text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
The first Stern-Gerlach experiments [@Ste22] on metal clusters have been performed on ${\rm Fe_N}$ with N=15-650 [@deH90]. Surprisingly, in these experiments the ${\rm Fe_N}$ clusters were deflected only in the direction of the increasing magnetic field, in contrast to the well known deflection patterns of atoms and small molecules [@Ged89; @Kue88]. Since then the question of the magnetization process of small isolated clusters has been widely discussed in literature. Khanna et al. suggested that the spins of the metal atoms in the clusters are coupled superparamagnetically resulting in one large spin [@Kan91]. If the thermal energy is substantially larger than the magnetic anisotropy energy, the classical Langevin model can be applied to explain the magnetization of the clusters as a function of field $B$, cluster size $N$ and internal cluster temperature $T_c$. According to this model the freely fluctuating spin relaxes under isothermal conditions, since the cluster vibrations seem to provide a heat bath which is sufficiently large to maintain a constant temperature during the magnetization process, i.e. when the clusters enter the magnetic field. Most of the experiments performed to investigate the magnetic properties of small metal particles were carried out at high temperatures. The results can be understood within an isothermal magnetization model using $\mu_z={\mathcal L}(\mu_0B/k_BT_c) \mu_0$, where $k_B$ denotes the Boltzmann constant and $\mathcal{L}$ the Langevin function. Assuming $T_c\approx T_n$, with $T_n$ denoting the nozzle temperature, the approximation $\mu_z=\mu_0 (\mu_0B/3k_BT_c)$ in the low field limit $(\mu_0B\ll k_BT_c)$ was applied to fit the magnetization curves. The obtained values for the magnetic moments per atom $\mu_0/N$ of large ${\rm Co_N}$ [@Bil94], ${\rm Fe_N}$ [@Bil93] and ${\rm Ni_N}$ [@Blo96] clusters with N$\ge 2500$ were consistent with macroscopic magnetic properties of Fe, Co and Ni. However, the saturation of the magnetization predicted for the strong field limit $(\mu_0B\gg k_BT_c)$ of the Langevin model $\mu_z=(1-kT_c/\mu_0B)\mu_0$ which allows an independent determination of cluster temperature and magnetic moment was never observed.
Although in many cases the Langevin model was applied very successfully, it was found that under certain conditions it does not explain the experimental results correctly [@Bil93]. There are two scenarios, where the Langevin model is likely to fail: Firstly, when the cluster temperature is so small that only very few internal degrees of freedom are thermally excited and therefore the heat bath provided for the isothermal relaxation process is not sufficient, and secondly, when metal clusters are investigated with an anisotropy energy larger than the thermal energy. In this case the spin cannot rotate freely, but is fixed to one of the crystal axis (locked spin model).
Bertsch at al. proposed an adiabatic model for the magnetization of clusters [@Ber95] with a magnetic anisotropy energy larger than the thermal energy of the clusters (locked spin model). It is assumed that no vibrational levels except the ground state are populated. Spin and rotation of the clusters are treated classically. Using statistical mechanics, the authors derived the magnetization of an ensemble of classical symmetric rotors with the spin fixed to one of the figure axis. In the strong field regime ($k_B T_R \ll \mu_0 B$) with $T_R$ being the rotational temperature of the cluster, the expression $$\label{bersf}
\mu_z=\mu_0\left( 1-\sqrt{\frac{32}{9\pi}}
\sqrt{\frac{{k_B}T_R}{\mu_0 B}} \right),$$ was obtained, while in the weak field regime the equation $$\label{berlf}
\mu_z=\frac{2}{9}\frac{\mu_0 B}{{ k_B} T_R}\mu_0$$ holds. At large field strengths saturation of the magnetization is predicted (Equation \[bersf\]). In this regime the independent determination of the rotational temperature and of the magnetic moment of the clusters is possible.
Up to now only one experiment, performed by Douglass et al. [@Blo92], has been discussed in the frame of the adiabatic locked spin model. The shape of the Stern-Gerlach deflection patterns of ${\rm Gd_N}$ particles with a bulk anisotropy energy of $10^{6}{\rm erg/cm^3}$ at 0K [@Gme74] generated at a nozzle temperature of $T_n=105$K were explained in terms of this model, but no experiments on the magnetization process have been performed so far. In this paper we want to investigate the magnetization of clusters far away from the Langevin conditions and discuss the problem of isothermal versus adiabatic magnetization. For this purpose we study cold ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters ($T_n=13$K) with a large bulk anisotropy energy ($10^{8}{\rm erg/cm^3}$ at 0K [@Gme74]).
For the generation of ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters (${\rm 17 \le N\le 55}$) we used a pulsed laser evaporation cluster source incorporated in a Stern-Gerlach molecular beam apparatus. The experimental setup is described elsewhere [@Hih98]. The source has been modified to produce clusters with very small temperatures. Now it is possible to cool the nozzle down to temperatures of $T_n$=13K using liquid He. Additionally, the source is constructed such that the dwell time of the clusters in the cold nozzle channel should be sufficient to establish thermal equilibrium between clusters, He and nozzle. Therefore it can be expected that the cluster temperature before the adiabatic expansion equals the nozzle temperature. To favor a strong adiabatic expansion through the nozzle into the high vacuum of the flight tubes, which leads to further cooling of the clusters, a large He pressure of about 100mbar in the nozzle channel is applied. In fact the velocity of the clusters measured behind the nozzle confirms the existence of strong adiabatic expansion and thermal equilibrium between nozzle and clusters: Using the equation $V_{He}=\sqrt{5RT_{He}/m_{He}}$ [@Sco88], where $m_{He}$ denotes the molecular weight, $R$ the gas constant and $T_{He}$ the He temperature, we can calculate the He terminal speed $V_{He}$, if we replace $T_{He}$ by $T_n$ assuming thermal equilibrium between nozzle and He. At small nozzle temperatures ($ 13{\rm K}\le T_n \le 40{\rm K}$) the calculated He terminal speed $V_{He}$ agrees very well with the measured velocity of the clusters $V_C$, while for higher temperatures a growing velocity slip is observed. For example, at $T_n$=13K we find $V_{C}=396$m/s$\pm 30$m/s and $V_{He}=368{\rm m/s}\approx V_C$ versus $V_{C}=1200$m/s$\pm 40$ m/s and $V_{He}=1765{\rm m/s}$ at $T_n$=300K. The fact that no slip between the calculated He velocity and the velocity of the clusters is observed for $T_n \le 40{\rm K}$ indicates a strong adiabatic expansion and a thermal equilibrium between nozzle and clusters [@Sco88]. After being collimated the cluster beam passes the Stern-Gerlach magnet. The deflection is detected size selectively by a time of flight mass spectrometer in combination with an ionization laser beam. The magnet and the detection unit are described in [@Hih98].
For ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters generated at nozzle temperatures $T_n$=13K and $T_n$=18K, we observe a shift of the Stern-Gerlach profile in the direction of the increasing magnetic field. This indicates that relaxation processes are involved. Studying the field dependence of the magnetization, we obtain magnetization curves which show saturation at large field strengths as displayed in Figure \[fig1\].
To make sure that the observed saturation of the magnetization is not an effect of the relaxation time scales involved, we repeat the deflection experiments on ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters with a Stern-Gerlach magnet of half of the length. We obtained half of the deflection and therefore the same magnetization. This shows that the measurement of the magnetization takes place under stationary conditions. Hence, within our resolution, there are no relaxation processes involved with relaxation times in the order of magnitude of the experimental time scale of typically 200${\rm \mu}$s which is the time ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters need to traverse the Stern-Gerlach magnet.
Now we turn to the question whether we expect isothermal or adiabatic magnetization under the experimental conditions described above. To understand the nature of the relaxation process it is important to consider which degrees of freedom are accessible in the cluster. As pointed out above, the clusters are in thermal equilibrium with the nozzle before the adiabatic expansion. After the adiabatic expansion the clusters exhibit a vibrational temperature $T_{vib}$ which is close to the nozzle temperature ($T_{vib}\approx T_n\le 18$K). However, the rotational temperature $T_R$ is smaller, because the adiabatic cooling is more effective for rotations than for vibrations [@Sco88], since the coupling of the rotations on the translational modes is stronger. To estimate the number of vibrational states, which are thermally accessible in ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters, we calculate the vibrational partition sum and the occupation number of the vibrational ground state of the dimer ${\rm Dy_2}$. As an eigen frequency we use the Einstein frequency of bulk Dy. We find that the ground state is occupied with a probability of 99.9% at $T_{vib}=18$K. Although it is very likely that in ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters vibrational states with smaller frequencies than the Einstein frequency are available, this example demonstrates that only very few of the vibrational levels will be thermally accessible. To estimate the number of thermally accessible rotational states, we calculate the rotational occupation numbers of ${\rm Dy_{20}}$. We approximate the complicated cluster structure by a sphere with the density of bulk Dy and the mass of ${\rm Dy_{20}}$. For $T_R=1$K we obtain an occupation maximum at the rotational level $J_R$ =27 (2.2 %), where $J_R$ denotes the rotational quantum number. Taking into account that large quantum numbers like $J_R$=80 are still populated (0.15%), the rotation of the clusters can be described in good approximation by the model of the classical rotor.
In the next step we want to address the problem, whether isothermal magnetization is possible, when the contribution of the vibrations to the heat bath necessary for the isothermal Langevin process is neglegible, i.e. when the heat bath consists exclusively of rotatational degrees of freedom. This question can be answered by considering the entropy transfer between the spin and the rotational system employing the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to Boltzmann the entropy $S$ can be written as $S=-\sum_i k_B \omega_i \ln \omega_i$, where $\omega_i$ denotes the occupation probability of the state $i$ [@Lan69]. The entropy loss $\Delta S_J$ provoked by the magnetization process is due to fixing the orientation of the total angular momentum $J$ of the clusters in the magnetic field direction z at large field strengths. This corresponds to the saturation of the magnetization. Without field the cluster has $2J+1$ possibilities of equal probability $\omega_i$ to orientate the total angular momentum versus the z-axis. Since we observe experimentally the saturation of the magnetization (see Fig. \[fig1\]), the order of magnitude of the magnetic moment $\mu_0=g_J\sqrt{J(J+1)}\mu_B$, where $g_J$ denotes the g-factor of the cluster, can be estimated by taking into account that the saturation magnetization $\mu_S$ is approximately equal to the magnetic moment $\mu_0$. Assuming that the g-factor of the clusters is in the order of magnitude of the g-factor of the ground state of the Dy atom $g_j=1.33\approx g_J$, one obtains for ${\rm Dy_{20}}$ with $\mu_S\approx \mu_0 \approx 9 \mu_B$ a total angular momentum of $J\approx 6$ and hence an entropy loss $\Delta S_J=\sum_{i=1}^{13} \ln (1/13)k_B/13=-k_B \ln 13$. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics the rotational entropy $\Delta S_R \ge -\Delta
S_J$ has to augment at least by the same amount. This entropy gain changes the rotational temperature $T_R$ according to the equation $\Delta S_R = c_{VR} \Delta T_R /T_0$, where $c_{VR}$ is the heat capacity and $T_0$ denotes the temperature of the clusters, before the field was applied. We have shown above that many rotational levels with large quantum numbers are occupied in ${\rm Dy_{20}}$. Therefore we approximate $c_{VR}$ by the high temperature value $c_{VR}=3k_B/2$. Hence the temperature change due to the magnetization process is given by the expression $\Delta T_R/T_0\ge \ln (2J+1)2/3$. For clusters with an initial rotational temperature $T_0\approx1$K the temperature rises during the magnetization process by $\Delta
T_R \approx 1.7$K. This significant change of the rotational temperature shows, that in our case it is not suitable to use the isothermal magnetization model.
Now let us turn to the question, whether adiabatic magnetization is possible. For the magnetization process the time $t_s \approx 10^{-5}$s needed by the clusters to move from a zero field region into the magnet with the full field applied, is important, because adiabatic magnetization is only possible when the magnetization takes place at much larger time scales than the relaxation process. Since the typical time scale for cluster rotations is $10^{-9}$s, the magnetization can take place adiabatically. Hence, we consider whether the adiabatic model proposed by Bertsch et al. can be applied to evaluate our experimental data. The assumptions made in this model (classical rotation, classical spin and locked spin) reflect our experimental conditions. It has been discussed above that the rotations can be treated classically. In first approximation the spin of the cluster can be treated classically as well, because the saturation magnetization of the clusters indicates the existence of large total angular momenta (see ${\rm Dy_{20}}$). The locked spin model is justified, since the thermal energy of the clusters ($T_c \le 18$K) is much smaller than the magnetic anisotropy energy. Using the anisotropy energy of bulk rare earths ($\approx 10^8 {\rm erg/cm^3}$ at 0K [@Gme74]), we estimate for ${\rm Dy_{20}}$ an anisotropy energy which corresponds to a temperature of about 500K. Therefore we use the adiabatic model proposed by Bertsch et al. to fit the magnetization curves of ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters, recorded for N=17-29 at $T_n$=18K and for N=32-55 at $T_n$=13K. Since most of the data measured at ${ T_n=18}$K and at ${ T_n=13}$K belong to the strong field regime (see Fig. \[fig1\]), we use Equation \[bersf\] to fit our magnetization curves. After plotting the magnetizations versus $1/\sqrt{B}$, the magnetic moments and the rotational temperatures $T_R$ of the ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters are determined by linear regression, as shown in Fig.\[fig2\]. In average Equation \[bersf\] gives a good fit for the clusters generated at $T_n=18$K and at $T_n=13$K. Only magnetizations measured at very small field strengths, i. e. $B$=0.22T for $T_n=18$K do not fit the expected behavior, because they do not belong to the strong field regime. $T_R$ is calculated from the slope of the line fit and depends on the prefactors imposed by the structural assumptions and the assumptions about the distribution of the rotational energy. Hence the temperature scale depends on the geometrical details of the clusters, while the magnetic moment is independent.
Figure \[fig3\]a shows the magnetic moments per Dy atom $\mu_0/N$ of ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters with $N$=17-55 and their rotational temperatures $T_R$ obtained by applying the adiabatic model as described above. In average the magnetic moments per atom range between 0.3 to 0.6 $\mu_B$. In comparison to the magnetic moment of Dy $\mu_{Dy}=10.6 \mu_B$ in the ferromagnetic bulk phase the magnetic moments of the clusters are smaller by a factor of 20. This suggests that the magnetic ordering in the clusters is rather antiferromagnetic than ferromagnetic ($ J=\sum_i j_i\approx 0$, with $J$ being the total angular momentum of the cluster and $j$ being the total angular momentum of the Dy atom), although the rotational cluster temperatures are well below the Curie temperature of the bulk ${\rm T_C}$(Dy)=86K. Keeping in mind that the ferromagnetic ordering in rare earth metals is determined by indirect coupling through the valence electrons (RKKY interaction [@Kon69]), this result is not very surprising and similar behaviour has been observed for other rare earth clusters [@Blo98]. Since the structure of small clusters differs strongly from the bulk lattice to compensate surface effects, the wave functions of non localized electrons like valence electrons change in response to the change of the long range structural ordering. As a result the coupling between the ${\rm 4f^9}$ cores of the Dy atoms in the clusters differs from the coupling in the bulk, since electrons in irregularly shaped cluster orbitals are polarized instead of electrons in orbitals described by regularly oscillating Bloch functions. The theoretical study performed by Pappas et al. on ${\rm Gd_{13}}$ illustrates the effect of the modified exchange coupling on the magnetic structure of small rare earth particles very well [@Pap96]. In Figure \[fig3\]b the rotational temperatures $T_R$ of the clusters are shown. Since the rotational temperatures (0.2-2.0K) are much smaller than the nozzle temperatures ($T_n$=13K and 18K), we conclude that the adiabatic cooling of the rotational degrees of freedom after the expansion takes place very efficiently, as it is suggested in [@Sco88].
Although the adiabatic model developed by Bertsch et al. fits the recorded magnetizations very well in the strong field limit, the overall shape of the magnetization curve does not match the theoretical prediction in Ref. [@Ber95] for a spherical cluster. The theoretically predicted adiabatic magnetization curve shows a linear dependence of the magnetization at small fields (Equation \[berlf\]) like the isothermal magnetization, whereas the experimental data (Fig.\[fig1\]) suggest the existence of higher order terms. Since it cannot be assumed that all ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters in a size range of N=16-55 are spherical, the breaking of the spherical symmetry could probably account for the differing curve shapes at small fields, as it was shown by quantummechanical calculations [@Ber96].
In summary, the magnetization of ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters generated at low nozzle temperatures can be understood by assuming adiabatic magnetization, while an isothermal process is not consistent with the experiment. By measuring the saturation of the magnetization, the magnetic moment and the temperature of the clusters can be determined at the same time independently. The rotational temperatures obtained suggest a strong adiabatic cooling. The ${\rm Dy_N}$ clusters exhibit a nearly antiferromagnetic spin order, although bulk Dy is ferromagnetic in the temperature range studied. This can be understood in the frame of the RKKY theory. The complicated size dependence of temperature and magnetic moment of the clusters remains an open question.
S.P. gratefully acknowledges support from the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie. Many thanks to J.A. Becker for his experimental and theoretical support.
O. Stern [*Phys. Z.*]{} [**13**]{}, 3052 (1922) W.A. de Heer, P. Milani, and A. Chatelain, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**65**]{}, 488 (1990) A. Gedanken, N.A. Kuebler, and M.B. Robin, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**90**]{}, 3981 (1989) N.A. Kuebler, M.B. Robin, J.J. Yang, and A. Gedanken, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**38**]{}, 737 (1988) S.N. Khanna, and S. Linderoth [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**67**]{}, 1441 (1991) I.M.L. Billas, A. Chatelain, and W.A. de Heer, [*Science*]{} [**264**]{}, 1682 (1994) I.M.L. Billas, J. A. Becker, A. Chatelain, and W.A. de Heer, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**71**]{}, 4067 (1993) S.E. Apsel, J.W. Emmert, J. Deng, and L.A. Bloomfield, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 1441 (1996) G. Bertsch, N. Onishi, and K. Yabana, [*Z. Phys. D*]{} [**34**]{}, 213 (1995) D.C. Douglas, J.P. Bucher, and L.A. Bloomfield, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**68**]{}, 1774 (1992) G. Kirschstein, Gmelin Handbuch der Anorganischen Chemie, Seltenenerdelemente, Teil B 3, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 303 (1974) T. Hihara, S. Pokrant, and J.A. Becker, [*Chem. Phys.Lett.*]{} [**294**]{}, 357 (1998) D.R. Miller in G. Scoles, Atomic and Molecular Beam Methods, Vol.1, Oxford, New York, 14-16 (1988) L.D. Landau, and E.M. Lifschitz, Lehrbuch der Theoretischen Physik, Band 1, Mechanik, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Frankfurt, 134pp (1969) J. Kondo, [*Solid state physics*]{} [**23**]{}, 184 (1969) L.A. Bloomfield, J. Deng, A.J. Cox, J.W. Emmert, H. Zhang, D.B. Haynes, J.G. Louderback, D.C. Douglass, J.P. Bucher, and A.M. Spencer in M. Donath, P.A. Dowben, and W. Nolting, Magnetism and Electronic Correlations in Local-Moment Systems: Rare-Earth Elements and Compounds, World Scientific, Singapore, 153 (1998) D.P. Pappas, A.P. Popov, A.N. Anisimov, B.V. Reddy, and S.N. Khanna, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 4332 (1996) V. Visuthikraisee, and G. Bertsch, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**54**]{}, 5104 (1996)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The interference phase of the high/low energy particle in a gravitational field is studied. By means of the complete Schwarzshild tetrads, we again deal with the phase in terms of the type-I and type-II phases, which correspond to the momentum and “spin connection" of Dirac particle coupling to the curved spacetime respectively. We find that the type-II phase is in the magnitude of the square of the gravitational potential, which can be neglected in the weak field. For the high energy particle (mass neutrinos), we obtain that the phase calculated along the null is equivalent to the half phase along the geodesic in the high energy limit. Further, we apply the covariant phase to the thermal neutron interference, and obtain the consistent interference phase with that exploited in COW experiment.'
address: |
Instituto de Física Teórica\
Universidade Estadual Paulista\
Rua Pamplona 145\
01405-900 São Paulo\
Brazil\
[email protected]
author:
- 'C. M. Zhang and A. Beesham'
title: |
The general treatment of high/low energy particle\
interference phase in a gravitational field
---
c
2r[[r\_[s]{}2r]{}]{} ł2r2[[l\^[2]{}r\^[2]{}]{}]{} 2[[l\^[2]{}a\^[2]{}]{}]{} 2[[l\^[2]{}b\^[2]{}]{}]{} c
0.5cm
PACS number(s): 95.30.Sf, 26.30.+k, 14.60.Pq
Introduction
============
The neutrino oscillations have been a hot topic in the high energy experimental and theoretical phycics recently [@zub98; @bil98], in particular, with highly confident atomspheric neutrino experiment of Super-Kamiokande to assure the neutrino mass [@sk]. As a natural extension of the theoretical consideration, the description of neutrino oscillation in the flat spacetime should be replaced by that in the curved spacetime if the gravitational background is taken into account. In other words, the physics related to the neutrino oscillation in Minkowski spacetime with Lorentz invariant will be extended to Riemanian spacetime with general coordinate transformation. The pioneer theoretical considerations on the gravitationally induced neutrino oscillation were proposed by Wudka [@wud91], and later advocated by Ahluwalia [@ahl96] who for the first time presented the three flavor neutrino oscillations in the weak field expansion scheme. Further some thoughtful idea on the nongeometrical element in the description of the gravitational theory, trigered by the gravitationally induced neutrino oscillation clock, was also provided [@ahl96]. Moreover the violation of the equivalence principle was also employed to account for the significant influence on the MSW effect [@msw] for the solar neutrinos [@gas89; @man]. More recently, from the different angle, the gravitational effects on the neutrino oscillations have been paid much attention by a number of authors [@ahl96; @wud96; @gro96; @ful96; @bha99; @for96], but, unfortunately, debates and conflicts occur in the understanding of the gravitationally induced neutrino oscillations [@ahl96; @gro96; @ful96; @bha99; @for96].
In this paper, we will discuss the particle interference phase in a gravitational field in a unified version, i.e., provide a unified description of the phases for both high energy particle (two mass neutrinos) and low energy particle (COW thermal neutrons). In order to develope the treatments by using the null condition to calculate the neutrino relative phase and appling the weak field condition to calculate COW thermal neutron phase, we employ the accurate particle world line (geodesic) to calculate both phase factors, and at last we can obtain the correct neutrino relative phase by dividing a factor of 2 and obtain the COW neutron interference phase by the convenient approximated condition.
The energy condition in the gravitational field to account for the relative phase of mass neutrinos often makes the confusions and even conflictsahl96,ful96,bha99. Apparently, we point out that almost all debates related to the neutrino oscillation in curved spacetime originate from the inconvenient use of this condition. It is noted that replacing the null by the geodesic to calculate the neutrino oscillation phase will produce a factor of 2 error. However this factor of 2 will be automatically deleted when considering the two neutrino arrival time differncebha99. Here, we still follow the plane wave treatment for the extremely relativistic neutrinos in the framework of the standard treatment [@for96], otherwise the wave packet treatment will be applied for the general case [@giu91].
For the reason of simplicity, we confine our treatment in two generation neutrinos (electron and muon) and mainly in Schwarzschild geometry with radial propagation and nonradial propagation respectively. The purpose of the paper is threefold. First we point out the general treatment of the high (low) energy particle phase in a gravitational field, include the type-I and type-II phases. Second we give the complete description of neutrino phase along the geodesic, and point out the relation to that by the null in the high energy limit. Third we apply the covariant geodesic phase to the COW thermal interference phase, then we can find that the geodesic phase can result in the correct results for the interference phases of both the two mass neutrinos and the thermal neutron by the standard treatment.
So the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we discuss Dirac equation and the treatments of particle interference phase in the curved spacetime, which includes type-I and type-II phases. In Sec. III and Sec. IV, we calculate the neutrino oscillation phase in Schwarzschild spacetime along the geodesic, and compare it with that along the null, in the radial and nonradial directions respectively. The application of the unified geodesic phase to the COW thermal neutron interference is done in Sec. V. Furthermore, discussions and conclusions involved in the high energy neutrino oscillations and low energy thermal neutron interference in curved spacetime are given. We set $G = \hbar = c = 1$ throughout this article.
Dirac equation in a curved spacetime
====================================
Previous to entering our main point, we stress that the semiclassical approximated Dirac particle does not follow the geodesic exactly, but the force aroused by the spin and the curvature coupling has a little contribution to the geodesic deviation [@aud81]. So here we take the neutrino as a spinless particle to go along the geodesic [@wud91]. The gravitational effects on the spin incorporated into Dirac equation through the “spin connection” $\Gamma_{\mu}$ appearing in the Dirac equation in curved spacetime [@dirac; @ana], which is constructed by means of the variation of the covariant Lagrangian of the spinor field as,
= 0. \[dirac2\] In this equation and in the rest of this section, greek indices $\mu,
\nu, \si$ refer to general covariant (Riemanian) coordinates, while the latin indices $a,b,c,d$ refer to locally Lorentz (Minkowski) coordinates. The tetrads $h_{a}{}^{\mu}$ connect these sets of coordinates by
g\_ = \_[a b]{} h\^a\_ h\^b\_ , \[gmn\] the tetrads are supposed to satisfy the following relation
h\^[a]{}\_ h\_[a]{}\^ = \_\^ ; h\^[a]{}\_ h\_[b]{}\^ = \^[a]{}\_[b]{} . \[orto\] The explicit expression for $\Gamma_{\mu}$ can be written in terms of the Dirac matrices and tetrads(see [@ful96]) \_ = [1 8]{}\[\^b, \^c\] h\_[b]{}\^ h\_[c ;]{}. We must first simplify the Dirac matrix product in the spin connection term. It can be shown that \^a \[\^b, \^c\] = 2 \^[ab]{} \^c - 2 \^[ac]{} \^b - 2i \^[dabc]{} \_5 \_d, \[gammas\] where $\eta^{ab}$ is the metric in flat space and $\epsilon^{abcd}$ is the (flat space) totally antisymmetric tensor, with $\epsilon^{0123}= +1$. With Eq.(\[gammas\]), the contribution from the spin connection is arranged as \_ = [12]{}v\_ - [3i 4]{}a\_\_[5]{}, \[ga2\] where $v_{\mu}$ is the tetrad vector and $a_{\mu}$ is the tetrad axial-vector respectively, defined by
v\_= T\^\_, a\_= [16]{} \_T\^
T\^\_ = \^\_ - \^ \_ , \^\_ = h\_[a]{}\^\_h\^a\_ , \[tor\] If $v_{\mu} \rightarrow 0$, then the expression of Eq.(\[ga2\]) is recovered to the form obtained by Cardal and Fuller [@ful96]. It is instructive to outline the properties of the spin connection. We can see that the two terms in the spin connection represent the different aspects of the gravitational coupling with the Dirac field. The second term of r.h.s. of Eq.(\[ga2\]), proportional to $i\ga_{5}$, has the similar form to the weak interaction field [@boe92; @bah94]. Moreover $a^{\mu}$ is an axial-vector, which represents the physical modification from axial symmetry to the spherical symmetry [@nit81]. From the gravitational interation point of view, $a^{\mu}$ shows the rotational gravitational field property, or the angular momentum aspect of gravitational field, in other words, it represents the gravitomagnetic like interaction. However the first term of Eq.(\[ga2\]) is similar to the canonical momentum, then its contribution seems to be the gravitational field momentum. In order to group Eq.(\[ga2\]) with terms arising from the matter effects, we can without physical consequence arrange Eq.(\[ga2\]) as follows
\_ = P\_[G]{} + i A\_[G]{} [P]{}\_L , \[gravpot\]
A\^\_G h\_a\^ \^[abcd]{} (h\_[b,]{} - h\_[b,]{}) h\_c\^ h\_d\^ = [3h2]{} a\^,
P\_[G]{}= [1 2]{}v\_, \_L = . In these equations, $h = (-g)^{1/2} = [\rm det(g_{\mu\nu})]^{1/2}$. The expression in Eq.(\[gravpot\]) treats left- and right-handed states differently. Proceeding as in the discussion of matter effects, we will borrow the neutrino oscillation standard treatment in a gravitational field in [@ful96], where the gravitational induced effective mass can be calculated from the mass shell condition, which is obtained by iterating the Dirac equation $$(P_{\mu}+ P_{G\mu} + A_{G\mu}{\cal P}_L)
(P^{\mu} + P_{G}^{\mu} + A_G^{\mu}{\cal P}_L) = m^2,$$ where $P_{\m}$ is the 4-momentum, and we have not included background matter effects. However, the following approximated conditions are usually valid for neutrinos, i.e., $P_{\mu} >> P_{G\mu}$, $P_{\mu} >> A_{G\mu}$ and $P_{\mu} >> m$.
The complication in calculating the neutrino phase in curved spacetime is related to the nature of the neutrino trajectories. In flat spacetime, the neutrino trajectories are straight lines. But in the curved spacetime, the geodesic is curved from the global point of view, which is more complicated than the situation of the flat spacetime. Now we will follow the factual mass particle world line to cope with the neutrino oscillation problem, but we can prove that the neutrino phase along the null is the half of the value along the geodesic in the high energy limit (see APPENDIX A). However the relative phase of two mass neutrinos should be equivalent to that along the geodesic through dividing a factor of 2 because the arrival time difference of two mass neutrinos should be consideredbha99.
In flat spacetime, the phase factor can be written as a conventional manner [@ful96; @ana; @sto79], = m ds = (Edt -Pdx) = \_P\^dx\^, \[phase\] where phase factor $\Phi $ is also the classical Langrange for the particle motion, and the route is along the particle world line(geodesic) determined by the variational principle or Jacobi-Hamilton equation [@wud96; @aud81; @ana]. [*ds*]{} is the interval in flat spacetime with $ ds^2 = \eta _{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu} $ and the metric $ \eta _{\mu \nu}=diag(+1, -1, -1, -1) $. In the curved spacetime, however, the neutrino phase is calculated along the nullful96,for96 = m d= g\_P\^dx\^ =P\_ \^ d, \[phaseg\] where $\la$ is the affine parameter along the null. For the null (photon trajectory) it therefore may be convenient to leave the affine parameter [*$\la$* ]{} as the variable of integration in Eq.(\[phaseg\]). The tangent vector to the null ${\stackrel{\circ}{n}}{}^{\mu} = dx^{\m}/d\la$, and ${x^{\m}}(\la) = \left[x^{0}(\la), x^{1}(\la), x^{2}(\la),
x^{3}(\la)\right]$. Now we consider the general mass shell condition and ignore the terms of ${\cal O}(A^2)$, ${\cal O}(AM)$, ${\cal O}(P_{G\mu}^2)$ and ${\cal O}(P_{G\mu}M)$. Following ref.ful96, we obtain
P\_ \^ = m\^2/2P\_[o]{} - A\_[G]{}\^ - P\_[G]{}\^. \[pnu\]
From Eq.(\[pnu\]), we find that the total phase includes two types. The first type is contributed by the phase of the spinless particle $m^2/2P_{o}$, which is conventionally discussed ful96,for96 and the second type is contributed by the “spin connection". According to the definition by Anandan [@ana], the type-I phase represents the contribution of the particle momentum coupled to the spacetime cuvature, and the type-II phase represents the spin connection contribution of the particle coupled to the spacetime geometry.
Further, it is convenient to define a column vector of flavor amplitudes [@ful96]. For example, for mixing between $\nu_e$ and $\nu_{\tau}$,
\[xg\] () . Eq.(\[xg\]) can be written as a differential equation for the null parameter $\la$, i [dd]{} = (m\^2 /2P\_[o]{} - A\_[G]{}\^- P\_[G]{}\^) , \[dcds\] Eq.(\[dcds\]) can be integrated to yield the neutrino flavor evolution. A similar equation was obtained in Ref. [@ful96].
Radial neutrino oscillation in Schwarzschild spacetime
======================================================
In this section we will study the phases along the geodesic and along the null in Schwarzschild spacetime. In Schwarzshild geometry, the spherically static spacetime can be globally represented by the Schwarzshild coordinate system $\{x^{\mu}\}=
(t,r,\theta , \phi)$ with the line element as ds\^[2]{}= g\_[oo]{}dt\^[2]{} + g\_[11]{}dt\^[2]{}- r\^[2]{}d\^[2]{} - r\^[2]{}sin\^[2]{}d\^[2]{}, g\_[oo]{} = (-g\_[11]{})\^[-1]{} = 1 - [r\_[s]{}r ]{}, where $r_{s} = 2 M $ is Schwarzschild radius and M is the gravitational mass of star. The general form of tetrads in Schwarzshild spacetime are given as follows (see APPENDIX B). The spacelike components of coordinates share the SO(3) rotational symmetry and timelike coordinate shares the reflection symmetry h\^[a]{}\_ where $\ga_{oo}=\sqrt{g_{oo}} $, $\ga_{11}=\sqrt{-g_{11}} $, $s=\sin$ and $c=\cos$, and the subscript $\mu$ is the column index. This tetrad deduces the tetrad axial vector and tetrad vector $a^{\mu} = 0$ and $v^{\mu}= (0, v^{1}, 0, 0)$. It is easy to understand that the axial tetrad is cancelled in the case of the spherical symmetry, which represents the deviation from the spherical symmetry and occurs in the Kerr spacetime [@nit81]. The nonzero tetrad vector(see APPENDIX B)
v\_[1]{}& = &g\_[11]{} v\^[1]{}= - (g\_[oo]{})\^[-1]{}\
& = & [12]{}(-g\_[11]{})\^[’]{} + [g\_[11]{}r]{}(1 - ), so the type-II phase is
\_[II]{}& =& P\_[G]{} dx\^ = \_[r\_o]{}\^r v\_[1]{}/2 dr\
&=& [14]{}\
&& [-1 8]{} . \[p2\] From Eq.(\[p2\]), if $r\rightarrow\rss$, the type-II phase will be infinite. Then in the weak field, we can conclude that the type-II phase for neutrino in the curved spacetime is proportional to the square of the gravitational potential, i.e., $(\rs2r)^2 $, which is lower than the contribution of the type-I phase that is related to the gravitational potential, i.e., the gravitational red shift [@ful96; @for96]. But, if we consider the strong gravitational field, e.g., near the horizon of the black holewud96, the type-II phase might produce some effects on the particle interference. However, we stress that the type-II phase of Eq.(\[p2\]) is independent of the neutrino mass, namely it is equally contributed to the different neutrinos. So this leads to the cancelling of the relative type-II phase between the different mass neutrinos. Therefore we only consider the type-I phase of the mass neutrinos in the Schwarzschild geometry by means of the particle geodesic equation
+ \^\_ [dx\^ds]{}[dx\^ds]{}=0 where \^\_ = g\^ \[lci\] is the Levi–Civita connection. Along radial direction with $d\theta = d\phi = 0 $, there are two nontrivial independent equations in the four geodesic equations(see Appendix C). The nontrivial equation of timelike
\[geq1\] + [g\_[oo]{}]{} = 0 where the dot represents the derivative to [*ds*]{}, for instance, $\dot{t}=
{dt \over ds}$. The Eq.(\[geq1\]) gives
\[geq2\] g\_[oo]{}= const., or, E= P\_[o]{} = m g\_[oo]{}= const. Eq.(\[geq2\]) represents that the covariant energy is the motion constant along the geodesic, by which the calculation of the phase is proceeded. It is stressed that it is the covariant energy $P_o$ (not $P^o$) the constant of motion, then this fact will be important in the later calculation of the neutrino phase. Otherwise the ambiguous definition of the neutrino energy in the gravitational field will lead to the confusion in understanding the gravitationally induced neutrino oscillation.
The mass shell condition can be written in the Schwarzshild spacetime, which is not independent and can be deducted from the geodesic equations
\[mseq1\] g\_[oo]{}\^[2]{} + g\_[11]{}\^[2]{} + r\^2 \^2 = 1, substituting Eq.(\[geq2\]) into Eq.(\[mseq1\]) with $\dot{\phi} = 0$, which means the radial motion, thus we obtain
\[dsr1\] [ds dr]{}= .
If $m \rightarrow 0$, then ${ds\over dr}= 0$, the null condition is recovered. If $r \rightarrow \infty$, the asympotic flat solution $g_{oo} \rightarrow 1$ and $-g_{11} \rightarrow 1$ is obtained, by which we can acquire the phase of flat spacetime. In Schwarzshild spacetime, $-g_{oo}g_{11}= 1$, Eq.(\[dsr1\]) becomes simply
\[dsdr2\] [ds dr]{}= [1 ]{} = ([mP\_[o]{}]{})(1 + \^2). where $\delta^2 = {g_{oo}\over 2} ({m \over P_{o}})^2$. The accurate phase factor in Schwarzshild spacetime along the radial direction is acquired in virtue of the phase factor
(geod) & = & m([ds dr]{})dr =\
& = &([mrk]{}) - ([mr\_[o]{}k]{})\
&-&([mr\_[s]{}2 k\^[3/2]{}]{})log\
&+&([mr\_[s]{}2 k\^[3/2]{}]{})log\
& & [ m\^[2]{}P\_[o]{}]{}(r - r\_[o]{})+ O(\^[2]{}) = 2(null), where $k = ({P_{o}\over m})^{2} - 1 $. $ \Phi(null) = { m^{2}\over 2P_{o}}(r - r_{o})$ is the neutrino phase along the null given by [@ful96; @for96].
It is noted that the Schwarzschild coordinates r and $r_{o} $ are not the applicable physical distances, and the physical distance connected coordinate is given by $dL = \sqrt{-g_{11}}dr$, where dL is the physical distance. The quantity $0 \le g_{oo}\le
1$ leads to $ g_{oo}\ll k \sim 10^{12}$ for the electron neutrino. In other words, the gravitational contribution appears in one part of $10^{12}$ as shown in Ref. [@bha99]. This means that the Schwarzschild gravitation has little contribution to the neutrino oscillation phase, which is same as that concluded in [@ful96; @bha99]. The above phase calculation is a precisely treatment, and we do not use any approxamations, except the final approximated simplification. However, we admit that the Schwarzschild coordinates employed to calculate the phase factor is not the real physical distance although there exists some complications between them in the general case.
In order to illustrate the validity of the geodesic phase treatment, we calculate the geodesic phase again from the other method. From the equations (\[mseq1\]) and (\[dsdr2\]), the derivative between the time-like and the space-like coordinates,
\[dtdr\] [dt dr]{} &=& \[1 - ([m P\_[o]{}]{})\^2 g\_[oo]{}\]\^[-1/2]{}\
&& (1 + \^2), If the neutrino mass $m \rightarrow 0$, then $\delta \rightarrow 0$, which leads to the null condition ${dt \over dr} = \sqrt{{(-g_{11})\over g_{oo}}}$ that is conventionally used in the standard treatmentful96,for96. For the electron neutrino, the mass $m \sim 1 $ ev and the energy $E \sim 1$ Mev, $\delta ^2 \sim 10^{-12}$boe92,bah94, which is really a little quantity. If we set $\de = 0$, then Eq.(\[dtdr\]) represents the null condition, which will produce the null phase [@ful96; @for96]. But, if this almost negligible quantity is taken into account, then what do the things occur to the phase calculation? Let us follow the very routine phase calculation as proceeded in the standard treatment of the neutrino phase in a gravitational field,
\[cphi\] = g\_P\^ dx\^\
= (g\_[oo]{} P\^[o]{} dt + g\_[11]{} P\^[r]{} dr). The mass shell condition in Schwarzshild spacetime
g\_P\^ P\^ = m\^[2]{}, g\_[oo]{} (P\^[o]{})\^[2]{} + g\_[11]{} (P\^[r]{})\^[2]{} = m\^[2]{}, \[mss\] and the approximated energy momentum relation from Eq.(\[mss\])
\[aep\] (-g\_[11]{})P\^[r]{}= P\^[o]{} - , substituting (\[aep\]) and (\[dtdr\]) into (\[cphi\]), we obtain
\[rpap\] (geod) & = & dr\
& = &dr\
& = &dr\
& = & ([m\^2 P\_[o]{}]{})dr\
&=&[ m\^[2]{}P\_[o]{}]{}(r - r\_[o]{})+ O(\^[2]{}) = 2(null). It is not strange that the geodesic phase is double of the result by the null [@ful96]. This also indicates that the application of the null condition arises the correct result, and the geodesic phase of two neutrinos despises the two neutrino arrival time differencebha99.
Now we discuss the physical coordinate problem because the Schwarzschild coordinate employed in Eq.(\[rpap\]) is not the proper physical distance, however, which is given by
L - L\_[o]{} & & \_[r\_o]{}\^[r]{} dr\
& = & r - r\_o\
&+& . We consider the case of a weak field, then the physical distance is approximately obtained L - L\_o r - r\_o + [2]{} , \[apd\] where L($L_o $) is the proper physical distance corresponding to the coordinate r ($r_o $). In the case of weak field as well as the conditions $\De L = L - L_o \ll L$ and $\De r = r - r_o \ll r$, we obtain
r = ( 1 - [2L]{} )L = L, \[rl\] where $V(L)= {- \rss \over 2L}$ is the gravitational potential expressed by the physical distance. So the relative phase of the mass neutrinos is
=[ m\^[2]{}2P\_[o]{}]{}L, \[dpw\] where $\De m^2 = m_{\mu}^2 - m_e ^2$ is the mass square difference. So the oscillation length can be given by the usual manner
L\_[OSC]{} = 2. Likewise, as stated by Cardall and Fuller [@ful96], $P_o$ does [*not*]{} represent the neutrino energy measured by a locally inertial observer at rest at finite radius, but rather the energy of the neutrino measured by such an observer at rest at infinity. It is generally not possible to extract a separate “gravitational phase” from the expression (\[dpw\]); nevertheless, it is clear that gravity has an effect on the oscillations of the radially propagating neutrinos, corresponding to the gravitational redshift. In the weak field limit one could define a “gravitational phase,” however, the energy definition and coordinate condition should be apparently declared.
nonradial propagation in Schwarzshild spacetime
===============================================
In this section we contrast the radially propagating neutrinos with the nonradically propagating neutrinos in order to demonstrate how the gravity affects vacuum neutrino oscillations. As a further application, the general covariant phase can be applied to solve the nonrelativistic thermal neutron interference. For the general nonradial propagation of the mass particle, the knowledge of the geodesic should be exploitedmtw (see APPENDIX C). In the $\theta = \pi/2$ plane. The accurate phase along the azimuthal geodesic can be calculated by
\^a (geod) & = & m ds = m([ds dr]{})dr\
&=&\
& = &([mrk]{}) - ([mr\_[o]{}k]{})\
&-&([mr\_[s]{}2 k\^[3/2]{}]{})log\
&+&([mr\_[s]{}2 k\^[3/2]{}]{})logwhere $l$ is the integral of motion $r^{2}\dot{\phi} = J/m = l
=const$, and J is the angular momentum of the particle. If $l = 0$, the radial geodesic phase of Eq.(\[rpap\]) will be recovered. Equivalently, the nonradial phase can be calculated in terms of the azimuthal coordinate $\phi$
\^a (geod) = m ds = m([ds d ]{}) d= m()\^[-1]{} d= d \[phasea\] then the particle trajectory can be determined by the trajactory equation [@mtw] = u = [r\_s 2 l\^2]{} (1 + e ),\[traj\] where e is the ellipse eccentricity, and we set the initial perihelion location at zero and neglect the perihelion precession term. Substituting Eq.(\[traj\]) into Eq.(\[phasea\]), we have, becomes \^a (geod) = ([4 m l\^3 r\_s\^2]{})I(), \[phasea2\]
I() &=&\_[0]{}\^ [d x( 1 + ex )\^[2]{}]{}\
&=& -2 ArcTanh\[[(e-1)Tan(/2)]{}\](e\^2-1)\^[-3/2]{}\
& +& [e (e\^2 -1)(1 + e )]{} For the low energy particle, the eccentricity of the trajectory can be given
e &=& = |1 - 2 v\^2 ()|,\
2E/m &=& (v\^2 - ), J = mvr. In the case of COW experiment, the scale of the instrument is about 5 centimeters (shown in FIG.1.), which is much less than the radius of the earth, and so the transverse azimuthal angle is very small $\phi= \de\phi$. Therefore, Taylor expansion gives
I()= [(1 + e)\^[2]{}]{} = [(1 + |1- 2v\^2 |)\^2]{}. \[phitay\]
the covariant treatment of the thermal neutron interference
===========================================================
Now we use the covariant phase to deal with the thermal neutron interference on the earth (COW experiment), which is satisfactorily described by the COW interference phase obtained through solving Schoedinger equation induced by the Newtonian gravitational potentialşak85 or through the weak field approximation methodşto79. Our purpose of using the covariant method to cope with the low energy thermal neutron interference is to find how the spacetime global structure influences on the COW interference. Unlike the covariant treatment, the Newtonian gravitational potential induced COW interference phase does not include the information of the global structure of the curved spacetime, and nonetheless the weak field approximation method induced COW interference phaseşto79 may also neglect some characteristics of the curved spacetime. The second motivation of using the covariant method to deal with the thermal neutron interference aims at indicating that the covariant phase is not only useful for the high energy mass neutrinos but also successfully applicable to the low energy thermal neutron interference. The particle wave behaviours incorporated into the curved spacetime will reflect some quantum properties of the particle in Einstein’s general relativity, which has not yet been well explored until now. Moreover the successfully application of the covariant phase to the COW experiement can help us to wipe out the suspect of the universality of the covariant treatment of the phase on the particle interference in any energy bands.
In FIG.1., the scale of the instrument of COW experiment is some centimeters, which is much less than the scale of the gravitational source, the radius of the earth. For the arm plane of the COW instrument perpendicular to the surface of the earth, the thermal neutron motions are divided into two beams, the one is radial motion along AB (CD) and the other is nonradial along AC (BD). We calculate the phase difference along the different routes ABD and ACD. Taking the earth as an exact sphere, the Schwarzschild metric induced radial velocity is =[dr ds]{} = = ,
so the momentum difference from A to B
(P\_[A]{}\^[2]{} - P\_[B]{}\^[2]{})/m\^2 &=& [r\_[s]{} R\_]{}- [r\_[s]{} R\_ + H]{}\
&=& 2g H + O(\_s \_[H]{}\^2), where $\de_{s} = {r_{s} \over R_{\op}} \sim 10^{-11}$ and $\de_{H} = {H \over R_{\op}}\sim 10^{-8}$, $g = {r_{s} \over 2R_{\op}^2}$ is the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the earth and $R_{\op}$ is the earth radius.
For the nonradial motion of the nonrelativistic thermal neutron beams through AC and BD, with the velocity condition $2v^2 \rrs > 1$ (in the COW experiement, $v^2 \sim 10^{-10}$çow and $\rsr\sim 10^{-11}$), from Eq.(\[phitay\]), we have
I()=[(1 + |1- (v/v\_G )\^2 |)\^2]{} = ([v\_[G]{} v]{} )\^[4]{}, \[idp2\] where $v_G = \sqrt{\rs2r}$ and the velocity approximation condition now becomes ${v\over v_G} > 1
$, which yields the transverse phase at radius r, from Eq.(\[phasea2\]) and Eq.(\[idp2\]) \[nrpww\] \^[a]{}(r) = ([mr v\^3 v\_G\^4]{})I() = [m\^2 r P]{}, where $P = mv$ is the transverse momentum, and the Schwarzschild coordinate r should be replaced by the physical distance if applicable, [*i.e.*]{}, $dL = \sqrt{-g_{11}} dr$, where L notes the physical distance. In the case of the weak field, the relation between the coordinate difference and the physical distance is $\De r = (1 + {\rss \over 2L})\De L$. Thus Eq.(\[nrpww\]) becomes (L) = [m\^2 H P]{}(1 + [2L]{}),where H is the arm length of the the COW interference instrument (FIG.1), and we set the square route, i.e., H=AB=BD=AC=CD in FIG.1. Then the interference phase difference of two thermal neutron beams becomes
(COW) &=& (ABD) - (ACD)\
& =&(R\_+ H) - (R\_)\
&=&[m\^2 HP]{}g H = m\^2 g H\^2 [\_[n]{} 2]{}. \[nrwdp\] where $\la_{n} = 2\pi /\lan P\ran$ is the thermal neutron wave length with the momentum $\lan P\ran = (P_{A} + P_{B})/2 \sim P_{A}\sim P_{B} $. This is just the anticipated result in COW experiment [@cow]
However, we stress two facts here, from the point of view of the covariant treatment of Dirac particle. Firstly, the COW thermal neutron phase obtained is a type-I phase because the type-II phase is the square of the gravitational redshift, which can be neglected in the weak field condition. Secondly, if the thermal velocity satisfies $v < v_G$, unlike the COW phase, the interference will follow a different regulation related to the thermal neutron wave length. The above condition cannot be obtained from the weak field expansion method to deal with the COW neutron interferenceşto79. In other words, we can construct the critical wave length for COW thermal neutron as $\lambda_G = { 2\pi \over mv_G}$, therefore the critical condition for the COW interference phase needs the wave length of the thermal neutron must be shorter than this critical wave length , i.e., $\lambda_n < \lambda_G $.
conclusions and discussions
===========================
On the basis of the particle interference phase along the geodesic, the following conclusions are obtained and demonstrated.
\(1) On the phase of the particle propagating in Schwarzschild spacetime, we exploit the geodesic route to calculate it, and our results for the neutrino oscillation relative phase is in agreement with that in Refs. [@ful96; @for96] if the geodesic phase is divided by a factor of 2, which originates from the consideration of the simultaneous arrival of two mass neutrinos for the interferencebha99. However our results are different from that in ref. [@ahl96], where the weak field expansion is applied. We find that two factors influence on our understanding of the gravitationally induced neutrino oscillation, i.e., energy definition and physical distance. The geodesic phase will produce a factor of 2 error contrasting to the null phase, which is also paid attention in the flat spacetimelip95, and then the energy definition needs the integral constant of motion in the gravitational field. Moreover, the physical distance should be transformed from the Schwarzschild coordinate system. Otherwise any ambiguous definitions of above two conditions will result in confusion or conflict because the mass neutrino phase is very sensitive to these conditions.
\(2) Two types of phases are taken into account in the article. Type-I phase is contributed by the curved spacetime, which represents the coupling of the momentum of the particle to the curved spacetime. Type-II phase is contributed by the coupling of the “spin connection" of the particle to the curved spacetime. In the case of Schwarzschild weak field, type-II phase is proportional to the square of the effect of gravitational red shift. Namely, type-I phase is the first order effect of the gravitational potential and type-II phase is the second order effect of the gravitational potential. So we can neglect the type-II phase when dealing with the physical problems in the solar system, such as atomspheric neutrino, solar neutrino as well as the thermal neutron interference in COW experiment.
\(3) We find that, if the thermal neutron velocity exceeds over a critical velocity, then COW interference phase will appear. But, if the thermal neutron velocity is not higher than this velocity, the COW phase will be broken. This critical velocity may be the critical condition for the validation of the COW interferenceçow, however this conclusion cannot be derived from the weak field method to deduce the COW interference phaseşto79. From the quantum mechanics language, there exists a critical wave length, and the COW interference needs that the thermal neutron wave length must be shorter than this critical wave length, $\lambda_n < \lambda_G $ with $\lambda_G = { 2\pi \over mv_G}$. If this conclusion is valid, we could suggest the low velocity thermal neutron interference experiement to inspect the proposed effect. Moreover the further experiement not only detects the Newtonian gravitational potential induced interference effect, but also becomes a sensor of the curved spacetime, to inspect the general relativity induced COW interference condition.
In summary, we can speculate that the type-II phase should play an important role in the strong rotational gravitational field, especially near Kerr black hole, where the high order terms of gravitational potential will effect.
appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
==========
The velocity of an extremely relativistic neutrino is nearly the speed of light. Despite of this, the propagation difference between a massive neutrino and a photon can have important consequences. In the standard treatment of the neutrino oscillation, the neutrino is usually supposed to travel along null-lines [@zub98; @bil98; @boe92; @bah94], and almost no attention has been paid to this small difference. Although seemingly irrelevant, this tiny deviation becomes important for the understanding of the neutrino oscillation. Motivated by this argument, we will compare the neutrino phase when calculated along the geodesic and along the null-line. With this, we will be able to verify the factor of 2 error when the null is replaced by the geodesic. This study can be shown to remain valid in the case of flat spacetime.
Let $n^{\mu}$ and ${\stackrel{\circ}{n}}{}^{\mu}$ be the tangent vectors to the geodesic and to the null-line, respectively, their difference $\ep^{\mu}$ being a small quantity for the case of an extremely relativistic neutrino. Here, we suppose that the two neutrinos, the massless and massive, start their journey at the same initial spacetime position A, and their [*space*]{} routes are almost the same. But, there will be an arrival time-difference at the detector position B. This means that their 4-dimensional spacetime trajectories are not the same, and consequently the tangent vectors will present a small difference. Thus, we have \[nne\] n\^ = \^ + \^, P\^ = \^ + m\^ , where $P^{\nu} = m n^{\nu}$ (${\stackrel{\circ}{P}}{}^{\nu}= m
{\stackrel{\circ}{n}}{}^{\nu}$) is the 4-momentum along the geodesic (null-line) with \^ = [dx\^d]{} = [d\^ds]{} and n\^ = [dx\^ds]{} . In these expressions, $\lambda$ and $s$ are respectively affine parameters along the null and the geodesic lines. These two tangent vectors satisfy the mass shell relations of the geodesic and the null-line: \[gn\] g\_ n\^n\^ = 1 and \[nn\] g\_ \^\^ = 0 . Now, substituting (\[nne\]) into (\[gn\]), we obtain \[msg2\] g\_ (\^ + \^) (\^ + \^) = 1 , or, by using (\[nn\]), \[nne2\] 2 g\_ \^ \^ + [O]{}(\^[2]{}) = 1 . We can estimate the order of $\{n^{\mu}\}$ and $\{
{\stackrel{\circ}{n}}{}^{\mu} \}$ by noting that $ n \ep \sim 1/2 $, which implies that $\ep \sim n^{-1} \sim {m\over E}$, where $E = P^{o} \sim P^{i}$ $(i=1,2,3)$ for a relativistic neutrino.
The neutrino phase induced by the null condition, as in the standard treatment, comes from the 4-momentum $P^{\nu}$ defined along the geodesic line, and the tangent vector $\{ {\stackrel{\circ}{n}}{}^{\mu} \}$ to the null-line [@ful96]. We notice that, if the 4-momentum ${\stackrel{\circ}{P}}{}^{\nu}$ defined along the null-line was instead used to compute the null phase, we would obtain zero because of the null condition. Therefore, the phase along the geodesic line (geodesic phase) and the phase along the null-line (null phase) can be written respectively as [@ful96; @aud81; @sto79; @ana] \[nrpb\] ([geod]{})= m ds = g\_P\^n\^ds , and ([null]{}) = g\_P\^\^ds . Therefore, the difference between the geodesic phase and the null phase, by using Eq.(\[nne2\]), is ([geod]{})& -& ([null]{})= g\_P\^(n\^ - \^) ds\
&= &g\_P\^ \^ ds = g\_\^\^ ds + [O]{}(\^[2]{})\
&=& [12]{}m ds + [O]{}(\^[2]{}) = [12]{}([geod]{}) + [O]{}(\^[2]{}) , that is ([geod]{}) = 2 ([null]{}) + [O]{}(\^[2]{}) . This conclusion, valid for a general curved spacetime, is similar to that found in in a Schwarzschild [@bha99] spacetime. Concerning the Schwarzschild spacetime, Bhattacharya [*et al*]{} [@bha99] have the following argument for the factor of 2. As the neutrino energy is fixed, but the masses are different, if a interference is to be observed at the same final spacetime point B$(r_B,t_B)$, the relevant components of the wave function could not both have started at the same initial spacetime point A$(r_A,t_A)$ in the semiclassical approximation. Instead, the lighter mass (hence faster moving) component must either have started at the same time from a spatial location $r<r_A$, or (what is equivalent) started from the same location $r_A$ at a later time $t_A + \Delta t$. Hence, there is already an initial phase difference between the two mass components due to this time gap, even before the transport from $r_A$ to $r_B$ which leads to the phase $\Phi({\rm null})$, [*i.e.*]{}, the additional initial phase difference may be taken into account [@bha99].
appendix B {#appendix-b .unnumbered}
==========
Tetrad in the spherical, static and isotropic coordinate system $(X^{0}=t, X^{1}, X^{2}, X^{3})$, $h^{(0)}{}_{0}= \sqrt{C(\rho)}$ and $h^{a}{}_{\al}= \sqrt{D(\rho)}\delta^{a}_{\al}$ ḩay79, the corresponding line element (to avoid confusion, Latin indices are enclosed in parentheses to express Lorentz coordinates) ds\^[2]{}&=& g\_dX\^dX\^\
&= & C()dt\^[2]{}- D()(d\^[2]{} + \^[2]{}d\^[2]{})
d\^[2]{}= d\^[2]{} + d\^[2]{}, & X\^[1]{}=\
X\^[2]{}= , &X\^[3]{}=
comparing the line element in the Schwarzschild form, we get C()= g\_[oo]{}, & = r, & [r ]{} = using the general coordinate transformation h\^[a]{}\_ = [X\^[’]{} X\^ ]{} h\^[’a]{}\_
where $\{X^{\mu}\}$ and $\{ X^{'\nu}\}$ are the isotropic and Schwarzschild coordinates respectively. Through using the above transformation and relationship, then we obtain the tetrad in the Schwarzschild coordinate system. \[te1\] h\^[a]{}\_ , where $\ga_{oo}=\sqrt{g_{oo}} $, $\ga_{11}=\sqrt{-g_{11}} $, $s=\sin$ and $c=\cos$, and the subscript $\mu$ is the column index. The contravariant tetrad can be constructed by $h_{a}{}^{\mu} = g^{\mu\nu}
h^{b}{}_{\nu}\eta_{ab}$,
\[te2\] h\^[a]{}\_ . One can proof that the orthagonal relation between $h^{a}{}_{\mu}$ and $h^{a}{}_{\mu}$ are satisfied. Eqs.(\[te1\]) and (\[te2\]) can construct the tetrad vector and the tetrad axial-vector
\^[o]{}\_[o1]{} = \[ln \]\^[’]{}, \^[3]{}\_[32]{}= \^[3]{}\_[23]{} =\
\^[1]{}\_[11]{}= \[ln \]\^[’]{}, \^[1]{}\_[22]{} = [r ]{}\
\^[1]{}\_[33]{}=\^[1]{}\_[22]{} ()\^[2]{}, \^[2]{}\_[33]{}= -\
\^[2]{}\_[21]{} = \^[3]{}\_[31]{}=[1 r]{}, \^[2]{}\_[12]{} = \^[3]{}\_[31]{}=[r]{}\
\^[’]{} = [d dr]{}
T\^[0]{}\_[01]{} = \[ln \]\^[’]{}, h = r\^[2]{},\
T\^[2]{}\_[21]{} = -T\^[2]{}\_[21]{} = (1 - )/r,
a\^&& 0\
v\^[1]{} & = & ([r\_[s]{}r]{})\^[2]{}, v\_[1]{} & = & g\_[11]{} v\^[1]{}= - (g\_[oo]{})\^[-1]{}\
& = & [12]{}(-g\_[11]{})\^[’]{} + [g\_[11]{}r]{}(1 - )
appendix C {#appendix-c .unnumbered}
==========
In the Schwarzschild geometry, the components of the geodesic equation aremtw
+ [g\_[oo]{}]{}& =& 0\
\[geqapp1\] + [12]{}g\_[oo]{}\^[’]{}(-g\^[11]{}) ()\^[2]{}&+&\
ln\^[’]{} - r g\^[11]{}\[ ()\^[2]{} + \^[2]{}()\^[2]{}\]& =& 0\
\[geqapp2\] + [2 r]{} - ()\^[2]{}& =& 0\
\[geqapp3\] + [2 r]{} + 2 & =& 0\[geqapp4\]
where the dots indicate derivatives with respect to s, such as $\dot{t}\equiv {dt \over ds}$ and $\dot{r}\equiv {dr \over ds}$. We will assume that the orbit is in the plane $\theta = {\pi \over
2}$, then Eqs.(\[geqapp1\]) and (\[geqapp4\]) can now be integrated directly, giving two integrals of the motion
g\_[oo]{} = [E m]{}=const,\
E= P\_[o]{}, r\^[2]{} = [J m]{}= l = const, J=-P\_[3]{} These two constants are proportional to the energy and the angular momentum, respectively. Precisely, these quantities are constants of the motion and represent the energy and the angular momentum per unit mass.
[10]{}
K. Zuber, Phys. Rep. [**305**]{}, 295 (1998).
S. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus, [*Phenomenology of neutrino oscillation*]{} (hep-ph/9812360).
Y. Fukuda [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1158 (1998);\
Y. Fukuda [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1562 (1998);\
Y. Fukuda [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1810 (1999).
J. Wudka, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A6**]{}, 3291 (1991).
D. V. Ahluwalia and C. Burgard, [Gen. Rel. and Grav.]{}, [**28**]{}, 1161 (1996). L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D [**17**]{}, 2369 (1978); S. Mikheyev and A. Yu. Smirnov, Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. C [**9**]{}, 17 (1986).
M.Gasperini, Phys. Rev. [**D39**]{}, 3606 (1989); A. Halprin and C.N. Leung, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**67**]{}, 1833 (1991).
J.R. Mureika and R.B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D. [**54**]{}, 2761 (1996).
D. Píriz, M. Roy, and J. Wudka, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 1587 (1996).
Y. Grossman and H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D. [**55**]{}, 2760 (1997).
C.Y. Cardall and G.M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 7960 (1996).
T. Bhattacharya, S. Habib, and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 067301 (1999).
N. Fornengo, C. Giunti, C. W. Kim, and J.Song, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 1895 (1997). C. Giunti, C.W. Kim and U.W. Lee, Phys. Rev. [**D44**]{}, 3636 (1991); C.W. Kim and A. Pevsner, ”Neutrinos in Physics and Astrophysics”, Contemporary Concepts in Physics, vol. 8 ed. by H. Feshbach (Harwood Academic Chur), Switzerland, 1993; C. Giunti, C.W. Kim, Phys. Rev. D58, 017301 (1998).
J. Audretsch, J. Phys. A, [**14**]{}, 411 (1981).
P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, [**117A**]{}, 610 (1928); [**118A**]{}, 351(1928); V. Fock, and D. Ivenenko, Compt. Rend.,[**188**]{}, 1470 (1929); V. Fock, Zeits, Phys., [**57**]{}, 261 (1929).\
D. R. Brill and J. A. Wheeler, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**29**]{}, 465.
J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 1448 (1977);\
J. Anandan, IL NUOVO CIMENTO [**53A**]{}, 221 (1979).
F. Boehm, and P. Vogel, [*Physics of Massive Neutrinos* ]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
J. N. Bahcall, [*Neutrino Astrophysics*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994).
L. Stodolsky, Gen. Rel. and Grav., [**11**]{}, 391 (1979).
J. Nitsch, and Hehl, F.W., Phys. Lett. B [**15**]{}, 1448 (1981). C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1973); S. W. Weinberg, [*Gravitation and Cosmology*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1972); H.C. Ohanian, and R. Ruffini, [*Gravitation and Spacetime* ]{} (Norton & Company, New York, 1994).
H. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. B [**348**]{}, 604 (1995); H. Lipkin, “Quantum mechanics of neutrino oscillation", hep-ph/9901399.
J. J. Sakurai, [*Modern Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Benjamin/Cummings, New York, 1985).
R. Colella, A.W. Overhauser, and S.A. Werner, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**34**]{}, 1472 (1975); D. M. Greenberger, Rev. Mod. Phys., [**55**]{}, 875 (1983); S. A. Werner, H. Kaiser, M. Arif and R. Clothier, Physica B, [**151**]{}, 22 (1988).
K. Hayashi and T. Shirafuji, Phys. Rev. D [**19**]{}, 3524 (1979).
\[fig2\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Parallel combinations of adaptive filters have been effectively used to improve the performance of adaptive algorithms and address well-known trade-offs, such as convergence rate vs[.]{} steady-state error. Nevertheless, typical combinations suffer from a convergence stagnation issue due to the fact that the component filters run independently. Solutions to this issue usually involve conditional transfers of coefficients between filters, which although effective, are hard to generalize to combinations with more filters or when there is no clearly faster adaptive filter. In this work, a more natural solution is proposed by cyclically feeding back the combined coefficient vector to all component filters. Besides coping with convergence stagnation, this new topology improves tracking and supervisor stability, and bridges an important conceptual gap between combinations of adaptive filters and variable step size schemes. We analyze the steady-state, tracking, and transient performance of this topology for LMS component filters and supervisors with generic activation functions. Numerical examples are used to illustrate how coefficients feedback can improve the performance of parallel combinations at a small computational overhead.'
author:
- 'Luiz F. O. Chamon, and Cássio G. Lopes, [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'af.bib'
- 'afnet.bib'
- 'afcomb.bib'
- 'math.bib'
- 'sp.bib'
- 'telecom.bib'
title: |
Combination of LMS Adaptive Filters\
with Coefficients Feedback
---
Adaptive filters, combination of adaptive filters, coefficients feedback, affine combination, convex combination.
**EDICS Category: X-XXXX**
Introduction
============
filters (AFs) are widely used in signal processing due to their tracking capabilities and low computational complexity. Still, they display performance trade-offs that can hinder their use in practice, such as the compromise between convergence rate or tracking and steady-state error [@Sayed08a; @Diniz13a]. These issues have been mitigated by modifying the filter cost functions, e.g., mixed-norm AFs, or by using variable step size (VSS) techniques [@Harris86v; @Kwong92v; @Mathews93s; @Mayyas95r; @Shin04v]. More recently, *combinations of AFs* were introduced to address these trade-offs, especially in situation where the design of a single filter is intricate [@Singer99u; @Kozat02f; @Jeronimo06m; @Chambers06c; @Bershad08a; @Magno08i; @Cassio07e; @Jeronimo08a; @Cassio10a; @Azpicueta11a; @Wilder11i; @Chamon12c; @Chamon12d; @Vitor12l; @Ferro14f]. In this approach, a pool of AFs is combined by an adaptive supervisor such that the overall system performs at least as well as the best filter in the pool, usually in the mean-square error (MSE) sense. Typically, convex or affine supervisors are used, possibly in their normalized forms [@Jeronimo06m; @Bershad08a; @Azpicueta08n; @Candido10t].
The most common combination structure runs each AF independently and then merges their outputs (Fig. \[F:ParallelTopology\]a). We dub this structure *parallel-independent*. It has been studied for different adaptive algorithms, step sizes, orders, and supervisors [@Singer99u; @Kozat02f; @Jeronimo06m; @Chambers06c; @Cassio10a; @Cassio07e; @Bershad08a; @Magno08i; @Jeronimo08a]. Although effective, parallel-independent combinations display a well-known convergence stagnation regardless of the supervisor. To understand this phenomenon, consider a combination of two AFs, one fast and one slow but accurate (Fig. \[F:CyclicComponents\]a). Once the faster AF has converged, the output of the combination plateaus while the slower filter does not reach a lower error level. When this happens, the combination “switches” filters and continues to converge.
Structural changes have been proposed to address this issue. In [@Jeronimo06m], *conditional coefficients leakage* from faster to more accurate AF was introduced (Fig. \[F:ParallelTopology\]b). This approach modifies the recursion of the slower AF so that its coefficient vector becomes a mixture of those from both component filters. A similar idea was explored in [@Vitor12l] where the coefficients of the slower filter were conditionally replaced by those from the faster one. A different approach entirely reformulated the topology leading to *incremental combinations* [@Wilder11i; @Chamon12d].
A more natural solution that retains the parallel form of the combination was put forward in [@Chamon12c]: *cyclic coefficients feedback* (Fig. \[F:ParallelTopology\]c). This structure periodically feeds back the overall coefficients of the combination to all component filters, improving their performance regardless of which AF is better at each iteration. The cyclic nature of these feedbacks is the key to exploit the output of the combination without hindering the supervisor adaptation. This topology not only addresses the convergence stagnation issue, but also improves tracking performance. In this work, we analyze this structure by
- showing that VSS adaptive algorithms can be interpreted as combinations with coefficients feedback;
- analyzing the steady-state, tracking, and transient performance of parallel combinations of LMS filters with coefficients feedback;
- extending the supervisor transient model from [@Vitor09t] to general activation functions;
- using these analyses to show that besides eliminating the stagnation issue, coefficients feedbacks increase cooperation among filters, improve tracking, and stabilize the supervising parameters;
- illustrating the performance of this new topology in numerical examples.
**Notation**: Lowercase boldface letters represent vectors (${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}$) and uppercase boldface letters are used for matrices (${\ensuremath{\bm{X}}}$). Iteration indices are shown as subscripts on vectors (${\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_i$) and in parenthesis for scalars \[$x(i)$\]. We denote the steady-state value of any variable by omitting its iteration index, i.e., $x = \lim_{i\to \infty} x(i)$.
[![Parallel topologies: (a) Parallel-independent; (b) Parallel with transfers of coefficients—leakage or handover; (c) Parallel with coefficients feedback.[]{data-label="F:ParallelTopology"}](fig1.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}]{}
Combinations of Adaptive Filters {#S:AFComb}
================================
A combination of AFs is composed of three parts: the component filters, the topology, and the supervisor. *Component filters* are the building blocks of combinations: they are the standalone AFs that are merged to improve their individual performances. The manner in which these AFs are merged is called the *topology*. It defines how the filters interact and how the output of the combination is obtained from the output of each AF. Oftentimes this topology depends on a set of parameters that modifies the combination behavior. These *supervising parameters* are adapted by the *supervisor*. In the sequel, we examine each of these elements individually, starting with the component filters.
The component filters
---------------------
In a combination of $N$ AFs, each component filter is distinguished by using the index $n = 1,\dots,N$. These AFs update *a priori* coefficient vectors ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^M$ in an attempt to minimize some underlying cost function $J_n({\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a})$. This cost function is usually the MSE $J_n({\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a}) = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\left[ d(i) - {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} \right]^2$, where ${\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i}$ is a $M \times 1$ real-valued regressor vector and $d(i) \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ is the desired signal. For example, in a combination of LMS filters, the recursion of the $n$-th AF is written as $$\label{E:LMS}
{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} + \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i}
\left[ d(i) - {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^{T} {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} \right]
\text{,}$$ where $\mu_n > 0$ is a step size. Using the *a priori* coefficients ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a}$ in we can formalize the notion of combination topology.
[![Effect of different topologies on the supervisor performance (convex supervisor). **White stationary scenario**: $M = 10$, $\sigma_u^2 = 1$, $\sigma_v^2 = 10^{-2}$, $\mu_1 = 0.05$, $\mu_2 = 0.005$; **Parallel-independent**: $\mu_{a} = 200$; **Coefficients leakage**: $\mu_{a} = 450$ and $\alpha = 0.6$ for $\eta \geq 0.98$ and $\alpha = 0$ otherwise; **Coefficients handover**: $L = 10$ and $\mu_{a} = 200$; **Cyclic coefficients feedback**: $L = 90$ and $\mu_a = 270$.[]{data-label="F:TopologySupervisor"}](fig12.pdf "fig:")]{}
[]{}
The topology {#S:topology}
------------
Notice from that AFs have 3 inputs: the regressor ${\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i$, the desired signal $d(i)$, and the *a priori* coefficient vector ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a}$. Filters in a combination interact using the latter. In fact, the topology of a combination is formally defined by specifying the ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a}$ and a function that maps the component filters to the output of the combination. In this work, we focus on parallel topologies, i.e., those for which the update can be evaluated for all $n$ simultaneously. Formally, a parallel topology is one in which the $\{ {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} \}$ at iteration $i$ are functions only of the $\{ {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,j} \}$ for $j < i$. This is in contrast to incremental or series topologies, in which the update of a component filter may depend on the state of another AF at the current iteration [@Wilder11i]. We define the output of parallel combinations as $$\label{E:Comb}
{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i} = \sum_{n=1}^{N} \eta_{n}(i) {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i}
\text{,}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i}$ is the *global coefficient vector* and $\{ \eta_n(i) \}$ are the supervising parameters.
The most common parallel topology is the *parallel-independent*, where ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i-1}$ (Fig. \[F:ParallelTopology\]a). In other words, the component filters run independently and their cooperation arises solely at the output of the combination [@Jeronimo06m; @Bershad08a; @Magno08i; @Vitor09t; @Kozat10u; @Kozat11t]. This structure suffers from a well-known convergence stagnation issue illustrated in Fig. \[F:CyclicComponents\]a. Notice that the overall combination appears to stall as the faster filter approaches steady-state until the slower filter output error catches up. Although this effect is more prominent in stationary scenarios, it occurs for all common supervisors and suggests that structural changes are required to overcome it.
In [@Jeronimo06m], convergence stagnation was addressed using a conditional *coefficients leakage* scheme (Fig. \[F:ParallelTopology\]b). Assuming filter $2$ is slower and more accurate, this topology adapts filter $1$ independently, i.e., ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{1,a} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{1,i-1}$, and changes the second filter recursion to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:CoefLeak}
{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{2,i} &= \alpha {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{1,i-1} +
(1 - \alpha) [{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{2,i-1} + \mu_{2} {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i} e_{2}(i)]
\text{,}\end{aligned}$$ where $e_2(i) = d(i) - {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^{T} {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{2,i-1}$, $\alpha = \bar{\alpha}\, \mathbb{I}_{\eta(i) > \eta_\text{th}}$, for constants $\bar{\alpha} \in [0,1]$ and $\eta_\text{th} \approx 1$, and $\mathbb{I}$ denotes the indicator function. It is straightforward to see why the threshold test in the indicator function is paramount: unless $\alpha$ vanishes, filter $1$ will perturb the steady-state of filter $2$ and the overall combination will eventually be worse than the second filter alone.
An alternative transfer of coefficients was proposed [@Vitor12l]. *Coefficients handover* once again assumes that the component filter $2$ is slower and more accurate and cyclically and conditionally assigns ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{2,i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{1,i}$. Although it uses the same condition as in the coefficients leakage scheme, this solution is more effective in addressing the convergence stagnation issue. Moreover, it can also be seen as a complexity reduction technique since the second component is not updated when handover occurs [@Vitor12l].
Though effective (see Fig. \[F:TopologySupervisor\]), these methods have downsides from an application point of view. In particular, they are based on unidirectional transfers, i.e., from filter $1$ to filter $2$. It may however be hard to guarantee in practice that filter $1$ will always be faster. This is the case, for instance, in tracking applications or varying signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). This issue is further accentuated in combinations with $N > 2$ AFs in which there are $N(N-1)$ possible transfers to choose from. Moreover, these techniques regularly require conditional tests to check whether transfers should take place, which places an additional burden on the implementation.
Before we show how a topology with coefficients feedback addresses these issues, we explain the final element of combinations, the supervisor.
The supervisor {#S:SupervisingRules}
--------------
The supervisor is responsible for adjusting the supervising parameters of the topology, playing a fundamental role in the combination performance. The most common approach is to adapt $\eta_n(i)$ in so as to minimize the global MSE $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e(i)^{2}$ under an unbiasedness constraint, where $e(i) = d(i) - {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1}$ is the *global output estimation error*. For parallel topologies, this constraint can be expressed as [@Jeronimo06m; @Bershad08a; @Kozat10u] $$\label{E:Unbiasedness}
\sum_{n=1}^{N} \eta_{n}(i) = 1
\text{,} \quad \text{for all } i \text{.}$$ Without loss of generality, the remain of this paper considers the $N = 2$ case, given that larger combinations can be built from smaller ones using hierarchical combination techniques [@Cassio07e; @Jeronimo08a]. Using , the global coefficient vector in therefore reduces to $$\label{E:2Comb}
{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i} = \eta(i) \, {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{1,i} + \left[ 1-\eta(i) \right] {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{2,i}
\text{.}$$ The global MSE minimization is typically carried out using stochastic gradient descent, mirroring the adaptation of standalone AFs such as . Additionally, a strictly increasing activation function $f$ can be used to reduce the variance of the supervising parameters, in which case the supervisor adapts an internal state $a$ that determines $\eta(i)$. This general supervising parameter adaptation procedure can be described as
\[E:SupervisorModel\] $$\begin{aligned}
a(i) &= a(i-1) + \mu_{a} e(i) \left[ y_{1}(i) - y_{2}(i) \right]
f^{\prime}[a(i-1)]
\label{E:adaptA}
\\
\eta(i) &= f\left[ a(i) \right]
\label{E:etaModel}
\text{,}\end{aligned}$$
where $y_n = {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i-1}$ is the output of the $n$-th component, $\mu_a > 0$ is a step size, and $f^{\prime}$ denotes the derivative of $f$ [@Cassio07e; @Cassio10a]. The auxiliary variable $a$ is usually restricted to some range $[a^{-},a^{+}]$ by saturating . Note that the restrictions on $f$ imply that $f^{\prime} > 0$ and guarantees that descends along the gradient and avoids stalling the adaptation algorithm. In other words, it ensures that there is no $a$ for which $f^{\prime}(a)$ vanishes and the supervising parameter becomes independent of the component filters.
For appropriate choices of the activation function in we can recover the two most widely used supervising algorithms. The *affine supervisor* is obtained by letting $f(a) = a$ in and reads $$\label{E:AffineSupervisor}
\eta(i) = \eta(i-1) + \mu_{\eta} e(i)
\left[ y_{1}(i) - y_{2}(i) \right]
\text{.}$$ The value of $\eta(i)$ is typically constrained to improve steady-state stability by, for instance, taking $\eta(i) \in [-0.2,1.2]$ [@Bershad08a; @Jeronimo16c]. The *convex supervisor* takes $f$ to be a sigmoidal function, so that becomes
\[E:ConvexSupervisor\] $$\begin{aligned}
a(i) &= a(i-1) + \mu_{a} e(i) \left[ y_{1}(i) - y_{2}(i) \right]
\times
\notag\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\eta(i-1) \left[ 1 - \eta(i-1) \right]
\label{E:ConvexSupervisor_a}
\\
\eta(i) &= \dfrac{1}{1 + e^{-a(i)}}
\label{E:ConvexSupervisor_f}\end{aligned}$$
To prevent stalling, $a(i)$ is usually restricted to $[-4,4]$ either by saturating $a$ or modifying [@Jeronimo06m; @Gredilla10a].
Normalized versions of supervisors and are obtained by taking $\mu_{\eta},\mu_a = \tilde{\mu} / p(i)$ with $p(i) = \beta e(i)^2 + (1-\beta) \, p(i-1)$ for some normalized step size $\tilde{\mu} > 0$ [@Azpicueta08n; @Candido10t; @Jeronimo16c]. Although we use the unnormalized in our analyses, we illustrate the fact that the coefficients feedback topology is effective regardless of the supervisor by also displaying results for the normalized versions.
[![Steady-state performance of combinations with coefficients feedback for different $L$. **Correlated scenario**: $M = 5$, $\sigma_u^2 = 1$, $\sigma_v^2 = 10^{-2}$, $\gamma = 0.7$, $\mu_1 = 0.01$, and $\mu_2 = 0.002$. **Convex supervisor**: $\mu_{a} = 100$. Steady-state value is an average of 1000 iterations (see Section \[S:Sims\]).[]{data-label="F:cycleLengthStat1"}](fig5.pdf "fig:")]{}
Cyclic Coefficients Feedback {#S:CoefFB}
============================
Regardless of using convex or affine supervisors, normalized or not, convergence stagnation remains an issue in parallel-independent combinations. To mitigate this issue, a new topology was introduced in [@Chamon12c] as an alternative to the coefficients transfers from Section \[S:topology\]. It is based on feeding back the globl coefficients to all component filters at every iteration (Fig. \[F:ParallelTopology\]c). Formally, the *a priori* coefficients in are defined as ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1}$, for ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_i$ as in . This is motivated by the fact that the supervisor adapts so that the global coefficients minimize the overall MSE. Hence, these feedbacks enforce that each AF in the combination updates the best available coefficient vector estimate at each iteration.
In practice, however, coefficients feedbacks have the effect of slowing down the supervisor adaptation, which degrades the combination performance (Fig. \[F:CyclicComponents\]c). This is due to the fact that feedbacks reduces the difference between the component filters outputs $y_n(i)$, since they all update the same *a priori* coefficients. It is then clear from that the $\eta_n(i)$ will change slowly. A simple solution to this issue is to make the feedback cyclical by taking $$\label{E:Feedback}
{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} = \delta(i - rL) {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1} +
\left[ 1 - \delta(i - rL) \right] {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i-1}
\text{,}$$ where $L$ is a constant *cycle period*, $\delta(i)$ is the Kronecker delta, and $r \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ (Fig. \[F:CyclicComponents\]b).
Combinations with cyclic coefficients feedback have two limiting behaviors: (i) for $L = 1$, the relation in reduces to ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1}$ and the global coefficients are always fed back to the component filters; (ii) for $L \to \infty$, we can write as ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i-1}$ and the usual parallel-independent combination from Section \[S:topology\] is recovered. However, the advantage of coefficients feedback appear when $1 < L \ll \infty$. It is worth noting that the overall performance of this topology is robust for a wide range of $L$ (see Figs. \[F:cycleLengthStat1\] and \[F:cycleLengthStat2\]), so that values between $50$ and $150$ typically work well. Alternatively, a procedure to design the cycle period was proposed in [@Chamon12c].
Coefficients feedback provides all component filters with the best coefficients estimate available to the combination, i.e., the global coefficients. Moreover, they are neither directional nor limited to any pair of component filters as in the structures from Section \[S:topology\]. It is therefore straightforward to extend beyond two filter combinations. In terms of performance, this topology not only effectively addresses convergence stagnation, but can also improve the combination misadjustment, especially in nonstationary scenarios. These performance improvements are examined in the next two sections by analyzing the steady-state, tracking, and transient behavior of a combination of LMS filters with cyclic coefficients feedback. Although any AFs can be used in these combinations, we focus on LMS filters for the purpose of analysis. Before proceeding, however, we discuss a conceptual consequence of the coefficients feedback topology by formalizing the relation between combinations of AFs and VSS algorithms.
[![Tracking performance of combinations with coefficients feedback for different $L$. **White nonstationary scenario**: $M = 5$, $\sigma_u^2 = 1$, $\sigma_v^2 = 10^{-2}$, ${\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}= 10^{-5} {\ensuremath{\bm{I}}}$, $\mu_1 = 0.07$, and $\mu_2 = 0.01$. **Convex supervisor**: $\mu_a = 100$. Steady-state value is an average of 1000 iterations (see Section \[S:Sims\]).[]{data-label="F:cycleLengthStat2"}](fig6.pdf "fig:")]{}
VSS algorithms as combinations of adaptive filters {#S:vss}
--------------------------------------------------
The close relation between standalone VSS AFs and combinations of AFs was already observed in [@Jeronimo06m]. The parallel-independent topology, however, cannot be used as a step size adaptation structure. This barrier prevents, for instance, the effective use of these combinations in nonstationary scenarios. In fact, a parallel-independent combination of LMS filters can only match the tracking performance of a standalone LMS filter with an optimally designed step size $\mu^o$ [@Sayed08a Lemma 7.5.1] if one of its component filters has step size $\mu^o$ [@Vitor10t].
The coefficients feedback topology bridges this conceptual and practical gap. To see how this is the case, let all AFs of a combination have update equations of the form $${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} + \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{p}}}_i({\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a})
\text{,} \quad \text{for } n = 1,\dots,N$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bm{p}}}_i$ denotes the update direction at iteration $i$. For example, the LMS filter in is recovered by taking ${\ensuremath{\bm{p}}}_{i}({\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a}) = {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i} \left[ d(i) - {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} \right]$. When feedback occurs at every iteration, i.e., $L = 1$ in , the update reads $${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1} + \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{p}}}({\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1})$$ for all component filters. It is then ready from and that the output of an unbiased combination is given by $$\label{E:VSS}
{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1} + \hat{\mu}(i) {\ensuremath{\bm{p}}}( {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1} )
\text{,}$$ where $\hat{\mu}(i) = \sum \eta_n(i) \mu_n$ is an iteration dependent combination of the component filters step sizes $\{ \mu_n \}$. Hence, the output of the combination has the form of a VSS version of its component filters.
Beyond its conceptual value, also provides a viable alternative to step size adaptation rules such as [@Kwong92v; @Harris86v; @Mayyas95r; @Mathews93s]. Numerical experiments using combinations of LMS filters with cyclic coefficients feedback show that the resulting VSS algorithms are robust to changes in the environment and can track the optimal step-size even in stringent nonstationary scenarios (e.g., see Fig. \[F:2LMSNonStat\]).
It is worth noting that step size adaptation is only one possible application of coefficients feedback. In fact, these combinations are only related to VSS algorithms when all the AFs in the pool use the same adaptation algorithm and feedback occurs at every iteration. Combinations with cyclic coefficients feedback are therefore more general structures.
[![Steady-state of combination of LMS filters with cyclic coefficients feedback: EMSE performance. **White stationary scenario** (see Section \[S:Sims\]): $M = 10$, $\sigma_u^2 = 1$, $\sigma_v^2 = 10^{-3}$, $\mu_1 = 0.01$, $\mu_2 = 0.002$, and $L = 20$. **Affine supervisor**: $\mu_\eta = 1.5$ and $\eta \geq -0.25 \Rightarrow {\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}\geq 0$.[]{data-label="F:StatAffine1"}](fig3.pdf "fig:")]{}
Steady-State and Tracking Performance {#S:SSTracking}
=====================================
We begin the analysis of combinations of LMS filters with coefficients feedback by studying their steady-state performance in a system identification scenario. Although AFs can be used in a myriad of setups, their analyses are typically carried out in this setting as it is representative of applications such as echo cancellation, time delay estimation, and adaptive control [@Sayed08a; @Diniz13a; @Huang06a; @So01c; @Widrow08a]. Let ${\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i}$ be a $M \times 1$ real-valued regressor vector with covariance matrix ${\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T$ and let $d(i)$ be a scalar measurement of the form $$\label{E:DataModel}
d(i) = {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i}^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^{o}_i + v(i)
\text{,}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^{o}_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^M$ represents the unknown system at iteration $i$ and $v(i)$ is a zero-mean white Gaussian noise with variance $\sigma_{v}^{2}$. The system coefficients ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^{o}_i$ follow the first-order Markov process $$\label{E:RandomWalkModel}
{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_{i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_{i-1} + {\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i
\text{,}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_{-1} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o$ is the initial condition and ${\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^M$ is a zero-mean i.i.d[.]{} sequence of vectors with covariance matrix ${\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i^T$. The stationary case is recovered for ${\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i = {\ensuremath{\bm{0}}}\Rightarrow {\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}= {\ensuremath{\bm{0}}}$. To make the derivations more tractable, we adopt the following typical assumptions [@Sayed08a; @Diniz13a]:
\[A:NoiseIndependence\]
$\{ u(i), v(j) \}$ are independent for all $i,j$.
\[A:RandomWalk\]
The random variable ${\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i$ is statistically independent of the initial conditions $\{ {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_{-1}, {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,-1} \}$, of $\{ {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_j, v(j) \}$ for all $i,j$, and of $\{ d(j) \}$ for $j < i$.
Our performance metric of interest is the excess MSE (EMSE) defined as follows. Let ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_i - {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_i$ and ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_i - {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i}$ be the global and local coefficient error vectors respectively. Define the global *a priori* error as $e_a(i) = {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T ({\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_i - {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1})$ and its local counterpart as $e_{a,n}(i) = {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T ({\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_i - {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i-1})$. For a combination of two filters, we then have $$\label{E:EMSEs}
\begin{aligned}
\zeta(i) &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_a^2(i)
& \text{(global EMSE)}
\\
\zeta_n(i) &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_{a,n}^2(i) \text{, for } n = 1,2
& \text{(local EMSE)}
\\
\zeta_{12}(i) &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_{a,1}(i) e_{a,2}(i)
& \text{(cross-EMSE)}
\end{aligned}$$
[![Steady-state of combination of LMS filters with cyclic coefficients feedback: equivalent step-size of combination (same setting as Fig. \[F:StatAffine1\]).[]{data-label="F:StatAffine2"}](fig4.pdf "fig:")]{}
Before proceeding, we derive some relations that will be useful throughout our analysis. First, subtract the global coefficients from ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_i$ to get $$\label{E:GlobalCoefError}
{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i} = \eta(i) {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,i}
+ \left[ 1-\eta(i) \right] {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,i}
\text{.}$$ Also, subtracting ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_i$ from at $i-1$ and multiplying by ${\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T$ yields $$\label{E:GlobalAPriori}
e_a(i) = \eta(i-1) e_{a,1}(i) + \left[ 1-\eta(i-1) \right] e_{a,2}(i)
\text{.}$$ Using the definition of the component filters output, we obtain $$\label{E:outputDiff}
y_{1}(i) - y_{2}(i) = {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{1,i-1} - {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{2,i-1}
= e_{a,2}(i) - e_{a,1}(i)
\text{,}$$ by adding and subtracting ${\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_i$. Finally, we can use to write the global estimation error $e(i)$ in terms of the *a priori* error as $$\label{E:estimationAPrioriError}
\begin{aligned}
e(i) &= d(i) - {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1}
\\
{}&= {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i}^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^{o}_i + v(i) - {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1} = e_a(i) + v(i)
\text{.}
\end{aligned}$$ Note from that under A.\[A:NoiseIndependence\] the global MSE is given by $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e(i)^2 = \zeta(i) + \sigma_v^2$. Hence, although we carry out all derivations for the EMSE, our results can readily be used to measure performance with respect to the MSE.
We are now ready to state the main result of this section.
\[T:SS\]
Consider the system identification scenario in – and a supervisor of the form . Under assumptions A.\[A:NoiseIndependence\]–A.\[A:SSSupervisorVar\], the steady-state value of the global EMSE of a combination of LMS filters with coefficients feedback is $$\label{E:2LMSFB}
\zeta =
\frac{
{\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}\operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \sigma_v^2 + {\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}^{-1} \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}})
}{
2 - {\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}\operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u)
}
\text{,}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}= {\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}\mu_1 + (1-{\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}) \mu_2$, ${\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}$ is the restriction of $\eta^o$ onto $[f(a^{-}),f(a^{+})]$, and $$\label{E:SSSupervisor}
\eta^o = \frac{
c - \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \left[ \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}) + 2 \mu_2 \sigma_v^2 \right]
}{
2 (\mu_1 - \mu_2) \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \sigma_v^2
}
\text{,}$$ with $c^2 = \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u)^2 \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}})^2 + 4 \sigma_v^2 \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}})$ is the supervising parameter that minimizes the global MSE.
Given the relation between combinations with coefficients feedback and VSS algorithms, it is not surprising that is equivalent to the expression for the steady-state of a standalone LMS filter with step size ${\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}$ [@Sayed08a Lemma 7.5.1]. Theorem \[T:SS\], however, also states that ${\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}$ is chosen by the supervisor to minimize the global MSE (see Proposition \[T:etabar\]). In the nonstationary case, coefficients feedback therefore force the supervisor to explicitly track the optimal step size $\mu^o$ from [@Sayed08a Lemma 7.5.1]. For convex or affine supervisors, it then suffices that $\mu_1 \leq \mu^o \leq \mu_2$ for the coefficients feedback topology to outperform any parallel-independent combination that does not have at least one component filter with step size $\mu^o$. Even if it does, recall that $\mu^o$ depends on ${\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u$, ${\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}$, and $\sigma_v^2$, so that parallel-independent combinations would not robust to changes in the environment. The adaptive step size effect of coefficients feedback, however, mitigates this issue.
Theorem \[T:SS\] may no longer be valid in stationary scenarios, especially if the range of the activation function $f$ from is unbounded, e.g., for the affine supervisor . In this case, ${\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}= {\ensuremath{\bm{0}}}$ implies that $\eta^o \to \mu_2 (\mu_1 - \mu_2)^{-1}$ and ${\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}\to 0$ at steady-state. However, Figs. \[F:StatAffine1\] and \[F:StatAffine2\] illustrates that, although ${\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}$ and the EMSE decrease considerably, they both converge to a non-vanishing steady-state. This occurs because as the EMSE diminishes, the variance of the supervising parameter becomes non-negligible, violating the approximations used to derive Theorem \[T:SS\]. Nevertheless, Theorem \[T:SS\] holds for the convex supervisor or any other case in which $[f(a^{-}),f(a^{+})]$ does not allow ${\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}$ to vanish. Otherwise, we can resort to the transient analysis in Section \[S:Transient\].
The remainder of this section is dedicated to proving Theorem \[T:SS\]. We proceed in three steps. First, we introduce the different steady-state regimes of the cyclic coefficients feedback topology and argue that for small cycle periods the combination performs as if $L = 1$ (Section \[S:SSGlobal\]). Then, we derive the component filters error statistics required to obtain (Section \[S:SSComponents\]) and determine the steady-state value of the supervising parameter (Section \[S:SSSupervisor\]). Recall that even though all derivations are carried out for two component filters, the results can be extended to arbitrary $N$ by evaluating additional error statistics or using hierarchical combinations [@Cassio07e; @Jeronimo08a].
Global steady-state analysis {#S:SSGlobal}
----------------------------
Analyzing the asymptotic performance of combinations with cyclic coefficients feedback is intricate due to the dynamic nature of their steady-state. Indeed, for cycle periods $1 < L < \infty$, their topology alternates between parallel-independent and parallel with coefficients feedback, so that the component filters and the output of the combination reach a *cyclostationary* regime as $i \to \infty$, as illustrated in Fig. \[F:CyclicComponents\]b. In contrast, the limit cases $L \to \infty$ and $L = 1$ have static topologies and stationary steady-state errors (Figs. \[F:CyclicComponents\]a and \[F:CyclicComponents\]c respectively). To account for cyclic feedback without resorting to a full transient analysis as in Section \[S:Transient\], we leverage the fact that since feedbacks are cyclical solely to avoid stalling the supervisor adaptation, we care only about performance for small $L$. Hence, we can use the following approximation, is valid for a significant range of $L$ (Figs. \[F:cycleLengthStat1\] and \[F:cycleLengthStat2\]):
\[A:SSCyclePeriod\]
For small cycle period, the combination performs at steady-state as if $L = 1$.
Moreover, we can decouple the analysis of the global error and the supervisor by assuming that
\[A:SSSupervisorSeparation\]
At steady-state, $\eta(i)$ varies slowly compared to the coefficients error vector ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i}$ and the *a priori* errors $e_{a,n}(i)$, so that their expected values can be separated as in $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[ \eta(i) {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i} ] = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i}$ and $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[ \eta(i) e_{a,n}(i) ] = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_{a,n}(i)$, $i \to \infty$.
This assumption is supported by simulations and has been successfully used in the steady-state analysis of parallel-independent topologies, i.e., $L \to \infty$, for both affine [@Bershad08a; @Candido10t; @Kozat11t] and convex [@Jeronimo06m; @Magno08i] supervisors. Using A.\[A:SSSupervisorSeparation\], we can now derive the result of Theorem \[T:SS\] in two parts, by first analyzing the component filters and then the supervisor.
Component filters steady-state analysis {#S:SSComponents}
---------------------------------------
Start by taking the expected value of the squared norm of the coefficient error vector to get $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_i \right\|}}^2 &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta^2(i) {\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,i} \right\|}}^2
+ 2 \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i) [1-\eta(i)] {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,i}^T {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,i}
\\
{}&+ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[1-\eta(i)]^2 {\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,i} \right\|}}^2
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Then, using A.\[A:SSSupervisorSeparation\], we can separate the expectations and obtain $$\label{E:GlobalMSD}
\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_i \right\|}}^2 &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta^2 \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,i} \right\|}}^2
+ 2 \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta [1-\eta] \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,i}^T {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,i}
\\
{}&+ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[1-\eta]^2 \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,i} \right\|}}^2
\text{,} \quad \text{as } i \to \infty
\text{.}
\end{aligned}$$ The component filters error statistics required in can be evaluated using an energy conservation argument as in [@Sayed08a]. We do so by adopting the following assumption to derive the variance and covariance relations of the AFs in the combination.
\[A:SSData\]
${\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i \right\|}}^2$ is independent of $e_{a,n}(i)$, and consequently $e_a(i)$, at steady-state.
We then have the following proposition:
\[T:VarCovar\]
Under A.\[A:NoiseIndependence\], A.\[A:RandomWalk\], and A.\[A:SSData\], the variance and covariance relations for the LMS component filters of a combination with coefficients feedback ($L = 1$) are given by
\[E:PreFB\] $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i} \right\|}}^2 &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1} \right\|}}^2 + \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}})
\notag\\
{}&- 2 \mu_{n} \zeta(i)
+ \mu_{n}^2 \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \left[ \zeta(i) + \sigma_v^2 \right]
\text{,}
\\
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,i}^T {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,i} &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1} \right\|}}^2 + \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}})
- (\mu_1 + \mu_2) \zeta(i)
\notag\\
{}&+ \mu_1 \mu_2 \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \left[ \zeta(i) + \sigma_v^2 \right]
\text{,}\end{aligned}$$
as $i \to \infty$.
See Appendix \[AP:VarCovar\].
Note that, as opposed to the analysis of parallel-independent combinations [@Jeronimo06m; @Bershad08a; @Candido10t], the recursions in are coupled. Substituting into the steady-state relation gives $$\label{E:PreFB2}
\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i} \right\|}}^2 &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1} \right\|}}^2 + \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}})
- 2 \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\hat{\mu} \zeta(i)
\\
{}&+ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\hat{\mu}^2
\operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \left[ \zeta(i) + \sigma_v^2 \right]
\text{, as } i \to \infty \text{,}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\mu} = \eta \mu_{1} + [1-\eta] \mu_{2}$ is the steady-state *net step size* of the combination with $\eta = \lim_{i \to \infty} \eta(i)$. Note that $\hat{\mu}$ is a random variable due to its dependence on $\eta$.
To conclude the component analysis, recall that under A.\[A:SSCyclePeriod\] we only consider the $L = 1$ case in which the combination topology is static. Hence, $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i} \right\|}}^2$ eventually converges to a stationary value for a proper choice of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, and $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i} \right\|}}^2 = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1} \right\|}}^2$ as $i \to \infty$. We can therefore rewrite as $$\label{E:2LMSFB1}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\hat{\mu}^2 \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \left[ \zeta + \sigma_v^2 \right]
+ \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}) = 2 \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\hat{\mu} \zeta
\text{.}$$ Recall that $\zeta$ is the steady-state value of the EMSE $\zeta(i)$. All that remains to obtain is to determine the supervisor moments needed to evaluate .
Supervisor steady-state analysis {#S:SSSupervisor}
--------------------------------
To analyze the steady-state value of the supervising parameter we adopt the following typical assumption [@Bershad08a; @Candido10t; @Kozat11t; @Jeronimo06m; @Magno08i]:
\[A:SSSupervisorVar\]
The variance of $\eta(i)$ becomes negligible as $i \to \infty$, so that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta^2(i) \approx [\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i)]^2$.
Immediately, becomes $$\label{E:SSPreEMSE}
{\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}\operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \left[ \zeta + \sigma_v^2 \right]
+ \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}) = 2 {\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}\zeta
\text{,}$$ recalling that ${\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}= {\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}\mu_1 + (1-{\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}) \mu_2$ with ${\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}= \lim_{i\to\infty} \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i)$. It is ready that can be rearranged as in .
To obtain ${\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}$, notice from that the mean supervising parameter must converge to a fixed value for the combination to reach global steady-state, i.e., for $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i} \right\|}}^2 = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1} \right\|}}^2$. In other words, ${\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}$ in must be a fixed point of the expected value of . We characterize this fixed point in the following proposition.
\[T:etabar\]
Let $\eta^o \in \operatorname*{argmin}_\eta \zeta$ denote a supervising parameter that minimizes the steady-state global EMSE and $\eta^\star$ be a fixed point of the expected value of . Under A.\[A:NoiseIndependence\], A.\[A:RandomWalk\], and A.\[A:SSSupervisorSeparation\], if $\eta^o \in [f(a^{-}),f(a^{+})]$, then $\eta^\star = \eta^o$.
See Appendix \[AP:Eta\].
Proposition \[T:etabar\] states that, unless constrained by the activation function, the fixed point of the mean supervising parameter update minimizes the global MSE. Hence, we can approximate the mean steady-state value of the supervising parameters by minimizing the steady-state EMSE expression and projecting the minimum onto the range of $f$. Similar approximations were used in the steady-state analysis of parallel-independent combinations [@Jeronimo06m; @Bershad08a; @Candido08a].
Explicitly, the minimum of is obtained when $$\label{E:preEtao}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\zeta}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}{\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}} &=
\operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \sigma_v^2 (\mu_1 - \mu_2)^2 {\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}^2
\\
{}&+ \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \left[ \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}) + 2 \mu_2 \sigma_v^2 \right]
(\mu_1 - \mu_2) {\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}\\
{}&+ \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \sigma_v^2 \mu_2^2
+ \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}) \mu_2 - \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}) = 0
\text{.}
\end{aligned}$$ Taking $\eta^o$ to be the root of such that the net step size $\eta^o \mu_1 + (1-\eta^o) \mu_2 \geq 0$ yields and concludes the proof of Theorem \[T:SS\].
Transient Performance {#S:Transient}
=====================
The performance analysis from Section \[S:SSTracking\] show that coefficients feedback can be used to improve the steady-state and tracking of parallel combinations. Recall, however, that the initial motivation for this topology was addressing the convergence stagnation issue. In this section, we therefore examine the transient behavior of a combination of LMS filters with cyclic coefficients feedback and in doing so, study the impact of cyclic feedback on the supervisor variance. Although transient analyses of convex and affine supervising rules in parallel-independent topologies have been carried out [@Candido10t; @Vitor09t; @Magno10t; @Kozat11t], the following derivations are valid for generic activation functions by extending the approach from [@Vitor09t].
In what follows, we consider a stationary system identification scenario, i.e., ${\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i = 0$ in , so that the coefficient error vectors become ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o - {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i}$ and ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o - {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i}$ and the *a priori* errors can be written as $e_{a}(i) = {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1}$ and $e_{a,n}(i) = {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i-1}$. We also need to strengthen some of the assumptions from Section \[S:SSTracking\]. Namely,
\[A:TrData\] $\{ {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i} \}$ is an i.i.d. sequence of Gaussian vectors with covariance ${\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u$ and independent of $v(j)$ for all $i,j$. Consequently, $\{ {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i}, {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{j} \}$, $\{ d(i), d(j) \}$, and $\{ {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i}, d(j) \}$ are independent for $i > j$.
\[A:TrSupervisor\]
The supervising parameter varies slowly enough that, for $m,n = 1,2$, $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[ \eta(i-1) e_{a,m}(i) e_{a,n}(i) ] = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i-1) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[ e_{a,m}(i) e_{a,n}(i) ]$.
\[A:TrGaussian\]
The *a priori* error $\{ e_{a,n}(i) \}$, $n = 1,2$, are zero-mean jointly Gaussian random variables, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_{a,n}^4(i) &= 3 \zeta_n^2(i)
\\
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_{a,1}^{k}(i) e_{a,2}^{\ell}(i) &=
\begin{cases}
0 \text{,} & k + \ell = 3
\\
3 \zeta_1(i) \zeta_{12}(i) \text{,} & k = 3, \ell = 1
\\
3 \zeta_2(i) \zeta_{12}(i) \text{,} & k = 1, \ell = 3
\\
2 \zeta_{12}^2(i) + \zeta_1(i) \zeta_2(i) \text{,} & k = \ell = 2
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Assumption A.\[A:TrData\] is used to evaluate higher-order moments of the input signal. Although stronger than A.\[A:SSData\], it is common in the transient analysis of standalone AFs [@Sayed08a; @Diniz13a]. Note that, although the vector sequence $\{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i\}$ is i.i.d., the elements within each vector ${\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i$ can be correlated. Additionally, assumption A.\[A:TrSupervisor\] allows us to decouple the analysis of the component filters and the supervisor, and A.\[A:TrGaussian\] is used to evaluate moments of the *a priori* errors for the supervisor variance recursion.
The following theorem collects the complete transient analysis from this section.
\[T:transient\]
Let ${\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u = {\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}^T$ be the eigenvalue decomposition of the regressor covariance matrix. Also, let the component filters coefficient vectors and the supervising parameters be initialized as ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,-1} = {\ensuremath{\bm{0}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(-1) = 0.5$, and $\sigma_a^2(-1) = 0$, so that ${\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,-1} = {\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}^T {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o ({\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o)^T {\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}$ and $\Delta{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,-1} = {\ensuremath{\bm{0}}}$. Then, under A.\[A:TrData\]–A.\[A:TrGaussian\], the EMSE at iteration $i$ can be computed recursively by the following steps
(i) Evaluate the supervising parameter moments using $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta^2(i-1) &\approx f\left[ {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i-1) \right]^2
+ \sigma_a^2(i-1) f^{\prime}\left[ {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i-1) \right]^2
\\
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i-1) &\approx f\left[ {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i-1) \right]
\end{aligned}$$
(ii) Evaluate the global EMSE using $\zeta_{n}(i) = \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i-1})$, $\Delta\zeta_{n}(i) = \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\Delta {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i-1})$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta(i) &= \left[ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta^2(i-1) \right] [ \Delta\zeta_{1}(i) + \Delta\zeta_{2}(i) ]
\\
{}&- 2 \left[ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i-1) \right] \Delta\zeta_{2}(i) + \zeta_{2}(i)
\end{aligned}$$
(iii) Update the error covariance matrices: $\displaystyle
\begin{cases}
\text{\eqref{E:FinalTrMSDFB1},} & i = rL
\\
\text{\eqref{E:FinalTrMSDNoFB1},} & i \neq rL
\end{cases}
$
(iv) Update the supervisor statistics using $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{a}(i) &\approx \bar{a}(i-1) +
\mu_a [ (1 - \bar{f}) \Delta\zeta_{2} - \bar{f} \Delta\zeta_{1} ]
\bar{f}^{\prime}
\\
\sigma_a^2(i) &\approx
\left[ 1 + 2 \mu_a G_1 + \mu_a^2 G_2 \right] \sigma_a^2(i-1)
+ \mu_a^2 G_v
\end{aligned}$$ for the $G$ defined in .
For $m,n = 1,2$ and $m \neq n$, the error covariance matrices are updated as $$\label{E:FinalTrMSDFB1}
\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i} &= {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{i-1}
- \mu_n [ {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{i-1} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}+ {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{i-1} ]
+ \mu_n^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{A}}}\\
\Delta {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i} &= (\mu_m - \mu_n) \left( {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{i-1} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}- \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{A}}}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ for $i = rL$ and ${\ensuremath{\bm{A}}}= \sigma_v^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}+ {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{i-1} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}) + 2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{i-1} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}$ or $$\label{E:FinalTrMSDNoFB1}
\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i} &= {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i-1}
+ \mu_n^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{A}}}_n
\\
{}&- \mu_n [ {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i-1} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}+ {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i-1} ]
\\
{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,i} &= {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,i-1}
- \mu_1 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,i-1}
\\
{}&- \mu_2 {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,i-1} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}+ \mu_1 \mu_2 {\ensuremath{\bm{A}}}_{12}
\text{.}
\end{aligned}$$ for $i \neq rL$, ${\ensuremath{\bm{A}}}_n = \sigma_v^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}+ {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i-1} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}) + 2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i-1} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\bm{A}}}_{12} = \sigma_v^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}+ 2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,i-1} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}+ \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,i-1}) {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}$.
Although Theorem \[T:transient\] presents our results in full generality, it is more straightforward to interpret these results when the input signal is white.
\[T:transientiid\]
For white input signals, i.e., ${\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u = \sigma_u^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{I}}}$, the recursions and reduce to $$\label{E:TrEMSEFBiid}
\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{n}(i) &= a_n \zeta(i-1) + \mu_n^2 M \sigma_u^4 \sigma_v^2
\\
\Delta\zeta_{n}(i) &=
(\mu_m - \mu_n) \sigma_u^2 \left[ b_n \zeta(i-1) + \mu_n M \sigma_u^2 \sigma_v^2 \right]
\end{aligned}$$ for $i = rL$ and $$\label{E:TrEMSENoFBiid}
\begin{aligned}
\zeta_n(i) &= a_n \zeta_n(i-1) + \mu_n^2 M \sigma_u^4 \sigma_v^2
\\
\Delta\zeta_n(i) &= [1 - \mu_n \sigma_u^2] \Delta\zeta_n(i-1)
\\
{}&- \sigma_u^2 b_n [ \mu_n \zeta_n(i-1) - \mu_m \zeta_{12}(i-1) ]
\\
{}&+ \mu_n ( \mu_n - \mu_m) M \sigma_u^4 \sigma_v^2
\end{aligned}$$ for $i \neq rL$, $a_n = 1 - 2 \mu_n \sigma_u^2 + \mu_n^2 ( M + 2 ) \sigma_u^4$, and $b_n = 1 - \mu_n ( M + 2 ) \sigma_u^2$.
Theorem \[T:transient\] and Corollary \[T:transientiid\] show the advantages of cyclic coefficients feedback from the viewpoint of convergence. Firstly, notice from that the EMSE of both component filters are functions of the global EMSE upon feedback. As such, convergence stagnation is eradicated since the difference between the component errors cannot become too large for moderately sized cycle periods. Indeed, upon feedback, the difference between the $\zeta_n(i)$ is proportional to the difference between the component filters step sizes. Secondly, coefficients feedback reduces the EMSE/cross-EMSE gap, whose magnitude becomes proportional to ${\ensuremath{{\left\vert \mu_1 - \mu_2 \right\vert}}}$. As the supervisor analysis suggests, this reduces the supervising parameter variance in , increasing the stability of the supervisor (see Section \[S:Sims\]). Finally, the expression for the mean supervisor parameters ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}$ in step (iv) reveals why feeding back coefficients at all iterations ($L = 1$) stalls the supervisor adaptation and justifies the use of *cyclic* feedback. This way, the combination can reduce the supervising parameters variance as well as avoid convergence stagnation without hindering the supervisor adaptation.
Before proceeding, note that the supervisor transient analysis given in steps (i) and (iv) holds for arbitrary activation functions. Transient models for the convex and affine supervisors from Section \[S:SupervisingRules\] can therefore be obtained for appropriate choices of $f$. For the convex supervisor, using $f$ as in recovers the results from [@Vitor09t]. However, for the affine supervisor, i.e., for $f(a) = a$, the results in Theorem \[T:transient\] differ from the previous literature. Indeed, [@Candido08a; @Candido10t] use different approximations and [@Kozat11t] relies on a different scheme that does not explicitly evaluate these quantities.
The remainder of this section derives the results from Theorem \[T:transient\], namely the global EMSE expression (Section \[S:TrComplete\]) and the component filters and supervisor statistics needed to evaluate it (Sections \[S:TrComponents\] and \[S:TrSupervisor\]).
Global transient analysis {#S:TrComplete}
-------------------------
As opposed to the steady-state analysis of Section \[S:SSGlobal\], the dynamic behavior of the topology is captured by the transient analysis. Hence, we only need to relate the local EMSEs of the component filters to the global EMSE of the combination. To do so, consider the *a priori* errors relation in . Under A.\[A:TrSupervisor\], its mean-square value is given by $$\label{E:TrGlobalEMSE}
\begin{aligned}
\zeta(i) &= \left[ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta^2(i-1) \right] [ \Delta\zeta_{1}(i) + \Delta\zeta_{2}(i) ]
\\
{}&- 2 \left[ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i-1) \right] \Delta\zeta_{2}(i) + \zeta_{2}(i)
\text{,}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\zeta_n(i) = \zeta_n(i) - \zeta_{12}(i)$ for $n = 1,2$. We immediately obtain step (ii) of Theorem \[T:transient\]. In the sequel, we derive recursions for the component filters EMSEs/cross-EMSEs required to evaluate .
Component filters transient analysis {#S:TrComponents}
------------------------------------
Start by recalling that $\{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i,{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1}\}$ are independent under A.\[A:TrData\], so that $$\label{E:TrEMSE}
\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{n}(i) = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i-1} {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i-1}^T {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T = \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,i-1})
\\
\zeta_{12}(i) = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,i-1} {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,i-1}^T {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T = \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,i-1})
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,i} = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{m,i}^{} {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i}^T$ and ${\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,i} = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,i}^{} {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,i}^T$ are the covariance matrices of the coefficient error vectors. From the linearity of the trace, it is ready that $\Delta\zeta_n(i) = \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u \Delta {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,i-1})$ with $\Delta {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,i} - {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,i}$. Suffices then to find recursions for these matrices.
To do so, subtract the LMS filter recursion from ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o$ to get $$\label{E:Trtilw}
{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,a} - \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_{i}
\left[ {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^{T} {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,a} + v(i) \right]
\text{,}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,a} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o - {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a}$. From the cyclic feedback definition , we obtain that ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a}$ is a function of ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i-1}$ for $n = 1,2$. Hence, it is independent of ${\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i$ under A.\[A:TrData\]. The expected value of the outer product and cross-outer product of then yields $$\label{E:PreComponentMSD}
\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,i} &= {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,a}
- \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u
- \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,a}^T
\\
{}&+ \mu_n^2
\left[ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T
+ \sigma_v^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u \right]
\\
{\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,i} &= {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,a}
- \mu_2 {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u
- \mu_1 {\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,a}^T
\\
{}&+ \mu_1 \mu_2
\left[ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T
+ \sigma_v^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u \right]
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,a} = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,a}^{} {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,a}^T$ and ${\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,a} = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,a}^{} {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,a}^T$. Proceeding in a similar fashion, we obtain from that $$\label{E:PrePriorMSD}
\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,a} &= \delta(i - rL) {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{i-1} +
\left[ 1 - \delta(i - rL) \right] {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{n,i-1}
\\
{\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,a} &= \delta(i - rL) {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{i-1} +
\left[ 1 - \delta(i - rL) \right] {\ensuremath{\bm{K}}}_{12,i-1}
\end{aligned}$$
The only thing left to evaluate in is the fourth-order moment of the regressor. To obtain a closed-form expression for these statistics, we first whiten the regressor vector using the eigenvalue decomposition ${\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u = {\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}^T$. Applying the similarity transformation ${\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}$ to and then gives $$\label{E:ComponentMSD1}
\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i} &= {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a}
- \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}- \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a}^T
\\
{}&+ \mu_n^2
\left[ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i^T
+ \sigma_v^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\right]
\\
{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,i} &= {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a}
- \mu_2 {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}- \mu_1 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a}^T
\\
{}&+ \mu_1 \mu_2
\left[ \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i^T
+ \sigma_v^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\right]
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{E:PriorMSD}
\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a} &= \delta(i - rL) {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{i-1} +
\left[ 1 - \delta(i - rL) \right] {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i-1}
\\
{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a} &= \delta(i - rL) {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{i-1} +
\left[ 1 - \delta(i - rL) \right] {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,i-1}
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i^T = {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}$ is the whitened version of ${\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i$ and for any matrix ${\ensuremath{\bm{H}}}$: $\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{H}}}}}} = {\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}^T {\ensuremath{\bm{H}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{U}}}$. Given that the trace is invariant to similarity transformations, the EMSE and cross-EMSE are recovered using $$\label{E:TrEMSECorr}
\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{mn}(i) &= \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{mn,i-1})
\\
\Delta\zeta_{n}(i) &= \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\Delta {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i-1})
\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i$ is uncorrelated, i.e., $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i^T {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{{\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}}}}}}_i = {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}$, we can use the fourth-order relation from [@Sayed08a Lemma A.2] to write as $$\label{E:ComponentMSD}
\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,i} &= {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a}
- \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}- \mu_n {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a}^T
\\
{}&+ \mu_n^2 \left[ {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}) + 2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{n,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}+ \sigma_v^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\right]
\\
{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,i} &= {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a}
- \mu_2 {\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}- \mu_1 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a}^T
\\
{}&+ \mu_1 \mu_2
\left[ {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}) + 2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}{\ensuremath{\bm{{\hat{K}}}}}_{12,a} {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}+ \sigma_v^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}\right]
\end{aligned}$$ The results in step (iii) of Theorem \[T:transient\] are obtained from by either using with $i = rL$, yielding , or with $i \neq rL$, yielding . We are now only missing recursions for the supervisor statistics to complete our analysis.
Supervisor transient analysis {#S:TrSupervisor}
-----------------------------
To carry out the supervisor analysis for general activation functions, we use a linearization argument similar to [@Vitor09t]. First, we approximate the activation function $f$ in by its first order Taylor expansion around the mean auxiliary parameter ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i) = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}a(i)$ as in $$\label{E:fTaylor}
\eta(i) = f[a(i)] \approx f[{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i)]
+ f^\prime[{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i)] \cdot \left[ a(i) - {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i) \right]
\text{.}$$ Once again, we write $f^\prime$ for the derivative of $f$. Note that the expected value of the second term of is zero. Hence, we can evaluate the moments of $\eta$ in as $$\label{E:SupervisorMoments}
\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta^2(i) &\approx f^2[{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i)]
+ \sigma_a^2(i) {f^{\prime}}^2[{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i)]
\\
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\eta(i) &\approx f[{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i)]
\text{,}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_a^2(i) = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\left[ a(i) - {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i) \right]^2$ denotes the variance of the auxiliary parameter $a$. The expressions in give step (i) of Theorem \[T:transient\]. Suffice now to find recursions for ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i)$ and $\sigma_a^2(i)$.
To do so, we write the supervisor model in terms of the component filters *a priori* errors. Explicitly, using the *a priori* error relations –, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{E:SupervisorModel2}
a(i) = a(i-1) + \mu_{a} \left\{
[ 1 - f_{i-1} ] f_{i-1}^{\prime} e_{a,2}^2(i)
\vphantom{\sum}\right.\\\left.
{}+ [ 2 f_{i-1} - 1 ] f_{i-1}^{\prime} e_{a,1}(i) e_{a,2}(i)
- f_{i-1} f_{i-1}^{\prime} e_{a,1}^2(i)
\right.\\\left.\vphantom{\sum}
{}+ f_{i-1}^{\prime} [ e_{a,2}(i) - e_{a,1}(i) ] v(i) \right\}
\text{,}\end{gathered}$$ where we write $f_{i-1} = f[a(i-1)]$ and $f_{i-1}^\prime = f^\prime[a(i-1)]$ for conciseness. We express $\eta(i-1)$ as $f[a(i-1)]$ in to stress its dependence on the activation function. We can then use the linearization to obtain $$\label{E:ATaylor}
\begin{aligned}
a(i) &\approx a(i-1) + \mu_{a} \left[ F_2 e_{a,2}^2(i)
+ F_{12} e_{a,1}(i) e_{a,2}(i)
\vphantom{\sum}\right.
\\
&\left.\vphantom{\sum}
{}- F_1 e_{a,1}^2(i) + F_v [ e_{a,2}(i) - e_{a,1}(i) ] v(i)
\right]
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
F_1 &\approx {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}{\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}}+ \left[ ({\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}})^{2} + {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}{\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}}\right]
\left[ a(i-1) - {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}\right]
\\
F_2 &\approx (1-{\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}) {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}}+ \left[ -({\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}})^{2} + (1-{\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}) {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}}\right]
\left[ a(i-1) - {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}\right]
\\
F_{12} &\approx (2{\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}- 1) {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}}+ \left[ 2 ({\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}})^{2} + (2{\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}- 1) {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}}\right]
\left[ a(i-1) - {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}\right]
\\
F_v &\approx {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}}+ {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}}\left[ a(i-1) - {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}= f({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})$, ${\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}}= f^\prime({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})$, and ${\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}}= f^{\prime\prime}({\ensuremath{\bar{a}}})$, for $f^{\prime\prime}$ denoting the second derivative of $f$. The index on all ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i-1)$ was omitted for clarity.
Using A.\[A:TrSupervisor\], we can separate the expected value of the *a priori* errors and the $F$ in . Then, by noticing that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[ a(i-1) - {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}] = 0$ we obtain $$\label{E:SupervisorMean}
{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i) \approx {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i-1)
+ \mu_a \left[ (1 - {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}) \Delta\zeta_{2}
- {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}\Delta\zeta_{1} \right] {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}}\text{.}$$ The recursion for the variance of $a$ also requires A.\[A:TrGaussian\] to evaluate the higher-order moments of the *a priori* errors that appear when taking the expected value of the square of . Then, algebraic manipulations give $$\label{E:SupervisorVar}
\sigma_a^2(i) \approx [ 1 + 2 \mu_a G_1 + \mu_a^2 G_2 ]
\sigma_a^2(i-1) + \mu_a^2 G_v$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G_{1} &= [ (1 - {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}) \Delta\zeta_{2} - {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}\Delta\zeta_{1} ]
{\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}}- [ \Delta\zeta_{1} + \Delta\zeta_{2} ] ( {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}})^2
\\
G_{2} &= 3 ( {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}})^4 ( \Delta\zeta_1 + \Delta\zeta_2 )^2
+ ( {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}})^2
[ \zeta_2 ( \Delta\zeta_1 + \Delta\zeta_2 ) + 2 \Delta\zeta_2^2 ]
\\
{}&+ 3 {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}( {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}})^2 ( \Delta\zeta_1 + \Delta\zeta_2 )
[ {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}\Delta\zeta_1 - (2 - {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}) \Delta\zeta_2 ]
\\
{}&+ 6 ( {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}})^2 {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}}( \Delta\zeta_1 + \Delta\zeta_2 )
[ {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}\Delta\zeta_1 - (1 - {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}) \Delta\zeta_2 ]
\\
{}&+ ( {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime\prime}}})^2 ( \Delta\zeta_1 + \Delta\zeta_2 ) \sigma_v^2
\\
G_{v} &= ( {\ensuremath{\bar{f}^{\prime}}})^2
\left\{
\Delta\zeta_2^2 + ( \Delta\zeta_1 + \Delta\zeta_2 ) \times{}
\vphantom{\sum}\right.
\\
&\left.\qquad\qquad\vphantom{\sum}
\left[
2 {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}^2 ( \Delta\zeta_1 + \Delta\zeta_2 )
- 4 {\ensuremath{\bar{f}}}\Delta\zeta_2 + \zeta_2 + \sigma_v^2
\right] \right\} \end{aligned}$$ Step (iv) of Theorem \[T:transient\] is given by and . This completes the proof of Theorem \[T:transient\].
[![Steady-state analysis of a combination of LMS filters with coefficients feedback. **Correlated stationary scenario** (see Section \[S:Sims\]): $M = 10$, $\sigma_u^2 = 1$, $\sigma_v^2 = 10^{-3}$, $\gamma = 0.7$, $\mu_1 = 0.01$, $\mu_2 = 0.002$; **Cyclic coefficients feedback**: $L = 1$, $\tilde{\mu} = 30$, $\beta = 0.9$, and ${\ensuremath{\epsilon}}= 10^{-2}$ (normalized convex supervisor); : $\tilde{\mu} = 10$, $\beta = 0.9$, ${\ensuremath{\epsilon}}= 10^{-3}$, (normalized convex supervisor).[]{data-label="F:2LMSStat"}](fig7.pdf "fig:")]{}
[![Tracking analysis of combinations with coefficients feedback. **White nonstationary scenario** (see Section \[S:Sims\]): $M = 10$, $\sigma_u^2 = 1$, $\sigma_v^2 = 10^{-2}$, $\mu_1 = 0.08$, and $\mu_2 = 0.005$; $\sigma_q^2 = 10^{-4}$ until $i = 2000$, then $\sigma_q^2 \to 10^{-5}$ until $i = 4000$, then $\sigma_q^2 \to 10^{-6}$. **Parallel-independent** ($L \to \infty$): $\tilde{\mu} = 0.5$, $\beta = 0.9$, and ${\ensuremath{\epsilon}}= 10^{-2}$ (normalized convex supervisor); **Cyclic coefficients feedback**: $L = 10$, $\tilde{\mu} = 0.7$, $\beta = 0.7$, and ${\ensuremath{\epsilon}}= 10^{-2}$ (normalized convex supervisor); **VSS-LMS** [@Kwong92v]: $\mu(i) = 0.95 \cdot \mu(i-1) + 10^{-1} \cdot e(i)^2$, $\mu_{\text{max}} = \mu_1$, and $\mu_{\text{min}} = \mu_2$.[]{data-label="F:2LMSNonStat"}](fig8.pdf "fig:")]{}
Simulations {#S:Sims}
===========
The numerical examples in this section illustrate both the performance of combinations with coefficients feedback and the theoretical results from the previous sections. They follow the data model introduced in Section \[S:SSTracking\], taking the regressor ${\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i$ to be a delay line that captures samples $u(i)$ from a zero-mean Gaussian process with $\sigma_u^2 = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}u(i)^2$. For simulations with *white input data*, the $u(i)$ are taken to be zero-mean Gaussian i.i.d[.]{} random variable. For simulations with *correlated input data*, the $u(i)$ follow the first-order autoregressive model $$u(i) = \gamma u(i-1) + \sqrt{1 - \gamma^2} \, x(i)
\text{,}$$ where $x(i)$ is a zero-mean Gaussian i.i.d[.]{} random variable with variance $\sigma_u^2$ and $0 < \gamma < 1$. Unless stated otherwise, all curves are ensemble averages of 300 independent realizations.
