Thus condition 4 ensures that the sequence of subpopulation estimators satisfy the Lindeberg condition. Second, condition 4 ensures that $N \Var [ \widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]$ converges to a positive constant.
Our results now follow from conditions 1, 3 and 4. To establish normal approximation confidence intervals for the estimated causal effect, $\widehat{\tau_{HT}}(d_k, d_l)$, consider the limiting behavior of $\widehat{\Var}[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]$. By independence of the ${\mathbf{I}}_k^{(b)}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Var}[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)] &= \sum_{b=1}^B \widehat{\Var}_b [\frac{n_b}{N_B} \widehat{\tau_{HT}}_b(d_k,d_l)] = \frac{1}{N_B^2} \sum_{b=1}^B n_b^2 \widehat{\Var}_b [ \widehat{\tau_{HT}}_b(d_k,d_l)] .
$$ By the weak law of large numbers and condition 1 (boundedness), there exist $\bar{V}_U \geq \epsilon >0$ and $\bar N \geq 1$ such that $\sum_{b=1}^B n_b^2 \Var[\widehat{\tau_{HT}}_b(d_k,d_l)] / B
\overset{p}{\longrightarrow} \bar{V}_U$ and $N_B/B = \sum_{b=1}^B n_b / B \overset{p}{\longrightarrow} \bar N$. Then, by Slutsky’s theorem, $$N_B \widehat{\Var}[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)] = \frac{
\sum_{b=1}^B n_b^2 \widehat{\Var}_b [ \widehat{\tau_{HT}}_b(d_k,d_l)]
/ {B}}{N_B/B} \overset{p}{\longrightarrow} \frac{\bar{V}_U}{\bar N},$$ where $0 < {\bar{V}_U}/ {\bar N} < \infty$. Since $\E\left[\widehat{\Var}[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]\right] \geq {\Var}[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]$, we have thus established that $N$ times the variance estimator for the average causal effect converges to a quantity that is at least as large as $N$ times the true variance. Finally, define $$\begin{aligned}
t &= \frac{\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)- {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)}{\sqrt{\Var[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]}} \left( \frac{\Var[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]}{\widehat{\Var}[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]} \right)^{1/2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Under the given conditions, $\left(\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l) - {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)\right)/\sqrt{\Var[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]}$ is asymptotically $\N(0,1)$ by the Lindeberg central limit theorem, while $( \Var[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]/\widehat{\Var}[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)])^{1/2}$ converges to a quantity less than one. Therefore, $t$ is asymptotically normal, and Wald-type intervals constructed as $$\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l) \pm z_{1-\alpha/2}\sqrt{\widehat{\Var}[\widehat {\tau_{HT}}(d_k,d_l)]}$$ will tend to cover $\tau_{HT}(d_k,d_l)$ at least $100(1-\alpha)\%$ of the time for large $N$.[^7]
Refinements
===========
The mean and difference-in-means estimators presented thus far are unbiased by sample theoretic arguments, and we have derived conservative variance estimators. However, we may wish to improve efficiency by incorporating auxiliary covariate information. In addition, by analogy to results from the unequal probability sampling literature, ratio approximations of the Horvitz-Thompson estimator may significantly reduce mean square error with little cost in terms of bias [@sarndal_etal92 pp. 181-184]. We discuss such refinements here.
Covariance adjustment
---------------------
Auxiliary covariate information may help to improve efficiency. A first method of covariance adjustment is based on the so-called “difference estimator” [@raj65; @sarndal_etal92 Ch. 6]. Covariance adjustment of this variety can reduce the randomization variance of the estimated exposure means and average causal effects without compromising unbiasedness. In addition, the difference estimator addresses the problem of location non-invariance that afflicts Horvitz-Thompson-type estimators [@fuller09_samp_stat 9-10]. The estimator requires prior knowledge about how outcomes relate to covariates, perhaps obtained from analysis of auxiliary datasets.
Assume an auxiliary covariate vector $\mathbf{x_i}$ is observed for each $i$. We have some predefined function $g\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) \right) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, where $\mathbf{\xi_i}$ is a parameter vector. Ideally $g(.)$ is calibrated on auxiliary data to produce values that approximate $y_i(d_k)$. We assume $\Cov[g\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) \right),Z_i] = 0$ as a sufficient condition for unbiasedness.[^8] Define $$\label{eq:gen1}
\widehat{y^{T}_{G}}(d_k) = \sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} - \sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{g\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) \right)}{\pi_i(d_k)} + \sum\limits_{i=1}^Ng\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) \right),$$ which is unbiased for $y^T(d_k)$ by $$\E\left[- \sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{g\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) \right)}{\pi_i(d_k)} + \sum\limits_{i=1}^Ng\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) \right)\right] = 0.$$ Define $\epsilon_i(d_k) = y_i(d_k) - g\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) \right)$. Then, by substitution, $$\label{eq:gen2}
\widehat{y^{T}_{G}}(d_k) = \sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{\epsilon_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)} + \sum\limits_{i=1}^Ng\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) \right).$$ Estimation proceeds as above using $\widehat{y^{T}_{G}}(d_k)$ in place of $\widehat{y^{T}}(d_k)$ to estimate $y^T(d_k)$. @middleton_aronow11 and @aronow_middleton11_unbiased demonstrate that $\widehat{y^{T}_{G}}(d_k)$ is location invariant. Variance estimation proceeds as in section \[varests\], using $\epsilon_i(d_k)$ in place of $y_i(d_k)$ so long as $g\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) \right)$ is fixed. An approximation to the difference estimator is given by regression adjustment using the sample at hand. Regression can be thought of as a way to automate selection of the parameters in the difference estimator. In doing so, unbiasedness is compromised although the regression estimator is typically consistent [@sarndal_etal92 pp. 225-239]. We may use weighted least squares to estimate a sensible parameter vector.[^9] Define an estimated parameter vector associated with exposure condition $d_k$ $$\mathbf{\widehat \xi}(d_k) = \arg\min\limits_{ \mathbf{\xi}(d_k)} \sum\limits_{i: D_i = d_k} \frac{1}{\pi_i(d_k)} \left[ y_i(d_k) - g\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\xi}(d_k) \right) \right]^2,$$ where $g(.)$ is the specification for the regression of $y_i(d_k)$ on ${\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)$ and $\mathbf{x_i}$. Then the regression estimator for the total is $$\label{eq:regression}
\widehat{y^{T}_{R}}(d_k) = \sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{y_i(d_k) - g\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\widehat \xi}(d_k) \right)}{\pi_i(d_k)} + \sum\limits_{i=1}^Ng\left(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\widehat \xi}(d_k) \right),$$ Estimation proceeds as above using $\widehat{y^{T}_{R}}(d_k)$ in place of $\widehat{y^{T}_{HT}}(d_k)$ to estimate $y^T(d_k)$. Under weak regularity conditions on $g(.)$, a variance estimator based on a Taylor linearization of $\widehat{y^{T}_{R}}(d_k)$ is consistent [@sarndal_etal92 236-237]. The linearized variance estimator can be computed by substituting the residuals, $e_i = y_i(d_k) - g(\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{\widehat \xi}(d_k))$, for the $y_i(d_k)$ terms in constructing the variance estimator given in expression .
Hajek ratio estimation via weighted least squares
-------------------------------------------------
The @hajek71 ratio estimator is a refinement of the standard Horvitz-Thompson estimator that often facilitates efficiency gains at the cost of some finite $N$ bias and complications in variance estimation. Let us first consider the problem that the Hajek estimator is designed to resolve. The high variance of $\widehat{\mu_{HT}}(d_k)$ is often driven by the fact that some randomizations may yield an unusually large or small number of units or, depending on the nature of ${\mathbf{I}}_k$, an unusually large or small number of units with high values of the weights $1/\pi_i(d_k)$. The Hajek refinement allows the denominator of the estimator to vary according to the sum of the weights $1/\pi_i(d_k)$, thus shrinking the magnitude of the estimator when its value is large, and raising the magnitude of the estimator when its value is small. The Hajek ratio estimator is
$$\widehat{\mu_{H}}(d_k) = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{y_i(d_k)}{\pi_i(d_k)}}{\sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{1}{\pi_i(d_k)}}. \label{eq:hajek}$$
Note that $\E[\sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{1}{\pi_i(d_k)}] = N$, so that the Hajek estimator is the ratio of two unbiased estimators. It is well known that the ratio of two unbiased estimators is not an unbiased estimator of the ratio. However, the bias will tend to be small relative to the estimator’s sampling variability, and we may place bounds on its magnitude.
By @hartley54 and @sarndal_etal92 [176], $$\left|\E[\widehat{\mu_{H}}(d_k)]-\mu(d_k)\right|
\leq
\sqrt{\Var\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbf{I}}(D_i=d_k)\frac{1}{\pi_i(d_k)}\right){\Var\left(\widehat{\mu_{H}}(d_k)\right)}}$$ Under the asymptotic growth process hypothesized in section \[asymptot\], both variances will converge to zero, and thus the bias ratio will converge to zero. Practically speaking, the Hajek estimator can be computed with weighted least squares, with covariance adjustment through weighted least squares residualization. Variance estimation proceeds via Taylor linearization [@sarndal_etal92 172-176]. The linearized variance estimator can be computed by substituting the residuals, $u_i = y_i(d_k) - \widehat{\mu_{H}}(d_k)$, for the $y_i(d_k)$ terms in constructing the variance estimator given in expression .
A naturalistic simulation with social network data
==================================================
We use a naturalistic simulation to illustrate how our framework may be applied and also to study operating characteristics of the proposed estimators in a finite sample. We estimate direct and indirect effects of an experiment with individuals linked in a complex, undirected social network. We use friendship network data from American high school classes collected through the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health).[^10] The richness of these data makes Add Health a canonical dataset for methodological research related to social networks, as with @bramoulle_etal2009_peer_effects, @chung_etal2008_latent_transition_analysis, @goel_salganik10_assessing_rds, @goodreau_etal2009_ergm, @goodreau2007_ergms, @handcock_etal2007_network_clustering, and @hunter_etal2008_social_network_models_fit. We simulate experiments in which a treatment, ${\mathbf{Z}}$, is randomly assigned without replacement and with uniform probability to $1/10$ of individuals in a high school network. Indirect effects are transmitted only within a subject’s high school. This simulated experiment resembles various studies of network persuasion campaigns [@chen_etal2010_diffusion; @aral_walker2011_viral; @paluck2011_peer_pressure].
We define the exposure mapping as a vector valued function, $f({\mathbf{z}}, \theta_i)$, such that the parameter, $\theta_i$, equals subject $i$’s row in a network adjacency matrix (modified such that we have zeroes on the diagonal). The cross product, ${\mathbf{z}}'\theta_i$, counts the number of subjects $i$’s peers assigned to treatment. We use a simple exposure mapping that captures direct and indirect effects of the treatment, with indirect effects being transmitted to a subject’s immediate peers: $$\begin{aligned}
f({\mathbf{z}}, \theta_i) = \left(\begin{array}{c} d_{11} \\ d_{10} \\ d_{01} \\ d_{00}\end{array} \right)& =\left(\begin{array}{c} z_i{\mathbf{I}}({\mathbf{z}}'\theta_i>0)\\ z_i {\mathbf{I}}({\mathbf{z}}'\theta_i=0)\\ (1-z_i){\mathbf{I}}({\mathbf{z}}'\theta_i>0) \\ (1-z_i){\mathbf{I}}({\mathbf{z}}'\theta_i=0) \end{array} \right)\nonumber \\ & =\left( \begin{array}{c} \text{``direct + indirect'' exposure} \\ \text{``isolated direct'' exposure}\\ \text{``indirect'' exposure}\\ \text{``control''}
\end{array} \right),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where each unit falls into exactly one of the four exposure conditions (and so $(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 1& 1& 1\end{array})f({\mathbf{z}}, \theta_i) = 1$ for all $i$). This experiment is repeated independently across the 144 high school classes included in Add Health, with an average class size of 626 students. To ensure that our effect estimates all refer to the same underlying population, we dropped subjects that reported zero friendship ties (see footnote \[fn:isolates\_problem\]). We chose this exposure mapping because of its parsimony; the analyst is free to choose more complex mappings.
![Illustration of a treatment assignment (left) and then treatment-induced exposures (right) for one of the high school classes in the study. Each dot is a student, and each line represents an undirected friendship tie.\[fig:network\]](simexamplenetwork.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:network\] illustrates a treatment assignment and corresponding treatment-induced exposures under this mapping. The figure illustrates two key issues that our methods address. First is the connection between a unit’s underlying traits, in this case its network degree, and propensity to fall into one or another exposure condition. The second is the irregular clustering that occurs in exposure conditions. Such irregular clustering is precisely what one must address in deriving variance estimates and intervals for estimated effects.
We use as our outcome a variable in the dataset that records the number of after-school activities in which each student participates. This variable defines the $y_i(d_{00})$ values—that is, potential outcomes under the “control” exposure. This makes our simulation naturalistic not only in the networks that define the interference patterns, but also in the outcome data. The variable exhibits a high degree of right skew, with mean 2.14, standard deviation 2.64, and 0, .25, .5, .75, and 1 quantiles of 0, 2, 3, and 33, respectively. We consider a simple “dilated effects” scenario [@rosenbaum1999_dilated_effects_sensitivity] where potential outcomes are such that $y_i(d_{11})= 2\times y_i(d_{00}), y_i(d_{10})= 1.5 \times y_i(d_{00}), y_i(d_{01})= 1.25\times y_i(d_{00})$. We run 500 simulated replications of the experiment, applying five estimators in each scenario:
- The Horvitz-Thompson estimator for the causal effect given in expression , with the associated conservative variance estimator, given in expression ;
- The Hajek ratio estimator given in expression , with the associated linearized variance estimator;
- The weighted least squares (WLS) estimator given in expression , adjusting for network degree as the sole covariate, with the associated linearized variance estimator;
- An ordinary least squares (OLS) estimator that regresses the outcome on indicator variables for the exposure conditions, adjusting for network degree as a covariate, with @mackinnon_white1985_hc2’s finite sample adjusted “HC2” heteroskedasticity consistent variance estimator;
- A simple difference in sample means (DSM) for the exposure conditions, also with the HC2 estimator.
With respect to point estimates, the Horvitz-Thompson estimator is unbiased but possibly unstable, while the Hajek and WLS estimators are consistent and expected to be more stable. The DSM estimator is expected to be biased because it totally ignores relationships between exposure probabilities and outcomes. The OLS estimator controls for network degree, and so this will remove bias due to correlation between exposure probabilities and outcomes. However, OLS is known to be biased in its aggregation of unit level heterogeneity in causal effects [@angrist_krueger99_handbook]. With respect to standard error estimates and confidence intervals, the variance estimators for the Horvitz-Thompson, Hajek, and WLS estimators are expected to be conservative though informative. The variance estimators for OLS and DSM may be anti-conservative because they ignore the clustering in exposure conditions.
Table \[tab:simresults\_dilated\] shows results of the simulation study, which conform to expectations. The Horvitz-Thompson, Hajek, and WLS estimators exhibit no perceivable bias. The Horvitz-Thompson estimator exhibits higher variability than the Hajek and WLS estimators. The OLS estimator and DSM estimator are heavily biased when considered relative to the variability of the effect estimates. The bias in OLS is expected because unit level causal effects, defined in terms of differences, are heterogenous from unit to unit when underlying potential outcomes are based on dilated effects. Thus OLS will suffer from an aggregation bias in addition to any biases due to inadequate conditioning on network degree. The standard error estimates for the Horvitz-Thompson, Hajek, and WLS estimators are informative but conservative, resulting in empirical coverage rates that exceed nominal levels. The intervals for the OLS and DSM variance estimators badly undercover, primarily due to the bias in the point estimates rather than understatement of variability.
----------- ----------------------- ----------- ------ ---------- ------ ----------- ----------- --
Mean 95% CI 90% CI
Estimator Estimand Bias S.D. RMSE S.E. Coverage Coverage
HT $\tau(d_{01},d_{00})$ [0.00 ]{} 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.960 0.924
$\tau(d_{10},d_{00})$ [0.00 ]{} 0.10 0.10 0.19 0.986 0.970
$\tau(d_{11},d_{00})$ [0.00 ]{} 0.13 0.13 0.28 0.990 0.970
Hajek $\tau(d_{01},d_{00})$ [0.00 ]{} 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.968 0.916
$\tau(d_{10},d_{00})$ [0.00 ]{} 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.992 0.970
$\tau(d_{11},d_{00})$ [0.00 ]{} 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.986 0.970
WLS $\tau(d_{01},d_{00})$ [0.00 ]{} 0.03 [0.03]{} 0.03 0.970 0.928
$\tau(d_{10},d_{00})$ [0.00 ]{} 0.07 [0.07]{} 0.12 0.992 0.968
$\tau(d_{11},d_{00})$ [0.00 ]{} 0.11 [0.11]{} 0.25 0.988 0.950
OLS $\tau(d_{01},d_{00})$ [-0.02]{} 0.03 0.03 0.02 [0.842]{} [0.768]{}
$\tau(d_{10},d_{00})$ [-0.08]{} 0.06 0.10 0.07 [0.706]{} [0.576]{}
$\tau(d_{11},d_{00})$ [0.12]{} 0.09 0.15 0.09 [0.660]{} [0.530]{}
DSM $\tau(d_{01},d_{00})$ [0.42]{} 0.02 0.42 0.02 [0.000]{} [0.000]{}
$\tau(d_{10},d_{00})$ [-0.08]{} 0.06 0.10 0.07 [0.726]{} [0.614]{}
$\tau(d_{11},d_{00})$ [0.56]{} 0.09 0.57 0.09 [0.000]{} [0.000]{}
----------- ----------------------- ----------- ------ ---------- ------ ----------- ----------- --
: Results from high school friends’ network simulated experiment[]{data-label="tab:simresults_dilated"}
HT = Horvitz-Thompson estimator with conservative variance estimator.\
Hajek = Hajek estimator with linearized variance estimator.\
WLS = Least squares weighted by exposure probabilities with covariate adjustment for network degree and linearized variance estimator.\
OLS = Ordinary least squares with covariate adjustment for network degree and heteroskedasticity consistent variance estimator.\
DSM = Simple difference in sample means with no covariate adjustment and heteroskedasticity consistent variance estimator.\
S.D. = Empirical standard deviation from simulation; RMSE = Root mean square error; S.E. = standard error estimate; CI = Normal approximation confidence interval.
Illustrative applications
=========================
Our focus has been on the case of estimating average unit level causal effects of exposures when interference is present. While our analytical framework can be readily applied to other inferential targets, the case developed in this paper provides a principled basis for estimation any time one indirectly randomizes the assignment of units to exposure conditions, a situation that arises in a broad range of scenarios of substantive interest. The high school “network experiment” example above was one application. We illustrate two other types of potential applications here.
Spatial spillover in an environmental protection experiment
-----------------------------------------------------------
An interesting set of applications comes from when the effects of experimental treatments have the potential to transmit over space or through networks, and treatments are allocated to point locations in the space or network. For example, consider an environmental protection experiment in which forest monitoring stations are positioned at fixed points around the perimeter of a protected forest.[^11] The goal is to determine an optimal allocation of monitoring stations so as to reduce risks (such as illegal cutting) sufficiently while not committing excessive resources. In this case, the units of analysis are segments of the forest, and exposure might be defined in terms of whether the segment centroid is very close, moderately close, or far from the nearest monitoring station. In most cases, there will be irregularities in the places where stations could be established as well as irregularities in the spacing and orientation of the segments. For this reason, some segments may be in close proximity to multiple potential stationing points, whereas other may be in close proximity to only a few. Suppose the research design randomly selects $M$ out of $N$ potential locations to receive a monitoring station. Then, a forest segment’s probability of being very close, moderately close, or far from a monitoring station will be determined by the combination of this random assignment (${\mathbf{Z}}$) and the segment’s location relative to the different potential stationing sites ($\theta_i$). Using the methods above, one could generate the set of all stationing possibilities, record the exposure profile of the segments for each of the stationing possibilities, and then empirically determine the generalized probability of exposures for each segment.
Dynamic experiments
-------------------
Dynamic experiments have time-varying treatment assignments. Exposure in this context could be defined in terms of a unit’s treatment history. A prominent example of a dynamic experiment is the “stepped-wedge” design, in which there are a fixed number of periods, and in each period, some proportion of non-treated subjects are permanently assigned to treatment for all future periods. Outcomes are observed for all subjects in each period, so that the unit of inference is the subject-period. For analyzing per-period effects, one would want to account for possible interference due to effects from a subject’s assignment in previous periods carrying over into the current period. For example, suppose a stepped-wedge experiment with three periods. An exposure mapping in this case might define, $\Delta_1 = \{(1,1,1),(0,1,1), (0,0,1), (0,0,0)\}$, to define treatment initiated in periods 1, 2, 3, or never, respectively. Then, simple random assignment to each of these three exposure conditions provides for very straightforward identification and inference. Suppose, however, that there is good reason to believe that carry-over effects are likely to last only one period. The analyst then may use an alternative exposure mapping, $\Delta_2 = \{(1,1),(0,1), (0,0) \}$, to indicate two consecutive periods of exposure, only one period of exposure, and no exposure, respectively. If the experiment randomly assigned the histories enumerated in $\Delta_1$, then the probabilities of assignment to the conditions in $\Delta_2$ would vary over the $\Delta_1$ conditions. @brown_lilford2006_steppedwedge review applications of stepped-wedge designs in medical research, and @gerber_etal2011_texas is an application from political science.
Uncertainty about exposure mappings
===================================
Some readers may have concerns about how the methods proposed here rely on an exposure mapping. Does this not introduce arbitrary modeling assumptions to the analysis? The question is misguided: there is no escaping specification of exposure mappings for causal analysis. Consider the classical approach to inference under the Neyman-Rubin model. Here, analysts typically assume a very specific exposure mapping—namely, one that assumes no interference relative to unit-level treatment assignments. This typical Neyman-Rubin model is nested within more general exposure mappings that allow for some forms of interference, which are in turn nested within other exposure mappings that place fewer restrictions on the form of the interference. Our approach permits estimation and testing under an arbitrarily general exposure mapping. Nonetheless, two types of uncertainty may complicate application of the methods proposed here. First is uncertainty over the correct way to map treatments to exposures. We can express this as “uncertainty about $f(.)$”. Second is uncertainty over the attributes that one needs to apply $f(.)$. We can express this as “uncertainty about the $\theta_i$s”. With respect to uncertainty over $f(.)$, unless $|\Delta| = |\Omega| \times N$, the analyst may always estimate average potential outcomes under a less restrictive exposure mapping that allows for additional forms of interference, thus allowing for the enumeration of additional potential outcomes. Then the analyst may test for significant differences between the hypothesized average potential outcomes and those associated with a nested mapping. Rejection of the null hypothesis of no mean difference between potential outcomes provides support for the more complex exposure mapping. While issues of model specification may be unavoidable, the proposed framework allows for inference under arbitrarily flexible (and testable) assumptions on the exposure mapping.
With respect to uncertainty about the $\theta_i$s, a concrete example comes from the network experiment simulation above. Suppose we do not know for sure the links between subjects. Such uncertainty could be formalized in terms of a model that defines a probability distribution over the domain of possible adjacency matrices. For example, @chandrasekhar_lewis2012_sampled_networks demonstrate methods for completing partially observed peer networks in analyzing a micro-finance field experiment in India. A practical implementation of this procedure would be a multiple imputation approach: impute $M$ random draws of the adjacency matrix from a random graph model, estimate causal effects on each, and then aggregate estimates with the usual multiple imputation combination formulas [@rubin87].
Conclusion
==========
This paper proposes an analytical framework for causal inference under interference. The framework integrates (i) an experimental design the defines the probability distribution for treatments assigned, (ii) an exposure mapping that relates treatments assigned to exposures received, and (iii) an estimand chosen to make maximal use of an experimental design to answer questions of substantive interest. Using this framework, we develop methods for estimating average unit level causal effects of exposures from a randomized experiment. Our approach combines the known randomization process with the analyst’s definition of treatment exposure, thus permitting inference under clear and defensible assumptions. Importantly, the union of the design of the experiment and the exposure mapping may imply unequal probabilities of exposure and forms of dependence between units that may not be obvious ex ante.
We develop estimators based on results from the literature on unequal probability sampling rooted in the foundational insights of @horvitz_thompson. The estimators are derived from the known sampling distribution of the “direct” treatment, ${\mathbf{Z}}$, and provide a basis for unbiased effect estimation and conservative variance estimation. Wald-type intervals based on a normal approximation provide a reasonable reflection of large $N$ behavior when clustering of exposure indicator values is limited. Nonetheless, it is well known that Horvitz-Thompson-type estimators may be volatile in cases where selection probabilities vary greatly or exhibit strong inverse correlation with outcome values [@basu1971_elephants]. Thus, we provide refinements that allow for variance control via covariance adjustment and Hajek estimation. In addition, we provide a method of variance estimation based on hypotheses of the nature of causal effects which may be preferred when design-based estimators are unstable.
Our approach combines minimal assumptions about restrictions on potential outcomes with randomization-based estimators and may be characterized as design consistent. The framework is readily applicable to deriving estimators for estimands other than the average unit level effect of exposures.[^12] The framework developed here represents an alternative to parametric approaches that are often employed with little substantive justification. The framework and resulting methods greatly extend the reach of randomization-based estimation of causal effects.
[^1]: Peter M. Aronow is Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, Yale University, 77 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06520 (Email: [email protected]). Cyrus Samii is Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, New York University, 19 West 4th St., New York, NY 10012 (Email: [email protected]). The authors are grateful for helpful feedback from Bernd Beber, Jake Bowers, Dean Eckles, Don Green, Kosuke Imai, Brian Karrer, Luke Keele, Winston Lin, Joel Middleton, Elizabeth Ogburn, Allison Sovey, Eric Tchetgen-Tchetgen, Teppei Yamamoto, and participants at the JSM 2012, 2012 Atlantic Causal Inference Conference, 2012 NYU-CESS Experimental Political Science Conference, NYU Development Economics Workshop, Princeton Political Methodology Research Seminar, 2011 Workshop on Information in Networks, Johns Hopkins University Causal Inference Group Seminar, and Yale Field Experiments Seminar.
[^2]: The exposure mapping construction is functionally equivalent to the “effective treatments” function used by @manski2012_identification_social (denoted $c_j(.)$ by Manski). We find it helpful however to denote separately the unit-specific attributes, $\theta_i$, that feed into the exposure mapping, $f(.)$. As discussed below, uncertainty about either of these has quite distinct implications for how the analysis should proceed.
[^3]: In practice, $|\Omega|$ may be so large that it is impractical to construct $\Omega$ to compute the ${\boldsymbol{\pi}}_i$s and the joint probability matrices exactly. One may nonetheless approximate the ${\boldsymbol{\pi}}_i$s and joint probabilities with arbitrary precision through replication [@fattorini06]. That is, produce $R$ random replicate ${\mathbf{z}}$s based on the randomization plan. From these $R$ replicates, we can construct an $N \times R$ indicator matrix, $\widehat{{\mathbf{I}}}_k$, for each of the $k=1,...,K$ exposure conditions. Then an estimator for ${\mathbf{I}}_k {\mathbf{P}}{\mathbf{I}}_k'$ is $\widehat{{\mathbf{I}}}_k\widehat{{\mathbf{I}}}'_k/R$, and similarly for ${\mathbf{I}}_k {\mathbf{P}}{\mathbf{I}}_l'$. The replication procedure would be equivalent to drawing a random sample without replacement from $\Omega$ with probabilities of selection equal to those which are defined in the randomization plan. As such, the resulting exposure probability and joint probability estimates would be unbiased. @chen_etal2010_diffusion apply a similar approach.
[^4]: \[fn:hudgens\] The direct, indirect and overall effects of @hudgens_halloran08 are defined in this way using the construction of the “individual average potential outcome.” The hierarchical designs that they consider are specifically tailored to ensure that estimators for such effects are non-parametrically identified. While our focus is on estimation of unit-level causal effects that are defined for arbitrary designs, such design-specific estimators can certainly be derived and analyzed using the framework developed here.
[^5]: Cases may arise when some units have zero probability of being in one or another exposure condition. Then, when computing the causal effect of exposure condition $k$ versus $l$, design-based principles would have one only ever include units for which probability of exposure to both $k$ and $l$ are non-zero. This implies that different causal effects may be estimated on different subpopulations. This needs to be kept in mind when interpreting results and does not alter the approach to estimation and inference otherwise.\[fn:isolates\_problem\]
[^6]: This construction owes greatly to Joel Middleton.
[^7]: We conjecture that asymptotic normality follows under weaker conditions on the asymptotic growth process that do not imply partial interference. For example, suppose potential outcomes and exposure probabilities are bounded and dependence between any units’ exposure indicators is non-zero only if the distance between units is below some threshold. Then if the finite population grows in a manner that continually expands the population space while also remaining within a finite dimensional manifold, consistency of the mean and variance estimators and asymptotic normality would follow by existing central limit theorems for bounded $m$-dependent series [@hoeffding_robbins1948; @sajjan2000_cls_lattices; @christofides_mavrikou2003_cls_multidimensional_m_dependence; @jenish_prucha2009_clt_spatial_interaction; @harvey_etal2010_asymptotics_3d_lattice].
[^8]: This allows for the possibility that $\mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k)$ is a random variable. The condition $\mathbf{\xi_i}(d_k) {\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}}D_i$ is also a sufficient condition for unbiasedness. @aronow_middleton11_unbiased provide greater discussion of conditions for unbiased effect estimation and conservative variance estimation.
[^9]: For some common experimental designs, the least squares criterion will be optimal [@lin11_freedmans_critique], and weighting by $1/\pi_i(d_k)$ ensures that the regression proceeds on a sample representative of the population of potential outcomes. With additional details on ${\mathbf{I}}_k$ and $g(.)$, it is possible to estimate optimal parameter vectors [@sarndal_etal92 219-244], though such values will typically be close to those produced by the weighted least squares estimator (barring unusual and extreme forms of clustering).
[^10]: Study description and data are at <http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth>.
[^11]: The example is based on an actual evaluation in which the authors have been involved.
[^12]: See section \[sec:exposure\_mapping\] as well as footnote \[fn:hudgens\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report searches for $B$-meson decays to the charmless final states $\rho K^*$ and $f_0(980) K^*$ with a sample of 232 million pairs collected with the detector at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy $e^+e^-$ collider at SLAC. We measure the following branching fractions in units of $10^{-6}$: ${\cal B} (B^+\rightarrow \rho^0 {K^*}^+) = 3.6 \pm 1.7 \pm 0.8 \;(< 6.1)$, ${\cal B} (B^+\rightarrow \rho^+ {K^*}^0) = 9.6 \pm 1.7 \pm 1.5 $, ${\cal B} (B^0\rightarrow \rho^- {K^*}^+) = 5.4 \pm 3.6 \pm 1.6 \;(< 12.0)$, ${\cal B} (B^0\rightarrow \rho^0 {K^*}^0) = 5.6 \pm 0.9 \pm 1.3 $, ${\cal B} (B^+\rightarrow f_0(980) {K^*}^+) = 5.2 \pm 1.2 \pm 0.5 $, and ${\cal B} (B^0\rightarrow f_0(980) {K^*}^0) = 2.6 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.9 \;(< 4.3)$. The first error quoted is statistical, the second systematic, and the upper limits, in parentheses, are given at the 90% confidence level. For the statistically significant modes we also measure the fraction of longitudinal polarization and the charge asymmetry: $f_L (B^+\rightarrow \rho^+ {K^*}^0) = 0.52 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.04 $, $f_L (B^0\rightarrow \rho^0 {K^*}^0) = 0.57 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.08 $, ${\cal A}_{\rm CP} (B^+\rightarrow \rho^+ {K^*}^0) = -0.01 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.02 $, ${\cal A}_{\rm CP} (B^0\rightarrow \rho^0 {K^*}^0) = 0.09 \pm 0.19 \pm 0.02 $, ${\cal A}_{\rm CP} (B^+\rightarrow f_0(980){K^*}^+) = -0.34 \pm 0.21 \pm 0.03 $, and ${\cal A}_{\rm CP} (B^0\rightarrow f_0(980){K^*}^0) = -0.17 \pm 0.28 \pm 0.02 $.'
title: ' **Measurements of branching fractions, polarizations, and direct $CP$-violation asymmetries in $B \rightarrow \rho K^*$ and $B \rightarrow f_0(980)K^*$ decays** '
---
-PUB-[06]{}/[050]{}\
SLAC-PUB-[11997]{}\
\[10mm\]
The study of $B$-meson decays to charmless hadronic final states plays an important role in understanding $CP$ violation. The charmless decays [$B\rightarrow \rho K^*$]{} proceed through dominant penguin loops and Cabibbo-suppressed tree processes ([$B^+\rightarrow \rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{} is pure penguin) to two vector particles (VV). A large longitudinal polarization fraction $f_L$ (of order $(1-4m_V^2/m_B^2)\sim 0.9$) is predicted for both tree and penguin dominated VV decays [@bib:prediction]. However, recent measurements of the pure penguin VV decays $B\rightarrow \phi K^*$ indicate $f_L\sim 0.5$ [@bib:phiKst]. Several attempts to understand this small value of $f_L$ within or beyond the Standard Model (SM) have been made [@bib:theory1]. Further information about $SU(3)$-related decays may provide some insight into this polarization puzzle. Characterization of the four [$B\rightarrow \rho K^*$]{} modes can also be used within the SM framework to help constrain the angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ of the Unitarity Triangle [@bib:theory2].
We report measurements of branching fractions, longitudinal polarizations, and direct $CP$-violating asymmetries for the [$B\rightarrow \rho K^*$]{} decay modes. We also measure branching fractions and direct $CP$-violating asymmetries for the $B\to f_0(980) K^*$ modes that share the same final states. We present improved analyses of previously measured modes [@bib:prevmeas], with larger statistics and explicit consideration of non-resonant backgrounds. We measure [$B^0\rightarrow \rho ^- {K^*}^+$]{}, [$B^0\rightarrow \rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{}, [$B^+\rightarrow f_0(980) {K^*}^+$]{}, and [$B^0\rightarrow f_0(980) {K^*}^0$]{} for the first time. Charge-conjugate modes are implied throughout.
This analysis is based on a data sample of 232 million pairs, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 210 , collected with the detector [@bib:babar] at the SLAC PEP-II asymmetric-energy $e^+e^-$ collider operating at a center-of-mass (c.m.) energy $\sqrt{s} = 10.58$GeV, corresponding to the resonance mass.
The angular distribution of the $\rho K^*$ decay products, after integrating over the angle between the decay planes of the vector mesons, for which the acceptance is uniform, is proportional to $$\frac{1}{4}
(1-f_L)\sin^2\theta_{K^*}\sin^2\theta_{\rho} +
f_L \cos^2\theta_{K^*}\cos^2\theta_{\rho} ,
\label{eq:helicity}$$
where $\theta_{K^*}$ and $\theta_{\rho}$ are the helicity angles of the $K^*$ and $\rho$, defined between the $K(\pi^+)$ momentum and the direction opposite to the $B$ in the $K^*(\rho)$ rest frame [@bib:polarization]. We also measure the time-integrated direct $CP$-violating asymmetry ${\cal A}_{\rm CP} = (\Gamma^- - \Gamma^+)/(\Gamma^- + \Gamma^+)$, where the superscript on the total width $\Gamma$ indicates the sign of the $b$-quark charge in the $B$ meson.
We fully reconstruct charged and neutral decay products including the intermediate states $\rho^0 {\;\rm or \;}f_0(980) \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$, $\rho^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^0$, ${K^*}^0 \rightarrow K^+\pi^-$, ${K^*}^+ \rightarrow K^+ \pi^0$, ${K^*}^+ \rightarrow K^0_S \pi^+$ (only in [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+$]{}), $\pi^0 \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$, and $K^0_S \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$. We assume the $f_0(980)$ measured lineshape [@bib:e791] and a branching ratio of 100% for $f_0(980) \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$. Table \[tab:resonances\] lists the selection requirements on the invariant mass and helicity angle of $B$-daughter resonances.
Mode $m_{\pi\pi}$ $m_{K\pi}$ $\cos\theta_{\rho}$ $\cos\theta_{K^*}$
------------------------------------ -------------- ------------- --------------------- --------------------
[$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+_{K^+\pi^0}$]{} (0.52,1.10) (0.75,1.05) (-0.95,0.95) (-0.5,1.0)
[$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+_{K^0_S\pi^+}$]{} (0.52,1.10) (0.75,1.05) (-0.95,0.95) (-0.9,1.0)
[$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{} (0.40,1.15) (0.77,1.02) (-0.66,0.95) (-0.95,1.0)
$\rho ^- {K^*}^+_{K^+\pi^0}$ (0.40,1.15) (0.77,1.02) (-0.80,0.98) (-0.80,0.98)
[$\rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{} (0.52,1.15) (0.77,1.02) (-0.95,0.95) (-0.95,1.0)
: Selection requirements on the invariant mass (in GeV) and helicity angle of $B$-daughter resonances.
\[tab:resonances\]
Charged tracks from the $B$-meson candidate are required to originate from the interaction point. Looser criteria are applied to tracks forming $K^0_S$ candidates, for which we require $|m_{\pi^+\pi^-}-m_{K^0_S}|<12$MeV, a measured proper decay time greater than five times its uncertainty, and the cosine of the angle between the reconstructed flight and momentum directions to exceed 0.995. Charged particle identification provides discrimination between kaons and pions, and is also used to reject electrons and protons. We reconstruct $\pi^0$ mesons from pairs of photons, each with a minimum energy of 30MeV ([$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+$]{}) or 50MeV ([$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{} and [$\rho ^- {K^*}^+$]{}). The invariant mass of $\pi^0$ candidates is required to be within 15MeV ([$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+$]{}) or 25MeV ([$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{} and [$\rho ^- {K^*}^+$]{}) of the nominal mass [@bib:PDG].
$B$-meson candidates are characterized kinematically by the energy difference $\Delta E = E^*_B - \sqrt{s}/2$ and the energy-substituted mass $m_{\rm ES} = \left [ (s/2+{\bf p}_i\cdot{\bf p}_B)^2/E_i^2-{\bf p}_B^2\right ] ^{1/2}$, where $(E_i,{\bf p}_i)$ and $(E_B,{\bf p}_B)$ are the four-momenta of the and $B$ candidate respectively, and the asterisk denotes the frame. Our signal lies in the region $|\Delta E|\le 0.1$ GeV and $5.27 \le m_{\rm ES} \le 5.29$ GeV. Sidebands in $m_{\rm ES}$ and $\Delta E$ are used to characterize the continuum background. The average number of signal $B$ candidates per selected data event ranges from 1.05 to 1.27, depending on the final state. A single candidate per event is chosen as the one with the smallest $B$ vertex-fit $\chi^2$ ([$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{}and [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{}), the smallest value of $\chi^2$ constructed from deviations of reconstructed $\pi^0$ masses from the expected value ([$\rho ^- {K^*}^+$]{}), or randomly ([$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+$]{}). Monte Carlo (MC) simulation shows that up to 38% (23%) of longitudinally (transversely) polarized signal events are misreconstructed with one or more tracks originating from the other $B$ in the event.
To reject the dominant $q\overline q$ continuum background we require $|\cos\theta_T|<0.8$, where $\theta_T$ is the c.m. frame angle between the thrust axes of the $B$-candidate and that formed from the other tracks and neutral clusters in the event. We also use as discriminant variables the polar angles of the $B$-momentum vector and the $B$-candidate thrust axis with respect to the beam axis, and the two Legendre moments $L_0$ and $L_2$ of the energy flow around the $B$-candidate thrust axis in the c.m. frame [@bib:Legendre]. These variables are combined in a Fisher discriminant ${\cal F}$ ([$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+$]{}) or a neural network (NN) (other modes). Finally, we suppress background from B decays to charmed states by removing signal candidates that have decay products consistent with $D^0\rightarrow K^-\pi^+ (\pi^0)$ and $D^-\rightarrow K^+\pi^- \pi^-$ decays.
We use an extended (not extended in the [$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{}mode) unbinned maximum-likelihood (ML) fit to extract signal yields, asymmetries, and angular polarizations simultaneously. We define the likelihood ${\cal L}_i$ for each event candidate $i$ as the sum of $n_j {\cal P}_j(\vec x_i; \vec \alpha)$ over hypotheses $j$ (signal, $q\bar q$ background, and several backgrounds discussed below), where the ${\cal P}_j(\vec x_i; \vec \alpha)$ are the probability density functions (PDFs) for the measured variables $\vec x_i$, and $n_j$ are the yields for the different hypotheses. The quantities $\vec \alpha$ represent parameters in the expected distributions of the measured variables for each hypothesis. They are extracted from MC simulation and $(m_{\rm ES},\Delta E)$ sideband data. They are fixed in the fit except for some shape parameters of the continuum $\Delta E$ and $m_{\rm ES}$ distributions. The extended likelihood function for a sample of $N$ candidates is ${\cal L} =
\exp{(-\sum n_j)}
\prod_{i=1}^{N} {\cal L}_i
$.
The fit input variables $\vec x_i$ are $m_{\rm ES}$, $\Delta E$, NN or ${\cal F}$, invariant masses of the candidates $\rho$ ($f_0 (980)$) and $K^*$, and helicity angles $\theta_{\rho}$ and $\theta_{K^*}$. We study large control samples of $B\rightarrow D\pi$ decays of similar topology to verify the simulated resolutions in $\Delta E$ and $m_{\rm ES}$, adjusting the PDFs to account for any difference found.
Since almost all correlations among the fit input variables are found to be small, we take each ${\cal P}_j$ to be the product of the PDFs for the separate variables with the following exceptions where we explicitly account for correlations: the correlation between the two helicity angles in signal, the correlation due to misreconstructed events in signal, and the correlation between mass and helicity in backgrounds. The effect of neglecting other correlations is evaluated by fitting ensembles of simulated experiments in which we embed the expected numbers of signal and charmless $B$-background events, randomly extracted from fully-simulated MC samples.
We use MC-simulated events to study backgrounds from other $B$ decays. Charmless $B$-backgrounds are grouped into up to 11 classes with similar topologies depending on the mode. Yields for decays with poorly known branching fractions are varied in the fit with those remaining kept fixed to their measured values. One to four additional classes account for neutral and charged $B$ decays to final states with charm. Up to 6 classes account for misreconstructed events in signal. We also introduce components for non-resonant backgrounds such as $\pi\pi K^*$, $\rho K\pi$, $f_0(980) K\pi$, and $f_0(1370) K\pi$, which differ from signal only in resonance mass and helicity distributions. The magnitudes of these components are determined by extrapolating from fits performed on a wider mass range reaching to higher mass values and are fixed in the fit. Fig. \[fig:extended\] shows the sPlots [@bib:splot] for the invariant mass of $K\pi$ and $\pi\pi$ in the [$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{}and [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{}modes, respectively. The data events are weighted by their probability to be signal, calculated from the signal and backgrounds PDFs of the , , and NN variables.
![sPlots for the invariant mass of $K\pi$ in [$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{}(left) and $\pi\pi$ in [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{} and [$f_0(980) {K^*}^0$]{}(right) up to the higher-mass regions. The points with error bars show the data, and the solid (dashed) lines show the projected PDFs of the signal and non-resonant background (non-resonant background only: $\rho K\pi$ in [$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{}; the sum of $f_0(1370) {K^*}$, $\pi\pi K^*$, and $\pi\pi K\pi$ in [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{}). The arrows show the nominal fit regions.[]{data-label="fig:extended"}](figures/splot.eps){width="8.4cm"}
The results of the ML fits are summarized in Table \[tab:results\]. For the branching fractions, we assume equal production rates of and . The significance $S$ of a signal is defined by $\Delta\ln {\cal L} = S^2/2$, where $\Delta\ln {\cal L}$ represents the change in likelihood from the maximal value when the number of signal events is set to zero, corrected for the systematic error defined below. We find significant signals for [$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{}, [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{}, and [$f_0(980) {K^*}^+$]{}, and some evidence for [$f_0(980) {K^*}^0$]{}. For the modes with significance smaller than five standard deviations we also measure the 90% confidence level (C.L.) upper limit, taking into account the systematic uncertainty. Fig. \[fig:projections\] shows projections of the fits onto $m_{\rm ES}$.
Mode $n_{sig}$ $\varepsilon$(%) $\prod {\cal B}_i$(%) $S (\sigma)$ ${\cal B}(10^{-6})$ $f_L$ ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}$
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------------- -------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------- --
[$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+$]{} 2.5 $3.6^{+1.7}_{-1.6}\pm 0.8$ (6.1) \[$0.9\pm 0.2$\] –
$\rightarrow$[$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+_{K^+\pi^0}$]{} $19^{+16}_{-15}$ 7.9 32.9 1.3 $3.2^{+2.7}_{-2.4}\pm 0.9$ \[$0.8^{+0.3}_{-0.5}$\] –
$\rightarrow$[$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+_{K^0_S\pi^+}$]{} $32^{+19}_{-17}$ 15.8 22.9 2.1 $3.8^{+2.2}_{-2.1}\pm 0.9$ \[$1.0\pm{0.3}$\] –
[$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{} $194\pm 29$ 13.5 66.7 7.1 $9.6\pm 1.7\pm 1.5$ $0.52\pm 0.10\pm 0.04$ $-0.01\pm 0.16 \pm 0.02$
$\rho ^- {K^*}^+_{K^+\pi^0}$ $60^{+25}_{-22}$ 15.2 32.5 1.6 $5.4^{+3.8}_{-3.4}\pm 1.6$ (12.0) \[$-0.18^{+0.52}_{-1.74}$\] –
[$\rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{} $185\pm 30$ 22.9 66.7 5.3 $5.6\pm 0.9 \pm 1.3$ $0.57\pm 0.09 \pm 0.08$ $0.09\pm 0.19 \pm 0.02$
[$f_0(980) {K^*}^+$]{} 5.0 $5.2\pm 1.2\pm 0.5$ – $-0.34\pm 0.21 \pm 0.03$
$\rightarrow$[$f_0(980) {K^*}^+_{K^+\pi^0}$]{} $40^{+13}_{-12}$ 8.5 32.9 3.8 $6.2^{+2.1}_{-1.9}\pm 0.7$ – $-0.50\pm 0.29 \pm 0.03$
$\rightarrow$[$f_0(980) {K^*}^+_{K^0_S\pi^+}$]{} $37^{+14}_{-12}$ 16.6 22.9 3.2 $4.2^{+1.5}_{-1.4}\pm 0.5$ – $-0.13\pm 0.30 \pm 0.01$
[$f_0(980) {K^*}^0$]{} $83\pm 19$ 21.7 66.7 3.5 $2.6\pm 0.6 \pm 0.9$ (4.3) – $-0.17\pm 0.28 \pm 0.02$
\[tab:results\]
![Projections of the multidimensional fit onto $m_{\rm ES}$ for events passing a signal-to-total likelihood probability ratio cut with the plotted variable excluded for (a) [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+$]{}, (b) [$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{}, (c) [$\rho ^- {K^*}^+$]{}, (d) [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{}, (e) [$f_0(980) {K^*}^+$]{}, and (f) [$f_0(980) {K^*}^0$]{}. The points with error bars show the data; the solid, dashed and dotted lines show the total, background, and continuum PDF projections respectively.[]{data-label="fig:projections"}](figures/mes_projection.eps){width="9.0cm"}
A source of systematic error is related to the determination of the PDFs and is due to the limited statistics of the Monte-Carlo and to the uncertainty on the PDF shapes. We obtain variations in the yields ranging from 1 to 18%, depending on the mode. The systematic error due to the non-resonant background extrapolation and interference with signal is in the range 6–21%. Event yields for $B$-background modes fixed in the fit are varied by their respective uncertainties. This results in a systematic uncertainty of 2–12%. We evaluate and correct for possible fit biases with MC experiments. We assign a systematic uncertainty of 1–7% for this.
The reconstruction efficiency depends on the decay polarization. For the [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+$]{}mode we calculate the efficiency using the measured polarization (combined for the two [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^+$]{}modes) and assign a systematic uncertainty corresponding to the total polarization measurement error (9 and 20% for each mode respectively). For the other modes we exploit the correlation between ${\cal B}$ and $f_L$ and obtain the values of ${\cal B}$ from fits where ${\cal B}$ and $f_L$ are free parameters. Fig. \[fig:contour\] shows the behavior of $-2\ln {\cal L}(f_L, {\cal B})$ for the modes with significant signal.
![Distribution of $-2\ln {\cal L} ({\cal B},f_L)$ for [$B^+\rightarrow \rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{}(left) and [$B^0\rightarrow \rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{}(right) decays. The solid dots correspond to the central values and the curves give contours in $\Delta \sqrt{-2\ln {\cal L} ({\cal B},f_L)}=1$ steps.[]{data-label="fig:contour"}](figures/contours.eps){width="8.7cm"}
Additional reconstruction efficiency uncertainties arise from tracking (3–5%), particle identification (1–2%), vertex probability (2%), track multiplicity (1%) and thrust angle (1%). $K^0_S$ and $\pi^0$ reconstruction contribute 2.3% and 3% uncertainty, respectively. Other minor systematic effects are from uncertainty in daughter branching fractions, MC samples statistics, and number of $B$ mesons. The absolute systematic uncertainty in $f_L$ takes into account PDF shape variations (5–10%), $B$ and non-resonant backgrounds (4–8%), and efficiency dependence on the polarization (1–2%). The absolute uncertainty in the charge asymmetry due to track charge bias is less than 1%. PDF variations and fixed $B$-background effects contribute up to 2%.
In summary, we have searched for $B \rightarrow \rho K^*$ and $B \rightarrow f_0(980)K^*$ decays. We observe [$B^+\rightarrow \rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{}, [$B^0\rightarrow \rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{}, [$B^+\rightarrow f_0(980) {K^*}^+$]{}, and [$B^0\rightarrow f_0(980) {K^*}^0$]{} with 7.1, 5.3, 5.0, and 3.5 $\sigma$ significance respectively. We measure the branching fractions or 90% C.L. upper limits, the fractions of longitudinal polarization, and the charge asymmetries, summarized in Table \[tab:results\]. The measured polarization in the [$\rho ^+ {K^*}^0$]{} and [$\rho ^0 {K^*}^0$]{} modes agrees with values measured in $\phi K^*$ decays.
We thank I. Bigi, S. Descotes-Genon, O. Pène, and M. Pennington for their advice on the treatment of non-resonant backgrounds. acknow\_PRL.tex
[99]{}
A. Ali [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. C [**1**]{}, 269 (1979); M. Suzuki, [[Phys. Rev.]{} D [**66**]{}]{}, 054018 (2002).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**93**]{}]{}, 231804 (2004); Belle Collaboration, K.-F. Chen [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**94**]{}]{}, 221804 (2005).
A. Kagan, [Phys. Lett.]{}B [**601**]{}, 151 (2004); C. Bauer [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev.]{} D [**70**]{}]{}, 054015 (2004); P. Colangelo [*et al.*]{}, [Phys. Lett.]{}B [**597**]{}, 291 (2004); M. Ladisa [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev.]{} D [**70**]{}]{}, 114025 (2004); H.n. Li and S. Mishima, [[Phys. Rev.]{} D [**71**]{}]{}, 054025 (2005); M. Beneke [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**96**]{}]{}, 141801 (2006).
D. Atwood and A. Soni, [[Phys. Rev.]{} D [**65**]{}]{}, 073018 (2002); M. Beneke [*et al.*]{}, hep-ph/0604005, submitted to [Phys. Lett.]{}B.
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**91**]{}]{}, 171802 (2003); Belle Collaboration, J. Zhang [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**95**]{}]{}, 141801 (2005); CLEO Collaboration, R. Godang [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**88**]{}]{}, 021802 (2002).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect A [**479**]{}, 1 (2002).
G. Kramer and W.F. Palmer, [[Phys. Rev.]{} D [**45**]{}]{}, 193 (1992).
E.M. Aitala [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**86**]{}]{}, 765 (2001).
W.-M. Yao [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G [**33**]{}, 1 (2006).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev.]{} D [**70**]{}]{}, 032006 (2004).
M. Pvik and F. Le Diberder, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect A [**555**]{}, 356 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate Josephson currents in mesoscopic rings with a weak link which are in or near a topological superconducting phase. As a paradigmatic example, we consider the Kitaev model of a spinless $p$-wave superconductor in one dimension, emphasizing how this model emerges from more realistic settings based on semiconductor nanowires. We show that the flux periodicity of the Josephson current provides signatures of the topological phase transition and the emergence of Majorana fermions situated on both sides of the weak link even when fermion parity is *not* a good quantum number. In large rings, the Majorana fermions hybridize only across the weak link. In this case, the Josephson current is $h/e$ periodic in the flux threading the loop when fermion parity is a good quantum number but reverts to the more conventional $h/2e$ periodicity in the presence of fermion-parity changing relaxation processes. In mesoscopic rings, the Majorana fermions also hybridize through their overlap in the interior of the superconducting ring. We find that in the topological superconducting phase, this gives rise to an $h/e$-periodic contribution even when fermion parity is not conserved and that this contribution exhibits a peak near the topological phase transition. This signature of the topological phase transition is robust to the effects of disorder. As a byproduct, we find that close to the topological phase transition, disorder drives the system deeper into the topological phase. This is in stark contrast to the known behavior far from the phase transition, where disorder tends to suppress the topological phase.'
author:
- Falko Pientka
- Alessandro Romito
- Mathias Duckheim
- Yuval Oreg
- Felix von Oppen
title: Signatures of topological phase transitions in mesoscopic superconducting rings
---
Introduction
============
On the way to scalable quantum information processing Majorana fermions (MF) in topological superconductors are a promising candidate for the implementation of quantum bits in solid-state devices [@Kitaev2001; @Nayak2008]. Since information in such systems is stored and processed in a nonlocal fashion by means of their non-Abelian statistics [@Read2000; @Ivanov2001], Majorana-based qubits are immune to local fermionic parity conserving perturbations which impair other qubit realizations. Manipulation of such topologically protected qubits requires braiding of MFs, which is well-defined only in two dimensions. However, different schemes have been proposed [@Fu2008; @Alicea2011; @Flensberg2011; @Romito2012] to enable braiding of MF in one dimensional systems. Several suggestions for one-dimensional physical realizations that host Majorana bound states (MBS) have been made. These suggestions are based on conventional superconductors in proximity to various systems including a topological insulator edge [@Fu2008], semiconductor wires in a magnetic field [@Lutchyn2010; @Oreg2010], and half metals [@Duckheim2011; @Chung2011].
Recently, more realistic investigations have elucidated the effects of interactions and disorder. In general interactions [@Gangadharaiah2011; @Sela2011; @Stoudenmire2011] or disorder with short range correlations [@Motrunich2001; @Potter2010; @Potter2011a; @Potter2011b; @Brouwer2011; @Brouwer2011a; @Stanescu2011] can greatly affect the range of parameters in which the system supports topological boundary states or even cause the topological phase to break down completely if the interaction [@Gangadharaiah2011] or disorder [@Motrunich2001] strength exceed certain critical values. Long-range correlated disorder in a topological superconductor creates nontopological domains with MF localized at the domain walls [@Flensberg2010; @Shivamoggi2010; @Lutchyn2011]. Several proposals have been put forward to access MFs experimentally based on interferometry [@Fu2009a; @Hassler2010] or transport properties such as tunneling conductance peak [@Law2009; @Flensberg2010; @Leijnse2011], half-integer conductance plateaus [@Wimmer2011], or signatures in the shot noise [@Bolech2007; @Akhmerov2011]. Recent experiments have reported possible signatures of Majorana bound states in the differential tunneling conductance of semiconductor quantum wires [@Mourik2012; @Deng2012; @Das2012].
A more specific way of detecting MFs is to measure the Josephson current across a weak link between two topological superconductors [@Kitaev2001; @Fu2009; @Oreg2010; @Lutchyn2010; @Alicea2011] that arises due to a phase difference of the superconducting order parameters. If the weak link is incorporated into a ring made of a conventional superconductor, the current flowing through the junction is a periodic function of flux with period $h/2e$ (corresponding to $2\pi$ periodicity in the phase difference), associated with the transfer of Cooper pairs across the junction. In a ring made of a topological superconductor, there is a MBS on each side of the junction and the tunneling current obtains a component that is $h/e$ periodic [@Akhmerov2011] (corresponding to $4\pi$ periodicity in the phase difference). This doubling of the flux period with respect to the ordinary Josephson effect originates from single-electron tunneling mediated by the MBS and is dubbed fractional Josephson effect.
The $h/e$-periodic Josephson current is observed as long as the fermion number parity of the system is conserved. Once the system is in strict thermodynamic equilibrium, including relaxation processes which change fermion parity, the Josephson current reverts to the conventional $h/2e$ periodicity. Indeed, the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current has equal magnitude but opposite signs for even and odd fermion parities, so that it averages to zero in the presence of fermion-parity changing processes. Possible workarounds that do not require strict parity conservation rely on the $ac$ Josephson effect [@Kwon2004; @Jiang2011], or finite-frequency current noise [@Badiane2011]. Experimental signatures of a fractional Josephson effect in Shapiro step measurements have been claimed recently [@Rokhinson2012].
Here we show that in mesoscopic rings with a weak link, the presence of Majorana fermions can lead to an $h/e$-periodic Josephson current even in thermodynamic equilibrium and in the presence of fermion-parity-breaking relaxation processes. This $h/e$-periodic contribution exists in the topological superconducting phase and peaks in magnitude near the topological phase transition, providing an experimental signature of the phase transition. We investigate this signature for a spinless $p$-wave superconductor wire, the Kitaev chain [@Motrunich2001; @Kitaev2001]. which is a paradigmatic model exhibiting a topological phase transition. This model also arises as an effective low-energy theory in more realistic situations such as the quantum-wire proposals of Refs. and . In a ring geometry, the Majorana bound states hybridize not only due to the tunneling across the weak link but also through the superconducting interior of the ring. The latter overlap is exponentially small in the ratio of the ring circumference and the superconducting coherence length governing the spatial extent of the Majorana bound states. As one approaches the topological phase transition, the superconducting coherence length diverges and the interior overlap between the Majorana bound states becomes significant. This causes a peak of the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current near the topological phase transition [^1].
After discussing this effect in clean rings, we extend our considerations to disordered rings. We show that the signature of the topological phase transition is robust and survives under more realistic conditions. This issue also leads us to study the influence of disorder in the vicinity of the topological phase transition of the Kitaev chain which had not been discussed previously. Previous work [@Motrunich2001; @Potter2010; @Brouwer2011; @Brouwer2011a] on disorder effects in the Kitaev chain or models of quantum wires focused on the regime of large chemical potential (measured from the lower band edge), $\mu \gg m\Delta'^2$, where $\Delta'$ denotes the effective $p$-wave order parameter of the Kitaev chain in the continuum limit. In this regime, the topological region in the phase diagram shrinks with increasing disorder [@Brouwer2011]. In contrast, the topological phase transition in the Kitaev chain occurs for $\mu=0$ and thus in the opposite regime of $\mu\ll m\Delta'^2$. Remarkably, we find that in this regime disorder [*increases*]{} the topological region in the phase diagram.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:model\] we review the Kitaev model for a one-dimensional spinless $p$-wave superconductor and its various regimes. We also discuss how this model is related to quantum-wire based realizations, focusing on the modelling of the magnetic flux through a quantum wire ring in proximity to a bulk superconductor. Section \[sec:signatures\] is dedicated to the flux-periodic Josephson currents in clean rings, focusing on the flux-periodicity as a signature of the topological phase transition. The basic effect is discussed in Sec. \[sec:finite\_ring\], analytical considerations on the magnitude of the effect are given in Sec. \[sec:low\_energy\_model\], and a comparison with numerical results is given in Sec. \[sec:numerics\]. Sec. \[sec:disorder\] extends the considerations to disordered rings. Besides a discussion of the effects of disorder on the Josephson currents, we also study the phase diagram of the disordered wire near the topological phase transition.
Model {#sec:model}
=====
Kitaev model of a one-dimensional spinless $p$-wave superconductor {#sec:kitaev_basics}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis starts with the Kitaev model of a one-dimensional spinless $p$-wave superconductor [@Kitaev2001; @Motrunich2001] $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm TB}&=-\mu_{\rm TB} \sum_{j=1}^N c^\dagger_j c_j\nonumber\\
&-\sum_{j=1}^{N-1} (t c_j^\dagger c_{j+1}+\Delta_{\rm TB} c_jc_{j+1}+\mathrm{h.c.}),
\label{Kitaev_TB_Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ which describes a wire of $N$ sites. Electrons on site $j$ are annihilated by $c_j$, hop between neighboring sites with hopping amplitude $t$, and have chemical potential $\mu_\mathrm{TB}$. For all numerical calculations in this paper we choose $t=1$. The $p$-wave pairing strength is given by $\Delta_\mathrm{TB}$. Here, we label both the chemical potential and the pairing strength by the subscript TB to distinguish these parameters of the tight-binding model (\[Kitaev\_TB\_Hamiltonian\]) from their analogs in the continuum model introduced below. The wire can be closed into a ring with a weak link by an additional hopping term between sites $1$ and $N$, $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm T}=-t' c_N^\dagger c_1 + \mathrm{h.c.}, \label{Kitaev_TB_tunneling_Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ with hopping amplitude $t'$. We assume that charging effects are weak and can be neglected (see Refs. for consequences of charging in ring-like structures).
For an infinite and uniform wire, the Kitaev Hamiltonian (\[Kitaev\_TB\_Hamiltonian\]) exhibits a phase transition when the chemical potential $\mu_\mathrm{TB}$ crosses one of the band edges. The system is in a topological (nontopological) superconducting phase when the chemical potential is within (outside) the interval $[-2t,2t]$, i.e., within (outside) the band at vanishing pairing $\Delta_{\mathrm{TB}}=0$. The spectrum exhibits a superconducting gap on both sides of the topological phase transition while the gap closes at the topological critical points $|\mu_\mathrm{TB}| = 2t$. It is thus natural to introduce the chemical potential measured from the lower band edge, i.e., $\mu=\mu_{\mathrm{TB}}+2t$.
In the vicinity of the band edges (say the lower band edge) and thus of the topological phase transition, we can make a continuum approximation to the tight-binding model (\[Kitaev\_TB\_Hamiltonian\]). We will mostly employ the tight-binding model in the first part of the manuscript, while we partially find it more convenient to rely on the continuum approximation in dealing with effects of disorder in Sec. \[sec:disorder\]. The continuum model is formulated in terms of the corresponding Bogoliubov–de Gennes Hamiltonian [@Motrunich2001; @Kitaev2001] $$\begin{aligned}
H=\begin{bmatrix} \frac{p^2}{2m}+V(x)-\mu & \frac{1}{2}\left\lbrace\Delta'(x) ,p\right\rbrace\\
\frac{1}{2}\left\lbrace\Delta'(x),p\right\rbrace& -\left(\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(x)-\mu\right) \end{bmatrix} \label{Kitaev_hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta'(x)$ is the $p$-wave pairing strength and the curly brackets denote the anticommutator. Here, we have included a disorder potential $V(x)$ which we will return to in more detail in Sec. \[sec:disorder\]. For $V(x)=0 $ the bulk spectrum of the continuum model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_p=\pm\left[ \left(\frac{p^2}{2m}-\mu\right)^2+|\Delta'|^2 p^2\right]^{1/2} , \label{Kitaev_spectrum}\end{aligned}$$ which becomes gapless for $\mu=0$. This indicates the above-mentioned topological phase transition between a topological phase with $\mu>0$ and a nontopological phase for $\mu<0$.
![(Color online) Bulk spectrum Eq. (\[Kitaev\_spectrum\]) of Kitaev’s model for a spinless $p$-wave superconductor in the regimes (a) $\mu\gg m\Delta'^2$ and (b) $0<\mu\ll m\Delta'^2$.[]{data-label="fig:spectrum"}](spec_largemu.pdf "fig:"){width=".23\textwidth"} ![(Color online) Bulk spectrum Eq. (\[Kitaev\_spectrum\]) of Kitaev’s model for a spinless $p$-wave superconductor in the regimes (a) $\mu\gg m\Delta'^2$ and (b) $0<\mu\ll m\Delta'^2$.[]{data-label="fig:spectrum"}](spec_smallmu.pdf "fig:"){width=".23\textwidth"}
In a semi-infinite wire, the topological phase is characterized by a Majorana bound state localized near its end point. The Majorana bound state has zero energy and a wave function that decays exponentially into the wire on the scale of the superconducting coherence length $\xi$. In a finite wire, the Majorana bound states localized at the two ends of the wire hybridize and form a conventional Dirac fermion whose energy $\epsilon_0$ scales like the overlap of the two Majorana end states which is exponentially small in the length $L$ of the wire. The wavefunction of the Majorana bound state depends on the parameter regime (see, e.g., Ref. ). This is easily seen by determining the allowed wavevectors at zero energy from Eq. (\[Kitaev\_spectrum\]), which yields $$\begin{aligned}
p_0& =\pm im|\Delta'|\pm \sqrt{2m\mu-m^2|\Delta'|^2}.\label{MBS_wavevector}
\end{aligned}$$
\(i) $\mu\gg m\Delta'^2$: Deep in the topological phase, the bulk excitation spectrum Eq. (\[Kitaev\_spectrum\]) has two minima around $\pm p_F=\pm\sqrt{2m\mu}$ with a gap $\Delta_{\rm eff}^{(i)}\approx p_F\Delta'$ (see Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]a). According to Eq. (\[MBS\_wavevector\]), the Majorana wavefunctions decay on the scale $\xi=1/m\Delta'$ and oscillate with a much shorter period $1/p_F$. In a finite wire the hybridization energy is given by (cf. appendix \[appendice\]) $\epsilon_0= 2\Delta'p_F|\sin(p_F L)|\exp(-L/\xi)$, which has accidental degeneracies at integer values of $p_FL/ \pi$.
\(ii) $\mu\ll m\Delta'^2$: Near the topological phase transition at $\mu=0$, the excitation spectrum has only a single minimum at $p=0$ with a gap of order $\mu$ (see Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]b). At low energies, we can neglect the kinetic energy in Eq. (\[Kitaev\_hamiltonian\]) and the spinless $p$-wave superconductor can be approximately described by the Dirac Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H\simeq -\mu\tau_z+\Delta' p\tau_x. \label{Dirac_Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[MBS\_wavevector\]) gives $p_0\approx \pm i\mu/\Delta'$, so that the spatial extent of the Majorana wavefunction is governed by the coherence length $\xi=\Delta'/\mu$, which diverges at the topological phase transition. In contrast to the previous regime, the end-state energy does not exhibit oscillations, $\epsilon_0 \propto \exp(-L/\xi)$.
Magnetic flux {#sec:magnetic_flux}
-------------
![(Color online) Two possible setups for a quantum wire with a tunneling junction in proximity to an $s$-wave superconductor. (a) The bulk superconductor is interrupted by an insulating region underneath the weak link in the wire. (b) The bulk superconductor forms a continuous ring and only the wire contains a weak link.[]{data-label="fig:setup"}](rings.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
In the presence of a magnetic flux threading the ring, both the tunneling amplitude and the pairing strength become complex and acquire a phase. The precise nature of these phases depends on the physical realization of the Kitaev chain. We illustrate this point by discussing two possible setups based on the proposal to realize the Kitaev chain in a semiconductor wire proximity coupled to an $s$-wave superconductor [@Lutchyn2010; @Oreg2010], as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:setup\]:
1. The $s$-wave superconductor is interrupted underneath the weak link in the quantum wire. Current can flow around the loop only through the semiconductor weak link.
2. The $s$-wave superconductor forms a closed ring and a weak link exists only in the semiconductor wire. The current through the weak link of the semiconductor will in general be only a small perturbation of the current flowing through the superconductor.
We assume that the thickness of the superconducting ring is small compared to both its London penetration depth and its superconducting coherence length $\xi_{\mathrm{SC}}$. The supercurrent flowing in the superconductor is given by [@Tinkham1975] $$\begin{aligned}
J_s=\frac{2e}{m^*}|\psi|^2\left(\hbar\nabla\varphi-2 eA\right),\label{supercurrent}\end{aligned}$$ where $m^*$ and $|\psi|^2$ are the effective mass and density of the superconducting electrons and $\varphi$ denotes the phase of the $s$-wave order parameter. The $p$-wave pairing potential in the quantum wire inherits its phase $\varphi$ from the $s$-wave superconductor underneath via the proximity effect. (The effective $p$-wave order parameter may have an additional phase shift that depends on geometric details such as the direction of the Zeeman field and the spin-orbit coupling; however, these contributions lead to constant offsets of the phase which are unaffected by the magnetic flux.) The vector potential ${\bf A}$ oriented along the wire is related to the Aharonov–Bohm flux $\phi$ through $$\begin{aligned}
\phi=\oint\mathrm{d}x A(x)\label{stokes_theorem},\end{aligned}$$ where the integral is taken around the ring of circumference $L$.
The phase of the order parameter $\varphi$ is different for the two setups illustrated in Fig. \[fig:setup\]. In setup (a), no supercurrent is able to flow since the loop is interrupted, $J_s=0$. If we choose a gauge in which the vector potential is uniform around the ring, $A(x) = \phi/L$, the phase $\varphi$ of the order parameter becomes $\varphi (x) = 4\pi(\phi/\phi_0)(x/L)$ in terms of the normal-metal flux quantum $\phi_0 = h/e$. In setup (b), the supercurrent around the ring is governed by fluxoid quantization $\varphi (x+L) = \varphi(x) + 2\pi n$, with the integer $n$ labeling the fluxoid states. In a gauge in which $A(x)=\phi/L$, this implies that $\nabla \varphi = 2\pi n/L$, yielding a supercurrent of $J_s = (2e/m^*)|\psi|^2 [2\pi \hbar n/L - 2e A]$. Here, $[x]$ denotes the integer closest to $x$. In thermodynamic equilibrium, the system realizes the fluxoid state of lowest energy and thus of lowest supercurrent, i.e., $n=[\phi/(\phi_0/2)]$.