[![Tracking analysis of combinations with coefficients feedback: equivalent step size. Same setting as Fig. \[F:2LMSNonStat\].[]{data-label="F:2LMSNonStat2"}](fig9.pdf "fig:")]{}
[]{}
[]{}
Steady-state and tracking performance {#S:SimsSSTracking}
-------------------------------------
For a stationary system, i.e., for ${\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i = 0$ in , Fig. \[F:2LMSStat\] compares the steady-state results from Theorem to numerical simulations using a convex supervisor. Given that the supervising parameter is constrained to $[0,1]$, the performance models yield accurate predictions. As discussed in Section \[S:SSGlobal\], if $\eta$ is unconstrained, coefficients feedback drives the net step size close to zero as in Fig. \[F:StatAffine2\]. Since Theorem \[T:SS\] relies on the assumption that the supervisor has small variance, its estimate of ${\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}$ is no longer reliable. Nevertheless, can still be used to estimate the steady-state EMSE for specific values of ${\ensuremath{\bar{\eta}}}$. Moreover, the transient analysis from Theorem \[T:transient\] can be used in this case (see Section \[S:SimsTransient\]).
To showcase the tracking capabilities of the coefficients feedback topology, let ${\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i$ in be a zero-mean Gaussian random variable with covariance ${\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}}= \sigma_q^2 {\ensuremath{\bm{I}}}$. Recall from Theorem \[T:SS\] that for small $L$ its steady-state error is equivalent to that of a standalone LMS filter with step size ${\ensuremath{\bar{\mu}}}$, an affine/convex combination of the component filters step sizes. For illustration, we therefore compare its performance to the VSS-LMS filter from [@Kwong92v] in Fig. \[F:2LMSNonStat\]. The VSS-LMS parameters were designed to give good performance in the first, most stringent scenario ($\sigma_q^2 = 10^{-4}$). We also include the results for a parallel-independent combination.
Although the performance of both combinations and the VSS-LMS filter are comparable in the first scenario, the same does not hold as the nonstationarity level changes. In the two other scenarios ($\sigma_q^2 = 10^{-5}$ and $\sigma_q^2 = 10^{-6}$), either the parallel-independent or the VSS-LMS has higher misadjustment. The parallel-independent topology performs well in the first and last scenarios because the step size of each component filter was chosen close to the optimal $\mu^o$ in these cases (see Fig. \[F:2LMSNonStat2\]). However, it performs worse when this is not the case. The VSS-LMS algorithm, although effective, is less robust than the normalized convex supervisor used by the combinations [@Jeronimo16c]. Thus, its performance is sensitive to the choice of parameters and it cannot track the optimal step size in the last scenario (Fig. \[F:2LMSNonStat2\]).
Transient performance {#S:SimsTransient}
---------------------
Figs. \[F:CyclicComponents\]b and \[F:2LMSStat\] already showcased the effectiveness of coefficients feedback in addressing the convergence stagnation issue. Figs. \[F:Tr2LMSConvexSupervisor\] and \[F:Tr2LMSAffineSupervisor\] additionally illustrate the results from Theorem \[T:transient\] for both convex and affine supervisors. Overall, the transient analysis matches the simulations. Small deviations occur in the convex supervisor case when the combination switches between component filters (see detail in Fig. \[F:Tr2LMSConvexSupervisor\]a). This is due to the first-order approximation used to derive the supervisor variance recursion in Section \[S:TrSupervisor\]. This phenomenon is not as apparent in the affine supervisor simulations because – are exact when the activation function is linear (Fig. \[F:Tr2LMSAffineSupervisor\]a). Still, the supervisor analyses show good agreement and display the same trends as the simulations (Figures \[F:Tr2LMSConvexSupervisor\]b–c and \[F:Tr2LMSAffineSupervisor\]b–c). Despite the cyclostationary behavior of the component filters due to coefficients feedback, notice that the mean supervising parameters converge to a constant steady-state regime. This observation was used to provide the asymptotic performance results from Theorem \[T:SS\] without relying on a full transient analysis.
Conclusion
==========
This paper proposed a new structure for the combination of adaptive filters by making use of cyclic coefficients feedback. This novel topology is able to theoretically describe standalone VSS adaptive algorithms as instances ($L = 1$) of this combination. Steady-state, tracking, and transient analyses showed how cyclic coefficients feedback can improve performance of combinations by addressing the convergence stagnation issue, improving tracking misadjustment, and reducing the supervising parameter variance. Numerical simulations illustrated the good fit of the derived models and showed that existing parallel combinations can be effectively and efficiently improved using the techniques described in this work. This topology opens up new applications for combinations of AFs, such as complexity reduction [@Chamon14t] and rescue techniques [@Sayed08a].
Proof of Proposition \[T:VarCovar\] {#AP:VarCovar}
===================================
From the cyclic feedback relation , observe that $L = 1 \Rightarrow {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,a} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1}$ for all $i$. Thus, the update of the LMS component filters becomes $$\label{E:AFModelFB}
{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1} + \mu_{n} {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i e(i)
\text{,} \quad n = 1,2 \text{,}$$ where we recall that $e(i) = d(i) - {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i^{T} {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1}$ is the global output estimation error. The coefficients error vector statistics in are obtained by first subtracting from ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_{i}$ to get $${\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_i - {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1} - \mu_{n} {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i e(i)
\text{,} \quad n = 1,2 \text{.}$$ Then, notice that the random walk system model from implies that ${\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}^o_i - {\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}_{i-1} = {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1} + {\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i$. Hence, we can write $$\label{E:CoefErrorFB}
{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i} = {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1} + {\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i - \mu_{n} {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i e(i)
\text{,} \quad n = 1,2 \text{.}$$ Taking the expectation of the appropriate inner products of results in
\[E:PreFB1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{n,i} \right\|}}^2 &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1} \right\|}}^2 + \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}})
\notag\\
{}&- 2 \mu_{n} \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_a(i) e(i)
+ \mu_{n}^2 \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i \right\|}}^2 e(i)^2
\\
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{1,i}^T {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{2,i} &= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\widetilde{{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}}}}}_{i-1} \right\|}}^2 + \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}})
\notag\\
{}&- (\mu_1 + \mu_2) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_a(i) e(i)
\\\notag
{}&+ \mu_1 \mu_2 \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i \right\|}}^2 e(i)^2
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$
where we used the fact that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i \right\|}}^2 = \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{Q}}})$ and that all terms linear in ${\ensuremath{\bm{q}}}_i$ vanish due to A.\[A:RandomWalk\].
Note that under A.\[A:SSData\], it holds that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}{\ensuremath{\left\| {\ensuremath{\bm{u}}}_i \right\|}}^2 e(i)^2 = \operatorname{Tr}({\ensuremath{\bm{R}}}_u) \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e(i)^2$ and that A.\[A:NoiseIndependence\] implies that $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e(i)^2 = \zeta(i) + \sigma_v^2$ and $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_a(i) e(i) = \zeta(i)$. Using these relations, can written as .
Proof of Proposition \[T:etabar\] {#AP:Eta}
=================================
We start by evaluating the global EMSE minimizer $\eta^o$. Fix $\eta$ in the *a priori* error relation to obtain $$\label{E:preEMSE1}
\zeta(i) = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \eta e_{1,a}(i) + (1-\eta) e_{2,a}(i) \right]^2$$ by recalling that $\zeta(i) = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e_a(i)^2$. Since $\eta$ is fixed, we can expand to get, as $i \to \infty$, $$\label{E:preEMSE2}
\zeta = \eta^2 \zeta_{1} + 2 \eta (1-\eta) \zeta_{12}
+ (1-\eta)^2 \zeta_{2}
\text{.}$$ We can find $\eta^o$ by setting the derivative of to zero. Explicitly, $$\frac{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\zeta}{{\ensuremath{\partial}}\eta} = 0 \Leftrightarrow
\eta \Delta\zeta_{1} - (1-\eta) \Delta\zeta_{2}(i) = 0
\text{,}$$ where $\Delta\zeta_n = \zeta_1 - \zeta_{12}$. Hence, $$\label{E:etao}
\eta^o = \frac{\Delta\zeta_2}{\Delta\zeta_1 + \Delta\zeta_2}
\text{.}$$ To show that is also a fixed point of the mean supervisor update, take the expected value of under the supervisor separation assumption A.\[A:SSSupervisorSeparation\] to get $$\label{E:Ea}
{\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i) = {\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i-1) + \mu_{a} \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e(i) \left[ y_{1}(i) - y_{2}(i) \right]
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}f^{\prime}[a(i-1)]
\text{,}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bar{a}}}(i) = \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}a(i)$. Any fixed point of is such that $$\mu_{a} \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e(i) \left[ y_{1}(i) - y_{2}(i) \right] \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}f^{\prime}[a(i-1)] = 0$$ and since $\mu_a$ and $f^\prime$ are strictly positive, this condition reduces to $$\label{E:fixed}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}e(i) \left[ y_{1}(i) - y_{2}(i) \right] = 0
\text{.}$$ From , we obtain an expression for $\eta^\star$ by expanding the estimation error and the component filters outputs. Explicitly, fixing $\eta^\star$ in –, we can then rewrite as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{E:fixed2}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \eta^\star \, e_{a,1}(i) +
\left( 1-\eta^\star \right) e_{a,2}(i) + v(i) \right]
\times{}
\\
\left[ e_{a,2}(i) - e_{a,1}(i) \right] = 0
\text{.}\end{gathered}$$ From the data model assumption A.\[A:NoiseIndependence\], all terms linear in $v(i)$ vanish, so that as $i \to \infty$, becomes $$(1 - \eta^\star) \zeta_2
+ (2 \eta^\star - 1) \zeta_{12}
- \eta^\star \zeta_1 = 0
\text{,}$$ which can be rearranged as in .
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The authors would like to thank Dr. Wilder Bezerra Lopes, Prof. Vítor Heloiz Nascimento, and Prof. Magno T. M. Silva for fruitful discussions on this topic.
[^1]: Signal Processing Lab of the Department of Electronic Systems Engineering, University of São Paulo, Brazil. e-mail: and . Part of the results in this paper appeared in \[19\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We introduce new representations to formulate quantum mechanics on noncommutative coordinate space, which explicitly display entanglement properties between degrees of freedom of different coordinate components and hence could be called entangled state representations. Furthermore, we derive unitary transformations between the new representations and the ordinary one used in noncommutative quantum mechanics (NCQM) and obtain eigenfunctions of some basic operators in these representations. To show the potential applications of the entangled state representations, a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator on the noncommutative plane with both coordinate-coordinate and momentum-momentum couplings is exactly solved.\
PACS numbers: 03.65.-w, 03.65.Fd, 03.65.Ud, 02.40.Gh
author:
- |
[Sicong Jing $^{1}$, Qiu-Yu Liu $^{1}$ and Hongyi Fan $^{2}$]{}\
$^{1}$[Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China,]{}\
[Hefei, Anhui 230026, China]{}\
$^{2}$[Department of Material Science and Engineer, University of Science and Technology of China,]{}\
[Hefei, Anhui 230026, China]{}
title: 'Entangled state representations in noncommutative quantum mechanics [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
As is well known, representations and transformation theories, founded by Dirac [@s1], play basic and important role in quantum mechanics. Many quantum mechanics problems were solved cleverly by working in specific representations. Some representations, such as, the coordinate, the momentum, the number representation, as well as the coherent state representation, are often employed in the literature of ordinary quantum mechanics. In noncommutative quantum mechanics (NCQM) [@s2], because of the non-commutativity of coordinate-component operators, there are no common eigenstates for these different coordinate operators, and one can hardly construct a coordinate representation in the usual sense. However, in order to formulate quantum mechanics on a noncommutative space so that some dynamic problems can be solved, we do need some appropriate representations. On the other hand, we realize that in NCQM ordinary products are usually replaced by $*$-products between functions on the noncommutative space [@s3], which is equivalent to work in some kind of “quasi-coordinate” representation (in this representation, the state vectors, for example, $|x,y>$, are not common eigenstates of the coordinate operators $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{Y}$ in NCQM. For details, please see Sec. 4). Of course, if we have more practical representations for NCQM, it will be more powerful to deal with the dynamic problems in NCQM.
Noticing that although two coordinate-component operators on the noncommutative space do not commute each other, the difference of the two coordinate operators indeed commute with the sum of the relevant two momentum operators, thus we can still employ Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen’s (EPR) [@s4] idea to construct entangled states on the noncommutative space. It is easily to show that the entangled states with continuum variables are orthonormal and satisfy completeness relations, therefore they present new representations for NCQM. The first bipartite entangled state representation of continuum variables is constructed by one of the authors (H. Fan) and J. R. Klauder [@s5] based on the idea of quantum entanglement initiated by EPR who used commutative property of two particles’ relative coordinate and total momentum. Here we extend the formalism in [@s5] to NCQM and investigate some basic properties of the entangled state representations on the noncommutative space. We also derive explicit unitary operators which connect the entangled state representations and the “quasi-coordinate” representation and transfer them each other. Using the unitary transformation, it is convenient to obtain eigenfunctions of some basic operators of NCQM in one representation if one knows them in another representation. To show the potential applications of the entangled state representations in NCQM, we solve exactly the energy level of a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator on a noncommutative plane with both kinetic coupling and elastic coupling.
The work is arranged as follows: In Sec. 2 we construct the entangled state representations for NCQM and derive matrix elements of coordinate and momentum operators in these representations. In order to demonstrate these states are indeed the entangled states, we study their Schmidt decompositions in Sec. 3. In Sec. 4 we investigate the transformation between the “quasi-coordinate” and the entangled state representations, and derive an explicit unitary operator which transforms them each other. Sec. 5 is devoted to study eigenfunctions of some basic operators on the noncommutative plane in the entangled state representation, which all display some extent of entanglement between the coordinates and the momenta. In Sec. 6 we study a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator on a noncommutative plane with both kinetic coupling and elastic coupling and solve its energy spectrum exactly. Some summary and discussion are presented in Sec. 7.
Entangled state representations for NCQM
========================================
Without loss of generality and for the sake of simplicity, we only discuss the noncommutative plane case in the follows. Operators $\hat{X}$, $\hat{Y}$, $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ satisfy the following commutation relations $$[\hat{X},\,\hat{Y}]=\emph{i}\,\theta,~~~~~~~~
[\hat{X},\,\hat{P}_{x}]=\emph{i},~~~~~~~~ [\hat{Y},\,\hat{P}_{y}
]=\emph{i},$$ and other commutators of these operators are vanishing, where $\theta$ is a real parameter reflecting the non-commutativity of space coordinates, and we take $\hbar=1$. Considering the following operators $$\hat{R}=\frac{\hat{X}-\hat{Y}}{\sqrt{2}},~~~~
\hat{P}=\frac{\hat{P}_{x}+\hat{P}_{y}}{\sqrt{2}},~~~~
\hat{S}=\frac{\hat{X}+\hat{Y}}{\sqrt{2}},~~~~
\hat{K}=\frac{\hat{P}_{x}-\hat{P}_{y}}{\sqrt{2}}.$$ Obviously $\hat{R}$ and $\hat{P}$ are commute each other, as well as $\hat{S}$ and $\hat{K}$ are commute each other, respectively. Thus $\hat{R}$ and $\hat{P}$ have common eigenstates $|\eta >$, and $\hat{S}$ and $\hat{K}$ have common eigenstates $|\xi >$. Here $\eta$ and $\xi$ may be complex numbers, ($\eta=\eta_{1}+\emph{i}\,\eta_{2}$, and $\xi =
\xi_{1}+\emph{i}\,\xi_{2}$), and $\eta_{1}$, $\eta_{2}$, $\xi_{1}$ and $\xi_{2}$ are real numbers.
In order to get explicit expressions of the eigenstates $|\eta >$ and $|\xi >$, we use the following transformations $$\hat{X}=x-\frac{\theta}{2}\,p_{y},~~~~\hat{Y}=y+\frac{\theta}{2}\,p_{x},~~~~
\hat{P}_{x}=p_{x},~~~~\hat{P}_{y}=p_{y},$$ where the operators $x$, $y$, $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ satisfy ordinary Heisenberg commutation relations $$[x,\,p_{x} ]=\emph{i},~~~~[y,\,p_{y} ]=\emph{i},$$ and other commutators of these operators are vanishing. Furthermore, introducing two independent ordinary bosonic creation and annihilation operators $a^{\dag}$, $a$ and $b^{\dag}$, $b$ with commutation relations $[a,\,a^{\dag} ]=1$, $[b,\,b^{\dag}]=1$, we have $$x=\frac{a+a^{\dag}}{\sqrt{2}},~~~~
p_{x}=\frac{a-a^{\dag}}{\sqrt{2}\,\emph{i}},~~~~
y=\frac{b+b^{\dag}}{\sqrt{2}},~~~~
p_{y}=\frac{b-b^{\dag}}{\sqrt{2}\,\emph{i}}.$$ In terms of these creation and annihilation operators, we can express the operators $\hat{X}$, $\hat{Y}$, $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat{X}=\frac{a+a^{\dag}}{\sqrt{2}} -\frac{\theta
(b-b^{\dag})}{2\sqrt{2}\emph{i}},~~~~
\hat{P}_{x}=\frac{a-a^{\dag}}{\sqrt{2}\,\emph{i}},\nonumber\\
&&\hat{Y}=\frac{b+b^{\dag}}{\sqrt{2}} +\frac{\theta
(a-a^{\dag})}{2\sqrt{2}\emph{i}},~~~~
\hat{P}_{y}=\frac{b-b^{\dag}}{\sqrt{2}\,\emph{i}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the operators $\hat{R}$ and $\hat{P}$ may be expressed as $$\hat{R}=\frac{1}{2}\left(a+a^{\dag}-b-b^{\dag}\right) -
\frac{\theta}{4\emph{i}}\left(a-a^{\dag}+b-b^{\dag} \right),~~~~
\hat{P}=\frac{1}{2\emph{i}}\left(a-a^{\dag}+b-b^{\dag}\right).$$
The common eigenstate $|\eta >$ of $\hat{R}$ and $\hat{P}$ can be written as $$|\eta >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\exp{\left(-\frac{|\eta|^{2}}{2}+\eta
a^{\dag}-\eta^{\ast} b^{\dag}+ a^{\dag} b^{\dag}\right)} |00>,$$ where $|00>$ is a two-mode bosonic vacuum state satisfying $a\,|00>=0$ and $b\,|00>=0$. It is easily to see that $$\frac{1}{2}\left(a+a^{\dag}-b-b^{\dag}\right)
|\eta>=\eta_{1}|\eta>,~~~~
\frac{1}{2\emph{i}}\left(a-a^{\dag}+b-b^{\dag}\right)
|\eta>=\eta_{2}|\eta>,$$ which lead to $$\hat{R}\,|\eta>=\left(\eta_{1}-\frac{\theta}{2}\eta_{2}\right)|\eta>,~~~~
\hat{P}\,|\eta>=\eta_{2}|\eta >.$$ Here we would like to give an explicitly proof of the completeness relation for the eigenstates $|\eta >$ using a method of Integration within Ordered Product (IWOP) of products [@s6] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d^{2}\eta\,|\eta>\,<\eta|=
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d^{2}\eta}{\pi}\,:\exp{(-|\eta|^{2}+
\eta a^{\dag}-\eta^{\ast}b^{\dag}+a^{\dag}b^{\dag}-a^{\dag}a-
b^{\dag}b+\eta^{\ast}a-\eta b +a b)}:\nonumber\\
&&=:\exp{\left((a^{\dag}-b)(a-b^{\dag})+a^{\dag}b^{\dag}+a
b-a^{\dag}a-b^{\dag}b\right)}:=1,\end{aligned}$$ where $d^{2}\eta \equiv d\eta_{1}d\eta_{2}$ and we have used an expression $|00>\,<00|=:\exp{(-a^{\dag}a-b^{\dag}b)}:$ and the notation $:...:$ stands for taking the normal product of the creation and annihilation operators. It is easily to derive the inner product of the states $|\eta >$ $$<\eta|\eta '>=\delta^{(2)} (\eta -\eta ')=\delta
(\eta_{1}-\eta_{1}')\delta(\eta_{2}-\eta_{2}').$$ Therefore, the eigenstates $|\eta >$ form an orthonormal and complete set of base vectors and can be used to expand any other state-vector in the related Hilbert space, so these state form a representation for NCQM.
Similarly, we may express the operators $\hat{S}$ and $\hat{K}$ as $$\hat{S}=\frac{1}{2}(a+a^{\dag}+b+b^{\dag})+\frac{\theta}{4\emph{i}}
(a-a^{\dag}-b+b^{\dag}),~~~~
\hat{K}=\frac{1}{2\emph{i}}(a-a^{\dag}-b+b^{\dag}).$$ The common eigenstate of $\hat{S}$ and $\hat{K}$ is $$|\xi >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\exp{\left(-\frac{|\xi|^{2}}{2}+\xi
a^{\dag}+ \xi^{\ast}b^{\dag}-a^{\dag}b^{\dag}\right)}|00>.$$ With the aid of two expressions $$\frac{1}{2}(a+a^{\dag}+b+b^{\dag})|\xi >=\xi_{1}|\xi >,~~~~
\frac{1}{2\emph{i}}(a-a^{\dag}-b+b^{\dag})|\xi >=\xi_{2}|\xi >,$$ we have $$\hat{S}\,|\xi >=\left( \xi_{1} +
\frac{\theta}{2}\xi_{2}\right)|\xi
>, ~~~~\hat{K}\,|\xi >=\xi_{2}|\xi >.$$ Also the states $|\xi >$ form an orthonormal and complete set of base vectors $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d^{2}\xi\,|\xi >\,<\xi|=1, ~~~~
<\xi|\xi'>=\delta^{(2)}(\xi-\xi')=\delta(\xi_{1}-\xi_{1}')\delta(\xi_{2}-\xi_{2}'),$$ here $d^{2}\xi \equiv d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}$.
Thus the eigenstates $|\eta >$ and $|\xi >$ form two representations for quantum mechanics on the noncommutative plane, respectively. In the next section we will explain that in fact the states $|\eta >$ and $|\xi >$ basically are entangled states in the noncommutative plane, so we may call the $|\eta >$ and $|\xi
>$ representations as entangled state representations. For the noncommutative quantum plane, sometimes working in the $|\eta
>$ or $|\xi >$ representation is more convenient, so we first need to know the scalar product of $|\eta >$ and $|\xi >$. With the aid of over-completeness of coherent states $$\int \frac{d^{2}z_{1}d^{2}z_{2}}{\pi^{2}}|z_{1},z_{2}>
\,<z_{1},z_{2}|=1,$$ where $|z_{1},z_{2}>$ is a two-mode canonical coherent state $$|z_{1},z_{2}>=|z_{1}>_{a}|z_{2}>_{b}=e^{-\frac{1}{2}(|z_{1}|^{2}+|z_{2}|^{2})}
e^{z_{1}a^{\dag}+z_{2}b^{\dag}}|00>,$$ one may simply get $$<\eta|\xi>=\int \frac{d^{2}z_{1}d^{2}z_{2}}{\pi^{2}}<\eta|
z_{1},z_{2}> \,<z_{1},z_{2}|\xi>=\frac{1}{2\pi}
e^{\emph{i}(\eta_{1}\xi_{2}-\eta_{2}\xi_{1})}.$$ Having the eq.(20), one easily gets all of matrix elements of the basic operators $\hat{X}$, $\hat{Y}$, $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ on the noncommutative plane in the entangled state representation $|\eta >$. To do this, we only need to evaluate $<\eta|\hat{S}|\eta'>$ and $<\eta|\hat{K}|\eta'>$, and obtain $$<\eta|\hat{S}|\eta'>=<\eta|\hat{S}\int d^{2}\xi
|\xi>\,<\xi|\eta'>=\emph{i}\,\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
\eta_{2}}-\frac{\theta}{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\eta_{1}}\right)\delta^{(2)}(\eta -\eta'),$$ and $$<\eta|\hat{K}|\eta'>=<\eta|\hat{K}\int d^{2}\xi
|\xi>\,<\xi|\eta'>=-\emph{i}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial
\eta_{1}}\delta^{(2)}(\eta -\eta').$$ Thus in the $|\eta >$ representation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&<\eta|\hat{X}|\eta'>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{1}
+\emph{i}\,\partial_{\eta_{2}}-\frac{\theta}{2}(\eta_{2}
+\emph{i}\,\partial_{\eta_{1}})\right)\delta^{(2)}(\eta
-\eta'),\nonumber\\
&&<\eta|\hat{Y}|\eta'>=\frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{1}
-\emph{i}\,\partial_{\eta_{2}}-\frac{\theta}{2}(\eta_{2}
-\emph{i}\,\partial_{\eta_{1}})\right)\delta^{(2)}(\eta
-\eta'),\nonumber\\
&&<\eta|\hat{P}_{x}|\eta'>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{2}
-\emph{i}\,\partial_{\eta_{1}}\right)\delta^{(2)}(\eta
-\eta'),\nonumber\\
&&<\eta|\hat{P}_{y}|\eta'>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{2}
+\emph{i}\,\partial_{\eta_{1}}\right)\delta^{(2)}(\eta -\eta').\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, in the $|\xi >$ representation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&<\xi|\hat{X}|\xi'>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\xi_{1}
+\emph{i}\,\partial_{\xi_{2}}+\frac{\theta}{2}(\xi_{2}
+\emph{i}\,\partial_{\xi_{1}})\right)\delta^{(2)}(\xi
-\xi'),\nonumber\\
&&<\xi|\hat{Y}|\xi'>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\xi_{1}
-\emph{i}\,\partial_{\xi_{2}}+\frac{\theta}{2}(\xi_{2}
-\emph{i}\,\partial_{\xi_{1}})\right)\delta^{(2)}(\xi
-\xi'),\nonumber\\
&&<\xi|\hat{P}_{x}|\xi'>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\xi_{2}
-\emph{i}\,\partial_{\xi_{1}}\right)\delta^{(2)}(\xi
-\xi'),\nonumber\\
&&<\xi|\hat{P}_{y}|\xi'>=\frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\xi_{2}
+\emph{i}\,\partial_{\xi_{1}}\right)\delta^{(2)}(\xi -\xi').\end{aligned}$$
Entanglement properties of the states $|\eta >$ and $|\xi >$
============================================================
From eq.(8) and eq.(14) we find that there exists intrinsic entanglement of different degrees of freedom corresponding to different coordinate components on a noncommutative plane. Usually, these states are so-called entangled states, therefore we may name these two representations as entangled state representations. In order to show this kind of entanglement more explicitly, let us consider Fourier transform of the state $|\eta
>$. Using a familiar expression for eigenstate $|q>$ of coordinate operator $x$ ($x|q>=q|q>$) in Fock space $$|q>_{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{\pi}} \exp{ \left(
-\frac{q^{2}}{2}+\sqrt{2}q a^{\dag}-\frac{a^{\dag
2}}{2}\right)}|0>,$$ one can write the Fourier transform of $|\eta >$ as $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\eta_{2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,|\eta >\,
e^{-\emph{i}u\eta_{2}}=\left|\frac{u+\eta_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}\right>_{a}\,
\left|\frac{u-\eta_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}\right>_{b}.$$ If one furthermore consider inverse Fourier transform of the above expression, one will get $$|\eta >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-\emph{i}\eta_{1}\eta_{2}}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,dq\,\Big|q\Big>_{a}\,
\left|q-\sqrt{2}\eta_{1}\right>_{b}e^{\emph{i}\sqrt{2}\eta_{2}q}.$$ This is exactly the well-known Schmidt decomposition of a pure state which expresses the pure state can not be factorized as a direct product of two other states and therefore is an entangled state. On the other hand, noticing expression for eigenstate $|p>$ of momentum operator $p$ in the Fock space $$|p>_{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{\pi}} \exp{ \left(
-\frac{p^{2}}{2}+\emph{i}\sqrt{2}p a^{\dag}+\frac{a^{\dag
2}}{2}\right)}|0>,$$ one can also derive $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\eta_{1}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,|\eta >\,
e^{\emph{i}v\eta_{1}}=\left|\frac{v+\eta_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}\right>_{a}\,
\left|\frac{-v+\eta_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}\right>_{b}$$ in terms of the eigenstates of the momentum operator whose inverse Fourier transform leads to another standard expression for an entangled state $$|\eta >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-\emph{i}\eta_{1}\eta_{2}}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,dp\,\left|p+\sqrt{2}\eta_{2}\right>_{a}\,
\Big|-p\Big>_{b}e^{-\emph{i}\sqrt{2}\eta_{1}p}.$$
For the eigenstate $|\xi >$, using the eigenstate $|q>$ of coordinate operator (eq.(25)), one has similarly $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\xi_{2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,|\xi >\,
e^{-\emph{i}u\xi_{2}}=\left|\frac{u+\xi_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}\right>_{a}\,
\left|\frac{u-\xi_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}\right>_{b}.$$ Its inverse Fourier transform is the Schmidt decomposition of the state $|\xi >$ $$|\xi >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{\emph{i}\xi_{1}\xi_{2}}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,dq\,\left|q+\sqrt{2}\xi_{1}\right>_{a}\,
\Big|-q\Big>_{b}e^{\emph{i}\sqrt{2}\xi_{2}q}.$$ Of course, in terms of the eigenstate $|p>$ of the momentum operator (eq.(28)), one can get $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\xi_{1}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,|\xi >\,
e^{\emph{i}v\xi_{1}}=\left|\frac{v+\xi_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}\right>_{a}\,
\left|\frac{v-\xi_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}\right>_{b},$$ and its inverse transform leads to another Schmidt decomposition of the state $|\xi >$ $$|\xi >=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{\emph{i}\xi_{1}\xi_{2}}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,dp\,\Big|p\Big>_{a}\,
\left|p-\sqrt{2}\xi_{2}\right>_{b}e^{-\emph{i}\sqrt{2}\xi_{1}p}.$$ Therefore it is reasonable to call the $|\eta >$ and $|\xi>$ representations as entangled state representations.
Unitary transformations
=======================
In the past years NCQM was discussed extensively in various aspect. The most popular method of formulating NCQM in the vast literature is treating the coordinates as commuting, but introducing $*_{\theta}$-product (for instance, in the noncommutative plane, $*_{\theta}\equiv
\exp{\frac{\emph{i}\,\theta}{2}\left(\overleftarrow{\partial}_{x}\,
\overrightarrow{\partial}_{y}-\overleftarrow{\partial}_{y}\,
\overrightarrow{\partial}_{x}\right)}$) between functions on the noncommutative space to reflect the non-commutativity of coordinates. Using the $*_{\theta}$-product, Schrödinger equation $$\hat{H}(\hat{X},\hat{Y},\hat{P}_{x},\hat{P}_{y})|\psi>=E|\psi>$$ on the noncommutative plane should be written as [@s7] $$\hat{H}(x,y,p_{x},p_{y})*_{\theta}\psi(x,y)=E\psi(x,y)$$ where $\psi(x,y)=<x,y|\psi>$, the operators $\hat{X}$, $\hat{Y}$, $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ satisfy the commutation relations (1), and the operators $x$, $y$, $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ satisfy the commutation relations (4), respectively. It fact, in eq.(36) people have used the representation $|x,y>=|x>_{a}\,|y>_{b}$ which is common eigenstate of the operators $x$ and $y$ (not the operators $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{Y}$), so we would like to name it the “quasi-coordinate” representation. In the $|x,y>$ representation one can simply write out the matrix elements of the operators $\hat{X}$, $\hat{Y}$, $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ on the noncommutative plane $$\begin{aligned}
&&<x,y|\hat{X}|x',y'>=\left(x+\frac{\emph{i}\,\theta}{2}\partial_{y}\right)
\delta(x-x')\delta(y-y'),\nonumber\\
&&<x,y|\hat{Y}|x',y'>=\left(y-\frac{\emph{i}\,\theta}{2}\partial_{x}\right)
\delta(x-x')\delta(y-y'),\nonumber\\
&&<x,y|\hat{P}_{x}|x',y'>=-\emph{i}\,\partial_{x}\,
\delta(x-x')\delta(y-y'), \nonumber\\
&&<x,y|\hat{P}_{y}|x',y'>=-\emph{i}\,\partial_{y}\,
\delta(x-x')\delta(y-y').\end{aligned}$$ From eq.(3) we know that the states $|x,y>$ are also common eigenstates of the operators $\hat{X}+\frac{\theta}{2}\hat{P}_{y}$ and $\hat{Y}-\frac{\theta}{2}\hat{P}_{x}$, so there is a unitary transformation between the two representations ($|\eta>$ and $|x,y>$) whose matrix elements may be written as $$<\eta|x,y>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{\emph{i}(\eta_{1}-\sqrt{2}x)\eta_{2}}\,
\delta(x-y-\sqrt{2}\eta_{1}),$$ where eq.(27) is used. Similarly, using eq.(32), one can get matrix elements of the transformation between another two representations ($|\xi>$ and $|x,y>$) $$<\xi|x,y>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-\emph{i}(\xi_{1}-\sqrt{2}y)\xi_{2}}\,
\delta(x+y-\sqrt{2}\xi_{1}).$$ Using the completeness relations eqs.(11), (17) and $\int\,dxdy\,|x,y>\,<x,y|=1$, one can easily see that eqs.(38) and (39) indeed present the unitary transformations between the entangled state representations and the “quasi-coordinate” representation $|x,y>$.
In order to get an clear form of the unitary transformation between the $|\eta >$ and the $|x,y>$ representations, let us consider the following integration built from the entangled state $|\eta>$ and the two-mode “quasi-coordinate” eigenstate $|x,y>$ $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&\int d^{2}\eta\ ,|x,y>\,<\eta|\,|_{x=\frac{\eta_{1}
+\eta_{2}}{\sqrt{2}},
y=\frac{\eta_{2}- \eta_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int \frac{d \eta_{1} d \eta_{2}}{\pi} \exp{\left(
-\frac{x^{2}}{2}-\frac{y^{2}}{2}+\sqrt{2}x\,a^{\dag}
+\sqrt{2}y\,b^{\dag} -\frac{a^{\dag 2}}{2}- \frac{b^{\dag
2}}{2}\right)}\nonumber\\
&\,&~~~~~~~~~~~~|00>\,<00|\exp{\left(-\frac{|\eta|^{2}}{2}
+\eta^{\ast} a -\eta \,b +a\,b\right)}\Big|_{x=\frac{\eta_{1}
+\eta_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}, y=\frac{\eta_{2}- \eta_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}},\end{aligned}$$ here we have taken all parameters in the ordinary harmonic oscillator expressions (i.e. $m$, $\omega$) equal to $1$ for the simplicity. Using the trick in the calculation of eq.(11), we obtain $$U=\,:\exp{\left(-\frac{1+\emph{i}}{2}(a^{\dag}a+
b^{\dag}b+a^{\dag}b+b^{\dag}a)\right)}:,$$ where the result of the integration is expressed in terms of the normal ordered product. To show the unitary property of the operator $U$ more clearly, introducing an operator $e^{\emph{i}\,r\,S}$ with $S=a^{\dag}a+
b^{\dag}b+a^{\dag}b+b^{\dag}a$, we have $[S,\,a^{\dag}]=a^{\dag}+b^{\dag}$ and $[S,\,b^{\dag}]=a^{\dag}+b^{\dag}$, which lead to $$e^{\emph{i}\,r\,S}\,a^{\dag}\,e^{-\emph{i}\,r\,S}=
\frac{e^{2\emph{i}\,r}+1}{2}a^{\dag}+\frac{e^{2\emph{i}\,r}-1}{2}b^{\dag},~~~~
e^{\emph{i}\,r\,S}\,b^{\dag}\,e^{-\emph{i}\,r\,S}=
\frac{e^{2\emph{i}\,r}-1}{2}a^{\dag}+\frac{e^{2\emph{i}\,r}+1}{2}b^{\dag},$$ and further $$\begin{aligned}
e^{\emph{i}\,r\,S}&=&e^{\emph{i}\,r\,S}\,\sum_{n,m=0}^{\infty}|n,m>\,<n,m|\nonumber\\
&=&e^{\emph{i}\,r\,S}\,\sum_{n,m=0}^{\infty}\frac{a^{\dag n}
\,b^{\dag m}} {\sqrt{n!\,m!}}|00>
\,<00|\frac{a^{n}\,b^{m}}{\sqrt{n!\,m!}}=\,:\exp{\left(
-\frac{1-e^{2\emph{i}\,r}}{2}\,S \right)}:.\end{aligned}$$ When choosing $r=-\pi /4$, we have $$U=e^{-\frac{\emph{i}\,\pi}{4}\,(a^{\dag}a+
b^{\dag}b+a^{\dag}b+b^{\dag}a)},$$ which is unitary obviously. From eq.(44), it is easily to get $$Ua^{\dag}U^{\dag}=\frac{1-\emph{i}}{2}a^{\dag}-\frac{1+\emph{i}}{2}b^{\dag},~~~~
Ub^{\dag}U^{\dag}=-\frac{1+\emph{i}}{2}a^{\dag}+\frac{1-\emph{i}}{2}b^{\dag},$$ which lead to $$U|\eta>=|x,y>\,|_{x=\frac{\eta_{1} +\eta_{2}}{\sqrt{2}},
y=\frac{\eta_{2}- \eta_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}},~~~~U|x,y>=|\eta^{\ast}>\,
|_{\eta_{1}=\frac{x-y}{\sqrt{2}},\eta_{2}=\frac{x+y}{\sqrt{2}}}.$$ Thus $U$ indeed transfer the state $|\eta>$ to the state $|x,y>$ and vice versa. In the $|\eta>$ representation one can calculate the following matrix element of the operator $U$: $<\eta|U|\zeta>$, where $\zeta=\zeta_{1}+\emph{i}\,\zeta_{2}$. Using eq.(46) one has $$<\eta|U|\zeta>=<\eta|x,y>|_{x=\frac{\zeta_{1}+\zeta_{2}}{\sqrt{2}},
y=\frac{\zeta_{2}-\zeta_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}}
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{\emph{i}\,(\eta_{1}-\zeta_{1}-\zeta_{2})\eta_{2}}
\delta(\sqrt{2}\zeta_{1}-\sqrt{2}\eta_{1}).$$ If one further takes $\zeta_{1}=(x-y)/\sqrt{2}$ and $\zeta_{2}=(x+y)/\sqrt{2}$, eq.(47) will lead to eq.(38) exactly. This means that eq.(38) is just a matrix element of the unitary operator $U$ in the entangled state representation. Similarly one can find out the unitary transformation between the $|\xi>$ and the $|x,y>$ representations and endow eq.(39) with the same explanation.
Having the unitary transformation (38), and using $$<\eta|\hat{F}|\eta'>=\int \,
dxdydx'dy'\,<\eta|x,y>\,<x,y|\hat{F}|x',y'>\,<x',y'|\eta'>,$$ or $$<x,y|\hat{F}|x',y'>=\int \, d^{2}\eta
d^{2}\eta'\,<x,y|\eta>\,<\eta|\hat{F}|\eta'>\,<\eta'|x',y'>,$$ one may get the matrix elements of any operator $\hat{F}$ in one representation, if one knows $\hat{F}$ in another representation. For example, taking $\hat{F}=\hat{P}_{x}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
<\eta|\hat{P}_{x}|\eta'>&=&\int \,\frac{dx dy dx' dy'}{\pi}\,
e^{\emph{i}(\eta_{1}-\sqrt{2}x)\eta_{2}}\,\delta(x-y-\sqrt{2}\eta_{1})
(-\emph{i}\,\partial_{x})\delta(x-x')\delta(y-y')\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e^{-\emph{i}(\eta_{1}'-\sqrt{2}x')\eta_{2}'}\,
\delta(x'-y'-\sqrt{2}\eta_{1}')\nonumber\\
&=&e^{\emph{i}\eta_{1}(\eta_{2}-\eta_{2}')}\left(
\sqrt{2}\eta_{2}-\emph{i}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial
\sqrt{2}\eta_{1}}\right)\delta(\eta_{1}-\eta_{1}')
\delta(\eta_{2}-\eta_{2}')\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{2}-\emph{i}\,\partial
_{\eta_{1}}\right)\delta^{2}(\eta-\eta')\end{aligned}$$ which exactly coincides with eq.(23). Similarly, one also has $$\begin{aligned}
<\eta|\hat{P}_{y}|\eta'>&=&
e^{\emph{i}\eta_{1}(\eta_{2}-\eta_{2}')}\left(
\emph{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\sqrt{2}\eta_{1}}\right)\delta(\eta_{1}-\eta_{1}')
\delta(\eta_{2}-\eta_{2}')\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{2}+\emph{i}\,\partial
_{\eta_{1}}\right)\delta^{2}(\eta-\eta').\end{aligned}$$ Noticing $$x\,e^{\emph{i}(\eta_{1}-\sqrt{2}x)\eta_{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{1}+
\emph{i}\,\partial_{\eta_{2}}\right)e^{\emph{i}(\eta_{1}-\sqrt{2}x)\eta_{2}},$$ one can obtain other two expressions of eq.(23). Of course, with the aid of the unitary transformation (39), from eq.(37) one may get eq.(24).
Therefore, we derive the unitary transformations which change the $|x,y>$ representation to the $|\eta>$ (or $|\xi>$) representation and vise versa.
Eigenfunctions of some basic operators in the entangled state representations
=============================================================================
From the section 2 we see that wave function of any state vector $|\psi>$ in the entangled state representation $|\eta>$ can be expressed as $\psi (\eta)=\psi (\eta_{1},\eta_{2})=<\eta|\psi>$. Eq.(23) gives the representations of the operators $\hat{X}$, $\hat{Y}$, $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ in the entangled state representation $|\eta>$, for example, the operators $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ can be replaced by $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{2}
-\emph{i}\partial_{\eta_{1}}\right)$ and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{2}
+\emph{i}\partial_{\eta_{1}}\right)$ respectively. It is well known that eigenfunctions of the operators $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ in ordinary quantum mechanics mat be the plane waves, so it is interesting to see what are the eigenfunctions of the same operators in NCQM. Since the operators $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ are commuting each other and have common eigenstates, we first derive their common eigenfunctions in the entangled state representation.
Noticing eqs.(10) and (22), and $[\hat{P},\hat{K}]=0$, and denoting common eigenstate of $\hat{P}$ and $\hat{K}$ as $|\psi>$ with eigenvalues $p$ and $k$ respectively, in the entangled state representation we have $$\psi (\eta) =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\delta(\eta_{2}-p)e^{\emph{i}k\eta_{1}},$$ where $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}$ is normalization constant. Because the operators $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ are linear combination of $\hat{P}$ and $\hat{K}$, if we denote the eigenstate of $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ as $|\psi_{p_{x},p_{y}}>$ with eigenvalues $p_{x}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(p+k)$ and $p_{y}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(p-k)$ respectively, we have the common eigenfunction of $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ $$\psi_{p_{x},p_{y}} (\eta) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,\delta
\left(\eta_{2}-\frac{p_{x}+p_{y}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)
e^{\emph{i}(p_{x}-p_{y})\eta_{1}/\sqrt{2}}.$$ It is clearly shown that the eigenfunctions of $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ in $|\eta>$ representation are entanglement of ordinary coordinate and momentum eigenfunctions. On the other hand, in the $|x,y>$ representation, the eigenfunctions of $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ are simply $$\psi_{p_{x},p_{y}}(x,y)=<x,y|\psi_{p_{x},p_{y}}>=
\frac{1}{2\pi}e^{\emph{i}(p_{x}x+p_{y}y)}.$$ Using the representation transformation (38), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{p_{x},p_{y}}(\eta)&=&\int dx dy
<\eta|x,y>\,<x,y|\psi_{p_{x},p_{y}}>\nonumber\\
&=&\int \frac{dx dy}{2\pi^{3/2}}
\delta(x-y-\sqrt{2}\eta_{1})e^{\emph{i}\left((\eta_{1}-\sqrt{2}x)\eta_{2}
+p_{x}x+p_{y}y\right)}\end{aligned}$$ which leads to the right hand side of eq.(54) exactly. It also means that if one wants to find eigenfunction of some operator in the $|\eta>$ representation, one can first get the eigenfunction in the $|x,y>$ representation and then derive the eigenfunction in the $|\eta>$ representation by the representation transformation, and vise versa.
Now let us use this method to find out eigenfunction of $\hat{X}$ in the entangled state representation $|\eta>$. In fact it is easily understood that the eigenfunction of $\hat{X}$ is degenerate and in order to remove the degeneracy we should consider common eigenfunctions of the operators $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$. From eq.(3) we see that the normalized eigenfunction of $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ in the $|x,y>$ representation can be expressed as $$\psi_{X,p_{y}}(x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\delta(x-\tilde{x})
e^{\emph{i}\tilde{p}_{y}y},$$ where $\tilde{p}_{y}$ is the eigenvalue of the operator $\hat{P}_{y}$ and $\tilde{x}-\frac{\theta}{2}\tilde{p}_{y}\equiv
\tilde{X}$ the eigenvalue of $\hat{X}$ respectively. Then using the transformation (38) we get the common eigenfunction of $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ in the $|\eta>$ representation $$\psi_{X,p_{y}}(\eta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\,\pi}
e^{\emph{i}\eta_{1}\eta_{2}}e^{-\emph{i}\sqrt{2}\left(\tilde{X}\eta_{2}
+\tilde{p}_{y}\left(\eta_{1}+\frac{\theta}{2}\eta_{2}\right)
\right)}e^{\emph{i}\tilde{p}_{y}\left(\tilde{X}+
\frac{\theta}{2}\tilde{p}_{y}\right)}.$$ Furthermore noticing that in the $|\eta>$ representation $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{P}_{y}$ can be expressed as $$\hat{X}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{1} +
\emph{i}\partial_{\eta_{2}}
-\frac{\theta}{2}\eta_{2}-\emph{i}\frac{\theta}{2}\partial_{\eta_{1}}
\right)$$ and $$\hat{P}_{y}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\eta_{2}+\partial_{\eta_{1}}\right)$$ respectively, it is straightforwardly to check $\hat{X}\psi_{X,p_{y}}(\eta)=\tilde{X}\psi_{X,p_{y}}(\eta)$ and $\hat{P}_{y}\psi_{X,p_{y}}(\eta)=\tilde{p}_{y}\psi_{X,p_{y}}(\eta)$. Of course, one can also directly use the expression (59) and solves differential equation $\hat{X}\psi(\eta)=\tilde{X}\psi(\eta)$ in the $|\eta>$ representation to get the eigenfunction $\psi(\eta)$ of $\hat{X}$.
Similarly we have common eigenfunction of $\hat{Y}$ and $\hat{P}_{x}$ in the $|\eta>$ representation $$\psi_{Y,p_{x}}(\eta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\,\pi}
e^{-\emph{i}\eta_{1}\eta_{2}}e^{-\emph{i}\sqrt{2}\left(\tilde{Y}\eta_{2}
-\tilde{p}_{x}\left(\eta_{1}+\frac{\theta}{2}\eta_{2}\right)
\right)}e^{\emph{i}\tilde{p}_{x}\left(\tilde{Y}
-\frac{\theta}{2}\tilde{p}_{x}\right)},$$ where $\tilde{p}_{x}$ and $\tilde{y}+\frac{\theta}{2}\tilde{p}_{x}\equiv \tilde{Y}$ are the eigenvalue of $\hat{P}_{x}$ and $\hat{Y}$ respectively.
From eqs.(58) and (61) we see that the eigenfunctions of the operators $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{Y}$ in the entangled state representation are not simply plane waves. In fact, they also display some kind of entanglement of the coordinates and the momenta. Of course, one can also obtain eigenfunctions of these operators in the $|\xi>$ representation.
Some possible applications
==========================
It is well know that representation plays a basic role in quantum mechanics like the coordinate systems in geometry. In section 2 we introduced the entangled state representations $|\eta>$ and $|\xi>$, which are related to the $|x,y>$ representation by unitary transformations as shown in section 4. In the $|\eta>$ or $|\xi>$ representation one can also solve Schrödinger equation of NCQM as in the $|x,y>$ representation, and sometimes it is more convenient working in the entangles state representation than in the $|x,y>$ representation. To show this, let us study a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator on the noncommutative plane with both momentum-momentum (kinetic) coupling and coordinate-coordinate (elastic) coupling. The Hamiltonian is $$H=\frac{1}{2}\hat{P}_{x}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\hat{P}_{y}^{2}+
\frac{1}{2}\hat{X}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\hat{Y}^{2}+\kappa
\hat{P}_{x}\hat{P}_{y}+\frac{\lambda}{2}
\left(\hat{X}\hat{Y}+\hat{Y}\hat{X} \right),$$ where the operators $\hat{P}_{x}$, $\hat{P}_{y}$, $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{Y}$ satisfy the commutation relations (1). After substituting eq.(3) into eq.(62) we get the Hamiltonian $H$ in the $|x,y>$ representation $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\theta}{4}\right)p_{x}^{2}+
\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\theta}{4}\right)p_{y}^{2}+
\frac{1}{2}x^{2}+\frac{1}{2}y^{2}\nonumber\\
&\,&+\left(\kappa-\frac{\lambda\,\theta^{2}}{4}\right)p_{x}p_{y}
+\lambda x y -\frac{\theta}{2}(xP_{y}-yp_{x}) +
\frac{\lambda\,\theta}{2}(xp_{x}-yp_{y}),\end{aligned}$$ which includes not only the kinetic and the elastic coupling terms, but also the coordinate-momentum coupling terms (they are the angular momentum term and the squeezing term, respectively). It is not an easy task to solve its eigenequation. However, in the $|\eta>$ representation the Hamiltonian $H$ has simpler form $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\theta^{2}}{2}-\kappa
+\frac{\lambda\,\theta^{2}}{4}\right)p_{1}^{2}
+\frac{1}{2}(1+\lambda)p_{2}^{2}-\frac{\theta}{2}
(1+\lambda)p_{1}p_{2}\nonumber\\
&\,&+\frac{1}{2}(1-\lambda)\eta_{1}^{2}
+\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\theta^{2}}{2}+\kappa
-\frac{\lambda\,\theta^{2}}{4}\right)\eta_{2}^{2}
-\frac{\theta}{2} (1-\lambda)\eta_{1}\eta_{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{i}=-\emph{i}\,\partial/\partial\,\eta_{i}$ (i=1,2). In the Hamiltonian (64), only the kinetic and the elastic coupling terms survive, and it is easier to be handled than the form (63). Of course, it is needless to emphasize that the Hamiltonian (63) and (64) are connected via a unitary transformation described in section 4.
Before diagonalizing $H$, let us introduce some notations to rewrite (64) so that it has more familiar form $$\begin{aligned}
&&m_{1}=\left(1+\frac{\theta^{2}}{2}-\kappa
+\frac{\lambda\,\theta^{2}}{4} \right)^{-1},
~~~~\omega_{1}=\sqrt{(1-\lambda)
\left(1+\frac{\theta^{2}}{2}-\kappa
+\frac{\lambda\,\theta^{2}}{4}\right)},~~~~\alpha=\frac{\theta}{2}
(1+\lambda),\nonumber\\
&&m_{2}=(1+\lambda)^{-1},~~~~\omega_{2}=\sqrt{(1+\lambda)
\left(1+\frac{\theta^{2}}{2}+\kappa
-\frac{\lambda\,\theta^{2}}{4}\right)},~~~~\beta=\frac{\theta}{2}
(1-\lambda).\end{aligned}$$ In terms of these notations, $H$ becomes $$H=\frac{p_{1}^{2}}{2m_{1}}+\frac{p_{2}^{2}}{2m_{2}}-\alpha
p_{1}p_{2} + \frac{m_{1}\omega_{1}^{2}}{2}\eta_{1}^{2}+
\frac{m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}{2}\eta_{2}^{2} -\beta \eta_{1}\eta_{2}.$$ Now let us introduce a two by two matrix $A$ whose matrix elements $a_{ij}$ will be determined later ($i,j=1,2$). If we use $\vec{p}$ to denote the two-dimensional momentum $(p_{1},p_{2})$, one can write $\vec{\tilde{p}}=A\vec{p}=(\tilde{p}_{1},\tilde{p}_{2})$ with $\tilde{p}_{i}=a_{ij}p_{j}$, and inversely, $p_{i}=b_{ij}\tilde{p}_{j}$, where $b_{ij}$ are elements of inverse matrix of $A$. Consider the following transformation $$V=\sqrt{det\,A}\int d\vec{p}\,\,|A\vec{p}>\,<\vec{p}|$$ in the Hilbert space spanned by two-mode momentum eigenstates $|\vec{p}>$, which is unitary clearly $$\begin{aligned}
V\,V^{\dag}&=&det\,A\,\int d\vec{p}\,d\vec{p}\prime|A\vec{p}>\,\,
<\vec{p}|\vec{p}\prime >\,<A\vec{p}\prime|\nonumber\\
&=&det\,A\,\int d\vec{p}\,\,|A\vec{p}>\,<A\vec{p}|=\int
d\vec{\tilde{p}}\,\,|\vec{\tilde{p}}>\,<\vec{\tilde{p}}|=1,\end{aligned}$$ and similarly $V^{\dag}\,V=1$. In eq.(67), $|\vec{p}>=|p_{1}>|p_{2}>$ and $|p_{i}>$ are the momentum eigenstates $$|p_{i}>=\left(\frac{1}{\pi
m_{i}\omega_{i}}\right)^{1/4}\exp{\left(-\frac{p_{i}^{2}}{2m_{i}\omega_{i}}
+\emph{i}\,\sqrt{\frac{2}{m_{i}\omega_{i}}}\,p_{i}a_{i}^{\dag}
+\frac{1}{2}a_{i}^{\dag 2}\right)}|0>_{i},$$ where $a_{i}^{\dag}$ (and $a_{i}$) are the ordinary bosonic creation (and annihilation) operators $$a_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{m_{i}\omega_{i}}\eta_{i}
+\emph{i}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{m_{i}\omega_{i}}}p_{i}\right),~~~~
a_{i}^{\dag}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{m_{i}\omega_{i}}\eta_{i}
-\emph{i}\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{m_{i}\omega_{i}}}p_{i} \right).$$ It is not difficult to see that $V$ transforms $Vp_{i}V^{\dag}=b_{ij}p_{j}$ and $V
\eta_{i}V^{\dag}=a_{ji}\eta_{j}$, because $$Vp_{i}V^{\dag}=det\,A\,\int d\vec{p}\,d\vec{p}\prime|A\vec{p}>\,\,
<\vec{p}|p_{i}|\vec{p}\prime>\,<A\vec{p}\prime| =\int
d\vec{\tilde{p}}\,b_{ij}\tilde{p}_{j}\,|\vec{\tilde{p}}>\,
<\vec{\tilde{p}}|=b_{ij}p_{j},$$ and $$V\eta_{i}V^{\dag}=det\,A\,\int d\vec{p}\,d\vec{p}\prime\,
|A\vec{p}>\,\emph{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial p_{i}}\, \delta
(\vec{p}-\vec{p}\prime )\,<A\vec{p}\prime|,$$ furthermore, acting eq.(72) from the right-hand side on $<\vec{\eta}|$ leads to $$<\vec{\eta}|\,V\eta_{i}V^{\dag}=det\,A \int
d\vec{p}\,d\vec{p}\prime\, \left(-\emph{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial
p_{i}}\, \exp{(\emph{i}\,a_{jk}p_{k}\eta_{j})}\right)\,\delta
(\vec{p}-\vec{p}\prime)\, <A\vec{p}\prime
|=<\vec{\eta}|a_{ji}\,\eta_{j},$$ which means that $V \eta_{i}V^{\dag}=a_{ji}\eta_{j}$.
Now let us act the unitary transformation $V$ on the Hamiltonian (66) and get $$\begin{aligned}
VHV^{\dag}&=&\frac{1}{2m_{1}}(b_{11}p_{1}+b_{12}p_{2})^{2} +
\frac{1}{2m_{2}}(b_{21}p_{1}+b_{22}p_{2})^{2} -\alpha
(b_{11}p_{1}+b_{12}p_{2})\,(b_{21}p_{1}+b_{22}p_{2})\nonumber\\
&\,&+\frac{m_{1}\omega_{1}^{2}}{2}(a_{11}\eta_{1}+a_{21}\eta_{2})^{2}
+\frac{m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}{2}(a_{12}\eta_{1}+a_{22}\eta_{2})^{2}\nonumber\\
&\,&-\beta
(a_{11}\eta_{1}+a_{21}\eta_{2})\,(a_{12}\eta_{1}+a_{22}\eta_{2}).\end{aligned}$$ Then in order to annihilate the coupling terms in eq.(74), we set $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{m_{1}}a_{22}a_{12}+\frac{1}{m_{2}}a_{21}a_{22}+ \alpha
(a_{11}a_{22}+a_{12}a_{21})&=&0,\nonumber\\
m_{1}\omega_{1}^{2}\,a_{11}a_{21}+m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2}\,a_{12}a_{22}
-\beta (a_{11}a_{22}+a_{12}a_{21})&=&0.\end{aligned}$$ From eq.(75) we have $$a_{12}=\frac{\Omega m_{1}}{2\alpha(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})}\,a_{11},~~~~~~~~ a_{21}=-\frac{\Omega
m_{2}}{2\alpha(\beta+\alpha m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2})}\,a_{22},$$ where $$\Omega =\alpha (\omega_{1}^{2}-\omega_{2}^{2})+
\sqrt{\alpha^{2}(\omega_{1}^{2}-\omega_{2}^{2})^{2}+ 4\alpha^{2}
(\frac{\beta}{m_{1}}+\alpha
m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})\,(\frac{\beta}{m_{2}}+\alpha
m_{1}\omega_{1}^{2}) }.$$ Thus eq.(74) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{d}&=&\frac{a_{22}^{2}}{2m_{1}(det\,A)^{2}}
\left(1+\frac{m_{1}m_{1}\Omega}{\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2}}+ \frac{m_{1}m_{2}\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}
(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2})^{2}}\right)p_{1}^{2}\nonumber\\
&\,& + \frac{a_{11}^{2}}{2m_{2}(det\,A)^{2}}
\left(1-\frac{m_{1}m_{1}\Omega}{\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}+ \frac{m_{1}m_{2}\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}
(\beta+\alpha m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})^{2}}\right)p_{2}^{2}
\nonumber\\
&\,&+\frac{a_{11}^{2}m_{1}\omega_{1}^{2}}{2}\left(1-\frac{\beta
\Omega}{\alpha \omega_{1}^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})}+\frac{m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2}
\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}\omega_{1}^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})^{2}}\right)\eta_{1}^{2}\nonumber\\
&\,&+\frac{a_{22}^{2}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}{2}\left(1+\frac{\beta
\Omega}{\alpha \omega_{2}^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2})}+\frac{m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2}
\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}\omega_{2}^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2})^{2}}\right)\eta_{2}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$det\,A=a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21}=a_{11}a_{22}\left(
1+\frac{m_{1}m_{2}\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2})(\beta+\alpha m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})}
\right),$$ if we use the following notations $$\begin{aligned}
T_{1}&=&1+\frac{m_{1}m_{2}\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2})(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})},\nonumber\\
T_{2}&=&1+\frac{m_{1}m_{1}\Omega}{\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2}}+ \frac{m_{1}m_{2}\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}
(\beta+\alpha m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2})^{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{3}&=&1-\frac{\beta \Omega}{\alpha \omega_{1}^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})}+\frac{m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2}
\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}\omega_{1}^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})^{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{4}&=&1-\frac{m_{1}m_{1}\Omega}{\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2}}+ \frac{m_{1}m_{2}\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}
(\beta+\alpha m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2})^{2}},\nonumber\\
T_{5}&=&1+\frac{\beta \Omega}{\alpha \omega_{2}^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2})}+\frac{m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2}
\Omega^{2}}{4\alpha^{2}\omega_{2}^{2}(\beta+\alpha
m_{1}m_{2}\omega_{1}^{2})^{2}},\end{aligned}$$ and in eq.(78), let the coefficients of the terms $p_{1}^{2}/2m_{1}$ and $p_{2}^{2}/2m_{2}$ be equal to the coefficients of the terms $m_{1}\omega_{1}^{2}\eta_{1}^{2}/2$ and $m_{2}\omega_{2}^{2}\eta_{2}^{2}/2$ respectively, and denote them as $\Lambda_{1}$ and $\Lambda_{2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&a_{11}= T_{1}^{-1/2}T_{2}^{1/4}T_{3}^{-1/4},~~~~ a_{22}=
T_{1}^{-1/2}T_{4}^{1/4}T_{5}^{-1/4},\nonumber\\
&&\Lambda_{1}=T_{1}^{-1}T_{2}^{1/2}T_{3}^{1/2},~~~~
\Lambda_{2}=T_{1}^{-1}T_{4}^{1/2}T_{5}^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we diagonalize the Hamiltonian (64) and obtain $$H_{d}=VHV^{\dag}=\Lambda_{1}\omega_{1}\left(a_{1}^{\dag}a_{1}+\frac{1}{2}
\right) +\Lambda_{2}\omega_{2}\left(a_{2}^{\dag}a_{2}+\frac{1}{2}
\right),$$ which gives the energy spectrum of the two-dimensional harmonic oscillator (62) on the noncommutative plane with both the kinetic and the elastic couplings $$E_{n,m}=\Lambda_{1}\omega_{1}\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)+
\Lambda_{2}\omega_{2}\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$ This result, to our knowledge, has not been reported in the literature so far. In some special case, however, it reduces to well-known relevant results. For example, when the coupling constants $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ both vanish, the Hamiltonian (62) describes a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator without any coupling on the noncommutative plane. Eq.(83) reduces to $$E_{n,m}=\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^{2}}{4}} \,(n+m+1),$$ which was derived by many authors in other methods. For instance, eq.(84) coincides with [@s8].
Summary and discussion
======================
In order to develop representation and transformation theory so that one can solve more dynamic problems for NCQM, in this work we introduce new representations on the noncommutative space which may be named the entangled state representations, because the sate-vectors of these representations are common eigenstates of the difference (or the sum) of two different coordinate-component operators and the sum (or the difference) of two relevant momentum operators, and display some entanglements of different components on the noncommutative space. Since these state-vectors are orthonormal and satisfy the completeness relation, they form representations to formulate the NCQM. In this work we find out explicit unitary operator which can transfers the entangled state representation $|\eta>$ into the so-called “quasi-coordinate” representation $|x,y>$ used in the papers on NCQM. Similar unitary operator between the $|\xi>$ representation and the $|x,y>$ representation can be got also. To show the potential applications of new entangled representations, we solve exactly a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator with both the kinetic and the elastic couplings on the noncommutative plane. This example shows that some dynamic problems of NCQM may be easier solved in the entangled state representations.
It is also interesting to generalize the entangled state representations to describe two particles moving on the noncommutative space. Work on this direction will be presented in a separate paper.
[10]{} P. A. M. Dirac, *The Principles of Quantum Mechanics*, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1930. A. Connes, M. R. Douglas and A. Schwartz, *Noncommutative geometry and matrix theory: Compactification on tori*, *JHEP* 9802 (1998) 003; N. Seiberg and E. Witten, *String theory and noncommutative geometry*, *JHEP* 9909 (1999) 032; P-M. Ho and H-C. Kao, *Noncommutative quantum mechanics from noncommutative quantum field theory*, *hep-th/0110191*; D. Kochan and M. Demetrian, *Quantum mechanics on noncommutative plane*, *hep-th/0102050*. J. E. Moyal, *Quantum mechanics as a statistical theory*, *Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc.* 45 (1949) 99. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, *Can quantum mechanical description of Physical reality be considered complete?* *Phys. Rev.* **47** (1935) 777. H. Fan and J. R. Klauder, *Eigenvectors of two particles’ relative position and total momentum* *Phys. Rev.* **A49** (1994) 704. H. Fan, H. R. Zaidi and J. R. Klauder, *New approach for calculating the normally ordered form of squeeze operators* *Phys. Rev.* **D35** (1987) 1831. B. Muthukumar and P. Mitra, *Noncommutative oscillators and the commutative limit*, *Phys. Rev. D***66** (2002) 027701; V. P. Nair and A. P. Polychronakos, *Quantum mechanics on the noncommutative plane and sphere*, *hep-th/0011172*. A. Jellal, *Orbital magnetism of a two-dimensional noncommutative confined system*, *J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.* **34** (2001) 10159.
[^1]: This project supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 10375056 and 90203002.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A comprehensive understanding of the physical origin of the unique magnetic and transport properties of $A_{1 -
x}A'_{x}$MnO$_{3}$ manganites ($A$ = trivalent rare-earth and $A'$ = divalent alkali-earth metal) is still far from being achieved [@1; @2; @3]. The complexity of these systems arises from the interplay among several competing interactions of comparable strength. Recently the electron-phonon coupling, triggered by a Jahn-Teller distortion of the MnO$_{6}$octahedra, has been recognised to play an essential role in the insulator to metal transition and in the closely related colossal magneto-resistance [@3]. The pressure tuning of the octahedral distortion gives a unique possibility to separate the basic interactions and, at least in principle, to follow the progressive transformation of a manganite from an intermediate towards a weak electron-phonon coupling regime. Using a diamond anvil cell, temperature and pressure-dependent infrared absorption spectra of La$_{0.75}$Ca$_{0.25}$MnO$_{3}$ have been collected and, from the spectral weight analysis [@4], the pressure dependence of the insulator to metal transition temperature $T_{IM}$ has been determined for the first time up to 11.2 GPa. The $T_{IM}(P)$ curve we proposed to model the present data revealed a universality character in accounting for the whole class of intermediate coupling compounds. This property can be exploited to distinguish the intermediate from the weak coupling compounds pointing out the fundamental differences between the two coupling regimes.
author:
- 'P. Postorino, A. Congeduti, P. Dore, F.A. Gorelli,'
- 'L. Ulivi, A. Sacchetti, A. Kumar, D.D. Sarma'
title: 'Pressure-tuning of the electron-phonon coupling: the insulator to metal transition in manganites.'
---
The crystal structure of manganites consists of a pseudocubic lattice of MnO$_{6}$ octahedra with the $A-A'$ ions placed in the free volume among them. In doped compounds (0 $< x <$ 1), the Mn ions assume the Mn$^{ + 3}$/Mn$^{ + 4}$ mixed-valence and the Mn$^{ + 3}$O$_{6}$ octahedra undergo an asymmetric distortion which removes the degeneracy of the outer Mn d-orbital with $e_{g}$ symmetry (Jahn-Teller (JT) effect). The presence of distorted octahedra in the pseudocubic lattice gives rise to a local potential well which, in turn, tends to localise the $e_{g}$-electrons. This self-trapping mechanism is a fingerprint of the electron-phonon coupling (EPC) whose strength depends on the extent of JT distortion. Therefore, tuning the asymmetry of the Mn$^{ + 3}$O$_{6}$ by means of the so-called *internal pressure* (chemical substitution which changes the average $A-A'$ ionic radius $R_{A})$ [@5; @6; @7] or by an external pressure (hydrostatic pressure P) [@8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14; @15; @16; @17], is an intriguing way to probe the EPC and its localising tendency.
EPC profoundly affects the transport properties of manganites, which range from insulating (strong EPC) to metallic (weak EPC) character [@18]. At intermediate-coupling (IC), several manganites (0.2$< x <$0.5) show Colossal Magneto-Resistance (CMR) and, on cooling, they undergo a first-order insulator-to-metal (IM) transition, whereas Weak-Coupling (WC) systems show moderate magneto resistance and a continuous IM transition [@18; @19; @20]. Since the temperature $T_{IM}$ is expected to be proportional to the effective $e_{g}$ orbital bandwidth $W_{eff}$ [@6; @8], shifts in $T_{IM}$ can be produced by forcing $W_{eff}$ to change. This can be achieved by a pressure-tuning of the EPC, which behaves as a narrowing factor $\xi \le
$1 applied on the bare structural term $W_{0}$ [@7], that is $T_{IM}
\propto W_{eff}=W_{0}\xi$ [@8; @21]. *Internal* or external applied pressure cause an increase of $T_{IM}$ through the double mechanism of enlarging $W_{0 }$ by enhancement of the Mn-O bond covalency, and of increasing $\xi $ by a reduction of the EPC strength. Exploiting chemical substitution, $R_{A}$-$T$ phase diagrams have been obtained [@5; @22], whereas a set of $T_{IM}(P)$ data [@8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14; @15; @16; @17] is available up to a maximum of 2 GPa, owing to the many difficulties of high-pressure transport and magnetic measurements. The experimental data suggest an equivalence between *internal* and external pressure [@5]: the same change of $T_{IM}$ can be achieved by varying either the average ionic radius by $\Delta R_{A}$ or the pressure by $\Delta P$=$\Delta R_{A}/ \beta$ ($\beta $=3.7 10$^{ - 3}$ Å/GPa [@5]). Nevertheless, external pressure has the clear advantage of operating on a single sample in a continuous way and under conditions more controlled than chemical substitution.
The IM transition can be conveniently described in terms of polarons, quasi-particles associated to a charge plus the surrounding lattice distortion. Indeed, a picture of localized polarons is associated to the paramagnetic-insulating phase of the manganites, whereas in the ferromagnetic-metallic phase below $T_{IM}$, the increase of the $e_{g}$-electron kinetic energy, due to the magnetic double-exchange interaction, favors polarons itinerancy [@4; @23; @24]. Since the transition of polarons from localised states to the continuum gives rise to a large band centred in the near Infrared (IR)[@4; @24] the delocalization process can be monitored by spectroscopic techniques. Indeed, the band-profile reflects the distribution of the polaron binding energies and the spectral weight, that is the frequency-integrated absorption spectrum, provides a measure of the $e_{g}$-electron kinetic energy and, hence, of the polaron mobility [@4; @24; @25]. Exploiting the advantage of coupling of Diamond Anvil Cells (DAC) to IR spectroscopy [@4], the delocalization process can be monitored over an extended and, until now, unexplored pressure region.
La$_{0.75}$Ca$_{0.25}$MnO$_{3}$ ($T_{IM}(P$=0$)$=220 K [@4]) was chosen as a suitable IC candidate for the present experiment and temperature-dependent IR spectra (100-320 K) were collected along several isobaric paths (0 $<P<$ 11.2 GPa) over the 500-4500 cm$^{ - 1 }$spectral range. The DAC equipped with 600 $\mu $m culet IIA diamonds and steel gasket (300-$\mu $m diameter and 50-$\mu $m deep hole) was mounted on the cold finger of a cryocooler. The Bruker 120HR interferometer, at LENS (European Laboratory for Non-Linear Spectroscopy, Florence), was equipped with a KBr beam-splitter and an MCT detector. High-quality measurements, in spite of the high absorbance and the small size of the sample, were obtained thanks to the high-efficiency focusing system [@26]. The sample, prepared by a solid state reaction method [@27], was finely milled and smeared on the top surface of a KBr pellet sintered inside the gasket hole [@4]. The optical density $Od(\nu
)=\ln [I_{0}(\nu )/I(\nu )]$ was obtained by measuring the intensities $I_{0}(\nu )$ and $I(\nu )$, transmitted by the pure KBr pellet and by the KBr plus sample [@4]. The $Od(\nu )$ measured along three representative isobaric paths at selected temperatures are shown in Fig. 1. The intense peak around 600 cm$^{ - 1}$ is due to the IR active $B_{2u}$ phonon mode [@4], while the broader structures around 1000 cm$^{ - 1}$ and 1400 cm$^{
- 1}$ originate from multi-phonon processes, enhanced by resonance effects [@28]. The phonon nature of these features is confirmed by their moderate pressure-induced frequency hardening [@4; @29]. The phonon spectrum is superimposed to a broad and intense contribution, which extends over the whole spectral range, is strongly temperature and pressure dependent and arises from the low frequency side of the polaronic band. Upon cooling at a given pressure, the overall absorption decreases (red spectra) until an *inversion temperature* is reached, where the trend is reversed and the absorption starts to increase (blue spectra). The *inversion temperature* identifies $T_{IM}$ [@4], since the observed absorption trend corresponds to what expected for the mobility of the charge carriers in the insulating or metallic phase. The temperature dependence of the spectral weights $n^{\ast}(T)$ at different pressures was obtained by integrating the measured $Od(\nu )$ over the 800-1800 cm$^{ - 1}$ range. In Fig. 2 $n^{\ast}(T)$ are shown by red and blue symbols to distinguish the insulating ($dn^{\ast}/dT<$0) from the metallic ($dn^{\ast}/dT > 0$) regime [@4; @18]. Fig. 2 shows that at fixed temperature $dn^{\ast}/dP>$0, meaning that pressure causes an increase of polaron mobility over the whole temperature range. At low-temperatures ($T<$150K), all the $n^{\ast}(T)$ seem to converge towards the same asymptotic curve, suggesting the occurrence of a sort of *asymptotic metal* state, consistent with the picture of fully itinerant polarons.
The fine temperature sampling of $n^{\ast}(T)$ enables an accurate determination of the $T_{IM}(P)$ values, shown in the P-T phase diagram of Fig. 3a. The deviation from linearity, apparent in the pressure-dependence of $T_{IM}$, is a new and unexpected finding, unpredicted by the simple linear extrapolation of the low-pressure data available in literature. The present data are successfully described by the empirical curve
$$T_{IM}(P) = T_{\infty }-[T_{\infty }-T_{IM}(0)]exp(-P/ P^{\ast })
\label{eq1}$$
with $T_{\infty }$=299$\pm $3 K and P$^{\ast }$=3.4 $\pm $0.4 GPa. Using structural data at high pressure [@27], we estimated the pressure dependence of $W_{0 }$ [@8] and, hence, the bare structural contribution to $T_{IM}$(P) (dashed line in Fig. 3a). It is apparent that the bare contribution alone does not account for the observed rapid rise of $T_{IM}$ at low-pressure, but a considerable pressure-driven weakening of the EPC, that is a considerable broadening of the effective bandwidth $W_{eff}$ (i.e. $\xi \to $1), is necessary. On the contrary, the bare structural term adequately reproduces the low P-sensitivity in the high-pressure regime. These findings are also supported by the simple argument offered by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, that is $dT_{IM}$/$dP$ = $\Delta v$/$\Delta s$. The rapid decrease of $dT_{IM}$/$dP$ vs $P$ should be more likely attributed to a reduction of the volume variation $\Delta v$ than to an increase of the entropy variation $\Delta s$. Indeed, applied pressure is expected to diminish the octahedral distortion in the insulating phase, thus reducing the volume discontinuity $\Delta v$ at the IM transition. The remarkable decrease of volume effects, recently reported for $R_{A}>$1.22 Å[@19], is also consistent with the vanishingly small values of $dT_{IM}$/$dP$ at high pressure (i.e. $\Delta v \to $0)
To state Eq. 1 in terms of a general law, we applied it to extract the dependence of $T_{IM}$ on $R_{A}$ at ambient pressure starting from a compound with a given $R_{A}^{0}$. No adjustable parameter was introduced and only the *internal/*external pressure conversion was exploited through the variable substitution $P$ = $(R_{A} - R_{A}^{0})$/$\beta $. The $T_{IM}(R_{A})$ curve thus obtained is shown in Fig. 3b in comparison with the experimental data of several compounds at constant $x$=0.25 doping (Ref. 20). The agreement is excellent up to $R_{A} \sim $ 1.22 Å, that is over the region corresponding to IC regime, and first order IM transition [@19; @20]. At larger $R_{A}$ values (continuous transition [@19; @20], WC regime) the curve fails to describe the experimental data. The pressure derivative of Eq.\[eq1\]
$$\label{eq2}
\frac{dT_{IM}(P)}{dP} \Big| _{P}= \frac{T_{\infty }-T_{IM}(P)}{P^{\ast }}$$
is plotted versus $T_{IM}(P)$ in Fig. 4. Also shown in Fig. 4 are the zero-pressure limits of the experimental derivative $dT_{IM}(P)$/$dP|_{P =
0}$ obtained from the present data (23 K/GPa) and from the $T_{IM}$(P) data available in literature for other manganites [@8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14; @15; @16; @17]. Also in this case, Eq. \[eq2\] describes the IC regime rather well, at least for $T_{IM} >$200 K, whereas it is not appropriate for WC compounds (blue symbols). The deviation of the low $T_{IM}$ ($ \le $ 200 K) compounds from Eq.\[eq2\] can be explained by the EPC getting stronger, with the localizing effect being strengthened by a high cation disorder [@22; @30]. More quantitatively, for these samples the mean square deviation $\sigma _{cat}$ of the $A$-$A'$ ion radii is larger than the mean square thermal displacement $\sigma _{th}$, obtained from the experimental vibrational frequencies of the $A$-$A'$ ions. This results in an *effective disorder* $\Sigma_{eff}$=$\sigma _{cat}$/$\sigma _{th} >$1. The universal behaviour here observed (Fig. 4) shows that, regardless of doping or chemical composition, $T_{IM}$ (i.e. $W_{eff}$) is actually the only relevant parameter for IC manganites. ($\Sigma_{eff}<$1).
The present study offers the opportunity of separating the contributions of the bare structural effects from the pressure-tuned EPC. The latter plays an essential role up to $P \approx $2$P^{\ast }$ ( $\approx$7 GPa), beyond which pressure-driven structural effects are sufficient to describe the IM transition curve (Fig. 3a). When reverted into an $R_{A}$-dependence, the pressure-dependence of $T_{IM}$, which shadows the EPC pressure-dependence, emphasises the full applicability of the model to IC systems (Fig. 3b). The departure of WC systems from the model curve suggests an abrupt readjustment of the balance among the different interactions. Indeed, when the internal/external pressure exceed a certain value (i.e. $R_{A} \to$ 1.22 Åor $P>$2$P^{\ast })$ their effect is no longer equivalent: while P leaves unchanged both the crystal symmetry and the EPC strength, $R_{A}$ induces a structural transition from orthorhombic to rhombohedral, whose higher symmetry does not allow for the static JT distortion [@19]. The transition from the IC to the WC regime is not continuous and cannot be achieved by simply tuning the EPC by means of external pressure. Eq. 1 enables to clearly distinguish between the two regimes and represents a strict benchmark for any theoretical model aimed at addressing the complex physics of these systems.
[**Figure Captions.**]{}
Fig. 1 $T$-dependent optical densities measured along three representative isobars. On cooling down, the overall absorption at first decreases (red curves, insulator) and then increases (blue curves, metal) as shown by the broken arrows. Data over 1850-2450 cm$^{ - 1}$ frequency range are not shown since the strong absorption from the diamonds affects the data quality.
Fig. 2 Temperature dependence of the spectral weight $n^{\ast}$ along seven isobaric paths. Red and blue symbols refer to insulating and metallic behaviour respectively, lines are a guide to the eye.
Fig. 3 a) $P-T$ phase diagram of La$_{0.75}$Ca$_{0.25}$MnO$_{3}$. The grey line is the best-fit curve from Eq. 1 ($T_{\infty }$=299 K and $P^{\ast
}$=3.4 GPa) to the present experimental data (half-filled circles).
b\) $R_{A}-T$ phase diagram for $x$=0.25 manganites: diamonds from Ref. 20, the grey line is obtained from Eq. 1 exploiting the internal-external pressure conversion with no adjustable parameters $T_{IM}(R_{A})$ = $T_{\infty
}$-\[$T_{\infty }$-$T_{IM}(R_{A}^{0})$\]exp\[-($R_{A}$- $R_{A}^{0})$/($\beta $/$P^{\ast })$\]. To make the data internally comparable, the $R_{A}$ values of Ref. 20 have been recalculated using the ionic radii with coordination number 9 (Ref. 5) instead of 12 (ref. 20). The corresponding pressure scale is shown on the top x-axis.
Fig. 4 $T_{IM}$ pressure derivative vs. $T_{IM}$. Zero pressure limit ($dT_{IM}(P)$/$dP|_{P = 0}$ vs. $T_{IM}$(0)): bold half-filled circle, present experiment; diamonds data from literature (the reference number is also shown). Light half-filled circles show $dT_{IM}(P)$/$dP|_{P}$ vs. $T_{IM}(P)$ from the present experiment. The grey line is from Eq. 2.
[30]{} Jin, S. *et al.* Thousandfold change in resistivity in magneto resistive La-Ca-Mn-O films. *Science* **264,** 413 (1994). Millis, A. J. Lattice effects in magnetoresistive manganese perovskites *Nature* **392,** 147 (1998). Millis, A. J. *et al.* Double exchange alone does not explain the resistivity of La$_{1 - x}$Sr$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **74**, 5144 (1995). Congeduti, A. *et al.* Infrared study of charge delocalization induced by pressure in the La$_{0.75}$Ca$_{0.25}$MnO$_{3}$ manganite. *Phys. Rev. B* **63**, 184410 (2001). Hwang, H.Y. *et al.* Lattice effects on the magnetoresistance in doped LaMnO$_{3}$. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **75**, 914 (1995). Guo-meng, Zhao *et al.* Giant oxigen isotope shift in the magnetoresistive perovskite La$_{1 - x }$Ca$_{x}$MnO$_{3 + y}$. *Nature* **381**, 676 (1996). Cheong, S.W. and Hwang, H.Y. in *Colossal Magnetoresistance Oxides* edited by Tokura, Y. Gordon and Breach New York 2000. Laukhin, V. *et al.* Pressure effects on the metal-insulator transition in magnetoresistive manganese perovskites. *Phys. Rev. B* **56**, R10009 (1997). Hwang, H.Y. *et al.* Pressure effects on the magnetoresistance in doped manganese perovskites. *Phys. Rev. B* **52**, 15046 (1995). Neumeier, J.J. *et al.* Substantial pressure effects on the electrical resistivity and ferromagnetic transition temperature of La$_{1 -
x}$Ca$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$. *Phys. Rev. B* **52**, R7006 (1995). De Teresa, J.M. *et al.* Spontaneous behavior and magnetic field and pressure effects on La$_{2 / 3}$Ca$_{1 / 3}$MnO$_{3}$ perovskite. *Phys. Rev. B* **54**, 1187 (1996). Wang, Y.S. *et al.* Oxygen-isotope effects on La$_{0.65}$Ca$_{0.35}$MnO$_{3}$ under pressure. *Phys. Rev. B* **60**, R14998 (1999). Moritomo, Y. *et al.* Chemical and external pressure effects on ferromagnetic manganites. *Physica B* **237-8**, 26 (1997). Arnold, Z. *et al.* Pressure effect on yttrium doped La$_{0.60}$Y$_{0.07}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ compound. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **67**, 2875 (1995). Khazeni, K. *et al.* Effect of Pressure on the Magnetoresistance of Single Crystal Nd$_{0.5}$Sr$_{0.36}$Pb$_{0.14}$MnO$_{3}$. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **76**, 295 (1996). Khazeni, K. *et al.* Pressure dependence of the resistivity and magnetoresistance in single-crystal Nd$_{0.62}$Pb$_{0.30}$MnO$_{3}$. *J. Phys. Cond. Matt.* **8**, 7723 (1996). Kuwahara, H. *et al.* Spin-charge-lattice coupled phase transitions in bandwidth-controlled systems: (Nd,Sm)$_{1 / 2}$Sr$_{1 / }$2MnO3. *Phys. Rev. B* **56**, 9386 (1997). Millis, A.J. *et al.* Fermi-liquid-to-polaron crossover. II Double exchange and the physics of Colossal Magnetoresistance. *Phys. Rev. B* **54**, 5405 (1996). Mira, J. *et al.* Strong reduction of lattice effects in mixed-valence manganites related to crystal symmetry. *Phys. Rev. B* **65**, 024418 (2001). Fujishiro, H. *et al.* First-order-like ferromagnetic transition in (La$_{1 -
y}$Pr$_{y})_{1 - x}$(Ca$_{1 - z}$Sr$_{z})_{x}$ MnO$_{3}$ (x=0.25). *Physica B* **281[&]{}282**, 491 (2000). Röder, H. *et al.* Lattice Effects in the Colossal-Magnetoresistance Manganites. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **76**, 1356 (1996). Fontcuberta, J. *et al.* Local disorder effects on the pressure dependence of the metal-insulator transition in manganese perovskite *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **72**, 2607 (1998). Kim, K. H. *et al.* Polaron Absorption in a Perovskite Manganite La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_{3}$. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **81**, 1517 (1998). Quijada, M. *et al.* Optical conductivity of manganites: Crossover from Jahn-Teller small polaron to coherent transport in the ferromagnetic state. *Phys. Rev. B* **58**, 16093 (1998). Chattopadhyay, A. *et al.* Optical spectral weights and the ferromagnetic transition temperature of colossal magneto resistance manganites: Relevance of double exchange to real materials. *Phys. Rev. B* **61**, 10738 (2000). Citroni, M. *et al.* Laser-Induced selectivity for dimerization versus polymerization of butadiene under pressure. *Science* 295, 2058 (2002). Meneghini, C. *et al.* High-pressure structure and electronic transport in hole-doped La$_{3 / 4}$Ca$_{1 / 4}$MnO$_{3}$ perovskites. *Phys. Rev. B* **65**, 012111 (2002). Calvani, P. Optical properties of polarons. *Nuovo Cimento* **24**, num. 8 (2001) and references therein. Congeduti, A. *et al.* Anomalous high-pressure dependence of the Jahn-Teller phonon in La$_{0.75}$Ca$_{0.25}$MnO$_{3}$. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **86**, 1251 (2001). Roudriguez-Martinez, L. M. *et al.* Cation disorder and size effects in magnetoresistive manganese oxide perovskites. *Phys. Rev. B* **54**, R15622 (1997).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that if in a classical accretion disk the thin disk approximation fails interior to a certain radius, a transition from Keplerian to radial infalling trajectories should occur. We show that this transition is actually expected to occur interior to a certain critical radius, provided surface density profiles are steeper than $\Sigma(R) \propto R^{-1/2}$, and further, that it probably corresponds to the observationally inferred phenomena of thick hot walls internally limiting the extent of many stellar accretion disks. Once shears stop, the inner region of radially infalling orbits is naturally expected to be cold. This leads to the divergent focusing and concentration of matter towards the very central regions, most of which will simply be swallowed by the central star. However, if a warm minority component is present, we show through a perturbative hydrodynamical analysis, that this will naturally develop into an extremely well collimated and very fast moving pair of polar jets. A first analytic treatment of the problem described is given, proving the feasibility of purely hydrodynamical mechanisms of astrophysical jet generation. The purely hydrodynamic jet generation mechanism explored here complements existing ideas focusing on the role of magnetic fields, which probably account for the large-scale collimation and stability of jets.'
author:
- |
X. Hernandez$^1$, Pablo. L. Rendón$^2$, Rosa G. Rodríguez-Mota$^2$, A. Capella$^3$\
$^1$Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70–264 C.P. 04510 México D.F. México.\
$^2$Centro de Ciencias Aplicadas y Desarrollo Tecnológico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70–186,\
México D.F. 04510, México.\
$^3$Instituto de Matematicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F. 04510, México
date: 'Released 28/02/2011'
title:
-
- A Hydrodynamical Mechanism for Generating Astrophysical Jets
---
\[firstpage\]
accretion, accretion discs — hydrodynamics — protoplanetary disks — galaxies: jets — ISM: jets and outflows
Introduction {#intro}
============
Astrophysical jets occur over a large range of astrophysical scales, from the stellar Newtonian scales of HH objects (e.g. Reipurth & Bally 2001), to the relativistic cases of microquasars and gamma ray bursts (e.g. Mirabel & Rodriguez 1999, Mészáros 2002), to the Mega-parsec extragalactic scales of AGN jets (e.g. Marscher et al. 2002). Although the processes of propagation and collimation appear to be relatively well understood in terms of the interplay between the hydrodynamics of the problem (Scheuer 1997) and magnetic fields (e.g. Blandford 1990), the precise mechanism of jet generation probably remains as the most uncertain part of the system.
Existing jet generation mechanisms focus on the interaction between the rotating material in the inner regions of the accretion disk and the magnetic field of the central (rotating or otherwise) star, or perhaps an external magnetic field threading the disk. See for example Blandford & Payne (1982), Henriksen & Valls-Gabaud (1994), Meier et al. (2001), Price et al. (2003) for some examples. Although generically successful, detailed comparisons with observations do dot always yield consistent results, e.g. Ferreira et al. (2006). Further, the details of relative orientation of stellar spin, accretion disk and magnetic field configurations, have to be supplied in somewhat highly specific manners.
As an alternative, we explore the possibility of hydrodynamical jet generation mechanism where magnetic fields play no rôle, but only the intrinsic hydrodynamical physics of the interplay between the accretion and the central star wholly determine the characteristics of the jet. The main obstacle to such a scheme is the presence of a centrifugal barrier associated with the angular momentum content of the material in the accretion disk. We show however, that the thin disk approximation for accretion disks, which is equivalent to the assumption of quasi-circular orbits for the disk (e.g. Pringle 1981), is expected to break down internal to a certain critical radius, resulting in a transition to quasi-radial flow for the disk. Once this obstacle has been removed, an analytic first order perturbation treatment serves to demonstrate the feasibility of purely hydrodynamical jets. We show also that many generic features of observed astrophysical jets across a wide range of scales, can be naturally accounted for in the general model presented. The presence of magnetic fields in jet phenomena is evident empirically, however, it is not impossible that their main contribution to the problem could be restricted to the radiation of the jet material and to its long range collimation, with purely hydrodynamical physics playing a part in the actual jet generation mechanisms.
The problem of jet formation has been studied extensively in the context of classical hydrodynamics, most often regarding fluid-body interactions. The appearance of stable coaxial jets resulting from radially-symmetric velocity fields over thin fluid sheets has been established by, among others, Taylor (1960). The rôle played by both the magnitude and the direction of velocity in the formation of this type of jet is the subject of a theoretical study by Glauert (1956), where it is shown that at the point at which the jet forms, a large velocity gradient is observed, and momentum flux is constant, with horizontal momentum being transformed into vertical momentum. Similar results were obtained by King & Needham (1994), who provide an asymptotic study of a jet formed by a vertical plate accelerating into a semi-infinite expanse of stationary fluid of finite depth with a free surface and a gravitational restoring force. It is found that as the fluid approaches the plate in a horizontal direction, a gradual rise in free-surface elevation occurs. Eventually, a thin region is reached where vertical velocity dominates horizontal velocity as a consequence of the fluid finding it more difficult to overcome the inertia it would meet by continuing its horizontal motion than escaping vertically towards the low-pressure free surface. In essence, this same mechanism can allow for jet formation in the context of the problem we study here.
In section 2 we develop the criterion for transition to radial flow in a standard accretion disk. The perturbative solution to the resulting problem of a radially infalling disk is then developed in section 3. Section 4 presents trajectories for particular cases of the solution obtained in the previous section, in dimensionless units. Finally, we give our conclusions in section 5,
The transition to Radial Flow
=============================
We start from a standard thin accretion disk where material orbits on quasi-circular Keplerian orbits around a central star of mass M. Assuming axial symmetry and cylindrical coordinates, the total angular momentum of a ring at radius $R$ of width $\Delta R$ will be:
$$L=2 \pi R^{3} \Delta R \Sigma(R) \Omega(R)$$
where $\Sigma$ and $\Omega$ are the surface density and orbital frequency profiles of the disk, respectively. If the breaking torque on a given ring of the disk, due to its exterior ring is denoted by $\tau(R)$, the total breaking torque on the ring at radius $R$ will be:
$$\tau_{B} = \tau(R+ \Delta R) - \tau(R).$$
The rate of change of the angular momentum of the ring in question can now be calculated as:
$$\dot{L}=~\tau_{B}=~\frac{d\tau}{dR} \Delta R.$$
If at any radius a substantial fraction of the angular momentum of the ring is lost through viscous torques over an orbital period, the assumption of quasi-circular orbits will break down, and the disk will make a transition to mostly radial orbits. This condition can be stated as:
$$\frac{L}{2 \dot{L}}< \frac{2 \pi}{\Omega}.$$
Substitution of equations (1) and (2) into the above yields:
$$R^{3} \Omega^{2} \Sigma < 2 \left( \frac{d \tau}{dR} \right),$$
as the condition for the onset of radial flow in the disk.
We can now introduce a model for the torques in terms of the rate of shear and the effective viscosity $\nu$ (e.g. Von Wiezsäcker 1943, Pringle 1981) as:
$$\tau=2 \pi R^{3} \nu \Sigma \frac{d\Omega}{dR}.$$
Taking $\Omega^{2} = GM/R^{3}$ to substitute the above equation into condition (5) gives
$$(GM)^{1/2} \Sigma < -6 \pi \frac{d}{dR} \left(R^{1/2} \nu \Sigma \right).$$
To proceed further we can take for example, $\nu=$constant and a model for the disk surface density profile of the form:
$$\Sigma=\Sigma_{0} \left(\frac{R}{R_{0}} \right)^{-n},$$
of the type often used in models of accretion disks when fitted to observations (e.g. Hughes et al. 2009). Use of the two above forms for $\nu$ and $\Sigma(R)$ reduces condition(7) to:
$$6 \pi \nu (n-1/2) > (G M R)^{1/2}.$$
The above condition will always be met in any accretion disk with $n>1/2$, interior to a transition radius $R_{T}$ given by:
$$R_{T} = \frac{[6 \pi \nu (n-1/2)]^{1/2}}{GM}.$$
It is interesting that directly observed accretion disks have spectra which when modelled typically yield $n \sim 1$, in general $0<n<1.5$, e.g. Hartmann et al. (1998), Lada (2006), Hughes et al. (2009). This leads one to expect the transition to radial flow to occur in many of the stellar accretion disks, interior to radii given by equation (10).
Finally, we can explore the consequences of introducing an $\alpha$ prescription (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973) into condition (9), $\nu=\alpha c H$, where $c$ and $H$ are respectively the sound speed and height of the disk, with $\alpha$ a dimensionless number, yielding the dimensionless condition:
$${\mathcal M} \left( \frac{R}{H} \right) < 6 \pi \alpha (n-1/2),$$
where ${\mathcal M}$ is the ratio of the Keplerian orbital velocity in the disk to the sound speed in the disk. Although the above condition is only valid for constant $\nu$, it illustrates the equivalence between the assumption of quasi-circular orbits for the material in the disk, and the assumption that the disk is thin. We see that the breakdown of the assumption of quasi-circular orbits (condition 9), corresponds to the point where disk is fat.
Writing ${\mathcal M}$ in astrophysical units as:
$${\mathcal M} = 1.8 \left( \frac{200 K}{T} \right)^{1/2} \left( \frac{50 AU}{R} \right)^{1/2}
\left( \frac{M}{0.5 M_{\odot}} \right)^{1/2},$$
we see that for values typical of what is observationally inferred for the stellar mass and position and temperature of accretion disk walls in T Tauri protoplanetary disks, those indicated in the above equation (e.g. D’Alessio et al. 2005, Espaillat et al. 2007, Hughes et al 2009), one should expect the breakdown of the thin disk approximation (${\mathcal M} >>1$, e.g. Pringle 1981), and consequently, the transition to radial flow.
Taking typical inferred values for $R/H$ at the wall of $\sim 5$ (e.g. D’Alessio et al. 2005, Espaillat et al. 2007, Hughes et al 2009), we can now write the condition for the transition to radial flow, locally at the wall, as:
$$10=6 \pi \alpha (n-1/2).$$
We see that for a standard value of $n\sim1$ the above equation implies a reasonable value of $\alpha \sim 1$ at the thick wall, significantly higher than the values of $\sim 0.01$ and lower, which apply for the body of the thin accretion disk beyond this radius. A substantial increase of $\alpha$ as $R/H$ decreases is expected in any turbulence driven viscosity model for accretion disks, e.g. Firmani, Hernandez & Gallagher (1996), in the context of galactic disks.
In terms of the debate surrounding the inference of inner holes in observed accretion disks, many solutions have been proposed in terms of disk clearing mechanisms; grain growth (e.g. Strom et al. 1989, Dullemond & Dominik 2005), photoevaporation (e.g. Clarke et al. 2001), magnetorotational instability inside-out clearing (e.g. Chiang & Murray-Clay 2007, Dutrey et al. 2008), binarity (e.g. Ireland & Kraus 2008) and planet-disk interactions (e.g. Rice et al. 2003). None of the above is entirely satisfactory, as noted by Hughes et al. (2009), mostly due to their incompatibility with a steady state solution. An alternative solution under the proposed scenario, is that there is no actual disk material clearing, only a transition to radial flow at the thick wall, and consequently a shear-free flow interior to this point. Once the disk heating mechanism is removed, as one should expect from the analysis presented in this section, the inner disk disappears from sight.
Hydrodynamical Jet Solutions
============================
We shall now model the physical situation resulting from the scenario described above as an axially symmetrical distribution of cold matter in free fall towards a central star of mass $M$. Taking a spherical coordinate system with $\theta$ the angle between the positive vertical direction and the position vector $\vec{r}$ we have:
$$\frac{1}{r^{2}} \frac{\partial(r^{2} \rho V)}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{r sin(\theta)}\frac{\partial(sin(\theta) \rho U)}
{\partial \theta}=0,$$
$$V\frac{\partial V}{\partial r} +\frac{U}{r}\frac{\partial V}{\partial \theta} -\frac{U^{2}}{r}=
-\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial P}{\partial r} - \frac{G M}{r^{2}},$$
$$V\frac{\partial U}{\partial r} +\frac{U}{r}\frac{\partial U}{\partial \theta} +\frac{V U}{r}=
-\frac{1}{r \rho}\frac{\partial P}{\partial \theta},$$
for the continuity equation, and the radial and angular components of Euler’s equation. In the above, $V$, $U$, $\rho$ and $P$ give the radial velocity, angular velocity, matter density and pressure, respectively. We have neglected temporal derivatives, as we are interested at this point, in the characteristics of steady state solutions. We take as a background state a free-falling axially symmetrical distribution of cold gas, described by $V_{0}=-(2GM/r)^{1/2}$, $U_{0}=0$ and $\nabla \vec{P_{0}}=0$, a consistent solution to eqs.(15) and (16). Having ignored the inclusion of the radius at which the transition to radial flow takes place in the choice of $V_{0}$ limits the validity of the analysis to radial scales along the plane of the disk much smaller than $R_{T}$. This is justified by the fact that jets appear as phenomena extremely localised towards $R \rightarrow 0$. We now take a density profile given by:
$$\rho_{0}(r,\theta)=f(r)g(\theta),$$
were $f(r)$ is a dimensionless function of $r$ and $g(\theta)$ describes the polar angle dependence of the infalling material, for example, one can ask for $g(\theta=\pi/2)=\bar{\rho}_{0}$, diminishing symmetrically towards the poles. The choice of this last function will determine the details of the problem, and can be thought of as something of the type
$$g(\theta)=\bar{\rho}_{0}e^{-\left( \frac{\theta- \pi/2}{\sqrt{2} \theta_{0}} \right)^{2}}$$
with $\bar{\rho}_{0}$ a normalisation constant and $\theta_{0}$ a form constant describing the flattening of the disk of infalling material. However, we shall mostly leave results indicated in terms of $g(\theta)$. The continuity equation (14) now fixes $f(r)$ through:
$$-\frac{g(\theta)}{r^{2}} \frac{d}{d r} \left[ (2 G M)^{1/2} r^{3/2} f(r) \right]=0,$$
and hence $f(r) r^{3/2} =cte.$, which completes the description of the background state through:
$$\rho_{0}(r,\theta)=\left( \frac{\bar{r}}{r} \right)^{3/2} g(\theta),$$
with $\bar{r}$ a constant which determines the point at which $g(\theta=\pi/2)$ $\Rightarrow$ $\rho_{0}=\bar{\rho}_{0}$.
We shall now analyse the behaviour of a fraction of somewhat hotter material, through a first order perturbation analysis of the above solution. This small fraction could represent the last of the material to fully cool, or result from the irradiation of the central star onto the upper and lower surfaces of the radially infalling disk, as described by e.g. Hollenbach et al. (1994) or Alexander et al. (2006) for the standard case of Keplerian accretion disks, in connection with the problem of disk photoevaporation. In the above it is shown that ionizing radiation from the star generically creates an ionized layer on the surface of the disk.
Regarding the evolution of this component, we shall also be interested interested in a steady state solution given by:
$$V(r,\theta)=V_{0}(r) + V_{1}(r, \theta),$$
$$U(r,\theta)=0 + U_{1}(r,\theta),$$
$$\rho(r,\theta) = \rho_{0}(r,\theta) +\rho_{1}(r,\theta),$$
where quantities with subscript (1) denote the perturbation on the background solution. Writing eqs.(14), (15) and (16) to first order in the perturbation one obtains after rearranging terms:
$$g(\theta) \frac{\partial \left(r^{1/2} V_{1}\right)}{\partial r} -
B\frac{\partial \left( r^{3/2} \rho_{1} \right)}{\partial r}=
\frac{-1}{r^{1/2} sin(\theta)} \frac{\partial \left( sin(\theta) g(\theta) U_{1} \right) }{\partial \theta},$$
$$\frac{\partial \left( V_{1}/r^{1/2} \right) }{\partial r} = \frac{A r^{3/2}}{g(\theta)} \frac{\partial \rho_{1}}{\partial r},$$
$$\frac{\partial \left( r U_{1} \right)}{\partial r} = \frac{A r^{2}}{g(\theta)} \frac{\partial \rho_{1}}{\partial \theta},$$
In the above we have assumed an isothermal equation of state for the perturbation $P_{1}=c^{2}\rho_{1}$, an assumption often used in the modeling of astrophysical jets, e.g. the T Tauri jets observed and modelled by Hartigan et al. (2004). This idealised case serves to illustrate clearly the consequences of the physical setup being considered, as it allows for an analytic solution. The generalisation to more realistic adiabatic, polytropic or otherwise equations of state can be performed numerically, and can be expected to yield qualitatively similar results, although interesting differences in the details can be expected to emerge, which will be considered latter. In the above three equations we have introduced the constants $A=(c^{4}/2GM\bar{r}^{3})^{1/2}$ and $B=(2GM/\bar{r}^{3})^{1/2}$.
To make further progress we can attempt a solution through the method of separation of variables, proposing a solution of the form: $V_{1}=V_{r} V_{\theta}$, $U_{1}=U_{r} U_{\theta}$, $\rho_{1}=\rho_{r} \rho_{\theta}$. This ansatz yields two independent systems of three equations each, one for the radial, and one for the angular dependences of the perturbations. The radial equations become:
$$\frac{d \left( V_{r} /r^{1/2} \right)}{d r} = C_{r} r^{3/2} \frac{d \rho_{r}}{d r},$$
$$\frac{d(r U_{r})}{d r} = C_{\theta} r^{2} \rho_{r},$$
$$\frac{d \left( r^{1/2} V_{r} \right)}{d r} -\left( \frac{B C_{r}}{A}\right)\frac{d\left(r^{3/2} \rho_{r}\right)}{d r}=
C_{c} \frac{U_{r}}{r^{1/2}}.$$
While the angular ones result in:
$$V_{\theta} g(\theta) =\left( \frac{A}{C_{r}} \right) \rho_{\theta},$$
$$\frac{d \rho_{\theta}}{d \theta} = \left( \frac{C_{\theta}}{A} \right) g(\theta) U_{\theta},$$
$$\frac{d\left( sin(\theta) g(\theta) U_{\theta}\right)}{d \theta} =-C_{c} sin(\theta) g(\theta) V_{\theta}.$$
In splitting the radial and angular dependences of the perturbed continuity equation, eq.(24), we have used the result of the angular equation of the perturbed radial Euler equation, eq.(30). The constants $C_{r}$, $C_{\theta}$ and $C_{c}$ are the separation constants of the problem. Firstly we turn to the angular system, which allows an exact solution.
We can take eq.(32) and substitute into it the product $g(\theta)U_{\theta}$ from eq.(31), and the product $g(\theta)V_{\theta}$ from eq.(30) to obtain an equation involving only $\rho_{\theta}$:
$$\frac{d^{2} \rho_{\theta}}{d \theta^{2}} + cot(\theta)\frac{d \rho_{\theta}}{d \theta} +
\left(\frac{C_{c}C_{\theta}}{C_{r}} \right)\rho_{\theta} =0,$$
having solution:
$$\rho_{\theta} = c_{1} P_{m}(cos(\theta)) +c_{2} Q_{m}(cos(\theta)).$$
In the above equation $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ are normalisation constants, and $P_{m}$ and $Q_{m}$ are the Legendre polynomials of the first and second kinds, respectively. The index of these functions is given by the relation $2m=(4C_{T}+1)^{1/2} -1$, where $C_{T}=(C_{c} C_{\theta}/C_{r})$. As typical of separation of variables problems, we see the solution as an eigenvalue problem, with the separation constants determining the order of the solution function. The requirement of axial symmetry forces $m$ to be even. Any such desired angular distribution for $\rho_{\theta}$ can now be constructed as an infinite series of the above functions. For simplicity we analyse the case of $m=2$ $(C_{T}=6)$, $c_{1}=\bar{\rho}_{\theta}$, $c_{2}=0$:
$$\rho_{\theta} = \bar{\rho}_{\theta} (3 cos^{2}(\theta)-1 )$$
This will result in slightly less material along the plane of the disk, and slightly more along the poles, for the total density $\rho=\rho_{0}+\rho_{1}$, with respect to the background state $\rho_{0}$. At this point eqs.(30) and (31) can be used to obtain:
$$V_{\theta} = \left( \frac{A \bar{\rho}_{\theta}}{C_{r}} \right) \left( \frac{3cos^{2}(\theta)-1}{g(\theta)} \right)$$
$$U_{\theta}=- \left( \frac{6 A \bar{\rho}_{\theta}}{C_{\theta}} \right) \left( \frac{cos(\theta)sin(\theta)}{g(\theta)} \right)$$
The case of the radial system is more cumbersome, as the linear operator which appears is of third order. A good approximation can be obtained by discarding the term on the right hand side of eq.(29), which can then be readily integrated to give:
$$V_{r}=\left( \frac{B C_{r}}{A} \right) r \rho_{r}.$$
In the above we have taken the integration constant which appears as being equal to zero, from requiring $V_{r} \rightarrow 0$ for $\rho_{r} \rightarrow 0$. Substituting the above relation for $V_{r}$ into eq.(27) leads to:
$$\frac{d \rho_{r}}{d r} \left[ \left(\frac{B}{A} \right)r -r^{2} \right] + \left(\frac{B}{A} \right)\frac{\rho_{r}}{2} =0.$$
The second term in the above equation can be dismissed for $r<2GM/c^{2}$, which is in any case the validity regime defined by having previously neglected the right hand side of eq.(29), as it is easy to check from the final complete solution. In this regime we now obtain:
$$\rho_{r}=\bar{\rho}_{r} \left( \frac{\bar{r}_{\rho}}{r}\right)^{1/2},$$
$$V_{r}=\left( \frac{B C_{r}}{A} \right) \bar{\rho}_{r} \bar{r}_{\rho}^{1/2} r^{1/2},$$
Where $\bar{r}_{\rho}$ is a characteristic radius at which $\rho_{r}=\bar{\rho}_{r}$. Now from eq.(28),
$$U_{r} = \left( \frac{2 C_{\theta} \bar{\rho}_{r} \bar{r}_{\rho}^{1/2} }{5} \right) r^{3/2}.$$
In the above equation we have also taken the integration constant as zero, from requiring $U_{r} \rightarrow 0$ for $r \rightarrow 0$. Choosing without loss of generality the two characteristic radii $\bar{r}$ and $\bar{r}_{\rho}$ both equal to $GM/c^{2}$, we can now write the full solution as:
$$\rho_{1}=\bar{\rho}_{J}\left( \frac{G M}{c^{2} r} \right)^{1/2} \left(3cos^{2}(\theta)-1 \right),$$
$$V_{1}=\left( \frac{\bar{\rho}_{J}}{\bar{\rho}_{0}} \right)\left( \frac{2c^{4}r}{GM} \right)^{1/2}
\left( \frac{3cos^{2}(\theta)-1 }{g_{\theta}} \right),$$
$$U_{1}=-\left( \frac{12 \bar{\rho}_{J}}{5\bar{\rho}_{0}} \right) \left( \frac{r}{GM} \right)^{3/2}
\left( \frac{c^{4}cos(\theta)sin(\theta)}{2^{1/2}g_{\theta}} \right),$$
where we have introduced $\bar{\rho}_{J}=\bar{\rho}_{\theta} \bar{\rho}_{r}$ and $g_{\theta}$ as the angular part of $g(\theta)$, $g(\theta)/\bar{\rho}_{0}$. The full solution can be seen to depend only on the two parameters $\bar{\rho}_{0}$ and $\bar{\rho}_{J}$, normalisation constants for the densities of the background state and the perturbation, with the velocities of the perturbation solution depending only, and linearly, on the ratio $Q=2^{1/2} \bar{\rho}_{J} / \bar{\rho}_{0}$, which is expected to be small, beyond natural dependences on the physical parameters of the problem, $M$ and $c$.
We see form eq.(45) that the angular velocity will be zero only for $\theta=\pi/2$, $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\pi$. Thus, movement along the plane of the disk will remain along the plane, but also, along the poles movement will be exclusively radial. This last point, together with the positive sign of the radial velocity along the poles, provides for a well collimated jet along the poles. From eq.(44) we see that one has only to ask for a background state where matter is concentrated on the plane of the disk with relatively empty poles, e.g. $g(\theta) \rightarrow 0$ for $\theta \rightarrow 0$ and $\theta \rightarrow \pi$, in order to obtain extremely large ejection velocities along the poles. The axial symmetry condition imposed on eq.(34) guarantees both axial symmetry and symmetry above and below the plane of the disk for the full solution. We see also that if one takes higher orders for $m$, the index of the Legendre polynomial solution to eq.(33), one obtains increasingly more critical angles at positions intermediary between $0$ and $\pi/2$ at which the angular velocity goes to zero. In fact, more complex geometries and asymmetric jets appear, as inferred observationally by e.g. Ferreira et al. (2006), if $m$ is taken as an arbitrary real number. However, modelling a situation where a polar jet dominates the ejection identifies $m=2$ as the leading order.
Notice that the qualitative behaviour of the solution is guaranteed by the exactness of the angular solution, the approximation $r<2GM/c^{2}$ used for solving the radial problem will only introduce an error in the actual values of the radial velocities outside of $r<2GM/c^{2}$, but will not change the fact that velocities will be of radial infall along the plane of the disk, $\theta=\pi/2$, and of radial outflow along the poles (where the background solution becomes very small), the jet solution for $\theta=0,\pi$.
The two constants of the problem, $\bar{\rho}_{0}$ and $\bar{\rho}_{J}$, can now be calculated once a choice of $g(\theta)$ is specified, from the two conditions:
$$\dot{M}_{a} =2\pi \int_{0}^{\pi} \rho_{0}V_{0} sin(\theta) r^{2} d\theta,$$
$$\dot{M}_{j} =2\pi \int_{0}^{\theta_{J}} \rho_{1}V_{1} sin(\theta) r^{2} d\theta,$$
where $\theta_{J}$ is a suitable angle defining the opening of the jet, in all likelihood very small, as will be see in the following section. In the above equations $\dot{M}_{a}$ gives the matter accretion rate onto the central star, and $\dot{M}_{j}$ the matter ejection rate due to the jet. Dimensionally, the two quantities above will scale as:
$$\dot{M}_{a} =C_{a} \frac{ \left( \pi G M \right)^{2} }{c^{3}} \bar{\rho}_{0}$$
$$\dot{M}_{j} =C_{j} \frac{ \left( \pi G M \right)^{2} }{c^{3}} \frac{\bar{\rho}_{J}^{2}}{\bar{\rho}_{0}},$$
where $C_{a}$ and $C_{j}$ are two dimensionless constants which will depend on the choice of $g_{\theta}$, and which would be expected to be of order 1.
Qualitatively, this type of model naturally furnishes a tight disk-jet connection (c.f. eq. 44) e.g., as now firmly established in microquasars and AGN jets (see e.g. Marscher et al. 2002, Chatterjee et al. 2009). In the above systems bursts of enhanced jet activity are seen to follow temporal dips in disk luminosity output after small characteristic delay times. In the present model, such a situation would be expected if the critical radius for transition to radial flow in the disk made a sudden transition to higher values. Again, the drop in disk output might not reflect the disk material disappearing (in this case being swallowed by the central black hole, as sometimes proposed), but simply fading from view as heating mechanisms shut down, then naturally enhancing jet activity as the effective $\dot{M}_{a}$ increases.
Particular Solutions
====================
In order to present a sample of the trajectories expected in the model, we turn to the full solution to the problem, eqs.(21) and (22), but written in dimensionless form:
$$\frac{d {\cal R} }{d {\cal T}} =\frac{-1}{ {\cal R}^{1/2}}+Q {\cal R}^{1/2} \left(\frac{3 cos^{2}(\theta)-1}{g_{\theta}} \right),$$
$$\frac{d \theta}{d {\cal T}} =- \frac{6}{5}Q {\cal R}^{1/2} \left(\frac{sin(\theta)cos(\theta)}{g_{\theta}} \right).$$
The above remain in spherical coordinates, where ${\cal R} = r c^{2}/GM$ and ${\cal T}=t c^{3}/GM$. A choice of $Q$ and $g_{\theta}$ now allows to numerically integrate trajectories. We take $Q=5 \times 10^{-2}$, and
$$g_{\theta}=e^{-\left( \frac{\theta- \pi/2}{\sqrt{2} \theta_{0}} \right)^{2}}$$
with $\theta_{0} = 0.38$ radians, or about 22 degrees. This values is far from representing an extremely flattened disk, and hence one which does not force the jet solution, see eq.(44). With these parameters, and initial conditions specified in dimensionless cylindrical coordinates as $R=2$ and $Z$ ranging from 0.4 to 1.4, we solve eqs.(50) and (51) through a finite differences scheme to plot figure 1. For this case, the two lowermost curves present trajectories which all turn downwards to converge onto the central star. These are solutions which essentially follow the background state, infalling onto the bottom of the potential well. As one raises the initial value of $Z$ however, a threshold is crossed and curves of a very different type ensue, the six upper jet trajectories shown in figure 1. We see the large pressure gradients associated with the distribution of matter in the background solution acting to break the fall of the incoming material, turn it back, and then accelerate it vertically through the vertical density gradients. These jet trajectories present a relatively constant thickening at the base of the jet of order $R=0.5$, which then rapidly diminishes with height to eventually yield an extremely collimated structure which rapidly narrows to below the resolution limit of the solution, notice the horizontal displacement of the vertical axis.
Note also that although the region beyond ${\cal R}=2$ lies outside the approximation of the radial solution, the qualitative form of the full solution will not deviate much from what is shown in figure 1, due to the exact character of the angular solution. The final well collimated jet ejecting material along the poles will be a generic feature.
We can also measure the velocities along the jet, which scale linearly with the value of $Q$, and are sensitive to the choice of $g_{\theta}$ and in this case $\theta_{0}$. For the cases presented here values upwards of $10^{3} c$ commonly appear along the jet, much larger than the values of order $c$ present in the disk. These radial velocities are somewhat inexact, but will always present large values for background state configurations which empty towards the poles (c.f. eq.44), and will present larger values as the vertical density gradients increase. Notice that the generic validity of the solution proposed does not require that all of the disk material should loose all of its angular momentum at the critical radius $R_{T}$, only that some of the disk material should loose most of its angular momentum at that point. Any minor, residual angular momentum remaining on the disk fraction which forms the jet will only establish a finite jet cross-sectional area through the appearance of a centrifugal barrier, which will present only a small correction on the scenario given here. Still, the empirical presence of spectroscopically studied accretion disks truncated interior to certain critical radii suggests the very substantial reduction of the shears in that region, as will be the case when a transition to radial flow takes place.
In going back to eqs.(50) and (51) we see that one expects
$$Q^{2} \sim \frac{\dot{M}_{j}}{\dot{M}_{a}}.$$
It is reassuring that for the jets associated with T Tauri stars for example, values of $\dot{M}_{j} / \dot{M}_{a}$ of between 0.1 and 0.01 on average are observationally inferred and therefore of order $0.3<Q<0.1$ (e.g Hartigan et al. 1996, Gullbring et al. 1998, Hartigan et al. 2004, Ferreira et al. 2006). These are compatible with the value of $Q=5 \times 10^{-2}$ used to plot fig. (1), and hence ones which will readily yield jet solutions. Given the substantial spread in the inferred values quoted above, we see that vales of $10^{-3}$ or even $10^{-4}$ occur. We note that for smaller values of $Q$ the jet becomes more centrally localised, making the numerical problem of integrating trajectories challenging. In general, thin disk jet solutions will appear for lower values of $Q$, or conversely, jet solutions for low values of $Q$ require thinner disks, small values of $\theta_{0}$, for the function $g_{\theta}$ used in the example.
Figure 2 presents an example with a much smaller value of $Q=10^{-4}$, requiring a slightly thinner disk with $\theta_{0}=0.24$, close to 14 degrees. The figure shows a contour plot for dimensionless momentum flow, the product of the dimensionless velocity, $d {\cal R} /d {\cal T} $, and density in units of $M/ {\cal R}^{3}$ from eqs. (43) and (44). Within the disk contours span the from $-8$ to $-0.1$, in intervals of $0.05$, while in the jet contours span from $2\times 10^{-4}$ to $10^{-2}$ in intervals of $5 \times 10^{-5}$. The disk appears clearly identified as being made up of infalling material, while the jet shows up as a region of pure outflow carrying little mass, but at velocities of order $10^{5} c$. Again, we see the main features of the solution being well established in the region interior to $R<2$, the details of the radial part of the solution beyond this region will be somewhat off, within the qualitative solution shown.
The long range stability and coherence of these structures lies outside the scope of this work, and is in all probability furnished by a series of mechanisms extensively explored in the literature including angular momentum, magnetic fields and pressure containment of the surrounding medium, e.g. Begelman et al. (1984), Blandford (1990), Falle (1991), Kaiser & Alexander (1997).
In going to the more extreme jet phenomena associated with stellar black holes (e.g Mirabel & Rodriguez 1999), quasars (e.g. Marscher 2002) and gamma ray bursts (e.g. Mészáros 2002), it is natural to expect the ideas presented here to apply, but amplified to a much more extreme regime by the appearance of corresponding relativistic and general relativistic effects, to first order, the shift in the divergence in the potential from $r=0$ in the Newtonian case to $r=r_{s}$ in the general relativistic one. It is therefore natural to expect purely hydrodynamic jet generation mechanism to apply across all classes of astrophysical objects, specially given the qualitative scalings and similarities which appear over all astrophysical jet classes (e.g. Miarabel & Rodriguez 1999, Mendoza, Hernandez & Lee 2005), in addition to the magnetically driven processes traditionally found in the literature.
Notice from eq.(44) the intimate link between the jet velocity and the physical state of the infalling material, $c$ and $\dot{M}_{a}$ through $\bar{\rho}_{0}$. This implies that temporal variations in the parameters of the infalling disk will result in temporal variations in the density and velocity of the jet material, in a way described by eqs.(43) and (44). The above can serve as a physical description of the key processes relevant to the formation of internal shocks in astrophysical jets, the main ingredient behind phenomena such as HH objects and gamma ray bursts.
Conclusions {#ccl}
===========
We show that given a radially infalling accretion disk, a purely hydrodynamical jet ensues.
We calculate the condition for the transition from quasi-circular to quasi-radial flow in a standard accretion disk, and show it will always occur for power law surface density profiles of the form $\Sigma \propto R^{-n} $, interior to a critical radius, provided $n>1/2$.
Comparison with inferred inner holes in observed accretion disks yields results consistent with our estimates for the above transition radius, the point where shears in the flow (and hence heating) end.
Well collimated jets readily appear, proving the existence of purely hydrodynamical mechanisms for the generation of astrophysical jets.
acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Xavier Hernandez acknowledges the hospitality of the Observatoire de Paris for the duration of a sabbatical stay during which many of the ideas presented here were first developed. Pablo Rendon and Rosa Rodriguez acknowledge financial support from project PAPIIT IN110411 DGAPA UNAM. Antonio Capella acknowledges financial support from project PAPIIT IN101410 DGAPA UNAM.
[99]{}
Alexander, R. D., Clarke, C. J., Pringle, J. E., 2006, MNRAS, 369 229
Begelman, M. Blandford, R. D., Rees, M., 1984, Rev. Mod. Phys., 56, 256
Blandford, R. D., Payne, D. G., 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883
Blandford, R. D., 1990, in “Active Galactic Nuclei, eds. Courvoisier, T. L., Mayor, M., Saas-Fee Advanced Course 20 (Les Diablerets: Springer-Verlag), 161-275
Chatterjee, R., et al., 2009, ApJ, 704, 1689
Chiang, E., Murray-Clay, R., 2007, Nat. Phys., 3, 604
Clarke, C. J., Gendrin, A., Sotomayor, M., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 485
D’Alessio, P., et al., 2005, ApJ, 621, 461
Dullemond, C. P., Dominik, C., 2005, A&A, 434, 971
Dutrey, A., et al., 2008, A&A, 490, L15
Falle, S. A. E. G., 1991, MNRAS, 250, 581
Ferreira, J., Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., 2006, A&A, 453, 785
Firmani, C., Hernandez, X., Gallagher, J., 1996, A&A, 308 403
Glauert, M. B., 1956, J. Fluid Mech., 1, 625
Gullbring, E., Hartmann, L., Briceño, C., Calvet, N., 1998, ApJ, 492, 323
Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Gullbring, E., D’Alessio, P., 1998, ApJ, 495, 385
Hartigan, P., Edwards, S., Gandhour, L., 1995, ApJ, 452, 736
Hartigan, P., Edwards, S., Pierson, R., 2004, ApJ, 609, 261
Henriksen, R. N., Valls-Gabaud, D., 1994, MNRAS, 266, 681
Hollenbach, D., Johnstone, D., Lizano, S., Shu, F., 1994, ApJ, 428, 654
Hughes, A. M., Wilner, D. J., Calvet, N., D’Alessio, P., Claussen, M. J., Hogerheijde, M. R., ApJ, 2007, 664, 536
Hughes, A. M., et al., 2009, ApJ, 698, 131
Ireland, M. J., Kraus, A. L., 2008, ApJ, 678, L59
Keiser, C. R., Alexander, P., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 215
King, A. C., Needham, D. J., 1994, J. Fluid Mech., 268, 89
Lada, C., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1574
Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Gomez, J., Aller, M. F., Teräsranta, H., Lister, M. L., Stirling, A. M., 2002, Nature, 417, 625
Meier, D. L., Koide, S., Uchida, Y., 2001, Science, 291, 84
Mendoza, S., Hernandez, X., Lee, W. H., 2005, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis., 41, 61
Mészáros, P., 2002, ARA&A, 40, 137
Mirabel, I. F., Rodriguez, L. F., 1999, ARA&A, 37, 409
Price, D. J., Pringle, J. E., King, A. R., 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1223
Pringle, J. E., 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137
Reipurth, B., Bally, J., 2001, ARA&A, 39, 403
Rice, W. K. M., Wood, K., Armitage, P. J., Whitney, B. A., Bjorkman, J. E., 2003, MNRAS, 324, 79
Shakura, N. I., Sunyaev, R. A., 1973, A&A, 24, 337
Scheuer, P. A. G., 1974, MNRAS, 166, 513
Strom, K. M.,Strom, S. E., Edwards, S., Cabrit, S., Skrutskie, M. F., 1989, AJ, 97, 1451
Taylor, G., 1960, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 259, 1
von Weizsäcker, C. F., 1943, [*Z. Astrophys*]{}., 22, 319
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Andreas Fring and Takanobu Taira\
Department of Mathematics, City, University of London,\
Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK\
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
title: 'Massive gauge particles versus Goldstone bosons in non-Hermitian non-Abelian gauge theory'
---
Introduction
============
Our main objective is to extend the Englert-Brout-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble mechanism [englert1964broken,higgs1964brokena,higgs1964brokenb,guralnik1964global]{}, hereafter simply referred to as Higgs mechanism, to non-Hermitian field theories with a local non-Abelian gauge symmetry using a pseudo-Hermitian approach. We focus on the two key aspects for which the mechanism was originally developed, that is to give mass to gauge vector bosons and at the same time prevent the existence of massless Goldstone bosons. When keeping the symmetry global one may adopt different starting points for the study of Goldstone phases, such as the field content of local operators, a scattering matrix based on a particle picture or an explicit Lagrangian.
For instance, two dimensional conformal quantum field theories are well understood in terms of their operator content characterized by infinite-dimensional algebras of local conformal transformations [Goddard:1986bp]{}. A large class of such theories, minimal models [@BPZ], are known to possess a finite operator content and the treatment of unitary and non-unitary theories is formally identical. The simplest massive non-unitary field theory consisting of only one real scalar field describing in its ultraviolet limit the critical point of the Ising model in a purely imaginary magnetic field, the Yang-Lee edge singularity [@YL1; @YL2], is known for a long time to correspond to the non-Hermitian Lagrangian [fisher1978yang,cardy1985conformal]{}$$\mathcal{L}=\int d^{d}x\left[ \frac{1}{2}\left( \bigtriangledown \phi
\right) ^{2}+i(h-h_{c})\phi +\frac{1}{3}ig\phi ^{3}\right] . \label{phi3}$$Exact scattering theories for two-dimensional models have also been identified [@cardy1989s], that can be used to probe the ultraviolet limit most easily by employing the thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz [zamothermo]{}. These techniques have also been employed for hypothetical scattering matrices for massless Goldstone fermions (Goldstinos) [zamo1991tri]{} and scattering matrices that reduce to them in certain limits [@TBAHSG1999]. Despite the fact that the Mermin-Wagner theorem prevents the validity of the Goldstone theorem in dimensions $d\leq 2$, it was argued in [@jacobsen2003] that for certain symmetry groups, e.g. $SO(N)$ with $N<2$, this restriction can be circumvented so that Goldstone phases maybe be identified in such type of non-Hermitian systems.
Rather than taking an operator content or a scattering matrix as a starting point, one may of course also commence directly with a non-Hermitian Lagrangian. From that perspective it is natural to try to extend techniques and methods developed for the treatment of non-Hermitian quantum mechanics [@Geyer; @Bender:1998ke; @Alirev; @PTbook] to a quantum field theory setting. Such considerations have been carried out for a scalar field theory with imaginary cubic self-interaction terms [@benderphi31; @shalabyphi31], with a Lagrangian identical to (\[phi3\]) but for $h=h_{c}$ without a linear term, deformed harmonic oscillators [@bender2018p], non-Hermitian versions with a field theoretic Yukawa interaction [alexandre2015non,rochev2015hermitian,korchin2016Yuk,laureyukawa]{}, free fermion theories with a $\gamma _{5}$-mass term and the massive Thirring model [@bender2005dual], $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric versions of quantum electrodynamics [@bender1999nonunitary; @bender2000solution; @milton2013pt] and other types of $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric quantum field theories in higher dimensions [@benderH2018p] than (\[phi3\]).
Here we are especially interested in complex non-Hermitian scalar field theories and the question of how the aforementioned Goldstone phases manifest in these theories, together with the subsequent extension to the Higgs mechanism [englert1964broken,higgs1964brokena,higgs1964brokenb,guralnik1964global]{} in Abelian and non-Abelian gauge theories. These issues have been studied recently by various groups in different approaches, which differ from their very onset: Given a generic action for a complex scalar field theory of the form $\mathcal{I}=\int d^{4}x\mathcal{L}(\phi ,\phi ^{\ast })$, one has two options in a Hermitian theory to derive the equations of motion by means functional variation, either to calculate $\delta \mathcal{I}/\delta \phi =0$ or $\delta \mathcal{I}/\delta \phi ^{\ast }=0$. Since the standard $\mathcal{CPT}$-theorem [@schwinger51] applies, the two resulting equations are the same. In contrast, in a non-Hermitian theory one no longer has $\mathcal{I}=\mathcal{I}^{\ast }$, so that the two equations are not only not the same, but in addition one also has the new options $\delta \mathcal{I}^{\ast
}/\delta \phi =0$ and $\delta \mathcal{I}^{\ast }/\delta \phi ^{\ast }=0$. In the first approach, we refer to as the “*surface term approach*”, it was suggested [@alexandre2018spontaneous; @alex2019] to take of only the two equations resulting from $\delta \mathcal{I}/\delta \phi =0$, $\delta
\mathcal{I}^{\ast }/\delta \phi ^{\ast }=0$ and neglect the remaining two. As the resulting equations are in general not compatible, the authors propose to use some non-vanishing surface terms to compensate for the discrepancy. The second approach [@mannheim2018goldstone] consists of taking $\delta \mathcal{I}/\delta \phi =0$ or $\delta \mathcal{I}/\delta
\phi ^{\ast }=0$, with the consequence that the real vacuum becomes complex. Here we follow an approach, we refer to as the “*pseudo-Hermitian approach*” [@fring2019pseudo; @fring2020goldstone], more aligned to the procedure pursued in non-Hermitian versions of quantum mechanics, in which one employs so-called Dyson maps [@Dyson] to transform a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian to a Hermitian Hamiltonian. Since the action $\mathcal{I}$ contains a Lagrangian, rather than a Hamiltonian, we need to first Legendre transform the complex Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ to a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$, carry out the similarity transformation by means of a Dyson map, while preserving equal time commutation relations, to obtain a Hermitian Hamiltonian $\mathfrak{h}$, which we then inverse Legendre transform to a real Lagrangian $\mathfrak{l}$ $$\mathcal{L}\overset{\text{Legendre}}{\rightarrow }\mathcal{H}\overset{\text{Dyson}}{\rightarrow }\eta \mathcal{H}\eta ^{-1}=\mathfrak{h}\overset{\text{Legendre}^{-1}}{\rightarrow }\mathfrak{l.} \label{1}$$A consistent set of equations of motion is then obtained by functionally varying the action $\mathfrak{s}=\int d^{4}x\mathfrak{l}(\varphi ,\chi )$ involving this real Lagrangian $\mathfrak{l}$ with respect to the real field components $\varphi $, $\chi \in \mathbb{R}$ of the complex scalar field $\phi =1/\sqrt{2}(\varphi +i\chi )$, i.e. $\delta \mathfrak{s}/\delta \varphi
=0$ and $\delta \mathfrak{s}/\delta \chi =0$. In order to perform the Legendre transformation, one needs to canonically quantize the theory first. In the case of a Lagrangian possessing an Abelian $U(1)$-symmetry, the easiest way is to fix the gauge is a Coulomb gauge and subsequently perform the Legendre transformation. In the case of a non-Abelian gauge theory, one may perform the BRST quantization and then carry out the Legendre transformation. It turns out that in both cases, our similarity transformations are equivalent to performing a linear re-definition of the fields in our Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$. In [@mannheim2018goldstone] similar transformations were used, albeit for a theory with complex vacuum.
In regards to the study of the Goldstone theorem and the extension to the Higgs mechanism we are then interested in the eigenvalue spectra of the non-Hermitian squared mass matrix $M^{2}$, obtained by expanding around the symmetry breaking or preserving vacua. The reality of these eigenvalues is then guaranteed by a modified $\mathcal{CPT}$ -symmetry of the original action $\mathcal{I}$. Hence, we distinguish in the usual fashion between $\mathcal{CPT}$ *-symmetry regime* characterized by $M^{2}$ commuting with this symmetry operator and its eigenstates being simultaneous eigenstates of the symmetry operator. When the latter is not the case, one refers to that regime as the $\mathcal{CPT}$*-spontaneously broken regime* in which some eigenvalues become complex conjugate pairs. The points in parameter space at which this occurs are commonly referred to as *exceptional point*. As physical masses are positive and real, we also require the eigenvalues of $M^{2}$ to be non-negative. We encounter a special behaviour at the transition points when the eigenvalues become zero, which we referred to [@fring2019pseudo; @fring2020goldstone] as *zero exceptional points of type I and type II*. At the type I points the mass matrix is non-diagonalizable and the continuous symmetry is broken, whereas at the type II points the mass matrix can be diagonalized and the vacuum with broken continuous symmetry re-acquires the symmetry at this point.
Using the above mentioned approaches, the Higgs mechanism was previously studied for Abelian [@mannheim2018goldstone; @alexanHiggs] as well as non-Abelian gauge theories [@alex2019] leading to slightly different findings. In [@mannheim2018goldstone] the interesting observation made, that the mass of the gauge vector boson vanishes at the zero exceptional point, was not confirmed in [@alexanHiggs]. In addition, for the non-Abelian gauge theories it was found in [@alex2019] that the Higgs mechanism even applies in the spontaneously broken $\mathcal{CPT}$ -regime. Our aim is here to compare the various observations made using these alternative approaches with a pseudo-Hermitian approach, extend the studies to other models, symmetries and representations within this framework.
Pseudo-Hermitian approach to the Higgs mechanism
================================================
In this section we commence by investigating the same model considered in [@alex2019] using, however, a pseudo-Hermitian method to compare our results with the findings in [@alex2019]. We will observe that the mass spectrum of the fields in the $SU(2)$ fundamental representation coincides with the one found in [@alex2019], but the masses for the gauge vector bosons differ and in particular vanish at the zero-exceptional points. We will extend this model to incorporate a $SU(N)$-symmetry and continue to observe this phenomena also for these more general systems. Finally we will consider a new model for which the fields are taken in a different representation, the adjoint representation of $SU(2)$, making similar observations.
A $SU(N)$-model in the fundamental representation
-------------------------------------------------
We start by applying the pseudo-Hermitian approach to a model with local $SU(2)\times U(1)$-symmetry previously studied using the surface term approach in [@alex2019]. The model corresponds to the gauged version of the one for which the Goldstone mechanism was studied in [fring2019pseudo]{} $$\mathcal{L}_{2}=\sum_{i=1}^{2}\left\vert D_{\mu }\phi _{i}\right\vert
^{2}+m_{i}^{2}|\phi _{i}|^{2}-\mu ^{2}(\phi _{1}^{\dagger }\phi _{2}-\phi
_{2}^{\dagger }\phi _{1})-\frac{g}{4}(|\phi _{1}|^{2})^{2}-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu
\nu }F^{\mu \nu }.$$Here $g,\mu \in \mathbb{R}$, $m_{i}\in \mathbb{R}$ or $m_{i}\in i\mathbb{R}$ are constants. When compared to [@fring2019pseudo] we have replaced here as usual the standard derivatives $\partial _{\mu }$ by covariant derivatives $D_{\mu }:=\partial _{\mu }-ieA_{\mu }$, involving a charge $e\in \mathbb{R}$ and the Lie algebra valued gauge fields $A_{\mu }:=\tau
^{a}A_{\mu }^{a}$. Here the $\tau ^{a}$, $a=1,2,3$, are taken to be Pauli matrices, which when re-defined as $i(-1)^{a+1}\tau ^{a}$ are the generators of $SU(2)$. We have also added the standard Yang-Mills term comprised of the Lie algebra valued field strength $F_{\mu \nu }:=\partial _{\mu }A_{\nu
}-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }-ie[A_{\mu },A_{\nu }]$. The two complex scalar fields $\phi _{i}$ are taken to be in the representation space of fundamental representation of $SU(2)$. The model described by $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ admits a global continuous $U(1)$-symmetry, a local continuous $SU(2)$-symmetry and two discrete antilinear $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetries as described in more detail in [@fring2019pseudo]. Crucially $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ is not Hermitian, which at this point is simply to be understood as not being invariant under complex conjugation. The Abelian version of $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ was discussed in [mannheim2018goldstone,fring2020goldstone]{}.
As argued in [@fring2019pseudo], it is useful to decompose the complex fields into their real components $\phi _{j}^{k}=1/\sqrt{2}(\varphi
_{j}^{k}+i\chi _{j}^{k})$ with $\varphi _{j}^{k}$, $\chi _{j}^{k}\in \mathbb{R}$. At the same time we also generalize the local symmetry group from $SU(2) $ to $SU(N)$, while keeping the $U(1)$-symmetry global, obtaining the complex Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{L}_{N}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{2}\left\{ \left[
\partial _{\mu }\varphi _{j}^{k}+e(A_{\mu }\chi _{j})^{k}\right] \left[
\partial ^{\mu }\varphi _{j}^{k}+e(A^{\mu }\chi _{j})^{k}\right] ^{\ast
}\right. \label{LN} \\
&&+\left[ \partial _{\mu }\chi _{j}^{k}-e(A_{\mu }\varphi _{j})^{k}\right] \left[ \partial ^{\mu }\chi _{j}^{k}-e(A^{\mu }\varphi _{j})^{k}\right]
^{\ast }\!\!\!-2\!\func{Im}\left[ \left[ \partial _{\mu }\varphi
_{j}^{k}+e(A_{\mu }\chi _{j})^{k}\right] ^{\ast }\!\left[ \partial ^{\mu
}\chi _{j}^{k}-e(A^{\mu }\varphi _{j})^{k}\right] \right] \notag \\
&&+\left. m_{j}^{2}\left[ (\varphi _{j}^{k})^{2}+(\chi _{j}^{k})^{2}\right]
-2i\mu ^{2}(\varphi _{1}^{k}\chi _{2}^{k}-\chi _{1}^{k}\varphi _{2}^{k})-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^{k}\left( F^{k}\right) ^{\mu \nu }\right\} -\frac{g}{16}\left[ \sum_{k=1}^{N}(\varphi _{1}^{k})^{2}+(\chi _{1}^{k})^{2}\right]
^{2} \notag\end{aligned}$$A crucial feature of $\mathcal{L}_{N}$ is that its $\mathcal{CPT}$-invariance translates into pseudo-Hermiticity [Mostafazadeh:2002pd,Alirev]{}, meaning that it can be mapped to a Hermitian Lagrangian $\mathfrak{l}_{N}$ by means of the adjoint action of a Dyson map $\eta $ as $\mathfrak{l}_{N}=\eta \mathcal{L}_{N}\eta ^{-1}$. This may be achieved by the slightly modified version of the Dyson map used in [mannheim2018goldstone,fring2019pseudo]{} $$\eta _{N}^{\pm }=\exp \left( \pm \sum_{i=1}^{N}\int d^{3}x\Pi ^{\varphi
_{2}^{i}}(t^{\prime },\Vec{x})\varphi _{2}^{i}(t^{\prime },\Vec{x})+\Pi
^{\chi _{2}^{i}}(t^{\prime },\Vec{x})\chi _{2}^{i}(t^{\prime },\Vec{x})\right) \text{ }.$$We denote here the time-dependence by $t^{\prime }$ to indicate that commutators are understood as equal time commutators. Hence $\eta _{N}^{\pm
} $ is not to be viewed as explicitly time-dependent as discussed in much detail for instance in [@frith2019time]. The adjoint action of $\eta
_{N}^{+}$ on the individual fields maps as $$\varphi _{1}^{k}\rightarrow \varphi _{1}^{k}~,~~\varphi _{2}^{k}\rightarrow
-i\varphi _{2}^{k}~,~~\chi _{1}^{k}\rightarrow \chi _{1}^{k}~,~~\chi
_{2}^{k}\rightarrow -i\chi _{2}^{k}~,~~A_{\mu }\rightarrow A_{\mu
}~,~~~~k=1,\ldots ,N.$$Thus, we convert the complex Lagrangian into the real Lagrangian$$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathfrak{l}_{N}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{2}(-1)^{j+1}\left\{ \left\vert
\partial _{\mu }\varphi _{j}+e(A_{\mu }\chi _{j})\right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert
\partial _{\mu }\chi _{j}-e(A_{\mu }\varphi _{j})\right\vert ^{2}+m_{j}^{2}\left[ \varphi _{j}\cdot \varphi _{j}+\chi _{j}\cdot \chi _{j}\right]
\right. ~~~~~~ \\
&&-\left. 2\!\func{Im}\left[ \left[ \partial _{\mu }\varphi _{j}+e(A_{\mu
}\chi _{j})\right] ^{\ast }\!\cdot \left[ \partial ^{\mu }\chi _{j}-e(A^{\mu
}\varphi _{j})\right] \right] +(-1)^{j}2\mu ^{2}(\varphi _{1}\cdot \chi
_{2}-\chi _{1}\cdot \varphi _{2})\right\} \notag \\
&&-\frac{g}{16}\left[ \varphi _{1}\cdot \varphi _{1}+\chi _{1}\cdot \chi _{1}\right] ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }. \notag\end{aligned}$$We may transform here directly the Lagrangian rather than the Hamiltonian, as suggested in (\[1\]), since the kinetic energy term is real and the complexity only result from the potential term. Introducing $N$ two-component fields of the form $$\Phi ^{k}:=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\varphi _{1}^{k} \\
\chi _{2}^{k}\end{array}\right) ~,~~\Psi ^{k}:=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi _{1}^{k} \\
\varphi _{2}^{k}\end{array}\right) ,~~~\ ~~~k=1,\ldots ,N,$$we can re-write the Lagrangians $\mathcal{L}_{N}$ and $\mathfrak{l}_{N}$ more compactly. Defining the $2\times 2$ matrices $$H_{\pm }:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-m_{1}^{2} & \pm \mu ^{2} \\
\pm \mu ^{2} & m_{2}^{2}\end{array}\right) ~,~~\mathcal{I}:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1\end{array}\right) ~,~~E:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 0\end{array}\right) , \label{HIE}$$the real Lagrangian $\mathfrak{l}_{N}$ acquires the form$$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{l}_{N} &=&\frac{1}{2}\left\{ \left[ \partial _{\mu }\Phi +e\mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi \right] ^{\ast }\mathcal{I}\left[ \partial ^{\mu
}\Phi +e\mathcal{I}A^{\mu }\Psi \right] +\left[ \partial _{\mu }\Psi -e\mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Phi \right] ^{\ast }\mathcal{I}\left[ \partial ^{\mu
}\Psi -e\mathcal{I}A^{\mu }\Phi \right] \right. \\
&&-2\func{Im}\left[ \left[ \partial _{\mu }\Phi +e\mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi \right] ^{\ast }\left[ \partial ^{\mu }\Psi -e\mathcal{I}A^{\mu }\Phi \right]
\right] \left. -{\Phi }^{T}H_{+}\Phi -{\Psi }^{T}H_{-}\Psi \right\} \notag
\\
&&-\frac{g}{16}\left( {\Phi }^{T}E\Phi +{\Psi }^{T}E\Psi \right) ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }. \notag\end{aligned}$$We have simplified here the index notation by implicitly contracting, keeping in mind that we are summing over two separate index sets $k\in
\{1,\ldots ,n\}$ and $j\in \{1,2\}$. For instance, we set $$\begin{aligned}
(IA_{\mu }\Phi )_{\alpha }^{k} &\rightarrow &\mathcal{I}_{\alpha \beta
}A_{\mu }^{kj}\Phi _{\beta }^{j}, \\
\left[ \partial _{\mu }\Phi _{j}^{k}+e\left( \mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi \right)
_{j}^{k}\right] ^{\ast }\mathcal{I}_{j\ell }\left[ \partial ^{\mu }\Phi
_{\ell }^{k}+e\left( \mathcal{I}A^{\mu }\Psi \right) _{\ell }^{k}\right]
&\rightarrow &\left[ \partial _{\mu }\Phi +e\mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi \right]
^{\ast }\mathcal{I}\left[ \partial ^{\mu }\Phi +e\mathcal{I}A^{\mu }\Psi \right] ,~~~~~~~ \\
{\Phi ^{k}}^{T}H_{+}\Phi ^{k} &\rightarrow &{\Phi }^{T}H_{+}\Phi .\end{aligned}$$In this formulation we may think of the real and complex Lagrangians, $\mathfrak{l}_{N}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{N}$, as being simply related by a kind of Wick rotation in the field-configuration space $$\Phi ^{k}\rightarrow T\Phi ^{k}~,~~\Psi ^{k}\rightarrow T\Psi ^{k},~~\text{with }T:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -i\end{array}\right) .$$
### The symmetry breaking vacuum
We take now at first $N=2$ and determine the vacuum solutions $\Phi
_{0}^{k},\Psi _{0}^{k}$ by solving $\delta V=0$, which amounts to solving the two equations $$\left( H_{-}+\frac{g}{4}R^{2}E\right) \Psi _{0}^{k}=0~,~~\left( H_{+}+\frac{g}{4}R^{2}E\right) \Phi _{0}^{k}=0~,~~~\ ~~~k=1,2, \label{vacuum equations}$$with $R^{2}:=\left\vert \left( \phi _{1}^{0}\right) ^{1}\right\vert
^{2}+\left\vert \left( \phi _{1}^{0}\right) ^{2}\right\vert ^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{2}{\Phi _{0}^{k}}^{T}E\Phi _{0}^{k}+{\Psi _{0}^{k}}^{T}E\Psi
_{0}^{k}$=const. Hence in the real component field configuration space the vacuum manifold is a $S^{3}$-sphere with radius $R$. Consequently, we may consider the equations (\[vacuum equations\]) as two eigenvalue equations. Thus, besides the trivial $SU(2)$-invariant vacuum $\Phi _{0}^{k}=\Psi
_{0}^{k}=0$, $k=1,2$, we must have zero eigenvalues in both equations, which is equivalent to requiring $$R^{2}=\frac{4}{gm_{2}^{2}}(\mu ^{4}+m_{1}^{2}m_{2}^{2}).$$Since $R^{2}$ is positive, this equality imposes restrictions on the parameters $g,\mu $ and the possible choices for $m_{1}\in \mathbb{R}$, $m_{2}\in i\mathbb{R}$ or $m_{1}\in i\mathbb{R}$, $m_{2}\in \mathbb{R}$. The corresponding, suitably normalized, null vectors are$$\Psi _{0}^{2}=N_{\Psi }\left(
\begin{array}{c}
m_{2}^{2} \\
\mu ^{2}\end{array}\right) ,~~\ \Phi _{0}^{2}=N_{\Phi }\mathcal{I}\Psi _{0}^{2}. \label{phi}$$Imposing now the constraint on $R^{2}$ as stated after equation (\[vacuum equations\]), a possible solution is $\Phi _{0}^{1}=\Phi _{0}^{2}=\Psi
_{0}^{1}=0$ and $\Psi _{0}^{2}$ as defined in (\[phi\]) with normalization constant $N_{\Psi }=\pm R/m_{2}^{2}$. Hence we recover the symmetry breaking vacuum used in [@fring2020goldstone]. As discussed in more detail in there, this amounts to having utilized the global symmetry of the model without altering the eigenvalues of the mass matrix and to identify a simpler version of the vacuum.
### The Higgs mechanism
Let us now demonstrate how the gauge vector boson acquires a finite mass and how at the same time the emergence of a Goldstone boson is prevented by the Higgs mechanism [englert1964broken,higgs1964brokena,higgs1964brokenb,guralnik1964global]{} in the $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime, at the exceptional points and even in the spontaneously broken $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime. The mechanism breaks down at the two types of zero exceptional points.
Expanding the potential around the vacuum specified at the end of subsection 2.1.1. leads to $$\begin{aligned}
V &=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2}-{\Phi ^{i}}^{T}\left( H_{+}+\frac{g}{4}R^{2}E\right) \Phi ^{i}-{\Psi ^{1}}^{T}\left( H_{-}+\frac{g}{4}R^{2}E\right)
\Psi ^{1} \label{V} \\
&&-{\Psi ^{2}}^{T}\left[ H_{-}+\frac{g}{4}R^{2}E+-\frac{g}{2}(E\Psi
_{0}^{2})^{2}E\right] \Psi ^{2}+\dots \notag\end{aligned}$$As expected, multiplying the Hessians in (\[V\]) by $\mathcal{I}$ gives back the squared mass matrix we found in [@fring2020goldstone]. The kinetic term is almost unchanged except for the term involving $\Psi ^{2}$ $$\begin{aligned}
T &=&\frac{1}{2}\left[ \partial _{\mu }\Phi +e\mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi \right]
^{\dagger }\mathcal{I}\left[ \partial ^{\mu }\Phi +e\mathcal{I}A^{\mu }\Psi \right] +\func{Re}\left\{ \left( \partial _{\mu }\Phi +e\mathcal{I}A_{\mu
}\Psi \right) ^{\dagger }\mathcal{I}\left( e\mathcal{I}A^{\mu }\Psi
_{0}\right) \right\} \\
&&-\func{Im}\left\{ \left( \partial _{\mu }\Phi +e\mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi +e\mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right) ^{\dagger }\left( \partial ^{\mu }\Psi -e\mathcal{I}A^{\mu }\Phi \right) \right\} +\frac{1}{2}e^{2}{\left( A_{\mu
}\Psi _{0}\right) }^{\dagger }\mathcal{I}\left( A^{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right)
\notag\end{aligned}$$The last term corresponds to the mass term of the gauge vector boson that we evaluate to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}e^{2}{\left( A_{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right) ^{\ast }}\mathcal{I}\left(
A^{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right) &=&\frac{1}{2}e^{2}{\left( A_{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right)
^{\ast }}_{\alpha }^{k}\mathcal{I}_{\alpha \beta }{\left( A^{\mu }\Psi
_{0}\right) }_{\beta }^{k} \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}e^{2}\left( A_{\mu }^{\dagger }A^{\mu }\right) ^{kj}\left( {\Psi _{0}}\right) _{\alpha }^{k}\mathcal{I}_{\alpha \beta }\left( {\Psi _{0}}\right) _{\beta }^{j} \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}e^{2}\left( A_{\mu }^{\dagger }A^{\mu }\right) ^{22}\left( {\Psi _{0}}\right) _{\alpha }^{2}\mathcal{I}_{\alpha \beta }\left( {\Psi _{0}}\right) _{\beta }^{2} \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}e^{2}A_{\mu }^{a}A^{b\mu }(\tau ^{a\dagger }\tau ^{b})^{22}\frac{R^{2}}{m_{2}^{4}}\left( m_{2}^{4}-\mu ^{4}\right) \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}m_{g}^{2}A_{\mu }^{a}A^{a\mu },\end{aligned}$$where we used the standard relation $\tau ^{a\dagger }\tau ^{b}=\tau
^{a}\tau ^{b}=\delta _{ab}\mathbb{I}+i\varepsilon _{abc}\tau ^{c}$. Therefore we read off the mass of each of the three components of the gauge vector boson as $$m_{g}:=\frac{eR}{m_{2}^{2}}\sqrt{m_{2}^{4}-\mu ^{4}}. \label{gvb}$$In [@fring2020goldstone] we identified the physical regions in the parameter space in which the squared mass matrix has non-negative eigenvalues and in which the Goldstone bosons can be identified. Let us now compare those regions with the values for which the gauge vector boson becomes massive. We immediately see from the expression in (\[gvb\]) that the gauge vector boson remains massless when $\mu ^{4}=m_{2}^{4}$ or when $R=0$, i.e. $\mu ^{4}=-m_{1}^{2}m_{2}^{2}$. The two sets of values correspond precisely to the two types of zero exceptional points, type I and II, respectively, at which the squared mass matrix develops zero eigenvalues. These points are distinct from standard exceptional points where two eigenvalues coalesce and become complex thereafter. Thus the two aspects of the Higgs-mechanism, i.e. giving mass to the gauge vector boson and at the same time preventing the existence of the Goldstone bosons, remain to go hand in hand. In the $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime the mechanism applies, but at the zero exceptional points the Higgs-mechanism breaks down as the Goldstone bosons are not identifiable [@fring2020goldstone] and at the same time the gauge vector boson remains massless. In contrast, at the exceptional point the Goldstone bosons are identifiable [fring2020goldstone]{}, although in a different manner, and the gauge vector bosons become massive.
Let us see this in detail by following [@fring2020goldstone] and replacing $m_{i}^{2}\rightarrow c_{i}m_{i}^{2}$, with $c_{i}=\pm 1$ to account for all possibilities in signs. We found that physical regions only exist for the two cases $c_{1}=-$ $c_{2}=1$ and $c_{1}=-$ $c_{2}=-1$. For the two cases we may then write$$\frac{m_{g}^{2}}{m_{1}^{2}}=c_{2}\frac{4e^{2}}{g}\frac{m_{1}^{6}}{m_{2}^{6}}\left( \frac{m_{2}^{4}}{m_{1}^{4}}-\frac{\mu ^{4}}{m_{1}^{4}}\right) \left(
\frac{\mu ^{4}}{m_{1}^{4}}-\frac{m_{2}^{2}}{m_{1}^{2}}\right) , \label{mg}$$noting that $m_{g}^{2}/m_{1}^{2}$ only depends on the two parameters $m_{2}^{2}/m_{1}^{2}$ and $m_{2}^{4}/m_{1}^{4}$ similarly as the eigenspectrum of the squared mass matrix [@alex2019; @fring2020goldstone]. We require the right hand side of (\[mg\]) to be positive as depicted in depict in figure \[Fig1\].
We observe in figure \[Fig1\] that while the region in which the Goldstone boson can be identified is bounded by exceptional as well as zero exceptional points, the exceptional points lie well inside the region for which the gauge vector boson is massive, i.e. they acquire a mass in the $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime as well as in the spontaneously broken $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime. In the $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime this agrees well with the findings that at these points the would be Goldstone boson is prevented from existing as a massless particle. We may think of the sign change in front of the mass terms, $c_{i}\rightarrow -c_{i}$, that relates the left to the right panel as a phase transition [@landau37].
Let us now demonstrate this behaviour in detail and expand for this purpose the Lagrangian around the symmetry broken vacuum up to second order in the fields $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{l}_{2} &=&\sum_{k=1}^{2}\frac{1}{2}\partial _{\mu }{\Phi ^{k}}^{T}\mathcal{I}\partial ^{\mu }\Phi ^{k}+\frac{1}{2}\partial _{\mu }{\Psi ^{k}}^{T}\mathcal{I}\partial ^{\mu }\Psi ^{k}-\frac{1}{2}{\Phi ^{k}}^{T}\left(
H_{+}+\frac{g}{4}R^{2}E\right) \Phi ^{k} \label{second} \\
&&-\frac{1}{2}{\Psi ^{1}}^{T}\left( H_{-}+\frac{g}{4}R^{2}E\right) \Psi ^{1}-\frac{1}{2}{\Psi ^{2}}^{T}\left( H_{+}+\frac{g}{4}R^{2}E+\frac{g}{2}(E\Psi
_{(0)}^{2})^{2}E\right) \Psi ^{2} \notag \\
&&+e\func{Re}\left[ \partial _{\mu }{\Phi }^{\dagger }(A^{\mu }\Psi _{0})\right] +e\func{Im}\left[ \left( \mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right)
^{\dagger }\partial ^{\mu }\Psi \right] +\frac{1}{2}m_{g}^{2}A_{\mu
}^{a}A^{a\mu }+\dots \notag\end{aligned}$$We recall now from [@fring2020goldstone] that the first two lines of the Lagrangian $\mathfrak{l}_{2}$ can be diagonalized and the Goldstone bosons can be identified in terms of the field content of the model. Furthermore, the Goldstone modes are null eigenvectors of squared mass matrices $$M_{\pm }^{2}:=\mathcal{I}\left( H_{\pm }+\frac{g}{4}R^{2}E\right) ~,$$computed above as $\Psi _{0}^{2}$ and $\mathcal{I}\Psi _{0}^{2}$, so that the Goldstone modes are proportional to these two vectors. The explicit forms of the Goldstone fields were found in [@fring2020goldstone], denoted as $\psi _{5}^{\text{Gb}}$, $\psi _{3}^{\text{Gb}}$and $\psi _{1}^{\text{Gb}}$, therein. We express them here as $$G^{1}:=\frac{e}{m_{g}}\left( {\Psi _{0}^{2}}\right) ^{T}\Phi ^{1}~,~~G^{3}:=\frac{e}{m_{g}}\left( {\Psi _{0}^{2}}\right) ^{T}\Phi ^{2}~,~~G^{2}:=-\frac{e}{m_{g}}\left( {\Psi _{0}^{2}}\right) ^{T}\mathcal{I}\Psi ^{1},$$respectively. As expected for the Higgs mechanism the number of would be Goldstone bosons equals the amount of massive vector gauge bosons. The fact that the Goldstone modes are inverse proportional to the mass of the gauge bosons explains that they can not be identified for massless gauge bosons. Keeping now only the Goldstone kinetic term from the first two lines of the Lagrangian $\mathfrak{l}_{2}$ and the one involving the gauge fields in equation (\[second\]), we obtain $$\mathfrak{l}_{2}=\sum_{a=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2}\partial _{\mu }G^{a}\partial
^{\mu }G^{a}+e\func{Re}\left[ \partial _{\mu }{\Phi }^{\dagger }(A^{\mu
}\Psi _{0})\right] +e\func{Im}\left[ \left( \mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi
_{0}\right) ^{\dagger }\partial ^{\mu }\Psi \right] +\frac{1}{2}m_{g}^{2}A_{\mu }^{a}A^{a\mu }+\dots \label{GA}$$Using the explicit representations of the Pauli matrices, the real and imaginary parts are determined as $$\begin{aligned}
\func{Re}\left[ \partial _{\mu }\Phi ^{T}A^{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right] &=&A_{\mu
}^{a}\func{Re}\left[ \partial _{\mu }\Phi ^{T}\tau ^{a}\Psi _{0}\right]
=A_{\mu }^{1}\partial _{\mu }\Phi ^{T}\tau ^{1}\Psi _{0}+A_{\mu
}^{3}\partial _{\mu }\Phi ^{T}\tau ^{3}\Psi _{0} \\
&=&A_{\mu }^{1}\partial _{\mu }\left( {\Phi ^{1}}\right) ^{T}{\Psi _{0}^{2}}-A_{\mu }^{3}\partial _{\mu }\left( {\Phi ^{2}}\right) ^{T}{\Psi _{0}^{2}}
\notag \\
&=&A_{\mu }^{1}\frac{m_{g}}{e}\partial ^{\mu }G^{1}-\frac{m_{g}}{e}A_{\mu
}^{3}\partial ^{\mu }G^{3} \notag \\
\func{Im}\left[ \left( \mathcal{I}A_{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right) ^{\dagger
}\partial ^{\mu }\Psi \right] &=&A_{\mu }^{a}\func{Im}\left[ \Psi
_{0}^{T}\tau ^{a}\mathcal{I}\partial ^{\mu }\Psi \right] =-i\left( A_{\mu
}^{2}\Psi _{0}^{T}\tau ^{2}\mathcal{I}\partial ^{\mu }\Psi \right) \\
&=&A_{\mu }^{2}\left( {\Psi _{0}^{2}}\right) ^{T}\mathcal{I}\partial ^{\mu
}\Psi ^{1}=-A_{\mu }^{2}\frac{m_{g}}{e}\partial ^{\mu }G^{2}. \notag\end{aligned}$$Finally the Lagrangian in (\[GA\]) can be simplified to$$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{l}_{2} &=&\sum_{a=1}^{3}\frac{1}{2}\partial _{\mu }G^{a}\partial
^{\mu }G^{a}-m_{g}A_{\mu }^{1}\partial ^{\mu }G^{1}+m_{g}A_{\mu
}^{2}\partial ^{\mu }G^{2}-m_{g}A_{\mu }^{3}\partial ^{\mu }G^{3}+\frac{1}{2}m_{g}^{2}A_{\mu }^{a}A^{a\mu }+\dots \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}m_{g}^{2}\left( A_{\mu }^{1}-\frac{1}{m_{g}}\partial _{\mu
}G^{1}\right) ^{2}+\frac{1}{2}m_{g}^{2}\left( A_{\mu }^{2}+\frac{1}{m_{g}}\partial _{\mu }G^{2}\right) ^{2}+\frac{1}{2}m_{g}^{2}\left( A_{\mu }^{3}+\frac{1}{m_{g}}\partial _{\mu }G^{3}\right) ^{2}+\dots \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a=1}^{3}m_{g}^{2}B_{\mu }^{a}B^{a\mu }+\dots , \notag\end{aligned}$$where we defined the new vector gauge particle with component fields $B_{\mu
}^{a}:=A_{\mu }^{a}-\frac{1}{m_{g}}\partial _{\mu }G^{a}$. We may also replace $A_{\mu }^{a}$ by $B_{\mu }^{a}$ in the field strength $F_{\mu \nu }$ so that $A_{\mu }$ can be eliminated entirely from the Lagrangian. We see that the Higgs-mechanism applies as long as $m_{g}\not=0$. However, at the zero exceptional points, not only the gauge boson mass vanishes, but the Higgs mechanism no longer applies, in the sense that we can not remove the degrees of freedom of Goldstone bosons.
We summarize the behaviour we found in the different types of regimes in the following table
EP zero EP I zero EP II
------------------ -- -- ---- ----------- ------------
gauge bosons
Goldstone bosons
Thus we encounter three different types of behaviour: In the $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime, at the standard exceptional points as well as in the spontaneously broken $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime the Higgs mechanism applies in the usual way. However, in the latter regime other particles in the theory become non-physical. At the zero exceptional points the vector gauge bosons remain massless and no Goldstone bosons can be identified in the global theory.
### From $SU(2)$ to $SU(N)$
We will now follow the same line of reasoning as in the previous subsection and generalize our model from possessing a $SU(2)$-symmetry to one with a $SU(N)$-symmetry. For this purpose we simply replace the Pauli matrices in all our expressions by the traceless and skew-Hermitian $N\times N$-matrices corresponding to the $SU(N)$-generators $T^{a}$ with $a=1,\ldots ,(N^{2}-1)$. The vacua are still determined by the solutions of the eigenvalue problem (\[vacuum equations\]) with zero eigenvalue condition $$R^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}{\Phi _{0}^{i}}^{T}E\Phi _{0}^{i}+{\Psi
_{0}^{i}}^{T}E\Psi _{0}^{i}=\text{constant}=\frac{4}{gm_{2}^{2}}(\mu
^{4}+m_{1}^{2}m_{2}^{2}). \label{R2}$$The zero eigenvalue condition implies that the vacuum manifold is a $S^{2N-1} $-sphere with radius $R$. This follows from the fact that $SU(N)$ acts on the $2N$ dimensional space spanned by $(\varphi _{1}^{0})^{i}$, $(\chi _{1}^{0})^{i},i=1,\ldots ,N$, with norm equal to $R^{2}$. On this space $SU(N-1)$ simply permutes the fields amongst themselves, hence acting as a stabilizer or isotropy group. Thus the vacuum manifold corresponds to the coset $SU(N)/SU(N-1)\cong S^{2N-1}$.
As we discussed in detail in [@fring2020goldstone], we may utilize the symmetry of the Lagrangian to transform the vacua into convenient forms without changing the eigenvalue spectrum of the mass matrix. Thus using the generators $T\in SU(N)/SU(N-1)\subset SU(N)$ we may transform the vacuum into the form $$\Phi _{0}^{i}=0,~~~~\Psi _{0}^{i}=\frac{\sqrt{2}R}{\sqrt{N}m_{2}^{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
m_{2}^{2} \\
\mu ^{2}\end{array}\right) ,~~~\ \text{for }i=1,\ldots ,N,$$satisfying the constraint (\[R2\]). Let us now use this $SU(N)$-symmetry breaking vacuum to calculate the mass of the gauge vector boson. Taking the proper $SU(N)$-algebra rather than the physicist’s version, as in the last subsection for $SU(2)$, we also change $e\rightarrow ie$. Considering only the relevant term in the Lagrangian we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{l}_{A} &:&=-\frac{1}{2}e^{2}{\left( A_{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right)
^{\ast i}}\mathcal{I}\left( A^{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right) ^{i} \\
&=&-\frac{1}{2}e^{2}{\left( A_{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right) _{\alpha }^{\ast }}^{i}\mathcal{I}_{\alpha \beta }{\left( A^{\mu }\Psi _{0}\right) }_{\beta }^{i}
\label{gauge mass of su(n) in fund rep} \\
&=&-\frac{1}{2}e^{2}A_{\mu }^{a}A^{b\mu }\left( {T^{a}}^{\dagger
}T^{b}\right) _{ij}\left( {\Psi _{0}}\right) _{\alpha }^{i}\mathcal{I}_{\alpha \beta }\left( {\Psi _{0}}\right) _{\beta }^{j} \notag \\
&=&\frac{1}{N}e^{2}A_{\mu }^{a}A^{b\mu }R^{2}\left( 1-\frac{\mu ^{4}}{m_{2}^{4}}\right) \sum\nolimits_{i,j=1}^{N}\left( {T^{a}}T^{b}\right) _{ij}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$We evaluate the last factor using the identity ${T^{a}}T^{b}=\frac{1}{2N}\delta _{ab}\mathbb{I}_{N}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{c=1}^{N^{2}-1}\left(
f_{abc}+ig_{abc}\right) T^{c},$ where the $g_{abc}$ and $f_{abc}$ are completely symmetric and anti-symmetric tensors, respectively. We note that $\sum\nolimits_{i,j=1}^{N}(T^{c})_{ij}=\limfunc{Tr}T^{c}=0$ due to the skew-Hermitian nature of $T^{c}$ and $\sum\nolimits_{i,j=1}^{N}(\mathbb{I}_{N})_{ij}=\limfunc{Tr}\mathbb{I}_{N}=N$. Thus we can diagonalize $\mathfrak{l}_{A}$, computing$$\mathfrak{l}_{A}=\frac{R^{2}}{2N}e^{2}\left( 1-\frac{\mu ^{4}}{m_{2}^{4}}\right) A_{\mu }^{a}A^{a\mu }=\frac{1}{2}m_{g}^{2}A_{\mu }^{a}A^{a\mu },$$from which we read off the masses $m_{g}^{(a)}$ of the $N^{2}-1$ gauge vector bosons. We note that once again they vanish at the zero exceptional points, but now for all $SU(N)$-models.
A $SU(2)$-symmetric model in adjoint representation
---------------------------------------------------
As we have demonstrated, the gauge vector boson becomes massive for the $SU(N)$-symmetric model in the $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime and at the exceptional point when the fields are taken to be in the representation space of the fundamental representation. On the other hand the Higgs-mechanism breaks down at the zero exceptional points. Remarkably it still applies when the $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetry is broken, although in that regime other particles acquire complex masses so that the region is non-physical. Let us now see whether we encounter a similar behaviour when the fields are taken in adjoint representation. We consider here a slightly different non-Hermitian $SU(2)$-invariant Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{2}^{\text{ad}} &=&\frac{1}{2}\limfunc{Tr}\left( D\phi
_{1}\right) ^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\limfunc{Tr}\left( D\phi _{2}\right) ^{2}-\frac{m_{1}^{2}}{2}\limfunc{Tr}(\phi _{1}^{2})+\frac{m_{2}^{2}}{2}\limfunc{Tr}(\phi _{2}^{2})-i\mu ^{2}\limfunc{Tr}(\phi _{1}\phi _{2})
\label{adj_rep_action} \\
&&-\frac{g}{4}\left[ \limfunc{Tr}(\phi _{1}^{2})\right] ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\limfunc{Tr}\left( F^{2}\right) , \notag\end{aligned}$$where as in equation (\[LN\]) we take $g,\mu \in \mathbb{R}$, $m_{i}\in
\mathbb{R}$ or $m_{i}\in i\mathbb{R}$, to be constants. The two complex scalar fields are expressed as $\phi _{i}=\phi _{i}^{a}T^{a}$, $i=1,2$ and $a=1,2,3$, where the $T^{a}$ are the three $SU(2)$-generators in the adjoint representation that, up to a factor of $2$, satisfy the same algebra as the Pauli spin matrices, that is $[T^{a},T^{b}]=i\varepsilon _{abc}T^{c}$. Hence, the adjoint representation is $\left( T^{a}\right)
_{bc}=-i\varepsilon _{abc}$, i.e. to be explicit $$T^{1}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -i \\
0 & i & 0\end{array}\right) ,\quad T^{2}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & i \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-i & 0 & 0\end{array}\right) ,\quad T^{3}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -i & 0 \\
i & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right) , \label{adT}$$such that $\limfunc{Tr}(T^{a}T^{b})=2\delta ^{ab}$ and therefore $Tr(\phi
^{2})=2\sum_{a=1}^{3}\phi ^{a}\phi ^{a}$. The $SU(2)$-symmetry in the adjoint representation for each generator $T^{a}$ is therefore$$\phi _{j}\rightarrow e^{i\alpha T^{a}}\phi _{j}e^{-i\alpha T^{a}}\approx
\phi _{j}-\alpha \varepsilon _{abc}\phi _{j}^{b}T^{c}, \label{s2ad}$$so that the infinitesimal changes to the fields $\phi _{i}^{a}$ result to $$\delta \phi _{i}^{a}=-\alpha \varepsilon _{abc}\phi _{i}^{b}. \label{infphi}$$We will utilize this expression below.
In more a compact form the Lagrangian in (\[adj\_rep\_action\]) can be expressed equivalently as $$\mathcal{L}_{2}^{\text{ad}}=D_{\mu }\phi _{i}^{a}D^{\mu }\phi _{i}^{a}-\phi
_{i}^{a}M_{ij}^{2}\phi _{j}^{a}-g\left( \phi _{i}^{a}E_{ij}\phi
_{j}^{a}\right) ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^{a}\left( F^{\mu \nu }\right)
^{a}, \label{adj_rep_action_2}$$where repeated indices are summed over the appropriate index sets $i,j,\mu
,\nu \in \{1,2\}$ and $a,b\in \{1,2,3\}$. The matrix $M^{2}$ is defined as $$M^{2}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m_{1}^{2} & i\mu ^{2} \\
i\mu ^{2} & -m_{2}^{2}\end{array}\right) ~,~$$and $E$ as in (\[HIE\]). The covariant derivative in the adjoint representation acting on a complex field takes on the form $$(D_{\mu }\phi _{i})^{a}:=\partial _{\mu }\phi _{i}^{a}+e\varepsilon
_{abc}A_{\mu }^{b}\phi _{i}^{c}$$Pursuing here a pseudo-Hermitian approach we perform a similarity transformation on the Lagrangian in (\[adj\_rep\_action\_2\]) with Dyson map $$\eta =\prod_{a=1}^{3}e^{\frac{\pi }{2}\int d^{3}x\Pi _{2}^{a}\phi _{2}^{a}},$$that maps the complex Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{2}^{\text{ad}}$ to a real Lagrangian $$\mathfrak{l}_{2}^{\text{ad}}=(D_{\mu }\phi _{i})^{a}\mathcal{I}_{ij}(D^{\mu
}\phi _{j})^{a}-\phi _{i}^{a}H_{ij}\phi _{j}^{a}-g\left( \phi
_{i}^{a}E_{ij}\phi _{j}^{a}\right) ^{2}, \label{adj_rep_action_real}$$where the matrix $H$ is defined as $$H:=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m_{1}^{2} & \mu ^{2} \\
\mu ^{2} & m_{2}^{2}\end{array}\right) ~,~$$and $\mathcal{I}$ as in (\[HIE\]).
### The $SU(2)$-symmetry preserving and breaking vacua
To find the different types of vacua $\phi ^{0}$, we need to solve again $\delta V=0$. The corresponding functional variation of the Lagrangian in (\[adj\_rep\_action\_real\]) leads to the three sets of equations$$\left( H+2gR^{2}E\right) \left( \phi ^{0}\right) ^{a}=0,~~\ \ \ a=1,2,3,
\label{EVE}$$with $R^{2}:=\left( \phi _{i}^{0}\right) ^{a}E_{ij}\left( \phi
_{j}^{0}\right) ^{a}$. Next to the trivial $SU(2)$-symmetry preserving solution $\left( \phi ^{0}\right) ^{a}=0$, a $SU(2)$-symmetry breaking solution is obtained by requiring $\left( \phi ^{0}\right) ^{a}$ to become a null vector for the matrix $H+2gR^{2}E$, which is the case when $$\left( \phi ^{0}\right) ^{a}=\frac{N_{a}}{m_{2}^{2}}~\left(
\begin{array}{c}
m_{2}^{2} \\
-\mu ^{2}\end{array}\right) ,~~\text{and\quad }R^{2}=\frac{\mu ^{4}-m_{1}^{2}m_{2}^{2}}{2gm_{2}^{2}}, \label{null}$$where the $N_{a}$ are normalization constants. Given the null vector solution in (\[null\]), the relation for $R^{2}$ imposes the additional constraint $R^{2}=N_{1}^{2}+N_{2}^{2}+N_{3}^{2}$ on these constants. Expressing the Lie algebra valued vacuum field $\phi _{i}^{0}=\left( \phi
_{i}^{0}\right) ^{a}T^{a}$ in the matrix form of the adjoint representation (\[adT\]) we obtain$$\phi _{1}^{0}=i\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -N_{3} & N_{2} \\
N_{3} & 0 & -N_{1} \\
-N_{2} & N_{1} & 0\end{array}\right) ~,~~\text{and\quad }\phi _{2}^{0}=-\frac{\mu ^{2}}{m_{2}^{2}}\phi
_{1}^{0}.$$We can now apply the $SU(2)$-symmetry to the vacuum state in the form $$\phi ^{\text{vac}}=\left[ \left( \phi _{1}^{0}\right) ^{1},\left( \phi
_{2}^{0}\right) ^{1},\left( \phi _{1}^{0}\right) ^{2},\left( \phi
_{2}^{0}\right) ^{2},\left( \phi _{1}^{0}\right) ^{3},\left( \phi
_{2}^{0}\right) ^{3}\right] , \label{sbvac}$$so that the infinitesimal changes $\delta \phi _{i}(\phi ^{\text{vac}})$ with (\[infphi\]) and (\[null\]) yield the following states for each generator$$\begin{aligned}
v_{1}^{0} &=&\frac{\alpha _{1}}{m_{2}^{2}}\left(
0,0,N_{3}m_{2}^{2},-N_{3}\mu ^{2},-N_{2}m_{2}^{2},N_{2}\mu ^{2}\right) ,
\label{v1} \\
v_{2}^{0} &=&\frac{\alpha _{2}}{m_{2}^{2}}\left( -N_{3}m_{2}^{2},N_{3}\mu
^{2},0,0,N_{1}m_{2}^{2},-N_{1}\mu ^{2}\right) , \label{v2} \\
v_{3}^{0} &=&\frac{\alpha _{3}}{m_{2}^{2}}\left( N_{2}m_{2}^{2},-N_{2}\mu
^{2},-N_{1}m_{2}^{2},N_{1}\mu ^{2},0,0\right) . \label{v3}\end{aligned}$$Evidently, these states are linearly dependent as$$\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{3}\frac{N_{i}v_{i}^{0}}{\alpha _{i}}=0.$$According to Goldstone’s theorem the states $v_{i}^{0}$ should be null vectors of the squared mass matrix. As only two of them are linearly independent we expect to find two massless Goldstone bosons, which in our gauged model correspond to would be Goldstone bosons. Hence the $SU(2)$-symmetry has been broken down to a $U(1)$-symmetry, so that the group theoretical argument predicts two Goldstone bosons equal to the dimension of the coset $SU(2)/U(1)$.
### The squared mass matrix
Expanding the Lagrangian in equation (\[adj\_rep\_action\_2\]) about the vacuum solution gives $$\mathfrak{l}_{2}^{\text{ad}}=(D_{\mu }\phi _{i})^{a}\mathcal{I}_{ij}(D_{\mu
}\phi _{j})^{a}-\frac{1}{2}\phi _{i}^{a}H_{ij}^{(a)}\phi _{j}^{a}+2(D_{\mu
}\phi _{i}^{0})^{a}\mathcal{I}_{ij}(D^{\mu }\phi _{j})^{a}+(D_{\mu }\phi
_{i}^{0})^{a}\mathcal{I}_{ij}(D_{\mu }\phi _{j}^{0})^{a}+\mathcal{O}(\phi
^{3}), \label{expanded_real_action}$$where the last two terms originate from expanding the covariant kinetic term. The Hessian matrix is then computed by differentiating (\[EVE\]) once more$$\hat{H}_{ij}^{ab}:=\frac{\partial ^{2}\mathcal{V}}{\partial \phi
_{i}^{a}\partial \phi _{j}^{b}}=2H_{ij}+4gR^{2}E_{ij}\delta ^{ab}+8g\left(
E\phi ^{a}\right) _{i}\left( E\phi ^{b}\right) _{j},$$from which we obtain the non-Hermitian squared mass matrix as$$\begin{aligned}
M^{2} &=&\left. \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{I}\hat{H}\right\vert _{\phi ^{\text{vac}}} \\
&=&\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
m_{1}^{2}+2gR^{2}+4gN_{1}^{2} & \mu ^{2} & 4gN_{1}N_{2} & 0 & 4gN_{1}N_{3} &
0 \\
-\mu ^{2} & -m_{2}^{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
4gN_{1}N_{2} & 0 & m_{1}^{2}+2gR^{2}+4gN_{2}^{2} & \mu ^{2} & 4gN_{2}N_{3} &
0 \\
0 & 0 & -\mu ^{2} & m_{2}^{2} & 0 & 0 \\
4gN_{1}N_{3} & 0 & 4gN_{2}N_{3} & 0 & m_{1}^{2}+2gR^{2}+4gN_{3}^{2} & \mu
^{2} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -\mu ^{2} & -m_{2}^{2}\end{array}\right) . \notag\end{aligned}$$The entries in the rows and columns of $M^{2}$ are labeled as $(\phi
_{1}^{1},\phi _{2}^{1},\phi _{1}^{2},\phi _{2}^{2},\phi _{1}^{3},\phi
_{2}^{3})=:\Psi $. The six eigenvalues $\lambda $ of $M^{2}$ are then computed to $$\lambda _{1,2}=0;\qquad \lambda _{3,4}=\frac{\mu ^{4}-m_{2}^{4}}{m_{2}^{2}},\qquad \lambda _{\pm }=\kappa \pm \sqrt{2(\mu
^{4}-m_{1}^{2}m_{2}^{2})+\kappa ^{2}}, \label{EVl}$$with $\kappa :=3\mu ^{4}/2m_{2}^{2}-m_{2}^{2}/2-m_{1}^{2}$. We can now verify that the three vectors $v_{i}^{0}$ in (\[v1\])-(\[v3\]), corresponding to the infinitesimal changes of the vacuum (\[null\]) under the action of the $SU(2)$-symmetry, are indeed null vectors for $M^{2}$. Due to their linear dependence we may choose two of them to be associated with the two massless would be Goldstone bosons.
We note that there are zero exceptional points at $\mu ^{4}=m_{2}^{4}$ when $\lambda _{3,4}=0$, and at $\mu ^{4}=m_{1}^{2}m_{2}^{2}$ when either $\lambda
_{-}=0$ or $\lambda _{+}=0$. The standard exceptional point for which the two eigenvalues $\lambda _{-}$ and $\lambda _{+}$ coalesce occurs when $m_{1}^{2}=3\mu ^{4}/2m_{2}^{2}+m_{2}^{2}/2\pm \mu ^{2}$. We notice that the eigenvalues in (\[EVl\]) do not depend on the choice of the three normalization constants $N_{a}$, since all of these vacua are equivalent as they are related by $SU(2)$-symmetry transformations. The physical regions of the model are determined by the requirement that the eigenvalues are real and positive. Taking now account of the possibility that $m_{i}\in \mathbb{R}
$ or $m_{i}\in i\mathbb{R}$, by allowing for different signs in front of the $m_{i}^{2}$ terms in setting $m_{i}^{2}\rightarrow c_{i}m_{i}^{2}$, we find that the model does not possess any physical region when $c_{1}=c_{2}=\pm 1$ and physical regions when $c_{1}=-c_{2}=\pm 1$ as argued also in the previous section.
### The would be Goldstone bosons
Let us now identify the two massless Goldstone bosons $\psi _{1,2}^{\text{Gb}}$ in the different $\mathcal{PT}$ -regimes by the same procedure as previously explained in [@fring2019pseudo; @fring2020goldstone], with the difference that they will be made to vanish due to the presence of the gauge bosons. In terms of the original scalar fields in the model we identify the Goldstone bosons by evaluating$$\psi _{1,2}^{\text{Gb}}:=\sqrt{(\Psi ^{T}\hat{I}U)_{1,2}(U^{-1}\Psi )_{1,2}},
\label{Gold}$$where the matrix $U$ diagonalizes the squared mass matrix by $U^{-1}M^{2}U=D$ with $\limfunc{diag}D=(\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2},\lambda _{3},\lambda
_{4},\lambda _{-},\lambda _{+})$ and $\limfunc{diag}\hat{I}=\{\mathcal{I},\mathcal{I},\mathcal{I}\}$. In the $\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetric regime the similarity transformation $U$ is well defined by $$U:=(v_{1},v_{2},v_{3},v_{4},v_{-},v_{+}), \label{FMU}$$where the $v_{i}$ are the eigenvectors of $M^{2}$. Up to normalizations constants for each eigenvector, we obtain in our example the concrete expressions$$v_{i}=\left[ \left( m_{2}^{2}+\lambda _{i}\right) \tau _{i1},-\mu ^{2}\tau
_{i1},\left( m_{2}^{2}+\lambda _{i}\right) \tau _{i2},-\mu ^{2}\tau
_{i2},\left( m_{2}^{2}+\lambda _{i}\right) \tau _{i3},-\mu ^{2}\tau _{i3}\right] , \label{vec}$$with $\tau _{12}=\tau _{23}=\tau _{32}=\tau _{43}=0$, $\tau _{33}=\tau
_{42}=\tau _{\pm 1}=-\tau _{13}=-\tau _{22}=N_{1}$, $\tau _{21}=\tau
_{41}=\tau _{\pm 2}=N_{2}$ and $\tau _{11}=\tau _{31}=\tau _{\pm 3}=N_{3}$. Defining a $\mathcal{CPT}$-inner product as $\left\langle a|b\right\rangle _{\mathcal{CPT}}:=a\hat{I}b$ these vectors can be orthonormalized $\left\langle v_{i}|v_{j}\right\rangle _{\mathcal{CPT}}=\delta _{ij}$. For convenience we take now $N_{1}=N_{2}=0$, $N_{3}=R$ and compute$$\psi _{1}^{\text{Gb}}:=\frac{m_{2}^{2}\phi _{1}^{3}+\mu ^{2}\phi _{2}^{3}}{\sqrt{m_{2}^{4}-\mu ^{4}}},\quad \text{and\quad }\psi _{2}^{\text{Gb}}:=\frac{m_{2}^{2}\phi _{1}^{2}+\mu ^{2}\phi _{2}^{2}}{\sqrt{m_{2}^{4}-\mu ^{4}}}. \label{G12}$$We note that $\det U=\lambda _{3}\lambda _{4}(\lambda _{-}-\lambda _{+})\mu
^{6}R^{4}$, indicating the breakdown of these expressions at the exceptional points when $\lambda _{-}=\lambda _{+}$, the zero exceptional point when $\lambda _{3}=\lambda _{4}=0$ and at the trivial vacuum when $R=0$, as previously observed in [@fring2019pseudo; @fring2020goldstone]. However, at the exceptional point we may still calculate the expressions for the Goldstone boson when taking into account that in this case the two eigenvectors $v_{-}$ and $v_{+}$ become identical. In order to obtain two linearly independent eigenvectors when the squared mass matrix is converted into its Jordan normal form we multiply two entries of the vector $v_{+}$ by some arbitrary constants $\alpha \neq \beta $ as $(v_{+})_{1}\rightarrow
\alpha (v_{+})_{1}$ and $(v_{+})_{2}\rightarrow \beta (v_{+})_{2}$. With this change the matrix $U$ becomes invertible as $\det U=\lambda _{3}\lambda
_{4}(\beta -\alpha )(m_{2}^{2}+\kappa )N_{1}^{2}\mu ^{6}R^{2}$. We may now evaluate the expression in (\[Gold\]) obtaining the same formulae for the Goldstone bosons as in (\[G12\]). At the zero exceptional point it is not possible to identify the Goldstone in terms of the original fields in the model.
### The mass of the vector gauge boson
Finally we calculate the mass of the gauge vector bosons by expanding the minimal coupling term in equation (\[adj\_rep\_action\_real\]) around the symmetry breaking vacuum (\[sbvac\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ D_{\mu }(\phi +\phi ^{0})\right] ^{T}\mathcal{I}\left[ D^{\mu }(\phi
+\phi ^{0})\right] &=&(D_{\mu }\phi ^{0})^{T}\mathcal{I}(D^{\mu }\phi
^{0})+\dots \label{gauge} \\
&=&e^{2}\left[ \varepsilon _{abc}A_{\mu }^{b}\left( \phi _{i}^{0}\right) ^{c}\right] \mathcal{I}_{ij}\left( \varepsilon _{ade}{A^{d}}^{\mu }\left( \phi
_{j}^{0}\right) ^{e}\right) +\dots \notag \\
&=&e^{2}\left( A_{\mu }^{a}A^{a\mu }\left( \phi _{i}^{0}\right) ^{b}\mathcal{I}_{ij}\left( \phi _{j}^{0}\right) ^{b}-A_{\mu }^{a}A^{b\mu }\left( \phi
_{i}^{0}\right) ^{b}\mathcal{I}_{ij}\left( \phi _{j}^{0}\right) ^{a}\right)
+\dots , \notag\end{aligned}$$where we used the standard identity $\varepsilon _{abc}\varepsilon
_{ade}=\delta _{bd}\delta _{ce}-\delta _{be}\delta _{cd}$. A convenient choice for the normalization constants $N_{i}$ that is compatible with ([null]{}) and diagonalizes (\[gauge\]) is to set two constants to zero and the remaining one to $R$. For instance, taking $N_{1}=N_{2}=0$, $N_{3}=R$ the only nonvanishing terms in (\[gauge\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
&=&e^{2}\left( A_{\mu }^{1}A^{1\mu }+A_{\mu }^{2}A^{2\mu }\right) \left(
\phi _{i}^{0}\right) ^{3}\mathcal{I}_{ij}\left( \phi _{j}^{0}\right) ^{3}, \\
&=&e^{2}R^{2}\left( 1-\frac{\mu ^{4}}{m_{2}^{4}}\right) \left( A_{\mu
}^{1}A^{1\mu }+A_{\mu }^{2}A^{2\mu }\right) .\end{aligned}$$Thus for $\mu ^{4}\neq m_{2}^{4}$ and $R\neq 0$ we obtain two massive vector gauge bosons $m_{g}^{(1)}$ and $m_{g}^{(2)}$, that is one for each would be Goldstone boson. When $\mu
^{4}=m_{2}^{4}$, that is then model is at the zero exceptional point of type I, the gauge mass vector bosons remain massless. This feature is compatible with our previous observations in [@fring2019pseudo; @fring2020goldstone] and above, that at these points the Goldstone bosons can not be identified.
We notice here that the two massive vector gauge bosons are proportional to the $\mathcal{CPT}$ -inner product of the symmetry broken vacuum solution$$m_{\text{gauge}}^{2}\propto \left\langle 0|0\right\rangle _{\mathcal{CPT}}\propto \phi ^{\text{vac}}\hat{I}\phi ^{\text{vac}}\propto R^{2}\left( 1-\frac{\mu ^{4}}{m_{2}^{4}}\right) . \label{mgauge}$$Hence the vanishing of the mass for the vector gauge bosons at the two types of zero exceptional points can be associated to the vanishing of the $\mathcal{CPT}$ -inner product at these points. This is reminiscent of the vanishing of the $\mathcal{CPT}$ -inner product at the standard exceptional points, which is responsible for interesting phenomena such as the stopping of light at these locations in the parameter space [goldzak2018light,miri2019exceptional]{}. We note, however, a key difference between the two scenarios: While the $\mathcal{CPT}$ -inner product in ([mgauge]{}) is devised on the eigenvector space of squared mass matrix, the latter is a $\mathcal{CPT}$ -inner product on the Hilbert space.
Conclusions
===========
Employing a pseudo-Hermitian approach we found that the Higgs mechanism applies in the usual way in the $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime by giving a mass to the vector gauge bosons and preventing Goldstone bosons to exist, which was also found in [@mannheim2018goldstone; @alexanHiggs] using different approaches. As in [@alexanHiggs] we also observed that in the spontaneously broken $\mathcal{CPT}$-symmetric regime the vector gauge bosons become massive and the Higgs mechanism is in tact. However, as in this regime other particles acquire complex masses it has to be discarded as non-physical for that reason. Even though technically one needs to treat the standard exceptional point differently from the other regimes, the main principle of the Higgs mechanism still holds up. In contrast to the finding in [@alexanHiggs], we observed that the Higgs mechanism breaks down at the zero exceptional points, which was also observed in [mannheim2018goldstone]{}. We find the same characteristic behaviour, i.e. the matching of the amounts of massive vector gauge bosons and would be Goldstone bosons, for the complex scalar fields taken in the fundamental as well as in the adjoint representation. The vanishing of the mass for the vector gauge bosons coincides with the vanishing of the $\mathcal{CPT}$ -inner product on the eigenvector space of squared mass matrix.
Obviously there are many interesting extensions to these investigations, such as for instance the treatment of models with a more involved field content or different types of contituous symmetries.
**Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank Alessandro de Martino for useful comments.
[10]{}
F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{}(9), 321 (1964).
P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields, Phys. Lett. [**12**]{}, 132–133 (1964).
P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{}(16), 508 (1964).
G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, Global conservation laws and massless particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{}(20), 585 (1964).
P. Goddard and D. I. Olive, , Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A1**]{}, 303 (1986).
A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Infinite conformal symmetry in two-dimensional quantum field theory, Nucl. Phys. [**B241**]{}, 333–380 (1984).
C.-N. Yang and T.-D. Lee, Statistical theory of equations of state and phase transitions. I. Theory of condensation, Phys. Rev. [**87**]{}(3), 404 (1952).
T.-D. Lee and C.-N. Yang, Statistical theory of equations of state and phase transitions. II. Lattice gas and Ising model, Phys. Rev. [**87**]{}(3), 410 (1952).
M. E. Fisher, Yang-Lee edge singularity and $\phi$ 3 field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**40**]{}(25), 1610 (1978).
J. L. Cardy, Conformal invariance and the Yang-Lee edge singularity in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}(13), 1354 (1985).
J. L. Cardy and G. Mussardo, S-matrix of the Yang-Lee edge singularity in two dimensions, Phys. Lett. B [**225**]{}(3), 275–278 (1989).
A. B. Zamolodchikov, Thermodynamic Bethe ansatz in relativistic models: Scaling 3-state Potts and Lee-Yang models, Nucl Phys. B [**342**]{}(3), 695–720 (1990).
A. B. Zamolodchikov, From tricritical Ising to critical Ising by thermodynamic Bethe ansatz, Nucl. Phys. B [**358**]{}(3), 524–546 (1991).
O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, A. Fring, C. Korff, and J. L. Miramontes, , Nucl. Phys. [**B575**]{}, 535–560 (2000).
J.-L. Jacobsen, N. Read, and H. Saleur, Dense loops, supersymmetry, and Goldstone phases in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}(9), 090601 (2003).
H. B. Geyer, F. G. Scholtz, and I. Snyman, Quasi-hermiticity and the Role of a Metric in Some Boson Hamiltonians, Czech. J. Phys. [**54**]{}, 1069–1073 (2004).
C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Real Spectra in Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians Having PT Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 5243–5246 (1998).
A. Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-Hermitian Representation of Quantum Mechanics, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. [**7**]{}, 1191–1306 (2010).
C. M. Bender, P. E. Dorey, C. Dunning, A. Fring, D. W. Hook, H. F. Jones, S. Kuzhel, G. Levai, and R. Tateo, PT Symmetry: In Quantum and Classical Physics, (World Scientific, Singapore) (2019).
C. M. Bender, V. Branchina, and E. Messina, Critical behavior of the P T-symmetric $i\phi^3$ quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}(8), 085029 (2013).
A. M. Shalaby, Vacuum structure and P T-symmetry breaking of the non-Hermetian $i\phi^3$ theory, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}(2), 025015 (2017).
C. M. Bender, N. Hassanpour, S. Klevansky, and S. Sarkar, PT-symmetric quantum field theory in D dimensions, Physical Review D [**98**]{}(12), 125003 (2018).
J. Alexandre, C. M. Bender, and P. Millington, Non-Hermitian extension of gauge theories and implications for neutrino physics, JHEP [**2015**]{}(11), 111 (2015).
V. E. Rochev, Hermitian vs PT-Symmetric Scalar Yukawa Model, arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03286 (2015).
A. Y. Korchin and V. A. Kovalchuk, Decay of the Higgs boson to $\tau^- \tau^+$ and non-Hermiticy of the Yukawa interaction, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}(7), 076003 (2016).
L. Gouba, The Yukawa Model in One Space-One Time Dimensions, in [*Mathematical Structures and Applications*]{}, pages 225–233, Springer, 2018.
C. M. Bender, H. F. Jones, and R. J. Rivers, Dual PT-symmetric quantum field theories, Phys. Lett. B [**625**]{}(3-4), 333–340 (2005).
C. M. Bender and K. A. Milton, A nonunitary version of massless quantum electrodynamics possessing a critical point, J. of Phys. A: Math. and Gen. [**32**]{}(7), L87 (1999).
C. M. Bender, K. A. Milton, and V. M. Savage, Solution of Schwinger-Dyson equations for PT-symmetric quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}(8), 085001 (2000).
K. A. Milton, E. K. Abalo, P. Parashar, N. Pourtolami, and J. Wagner, PT-symmetric quantum electrodynamics and unitarity, Phil. Trans. of the Royal Society A: Math., Phys. and Eng. Sciences [**371**]{}(1989), 20120057 (2013).
C. M. Bender, N. Hassanpour, S. P. Klevansky, and S. Sarkar, PT-symmetric quantum field theory in D dimensions, Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}(12), 125003 (2018).
J. Schwinger, The theory of quantized fields. I, Phys. Rev. [**82**]{}(6), 914 (1951).
J. Alexandre, J. Ellis, P. Millington, and D. Seynaeve, Spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Goldstone theorem in non-Hermitian field theories, Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, 045001 (2018).
J. Alexandre, J. Ellis, P. Millington, and D. Seynaeve, Spontaneously breaking non-Abelian gauge symmetry in non-Hermitian field theories, Phys. Rev. D [**101**]{}(3), 035008 (2020).
P. D. Mannheim, Goldstone bosons and the Englert-Brout-Higgs mechanism in non-Hermitian theories, Phys. Rev. D [**99**]{}(4), 045006 (2019).
A. Fring and T. Taira, Pseudo-Hermitian approach to Goldstone’s theorem in non-Abelian non-Hermitian quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. D [**101**]{}(4), 045014 (2020).
A. Fring and T. Taira, Goldstone bosons in different PT-regimes of non-Hermitian scalar quantum field theories, Nucl. Phys. B [**950**]{}, 114834 (2020).
F. J. Dyson, Thermodynamic Behavior of an Ideal Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. [**102**]{}, 1230–1244 (1956).
J. Alexandre, J. Ellis, P. Millington, and D. Seynaeve, Gauge invariance and the Englert-Brout-Higgs mechanism in non-Hermitian field theories, Phys. Rev. D [**99**]{}(7), 075024 (2019).
A. Mostafazadeh, Pseudo-Hermiticity and Generalized PT- and CPT-Symmetries, J. Math. Phys. [**44**]{}, 974–989 (2003).
T. Frith, Time-dependence in non-Hermitian quantum systems, arXiv:2002.01977, PhD Thesis, City, University of London (2019).
L. D. Landau, On the theory of phase transitions, Ukr. J. Phys. [**11**]{}, 19–32 (1937).
T. Goldzak, A. A. Mailybaev, and N. Moiseyev, Light stops at exceptional points, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**120**]{}(1), 013901 (2018).
M.-A. Miri and A. Al[ù]{}, Exceptional points in optics and photonics, Science [**363**]{}(6422), eaar7709 (2019).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[Many technologies emerging from quantum information science heavily rely upon the generation and manipulation of entangled quantum states. Here, we propose and demonstrate a new class of quantum interference phenomena that arise when states are created in and coherently converted between the propagating modes of an optical microcavity. The modal coupling introduces several new creation pathways to a nonlinear optical process within the device, which quantum mechanically interfere to drive the system between states in the time domain. The coherent conversion entangles the generated biphoton states between propagation pathways, leading to cyclically evolving path-entanglement and the manifestation of coherent oscillations in second-order temporal correlations. Furthermore, the rich device physics is harnessed to tune properties of the quantum states. In particular, we show that the strength of interference between pathways can be coherently controlled, allowing for manipulation of the degree of entanglement, which can even be entirely quenched. The states can likewise be made to flip-flop between exhibiting initially correlated or uncorrelated behavior. Based upon these observations, a proposal for extending beyond a single device to create exotic multi-photon states is also discussed.]{}'
author:
- 'Steven D. Rogers'
- Austin Graf
- 'Usman A. Javid'
- Qiang Lin
title: '**Coherent quantum dynamics of systems with coupling-induced creation pathways**'
---
A worldwide effort is underway to unlock the practical and potentially transformative utilities of quantum systems[@OBrien09; @Kurizki15; @Heshami16; @Acin18; @Awschalom18; @OBrien18; @Thompson18]. If successful, a broad range of fields stand to be revolutionized, including information processing [@Milburn01; @Pittman02; @Milburn07; @OBrien09; @OBrien15], simulation [@Aspuru-Guzik12], communication [@Gisin07], security [@Shor00; @Gisin02], and metrology [@Dowling02; @Maccone04]. And as with many nascent technological revolutions, it is not immediately clear which architectures will prove most useful in realizing these developments. It is, however, without doubt that the efficacy of such systems is linked to how proficiently they can generate and manipulate quantum states and their entanglement. To this end, it is especially important that new concepts are developed which carry out these functions while remaining broadly implementable.
As a result of the research interest in this area, numerous methods have been established to generate and manipulate quantum states. A particularly promising approach involves the quantum interference of multiple excitation/creation pathways, which coherently drives a system between states in the time domain. These processes have led to a diverse set of important phenomena, including governing the dynamics of electron spins in semiconductors [@Belykh18], many-body oscillations in cold atoms [@Kuzmich12], superconducting flux qubits in Josephson junctions [@Chiorescu03], inversionless laser oscillations in atomic media [@Zibrov95], and polarization entanglement between photon pairs emitted from biexcitons [@Ward14], to name a few. Here, we propose and demonstrate a new class of quantum interference phenomena that result when quantum states are created in and coherently converted between propagating electromagnetic cavity modes. We realize this concept by implementing a nonlinear optical process between the coupled counter-propagating modes of a microresonator – establishing multiple energy-level pathways for photon pair creation. In doing so, we are able to generate tunable photonic quantum states which are imparted with intrinsic time-evolving path-entanglement and exhibit coherent oscillations in their second-order temporal correlations. In particular, we show that the ability to conveniently tune properties of the optical microresonator translates to a powerful platform for manipulating the state and its entanglement properties via quantum interference. Furthermore, we demonstrate that varying the cavity photon lifetime transforms the system from producing strongly entangled quantum states of light with extremely high-contrast two-photon interference visibility, to a regime where the entanglement and oscillations are quenched and the photon statistics return to the behavior of an uncoupled system. The device may also be configured to flexibly set the probability amplitudes associated with generating photon pairs in one or the other propagation modes, thus providing a means to explore how internal symmetry affects the quantum state and entanglement.
We implement the concept within a whispering-gallery mode (WGM) microresonator that supports spontaneous four-wave mixing (SFWM), a $\chi^{(3)}$ nonlinear optical process [@Boyd08], between three interacting cavity modes (see Fig. \[Fig1\]). As shown in Fig. \[Fig1\](a),(b), photons are coupled from a forward-propagating pump into the pump (p) mode alone, but may spontaneously scatter into the adjacent signal (s) and idler (i) modes, in accordance with energy conservation. When weakly pumped, this vacuum-seeded nonlinear wave mixing process produces correlated bipartite states [@Sharping06; @Leuchs16].
Rotationally symmetric microresonators support two degenerate modes for each resonance frequency, forward (clockwise) and backward (counterclockwise) traveling, which do not exchange energy in the absence of coupling [@Kippenberg02]. Thus, when photons are generated inside an uncoupled microcavity they are restricted to remain in a single propagation mode and are the result of a single creation pathway (see Fig. \[Fig1\](b)), precluding quantum interference. If, however, a coupling is introduced between the counter-propagating modes, then the proposed phenomena may be realized through the establishment of a coherent conversion process. In the specific implementation considered here, photons are converted between the forward (f) and backward (b) propagation modes at a rate of $\beta_m$ (m = p,s,i), which is revealed through, $H_0 = \sum_{m} \lbrace\hbar\omega_{0m}(a_{mf}^\dagger a_{mf}^{} + a_{mb}^\dagger a_{mb}^{}) - \hbar(\beta_m a_{mf}^\dagger a_{mb}^{} + \beta_m^* a_{mb}^\dagger a_{mf}^{})\rbrace$, the unperturbed Hamiltonian (see Appendix C for the complete Hamiltonian).
One of the key consequences of modal coupling is that it erases the ‘which-path’ information from the system. For instance, when a photon exits the device it is fundamentally impossible to know whether it was originally generated in that propagation direction or converted from the counter-propagating mode. The same rule applies to its correlated partner photon, which together form the bipartite state. Thus, the probability amplitudes describing these alternative pathways add coherently, enabling quantum interference [@Mandel95]. To gain further insight into how modal conversion affects the system, we start by examining $H_0$. The coupling-induced energy splitting is apparent after diagonalization, which here, amounts to rotating to a standing-wave basis with eigenvectors composed of symmetric and antisymmetric combinations of traveling waves, and shifted eigenfrequencies, $\omega_{0m}^{\pm} = \omega_{0m} \pm |\beta_m|$. By applying the same transformation to the interaction Hamiltonian, we uncover how the coupling modifies the nonlinear optical processes responsible for generating the tunable photonic quantum states. In the standing-wave basis, the interaction Hamiltonian becomes $H_{int} = \frac{\hbar}{2}g(a_{s-}^\dagger a_{i-}^\dagger + a_{s+}^\dagger a_{i+}^\dagger)(a_{p-}^2 + a_{p+}^2) + \hbar g (a_{s-}^\dagger a_{i+}^\dagger + a_{s+}^\dagger a_{i-}^\dagger)a_{p-}^{} a_{p+}^{} + h.c.$, which reveals the diverse set of photon creation pathways that result from the coherent conversion between modes (see Fig. \[Fig1\](c) and Appendix D).
Another critical feature of modal coupling is the effect it has on the driving field. Although a single external pump is provided, the device splits it into two counter-propagating cavity modes (see Fig. \[Fig1\](a)). Now pairs of photons from either the forward or backward pump modes can participate in the nonlinear optical process. Furthermore, the modal conversion is coherent, and therefore establishes a definite phase between them. To satisfy conservation of angular momentum [@Boyd08], photon pairs are only created in the co-propagating states. Thus, if we assume an undepleted classical pump and closed system, the photonic quantum states generated within the cavity will be of the form, $\ket{\psi(t=0)} = {\rm c_f}\ket{f}_s\ket{f}_i + {\rm c_b}\ket{b}_s\ket{b}_i$, where t=0 denotes the time of creation, and the complex coefficients, ${\rm c_f}$ and ${\rm c_b}$ are set by properties of the pump modes (see Appendix D). However, forward and backward are not eigenstates of the coupled cavity, and thus evolve in time, resulting in a versatile quantum state (see Appendix E),
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{State}
\ket{\psi (t)} =~&\big( {\rm c_f} \cos^2 (\beta t) - {\rm c_b} \sin^2 (\beta t) \big) \ket{f}_\text{s} \ket{f}_\text{i} + \\ &\big( {\rm c_b} \cos^2 (\beta t) - {\rm c_f} \sin^2 (\beta t) \big) \ket{b}_\text{s} \ket{b}_\text{i} + \nonumber \\ & i \left( {\rm c_f}+{\rm c_b} \right)\sin(2 \beta t) \big( \ket{f}_\text{s} \ket{b}_\text{i} + \ket{b}_\text{s} \ket{f}_\text{i} \big), \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
where we have assumed equal coupling rates for the pump, signal and idler modes. In the case that ${\rm c_f} = {\rm c_b}$, then we clearly see the evolution through different Bell states inside the cavity. For instance, at t=0, the state is composed of maximally entangled co-propagating photons, $\ket{\psi(t=0)} \propto \ket{f}_s\ket{f}_i + \ket{b}_s\ket{b}_i$, whereas at t = $\pi/(4\beta)$, the state is composed of maximally entangled counter-propagating photons, $\ket{\psi(t=\pi/(4\beta))} \propto \ket{f}_s\ket{b}_i + \ket{b}_s\ket{f}_i$.
Device realization {#device-realization .unnumbered}
==================
There are numerous systems that may be used to achieve photon generation between coupled counter-propagating modes. Here, we have chosen to demonstrate this phenomenon in a high-Q silicon microdisk. In recent years, there has been interest in silicon microresonators as chip-scale sources, because they can produce ultra-pure photon pairs with high spectral brightness, strong temporal correlations, and emission wavelengths in the telecommunications band [@Clemmen09; @Davanco12; @Azzini12; @Engin13; @Silverstone15; @Grassani15; @Reimer16; @Rogers16]. Additionally, they may be fabricated using complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) compatible processes, indicating the possibility of mass manufacturing [@Popovic15].
![ Coherent oscillations in pair correlations via quantum interference of multiple creation pathways. Cross-correlation waveforms (without background subtraction), measured between (a) signal forward - idler forward (SF-IF), (b) signal forward - idler backward (SF-IB), (c) signal backward - idler forward (SB-IF), and (d) signal backward - idler backward (SB-IB). (e) All pair correlations superposed on a single delay-time axis with the decay envelope in black resulting from the numeric sum of coincidence counts at each time bin. All data are normalized to the peak of the decay envelope. Insets depict path configuration.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of our suspended silicon microdisk, with a radius of approximately 4.5 $\mu$m and thickness of 260 nm, is shown in Fig. \[Fig2\](a). In Fig. \[Fig2\](b) we plot the normalized cavity transmission which exhibits multiple quasi-transverse-magnetic (quasi-TM) mode families, with the pump (p) at $\lambda_p = 1550.6$ nm, signal (s) at $\lambda_s = 1532.5$ nm, and idler (i) at $\lambda_i = 1569.2$ nm. Frequency matching among the interacting cavity modes is achieved by engineering the group-velocity dispersion of the device, consequently enabling efficient SFWM. The nanometer-scale roughness at the surface of the microdisk (see Fig. \[Fig2\](c)) mediates Rayleigh scattering between the traveling modes, leading to a coherent coupling [@Mazzei07], as is evidenced by the formation of doublets in the transmission profiles (see Fig. \[Fig2\](d)-(f)). The intrinsic optical Qs for the pump, signal, and idler resonances are extracted from fits of the doublets in Fig. \[Fig2\](d)-(f), and are respectively found to be, $Q_{0p} = 1.27 \times 10^6$, $Q_{0s} = 1.32 \times 10^6$, and $Q_{0i} = 1.15 \times 10^6$. Additionally, the doublet splittings for the signal and idler modes are respectively found to be $2\beta_s = 1.11$ GHz and $2\beta_i = 0.97$ GHz. The modes exhibit extremely low intrinsic photon decay rates ($\Gamma_0 = \omega_0/Q_0$) of $\Gamma_{0p} = 0.15$ GHz, $\Gamma_{0s} = 0.14$ GHz, and $\Gamma_{0i} = 0.16$ GHz, due to the high quality of the single-crystalline silicon and optimization of the fabrication process. We now see the dual role that the high-Q cavity assumes in our system. Here, the cavity-enhancement serves to greatly strengthen the efficiency and purity of the photon generation process and effectively modifies the Rayleigh scattering cross section [@Weiss95; @Mazzei07], such that scattering is highly preferential between counter-propagating modes. Hence, photon pairs are created within the cavity and experience a strong coherent coupling between the forward and backward modes, providing a convenient platform for demonstrating the proposed quantum interference phenomena.
Quantum interference and coherent oscillations {#quantum-interference-and-coherent-oscillations .unnumbered}
==============================================
Under the assumption of a closed system, the quantum states created within our device exhibit cyclically evolving path-entanglement (see Eq. \[State\]). We now consider what happens when the states are subjected to intrinsic loss, $\Gamma_{0m}$ (m = s,i), and are allowed to leave the microdisk at an external coupling rate, $\Gamma_{em}$. Photon pairs are consequently transmitted into the two propagation directions of the optical waveguide (see Fig. \[Fig1\](a)) and establish the following single photon pathways: signal forward (SF), signal backward (SB), idler forward (IF), and idler backward (IB). Moreover, the cyclically evolving path-entanglement within the device manifests as temporal correlations which coherently oscillate between pairs of propagation pathways, as seen in (see Appendix G),
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{PairCorrelations}
p(t_{sj},t_{ik}) &= \hfill \nonumber \\ &N e^{-\Gamma_{tm}|\tau|}| \zeta_m^{jk} \cos(\beta_m\tau) + \eta_m^{jk} \sin(\beta_m\tau)|^2\end{aligned}$$
where $t_{sj}$ (j = f,b) and $t_{ik}$ (k = f,b) respectively denote the times at which the signal and idler photons are emitted from the microdisk. The subscript $m = s$ when $t_{sj} > t_{ik}$, and $m = i$ when $t_{sj} < t_{ik}$. N is a constant quantifying properties of the device (see Appendix G), $\Gamma_{tm} = \Gamma_{0m} + \Gamma_{em}$ is the total photon decay rate, and $\tau \equiv t_{sj} - t_{ik}$ denotes the delay between signal and idler emission times. The strength of the oscillatory terms in Eq. \[PairCorrelations\] are respectively governed by $\zeta_m^{jk} = c_{m1}^{jk} |a_{pf}|^2 e^{-i\phi} - c_{m2}^{jk} |a_{pb}|^2$ and $\eta_m^{jk} = c_{m3}^{jk} |a_{pf}|^2 e^{-i\phi} - c_{m4}^{jk} |a_{pb}|^2$, with $|a_{pf}|^2$ and $|a_{pb}|^2$ being the energy contained in the forward and backward pump cavity modes, and $\phi$ defining their relative phase. The $c_{mn}^{jk}$ (n = 1 to 4) are constants defined by the coupling and decay rates of the modes (see Appendix G). The compact notation used in Eq. \[PairCorrelations\] emphasizes that although there are many intricate interactions occurring within the device, the pair correlations broadly consist of three main components, in that, they oscillate within a decay envelope set by the cavity photon lifetime, exhibit an oscillation frequency which matches the modal coupling rate, and are manipulated by interfering the counter-propagating intracavity pump waves.
The total photon decay rate is conveniently tuned by varying the gap between the microdisk and waveguide. Initially, we set the total photon decay rate to be significantly less than the modal coupling rate and record the pair correlations for each of the four path configurations, as shown in Fig. \[Fig3\]. The measured correlations exhibit striking differences when compared to the monotonically decaying correlations between photon pairs from all other chip-scale sources studied to date. As predicted (see Eq \[PairCorrelations\]), the photon pairs in each of the path configurations exhibit coherent oscillations with estimated oscillation frequencies that are in good agreement with the measured doublet splittings. Furthermore, we see that biphotons in the co-propagating states (SF-IF & SB-IB) are highly correlated at zero delay-time and then oscillate between being highly correlated and uncorrelated (Fig. \[Fig3\](a),(d)). In contrast, a complementary effect is observed between biphotons in the counter-propagating states (SF-IB & SB-IF)(Fig. \[Fig3\](b),(c)). Taken together, it is apparent that as pair correlations are diminishing in one state they are intensifying in another, and vice versa. To precisely characterize this relationship, we superpose the correlations from each path configuration and numerically sum the coincidence counts at each time bin, resulting in the black correlation waveform (Fig. \[Fig3\](e)). Here, we observe the remarkable effect that the pair correlations from all four states perfectly sum to give an exponential decay envelope, as predicted in Eq. \[PairCorrelations\].
The logarithmic scaling in Fig. \[Fig4\] confirms the exponential nature of the photon decay envelope and reveals that the quantum interference responsible for driving the time-domain oscillations is of extremely high visibility. Here, we clearly observe that each of the correlation waveforms exhibit extinction ratios approaching or greater than 20 dB. Additionally, we see that the coincidence counts from the co-propagating states are almost completely out of phase with the counts from the counter-propagating states, suggesting that path-entanglement is present in the system. Recently, Du et al. showed that the arrival times between pairs of detection events may be used as a local parameter setting for entanglement measurements in systems where the photon coherence times are much longer than the timing resolution of the detectors [@Du17]. Owing to the high-Q nature of our microcavity, the photon coherence times here are on the order of nanoseconds, whereas the timing resolution of the superconducting detectors (see Appendix B) are only tens of picoseconds. Consequently, by varying delay-time as an analogue of phase, we record a Bell parameter (see Appendix F) of $S = 2.80 \pm 0.07$ which yields a Bell violation [@Bell64; @Clauser69] of eleven standard deviations, confirming the path-entanglement predicted in Eq.\[State\].
Modal coupling vs. photon decay rate {#modal-coupling-vs.-photon-decay-rate .unnumbered}
====================================
A common feature among coherently coupled systems is the expression of markedly different behavior between the weak and strong coupling regimes [@Kimble92; @Mabuchi02; @Vahala03]. We explore these boundaries in Fig. \[Fig5\], with the experimental data presented on the left half of the figure and the corresponding theory plots (see Appendix I) on the right.
By tuning the total photon decay rate, we significantly manipulate the intracavity quantum state, as is evidenced by the response of the pair correlations in Fig. \[Fig5\]. With the decay rate set to be less than the modal coupling rate, we experimentally observe the strong coupling regime, as shown in Fig. \[Fig5\](a). Here, we see several high-contrast oscillations resulting from the strong quantum interference and path-entanglement. When the coupling and decay rates are similar, as is shown in Fig. \[Fig5\](b), there are fewer oscillations, due to the diminished biphoton lifetime. Additionally, the pairs of correlation waveforms belonging to the same state classification - co-propagating vs. counter-propagating - share less similarity than in Fig. \[Fig5\](a). To explain this phenomenon, we note that changing the decay rate also changes the relationship between intracavity pump modes. In Fig. \[Fig5\](a), the intracavity energies contained in the forward and backward pump modes are closer to being equalized, leading to a more symmetric system with respect to state generation, and consequently greater similarity between the pairs of waveforms within the same state classification. In the special case that the energies contained in the intracavity pump modes were exactly equal, then the pairs of correlation waveforms from the same state classification would be indistinguishable (see Appendix J). When the decay rate is set to be much greater than the coupling rate, we enter the weak coupling regime where the correlation waveforms exhibit pure monotonic decay, as shown in Fig. \[Fig5\](c). In this extreme scenario, the quantum inference, path-entanglement and coherent oscillations are quenched as a result of tuning the biphoton state until it assumes the form of those produced in uncoupled systems.
Pump-induced quantum interference {#pump-induced-quantum-interference .unnumbered}
=================================
The interacting cavity modes each experience the same type of modal coupling. However, we emphasize that the coupling of pump modes uniquely affects the system, as they are the progenitors of the creation process. And as such, tuning properties of the coupled pump modes translates to directly manipulating the intracavity quantum state (see Eq. \[State\]) and the correlations that consequently manifest (see Eq. \[PairCorrelations\]).
Changing the frequency of the external pump laser ($\omega_{L}$) relative to the resonance frequency of the pump cavity mode ($\omega_{0p}$) introduces a detuning, $\Delta = \omega_{L} - \omega_{0p}$, to the system. When the detuning is swept, the coupled pump modes display the well-established doublet transmission profile, as seen in Fig. \[Fig6\](a). Importantly, varying the detuning induces a phase change between the intracavity pump modes in a manner analogous to a driven harmonic oscillator. Due to the high-Q nature of the cavity, a small amount of detuning about resonance enables a $\pi$ relative phase shift, as shown in Fig. \[Fig6\](b). Thus, the coupled system naturally admits two regimes of operation, negative detuning (see points (1)-(4) in Fig. \[Fig6\](a),(b)) and positive detuning (see points (5)-(8) in Fig. \[Fig6\](a),(b)), with a significant phase change between them. We note that these changes are an internal response of the coupled system, and thus, are achieved without requiring a second external laser coupled to the counter-propagating mode.
The effects described above and illustrated in Fig. \[Fig6\](a),(b) are purely classical with regards to the pump mode alone. However, considering the system as a whole reveals the manner in which the pump-coupling induces quantum interference. Without coupling, there is no backward-propagating pump, and setting the corresponding coefficients to zero in the quantum state (see Eq. \[State\]) and pair correlations (see Eq. \[PairCorrelations\]) removes the mechanism to directly change their form. In this case, the system still exhibits quantum interference, but it does so in a fixed configuration. When the pump modes are coupled, it enables coherent control over the strength of interference between creation pathways, adding a dynamic feature to the system. Thus, sweeping the detuning causes pump-induced quantum interference which significantly manipulates the intracavity quantum state. This effect clearly manifests in the variable response of the pair correlations shown in Fig. \[Fig6\](c)-(f). In fact, the interference is so strong that changing from negative to positive detuning (point (4) to (5)) causes the SF-IB (see Fig. \[Fig6\](d)) and SB-IF (see Fig. \[Fig6\](e)) states to flip from exhibiting highly correlated to completely uncorrelated behavior near zero delay-time. Detailed versions of this transition, for each path configuration, may be seen in Appendix K.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
In this work, we proposed and demonstrated a new set of quantum interference phenomena that result from the creation and coherent conversion of quantum states between the propagating modes of an optical microcavity. The resulting photonic quantum states are highly versatile and exhibit cyclically evolving path-entanglement. Importantly, we showed that the states and entanglement are greatly manipulated by controlling parameters of the device. We envision that the concepts presented here will have broad impacts relating to quantum state generation and novel entanglement properties, particularly in the field of quantum information processing.
We note that the coupling of counter-propagating modes was achieved through Rayleigh scattering, which relies upon the existence of roughness at the surface of the device. Alternatively, the coupling could be established by bringing a nanoscale probe in contact with the device [@Yang10], or through a technique called selective mode splitting (SMS), which couples counter-propagating modes by matching their azimuthal mode number with a periodic modulation along the perimeter of the microresonator [@Lu14]. These techniques would extend the concepts presented here to devices made from ultra-smooth materials and have the additional benefit of providing a means to control and tune the coupling rates.
We showed that a single external laser can directly manipulate the quantum state through pump-induced quantum interference. Alternatively, the laser could be split and coupled into the device from both directions which would precisely control the amplitude and phase relationship between the internal pump modes independent of the cavity properties. This added feature would enable complete control over the quantum state (see Eq. \[State\]) and perfect pump-induced quantum interference visibility (see Appendix J). Additionally, this type of dramatic state manipulation would manifest in the coherent oscillations as a phenomenon akin to the Rabi flop operations that are used to optically prepare and control electron spins in solid-state systems [@Golter14].
Looking forward, a particularly intriguing follow-up involves building upon the capabilities of a single device by combining many devices in a large-scale photonic quantum circuit. Device to device and device to waveguide interactions could then be established and flexibly controlled through the addition of micro-electro-mechanical (MEMS) actuators, phase shifters, and micro-heaters, among other commonly used integrated photonics components. Based upon the observations made in this work, it is envisioned that such an architecture could be used to create exotic multi-photon states with fascinating properties, including controllable multi-partite entanglement and topologically protected quantum state transfer [@Soljacic14].
The authors would like to thank John C. Howell and Sultan A. Wadood for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. ECCS-1351697 and EFMA-1641099. It was performed in part at the Cornell NanoScale Facility, a member of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI), which is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant ECCS-1542081).
Appendices {#appendices .unnumbered}
==========
Device fabrication
==================
The microdisk device is fabricated from a silicon-on-insulator wafer with a top silicon layer of 260 nm and buried oxide thickness of 2 $\mu$m. The initial device pattern is written into a high resolution electron sensitive resist (ZEP 520A) using electron-beam lithography. The pattern is then transferred to the silicon layer through an inductively-coupled-plasma (ICP) reactive-ion-etch (RIE), utilizing a SF$_6$/C$_4$F$_8$ gas chemistry. Finally, the buried oxide layer is removed by wet etching in hydrofluoric (HF) acid, yielding the suspended microdisk device seen in Fig. \[Fig2\](a).
Pair generation and photon statistics
=====================================
A continuous-wave tunable pump laser (Santec TSL-550C) is transmitted through a course-wavelength-division-multiplexing (CWDM) multiplexer (MUX), having a 3-dB bandwidth of 17 nm and band isolation exceeding 120 dB, in order to prevent amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) from leaking into the single photon channels. The filtered pump light is then evanescently coupled from a tapered optical fiber into the device, using a nanopositioning setup. The polarization state at the point of coupling is controlled using fiber polarization controllers (FPC) in order to excite the quasi-TM pump cavity mode. The input optical power is set to $P_{in}$ = 8.54 $\mu$W for all experimental data presented here, and the optical power coupled into the cavity ranges from $P_{d,min}$ = 4.46 $\mu$W to $P_{d,max}$ = 6.44 $\mu$W, as a function of laser-cavity detuning. Photon pairs are coupled from the microdisk back into the tapered optical fiber (see Fig. \[Fig1\](a)) in both the forward and backward directions and separated using CWDM demultiplexers. The demultiplexed pump beam is detected using a fast photodector, which allows for continuous monitoring of the coupled optical power, laser-cavity detuning, and implementation of the thermo-optic locking method [@Vahala04]. The signal and idler photons, from both propagation directions, are then passed through standard telecom optical switches in order to select the four path configurations based on the switch settings. The photons exiting the switches are passed through tunable bandpass filters (TBPF), having a 3-dB bandwidth of 1.2 nm, in order to suppress the Raman noise photons that are generated throughout the input side of the optical fiber. The single photons are then detected using two superconducting nanowire single photon detectors (SNSPD, SingleQuatum), which have extremely small timing jitters of 16 ps and detection efficiencies of 54%. The photon arrival times are recorded using the time-tagged mode of a time-correlated single photon counter (TCSPC, PicoHarp 300) with time bins of 4 ps. The correlation waveforms appearing in Fig. \[Fig3\], Fig. \[Fig4\], and Fig. \[Fig5\](a) were acquired over a period of $T_{acq}$ = 1800 seconds. The correlation waveforms appearing in Fig. \[Fig5\](b),(c) and Fig. \[Fig6\] were acquired over a period $T_{acq}$ = 200 seconds. All coincidence counts presented in the Article are normalized to the peak of their respective decay envelope. A schematic of the experimental setup may be found in Appendix L.\
The system Hamiltonian
======================
Here, we describe the Hamiltonian which governs the photon pair creation process between the coupled counter-propagating modes of an optical microresonator, as well as the coupling between the device and an optical waveguide. This Hamiltonian will serve as the springboard for our theoretical treatment of the intracavity quantum state (see Appendix D) and second-order correlations that manifest (see Appendix G).
We begin by considering the establishment of Kerr-type nonlinear optical interactions between the pump (p), signal (s), and idler (i) whispering-gallery modes (WGMs), as illustrated in Fig. \[physical\_picture\]. The passive cavity modes are specified by their resonance frequencies, $\omega_{\rm 0m}$ (m = p,s,i), along with their intrinsic decay rates, $\Gamma_{\rm 0m}$, external coupling rates, $\Gamma_{\rm em}$, and resonance splitting, $2 \beta_m$. Furthermore, input pump waves (at a carrier frequency of $\omega_{\rm p}$) propagating in the forward, $b_{\rm pf}$, and backward, $b_{\rm pb}$, directions are coupled from the optical waveguide into the device and coherently build up in their respective intracavity modes. In particular, we assume that there exists a mutual coupling between intracavity optical fields propagating in the forward (clockwise), $a_{\rm mf}$, and backward (counterclockwise), $a_{\rm mb}$, directions, which renormalizes the pairs of degenerate traveling-wave modes into pairs of standing-wave modes. The coupling occurs at a rate of $\beta_{\rm m}$, so that the standing-wave modes have distinct frequencies, $\omega_{0m}^{\pm} = \omega_{0m} \pm |\beta_m|$, which are shifted from the uncoupled system. When the intracavity pump waves undergo spontaneous four-wave mixing (SFWM), signal and idler photon pairs are created in their respective coupled counter-propagating modes. The Hamiltonian, $H = H_0 + H_I$, describing the relevant Kerr nonlinear interactions within the cavity is given by [@Jiang15]
$$\begin{aligned}
H_0 = && \sum_{m=p,s,i}{ \left\{ \hbar \omega_{\rm 0m} \left(a_{\rm mf}^\dag a_{\rm mf}^{} + a_{\rm mb}^\dag a_{\rm mb}^{} \right) - \left( \hbar \beta_m a_{\rm mf}^\dag a_{\rm mb}^{} + \hbar \beta_m^* a_{\rm mb}^\dag a_{\rm mf}^{} \right) \right.}\nonumber \\
&& {\left. - \hbar \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm em}} \left( (a_{\rm mf}^\dag b_{\rm mf}^{} + a_{\rm mb}^\dag b_{\rm mb}^{}) e^{-i\omega_m t} + (b_{\rm mf}^\dag a_{\rm mf}^{} + b_{\rm mb}^\dag a_{\rm mb}^{} ) e^{i\omega_m t} \right) \right\}}, \label{H0} \\
H_I =&& \frac{\hbar g_p}{2} \left( (a_{\rm pf}^\dag)^2 a_{\rm pf}^2 + (a_{\rm pb}^\dag)^2 a_{\rm pb}^2 + 4 a_{\rm pf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^{} a_{\rm pb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^{} \right) \nonumber\\
&& + 2\hbar (a_{\rm pf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^{} + a_{\rm pb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^{} ) \left( g_{\rm ps} (a_{\rm sf}^\dag a_{\rm sf}^{} + a_{\rm sb}^\dag a_{\rm sb}^{} ) + g_{\rm pi} (a_{\rm if}^\dag a_{\rm if}^{} + a_{\rm ib}^\dag a_{\rm ib}^{} ) \right) \nonumber\\
&& + \hbar g_{\rm psi} \left( a_{\rm sf}^\dag a_{\rm if}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^2 + a_{\rm sb}^\dag a_{\rm ib}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^2\right) + \hbar g_{\rm psi}^* \left( (a_{\rm pf}^\dag)^2 a_{\rm sf}^{} a_{\rm if}^{} + (a_{\rm pb}^\dag)^2 a_{\rm sb}^{} a_{\rm ib}^{} \right), \label{HI}\end{aligned}$$
where the intracavity field operators are normalized such that $a_{\rm mj}^\dag a_{\rm mj}$ (m = p,s,i and j = f,b) represent the photon number operators of the system. The input pump fields are normalized such that $b_{\rm mj}^\dag b_{\rm mj}$ denote the input photon fluxes and satisfy the commutation relation $[b_{\rm mj} (t),b_{\rm m'j'}^\dag (t')] = \delta_{\rm mm'} \delta_{\rm jj'} \delta (t - t')$. We note that the number of photons contained in the pump modes greatly exceed the signal and idler modes, so that self-phase modulation (SPM) and cross-phase modulation (XPM) initiated from these modes may be neglected. The vacuum coupling rates for the pump-initiated self-phase modulation (SPM), cross-phase modulation, and SFWM are respectively denoted as $g_{\rm p}$, $g_{\rm pm}$ (m = s,i), and $g_{\rm psi}$. However, given the similarity in field profiles and frequencies between the interacting cavity modes, we approximate $g_{\rm p} \approx g_{\rm pm} \approx g_{\rm psi} \equiv g = \frac{c \eta n_{\rm 2} \hbar \omega_{p} \sqrt{\omega_{s} \omega_{i}}}{n_{s} n_{i} \bar{V}}$, where c is the speed of light in vacuum, $\eta$ is the spatial overlap fraction of the interacting cavity modes, $n_2 = \frac{3 \chi^{(3)}}{4 \varepsilon_0 c n_p^2}$ is the Kerr nonlinear coefficient [@Boyd08], $n_s$ ($n_i$) is the index of refraction of the microresonator at the signal (idler) wavelength, and $\bar{V}$ is the effective mode volume.
Quantum state from perturbation theory
======================================
To determine the biphoton quantum state inside our optical microresonator, first-order time-dependent perturbation theory was applied to the closed system Hamiltonian (see Appendix C) in an undepleted pump regime. At the instant of pair creation (here defined as $t=0$), the state takes the form $\ket{\psi(t=0)}= {\rm c_f} \ket{f}_\text{s} \ket{f}_\text{i}+ {\rm c_b} \ket{b}_\text{s} \ket{b}_\text{i}$, where $f$ denotes the forward-propagating traveling-wave mode and $b$ denotes the backward-propagating traveling-wave mode. The subscripts $s$ and $i$ differentiate the signal and idler photons. Complex coefficients ${\rm c_f}$ and ${\rm c_b}$ are set by the relative amplitude and phase between the pump’s forward and backward traveling-wave modes.
The initial state can be intuited by viewing the nonlinear interaction Hamiltonian $H_\text{I}$ (see Eq. \[H0\] & \[HI\] for the complete Hamiltonian) in the basis of forward and backward propagating modes. The terms that contribute to the creation of signal and idler photons via spontaneous four-wave mixing (SFWM) are given by $H_\text{SFWM}=\hbar g_{\text{psi}}\left(a_\text{sf}^{\dagger} a_\text{if}^{\dagger} a_\text{pf}^2 + a_\text{sb}^{\dagger} a_\text{ib}^{\dagger} a_\text{pb}^2 \right)$ where $g_{\text{psi}}$ is the vacuum coupling rate for SFWM. These terms allow for photon pairs to be created in the co-propagating directions only, as is required to conserve angular momentum.
We implement time-dependent perturbation theory to verify the initial state. The linear portion of the closed-system Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
H_0=\sum_{\text{m=p,s,i}} \hbar \omega_{0\text{m}} \left( a_\text{mf}^{\dagger} a_\text{mf}^{} + a_\text{mb}^{\dagger} a_\text{mb}^{} \right)- \nonumber \\ \hbar \left(\beta_\text{m}^{} a_\text{mf}^\dagger a_\text{mb}^{} + \beta_\text{m}^{\ast} a_\text{mb}^{\dagger} a_\text{mf}^{} \right). \label{H0_simp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{0\text{m}}$ is the center frequency of the $m^{\text{th}}$ resonance and $\beta_{\text{m}}$ is the coupling between forward and backward modes of the $m^{\text{th}}$ resonance.
Meanwhile, the perturbative Hamiltonian is $H_\text{SFWM}$, given that the other terms in $H_\text{I}$ have a negligible effect in the weakly pumped system considered here. To first order, time-dependent perturbation theory then gives an unnormalized state
$$\label{psi_t}
\begin{split}
\ket{\psi (t)} &= U_0(t,0) \ket{\text{Vac}} + \\ & \frac{1}{i \hbar} \int_0^t \text{d}t^{\prime} U_0(t,t^{\prime} ) H_{\text{SFWM}}(t^{\prime} ) U_0(t^{\prime} ,0) \ket{\text{Vac}},
\end{split}$$
where $U_0(t_2, t_1)$ is defined to be the unitary time evolution operator $\text{exp}[-i H_0 (t_2-t_1)/\hbar]$. To evaluate the integral, it is helpful to diagonalize $H_0$ and write $H_\text{SFWM}$ in the basis that performs this diagonalization. In the microresonator system, this amounts to transforming into the standing-wave basis. The basis states, denoted by $+$ and $-$ are respectively the higher and lower energy eigenstates of $H_0$. Furthermore, we apply the approximation that $ \beta e^{i\phi_\beta} = \beta_\text{p}=\beta_\text{s}=\beta_\text{i} \equiv \beta$. Then the result of the transformation on $H_0$ and $H_\text{SFWM}$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
&H_0 = \sum_{\text{m=p,s,i}} \hbar \left( (\omega_{0\text{m}} - \beta ) a_{\text{m}-}^{\dagger} a_{\text{m}-}^{} + (\omega_{0\text{m}} + \beta ) a_{\text{m}+}^{\dagger} a_{\text{m}+}^{} \right), \\
&H_{\text{SFWM}} = \frac{1}{2} \hbar g_\text{psi} \left( a_{\text{s}-}^{\dagger} a_{\text{i}-}^{\dagger} + a_{\text{s}+}^{\dagger} a_{\text{i}+}^{\dagger} e^{-2 i \phi_\beta} \right) \left( a_{\text{p}-}^2 + a_{\text{p}+}^2 e^{2 i \phi_\beta} \right) + \hbar g_\text{psi} \left( a_{\text{s}-}^{\dagger} a_{\text{i}+}^{\dagger} + a_{\text{s}+}^{\dagger} a_{\text{i}-}^{\dagger} \right) a_{\text{p}-}^{} a_{\text{p}+}^{}.\end{aligned}$$
Now Eq. \[psi\_t\] becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TimeDependentState}
\ket{\psi (t)} &= \ket{\text{Vac}} + \\ &\frac{1}{i \hbar} \int_0^t \text{d}t ^{\prime} e^{-i E_f (t-t^{\prime} )/\hbar} H_{\text{SFWM}}(t^{\prime} ) e^{-i E_i t^{\prime} } \ket{\text{Vac}}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $E_i$ and $E_f$ are the energies of the initial and final states, respectively. Treating the pump as classical and undepleted, $E_i$ can be taken to zero by introducing a plane wave oscillation $\text{exp}[\mp 2 i \omega_p t']$ to $H_\text{SFWM}(t')$. $E_f$ is the total energy of the created signal and idler photons. The integral can then be evaluated, and will reflect a linear growth in time as the probability of photon creation increases. If we again define the instant of creation as $t=0$ and then normalize the first order terms, we can observe how the state of the created photons evolves in time. Figure \[state\_prob\_plot\] shows the probability of detecting signal and idler photons in each of the four pairs of path configurations as a function of time.
Because the probability of detecting counter-propagating signal and idler photon pairs is zero at $t=0$, we can affirm that the photons are created in a superposition of the forward-forward and backward-backward path configurations. That is, the initial biphoton state is indeed of the form $\ket{\psi(t=0)}= {\rm c_f} \ket{f}_\text{s} \ket{f}_\text{i}+ {\rm c_b} \ket{b}_\text{s} \ket{b}_\text{i}$, as stated in the main text. Notably, this is independent of $\phi_\beta$, as seen in Fig. \[phase\_short\_time\].\
Quantum state evolution
=======================
Beginning with the quantum state $\ket{\psi(t=0)}= {\rm c_f} \ket{f}_\text{s} \ket{f}_\text{i}+ {\rm c_b} \ket{b}_\text{s} \ket{b}_\text{i}$, time evolution can be easily performed by switching to the standing-wave basis using the following transformations, $$\begin{aligned}
&\ket{f}_\text{m}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \ket{-}_\text{m}-e^{i\phi_\beta}\ket{+}_\text{m} \right),\\
&\ket{b}_\text{m}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( e^{-i\phi_\beta}\ket{-}_\text{m} + \ket{+}_\text{m} \right).\end{aligned}$$
The lower-energy standing wave mode is represented by $\ket{-}$. $\ket{+}$ likewise refers to the higher-energy standing-wave mode. For the following calculation, it will be assumed for simplicity that $\phi_\beta=0$. Implementing the basis transformation yields an initial state
$$\ket{\psi(t=0)} =\frac{1}{2} \Big( \left( {\rm c_b} + {\rm c_f} \right) \big( \ket{-}_\text{s} \ket{-}_\text{i}+ \ket{+}_\text{s} \ket{+}_\text{i} \big) + \left({\rm c_b} - {\rm c_f} \right) \big( \ket{-}_\text{s} \ket{+}_\text{i} + \ket{+}_\text{s} \ket{-}_\text{i} \big) \Big).$$
Because the state is now in terms of energy eigenstates of the cavity, the unitary time evolution operator $U_0(t,0)=\text{exp}[-i H_0 t/\hbar]$ can be easily applied. The time evolved state in the standing-mode basis is thus,
$$\ket{\psi(t)}=\frac{1}{2} e^{-i(\omega_s+\omega_i)t} \Big( \left( {\rm c_b} + {\rm c_f} \right) \big( e^{2 i \beta t } \ket{-}_\text{s} \ket{-}_\text{i}+ e^{-2 i \beta t } \ket{+}_\text{s} \ket{+}_\text{i} \big) + \left({\rm c_b} -{\rm c_f} \right) \big( \ket{-}_\text{s} \ket{+}_\text{i} + \ket{+}_\text{s} \ket{-}_\text{i} \big) \Big).$$
By transforming back to the basis of traveling waves and simplifying, this becomes
$$\begin{split}
\ket{\psi (t)} &= e^{-i(\omega_s+\omega_i)t} \Big( \big( {\rm c_f} \cos^2 (\beta t) - {\rm c_b} \sin^2 (\beta t) \big) \ket{f}_\text{s} \ket{f}_\text{i} \\ &+ \big( {\rm c_b} \cos^2 (\beta t) - {\rm c_f} \sin^2 (\beta t) \big) \ket{b}_\text{s} \ket{b}_\text{i} + \\ & i ( {\rm c_f}+{\rm c_b} )\sin(2 \beta t) \big( \ket{f}_\text{s} \ket{b}_\text{i} + \ket{b}_\text{s} \ket{f}_\text{i} \big) \Big).
\end{split}$$
This result appears as **Eq. 1** in the main text with the overall phase ignored.
Bell test implementation
========================
Here, we present the methodology by which we computed a Bell parameter of $ S= 2.80 \pm 0.07$, violating the classical Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality $\lvert S \rvert \leq 2$ [@Clauser69]. Typically, a Bell test entails varying two projective measurement angles, each between two different analyzer settings [@Bell64; @Zeilinger12]. In the microresonator system, however, the test may be implemented by analogously varying the difference in arrival time between signal and idler photons $\tau=t_s-t_i$, as long as the photon coherence times are much larger than the temporal resolution of the detectors [@Du17].
We generate a Bell correlation coefficient $E(\tau)$ in terms of second-order correlation functions $G^{(2)}_{jk}(\tau)$, where $j$ and $k$ denote the signal and idler path, respectively. Let f indicate the forward path and b the backward path. $E(\tau)$ is then $$E(\tau)=\frac{G^{(2)}_{\text{ff}}(\tau)+G^{(2)}_{\text{bb}}(\tau)-G^{(2)}_{\text{fb}}(\tau)-G^{(2)}_{\text{bf}}(\tau)}{G^{(2)}_{\text{ff}}(\tau)+G^{(2)}_{\text{bb}}(\tau)+G^{(2)}_{\text{fb}}(\tau)+G^{(2)}_{\text{bf}}(\tau)},$$
where $G^{(2)}_{jk}(\tau)$ is proportional to $p(t_{sj},t_{ik})$, given in Eq. 2 of the main text. This implies that the only time-dependence in $E(\tau)$ is in the form of sines and cosines of $\beta_m \tau$, where $\beta_m$ is the modal coupling, and $m$ refers to either the signal $s$ or idler $i$. We note that the exponential time-dependence in $p(t_{sj},t_{ik})$ cancels in $E (\tau)$.
Now we allow $\tau$ to vary as a function of two angles $\theta_a$ and $\theta_b$. This will enable us to vary $\tau$ in a manner equivalent to the usual Bell test angle variation. To mimic the angle-dependence of the typical Bell test, $\tau (\theta_a,\theta_b)$ must have the form [@Du17] $$\tau (\theta_a, \theta_b)= \begin{cases} \frac{1}{\beta_i (\theta_a-\theta_b)} &\mbox{if } \theta_a-\theta_b < 0, \\
\frac{1}{\beta_s (\theta_a-\theta_b)} & \mbox{if } \theta_a-\theta_b \geq 0. \end{cases} \label{BellAngles}$$ The Bell parameter can now be written as $$\begin{aligned}
S &= \lvert E (\tau (\theta_1, \theta_2 )) - E (\tau (\theta_1, \theta'_2 )) \rvert \hfill \nonumber \\ &+ \lvert E (\tau (\theta'_1, \theta_2 )) + E (\tau (\theta'_1, \theta'_2 )) \rvert.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\theta_1$ and $\theta'_1$ are the measurement settings for $\theta_a$ while $\theta_2$ and $\theta'_2$ are the measurement settings for $\theta_b$. The settings are defined such that $$\theta'_n=\theta_n -\pi/4,$$ for $n=1,2$. We achieved our greatest violation of the CHSH inequality for $\theta_1=4.13$, $\theta'_1=3.34$, $\theta_2=0$, $\theta'_2=-0.79$. The resulting Bell parameter is $S=2.80$, well above the classical limit of $2$ but still within the quantum bound of $2\sqrt{2}$.
To determine error in our Bell parameter, we simulated 2500 data sets under the assumption of Poissonian counting statistics, using the number of real counts in each 4 ps time bin as mean. For each simulated data set, the Bell parameter producing the largest CHSH violation was computed. The standard deviation of these simulated Bell parameters was $0.07$, giving the result $S=2.80 \pm 0.07$ that appears in the main text. We note that the values of $\beta_m$ (m = s,i), appearing in Eq. \[BellAngles\], were measured using a calibrated Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI). The uncertainty associated with these measurements was so small in comparison to the photon counting uncertainty that it had no bearing on the overall error of the Bell parameter.
Theory of coherent oscillations in photon pair correlations
===========================================================
In Appendix E, we showed that the quantum states generated within the microresonator exhibit cyclically evolving path-entanglement (see Eq. \[TimeDependentState\]). When the photon pairs exit the system (see Fig. \[physical\_picture\]), they are transmitted into both directions of the optical waveguide which establishes the following single photon pathways: signal forward (SF), signal backward (SB), idler forward (IB), and idler backward (IB). The cyclically evolving path-entanglement within the microresonator will consequently manifest as coherent oscillations between pairs of propagation pathways. To theoretically demonstrate this phenomenon, we employ the Hamiltonian in Eq. \[H0\]-\[HI\], in order to write the Heisenberg-Langevin equations of motion. These equation describe the wave dynamics within the microdisk, and are given as
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{da_{\rm pf}}{dt} &=& (-i\omega_{\rm 0p} - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2) a_{\rm pf}^{} + i \beta_p a_{\rm pb}^{} - i g (a_{\rm pf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^{} + 2 a_{\rm pb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^{}) a_{\rm pf}^{} + \zeta_{\rm pf}(t), \label{dapfdt} \\
\frac{da_{\rm pb}}{dt} &=& (-i\omega_{\rm 0p} - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2) a_{\rm pb}^{} + i \beta_p^* a_{\rm pf}^{} - i g (a_{\rm pb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^{} + 2 a_{\rm pf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^{}) a_{\rm pb}^{} + \zeta_{\rm pb}(t), \label{dapbdt} \\
\frac{da_{\rm sf}}{dt} &=& (-i\omega_{\rm 0s} - \Gamma_{\rm ts}/2) a_{\rm sf}^{} + i \beta_s a_{\rm sb}^{} - 2 i g (a_{\rm pf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^{} + a_{\rm pb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^{} ) a_{\rm sf}^{} - i g a_{\rm if}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^2 + \zeta_{\rm sf}(t), \label{dasfdt} \\
\frac{da_{\rm sb}}{dt} &=& (-i\omega_{\rm 0s} - \Gamma_{\rm ts}/2) a_{\rm sb}^{} + i \beta_s^* a_{\rm sf}^{} - 2 i g (a_{\rm pf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^{} + a_{\rm pb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^{} ) a_{\rm sb}^{} - i g a_{\rm ib}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^2 + \zeta_{\rm sb}(t), \label{dasbdt} \\
\frac{da_{\rm if}}{dt} &=& (-i\omega_{\rm 0i} - \Gamma_{\rm ti}/2) a_{\rm if}^{} + i \beta_i a_{\rm ib}^{} - 2 i g (a_{\rm pf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^{} + a_{\rm pb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^{} ) a_{\rm if}^{} - i g a_{\rm sf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^2 + \zeta_{\rm if}(t), \label{daifdt} \\
\frac{da_{\rm ib}}{dt} &=& (-i\omega_{\rm 0i} - \Gamma_{\rm ti}/2) a_{\rm ib}^{} + i \beta_i^* a_{\rm if}^{} - 2 i g (a_{\rm pf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^{} + a_{\rm pb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^{} ) a_{\rm ib}^{} - i g a_{\rm sb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^2 + \zeta_{\rm ib}(t), \label{daibdt}\end{aligned}$$
where $\zeta_{\rm mj}(t) \equiv i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm em}} b_{\rm mj}(t) + \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm 0m}} u_{\rm mj}(t)$ (m = p,s,i and j = f,b) and $u_{\rm mj}$ are noise operators associated with intrinsic cavity losses and obey the commutation relation $[u_{\rm mj} (t),u_{\rm m'j'}^\dag (t')] = \delta_{\rm mm'} \delta_{\rm jj'} \delta (t - t')$.