Within the chosen gauge, in setup (a) the hopping amplitude and the pair potential in the tight binding Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Kitaev\_TB\_Hamiltonian\]) take the form $t \to t e^{i 2\pi \phi/N\phi_0}$ and $\Delta_\mathrm{TB} \to \Delta_\mathrm{TB}e^{i 4\pi (\phi/\phi_0) (j/N)}$. Alternatively one can perform the gauge transformation $c_j \to c_j e^{-i(j-1/2) 2 \pi \phi/N \phi_0}$ which eliminates the phase from the pair potential. In this new gauge, both the pair potential and the hopping amplitude $t$ in the interior of the ring are real while the hopping amplitude across the weak link acquires a phase factor, $t^\prime \to t^\prime e^{i2\pi \phi/\phi_0}$. Our numerical results will be obtained for this representation of the tight-binding model. In contrast, in setup (b), we find $\Delta_\mathrm{TB} \to \Delta_\mathrm{TB}e^{i 2\pi [\phi/(\phi_0/2)] (j/N) }$ for the pair potential (notice the closest integer symbol $[.]$ in the exponent), while $t \to t e^{i 2\pi \phi/N\phi_0}$ as well as $t^\prime \to t^\prime e^{i 2\pi \phi/N\phi_0}$. As in the previous case (a), we can eliminate the phase of the pair potential by a gauge transformation. However, this no longer eliminates the phase of the hopping matrix element $t$. Instead, one finds $t \to t e^{i (\pi/N) \{ \phi/(\phi_0/2) - [\phi/(\phi_0/2)] \} }$ and $t^\prime \to t^\prime e^{i (\pi/N) \{ \phi/(\phi_0/2) +(N-1) [\phi/(\phi_0/2)]\} }$. The fact that we can no longer eliminate the magnetic flux from the bulk of the wire is a manifestation of the fact that supercurrents in the $s$-wave superconductor modify the spectrum of the quantum wire [@Romito2012].
Clearly, the effective Kitaev chain is quite different for setups (a) and (b). In the remainder of this paper, we will focus on setup (a) where the flux enters only into the tunneling Hamiltonian representing the weak link. In this setting, the current in the semiconductor wire of interest here is experimentally more accessible since there is no background current in the bulk $s$-wave superconductor unlike in setup (b).
Clean rings {#sec:signatures}
===========
Infinite wire
-------------
We first briefly review the Josephson effect of two semi-infinite wires connected at their ends through a weak link (or equivalently, a ring of infinite circumference), as originally considered by Kitaev [@Kitaev2001]. The corresponding low-energy excitation spectrum as a function of flux is sketched in Fig. \[fig:flux\]a. Due to the Majorana end states, there are two subgap states whose energies are governed by the tunneling amplitude across the weak link. While each individual level is periodic in flux with period $h/e$, the overall spectrum is $h/2e$ periodic. As a result, the thermodynamic ground state energy of the system – and thus the Josephson current in strict thermodynamic equilibrium – are $h/2e$ periodic.
At the same time, the $h/e$ periodicity of the individual subgap states is a direct consequence of the Majorana nature of the endstates. This signature of Majorana fermions can be brought out in measurements of the Josephson current if the fermion parity of the system is a good quantum number. The level crossing of the two Majorana subgap states in Fig. \[fig:flux\]a is then protected by fermion parity conservation. As a result, since there is only a single level crossing per superconducting flux quantum, the system necessarily goes from the ground state to an excited state (or vice versa) when changing the flux by $h/2e$. During this process, the excited state is unable to relax to the ground state since this would require a change in fermion parity. Thus, the system only returns to its initial state after a change in flux of $h/e$, which corresponds to the fractional Josephson effect.
Finite size ring {#sec:finite_ring}
----------------
![(Color online) (a) Typical Bogoliubov–de Gennes spectrum as a function of phase difference across the junction between two semi-infinite wires in the topological phase with the tunneling amplitude $\Gamma$ and the gap $\Delta_{\rm eff}$. The two low-energy Majorana states represented by the dashed and solid lines are related by particle-hole symmetry. The continuum of states outside the gap is displayed in gray. The thermodynamic ground state has period $h/2e$. (b) Numerical results for the subgap spectrum of a mesoscopic ring with finite circumference for $\Delta=1$, $\mu=-1.8$, $t'=0.01$. We set $t=1$ for all numerical calculations in this paper. The parameters correspond to $\xi=9.5$ and the different curves display data for ring circumferences $L=95,52,38$ all in units of the lattice spacing. As the circumference of the wire decreases the overlap through the topological superconductor in Eq. (\[low\_energy\_Hamiltonian\]) increases. Note that the equilibrium ground state always has $h/e$ periodicity in rings of finite circumference.[]{data-label="fig:flux"}](MBS_flux.pdf "fig:"){width=".24\textwidth"} ![(Color online) (a) Typical Bogoliubov–de Gennes spectrum as a function of phase difference across the junction between two semi-infinite wires in the topological phase with the tunneling amplitude $\Gamma$ and the gap $\Delta_{\rm eff}$. The two low-energy Majorana states represented by the dashed and solid lines are related by particle-hole symmetry. The continuum of states outside the gap is displayed in gray. The thermodynamic ground state has period $h/2e$. (b) Numerical results for the subgap spectrum of a mesoscopic ring with finite circumference for $\Delta=1$, $\mu=-1.8$, $t'=0.01$. We set $t=1$ for all numerical calculations in this paper. The parameters correspond to $\xi=9.5$ and the different curves display data for ring circumferences $L=95,52,38$ all in units of the lattice spacing. As the circumference of the wire decreases the overlap through the topological superconductor in Eq. (\[low\_energy\_Hamiltonian\]) increases. Note that the equilibrium ground state always has $h/e$ periodicity in rings of finite circumference.[]{data-label="fig:flux"}](fourier_emerge.pdf "fig:"){width=".23\textwidth"}
For rings with finite circumference, the two Majorana bound states localized at the two banks of the weak link hybridize not only through the tunnel coupling across the weak link but also because of the overlap of their wavefunctions in the topological superconductor. In the previous subsection, we considered the situation in which this interior hybridization is vanishingly small compared to tunneling across the weak link. Conversely, when tunneling across the weak link is negligible compared to the interior hybridization, the splitting of the Majoranas due to the interior overlap does not depend on flux. Weak tunneling across the junction will then cause a small $h/e$-periodic modulation of the split Majorana levels with flux. In this situation, even the [*thermodynamic*]{} ground state energy becomes $h/e$ periodic, regardless of the presence or absence of fermion parity violating processes. In fact, of the two $h/e$-periodic levels, the negative-energy level (which is occupied in equilibrium) corresponds to an even-parity ground state while the positive-energy level is occupied in the odd-parity first excited state. Weak fermion parity violating processes will not destroy the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current as the two levels no longer cross as function of flux.
The full crossover of the Bogoliubov–de Gennes spectrum as the interior overlap of the Majorana bound states increases is illustrated with numerical results in Fig. \[fig:flux\]b (see Sec. \[sec:numerics\] for details on the numerical calculations). They confirm the above picture for the limit of strong overlap. But they also show that an $h/e$-periodic contribution to the equilibrium Josephson current exists even when the interior splitting is of the order of or smaller than the tunnel coupling across the weak link. Indeed, the interior overlap essentially pushes one of the two states (dashed line) up in energy, while it pushes its particle-hole conjugate state (solid line) down. At small interior overlaps, this shifts the two level crossings (initially at $\phi_0/4$ and $3\phi_0/4$) outwards towards a flux of zero and one flux quantum $\phi_0$. Note that the level crossings remain intact, protected by fermion parity conservation. However, once the level crossings reach a flux of zero and $\phi_0$, respectively, the levels merely touch at these points. Thus, fermion parity no longer protects the levels from splitting, and indeed one state remains at finite and negative energies at all values of flux while, symmetrically, its particle-hole conjugate state remains at finite and positive energies.
Consider now the Josephson current as function of flux in the presence of weak but finite fermion parity violating processes. Specifically, we assume that the flux is varied by $h/e$ on a time scale which is large compared to the relaxation time of the fermion parity while at the same time, the fermion parity violating processes are weak compared to the hybridization of the Majorana bound states so that the Bogoliubov-de Gennes spectra in Fig. \[fig:flux\] are relevant. In this case, the Josephson current is essentially $h/2e$ periodic deep in the topological phase, where $L\gg \xi$. However, as the system approaches the topological phase transition, $\xi$ grows and hence, the hybridization of the Majorana bound states through the interior of the ring increases. As a result, the $h/e$-periodic contribution to the current increases. Conversely, the Majorana bound states disappear on the nontopological side of the phase transition where the Josephson current thus reverts to $h/2e$ periodicity. As a result, we expect a [*peak*]{} in the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current near the topological phase transition, whose measurement would constitute a clear signature of the topological phase transition and the formation of Majorana fermions.
This expectation is confirmed by the numerical results shown in Fig. \[fig:fourier\_component\]a, where the corresponding Fourier coefficient $A_{h/e}=(2e/h)\int_0^{h/e}\mathrm{d}\phi I(\phi)\sin(2\pi e\phi/h)$ of the [*equilibrium*]{} Josephson current $I (\phi)$ is plotted as a function of chemical potential. $A_{h/e}(\mu)$ exhibits a peak in the topological phase ($\mu>0$), which moves closer to the topological phase transition at $\mu=0$ as the ring circumference increases (see Fig. \[fig:fourier\_component\]b).
Deep in the topological phase the Majorana bound states are localized at the weak link. Approaching the phase transition at $\mu=0$, the MBS delocalize. On the one hand, this causes an increase in the overlap of the MBS in the interior of the topological superconductor. As discussed above, this leads to an increase of the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current. On the other hand, however, the probability density of the Majorana bound state near the weak link decreases, causing a suppression of the hybridization of the Majorana bound states across the weak link and hence of the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current. Thus, the peak occurs for the value of $\mu$ where the interior overlap splitting is equal to the tunnel coupling. Since the interior overlap is exponentially small in $L/\xi$ while the hybridization across the weak link is roughly independent of the ring’s circumference $L$, the peak position shifts towards the phase transition point at $\mu=0$ with increasing $L$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:fourier\_component\]c). Since at the same time the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current becomes suppressed when the systems is approaching the phase transition, the peak is more pronounced in shorter rings.
Low-energy Hamiltonian {#sec:low_energy_model}
----------------------
A more quantitative description can be developed by restricting the Hamiltonian to the low-energy subspace spanned by the two Majorana bound states. The projection of the tunneling Hamiltonian across the weak link onto this subspace yields $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm T}=-\Gamma\cos(2\pi \phi/\phi_0) (d_{\rm M}^\dagger d_{\rm M}-1/2), \label{effective_tunneling_hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ where $d_M$ is the Dirac fermion constructed from the two Majorana bound states. The parameter $\Gamma$ measures the tunnel coupling of the Majorana bound states across the weak link and is given by (cf. Eq. (\[good-for-plots\]) in appendix \[appendice\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma=\frac{ t'\mu (4t-\mu) \Delta_{\mathrm{TB}} }{ t(t+\Delta_{\mathrm{TB}})^2} \label{gamma_mean}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the factor of $\mu$ accounts for the probability density of the Majorana wavefunction at the junction, which vanishes at the phase transition.
The overlap of the Majorana end-states in the interior of the wire leads to an additional coupling (cf. appendix \[appendice\]) $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\mathrm{overlap}}=\epsilon_0 \left(d_M^{\dag} d_M-1/2\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\epsilon_0 =2 \mu \exp(-L/\xi)
\label{energy-splitting}$$ measures the strength of the overlap.
Combining these two contributions for a mesoscopic ring near the topological phase transition ($\mu\ll m{\Delta^\prime}^2$), the effective low-energy Hamiltonian reads as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm eff}&=\left[\epsilon_0-\Gamma\cos\left(\frac{2\pi\phi}{\phi_0}\right)\right]\left(d_{\rm M}^\dagger d_{\rm M}-1/2\right).\label{low_energy_Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ The Bogoliubov–de Gennes spectrum of this Hamiltonian reproduces the numerically calculated subgap spectra depicted in Fig. \[fig:flux\]b.
![(Color online) (a) Numerical results for the $h/e$-periodic Fourier component of the Josephson current, $A_{h/e}$, as a function of chemical potential in a ring with $\Delta_{\rm TB}=1$ and $L=200$ (blue dots) together with analytical expression Eqs. (\[fourier\]) (red solid line). Inset: numerical results for $\epsilon_0$ (blue squares) and $\Gamma$ (red circles) together with the corresponding analytical expressions (gray dashed curves) Eqs. (\[energy-splitting\]) and (\[gamma\_mean\]). (b) $h/e$-periodic Fourier component (solid), $h/2e$-periodic Fourier component (dashed), and the maximum tunneling current of the MBS, $e\Gamma/h$. (c) $A_{h/e}$ for different ring circumferences $L$. []{data-label="fig:fourier_component"}](fourier_analyt.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}\
![(Color online) (a) Numerical results for the $h/e$-periodic Fourier component of the Josephson current, $A_{h/e}$, as a function of chemical potential in a ring with $\Delta_{\rm TB}=1$ and $L=200$ (blue dots) together with analytical expression Eqs. (\[fourier\]) (red solid line). Inset: numerical results for $\epsilon_0$ (blue squares) and $\Gamma$ (red circles) together with the corresponding analytical expressions (gray dashed curves) Eqs. (\[energy-splitting\]) and (\[gamma\_mean\]). (b) $h/e$-periodic Fourier component (solid), $h/2e$-periodic Fourier component (dashed), and the maximum tunneling current of the MBS, $e\Gamma/h$. (c) $A_{h/e}$ for different ring circumferences $L$. []{data-label="fig:fourier_component"}](fourier.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}\
![(Color online) (a) Numerical results for the $h/e$-periodic Fourier component of the Josephson current, $A_{h/e}$, as a function of chemical potential in a ring with $\Delta_{\rm TB}=1$ and $L=200$ (blue dots) together with analytical expression Eqs. (\[fourier\]) (red solid line). Inset: numerical results for $\epsilon_0$ (blue squares) and $\Gamma$ (red circles) together with the corresponding analytical expressions (gray dashed curves) Eqs. (\[energy-splitting\]) and (\[gamma\_mean\]). (b) $h/e$-periodic Fourier component (solid), $h/2e$-periodic Fourier component (dashed), and the maximum tunneling current of the MBS, $e\Gamma/h$. (c) $A_{h/e}$ for different ring circumferences $L$. []{data-label="fig:fourier_component"}](fourier_length.pdf "fig:"){width=".48\textwidth"}
In principle, both the negative energy continuum states as well as the negative energy subgap state contribute to the equilibrium Josephson current. If we denote the sum over all negative excitation energies by $E_0(\phi)$, we can write the equilibrium Josephson current as $I(\phi)=-\partial_\phi E_0(\phi)$. However, it is natural to expect and will be coroborated by our numerical results that the Josephson current is dominated by the contribution of the subgap state $I(\phi)\simeq \partial_\phi|\epsilon_0-\Gamma\cos(2\pi\phi/\phi_0)|/2$. Thus, it is straight-forward to compute the $h/e$-periodic Fourier component of the Josephson current, $$\begin{aligned}
A_{h/e} = \left\lbrace
\begin{matrix}\frac{e\Gamma}{\pi \hbar} \left[\frac{\epsilon_0}{\Gamma}\sqrt{1-\frac{\epsilon_0^2}{\Gamma^2}} + \arcsin\left( \frac{\epsilon_0}{\Gamma} \right) \right], & \epsilon_0 <\Gamma \\
\frac{e\Gamma}{2\hbar},& \epsilon_0 >\Gamma\end{matrix} \right. .
\label{fourier}\end{aligned}$$ In the next section, we compare this analytical result with numerics and find nice agreement.
Numerical Results {#sec:numerics}
-----------------
To obtain numerical results for the Josephson current, we solve the Hamiltonian defined in Eqs. (\[Kitaev\_TB\_Hamiltonian\]) and (\[Kitaev\_TB\_tunneling\_Hamiltonian\]) by exact diagonalization. Fig. \[fig:fourier\_component\]a compares the amplitude of the $h/e$-periodic component as a function of chemical potential with the analytical result in Eq. (\[fourier\]). The numerical results agree well with the behavior predicted by the low-energy model, except for small deviations in the immediate vicinity of the phase transition at $\mu=0$. In the inset of Fig. \[fig:fourier\_component\]a we compare the analytical and numerical results for the quantities $\Gamma$ and $\epsilon_0$ appearing in the low-energy Hamiltonian. While the model correctly captures $\epsilon_0$ in the regime of interest, there are deviations of $\Gamma$ near $\mu=0$. These discrepancies are readily understood as a consequence of the finite circumference of the ring. Although the coherence length diverges at the phase transition, the Majorana bound states can delocalize at most throughout the entire length of the ring there remains a finite probability density of the Majorana bound state wavefunction at the weak link.
Figure \[fig:fourier\_component\]b shows that the left flank of the peak of $A_{h/e}$ and $e\Gamma/h$ deviate slightly. This deviation is a measure of the size of the bulk contribution to the $h/e$-periodic current. The latter can thus be seen to be small, justifying our focus on the low-energy Hamiltonian (12) describing the Majorana bound states only. In the same figure, the $h/2e$ component is plotted, showing that the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current exceeds the $h/2e$ component. This is a consequence of the tunneling regime that favors single-electron tunneling over the tunneling of Cooper pairs.
In Fig. \[fig:fourier\_component\]c, we show how the position of the peak in $A_{h/e}$ depends on the circumference of the ring. We find that the value of $\mu$ where the peak occurs scales as $1/L$. This result can be understood as follows. $\Gamma$ is essentially independent of the length of the ring, while $\epsilon_0$ scales as $\sim\exp(-L/\xi)$. As we have seen above the peak occurs at $\epsilon_0=\Gamma$. For given $t$, $\Delta_{\rm TB}$, and $t'$, $\Gamma$ is fixed and the peak occurs at a constant value of the ratio $L/\xi$. Since $\xi \sim 1/\mu$, the value of $\mu$ where the peak occurs scales as $1/L$. Also note that the above-mentioned tail of the peak at $\mu\leq 0$ originating from finite-size corrections is more pronounced in shorter rings.
Effects of disorder {#sec:disorder}
===================
$h/e$-periodic Josephson current in disordered rings
----------------------------------------------------
![(Color online) (a) Numerical results for the $h/e$-periodic Fourier component of the Josephson current, $A_{h/e}$, as function of chemical potential for a clean ring (black solid line) and disordered rings with four disorder configurations (green dashed lines) corresponding to $l=5$. (b) $A_{h/e}$ for a clean wire (black solid line) together with the histogram of the peak position in the presence of disorder for $l=75$ as a color code (green (gray) area). (c) Same as (b) with $l=5$. For all plots we chose $L=20$ and $\Delta_{\rm TB}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:histres"}](peak_disorder_examp.pdf "fig:"){width=".46\textwidth"}\
![(Color online) (a) Numerical results for the $h/e$-periodic Fourier component of the Josephson current, $A_{h/e}$, as function of chemical potential for a clean ring (black solid line) and disordered rings with four disorder configurations (green dashed lines) corresponding to $l=5$. (b) $A_{h/e}$ for a clean wire (black solid line) together with the histogram of the peak position in the presence of disorder for $l=75$ as a color code (green (gray) area). (c) Same as (b) with $l=5$. For all plots we chose $L=20$ and $\Delta_{\rm TB}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:histres"}](peak_disorder_low.pdf "fig:"){width=".46\textwidth"} ![(Color online) (a) Numerical results for the $h/e$-periodic Fourier component of the Josephson current, $A_{h/e}$, as function of chemical potential for a clean ring (black solid line) and disordered rings with four disorder configurations (green dashed lines) corresponding to $l=5$. (b) $A_{h/e}$ for a clean wire (black solid line) together with the histogram of the peak position in the presence of disorder for $l=75$ as a color code (green (gray) area). (c) Same as (b) with $l=5$. For all plots we chose $L=20$ and $\Delta_{\rm TB}=1$.[]{data-label="fig:histres"}](peak_disorder_high.pdf "fig:"){width=".46\textwidth"}
In this section we investigate the fate of the peak in the equilibrium $h/e$-periodic Josephson current in the presence of disorder. Our main results are:
1. The typical peak height is not affected by disorder as long as the mean free path is longer than the circumference of the ring. Thus the signature persists in the presence of moderate disorder.
2. For stronger disorder the peak height decreases and the peak position is shifted to lower chemical potentials.
To study the effect of disorder we add a random onsite potential $\sum_i V_i c_i^\dagger c_i$ to the tight-binding Hamiltonian (\[Kitaev\_TB\_Hamiltonian\]) and (\[Kitaev\_TB\_tunneling\_Hamiltonian\]), where the $V_i$ are taken from a uniform distribution over the interval $[-W,+W]$. The mean free path is then related to the disorder strength as $l\propto 1/W^2$ [^2]. To obtain numerical results we compute the spectrum by exact diagonalization. Disorder affects the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current by introducing fluctuations in the quantities $\epsilon_0$ and $\Gamma$. While $\Gamma$ is mainly affected by local fluctuations of the probability density of the Majorana wavefunction at the junction, $\epsilon_0$ fluctuates due to the disorder potential in the entire ring. The interior overlap in disordered wires has been investigated previously for the continuum model (\[Kitaev\_hamiltonian\]) in regime (i), i.e., $\mu\gg m\Delta'^2$ [@Brouwer2011a], where disorder leads to an increase of $\epsilon_0$ and subsequently to a disorder-induced phase transition to the nontopological phase.
Fig. \[fig:histres\]a shows numerical results for the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current for a few disorder configurations. The peaks in the presence of disorder (green dashed curves) are of comparable height as the peak in the clean ring (black solid curve). The peak shifts as a function of chemical potential which indicates fluctuations of the coherence length due to disorder.
Surprisingly, the peak shifts to lower chemical potentials, corresponding to a decrease in $\epsilon_0$ with disorder in stark contrast to the known case of large $\mu$. This implies that the topological phase is [*stabilized*]{} by disorder if the system is close to the phase transition. To investigate this further we plot the height and position of the peak maxima of many disorder configurations as a color code histogram for $l>L$ in Fig. \[fig:histres\]b and $l<L$ in Fig. \[fig:histres\]c. Indeed the average peak height is comparable to the one in the clean case for $l>L$. When $l\lesssim L$ the average peak height starts to decrease. The histogram in Fig. \[fig:histres\]c confirms that the peak is shifted to lower chemical potentials on average.
![(Color online) Histogram of $\Gamma$ for the same parameters as in Figs. \[fig:histres\]b and c at $\mu=0.4$. The dashed line denotes the value of $\Gamma$ for the clean ring.[]{data-label="fig:histgam"}](hist_gam1.pdf "fig:"){width=".23\textwidth"} ![(Color online) Histogram of $\Gamma$ for the same parameters as in Figs. \[fig:histres\]b and c at $\mu=0.4$. The dashed line denotes the value of $\Gamma$ for the clean ring.[]{data-label="fig:histgam"}](hist_gam2.pdf "fig:"){width=".23\textwidth"}
To understand this behavior we analyze the probability distributions of $\epsilon_0$ and $\Gamma$ over the disorder ensemble. In Fig. \[fig:histgam\] we show numerical results for the histogram of $\Gamma$ corresponding to the two ensembles in Figs. \[fig:histres\]b and c at $\mu=0.4$. For weak disorder the distribution is symmetric with a mean near the zero-disorder tunnel coupling. For larger disorder when $l<L$ the distribution becomes wider and asymmetric and the average decreases.
In order to determine the probability distribution for $\epsilon_0$ we now turn to the continuum Hamiltonian (\[Kitaev\_hamiltonian\]) for a wire of length $L$ without tunnel junction. To model short-range correlated disorder in the continuum model, we include a disorder potential with zero average $\langle V(x)\rangle =0$ and correlation function $\langle V(x) V(x^\prime)\rangle = \gamma \delta(x-x^\prime)$. For this model we employ a numerical method based on a scattering matrix approach [@Brouwer2003; @Bardarson2007; @Brouwer2011]. From the scattering matrix $S$ we obtain the lowest energy eigenstate $\epsilon_0$ by finding the roots of $\mathrm{det}(1-S(\epsilon))$. In this model, the probability distribution of the hybridization energy $\epsilon_0$ has been shown to be log-normal in Ref. . Specifically, it was shown that the log-normal distribution is governed by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\Braket{\ln\left(\epsilon_0/2\Delta_{\rm eff}\right)}&=-L\left(\frac{1}{\xi}-\frac{1}{2l}\right)\\
\text{var} \ln\left(\epsilon_0/2\Delta_{\rm eff}\right)&=\frac{L}{2l}.
\end{split}
\label{langevin_kitaev}\end{aligned}$$ for regime (i). The distribution function reflects the disorder-induced phase transition to the nontopological state at $\xi = 2l$.
![(Color online) Slope of $\Braket{\ln(\epsilon_0(L)/2\Delta_{\rm eff})}$ (see inset) vs. disorder strength $1/l$ for regimes (i) with $\mu=300$ m$\Delta'^2$ (blue dots) and (ii) with $\mu=3\times 10^{-3} $ m$\Delta'^2$ (red crosses) together with theoretical prediction according to Eqs. (\[langevin\_kitaev\]) (dashed line) and (\[langevin\_dirac\]) with $\lambda=1/2$ (solid line). Inset: numerical data (red crosses) and linear fit (solid) of the average of $\ln\epsilon_0$ as a function of $L$ for different disorder strengths.[]{data-label="fig:slope"}](slope.pdf){width=".48\textwidth"}
The numerical results are presented in Fig. \[fig:slope\]. In the inset, we show that the mean of $\ln(\epsilon_0/2\Delta_{\rm eff})$ is indeed linear in $L$ with the slope depending on disorder strength. This slope is plotted as a function of inverse mean free path in Fig. \[fig:slope\]. The data for $\mu=300 m\Delta'^2$ (blue dots) agrees well with the prediction Eq. (\[langevin\_kitaev\]) with the definitions $l=v_F^2/\gamma$ and $\xi=1/m\Delta'$.
The same plot also shows data corresponding to regime (ii), i.e., $\mu\ll m\Delta'^2$, marked by red crosses. Here, we have $l=\Delta'^2/\gamma$ and $\xi=\Delta'/\mu$. Clearly, the behavior is qualitatively different from regime (i), since disorder decreases $\epsilon_0$ rather than increasing it. This is consistent with the shift of the peak of $A_{h/e}$ to lower $\mu$.
In order to gain analytical insight we now derive the probability distribution of $\epsilon_0$ in regime (ii) extending the results of Ref. . The relevant momenta at low energies in this regime are near $p=0$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]b). Linearizing the dispersion around this point yields the Dirac Hamiltonian Eq. (\[Dirac\_Hamiltonian\]), where the disorder potential enters as a random mass term. Since the disorder potential is short-range correlated it couples high- and low-momentum degrees of freedom in the original Hamiltonian. Thus a proper linearization of the Hamiltonian requires one to project out the high-momentum states, which renormalizes the gap.
For a strictly linear model with a random mass term, the overlap $\epsilon_0$ has a log-normal distribution [@Brouwer2011a], $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\Braket{\ln\left(\epsilon_0/2\Delta_{\rm eff}\right)}&=-\frac{L}{\xi},\\
\text{var} \ln\left(\epsilon_0/2\Delta_{\rm eff}\right)&=\frac{L}{l}.\end{split}
\label{langevin_dirac}\end{aligned}$$ Thus for the Dirac Hamiltonian the mean of $\ln\left(\epsilon_0/2\Delta_{\rm eff}\right)$ does not depend on disorder. A systematic linearization of the disordered spinless $p$-wave superconductor in the vicinity of the topological phase transition effectively renormalizes the chemical potential $\mu$ and hence the coherence length $\xi=\Delta'/\mu$.
We start by defining the projection operators $P=\sum_{|p|<p_1}\Ket{\psi_p}\Bra{\psi_p}$ onto the low momentum subspace and $Q=1-P$, where $\lbrace\Ket{\psi_p}\rbrace_p$ is a complete set of momentum eigenstates of the clean Hamiltonian. The relevant momentum scale for this projection is given by $p_1=m\Delta'$, since for $p\ll p_1$, the term $p^2/2m$ constitutes the lowest energy scale of the Kitaev Hamiltonian. Furthermore, we assume that the disorder potential does not affect high momenta $p_1\gg 1/l$. We can now project the clean Kitaev Hamiltonian $H$ to the low- and high-energy subspaces, $$\begin{aligned}
PHP&\simeq P\left[(-\mu+V(x))\tau_z+\Delta'p\tau_x\right]P,\\
QHQ&\simeq Q\left(p^2/2m\right)\tau_zQ.\end{aligned}$$ Both subspaces are exclusively mixed by the disorder potential $PHQ=PV(x)\tau_zQ$. To second order in $V$, the correction to the low-energy Hamiltonian is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta H(p)&\simeq \Braket{\psi_p|PHQ\left(\epsilon_p-QHQ\right)^{-1}QHP|\psi_p}\nonumber\\
&\simeq\sum_{|p'|>p_1}V_{pp'}\frac{1}{\epsilon_p-p'^2/2m\tau_z}V_{p'p}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the short notation $V_{pp'}=\Braket{\psi_p|V(x)|\psi_{p'}}$. Averaging over disorder, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Braket{ \delta H(p)}&\simeq-\sum_{|p'|>p_1}\frac{2m\gamma}{p'^2}\tau_z\sim-\frac{\gamma}{\Delta'}\tau_z.\end{aligned}$$
Thus the renormalization produces a contribution to the low-energy Hamiltonian which has the same structure as the chemical potential term. Hence we find a renormalized chemical potential $\mu'=\mu+\lambda\gamma/\Delta'$ with a numerical factor $\lambda>0$ that cannot be determined from this argument. Thus disorder enters the final result through the renormalized coherence length $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\xi}\rightarrow \frac{1}{\xi}+\frac{\lambda}{l}.\label{renormalized_coherence_length}\end{aligned}$$ The data in Fig. \[fig:slope\] confirm Eqs. (\[langevin\_dirac\]) and (\[renormalized\_coherence\_length\]) and determine the unknown numerical prefactor to be $\lambda=1/2$. Thus for $\mu\ll m\Delta'^2$, $\epsilon_0$ has a log-normal distribution with mean and variance given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\Braket{\ln\left(\epsilon_0/2\Delta_{\rm eff} \right)}&=-L\left(\frac{1}{\xi}+\frac{1}{2l}\right),\\
\text{var} \ln\left(\epsilon_0/2\Delta_{\rm eff}\right)&=\frac{L}{l}.\end{split}\label{probab_distr_eps0}\end{aligned}$$ This result is very similar to Eq. (\[langevin\_kitaev\]) where, however, the disorder correction to the decay length enters with opposite sign. This underlines the contrast between the two regimes, i.e., that disorder drives the system further into the topological phase when it is close to the phase transition, but away from it for larger chemical potentials. Specifically a spinless $p$-wave superconducting wire with negative chemical potential may exhibit edge states with an energy exponentially small in $L$ as long as disorder is strong enough.
Combining the disorder-induced fluctuations of $\Gamma$ and $\epsilon_0$ we can understand the suppression of the peak in the $h/e$-periodic Josephson current in Fig. \[fig:histres\]c for $l< L$. While $\epsilon_0$ is decreased on average for a given $\mu$ with increasing disorder, $\Gamma$ does not increase at the same time and thus the average peak height decreases. However the fluctuations of $\Gamma$ and $\epsilon_0$ become larger as disorder increases such that for single disorder configurations significant peaks are still possible even if the average peak height decreases.
Phase diagram of a disordered wire
----------------------------------
![(Color online) Phase diagram of the continuum model (\[Kitaev\_hamiltonian\]) as function of disorder strength $\gamma$ and chemical potential $\mu$ in the regime $\mu\ll m\Delta'^2$. The data has been averaged over 100 disorder configurations. For $\mu<0$ disorder gives rise to a trivial-to-topological phase transition with a reentrant nontopological phase for stronger disorder. The dashed line denotes the phase transition line $\gamma^{(ii)}_c(\mu)$ valid for small $|\mu|$ given in Eq. (\[phase\_boundary\]). Inset: Phase diagram for a larger range of $\mu$ and $\gamma$. The solid line represents the predicted phase boundary $\gamma^{(i)}_c(\mu)$ for large $\mu$. (The analytical phase boundary is only accurate at large $\mu$ up to sublinear corrections.)[]{data-label="fig:phase_diagram"}](Kit_PD.pdf){width=".48\textwidth"}
Motivated by the contrasting probability distributions of $\epsilon_0$ in the regimes of large and small $\mu$ we numerically calculate the phase diagram of the continuum model (\[Kitaev\_hamiltonian\]) as a function of $\mu$ and $\gamma$, particularly paying attention to the region near the topological phase transition of the clean model. By means of the scattering matrix approach also used in the last section we compute the determinant of the reflection matrix of a wire of length $L$ at $\epsilon=0$ which approaches the values $+1$ and $-1$ as $L\rightarrow\infty$ in the nontopological and topological phase, respectively [@Merz2002; @Akhmerov2011].
The resulting phase diagram is plotted in Fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\]. From Eq. (\[langevin\_kitaev\]) we infer that the topological phase transition occurs for $\xi=2l$ in the regime $\mu\gg m\Delta'^2$. Using the definitions of $l$ and $\xi$ in this regime, we obtain the phase boundary $\gamma_c^{(i)}(\mu)=4\Delta'\mu$. This is compared with the numerical results in the inset of Fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\]. The numerically calculated phase boundary $\gamma_c^{\rm num}(\mu)$ has only sublinear deviations from the predicted line, so that the ratio $\gamma_c^{\rm num}(\mu)/2\mu\Delta'=\xi/l$ approaches the value $2$ for $\mu\rightarrow\infty$ as expected.
However, near $\mu=0$ the behavior is qualitatively different. Here, disorder can induce a topological phase for $\mu<0$ as well as a reentrant nontopological phase at larger disorder. From Eq. (\[probab\_distr\_eps0\]) we find the condition $\xi=-2l$ for the phase boundary. This corresponds to $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{(ii)}_c(\mu)=-2\Delta'\mu,\label{phase_boundary} \end{aligned}$$ which we find to agree well with the numerical results for the phase diagram (see dashed line in Fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\]). Thus the phase diagram confirms that weak disorder leads to an enhancement of the chemical potential range of the topological phase, while for stronger disorder the range decreases again.
Conclusion
==========
Even for conventional superconducting phases, the flux periodic currents have been widely studied for mesoscopic rings [@Buttiker1986; @Oppen1992; @Schwiete2010; @Koshnick2007]. Here, we studied the Josephson currents across a weak link in a mesoscopic ring in a topological superconducting phase. As a paradigmatic model system, we studied Kitaev’s model of a one-dimensional spinless $p$-wave superconductor, focusing on the parameter regime near the topological phase transition. We found that in mesoscopic rings, there is an $h/e$-periodic contribution to the tunneling current even if electron number parity is not conserved. This $h/e$-periodic contribution emerges due to the hybridization of the Majorana bound states localized on the two sides of the weak link through the interior of the ring and exhibits a pronounced peak just on the topological side of the topological phase transition. This peak provides an interesting signature for the existence of a topological phase transition and the formation of Majorana fermions at the junction.
We found that this effect remains robust in the presence of disorder in the wire. In fact, near the topological phase transition disorder can even stabilize the topological phase. When tuning, say, the chemical potential of the system to the nontopological side of the phase transition, there is a disorder-induced topological phase for moderate amounts of disorder, with a reentrant nontopological phase at even stronger disorder. This is in stark contrast to the behavior of the system far in the topological phase where disorder weakens and eventually destabilizes the topological phase.
We would like to acknowledge discussions with P. Brouwer, A. Haim, N. Lezmy, and G. Refael. We are grateful for partial support by SPP 1285 of the Deutsche Forschungsgmeinschaft (FvO and YO), the Virtual Institute “New states of matter and their excitations” (FvO), grants of ISF and TAMU (YO) as well as a scholarship of the Studienstiftung d. dt. Volkes (FP).
[50]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}\[2\][\#2]{}
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
Effective energy splitting and Josephson coupling of Majorana end-states {#appendice}
========================================================================
We present here the analytical estimation of the Majorana energy splitting, $\epsilon_0$, and the effective Josephson coupling, $\Gamma$, in the Hamiltonian (\[low\_energy\_Hamiltonian\]). For sake of simplicity we will first present our calculation for the effective Josephson coupling $\Gamma$, obtained by working in the tight-binding model. We will then describe the calculation of $\epsilon_0$ through an alternative approach working directly in the continuum limit both in both regimes $\mu \ll m \Delta'^2$ and $\mu
\gg m \Delta'^2$ discussed in the main text.
**Effective Josephson coupling.** In order to compute the effective Josephson coupling we neglect the effect of the overlap of the two Majorana wavefunctions in the topological part of the ring. We therefore consider the limit of a junction between two half-infinite topological sectors of the wire, the right one on sites $j \in [1,\infty)$ and the left one on $j \in (\infty,-1)$. They are both described by the Hamiltonian (\[Kitaev\_TB\_Hamiltonian\]) with paring strength $\Delta_{\rm TB} e^{i\phi_{a}}$ with $a=L,R$ for the left and right sector, respectively. The hopping between the two sectors from Eq. (\[Kitaev\_TB\_tunneling\_Hamiltonian\]) now simply reads $H_{\textrm{T}}= -t' (c_{-1}^{\dag} c_1 +c_{1}^{\dag} c_{-1})$—cf. Fig. \[ring-approx\].
We include the effect of the tunneling between the two wires perturbatively. The low energy excitations of this model for $t'=0$ are represented by left and right zero energy Majorana operators [@Kitaev2001] $$\begin{aligned}
b_{R} =A \sum_{j=1}^\infty (x_+^j-x_-^j)\gamma_{B,j}^{(R)} \\
b_{L}= A \sum_{j=-1}^{-\infty} (x_+^{-j}-x_-^{-j})\gamma_{A,j}^{(L)}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_{\pm} = (- \mu_{\textrm{TB}} \pm \sqrt{\mu_{\textrm{TB}}^2
-4t^2 + 4 \Delta_{\rm TB}^2 }) / (2t +2 \Delta_{\rm TB})$, $A=(\sum_{j} |x_+^j-x_-^j|^2)^{-1/2}$ is a normalization constant, and the operators $\gamma_{A(B),j}$ are defined via $c_J=(\gamma_{B,j}^{(R)}e^{-i\phi_R/2}+i\gamma_{A,j}^{(R)}e^{i\phi_R/2})/2$. The projection of $H_{\textrm{T}}$ onto the subspace spanned by the operators $b_R$, $b_L$ leads to the effective coupling between the Majorana states. The Hamiltonian can be rewritten in terms of ordinary fermion operators $d_M=(b_R+ib_L)/2$ to take the form presented in Eq. (\[effective\_tunneling\_hamiltonian\]) with $\Gamma= t' A^2 |x_+ -x_-|^2$. For simplicity, we consider $\mu<2t\left(1-\sqrt{1-\Delta_{\rm TB}^2/t^2}\right)$ which corresponds to the condition $\mu<m\Delta'^2$ in the continuum model (\[Kitaev\_hamiltonian\]) and ensures that $x_{\pm}$ are real (see discussion of the continuum model in Sec. \[sec:kitaev\_basics\]). Explicitly one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma=\frac{ t'\mu (4t-\mu) \Delta_{\mathrm{TB}} }{ t(t+\Delta_{\mathrm{TB}})^2}
\label{good-for-plots}\end{aligned}$$ In the continuum limit, when $\mu \ll\Delta_{\mathrm{TB}} \ll t$ the expressions simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma \approx 4 t' \mu \Delta_{\mathrm{TB}} / t^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$
**Majorana energy splitting.** In order to compute the energy splitting $\epsilon_0$ we employ an alternative method working directly in the continuum limit. Similar to before, we neglect here the Majoranas interaction through the Josephson junction. The problem is then completely equivalent to calculating the energy splitting of two Majorana at the end of a wire of length $L$. We start considering the regime (ii) described by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Dirac\_Hamiltonian\]), $H =
\mu(x) \tau_z +\Delta'(x) p \tau_x$, with the specific choice of parameters (cf. Fig. \[ring-approx\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esatta}
& & \mu(x) = -V_0 [{\Theta(-x)}+{\Theta(x-L)}] +\mu {\Theta(x)}{\Theta(L-x)} \, , \nonumber\\
& & \Delta'(x) =\Delta' \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $V_0 >0$ and $\mu >0$ guarantee that the wire is in a topological phase in $[0,L]$ and in a nontopological phase otherwise.
![(a) Sketch of the Josephson junction between two topological segments of the wire and spatial dependence of the gate potential in the corresponding continuum realization. (b) Spatial dependence of the chemical potential, $\mu(x)$, in the Hamiltonian of the finite length wire and for the approximate Hamiltonians, $H_L$ and $H_R$, used in the perturbative calculations[]{data-label="ring-approx"}](ring-approx.pdf){width=".6\textwidth"}
We determine the Majorana wavefunctions by a perturbative approach. We first find the wavefunctions of the Majorana fermion localized at one of the interfaces between the topological and the insulating region, thus fully ignoring the existence of the other Majorana state. We label the corresponding states at the interfaces at $x=0$ and $x=L$ as $\ket{L}$ and $\ket {R}$ respectively. We then project the Hamiltonian onto the Majorana subspace, to obtain their effective interaction, $H_{\textrm{overlap}}= \sum_{\alpha,\beta=L,R} \langle \alpha |H
|\beta\rangle \, \ket{\alpha} \bra{\beta}$. Eventually we will be interested in the limit $V_0 \rightarrow \infty$ corresponding to a high insulating barrier outside the wire.
The Majorana state at $x=0$ is the zero-energy eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $H_L$, defined again by the same Hamiltonian as in Eq. (\[Dirac\_Hamiltonian\]), but with the choice of parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sinistra}
& & \mu(x) = -V_0 {\Theta(-x)} +\mu {\Theta(x)} \, , \nonumber\\
& & \Delta'(x) =\Delta' \, ,\end{aligned}$$ as depicted in Fig. \[ring-approx\]. Solving this equation separately for $x>0$ and $x<0$ leads to zero energy states with imaginary momenta. Namely we can write $$\label{majol}
\ket{L} = \mathbf{v}_{-,L} e^{\alpha_0 x} {\Theta(-x)} + \mathbf{v}_{+,L} e^{-\alpha
x} {\Theta(x)} \,$$ where $\alpha= \mu /|\Delta'|$ is the inverse coherence length in the wire, and $\alpha_0= V_0/|\Delta'|$. The twodimensional vectors $\mathbf{v}_{\pm, L}$ are determined by the continuity of the wavefunction and its derivative at the interface and by the wavefunction normalization. They are given by: $$\mathbf{v}_{+,L}=\mathbf{v}_{-,L}= \sqrt{\frac{\alpha \alpha_0}{\alpha+
\alpha_0}} \left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ -i \end{array} \right) \, .$$ In the limit $V_0 \rightarrow \infty$ we are interested in, they reduce to $$\mathbf{v}_{+,L}=\mathbf{v}_{-,L} = \sqrt{\alpha} \left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ -i \end{array} \right) \, .$$ In a completely analogous way we can calculate the zero-energy eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $H_R$ defined once more by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Dirac\_Hamiltonian\]), now with (cf. Fig. \[ring-approx\]) $$\begin{aligned}
& & \mu(x) = -V_0 {\Theta(x-L)} +\mu {\Theta(L-x)} \, ,\\
& & \Delta'(x) =\Delta' \, .\end{aligned}$$ In this case the zero-energy eigenstate reads $$\label{major}
\ket{R} = \sqrt{\frac{\alpha \alpha_0}{\alpha+
\alpha_0}} \left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ i \end{array} \right)
\left[ e^{-\alpha_0 (x-L)} {\Theta(x-L)} + e^{\alpha (x-L)} {\Theta(L-x)} \right] \, .$$ In the limit $V_0 \rightarrow \infty$ the prefactor reduces to $\sqrt{\alpha}$. Note that the particle-hole superposition has different phases in $\ket{L}$ and $\ket{R}$.
We can then project the full Hamiltonian onto the low-energy subspace spanned by the two Majorana states. In doing so, we conveniently rewrite $H=H_L +V_R =H_R +V_L$, where $V_R = - (V_0+\mu) {\Theta(x-L)} \tau_z$ and $V_L =- (V_0+\mu) {\Theta(-x)}
\tau_z$, and the spatial dependence of the various terms is presented in Fig. \[ring-approx\] We can then compute, e.g., $\langle L |H | L \rangle = \langle L |H_L
| L \rangle + \langle L |V_R | L \rangle =\langle L |V_R | L
\rangle$, and all the other matrix elements in a similar way, to get $$H_{\textrm{overlap}} = \left( \begin{matrix}
\langle L |V_R | L \rangle & \langle L |V_L | R \rangle \\
\langle R |V_L | L \rangle & \langle R |V_L | R \rangle
\end{matrix}\right) = \left( \begin{matrix}
0 & -2 \mu e^{- \alpha L} \\
-2 \mu e^{- \alpha L} & 0
\end{matrix}\right) \, .$$ This leads to the energy splitting $\epsilon_0 =2 \mu e^{-\alpha L}$, as reported in Section \[sec:low\_energy\_model\].
In complete analogy, one can perform the calculation of the energy splitting in the regime $\mu \gg m \Delta'^2$. In this case the appropriate Hamiltonian, $H$, is that in Eq. (\[Kitaev\_hamiltonian\]), with the same choice of parameters as in Eq. (\[esatta\]). Again we start considering the left interface, looking for zero-energy solutions of the $H_L$, i.e., the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Kitaev\_hamiltonian\]) with the choice of parameters as in Eq. (\[sinistra\]). We introduce $a_0 = V_0/(m
\Delta'^2) >0$ and $a = \mu /(m \Delta'^2) > 0$. We can write the solutions as $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ket{L} =\sqrt{m \Delta'}\sqrt{\frac{a}{1+2 a}}
\left( \begin{matrix} 1 \\ -i \end{matrix}\right) \left[ (1+\eta)
e^{i\kappa_-x} {\Theta(-x)} + \left( e^{i k_+x} +\eta e^{i k_-x}\right) {\Theta(x)} \right]
\, , \\
& &\ket{R} =\sqrt{m \Delta'}\sqrt{\frac{a}{1+2 a}}
\left( \begin{matrix} 1 \\ i \end{matrix}\right) \left[ \left( e^{-i k_+(x-L)} +\eta e^{-i k_-(x-L)}\right) {\Theta(L-x)}+ (1+\eta)
e^{-i\kappa_-x} {\Theta(x-L)} \right] \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_- = -i m|\Delta'| (\sqrt{2 a_0})$, $k_{\pm}=m
|\Delta'| (\pm\sqrt{2 a} +i)$ and $\eta= (\kappa_--k_+)/(k_--\kappa_-)$. In all the expressions we are neglecting $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{a}/\sqrt{a_0},
1/\sqrt{a_0})$, consistent with the condidtion $a_0 \gg a \gg 1$, reflecting the limit $V_0 \rightarrow\infty$ and the regime under consideration. The matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian are, in this case, $\langle L |H | L \rangle =\langle R |H | R \rangle =0$ and $\langle
L |H | R \rangle =\langle R |H | L \rangle \equiv
-\epsilon_0$ , with $$\epsilon_0=\Delta' \sqrt{2m \mu} \left[ \sin ( \sqrt{2 m \mu} L) -
\sqrt{a/a_0} (\sqrt{2} -1) \cos ( \sqrt2 {m \mu})
L +\mathcal{O} (\sqrt{a} /a_0^2) \right] \, .$$
[^1]: 1
[^2]: For the numerical results for the tight-binding model we extract the mean free path from the variance of the normal distribution of $\ln(\epsilon_0)$ according to Eq. (\[probab\_distr\_eps0\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Stefano Frixione$^a$ and Alexander Mitov$^b$\
$^a$ PH Department, TH Unit, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\
$^b$ Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
title: Determination of the top quark mass from leptonic observables
---
Introduction\[sec:intro\]
=========================
The current world average of the top quark mass [@ATLAS:2014wva] $${m_{t}}= 173.34 \pm 0.76 \GeV ~~ [{\rm World\, Average}]
\label{eq:mt-value}$$ implies that ${m_{t}}$ is known with a precision better than $0.5 \%$. Such an accuracy is perfectly adequate for present collider-physics applications [@Juste:2013dsa] including, notably, the global electroweak (EW) fits [@Baak:2012kk], which are saturated by the uncertainty on the $W$-boson mass, and not by that on ${m_{t}}$. Still, the accurate determination of the top quark mass at hadron colliders remains a subject of much activity and debate.
Two separate developments have been the main drivers behind the above mentioned activity: the outsize role played by the top quark mass in determining the stability of the electroweak vacuum (both in the Standard Model (SM) [@Bezrukov:2012sa; @Degrassi:2012ry; @Buttazzo:2013uya] and beyond [@Bezrukov:2007ep]), and the recognition that the extraction of ${m_{t}}$ at hadron colliders involves significant theoretical challenges, that might conceivably affect its value at the level of ${\cal O}(1 \GeV)$ (see ref. [@Juste:2013dsa] for detailed discussion).
The bottom-up extrapolation of EW-scale physics, based on eq. (\[eq:mt-value\]), implies either that the EW vacuum becomes unstable below the Planck scale, or that the result of eq. (\[eq:mt-value\]) deviates from the value needed for the stability of the SM EW vacuum up to the Planck scale by about two to four sigma’s [@Buttazzo:2013uya; @Kobakhidze:2014xda]. If confirmed, such a conclusion might indirectly imply the existence of Beyond the SM (BSM) physics somewhere below the Planck scale. Given the non-observation of BSM signals so far, it would be hard to overstate the importance of this implication. We stress that these facts are mainly driven by the ${m_{t}}$ value of eq. (\[eq:mt-value\]), and this because of the large parametric dependence of the stability condition on the top quark mass.
At this point one might wonder about the need for revisiting the subject of ${m_{t}}$ determination, given the quite high precision of the top mass of eq. (\[eq:mt-value\]). To this end let us remind the reader that there are a number of high-precision measurements that marginally agree with the current world average. Examples are the very recent CMS [@CMS-mass-2014] and D0 [@Abazov:2014dpa] measurements: $$\begin{aligned}
&& {m_{t}}= 172.04 \pm 0.77 \GeV ~~ [{\rm CMS\, Collaboration}]\, , \nonumber\\
&& {m_{t}}= 174.98 \pm 0.76 \GeV ~~ [{\rm D0\, Collaboration}]\, .
\label{eq:mt-value-CDF-D0}\end{aligned}$$ The above measurements have the same uncertainty as the combination in eq. (\[eq:mt-value\]), but notably different central values[^1]. In particular, the CMS measurement [@CMS-mass-2014] is consistent with the SM EW vacuum being stable up to the Planck scale, while the D0 measurement [@Abazov:2014dpa] implies a rather unstable SM EW vacuum. Therefore, the spread in the available ${m_{t}}$ measurements alone warrants a closer inspection of the determination of the top quark mass. As we shall detail in the following, there are also strong theoretical reasons that motivate further studies of the extraction of this parameter from hadron collider data.
The determination of the top quark mass is as much dependent on theoretical assumptions as it is on measurements. The reason is that the top quark mass is not an observable and thus cannot be measured directly[^2]: it is a theoretical concept, and its value is extracted from data in collider events that feature top quarks. Such an extraction depends on the definition of the mass (pole mass, running mass, and so forth), on the observables chosen, and on the various approximations made when computing those observables. Since measurements are insensitive to theory assumptions[^3], any modification in the theoretical modelling will result in a different value of the extracted top mass. If everything is consistent, i.e. if the estimated uncertainty is a realistic representation of the true uncertainty, then the differences in the returned values should fall within the corresponding theory errors. In reality, this may not be the case due to the presence of biases, whose very existence might be difficult to establish. With this important subtlety in mind, one of the main aspects of the present work is to devise a structured approach towards the identification of such hidden biases.
A significant number of techniques for the determination of the top mass exist or are under study; see ref. [@Juste:2013dsa] for a recent in-depth overview. Such techniques may be organised into two classes, whose definitions cannot be given in a rigorous way, but which are nevertheless based on clearly distinct physical principles. The first class includes all those approaches that use, in some form, the fact that the top is a particle that decays: the knowledge of the decay products (i.e. their identities and kinematic configurations) is then exploited to reconstruct some quantity which is directly related to the top, and thus bears information on its mass. The crucial characteristic is that, by emphasising the role of the decay, one factors out the details of the process in which the primary top(s) is(are) produced, so that the details of the production mechanism become irrelevant. The ideal (i.e. not realistic) procedure which belongs to this class is the one where the top virtuality is reconstructed exactly by measuring the invariant mass of its decay products, thus scanning its lineshape. In the approaches that belong to the second class the role of the top as a mother particle must not matter; the only important thing is that some observable(s) of a top-mediated process depend in a significant way on ${m_{t}}$, so that their measurements can be mathematically inverted (using suitable theoretical predictions) to return the top mass. We stress that the fact that the observables mentioned above are most likely constructed by using the top decay products is not relevant. The only important thing is that they depend on the top quark mass, a feature that might be possessed by other quantities as well (for example, the primary QCD radiation in the production process).
The approaches that belong to the first class are often perceived to be affected by smaller theoretical systematics than those of the second class, because by their very definition one assumes that many sources of uncertainties, such as PDF dependence, absence of higher-order perturbative corrections, and new-physics contributions, will drop out, being mostly associated with the production mechanism. Unfortunately, this is not really the case. Firstly, some of these sources might be relevant to decays as well. Secondly, different kind of uncertainties could become important: a good example is the so-called $J/\Psi$ method [@Kharchilava:1999yj] which, although experimentally very clean and theoretically well defined, is hampered by its sensitivity to the non-perturbative $b$-fragmentation. Thirdly, in these approaches one must start by [*defining*]{} what one means by “top”, which introduces some auxiliary (if only intermediate) concept in the procedure, and renders it difficult to assign a proper theoretical error to it. Note that this necessity goes beyond what one must do in order to reconstruct the top quark experimentally, and is purely theoretical.
The bottom line is that, regardless of which class an ${m_{t}}$-extraction technique belongs to, some amount of theoretical modelling will be involved. In this paper, we follow an approach of the second class; we believe that not having to define the top as a final-state object is a virtue that more than compensates a larger dependence on the production process.
Another important motivation behind the procedure we are proposing is the use of observables that can be both reliably predicted within the SM, and cleanly measured. Thus, we employ kinematic distributions of leptons in dilepton $t{\bar{t}}$ events; more precisely, we are interested in their shapes. Furthermore, we find that the information on the top mass that such shapes encode can be very effectively provided by the Mellin moments of the corresponding distributions, and it is such moments that will play a central role in our method. Our goal is the determination of ${m_{t}}$ with competitive precision, supplemented by a detailed study of the various sources of theoretical systematics. Apart from not having to rely, directly or indirectly, on the reconstruction of top quarks, our approach has minimal sensitivity to the modelling of both perturbative and non-perturbative QCD effects[^4]. We believe that the latter property is one of the chief advantages of the method we are pursuing.
In this paper we shall be working with the top quark pole mass, and shall not consider alternative mass definitions. Our viewpoint is that the intrinsic differences between any two of these definitions (renormalon-related effects are a good example) are largely below the present level of uncertainties, and therefore we do not see them as a reason for concern at present. A fuller discussion can be found in ref. [@Juste:2013dsa].
We shall conclude that, with the procedure we employ, the extraction of the top pole mass can be achieved with a theoretical error of about $0.8\GeV$, and possibly smaller. While a significant number of $t{\bar{t}}$ dilepton events have been recorded during Run I of the LHC, no measurements are published of the Mellin moments that would allow us to apply our procedure to real data. We thus hope that this paper will encourage the LHC experimental collaborations to measure directly such moments, so that the present analysis could be repeated, and its results compared with those of eqs. (\[eq:mt-value\]) and (\[eq:mt-value-CDF-D0\]). Furthermore, we are hopeful that the reliability and small theoretical systematics of the method proposed in this work will help shed light on the issue of the EW vacuum stability.
This paper is organised as follows: in sect. \[sec:method\] we introduce our method in detail and define, in particular, its associated theoretical errors (sect. \[sec:extract\]) and biases that may affect it (sect. \[sec:bias\]). Our results are presented in sect. \[sec:results\]: those with the highest theoretical accuracy in sect. \[sec:res\], with discussions on the effects due to parton showers, higher orders, and spin correlations in sect. \[sec:eff\], and explicit examples of theoretical biases in sect. \[sec:resbias\]. We give our conclusions in sect. \[sec:concl\]. Some technical material is reported in the appendices.
The method {#sec:method}
==========
Our goal is to study the determination of the top quark pole mass ${m_{t}}$ from several differential distributions of leptons in dilepton $t{\bar{t}}$ events: pp t[|[t]{}]{}+X, t\^+\_b, [|[t]{}]{}\^-|\_|[b]{}, =e,. \[eq:reaction\] Each of the observables that we consider features the following important properties:
- It does not require the reconstruction of the $t$ and/or ${\bar{t}}$ quark; indeed, we do not even need to speak of top quarks[^5].
- It is almost completely inclusive in hadronic radiation: the only possible dependence on strongly-interacting final-state objects is that due to selection cuts (on $b$-jets).
- Owing to this inclusiveness, the observable is minimally sensitive to the modelling of long-distance effects. This feature increases the reliability of the theoretical predictions.
The set of observables considered in this paper and their labelling conventions are given in table \[tab:obs\]: ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)$ is the single-inclusive transverse momentum of the positively-charged lepton; ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+\ell^-)$ and $M(\ell^+\ell^-)$ are the transverse momentum and the invariant mass, respectively, of the charged-lepton pair; finally, $E(\ell^+)+E(\ell^-)$ and ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)+{p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^-)$ are the scalar sums of the energies and transverse momenta of the two charged leptons, respectively. We point out that the latter two sums are computed event-by-event; in other words, observables \#4 and \#5 are [*not*]{} constructed a-posteriori given the single-inclusive energy and transverse momentum distributions of the leptons.
Label Observable
------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)$
2 ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+\ell^-)$
3 $M(\ell^+\ell^-)$
4 $E(\ell^+)+E(\ell^-)$
5 ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)+{p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^-)$
: \[tab:obs\] The set of observables used in this paper, and their labelling conventions.
The extraction of the top quark mass utilises the sensitivity of the [*shapes*]{} of kinematic distributions to the value of ${m_{t}}$. It is cumbersome to work directly with differential distributions. Instead, we utilise their lower Mellin moments, whose precise definition is given in sect. \[sec:definemoments\]. The idea of the method proposed in this paper is to predict the ${m_{t}}$ dependence of the moments, and then to extract the value of ${m_{t}}$ by comparing the predicted and measured values of those moments. The procedure is detailed in sect. \[sec:extract\].
The use of moments for the extraction of the top mass has been suggested previously in the context of the so-called $J/\Psi$ method [@Kharchilava:1999yj], or in connection with variables supposed to minimise the dependence on the jet-energy scale [@Hill:2005zy; @Garberson:2008te]. To our knowledge, the most up-to-date theoretical treatment of this technique is in ref. [@Biswas:2010sa]. All these papers consider only the first moment (of various distributions); in the case of ${m_{t}}$ extraction from different observables, the results are either not combined [@Biswas:2010sa], or limited to two observables [@Garberson:2008te]. These choices may lead to issues, as we shall discuss in sects. \[sec:bias\], \[sec:eff\], and \[sec:resbias\]. In the case of the dilepton channel, ref. [@Biswas:2010sa] also employs one of the observables considered in this paper ($E(\ell^+)+E(\ell^-)$); owing to the different choices made for cuts, jet algorithm, collider energy, and PDFs, we have refrained from making a direct comparison with those results. We also point out that in ref. [@Biswas:2010sa] the simultaneous variation of the factorisation and renormalisation scales has been adopted, which leads to smaller scale uncertainties than those we find in this paper (where the two scales are varied independently, see sect. \[sec:results\]).
Finally, we remark that other discrete parameters of kinematic distributions, such as medians and maxima, might also be used for a top mass extraction. We have chosen to work with moments because of the ease of their calculation, and of the fact that the results they give can be systematically improved by including those of increasingly higher rank. For other previous theoretical approaches whose philosophy differs, in one or more aspects, w.r.t. the one adopted here, see e.g. refs. [@Frederix:2007gi; @Kawabata:2011gz; @Alioli:2013mxa; @Kawabataa:2014osa].
Definition of moments\[sec:definemoments\]
------------------------------------------
We denote by $\sigma$ and $d\sigma$ the total and fully-differential $t{\bar{t}}$ cross sections respectively (possibly within cuts), so that: = d, where the integral in understood over all degrees of freedom. Given an observable $O$ (e.g. one of those in table \[tab:obs\]), its normalised moments are defined as follows: = dO\^[i]{}, \[mmdef\] for any non-negative integer $i$. In this way, one has: =1, =O, =O\^2=\_O\^2+()\^2, and so forth. Note that, when selection cuts are applied (see eq. (\[eq:cuts\])) in the calculation of moments, they are applied exactly in the same manner in the denominator and in the numerator of eq. (\[mmdef\]).
A short technical remark: the numerator of eq. (\[mmdef\]) is usually derived from the result relevant to the differential distribution . On the other hand, it could also be computed directly (i.e., without using ), which is a procedure affected by smaller uncertainties, as we explain in appendix \[sec:comp\]. The important thing to point out here is that such a direct calculation has a fully analogous experimental counterpart: Mellin moments can be measured directly, which is the procedure we recommend. See appendix \[sec:comp\] for more details.
Extraction of the top quark mass and its uncertainties\[sec:extract\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The method for extracting ${m_{t}}$ from the first moment of any one of the observables of table \[tab:obs\] is given schematically in fig. \[fig:extract\].
The $x$ and $y$ axes of fig. \[fig:extract\] are associated with the top pole mass ${m_{t}}$, and the first moment of $O$, $\Mm{O}{1}$, respectively. The three lines $f_C$, $f_U$, and $f_L$ represent the central, upper, and lower theoretical predictions for $\Mm{O}{1}({m_{t}})$. The case of moments higher than the first, $\Mm{O}{i}({m_{t}})$, $i>1$, is identical, except for the fact that the $x$ axis of fig. \[fig:extract\] is associated with ${m_{t}}^i$ (see eq. (\[eq:res-equation\])). We have assumed that $\Mm{O}{i}$ increases with ${m_{t}}$, which is indeed the case in the SM and for the observables considered here; the formulae given below can however be trivially extended to the case of $\Mm{O}{i}$ decreasing with ${m_{t}}$. As fig. \[fig:extract\] suggests, the functions $f_{C,U,L}$ are linear in ${m_{t}}^i$; although in general they need not be so, we have found that straight lines are perfectly adequate to our purposes. We explain how such functions are computed in sect. \[sec:thsetups\].
Given the data[^6] \_D \_[-\_\^-]{}\^[+\_\^+]{}, \[mudata\] with \_\^-=\_D-\_[D-]{}, \_\^+=\_[D+]{}-\_D, the extracted top mass will be (see fig. \[fig:extract\]): [m\_[t]{}]{}=m\_C \_[-\_[mT]{}\^-]{}\^[+\_[mT]{}\^+]{} \_[-\_[mE]{}\^-]{}\^[+\_[mE]{}\^+]{}. \[mextr\] We define the central value and theoretical uncertainties associated with such an extraction as follows: \_[mT]{}\^-=m\_C-m\_[T-]{}, \_[mT]{}\^+=m\_[T+]{}-m\_C, \[therr\] with m\_C=f\_C\^[-1]{}(\_D), m\_[T-]{}=f\_U\^[-1]{}(\_D), m\_[T+]{}=f\_L\^[-1]{}(\_D). \[inv\] Since the functions $f_{C,U,L}$ are linear in ${m_{t}}^i$, their inversion is trivial; however, we point out that eq. (\[inv\]) remains valid regardless of the particular (monotonic and increasing) forms of $f_{C,U,L}$. While the quantities introduced in eq. (\[therr\]) are the theory errors that affect the top-mass extraction from any given observable and moment, there might be cases in which they are inadequate to measure the actual difference between the central value $m_C$ and the physical top mass. This happens in the presence of what we call theory [*biases*]{}, which we shall discuss at length in sect. \[sec:bias\].
In keeping with fig. \[fig:extract\], we define the experimental errors as: \_[mE]{}\^-=m\_C-m\_[E-]{}, \_[mE]{}\^+=m\_[E+]{}-m\_C, with m\_[E-]{}=f\_C\^[-1]{}(\_[D-]{}), m\_[E+]{}=f\_C\^[-1]{}(\_[D+]{}). It is easy to convince oneself that the more conservative choice: m\_[E-]{}=f\_U\^[-1]{}(\_[D-]{}), m\_[E+]{}=f\_L\^[-1]{}(\_[D+]{}), is not correct, since it leads to non-zero uncertainties also in the case of null experimental errors. In this paper, we shall not consider the experimental uncertainties any longer, and shall be concerned only with the theoretical ones. We point out that the size of these depend on two factors: the uncertainty on the theoretical predictions for $\Mm{O}{i}$, which is or at a given ${m_{t}}$, and the slope of $f_C({m_{t}})$: the steeper the latter, the smaller the errors on the extracted values of ${m_{t}}$.
Theory biases\[sec:bias\]
-------------------------
In this section we address the question whether there might be some biases in the method outlined in sect. \[sec:extract\], that would prevent the errors defined in eq. (\[therr\]) from being a reliable representation of the true uncertainties underlying the ${m_{t}}$ extraction.
It is not difficult to devise a scenario where the answer to the previous question is positive. Let us suppose that $t{\bar{t}}$ production, as is seen in LHC detectors, proceeds through both the well-known SM mechanisms, and the exchange of a hypothetical heavy non-SM resonance. The nature of the latter is irrelevant here; what matters is the fact that, owing to its being very massive, it will cause the $t$ and ${\bar{t}}$, and hence their decay products, to be slightly more boosted on average than if only SM physics would exist. Thus, for example, the measured first moment of ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)$ (which is observable \#1 in table \[tab:obs\]) will have a larger value than what would be measured if only the SM were present. Let us further suppose that the theoretical predictions used to extract ${m_{t}}$ with the procedure of sect. \[sec:extract\] are the pure-SM ones: what has been said above also implies that the functions $f_C$, $f_U$, and $f_L$ will have lower values, for any given top mass, than their counterparts computed in the BSM theory that corresponds to the measured data. Figure \[fig:extract\] then leads immediately to the conclusion that the value of ${m_{t}}$ extracted from BSM data using SM predictions will be larger than the “true” top mass value[^7]: the difference between the extracted and the true ${m_{t}}$ is then a theoretical bias. The crucial point is that the uncertainties associated with such an extraction will be essentially the same[^8] as those one would obtain in the complete absence of BSM physics in the data: in other words, the errors of eq. (\[therr\]) would fail to capture the presence of the existing theoretical bias.
The main lesson to be drawn from the previous example is the following. Given only one observable and one of its Mellin moments, the extraction of the top mass according to eq. (\[mextr\]) will always be possible with “small” theoretical errors[^9], regardless of whether the theory employed gives a correct representation of the physics model embedded in Nature. This observation, however, implicitly suggests a solution to the problem posed by theoretical biases. In fact, while the above indeed applies to each individual observable-and-moment choice, if the theoretical description is ultimately not compatible with Nature it is not likely that two values of ${m_{t}}$ extracted from two different observables will be compatible with each other. Conversely, the probability that the extracted values of ${m_{t}}$ be all mutually compatible (in the case of an incorrect underlying theoretical model) will decrease with the number of observables and moments considered.
Note that it is easier to establish the possible incompatibility of any two ${m_{t}}$ results when their theoretical errors are small. Therefore, the property of the uncertainties of eq. (\[therr\]) of being insensitive to theoretical biases is actually a positive feature in this context, and underlines the importance of accurate predictions. The bottom line is that, in order for the presence of theoretical biases to be clearly uncovered, it is of utmost importance to consider as many observables and moments as is possible. The choice of the set of table \[tab:obs\] reflects this view, but it is clear than any further addition to it will be beneficial.
We conclude this section by making various further observations. Firstly, it is not necessary to have a BSM-vs-SM scenario for theoretical biases to appear: it is sufficient that theory and data are not fully compatible. We shall give several examples of this in sect. \[sec:results\], all of them within the SM. Secondly, although possibly biased, the ${m_{t}}$ value extracted in a single-observable-and-moment procedure is not “wrong”: it is, by construction, the result that, for the given data, will give the best prediction with the assumed theoretical model. Therefore, as long as one uses such ${m_{t}}$ with that model and only for that observable, one is perfectly consistent. It is in the interpretation of the results, however, that one must be careful, since the larger the bias, the less the extracted top quark mass will have to do with the fundamental parameter so important e.g. for the stability of the vacuum. This stresses again the fact that it is always recommended, for example through the multi-observable approach advocated here, to determine the presence of theoretical biases. Thirdly and finally, the relationship between ${m_{t}}$-extraction and biases is by no means specific to the use of Mellin moments; it is common to all template-based methods. If anything, Mellin moments just render the discussion particularly transparent.
Results\[sec:results\]
======================
Our predictions are obtained by simulating $t{\bar{t}}$ production in the SM, by treating the top quarks as stable, and by decaying them afterwards. We perform the calculations in the fully automated [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{} framework [@Alwall:2014hca], where we can easily investigate the impact of the various approximations that may be employed; in particular, we shall consider both LO and NLO results, with or without their matching to parton showers, with or without including spin-correlation effects. We have thus several calculational scenarios, which we summarise in table \[tab:calc\]. We shall refer to each of them interchangeably with either their labels or their extended names, the latter chosen in agreement with ref. [@Alwall:2014hca]. NLO fixed-order computations are based on the FKS subtraction method [@Frixione:1995ms; @Frixione:1997np]. NLO results are matched to parton showers according to the MC@NLO formalism [@Frixione:2002ik]; throughout this paper, we have used [[HERWIG6]{}]{} [@Corcella:2000bw; @Corcella:2002jc]. Spin-correlation effects in the computations matched to parton showers are accounted for with the method of ref. [@Frixione:2007zp] through its implementation in [[MadSpin]{}]{} [@Artoisenet:2012st] (shortened to MS henceforth), a package embedded in [[MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO]{}]{}. As far as fixed-order results are concerned, only decay spin correlations (i.e. those described by the matrix elements relevant to $t\to \ell^+\nu_\ell b$) are taken into account, whence the “No” in the rightmost entry of the last two rows of table \[tab:calc\].
--- ----------- ----- -------- --------------
Extended Parton Spin
name shower correlations
1 NLO+PS+MS NLO Yes Yes
2 LO+PS+MS LO Yes Yes
3 NLO+PS NLO Yes No
4 LO+PS LO Yes No
5 fNLO NLO No No
6 fLO LO No No
--- ----------- ----- -------- --------------
: \[tab:calc\] Calculational scenarios considered in this paper. The rightmost column reports the inclusion of [*production*]{} spin correlations; decay spin correlations are included in all cases.