In order to solve Eq. \[dapfdt\]-\[daibdt\], we treat the pumps as classical and undepleted (with respect to the Kerr nonlinear interactions), transform to a frame rotating at the carrier frequency of the input pump waves, and apply exponential transformations to eliminate the SPM and XPM terms, which gives
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{da_{\rm pf}}{dt} &=& (i\Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2) a_{\rm pf}^{} + i \beta_p a_{\rm pb}^{} + i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm ep}} b_{\rm pf}^{}, \label{dapfdt_2} \\
\frac{da_{\rm pb}}{dt} &=& (i\Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2) a_{\rm pb}^{} + i \beta_p^* a_{\rm pf}^{} + i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm ep}} b_{\rm pb}^{}, \label{dapbdt_2} \\
\frac{da_{\rm sf}}{dt} &=& (i\Delta - \Gamma_{\rm ts}/2) a_{\rm sf}^{} + i \beta_s a_{\rm sb}^{} - i g a_{\rm if}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^2 + \zeta_{\rm sf}(t), \label{dasfdt_2} \\
\frac{da_{\rm sb}}{dt} &=& (i\Delta - \Gamma_{\rm ts}/2) a_{\rm sb}^{} + i \beta_s^* a_{\rm sf}^{} - i g a_{\rm ib}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^2 + \zeta_{\rm sb}(t), \label{dasbdt_2} \\
\frac{da_{\rm if}}{dt} &=& (i\Delta - \Gamma_{\rm ti}/2) a_{\rm if}^{} + i \beta_i a_{\rm ib}^{} - i g a_{\rm sf}^\dag a_{\rm pf}^2 + \zeta_{\rm if}(t), \label{daifdt_2} \\
\frac{da_{\rm ib}}{dt} &=& (i\Delta - \Gamma_{\rm ti}/2) a_{\rm ib}^{} + i \beta_i^* a_{\rm if}^{} - i g a_{\rm sb}^\dag a_{\rm pb}^2 + \zeta_{\rm ib}(t), \label{daibdt_2}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Delta \equiv \omega_{\rm p} - \omega_{\rm 0p}$ is the detuning between the carrier frequency of the input pump waves and the resonance frequency of the pump cavity mode. The coupled pump equations (Eq. \[dapfdt\_2\] & \[dapbdt\_2\]) may now be trivially solved due to the removal of any explicit time dependence. The remaining equations (Eq. \[dasfdt\_2\]-\[daibdt\_2\]) are conveniently solved in the frequency domain by applying Fourier transforms, yielding
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\zeta}_{\rm sf}(\omega) &=& -\lbrace i(\omega + \Delta) - \Gamma_{\rm ts}/2 \rbrace \tilde{a}_{\rm sf}^{}(\omega) - i \beta_{\rm s} \tilde{a}_{\rm sb}^{}(\omega) + i g a_{\rm pf}^2 \tilde{a}_{\rm if}^\dag(- \omega), \label{sfw} \\
\tilde{\zeta}_{\rm sb}(\omega) &=& -\lbrace i(\omega + \Delta) - \Gamma_{\rm ts}/2 \rbrace \tilde{a}_{\rm sb}^{}(\omega) - i \beta_{\rm s}^* \tilde{a}_{\rm sf}^{}(\omega) + i g a_{\rm pb}^2 \tilde{a}_{\rm ib}^\dag(- \omega), \label{sbw} \\
\tilde{\zeta}_{\rm if}^\dag(- \omega) &=& -\lbrace i(\omega + \Delta) - \Gamma_{\rm ti}/2 \rbrace \tilde{a}_{\rm if}^\dag(- \omega) + i \beta_{\rm i}^* \tilde{a}_{\rm ib}^\dag(- \omega) - i g (a_{\rm pf}^*)^2 \tilde{a}_{\rm sf}^{}(\omega), \label{ifw} \\
\tilde{\zeta}_{\rm ib}^\dag(- \omega) &=& -\lbrace i(\omega + \Delta) - \Gamma_{\rm ti}/2 \rbrace \tilde{a}_{\rm ib}^\dag(- \omega) + i \beta_{\rm i} \tilde{a}_{\rm if}^\dag(- \omega) - i g (a_{\rm pb}^*)^2 \tilde{a}_{\rm sb}^{}(\omega), \label{ibw} \end{aligned}$$
where $\Gamma_{\rm tm} = \Gamma_{\rm 0m} + \Gamma_{\rm em}$ (m = s,i) are the total photon decay rates for the cavity modes. Eq. \[sfw\]-\[ibw\] may now be written using matrix formalism as, $\vec{\zeta}(\omega) = -\textbf{M} \vec{a}(\omega)$, with the following vector (matrix) components (elements)
$$\begin{pmatrix}
\zeta_{\rm sf}(\omega) \\ \zeta_{\rm sb}(\omega) \\ \zeta_{\rm if}^\dag(- \omega) \\ \zeta_{\rm ib}^\dag(- \omega)
\end{pmatrix}
= -
\begin{pmatrix}
i(\omega + \Delta) - \Gamma_{\rm ts}/2 & i \beta_s e^{i \phi_{\beta_s}} & -i g a_{\rm pf}^2 & 0 \\
i \beta_s e^{-i \phi_{\beta_s}} & i(\omega + \Delta) - \Gamma_{\rm ts}/2 & 0 & -i g a_{\rm pb}^2 \\
i g^* (a_{\rm pf}^*)^2 & 0 & i(\omega + \Delta) - \Gamma_{\rm ti}/2 & - i \beta_i e^{-i \phi_{\beta_i}} \\
0 & i g^* (a_{\rm ab}^*)^2 & - i \beta_i e^{i \phi_{\beta_i}} & i(\omega + \Delta) - \Gamma_{\rm ti}/2
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{\rm sf}(\omega) \\ a_{\rm sb}(\omega) \\ a_{\rm if}^\dag(- \omega) \\ a_{\rm ib}^\dag(- \omega)
\end{pmatrix}, \label{M_Matrix}$$
where we have dropped the tilde notation. Additionally, we have written the coupling terms as $\beta_m = \beta_m e^{i \phi_{\beta m}}$ to explicitly display their spatial phase dependence which results from the orientation of the standing-wave mode patterns to the point of coupling at the waveguide. Now, we can solve for the intracavity fields, noting that $\vec{a}(\omega) = \textbf{T} \vec{\zeta}(\omega)$, where $\textbf{T} \equiv -\textbf{M}^{-1}$. Finally, we relate the transmitted fields, $c_{\rm mj}$, to the input and intracavity fields through the standard input-output relations [@Walls08], $c_{\rm mj} = b_{\rm mj} + i\sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm em}} a_{\rm mj}$.
The device presented in Fig. \[physical\_picture\] couples photon pairs generated in the forward and backward directions, resulting in correlations between the following four configurations: signal forward - idler forward (SF-IF), signal forward - idler backward (SF-IB), signal backward - idler forward (SB-IF), and signal backward - idler backward (SB-IB). The correlations may be theoretically described using second-order temporal correlation functions [@Mandel95], $p_{c,jk}(t_{\rm sj},t_{ik})$, with
$$\label{paircorr_ift}
\begin{split}
p_{c,jk}(t_{\rm sj},t_{\rm ik}) &\equiv \braket{c_{\rm ik}^\dag(t) c_{\rm sj}^\dag(t+\tau_{\rm jk}) c_{\rm sj}(t+\tau_{\rm jk}) c_{\rm ik}(t)} \\ &- \braket{c_{\rm sj}^\dag(t)c_{\rm sj}(t)} \braket{c_{\rm ik}^\dag(t)c_{\rm ik}(t)} \\ &= \Gamma_{\rm es} \Gamma_{\rm ei} |\frac{1}{2\pi} \int d\omega K_{\rm jk}(\omega) e^{-i \omega \tau_{jk}}|^2,
\end{split}$$
where $\tau_{\rm jk} \equiv t_{\rm sj} - t_{\rm ik}$ (j = f,b and k = f,b) denotes the delay time between the emission of signals and idlers from the microresonator into the waveguide (see Fig. \[physical\_picture\]), and $K_{\rm jk}(\omega)$ are Kernel functions which depend upon the path configuration. The Kernel functions, associated with the four path configurations, are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{\rm ff} \equiv T_{31}^*(\omega)[\Gamma_{\rm ts} T_{11}(\omega) - 1] + \Gamma_{\rm ts} T_{12}(\omega)T_{32}^*(\omega), \label{K_ff} \\
K_{\rm fb} \equiv T_{41}^*(\omega)[\Gamma_{\rm ts} T_{11}(\omega) - 1] + \Gamma_{\rm ts} T_{12}(\omega)T_{42}^*(\omega), \label{K_fb} \\
K_{\rm bf} \equiv T_{32}^*(\omega)[\Gamma_{\rm ts} T_{22}(\omega) - 1] + \Gamma_{\rm ts} T_{21}(\omega)T_{31}^*(\omega), \label{K_bf} \\
K_{\rm bb} \equiv T_{42}^*(\omega)[\Gamma_{\rm ts} T_{22}(\omega) - 1] + \Gamma_{\rm ts} T_{21}(\omega)T_{41}^*(\omega), \label{K_bb}\end{aligned}$$
where $T_{\rm nl}$ are elements of the matrix **T**. After computing the matrix **T** and performing the inverse Fourier transform in Eq. \[paircorr\_ift\] (both of these steps are accomplished in Mathematica), we arrive at the pair correlation functions for the four path configurations
$$\begin{aligned}
p_{c,ff}(\tau) =
\begin{cases}
N e^{\Gamma_{\rm ti} \tau} |\lbrace c_0 f e^{-i \phi} - c_1 b \rbrace \cos{(\beta_i \tau)} + \lbrace c_2 f e^{-i \phi} + c_3 b \rbrace \sin{(\beta_i \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau < 0), \\
N e^{-\Gamma_{\rm ts} \tau} |\lbrace c_0 f e^{-i \phi} - c_1 b \rbrace \cos{(\beta_s \tau)} - \lbrace c_3 f e^{-i \phi} + c_2 b \rbrace \sin{(\beta_s \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau \ge 0), \label{paircorr_ff}
\end{cases} \\ \nonumber \\
p_{c,fb}(\tau) =
\begin{cases}
N e^{\Gamma_{\rm ti} \tau} |\lbrace c_2 f e^{-i \phi} + c_3 b \rbrace \cos{(\beta_i \tau)} - \lbrace c_0 f e^{-i \phi} - c_1 b \rbrace \sin{(\beta_i \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau < 0), \\
N e^{-\Gamma_{\rm ts} \tau} |\lbrace c_2 f e^{-i \phi} + c_3 b \rbrace \cos{(\beta_s \tau)} - \lbrace c_1 f e^{-i \phi} - c_0 b \rbrace \sin{(\beta_s \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau \ge 0), \label{paircorr_fb}
\end{cases} \\ \nonumber \\
p_{c,bf}(\tau) =
\begin{cases}
N e^{\Gamma_{\rm ti} \tau} |\lbrace c_3 f e^{-i \phi} + c_2 b \rbrace \cos{(\beta_i \tau)} + \lbrace c_1 f e^{-i \phi} - c_0 b \rbrace \sin{(\beta_i \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau < 0), \\
N e^{-\Gamma_{\rm ts} \tau} |\lbrace c_3 f e^{-i \phi} + c_2 b \rbrace \cos{(\beta_s \tau)} + \lbrace c_0 f e^{-i \phi} - c_1 b \rbrace \sin{(\beta_s \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau \ge 0), \label{paircorr_bf}
\end{cases} \\ \nonumber \\
p_{c,bb}(\tau) =
\begin{cases}
N e^{\Gamma_{\rm ti} \tau} |\lbrace -c_1 f e^{-i \phi} + c_0 b \rbrace \cos{(\beta_i \tau)} + \lbrace c_3 f e^{-i \phi} + c_2 b \rbrace \sin{(\beta_i \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau < 0), \\
N e^{-\Gamma_{\rm ts} \tau} |\lbrace -c_1 f e^{-i \phi} + c_0 b \rbrace \cos{(\beta_s \tau)} - \lbrace c_2 f e^{-i \phi} + c_3 b \rbrace \sin{(\beta_s \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau \ge 0), \label{paircorr_bb}
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$
where $f \equiv |a_{pf}(\Delta)|^2$ and $b \equiv |a_{pb}(\Delta)|^2$ are the optical energies contained in the forward and backward pump cavity modes, respectively, and $\phi \equiv 2 \phi_p + \phi_{\beta}$ defines the phase relationship between them. In particular, $\phi_p \equiv \phi_{pf} - \phi_{pb}$ and $\phi_{\beta} \equiv 2\phi_{\rm \beta p} - \phi_{\rm \beta s} - \phi_{\rm \beta i}$. We note that in the process of reaching these solutions we have made use of the fact that our system operates in the weak interaction limit ($gf \ll \Gamma_{\rm tp}$ and $gb \ll \Gamma_{\rm tp}$), such that terms beyond first order in $f$ and $b$ may be dropped. In Eq. \[paircorr\_ff\]-\[paircorr\_bb\], the constants $c_{\rm n}$ (n = 1 to 4) and N depend upon properties of the device in the following manner
$$\begin{aligned}
N &=& \frac{4 \Gamma_{es} \Gamma_{ei} \Gamma_t^4 g^2}{((c_0 - c_1)(c_0 + c_1))^2}, \label{N} \\ c_0 &=& (4 \beta_s^2 + 4 \beta_i^2 + \Gamma_t^2)\Gamma_t, \label{c0} \\ c_1 &=& 8 \beta_s \beta_i \Gamma_t, \label{c1} \\ c_2 &=& 8 \beta_i^3 - 8 \beta_s^2 \beta_i + 2 \beta_i \Gamma_t^2, \label{c2} \\ c_3 &=& 8 \beta_s^3 - 8 \beta_s \beta_i^2 + 2 \beta_s \Gamma_t^2, \label{c3}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Gamma_t \equiv \Gamma_{ts} + \Gamma_{ti}$. Equations \[paircorr\_ff\]-\[paircorr\_bb\], along with the constants defined in Eq. \[N\]-\[c3\], formulate the expanded version of **Eq. 2** that appears in the main text.
Obtaining the detuning-dependent intracavity pump fields
========================================================
As is evident in Eq. \[paircorr\_ff\]-\[paircorr\_bb\], the intracavity pump fields play a crucial role in controlling the structure of the pair correlations. Equations \[dapfdt\_2\] & \[dapbdt\_2\] describe the coupled intracavity pump modes, and after assuming a steady state solution, may be written as,
$$\begin{aligned}
0 &=& (i\Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2) a_{\rm pf} + i \beta_p a_{\rm pb} + i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm ep}} b_{\rm pf}, \label{apf_ss} \\
0 &=& (i\Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2) a_{\rm pb} + i \beta_p^* a_{\rm pf} + i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm ep}} b_{\rm pb}, \label{apb_ss} \end{aligned}$$
or alternatively in the following matrix form,
$$\begin{pmatrix}
i \Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2 & i \beta_p e^{i \phi_{\beta_p}} \\ i \beta_p e^{-i \phi_{\beta_p}} & i \Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{\rm pf} \\ a_{\rm pb}
\end{pmatrix}
= -i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm ep}}
\begin{pmatrix}
b_{\rm pf} \\ b_{\rm pb}
\end{pmatrix}. \label{ap_matrix}$$
Upon inverting the matrix in Eq. \[ap\_matrix\], we arrive at detuning-dependent solutions for the intracavity pump fields, which are given as
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{\rm pf}(\Delta) &=& \frac{-i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm ep}}}{(i \Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2)^2 + \beta_p^2} \lbrace (i \Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2) b_{\rm pf} - i \beta_p e^{i \phi_{\beta_p}} b_{\rm pb} \rbrace, \label{apf_dualpumps} \\
a_{\rm pb}(\Delta) &=& \frac{-i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm ep}}}{(i \Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2)^2 + \beta_p^2} \lbrace - i \beta_p e^{-i \phi_{\beta_p}} b_{\rm pf} + (i \Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2) b_{\rm pb} \rbrace . \label{apb_dualpumps}\end{aligned}$$
Equations \[apf\_dualpumps\] & \[apb\_dualpumps\] describe the intracavity pump fields for the general case of two counter-propagating input pump waves (see Fig. \[physical\_picture\]) entering the device. However, all results presented in the main text are obtained with a single forward-propagating input pump wave ($b_{pb} = 0$), such that the intracavity pump fields may be expressed in the following simpler forms,
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{\rm pf}(\Delta) &=& \frac{-i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm ep}}}{(i \Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2)^2 + \beta_p^2} \lbrace (i \Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2) b_{\rm pf} \rbrace, \label{apf_singlepump} \\
a_{\rm pb}(\Delta) &=& \frac{-i \sqrt{\Gamma_{\rm ep}}}{(i \Delta - \Gamma_{\rm tp}/2)^2 + \beta_p^2} \lbrace - i \beta_p e^{-i \phi_{\beta_p}} b_{\rm pf} \rbrace. \label{apb_singlepump}\end{aligned}$$
Pair correlation theory plots for different waveguide-microdisk coupling rates
==============================================================================
Here, we describe the method used to generate the theoretically predicted pair correlation waveforms that appear in Fig. 5 of the main text. In Fig. 5(a)-(c) of the main text, we plot the experimental response of the pair correlations under three coupling regimes, $\Gamma < \beta$, $\Gamma \approx \beta$, and $\Gamma > \beta$, respectively, along with their corresponding theory plots in Fig. 5(d)-(f). Here, $\Gamma$ and $\beta$ represent the total photon decay rates and modal coupling rates, averaged between the signal and idler cavity modes.
The three coupling regimes are experimentally accessed by varying the waveguide-microdisk gap, as is schematically shown in Fig. \[MeasuredQBeta\]. For each coupling case, we perform fits (shown in magenta) of the signal (s), pump (p), and idler (i) transmission profiles (shown in blue) in order to extract the intrinsic photon decay rates ($\Gamma_{\rm 0m} = \omega_{\rm 0m}/Q_{\rm 0m}$, where m = p,s,i), external coupling rates ($\Gamma_{\rm em} = \omega_{\rm 0m}/Q_{\rm em}$), and modal coupling rates ($\beta_{m} = \omega_{\rm 0m}/2 Q_{\beta_m}$). The measured cavity quantities are then inserted into Eq. \[N\]-\[c3\], which defines all of the constants relevant to the pair correlation theory (see Eq. \[paircorr\_ff\]-\[paircorr\_bb\]). By incorporating the measured cavity quantities and laser-cavity detuning into Eq. \[apf\_singlepump\] & \[apb\_singlepump\], we compute the relative phase and amplitude of the intracavity pump fields, such that the theory describing the pair correlations would be completely defined (no free parameters) with knowledge of the spatial phases associated with the orientation of the standing-wave mode patterns. As we do not possess the necessary experimental apparatus to measure the spatial phases that determine $\phi_{\beta}$, we consequently leave it as a free parameter in our theory.
In Fig. \[undercoupled\_theory\_ideal\], we directly compare the pair correlation theory (shown as solid lines) to the experimental results (shown as dots) that appear in Fig. 5(a) of the main text. The theoretical curves are generated by incorporating the measured photon decay and coupling properties of the microdisk (see Fig. \[MeasuredQBeta\](b)-(d)) into Eq. \[paircorr\_ff\]-\[paircorr\_bb\], and then varying the relative phase, $\phi$. We start with the relative phase computed from the intracavity pump fields (Eq. \[apf\_singlepump\] & \[apb\_singlepump\]), $\phi_{\rm calc}$, and then vary the phase until the best qualitative match among all the waveforms is reached. Here, it turns out that the best match results from using $\phi = 0.75\phi_{\rm calc}$. Consequently, these are the theoretical curves presented in Fig. 5(d) of the main text, which provide a qualitative comparison to the experimental data contained in Fig. 5(a) ($\Gamma < \beta$ case).
The theory curves in Fig. \[undercoupled\_theory\_ideal\] capture the essential behavior of the experimental results and have reasonable agreement. However, we note that some deviation is to be expected, given that our theory lacks certain details. For instance, the theory assumes that all the doublets are symmetric, which is not exactly the case for our device (see. Fig. \[MeasuredQBeta\]). The doublet asymmetry implies that there will be some discrepancy between the intracavity amplitudes and phases when comparing against the perfectly symmetric case. Additionally, we have not included effects due to two-photon absorption (TPA)/free-carrier absorption (FCA), which may have a small contribution to the deviation seen in Fig. \[undercoupled\_theory\_ideal\]. In particular, TPA/FCA may explain why the theoretically predicted photon decay envelope (black solid line) in Fig. \[undercoupled\_theory\_ideal\] is slightly broader than the corresponding experimental result (black dots). Given these non-idealities, we found it informative to test how good the match could be if certain measured parameters were allowed to be tuned by a small amount in the theory. In doing so, we have produced the theoretical curves shown in Fig. \[undercoupled\_theory\_nonideal\], where the changes to measured values are listed in the inset. Here, the agreement between theory and experiment is extremely good, further strengthening the assertion that our theory describes the predominant physics of the system. However, we stress that these theoretical curves *have not* been included in the main text, because they incorporate small changes to measured values.
Thus far, we have described the manner in which the theory plots were obtained for the $\Gamma < \beta$ case. The same procedure was applied to the $\Gamma \approx \beta$ and $\Gamma > \beta$ cases, for which we used the measured values from Fig. \[MeasuredQBeta\](f)-(h) and Fig. \[MeasuredQBeta\](j)-(l), respectively. Additionally, in both of these cases the relative phase values that gave the best match between theory and experiment were $\phi_{\rm calc}$, the value computed directly from the intracavity pump fields (Eq. \[apf\_singlepump\] & \[apb\_singlepump\]), without any additional tuning.
Balancing the optical energy between intracavity pump modes
===========================================================
Here, we consider the implications of balancing the optical energy stored between the counter-propagating intracavity pump modes. In general, the intracavity pump modes will have unique values of stored optical energy ($f \neq b,$ where $f \equiv |a_{\rm pf}(\Delta)|^2$ and $b \equiv |a_{\rm pb}(\Delta)|^2$), as determined by the photon decay rates and modal coupling rates of the cavity, along with the laser-cavity detuning (see Eq. \[apf\_singlepump\] & \[apb\_singlepump\]). This is reflected in the pair correlation theory (see Eq. \[paircorr\_ff\]-\[paircorr\_bb\]) by allowing $f$ and $b$ to assume any arbitrary values. However, in the special case that $f = b$, and after some minor algebra, the pair correlation functions become,
$$\begin{aligned}
p_{c,ff}(\tau) =
\begin{cases}
|f|^2 N e^{\Gamma_{\rm ti} \tau} |\lbrace c_0 e^{-i \phi} - c_1 \rbrace \cos{(\beta_i \tau)} + \lbrace c_2 e^{-i \phi} + c_3 \rbrace \sin{(\beta_i \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau < 0), \\
|f|^2 N e^{-\Gamma_{\rm ts} \tau} |\lbrace c_0 e^{-i \phi} - c_1 \rbrace \cos{(\beta_s \tau)} - \lbrace c_3 e^{-i \phi} + c_2 \rbrace \sin{(\beta_s \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau \ge 0), \label{paircorr_ff_equal}
\end{cases} \\ \nonumber \\
p_{c,fb}(\tau) =
\begin{cases}
|f|^2 N e^{\Gamma_{\rm ti} \tau} |\lbrace c_2 e^{-i \phi} + c_3 \rbrace \cos{(\beta_i \tau)} - \lbrace c_0 e^{-i \phi} - c_1 \rbrace \sin{(\beta_i \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau < 0), \\
|f|^2 N e^{-\Gamma_{\rm ts} \tau} |\lbrace c_2 e^{-i \phi} + c_3 \rbrace \cos{(\beta_s \tau)} - \lbrace c_1 e^{-i \phi} - c_0 \rbrace \sin{(\beta_s \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau \ge 0), \label{paircorr_fb_equal}
\end{cases} \\ \nonumber \\
p_{c,bf}(\tau) =
\begin{cases}
|f|^2 N e^{\Gamma_{\rm ti} \tau} |\lbrace c_2 e^{-i \phi} + c_3 \rbrace \cos{(\beta_i \tau)} - \lbrace c_0 e^{-i \phi} - c_1 \rbrace \sin{(\beta_i \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau < 0), \\
|f|^2 N e^{-\Gamma_{\rm ts} \tau} |\lbrace c_2 e^{-i \phi} + c_3 \rbrace \cos{(\beta_s \tau)} - \lbrace c_1 e^{-i \phi} - c_0 \rbrace \sin{(\beta_s \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau \ge 0), \label{paircorr_bf_equal}
\end{cases} \\ \nonumber \\
p_{c,bb}(\tau) =
\begin{cases}
|f|^2 N e^{\Gamma_{\rm ti} \tau} |\lbrace c_0 e^{-i \phi} - c_1 \rbrace \cos{(\beta_i \tau)} + \lbrace c_2 e^{-i \phi} + c_3 \rbrace \sin{(\beta_i \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau < 0), \\
|f|^2 N e^{-\Gamma_{\rm ts} \tau} |\lbrace c_0 e^{i \phi} - c_1 b \rbrace \cos{(\beta_s \tau)} - \lbrace c_3 e^{-i \phi} + c_2 \rbrace \sin{(\beta_s \tau)}|^2 & \quad (\tau \ge 0), \label{paircorr_bb_equal}
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$
where we have made use of the identity $|n_1 \pm n_2 e^{i \phi}|^2 = |n_1 \pm n_2 e^{-i \phi}|^2$ ($n_1$ and $n_2$ are constants). Thus, we see that when the optical energy stored between the intracavity pump modes is exactly balanced, the pair correlation waveforms from the same path classification (co-propagating vs. counter-propagating) become indistinguishable. A plot of the theory describing this phenomenon may be seen in Fig. \[equal\_pumps\_phase180\], where we have set the photon decay rates and modal coupling rates between the pump, signal and idler cavity modes to be equivalent.
Here, we clearly see that the pair correlations for the forward-forward (SF-IF) and backward-backward (SB-IB) co-propagating path configurations are mutually indistinguishable, as well as the pair correlations associated with the forward-backward (SF-IB) and backward-forward (SB-IF) counter-propagating path configurations. As mentioned in the main text, this phenomenon is a consequence of the system possessing an internal mirror symmetry (with respect to the photon generation processes) upon exact balancing of the intracavity pump energies.
In Fig. \[equal\_pumps\_phase180\], we see that the correlations belonging to the co-propagating state classification are maximally correlated at zero delay-time, whereas the opposite occurs for the correlations associated with the counter-propagating state classification. As discussed in the main text, by varying the relative pump phase, we can control the quantum interference within the device, such that this behavior is flipped between state classifications. With $\phi = 0^o$, as shown in Fig. \[equal\_pumps\_phase0\], the correlations waveforms from the same state classification are now perfectly transposed in comparison to Fig. \[equal\_pumps\_phase180\]. We note that the small hump appearing in the correlation waveforms corresponding to the co-propagating states (see Fig. \[equal\_pumps\_phase0\]) is a consequence of the coupling vs total photon decay rate. This feature can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the rate of coupling compared to the rate of decay (as we have done in theoretical investigations not presented here). In fact, the presence or absence of this feature is a manifestation of the distinguishability between alternative two-photon pathways within the system. When the coupling rate is comparable to the photon decay rate, we gain some knowledge about whether a photon originally came from the forward or backward traveling mode. However, when the coupling rate is much greater than the photon decay rate, then the ’which-path’ information is totally removed from the system, allowing for perfect interference visibility and complete removal of the hump.
Response of pair correlations to laser-cavity detuning around resonance
=======================================================================
Here, we provide detailed versions of a subset of the pair correlations appearing in Fig. 6 of the main text. The experimental results in that figure were obtained by varying the laser-cavity detuning about resonance (as indicated by the laser locking points in Fig. \[DetAcrossRes\](a), which was copied from Fig. 6(a) in the main text), which induces a large relative phase shift between the counter-propagating intracavity pump modes, as shown in Fig. \[DetAcrossRes\](b) (which was copied from Fig. 6(b) of the main text). Although all eight points are important in characterizing the pump-induced interference phenomena, the most pronounced changes occur between the detuning values labeled as (4) and (5) (see Fig. \[DetAcrossRes\](a),(b)), because this transition includes tuning through the resonance frequency of the pump cavity mode. Here, we provide detailed versions of the response of the pair correlations for each path configuration as the carrier frequency of the pump laser is swept from negative to positive detuning.
Experimental setup
==================
Here, we provide a schematic of the experimental setup (see Fig. \[ExptSetup\]) used to obtain all of the results appearing in the main text. A discussion of the experimental techniques and procedures may be found in Appendix B of the main text; an abridged version of which may be found in the caption of Fig. \[ExptSetup\].
[99]{}
O’Brien, J. L., Furusawa, A., & Vuckovic, J. Photonic quantum technologies. *Nat. Photonics* [**3,**]{} 687-695 (2009). Kurizki, G. et al. Quantum technologies with hybrid systems. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.* [**112,**]{} 3866-3873 (2015).
Heshami, K. et al. Quantum memories: emerging applications and recent advances. *J. Mod. Opt.* [**63,**]{} 2005-2028 (2016).
Acin, A. et al. The quantum technologies roadmap: a European community view. *New J. Phys.* [**20,**]{} 080201 (2018).
Awschalom, D. D., Hanson, R., Wrachtrup, J., & Zhou, B. B. Quantum technologies with optically interfaced solid-state spins. *Nat. Photonics* [**12,**]{} 516-527 (2018).
Wang, J. et al. Multidimensional quantum entanglement with large-scale integrated optics. *Science* [**360,**]{} 285-291 (2018).
Qiang, X. et al. Large-scale silicon quantum photonics implementing arbitrary two-qubit processing. *Nat. Photonics* [**12,**]{} 534-539 (2018).
Knill, E., Laflamme, R., & Milburn, G. J. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics. *Nature* [**409,**]{} 46–52 (2001). Pittman, T. B., Jacobs, B. C., & Franson, J. D. Demonstration of nondeterministic quantum logic operations using linear optical elements. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**88,**]{} 257902 (2002). Kok, P. et al. Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* [**79,**]{} 135-174 (2007). Carolan, J. et al. Universal linear optics. *Science* [**349,**]{} 711 (2015).
Aspuru-Guzik, A. & Walther, P. Photonic quantum simulators. *Nat. Phys.* [**8,**]{} 285 (2012).
Gisin, N. & Thew, R. Quantum communication. *Nat. Photonics* [**1,**]{} 165 (2007).
Shor, P. W. & Preskill, J. Simple proof of security of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**85,**]{} 441-444 (2000).
Gisin, N., Ribordy, G., Tittel, W., & Zbinden, H. Quantum cryptography. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* [**74,**]{} 145–195 (2002).
Lee, H., Kok, P., & Dowling, J. P. A quantum Rosetta stone for interferometry. *J. Mod. Opt.* [**49,**]{} 2325-2338 (2002). Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., & Maccone, L. Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit. *Science* [**306,**]{} 1330-1336 (2004).
Belykh, V. V. et al. Quantum interference controls the electron spin dynamics in n-GaAs. *Phys. Rev. X* [**8,**]{} 031021 (2018).
Dudin, Y. O., Li, L., Bariani, F., & Kuzmich, A. Observation of coherent many-body Rabi oscillations. *Nat. Phys.* [**8,**]{} 790-794 (2012).
Chiorescu, I., Nakamura, Y., Harmans, C. J. P. M., & Mooij, J. E. Coherent quantum dynamics of a superconducting flux qubit. *Science* [**299,**]{} 1869-1871 (2003).
Zibrov, A. S. et al. Experimental demonstration of laser oscillations without population inversion via quantum interference in Rb. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**75,**]{} 1499-1502 (1995).
Ward, M. B. et al. Coherent dynamics of a telecom-wavelength entangled photon source. *Nat. Commun.* [**5,**]{} 3316 (2014).
Boyd, R. W. *Nonlinear Optics*, $3^{\rm rd}$ Ed. (Academic Press, New York, 2008).
Sharping, J. E. et al. Generation of correlated photons in nanoscale silicon waveguides. *Opt. Express* [**14,**]{} 12388-12393 (2006).
Strekalov, D. V., Marquardt, C., Matsko, A. B., Schwefel, H. G. L., & Leuchs, G. Nonlinear and quantum optics with whispering gallery resonators. *J. Opt.* [**18,**]{} 123002 (2016).
Kippenberg, T. J., Spillane, S. M., & Vahala, K. J. Modal coupling in traveling-wave resonators. *Opt. Lett.* [**27,**]{} 1669-1671 (2002).
Mandel, L. & Wolf, E. *Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
Clemmen, S. et al. Continuous wave photon pair generation in silicon-on-insulator waveguides and ring resonators. *Opt. Express* [**17,**]{} 16558-16570 (2009).
Davanco, M. et al. Telecommunication-band heralded single photons from a silicon nanophotonic chip. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* [**100,**]{} 261104 (2012).
Azzini, S. et al. Ultra-low power generation of twin photons in a compact silicon ring resonator. *Opt. Express* [**20,**]{} 23100-23107 (2012).
Engin, E. et al. Photon pair generation in a silicon micro-ring resonator with reverse bias enhancement. *Opt. Express* [**21,**]{} 27826-27834 (2013).
Silverstone, J. W. et al. Qubit entanglement between ring-resonator photon-pair sources on a silicon chip. *Nat. Commun.* [**6,**]{} 7948 (2015).
Grassani, D. et al. Micrometer-scale integrated silicon source of time-energy entangled photons. *Optica* [**2,**]{} 88-94 (2015).
Reimer, C. et al. Generation of multiphoton entangled quantum states by means of integrated frequency combs. *Science* [**351,**]{} 1176-1180 (2016).
Rogers, S., Mulkey, D., Lu, X., Jiang, W. C., & Lin, Q. High visibility time-energy entangled photons from a silicon nanophotonic chip. *ACS Photonics* [**3,**]{} 1754-1761 (2016).
Gentry, C. M. et al. Quantum-correlted photon pairs generated in a commercial 45 nm complementary metal-oxide semiconductor microelectronic chip. *Optica* [**2,**]{} 1065–1071 (2015).
Weiss, D. S. et al. Splitting of high-Q Mie modes induced by light backscattering in silica microspheres. *Opt. Lett.* [**20,**]{} 1835-1837 (1995).
Mazzei, A. et al. Controlled coupling of counterpropagating whispering-gallery modes by a single Rayleigh scatter: A classical problem in a quantum optical light. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**99,**]{} 173603 (2007).
Guo, X., Mei, Y., & Du, S. Testing the Bell inequality on frequency-bin entangled photon pairs using time-resolved detection. *Optica* [**4,**]{} 388-392 (2017).
Bell, J. S. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. *Physics* [**1,**]{} 195-200 (1964).
Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., & Holt, R. A. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**23,**]{} 800-804 (1969).
Thompson, R. J., Rempe, G., & Kimble, H. J. Observation of normal-mode splitting for an atom in an optical cavity. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**68,**]{} 1132-1135 (1992).
Mabuchi, H. & Doherty, A. C. Cavity quantum electrodynamics: coherence in context. *Science* [**298,**]{} 1372-1377 (2002).
Vahala, K. J. Optical microcavities. *Nature* [**424,**]{} 839-846 (2003).
Zhu, J., Özdemir, K., He, L., & Yang, L. Controlled manipulation of mode splitting in an optical microcavity by two Rayleigh scatterers. *Opt. Express* [**18,**]{} 23535-23543 (2010).
Lu, X., Rogers, S., Jiang, W. C., & Lin, Q. Selective engineering of cavity resonance for frequency matching in optical parametric processes. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* [**105,**]{} 151104 (2014).
Golter, D. A. & Wang, H. Optically driven Rabi oscillations and adiabatic passage of single electron spins in diamond. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**112,**]{} 116403 (2014).
Lu, L., Joannopoulos, J. D., & Soljačić, M. Topological photonics. *Nat. Photonics* [**8,**]{} 821-829 (2014).
Carmon, T., Yang, L., & Vahala, K. J. Dynamical thermal behavior and thermal self-stability of microcavities. *Opt. Express* [**12,**]{} 4742-4750 (2004).
Jiang, W. C., Lu, X., Zhang, J., Painter, O., & Lin, Q. Silicon-chip source of bright photon pairs. *Opt. Express* [**23,**]{} 20884-20904 (2015).
Pan, J.-W. et al. Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* [**84,**]{} 777-838 (2012).
Walls, D. F. & Milburn, G. J. *Quantum Optics*, $2^{\rm nd}$ Ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Yamaguchi University,\
Yoshida, Yamaguchi 753-8512, Japan
author:
- 'Yoshinori Cho,[^1] Yoshitaka Degura[^2] and Kiyoshi Shiraishi[^3]'
title: Extremely charged static perfect fluid distributions with dilaton in curved spacetimes
---
Guchi-TP-005\
Introduction
============
Recently, there has been much interest in the study of Majumdar-Papapetrou metrics [@ref1; @ref2; @ref3], discribing the static equilibrium state of extremely charged black holes. For the static Einstein-Maxwell equation with charged dust as the external source of the fields, one can reduce the electrovacuum field equations to the Poisson equation in the flat space [@ref4; @ref5; @ref6]. In such a system, one can show that the charge and mass densities are equal.
In the low energy limit of string theory, the dilatonic forces as well as gravitational and electric forces are acting among charged matters as long-range forces. In this paper, we study the charged perfect fluid distributions which also couple to a dilaton field in static $(N+1)$ dimensional spacetimes. We find that field equations reduce to a non-linear type of Poisson equation and that Maxwell equation and an equation for a dilaton show the relation among the charge, mass and dilatonic charge densities. We also examine some simple exact solutions.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section, we will show the action and the assumptions on the charged perfect fluid distributions in the static $(N+1)$ dimensional spacetimes, which we consider in the present paper. We reduce the field equations to the non-linear version of Poisson equation in section 3. We find some simple solutions and discuss them in section 4. Finally, section 5 is devoted to conclusion and discussion.
The model
=========
The action for the fields which mediate long-range forces is $$S=\int d^{N+1}x\frac{\sqrt{-g}}{16\pi}\left[R-\frac{4}{N-1}(\nabla\phi)^2 -
e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}F^2 \right],
\label{eq:1}$$ where $N$ $(N\geq 3)$ denotes the dimension of space, $R$ is the scalar curvature and $\phi$ is the dilaton field. $F^2 =F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}$ denotes the Maxwell field strength. The dilaton coupling to the Maxwell term is governed by a constant $a$. The Newton constant is normalized to unity.
Incorporating coupling to matter, we obtain our basic equations: $$G_{\mu\nu}-\frac{4}{N-1}\left[\nabla_{\mu}\phi\nabla_{\nu}\phi-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}(\nabla\phi)^2 \right]-e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}\left[2F_{\mu\nu}^2 -\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}F^2 \right]=8\pi T_{\mu\nu},
\label{eq:2}$$ $$\frac{8}{N-1}\nabla^2 \phi+\frac{4a}{N-1}e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}F^2 =
4\pi\frac{8a}{N-1}\rho_{dil},
\label{eq:3}$$ $$\nabla_{\mu}\left[e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}F^{\mu\nu}\right]=4\pi j^{\nu},
\label{eq:4}$$ where $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor. The energy momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$ for a perfect fluid is given by $$T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)u_{\mu}u_{\nu}+pg_{\mu\nu},
\label{eq:5}$$ where $\rho$ is the energy density and $u^{\mu}$ is the four velocity. The electric current vector $j^{\mu}$ is defined as $$j^{\mu}=\rho_{e}u^{\mu},
\label{eq:6}$$ where $\rho_e$ is the charge density. We have introduced the dilatonic charge density $\rho_{dil}$ in the right hand side of the equation for a dilaton field.
Deriving the non-linear version of Poisson equation
===================================================
We assume that the fluid is static and the metric of the static spacetime takes the form: $$ds^2 =-U^{-2}dt^2 +U^{\frac{2}{N-2}}\tilde{g}_{ij}dx^i dx^j ,
\label{eq:7}$$ where $i,j=1,\dots,N$, and both the background metric $\tilde{g}_{ij}$ and $U$ depend only on the space-like coordinates $x^i$.
The Ricci and Einstein tensor components derived from the metric (\[eq:7\]) are given by $$R_{00}=-U^{-2-\frac{2}{N-2}}\tilde{\nabla}_{l}
\left(\frac{\tilde{\nabla}^{l}U}{U} \right),$$ $$G_{ij}=-\frac{N-1}{N-2}\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{i}U}{U}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{j}U}{U}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{N-1}{N-2}
\tilde{g}^{kl}\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{k}U}{U}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{l}U}{U}\tilde{g}_{ij}+\tilde{G}_{ij},$$ where $\tilde{\nabla}_i$ denotes the $N$ dimensional covariant derivative in terms of $\tilde{g}_{ij}$. $\tilde{G}_{ij}$ is constructed from $\tilde{g}_{ij}$.
Here we should assume that there is only the electric field, namely $F_{0i}\neq 0$ and the others are set to be zero. Then we get $$\begin{aligned}
F^{2}_{00}&=&U^{-\frac{2}{N-2}}\tilde{g}^{kl}F_{0k}F_{0l}, \\
F^{2}_{ij}&=&-U^{2}F_{0i}F_{0j}, \\
F^{2}&=&-2U^{2-\frac{2}{N-2}}\tilde{g}^{kl}F_{0k}F_{0l}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, we also put an assumption on the dilatonic field: $$e^{-\frac{4a}{N-2}\phi}=U^{2\alpha},
\label{eq:10}$$ where $\alpha$ is a constant.
Then the $(00)$ component in the left hand side of Eq. (\[eq:2\]) becomes $$R_{00}-e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}
\left[
2F_{00}^{2}-\frac{1}{N-1}g_{00}F^{2}
\right]
=-U^{-2-\frac{2}{N-2}}\tilde{\nabla}^{2}\ln U
-2U^{2\alpha -\frac{2}{N-2}}\frac{N-2}{N-1}\tilde{g}^{kl}
F_{0k}F_{0l},
\label{eq:11}$$ while the $(ij)$ component in the left hand side of Eq. (\[eq:2\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
G_{ij} \! \! \! &-& \! \! \! \frac{4}{N-1}
\left[\nabla_{i}\phi\nabla_{j}\phi-\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}
(\nabla\phi)^{2}\right]
-e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}\left[2F^{2}_{ij}
-\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}F^{2}\right] \nonumber
\\
&=& \! \! \! -\frac{N-1}{N-2}\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{i}U}{U}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{j}U}{U}-(N-1)\frac{\alpha^{2}}{a^{2}}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{i}U}{U}\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{j}U}{U}
+2U^{2\alpha +2}F_{0i}F_{0j} \nonumber
\\
& & \! \! \! +\frac{1}{2}\frac{N-1}{N-2}\tilde{g}^{kl}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{k}U}{U}\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{l}U}{U}
\tilde{g}_{ij}
+
\frac{1}{2}(N-1)\frac{\alpha^{2}}{a^{2}}\tilde{g}^{kl}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{k}U}{U}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{l}U}{U}
\tilde{g}_{ij}
-
U^{2\alpha +2}\tilde{g}^{kl}F_{0k}F_{0l}\tilde{g}_{ij}
\nonumber
\\
& &{} \! \! \!
+\tilde{G}_{ij}.
\label{eq:12}\end{aligned}$$
Here we should suppose that $U^{\alpha +1}=V$, then Eq. (\[eq:11\]) is changed into $$\begin{aligned}
R_{00}-e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}\left[2F^{2}_{00}-\frac{1}{N-1}g_{00}F^{2}\right]
&=&-U^{-2-\frac{2}{N-2}}\left[\frac{1}{\alpha +1}\frac{\tilde{\nabla}^{2}V}{V}
-\frac{1}{\alpha +1}\tilde{g}^{kl}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{k}V}{V}\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{l}V}{V}
\right.\nonumber \\
& & \left.
+2\frac{N-2}{N-1}V^{2}\tilde{g}^{kl}
F_{0k}F_{0l}
\right].
\label{eq:13}\end{aligned}$$ In order that the second term is canceled by the third one in the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:13\]), we adopt $$F_{0k}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{N-1}{2(N-2)}}
\sqrt{\frac{1}{\alpha +1}}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{k}V}{V^{2}}.
\label{eq:14}$$ On the other hand, assuming Eq. (\[eq:14\]), we can reduce Eq. (\[eq:12\]) to $$\begin{aligned}
G_{ij} \! \! \! &-& \frac{4}{N-1}\left[
\nabla_{i}\phi\nabla_{j}\phi-\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}(\nabla\phi)^{2}\right]
-e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}\left[2F^{2}_{ij}
-\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}F^{2}\right]
\nonumber
\\
&=& \! \! \! \left(
-\frac{1}{N-2}\frac{1}{\alpha +1}-\frac{\alpha^{2}}{a^{2}}
\frac{1}{\alpha +1}+\frac{1}{N-2}
\right)\frac{N-1}{\alpha +1}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{i}U}{U}\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{j}U}{U}
\nonumber
\\
& & \! \! \!
-\frac{1}{2}
\left(
-\frac{1}{N-2}\frac{1}{\alpha +1}-\frac{\alpha^{2}}{a^2}
\frac{1}{\alpha +1}+\frac{1}{N-2}
\right)\frac{N-1}{\alpha +1}
\tilde{g}^{kl}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{k}U}{U}\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{l}U}{U}
\tilde{g}_{ij}
\nonumber
\\
& & \! \! \! +\tilde{G}_{ij}.
\label{eq:15}\end{aligned}$$ In order to eliminate the first and second terms in the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:15\]), we take $$\alpha =\frac{a^2}{N-2}.$$
Consequently, we reduce the left hand side of Eq. (\[eq:2\]) to the following equations: $$R_{00}-e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}\left[
2F^{2}_{00}-\frac{1}{N-1}g_{00}F^{2}
\right]
=
-U^{-2-\frac{2}{N-2}}\frac{N-2}{N-2+a^{2}}
\frac{1}{V}\tilde{\nabla}^{2}V,
\label{eq:17}$$ $$G_{ij}-\frac{4}{N-1}
\left[
\nabla_{i}\phi\nabla_{j}\phi-\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}
(\nabla\phi)^{2}
\right]
-e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}
\left[2F^{2}_{ij}
-\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}F^{2}
\right]
=\tilde{G}_{ij}.
\label{eq:18}$$ We should remember that $$e^{-\frac{4a}{N-1}\phi}=U^{\frac{2a^{2}}{N-2}}
=V^{\frac{2a^{2}}{N-2+a^{2}}},
\label{eq:19}$$ $$F_{0k}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{N-1}{2(N-2+a^{2})}}
\frac{\tilde{\nabla}_{k}V}{V^{2}}.
\label{eq:20}$$
Finally, using Eqs. (\[eq:5\]), (\[eq:6\]) and (\[eq:17\]-\[eq:20\]), we reduce the field equations (\[eq:2\]), (\[eq:3\]) and (\[eq:4\]) simply to the following equations: $$\tilde{\nabla}^2 V+8\pi\frac{N-2+a^2}{N-1}
V^{\frac{N+a^2}{N-2+a^2}}(\rho+\frac{N}{N-2}p)=0 \ ,
\label{eq:21}$$ $$\tilde{R}_{ij}=
-\frac{16\pi p}{N-2}
V^{\frac{2}{N-2+a^2}}\tilde{g}_{ij} \ ,$$ $$\rho_{dil}=\rho+\frac{N}{N-2}p \ ,$$ $$\rho_e=\pm e^{-\frac{2a}{N-1}\phi}\sqrt{\frac{2(N-2+a^2)}{N-1}}
\left(\rho +\frac{N}{N-2}p \right) \ .
\label{eq:24}$$ Therefore, these equations represent the Einstein, Maxwell and dilaton equations.
Here we think about Eq. (\[eq:24\]) for the dust case $(p=0)$. The action for particles, of which coordinates are denoted by $x^{\mu}$, can be written as: $$I=-\sum_{a}\int ds_{a}\left[m_a e^{\frac{2a}{N-1}\phi}+e_a A_{\nu}\frac{dx^{\nu}_{a}}{ds_a} \right],$$ where $m_a$ and $e_a$ stand for the mass and electric charges of the particles. Suppose that the distribution of these particles represents the matter densities. One can find that the dilatonic charge density is proportional to the charge density. Thus, we can recognize that the relationship between the charge density and the mass density is $\rho_e \propto \pm e^{-\frac{2a}{N-1}\phi}\rho$, because each electric charge $e_a$ is a constant. In the next section, we discuss the some explicit solutions of Eq. (\[eq:21\]).
Exact solutions
===============
For the dust case $(p=0)$, we find some simple exact solutions of Eq. (\[eq:21\]), which do not have the singularities. When spherical symmetry is assumed, the non-linear version of Poisson equation takes the following form: $$\frac{d^2 V}{dr^2}+\frac{N-1}{r}\frac{dV}{dr}+
8\pi\rho\frac{N-2+a^2}{N-1}V^{\frac{N+a^2}{N-2+a^2}}=0.
\label{eq:26}$$
If we put the following condition on the energy density: $$\rho=\frac{A}{8\pi}\frac{N-1}{N-2+a^2}V^{-\frac{N+a^2}{N-2+a^2}},
\label{eq:27}$$ we can find that the solution is $$V(r)=B-\frac{Ar^2}{6N}.$$ Here $A$ and $B$ are constants.
We show that the energy density $\rho$ for a certain value of total mass plotted against $r$ for $a^2 =0$, $a^2 =\frac{N-1}{2N}$, $a^2 =1$ and $a^2 =N$ in Fig. 1(a) in the case of $N=3$. In Fig. 1(b), $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. Fig. 2 is drawn with the same conditions of Fig. 1, except for $N=5$ and Fig. 3 is also, except for $N=9$.
If we put another condition: $$\rho=\frac{C^2}{8\pi}\frac{N-1}{N-2+a^2}V^{-\frac{2}{N-2+a^2}},
\label{eq:29}$$ the solution is $$V(r)=D\frac{J_{(N-2)/2}(Cr)}{r^{(N-2)/2}}.$$ Here $C$ and $D$ are constants, and $J_{\nu}(z)$ is the Bessel function. If we choose $N=3$ and $a^2 =0$, then we can obtain the same results of Gürses [@ref4].
We show that the energy density $\rho$ for a certain value of total mass plotted against $r$ for $a^2 =0$, $a^2 =\frac{N-1}{2N}$, $a^2 =1$ and $a^2 =N$ in Fig. 4(a) in the case of $N=3$. In Fig. 4(b), $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. Fig. 5 is drawn with the same conditions of Fig. 4, except for $N=5$ and Fig. 6 is also, except for $N=9$.
Varela considered the case that Eq. (\[eq:26\]) can be reduced to the sine-Gordon equation [@ref6]. Using the new radial coodinate $\tau=\frac{1}{r^{N-2}}$ to rearrange Eq. (\[eq:26\]), we obtain: $$\frac{d^2 V}{d\tau^2}+8\pi\rho\frac{N-2+a^2}{(N-2)^2 (N-1)}
\tau^{-\frac{2(N-1)}{N-2}}V^{\frac{N+a^2}{N-2+a^2}}=0.
\label{eq:31}$$ If we assume $$\rho=\frac{E^2}{8\pi}\frac{(N-2)^2 (N-1)}{N-2+a^2}\tau^{\frac{2(N-1)}{N-2}}
(\sin V) V^{-\frac{N+a^2}{N-2+a^2}},
\label{eq:32}$$ then, Eq. (\[eq:31\]) reduces to the sine-Gordon equation $$\frac{d^2 V}{d\tau^2}+E^2 \sin V=0,$$ which has the solutions $$V(\tau)=2\arcsin[\tanh(E\tau+F)]+2n\pi \ ,
\label{eq:34}$$ where $n$ is an arbitrary integer, $F$ is an integration constant, and $E$ is assumed to be positive. We consider only the case $n=0$. If we choose the integration constant $F$ for $$F=\frac{1}{2}\ln \left[\frac{1+\sin(1/2)}{1-\sin(1/2)}\right],
\label{eq:35}$$ then the spacetime corresponding to Eq. (\[eq:34\]) and Eq. (\[eq:35\]) becomes asmptotically flat [@ref6].
We show that the energy density $\rho$ for a certain value of total mass plotted against $r$ for $a^2 =0$, $a^2 =\frac{N-1}{2N}$, $a^2 =1$ and $a^2 =N$ in Fig. 7(a) in the case of $N=3$. In Fig. 7(b), $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants.
Here, in these figures, we find that the energy density decreases as the coupling constant $a^2$ increases. We also find that the difference between the energy densities gets narrow for the various values of $a^2$ and the contrast (i.e., the difference between the energy density at $r=0$ and the one at $r=2$) decreases as the dimension of space $N$ increases.
Conclusion and discussion
=========================
In this paper, we have investigated charged static perfect fluid distributions with the dilaton field in the frame-work of general relativity. As shown in section 3, the Einstein equations have reduced to the non-linear version of Poisson equation, and the Maxwell equation and the equation for the dilaton have implied the relation among the charge, mass and dilatonic charged densities. For the dust case, one can find that the relationship between the charge density and the mass density is $\rho_e \propto \pm e^{-\frac{2a}{N-1}\phi}\rho$, because, for point particles, the dilaton does not couple to the electric charge but to the mass.
In section 4, we have found simple exact solutions of Eq. (\[eq:21\]) corresponding to certain energy densities. We have found that the energy density decreases as the coupling constant $a^2$ increases. We have found that the energy density decreases as the coupling constant $a^2$ increases. We have found that the difference between the energy densities gets narrow for the various values of $a^2$ and the contrast (i.e., the difference between the energy density at $r=0$ and the one at $r=2$) decreases as the dimension of space $N$ increases.
We have not yet dealt with Eq. (\[eq:21\]) on the condition for $p\neq 0$. Recently, Ida found some exact charged solutions in this situation [@ref5]. We will study the non-zero pressure case with a dilaton field in $(N+1)$ dimensions. Also we have not yet considered the case of $N=2$, which we have only thought of the equilibrium between the dilatonic attractions and the electric repulsions. We must continue to make every effort to study these situations.
![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:27\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=3$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1/3$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =3$.](fig1.eps "fig:") ![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:27\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=3$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1/3$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =3$.](fig2.eps "fig:")
![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:27\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=5$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =2/5$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =5$.[]{data-label="(a)"}](fig3.eps "fig:") ![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:27\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=5$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =2/5$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =5$.[]{data-label="(a)"}](fig4.eps "fig:")
![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:27\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=9$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =4/9$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =9$.](fig5.eps "fig:") ![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:27\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=9$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =4/9$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =9$.](fig6.eps "fig:")
![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:29\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=3$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1/3$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =3$.](fig10.eps "fig:") ![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:29\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=3$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1/3$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =3$.](fig11.eps "fig:")
![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:29\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=5$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =2/5$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =5$.](fig12.eps "fig:") ![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:29\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=5$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =2/5$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =5$.](fig13.eps "fig:")
![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:29\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=9$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =4/9$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =9$.](fig14.eps "fig:") ![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:29\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=9$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. Here the energy density is matched to the one for the vacuum solution at $r=2$. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =4/9$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =9$.](fig15.eps "fig:")
![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:32\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=3$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1/3$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =3$.](fig20.eps "fig:") ![(a) the energy density $\rho$ of Eq. (\[eq:32\]) is plotted against $r$ in the case of $N=3$. (b) $1-U^2$ is plotted against $r$ for the same coupling constants. The solid line corresponds to $a^2 =0$, the dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1/3$, the dot-dashed line corresponds to $a^2 =1$, the dotted line corresponds to $a^2 =3$.](fig21.eps "fig:")
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank N. Kan, M. Ooho and T. Watabe for useful advice and support.
[99]{} S. D. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. [**72**]{}, 390 (1947). A. Papapetrou, Proc. R. Soc. London [**A51**]{}, 191 (1947). J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. [**26**]{}, 87 (1972). M. Gürses, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{}, 044001 (1998). D. Ida, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**103**]{}, 573 (2000). V. Varela, gr-qc/9911062.
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^3]: E-mail:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[ The aim of this paper is to obtain a posteriori error bounds of optimal order in time and space for the linear second-order wave equation discretized by the Newmark scheme in time and the finite element method in space. Error estimate is derived in the $L^{\infty}$-in-time/energy-in-space norm. Numerical experiments are reported for several test cases and confirm equivalence of the proposed estimator and the true error. ]{} [ a posteriori error bounds in time and space, wave equation, Newmark scheme ]{}'
author:
- 'Olga Gorynina,[^1] Alexei Lozinski,[^2] and Marco Picasso[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'apost.bib'
title: Time and space adaptivity of the wave equation discretized in time by a second order scheme
---
Introduction
============
A posteriori error analysis of finite element approximations for partial differential equations plays an important role in mesh adaptivity techniques. The main aim of a posteriori error analysis is to obtain suitable error estimates computable using only the approximate solution given by the numerical method. The cases of elliptic and parabolic problems are well studied in the literature (for the parabolic case, we can cite, among many others [@ErikssonJohnson; @AMN; @LPP; @LakkisMakridakisPryer]). On the contrary, the a posteriori error analysis for hyperbolic equations of second order in time is much less developed. Some a posteriori bounds are proposed in [@BS; @Georgoulis13] for the wave equation using the Euler discretization in time, which is however known to be too diffusive and thus rarely used for the wave equation. More popular schemes, i.e. the leap-frog and cosine methods, are studied in [@Georgoulis16] but only the error caused by discretization in time is considered. On the other hand, error estimators for the space discretization only are proposed in [@Picasso10; @adjerid2002posteriori]. Goal-oriented error estimation and adaptivity for the wave equation were developed in [@bangerth2010adaptive; @bangerth2001adaptive; @bangerth1999finite].
The motivation of this work is to obtain a posteriori error estimates of optimal order in time and space for the fully discrete wave equation in energy norm discretized with the Newmark scheme in time (equivalent to a cosine method as presented in [@Georgoulis16]) and with finite elements in space. We adopt the particular choice for the parameters in the Newmark scheme, namely $\beta=1/4 $, $\gamma=1/2$. This choice of parameters is popular since it provides a conservative method with respect to the energy norm, cf. [@bathe1976numerical]. Another interesting feature of this variant of the method, which is in fact essential for our analysis, is the fact that the method can be reinterpreted as the Crank-Nicolson discretization of the reformulation of the governing equation in the first-order system, as in [@Baker76]. We are thus able to use the techniques stemming from a posteriori error analysis for the Crank-Nicolson discretization of the heat equation in [@LPP], based on a piecewise quadratic polynomial in time reconstruction of the numerical solution. This leads to optimal a posteriori error estimate in time and also allows us to easily recover the estimates in space. The resulting estimates are referred to as the $3$-point estimator since our quadratic reconstruction is drawn through the values of the discrete solution at 3 points in time. The reliability of 3-point estimator is proved theoretically for general regular meshes in space and non-uniform meshes in time. It is also illustrated by numerical experiments.
We do not provide a proof of the optimality (efficiency) of our error estimators in space ans time. However, we are able to prove that the time estimator is of optimal order at least on sufficiently smooth solutions, quasi-uniform meshes in space and uniform meshes in time. The most interesting finding of this analysis is the crucial importance of the way in which the initial conditions are discretized (elliptic projections): a straightforward discretization, such as the nodal interpolation, may ruin the error estimators while providing quite acceptable numerical solution. Numerical experiments confirm these theoretical findings and demonstrate that our error estimators are of optimal order in space and time, even in situation not accessible to the current theory (non quasi-uniform meshes, not constant time steps). This gives us the hope that our estimators can be used to construct an adaptive algorithm in both time and space.
The outline of the paper is as follows. We present the governing equations, the discretization and a priori error estimates in Section \[section2\]. In Section \[section3\], an a posteriori error estimate is derived and some considerations concerning the optimality of time estimators are given. Numerical results are analysed in Section \[section4\].
The Newmark scheme for the wave equation and a priori error analysis {#section2}
====================================================================
We consider initial boundary-value problem for the wave equation. Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with boundary $\partial \Omega$ and $T>0$ be a given final time. Let $u=u(x,t) : \Omega\times\left[0,T \right]\to\mathbb{R}$ be the solution to $$\begin{cases}
\cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2}-\Delta u=f,&\mbox{in}~ \Omega\times\left]0,T \right],\\
u=0,&\mbox{on}~ \partial\Omega\times\left]0,T \right],\\
u(\cdot,0)=u_0,&\mbox{in}~\Omega,\\
\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}(\cdot,0)=v_0,&\mbox{in}~\Omega,
\end{cases}
\label{wave}$$ where $f,u_0,v_0$ are given functions. Note that if we introduce the auxiliary unknown $v=\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$ then model (\[wave\]) can be rewritten as the following first-order in time system $$\begin{cases}
\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}-v=0, &\mbox{in}~ \Omega\times\left]0,T \right], \\
\cfrac{\partial v}{\partial t}-\Delta u=f, &\mbox{in}~ \Omega\times\left]0,T \right], \\
u=v=0,&\mbox{on}~ \partial\Omega\times\left]0,T \right] ,\\
u(\cdot,0)=u_0,~v(\cdot,0)=v_0,~&\mbox{in}~\Omega.
\label{syst}
\end{cases}$$ The above problem (\[wave\]) has the following weak formulation, cf. [@evans2010partial]: for given $f\in L^{2}(0,T;L^2(\Omega))$, $u_0\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $v_0\in L^2(\Omega)$ find a function $$u\in L^{2}\left(0,T;H^1_0(\Omega)\right),~\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}\in L^{2}\left(0,T;L^2(\Omega)\right),~\cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2}\in L^{2}\left(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega)\right)$$ such that $u(x,0)=u_0$ in $H^1_0(\Omega)$, $\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}(x,0)=v_0$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ and $$\left\langle\cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2},\varphi\right\rangle+\left(\nabla u,\nabla \varphi\right)=\left(f,\varphi\right),~\forall\varphi \in H^1_0(\Omega),
\label{weakwave}$$ where $\left\langle \cdot, \cdot \right\rangle$ denotes the duality pairing between $ H^{-1}(\Omega)$ and $ H^1_0(\Omega)$ and the parentheses $( \cdot, \cdot)$ stand for the inner product in $L^2 ( \Omega)$. Following Chap. 7, Sect. 2, Theorem 5 from [@evans2010partial], we observe that in fact $$u\in C^{0}\left(0,T;H^1_0(\Omega)\right),~\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}\in C^{0}\left(0,T;L^2(\Omega)\right),~\cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2}\in C^{0}\left(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega)\right).$$ Higher regularity results with more regular data are also available in [@evans2010partial].
Let us now discretize (\[wave\]) or, equivalently, (\[syst\]) in space using the finite element method and in time using an appropriate marching scheme. We thus introduce a regular mesh $\mathcal{T}_h$ on $\Omega$ with triangles $K$, $\mathrm{diam}~K=h_{K}$, $h=\max_{K\in{\mathcal{T}_h}}h_K$, internal edges $E\in\mathcal{E}_h$, where $\mathcal{E}_h$ represents the internal edges of the mesh $\mathcal{T}_h$ and the standard finite element space ${V}_h\subset H^1_0(\Omega ) $: $$V_h=\left\{v_h\in C(\bar\Omega):v_h|_K\in \mathbb{P}_1~\forall K\in\mathcal{T}_h \text{ and }v_h|_{\partial\Omega}=0\right\}.$$ Let us also introduce a subdivision of the time interval $[0,T]$ $$0=t_0<t_1<\dots<t_N=T$$ with time steps $\tau_n=t_{n+1}-t_n$ for $n=0,\ldots,N-1$ and $\tau=\displaystyle\max_{0 \leq n \leq N-1}\tau_n$ . Following [@Baker76], by applying Crank-Nicolson discretization to both equations in (\[syst\]) we get a second order in time scheme. The fully discretized method is as follows: taking $u^0_h,v^0_h\in V_h$ as some approximations to $u_0,v_0$ compute $u^n_h,v^n_h\in V_h$ for $n=0,\ldots,N-1$ from the system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CNh1}
\frac{u_h^{n + 1} - u_h^n}{\tau_n} - \frac{v_h^n + v_h^{n+1}}{2} &= 0,
\\
\label{CNh2}
\left( \frac{v^{n + 1}_h - v^n_h}{\tau_n}, \varphi_h \right) + \left( \nabla \frac{u^{n + 1}_h + u^n_h}{2}, \nabla \varphi_h \right) &= \left( \frac{f^{n+1} + f^n}{2}, \varphi_h \right), \hspace{1em} \forall \varphi_h \in V_h.\end{aligned}$$ From here on, $f^n$ is an abbreviation for $f ( \cdot,t_n)$.
Note that we can eliminate $v_h^n$ from (\[CNh1\])-(\[CNh2\]) and rewrite the scheme (\[CNh1\])-(\[CNh2\]) in terms of $u_h^n$ only. This results in the following method: given approximations $u^0_h, v^0_h \in V_h$ of $u_0, v_0$ compute $u^1_h \in V_h$ from $$\label{Newm1}\left( \frac{u^1_h - u^0_h}{\tau_0}, \varphi_h \right) + \left( \nabla\frac{\tau_0 (u^1_h + u^0_h)}{4}, \nabla \varphi_h \right)
= \left( v_h^0 +\frac{\tau_0}{4} (f^1 + f^0), \varphi_h \right), \quad \forall\varphi_h \in V_h$$ and then compute $u^{n+1}_h \in V_h$ for $n = 1, \ldots, N-1$ from equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{u_h^{n + 1} - u_h^n}{\tau_n} - \frac{u_h^n - u_h^{n -1}}{\tau_{n - 1}}, \varphi_h \right) + \left( \nabla \frac{\tau_n (u_h^{n + 1}+ u_h^n) + \tau_{n - 1} (u_h^n + u_h^{n - 1})}{4}, \nabla \varphi_h \right)&\notag\\
=\left( \frac{\tau_n (f^{n + 1} + f^n) + \tau_{n - 1} (f^n + f^{n - 1})}{4},\varphi_h \right), \hspace{1em} \forall \varphi_h \in V_h.&
\label{Newm2}\end{aligned}$$ This equation is derived by multiplying (\[CNh2\]) by $\tau_n/2$, doing the same at the previous time step, taking the sum of the two results and observing $$\frac{v_h^{n+1}-v_h^{n-1}}{2}
=\frac{v_h^{n+1}-v_h^{n}}{2}+\frac{v_h^{n}-v_h^{n-1}}{2}
=\frac{u_h^{n + 1} - u_h^n}{\tau_n} - \frac{u_h^n - u_h^{n -1}}{\tau_{n - 1}}$$ by (\[CNh1\]).
We have thus recovered the Newmark scheme ([@newmark1959; @RT]) with coefficients $\beta =
1/4, \gamma = 1/2$ as applied to the wave equation (\[wave\]). Note that the presentation of this scheme in [[@newmark1959]]{} and in the subsequent literature on applications in structural mechanics is a little bit different, but the present form (\[Newm1\])-(\[Newm2\]) can be found, for example, in [[@RT]]{}. It is easy to see that for any $u^0_h, v^0_h \in V_h $, both schemes (\[CNh1\])-(\[CNh2\]) and (\[Newm1\])-(\[Newm2\]) provide the same unique solution $u^n_h, v^n_h \in V_h$ for $n = 1, \ldots, N$. In the case of scheme (\[Newm1\])-(\[Newm2\]), $v^n_h$ can be reconstructed from $u^n_h$ recursively with the formula $$\label{vhform}
v_h^{n + 1} = 2 \frac{u_h^{n + 1} - u_h^n}{\tau_n} - v_h^n.$$
From now on, we shall use the following notations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{notation}
u_h^{n+1/2}& :=\frac{u_h^{n+1}+u_h^{n}}{2},
\quad
\partial _{n+1/2}u_h:=\frac{u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}}{\tau_n},
\quad
\partial _{n}u_h:=\frac{u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n-1}}{\tau_n+\tau_{n-1}} \\
\notag \partial _{n}^{2}{u_h}&:=\frac{1}{\tau_{n-1/2}}\left(\frac{u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}}{\tau_n}-\frac{u_h^{n}-u_h^{n-1}}{\tau_{n-1}}\right)
\text{ with } \tau_{n-1/2}:=\frac{\tau_n+\tau_{n-1}}{2}\end{aligned}$$ We apply this notations to all quantities indexed by a superscript, so that, for example, $f^{n+1/2}=({f^{n+1}+f^n})/{2}$. We also denote $u (x,t_n)$, $v(x,t_n)$ by $u^n$, $v^n$ so that, for example, $u^{n+1/2}=\left({u^{n+1}+u^n}\right)/{2}=\left(u(x,t_{n+1})+u(x,t_n)\right)/{2}$.
We turn now to a priori error analysis for the scheme (\[CNh1\])-(\[CNh2\]). We shall measure the error in the following norm $$\label{EnNorm}
u \mapsto \max_{t\in[0,T]}\left(\left\|\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t)\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^{2}+\left\vert u(t)\right\vert^{2}_{H^1(\Omega)}\right) ^{1/2}.$$ Here and in what follows, we use the notations $u(t)$ and $\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t)$ as a shorthand for, respectively, $u(\cdot,t)$ and $\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (\cdot,t)$. The norms and semi-norms in Sobolev spaces $H^k(\Omega)$ are denoted, respectively, by $\|\cdot\|_{H^k(\Omega)}$ and $|\cdot|_{H^k(\Omega)}$. We call (\[EnNorm\]) the energy norm referring to the underlying physics of the studied phenomenon. Indeed, the first term in (\[EnNorm\]) may be assimilated to the kinetic energy and the second one to the potential energy.
Note that a priori error estimates for scheme (\[CNh1\])-(\[CNh2\]) can be found in [@Baker76; @dupont19732; @RT]. We are going to construct a priori error estimates following the ideas of [@Baker76] but we measure the error in a different norm, namely the energy norm (\[EnNorm\]), and present the estimate in a slightly different manner, foreshadowing the upcoming a posteriori estimates.
\[lemma\] Let $u$ be a smooth solution of the wave equation (\[wave\]) and $u_{h}^{n}$, $v_{h}^{n}$ be the discrete solution of the scheme (\[CNh1\])-(\[CNh2\]). If $u_0\in H^2(\Omega)$, $v_0\in H^1(\Omega)$ and the approximations to the initial conditions are chosen such that $\| v^0_h - v_0 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le Ch| v_0 |_{H^1(\Omega)} $ and $| u^0_h - u_0 |_{H^1(\Omega)} \le Ch | u_0 |_{H^2(\Omega)}$, then the following a priori error estimate holds $$\begin{gathered}
\label{apriori}
\max_{0\le n \le N}\left( \left\Vert v^n_h - \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t_n)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + | u^n_h - u (t_n) |^2_{H^1(\Omega)}\right)^{1/2} \\
\leq
Ch\left(| v_0 |_{H^1(\Omega)} + | u_0 |_{H^2(\Omega)}\right)
\\
+ C\sum_{n = 0}^{N - 1} \tau^2_n \left(
\int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\vert \cfrac{\partial^3 u }{\partial t^3} \right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)} {dt} +
\int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\Vert \cfrac{\partial^4 u }{\partial t^4} \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} {dt} \right)
\\
+ C h \left( \int_{t_0}^{t_N} \left\vert \cfrac{\partial^2 u }{\partial t^2} \right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)} {dt}
+ \sum_{n=0}^{N} \tau_n'\left\vert \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t_n)\right\vert_{H^2(\Omega)}
+ \left\vert \cfrac{\partial u }{\partial t}(t_N) \right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)} + | u ( t_N) |_{H^2(\Omega)}
\right)
\end{gathered}$$ with a constant $C>0$ depending only on the regularity of the mesh $\mathcal{T}_h$. We have set here $\tau_n'=\tau_{n-1/2}$ for $1<n<N-1$ and $\tau_0'=\tau_0$, $\tau_N'=\tau_N$.
Let us introduce $e^n_u = u^n_h - \Pi_h u^n$ and $e^n_v = v^n_h - I_h v^n$ where $\Pi_h : H^1_0 (\Omega) \to V_h$ is the $H^1_0$-orthogonal projection operator, i.e. $$\label{Pih}
\left(\nabla \Pi_h v, \nabla\varphi_h\right) = \left(\nabla v,
\nabla\varphi_h\right), \hspace{1em} \forall v \in H^1_0 (\Omega),\hspace{1em}\forall \varphi_h \in V_h$$ and $\tilde I_h : H^1_0 (\Omega) \to V_h$ is a Cl[é]{}ment-type interpolation operator which is also a projection, i.e. $\tilde I_h=Id$ on $V_h$, cf. [@ErnGue; @ScoZh].
Let us recall, for future reference, the well known properties of these operators (see [@ErnGue]): for every sufficiently smooth function $v$ the following inequalities hold $$\label{Pinterp}
| \Pi_h v |_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq | v |_{H^1(\Omega)},
\hspace{1em} | v - \Pi_h v |_{H^1(\Omega)} \leq Ch | v |_{H^2(\Omega)}$$ with a constant $C > 0$ which depends only on the regularity of the mesh. Moreover, for all $K\in{\mathcal{T}_h}$ and $E \in \mathcal{E}_h$ we have $$\label{Clement}
\| v - \tilde I_h v \|_{L^2(K)} \leq Ch_K |v |_{H^1(\omega_K)}
\text{ and }
\| v - \tilde I_h v \|_{L^2(E)} \leq Ch_{E}^{1 / 2} | v |_{H^1(\omega_{E})}$$ Here $\omega_K$ (resp. $\omega_E$) represents the set of triangles of $\mathcal{T}_h$ having a common vertex with triangle $K$ (resp. edge $E$) and the constant $C > 0$ depends only on the regularity of the mesh.
Observe that for $\varphi_h,\psi_h\in V_h$ the following equations hold $$\begin{aligned}
\notag\left(\nabla\partial_{n + 1 / 2} e_u,\nabla\varphi_h\right) - \left(\nabla e_v^{n + 1 / 2},\nabla\varphi_h\right) &\\
= -&\left(\nabla \left( \partial_{n + 1 / 2}
u - \tilde I_h v^{n + 1 / 2}\right),\nabla\varphi_h\right),
\label{ErrEqApr1}\\
\left( \partial_{n + 1 / 2} e_v, \psi_h\right) + \left( \nabla e_u^{n + 1 / 2}, \nabla
\psi_h\right) = & \left( \left( \cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2}\right)^{n + 1 / 2} - \tilde I_h \left( \partial_{n + 1 / 2}
v\right), \psi_h\right).
\label{ErrEqApr2}
\end{aligned}$$ The last equation is a direct consequence of (\[CNh2\]) together with the governing equation (\[wave\]) evaluated at times $t_n$ and $t_{n+1}$. In accordance with the conventions above, we have denoted here $$\left(\cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2}\right)^{n + 1 / 2}:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2}(t_n)+\cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2}(t_{n+1})\right)$$ Equation (\[ErrEqApr1\]) is obtained from (\[CNh1\]) taking the gradient of both sides, multiplying by $\nabla\varphi_h$ and integrating over $\Omega$.
Putting $\varphi_h = e_u^{n + 1 / 2}$ and $\psi_h = e_v^{n + 1 / 2}$ and taking the sum of (\[ErrEqApr1\])–(\[ErrEqApr2\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ErrAprInterMed}
\frac{| e^{n + 1}_u |_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 - | e^n_u |_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 + \| e^{n + 1}_v \|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 - \|
e^n_v \|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2}{2 \tau_n} = &- \left( \nabla R^n_1, \nabla e_u^{n + 1 / 2}\right) \\
\notag &+ \left(R^n_2, e_v^{n + 1 / 2}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
R^n_1 = \partial_{n + 1 / 2} u - \tilde I_hv^{n + 1 / 2} \text{ and }
R^n_2 = \left( \cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2}\right)^{n + 1 / 2} - \tilde I_h \left( \partial_{n + 1 / 2}v\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Set $$E^n = \left(\left|e^n_u \right|_{H^1 (\Omega)}^2 +\left\|e^n_v \right\|_{L^2
(\Omega)}^2\right)^{1/2}$$ so that equality (\[ErrAprInterMed\]) with Cauchy-Schwarz inequality entails $$\frac{(E^{n + 1})^2 - (E^n)^2}{2 \tau_n} \leq \left(|R^n_1 |_{H^1 (\Omega)}^2
+\|R^n_2 \|_{L^2 (\Omega)}^2\right)^{1/2} \frac{E^{n + 1} + E^n}{2}$$ which implies $$E^{n + 1} - E^n \leq
\tau_n\left(|R^n_1 |_{H^1 (\Omega)} +\|R^n_2 \|_{L^2 (\Omega)}\right).$$ Summing this over $n$ from 0 to $N - 1$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumeN} (|e^N_u |_{H^1 (\Omega)}^2 +\|e^N_v \|_{L^2
(\Omega)}^2)^{{1}/{2}} &\leq (|e^0_u |_{H^1 (\Omega)}^2 + \|e^0_v
\|_{L^2 (\Omega)}^2)^{{1}/{2}}\\
\notag &+ \sum_{n = 0}^{N - 1} \tau_n (|R^n_1 |_{H^1 (\Omega)} +\|R^n_2 \|_{L^2
(\Omega)}) \end{aligned}$$ We have the following estimates for $R^n_1$ and $R^n_2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rn1} |R^n_1 |_{H^1(\Omega)} &\leq C \tau_n \int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\vert \cfrac{\partial^3
u}{\partial t^3} \right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)} dt\\
\notag &+ Ch\left(
\left\vert \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} \left(t^n\right) \right\vert_{H^2(\Omega)}
+ \left\vert \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} \left(t^{n+1}\right) \right\vert_{H^2(\Omega)}
\right)\\
\label{Rn2}\|R^n_2 \|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\leq C \tau_n \int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}}\left\Vert \cfrac{\partial^4
u}{\partial t^4} \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} dt + C \frac{h}{\tau_n} \int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\vert \cfrac{\partial^2
u}{\partial t^2} \right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)} dt\end{aligned}$$ The proof of (\[Rn1\])–(\[Rn2\]) is quite standard, but tedious. For brevity, we provide here only the proof of estimate (\[Rn2\]): we rewrite the definition of $R^n_2$ recalling that $v = \partial u/\partial t$ and using the Taylor expansion around $t=t_{n+1/2 }$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
R^n_2 &= \frac 12\left(\cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} ( t_{n+1}) + \cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} ( t_{n})\right) - \frac {1}{\tau_n}\left(\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} ( t_{n+1}) - \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} ( t_{n})\right)\\
& + \frac {1}{\tau_n}\left( I - \tilde I_h\right) \left(\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} ( t_{n+1}) - \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} ( t_{n})\right)
= \int_{t_{n + 1 / 2}}^{t_{n + 1}} \left(
\frac{t_{n + 1} - t}{2} - \frac{( t_{n + 1} - t)^2}{2 \tau_n} \right)\cfrac{\partial^4
u}{\partial t^4}
dt \\
& - \int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1 / 2}} \left( \frac{t_n - t}{2}
+ \frac{( t_n - t)^2}{2 \tau_n} \right) \cfrac{\partial^4
u}{\partial t^4}dt + \frac{1}{\tau_n}
( I - \tilde I_h) \int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \cfrac{\partial^2
u}{\partial t^2} dt.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the $L^2(\Omega)$ norm on both sides and applying the projection error estimate (\[Pinterp\]) in $L^2(\Omega)$ we obtain (\[Rn2\]).
Substituting (\[Rn1\])–(\[Rn2\]) into (\[sumeN\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\left|e^N_u \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 +\left\|e^N_v\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\right)&^{1/2} \leq
\left(\left|e^0_u\right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 +\left\|e^0_v \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\right)^{1/2} \\
&+ C \sum_{n = 0}^{N - 1} \tau^2_n \left(
\int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\vert \cfrac{\partial^3
u}{\partial t^3} \right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)} dt + \int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\Vert \cfrac{\partial^4
u}{\partial t^4} \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} dt \right) \\
& + Ch \int_0^{t_N} \left\vert \cfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} \right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)} dt
+ Ch \sum_{n=0}^{N} \tau_n'\left\vert \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t_n)\right\vert_{H^2(\Omega)}. \end{aligned}$$ Applying the triangle inequality and estimate (\[Pinterp\]) in the above inequality we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\left\Vert v^N_h - \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t_N) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left|u^N_h - u (t_N) \right|^2_{H^1(\Omega)}\right)^{1/2} \leq \left(\left|e^N_u\right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 +\left\|e^N_v \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\right)^{1/2}& \notag\\+
\left(\left\Vert \left(I-\tilde I_h\right) \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t_N)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left\vert \left(I-\Pi_h\right) u (t_N) \right\vert^2_{H^1(\Omega)}\right)^{1/2}&\end{aligned}$$ which implies (\[apriori\]) since we can safely assume that the maximum of the error in (\[apriori\]) is attained at the final time $t_N$ (if not, it suffices to redeclare the time where the maximum is attained as $t_N$).
Estimate (\[apriori\]) is of order $h$ in space which is due to the the presence of $H^1$ term in the norm in which we measure the error. One sees easily that essentially the proof above gives the estimate of order $h^2$, multiplied by the norms of the exact solution in more regular spaces, if the target norm is changed to $\displaystyle \max_{0 \leq n \leq N}\left\Vert v^n_h - \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t_n) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}$. One would rely then on the estimate $$\left\| v - \Pi_h v \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq Ch^2 | v |_{H^2(\Omega)}$$ for the orthogonal projection error and one would obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{apriori2}
\left\Vert v^N_h - \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t_N) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} & \leq \left\| v^0_h - v_0 \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2
+Ch^2\left| v_0 \right|_{H^2(\Omega)}\\
\notag & + \sum_{n = 0}^{N - 1} \tau^2_n \left(
\int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\vert \frac{\partial^3 u}{\partial t^3} \right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)} {dt} +
\int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\Vert \frac{\partial^4 u}{\partial t^4} \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} {dt} \right)
\\
\notag & + C h^2 \left( \int_{t_0}^{t_N} \left\vert \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} \right\vert_{H^2(\Omega)} {dt}
+ \left\vert \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(t_N) \right\vert_{H^2(\Omega)}
\right)
\end{aligned}$$
A posteriori error estimates for the wave equation in the “energy” norm {#section3}
=======================================================================
Our aim here is to derive a posteriori bounds in time and space for the error measured in the norm (\[EnNorm\]). We discuss some considerations about upper bound for $3$-point time estimator.
A 3-point estimator: an upper bound for the error
-------------------------------------------------
The basic technical tool in deriving time error estimator is the piecewise quadratic (in time) reconstruction of the discrete solution, already used in [@LPP] in a similar context.
\[QuadRec\] Let $u^n_h$ be the discrete solution given by the scheme (\[Newm2\]). Then, the piecewise quadratic reconstruction $\tilde{u}_{h\tau} (t) : [0, T] \rightarrow V_h$ is constructed as the continuous in time function that is equal on $[t_n, t_{n + 1}]$, $n\ge 1$, to the quadratic polynomial in $t$ that coincides with $u^{n + 1}_h$ (respectively $u^n_h$, $u^{n - 1}_h$) at time $t_{n+1}$ (respectively $t_n$, $t_{n - 1}$). Moreover, $\tilde{u}_{h\tau} (t)$ is defined on $[t_0, t_{1}]$ as the quadratic polynomial in $t$ that coincides with $u^{2}_h$ (respectively $u^1_h$, $u^{0}_h$) at time $t_{2}$ (respectively $t_1$, $t_{0}$). Similarly, we introduce piecewise quadratic reconstruction $\tilde{v}_{h\tau} (t) : [0, T] \rightarrow V_h$ based on $v^n_h$ defined by (\[vhform\]) and $\tilde{f}_{\tau} (t) : [0, T] \rightarrow L^2(\Omega)$ based on $f(t_n,\cdot)$.
Our quadratic reconstructions $\tilde{u}_{h\tau}$, $\tilde{v}_{h\tau}$ are thus based on three points in time (normally looking backwards in time, with the exemption of the initial time slab $[t_0,t_1]$). This is why the error estimator derived in the following theorem using Definition \[QuadRec\] will be referred to as the $3$-point estimator.
\[lemest3\] The following a posteriori error estimate holds between the solution $u$ of the wave equation (\[wave\]) and the discrete solution $u_h^n$ given by (\[Newm1\])–(\[Newm2\]) for all $ t_n,~0\leq n\leq N$ with $v_h^n$ given by (\[vhform\]): $$\begin{gathered}
\left(\left\Vert v^{n}_h- \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} (t_n)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} ^{2}+\left\vert u^{n}_h-u(t_{n})\right\vert ^{2}_{H^1(\Omega)}\right) ^{1/2}\\
\leq\left(\left\Vert v^{0}_h-v_0\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} ^{2}+\left\vert u^{0}_h-u_0\right\vert ^{2}_{H^1(\Omega)}\right) ^{1/2} \\
+\eta _{S}(t_{N})+\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\tau_k\eta _{T}(t_{k})
+\int_0^{t_n} \|f-\tilde{f}_\tau\|_{L^2(\Omega)}dt
\label{estf}\end{gathered}$$ where the space indicator is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_S (t_k)
&= C_1 \max_{0 \leqslant t \leqslant t_k} \Biggl[ \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h}
h_K^2 \left\Vert \frac{\partial \tilde{v}_{h \tau}}{\partial t} - \Delta \tilde{u}_{h \tau}-f
\right\Vert_{L^2(K)}^2 + \sum_{
E \in \mathcal{E}_h}h_{E} \left|\left[n \cdot \nabla \tilde{u}_{h
\tau}\right]\right|_{L^2(E)}^2 \Biggl]^{1/2}
\notag
\\
\notag &+ C_2\sum_{m = 0}^{k-1} \int_{t_m}^{t_{m + 1}} \Biggl[ \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} h_K^2
\left\Vert \frac{\partial^2 \tilde{v}_{h \tau}}{\partial t^2} - \Delta \frac{\partial
\tilde{u}_{h\tau}}{\partial t} -\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{t}}\right\Vert_{L^2(K)}^2
+ \sum_{
E \in \mathcal{E}_h}h_{E} \left\Vert\left[n \cdot
\nabla \frac{\partial \tilde{u}_{h\tau}}{\partial t}\right]\right\Vert_{L^2(E)}^2
\Biggr]^{1/2}dt
\notag
\\
& + C_3\sum_{m = 1}^{k-1} {\tau_{m - 1}} \left[ \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} h_K^2 \left\Vert \partial_m^2 v_h -
\partial_{m - 1}^2 v_h \right\Vert_{L^2(K)}^2 \right]^{1/2}\label{space}\end{aligned}$$ here $C_1,~C_2,~C_3$ are constants depending only on the mesh regularity, $[\cdot]$ stands for a jump on an edge $E\in\mathcal{E}_h$, and $\tilde{u}_{h\tau}$, $\tilde{v}_{h\tau}$ are given by Definition \[QuadRec\].
The error indicator in time for $k=1,\dots,N-1$ is $$\label{in}
\eta_T (t_k)=\left(\frac{1}{12}\tau_{k}^2+\frac{1}{8}\tau_{k-1}\tau_{k}\right)\left(\left\vert\partial _{k}^{2}{v_h}\right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)}
+ \left\Vert \partial _{k}^{2}{f_h} - z_h^k\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\right)^{1/2}$$ where $z^k_h$ is such that $$\label{zh}
\left(z_h^k, \varphi_h\right) =(\nabla \partial _{k}^{2}{u_h}, \nabla\varphi_h),
\quad\forall\varphi_h\in V_h$$ and $$\label{in0step}
\eta_T (t_0)=\left(\frac{5}{12}\tau_{0}^2+\frac{1}{2}\tau_{1}\tau_{0}\right)\left(\left\vert\partial _{1}^{2}{v_h}\right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)}
+ \left\Vert \partial _{1}^{2}{f_h} - z^1_h\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\right)^{1/2}$$
In the following, we adopt the vector notation $U (t, x)
=\begin{pmatrix}
u (t, x)\\
v (t, x)
\end{pmatrix}$ where $v = {\partial u}/{\partial t}$. Note that the first equation in (\[syst\]) implies that $$\left(\nabla \cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}, \nabla \varphi\right) - (\nabla v, \nabla \varphi) = 0,
\quad \forall \varphi \in H^1_0 (\Omega)$$ by taking its gradient, multiplying it by $\nabla \varphi$ and integrating over $\Omega$. Thus, system (\[syst\]) can be rewritten in the vector notations as $${b} \left(\cfrac{\partial U}{\partial t}, \Phi\right) + \left(\mathcal{A} \nabla U, \nabla \Phi\right) =
{b} (F,\Phi), \quad \forall \Phi \in (H^1_0 (\Omega))^2 \label{ODEf}$$ where $\mathcal{A} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 &- 1\\
1&~0
\end{pmatrix}$, $F =\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
f
\end{pmatrix}$ and $${b} ( U, \Phi)
= {b}\left(\begin{pmatrix}u\\ v\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} \varphi\\ \psi\end{pmatrix} \right)
:= (\nabla u, \nabla \varphi) + (v, \psi)$$ Similarly, Newmark scheme (\[CNh1\])–(\[CNh2\]) can be rewritten as $${b} \left( \frac{U_h^{n + 1} - U_h^n}{\tau_n}, \Phi_h \right) +
\left( \mathcal{A} \nabla \frac{U_h^{n + 1} + U_h^n}{2}, \nabla \Phi_h \right) =
{b} \left(F^{n+1/2}, \Phi_h\right), \hspace{1em} \forall \Phi_h \in V_h^2
\label{vectorScheme}$$ where $U_h^n = \begin{pmatrix}
u_h^n\\
v_h^n
\end{pmatrix}$ and $F^{n+1/2} = \begin{pmatrix}
0\\
f^{n + 1/2}
\end{pmatrix}$.
The a posteriori analysis relies on an appropriate residual equation for the quadratic reconstruction $\tilde{U}_{h\tau}=\begin{pmatrix} \tilde{u}_{h\tau}\\ \tilde{v}_{h\tau}\end{pmatrix}$. We have thus for $t \in [t_n,t_{n + 1}]$, $n = 1, \ldots, N-1$ $$\tilde{U}_{h\tau} (t) = U^{n + 1}_h + (t - t_{n + 1}) \partial_{n +
1/2} U_h + \frac{1}{2} (t - t_{n + 1}) (t - t_n) \partial_n^2 U_h$$ so that, after some simplifications, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Uode1}
{b} \left( \frac{\partial \tilde{U}_{h\tau}}{\partial t}, \Phi_h
\right) + (\mathcal{A} \nabla \tilde{U}_{h\tau}, \nabla \Phi_h)
={b} \left( (t - t_{n + 1/2}) \partial_n^2 U_h + F^{n+1/2},
\Phi_h \right) \\
+ \left( (t - t_{n + 1/2}) \mathcal{A} \nabla
\partial_{n + 1/2} U_h + \frac{1}{2} (t - t_{n + 1}) (t - t_n)
\mathcal{A} \nabla \partial_n^2 U_h, \nabla \Phi_h \right)\end{gathered}$$ Consider now (\[vectorScheme\]) at time steps $n$ and $n - 1$. Subtracting one from another and dividing by $\tau_{n - 1/2}$ yields $${b} \left(\partial_n^2 U_h, \Phi_h\right) + \left(\mathcal{A} \nabla \partial_n
U_h, \nabla \Phi_h\right) = {b}\left( \partial_n F, \Phi_h \right)$$ or $${b} \left(\partial_n^2 U_h, \Phi_h\right) + \left(\mathcal{A} \nabla \left(
\partial_{n + 1/2} U_h - \frac{\tau_{n - 1}}{2} \partial_n^2 U_h
\right), \nabla \Phi_h \right) =
{b}\left(\partial_n F, \Phi_h \right)$$ so that (\[Uode1\]) simplifies to $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Uode2}
{b} \left(\frac{\partial \tilde{U}_{h\tau}}{\partial t}, \Phi_h
\right) + \left(\mathcal{A} \nabla \tilde{U}_{h\tau}, \Phi_h\right) \\
= \left(p_n \mathcal{A} \nabla \partial_n^2 U_h, \nabla \Phi_h\right) +
{b}\left( \left(t - t_{n + 1/2}\right) \partial_n F + F^{n+1/2}, \Phi_h
\right) \\
= \left(p_n \mathcal{A} \nabla \partial_n^2 U_h, \nabla \Phi_h\right) +
{b}\left( \tilde{F}_\tau - p_n \partial^2_n F, \Phi_h\right) \end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
p_n &= \frac{\tau_{n - 1}}{2} (t - t_{n + 1/2}) + \frac{1}{2}
(t - t_{n + 1}) (t - t_n), \\
\tilde{F}_{\tau} (t) &= F^{n + 1}_h + (t - t_{n + 1}) \partial_{n +
1/2} F + \frac{1}{2} (t - t_{n + 1}) (t - t_n) \partial_n^2 F.\end{aligned}$$
Introduce the error between reconstruction $\tilde{U}_{h\tau}$ and solution $U$ to problem (\[ODEf\]) : $$E = \tilde{U}_{h\tau} - U$$ or, component-wise $$E = \begin{pmatrix}
E_u\\
E_v
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
\tilde{u}_{h\tau} - u\\
\tilde{v}_{h\tau} - v
\end{pmatrix}$$ Taking the difference between (\[Uode2\]) and (\[ODEf\]) we obtain the residual differential equation for the error valid for $t \in [t_n, t_{n
+ 1}]$, $n = 1, \ldots, N-1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{errode}{b}({\partial}_{t}E,{\Phi})+(\mathcal{A}{\nabla} E,{\nabla} {\Phi})
&={b} \left(\cfrac{{\partial} \tilde{U}_{{\tau} h}}{\partial t}-F,{\Phi}-{\Phi}_{h}\right)+\left(\mathcal{A}{\nabla} \tilde{U}_{{\tau} h},{\nabla} ({\Phi}-{\Phi}_{h})\right)\\
\notag +\left(p_n \mathcal{A}{\nabla} {\partial}_{n}^{2} U_{h},{\nabla} {\Phi}_{h}\right)
&+{b}\left( \tilde{F}_\tau -F - p_n \partial^2_n F, \Phi_h\right), \hspace{1em} \forall \Phi_h \in V_h^2 \end{aligned}$$
Now we take $\Phi = E$, $\Phi_h = \begin{pmatrix}
\Pi_h E_u\\
\tilde I_h E_v
\end{pmatrix}$ where $\Pi_h : H^1_0 (\Omega) \to V_h$ is the $H^1_0$-orthogonal projection operator (\[Pih\]) and $\tilde I_h : H^1_0 (\Omega) \to V_h$ is a Cl[é]{}ment-type interpolation operator satisfying $\tilde I_h=Id$ on $V_h$ and (\[Clement\]). Noting that $( \mathcal{A} \nabla E,
\nabla E) = 0$ and $$\left( \nabla \cfrac{\partial \tilde{u}_{h\tau}}{\partial t}, \nabla ( E_u -
\Pi_h E_u)\right) = \left( \nabla \tilde{v}_{h\tau}, \nabla \left( E_u - \Pi_h E_u\right)\right) = 0$$ Introducing operator $A_h:V_h\to V_h$ such that $$\label{Ah}
\left(A_h w_h, \varphi_h\right) =(\nabla w_h, \nabla\varphi_h),
\quad\forall\varphi_h\in V_h$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\cfrac{{\partial} E_{v}}{\partial t},E_{v}\right)+\left({\nabla} E_{u},{\nabla} \cfrac{{\partial} E_{u}}{\partial t}\right)=\left(\cfrac{{\partial}\tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}{\partial t}-f,E_{v}-{\Pi}_{h} E_{v}\right)+\left({\nabla} \tilde{u}_{{\tau}h},{\nabla}\left(E_{v}-\tilde I_{h} E_{v}\right)\right)\\
+ \left(p_n \left(A_h {\partial}_{n}^{2} u_{h}-{\partial}_{n}^{2}f_h\right),\tilde I_{h} E_{v}\right)-\left(p_n {\nabla}{\partial}_{n}^{2} v_{h},{\nabla}E_{u}\right)
+\left(\tilde{f}_\tau-f,\tilde I_{h} E_{v}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that equation similar to (\[errode\]) also holds for $t \in [t_0, t_{1}]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{errorode1st}{b}({\partial}_{t}E,{\Phi})+(\mathcal{A}{\nabla} E,{\nabla} {\Phi})
&={b} \left(\cfrac{{\partial} \tilde{U}_{{\tau} h}}{\partial t}-F,{\Phi}-{\Phi}_{h}\right)+\left(\mathcal{A}{\nabla} \tilde{U}_{{\tau} h},{\nabla} ({\Phi}-{\Phi}_{h})\right)\\
\notag &+\left(p_1 \mathcal{A}{\nabla} {\partial}_{1}^{2} U_{h},{\nabla} {\Phi}_{h}\right)
+ {b}\left( \tilde{F}_\tau -F - p_1 \partial^2_1 F, \Phi_h\right). \end{aligned}$$ That follows from the definition of the piecewise quadratic reconstruction $\tilde{u}_{h\tau} (t)$ for $t \in [t_0, t_{1}]$. Integrating (\[errode\]) and (\[errorode1st\]) in time from 0 to some $t^{\ast}\geq t_1$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\notag & {\frac{1}{2}} \left(|E_{u}|^{2}_{H^1(\Omega)}+\| E_{v}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^{2}\right)(t^{{\ast}}) \\
&=
{\frac{1}{2}} \left(|E_{u}|^{2}_{H^1(\Omega)}+\| E_{v}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^{2}\right)(0)
\notag\\
&+ \int_{0}^{t^{{\ast}}}\left(\cfrac{{\partial\tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t}-f, E_{v}-\tilde I_{h} E_{v}\right) d t
+\int_{0}^{t^{{\ast}}}\left({\nabla} \tilde{u}_{{\tau} h},{\nabla} ( E_{v}-\tilde I_{h} E_{v})\right) d t
\notag \\
&+\int_{t_1}^{t^{{\ast}}}\left[\left(p_n \left(A_h {\partial}_{n}^{2} u_{h}-{\partial}_{n}^{2}f_h\right),\tilde I_{h} E_{v}\right)-\left(p_n {\nabla}{\partial}_{n}^{2} v_{h},{\nabla}E_{u}\right)
+\left(\tilde{f}_\tau-f,\tilde I_{h} E_{v}\right)\right] d t \notag\\
&+\int_{0}^{t_1}\left[\left(p_1 \left(A_h {\partial}_{1}^{2} u_{h}-{\partial}_{1}^{2}f_h\right),\tilde I_{h} E_{v}\right)-\left(p_1 {\nabla}{\partial}_{1}^{2} v_{h},{\nabla}E_{u}\right)
+\left(\tilde{f}_\tau-f,\tilde I_{h} E_{v}\right)\right] d t
\notag\\
&\hspace{1cm}:=I+I I+I I I+IV .\notag
\\
\label{4newterms}
&\end{aligned}$$ Let $$Z (t) = \sqrt{| E_u |_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 + \| E_v \|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2}$$ and assume that $t^{\ast}$ is the point in time where $Z$ attains its maximum and $t^{\ast} \in (t_n, t_{n + 1}]$ for some $n$. Observe $$(I-\tilde I_h)E_v = (I-\tilde I_h)(\tilde{v}_{h\tau}-v )
= (I-\tilde I_h)\left(\cfrac{\partial\tilde{u}_{h\tau}}{\partial t}-\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t} \right)
= \cfrac{\partial}{\partial t}(I-\tilde I_h)E_{u}$$ since $( I - \tilde I_h) \varphi_h =0$ for any $\varphi_h\in V_h$. We thus get for the first and second terms in (\[4newterms\]) $$\begin{aligned}
I + I I &
=\int_{0}^{t^{{\ast}}}\left(\cfrac{{{\partial } \tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t}-f,\cfrac{\partial}{\partial t} (E_{u}-\tilde I_{h} E_{u})\right) d t+\int_{0}^{t^{{\ast}}}\left({\nabla} \tilde{u}_{{\tau} h},\cfrac{\partial}{\partial t} {\nabla} (E_{u}-\tilde I_{h} E_{u})\right) dt.\end{aligned}$$ We now integrate by parts with respect to time in the two integrals above. Let us do it for the first term: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber & \int_{0}^{t^{{\ast}}}\left(\cfrac{{{\partial } \tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t}-f,\cfrac{\partial}{\partial t} (E_{u}-\tilde I_{h} E_{u})\right) d t \\
\nonumber & =
\sum_{m = 0}^n \int_{t_m}^{\min (t_{m + 1}, t^{\ast})}\left(\cfrac{{{\partial } \tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t}-f,\cfrac{\partial}{\partial t} (E_{u}-\tilde I_{h} E_{u})\right) d t \\
\nonumber & = \left( \cfrac{{{\partial } \tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t}-f, E_u -\tilde I_h E_u \right)
(t^{\ast}) - \sum_{m = 1}^n \left( \left[ \cfrac{{{\partial } \tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t} \right]_{t_m}, ( E_u - \tilde I_h E_u) (t_n) \right) \\
& - \sum_{m = 0}^n \int_{t_m}^{\min (t_{m + 1}, t^{\ast})} \left(
\cfrac{{{\partial^2 } \tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t^2}-\cfrac{\partial {f}}{\partial t}, E_u -\tilde I_h E_u
\right) dt .\end{aligned}$$ Here $[\cdot]_{t_n}$ denotes the jump with respect to time, i.e. $$[w]_{t_n} = \lim_{t
\rightarrow t_n^+} w ( t) - \lim_{t \rightarrow t_n^-} w ( t).$$ Using the same trick in the other term we can finally write $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber I +I I &
=\left( \cfrac{{{\partial } \tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t}-f, E_u - \tilde I_h E_u \right)
(t^{\ast})+\left({\nabla} \tilde{u}_{{\tau} h},{\nabla} ( E_{u}-\tilde I_{h} E_{u})\right)(t^{{\ast}})\\
\nonumber & -\sum_{m = 1}^n \left( \left[ \cfrac{{{\partial } \tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t} \right]_{t_m}, ( E_u - \tilde I_h E_u) (t_n) \right)\\
\nonumber & - \sum_{m = 0}^n \int_{t_m}^{\min (t_{m + 1}, t^{\ast})} \left(
\cfrac{{{\partial^2 } \tilde{v}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t^2}-\cfrac{\partial {f}}{\partial t}, E_u -\tilde I_h E_u
\right) dt\\&-\sum_{m=0}^{n}\int_{t_{m}}^{min
(t_{m+1},t^{{\ast}})}\left({\nabla} \cfrac{{{\partial } \tilde{u}_{{\tau} h}}}{\partial t},{\nabla} ( E_{u}-\tilde I_{h} E_{u})\right) d t.\end{aligned}$$ We have used here a simple expression for the jump of time of ${\partial
\tilde{v}_{h\tau}}/\partial t$ $$\left[ \cfrac{\partial \tilde{v}_{h\tau}}{\partial t} \right]_{t_n} = {\tau_{n
- 1}}{2} (\partial_n^2 v_h - \partial_{n - 1}^2 v_h)$$ and noted that $\tilde{u}_{h\tau}$ is continuous in time.
Integration by parts element by element over $\Omega$ and interpolation estimates (\[Clement\]) yield $$\begin{aligned}
I+II
&\leq C_{1}\Biggl[\sum_{K{\in}\mathcal{T}_h}h_{K}^{2}\left\Vert\cfrac{{\partial}\tilde{v}_{h{\tau}}}{\partial t}-{\Delta}\tilde{u}_{h{\tau}}-f\right\Vert_{L^2( K)}^{2}\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\sum_{
E \in \mathcal{E}_h}h_{E}\left\|[n{\cdot}{\nabla}\tilde{u}_{h{\tau}}]\right\|_{L^2(E)}^{2}\Biggr]^{1/2}(t^{{\ast}})|E_{u}|_{H^1(\Omega)}(t^{{\ast}}) \\
&+C_{1}\Biggl[\sum_{K{\in}\mathcal{T}_h}h_{K}^{2}\left\Vert\cfrac{{\partial}\tilde{v}_{h{\tau}}}{\partial t}-{\Delta}\tilde{u}_{h{\tau}}-f\right\Vert_{L^2(K)}^{2}\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\sum_{
E \in \mathcal{E}_h}h_{E}\left\|[n{\cdot}{\nabla}\tilde{u}_{h{\tau}}]\right\|_{L^2(E)}^{2}\Biggl]^{1/2}(0)|E_{u}|_{H^1(\Omega)}(0)\\
&
+C_{2}\sum_{m=1}^{n}\frac{{\tau}_{m-1}}{2}\left[\sum_{K{\in}\mathcal{T}_h}h_{K}^{2}\left\|{\partial}_{m}^{2}v_{h}-{\partial}_{m-1}^{2}v_{h}\right\|_{L^2( K)}^{2}\right]^{1/2}|E_{u}|_{H^1(\Omega)}(t_{m})\\
&
+C_{3}\sum_{m=0}^{n}\int_{t_{m}}^{min(t_{m+1},t^{{\ast}})}\Biggl[\sum_{K{\in}\mathcal{T}_h}h_{K}^{2}\left\Vert\cfrac{{\partial}^{2}\tilde{v}_{h{\tau}}}{\partial t^2}-{\Delta}\cfrac{{\partial}\tilde{u}_{{\tau}h}}{\partial t}-\cfrac{\partial f}{\partial t}\right\Vert_{L^2(K)}^{2}\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\sum_{
E \in \mathcal{E}_h}h_{E}\left\Vert\left[n{\cdot}{\nabla}\cfrac{{\partial}\tilde{u}_{{\tau}h}}{\partial t}\right]\right\Vert_{L^2(E)}^{2}\Biggr]^{1/2 }(t)|E_{u}|_{H^1(\Omega)}(t)dt.\end{aligned}$$ We turn now to the third term in (\[4newterms\]) $$\begin{aligned}
I I I &= \int_{t_1}^{t^{\ast}} \{(p_n (A_h {\partial}_{n}^{2} u_{h}-{\partial}_{n}^{2}f_h),\tilde I_{h} E_{v})-\left(p_n {\nabla}{\partial}_{n}^{2} v_{h},{\nabla}E_{u}\right)
+(\tilde{f}_\tau-f,\tilde I_{h} E_{v}) \}dt \\
& \leq C
\sum_{m = 1}^n \Biggl[ \left( \int_{t_m}^{t^{}_{m + 1}} |p_m|{dt} \right)
\left( \left\Vert \partial_m^2 f_h - A_h \partial_m^2 u_h \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} + \left\vert \partial_m^2 v_h\right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)}\right)\\
&+\int_{t_m}^{t^{}_{m + 1}} \left\Vert f-\tilde{f}_\tau \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} {dt} \Biggr] Z ( t^{^{\ast}}) \\\end{aligned}$$ with $$\int_{t_m}^{t_{m + 1}} |p_m|{dt} \leq \frac{1}{12}{\tau}_{m}^{3}+\frac{1}{8}{\tau}_{m-1}{\tau}_{m}^2.$$ We have used here the bounds $|E_u |_{H^1(\Omega)} (t) \leqslant Z (t) \leqslant Z
(t^{\ast})$ and $\|E_v \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leqslant Z (t) \leqslant Z (t^{\ast})$ for all $t
\in [0, t^{\ast}]$. Similar reasoning for the fourth term in (\[4newterms\]) give us $$\begin{aligned}
I V &= \int_{t_0}^{t_1} \{(p_1 (A_h {\partial}_{1}^{2} u_{h}-{\partial}_{1}^{2}f_h),\tilde I_{h} E_{v})-\left(p_1 {\nabla}{\partial}_{1}^{2} v_{h},{\nabla}E_{u}\right)
+(\tilde{f}_\tau-f,\tilde I_{h} E_{v}) \}dt \\
& \leq C
\Biggl[ \left( \int_{t_0}^{t^{}_{ 1}} |p_1|{dt} \right)
\left( \left\Vert \partial_1^2 f_h - A_h \partial_1^2 u_h \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} + \left\vert \partial_1^2 v_h\right\vert_{H^1(\Omega)}\right)\\
&+\int_{t_0}^{t^{}_{1}} \left\Vert f-\tilde{f}_\tau \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} {dt} \Biggr] Z ( t^{^{\ast}}) \\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\int_{t_0}^{t_{1}} |p_1|{dt} \leq \frac{5}{12}{\tau}_{0}^{3}+\frac{1}{2}{\tau}_{1}{\tau}_{0}^2.$$ Applying the same bounds for $|E_u |_{H^1(\Omega)} (t)$ and $\|E_v \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leqslant Z (t)$ to the estimates for integrals $I+II$, inserting them into (\[4newterms\]) and noting that $A_h\partial^2_k u_h=z^k_h$ we obtain (\[estf\]).
Comparing the a priori estimate (\[apriori\]) with the a posteriori one (\[estf\]) one sees that the time error indicator is essentially the same in both cases. Indeed, the term $\displaystyle\int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\Vert \cfrac{\partial^4 u }{\partial t^4} \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} {dt}$ can be rewritten as $\displaystyle\int_{t_n}^{t_{n + 1}} \left\Vert \cfrac{\partial^2 f }{\partial t^2} + \Delta \cfrac{\partial^2 u }{\partial t^2} \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} {dt}$ and it’s discrete counterpart is in \[in\] and \[in0step\]. Note also that the last term in (\[estf\]) is negligible, at least if $f$ the sufficiently smooth in time, since $\|f-\tilde{f}_\tau\|_{L^2(\Omega)}=O(\tau_n^3)$ for $t\in(t_n,t_{n+1})$.
Moreover, in view of a posteriori estimate some of the terms are of higher order $\tau h^2$, so that neglecting the higher order terms, a posteriori space error estimator can be reduced to the two first lines in (\[space\]), i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{space1} \eta_S^{(1)} (t_k) &= C_1 \max_{0 \leqslant t \leqslant t_k} \Biggl[ \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h}
h_K^2 \left\Vert \frac{\partial \tilde{v}_{h \tau}}{\partial t} - \Delta \tilde{u}_{h \tau}-f
\right\Vert_{L^2(K)}^2\\
\notag&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ \sum_{
E \in \mathcal{E}_h}h_{E} \|[n \cdot \nabla \tilde{u}_{h
\tau}]\|_{L^2(E)}^2 \Biggr]^{1/2} (t),\\
\label{space2}
\eta_S^{(2)} (t_k)&= C_2\sum_{m = 0}^k \int_{t_m}^{t_{m + 1}} \Biggl[ \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} h_K^2
\left\Vert \frac{\partial^2 \tilde{v}_{h \tau}}{\partial t^2} - \Delta \frac{\partial
\tilde{u}_{h\tau}}{\partial t} -\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{t}}\right\Vert_{L^2(K)}^2\\
\notag&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ \sum_{
E \in \mathcal{E}_h}h_{E} \left\Vert\left[n \cdot
\nabla \frac{\partial \tilde{u}_{h\tau}}{\partial t}\right]\right\Vert_{L^2(E)}^2
\Biggr]^{1/2} (t) dt
\end{aligned}$$
Optimality of the error estimators {#optimality}
----------------------------------
We do not have a lower bound for our error estimators in space and time. Note that such a bound is not available even in a simpler setting of Euler discretization in time, cf. [@BS]. We are going to prove a partial result in the direction of optimality, namely that the indicator of error in time provides the estimate of order $\tau^2$ at least on sufficiently smooth solutions and quasi-uniform meshes. For this, we should examine if the quantities $\partial_n^2 f_h - A_h \partial_n^2 u_h$ and $\partial^2_n v_h$ remain bounded in $L^2$ and $H^1$ norms respectively. This will be achieved in Lemma \[bound\_d4u\] assuming that the initial conditions are discretized in a specific way, via the $H^1_0$-orthogonal projection.
We restrict ourselves to the constant time steps $\tau_n=\tau$ and introduce the notations $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial}^{0}_{n} u_h&=u_h^{n+1},&&\quad
{\partial}^{j+1}_{n} u_h={\frac{{\partial}^{j}_{n}u_h-{\partial}^{j}_{n-1}u}{{\tau}}},
&&\quad
j=0,1,{\ldots},\quad n\ge j-1\\
\bar{\partial}^0_n {u}_h&=\frac{u_h^{n + 1} + u_h^n}{2},&&\quad\bar{\partial}^{j + 1}_n {u}_h= \frac{\bar{\partial}^j_n
{u}_h - \bar{\partial}^j_{n - 1} {u}_h}{\tau},
&&\quad
j=0,1,{\ldots},\quad n\ge j
\end{aligned}$$ The Crank-Nicolson scheme for first-order system (\[CNh1\])-(\[CNh2\]) for $n\ge 0$ is written with these notations as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CNh1N}
{\partial}^{1}_{n} u_h - \bar{\partial}^0_n {v}_h &= 0\\
\label{CNh2N}
\left( {\partial}^{1}_{n} v_h, \varphi_h \right) + \left( \nabla \bar{\partial}^0_n {u}_h, \nabla \varphi_h \right) &= \left( \bar{\partial}^0_n {f}_h, \varphi_h \right), \hspace{1em} \forall \varphi_h \in V_h\end{aligned}$$ where $f^n_h$, $n\ge 0$, are the $L^2$-orthogonal projection of $f(t_n,\cdot)$ on $V_h$. The following lemma provides a higher regularity result on the discrete level, i.e. the boundedness of terms $\partial_n^j f_h - A_h \partial_n^j u_h$ and $\partial^j_n v_h$ for any $j\in\mathbb{N}^0$.
\[bound\_d4u\_abst\] Let $u_h^n$ and $v_h^n$ be the solution to (\[CNh1\])-(\[CNh2\]) for $n\ge 0$. One has then for all $j\in\mathbb{N}^0$, $N\in\mathbb{N}$, $N\ge j$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{boundj}
\left( \left\| \partial^{j}_N f_h-A_h\partial^{j}_N u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left| {\partial}^j_N v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2\right)^{{1}/{2}} \\
\leq \left( \left\| \partial^{j}_jf_h-A_h\partial^{j}_j u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left|{\partial}^j_j v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2\right)^{{1}/{2}} + \tau\sum_{n = j+1}^N\left\| {\partial}^{j+1}_n {f}\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\end{gathered}$$
Starting from (\[CNh1N\])-(\[CNh2N\]), taking the differences between steps $n$ and $n - 1$ and then making an induction on $j = 0, 1, \ldots$ one arrives at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CNh1NN}
{\partial}^{j+1}_{n} u_h &= \bar{\partial}^j_n {v}_h, \\
\label{CNh2NN}
{\partial}^{j+1}_{n} v_h &= \bar{\partial}^j_n {f}_h - A_h \bar{\partial}^j_n {u}_h. \end{aligned}$$ One can also prove that $\forall w^n_h\in V_h$ $$\label{propj}
\bar{\partial}^j_n {w}_h = \frac{{\partial}^j_n w_h +
{\partial}^j_{n - 1} w_h}{2}, \hspace{1em} j = 0, 1, \ldots$$ Indeed, this is obvious for $j = 0$ and then it follows for any $j$ by induction.
Taking the inner product of (\[CNh2NN\]) with $\tau A_h{\partial}^{j + 1}_n u_h-\tau {\partial}^{j + 1}_n f_h$, using (\[propj\]) and definition of ${\partial}^{j+1}_n$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\biggl(\partial_n^{j+1} v_h ,
\tau A_h{\partial}^{j + 1}_n u_h&-\tau {\partial}^{j + 1}_n f_h \biggr)=\biggl(\bar{\partial}_n^{j} f_h - A_h\bar{\partial}_n^{j} u_h, \tau A_h{\partial}^{j + 1}_n u_h-\tau {\partial}^{j + 1}_n f_h \biggr)\\
&= -\frac{\left\| \partial^{j}_n f_h-A_h\partial^{j}_n u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2}{2}
+ \frac{\left\| \partial^{j}_{n-1} f_h-A_h\partial^{j}_{n-1} u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we apply (\[propj\]) and (\[CNh1NN\]) to the left-hand side above $$\begin{aligned}
\biggl(\partial_n^{j+1} v_h ,
\tau A_h{\partial}^{j + 1}_n u_h&-\tau {\partial}^{j + 1}_n f_h \biggr)
\\
&=\left({\partial_n^{j } v_h - \partial_{n-1}^{j} v_h} , A_h{\partial}^{j + 1}_n u_h\right)
-\left(\partial_n^{j+1 } v_h , \tau{\partial}^{j + 1}_n f_h\right)\\
&= \frac{\left| {\partial}^j_n v_h \right|^2_{H^1(\Omega)} - \left| {\partial}^j_{n - 1}
v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2}{2}
-\left(\partial_n^{j+1 } v_h , \tau{\partial}^{j + 1}_n f_h\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\left| {\partial}^j_n v_h \right|^2_{H^1(\Omega)} - \left| {\partial}^j_{n - 1}
v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2}{2}
-\left(\partial_n^{j+1 } v_h , \tau{\partial}^{j + 1}_n f_h\right)&= -\frac{\left\| \partial^{j}_n f_h-A_h\partial^{j}_n u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2}{2}\\
&+ \frac{\left\| \partial^{j}_{n-1} f_h-A_h\partial^{j}_{n-1} u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ We recall by (\[CNh2NN\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\tau{\partial}^{j+1}_{n}v_h&=\tau\left( \bar{\partial}^{j}_{n}f_h-A_h\bar{\partial}^{j}_{n} u_h \right)\\
&= \frac{\tau}{2}\left({\partial}^{j}_{n}f_h+{\partial}^{j}_{n-1}f_h-A_h{\partial}^{j}_{n-1} u_h - A_h{\partial}^{j}_{n-1} u_h \right)\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \partial^{j}_nf_h-A_h\partial^{j}_n u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left| {\partial}^j_{n} v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2-\left\| \partial^{j}_{n-1}f_h-A_h\partial^{j}_{n-1} u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 - \left| {\partial}^j_{n-1} v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2 \\
\leq \tau\left\| {\partial}^{j+1}_n {f}_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\left(\left\| \partial^{j}_nf_h-A_h\partial^{j}_n u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \left\| \partial^{j}_{n-1}f_h-A_h\partial^{j}_{n-1} u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Denoting $Z_n=\left(\left\| \partial^{j}_nf_h-A_h\partial^{j}_n u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left| {\partial}^j_{n} v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2\right)^{{1}/{2}}$ the last inequality can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
Z_n^2-Z_{n-1}^2
&\leq \tau\left\| {\partial}^{j+1}_n {f}_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\left(\left\| \partial^{j}_nf_h-A_h\partial^{j}_n u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \right.\\
& \left.+\left\| \partial^{j}_{n-1}f_h-A_h\partial^{j}_{n-1} u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right)
\leq \tau\left\| {\partial}^{j+1}_n {f}_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} (Z_n+Z_{n-1})\end{aligned}$$ so that $$Z_n-Z_{n-1} \leq \tau\left\| {\partial}^{j+1}_n {f}_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$ Summing this over $n$ we get (\[boundj\]).
In order to take into account the initial conditions, we shall need the following auxiliary result about stability properties of operator $A_h$ defined by (\[Ah\]) and the $L^2$-orthogonal projection $P_h : L^2 (\Omega) \to V_h$ defined by $$\label{Ph}
\forall v \in L^2 (\Omega) : \left( P_h v, \varphi_h\right) = \left( v,
\varphi_h\right) \hspace{1em} \forall \varphi_h \in V_h$$
\[bound\_AhPhu\] Assuming the mesh $\mathcal{T}_h$ to be quasi-uniform, there exists $C>0$ depending only on the regularity of $\mathcal{T}_h$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phbound}
\forall v \in H^1_0 (\Omega) & : & | P_h v |_{H^1(\Omega)} \leq C | v |_{H^1(\Omega)},
\\
\label{AhPhbound}
\forall v \in H^2 (\Omega) \cap H^1_0 (\Omega) & : & \| A_hP_h v \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq C | v |_{H^2(\Omega)}\end{aligned}$$
Let $ v \in H^1_0 (\Omega)$. Using a Cl[é]{}ment-type interpolation operator $\tilde I_h$, satisfying $\tilde I_h=Id$ on $V_h$ and (\[Clement\]), together with an inverse inequality we observe $$| P_h v |_{H^1(\Omega)}
\leq | P_h v -\tilde I_hv |_{H^1(\Omega)} + | \tilde I_h v |_{H^1(\Omega)} \leq \cfrac{C}{h}\| P_h v -\tilde I_hv \|_{L^2(\Omega)} + | v |_{H^1(\Omega)}$$ Then, from approximation properties (\[Clement\]) $$\| P_h v -v \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \| \tilde I_h v -v \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq C h| v |_{H^1(\Omega)}
\leq C h| v |_{H^1(\Omega)}$$ which entails (\[Phbound\]).
We assume now $v\in H^2(\Omega) \cap H^1_0 (\Omega)$ and use a similar idea to prove (\[AhPhbound\]). For any $\varphi_h\in V_h$ $$\label{tr}
\left( A_hP_h v,\varphi_h\right)
= \left(\nabla\left(P_h-\tilde I_h\right) v ,\nabla\varphi_h\right)+\left( \nabla \tilde I_h v ,\nabla\varphi_h\right)$$ We can bound the first term in the right-hand side of (\[tr\]) using the inverse inequality and the approximation properties of $\tilde I_h$ $$\left(\nabla\left(P_h-\tilde I_h\right) v ,\nabla\varphi_h\right)\leq \cfrac{C}{h^2}\| P_h v -\tilde I_hv \|_{L^2(\Omega)}\| \varphi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq C| v |_{H^2(\Omega)}\| \varphi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}$$ To deal with the second term in the right-hand side of (\[tr\]), we integrate by parts over all the triangles of the mesh and recall that $\Delta\varphi_h=0$ on any triangle, so that $$\left( \nabla \tilde I_h v ,\nabla\varphi_h \right)=\sum_{E \in \mathcal{E}_h}\int_{E}\left[\cfrac{\partial \tilde I_h v }{\partial n}\right]\varphi_h
\leq \sum_{E \in \mathcal{E}_h}\left\Vert\left[\cfrac{\partial \tilde I_h v }{\partial n}\right]\right\Vert_{L^2(E)}\left\Vert\varphi_h\right\Vert_{L^2(E)}$$ Using the inverse trace inequality $\left\Vert\varphi_h\right\Vert_{L^2(E)}\leq \cfrac{C}{\sqrt{h}}\left\Vert\varphi_h\right\Vert_{L^2(\omega_E)}$ and the interpolation error bound $$\left\Vert\left[\cfrac{\partial \tilde I_h v }{\partial n}\right]\right\Vert_{L^2(E)}
=\left\Vert\left[\cfrac{\partial }{\partial n}(v-\tilde I_h v)\right]\right\Vert_{L^2(E)}
\leq C\sqrt{h}| v |_{H^2(\omega_{E})}$$ on all the edges $E\in \mathcal{E}_h$ leads, together with (\[tr\]), to $$\left( A_hP_h v,\varphi_h\right)
\le
C| v |_{H^2(\Omega)}\| \varphi_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}$$ Taking here $\varphi_h=A_hP_h v$, we obtain desired result (\[AhPhbound\]).
Our proof of Lemma \[bound\_AhPhu\] uses inverse inequalities and is thus restricted to the quasi-uniform meshes $\mathcal{T}_h$. The first estimate (\[Phbound\]) is actually established in [@bramble2002stability] under much milder hypotheses on the mesh compatible with usual mesh refinement techniques. We conjecture that the second estimate (\[AhPhbound\]) also holds under similar assumptions. Some numerical examples in this direction are given at the end of Subsection \[unstr\].
We are now able to complete the estimate of Lemma \[bound\_d4u\_abst\] in the case $j=2$ which is pertinent to our a posteriori analysis.
\[bound\_d4u\] Let $u_h^n$ be the solution to (\[Newm1\])–(\[Newm2\]) on a quasi-uniform mesh with $$u^0_h = \Pi_h u^0,~v^0_h = \Pi_h v^0 \label{initialcond}$$ where $\Pi_h$ is the $H^1_0$-orthogonal projection on $V_h$. One has for all $N\ge 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundj4} \biggl(\bigl\| \partial^{2}_Nf_h-A_h&\partial^{2}_N u_h \bigr\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left| {\partial}^2_{N} v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2\biggr)^{{1}/{2}}\\
\notag &\leq C \left(\left| \cfrac{\partial^{3}u}{\partial t^{3}}(0) \right|_{H^1(\Omega) } + \left| \cfrac{\partial^{2}u}{\partial t^{2}}(0) \right|_{H^2(\Omega)} + \max_{t \in [0,2\tau]} \left\| \cfrac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial t^{2}}(t)\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\right)\\
\notag&+ \int_0^{t_N} \left\| \cfrac{\partial^{3}f}{\partial t^{3}}\right\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}dt \end{aligned}$$ with a constant $C > 0$ independent of $h$, $\tau$, $N$.
Denote $$Z = 2 \left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^{- 1} \left( I -
\frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)$$ Then scheme (\[Newm2\]) for $n \geq 1$ can be rewritten as $$u^{n + 1}_h = Zu_h^n - u^{n - 1}_h + \tau^2 \left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h
\right)^{- 1} \bar{f}^n_h$$ Moreover, the initial step (\[Newm1\]) can be written as $$\frac{u^1_h - u^0_h - \tau v^0_h}{\tau^2} + A_h ^{} \frac{u^1_h + u^0_h}{4}
= \bar{f}^0_h := \frac{f^1_h + f^0_h}{4} \label{Newmh0}$$ This gives the following expressions for $u_h^1, u_h^2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\notag u_h^1 &= \tau^2 \left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^{- 1} \left(
\bar{f}^0_h + \frac{1}{\tau} v^0_h \right) + \frac{1}{2} Zu^0_h \\
\notag u_h^2 &= \tau^2 \left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^{- 1} \left( Z
\left( \bar{f}^0_h + \frac{1}{\tau} v^0_h \right) + \bar{f}^1_h \right) +
\left( \frac{1}{2} Z^2_{} - I \right) u_h^0 \end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^{2}_1f_h-A_h\partial^{2}_1 u_h &= \partial^{2}_1f_h - \frac{A^2_hZ}{2\left(I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)}u^0_h \\
&- {A_h}\left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^{- 1} \left( (Z-2I)
\left( \bar{f}^0_h + \frac{1}{\tau} v^0_h \right) + \bar{f}^1_h \right)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial}^2_1 v_h = &-A_h\frac{u^2_h-u^0_h}{2\tau}+\frac{f^2_h-f^0_h}{2\tau}=-\frac{A_h}{2 \tau} \left(\frac{1}{2}Z^2 - 2 I\right) u^0_h \\
&- \frac{A_h}{2 \tau} \tau^2 \left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^{- 1} \left( Z
\left( \bar{f}^0_h + \frac{1}{\tau} v^0_h \right) + \bar{f}^1_h \right) +\frac{f^2_h-f^0_h}{2\tau} \end{aligned}$$ After some tedious calculations, this can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\notag \partial^{2}_1f_h-A_h\partial^{2}_1 u_h = -\frac{1}{2} \frac{Z} {\left( I +
\frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^2} \left(A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h\right) &+\frac{\tau A_h
}{\left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^2} \left(A_h v^0_h - \partial^1_0 f_h\right)\\
&+\left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^{- 1}\partial^2_1 {f}_h
\label{expAhd2u}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expd2v}{\partial}^2_1 v_h = -\frac{\tau}{\left( I +
\frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^2} \left(A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h\right) &+ \frac{Z}{2 \left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)} \left(A_h v^0_h - \partial^1_0
f_h\right) \\
\notag &- \frac{\tau}{2 \left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)} \partial^2_1 f_h \end{aligned}$$ Since $A_h$ is a symmetric positive definite operator, we have $$\| R (\tau^2 A_h) v_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq C \| v_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}$$ for any $v_h \in V_h$ and any rational function $R$ with the degree of nominator less or equal than that of the denominator and a constant $C$ depending only on $R$. Similarly, using the fact $| v_h
|_{H^1(\Omega)} = (A_hv_h,v_h)^\frac{1}{2}=\left\|A_h^{{1}/{2}} v_h\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$ for any $v_h\in V_h$ one can observe $$\| \tau A_h R (\tau^2 A_h) v_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\le C \| A_h^{1/2} v_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}
= C | v_h |_{H^1(\Omega)}$$ for any rational function $R$ with the degree of nominator less than that of the denominator and a constant $C$ depending only on $R$.
Applying these estimates to (\[expd2v\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\| \partial^2_1 f_h - A_h \partial^2_1 u_h \|_{L^2 (\Omega)} & \leq C
\left( \| A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h \|_{L^2 (\Omega)} + \left| A_h v^0_h -
\frac{\partial f_h}{\partial t} (0) \right|_{H^1 (\Omega)} \right.\\
& \left. + \left\| \frac{\tau A_h}{\left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h
\right)^2} \left( \frac{\partial f_h}{\partial t} (0) - \partial^1_0 f_h
\right) \right\|_{L^2 (\Omega)} + \| \partial^2_1 f_h \|_{L^2 (\Omega)}
\right)
\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\partial^1_0 f_h = \frac{\partial f_h}{\partial t} (0) +
\frac{1}{\tau} \int^{\tau}_0 (\tau - s) \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial
t^2} (s) ds$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \frac{\tau A_h}{\left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^2}
\left( \frac{\partial f_h}{\partial t} (0) - \partial^1_0 f_h \right)
\right\|_{L^2 (\Omega)} &\leq \max_{t \in [0, \tau]} \left\| \frac{\tau^2
A_h}{\left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^2} \frac{\partial^2
f_h}{\partial t^2} (t) \right\|_{L^2 (\Omega)} \\
&\leq C\max_{t \in [0,
\tau]} \left\| \frac{\partial^2 f_h}{\partial t^2} (t) \right\|_{L^2
(\Omega)} \end{aligned}$$ Noting finally that $\| \partial^2_1 f_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)}$ can be bounded by the maximum of $\left\| \cfrac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial t^{2}}(t)\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}$ over time interval $[0,2\tau]$, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\|\partial^{2}_1f_h-A_h\partial^{2}_1 u_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} &\leq C \left( \left\|A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h
\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \left|A_h v^0_h - \frac{\partial f_h}{\partial t}(0) \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}\right.\\
&\left. + \max_{t\in[0,2\tau]}\left\|\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t^2}(t)\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right) \end{aligned}$$
By a similar reasoning we can also bound $\left| {\partial}^2_{1} v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}$ by the same quantitity as in the right-hand side of the equation above. For this, we take the $H^1$ norm on both sides of (\[expd2v\]) and observe for the first term on the right hand side $$\begin{aligned}
\left|
\frac{\tau}{\left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^2} \left(A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h\right)
\right|_{H^1(\Omega)}
&= \left\|
\frac{\tau A_h^{1/2}}{\left( I + \frac{\tau^2}{4} A_h \right)^2} \left(A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h\right)
\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\\
&\le C \left\|
A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h
\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\end{aligned}$$ The other terms can be treated similarly so that, skipping some details, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{boundedness}
\left(\left\| \partial^{2}_1f_h-A_h\partial^{2}_1 u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left| {\partial}^2_{1} v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2\right)^{{1}/{2}}
\leq C \left( \left\|A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h
\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\right.\\
\left.+ \left|A_h v^0_h - \frac{\partial f_h}{\partial t}(0) \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}
+ \max_{t\in[0,2\tau]}\left\|\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t^2}(t)\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \right) \end{gathered}$$
We can now invoke the estimate of Lemma \[bound\_d4u\_abst\] with $j=2$ and combine it with (\[boundedness\]). This gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{boundj3}
\left(\left\| \partial^{2}_Nf_h-A_h\partial^{2}_N u_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 + \left| {\partial}^2_{N} v_h \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}^2\right)^{{1}/{2}}\leq \sum_{n = 3}^N \tau \left\| {\partial}^3_n f\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\\
+ C \left( \left\|A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \left|A_h v^0_h - \frac{\partial f_h}{\partial t}(0) \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}\right.\\ + \max_{t\in[0,\tau]}\left\|\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t^2}(t)\right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\Bigg).\end{gathered}$$ The first term in the right-hand side in (\[boundj3\]) can be easily bounded by $\displaystyle\int_0^{t_N} \left\| \cfrac{\partial^{3}f}{\partial t^{3}} \right\|_{L^2(\Omega)}dt$. The remaining terms in the middle line of (\[boundj3\]) are bounded using Lemma \[bound\_AhPhu\] and the relation $A_h\Pi_h=-P_h\Delta$ as follows $$\left\|A_h^2 u^0_h - A_h f^0_h \right\|_{L^2 (\Omega)} = \left\|A_h P_h (- \Delta u^0 -
f^0) \right\|_{L^2(\Omega) }
= \left\|A_h P_h \cfrac{\partial^{2}u}{\partial t^{2}} (0)\right \|_{L^2(\Omega)
}
\leq C \left| \cfrac{\partial^{2}u}{\partial t^{2}} (0) \right|_{H^2(\Omega) }$$ and $$\left|A_h v^0_h -\frac{\partial f_h}{\partial t}(0) \right|_{H^1(\Omega)
} = \left|P_h \left(- \Delta v^0 - \frac{\partial f}{\partial t}(0)\right)
\right|_{H^1 (\Omega)} \\
\leq \left|P_h \cfrac{\partial^{3}u}{\partial t^{3}} (0) \right|_{H^1(\Omega) }
\leq C
\left| \cfrac{\partial^{3}u}{\partial t^{3}} (0) \right|_{H^1(\Omega)}$$ This gives (\[boundj4\]).
Note that in Lemma \[bound\_d4u\] the approximation of the initial conditions and of the right-hand side is crucial for boundedness of higher order discrete derivatives and consequently to optimality of our time and space error estimators. We illustrate this fact with some numerical examples in Subsection \[unstr\].
Let u be the solution of wave equation (\[wave\]) and $\displaystyle\cfrac{\partial^{3}u}{\partial t^{3}}(0)\in {H^1(\Omega)}$, $\displaystyle\cfrac{\partial^{2}u}{\partial t^{2}}(0) \in {H^2(\Omega)}$, $\displaystyle\cfrac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial t^{2}}(t)\in L^{\infty}(0,T;{L^2(\Omega)})$, $\displaystyle\cfrac{\partial^{3}f}{\partial t^{3}}(t)\in L^{2}(0,T;{L^2(\Omega)})$. Suppose that mesh ${\mathcal{T}_h}$ is quasi-uniform and the mesh in time is uniform ($t_k=k\tau$). Then, the 3-point time error estimator $\eta_T(t_k)$ defined by (\[in\],\[in0step\]) is of order $\tau^2$, i.e. $$\eta_T(t_k)\leq C \tau^2.\label{upperOpt}$$ with a positive constant $C$ depending only on $u$, $f$, and the mesh regularity.
Follows immediately from Lemma \[bound\_d4u\].
Numerical results {#section4}
=================
A toy model: a second order ordinary differential equation
----------------------------------------------------------
Let us consider first the following ordinary differential equation $$\begin{cases}
\cfrac{d^{2}u(t)}{dt^{2}}+Au(t)=f(t) ,&t\in\left[ 0;T\right]\\
u(0)=u_0 ,&\\
\cfrac{du}{dt}(0)=v_0&
\end{cases}
\label{ODE}$$ with a constant $A>0$. This problem serves as simplification of the wave equation in which we get rid of the space variable. The Newmark scheme reduces in this case to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{u^{n+1}-u^{n}}{\tau_n}-\frac{u^{n}-u^{n-1}}{\tau_{n-1}}&+A\frac{\tau_n(u^{n+1}+u^{n})+\tau_{n-1}(u^{n}+u^{n-1})}{4}=
\notag\\
&=\frac{\tau_n (f^{n+1}+f^n)+\tau_{n-1}(f^n+f^{n-1})}{4},~1\leq n\leq N-1
\label{schN}\\
\frac{u^1-u^0}{\tau_0}&=v_0-\frac{\tau_0}{4}A(u^1+u^0)+\frac{\tau_0}{4}(f^1+f^0),
\notag\\
u^0&=u_0\notag\end{aligned}$$ the error becomes $e=\displaystyle\max_{0 \leq n \leq N}\left( \left\vert v^{n}-{u}'(t_{n})\right\vert ^{2}+A\left\vert u^{n}-u(t_{n})\right\vert ^{2}\right) ^{{1}/{2}}$, and the 3-point a posteriori error estimate $\forall n:~0\leq n \leq N$ simplifies to this form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{errest}
e \leq \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\tau_k\eta_{T}(t_k)&= \tau_0 \left(\frac{5}{12}\tau_{0}^2+\frac{1}{2}\tau_{0}\tau_{1}\right) \sqrt{A(\partial_1^2 v)^2 + (\partial_1^2f-A\partial_1^2 u)^2}\\
\notag &+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\tau_k \left(\frac{1}{12}\tau_{k}^2+\frac{1}{8}\tau_{k-1}\tau_{k}\right) \sqrt{A(\partial_k^2 v)^2 + (\partial_k^2f-A\partial_k^2 u)^2}.\end{aligned}$$
We define the following effectivity index in order to measure the quality of our estimators $\eta_T$: $$ei_T=\frac{\eta_T}{e}.$$ We present in Table \[tab:ode\] the results for equation (\[ODE\]) setting $f=0$, the exact solution $u=cos(\sqrt{A}t)$, final time $T=1$, and using constant time steps $\tau=\displaystyle {T}/{N}$. We observe that 3-point estimator is divided by about 100 when the time step $\tau$ is divided by 10. The true error $e$ also behaves as $O(\tau^2)$ and hence the time error estimator behaves as the true error.
\[tab:ode\]
In order to check behaviour of time error estimator for variable time step (see Table \[tab:ode2\]) we take the previous example with time step $\forall n:~0\leq n \leq N$ $$\label{tau10}
\tau_n=\begin{cases}
0.1\tau_{\ast} ,&mod(n,2)=0\\
\tau_{\ast} ,&mod(n,2)=1
\end{cases}$$ where $\tau_{\ast}$ is a given fixed value. As in the case of constant time step we have the equivalence between the true error and the estimated error. We have plotted on Fig. \[fig:toyIndicators\] evolution in time of the value $\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{\eta}_{T}(t_k)$ compared to $e$.
The same conclusions hold when using even more non-uniform time step $\forall n:~0\leq n \leq N$ $$\label{tau100}
\tau_n=\begin{cases}
0.01\tau_{\ast} ,&mod(n,2)=0\\
\tau_{\ast} ,&mod(n,2)=1
\end{cases}$$ on otherwise the same test case (see Table [\[tab:ode3\]]{}).
Our conclusion is thus that for toy model classic and alternative a posteriori error estimators are sharp on both constant and variable time grids.
![Evolution in time of true error and 3-point error estimate for variable time step (\[tau10\]), $A=100$, $N=180$, $T=1$[]{data-label="fig:toyIndicators"}](timeEstimator.jpg){width=".85\textwidth"}
\[tab:ode2\]
\[tab:ode3\]
The error estimator for the wave equation on structured mesh
------------------------------------------------------------
We now report numerical results for initial boundary-value problem for wave equation with uniform time steps when using 3-point time error estimator (\[in\], \[in0step\]). We compute space estimators (\[space1\]) and (\[space2\]) in practice as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{etas1} \eta_S^{(1)} (t_N) &= \max_{1 \leq n \leq N-1} \left[ \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h}
h_K^2 \left\Vert \partial_n v_h-{f}^n_{h}
\right\Vert_{L^2(K)}^2\right. +\left.\sum_{
E \in \mathcal{E}_h}h_{E} \|[n \cdot \nabla {u}^n_{h}]\|_{L^2(E)}^2 \right]^{1/2},
\\
\label{etas2} \eta_S^{(2)} (t_N) &= \sum_{n = 1}^{N-1} \tau_n \left[ \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} h_K^2
\left\Vert \partial_n^2 v_h - \partial_n f_h\right\Vert_{L^2(K)}^2 + \sum_{
E \in \mathcal{E}_h}h_{E} \left\Vert\left[n \cdot
\nabla \partial_n u_h\right]\right\Vert_{L^2(E)}^2
\right]^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The quality of our error estimators in space and time is determined by following effectivity index: $$ei=\frac{\eta_T+\eta_S}{e}.$$ The true error is $$e=\max_{0 \leqslant n \leqslant N}\left(\left\Vert v^{n}_h-\cfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}(t_{n})\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} ^{2}+\left\vert u^{n}_h-u(t_{n})\right\vert^{2}_{H^1(\Omega)}\right) ^{{1}/{2}}.$$ Consider the problem (\[wave\]) with $\Omega=(0,1)\times(0,1),~ T=1$ and the exact solution $u$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\text{case (a)}~~~ & u(x,y,t)=\cos(\pi t)\sin(\pi x)\sin(\pi y),\\
\text{case (b)}~~~ & u(x,y,t)=\cos(0.5\pi t)\sin(10\pi x)\sin(10\pi y),\\
\text{case (c)}~~~ & u(x,y,t)=\cos(15\pi t)\sin(\pi x)\sin(\pi y)\end{aligned}$$ We interpolate the initial conditions and the right-hand side with nodal interpolation. Structured meshes in space (see Fig. \[figura1\]) are used in all the experiments of this section. Numerical results are reported in Tables \[tab:wave1\]–\[tab:wave3\]. Note that these cases and the meshes in space in time in the following numerical experiments are chosen so that the error in case (a) should be due to both time and space discretization, that in case (b) comes mainly from the space discretization, and that in case (c) mainly from the time discretization.
\[tab:wave1\]
\[tab:wave2\]
\[tab:wave3\]
Referring to Table \[tab:wave1\], we observe from first three rows that setting $h = \tau^2$ the error is divided by 2 each time $h$ is divided by 2, consistent with $e\sim O(\tau^2+h)$. The space error estimator and the time error estimator behave similarly and thus provide a good representation of the true error. The effectivity index tends to a constant value. In rows 4-6, we choose $h = \tau$ in order to insure that the discretization in time gives an error of higher order than that in space, i.e. $O(h^2)$ vs. $O(h)$, respectively. Our estimators capture well this behaviour of the two parts of the error.
In Table \[tab:wave2\], in order to illustrate the sharpness of the space estimator, we take case (b) where the error is mainly due to the space discretization. We can see from this table that the space error estimator $\eta_{S}$ behaves as the true error. Indeed, for a given space step, $\eta_{S}$ does not depend on the time step $\tau$, and for constant $\tau$, $\eta_{S}$ is divided by two when the space step $h$ is divided by two.
Finally, we consider case (c), Table \[tab:wave3\]. We observe that the time error estimator $\eta_{T}$ behaves as the true error, when the error is mainly due to the time discretization.
We therefore conclude that our time and space error estimators are sharp in the regime of constant time steps and structured space meshes. They separate well the two sources of the error and can be thus used for the mesh adaptation in space and time.
As said already, the space estimator $\eta_S$ behaves as $O(h)$ in the numerical experiments reported in Tables \[tab:wave1\]-\[tab:wave2\]. The situation is slightly different in Table \[tab:wave3\]. Indeed, the first part of space error estimator $\eta^{(1)}_S$ behaves here as $O(\tau^2h)$. This can be explained by the fact that, as seen from the definitions (\[etas1\])–(\[etas2\]), both $\eta_S^{(1)}$ and $\eta_S^{(2)}$ are also influenced by discretization in time. In general, in the leading order in $h$ and $\tau$, one can conjecture $\eta_S^{(1,2)}=Ah+Bh\tau^2$ with case dependent $A$ and $B$. The second term $Bh\tau^2$ is asymptotically negligible but it can become visible in some situations where the solution is highly oscillating in time and the mesh in time is not sufficiently refined, as indeed observed with $\eta^{(1)}_S$ in Table \[tab:wave3\]. Fortunately, its value is small compared to the time error estimator and thus we can hope that this effect is not essential for mesh refinement.
The error estimator for the wave equation on unstructured mesh {#unstr}
--------------------------------------------------------------
We turn now to the numerical experiments on unstructured Delaunay meshes, cf. Fig. \[figura1\] (right). These experiments will reveal the dependence of the error estimators on approximation of initial conditions and of the right-hand side $f$. Indeed, as noted in Subsection \[optimality\], these approximations should be chosen carefully to ensure the optimality of our error estimators.
\[tab:wave5\]
\[tab:wave6\]
We consider the test case from the previous subsection with the exact solution $u$ given by case (a). We test two different ways to approximate the initial conditions and the right-hand side: nodal interpolation $$\label{NodalInit}
u^0_h = I_h u^0,~v^0_h = I_h v^0,~f^n_h= I_h f^n,~0\leq n \leq N$$ and orthogonal projections as in Lemma \[bound\_d4u\] $$\label{Projinit}
u^0_h = \Pi_h u^0,~v^0_h = \Pi_h v^0,~f^n_h= P_h f^n,~0\leq n \leq N.$$ The results are reported in Tables \[tab:wave5\] and \[tab:wave6\]. The meshes, the time steps and other details of the numerical algorithm, are exactly the same in these two tables. We observe that the errors are very similar as well and conclude therefore that the accuracy of the method does not depend on the manner in which the initial conditions and $f$ are approximated, either (\[NodalInit\]) or (\[Projinit\]).
On the contrary, the behaviour of error estimators is quite different in the two cases. From Table \[tab:wave5\] (nodal interpolation), we see that the time error estimator $\eta_T$ blows up with mesh refinement, while the second part of the space estimator $\eta^{(2)}_{S}$ behaves (non optimally) like $O(\tau+h)$. Only the first part of the space estimator $\eta^{(1)}_{S}$ behaves as the true error. Such a strange behaviour of our estimators indicates the unboundedness of higher order discrete derivatives in time. Indeed, the estimators $\eta_T$ and $\eta^{(2)}_{S}$ contain high order discrete derivatives ${\partial}^2_n f_h-A_h{\partial}^2_n u_h$ and ${\partial}^2_n v_h$ respectively. These error estimators can be of the optimal order only if all these derivatives are uniformly bounded. We recall that this property was examined in Lemma \[bound\_d4u\] and its proof hinges on the boundedness of $$\label{N0}
N_0=\left\Vert A^2_hu^0_h-A_hf^0_h\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$ However, as reported in Table \[tab:wave5\], $N_0$ also blows up under the nodal interpolation of initial conditions and of the right-hand side. This is not surprising given that the boundedness of $N_0$ in Lemma \[bound\_d4u\] is a consequence of Lemma \[bound\_AhPhu\] and thus it is not guaranteed if one replaces projections (\[Projinit\]) by nodal interpolation (\[NodalInit\]). On the other hand, the results in Table \[tab:wave6\] corresponding to interpolation by projection (\[Projinit\]) confirm the order $O(\tau^2+h)$ for our error estimators, consistently with the theory developed in Lemmas \[bound\_d4u\] and \[bound\_AhPhu\].
\[tab:wave7\]
The huge difference between the two data approximations can be also seen by looking directly at ${\partial}^4_4 u_h$. We report this quantity in Fig. \[figura2\] for the case (a) on a mesh with $h=0.0125$ and time step $\tau=0.025$ at $t=t_4=0.1$. On the left picture (nodal interpolation) we see that ${\partial}^4_4 u_h$ contains a lot of severe spurious oscillations, while the right picture (projection of initial conditions) contains a reasonable and quite smooth approximation of $\cfrac{\partial^4 u}{\partial t^4}$. This is another manifestation of the critical importance of the choice of an approximation of initial conditions and of the right-hand side for our error estimators. We note that such a phenomenon was not observed for the heat equation in [@LPP]. We also recall from Table \[tab:wave1\] that space and time error estimators provide a good representation of the true error on a structured mesh even under the nodal interpolation. Note that the quantity defined by (\[N0\]) remains also bounded on the structured mesh.
We recall that the theory of Subsection \[optimality\], in particular Lemma \[bound\_AhPhu\], are established under the quasi-uniform meshe assumption. We conclude this article by a numerical test on non quasi-uniform meshes in order to asses the stability of operators $A_h$ and $P_h$. We apply our numerical method to (\[wave\]) with the exact solution $u$ from case (a) on meshes from Fig. \[figura3\]. The results are given in Table \[tab:wave7\]. We see that space and time error estimators provide a good representation of the true error, like in examples from Tables \[tab:wave1\] and \[tab:wave6\] with quasi-uniform meshes. Moreover, we observe stability for terms $\Vert A_hP_hu^0\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}$, $\Vert P_hu^0\Vert_{H^1(\Omega)}$, and consequently $N_0$. This indicates that our error indicators may be useful for time and space adaptivity on rather general meshes.
Conclusions
===========
An a posteriori error estimate in the $L^{\infty}$-in-time/energy-in-space norm is proposed for the wave equation discretized by the Newmark scheme in time and the finite element method in space. Its reliability is proven theoretically in Theorem \[lemest3\]. Moreover, numerical experiments show its effectivity. Our estimators are designed to separate the error coming from discretization in space and that in time and should be therefore useful for time and space adaptivity. We have demonstrated, both theoretically and experimentally, the critical importance of the manner in which the initial conditions and the right-hand side are approximated. Indeed, under nodal interpolation the scheme in itself produces optimal results, bur certain quantities in a posteriori error estimates can blow up with mesh refinement. The remedy for this problem consists in using orthogonal pro1jections for initial conditions and the right-hand side, cf. Lemma \[bound\_d4u\].
[^1]: Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Besançon, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 16 route de Gray, 25030 Besançon Cedex, France. Email: [email protected].
[^2]: Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Besançon, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 16 route de Gray, 25030 Besançon Cedex, France. Email: [email protected].
[^3]: Institute of Mathematics, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Station 8, CH 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland. Email: [email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The subgroup of the Schur multiplier of a finite group $G$ consisting of all cohomology classes whose restriction to any abelian subgroup of $G$ is zero is called the Bogomolov multiplier of $G$. We prove that if $G$ is quasisimple or almost simple, its Bogomolov multiplier is trivial.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat Gan, ISRAEL'
author:
- Boris Kunyavskiĭ
title: '[**The Bogomolov multiplier of finite simple groups**]{}'
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Lemma]{}
\[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Conjecture]{} \[theorem\][Sublemma]{}
\[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Examples]{} \[theorem\][Remarks]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Algorithm]{} \[theorem\][Question]{} \[theorem\][Problem]{} \[theorem\] \[theorem\][Claim]{}
[[F]{}]{} [[Q]{}]{}
Å[A]{}
Results
=======
Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $\operatorname{M}(G):=H^2(G, {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})$ be its Schur multiplier. Denote by $B_0(G)$ the subgroup of $\operatorname{M}(G)$ consisting of the cohomology classes whose restriction to any abelian subgroup of $G$ is zero. We call $B_0(G)$ the [*Bogomolov multiplier*]{} of $G$. This subgroup was introduced in [@Bo87] in order to provide an explicit expression for the unramified Brauer group of the quotient $V/G$ where $V$ stands for any faithful linear representation of $G$ over ${{\mathbb C}}$. This birational invariant had earlier on been used by Saltman to give a negative answer to Noether’s problem [@Sa]. The reader interested in historical perspective and geometric context is referred to [@Sh], [@CTS], [@GS 6.6, 6.7], [@Bo07].
We say that $G$ is [*quasisimple*]{} if $G$ is perfect and its quotient by the centre $L=G/Z$ is a nonabelian simple group. We say that $G$ is [*almost simple*]{} if for some nonabelian simple group $L$ we have $L\subseteq G\subseteq \operatorname{Aut}L$. Our first observation is
\[quasi\] If $G$ is a finite quasisimple group, then $B_0(G)=0$.
As a particular case, Theorem \[quasi\] contains the assertion on vanishing of $B_0(G)$ for all finite simple groups stated as a conjecture in [@Bo92] and proved for the groups of Lie type $A_n$ in [@BMP].
Theorem \[quasi\] implies
\[almost\] If $G$ is a finite almost simple group, then $B_0(G)=0$.
In Theorems \[quasi\] and \[almost\] we consider top and bottom decorations of simple groups, respectively. Apparently one can complete the picture, allowing both perfect central extensions and outer automorphisms, by deducing from Theorems \[quasi\] and \[almost\] that $B_0(G)=0$ for all [*nearly simple*]{} groups $G$ (see the definition in Section \[sec:fin\] below). In particular, this statement holds true for all finite “reductive” groups such as the general linear group $GL(n,q)$, the general unitary group $GU(n,q)$, and the like.
Our notation is standard and mostly follows [@GLS]. Throughout below “simple group” means “finite nonabelian simple group”. Our proofs heavily rely on the classification of such groups.
Preliminaries {#sec:pre}
=============
In order to make the exposition as self-contained as possible, in this section we collect the group-theoretic information needed in the proofs. All groups are assumed finite (although some of the notions discussed below can be defined for infinite groups as well).
Schur multiplier {#sec:Schur}
----------------
The material below (and much more details) can be found in [@Ka].
The group $\operatorname{M}(G):=H^2(G,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})$, where $G$ acts on ${{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}$ trivially, is called the Schur multiplier of $G$. It can be identified with the kernel of some central extension $$1\to \operatorname{M}(G) \to \widetilde G\to G \to 1.$$ The covering group $\widetilde G$ is defined uniquely up to isomorphism provided $G$ is perfect (i.e. coincides with its derived subgroup $[G,G]$).
We will need to compute $\operatorname{M}(G)$ in the case where $G$ is a semidirect product of a normal subgroup $N$ and a subgroup $H$. If $A$ is an abelian group on which $G$ acts trivially, the restriction map $\operatorname{Res}_H\colon H^2(G,A)\to H^2(H,A)$ gives rise to a split exact sequence [@Ka Prop. 1.6.1] $$1\to K \to H^2(G,A)\to H^2(H,A)\to 1.$$ The kernel $K$ can be computed from the exact sequence [@Ka Th. 1.6.5(ii)] $$1\to H^1(H,\Hom (N,A))\to K \stackrel{\operatorname{Res}_N}{\to} H^2(N,A)^H\to H^2(H,\Hom (N,A)).$$ If $N$ is perfect and $A={{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}$, we have $\Hom (N,A)=1$ and thus [@Ka Lemma 16.3.3] $$\operatorname{M}(G)\cong \operatorname{M}(N)^H\times \operatorname{M}(H).
\label{eq:sd}$$
Bogomolov multiplier {#sec:bog}
--------------------
The following properties of $B_0(G):=\ker [H^2(G,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})\to
\prod_AH^2(A,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})]$ are taken from [@Bo87], [@BMP].
1. $B_0(G)=\ker [H^2(G,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})\to \prod_BH^2(B,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})]$, where the product is taken over all bicyclic subgroups $B$ of $G$ [@Bo87], [@BMP Cor. 2.3].
2. For an abelian group $A$ denote by $A_p$ its $p$-primary component. We have $$B_0(G)=\bigoplus_pB_{0,p}(G),$$ where $B_{0,p}(G):=B_0(G)\cap \operatorname{M}(G)_p$. For any Sylow $p$-subgroup $S$ of $G$ we have $B_{0,p}(G)\subseteq B_0(S)$. In particular, if all Sylow subgroups of $G$ are abelian, $B_0(G)=0$ [@Bo87], [@BMP Lemma 2.6].
3. If $G$ is an extension of a cyclic group by an abelian group, then $B_0(G)=0$ [@Bo87 Lemma 4.9].
4. For $\gamma\in\operatorname{M}(G)$ consider the corresponding central extension: $$1\to {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\stackrel{i}{\to} \widetilde G_{\gamma} \to G\to 1,$$ and denote $$K_{\gamma }:=\{h\in {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\,\vert\, i(h)\in \bigcap_{\chi\in\Hom (\widetilde G_{\gamma},{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})}\ker (\chi )\}.$$ Then $\gamma$ does not belong to $B_0(G)$ if and only if some element of $K_{\gamma}$ can be represented as a commutator of a pair of elements of $\widetilde G_{\gamma}$ [@BMP Cor. 2.4].
5. If $0\ne\gamma \in \operatorname{M}(G)$, we say that $G$ is $\gamma$-minimal if the restriction of $\gamma$ to all proper subgroups $H\subset G$ is zero. A $\gamma$-minimal group must be a $p$-group. We say that a $\gamma$-minimal nonabelian $p$-group $G$ is a $\gamma$-minimal factor if for any quotient map $\rho\colon
G\to G/H$ there is no $\gamma'\in B_0(G/H)$ such that $\gamma
=\rho^*(\gamma')$ and $\gamma'$ is $G/H$-minimal. A $\gamma$-minimal factor $G$ must be a metabelian group (i.e. $[[G,G],[G,G]]=0$), with a central series of length at most $p$, and the order of $\gamma$ in $\operatorname{M}(G)$ equals $p$ [@Bo87 Theorem 4.6]. Moreover, if $G$ is a $\gamma$-minimal $p$-group which is a central extension of $G^{\text{\rm{ab}}}:=G/[G,G]$ and $G^{\text{\rm{ab}}}=({{\mathbb Z}}_p)^n$, then $n=2m$ and $n\ge 4$ [@Bo87 Lemma 5.4].
Finite simple groups {#sec:fin}
--------------------
We need the following facts concerning finite simple groups (see, e.g., [@GLS]) believing that the classification of finite simple groups is complete.
1. [*Classification.*]{} Any finite simple group $L$ is either a group of Lie type, or an alternating group, or one of 26 sporadic groups.
2. [*Schur multipliers.*]{} As $L$ is perfect, it has a unique covering group $\widetilde L$, and $L\cong \widetilde L/\operatorname{M}(L)$. The Schur multipliers $\operatorname{M}(L)$ of all finite simple groups $L$ are given in [@GLS 6.1].
3. [*Automorphisms.*]{} The group of outer automorphisms $\operatorname{Out}(L):=\operatorname{Aut}(L)/L$ is solvable. It is abelian provided $L$ is an alternating or a sporadic group. For groups of Lie type defined over a finite field $F$ the structure of $\operatorname{Out}(L)$ can be described as follows.
Every automorphism of $L$ is a product $idfg$ where $i$ is an inner automorphism (identified with an element of $L$), $d$ is a diagonal automorphism (induced by conjugation by an element $h$ of a maximal torus which normalizes $L$), $f$ is a field automorphism (arising from an automorphism of the field $\overline F$), and $g$ is a graph automorphism (induced by an automorphism of the Dynkin diagram corresponding to $L$); see [@GLS 2.5] for more details.
The group $\operatorname{Out}(L)$ is a split extension of $\operatorname{Outdiag}(L):=\operatorname{Inndiag}(L)/L$ by the group $\Phi\Gamma$, where $\Phi$ is the group of field automorphisms and $\Gamma$ is the group of graph automorphisms of $L$. The group $\cO=\operatorname{Outdiag}(L)$ is isomorphic to the center of $\Lt$ by the isomorphism preserving the action of $\operatorname{Aut}(L)$ and is nontrivial only in the following cases:
$L$ is of type $A_n(q)$; $\cO = {{\mathbb Z}}_{(n+1,q)}$;
$L$ is of type ${}^2A_n(q)$; $\cO = {{\mathbb Z}}_{(n+1,q-1)}$;
$L$ is of type $B_n(q)$, $C_n(q)$, or ${}^2D_{2n}(q)$; $\cO = {{\mathbb Z}}_{(2,q-1)}$;
$L$ is of type $D_{2n}(q)$; $\cO = {{\mathbb Z}}_{(2,q-1)}\times {{\mathbb Z}}_{(2,q-1)}$;
$L$ is of type ${}^2D_{2n+1}(q)$; $\cO = {{\mathbb Z}}_{(4,q-1)}$;
$L$ is of type ${}^2E_6(q)$; $\cO = {{\mathbb Z}}_{(3,q-1)}$;
$L$ is of type $E_7(q)$; $\cO = {{\mathbb Z}}_{(2,q-1)}$.
If $L$ is of type ${}^d\Sigma (q)$ for some root system $\Sigma$ ($d=1,2,3)$, the group $\Phi$ is isomorphic to $\operatorname{Aut}({{\mathbb F}}_{q^d})$. If $d=1$, then $\Gamma$ is isomorphic to the group of symmetries of the Dynkin diagram of $\Sigma$ and $\Phi\Gamma =\Phi \times \Gamma$ provided $\Sigma$ is simply-laced; otherwise, $\Gamma =1$ except if $\Sigma =B_2, F_4$, or $G_2$ and $q$ is a power of 2, 2, or 3, respectively, in which cases $\Phi\Gamma$ is cyclic and $[\Phi\Gamma
:\Phi]=2$. If $d\ne1$, then $\Gamma =1$.
The action of $\Phi\Gamma$ on $\cO$ is described as follows. If $L\not\cong D_{2n}(q)$, then $\Phi$ acts on the cyclic group $\cO$ as $\operatorname{Aut}({{\mathbb F}}_{q^d})$ does on the multiplicative subgroup of ${{\mathbb F}}_{q^d}$ of the same order as $\cO$; if $L\cong D_{2n}(q)$, then $\Phi$ centralizes $\cO$. If $L\cong A_n(q)$, $D_{2n+1}(q)$, or $E_6(q)$, then $\Gamma ={{\mathbb Z}}_2$ acts on $\cO$ by inversion; if $L\cong
D_{2n}(q)$ and $q$ is odd, then $\Gamma$, which is isomorphic to the symmetric group $S_3$ (for $m=2$) or to ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ (for $m>2$) acts faithfully on $\cO={{\mathbb Z}}_2\times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$.
4. [*Decorations.*]{} It is often useful to consider groups close to finite simple groups, namely, [*quasisimple*]{} and [*almost simple*]{} groups, as in the statements of Theorems \[quasi\] and \[almost\] above. As an example, if the simple group under consideration is $L=PSL(2,q)$, the group $SL(2,q)$ is quasisimple and the group $PGL(2,q)$ is almost simple. More generally, one can consider [*semisimple*]{} groups (central products of quasisimple groups) and [*nearly simple*]{} groups $G$, i.e. such that the generalized Fitting subgroup $F^*(G)$ is quasisimple. $F^*(G)$ is defined as the product $E(G)F(G)$ where $E(G)$ is the layer of $G$ (the maximal semisimple normal subgroup of $G$) and $F(G)$ is the Fitting subgroup of $G$ (or the nilpotent radical, i.e. the maximal nilpotent normal subgroup of $G$). The general linear group $GL(n,q)$ is an example of a nearly simple group.
Proofs
======
As $G$ is perfect, there exists a unique universal central covering $\Gt$ of $G$ whose centre $Z(\Gt )$ is isomorphic to $\operatorname{M}(G)$ and any other perfect central extension of $G$ is a quotient of $\Gt$. So we can argue exactly as in [@Bo87 Remark after Lemma 5.7] and [@BMP]. Namely, $B_0(G)$ coincides with the collection of classes whose restriction to any bicyclic subgroup of $G$ is zero, see \[sec:bog\](1). Therefore, to establish the assertion of the theorem, it is enough to prove that any $z\in Z(\Gt )$ can be represented as a commutator $z=[a,b]$ of some $a,b\in \Gt$. Moreover, it is enough to prove that such a representation exists for all elements $z$ of prime power order, see \[sec:bog\](2).
It remains to apply the results of Blau [@Bl] who classified all elements $z$ having a fixed point in the natural action on the set of conjugacy classes of $\Gt$ (such elements evidently admit a needed representation as a commutator):
\[th:Blau\] Assume that $G$ is a quasisimple group and let $z\in Z(G)$. Then one of the following holds:
\(i) $\operatorname{order}(z)=6$ and $G/Z(G)\cong A_6, A_7, Fi_{22}, PSU(6,2^2),$ or ${}^2E_6(2^2)$;
\(ii) $\operatorname{order}(z)=6$ or $12$ and $G/Z(G)\cong PSL(3,4), PSU(4,3^2)$ or $M_{22}$;
\(iii) $\operatorname{order}(z)=2$ or $4$, $G/Z(G)\cong PSL(3,4)$, and $Z(G)$ is noncyclic;
\(iv) there exists a conjugacy class $C$ of $G$ such that $Cz=C$.
This theorem implies that the only possibility for an element of $G$ of prime power order to act on the set of conjugacy classes without fixed points is case (iii) where $\Gt /Z(\Gt )\cong PSL(3,4)$ and $z$ is an element of order 2 or 4. So the classes $\gamma\in
H^2(G,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})$ corresponding to such $z$’s are the only candidates for nonzero elements of $B_0(G)$.
A more detailed analysis of the case $PSL(3,4)$ is sketched in [@Bl Remark (2) after Theorem 1]. Namely, in that case $Z(\Gt
)\cong {{\mathbb Z}}_3\times{{\mathbb Z}}_4\times{{\mathbb Z}}_4$. Of the twelve elements of order 4 in $Z(\Gt )$ exactly six fix a conjugacy class of $\Gt$. If $z$ is one of the remaining six elements, we consider $y=z^2$. According to the same remark from [@Bl], the only case when a central element of order 2 in a quasisimple group does not fix a conjugacy class is $y$ acting on the conjugacy classes of the subgroup $G_0$ of index 2 in $\Gt$. However, the action of $y$ on the conjugacy classes of $\Gt$ has a fixed point, so $y$ can be represented as a commutator in $\Gt$. By \[sec:bog\](4), the element $\gamma\in H^2(G,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})$ corresponding to $z$ does not belong to $B_0(G)$.
\[Th\] It is interesting to compare [@BMP Lemma 3.1] with a theorem from the PhD thesis of Robert Thompson [@Th Theorem 1].
Let $L\subseteq G\subseteq \operatorname{Aut}(L)$ where $L$ is a simple group. Clearly, it is enough to prove the theorem for $G=\operatorname{Aut}(L)$. The group $\operatorname{Out}(L)=\operatorname{Aut}(L)/L$ of outer automorphisms of $L$ acts on $\operatorname{M}(L)$, and since $L$ is perfect, we have an isomorphism $$\operatorname{M}(G)\cong \operatorname{M}(L)^{\operatorname{Out}(L)} \times \operatorname{M}(\operatorname{Out}(L))\label{eq:semi}$$ (see ).
\[out\] $B_0(\operatorname{Out}(L))=0$.
We maintain the notation of Section \[sec:fin\]. If $\operatorname{Out}(L)$ is abelian, the statement is obvious. This includes the cases where $L$ is an alternating or a sporadic group. So we may assume $L$ is of Lie type. If $\cO=1$, i.e. $L$ is of type $E_8$, $F_4$, or $G_2$, the result follows immediately. If the group $\Phi\Gamma$ is cyclic, the result follows because $\cO$ is abelian (see \[sec:fin\](3)). This is the case for all groups having no graph automorphisms, in particular, for all groups of type $B_n$ or $C_n$ ($n\ge 3)$, $E_7$, and for all twisted forms. For the groups of type $B_2$, the group $\Phi\Gamma$ is always cyclic. It remains to consider the cases $A_n$, $D_n$, and $E_6$. In the case $L=E_6$ all Sylow $p$-subgroups of $\operatorname{Out}(L)$ are abelian, and the result holds. Let $L=D_{2m}(q)$. If $q$ is even, we have $\cO =1$, $\Gamma={{\mathbb Z}}_2$ (if $m>2$) or $S_3$ (if $m=2$); in both cases the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $\operatorname{Out}(L)$ are abelian, and we are done. If $q$ is odd, we have $\cO ={{\mathbb Z}}_2\times
{{\mathbb Z}}_2$, and $\Phi$ centralizes $\cO$ (see Section \[sec:fin\]), so every Sylow $p$-subgroup of $\operatorname{Out}(L)$ can be represented as an extension of a cyclic group by an abelian group, and we conclude as above. Finally, let $L$ be of type $A_n(q)$ or $D_{2m+1}(q)$. Then we have $\cO={{\mathbb Z}}_h$, $h=(n+1,q-1)$ or $h=(4,q-1)$, respectively, $\Gamma={{\mathbb Z}}_2$, $\Phi = \operatorname{Aut}({{\mathbb F}}_q)$. The action of both $\Gamma$ and $\Phi$ on $\cO$ may be nontrivial: $\Gamma$ acts by inversion, $\Phi$ acts on $\cO$ as $\operatorname{Aut}({{\mathbb F}}_q)$ does on the multiplicative subgroup of ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ of the same order as $\cO$. Hence we can represent the metabelian group $\operatorname{Out}(L)$ in the form $$1\to V\to \operatorname{Out}(L)\to A\to 1,
\label{eq:meta}$$ where $V$, the derived subgroup of $\operatorname{Out}(L)$, is isomorphic to a cyclic subgroup ${{\mathbb Z}}_c$ of $\cO$, and the abelian quotient $A$ is of the form ${{\mathbb Z}}_a\times {{\mathbb Z}}_b \times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$ for some integers $a,b,c$. Since it is enough to establish the result for the Sylow 2-subgroup, we may assume that $a$, $b$ and $c$ are powers of $2$. Then the statement of the lemma follows from the properties of $\gamma$-minimal elements described in Section \[sec:bog\]. Indeed, if $\gamma$ is a nonzero element of $B_0(G)$ and $G$ is $\gamma$-minimal, then $G$ is metabelian, both $V$ and $A$ are of exponent $p$, and in any representation of $G$ in the form (\[eq:meta\]) the group $A$ must have even number $s=2t$ of direct summands ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$ with $t\ge 2$. However, if $G$ is the Sylow 2-subgroup of $\operatorname{Out}(L)$, this is impossible because $A$ contains only three direct summands. Thus $B_0(Syl_2(\operatorname{Out}(L)))=0$, and so $B_0(\operatorname{Out}(L))=0$. The lemma is proved.
We can now finish the proof of the theorem. Let $\gamma$ be a nonzero element of $B_0(G)$. Using the isomorphism (\[eq:semi\]), we can represent $\gamma$ as a pair $(\gamma_1, \gamma_2)$ where $\gamma_1\in \operatorname{M}(L)$, $\gamma_2\in \operatorname{M}(\operatorname{Out}(L))$. Restricting to the bicyclic subgroups of $G$, we see that $\gamma_1\in B_0(L)$, $\gamma_2\in B_0(\operatorname{Out}(L))$, and the result follows from Theorem \[quasi\] and Lemma \[out\].
[*Acknowledgements*]{}. The author’s research was supported in part by the Minerva Foundation through the Emmy Noether Research Institute of Mathematics, by the Israel Academy of Sciences grant 1178/06, and by a grant from the Ministry of Science, Culture and Sport, Israel, and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Russian Federation. This paper was written during the visit to the MPIM (Bonn) in August–September 2007. The support of these institutions is highly appreciated.
[Bo07]{}
H. I. Blau, [*A fixed-point theorem for central elements in quasisimple groups*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**122**]{} (1994) 79–84.
F. A. Bogomolov, [*The Brauer group of quotient spaces by linear group actions*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR Ser. Mat. [**51**]{} (1987) 485–516; English transl. in Math. USSR Izv. [**30**]{} (1988) 455–485.
F. A. Bogomolov, [*Stable cohomology of groups and algebraic varieties*]{}, Mat. Sb. [**183**]{} (1992) 1–28; English transl. in Sb. Math. [**76**]{} (1993) 1–21.
F. Bogomolov, [*Stable cohomology of finite and profinite groups*]{}, “Algebraic Groups” (Y. Tschinkel, ed.), Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2007, pp. 19–49.
F. Bogomolov, J. Maciel, T. Petrov, [*Unramified Brauer groups of finite simple groups of Lie type $A_{\ell}$*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**126**]{} (2004) 935–949.
J.-L. Colliot-Thélène, J.-J. Sansuc, [*The rationality problem for fields of invariants under linear algebraic groups (with special regards to the Brauer group)*]{}, Proc. Intern. Colloquium on Algebraic Groups and Homogeneous Spaces (Mumbai 2004) (V. Mehta, ed.), TIFR Mumbai, Narosa Publishing House, 2007, pp. 113–186.
P. Gille, T. Szamuely, [*Central Simple Algebras and Galois Cogomology*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2006.
D. Gorenstein, R. Lyons, R. Solomon, [*The Classification of the Finite Simple Groups*]{}, Number 3, Math. Surveys and Monographs, vol. 40, no. 3, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998.
G. Karpilovsky, [*Group Representations*]{}, vol. 2, North-Holland Math. Studies [**177**]{}, North-Holland, Amsterdam et al., 1993.
D. J. Saltman, [*Noether’s problem over an algebraically closed field*]{}, Invent. Math. [**77**]{} (1984) 71–84.
I. R. Shafarevich, [*The Lüroth problem*]{}, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov [**183**]{} (1990) 199–204; English transl. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. [**183**]{} (1991) 241–246.
R. C. Thompson, [*Commutators in the special and general linear groups*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**101**]{} (1961) 16–33.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The hybrid kinetic model supports comprehensive simulation of the interaction between different spatial and energetic elements of the Europa moon-magnetosphere system with respect a to variable upstream magnetic field and flux or density distributions of plasma and energetic ions, electrons, and neutral atoms. This capability is critical for improving the interpretation of the existing Europa flyby measurements from the Galileo Orbiter mission, and for planning flyby and orbital measurements (including the surface and atmospheric compositions) for future missions. The simulations are based on recent models of the atmosphere of Europa (Cassidy et al., 2007; Shematovich et al., 2005). In contrast to previous approaches with MHD simulations, the hybrid model allows us to fully take into account the finite gyroradius effect and electron pressure, and to correctly estimate the ion velocity distribution and the fluxes along the magnetic field (assuming an initial Maxwellian velocity distribution for upstream background ions). Photoionization, electron-impact ionization, charge exchange and collisions between the ions and neutrals are also included in our model. We consider the models with $O^{++}$ and $S^{++}$ background plasma, and various betas for background ions and electrons, and pickup electrons. The majority of $O_2$ atmosphere is thermal with an extended non-thermal population (Cassidy et al., 2007). In this paper we discuss two tasks: (1) the plasma wake structure dependence on the parameters of the upstream plasma and Europa’s atmosphere (model I, cases (a) and (b) with a homogeneous Jovian magnetosphere field, an inductive magnetic dipole and high oceanic shell conductivity); and (2) estimation of the possible effect of an induced magnetic field arising from oceanic shell conductivity. This effect was estimated based on the difference between the observed and modeled magnetic fields (model II, case (c) with an inhomogeneous Jovian magnetosphere field, an inductive magnetic dipole and low oceanic shell conductivity).
[**Keywords:**]{} Europa, Jovian magnetosphere, Plasma, Magnetic fields, Ion composition
author:
- 'A.S. Lipatov$^{a,d,*}$, J.F. Cooper$^{b}$, W.R. Paterson$^{b}$, E.C. Sittler Jr.$^{b}$, R.E. Hartle$^{b}$, and D.G. Simpson$^{b}$'
title: 'Jovian plasma torus interaction with Europa. Plasma wake structure and effect of inductive magnetic field: 3D Hybrid kinetic simulation'
---
$^*$ Corresponding author. NASA GSFC, Code 673, Bld. 21, Rm. 247, 8800 Greenbelt Rd., Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA. Tel.: +1 301 286 0906; fax: +1 301 286 1648.
E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected] (A.S. Lipatov), [email protected] (J.F. Cooper), [email protected] (W.R. Paterson), [email protected] (E.C. Sittler Jr.), [email protected] (R.E. Hartle), [email protected] (D.G. Simpson)
1. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
================
The interaction of the Jovian plasma torus with Europa and other moons is a fundamental problem in magnetospheric physics (see e.g., Goertz, 1980; Southwood et al., 1980; Southwood et al., 1984; Wolf-Gladrow et al., 1987; Ip, 1990; Schreier et al., 1993; Lellouch, 1996). The plasma environment near Europa was studied by flyby observations during the Galileo prime mission and the extended Galileo Europa mission (Kivelson et al., 1997; Khurana et al., 1998; Kivelson et al., 1999, Paterson et al., 1999).
Europa, one of the icy moons of Jupiter, was encountered by the Galileo satellite three times during its primary mission, seven times during its Galileo Europa Mission (GEM), and once during Galileo Millennium Mission (GMM). Europa is located at a radial distance of 9.4 $R_J$ (Jovian radii, 71,492km) from Jupiter, and has a radius of 1560km (1 $R_E$).
The interaction of Europa with the magnetized plasma of the Jovian plasma sheet gives rise to a so-called Alfvén wing, which has been extensively studied in the case of Io (e.g., Neubauer, 1980; Southwood et al., 1980; Herbert, 1985; Lipatov and Combi, 2006). Neubauer (1998; 1999) has shown theoretically how an Alfvén wing is modified by an induced magnetic field, such as that found at Europa (Kivelson et al., 2000). Observations by Kivelson et al. (1992) show the generation of ultra-low frequency electromagnetic waves in Europa’s wake. These waves have frequencies near and below the gyrofrequencies of the ion species in the plasma torus (e.g., ionized sulfur, oxygen, and protons). Ion cyclotron waves grow when ion distribution functions are sufficiently anisotropic, as occurs when ion pickup creates a ring distribution of ions (in velocity space). The analysis of these waves has been done by Huddleston et al. (1997) (Io), Volwerk et al. (2001) and Kivelson, Khurana and Volwerk (2009) (Europa). They found intensive wave power at low frequencies (near and below the cyclotron frequencies of heavy ions) in Europa’s wake during the E11 and E15 flybys. However, our current 3D hybrid modeling cannot yet produce these waves due to insufficient spatial grid resolution.
The most general and accurate theoretical approach to this problem would require the solution of a nonlinear coupled set of integro-MHD/kinetic-Boltzmann equations which describe the dynamics of Jupiter’s corotating magnetospheric plasma, pickup ions, and ionosphere, together with the neutrals from Europa’s atmosphere. To first order, the plasma and neutral atoms and molecules are coupled by charge exchange and ionization. The characteristic scale of the ionized components is usually determined by the typical ion gyroradius, which for Europa is much less than characteristic global magnetospheric scales of interest, but which may be comparable to the thickness of the plasma structures near Europa. Kinetic approaches, such as Direct Simulation Monte Carlo, have been applied to the understanding of global aspects of the neutral atmosphere (Marconi et al., 1996; Austin and Goldstein, 2000). Plasma kinetic modeling is, however, much more complicated, and even at the current stage of computational technology require some approximations and compromises to make some initial progress. Several approaches have been formulated for including the neutral component and pickup ions self-consistently in models that describe the interaction of the plasma torus with Europa.
There have been recent efforts to improve and extend the pre-Galileo models for Europa, Io and Ganymede, both in terms of the MHD (Kabin et al., 1999; Combi et al., 1998; Linker et al., 1998; Kabin et al., 2001; Jia et al., 2008), the electrodynamic (Saur et al., 1998; Saur et al., 1999; Schilling et al., 2008), and hybrid kinetic (Lipatov and Combi, 2006; Lipatov et al., 2010) approaches. These approaches are distinguished by the physical assumptions that they include. MHD and hybrid kinetic models cannot, at least yet, include the charge separation effects which are likely to be important very close to the moon where the neutral densities are large and the electric potential can introduce non-symmetric flow around the body. MHD models for Io either include constant artificial conductivity (Linker et., 1998) or assume perfect conductivity (Combi et al., 1998). Comparisons of the sets of published results do not indicate that this choice has any important consequences. The MHD model of Europa developed by Kabin et al. (1999) includes an exospheric mass loading, ion-neutral charge exchange, and recombination. Further development of this model by Liu et al. (2000) already includes a possible intrinsic dipole magnetic field of Europa. Schilling, Neubauer and Saur (2007; 2008) found that a conductivity of Europa’s ocean of 500 mS/m or largecombined with an ocean thickness of 100km or smaller is most suitable for explaining the magnetic flyby data. They also found that the influence of the fields induced by the time variable plasma interaction is small compared to the induction caused by the time-varying background field.
Hybrid kinetic models can include the finite ion gyroradius effects, non-Maxwellian velocity distribution for ions, and correct flux of pickup ions along the magnetic field. Hybrid modeling of Io has demonstrated several features. The kinetic behavior of ion dynamics reproduces the inverse structure of the magnetic field (due to drift current) which cannot be explained by standard MHD or electrodynamic modeling which do not account for anisotropic ion pressure. The diamagnetic effect of non-isotropic gyrating pickup ions broadens the B-field perturbation and produces increased temperatures in the flanks of the wake, as observed by the Galileo spacecraft, but had not been explained by previous models. The temperatures of the electrons which are created and cooled by collisions with neutrals in the exosphere and inside the ionosphere may strongly affect the pickup ion dynamics along the magnetic field and consequently the pickup distribution across the wake. The physical chemistry in Io’s corona was considered in the paper by Dols et al. (2008). They couple a model of the plasma flow around Io with a multi-species chemistry model and compare the model results to the Galileo observation in Io’s wake.
Galileo flyby measurements E4, E6 (plasma only), E11, E12, E14, E15, E19, and E26 demonstrate several features in the plasma environment: Alfvén wing formation and an induced magnetosphere, possible existence of the dipole-type induced magnetic field, and variation of the magnetic field in the plasma wake due to diamagnetic currents. The measurements also demonstrate mass loading of the plasma torus plasma by pickup ions and the interaction of the ions with the surface of Europa. For an interpretation of these data we need to use a kinetic model because of effects of the finite ion gyroradius.
Hybrid models have been shown to be very useful in studying the complex plasma wave processes of space, astrophysical, and laboratory plasmas. These models provide a kinetic description of plasmas in local regions, together with the possibility of performing global modeling of the whole plasma system. Revolutionary advances in computational speed and memory are making hybrid modeling of various space plasma problems a much more effective general tool.
In this paper, we apply a time-dependent Boltzmann equation (a “particle in cell" approach) together with a hybrid kinetic plasma (ion kinetic) model in three spatial dimensions (see, e.g. Lipatov and Combi, 2006; Lipatov et al., 2010), using a prescribed but adjustable neutral atmosphere model for Europa. A Boltzmann simulation is applied to model charge exchange between incoming and pickup ions and the immobile atmospheric neutrals. In this paper we discuss the results of the hybrid kinetic modeling of Europa’s environment - namely, the global plasma structures (formation of the magnetic barrier, Alfvén wing, pickup ion tail etc.). The results of these kinetic modeling are compared with the Galileo E4 flyby observational data. Currently, we are working on the hybrid model of the E12 flyby. The remarkable aspect of this flyby is a strong variation in the upstream plasma density profile approximately from 400cm$^{-3}$ to 80cm$^{-3}$. The results of this modeling will be discussed in future publications.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we present the computational model and a formulation of the problem. In Section 3 we present the results of the modeling of the plasma environment near Europa and the comparison with observational data. Finally, in Section 4 we summarize our results and discuss the future development of our computational model.
2. Formulation of the Problem and Mathematical Model {#formulation-of-the-problem-and-mathematical-model .unnumbered}
=====================================================
To study the interaction of the plasma torus with the ionized and neutral components of Europa’s environment, we use a quasineutral hybrid model for ions and electrons. The model includes ionization (which in the Europa environment is dominated by electron impact ionization, not photoionization) and charge exchange. The atmosphere is considered to be an immobile component in this paper.
In our hybrid modeling, the dynamics of upstream ions and implanted ions are described in a kinetic approach, while the dynamics of the electrons are described in a hydrodynamical approximation. The details of this plasma-neutral approach were developed early for the study of the Io-Jovian plasma interaction (Lipatov and Combi, 2006).
The single ion particle motion is described by the equations (see, e.g. Eqs. (1) and (14) from Mankofsky, Sudan and Denavit (1987)): $${{d{\bf r}_{s,l}}\over{dt}}={\bf v}_{s,l}; \quad
{{d{\bf v}_{s,l}} \over dt}= \frac{e}{M_{\mathrm{i}}}
\left( {\bf E}+ \frac{{\bf v}_{s,l} \times {\bf B}}{c} \right)
-\frac{m_e\nu_{ie}}{M_i} ({\bf v}_{s,l}-{\bf U}_i)
-\frac{m_e \nu_{ie}}{M_i e n_i} {\bf J}-\nu_{io} {\bf v}_{s,l}.
\label{eq:1}$$ Here we assume that the charge state is $Z_i=1$. ${\bf U}_i$, and ${\bf J}$ denote the charge-averaged velocity of all (incoming and pickup) ions and the total current, Eq. (\[eq:5\]). The subscript $s$ denotes the ion population ($s=1,2$ for incoming ions and $s=3,4$ for pickup ions) and the index $l$ is the particle index. $\nu_{ie}$ and $\nu_{io}$ are collision frequencies between ions and electrons, and ions and neutrals that may include Coulomb collisions and collisions due to particle-wave interaction.
For a plasma, the thermal velocity, $v_{\alpha}'$ ($\alpha=i,e$), is assumed greater than the drift velocity, so we take $$\nu_{\alpha, o}=n_{o}\sigma^{o,\alpha} v_{\mathrm{\alpha}}',
\label{eq:2}$$ where the cross section $\sigma^{o, \alpha}$ is typically about $5\times 10^{-15}$cm$^2$ (see, e.g., Eq. (17) from Mankofsky, Sudan and Denavit (1987)).
For massless electrons the equation of motion of the electron fluid takes the form of the standard generalized Ohm’s law (e.g. Braginskii, 1965): $${\bf E}=\frac{1}{en_{\mathrm{e}}c}({\bf J}_{\mathrm{e}} \times {\bf B})
-\frac{1}{en_{\mathrm{e}}}\nabla p_{\mathrm{e}}
-\frac{m_{\mathrm{e}}}{e}\left[\sum_s\nu_{e,s} [({\bf U}_i-{\bf U}_s)
-\frac{{\bf J}}{ne}]
+\nu_{a,eo} {\bf U}_e\right],
\label{eq:3}$$ where $p_{\mathrm{e}}=nm_{\mathrm{e}}\langle
v_{\mathrm{e}}'^2\rangle/3=n_{\mathrm{e}} k_B T_{\mathrm{e}}$, and $v_{\mathrm{e}}'$ are the scalar electron pressure and the thermal velocity of electrons, and the electron current is estimated from Eq. ( \[eq:5\]).
The induction equation (Faraday’s law) has a form $$\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}+
\nabla \times {\bf E} =0.
\label{eq:4}$$
The total current is given by $${\bf J} = {\bf J}_{\mathrm{e}}+ {\bf J}_{\mathrm{i}}; \quad
{\bf J}_{\mathrm{i}}= \sum_{s=1}^2 en_s {\bf U}_s=e n_i {\bf U}_i,
\label{eq:5}$$ where ${\bf U}_s$ is the bulk velocity of ions of the type $s$.
Since we suppose that electron heating due to collisions with ions is very small, the electron fluid is considered adiabatic. For simplicity we assume that the total electron pressure may be represented as a sum of partial pressures of all electron populations: $$p_{\mathrm{e}} \propto \frac{(\beta_{\mathrm{e}} n_{\mathrm{i, up}}^{5/3}+
\beta_{\mathrm{e,PI}} n_{\mathrm{i,PI}}^{5/3}
)}{\beta_{\mathrm{e}}},
\label{eq:6}$$ where $\beta_{\mathrm{e}}$ and $\beta_{\mathrm{e,PI}}$ denote electron upwind, and pickup betas. Note that $\beta_{e,k}=p_{e,k}/(B^2/8\pi)$, where $k$ is a population of electrons. We also assume here that $n_{\mathrm{e,up}}=n_{\mathrm{i, up}}$, $n_{\mathrm{e,PI}}=n_{\mathrm{i, PI}}$.
The neutral atmosphere of Europa serves as a source of new ions, mainly by electron impact ionization from corotating (or nearly corotating) plasma and also by photoionization. The neutral atmospheric molecules also serve as collisional targets for charge exchange by corotating ions. The impacting ions consist of both upstream torus ions and newly implanted ions which are picked up by the motional electric field.
In the current model we assume that the background plasma contains only ions with molecular mass/charge of 8 and 16 corresponding to $O^{++}$ and $S^{++}$, respectively.
We assume that Europa has a radius $R_{E}=1560$km. We have also adopted a two-species description for the neutral $O_2$ exosphere of exponential form (Shematovich et al., 2005) $$n_{\mathrm{neutral,k}} \approx n_{\mathrm{atmos,k}}
\exp{[-(r-r_{\mathrm{exobase,k}})/
h_{atmos,k}]}, \label{eq:7}$$ where $n_{\mathrm{atmos,k}}$ denotes the maximum value of the neutral density extrapolated to the exobase ($n_{\mathrm{atmos,1}}=3\times 10^{4}$cm$^{-3}$; $n_{\mathrm{atmos,2}}=8.5\times 10^{7}$cm$^{-3}$; $r_{\mathrm{exobase},1}\approx 1700$km; $r_{\mathrm{exobase},2}\approx 1560$km), and index $k$ denotes either non-thermal ($k=1$) or thermal ($k=2$) species. Here the scale heights $h_{\mathrm{atmos,1}}=200$km and $h_{\mathrm{atmos,2}}=30$km.
The production rate of new ions from the exosphere near Europa corresponds to $$G_{\mathrm{exo,k}} \propto \nu_{i,k} n_{\mathrm{atmos,k}}
\exp[-(r-r_{\mathrm{exobase},k})/h_{\mathrm{atmos,k}}],
\label{eq:8}$$ where $n_{\mathrm{atmos,k}}$ denotes the value of the neutral component density at $r=r_{\mathrm{exobase},k}$ and $\nu_{i,k}$ is the effective ionization rate per atom or molecule of species $k$. $\nu_{i,k}$ includes the photoionozation $\nu_{ph}$, and the electron impact ionization by the magnetospheric electrons $\nu_{e,im}$. We assume that our model of the atmosphere mainly consists of $O_2$, and we use the effective photoionization rate $1.7 \times 10^{-8}$s$^{-1}$ (Johnson et al., 2009). We also adopt the effective electron impact ionization rates of $2.4\times10^{-8}$cm$^{3}$/s (for 20eV electrons) and $1.1\times10^{-7}$cm$^{3}$/s (for 250eV electrons) (see e.g. Johnson et al., 2009). Since the hot electrons represent only 5% of the total electron density (see Voyager 1 plasma science (PLS) measurements analyzed by Sittler and Strobel (1987) and Bagenal (1994)) we use the same composition for computing the impact ionization rate. We assume that the Sun is located in the direction opposite the $x$ axis.
The interaction of ions with neutral particles by charge exchange (see Eqs. (12) - (15) from Lipatov and Combi, 2006) currently includes for the following reactions: $$O^{++}+O_2 \rightarrow O^{+}+O_2^{+}$$ $$S^{++}+O_2 \rightarrow S^{+}+O_2^{+}$$ $$O_2^{+}+O_2 \rightarrow O_2+O_2^{+}
\label{eq:9}$$ The effective cross section for charge exchange ($\sigma_{c,ex}=2.6\times 10^{-19}$m$^{2}$) was the same as that used in the hybrid modeling of Io’s plasma environment (see Lipatov and Combi, 2006; and McGrath and Johnson, 1989). A more complete list of reactions will be considered in future modeling. Of course, this also requires the addition of Monte Carlo computations. However, this approach is beyond the scope of this paper.
Our code solves equations (\[eq:1\]) - (\[eq:9\]).
We discuss two models of the interaction between the Jovian magnetosphere and Europa. In Sect. 3.1 we discuss the interaction model for the cases with different ion and electron betas, different pickup ion production rates near the surface of Europa, and a homogeneous global Jovian magnetic field (model I, cases (a) and (b)). In in Sect. 3.2 we consider model II, case (c) with a realistic global Jovian magnetic field and the internal dipole magnetic field placed in the center of Europa. To study the interaction of the plasma torus with the ionosphere of Europa, the following Jovian plasma torus and ionosphere parameters were adopted in accordance with the Galileo Europa E4 flyby observational data (Paterson, Frank and Ackerson, 1999; Khurana et al., 1998; Kivelson et al., 1997; Kivelson et al., 1998): magnetic field, $B_0=469$nT and ${\bf B}=(77.6,-140.7, -441.3)$nT; torus plasma speed relative to Europa (Paterson, Frank and Ackerson, 1999), $U_0=105$km/s; upstream ion densities, $\rho_{O^{++}}=10$cm$^{-3}$; $\rho_{S^{++}}=10$cm$^{-3}$ and ion temperature, $T_i=(25-100)$eV (Paterson, Frank and Ackerson, 1999); electron temperature for suprathermal population, $T_e=20$eV (Sittler and Strobel, 1987); ratio of specific heats, $\gamma=5/3$; Alfvén and sonic Mach numbers, $M_A=0.25$; $M_s=3.66$.
Initially, the computational domain contains only supersonic and sub-Alfvénic plasma torus flow with a homogeneous spatial distribution and a Maxwellian velocity distribution; the pickup ions have a weak density and spherical spatial distribution. The magnetic and electric fields are ${\bf B=B}_0$ and ${\bf E} = - {\bf U}_0 \times {\bf B}_0$. Inside Europa the electromagnetic fields are ${\bf E}=0$ and ${\bf B=B}_0$, and the bulk velocities of ions and electrons are also equal to zero. Here the $X$ - axis is directed in the corotation direction, the $Y$ - axis is directed toward Jupiter, and the $Z$ - axis is directed to the north, as shown in Fig. \[fig:1\]. In model I, cases (a) and (b) we use a homogeneous magnetic field for the initial and boundary conditions (see paragraph above). In model II, case (c) we use an extrapolation of the magnetic field profile along the E4 trajectory (see, Kivelson et al., 1999; 2009) onto the computation domain for the initial and boundary conditions. The effect of global variation on the magnetic field in the rest of Europa was not taken into account directly in the modeling but it was included in the modeling as an internal magnetic dipole (see, Schilling et al., 2007; 2008).
At $t > 0$ we begin to inject the pickup ions with a spatial distribution according to Eq. (\[eq:8\]). Far upstream ($x=-15\,R_{E}$), the background ion flux is assumed to have a Maxwellian velocity distribution.
On the side boundaries ($y=\pm DY/2$ and $z=\pm DZ/2$), periodic boundary conditions were imposed for incoming flow particles. The pickup ions exit the computational domain when they intersect the side boundary surfaces $y=DY/2-5\times \Delta y$, $y=-DY/2+5\times \Delta y$, $z=DZ/2-\times \Delta z$, $z=-DZ/2+5\times \Delta z$. Thus there is no influx of pickup ions at the side boundaries.
At the side boundaries we also use a damping boundary condition for the electromagnetic field (see e.g., Lipatov and Combi, 2006; Umeda, Omura and Matsumoto, 2001). This procedure allows us to reduce outcoming electromagnetic perturbations, which may be reflected at the boundaries.
Far downstream ($x=12\,R_{E}$), we adopted a free escape condition for particles and the “Sommerfeld" radiation condition for the magnetic field (see e.g., Tikhonov and Samarskii, 1963) and a free escape condition for particles with re-entry of a portion of the particles from the outflow plasma.
At Europa’s surface, $r=R_{E}\approx 1560$km, the particles are absorbed. In model I, there is no boundary condition at Europa’s surface for the electromagnetic field; we also use our equations for the electromagnetic field, (Eqs. (2), (4) and (9) from Lipatov and Combi (2006)) inside Europa but using the low internal conductivity (Reynolds number, $Re=0.5$) and a very small value for the bulk velocity that is calculated from the particles. In model II, we also use an inductive magnetic dipole $(0, 0, -72.5)$nT$R_{E}^3$ for the boundary condition at Europa’s surface that simulates the effect of a nonstationary Jovian magnetic field at the position of Europa. In this way the jump in the electric field is due to the variation of the value of the conductivity and bulk velocity across Europa’s surface. (Note that the center of Europa is at $x=0, y =0, z=0$).
The three-dimensional computational domain has dimensions $DX=27\,R_{E}$, $DY = 30\,R_{E}$ and $DZ=30\,R_{E}$. We used mesh of $301 \times 301 \times 271$ grid points, and $5 \times 10^8$ and $5 \times 10^8$ particles for ions and pickup ions, respectively, for a homogeneous mesh computation. The particle time step $\Delta t_p$ and the electromagnetic field time step $\Delta t_{EB}$ satisfy the following condition: $v_{max} \Delta t_p \le \min(\Delta x, \Delta y, \Delta z)/8$ and $v_{max} \Delta t_{EB} \le \min(\Delta x, \Delta y, \Delta z)/256$.
The global physics in Europa’s environment is controlled by a set of dimensionless independent parameters such as $M_{\mathrm{A}}$, $\beta_{\mathrm{i}}$, $\beta_{\mathrm{e}}$, $M_{\mathrm{i}}/M_{\mathrm{p}}$, ion production and charge exchange rates, diffusion lengths, and the ion gyroradius $\epsilon=\rho_{\mathrm{ci}}/R_{E}$. Here $\rho_{\mathrm{ci}}=U_0/(eB/M_{\mathrm{i}}c)=M_{\mathrm{A}}
c/\omega_{\mathrm{pi}}$ and the ion plasma frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{pi}}=\sqrt{4\pi n_0e^2/M_{\mathrm{i}}}$. $M_i$ and $M_p$ denote the ion and proton masses. For real values of the magnetic field, the value of the ion gyroradius is about $80$km, which is calculated from the local bulk velocity. The dimensionless ion gyroradius and grid spacing have the values $\epsilon=0.05$ and $\Delta_x/R_{E}=0.1$.
In order to study ion kinetic effects (e.g. excitation of low-frequency oscillations ($\omega << \Omega_{b}$) by mass loading), we must satisfy the condition $\Delta \le (10-20)c/\omega_{pb}$, where $\Omega_{b}$ and $\omega_{pb}$ denote the gyrofrequency and plasma frequency for upstream ions (Winske et al., 1985). The above estimation of the plasma parameters shows that we have good resolution for the low-frequency waves (see also Lipatov et al, 2012).
There is another problem - numerical resolution of the gyroradius on the spatial grid. This becomes very important near Europa’s surface where the MHD model cannot to be used and we have to use a kinetic model to study the trajectory of heavy ions and their interaction with the surface of Europa. Our current model still does resolve this last effect and we expect to improve the model by use of a spherical system of coordinates in future research.
3. Results of Europa’s Environment Simulation {#results-of-europas-environment-simulation .unnumbered}
==============================================
3.1 Effects of plasma betas on the plasma wake structure {#effects-of-plasma-betas-on-the-plasma-wake-structure .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------
In order to study the effect of plasma parameters on the structure of the plasma wake and the Alfvén wing, we have performed modeling (model I) for two cases (a) and (b) with different values of the upstream background ion temperatures, pickup electron temperatures, and a value of the pickup production rate near the surface of Europa.
The following plasma parameters are chosen the same for both models: full magnetosphere corotation speed is $U_0=105$km/s; upstream densities are $\rho_{O^{++}}=10$cm$^{-3}$, $\rho_{S^{++}}=10$cm$^{-3}$; magnetic field is $B_0=469$nT; ${\bf B}=(77.6,-140.7, -441.3)$nT; Alfvénic Mach number $M_A=0.25$; magnetosonic Mach number $M_s=3.66$. The model of $O_2$ atmosphere was taken from Cassidy et al. (2007), Shematovich et al. (2005) and Smyth and Marconi (2006). In model I, cases (a) and (b), Europa’s interior is represented as low conducting body with Reynolds number $Re=0.5$.
: upstream ion temperatures are $T_{O^{++}}=25$eV; $T_{S^{++}}=25$eV and upstream electron temperature is $T_{e,0}=20$eV. Temperatures of electrons connected with non-thermal and thermal $O_2^+$ pickup ions are $T_{e,non-thermal}=20$eV; $T_{e,thermal}=20$eV.
(reduced density for thermal $O_2$ by a factor 60 near surface and higher electron temperatures; increased upstream ion temperatures, $T_{O^{++}}=100$eV; $T_{S^{++}}=100$eV): the upstream electron temperature is $T_{e,0}=20$eV; temperatures of electrons connected with non-thermal and thermal $O_2^+$ pickup ions $T_{e,non-thermal}=200$eV; $T_{e,thermal}=200$eV.
We have computed several hybrid models with different ion and electron betas, and different production rate for $O_2^{+}$ pickup ions, but we discuss here only the models that fit the observations.
The initial thermal velocities of $O_2^+$ non-thermal and thermal ions are chosen as the following: $v_{th,non-thermal}=3.0$km/s (2eV) and $v_{th,thermal}=0.5$km/s (0.05eV). The initial bulk velocity of $O_2^{+}$ pickup ions is about 1km/s. Eq. \[eq:8\] gives the following total pickup ion production rate: $Q_{O_2^{+},thermal}=0.825\times 10^{28}\,s^{-1}$ and $Q_{O_2^{+},non-thermal}=1.95\times 10^{26}\,s^{-1}$.
Let us consider first the global picture of the interaction of the plasma torus with Europa. The results of this modeling are shown in Figs. \[fig:2\], \[fig:3\], and \[fig:4\]. Figures \[fig:2\] and \[fig:3\] demonstrate 2D cuts for non-thermal and thermal $O_2^+$ pickup ion density profiles. One can observe the asymmetrical distribution of the pickup ion density (top, case (a)) and (bottom, case (b)) in the $x$-$y$, $y$-$z$$(x=5\,R_{E})$ and $z$-$x$ planes. The pickup ion motion is determined mainly by the electromagnetic drift. The motion along the magnetic field is due to the thermal velocity and the gradient of the electron pressure. A more wider density profile of the pickup ions was observed in the case (b), Figs. \[fig:2\] and \[fig:3\] (bottom).
The figures demonstrate a strong structuring in the non-thermal and thermal $O_2^+$ ion density profiles. While case (a) produces a much higher peak in the thermal $O_2^+$ ion density as was seen in E4 observations, case (b) produces much better agreement with observation for the thermal $O_2^+$ ion density as shown in Figs. \[fig:2\] and \[fig:3\].
The modeling also demonstrates the asymmetrical distribution of the background $O^{++}$ ion density in the $x$-$y$, $y$-$z$$(x=5\,R_{E})$ and $z$-$x$ planes, Fig. \[fig:4\]. The asymmetrical distribution of the background ions in the $x$-$y$ plane may be explained by the existence of a strong $B_z$ component in the upstream magnetic field. One can also see an increase in the plasma density near Europa due to the formation of a magnetic barrier (not shown here). In case (b) this effect is stronger than in case (a). The density profiles for $SO^{++}$ background ions are close to the density profiles for $O^{++}$ ions.
The inclination of the magnetic field results in an asymmetrical boundary condition for ion dynamics (penetration and reflection) in Europa’s ionosphere and an asymmetrical Alfvén wing.
Note that the background ion flow around the effective obstacle that is produced by pickup ions and the ionosphere. The pickup ions flow from the “corona” across the magnetic field due to electromagnetic drift, whereas the motion along the magnetic field is determined by the thermal velocity of ions and the electron pressure.
Figure \[fig:5\] demonstrates the 1D cuts ($y=0$, $z=0$) of the background density $O^{++}$ for case (a) (top) and case (b) (bottom). Strong jumps in the plasma density with $N_{O^{++}, max}= 80$cm$^{-3}$ (case (a)) and $N_{O^{++}, max}= 17$cm$^{-3}$ (case (b)) are observed on the day-side of the ionosphere, whereas a reduction in the plasma density is observed in the plasma wake. Note that the jump in the plasma density profile is stronger in case (a) than it is in case (b). Both jumps are located near the surface of Europa.
Figures \[fig:6\] shows 1-D density profiles of the background and pickup ions along the E4 trajectory of the Galileo spacecraft. One can see a strong plasma void in the center of the plasma wake. There is also a sharp boundary with an overshoot in the density profiles on the side of the plasma wake in the Jupiter-direction, and a smooth boundary layer on the side in the anti-Jupiter direction, Fig. \[fig:6\] (top). The density profile for $O^{++}$ is similar the density profiles for the $S^{++}$ upstream ions. Fig. \[fig:6\] (middle and bottom) also shows the density profiles for the non-thermal (top) and thermal (bottom) $O_2^{+}$ pickup ions. One can see the split structure of the plasma tail. The effect of splitting of the plasma tail was also observed in the hybrid modeling of weak comets (see, e.g., Lipatov, Sauer and Baumgätel, 1997; Lipatov, 2002). The general feature of this plasma density is due to the effect of the finite heavy gyroradius. The total ion density profile observed in E4 pass is shown in Fig. \[fig:6\] (bottom). The observed value of the density in these peaks is lower than in modeling and it may be explained by an overestimated density of $O_2^{+}$ pickup ions for case (a). In the case (b), disagreement is not as strong, an improvement of the atmosphere model is still required.
The modeling gives the following total fluxes for the $O_2^{+}$ pickup ions (case (a)): $1.4\times 10^{22}$mol/s (non-thermal) and $1.75 \times 10^{25}$mol/s (thermal); (case (b)): $0.8\times 10^{22}$mol/s (non-thermal) and $1.0 \times 10^{25}$mol/s (thermal) across the back boundary $x=12 R_{E}$.
Let us consider a global distribution of the electric and magnetic field in Europa’s environment. Figure \[fig:7\] shows $B_x$, $B_z$ magnetic and $E_y$ electric field profiles for case (a) (left) and case (b) (right). The $y-z$ cuts (top and middle) are located at $x/R_{E}=7$, and $x-y$ cuts (bottom) are located at $y=0$. The figure demonstrates perturbations in the magnetic $B_x$ and electric $E_y$ field profiles, which are due to the formation of an Alfvén wing. The increase in the magnetic field $B_z$ indicates the formation of an asymmetrical magnetic barrier, Fig. \[fig:7\] (bottom).
The asymmetry of the modeling distributions in ${\bf B}$ appears to be caused by the finite gyroradius effects of incoming and pickup ions. A weak perturbation of the magnetic field was observed near the ionosphere of Europa: compression of the upstream magnetic field and decompression in the plasma wake.
The modeling also shows the formation of an Alfvén wing in the direction of the main magnetic field. The formation of the Alfvén wing in a sub-Alfvénic flow near Europa is similar to a formation near Io, which was first studied analytically by Neubauer (1980). The pickup ions play an important role in the fine structure of the Alfvén wing due to effects of mass loading. In particular, the scale of the front of the Alfvén wing must be determined by the gyroradius of pickup ions. Unfortunately, in our 3D hybrid kinetic simulation we cannot yet resolved these spatial scales.
3.2 Effects of inductive Europa’s magnetic field {#effects-of-inductive-europas-magnetic-field .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------
In the first set of models (Sect. 3.1, model I, cases (a) and (b)), we used a homogeneous global magnetic field as an initial condition. These models do not produce agreement between the simulated and observed magnetic fields.
In the second set of modeling we take into account the gradient of the global Jovian magnetic field for an initial magnetic field distribution. In the paper by Kivelson, Khurana, Stevenson et al. (1999); Kivelson et al. (1997); Kivelson et al. (2000), it has been shown that the $B_y$ component of the magnetospheric magnetic field has strong time variations at the position of Europa. In the MHD-fluid approximation the effects of such magnetic field variations are estimated in Schilling, Neubauer and Saur (2007); Schilling, Neubauer and Saur (2008). The initial plasma density and bulk velocity distribution in our modeling were taken from the E4 flyby data (Paterson et al., 1999).
We created the following model II, case (c) for simulation: the density for thermal $O_2$ is the same as for model I, case (b), and the pickup electron temperature is lower than in model I, case (b). The plasma density and bulk velocity distribution in our modeling were taken from the E4 flyby data (Paterson et al., 1999): full magnetosphere corotation speed $U_0=105$km/s; upstream densities are $\rho_{O^{++}}=10$cm$^{-3}$; $\rho_{S^{++}}=10$cm$^{-3}$; upstream ion and electron temperatures, $T_{O^{++}}=100$eV; $T_{S^{++}}=100$eV; $T_{e,0}=20$eV. The temperatures of electrons connected with non-thermal and thermal $O_2^+$ pickup ions are $T_{e,non-thermal}=100$eV; $T_{e,thermal}=100$eV.
In our hybrid kinetic modeling (model II) we use a simple magnetic dipole model of the induced oceanic magnetic field from the ten-hour corotation variation of the background Jovian magnetic field at Europa (see paragraph “Boundary Conditions", Sect. 2). And, finally, we fit the results of modeling to the components of the measured magnetic field.
This is not yet a fully self-consistent approach but provides a first approximation. Also, the ocean may not be exactly a spherically symmetric conducting shell and may ultimately require a higher-order multipole model for the induced fields.
Figure \[fig:8\] demonstrates the 2D cuts for non-thermal and thermal $O_2^+$ pickup ion densities. The figure does not show any extension of the pickup ion profile in the $y$ and $z$ directions. The plasma wake is narrower in the $y$ and $z$ directions compared to that produced by model I, cases (a) and (b). The reason for this effect is the lower temperature of electrons connected with pickup $O_2^{+}$ ions than in case (b), and a lower pickup ion production rate near the surface of Europa than in case (a).
Figure \[fig:9\] shows the distribution of the $O^{++}$ ion density in the $x$-$y$, $y$-$z$$(x=5\,R_{E})$ and $z$-$x$ planes. The narrow plasma wake may be explained by the cooler temperature of the electrons connected with $O_2^{+}$ pickup ions, resulting in a smaller polarization electric field that is responsible for the expansion of Europa’s ionosphere.
One can also see an increase in the plasma density near Europa due to the formation of a magnetic barrier (not shown here). The density profile for $SO^{++}$ background ions is close to the density profile for $O^{++}$ ions as in model I, cases (a) and (b).
Figure \[fig:10\] shows a 1-D cut of the background $O^{++}$ density along the $x$- axis ($y=0, z=0$). One can see jump in the background plasma density with $N_{O^{++}, max}=90$cm$^{-3}$ (model II, case (c)) on the day-side of the ionosphere and depletion in the plasma density in Europa’s plasma wake. Note that the jump in the plasma density profile is stronger in model II, case (c) than is observed in model I, case (a). The jump is located near the surface of Europa, as was observed in model I, cases (a) and (b).
Figures \[fig:11\] shows 1-D density profiles of the background and pickup ions along the E4 trajectory of the Galileo spacecraft. One can see a strong plasma void in the center of the plasma wake. There is also a sharp boundary with an overshoot in the density profiles on the left side of the plasma wake, and a smooth boundary layer on the right side, Fig. \[fig:11\] (top). The density profile for $S^{++}$ is similar the density profile for $O^{++}$ background ions. Fig. \[fig:10\] (middle) shows the density profiles for non-thermal and thermal $O_2{+}$ pickup ions. The total ion density profile observed during the E4 pass is shown in Fig. \[fig:11\] (bottom). Again, one can see two peaks in the total ion density profile. However, the observed value of the density in these peaks is lower than predicted by the model; this may be explained by an overestimated density of $O_2^{+}$ pickup ions for model II, case (c).
The modeling shows that the shape of Europa’s global plasma environment depends on a combination of the upstream plasma parameters and pickup ion and electron parameters. For example, reducing in the temperature of electrons connected with pickup ions results in a higher density of thermal $O_2^{+}$ pickup ions at the trajectory of the spacecraft (compare Fig. \[fig:6\] (right) and Fig. \[fig:11\]). This effect is connected with the polarization electric field which is proportional to the gradient of the electron pressure. Reducing the temperature of the background upstream ions results in the widening of the plasma wake (compare Fig. \[fig:6\] (left and right, top) and Fig. \[fig:11\] (top)). These effects were earlier demonstrated in the 3-D hybrid simulation of Io’s plasma environment (Lipatov and Combi, 2006). We have found the similarities between the plasma environments of these objects. Indeed, Io and Europa have sufficiently thin exospheres and strong magnetic fields resulting in a small value of the ion gyroradius.
Let us consider the global distribution for the electromagnetic field of model II, case (c). Figure \[fig:12\] shows 2-D cuts for the magnetic $B_x$, $B_z$ and electric $E_y$ field profiles. The distributions for the $B_z$, $E_y$ field shown in the figure are close to the distributions for model I, case (b). However, there are significant differences between the $B_x$ profiles for model I, case (a) and case (b), and model II, case (c). The differences between the $B_x$ profiles for cases (a) and (b), Fig. \[fig:7\] (top) are due to a much higher density of the thermal $O_2{+}$ pickup ions in the plasma wake, whereas the differences between the $B_x$ profiles for cases (b) and (c) are due to the nonlinear interaction of the Alfvén wing with the inhomogeneous Jovian magnetic field in model II, case (c).
Figure \[fig:13\] shows the magnetic field components (solid line) $B_x$, $B_y$ , $B_z$, and $|B|$ along the E4 trajectory of the Galileo spacecraft. The magnetic field components of the inductive magnetic dipole that simulates the effect of the nonstationarity of the Jovian magnetic field are shown by a dotted line ($---$). The circles ($\circ$) denote observational data from Kivelson et al. (1997) and the initial Jovian magnetospheric field at the position of Europa (+++). The simulation produces a satisfactory agreement with the observational data for the $B_y$ magnetic field component, but not for the $B_x$ and $B_z$ magnetic field components. A multipole model for the oceanic magnetic field may address this issue. We will need to improve the model of the $O_2$ atmosphere, the resolution of the ion trajectory, and the gradient in the atmosphere/ionosphere density profiles near the surface of Europa to obtain better agreement in the $B_x$ and $B_z$ magnetic field components
4. Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===============
Hybrid modeling of Europa’s plasma environment for the E4 encounter with 3 ion species demonstrated several features:
- The modeling shows a strong phase mixing in the plasma wake. The plasma wake demonstrates the formation of time-dependent structuring in the pickup ion tails (see, e.g., McKenzie, Sauer, Dubinin, 2001 for a weak comet case) and the splitting of the pickup ion tails. The splitting of the plasma wake has the same nature as the splitting of the weak comet’s plasma wake or the splitting of Titan’s plasma wake. Such finite gyroradius effects were also observed in 2.5 D hybrid and bi-fluid modeling of a weak comet (see, e.g., Lipatov, Sauer, Baumgärtel, 1997; Sauer et al., 1996; 1997; Lipatov, 2002) and in 3D hybrid modeling of Titan’s plasma environment (Lipatov et al., 2011; 2012). The further investigation of these fine structure needs an additional modeling with much better resolution.
- The model shows a magnetic field barrier formation at the day-side portion of the ionosphere. The formation of an Alfvén wing in the plane of the external magnetic field was also observed. Note that the Alfvén wing was earlier observed in a hybrid simulation of the plasma environment of Io and Europa by Lipatov and Combi (2006) and by Lipatov et al. (2010). An MHD simulation of the plasma environment of Io and Europa also produces the formation of an Alfvén wing (Saur et al., 1999; 1998; Liu et al., 2000; Schilling et al., 2008).
- The ion and electron temperatures play an important role in plasma structure formation, and in creating the ion fluxes inside the ionosphere. These effects were observed earlier in a 3-D hybrid simulation of Io’s plasma environment (Lipatov and Combi, 2006). The hybrid model produces the correct pickup ion flux along the magnetic field, in contrast to the MHD models which operate with pickup ions with a Maxwellian velocity distribution. In the current paper we have presented only three runs with different combinations of the upstream ion and pickup electron temperatures.
- The model’s total ion density in the plasma wake does not satisfactory match the observed density.
- The constant induced dipole moment (model II, case (c)) improves a fit of the magnetic field $B_y$ component to the E4 trajectory. However, a fit of the magnetic field $B_x$ component is still not satisfactory due to the imperfect model of the atmosphere/ionosphere and unsatisfactory numerical resolution of the gyroradii on the grid cell.
- Use of an inhomogeneous background magnetic field provides a good agreement between the observed and simulated magnetic fields. However, we still need to improve the resolution of the gradient in the atmosphere density, the gyroradius of pickup ions, and the fields in the internal non-conduction ice shell and conduction ocean layers of Europa.
In our future computational models, we plan to include a nonstationary boundary condition for the magnetic field in order to take into account the spatially inhomogeneous and nonstationary background Jovian magnetic field. This model will also be appropriate for a potentially nonspherical ocean shell. We also plan the use of a varying atmospheric density, a varying electron temperature (that plays key-role in the pickup ion dynamics), and sputtering processes (Johnson, 1990; Johnson et al., 1998) at the surface of Europa. We also plan to use a composite grid structure using the “cubed sphere" technique (see, e.g. Koldoba et al, 2002) to improve the resolution of the a small scales near the surface of Europa and to increase the size of the computational domain.
The composite grid structure will allow us to estimate the inductive magnetic field from the ocean as a part of the total current closure that also includes the external plasma currents. This technique will allow us to study wave-particle interaction effects in the far plasma wake, such as ion cyclotron waves that have been observed in the Galileo flyby mission (see e.g. Volwerk, Kivelson and Khurana, 2001; Kivelson, Khurana and Volwerk, 2009). These models must include the induced magnetic field from a putative subsurface ocean, and will also include particle trajectory tracing for test particles, e.g. electrons and high-energy ions.
Note that the larger computational domain allows us to use the upstream parameters for the plasma and electromagnetic field instead of the use of the “damping" boundary condition. However, in the outer region of the computational domain (large cell size) we have to use a drift-kinetic approach (see e.g. Lipatov et al., 2005) for ion dynamics since we cannot approximate the ion trajectory there. We can also use a complex particle kinetic technique (see e.g. Lipatov, 2012) which provides a flexible fluid/kinetic description and may significantly save computational resources.
A.S.L. was supported in part by the Project/Grant 00004129, and 00004549 between the GPHI UMBC and NASA GSFC. J.F.C. was supported as Principal Investigator by the NASA Outer Planets Research Program. Computational resources were provided by the NASA Ames Advanced Supercomputing Division (SGI - Columbia, Project SMD-09-1110).
Austin, J.V., Goldstein, D.B., 2000. Rarefied gas model of Io’s sublimation-driven atmosphere. Icarus 148, 370-383.
Bagenal, F., 1994. Empirical model of the Io plasma torus: Voyager measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 11043-11062.
Braginskii, S.L., 1965. Transport processes in a plasma. In: Leontovich, M.A. (Ed.), Reviews of Plasma Physics. Consultants Bureau, New York, pp. 205-240.
Cassidy, T.A., Johnson, R.E., McGrath, M.A., Wong, M.C., Cooper, J.F., 2007. The spatial morphology of Europa’s near-surface $O_2$ atmosphere. Icarus 191, 755-764.
Combi, M.R., Kabin, K., Gombosi, T., De Zeeuw, D.L., Powell, K., 1998. Io’s plasma environment during the Galileo flyby: Global three-dimensional MHD modeling with adaptive mesh refinement. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 9071-9081.
Combi, M.R., Gombosi, T.I., Kabin, K., 2002. Plasma Flow Past Cometary and Planetary Satellite Atmospheres. In: Mendillo, M., Nagy, A., Waite, J.H. (Eds.), Atmospheres in the Solar System: Comparative Aeronomy. Geophys. Monograph Series Vol. 130. AGU Washington, D.C., pp. 151-167.
Dols, V., Delamere, P.A., Bagenal, F., 2008. A multispecies chemistry model of Io’s local interaction with the Plasma Torus, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, 9208-+, doi:10.1029/2007JA012805.
Goertz, C.K., 1980. Io’s interaction with the plasma torus. J. Geophys. Res. 85, 2949-2956.
Herbert, F., 1985. “Alfvén wing" models of the induced electrical current system at Io: A probe of the ionosphere of Io. J. Geophys. Res. 90, 8241-8251.
Hewett, D.W., Langdon, A.B., 1987. Electromagnetic Direct Implicit Plasma Simulation. J. Comput. Phys. 72(1), 121-155.
Huddleston, D.E., Strangeway, R.J., Warnecke, J., Russel, C.T., Kivelson, M.G., 1997. Ion cyclotron waves in the Io torus during the Galileo encounter: Warm plasma dispersion analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett. 24 (17), 2143-2146.
Ip, W.-H., 1990. Neutral gas-plasma interaction: The case of the Io plasma torus. Adv. Space Res. 10(1), 15-18.
Jia, X., Walker, R.J., Kivelson, M.G., Khurana, K.K., Linker, J.A., 2008. Three-dimensional MHD simulation of Ganymede’s magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 113, A06212.
Johnson, R.E., 1990. Energetic Charge-Particle Interaction with Atmospheres and Surfaces. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Johnson, R.E., Killen, R.M., Waite, J.H., Lewis, W.S., 1998. Europa’s surface composition and sputter-produced ionosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 3257-3260.
Johnson, R.E., Burger, M.H., Cassidy, T.A., Leblanc, F., Marcony, M., Smyth, W.H., 2009. Composition and detection of Europa’s sputter-induced atmosphere. In: Pappalardo, R.T., McKinnon, W.B., Khurana, K.K. (Eds.), Europa. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 507-527.
Kabin, K., Combi, M.R., Gombosi, T.I., Nagy, A.F., DeZeeuw, D.L., Hansen, K.S., Powell, K.G., 1999. On Europa’s magnetosphere interaction: A MHD simulation of the E4 flyby. J. Geophys. Res. 104(A9), 19983-19992.
Kabin, K., Combi, M.R., Gombosi, T.I., DeZeeuw, D.L., Hansen, K.S., Powell, K.G., 2001. Io’s magnetospheric interaction: an MHD model with day-night asymmetry. Planetary and Space Sci. 49, 337-344.
Kageyama, A., Sato, T., 2004. “Yin-Yang grid": An overset grid in spherical geometry. Geochemistry, Geophysics and Geosystems 5(9), Q09005, doi:10.1029/2004GC000734.
Khurana, K.K., Kivelson, M.G., Stevenson, D.J., G. Schubert, Russell, C.T., Walker, R.J., Polanskey, C., 1998. Induced magnetic fields as evidence for subsurface oceans in Europa’s and Callisto. Nature 395, 777-780.
Khurana, K., Kivelson, M.G., Hand, K.P., Russell, C.T., 2009. Electromagnetic induction from Europa’s ocean and the deep interior. In: Pappalardo, R.T., McKinnon, W.B., Khurana, K.K. (Eds.), Europa. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 571-586.
Kivelson, M.G., Khurana, K.K., Means, J.D., Russell, C.T., Snare, R.C., 1992. The Galileo magnetic field investigation. Space Sci. Rev. 60, 357.-383
Kivelson, M.G., Khurana, K.K., Joy, S., Russell, C.T., Southwood, D., Walker, R.J., Polanskey, C., 1997. Europa’s magnetic signature: Report from Galileo’s pass on 19 December 1996. Science 276, 1239-1241.
Kivelson, M.G., Khurana, K.K., Stevenson, D.J., Benett, L., Joy, S., Russell, C.T., Walker, R.J., Polanskey, C., 1999. Europa and Callisto: Induced or intrinsic fields in periodically varying plasma environment. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 4609-4625.
Kivelson, M.G., Khurana, K.K., Russell, C.T., Volwerk, M., Walker, R.J., Zimmer, C., 2000. Galileo magnetometer measurements strengthen the case for a subsurface ocean at Europa. Science 289, 1340-1343.
Kivelson, M.G., Khurana, K., Volwerk, M., 2009. Europa’s interaction with the Jovian magnetosphere. In: Pappalardo, R.T., McKinnon, W.B., Khurana, K.K. (Eds.), Europa. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 545-570.
Koldoba, A.V., Romanova, M.M., Ustyugova, G.V., Lovelace, R.V.E., 2002. Three dimensional MHD simulation of accretion to an inclined rotator: The “cubed sphere" method. Astrophys. J. 576:L53-L56
Lellouch, E., 1996. Urey Prize Lecture. Io’s Atmosphere: not yet understood. Icarus 124, 1-21.
Linker, J.A., Khurana, K.K., Kivelson, M.G., Walker, R.J., 1998. MHD simulation of Io’s interaction with the plasma torus. J. Geophys. Res. 103(E9), 19867-19877.
Lipatov A.S., K. Sauer and K. Baumgärtel, 1997. 2.5-D hybrid code simulation of the solar wind interaction with weak comets and related objects. Adv. Space Res. 20(2), 279-282.
Lipatov, A. S., 2002. The Hybrid Multiscale Simulation Technology. An introduction with application to astrophysical and laboratory plasmas. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York, pp. 413.
Lipatov, A.S., Motschmann, U., Bagdonat, T., Grie[ß]{}meier, J.-M., 2005. The interaction of the stellar wind with an extrasolar planet – 3D hybrid and drift-kinetic simulations. Planet. Space Sci. 53, 423-432.
Lipatov, A.S., Combi, M.R., 2006. Effects of kinetic processes in shaping Io’s global plasma environment: A 3D hybrid model. ICARUS 180, 412-427.
Lipatov, A.S., Cooper, J.F., Paterson, W.R., Sittler Jr., E.C., Hartle, R.E., 2010. Jovian plasma torus interaction with Europa: 3D Hybrid kinetic simulation. First results, Planet. Space Sci. 58(13), 1681-1691.
Lipatov, A.S., Sittler Jr., E.C., Hartle, R.E., Cooper, J.F., Simpson, D.G., 2011. Background and pickup ion velocity distribution dynamics in Titan’s plasma environment: 3D hybrid simulation and comparison with CAPS observations. Adv. Space Res. 48, 1114-1125.
Lipatov, A.S., Sittler Jr., E.C., Hartle, R.E., Cooper, J.F., Simpson, D.G., 2012. Saturn’s magnetosphere interaction with Titan for T9 encounter: 3D hybrid modeling and comparison with CAPS observations. Planet. Space Sci. 61, 66-78.
Lipatov, A.S., 2012. Merging for Particle-Mesh Complex Particle Kinetic modeling of the multiple plasma beams. J. Comput. Phys. 231, 3101-3118.
Liu, Y., Nagy, A.F., Kabin, K, Combi, M.R., DeZeew, D.R., Gombosi, T.I., Powell, K.G., 2000. Two species, 3D MHD simulation of Europa’s interaction with Jupiter’s magnetosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 1791-1794.
Mankofsky, A., Sudan, R.N., Denavit, J., 1987. Hybrid Simulation of Ion Beams in Background Plasma. J. Comput. Phys. 70, 89-116.
Marconi, M.L., Dagum, L., Smyth, W.H., 1996. Hybrid fluid/kinetic approach to planetary atmospheres: An example of an intermediate-mass body. Astrophys. J. 469, 393-401.
McGrath, M.A., Johnson, R.E., 1989. Charge Exchange Cross Sections for the Io Plasma Torus. J. Geophys. Res. 94(A3), 2677-2683.
McGrath, M.A., Hansen, C.J., Hendrix, A.R., 2009. Observations of Europa’s tenuous atmosphere. In: Pappalardo, R.T., McKinnon, W.B., Khurana, K.K. (Eds.), Europa. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 485-505.
McKenzie, J.F., Sauer, K., Dubinin, E.M., 2001. Stationary waves in a bi-ion plasma transverse to the magnetic field. J. of Plasma Physics 65(3), 197-212.
Neubauer, F.M., 1980. Nonlinear standing Alfvén wave current system at Io - Theory. J. Geophys. Res. 85, 1171-1178.
Neubauer, F.M., 1998. The sub-Alfvénic interaction of the Galilean satellites with the Jovian magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 19834-19866.
Neubauer, F.M., 1999. Alfvén wing and electromagnetic induction in the interiors: Europa and Callisto. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 28671-28684.
Paranicas, C., Cooper, J.F., Garrett, H.B., Johnson, R.E., Sturner, S.J., 2009. Europa’s Radiation Environment and Its Effects on the Surface. In: Pappalardo, R.T., McKinnon, W.B., Khurana, K.K. (Eds.), Europa. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 529-544.
Paterson, W.R., Frank, L.A., Ackerson, K.L., 1999. Galileo plasma observation at Europa: Ion energy spectra and moments. J. Geophys. Res. 104(A10), 22779-22791.
Sauer, K., Bogdanov, A., Baumgärtel, K., Dubinin, E., 1996. Plasma environment of comet Wirtanen during its low-activity stage. Planet. Space Sci. 44 (7), 715-729.
Sauer, K., Lipatov, A.S., Baumgärtel, K., Dubinin E., 1997. Solar Wind-Pluto Interaction Revised. Adv. Space Res. 20(2), 295.
Saur, J., Strobel, D.F., Neubauer, F.M., 1998. Interaction of the Jovian magnetosphere with Europa: Constrains on the neutral atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 103, E9, 19947-19962.
Saur, J., Neubauer, F.M., Strobel, D.F., Summers, M.E., 1999. Three-dimensional plasma simulation of Io’s interaction with the Io plasma torus: Asymmetric plasma flow. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 25105-25126.
Schilling, N., Khurana, K.K., Kivelson, M.G., 2004. Limits on an intrinsic moment in Europa. J. Geophys. Res. 109, E05006.
Schilling, N., Neubauer, F.M., Saur, J., 2007. Time-varying interaction of Europa with the jovian magnetosphere: Constrains on the conductivity of Europa’s subsurface ocean. Icarus 192, 41-55.
Schilling, N., Neubauer, F.M., Saur, J., 2008. Influence of the internally induced magnetic field on the plasma interaction of Europa. J. Geophys. Res. 113, A03203, doi:10.1029/2007JA012842.
Schreier, R., Eviatar, A., Vasyliünas, V.M., Richardson, J.D., 1993. Modeling the Europa plasma torus. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 21231-21243.
Shematovich, V.I., Johnson, R.E., Cooper, J.F., Wong, M.C., 2005. Surface-bounded atmosphere of Europa. Icarus 173, 480-498.
Sittler, Jr., E.C., Strobel, D.F. 1987. Io plasma torus electrons: Voyager 1. J. Geophys. Res. 92, 5741-5762.
Smyth, W.H., Marconi, M.L., 2006. Europa’s atmosphere, gas tori, and magnetospheric implications, Icarus 181, 510-526.
Southwood, D.J., Kivelson, M.G., Walker, R.J., Slavin, J.A., 1980. Io and its plasma environment. J. Geophys. Res. 85, 5959-5968.
Southwood, D.J., Dunlop, M.W., 1984. Mass pickup in sub-Alfvénic plasma flow: A case study for Io. Planet. Space Sci. 32, 1079-1089.
Tikhonov, A.N., Samarskii, A.A., 1963. Equations of Mathematical Physics. Mac Millan, New York, pp. 765
Umeda, T., Omura, Y., Matsumoto, H., 2001. An improved masking method for absorbing boundaries in electromagnetic particle simulations. Comp. Phys. Comm. (137), 286-299.
Van’yan, L.L., Lipatov, A.S., 1972. Three-dimensional hydromagnetic disturbances generated by a magnetic dipole in an anisotropic plasma. Geomagn. and Aeronomy 18(5), 316-318.
Volwerk, M., Kivelson, M.G., Khurana, K.K., 2001. Wave activity in Europa’s wake: Implications for ion pickup. J. Geophys. Res. 106(A11), 26033-26048.
Wolf-Gladrow, D.A., Neubauer, F.M., Lussem, M., 1987. Io’s interaction with the plasma torus: A self-consistent model. J. Geophys. Res. 92, 9949-9961.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Machine hearing or listening represents an emerging area. Conventional approaches rely on the design of handcrafted features specialized to a specific audio task and that can hardly generalized to other audio fields. For example, Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs) and its variants were successfully applied to computational auditory scene recognition while Chroma vectors are good at music chord recognition. Unfortunately, these predefined features may be of variable discrimination power while extended to other tasks or even within the same task due to different nature of clips. Motivated by this need [[of a principled framework across domain applications for machine listening]{}]{}, we propose a generic and data-driven representation learning approach. For this sake, a novel and efficient supervised dictionary learning method is presented. The method [[learns]{}]{} dissimilar [[dictionaries]{}]{}, one per each class, in order to extract heterogeneous information for classification. In other words, we are seeking to minimize the intra-class homogeneity and maximize class separability. This is made possible by promoting pairwise orthogonality between class specific dictionaries and controlling the [[sparsity structure of the audio clip’s decomposition over these dictionaries]{}]{}. The resulting optimization problem is non-convex and solved using a proximal gradient descent method. Experiments are performed on both computational auditory scene (East Anglia and Rouen) and synthetic music chord recognition datasets. Obtained results show that our method is capable to reach state-of-the-art hand-crafted features for both applications.'
address: 'Normandie Université, LITIS EA 4108, INSA Rouen Normandie, Avenue de l’Université, 76800, Saint Etienne du Rouvray, France'
author:
- Imad Rida
- Romain Hérault
- Gilles Gasso
title: An efficient supervised dictionary learning method for audio signal recognition
---
audio ,scene recognition ,music recognition ,supervised dictionary learning[[,sparse coding]{}]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
Motivations and Contributions
=============================
Proposed approach {#sec:ourcontribution}
=================
Experiments {#exp}
===========
Conclusion {#conc}
==========
We have proposed a novel supervised dictionary learning method for audio signal recognition. The proposed method seeks to minimize the intra-class homogeneity, maximize the class separability and promote the sparsity to control the complexity of the signal decomposition over the dictionary. This is done by learning a dictionary per class, minimizing the class based reconstruction error and promoting the pairwise orthogonality of the dictionaries. The learned dictionaries are supposed to provide [[different]{}]{} information per class. The resulting problem is non-convex and solved using a proximal gradient descent method.
Our proposed method was extensively tested on two different audio recognition applications: computational auditory scene recognition and music chord recognition. The obtained results were compared to different conventional [[predefined]{}]{} features. While there is no universal [[pre-specified]{}]{} feature representation able to successfully tackle different audio recognition problems, our proposed dictionary learning method combined with a simple linear classifier showed very promising results while dealing with [[two different audio recognition tasks.]{}]{}
.
[72]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[1\][`#1`]{} \[2\][\#2]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][[](http://dx.doi.org/#1)]{} \[1\][[](pmid:#1)]{} \[2\][\#2]{} , , , . . , . . , , , , . . , . , , , . . , . , , , , . . , . . , , , . , in: . , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , . . , . . . , , , , . . , . . , . . . , , . , in: , pp. . . , , . . , . . , , , , . . , . . , , , . . , . . , . . , . , , . . , . . , , , . . , . . , , . . , . , . , in: , pp. . , , , . , in: , , (Eds.), . , pp. . . , , , , . . . , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , et al., . , in: , pp. . , , , , , , , . . , . . , , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , , , . . , . . , , . . , . . , , , , . , in: , pp. . , . , in: , p. . , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , , . . , . . , , , , , . , in: , pp. . . , . . , . . , , , . . , . . , , , . , in: , pp. . , , , . . , . . , , , . . , . . , , , , , . , in: , pp. . , , , . , in: , pp. . , , , . . , . . , , . , in: , pp. . . , , et al., . . , . , , , . . , . , , . . , . . , , , . , in: , pp. . . , . . . , , , a. , in: , . pp. . . , , , , b. . , . , , , a. , in: , . pp. . , , , , , c. , in: , . pp. . , , , , , d. . , . . , , , a. . , . . , , , , b. , in: , . pp. . . , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , , e. . . , , , b. . , . . , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , . . , . . , , . . . , , . , in: , pp. . , , , . . , . . , , . . , . , , . . , . . , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , , . , in: , pp. . . , , . . , . . , , . , in: , . pp. . , , , . . , . . , , . , in: , pp. . . , , , . . , . .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'auto\_generated.bib'
title: 'Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment'
---
=1
$Revision: 166817 $ $HeadURL: svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/BTV-12-001/trunk/BTV-12-001.tex $ $Id: BTV-12-001.tex 166817 2013-01-24 13:38:02Z adamwo $
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The CMS Collaboration \[app:collab\]
====================================
=5000=500=5000
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that quasi-bound electron states are formed in a quantum wire as a result of electron backscattering in the transition regions between the wire and the electron reservoirs, to which the wire is coupled. The backscattering mechanism is caused by electron density oscillations arising even in smooth transitions due to the reflection of electrons not transmitting through the wire. The quasi-bound states reveal themselves in resonances of the electron transmission probability through the wire. The calculations were carried out within the Hartree-Fock approximation using quasiclassic wavefunctions.'
address: 'Kotel’nikov Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Fryazino, Moscow District, 141190, Russia'
author:
- 'B S Shchamkhalova, V A Sablikov'
title: Mechanism of electron localization in a quantum wire
---
Quantum point contacts (QPCs) and quantum wires (QWs) have attracted much interest as model systems for studying effects of an electron-electron interaction in one-dimensional (1D) systems. The conductance of these devices is known [@van; @Wees; @Wharam] to be quantized according to a universal law, $G=2ne^2/h$, where $n=1,2,3 \dots$, which was successfully explained within the model of noninteracting electrons [@Glazman; @Buttiker]. However, recent experiments have revealed a lot of other features of the conductance which are yet unexplained. Widely discussed is the 0.7 anomaly [@Thomas]. Besides, such observations as strongly nonlinear conductance at low applied voltage [@Picciotto], additional plateaulike features [@Reilly] and even resonances in the differential conductance [@Reilly; @Morimoto; @Shailos; @Biercuk] are also of interest. It is obvious that these features are caused by the electron-electron interaction, but only electron-electron interaction in the 1D system fails to explain them. Of no less importance is the fact that a 1D wire is coupled to 2D electron reservoirs and hence there are transition regions between the 1D QW and the 2D reservoirs (1D-2D junctions). The most puzzling result found recently is the electron localization in the QPC, which was first brought to light from the studies of the 0.7 plateaulike feature in short QWs. Cronenwett *et al* [@Cronenwett] related this feature to the Kondo effect caused by the electron spin localization in the QW. The most convincing evidence of the electron localization was provided by the momentum-resolved tunnelling experiments of Auslaender *et al* [@Auslaender]. Peaks and kinks in conductance dependences on the gate voltage observed on the devices with high electron mobility [@Morimoto; @Reilly; @Shailos] implicitly also points to the presence of quasi-bound electron states. The problem is that in all the experiments the electrons are localized over the barrier formed by the electrodes, the potential of which varies smoothly on the electron wavelength scale. The localization mechanism remains unclear, but it is widely believed that the existence of the quasi-bound states in the QW allows one to interpret the plateualike features and the resonances of the conductance. In [@Jefferson] the quasi-bound states were related to local broadening of the QW and formation of a potential well. To justify the formation of the quasi-bound states, Hirose *et al* [@Hirose] calculated electron density distribution in QPCs with geometric lengths of the order of the Fermi wavelength. However in the experiments the geometric sizes exceed the Fermi wavelength noticeably, the barrier induced by the gates is rather smooth and the over-barrier reflection is negligible. Recently, Rejec and Meir [@Rejec] have demonstrated the presence of quasi-bound states in the QPC by calculations based on spin-density functional theory, but the underlying physical mechanism remains unknown.
Such a mechanism was suggested in [@Sablikov]. The localization is a result of an intersubband electron interaction in the 1D-2D transition regions. The interaction is caused by the Friedel oscillations of the density of higher subband electrons, which do not pass through the transition regions, and are reflected. The electrons of an open subband are backscattered by these oscillations. Since the backscattering occurs in two opposed sides of the QW, quasi-bound states are formed. When studying the backscattering in 1D-2D junctions the problem is the complicated structure of the electron density distribution along the QW. Besides a smooth component of the electron density there is an oscillating one, and it is just this component that gives rise to the electron backscattering. An analytic theory of scattering by the Friedel oscillations in the outside of the junction (the far zone), where the wave vector of the oscillations is close to $2k_F$ and the electrons with the Fermi energy are resonantly scattered, was developed in [@Sablikov]. But the scattering by nonperiodic oscillations of the electron density inside the transition region (the near zone) may be also important, because the oscillation amplitude is larger there. In this paper the electron backscattering in the smooth 1D-2D junctions is studied within the Hartree-Fock approximation taking into account both near and far zones. The backscattering in the near zone turns out to contribute essentially to the total effect . It is found that quasi-bound states are formed in the QW giving rise to the transmission resonances.
![(a) Sketch of the device. (b) Effective 1D electron density. (c) Potential landscape and subband energies. Solid lines – selfconsistent relief $U(x)$ of the first (1) and higher (2,3) subband bottoms; dashed lines – transverse quantization energies of the first (1’) and higher subbands.[]{data-label="d_rho_U"}](Fig1.eps){width="10"}
Consider a QW in the form of a strip connecting 2D electron reservoirs with a given electrochemical potential $E_F$. The strip width, $d(x)$, varies as follows: $$\label{junc_form1}
d(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
d = \mathrm {const} , & |x|<a\\
d[1+(|x|-a)^2/R^2], & |x|>a \,,
\end{array} \right.$$ where the broadening radius $R$ considerably exceeds both $d$ and $k_F^{-1}$ ($k_F$ is the Fermi wave vector in reservoirs). For simplicity, we assume that only the first subband is open. The electrons in the higher subbands are reflected in the 1D-2D junctions.
The backscattering of electrons incident on the QW is calculated in a way similar to that of [@Sablikov] with two essential additions which are required to include the scattering process in the near zone. First, in addition to the Friedel oscillations produced by closed subbands we take into account the electron density oscillations produced by the first subband electrons with energy below the potential landscape maximum in the QW, $U_m$, (figure \[d\_rho\_U\](c)). These electrons are reflected from the barrier giving rise to electron density oscillations with the wave vector $\sim 2\sqrt{2mU_m}/\hbar$, which is close to $2k_F$. Hence, these oscillations can noticeably contribute to the backscattering of the electrons passing through the QW. The second addition is the selfconsistent calculation of the smooth components of the potential and the electron density distribution in the QW. The potential landscape along the QW axis is formed by the transverse quantization energy and the smooth component of the Hartree potential. This is important because in the near zone the potential landscape considerably differs from the transverse quantization energy, as figure \[d\_rho\_U\](c) shows.
The calculations are carried out in the following way. First, one-particle wave functions are written in the adiabatic approximation as a product of transverse and longitudinal wave functions $$\Psi_n(\vec{r}_\perp,x)=\phi_{nx}(\vec{r}_\perp)\psi_n(x).$$ where $n=1,2,\dots$ is the subband number, $\phi_{nx}(\vec{r}_\perp)$ is a transverse wavefunction corresponding to transverse quantization energy $E_n(x)$. Second, effectively 1D equations are obtained for the longitudinal wave functions $\psi_n(x)$ by averaging the Hartee-Fock equations over transverse coordinates with the weight $\phi^*_{nx}(\vec{r}_\perp)$. As a result one obtains 1D Schrödinger equations with effective 1D Hartree and exchange terms. Third, these equations are solved selfconsistently using perturbation theory. To zero order in the interaction, the wave functions are written in the quasi-classic approximation. At this stage the problem is solved numerically using the iteration procedure developed in [@Shchamkhalova]. The electron scattering is calculated in the first Bohrn approximation. The quasi-classic approximation is justified if the local wavelength of an electron on the Fermi level is smaller than the characteristic spatial scale of the potential [@Zeldovich]. The adiabatic approximation and its application to similar structures were considered in detail by Glazman et al [@Glazman; @Glazman1]
Thus, zero-order wave functions for the closed states are $$\label{c_band} \psi_{n,k}(x)= 2 \sqrt{\frac{k}{k_n(x)}
}\cos\left[\int^x_{a_n}\!\!dx' k_n(x') -\frac{\pi}{4}\right]\, ,$$ where $k_n(x)$ is the wave vector of the longitudinal motion, $k=\lim_{x\to \infty}k_n(x)$ and $a_n(k)$ is a turning point. For electrons of the first subband with energy higher than the potential landscape maximum the zero-order wavefunction is $$\label{o_band} \psi_{1,k}(x)= \sqrt{\frac{k}{k_1(x)}} \exp
\left[i\int^x_{0}\!\!\!dx' k_n(x') \right].$$
![Reflection coefficient for different geometric sizes: (a) the widening radius $R$ is varied at $a = 150$ nm, $D=600$Å, $E_F=9$ meV; (b) the length $2a$ of uniform part is varied at $R=135$ nm, $D= 900$Å, $E_F=9$ meV. For $a = 150$ nm (solid line), transmission resonances at energies 0.2 and 0.42 meV are caused by second and third quasi-bound states in the QW. For $a=225$ nm (dotted line) the transmission resonances correspond to third and fourth states.[]{data-label="reflect_size"}](Fig2.eps){width="12cm"}
The electron density in each subband, having been found using equations (\[c\_band\]) and (\[o\_band\]), depends on the electrochemical potential in the reservoirs $E_F$ and the effective potential $U^n(x)$ in the device. The density is a sum of two components: one is oscillating and the other varies smoothly on the electron wavelength scale. Accordingly, the potential acting on the electrons also has two similar components. A smooth component of the potential is calculated selfconsistently with the electron density using the technique developed in [@Shchamkhalova]. As a result, the potential profile $U^n(x)$ (see Fig.\[d\_rho\_U\]) is obtained for each subband and used to calculate the wave vectors $k_n(x)$ in equations (\[c\_band\]) and (\[o\_band\]), $k_n(x) = \sqrt{k^2-2mU^n(x)/h^2}$. A rapidly oscillating component of the potential is considered as a perturbation, which scatters an electron from a state $|n,k\rangle
$ to $|m,k'\rangle$. The scattering potential contains the Hartree and exchange components: $\hat{V}=V^H+\hat{V}^{exc}$ [@Sablikov]. The Hartree potential acting on the first subband electrons is $$V^H(x) = \sum_l \int dx'
V^H_{1,l}(x,x') \rho_l(x') - \int dx' V^H_{1,0}(x,x')
\rho_0(x')\,,$$ where $\rho_l(x)$ is the electron density in the *l*th subband, $\rho_0(x)$ is the background charge density and $$V_{nl}(x,x')=\int\,V(\vec r,\vec r')|\phi_{nx}(\vec{r}_\perp)|^2
|\phi_{lx}(\vec{r'}_\perp)|^2d\vec{r}_\perp d\vec{r'}_\perp,$$ $$V_{n,0}(x,x')=\int\,V(\vec r,\vec r')|\phi_{nx}(\vec{r}_\perp)|^2
d\vec{r}_\perp d\vec{r'}_\perp.$$ The exchange interaction is described by an operator, which has following form for the first subband electrons $$\hat{V}^{exc} \psi_{1,k} (x) = - \sum_l \int dx'
V^{exc}_{1,l}(x,x') \rho_l(x,x') \psi_{1,k}(x') \, ,$$ where $\rho_l(x,x')$ is the density matrix and $$\begin{aligned}
V^{exc}_{n,m}(x,x')=\int\!\!\! d\vec{r}_{\perp}
d\vec{r'}_{\perp} V({\bf r},{\bf r'}) % \times \\
\phi_{nx}(\vec{r}_\perp) \phi_{mx}(\vec{r}_\perp)
\phi_{nx}(\vec{r'}_\perp) \phi_{mx}(\vec{r'}_\perp)\, .\end{aligned}$$ Here $V({\bf r},{\bf r'})$ is the pair interaction potential. The screening of the Coulomb interaction is taken into account similarly to [@Shchamkhalova], assuming that the screening is produced by a conducting plane (gate) situated over the device at a distance $D$ or/and by the reservoirs, deep inside which the potential is fixed. In specific calculations the potential is taken to be constant at a distance $\pm L/2$ from the center of the QW. The reflection amplitude for electrons in the open subband (i.e.,for the $(1,k) \to (1,-k)$ transition) is calculated in the Born approximation $$r_k=\frac{m}{i\hbar^2}\int \!dx\, \psi^*_{1,k} \hat{V}
\psi_{1,k}\, .$$
![Reflection coefficient for different distance to the screening gate $D$. The parameters used are $a=150$ nm; $ R=135$ nm; $L=1.5$ $\mu$m; $E_F = 9$ meV.[]{data-label="reflect_screen"}](Fig3.eps){width="12cm"}
The main results obtained are shown in figures \[reflect\_size\],\[reflect\_screen\],\[reflect\_EF\] where the reflection coefficient $|r|^2$ of the electrons incident on the QW is shown as a function of the electron energy measured from the potential landscape maximum for a variety of the device parameters. One sees the resonant behavior of the electron reflection. At some energies the reflectance strongly diminishes and correspondingly the transmission resonantly increases. Calculations show that the resonance energies are mainly determined by the geometric sizes of the device: the length of the uniform part $2a$ and the broadening radius $R$. This is demonstrated in figure \[reflect\_size\]. The screening effect on the reflectance is demonstrated by figure \[reflect\_screen\] where the reflectance spectra are shown for a variety of the distances $D$ between the QW and the screening electrode. This distance affects both the width of the transmission resonances (the width of the resonance decreases with $D$) and the reflection coefficient at energies between the resonances ($|r|^2$ increases with $D$), the resonance energies being weakly dependent on $D$. Similarly, the Fermi level in the reservoirs weakly affects the position of the resonance, while $|r|^2$ is affected noticeably(figure \[reflect\_EF\]).
![Reflection coefficient for different Fermi energies $E_F$ in reservoirs. The parameters used are $a=150$ nm; $ R=135$ nm; $L=1.5$ $\mu$m; screening gate is absent.[]{data-label="reflect_EF"}](Fig4.eps){width="12"}
The reflection resonances clearly point to the presence of quasi-bound states located in the region of the potential landscape maximum. The spectrum of the quasi-bound states and the energy dependence of the backscattering may be described rather well by a simple model. The electron scattering in 1D-2D junctions may be imagined as scattering by two $\delta$-like barriers located symmetrically at a distance $l$ from the QW center. The scattering potential is $W(x)=\Omega \delta(x\pm l)$. Here $l$ and $\Omega$ are fitting parameters. The wave vector $K$, for which the backscattering vanishes, is defined by the equation $$\tan(2Kl) = -\frac{2K\hbar^2}{2m\Omega}\,.$$ Using the ratio of energies of the sequential resonances in our numerical results we can define the serial numbers of the resonances. Then choosing the distance $l$ properly we can fit the resonance energies. The fitting leads to a simple equation: $$2l = 2a+\gamma R,$$ where $\gamma$ is a parameter ($\gamma \simeq 0.5$), which only slightly depends on the device geometry and the Fermi level in the reservoirs. The variation of the distance $D$ and the background positive charge density affect the power $\Omega$ of the effective scattering potential, which affects on the resonance energies slightly.