We have used a five-light-flavour scheme, and the MSTW2008 (68% CL) PDF sets [@Martin:2009iq] and their associated errors, at the LO or the NLO depending on the perturbative accuracy of the various scenarios reported in table \[tab:calc\]. We have included both PDF and scale uncertainties in our predictions; both have been computed with the reweighting method of ref. [@Frederix:2011ss]. As far as the latter uncertainties are concerned, they have been obtained with an independent variation of the renormalisation and factorisations scales, subject to the constraints 0.5 [\_[F]{}]{},[\_[R]{}]{},[\_[F]{}]{}/[\_[R]{}]{}2 , \[eq:scalevar\] where [\_[F]{}]{}=[\_[F]{}]{}, [\_[R]{}]{}=[\_[R]{}]{}, \[muFmuR\] and $\hat\mu$ is a reference scale; the default values or central scale choices correspond to ${\xi_{{\scriptscriptstyle}F}}={\xi_{{\scriptscriptstyle}R}}=1$. We point out that eq. (\[eq:scalevar\]) is a conservative scale variation (as was done e.g. in ref. [@Cacciari:2008zb], and as opposed to setting the two scales equal to a common value), which estimates well the missing higher-order corrections to the total $t\bar t$ cross section at the NNLO [@Czakon:2013goa; @Czakon:2013xaa]. We have considered three different functional forms for the reference scale $\hat\mu$ in eq. (\[muFmuR\]): && \^[(1)]{} = [12]{} \_[i]{} m\_[[T]{},i]{}, i{t,[|[t]{}]{}}, \[eq:scalesMtMT\]\
&& \^[(2)]{} = [12]{} \_[i]{} m\_[[T]{},i]{}, i [final]{} [state]{}, \[eq:scalesHT\]\
&& \^[(3)]{} = [m\_[t]{}]{}, \[eq:scalesmt\] with the transverse masses $m_{{{\scriptscriptstyle}T},i}=\sqrt{p_{{{\scriptscriptstyle}T},i}^2+m_i^2}$. We point out that, since in our calculations the top quarks are treated as stable particles at the level of hard matrix elements, the difference between eq. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\]) and (\[eq:scalesHT\]) is the contribution to the latter of the transverse momentum of the massless parton which is possibly present in the final state (owing to real-emission corrections); the scale of eq. (\[eq:scalesHT\]) is nothing but ${H_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}/2$.
Our simulations are carried out at the 8 TeV LHC. Since we only consider the process of eq. (\[eq:reaction\]), i.e. top-pair production without any background contamination, all of our events are $t{\bar{t}}$ ones by construction. On the other hand, in order to perform a more realistic analysis, we also impose the following event selection: on top of having two oppositely-charged leptons (electrons and/or muons), events are required to contain at least two $b$-flavored jets, with jets defined according to the anti-${k_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$ algorithm [@Cacciari:2008gp] with $R=0.5$, as implemented in [FastJet]{} [@Cacciari:2011ma]. The events so selected are then subject to the following cuts: && 2.4, [p\_[T]{}]{}(\^) 20 [GeV]{},\
&& 2.4, [p\_[T]{}]{}(J\_b) 30 [GeV]{}. \[eq:cuts\] If more than two $b$-jets are present, the cuts above are imposed on the two hardest ones. In order to simplify our analysis, $b$-hadrons have been set stable in [[HERWIG6]{}]{}, so that the vast majority of the events just contain the two charged leptons arising from top decays. In addition to the cuts of eq. (\[eq:cuts\]), we have also checked the effects of imposing lepton-jet isolation cuts: these being negligible, we shall not consider them any further in this paper.
Calculation of the moments and of the functions $f_{C,U,L}({m_{t}})$\[sec:thsetups\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the settings described above, we have simulated $t{\bar{t}}$ production in all of the six calculational scenarios of table \[tab:calc\]; in the case of NLO+PS+MS (which we believe to give the best description of SM physics, and is thus treated as our reference computation), results have been obtained with all of the three scales choices of eqs. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\])–(\[eq:scalesmt\]), while in all the other cases only the scale of eq. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\]) has been considered.
Each of these calculations has been performed eleven times, once for each value of the top quark mass chosen in the discrete set: [m\_[t]{}]{}=(168, 169, …, 178) [GeV]{}. \[eq:mtopset\] In each of these runs, we have computed the first four Mellin moments for all the observables listed in table \[tab:obs\], both without applying any cuts, and with the selection cuts of eq. (\[eq:cuts\]); all moments are evaluated on the fly (i.e. not a-posteriori using the corresponding differential distribution), as explained in appendix \[sec:comp\]. At the end of the runs, we have the predictions for the Mellin moments that correspond to the central scales and PDF set, and to all non-central scales and PDFs that belong to the relevant error set; as already explained, all the non-central results do not require additional runs, but are obtained through reweighting. The envelopes of the non-central scale and PDF results are then separately constructed. Finally, the scale and PDF uncertainties are combined in quadrature.
The bottom line is that at the end of a given run for each Mellin moment we obtain three numbers: the central, upper, and lower predictions for that moment. Examples of such an outcome, for all the ${m_{t}}$ values in the set (\[eq:mtopset\]), are given in fig. \[fig:ptl\] in the form of the usual error-bar layout. Both panels of fig. \[fig:ptl\] are relevant to NLO+PS+MS simulations with the scale choice of eq. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\]); the one on the left (right) reports the first moment of ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)$ (${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+\ell^-)$), both with and without selection cuts.
Having the above results, the set of the eleven central, or upper, or lower, values for each of the moments is then fitted with the following functional form: = \_O\^[(i)]{}173\^i + \_O\^[(i)]{}()\^i. \[eq:res-equation\] The best fits to the central, upper, and lower moments are finally identified with the functions $f_C$, $f_U$, and $f_L$, respectively, introduced in sect. \[sec:extract\]. In the examples of fig. \[fig:ptl\], these three functions are the three straight lines (for each of the four situations considered there); the analogy with fig. \[fig:extract\] is evident.
The actual fitted values of the coefficients of eq. (\[eq:res-equation\]) that correspond to the $f_{C,U,L}$ functions in the case of the selection cuts, together with their analogues for the other three observables not shown in fig. \[fig:ptl\], are reported in table \[tab:res-coeff\]. They will not be explicitly used in what follows, and simply constitute a benchmark for future applications.
Observable $\alpha$ (central) $\beta$ (central) $\alpha$ (upper) $\beta$ (upper) $\alpha$ (lower) $\beta$ (lower)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ------------------ -----------------
${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)$ 0.1347 0.1939 0.1345 0.1950 0.1353 0.1925
${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+\ell^-)$ 0.1195 0.2857 0.1227 0.2850 0.1166 0.2868
$M(\ell^+\ell^-)$ 0.3182 0.3109 0.3246 0.3073 0.3216 0.3046
$E(\ell^+)+E(\ell^-)$ 0.5752 0.5100 0.5663 0.5258 0.5636 0.5154
${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)+{p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^-)$ 0.2824 0.3755 0.2896 0.3701 0.2765 0.3796
: \[tab:res-coeff\] Values of the coefficients of eq. (\[eq:res-equation\]), for the first moments resulting from an NLO+PS+MS simulation with the scale of eq. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\]); the selection cuts of eq. (\[eq:cuts\]) are applied.
We conclude this section by pointing out that statistical integration errors are completely neglected in the fitting procedure described above (which is equivalent to taking all of them equal). In fact, the main reason behind choosing such a large number (11) of ${m_{t}}$ values for our simulations is that of minimising the impact of statistical fluctuations, without having to bother about the statistical errors, which are notoriously tricky in the case of the integration of NLO cross sections. The typical size of the statistical fluctuations can be gathered from fig. \[fig:ptl\]; it tends to increase in the case of higher moments, but it remains manageable up to the fourth moment, which is the largest we have considered. Obviously, statistical fluctuations can be reduced by increasing the accuracy of all runs performed. Given the large number of simulations relevant to the present paper, we have limited ourselves to work with $10^6$ events (of which, about $30\%$ pass the selection cuts of eq. (\[eq:cuts\])) in the case of computations matched to partons showers, and with a comparable accuracy in the case of fixed-order calculations. With this setup, we have found that over the interval $168-178$ GeV the functional form of eq. (\[eq:res-equation\]) gives an excellent fit up to the fourth moment, and we believe that this conclusion applies regardless of the statistics; in other words, we see no reason for considering polynomials of higher orders in ${m_{t}}^i$ in the fitting procedure.
Extraction of the top quark mass
--------------------------------
We now use the predictions for $f_{C,U,L}({m_{t}})$, calculated as described in sect. \[sec:thsetups\], to extract the value of the top quark mass according to the procedure outlined in sect. \[sec:extract\]. In this way, we shall obtain the main figure of merit relevant to the method proposed in this paper, namely the size of the theoretical errors, eq. (\[therr\]), associated with the extraction. In addition, by comparing the results emerging from the different computational scenarios of table \[tab:calc\], we shall assess the presence and numerical impact of the possible theory biases that affect the various approximations.
In order to carry out the programme just described, we need to start from some data, as in eq. (\[mudata\]). In view of the fact that Mellin moments for the observables of table \[tab:obs\] have not been measured at the LHC, we shall generate them ourselves, by using the procedure to be described in sect. \[sec:pd\]. We point out that theoretically-generated (pseudo)data are actually more advantageous than real data if one is interested in studying the performances of a given procedure, since they provide one with a fully-controlled environment.
All of the theory predictions and pseudodata used in this section have been subject to the selection cuts of eq. (\[eq:cuts\]).
### Pseudodata\[sec:pd\]
Since we believe that our reference scenario, namely NLO+PS+MS, will give the best description of actual (SM) physics, it is natural to adopt it for the generation of the pseudodata. While well-motivated from a physics viewpoint, we stress that, for the sake of a purely theoretical exercise, this choice is completely arbitrary, and that the conclusions we shall arrive at would be qualitatively unchanged had we chosen a different scenario. The pseudodata are generated by setting: && =174.32 ,\
&& [\_[F]{}]{}\^[pd]{} = 0.45(m\_[[T]{},t]{}+m\_[[T]{},|t]{}+ 0.5p\_[[T]{},p]{}),\
&& [\_[R]{}]{}\^[pd]{} = 0.60(m\_[[T]{},t]{}+m\_[[T]{},|t]{}+ 0.3p\_[[T]{},p]{}), \[eq:pd\] where in the definitions of the scales use is made of the transverse masses of the top and the antitop, and of the transverse momentum of the massless parton possibly present in the final state at the hard-subprocess level.
With the choices in eq. (\[eq:pd\]), pseudodata generation does not correspond to any of the scenarios of table \[tab:calc\] and to any of the scales of eqs. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\])–(\[eq:scalesmt\]). Therefore, one must not expect that the extractions of the top mass will return exactly $\mtoppd$, owing to the presence of the biases discussed in sect. \[sec:bias\]. Having said that, we expect pseudodata to show a clear “preference” (i.e. smaller biases) towards simulations based on the NLO+PS+MS scenario, since in those cases the biases must be due only to scale choices. The verification that this is indeed the case will constitute a self-consistency check of the procedure we are following. Note that the information relevant to theory biases is encoded not in the actual value of the extracted ${m_{t}}$, but in its difference with $\mtoppd$. Because of the behaviour of the $f_{C,U,L}$ functions, such a difference is very much insensitive to the choice of $\mtoppd$, which allows one to pick an arbitrary value for the latter, as is done in eq. (\[eq:pd\]), and which is ultimately the reason for the robustness of the usage of pseudodata.
### Shower, NLO, and spin-correlation effects\[sec:eff\]
The scenarios of table \[tab:calc\] differ by the various approximations they are based upon, each of which may lead to biases in the extraction of the top mass. An interesting question is then whether the different sources of possible biases can be disentangled from each other (i.e. whether in a sense they factorise). This is not only relevant in the context of the present exercise, but also because it may help assess the impact of approximations not considered here (such as NNLO corrections), and which might become crucial in the presence of real data. Furthermore, it also sheds light on the characteristics of the various observables used in this paper, and in so doing suggests how to enlarge their set.
In order to address the items above, we proceed as follows. We select pairs of scenarios that differ in one and only one aspect of the approximations they involve; for example, scenarios \#1 and \#2 differ in the perturbative accuracy (NLO vs LO) of the underlying computations. The aspects that we shall be able to consider are three, namely parton-shower, NLO-correction, and spin-correlation effects, which we shall discuss in turn below. The top mass extracted within scenario \#$i$ will be denoted by: [m\_[t]{}]{}\^[(i)]{}. Let us then suppose to have chosen a pair of scenarios $(\#i,\#j)$ that differ only by aspect [**A**]{}. What we may consider are the quantities: &&[m\_[t]{}]{}\^[(i)]{}-, [m\_[t]{}]{}\^[(j)]{}-, \[ijmpd\]\
&&[m\_[t]{}]{}\^[(i)]{}-[m\_[t]{}]{}\^[(j)]{}. \[imj\] While the differences in eq. (\[ijmpd\]) are sensitive to all theory biases that affect scenarios \#$i$ and \#$j$, we expect that the difference in eq. (\[imj\]) is solely sensitive to the effect of [**A**]{} (if the factorisation property mentioned above holds to some extent). In the following, we report the differences that appear in eq. (\[ijmpd\]) and (\[imj\])[^10], for all the relevant $(\#i,\#j)$ pairs and all the observables of table \[tab:obs\]. We shall limit ourselves to considering the first moments, which are sufficient for the sake of the present exercise; all results are obtained with the scale of eq. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\]). In the case of eq. (\[imj\]), which is our main interest here, we also report the errors affecting the difference, which is computed by combining in quadrature the errors (determined according to eq. (\[therr\])) that affect the individual ${m_{t}}^{(i)}$ and ${m_{t}}^{(j)}$ values. The errors on the differences in eq. (\[ijmpd\]) are of comparable size, up to a factor $\sqrt{2}$ smaller since $\mtoppd$ is assumed to be known with infinite precision.
We start with shower effects, and report the corresponding results in table \[tab:pulls-shower\]. The relevant scenario pairs are $(3,5)$ and $(4,6)$, the latter being the LO counterpart of the former, which is accurate to NLO. Note that scenarios \#1 and \#2 have not been considered here, owing to the lack of fixed-order results that include production spin correlations.
obs. ${m_{t}}^{(3)} - {m_{t}}^{(5)}$ ${m_{t}}^{(3)} - \mtoppd$ ${m_{t}}^{(4)} - {m_{t}}^{(6)}$ ${m_{t}}^{(4)} - \mtoppd$
------ --------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------
1 $-0.35^{+1.14}_{-1.16}$ $+0.12$ $-2.17^{+1.50}_{-1.80}$ $-0.67$
2 $-4.74^{+1.98}_{-3.10}$ $+11.14$ $-9.09^{+0.76}_{-0.71}$ $+14.19$
3 $+1.52^{+2.03}_{-1.80}$ $-8.61$ $+3.79^{+3.30}_{-4.02}$ $-6.43$
4 $+0.15^{+2.81}_{-2.91}$ $-0.23$ $-1.79^{+3.08}_{-3.75}$ $-1.47$
5 $-0.30^{+1.09}_{-1.21}$ $ +0.03$ $-2.13^{+1.51}_{-1.81}$ $-0.67$
: \[tab:pulls-shower\] Impact of parton showers on mass extractions. See the text for details.
The first observation is that the $(3,5)$ and $(4,6)$ cases are rather consistent with each other; however, the results for eq. (\[imj\]) of the latter are in absolute value systematically larger than those of the former. This is compatible with the expectation, corroborated by ample heuristic evidence in many different processes, that shower effects are milder if the underlying computations are NLO-accurate (as opposed to LO ones), for the simple reason that NLO results do already include part of the radiation to be generated by parton showers[^11]. While in the case of NLO-based simulations all differences are statistically compatible with zero (within $1\sigma$) except for observable \#2, in the case of LO-based simulations more significant deviations can be seen in the cases of observables \#1 and \#5 as well. The take-home message, then, is that shower effects are moderate if higher-order corrections are taken into account, which is good news in view of the future availability of NNLO parton-level differential results; however, this conclusion does not apply to the transverse momentum of the charged-lepton pair, for which a proper matching with parton showers appears to be needed.
As far as the results for eq. (\[ijmpd\]) are concerned, table \[tab:pulls-shower\] shows that values significantly different from zero are obtained in the cases of observables \#2 and \#3. The size of the difference relevant to \#2 is larger than that resulting from eq. (\[imj\]), which implies that for such an observable other effects, on top of those due to showers, are sources of theory biases as well (both NLO and spin correlations, as we shall show later). A similar conclusion applies to the lepton-pair invariant mass \#3, for which the absence of shower effects implies that biases are entirely due to some other mechanism (spin correlations, as it will turn out).
obs. ${m_{t}}^{(1)} - {m_{t}}^{(2)}$ ${m_{t}}^{(1)} - \mtoppd$ ${m_{t}}^{(3)} - {m_{t}}^{(4)}$ ${m_{t}}^{(3)} - \mtoppd$ ${m_{t}}^{(5)} - {m_{t}}^{(6)}$ ${m_{t}}^{(5)} - \mtoppd$
------ --------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------
1 $+1.16^{+1.43}_{-1.60}$ $+0.41$ $+0.79^{+1.43}_{-1.60}$ $+0.12$ $-1.03^{+1.22}_{-1.43}$ $+0.47$
2 $-2.79^{+1.27}_{-1.65}$ $-1.18$ $-3.05^{+1.35}_{-1.64}$ $+11.14$ $-7.41^{+1.64}_{-2.72}$ $+15.87$
3 $-0.73^{+3.21}_{-3.45}$ $+0.84$ $-2.18^{+3.03}_{-3.30}$ $-8.61$ $+0.09^{+2.42}_{-2.91}$ $-10.13$
4 $+1.74^{+3.27}_{-3.78}$ $+0.16$ $+1.23^{+3.10}_{-3.61}$ $-0.23$ $-0.70^{+2.79}_{-3.09}$ $-0.38$
5 $+0.99^{+1.42}_{-1.72}$ $+0.25$ $+0.70^{+1.40}_{-1.72}$ $+0.03$ $-1.13^{+1.23}_{-1.33}$ $+0.33$
: \[tab:pulls-nlo\] Impact of NLO corrections on mass extractions. See the text for details.
We next consider NLO effects, which we document in table \[tab:pulls-nlo\], and for which the relevant scenario pairs are $(1,2)$, $(3,4)$, and $(5,6)$. As far as eq. (\[imj\]) is concerned, the differences for all pairs and all observables except \#2 are compatible with zero; thus, the first moments of such observables appear to be quite stable perturbatively, regardless of the matching to parton showers, and of the presence of spin correlations. For what concerns ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+\ell^-)$, on top of the fact that NLO effects are significant in all scenarios, we observe that they are particularly strong when the matching to showers is not performed (pair $(5,6)$); this is again related to the fact that, in certain corners of the phase space, showers and NLO corrections affect the kinematics in a similar way. Coming to the absolute size of theory biases, eq. (\[ijmpd\]), we see that they are all rather small in the case of NLO+PS+MS predictions (second column); this is what we expect, as explained in sect. \[sec:pd\]. For the other scenarios, large differences are observed in the case of observables \#2 and \#3, which was expected in view of table \[tab:pulls-shower\]. For the latter observable, this fact, the absence of NLO effects, and the results of table \[tab:pulls-shower\] imply that the biases are solely due to spin correlations.
obs. ${m_{t}}^{(1)} - {m_{t}}^{(3)}$ ${m_{t}}^{(1)} - \mtoppd$ ${m_{t}}^{(2)} - {m_{t}}^{(4)}$ ${m_{t}}^{(2)} - \mtoppd$
------ --------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------
1 $+0.29^{+1.17}_{-1.14}$ $+0.41$ $-0.08^{+1.66}_{-1.96}$ $-0.75$
2 $-12.32^{+1.62}_{-2.13}$ $-1.18$ $-12.58^{+0.90}_{-0.94}$ $+1.60$
3 $+9.45^{+2.36}_{-2.16}$ $+0.84$ $+8.00^{+3.74}_{-4.26}$ $+1.57$
4 $+0.39^{+2.93}_{-3.16}$ $+0.16$ $-0.11^{+3.42}_{-4.16}$ $-1.58$
5 $+0.22^{+1.12}_{-1.28}$ $+0.25$ $-0.06^{+1.65}_{-2.07}$ $-0.73$
: \[tab:pulls-spincorr\] Impact of spin correlations on mass extractions. See the text for details.
We finally turn to spin-correlations effects, whose results are reported in table \[tab:pulls-spincorr\], and for which the relevant scenario pairs are $(1,3)$ and $(2,4)$; these two pairs differ in the underlying perturbative accuracy, which is NLO and LO respectively. The conclusions that can be drawn from table \[tab:pulls-spincorr\] have already been anticipated. Namely, that the differences resulting from eq. (\[imj\]) are significantly different from zero for both observables \#2 and \#3, while they are negligible in the other cases. The sizes of the former differences appear to be fairly insensitive to NLO corrections, which is an indirect confirmation of the factorisation of spin-correlation effects.
The general conclusion of this section is the following. Observables that are single-inclusive (${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)$), and that feature a mild correlation between the decay products of the top and antitop ($E(\ell^+)+E(\ell^-)$ and ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)+{p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^-)$), are rather stable against shower, NLO, and spin-correlations effects. This is not true for observables for which the correlation between the two charged leptons is stronger (${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+\ell^-)$ and $M(\ell^+\ell^-)$): the fact that either shower or spin-correlation effects (or both) are relevant implies, among other things, that the computation of the $t{\bar{t}}$ cross section at the NNLO with stable tops will not be sufficient to give a good description of such observables, at the very least in the context of the top mass extraction considered in this paper.
### Results for the top quark mass\[sec:res\]
In this section we present the results for the extraction of the top quark mass obtained with our reference computational scenario, NLO+PS+MS. We are specifically interested in checking the size of the theory uncertainty affecting such an extraction, and its behaviour (together with that of the central top quark mass) when the results emerging from the individual observables and moments are combined together. These findings will also serve as benchmarks for the studies that we shall carry out in sect. \[sec:resbias\], where the extraction of the top mass will be performed by using the other scenarios of table \[tab:calc\]. Furthermore, we want to study how the above results are influenced by the scale choice, and therefore we shall consider all of the three forms given in eqs. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\])–(\[eq:scalesmt\]).
The general strategy is the following. For a given scale choice, we extract the top mass from each of the five observables of table \[tab:obs\] and their first three moments[^12], i.e. fifteen ${m_{t}}$ values in total, each with its theory errors of eq. (\[therr\]). These values, or any subset of them, are then combined to obtain the “best” result. The combination technique is briefly explained in appendix \[sec:comb\], and is rather standard: basically, the central values are weighted with the inverse of the square of their errors. Since the various observables and their moments are correlated, it is necessary to take these correlations into account, lest one skew the final central value of ${m_{t}}$ and underestimate its error.
The simplest case is that where one uses a single observable for extracting ${m_{t}}$; as was explained in sect. \[sec:bias\], this is far from being ideal, and we present it here only as a way to compare with the multi-observable results that will be shown later. We use observable \#1 (${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)$) because it is the one whose top-mass extractions are affected by the smallest errors (in the case of the scale of eq. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\])). The values of ${m_{t}}$ that we obtain are given in table \[tab:nlopsms-1\], which should be read as follows (this layout will be used for the other tables of this section as well). Each one of the first three rows corresponds to one of the scales of eqs. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\])–(\[eq:scalesmt\]) (i.e. the $i^{th}$ row is obtained with $\hat\mu^{(i)}$). The first, second, and third column reports the results obtained by considering only the first, up to the second, and up to the third Mellin moments, respectively. The results in the fourth row are obtained by combining the three results that appear in the first three rows of the same column. Such a combination is achieved by weighting those three results with the inverse of the square of their errors. Since the errors are asymmetric, one treats separately the $+$ and $-$ ones; the two resulting “central” ${m_{t}}$ values are possibly different, and the single ${m_{t}}$ reported in table \[tab:nlopsms-1\] is then obtained again with a weighted average. Finally, the numbers in square brackets are the values of $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom, computed by always considering the first four Mellin moments, regardless of how many of them had been actually used in the combination. One should not seek a deep meaning in this $\chi^2$, in particular because of the way the errors that enter into it are obtained (i.e. their behaviour from a statistical viewpoint is unknown to us). On the other hand, while its precise value is not of particular significance, it represents a very useful reference for the performance of the extraction procedure, as we shall see in sect. \[sec:resbias\].
scale $i=1$ $i=1{\oplus}2$ $i=1{\oplus}2{\oplus}3$
----------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
1 $174.73^{+0.80}_{-0.79}[0.2]$ $174.73^{+0.80}_{-0.79}[0.2]$ $174.72^{+0.80}_{-0.79}[0.2]$
2 $174.78^{+0.90}_{-0.90}[0.6]$ $174.78^{+0.90}_{-0.90}[0.6]$ $174.78^{+0.90}_{-0.90}[0.6]$
3 $172.73^{+2.0}_{-1.2}[0.5]$ $172.73^{+1.96}_{-1.19}[0.5]$ $172.73^{+1.96}_{-1.19}[0.5]$
$1{\oplus}2{\oplus}3$ $174.46^{+0.99}_{-0.92}$ $174.46^{+0.99}_{-0.92}$ $174.45^{+0.99}_{-0.92}$
: \[tab:nlopsms-1\] Top mass values extracted from observable \#1, with up to three moments, and for three different scale choices. The last line reports the results obtained by combining the central ${m_{t}}$ values relevant to the three scales. The numbers in square brackets are $\chi^2/n$. The pseudodata top mass is $\mtoppd=174.32$ GeV. See the text for details.
The messages to be taken out of table \[tab:nlopsms-1\] are the following. Firstly, the impact of the addition of moments beyond the first is extremely modest, if visible at all. This is due to the fact that the errors affecting ${m_{t}}$ increase with higher moments, and to the non-negligible correlations between the moments (see appendix \[sec:comb\]). Secondly, the scales $\hat\mu^{(1)}$ and $\hat\mu^{(2)}$ tend to give central results larger than the “true” one of the pseudodata, $\mtoppd=174.32~\GeV$, while the opposite applies to scale $\hat\mu^{(3)}$, where the effect is more evident (but still within $1\sigma$). Let us then consider the latter case to be definite, and compare the functional form of eq. (\[eq:scalesmt\]) with those of eq. (\[eq:pd\]). Because of the dependence on the transverse momenta of the scales used in the pseudodata, which is absent in the case of $\hat\mu^{(3)}$, the tails of the ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$-related distributions obtained with $\hat\mu^{(3)}$ will be less rapidly falling than those of the pseudodata (mainly because the ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$-dependence of ${\mu_{{\scriptscriptstyle}R}}$ in eq. (\[eq:pd\]) will induce a stronger ${\alpha_{{\scriptscriptstyle}S}}$ suppression, relative to the small-${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$ region, than in the case of $\hat\mu^{(3)}$; this effect is only mildly compensated by that due to ${\mu_{{\scriptscriptstyle}F}}$). Thus, the moments computed with scale \#3 will be slightly larger than their analogues in the pseudodata. For the reasons explained in sect. \[sec:bias\], this difference then results in a lower (than the input $\mtoppd$) value for the extracted top mass, which is what we see in the third row of table \[tab:nlopsms-1\]. The same effect, but (slightly) in the opposite direction, is at play in the case of scales \#1 and \#2. Here, the numerical values of such scales at large ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$’s relative to their small ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$ counterparts are closer to those relevant to the pseudodata scales than in the case of scale \#3, whence closer-to-$\mtoppd$ central results for the top mass. Given these opposite behaviours, not surprisingly the average of the three results is closer to $\mtoppd$ than any of them; such an average is biased towards the results of $\hat\mu^{(1)}$ and $\hat\mu^{(2)}$, owing to their errors being smaller than those associated with the extractions with $\hat\mu^{(3)}$.
scale $i=1$ $i=1{\oplus}2$ $i=1{\oplus}2{\oplus}3$
----------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --
1 $174.67^{+0.75}_{-0.77}[3.0]$ $174.67^{+0.75}_{-0.77}[3.0]$ $174.61^{+0.74}_{-0.77}[3.2]$
2 $174.81^{+0.83}_{-0.80}[6.2]$ $174.80^{+0.82}_{-0.80}[6.2]$ $174.85^{+0.82}_{-0.80}[6.1]$
3 $172.63^{+1.85}_{-1.16}[0.2]$ $172.64^{+1.82}_{-1.15}[0.2]$ $172.58^{+1.81}_{-1.15}[0.2]$
$1{\oplus}2{\oplus}3$ $174.44^{+0.92}_{-0.87}$ $174.44^{+0.92}_{-0.87}$ $174.43^{+0.91}_{-0.87}$
: \[tab:nlopsms-145\] As in table \[tab:nlopsms-1\], with the extractions performed by using observables \#1, \#4, and \#5. The pseudodata top mass is $\mtoppd=174.32$ GeV.
We now repeat the combination procedure that has led to the results of table \[tab:nlopsms-1\], by including, on top of the ${m_{t}}$ values obtained with observable \#1, also those relevant to observables \#4 and \#5; the new combined results are presented in table \[tab:nlopsms-145\]. By far and large, all comments relevant to table \[tab:nlopsms-1\] can be repeated here. There is a decrease (less than 10% for all scales) of the errors, which is not large because of two facts: observable \#1 induces the smallest errors (in the present observable set), and the observables considered are sizably correlated, as documented in appendix \[sec:comb\]. By adding more observables one starts to see the effects of the inclusion of higher moments; although statistically not significant, there are trends in the central values which were not visible in the case of a single observable.
scale $i=1$ $i=1{\oplus}2$ $i=1{\oplus}2{\oplus}3$
----------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- --
1 $174.48^{+0.73}_{-0.77}[5.0]$ $174.55^{+0.72}_{-0.76}[5.0]$ $174.56^{+0.71}_{-0.76}[5.1]$
2 $174.73^{+0.77}_{-0.80}[4.3]$ $174.74^{+0.76}_{-0.79}[4.3]$ $174.91^{+0.75}_{-0.79}[4.1]$
3 $172.54^{+1.03}_{-1.07}[1.6]$ $172.46^{+0.99}_{-1.05}[1.6]$ $172.22^{+0.95}_{-1.04}[1.4]$
$1{\oplus}2{\oplus}3$ $174.16^{+0.81}_{-0.85}$ $174.17^{+0.80}_{-0.84}$ $174.17^{+0.78}_{-0.84}$
: \[tab:nlopsms-all\] As in table \[tab:nlopsms-1\], with the extractions performed by using all observables. The pseudodata top mass is $\mtoppd=174.32$ GeV.
Finally, in table \[tab:nlopsms-all\] we present the results obtained by combining the extractions of ${m_{t}}$ from all observables; thus, according to the discussion given in sect. \[sec:bias\], these have to be considered our best estimates of the top mass, given the pseudodata of sect. \[sec:pd\]. The errors decrease further w.r.t. those of table \[tab:nlopsms-145\] (not significantly in the case of $\hat\mu^{(1)}$ and $\hat\mu^{(2)}$, but by a large factor for $\hat\mu^{(3)}$; this is because, for such a scale, it is the ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}$ of the lepton pair that happens to be affected by the smallest errors). The trend induced by the addition of higher moments becomes more visible than before, and statistically significant (a $2\sigma$ effect) in the case of scale \#3. However, the final results of the fourth row, obtained by combining the outcomes associated with the different scales, are quite stable. The case of the results associated with $\hat\mu^{(3)}$ is interesting, because it stresses again the importance of considering as many observables and as diverse as possible in order to expose potential theory biases in the top-mass extraction. Given that here all our predictions are based on the same computational scenario as the pseudodata, namely NLO+PS+MS, the only deviations from a perfect reconstruction can only be due to the different choice of scales, and $\hat\mu^{(3)}$ happens to be farther from the pseudodata ones of eq. (\[eq:pd\]) than either $\hat\mu^{(1)}$ or $\hat\mu^{(2)}$. The crucial point is that this observation is true regardless of the type of observables considered, but it is only when the lepton-pair correlations \#2 and \#3 enter the combination that the effects become more noticeable. This is related to the behaviour of these two observables discussed in sect. \[sec:eff\], which exhibit the strongest sensitivity to (among other things) extra radiation. A change of scale is an effective, if quite mild, way of probing some of these extra-radiation effects. As we shall see in sect. \[sec:resbias\], the impact of the addition of these two observables on the theory biases is spectacular when the underlying calculational scenario is different w.r.t. that used in the generation of the pseudodata.
There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this section. The first is that the procedure proposed in this paper appears to be able to give theory errors on the extracted top mass of the order of $0.8$ GeV. While we have neglected background contaminations, we have also been conservative with the range of scale variations; on top of that, the addition of further observables may help reduce further those errors. The second conclusion is more general, in that it applies to any extraction method based on templates. Our exercise demonstrates that one thing is the variation of the scales induced by pre-factors that multiply a given functional form, and quite another the change of that functional form. Although the two procedures overlap, they are not equivalent. We have shown a practical way to probe the changes of the above functional form: the idea is that, by re-computing theoretical predictions for many different scale choices, and by performing a weighted average of their outcomes, one might effectively capture the scale settings which optimally describe Nature.
### More on theory biases\[sec:resbias\]
The aim of this section is that of repeating what has been done in sect. \[sec:res\], for scenarios other than NLO+PS+MS. In other words, all of the computations considered here are different w.r.t. that used in the generation of the pseudodata; we shall thus study the theory biases, whose sources we have already discussed in sect. \[sec:eff\], at the level of the combined results for the extracted top quark mass. All the calculations are performed by using the scale $\hat\mu^{(1)}$. We report the results in table \[tab:results-rest\], which is organised with the same conventions as those used in the tables of sect. \[sec:res\]. This table is split into two parts, relevant to the ${m_{t}}$ extraction performed by using only three observables (\#1, \#4, and \#5), or all of them. These two parts thus are in one-to-one correspondence with (the first row of) tables \[tab:nlopsms-145\] and \[tab:nlopsms-all\], respectively.
Scenario $i=1$ $i=1{\oplus}2$ $i=1{\oplus}2{\oplus}3$
---------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
LO+PS+MS $173.61^{+1.10}_{-1.34}[1.0]$ $173.63^{+1.10}_{-1.34}[1.0]$ $173.62^{+1.10}_{-1.34}[1.0]$
NLO+PS $174.40^{+0.75}_{-0.81}[3.5]$ $174.43^{+0.75}_{-0.81}[3.5]$ $174.60^{+0.75}_{-0.79}[3.2]$
LO+PS $173.68^{+1.08}_{-1.31}[0.8]$ $173.68^{+1.08}_{-1.31}[0.9]$ $173.75^{+1.08}_{-1.31}[0.9]$
fNLO $174.73^{+0.72}_{-0.74}[5.5]$ $174.72^{+0.71}_{-0.74}[5.6]$ $175.18^{+0.64}_{-0.71}[4.6]$
fLO $175.84^{+0.90}_{-1.05}[1.2]$ $175.75^{+0.89}_{-1.05}[1.2]$ $175.82^{+0.89}_{-1.04}[1.2]$
LO+PS+MS $175.98^{+0.63}_{-0.69}[16.9]$ $176.05^{+0.63}_{-0.68}[17.8]$ $176.12^{+0.61}_{-0.68}[18.9]$
NLO+PS $175.43^{+0.74}_{-0.80}[29.2]$ $176.20^{+0.73}_{-0.79}[30.1]$ $175.67^{+0.73}_{-0.76}[31.2]$
LO+PS $187.90^{+0.6}_{-0.6}[428.3]$ $187.71^{+0.60}_{-0.60}[424.2]$ $187.83^{+0.58}_{-0.60}[442.8]$
fNLO $174.41^{+0.72}_{-0.73}[96.6]$ $174.82^{+0.71}_{-0.73}[93.1]$ $175.44^{+0.70}_{-0.68}[94.8]$
fLO $197.31^{+0.42}_{-0.35}[2496.1]$ $197.19^{+0.42}_{-0.35}[2505.6]$ $197.48^{+0.36}_{-0.35}[3005.6]$
: \[tab:results-rest\] Combined extracted values of ${m_{t}}$, for various scenarios and two choices of the set of observables. The pseudodata top mass is $\mtoppd=174.32$ GeV.
From the upper part of table \[tab:results-rest\], we see that the use of observables \#1, \#4, and \#5 leads to central ${m_{t}}$ values which may not be in perfect agreement with the pseudodata value $\mtoppd$, but are not far from it either, irrespective of the calculational scenario considered. Furthermore, both the errors and the $\chi^2$ values are totally reasonable, and rather consistent with those of table \[tab:nlopsms-145\]. These findings need not be surprising, because they could be anticipated in sect. \[sec:eff\], where observables \#1, \#4, and \#5 have been shown to be fairly insensitive to shower, NLO, and spin-correlation effects. These effects are ultimately the difference between each of the scenarios considered here, and our reference one, NLO+PS+MS. It is therefore instructive to see what happens when observables \#2 and \#3 are used in the extractions as well (lower part of table \[tab:results-rest\]). Not only the differences among the central results for the extracted top mass are much larger than before (and particularly so at the LO in absence of proper spin correlations), but it is especially the $\chi^2$ values that increase dramatically, in spite of (and, in a sense, thanks to) the fact that the errors remain quite moderate. This is exactly the situation that has been described in sect. \[sec:bias\]: the extraction of ${m_{t}}$ from individual observables is always acceptable and affected by small errors; however, if the underlying theoretical description is incompatible with that of the (pseudo)data, the different results will be mutually incompatible. A (certainly non-unique) way of making explicit the presence of such incompatibilities is through the computation of a $\chi^2$. The lower part of table \[tab:results-rest\] is thus another, very explicit way of showing why considering a large number of observables with different characteristics is always beneficial, in this or in other template-based methods.
A final comment on table \[tab:results-rest\]. The errors that affect the extracted top mass do not follow the usual LO$\to$NLO reduction pattern, and they need not to. Indeed, the relationship between the above errors, and those which are usually considered at the level of rates, is rather indirect. Furthermore, in the combination of the results obtained from different observables, a single ${m_{t}}$ value affected by errors much smaller than the others will have a very large weight, with the picture being further complicated by the presence of strong correlations among the observables studied here. While the particular combination technique used in this paper (see appendix \[sec:comb\]) can certainly be refined, possibly leading to changes in the central values of ${m_{t}}$ and their associated errors, the conclusions reached before will not change, being based on a few well-understood physics phenomena.
Conclusions\[sec:concl\]
========================
In this paper we have proposed a procedure for the determination of the top quark pole mass from dilepton $t{\bar{t}}$ events. Our main proposals and findings are the following:
- We use leptonic single-inclusive and correlation observables, which are clean and largely insensitive to the modelling of long-distance effects. Our method, based on Mellin moments, relies neither on the definition of the top quark as a pseudo-particle, nor on its reconstruction.
- The quality of the results for ${m_{t}}$ and their reliability improves by increasing the number of observables and of their moments. It is important that the observables employed have different sensitivities to the various mechanisms relevant to $t{\bar{t}}$ production and decay, such as higher-order corrections, and shower and spin-correlation effects. Several theoretical simulations must be used that differ in the choice of the functional form for the hard scales, and the extracted ${m_{t}}$ values must be combined. Thus, we consider the entry in the rightmost column and last row of table \[tab:nlopsms-all\] as our “best” result.
- The errors associated with ${m_{t}}$ may underestimate the difference between the extracted value and the actual pole mass, in the case of an inadequate theoretical description of the underlying production mechanism. A $\chi^2$-type test is effective in identifying the presence of such biases, [*provided*]{} that a sufficiently large number of observables has been employed in the extraction procedure, as is documented in table \[tab:results-rest\].
We stress that the second and third items above apply to any template method that exploits the shapes of observables for the extraction of the top quark mass.
The most precise ${m_{t}}$ determination that we have achieved with our method in the context of the purely-theoretical exercise performed here is affected by errors of the order of 0.8 GeV. It is probably possible to reduce this figure further, by using a set of observables larger than the one considered in this paper. On the other hand, we have not addressed two important aspects which will need to be taken into account in an extraction of ${m_{t}}$ from real data, namely the contamination due to backgrounds, and the systematics due to the choice of the parton shower Monte Carlo. For what concerns this Monte-Carlo systematics, it is worth pointing out that within our approach two different Monte Carlos must lead to two separate top quark mass values, which should eventually be combined on the basis of their respective errors and of the results of some $\chi^2$ tests. An interesting, if not particularly desirable, case is that where two Monte Carlos would lead to statistically-incompatible ${m_{t}}$ results, with two small $\chi^2$ values similar to each other. This implies that the observables chosen in the extraction procedure do not constrain well enough the theoretical models adopted by the Monte Carlos, and it is thus doubtful which (if any) of the two ${m_{t}}$ results best describes the “physical” pole mass.
While we believe that our approach has many competitive features, it remains true that the determination of the top quark mass will benefit from the use of many different techniques. For example, any BSM physics able to modify in a significant manner the kinematic distributions w.r.t. those predicted by the SM may induce large biases in template-based ${m_{t}}$ extractions, unless the simulation of such BSM contribution is also taken into account. In this case, an approach insensitive to the production dynamics (which thus belongs to the first class introducted in sect. \[sec:intro\]) would offer a valuable addition; one may mention here the CMS end-point method [@Chatrchyan:2013boa], or the promising energy-peak method suggested in ref. [@Agashe:2013eba], provided that it could be extended to include NLO QCD corrections to top decays.
The approach we have pursued here has many variants which do not change its essence. For example, one may start looking into $b$-jet variables in order to increase the sensitivity to ${m_{t}}$; this has the downside of introducing a larger dependence on long-distance modelling, and the balance between these two competing aspects must be carefully addressed. Conversely, one can try and select dilepton events of opposite flavour without imposing cuts on the $b$ jets, in order to further reduce the impact of hadronisation; the problem then becomes that of the control of the backgrounds. Our method is also immediately applicable in the context of NNLO simulations. However, for this to be effective, a proper description of top decays, and in particular one that incorporates production-spin-correlation effects, must be included. The matching to parton shower would also be highly desirable.
We are indebted to Rikkert Frederix for his technical support and collaboration at an early stage of this work. We thank Fabio Maltoni and Michelangelo Mangano for several helpful discussions. This work has been supported in part by and performed in the framework of the ERC grant 291377 “LHCtheory: Theoretical predictions and analyses of LHC physics: advancing the precision frontier". The work of A. M. is also supported by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (grants ST/L002760/1 and ST/K004883/1).
Computation of moments in the context of event generation\[sec:comp\]
=====================================================================
While the moments of an observable $O$ can be computed by using the result for the differential distribution , there is actually a more direct way. During the course of an MC simulation, the fully-differential cross section is expressed through a set of $N$ kinematic configurations (“events") and their associated weights: d{[[K]{}]{}\_k,W\_k}\_[k=1]{}\^N, \[sigvsw\] with =\_[k=1]{}\^N W\_k. \[norm\] Note that the $W_k$’s need not necessarily be equal to each other (in absolute value); in other words, what follows is valid in the context of both unweighted and weighted event generation, these being typically relevant to calculations matched to parton-shower Monte Carlos and at fixed order, respectively. When one computes a differential cross section, one evaluates event-by-event the value of the observable of interest in the generated kinematic configuration, $O({{\cal K}}_k)$; such a value determines, in turn, the bin of the corresponding histogram where the weight $W_k$ must be stored. In a completely analogous manner, the calculation of the (unnormalised) moments can also be performed on the fly. In order to do so, for a given observable $O$ one will book a histogram with bins of width one centered at non-negative integers. When the $k^{th}$ event is generated, one stores the weight: W\_k(O([[K]{}]{}\_k))\^[i]{} \[mufill\] in the $i^{th}$ bin of the histogram; this must be done for all bins. By using eqs. (\[mmdef\]), (\[norm\]), and (\[mufill\]) , one sees that at the end of the run the $i^{th}$ bin will be equal to the normalised $i^{th}$ moment, times $\sigma$, so that the normalised moments themselves can be obtained by dividing the content of each bin by that of the bin centered at zero.
We point out that this direct way of computing moments is exact in the $N\to\infty$ limit. On the other hand, the (indirect) calculation which uses the result of is [*not*]{} exact even in the $N\to\infty$ limit, unless the limit of vanishing bin size (in ) is taken as well, which is impossible in the context of an actual simulation, where one thus might have a residual bin-size inaccuracy. Furthermore, in the case where the range of the histogram in $O$ does not cover the whole kinematically-accessible range for such an observable, another inaccuracy affects the indirect computation. For these reasons, and for its greater simplicity, in this paper we have always adopted the direct, event-by-event method outlined above in the calculation of the moments. We have checked, in the case of the first moments, that the results of the direct computations are very similar, but not identical, to those obtained a-posteriori by using the distributions. It must be stressed that the distributions we have used cover rather large ranges (up to 400 GeV for observables \#1, \#2, and \#3, up to 1.2 TeV for observable \#4, and up to 1 TeV for observable \#5), and contain 100 bins. Therefore, in the context of e.g. an experimental analysis, where the use of large-size bins is typical at large momenta, the risk of inaccuracies affecting the moments computed from distributions may be non negligible.
Combination of different top quark mass results\[sec:comb\]
===========================================================
In this appendix we briefly outline the technique used to combine different ${m_{t}}$ results and their errors. We denote these by: =, \[mtopa\] where the index $\alpha$ identifies unambiguously a Mellin moment of a given observable (so that, for example, when considering all of the five observables of table \[tab:obs\] and their first three moments, as has been done in the rightmost column of table \[tab:nlopsms-all\], $\alpha$ can take fifteen different values). Note that this notation does [*not*]{} have the same meaning of the very similar one used in sect. \[sec:eff\]. The central value of the top mass that results from the combination of the values in eq. (\[mtopa\]) and its standard deviation are taken to be: &&[m\_[t]{}]{}= \_[=1]{}\^[M]{} w\_, \[asomega\]\
&& \^2([m\_[t]{}]{}) = \_[,=1]{}\^[M]{} w\_V\_ w\_, \[sigomega\] where the weights $w$ and the covariance matrix $V$ are defined as follows: w\_&=& \_[=1]{}\^[M]{} (V\^[-1]{})\_/ \_[,=1]{}\^[M]{}(V\^[-1]{})\_, 1 M, M = [dim]{}(V), \[omegadef\]\
V\_&=&\_()\^2 +(1-\_) {()\^2, ()\^2, C\_}. \[Vours\] The latter definition has been adopted in keeping with what has been done in ref. [@Frederix:2010ne], which in turn follows closely the prescriptions of the LEP QCD Working Group [@Jones:2006nq]. The correlation matrix $C_{\alpha\beta}$, given explicitly below[^13] in eq. (\[Cmatall3\]), has been computed at one given value of the top mass (173 GeV): we thus neglect effects possibly due to the dependence of such correlations on the top mass, since we expect them to be negligible, especially in the context of eq. (\[Vours\]). Given that the correlation between two variables $X$ and $Y$ is defined as C(X,Y)== , \[corrdef\] with $\sigma_X$ and $\sigma_Y$ the standard deviations, for any two observables $O_r$ and $O_s$ and their $i^{th}$ and $j^{th}$ moments $\Mm{O_r}{i}$ and $\Mm{O_s}{j}$, we use eq. (\[corrdef\]) by identifying $X\equiv\Mm{O_r}{i}$ and $Y\equiv\Mm{O_s}{j}$ and proceed similarly to what is done in eq. (\[mufill\]); in particular, we have: XY=\_[k=1]{}\^N W\_k(O\_r([[K]{}]{}\_k))\^[i]{}(O\_s([[K]{}]{}\_k))\^[j]{}. We also point out that the calculation of $C_{\alpha\beta}$ has been performed by choosing the scale of eq. (\[eq:scalesMtMT\]), and in the context of an NLO+PS+MS simulations. Although, owing to the form of eq. (\[Vours\]), these choices have only a moderate impact on the central values of the combined top masses (as we have verified by setting $C_{\alpha\beta}=0$), we emphasise again that a more refined procedure will lead exactly to the same conclusions: namely, the necessity of combining the results obtained with different observables and moments, and that of performing a $\chi^2$-type test on the final outcome.
In eq. (\[mtopa\]) the errors affecting $\bmtopa$ are symmetric. In the case when they are asymmetric, the procedure above, and in particular the construction of eqs. (\[omegadef\]) and (\[Vours\]), is repeated twice, for the $+$ and $-$ errors. The two resulting central values for the top mass need not coincide; when this happens, the final central value is taken to be the weighted average of the two, with the weights defined as the inverse of the respective $\sigma^2({m_{t}})$’s as given in eq. (\[sigomega\]).
C=
[c@ccccccccccccccc@cl]{} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &\
[(c@ccccccccccccccc@c)l]{} & 1 & 0.91 & 0.65 & 0.39 & 0.41 & 0.33 & 0.58 & 0.53 & 0.39 & 0.53 & 0.48 & 0.37 & 0.76 & 0.70 & 0.51 & &\
& & 1 & 0.89 & 0.38 & 0.45 & 0.42 & 0.53 & 0.56 & 0.48 & 0.48 & 0.48 & 0.42 & 0.71 & 0.77 & 0.68 & &\
& & & 1 & 0.29 & 0.40 & 0.44 & 0.38 & 0.48 & 0.49 & 0.34 & 0.39 & 0.38 & 0.52 & 0.67 & 0.73 & &\
& & & & 1 & 0.92 & 0.68 & 0.10 & 0.12 & 0.10 & 0.35 & 0.29 & 0.20 & 0.52 & 0.43 & 0.28 & &\
& & & & & 1 & 0.90 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.13 & 0.36 & 0.32 & 0.24 & 0.54 & 0.50 & 0.38 & &\
& & & & & & 1 & 0.14 & 0.16 & 0.13 & 0.29 & 0.28 & 0.23 & 0.45 & 0.48 & 0.42 & &\
& & & & & & & 1 & 0.90 & 0.65 & 0.68 & 0.61 & 0.47 & 0.75 & 0.70 & 0.52 & &\
& & & & & & & & 1 & 0.90 & 0.63 & 0.64 & 0.57 & 0.69 & 0.75 & 0.67 & &\
& & & & & & & & & 1 & 0.46 & 0.54 & 0.55 & 0.51 & 0.65 & 0.70 & &\
& & & & & & & & & & 1 & 0.93 & 0.74 & 0.70 & 0.62 & 0.44 & &\
& & & & & & & & & & & 1 & 0.93 & 0.62 & 0.62 & 0.50 & &\
& & & & & & & & & & & & 1 & 0.48 & 0.54 & 0.50 & &\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & 1 & 0.92 & 0.68 & &\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & 1 & 0.90 & &\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 1 & &\
\[Cmatall3\]
[99]{}
\[ATLAS and CDF and CMS and D0 Collaborations\], arXiv:1403.4427 \[hep-ex\]. A. Juste, S. Mantry, A. Mitov, A. Penin, P. Skands, E. Varnes, M. Vos and S. Wimpenny, arXiv:1310.0799 \[hep-ph\]. M. Baak, M. Goebel, J. Haller, A. Hoecker, D. Kennedy, R. Kogler, K. Moenig and M. Schott [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{}, 2205 (2012) \[arXiv:1209.2716 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Bezrukov, M. Y. .Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl and M. Shaposhnikov, JHEP [**1210**]{}, 140 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.2893 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, JHEP [**1208**]{}, 098 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.6497 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, A. Salvio and A. Strumia, JHEP [**1312**]{}, 089 (2013) \[arXiv:1307.3536\]. F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B [**659**]{}, 703 (2008) \[arXiv:0710.3755 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Kobakhidze and A. Spencer-Smith, arXiv:1404.4709 \[hep-ph\]. \[CMS Collaboration\], CMS-PAS-TOP-14-001.
V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[ D0 Collaboration\], arXiv:1405.1756 \[hep-ex\].
A. Kharchilava, Phys. Lett. B [**476**]{}, 73 (2000) \[hep-ph/9912320\]. C. S. Hill, J. R. Incandela and J. M. Lamb, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 054029 \[hep-ex/0501043\]. J. F. Garberson, J. Incandela, S. Koay, R. Rossin and C. Hill, arXiv:0808.0050 \[hep-ex\]. S. Biswas, K. Melnikov and M. Schulze, JHEP [**1008**]{}, 048 (2010) \[arXiv:1006.0910 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Frederix and F. Maltoni, JHEP [**0901**]{}, 047 (2009) \[arXiv:0712.2355 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Kawabata, Y. Shimizu, Y. Sumino and H. Yokoya, Phys. Lett. B [**710**]{} (2012) 658 \[arXiv:1107.4460 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Alioli, P. Fernandez, J. Fuster, A. Irles, S. -O. Moch, P. Uwer and M. Vos, Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{} (2013) 2438 \[arXiv:1303.6415 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Kawabata, Y. Shimizu, Y. Sumino and H. Yokoya, arXiv:1405.2395 \[hep-ph\]. J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. -S. Shao and T. Stelzer [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1405.0301 \[hep-ph\]. S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt and A. Signer, Nucl. Phys. B [**467**]{} (1996) 399 \[hep-ph/9512328\]. S. Frixione, Nucl. Phys. B [**507**]{} (1997) 295 \[hep-ph/9706545\]. S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, JHEP [**0206**]{} (2002) 029 \[hep-ph/0204244\]. G. Corcella, I. G. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti, K. Odagiri, P. Richardson, M. H. Seymour and B. R. Webber, JHEP [**0101**]{}, 010 (2001) \[hep-ph/0011363\]; hep-ph/0210213. G. Corcella, I. G. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti, K. Odagiri, P. Richardson, M. H. Seymour and B. R. Webber, hep-ph/0210213. S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski and B. R. Webber, JHEP [**0704**]{}, 081 (2007) \[hep-ph/0702198 \[HEP-PH\]\]. P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer and R. Rietkerk, JHEP [**1303**]{}, 015 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.3460 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C [**63**]{}, 189 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.0002 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pittau and P. Torrielli, JHEP [**1202**]{} (2012) 099 \[arXiv:1110.4738 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, JHEP [**0809**]{}, 127 (2008) \[arXiv:0804.2800 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Czakon, P. Fiedler and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, no. 25, 252004 (2013) \[arXiv:1303.6254 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, A. Mitov and J. Rojo, arXiv:1305.3892 \[hep-ph\]. M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP [**0804**]{}, 063 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.1189 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{} (2012) 1896 \[arXiv:1111.6097 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{}, 2494 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.5783 \[hep-ex\]\]. K. Agashe, R. Franceschini and D. Kim, arXiv:1309.4776 \[hep-ph\]; Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, no. 5, 057701 (2013) \[arXiv:1209.0772 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Frederix, S. Frixione, K. Melnikov and G. Zanderighi, JHEP [**1011**]{} (2010) 050 \[arXiv:1008.5313 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. W. L. Jones, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**152**]{} (2006) 15.
[^1]: The measurements in eq. (\[eq:mt-value-CDF-D0\]) agree with the world average of eq. (\[eq:mt-value\]) at approximately $2\sigma$.
[^2]: For this reason we do not speak of top mass [*measurements*]{} but of top mass [*determinations*]{} or [*extractions*]{}.
[^3]: Strictly speaking, this is never the case. For example, corrections for detector effects do depend on theory assumptions. In the first approximation, one can ignore these data-theory correlations.
[^4]: The emphasis is on “modelling” here: we point out that in parton shower Monte Carlos several choices can be made (e.g. those of the so-called shower variables) that affect the perturbative part of the simulation, which are all compatible with the underlying perturbative description.
[^5]: We shall ignore backgrounds. In a more realistic analysis, some mild dependence on the definition of top quarks might enter through the subtraction of backgrounds.
[^6]: Despite the large number of $t{\bar{t}}$ dilepton events accumulated so far at the LHC, no measurement of these moments is available at present.
[^7]: In keeping with sect. \[sec:extract\], we have used the fact that the first moment of ${p_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}}(\ell^+)$ is a growing function of ${m_{t}}$. Qualitatively, the conclusions drawn in this section are independent of the slope of $f_{C,U,L}$.
[^8]: This is because $f_U$ and $f_L$ are, to a very good extent, parallel to $f_C$.
[^9]: In a reasonable range of ${m_{t}}$. For too large or too small ${m_{t}}$ values this statement is not necessarily true: the functions $f_{U,L,C}$ might simply be inadequate to describe correctly the dependence of the moments on the top mass.
[^10]: Owing to the linear dependence of these three quantities, only one of the differences in eq. (\[ijmpd\]) will be shown.
[^11]: This also shows that NLO and shower effects do not factorise entirely; it remains true that they affect the ${m_{t}}$ extraction for a given observable in different manners.
[^12]: The fourth moments turn out not to be particularly useful in the extraction procedure, being affected by errors larger than those of the lower moments, and being rather strongly correlated with the third moments; these are the reasons why they are not taken into account.
[^13]: In order to facilitate the reading of that matrix, each row and column is labelled with the Mellin moment it corresponds to, in the notation introduced in eq. (\[mmdef\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The discovery of acceleration and dark energy arguably constitutes the most revolutionary discovery in astrophysics in recent years. Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) played a key role in this amazing discovery through three systematic supernova surveys organized by staff astronomers: the “Tololo Supernova Program“ (1986-2000), the Calán/Tololo Project (1989-1993), and the “High-Z Supernova Search Team” (1994-1998). CTIO’s state of the art instruments also were fundamental in the independent discovery of acceleration by the “Supernova Cosmology Project” (1992-1999). Here I summarize the work on supernovae carried out from CTIO that led to the discovery of acceleration and dark energy and provide a brief historical summary on the use of Type Ia supernovae in cosmology in order to provide context for the CTIO contribution.'
author:
- Mario Hamuy$^1$
title: 'The acceleration of the Universe in the light of supernovae – The key role of the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory'
---
Introduction
============
We live in an accelerating Universe due to a misterious dark energy that comprises 70% of the Universe. While this paradigm is quite familiar to us today, it was virtually unimaginable until a few years. How did we get to this intriguing situation? A fundamental ingredient in this story was the discovery and precise measurement of Type Ia supernovae (SNe) done at CTIO over the last 27 years. In this paper I summarize the work on SNe carried out from CTIO that led to the discovery of acceleration and dark energy (section \[section2\]) and provide a brief historical summary on the use of SNe Ia in cosmology in order to provide context for the CTIO contribution (section \[section3\]). Finally I present a summary of the key role played by the observatory in this amazing journey, which represents a truly collaborative effort by US and Chilean astronomers that goes back to the very same establishment of CTIO in Chile in the early 1960’s.
Supernova Science at CTIO Over Time {#section2}
===================================
The Tololo Supernova Program
----------------------------
The introduction of CCDs to CTIO nearly coincides with the first systematic investigations on SNe at the observatory. M. Phillips and N. Suntzeff were the first staff astronomers that initiated such studies with the bright and nearby SN 1986G in the galaxy Centaurus A, the first SN ever measured with a CCD. Unprecedented well-sampled $BV$ lightcurves and optical spectroscopy revealed high obscuration by dust in SN 1986G and, more generally, the existence of intrinsic differences in the properties of SNe Ia [@phillips87]. A strong boost to SN science worldwide came one year later from Las Campanas Observatory with the serendipitous discovery by I. Shelton and O. Duhalde of SN 1987A, the first naked-eye SN since Kepler’s SN in 1604. An intensive photometric and spectroscopic follow-up campaign was organized by CTIO staff astronomers, including M. Hamuy who had just joined CTIO (only two days after Shelton’s discovery). A first summary of this effort was presented in the CTIO 25th anniversary symposium by @elias88, which taught us that: (1) contrary to expectations, SN 1987A’s progenitor was a compact blue supergiant star; (2) the late time light curve was powered by the radioactive decay of $^{56}$Co into $^{56}$Fe; (3) dust formation took place in the SN ejecta $\sim$500 days after explosion, among many other unveiling features. The study of SNe from CTIO gradually took the form of a regular program focused on obtaining detailed digital observations of bright and nearby SNe of all types. Although this project never received a formal name, hereafter I will refer to it as the “Tololo Supernova Program”, led by N. Suntzeff and M. Phillips. Many objects were observed as part of this project in the following years, among which are some emblematic Type Ia SNe: SN 1989B, SN 1990N, SN 1991T, SN 1991bg, and SN 1992A. One of the main results of this effort is the establishment of a correlation between decline rate and peak luminosity for SNe Ia, a.k.a. “Phillips relationship”. Fig. 1 shows a remake of the original figure based on 9 SNe: 6 of the emblematic objects from the “Tololo Supernova Program”, SN 1980N and SN 1981B in Fornax A from the El Roble survey [@hamuy91], and one object (SN 1971I) taken from the literature [@deming73]. This empirical relationship constitutes the basic underlying idea today behind precision cosmology from SNe Ia.
\[h\]
{height="7in" width="7in"}
\[fig1\]
The Calán/Tololo low-z Project (1989-1993)
------------------------------------------
Soon after the tenth Santa Cruz summer workshop on SNe, timely organized by S. Woosley in 1989 to discuss the first results on SN 1987A, a new project was born at CTIO: a systematic survey of “faint” Type Ia SNe in the Hubble flow in order to study the usefulness of these objects as distance indicators. The project, initially inspired by the work presented by B. Leibundgut[^1] on SNe Ia [@leibundgut91] in the just-mentioned workshop, was a collaboration between astronomers from CTIO (M. Hamuy, M. Phillips, N. Suntzeff, R. Schommer, C. Smith, L. Wells) and Cerro Calán of the University of Chile in Santiago (R. Antezana, L. González, P. Lira, J. Maza, M. Wischnjewsky). It consisted in a photographic search for southern SNe using the CTIO Schmidt Camera – a reincarnation of the Cerro El Roble SN photographic search carried out by J. Maza and collaborators between 1979-1984 with the University of Chile’s Makstuvov telescope [@maza81] – and a followup program with the 0.9m, 1.5m and 4m CTIO telescopes aimed at getting modern CCD optical photometry and spectroscopy of such objects [@hamuy93]. The first tests with the Schmidt telescopes began in 1989. The effort paid off and in the following four years the Calán/Tololo project had discovered 50 SNe (25% of all discoveries worldwide), 32 of which proved to be SNe Ia. The main results of the Calán/Tololo project can be summarized as follows:
- The discovery of 32 SNe Ia SNe in the Hubble flow, a world record at the time, and succeeding where other astronomers had previously failed.
- The recording of the most precise light curves ever obtained at that time for 29 SNe Ia, thanks to the recently adopted revolutionary CCD technology in astronomy (Fig. \[fig2\]; left).
\[h\]
- The proof that SNe Ia were not perfect standard candles, which can be clearly seen in the photometric diversity shown in Fig. \[fig2\] (left), both in terms of peak brightness and light curve width.
- The demonstration that Phillips (1993) relation was qualitatively correct. As Fig. \[fig3\] (left) shows it, the Calán/Tololo SN sample confirmed the decline rate-peak luminosity relationship for nearby SNe, but with a shallower slope.
\[h\]
- The dependence of SN Ia luminosities with galaxy types. As shown in Fig. \[fig3\] (right), early type galaxies preferentially host fast declining SNe Ia (with higher $\Delta m_{15}$ values), i.e. intrinsically fainter SNe.
- The establishment of a method to correct the SN luminosities for host-galaxy reddening (a.k.a. “Lira law”). The method makes use of the fact that SNe Ia evolve to a common B-V color 30 days after maximum, despite showing remarkable differences at earlier times (see Fig. \[fig4\]; left).
\[h\]
- The most precise calibration of the SN luminosities at the time. As Fig. \[fig2\] (right) shows it, a very uniform photometric standard lightcurve is obtained after applying the Calán/Tololo decline rate-peak luminosity relationship. Note that the corrected $V$-band peak magnitudes have not been forced to coincide, i.e, the resulting scatter reflects the true dispersion in the corrected luminosities.
- The establishment of key tools to measure distances with a precision $\sim$7%, never reached before, as can be seen in the $V$-band Hubble diagram shown in Fig. \[fig4\] (right).
The high-z Projects – The Discovery of Acceleration
---------------------------------------------------
The successful results the Calán/Tololo project began to unfold by 1993, at which time (September 1993) the team submitted a telescope proposal to begin a new SN search with the Schmidt telescope, but this time using a new instrument: a digital camera equipped with a TEK 2048 CCD. The goal was to “investigate the next stage in the Calán/Tololo survey: a deeper CCD-based survey to z$\sim$0.25 which will eventually prove useful for estimating $q_0$”. The observations were carried out in early 1994 but the analysis (image subtraction) proved difficult due to the coarse pixel scale of the CCD system and an innaccurate telescope pointing system.
The idea of extending Calán/Tololo to higher redshifts was followed up later that year by N. Suntzeff and B. Schmidt, a recent PhD graduate of Harvard University. A first meeting took place in the CTIO headquarters in La Serena, which led to the establishment of an expanded collaboration for the search of high-z SNe with the CTIO 4m telescope. The original members of the “High-Z Supernova Search Team” (HZT) included Calán/Tololo researchers N. Suntzeff (held responsible for organizing the project), C. Smith, R. Schommer, M. Phillips, M. Hamuy, R. Avilés, and J. Maza, B. Schmidt (who became a few months later director of the project by a vote of the HZT members, while holding a postdoctoral position at Mount Stromlo), A. Riess and R. Kirshner from Harvard, and J. Spyromilio and B. Leibundgut from the European Southern Observatory. A first telescope proposal titled “Pilot Project to Search for Distant Type Ia Supernovae”[^2] was submitted in 1994 September 29, requesting 4 nights during March-April 1995 with the Tek2048 PFCCD with the purpose to search for SNe Ia at z$\sim$0.3-0.5, using the same observational technique of the Calán/Tololo survey (imaging fields before and after a dark run) to ensure the discovery of young SNe. The efforts promptly paid off with the discovery of SN 1995K at z=0.48 [@phillips95; @schmidt98] thanks to an innovative automated search software developed by the team[^3] and to the ESO collaborators for getting a SN spectrum clean of host galaxy light. The discovery of high-z SNe became much more efficient with the deployment in 1997 of the BTC (Big Throughput Camera; a mosaic of four SITe 2048 CCDs) on the 4m telescope, and later on with the upgrade from the PFCCD to the NOAO MOSAIC Camera. The successful survey promptly led to the use of the HST and other ground based telescopes such as the CFHT, Keck, NTT, among many others.
A first high-z Hubble diagram was published by the HZT in 1998 based on four SNe with z=0.5-1.0 [@garnavich98], leading to the conclusion that “Either the universe is open or flat; if flat, then the cosmological constant makes a considerable contribution”, suggesting that $q_0<0$, i.e. that the universe could be accelerating. The confirmation of this bold conclusion would come the same year but this time based on an expanded set of 14 high-z and 34 nearby SNe Ia [@riess98a]. The resulting Hubble diagram (Figure \[fig5\], left) revealed that the high-z SNe appeared $\sim$10-15% more distant than expected for a low-mass density universe, implying that the universe is undergoing an accelerated expansion owing to a positive cosmological constant, i.e. $q_0<0$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}>0$ at the 3$\sigma$ confidence level. The joint confidence intervals for ($\Omega_M$,$\Omega_{\Lambda}$) are reproduced in Figure \[fig5\] (right), which clearly show that the data are inconsistent with a $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0$ universe.
\[h\]
\[h\] ![SNe Ia Hubble diagram from the SCP [from @perlmutter99].[]{data-label="fig6"}](hamuy_fig6.eps "fig:"){height="7in" width="9in"}
This surprising result was initially taken with caution by the scientific community. However, the independent measurement reported in 1998 by a competing team headed by Saul Perlmutter from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) lent significant credibility to this finding. The “Supernova Cosmology Project” (SCP) had begun in 1988 with the purpose to measure $q_0$ using SNe Ia. After four years of hard work, the first high-z SN was found in 1992 and by 1998 more that 75 SNe Ia at z=0.18-0.86 had been discovered and studied by the CSP. The results reported simultaneously with the @riess98a paper but published in 1999 were based on 42 high-z SNe Ia, all discovered with the PFCCD, MOSAIC, and the BTC on the CTIO 4m telescope. The photometric followup was carried out using the CTIO 4m, WIYN 3.6m, ESO 3.6m, INT 2.5m, WHT 4.2m telescopes, while the classification spectra came from the Keck 10m and ESO 3.6m telescopes. The Hubble diagram for these 42 high-z SNe is shown jointly with a subset of 18 Calán/Tololo low-z SNe in Fig. \[fig6\]. Again, the high-z SNe appeared too far away, making it necessary to fit the data with a cosmological constant. The confidence regions for ($\Omega_M$,$\Omega_{\Lambda}$) from SCP, reproduced in Fig \[fig7\], demonstrated that the data were inconsistent with $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0 with a confidence of 99%. Assuming a flat universe ($\Omega_M$+$\Omega_{\Lambda}$=1), the cosmological constant turned out to be the dominant energy component of energy with a density $\Omega_{\Lambda}\sim$70%.
\[h\] ![Joint confidence intervals for ($\Omega_M$,$\Omega_{\Lambda}$) from the SCP [from @perlmutter99].[]{data-label="fig7"}](hamuy_fig7.eps "fig:"){height="6in" width="6in"}
The discovery of the accelerating universe was initially attributed to a comological constant. However, since other types of energy components, globally known as “dark energy”, could also cause acceleration, a new SN search project was launched in 2002 with the new MOSAIC-II camera (a mosaic of 8 2048 SITe CCDs) on the CTIO 4m Blanco telescope, with the specific purpose to set constraints on the dark energy equation-of-state parameter, $w=P/(\rho c^2)$. The ESSENCE project led by C. Stubbs was a reincarnation of the HZT expanded to new members. Using 60 high-z SNe discovered between 2002-2005, the ESSENCE team reported a value of $w$=-1.05 $\pm$ 0.13, i.e. the dark energy responsible for the acceleration was fully consistent with a cosmological constant ($w$=-1) [@woodvasey07].
The discovery of the accelerating universe in 1998 meant not only a revolution in astronomy (unveiling 70% of the universe that had remained hitherto unnoticed), but also presented a huge challenge to physics in order to explain the nature of the “dark energy”. Not surprisingly, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences decided to award the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 to S. Perlmutter, B. Schmidt, and A. Riess “for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae”.
A brief history on the role of Type Ia Supernovae in Cosmology {#section3}
==============================================================
The discovery of acceleration through SNe Ia is the pinnacle of a series of scientific efforts, that goes back to the pioneering work of Baade & Zwicky who recognized in 1938 that SNe constituted a new class of very luminous astrophysical objects [@baade38; @zwicky38]. Analyzing a sample of 18 SNe @baade38 determined a mean absolute photographic magnitude of $M_{max}= -14.3 \pm 0.42$ ($\sigma$=1.1 mag), thus revealing the high luminosities of the SN class [note that the basic Type I and II subclasses were not recognized until the work by @minkowski41]. Although the dispersion was high, this study already showed the potential of SNe as distance indicators.