Thus, we have shown that the interaction between the electrons of the different subbands in 1D-2D junctions essentially affects the electron transport in QPCs and QWs. This interaction results in the transmission resonances which clearly evidence the formation of quasi-bound states in the region of the potential landscape maximum.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project no. 05-02-16854) and by Russian Academy of Sciences (programs “Quantum Nanostructures” and “Strongly Correlated Electrons in Semiconductors, Metals, Superconductors, and Magnetic Materials”), and the Ministry of Education and Science of RF.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[20]{}
van Wees BJ, van Houten H, Beenakker CWJ, Williamson JG, Kouwenhoven LP, van der Marel D and Foxon CT 1988 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**60**]{}, 848
Wharam DA, Thornton TJ, Newbury R, Pepper M, Ahmed H, Frost JT, Hasko DG, Peacock DC, Ritchie DE and Jones GAC 1988 *J. Phys. C: Solid. St. Phys*, [**21**]{} L209
Glazman LI, Lesovik GB , Khmel’nitskii DE and Shekhter RI 1988 *JETP Lett*. 48, 238
Buttiker M1990 *Phys. Rev. B* [**41**]{}, 7906
Thomas KJ, Nicholls JT , Simmons MY, Simmons M Y, Pepper M, Mace DR and Ritchie DE 1996 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**77**]{}, 135
de Picciotto R, Pfeffer LN, Baldwin RW and West KW 2004 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**92**]{}, 036805
Reilly DJ, 2005 *Phys. Rev. B* [**72**]{}, 033309
Morimoto T, Ytnmi M, Naito R, Tsubaki K, Aoki N, Bird J P and Ochiai Y 2006 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**97**]{}, 096801
Shailos A, Ashok A, Bird JP, Akis R, Ferry DK, Goodnick SV, Lilly MP, Reno JL and Simmons JA 2006 *J. Phys.: Cond. Matter,* [**18**]{} 1715
Biercuk MJ, Mason N, Martin J, Yacoby A and C. M. Marcus 2005, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**94**]{}, 026801
Cronenwett SM, Lynch HJ, Goldhaber-Gordon D, Kouwenhoven LP,Marcus CM, Hirose K, Wingreen NS and Umansky V 2002 *Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{},* 226805
Auslaender OM, Steinberg H, Yacoby A, Tserkovnyak Y, Halperin BI, Baldwin KW, Pfeiffer LN and West KW 2005 *Science* [**308**]{}, 88
Rejec T, Ramsak A and Jefferson JH, 2003 *Phys. Rev. B* [**67**]{}, 075311
Meir Y, Hirose K and Wingreen NS 2002 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**89**]{}, 196802 ; Hirose K, Meir Y and Wingreen NS, 2003 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**90**]{}, 026804
Rejec T and Meir Y 2006 *Nature* [**442**]{}, 900
Sablikov VA 2006 *JETP Lett*, [**84**]{}, 404; cond-mat/0611619
Shchamkhalova BS and Sablikov VA 2005 *Physica E* [**27**]{}, 51
Zel’dovich YaB and Rabinovich EM 1959 *JETP* [**37**]{}, 1296
Glazman LI and Jonson M, 1991 *Phys. Rev. B* [**44**]{}, 3810
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Stars generally form in aggregates, some of which are bound (‘clusters’) while others are unbound and disperse on short ($\sim10~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$) timescales (‘associations’). The fraction of stars forming in bound clusters ($\Gamma$) is a fundamental outcome of the star formation process. Recent observational and theoretical work has suggested that $\Gamma$ increases with the gas surface density ($\Sigma$) or star formation rate (SFR) surface density ($\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$), both within galaxies and between different ones. However, a recent paper by Chandar et al. has challenged these results, showing that the [*total*]{} number of stellar aggregates per unit SFR does not vary systematically with the host galaxy’s absolute SFR. In this Letter, we show that no variations are expected when no distinction is made between bound and unbound aggregates, because the sum of these two fractions should be close to unity. We also demonstrate that any scaling of $\Gamma$ with the absolute SFR is much weaker than with $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$, due to the mass-radius-SFR relation of star-forming ‘main sequence’ galaxies. The environmental variation of $\Gamma$ should therefore be probed as a function of area-normalised quantities, such as $\Sigma$ or $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$. We present a set of guidelines for meaningful observational tests of cluster formation theories and show that these resolve the reported discrepancy.'
author:
- |
J. M. Diederik Kruijssen$^{1}$[^1] and Nate Bastian$^2$[^2]\
$^1$Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum für Astronomie der Universität Heidelberg, Mönchhofstraße 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany\
$^2$Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, IC2, Liverpool Science Park, 146 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L3 5RF, United Kingdom
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
date: 'Accepted 2015 November 10. Received 2015 November 2; in original form 2015 September 16.'
title: Pitfalls when observationally characterizing the relative formation rates of stars and stellar clusters in galaxies
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: evolution — galaxies: ISM — galaxies: star clusters — galaxies: stellar content — stars: formation
Star formation in bound stellar clusters and in unbound associations {#sec:bound}
====================================================================
Stars appear to rarely form in isolation, with the majority forming as parts of stellar aggregates. These aggregates vary strongly in their (surface) densities, with some forming in compact, gravitationally bound groups that may survive for tens of Myr or more (generally referred to as “clusters") and others forming looser systems (associations) that are likely unbound [e.g. @bressert10; @gieles11]. Whether the fraction of stars forming in either bound clusters (, also referred to as $\Gamma$, @bastian08) or associations () varies as a function of environment has been a long standing issue within the community. Irrespective of the answer to this question, it is generally agreed that $\fbound + \fass \approx 1$ (and hence $\fass\approx1-\fbound=1-\Gamma$), as few stars appear to be formed in isolation, or in systems that would not be considered clusters or associations [@dewit05].
In order to determine the fraction of stars that form in bound clusters, recent observational studies have attempted to separate clusters from associations by either using high resolution HST imaging to select centrally concentrated and roughly spherical objects (indicative of having evolved over multiple dynamical timescales, see @gieles11) or by focussing on slightly older systems ($10-50$ Myr) when associations have already dispersed into the field. The general result of these studies is that galaxies (and regions within galaxies) with high gas and star formation rate (SFR) densities ($\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$) tend to form a higher fraction of their stars in bound clusters (see the compilation by @adamo15b).
These observational results have been complemented by theoretical developments on how star and cluster formation are influenced by the properties of the interstellar medium (ISM) from which stars form [@kruijssen12d hereafter ]. In the model, star formation takes place across the density spectrum of the ISM. However, only the highest density peaks have free-fall times short enough to reach the high star formation efficiencies necessary for stellar aggregates to remain bound upon residual gas expulsion. Higher-pressure ($P$) galaxies (observationally traced by higher $\Sigma\propto P^{0.5}$ and $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}\propto P^{0.7}$, see e.g. @kennicutt98b [@krumholz05]) have an ISM characterised by higher-density peaks and therefore higher star formation efficiencies, resulting in a larger fraction of stars forming in bound clusters. The basic prediction is that $\Gamma$ increases with $P$, $\Sigma$, and $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$, from $\Gamma\sim0.01$ at $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}=10^{-3}~{\mbox{${\mbox{M$_\odot$}}~{\mbox{${\rm yr}$}}^{-1}~{\mbox{${\rm kpc}$}}^{-2}$}}$ to $\Gamma\sim0.5$ at $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}=10^{0}~{\mbox{${\mbox{M$_\odot$}}~{\mbox{${\rm yr}$}}^{-1}~{\mbox{${\rm kpc}$}}^{-2}$}}$, in quantitative agreement with the observational results. The physics contained in the cluster formation model also form the basis of now-standard models for galactic-scale star formation, which reproduce the observed relations between the gas mass and the SFR [e.g. @krumholz05; @padoan11; @hennebelle11; @federrath12].
Recently, @chandar15 [hereafter ] have reported observations that they interpret as being in contradiction to the above observational and theoretical studies. The authors analyze the mass functions of stellar aggregates in seven star-forming galaxies and normalise them by the derived galaxy-wide SFRs. In principle, if more stars were being formed in aggregates (per unit SFR), these normalised mass functions should be higher than if less stars were being formed in aggregates. find little such dependence on the SFR.
However, the authors make no distinction between bound or unbound aggregates, therefore their sample consists of the sum of all young ($<10$ Myr) stellar aggregates (i.e. $\fbound + \fass\approx1$). As such, we would not expect to see much variation, as the only expected variation would come from the fraction of isolated star formation or star formation that would not be characterised as a cluster or association. In principle, this could be verified explicitly for the catalogues by comparing the cluster formation rates to the total SFRs, if the catalogues were publicly available. However, the cluster catalogues for most of the galaxies considered in their study have not been made public. In the one case where the catalogue has been shared (for the grand-design spiral galaxy M83), it was shown by @bastian12 that for ages $\tau<10~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$, the catalogue is dominated by irregular, low-density aggregates reminiscent of the unbound associations observed in the solar neighbourhood. While this result suggests that the cluster catalogues of the other galaxies in are likely also dominated by low-density aggregates at young ages, this cannot be verified. Due to this uncertainty, we leave the fraction of unbound associations that is included in the sample as a free parameter throughout the rest of this work. The effect of including large fractions of unbound associations within the analysis is quantified below in §\[sec:plot\].
also include the results derived from old aggregates ($100$–$400$ Myr) within these seven galaxies. Due to their age [and number of crossing times that they have undergone, @gieles11] these systems are almost certainly all stellar clusters. However, there are a number of important caveats in using such old systems. The first is that it implicitly assumes that the SFR observed today (as measured through H$\alpha$ emission) is representative of the SFR of the systems $100$–$400$ Myr ago, which may be adequate for quiescent galaxies, but is unlikely to be true in ongoing starbursts in the Antennae or the central regions of M83. The second is that the population may be affected by cluster disruption, with some galaxies losing large fractions of the clusters by this age (e.g., the Antennae or central regions of M83) while other galaxies will not have had their cluster populations strongly affected [e.g. @annibali11; @kruijssen11; @kruijssen12c; @baumgardt13; @adamo15]. Because the disruption of gravitationally bound clusters proceeds on shorter timescales in higher-density environments, the use of older clusters washes out the increase of $\Gamma$ with the (surface) density or pressure [e.g. @kruijssen11; @bastian12].
The fraction of stars forming in bound clusters as a function of the host galaxy properties {#sec:galaxy}
===========================================================================================
compare their observational results to the cluster formation theory, concluding that their observations are not in agreement with the model predictions. Unfortunately, the model was not correctly compared to the observations, meaning that the conclusions reached by the authors are not valid. The first reason why the comparison does not hold was already given in §\[sec:bound\] – consider all stellar aggregates, regardless of whether they are bound clusters or unbound associations, whereas the model predicts the fraction of stars forming in gravitationally bound clusters only.
There is also a second reason why the comparison of the observations to the model is not adequate. In the model, the relevant physical parameter that controls $\Gamma$ is not the absolute SFR, but rather the SFR surface density $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$, which is intricately linked to the state of the ISM of the host galaxy (specifically the gas pressure, as traced by the gas surface density). By contrast, only use the absolute SFR. In order to convert the SFR to $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$, one needs to assume a relation between the galaxy radius and its SFR. The exact relation used by is not given. However, the model in Figure 4 of scales linearly with the SFR, which is the same slope as the steepest scaling with $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ for $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}<10^{-2}~{\mbox{${\mbox{M$_\odot$}}~{\mbox{${\rm yr}$}}^{-1}~{\mbox{${\rm kpc}$}}^{-2}$}}$ (see Figure 6 and Equation (45) of ). We thus infer that a constant radius for all galaxies must have been assumed to convert the model dependence on $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ to a dependence on the SFR. This assumption is clearly unphysical, yet it greatly impacts the results.
In late-type, star-forming galaxies, the radius scales with stellar mass as a power law $R \propto M^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha=0.14-0.39$ [@shen03]. For galaxies on the main sequence, the stellar mass scales near-linearly with the SFR as ${\rm SFR}\propto M^{0.9}$ [@brinchmann04; @peng10]. We can therefore write $R\propto {\rm SFR}^{\beta}$ with $\beta=0.16-0.43$. This means that the SFR scales with the SFR density as $\Sigma_{\rm SFR} \propto {\rm SFR}^{1-2\beta} \propto {\rm SFR}^{\eta}$ with $\eta=0.13-0.69$ and a mean of $\eta\sim0.4$.
While the exact slope of the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$-${\rm SFR}$ relation is uncertain, the critical point is that the slope of this relation greatly affects the prediction in the ${\rm SFR}$-$\Gamma$ plane. If a constant radius is assumed, then $\Sigma_{\rm SFR} \propto {\rm SFR}$ instead of $\Sigma_{\rm SFR} \propto {\rm SFR}^{0.4}$ (taking the mean of the range of $\eta$ given above). Given the large scatter on the main sequence of galaxies as well as the mass-radius relation, neither transformation is necessarily recommended. However, $\Sigma_{\rm SFR} \propto {\rm SFR}^{0.4}$ is more accurate than assuming a single radius for all galaxies independently of their mass – especially given that the galaxy sample spans almost 3 orders of magnitude in mass and SFR. If the model predicts $\Gamma \propto \Sigma_{\rm SFR}^{\zeta}$ (with some value for $\zeta$), then the assumption of a constant radius will imply $\Gamma \propto {\rm SFR}^{\zeta}$, whereas using the mass-radius relation of star-forming galaxies on the main sequence implies $\Gamma \propto {\rm SFR}^{0.4\zeta}$. thus incorrectly apply the model by artificially boosting its intrinsically-shallow increase with the SFR by a factor of 2.5.
Pitfalls when addressing the fraction of stars forming in bound clusters {#sec:plot}
========================================================================
![Relative change of the cluster mass function (CMF) normalised to the galaxy-wide SFR as a function of the SFR. Symbols show the seven galaxies from for stellar aggregates with ages $\tau\leq10~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$ (filled) and $\tau=100$–$400~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$ (open). The black solid line shows a power-law fit to all data points. The dotted lines show the prediction of the model when converting its dependence on $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ to a dependence on the SFR using a constant radius for all galaxies. The dashed lines show the model when adopting the observed relation between the $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ and the SFR for star-forming main sequence galaxies. The black dotted and dashed lines only consider the normalised mass function of bound clusters, whereas the blue and red lines also include 50% and 90% of the unbound regions, respectively. When matching the assumptions made in the analysis by (red dashed line), the model provides a clear match to the observations (black solid line).[]{data-label="fig:fig"}](fig1.ps){width="\hsize"}
In Figure \[fig:fig\], we demonstrate how the assumptions made by quantitatively affect the change of normalization of the SFR-scaled cluster mass function, ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}$. assume that this quantity scales linearly with $\Gamma$, but this is only true if exclusively bound clusters are considered. The dotted and dashed black lines in Figure \[fig:fig\] indicate the predictions of for the fraction of stars forming in bound stellar clusters $\Gamma$ as a function of the SFR.[^3] Relative to these lines, we see that including 50% (blue lines, $f_{\rm incl}=0.5$) or 90% (red lines, $f_{\rm incl}=0.9$) of the unbound regions (i.e. associations) strongly weakens the predicted increase with the SFR, because ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}\propto \fbound+f_{\rm incl}\fass \approx \Gamma + f_{\rm incl}(1-\Gamma)$. The lines show that the change between $f_{\rm incl}=0$ and $f_{\rm incl}=0.5$ is modest, but the model dependence on the SFR strongly flattens when including more than 50% of the unbound regions. If 100% of the unbound regions are included (i.e. $f_{\rm incl}=1$), the model line is flat by definition, because the total number of aggregates (${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}\propto \fbound + \fass \approx 1$) is then covered at all SFRs. These examples show that the results are consistent with the prediction of when the inclusion of unbound aggregates is accounted for.
Figure \[fig:fig\] also quantifies how the theoretically-predicted variation of ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}$ with the SFR is affected by the adopted galaxy radius. The dotted lines show the prediction of when translating the predicted $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$-$\Gamma$ relation to a dependence on ${\rm SFR}$ by using a constant galaxy radius as in , which is inconsistent with theory and observations. By contrast, the dashed lines show the model predictions when adopting the observed relations between the radii and SFRs of star-forming main sequence galaxies. Similarly to the effect of including unbound associations, we see that the model prediction is strongly flattened by adopting the scaling between radius and SFR that is actually appropriate for the observations under consideration. This change is so pronounced that by itself it reconciles model and observations to within the observational scatter. Indeed, a comparison of the black dashed and dotted lines in Figure \[fig:fig\] shows that ’s choice of a constant galaxy radius affects the ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}$-${\rm SFR}$ relation even more strongly than the inclusion of 90% of all unbound associations (cf. the red and black dotted lines).
The red dashed line in Figure \[fig:fig\] makes the same assumptions as the observations presented in , by including all bound stellar clusters and 90% of the unbound associations, as well as adopting the observed $R$-${\rm SFR}$ relation of star-forming galaxies. The power-law slope of this model (${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}\propto{\rm SFR}^{0.11}$) is identical to that of a power-law fit to all observations (black solid line) at the two-decimal precision adopted here, and closely resembles the slope of a power-law fit to the filled data points only (which represent aggregates with ages $\tau<10~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$ and have ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}\propto{\rm SFR}^{0.04}$). This shows that theory and observations agree when the physically relevant comparison is made.
Likewise, we can exclusively consider the open data points in Figure \[fig:fig\], which refer to the old aggregates with ages ($\tau=100$–$400~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$). These data points should be compared to the model that does not include unbound associations (which disperse on timescales $<100~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$) and uses the observed $R$-${\rm SFR}$ relation (black dashed line, with ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}\propto{\rm SFR}^{0.26}$). Inspection of Figure \[fig:fig\] shows that this model indeed provides a good match to the observations, as a power-law fit to the open symbols satisfies ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}\propto{\rm SFR}^{0.17}$. The small difference relative to the model is likely due to cluster disruption, which is not included in the model but is expected to increase in strength towards higher SFRs (see e.g. Table 2 of @fall12 and @kruijssen11 [@kruijssen12c]), thereby dampening the increase with the SFR of the open data points in Figure \[fig:fig\]. The isolation of the older cluster populations (and their agreement with the black dashed rather than the red dashed model line) thus shows that not only are the observations reproduced by the model, but they also follow the predicted age dependence.
A set of guidelines for testing cluster formation theories {#sec:guide}
==========================================================
In summary, the model line shown in Figure 4 of does not reflect the prediction of . The observations consider the combined sample of bound clusters and unbound associations, whereas the model concerns bound clusters only. In addition, the line of translates the model to an observational plane (${\rm SFR}$-$\Gamma$) different than the plane the model was formulated in ($\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$-$\Gamma$), by applying a transformation from $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ to ${\rm SFR}$ that is inconsistent with observed galaxy properties. By correctly accounting for these two crucial factors, we demonstrate that the observations by are fully consistent with the predictions of the model as well as with recent observations showing that the fraction of stars forming in bound clusters varies as a function of environment.
Galaxy $\log{(\Sigma/{\mbox{M$_\odot$}}~{\mbox{${\rm pc}$}}^{-2})}$ $\gamma$ References$^a$
---------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------------
SMC $0.96$ $0.70$ 1
NGC 4214 $0.96$ $0.70^b$ 2
LMC $1.04$ $0.75$ 1
NGC 4449 $1.08$ $0.75^b$ 3
M51 $1.47$ $0.95^b$ 1
M83 $1.70$ $0.95$ 1
Antennae $1.88$ $1.05$ 4
: Galaxy properties[]{data-label="tab:table"}
\
$^a$References: (1) , (2) @leroy13, (3) @hunter99, (4) @zhang01.\
$^b$Estimated by adopting the value of the galaxy with the closest gas surface density.
Like all theories, the model has its limitations and its inevitable falsification will lead to key new insights into the cluster formation process. However, in order to achieve this goal, care must be taken to compare the right quantities. Whenever possible, the following guidelines should be followed.
1. We recommend that future investigations of the environmental variation of $\Gamma$ only consider the relative contribution to the total SFR of [*centrally-concentrated clusters*]{}. A centrally-concentrated morphology is indicative (though not conclusive proof) of relaxation, which suggests survival over multiple dynamical times and thus separates bound clusters from unbound associations [@gieles11]. The obvious issue to bear in mind is that, for distant galaxies, even such catalogues will include some fraction of unbound associations due to the finite resolution of the observations. This uncertainty is largest for samples of aggregates with very young ages ($\tau<10~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$) and vanishes for $\tau>10~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$ [@bastian12 Figure 6]. By contrast, cluster disruption is expected to affect the sample at ages $\tau>30~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$ [e.g. @kruijssen11; @bastian12]. We therefore recommend restricting the cluster sample to the age interval $\tau=10$–$30~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$ when measuring $\Gamma$ [cf. @adamo15b].
2. In addition, future studies should determine $\Gamma$ as a function of the [*area-normalised quantities*]{} on which $\Gamma$ is predicted to depend, such as the SFR surface density, the gas surface density, or the gas pressure. The use of absolute quantities such as the total SFR or gas mass should be avoided, because these are simply proportional to the galaxy mass and provide little information on the [*physical*]{} conditions. For instance, galaxies with widely different masses and SFRs can have very similar gas or SFR surface densities. The dependence of the SFR on the galaxy mass thus inflates the dynamic range and gives the possibly misleading impression of covering a broad galaxy sample, even if the galaxies have very similar physical conditions. This is evident for the galaxies considered by , which cover three orders of magnitude in SFR, but less than one order of magnitude in gas surface density.
3. For each individual data point, the area for which these quantities are determined should be the same for the SFR, stellar clusters, and gas (if appropriate). There is no standard method for determining the star-forming area within galaxies. However, the scale-free nature of the model permits some freedom of choice. The area $A$ should be large enough to avoid the small-scale scatter caused by the time evolution of individual regions [i.e. $\sqrt{A/\pi}\ga0.5~{\mbox{${\rm kpc}$}}$, see @kruijssen14]. In addition, the area should be small enough to not include significant empty space for any of the observables [i.e. $\sqrt{A/\pi}\la R_{25}$, where $R_{25}$ is the optical radius, see @kennicutt98b].
![Relative change of the cluster mass function (CMF) normalised to the galaxy-wide SFR as a function of the gas surface density $\Sigma$. Symbols show the seven galaxies from for stellar aggregates with ages $\tau=100$–$400~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$, as observed (open) and corrected for cluster disruption (filled, which is a proxy for the relation at ages $\tau=10$–$40~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$; see the text for details). The black solid line shows the fundamental prediction of the cluster formation theory. The model line and the filled data points are in good agreement when the correct quantities are compared, following the guidelines provided in §\[sec:guide\].[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](fig2.ps){width="\hsize"}
Implications of the presented guidelines {#sec:concl}
========================================
We now demonstrate the application of these guidelines to the results of . Fundamentally, the cluster formation theory predicts a dependence of $\Gamma$ on the gas surface density (or pressure).[^4] Because the galaxies in the sample are well-studied, gas surface densities are available for all of them and these are listed in Table \[tab:table\]. Figure \[fig:fig2\] now shows ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}$ as a function of $\Sigma$. This addresses guideline (ii), because the gas surface density is an area-normalised quantity that reflects the physical conditions of star and cluster formation in each galaxy. We also address guideline (i), by only showing the intermediate-age clusters ($\tau=100$–$400~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$, open symbols) and thereby omitting unbound associations from the sample. However, as explained in §\[sec:plot\], the cluster population is affected by disruption at these intermediate ages. The values of ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}$ are decreased by disruption more strongly for the high-surface density points than for the low-surface density points, which decreases the slope of the open symbols. We therefore correct these points for cluster disruption based on the power law slopes $\gamma$ of the aggregate age distributions from @fall12 [where ${\rm d}N/{\rm d}\tau\propto\tau^{-\gamma}$]. These slopes are also listed in Table \[tab:table\] and are used to estimate the residuals of ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}$ at the age range $\tau=10$–$40~{\mbox{${\rm Myr}$}}$, as required by guideline (i).[^5] In practice, this means that each data point is shifted up by $\gamma$ to estimate the number of clusters at ages exactly one order of magnitude younger than the original age range, after which the mean slope of the galaxy sample ($\gamma=0.84$) is again subtracted so that only the residuals are retained. Even though there are ways of accounting for cluster disruption that are much more sophisticated (e.g. by using well-tested physical models), we prefer to use the aggregate age distributions from @fall12 to minimise the possible points of contention.[^6] Finally, we note that guideline (iii) cannot be addressed for these galaxies, because the cluster catalogues are not publicly available and their spatial coverage is therefore unknown. We therefore assume that the coverage of the cluster catalogue in these galaxies encompasses most of the ongoing star formation.
The disruption-corrected values of ${\rm CMF}/{\rm SFR}$ resulting from the above procedure are shown as filled symbols in Figure \[fig:fig2\], together with the dependence on the gas surface density predicted by the fiducial model of (solid line). It is clear that the observations by provide a good match to the model when (1) the sample is restricted to the gravitationally bound clusters that are described by the model and (2) the comparison is based on the area-normalised quantity ($\Sigma$) that $\Gamma$ is predicted to correlate with. The reasonable agreement with the open symbols shows that correcting for disruption is desirable, but not essential.
In this Letter, we have presented of a set of guidelines for testing current cluster formation theories in a meaningful way and have demonstrated their validity. Of course, these guidelines apply specifically to tests of the theory, but they should also hold more generally. Independently of which particular theory for the formation of gravitationally bound clusters is considered, it remains key to omit unbound structure from the observational sample, to adopt area-normalised (or scale-independent) physical quantities, and to ensure similar spatial coverage of gas, star, and cluster formation tracers. We therefore propose that these guidelines should be used as a general reference frame for future work.
Our results are of particular relevance in view of the currently-ongoing, large surveys of cluster formation across a broad range of galactic environments (e.g. LEGUS and Hi-PEEC, see @calzetti15 [@adamo16]). Over the coming years, these optical/UV surveys will be complemented with ALMA surveys of the molecular gas from which the stellar clusters in these galaxies are forming. The careful comparison of these observations to current theories will enable the first systematic census of cluster formation physics in the nearby Universe.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Angela Adamo, Mark Krumholz, Søren Larsen, and Esteban Silva-Villa for helpful comments. The anonymous referee is acknowledged for a swift and constructive report that improved this work. JMDK is funded by a Gliese Fellowship and NB is partially funded by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship and a European Research Council Consolidator Grant.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: In principle, the black dotted line in Figure \[fig:fig\] should be the same as the dotted line in Figure 4 of . However, their line has a constant slope, whereas the actual prediction of the is curved as in our Figure \[fig:fig\]. The model only has a constant slope for $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}<10^{-2}~{\mbox{${\mbox{M$_\odot$}}~{\mbox{${\rm yr}$}}^{-1}~{\mbox{${\rm kpc}$}}^{-2}$}}$ and flattens for higher SFR surface densities, implying that incorrectly approximate the model with a single slope across the full range of $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$.
[^4]: The predicted dependence of $\Gamma$ on $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ is secondary, because it is only obtained by assuming a star formation relation between $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ [e.g. @kennicutt98b].
[^5]: For each galaxy, we have used the age distribution slope in the highest mass bin to ensure that our disruption estimates are conservative. @fall12 only measured slopes for the SMC, LMC, M83 and Antennae galaxies. For the other three galaxies, we adopt the slope of the galaxy with the closest gas surface density (see Table \[tab:table\]).
[^6]: We note that other works have found even shallower age distributions than @fall12 for the low-density galaxies (SMC, LMC, NGC 4449) in the sample considered here [see @adamo15]. Had we used these, it would have steepened the trend visible in Figure \[fig:fig2\] even further.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have used [[*X*MM-Newton]{}]{} to observe six Lyman Break Analogs (LBAs): members of the rare population of local galaxies that have properties that are very similar to distant Lyman Break Galaxies. Our six targets were specifically selected because they have optical emission-line properties that are intermediate between starbursts and Type 2 (obscured) AGN. Our new X-ray data provide an important diagnostic of the presence of an AGN. We find X-ray luminosities of order 10$^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and ratios of X-ray to far-IR luminosities that are higher than values in pure starburst galaxies by factors ranging from $\sim$ 3 to 30. This strongly suggests the presence of an AGN in at least some of the galaxies. The ratios of the luminosities of the hard (2-10 keV) X-ray to \[O III\]$\lambda$5007 emission-line are low by about an order-of-magnitude compared to Type 1 AGN, but are consistent with the broad range seen in Type 2 AGN. Either the AGN hard X-rays are significantly obscured or the \[O III\] emission is dominated by the starburst. We searched for an iron emission line at $\sim$ 6.4 keV, which is a key feature of obscured AGN, but only detected emission at the $\sim$ 2$\sigma$ level. Finally, we find that the ratios of the mid-infrared (24$\mu m$) continuum to \[O III\]$\lambda$5007 luminosities in these LBAs are higher than the values for Type 2 AGN by an average of 0.8 dex. Combining all these clues, we conclude that an AGN is likely to be present, but that the bolometric luminosity is produced primarily by an intense starburst. If these black holes are radiating at the Eddington limit, their masses would lie in the range of 10$^5$ to 10$^6$ M$_{\odot}$. These objects may offer ideal local laboratories to investigate the processes by which black holes grew in the early universe.'
author:
- 'Jianjun Jia, Andrew Ptak, Timothy M. Heckman, Roderik A. Overzier, Ann Hornschemeier, Stephanie M. LaMassa'
title: Evidence for Black Hole Growth in Local Analogs to Lyman Break Galaxies
---
Introduction\[introduction\]
============================
One of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics today is the nature of the connection between the formation and evolution of galaxies and supermassive black holes (SMBHs). Current models invoke a close interplay (“feedback") between SMBHs and their host galaxies in order to arrest the growth of the most massive galaxies, which are otherwise over-predicted by models of structure formation [e.g., @springel03; @croton06].
Observations of high-redshift galaxies paint a somewhat confusing picture of the relationship between star formation and black hole growth [e.g., @heckman09]. The best-studied population of high-redshift star-forming galaxies are the Lyman-Break Galaxies (LBGs) and closely related types of UV-selected galaxies. They represent a major phase in the early stages of galaxy formation and evolution [@giavalisco02]. They are a primary tracer of high redshift star formation, as they are easily found at $z=2-6$ in deep pencil beam optical surveys [e.g., @steidel96; @shapley03; @giavalisco04]. The LBGs are believed to be the precursors of present day galaxies undergoing a phase of intense star formation and merging, and a large fraction of LBGs may merge to form early-type galaxies that are situated in present-day groups and clusters [e.g., @adelberger05].
Most of the LBGs do not harbor an Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) luminous enough to be individually detected in the deepest X-ray surveys. However, a subset ($\sim$3%) of LBGs with actively accreting SMBHs has been identified [@steidel02; @laird06]. These AGNs typically have X-ray luminosities of $10^{42}-10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ in the 2-10 keV energy range, and often show signs of significant obscuration. Detailed studies of what might trigger both the AGNs and the starbursts in these forming galaxies are difficult since their distances render them small and faint.
The Galaxy Evolution Explorer (*GALEX*) mission is conducting surveys in the far- and near-UV ($\lambda \simeq$ 1600 and 2300 Å respectively) and has been used to identify a rare population of low-redshift ($z\sim$0.1-0.3) galaxies that are remarkably similar to high-redshift LBGs in most physical properties [@heckman05a; @hoopes07; @overzier08; @overzier09; @overzier10]. This population was first identified by [@heckman05a] and [@hoopes07], based on cross-matching the *GALEX* and Sloan Digital Sky Survey data. These objects were defined by two criteria designed to match the typical LBGs: 1) a minimum luminosity in the far-UV (FUV) band $L_{FUV}\ge 2\times 10^{10}L_{\odot}$; 2) an FUV effective surface brightness $I_{FUV}\ge 10^{9}L_{\odot}\rm{kpc}^{-2}$, where $I_{FUV}$ is the mean FUV surface brightness interior to the SDSS $u$ half-light radius [^1]. These local “Lyman break analogs” (LBA) are similar to distant LBGs in size, surface brightness, metallicity, dust, star formation rate (SFR), stellar mass, and gas velocity dispersion. There are other local star forming galaxies, e.g., Ultra-Luminous Infrared Galaxies (ULIRGs) and Blue Compact Dwarfs (BCDs), which have some similarities with LBGs. However, ULIRGs are much more heavily obscured by dust, and BCDs are much smaller in mass and luminosity (star-formation rate) compared with LBGs. These differences make them poorer local analogs to LBGs. However, it is intriguing that an actively accreting SMBH has recently been reported in a nearby dwarf starburst galaxy [@reines11].
Interestingly, about 20% of the LBAs have optical emission-line spectra that are intermediate between those of pure starbursts and those of Type 2 (obscured) AGN. As discussed by [@overzier09], the optical spectra alone do not unambiguously establish the presence of a Type 2 AGN. They may instead be extreme starburst systems in which the physical conditions in the ionized gas are different from typical local starbursts.
[@overzier09] also presented imaging with the *Hubble Space Telescope* that showed that most of these possible starburst-AGN composites contain extremely massive (one to few-billion M$_{\odot}$) and compact (radius $\sim 10^2$ pc) starbursts. These Dominant Compact Objects (DCOs) would appear to be ideal sites for the formation and/or rapid growth of a SMBH. It has been suggested that the seeds of present-day SMBHs may be present at the centers of the massive, compact stellar clumps seen in clumpy galaxies at high redshift [e.g. @elmegreen08]. If these LBAs indeed host an AGN, they would offer the opportunity to study the relationship between the formation of galaxies and supermassive black holes in detail in objects that appear to be excellent local analogs to a major population of high-redshift galaxies. Unfortunately, the optical spectra alone do not unambiguously establish that these LBAs are indeed composite starburst/obscured-AGN systems (as opposed to starbursts with extreme properties) [@overzier09]. Observations in the hard X-ray band can potentially offer us important new diagnostics of the presence of an obscured AGN.
In this paper we report the results of such an investigation. We describe our data in §\[data\] and present the spectral analysis in §\[results\]. The results are discussed in §\[discussion\], and we come to some brief conclusions in §\[conclusion\].
Data Analysis\[data\]
=====================
Sample selection
----------------
To select our sample for X-ray observations we begin with the 31 LBAs with *HST* imaging [@overzier09] and *Spitzer* (IRAC+MIPS) photometry [@overzier11]. In Fig. \[f:bpt\] we show the standard “BPT" diagram [@bpt] used to classify the optical emission-line spectra of galaxies, where the emission line ratios are from Table 2 in [@overzier09]. We plot all the galaxies in the *GALEX*-SDSS cross-matched sample and then highlight the 31 LBAs in our sample (large symbols). We note that seven[^2] of the LBAs lie in the composite region in the “BPT" diagram, which is known to harbor “composite objects", which are typically (but not necessarily) objects having both star-formation and a Type 2 AGN [see @kauffmann03; @kewley06]. Hereafter, we refer to this sample as “LBA-composites". In this paper, a flat $\Lambda$ cold dark matter ($\Lambda$CDM) cosmology with $h=0.7$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ is assumed.
The X-ray data
--------------
[[*X*MM-Newton]{}]{} observations were performed for 6 of the 7 LBA-composites. SDSS J0054+1554 was given a “C" priority and not observed (marked as green asterisk in Fig. \[f:bpt\]). A summary of observations is shown in Table \[t:summary\].
The reduction of the [[*X*MM-Newton]{}]{} data was done by `XAssist (ver. 0.97)`[^3], which is a software for automatic analysis of X-ray data. `XAssist` runs the [[*X*MM-Newton]{}]{} Science Analysis System (`SAS`) packages automatically to filter the data, generate the light curves and extract the spectra of sources in the field, as well as compute the associated redistribution matrix files (RMF) and ancillary region files (ARF). The LBA-composites are weak in X-ray emission, and their optical positions were used to define the source regions in X-ray data reduction. `XAssist` determines the source extraction sizes for source by fitting an elliptical Gaussian model to the source image, which in the case of on-axis [[*X*MM]{}]{} observations typically results in regions of size 20-25”. Background regions were chosen as annuli centered on the sources to extract the background spectra. Table \[t:cstat\] lists the PN and MOS counts for each source.
Ancillary data
--------------
The Optical Monitor (OM) aboard on [[*X*MM-Newton]{}]{} allows us to make simultaneous observations in optical/UV and X-ray bands. We processed the OM data with the `omichain` package in `SAS` to obtain UV count rates and the corresponding magnitudes of each object, as well as their associated uncertainties. We obtained exposures in the U (344nm), UVW1 (291nm), UVM2(231nm) and UVW2 (212nm) band filters, but only the UVW1 was used for all six LBAs. We list the UV detections with each filter and the luminosity measured in UVW1 in Table \[t:uv\]. The conversions from UV count rates to specific fluxes (in units of erg/s/cm$^2$/Å) were calculated based on the white dwarf standard stars[^4].
Table \[t:loiii\] lists the observed and extinction-corrected \[O III\]$\lambda$5007 line luminosity ($L_{\rm{[O III],obs}}$ and $L_{\rm{[O III],corr}}$, respectively) for each LBA-composite. We obtain $L_{\rm{[O III],obs}}$ from the SDSS Data Release 7 MPA/JHU catalog. We derive $L_{\rm{[O III],corr}}$ from $L_{\rm{[O III],obs}}$ using the observed H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio, an intrinsic (H$\alpha$/H$\beta$)$_{0}$ ratio of 2.9, and the standard extinction curve for galactic dust [@osterbrock06]. In Table \[t:loiii\], we also list the mid-infrared (MIR) and far-infrared (FIR) luminosity, $L_{24\mu m}$ and $L_{\rm{FIR}}$, respectively [@overzier11].
Spectral Analysis\[results\]
============================
X-ray Spectra
-------------
X-ray spectral fitting was performed with `XSPEC` (ver. 12). X-ray photons are collected by three detectors on [[*X*MM-Newton]{}]{}, i.e. PN, MOS1 and MOS2. The data of three detectors can be fitted simultaneously in `XSPEC` by tying all parameters together except a multiplicative constant factor. We froze this factor at 1 for PN, and allowed it to vary between 0.8 to 1.2 for MOS1 and MOS2. Since our targets have limited counting statistics (see Table \[t:cstat\]), we first fit their spectra using the $C$-statistic [@cash79], which is often used in this low counts regime. The spectra were grouped to 1 count per bin, to improve the performance of `XSPEC` [@teng05]. The simplest spectral model often fit to AGN is an absorbed power-law model. The X-ray photons suffer from two sources of absorption. The first is due to the neutral hydrogen in our own galaxy, and its column density ($N_{\rm{H,G}}$) is listed in Table \[t:summary\]. The other is the intrinsic obscuration from the gas at the redshift of the source ($N_{\rm{H,in}}$). $N_{\rm{H,in}}$ is a free parameter in the spectral fitting as well as the photon index $\Gamma$ of the power law. However, due to the low signal-to-noise ratio (the number of photons detected by the PN and MOS detectors are listed in Table \[t:cstat\]), we were not able to constrain both $N_{\rm{H,in}}$ and $\Gamma$ simultaneously in several cases. Therefore for sources with low S/N, we alternately froze $N_{\rm{H,in}}$ and $\Gamma$ and let the other parameter vary. The same methodology was applied when adding an additional thermal component into the power-law continuum.
### Absorbed power-law model
As mentioned above we fitted the spectrum in two ways to derive the power-law photon index and the intrinsic absorption: First, we freed the power-law photon index and assumed no absorption at the redshift of the source ($N_{\rm{H,in}}=0$ cm$^{-2}$) and that the continuum power-law spectra is only absorbed due to the Galactic column density (listed in Table \[t:summary\]). Again in many cases there was not sufficient signal for the absorption and slope to both be free parameters. We list the photon indices derived from this simple absorbed power-law model in column 3 in Table \[t:cstat\], as well as the corresponding $C$-statistic in column 4. Second, the spectra were fitted with the power-law model this time with the intrinsic absorption as a free parameter while the photon index was fixed as $\Gamma=1.9$, which is a mean value for X-ray detected LBGs [@laird06] and is also a typical spectrum for an unobscured AGN. The values of $N_{\rm{H,in}}$ are shown in column 5 in Table \[t:cstat\]. The errors of photon indices in column 3 and the upper limits of intrinsic absorptions in column 5 were calculated at a confidence level of 90% (i.e., single interesting parameter $\Delta C$=2.7). We also list in Table \[t:cstat\] their derived luminosities in soft X-ray (0.5-2.0 keV) and hard X-ray (2-10 keV) bands (column 7 and 8, respectively), and the ratio of hard X-ray and \[O III\] luminosities (column 9). The associated uncertainties for luminosity correspond to the 90% confidence range of normalization of the continuum power-law component in spectral fit. See Fig. \[f:cstat\] for the spectral fits of each source with a fixed photon index $\Gamma=1.9$.
We also fitted the X-ray spectra of our targets using the $\chi^2$-statistic to see how different the fits are compared with those by $C$-statistic. The fits were performed in the same way as those using the $C$-statistic above. The spectra were grouped in 10 counts per bin for both PN and MOS detectors, and the spectra of MOS1 and MOS2 were combined in the fits. Table \[t:chi\] lists the photon index and intrinsic column density of each source derived while the other one is frozen in the spectral fitting. SDSS J0802+3915 is excluded due to insufficient bins for fitting after grouping into 10 counts per bin. Also, spectral plots are shown in Fig. \[f:chi\], which are fits with photon indices fixed at 1.9. Fitting the spectra using $\chi^2$ does not make any improvements or significant difference in estimating the absorption and photon index compared to the $C$-statistic method. Thus, we use the X-ray luminosity derived from the $C$-statistic fit in the following discussion.
Additionally, as SDSS J0808+3948, SDSS J1434+0207 and SDSS J0922+4509 have relatively more photons detected, we also fitted their spectra by thawing both the parameters of photon index and intrinsic absorption (using both the $C$ and $\chi^2$ statistics). Table \[t:both\] shows the values of these parameters and their associated errors or upper limits. Since we have two interesting parameters in the fits, the errors at the 90 per cent confidence level are calculated according to $\Delta \chi^2$ or $\Delta C$=4.6.
### Power-law plus thermal model\[thermal\]
The LBAs are the sites of strong starbursts, so we would expect to see thermal X-ray emission from the hot gas that is a characteristic features of such systems [e.g., @grimes05; @grimes06; @grimes07]. We therefore fit models in which we added a thermal component to the absorbed power-law model aforementioned. We used the thermal plasma model `apec` in `XSPEC` instead of the older model,`vmekal`, used in [@grimes07]. The `apec` model has three free parameters: the plasma temperature, the metal abundance (in solar units) and the normalization. Due to the low number of photon counts, we fixed the abundance at the solar value. The parameter of temperature and normalization were free in fitting. However, due to insufficient photon counts, we fixed the temperature at 0.5 keV for SDSS J0808+3948, SDSS J0922+4509 and SDSS J0802+3915 which is a typical value for starburst galaxies [e.g., @grimes05; @grimes06; @grimes07]. Here we kept the photon index fixed at 1.9 and allowed the intrinsic absorption at the redshift of the LBA to vary. The results are shown in Table \[t:apec\], which lists the temperature of plasma, the column density, and the derived luminosities of both the thermal and power-law component, as well as the $C$-stat for comparison with the single power-law fitting. The errors for parameters were calculated according to $\Delta C=4.6$, and the uncertainty of luminosity was proportional to the corresponding error of normalization of each component. For the three LBAs where the temperature was permitted to vary the temperature ranged between 0.3 and 0.6 keV. The thermal component luminosities were on the order of $10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$, with $10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for SDSS J0808+3948 and about $10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for SDSS J0802+3915. The power-law component luminosity in the hard X-ray range (2-10 keV) is within a factor of 2 of those derived from the single power-law model spectral fit mentioned above. This power-law plus thermal model fit makes no statistically significant difference in the derived column density compared to that of the single power-law model.
Since the signal-to-noise of the [[*X*MM-Newton]{}]{} spectra is low, we attempted to constrain any thermal component by simultaneously fitting the spectra of all LBAs together assuming that they have approximately the same hot gas temperature, i.e., we tied the temperature parameters together between the fits but let the `apec` normalization vary for each LBA. We also fixed the power-law index at 1.9, and tied the normalization of power-law component in our fit (although note that overall normalization for each LBA was allowed to be free). The temperature given by this joint fit is 0.56 keV, and its 90% confidence level is 0.43$-$0.69 keV. We list the intrinsic column density, the thermal luminosity and the soft and hard X-ray luminosity contributed by the power-law component in Table \[t:apecjoint\]. We see that the column densities and thermal luminosities given by this joint fit are consistent with those in the individual fits, but with improved constraints.
In Fig. \[f:lxlapec\], we compared the two compositions of soft X-ray luminosity, i.e., the thermal and power-law luminosities in 0.5-2.0 keV, where the dashed line indicates where both values equate. This comparison was done separately for both the cases in which the spectra were fit individually and those that were fit simultaneously. These are shown in the left and right panel of Fig. \[f:lxlapec\] respectively. The results derived from the individual spectra fits imply that these two mechanisms play a nearly equal role in soft X-ray emission, except in J0808+3948 where the power-law soft X-ray luminosity is about one dex higher than that of thermal emission. For the joint spectral fit, the luminosities from the two emission mechanisms are comparable, within the range of 1 dex. The obscuration of SDSS J0214+1259 is Compton-thick in the joint fit, and the power-law luminosity at 0.5-2 keV is negligible (not shown).
Star formation rates
--------------------
We list the UV luminosity for each LBA measured from the OM observation in Table \[t:uv\]. We derive the SFR from our UV luminosities using the formula from [@rosa02], which is based on evolutionary synthesis models of starbursts by assuming a Salpeter initial mass function (IMF). For consistency with [@overzier09], we divide the Rosa-González et al. relation by a factor of 1.5 to reflect the use of a Kroupa rather than a Salpeter IMF (as described in [@calzetti09]). The resulting formula is as follows:
$$\rm{SFR(UV)}=9.3\times 10^{-29}L_{\nu}(\rm{erg~s}^{-1}\rm{Hz}^{-1})~~\rm{M}_{\odot}/\rm{yr}.$$
In Table \[t:sfr\] we compare our SFR derived from the UV luminosity with that derived from a combination of the 24$\mu$m and H$\alpha$ luminosities [see @overzier09 for details]. Due to the uncertain infrared SEDs, no $K$-correction was applied to the 24$\mu$m luminosity in [@overzier09], and the actual SFRs might be somewhat higher than their derived values. The UV-derived SFR is lower than that derived from the IR continuum plus optical emission lines. This is consistent with the fact that the UV photons suffer significant dust attenuation and are re-emitted in the IR [see also @overzier11].
We note that any AGN contribution to the UV continuum is negligible in these objects. This is demonstrated most directly by *HST* COS FUV spectra of two of our targets [@heckman11].
Discussion\[discussion\]
========================
As we described in the introduction, the optical emission-line spectra of our sample of LBAs suggest that these may be composite objects consisting of an intense starburst and an obscured AGN. However, this evidence is ambiguous. [@overzier09] have discussed this in detail and suggest as an alternative that the optical spectra of these galaxies could reflect extreme conditions in the ionized gas related to the presence of a starburst with extreme properties.
The X-ray data we have presented provide important new insight into the nature of these objects. We begin by comparing the amount of detected hard and soft X-ray emission in the LBAs compared to pure starbursts with the same star-formation rates (as traced by the far-IR luminosity). We will then compare the LBAs to typical Type 1 and Type 2 AGN in terms of the ratios of the X-ray to \[O III\] and mid-IR to \[O III\] luminosities.
X-ray properties compared to starbursts\[4.1\]
----------------------------------------------
The far-infrared (FIR) luminosity is considered to be a reliable indicator of the global SFR of star forming galaxies. In particular, [@ranalli03] found that the 2-10 keV X-ray luminosity has a tight linear correlation with the FIR luminosity by investigating a sample of local star forming galaxies. We show our LBAs in the $L_{\rm{2-10~keV}}-L_{\rm{FIR}}$ diagram (see Fig. \[f:sfrlx\]) with the Ranalli relation, which is indicated by the solid line with two dashed lines indicating a factor of 2 above and below. The hard X-ray luminosities of the LBAs are taken from Table \[t:cstat\], which are derived from the absorbed power-law model fit with the photon index fixed at 1.9. For comparison, we also show the sample of Luminous Infrared Galaxies (LIRG) from [@iwasawa09] and [@lehmer10], where Iwasawa et al’s sample was divided into two groups of AGN and “Hard X-ray Quiet" galaxies (HXQ) indicated by diamond and asterisk symbols respectively, and Lehmer et al’s sample was indicated by triangle symbols[^5]. We can see that our LBAs are about 0.5 to 1 dex above the Ranalli et al. relation, and even more displaced from the non-AGN LIRGs. This implies that a normal star forming process would only account for a minority of the hard X-ray emission of these LBAs.
We also fit a $\log (L_{\rm{2-10~keV}})-\log (L_{\rm{FIR}})$ correlation from our LBA sample by applying the survival analysis [`ASURV` Rev 1.2; @isobe90], which gives $$\log (L_{\rm{2-10~keV}})=(0.41\pm0.35)\times \log (L_{\rm{FIR}})+(23.42\pm 11.28)$$ The dash-dotted line shows the best fit for the correlation.
We find similar results in the soft X-ray band. We fit the correlation between the soft X-ray (0.5-2 keV) and FIR luminosity of our LBA sample, and compared it with the result of [@ranalli03]. The survival analysis gave a free slope fit $$\log (L_{\rm{0.5-2~keV}})=(0.42\pm0.24)\times \log (L_{\rm{FIR}})+(22.89\pm 10.76)$$
Besides the linear slope fit, [@ranalli03] gave a free-slope fit of $L_{\rm{0.5-2~keV}}\propto L^{0.87\pm0.08}_{\rm{FIR}}$ for star forming galaxies. In Fig. \[f:softlfir\], the dash-dotted line indicates the best-fit of LBAs, and the Ranalli curve is shown as the dashed line below it. As in the case of the hard X-ray emission, only part of the soft X-ray flux is likely to be contributed by normal processes associated with star formation.
Given that the LBAs suffer from less dust extinction than typical local starbursts with similar star-formation rates [@overzier11], one might worry that the high ratio of X-ray to far-IR luminosity seen in Figures 7 and 8 is due to the incomplete conversion of far-UV into far-IR light. This is not the case. As discussed in [@overzier11], the star-formation rates derived from the observed far-UV are much smaller than those derived from the far-IR data, implying that the far-IR is a good proxy for the star-formation rate. Our results in section 3.2 and Figure 6 further support this.
X-ray Properties compared to AGN
--------------------------------
The results from §\[4.1\] are consistent with interpreting the optical spectra as indicating the presence of an AGN. The best tracer of both Type 1 and Type 2 AGN in the optical spectra is the \[O III\]$\lambda$5007 emission-line. In this case, we would expect that the amount of hard X-ray emission from the LBAs would be consistent with the values found for AGN with similar \[O III\] luminosities.
In Fig. \[f:lxlo\], we plot a histogram of the ratio of the hard X-ray (2-10 keV) luminosity obtained from the power-law model spectral fit of our LBAs to its observed \[O III\] luminosity. We also show the empirical distribution of the luminosity ratios of Type 1 (dashed blue line) and Type 2 AGN (dot-dashed red line) in this plot [@heckman05b; @lamassa10b]. The ratios of hard X-ray to \[O III\] luminosities in the LBAs are too low (by about an-order-of-magnitude) to be consistent with the values seen in Type 1 AGN. However, they do lie within the relatively broad range of values seen in Type 2 AGN. The relatively weak hard X-ray luminosity of Type 2 AGN is due to obscuration of the hard X-rays by the high column densities of gas associated with the AGN torus. In contrast, the \[O III\] line is formed in the 100 to 1000 pc-scale narrow line region and is not affected by the torus surrounding the black hole.
At first sight, the presence of significant obscuration of the hard X-ray emission in the LBAs would not be consistent with the relatively low absorbing column densities listed in Table \[t:cstat\]. Here we see that the column density derived from the spectral fitting of an absorbed power-law gives the 90% confidence level upper limit at the order of $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ ($10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ for SDSS J0802+3915). These columns are much too low to attenuate the hard X-ray emission by $\sim$ an order-of-magnitude. Such a seeming paradox is often seen in Type 2 AGN and is most likely due to fitting an overly idealized X-ray spectral model. More realistic models (e.g. partial covering models and/or models with reprocessing) [@turner97; @lamassa09; @lamassa10b] can reconcile the observed X-ray spectrum with heavy obscuration.
Alternatively, the actual absorbing column densities derived from the fits to the X-ray spectra may be correct. In this case, the low ratio of hard X-ray to \[O III\] luminosities relative to unobscured AGN would require that the \[O III\] line is predominantly produced by the starburst rather than the AGN. As discussed by [@overzier09], this possibility can not be excluded.
Assuming for the moment that the relatively high ratios of X-ray to far-IR luminosity indicate that an AGN is present in these LBAs, our results still do not establish whether this AGN is more luminous and heavily obscured in hard X-rays or less luminous and relatively unobscured. An additional diagnostic of an obscured AGN is a strong iron K$\alpha$ emission-line with a large equivalent width of about one keV [e.g. @lamassa09; @lamassa10a]. In Fig. \[f:cstat\], we show the comparison between the data and the spectral fit from an absorbed power-law. We find that there is a large data-to-model ratio at the Fe K$\alpha$ energy in 1434+0207, 0214+1259 and 0802+3915. We used a power-law plus Gaussian model to fit the PN spectra of 1434+0207 and 0214+1259 (insufficient photon counts for 0802+3915). We removed the 5-8 keV photons first to determine the power-law index, then froze this parameter and added the 5-8 keV photons with a Gaussian component. The line energy is 6.6 keV for 1434+0207 and 6.2 keV for 0214+1259, and the spectral plots are shown in Fig. \[f:iron\]. The plots indicate the possibility of an iron emission line in these LBAs. However, the photon counts are too few to give good estimates of the equivalent width of iron lines.
In order to further investigate the presence of a Fe line in our sample, we loaded the spectra of all 6 LBAs in `XSPEC` to construct an average spectrum due to the small number of photons of each LBA (effectively stacking the spectra in model space). This was done in the same way by which we fitted the thermal component simultaneously in §\[thermal\]. This is not a fit to a stacked spectrum, but rather a joint fit to the set of observed spectra without shifting them to their rest-frame.The averaged spectrum was modeled as a continuum power-law in the range of 3-8 keV plus a Gaussian emission line. The intrinsic line width ($\sigma$) in the Gaussian component was fixed at 0.01 keV, and the photon indices of the continuum power-law were set to 1.9. By tying the Gaussian normalization of all data sets, we obtain the emission line energy at 6.40 keV, with a 90% confidence region ($\Delta C$-stat=4.6 for two model components) of 6.09-6.68 keV. The equivalent width (EW) is 1.0 keV from this joint fit, and the associated 90% confidence upper limit of EW is about 4.4 keV, where the upper limit is obtained by scaling the confidence region of the line intensity by the best-fit value of the EW, which is likely to be overestimated [@yaqoob98]. However, the data has low signal-to-noise ratio, and the emission line profile is not significant. When we removed the Gaussian component in the spectral fitting, the $C$-stat only increased by 5.5 compared to the value of 109.6/102(dof) for the model with Gaussian.
We then performed the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation to test the significance of the iron emission line from the joint fit. We generated 6 chains, and the length of each chain is $5\times 10^5$. The 90% confidence level for the line energy from the MCMC is 6.10-6.93 keV, and the estimated upper limit of EW is 2.5 keV. The histogram distribution of the line energy and normalization parameters is shown in Fig. \[f:mcmc\]. The significance of the Fe K$\alpha$ line is calculated as the fraction of non-zero line normalization in the chains, which is found to be 95.3%, i.e., at the $\sim 2\sigma$ level.
Mid-IR Constraints on a Type 2 AGN
----------------------------------
One other test for the presence of a Type 2 AGN in the LBAs is to compare the amount of mid-IR emission expected from a such an AGN with the observed \[O III\]$\lambda$5007 luminosity. [@lamassa10a] have shown that both of these are good proxies for the bolometric luminosity of an obscured AGN (unlike the 2-10 keV X-ray luminosity).
In Figure 12 we plot histograms of the ratio of mid-IR/\[O III\] luminosities for the sample of Type 2 AGN in [@lamassa10b] and for the LBAs in this paper. The distribution for the Type 2 AGN has a mean of 1.89 dex and a dispersion of 0.57 dex compared to 2.71 and 0.34 respectively for the LBAs. All six of the LBAs lie above the mean value for the Type 2 AGN.
This suggests that if the LBAs are indeed starburst/AGN composite systems, the starburst dominates over the AGN in the mid-IR in most cases. In a future paper we will examine this issue in more detail spectroscopically using *Spitzer* IRS data. Note that AGN emission from the torus peaks in the mid-IR, while the emission from dusty starbursts peaks in the far-IR (as is also the case for the LBAs). We therefore conclude that the bolometric luminosity of the LBAs is primarily due to the starburst.
As noted above, it is possible that the \[O III\] emission in these LBAs is primarily produced by the starburst and that the hard X-ray source suffers little attenuation. In this case, the AGN contribution to the bolometric luminosity will be even smaller.
Constraints on the Properties of Supermassive Black Holes
---------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the introduction, these LBA-composites may offer us an unparalleled opportunity to study the processes involved in the formation of supermassive black holes in the early universe [e.g., @elmegreen08]. In this section we will infer the properties of the supermassive black holes in our sample if galaxies using standard methods.
We will consider two possibilities. The first is the minimal case in which the hard X-ray source is not obscured. In this case, the bolometric correction to the hard X-ray luminosity in [@marconi04] leads to a range of AGN bolometric luminosities from 1 to 6 $\times 10^{9}$ L$_{\odot}$. The implied black hole masses then range from $\sim 3 \times 10^{4}$ to $\sim 2 \times 10^{5} (L/L_{Edd})^{-1}$ M$_{\odot}$. If these black holes are indeed radiating near the Eddington limit, the implied masses are then in the range of the “intermediate mass" black holes found in some nearby low-mass galaxies [e.g. @peterson05]. In the context of the high redshift universe, similar objects could represent the seeds for the subsequent growth of more massive systems.
The second possibility is that the hard X-rays are significantly obscured in these LBAs and that the \[O III\]$\lambda$5007 emission-line is powered by a Type 2 AGN. Adopting the bolometric correction to the extinction-corrected \[O III\] luminosity from [@kauffmann09] then yields AGN bolometric luminosities of $\sim 10^{10}$ to $\sim 2 \times 10^{11}$ L$_{\odot}$ and black hole masses of $\sim 3 \times 10^{5}$ to $\sim 6 \times 10^{6} (L/L_{Edd })^{-1}$ M$_{\odot}$. In this case, an Eddington-limited black hole would have a mass of-order 10$^{-3}$ of the DCO stellar mass [@overzier09]. This is similar to the mass ratio seen in present-day galactic bulges [@haring04; @marconi03]. However, if the \[O III\] line is contaminated or dominated by the starburst, the AGN bolometric luminosity and implied black hole mass would be overestimated.
Conclusions\[conclusion\]
=========================
We present in this paper [[*X*MM]{}]{} observations of 6 Lyman Break Analogs (LBAs): rare members of a local population that strongly resemble Lyman Break Galaxies at high-redshift in stellar mass, star formation rate, metallicity, size, dust extinction, and velocity dispersion. Our sample consists of LBAs whose optical spectra are consistent with a composite system consisting of both an intense starburst and a Type 2 (obscured) AGN. However, other interpretations of the optical spectra are possible. To further elucidate the nature of these objects we combine our new X-ray data with SDSS optical spectra and *Spitzer* mid- and far-IR photometry. We summarize the key results as follows:
\(1) We fitted their X-ray spectra with an absorbed power-law model with the parameters typically found in AGN. The column densities found from the spectral fit are less than $10^{22}~\rm{cm}^{-2}$.
\(2) We found that the ratios of X-ray to FIR luminosity of the LBAs are higher than the typical starburst values by factors of three to thirty. This implies a source of X-ray emission in addition to what is seen in typical starbursts. We suggest that the most likely candidate would be an AGN.
\(3) The ratios of hard X-ray (2-10 keV) to \[O III\] luminosity are about an order-of-magnitude smaller than in unobscured (Type 1) AGN but consistent with the broad range of values seen in Type 2 AGN. This might suggest that the hard X-rays suffer a significant amount of attenuation (as in the case of typical Type 2 AGN). This would imply that the fitted column densities derived from the simple absorbed power-law model underestimate the true attenuation (as is often the case in Type 2 AGN). An alternative interpretation is that the hard X-rays are relatively unobscured and that the \[O III\] line is primarily produced by an extreme starburst.
\(4) To discriminate between these possibilities (and provide a confirmation of the presence of an obscured AGN), we searched for the presence of the 6.4 keV Fe K$\alpha$ emission line in our LBA sample. However, the limited photon detections and low signal-to-noise ratio do not allow us to come to a strong conclusion. The MCMC simulation gives a $\sim 2\sigma$ significance level for the iron line and a 90% confidence upper limit of 2.5 keV for the equivalent width.
\(5) We find that the ratio of mid-IR (24$\mu$m) and \[O III\]$\lambda$5007 luminosities of the LBAs are higher than the values seen in Type 2 AGN (by a difference of 0.8 dex in the mean). This would imply that the bolometric luminosity of these systems is primarily due to the starburst rather than an AGN. If the \[O III\] emission is primarily due to a starburst, this conclusion is even stronger.
\(6) Given that these objects have significantly higher ratios of X-ray to far-IR luminosity than starbursts, we conclude that the most likely interpretation is that these galaxies are indeed composites of an intense starburst and an AGN (consistent with their optical emission-line spectra). If so, the implied black hole masses are of-order $10^5$ M$_{\odot}$ for Eddington-limited accretion in the case where the hard X-rays are unobscured and roughly an order-of-magnitude larger for an obscured AGN that produces the observed \[OIII\] emission-line. These may be good analogs to black holes forming in the dense, stellar clumps in galaxies in the early universe.
We are very grateful to the anonymous referee for helpful comments that have improved the manuscript. We also thank Marat Gilfanov for discussion. This work is supported by NASA grant NNX08AZ0G.
Adelberger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A. & Erb, D. K. 2005, , 619, 697
Alexander D. M., Bauer, F. E., Chapman, S. C., Smail, I., Blain, A. W., Brandt, W. N., & Ivison, R. J. 2005, , 632, 736
Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., Tremonti, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., Brinkmann, J. 2004, , 351, 1151
Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, , 93, 5
Basu-Zych, A. R., et al. 2009, ApJL, 699, L118
Calzetti, D., Sheth, K., Churchwell, E., & Jackson, J. 2009, The Evolving ISM in the Milky Way and Nearby Galaxies, Fourth Spitzer Science Center Conf., ed. K. Sheth et al. (Pasadena, CA: Caltech), http://web.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/ismevol/proceedings/calzettid\_v1.pdf
Cash, W. 1979, , 228, 939
Croton, D. J. et al. 2006, , 365, 11
Elmegreen, B. G., Bournaud, F., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2008, , 684, 829
Giavalisco, M. 2002, , 40, 579
Giavalisco, M. et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L103
Gon[ç]{}alves, T.S., et al. 2010, , 724, 1373
Grimes, J., Heckman, T., Strickland, D., & Ptak, A. 2005, , 628, 187
Grimes, J., Heckman, T., Hoopes, C., Strickland, D., Aloisi, A., Meurer, G., & Ptak, A. 2006, , 648, 310
Grimes, J., Heckman, T., Strickland, D., Dixon, W.V., Sembach, K., Overzier, R., Hoopes, C., Aloisi, A., & Ptak. A. 2007, , 668, 891
Haring, N., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJL, 604, L89
Heckman, T. M., et al. 2005a, ApJL, 619, L35
Heckman, T. M., Ptak, A., Hornschemeier, A., & Kauffmann, G. 2005b, , 634, 161
Heckman, T. M. 2009, Astrophysics in the Next Decade, ed. H. Thronson, M. Stiavelli, & A. Tielens, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings (Springer), p. 335
Heckman, T. M, Borthakur, S., Overzier, R., Kauffmann, G., Basu-Zych, A., Leitherer, C., Sembach, K., Martin, D.C., Rich, R.M., Schiminovich, D., & Seibert, M. 2011, , submitted
Hoopes, C. G., et al. 2007, , 173, 441
Isobe, T., & Feigelson, E. D. 1990, BAAS, 22, 917
Iwasawa, K., Sanders, D. B., Evans, A. S., Mazzarella, J. M., Armus, L., & Surace, J. A. 2009, ApJL, 695, L103
Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003, , 346, 1055
Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 135
Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, , 372, 961
Laird, E. S., Nandra, K., Hobbs, A., & Steidel, C. C. 2006, , 373, 217
LaMassa, S., Heckman, T., Ptak, A., Martins, L., Wild, V., Sonnentrucker, P., & Tremonti, C. 2009, , 705, 568
LaMassa, S., Heckman, T., Ptak, A., Martins, L., Wild, V., & Sonnentrucker, P. 2010a, , 720, 786
LaMassa, S., Heckman, T., Ptak, A., Martins, L., Wild, V., Sonnentrucker, P., & Hornshemeier, A. 2010b, submitted to
Lehmer, B. D., Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., Brandt, W. N., Goulding, A. D., Jenkins, L. P., Ptak, A., Roberts, T. P., 2010, , 724, 559
Marconi, A. & Hunt, L. 2003, ApJL, 589, L21
Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R.,Hunt, L., Maiolino, R., & Salviati, M. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169
Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei (2nd ed.; Sausalito, CA: University Science Books)
Ouchi, M. et al. 2008, , 176, 301
Overzier, R. A., et al. 2008, , 677, 37
Overzier, R. A., et al. 2009, , 706, 203
Overzier, R. A., Heckman, T., Schiminovich, D., Basu-Zych, A., Gon[ç]{}alves, T., & Martin, D. C. 2010a, , 710, 979
Overzier, R. A., et al. 2011, , 726, 7
Peterson, B., Bentz, M., Desroches, L.-B., Filippenko, A., Ho, L., Kaspi, S., Laor, A., Maoz, D., Moran, E., Pogge, R., & Quillen, A. 2005, ApJ, 632, 799
Ranalli, P., Comastri, A. & Setti, G., 2003, A&A, 399, 39
Reines, A. E., Sivakoff, G. R., Johnson, K. E. & Brogan, C., 2011, accepted by Nature (astro-ph:1101.1309)
Rosa-González, D., Terlevich, E. & Terlevich, R. 2002, , 332, 283
Salim, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267
Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 2003, , 588, 65
Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Liedahl, D. A., & Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJL, 556, L91
Springel, V. & Hernquist, L. 2003, , 588, 65
Steidel, C. C., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 1996 , 112, 352
Steidel, C. C., Hunt, M. P., Shapley, A. E., Adelberger, K. L., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., & Giavalisco, M. 2002, , 576, 653
Teng, S. H., Wilson, A. S., Veilleux, S., Young, A. J., Sanders, D. B., & Nagar, N. M. 2005, , 633, 664
Turner, T. J., George, I. M., Nandra, K. & Mushotzky, R. F. 1997, , 113, 23
Yaqoob, T. 1998, , 500, 893
[c c c c c c c c c c]{} Name & Observation ID & Date & Exp. Time$^{\rm{a}}$ & ${N_{\rm{H,G}}}^{\rm{b}}$ & $z$ & Mode & Filter\
(SDSS J...) & & (DD/MM/YY) & (ks) & & & & &\
080844.26+394852.3 & 0553790101 & 03/10/08 & 8.7/11.5/11.5 & 5.05 & 0.091 & FF$^{\rm{c}}$ & medium\
210358.74$-$072802.4 & 0553790201 & 18/05/08 & 8.7/11.5/11.5 & 5.41 & 0.137 & FF & thin\
143417.15+020742.3 & 0553790301 & 20/07/08 & 13.7/22.1/22.1 & 2.80 & 0.180 & FF & thin\
021348.53+125951.4 & 0553790401 & 08/01/08 & 19.4/23.6/23.7 & 7.06 & 0.219 & FF & thin\
092159.38+450912.3 & 0553790501 & 27/04/09 & 3.7/20.6/22.4 & 1.55 & 0.235 & FF & medium\
080232.34+391552.6 & 0553790701 & 24/03/09 & 1.3/6.4/6.3 & 5.15 & 0.267 & FF & thin\
[cccccc]{} SDSS J0808+3948 & UVW1 & $2.220\pm 0.092$ & $16.34\pm 0.045$ & $10.57\pm 0.44$ & 2.70\
SDSS J2103$-$0728 & UVW1 & $0.938\pm 0.038$ & $17.28\pm 0.045$ & $4.45\pm 0.18$ & 2.74\
SDSS J1434+0207 & UVW1 & $0.475\pm 0.039$ & $18.01\pm 0.089$ & $2.26\pm 0.19$ & 2.09\
& UVM2 & $0.141\pm 0.024$ & $17.90\pm 0.188$ & $3.10\pm 0.53$ &\
SDSS J0214+1259 & UVW1 & $0.502\pm 0.054$ & $17.95\pm 0.116$ & $2.39\pm 0.25$ & 3.85\
& UVM2 & $0.099\pm 0.027$ & $18.28\pm 0.291$ & $2.18\pm 0.59$ &\
SDSS J0922+4509 & UVW1 & $0.882\pm 0.045$ & $17.34\pm 0.056$ & $4.20\pm 0.21$ & 7.93\
& UVM2 & $0.265\pm 0.025$ & $17.21\pm 0.104$ & $5.83\pm 0.55$ &\
& UVW2 & $0.119\pm 0.020$ & $17.18\pm 0.178$ & $6.79\pm 1.14$ &\
SDSS J0802+3915 & U & $0.587\pm 0.033$ & $18.84\pm 0.061$ & $1.14\pm 0.06$ &\
& UVW1 & $0.252\pm 0.033$ & $18.84\pm 0.061$ & $1.20\pm 0.16$ & 3.03\
& UVM2 & $0.114\pm 0.019$ & $18.13\pm 0.183$ & $2.51\pm 0.42$ &\
& UVW2 & $0.056\pm 0.018$ & $17.99\pm 0.338$ & $3.20\pm 1.03$ &\
[c c c c c]{} ID & $L_{\rm{[O III],obs}}$ & $L_{\rm{[O III],corr}}$ & $L_{24\mu m}$ & $L_{\rm FIR}$\
& ($10^{41}$) & ($10^{41}$) & ($10^{44}$) & ($10^{44}$)\
SDSS J0808+3948 & $0.43\pm 0.01$ & 0.66 & 0.76 & $1.1\pm 0.2$\
SDSS J2103$-$0728 & $5.00\pm 0.06$ & 12.03 & 4.8 & $8.8\pm 1.3$\
SDSS J1434+0207 & $1.32\pm 0.03$ & 2.84 & 0.48 & $2.0\pm 0.6$\
SDSS J0214+1259 & $0.57\pm 0.04$ & 1.22 & 1.9 & $9.1\pm 1.7$\
SDSS J0922+4509 & $2.05\pm 0.06$ & 4.75 & 2.4 & $14.3\pm 2.2$\
SDSS J0802+3915 & $1.54\pm 0.05$ & 4.47 & 1.2 & $6.5\pm 2.0$\
[ccccccccc]{} SDSS J0808+3948 & 75/34/44 & 1.66 (1.41-1.92) & 116.11/138 & $<0.14$ & 115.82/138 & 2.11 (1.55-2.80) & 4.01 (2.94-5.33) & 6.08\
SDSS J2103$-$0728 & 76/26/17 & 2.48 (2.08-2.94) & 112.78/100 & $<0.04$ & 118.60/100 & 2.93 (2.14-3.95) & 4.83 (3.53-6.51) & 0.40\
SDSS J1434+0207 & 86/41/43 & 1.46 (0.88-2.04) & 134.41/156 & $<0.27$ & 135.80/156 & 2.65 (1.53-4.28) & 4.41 (2.55-7.13) & 1.55\
SDSS J0214+1259 & 83/25/28 & 2.72 (1.91-3.68) & 133.53/122 & $<0.09$ & 136.31/122 & 2.39 (1.48-3.68) & 4.30 (2.66-6.62) & 3.51\
SDSS J0922+4509 & 54/70/62 & 1.89 (1.50-2.30) & 172.57/165 & $<0.23$ & 171.02/165 & 12.35 (6.64-19.94) & 22.70 (12.21-36.66) & 4.78\
SDSS J0802+3915 & 15/8/19 & 1.71 (-0.58-4.17) & 28.56/38 & $<1.37$ & 28.62/38 & 9.29 (0.81-31.96) & 16.80 (1.47-57.81) & 3.76\
[ccccc]{} SDSS J0808+3948 & 1.71 (1.33-2.13) & 1.01 & $<0.24$ & 0.553\
SDSS J2103$-$0728 & 3.19 (2.40-4.28) & 0.19 & $<0.08$ & 2.15\
SDSS J1434+0207 & 1.24 (0.40-2.06) & 1.09 & 0.16 (0-2.44) & 1.17\
SDSS J0214+1259 & $>2.05$ & 0.79 & $<0.68$ & 1.22\
SDSS J0922+4509 & 2.83 (2.01-4.18) & 0.72 & $<0.18$ & 0.99\
[ccccc]{} SDSS J0808+3948 & $\chi^2$ & 1.85 (1.22-3.05) & $<0.53$ & 0.69\
& $C$ & 1.79 (1.35-2.50) & $<0.22$ & 0.86\
SDSS J1434+0207 & $\chi^2$ & 1.23 (0.02-3.28) & $<21.8$ & 1.18\
& $C$ & 1.41 (0.713-2.47) & $<0.35$ & 0.87\
SDSS J0922+4509 & $\chi^2$ & 4.56 (1.87-10.0) & 0.59 (0-2.91) & 0.71\
& $C$ & 3.35 (1.94-6.56) & 0.42 (0.05-1.41) & 1.01\
[ccccccc]{} SDSS J0808+3948 & 500 (fixed) & 0.10 (0.01-0.41) & 0.29 (0.15-12.69) & 1.78 (1.09-2.74) & 3.76 (2.31-5.79) & 114.8/133\
SDSS J2103$-$0728 & 422 (276-755) & 0.17 (0-1.03) & 1.74 (0.16-3.50) & 1.45 (0.56-2.63) & 3.85 (1.49-6.75) & 101.9/96\
SDSS J1434+0207 & 339 (217-689) & 1.07 (0.18-2.55) & 1.48 (0.39-2.98) & 0.86 (0.19-1.75) & 6.61 (1.47-13.44) & 129.3/152\
SDSS J0214+1259 & 570 (326-844) & 266.5 (13.9-) & 2.23 (1.05-3.84) & 1.95 (1.0-4.73) & 6.20 (3.10-15.03) & 125.7/118\
SDSS J0922+4509 & 500 (fixed) & 0.16 (0-0.65) & 2.98 (1.50-11.10) & 6.04 (1.13-12.51) & 21.84 (4.10-45.23) & 169.4/162\
SDSS J0802+3915 & 500 (fixed) & 1.96 (0.81-50.35) & 12.64 (1.97-31.67) & 14.23 (0.23-166.63) & 40.58 (0.66-475.17) & 24.42/35\
[ccccc]{} SDSS J0808+3948 & 0.14 (0.07-0.28) & 0.39 (0.13-0.75) & 2.18 (1.33-3.36) & 4.87 (2.98-7.50)\
SDSS J2103$-$0728 & 0.35 (0.05-1.17) & 1.83 (0.60-3.48) & 0.97 (0.37-1.76) & 3.31 (1.28-6.00)\
SDSS J1434+0207 & 0.59 (0.06-1.86) & 1.12 (0.37-2.12) & 1.57 (0.35-3.19) & 6.91 (1.53-14.06)\
SDSS J0214+1259 & 769 (45-1240) & 1.94 (0.64-3.69) & ... & 9.11 (4.67-22.1)\
SDSS J0922+4509 & 0.19 (0.05-0.52) & 1.27 (0.42-2.42) & 8.29 (1.55-17.17) & 19.43 (3.64-40.24)\
SDSS J0802+3915 & 2.94 (0.50-9.30) & 6.34 (2.08-12.05) & 2.31 (0.04-27.05) & 63.49 (1.03-743.45)\
[ccc]{} SDSS J0808+3948 & 6.5 & 16.1\
SDSS J2103$-$0728 & 6.7 & 108.3\
SDSS J1434+0207 & 5.1 & 20.0\
SDSS J0214+1259 & 9.3 & 35.1\
SDSS J0922+4509 & 26.1 & 55.1\
SDSS J0802+3915 & 7.3 & 30.4\
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
[^1]: While selection based on high FUV luminosity and surface brightness also selects Type 1 AGN and BL Lacs, these objects have been eliminated from samples of LBAs [see @hoopes07 for details]. Note also that [@overzier09] presented very high signal-to-noise optical spectra of LBAs showing that there is no spectroscopic signature of a Type 1 AGN.
[^2]: We include SDSS J1434+0207 (red cross in Fig. \[f:bpt\]) in our “LBA-composite" sample, although it lies close to the lower left of the solid line in the BPT diagram and does not harbor a DCO.
[^3]: http://xassist.pha.jhu.edu/zope/xassist
[^4]: http://xmm.esa.int/sas/current/watchout/\
Evergreen\_tips\_and\_tricks/uvflux.shtml
[^5]: [@lehmer10] suggest that the X-ray emission from high-mass X-ray binaries may be suppressed by heavy extinction in some of the HXQ, LIRGs and ULIRGs
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The stability of synchronous states is analysed in the context of two populations of inhibitory and excitatory neurons, characterized by different pulse-widths. The problem is reduced to that of determining the eigenvalues of a suitable class of sparse random matrices, randomness being a consequence of the network structure. A detailed analysis, which includes also the study of finite-amplitude perturbations, is performed in the limit of narrow pulses, finding that the stability depends crucially on the relative pulse-width. This has implications for the overall property of the asynchronous (balanced) regime.'
author:
- 'Afifurrahman, Ekkehard Ullner, Antonio Politi'
bibliography:
- 'stability.bib'
title: Stability of synchronous states in sparse neuronal networks
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Networks of oscillators are widely studied in many fields: mechanical engineering [@Blekhman_1995applmechrev; @Blekhman_1997syscontlet], power grids [@filatrella_2008epjb], arrays of Josephson junctions [@hadley_baesley_1987apl], cold atoms [@javaloyes_perrin_politi_2008pre], neural networks [@Izhikevich], and so on. Such networks can be classified according to the single-unit dynamics, the coupling mechanism, the presence of heterogeneity, and network topology. Since phases are the most sensitive variables to any kind of perturbation [@pikovsky_rosenblum_kurths_2001], most of the attention is devoted to setups composed of phase oscillators [@winfree], i.e. one-dimensional dynamical systems. However, even the study of such relatively simple models is not as staightforward as it might appear. In fact, a wide variety of dynamical regimes can emerge even in mean field models of identical oscillators, ranging from full synchrony to splay states, and including hybrides, such as partial synchronisation [@partial], chimera [@chimera], and cluster states [@Golomb92]. General theory of synchronisation is, therefore, a much investigated field.
In this paper we focus on synchronous states by referring to a rather popular class of neural networks, but the whole formalism can be easily extended to more general systems so long as the coupling is mediated by the emission of pulses. In neuroscience the neuron dynamics is often described by a single variable, the membrane potential, which evolves according to a suitable velocity field. The resulting model is equivalent to a phase oscillator, where the variable of the bare system increases linearly in time while the complexity of the evolution rule is encoded in the phase response curve (PRC), which accounts for the mutual coupling [@Abbott93]. Under the additional approximation of a weak coupling strength, the model can be further simplified and cast into a Kuramoto-Daido form, where the coupling depends on phase differences between pairs of oscillators [@Golomb01; @PolitiRosenblum]. Here, however, we stick to pulse-coupled oscillators.
The stability of the synchronised state of pulse-coupled phase oscillators has been first studied in the context of excitatory $\delta$-pulses [@Mirollo90]. Synchronisation is induced when two oscillators are sufficiently close and a common excitatory $\delta$-pulse instantaneously sets both to the same value. Later, the stability analysis for excitatory and inhibitory pulses [@vanVreeswijk94; @Hansel95] has been extended to $\delta$-pulses with continuous PRCs [@Goel02]. General formulas are mostly available under severe restrictions, such as identical oscillators, mean field interactions, or $\delta$-like pulses.
The $\delta$-like pulse assumption is particularly limiting, not only because realistic systems are characterized by a finite width, but also because it has been shown that zero-pulsewidth is a singular limit, which does not commute with the thermodynamic limit (infinitely large networks) – at least in the context of splay states [@Zillmer07]. Relaxing the zero-width limit forces to increase the phase-space dimension to account for the dynamics of the fields felt by the different neurons. The most general result we are aware of is a formula derived in Ref. [@Olmi14] for a single population of identical neurons in the presence of mean-field coupling and the so-called $\alpha$-pulses.
The introduction of sparseness implies a significant increase in the computational complexity because of the randomness of the connections. In this context, the most relevant results are those derived in Ref. [@timme_wolf_2008nonlin], where a sparse random network (Erdös-Rényi type) has been investigated in the presence of $\delta$-pulses. The approach is rather complex since the noncommutativity associated with changes in the order of the incoming spikes obliged the authors to introduce a multitude of linear operators to solve the problem.
Here, we extend this kind of stability analysis to finite pulse-widths in two populations of excitatory, respectively inhibitory, neurons. Our approach can also be considered as an extension to sparse networks of the work in Ref. [@Olmi14] devoted to mean-field models. This setup is chosen in studies of the so-called balanced state [@Brunel00], where the asynchronous regime is dominated by strong fluctuations. Typically, the balance depends on both the relative size of the two populations and the relative amplitude of the pulses. In this paper, a careful study of the fully synchronous regime shows that also the relative pulse-width plays a non-trivial role.
Finite-width pulses can obviously have infinitely many different shapes. In this paper we consider the simplest case of exponential spikes and assume, as usual, that they superpose linearly. In practice, this means that each oscillator (neuron) is characterized by three variables: the phase or, equivalently, the membrane potential and two variables describing the incoming excitatory and inhibitory fields, respectively. At variance with Ref. [@Olmi14], instead of transforming the model into a mapping (from one to the next spike emission), here we preserve the time continuity, as this approach allows for a more homogeneous treatment of the oscillators maintaining the full $3N$ dimensional structure of the phase-space (where $N$ is the number of oscillators).
Furthermore, in agreement with previous publications [@ostojic_2014nat; @ullner_politi_torcini_2018chaos; @politi_ullner_torcini_2018epjst] we assume that each neuron receives exactly the same number of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic connections. In fact, in spite of the random connectivity, in the fully synchronous regime, all neurons are characterized by exactly the same input. The degeneracy of the Lyapunov spectrum observed in mean-field models is lifted and the stability must be assessed by determining the eigenvalues of a suitable (sparse) random matrix.
More precisely, in Sec. \[sec:model\] we define the model, including the specific phase response curve used to perform numerical tests. The overall linear stability analysis is discussed in Sec. \[sec:linstab\], first with reference to the general case and then specifically referring to short (but finite) pulses. In the same section we also determine the conditional Lyapunov exponent $\lambda_c$, (i.e the exponent describing the response of a single neuron subject to a given - periodic - forcing): at variance with the mean-field model, $\lambda_c$ differs from the maximum exponent of the whole network, indirectly confirming the nontrivial role played by the connectivity. In Sec. \[sec:app\], we implement the formulas determined in the previous section to discuss the qualitative changes observed by varying the relative pulse-width. Finally, Sec. \[sec:conclusion\] is devoted to a summary of the main results and an outline of the open problems.
Model {#sec:model}
=====
The object of study is a network of $N$ phase-oscillators (also referred to as neurons), the first $N_e$ being excitatory, the last $N_i$ inhibitory (obviously, $N_e+N_i = N$). Each neuron is characterized by the phase-like variable $\Phi^j\le 1$ (formally equivalent to the membrane potential), while the (directed) synaptic connections are represented by the connectivity matrix $\mathbf{G}$ with the entries $$\begin{aligned}
& G_{j,k}=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if $k \to j$ active} \\
0, & \text{otherwise }
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{k\ge 1}^{N_e} G_{j,k} = K_e$ and $\sum_{k > N_e}^{N} G_{j,k} =K_i$, meaning that each neuron $j$ is characterized by the same number of incoming excitatory and inhibitory connections, as customary assumed in the literature [@ostojic_2014nat] ($K=K_e+K_i$, finally represents the connectivity altogether).
The evolution of the phase of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons is ruled by the same equation, $$\dot{\Phi}^j = 1 + J \, \Gamma\left(\Phi^j\right)\left(E^j - I^j\right)\label{eq:mod1} \, ,$$ where $\Gamma(\Phi)$ represents the phase-response curve (PRC), $J$ the coupling strength and $E^j$ ($I^j$) the excitatory (inhibitory) field generated by the incoming connections. He we assume that $K$ as well as $J$ are independent of $N$, i.e. we refer to sparse networks. Whenever $\Phi^j$ reaches the threshold $\Phi_{th}=1$ , the phase is reset to $\Phi_r = 0$ and enters a refractory period $t_{r}$ during which it stands still and is insensitive to the action of the excitatory ($E^j$) and inhibitory ($I^j$) field. At the same time, the fields of the receiving neurons are activated. If the neuron $k$, emitting a spike at time $t^k_n$, is excitatory ($k \le N_e$), then the excitatory field $E^j$ of any receiving neuron $j$ is activated (and similarly for the inhibitory field $I^j$).
The fields in Eq. (\[eq:mod1\]) evolve according to the differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{E}^j &=& -\alpha\left( E^j - \sum_{n} G_{j,k} P_{k,k} \delta(t-t^k_n) \right) \label{eq:mod2} \\
\dot{I}^j &=& -\beta \left( I^j - g\sum_{n} G_{j,k} (\delta_{k,k}-P_{k,k})\delta(t-t^k_n) \right) \, ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ ($\beta$) denotes the inverse pulse-width of the excitatory (inhibitory) spikes. The coefficient $g$ accounts for the relative amplitude of inhibitory spikes compared to excitatory ones. $P_{k,m}$ represents the elements of a projector operator $\mathbf{P}$, separating excitatory from inhibitory neurons: $P_{k,m} = 0$ except when $k=m \le N_e$, in which case $P_{k,k} = 1$.
In order to be more specific, we introduce the PRC used later on as a testbed for the formalism developed in the next section. We have chosen to work with the following piecewise linear PRC, $$\label{eq:PRC}
\Gamma(\Phi^j) =
\begin{cases}
\left(\Phi^j -\underline{\Phi}\right) & \text{if $\underline \Phi<\Phi^j <\overline \Phi$} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ where $\underline \Phi<0$, and $0<\overline \Phi<1$ characterize the PRC. The resulting shape is plotted in Fig. \[fig:PRC\] for $\underline \Phi = -0.1$ and $\overline \Phi = 0.9$ [^1] .
As anticipated in the introduction, we are interested in assessing the stability of the fully synchronous dynamics of period $T$ as a function of the relative pulse-width, where $T$ is the interspike interval. The solution is obtained by integrating the equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sync}
\begin{cases}
\dot\Phi = {1} + J \, \Gamma(\Phi)(E-I), \\
E(t)=E_{\circ}\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha t} \\
I(t)=I_{\circ}\mathrm{e}^{-\beta t},
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ where $$E_\circ = \frac{K_e\alpha}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha T}} \qquad, \hspace{0.5cm} I_\circ = \frac{g K_i\beta}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-\beta T}}$$ are the magnitudes of the fields immediately after the synchronous spike emission. The constants $E_\circ$ and $I_\circ$ result self-consistently from the sum of the remaining field at the end of the period $T$ plus the contribution from the spike emission.
In the present paper, we focus on the stability of the synchronous period-1 solution (i.e. the initial configuration is exactly recovered after one spike emission). For long inhibitory pulses (small inhibitory decay rate $\beta$) we observed also stable period-2 and higher order periodic solutions. Fig. \[fig:period\] shows the transition from stable period-1 to period-2 solution in the $\alpha,\beta$ plane (from top to bottom). Higher order periodic solutions appear underneath that curve in the shaded area and result in a synchronous bursting dynamics.
Linear stability analysis {#sec:linstab}
=========================
General theory
--------------
In this section we present the stability analysis of a synchronous state in the period-1 regime. At variance with Ref. [@Olmi14], we do not construct the corresponding map, which means that the phase-space dimension is not reduced by a suitable Poincaré section and the presence of a neutral direction is preserved. Actually this property can be even used to double check the correctness of the final result.
We start introducing a stroboscopic representation and focus on a weakly perturbed synchronous configuration $$\begin{aligned}
E^j(n) &=& E_r + \epsilon^j(n) \\
I^j(n) &=& I_r + i^j(n) \\
\Phi^j(n) &=& \Phi_r + \varphi^j (n)\end{aligned}$$ where all variables are determined at the end of consecutive refractory periods. As shown in Fig. \[fig:timescheme\] and clarified in the following, it is convenient to refer $\varphi^j(n)$ to one period later with respect to $\epsilon^j(n)$ and $i^j(n)$. The fields $E_r=E_\circ \mathrm{e}^{-\alpha t_r}$, $I_r=I_\circ \mathrm{e}^{-\beta t_r}$, and $\Phi_r =0$ do not depend on $n$, as the reference trajectory is periodic of period $T$. The overall perturbation can be represented as a $3N$ dimensional vector $[\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(n),\boldsymbol{i}(n),\boldsymbol{\varphi}(n)]$. For the future sake of simplicity, it is convenient to introduce also a second representation in terms of time shifts, $\boldsymbol{v}(n)= [\boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon(n),\boldsymbol{\tau}_i(n),\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n)]$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon(n) &=& \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(n)/\dot E_r \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\tau}_i(n) &=& \boldsymbol{i}(n)/\dot I_r \quad , \label{eq:newrep} \\
\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n) &=& \boldsymbol{\varphi}(n)/\dot \Phi_r \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $\dot E_r$, $\dot I_r$ and $\dot \Phi_r$ all denote time derivates at the end of a refractory period. In practice $\boldsymbol{\tau}_x$ corresponds to the time shift of the original trajectory to match the current perturbed state. The recursive transformation can be formally written as $$\label{eq:lingen}
\boldsymbol{v}(n+1) = \mathds{L}{\boldsymbol{v}}(n) \; .$$ Our next task is to determine the operator $\mathds{L}$. We start from the evolution equation of the excitatory field, $$\label{eq:efieldp}
E^j(n+1)=\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha T} E^j(n) + \alpha \sum_k G_{j,k} P_{k,k} \mathrm{e}^{-\alpha t^k(n)},$$ where $t^k(n)$ is the time elapsed since the arrival of the spike sent by the $k$th neuron in the $n$th iterate.
Since the trajectory is close to the synchronous periodic orbit, ${E}^j(n+1)=E_r + {\epsilon}^j(n+1)$, and $t^k(n)=t_r + \tau_\varphi^k(n)$. Up to first order in the perturbations, Eq. (\[eq:efieldp\]) yields, $$\label{eq:lineps}
\epsilon^j(n+1) = \mathrm{e}^{-\alpha T}\epsilon^j(n) - \alpha^2 \mathrm{e}^{-\alpha t_r} \sum_{k}G_{j,k}P_{k,k} \tau_\varphi^k(n) \; ,$$ or, in vector notations, $$\label{eq:lineexc}
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(n+1)= A_e\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(n) - C_e\mathbf{GP} \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n)$$ where $$A_e =\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha T} \qquad , \hspace{0.3cm} C_e=\alpha^2 \mathrm{e}^{-\alpha t_r}.$$ A similar analysis for the inhibitory field leads to $$\label{eq:lineinib}
\boldsymbol{i}(n+1) = A_i\boldsymbol{i}(n) - C_i\mathbf{G}\left(\mathds{1}-\mathbf{P}\right)\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n)$$ where $\mathds{1}$ is the $N\times N$ identity matrix, while $$A_i =\mathrm{e}^{-\beta T} \qquad , \hspace{0.3cm} C_i=g \beta^2 \mathrm{e}^{-\beta t_r}.$$ Notice that, at variance with the previous case, there is an extra factor $g$ in the definition of $C_i$ to account for the larger amplitude of the inhibitory spikes.
Finally, we deal with phase dynamics. The core of the transformation is the mapping between the amplitude $\boldsymbol{\varphi}(n)$ of the perturbation at time $t_r$ and the amplitude $\bar{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}(n+1)$ at time $\overline t$, which can be formally written as $$\label{eq:linphase}
\bar{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}(n+1) = S_e \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(n+1) + S_i \boldsymbol{i}(n+1) + S_\phi \boldsymbol{\varphi}(n) \; .$$ This transformation is diagonal (it is the same for all components); the three unknown parameters, $S_e$, $S_i$, and $S_\phi$, can be determined by integrating the equation obtained from the linearization of Eq. (\[eq:mod1\]). To separate the notation of the stroboscopic phase perturbation $\varphi(n)$ from the continuously developing phase perturbation between $t_r$ and $\overline{t}$ we introduce $\phi(t)$ , $$\label{7}
\dot{\phi} = J \, \Gamma'(\Phi) (E(t)-I(t))\phi
+ J \, \Gamma(\Phi)\left [\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha(t-t_r)}\epsilon - \mathrm{e}^{-\beta(t-t_r)}i \right ].$$ Upon setting $[\epsilon,i,\phi(t_r)] = [1,0,0]$, $[0,1,0]$, and $[0,0,1]$, $\phi(\overline t)$ corresponds to $S_e$, $S_i$, and $S_\phi$, respectively. Once $\bar{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}(n+1)$ is known from Eq. (\[eq:linphase\]), it can be transformed into the corresponding time shift $$\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n+1) = \frac{\bar{\boldsymbol{\varphi}}(n+1)}{\dot {\overline\Phi} }$$ where $$\dot {\overline \Phi} = 1+ J \, \Gamma(\overline \Phi) \left( E_{\circ}\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha\overline{t}} - I_{\circ}\mathrm{e}^{-\beta\overline{t}}\right)$$ is the time derivative of the phase in the point where the neuron stops feeling the action of the field. In between $\overline t$ and $T$, the oscillators evolve with the same velocity and no adjustment of the time shift can be expected. The transformation is completed by Eq. (\[eq:newrep\]), which allows mapping $\boldsymbol{\varphi}(n)$ onto the corresponding time shift and obtaining $$\label{eq:lintau}
\dot {\overline \Phi} \ \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n+1) = S_e \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(n+1) +
S_i \boldsymbol{i}(n+1) + S_\phi \dot \Phi_r \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n) \; .$$ With the help of Eqs. (\[eq:lineexc\],\[eq:lineinib\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lintau3}
\dot {\overline \Phi} \ \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi&&(n+1) =
A_e S_e \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(n) +
A_i S_i \boldsymbol{i}(n) - \\
&& \left[
C_e S_e \mathbf{GP} + C_i S_i \mathbf{G}\left(\mathds{1}-\mathbf{P}\right) - S_\phi \dot \Phi_r
\right ]\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n) \; . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ or, in a more compact form, $$\label{eq:lintau4}
\dot {\overline \Phi} \ \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n+1) =
A_e S_e \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(n) + A_i S_i \boldsymbol{i}(n) -
\boldsymbol{M} \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n) \; .$$ where $\mathbf{M}$ is an $N\times N$ matrix whose entries are defined as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{M}_{jk} = \begin{cases}
C_e S_e ,\hspace{0.2cm}&\text{if $k\rightarrow{j}$, $k\leq N_E$}\\
C_i S_i ,\hspace{0.2cm}&\text{if $k\rightarrow{j}$, $N_E< k\leq N$}\\
-S_\phi \dot \Phi_r ,\hspace{0.2cm}&\text{if $j=k$}\\
0,\hspace{0.2cm}&\text{no connection from $k$ to $j\ne k$}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ For homogeneity reasons, it is convenient to express all of the three recursive relations in terms of the components of the $\boldsymbol{v}$ vector, $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon (n+1) &=& A_e\boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon(n) - \frac{C_e}{\dot E_r}\mathbf{GP} \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\tau}_i(n+1) &=& A_i\boldsymbol{\tau}_i(n) - \frac{C_i}{\dot I_r}\mathbf{G}\left(\mathds{1}-\mathbf{P}\right)\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n) \label{eq:lintot} \\
\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n+1) &=&
A_e S_e \frac{\dot E_r}{\dot {\overline \Phi}} \boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon(n) +
A_i S_i \frac{\dot I_r}{\dot {\overline \Phi}} \boldsymbol{\tau}_i(n) -
\frac{\boldsymbol{M} \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n)}{\dot {\overline \Phi}} \; .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Now let us consider a homogeneous perturbation, such that $\boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon = \boldsymbol{\tau}_i =\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi$. This perturbation must be mapped exactly onto itself, since it corresponds to a time shift of the whole orbit. Let us see what this amounts to. From the first of the above equations, we have that $$1 = A_e - C_e K_e/\dot E_r \; .$$ By looking at the definition of the various quantities, we can see that the equality is indeed satisfied. This is because $C_e /\dot E_r = - (1-A_e)/K_e$. Analogously, we can verify that $C_i /\dot I_r = - (1-A_i)/K_i$, so that we can rewrite the transformation as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon (n+1) &=& A_e\boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon(n) + \boldsymbol{0} \boldsymbol{\tau}_i(n) +
\frac{1-A_e}{K_e}\mathbf{GP} \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\tau}_i(n+1) &=& \boldsymbol{0}\boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon(n)+ A_i\boldsymbol{\tau}_i(n) + \frac{1-A_i}{K_i}\mathbf{G}\left(\mathds{1}-\mathbf{P}\right)\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n+1) &=&
B_e \boldsymbol{\tau}_\epsilon(n) + B_i \boldsymbol{\tau}_i(n) -
\frac{\boldsymbol{M} \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n)}{\dot {\overline \Phi}}\label{eq:lintot2}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_e = A_e S_e \dot E_r/{\dot {\overline \Phi}}$ and $B_i = A_i S_i \dot I_r/{\dot {\overline \Phi}}$.
By playing the same game of homogenous perturbations with the last equation of Eq. (\[eq:lintot\]), we find that $${\dot {\overline \Phi}} = \dot E_rS_e + \dot I_rS_i + \dot \Phi_r S_\phi \; .$$ Direct numerical simulations confirm that this condition is satisfied, as it should, since it implies that a homogeneous shift of the phase of all oscillators is time invariant.
Altogether Eq. (\[eq:lintot2\]) is a representation of the linear operator $\mathds{L}$ formally introduced in Eq. (\[eq:lingen\]). The eigenvalues of $\mathds{L}$ are the so-called Floquet multipliers $Z_i$; the synchronous solution is stable if the modulus of all multipliers is smaller than 1[^2]. One can equivalently refer to the Floquet exponents $\lambda_i = \log |Z_i|$ that we also call Lyapunov exponents with a slight stretch of the notations.
For $\alpha,\beta \gg 1$ the fields are exponentially small when the neurons reach the threshold. In this limit, the fields behave as [*slaved*]{} variables and their contribution can be neglected in the stability analysis, which reduces to diagonalizing an $N\times N$ matrix, $$\boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n+1) =
- \boldsymbol{M} \boldsymbol{\tau}_\varphi(n) \; ,\label{eq:lintot3}$$ (notice that $\dot {\overline \Phi}$ can be safely set equal to 1, as the coupling is negligible at time $\overline t$).
Transversal Lyapunov exponent
-----------------------------
A simpler approach to assess the stability of the synchronous regime consists in investigating the stability of a single neuron subject to the external periodic modulation resulting from the network activity. The corresponding growth rate $\lambda_c$ of infinitesimal perturbations is called transversal or conditional Lyapunov exponent. In mean-field models, this approach leads to the same result obtained by implementing a more rigorous theory which takes into account mutual coupling. Let the time shift at the end of a refractory period be equal to $\tau_r$; the corresponding phase shift is therefore $$\label{eq:transv0}
\phi(t_r) = \dot \Phi(t_r)\tau_r = \{1+ J \Gamma(0) [E(t_r)-I(t_r)]\}\tau_r \; .$$ From time $t_r$ up to time $\overline{t}$ the phase shift evolves according to simplified version of Eq. (\[7\]), $$\label{eq:transv}
\dot{\phi} = \Gamma'(\Phi) (E(t)-I(t))\phi \; ,$$ where we have neglected the variation of field dynamics, since the field is treated as an external forcing. As a result, $$\label{eq:tr1}
\phi(\overline{t}) = \mathrm{e}^D \phi(t_{r}) \; ,$$ where, with reference to the PRC Eq. (\[eq:PRC\]), $$\label{eq:ddef}
D = \frac{E_\circ}{\beta} \left[\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \overline{t}}-\mathrm{e}^{-\beta t_{r}}\right]-
\frac{I_\circ}{\alpha}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha \overline{t}}-\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha t_{r}}\right]$$ The corresponding time shift is $$\overline{\tau} = \frac{\phi(\overline{t})}{\dot {\overline\Phi} }$$ The shift $\overline{\tau}$ carries over unchanged until first the threshold $\phi=1$ is crossed and then the new refractory period ends. Accordingly, from Eqs. (\[eq:transv0\],\[eq:tr1\]), the expansion $R$ of the time shift over one period (a sort of Floquet multiplier) can be written as
$$\label{eq:R}
R = \frac{\overline{\tau}}{\tau_r} =
\frac{1+ J \Gamma(0) [E(t_r)-I(t_r)]}{\dot {\overline \Phi}} \mathrm{e}^D$$
This formula is substantially equivalent to Eq. (54) of Ref. [@Olmi14] ($\Lambda_{ii}$ corresponds to $R$), obtained while studying a single population under the action of $\alpha$-pulses. An additional marginal difference is that while in Ref. [@Olmi14] the single neuron dynamics is described by a non uniform velocity field $F(x)$ and homogeneous coupling strength, here we refer to a constant velocity and a phase-dependent PRC, $\Gamma(\phi)$.
The corresponding conditional Lyapunov exponent is $$\label{eq:lyapcond}
\lambda_c = \frac{\ln |R| }{T}=\frac{D+\ln{{\left|[1+J\Gamma(0)(E(t_{r})-I(t_r))]/{\dot {\overline \Phi}}\right|}}}{T}.$$ It is the sum of two contributions: the former one accounting for the linear stability of the phase evolution from reset to threshold ($D/T$); the latter term arises from the different velocity (frequency) exhibited at threshold and at the end of the refractory period. Notice the in the limit of short pulses, the field amplitude at time $\overline t$ can be set equal to zero, thereby neglecting the corresponding exponential terms in Eq. (\[eq:ddef\]) and assuming $\dot {\overline \Phi}= 0$.
Application {#sec:app}
===========
We now implement the general formalism in the case of the PRC defined by Eq. (\[eq:PRC\]), considering a network with $N=1000$ neurons, a 10% connectivity (i.e. $K=100$ with $K_e=80$ and $K_i=20$), and $g=5$; the coupling strength is assumed to be $J=0.03$, while the refractory time is $t_r=0.03$. This setup, characterized by a slight prevalence of inhibition ($g K_i \gtrsim K_e$), is often adopted in the study of balanced regimes (see e.g. [@ostojic_2014nat]).
The resulting Floquet spectra are presented in Fig. \[fig:lyap\_spec\] for three different pairs of not-too-large $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values. Rather than diagonalizing the matrix defined by Eq. (\[eq:lintot2\]), the 3,000 exponents have been determined by implementing a standard algorithm for the computation of Lyapunov exponents [@PikovskyPoliti]. The larger are $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the more step-like is the spectral shape, the two lower steps being located around the decay rate (i.e. the inverse pulse-width) of the pulses (see the three horizontal dashed lines, which correspond to $\lambda= -3$, -4, and -8, respectively). This is sort of expected, since the field dynamics basically amounts to a relaxation process controlled by the respective decay rate. Anyhow, since the overall stability is determined by the largest exponents, it is sufficient to restrict the analysis to the first part of the spectrum (to the left of the vertical dashed line in Fig. \[fig:lyap\_spec\]), which, in the limit of large $\alpha$ and $\beta$, can be directly determined by diagonalizing the matrix defined in Eq. (\[eq:lintot3\]).
The dependence of the maximum exponent $\lambda_M$ on the (inverse) pulse-width of the inhibitory spikes is reported in Fig. \[fig:short\_pulses\] (see the upper red curve). In this case, the Floquet exponent has been obtained by diagonalizing the matrix in Eq. (\[eq:lintot3\]) for a system size $N=10,000$ and a connectivity $K=1000$ ($K_e=800$, $K_i=200$).
The vertical dashed line corresponds to the symmetric case, where both excitatory and inhibitory neurons have the same width (and shape). Interestingly, the stability, determined by the largest non zero exponent, (the always present $\lambda=0$, corresponds to the neutral stability associated to a time shift of the trajectory) depends strongly on the relative excitatory/inhibitory pulse width and can even change sign: the synchronous solution is stable below $\beta=67$ [^3]. Additionally, there is evidence of a sort of singularity around $\beta=107$, when the inhibitory spikes are slightly shorter than the excitatory ones.
Given the finite dimension of the matrices, sample-to-sample fluctuations are expected. Such fluctuations are, however, rather small, as testified by the smoothness of the red curve in Fig. \[fig:short\_pulses\]. In fact, the single values of the Floquet exponents have been obtained not only by varying the (inhibitory) pulse-width, but also considering different network realizations. Although small, the fluctuations prevent drawing definite conclusions about the singularity seemingly displayed by the derivative of $\lambda_M(\beta)$ around $\beta=107$.
In the limit of a fully connected network, we expect a perfectly degenerate spectrum (all directions are mutually equivalent) and $\lambda_M$ equal to the conditional Lyapunov exponent $\lambda_c$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:lyapcond\]). The lower black curve reported in Fig. \[fig:short\_pulses\] corresponds to $\lambda_c$; except for a narrow region around $\beta=107$, $\lambda_c$ is always close to (lower than) $\lambda_M$. This means that the mean-field approximation still works pretty well in a network of 10,000 neurons with a 10% connectivity.
The explicit formula Eq. (\[eq:lyapcond\]) helps also to shed light on the $\beta$ dependence of the network stability. The main responsible for the qualitative changes observed around $\beta=107$ is the logarithmic term, arising from the difference between the velocity at threshold (equal to 1, irrespective of the $\beta$-value) and the velocity at the end of the refractory period. This latter velocity is determined by the effective field $E_{eff}(t_r)= E(t_r)-I(t_r)$ which in turn strongly depends on the relative pulse-width. The time dependence of $E_{eff}$ can be appreciated in Fig. \[fig:pulses\], where we report the trace for three different $\beta$ values (60, 90, and 120) and the same $\alpha = 100$.
There, we see that even the sign of the effective field may change; for $\beta=120$, $E_{eff}$ is initially negative because inhibition dominates, but above $t=0.02< t_r$ the slower decay of the excitatory pulses takes over, so that the effective field amplitude is positive at the end of refractoriness. For $\beta=90< \alpha=100$, inhibition prevails at all times and the effective field is thereby negative for $t=t_r$. Finally, for $\beta=60$, excitation initially prevails, but inhibition takes soon over.
From Eq. (\[eq:lyapcond\]), we see that the sign of the logarithmic contribution changes depending whether the argument is smaller or larger than 1. More precisely if the effective field is negative but larger than $-2/(J\Gamma(0))$, the discontinuity of the velocity tends to stabilize the synchronous regime; if $E_{eff}(t_R)= -1/J\Gamma(0)$ the orbit is even superstable, i.e. the Lyapunov exponent is infinitely negative. This is precisely what happens for $\beta \approx 107$. Altogether, the $\beta$ interval around $107$ separates the region where the expansion/contraction factor is positive (to the right), from the region where it is negative (to the left).
The sign of the multiplier has a simple explanation: $1+J \, \Gamma(0) \, E_{eff}(t_r) < 0$ means that the phase velocity is negative at the of the refractory period. Therefore, if one follows two nearby neurons – one leading over the other before reaching the threshold – then at the end of refractoriness, the leading neuron becomes the lagging one, as they initially move in the “wrong" direction[^4]. This explains how the pulse-width may affect the stability.
So far we have referred to the Floquet exponents, without paying attention to the phase of the multipliers. In Fig. \[fig:eigenval\] we report both real and imaginary part of all eigenvalues for four different $\beta$ values.
For $\beta = 60$ and 90, the eigenvalues (except for $Z=(1,0)$) are distributed within a circle (see panels a and b). This is reminiscent of Girko’s theorem [@girko], which states that the eigenvalues of an $N \times N$ random matrix with independent and identically distributed entries (with zero mean zero and variance equal to $1/N$), are uniformly distributed over the unit disc. However, it is not obvious how to adapt/extend this theorem to the present context, since the matrix $\bf M$ although being random does not satisfy several of the required assumptions, starting from the off-diagonal elements which take only three different values and their average is non zero.
Returning to Fig. \[fig:eigenval\], for $\beta=60$ all the eigenvalues lie within the unit circle, meaning that the synchronous solution is stable, while for $\beta=90$ [*all*]{} eigenvalues lie outside, meaning it is fully unstable: any perturbation is amplified!
Above $\beta=100$, the spectrum changes shape, becoming funnel-like: for $\beta=120$ (panel d), all eigenvalues sit again outside the unit circle, meaning that the synchronous solution is fully unstable. Interestingly, for $\beta=107$ (panel c), the funnel is almost entirely contained inside the unit circle, so that the resulting (weak) instability is due to few complex eigenvalues lying on the upper-left and lower-left corners of the funnel. As an additional remark, we can see that the eigenvalue with largest modulus (i.e. the one determining the stability) is real and negative for $\beta=60$ and $90$, while it is real and positive for $\beta=120$[^5]. This is coherent with the behavior of the sign of the multiplier $R$ (see Eq. (\[eq:R\])), which changes from positive to negative, while decreasing $\beta$. The qualitative differences observed in the region around $\beta=107$ suggest that the “singular" behavior exhibited by $\lambda_M$ is the signature of a true transition associated with a change of the spectral structure.
Finally, a few words about the leading eigenvector. It must possess some special features which are responsible for its larger expansion rate. However, we have not found any correlation with obvious indicators such as an anomalously large outgoing connectivity. We have only observed that the vector components are distributed in a Gaussian way with zero average.
Finite-amplitude perturbations
------------------------------
Finally, we have directly investigated the stability of the synchronous regime, by studying the evolution of small but finite perturbations under the action of the model Eqs. (\[eq:mod1\]-\[eq:mod2\]) in the limit of short pulses. By following the same strategy developed in tangent space, the perturbation amplitude has been quantified as the temporal shift at a specific moment. We find it convenient to identify the [*specific moment*]{} with the threshold-passing time $t^L(n)$ of the last neuron (in the $n$th period). Provided the perturbation is small enough, all neurons are still in the refractory period and their phase is equal to 0 when the time is taken. The temporal shift of the $j$th neuron can be defined as $\delta_j = t^L(n) -t_j(n)$, where $t_j(n)$ is its $n$th passing time. The perturbation amplitude is finally defined as the standard deviation $\sigma(n)$ of all temporal shifts. Given an initial distribution with a fixed $\sigma(0)$, it is let evolve to determine its value once the new set of spiking times is over. The ratio $R_f = \sigma(1) / \sigma(0)$ represents the contraction or expansion factor over one period $T$. Afterwards the standard deviation is rescaled to the original value $\sigma(0)$ to avoid it becoming either too large to be affected by nonlinear effects or too small to be undetectable. We have found that $\sigma(0) = 10^{-3}$, or $10^{-2}$ suffices to ensure meaningful results. The corresponding (finite amplitude) Lyapunov exponent $\lambda_f$ is finally obtained by iterating this procedure to let the perturbation converge along the most expanding direction and thereby computing $\lambda_f = \ln{|R_f|}/T$. We have found that 50 iterates suffice to let the transient die out.
A crucial point is the integration time step, if the model is evolved by implementing an Euler algorithm. In fact, the time step must be much smaller than the separation between ocnsecutive spike-times, since they have to be well resolved. We have verified that setting the Euler integration time step $\Delta t$ at least $100$ times smaller than $\sigma(0)$ ensures a sufficient accuracy. The numerical results, plotted in Fig. \[fig:short\_pulses\] for four different $\beta$ values (see the symbols), indeed confirm the theoretical predictions.
Conclusions and open problems {#sec:conclusion}
=============================
In this paper, we have developed a formalism to assess the stability of synchronous regimes in sparse networks of two populations of oscillators coupled via finite-width pulses. The problem is reduced to the determination of the spectral properties of a suitable class of sparse random matrices. Interestingly, we find that the relative width of excitatory and inhibitory spikes plays a crucial role even in the limit of narrow spikes, up to the point that the stability may qualitatively change. This confirms once more that the $\delta$-spike limit is and it is necessary to include the spike width into the modelling of realistic neuronal networks.
Our analytical treatment has allowed constructing the stability matrix, but deriving an analytical solution of the spectral problem remains an open problem. The conditional Lyapunov exponent provides an approximate expression for the maximum Floquet exponent. It is quite accurate in a broad range of pulse-widths but fails to predict the weak instability occurring when inhibitory pulses are slightly narrower than excitatory ones. For relatively wider inhibitory pulses, numerical simulations suggest that it will be worth exploring the possibility to extend the circular law of random matrices to sparse matrices of the type herewith derived.
While mean-field models are characterized by a degenerate spectrum (all directions being equally stable), here the degeneracy is lifted by the randomness associated with the sparse connectivity. It is therefore desirable to understand which features make some directions so special as to be characterized by a minimal stability. This is probably related to the presence of closed loops of connections among oscillators which sustain an anticipated or retarded firing activity. Further studies are required.
Afifurrahman was supported by an LPDP Indonesia fellowship.
[^1]: The peculiarity of a vanishing PRC for $\overline \Phi < \Phi \le 1$ is introduced to match the PRC recently introduced in [@ullner_politi_2006prx] to mimic delay-coupled leaky integrate-and-fire neuron. However, it does not affect the generality of the formalism, as it can be easily “removed” by assuming $\overline \Phi = 1$.
[^2]: With the exception of the unit multiplier associated with a time shift of the trajectory.
[^3]: For the sake of completeness notice that by further decreasing $\beta$, the stability changes again.
[^4]: Later, the velocity changes sign becoming positive, but this does not modify the ordering.
[^5]: In practice, depending on the network realization, the leading eigenvalues may have a small imaginary component.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe how to construct a dodecahedron, tetrahedron, cube, and octahedron out of pvc pipes using standard fittings.'
author:
- |
David Glickenstein[^1]\
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
title: PVC Polyhedra
---
Introduction
============
I wanted to build a huge dodecahedron for a museum exhibit. What better way to draw interest than a huge structure that you can walk around and through? The question was how to fabricate such an object? The dodecahedron is a fairly simple solid, made up of edges meeting in threes at certain angles that form pentagon faces. We could have them 3D printed. But could we do this with “off-the-shelf” parts?
The answer is yes, as seen in Figure \[fig:dodec\]. The key fact to consider is that each vertex corner consists of three edges coming together in a fairly symmetric way. Therefore, we can take a connector with three pipe inputs and make the corner a graph over it. In particular, if we take a connector that takes three pipes each at 120 degree angles from the others (this is called a “true wye”) and we take elbows of the appropriate angle, we can make the edges come together below the center at exactly the correct angles.
\[ptb\]
[./dodecdesert-3.png]{}
What is the correct elbow angle?
================================
Suppose the wye has three length 1 pipes connected to it and the actual vertex $v$ is below the vertex $v_{W}$ of the wye. Let $X$ and $Y$ be the endpoints of two of the wye segments. Then the segment $XY$ is of length $\sqrt{3}$ since it is opposite a 120 degree angle in the triangle $XYv_{W}.$ We know that the angle $XvY$ at vertex $v$ has the angle of a regular pentagon, which is $108$ degrees. Thus the length of segment $Xv$ is $$\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}/\sin\left( 108{{}^\circ}\ast\frac{1}{2}\right) =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{15}-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{3}=1.\,071.$$ The needed angle at the elbow (in degrees) is $$\arccos\left( \frac{1}{1.\,071}\right) =20.\,98{{}^\circ}$$ We can get an elbow that is 22.5 degrees (which is half of 45 degrees). That would be off by about 1.5 degrees, so the angles for the pentagons are actually off by 3 degrees, which is $3/108=2.8\%.$ The length of $vv_{W}$ is then $$\sqrt{\left( \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{15}-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{3}\right) ^{2}-1}=\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{5}=0.382.$$ Thus the actual vertices are $0.382$ times the distance from the elbow to the center of the wye. Ours is 2.5 inches, and so the actual vertices are $0.382\ast2.5=0.955$ inches from the center of the wye. Furthermore, given whatever length we have of the tube, the actual vertices will be an additional $1.071\ast2.5=2.\,678$ inches on each side. A close-up of the vertex joint can be seen in Figure \[fig:dodecvertex\].
\[ptb\]
[./IMG\_0373-3.png]{}
More platonic solids
====================
There are actually four platonic solids: the tetrahedron, the cube, the octahedron, the dodecahedron, and the icosahedron. The vertices of a cube can be purchased at a plumbing supply shop. We can also make the octahedron and a tetrahedron with careful consideration.
For a regular tetrahedron, we compute similarly$$\left\vert Xv\right\vert =\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}/\sin\left( 30{{}^\circ}\right) =\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}}3$$ and the needed elbow is $\arccos\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right) =54.7{{}^\circ}.$ If we use a three-way cube coupling, the angle with the vertex is $$\arccos\left( \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\right) =35.3{{}^\circ}.$$ So with this we just need an elbow of $$54.7-35.3=19.4{{}^\circ}.$$ This is not too far from 22.5 degrees.
For an octahedron, it can be verified that what is needed is simply a four-way plus connector and 45 degree elbows. These can actually be purchased at most large hardware/home improvement stores. The tetrahedron and octahedron can be seen in Figure \[fig:tetraocta\]
\[ptb\]
[./STEMWORKS1-3.png]{}
Make your own dodecahedron
==========================
If you want to make your own dodecahedron, here is a quick inventory and size calculator. Wikipedia is a good resource for some of these numbers [@wik]. Since the dodecahedron has 20 vertices, you will need 20 true wyes and 60 twenty-two and half degree elbows. You will then need 60 small lengths of PVC to connect the wyes and elbows, and you will want to use PVC glue to make the connections strong. Then you will need 30 edges of roughly the same length (it is very forgiving). To calculate the lengths, you need to decide how large you want your dodecahedron to be.
Consider a dodecahedron with edge length $1.$ We have the following:
\[c\][|c|c|]{}inradius & $\frac{1}{20}\sqrt{250+110\sqrt{5}}\approx1.114$\
circumradius & $\frac{1}{4}\left( \sqrt{15}+\sqrt{3}\right) \approx
1.401$\
inradius of face & $\frac{1}{10}\sqrt{25+10\sqrt{5}}\approx0.688$\
circumradius of face & $\frac{1}{10}\sqrt{50+10\sqrt{5}}\approx0.851$\
dihedral angle & $\arccos\left( -\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) \approx
2.\,034\approx116.\,56^{\circ}$\
height of second row of vertices & $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{5+2\sqrt{5}}\sin\left(
\pi-\arccos\left( \frac{-1}{\sqrt{5}}\right) \right) \approx1.\,376$\
So to have a dodecahedron that sits $6$ ft. tall, we need edge length of $6/2.228=2.\,693$ ft. Also, the height of the second row of vertices (highest height to enter from) would be about $\left( 1.\,376\right) \left(
2.693\right) =3.\,706$ ft. Inside the dodecahedron we would have around $\left( 0.688\right) \left( 2.693\right) \left( 2\right) =3.\,706$ feet in diameter to stand. The dodecahedron itself takes up a diameter of $\left(
1.401\right) \left( 2.693\right) \left( 2\right) =7.\,546$ ft. The base of the dodecahedron takes up a diameter of $\left( 0.851\right) \left(
2.693\right) \left( 2\right) =4.\,584$ ft.
Epilogue
========
The exhibit Proofs, Puzzles, and Patterns: Explore the World of Mathematics [@PPP; @Peiffer] opened at Flandrau Science Center in October 2015, as seen in Figure \[fig:ppp\]. The PVC dodecahedron was a hit, but in the end it was not sturdy enough for the exhibit floor. The dodecahedron and other polyhedra have found use in traveling exhibits by Bruce Bayly and his Mathematics Road Show [@AMRS] as well as at some other enrichment locations. It is a great group activity to put together the dodecahedron, and takes only around 10 minutes.
\[ptb\]
[./PPP\_Overview1-3.png]{}
The author would like to thank the staff at Flandrau Science Center for their help and support in the construction of the Proofs, Puzzles, and Patterns exhibit, especially Bill Plant, Shiloe Fontes, and Kellee Campbell, Neil McSweeney, and Shipherd Reed; Greg McNamee for all of his work on the panels for the exhibit; Marta Civil for her providing most of the puzzles aspect of the exhibit; and Bruce Bayly, who is credited with the first picture and who first assembled the PVC dodecahedron for the author in his own back yard, and who has been a huge encouragement throughout.
[9]{}
Arizona Math Road Show. <http://math.arizona.edu/outreach/programs/az-math-roadshow>.
R. Peiffer. Flandrau Exhibition Goes Beyond the Mere Facts in Math. UA News, May 23, 2016.
Puzzles, Proofs, and Patterns: Experience the World of Mathematics. Flandrau Science Center, Tucson, AZ. <http://flandrau.org/exhibits/puzzles>.
Dodecahedron. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodecahedron>.
[^1]: Partially funded by NSF DMS 0748283.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The notion of a modified Rota-Baxter algebra comes from the combination of those of a Rota-Baxter algebra and a modified Yang-Baxter equation. In this paper, we first construct free modified Rota-Baxter algebras. We then equip a free modified Rota-Baxter algebra with a bialgebra structure by a cocycle construction. Under the assumption that the generating algebra is a connected bialgebra, we further equip the free modified Rota-Baxter algebra with a Hopf algebra structure.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, Jiangxi 330022, China'
- 'School of Mathematics and Statistics, Key Laboratory of Applied Mathematics and Complex Systems, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, P.R. China'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ 07102, USA'
author:
- Xigou Zhang
- Xing Gao
- Li Guo
title: 'Free modified Rota-Baxter algebras and Hopf algebras'
---
Introduction
============
This paper studies free objects in the category of modified Rota-Baxter algebras, a concept coming from the combination of a Rota-Baxter algebra and a modified Yang-Baxter equation. It also equips the free objects with bialgebra and Hopf algebra structures.
For a fixed constant $\lambda$, a [**Rota-Baxter operator**]{} of weight $\lambda$ is a linear operator $P$ on an associative algebra $R$ that satisfies the [**Rota-Baxter equation**]{}: $$P(x)P(y)=P(P(x)y) + P(xP(y)) +\lambda P(xy), \quad \forall x, y\in R.
\mlabel{eq:rbe}$$ An associative algebra $R$ equipped with a Rota-Baxter operator is called a [**Rota-Baxter algebra**]{}, a notion originated from the probability study of G. Baxter in 1960. Later it attracted the attention of well-known mathematicians such as Atkinson, Cartier and Rota . After some years of dormancy, its study experienced a quite remarkable renascence since late 1990s, with many applications in mathematics and physics . In particular, it appeared as one of the fundamental algebraic structures in the profound work of Connes and Kreimer on renormalization of quantum field theory . See for further details and references.
The concept of the classical Yang-Baxter equation arose from the study of inverse scattering theory and is also related to Schouten bracket in differential geometry. Further it can be regarded as the classical limit of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation, named after C.-Y. Yang and R. Baxter. In the 1980s, Semonov-Tian-Shansky [@Sem] found that, under suitable conditions, the operator form of the classical Yang-Baxter equation is precisely the Rota-Baxter identity (of weight 0) on a Lie algebra. As a modified form of the operator form of the classical Yang-Baxter equation, he also introduced in that paper the [**modified classical Yang-Baxter equation**]{}: $$[P(x),P(y)]=P[P(x),y]+P[x,P(y)]- [x, y],
\mlabel{eq:mybel}$$ later found applications in the study of generalized Lax pairs and affine geometry on Lie groups . As the associative analogue of Eq. (), the equation $$P(x) P(y) = P (P(x)y) + P(xP(y))- xy. \mlabel{eq:mybea}$$ is called the [**modified associative Yang-Baxter equation**]{}, which has been applied to the study of extended $\calo$-operators, associative Yang-Baxter equations, infinitesimal bialgebras and dendriform algebras .
In the spirit of the aforementioned Yang-Baxter equation to Rota-Baxter operator connection, a linear operator $P$ satisfying Eq. () is called a [**modified Rota-Baxter operator**]{} and an associative algebra $R$ equipped with a modified Rota-Baxter operator is called a [**modified Rota-Baxter algebra**]{}.
Integrating the notions of the Rota-Baxter algebra and modified Rota-Baxter algebra, the concept of a modified Rota-Baxter algebra with a weight was introduced in as a special case of extended $\mathcal{O}$-operators in connection with the extended associative Yang-Baxter equation. The latter motivated their study in the Lie algebra context . In , free commutative modified Rota-Baxter algebras were constructed by means of a modified quasi-shuffle product and modified stuffle product, in analogy to the case of free commutative Rota-Baxter algebras .
Considering the close relationship between the modified Rota-Baxter (associative) algebras and the modified Yang-Baxter equation for Lie algebras, it is especially interesting to consider noncommutative modified Rota-Baxter algebras. This is the subject of study of this paper, focusing on the construction of the free objects and the Hopf algebra structures on the free objects. More precisely, in Section , we obtain an explicit construction of the free modified Rota-Baxter algebra on an algebra, by giving a natural basis of the algebra and the corresponding multiplication table. In Section , we further provide a bialgebra and then a Hopf algebra structure on the free modified Rota-Baxter algebra.
0.1in
[**Notations.**]{} For the rest of this paper, unless otherwise specified, algebras are [**associative unitary**]{} algebras over a commutative unitary algebra $\bfk$.
Free Modified Rota-Baxter Algebras
==================================
In this section we construct free modified Rota-Baxter algebras. We give the construction in Section , leading to the main Theorem of this section. The proof of the theorem is completed in Section .
The general construction of the free modified Rota-Baxter algebras
------------------------------------------------------------------
We begin with the general definition of modified Rota-Baxter algebras.
Let $R$ be a $\bfk$-algebra and $\kappa\in \bfk$. A linear map $P:R\to R$ is called a [**modified Rota-Baxter operator**]{} of weight $\kappa$ if $P$ satisfies the operator identity $$P(u)P(v)=P(uP(v))+P(P(u)v)+\kappa uv, \quad \text{for all } u, v\in R.
\mlabel{eq:mrbo}$$ Then the pair $(R, P)$ or simply $R$ is called a [**modified Rota-Baxter algebra**]{} of weight $\kappa$.
Together with the algebra homomorphisms between the algebras that preserves the linear operators, the class of modified Rota-Baxter algebras of weight $\kappa$ forms a category. We refer the reader to and the references therein for basic properties of modified Rota-Baxter algebras and focus our attention to the construction of free modified Rota-Baxter algebras. We first give the definition.
Let $A$ be a $\bfk$-algebra. A [**free modified Rota-Baxter algebra on $A$**]{} is a modified Rota-Baxter algebra $(F(A),P_A)$ together with an algebra homomorphism $j:A\longrightarrow F(A)$ with the property that, for any given modified Rota-Baxter algebra $(R,P)$ and algebra homomorphism $f:A \longrightarrow R$, there is a unique homomorphism $\free{f}: F(A)\longrightarrow R$ of modified Rota-Baxter algebras such that $\free{f} j =f$.
Note that taking $A$ to be the free algebra $\bfk\langle Y \rangle$ on a set $Y$, we obtain the free modified Rota-Baxter algebra on the set $Y$. Let $A$ be a $\bfk$-algebra with a $\bfk$-basis $X$. We first display a $\bfk$-basis ${\mathfrak}X_\infty$ of free modified Rota-Baxter algebras in terms of bracketed words from the alphabet set $X$.
The set ${\mathfrak}X_\infty$ is called the set of [**Rota-Baxter words**]{} that was applied to construct free Rota-Baxter algebras . Enumeration properties and generating functions of Rota-Baxter words were obtained in to which we refer the reader for further details.
Let $\lc$ and $\rc$ be two different symbols not in $X$, called brackets, and let $X':= X\cup \{\lc,\rc\}$. Denote by $M(X')$ the free monoid generated by $X'$.
() Let $Y,Z$ be two subsets of $M(X')$. Define the [**alternating product**]{} of $Y$ and $Z$ to be Here $\sqcup$ stands for disjoint union.
For example, $y_1\lc z_1\rc y_2, \lc z_1\rc y_1 \lc z_2\rc, y_1, y_2\in Y, z_1, z_2\in Z,$ are elements in $\altx(Y,Z)$. But $\lc z_1\rc \lc z_2\rc$ are not in $\altx(Y,Z)$.
We construct a sequence ${\mathfrak}X_n$ of subsets of $M(X')$ by the following recursion on $n\geq 0$. For the initial step, we define ${\mathfrak}X_0:=X\cup \{1\}$. For the inductive step, we define $${\mathfrak}X_{n+1} := \altx(X,{\mathfrak}X_n) \cup \{1\}\, \text{ for } n\geq 1.$$
For example, for $x_1,x_2,x_3\in X$, the elements $\lc x_1\rc x_2 \lc x_3\rc, x_1\lc x_2\lc x_3\rc \rc$ and $\lc \lc x_1 \rc x_2 \lc\lc x_3\rc\rc\rc$ are all in ${\mathfrak}X_3$, the first two are in ${\mathfrak}X_2$ and the first one is in ${\mathfrak}X_1$.
From the definition we have ${\mathfrak}X_1\supseteq {\mathfrak}X_0$. Assuming ${\mathfrak}X_n\supseteq {\mathfrak}X_{n-1}$, we get $${\mathfrak}X_{n+1}=\altx(X,{\mathfrak}X_n) \supseteq \altx(X,{\mathfrak}X_{n-1}) ={\mathfrak}X_n.$$ Thus we can define $$\frakX_\infty:= \dirlim \frakX_n = \bigcup_{n\geq 0} {\mathfrak}X_n.$$ For $\frakx\in \frakX_\infty$, we define the [**depth**]{} $\dep(\frakx)$ of $\frakx$ to be $$\dep(\frakx):= \min\{ n\mid \frakx \in \frakX_n\}.$$ Further, every ${\mathfrak}x\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty\setminus\{1\}$ has a unique [**standard decomposition:**]{} $${\mathfrak}x={\mathfrak}x_1 \cdots {\mathfrak}x_b,
\mlabel{eq:st}$$ where ${\mathfrak}x_i$, $1\leq i\leq b$, are alternatively in $X$ or in $\lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty\rc$. We call $b$ to be the [**breadth**]{} of ${\mathfrak}x$, denoted by $\bre({\mathfrak}x)$. We define the [**head**]{} $h({\mathfrak}x)$ of ${\mathfrak}x$ to be 0 (resp. 1) if ${\mathfrak}x_1$ is in $X$ (resp. in $\lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty \rc$). Similarly define the [**tail**]{} $t({\mathfrak}x)$ of ${\mathfrak}x$ to be 0 (resp. 1) if ${\mathfrak}x_b$ is in $X$ (resp. in $\lc
{\mathfrak}X_\infty \rc$).
Fix a $\kappa\in \bfk$. We will equip the free $\bfk$-module $$\FN(A)=\bfk\,\frakX_\infty=\bigoplus_{{\mathfrak}x\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty} \bfk {\mathfrak}x
\mlabel{eq:fma}$$ with a multiplication $\shpr:=\shpr_\kappa$. This is accomplished by defining ${\mathfrak}x\shpr
{\mathfrak}x'\in \FN(A)$ for basis elements ${\mathfrak}x,{\mathfrak}x'\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ and then extending bilinearly. Roughly speaking, the product of ${\mathfrak}x$ and ${\mathfrak}x'$ is defined to be the concatenation whenever $t({\mathfrak}x)\neq
h({\mathfrak}x')$. When $t({\mathfrak}x)=h({\mathfrak}x')$, the product is defined by the product in $A$ or by the modified Rota-Baxter identity in Eq. ().
To be precise, we use induction on the sum $n:= \dep({\mathfrak}x)+\dep({\mathfrak}x')\geq 0$ to define $\frakx\diamond \frakx'$. For the initial step of $n=0$, ${\mathfrak}x,{\mathfrak}x'$ are in $X$ and so are in $A$. Then we define $${\mathfrak}x\shpr {\mathfrak}x':={\mathfrak}x \spr {\mathfrak}x'\in A \subseteq \FN(A).$$ Here $\spr$ is the product in $A$.
For the inductive step, let $k\geq 0$ be given and assume that ${\mathfrak}x\shpr {\mathfrak}x'$ have been defined for all ${\mathfrak}x,{\mathfrak}x'\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ with $n = \dep({\mathfrak}x)+\dep({\mathfrak}x') \leq k$. Then consider ${\mathfrak}x, {\mathfrak}x'\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ with $n= \dep({\mathfrak}x)+\dep({\mathfrak}x')=k+1$. First treat the case when $\bre({\mathfrak}x)=\bre({\mathfrak}x')=1$. Then ${\mathfrak}x$ and ${\mathfrak}x'$ are in $X$ or $\lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty\rc$. Since $n=k+1\geq 1$, ${\mathfrak}x$ and ${\mathfrak}x'$ cannot be both in $X$. We accordingly define $${\mathfrak}x \shpr {\mathfrak}x' :=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\mathfrak}x {\mathfrak}x', & {\rm if\ } {\mathfrak}x\in X\,\text{ and }\, {\mathfrak}x'\in \lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty\rc,\\
{\mathfrak}x {\mathfrak}x', & {\rm if\ } {\mathfrak}x\in \lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty\rc\,\text{ and }\, {\mathfrak}x'\in X,\\
\lc \lc \ox\rc \shpr \ox'\rc +\lc \ox \shpr \lc \ox'\rc \rc +\kappa
\ox \shpr \ox', & {\rm if\ } {\mathfrak}x=\lc \ox\rc\,\text{ and }\, {\mathfrak}x'=\lc
\ox'\rc \in \lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty \rc.
\end{array} \right .
\mlabel{eq:shprod}$$ Here the product in the first and second case are by concatenation and in the third case is by the induction hypothesis since for the three products on the right hand side we have $$\begin{aligned}
\dep(\lc\ox \rc)+ \dep(\ox') &=& \dep(\lc \ox \rc)+\dep(\lc \ox' \rc)-1
= \dep({\mathfrak}x)+\dep({\mathfrak}x')-1 = k,\\
\dep(\ox)+\dep(\lc \ox'\rc) &=& \dep(\lc \ox \rc)+\dep(\lc \ox'\rc)-1
= \dep({\mathfrak}x)+ \dep({\mathfrak}x')-1 = k,\\
\dep(\ox)+ \dep(\ox') &=& \dep(\lc \ox \rc)-1+ \dep(\lc \ox' \rc)-1 =
\dep({\mathfrak}x)+\dep({\mathfrak}x')-2 = k-1.\end{aligned}$$
We next treat the case when $\bre({\mathfrak}x)>1$ or $\bre({\mathfrak}x')>1$. Let ${\mathfrak}x={\mathfrak}x_1\cdots{\mathfrak}x_b$ and ${\mathfrak}x'={\mathfrak}x'_1\cdots{\mathfrak}x'_{b'}$ be the standard decompositions from Eq. (). We then define $${\mathfrak}x \shpr {\mathfrak}x'= {\mathfrak}x_1\cdots {\mathfrak}x_{b-1}({\mathfrak}x_b\shpr
{\mathfrak}x'_1)\,
{\mathfrak}x'_{2}\cdots {\mathfrak}x'_{b'}
\mlabel{eq:cdiam}$$ where ${\mathfrak}x_b\shpr {\mathfrak}x'_1$ is defined by Eq. () and the rest is given by concatenation. Extending $\shpr$ bilinearly, we obtain a binary operation $$\shpr: \FN(A)\otimes \FN(A) \to \FN(A).$$ This completes the definition of $\shpr$.
Let ${\mathfrak}x,{\mathfrak}x'\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$.
1. $h({\mathfrak}x)=h({\mathfrak}x\shpr {\mathfrak}x')$ and $t({\mathfrak}x')=t({\mathfrak}x\shpr {\mathfrak}x')$.
2. If $t({\mathfrak}x)\neq h({\mathfrak}x')$, then ${\mathfrak}x \shpr {\mathfrak}x' ={\mathfrak}x {\mathfrak}x'$ (concatenation).
3. If $t({\mathfrak}x)\neq h({\mathfrak}x')$, then for any ${\mathfrak}x''\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$, $$({\mathfrak}x{\mathfrak}x')\shpr {\mathfrak}x'' ={\mathfrak}x({\mathfrak}x' \shpr {\mathfrak}x'')\,\text{ and }\,
{\mathfrak}x''\shpr ({\mathfrak}x {\mathfrak}x') =({\mathfrak}x'' \shpr {\mathfrak}x) {\mathfrak}x'.$$
Items () and () follow from the definition of $\shpr$. The proof of Item () is the same as [@Gub Lemma 4.4.5].
We next define a linear operator $$\mop: \FN(A) \to \FN(A) , \, \,\frakx \mapsto \lc {\mathfrak}x \rc.$$ *In the rest of the paper*, we will use the infix notation $\lc \frakx\rc$ interchangeably with $\mop(\frakx)$ for any $\frakx\in \FN(A)$. Let $$j_X:X \hookrightarrow {\mathfrak}X_\infty \hookrightarrow \FN(A)$$ be the natural injection which extends to an algebra injection $$j_A: A \to \FN(A).$$
Now we state our first main result, to be proved in the next subsection.
Let $A$ be a $\bf k$-algebra with a $\bf k$-basis $X$ and $\kappa\in \bfk$ be given.
1. The pair $(\FN(A),\shpr)$ is an algebra.
2. The triple $(\FN(A),\shpr,\mop)$ is a modified Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\kappa$.
3. The triple $(\FN(A),\shpr,\mop$) together with the embedding $j_A$ is the free modified Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\kappa$ on the algebra $A$.
The proof of Theorem
---------------------
(). It is enough to verify the associativity for basis elements: $$({\mathfrak}x'\shpr {\mathfrak}x'')\shpr {\mathfrak}x''' ={\mathfrak}x'\shpr({\mathfrak}x'' \shpr {\mathfrak}x'''),\,\text{ for all } {\mathfrak}x',{\mathfrak}x'',{\mathfrak}x'''\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty.
\mlabel{eq:assx}$$ We carry out the verification by induction on the sum of the depths $$n:=\dep({\mathfrak}x')+\dep({\mathfrak}x'')+\dep({\mathfrak}x''')\geq 0.$$ If $n=0$, then $$\dep({\mathfrak}x') = \dep({\mathfrak}x'') = \dep({\mathfrak}x''') = 0$$ and so ${\mathfrak}x',{\mathfrak}x'',{\mathfrak}x'''\in X$. In this case the product $\shpr$ is given by the product in $A$ and so is associative.
Assume that Eq. () holds for $n\leq k$ for any given $k\geq 0$ and consider ${\mathfrak}x',{\mathfrak}x'',{\mathfrak}x'''\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ with $$n=\dep({\mathfrak}x')+\dep({\mathfrak}x'')+\dep({\mathfrak}x''')=k+1\geq 1.$$ If $t({\mathfrak}x')\neq h({\mathfrak}x'')$, then by Lemma , $$({\mathfrak}x' \shpr {\mathfrak}x'') \shpr {\mathfrak}x'''=({\mathfrak}x'{\mathfrak}x'')\shpr {\mathfrak}x'''
= {\mathfrak}x' ({\mathfrak}x'' \shpr {\mathfrak}x''') ={\mathfrak}x'\shpr ({\mathfrak}x''\shpr
{\mathfrak}x''').$$ A similar argument holds when $t({\mathfrak}x'')\neq h({\mathfrak}x''')$. Thus we only need to verify the associativity when $t({\mathfrak}x')=h({\mathfrak}x'')$ and $t({\mathfrak}x'')=h({\mathfrak}x''')$. We next reduce the proof to the breadths of the words and depart to show a lemma.
If Eq. () holds for all ${\mathfrak}x', {\mathfrak}x''$ and ${\mathfrak}x'''$ in ${\mathfrak}X_\infty$ of breadth one, then it holds for all ${\mathfrak}x', {\mathfrak}x''$ and ${\mathfrak}x'''$ in ${\mathfrak}X_\infty$.
We use induction on the sum of breadths $m:=\bre({\mathfrak}x')+ \bre({\mathfrak}x'')+\bre({\mathfrak}x''')\geq 3$. The case when $m=3$ is the assumption of the lemma. Assume the associativity holds for $m\leq j$ for some $j\geq 3$ and take ${\mathfrak}x', {\mathfrak}x'',{\mathfrak}x'''\in
{\mathfrak}X_\infty$ with $m = j+1\geq 4.$ So at least one of ${\mathfrak}x',{\mathfrak}x'',{\mathfrak}x'''$ has breadth greater than or equal to 2.
First assume that $\bre({\mathfrak}x')\geq 2$. Then we may write $${\mathfrak}x'={\mathfrak}x'_1{\mathfrak}x'_2,\,\text{ where } {\mathfrak}x'_1,\, {\mathfrak}x'_2\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty\,\text{ and }\, t({\mathfrak}x'_1)\neq
h({\mathfrak}x'_2).$$ By Lemma , we obtain $$({\mathfrak}x'\shpr {\mathfrak}x'') \shpr {\mathfrak}x'''=
(({\mathfrak}x'_1{\mathfrak}x'_2)\shpr {\mathfrak}x'')\shpr {\mathfrak}x'''
= ({\mathfrak}x'_1 ({\mathfrak}x'_2 \shpr {\mathfrak}x''))\shpr {\mathfrak}x'''
= {\mathfrak}x'_1 (({\mathfrak}x'_2 \shpr {\mathfrak}x'') \shpr {\mathfrak}x''').$$ Similarly, $${\mathfrak}x'\shpr ({\mathfrak}x'' \shpr {\mathfrak}x''')=
({\mathfrak}x'_1{\mathfrak}x'_2)\shpr ({\mathfrak}x''\shpr {\mathfrak}x''')
= {\mathfrak}x'_1 ({\mathfrak}x'_2 \shpr ({\mathfrak}x''\shpr {\mathfrak}x''')).$$ Thus $$({\mathfrak}x'\shpr {\mathfrak}x'') \shpr {\mathfrak}x'''=
{\mathfrak}x'\shpr ({\mathfrak}x'' \shpr {\mathfrak}x''')$$ whenever $$({\mathfrak}x'_2 \shpr {\mathfrak}x'') \shpr {\mathfrak}x'''=
{\mathfrak}x'_2 \shpr ({\mathfrak}x''\shpr {\mathfrak}x'''),$$ which follows from the induction hypothesis. A similar proof works if $\bre({\mathfrak}x''')\geq 2.$
Finally if $\bre({\mathfrak}x'')\geq 2$, we may write $${\mathfrak}x''={\mathfrak}x''_1{\mathfrak}x''_2\,\text{ where }\, {\mathfrak}x''_1,\,{\mathfrak}x''_2\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty\,\text{ and }\, t({\mathfrak}x''_1)\neq h({\mathfrak}x''_2).$$ By Lemma again, we get $$({\mathfrak}x' \shpr {\mathfrak}x'')\shpr {\mathfrak}x'''=
({\mathfrak}x' \shpr ({\mathfrak}x''_1 {\mathfrak}x''_2)) \shpr {\mathfrak}x''' \\
= (({\mathfrak}x' \shpr {\mathfrak}x''_1){\mathfrak}x''_2)\shpr {\mathfrak}x'''
= ({\mathfrak}x'\shpr {\mathfrak}x''_1)({\mathfrak}x''_2 \shpr {\mathfrak}x''').$$ In the same way, we have $$({\mathfrak}x'\shpr {\mathfrak}x''_1)({\mathfrak}x''_2 \shpr {\mathfrak}x''')
= {\mathfrak}x'\shpr ({\mathfrak}x'' \shpr {\mathfrak}x''').$$ This proves the associativity.
In summary, the proof of the associativity has been reduced to the special case when ${\mathfrak}x',{\mathfrak}x'',{\mathfrak}x'''\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ are chosen so that
1. $n= \dep({\mathfrak}x')+ \dep({\mathfrak}x'') + \dep({\mathfrak}x''')=k+1\geq 1$ with the assumption that the associativity holds when $n\leq k$.
2. the elements have breadth one and
3. $t({\mathfrak}x')=h({\mathfrak}x'')$ and $t({\mathfrak}x'')=h({\mathfrak}x''')$.
By Item (), the head and tail of each of the elements are the same. Therefore by Item (), either all the three elements are in $X$ or they are all in $\lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty \rc$. If all of ${\mathfrak}x',{\mathfrak}x'',{\mathfrak}x'''$ are in $X$, then as already shown, the associativity follows from the associativity in $A$. So it remains to consider the case when ${\mathfrak}x',{\mathfrak}x'',{\mathfrak}x'''$ are all in $\lc
{\mathfrak}X_\infty \rc$. Then we may write $${\mathfrak}x'=\lc \ox'\rc, {\mathfrak}x''=\lc \ox''
\rc, {\mathfrak}x'''=\lc \ox'''\rc \,\text{ with }\, \ox',\ox'',\ox'''\in
{\mathfrak}X_\infty.$$ Applying Eq. () and bilinearity of the product $\shpr$, we get Similarly we obtain Now by the induction hypothesis, the $i$-th term in the expansion of $({\mathfrak}x'\shpr
{\mathfrak}x'')\shpr {\mathfrak}x'''$ coincides with the $\sigma(i)$-th term in the expansion of ${\mathfrak}x'\shpr({\mathfrak}x'' \shpr {\mathfrak}x''')$. Here $\sigma\in \Sigma_{9}$ is the permutation given by $$\sigma= \left ( \begin{array}{ccccccccccc} 1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\
1&6&9&2&4&7&3&5&8\end{array} \right ).$$ This completes the proof of Theorem ().
(). The proof follows from the definition $\mop({\mathfrak}x)=\lc {\mathfrak}x\rc$ and Eq. ().
(). Let $(M,\ast,P)$ be a modified Rota-Baxter algebra with multiplication $\ast$ and let $f:A\to M$ be a $\bfk$-algebra homomorphism. We will construct a $\bfk$-linear map $\free{f}:\FN(A) \to M$ by defining $\free{f}({\mathfrak}x)$ for ${\mathfrak}x\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$. We achieve this by defining $\free{f}({\mathfrak}x)$ for ${\mathfrak}x\in {\mathfrak}X_n,\ n\geq 0$, inductively on $n$. For ${\mathfrak}x\in {\mathfrak}X_0:=X$, define $\free{f}({\mathfrak}x)=f({\mathfrak}x).$ Then $j \free{f}=f$ is satisfied. Suppose $\free{f}({\mathfrak}x)$ has been defined for ${\mathfrak}x\in {\mathfrak}X_n$ and consider ${\mathfrak}x$ in ${\mathfrak}X_{n+1}$ which is, by definition, $$\begin{aligned}
\altx(X,{\mathfrak}X_{n}) =
\Big( \bigsqcup_{r\geq 1} (X\lc {\mathfrak}X_{n}\rc)^r \Big) \bigsqcup
\Big(\bigsqcup_{r\geq 0} (X\lc {\mathfrak}X_{n}\rc)^r X\Big) \bigsqcup \Big( \bigsqcup_{r\geq 0} \lc {\mathfrak}X_{n}\rc (X\lc {\mathfrak}X_{n}\rc)^r \Big)
\bigsqcup \Big( \bigsqcup_{r\geq 0} \lc {\mathfrak}X_{n}\rc (X\lc {\mathfrak}X_{n}\rc)^r X\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Let ${\mathfrak}x$ be in the first union component $\bigsqcup_{r\geq 1}
(X\lc {\mathfrak}X_{n}\rc)^r$ above. Then $${\mathfrak}x = \prod_{i=1}^r({\mathfrak}x_{2i-1} \lc {\mathfrak}x_{2i} \rc)$$ for ${\mathfrak}x_{2i-1}\in X$ and ${\mathfrak}x_{2i}\in {\mathfrak}X_n$, $1\leq i\leq
r$. By the construction of the multiplication $\shpr$ and the modified Rota-Baxter operator $\mop$, we have $${\mathfrak}x= \shpr_{i=1}^r({\mathfrak}x_{2i-1} \shpr \lc {\mathfrak}x_{2i}\rc)
= \shpr_{i=1}^r({\mathfrak}x_{2i-1} \shpr \mop({\mathfrak}x_{2i})).$$ Define $$\free{f}({\mathfrak}x) = \ast_{i=1}^r \big(\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_{2i-1})
\ast \mop\big (\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_{2i})) \big).
\mlabel{eq:hom}$$ where the right hand side is well-defined by the induction hypothesis. Similarly define $\free{f}({\mathfrak}x)$ if ${\mathfrak}x$ is in the other union components. For any ${\mathfrak}x\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$, we have $\mop({\mathfrak}x)=\lc {\mathfrak}x\rc\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$, and by the definition of $\free{f}$ in (Eq. ()), we have $$\free{f}(\lc {\mathfrak}x \rc)=P(\free{f}({\mathfrak}x)). \mlabel{eq:hom1-2}$$ So $\free{f}$ commutes with the modified Rota-Baxter operators. Combining this equation with Eq. () we see that if ${\mathfrak}x={\mathfrak}x_1\cdots {\mathfrak}x_b$ is the standard decomposition of ${\mathfrak}x$, then $$\free{f}({\mathfrak}x)=\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_1)*\cdots * \free{f}({\mathfrak}x_b).$$
Note that this is the only possible way to define $\free{f}({\mathfrak}x)$ in order for $\free{f}$ to be a modified Rota-Baxter algebra homomorphism extending $f$. It remains to prove that the map $\free{f}$ defined in Eq. () is indeed an algebra homomorphism. For this we only need to check the multiplicity $$\free{f} ({\mathfrak}x \shpr {\mathfrak}x')=\free{f}({\mathfrak}x) \ast
\free{f}({\mathfrak}x') \mlabel{eq:hom2}$$ for all ${\mathfrak}x,{\mathfrak}x'\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$. For this we use induction on the sum of depths $n:=\bre({\mathfrak}x)+\bre({\mathfrak}x')$. Then $n\geq 0$. When $n=0$, we have ${\mathfrak}x,{\mathfrak}x'\in X$. Then Eq. () follows from the multiplicity of $f$. Assume the multiplicity holds for ${\mathfrak}x,{\mathfrak}x' \in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ with $n\geq k$ and take ${\mathfrak}x,{\mathfrak}x'\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ with $n=k+1$. Let ${\mathfrak}x={\mathfrak}x_1\cdots {\mathfrak}x_b$ and ${\mathfrak}x'={\mathfrak}x'_1\cdots{\mathfrak}x'_{b'}$ be the standard decompositions. Since $n=k+1\geq 1$, at least one of ${\mathfrak}x_b$ and ${\mathfrak}x'_{b'}$ is in $\lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty\rc$. Then by Eq. () we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_b\shpr {\mathfrak}x'_1)&= \left \{\begin{array}{ll}
\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_b {\mathfrak}x'_1), & {\rm if\ } {\mathfrak}x_b\in X, {\mathfrak}x'_1\in \lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty\rc,\\
\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_b {\mathfrak}x'_1), & {\rm if\ } {\mathfrak}x_b\in \lc
{\mathfrak}X_\infty\rc,
{\mathfrak}x'_1\in X,\\
\free{f}\big( \lc \lc \ox_b\rc \shpr \ox'_1\rc +\lc \ox_b \shpr \lc
\ox'_1\rc \rc+\kappa \ox_b \shpr \ox'_1 \big), & {\rm if\ }
{\mathfrak}x_b=\lc \ox_b\rc, {\mathfrak}x'_1=\lc \ox'_1\rc \in \lc {\mathfrak}X_\infty
\rc.
\end{array} \right .\end{aligned}$$
In the first two cases, the right hand side is $\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_b)*\free{f}({\mathfrak}x'_1)$ by the definition of $\free{f}$. In the third case, applying Eq. (), the induction hypothesis and the modified Rota-Baxter relation of the operator $P$ on $M$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\free{f}\big( \lc \lc \ox_b\rc \shpr \ox'_1\rc
+\lc \ox_b \shpr \lc \ox'_1\rc \rc
+\kappa \ox_b \shpr \ox'_1 \big)\\
&=&\free{f}(\lc \lc \ox_b\rc \shpr \ox'_1\rc) + \free{f}(\lc \ox_b
\shpr \lc \ox'_1\rc \rc)
+\kappa\free{f}( \ox_b \shpr \ox'_1 )\\
&=&P(\free{f}(\lc \ox_b\rc \shpr \ox'_1)) + P(\free{f}(\ox_b \shpr
\lc \ox'_1\rc ))
+\kappa\free{f}(\ox_b \shpr \ox'_1 )\\
&=&P(\free{f}(\lc \ox_b\rc)*\free{f}(\ox'_1)) + P(\free{f}(\ox_b)
*\free{f}( \lc \ox'_1\rc ))
+\kappa\free{f}(\ox_b) * \free{f}(\ox'_1)\\
&=&P(P(\free{f}(\ox_b))*\free{f}(\ox'_1)) + P(\free{f}(\ox_b)
*P(\free{f}(\ox'_1)))
+\kappa(\free{f}(\ox_b) * \free{f}(\ox'_1))\\
&=& P(\free{f}(\ox_b))*P(\free{f}(\ox'_1))\\
&=& \free{f}(\lc \ox_b\rc) * \free{f}(\lc\ox'_1\rc)\\
&=& \free{f} ({\mathfrak}x_b) *\free{f}({\mathfrak}x'_1).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_b\shpr
{\mathfrak}x'_1)=\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_b)*\free{f}({\mathfrak}x'_1)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\free{f}({\mathfrak}x\shpr {\mathfrak}x')&=&
\free{f}\big({\mathfrak}x_1\cdots{\mathfrak}x_{b-1}({\mathfrak}x_b\shpr
{\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2\cdots
{\mathfrak}x'_{b'}\big) \\
&=& \free{f}({\mathfrak}x_1)*\cdots *\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_{b-1})*
\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_b\shpr {\mathfrak}x'_1)*\free{f}({\mathfrak}x'_2)\cdots
\free{f}({\mathfrak}x'_{b'})\\
&=& \free{f}({\mathfrak}x_1)*\cdots *\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_{b-1})*
\free{f}({\mathfrak}x_b)* \free{f} ({\mathfrak}x'_1)*\free{f}({\mathfrak}x'_2)\cdots
\free{f}({\mathfrak}x'_{b'})\\
&=& \free{f}({\mathfrak}x)*\free{f}({\mathfrak}x'),\end{aligned}$$ as required.
This completes the proof of Theorem
The Hopf algebra structure on free modified Rota-Baxter algebras
================================================================
In this section, starting with the assumption that $A$ is a bialgebra with its coproduct $\Delta_A$ and its counit $\vep_A$, we provide a bialgebraic and then a Hopf algebraic structure on the free modified Rota-Baxter algebras $F_\kappa(A)$ obtained in Section , when $\kappa=-\lambda^2$. It would be interesting to see how to extend this construction to other weights $\kappa$. For Hopf algebra structures on free Rota-Baxter algebras, see [@GGZ; @ZtGG] for Hopf algebra structures on free Rota-Baxter algebras.
The bialgebraic structure
-------------------------
We now build on results from previous subsections to obtain a bialgebra structure on $\FNN(A)$. We first record some lemmas for a preparation.
Let $\lambda$ be a given element of $\bfk$.
1. The linear map $-\lambda\id :\bfk \rightarrow \bfk$ is a modified Rota-Baxter operator of weight $-\lambda^2$ on $\bfk$.
2. There exists a unique modified Rota-Baxter algebra morphism $\vep_\mo:\FNN(A)\rightarrow \bfk$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\vep_\mo \circ j_A =\vep_A\,\text{ and }\, \vep_\mo\circ P_A=-\lambda\id \circ \vep_\mo.\mlabel{eq:countmor}\end{aligned}$$
() It follows from $$\begin{aligned}
(-\lambda\id)(a) (-\lambda\id)(b) =&\ \lambda^2 a b= \lambda^2 a b + \lambda^2 a b - \lambda^2 a b \\
=&\ (-\lambda\id)( a(-\lambda\id)(b)) + (-\lambda\id)( (-\lambda\id)(a)b) - \lambda^2 ab.\end{aligned}$$
() By Item (), $(\bfk, -\lambda\id)$ is a modified Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $-\lambda^2$. Then the remainder follows from Theorem ().
Note that $P_A$ is a modified Rota-Baxter operator on $\FNN(A)$;however $P_A \ot P_A$ is not a modified Rota-Baxter operator on $\FNN(A) \ot \FNN(A)$. The following result constructs a modified Rota-Baxter operator on $\FNN(A) \ot \FNN(A)$.
Let $\lambda$ be a given element of $\bfk$. Define the linear map $$\otp:\FNN(A)\ot \FNN(A)\rightarrow \FNN(A)\ot \FNN(A)$$ by taking $$\begin{aligned}
\otp({\mathfrak}x \ot {\mathfrak}x') :=(P_A({\mathfrak}x)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x')1+{\mathfrak}x\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x')\, \text{ for }\, {\mathfrak}x, {\mathfrak}x'\in \FNN(A).
\mlabel{eq:mRB}\end{aligned}$$ Then $\otp$ is a modified Rota-Baxter operator of weight $-\lambda^2$ on $\FNN(A) \ot \FNN(A)$.
Let ${\mathfrak}x_1, {\mathfrak}x_2, {\mathfrak}x'_1, {\mathfrak}x'_2\in \FNN(A)$. On the one hand, $$\begin{aligned}
&\ \otp({\mathfrak}x_1 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_1)\diamond' \otp({\mathfrak}x_2 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
=&\ \Big((P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)1+{\mathfrak}x_1\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1)\Big)\diamond' \Big((P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_2)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+{\mathfrak}x_2\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\Big)\\
=&\ \Big(\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1\big)\diamond \big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_2\big)\Big)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+\Big(\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1\big)\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2\Big)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
&\ + \Big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_2\big)\Big)\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2)\ot \Big(P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1)\diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\Big)\\
=&\ \Big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)+\lambda P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2+
\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)+\lambda^2 {\mathfrak}x_1\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2\Big)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1\\
&\ +\Big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2\Big) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)+\lambda( {\mathfrak}x_1\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)+ \Big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2) \Big)\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
&\ +\lambda \big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \big)\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot \Big(P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1)\diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\Big) \\
=&\ \bigg(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)) + P_A( P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2)+\lambda P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2+
\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\bigg)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1\\
&\ +\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2\big) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)+\lambda( {\mathfrak}x_1\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)+ \big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2) \big)\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
&\ +\lambda \big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \big)\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot \bigg(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)) + P_A( P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)\diamond {\mathfrak}x_2)-\lambda^2 {\mathfrak}x'_1\diamond {\mathfrak}x'_2\bigg).\\
& \hspace{9cm} \text{(by Theorem~(\ref{thm:freeao})~(\mref{it:MRB}))}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
&\ \otp\Big(({\mathfrak}x_1 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_1)\diamond' \otp({\mathfrak}x_2 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_2)\Big)+\otp\Big(\otp({\mathfrak}x_1 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_1)\diamond' ({\mathfrak}x_2 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_2)\Big)-\lambda^2\Big(({\mathfrak}x_1 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_1)\diamond' ({\mathfrak}x_2 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_2)\Big)\\
=&\ \otp\bigg(({\mathfrak}x_1 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_1) \diamond' \Big((P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_2)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+{\mathfrak}x_2 \ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2) \Big)\bigg)\\
&\ +\otp\bigg( \Big((P_A({\mathfrak}x_1)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 )\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1 )1+{\mathfrak}x_1 \ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1) \Big) \diamond' ({\mathfrak}x_2 \ot {\mathfrak}x'_2) \bigg)- \lambda^2 ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot ({\mathfrak}x'_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
=&\ \otp\bigg( \big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\big) \ot {\mathfrak}x'_1 \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_2) +\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2)\ot {\mathfrak}x'_1 \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_2)+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2)\ot \big({\mathfrak}x'_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big) \bigg)\\
&\ + \otp\bigg( \big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2\big) \ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2 +\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2)\ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1) {\mathfrak}x'_2+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2)\ot \big(P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1) \diamond {\mathfrak}x'_2\big) \bigg)\\
&\ - \lambda^2 ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot ({\mathfrak}x'_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
=&\ \bigg(P_A\big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\big)+\lambda{\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2) \bigg) \ot \vep_\mo \big({\mathfrak}x'_1 \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big)1+\big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\big) \ot P_A\big({\mathfrak}x'_1 \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big)\\
&\ +\lambda \bigg( P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) +\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo \big({\mathfrak}x'_1 \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big)1+\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) \ot P_A\big({\mathfrak}x'_1 \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big)\\
&\ + \bigg(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 )+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo \big({\mathfrak}x'_1 P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big)1+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot P_A \big({\mathfrak}x'_1 P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big)\\
&\ + \bigg(P_A\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2\big)+\lambda P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg) \ot \vep_\mo \big(\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2\big)1+\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2\big) \ot P_A\big(\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2\big)\\
&\ +\lambda \bigg( P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) +\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo \big(\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2\big)1+\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) \ot P_A\big(\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1 ){\mathfrak}x'_2\big)\\
&\ + \bigg(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 )+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo \big(P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2\big)+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot P_A \big(P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2\big)- \lambda^2 ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot ({\mathfrak}x'_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
=&\ \bigg(P_A\big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\big)+\lambda{\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2) \bigg) \ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+\big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\big) \ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
&\ +\lambda \bigg( P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) +\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) \ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
&\ + \bigg(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 )+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo (P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2))1+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot P_A \big({\mathfrak}x'_1 P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big)\\
&\ + \bigg(P_A\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2\big)+\lambda P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2\big) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)P_A\big({\mathfrak}x'_2\big)\\
&\ +\lambda \bigg( P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) +\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1 )P_A\big({\mathfrak}x'_2\big)\\
&\ + \bigg(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 )+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo (P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1)) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot P_A \big(P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2\big)\\
&- \lambda^2 ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot ({\mathfrak}x'_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x'_2)
\hspace{1cm} \text{(by $\vep_\mo$ is $\bfk$-linear and $\vep_\mo$ is a homomorphism)}\\
=&\ \bigg(P_A\big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\big)+\lambda{\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2) \bigg) \ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+\big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\big) \ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
&\ +\lambda \bigg( P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) +\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) \ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)\\
&\ -\lambda \bigg(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 )+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot P_A \big({\mathfrak}x'_1 P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big)\\
&\ + \bigg(P_A\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2\big)+\lambda P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2\big) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)P_A\big({\mathfrak}x'_2\big)\\
&\ +\lambda \bigg( P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) +\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1 )P_A\big({\mathfrak}x'_2\big)\\
&\ -\lambda \bigg(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 )+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg)\ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot P_A \big(P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2\big) \\
&- \lambda^2 ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot ({\mathfrak}x'_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x'_2)
\hspace{1cm} \text{(Using Eq.~(\mref{eq:countmor}) in the fifth and eleventh terms)}\\
=&\ \bigg(P_A\big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\big)+\lambda{\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)+P_A\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2\big)+\lambda P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2 \bigg) \ot \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)1\\
&\ +\big({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond P_A({\mathfrak}x_2)\big) \ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)
+\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) \ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1) \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_2)
+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot P_A \big({\mathfrak}x'_1 P_A({\mathfrak}x'_2)\big)\\
&\ +\big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_1) \diamond{\mathfrak}x_2\big) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1)P_A\big({\mathfrak}x'_2\big)
+\lambda ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2 ) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'_1 )P_A\big({\mathfrak}x'_2\big)
+({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot P_A \big(P_A({\mathfrak}x'_1){\mathfrak}x'_2\big)\\
&\ - \lambda^2 ({\mathfrak}x_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x_2) \ot ({\mathfrak}x'_1 \diamond {\mathfrak}x'_2).\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
With a similar argument, we can obtain
Let $\lambda$ be a given element of $\bfk$. Define the linear map $$\ottp:\FNN(A)\ot \FNN(A) \ot \FNN(A) \rightarrow \FNN(A)\ot \FNN(A) \ot \FNN(A)$$ by taking $$\begin{aligned}
\ottp({\mathfrak}x \ot {\mathfrak}x' \ot {\mathfrak}x'') :=&(P_A({\mathfrak}x)+\lambda {\mathfrak}x)\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x')1\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'')1+{\mathfrak}x\ot (P_A({\mathfrak}x')+\lambda {\mathfrak}x') \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x'')1 \\
&+{\mathfrak}x \ot {\mathfrak}x' \ot P_A({\mathfrak}x'')\,
\text{ for }\, {\mathfrak}x, {\mathfrak}x'\in \FNN(A).
\mlabel{eq:mRB1}
\end{aligned}$$ Then $\ottp$ is a modified Rota-Baxter operator of weight $-\lambda^2$ on $\FNN(A)\ot \FNN(A) \ot \FNN(A)$.
Now we are ready for our main result of this subsection. Recall $\vep_\mo: \FNN(A) \to \bfk$ is an algebra homomorphism given in Lemma . Let $j_A: A \to \FN(A)$ be the natural embedding. By Theorem () and Lemma , there is a (unique) modified Rota-Baxter algebra morphism $$\Delta_M: \FNN(A) \rightarrow \FNN(A)\ot \FNN(A)$$ such that $\Delta_M \circ j_A=\Delta_A$.
Let $A$ be a bialgebra and $\lambda\in \bfk$. Then the quintuple $(\FNN(A), \diamond, 1, \Delta_\mo, \vep_\mo)$ is a bialgebra.
It suffices to prove the counity of $\vep_\mo$ and coassociativity of $\Delta_\mo$. For the former, denote by $$\phi := (\vep_\mo \ot \id ) \Delta_M: \FNN(A) \to \FNN(A)$$ Then $\phi$ is an algebra homomorphism, since $\vep_\mo$ and $\Delta_M$ are algebra homomorphisms. Further it is a modified Rota-Baxter algebra morphism. Indeed, for any ${\mathfrak}x\in \FNN(A)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \circ P_A({\mathfrak}x)=&\big((\vep_\mo \ot \id ) \Delta_M \big)P_A({\mathfrak}x)=(\vep_\mo \ot \id ) (\Delta_M P_A)({\mathfrak}x)\\
=&(\vep_\mo \ot \id ) (\otp\Delta_M)({\mathfrak}x)\quad(\text{by $\Delta_M$ being an modified Rota-Baxter algebra morphism}) \\
=&(\vep_\mo \ot \id ) \otp\Big(\sum_{({\mathfrak}x)}{\mathfrak}x_{(1)} \ot {\mathfrak}x_{(2)}\Big) \quad(\text{by Sweedler's notation})\\
=&\sum_{({\mathfrak}x)}(\vep_\mo \ot \id )\Big((P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(1)})+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_{(1)})\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)})1+{\mathfrak}x_{(1)}\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(2)}) \Big)\quad(\text{by Eq.~(\mref{eq:mRB})})\\
=&\sum_{({\mathfrak}x)}\bigg(\vep_\mo (P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(1)})) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)})1 +\lambda \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x_{(1)})\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)})1+\vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x_{(1)})\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(2)}) \bigg)\\
=&\sum_{({\mathfrak}x)}\bigg(-\lambda\vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x_{(1)}) \ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)})1 +\lambda \vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x_{(1)})\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)})1+\vep_\mo ({\mathfrak}x_{(1)})\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(2)}) \bigg)\\
& \hspace{7cm} (\text{by Eq.~(\mref{eq:countmor})})\\
=&\sum_{({\mathfrak}x)} \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(1)})\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(2)}) = \sum_{({\mathfrak}x)} P_A(\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(1)}){\mathfrak}x_{(2)})
= P_A((\vep_\mo \ot \id ) \Delta_M(\frakx))\\
=&P_A\circ \phi(\frakx).\end{aligned}$$ By unicity in the universal property of $\FNN(A)$, we have $$(\vep_\mo \ot \id ) \Delta_M = \phi =\id _{\FNN(A)}$$ and so $\vep_\mo$ is a left counit. By symmetry, we can prove $\vep_\mo$ is also a right counit.
Moreover, both $(\Delta_M\ot \id )\Delta_M$ and $(\id \ot \Delta_M )\Delta_M$ are modified Rota-Baxter algebra morphisms from $\FNN(A)$ to $\FNN(A)\ot \FNN(A) \ot \FNN(A)$, which is equipped with the modified Rota-Baxter operator $\ottp$ of weight $-\lambda^2$ given in Lemma . As they coincide on $A$ $$(\Delta_M\ot \id )\Delta_M |_A = (\Delta_A\ot \id )\Delta_A = (\id \ot \Delta_A)\Delta_A = (\id \ot \Delta_M)\Delta_M |_A,$$ they are equal and so $\Delta_M$ is coassociative. Here $\Delta_A$ is the coproduct on $A$. Thus the quintuple $(\FNN(A), \diamond, 1, \Delta_\mo, \vep_\mo)$ is a bialgebra.
For any ${\mathfrak}x\in \FNN(A)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_M \circ P_A({\mathfrak}x)=&\otp\circ \Delta_M({\mathfrak}x)\quad(\text{by $\Delta_M$ being a modified Rota-Baxter algebra morphism}) \\
=&\otp\Big(\sum_{({\mathfrak}x)}{\mathfrak}x_{(1)} \ot {\mathfrak}x_{(2)}\Big) \quad(\text{by Sweedler's notation})\\
=&\sum_{({\mathfrak}x)}\Big((P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(1)})+\lambda {\mathfrak}x_{(1)})\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)})1+{\mathfrak}x_{(1)}\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(2)}) \Big)\quad(\text{by Eq.~(\mref{eq:mRB})})\\
=&\sum_{({\mathfrak}x)}\Big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(1)})\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)})1 +\lambda {\mathfrak}x_{(1)}\ot \vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)})1+{\mathfrak}x_{(1)}\ot P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(2)}) \Big)\\
=&\sum_{({\mathfrak}x)}\Big(P_A({\mathfrak}x_{(1)}\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)}))\ot1 +\lambda {\mathfrak}x_{(1)}\vep_\mo({\mathfrak}x_{(2)})\ot1+(\id \ot P_A)({\mathfrak}x_{(1)}\ot {\mathfrak}x_{(2)} )\Big)\\
=&P_{A}({\mathfrak}x)\ot 1+\lambda {\mathfrak}x\ot 1+(\id \ot P_A)\Delta_M({\mathfrak}x) \quad (\text{by $\vep_M$ being the counit}).\end{aligned}$$ In other words, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_M P_A=P_A \ot 1 +(\id \ot P_A)\Delta_M+ \lambda\id \ot 1,\mlabel{eq:cocyc}\end{aligned}$$ which is analogue to the 1-cocycle condition in the well-known Connes-Kreimer Hopf algebra on rooted trees .
The Hopf algebraic structure
----------------------------
In this last part of the paper we show that if we start with $A$ being a connected filtered bialgebra and $\lambda\in \bfk$, then the bialgebra $\FNN(A)$ also has a connected filtration and hence is a Hopf algebra.
A bialgebra $(A, m, \mu, \Delta, \vep)$ is called [**filtered**]{} if it has an increasing filtration $A_n$, $n\geq 0$, such that $$A=\cup_{n\geq 0} A_n,\, A_p A_q\subseteq A_{p+q} \,\text{ and }\, \Delta(A_n)\subseteq \sum_{p+q=n}A_p\ot A_q \,\text{ for }\, p, q, n\geq 0.$$ A filtered bialgebra $A$ is called [**connected**]{} if $A_0 = \im\, \mu $ and $A = A_0 \oplus \ker \varepsilon$.
The following result is well-known.
[[@DM]]{} A connected filtered bialgebra is a Hopf algebra.
Our discussion in this section will be based on the following condition.
A $\bfk$-basis $X$ of a connected filtered bialgebra $A=\cup_{n\geq 0}A_n$ is called a [**filtered basis**]{} of $A$ if there is an increasing filtration $X=\cup_{n\geq 0} X_n$ such that $$A_n=\bfk X_n, X\backslash \{1\} \subseteq \ker \vep, X_0=\{1\}.$$ Here $1$ is the identity of $A$. Elements $x\in X_n\setminus X_{n-1}$ are said to have [**degree**]{} $n$, denoted by $\deg_A(x)=n$.
Let $A$ be a connected filtered bialgebra with a filtered basis $X$. Recall that $\frakX_\infty$ constructed in Subsection is a -basis of the free modified Rota-Baxter algebra $\FNN(A)$. We now define the [**degree**]{} $\deg(\frakx)$ for $\frakx\in \frakX_\infty$ by induction on $\dep(\frakx)$. For the initial step of $\dep(\frakx) = 0$, we get $\frakx\in X\subseteq A$ and define $$\deg(\frakx):= \deg_A(\frakx).
\mlabel{eq:deg1}$$ For the inductive step of $\dep(\frakx) \geq 1$, if $\bre(\frakx) =1$, then $\frakx = \lc \lbar{\frakx}\rc$ and we define $$\deg(\frakx):= \deg(\lbar{\frakx}) +1;
\mlabel{eq:deg2}$$ if $\bre(\frakx) \geq 2$, then write $\frakx = \frakx_1 \cdots \frakx_b$ in the standard decomposition and define $$\deg(\frakx):= \sum_{i=1}^b \deg(\frakx_i),
\mlabel{eq:deg3}$$ where each $\deg(\frakx_i)$ is defined either in Eq. () or in Eq. () by the induction hypothesis.
For later applications, we also use the notion $\deg( c \frakx)=\deg(\frakx)$ for $c\in \bfk\backslash \{0\}$.
Denote $$\hma:=\FNN(A)\,\text{ and }\, \hma_n:= \bfk \{\frakx\in \frakX_\infty \mid \deg(\frakx) \leq n\}\,\text{ for }\, n\geq 0.
\mlabel{eq:dhn}$$ Then $$\hma=\bigcup_{n\geq 0} \hma_n \,,\, \hma_0 = \bfk,\, \hma = \bfk\,1 \oplus \ker \vep_\mo \,\text{ and }\, \mop(\hma_n)\subseteq \hma_{n+1}.
\mlabel{eq:subset}$$
Now we are going to prove that $\hma$ is a filtered bialgebra, beginning with the compatibility of the multiplication with the filtration.
For $p,q\geq 0$, we have $$\hma_p \diamond \hma_q \subseteq \hma_{p+q}.
\mlabel{eq:mgrad}$$
Let $\frakx\in \hma_p$ and $\frakx'\in \hma_q$ be two basis elements in $\frakX_\infty$. Then $$\deg(\frakx)\leq p\,\text{ and }\, \deg(\frakx')\leq q.$$ We now verify Eq. () by induction on the sum $s:=p+q\geq 0$. When $s=0$, then $p=q=0$. By Eq. (), we obtain that $\frakx=\frakx'=1$ and so $\frakx\,\diamond\,\frakx'=1\in \hma_0$. This finishes the initial step.
Given an $s\geq 0$, assume that Eq. () holds for $\frakx,\frakx'$ with $p+q=s$ and consider case $p+q=s+1$. If $\frakx=1$ or $\frakx'=1$, without loss of generality, letting $\frakx=1$, then $p=0$ and $$\frakx\,\diamond\, \frakx' = \frakx' \in \hma_q = \hma_{p+q}.$$ So we may suppose $\frakx,\frakx'\neq 1$. Write $$\frakx =\frakx_{1} \cdots \frakx_{b} \,\text{ and }\, \frakx':=\frakx'_{1} \cdots \frakx'_{b'}\,\text{ with }\, b, b'\geq 1$$ in their standard decompositions. Under this condition, we proceed to prove Eq. () by induction on the sum $t:=b+b'\geq 2$. When $t=2$, then $b=b'=1$. If $\frakx\in X\subseteq A$ or $\frakx'\in X\subseteq A$, then by Eq. (), $$\frakx\,\diamond\, \frakx' = \frakx \frakx' \in\hma_{\deg(\frakx) + \deg(\frakx')} \subseteq \hma_{p+q}.$$ It remains to check the outstanding case of $$\frakx:=\frakx_{1}=\mop(\lbar{\frakx}_{1})\,\text{ and }\, \frakx':=\frakx'_{1}=\mop(\lbar{\frakx}'_{1}),$$ where $$\lbar{\frakx}_{1},\lbar{\frakx}'_{1}\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty\,\text{ and }\,\deg(\frakx_{1})+\deg(\frakx'_{1}) \leq s+1.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\deg(\frakx_{1})+\deg(\lbar{\frakx}'_{1})&=\deg(\frakx_{1})+\deg(\frakx'_{1})-1 \leq s,\\
\deg(\lbar{\frakx}_{1})+\deg(\frakx'_{1})&=\deg(\frakx_{1})-1+\deg(\frakx'_{1})\leq s,\\
\deg(\lbar{\frakx}_{1})+\deg(\lbar{\frakx'_{1}})&=\deg(\frakx_{1})-1+\deg(\frakx'_{1})-1\leq s-1.\end{aligned}$$ By the induction hypothesis on $s$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frakx_{1}\,\diamond\,\lbar{\frakx}'_{1},\, \lbar{\frakx}_{1}\,\diamond\,\frakx'_{1} \in \hma_s\,\text{ and }\, \lbar{\frakx_{1}}\,\diamond\,\lbar{\frakx}'_{1}\in \hma_{s-1},\end{aligned}$$ which implies from Eq. () that $$\begin{aligned}
\mop(\frakx_{1}\,\diamond\,\lbar{\frakx}'_{1}), \, \mop(\lbar{\frakx}_{1}\,\diamond\,\frakx'_{1}) \in \hma_{s+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence by Eq. (), $$\frakx_1\,\diamond\,\frakx'_{1}=\mop(\frakx_{1}\,\diamond\,\lbar{\frakx}'_{1})
+\mop(\lbar{\frakx}_{1}\,\diamond\,\frakx'_{1}) -\lambda^2 \lbar{\frakx}_{1}\,\diamond\,\lbar{\frakx'_{1}} \in \hma_{s+1}.$$
Assume that Eq. () holds for $b+b'=t\geq2$ and $p+q=s+1$ and consider the case when $b+b'=t+1\geq3$ and $p+q=s+1$. So either $\frakx$ or $\frakx'$ has breadth greater than or equal to $2$, giving us three cases to consider:
[**Case 1**]{}. $\bre(\frakx)\geq2$. Let $\frakx:=\frakx_{1,\,1} \frakx_{1,\,2}$, where $\frakx_{1,\,1},\frakx_{1,\,2}\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ with breadths $\bre(\frakx_{1,\,1}),\bre(\frakx_{1,\,2})\geq1$ respectively. By Eq. (), we obtain $\deg(\frakx)=\deg(\frakx_{1,\,1})+\deg(\frakx_{1,\,2}) $. From Eq. (), $$\frakx\,\diamond\,\frakx' = (\frakx_{1,\,1} \frakx_{1,\,2})\,\diamond\,\frakx'
= \frakx_{1,\,1} (\frakx_{1,\,2}\,\diamond\,\frakx').$$ By the induction on $t$, we have $$\frakx_{1,\,2}\,\diamond\,\frakx'\in \hma_{\deg(\frakx_{1,\,2})+\deg(\frakx')},$$ whence by Eq. (), $$\frakx\,\diamond\,\frakx' = \frakx_{1,\,1} (\frakx_{1,\,2}\,\diamond\,\frakx')
\in \hma_{\deg(\frakx_{1,\,1}) + \deg(\frakx_{1,\,2})+\deg(\frakx')} = \hma_{\deg(\frakx) +\deg(\frakx')}.$$
[**Case 2**]{}. $\bre(\frakx')\geq2$. The proof of this case is similar to Case 1.
[**Case 3**]{}. $\bre(\frakx)\geq2$ and $\bre(\frakx')\geq2$. Let $\frakx:=\frakx_{1,\,1}\frakx_{1,\,2}$ and $\frakx':=\frakx'_{1,\,1} \frakx'_{1,\,2}$, where $\frakx_{1,\,1},\frakx_{1,\,2},
\frakx'_{1,\,1},\frakx'_{1,\,2}\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ with breadths $\bre(\frakx_{1,\,1}),\bre(\frakx_{1,\,2}),\bre(\frakx'_{1,\,1}),\bre(\frakx'_{1,\,2})\geq1$ respectively. By Eq. (), we obtain $$\deg(\frakx)=\deg(\frakx_{1,\,1})+\deg(\frakx_{1,\,2})\,\text{ and }\,
\deg(\frakx')=\deg(\frakx'_{1,\,1})+\deg(\frakx'_{1,\,2}).
\mlabel{eq:c0}$$ Thus by Eq. (), $$\frakx\,\diamond\,\frakx' =(\frakx_{1,\,1} \frakx_{1,\,2})\,\diamond\,(\frakx'_{1,\,1} \frakx'_{1,\,2})
=\frakx_{1,\,1} (\frakx_{1,\,2}\,\diamond\,\frakx'_{1,\,1}) \frakx'_{1,\,2}.$$ By the induction on $t$, we have $$\frakx_{1,\,2}\,\diamond\,\frakx'_{1,\,1}\in \hma_{\deg(\frakx_{1,\,2})+\deg(\frakx'_{1,\,1})}.
\mlabel{eq:c2}$$ With a similar argument to Case 1. we get $$\frakx\,\diamond\,\frakx' = \frakx_{1,\,1} (\frakx_{1,\,2}\,\diamond\,\frakx'_{1,\,1}) \frakx'_{1,\,2} \in \hma_{\deg(\frakx)+\deg(\frakx')}.$$ This finishes the proof.
For the compatibility of the coproduct with the filtration, we have
For $n\geq0$, we have $$\Delta_\mo(\hma_n)\subseteq\sum\limits^{}_{p+q=n}\hma_p\ot \hma_q.
\mlabel{eq:cmgrad}$$
We verify Eq. () by showing
For any $\frakx\in \frakX_\infty$, we have $$\Delta_\mo(\frakx)=\sum_{(\frakx)} \frakx_{(1)}\ot \frakx_{(2)},
\mlabel{eq:cmgrad1}$$ where $\frakx_{(1)}$ and $\frakx_{(2)}$ are non-zero linear multiples of elements of $\frakX_\infty$ with $\deg(\frakx_{(1)})+\deg(\frakx_{(2)})\leq \deg(\frakx)$. Here we have adapted the notation in Remark .
To prove this claim we proceed by induction on $\deg(\frakx)\geq 0$. For the initial step of $\deg(\frakx)=0$, we get $\frakx=1$ and the result holds. Assume that Claim () holds for $\frakx\in \hma_k$ and consider $\frakx\in \hma_{k+1}$ for some $k\geq 0$.
In this case, we prove Claim () by induction on the breadth $b:=\bre( \frakx)\geq 1$. If $b=1$, we have $\frakx\in X\subseteq A$ or $ \frakx=\mop(\lbar{ \frakx})$ for some $\lbar{ \frakx}\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$. For the former, Claim () holds since $\Delta_\mo$ is given by $\Delta_A$ and $A$ is a connected filtered bialgebra by our hypothesis. For the latter, applying the induction hypothesis on $n$, we can write $$\Delta_\mo(\lbar{ \frakx})=\sum_{(\lbar{ \frakx})}\,\lbar{ \frakx}_{(1)}\ot\lbar{ \frakx}_{(2)},$$ where $\deg(\lbar{ \frakx}_{(1)})+\deg(\lbar{ \frakx}_{(2)}) \leq \deg(\lbar{ \frakx})=k$, with the notion in Remark \[rk:deg\]. By Eq. (), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_\mo( \frakx)=\Delta_\mo(\mop(\lbar{ \frakx}))
&=& \frakx\ot 1+(\id\ot \mop)\Delta_\mo(\lbar{ \frakx}) +\lambda \lbar{\frakx}\ot 1\\
&=& \frakx\ot 1+\sum_{(\lbar{ \frakx})}\,(\lbar{ \frakx}_{(1)}\ot \mop(\lbar{ \frakx}_{(2)}) +
\lambda \lbar{\frakx}\ot 1.\end{aligned}$$ By Eq. (), it is sufficient to show that the sum of degrees of tensor factors in each summand is less than or equal to $k+1$, which follows from $$\begin{aligned}
&&\deg( \frakx)+\deg(1)= \deg( \frakx) \leq k+1,\, \deg( \lbar{\frakx})+\deg(1) = \deg( \lbar{\frakx}) \leq k,\\
&&\deg(\lbar{ \frakx}_{(1)})+\deg(\mop(\lbar{ \frakx}_{(2)}))
=\deg(\lbar{ \frakx}_{(1)})+\deg(\lbar{ \frakx}_{(2)})+1 \leq k+1.\end{aligned}$$
Assume that Claim () holds for $ \frakx\in \hma_{k+1}$ with $\bre( \frakx)=b$ and consider the case $ \frakx\in \hma_{k+1}$ with $\bre( \frakx)=b+1\geq2$. Let $ \frakx= \frakx_{1} \frakx_{2}$, where $ \frakx_{1}, \frakx_{2}\in {\mathfrak}X_\infty$ with $\bre( \frakx_{1}),\bre( \frakx_{2})\geq1$. From Eq. (), we have $$\deg( \frakx_{1})+\deg( \frakx_{2})=\deg( \frakx) \leq k+1.
\mlabel{eq:Num2}$$ Write $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_\mo( \frakx_{1})=\sum_{( \frakx_{1})} \frakx_{1(1)}\ot \frakx_{1(2)}\,\text{ and }\, \Delta_\mo( \frakx_{2})=\sum_{( \frakx_{2})} \frakx_{2(1)}\ot \frakx_{2(2)}.
\end{aligned}
$$ By the induction hypothesis on $b$, we have $$\deg( \frakx_{1(1)}) + \deg( \frakx_{1(2)}) \leq \deg( \frakx_{1})\,\text{ and }\,
\deg( \frakx_{2(1)}) + \deg( \frakx_{2(2)}) \leq \deg( \frakx_{2}).
\mlabel{eq:gapnum1}$$ So we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_\mo( \frakx)&=\Delta_\mo( \frakx_{1} \frakx_{2})
=\Delta_\mo( \frakx_{1}\,\diamond\, \frakx_{2})
=\Delta_\mo( \frakx_{1})\,\diamond\, \Delta_\mo( \frakx_{2})\\
&=\left(\sum_{( \frakx_{1})} \frakx_{1(1)}\ot \frakx_{1(2)}\right)\,\diamond\,
\left(\sum_{( \frakx_{2})} \frakx_{2(1)}\ot \frakx_{2(2)}\right)\\
&=\sum_{( \frakx_{1})}\sum_{( \frakx_{2})} ( \frakx_{1(1)}\,\diamond\,\frakx_{2(1)})\ot
( \frakx_{1(2)}\,\diamond\, \frakx_{2(2)}).\end{aligned}$$ By Eq. (), $$\frakx_{1(1)}\,\diamond\,\frakx_{2(1)} \in \hma_{\deg(\frakx_{1(1)}) + \deg(\frakx_{2(1)})}
\,\text{ and }\, \frakx_{1(2)}\,\diamond\, \frakx_{2(2)} \in \hma_{\deg(\frakx_{1(2)}) + \deg(\frakx_{2(2)})},$$ which implies from Eqs. (), () and () that Claim holds.
We now arrive at our last main result.
Let $A=\cup_{n\geq 0}A_n$ be a connected filtered bialgebra with a filtered basis. Then $\hma = \FNN(A)$ is also a connected filtered bialgebra, and hence a Hopf algebra.
By Lemma , we just need to prove that $\FNN(A)$ is a connected filtered bialgebra. This follows from Lemmas , and Eq. ().
[**Acknowledgements**]{}: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11771190), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. lzujbky-2017-162) and the Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province (No. 17JR5RA175). The authors thank the referees for helpful suggestions.
[abcdsfgh]{}
M. Aguiar, [On the associative analog of Lie bialgebras]{}, [*Journal of Algebra*]{} [**[244]{}**]{} (2001), 492-532.
F.V.Atkinson, Some aspects of Baxter’s function equation, [*J. Math. Anal. and Applications*]{} [**7**]{} (1963), 1-30.
C. Bai, O. Bellier, L. Guo and X. Ni, Spliting of operations, Manin products and Rota-Baxter operators, [*IMRN*]{} [**2013**]{} (2013), 485-524.
C. Bai, L. Guo and X. Ni, Nonabelian generalized Lax pairs, the classical Yang-Baxter equation and PostLie algebras, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**297**]{} (2010), 553-596.
C. Bai, L. Guo and X. Ni, O-operators on associative algebras and associative Yang-Baxter equations, [*Pacific J. Math.*]{} [**256**]{} (2012), 257-289.
C. Bai, L. Guo and X. Ni, O-operators on associative algebras, associative Yang-Baxter equations and dendriform algebras, In “Quantized Algebra and Physics" (2012), 10-51, World Scientific.
C. Bai, L. Guo and X. Ni, Generalizations of the classical Yang-Baxter equation and $\mathcal O$-operators, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**52**]{} (2011) 063515.
G. Baxter, [An analytic problem whose solution follows from a simple algebraic identity,]{} [*Pacific J. Math.*]{} [**10**]{} (1960), 731-742.
M. Bordemann, [ Generalized Lax pairs, the modified classical Yang-Baxter equation, and affine geometry of Lie groups,]{} [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} **135** (1990), 201-216.
A.Connes and D. Kreimer, Hopf algebras, renormalization and non-commutative geometry, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**199**]{} (1998), 203-242.
P.Cartier, On the structure of free Baxter algebras, [*Adv. in Math.*]{} [**[9]{}**]{} (1972), 253-265.
K. Ebrihimi-Fard, Loday-type algebras and the Rota-Baxter relation, [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**61**]{} (2002), 139-147.
K.Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Guo, Rota-Baxter algebras and dendriform algebras, [*J. Pure Appl. Algebra*]{} [**212**]{} (2008), 320-339.
K. Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Guo, [ Quasi-shuffles, mixable shuffles and Hopf algebras]{}, [*J. Algebraic Combinatorics,*]{} [**24**]{}, (2006), 83-101.
X. Gao, L. Guo and T. Zhang, Bialgebra and Hopf algebra structures on free Rota-Baxter algebra, arXiv:1604.03238.
L. Guo, An Introduction to Rota-Baxter Algebra, International Press, 2012.
L.Guo and W. Keigher, Baxter algebras and shuffle products, [*Adv. in Math.*]{} [**150**]{} (2000), 117-149.
L. Guo and W. Y. Sit Enumeration and generating functions of Rota-Baxter words, [*Math. Comput. Sci.*]{} [**4**]{} (2010), 313-337.
R. Jian and J. Zhang, Rota-Baxter coalgebras, [*Acta Math. Sinica*]{}, to appear.
Y. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, [ Lie bialgebras, Poisson Lie groups and dressing transformations]{}, in “Integrability of nonlinear systems", [*Lecture Notes in Physics*]{} **495**, Springer, Berlin (1997), 104-170.
T. Ma and L. Liu, Rota-Baxter coalgebras and Rota-Baxter bialgebras, [*Linear and Multilinear Algebra*]{} [**64**]{} (2016), 968-979.
A. Makhlouf and D. Yau, Rota-Baxter Hom-Lie-admissible algebras. [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**42**]{} (2014), 1231-1257.
M. Marcolli and X. Ni, Rota-Baxter algebras, singular hypersurfaces, and renormalization on Kausz compactifications, *J. Singularities* [**15**]{} (2016), 80-117.
J. Pei, C. Bai and L. Guo, Splitting of operads and Rota-Baxter operators on operads, [*Applied Categorical Structures*]{}, [**25**]{} (2017), 505-538.
G.C.Rota, [Baxter algebras and combinatorial identities I, II,]{} [*Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**75**]{} (1969), 325-329, 330-334.
D.Manchon, [Hoft algebras, from basics to applications to renormalization, Comptes-rendus des Rencontres mathematiques de Glanon 2001.]{}
M. Semonov-Tian-Shansky, [What is a classical R-matrix?]{} [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*]{} **17** (1983), 259-272.
T. Zhang, X. Gao and L. Guo, Hopf algebras of rooted forests, cocycles, and free Rota-Baxter algebras, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**57**]{} (2016), 101701.
X. Zhang, X. Gao and L. Guo, Commutative modified Rota-Baxter algebras, shuffle products and Hopf algebras, [*Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc.*]{} https://doi.org/10.1007/s40840-018-0648-3.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce the notion of a nest-representable tolerance and show that some results from [@contol] and [@malgra] can be extended to this more general setting.'
address: |
Nido di Matematica\
Viale della Ricerca Scientifica\
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”\
I-00133 ROME ITALY
author:
- Paolo Lipparini
title: 'Nest-representable tolerances'
---
[^1]
[def]{} Recall from [@contol] that a tolerance $\Theta$ of some algebra ${{\mathbf}A} $ is [*representable*]{} if and only if there exists a compatible and reflexive relation $R$ on ${{\mathbf}A} $ such that $\Theta= R \circ R ^\smallsmile $ (where $R ^\smallsmile $ denotes the converse of $R$). A tolerance $\Theta$ of some algebra ${{\mathbf}A} $ is [*weakly representable*]{} if and only if there exists a set $K$ (possibly infinite) and there are compatible and reflexive relations $R_k$ ($k \in K$) on ${{\mathbf}A} $ such that $\Theta= \bigcap _{k \in K} (R_k \circ R_k ^\smallsmile )$.
We define the set of *nest-representable* tolerances of ${{\mathbf}A} $ as the smallest set of tolerances of ${{\mathbf}A} $ which is closed under the following formation rules.
1. Every representable tolerance is nest-representable.
2. The intersection of any family of nest-representable tolerances is nest-representable.
3. If $\Psi$ is a nest-representable tolerance and $R$ is a compatible and reflexive relation, then $R \circ \Psi \circ R ^\smallsmile $ is a nest-representable tolerance.
Notice that, in particular, every (weakly) representable tolerance is nest-representable. We shall show that many results from [@contol; @malgra] hold also for nest-representable tolerances, not only for (weakly) representable tolerances.
Recall that if $p$ and $q$ are terms of the same arity for the language $ \{\circ, \cap\} $, then a strong Maltsev condition $M(p \subseteq q)$ can be associated to the inclusion $p \subseteq q$, where the arguments of $p$ and $q$ are intended to vary among congruences of some algebra. See, e. g., Czédli, Horv[á]{}th, Lipparini [@CHL], Freese, McKenzie [@FMK Chapter XIII], Hutchinson, Czédli [@HC], J[ó]{}nsson [@J], Pixley [@P], Wille [@W]. In this regard, we will follow the notations from Definition 6 in [@contol]. We can also consider $ \{\circ, \cap, +\} $-terms, where $+$ is always interpreted as $\Theta + \Psi = \bigcup_{n < \omega } \Theta \circ_n \Psi $. Thus $ \alpha + \beta $ is always interpreted as the join in the lattice of congruences, but $\Theta + \Psi $ turns out to be generally much larger than the join of $\Theta$ and $ \Psi$ in *the lattice of tolerances*. If $p$ is a $ \{\circ, \cap, +\} $-term, we let $p_n$ denote the term obtained from $p$ by substituting $+$ with $\circ_{n}$. By using $p_n$, we can express (not necessarily strong) Maltsev conditions. See [@CHL] for details; see the proof of [@contol Theorem 4], as far as the notions in the present note are concerned.
Graphs provide a neat way to look at the Maltsev condition associated to an inclusion. To each $ \{\circ, \cap\} $-term it can be naturally associated a labeled graph. See Czédli [@czjsd; @C2; @czmsd; @C4; @C5] and Czédli, Day [@CD]. In [@malgra] we observed that to every pair of edge-labeled graphs ${\mathbf G}$ and ${\mathbf H}$ one can associate a condition $M({\mathbf G},{\mathbf H})$, in such a way that when ${\mathbf G}$ and ${\mathbf H}$ are the graphs associated to the terms $p$ and $q$, then $M({\mathbf G},{\mathbf H})$ turns out to be equal to $M(p \subseteq q)$. In [@contol] we introduced the notion of a *regular* $ \{\circ, \cap\} $-term. Roughly, $p$ is regular if during the construction of $p$ we never encounter two adjacent symbols. Correspondingly, an edge-labeled graph ${\mathbf G}$ is *regular* if it is finite and, for each label, all the equivalence classes of vertices which can be connected through edges with that label have cardinality $\leq 2$. If ${\mathbf G}$ is an edge-labeled graph with labels $\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha _n$ and with distinguished vertices $d_1, \dots, d _h$ and $R_1, \dots, R_n$ are symmetric and reflexive relations on some set $A$, we let ${\mathbf G} (R_1, \dots, R_n)$ denote the $h$-ary relation on $A$ consisting of those $h$-uples $a_1, \dots, a _h$ of $A$ such that ${\mathbf G}$ can be represented in $A$ in such a way that the distinguished vertices correspond to $a_1, \dots, a _h$, and, for every label $i$, those edges labeled by $\alpha_i$ are represented by $R_i$-related elements. See [@malgra Definition 2]. We refer to [@contol] and [@malgra] for more details and for further unexplained notions and notations.
A special case of item (1) in the following theorem shall be presented in a planned expanded version of [@ntcm]. Probably the following proof can be more easily understood through that example.
\[contolnest\] (1) Suppose that $\v$ is a variety and that $p$ and $q$ are terms of the same arity. Suppose that either (i) $p$ and $q$ are $ \{\circ, \cap\} $-terms and $p$ is regular, or (ii) $p$ and $q$ are $ \{\circ, \cap, +\} $-terms and either $p_3$ or $p_4$ is regular. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
(a) $\v $ satisfies the congruence identity $p(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n) \subseteq q(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n )$.
(b) $\v$ satisfies the (strong in case (i)) Maltsev condition $M(p \subseteq q)$.
(c) The tolerance identity $p(\Theta_1, \dots, \Theta_n) \subseteq q(\Theta_1, \dots, \Theta_n)$ holds for every algebra $ {{\mathbf}A} $ in $\v$ and for all nest-representable tolerances $\Theta_1, \dots, \Theta_n $ of $ {{\mathbf}A} $.
\(2) Suppose that $\v$ is a variety and ${\mathbf G}$, ${\mathbf H}$ are labeled graphs with the same labels and with the same number of distinguished vertices. If ${\mathbf G}$ is regular, then the following are equivalent.
(a) $\v$ satisfies ${\mathbf G} (\alpha _1, \dots, \alpha _n)\subseteq {\mathbf H}(\alpha _1, \dots, \alpha _n)$ for congruences.
(b) $\v$ satisfies the condition $M({\mathbf G},{\mathbf H})$.
(c) $\v$ satisfies ${\mathbf G} (\Theta _1, \dots, \Theta _n)\subseteq {\mathbf H}(\Theta _1, \dots, \Theta _n)$ for nest-representable tolerances.
We shall prove (1)(i); the case (1)(ii) then follows by arguments similar to [@contol proof of Theorem 4]. The proof of (2) is entirely similar. The implication (a) $\Rightarrow $ (b) in (1) is classical, and (c) $\Rightarrow $ (a) is trivial.
In order to prove (b) $\Rightarrow $ (c), we shall assume the notations from the proof of [@contol Theorem 3 (ii) $\Rightarrow $ (iii)]. We have to show that $d_w =
t_w(c_1, \dots, c_m) \mathrel {\Theta_i}
t _{w'}(c_1, \dots, c_m) =
d_{w'}$, whenever the vertices $w, w' \in W$ of ${\mathbf G}_q$ are connected by an edge labeled by $ \alpha_i$, using the same assumptions of [@contol Theorem 3], except that $\Theta_i$ is only assumed to be nest-representable. Fix some $i$ and say that two indices $j,h \leq m$ are *paired* if $ \{ v_j, v_h \} $ is a $\sim_i$-equivalence class. In particular, we have that if $j $ and $h$ are paired, then $ c_j \mathrel \Theta_i c_h $.
Suppose that $\Psi$ is a nest-representable tolerance of ${{\mathbf}A} $. We are going to prove, by induction on the complexity of the nest-representation of $\Psi$, that if $e_1, \dots, e_m$ are elements such that $ e_j \mathrel \Psi e_h $, whenever $j $, $h$ are paired, then $t_w(e_1, \dots, e_m) \mathrel {\Psi}
t _{w'}(e_1, \dots, e_m)$. The special case $\Psi = \Theta_i$, $c_1 = e_1$, …, $c_m = e_m$ will then give the desired result.
The “basis” case given by (1) in the above definition, that is, the case when $\Psi$ is representable is given by the proof of [@contol Theorem 3]. The proof is similar to the argument in case (3) below, considering $\Phi=0$ there, that is, being $\Phi$-related means to be equal. Then apply identity (m$ _{w, w',i} $).
If the nest-representability of $\Psi$ is given by case (2) above, that is, $\Psi= \bigcap _{k \in K_i} \Phi _{k} $ and, by the inductive hypothesis, we have $t_w(e_1, \dots, e_m) \mathrel { \Phi _k}
t _{w'}(e_1, \allowbreak \dots, e_m)$, for every $k \in K_i$, then obviously $t_w(e_1, \dots, e_m) \mathrel {\Psi}
t _{w'}(e_1, \dots, e_m)$. Thus the induction step is complete in this case. Cf. also the proof of [@contol Theorem 3 (ii) $\Rightarrow $ (iii)$'$].
Finally, if the nest-representability of $\Psi$ is given by case (3), then $\Psi = R \circ \Phi \circ R ^\smallsmile $, for some compatible and reflexive $R$ and some nest-representable $\Phi$ for which the induction has already been carried over. If $j \neq h$ are paired, then $ e_j \mathrel \Psi e_h $ and, by the above assumption on $ \Psi$, there are elements $b _{ijh} $ and $b' _{ijh} $ such that $ e_j \mathrel { R} b _{ijh} \mathrel \Phi b' _{ijh}
\mathrel { R ^\smallsmile} e_h$, thus $e_h \mathrel { R } b' _{ijh}$. Define elements $e^*_1, \dots, e^*_m$ as follows. If $ \{ v_j \} $ is a $\sim_i$-equivalence class, let $e^*_j = e_j$. If $j< h$ are paired, let $e^*_j = b _{ijh}$ and $e^*_h = b' _{ijh}$, thus $e^*_j \mathrel { \Phi} e^*_h $. The above cases do not overlap, since $\sim_i$ is an equivalence relation; moreover, they cover all indices, by the assumption that $p$ is a regular term; see [@contol]. By the inductive hypothesis, $t_w(e^*_1, \dots, e^*_m) \mathrel {\Phi}
t _{w'}(e^*_1, \dots, e^*_m)$. Since $e_j \mathrel { R } e^*_j$, for every $j$, then $t_w(e_1, \dots, e_m) \mathrel {R}
t_w(e^*_1, \dots, e^*_m) \mathrel {\Phi}
t _{w'}(e^*_1, \dots, e^*_m) \mathrel { R ^\smallsmile }
t _{w'}(e_1, \dots, e_m)$, hence $t_w(e_1, \dots, e_m) \mathrel {R \circ \Phi \circ R ^\smallsmile }
t _{w'}(e_1, \dots, e_m)$, that is, $t_w(e_1, \dots, e_m) \mathrel { \Psi }
t _{w'}(e_1, \dots, e_m)$, what we had to show.
Notice that (1)(i) can be seen as a particular case of (2), by the mentioned way of associating a graph to a term.
This is a preliminary version, it might contain inaccuraccies (to be precise, it is more likely to contain inaccuracies than subsequent versions).
[1]{}
G. Czédli, *A Mal’cev type condition for the semidistributivity of congruence lattices*, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged), **43** (1981), 267–272.
G. Czédli, *On properties of rings that can be characterized by infinite lattice identities*, Studia Sci. Math. Hungar., **16** (1981), 45–60.
G. Czédli, *A characterization for congruence semi-distributivity*, Proc. Conf. Universal Algebra and Lattice Theory, Puebla (Mexico, 1982), Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Math. **1004**, 104–110.
G. Czédli, *Mal’cev conditions for Horn sentences with congruence permutability*, Acta Math. Hungar., **44** (1–2) (1984), 115–124.
G. Czédli, *On the word problem of lattices with the help of graphs*, Periodica Math. Hungar., **23** (1) (1991), 49–58.
G. Czédli and Alan Day, *Horn sentences with (W) and weak Mal’cev conditions*, Algebra Universalis **19**, (1984), 217–230.
G. Czédli, E. Horváth, and P. Lipparini, *Optimal Mal’tsev conditions for congruence modular varieties*, Algebra Universalis **53** (2005), no. 2–3, 267–279. R. Freese and R. McKenzie, [*Commutator theory for congruence modular varieties*]{}, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes **125** (1987).
G. Hutchinson and G. Czédli, *A test for identities satisfied in lattices of submodules*, Algebra Universalis **8** (1978), no. 3, 269–309.
B. J[ó]{}nsson, *Congruence varieties*, Algebra Universalis **10** (1980), 355–394.
P. Lipparini, *From congruence identities to tolerance identities*, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) **73** (2007), 31–51.
P. Lipparini, *Mal’cev conditions from graphs for congruences and tolerances*, arXiv:0703089 (2007).
P. Lipparini, *A note on the number of terms witnessing congruence modularity*, arXiv:1709.06023 (2017).
A. P. Pixley, *Local Malcev conditions*, Canad. Math. Bull. **15** (1972), 559–568.
R. Wille, *Kongruenzklassengeometrien*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1970 Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. **113**.
[^1]: Work performed under the auspices of G.N.S.A.G.A. Work partially supported by PRIN 2012 “Logica, Modelli e Insiemi”
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Consider a society of voters, each of whom specify an *approval set* over a linear political spectrum. We examine *double-interval societies*, in which each person’s approval set is represented by two disjoint closed intervals, and study this situation where the approval sets are *pairwise-intersecting*: every pair of voters has a point in the intersection of their approval sets. The *approval ratio* for a society is, loosely speaking, the popularity of the most popular position on the spectrum. We study the question: what is the minimal guaranteed approval ratio for such a society? We provide a lower bound for the approval ratio, and examine a family of societies that have rather low approval ratios. These societies arise from *double-$n$ strings*: arrangements of $n$ symbols in which each symbol appears exactly twice.'
address:
- 'President, Harvey Mudd College'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Willamette University'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Harvey Mudd College'
author:
- Maria Klawe
- 'Kathryn L. Nyman'
- 'Jacob N. Scott'
- 'Francis Edward Su\*'
title: 'Double-Interval Societies'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Consider the voting model of Berg et.al.[@NSTW] in which a political spectrum $X$ is viewed as a continuum, with liberal positions on the left and conservative positions on the right, and in which each voter $v$ “approves” an interval of positions along this line. For example, a tolerant moderate might approve a wide interval near the middle of the line, while an intolerant partisan may approve a narrower interval near one of the ends.
More formally, a *society* is a spectrum $X$ together with a set of voters $V$ and a collection of approval sets $\{ A_{v} \}$, one for each voter. A point on the spectrum $X$ is called a *platform*. In our situation, we imagine $X$ to be ${\mathbb{R}}$, and each approval set $A_{v}$ is a closed interval that represents the set of all platforms that $v$ approves.
Now suppose that every pair of people can agree on some platform; that is, their intervals overlap. In this situation, Helly’s Theorem [@helly] implies that there exists a point on the line that lies in everyone’s approval set, i.e., there is a platform that everyone approves. Thus a strong hypothesis (pairwise intersecting sets) produces a strong conclusion (a point in all the sets). However, in voting theory, we are usually not looking for unanimity, but may be satisfied with a platform that has high *approval ratio*: the fraction of voters that approve this platform.
Various authors have relaxed the hypotheses. Berg et.al.[@NSTW] define a linear $(k,m)$-agreeable society in which voter preferences again are modeled by closed intervals in ${\mathbb{R}}^1$. In this society, given any set of $m$ voters, there exists a subset of $k$ voters whose approval intervals mutually intersect. They prove that there must exist some platform with approval ratio $\frac{k-1}{m-1}$. Another generalization by Hardin [@hardin] looks at approval intervals on a circle rather than a line, and finds that with $(k,m)$-agreeability, the approval ratio of the society is at least $\frac{k-1}{m}$.
(15,2)
(1,1.8)[(1,0)[3]{}]{} (7,1.8)[(1,0)[8]{}]{} (3,1.3)[(1,0)[5]{}]{} (11,1.3)[(1,0)[3]{}]{} (2,.8)[(1,0)[4]{}]{} (10,.8)[(1,0)[2]{}]{} (5,0.3)[(1,0)[4]{}]{} (13,0.3)[(1,0)[1.5]{}]{}
(-0.5,1.65)[A, A’:]{} (-0.5,1.15)[B, B’:]{} (-0.5,.65)[C, C’:]{} (-0.5,0.15)[D, D’:]{}
(2,-1.5)
We generalize the one-interval model to a society in which every member is identified with two disjoint approval intervals and call such a society a [*double-interval society*]{}. This situation may arise naturally in the context of voting to account for voters who do not place candidates along a linear spectrum in exactly the same order, or to account for voters who find disjoint sets of platforms appealing for entirely different reasons (e.g., for being a party purist, or having the ability to work across party lines). In a scheduling context, such intervals might model a society of workers, each of whom has two different work shifts.
Figure \[examplesociety\] illustrates a double-interval society with four voters. The approval sets of each voter have been separated vertically so they are easier to see. Note that the approval sets are pairwise-intersecting: each voter overlaps every other voter in one or both of their approval intervals. In this example, there are several platforms approved by three voters, but no platform is approved by all four. The [*approval number*]{} of a platform $a(p)$ is the number of voters (in a society $S$) who approve of platform $p$. The [*approval number*]{} of a society $a(S)$ is the maximum approval number over all platforms in the spectrum $X$. That is $$a(S) = \max_{p \in X} a(p).$$ Finally, define the [*approval ratio*]{} of a society to be the approval number of $S$ divided by the number of voters in $S$.
The main question we address in this paper is: what is the minimal approval ratio of a pairwise-intersecting, double-interval society with $n$ voters?
Examples suggest that the minimal approval ratio of such societies is $1/3$; that is, there is always a platform that will get at least a third of the votes. Our results in this paper attempt to clarify this intuition.
We will first examine a family of double-interval societies with low approval ratios that have regular patterns of interval overlap. These arise from the construction of what we call *double-$n$* strings, defined in the next Section. The combinatorics of such strings are quite nifty and provide a lower bound for the approval ratio of societies in this family (Theorem \[klowerbound\]) as well as an upper bound (Theorem \[klaweupperbound\]) for societies in this family. Roughly speaking, the double-$n$ strings produce societies with asymptotic approval ratios between $0.348$ and $0.385$.
We will also prove a general lower bound for the approval ratio of any pairwise-intersecting, double-interval society in Theorem \[lowerbound\], which shows the approval ratio is always greater than $0.268$.
Then we ask if we can find specific societies with lower approval ratios than the ones arising from double-$n$ strings, and discover that there are such examples. We find them by modifying the construction that comes from double-$n$ strings. See Table \[boundresults\]. However, all of these examples have approval ratio greater than or equal to 1/3.
Double-$n$ String Societies
===========================
Double-interval societies with regular patterns of interval overlap can be represented by *double-$n$ strings*, that is, strings of length $2n$ containing exactly two occurrences of each of $n$ symbols. At times we will also represent double-$n$ strings as strings of the symbols $1, \ldots, n$. We define the *distance* between two distinct symbols in a double-$n$ string to be the minimum distance between a pair of occurrences of the symbols, where the distance between two adjacent symbols is taken as 1. The *diameter* of a double-$n$ string is the maximum over all $1\leq i<j\leq n$ of the distance between $i$ and $j$. We will call two entries in the list *adjacent* if their positions in the list differ by no more than the diameter of the string.
Let $\delta(n)$ be the minimum diameter over all double-$n$ strings.
(19,12)
[(0,10.8)[(1,0)[3]{}]{}(11.2,1.2)[(1,0)[3.1]{}]{}]{} [(1.4,9.6)[(1,0)[3]{}]{}(7,4.8)[(1,0)[3.1]{}]{}]{} [(2.8,8.4)[(1,0)[3]{}]{}(9.8,2.4)[(1,0)[3.1]{}]{}]{} [(4.2,7.2)[(1,0)[3]{}]{}(12.6,0.0)[(1,0)[3.1]{}]{}]{} [(5.6,6.0)[(1,0)[3 ]{}]{}(8.4,3.6)[(1,0)[3.1 ]{}]{}]{}
[(1.4,11)[A]{}(12.6,1.4)[A]{}]{} [(2.8,9.8)[B]{}(8.4,5)[B]{}]{} [(4.2,8.6)[C]{}(11.2,2.6)[C]{}]{} [(5.6,7.4)[D]{}(14,0.2)[D]{}]{} [(7,6.2 )[E]{}(9.8,3.8)[E]{}]{}
We can construct a pairwise-intersecting double-interval society from a double-$n$ string with diameter $d$ by assigning intervals of equal width to the symbols, long enough so that each interval overlaps the intervals of the $d$ symbols to its right and left.
For example, consider the double-5 string $ABCDEBECAD$. This string has diameter 2, since any pair of symbols $A$ through $E$ appear somewhere in this list separated by at most one other symbol (e.g., the second occurrences of $A$ and $E$ in this string are distance 2 apart). We build a society from this string by assigning intervals of equal width as in Figure \[double-n\]. This society has approval number 3 as can be seen since the right endpoint of $A$’s first interval intersects the left endpoint of $C$’s first interval, and both intersect $B$’s first interval. Hence we see that $\delta(5) \leq 2$ (and in fact $\delta(5)=2$). Note that in general the approval number of a society with an underlying double-$n$ string is one more than the diameter, that is, $a(S) = d+1$.
Asymptotic approval ratios for double-$n$ string societies
==========================================================
If $S$ is arises from a double-$n$ string with diameter $d$, then since $a(S)=d+1$, we see that the minimal approval ratio of such a society is $(\delta(n)+1)/n$. By taking limits, we see that $$\Delta = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\delta(n)+1}{n} = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\delta(n)}{n}$$ is the asymptotic approval ratio for societies arising from double-$n$ strings. In this section, we will show that $$8/23 \leq \Delta \leq 5/13.$$ It is clear that for $n > 1$ we have $\delta(n-1) \leq \delta(n)$ since for any double-$n$ string we can form a double-$(n-1)$ string of no larger diameter by deleting both occurrences of the $n$-th symbol. Given a double-$n$ string $S$ we label the symbols as $1,2, \ldots, n$ according to the left to right order of their first occurrence within $S$.
It is easy to see that $\Delta \leq 1/2$ since the double-$n$ string $1,2,\ldots , n, 1, 2, \ldots, n$ shows that $\delta(n) \leq n/2$ for $n$ at least 2. In fact, we can show $\delta(n) < n/2$ for $n$ at least 3. Although this does not change the upper bound on $\Delta$, we will need this result for the lower bound $8/23 \leq \Delta$.
If $n>2$, then $\delta(n) < n/2$. \[lem:n/2\]
The case $\delta(3) = 1$ follows from the double-3 string 1,2,3,1,2,3 and the case $\delta(4) = 1$ follows from the double-4 string 1,2,3,4,1,3,2,4. The proof for the general case $n>4$ is based on this double-4 string. Let $r = \lfloor n/4 \rfloor$. We will partition 1,2,…,$n$ into four strings $S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$, $S_4$ where each is of length $ r$ or $r+1$ depending on the value of $n \mathbin{\mathrm{mod}} 4$. We prove the result by looking at the diameter of the double-$n$ string $T(n) = S_1, S_2, S_3, S_4, S_1, S_3, S_2, S_4$.
Suppose $n = 4r$ for some positive integer $r$. We let $S_i$ be the string $(i-1)r+1, (i-1)r+2,\ldots, ir $ of length $r$ and it is easy to check that the diameter of $T(n)$ is $2r - 1$ and we have $2r -1 < n/2$. For $n = 4r+1$, let $S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$ be as before and let $S_4$ be the string $3r+1$,…,$4r+1$ of length $r+1$. Now the diameter of $T(n)$ is $2r$, and again we have $2r < n/2$ as desired. For $n = 4r+2$ we set $S_1$ and $S_4$ to have length $r$ and $S_2$ and $S_3$ to have length $r+1$. Consider $b$ in $S_i$ and $c$ in $S_j$ with $i < j$. It is easy to see that unless $i = 2$ and $j = 3$, the distance between $b$ and $c$ in $T(n)$ is at most $2r$ since at least one of $S_i$ and $S_j$ has length $r$ and the other has length at most $r+1$. Moreover, for $b$ in $S_2$ and $c$ in $S_3$ the distance between $b$ and $c$ in $T(n)$ is at most $r+1$ since both of the substrings $S_2$, $S_3$ and $S_3$, $S_2$ occur in $T(n)$. Thus the diameter of $T(n) = 2r$ and we have $2r < 2r+1 = n/2$. Finally for $n = 4r+3$ we set $S_1$ to have length $r$ and $S_2$, $S_3$, $S_4$ to have length $r+1$. In this case it is easy to see that the diameter of $T(n)$ is $2r+1$ and we have $2r+1 < 2r+3/2 = n/2$.
For simplicity, without loss of generality assume that if the first occurrence of symbol $m$ occurs at position $i$ in a double-$n$ string, then all symbols at positions $1 \leq j < i$ are less than $m$ (otherwise this condition can be satisfied by a permutation of the symbols in the double-$n$ string). From Lemma \[lem:n/2\], it is sufficient to consider double-$n$ strings that have diameter less than $n/2$. It is also easy to obtain the lower bound $\Delta \geq 1/3$ as shown in the following lemma.
Let $r$ be a positive integer. We have $\delta(3r+1) \geq r$. \[lem:3r+1\]
Let $n=3r+1$. In any double-$n$ string of diameter $d$, the first occurrence of the symbol 1 can be adjacent to at most $d$ other symbols while the second occurrence can be adjacent to at most $2d$. Because 1 must be adjacent to all $n-1$ other symbols, $d+2d \geq n-1=3r$, and so $d \geq r$.
\[distinctness\] In a double-$n$ string with diameter $d$, the first $n-d$ symbols are distinct (and hence in the order $1,2,\dots,n-d$).
Assume that there exists some symbol $x$ both of whose occurrences are within the first $n-d$ entries. Thus the first occurrence of $n$ must be at position at least $n+1$, so the distance between $x$ and $n$ is at least $d+1$, a contradiction.
\[closeones\] Let $d<n/2$ be the diameter of a double-$n$ string, and let $r_i$ be the number of symbols both of whose occurrences are within $d$ of either occurrence of $i$ for $1 \leq i \leq d+1$. Then $r_i \leq 3d+i-n$.
As $d <n/2$, Lemma \[distinctness\] gives that the first $d+1$ symbols of such a double-$n$ string are $1, 2, \dots,d+1$. For $1 \leq i \leq d+1$, there are only $i-1$ symbols before the first occurrence of $i$, so there are at most $3d+i-1$ symbols adjacent to $i$, of which $r_i$ of them are repeats. Hence $n-1 \leq 3d+i-1-r_i$.
\[cordistinct\] For $1 \leq i \leq d+1$, and $d < n/2$, at most $3d+i-n$ of the symbols $1, 2,\dots, \hat{i}, \ldots ,d+1$, are within $d$ of the second occurrence of $i$. (Here $\hat{i}$ means omit $i$).
This follows directly from Lemma \[closeones\] since each of the symbols $1,\ldots, \hat{i},$ $\ldots, d+1$ occurs within $d$ of the first occurrence of $i$.
We are now ready to prove the lower bound.
\[klowerbound\] Let $r$ be a positive integer. Then $\delta(23r) \geq 8r$. Thus the asymptotic approval ratio for double-$n$ strings is bounded below by $8/23$.
Let $n = 23r$ and let $S$ be a double-$n$ string with diameter $d$. Suppose $d < 8r$. Since $d$ is an integer we have $d \leq 8r - 1$. Note that $d \geq \delta(23r) \geq \delta(21r + 1) \geq 7r$ by Lemma \[lem:3r+1\].
By Lemma \[distinctness\] the first $n-d \geq 23r -8r + 1 =15r + 1$ symbols in $S$ are distinct (and in order). Now since $d < 8r$ the first occurrence of the symbol labeled $15r+1$ is not within $d$ of the first occurrence of $i$ for $1 \leq i \leq 7r+1$. Thus for any such $i$ we must have the second occurrence of $i$ occurring in one of three sets of positions, namely the block $B_1$ of length $d$ following the first occurrence of $15r+1$, the block $B_2$ of length $d$ ahead of the second occurrence of $15r+1$, or the block $B_3$ of length $d$ following the second occurrence of $15r+1$. These blocks are illustrated in Figure \[klawelowerbounddiagram\]. Let $k_j$ be the number of symbols in $1 \leq i \leq 7r+1$ with their second occurrence in block $B_j$. From the preceding observation we have $k_1 + k_2 + k_3 \geq 7r + 1$ (conceivably such a second occurrence of $i$ could be in both $B_1$ and $B_2$ if they overlap).
Note that any pair of symbols in $B_j$ lie within $d$ of each other. Suppose without loss of generality that the second occurrence of 1 lies in $B_1$. For any $i$ with $1 < i \leq 7r+1$ with the second occurrence of $i$ in $B_1$, both occurrences of $i$ lie within $d$ of an occurrence of 1, since $d \geq 7r$. By Corollary \[cordistinct\], the number of such $i$ is at most $$3d + 1 - n \leq 3(8r-1) + 1 - 23r = r - 2,$$ giving $k_1 \leq 1 + r - 2 = r - 1$.
Let $x$ be the minimal number such that the second occurrence of $x$ is not in $B_1$. Then $x \leq r$ since $k_1 \leq r - 1$. Without loss of generality suppose the second occurrence of $x$ is in $B_2$. Again, by Corollary \[cordistinct\] there are at most $$3d+r-n \leq 3(8r-1)+r-23r = 2r-3$$ symbols $i$ with $1 \leq i \leq 7r+1$ other than $x$ in $B_2$, so $k_2 \leq 2r-2$.
Similarly, let $y$ be the smallest symbol (in value) whose second occurrence is in $B_3$ (i.e., is not in $B_1$ or $B_2$). There are at most $k_1+k_2$ symbols in $B_1 \cup B_2$, so $y \leq 3r-2$. Using Corollary \[cordistinct\] one last time, we see that there are at most $3d+(3r-2)-n\leq 3(8r-1)+(3r-2)-23r = 4r-5$ symbols $i \neq y$ with $1 \leq i \leq 7r+1$ in $B_3$, so $k_3 \leq 4r-4$. However, this is a contradiction: we needed $k_1+k_2+k_3 \geq 7r+1$, but $$k_1+k_2+k_3 \leq (r-1)+(2r-2)+(4r-4) = 7r-7.$$ Therefore we could not have $d<8r$, proving the theorem.
A general argument showing $\delta(br)\geq ar$, for large $r$, leads to the inequalities $b<3a$ and $23a\leq 8b$. Thus the lower bound of Theorem \[klowerbound\] is the best possible asymptotic bound using this argument. Now we turn to the upper bound.
![$B_1$, $B_2$, and $B_3$ (in the case that they are disjoint).[]{data-label="klawelowerbounddiagram"}](klawelowerbounddiagram2.pdf){width="4in"}
\[klaweupperbound\] For any $n>0$, there exists a double-$n$ string with diameter $d \leq 5{\left \lceil \frac{n}{13} \right \rceil }-1$. Hence the asymptotic approval ratio for double-$n$ strings is bounded above by $5/13$.
Note that the double-13 string $$1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,11,6,12,13, 5, 4, 7, 11,10, 9, 2, 3,13,12, 8$$ has diameter 4, meaning that any two symbols in it appear somewhere in the double-13 string separated by no more than three other elements. This yields a general construction for double-$n$ strings of any length. Let $k={\left \lceil \frac{n}{13} \right \rceil }$. Then replacing each symbol $i$ in the above string with the substring $$k(i-1)+1, k(i-1)+2,\dots, ki,$$ and removing any symbols in the resulting string that are greater than $n$, yields a double-$n$ string. An example of this string for $n=34$ ($k=3$) is shown in Figure \[klaweupperboundexample\]. Because the diameter of the above double-13 string is 4, any two symbols $1 \leq i<j \leq n$ are within substrings that are separated by at most three substrings of length $k$. Also, $i$ and $j$ are at worst on the far ends of their substrings, giving a maximum total distance between $i$ and $j$ in the new string of\
$$3{\left \lceil \frac{n}{13} \right \rceil }+\left(2{\left \lceil \frac{n}{13} \right \rceil }-1\right) =5{\left \lceil \frac{n}{13} \right \rceil }-1. \qedhere$$
A double-interval society lower bound
=====================================
In the previous section we considered double-$n$ strings as examples of societies with low approval ratios. These examples give upper bounds for the minimal guaranteed approval ratio for any society. In this section, we give lower bounds for the minimal guaranteed approval ratio, by considering how general pairwise-intersecting double-interval societies force conditions on the number of intervals that can intersect a given interval at its endpoints. This approach largely ignores the geometry of the approval sets and considers only combinatorial constraints.
\[lowerbound\] The approval number $a(S)$ of any $n$-voter society $S$ satisfies $$\label{nicebound}
a(S) \geq \left\lceil 2n+\frac{1}{2}-\sqrt{3n^2-n+\frac{1}{4}} \right\rceil .$$ Then the approval ratio satisfies $$\label{niceapproval}
\frac{a(S)}{n} \geq 2-\sqrt{3} + \frac{3+\sqrt{3}}{6n} - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{24n^{2}}
\approx 0.268 + \frac{0.789}{n} - \frac{1.732}{24n^{2}}.$$ Alternatively, the size $n$ of a society achieving a given approval number $a(S)$ is bounded above by $$\label{nicen}
n \leq \left\lfloor 2a(S) - \frac32 + \sqrt{3(a(S))^2 - 5 a(S) + \frac94} \right\rfloor.$$
Let $A_i$ and $A_i'$ represent the left and right intervals, respectively, of voter $i$’s approval set in the $n$-voter society $S$. Without loss of generality we may assume no two interval endpoints coincide. For any interval $I$, define numbers $L(I)$, $R(I)$, $B(I)$, and $C(I)$ to keep track of the number of other intervals that intersect $I$ in various ways. Let $L(I)$ count the number of other intervals that, of two endpoints of $I$, contain only the *left* endpoint. Let $R(I)$ count the number of other intervals that, of two endpoints of $I$, contain only the *right* endpoint. Let $B(I)$ count the number of other intervals that contain *both* endpoints of $I$. Let $C(I)$ count the number of other intervals that intersect $I$ but contain *neither* endpoint of $I$, and are hence in the “center” of $I$.
For example, in Figure \[examplesociety\], we see that $L(A')=2$, $R(A')=0$, $C(A')=3$, and $B(A')=0$. Also $L(C')=0$, $R(C')=1$, $C(C')=0$, and $B(C')=1$. Since each set must intersect all $n-1$ other sets, $$L(A_i)+L(A_i')+R(A_i)+R(A_i')+C(A_i)+C(A_i')+B(A_i)+B(A_i') \geq n-1.$$ Then clearly $$\begin{aligned}
{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}\left[ L(A_i)+L(A_i')+R(A_i)+R(A_i')+C(A_i')+C(A_i)+B(A_i)+B(A_i') \right] \nonumber \\
\geq n(n-1).
\label{sumbound}\end{aligned}$$
Note that an interval $J$ covers both endpoints of another interval $I$ and contributes $1$ to the count $B(I)$ exactly when $I$ is the in the center of $J$ and contributes $1$ to the count $C(J)$. This implies: $$\label{BC}
{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}\left[ B(A_i)+B(A_i') \right] = {\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}\left [ C(A_i)+C(A_i') \right].$$
Notice that given an approval number $a(S)$, each interval may have at most $a(S)-1$ other sets intersecting its left endpoint. This gives an initial bound $${\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}\left[ L(A_i)+L(A_i')+B(A_i)+B(A_i') \right] \leq 2n(a(S)-1).$$ and similarly, considering right endpoints: $${\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}\left[ R(A_i)+R(A_i')+B(A_i)+B(A_i') \right] \leq 2n(a(S)-1).$$ However, if the $2n$ intervals are ordered by the left endpoint, then the $k$th interval under this ordering from left to right can have at most $k-1$ intervals intersecting its left endpoint, not $a(S)-1$. Thus we need to adjust the formulas above, to obtain: $${\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}\left[ L(A_i)+L(A_i')+B(A_i)+B(A_i') \right] \leq 2n(a(S)-1)-\frac{a(S)(a(S)-1)}{2},$$ $${\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}\left[ R(A_i)+R(A_i')+B(A_i)+B(A_i') \right] \leq 2n(a(S)-1)-\frac{a(S)(a(S)-1)}{2}.$$ Adding these equations and applying equation (\[BC\]) yields\
$$\begin{aligned}
{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}\left[ L(A_i)+L(A_i')+R(A_i)+R(A_i')+C(A_i')+C(A_i)+B(A_i)+B(A_i') \right] \nonumber \\
\leq 4n(a(S)-1)-a(S)(a(S)-1). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ So by equation (\[sumbound\]), we see\
$$\label{niceeqnbound}(4n-a(S))(a(S)-1) \geq n(n-1).$$ Solving this quadratic inequality for $a(S)$, and rounding up to the nearest integer gives the conclusion (\[nicebound\]). Using $(1-x)^{1/2} \leq 1-(1/2)x$ gives conclusion (\[niceapproval\]). Solving the quadratic inequality for $n$ and rounding down gives the conclusion (\[nicen\]).
Values of $a(S)$ and the corresponding bounds on $n$ and the approval ratio derived from equation (\[nicen\]) are given in Table \[boundresults\].
-------- ------------ -------------- ---------- ----------------
$a(S)$ $n$ Approval Observed Observed
Ratio $n$ Approval Ratio
$2$ $\leq 4$ $\geq 0.500$ 4 0.500
$3$ $\leq 8$ $\geq 0.375$ 8 0.375
$4$ $\leq 12$ $\geq 0.333$ 12 0.333
$5$ $\leq 15$ $\geq 0.333$ 15 0.333
$6$ $\leq 19$ $\geq 0.316$ 18 0.333
$7$ $\leq 23$ $\geq 0.304$ 21 0.333
$8$ $\leq 26$ $\geq 0.308$ 24 0.333
$9$ $\leq 30$ $\geq 0.300$ 27 0.333
$10$ $\leq 34 $ $\geq 0.294$ 30 0.333
$11$ $\leq 38$ $\geq 0.289$ 32 0.344
$12$ $\leq 41 $ $\geq 0.293$ 35 0.343
-------- ------------ -------------- ---------- ----------------
: On the left, this table shows for a given approval number the largest $n$ that is given by inequality (\[nicen\]) as well as the resulting bound on the approval ratio derived from inequality (\[nicebound\]). On the right, this table shows, for a given approval number, known examples of the largest $n$ that has this approval number and the observed approval ratio in that case, obtained by a modification of a double-$n$ string construction.[]{data-label="boundresults"}
Modifying double-$n$ string societies
=====================================
In this section we give an example of a double-interval society with an approval ratio lower than the bound given by Theorem \[klowerbound\], thus showing that double-$n$ strings do not always provide examples of societies with minimal approval ratios. We will require a new notation, called the *endpoint representation* of a society. We will encode a society as a sequence of symbols (corresponding to the approval sets) representing the order of the endpoints of all the approval sets, each prefixed by a “+” or a “$-$’ to denote a left or right endpoint respectively. For example, the society in Figure \[examplesociety\] is represented as $$+A+C+B-A+D-C+A-B-D+C+B-C+D-B-D-A.$$
\[counterexample\] There exists a society of size $n=8$ with approval number 3. Hence there exist $n$ for which double-$n$ strings do not produce the lowest possible approval numbers.
(32,20)
[(1,19.8)[(1,0)[3]{}]{}(15,10.2)[(1,0)[7]{}]{}]{} [(2,18.6)[(1,0)[4]{}]{}(23,5.4)[(1,0)[8]{}]{}]{} [(3,17.4)[(1,0)[5]{}]{}(25,4.2)[(1,0)[5]{}]{}]{} [(7,15)[(1,0)[3]{}]{}(19,7.8)[(1,0)[5]{}]{}]{} [(5,16.2)[(1,0)[7]{}]{}(17,9)[(1,0)[1]{}]{}]{} [(11,12.6)[(1,0)[3]{}]{}(21,6.6)[(1,0)[5]{}]{}]{} [(9,13.8)[(1,0)[7]{}]{}(27,3)[(1,0)[1]{}]{}]{} [(13,11.4)[(1,0)[7]{}]{}(29,1.8)[(1,0)[3]{}]{}]{}
[(2.25,20)[A]{}(18.25,10.4)[A]{}]{} [(3.75,18.8)[B]{}(26.75,5.6)[B]{}]{} [(5.25,17.6)[C]{}(27.25,4.4)[C]{}]{} [(8.25,15.2)[D]{}(21.25,8)[D]{}]{} [(8.25,16.4)[E]{}(17.25,9.2)[E]{}]{} [(12.25,12.8)[F]{}(23.25,6.8)[F]{}]{} [(12.25,14)[G]{}(27.25,3.2)[G]{}]{} [(16.25,11.6)[H]{}(30.25,2)[H]{}]{}
The society shown in Figure \[3-8counterexample\] provides such a society. This example was derived from the double-8 string $$ABCDEFGHEADFCGBH.$$ If each interval in the string overlaps two intervals on each side, this arrangement is missing the adjacencies $AG$, $BE$, $BF$, $CA$, $DG$, $DG$ and $CH$ and has duplicate adjacencies $BC$, $CD$, $DC$, $DE$, $DF$, $EG$, $FG$, and $GH$. By doing a series of moves that interchanges endpoints in such a way as to introduce missing adjacencies (at the expense of duplicate adjacencies) without increasing the approval number, we arrive at the society $$\begin{aligned}
&&+A+B+C-A+E-B+D-C+G-D+F-E+H-F+A-G\\
&&+E-E+D-H+F-A+B-D+C-F+G-G+H-C-B-H.\end{aligned}$$
We note that an example like this with $n=8$ and $a(S)=3$ cannot be achieved by a double-$n$ string since the first symbol in a double-$n$ string with diameter $d$ is adjacent to at most $3d$ other symbols. Thus, as in Lemma \[lem:3r+1\], we have $n \leq 3d+1 = 3(a(S)-1) +1$, and so the approval number of a double-8 string must be at least 4.
It is not clear how to systematically interchange endpoints to achieve all possible adjacencies. However, an algorithm which aims at making “smart” swaps produced societies with approval ratios given in Table \[boundresults\]. A description of the algorithm can be found in [@Scott]. The results of the hill-climbing algorithm in Figure \[hillclimbingoutput\] suggest that the asymptotic approval ratio should be $1/3$.
a(S)=3, n=8, AR=0.375: +A+B+F-F+G-A+F-B+C-C+D-G+E-D+H-F+G-G+A-E+D-H
+C-A+B-D+E-E+H-H-B-C
a(S)=4, n=12, AR=0.333: +A+B+C+F-C+H-B+L-L+G-G+I-F+D-A+C-H+L-D+E-E+J
-I+G-J+K-C+B-L+I-I+D-K+E-G+J-B+F-D+K-F+A-A+H
-K-E-H-J
a(S)=5, n=15, AR=0.333: +A+B+C+D+E-C+G-A+O-G+F-D+K-F+J-J+N-E+C-B+A-O
+D-K+H-H+M-N+J-M+L-L+I-D+F-A+G-C+N-I+L-N+H-J
+M-F+K-G+I-K+B-B+E-E+O-H-M-I-L-O
a(S)=6, n=18, AR=0.333: +A+B+C+D+E+G-A+M-C+K-G+Q-Q+P-P+O-O+J-D+F-E+A
-B+C-F+P-K+I-I+R-M+O-R+H-H+L-J+Q-L+N-A+G-C+J
-J+F-P+I-O+R-N+H-Q+L-G+D-F+N-D+K-K+B-B+E-R+M
-N-M-E-H-L-I
a(S)=7, n=21, AR=0.333: +A+B+C+D+E+F+I-A+K-K+N-N+R-R+G-E+T-B+J-T+U-G
+Q-D+B-I+P-Q+M-C+H-F+L-J+S-U+O-B+D-D+C-C+I-I
+F-F+G-P+Q-M+R-L+J-S+N-O+K-H+A-G+E-J+T-Q+P-P
+M-M+U-R+S-S+O-U+L-N+H-T-H-K-L-E-O-A
a(S)=8, n=24, AR=0.333: +A+B+C+D+E+F+G+L-G+N-C+O-F+Q-O+M-N+T-B+H-H+K
-Q+I-I+U-U+X-D+J-L+F-A+O-E+C-J+G-M+P-T+U-P+H
-K+W-X+I-W+R-R+V-V+S-O+Q-C+J-F+N-G+B-U+X-S+P
-H+R-I+V-X+W-Q+K-B+D-J+T-N+S-D+L-T+M-K+A-L+E
-P-A-W-S-E-M-V-R
Conclusion and Open Questions
=============================
We have studied pairwise-intersecting double-interval societies, and determined bounds for the minimum guaranteed approval ratio for such societies. Such questions naturally motivated the study of double-$n$ strings, which represent certain special double-interval societies with low approval ratios. Although these do not necessarily provide the smallest such ratios, all of the known examples that provide smaller ratios come from modifying the double-$n$ string construction.
There are numerous open questions.
- For double-$n$ strings, is there a systematic way to construct strings of the smallest diameter?
- Beyond double-$n$ strings, is there a better general construction that yields societies with the lowest approval ratios?
- With double-$n$ strings, we currently have $\Delta$ bounded by $0.348 \leq \Delta \leq 0.385$. Can we tighten the bounds on $\Delta$?
- What results can be obtained for triple-interval societies?
- What about higher-dimensional approval sets? What can be said if each voter’s approval set consists of two convex sets in the plane?
Finally, we end with our initial conjecture, which now has more evidence as support.
For all pairwise-intersecting double-interval societies $S$, the approval ratio $$\frac{a(S)}{n} \geq \frac13.$$
[AA]{} D. E. Berg, S. Norine, F. E. Su, R. Thomas, and P. Wollan, Voting in agreeable societies. [*The Amer. Math. Monthly*]{} 117 (1), (2010), pp.27–29.
C. S. Hardin, Agreement in circular societies. [*The Amer. Math. Monthly*]{} 117 (1), (2010), pp. 40–49.
E. Helly, " Uber Mengen konvexer Körper mit gemeinshaftlichen Punkten. [*Jber Deutsch Math-Verein*]{} 32, (1923), pp. 175–176.
J. N. Scott, Approval ratios of two-intersecting double-interval societies. Harvey Mudd Senior Thesis. (2011).
[^1]: \*Work partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-1002938
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent measurements of top-quark properties at the Tevatron, including top quark production asymmetries and properties, are presented. Latest updates of measurements of top quark production asymmetries include the measurement of the [$t\bar{t}$]{}production asymmetry by [D0]{}employing the full Run II data set, in the lepton + jets and dilepton decay channel. Within their uncertainties the results from all these measurements agree with their respective Standard Model expectation.'
address: |
Fermilab, MS 205, Pine Rd & Kirk St, Batavia, 60510, IL, USA\
Preprint: FERMILAB-CONF-14-524-E
author:
- 'Andreas W. Jung'
title: Top quark properties at the Tevatron
---
Introduction {#toc:intro}
============
The top quark is the heaviest known elementary particle and was discovered at the Tevatron $p\bar{p}$ collider in 1995 by the CDF and [D0]{}collaboration [@top_disc1; @top_disc2] with a mass around $173~\mathrm{GeV}$. At the Tevatron the production is dominated by the $q\bar{q}$ annihilation process, while at the LHC the gluon-gluon fusion process dominates. The top quark has a very short lifetime,
[r]{}[0.545]{}
{width="50.50000%"}
which prevents the hadronization process of the top quark. Instead bare quark properties can be observed.\
The measurements presented here are performed using either the dilepton ($\ell \ell$) final state or the lepton+jets ([$\ell +$jets]{}) final state. Within the [$\ell +$jets]{} final state one of the $W$ bosons (stemming from the decay of the top quarks) decays leptonically, the other $W$ boson decays hadronically. For the dilepton final state both $W$ bosons decay leptonically. The branching fraction for top quarks decaying into $Wb$ is almost 100%. Jets originating from a $b$-quarks are identified ($b$-tagged) by means of multi-variate methods employing variables describing the properties of secondary vertices and of tracks with large impact parameters relative to the primary vertex.
Other Top quark properties {#toc:otherProps}
==========================
A large variety of measurements of top quark properties at the Tevatron exists to date [@d0_web; @cdf_web] and is not discussed in detail here. A recent update in terms of top quark properties was done by [D0]{}. The measurement of the electric charge of top quarks uses [$t\bar{t}$]{}events in the [$\ell +$jets]{}channel to fully reconstruct the [$t\bar{t}$]{}pair and infer the charge of the top quark by employing a jet charge algorithm. Figure \[fig:charge\] shows the reconstructed top quark charge $Q_t$ distribution compared to the combined MC prediction of signal and background. In addition an exotic model with quarks of $-4/3e$ is shown. Using a data set corresponding to 5.3$/$fb of integrated luminosity the hypothesis that the top quark has a charge of $-4/3e$ is excluded with a significance greater than 5 standard deviations. The results confirm earlier measurements by CDF and ATLAS. An upper limit of 0.46 on the fraction of these exotic quarks in an admixture with SM top quarks is derived at 95% confidence level.
Top quark production asymmetries {#toc:angular}
================================
The different initial state makes measurements of angular correlations in $t\bar{t}$ events, such as production asymmetries, complementary between the Tevatron and the LHC. Experimentally, there are two approaches to measure these asymmetries: Either top quarks are fully reconstructed using a kinematic reconstruction or only a final-state particle, e.g. a lepton (‘lepton-based asymmetries’) is reconstructed. The latter avoids the reconstruction of top-quarks, which is usually more affected by detector resolution and migration effects. The forward-backward asymmetry [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}at the Tevatron measures $\Delta y = y_t - y_{\bar{t}}$, and employing this quantity the production asymmetry is defined as $$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}} = \dfrac{N(\Delta y >0) - N(\Delta y <0)}{N(\Delta y >0) + N(\Delta y <0)}$$ The lepton-based asymmetries $A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}$ and $A^{\ell \ell}$ are defined in the following way employing measurements of the charge $q_{\ell}$ and $\eta$ of the leptons: $$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{\ell} = \dfrac{N(q_{\ell} \cdot \eta >0) - N(q_{\ell} \cdot \eta <0)}{N(q_{\ell} \cdot \eta >0) + N(q_{\ell} \cdot \eta <0)}~,\,\,{\mathrm}{and}\,\,A^{\ell \ell} = \dfrac{N(\Delta \eta >0) - N(\Delta \eta <0)}{N(\Delta \eta >0) + N(\Delta \eta <0)},~{\mathrm}{respectively}.$$ The difference $\Delta \eta$ is given by $\eta_{\ell^+} - \eta_{\ell^-}$ (signs refer to the charge of the lepton). The two lepton-based asymmetries are correlated, but by combining them a small reduction in the uncertainties is obtained.\
Calculations at NLO QCD including electroweak corrections [@bernSi] predicts [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}$=0.088 \pm 0.005$ and [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}$=0.038 \pm 0.005$. It should be noted that very recently predictions at NNLO+NNLL pQCD by Mitov et al. became available (discussed at this conference) with a predicted value at NNLO+NNLL including electroweak corrections of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}$\approx$ 10%.\
CDF uses data corresponding to $9.4~\mathrm{fb^{-1}}$ of integrated luminosity and employs a kinematic reconstruction to reconstruct the [$t\bar{t}$]{}final state in the [$\ell +$jets]{}decay channel [@cdf_ttbar_afb]. CDF measures an inclusive asymmetry of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}$=0.164 \pm 0.045$ (stat. + syst.) at the parton level compared to the SM prediction of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}$=0.088 \pm 0.005$ (NLO QCD including electroweak corrections). In addition the kinematic dependency of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}is extracted, by measuring $\Delta y$ in bins of $M_{t\bar{t}}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:cdf\_mttafb\](a).
![\[fig:cdf\_mttafb\] The (a) [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}at parton level as a function of the invariant mass of the [$t\bar{t}$]{}pair $M_{t\bar{t}}$ as measured by CDF and [D0]{}compared to the predicted dependency by NLO QCD including electroweak corrections [@bernSi] or [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mc@nlo</span>]{}. Summary of (b) [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}and [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}measurements at the Tevatron. For [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}these are results of the combination of results in the [$\ell +$jets]{}and dilepton decay channel.](d0_afb_tevSum.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The CDF results show a dependence on $M_{t\bar{t}}$, which is different from the SM expectation by 2.4 standard deviations.\
[D0]{}uses the full Run II data, corresponding to $9.7~{\mathrm}{fb^{-1}}$ of integrated luminosity [@d0_ttbar_afb], with an improved event selection including the three jet bin, which results in a larger phase space coverage and smaller corrections compared to previous measurements. A likelihood based kinematic reconstruction is used to fully reconstruct the [$t\bar{t}$]{}final state. The measurement in the [$\ell +$jets]{}decay channel results in an inclusive asymmetry of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}$=0.106 \pm 0.030$ (stat. + syst.) at the parton level. The result is compatible with the SM and results by CDF. [D0]{}does not see an indication for a strong [$m_{t\bar{t}}$]{}dependency beyond the one expected by the SM as shown in Fig. \[fig:cdf\_mttafb\](a). The recent NNLO+NNLL pQCD calculations are in agreement with the [D0]{}data.\
[D0]{}presented for the first time a measurement of the fully reconstructed top quark asymmetry in the dilepton decay channel. The measurement employs the full Run II data set corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 9.7/fb. Events with at least two jets, two high momentum and isolated electrons or muons or one high momentum isolated electron and muon are selected together with requiring a large missing transverse energy corresponding to the non-detected neutrinos of the leptonic $W$ boson decay. To fully reconstruct the [$t\bar{t}$]{}event a matrix element technique is applied, which calculates a likelihood of all the possible combinations when assigning reconstructed quantities to parton level [$t\bar{t}$]{}quantities.
![\[fig:d0ll\] The (a) $\Delta y$ distribution for selected events compared to the expectation from [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mc@nlo</span>]{}and various background contributions. The use of the matrix elements technique reflects in correlated reconstructed $\Delta y$ values, hence data is indicated by the shaded black band. Summary of (b) [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}measurements at the Tevatron compared to predictions at NLO QCD including electroweak corrections [@bernSi] and the very recent NNLO+NNLL calculations.](afbll.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:d0ll\](a) shows the $\Delta y = y_t - y_{\bar{t}}$ distribution for the selected data events compared to the signal expectation from [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mc@nlo</span>]{}and various background contributions. The measurement is corrected for detector effects to the parton level. If the measurement is interpreted as a test of the SM the measurement yields [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}$=0.180 \pm 0.061\,{\mathrm}{(stat.)} \pm 0.032\,{\mathrm}{(syst.)}$. Due to the unknown top quark polarization an additional model uncertainty of 5.1% applies once the measurement is interpreted as a search for contributions of new physics.\
The [D0]{}result in terms of the lepton-based asymmetries in the [$\ell +$jets]{}channel is at the parton level [@d0_leptonic_afb] and in the dilepton channel the corresponding measurement is [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}$ = 0.044 \pm 0.039$ (stat. + syst.), whereas the dilepton asymmetry is measured to be $A^{\ell \ell} = 0.123 \pm 0.056$. A summary of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}and [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}measurements at the Tevatron is given in Figure \[fig:cdf\_mttafb\](b). It is interesting to note that the ratio of the two lepton-based asymmetries in the dilepton channel shows a deviation from the SM prediction of about two standard deviations.\
CDF employed data corresponding to up to $9.4~{\mathrm}{fb^{-1}}$ of integrated luminosity and performed a combination of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}measurements. After combining results from [$\ell +$jets]{}and dilepton channels [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}is $0.09 ^{+0.028}_{-0.026}$ [@CDF-CONF-2013-11035], see Figure \[fig:cdf\_mttafb\](b).\
For measurements of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}the deviations from the SM predictions got smaller with the new [D0]{}measurement employing the full data set, but are still higher than the SM predictions. CDF results with the full data set are showing deviations at the two s.d. level. It should be noted that the individual results on [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}and [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}employ the full data recorded by CDF and [D0]{}and Tevatron combinations are currently ongoing.