A recalibration of the luminosities of SNe was performed by @vandenbergh60 who found a mean maximum-light magnitude $M_{pg} = -18.7 \pm 0.3$ ($\sigma$=1.1 mag) for SNe I and $M_{pg} = -16.3 \pm 0.3$ ($\sigma$=0.7 mag) for SNe II. The large difference in absolute magnitude between @baade38 and @vandenbergh60 was due to calibration differences and the fact that no distinction among different SN types had been recognized at the time of Baade’s work. The dispersion was still high for precise distance measurements but, as noted by [@vandenbergh60], the photographic magnitudes had large uncertainties, due to poor photometric calibrations, potential contamination from the SN host galaxies, and poorly sampled light curves.
The first Hubble diagram from SNe Ia was presented by @kowal68 based on 16 objects with photographic photometry (before the recognition of the Ia subclass), yielding a dispersion of $\sigma$=0.61 mag, significantly less than the previous studies, and an average $M_{pg} = -18.6 + 5 log (H_0/100)$.
In the early 70s, @pskovskii71 detected that, despite their overall similarity, SNe I have differences in the post-maximum rate of decline. Based on an increased data set of SN I lightcurves obtained in the course of the Asiago Supernova Program, @barbon73 also noted that it was difficult to fit all SN I photometry with a unique template lightcurve, and admitted the possibility of the existence of two subclasses: “fast” and “slow”. [@pskovskii77] went a step further, showing a range of a factor of two in the decline rate of SNe I, and a possible dependence of the Type Ia peak magnitudes with decline rate, noting that “the absolute magnitudes of Type I supernovae of junior classes such as I.6 are 0.9 mag brighter, on the average, than those of class I.14 supernovae”. In modern language, @pskovskii77 was reporting that slowly declining SNe were brighter than rapidly declining objects.
Contrary to the evidence previously reported, @cadonau85 analyzed a sample of 22 SNe I to construct a mean lightcurve of SNe Ia, noting that, contrary to the evidence previously reported, “individual SNe I show generally no systematic deviations from the templet light curves” and that ”the peak luminosity of absorption-free SNe I is also uniform with an intrinsic rms scatter of $<$0.3 mag.” @leibundgut90 went a step further and established a Hubble diagram based on 35 SNe Ia, claiming “a luminosity scatter of 0.25 mag or less”.
The controversy about the uniformity of SNe Ia was finally settled by @phillips93 based on 9 SNe Ia with modern photometry –mostly from the “Tololo Supernova Program”– which indicated a range of $\sim$2 mag in absolute peak magnitude and a factor of $\sim$2 in decline rates. A clear correlation emerged between decline rate and peak luminosity, with SN 1991T and SN 1991bg being the extreme bright-slow and faint-fast SNe, respectively, giving the reason to @pskovskii77 and @barbon73.
A first long-term effort to search for high-z SNe in galaxy clusters was carried out with the 1.5 m Danish telescope at La Silla Observatory between 1986-1988, resulting in the discovery of SN 1998U at z=0.31 [@norgaard89], thus demonstrating the possibility to extend the study of SNe to cosmologically interesting distances.
The Calán/Tololo (1989-1993) project provided high-quality CCD photometry for 29 SNe Ia in the Hubble flow (0.01$<$z$<$0.1) carefully accounting for light contamination from the SN host galaxy through image subtraction. This dataset confirmed the Phillips’ relationship and allowed the measurement of the expansion rate of the universe accurately for the first time. In fact, the widely accepted value of the Hubble constant ($H_0$=72) by @freedman01 is essentially based on the Cepheid calibration with HST of the distances to seven galaxies that were hosts to Type Ia SNe and a SN Ia Hubble diagram established from 26 Calán/Tololo and 10 SNe from the Center of Astrophysics (CfA) program described below. The Calán/Tololo work was one of the key ingredients in the measurement of $H_0$ and the basis for measuring cosmological acceleration by both the HZT and SCP where the Calán/Tololo lightcurves represented half of the measurements.
Beginning in 1993, a concerted effort was started by astronomers at the CfA to collect modern CCD photometry of SNe Ia, mostly discovered by amateurs. A first paper reporting 22 high-quality SN light curves was presented by @riess98b, and later on augmented by 44 SNe Ia [@jha06].
In the summit of this endeavour lie the two high-z SN searches, HZT and SCP, both of which pushed technology to the limit in order to discover remote SNe Ia that had exploded even before the formation of the solar system. CTIO telescopes were fundamental for both teams to make the discovery of acceleration possible. For a thorough historical account of this discovery and the race between the two rival teams the reader is refered to the “The 4% Universe” book by @panek11.
Summary {#section4}
=======
The discovery of acceleration and dark energy arguably constitutes the most revolutionary discovery in astrophysics in recent years. CTIO played a key role in this amazing discovery through three systematic surveys organized by staff astronomers: the “Tololo Supernova Program“ (1986-2000), the Calán/Tololo Project (1989-1993), and the “High-Z Supernova Search Team” (1994-1998). CTIO’s state of the art instruments also were fudamental in the independent discovery of acceleration by the “Supernova Cosmology Project” (1992-1999). Then, the ESSENCE (2002-2007) project run from CTIO provided valuable constraints on the properties of dark energy. CTIO remains today as a world-class center at the forefront of SN research through the “Dark Energy Survey” (DES), a five year program (2012-2016) carried with DECam (a mosaic of 62 CCDs) mounted on the Blanco telescope with the purpose to probe the origin of the accelerating universe and help uncover the nature of dark energy.
This story would have ended very differently if not for the visionary efforts of Prof. Federico Rutllant , the Director of the Chilean National Observatory, who took the initiative in 1958 to visit Gerard Kuiper, Director of Yerkes Observatory and invite him to witness with his own eyes the advantageous conditions of the Atacama Desert for astronomical exploration. Joint efforts between astronomers from the U.S. and the University of Chile began immediately in the search of a site for a cooperative observatory in Chile. The site survey, under the direction of Dr. Jürgen Stock led to the establishement of the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in northern Chile in 1962, a very successful story of 50 years of US-Chile collaboration.
I am very grateful to the organizing committee of this symposium for inviting me to present this invited talk. I thank the courtesy of the High-Z Supernova Search Team [@riess98a] and the Supernova Cosmology Project [@perlmutter99] for allowing me to show their figures (reproduced here as Figures \[fig5\], \[fig6\], and \[fig7\]). A special thank to Nick Suntzeff for a critical review of this paper, and additional comments by K. Krisciunas and A. Riess. I acknowledge support provided by the Millennium Center for Supernova Science through grant P10-064-F funded by “Programa Iniciativa Científica Milenio del Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo de Chile”.
Baade, W. 1938, ApJ, 88, 285
Barbon, R., Ciatti, F., & Rosino, L. 1973, A&A, 25, 241
Cadonau, R., Tammann, G. A., & Sandage, A. 1985, in “Supernovae as distance indicators” , Berlin and New York, Springer-Verlag, p 151.
Deming, D., Rust, B. W., & Olson, E. C. 1973, PASP, 85, 321
Elias, J. H. et al. 1988, ASP Conference Series, Volume 1, “Progress and Opportunities in Southern Hemisphere Optical Astronomy”. The CTIO 25th Anniversary Symposium (San Francisco: ASP), ed. by V.M. Blanco and M.M. Phillips, p. 394
Freedman, W. L. et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
Garnavich, P. M. et al. 1998, ApJL, 493, L53
Hamuy, M. et al. 1991, AJ, 102, 208
Hamuy, M. et al. 1993, AJ, 106, 2392
Hamuy, M. et al. 1996a, AJ, 112, 2391
Hamuy, M. et al. 1996b, AJ, 112, 2398
Jha, S. et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 527
Kowal, C.. 1968, AJ, 73, 1021
Leibundgut, B. 1991, “Supernovae. The Tenth Santa Cruz Workshop in Astronomy and Astrophysics”, Springer-Verlag, New York, ed. by S.E. Woosley, p. 751
Tammann, G. A. & Leibundgut, B. 1990, A&A, 236, 9
Lira, P. 1995, MSc thesis, Universidad de Chile
Maza, J. et al. 1981, PASP, 93, 239
Minkowski, R. 1941, PASP, 53, 224
Norgaard-Nielsen, H. U. et al. 1989, Nature, 339, 523
Panek, R. 2011, “The 4% Universe - Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality”, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, (Boston,New York)
Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
Phillips, M. M. et al. 1987, PASP, 99, 592
Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, 413, L105
Phillips, M. M. 1995, IAU Circular 6160
Pskovski, Y. P. 1971, Soviet Astronomy, 14, 798
Pskovski, Y. P. 1977, Soviet Astronomy, 21, 675
Riess, A. G. 1998a, ApJ, 116, 1009
Riess, A. G. 1998b, ApJ, 117, 707
Schmidt, B. P. 1998, ApJ, 507, 46
van den Bergh, 1960, ZA, 49, 201
Wood-Vasey, W. M. 2007, ApJ, 666, 694
Zwicky, F. 1938, PASP, 50, 215
[^1]: at the time a PhD student at the University of Basel under the guidance of G. Tammann.
[^2]: $http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pages\_from\_Prop1994.jpg$
[^3]: Based on a revolutionary image subtraction code previously developed at CTIO by A. Phillips.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study ex-post fairness in the object allocation problem where objects are valuable and commonly owned. A matching is fair from individual perspective if it has only inevitable envy towards agents who received most preferred objects – *minimal envy matching*. A matching is fair from social perspective if it is supported by majority against any other matching – *popular matching*. Surprisingly, the two perspectives give the same outcome: when a popular matching exists it is equivalent to a minimal envy matching.
We show the equivalence between global and local popularity: a matching is popular if and only if there does not exist a group of size up to 3 agents that decides to exchange their objects by majority, keeping the remaining matching fixed. We algorithmically show that an arbitrary matching is path-connected to a popular matching where along the path groups of up to 3 agents exchange their objects by majority. A market where random groups exchange objects by majority converges to a popular matching given such matching exists.
When popular matching might not exist we define *most popular matching* as a matching that is popular among the largest subset of agents. We show that each minimal envy matching is a most popular matching and propose a polynomial-time algorithm to find them.
*Keywords*: assignment problem, allocation problem, object allocation, two-sided matching, house allocation, ex-post fairness, popular matching, minimal envy, random paths
**JEL Classification: C78, D71, D78**
author:
- 'Aleksei Y. Kondratev'
- 'Alexander S. Nesterov'
bibliography:
- 'popularity.bib'
date: 08 February 2019
title: Minimal Envy and Popular Matchings
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Consider a situation where a group of agents is being allocated a set of valuable indivisible objects, such that each agent gets at most one object. Initially the objects are commonly owned and each agent has the same right to each object. In practice, such situations include social housing programs, assigning children to daycare and to primary schools, distributing transplants to patients, and so forth. In each of these situations fairness is one of the primary concerns, but the very fact that objects are valuable, indivisible and commonly owned often precludes existence of an ex-post fair allocation.[^2] For an illustration consider Example 1 below.
**Example 1.** Let there be four agents $I=\{1,2,3,4\}$ that have the following preferences (Table 1) over four houses $H=\{a,b,c,d\}$:
Table 1. Preference profile and matching $\mu$\
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a a a
b
c d c b
b c d d
What would be a fair allocation in such setting? There are two perspectives to judge if an allocation is fair or not: individual perspective – we want each agent to be treated fairly compared to other agents, and a social perspective – we want a matching to be preferred by the agents collectively.
From the individual perspective the most common approach is to eliminate envy: to find an allocation such that no agent envies another agent.[^3] Yet eliminating envy completely is rarely feasible. In Example 1, for each matching there will always be exactly three agents who envy the agent that receives object $a$. Such envy is generally *inevitable*: in each matching an object causes envy among those agents who top-ranked it towards the agent who got it.
But if we exclude this inevitable envy towards top-ranked objects from consideration, we might be able to eliminate the remaining envy. Consider matching $\mu=(1d,2a,3b,4c)$. When we exclude inevitable envy towards agent 2 caused by top-ranked object $a$, then agents 1,3,4 do not envy each other. A matching that minimizes the number of agents who have envy modulo inevitable envy caused by top-ranked objects we call a **minimal envy matching**.
In general, in each minimal envy matching there are two groups of agents: in the first group each agent gets his top-ranked object and thus does not envy (agent 2 in matching $\mu$ in our example), and the second group containing all other agents. The second group has envy towards the first group and possibly also among each other (agents 1,3,4 in our example). Envy towards the first group is inevitable and is of fixed size as we only have a fixed number of top-ranked objects to allocate.[^4]In the second group each agent envies at least one agent in the first group. Yet, envy within the second group might be manageable. If it happens that no agent in the second group has envy towards another agent in the second group, then such minimal-envy matching is a natural candidate to be called an individually fair matching.
From the social perspective we let the agents compare matchings collectively and put the decision to a popular vote. If it happens that there is a matching that is supported by majority against any other matching, then this matching is also a natural candidate to be called a socially fair matching. In other words this matching is a weak Condorcet winner in a voting problem where each matching is a candidate and each agent is a voter. Such matching is commonly referred to as a **popular matching**. In our example the same matching $\mu=(1d,2a,3b,4c)$ is a popular matching.
Perhaps surprisingly, the individual perspective and the social perspective always lead to the same conclusion: whenever a popular matching exists it is equivalent to the minimal envy matching (Theorem 1 and Observation 1). Motivated by this equivalence we further study popular and minimal envy matchings and show the following three main results.
First we show that a matching is popular globally if and only if it is popular locally (Theorem 2). Specifically, for a matching $\mu$ to be popular for the entire set of agents it is necessary and sufficient that it is popular for an arbitrary triple of agents. That is, for each triple of agents, keeping the matching of the other agents fixed, there does not exist a matching $\mu'$ that is supported by majority (or, equivalently, has fewer envying agents) compared to the original matching $\mu$. In particular, this triple of agents does not want to swap their objects based on majority.
This result has two other interesting interpretations. From the cooperative standpoint, if for each coalition of agents we take the majority rule as the solution concept, then for a matching to be in the core it is enough to check coalitions of size up to three. The analogous result for the marriage market states that the set of pairwise stable matchings coincides with the core [@RothSotomayor89].
From the axiomatic standpoint, our result means that a correspondence that induces popular matchings satisfies consistency (an axiom requiring that a solution to a larger problem coincides with a solution to all “reduced” problems – where some agents “leave” with their matching) and converse consistency (an axiom requiring that knowing the solution to all reduced problems is sufficient to restore the solution of the larger problem).[^5]
Our second result (Theorem 3) shows that by means of these majority-based exchanges in triples of agents we can always reach a popular matching, given such a matching exists. In other words, each matching is path-connected with a popular matching where along the path each next matching is “more popular” for a specific triple of agents, while the matching of the other agents is fixed.
The proof is constructive: we provide an algorithm to reach a popular matching. We start with an arbitrary matching, find a specific triple of agents that modify their matching keeping the matching of the other agents fixed, then we find another triple and so on until we reach a matching where no such triple of agents exists. (In case we end up in a loop we conclude that a popular matching does not exist.) Despite being greedy our algorithm is computationally efficient. The speed of the algorithm is quadratic in the number of agents, as is the speed of the original algorithm by [@Abraham07].[^6]
The result above has a peculiar implication: arbitrary local majority-based exchanges as in our algorithm lead to a globally popular matching. Imagine a decentralized market where agents meet at random in arbitrary groups and exchange their objects based on majority of this group. Corollary 1 postulates that this market eventually converges to a popular matching whenever such matching exists.
This finding is analogous to the result by [@RothVate90] about convergence in a marriage market. There, one matching is modified locally by a random blocking pair of a man and a woman that prefer each other over their current matches. As this man and this woman match, their previous partners become unmatched, and these changes constitute a new matching. Then a new blocking pair is considered, a new matching is formed, and so forth, and [@RothVate90] show that a random sequence of these matchings leads to a stable matching. This result also holds in the setting of many-to-many matching [@KojimaUnver08].
Our concept of a fair matching above as well as the results so far rely on that a popular matching exists, which is often not the case. Our third main result is a constructive extension of popular matchings to the cases where a popular matching does not exist. We say that a matching is **most popular** if it is popular among the largest number of agents. This is one of the standard extensions of the Condorcet voting rule due to [@Young77].
To illustrate, let us modify Example 1 by adding agent 2’ with preferences identical to agent 2. In this case a popular matching no longer exists. However, $\mu$ remains the most popular matching as we only need to exclude agent 2’ to restore popularity. Alternatively, we could get a popular matching by excluding agent 2 or agent 3.
We show that most popular matchings are related to minimal envy matchings: each minimal envy matching is a most popular matching (Theorem 4).
We then provide a polynomial-time algorithm to find minimal envy matchings and show that the outcomes of this algorithm are Pareto efficient and coincide with popular matchings whenever those exist (Theorem 5). The fact that the algorithm is polynomial-time is, perhaps, surprising given that the Young’s rule is NP-hard.[^7] To the best of our knowledge this is the first computationally feasible extension of popular matchings in the object allocation problem (see subsection 1.1 for details).
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. This section ends with a brief review on popular matchings and fairness criteria in object allocation problem. Section 2 presents the model, section 3 presents the characterization result, section 4 presents the algorithm to find popular matchings and the convergence result, section 5 presents the extension of popularity to the cases where popular matchings do not exist and shows that this extension is consistent with minimal envy.
Background on fairness and popularity in object allocation problem
------------------------------------------------------------------
The object allocation problem where agents exchange indivisible objects (referred to as houses) without money was first introduced by [@ShapleyScarf74], the assignment problem where all houses are initially commonly owned was first studied by [@HyllandZeckhauser79].
The literature on ex-ante fairness is prolific (see, e.g. [@Nesterov17] and references therein, and recent surveys by [@BouveretChevaleyreMaudet16] and [@Moulin18fair]). In contrast, the literature on ex-post fairness that is a focus of this paper is extremely scarce because the standard approaches face fundamental difficulties. The symmetry approach (e.g. equal treatment of equals: agents with identical preferences should receive identical outcomes) necessarily leads to waste of valuable resources. The approach called fair share guaranteed (e.g. equal division lower bound: each agent should prefer his outcome to equal division of resources) is hard to conceptualize ex-post since there is no obvious candidate to be called the fair share. The only remaining standard approach is to eliminate envy between agents [@Foley67], yet this elimination also leads to wastes [@KestenYazici12].
The concept of popularity was first introduced by [@Gardenfors75] for the marriage problem [@GaleShapley62], where popularity coincides with stability, and was applied to house allocation problem only recently by [@Abraham07]. The characterization by [@Abraham07] also allows non-strict preferences.[^8]
Among other properties of popular matchings the literature extensively studied existence and multiplicity. [@Mahdian06] shows that a popular matching is likely to exist whenever preferences are uniformly random and the number of houses is approximately 1.42 times larger than the number of agents. To restore existence [@McCutchen08] proposes least-unpopularity criteria to find the “most” popular matching; finding his least-unpopular matchings is, in general, NP-hard.
Another way to ensure popularity is to consider mixed matchings, i.e. lotteries over matchings, and a straightforward generalization of the popularity property; [@KavithaMestreNasre11] show that a popular mixed matching always exists and propose an efficient algorithm to find one. The recent literature has studied compatibility of popularity in mixed matchings with various fairness and incentive properties [@AzizBrandtStursberg13; @BrandtHofbauerSuderland17].
The problem of counting the number of popular matchings has been addressed by [@McDermidIrving11] for the case of strict preferences and by [@Nasre14] and [@Acharyya14] for the case of weak preferences. For the case of large number of popular matchings [@KavithaNasre09] propose ways to find popular matchings that are optimal in terms of envy and rank distribution. Popularity with agents having different weights has been studied by [@Mestre14].
Related to our convergence result, [@AbrahamKavitha10] consider the popularity-improvement paths from an arbitrary matching. The main finding is that, given a popular matching exists, it can be attained by at most two steps using an efficient algorithm.
For a recent review on popular matchings see [@Cseh17] and [@KlausManloveRossi16].
The Model
=========
Let $I$ be a set of agents and $H$ be a possibly larger set of houses, $|H|\geq |I|$. Each agent $i\in I$ is endowed with a strict preference relation $\succ_i$ over the set of houses $H\cup\{\emptyset\}$ (i.e. $\succ_i$ is a linear order), and $i$ prefers each house $h\in H$ over having no house, $h\succ_i \emptyset$.[^9] The collection of individual preferences of all agents $\succ=(\succ_i)_{i\in I}$ is referred to as the **preference profile**. A triple $(I,H,\succ)$ constitutes a **problem** (aka the object allocation problem, house allocation problem, assignment problem and two-sided matching problem with one-sided preferences).
A solution to a problem is a **matching** $\mu$ – a mapping from $I\cup H$ on $I\cup H \cup {\emptyset}$. By definition agent $i\in I$ is said to be matched to house $h\in H$ in matching $\mu$ if $\mu(i)=h$ and also $\mu(h)=i$. If some agent or house remain unmatched, we say that they are matched to $\emptyset$.
For an illustration consider Example 2 below.
**Example 2.** Let there be four agents $I=\{1,2,3,4\}$ that have the following preferences (Table 2) over four houses $H=\{a,b,c,d\}$:
Table 2. Preference profile and matching $\mu$\
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
d a
d b
b a b c
c c d a
For any two matchings $\mu,\mu$ and a subset of agents $J\subset I$ define **pairwise comparison** $PC_J(\mu,\mu')$ as the number of agents in $J$ that prefer their house in $\mu$ over their house in $\mu'$, $$PC_J(\mu,\mu') = |\{j \in J : \mu(j) \succ_j \mu'(j) \}|.$$
A matching $\mu$ is called **popular** if there does not exist another matching $\mu'$ such that $\mu'$ is preferred over $\mu$ by majority within entire set of agents $I$: $PC_I(\mu',\mu)>PC_I(\mu,\mu')$.
In the profile from Table 2 consider matchings $\mu = (1a,2b,3c,4d)$ and $\mu' = (1d,2c,3a,4b)$. Agents 1,2,4 prefer $\mu$ over $\mu'$ and agent 3 prefers $\mu'$ over $\mu$. Hence $PC_I(\mu,\mu') = 3 > 1 = PC_I(\mu',\mu)$ and matching $\mu'$ is not popular.
The following simple terminology is useful in order to discuss popular matchings. For each agent $i\in I$ let us call his most preferred house in $H$ as **$i$’s first house**: $FH(i)=h$ such that for each $h'\in H$ and $h'\neq h$ it holds that $h\succ_i h'$. **The set of all first houses** is denoted as $FH=\{FH(i)\}_{i\in I}$. For each house $h$ let us call agents for whom $h$ is the first house as **$h$’s first agents**: $FA(h)=\{i\in I : h = FH(i)\}$.
For each agent $i$ let us call his most preferred house among all non-first houses as **$i$’s second house**: $SH(i)=h$ such that $h\in H\setminus FH$, for each $h'\in H\setminus FH$ and $h'\neq h$ it holds that $h\succ_i h'$. **The set of all second houses** is denoted as $SH=\{SH(i)\}_{i\in I}$. Note that sets $FH$ and $SH$ are disjoint, i.e. no agent’s second house can be a first house for any other agent. For each house $h$ let us call agents for whom $h$ is the second house as **$h$’s second agents**: $SA(h)=\{i\in I : h = SH(i)\}$. Each house $h$ that is worse than agent $i$’s second house, $SH(i)\succ_i h$, is **$i$’s bad house**.
The next theorem is the original characterization of popular matchings.
**Theorem 1** [@Abraham07]. For a problem $(I,H,\succ)$, a matching $\mu$ is popular if and only if the following two conditions hold:
1. Each first house $f\in FH$ is matched to one of its first agents, $\mu(f)\in FA(f)$;
2. Each agent $i\in I$ gets either his first house or his second house, $\mu(i)\in FH(i)\cup SH(i)$.
In the profile from Table 2, the set of first houses is $FH=\{a,d\}$ and the set of second houses is $SH=\{b,c\}$. Hence, there are only two popular matchings $\mu=(1a,2b,3c,4d)$ and $(1a,2d,3c,4b)$. Each other feasible matching either assigns some agent his bad house, or does not distribute first houses among agents that prefer them most (or both, as in matching $\mu'=(1d,2c,3a,4b)$ where agent 2 gets his bad house $c$ and the first house $d$ is not assigned to agents 2 or 4 that value it the most).
For a problem $(I,H,\succ)$ and a matching $\mu$, the **set of envying agents** $E(\mu,I,H,\succ)$ contains each agent $i$ for whom there is a house $h$ that $i$ prefers over his matching: $$E(\mu,I,H,\succ)=\{i\in I: \quad \mbox{there exists} \quad h \in H \quad \mbox{such that} \quad h\succ_i \mu(i)\}.$$
A matching $\mu$ is a **minimal envy matching** for problem $(I,H,\succ)$ if it:
1. minimizes the number of envying agents $|E(\mu,I,H,\succ)|$ (inevitable envy), and among such matchings also
2. minimizes the number of envying agents $|E(\mu,I',H',\succ_{I',H'})|$ in the reduced problem (remaining envy), where $I'=E(\mu,I,H,\succ),H'=H\setminus \mu(I\setminus E(\mu,I,H,\succ))$.
In the profile from Table 2, the first part of this definition requires that house $a$ is given to either agent 1 or agent 3, and that house $d$ is given to either agent 2 or agent 4. The second part of the definition requires that envy among the remaining agents is minimized, which is achieved, for example, in the same matching $\mu=(1a,2b,3c,4d)$.
We conclude this section by formally stating the equivalence between popular and minimal envy matchings.
[**Observation 1**]{}.\[obs-envy-pop\] Whenever a popular matching exists, the set of minimal envy matchings coincides with the set of popular matchings.
We leave the proof of Observation 1 till section 5 where we extend the definition of popular matchings such that the equivalence similar to Observation 1 holds even in cases when a popular matching does not exist (see Observation 2).
Characterization of Popular Matchings
=====================================
In this section, we introduce a new characterization of popular matchings using their local properties.
For an illustration consider the profile from Table 2 and popular matching $\mu = (1a,2b,3c,4d)$. We see that in each triple of agents, when we only consider the houses owned by this triple, each such (reduced) matching is popular within this triple. The following Table 3 illustrates the popularity within each triple. To check that each reduced matching is popular, recall the characterization in Theorem 1: each first house is given to one of its first agents, and each agent gets either his first house or his second house.
Table 3. Popular matching $\mu$ reduced to each possible triple of agents\
1 3 4
--- --- ---
a
d c
c d a
1 2 3
--- --- ---
a
b a
c c b
1 2 4
--- --- ---
d
d b
b a a
2 3 4
--- --- ---
d
b b
c d c
Let us formally define this property. For a problem $(I,H,\succ)$, we say that a matching $\mu$ is **locally popular** if for each three agents $i,j,k\in I$ there does not exist a matching $\mu'$ same as $\mu$ for each other agent $i'\notin \{i,j,k\}$, $\mu'(i')=\mu(i')$, and such that $\mu'$ is preferred over $\mu$ by majority within this triple of agents, $PC_{\{i,j,k\}}(\mu',\mu)>PC_{\{i,j,k\}}(\mu,\mu')$. In other words, (reduced) matching $\mu$ is popular in the reduced problem $(I',H',\succ_{I',H'})$ where $I' = \{i,j,k\}$ and $H' = H\setminus \mu(I\setminus \{i,j,k\})$.
We arrive to our first main result: the equivalence between global popularity and local popularity.
[**Theorem 2**]{}.\[th\_local-pop\] A matching is popular if and only if it is locally popular.
The proof of Theorem 2 is in the appendix. As an immediate corollary we get the characterization of popular matchings by [@Abraham07], here we provide an illustrative proof.
*Proof of Theorem 1*. The “if” part is straightforward since it is enough to check only triples of agents. In each such triple only some agent $i$ with a second house can become better off, but each better house $f\succ_i SH(i)$ is already matched to one of its first agents $j=\mu(f)\in FA(f)$, and making $i$ better off requires making $j$ worse off, which cannot be supported by majority.
We prove the “only if” part by contradiction. Let condition (1) of Theorem 1 be violated: some first house $f$ is not allocated to one of its first agents, $\mu(f)\notin FA(f)$. Then each $f$’s first agent $i\in FA(f)$, the owner of $f$ agent $j=\mu(f)$ and the owner of $j$’s first house agent $k=\mu(FH(j))$ form a triple for which $\mu$ is not popular. (If $\mu(f)=\emptyset$ then we can choose any $j,k$; and if $\mu(FH(j))\in \{\emptyset,i\}$ then we can choose any $k$.)
Let condition (2) of Theorem 1 be violated: some agent $i_1$ gets a bad house $t$ in matching $\mu$. Then there is a triple of agent $i_1$, the owner of $i_1$’s second house agent $i_2=\mu(SH(i_1))$, and the owner of $i_2$’s first house agent $i_3=\mu(FH(i_2))$ for whom $\mu$ is not popular. (If $\mu(SH(i_1))=\emptyset$ then we can choose any $i_2,i_3$.) $\blacksquare$
The Algorithm and Random Paths to Popular Matchings
===================================================
Here we present a new algorithm to find a popular matching. Specifically, for each matching $\mu$ we consider all “neighbouring” matchings $\mu'$ that is matchings where at most three agents are matched to different house than in $\mu$. If one, two, or three agents are matched differently in $\mu$ and $\mu'$, and more than half of these agents prefer $\mu'$ over $\mu$, then we say that $\mu$ and $\mu'$ are connected by a **local popular exchange**. The algorithm begins with an arbitrary matching $\mu_0$ (e.g., all agents and houses may be unmatched) and then modifies it using local popular exchanges among one, two or three agents.
The algorithm has two parts. In the first part the algorithm assigns each first house to one of its first agents. In each current matching $\mu_j$, some agent $i_1$ starts a local popular exchange if his first house $FH(i_1)\neq \mu_j(i_1)$ belongs to some agent $i_2=\mu_j(FH(i_1))$ for whom it’s not the first house, $FH(i_2)\neq \mu_j(i_2)=FH(i_1)$. In the new matching $\mu_{j+1}$, agent $i_1$ gets his first house, $\mu_{j+1}(i_1)=FH(i_1)$, agent $i_2$ also gets his first house, $\mu_{j+1}(i_2)=FH(i_2)$, the owner of that latter house, agent $i_3=\mu_j(FH(i_2))$, gets the leftover house previously owned by $i_1$, $\mu_{j+1}(i_3)=\mu_j(i_1)$. After all first houses are distributed to its first agents, each agent gets either his first house, his second house, or a bad house.
In the second part the algorithm constructs subsequences of local popular exchanges such that each subsequence decreases the number of agents with bad houses. In each current matching $\mu_j$, an agent $i_1$ who has a bad house $t=\mu_j(i_1)$ gets his second house, $\mu_{j+1}(i_1)=SH(i_1)$, the owner of that house, agent $i_2=\mu_j(SH(i_1))$, gets his first house, $\mu_{j+1}(i_2)=FH(i_2)$, the owner of that latter house, agent $i_3=\mu_j(FH(i_2))$, gets the leftover house $t$, $\mu_{j+1}(i_3)=t$. If house $t$ is bad for agent $i_3$, then this agent continues the subsequence of exchanges; otherwise, another agent with a bad house starts a new subsequence of exchanges. If a subsequence of exchanges ends up in a loop, then there is no popular matching.
We place all technical details of the algorithm in the proof of Theorem 3 in the appendix.
Here, we illustrate how the algorithm works using the preference profile from Table 2. Let the initial matching be $\mu_0=(1b,2c,3d,4a)$. We now show how the first part of the algorithm turns $\mu_0$ into $\mu_1$ pictured below (Table 4), and the second part of the algorithm turns $\mu_1$ sequentially into $\mu_2$, then into $\mu_3$, then into $\mu_4$, which is a popular matching.
Table 4. Initial matching $\mu_0$, intermediate matchings $\mu_1,\mu_2,\mu_3$, and final matching $\mu_4$.\
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a d a d
d b c b
a b c
c
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
d a
d b c b
b a c
c d a
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a d
d c b
b a b c
c d a
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a d
d b c b
a b
c c d a
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a d
d b
b a b c
c c d a
*First part of the algorithm.* Agent 1 owns house $b$, his first house is $a$ owned by agent 4 whose first house is $d$. We implement the following exchange: agent 1 gets house $a$, agent 4 gets house $d$, and house $d$’s previous owner agent 3 gets the leftover house $b$. In the resulting matching $\mu_1=(1a,2c,3b,4d)$ all first houses are assigned to agents that prefer them the most and thus the first part of the algorithm is completed.
*Second part of the algorithm.* After the first part agents 1 and 4 get their first houses, agents 2 and 3 get bad houses. We take an arbitrary agent with a *bad* house, e.g. agent 2 with his bad house $c$, and give him his *second* house, $b$, and the owner of house $b$, agent 3, gets his *first* house $a$. The previous owner of house $a$ agent 1 gets the leftover house $c$, which is his bad house.[^10]
In the resulting matching $\mu_2=(1c,2b,3a,4d)$ we continue with agent 1 because he got his bad house $c$ after the previous exchange. Again, we give agent 1 his second house $b$, the owner of $b$, agent 2, gets his first house $d$. The previous owner of $d$, agent 4, gets the leftover house $c$, which is his bad house.
In the resulting matching $\mu_3=(1b,2d,3a,4c)$ we continue with agent 4 because he got his bad house $c$ after a previous exchange. Agent 4 gets his second house $b$, the owner of $b$, agent 1 gets his first house $a$, and the owner of $a$, agent 3, gets the leftover house $c$. House $c$ is agent 3’s second house and there is no more agent with a bad house. We arrived to a popular matching $\mu_4=(1a,2d,3c,4b)$.
Next we present our second main result: local popular exchanges always lead to a popular matching, whenever such matching exists.
[**Theorem 3**]{}. Let $\mu_0$ be an arbitrary matching for a problem $(I,H,\succ)$ and let a popular matching exist. Then there exists a finite sequence of matchings $\mu_0, \mu_1, \ldots, \mu_l$ connected by local popular exchanges such that $\mu_l$ is popular, and $l\leq (|I|^2-|I|+2)/2$.
The constructive proof of Theorem 3 is based on the algorithm above and it is placed into the appendix. The algorithm finds a popular matching or verifies that a popular matching does not exist in quadratic time in the number of agents $|I|$. Since our algorithm is finite we immediately get the convergence result for the corresponding decentralized market.
We represent the sequence of matchings as a finite Markov chain. The set space is the set of all matchings. The transition probabilities between the states depend on how many agents become better off or worse off in one state compared to the other. The transition probability is positive for all local popular exchanges, otherwise the transition probability is zero.
[**Corollary 1.**]{} For any initial matching, the random sequence of local popular exchanges converges with probability one to a popular matching whenever such matching exists.
The restriction to the groups of up to three agents is not compulsory as the same algorithm works when groups of larger size are also allowed. The convergence result also holds for popular exchanges of arbitrary sizes.
The original result in [@RothVate90] was partially motivated by the example in [@Knuth76] where he shows that a sequence of blocking pairs might have an infinite cycle and might never converge to stability. The same is true in our setting: even when a popular matching exists, the sequence of (local) popular exchanges might have cycles. To see that let us consider a preference profile and a cycle (Table 5).
Table 5. Cycle with 4 matchings: $\mu_1,\mu_2,\mu_3,\mu_4$\
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a d
d b c b
b a
c c d a
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a d
d b c
b a b c
c d a
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a d
d b c b
a b c
c d a
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a d d
c b
b a b
c c d a
We begin with matching $\mu_1=(1a,2d,3b,4c)$. If agents 1,3,4 meet and decide to exchange their houses by majority we can get matching $\mu_2=(1c,2d,3a,4b)$. Next, if agents 1,2,4 meet and do the same, we can get matching $\mu_3=(1b,2c,3a,4d)$, which can be again changed by majority to matching $\mu_4=(1d,2b,3a,4c)$.[^11] Finally, if agents 1,2,3 meet, we again can get matching $\mu_1$.
Note that in this example there is a (local) popular exchange connecting $\mu_1$ and popular matching $\mu=(1a,2b,3c,4d)$ from Table 2. In fact, as Theorem 3 demonstrates such a path exists in any instance.
Most Popular and Minimal Envy Matchings
=======================================
In this section we generalize the concept of popularity to the cases where there is no popular matching. We then show that each minimal envy matching is also most popular and provide an efficient algorithm to find such matchings.
First we define popularity among a subset of agents. For a problem $(I,H,\succ)$ and a subset of agents $J\subset I$, we say that a matching $\mu$ is **popular among $\mathbf{J}$** if there does not exist another matching $\mu'$ such that $\mu'$ is preferred over $\mu$ by majority within this subset of agents, $PC_J(\mu',\mu)>PC_J(\mu,\mu')$. In other words, (reduced) matching $\mu$ is popular in the reduced problem $(J,H,\succ_{J,H})$.
We say that matching $\mu$ is **most popular** if it is popular among the largest subset $J\subset I$. Formally, we require that for each other matching $\Tilde{\mu}$ that is popular among some subset of agents $\Tilde{J}\subset I$ it has to be that set $J$ is at least as large as $\Tilde{J}$: $|J|\geq |\Tilde{J}|$.
For an illustration consider Example 3 below.
**Example 3.** Let there be four agents $I=\{1,2,3,4\}$ that have the following preferences (Table 6) over four houses $H=\{a,b,c,d\}$:
Table 6. Preference profile\
1 2 3 4
--- --- --- ---
a b b b
b a c c
c c a a
d d d d
In Example 3, each minimal envy matching gives house $a$ to agent 1 as he is the only first agent for house $a$. The other first house $b$, the second house $c$ and a bad house $d$ are distributed arbitrarily among agents 2,3,4, and the owner of $d$ has envy towards the owner of $c$. (House $d$ does not need to be matched, although this outcome would be Pareto inefficient.)
The next Observation 2 is a simple characterization of minimal envy matchings. The proof is obvious, because conditions (1) and (2) in the definition of minimal envy matching are equivalent to the corresponding conditions in Observation 2.
[**Observation 2.**]{} For a problem $(I,H,\succ)$, a matching $\mu$ has minimal envy if and only if the following two conditions hold:
1. Each first house $f\in FH$ is matched to one of its first agents, $\mu(f)\in FA(f)$, and among such matchings also
2. $\mu$ maximizes the number of agents who get their first house or their second house.
Observation 2 directly implies Observation 1.
The other way to view minimal envy matchings is that these matchings assign the smallest number of bad houses – as it maximizes the number of agents who get their first or second houses. The same can be said about most popular matchings – the agents that are removed from consideration are precisely the agents who receive bad houses.
However, minimal envy matchings and most popular matchings are not equivalent. Example 3 demonstrates that some most popular matchings do not satisfy minimal envy. A matching $(1d,2a,3b,4c)$ is popular among agents $\{2,3,4\}$, which makes it (one of) the most popular matchings. However, this matching does not minimize inevitable envy as agent 1 does not get house $a$.
We formally state the relation between most popular and minimal envy matchings. The proof is in the appendix.
**Theorem 4**. Each minimal envy matching is most popular.
Notice however, that our definition of minimal envy matchings and most popular matchings is silent about the agents that receive bad houses. The algorithm that we provide next makes sure that the remaining houses are iteratively matched among the remaining agents in the minimal envy way.
Our algorithm is a generalization of the original algorithm for finding popular matchings in [@Abraham07]. As in the original algorithm we start with a bipartite graph where agents and houses are the vertices, and each agent-vertex is connected with his first house and his second house. As in [@Abraham07], first we iteratively remove leaves in this graph: we match *all* single pairs of a first house and its first agent (Step 1, when there is no competition for a particular first house), then we match *some* single pair of a second house and its second agent (Step 2, when there is no competition for a particular second house). After this we might get a new single pair of a first house and its first agent, and so we need to iterate from the beginning (Step 1 again).
Eventually we arrive to a bipartite graph where each house has at least two edges, i.e. no more leaves. A popular matching exists if and only if each house has two edges. Otherwise, the original procedure by [@Abraham07] stops here and reports that the problem does not admit a popular matching. Instead, we propose a simple extension to the algorithm.
We select an arbitrary agent who points at some house that has three or more edges (Step 3). Then we remove this agent from the graph and iterate from the beginning: return to Step 1 to check if we obtained any new leaves in the graph, eliminate these leaves and so on until each remaining house has exactly two edges. Then each remaining agent is matched to his first house or his second house (Step 4), and for the unmatched agents we repeat the same procedure for the reduced problem with the unmatched houses (Step 5).
[**Minimal Envy Matchings (MEM)**]{}\
*Input*: $(I,H,\succ)$; If $I=\emptyset$, then Stop;
Set matched and unmatched agents and houses: $MI=\emptyset, UI=I, MH=\emptyset, UH=H$;\
1: Matching of all single pairs of a first house and its first agent.
For each $i\in UI$ such that $|FA(FH(i))\cap UI|=1$,
Match $i$ and $FH(i)$; Remove $i$ from $UI$ to $MI$; Remove $FH(i)$ from $UH$ to $MH$;\
2: Matching of a single pair of a second house and its second agent.
If some $i\in UI$ have $|SA(SH(i))\cap UI|=1$,
Match $i$ and $SH(i)$; Remove $i$ from $UI$ to $MI$; Remove $SH(i)$ from $UH$ to $MH$;
Go to Step 1;\
3: Excluding of some agent.
If some $i\in UI$ have $|FA(FH(i))\cap UI|> 2$ or $|SA(SH(i))\cap UI|> 2$,
Remove $i$ from $UI$; Go to Step 1;\
4: Matching cycles.
While $UI\neq \emptyset$,
Choose some $i\in UI$;
While $i\in UI$,
Match $i$ and $FH(i)$; Remove $i$ from $UI$ to $MI$;
Remove $FH(i)$ from $UH$ to $MH$;
Match $j\in FA(FH(i))\cap UI$ and $SH(j)$; Remove $j$ from $UI$ to $MI$;
Remove $SH(j)$ from $UH$ to $MH$;
If $SA(SH(j))\cap UI\neq \emptyset$, choose $i\in SA(SH(j))\cap UI$;
5: Run the algorithm on Input $(I\setminus MI,H \setminus MH,\succ_{I\setminus MI,H \setminus MH})$.
Now we can present the main result of this section: the MEM algorithm produces a minimal envy matching that is also Pareto efficient. The proof is in the appendix.
[**Theorem 5.**]{} The induced output of the MEM algorithm
- is a minimal envy matching,
- is Pareto efficient,
- is obtained in cubic time in the number of agents $|I|$.
Conclusions
===========
In the current paper we study fair matchings defined as popular matchings or, alternatively, minimal envy matchings. We propose a characterization of “global” popularity via “local” popularity, and also show that local majority-based exchanges lead to a globally popular matching.
We also constructively extend the definition of popularity to the cases where a popular matching does not need to exist. In general, a matching is most popular if it is popular among the largest number of agents. We show that each minimal envy matching is a most popular matching, and provide an efficient algorithm to find these matchings.
There might be other reasonable alternative extensions of popular matchings adopted from voting theory, for instance Schwartz set. The other way, using the language of minimal envy, one can find matchings that eliminate envy among the group of disadvantaged agents. For example, imagine that in some most popular matching the agents that received bad houses do not envy each other (as each of them received a “third“ house – the best house after all first houses and second houses are removed). This matching intuitively seems to be more fair than some other most popular matching where this is not the case. However, we conjecture that finding such matching is NP-hard.
One open question is about the convergence speed of decentralized popular markets. To answer this question one may need to design a more efficient algorithm: our greedy algorithm does many unnecessary steps, for instance when it repeatedly runs the same chains. We cannot simply avoid these steps as then we cannot build a triple that blocks the current matching. However, it might be possible using alternative algorithms.
Another open question is about popular markets in instances when popular matchings do not exist. Perhaps, these markets converge to some stationary probabilistic distribution over the set of matchings, and it is reasonable to deem the more probable matchings as more popular. Both questions are interesting but hard.
Our results also raise practically relevant questions for market designers: how can minimal envy and most popular matchings be found in relevant matching markets. For instance, in the centralized school choice market where schools have coarse priorities, one might want to find the minimal envy matching among all stable matchings. This way the students will have less envy towards the students of the same priority category than otherwise. In the same time the final matching (and the underlying tie-breaking that supports this matching) is fair from the social perspective since it is the most popular among all stable matchings. Such refinements of tie-breaking will also have positive efficiency implications akin the results by [@erdil2008s].
A fundamental question is to develop alternative principles of fairness applicable for the indivisible object allocation setting considered here. Despite the fact that the setting precludes many standard principles of fairness like symmetry and fair-share-guaranteed, there might be other reasonable approaches to fairness that do not rely on envy or popularity.
[**APPENDIX**]{}
*Proof of Theorem 2*. The ”only if” part is straightforward: each popular matching $\mu$ is locally popular. For a contradiction, assume that there is a triple of agents $i,j,k\in I$ and another matching $\mu'$ same as $\mu$ for all other agents and such that it is preferred over $\mu$: $PC_{\{i,j,k\}}(\mu',\mu)>PC_{\{i,j,k\}}(\mu,\mu')$. Then $\mu$ cannot be popular among all agents since all other agents are indifferent and thus: $$PC_I(\mu',\mu)-PC_I(\mu,\mu')=PC_{\{i,j,k\}}(\mu',\mu)-PC_{\{i,j,k\}}(\mu,\mu')>0.$$
The ”if” part we also prove by contradiction. For a contradiction, assume that there is a matching $\mu$ that is locally popular, but it loses in pairwise comparison to some other matching $\mu'$: $PC_I(\mu',\mu)>PC_I(\mu,\mu')$. Consider all agents that have different houses in these two matchings, denote the set of these agents as $I_1 = \{ i\in I : \mu(i) \neq \mu'(i) \}$. (In what follows we will change the notation of these agents for convenience).
We partition all agents into those who participate in a trading cycle, i.e. exchange their matched houses among themselves, and a trading chain, i.e. those that are matched in $\mu'$ to a previously empty house or whose house in $\mu$ becomes empty in $\mu'$.
We first deal with chains. Consider an arbitrary agent $j_1\in I_1$ that received a previously empty house $\mu'(j_1) \in H\setminus \mu(I)$, $\mu(\mu'(j_1))=\emptyset$. If $j_1$’s house is empty in $\mu'$, $\mu'(\mu(j_1))=\emptyset$, then we get a chain of size 1. Otherwise there is some agent $j_2$ such that $\mu'(j_2)=\mu(j_1)$. If $j_2$’s house is empty in $\mu'$, $\mu'(\mu(j_2))=\emptyset$, then we get a chain of size 2. Otherwise, we continue in the same way until we find the last agent in the chain. Similarly, determine chains for each agent that receives a previously empty house. Denote the set of agents participating in a chain as $J_1$.
We then deal with cycles. Consider an arbitrary agent not from any chain $i_1\in I_1\setminus J_1$, $\mu(i_1) \neq \mu'(i_1)$. Consider agent $i_2$ that owns house $\mu'(i_1)$, $i_2 = \mu(\mu'(i_1))$. Agent $i_2$ also does not belong to any chain, $i_2\in I_1\setminus J_1$ and as $\mu(i_2) = \mu'(i_1)$, then $i_2\neq i_1$. If the two agents just exchanged their houses, $\mu'(i_2) = \mu(i_1)$, then we get a trading cycle $(\mu(i_1), i_1, \mu'(i_1), i_2)$ of length 2. Otherwise, if $\mu'(i_2) \neq \mu(i_1)$, then consider agent $i_3 = \mu(\mu'(i_2))$. Since $\mu(i_3) = \mu'(i_2) \neq \mu(i_1)$, then $i_2\neq i_3$, $i_1\neq i_3$ and $i_3\in I_1\setminus J_1$.
And so forth until we get a cycle of length at least 2 and at most $|I_1\setminus J_1|$. In the same way we find all trading cycles among all other agents.
Thus, the set $I_1$ and the set of corresponding houses $\mu(I_1)\cup \mu'(I_1)$ is partitioned into trading chains of size at least 1 and cycles of size at least 2.
By assumption $PC_I(\mu',\mu)>PC_I(\mu,\mu')$, there is at least one trading chain or one trading cycle such that more than half of its agents prefer $\mu'$ over $\mu$. Formally, if $I_{TC}$ denotes the set of agents in this chain or cycle, $PC_{I_{TC}}(\mu',\mu)>PC_{I_{TC}}(\mu,\mu')$.
If $I_{TC}$ form a cycle, then we can find two neighbouring agents $i,j\in I_{TC}$, $j=\mu(\mu'(i))$, that both prefer $\mu'$ over $\mu$. If this trading cycle is of length 2, then consider a new matching $\mu''$ that is identical to $\mu$ for each agent except $\{i,j\}$ and same as $\mu'$ for these pair, $\mu''(i)=\mu'(i)$, $\mu''(j)=\mu'(j)$. Then by adding one other arbitrary agent we get a triple of agents that prefer $\mu''$ over $\mu$ by majority – contrary to our premise. If this trading cycle is of length more than 2, then consider the next neighbouring agent $k=\mu(\mu'(j))$. Consider now a new matching $\mu''$ that is identical to $\mu$ for each agent except $\{i,j,k\}$ and $\mu''(i)=\mu'(i)$, $\mu''(j)=\mu'(j)$, and $\mu''(k)=\mu(i)$. The triple of agents $i,j,k$ prefers $\mu''$ over $\mu$ by majority: $PC_{\{i,j,k\}}(\mu'',\mu)>PC_{\{i,j,k\}}(\mu,\mu'')$, contrary to our premise.
If $I_{TC}$ forms a chain of length 1, $I_{TC}=\{i_1\}$, then consider a new matching $\mu''$ constructed as before: $\mu''$ is identical to $\mu$ for each agent except for $i_1$, $\mu''(i_1)=\mu'(i_1)$. A triple of agents $i_1$ and two arbitrary agents $i_2$, $i_3$ prefers $\mu''$ over the original matching $\mu$: $PC_{\{i_1,i_2,i_3\}}(\mu'',\mu)>PC_{\{i_1,i_2,i_3\}}(\mu,\mu'')$, contrary to our premise.
If $I_{TC}$ forms a chain of length 2, then both agents in $I_{TC}$ are better off in $\mu'$ compared to $\mu$. By adding one other arbitrary agent we get a triple of agents that prefers a similarly constructed $\mu''$ over $\mu$ by majority, contrary to our premise.
If the length of the chain is above 2, then either (1) we can find two neighbouring agents $i,j\in I_{TC}$, $j=\mu(\mu'(i))$, that both prefer $\mu'$ over $\mu$, or (2) the chain begins and ends with agents that are better off in $\mu'$ compared to $\mu$ (and agents in between interchange). In case (1) we take the triple of these agents $i,j$ and the previous owner of $j$’s house $k=\mu(\mu'(j))$ (if $j$’s house was empty, then take an arbitrary $k$). This triple $i,j,k$ prefers a similarly constructed $\mu''$ over $\mu$ by majority, contrary to our premise.
In case (2) we take the triple of agents as the first agent in the chain $j_1$, $\mu(\mu'(j_1))=\emptyset$, the last agent $j_k$, $\mu'(\mu(j_k))=\emptyset$, and the one before the last $j_{k-1}$. The triple $j_1, j_{k-1},j_k$ prefers a similarly constructed $\mu''$ over $\mu$ by majority, contrary to our premise. $\blacksquare$
*Proof of Theorem 3*.
The first part of the algorithm.
Let $\mu=\mu_0$ be the arbitrary initial matching where each agent is endowed with some house $h$ or $\emptyset$. Let us fix some ordering of agents $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_n\}$. Denote the current matchings by $\mu_j, j=0,\ldots,l$. Each next matching $\mu_{j+1}$ is the same as previous matching $\mu_j$ except some local popular exchange. Denote the number of agents who get a bad house by $\beta(\mu_j)$. Note that $n-\beta(\mu_j)$ agents get either a first house or a second house.
For steps $k=1,\ldots, n$ we make the following local popular exchanges.
If in step $k$ house $\mu_j(i_k)$ is the best house for agent $i_k$, then proceed to step $k+1$ without changing the current matching $\mu_j$. Otherwise, consider house $h\neq \mu_j(i_k)$ that is the best house of agent $i_k$. If this house $h$ is empty, $\mu_j(h)=\emptyset$, then we give it to agent $i_k$ in the new matching, $\mu_{j+1}(i_k)=h, \mu_{j+1}(h)=i_k$. Otherwise, consider the owner of $h$, $\mu_j(h)$.
If $h$ is the best for its owner $\mu_j(h)$, then proceed to the next step $k+1$ without changing the current matching $\mu_j$. Otherwise, consider the best house for agent $\mu_j(h)$: $h'\neq h$. If $h'=\mu_j(i_k)$ or $\mu_j(h')=\emptyset$ then make the mutually beneficial two-way exchange: $\mu_{j+1}(i_k)=h, \mu_{j+1}(h)=i_k, \mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(h))=h', \mu_{j+1}(h')=\mu_j(h)$. Otherwise, if $\mu_j(h')\notin\{i_k, \mu_j(h), \emptyset\}$ we make the three-way exchange: $\mu_{j+1}(i_k)=h, \mu_{j+1}(h)=i_k, \mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(h))=h', \mu_{j+1}(h')=\mu_j(h), \mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(h'))=\mu_j(i_k), \mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(i_k))=\mu_j(h')$. This exchange is beneficial for at least two of the three agents.
After each of the above exchanges the number of agents that own their best houses goes up, and each agent gets his best house unless it is taken by some other agent. Thus after $x\leq n$ local popular exchanges we get a new matching $\mu_x$ where each agent gets either his first house, his second house, or a bad house. At least $\max\{x,1\}$ agents get their first house, therefore $\beta(\mu_x)\leq \min\{n-x, n-1\}$.
The second part of the algorithm.
We will make exchanges that *weakly* decrease the number of agents with a bad house, $\beta(\mu_j)\geq \beta(\mu_{j+1})$.
Consider some agent $\mu_j(t)$ that gets a bad house $t$. If his second house $s$ is free, $\mu_j(s)=\emptyset$, we give him $s$: $\mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(t))=s, \mu_{j+1}(s)=\mu_j(t)$ and decrease $\beta(\mu_j)$ by one, $\beta(\mu_{j+1})= \beta(\mu_j)-1$. Otherwise there is some agent $\mu_j(s)$ that owns $s$, and $s$ might be his bad house or his second house (but not his first house from the definition of second house). We now study these two cases.
1\. Let $s$ be a bad house for $\mu_j(s)$. Denote the second house of $\mu_j(s)$ as $h$. If $h=t$ or $h$ is empty, $\mu_j(h)=\emptyset$, then make the two-way exchange decreasing $\beta(\mu_j)$ by two, $\beta(\mu_{j+1})= \beta(\mu_j)-2$: $\mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(t))=s, \mu_{j+1}(s)=\mu_j(t),\mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(s))=h, \mu_{j+1}(h)=\mu_j(s)$. Otherwise, make the three-way exchange $\mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(t))=s, \mu_{j+1}(s)=\mu_j(t),\mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(s))=h, \mu_{j+1}(h)=\mu_j(s), \mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(h))=t, \mu_{j+1}(t)=\mu_j(h)$, decreasing $\beta(\mu_j)$ by 1, 2 or 3 depending on how agent $\mu_j(h)$ ranks house $t$.
2\. Let $s$ be the second house for $\mu_j(s)$. Let $f$ be the first house for agent $\mu_j(s)$. From the first part of the algorithm we know that $f$ is also the first house of his owner $\mu_j(f)$. Make the following three-way exchange: $\mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(t))=s, \mu_{j+1}(s)=\mu_j(t),\mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(s))=f, \mu_{j+1}(f)=\mu_j(s), \mu_{j+1}(\mu_j(f))=t, \mu_{j+1}(t)=\mu_j(f)$. If $t$ is the second house for agent $\mu_j(f)$, then $\beta(\mu_j)$ decreases by one, $\beta(\mu_{j+1})= \beta(\mu_j)-1$.
Thus $\beta(\mu_j)$ is only constant, $\beta(\mu_{j+1})= \beta(\mu_j)$, if house $s$ is the second house for both $\mu_j(t)$ and $\mu_j(s)$, house $f$ is the first house for both $\mu_j(s)$ and $\mu_j(f)$, and house $t$ is a bad house for both agents $\mu_j(t)$ and $\mu_j(f)$. Denote such exchange as *bad* (see Table 7). We show now that a sequence of these bad exchanges in which $\beta(\mu_j)$ remains constant is finite.
Table 7. Current matchings $\mu_j, \mu_{j+1}$ before and after a bad three-way exchange which keeps $\beta(\mu_j)=\beta(\mu_{j+1})$\
house $\mu_j(t)$ $\mu_j(s)$ $\mu_j(f)$
-------- ------------ ------------ ------------
first f
second s
bad t
$\mu_j(t)$ $\mu_j(s)$ $\mu_j(f)$
------------ ------------ ------------
f
s
t
2.1 Let $f$ be the first house also for agent $\mu_j(t)$. For convenience denote $f=f_1, s=s_1, \mu_j(t)=1, \mu_j(s)=2, \mu_j(f)=3$. By Hall’s theorem the second house for agent 3 cannot be the same as $s_1$, $s_3 \neq s_1$ (otherwise three agents have the same first house and the same second house, and thus a popular matching does not exist). After the bad exchange among agents 1,2,3 the bad house $t$ is matched to agent 3. Consider another chain of three agents that starts with the bad house $t$. Denote $\mu_j(s_3)=4$. Note that $f_4 \neq f_1$ (otherwise four agents have the same first house, two of them have the same second house, and the other two of them also have the same second house, and thus a popular matching does not exist). Denote $\mu_j(f_4)=5$. By Hall’s theorem $s_5\notin \{ s_1, s_3 \}$ (otherwise, similar to the previous arguments the popular matching does not exist). After the bad exchange between agents 3,4,5 the bad house is matched with agent 5 (see Table 8), and so forth.
Table 8. Current matchings $\mu_j, \mu_{j+2}$ before and after two bad three-way exchanges which keep $\beta(\mu_j)=\beta(\mu_{j+2})$\
house 1 2 3 4 5
-------- ------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
first $f_1$ $f_1$ $\underline{f_1}$ $f_4$ $\underline{f_4}$
second $s_1$ $\underline{s_1}$ $s_3$ $\underline{s_3}$ $s_5$
bad t t
1 2 3 4 5
------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------
$f_1$ $\underline{f_1}$ $f_1$ $\underline{f_4}$ $f_4$
$\underline{s_1}$ $s_1$ $\underline{s_3}$ $s_3$ $s_5$
t t
Note that in this case $\beta(\mu_j)\leq n-2$. In each such bad exchange two new agents enter the chain, these agents own their first and second houses. Then, we need not more than $(n-\beta(\mu_j))/2$ bad exchanges and one additional exchange to reduce $\beta(\mu_j)$. Hence, the total number of local popular exchanges reducing $\beta(\mu_j)$ is not more than $$\frac{n-\beta(\mu_j)}{2}+1 \leq n-\beta(\mu_j).$$
2.2 Let the first house $f_1$ for agent $\mu_j(t)$ be different from house $f$. Denote $f=f_2, s=s_1, \mu_j(t)=1, \mu_j(s)=2, \mu_j(f)=3$. After one bad exchange agent 3 would be matched to house $t$.
Assume that the second house for agent 3 $s_3\neq s_1$ – we did not meet $s_3$ earlier in the chain. Consider agent 4 that owns his second house $s_3$. Assume that agent 4’s first house $f_4$ was note previously in the chain: $f_4\neq f_1,f_2$.
Consider the next agent 5 and so on: we get a chain of agents such that each two neighbours have either the same first house or the same second house. Eventually we arrive to some agent $k$ that has the same first or second house as earlier in the chain.
Let agent $k$ be the first agent in the chain such that his first house has already appeared in the chain. In this case $k$ is even. Then after $(k-2)/2$ bad exchanges in one direction agent $k-1$ gets the bad house $t$. Then agent $k-1$ reverses the direction of bad exchanges such that agent $k+1$ gets the bad house $t$, which happens after not more than than $k/2$ bad exchanges. And we see that not less than $k$ agents get their first or second houses, $k\leq n-\beta(\mu_j)$.
Now agent $k+1$ continues the bad exchanges. By Hall’s theorem, in each such bad exchange two new agents enter the chain, these agents own their first and second houses. Then, we need not more than $(n-\beta(\mu_j) -k)/2$ bad exchanges and one additional exchange to reduce $\beta(\mu_j)$. Hence, for even $k$ the total number of exchanges reducing $\beta(\mu_j)$ is not more than $$\frac{k-2}{2}+\frac{k}{2}+\frac{n-\beta(\mu_j) -k}{2}+1 =
\frac{n-\beta(\mu_j)}{2}+\frac{k}{2} \leq n-\beta(\mu_j).$$
Similarly, let agent $k$ be the first agent in the chain such that his second house has already appeared in the chain. In this case $k$ is odd. Then after $(k-1)/2$ bad exchanges in one direction agent $k$ gets the bad house $t$. Then agent $k$ reverses the direction of bad exchanges such that agent 1 gets house $f_1$ and agent $k+1$ gets the bad house $t$, which happens after not more than than $(k-1)/2$ bad exchanges. And we see that not less than $k$ agents get their first or second houses, $k\leq n-\beta(\mu_j)$.
Now agent $k+1$ continues the bad exchanges. By Hall’s theorem, in each such bad exchange two new agents enter the chain, these agents own their first and second houses. Then, we need not more than $(n-\beta(\mu_j) -k)/2$ bad exchanges and one additional exchange to reduce $\beta(\mu_j)$. Hence, for odd $k$ the total number of local popular exchanges reducing $\beta(\mu_j)$ is not more than $$\frac{k-1}{2}+\frac{k-1}{2}+\frac{n-\beta(\mu_j) -k}{2}+1 =\frac{n-\beta(\mu_j)}{2}+\frac{k}{2} \leq n-\beta(\mu_j).$$
Eventually, in the second part of the algorithm after at most $n-\beta(\mu_j)$ local popular exchanges we decrease $\beta(\mu_j)$. In the worst case $n-1$ agents have a bad house after the first part of the algorithm, therefore, including the first part of the algorithm the upper bound is $1+1+2+\ldots+(n-1)=(n^2-n+2)/2$. $\blacksquare$
*Proof of Theorem 4*. For a contradiction, consider a minimal envy matching $\mu$ that is not most popular: there exists another matching $\mu'$ popular among a larger set $J'$, i.e. for each set $J$ such that $\mu$ is popular among $J$, $|J'|>|J|$. (In particular, the latter is true for $J$ consisting of agents that get their first or second houses in $\mu$.)
We now modify $\mu'$ such that a resulting matching has less envy than $\mu$. Consider an arbitrary house $h$ that is matched in $\mu'$ to some agent $i\in J'$. As $\mu'$ is popular among $J'$, house $h$ is either $i$’s first house in the reduced problem with set $J'$ (and thus $h$ is also $i$’s first house in the original problem with set $I$), or $h$ is $i$’s second house in the reduced problem $(J',H,\succ_{J',H})$. Consider the latter case.
If $h$ is NOT $i$’s second house in the original problem, then there exists agent $j\in I \setminus J'$ for whom $h$ is a first house, $h=FH(j)$. Match $h$ to $j$, and give agent $i$ its most preferred unmatched house. Notice that the number of first and second houses is at least as large as in $\mu'$. Do the same for each such house $h$ (matched to an agent in $J'$ that is its second agent in the reduced problem while its first agent is in $I\setminus J'$).
As a result we match each first house to one of its first agents (either in $J'$ as already done in $\mu'$ or in $I\setminus J'$ by modifying $\mu'$), and the total number of agents who get their first or second houses is at least $|J'|$ and hence larger than in $\mu$. Therefore, $\mu$ is not minimal envy matching. $\blacksquare$
*Proof of Theorem 5*.
Statement i) Let the MEM algorithm produce matching $\mu$. Consider some matching $\mu'$ that is a minimal envy matching. Both matchings $\mu, \mu'$ match each first house to one of its first agents. We show that $\mu$ and $\mu'$ match the same number of agents to their first or second houses and therefore $\mu$ is a minimal envy matching.
Denote $I_1$ the set of agents that are matched until we reach Step 3, i.e., while we only match leaves and no agent is excluded. Each agent in $I_1$ gets his first or second house in $\mu$: for each $i\in I_1$ we have $\mu(i)\in FH(i)\cup SH(i)$. We first show that each agent in $I_1$ also gets his first or second house in $\mu'$.
For a contradiction, let there be agent $i_1\in I_1: h_0 = \mu'(i_1)\notin FH(i_1)\cup SH(i_1)$.
Since $i_1\in I_1$, in $\mu$ he received either his first or second house $h_1=\mu(i_1)\in FH(i_1)\cup SH(i_1)$. House $h_1\neq h_0$ and in $\mu'$ house $h_1$ is matched to some agent $i_2=\mu'(h_1)\notin \{\emptyset,i_1\}$ for whom $h_1$ is his first or second house, $h_1\in FH(i_2)\cup SH(i_2)$, otherwise a minimal envy matching $\mu'$ should match $h_1$ to $i_1$. Therefore, $i_2\in I_1$ since $h_1$ was matched as a leaf and thus $i_2$ was matched earlier than $i_1$ in the MEM algorithm.
Since $i_2\in I_1$, in $\mu$ he received either his first or second house $h_2=\mu(i_2)\in FH(i_2)\cup SH(i_2)$. House $h_2\notin \{h_0,h_1\}$ and in $\mu'$ house $h_2$ is matched to some agent $i_3=\mu'(h_2)\notin \{\emptyset,i_1,i_2\}$ for whom $h_2$ is his first or second house, $h_2\in FH(i_3)\cup SH(i_3)$, otherwise a minimal envy matching $\mu'$ should match $h_2$ to $i_2$ and $h_1$ to $i_1$. Therefore, $i_3\in I_1$ since $h_2$ was matched as a leaf and thus $i_3$ was matched earlier than $i_2$ in the MEM algorithm.
We get a contradiction with finiteness of $I_1$: an infinite chain of different agents $(i_1,i_2,i_3,\ldots)$ such that for each two neighbors $i_{k-1},i_k$ we have $\mu(i_{k-1})=\mu'(i_k)$ and each agent $i_k\in I_1$.
It remains to show that $\mu'$ could not match agents in $I\setminus I_1$ ‘better’ than $\mu$ does.
Since each agent $i\in I_1$ received a leaf in the MEM algorithm, we have that $\mu(i)$ is not a first house or second house of any agent $j\in I\setminus I_1$: $\mu(i)\notin FH(j)\cup SH(j)$. Therefore, the MEM algorithm distributes all houses valuable for *each* such agent $j\in I\setminus I_1$: $\mu$ matches each first house $FH(j)$ to an agent in $I\setminus I_1$ that deems it as his first house, and each second house $SH(j)$ to an agent in $I\setminus I_1$ that deems it as his second house.
Statement ii) For a contradiction let there be a Pareto improvement over matching $\mu$ induced by the MEM algorithm, and let some set of agents $J$ strictly benefit. For all possible improvements over $\mu$ consider agent $i\in J$ who is matched by the MEM algorithm earlier than any other agent in such sets $J$. Let $i$ be matched in run $k$ of the MEM algorithm.
Which house does agent $i$ get? In the corresponding run $k$ of the MEM algorithm agent $i$ received either his current first house (i.e., his most preferred house among all houses that remain unmatched after earlier runs) or his current second house.
If $i$ received his current first house, then he can only benefit by getting some house $h$ matched in the earlier run of the MEM algorithm, but since $i$ is the earliest matched agent who can Pareto improve, agent $\mu(h)$ is worse off. Alternatively, if $i$ received his current second house, he can additionally benefit only by getting some other agent $j$’s current first house (matched in run $k$ of the MEM algorithm). But agent $j$ can only benefit by getting some house $g$ matched in the earlier run of the MEM algorithm. Agent $\mu(g)$ is matched earlier than $i$ and thus is worse off since $i$ is the earliest matched agents who can Pareto improve.
Statement iii) Each run of the MEM algorithm has the same complexity $O(|I|^2)$ as in the original algorithm by [@Abraham07] and reduces the size of the problem at least by two agents and two houses.
$\blacksquare$
[^1]: Aleksei Y. Kondratev — National Research University Higher School of Economics, 16, Soyuza Pechatnikov st., St. Petersburg, 190121, Russia; Institute for Problems of Regional Economics RAS, 38, Serpuhovskaya st., St. Petersburg, 190013, Russia — [email protected] — http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8424-8198\
Alexander S. Nesterov — National Research University Higher School of Economics, 16, Soyuza Pechatnikov st., St. Petersburg, 190121, Russia — [email protected] — http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9143-2938\
Support from the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics is gratefully acknowledged.\
Acknowledgements will be added in the final version of the paper.\
The preliminary version of this paper has circulated under the title “Random Paths To Popularity In Two-Sided Matching”.
[^2]: When objects are not valuable and can be wasted [@KestenYazici12] propose an ex-post envy-free strategy-proof rule that Pareto-dominates all such rules. For the case when objects are privately owned or have priorities over agents and we only need to eliminate “justified envy” see the prolific school choice literature stemming from the seminal paper by [@AbdulkadirogluSonmez03]. For the case when objects can be goods and bads and agents might receive more than one object see the fair division literature, e.g. [@BogomolnaiaMoulinSandomirskiyYanovskaya17].
[^3]: The two other standard approaches – symmetry and fair-share-guarantee – are useful for the ex-ante consideration yet hardly applicable ex-post.
[^4]: For a matching to be minimal-envy, each top-ranked object must be given to one of the agents that top-ranked it since otherwise we can reduce the number of envying agents at least by 1.
[^5]: For a review of consistency principle behind these two axioms see [@Thomson11].
[^6]: [@Abraham07] propose an $O(n+m')$ algorithm, where $m'$ is the total length of all preferences, i.e. up to $m'=|I|\cdot |H|$, where $n=|I|$ is the number of agents and $|H|$ is the number of houses.
[^7]: More precisely, it is $P^{NP}_{||}$-complete as shown by [@RotheSpakowskiVogel03], whereas the speed of our algorithm is cubic in the number of agents $|I|$.
[^8]: This setting was further generalized to the case with ties and matroid constraints by [@Kamiyama17] and to the case with two-sided preferences and one-sided ties by [@CsehHuangKavitha17]. The many-to-one matching problem, where each house has a capacity was studied by [@SngManlove10] and [@KavithaNasre11], and the many-to-many problem was studied by [@Paluch14].
[^9]: For each agent $i$, having no house $\emptyset$ can be considered as his last resort (fictitious house) $l_i$. All results remain true when agents have short preference lists with last resort and/or the set of houses is smaller than than the set of agents.
[^10]: If we selected agent 3 instead of agent 2, the procedure would have stopped after one local popular exchange.
[^11]: Agents 1,2,4 have the same preferences over houses $b,c,d$ that they own and we get a Condorcet cycle, which can also infinitely repeat itself.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A stream attention framework has been applied to the posterior probabilities of the deep neural network (DNN) to improve the far-field automatic speech recognition (ASR) performance in the multi-microphone configuration. The stream attention scheme has been realized through an attention vector, which is derived by predicting the ASR performance from the phoneme posterior distribution of individual microphone stream, focusing the recognizer’s attention to more reliable microphones. Investigation on the various ASR performance measures has been carried out using the real recorded dataset. Experiments results show that the proposed framework has yielded substantial improvements in word error rate (WER).'
address: |
$^\dagger$Center for Language and Speech Processing, Johns Hopkins University\
3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA\
$^\star$Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences\
No.21 North 4th Ring West Road, Beijing 100190, China
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Stream Attention for far-field multi-microphone ASR'
---
Far-field multi-microphone ASR, ASR performance measure, Stream attention
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In far-field ASR scenario, it is feasible to use many parallel recognition streams. A situation needs to be solved where a number of microphones, which form acoustic streams, are distributed in space to acquire speech to be recognized. Depending on the room situation and microphone status, some streams (microphones closer to the speaker, less noise and reverberation) may deliver better recognition results than the others. Automatically selecting the best microphone for ASR, and further achieving a potential better ASR performance through combining the microphones is desirable. Conventional solutions such as selecting the acoustic stream with the highest energy are vulnerable to strong noises.
There are several ways to enhance the ASR performance utilizing the multi-microphone configuration. One possible strategy is to align the time delay between the microphones and use spatial information to carry out beamforming [@zhang2008maximum][@markovich2015optimal]. However, in the distributed setup, time delays are difficult to estimate. Further, as a front-end processing module, the objective functions are not optimal for ASR [@meng2017deep]. Another way of approaching this problem is to find the highest likelihood combination of best paths through multiple recognition lattices, formed from all individual streams [@fiscus1997post][@xu2010improved]. This requires carrying out full searches in each microphone stream, which is typically done over the whole length of each utterance. And the computing complexity of the multiple decoding operations is the bottleneck.
Most ASR systems require feature vectors, which represent information about underlying speech sound at regular time intervals. Such feature vectors can be derived from posterior probabilities of the sounds, estimated by DNN classifiers. DNN posteriors are able to tolerate the misalignment between the classifier inputs and corresponding labels [@waibel1989phoneme]. We propose to construct at every time instant the best feature vector from a combination of the most reliable sound posteriors from different available streams, which is a stream attention scheme. In this way, only one decoding operation for ASR is needed, which is more effective than multiple operations.
Attention scheme can be achieved by generating an attention vector for multiple inputs [@bahdanau2014neural][@kim2016recurrent], among which the attention vector plays an important role in addressing the crucial part of the inputs based on specific attention criterion. Given the feature vectors (DNN posteriors), the key problem of stream attention that to deal with is to find an appropriate measure of the goodness of feature vectors in the individual streams. This goodness measure could then be used in deriving proper attention vector for the construction of the best feature vector.
In this study, we propose a stream attention framework to deal with the far-field multi-microphone ASR problem, in which the sounds from microphones are not forced aligned. For better understanding the framework, we investigate several measures that built the relationship between the goodness of DNN posterior vectors and the ASR performance [@okawa1998multi][@misra2002entropy][@hermansky2013mean][@meyer2016performance][@mallidi2015uncertainty][@mallidi2015autoencoder], and test the framework using various attention vectors on a real recorded dataset. Specifically, attention vectors are estimated based on the discriminative judgment among the microphone streams. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the proposed stream attention framework of the multi-microphone system. In section 3, different ASR performance measures are compared in far-field multi-microphone ASR experiments using real recordings. Section 4 concludes the paper.
Proposed Framework {#sec:system}
==================
In this section, we describe the stream attention framework applied on the posterior probabilities of Hidden Markov Model (HMM) state to force the recognizer automatically focusing on the reliable microphones in the multi-microphone configuration. A brief diagram in Fig.\[fig:res\] demonstrates the attention scheme and attention vector estimation using the multiple posteriors, with each corresponding to the Softmax output of a typical DNN-HMM classifier.
![Stream attention framework for ASR using the posterior probabilities form DNN classifier.[]{data-label="fig:res"}](streamattention){width="8.5cm"}
Formulation of the Stream Attention Scheme
------------------------------------------
As suggested in Fig.\[fig:res\], let ${\bf P}_t=[P_t^1,P_t^2,...,P_t^M]^T$ denote the posterior probability sequences of HMM states $O$ at time $t$, where ${}^T$ is the transpose operation and $P_t^i=p(O|{\bf X}_t^i),i=1,...,M$ is the $i$th posterior probability sequence given the feature sequence ${\bf X}_t^i$ extracted from the signal of microphone $i$. $M$ is the total stream number, which is equal to the number of microphones (or arrays). Specifically, ${\bf X}_t^i=[X_{t-\tau}^i,...,X_t^i,...,X_{t+\tau}^i]^T$ is context based, including $2\tau+1$ adjacent frames centered at time $t$.
Assuming that we have the stream attention vector ${\bf w}_t=[w_t^1,w_t^2,...,w_t^M]^T$, which is a M-element vector with summation equal to $1$ at time $t$, we are able to achieve the re-weighted posterior probability sequence $\hat{P_t}$ as follows, $$\label{equ:combination}
\hat{P_t}={\bf w}_t{\bf P}_t$$ After the re-weighted combination, $\hat{P_t}$ is used for decoding.
Attention Vector Estimation
---------------------------
The attention vector can be estimated via evaluating the relative ASR performance between the microphone streams in unsupervised ways. Specifically, ASR performance measures are integrated to realize this purpose, stated as follows.
### Based on analysis of phoneme posteriorgram
Researchers proposed to distinguish ASR performance through observing the relationship between recognition accuracy and representation of phoneme posteriorgram. Posterior distribution at a particular time point would converge to non-informative, as the signals were increasingly corrupted by noise or reverberation. Therefore, inverse entropy $1/H_i$ of $\overline{P}_t^i$ is a measure to determine the performance of microphone stream $i$ [@okawa1998multi][@misra2002entropy], so that the attention vector of each frame is given by $$\label{equ:entropy}
w_t^i=\frac{1/H_i}{\sum_{i=1}^M 1/H_i}$$
By considering the temporal properties of phoneme posterior probability, mean time distance (M-measure) [@hermansky2013mean] and delta M-measure [@mallidi2015uncertainty] accumulate the divergences of probability estimates spaced over several time-spans. M-measure accumulates how similar or different every two probability vectors $P^i_{t-\Delta t}$ and $P^i_{t}$ are, by calculating their symmetric Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) $D(P^i_{t-\Delta t},P^i_t)$. If the speech were corrupted by stationary or slowly varying distortions, these distortions start dominating the signal and the phoneme posteriors become more similar, resulting in a lower average value of M-measure. Delta M-measure further takes phoneme dependence into account. Both M-measure and delta M-measure rely on long-term windows over hundreds of milliseconds. Stream with better ASR performance would have a larger value than the other streams in this window. Thus, a time-invariant attention vector having binary elements across the window is derived, which is given by $w_t^i==1$, if $M^i(\Delta t)>M^j(\Delta t)$, where $i\neq j$, $t$ belongs to all the frame time in the window.
### Based on unsupervised learning
It’s well-known that multi-layer neural network is good at modeling the complex data distributions. In the unsupervised learning approach, we use the autoencoder as an ASR performance monitor to model the output activations of DNN acoustic model [@mallidi2015autoencoder].
In the training phase, an autoencoder is trained on the phoneme posterior sequences with Logit (to make the features more Gaussian) and principal component analysis (PCA) transformation (transformation basis of PCA is evaluated from the training data). The data for training the autoencoder is the same as that for training the DNN classifier. Mean square error (MSE) criterion is used.
In the test phase, the reconstruction error of test data is used as a measure of stream confidence, which means that a vector similar to the distribution of training data will yield a low reconstruction error compared to vectors drawn from a different distribution. The lower the reconstruction error is, the better test and training data are matched, resulting in a better recognition accuracy. Different from M-measure and delta M-measure, autoencoder based ASR performance monitor is a frame-wise technique. The element of attention vector $w_n^i$ is given as follows, $$\label{equ:autoencoder}
w_t^i=\frac{1/||e_i||^2}{\sum_{i=1}^M 1/||e_i||^2}$$ where $||e_n||$ is the $l_2$ norm of reconstruction error vectors.
The temporal transition of phonemes is a speech-specific property, which is widely applied to the speech-related techniques. In this study, we use context-based phoneme posterior features centered by the current frame as the input, and current frame at time $t$ as the training target. To further relaxing the strict alignment of input features and corresponding targets and significantly reducing the input size [@peddinti2015time], we exploit the TDNN structure with splices in the hidden layers to train the autoencoder.
Experiment and Discussion {#sec:experiment}
=========================
Dataset and Baseline
--------------------
The proposed framework was evaluated on a subset of Mixer-6 dataset [@brandschain2010mixer]. During the recording, US English speakers were required to read from a list of sentences. In details, the recordings were conducted on-site at LDC in two distinct office rooms (denoted by “LDC” and “HRM” room) equipped with multi-channel recording platforms. Each room was set up with a matching set of 13 distinct microphones, placed at equivalent locations relative to the speaker. Therefore, this distributed setup meets our needs.
The transcribed dataset was separated into training part and testing part for ASR experiments. For each utterance, we had synchronous (not time-aligned due to the propagation of the sound wave) 13 recordings simultaneously. We used the recordings from microphone 2 (head-mounted microphone, best acoustic channel) as the training data, and the remainders for testing. Training data was 246.5 hours from more than 1350 speakers. And the test data consisted of two parts, one having 1031 utterances from 4 distinctive speakers in the “LDC” room and the other one having 898 utterances from another 4 speakers in the “HRM” room, respectively.
We tested all the 13 microphone streams on the typical DNN-HMM system trained on MFCC features, with 11 frames stacking (+5-5). To examine the improvement of the proposed scheme applied on the acoustic posteriors, the language model used for decoding was weak but equally for all the recognition experiments below. Table \[tab:baseline\] shows the baseline WER for each microphone stream. Except for microphone 2, whose acoustic scene was matched with the training, we derived two test sets for the stream attention task. For the “LDC” set, we had twelve streams working in normal status. For the “HRM” set, ten streams worked well for ASR, however, the other two failed (Mic 3&11). This phenomenon happens quite often in the real environments, as microphones might be out of charge suddenly or affected by strong noise and reverberation. The system should be robust in case of such microphone failures.
**Stream Index** **LDC room** **HRM room**
------------------ -------------- --------------
Mic 1 23.8 27.0
Mic 2(Matched) [**10.2**]{} 10.8
Mic 3 26.7 97.6
Mic 4 10.9 [**8.2**]{}
Mic 5 12.9 12.9
Mic 6 10.1 8.7
Mic 7 15.1 15.3
Mic 8 14.0 12.6
Mic 9 22.7 18.3
Mic 10 11.3 13.4
Mic 11 10.6 75.9
Mic 12 14.6 12.7
Mic 13 19.9 21.9
: WERs(%) of microphone streams (Mic X) on the two test sets. Recognizer was trained using the recordings from Mic 2 (Mic 2 was not used for testing).[]{data-label="tab:baseline"}
[**Group**]{} [**System&Method**]{} **LDC** **HRM**
--------------- ----------------------------------- ------------- -------------
Matched (Mic 2) 10.1 10.8
Best microphone (Oracle) 10.1 8.2
Lattice combination 11.7 19.3
M-measure 10.3 9.1
Delta M-measure 10.2 8.8
Equal weights 9.8 30.5
Inverse entropy re-weight [**7.8**]{} 7.9
AE re-weight w/o context 8.7 7.1
AE re-weight w context \[-8, 5\] 8.5 7.1
AE re-weight w context \[-13,10\] 8.4 7.1
AE re-weight w context \[-16,12\] 8.2 [**6.9**]{}
AE re-weight w context \[-20,14\] 8.6 6.9
Inverse entropy Max 17.6 19.4
AE Max w context \[-16,12\] 20.8 18.2
: WERs(%) comparison of various microphone stream re-weighting methods on the Mixer-6 multi-microphone dataset.[]{data-label="tab:result"}
Description of the comparative methods
--------------------------------------
We compared the WER results between the proposed stream attention scheme using M-measure and delta M-measure [@hermansky2013mean][@mallidi2015uncertainty] and the combination of lattices, generated by different streams by doing a union of the lattices [@fiscus1997post]. Both of them were processed sentence-by-sentence.
We also took equal weights [@kittler1998combining], inverse entropy [@misra2002entropy] and autoencoder (AE) [@mallidi2015autoencoder] for performance comparison since they were based on the frame-wise re-weighting of the HMM state posteriors in the proposed stream attention framework. What’s more, as for the autoencoder hierarchy, we investigated the effect of using different temporal context sizes on WER. The autoencoder was trained with 6 layers (a 24-unit bottleneck layer in the middle), and each layer consisted of 512 Relu units. The temporal context was introduced via a TDNN architecture with different temporal resolution at each layer.
Results
-------
Table.\[tab:result\] shows the WER results using various comparative techniques. As shown in Group “A”, we pick out the matched case (Mic 2) and best microphone (oracle) as the baselines based on Table \[tab:baseline\]. We can see that lattice combination performs worse than the baselines, especially on the “HRM” test set. Using the sentence-by-sentence strategy, our scheme carried out on the DNN posteriors show the superior performance to lattice level processing, which is delivered by Group “B”. M-measure is able to make the system pay more attention to the best stream at the sentence level, but also can not outperform the best microphone stream. Delta M-measure slightly improves the selection accuracy. In some applications, the acoustic situation may change dynamically and solutions, which require such longer signal spans for making the stream selection, may not be appropriate.
Group “C” gives the results of frame-wise re-weighting using different kinds of attention vectors. When applying equal weights to the twelve microphone streams, a better WER (9.77%) is achieved on the “LDC” test set, which is superior to the best individual microphone. However, performance on “HRM” test set with two of the streams in bad condition gets much worse (30.45%). In contrast, inverse entropy achieves a substantial improvement compared to the best microphone, showing a 22.8% and 3.7% relative improvement for “LDC” and “HRM” set in WER, respectively. But the WER improvement of “HRM” set is not as much as that of “LDC” set. This phenomenon does not occur when the autoencoder based attention vector was applied. We find that the improvements are consistent in both test sets. Furthermore, a trend can be observed by enlarging the context window, indicated by Group “D”. The gain increases as we used more TDNN network context until \[-16,12\] (relative improvements for “LDC” set and “HRM” set are 18.8% and 15.9%, respectively) then the WER goes up when we apply a larger context \[-20,14\] on the “LDC” set. While results on the “HRM” set seem stable where only a little improvement has been achieved using more context information. According to the results, the entropy based system yields the best result on the “LDC” set, which does not include extremely corrupted microphone streams. The two extremely corrupted streams in the “HRM” set appear to be better dealt with using the autoencoder based system.
To further gain insight into choosing the number of microphone streams in the frame-level re-weighting task, we explore the trend of WER via re-weighting the [**n-best**]{} ($n=1,...,12$) streams. Group “E” shows an extreme case that only one microphone stream is locked given a frame (The “Max” means “Winner Takes All” for the total 12 streams). The results show a severe performance degradation for both the methods. However, if we focus on the trend in Fig.\[fig:trend\], we can find that the WERs decrease dramatically using only several microphone streams, and converge to steady with more streams. One interesting observation is that the “HRM” test set converges faster than the “LDC” set, which is in accord with the fact that fewer microphone streams have excellent WER results in the “HRM” set.
![WERs(%) with respect to the number of microphone streams for the re-weighting scheme. Attention vector is calculated using the “AE re-weight with context \[-16,12\]”.[]{data-label="fig:trend"}](trend.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this study, we aimed at improving the multi-channel far-field ASR performance by stressing the collaboration of microphone streams. A stream attention architecture was designed to give a more reasonable frame-wise fusion of HMM state posterior probabilities for the recognizer, regardless of the time misalignment of microphones. According to the ASR results on the Mixer-6 dataset, we found that our proposed framework showed a substantial capability to improve the performance with multiple inputs. The approach is highly parallel and, especially in the case of the entropy-based system, relatively computationally affordable. While the autoencoder system showed a more robust performance in case of microphone perturbation.
In future works, we would like to test the framework in the situation that the target speaker moves around and figure out the traces of active microphone streams. We are also interested in merging the posteriors using nonlinear networks.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An algorithm for a constraint satisfaction problem is called robust if it outputs an assignment satisfying at least $(1-g(\varepsilon))$-fraction of the constraints given a $(1-\varepsilon)$-satisfiable instance, where $g(\varepsilon) \rightarrow 0$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Guruswami and Zhou conjectured a characterization of constraint languages for which the corresponding constraint satisfaction problem admits an efficient robust algorithm. This paper confirms their conjecture.'
author:
- 'Libor Barto[^1]'
- 'Marcin Kozik[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'CSPbibRobust.bib'
title: 'Robustly Solvable Constraint Satisfaction Problems[^3]'
---
constraint satisfaction problem, bounded width, approximation, robust satisfiability, universal algebra
68Q17, 68W20, 68W25, 68W40
Introduction
============
The constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) provides a common framework for many theoretical problems in computer science as well as for many applications. An instance of the CSP consists of variables and constraints imposed on them and the goal is to find (or decide whether it exists) an assignment of variables which is “best” for given constraints. In the decision problem for CSP we want to decide if there is an assignment satisfying all the constraints. In Max-CSP we wish to find an assignment satisfying maximal number of constraints. In the approximation version of Max-CSP we seek an assignment which is, in some sense, close to the optimal one. This paper deals with a special case of approximation: robust solvability of the CSP. Given an instance which is almost satisfiable (say $(1-\varepsilon)$-fraction of the constraint can be satisfied), the goal is to efficiently find an almost satisfying assignment (which satisfies at least $(1-g(\varepsilon))$-fraction of the constraints, where the error function $g$ satisfies $\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} g(\varepsilon) = 0$).
Most of the computational problems connected to CSP are hard in general. Therefore, when developing algorithms, one usually restricts the set of allowed instances. Most often the instances are restricted in two ways: one restricts the way in which the variables are constrained (e.g. the shape of the hypergraph of constrained variables), or restricts the allowed constraint relations (defining [*constraint language*]{}). In this paper we use the second approach, i.e. all constraint relations must come from a fixed, finite set of relations on a domain. Robust solvability for a fixed constraint language was first studied in a paper by Zwick [@Z98]. The motivation behind this approach was that, in certain practical situations, instances might be close to satisfiable – for example, a small fraction of constraints might have been corrupted by noise. An algorithm that is able to satisfy, in such a case, most of the constraints could be useful.
Zwick [@Z98] concentrated on Boolean CSPs. He designed a semidefinite programming (SDP) based algorithm which finds $(1-O(\varepsilon^{1/3}))$-satisfying assignment for $(1-\varepsilon)$-satisfiable instances of [[[[[`2-SAT`]{}]{}]{}]{}]{} and linear programming (LP) based algorithm which finds $(1 - O(1/\log(1/\varepsilon)))$-satisfying assignment for $(1-\varepsilon)$-satisfiable instances of [[[[`Horn-k-Sat`]{}]{}]{}]{} (the number $k$ refers to the maximum numbers of variables in a Horn constraint). The quantitative dependence on $\varepsilon$ was improved for [[[[[`2-SAT`]{}]{}]{}]{}]{} to $(1-O(\sqrt{\varepsilon}))$ in [@CMM09]. For [[[[`CUT`]{}]{}]{}]{}, a special case of [[[[[`2-SAT`]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}, the Goemans-Williamson algorithm [@GW95] also achieves $(1-O(\sqrt{\varepsilon}))$. The same dependence was proved more generally for ${{{\texttt{Unique-Games($q$)}}}}$ [@CMM06] (where $q$ refers to the size of the domain), which improved $(1 - O(\sqrt[5]{\varepsilon} \log^{1/2}(1/\varepsilon)))$ obtained in [@K02]. For [[[`Horn-2-Sat`]{}]{}]{} the exponential loss can be replaced by $(1-3\varepsilon)$ [@KSTW00] and even $(1-2\varepsilon)$ [@GZ11]. These bounds for [[[[`Horn-k-Sat`]{}]{}]{}]{} ($k \geq 3$), [[[`Horn-2-Sat`]{}]{}]{}, [[[[[`2-SAT`]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}, and [[[[`Unique-Games(q)`]{}]{}]{}]{} are actually essentially optimal [@K02; @KKMO07; @GZ11] assuming Khot’s Unique Games Conjecture [@K02].
On the negative side, if the decision problem for CSP is NP-complete for algebraic reasons (for precise definition see [@BJK00; @BJK05]) then, given a satisfiable instance, it is NP-hard to find an assignment satisfying $\alpha$-fraction of the constraints for some constant $\alpha < 1$ (see [@KSTW00] for the Boolean case and [@JKK09] for the general case). In particular, these problems cannot admit an efficient robust algorithm unless P$=$NP. However, this is not the only obstacle for robust algorithms. In [@H01] Håstad proved that for [[[[`E3-LIN({\mathbf{G}})`]{}]{}]{}]{} (linear equations over an Abelian group ${\mathbf{G}}$ where each equation contains precisely $3$ variables) it is NP-hard to find an assignment satisfying $(1/|G|+\varepsilon)$-fraction of the constraints given an instance which is $(1 - \varepsilon)$-satisfiable. Note that the trivial random algorithm achieves $1/|G|$ in expectation.
As observed in [@Z98] the above results characterize robust solvability of all Boolean CSPs, because, by Schaefer’s theorem [@Sch78], [[[[`E3-LIN({\mathbf{G}})`]{}]{}]{}]{}, [[[[`Horn-k-Sat`]{}]{}]{}]{} and [[[[[`2-SAT`]{}]{}]{}]{}]{} are essentially the only CSPs with tractable decision problem. What about larger domains? A natural property which distinguishes [[[[`Horn-k-Sat`]{}]{}]{}]{}, [[[[[`2-SAT`]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}, and [[[[`Unique-Games(q)`]{}]{}]{}]{} from [[[[`E3-LIN({\mathbf{G}})`]{}]{}]{}]{} and “algebraically” NP-complete CSPs is bounded width [@FV99]. Briefly, a CSP has bounded width if the decision problem can be solved by checking local consistency of the instance. These problems were characterized independently by the authors [@BK09b; @BKbw] and Bulatov [@BulBW]. It was proved that, in some sense, the only obstacle to bounded width is [[[[`E3-LIN({\mathbf{G}})`]{}]{}]{}]{} – the same problem which is difficult for robust satisfiability. These facts motivated Guruswami and Zhou to conjecture [@GZ11] that the class of bounded width CSPs coincide with the class of CSPs admitting a robust satisfiability algorithm.
Most of the recent developments in the decision version of the CSP are based on the algebraic approach introduced by Jeavons, Cohen and Gyssens [@JCG97] and refined by Bulatov, Krokhin and Jeavons [@BJK00; @BJK05]. This approach was adjusted to work with robust solvability of CSPs in a recent paper by Dalmau and Krokhin [@DK]. As a consequence they proved one direction of the Guruswami–Zhou conjecture — if a CSP is robustly solvable then it necessarily has bounded width. They also proved the opposite direction in the special case of width $1$ CSPs, and classified the robust solvability with respect to the rate of growth of the error function $f$ in the Boolean case. Another recent paper by Kun, O’Donnell, Tamaki, Yoshida and Zhou [@KOTYZ] gives an independent proof for width $1$ CSPs.
This paper confirms the Guruswami and Zhou conjecture in full generality. For any bounded width CSP we give a polynomial-time randomized algorithm for finding an assignment satisfying $(1 - O(\log \log (1/\varepsilon)/{\log (1/\varepsilon)}))$-fraction of constraints in expectation provided there exists an $(1-\varepsilon)$-satisfying assignment (the presented derandomization achieves a worse ratio). The proof uncovers an interesting connection between the outputs of SDP (and LP) relaxations and Prague strategies – a consistency notion crucial for the bounded width characterization in [@BK09b; @BKbw].
Preliminaries
=============
CSP and robust algorithms
-------------------------
We start by defining instances of the CSP.
\[def:csp\] An *instance of the ${\mathrm{CSP}}$* is a triple ${\mathcal{I}} = (V, D,$ ${\mathcal{C}})$ with $V$ a finite set of *variables*, $D$ a finite *domain*, and ${\mathcal{C}}$ a finite list of *constraints*, where each constraint is a pair $C = (S,R)$ with $S$ a tuple of variables of length $k$, called the *scope* of $C$, and $R$ a $k$-ary relation on $D$ (i.e. a subset of $D^k$), called the *constraint relation* of $C$.
An instance ${\mathcal{I}}$ is *trivial* if all the constraint relations are empty.
An *assignment* for ${\mathcal{I}}$ is a mapping $F: V \rightarrow D$. We say that $F$ *satisfies* a constraint $C = (S,R)$ if $F(S) \in R$ (where $F$ is applied component-wise). The *value* of $F$, ${{\rm Val}(F,{\mathcal{I}})}$, is the fraction of constraints it satisfies. The *maximal value* of ${\mathcal{I}}$ is $
{{\rm Opt}({\mathcal{I}})} = \max_{F: V \rightarrow D} {{\rm Val}(F,{\mathcal{I}})}.
$
We study the CSP restricted to instances that use only relations from a fixed, finite set.
A finite set of relations $\Gamma$ on a finite set $D$ is called a *constraint language* on $D$, and $D$ is called the *domain* of $\Gamma$. An *instance of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$* is an instance of the ${\mathrm{CSP}}$ such that all the constraint relations are from $\Gamma$.
The *decision problem* for ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ asks whether an input instance ${\mathcal{I}}$ of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has a *solution*, i.e. an assignment which satisfies all the constraints. The *Max-CSP* for ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ asks to find an assignment of maximal value, i.e. such that ${{\rm Val}(F,{\mathcal{I}})} = {{\rm Opt}({\mathcal{I}})}$. This problem is computationally intractable for the vast majority of constraint languages motivating the study of *approximation* algorithms.
Let $\Gamma$ be a constraint language and let $\alpha, \beta$ be real numbers. An algorithm *$(\alpha, \beta)$-approximates* ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$, if it outputs an assignment $F$ with ${{\rm Val}(F,{\mathcal{I}})} \geq \alpha$ for every instance ${\mathcal{I}}$ of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ such that ${{\rm Opt}({\mathcal{I}})} \geq \beta$.
Our interest is in CSPs which can be well approximated on instances close to satisfiable.
We say that ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ is *robustly solvable* if there exists an *error function* $g: [0,1] \rightarrow [0,1]$ such that $\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} g(\varepsilon) = 0$, and a polynomial-time algorithm which $(1 - g(\varepsilon), 1 - \varepsilon)$-approximates ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ for every $\varepsilon \in [0,1]$.
Bounded width
-------------
Linear equations over an Abelian group are examples of CSPs which do not have bounded width. While the decision problem for these CSPs are tractable, they are not solvable by local propagation algorithms (unlike for example [[[[`Horn-k-Sat`]{}]{}]{}]{}, [[[[[`2-SAT`]{}]{}]{}]{}]{}, or [[[[`Unique-Games(q)`]{}]{}]{}]{}). A nice way to formalize solvability by local propagation is using the concept of a $(k,l)$-minimal instance. To do so we require a notion of projection: the projection of a constraint $C$ to a tuple of variables $x_1,\dotsc, x_m$ is a constraint on $(x_1,\dotsc,x_m)$ with the constraint relation consisting of all $(d_1,\dotsc,d_m)$’s which can be extended to a tuple from the constraint relation of $C$.
Let $k \leq l$ be positive integers. An instance ${\mathcal{I}} = (V, D, {\mathcal{C}})$ of the CSP is *$(k,l)$-minimal*, if:
- Every at most $l$-element tuple of distinct variables is within the scope of some constraint in ${\mathcal{C}}$,
- For every tuple $S$ of at most $k$ distinct [^4] variables and every pair of constraints $C_1$ and $C_2$ from ${\mathcal{C}}$ whose scopes contain all variables from $S$, the projections to $S$ are the same. This projection is denoted by $P^{{\mathcal{I}}}_S$, or $P_S$.
A $(k,k)$-minimal instance is also called *$k$-minimal*.
For fixed $k,l$ there is an obvious polynomial-time algorithm for transforming an instance ${\mathcal{I}}$ of the CSP to a $(k,l)$-minimal instance with the same set of solutions: First we add new constraints (initially allowing all the evaluations) to ensure that the first condition is satisfied and then we gradually remove those tuples from the constraint relations which falsify the second condition. We call the resulting instance *the $(k,l)$-minimal instance corresponding to ${\mathcal{I}}$*. The definite article is justified since it is easy to see that the obtained instance is independent on the precise order of removals. It is clear that if the $(k,l)$-minimal instance corresponding to ${\mathcal{I}}$ is trivial then the original instance had no solution. We say that ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has width $(k,l)$ if the converse is always true.
Let $k \leq l$ be positive integers and let $\Gamma$ be a constraint language. We say that ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has *width $(k,l)$* if every instance ${\mathcal{I}}$ of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$, whose corresponding $(k,l)$-minimal instance is nontrivial, has a solution.
We say that ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ (or $\Gamma$) has *bounded width* if it has width $(k,l)$ for some $k,l$.
Different notions of width are often used in the literature, but they all lead to equivalent concepts of bounded width. We refer to [@FV99; @LZ07; @BKL08] for formal definitions and background.
Primitive positive definitions, polymorphisms
---------------------------------------------
Primitive positive definitions are very useful in the decision version of CSP. We say that a relation $R$ on $D$ is *primitively positively definable* (or just *pp-definable*) from a constraint language $\Gamma$ if there exists a (primitive positive) formula $$\phi(x_1, \dots, x_k) \equiv \exists y_1, \dots, y_l\ \psi(x_1, \dots, x_k,y_1, \dots, y_l)\enspace,$$ where $\psi$ is a conjunction of atomic formulas using relations in $\Gamma$ and the (binary) equality relation on $D$ such that $$(a_1, \dots, a_k) \in R \mbox{ if and only if } \phi(a_1,\dots, a_k) \mbox{ holds }.$$
The algebraic approach to the CSP is based on a theorem by Geiger [@G68] and also by Bodarchuk et al. [@BKKR69] which says that pp-definability is in the sense of Theorem \[thm:galois\] controlled by certain operations called polymorphisms. We will discuss the impact of particular polymorphisms on complexity of CSP in next sections.
An $l$-ary operation $f$ on $D$ (i.e. a mapping $f: D^l \rightarrow D$) is *compatible* with a $k$-ary relation $R$, if $$(f(a_1^1, \dots, a_1^l), f(a_2^1, \dots, a_2^l), \dots, f(a_k^1, \dots, a_k^l)) \in R$$ whenever $(a_1^1, \dots, a_k^1)$, $(a_1^2, \dots, a_k^2)$, …, $(a_1^l, \dots, a_k^l) \in R$.
We say that $f$ is a *polymorphism* of a constraint language $\Gamma$, if it is compatible with every relation in $\Gamma$. The set of all polymorphisms of $\Gamma$ will be denoted by ${\mathrm{Pol}}(\Gamma)$.
An $n$-ary relation $R$ is *irredundant* if for every pair of different coordinates $1 \leq i < j \leq n$, the relation $R$ contains a tuple $(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_n) \in R$ with $a_i \neq a_j$. The following theorem ties the notion of pp-definitions and polymorphisms together.
\[thm:galois\] [@G68; @BKKR69] Let $\Gamma$ be a constraint language on $D$ and let $R$ be a nonempty relation on $D$. Then ${\mathrm{Pol}}(\Gamma) \subseteq {\mathrm{Pol}}(R)$ if and only if $R$ is pp-definable from $\Gamma$. Moreover, if $R$ is irredundant and ${\mathrm{Pol}}(\Gamma) \subseteq {\mathrm{Pol}}(R)$ then $R$ is pp-definable from $\Gamma$ without equality.
The conjecture and known reductions
===================================
The conjecture of Guruswami and Zhou [@GZ11] states
Let $\Gamma$ be a constraint language. The following are equivalent:
- ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width;
- ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ is robustly solvable.
The upward implication in the conjecture was proved by Dalmau and Krokhin [@DK] (assuming P$\neq$NP) by combining the characterization of problems of bounded width [@BK09b; @BKbw; @BulBW] with a result of Hastad [@H01]. Their proof uses an adjustment to the algebraic approach (developed by its authors) which is usually used for the decision version of CSP. This paper proves the downward direction of the conjecture.
Primitive positive definitions
------------------------------
An important observation for decision CSPs is that we do not increase the complexity (modulo log-space reductions) by adding a pp-definable relation to the constraint language [@JCG97]. More importantly, from the point of view of this article, adding pp-definable relations into the constraint language does not change the property of having bounded width [@LZ06; @LZ07].
A similar fact was proved in for robust solvability [@DK], under additional assumption that the pp-definition does not involve the equality relation. To state the result concisely we introduce the notation ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma) \leq_{RA} {\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ as a shorthand for: for any error function $f$ with $\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} f(\varepsilon) = 0$, if some polynomial-time algorithm $(1-f(\varepsilon), 1-\varepsilon)$-approximates ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ for every $\varepsilon \geq 0$ then there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that $(1-O(f(\varepsilon)),1-\varepsilon)$-approximates ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ for every $\varepsilon \geq 0$.
\[thm:robust\_pp\] Let $\Gamma$ be a constraint language on $D$ and let $R$ be a relation on $D$. If $R$ is pp-definable from $\Gamma$ without equality, then ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma \cup \{R\}) \leq_{RA} {\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$.
As the relations pp-definable in $\Gamma$ are fully determined by polymorphims of $\Gamma$, the complexity of the decision problem as well as the property of having bounded width for ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ depends only on the algebraic structure of ${\mathrm{Pol}}(\Gamma)$. Robust solvability (including the order of the error function) is also “to a large extent” controlled by ${\mathrm{Pol}}(\Gamma)$. Unfortunately, we have to say “to a large extent” because of the disturbing fact that Theorem \[thm:robust\_pp\] allows only pp-definitions without equality. The general case with equality is open.
Cores and singleton expansions {#sec:core}
------------------------------
Another important observation for both decision CSPs and robust solvability of CSPs is that we can restrict our attention to cores.
We say that a constraint language is a *core*, if all its unary polymorphisms are bijections.
If $\Gamma$ is a constraint language on $D$ which is not a core we can define another constraint language $\Gamma'$ on a smaller domain such that ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ and ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ behave identically with respect to decision, approximation and have the same width. Namely, if $e$ is a non-surjective unary polymorphism of $\Gamma$ then we define $\Gamma' = \{e(R): R \in \Gamma\}$, where $e(R) = \{(e(a_1), \dots, e(a_n)): (a_1, \dots, a_n) \in R\}$ (see [@DK] for more details).
A nontrivial fact is that we can add singleton unary relations to any core language $\Gamma$ without significantly changing robust solvability, complexity of the decision problem or property of having bounded width for ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$.
\[thm:adding\_consts\] Let $\Gamma$ be a core constraint language and let $\Gamma' = \Gamma \cup \{\{a\}: a \in D\}$, then:
- ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ and ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ are log-space equivalent,
- ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma') \leq_{RA} {\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma) \leq_{RA} {\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$, and
- ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width if and only if ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ does.
We refer to $\Gamma'$ from this theorem as the *singleton expansion* of $\Gamma$. Theorem \[thm:adding\_consts\] implies that the characterization conjectured by Guruswami and Zhou needs to be verified for singleton expansions of constraint languages only. This restricts the family of constraint languages one needs to consider and we use this fact repeatedly throughout the paper.
Another consequence of Theorem \[thm:adding\_consts\] is that whenever ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ is tractable then there is a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a solution.
\[thm:search\_problem\] [@BJK05] Let $\Gamma$ be a constraint language such that the decision problem for ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ is solvable in a polynomial time. Then there is a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a solution of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$
A proof of this theorem uses the singleton unary relations in the singleton expansion of the core of $\Gamma$ to recursively set values for variables and verify if such a partial evaluation extends to a solution.
Interpretations {#sec:interpret}
---------------
Primitive positive definitions can be used to compare the constraint languages on the same domain. A stronger tool which also enables us to compare CSPs on different domains are pp-interpretations.
Let $\Gamma$ be a constraint languages and:
- $U$ be a pp-definable relation in $\Gamma$,
- $\Theta$ be an equivalence relation on $U$ pp-definable[^5] in $\Gamma$,
- $S_i$ be relations on $U$ pp-definable[^6] in $\Gamma$.
The language $\Gamma'=\{S_i/\Theta =\{(u_1/\Theta,\dots,u_{n_i}/\Theta) : (u_1,\dots,u_{n_i})\in S_i\}\}_i$ on the domain $U/\Theta$ (and every language isomorphic to it) is *pp-interpretable* in $\Gamma$.
It was proved in [@BJK05; @LT09] (using a slightly different language) that if $\Gamma'$ is pp-interpretable in $\Gamma$ then the decision problem for ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ is log-space reducible to the decision problem for ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$; moreover if ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width then so does ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ [@LZ06; @LZ07].
A similar theorem, in a more restrictive setting, was proved for robust solvability [@DK]. In this setting the relation $U$ needs to be unary, and the pp-definitions of $\Theta$ and $S_i$’s cannot use equality.
The hardness result
-------------------
A proof of the hardness part of the characterization [@DK] is based on a theorem by Hastad [@H01], in which he establishes hardness for particular CSPs connected to Abelian groups.
For a finite Abelian group ${\mathbf{G}}=(G,+)$ let $\Gamma({\mathbf{G}})$ denotes the constraint language on the domain $D = G$ consisting of all relations encoding linear equations over ${\mathbf{G}}$ with $3$ variables, that is, relations of the form $\{(x,y,z) \in G^3: ax + by + cz = d\}$ for some $d \in G, a,b,c \in \mathbb{Z}$. The corresponding ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma({\mathbf{G}}))$ is denoted by [[[`E3-LIN({\mathbf{G}})`]{}]{}]{}.
\[thm:hastad\] If ${\mathbf{G}}$ is an Abelian group with $n > 1$ elements then for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there is no polynomial-time algorithm that $( 1/n + \varepsilon,1-\varepsilon)$-approximates ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma({\mathbf{G}}))$ unless *[P$=$NP]{}.*
Turning to equivalent descriptions of problems of bounded width we restrict our attention (using the results of subsection \[sec:core\]) to singleton expansions of languages. Combining the results of [@FV99; @LZ07; @BK09b; @BKbw; @B; @BulBW] we obtain
\[thm:bw\_char\] Let $\Gamma$ be a singleton expansion of a constraint language. The following are equivalent.
- There does not exist a nontrivial Abelian group ${\mathbf{G}}$ such that $\Gamma({\mathbf{G}})$ is pp-interpretable in $\Gamma$.
- ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width.
- ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has width $(2,3)$.
- ${\mathrm{Pol}}(\Gamma)$ contains a $3$-ary operation $f_1$ and a $4$-ary operation $f_2$ such that, for all $a,b \in D$, $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(a,a,b) &= f_1(a,b,a) = f_1(b,a,a) = \\
& = f_2(a,a,a,b) = \dots = f_2(b,a,a,a)\end{aligned}$$ and $
f_1(a,a,a) = a.
$
A refinement of condition (a) in the previous theorem is needed for robust solvability (see [@DK] for more detailed discussion and references):
\[thm:robust\_hardness\] Let $\Gamma$ be a singleton expansion of a constraint language. The following condition is equivalent to conditions from Theorem \[thm:bw\_char\]
- There does not exits a nontrivial Abelian group ${\mathbf{G}}$ such that $\Gamma({\mathbf{G}})$ is pp-interpretable in $\Gamma$ *in the first power of the domain and using pp-definitions without equality*.
Combining this fact with the results of [@DK] discussed in subsection \[sec:interpret\] and Theorem \[thm:hastad\] the authors of [@DK] obtain the hardness proof, i.e. the upward direction of the conjecture of Guruswami and Zhou (unless P=NP).
The missing implication
-----------------------
The main result of this paper proves the missing implication and therefore confirms the conjecture of Guruswami and Zhou. As discussed in subsection \[sec:core\] we can, without loss of generality, assume that $\Gamma$ is a singleton expansion of a constraint language. This is a statement of the main theorem in the paper:
\[THM:MAIN\] If $\Gamma$ is a singleton expansion of a constraint language and the ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width then it is robustly solvable. More precisely there exists a randomized polynomial-time algorithm which returns an assignment satisfying, in expectation, $(1 - O(\log \log (1/\varepsilon)/{\log (1/\varepsilon)}))$-fraction of the constraints given a $(1-\varepsilon)$-satisfiable instance.
An overview of the proof
------------------------
Efficient approximation algorithms are often designed through linear programming (LP) relaxations and semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxations. For instance, the robust satisfiability algorithm for [[[[`Horn-k-Sat`]{}]{}]{}]{} [@Z98] uses LP relaxation while the robust satisfiability algorithms for [[[[[`2-SAT`]{}]{}]{}]{}]{} and [[[[`Unique-Games(q)`]{}]{}]{}]{} [@Z98; @CMM09] are SDP-based.
Robust algorithms for all CSPs of width $1$ were independently devised in [@DK] and [@KOTYZ]. From the CSPs mentioned previously, this result covers [[[[`Horn-k-Sat`]{}]{}]{}]{}, but not [[[[[`2-SAT`]{}]{}]{}]{}]{} or [[[[`Unique-Games(q)`]{}]{}]{}]{}. The approach in [@KOTYZ] is close to ours so let us briefly sketch the main ideas.
For any instance ${\mathcal{I}} = (V,D,{\mathcal{C}})$ there is a canonical 0–1 integer program with the same optimal value as Max–CSP. It has variables $\lambda_x(a)$ for every $x \in V$ and $a \in D$ and variables $\lambda_C({\mathbf{a}})$ for every constraint $C=(S,R)$ and every tuple ${\mathbf{a}} \in A^r$, where $r$ is the arity of $C$. The interpretation of $\lambda_x(a) = 1$ is that variable $x$ is assigned value $a$; the interpretation of $\lambda_C({\mathbf{a}})=1$ is that $S$ is assigned (component-wise) tuple ${\mathbf{a}}$. The value to be maximized is then equal to $$\label{eq:LPsum}
\frac{1}{|{\mathcal{C}}|} \sum_{C = (S,R) \in {\mathcal{C}}} \sum_{{\mathbf{a}} \in R} \lambda_C({\mathbf{a}}).$$ modulo the following constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a\in D} \lambda_x(a) &= 1 \text{ for every } x \in V \\
\sum_{{\mathbf{a}} : a_i = a}\lambda_C({\mathbf{a}}) &= \lambda_{x_i}(a) \text{ for every } C=((x_1,\dots,x_r),R), i\leq r\text{ and } a\in D.\end{aligned}$$
By relaxing the 0–1 program allowing the variables to take values in the range $[0,1]$ instead of $\{0,1\}$, we obtain the *basic linear programming relaxation* for ${\mathcal{I}}$ with possibly larger value ${{\rm LPOpt}({\mathcal{I}})}$ of the sum (\[eq:LPsum\]).
The robust algorithm from [@KOTYZ] works roughly as follows. (1) Run the basic LP relaxation for ${\mathcal{I}}$, (2) use the output of LP to remove some constraints so that the remaining instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ has the property that the $1$-minimal instance corresponding to ${\mathcal{J}}$ is non-trivial, (3) return a solution of ${\mathcal{J}}$. Steps (1) and (2) can be performed on any instance of the CSP. The instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ after step (2) has a solution whenever the language has width $1$, therefore we can perform step (3) using, for instance, Theorem \[thm:search\_problem\].
Our robust algorithm for all bounded width CSPs has the same general form. The differences are that we use it only for instances with at most binary constraints (a reduction is provided in the next section). In step (1) we use the basic SDP relaxation instead of the basic LP relaxation, and in step (2) we use weak Prague instances (see Section \[sec:Prague\]).
Our tools and reductions
========================
Reduction to constraint languages with unary and binary relations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we present a reduction which allows us to prove Theorem \[THM:MAIN\] in an even more restricted setting: for singleton expansions of constraint languages with unary and binary constraints only. The reduction is given in the following proposition.
\[prop:bin\] Let $\Gamma$ be a singleton expansion of a constraint language on the domain $D$ which contains relations of maximum arity $l$ and such that ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width. Then there exists $\Gamma'$ a singleton expansion of a constraint language on $D'$ containing only at most binary relations such that ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ has bounded width and ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma) \leq_{RA} {\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$.
First we define the constraint language $\Gamma'$ on $D' = D^l$. For every relation $R \in \Gamma$ of arity $k$ we add to $\Gamma'$ the unary relation $R'$ defined by $$(a_1, \dots, a_l) \in R' \quad \mbox{ iff } \quad (a_1, \dots, a_k) \in R,$$ for every $k \leq l$ we add the binary relation $$E_k = \{((a_1,\dots, a_l), (b_1, \dots, b_l)): a_1 = b_k\},$$ and for every $(a_1, \dots, a_l) \in D'$ we add the singleton unary relation $\{(a_1, \dots, a_l)\}$. The singletons ensure that $\Gamma'$ is a singleton expansion. The ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ has bounded width which can be seen, for instance, from Theorem \[thm:bw\_char\]: If $f_1,f_2$ are polymorphisms of $\Gamma$ from this theorem, then the corresponding operations $f_1',f_2'$ acting coordinate-wise on $D'$ satisfy the same equations and it is straightforward to check that $f_1', f_2'$ are polymorphisms of $\Gamma'$.
Now, let ${\mathcal{I}} = (V,D,{\mathcal{C}})$ be an instance of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ with ${{\rm Opt}({\mathcal{I}})} = 1-\protect\varepsilon$. We transform ${\mathcal{I}}$ to an instance ${\mathcal{I}}'$ of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ as follows. We keep the original variables and for every constraint $C = ((x_1, \dots, x_k),R)$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$ we introduce a new variable $x_C$ and add $k+1$ constraints $$\label{eq:newc}
((x_C),R'), ((x_1,x_C),E_1), ((x_2,x_C),E_2), \dots, ((x_k,x_C), E_k).$$ If $F: V \rightarrow D$ is an assignment for ${\mathcal{I}}$ of value $1-\varepsilon$ then the assignment $F'$ for ${\mathcal{I}}'$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
F'(x) &= (F(x), ?, \dots, ?) \quad \mbox{ for } x \in V, \\
F'(x_C) &= (F(x_1), \dots, F(x_k), ?, \dots, ?) \quad \\
& \mbox{ for } C = ((x_1, \dots, x_k), R)\end{aligned}$$ (where ? stands for an arbitrary element of $D$) has value at least $1-\varepsilon$ since all the binary constraints in ${\mathcal{I}}'$ are satisfied and the constraint $(x_C,R')$ is satisfied whenever $F$ satisfies $C$.
We run the robust algorithm for ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma')$ to get an assignment $G'$ for ${\mathcal{I'}}$ with value at least $1 - g(\varepsilon)$, and we define $G(x)$, $x \in V$ to be the first coordinate of $G'(x)$. Note that, for any constraint $C$ of ${\mathcal{I}}$, if $G'$ satisfies all the constraints (\[eq:newc\]) then $G$ satisfies $C$. Therefore the value of $G$ is at least $1 - (l+1)g(\varepsilon)$.
Now to prove Theorem \[THM:MAIN\] for $\Gamma$ – a singleton expansion of an arbitrary constraint language, we produce $\Gamma'$ (from Lemma \[prop:bin\]) and if Theorem \[THM:MAIN\] holds for $\Gamma'$ (which has at most binary constraints) it does for $\Gamma$ as well.
LP and SDP relaxations {#sec:LPandSDP}
----------------------
The previous subsection allows us to present a simplified version of the definition of a basic SDP relaxation [@R08] which is appropriate for languages with only unary and binary constraints.
Let $\Gamma$ be a constraint language over $D$ consisting of at most binary relations and let ${\mathcal{I}} = (V, D, {\mathcal{C}})$ be an instance of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ with $m$ constraints. The goal for the *basic SDP relaxation* of ${\mathcal{I}}$ is to find $(|V||D|)$-dimensional real vectors $
{\mathbf{x}_{a}}, x \in V, a \in D
$ maximizing $$\label{eq:sum}
\frac{1}{m} \left(
\sum_{(x,R) \in {\mathcal{C}} } \sum_{a \in R} {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2} +
\sum_{((x,y),R) \in {\mathcal{C}} } \sum_{(a,b) \in R} {{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}}
\right)$$ subject to
(SDP1)
: ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}} \geq 0 \quad$ for all $x,y \in V, a,b \in D$
(SDP2)
: ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{x}_{b}}} = 0 \quad $ for all $x \in V, a, b \in D, a \neq b$, and
(SDP3)
: $\sum_{a \in D} {\mathbf{x}_{a}} = \sum_{a\in D} {\mathbf{y}_{a}}, \ {\left|\left| \sum_{a \in D}{\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2} = 1$\
for all $x,y \in V$.
The dot products ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}}$ can be thought of as weights and the goal is to find vectors so that maximum weight is given to pairs (or elements) in constraint relations. It will be convenient to use the notation $${\mathbf{x}_{A}} = \sum_{a \in A} {\mathbf{x}_{a}}$$ for a variable $x \in V$ and a subset $A \subseteq D$, so that condition (SDP3) can be written as ${\mathbf{x}_{D}} = {\mathbf{y}_{D}}$, ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{D}} \right|\right|^2} = 1$. The contribution of one constraint to (\[eq:sum\]) is by (SDP3) at most $1$ and it is the greater the less weight is given to pairs (or elements) outside the constraint relation.
The optimal value for the sum (\[eq:sum\]), ${{\rm SDPOpt}({\mathcal{I}})}$, is always at least ${{\rm Opt}({\mathcal{I}})}$. There are algorithms (see e.g. [@SDP]) that output vectors with (\[eq:sum\]) $ \geq {{\rm SDPOpt}({\mathcal{I}})} - \delta$ which are polynomial in the input size and $\log(1/\delta)$.
From the output of the basic SDP relaxation we can get a valid output of the LP relaxation by defining $\lambda_x(a) = {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2}$ and $\lambda_{(x,y)}(a,b) = {{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}}$ for any constraint $((x,y),R)$. In particular, ${{\rm SDPOpt}({\mathcal{I}})} \leq {{\rm LPOpt}({\mathcal{I}})}$.
Prague instances {#sec:Prague}
================
The proof of the characterization of bounded width CSPs in [@BK09b] relies on a certain consistency notion called Prague strategy. It turned out that Prague strategies are related to outputs of basic SDP relaxations and this connection is what made our main result possible. The main result actually uses a stronger result, about weaker consistency notion called weak Prague instance [@BKbw].
Terms defined below are used only for certain types of instances and constraint languages. In our main proof we will construct, using an output of an SDP program, a weak Prague instance in a language which is different than the language of the original instance. Therefore, in the remainder of this section we assume that
- $\Lambda$ is a constraint language on a domain $D$, $\Lambda$ contains only binary relations,
- ${\mathcal{J}} = (V,D,{\mathcal{C}}^{{\mathcal{J}}})$ is an instance of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Lambda)$ such that every pair of distinct variables is the scope of at most one constraint $((x,y),P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y})$, and if $((x,y),P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y}) \in {\mathcal{C}}^{{\mathcal{J}}}$ then $((y,x),P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{y,x}) \in {\mathcal{C}}^{{\mathcal{J}}}$, where $P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{y,x} = \{(b,a): (a,b) \in P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y}\}$. (Usually the instance is clear from context and then we omit the superscripts for $P_{x,y}$’s and ${\mathcal{C}}$.)
Note that under these assumptions ${\mathcal{J}}$ is $1$-minimal if and only if every variable is in the scope of some constraint and for every constraint $((x,y), P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y})$ the projection of $P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y}$ to the first coordinate is equal to $P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}}$, where $P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}}$ are the sets from the definition of $1$-minimality.
Weak Prague instance
--------------------
First we need to define steps and patterns.
A *step* (in ${\mathcal{J}}$) is a pair of variables $(x,y)$ which is the scope of a constraint in ${\mathcal{J}}$. A *pattern from $x$ to $y$* is a sequence of variables $p = (x=x_1, x_2, \dots, x_k=y)$ such that every $(x_i,x_{i+1})$, $i = 1, \dots, k-1$ is a step.
For a pattern $p = (x_1,\dots,x_k)$ we put $-p = (x_k, \dots, x_1)$. If $p = (x_1, \dots, x_k)$, $q = (y_1, \dots, y_l)$, $x_k = y_1$ then the concatenation of $p$ and $q$ is the pattern $p+q = (x_1, x_2, \dots, x_k = y_1, y_2, \dots, y_k)$. For a pattern $p$ from $x$ to $x$ and a natural number $k$, $kp$ denotes the $k$-time concatenation of $p$ with itself.
Observe that from the assumptions about ${\mathcal{J}}$ it follows that $-p$ is a pattern whenever $p$ is.
Let $p = (x=x_1,x_2, \dots, x_k=y)$ be a pattern from $x$ to $y$ in ${\mathcal{J}}$. A *realization of $p$* is a sequence $(a_1, \dots, a_k) \in D^k$ such that $(a_i,a_{i+1}) \in P_{x_i,x_{i+1}}$ for every $1 \leq i \leq k-1$.
For a subset $A \subseteq D$ we define $A+p$ as the set of the last elements of those realizations of $p$ whose first element is in $A$, that is, $$A + p = \{b \in D: (\exists \ a_1, \dots, a_{k-1} \in D) \ a_1 \in A \mbox{ and } (a_1,\dots, a_{k-1},b) \mbox{ is a realization of $p$}\}.$$ Finally, we define $A - p = A + (-p)$.
The addition of patterns is associative, i.e. $(A+p) + q = A + (p+q)$. Also note that in a $1$-minimal instance we have $A \subseteq A + p - p$ for any $A\subseteq P_x$ and any pattern $p$ from $x$.
A weak Prague instance is a $1$-minimal instance with additional requirements concerning addition of patterns.
\[def:prague\] ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a *weak Prague instance* if
- ${\mathcal{J}}$ is $1$-minimal,
- for every $A \subseteq P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}}$ and every pattern $p$ from $x$ to $x$, if $A + p = A$ then $A - p = A$, and
- for any patterns $p_1,p_2$ from $x$ to $x$ and every $A \subseteq P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}}$, if $A + p_1 + p_2 = A$ then $A + p_1 = A$.
To clarify the definition let us assume that ${\mathcal{J}}$ is $1$-minimal and consider the following digraph: vertices are all the pairs $(A,x)$, where $x \in V$ and $A \subseteq P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}}$, and $((A,x),(B,y))$ forms an edge iff $(x,y)$ is a step and $A + (x,y) = B$. Condition (P3) means that no strong component contains $(A,x)$ and $(A',x)$ with $A \neq A'$, condition (P2) is equivalent (by the following lemma) to the fact that every strong component contains only undirected edges (that is, if $((A,x),(B,y))$ is an edge then so is $((B,y),(A,x))$).
\[lem:P2star\] Let ${\mathcal{J}}$ be a $1$-minimal instance. Then (P2) is equivalent to the following condition.
- For every step $(x,y)$, every $A \subseteq P_x$ and every pattern $p$ from $y$ to $x$, if $A + (x,y) + p = A$ then $A + (x,y,x) = A$.
(P2\*) $\Rightarrow$ (P2). If $p = (x=x_1, x_2, \dots, x_k=x)$ is a pattern from $x$ to $x$ such that $A+p = A$, then repeated application of (P2\*) gives us $$\begin{aligned}
A + &p - p = \\
&= [A + (x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{k-1})] + (x_{k-1}, x_{k}, x_{k-1}) \\
& \quad + (x_{k-1}, x_{k-2}, \dots, x_1) = \\
&= A + (x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{k-1}) + (x_{k-1}, x_{k-2}, \dots, x_1) = \\
&= [A + (x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{k-2})] + (x_{k-2}, x_{k-1}, x_{k-2}) \\
& \quad + (x_{k-2}, x_{k-3}, \dots, x_1) = \\
&= A + (x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{k-2}) + (x_{k-2}, x_{k-3}, \dots x_1) = \\
&= \dots = \\
&= A,\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality uses (P2\*) for the set $A + (x_1, x_2,$ $ \dots, x_{k-1})$. The assumption of (P2\*) is provided by a cyclic shift of the pattern $p$: $[A + (x_1, \dots, x_{k-1})] +$ $(x_{k-1},x_{k}) + (x_{1},\dots, x_k,\dots,x_{k-1}) = [A + (x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{k-1})]$ as $A + (x_1, \dots, x_{k-1}) +$ $(x_{k-1},x_k) =A$. The fourth equality uses (P2\*) for the set $A + (x_1, \dots, x_{k-2})$ and so on.
(P2) $\Rightarrow$ (P2\*). By applying (P2) to the pattern $(x,y)+p$ we get $A + (x,y) + p - p + (y,x) = A$. From $1$-minimality it follows that $A + (x,y) \subseteq A + (x,y) + p - p$, hence $A + (x,y,x) = (A + (x,y)) + (y,x) \subseteq (A + (x,y)+ p - p) + (y,x) = A$. The other inclusion follows again from $1$-minimality.
An example of a weak Prague instance, which is not a Prague strategy [@BKbw] i.e. witnessing that the new notion is weaker, is $V = \{x,y,z\}$, $D = \{0,1\}$, $P_{x,y} = P_{x,z} = \{(0,0),(1,1)\}$, $P_{y,z} = \{(0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)\}$.
If we change $P_{y,z}$ to $\{(0,1),(1,0)\}$ the conditions (P1) and (P2) hold but $\{0\} + (x,y,z,x) + (x,y,z,x) = \{0\}$ and $\{0\} + (x,y,z,x) = \{1\}$.
If, on the other hand, we set $P_{y,z}$ to $\{(0,0),(1,0),(1,1)\}$ then (P1) and (P3) hold while $\{0\} + (x,y,z,x) = \{0\}$, but $\{0\} - (x,y,z,x) = \{0,1\}$.
The main result of this paper relies on the following theorem.
\[thm:bw\] If ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Lambda)$ has bounded width and ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a nontrivial weak Prague instance of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Lambda)$ then ${\mathcal{J}}$ has a solution.
SDP and Prague instances
------------------------
We now show that one can naturally associate a weak Prague instance to an output of the basic SDP relaxation. This material will not be used in what follows, it is included to provide some intuition for the proof of the main theorem.
Let ${\mathbf{x}_{a}}$, $x \in V$, $a \in D$ be arbitrary vectors satisfying (SDP1), (SDP2) and (SDP3). We define a CSP instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{J}} &= (V,D,\{((x,y),P_{x,y}): x,y \in V, x \neq y\}), \\
P_{x,y} &= \{(a,b): {{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}} > 0\},\end{aligned}$$ and we show that it is a weak Prague instance.
The instance is $1$-minimal with $P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}} = \{a \in D: {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \neq {\mathbf{0}}\}$. To prove this it is enough to verify that the projection of $P_{x,y}$ to the first coordinate is equal to $P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}}$. If $(a,b) \in P_{x,y}$, then clearly ${\mathbf{x}_{a}}$ cannot be the zero vector, therefore $a \in P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}}$. On the other hand, if $a \in P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}}$ then $0 < {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2} = {{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{x}_{D}}} = {{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{D}}}$ and thus at least one of the dot products ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}}$, $b \in D$ is nonzero and $(a,b) \in P_{x,y}$.
To check (P2) and (P3) we note that, for any $x,y \in V, x \neq y$ and $A \subseteq P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_x$, the vector ${\mathbf{y}_{A+(x,y)}}$ has either a strictly greater length than ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$, or ${\mathbf{x}_{A}} = {\mathbf{y}_{A+(x,y)}}$, and the latter happens iff $A+(x,y,x) = A$ (see the proof of Claim \[cl:walk\], in fact, one can check that ${\mathbf{y}_{A + (x,y)}}$ is obtained by adding to ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ an orthogonal vector whose size is strictly greater than zero iff $A+(x,y,x) \neq A$). By induction, for any pattern $p$ from $x$ to $y$, the vector ${\mathbf{y}_{A+p}}$ is either strictly longer than ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$, or ${\mathbf{x}_{A}} = {\mathbf{y}_{A+p}}$ and $A + p - p = A$. Now (P2) follows immediately and (P3) is also easily seen: If $A+p+q = A$ then necessarily ${\mathbf{x}_{A}} = {\mathbf{x}_{A+p}}$ which is possible only if $A = A+p$.
We end this section with several remarks.
### Considering only the squares of length of vectors is equivalent to LP
To prove property (P2) we only need to consider the lengths of the vectors. In fact, this property will be satisfied when we start with the basic linear programming relaxation (and define the instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ in a similar way — compare the end of section \[sec:LPandSDP\]). This is not the case for property (P3).
### This is a Prague strategy
The above weak Prague instance is in fact a Prague strategy in the sense of [@BK09b]. This means that every pair of variables is the scope of a (unique) constraint and all strong components of the digraph introduced after Definition \[def:prague\] are complete graphs.
### The SDP relaxation does not guarantee a $(2,3)$-minimal instance
There were attempts to show that the instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ is $(2,3)$-minimal after adding appropriate ternary constraints. This is equivalent to the requirement that $P_{x,y}$ is a subset of the composition of the relations $P_{x,z}$ and $P_{z,y}$ for every $x,y,z$. The following example shows that it is not the case. Consider $V = \{x,y,z\}$, $D = \{0,1\}$ and vectors ${\mathbf{x}_{0}} = (1/2, 1/2, 0)$, ${\mathbf{x}_{1}} = (1/2,-1/2,0)$, ${\mathbf{y}_{0}} = (1/4, -1/4,$ $\sqrt{2}/4)$, ${\mathbf{y}_{1}} = (3/4,1/4, -\sqrt{2}/4)$, ${\mathbf{z}_{0}} = (1/4, 1/4, \sqrt{2}/4)$, ${\mathbf{z}_{1}} = (3/4,$ $ -1/4, -\sqrt{2}/4)$. The constraint relations are then $P_{x,y} = \{(0,1), (1,0), (1,1)\} = P_{y,x}$, $P_{x,z} = \{(0,0), $ $(0,1), (1,$ $1)\} = P_{z,x}^{-1}$, $P_{y,z} = \{(0,0), (0,1), (1,0),(1,1)\}$ $ = P_{z,y}.$ The pair $(0,0) \in P_{y,z}$ is not in the composition of the relations $P_{y,x}$ and $P_{x,z}$ since there is no $a \in \{0,1\}$ such that $(0,a) \in P_{y,x}$ and $(a,0) \in P_{x,z}$.
### ${{\rm SDPOpt}({\mathcal{I}})}=1$ implies solution
Finally, we note that if ${\mathcal{I}}$ is an instance of the CSP with ${{\rm SDPOpt}({\mathcal{I}})} = 1$ and we define ${\mathcal{J}}$ using vectors with the sum (\[eq:sum\]) equal to 1, then a solution of ${\mathcal{J}}$ is necessarily a solution to ${\mathcal{I}}$. Showing that “${{\rm SDPOpt}({\mathcal{I}})}=1$” implies “${\mathcal{I}}$ has a solution” was suggested as a first step to prove the Guruswami-Zhou conjecture. It indeed proved to be the right direction.
Algebraic closure of a weak Prague instance
-------------------------------------------
The proof of correctness of the robust algorithm for bounded width CSPs obtains a solution from a certain weak Prague instance ${\mathcal{J}}$. Instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ is obtained from the result of an SDP algorithm on the basic SDP relaxation of the original instance. Unfortunately the constraints in ${\mathcal{J}}$ does not necessarily have bounded width so we cannot directly apply Theorem [\[thm:bw\]]{}. This technical difficulty is overcome using Proposition [\[prop:closure\]]{} below. Note that the solution (given by Theorem [\[thm:bw\]]{}) to the instance given by Proposition [\[prop:closure\]]{} can be outside the Prague instance ${\mathcal{J}}$.
The following lemma from [@BKbw] shows a basic property of weak Prague instances.
\[lem:cl\] Let ${\mathcal{J}}$ be a weak Prague instance, $x\in V$, $A \subseteq P_x$, and let $p$ be a pattern from $x$ to $x$. Then there exists a natural number $l$ such that $A + lp + l'p = A + lp$ for every integer $l'$ and, moreover, $A \subseteq A + lp$.
The set $A+lp$ from Lemma \[lem:cl\] is denoted by $[A]_p$. For a singleton $A = \{a\}$ we write $[a]_p$. We have $[A]_p + l'p = [A]_p$ for every integer $l'$ and, moreover, $A \subseteq [A]_p$.
\[prop:closure\] Let ${\mathcal{J}} = (V,D,\{P_{x,y}: (x,y) \in {\mathcal{S}}\})$ be a weak Prague instance and let $\mathcal{F}$ be a set of operations on $D$. Then ${\mathcal{J}}' = (V,D,\{P'_{x,y}: (x,y) \in {\mathcal{S}}\})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
P'_{x,y} &= \{ (f(a_1,a_2, \dots),f(b_1, b_2, \dots)): f \in \mathcal{F}, \\
& \quad \quad (a_1,b_1), (a_2,b_2), \dots \in P_{x,y}\},\end{aligned}$$ is a weak Prague instance.
It is apparent that ${\mathcal{J}}'$ is $1$-minimal with $$P^{{\mathcal{J}}'}_{x} = P'_{x} := \{ f(a_1,a_2, \dots): f \in \mathcal{F}, \ a_1, a_2, \dots \in P_x \}.$$ In what follows, by $A +' p$ we mean the addition computed in the instance ${\mathcal{J}}'$ while $A + p$ is computed in ${\mathcal{J}}$. Moreover, by $f(A_1, \dots, A_k)$ we mean the set $
\{f(a_1, \dots, a_k):$ $a_1 \in A_1, a_2 \in A_2, \dots, a_k \in A_k\}
$.
Before proving (P2) and (P3) we make a simple observation.
\[cl:noname\] If $f \in \mathcal{F}$ is an operation of arity $k$, $x \in V$, $p$ is a pattern from $x$, and $A_1, \dots, A_k \subseteq P_x$, $B \subseteq P_x'$ are such that $f(A_1, A_2, \dots, A_k) \subseteq B$, then$f(A_1 + p, A_2 + p, \dots A_k + p) \subseteq B +' p$.
It is enough to prove the claim for a single step $p = (x,y)$. The rest follows by induction. If $b \in f(A_1 + (x,y), \dots, A_k + (x,y))$ then there exist elements $b_1 \in A_1 + (x,y)$, …, $b_k \in A_k + (x,y)$ so that $f(b_1, b_2, \dots, b_k) = b$. As $b_i \in A_i + (x,y)$ there are elements $a_i \in A_i$ such that $(a_i,b_i) \in P_{x,y}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq k$. But then $(f(a_1,a_2, \dots, a_l),$ $f(b_1,b_2, \dots, b_k))$ is in $P'_{x,y}$ and $f(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k) \in f(A_1, A_2,$ $\dots, A_k) \subseteq B$, therefore $b = f(b_1,b_2, \dots, b_k) \in B +' (x,y)$.
Instead of (P2) for the instance ${\mathcal{J}}'$ we prove (P2\*) from Lemma \[lem:P2star\]. Let $(x,y)$ be a step, $A \subseteq P_x'$, let $p$ be a pattern from $y$ to $x$ such that $A +' (x,y) +' p = A$, and let $a$ be an arbitrary element of $A +' (x,y,x)$. As $A +' (x,y,x) = (A +' (x,y)) +' (y,x)$, there exist $b \in A +' (x,y)$ such that $(a,b) \in P'_{x,y}$. By definition of $P'_{x,y}$, we can find $f \in \mathcal{F}$ (say, of arity $k$), elements $a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k$ in $P_x$, and $b_1, \dots, b_k$ in $P_y$ so that $(f(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k),f(b_1, b_2, \dots, b_k)) = (a,b)$ and $(a_i,b_i) \in P_{x,y}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq k$.
We consider the sets $[b_1]_q, [b_2]_q, \dots, [b_2]_q$ for the pattern $q = p + (x,y)$. We take $l$ to be the maximum of the numbers for $b_1, \dots, b_k$ from Lemma \[lem:cl\], so $[b_i]_q = \{b_i\} + lq$. We get $$\begin{aligned}
a_i &\in \{b_i\} + (y,x)
\subseteq [b_i]_q + (y,x)
= \\
& = [b_i]_q + p + (x,y) + (y,x) =
[b_i]_q + p,\end{aligned}$$ where the first step follows from $(a_i,b_i) \in P_{x,y}$, the inclusion and the first equality from Lemma \[lem:cl\], and the second equality from (P2\*) for the instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ (as $([b_i]_q + p) + (x,y) + p = [b_i]_q + p$). Thus $a = f(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_{k})$ is an element of $$\begin{aligned}
f([b_1]_q + p, &[b_2]_q + p, \dots, [b_k]_q + p) = \\
&=
f(\{b_1\} + lq + p, \dots, \{b_k\} + lq + p)\end{aligned}$$ and this set is contained in $(A +'(x,y)) +' lq +'p = A +' (x,y) +' l(p + (x,y)) +' p = A$ by Claim \[cl:noname\] applied with $A_i = \{b_i\}$ and the pattern $lq + p$. We have shown that every element $a$ of $A + ' (x,y,x)$ lies in $A$. The other inclusion follows from $1$-minimality.
To prove (P3) let $x \in V$, $A \subseteq P'_x$ and let $p,q$ be patterns such that $A +' p +' q = A$. We first show that $A \subseteq A +' p$. Let $a \in P'_x$, take $f \in \mathcal{F}$, $a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k \in P_x$ such that $f(a_1, \dots, a_k) = a$, and find $l$ so that $[a_i]_{p+q} = a_i + l(p+q)$. From (P3) for ${\mathcal{J}}$ and Lemma \[lem:cl\] it follows that $[a_i]_{p+q}+p = [a_i]_{p+q}$. By Claim \[cl:noname\],$a \in f([a_1]_{p+q},[a_2]_{p+q}, \dots, [a_k]_{p+q}) = f([a_1]_{p+q}+p,[a_2]_{p+q}+p, \dots, [a_k]_{p+q}+p) \subseteq A +' l(p+q) +' p = A +' p$. The same argument used for $A + 'p$ instead of $A$ and the patterns $q+p,q$ instead of $p+q,p$ proves $A +' p \subseteq A + 'p +' q = A$.
Robust algorithm for bounded width CSPs
=======================================
The final, and most technical, version of our main result follows. Theorem \[THM:MAIN\] is a consequence of the following fact:
\[THM:CORE\] Let $\Gamma$ be a core constraint language over $D$ containing at most binary relations. If ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width, then there exists a randomized algorithm which given an instance ${\mathcal{I}}$ of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ and an output of the basic SDP relaxation with value at least $1 - 1/n^{4n}$ (where $n$ is a natural number) produces an assignment with value at least $1 - K/n$, where $K$ is a constant depending on $|D|$. The running time is polynomial in $m$ (the number of constraints) and $n^{n}$.
Proof of Theorem \[THM:MAIN\] using Theorem \[THM:CORE\]
--------------------------------------------------------
To prove Theorem \[THM:MAIN\] we start with $\Gamma$ which is the singleton expansion of a constraint language of bounded width. By Proposition \[prop:bin\] we can assume that $\Gamma$ contains only at most binary relations.
Let ${\mathcal{I}}$ be an instance of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ with $m$ constraints and let $1-\varepsilon = {{\rm Opt}({\mathcal{I}})}$ where $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small and $m$ sufficiently large. We need to show how to effectively find an assignment satisfying, in expectation, the promised fraction of constraints.
We first check whether ${\mathcal{I}}$ has a solution. This can be done in polynomial time since ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width. If a solution exists we can find it in polynomial time by Theorem \[thm:search\_problem\].
In the other case we know that $\varepsilon \geq 1/m$. We run the SDP relaxation with precision $\delta = 1/m$ and obtain vectors with the sum (\[eq:sum\]) equal to $v \geq {{\rm SDPOpt}({\mathcal{I}})}-1/m$. Finally, we execute the algorithm provided in Theorem \[THM:CORE\] with the following choice of $n$. $$n = {\left\lfloor \frac{\log \omega}{4 \log \log \omega} \right\rfloor}, \quad \mbox{ where } \omega
= \min\left\{\frac1{1-v},m \right\}.$$ The assumption is satisfied, because $v \geq 1 - 1/n^{4n}$ is equivalent to $n^{4n} \leq 1/(1-v)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
n^{4n} &= 2^{4n \log n} \leq 2^{4 \frac{\log \omega}{4 \log \log \omega} \log \frac{\log \omega}{4\log \log \omega}} < \\
&< 2^{\frac{\log \omega}{\log \log \omega} \log \log \omega} = \omega \leq 1/(1-v).\end{aligned}$$ The algorithm runs in time polynomial in $m$ as $n^{n} < n^{4n} \leq \omega \leq m$. To estimate the fraction of satisfied constraints, observe that $v \geq {{\rm Opt}({\mathcal{I}})} - 1/m = 1 - \varepsilon - 1/m \geq 1 - 2\varepsilon$, so $1/(1-v) \geq 1/(2\varepsilon)$, and also $m \geq 1/\varepsilon$, therefore $\omega \geq 1/(2\varepsilon)$. The fraction of satisfied constraints is, in expectation, at least $1 - K/n$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{n}{K} &\geq \frac1K \left( \frac{\log \omega}{4\log \log \omega} - 1 \right) \geq \\
&\geq K_3 \frac{\log (1/(2\varepsilon))
\geq K_4 \frac{\log (1/\varepsilon)}{\log \log (1/\varepsilon)},}{R: strange linebreaks in the second and third displayed lines.}\end{aligned}$$ where $K_3, K_4$ are suitable constants. Therefore the fraction of satisfied constraints is at least $$1 - O\left(\frac{\log \log (1/\varepsilon)}{\log (1/\varepsilon)}\right).$$
Proof of Theorem \[THM:CORE\]
-----------------------------
Let ${\mathcal{I}} = (V, D, {\mathcal{C}})$ be an instance of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ with $m$ constraints and let ${\mathbf{x}_{a}}$, $x \in V$, $a \in D$ be vectors satisfying (SDP1), (SDP2), (SDP3) such that the sum (\[eq:sum\]) is at least $1 - 1/n^{4n}$. Without loss of generality we assume that $n > |D|$.
Let us first briefly sketch the idea of the algorithm. The aim is to define an instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ in a similar way as in the previous section (${\mathcal{J}}$ is defined after Claim \[cl:works\]), but instead of all pairs with nonzero weight we only include pairs of weight greater than a threshold (chosen in Step 1). This guarantees that every solution to ${\mathcal{J}}$ satisfies all the constraints of ${\mathcal{I}}$ which do not have large weight on pairs outside the constraint relation (the bad constraints are removed in Step 3). The instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ (more precisely, its algebraic closure) has a solution by Theorem \[thm:bw\] as soon as we ensure that it is a weak Prague instance. Property (P1) is dealt with in a similar way as in [@KOTYZ]: We keep only constraints with a gap – all pairs have either smaller weight than the threshold, or significantly larger (Step 2). This also gives a property similar to the one in the motivating discussion in the previous section: The vector ${\mathbf{y}_{A+(x,y)}}$ is either significantly longer than ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ or these vectors are almost the same. However, large amount of small differences can add up, so we need to continue taming the instance. In Steps 4 and 5 we divide the unit ball into layers and remove some constraints so that almost the same vectors of the form ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$, ${\mathbf{y}_{A+(x,y)}}$ never lie in different layers. This already guarantees property (P2). For property (P3) we use “cutting by hyperplanes” idea from [@GW95]. We choose sufficiently many hyperplanes so that every pair ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$, ${\mathbf{x}_{B}}$ of different vectors in the same layer is cut (the bad variables are removed in Step 7) and we do not allow almost the same vectors for different variables to cross the hyperplane (Step 8).
The description of the algorithm follows.
- Choose $r \in \{1, 2, \dots, n-1\}$ uniformly at random.
- Remove from ${\mathcal{C}}$ all the unary constraints $(x,R)$ such that ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2} \in [n^{-4r-4},n^{-4r})$ for some $a \in D$ and all the binary constraints $((x,y),R)$ such that ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}} \in [n^{-4r-4},n^{-4r})$ for some $a,b \in D$.
- Remove from ${\mathcal{C}}$ all the unary constraints $(x,R)$ such that ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2} \geq n^{-4r}$ for some $a \not\in R$ and all the binary constraints $((x,y),R)$ such that ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}} \geq n^{-4r}$ for some $(a,b) \not\in R$.
Let $${u_1}= 2|D|^2n^{-4r-4} \ \mbox{ and } \ {u_2}= n^{-4r} - {u_1}.$$ For two real numbers $\gamma, \psi \neq 0$ we denote by $\gamma \div \psi$ the greatest integer $i$ such that $\gamma - i \psi > 0$ and this difference is denoted by $\gamma \mod \psi$.
- Choose $s \in [0, {u_2}]$ uniformly at random.
- Remove from ${\mathcal{C}}$ all the binary constraints $((x,y),R)$ such that $|{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|^2} - {\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} \right|\right|^2}| \leq {u_1}$ and $({\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|^2} - s) \div {u_2}\neq ({\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} \right|\right|^2} - s) \div {u_2}$ for some $A,B \subseteq D$.
The remaining part of the algorithm uses the following definitions. For all $x \in V$ let $$P_x = \{ a \in D: {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2} \geq n^{-4r} \}.$$ For a vector ${\mathbf{w}}$ we put $${h({\mathbf{w}})} = ({\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|^2} - s) \div {u_2}$$ and $${t({\mathbf{w}})} = {\left\lceil \pi(\log n) n^{2r} \min\{\sqrt{({h({\mathbf{w}})}+2) {u_2}}, 1\} \right\rceil}.$$ We say that ${\mathbf{w}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{w}}_2$ are *almost the same* if ${h({\mathbf{w}}_1)} = {h({\mathbf{w}}_2)}$ and ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}}_1 - {\mathbf{w}}_2 \right|\right|^2} \leq {u_1}$.
- Choose unit vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_1$, ${\mathbf{q}}_2$, …, ${\mathbf{q}}_{{\left\lceil \pi(\log n)n^{2n} \right\rceil}}$ independently and uniformly at random.
- We say that a variable $x \in V$ is *uncut* if there exists $A,B \subseteq P_x$, $A \neq B$ such that ${h({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}={h({\mathbf{x}_{B}})}$ and ${\mathrm{sgn\ }}{{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{q}}_i} = {\mathrm{sgn\ }}{{\mathbf{x}_{B}} {\mathbf{q}}_i}$ for every $1 \leq i \leq {t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}$ (in words, no hyperplane determined by the first ${t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})} = {t({\mathbf{x}_{B}})}$ vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_i$ cuts the vectors ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$, ${\mathbf{x}_{B}}$). Remove from ${\mathcal{C}}$ all the constraints whose scope contains an uncut variable.
- Remove from ${\mathcal{C}}$ all the binary constraints $((x,y),R)$ for which there exist $A \subseteq P_x, B \subseteq P_y$ such that ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$, ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$ are almost the same and ${\mathrm{sgn\ }}{{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{q}}_i} \neq {\mathrm{sgn\ }}{{\mathbf{y}_{B}} {\mathbf{q}}_i}$ for some $1 \leq i \leq {t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}$.
- Use the remaining constraints to construct a weak Prague instance, close it under polymorphisms (comp. Proposition [\[prop:closure\]]{}) and compute a solution.
\[cl:works\] Expected fraction of constraints removed in steps $2$, $3$, $5$, $7$ and $8$ is at most $K / n$ for some constant $K$.
**Remark.** The constant $K$ depends exponentially on the size of the domain $|D|$.
**Step 2.** For each binary constraint there are $|D|^2$ choices for $a,b \in D$ and therefore at most $|D|^2$ bad choices for $r$. For a unary constraint the number of bad choices is at most $|D|$. Thus the probability that a given constraint will be removed is at most $|D|^2/(n-1)$ and it follows that the expected fraction of removed constraints is at most $|D|^2/(n-1)$.
**Step 3.** The contribution of every removed constraint to the sum (\[eq:sum\]) is at most $1 - n^{-4r} \leq 1 - n^{-4n+4}$. If more than $\gamma$-fraction of the constraints is removed than the sum is at most $1/m( (1-\gamma)m + \gamma m(1 - n^{-4n+4})) = 1-\gamma n^{-4n+4}$. Since (\[eq:sum\]) $\geq 1 - 1/n^{4n}$, we have $\gamma \leq 1/n^4$.
**Step 5.** For every constraint $((x,y),R)$ and every $A,B \subseteq D$ such that $|{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|^2} - {\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} \right|\right|^2}| \leq {u_1}$, ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|} \leq {\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} \right|\right|}$, the inequality $({\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|^2} - s) \div {u_2}< ({\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} \right|\right|^2} - s) \div {u_2}$ can be satisfied only if $({\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} \right|\right|^2}-s) \mod {u_2}< {u_1}$. The bad choices for $s$ thus cover at most $({u_1}/ {u_2})$-fraction of the interval $[0, {u_2}]$. As ${u_1}/ {u_2}< K_1/n^4$ (for a suitable constant $K_1$ depending on $|D|$), the probability of a bad choice is at most $K_1/n^4$. There are $4^{|D|}$ pairs of subsets $A,B \subseteq D$, therefore the probability that the constraint is removed is less than $K_14^{|D|}/n^4$ and so is the expected fraction of removed constraints.
Before analyzing Steps 7 and 8 let us observe that, for any vector ${\mathbf{w}}$ such that $1 \geq {\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|} \geq n^{-4r}$, $$\pi (\log n) n^{2r} {\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|} \leq {t({\mathbf{w}})} \leq 2 \pi (\log n) n^{2r} {\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|} + 1.$$ The first inequality follows from $$\sqrt{({h({\mathbf{w}})}+2){u_2}} = \sqrt{ {u_2}(({\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|^2} + 2{u_2}- s) \div {u_2}) }
\geq$$ $$\geq \sqrt{ {u_2}\frac{{\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|^2}+{u_2}-s}{{u_2}}}
\geq {\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|}$$ and the second inequality follows from $$\sqrt{({h({\mathbf{w}})}+2){u_2}} \leq \sqrt{ {u_2}\frac{({\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|^2} + 2{u_2}- s)}{{u_2}}} \leq$$ $$\leq
\sqrt{{\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|^2} + 2{u_2}}
\leq
\sqrt{{\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|^2} + 2{\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|^2}}
<
2{\left|\left| {\mathbf{w}} \right|\right|}.$$
**Step 7.** Consider two different subsets $A,B$ of $P_x$ such that ${h({\mathbf{x}_{A}})} = {h({\mathbf{x}_{B}})}$. Suppose that $A \setminus B \neq \emptyset$, the other case is symmetric. Let $\theta$ be the angle between ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{x}_{B}}$. As ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}-{\mathbf{x}_{A \cap B}} ( = {\mathbf{x}_{A \setminus B}})$, ${\mathbf{x}_{B}} - {\mathbf{x}_{A \cap B}}$ and ${\mathbf{x}_{A \cap B}}$ are pairwise orthogonal, the angle $\theta$ is greater than or equal to the angle $\theta_A$ between ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{x}_{A \cap B}}$. (Given three pairwise orthogonal vectors ${\mathbf{v}_{1}}, {\mathbf{v}_{2}}, {\mathbf{v}_{3}}$, the angle between ${\mathbf{v}_{1}}+{\mathbf{v}_{2}}$ and ${\mathbf{v}_{1}}+{\mathbf{v}_{3}}$ is always greater than or equal to the angle between ${\mathbf{v}_{1}}+{\mathbf{v}_{2}}$ and ${\mathbf{v}_{1}}$. This is a straightforward calculation using, for instance, dot products. In our situation ${\mathbf{v}_{1}} = {\mathbf{x}_{A \cap B}}$, ${\mathbf{v}_{2}} = {\mathbf{x}_{A \setminus B}}$ and ${\mathbf{v}_{3}} = {\mathbf{x}_{B \setminus A}}$.) We have $\sin \theta_A = {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A \setminus B}} \right|\right|} / {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}$. Since $A \subseteq P_x$, we get ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A \setminus B}} \right|\right|} \geq \sqrt{n^{-4r}} = n^{-2r}$ and then $\sin \theta_A = {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A \setminus B}} \right|\right|}/ {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|} \geq n^{-2r} / {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}$, so $\theta \geq \theta_A \geq n^{-2r} / {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}$.
The probability that ${\mathbf{q}}_i$ does not cut ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{x}_{B}}$ is thus at most $1 - n^{-2r} / \pi{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}$ and the probability that none of the vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{q}}_{{t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}}$ cut them is at most $$\left( 1 - \frac{n^{-2r}}{\pi{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}} \right)^{{t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}}
\leq
{\left[\left( 1 - \frac{1}{\pi n^{2r}{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}} \right)^{\pi n^{2r} {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}}\right]}^{\log n}
\leq$$ $$\leq
\left(\frac12\right)^{\log n} = \frac1n.$$ The first inequality uses that ${t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})} \geq \pi(\log n) n^{2r} {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}$ which we observed above. In the second inequality we have used that $(1 - 1/\eta)^{\eta} \leq 1/2$ whenever $\eta \geq 2$.
For a single variable there are at most $4^{|D|}$ choices for $A,B \subseteq P_x$, therefore the probability that $x$ is uncut is at most $4^{|D|}/n$. The scope of every constraint contains at most $2$ variables, hence the probability that a constraint is removed is at most $2 \cdot 4^{|D|}/n$ and the expected fraction of the constraints removed in this step has the same upper bound.
**Step 8.** Assume that $((x,y),R)$ is a binary constraint and $A \subseteq P_x, B\subseteq P_y$ are such that ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$ are almost the same. Let $\theta$ be the angle between ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$ and $\theta_A$ be the angle between ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}-{\mathbf{x}_{A}}$. By the law of sines we have ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}/(\sin \theta_A) = {\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} - {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}/(\sin \theta)$, and $$\theta \leq 2 \sin \theta = \frac{2 {\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} - {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}}{{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}} \sin (\theta_A) \leq
\frac{2{\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} - {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}}{{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}} \leq
\frac{2 \sqrt{{u_1}}}{{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}},$$ where the first inequality follows from $\theta \leq \pi/2$ (as the dot product of ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$ is a sum of nonnegative numbers). Therefore, the probability that vectors ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$ are cut by some of the vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_i$, $1 \leq i \leq {t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}$ is at most $${t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})} \frac{2\sqrt{{u_1}}}{{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}} \leq
(2 \pi (\log n) n^{2r} {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|} + 1) \frac{2 \sqrt{2|D|^2n^{-4r-4}}}{{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}} \leq$$ $$\leq
K_2(\log n) n^{-2} \leq \frac{K_2}n,$$ where $K_2$ is a constant. There are at most $4^{|D|}$ choices for $A,B$, so the probability that our constraint will be removed is less than $K_24^{|D|}/n$.
Now we define the instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ and proceed to show that ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a weak Prague instance. Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ denote the set of pairs which are the scope of some binary constraint of ${\mathcal{I}}$ after Step 8, let $V_0$ be the set of variables which are within the scope of some constraint after Step 8, and let ${\mathcal{S}}^{-1} = \{(x,y): (y,x) \in {\mathcal{S}}\}$. We put $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{J}} &= (V_0, D, \{((x,y),P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y}): (x,y) \in {\mathcal{S}}\cup {\mathcal{S}}^{-1}\}), \\
P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y} &= \{ (a,b) : {{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}} \geq n^{-4r}\}.\end{aligned}$$
The instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ is $1$-minimal and $P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}} = P_x$.
Let $(x,y) \in {\mathcal{S}}$ and take an arbitrary constraint $((x,y),R)$ which remained in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
First we prove that $P_{x,y} \subseteq P_x \times P_y$ for every $a,b \in D$. Indeed, if $(a,b) \in P_{x,y}$ then ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}} \geq n^{-4r}$, therefore ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2} = {{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{x}_{D}}} = {{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{D}}} \geq n^{-4r}$, so $a \in P_x$. Similarly, $b \in P_y$.
On the other hand, if $a \in P_x$ then $n^{-4r} \leq {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2} = {{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{D}}}$, thus there exist $b \in D$ such that ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}} \geq n^{-4r}/|D| \geq n^{-4r-4}$ (we have used $n^4 \geq |D|$). But then ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}} \geq n^{-4r}$, otherwise the constraint $((x,y),R)$ would be removed in Step 2. This implies that $(a,b) \in P_{x,y}$. We have shown that the projection of $P_{x,y}$ to the first coordinate contains $P_x$.
For verification of properties (P2) and (P3) the following observation will be useful.
\[cl:walk\] Let $(x,y) \in {\mathcal{S}}\cup {\mathcal{S}}^{-1}$, $A \subseteq P_x$, $B = A + (x,y)$. If $A = B + (y,x)$, then the vectors ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$ are almost the same. In the other case, i.e. if $A \varsubsetneq B + (y,x)$, then ${h({\mathbf{y}_{B}})} > {h({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}$.
The number ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}}-{\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|^2}$ is equal to $${{\mathbf{y}_{B}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}} - {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}}
- {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}} + {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{x}_{A}}}
=$$ $$=
{{\mathbf{x}_{D}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}} - {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}}
- {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}} + {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{D}}}
=
{{\mathbf{x}_{D \setminus A}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}}
+ {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{D \setminus B}}}.$$ No pair $(a,b)$, with $a\in A$ and $b\in D\setminus B$, is in $P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y}$ so the dot product ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}}$ is smaller than $n^{-4r}$. Then in fact ${{\mathbf{x}_{a}} {\mathbf{y}_{b}}} < n^{-4r-4}$ otherwise all the constraints with scope $(x,y)$ would be removed in Step 2. It follows that the second summand is always at most $|D|^2 n^{-4r-4}$ and the first summand has the same upper bound in the case $B+(y,x) = A$.
Moreover, ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{y}_{B}} \right|\right|^2}-{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|^2}$ is equal to $${{\mathbf{y}_{B}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}} - {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{x}_{A}}}
=
{{\mathbf{x}_{D}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}} - {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{D}}}
=$$ $$=
{{\mathbf{x}_{D}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}} - {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}} - {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{D \setminus B}}}
=
{{\mathbf{x}_{D \setminus A}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}} - {{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{y}_{D \setminus B}}}.$$ If $B + (y,x) = A$ then we have a difference of two nonnegative numbers each less than or equal $|D|^2 n^{-4r-4}$, therefore the absolute value of this expression is at most ${u_1}$. But then ${h({\mathbf{x}_{A}})} = {h({\mathbf{y}_{B}})}$, otherwise all constraint with scope $(x,y)$ or $(y,x)$ would be removed in Step 5. Using the previous paragraph, it follows that ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$ are almost the same.
If $B + (y,x)$ properly contains $A$ then the first summand ${{\mathbf{x}_{D\setminus A}} {\mathbf{y}_{B}}}$ is greater than or equal to $n^{-4r}$, so the whole expression is at least $n^{-4r} - |D|^2 n^{-4r-4} > {u_2}$ and thus ${h({\mathbf{y}_{B}})} > {h({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}$.
${\mathcal{J}}$ is a weak Prague instance.
**(P2).** Let $A \subseteq P_x$ and let $p = (x_1, \dots, x_i)$ be a pattern in ${\mathcal{J}}$ from $x$ to $x$ (i.e. $x_1 = x_i = x$). By the previous claim ${h({\mathbf{x}_{A}})} = {h(({\mathbf{x}}_i)_{A+(x_1, \dots, x_i)})} \geq
{h(({\mathbf{x}}_{i-1})_{A+(x_1, \dots, x_{i-1})})}$ $\geq \dots \geq {h(({\mathbf{x}}_2)_{A+(x_1,x_2)})} \geq {h({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}$. It follows that all these inequalities must in fact be equalities and, by applying the claim again, we get that the vectors $({\mathbf{x}}_j)_{A+(x_1,x_2, \dots, x_j)}$ and $({\mathbf{x}}_{j+1})_{A+(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{j+1})}$ are almost the same and, moreover, $A+(x_1,x_2, \dots, x_{j+1}) + (x_{j+1}, x_j) = A+(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_j)$ for every $1 \leq j < i$. Therefore $A + p - p = A$ as required.
**(P3).** Let $A \subseteq P_x$, let $p_1 = (x_1, \dots, x_i), p_2$ be two patterns from $x$ to $x$ such that $A + p_1 + p_2 = A$ and let $B = A+p_1$. For contradiction assume $A \neq B$. The same argument as above proves that the vectors $({\mathbf{x}}_j)_{A+(x_1,x_2, \dots, x_j)}$ and $({\mathbf{x}}_{j+1})_{A+(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_{j+1})}$ are almost the same for every $1 \leq j < i$, and then ${h({\mathbf{x}_{A}})} = {h({\mathbf{x}_{B}})}$. There exists $k \leq {t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}$ such that ${\mathrm{sgn\ }}{{\mathbf{x}_{A}} {\mathbf{q}}_k} \neq {\mathrm{sgn\ }}{{\mathbf{x}_{B}} {\mathbf{q}}_k}$, otherwise $x$ is uncut and all constraints whose scope contains $x$ would be removed in Step 7. But this leads to a contradiction, since ${\mathrm{sgn\ }}{({\mathbf{x}}_{j})_{A+(x_1, \dots, x_{j})} {\mathbf{q}}_k} = {\mathrm{sgn\ }}{({\mathbf{x}}_{j+1})_{A+(x_1, \dots, x_{j+1})} {\mathbf{q}}_k}$ for all $1 \leq j < i$, otherwise the constraints with scope $(x_{j},x_{j+1})$ would be removed in Step 8.
Observe that for every unary constraint $(x,R)$ we have $P_x \subseteq R$ (from Step 3) and for every binary constraint $((x,y),R)$ we have $P_{x,y} \subseteq R$. Since we have removed at most $(K/n)$-fraction of the constraints from ${\mathcal{C}}$, a potential solution to ${\mathcal{J}}$ is an assignment for the original instance ${\mathcal{I}}$ of value at least $1-K/n$. Also, the instance ${\mathcal{J}}$ is nontrivial because, for each $x \in V$, there exists at least one $a \in D$ with ${\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{a}} \right|\right|^2} > 1/n^4$ (recall that we assume $n > |D|$).
The only problem is that the CSP over the constraint language of ${\mathcal{J}}$ (consisting of $P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y}$’s) does not necessarily have bounded width. This is why we form the algebraic closure ${\mathcal{J}}'$ of ${\mathcal{J}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{J'}} &= (V_0,D, \{((x,y),P^{{\mathcal{J}}'}_{x,y}): (x,y) \in {\mathcal{S}}\cup {\mathcal{S}}^{-1}\}), \\
P_{x,y}^{{\mathcal{J}}'} &= \{(f(a_1, a_2, \dots), f(b_1, b_2, \dots)): f \in {\mathrm{Pol}}(\Gamma), \\
& \quad \quad \quad (a_1,b_1), (a_2,b_2), \dots \in P^{{\mathcal{J}}}_{x,y}\}\end{aligned}$$ The new instance still has the property that $P_x^{{\mathcal{J}}'}$ (which is equal to $\{f(a_1, a_2, \dots): f \in {\mathrm{Pol}}(\Gamma), a_1, a_2, \dots \in P_x\}$) is a subset of $R$ for every unary constraint $(x,R)$, and $P_{x,y}^{{\mathcal{J}}'} \subseteq R$ for every binary constraint $((x,y),R)$, since the constraint relations are preserved by every polymorphism of $\Gamma$. Moreover, every polymorphism of $\Gamma$ is a polymorphism of the constraint language $\Lambda'$ of ${\mathcal{J}}'$, therefore ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Lambda')$ has bounded width (see, for instance, Theorem \[thm:bw\_char\]; technically, $\Lambda'$ does not need to be a core, but we can simply add to $\Lambda'$ all the singleton unary relations).
By Proposition \[prop:closure\], ${\mathcal{J}}'$ is a weak Prague instance. Therefore ${\mathcal{J}}'$ (and thus ${\mathcal{I}}$ after Step 8) has a solution by Theorem \[thm:bw\]. Clearly steps 1 to 8 can be done in time polynomial with respect to $m$ and $n^n$, the closure required by Proposition [\[prop:closure\]]{} is computed in time linear in $m$ and then a solution to ${\mathcal{J}}'$ can be found in polynomial time by Theorem [\[thm:search\_problem\]]{}. This concludes the proof.
Derandomization
---------------
The following theorem is a deterministic version of Theorem \[THM:CORE\]. The statement is almost the same except the running time is polynomial in $2^{n^2\log^2 n}$ instead of $n^n$.
\[THM:COREderandom\] Let $\Gamma$ be a core constraint language over $D$ containing at most binary relations. If ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width, then there exists a deterministic algorithm which given an instance ${\mathcal{I}}$ of ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ and an output of the basic SDP relaxation with value at least $1 - 1/n^{4n}$ (where $n$ is a natural number) produces an assignment with value at least $1 - K/n$, where $K$ is a constant depending on $|D|$. The running time is polynomial in $m$ (the number of constraints) and $2^{n^2\log^2 n}$.
The algorithm is the same as in the proof of Theorem \[THM:CORE\] except we need to avoid the random choices in Steps 1, 4 and 6.
The random choices in Step 1 and Step 4 can be easily avoided. In Step 1 we can try all $(n-1)$ possible choices for $r$ and in Step 4 we can try all choices for $s$ from some sufficiently dense finite set, for instance $\{0, {u_2}/n^4, 2 {u_2}/n^4, \dots\}$. The only difference is that bad choices for $s$ can cover a slightly bigger part of the discrete set than ${u_1}/{u_2}$ (namely $({u_2}/n^4+{u_1})/{u_2}$) and we get a slightly worse constant $K_1$.
For the derandomization of Step 6 we first increase the constant in the definition of $t({\mathbf{w}})$, say $
t({\mathbf{w}}) = {\left\lceil 4 (\log n) \dots \right\rceil}.
$ Next we use Theorem 1.3. in [@KRS11] from which it follows that we can find (in polynomial time with respect to $|Q|$) a set $Q$ of unit vectors such that $$|Q| = (|V||D|)^{1 + o(1)}2^{O(\log^2 (1/\kappa))}$$ and such that, for any vectors ${\mathbf{v}}$, ${\mathbf{w}}$ with angle $\theta$ between them, the probability that a randomly chosen vector from $Q$ cuts ${\mathbf{v}}$ and ${\mathbf{w}}$ differs from $\theta/\pi$ by at most $\kappa$. We choose $\kappa = 1/n^{2n} = 1/2^{2n \log n}$, therefore $$|Q| \leq K_5 m^{K_6} \ (2^{n^2 \log^2 n})^{K_7}$$ where we have used $|V|=O(m)$ which is true whenever every variable is in the scope of some constraint (we can clearly make this assumption without loss of generality).
Now if we choose ${\mathbf{q}}_1, {\mathbf{q}}_2, \dots, {\mathbf{q}}_{{\left\lceil 4(\log n)n^{2n} \right\rceil}}$ from $Q$ independently uniformly at random, the estimates derived in Steps 7 and 8 remain almost unchanged: The probability that ${\mathbf{q}}_i$ does not cut ${\mathbf{x}}_A$ and ${\mathbf{x}}_B$ in Step 7 is at most $1 - n^{-2r}/\pi{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|} + \kappa \leq 1 - n^{-2r}/4{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}$ (for a sufficiently large $n$), and the probability in Step 8 that vectors ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$ are cut by ${\mathbf{q}}_i$ is at most $2\sqrt{{u_1}}/{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|} + \kappa \leq 4\sqrt{{u_1}}/{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}$.
Unfortunately we cannot try all possible ${{\left\lceil 4(\log n)n^{2n} \right\rceil}}$-tuples of vectors from $Q$ as there are too many of them. To resolve this problem we apply the method of conditional expectations with a pessimistic estimate. We choose the vectors one by one keeping the sum of two estimates, ${E^{(7)}_{i}}$ and ${E^{(8)}_{i}}$, reasonably small, where ${E^{(7)}_{i}}$ is an estimate of the number of uncut pairs of vectors ${\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}}$ in the same layer (i.e. ${t({\mathbf{x}}_A)} = {t({\mathbf{x}}_B)}$) after we already chose vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{q}}_i$ (important in Step 7) and ${E^{(8)}_{i}}$ is an estimate of the number of cut pairs of almost the same vectors ${\mathbf{x}}_A, {\mathbf{y}}_B$ (important in Step 8).
To define the pessimistic estimates, we create two lists of pairs of vectors. The list ${\mathcal{L}^{(7)}}$ contains the pairs we want to cut because of Step 7: For every constraint $C$ we include to ${\mathcal{L}^{(7)}}$ the pairs $({\mathbf{x}_{A}}, {\mathbf{x}_{B}})$ such that $x$ is in the scope of $C$, $A \neq B \subseteq P_x$, and ${h({\mathbf{x}_{A}})} = {h({\mathbf{x}_{B}})}$. One pair $({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})$ can appear more than once in the list — the number of occurrences is equal to the number of constraints whose scope contains $x$. The other list, ${\mathcal{L}^{(8)}}$, consists of those pairs which we do not want to cut because of Step 8. For each constraint $C = ((x,y),R)$ we add to ${\mathcal{L}^{(8)}}$ the pairs $({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{y}_{B}})$ such that $A,B \subseteq P_x$ and ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ is almost the same as ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$. We denote by ${p^{(7)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})}$ the upper bound derived above for the probability that a random vector from $Q$ does not cut ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{x}_{B}}$ and by ${p^{(8)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{y}_{B}})}$ the upper bound for the probability that a random vector from $Q$ cuts ${\mathbf{x}_{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}_{B}}$, i.e. $${p^{(7)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})} = 1 - \frac{n^{-2r}}{4 {\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}}, \quad
{p^{(8)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{y}_{B}})} = 4\sqrt{{u_1}}/{\left|\left| {\mathbf{x}_{A}} \right|\right|}\enspace.$$
Suppose we have already selected vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{q}}_i$, $0 \leq i$. Let us denote by ${\mathcal{L}^{(7)}_{i}}$ the sublist of ${\mathcal{L}^{(7)}}$ formed by pairs which are not cut by the vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{q}}_i$ and by ${z^{(8)}_i}$ the number of pairs from ${\mathcal{L}^{(8)}}$ cut by these vectors. If we now choose vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_{i+1}, {\mathbf{q}}_{i+2}, \dots$ from $Q$ independently uniformly at random we can give an upper estimate for the expected fraction of pairs from ${\mathcal{L}^{(7)}}$ which will remain uncut $${E^{(7)}_{i}} = \frac{1}{|{\mathcal{L}^{(7)}}|} \sum_{({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}}) \in {\mathcal{L}^{(7)}_{i}}} {p^{(7)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})}^{\max({t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}-i,0)}\enspace,$$ and for the expected fraction of pairs from ${\mathcal{L}^{(8)}}$ which are cut $${E^{(8)}_{i}} = \frac{1}{|{\mathcal{L}^{(8)}}|}\left({z^{(8)}_i} + \sum_{({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{y}_{B}}) \in {\mathcal{L}^{(8)}}} \max({t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}-i,0) {p^{(8)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{y}_{B}})}\right)\enspace .$$ Calculations made in the proof of Theorem \[THM:CORE\] show that $${E^{(7)}_{0}} = O\left(\frac1n\right), \quad
{E^{(8)}_{0}} = O\left(\frac1n\right)\enspace.$$
The estimates are becoming less pessimistic as $i$ increases. More precisely, given vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_1, \dots, {\mathbf{q}}_i$, if we choose ${\mathbf{q}}_{i+1}$ uniformly at random from $Q$, the expected value of ${E^{(7)}_{i+1}} + {E^{(8)}_{i+1}}$ is at most ${E^{(7)}_{i}} + {E^{(8)}_{i}}$. Indeed, if $({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})$ is in ${\mathcal{L}^{(7)}_{i}}$ and ${t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}\leq i$ then the contribution of this pair to both sums ${E^{(7)}_{i}}$ is one and to $ {E^{(7)}_{i+1}}$ is zero or one. If, on the other hand, ${t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})} > i$ then the contribution of this pair to the sum in ${E^{(7)}_{i}}$ is ${p^{(7)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})}^{{t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}-i}$ and the contribution to the sum in ${E^{(7)}_{i+1}}$ is either zero, when the pair is cut by ${\mathbf{q}}_{i+1}$, or is equal to ${p^{(7)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})}^{{t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}-i-1}$, when the pair is not cut by ${\mathbf{q}}_{i+1}$. The latter option happens with probability at most ${p^{(7)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})}$. Expected contribution of the pair to the sum in ${E^{(7)}_{i+1}}$ is therefore at most ${p^{(7)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})} {p^{(7)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})}^{{t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}-i-1} =
{p^{(7)}({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})}^{{t({\mathbf{x}_{A}})}-i}$ which is the same as the contribution of this pair to the sum in ${E^{(7)}_{i}}$. We conclude that the expected value of ${E^{(7)}_{i+1}}$ is less than or equal to ${E^{(7)}_{i}}$. Similarly, the expected value of ${E^{(8)}_{i+1}}$ is at most ${E^{(8)}_{i}}$. It follows that the expected value of ${E^{(7)}_{i+1}} + {E^{(8)}_{i+1}}$ is less than or equal to ${E^{(7)}_{i}} + {E^{(8)}_{i}}$ as claimed.
This leads to the following (deterministic) algorithm. For $i = 0,1, \dots, {\left\lceil 4(\log n)n^{2n} \right\rceil}-1$ we select any ${\mathbf{q}}_{i+1} \in Q$ such that ${E^{(7)}_{i+1}} + {E^{(8)}_{i+1}} \leq {E^{(7)}_{i}} + {E^{(8)}_{i}}$. It remains to observe that this choice of vectors ${\mathbf{q}}_1, {\mathbf{q}}_2, \dots$ gives us a sufficient upper bound on the fraction of constraints removed in Steps 7 and 8. We denote by ${w^{(7)}}$ the fraction of pairs in ${\mathcal{L}^{(7)}}$ which are not cut by the selected vectors and ${w^{(8)}}$ the fraction of pairs in ${\mathcal{L}^{(8)}}$ which are cut by these vectors. By construction, ${w^{(7)}}+ {w^{(8)}}\leq {E^{(7)}_{0}} + {E^{(8)}_{0}}$. In Step 7, a constraint $C$ is removed if some pair $({\mathbf{x}_{A}},{\mathbf{x}_{B}})$ from ${\mathcal{L}^{(7)}}$, where $x$ is in the scope of $C$, is not cut. The number of such pairs is at most $2 \cdot 4^{|D|}$. It follows that the fraction of constraints removed in this step is at most $2\cdot 4^{|D|} {w^{(7)}}$. Similarly, in Step 8 we remove at most $4^{|D|} {w^{(8)}}< 2 \cdot 4^{|D|} {w^{(8)}}$ fraction of the constraints. Altogether, we remove at most the following fraction of constraints. $$2 \cdot 4^{|D|} ({w^{(7)}}+ {w^{(8)}}) \leq 2 \cdot 4^{|D|} \left({E^{(7)}_{0}} + {E^{(8)}_{0}}\right)
= O\left(\frac1n\right)$$
Finally, we prove the deterministic version of the main theorem.
\[THM:MAINderandom\] If ${\mathrm{CSP}}(\Gamma)$ has bounded width then it is robustly solvable. The algorithm returns an assignment satisfying $(1 - O(\log \log (1/\varepsilon)/{\sqrt{\log (1/\varepsilon)}}))$-fraction of the constraints given a $(1-\varepsilon)$-satisfiable instance.
The proof is almost the same as for Theorem \[THM:MAIN\] except we need to ensure that $2^{n^2 \log^2 n}$ is polynomial in $m$. Therefore we need to choose a smaller value for $n$, say $$n = {\left\lfloor \frac{\sqrt{\log \omega}}{4\log \log \omega} \right\rfloor}\enspace.$$ The inequality $v \geq 1 - 1/n^{4n}$ still holds since the expression on the right hand side is even smaller than in Theorem \[THM:MAIN\]. The algorithm runs in polynomial time as $$2^{n^2\log^2 n}
\leq
2^{\left(\frac{\sqrt{\log \omega}}{4\log \log \omega}\right)^2 \log^2 \left(\frac{\sqrt{\log \omega}}{4\log \log \omega}\right)}
\leq
2^{\left(\frac{\sqrt{\log \omega}}{4\log \log \omega}\right)^2 \log^2 \left(\sqrt{\log \omega}\right)}
\leq
2^{\frac1{4^3} \log \omega}
\leq
\omega
\leq
m$$ and the fraction of satisfied constraint is at least $1 - K/n$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{n}{K} &\geq \frac1K \left( \frac{\sqrt{\log \omega}}{4\log \log \omega} - 1 \right)
\geq K_3 \frac{\sqrt{\log (1/2\varepsilon)}}{\log \log (1/2\varepsilon)} \geq \\
&\geq K_4 \frac{\sqrt{\log (1/\varepsilon)}}{\log \log (1/\varepsilon)}
\enspace,\end{aligned}$$ therefore the fraction of satisfied constraints is at least $$1 - O\left(\frac{\log{\log(1/\varepsilon)}}{\sqrt{\log (1/\varepsilon)}}\right)\enspace.$$
Final remarks
-------------
The quantitative dependence of $g$ on $\varepsilon$ is not very far from the (UGC-) optimal bound for [[[`Horn-k-Sat`]{}]{}]{}. Is it possible to get rid of the extra $\log \log (1/\varepsilon)$? The question of the optimal quantitative dependence of $g$ on $\varepsilon$ is discussed in more detail in [@DK].
The presented straightforward derandomization using a result from [@KRS11] has $g(\varepsilon) = O(\log \log (1/\varepsilon)/{\sqrt{\log (1/\varepsilon)}})$. How to improve it to match the randomized version?
[^1]: Department of Algebra, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague, Sokolovská 83, 18675 Praha 8, Czech Republic, [[email protected]]{}. Research supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, grant 13-01832S;
[^2]: Theoretical Computer Science Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Jagiellonian University ul. Prof. St. Lojasiewicza 6, 30-348 Krakow, Poland, [[email protected]]{}. Research partially supported by National Science Center grant no. DEC-2011/01/B/ST6/01006.
[^3]: Parts of this work appeared in proceedings of STOC’12.
[^4]: Some technical problems in definitions can be caused by a variable appearing in a constraint more than once – they do not add to the complexity of the problem considered so we disregard them here.
[^5]: Throughout the definition we identify $U^2$ with an appropriate power of the domain of $\Gamma$.
[^6]: Similarly we identify powers of $U$ with (usually higher) powers of the domain of $\Gamma$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we are concerned with the global existence and blowup of smooth solutions to the multi-dimensional compressible Euler equations with time-depending damping $$\left\{ \enspace
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_t\rho+\opdiv(\rho u)=0,\\
&{\partial}_t(\rho u)+\opdiv\left(\rho u\otimes u+p\,{\textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_d\right)=-{\alpha}(t)\rho u,\\
&\rho(0,x)=\bar \rho+{\varepsilon}\rho_0(x),\quad u(0,x)={\varepsilon}u_0(x),
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $x=(x_1, \cdots, x_d)\in\Bbb R^d$ $(d=2,3)$, the frictional coefficient is ${\alpha}(t)=\frac{\mu}{(1+t)^{\lambda}}$ with ${\lambda}\ge0$ and $\mu>0$, $\bar\rho>0$ is a constant, $\rho_0,u_0 \in C_0^\infty({\mathbb R}^d)$, $(\rho_0,u_0)\not\equiv 0$, $\rho(0,x)>0$, and ${\varepsilon}>0$ is sufficiently small. One can totally divide the range of ${\lambda}\ge0$ and $\mu>0$ into the following four cases:
Case 1: $0\le{\lambda}<1$, $\mu>0$ for $d=2,3$;
Case 2: ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu>3-d$ for $d=2,3$;
Case 3: ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu\le 3-d$ for $d=2$;
Case 4: ${\lambda}>1$, $\mu>0$ for $d=2,3$.
We show that there exists a global $C^{\infty}-$smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ in Case 1, and Case 2 with $\opcurl u_0\equiv 0$, while in Case 3 and Case 4, in general, the solution $(\rho, u)$ blows up in finite time. Therefore, ${\lambda}=1$ and $\mu=3-d$ appear to be the critical power and critical value, respectively, for the global existence of small amplitude smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ in $d-$dimensional compressible Euler equations with time-depending damping.
**Keywords.** Compressible Euler equations, damping, time-weighted energy inequality, Klainerman-Sobolev inequality, blowup, hypergeometric function.
**2010 Mathematical Subject Classification.** 35L70, 35L65, 35L67, 76N15.
author:
- |
Fei Hou$^{1, *}$ Huicheng Yin$^{2, }$[^1]\
\[12pt\] [1. Department of Mathematics and IMS, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China]{}\
[2. School of Mathematical Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China]{}
title: 'On the global existence and blowup of smooth solutions to the multi-dimensional compressible Euler equations with time-depending damping'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we are concerned with the global existence and blowup of $C^{\infty}-$smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ to the multi-dimensional compressible Euler equations with time-depending damping $$\label{euler-eqn}
\left\{ \enspace
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_t\rho+\opdiv(\rho u)=0,\\
&{\partial}_t(\rho u)+\opdiv(\rho u\otimes u+p\,{\textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_d)=-{\alpha}(t)\rho u,\\
&\rho(0,x)=\bar \rho+{\varepsilon}\rho_0(x),\quad u(0,x)={\varepsilon}u_0(x),
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $x=(x_1,\cdots,x_d)\in{\mathbb R}^d$, $d=2,3$, $\rho$, $u=(u_1,\cdots,u_d)$, and $p$ stand for the density, velocity and pressure, respectively, ${\textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_d$ is the $d\times d$ identity matrix, the frictional coefficient is ${\alpha}(t)=\frac{\mu}{(1+t)^{\lambda}}$ with ${\lambda}\ge0$ and $\mu>0$, and $u_0=(u_{1,0},\cdots,u_{d,0})$. The state equation of the gases is described by $p(\rho)=A\rho^{{\gamma}}$, where $A>0$ and ${\gamma}>1$ are constants. In addition, $\bar\rho>0$ is a constant, $\rho_0,u_0\in C_0^\infty({\mathbb R}^d)$, $\supp\rho_0,\supp u_0 \subseteq \{x\colon|x|\le M\}$, $(\rho_0, u_0)\not\equiv 0$, $\rho(0,x)>0$, and ${\varepsilon}>0$ is sufficiently small. For the physical background of , it can be found in [@Da] and the references therein.
For $\mu=0$ in ${\alpha}(t)$, is the standard compressible Euler equation. It is well known that smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ of will generally blow up in finite time. For examples, for a special class of initial data $(\rho(0,x), u(0,x))$, Sideris [@Sideris85] has proved that the smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ of in three space dimensions can develop singularities in finite time, and Rammaha in [@Rammaha89] has proved a blowup result in two space dimensions. For more extensive literature on the blowup results and the blowup mechanism for $(\rho, u)$, see [@Alinhac93; @Alinhac99a; @Alinhac99b; @Chr07; @CM14; @CL15; @DWY16; @Sideris97; @Speck14; @Yin04] and the references therein.
For ${\lambda}=0$ in ${\alpha}(t)$, it has been shown that admits a global smooth solution $(\rho, u)$, moreover, the long-term behavior of the solution $(\rho,u)$ has been established, see [@HL92; @HS96; @KY04; @Nish; @PZ09; @STW03; @TW12; @WY01; @WY07]. In particular, in [@STW03], the authors showed that the vorticity of velocity $u$ decays to zero exponentially in time $t$.
For $\mu>0$ and ${\lambda}>0$ in ${\alpha}(t)$, one naturally asks: does the smooth solution of blow up in finite time or does it exist globally? For the case of $\opcurl u_0\equiv0$, in [@HWY15], we have studied this problem in three space dimensions and proved that for $0\le{\lambda}\le1$ and $\mu>0$ there exists a global smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ of and while for ${\lambda}>1$, in general, the solution will blow up in finite time. In this paper, we will remove the assumption $\opcurl u_0\equiv0$ in [@HWY15] and systematically study this problem both in two and three space dimensions.
Obviously, one can divide ${\lambda}\ge0$, $\mu>0$ into four cases:
[**Case 1**]{}: $0\le{\lambda}<1$, $\mu>0$ for $d=2,3$;
[**Case 2**]{}: ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu>3-d$, for $d=2,3$;
[**Case 3**]{}: ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu\le 3-d$ for $d=2$;
[**Case 4**]{}: ${\lambda}>1$, $\mu>0$ for $d=2,3$.
0.1 true cm At first, we state the global existence results in this paper.
0.1 true cm
\[thm1\] If $0\le{\lambda}<1$ and $\mu>0$, then for small ${\varepsilon}>0$, admits a global $C^\infty-$ smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ which fulfills $\rho>0$ and which is uniformly bounded for $t\ge0$ together with all its derivatives. In addition, the vorticity $\opcurl u$ and its derivatives decay to zero in the rate $e^{-\frac{\mu}{3(1-{\lambda})}[(1+t)^{1-{\lambda}}-1]}$, where $\opcurl u={\partial}_1u_2-{\partial}_2u_1$ for $d=2$, and $\opcurl u=({\partial}_2u_3-{\partial}_3u_2, {\partial}_3u_1-{\partial}_1u_3, {\partial}_1u_2-{\partial}_2u_1)^T$ for $d=3$.
0.1 true cm
\[thm2\] If ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu>3-d$ and $\opcurl u_0\equiv 0$, then for small ${\varepsilon}>0$, admits a global $C^\infty-$ smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ which fulfills $\rho>0$ and which is uniformly bounded for $t\ge0$ together with all its derivatives.
Next we concentrate on Case 3 and Case 4. As in [@Rammaha89], we introduce the two functions $$\begin{aligned}
q_0(l)&\defeq \int_{x_1>l}(x_1-l)^2\left(\rho(0,x)-\bar\rho\right)dx, \\
q_1(l)&\defeq 2\int_{x_1>l}(x_1-l)(\rho u_1)(0,x)\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ Before stating our blowup result for problem , we require to introduce a special hypergeometric function $\Psi(a,b,c;z)$, where the constants $a$ and $b$ satisfy $a+b=1$ and $$ab=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\mu{\lambda}}{2}, && {\lambda}>1, \\
&\frac\mu2(1-\frac\mu2), && {\lambda}=1,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ $c\in\Bbb R^+$, the variable $z\in\Bbb R$, and $$\Psi(a,b,c;z)={\displaystyle}\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}{\frac}{(a)_n(b)_n}{n!(c)_n}z^n$$ with $(a)_n=a(a+1)\cdot\cdot\cdot(a+n-1)$ and $(a)_0=1$. It is known from [@EMOT] that $\Psi(a,b,c;z)$ is an analytic function of $z$ for $z\in(-1, 1)$ and $\Psi(a,b,c;0)=\Psi(a+1,b+1,c;0)=1$. In addition, there exists a small constant ${\delta}_0\in(0,1)$ depending on $\mu$ and ${\lambda}$ such that for $-\frac{{\delta}_0}{2}\le z\le 0$, $$\label{Psi-bound}
\frac12 \le \Psi(a,b,1;z), \Psi(a+1,b+1,2;z) \le \frac32.$$
\[thm3\] Suppose $\supp\rho_0,\supp u_0\subseteq \{x\colon|x|\le M\}$ and let $$\begin{aligned}
q_0(l)&>0, \label{q0-positive}\\
q_1(l)&\ge0 \label{q1-positive}\end{aligned}$$ hold for all $l\in ({\tilde}M, M)$, where ${\tilde}M$ is some fixed constant satisfying $0\le {\tilde}M<M$. Moreover, we assume that there exist two constants $M_0$ and $\Lambda$ with $\max\{{\tilde}M, M-{\delta}_0\}\le M_0<M$ and $\Lambda\ge 3ab$ such that $$\label{+condition}
q_1(l) \ge \Lambda q_0(l)$$ holds for all $l\in (M_0, M)$. If ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu\le1$ for $d=2$ or ${\lambda}>1$, $\mu>0$ for $d=2,3$, then there exists an ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ such that, for $0<{\varepsilon}\le{\varepsilon}_0$, the lifespan $T_{\varepsilon}$ of the smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ of is finite.
Our results in Theorem \[thm1\]-\[thm3\] are strongly motivated by considering the 1-D Burgers equation with time-depending damping term $$\label{burgers-eqn}
\left\{ \enspace
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_t v+v{\partial}_x v=-\,{\displaystyle}\frac{\mu}{(1+t)^{\lambda}}\,v,\qquad (t,x)\in{\mathbb R}_+\times{\mathbb R},\\
&v(0,x)={\varepsilon}v_0(x),
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where ${\lambda}\ge0$ and $\mu>0$ are constants, $v_0\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R})$, $v_0\not\equiv 0$, and ${\varepsilon}>0$ is sufficiently small. One may directly obtain that by the method of characteristics $$\left\{ \enspace
\begin{aligned}
&T_{{\varepsilon}}=\infty, & \text{if $0\le{\lambda}<1$ or ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu>1$,}\\
&T_{{\varepsilon}}<\infty, & \text{if ${\lambda}>1$ or ${\lambda}=1$, $0<\mu\le 1$,}
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $T_{{\varepsilon}}$ is the lifespan of the smooth solution $v$ of . Especially in the case of $0\le{\lambda}<1$, $v$ exponentially decays to zero with respect to the time $t$. This means that ${\lambda}=1$ and $\mu=1$ appear to be the critical power and critical value respectively, for the global existence of smooth solution $v$ of .
For the three dimensional problem and the case ${\lambda}=0$ in ${\alpha}(t)$, the authors in [@STW03] proved that the fluid vorticity decays to zero exponentially in time, while the solution $(\rho, u)$ does not decay exponentially. In [**Case 1**]{} of $0\le{\lambda}<1$ and $\mu>0$, we have precisely proved that the vorticity $\opcurl u$ decays to zero in the rate $e^{-\frac{\mu}{3(1-{\lambda})}[(1+t)^{1-{\lambda}}-1]}$ in Theorem \[thm1\].
In Theorem \[thm2\], we pose the assumption of $\opcurl u_0\equiv 0$ for [**Case 2**]{}. If not, it seems difficult for us to obtain the uniform control on the vorticity $\opcurl u$ by our method. Namely, so far we do not know whether the assumption of $\opcurl u_0\equiv 0$ can be removed in order to obtain the global existence of $(\rho, u)$ in [**Case 2**]{}.
It is not hard to find a large number of initial data $(\rho,u)(0,x)$ such that - are satisfied. For instance, choosing $\rho_0(x)>0$ and $u_{1,0}(x)=x_1\rho_0(x)\Lambda/\bar\rho$, then we get -.
\[rem1.6\] In [@Sideris85] and , the authors have shown the formation of singularities in multi-dimensional compressible Euler equations (corresponding $\mu=0$ in ) under the assumptions of -. However, in order to prove the blowup result of smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ to problem and overcome the difficulty arisen by the time-depending frictional coefficient ${\frac}{\mu}{(1+t)^{\lambda}}$ with $\mu>0$ and ${\lambda}\ge1$, we pose an extra assumption except -, which leads to the non-negativity lower bound of $P(t,l)$ in so that two ordinary differential blowup inequalities - can be established. One can see more details in $\S 5$.
If the damping term ${\alpha}(t)\rho u$ in is replaced by $({\alpha}_1(t)\rho u_1,\cdots,{\alpha}_d(t)\rho u_d)^T$ with ${\alpha}_i(t)=\frac{\mu_i}{(1+t)^{{\lambda}_i}}$ ($i=1,\cdots,d$), and there exists some $i_0$ $(1\le i_0\le d)$ such that ${\lambda}_{i_0}$ and $\mu_{i_0}$ satisfy [**Case 3**]{} or [**Case 4**]{}. In this case, one can define the new quantities $$\begin{aligned}
q_0(l)&= \int_{x_{i_0}>l}(x_{i_0}-l)^2\left(\rho(0,x)-\bar\rho\right)dx, \\
q_1(l)&= 2\int_{x_{i_0}>l}(x_{i_0}-l)(\rho u_2)(0,x)\,dx\end{aligned}$$ and $$P(t,l)=\int_{x_{i_0}>l}(x_{i_0}-l)^2\left(\rho(t,x)-\bar\rho\right)dx$$ instead of the ones in - and , respectively, we then obtain an analogous result in Theorem \[thm3\] by applying the same procedure in $\S 5$.
Let us indicate the proofs of Theorems \[thm1\]-\[thm3\]. Without loss of generality, from now on we assume that $\bar c=c(\bar\rho)=1$, where $c(\rho)=\sqrt{P'(\rho)}$ is the sound speed. At first, we reformulate problem . Set $$\label{theta-def}
\theta \defeq \frac1{{\gamma}-1}(A{\gamma}\rho^{{\gamma}-1}-1)=\frac1{{\gamma}-1}(c^2(\rho)-1).$$ Then problem can be rewritten as $$\label{euler-reform}
\left\{ \enspace
\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_t\theta+u\cdot\nabla\theta+(1+({\gamma}-1)\theta)\opdiv u=0, \\
&{\partial}_tu+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{{\lambda}}}u+u\cdot\nabla u+\nabla\theta=0, \\
&\theta(0,x)=\frac{1}{{\gamma}-1}[(1+\frac{{\varepsilon}\rho_0(x)}{\bar\rho})^{{\gamma}-1}-1]
\defeq {\varepsilon}\theta_0(x)+{\varepsilon}^2g(x,{\varepsilon}), \\
& u(0,x)={\varepsilon}u_0(x),
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $\nabla=({\partial}_1,\cdots,{\partial}_d)=({\partial}_{x_1},\cdots,{\partial}_{x_d})$, $\theta_0(x)=\frac{\rho_0(x)}{\bar\rho}$ and $g(x,{\varepsilon})=({\gamma}-2)\frac{\rho_0^2(x)}{\bar\rho^2}\int_0^1 (1+\frac{\sigma{\varepsilon}\rho_0(x)}{\bar\rho})^{{\gamma}-3}(1-\sigma)\,d\sigma$. Note that $g(x,{\varepsilon})$ is smooth in $(x,{\varepsilon})$ and has compact support in $x$.
To prove Theorem \[thm1\], we introduce such a time-weighted energy $$\label{energy1}
\mathcal{E}_k[\Phi](t) \defeq (1+t)^{\lambda}\sum_{1\le|{\alpha}|+j\le k}
\|{\partial}_t^j\nabla^{\alpha}\Phi(t,\cdot)\|+\|\Phi(t,\cdot)\|,$$ where $k$ is a fixed positive number, and $\|\cdot\|$ stands for the $L_x^2$ norm on ${\mathbb R}^d$, i.e., $$\|\Phi(t,\cdot)\| \defeq \|\Phi(t,x)\|_{L_x^2({\mathbb R}^d)}=
\left(\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}|\Phi(t,x)|^2dx\right)^\frac12.$$ Denote by $$\label{energy+}
\mathcal{E}_k[\Phi_1,\Phi_2](t) \defeq \mathcal{E}_k[\Phi_1](t)+\mathcal{E}_k[\Phi_2](t).$$ For $0\le{\lambda}<1$ and $\mu>0$, one can choose a constant $t_0$ such that $$\label{critical-time}
(1+t_0)^{1-{\lambda}}=\max\,\{\frac2\mu, 1\},$$ so that problem has a local solution $(\theta, u)\in C^{\infty}([0, t_0]\times{\mathbb R}^3)$ by the smallness of ${\varepsilon}>0$ (see the local existence result for the multidimensional hyperbolic systems in [@Ma]). Making use of the vorticity $\opcurl u$ and the conditions of $0\le{\lambda}<1$ and $\mu>0$ in [**Case 1**]{}, and simultaneously taking the delicate analysis on the system , the uniform time-weighted energy estimates for $\mathcal{E}_4[\theta, u](t)$ are obtained. This, together with the continuity argument, yields the proof of Theorem \[thm1\].
Since we have proved Theorem \[thm2\] in [@HWY15] for the [**Case 2**]{} with $\opcurl u_0\equiv 0$ in three space dimensions, we only require to focus on the proof of Theorem \[thm2\] in two space dimensions. For this purpose, we define another energy $$\label{energy2}
E_k[\Phi](t) \defeq (1+t)^\frac12\sum_{0\le|{\alpha}|\le k-1}
\|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\Phi(t,\cdot)\|+(1+t)^{-\frac12}\|\Phi(t,\cdot)\|,$$ where ${\partial}=({\partial}_t, {\partial}_{x_1}, {\partial}_{x_2})$, $Z=(Z_0, Z_1, \dots, Z_6)=({\partial}, S, R, H)$ with the scaling field $S=t{\partial}_t+x_1{\partial}_1+x_2{\partial}_2$, the rotation field $R=x_1{\partial}_2-x_2{\partial}_1$, the Lorentz fields $H=(H_1, H_2)=(x_1{\partial}_t+t{\partial}_1, x_2{\partial}_t+t{\partial}_2)$ and $Z^{\alpha}=Z_0^{{\alpha}_0}Z_1^{{\alpha}_1}\cdots Z_6^{{\alpha}_6}$. From we may derive a damped wave equation of $\theta$ as follows $$\label{damped-wave}
{\partial}_t^2\theta+\frac\mu{1+t}{\partial}_t\theta-\Delta\theta=Q(\theta,u),$$ where the expression of $Q(\theta,u)$ will be given in below. Thanks to $\opcurl u\equiv0$, we can get the estimates of velocity $u$ from the equations in (see Lemma \[lem-Zvelocity\]). By $\mu>1$ and a rather technical analysis on the damped wave equation , we eventually show in $\S 4$ that $E_5[\theta,u](t) \le \frac12 \,K_3{\varepsilon}$ (see for the definition of $E_5[\theta,u](t)$) holds when $E_5[\theta,u](t) \le K_3{\varepsilon}$ is assumed for some suitably large constant $K_3>0$ and small ${\varepsilon}>0$. Based on this and the continuity argument, the global existence of $(\theta, u)$ and then Theorem \[thm2\] in two space dimensions are established for ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu>1$ and $\opcurl u_0\equiv0$.
To prove the blowup result in Theorem \[thm3\], as in [@Rammaha89; @Sideris85], we shall derive some blowup-type second-order ordinary differential inequalities in $\S 5$. From this and assumptions -, an upper bound of the lifespan $T_{{\varepsilon}}$ is derived by making use of ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu\le 3-d$ or ${\lambda}>1$, and then the proof of Theorem \[thm3\] is completed.
Here we point out that in [@HWY15], for the 3-d [**irrotational**]{} compressible Euler equations, it has been shown that for $0\le{\lambda}\le1$, there exists a global $C^{\infty}-$smooth small amplitude solution $(\rho, u)$, while for ${\lambda}>1$, the smooth solution $(\rho, u)$ generally blows up in finite time. This means that we have extended the global existence and blowup results in [@HWY15] for the 3-D irrotational flows to the 2-D and 3-D full Euler systems.
In the whole paper, we shall use the following convention:
- $C$ will denote a generic positive constant which is independent of $t$ and ${\varepsilon}$.
- $A\ls B$ or $B\gt A$ means $A\le CB$.
- $r=|x|=\sqrt{x_1^2+\cdots+x_d^2}$, $\sigma_-(t,x)\defeq
\sqrt{1+(r-t)^2}$.
- $\|\Phi(t,\cdot)\| \defeq \|\Phi(t,x)\|_{L_x^2({\mathbb R}^d)}$, $|\Phi(t,\cdot)|_\infty \defeq |\Phi(t,x)|_{L_x^\infty}=
{\displaystyle}\sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}^d}|\Phi(t,x)|$.
- $Z$ denotes one of the Klainerman vector fields $\{{\partial}, S, R, H\}$ on ${\mathbb R}_+\times{\mathbb R}^2$, where ${\partial}=({\partial}_t, {\partial}_{x_1}, {\partial}_{x_2})$, $S=t{\partial}_t+x_1{\partial}_1+x_2{\partial}_2$, $R=x_1{\partial}_2-x_2{\partial}_1$ and $H=(H_1, H_2)=
(x_1{\partial}_t+t{\partial}_1, x_2{\partial}_t+t{\partial}_2)$.
- For two vector fields $X$ and $Y$, $[X,Y] \defeq XY-YX$ denotes the Lie bracket.
- Greek letters ${\alpha},\beta,\cdots$ denote multiple indices, i.e., ${\alpha}=({\alpha}_0,\cdots,{\alpha}_m)$, and $|{\alpha}|={\alpha}_0+\cdots+{\alpha}_m$ denotes its length, where ${\alpha}_i$ is some non-negative integer for all $i=0,\cdots,m$.
- For two multiple indices ${\alpha}$ and $\beta$, $\beta\le{\alpha}$ means $\beta_i\le{\alpha}_i$ for all $i=0,\cdots,m$ while $\beta<{\alpha}$ means $\beta\le{\alpha}$ and $\beta_i<{\alpha}_i$ for some $i$.
- For the differential operator $O=(O_0,\cdots,O_m)$, for example, $O=({\partial}_t,
{\partial}_{x_1},\cdots,{\partial}_{x_d})$ in $\S 3$ and $O=
({\partial}_t, {\partial}_{x_1}, {\partial}_{x_2}, S, R, H)$ in $\S 4$, denote $O^{\alpha}\defeq O_0^{{\alpha}_0}\cdots O_m^{{\alpha}_m}$, $O^{\le{\alpha}}
\defeq {\displaystyle}\sum_{0\le\beta\le{\alpha}}O^\beta$, $O^{<{\alpha}} \defeq {\displaystyle}\sum_
{0\le\beta<{\alpha}}O^\beta$ and $O^{\le k} \defeq {\displaystyle}\sum_{0\le|{\alpha}|\le k}
O^{\alpha}$ with $k$ is an integer.
- Leibniz’s rule: $O^{\alpha}(\Phi\Psi)={\displaystyle}\sum_{0\le\beta\le{\alpha}}C_{{\alpha},\beta}
O^\beta\Phi O^{{\alpha}-\beta}\Psi$ will be abbreviated as\
$O^{\alpha}(\Phi\Psi)={\displaystyle}\sum_{0\le\beta\le{\alpha}}O^\beta\Phi O^{{\alpha}-\beta}\Psi$.
- $\Xi$ is the solution of ${\displaystyle}\Xi'(t) = \frac{\mu}{(1+t)^{\lambda}}\,
\Xi(t)$ with $\Xi(0)=1$, i.e., $$\label{Xi-def}
\Xi(t)\defeq \begin{cases} e^{\frac{\mu}{1-{\lambda}}[(1+t)^{1-{\lambda}}-1]}, &
{\lambda}\ge 0,\,{\lambda}\neq1,\\ (1+t)^\mu, & {\lambda}=1. \end{cases}$$
- $c(\bar\rho)=1$ will be assumed throughout (otherwise, introduce $X=x/c(\bar\rho)$ as new space coordinate if necessary).
Some Preliminaries {#section2}
==================
At first, we derive the scalar equation of $\theta$ in . It follows from the first equation in that $$\label{dtdivu1}
{\partial}_t\opdiv u=-\frac1{(1+({\gamma}-1)\theta)} ({\partial}_t^2\theta+u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_t\theta
+{\partial}_tu\cdot\nabla\theta+({\gamma}-1){\partial}_t\theta\opdiv u).$$ Taking divergence on the second equation in yields $$\label{dtdivu2}
\opdiv{\partial}_t u+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}\opdiv u+\Delta\theta+
u\cdot\nabla\opdiv u+\sum_{i,j=1}^d {\partial}_iu_j{\partial}_ju_i=0,$$ where $\Delta={\partial}_1^2+\cdots+{\partial}_d^2$. Substituting into yields the damped wave equation of $\theta$ $$\label{theta-eqn}
{\partial}_t^2\theta+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}{\partial}_t\theta-\Delta\theta=Q(\theta,u),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Q(\theta,u) &\defeq Q_1(\theta,u)+Q_2(\theta,u), \label{Q-def}\\
Q_1(\theta,u) &\defeq ({\gamma}-1)\theta\Delta\theta-\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}
u\cdot\nabla\theta-2u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_t\theta-\sum_{i,j=1}^d u_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2\theta \label{Q1-def},\\
Q_2(\theta,u) &\defeq -\sum_{i,j=1}^d u_i{\partial}_iu_j{\partial}_j\theta-{\partial}_tu\cdot\nabla\theta
+(1+({\gamma}-1)\theta) (\sum_{i,j=1}^d {\partial}_iu_j{\partial}_ju_i+({\gamma}-1)|\opdiv u|^2). \label{Q2-def}\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\label{vorticity-def}
w\defeq \opcurl u=
\begin{cases}
{\partial}_1u_2-{\partial}_2u_1, & d=2, \\
({\partial}_2u_3-{\partial}_3u_2, {\partial}_3u_1-{\partial}_1u_3, {\partial}_1u_2-{\partial}_2u_1)^T, & d=3.
\end{cases}$$ Then the second equation in implies that for $d=2$ $$\label{2dvorticity-eqn}
{\partial}_tw+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}w+u\cdot\nabla w+w\opdiv u=0$$ and for $d=3$ $$\label{3dvorticity-eqn}
{\partial}_tw+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}w+u\cdot\nabla w+w\opdiv u=w\cdot\nabla u.$$ To prove Theorem \[thm1\]-\[thm2\], we require to introduce the following lemma, which is easily shown.
\[lem-divcurl\] Let $U(x)=(U_1(x),\cdots,U_d(x))$ be a vector-valued function with compact support on ${\mathbb R}^d$ ($d=2,3$), then there holds that $$\label{divcurl-estimate}
\|\nabla U\|\le \|\opcurl U\|+\|\opdiv U\|.$$
The following Sobolev type inequality can be found in [@Kl87].
\[lem-Klainerman-ineq\] Let $\Phi(t,x)$ be a function on ${\mathbb R}^{1+2}$, then there exists a constant $C$ such that $$\label{Klainerman-ineq}
(1+t+r)\,\sigma_-(t,x)\,|\Phi(t,x)| \le C\sum_{|{\alpha}|\le2} \|Z^{\alpha}\Phi(t,\cdot)\|^2.$$
In addition, we have
\[lem-weight\] Let $\Phi(t,x)$ be a function on ${\mathbb R}^{1+2}$ and assume $\supp\Phi\subseteq\{(t,x)\colon |x|\le t+M\}$, then there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for $\nu\in (-\infty,1)$ $$\label{weight-pointwise}
|\sigma_-^{\nu-1}(t,\cdot)\Phi(t,\cdot)|_\infty \le C|\sigma_-^{\,\nu}
(t,\cdot)\nabla\Phi(t,\cdot)|_\infty$$ and for $\ell\neq 1$ $$\label{weight-L2}
\|\sigma_-^{-\ell}(t,\cdot)\Phi(t,\cdot)\| \le
C(t+M)^{(1-\ell)_+}\,\|\nabla\Phi(t,\cdot)\|,$$ where $(1-\ell)_+=\max\,\{1-\ell, 0\}$ and $\ell\in{\mathbb R}$.
For the purpose of completeness, we prove - here. In fact, for the proof of , one can also see [@Alinhac93 Lemma 2.2]. By introducing the polar coordinate $(r,\phi)$ such that $x_1=r\cos\phi$ and $x_2=r\sin\phi$, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t,x)&=\Phi(t,r\cos\phi,r\sin\phi)=-\int_r^{t+M} \frac{d}{d\xi}\,
\Phi(t,\xi\cos\phi,\xi\sin\phi) \,d\xi {\nonumber}\\
&=-\int_r^{t+M} (\cos\phi\,{\partial}_1\Phi(t,\xi\cos\phi,\xi\sin\phi)+
\sin\phi\,{\partial}_2\Phi(t,\xi\cos\phi,\xi\sin\phi) ) \,d\xi. \label{2.14}\end{aligned}$$ Together with the mean value theorem, this yields $$\Phi(t,x) \ls |\sigma_-^{\,\nu}(t,\cdot)\nabla\Phi(t,\cdot)|_\infty
\int_r^{t+M} (1+|t-\xi|)^{-\nu} \,d\xi,$$ which immediately derives . On the other hand, applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to derives $$|\Phi(t,r\cos\phi,r\sin\phi)|^2 \le \left( \int_r^{t+M}
|\nabla\Phi(t,\xi\cos\phi,\xi\sin\phi)|^2 \,\xi\,d\xi\right)
\left( \int_r^{t+M} \frac1\xi \,d\xi\right),$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\frac{\Phi(t,\cdot)}{(t+2M-r)^\ell}\right\|^2
&= \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{t+M} \frac{|\Phi(t,r\cos\phi,r\sin\phi)|^2}
{(t+2M-r)^{2\ell}} \,r\,drd\phi {\nonumber}\\
&\le \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{t+M} \frac{r\int_r^{t+M} \frac1\xi \,d\xi}
{(t+2M-r)^{2\ell}} \,dr \int_r^{t+M} |\nabla\Phi(t,\xi\cos\phi,
\xi\sin\phi)|^2 \,\xi\,d\xi d\phi {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \int_0^{t+M} \frac{r\log\frac{t+M}r}{(t+2M-r)^{2\ell}} \,dr
\,\|\nabla\Phi(t,\cdot)\|^2. \label{2.15}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, it follows from direct computation that $$\label{2.16}
\int_0^\frac{t+M}{2}\, \frac{r\log\frac{t+M}r}{(t+2M-r)^{2\ell}} \,dr
\ls \frac1{(t+M)^{2\ell}} \int_0^\frac{t+M}{2}\, r\log\frac{t+M}r \,dr
\ls (t+M)^{2(1-\ell)}$$ and $$\label{2.17}
\int_\frac{t+M}{2}^{t+M}\, \frac{r\log\frac{t+M}r}{(t+2M-r)^{2\ell}}\,dr
=\int_0^\frac{t+M}{2}\, \frac{(t+M-\xi)\log\frac{t+M}{t+M-\xi} }{(M+\xi)^{2\ell}} \,d\xi
\le \int_0^\frac{t+M}{2} \,\frac\xi{(M+\xi)^{2\ell}} \,d\xi,$$ where we have used the fact of $\frac{t+M}{t+M-\xi}=1+\frac\xi{t+M-\xi} \le e^\frac\xi{t+M-\xi}$ in the last inequality.
Substituting - into and taking direct computation yield . Thus, the proof of Lemma \[lem-weight\] is completed.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. {#section3}
=====================
Throughout this section, we will always assume that $\mathcal{E}_4[\theta,u](t) \le K_1{\varepsilon}$ holds, where the definition of $\mathcal{E}_4[\theta,u](t)$ has been given in and . Together with the standard Sobolev embedding theorem, this yields $$\label{3.1}
|(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)|_\infty+(1+t)^{\lambda}|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le1}(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)|_\infty \ls K_1{\varepsilon}.$$ To prove Theorem \[thm1\], we now carry out the following parts.
Estimates of velocity $u$ and vorticity $w$.
--------------------------------------------
The following lemma is an application of Lemma \[lem-divcurl\] and .
\[lem-velocity1\] Under assumption , for all $t>0$, one has $$\label{3.2}
\mathcal{E}_4[u](t)\ls \|u(t,\cdot)\|+(1+t)^{\lambda}\left(\|{\partial}^{\le3} w(t,\cdot)\|+\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(t,\cdot)\|\right),$$ where the definition of $w$ has been given in .
By the equations in , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\opdiv u &= -\frac{{\partial}_t\theta+u\cdot\nabla\theta}{1+({\gamma}-1)\theta}, \label{3.3} \\
{\partial}_tu &= -\left(u\cdot\nabla u+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}u+\nabla\theta\right). \label{3.4}\end{aligned}$$ Taking $U={\partial}^{\alpha}u$ with $|{\alpha}|\le3$ in , we then arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla{\partial}^{\le3}& u(t,\cdot)\|
\ls \|{\partial}^{\le3} w(t,\cdot)\|+\|{\partial}^{\le3}\opdiv u(t,\cdot)\| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \|{\partial}^{\le3} w(t,\cdot)\|+\|{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+ K_1{\varepsilon}\left( \|\nabla{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+
(1+t)^{-{\lambda}}\|{\partial}^{\le3} u(t,\cdot)\|\right), \label{3.5}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used and in the last inequality. Taking the $L^2$ norm of ${\partial}^{\alpha}$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}u(t,\cdot)\|
&\ls \|\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+(1+K_1{\varepsilon})(1+t)^{-{\lambda}}
\|{\partial}^{\le{\alpha}} u(t,\cdot)\| +K_1{\varepsilon}\|\nabla{\partial}^{\le{\alpha}} u(t,\cdot)\|. \label{3.6}\end{aligned}$$ Rewrite ${\partial}^{\alpha}={\partial}_t^k{\partial}_x^\beta$ with $0\le k+|\beta|\le3$. Summing up from $k=0$ to $k=3$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\le3} u(t,\cdot)\|
&\ls \|\nabla{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+(1+t)^{-{\lambda}}\|u(t,\cdot)\|
+K_1{\varepsilon}\|\nabla{\partial}^{\le3} u(t,\cdot)\|. \label{3.7}\end{aligned}$$ By the smallness of ${\varepsilon}>0$, we immediately derive from and . This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem-velocity1\].
The following lemma shows the estimate of velocity $u$ itself.
\[lem-velocity2\] Let $\mu>0$. Under assumption , for all $t>0$, it holds that $$\label{3.8}
\frac{d}{dt}\|(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\|^2+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}\|u(t,\cdot)\|^2
\ls (1+t)^{\lambda}|\theta(t,\cdot)|_\infty\|\nabla\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2.$$
Multiplying the second equation in by $u$ derives $$\label{3.9}
\frac12\,{\partial}_t|u|^2+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}|u|^2+u\cdot\nabla\theta=
-\frac12\,u\cdot\nabla|u|^2.$$ From the first equation in , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
u\cdot\nabla\theta &= \opdiv(\theta u)-\theta\opdiv u {\nonumber}\\
&= \opdiv(\theta u)+\theta({\partial}_t\theta+u\cdot\nabla\theta+
({\gamma}-1)\theta\opdiv u) {\nonumber}\\
&= \opdiv(\theta u+({\gamma}-1)\theta^2 u)+\frac12\,{\partial}_t|\theta|^2+
(3-2{\gamma})\theta\,u\cdot\nabla\theta. \label{3.10}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into and integrating it over ${\mathbb R}^d$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \frac{d}{dt}\|(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\|^2+\frac{2\mu}{(1+t)^{\lambda}}
\|u(t,\cdot)\|^2 {\nonumber}\\
&\ls |\theta(t,\cdot)|_\infty\|u(t,\cdot)\|\,\|\nabla\theta(t,\cdot)\|
+|\nabla u(t,\cdot)|_\infty\|u(t,\cdot)\|^2. \label{3.11}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into and applying $\mu>0$ and the smallness of ${\varepsilon}$, we derive . This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem-velocity2\].
Next lemma shows the estimates of vorticity $w$ and its derivatives.
\[lem-vorticity\] Let $\mu>0$. Under assumption , for all $t>0$, it holds that $$\label{3.12}
\frac{d}{dt}\|{\partial}^{\le3} w(t,\cdot)\|^2+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}
\|{\partial}^{\le3} w(t,\cdot)\|^2
\ls |{\partial}^{\le1} w(t,\cdot)|_\infty\, \|{\partial}^{\le3} w(t,\cdot)\|\,
\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3} u(t,\cdot)\|.$$
It follows from vorticity equation - that for $|{\alpha}|\le3$, $$\begin{aligned}
& {\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}w+\frac{\mu}{(1+t)^{\lambda}}{\partial}^{\alpha}w+u\cdot\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}w {\nonumber}\\
&= -\sum_{0<\beta\le{\alpha}}\left[{\partial}^\beta\left(\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}\right)
{\partial}^{{\alpha}-\beta} w+{\partial}^\beta u\cdot\nabla{\partial}^{{\alpha}-\beta} w\right]
-{\partial}^{\alpha}(w\opdiv u-w\cdot\nabla u),\label{3.13}\end{aligned}$$ here we point out that the last term $w\cdot\nabla u$ in does not appear when $d=2$ . Multiplying by ${\partial}^{\alpha}w$ and integrating it over ${\mathbb R}^d$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \frac{d}{dt}\|{\partial}^{\alpha}w(t,\cdot)\|^2+\frac{2\mu}{(1+t)^{\lambda}}
\|{\partial}^{\alpha}w(t,\cdot)\|^2 {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \frac1{(1+t)^{1+{\lambda}}}\|{\partial}^{\alpha}w(t,\cdot)\|\,\|{\partial}^{<{\alpha}}w(t,\cdot)\|+
|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le1} u(t,\cdot)|_\infty \|{\partial}^{\le{\alpha}}w(t,\cdot)\|^2 {\nonumber}\\
&\quad +|{\partial}^{\le1}w(t,\cdot)|_\infty \|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3} u(t,\cdot)\|\,
\|{\partial}^{\le{\alpha}}w(t,\cdot)\|. \label{3.14}\end{aligned}$$ Note that when ${\alpha}=0$, the firs term $\|{\partial}^{\alpha}w(t,\cdot)\|\,\|{\partial}^{<{\alpha}}w(t,\cdot)\|$ in the right hand side of does not appear. Summing up from $|{\alpha}|=0$ to $|{\alpha}|=3$ and applying , $\mu>0$ and the smallness of ${\varepsilon}$, we then obtain . This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem-vorticity\].
\[rmk3.1\] The proof of Lemma \[lem-velocity2\] and Lemma \[lem-vorticity\] only depends on , $\mu>0$ and the smallness of ${\varepsilon}$.
Estimates of $\theta$ and its derivatives.
------------------------------------------
The next lemma shows the global estimates of $\theta$ and its derivatives for $t>t_0$, where $t_0$ is defined in .
\[lem-thetaglobal\] Let $0\le{\lambda}<1$, $\mu>0$. Under assumption , for all $t>t_0$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \mathcal{E}_4^2[\theta](t)
+\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds {\nonumber}\\
& \ls \mathcal{E}_4^2[\theta](t_0)+K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t\left((1+s)^{-{\lambda}}
\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}^{\le3} w(s,\cdot)\|^2\right)\,ds. \label{3.15}\end{aligned}$$
Acting ${\partial}^{\alpha}$ with $|{\alpha}|\le3$ on both sides of equation shows $${\partial}_t^2{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta-\Delta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta
={\partial}^{\alpha}Q(\theta,u)+\sum_{\beta<{\alpha}} {\partial}^{{\alpha}-\beta}\left(\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}
\right) {\partial}_t{\partial}^\beta\theta.$$ Multiplying this by $2(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\mu(1+t)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta$ derives $$\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_t\left[(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2+\mu(1+t)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta
{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\frac{\mu^2}2|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2-\frac{\mu{\lambda}}{2}(1+t)^{{\lambda}-1}|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2\right] {\nonumber}\\
& +\left[\mu(1+t)^{\lambda}-2{\lambda}(1+t)^{2{\lambda}-1}\right]|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2-
\opdiv\left[\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\left(2(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta
+\mu(1+t)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right) \right]{\nonumber}\\
&= \left(2(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\mu(1+t)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right)
\left({\partial}^{\alpha}Q(\theta,u)+\sum_{\beta<{\alpha}} {\partial}^{{\alpha}-\beta}\left(
\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}\right) {\partial}_t{\partial}^\beta\theta\right) {\nonumber}\\
&\qquad +\frac{\mu{\lambda}(1-{\lambda})}{2}(1+t)^{{\lambda}-2}|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2. \label{3.16}\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to $0\le{\lambda}<1$, $\mu>0$ and the choice of $t_0$ (see ), for all $t>t_0$ one easily knows that for the term in the first square bracket of the second line in , $$\label{3.17}
\mu(1+t)^{\lambda}-2{\lambda}(1+t)^{2{\lambda}-1} \ge \mu(1-{\lambda})(1+t)^{\lambda}.$$ Furthermore, one gets that for the term in the square bracket of the first line in , $$\begin{aligned}
(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2+\mu(1+t)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta
{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\frac{\mu^2}{2}|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2-\frac{\mu{\lambda}}{2}(1+t)^{{\lambda}-1}|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2 \\
=(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}\left(\frac{1-{\lambda}}{3-{\lambda}}|{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2+|\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2\right)
+\frac{\mu^2(1-{\lambda})}{8}|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2 \\
+\left((1+t)^{\lambda}\sqrt\frac{2}{3-{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\frac\mu2\sqrt\frac{3-{\lambda}}{2}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right)^2
+\frac{\mu{\lambda}}{4}(\mu-2(1+t)^{{\lambda}-1})|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2,\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to $(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2+|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2$ for $0\le{\lambda}<1$ and $t>t_0$. Consequently, integrating over $[t_0,t]\times{\mathbb R}^d$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad (1+t)^{2{\lambda}}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2+\|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2
+\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds {\nonumber}\\
& \ls \mathcal{E}_4^2[\theta](t_0)+\int_{t_0}^t(1-{\lambda})(1+s)^{{\lambda}-2}\|\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds
+\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{<{\alpha}}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds {\nonumber}\\
& +\left|\int_{t_0}^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \left({\partial}^{\alpha}Q_1(\theta,u)+{\partial}^{\alpha}Q_2(\theta,u)\right) \left(2(1+s)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+
\mu(1+s)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right) \,dxds\right|. \label{3.18}\end{aligned}$$ Next we deal with the last term in the right hand side of . It follows from - and $|{\alpha}|\le3$ that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_{t_0}^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} {\partial}^{\alpha}Q_2(\theta,u) \left(2(1+s)^{2{\lambda}}
{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\mu(1+s)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right) \,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}(\theta,u)(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\left(\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2
+\|{\partial}^{\le3} w(s,\cdot)\|^2\right)\,ds
+K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t (1+s)^{-{\lambda}}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds. \label{3.19}\end{aligned}$$ Now we turn our attention to the term ${\partial}^{\alpha}Q_1(\theta,u)$. It is easy to get $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial}^{\alpha}Q_1(\theta,u) \defeq -{\partial}^{\alpha}\left(\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}u\cdot\nabla\theta\right)+({\gamma}-1)\theta\Delta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta {\nonumber}\\
-2u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta-\sum_{i,j=1}^d u_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+Q^{\alpha}_1(\theta,u). \label{3.20}\end{aligned}$$ One easily checks that still holds if ${\partial}^{\alpha}Q_2(\theta,u)$ is replaced by $Q^{\alpha}_1(\theta,u)$. In addition, for ${\alpha}=0$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_{t_0}^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \frac\mu{(1+s)^{\lambda}}u\cdot\nabla\theta
\left(2(1+s)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t\theta+\mu(1+s)^{\lambda}\theta\right) \,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \int_{t_0}^t \left(|\theta(s,\cdot)|_\infty \|u(s,\cdot)\|+(1+s)^{\lambda}|u(s,\cdot)|_\infty\|{\partial}_t\theta(s,\cdot)\|\right) \|\nabla\theta(s,\cdot)\|\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t \left( (1+s)^{-{\lambda}}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\right) \,ds, \label{3.21}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used again. If ${\alpha}>0$, by we find that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_{t_0}^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} {\partial}^{\alpha}\left(\frac\mu{(1+s)^{\lambda}}u\cdot\nabla\theta\right)
\left(2(1+s)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\mu(1+s)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right) \,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\left(\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2
+\|{\partial}^{\le3} w(s,\cdot)\|^2\right)\,ds+K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t (1+s)^{-{\lambda}}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds. \label{3.22}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, direct computation derives the following identities $$\begin{aligned}
(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}\theta\Delta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta=
\opdiv\left[(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}\theta\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right]
-(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}\nabla\theta\cdot\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta \\
-\frac12\,{\partial}_t\left[(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}\theta\,|\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2\right]
+{\lambda}(1+t)^{2{\lambda}-1}\theta\,|\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2+\frac12(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t\theta\,|\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2\end{aligned}$$ and $$(1+t)^{\lambda}\theta\Delta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta=\opdiv\left[(1+t)^{\lambda}\theta\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right]-(1+t)^{\lambda}(\theta\,
|\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2+\nabla\theta\cdot\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta).$$ Integrating these two identities over $[t_0,t]\times{\mathbb R}^d$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_{t_0}^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \theta\Delta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta \left(2
(1+s)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\mu(1+s)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right)\,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
& \ls K_1{\varepsilon}\left(\mathcal{E}_4^2[\theta](t)+\mathcal{E}_4^2[\theta](t_0)\right)
+K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds, \label{3.23}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used and ${\lambda}\le1$.
Analogously for the remaining items $u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta$ and ${\displaystyle}\sum_{i,j=1}^du_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta$ in ${\partial}^{\alpha}Q_1(\theta,u)$ (see ), direct computations show $$\begin{aligned}
2(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta=
& \opdiv\left[(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}u\,|{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2\right]
-(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}\opdiv u\,|{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2, \\
(1+t)^{\lambda}u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta=
& \opdiv\left[(1+t)^{\lambda}u\,{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right]
-(1+t)^{\lambda}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta(u\cdot\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\opdiv u\,
{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
2(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}u_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta=
&{\partial}_i\left[(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}u_iu_j{\partial}_j{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right]
+{\partial}_j\left[(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}u_iu_j{\partial}_i{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right] \\
& -(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\Big[{\partial}_i(u_iu_j){\partial}_j{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+
{\partial}_j(u_iu_j){\partial}_i{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\Big] \\
& -{\partial}_t\left[(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}u_iu_j{\partial}_i{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_j{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right]
+(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t(u_iu_j){\partial}_i{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_j{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta \\
& +2{\lambda}(1+t)^{2{\lambda}-1}u_iu_j{\partial}_i{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_j{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta, \\
(1+t)^{\lambda}u_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta=
& {\partial}_i\left[(1+t)^{\lambda}u_iu_j{\partial}_j{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right]
-(1+t)^{\lambda}{\partial}_j{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_i(u_iu_j{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_{t_0}^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \left(2u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta
+\sum_{i,j=1}^du_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right) \left(2(1+s)^{2{\lambda}}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta
+\mu(1+s)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right) \,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_1{\varepsilon}\left(\mathcal{E}_4^2[\theta](t)+\mathcal{E}_4^2[\theta](t_0)\right)
+K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t (1+s)^{-{\lambda}}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\quad +K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\left(\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2
+\|{\partial}^{\le3} w(s,\cdot)\|^2\right)\,ds. \label{3.24}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting - into yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad (1+t)^{2{\lambda}}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2+\|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2
+\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds {\nonumber}\\
& \ls \mathcal{E}_4^2[\theta](t_0)+K_1{\varepsilon}\,\mathcal{E}_4^2[\theta](t)
+\int_{t_0}^t(1-{\lambda})(1+s)^{{\lambda}-2}\|\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds+\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{<{\alpha}}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\quad +K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t(1+s)^{\lambda}\left(\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2
+\|{\partial}^{\le3} w(s,\cdot)\|^2\right)\,ds +K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t (1+s)^{-{\lambda}}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds. \label{3.25}\end{aligned}$$ Summing up from $|{\alpha}|=0$ to $|{\alpha}|=3$ and applying Gronwall’s inequality for ${\lambda}<1$ yield provided that ${\varepsilon}>0$ is small enough. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem-thetaglobal\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm1\].
--------------------------
First, we assume that $\mathcal{E}_4[\theta,u](t) \le K_1{\varepsilon}$ holds. Multiplying by $(1+t)^{2{\lambda}}$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \frac{d}{dt}\|(1+t)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\le3}w(t,\cdot)\|^2+\left(\mu
(1+t)^{\lambda}-2{\lambda}(1+t)^{2{\lambda}-1}\right)\|{\partial}^{\le3}w(t,\cdot)\|^2 {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_1{\varepsilon}(1+t)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}^{\le3}w(t,\cdot)\|\,\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3} u(t,\cdot)\|, \label{3.26}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used . In view of , the second term on the first line in is bounded below by $(1+t)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}^{\le3}w(t,\cdot)\|^2$. Integrating and over $[t_0,t]\times{\mathbb R}^d$ derives $$\label{3.27}
\|(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\|^2+\int_{t_0}^t (1+s)^{-{\lambda}}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds
\ls \|(\theta,u)(t_0,\cdot)\|^2+K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t (1+s)^{\lambda}\|\nabla\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \|(1+t)^{\lambda}{\partial}^{\le3}w(t,\cdot)\|^2+\int_{t_0}^t (1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}^{\le3}w(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \|{\partial}^{\le3}w(t_0,\cdot)\|^2+K_1{\varepsilon}\int_{t_0}^t (1+s)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3} u(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds. \label{3.28}\end{aligned}$$ Collecting , - with , we infer $\mathcal{E}_4[\theta,u](t) \le C_1\mathcal{E}_4[\theta,u](t_0)$. It follows from the local existence of the hyperbolic system that $\mathcal{E}_4[\theta,u](t_0) \le C_2{\varepsilon}$. Let $K_1=2C_1C_2$ and choose ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small. Then, we conclude that $\mathcal{E}_4[\theta,u](t) \le \frac12 K_1{\varepsilon}$, which implies that admits a global solution $(\theta,u)$ for Case 1. It follows from the definition of $\theta$ (i.e. ) that there exists a global solution $(\rho,u)$ to for Case 1.
Next we show $$\label{vorticity-decay}
\|{\partial}^{\le3}w(t,\cdot)\| \ls \Xi(t)^{-\frac13} \,{\varepsilon},$$ where $\Xi(t)=e^{\frac{\mu}{1-{\lambda}}[(1+t)^{1-{\lambda}}-1]}$ has been defined in .
For this purpose, we assume that $\| \Xi(t)^\frac13 {\partial}^{\le3}w(t,\cdot)\|\le K_2{\varepsilon}$ holds for sufficiently large constant $K_2>0$ and small ${\varepsilon}>0$. This immediately implies $$\label{3.30}
\Xi(t)^\frac13 |{\partial}^{\le1}w(t,\cdot)|_\infty \ls K_2{\varepsilon}.$$ Multiplying by $ \Xi(t)^\frac23$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d}{dt} \|\Xi(t)^\frac13 {\partial}^{\le3}w(t,\cdot)\|^2
+\frac{\mu}{3(1+t)^{\lambda}} \,\|\Xi(t)^\frac13 {\partial}^{\le3}w(t,\cdot)\|^2 {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \Xi(t)^\frac23 |{\partial}^{\le1} w(t,\cdot)|_\infty\,
\|{\partial}^{\le3}w(t\cdot)\|\,\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3} u(t,\cdot)\|. \label{3.31}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting and into and applying Young’s inequality, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \frac{d}{dt} \|\Xi(t)^\frac13 {\partial}^{\le3} w(t,\cdot)\|^2+
\frac{\mu}{3(1+t)^{\lambda}}\|\Xi(t)^\frac13 {\partial}^{\le3} w(t,\cdot)\|^2 {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \Xi(t)^\frac23 |{\partial}^{\le1}w(t,\cdot)|_\infty \,\|{\partial}^{\le3}w(t\cdot)\|
\left((1+t)^{-{\lambda}}\|u(t,\cdot)\|+\|{\partial}^{\le3}w(t\cdot)\|
+\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(t\cdot)\| \right) {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_2{\varepsilon}\left((1+t)^{-{\lambda}}\|u(t,\cdot)\|^2+\big((1+t)^{-{\lambda}}
+\Xi(t)^{-\frac13}\big)\|\Xi(t)^\frac13 {\partial}^{\le3} w(t,\cdot)\|^2
+(1+t)^{\lambda}\|{\partial}{\partial}^{\le3}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2 \right). \label{3.32}\end{aligned}$$ Collecting , , and applying the same argument as in the proof for the global existence of $(\rho, u)$, we infer . This completes the proof of . Thus the proof of Theorem \[thm1\] is completed.
\[rmk3.2\] The proof of Theorem \[thm1\] can be applied to the case of ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu>2$. In this case, Lemma \[lem-velocity1\]-\[lem-vorticity\] still hold and the coefficient of the first term in the second line of is $(\mu-2)(1+t)$, which plays the same role as . Instead of the identity below , we have $$\begin{aligned}
(1+t)^2|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2+\mu(1+t){\partial}^{\alpha}\theta
{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\frac{\mu(\mu-1)}{2}|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2 \\
=(1+t)^2\left(\frac{\mu-2}{3\mu-2}|{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2+|\nabla{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2\right)
+\frac{\mu(\mu-2)}{8}|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2 \\
+\left((1+t)\sqrt\frac{2\mu}{3\mu-2}{\partial}_t{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta+\sqrt\frac{\mu(3\mu-2)}{8}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta\right)^2,\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to $(1+t)|{\partial}{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2+|{\partial}^{\alpha}\theta|^2$ for $\mu>2$. However, we cannot obtain the exponential decay of the vorticty $w$.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. {#section4}
=====================
Theorem \[thm2\] in three space dimensions has been proved in [@HWY15]. In this section, we fix $d=2$ and assume that $$\label{4.1}
E_5[\theta,u](t) \le K_3{\varepsilon}$$ holds. By the finite propagation speed property of hyperbolic systems, one easily knows that $(\theta, u)$ and their derivatives are supported in $\{(t,x)\colon |x|\le t+M\}$, which implies that for ${\alpha}>0$, $$\label{4.2}
|Z^{\alpha}(\theta,u)(t,x)| \ls (1+t) |{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}(\theta,u)(t,x)|.$$ On the other hand, collecting - with assumption derives the following pointwise estimate $$\label{4.3}
|\sigma_-^{-\frac12}(t,\cdot)Z^{\le2}(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)|_\infty+
|\sigma_-^\frac12(t,\cdot){\partial}Z^{\le2}(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)|_\infty
\ls \frac{K_3{\varepsilon}}{1+t}.$$ To prove Theorem \[thm2\] for $d=2$, we shall focus on the following parts.
Estimates of velocity $u$ and its derivatives.
----------------------------------------------
The following lemma is an application of Lemma \[lem-divcurl\] and -.
\[lem-Zvelocity\] Under assumption , for all $t\ge0$, it holds that $$\label{4.4}
E_5[u](t)\ls (1+t)^{-\frac12}\|u(t,\cdot)\|+(1+t)^\frac12\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(t,\cdot)\|.$$
In view of $\opcurl u_0\equiv0$ and , it is easy to know that $\opcurl u(t,x)\equiv0$ always holds for any $t\ge0$ as long as the smooth solution $(\theta, u)$ of exists. Then, it follows from $\opcurl u\equiv0$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\opcurl Z^{\alpha}u= Z^{\alpha}\opcurl u+\sum_{\beta<{\alpha}}C_{{\alpha},\beta}{\partial}Z^\beta u= \sum_{\beta<{\alpha}}C_{{\alpha},\beta}{\partial}Z^\beta u,\end{aligned}$$ which can be abbreviated as $$\label{4.5}
\opcurl Z^{\alpha}u={\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}u.$$ Analogously, we have $$\label{4.6}
\opdiv Z^{\alpha}u=Z^{\alpha}\opdiv u+{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}u.$$ Taking $U=Z^{\alpha}u$ with $|{\alpha}|\le4$ in and applying - yield $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla Z^{\alpha}u(t,\cdot)\|
&\ls \|Z^{\alpha}\opdiv u(t,\cdot)\|+\|{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}u(t,\cdot)\| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \|{\partial}Z^{\le{\alpha}}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+K_3{\varepsilon}(1+t)^{-1}\sum_{0<\beta\le{\alpha}}
\|Z^\beta(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\|+\|{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}u(t,\cdot)\| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \|{\partial}Z^{\le{\alpha}}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+\|{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}u(t,\cdot)\|, \label{4.7}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the first equation in and -. On the other hand, one easily gets $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}u(t,\cdot)\|
&\ls \|Z^{\alpha}{\partial}_t u(t,\cdot)\|+\|{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}u(t,\cdot)\| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \|{\partial}Z^{\le{\alpha}}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+K_3{\varepsilon}\|{\partial}Z^{\le{\alpha}}u(t,\cdot)\|
+(1+t)^{-1}\|u(t,\cdot)\|+\|{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}u(t,\cdot)\|. \label{4.8}\end{aligned}$$ Summing up - from $|{\alpha}|=0$ to $|{\alpha}|=4$, then is obtained by the smallness of ${\varepsilon}$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem-Zvelocity\].
\[lem-velocity3\] Let $\mu>0$. Under assumption , for all $t\ge0$, it holds that $$\label{4.9}
\frac{d}{dt}\left[(1+t)^{-1}\|(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\|^2\right]
+\frac1{2(1+t)^2}\|(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\|^2 \le 0.$$
Multiplying the second equation in by $(1+t)^{-1}u$ derives $$\label{4.10}
\frac12\,{\partial}_t\left[(1+t)^{-1}|u|^2\right]+\frac{\mu+\frac12}{(1+t)^2}|u|^2
+(1+t)^{-1}u\cdot\nabla\theta=-\frac12\,(1+t)^{-1}u\cdot\nabla|u|^2.$$ From the first equation in , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
(1+t)^{-1}u\cdot\nabla\theta
&= \opdiv\left[(1+t)^{-1}(\theta u+({\gamma}-1)\theta^2 u)\right]+
\frac12\,{\partial}_t\left[(1+t)^{-1}|\theta|^2\right] {\nonumber}\\
&\quad +\frac1{2(1+t)^2}|\theta|^2+(3-2{\gamma})(1+t)^{-1}\theta\,
u\cdot\nabla\theta, \label{4.11}\end{aligned}$$ which is similar to the expression in . Substituting into and integrating it over ${\mathbb R}^2$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \frac{d}{dt}\left[(1+t)^{-1}\|(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\|^2\right]+
\frac{1}{2(1+t)^2}\|(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\|^2 {\nonumber}\\
&\ls (1+t)^{-1}|\nabla\theta(t,\cdot)|_\infty\|u(t,\cdot)\|\,\|\theta(t,\cdot)\|
+(1+t)^{-1}|\nabla u(t,\cdot)|_\infty\|u(t,\cdot)\|^2. \label{4.12}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into , then can be obtained from the smallness of ${\varepsilon}$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem-velocity3\].
Estimates of $\theta$ and its derivatives.
------------------------------------------
The following lemma shows the estimates of $\theta$.
\[lem-Ztheta\] Let $\mu>1$. Under assumption , for all $t\ge0$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad E_5^2[\theta](t)+\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2
+(1+s)^{-2}\|Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|\Big)\,ds {\nonumber}\\
& \ls E_5^2[\theta](0)+K_3{\varepsilon}\int_0^t (1+s)^{-2}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2 \,ds. \label{4.13}\end{aligned}$$
Acting $Z^{\alpha}$ with $|{\alpha}|\le4$ on both sides of equation implies $$\label{4.14}
{\partial}_t^2Z^{\alpha}\theta+\frac\mu{1+t}{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta-\Delta Z^{\alpha}\theta=Q^{\alpha}_2(\theta,u),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{\alpha}_2(\theta,u) &\defeq Z^{\alpha}Q(\theta,u)+Q^{\alpha}_{21}+Q^{\alpha}_{22}+
Q^{\alpha}_{23} {\nonumber}\\
&\defeq Z^{\alpha}Q(\theta,u)+[{\partial}_t^2-\Delta,Z^{\alpha}]\,\theta+
\frac\mu{1+t}[{\partial}_t,Z^{\alpha}]\,\theta
+\sum_{0<\beta\le{\alpha}}Z^\beta\left(\frac\mu{1+t}\right)
Z^{{\alpha}-\beta}{\partial}_t\theta. \label{4.15}\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying by $2\mu(1+t){\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
&{\partial}_t\left[\mu(1+t)|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta+
\frac{\mu(2\mu-1)}{2(1+t)}|Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2\right] {\nonumber}\\
&\quad +(\mu-1)(2\mu-1)|{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta|^2+(\mu-1)|\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2+
\frac{\mu(2\mu-1)}{2(1+t)^2}|Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2 {\nonumber}\\
&=\opdiv\left[\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta \left(2\mu(1+t){\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)
Z^{\alpha}\theta\right) \right]+Q^{\alpha}_2(\theta,u)\left(2\mu(1+t){\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)
Z^{\alpha}\theta\right). \label{4.16}\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to $\mu>1$, we see that for the term in the square bracket of the first line in $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \mu(1+t)|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta+
\frac{\mu(2\mu-1)}{2(1+t)}|Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2 \\
&=(1+t)\Big(\frac12|{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta|^2+\mu|\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2\Big)+
\frac{(\mu-1)(2\mu-1)}{2(1+t)}|Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2+\frac{2\mu-1}{2(1+t)}
\Big( (1+t){\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta+Z^{\alpha}\theta\Big)^2,\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to $(1+t)|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2+\frac1{1+t}|Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2$. Integrating over $[0,t]\times{\mathbb R}^2$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad (1+t)\|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2+(1+t)^{-1}\|Z^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2
+\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}
\|Z^{\alpha}\theta(s,\cdot)\|\Big)\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\ls E_5^2[\theta](0)+\left|\int_0^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} Q^{\alpha}_2(\theta,u)\Big(2\mu
(1+s){\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta\right)\,dxds\Big|. \label{4.17}\end{aligned}$$ It follows from a direct computation that $$\label{4.18}
Q^{\alpha}_{21}=Z^{<{\alpha}}({\partial}_t^2-\Delta)\theta=Z^{<{\alpha}}Q(\theta,u)-Z^{<{\alpha}}\left(
\frac{\mu}{1+t}{\partial}_t\theta\right) \defeq Z^{<{\alpha}}Q(\theta,u)+Q^{\alpha}_{24}.$$ For ${\alpha}=0$, we find that $Q^{\alpha}_{22}=Q^{\alpha}_{23}=Q^{\alpha}_{24}=0$. For ${\alpha}>0$ and by , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_0^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^2}\left(Q^{\alpha}_{22}+Q^{\alpha}_{23}+Q^{\alpha}_{24}\right)
\Big(2\mu(1+s){\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta\Big)\,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \int_0^t\|{\partial}Z^{\le{\alpha}}\theta(s,\cdot)\|\,\|{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}\theta(s,\cdot)\|\,ds. \label{4.19}\end{aligned}$$ Recall the definition of $Q(\theta,u)$ in - as follows $$\begin{aligned}
Q(\theta,u) &=Q_1(\theta,u)+Q_2(\theta,u), \\
Q_1(\theta,u) &=-\frac\mu{1+t}u\cdot\nabla\theta+({\gamma}-1)\theta\Delta\theta
-2u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_t\theta-\sum_{i,j=1,2} u_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2\theta, \\
Q_2(\theta,u) &= -\sum_{i,j=1,2}u_i{\partial}_iu_j{\partial}_j\theta-{\partial}_tu\cdot\nabla\theta+(1+({\gamma}-1)\theta)
(\sum_{i,j=1,2}{\partial}_iu_j{\partial}_ju_i+({\gamma}-1)|\opdiv u|^2).\end{aligned}$$ Then it follows from - and $|{\alpha}|\le4$ that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_0^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} Z^{\le{\alpha}}Q_2(\theta,u)\Big(2\mu(1+s)
{\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta\Big) \,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \int_0^t \Big(|\theta(s,\cdot)|_\infty+(1+s)|{\partial}Z^{\le2}(\theta,u)
(s,\cdot)|_\infty\Big)\,\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}(\theta,u)(s,\cdot)\|^2 \,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_3{\varepsilon}\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}
\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\Big)\,ds. \label{4.20}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting - into derives $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad (1+t)\|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2+(1+t)^{-1}\|Z^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2
+\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}
\|Z^{\alpha}\theta(s,\cdot)\|\Big)\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\ls E_5^2[\theta](0)+\int_0^t\|{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds
+K_3{\varepsilon}\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}
\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\Big)\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\quad +\left|\int_0^t \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} Z^{\le{\alpha}}Q_1(\theta,u)\Big(2\mu(1+s)
{\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta\Big)\,dxds\right|. \label{4.21}\end{aligned}$$ Next we focus on the treatment of $Z^{\le{\alpha}}Q_1(\theta,u)$. In view of $|{\alpha}|\le4$, we find that $$Z^{\le{\alpha}}(\theta\Delta\theta)=\theta\Delta Z^{\alpha}\theta+\sum_{1\le|\beta|\le2}
Z^\beta\theta\,{\partial}^2Z^{{\alpha}-\beta}\theta+\sum_{|\beta|\ge3}
Z^\beta\theta\,{\partial}^2Z^{{\alpha}-\beta}\theta,$$ which can be abbreviated as $$Z^{\le{\alpha}}(\theta\Delta\theta)=\theta\Delta Z^{\alpha}\theta+Z^{\le2}\theta
\,{\partial}^2Z^{\le3}\theta+Z^{\le4}\theta\,{\partial}^2Z^{\le1}\theta.$$ From this and the definition of $Q_1(\theta,u)$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad Z^{\le{\alpha}}Q_1(\theta,u) {\nonumber}\\
&=-Z^{\le{\alpha}}\left(\frac\mu{1+t}u\cdot\nabla\theta\right)+({\gamma}-1)
\theta\Delta Z^{\alpha}\theta-2u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta
-\sum_{i,j=1,2}u_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2Z^{\alpha}\theta+Q_3(\theta,u),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Q_3(\theta,u) \defeq (Z^{\le2}\theta+Z^{\le2}u){\partial}^2Z^{\le3}\theta+
(Z^{\le4}\theta+Z^{\le4}u){\partial}^2Z^{\le1}\theta {\nonumber}\\
+Z^{\le2}u\,Z^{\le2}u\,{\partial}^2Z^{\le3}\theta+Z^{\le2}u\,Z^{\le4}u\,
{\partial}^2Z^{\le1}\theta.\end{aligned}$$ If ${\alpha}=0$, applying yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_0^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac\mu{1+s}u\cdot\nabla\theta
\Big(2\mu(1+s){\partial}_t\theta+(2\mu-1)\theta\Big) \,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \int_0^t \Big(|u(s,\cdot)_\infty\|{\partial}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-1}
|\theta(s,\cdot)|_\infty\|u(s,\cdot)\|\,\|\nabla\theta(s,\cdot)\|\Big) \,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_3{\varepsilon}\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}
\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\Big) \,ds. \label{4.22}\end{aligned}$$ If ${\alpha}>0$, from - we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left\|Z^{\le{\alpha}}\left(\frac\mu{1+t}u\cdot\nabla\theta\right) \right\| \\
&\ls (1+t)^{-1} |Z^{\le2}u(t,\cdot)|_\infty\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(t,\cdot)
\|+(1+t)^{-1} |{\partial}Z^{\le2}\theta(t,\cdot)|_\infty\|Z^{\le4}u(t,\cdot)\| \\
&\ls K_3{\varepsilon}\,(1+t)^{-1}\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+K_3{\varepsilon}(1+t)^{-2}\|u(t,\cdot)\|,\end{aligned}$$ which derives $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_0^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} Z^{\le{\alpha}}\left(\frac\mu{1+s}u\cdot\nabla\theta\right)
\Big(2\mu(1+s){\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta\Big)\,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_3{\varepsilon}\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\Big) \,ds. \label{4.23}\end{aligned}$$ As in Lemma \[lem-thetaglobal\], direct computation derives the following identities $$\begin{aligned}
(1+t)\theta\Delta Z^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta=
& \opdiv\left[(1+t)\theta\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta\right]-(1+t)
\nabla\theta\cdot\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta \\
& -\frac12\,{\partial}_t\left[(1+t)\theta\,|\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2\right]+\frac12\,
\theta\,|\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2+\frac12(1+t){\partial}_t\theta\,|\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2, \\
\theta\Delta Z^{\alpha}\theta Z^{\alpha}\theta=
&\opdiv\left[\theta\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta Z^{\alpha}\theta\right]-\theta\,
|\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta|^2-\nabla\theta\cdot\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta Z^{\alpha}\theta,\end{aligned}$$ together with -, this yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_0^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \theta\Delta Z^{\alpha}\theta \Big(2\mu(1+s)
{\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta\Big)\,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_3{\varepsilon}\Big(E_5^2[\theta](0)+E_5^2[\theta](t)\Big)+K_3{\varepsilon}\int_0^t
\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2 \,ds. \label{4.24}\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, we have $$\begin{aligned}
2(1+t)u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta=
& \opdiv\left[(1+t)u\,|{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta|^2\right]-(1+t)\opdiv u\,|{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta|^2, \\
u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta Z^{\alpha}\theta=
& \opdiv\left[u\,{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta Z^{\alpha}\theta\right]
-{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta(u\cdot\nabla Z^{\alpha}\theta+\opdiv u\,Z^{\alpha}\theta)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
2(1+t)u_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2Z^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta=
&{\partial}_i\Big[(1+t)u_iu_j{\partial}_jZ^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta\Big]+
{\partial}_j\Big[(1+t)u_iu_j{\partial}_iZ^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta\Big] \\
& -(1+t){\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta\Big[{\partial}_i(u_iu_j){\partial}_jZ^{\alpha}\theta+
{\partial}_j(u_iu_j){\partial}_iZ^{\alpha}\theta\Big] \\
& -{\partial}_t\Big[(1+t)u_iu_j{\partial}_iZ^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_jZ^{\alpha}\theta\Big]+
u_iu_j{\partial}_iZ^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_jZ^{\alpha}\theta \\
& +(1+t){\partial}_t(u_iu_j){\partial}_iZ^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_jZ^{\alpha}\theta, \\
u_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2Z^{\alpha}\theta Z^{\alpha}\theta=
& {\partial}_i\left[u_iu_j{\partial}_jZ^{\alpha}\theta Z^{\alpha}\theta\right]-
{\partial}_jZ^{\alpha}\theta{\partial}_i(u_iu_jZ^{\alpha}\theta),\end{aligned}$$ which derives $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \left|\int_0^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \left(2u\cdot\nabla{\partial}_tZ^{\alpha}\theta+
\sum_{i,j=1,2} u_iu_j{\partial}_{ij}^2Z^{\alpha}\theta\right)
\Big(2\mu(1+s){\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta\Big) \,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_3{\varepsilon}\Big(E_5^2[\theta](0)+E_5^2[\theta](t)\Big)+K_3{\varepsilon}\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}
\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\Big) \,ds. \label{4.25}\end{aligned}$$ Next we turn our attention to $Q_3(\theta,u)$. Note that $Q_3(\theta,u)=0$ when ${\alpha}=0$. It follows from direct calculation that for any function $\Phi(t,x)$ $$|\sigma_-(t,x){\partial}\Phi(t,x)| \ls |Z\Phi(t,x)|.$$ From this, and -, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad \|Q_3(\theta,u)\| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \|Z^{\le2}(\theta,u){\partial}^2Z^{\le3}\theta\|+
\|Z^{\le4}(\theta,u){\partial}^2Z^{\le1}\theta\| \\
&\ls |\sigma_-^{-1}(t,\cdot)Z^{\le2}(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)|_\infty
\|\sigma_-(t,\cdot){\partial}^2Z^{\le3}\theta(t,\cdot)\| \\
&\quad +|\sigma_-^{\frac32}(t,\cdot){\partial}^2Z^{\le1}\theta(t,\cdot)|_\infty
\|\sigma_-^{-\frac32}(t,\cdot)Z^{\le4}(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\| \\
&\ls K_3{\varepsilon}\,(1+t)^{-1}\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+|\sigma_-^{\frac12}(t,\cdot)
{\partial}Z^{\le2}\theta(t,\cdot)|_\infty \|\nabla Z^{\le4}(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\| \\
&\ls K_3{\varepsilon}\,(1+t)^{-1}\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(t,\cdot)\|+K_3{\varepsilon}\,
(1+t)^{-2}\|u(t,\cdot)\|,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
&\quad \left|\int_0^t\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} Q_3(\theta,u) \Big(2\mu(1+s){\partial}_t Z^{\alpha}\theta
+(2\mu-1)Z^{\alpha}\theta\Big) \,dxds\right| {\nonumber}\\
&\ls K_3{\varepsilon}\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\Big) \,ds. \label{4.26}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting - into derives $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad (1+t)\|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2+(1+t)^{-1}\|Z^{\alpha}\theta(t,\cdot)\|^2
+\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\alpha}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}
\|Z^{\alpha}\theta(s,\cdot)\|\Big)\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\ls E_5^2[\theta](0)+K_3{\varepsilon}\,E_5^2[\theta](t)+\int_0^t\|{\partial}Z^{<{\alpha}}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds {\nonumber}\\
&\quad +K_3{\varepsilon}\int_0^t \Big(\|{\partial}Z^{\le4}\theta(s,\cdot)\|^2+(1+s)^{-2}\|u(s,\cdot)\|^2\Big) \,ds. \label{4.27}\end{aligned}$$ Summing up from $|{\alpha}|=0$ to $|{\alpha}|=4$ yields . This completes the proof of Lemma \[lem-Ztheta\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm2\].
--------------------------
Integrating over $[0,t]$ yields that $$(1+t)^{-1}\|(\theta,u)(t,\cdot)\|^2+\int_0^t (1+s)^{-2}\|(\theta,u)(s,\cdot)\|^2\,ds \ls \|(\theta,u)(0,\cdot)\|^2.$$ Collecting this with and , we conclude that $E_5[\theta,u](t) \le C_3{\varepsilon}$. Let $K_3=2C_3$, and choose ${\varepsilon}>0$ sufficiently small. Then, we infer $E_5[\theta,u](t) \le \frac12 K_3{\varepsilon}$, which implies that admits a global solution for Case 2 with $\opcurl u_0(x)\equiv 0$. Thus we complete the proof of Theorem \[thm2\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm3\]. {#section5}
==========================
In this section, we shall only prove Theorem \[thm3\] for $d=2$ since the corresponding blowup result for Case 4 with $\opcurl u_0(x)\equiv 0$ in three space dimensions has been proved in [@HWY15].
We divide the proof into two parts.
### Part : ${\gamma}=2$. {#part-gamma2. .unnumbered}
Let $(\rho, u)$ be a $C^{\infty}-$smooth solution of . For $l>0$, we define $$\label{5.1}
P(t,l)=\int_{x_1>l}\eta(x,l)\left(\rho(t,x)-\bar\rho\right)dx,$$ where $$\eta(x,l)=(x_1-l)^2.$$ Employing the first equation in and an integration by parts, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5.2}
{\partial}_tP(t,l)&=\int_{x_1>l}\eta(x,l){\partial}_t\left(\rho(t,x)-\bar\rho\right)dx=
-\,\int_{x_1>l}\eta(x,l)\opdiv(\rho u)(t,x)\,dx {\nonumber}\\
&=\int_{x_1>l}({\partial}_{x_1}\eta)(x,l)(\rho u_1)(t,x)\,dx,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the facts of $\eta(x,l)=0$ on $x_1=l$ and $u(t,x)=0$ for $|x|\ge t+M$. By differentiating ${\partial}_tP(t,l)$ in again and using the equation of $u_1$ in , we find that $$\begin{gathered}
{\partial}_t^2P(t,l) =\int_{x_1>l}({\partial}_{x_1}\eta)(x,l){\partial}_t(\rho u_1)(t,x)\,dx
=-\sum_{j=1,2}\int_{x_1>l}({\partial}_{x_1}\eta)\,{\partial}_{x_j}(\rho u_1u_j)(t,x)\,dx \\
-\int_{x_1>l}({\partial}_{x_1}\eta)(x,l){\partial}_{x_1}(p(t,x)-\bar p)\,dx-\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}
\int_{x_1>l}({\partial}_{x_1}\eta)(x,l)(\rho u_1)(t,x)\,dx,\end{gathered}$$ where $\bar p=p(\bar\rho)$. It follows from the integration by parts that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5.3}
{\partial}_t^2P(t,l)+ \frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}\,{\partial}_tP(t,l)&=\sum_{j=1,2}
\int_{x_1>l}({\partial}_{x_1x_j}^2\eta)\rho u_1u_j\,dx+\int_{x_1>l}2(p-\bar p)\,dx {\nonumber}\\
&= \int_{x_1>l}2\rho u_1^2\,dx+\int_{x_1>l}2(p-\bar p)\,dx,\end{aligned}$$ here we have used that ${\partial}_{x_1}\eta(x,l)=0$ on $x_1=l$ and $p(t,x)-\bar p$ vanishes for $|x|\ge t+M$. Note that $${\partial}_l^2\eta(x,l)=\Delta_x\eta(x,l)=2.$$ Then we have $$\label{5.4}
\int_{x_1>l}2(p-\bar p)\,dx=\int_{x_1>l}{\partial}_l^2\eta(x,l)(p(t,x)-\bar p)\,dx=
{\partial}_l^2\int_{x_1>l}\eta(x,l)(p(t,x)-\bar p)\,dx,$$ where we have used the fact that $\eta$ and ${\partial}_l\eta$ vanish on $x_1=l$. Collecting -, we arrive at $$\label{5.5}
{\partial}_t^2P(t,l)-{\partial}_l^2P(t,l)+\frac\mu{(1+t)^{\lambda}}\,{\partial}_tP(t,l)\defeq f(t,l)=\int_{x_1>l}2\rho u_1^2\,dx+G(t,l)\ge G(t,l),$$ where $$\label{5.6}
G(t,l)=\int_{x_1>l}2\left(p-\bar p-(\rho-\bar\rho)\right)dx
={\partial}_l^2\int_{x_1>l}\eta(x,l)\left(p-\bar p-(\rho-\bar\rho)\right)dx
\defeq {\partial}_l^2{\tilde}G(t,l).$$ Due to ${\gamma}=2$ and the sound speed $\bar c=\sqrt{2A\bar\rho}=1$, we have $$\label{5.7}
p-\bar p-(\rho-\bar\rho)=A\left(\rho^2-\bar\rho^2
-2\bar\rho\left(\rho-\bar\rho\right)\right)=A(\rho-\bar\rho)^2.$$ Substituting into gives $$G(t,l),\,{\tilde}G(t,l) \ge 0.$$ For $M_0$ satisfying the condition , let $\Sigma\defeq \{(t,l)\colon t\ge0, t+M_0\le l\le t+M\}$ be the strip domain. By applying Riemann’s representation (see [@CH §5.5 of Chapter 5]) with the assumptions -, we have the following lower bound of the solution $P(t,l)$ to for $(t,l)\in\Sigma$ $$\label{5.8}
P(t,l)\ge \frac14\Xi(t)^{-\frac12}q_0(l-t)+\frac14\int_0^t\int_{l-t+\tau}^{l+t-\tau} \left(\frac{\Xi(\tau)}{\Xi(t)}\right)^\frac12 f(\tau,y)\,dyd\tau.$$ We put the proof of in Appendix. Define the function $$\label{5.9}
F(t)\defeq\int_0^t(t-\tau)\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M}P(\tau,l)\,\frac{dl}{\sqrt l} d\tau.$$ From the definition of $\Xi(t)$, i.e., for ${\lambda}=1$, $\mu\le1$ or ${\lambda}>1$, we have $\Xi(t)^{-\frac12}\gt(t+M)^{-\frac12}$ and $\frac{\Xi(\tau)}{\Xi(t)}\gt\frac{\tau+M}{t+M}$. Then, by , we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
&F''(t)=\int_{t+M_0}^{t+M}P(t,l)\,\frac{dl}{\sqrt l} \gt
(t+M)^{-\frac12}\int_{t+M_0}^{t+M} q_0(l-t)\,\frac{dl}{\sqrt l} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad +\int_{t+M_0}^{t+M}\int_0^t\int_{l-t+\tau}^{l+t-\tau} \left(\frac{\tau+M}{t+M}\right)^\frac12 G(\tau,y)\,dyd\tau
\frac{dl}{\sqrt l} \defeq J_1+J_2. \label{5.10}\end{aligned}$$ From assumption , we see that $$\label{5.11}
J_1\gt \frac{1}{t+M}\int_{t+M_0}^{t+M}q_0(l-t)\,dl=\frac{1}{t+M}\int_{M_0}^M q_0(l)\,dl \gt \frac{{\varepsilon}}{t+M}.$$ To bound $J_2$ from below, we write $$\begin{aligned}
J_2&=\int_0^{t-M_1}\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M} \left(\frac{\tau+M}{t+M}\right)^\frac12
G(\tau,y) \int_{t+M_0}^{y+t-\tau} \,\frac{dl}{\sqrt l}dyd\tau {\nonumber}\\
&\quad+\int_{t-M_1}^t\int_{\tau+M_0}^{2t-\tau+M_0} \left(\frac{\tau+M}{t+M}\right)^\frac12
G(\tau,y) \int_{t+M_0}^{y+t-\tau} \,\frac{dl}{\sqrt l}dyd\tau {\nonumber}\\
&\quad+\int_{t-M_1}^t\int_{2t-\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M} \left(\frac{\tau+M}{t+M}\right)^\frac12
G(\tau,y) \int_{y-t+\tau}^{y+t-\tau} \,\frac{dl}{\sqrt l}dyd\tau {\nonumber}\\
&\defeq J_{2,1}+J_{2,2}+J_{2,3}, \label{5.12}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_1=\left(M-M_0\right)/2$. For $t<M_1$, $t-M_1$ in the limits of integration will be replaced by $0$. For the integrand in $J_{2,1}$ we have that $$\label{5.13}
\int_{t+M_0}^{y+t-\tau} \frac{dl}{\sqrt l}
\gt \frac{y-\tau-M_0}{(t+M)^\frac12}
\gt \frac{(t-\tau)(y-\tau-M_0)^2}{(t+M)^\frac32}.$$ Analogously, for the integrands in $J_{2,2}$ and $J_{2,3}$ we have that $$\label{5.14}
\int_{t+M_0}^{y+t-\tau} \frac{dl}{\sqrt l}
\gt \frac{(t-\tau)(y-\tau-M_0)^2}{(t+M)^\frac32}$$ and $$\label{5.15}
\int_{y-t+\tau}^{y+t-\tau} \frac{dl}{\sqrt l}
\gt \frac{t-\tau}{(t+M)^\frac12}
\gt \frac{(t-\tau)(y-\tau-M_0)^2}{(t+M)^\frac32}.$$ Substituting - into yields $$\begin{aligned}
J_2 \gt \frac{1}{(t+M)^2}\int_0^t (t-\tau)(\tau+M)^\frac12
\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M} (y-\tau-M_0)^2{\partial}_y^2{\tilde}G(\tau,y)\,dyd\tau,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\tilde}G(\tau,y)=\int_{x_1>y} (x_1-y)^2 \left(p(\tau,x)-\bar p-(\rho(\tau,x)-\bar\rho)\right)dx$. Note that ${\tilde}G(\tau,y)={\partial}_y{\tilde}G(\tau,y)=0$ for $y=\tau+M$. Then it follows from the integration by parts together with - that $$\begin{aligned}
J_2&\gt \frac{1}{(t+M)^2}\int_0^t (t-\tau)(\tau+M)^\frac12 \int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M}{\tilde}G(\tau,y)\,dyd\tau {\nonumber}\\
&\gt \frac{1}{(t+M)^2}\int_0^t (t-\tau)(\tau+M)^\frac12 \int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M} \int_{x_1>y} (x_1-y)^2
\left(\rho(\tau,x)-\bar\rho\right)^2dxdyd\tau {\nonumber}\\
&\defeq \frac{c}{(t+M)^2}\,J_3. \label{5.16}\end{aligned}$$ By applying the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to $F(t)$ defined by , we arrive at $$\label{5.17}
F^2(t) \le J_3\int_0^t (t-\tau)(\tau+M)^{-\frac12}\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M}
\int_{{\tilde}\Omega} (x_1-y)^2 \,dx\frac{dy}{y}d\tau\defeq J_3J_4,$$ where ${\tilde}\Omega \defeq \{x\colon x_1>y,~|x|<\tau+M\}$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
J_4 &\ls \int_0^t (t-\tau)(\tau+M)^{-\frac12}\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M}\int_y^{\tau+M}
(x_1-y)^2 [(\tau+M)^2-x_1^2]^\frac12 \,dx_1\frac{dy}{y}d\tau {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \int_0^t(t-\tau)\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M}(\tau+M-y)^\frac72\frac{dy}{y}d\tau {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \int_0^t(t-\tau)\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M}\frac{dy}{y}d\tau {\nonumber}\\
&\ls \int_0^t\frac{t-\tau}{\tau+M}\,d\tau \ls (t+M)\log(t/M+1). \label{5.18}\end{aligned}$$ Combining - and - gives the following ordinary differential inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
F''(t) &\gt \frac{{\varepsilon}}{t+M}, && t\ge0, \label{5.19} \\
F''(t) &\gt \left[(t+M)^3\log(t/M+1)\right]^{-1} \,F^2(t), && t\ge0. \label{5.20}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we apply - to prove that the lifespan $T_{\varepsilon}$ of smooth solution $F(t)$ is finite for all $0<{\varepsilon}\le{\varepsilon}_0$. The fact that $F(0)=F'(0)=0$, together with , yields $$\begin{aligned}
F'(t) &\gt {\varepsilon}\log(t/M+1), && t\ge0, \label{5.21} \\
F(t) &\gt {\varepsilon}(t+M)\log(t/M+1), && t\ge t_1\defeq Me^2. \label{5.22}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into derives $$F''(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^2(t+M)^{-1}\log(t/M+1), \qquad t\ge t_1,$$ which leads to the improvement $$\label{5.23}
F(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^2(t+M)\log^2(t/M+1), \qquad t\ge t_2 \defeq Me^3>t_1.$$ Substituting this into yields $$\label{5.24}
F''(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^2(t+M)^{-2}\log(t/M+1)\,F(t), \qquad t\ge t_2.$$ It follows from that $F'(t)\ge0$ for $t\ge0$. Then multiplying by $F'(t)$ and integrating from $t_3$ (which will be chosen later) to $t$ derive $$F'(t)^2 \ge F'(t_3)^2+C_4{\varepsilon}^2\int_{t_3}^t (s+M)^{-2}\log(s/M+1)\,[F(s)^2]'ds.$$ It follows from the integration by parts that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{5.25}
F'(t)^2 \ge
F'(t_3)^2+C_4{\varepsilon}^2 \left((t+M)^{-2}\log(t/M+1)F(t)^2-(t_3+M)^{-2}\log(t_3/M+1)F(t_3)^2\right)\\
-C_4{\varepsilon}^2\int_{t_3}^t \left(\frac{\log(s/M+1)}{(s+M)^2}\right)' F(s)^2\,ds, \quad t\ge t_3,\end{gathered}$$ where $\left(\frac{\log(s/M+1)}{(s+M)^2}\right)'\le0$ for $s\ge t_3\ge t_2$. Since $F''(t)\ge 0$ and $F(0)=0$, the mean value theorem yields $$\label{5.26}
F(t_3)=\int_0^{t_3}F'(s)ds \le t_3F'(t_3).$$ Choose $$\label{5.27}
t_3=Me^\frac1{2C_4{\varepsilon}^2}-M,$$ which satisfies $C_4{\varepsilon}^2\log(t_3/M+1)=\frac12$. Together with -, this yields $$\label{5.28}
F'(t) \ge \sqrt{C_4}{\varepsilon}(t+M)^{-1}\log^\frac12(t/M+1)\,F(t), \quad t\ge t_3.$$ By integrating from $t_3$ to $t$, we arrive at $$\log\frac{F(t)}{F(t_3)} \ge \sqrt{C_4}{\varepsilon}\log^\frac32\left(\frac{t+M}
{t_3+M}\right), \quad t\ge t_3.$$ If $t\ge t_4\defeq Ct_3^2$, then we have $$\log\frac{F(t)}{F(t_3)} \ge 8\log(t+M).$$ Together with for $F(t_3)$, this yields $$\label{5.29}
F(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^2(t+M)^8, \quad t\ge t_4.$$ Substituting this into derives $$F''(t) \gt {\varepsilon}F(t)^\frac32, \quad t\ge t_4.$$ Multiplying this differential inequality by $F'(t)$ and integrating from $t_4$ to $t$ yield $$F'(t)^2 \gt {\varepsilon}\left(F(t)^\frac52-F(t_4)^\frac52\right).$$ On the other hand, $F(t)\ge 0$, $F''(t)\ge 0$, and the mean value theorem imply that, for $t\ge t_4$, $$F(t)=F'(\xi)(t-t_4)+F(t_4) \ge F'(t_4)(t-t_4) \ge F(t_4)\frac{t-t_4}{t_4},$$ where $t_4\le\xi\le t$. For $t\ge t_5\defeq Ct_4$, we have $$F(t)^\frac52-F(t_4)^\frac52 \ge \frac{1}{2}F(t)^\frac52.$$ Thus $$\label{5.30}
F'(t) \gt \sqrt{\varepsilon}F(t)^\frac54, \quad t\ge t_5.$$ If $T_{\varepsilon}>2t_5$, then integrating from $t_5$ to $T_{\varepsilon}$ derives $$F(t_5)^{-\frac14}-F(T_{\varepsilon})^{-\frac14} \gt \sqrt{\varepsilon}T_{\varepsilon}.$$ We see from and $t_5=Ct_3^2$ that $$F(t_5)\gt {\varepsilon}^2e^\frac{C}{{\varepsilon}^2},$$ which together with $F(T_{\varepsilon})>0$ is a contradiction. Thus, $T_{\varepsilon}\le 2t_5=Ct_3^2$. From the choice of $t_3$ in , we see that $T_{\varepsilon}\le e^{C/{\varepsilon}^2}$.
### Part : ${\gamma}>1$ and ${\gamma}\not=2$. {#part-gamma1-and-gammanot2. .unnumbered}
In view of $\bar c=\sqrt{{\gamma}A\bar\rho^{{\gamma}-1}}=1$, instead of we have $$p-\bar p-(\rho-\bar\rho)=
A\left(\rho^{\gamma}-\bar\rho^{\gamma}-{\gamma}\bar\rho^{{\gamma}-1}(\rho-\bar\rho)\right)
\defeq A\psi(\rho,\bar\rho).$$ The convexity of $\rho^{\gamma}$ for ${\gamma}>1$ implies that $\psi(\rho,\bar\rho)$ is positive for $\rho\neq\bar\rho$. Applying Taylor’s theorem, we have $$\psi(\rho,\bar\rho) \ge C_{{\gamma},\bar\rho} \,\Phi_{\gamma}(\rho,\bar\rho),$$ where $C_{{\gamma},\bar\rho}$ is a positive constant and $\Phi_{\gamma}$ is given by $$\Phi_{\gamma}(\rho,\bar\rho)=
\begin{cases}
(\bar\rho-\rho)^{\gamma}, & \rho< \frac12\bar\rho,\\
(\rho-\bar\rho)^2, & \frac12\bar\rho\le\rho\le2\bar\rho,\\
(\rho-\bar\rho)^{\gamma}, & \rho>2\bar\rho.\\
\end{cases}$$ For ${\gamma}>2$, we have that $(\bar\rho-\rho)^{\gamma}=(\bar\rho-\rho)^2(\bar\rho-\rho)^{{\gamma}-2}\ge C_{{\gamma},\bar\rho} (\rho-\bar\rho)^2$ for $2\rho<\bar\rho$ and $(\rho-\bar\rho)^{\gamma}=(\rho-\bar\rho)^2(\rho-\bar\rho)^{{\gamma}-2}\ge C_{{\gamma},\bar\rho} (\rho-\bar\rho)^2$ for $\rho> 2\bar\rho$. Thus, $\Phi_{\gamma}(\rho,\bar\rho) \ge C_{{\gamma},\bar\rho} (\rho-\bar\rho)^2$. In this case, Theorem \[thm3\] can be shown completely analogously to Part .
Next we treat the case $1<{\gamma}<2$. We define $F(t)$ as in $$F(t)\defeq \int_0^t(t-\tau)\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M} \int_{x_1>l}
(x_1-l)^2\left(\rho(\tau,x)-\bar\rho\right)\,dx\frac{dl}{\sqrt l}d\tau.$$ Similarly to Part , we have $$\label{5.31}
F''(t)\ge J_1+J_2,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
J_1 &\gt \frac{{\varepsilon}}{t+M},\\
J_2 &\gt (t+M)^{-2}{\tilde}J_3\end{aligned}$$ and $${\tilde}J_3 =\int_0^t(t-\tau)(\tau+M)^\frac12 \int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M}
\int_{x_1>y}(x_1-y)^2\,\Phi_{\gamma}(\rho(\tau,x), \bar\rho)\,dxdyd\tau.$$ Denote $\Omega_1=\{(\tau,x)\colon \bar\rho\le\rho(\tau,x)\le2\bar\rho\}$, $\Omega_2=\{(\tau,x)\colon \rho(\tau,x)>2\bar\rho\}$, and $\Omega_3=\{(\tau,x)\colon \rho(\tau,x)<\bar\rho\}$. Divide $F(t)$ into the following three integrals over the domains $\Omega_i$ $(1\le i\le 3)$ $$F(t)=F_1(t)+F_2(t)+F_3(t)\defeq \int_{\Omega_1}\cdots+\int_{\Omega_2}\cdots+\int_{\Omega_3}\cdots.$$ Corresponding to the three parts of $F(t)$, we define ${\tilde}J_3\defeq{\tilde}J_{3,1}+{\tilde}J_{3,2}+{\tilde}J_{3,3}$. In view of $F(t)\ge0$ and $F_3(t)\le0$, we have $$F(t)\le F_1(t)+F_2(t).$$ Applying Hölder’s inequality for the domains $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
F(t)&\le {\tilde}J_{3,1}^\frac12\left(\int_0^t(t-\tau)(\tau+M)^{-\frac12}
\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M}\frac1y\int_{{\tilde}\Omega}(x_1-y)^2\,dxdyd\tau\right)^\frac12 \\
&\quad +{\tilde}J_{3,2}^\frac1{\gamma}\left(\int_0^t(t-\tau)(\tau+M)^{-\frac1{2({\gamma}-1)}}
\int_{\tau+M_0}^{\tau+M}\frac{1}{y^\frac{{\gamma}}{2({\gamma}-1)}}\int_{{\tilde}\Omega}
(x_1-y)^2\,dxdyd\tau\right)^\frac{{\gamma}-1}{\gamma}\\
&\ls {\tilde}J_3^\frac12(t+M)^\frac12\log^\frac12 (t/M+1)
+{\tilde}J_3^\frac1{\gamma}(t+M)^\frac{{\gamma}-1}{\gamma}\\
&=\left({\tilde}J_3(t+M)^{-1}\right)^\frac12(t+M)\log^\frac12 (t/M+1)
+\left({\tilde}J_3(t+M)^{-1}\right)^\frac1{\gamma}(t+M).\end{aligned}$$ In view of $1<{\gamma}<2$, we have ${\displaystyle}\frac1{2{\gamma}}<\frac12<\frac1{\gamma}$. Applying Young’s inequality yields $$F(t) \ls \Big(\big({\tilde}J_3(t+M)^{-1}\big)^\frac1{2{\gamma}}+
\big({\tilde}J_3(t+M)^{-1}\big)^\frac{1}{{\gamma}}\Big)(t+M)\log^\frac12 (t/M+1),
\quad t\ge {\tilde}t_1\defeq Me.$$ Together with the fact that $F(t)\gt {\varepsilon}(t+M)\log(t/M+1)$, this yields $${\tilde}J_3 \gt F(t)^{\gamma}(t+M)^{1-{\gamma}}\log^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}}(t/M+1), \quad t\ge {\tilde}t_1.$$ Substituting this into yields $$\begin{aligned}
F''(t) &\gt \frac{\varepsilon}{t+M}, && t\ge0, \label{5.32}\\
F''(t) &\gt F(t)^{\gamma}(t+M)^{-1-{\gamma}}\log^{-\frac{{\gamma}}{2}}(t/M+1), && t\ge {\tilde}t_1. \label{5.33}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $F(t)\gt {\varepsilon}(t+M)\log(t/M+1)$ into derives $$F''(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^{\gamma}(t+M)^{-1}\log^\frac{{\gamma}}{2}(t/M+1).$$ Integrating this yields $$F(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^{\gamma}(t+M)\log^\frac{{\gamma}+2}{2}(t/M+1).$$ Substituting this into again gives $$F''(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^{{\gamma}^2}(t+M)^{-1}\log^\frac{{\gamma}({\gamma}+1)}{2}(t/M+1)
={\varepsilon}^{{\gamma}^2}(t+M)^{-1}\log^\frac{{\gamma}({\gamma}^2-1)}{2({\gamma}-1)}(t/M+1).$$ Repeating this process $k$ times, we see that $$\label{5.34}
F''(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^{{\gamma}^k}(t+M)^{-1}\log^\frac{{\gamma}({\gamma}^k-1)}{2({\gamma}-1)}(t/M+1),$$ where $k=\left[\log_{\gamma}2\right]$. Solving yields $$F(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^{{\gamma}^k}(t+M)\log^{\frac{{\gamma}({\gamma}^k-1)}{2({\gamma}-1)}+1}(t/M+1), \quad t\ge {\tilde}t_2,$$ where ${\tilde}t_2>0$ is a constant only depending on ${\gamma}$ and $M$. Substituting this into derives $$\label{5.35}
F''(t) \gt F(t){\varepsilon}^{{\gamma}^k({\gamma}-1)}(t+M)^{-2}\log^\frac{{\gamma}^{k+1}-2}{2}(t/M+1), \quad t\ge {\tilde}t_2,$$ where $\frac{{\gamma}^{k+1}-2}{2}>0$ by the choice of $k=\left[\log_{\gamma}2\right]$. Since is analogous to , as in Part , we can choose ${\tilde}t_3\defeq O\Big(e^{C{\varepsilon}^{-\frac{2{\gamma}^k({\gamma}-1)}{{\gamma}^{k+1}-2}}}\Big)$ such that $$F'(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^\frac{{\gamma}^k({\gamma}-1)}2(t+M)^{-1}\log^\frac{{\gamma}^{k+1}-2}{4}(t/M+1)\,F(t), \quad t\ge {\tilde}t_3,$$ which is similar to and yields $$\label{5.36}
F(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^{C_{\gamma}}(t+M)^\frac{2({\gamma}+2)}{{\gamma}-1}, \quad t\ge {\tilde}t_4\defeq C{\tilde}t_3^2,$$ where $C_{{\gamma}}>0$ is a constant depending on ${\gamma}$. Substituting into yields $$\label{5.37}
F''(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^{C_{\gamma}} F(t)^\frac{{\gamma}+1}2, \qquad t\ge {\tilde}t_4.$$ Multiplying by $F'(t)$ and integrating over the variable $t$ as in Part , we have $$F'(t) \gt {\varepsilon}^{C_{\gamma}}F(t)^\frac{{\gamma}+3}4, \quad t\ge {\tilde}t_5\defeq C{\tilde}t_4.$$ Together with ${\gamma}>1$ and the choice of ${\tilde}t_3$, this yields $T_{\varepsilon}<\infty$.
Collecting Part and Part completes the proof of Theorem \[thm3\].
Proof on the lower bound of $P(t,l)$ in $\Sigma\equiv \{(t,l)\colon
t\ge0, t+M_0\le l\le t+M\}$. {#appendix}
===================================================================
We fixed a point $A=(t_A,l_A)\in\Sigma$. In the characteristic coordinates $\xi=1+t-l$ and $\zeta=1+t+l$, can be written as $$\label{A.1}
\mathscr{L}\bar P\defeq {\partial}_{\xi\zeta}^2\bar P+\frac{2^{{\lambda}-2}\mu}{(\xi+\zeta)^{\lambda}}
({\partial}_\xi\bar P+{\partial}_\zeta\bar P)=\frac{\bar f}4,$$ where $\bar P(\xi,\zeta)\defeq P(\frac{\zeta+\xi}2-1,\frac{\zeta-\xi}2)$. The adjoint operator $\mathscr{L}^*$ of $\mathscr{L}$ has the form $$\label{A.2}
\mathscr{L}^*{\mathcal{R}}\defeq {\partial}_{\xi\zeta}^2{\mathcal{R}}-\frac{2^{{\lambda}-2}\mu}{(\xi+\zeta)^{\lambda}}
({\partial}_\xi{\mathcal{R}}+{\partial}_\zeta{\mathcal{R}})+\frac{2^{{\lambda}-1}\mu{\lambda}}{(\xi+\zeta)^{{\lambda}+1}}{\mathcal{R}}.$$ For the point $A=(\xi_A,\zeta_A)$ with $\xi_A+\zeta_A=2(1+t_A)\ge2$, denote $B=(2-\zeta_A,\zeta_A)$, $C=(\xi_A,2-\xi_A)$ and $\mathscr{D}$, the domain surrounded by the triangle $ABC$ (see Figure 1 below).
Let the numbers $a$ and $b$ satisfy $a+b=1$ and $$ab=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\mu{\lambda}}{2}, && {\lambda}>1, \\
&\frac\mu2(1-\frac\mu2), && {\lambda}=1.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ We define $$\label{A.3}
z\defeq -\frac{(\xi_A-\xi)(\zeta_A-\zeta)}{(\xi_A+\zeta_A)(\xi+\zeta)}$$ and $$\label{A.4}
{\mathcal{R}}(\xi,\zeta;\xi_A,\zeta_A)\defeq \Big[\frac{\Xi(\xi+\zeta-1)}{\Xi
(\xi_A+\zeta_A-1)}\Big]^{2^{{\lambda}-2}} \Psi(a,b,1;z),$$ here the definition of function $\Xi$ is given in and $\Psi$ is the hypergeometric function.
![**$(\xi, \zeta)-$plane**[]{data-label="fig:1"}](graph1.eps){width="9cm" height="6.5cm"}
From this and direct calculation, we infer $$\label{A.5}
\mathscr{L}^*{\mathcal{R}}=[\frac{2^{{\lambda}-2}\mu{\lambda}}{(\xi+\zeta)^{{\lambda}+1}}-
\frac{ab}{(\xi+\zeta)^2}-\frac{4^{{\lambda}-2}\mu^2}{(\xi+\zeta)^{2{\lambda}}}]{\mathcal{R}}.$$ On the other hand, from - we arrive at $${\mathcal{R}}\mathscr{L}\bar P-\bar P\mathscr{L}^*{\mathcal{R}}={\partial}_\zeta({\mathcal{R}}{\partial}_\xi\bar P
+\frac{2^{{\lambda}-2}\mu}{(\xi+\zeta)^{\lambda}}{\mathcal{R}}\bar P)-{\partial}_\xi(\bar P{\partial}_\zeta{\mathcal{R}}-\frac{2^{{\lambda}-2}\mu}{(\xi+\zeta)^{\lambda}}{\mathcal{R}}\bar P).$$ Integrating this over $\mathscr{D}$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.6}
\bar P(A)&=\frac12{\mathcal{R}}(C;A)\bar P(C)+\frac12{\mathcal{R}}(B;A)\bar P(B)+{\int\!\!\!\!\!\int}_\mathscr{D}
({\mathcal{R}}\mathscr{L}\bar P-\bar P\mathscr{L}^*{\mathcal{R}})\,d\xi d\zeta {\nonumber}\\
&+\int_{BC}(\frac12{\mathcal{R}}{\partial}_\xi\bar P-\frac12\bar P{\partial}_\xi{\mathcal{R}}+\frac\mu4{\mathcal{R}}\bar P)\,d\xi
+(\frac12\bar P{\partial}_\zeta{\mathcal{R}}-\frac12{\mathcal{R}}{\partial}_\zeta\bar P-\frac\mu4{\mathcal{R}}\bar P)\,d\zeta.\end{aligned}$$ Returning to the variable $(t,l)$ (see Figure 2 below), we find in the second line of that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.7}
\int_{BC}\cdots=\int_B^C[\frac14{\mathcal{R}}({\partial}_t-{\partial}_l)P-\frac14P({\partial}_t-{\partial}_l)
{\mathcal{R}}+\frac\mu4{\mathcal{R}}P]\,(-dl) {\nonumber}\\
+[\frac14P({\partial}_t+{\partial}_l){\mathcal{R}}-\frac14{\mathcal{R}}({\partial}_t+{\partial}_l)P-\frac\mu4{\mathcal{R}}P]\,dl {\nonumber}\\
=\int_{l_A-t_A}^{l_A+t_A}\left.[\frac\mu2{\mathcal{R}}P+\frac12{\mathcal{R}}{\partial}_tP
-\frac12P{\partial}_t{\mathcal{R}}]\right|_{t=0}dl {\nonumber}\\
=\int_{l_A-t_A}^{l_A+t_A} \Xi(t_A)^{-\frac12} \Big[\Psi(a,b,1;z|_{t=0})
\Big(\frac\mu4q_0(l)+\frac12q_1(l)\Big) {\nonumber}\\
-\frac{ab}{2}\Psi(a+1,b+1,2;z|_{t=0})q_0(l)z_t|_{t=0}\Big]dl,\end{aligned}$$
![**$(t, l)-$plane**[]{data-label="fig:2"}](graph2.eps){width="8.5cm" height="6.5cm"}
where we have used the formula $\Psi'(a,b,c;z)=\frac{ab}{c}\Psi(a+1,b+1,c+1;z)$ (see page 58 of [@EMOT]). From the definition , we arrive at $$z=-\frac{(t_A-l_A-t+l)(t_A+l_A-t-l)}{4(1+t_A)(1+t)}$$ and $$\label{A.8}
z_t|_{t=0}=\frac{t_A}{2(1+t_A)}-z|_{t=0}.$$ If $(t, l)\in\Sigma\cap\overline{\mathscr{D}}$, we infer $$\label{A.9}
0\ge z \ge -\frac12(M-M_0)\ge -\frac12\delta_0,$$ which implies that holds. This, together with , - and the assumption of $\Lambda \ge 3ab$, yields that the integral in the second line of is non-negative. Next we prove that $P(t,l)\ge0$ for all $(t, l)\in\Sigma$. Define $$\bar t\equiv\inf \{t\colon \exists~l\in(t+M_0,t+M)~s.t.~P(t,l)<0\}.$$ From assumption , we get $\bar t>0$. If $\bar t<+\infty$, we see that there exists $\bar l\in(\bar t+M_0,\bar t+M)$ such that $P(\bar t,\bar l)=0$. Moreover, we have $P(t,l)\ge0$ for $t<\bar t$. Choose $A=(t_A,l_A)=(\bar t,\bar l)$ in . From - and we infer $\mathscr{L}^*{\mathcal{R}}\le0$ for ${\lambda}\ge1$ and $(t,l)\in\Sigma\cap\mathscr{D}$ ($\mathscr{L}^*{\mathcal{R}}\equiv0$ if ${\lambda}=1$). It follows from $f(t,l)\ge0$ in , - and that $$\begin{aligned}
P(\bar t,\bar l)\ge \frac12{\mathcal{R}}(C;A)P(0,\bar l-\bar t)+{\int\!\!\!\!\!\int}_{\Sigma\cap\mathscr{D}}
({\mathcal{R}}\mathscr{L}\bar P-\bar P\mathscr{L}^*{\mathcal{R}})\,d\xi d\zeta \ge \frac14\Xi(\bar t)^{-\frac12}q_0(\bar l-\bar t)>0,\end{aligned}$$ which is a contradiction with $P(\bar t,\bar l)=0$. Consequently, we conclude that $\bar t=+\infty$ and $P(t,l)\ge0$ for all $(t, l)\in\Sigma$. It follows from -, , , $P(t,l)\ge0$ and $\mathscr{L}^*{\mathcal{R}}\le0$ that $$P(t_A,l_A)\ge \frac14\Xi(t_A)^{-\frac12}q_0(l_A-t_A)+\frac14\int_0^{t_A}\int_{l_A-t_A+\tau}^{l_A+t_A-\tau} \left(\frac{\Xi(\tau)}{\Xi(t_A)}\right)^\frac12 f(\tau,y)\,dyd\tau,$$ which is .
Yin Huicheng wishes to express his gratitude to Professor Ingo Witt, University of Göttingen, and Professor Michael Reissig, Technical University Bergakademie Freiberg, for their interests in this problem and some very fruitful discussions in the past.
[99]{}
S. Alinhac, *Temps de vie des solutions réguliéres des équations d’Euler compressibles axisymétriques en dimension deux.* Invent. Math. **111** (1993), 627–670.
S. Alinhac, *Blowup of small data solutions for a quasilinear wave equation in two space dimensions.* Ann. of Math. (2) **149** (1999), 97–127.
S. Alinhac, *Blowup of small data solutions for a class of quasilinear wave equations in two space dimensions. II.* Acta Math. **182** (1999), 1–23.
D. Christodoulou, *The formation of shocks in 3-dimensional fluids.* EMS Monogr. Math., Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2007.
D. Christodoulou, Miao Shuang, *Compressible flow and Euler’s equations.* Surv. Mod. Math., vol. 9, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2014.
D. Christodoulou, A. Lisibach, *Shock development in spherical symmetry.* arXiv:1501.04235 (2015).
R. Courant, D. Hilbert, *Methods of mathematical physics. Vol. II: Partial differential equations.* New York-London: Interscience Publishers, 1962.
C. Dafermos, *A system of hyperbolic conservation laws with frictional damping. Theoretical, experimental, and numerical contributions to the mechanics of fluids and solids.* Z. Angew Math. Phys. 46 (Special Issue) (1995), 294–307.
Ding Bingbing, Ingo Witt, Yin Huicheng, *On small data solutions of general 3-D quasilinear wave equations, II.* J. Differential Equations, to appear (2016).
A. Erdélyi, W. Magnus, F. Oberhettinger, F.G. Tricomi, *Higher Transcendental Functions, vol. 1.* McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, Toronto, London, 1953.
Hou Fei, Ingo Witt, Yin Huicheng, *On the global existence and blowup of smooth solutions of 3-D compressible Euler equations with time-depending damping.* arXiv:1510.04613 (2015).
Hsiao Ling, Liu Tai-Ping, *Convergence to nonlinear diffusion waves for solutions of a system of hyperbolic conservation laws with damping.* Comm. Math. Phys. **143** (1992), 599–605.
Hsiao Ling, D. Serre, *Global existence of solutions for the system of compressible adiabatic flow through porous media.* SIAM J. Math. Anal. **27** (1996), 70–77.
S. Kawashima, Yong Wen-An, *Dissipative structure and entropy for hyperbolic systems of balance laws.* Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. **174** (2004), 345–364.
S. Klainerman, *Remarks on the global Sobolev inequalities in the Minkowski space ${\mathbb R}^{n+1}$.* Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **40** (1987), 111–117.
A.J. Majda, *Compressible fluid flow and systems of conservation laws in several space variables.* Applied Mathematical Sciences, 53. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984.
K. Nishihara, *Asymptotic behavior of solutions of quasilinear hyperbolic equations with linear damping.* J. Differential Equations **137** (1997), 384–395.
Pan Ronghua, Zhao Kun, *The 3D compressible Euler equations with damping in a bounded domain.* J. Differential Equations **246** (2009), 581–596.
M.A. Rammaha, *Formation of singularities in compressible fluids in two-space dimensions.* Proc. Am. Math. Soc. **107**, 705–714 (1989)
T.C. Sideris, *Formation of singularities in three-dimensional compressible fluids.* Comm. Math. Phys. **101** (1985), 475–485.
T.C. Sideris, *Delayed singularity formation in 2D compressible flow.* Amer. J. Math. **119** (1997), 371–422.
T.C. Sideris, B. Thomases, Wang Dehua, *Long time behavior of solutions to the 3D compressible Euler equations with damping.* Comm. Partial Differential Equations **28** (2003), 795–816.
J. Speck, *Shock formation in small-data solutions to 3D quasilinear wave equations.* arXiv:1407.6320 (2014).
Tan Zhong, Wu Guochun, *Large time behavior of solutions for compressible Euler equations with damping in ${\mathbb R}^3$.* J. Differential Equations **252** (2012), 1546–1561.
Wang Weike, Yang Tong, *The pointwise estimates of solutions for Euler equations with damping in multi-dimensions.* J. Differential Equations **173** (2001), 410–450.
Wang Weike, Yang Tong, *Existence and stability of planar diffusion waves for 2-D Euler equations with damping.* J. Differential Equations **242** (2007), 40–71.
Yin Huicheng, *Formation and construction of a shock wave for 3-D compressible Euler equations with the spherical initial data.* Nagoya Math. J., **175** (2004), 125–164.
[^1]: Fei Hou (`[email protected]`) and Huicheng Yin (`[email protected]`) were supported by the NSFC (No. 11571177) and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using exact numerical techniques we investigate the nature of excitonic (electron-hole) bound states and the development of exciton coherence in the one-dimensional half-filled extended Falicov-Kimball model. The ground-state phase diagram of the model exhibits, besides band insulator and staggered orbital ordered phases, an excitonic insulator (EI) with power-law correlations. The criticality of the EI state shows up in the von Neumann entropy. The anomalous spectral function and condensation amplitude provide the binding energy and coherence length of the electron-hole pairs which, on their part, point towards a Coulomb interaction driven crossover from BCS-like electron-hole pairing fluctuations to tightly bound excitons. We show that while a mass imbalance between electrons and holes does not affect the location of the BCS-BEC crossover regime it favors staggered orbital ordering to the disadvantage of the EI. Within the BEC regime the quasiparticle dispersion develops a flat valence-band top in accord with the experimental finding for Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$.'
author:
- 'S. Ejima'
- 'T. Kaneko'
- 'Y. Ohta'
- 'H. Fehske'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Order, criticality and excitations in the extended Falicov-Kimball model'
---
The formation and condensation of excitonic bound states of electrons and holes in semimetallic or semiconducting systems possessing a small band overlap or band gap is still—half a century after its theoretical prediction [@Mo61]—a topical issue in condensed matter physics [@NW90; @CMCBDGBA07; @MBSM08]. If the binding energy of the excitons exceeds the overlap/gap they may spontaneously condensate at low temperatures and drive the system into an excitonic insulator (EI) state. It has been pointed out that the semimetal-EI transition can be discussed in close analogy to the BCS superconductivity whereas the semiconductor-EI transition is described in terms of a Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of preformed excitons [@BF06]. Quite recently, as a candidate for the EI state, quasi one-dimensional (1D) Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$ has raised and attracted much experimental attention [@WSTMANTKNT09]. Most notably, by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES), an extremely flat valence-band top at 40 K was observed and taken as a strong signature for the EI state to be formed out of ‘condensed’ bound Ni 3$d$ – Se 4$p$ holes and Ta 5$d$ electrons.
The detection of the EI state in Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$ has spurred multifaceted research activities with regard to the formation and possible condensation of excitons in 1D systems [@KTKO13]. The minimal theoretical model in this respect is of the Falicov-Kimball type. While the original Falicov-Kimball model (FKM) describes localized $f$ electrons interacting via a local Coulomb repulsion ($U$) with itinerant $c$ electrons ($t_c$) if residing at the same Wannier site [@FK69], an extended version takes into account also the direct nearest-neighbor $f$-electron hopping ($t_f$) [@Ba02b]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}&=& -t_c\sum_{\langle i, j \rangle}
c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{j}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
-t_f\sum_{\langle i, j \rangle}
f_{i}^{\dagger}f_{j}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
+U\sum_i
c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{i}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
f_{i}^{\dagger}f_{i}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
\nonumber\\
&& +\frac{D}{2}\sum_i
\left(
c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{i}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
-f_{i}^{\dagger}f_{i}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
\right)\,.
\label{hamilEFKM}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\alpha_{i}^{\dagger}$ ($\alpha_{i}^{\phantom{\dagger}}$) denotes the creation (annihilation) operator of a spinless fermion in the $\alpha=\{c,\ f\}$ orbital at site $i$, and $D$ is the level splitting between different $\alpha$-orbitals. In regard to the modeling of Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$, the half-filled band case is of particular importance, and it has been shown theoretically that a direct $f$-$c$ hopping (hybridization) is prohibited by symmetry reasons, at least between the valence band top and conduction band bottom [@KTKO13].
For the original FKM rigorous results were obtained only in infinite spatial dimensions by dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT), see, e.g., reviews in Refs. [@FZ03; @Ke94]. The extended FKM (EFKM) \[Eq. \] has been studied extensively in the context of EI formation for D $>1$, using DMFT [@TKVL11], random phase approximation [@ZIBF12], slave-boson [@Br08], projective renormalization [@PBF10] and variational cluster [@SEO11] techniques, or purely numerical diagonalization procedures [@KEFO13]. At the same time, the problem of electronic ferroelectricity, which is equivalent to the appearance of the EI in some theoretical models, has also attracted much attention [@POS96a; @YMST11]. This phenomenon was confirmed for the 2D EFKM by constrained path Monte Carlo simulations [@BGBL04]. In 1D, however, true ferroelectric long-range order (the equivalent of a nonvanishing $\langle c^\dagger f \rangle$ expectation value in the limit of vanishing $c$-$f$ band hybridization) is not possible. This was demonstrated for the 1D FKM [@Fa99]. For the 1D EFKM power-law critical (excitonic) correlations were observed instead [@BGBL04]. Mean-field based approaches [@SC08] are unable to capture the EI state in 1D (despite their success for D$>$1), mainly due to the lack of an order parameter associated with the breaking of the $U(1)$ symmetry. On this note a thorough investigation of the ground-state and spectral properties of the 1D EFKM is still missing.
In this paper we present a comprehensive numerical analysis of the 1D EFKM at half filling. At first we determine the ground-state phase diagram from large-scale density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) [@Wh92] calculations and identify–depending on the orbital level splitting—staggered orbital ordered (SOO) and band insulator (BI) phases as well as an intervening critical EI state. Then, within the EI, we detect a crossover between BCS- and Bose-Einstein-type condensates monitoring the exciton-exciton correlation and exciton momentum distribution functions. Note that in our 1D setting we use the term ‘condensate’ to indicate a critical phase with power-law correlation decay. Finally, combining DMRG, Lanczos exact diagonalization (ED) and Green functions techniques [@OSEM94], we study the anomalous spectral function and extract the correlation length and binding energy of the electron-hole pairs. This allows us to comment on the nature of the excitonic bound states preceding the condensation process and to discuss the effect of a mass imbalance between ($c$-) electrons and ($f$-) holes.
Examining the (large-$U$) strong-coupling regime gives a first hint of which phases might be realized in the 1D EFKM at zero temperature. To leading order the EFKM can be mapped onto the exactly solvable spin-1/2 XXZ-Heisenberg model in a magnetic field $h=D$ aligned in the $z$-direction [@FDL95], $
{\cal H}_{\rm XXZ}
=J\sum_{j}
\left\{\Delta S_j^z S_{j+1}^z
+(1/2)(S_j^+S_{j+1}^- + S_j^- S_{j+1}^+)
\right\} -h\sum_{j} S_j^{z}
$ with $J=4|t_f|t_c/U$ and $\Delta=(t_f^2+t_c^2)/(2|t_f|t_c)$. The XXZ model exhibits three phases: the gapped antiferromagnetic (AF) phase, the critical gapless XY phase with central charge $c=1$, and the ferromagnetic (FM) phase, where both transition lines, those between AF and XY phases ($h_{{\rm c}_1}/J$) and those between XY and FM phases ($h_{{\rm c}_2}/J$), follow from the Bethe ansatz [@CG66]. Correspondingly, increasing the magnitude of the $f$-$c$ level splitting $D$ in the EFKM, we expect to find the following sequence of phases: (i) the SOO phase that matches the Ising-like AF phase in the XXZ model, (ii) an intermediate critical EI phase with finite excitonic binding energy, and (iii) a BI state, which is characterized by a filled (empty) $f$ ($c$) band and related to the FM phase of the XXZ model. The phase boundary separating the EI and BI states is exactly known to be [@KS96b] $$\begin{aligned}
D_{{\rm c}_2}=\sqrt{4(|t_f|+|t_c|)^2+U^2}-U\,.
\label{Dc2-exact}\end{aligned}$$
The complete phase diagram of the 1D EFKM is presented in Fig. \[PD-tf01\]. Symbols denote the DMRG BI-EI and EI-SOO transition points, which can be obtained from the energy differences $$\begin{aligned}
D_{{\rm c}_2}(L)=E_0(L,0)-E_0(L-1,1)=-E_0(L-1,1)
\label{Dc2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D_{{\rm c}_1}(L)=E_0(L/2+1,L/2-1)-E_0(L/2,L/2)\,,
\label{Dc1}\end{aligned}$$ respectively, in the course of a finite-size scaling analysis (see the inset). Here $E_0(N_f,N_c)$ denotes the ground-state energy for a system with $N_f$ $f$- and $N_c$ $c$-electrons at $D=0$. Note that Eq. holds for both, open and periodic boundary conditions (OBC/PBC), whereas Eq. has to be evaluated with PBC (if here OBC were used, an extra factor 2 results: $D_{{\rm c}_1}^{\rm OBC}=2D_{{\rm c}_1}$). For the DMRG runs performed in this work we keep at least $m=3200$ density-matrix eigenstates which ensures a discarded weight smaller than $1\times 10^{-6}$.
![(Color online) Upper panel: Ground-state phase diagram of the half-filled 1D EFKM with $|t_f|=0.1$. Here and in what follows we take $t_c$ as the unit of energy. Squares (circles) denote the EI-BI (EI-SOO) transition points $D_{{\rm c}_2}$ ($D_{{\rm c}_1}$) obtained by DMRG method with up to $L=128$ sites and OBC. The solid line gives the analytical solution for the EI-BI boundary; the dotted line shows the strong-coupling result for the EI-SOO boundary. The finite-size scaling of $D_{{\rm c}_1}(L)$ is illustrated by the inset (open symbols), here the corresponding strong-coupling data are given by filled symbols. Lower panel: Central charge obtained at $U=5$ for various $L$ and PBC. Criticality, $c^\ast\sim1$, is observed for the EI. []{data-label="PD-tf01"}](fig1upper.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![(Color online) Upper panel: Ground-state phase diagram of the half-filled 1D EFKM with $|t_f|=0.1$. Here and in what follows we take $t_c$ as the unit of energy. Squares (circles) denote the EI-BI (EI-SOO) transition points $D_{{\rm c}_2}$ ($D_{{\rm c}_1}$) obtained by DMRG method with up to $L=128$ sites and OBC. The solid line gives the analytical solution for the EI-BI boundary; the dotted line shows the strong-coupling result for the EI-SOO boundary. The finite-size scaling of $D_{{\rm c}_1}(L)$ is illustrated by the inset (open symbols), here the corresponding strong-coupling data are given by filled symbols. Lower panel: Central charge obtained at $U=5$ for various $L$ and PBC. Criticality, $c^\ast\sim1$, is observed for the EI. []{data-label="PD-tf01"}](fig1lower.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
The $D_{{\rm c}_2}(L\to\infty)$ values demonstrate the accuracy of our DMRG calculations. Exact results for $D_{{\rm c}_1}(L\to\infty)$ can only be obtained numerically, where a comparison with the dotted line reveals the limits of the strong-coupling approach [@FDL95]; see Fig. \[PD-tf01\]. The criticality of the EI phase—corresponding to the critical XY phase in the XXZ model with central charge $c=1$—can be confirmed by the von Neumann entanglement entropy $S_L(\ell)=-{\rm Tr} _{\ell}(\rho_\ell\ln\rho_\ell)$ (with reduced density matrix $\rho_\ell={\rm Tr}_{L-\ell}(\rho)$). Numerically, the central charge is best estimated from the entropy difference [@CC04; @Ni11]: $$\begin{aligned}
c^\ast(L)\equiv 3[S_L(L/2-1)-S_L(L/2)]/\ln\left[\cos(\pi/L)\right]\,. \end{aligned}$$ Our results for $c^\ast$, displayed in the lower panel of Fig. \[PD-tf01\] for $|t_f|=0.1$ at $U=5$, give clear evidence that $c^\ast\to 1$ in the EI, whereas we find $c^\ast=0$ in the BI and SOO phases. Regrettably, $c^\ast(L)$ is strongly system-size dependent near the EI-SOO transition.
Let us now discuss the nature of the EI state in more detail. For simplicity we consider the case $t_f t_c<0$, where two Fermi points ($\pm k_{\rm F}$) exist for $U=0$ provided $D$ is sufficiently small (otherwise a direct band gap emerges). As a signature of an excitonic Bose-Einstein condensate in 1D one expects (i) a power-law decay of the correlations $\langle b_{i}^\dagger b_{j}^{\phantom{\dagger}}\rangle$ with $b_{i}^\dagger=c_{i}^\dagger f_{i}^{\phantom{\dagger}}$ and (ii) a divergence of the excitonic momentum distribution $N(q)=\langle b_{q}^\dagger b_{q}^{\phantom{\dagger}}\rangle$ with $b_{q}^\dagger=(1/\sqrt{L})\sum_k c_{k+q}^\dagger f_{k}^{\phantom{\dagger}}$ for the state with the lowest possible energy (in the direct gap case at $q=0$) due to the absence of true long-range order. Figure \[Nq\] supports these expectations: Whereas in the weak-coupling BCS regime ($U=1$), $\langle b_{i}^\dagger b_{j}^{\phantom{\dagger}}\rangle$ decays almost exponentially and $N(q)$ shows only a marginal system-size dependence (for all momenta), in the strong-coupling BEC regime close to the EI-BI transition ($U=1.9$), $\langle b_{i}^\dagger b_{j}^{\phantom{\dagger}}\rangle$ exhibits a rather slow algebraic decay of the excitonic correlations and $N(q=0)$ becomes divergent as $L\to \infty$.
![(Color online) Exciton-exciton correlation function $\langle b_{i}^{\dagger} b_{j}^{}\rangle$ (a) and excitonic momentum distribution function $N(q)$ at $U=1$ (b) and $1.9$ (c) for $t_f=-0.1$, $D=1$. Data are obtained by the DMRG for 1D $L$-site lattices with PBC. []{data-label="Nq"}](fig2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
We note that the $\langle c^\dagger f\rangle$-expectation value is always zero for a 1D system in the absence of an explicit $f$-$c$-band hybridization. To examine the BCS-BEC crossover we adopt a technique introduced for detecting the particle fluctuations of Cooper pairs in 2D systems [@OSEM94]. That is, we consider the off-diagonal anomalous exciton Green function $$\begin{aligned}
G_{cf}(k,\omega)
=\Braket{
\psi_1\left|c_k^\dagger\frac{1}{\omega+{\rm i}\eta-{\cal H}+E_0}f_k
\right|\psi_0},\end{aligned}$$ where $|\psi_0\rangle$ is the ground state $|N_f,N_c\rangle$ with fixed numbers of $f$- and $c$-electrons, $|\psi_1\rangle$ is the excited state $|N_f-1,N_c+1\rangle$, $E_0$ is the averaged energy of $|\psi_0\rangle$ and $|\psi_1\rangle$, and $\eta$ is a broadening, and determine the corresponding spectral function $F(k,\omega)=(-1/\pi)\Im G_{cf}(k,\omega)$ that gives the condensation amplitude $F(k)=\langle\psi_1|c^\dagger_{k}f^{\phantom{\dagger}}_k|\psi_0\rangle$. $F(k)$ can be directly computed by the ground-state DMRG method taking into account an extra target state $|\psi_1\rangle$. From $F(k)$ the coherence length characterizing the excitonic condensate follows as $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^2=\sum_k |\nabla_k F(k)|^2\Big/\sum_k|F(k)|^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ The binding energy of the excitons, $E_{\rm B}$, can be also determined from diverse ground-state energies [@KEFO13]: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm B}&=&E_0(N_f-1,N_c+1)+E_0(N_f,N_c)
\nonumber \\
&& -E_0(N_f-1,N_c)-E_0(N_f,N_c+1)\,.
\label{E_B-static}\end{aligned}$$
![(Color online) Anomalous spectral function $F(k,\omega)$ in the 1D EFKM with $U=1$ (a) and $U=1.9$ (b), where $t_f=-0.1$, $D=1$. Data are obtained by ED using $\eta=0.1$, $L=16$, and PBC. Numerical results for $F(k)$ (c) and $E(k)$ (d) are shown for $U=1$ (circles), $1.5$ (diamonds), $1.7$ (triangles), and $1.9$ (squares). $F(k)$ is determined by the DMRG for $L=64$ (PBC), whereas $E(k)$ is extracted from the lowest peaks of single-particle spectra $A(k,\omega)$ calculated by ED for $L=16$ (PBC). Dashed lines in the panel (c) mark the corresponding Fermi momenta $k_{\rm F}=\pi N_{c}/L$ in the noninteracting limit. []{data-label="Fkw-Fk"}](fig3ab.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![(Color online) Anomalous spectral function $F(k,\omega)$ in the 1D EFKM with $U=1$ (a) and $U=1.9$ (b), where $t_f=-0.1$, $D=1$. Data are obtained by ED using $\eta=0.1$, $L=16$, and PBC. Numerical results for $F(k)$ (c) and $E(k)$ (d) are shown for $U=1$ (circles), $1.5$ (diamonds), $1.7$ (triangles), and $1.9$ (squares). $F(k)$ is determined by the DMRG for $L=64$ (PBC), whereas $E(k)$ is extracted from the lowest peaks of single-particle spectra $A(k,\omega)$ calculated by ED for $L=16$ (PBC). Dashed lines in the panel (c) mark the corresponding Fermi momenta $k_{\rm F}=\pi N_{c}/L$ in the noninteracting limit. []{data-label="Fkw-Fk"}](fig3c.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Figures \[Fkw-Fk\](a) and \[Fkw-Fk\](b) show the anomalous spectral function $F(k,\omega)$ in the weak-coupling ($U=1$) and strong-coupling ($U=1.9$) regimes, respectively, where $D=1$. In the former case the EI arises from a semimetallic phase. As a consequence most of the spectral weight of the quasiparticle excitations is located around the Fermi points $k=\pm k_{\rm F}$, again indicating a BCS-type pairing of electrons and holes. Obviously, Fermi surface effects play no role for large $U$ where the Hartree shift drives the system in the semiconducting regime. Here the excitation gap occurs at $k=0$. Note that the gap between the lowest energy peaks in $F(k,\omega)$ is equal to the binding energy $E_{\rm B}$ given by Eq. (\[E\_B-static\]). Figure \[Fkw-Fk\](c) displays the frequency-integrated quantity $F(k)$. At $U=1$, $F(k)$ exhibits a sharp peak at the Fermi momentum. Increasing $U$ the peak weakens and shifts to smaller momenta. Close to the EI-BI transition point $U=1.9\lesssim U_{{\rm c}_2}=1.92$, $F(k)$ has a maximum at $k=0$ but is spread out in momentum space, indicating that the radius of electron-hole pairs becomes small in real space. Panel (d) gives the quasiparticle dispersion $E(k)$ derived from $A(k,\omega)$. Driving the BCS-BEC crossover by increasing $U$, the peaks around $k=\pm k_{\rm F}$ disappear as well as the notch around $k=0$. Instead a valence band with a flat top around $k=0$ develops, just as observed e.g. in quasi-1D Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$ [@WSTMANTKNT09].
Figure \[PD\_rescaled\] shows the variation of the coherence length and the binding energy in the EI phase of the 1D EFKM with $|t_f|=1$ (left panels) and $0.1$ (right panels). At small $U$ the excitonic state is composed of electron-hole pairs having large spatial extension, leading to large values of $\xi$. $E_{\rm B}$, on the other hand, is rather small, but increases exponentially with $U$. This typifies a BCS pairing mechanism. At large $U$, the binding increases linearly with $U$. Here, tightly bound spatially confined excitons acquire quantum coherence (with $\xi\ll 1$) in a Bose-Einstein condensation process.
We finally address the influence of a mass imbalance between $f$- and $c$-band quasiparticles. The EI phase is absent for $t_f=0$. In the mass-symmetric case $|t_f|=t_c$, the 1D Hubbard model results for $D=0$. Here we cannot distinguish between the AF (with vanishing spin gap) and EI phases, because both phases are critical. Therefore, in this limit, we have examined the 1D EFKM for $N_f>L/2$. To this end, both the $U$ and $D$ axes in Fig. \[PD\_rescaled\] have been rescaled by $(|t_f|+t_c)$, as suggested by the EI-BI transition lines . Indeed we find that EI phase shrinks as $|t_f|$ decreases. That is, the mass anisotropy gets stronger, which is simply a bandwidth effect, however, leading to a stronger Ising anisotropy. This, on their part, enlarges the SOO region, while the EI-BI phase boundary basically is unaffected. Importantly, the location of the BCS-BEC crossover, which can be derived from the intensity plots for $E_{\rm B}$ and $\xi$, does not change in this presentation. To expose correlation effects, we included in Fig. \[PD\_rescaled\] the semimetallic-to-semiconducting transition line assuming that the EI phase is absent. $U_{\rm BI}(D)$ can be obtained from the band gap $\Delta_{\rm c}$ that depends linearly on $U$ for fixed $D$: $\Delta_{\rm c}(D)=U+2(|t_f|+t_c)+U_{\rm BI}(D)$ \[i.e., $U_{\rm BI}(D)$ scales again with $|t_f|+t_c$\]. Apparently in the BCS-BEC crossover regime a strong renormalization of the band structure due to the incipient $f$-$c$ hybridization takes place.
![(Color online) Intensity plots of the binding energy $E_{\rm B}$ (upper panels; $L=128$, OBC) and the coherence length $\xi$ (lower panels; $L=64$, PBC) in the rescaled $U/(|t_f|+t_c)$–$D/(|t_f|+t_c)$ plane. Data were calculated by the DMRG for $N_f>L/2$ (to avoid the AF state in the Hubbard model limit $|t_f|=1$, $D=0$). Solid lines denote the SOO-EI and EI-BI transition points in the thermodynamic limit (in the lower panels the small uncolored slot just above the SOO-EI appears because $|E_{\rm B}|$ and $\xi$ are obtained here for a fixed finite system size). The dashed line \[$U_{\rm BI}(D)$\] would separate the semimetallic and semiconducting phases if the EI is assumed to be absent. []{data-label="PD_rescaled"}](fig4.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
To conclude, adopting the numerically exact density matrix renormalization group technique, we examined the one-dimensional (1D) extended Falicov-Kimball model (EFKM) and, most notably, proved the excitonic insulator (EI) state shown to be critical. The complete ground-state phase diagram was derived, and put into perspective with the Bethe ansatz results obtained in the strong-coupling limit for the spin-1/2 XXZ chain. Besides the EI to band insulator transition, the boundary between the EI and a phase with staggered orbital ordering was determined with high accuracy. The whole phase diagram of the 1D EFKM could be scaled by $|t_f|+t_c$; staggered orbital ordering appears only for small mass-imbalance ratios $|t_f|/t_c$. The absence of an order parameter prevents addressing the problem of excitonic condensation in 1D systems by usual mean-field approaches. That is why we exploited the off-diagonal anomalous Green function. The related anomalous spectral function elucidates the different nature of the electron-hole pairing and condensation process at weak and strong couplings. At fixed level splitting the binding energy between $c$ electrons and $f$ holes is exponentially small in the weak-coupling regime. It strongly increases as the Coulomb attraction increases. Concomitantly the coherence length of the electron-hole pair condensate shortens. This unambiguously demonstrates a crossover from BCS-like electron-hole pairing to a Bose-Einstein condensation of preformed excitons. The quasiparticle band dispersion in the BEC regime exhibits a rather dispersionless valence band near $k=0$, despite the fact that the expectation value $\langle c^{\dagger}f^{}\rangle$ is zero because of the 1D setting. This result further supports the EI scenario for quasi-1D Ta$_2$NiSe$_5$, where the flat valence-band top was detected by ARPES experiments.
The authors would like to thank Y. Fuji, F. Göhmann, S. Nishimoto, K. Seki, T. Shirakawa, and B. Zenker for valuable discussions. S.E. and H.F. acknowledge funding by the DFG through SFB 652 Project B5. T.K. was supported by a JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists. Y.O. acknowledges the Japanese Kakenhi Grant No. 22540363.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study, using information quantifiers, the dynamics generated by a special Hamiltonian that gives a detailed account of the interaction between a classical and a quantum system. The associated, very rich dynamics displays periodicity, quasi-periodicity, not-boundedness, and chaotic regimes. Chaoticity, together with complex behavior, emerge in the proximity of an unstable entirely quantum instance. Our goal is to compare the statistical description provided by Tsallis quantifiers vis a vis that obtained with Shannon’s entropy and Jensen’s complexity.
Keywords: Tsallis Entropy, q-Statistics, Complexity, Semiquantum dynamics, Bandt-Pompe’s probabilities extraction.
address:
- |
Instituto de Física (IFLP-CCT-Conicet), Fac. de Ciencias Exactas,\
Universidad Nacional de La Plata, C.C. 727, 1900 La Plata, Argentina
- 'Comision de Investigaciones Científicas (CICPBA)'
- 'Argentina’s National Research Council (CONICET)'
author:
- 'A.M. Kowalski'
- 'A. Plastino'
title: 'Deformed Tsallis-statistics analysis of a complex nonlinear matter-field system'
---
,
,
Introduction
============
Quantifiers derived from information theory, like entropic forms and statistical complexities (see as examples [@Shannon48; @Shiner99; @LMC95; @Lamberti04]) have been seen to be very useful for understanding the dynamics connected to time series, following the work of Kolmogorov and Sinai, who transformed Shannon’s information theory into a powerful tool for the analysis of dynamical systems [@Kolmogorov58; @Sinai59]. Of course, information theory measures and probability spaces $\Omega$ are inseparably joined quantifiers. For obtaining information quantifiers (IQ) one needs first of all to determine the probability distribution $P$ that characterizes the dynamical system or time series under scrutiny. Many techniques have been proposed for the election of $P \in
\Omega$. We can mention approaches based on symbolic dynamics [@Mischaikow99], Fourier analysis [@Powell79], and the wavelet transform [@Colo2001], for example. Bandt and Pompe (BP) [@Bandt2002; @ours] proposed a symbolic formalism for finding the probability distribution (PD) $ P$ associated to an arbitrary time series (see Appendix). BP’s approach relied on peculiar traits of the attractor-construction problem through causal information, that BP include in building up the PD on is looking for. A notable BP-result is significant performance-improvement with regards to the IQs one finds by using their PD-determination methodology. One just has to assume 1) stationarity and 2) that a sufficient data-amount is some available.
Deformed $q$-statistics
-----------------------
It is a well-known fact that physical systems that are characterized by either long-range interactions, long-term memories, or multi-fractal nature, are best described by a generalized statistical mechanics’ formalism [@Hanel] that was proposed 30 years ago: the so-called Tsallis’ or $q$-statistics. More precisely, Tsallis [@paper:tsallis1988] advanced in 1988 the idea of using in a thermodynamics’ scenario an entropic form, the Harvda-Chavrat one, characterized by the entropic index $q \in \mathcal{R}$ ($q =1$ yields the orthodox Shannon measure): $$S_q = \frac{1}{(q-1)} \sum _{i=1}^{N_s} \left[p_i - (p_i)^q\right],
\label{eq:t-entropy}$$ where $p_i$ are the probabilities associated with the associated $N_s$ different system-configurations. The entropic index (or deformation parameter) $q$ describes the deviations of Tsallis entropy from the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs-Shannon-one $$S = - \sum _{i=1}^{N_s} p_i \ln (p_i). \label{Shannon-entropy}$$ It is well-known that the orthodox entropy works best in dealing with systems composed of either independent subsystems or interacting via short-range forces whose subsystems can access all the available phase space [@Hanel]. For systems exhibiting long-range correlations, memory, or fractal properties, Tsallis’ entropy becomes the most appropriate mathematical form [@paper:alemany1994; @paper:tsallis1995; @paper:tsallis1998; @paper:kalimeri2008].
Our semi-quantum physics model
------------------------------
Now, a topic of great interest is that of the interplay between quantum and classical systems, sometimes called semiquantum physics. If quantum effects in one of the systems are small vis-a-vis those of the other, regarding it as classical not only simplifies the description but provides profound insight into the composite system’s dynamics. One may cite as illustrations the Bloch equations [@Bloch], two-level systems interacting with an electromagnetic field within a cavity, the Jaynes-Cummings semi-classical model [@Milonni; @Sa.91], collective nuclear features [@Ring], etc.
The system studied here [@KR.18] is of interest in both Quantum Optics and Condensed Matter [@Milonni; @Sa.91; @K0; @K1], particularly in view of the fact that we deal with a bosonic system that admits quasi-periodic and unbounded regimes, separated by an unstable region [@RK.05]. This feature makes the interaction with a classical mode a quite attractive phenomenon. This system has already been studied using statistical tools like Shannon-entropy and the Jensen–Shannon statistical complexity [@enviado]. The authors showed that the pertinent statistical results agree with purely dynamical ones [@enviado].
Our model exhibits a particularly complex sub-regime, with superposition of chaos and complexity. Therein one encounters strong correlation between classical and quantum degrees of freedom [@KR.18].
Our goal
--------
Statistical quantifiers often allow for interesting insights into the intricacies of purely dynamical issues [@zunino]. In such a light, the purpose of the present effort is to look for broader horizons in our statistical research, than those of [@enviado]. This is precisely why we appeal to a possible q-statistics’ contribution to the problem, by recourse to the q-Entropy (\[eq:t-entropy\]) and the q-statistical complexity [@qcomplexity], that allow for considerable enlargement of our statistical arsenal.
Methodology
-----------
Our all important PDs are extracted from times series with the BP methodology, while the time series are obtained from the Poincare-sections arising from a non linear system of equations, that represents the extant dynamics.
Section 2 deals with our semi-quantum system’s dynamics. In particular, Subsect. 2.1 gives results for the isolated quantum system while Subsect. 2.2 does so for the composite system. In Sect. 3 we exhaustively analyze our q–information quantifiers while Sect. 4 displays the pertinent results. Finally, some conclusions are drawn in Sect. 5.
Matter–Field Hamiltonian
=========================
Focus attention upon the Hamiltonian [@KR.18] $$\label{Hparti}
H=\varepsilon_+(b_{+}^{\dagger }b_{+} + \frac{1}{2})+\varepsilon_-(b_{-}^{\dagger }b_{-}+ \frac{1}{2}) + (\Delta + \alpha X) \,(b_{+} b_{-}+b_{-}^{\dagger}b_{+}^{\dagger}) + \frac{\omega }{2}(P_X^{\,\,\,2}
+X^{\,2}),$$ where $b^\dagger_\pm$, $b_{\pm}$ are boson creation and annihilation operators satisfying the standard commutation relations ($[b_\mu,b^\dagger_{\nu}]=\delta_{\mu\nu}$, $[b_\mu,b_\nu]=[b^\dagger_{\mu},b^\dagger_{\nu}]=0$ for $\mu,\nu=\pm$), while $\varepsilon_{\pm}>0$ are the single boson energies, and $X$, $P_X$ represent classical coordinate and momentum quantities, with $\omega$ the associated oscillator’s frequency.
The quantum dynamical equations are the canonical ones [@K0; @K1], that is, arbitrary operators $O$ evolve in the Heisenberg picture as $$i \frac{d O }{dt} = - [\: H, O \:]\,.
\label{Eccanoncero}$$ The pertinent evolution equation for the mean value $\langle O\rangle\equiv {\rm Tr}\,[\rho\,O(t)]$ becomes $$i \frac{d \langle O \rangle}{dt} = - \langle[\: H,
O \:]\rangle,
\label{Eccanon}$$ with the average being taken with respect to a proper quantum density matrix $\rho$. Moreover, classical variables obey the classical Hamilton’s equations of motion
\[eqclasgen\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dX}{dt} & = & \frac{\partial \langle H \rangle}{\partial P_X}
\label{ds},\\
\frac{dP_X}{dt} & = & - \frac{\partial \langle H \rangle}{\partial X}. \label{clasgenb}\end{aligned}$$
The set of equations (\[Eccanon\]) + (\[eqclasgen\]) is an autonomous one of coupled, first-order ordinary differential equations (ODE), that permits a dynamical description such that no quantum rule is violated. Particularly, commutation-relations are trivially time-conserved, since the quantum evolution is the canonical one for our effective time-dependent Hamiltonian. Note that $X$ can be viewed as a time-dependent parameter of our quantal system. The initial conditions are determined by a the quantum density matrix $\rho$. Pass now to the hermitian operators $N=b_{+}^{\dagger}b_{+}+b_{-}^{\dagger}b_{-}\,,\;\delta N=b_{+}^{\dagger}b_{+}-b_{-}^{\dagger}b_{-}\,,
O_{+}=b_{+} b_{-}+b_{-}^{\dagger}b_{+}^{\dagger} \,, \\ O_{-}=i(b_{+} b_{-}-b_{-}^{\dagger}b_{+}^{\dagger})\,,
$ and we are able to recast our Hamiltonian (\[Hparti\]) as $$\label{Hparti2}
H=\varepsilon \, (N+1)+\gamma\, \delta N + (\Delta+\alpha X)\,O_{+} +\frac{\omega }{2}(P_X^{\,\,\,2}
+X^{\,2}),$$ where $\varepsilon=(\varepsilon_++\varepsilon_-)/2>0$ and $\gamma=(\varepsilon_+-\varepsilon_-)/2$, with $|\gamma|<\varepsilon$. From Eqs. (\[Eccanon\])–(\[eqclasgen\]) we thus encounter a closed system of equations for our set of quantum mean values plus classical variables:
\[eqquant1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\langle N+1\rangle }{dt} &=&2(\Delta + \alpha X) \langle O_{-}\rangle , \label{8a} \\
\frac{d\langle O_{-}\rangle }{dt} &=&2(\Delta + \alpha X) \, \langle N+1\rangle +2 \varepsilon\langle
O_{+}\rangle , \label{8b}\\
\frac{d\langle O_{+}\rangle }{dt} &=&- 2 \varepsilon \langle
O_{-}\rangle ,\label{8c}\\
\frac{dX}{dt} &=&\omega P_X,\label{8d} \\
\frac{dP_X}{dt} &=&-(\omega X+\alpha \langle O_{+}\rangle) ,\label{8e}
\end{aligned}$$
where $d\langle \delta N\rangle/dt=0$.
Eqs. (\[eqquant1\]) are clearly a nonlinear ODEs set. Non-linearity has been inserted via the coupling between the two systems, governed by the parameter $\alpha$. For $\alpha=0$ the two systems become decoupled, of course, and the precedent equations become, as a consequence, those for two independent linear systems.
The expectation value $\langle O_{-}\rangle $ is regarded as a “current”, while $\langle O_{+}\rangle $ yields the mean value of the quantum component of the interaction potential. Each level population is fixed by $\langle b^\dagger_{\pm}b_{\pm}\rangle=(\langle N\rangle\pm\langle\delta N\rangle)/2$. The full system (\[eqquant1\]) displays moreover the Bloch-like motion-invariant
$$\label{Inv}
I = \langle N+1 \rangle^{2} - 4|\langle b_+b_-\rangle|^2= \langle N+1 \rangle^{2}-\langle O_{-} \rangle^{2} - \langle O_{+} \rangle^{2},$$
that fulfills $dI/dt=0$ in both the linear ($\alpha=0$) and nonlinear ($\alpha\neq 0$) instances, as it is easily verified.
Given that $\langle \delta N\rangle$ is conserved, it makes sense to work with the effective energy $E_{\rm eff}=\langle H \rangle-\gamma \, \langle \delta N \rangle -\varepsilon$ in place of the total energy $\langle H \rangle$. The two quantities are motion-invariants. Employing $I$ together with $E_{\rm eff}$, we diminish the amount of freedom-degrees of the system (\[eqquant1\]) to just three, which enables the employment of important tools like the [*Poincare sections*]{} so as to investigate the system’s dynamics.
Quantum subsystem
-----------------
For $\alpha=0$, the quantum systems is fully described by the quantum Hamiltonian $$H_q=\varepsilon_+(b_{+}^{\dagger }b_{+} + \frac{1}{2})+\varepsilon_-(b_{-}^{\dagger }b_{-}+ \frac{1}{2}) + \Delta\,(b_{+} b_{-}+b_{-}^{\dagger}b_{+}^{\dagger})\,.$$ The dynamics of this system is analyzed using a method advanced in [@RK.05; @RK.09], that allows for diagonalization of general quadratic forms, even if they lack positivity. The pertinent dynamics displays [*three*]{} different regimes, according to the relation $\Delta$ - $\varepsilon$ [@RK.05]. A) One has a stable regime, for $|\Delta|<\varepsilon$, with an evolution that is [*bounded and quasi-periodic*]{}. The system can be separated into two traditional normal modes. This regime can further be divided into three sub-regimes according to the $H-$spectrum [@RK.05]. Always, discreteness and quasi-periodicity prevail (see [@RK.05]). B) A dynamically unstable one, for $|\Delta|>\varepsilon$. The dynamics is [*exponentially unbounded*]{}. The system can be split up into two normal modes. However, the creation and annihilation operators for them are non-hermitian (see [@RK.05]). C) A non-separable case for $|\Delta|=\varepsilon$. Here $H$ can no longer be cast as a sum of two-independent modes [@RK.05]. We are here at the border between the stable and unstable regimes.
The composite system: results
-----------------------------
The distinct regimes above are determined by the relation amongst $\varepsilon$, $\Delta$, and $\alpha$, no matter what the initial conditions and $\omega$’s value may be. A) For $|\alpha|\geq\varepsilon$, the dynamics is always unbounded [@KR.18]. B) For $\varepsilon > |\alpha|$, the dynamics is determined by $\varepsilon$, $\Delta$ and $\alpha$. $\varepsilon$ competes for significance with the two coupling constants ($\Delta$ and $\alpha$). As $\alpha$ decreases, the system tends to a linear scenario and the relation between $\Delta$ and $\varepsilon$ predominates. In [@KR.18] one sees illustrative Poincare sections (see Figs. 2, 3, and 6 there). For example, if $\alpha< \varepsilon$ remains fixed but the ratio $\varepsilon/\Delta$ changes, one sees that if $\varepsilon > |\Delta|$ the dynamics is periodic and becomes quasi-periodic in the vicinity of the non-diagonalizable regime $\varepsilon=|\Delta|$, exhibiting increasing nonlinear artifacts as this region is reached (Fig. 2c of [@KR.18]). If $\varepsilon < |\Delta|$ un-boundedness reigns. One detects identical behavior for distinct values of $\alpha<\varepsilon$, if we keep the same ratio $\varepsilon/\Delta$. For augmenting values of $\alpha/\Delta$. Again, evolution from periodic curves to rather complex, quasi-periodic ones is appreciated. Finally, one reaches chaos.
The most remarkable behavior is detected at the critical case $\varepsilon \simeq|\Delta|$, in the vicinity of the non-separable instance of the linear system and at the border with the unbounded region. We discover complex, quasi-periodic evolution curves. Additionally, for appropriate “small” values of $\alpha$ ($\alpha<\Delta$), chaos is seen to emerge.
q–Entropy and q–Statistical Complexity {#sec:Information}
======================================
We are interested in physical processes described by a PD $P = \{ p_j, j=1, \cdots, N \}$, where $N$ is the number of available states of the physical system. We consider the normalized q–Entropy ${\mathcal
H_{q}}$ as $${\mathcal H_{q}}[P] = {\rm S_{q}}[P]~/~{\rm S_{q}}[P_e] \ ,$$ where $S_q$ is given by (\[eq:t-entropy\]) and $${\rm S_q}[P_e] = {{1-N^{1-q}} \over {q-1}} \ ,$$ the entropy corresponding to the uniform distribution $P_e$, for $q \in (0,1) \cup (1,\infty)$. In the Shannon case, the entropy is given by Eq. (\[Shannon-entropy\]) ($q=1$ case) and ${\rm S_1}[P_e] = \ln N$.
As a second information measure we will use the product form for the statistical complexity advanced in [@LMC95], ${\mathcal C}[P]~=~{\mathcal H}[P] \cdot {\mathcal Q}[P] \ $, where ${\mathcal H}[P]$ is an entropy and ${\mathcal Q}[P]$ a distance between $P$ y $P_e$. In our case $${\mathcal C_q}[P]~=~{\mathcal H_q}[P] \cdot {\mathcal Q_q}[P] \ ,
\label{C-definition}$$ where ${\mathcal Q_q}[P]$ is called the q-disequilibrium, defined [@ours] via the Jensen–Tsallis divergence ${\mathcal J}_{{\rm S}_{q}}$ [@Lamberti04] $${\mathcal J}_{{\rm S}_{q}}[P,Q]~=~{{1}\over{2}}~K_{q} \left[ P,{(P + Q) \over{2}}\right] +
{{1}\over{2}}~K_{q} \left[ Q , {(P + Q) \over{2}}\right] \ ,
\label{Jensen-Tsallis}$$ which is the symmetric form of the q–Kullback-Leiber relative entropy $$\label{qrelative} K_{q} \left[ P ,Q \right]= \frac{1}{q-1}\; \; \; \sum_{i=1}^n p_i
\, [(\frac{p_i}{q_i})^{q-1} -1],$$ for $q \in (0,1) \cup (1,\infty)$. In the Shannon case, we have the Kullback-Leiber relative entropy $$\label{KLsn}
K \left[ P ,Q \right]= \sum_{i=1}^n p_i
\ln\left(\frac{p_i}{q_i}\right).$$ The square root of ${\mathcal J}_{{\rm S}_{q}}$ is a metric [@Lamberti04]. We take $${\mathcal Q_q}[P] = {\mathcal Q_q}_0 \cdot {\mathcal J}_{{\rm S}_{q}}[P, P_e] \ ,
\label{Q-definition}$$ where ${\mathcal Q_q}_0$ is a normalization constant ($0 \le
{\mathcal Q_q} \le 1$). $${\mathcal Q_q}_0 = (1-q) \cdot \left\{ 1 - \left[{{(1+N^q)(1+N)^{(1-q)}+(N-1)}\over{2^{(2-q)}N}}
\right] \right\}^{-1} \ ,
\label{q0-jensen-2}$$ and $$Q_0 = -2 \left\{ \left( {{N+1}\over{N}} \right) \ln (N+1) - \ln (2N) + \ln N ) \right\}^{-1} \ ,
\label{q0-jensen-1}$$ in the Jensen Shannon case. The maximum disequilibrium obtains when one of the components of $P$, say $p_k$, is unity and the remaining components vanish. The disequilibrium ${\mathcal Q}$ reflects on the systems’ structure, becoming different from zero only if there exist privileged states among the available ones.
Note that ${\mathcal
C_q}$ is not a trivial function of the entropy. It depends on two different probabilities distributions, namely, i) one associated to the system under analysis, $P$, and ii) the uniform distribution $P_e$. Moreover, it is known that for a given ${\mathcal H_q}$ value, a range of possible SC values can be gotten, from a minimum one ${\mathcal C_q}_{min}$ up to a maximum value ${\mathcal C_q}_{max}$. ${\mathcal C_q}$ provides totally original information. A general method to find the bounds ${\mathcal C_q}_{min}$ and ${\mathcal C_q}_{max}$ associated to the generalized ${\mathcal
C}={\mathcal H} \cdot {\mathcal Q}$-quantities can be encountered in Ref. [@Martin2006]. Obviously, relevant information with regards the correlation structures among the components of a physical system can be obtained from the statistical complexity quantifier. Next, we numerically analyze the system’s dynamics using the two q-quantifiers above.
Present results
===============
We employ initial conditions consistent with a proper density operator. Thus, the uncertainty relationships of the quantum system are verified at all times. Precisely, the accuracy of our treatment was checked out by verifying the time-constancy of $E_{\rm eff}$ and $I$ (our dynamical invariants) up to a $10^{-10}$ precision.
Time series (TS) to build up the PDs $P$ are found using the systems’ Poincare sections (PS). Another procedure is to find the PDs using phase space’s curves, what we also did. Of course, PS’s are preferable representatives of phase space than curves in it. Our present numerical results confirm this desirability.
Our PD’s are extracted from the TS using the Bandt-Pompe technique (see the Appendix). The succession of PS’s employed in our computations are gotten via crossings with a plane, i.e., solutions of (\[eqquant1\]) with the $X(t)=0$ plane for identical values of the invariants $E_{\rm eff}$ and $I$. We also change $\varepsilon/\Delta$ and maintains constant both $\alpha/\Delta$ and $\omega/\Delta$ in the PS’s succession.
For each PS linked to a certain $\varepsilon/\Delta >1$ we work with $21$ curves, drawn by changing the initial conditions $\langle O_{-} \rangle_0$ and $P_0$ (keeping compatibility with our values for $E_{\rm eff}$ and $I$). In the unbounded zone ($\varepsilon/\Delta =1$) we require $10000$ curves. $X_0$, $\langle N \rangle_0$, and $\langle O_{+} \rangle_0$ are maintained constant. Further, for each PS our TS is the one associated to time-dependent values of different quantities like $\langle N+\rangle$, $\langle O_{-}\rangle$, $\langle O_{+}\rangle$, etc. The graphs depicted here are linked to the $\langle O_{+}\rangle$-case. One finds similar results for any of these quantities. We selected, per PS, $10000$ crossing-points with the plane $X(t)=0$.
A consistent Shannon (+ Jensen-Shannon) statistical description of our model, that agrees with the purely dynamic one, has been presented in [@enviado]. The results can be observed, together with those corresponding to different values of $ q $ in Figs. 1–4.
Fig. 1 displays ${\mathcal H_q}$ vs. $\varepsilon/\Delta$ for different q-values, including $q=1$. In all cases, for decreasing $\varepsilon/\Delta$ one sees that ${\mathcal H_q}$ grows (with slight oscillations), from the quasi-periodic zone ($\varepsilon/\Delta> 1.2$) towards $\varepsilon/\Delta=1$, till becoming maximal at $\varepsilon/\Delta\simeq 1.05$. The dynamics teaches us that chaoticity suddenly emerges therein [@KR.18]. Afterwards, in all cases, ${\mathcal H_q}$ suddenly drops in the unbounded dynamics’ zone ($\varepsilon/\Delta\simeq1$) till reaching an absolute minimum at ($\varepsilon/\Delta=1$). For ($\varepsilon/\Delta < 1$), ${\mathcal H_q}$ is close to a minimum, almost null value. One should expect that ${\mathcal H_q}$ be smaller in this region than in the quasi-periodic (or even the non periodic) zone. The most noticeable ${\mathcal H_q}$-variations emerge in the region lying between $\varepsilon/\Delta\simeq 1.2$ and $\varepsilon/\Delta\simeq 1.05$, associated to the entropic maximum. Dynamically, this region is linked to a region in which non-linearity becomes of a more involved nature. This tales place as we attain $\varepsilon/\Delta=1.05$, near $\varepsilon/\Delta=1$, value that signals the quantum unstable scenario. Remind that here we can not find separability into quantum normal modes.
Fig. 2 displays the q–statistical complexity (SC) vs. $\varepsilon/\Delta$ for a smaller q-range. Roughly, ${\mathcal C_q}$ behaves like ${\mathcal H_q}$ for all $q$. Notice that if $\varepsilon/\Delta$ decreases, SC grows till $\varepsilon/\Delta\simeq 1.2$. Onwards, it strongly oscillates till $\varepsilon/\Delta\simeq 1.08$, attaining an absolute maximum. From this point onwards, ${\mathcal C_q}$ suddenly diminishes, reaching an absolute minimum in the unbounded zone.
Even if the minima are reached at the same $\varepsilon/\Delta$-value, the maxima of ${\mathcal H_q}$ and ${\mathcal C_q}$ are not attained in the same manner. The SC reaches its maximum **sooner** than the entropy in the process of approaching the unstable, quantal point. Even if the concomitant $\varepsilon/\Delta$-values do not differ too much among themselves, they are not identical.
We conclude that the descriptions via ${\mathcal H_q}$ and ${\mathcal C_q}$ can be regarded as reconfirming the $q=1$-one obtained in [@enviado].
Fig. 3 depicts ${\mathcal H_q}$ vs. $\varepsilon/\Delta$ in the considerable ${\mathcal H_q}$–validity range $q$ $\in$ $(0, 3.5)$. In this range, the entropy maximum is located **in the same site** $\varepsilon/\Delta\simeq 1.05$, as in the Shannon case. Instead, at $q=3.5$, the entropy no longer distinguishes between the dynamic-transition zone and the quasi-periodic one. This fact sets an upper limit to $q$. Fig. 3 is an illustration. For $q<1$, contrarily, these two zones are better distinguished. Also, we find there a stronger similitude between the curves for ${\mathcal H_q}$ and ${\mathcal C_q}$. The latter loses then significance.
Questions about the validity range (VR) for ${\mathcal C_q}$ are answered by stating that its VR is much smaller that for the entropy. Now we have $q$ $\in$ $[0.8, 1.6]$. For $q > 1.6$ the q-complexity absolute maximum is located in the quasi–periodic zone, not in the transition one. This result is not consistent with the dynamic results. This places an upper limit of $q=1.6$. As for a lower bound, we find $q=0.8$. This is because, for $q<0.8$, the $\varepsilon/\Delta= 1.05-$value at which the q-complexity is maximal coincides with that of the entropy. We can the say that the q-complexity loses relevance. The location of the q-complexity maximum changes for $[0.8, 1.6]$-q-range. The changes are not large. For $q$ $\in$ $[0.8, 1.2)$ the maximum is attained at $\varepsilon/\Delta= 1.08$, as in the $q=1$ case. When $q $ grows, the location grows as well, reaching $\varepsilon/\Delta= 1.1$ for $q=1.6$. The optimal $\varepsilon/\Delta$-value for the ${\mathcal C_q}$-maximum cannot be obtained with our methodology. Maybe another complexity functional might be needed.
Fig. 4 depicts q-complexity curves for different $q$-values in the VR, $[0.8, 1.6]$.
Conclusions
===========
By recourse to Tsallis’ statistical tools we studied a non lineal Hamiltonian that describes the interaction of a quantum–matter system with a classical field. The field is represented by a single-mode electromagnetic one. The quantum system is a bosonic one that admits of both unbounded and quasi-periodic regimes. These two regimes are separated by an unstable third one [@RK.05]. The composite system is of interest in quantum optics and in condensed matter [@Milonni; @Sa.91; @K0; @K1].
The dynamics of the composite system is governed by a non-linear system of ordinary differential equations (ODE), given by (\[eqquant1\]). This ODE displays periodic, quasi-periodic, unbounded, chaotic, and non-linear sub-dynamics, depending on the $H$-parameters’ values. An interesting feature is that both the complex non-linear and the chaotic sub-dynamics are found lie (in the parameters’ space) in the vicinity of the unstable isolate quantum regime. Although the presence of the classical system is what enables the existence of non-linearity and chaos, one can reasonably deduce from this feature that important model’s properties emerge from the quantum system.
Our statistical tools are the q–entropy ${\mathcal H_q}$ and the q–statistical complexity ${\mathcal C_q}$, evaluated via the Bandt-Pompe symbolic analysis from time-series (TS). A specials case (q=1) is that of the Shannon entropy and Jensen-Shannon’s complexity. In turn, the TS were obtained from Poincare sections (PS) derived via our ODE system. We get the PS through intersections of the ODE’s solutions of (\[eqquant1\]) with the $X(t)=0$ plane, keeping constant the invariants $E_{\rm eff}$ and $I$. In our graphs we also keep constant i) the values of $\alpha/\Delta$ and $\omega/\Delta$ and ii) the initial conditions $X_0$, $\langle N \rangle_0$ and $\langle O_{+} \rangle_0$ (for all the PS-succession). One varies $\varepsilon/\Delta$.
As a first conclusion we have verified the sturdy nature of our results. The q-description (within a reasonable q-range), as seen in Figs. 1 - 2, is coherent with the Shannon’s one. Both Shannon’s entropy and ${\mathcal H_q}$ (for $0 \le q \le 3.5)$, reach an absolute maximum at the **same value** of $\varepsilon/\Delta= 1.05$.
As a second result we have found that our description’s validity-range is determined by ${\mathcal C_q}$. This range is $q$ $\in$ $[0.8, 1.6]$ (Fig. 4), more restricted than that of the q-entropic range mentioned above (Fig. 3).
Lastly, the ${\mathcal C_q}$-maximum’s position varies between $\varepsilon/\Delta= 0.8$ and $\varepsilon/\Delta= 1.1$. The optimal ${\mathcal C_q}$-maximum’s position-value cannot be ascertained by recourse to the present information-tools. Maybe still more general entropic functionals, maybe of not trace-form, could become useful.
**Acknowledgments**. AK acknowledges support from CIC of Argentina. AP acknowledges support from CONICET of Argentina.
Appendix. PD Based on Bandt and Pompe’s Methodology {#sec:PDF-Bandt-Pompe}
---------------------------------------------------
To use the Bandt and Pompe [@Bandt2002] methodology for evaluating the probability distribution $P$ associated with the time series (dynamical system), one starts by considering partitions of the pertinent $D$-dimensional space that will hopefully “reveal" relevant details of the ordinal structure of a given one-dimensional time series $\mathcal S(t) = \{ x_t; t= 1, \cdots, M\}$, with embedding dimension $D > 1$ and time delay $\tau$. We will take here $\tau = 1$ as the time delay, a parameter of the approach [@Bandt2002]. We are interested in “ordinal patterns", of order $D$ [@Bandt2002; @Rosso2012], generated by $$(s)~\mapsto~
\left(~x_{s-(D-1)},~x_{s-(D-2)},~\cdots,~x_{s-1},~x_{s}~\right),
\label{vectores11}$$ which assigns to each time the $D$-dimensional vector of values at times $s,
s-1,\cdots,s-(D-1)$. Clearly, the greater the $D-$value, the more information on the past is incorporated into our vectors. By “ordinal pattern" related to the time $(s)$, we mean the permutation $\pi=(r_0,r_1, \cdots,r_{D-1})$ of $[0,1,\cdots,D-1]$ defined by $$x_{s-r_{D-1}}~\le~x_{s-r_{D-2}}~\le~\cdots~\le~x_{s-r_{1}}~\le~x_{s-r_0}.
\label{permuta11}$$ In this way the vector defined by Eq. (\[vectores11\]) is converted into a unique symbol $\hat{x}_i$. Thus, a permutation probability distribution $P_x=\{p(\hat{x}_i), i=1,\dots, D!\}$ is obtained from the time series $x_i$. The probability distribution $P$ is obtained once we fix the embedding dimension $D$ and the time delay $\tau$. The former parameter plays an important role for the evaluation of the appropriate probability distribution, since $D$ determines the number of accessible states, $D!$, and tells us about the necessary length $M$ of the time series needed in order to work with a reliable statistics. The whole enterprise works for $D! \ll M$. In particular, Bandt and Pompe [@Bandt2002] suggest for practical purposes to work with $3 \le D \le 7$. For more details see [@Rosso2012]. We have considered in this work $D = 6$, a reasonable value given in the literature for series of length $M = 10000$. We have checked the results taking $D = 5$, obtaining similar descriptions for the information measures considered.
[—-]{}
C.E. Shannon, Bell Syst Technol Journal **27** (1948), 379; 623.
J.S. Shiner, M. Davison, P.T. Landsberg, Phys. Rev. E **59** (1999) 1459. R. López-Ruiz, H.L. Mancini, X. Calbet, Phys. Lett. A **209** (1995) 321.
P.W. Lamberti, M.T. Martin, A. Plastino, O.A. Rosso, Physica A **334** (2004) 119.
A.N. Kolmogorov, Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR, [**199**]{} (1958) 861.
Y.G. Sinai, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, [**124**]{} (1959) 768.
K. Mischaikow, M. Mrozek, J. Reiss, A. Szymczak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{} (1999) 1144.
G E. Powell, I C. Percival, J. Phys A: Math. Gen. [**12**]{} (1979) 2053.
O.A. Rosso, M.L. Mairal, Physica A [**312**]{}, (2002) 469.
C. Bandt, B. Pompe, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88** (2002) 174102.
A.M. Kowalski, M.T. Martín, A. Plastino, O.A. Rosso, Physica D **233** (2007) 21.
R. Hanel, S. Thurner, Physica A [**380**]{} (2007) 109.
C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. [**52**]{} (1988) 479.
P.A. Alemany, D.H. Zanette, Phys. Rev. E [**49**]{} (1997) R956.
C. Tsallis, Fractals [**3**]{} (1995) 541.
C. Tsallis, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{} (1998) 1442.
M. Kalimeri, C. Papadimitriou, G. Balasis, K. Eftaxias, Physica A [**387**]{} (2008) 1161.
E. Bloch, Phys. Rev. **70** (1946) 460. P. Milonni, M. Shih, J.R. Ackerhalt, Chaos in Laser-Matter Interactions; World Scientific Publishing Co.: Singapore, 1987. P. Meystre, M. Sargent, Elements of Quantum Optics; Springer: NY, 1991. P. Ring, P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1980. A.M. Kowalski, R. Rossignoli, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals **109** (2018) 140. A.M. Kowalski, A. Plastino and A.N. Proto, Phys. Rev. E **52** (1995) 165 . A.M. Kowalski, Physica A **458** (2016) 106.
R. Rossignoli, A.M. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. A **72** (2005) 032101.
A.M. Kowalski, A. Plastino, R. Rossignoli, Physica A (2018), doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.08.159.
A. Kowalski, M.T. Martin, L. Zunino, A. Plastino, M. Casas, Entropy **12** (2010) 148.
A.M. Kowalski, A. Plastino, M. Casas, Entropy **11** (2009) 111.
R. Rossignoli, A.M. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. A **79** (2009) 062103.
M.T. Martín, A. Plastino, O.A. Rosso, Physica A **369** (2006) 439.
M. Zanin, L. Zunino, O.A. Rosso, D. Papo, Entropy **14** (2012) 1553.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.