Conclusions
===========
Various recent measurements of top quark properties, with a focus on top quark asymmetries, at the Tevatron are discussed. With the wealth of measurements provided by the LHC the measurements at the Tevatron are concentrated on complementary and unique quantities due to the different initial state. In the past results on asymmetry attract quite some interest due to deviations of the measurement compared to SM predictions. [D0]{}presented the final measurement of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}in the [$\ell +$jets]{}decay channel, which is now in good agreement with the theory predictions. CDF remains on the high side. For measurements of [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}the deviations from the SM predictions got smaller with the new [D0]{}measurement employing the full data set. Updated asymmetry measurements are forthcoming and studies on combinations of both [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{t\bar{t}}$]{}and [$A_{\mbox{{\footnotesize FB}}}^{{\mathrm}{lep}}$]{}at the Tevatron are currently ongoing. It remains to be seen if the chapter on asymmetry measurements is closed.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author thanks the organizers of the TOP 2014 conference for the invitation and for the hospitality of the conference venue.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
F Abe [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2626 (1995), \[arXiv:9503003 \[hep-ex\]\]. S Abachi [*et al.*]{} ([D0]{} Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2632 (1995), \[arXiv:9503003 \[hep-ex\]\]. [D0]{}web page `http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/top/top_public_web_pages/top_public.html` CDF web page `http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/top.html` W Bernreuther and Z G Si Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} 034026 (2012). T Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[[D0]{}Collaboration\] Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} 092002 (2013), \[arXiv:1211.1003 \[hep-ex\]\]. V M Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[[D0]{}Collaboration\] Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 072011 (2014), \[arXiv:1405.0421 \[hep-ex\]\]. V M Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[[D0]{}Collaboration\] Conference note 6445 (2014). V M Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[[D0]{}Collaboration\] Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 072001 (2014), \[arXiv:1403.1294 \[hep-ex\]\]. T Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{} 042001 (2014), \[arXiv:1404.3698 \[hep-ex\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract:
- 'Several real-time delay-sensitive applications pose varying degrees of freshness demands on the requested content. The performance of cache replacement policies that are agnostic to these demands is likely to be sub-optimal. Motivated by this concern, in this paper, we study caching policies under a request arrival process which incorporates user freshness demands. We consider the performance metric to be the steady-state cache hit probability. We first provide a universal upper bound on the performance of any caching policy. We then analytically obtain the content-wise hit-rates for the Least Popular (LP) policy and provide sufficient conditions for the asymptotic optimality of cache performance under this policy. Next, we obtain an accurate approximation for the LRU hit-rates in the regime of large content population. To this end, we map the characteristic time of a content in the LRU policy to the classical Coupon Collector’s Problem and show that it sharply concentrates around its mean. Further, we develop modified versions of these policies which eject cache redundancies present in the form of stale contents. Finally, we propose a new policy which outperforms the above policies by explicitly using freshness specifications of user requests to prioritize among the cached contents. We corroborate our analytical insights with extensive simulations.'
- 'Several real-time delay-sensitive applications pose varying degrees of freshness demands on the requested content. The performance of cache replacement policies that are agnostic to these demands is likely to be sub-optimal. Motivated by this concern, in this paper, we study caching policies under a request arrival process which incorporates user freshness demands. We consider the performance metric to be the steady-state cache hit probability. We first provide a universal upper bound on the performance of any caching policy. We then analytically obtain the content-wise hit-rates for the Least Popular (LP) and Least Recently Used (LRU) policies. We develop modified versions of these policies which eject cache redundancies present in the form of stale contents. Our key contributions are two-fold. Firstly, we provide an accurate approximation for the LRU hit-rates. Secondly, we propose a new policy which outperforms the above policies by explicitly using freshness specifications of user requests to prioritize among the cached contents. We corroborate our analytical insights with extensive simulations.'
author:
- 'Pawan Poojary, Sharayu Moharir and Krishna Jagannathan[^1][^2][^3]'
-
-
-
title:
- Caching under Content Freshness Constraints
- 'Caching Policies under Content Freshness Constraints\'
---
Sensor networks, freshness, hit-rate, Zipf’s law, characteristic time, Coupon Collector’s Problem, concentration bound, LRU.
Introduction {#sec1}
============
past few years have seen a tremendous increase in real-time delay-sensitive applications that are tasked with monitoring processes, optimizing process parameters to achieve specific objectives and data logging for learning and prediction [@yick]. In this scenario, the network constitutes a sensor grid where several smart devices connect wirelessly to a single Access Point (AP) which serves these applications with requested contents.
A key characteristic of real-time applications is the varying degree of constraints that they impose on the freshness of the contents delivered by the network [@shenker]. The freshness of a content refers to the amount of time elapsed since it was last fetched from the back-end server. These freshness constraints are determined by a number of factors, including the nature of the data that a content represents, and the application for which it is used. For example, a data-logging application requesting data from a sensor grid that measures the pollution levels in a city can tolerate delays of the order of several minutes. However, an emergency alarm system requesting data from sensors that measure the concentration of noxious gases in a chemical factory cannot tolerate delays beyond a few seconds. Therefore, when dealing with delay-sensitve applications, the network should be designed to take into account such varied freshness demands.
Distributed content caching has been employed in networks on a large scale owing to its well-known advantages [@melamed]. Caching contents close to the end-users in a network serves to minimize the load on the network back-end by transferring it towards the network end-nodes. In our scenario, this translates to the contents being cached in the AP. The reduction in the back-end traffic saves precious network bandwidth and decreases content-delivery latency. However, owing to physical resource constraints, caches are capable of storing only a small fraction of the entire content catalogue. This is further exacerbated by the ever-increasing content population. Hence, optimal cache replacement strategies aimed at minimizing the number of deferred requests must be devised. Traditionally, caching strategies have mainly focussed on caching relatively popular contents.
In light of the above needs, it appears reasonable that existing caching policies should be designed by taking both content popularities and user freshness demands into consideration while taking the content storage and replacement decisions. Motivated by these considerations, we first analyze traditional cache replacement policies under user freshness demands. Secondly, we devise new policies that account for the relative content popularities as well as the user freshness constraints.
Related Work {#Related_Work}
------------
Several analytical models have been developed to estimate hit-rates of popular caching policies [@Breslau], [@King], [@Serpanos2; @Serpanos3; @Flajolet; @Dan:1990:AAL:98460.98525; @Che2002; @Fricker; @Wolman; @Gomaa; @Mookerjee:2002:ALR:767824.769479]. Among these, there exists a class of policies that prioritize contents by estimating their popularity and storing the most popular contents in the cache. Several methods have been proposed in the literature to estimate the content popularity [@Good_Turing], [@McAllester], [@valiant]. However, all of them obtain the exact popularity distribution asymptotically and therefore behave identically in the steady state. We refer to policies in this class as the Least Popular (LP) policy. Perfect Least Frequently Used (Perfect-LFU) is the most basic among these policies [@Serpanos2], [@Serpanos3]. LP policy provides the best performance in steady-state but at the cost of a large memory (equal to number of content types). On the other hand, the Least Recently Used (LRU) policy which although sub-optimal requires much smaller memory (equal to cache-size) and hence is widely-used.
Exact Markov chain analysis for LRU and First-In-First-Out (FIFO) policies was provided in [@King], resulting in hit-rate expressions with exponential complexity whereas [@Flajolet] provided simpler expressions for the same. Dan *et al.* [@Dan:1990:AAL:98460.98525] obtained approximate hit-rates with much lower computational complexity, and showed that LRU outperforms FIFO. Che *et al.* [@Che2002] proposed a simple approach to accurately estimate hit-rates for LRU policy under certain approximations and came up with the notion of a “characteristic time" of the cache. The accuracy of the hit-rates and scope of the approximation were further investigated in [@Fricker]. A study by [@KamISIT] proposed a dynamic model for content requests that depends on both the freshness and popularity of contents. However, none of the above studies consider content requests having freshness demands which have to be met by the content delivery system.
Studies in [@Wolman; @Gomaa; @Mookerjee:2002:ALR:767824.769479] address the notion of freshness by considering that an object entering the cache has a limited lifetime beyond which it is expires. The object lifetimes are considered to be exponentially distributed in [@Wolman] and [@Gomaa]. In contrast to [@Wolman] which considers infinite cache, we obtain hit-rates under finite caching resources. The study by Mookerjee *et al.* [@Mookerjee:2002:ALR:767824.769479] on LRU policy considers requests to a fixed number of documents that get updated periodically with a certain frequency. Whereas in our model, a content fetch from the source at any instant gives the latest version of the requested object *i.e.*, the source produces real-time content. The main difference between our analytical model and the models in [@Wolman], [@Gomaa], [@Mookerjee:2002:ALR:767824.769479] is that in our case, it is the content request stream which demands that a content not older than a particular age be served. Also, it is upto the caching policy to decide how long a content resides in the cache.
Related Work {#Related_Work}
------------
Several analytical models have been developed to estimate hit-rates of popular caching policies [@Breslau], [@King], [@Serpanos2; @Serpanos3; @Flajolet; @Dan:1990:AAL:98460.98525; @Che2002; @Fricker; @Wolman; @Gomaa; @Mookerjee:2002:ALR:767824.769479]. Among these, there exists a class of policies that prioritize contents by estimating their popularity and storing the most popular contents in the cache. Several methods have been proposed in the literature to estimate the content popularity [@Good_Turing], [@McAllester], [@valiant]. However, all of them obtain the exact popularity distribution asymptotically and therefore behave identically in the steady state. We refer to policies in this class as the Least Popular (LP) policy. Perfect Least Frequently Used (Perfect-LFU) is the most basic among these policies [@Serpanos2], [@Serpanos3]. Breslau *et al.* [@Breslau] showed that the hit-rate for the Perfect-LFU policy varies logarithmically with an increase in the cache size. The LP policy provides the best performance in steady-state but at the cost of a large memory (equal to number of content types). Second, we study the Least Recently Used (LRU) policy which although sub-optimal requires much smaller memory (equal to cache-size) and hence is widely-used.
Exact Markov chain analysis for LRU and First-In-First-Out (FIFO) policies was provided in [@King], resulting in hit-rate expressions whose complexity grows exponentially with cache size. Subsequent work done in [@Flajolet] provided simpler expressions for the same. Dan *et al.* [@Dan:1990:AAL:98460.98525] obtained approximate hit-rates with much lower computational complexity, and showed that LRU outperforms FIFO. Che *et al.* [@Che2002] proposed a simple approach to accurately estimate hit-rates for LRU policy under certain approximations and came up with the notion of a “characteristic time" of the cache. The accuracy of the hit-rates and scope of the approximation were further investigated in [@Fricker]. Fricker *et al.* [@Fricker] showed that the hit-rates were accurate not only for Zipf’s popularity law but also for other light-tailed distributions such as the geometric law. A study by [@KamISIT] proposes a dynamic model for content requests that depends on both the freshness and popularity of contents. However, none of the above studies consider content requests having freshness demands which have to be met by the content delivery system.
Studies in [@Wolman; @Gomaa; @Mookerjee:2002:ALR:767824.769479] address the notion of freshness by considering that an object entering the cache has a limited lifetime beyond which it is expires. The object lifetimes are considered to be exponentially distributed in [@Wolman] and [@Gomaa]. In contrast to [@Wolman] which considers infinite cache, we obtain hit-rates under finite caching resources. The study by Mookerjee *et al.* [@Mookerjee:2002:ALR:767824.769479] on LRU policy considers requests to a fixed number of documents that get updated periodically with a certain frequency. Whereas in our model, the content generating source continuously produces real-time content. A content fetch from the source at any instant gives the latest version of the requested object.
The main difference between our analytical model and the models in [@Wolman], [@Gomaa] and [@Mookerjee:2002:ALR:767824.769479] is that in our case, it is the content request stream which demands that a content not older than a particular age be served. Also, it is upto the caching policy to decide how long a content resides in the cache.
Our Contributions
-----------------
We modify the well-known Independent Reference Model (IRM) of request arrivals to incorporate freshness demands of users [@Breslau], [@King], [@Podlipnig:2003:SWC:954339.954341]. Under this traffic model, we evaluate cache performance in terms of its steady-state hit probability which is defined as the probability that a request will be served by the cache. We highlight the contributions of our work as follows:
- We derive a universal upper bound on the performance of all caching policies subject to user freshness constraints.
- We derive content-wise hit-rates for the LP policy with freshness constraints. For Zipf distributed content requests, we prove that as the number of contents ($n$) increases, the LP policy is asymptotically optimal, *i.e.*, it attains upper bound performance as long as the cache-size increases with $n$.
- We conduct an asymptotic analysis of the LRU policy, and obtain an approximation for its content-wise hit-rates. Our analysis is based on relating the *characteristic time* [@Che2002] of a content in the LRU policy to the classical Coupon Collector’s Problem [@ferrante]. Specifically, we show that this characteristic time enjoys tight concentration about its mean for large $n$, which then allows us to obtain an accurate approximation to the LRU hit-rates. We believe that our asymptotic analysis of the LRU policy is of independent interest, regardless of any freshness considerations.
- We consider a class of policies that explicitly use the freshness specifications to eject *stale* contents from the cache. In particular, we develop improved versions of the LP and LRU policies. Further, we propose a new policy which accounts for freshness specifications as well as content popularities in its cache replacement strategy. We conduct extensive simulations to corroborate our claim that this policy outperforms the other policies considered.
Organisation
------------
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Firstly, we describe our system model in Section \[system\_model\]. Metrics for evaluation of cache performance are defined in Section \[metric\]. In Section \[agnostic\], we characterize the class of policies that are unaware of user freshness demands and in particular analyze the performance of LP and LRU policies. Analytical arguments to justify the approximations made while evaluating the LRU policy performance have been provided in Section \[no\_name\]. The class of policies that evict stale contents from the cache are studied in Section \[aware\]. We provide proofs for the main results obtained in this paper in Section \[main\_results\]. In Section \[simulation\], we present the simulation results. Finally, the conclusions obtained from our analysis are presented in Section \[conclusion\].
System Model {#system_model}
============
In our model, we consider a front-end server with a finite cache. It serves incoming client requests with contents fetched from a back-end.
[ ]{}
Server and Storage Model
------------------------
The system consists of an Access Point (AP) equipped with a cache of length *m*. The AP fetches contents from a population of *n* content-generating objects indexed by $\lbrace 1,2,\ldots,n \rbrace$ and stores them in the cache in order to serve future requests. The object population could constitute a sensor grid where several smart-devices connect wirelessly to the AP. Each content fetched from the objects is of unit size and occupies unit space in the cache. Owing to practical resource constraints, typically $ m \ll n. $ The AP acts as a front-end server and is assigned the task of serving incoming content requests either from its cache or by fetching contents from the back-end.
Request Arrival Model
---------------------
We adopt the Independent Reference Model (IRM) which is known to be a well suited abstraction for independent requests generated from a large population of users [@Breslau], [@King], [@Podlipnig:2003:SWC:954339.954341]. The request arrival process is modeled as an infinite sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables $\lbrace X_1,X_2,\ldots \rbrace$, where $X_k=i$ denotes that the $k^{th}$ request is for content type $i \in \lbrace1,2,\ldots,n \rbrace$. We denote popularity of content *i* by $ p_i \triangleq \mathbb{P}(X_k=i) $. Typically, in a time slot $k$, let $X_k=i$. This request is accompanied by a freshness specification $F(i)$, which denotes the maximum acceptable *age* of content $i$ that can still serve the request. When the AP requests a content $i$ from the back-end, object $i$ produces a new content (*i.e.*, latest data sensed) and transmits it to the AP. Hence, a content currently fetched by the AP has zero age.
The *age* of a cached content refers to the number of time slots elapsed since it was fetched from the back-end. \[rem\_age\]
Several studies, using empirical data from traces of web proxy caches, have shown that content request distributions follow the Zipf’s law with varying exponents [@Breslau], [@cunha]. Hence, for the asymptotic analysis of caching policies and numerical simulations, we assume Zipf distributed requests. Under the Zipf’s law, $ p_i \propto i^{-\beta}$, where $\beta > 0$ is known as the Zipf parameter. \[rem\_zipf\]
Service Model
-------------
The server serves the incoming requests in the following manner:
- If the content corresponding to a request is not present in the cache, a cache *miss* occurs.
- If the requested content is present in the cache, its age is compared with the freshness specification of the request. If this age exceeds the freshness specification, the cached content is considered *stale*; a cache miss occurs. On the other hand, if this age is within the freshness limits, the content is considered *fresh*; a cache *hit* occurs and the request is served.
- In the event of a cache miss, the server has to fetch the content from the back-end and serve the request. At this point, the server has to decide whether or not to retain the fetched content in the cache.
A content $i$ is allowed to reside in the cache only for F(i) time slots since its arrival. During this time, it is considered $fresh$ for serving incoming requests. Past this time the content is said to be *stale* and has to be compulsorily evicted from the cache. We call this quantity F(i) the *lifetime* of object $i$.
A content fetch is initiated if and only if there is a cache miss. \[rem1\]
A request is always served with a *fresh* content. \[rem2\]
The key properties of this service model are:
- A content fetch is necessarily initiated by a cache miss.
- A request is always served with a *fresh* content.
Objectives
----------
The objectives addressed in this paper are as follows:
- To study the performance of traditional freshness agnostic caching policies in the presence of request arrivals with freshness demands.
- To propose policies that explicitly take into account the freshness demands to optimize caching performance and outperform the existing policies.
System Performance Metrics {#metric}
==========================
The hit-rate or hit-ratio of object $i$ at time $t$, $H_\mathcal{A}(i,t)$ is the ratio of the number of cache hits to the total number of requests for object $i$ received till time $t$ under a policy $\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{A}$. Here, $\mathbb{A}$ is the set of all replacement policies. The steady-state hit-rate $h_\mathcal{A}(i)= \underset{t \rightarrow \infty}{\lim}H_\mathcal{A}(i,t)$[^4] is the steady-state probability that a *fresh* content $i$ is present in the cache, simply referred to as the *hit rate* of object $i$ under policy $\mathcal{A}$. This follows from the fact that the caching process is ergodic[^5].
However, the overall cache performance is quantified by the total probability of a cache hit in the steady state, simply referred to as the *hit probability*. Let $ Y_k^i$ denote the event that a fresh content $i$ is present in the cache in the $k^{\text{th}}$ time-slot. Then, the hit probability in a discrete time slot for a policy $\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{A}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}_\mathcal{A}(\text{hit}) & \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{P} \big( \textit{cache hit} \: \vert \: X_k=i \big) \: \mathbb{P} ( X_k=i ) \nonumber \\
& \overset{(a)}{=} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{P} \big( Y_k^i \: \vert \: X_k=i \big) \: \mathbb{P}( X_k=i ) \overset{(b)}{=} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{P} ( Y_k^i ) \: \mathbb{P}( X_k=i ) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} h_\mathcal{A}(i) \, p_{i}. \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}_\mathcal{A}(\text{hit}) & \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{P} (\textit{cache hit} \vert \lbrace X_k=i\rbrace ) \mathbb{P}( \lbrace X_k=i\rbrace ) \nonumber \\
& \underset{(a)}{=} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{P} ( Y_k^i \vert \lbrace X_k=i\rbrace ) \mathbb{P}( \lbrace X_k=i\rbrace ) \nonumber \\
& \underset{(b)}{=} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \mathbb{P} ( Y_k^i ) \mathbb{P}( \lbrace X_k=i\rbrace ) \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{n} h_\mathcal{A}(i) p_{i}. \end{aligned}$$ Step ($a$) holds due to the fact that, under the condition that content $i$ is requested, a cache hit is analogous to a fresh content $i$ being present in the cache. Step ($b$) follows from the fact that, in the $k^{\text{th}}$ time-slot, the presence of a fresh content in the cache is independent of any ensuing request for it.
Performance of traditional freshness-agnostic caching policies {#agnostic}
==============================================================
A replacement policy decides the strategy used to replace an existing content in the cache with the fetched content. We revisit the class of traditional caching policies $ \mathbb{T} $ studied in the literature under the constraints imposed by the freshness demands. These policies are inherently indifferent to the presence of *stale* data in the cache.
Let $\lbrace X_1,X_2,\ldots \rbrace$ be the request stream, $ C_i $ refer to content $i$, *Age*$(C_i)$ refer to the number of time-slots for which content $i$ has resided in the cache and $ F(i)$ be its freshness specification, $ i\in \lbrace1,2,\ldots,n\rbrace $. Then, a policy $\mathcal{T} \in \mathbb{T}$ is implemented as per Algorithm \[firstalgo\].
$k \gets 1$. serve the request Fetch content type $C_{X_k}$ from back-end Replace old copy of $C_{X_k}$ Fetch content type $C_{X_k}$ from back-end serve the request Implement cache replacement policy $ \mathcal{T} $ \[Algo1step14\] Place $C_{X_k}$ in cache. $Age(C_{X_k}) \gets 1$ $Age(C_i) \gets Age(C_i)+1 $ $k \gets k+1 $
A Universal Upper Bound on the performance of caching policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
We consider the ideal scenario where the cache size is infinite. Then, the duration that a content $i$ in the cache remains *fresh* is limited only by its *freshness* specification $F(i)$. The following theorem evaluates hit-rates under this scenario.
For a system consisting of $n$ objects with infinite cache-size, and freshness specification $ F(i)$ for object $i$, under policy $\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{A}$ where $\mathbb{A}$ is the set of all replacement policies, $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-2.5mm} h_{\mathcal{A}}(i)=\frac{(F(i)-1)p_{i}}{1+(F(i)-1)p_{i}} \; ; \; i\in \lbrace1,2,\ldots,n \rbrace, \; \forall \; \mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{A}. \label{hitInf}\end{aligned}$$ \[thmInf\]
To prove the above theorem, we use the fact that a fresh content $i$ exists in cache in the present slot *if and only if* there is a single arrival of content $i$ into the cache in the past $F(i)-1$ slots. Refer to Section \[main\_results\] for a detailed proof. The next theorem shows that this infinite cache hit-rate is an upper bound for the hit-rates of any caching policy.
For a system consisting of $n$ objects with finite cache-size $m$, and freshness specification $ F(i)$ for object $i$, under policy $\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{A}$ where $\mathbb{A}$ is the set of all replacement policies, $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\mathcal{A}}(i) & \leq h^U(i) \; ; \; i\in \lbrace1,2,\ldots,n \rbrace, \; \; \forall \; \mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{A}, \; \; \text{where} \; \; h^U(i) \triangleq \frac{(F(i)-1)p_{i}}{1+(F(i)-1)p_{i}} .
\label{hitUpperdefn}\end{aligned}$$ \[thmU\]
The proof for this theorem (refer to Section \[main\_results\]) uses the fact that the non-arrival of content $i$ into the cache in the past $F(i)-1$ slots implies that a fresh content $i$ does not exist in the cache in the present slot. This result leads us to a universal upper bound for the cache hit probability, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}_\mathcal{A}&(\text{hit}) \leq P^U, \; \; \forall \; \mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{A}, \; \; \text{where} \; \; P^U \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^{n} p_{i} h^U(i)= \sum_{i=1}^{n} p_{i} \frac{(F(i)-1) p_{i}}{1+(F(i)-1) p_{i}}. \label{Pupper}\end{aligned}$$
Least Popular (LP) Policy
-------------------------
The LP policy refers to a class of policies which endeavour to asymptotically estimate the popularity distribution of contents by observing the request stream, and then retain contents of higher popularity in the cache.
The formal definition of LP policy, (*i.e.*, a policy which prioritizes contents based on their popularity) incorporated in Step \[Algo1step14\] of Algorithm \[firstalgo\] is as follows:
Replace $C_{LP}$ with ${C_{X_k}}$; where *LP* $ \triangleq \operatorname{arg\,min}_i \lbrace p_i: C_i \in \text{cache} \rbrace $
The following theorem proves that the hit-rates for the $m$ most popular contents attain their *upper bounds* whereas the remaining contents possess *zero* probability of hit.
For a system with $n$ objects indexed in the decreasing order of popularity, cache-size $m$ ($m < n$), freshness specification $ F(i)$ for object $i$ and where $h^U(i)$ is defined as in , $$\begin{aligned}
h_{LP}(i) &= h^U(i) \; ; && i\in \lbrace1,2,\ldots,m\rbrace, \nonumber \\
&= 0 \; ; && i\in \lbrace m+1,m+2\ldots,n \rbrace. \label{hitLP} \end{aligned}$$ \[thmLP\]
The proof essentially follows from the fact that in the steady state, the cache contains only the $m$ most popular contents. Refer to Section \[main\_results\] for the proof. Next, we analyze the performance of the LP policy under the practical scenario in which the number of objects is ever increasing.
### Asymptotic analysis of hit probability {#asymptotic-analysis-of-hit-probability .unnumbered}
We characterize the hit probability $\mathbb{P}_{LP}(\text{hit})$ under a scaling of the system with respect to the number of objects and the cache-size. The setting for the analysis is as follows:
- For the sake of simplicity, we let $ F(i)=F \hspace{2mm}\forall \; i $ and refer to it as the *freshness parameter*.
- We scale the system by letting $n \rightarrow \infty$, and let $M(n)$ and $F(n)$ denote the cache-size and the freshness parameter scaling functions respectively.
- Contents are indexed in the decreasing order of popularity and follow the Zipf’s law with parameter $\beta$. In order to enable scaling of the model, we assume $\beta > 1$ so that the Zipf distribution is well-defined as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
The following theorem shows that, under the above setting, as long as the cache size and the freshness parameter are increasing with $n$, the LP policy is asymptotically optimal.
For a system consisting of $n$ objects with cache-size $M(n)$ and freshness parameter $F(n)$; if $ M(n)=\omega(1) $ then, $ \underset{n \rightarrow \infty }{\lim} \mathbb{P}_{LP}(hit) = P^U $. Additionally, if both $ F(n)$ and $M(n)$ vary as $\omega(1) $ then, $ \underset{n \rightarrow \infty }{\lim} \mathbb{P}_{LP}(hit) = 1$. \[asymptote\]
The above theorem also shows that if both the freshness specification and cache-size increase with $n$, then the cache performance asymptotically reaches full efficiency.
For a system consisting of $n$ objects with cache-size $M(n)$ and freshness parameter $F(n)$, if $ M(n)=\omega(1) $ and $ F(n)=\omega(1) $, then $ \underset{n \rightarrow \infty }{\lim} \mathbb{P}_{LP}(\normalfont \text{hit}) = 1$. \[asymptote\]
Here, since $ \mathbb{P}_{LP}(\text{hit}) < P^U < 1 $, we have $ \mathbb{P}_{LP}(\text{hit}) \rightarrow P^U $, *i.e.*, the LP policy attains upper bound performance as $n \rightarrow \infty$. Moreover, the cache performance asymptotically reaches full efficiency. Refer to Section \[main\_results\] for a detailed proof.
Least Recently Used (LRU) Policy
--------------------------------
The LRU policy replaces the least recently requested content from the cache with the fetched content. The formal definition of the LRU policy incorporated in Step \[Algo1step14\] of Algorithm \[firstalgo\] is as follows:
Replace $C_{LRU}$ with ${C_{X_k}}$; where *LRU* $ \triangleq \operatorname{arg\,min}_i \lbrace \text{last used time-slot of } C_i: C_i \in \text{cache} \rbrace $
### An Approximation for LRU Hit-rate {#an-approximation-for-lru-hit-rate .unnumbered}
We now derive an approximation to the hit-rate under the LRU policy. Denote by $T_c(i)$, the number of time slots by which $m$ distinct contents other than $C_i$ are requested at least once. We refer to $T_c(i)$ as the *characteristic time* of content $i$.
(1,0) – (11,0); (1,0.2) – (1,-0.2); (1,0.7) node\[anchor=south\] [Content $`i$’ requested]{}; (2,0.2) – (2,-0.2); (3,0.2) – (3,-0.2); (4,0.2) – (4,-0.2); (5,0.2) – (5,-0.2); (6,0.2) – (6,-0.2); (7,0.2) – (7,-0.2); (8,0.2) – (8,-0.2); (9,0.2) – (9,-0.2); (10,0.2) – (10,-0.2); (1,0.9) – (1,0.5); (2,-0.5) – node\[below=6pt\] [$T_c(i)$ slots]{} (10,-0.5); (10,0.9) – (10,0.5); (10,0.7) node\[anchor=south\] [Content $`i$’ replaced]{}; (1,-1.3) node\[anchor=south\] ;
Suppose that $C_i$ is requested in the present slot ($t=0$). Assuming that the contents in the cache are ordered as most recently used first, $C_i$ currently occupies the top position. In the ensuing time, it takes $m$ distinct requests apart from $C_i$ for $C_i$ to shuffle to the bottom of the cache and get evicted. This is true provided $C_i$ is not requested again before getting evicted. Under this condition, $T_c(i)$ denotes the number of time slots for which $C_i$ stays in the cache before getting replaced. Hence, quantifying $ T_c(i) $ becomes important for calculating the hit-rate of $C_i$ under the LRU policy. The characteristic time $T_c(i)$ can be mapped to the celebrated *Coupon Collector’s Problem* described below. **Coupon Collector’s Problem:** Given a collection $\mathcal{C}=\lbrace 1,2,\ldots,n \rbrace$ of *n* coupons with $p_i$ being the probability of drawing coupon $i$, determine the number of independent draws (with replacement) from $\mathcal{C}$ to first obtain a collection of *m* different coupons.
Let $T_m$ denote the number of draws referred to as the *waiting time* for the Coupon Collector’s Problem. The expected number of draws has been shown to satisfy the following equation in [@Flajolet]: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(T_m) = \sum_{q=0}^{m-1}(-1)^{m-1-q}{n-q-1 \choose n-m } \sum_{|J|=q} \frac{1}{1-P_J}, \; \; \text{where} \; \; \displaystyle P_J=\sum_{i \in J} p_i. \label{exp1}\end{aligned}$$ In the context of the LRU policy with a cache of size $m$, $T_c(i)$ is analogous to the waiting time $T_m$ for the Coupon Collector’s Problem. In particular, the request for a content $i$ in the former corresponds to a coupon $i$ being drawn from the collection $\mathcal{C} $ in the latter. However, the only difference is that, unlike $T_m$, $T_c(i)$ considers the occurence of coupon $i$ as a blank draw. We now make approximations for calculating $T_c(i)$ which are similar in spirit to those of Che *et al.* [@Che2002] and [@Fricker].
### Calculation of characteristic time $T_c(i)$
Let $\overline{T}_c $ denote the number of time-slots until $m+1$ distinct contents are requested. Let $Z_1 $ denote the first request. Now, if the first request is for content $i$, *i.e.*, $Z_1 = i $, then $ T_c(i) = \overline{T}_c - 1 $. Using this as the basis, we derive the following result in Section \[main\_results\]. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(\overline{T}_c)=1+ \sum_{i=1}^{n} \, \mathbb{E} \left( T_c(i) \right) \, \mathbb{P} ( Z_1 = i ). \label{Expapprox}\end{aligned}$$ *Approximation 1:* The dependence of $\mathbb{E} (T_c(i))$ on $i$ can be ignored, *i.e.*, $\mathbb{E} (T_c(i)) \approx t_c \; \forall \; i $.
This is a reasonable approximation when the individual popularities are relatively insignificant to their sum and becomes exact if the requests are equiprobable. We support this claim for Zipf distributed requests using numerical simulations provided in Section \[valid\_approx\]. We notice that the error in approximating $\mathbb{E} (T_c(i))$ with $ t_c $ reduces with decreasing values of $ \beta $, with increasing values of the $ \frac{m}{n}$ ratio and also as $ n \rightarrow \infty $ for a fixed $ \frac{m}{n}$ ratio. Using this approximation in , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E} (T_c(i)) \approx t_c \triangleq \mathbb{E}(\overline{T}_c) - 1, \; \; \forall \; i \in \lbrace 1,2,\ldots,n\rbrace. \label{tc_approx}\end{aligned}$$
*Approximation 2:* We assume that for large $n$, the random variable $T_c(i) $ is well approximated by its expected value (*i.e.*, it is nearly deterministic).
In the next Section, we provide analytical justifications for the above approximation under Zipf distributed requests with parameter $\beta \in [0,1)$. In addition, our numerical simulations (refer to Section \[valid\_approx\]) validate this approximation for several values of $ \beta$ (including $\beta > 1$) and under a wide range of scaling functions used for $m$ with respect to $n$. Using this approximation in equation , we get $ T_c(i) \approx t_c, \; \; \forall \; i \in \lbrace 1,2,\ldots,n\rbrace. $ In the works by [@Che2002] and [@Fricker], $t_c$ is referred to as the characteristic time of the *cache*. Finally, from the definition of $\overline{T_c}$, it follows that $ \overline{T_c} = T_{m+1} $. Hence, $\mathbb{E}( \overline{T_c} )$ can be calculated from equation , which is then used in equation to compute $ t_c $.
### Hit-rate for LRU policy
We consider hit-rates under the following two ideal scenarios:
- *Scenario 1:* If the cache size is infinite, then the duration that a content $i$ remains *fresh* in the cache is limited by its *freshness* specification $F(i)$. Then, the hit-rate is given by Theorem \[thmInf\] as $ \displaystyle h(i)= h^U(i),\; i\in \lbrace1,2,\ldots,n\rbrace. $
- *Scenario 2:* If the freshness specification of content $i$, $F(i)$ is infinite, then the duration that it resides in the cache since its last request is limited by the *characteristic time* which arises because of finite cache size. Let $ \tau_i$ denote the inter-arrival time between requests for content $i$ under the IRM; $ \tau_i \sim \textit{Geom}(p_i)$. For a content $i$ requested in the present slot, a request after $ \tau_i $ slots will result in a cache hit if and only if $ \tau_i < T_c(i) $. Therefore, the hit-rate is given by $ \displaystyle h(i)= \mathbb{P}(\tau_i < T_c(i)) \approx \mathbb{P}(\tau_i < t_c) =1-(1-p_i)^{ t_c -1} \; ,\; i\in \lbrace1,2,\ldots,n\rbrace. $ This hit-rate could be considered as the discrete time equivalent of Che’s approximation given in [@Che2002],[@Fricker] where there are no freshness constraints.
In our scenario, both cache size and the freshness are finite quantities. Hence, it is reasonable to approximate the LRU hit-rate by the minimum of the ideal hit-rates under the above two scenarios. Specifically, our hit-rate approximation for LRU is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h_{LRU}(i)\approx \min \left( \frac{(F(i)-1)p_i}{1+(F(i)-1)p_i} \; ; \; 1-(1-p_i)^{ t_c -1} \right). \label{LRUapprox}\end{aligned}$$
In Section \[simulation\], we illustrate using numerical simulations that the above approximation is generally quite accurate.
Asymptotic analysis of characteristic time for LRU policy {#no_name}
=========================================================
In this section, we provide analytical results to justify our approximation that $T_c(i)$ is nearly determinstic for large $n$. As mentioned earlier, the characteristic time $T_c(i)$ of the LRU policy is analogous to the waiting time $T_m$ for the Coupon Collector’s Problem. Hence, in the rest of this section, we use the parlance of the Coupon Collector’s Problem. Since the asymptotic behaviour of $T_m$ and $T_c(i)$ are identical, we characterize $T_m$ instead of $T_c(i)$ to simplify the analysis.
In the following, we provide a limit theorem for the case where the coupon draws obey the Zipf’s law with Zipf parameter $\beta \in [0,1).$ Note that the Zipf’s law generalises the uniform coupon draw case for which, the asymptotic distribution for the waiting time has been investigated in the works [@erdos], [@baum], [@anna].
Consider the coupon draws being sampled from a Zipf distribution with parameter $\beta \in [0,1)$, such that the $n$ coupons are indexed in the decreasing order of popularity. If $ m= o ( n^{\frac{1-\beta}{2-\beta}})$, then $ T_m \overset{i.p}{\rightarrow} m$. \[baum\_zipf\]
In context of the LRU policy, the above theorem implies that if the cache-size $ m$ scales slower than $ n^{\frac{1-\beta}{2-\beta}}$, then asymptotically, $T_c(i)$ converges to $m$ in probability. Refer to Section \[main\_results\] for a detailed proof. The study by [@baum] provided limiting distributions for $T_m$ depending on how $m$ scales with $n$ as $ n \rightarrow \infty$. In particular, for the uniform case, [@baum] derived conditions on the scaling of $m $ under which $ T_m \overset{i.p}{\rightarrow} m$. This becomes a corollary to Theorem \[baum\_zipf\] for $\beta=0$ and is stated below.
Consider the coupon draws being equiprobable. If $m= o( \sqrt{n}) $, then $ T_m \overset{i.p}{\rightarrow} m$.. \[baum\]
Next, we justify Approximation 2 for the uniform coupon popularity. To this end, we derive concentration bounds for the deviations of $ T_m$ from its mean.
Consider the coupon draws being equiprobable. If $m= o(n) $, then for any $\delta > 0 $, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P} \left( \frac{T_m}{\mathbb{E}(T_m)} < (1 - \delta) \right) \leq \exp \left(- \frac{m}{2} \; \delta^2 \right) \; \; \text{and} \; \; \mathbb{P} \left( \frac{T_m}{\mathbb{E}(T_m)} > (1 + \delta) \right) \leq \exp \left( - \sqrt{\frac{n}{m}} \; \delta^{\frac{3}{2}} \right).\end{aligned}$$ \[upper\_lower\_chernoff\_tail\]
The above theorem provides upper and lower tail bounds for $ T_m$. Due to the assymmetric nature of the upper and lower tail bounds, depending on the scaling function of the cache-size, one of the tail bounds could become tight around the mean faster than the other as $ n \rightarrow \infty$. In particular, for $m = o (n^{\frac{1}{3}})$, the upper tail bound becomes tight faster than the lower tail bound. The vice-versa holds true for $m = \omega (n^{\frac{1}{3}})$. Interestingly, a cache-size scaling of $m = \Theta (n^{\frac{1}{3}})$ provides the best gaurantee for a tight concentration of $T_c(i)$ about its mean.
Consider the coupons draw being equiprobable. If $m= \omega(1) $ and $m= o(n) $, then $ T_m \overset{i.p}{\rightarrow} \mathbb{E}(T_m) $. \[chernoff\]
In comparison with Corollary \[baum\], the above theorem shows that even under relaxed constraints for the scaling of $m$, convergence of $T_m$ to its mean in probability is still achieved. Theorems \[upper\_lower\_chernoff\_tail\] and \[chernoff\] imply that for the case of equiprobable requests, Approximation 2 is justified for any sub-linear scaling of cache-size which is a reasonable assumption in practical scenarios. On the other hand, for a more general distribution of requests (Zipf, $\beta \in [0,1)$), Approximation 2 is valid under the constraints on cache-size scaling imposed by Theorem \[baum\_zipf\]. Deriving concentration bounds similar to Theorem \[upper\_lower\_chernoff\_tail\] for general values of $\beta$ appears more challenging and is left for future work. However, we provide empirical evidence which validates Approximation 2 for several values of $ \beta$ and a wide range of cache-size scalings.
Policies which consider freshness of contents {#aware}
=============================================
In this section, we assume that the server knows the freshness specification $F(i)$ for all objects $ i\in \lbrace1,2,\ldots,n \rbrace $. We study the class of policies $ \mathbb{M} $, which explicitly use this freshness information in their cache replacement strategy. Firstly, we state the most basic feature that any freshness aware policy must incorporate – namely, using the knowledge of $F(i)$ to discard stale data from the cache. More specifically, a content $i$ must be allowed to reside in the cache only for $F(i)$ time slots since its arrival, after which it must be evicted. With this feature, the general template for a policy $\mathcal{M} \in \mathbb{M}$ is given in Algorithm \[secondalgo\]. Using this template, we modify the traditional LP and LRU policies. We incorporate the LP and LRU definitions in Step \[Algo2step14\] of Algorithm \[secondalgo\] to obtain the Modified-LP (M-LP) and Modified-LRU (M-LRU) policies respectively. Our next result shows that the M-LP policy achieves better performance than the traditional LP policy.
$k \gets 1$. Remove $C_i$ from cache serve the request Fetch content type $C_{X_k}$ from back-end serve the request Implement cache replacement policy $ \mathcal{M} $ \[Algo2step14\] Place $C_{X_k}$ in cache. $Age(C_{X_k}) \gets 1$ $Age(C_i) \gets Age(C_i)+1 $ $k \gets k+1 $
For a system with $n$ objects indexed in the decreasing order of popularity, cache-size $m$ ($m < n$), freshness specification $ F(i)$ for object $i$ and $h^U(i)$ defined as in , $$\begin{aligned}
& h_{M\text{-}LP}(i) = h^U(i) \; ; \hspace{8.5mm} i\in \lbrace1,2,\ldots,m\rbrace. \nonumber \\
& 0 < h_{M\text{-}LP}(i) \leq h^U(i) \; ; \hspace{2mm} i\in \lbrace m+1,m+2,\ldots,n \rbrace. \label{hitMLP} \\
\intertext{} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ \[thmMLP\]
This follows from arguments similar to those made for proving Theorem \[thmLP\] except that the contents $\lbrace m+1,m+2,\ldots,n \rbrace $ possess positive hit probabilities. This is because, the continuous eviction of the top $m$ popular contents as and when they get stale allows contents $\lbrace m+1,m+2,\ldots,n \rbrace $ to enter the cache. From Theorems \[thmLP\] and \[thmMLP\] we have, $ h_{LP}(i) < h_{M\text{-}LP}(i) ; \, i\in \lbrace m+1,m+2,\ldots,n \rbrace.$ Therefore $ \mathbb{P}_{LP}(\text{hit}) < \mathbb{P}_{M\text{-}LP}(\text{hit}) $. Hence, M-LP outperforms LP. This shows that caching redundancies in the form of stale contents is strictly sub-optimal.
LRU vs M-LRU
------------
Next we provide an intuitive argument that suggests that M-LRU policy should perform better than the LRU policy. In Scenario 1 of the LRU policy ($F(i)= \infty$), for $C_i$ requested in the present slot (say $t=0$), provided $C_i$ is not requested again, content $i$ stays in the cache till $t=T_c(i)$ before getting replaced. But applying the same scenario ($F(i)= \infty$) for the M-LRU policy, as $ F(j) $ is finite $ \forall j \neq i $, some of the requested contents other than $i$ might get discarded by time $T_i$. So, there could be less than $m$ contents present in cache at $T_i$. As a result, $i$ might not be discarded at $T_i$. But we can assert that $i$ will be discarded atleast by $T_i$. Mathematically, we can state that $$T_c(i) \underset{\textit{p.w.}}{\leq} T_c(i)^{*}
\label{stoch}$$ where $ T_c(i)^{*} $ denotes the time at which $C_i$ is discarded under Scenario 1 for the M-LRU policy. If Approximations 1 and 2 were to hold for $ T_c(i)^{*} $, *i.e.*, $ T_c(i)^{*} \approx T_c^* $ then from equation we have $ T_c \leq T_c^* $. Adapting equation to the M-LRU policy would then yield $$\begin{aligned}
h_{LRU}(i) & < h_{M-LRU}(i) \; ; && i\in \lbrace 1,2,\ldots,n \rbrace. \nonumber \\
\therefore \;\;\; \mathbb{P}_{LRU}(hit) & < \mathbb{P}_{M-LRU}(hit).\end{aligned}$$
Least Expected Hits (LEH) Policy {#least-expected-hits-leh-policy .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
We now propose a new policy called the LEH policy which takes into account both popularity and freshness specifications of contents in order to make content replacement decisions. As the name suggests, under the LEH policy, content priority is decided by determining the expected number of hits that it would generate, if it were to be retained (or introduced in the cache, as the case may be). In contrast to M-LP and M-LRU policies, which only use freshness specifications to evict stale data, LEH policy additionally uses them to prioritize among the cached contents.
In the present time slot, consider a content $i$ which has resided in the cache for $T$ slots since its arrival $(T \leq F(i))$. It can be retained in the cache for a maximum duration of $ F(i)-T $ further slots. Let $N_i$ denote the number of possible future hits for content $i$ if it were not discarded. Then, $ N_i \sim \text{Binomial}(F(i)-T, p_i),$ where $ \mathbb{E}(N_i) = \left( F(i)-T \right) p_i. $ On the other hand, consider a content $j$ fetched from the back-end. If it were to be placed in the cache in the present slot, then the number of possible hits it would have generated if it were retained for the future $ F(j)-1 $ slots would be $ N_j \sim \text{Binomial}(F(j)-1, p_j), $ where $\mathbb{E}(N_j) = \left( F(j)-1 \right) p_j.$
Now, consider the event that a content arrives and the cache is full. The LEH policy essentially makes its content replacement decision by comparing the expected number of future hits of the arriving content, with the expected number of future hits of the cached contents.
A formal definition of the LEH policy incorporated in Step \[Algo2step14\] of Algorithm \[secondalgo\] is as follows:
Replace $C_{LEH}$ with ${C_{X_k}}$; where *LEH* $\triangleq \operatorname{arg\,min}_i \lbrace \mathbb{E} ( N_{i} ) : C_i \in \text{cache} \rbrace $.
In Section \[simulation\], we illustrate through simulations that this framework of prioritizing contents indeed serves to improve the caching performance.
Simulation Results {#simulation}
==================
We simulate the caching process assuming that the content popularities obey Zipf’s law with parameter $\beta$. The caching process is governed by the system parameters: number of objects $(n)$, cache-size $(m)$, Zipf parameter $(\beta)$, freshness specification $F(i)$ for content $i \in \lbrace 1,2,\ldots,n \rbrace $ and the policy being implemented. We use two freshness specification profiles: *uniform* ($F(i)=F, \; \forall \; i$) and *linear* ($F(i) \propto i $) where index $i$ corresponds to the $i^{th}$ most popular content. The linear profile is motivated by practical scenarios in which the contents requested often (popular) are required to be very *recent* and hence tend to have smaller freshness specifications.
Firstly, we compare the performance of different policies studied in this paper with the upper bound on the performance of all caching policies given by . Figures \[varybetafull\] and \[varybetafull2\] plot the steady-state hit probability against varying $\beta$ for the *uniform* and *linear* freshness profiles respectively. Figures \[varybetafull\]$(b)$ and \[varybetafull2\]$(b)$ provide zoomed in plots of Figures \[varybetafull\]$(a)$ and \[varybetafull2\]$(a)$ respectively for values of $\beta$ from $0$ to $0.5$. We infer that for low values of $\beta$, LEH outperforms all other policies. Here, we have not plotted LP and LRU policies since it is evident from Figures \[varybetafull\]$(a)$ and \[varybetafull2\]$(a)$ that they are outperformed by the M-LP and M-LRU policies respectively.
Figure \[varyF\] compares caching performance under *uniform* freshness profile by varying parameter $F$. We observe that LEH performs better than M-LP and M-LRU policies over moderate values of $F$ and otherwise is comparable to them. Secondly, we depict the accuracy of the LRU approximation in Figures \[hits\_varybeta\_varyF\]$(a)$ and \[hits\_varybeta\_varyF\]$(b)$ which correspond to hit-rate variations with respect to $\beta$ and $F$ respectively for selected content indices: 1, 10 and 100. Hit-rates are obtained by simulating the caching process for sufficiently long runs to ensure their high accuracy. We infer that the theoretical approximations match the simulations reasonably well. We notice that the M-LRU hit-rates also adhere closely to the LRU approximation. This suggests that the LRU performance is unaffected by cache redundancies and is comparable to M-LRU performance for small cache-size and uniform freshness demands.
We compare the performance of different policies studied in this paper with the upper bound on the performance of all caching policies given by . We assume content obey Zipf’s law with parameter $\beta$. In our simulations, we let $ F(i)=F \hspace{1mm}$ for all $i$ and refer to it as the freshness parameter.
Figures \[varybeta\] and \[varyF\] show that in the parameter space corresponding to low values of $\beta$ and moderate values of freshness, the LEH policy outperforms all other policies. Figure \[varybetazoom\] shows a zoomed in plot of Figure \[varybeta\] for values of $\beta$ from $0$ to $0.5$. The accuracy of the LRU approximation is typified by the results shown in Figures \[hits\_varybeta\] and \[hits\_varyF\] which correspond to hit-rate variations with respect to $\beta$ and $F$ respectively for selected contents 1,10 and 100. The circles are the results of simulations with sufficiently long runs to ensure their high accuracy. The lines are derived from the LRU approximation given in equation . Agreement is close enough, for all practical purposes.
Moreover, M-LRU simulation results indicated by crosses in Figures \[hits\_varybeta\] and \[hits\_varyF\] show that the LRU approximations also hold well for the M-LRU hit-rates. This suggests that the LRU performance is unaffected by cache redundancies for small cache sizes.+
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
![Performance of caching policies as a function of freshness specification $F$ for $ n=100$, $m=30$ and $\beta=0.1 $.[]{data-label="varyF"}](varyF.eps){width="0.5\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
Concluding Remarks {#conclusion}
==================
In this paper, we studied caching policies under the setting in which the users impose freshness constraints on the requested content. First, we quantified the optimal performance that a caching policy may achieve, subject to these constraints, in the form of of a universal upper bound. We then obtained content-wise hit-rates for the LP policy. For a practical scenario with Zipf distributed requests, we proved that as the number of contents ($n$) increases, the LP policy asymptotically attains the optimal performance as long as the cache-size also increases with $n$. Next, we obtained an accurate approximation for the LRU content-wise hit-rates for large $n$. To achieve this, we associated the problem of estimating the *characteristic time* of a content in the LRU policy with the classical Coupon Collector’s Problem. We provided analytical results in the form of tight concentration bounds on the characteristic time to justify the accuracy of our approximations. Further, we improved the LP and LRU policies by exploiting the knowledge of the freshness specifications to eject *stale* data from the cache and thereby removed redundancies that inhibit cache performance. Finally, we proposed a probabilistic algorithm (LEH policy) which enabled us to prioritize the contents by accounting for both their freshness specifications and popularities. We verified through extensive simulations that this algorithm indeed improves the caching performance and fairs better than the other policies considered.
The setting considered in this paper is motivated by the need to optimize caching policies with respect to the freshness constraints imposed by several real-time delay sensitive applications such as VoIP, VoD, tele-conferencing, cloud computing to name a few.
We conclude that the constraint of always serving a user request with a *fresh* content leads to the cache performance being limited by a least upper bound. We associate the problem of estimating the *characteristic time* of a content in the LRU policy with the *coupon-collector* problem. In doing so, we obtain accurate approximations for LRU content-wise hit-rates.
Further, we exploit the knowledge of the freshness specifications to eject *stale* data from the cache and thereby remove redundancies that inhibit cache performance. In this spirit, we propose modifications to the LP and LRU policies.
Finally, we propose a probabilistic algorithm (LEH policy) which enables us to prioritize the contents by accounting for both their freshness specifications and popularities. We verify through extensive simulations that this algorithm indeed serves to improve the caching performance and fairs better than the other policies.
Delay sensitive applications require that contents delivered to them by the server satisfy their freshness demands. Over the years, the Internet as a content delivery network has been coping with an ever increasing number of such applications. Further, content caches have been widely deployed in the network to alleviate congestion. This necessitates the performance evaluation of caching policies under request arrivals with freshness demands. The key performance metric considered in our work is the steady- state cache hit probability.
First, we provided the least upper bound to the performance of any caching policy. We then derived exact hit-rates for the LP policy and prove its asymptotic optimality under certain scaling of the system parameters, when the popularity of contents follows the Zipf law. We proposed an approximation to the LRU hit-rates and validated its accuracy with extensive simulations. We then investigated a class of policies which eject cache redundancies and actively use the freshness specifications to prioritize among contents. Under this class, we modified the existing LP and LRU policies and observed improvements in performance through simulations. Lastly, we proposed a new policy that outperforms the policies studied so far under relevant scenarios.
There still exist numerous aspects which are worth investigating. For example, the scope of the LRU approximation presented here needs to be clearly defined. We aim to find the optimum caching policy for any content popularity law and over a varied range of freshness demands. Also the impact of freshness demands on the transient behaviour of cache hit-rates merits attention. We would like to extend our analysis of cache performance to the setting wherein the freshness demands constitute a random process.
[^1]: P. Poojary and K. Jagannathan are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai 600036, India. Email: {ee15s025,krishnaj}@ee.iitm.ac.in
[^2]: S. Moharir is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India. Email: [email protected]
[^3]: Some preliminary results contained in this work will be presented as a poster at COMSNETS 2018, Bengaluru, India.
[^4]: The limit exists since the caching process constitutes an ergodic Markov chain, that is, it is irreducible and aperiodic.
[^5]: A process whose time average converges to its ensemble average.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the theory of fixed point index, we discuss existence, non-existence, localization and multiplicity of positive solutions for a $(p_1,p_2)$-Laplacian system with nonlinear Robin and/or Dirichlet type boundary conditions. We give an example to illustrate our theory.'
address:
- 'Filomena Cianciaruso, Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università della Calabria, 87036 Arcavacata di Rende, Cosenza, Italy'
- 'Paolamaria Pietramala, Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università della Calabria, 87036 Arcavacata di Rende, Cosenza, Italy'
author:
- Filomena Cianciaruso
- Paolamaria Pietramala
title: 'Multiple Positive solutions of a $(p_1,p_2)$-Laplacian system with nonlinear BCs'
---
Introduction
============
In the remarkable paper [@wa] Wang proved the existence of one positive solution of following one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian equation $$\label{kawa}
(\varphi_{p}(u^{\prime}))'(t)+g(t)f(u(t))=0,\ t \in (0,1), \\$$ subject to one of the following three pair of nonlinear boundary conditions (BCs) $$u'(0)=0\,,\,\,u(1)+B_1\left(u'(1)\right)=0,$$ $$u(0)=B_0\left(u'(0)\right)\,,\,\,u'(1)=0.$$ $$u(0)=B_0\left(u'(0)\right)\,,\,\,u(1)+B_1\left(u'(1)\right)=0.$$ The results of [@wa] were extended by Karakostas [@kara] to the context of deviated arguments. In both cases, the existence results are obtained via a careful study of an associated integral operator combined with the use of the Krasnosel’skiĭ-Guo Theorem on cone compressions and cone expansions.
The Krasnosel’skiĭ-Guo Theorem, more in general, topological methods are a commonly used tool in the study of existence of positive solutions for the $p$-Laplacian equation subject to different BCs. This is an active area of research, for example, homogeneous Dirichlet BCs have been studied in [@aga-lu-ore; @bai-chen; @inmapr; @kim; @lu-ore-zho; @sim-lee; @wa-zha; @ya-ore], homogeneous Robin BCs in [@lu-ore-zho; @wa-zha; @ya-ore], non local BCs of Dirichlet type in [@ave-he; @ba-dje-mo; @bai-fang; @calve; @fe-ge-jian; @he-ge; @kara2; @wa; @wa-ge; @zha] and nonlocal BCs of Robin type in [@he-ge; @li-shen; @ma-du; @wa-ge2; @wa-ho; @zha].
Here we study the the one-dimensional $(p_1,p_2)$-Laplacian system $$\label{lap}
\begin{array}{c}
(\varphi_{p_1}(u^{\prime}))'(t)+g_1(t)f_{1}(t, u(t),v(t))=0,\ t \in (0,1), \\
(\varphi_{p_2}(v^{\prime}))'(t)+g_2(t)f_{2}(t, u(t),v(t))=0,\ t \in (0,1), \\
\end{array}$$ with $\varphi_{p_i}(w)=\vert w\vert^{p_i-2}w$, subject to the nonlinear boundary conditions (BCs) $$\label{bc}
u'(0)=
0\,,\,\,u(1)+B_1\left(u'(1)\right)=0,\,\,\,\,v(0)=B_2\left(v'(0)\right),\,\,v(1)=0.$$
The existence of *positive* solutions of systems of equations of the type has been widely studied, see for example [@chen-lu; @la-zha; @lee-lee; @xu-lee] under homogeneous Dirichlet BCs and [@inmapr; @je-pre; @pra-ku-mu; @su-we-xu; @ya] with homogeneous Robin or Neumann BCs. For earlier contributions on problems with nonlinear BCs we refer to [@Goodrich1; @Goodrich2; @gi-caa; @gifmpp-cnsns; @gipp-cant; @gipp-nonlin; @gipp-mmas; @kara; @li-shen; @paola; @wa] and references therein.
We improve and complement the previous results in several directions: we obtain *multiplicity* results for $(p_1, p_2)$-Laplacian *system* subject to *nonlinear* BCs, we allow different growths in the nonlinearities $f_1$ and $f_2$ and we also discuss non-existence results. Finally we illustrate in an example that all the constants that occur in our results can be computed.
Our approach is to seek solutions of the system - as fixed points of a suitable integral operator. We make use of the classical fixed point index theory and benefit of ideas from the papers [@gipp-nonlin; @gipp-nodea; @kara; @wa].\
The system of integral equations {#sec2}
================================
We recall that a *cone* $K$ in a Banach space $X$ is a closed convex set such that $\lambda \, x\in K$ for $x \in K$ and $\lambda\geq 0$ and $K\cap (-K)=\{0\}$.\
If $\Omega$ is a open bounded subset of a cone $K$ (in the relative topology) we denote by $\overline{\Omega}$ and $\partial \Omega$ the closure and the boundary relative to $K$. When $\Omega$ is an open bounded subset of $X$ we write $\Omega_K=\Omega \cap K$, an open subset of $K$.\
The following Lemma summarizes some classical results regarding the fixed point index, for more details see [@Amann-rev; @guolak].
Let $\Omega$ be an open bounded set with $0\in \Omega_{K}$ and $\overline{\Omega}_{K}\ne K$. Assume that $F:\overline{\Omega}_{K}\to K$ is a compact map such that $x\neq Fx$ for all $x\in \partial \Omega_{K}$. Then the fixed point index $i_{K}(F, \Omega_{K})$ has the following properties.
- If there exists $e\in K\setminus \{0\}$ such that $x\neq Fx+\lambda e$ for all $x\in \partial \Omega_K$ and all $\lambda
>0$, then $i_{K}(F, \Omega_{K})=0$.
- If $\mu x \neq Fx$ for all $x\in \partial \Omega_K$ and for every $\mu \geq 1$, then $i_{K}(F, \Omega_{K})=1$.
- If $i_K(F,\Omega_K)\ne0$, then $F$ has a fixed point in $\Omega_K$.
- Let $\Omega^{1}$ be open in $X$ with $\overline{\Omega^{1}}\subset \Omega_K$. If $i_{K}(F, \Omega_{K})=1$ and $i_{K}(F, \Omega_{K}^{1})=0$, then $F$ has a fixed point in $\Omega_{K}\setminus \overline{\Omega_{K}^{1}}$. The same result holds if $i_{K}(F, \Omega_{K})=0$ and $i_{K}(F, \Omega_{K}^{1})=1$.
To the system (\[lap\])-(\[bc\]) we associate the following system of integral equations, which is constructed in similar manner as in [@wa], where the case of a single equation is studied. $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{aligned}\label{syst}
&u(t)=\int_{t}^{1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\Bigl(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau \Bigr)
\,ds\\&\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,+B_1\left(\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau \right)\right),\,\,\,\,\,0\le
t\le 1,\cr &v(t)=
\begin{cases} \int_{0}^{t}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\\ \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,+B_2\left(\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)
f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\right),
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,0\le t\le \sigma_{u,v},\cr
\int_{t}^{1}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{s}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \sigma_{u,v}\leq t\leq 1,\cr \end{cases} \end{aligned}\end{gathered}$$ where $\varphi_{p_i}^{-1}(w)=\vert w\vert^{\frac{1}{p_i-1}}$ sgn $w$ and $\sigma_{u,v}$ is the smallest solution $x\in [0,1]$ of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{0}^{x}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{x}g_2(\tau)
f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds
+B_2\left(\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{x}g_2(\tau)
f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\right)\\
&&\qquad\qquad= \int_{x}^{1} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{x}^{s}
g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds.\end{aligned}$$ By a *solution* of (\[lap\])-(\[bc\]), we mean a solution of the system .
In order to utilize the fixed point index theory we state the following assumptions on the terms that occur in the system .
- For every $i=1,2$, $f_i: [0,1]\times [0,\infty)\times [0,\infty) \to [0,\infty)$ satisfies Carathéodory conditions, that is, $f_i(\cdot,u,v)$ is measurable for each fixed $(u,v)$ and $f_i(t,\cdot,\cdot)$ is continuous for almost every (a.e.) $t\in [0,1]$, and for each $r>0$ there exists $\phi_{i,r} \in L^{\infty}[0,1]$ such that $$f_i(t,u,v)\le \phi_{i,r}(t) \;\text{ for } \; u,v\in [0,r]\;\text{ and a.\,e.} \; t\in [0,1].$$
- $g_1\in L^{1}[0,1]$, $g_1\geq 0$ and $$0<\int_{0}^{1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\Bigl(\int_{0}^{s} g_1(\tau)\,d\tau \Bigr) \,ds <+\infty.$$
- $g_2\in L^{1}[0,1]$, $g_2\geq 0$ and $$\label{integ2}
0< \int_{0}^{1/2}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{1/2}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds +\int_{1/2}^{1}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{1/2}^{s} g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds<+\infty.$$
- For every $i=1,2$, $B_i: \mathbb R\to \mathbb R$ is a continuous function and there exist $h_{i1}$, $h_{i2}\geq 0$ such that $$\label{B}
h_{i1}\,v\le B_i(v)\le h_{i2}\,v \mbox{ for any }v\geq 0.$$
The condition is weaker than the condition $$\label{Str}
0<\int_{0}^{1} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{1} g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)ds<+\infty.$$ In fact, for example, the function $$g_2(t)=
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{(t-1)^2},\,\,\, t\in [0,1/2],\cr
\frac{1}{t^2},\,\,\, t\in (1/2,1],\cr
\end{cases}$$ satisfies but not satisfies .
From $(C2)$ and $(C3)$ follow that there exists $[a_1,b_1]\subset [0,1)$ such that $\int_{a_1}^{b_1} g_1(s)\,ds >0$ and there exists $[a_2,b_2]\subset (0,1)$ such that $\int_{a_2}^{b_2} g_2(s)\,ds >0$.
We work in the space $C[0,1]\times C[0,1]$ endowed with the norm $$\| (u,v)\| :=\max \{\| u\| _{\infty },\| v\| _{\infty }\},$$where $\| w\| _{\infty}:=\max \{| w(t)|,t\in [0,1] \}$.
Take the cones $$K_{1}:=\{w\in C[0,1]: w\geq 0, \mbox { concave and nonincreasing}\},$$$$K_{2}:=\{w\in C[0,1]:w\geq0, \mbox { concave}\}.$$It is known (see e.g. [@wa]) that
- for $w\in K_1$ we have $w(t)\geq (1-t)\|w\|_\infty$, for $t\in [0,1]$;
- for $w\in K_2$ we have $w(t)\geq \min \{t,1-t\}\|w\|_\infty$, for $t\in [0,1]$.
It follows that the functions in $K_i$ are strictly positive on the sub-interval $[a_i,b_i]$ and in particular we have
- for $w\in K_1$ we have $\displaystyle\min_{t\in [0,b_1]}w(t)\geq (1-b_1)\|w\|_\infty$;
- for $w\in K_2$ we have $\displaystyle\min_{t\in [a_2,b_2]}w(t)\geq \min \{a_2,1-b_2\}\|w\|_\infty$.
In the following we make use of the notations: $$c_1:=1-b_1,\,\,\,\,\,\,c_2:=\min \{a_2,1-b_2\}.$$ Consider now the cone $K$ in $C[0,1]\times C[0,1]$ defined by $$K:=\{(u,v)\in K_1\times K_2\}.$$ For a *positive* solution of the system we mean a solution $(u,v)\in K$ of such that $\|(u,v)\|> 0$. We seek such solution as a fixed point of the following operator $T$.\
Consider the integral operator $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{aligned} \label{opT}
T(u,v)(t):=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
T_1(u,v)(t) \\
T_2(u,v)(t)\end{array}
\right),
\end{aligned}\end{gathered}$$ where $$T_1(u,v)(t):=\int_{t}^{1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\Bigl(\int_{0}^{s}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau \Bigr)
\,ds+B_1\left(\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\big(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau \big)\right)$$ and $$T_2(u,v)(t):=
\begin{cases} \int_{0}^{t}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\\ \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,+B_2\left(\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)
f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\right),
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,0\le t\le \sigma_{u,v},\cr
\int_{t}^{1}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{s}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \sigma_{u,v}\leq t\leq 1,\cr \end{cases} $$ From the definitions, for every $(u,v)\in K$ we have $$\max_{t\in [0,1]}T_2(u,v)(t)=T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v}).$$ Under our assumptions, we can show that the integral operator $T$ leaves the cone $K$ invariant and is compact.
\[compact\] The operator maps $K$ into $K$ and is compact.
Take $(u,v)\in K$. Then we have $T(u,v)\in K$. Now, we show that the map $T$ is compact. Firstly, we show that $T$ sends bounded sets into bounded sets. Take $(u,v)\in K$ such that $\| (u,v)\| \leq r$. Then, for all $t \in [0,1]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
T_1(u,v)(t)&= \int_{t}^{1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds+ B_1\left(\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau \right)\right)\\\
&\leq \int_{t}^{1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)\phi_{1,r}(\tau)d\tau\right)ds+h_{12}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau
\right) \\
&\leq \int_{t}^{1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}
g_1(\tau)\phi_{1,r}(\tau)d\tau\right)ds+h_{12}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
\phi_{1,r}(\tau)d\tau \right)\\
&\leq \int_{0}^{1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}
g_1(\tau)\phi_{1,r}(\tau)d\tau\right)ds+h_{12}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
\phi_{1,r}(\tau)d\tau \right)<+\infty.\end{aligned}$$ We prove now that $T_1$ sends bounded sets into equicontinuous sets. Let $t_1,t_2\in [0,1]$, $t_1<t_2$, $(u,v)\in K$ such that $\| (u,v)\| \leq r$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
|T_1(u,v)(t_1)-T_1(u,v)(t_2)|=&\Bigg|\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s} g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\Bigg|\\
\leq &\Bigg|\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1} g_1(\tau)\phi_{1,r}(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds\Bigg|=C_r|t_1-t_2|.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore we obtain $|T_1(u,v)(t_1)-T_1(u,v)(t_2)|\rightarrow 0$ when $t_1\rightarrow t_2$. By the Ascoli-Arzelà Theorem we can conclude that $T_1$ is a compact map. In a similar manner we proceed for $T_{2}(u,v)$.Moreover, the map $T$ is compact since the components $T_{i}$ are compact maps.
Existence results
=================
For our index calculations we use the following (relative) open bounded sets in $K$: $$K_{\rho_1,\rho_2} = \{ (u,v) \in K : \|u\|_{\infty}< \rho_1\ \text{and}\ \|v\|_{\infty}< \rho_2\}$$ and $$V_{\rho_1,\rho_2} =\{(u,v) \in K: \min_{t\in [a_1,b_1]}u(t)<c_1\rho_1\\ \text{ and}\ \min_{t\in [a_2,b_2]}v(t)<c_2\rho_2\}$$ and if $\rho_1=\rho_2=\rho$ we write simply $K_{\rho}$ and $V_{\rho}$. The set $V_\rho$ was introduced in [@df-gi-do] as an extension to the case of systems of a set given by Lan [@lan]. The use of different radii, in the spirit of the paper [@gipp-nodea], allows more freedom in the growth of the nonlinearities.\
The following Lemma is similar to the Lemma $5$ of [@df-gi-do] and therefore its proof is omitted.
\[esca\] The sets defined above have the following properties:
- $K_{c_1\rho_1,c_2\rho_2}\subset V_{\rho_1,\rho_2}\subset K_{\rho_1,\rho_2}$.
- $(w_1,w_2) \in \partial V_{\rho_1,\rho_2}$ iff $(w_1,w_2)\in K$ and $\displaystyle \min_{t\in [a_i,b_i]} w_i(t)= c_i\rho_i$ for some $i\in \{1,2\}$ and $\displaystyle \min_{t\in [a_j,b_j]}w_j(t) \le c_j\rho_j$ for $j\neq i$.
- If $(w_1,w_2) \in \partial V_{\rho_1,\rho_2}$, then for some $i\in\{1,2\}$ $c_i\rho_i \le w_i(t) \le \rho_i$ for each $t \in [a_i,b_i]$ and $\|w_i\|_\infty \leq \rho_i$; moreover for $j\neq i$ we have $\|w_j\|_\infty \leq \rho_j$.
We firstly prove that the fixed point index is $1$ on the set $K_{\rho_1,\rho_2}\,$.
\[ind1b\] Assume that \
$(\mathrm{I}_{\rho_1,\rho_2 }^{1})$ there exist $\rho_1,\rho_2 >0$ such that for every $i=1,2$ $$\label{eqmestt}
f_i^{\rho_1,\rho_2} < \varphi_{p_i}(m_i)$$ where $$f_{i}^{\rho_1,\rho_2}=\sup \Bigl\{\frac{f_{i}(t,u,v)}{\rho_i^{p_i-1}}:\;(t,u,v)\in \lbrack 0,1]\times [ 0,\rho_1 ]\times [0,\rho_2 ],\Bigr\},$$ $$\frac{1}{m_1}=\int_{0}^{1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_0^s
g_{1}(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds+h_{12}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)d\tau\right),$$ $$\frac{1}{m_2}=
\max\left\{\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)ds+h_{22}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right),\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{1}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{s}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)ds\,\right\}.$$
Then $i_{K}(T,K_{\rho_1,\rho_2})=1$.
We show that $\lambda (u,v)\neq T(u,v)$ for every $(u,v)\in \partial K_{\rho_1,\rho_2 }$ and for every $\lambda \geq 1$; this ensures that the index is 1 on $K_{\rho_1,\rho_2 }$. In fact, if this does not happen, there exist $\lambda \geq 1$ and $(u,v)\in \partial K_{\rho_1,\rho_2 }$ such that $\lambda (u,v)=T(u,v)$.\
Firstly we assume that $\| u\| _{\infty }=\rho_1 $ and $\| v\| _{\infty}\leq \rho_2 $.\
Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda u(t)&= \int_{t}^{1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds+B_1\left(\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau
\right)\right)\\
&\le \int_{t}^{1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds+h_{12}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau
\right)\\
&=\rho_1 \left(\int_{t}^{1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)\frac{f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho^{p_1-1}_1}d\tau)ds+h_{12}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
\frac{f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho^{p_1-1}_1}d\tau
)\right).\\\end{aligned}$$ Taking $t=0$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda u(0)&=&\lambda {\rho_1}\leq \rho_1 \left(\int_{0}^{1}
\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1^{\rho_1,\rho_2}d\tau\right)\,ds+
h_{12}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)f_1^{\rho_1,\rho_2}d\tau\right)\right)\\
&=& \rho_1
\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}(f_1^{\rho_1,\rho_2})\left(\int_{0}^{1}
\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left( \int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds+h_{12}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)d\tau\right)\right)\\
&=&{\rho_1}\frac{1}{m_1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left( f_1^{\rho_1,\rho_2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using the hypothesis and the strictly monotonicity of $\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}$ we obtain $\lambda \rho_1 <\rho_1 .$ This contradicts the fact that $\lambda \geq 1$ and proves the result.\
Now we assume $\|v\|_{\infty}=\rho_2$ and $\| u\| _{\infty}\leq \rho_1 $.\
Then we have $$\lambda \rho_2= \|T_2(u,v)\|_\infty=T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v}).$$ If $\sigma_{u,v}\le \displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\lambda \rho_2= \|T_2(u,v)\|_\infty=T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v})\\&=
\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds
+B_2\left(\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\right) \\
&\leq \int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}
g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds+h_{22}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\\
&\leq \int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}
g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds+h_{22}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\\
&=\rho_2 \int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)\frac{f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_2^{p_2-1}}d\tau\right)ds+
h_{22}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)\frac{f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_2^{p_2-1}}d\tau\right)\\
&\leq \rho_2
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2^{\rho_1,\rho_2})\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)ds+
h_{22}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right).\end{aligned}$$ If $\sigma_{u,v}>\displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\lambda \rho_2=\|T_2(u,v)\|_\infty=T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v})\\&=
\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{1}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{s}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\leq \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{1}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{s}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\\
&=\rho_2 \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{1}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{s}g_2(\tau)\frac{f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_2^{p_2-1}}d\tau\right)\,ds\leq\rho_2 \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2^{\rho_1,\rho_2})\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{1}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{s}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds.\\\end{aligned}$$ Then, in both cases, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\lambda \rho_2= \|T_2(u,v)\|_\infty=T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v})\leq\rho_2 \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2^{\rho_1,\rho_2})\times\\
&\max\Bigg\{\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds+h_{22}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right),\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{1}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{s}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds\,\Bigg\}\\
&=\rho_2 \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2^{\rho_1,\rho_2})\frac{1}{m_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the hypothesis and the strictly monotonicity of $\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}$ we obtain $\lambda \rho_2 <\rho_2 .$ This contradicts the fact that $\lambda \geq 1$ and proves the result.
We give a first Lemma that shows that the index is 0 on a set $V_{\rho_1,\rho_2 }$.
\[idx0b1\] Assume that: \
$(\mathrm{I}^{0}_{\rho_1,\rho_2})$ there exist $\rho_1,\rho_2>0$ such that for every $i=1,2$ $$\label{eqMest}
f_{i,(\rho_1, \rho_2)} > \varphi_{p_i}(M_i),$$ where $$f_{1,({\rho_1,\rho_2 })}= \inf \Bigl\{ \frac{f_1(t,u,v)}{ \rho_1^{p_1-1}}:\; (t,u,v)\in [0,b_1]\times[c_1\rho_1,\rho_1]\times[0, \rho_2]\Bigr\},$$ $$f_{2,({\rho_1,\rho_2 })}= \inf \Bigl\{ \frac{f_2(t,u,v)}{ \rho_2^{p_2-1}}:\; (t,u,v)\in [a_2,b_2]\times[0,\rho_1]\times[c_2\rho_2, \rho_2]\Bigr\},$$ $$\frac{1}{M_1}= \int_{0}^{b_1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s} g_1(\tau)\,d\tau\right)ds+h_{11}\,\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{b_1}g_1(\tau)d\tau\right),$$ and $$\frac{1}{M_2}=\frac{1}{2}\min _{a_2\leq \nu\leq b_2} \left\{\int_{a_2}^{\nu}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(\int_{s}^{\nu}
g_2(\tau)d\tau)ds
+\int_{\nu}^{b_2}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(\int_{\nu}^{s}
g_2(\tau)d\tau)ds+h_{21}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(\int_{a_2}^{\nu}g_2(\tau)d\tau)\right\}.$$ Then $i_{K}(T,V_{\rho_1,\rho_2})=0$.
Let $e(t)\equiv 1$ for $t\in [0,1]$. Then $(e,e)\in K$. We prove that $$(u,v)\ne T(u,v)+\lambda (e,e)\quad\text{for } (u,v)\in \partial V_{\rho_1,\rho_2 }\quad\text{and } \lambda \geq 0.$$ In fact, if this does not happen, there exist $(u,v)\in \partial V_{\rho_1,\rho_2 }$ and $\lambda \geq 0$ such that $(u,v)=T(u,v)+\lambda (e,e)$. We examine the two cases:\
Case $(1)$: $ c_1\rho_1 \le u(t) \le \rho_1$ for $t\in [0,b_1]$ and $0\leq v(t)\leq \rho_2$ for $t\in [0,1]$.\
Thus for $t\in [0,b_1]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\rho_1\geq u(t)\ \\
&= \int_{t}^{1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_0^s g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds+B_1\left(\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\right) +\lambda\ \\
&\geq \int_{t}^{b_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds+h_{11}\,\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau
\right) + \lambda\ \\
&\geq \int_{t}^{b_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds+h_{11}\,\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{b_1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau
\right) + \lambda\ \\
&=\rho_1\int_{t}^{b_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0} ^{s}
g_1(\tau)\frac{f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_1^{p_1-1}}d\tau\right)ds+\rho_1 h_{11}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{b_1}g_1(\tau)
\frac{f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_1^{p_1-1}}d\tau \right)
+ \lambda.\end{aligned}$$ For $t=0$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1&\geq\rho_1\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}(f_1,_{(\rho_1,\rho_2)})\left(\int_{0}^{b_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)\,d\tau\right)\,ds+h_{11}\,\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{b_1}g_1(\tau)d\tau\right)\right)
+ \lambda\\
&>{\rho_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(f_{1,(\rho_1,\rho_2)}\right)\frac{1}{M_{1}}+{\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the hypothesis we obtain $\rho_1>\rho_1 +\lambda $, a contradiction.\
Case $(2)$: $ 0\leq u(t)\leq \rho_1$ for $t\in [0,1]$ and $c_2\rho_2 \le v(t) \le \rho_2$.\
We distinguish three cases: \
Case (i) $0<\sigma_{u,v}\leq a_2$. \
Therefore we get $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_2&\geq v(\sigma_{u,v})=T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v})+\lambda=\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{1}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{s}
g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds+\lambda\\
&\geq\int_{a_2}^{b_2}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{s} g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds+\lambda\\
&=\rho_2 \int_{a_2}^{b_2}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{s} g_2(\tau)\frac{f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_2^{p_2-1}}\,d\tau\right)ds+\lambda\\
&\geq\rho_2\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2,_{(\rho_1,\rho_2)})\left(\int_{a_2}^{b_2}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{s}
g_2(\tau)\,d\tau\right)ds\right)+\lambda
\geq\rho_2\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2,_{(\rho_1,\rho_2)})\frac{1}{M_2}+\lambda.\end{aligned}$$ Using the hypothesis we obtain $\rho_2>\rho_2 +\lambda $, a contradiction. \
Case (ii) $\sigma_{u,v} \geq b_2$. $$\begin{aligned}
&&\rho_2\geq v(\sigma_{u,v})=T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v})+\lambda
=\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}} g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds\\&&+B_2\left(\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\right) +\lambda\\
&&\geq \int_{a_2}^{b_2} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{b_2}
g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds+
h_{21}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{b_2}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right) +\lambda\\
&&=\rho_2 \int_{a_2}^{b_2}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{b_2}
g_2(\tau)\frac{f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_2^{p_1-1}}d\tau\right)
ds\\&&+
\rho_2 h_{21}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{b_2}g_2(\tau)\frac{f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_2^{p_2-1}}\,d\tau\right) +\lambda\\
&&\geq\rho_2\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2,_{(\rho_1,\rho_2)})\left(\int_{a_2}^{b_2}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{b_2}
g_2(\tau)\,d\tau\right)ds+h_{21}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{b_2}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\right)\,
+\lambda\\
&&\geq\rho_2\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2,_{(\rho_1,\rho_2)})\frac{1}{M_2}+\lambda.\end{aligned}$$ Using the hypothesis we obtain $\rho_2>\rho_2 +\lambda $, a contradiction.\
Case (iii) $a_2<\sigma_{u,v}<b_2$. $$\begin{aligned}
2\rho_2&\geq 2v(\sigma_{u,v})=2\lambda+2T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v})= 2\lambda+\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}} g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))
d\tau\right)\,ds\\
&+B_2\left(\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\right) +\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{1} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{s} g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\\
&\geq 2\lambda+\int_{a_2}^{\sigma_{u,v}}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}}
g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\\
&+h_{21}\left(\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\right)+
\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{b_2} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{s} g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\\
&=2\lambda+\rho_2 \Bigg[\int_{a_2}^{\sigma_{u,v}}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}}
g_2(\tau)\frac{f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_2^{p_2-1}}d\tau\right)\,ds\\
&+h_{21}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)\frac{f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_2^{p_2-1}}\,d\tau\right)
+ \int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{b_2} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{s}g_2(\tau)\frac{f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))}{\rho_2^{p_2-1}}d\tau\right)\,ds\Bigg]\\
&\geq
2\lambda+\rho_2\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2,_{(\rho_1,\rho_2)})\Bigg[\int_{a_2}^{\sigma_{u,v}}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}}
g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds \\
&+h_{21}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)\,d\tau\right)
+ \int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{b_2} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{\sigma_{u,v}}^{s}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds\Bigg]\\
&\geq 2\lambda+
2\rho_2\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(f_2,_{(\rho_1,\rho_2)})\frac{1}{M_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the hypothesis we obtain $\rho_2>\lambda+\rho_2 $, a contradiction.\
We point out that a stronger, but easier to check, hypothesis than is $$f_{i,(\rho_1, \rho_2)} > \varphi_{p_i}(\tilde{M}_i),$$ where $$\frac{1}{\tilde{M}_1}= \int_{0}^{b_1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s} g_1(\tau)\,d\tau\right)ds$$ and $$\frac{1}{\tilde{M}_2}=\frac{1}{2}\min _{a_2\leq \nu\leq b_2} \left\{\int_{a_2}^{\nu}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(\int_{s}^{\nu}
g_2(\tau)d\tau)ds
+\int_{\nu}^{b_2}\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}(\int_{\nu}^{s}
g_2(\tau)d\tau)ds\right\}.$$
In the following Lemma we exploit an idea that was used in [@gipp-nonlin; @gipp-nodea] and we provide a result of index 0 controlling the growth of just one nonlinearity $f_i$, at the cost of having to deal with a larger domain. Nonlinearities with different growths were considered for examples in [@precup1; @precup2; @ya1].
\[idx0b3\] Assume that
1. there exist $\rho_1,\rho_2>0$ such that for some $i\in\{1,2\}$ we have $$\label{eqMest1}
f^*_{i,(\rho_1, \rho_2)}>\varphi_{p_i}(M_i),$$
where $$f^*_{i,(\rho_1,{\rho_2})}=\inf \Bigl\{ \frac{f_i(t,u,v)}{ \rho_i^{p_i-1}}:\; (t,u,v)\in [a_i,b_i]\times[0,\rho_1]\times[0, \rho_2]\Bigr\}.$$ Then $i_{K}(T,V_{\rho_1,\rho_2})=0$.
Suppose that the condition holds for $i=1$. Let $(u,v)\in \partial V_{\rho_1,\rho_2 }$ and $\lambda \geq 0$ such that $(u,v)=T(u,v)+\lambda (e,e)$. Thus we proceed as in the proof of Lemma \[idx0b1\].
The proof of the next result regarding the existence of at least one, two or three positive solutions follows by the properties of fixed point index and is omitted. It is possible to state results for four or more positive solutions, in a similar way as in [@kljdeds], by expanding the lists in conditions $(S_{5}),(S_{6})$.
\[mult-sys\] The system has at least one positive solution in $K$ if one of the following conditions holds.
1. For $i=1,2$ there exist $\rho _{i},r _{i}\in (0,\infty )$ with $\rho_{i}<r _{i}$ such that $(\mathrm{I}_{\rho _{1},\rho_2}^{0})\;\;[\text{or}\;(\mathrm{I}_{\rho _{1},\rho_2}^{0})^{\star }]$, $(\mathrm{I}_{r _{1},r_2}^{1})$ hold.
2. For $i=1,2$ there exist $\rho _{i},r _{i}\in (0,\infty )$ with $\rho_{i}<c_i r _{i}$ such that $(\mathrm{I}_{\rho _{1},\rho_2}^{1}),\;\;(\mathrm{I}_{r _{1},r_2}^{0})$ hold.
The system has at least two positive solutions in $K$ if one of the following conditions holds.
1. For $i=1,2$ there exist $\rho _{i},r _{i},s_i\in (0,\infty )$ with $\rho _{i}<r_i <c_i s _{i}$ such that $(\mathrm{I}_{\rho_{1},\rho_2}^{0})$, $[\text{or}\;(\mathrm{I}_{\rho _{1},\rho_2}^{0})^{\star }],\;(\mathrm{I}_{r _{1},r_2}^{1})$ $\text{and}\;\;(\mathrm{I}_{s _{1},s_2}^{0})$ hold.
2. For $i=1,2$ there exist $\rho _{i},r _{i},s_i\in (0,\infty )$ with $\rho _{i}<c_i r _{i}$ and $r _{i}<s _{i}$ such that $(\mathrm{I}_{\rho _{1},\rho_2}^{1})$, $(\mathrm{I}_{r _{1},r_2}^{0})$ $\text{and}\;\;(\mathrm{I}_{s _{1},s_2}^{1})$ hold.
The system has at least three positive solutions in $K$ if one of the following conditions holds.
1. For $i=1,2$ there exist $\rho _{i},r _{i},s_i,\delta_i\in (0,\infty )$ with $\rho _{i}<r _{i}<c_i s _{i}$ and $s _{i}<\delta_{i}$ such that $(\mathrm{I}_{\rho _{1},\rho_2}^{0})\;\;[\text{or}\;(\mathrm{I}_{\rho _{1},\rho_2}^{0})^{\star }],$ $(\mathrm{I}_{r _{1},r_2}^{1}),
\;\;(\mathrm{I}_{s_1,s_2}^{0})\;\;\text{and}\;\;(\mathrm{I}_{\delta _{1},\delta_2}^{1})$ hold.
2. For $i=1,2$ there exist $\rho _{i},r _{i},s_i,\delta_i\in (0,\infty )$ with $\rho _{i}<c_i r _{i}$ and $r _{i}<s _{i}<c_i \delta _{i}$ such that $(\mathrm{I}_{\rho _{1},\rho_2}^{1}),\;\;(\mathrm{I}_{r_{1},r_2}^{0}),\;\;(\mathrm{I}_{s _{1},s_2}^{1})$ $\text{and}
\;\;(\mathrm{I}_{\delta _{1},\delta_2}^{0})$ hold.
Non-existence results
=====================
We now provide some non-existence results for system .\
Assume that one of the following conditions holds.
1. For $i=1,2$, $$\label{cond1}
f_i(t,u_1,u_2)< \varphi _{p_i}(m_i u_i)\ \text{for every}\ t\in [0,1] \text{ and } u_i>0.$$
2. For $i=1,2$, $$\label{cond2}
f_i(t,u_1,u_2)> \varphi _{p_i}\left(\frac{M_i}{c_i} u_i\right) \text{for every}\ t\in [a_i,b_i] \text{ and } u_i>0.$$
3. There exists $k\in\{1,2\}$ such that is verified for $f_k$ and for $j\neq k$ condition is verified for $f_j$.
Then there is no positive solution of the system in $K$.
$(1)$ Assume, on the contrary, that there exists $(u,v)\in K$ such that $(u,v)=T(u,v)$ and $(u,v)\neq (0,0)$. We distinguish two cases.
- Let be $\|u\|_\infty \neq 0$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
u(t)&= \int_{t}^{1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)ds+B_1\left(\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau
\right)\right) \\
&< m_1 \int_{t}^{1} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s} g_1(\tau)\varphi_{p_1}(u(\tau))d\tau\right)ds+
m_1 h_{12} \varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1} g_1(\tau)\varphi_{p_1}(u(\tau))d\tau\right)\\
&\leq m_1 \|u\|_\infty \left(\int_{t}^{1}
\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)d\tau\right)ds+h_{12}
\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1} g_1(\tau)d\tau\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Taking $t=0$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_\infty &= u(0)< m_1 \|u\|_\infty \left(\int_{0}^{1}
\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)d\tau\right)ds+h_{12}
\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}
g_1(\tau)d\tau\right)\right)\\&= m_1 \|u\|_\infty \frac{1}{m_1},\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction.
- Let be $\|v\|_{\infty} \neq 0$.\
Reasoning as in Lemma \[ind1b\] we distinguish the cases $\sigma_{u,v} \leq 1/2$ and $\sigma_{u,v} >1/2$.\
In the first case we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|v\|_{\infty} &= \|T_2(u,v)\|_\infty=T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v})\\
&= \int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}} g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\\&+B_2\left(\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\right)\\
&< m_2 \|v\|_\infty \left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}}
g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds+ h_{22}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)\,d\tau\right)\right)\\
&\le m_2 \|v\|_\infty \left(\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}
g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\,ds+ h_{22}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}g_2(\tau)\,d\tau\right)\right)\le
m_2 \|v\|_\infty\frac{1}{m_2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction.\
The proof is similar in the last case $\sigma_{u,v} >1/2$.
$(2)$ Assume, on the contrary, that there exists $(u,v)\in K$ such that $(u,v)=T(u,v)$ and$(u,v)\neq (0,0)$. We distinguish two cases
- Let be $\|u\|_\infty \neq 0$. Then, for $t\in [a_1,b_1]= [0,b_1]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
u(t)&= \int_{t}^{1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_0^s
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\,ds
+B_1\left(\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau
\right)\right)\\
&\geq \int_{t}^{b_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\,ds
+h_{11}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau
\right)\\
&\geq \int_{t}^{b_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{s}
g_1(\tau)f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\,ds
+h_{11}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{b_1}g_1(\tau)
f_1(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau
\right)\\
&>\frac{M_1}{c_1}\left(\int_{t}^{b_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}
^{s} g_1(\tau)\varphi_{p_1}(u(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\,ds+
h_{11}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{b_1}g_1(\tau)\varphi_{p_1}(u(\tau))d\tau\right)\right)\\
&>\frac{M_1}{c_1}\left(\int_{t}^{b_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}
^{s}
g_1(\tau)\varphi_{p_1}(c_1\|u\|_{\infty})\,d\tau\right)\,ds+h_{11}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{b_1}g_1(\tau)
\varphi_{p_1}(c_1\|u\|_{\infty})\,d\tau \right)\right)\\
&=\frac{M_1}{c_1}c_1\|u\|_{\infty}\left(\int_{t}^{b_1}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}
^{s} g_1(\tau)\,d\tau\right)\,ds+
h_{11}\varphi_{p_1}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{b_1}g_1(\tau)d\tau
\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ For $t=0$ we obtain $$u(0)= \|u\|_{\infty}>M_1 \|u\|_{\infty}\frac{1}{M_{1}},$$ a contradiction.
- Let be $\|v\|_{\infty} \neq 0$. We examine the case $\sigma_{u,v} \geq b_2$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\|v\|_{\infty}&=v(\sigma_{u,v})=T_2(u,v)(\sigma_{u,v})
= \int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{\sigma_{u,v}} g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds\\&+B_2\left(\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{0}^{\sigma_{u,v}}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right)\right) \\
&\geq \int_{a_2}^{b_2} \varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{b_2}
g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))d\tau\right)\,ds +
h_{21}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{b_2}g_2(\tau)f_2(\tau,u(\tau),v(\tau))\,d\tau\right) \\
&> \frac{M_2}{c_2}c_2\|v\|_{\infty}\Bigg(\int_{a_2}^{b_2}
\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{s}^{b_2} g_2(\tau)\,d\tau\right)ds
+h_{21}\,\varphi_{p_2}^{-1}\left(\int_{a_2}^{b_2}g_2(\tau)d\tau\right)\Bigg)
\geq M_2\|v\|_{\infty}\frac{1}{M_2},\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction. By similar proofs, the cases $0<\sigma_{u,v}\leq a_2$ and $a_2<\sigma_{u,v}< b_2$ can be examined.
$(3)$ Assume, on the contrary, that there exists $(u,v)\in K$ such that $(u,v)=T(u,v)$ and $(u,v)\neq (0,0)$. If $\|u\|_\infty \neq 0$ then the function $f_1$ satisfies either or and the proof follows as in the previous cases. If $\|v\|_\infty \neq 0$ then the function $f_2$ satisfies either or and the proof follows as previous cases.
An example
==========
We illustrate in the following example that all the constants that occur in the Theorem \[mult-sys\] can be computed.\
Consider the system $$\label{lap2}
\begin{array}{c}
(\varphi_{p_1}(u^{\prime}))'(t)+g_1(t)f_{1}(t, u(t),v(t))=0,\ t \in (0,1), \\
(\varphi_{p_2}(v^{\prime}))'(t)+g_2(t)f_{2}(t, u(t),v(t))=0,\ t \in (0,1), \\
\end{array}$$ subject to boundary conditions $$\label{bc2}
u'(0)=
0\,,\,\,u(1)+B_1\left(u'(1)\right)=0,\,\,\,\,v(0)=B_2\left(v'(0)\right)\,,\,\,v(1)=0,$$ where $B_1$ and $B_2$ are defined by: $$B_1(w)=\begin{cases} w, \,\,\,\,\,\,w\le 0, \cr
\frac{w}{2}, \,\,\,\, 0\leq w \leq 1,\cr \frac{w}{6}
+\frac{1}{3}, \,\,\,\,w\geq 1,\end{cases}$$ and $$B_2(w)=\begin{cases} \frac{w}{3},\,\,\,\,\, 0\leq w \leq 1,\cr \frac{w}{9} +\frac{2}{9},\,\,\,
w\geq 1.\end{cases}\,$$ Now we assume $g_1 =g_2\equiv 1$. Thus we have $$\frac{1}{m_{1}}=\frac{p_1-1}{p_1} +h_{12},$$ $$\frac{1}{m_{2}}=\frac{p_2-1}{p_2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{\frac{p_2}{p_2-1}}+h_{22}\,\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{p_2-1}},$$ $$\frac{1}{M_1}=\frac{1}{M_1[0,b_1]}=\frac{p_1-1}{p_1}\,\,b_1^{\frac{p_1}{p_1-1}}+h_{11}\,b_1^{\frac{1}{p_1-1}}$$ and $$\frac{1}{M_2}=\frac{1}{M_{2}[a_2,b_2]}
=\frac{1}{2}\min_{a_2\le \nu\le b_2}\left(\frac{p_2-1}{p_2}\,\,\left((\nu-a_2)^{\frac{p_2}{p_2-1}}+(b_2-\nu)^{\frac{p_2}{p_2-1}}\right)
+h_{21}(\nu-a_2)^{\frac{1}{p_2-1}}\right).$$ The choice $p_1=\frac{3}{2}$, $p_2=3$, $b_1=\frac{2}{3}$, $a_2=\frac{1}{4}$ , $b_2=\frac{3}{4}$, $h_{11}=1/6$, $h_{12}=1/2$, $h_{21}=1/9$ and $h_{22}=1/3$ gives by direct computation: $$c_1=\frac{1}{3};\ c_2=\frac{1}{4};\ m_1=1.2;\ M_1=5.78571;\
m_2=2.12132;\ M_2=9.14497.$$ Let us now consider $$f_1(t, u,v)=\frac{1}{16}(u^4+t^3v^3)+\frac{27}{50}, \quad
f_2(t,u,v)=(tu)^{\frac{1}{2}}+10v^{9}.$$
Then, with the choice of $\rho_1=\rho_2=1/20$, $r_1=1$, $r_2=2/3$, $s_1=s_2=9$, we obtain $$\inf \Bigl\{ f_1(t,u,v):\; (t,u,v)\in [0,\frac{2}{3}]\times[0,\rho_1]\times[0,\rho_2] \Bigr\}= f_1(0,0,0)\\=0.54>\sqrt{M_1\rho_1}=0.538,$$ $$\sup \Bigl\{ f_1(t,u,v):\; (t,u,v)\in [0,1]\times [0,r_1]\times[0, r_2]\Bigr\}=f_1(1,r_1,r_2)=0.62< \sqrt{m_1 r_1}=1.095,$$ $$\inf \Bigl\{ f_1(t,u,v):\; (t,u,v)\in
[0,2/3]\times[c_1s_1,s_1]\times[0,s_2]\Bigr\}=f_1(0,c_1s_1,0)=5.602
>\sqrt{M_1 s_1}=1.247,$$ $$\sup \Bigl\{ f_2(t,u,v):\; (t,u,v)\in [0,1]\times [0,r_1]\times[0, r_2]\Bigr\}=f_2(1,r_1,r_2)=1.260<(m_2 r_2)^2=2,$$ $$\inf \Bigl\{ f_2(t,u,v):\; (t,u,v)\in
[\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4}]\times[0,s_1]\times[c_2s_2,s_2]\Bigr\}=f_2(t,0,c_2s_2)=14778.9
>(M_2 s_2)^2=6774.07.$$
Thus the conditions $(\mathrm{I}^{0}_{\frac{1}{20},\frac{1}{20}})^{\star}$, $(\mathrm{I}^{1}_{1,2/3})$ and $(\mathrm{I}^{0}_{9,9})$ are satisfied; therefore the system (\[lap2\])-(\[bc2\]) has at least two nontrivial solutions $(u_1,v_1)$ and $(u_2,v_2)$ such that $1/20<\|(u_1,v_1)\|\leq 1$ and $1<\|(u_2,v_2)\|\leq 9$.
[00]{} R. P. Agarwal, H. Lü and D. O’Regan, Eigenvalues and the one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **266**, no. 2 (2002), 383-400. H. Amann, Fixed point equations and nonlinear eigenvalue problems in ordered Banach spaces. *SIAM. Rev.*, **18** (1976), 620–709. R. Avery and J. Henderson, Existence of three positive pseudo-symmetric solutions for a one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **277**, no. 2 (2003), 395-404. K. Bachouche, S. Djebali and T. Moussaoui, $\phi$-Laplacian BVPS with linear bounded operator conditions. *Arch. Math. (Brno)* **48**, no. 2 (2012), 121-137. D. Bai and Y. Chen, Three positive solutions for a generalized Laplacian boundary value problem with a parameter. *Appl. Math. Comput.* **219**, no. 9 (2013), 4782-4788. C. Bai and J. Fang, Existence of multiple positive solutions for nonlinear $m$-point boundary value problems. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **281**, no. 1 (2003) 76-85. B. D. Calvert, One-dimensional nonlinear Laplacians under a $3$-point boundary condition. *Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.)* **26**, no. 9 (2010), 1641-1652. X. Cheng and H. Lü, Multiplicity of positive solutions for a $(p_1,p_2)$-Laplacian system and its applications. *Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl.* **13**, no. 5 (2012), 2375-2390. H. Feng, W. Ge and M. Jiang, Multiple positive solutions for m-point boundary-value problems with a one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian. *Nonlinear Anal.* **68**, no. 8 (2008), 2269-2279. D. Franco, G. Infante and D. O’Regan, Nontrivial solutions in abstract cones for Hammerstein integral systems. *Dyn. Contin. Discrete Impuls. Syst. Ser. A Math. Anal.*, **14** (2007), 837–850. C. S. Goodrich, Positive solutions to boundary value problems with nonlinear boundary conditions. *Nonlinear Anal.*, **75** (2012), 417–432. C. S. Goodrich, On nonlinear boundary conditions satisfying certain asymptotic behavior. *Nonlinear Anal.*, **76** (2013), 58–67.
D. Guo and V. Lakshmikantham, *Nonlinear Problems in Abstract Cones*. Academic Press, 1988. X. He and W. Ge, A remark on some three-point boundary value problems for the one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian. *ZAMM Z. Angew. Math. Mech.* **82**, no. 10 (2002), 728-731.
G. Infante, Nonlocal boundary value problems with two nonlinear boundary conditions. *Commun. Appl. Anal.*, **12** (2008), 279–288.
G. Infante, M. Maciejewski and R. Precup, A topological approach to the existence and multiplicity of positive solutions of $(p,q)$-Laplacian systems. *Dynamics of Partial Differential Equations*, to appear.
G. Infante, F. M. Minhós and P. Pietramala, Non-negative solutions of systems of ODEs with coupled boundary conditions. *Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.*, **17** (2012), 4952–4960.
G. Infante and P. Pietramala, A cantilever equation with nonlinear boundary conditions. *Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ.*, **Spec. Ed. I**, No. 15 (2009), 1–14.
G. Infante and P. Pietramala, Existence and multiplicity of non-negative solutions for systems of perturbed Hammerstein integral equations. *Nonlinear Anal.*, **71** (2009), 1301–1310.
G. Infante and P. Pietramala, Multiple nonnegative solutions of systems with coupled nonlinear boundary conditions. *Math. Methods Appl. Sci.*, **37**, no. 14 (2014), 2080–2090.
G. Infante and P. Pietramala, Nonzero radial solutions for a class of elliptic systems with nonlocal BCs on annular domains. *Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. NoDEA*, (2015), DOI 10.1007/s00030-015-0311-8.
P. Jebelean and R. Precup, Solvability of $(p, q)$-Laplacian systems with potential boundary conditions. *Appl. Anal.* **89**, no. 2 (2010), 221-228. G. L. Karakostas, Positive solutions for the $\Phi$-Laplacian when $\Phi$ is a sup-multiplicative-like function. *Electron. J. Differential Equations* 2004 (2004), No. **68**, 12 pp. G. L. Karakostas, Solvability of the $\Phi$-Laplacian with nonlocal boundary conditions. *Appl. Math. Comput.* **215**, no. 2 (2009), 514-523. C. G. Kim, The three-solutions theorem for $p$-Laplacian boundary value problems. *Nonlinear Anal.* **75**, no. 2 (2012), 924-931. K. Q. Lan, Multiple positive solutions of Hammerstein integral equations with singularities, *Diff. Eqns and Dynam. Syst.*, **8** (2000), 175–195. K. Q. Lan, Multiple positive solutions of semilinear differential equations with singularities. *J. London Math. Soc.*, **63** (2001), 690–704. K. Q. Lan and Z. Zhang, Nonzero positive weak solutions of systems of $p$-Laplace equations. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **394** , no. 2 (2012), 581–591. E. K. Lee and Y. H. Lee, A multiplicity result for generalized Laplacian systems with multiparameters. *Nonlinear Anal.* **71**, no. 12 (2009), e366-e376. J. Li and J. Shen, Existence of three positive solutions for boundary value problems with $p$-Laplacian. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **311**, no. 2 (2005), 457-465. H. Lü, D. O’Regan and C. Zhong, Multiple positive solutions for the one-dimensional singular $p$-Laplacian. *Appl. Math. Comput*. **133**, no. 2-3 (2002), 407-422. D. X. Ma, Z. J. Du and W. Ge, Existence and iteration of monotone positive solutions for multipoint boundary value problem with $p$-Laplacian operator. *Comput. Math. Appl.* **50**, no. 5-6 (2005), 729-739. P. Pietramala, A note on a beam equation with nonlinear boundary conditions. *Bound. Value Probl.*, (2011), Art. ID 376782, 14 pp. K. Prasad, K. Kumar and P. Murali, Solvability of higher order $(p,q)$-Laplacian two-point boundary value problems. *J. Appl. Computat. Math.*, **3**, no. 6 (2014), 6 pp. R. Precup, Componentwise compression-expansion conditions for systems of nonlinear operator equations and applications. Mathematical models in engineering, biology and medicine, 284–293, *AIP Conf. Proc.*, 1124, Amer. Inst. Phys., Melville, NY, 2009. R. Precup, Existence, localization and multiplicity results for positive radial solutions of semilinear elliptic systems. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.*, **352** (2009), 48–56. I. Sim and Y. H. Lee, A new solution operator of one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian with a sign-changing weight and its application. *Abstr. Appl. Anal.* 2012, Art. ID 243740, 15 pp. H. Su, Z. Wei and F. Xu, The existence of countably many positive solutions for a system of nonlinear singular boundary value problems with the $p$-Laplacian operator. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **325**, no. 1 (2007), 319-332. J. Wang, The existence of positive solutions for the one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian. *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **125**, no. 8 (1997), 2275-2283. Y. Wang and W. Ge, Positive solutions for multipoint boundary value problems with a one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian. *Nonlinear Anal.* **66**, no. 6 (2007), 1246-1256. Y. Wang and W. Ge, Existence of multiple positive solutions for multipoint boundary value problems with a one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian. *Nonlinear Anal.* **67** , no. 2 (2007), 476-485. Y. Wang and C. Hou, Existence of multiple positive solutions for one-dimensional p-Laplacian. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **315** no. 1 (2006), 144–153. Z. Wang and J. Zhang, Positive solutions for one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian boundary value problems with dependence on the first order derivative. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **314**, no. 2 (2006), 618-630. X. Xu and Y-H. Lee, Some existence results of positive solutions for $\phi$-Laplacian systems. *Abstr. Appl. Anal.* (2014), Art. ID 814312, 11 pp. Z. Yang, Positive solutions to a system of second-order nonlocal boundary value problems, *Nonlinear Anal.*, **62** (2005), 1251–1265. Z. Yang, Positive solutions for a system of $p$-Laplacian boundary value problems. *Comput. Math. Appl.* **62**, no. 12 (2011), 4429-4438. Z. Yang and D. O’Regan, Positive solutions of a focal problem for one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian equations. *Math. Comput. Modelling* **55**, no. 7-8 (2012), 1942-1950. Y. Zhang, Existence and multiplicity results for a class of generalized one-dimensional $p$-Laplacian problem. *Nonlinear Anal.* **72**, no. 2 (2010), 748-756.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Duosi Fan, Jinglei Xu,'
- 'Jean-Pierre Hickey'
bibliography:
- 'Ref.bib'
title: On the detection of internal interfacial layers in turbulent flows
---
Interfacial layer, boundary layer flow, momentum transfer, identification method
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider the problem of constructing binary codes to recover from $k$–bit deletions with efficient encoding/decoding, for a fixed $k$. The single deletion case is well understood, with the Varshamov-Tenengolts-Levenshtein code from 1965 giving an asymptotically optimal construction with $\approx 2^n/n$ codewords of length $n$, i.e., at most $\log n$ bits of redundancy. However, even for the case of two deletions, there was no known explicit construction with redundancy less than $n^{\Omega(1)}$.
For any fixed $k$, we construct a binary code with $c_k \log n$ redundancy that can be decoded from $k$ deletions in $O_k(n \log^4 n)$ time. The coefficient $c_k$ can be taken to be $O(k^2 \log k)$, which is only quadratically worse than the optimal, non-constructive bound of $O(k)$. We also indicate how to modify this code to allow for a combination of up to $k$ insertions and deletions.
We also note that among [*linear*]{} codes capable of correcting $k$ deletions, the $(k+1)$-fold repetition code is essentially the best possible.
author:
- 'Joshua Brakensiek[^1]'
- 'Venkatesan Guruswami[^2]'
- 'Samuel Zbarsky[^3]'
date: Carnegie Mellon University
title: |
[**Efficient Low-Redundancy Codes for Correcting\
Multiple Deletions**]{}
---
Introduction
============
A $k$-bit binary deletion code of length $N$ is some set of strings $C\subseteq\{0,1\}^N$ so that for any $c_1,c_2\in C$, the longest common subsequence of $c_1$ and $c_2$ has length less than $N-k$. For such a code, a codeword of $C$ can be uniquely identified from any of its subsequences of length $N-k$, and therefore such a code enables recovery from $k$ adversarial/worst-case deletions.
In this work, we are interested in the regime when $k$ is a fixed constant, and the block length $N$ grows. Denoting by $\mathsf{del}(N,k)$ the size of the largest $k$-bit binary deletion code of length $N$, it is known that $$\label{eq:del-combin}
a_k \frac{2^N}{N^{2k}} {\leqslant}\mathsf{del}(N,k) {\leqslant}A_k \frac{2^N}{N^k}$$ for some constants $a_k > 0$ and $A_k < \infty$ depending only $k$ [@Levenshtein66].
For the special case of $k=1$, it is known that $\mathsf{del}(N,1) = \Theta(2^N/N)$. The Varshamov-Tenengolts code defined by $$\label{eq:VT-code}
\Big\{(x_1,\ldots,x_N)\in\{0,1\}^N \ \mid \ \sum_{i=1}^N ix_i\equiv 0\pmod{(N+1)}\Big\}$$ is known to have size at least $2^N/(N+1)$, and Levenshtein [@Levenshtein66] shows that this code is capable of correcting a single deletion. An easy to read exposition of the deletion correcting property of the VT code can be found in the detailed survey on single-deletion-correcting codes [@Sloane02].
The bound shows that the asymptotic number of redundant bits needed for correcting $k$-bit deletions in an $N$-bit codeword is $\Theta(k \log N)$ (i.e., one can encode $n = N - \Theta(k
\log N)$ message bits into length $N$ codewords in a manner resilient to $k$ deletions). Note that the codes underlying this result are obtained by an exponential time greedy search — an efficient construction of $k$-bit binary deletion codes with redundancy approaching $O(k \log N)$ was not known, except in the single-deletion case where the VT code gives a solution with optimal $\log N + O(1)$ redundancy.
The simplest code to correct $k$ worst-case deletions is the $(k+1)$-fold repetition code, which maps $n$ message bits to $N = (k+1)n$ codewords bits, and thus has $\frac{k}{k+1} N$ redundant bits. A generalization of the VT code for the case of multiple deletions was proposed in [@HF02] and later proved to work in [@Ghaffaretal12]. These codes replace the weight $i$ given to the $i$’th codeword bit in the check constraint of the VT code by a much larger weight, which even for the $k=2$ case is related to the Fibonacci sequence and thus grows exponentially in $i$. Therefore, the redundancy of these codes is $\Omega(N)$ even for two deletions, and equals $c_k N$ where the constant $c_k \to 1$ as $k$ increases. Some improvements were made for small $k$ in [@Paluncicetal12], which studied run-length limited codes for correcting insertions/deletions, but the redundancy remained $\Omega(N)$ even for two deletions.
Allowing for $\Theta(N)$ redundancy, one can in fact efficiently correct a constant *fraction* of deletions, as was shown by Schulman and Zuckerman [@SchulmanZuckerman99]. This construction was improved and optimized recently in [@GW-random15], where it was shown that one could correct a fraction $\zeta > 0$ of deletions with $O(\sqrt{\zeta} N)$ redundant bits in the encoding. One can deduce codes to correct a constant $k$ number of deletions with redundancy $O_k(\sqrt{N})$ using the methods of [@GW-random15] (we will hint at this in Section \[sec:overview\]).
In summary, despite being such a natural and basic problem, there were no known explicit codes with redundancy better than $\sqrt{N}$ even to correct from two deletions. Our main result, stated formally as Theorem \[thm:main\] below, gives an explicit construction with redundancy $O_k(\log N)$ for any fixed number $k$ of deletions, along with a near-linear time decoding algorithm.
For simplicity, the above discussion focused on the problem of recovering from deletions alone. One might want codes to recover from a combination of deletions and insertions (i.e., errors under the edit distance metric). Levenshtein [@Levenshtein66] showed that any code capable of correcting $k$ deletions is in fact also capable of correcting from any combination of a total of $k$ insertions and deletions. But this only concerns the combinatorial property underlying correction from insertions/deletions, and does not automatically yield an algorithm to recover from insertions/deletions based on a deletion-correcting algorithm. For our main result, we are able to extend our construction to efficiently recover from an arbitrary combination of worst-case insertions/deletions as long as their total number is at most $k$.
Our result {#sec:intro-result}
----------
In this work, we construct, for each fixed $k$, a binary code of block length $N$ for correcting $k$ insertions/deletions on which all relevant operations can be done in polynomial (in fact, near-linear) time and that has $O(k^2 \log k \log
N)$ redundancy. We stress that this is the first efficient construction with redundancy smaller than $N^{\Theta(1)}$ even for the $2$-bit deletion case. For simplicity of exposition, we go through the details on how to construct an efficient deletion code, and then indicate how to modify it to turn it into an efficient deletion/insertion code.
\[thm:main\] Fix an integer $k {\geqslant}2$, For all sufficiently large $n$, there exists a code length $N {\leqslant}\allowbreak n + \allowbreak O(k^2 \log k \log n)$, an injective encoding map ${\mathsf{Enc}}: \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^N$ and a decoding map ${\mathsf{Dec}}: \{0,1\}^{N-k} \to \{0, 1\}^n \cup \{{\text{Fail}}\}$ both computable in $O_k(n(\log n)^4)$ time, such that for all $s \in \{0, 1\}^n$ and every subsequence $s' \in \{0,1\}^{N-k}$ obtained from ${\mathsf{Enc}}(s)$ by deleting $k$ bits, ${\mathsf{Dec}}(s') = s$.
Note that the decoding complexity in the above result has a FPT (fixed-parameter tractable) type dependence on $k$, and a near-linear dependence on $n$.
Our encoding function in Theorem \[thm:main\] is non-linear. This is inherent; in Appendix \[app:linear-limits\] we give a simple proof that among [*linear*]{} codes capable of correcting $k$ deletions, the $(k+1)$-fold repetition code is essentially the best possible.
Our approach {#sec:overview}
------------
We describe at a high level the ideas behind our construction of $k$-bit binary deletion codes with logarithmic redundancy. The difficulty with the deletion channel is that we don’t know the location of deletions, and thus we lose knowledge of which position a bit corresponds to. Towards identifying positions of some bits in spite of the deletions, we can break a codeword into blocks $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_m$ of length $b$ bits each, and separate them by introducing dummy buffers (consisting of a long enough run of $0$’s, say). If only $k$ bits are deleted, by looking for these buffers in the received subsequence, we can identify all but $O(k)$ of the blocks correctly (there are some details one must get right to achieve this, but these are not difficult). If the blocks are protected against $O(k)$ errors, then we can recover the codeword. In terms of redundancy, one needs at least $m$ bits for the buffers, and at least $\Omega(kb) {\geqslant}b$ bits to correct the errors in the blocks. As $mb
=n$, such a scheme needs at least $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ redundant bits. Using this approach, one can in fact achieve $\approx \sqrt{kn}$ redundancy; this is implicit in [@GW-random15].
To get lower redundancy, our approach departs from the introduction of explicit buffers, as they use up too many redundant bits. Our key idea is to use patterns that occur frequently in the string [ *themselves*]{} as “implicit" buffers, so we have no redundancy wasted for introducing buffers. Since an adversary could delete a portion of an implicit buffer thereby foiling our approach, we use multiple implicit patterns and form a separate “hash" for each pattern (which will protect the intervening blocks against $k$ errors). Since many strings have very few short patterns (such as as the all $0$’s string), we first use a [*pattern enriching*]{} encoding procedure to ensure that there are sufficiently many patterns. The number of implicit patterns is enough so that less than half of them can be corrupted by an adversary in any choice of $k$ deletions. Then, we can decode the string using each pattern and take the majority vote of the resulting decodings. The final transmitted string bundles the [ *pattern rich*]{} string, a hash describing the pattern enriching procedure, and the hash for each pattern. The two hashes are protected with a less efficient $k$-bit deletion code (with $o(n)$ redundancy) so that we can immediately decode them.
Deletion codes and synchronization protocols {#sec:sync}
--------------------------------------------
A related problem to correcting under edit distance is the problem of synchronizing two strings that are nearby in edit distance or [ *document exchange*]{} [@CPSV00]. The model here is that Alice holds a string $x \in \{0,1\}^n$ and Bob holds an arbitrary string $y$ at edit distance at most $k$ from $x$ — for simplicity let us consider the deletions only case so that $y \in \{0,1\}^{n-k}$ is a subsequence of $x$. The existential result for deletion codes implies that there is a short message $g(x) \in \{0,1\}^{O(k \log n)}$ that Alice can send to Bob, which together with $y$ enables him to recover $x$ (this is also a special case of a more general communication problem considered in [@Orlitsky93]). However, the function $g$ takes exponential time to compute. We note that if we had an efficient to compute $g$ with output length $O(k \log n)$, then one can also get deletion codes with small redundancy by protecting $g(x)$ with a deletion code (that is shorter and therefore easier to construct). Indeed, this is in effect what our approach outline above does, but only when $x$ is a pattern rich string. Our methods don’t yield a deterministic protocol for this problem when $x$ is arbitrary, and constructing such a protocol with $n^{o(1)}$ communication remains open.
If we allow randomization, sending a random hash value $h(x)$ of $O(k
\log n)$ bits will allow Bob to correctly identify $x$ among all possible supersequences of $y$; however, this will take $n^{O(k)}$ time. Randomized protocols that enable Bob to efficiently recover $x$ in near-linear time are known, but these require larger hashes of size $O(k \log^2 n \log^{\ast} n)$ [@Jowhari12] or $O(k \log (n/k) \log
n)$ [@IMS]. Very recently, a randomized protocol with a $O(k^2
\log n)$ bound on the number of bits transmitted was given in [@CGK]. But the use of randomness makes these synchronization protocols unsuitable for the application to deletion codes in the adversarial model.
Organization
------------
In Section \[sec:prelim\], we define the notation and describe some simple or well-known codes which will be used throughout the paper. Section \[sec:hash-for-mixed\] demonstrates how to efficiently encode and decode pattern rich strings against $k$-bit deletions using a hashing procedure. Section \[sec:enc-to-mixed\] describes how to efficiently encode any string as a pattern rich string. Section \[sec:proof-of-thm\] combines the results of the previous sections to prove Theorem \[thm:main\]. Section \[sec:insertions\] describes how to modify the code so that it works efficiently on the $k$-bit insertion and deletion channel. Section \[sec:conclusion\] suggests what would need to be done to improve redundancy past $O(k^2\log k\log n)$ using our methods. Appendix \[app:linear-limits\] proves that essentially the best linear $k$-bit deletion code is the $(k+1)$-repetition code.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
A subsequence in a string $x$ is any string obtained from $x$ by deleting one or more symbols. In contrast, a substring is a subsequence made of several consecutive symbols of $x$.
Let $k$ be a positive integer. Let $\sigma_k : \{0,1\}^n \to 2^{\{0,1\}^{n-k}}$ be the function which maps an binary string $s$ of length $n$ to the set of all subsequences of $s$ of length $n - k$. That is, $\sigma_k(s)$ is the set of all possible outputs through the $k$-bit deletion channel.
A two $n$-bit strings $s_1$ and $s_2$ are *$k$-confusable* if and only if $\sigma_k(s_1) \cap \sigma_k(s_2) \neq \emptyset$.
We now state and develop some basic ingredients that our construction builds upon. Specifically, we will see some simple constructions of hash functions such that the knowledge $\hash(x)$ and an arbitrary string $y \in \sigma_k(x)$ allows one to reconstruct $x$. Our final deletion codes will use these basic hash functions, which are either inefficient in terms of size or complexity, to build hashes that are efficient both in terms of size and computation time. These will then be used to build deletion codes, after protecting those hashes themselves with some redundancy to guard against $k$ deletions, and then including them also as part of the codeword.
We start with an asymptotically optimal hash size which is inefficient to compute. For runtimes, we adopt the notation $O_k(f(n))$ to denote that the runtime may depend on a hidden function of $k$.
\[lem:brute-force\] Fix an integer $k {\geqslant}1$. There is a hash function $\hash_1 : \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^m$ for $m {\leqslant}2k\log n + O(1)$, computable in $O_k(n^{2k}2^n)$ time, such that for all $x \in \{0,1\}^n$, given $\hash_1(x)$ and an arbitrary $y \in \sigma_k(x)$, the string $x$ can be recovered in $O_k(n^{2k}2^n)$ time.
This result follows from an algorithmic modification of the methods of [@Levenshtein66]. It is easy to see that for any $n$-bit string $x$, $|\sigma_k(x)| {\leqslant}n^k$. Additionally, for any $(n-k)$-bit string $y$, the number of $n$-bit strings $s$ for which $y \in \sigma_k(s)$ is at most $2^k\binom{n}{k}{\leqslant}2n^k$. Thus, any $n$-bit string $x$ is confusable with at most $2n^{2k}$ others strings. Thus, there exists a deterministic procedure in $O_k(n^{2k}2^n)$ time which $(2n^{2k}+1)$-colors these strings. We can define $\hash_1(x)$ to be the color of $x$.
Given such a hash and a $(n-k)$ bit received subsequence $y \in
\sigma_k(x)$, the receiver can in $O_k(n^{2k}2^n)$ determine the color of all strings $s$ for which $y \in \sigma_k(s)$. By design, exactly one of these stings has the color of the hash, so the receiver will be able to successfully decode $x$, as desired.
We now modify the above result to obtain a larger hash that is however faster to compute (and also allows recovery from deletions in similar time).
\[lem:small-string\] Fix an integer $k {\geqslant}1$. There is a hash function $\hash_2 : \{0,1\}^n \to \{0,1\}^m$ for $m
\approx 2kn \log\log n/\log n$ computable in $O_k(n^2 (\log n)^{2k})$ time, such that for all $s \in \{0,1\}^n$, given $\hash_2(s)$ and an arbitrary $y \in \sigma_k(s)$, the string $s$ can be recovered in $O_k(n^2 (\log n)^{2k})$ time.
We describe how to compute $\hash_2(s)$ for an input $s \in
\{0,1\}^n$. Break up the string into consecutive substrings $s_1,
\hdots, s_{n'}$ of length $\lceil \log n \rceil$ except possibly for $s_{n'}$ which is of length at most $\lceil \log n \rceil$. For each of these strings, by Lemma \[lem:brute-force\] we can compute in $O_k(n(\log n)^{2k})$ time the string $\hash_1(s_i)$ of length $\sim 2k\log \log n$. Concatenating each of these hashes, we obtain a hash of length $\sim 2kn\log \log n/\log n$ which takes $O_k(n^2(\log n)^{2k})$ time to compute. The decoder can recover the string $s'$ in $O_k(n^2(\log n)^{2k})$ time by using the following procedure. For each of $i \in \{1, \hdots, n'\}$ if $j_i$ and $j'_i$ are the starting and ending positions of $s_i$ in $s$, then the substring between positions $j_i$ and $j'_i - k$ in $s'$ must be a subsequence of $s_i$. Thus, applying the decoder described in $\ref{lem:brute-force}$, we can in $O_k(n(\log n)^{2k})$ time recover $s_i$. Thus, we can recover $s$ in $O_k(n^2(\log n)^{2k})$ time, as desired.
We will also be using Reed-Solomon codes to correct $k$ symbol [*errors*]{}. For our purposes, it will be convenient to use a systematic version of Reed-Solomon codes, stated below. The claimed runtime follows from near-linear time implementations of unique decoding algorithms for Reed-Solomon codes, see for example [@Gao02].
\[lem:RS\] Let $k < n$ be positive integers, and $q$ be a power of two satisfying $n+2k {\leqslant}q {\leqslant}O(n)$. Then there exists a map ${\mathsf{RS}}: {\mathbb{F}}_q^n \to {\mathbb{F}}_q^{2k}$, computable in $O_k(n(\log n)^4)$ time, such that the set $\{(x, {\mathsf{RS}}(x)) \mid x \in
{\mathbb{F}}_q^n\}$ is an error-correcting code that can correct $k$ errors in $O_k(n(\log n)^4)$ time. In particular, given ${\mathsf{RS}}(x)$ and an arbitrary $z$ at Hamming distance at most $k$ from $x$, one can compute $x$ in $O_k(n (\log n)^4)$ time.
Deletion-correcting hash for [mixed]{} strings {#sec:hash-for-mixed}
==============================================
In this section, we will construction a short, efficiently computable hash that enables recovery of a string $x$ from $k$-deletions, when $x$ is typical in the sense that each short pattern occurs frequently in $x$ (we call such strings *[mixed]{}*).
Pattern-rich strings
--------------------
We will use $n$ for the length of the ([mixed]{}) string to be hashed, and as always $k$ will be the number of deletions we target to correct. The following parameters will be used throughout: $$\label{eq:d-and-m}
d=\floor{20000 k (\log k)^2\log n} \qquad \text{and} \qquad m= \lceil \log k+\log\log (k+1)+5 \rceil \ .$$ It is easy to see that the choice of $m$ satisfies $$\label{eq:m-and-k}
2^m > 2k (2m-1) \ .$$ (Indeed, we have $$2^m {\geqslant}32k\log (k+1) > 2k(15\log (k+1)) > 2k(2\log k + 2\log \log (k+1) + 11) > 2k(2m-1) \ .)$$
We now give the precise definition of mixed strings.
Let $p$ and $s$ be binary strings of length $m$ and $n$, respectively, such that $m < n$. Define a $p$*-split point* of $s$ be an index $i$ such that $p = s_is_{i+1}\hdots s_{i+m-1}$.
\[def:mixed\] We say that a string $s\in\{0,1\}^n$ is $k$-*mixed* if for every $p\in\{0,1\}^m$, every substring of $s$ of length $d$ contains a $p$*-split point*. Let $\mathcal M_n$ be the set of $k$-mixed strings of length $n$.
Hashing of Mixed Strings
------------------------
The following is our formal result on a short hash for recovering mixed strings from $k$ deletions.
\[thm:hash\] Fix an integer $k {\geqslant}2$. Then for all large enough $n$, there exists $b = O(k^2 \log k \log n)$ and a hash function $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}: \mathcal
M_n \to \{0, 1\}^{b}$ and a deletion correction function $G_{\mathsf{mixed}}:
\{0,1\}^{n-k} \times \{0,1\}^b \to \{0,1\}^n \cup \{\mathsf{Fail}\}$, both computable in $O_k(n(\log n)^4)$ time, such that for any $k$-mixed $s\in\{0,1\}^n$, and any $s'\in \sigma_k(s)$, we have $G_{\mathsf{mixed}}(s',H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(s))=s$.
If $s\in\{0,1\}^n$, $s'\in \sigma_k(s)$, and $p\in\{0,1\}^m$, we say that $s'$ is $p$-*preserving with respect to* $s$ if there are some $1{\leqslant}i_1{\leqslant}\ldots{\leqslant}i_k{\leqslant}n$ such that $s'$ is obtained from $s$ by deleting $s_{i_1},\ldots,s_{i_k}$ and so that:
1. no substring of $s$ equal to $p$ contains any of the bits at positions $i_j$
2. $s$ and $s'$ have an equal number of instances of substrings equal to $p$
Intuitively, $s'$ is $p$-preserving with respect to $s$ if we can obtain $s'$ from $s$ by deleting $k$ bits without destroying or creating any instances of the pattern $p$.
We first prove the following lemma.
\[thm:hashforonep\] Fix an integer $k {\geqslant}2$. Then for sufficiently large $n$, there exists a hash function
$\quad {h_{\mathsf{pattern}}}: \mathcal M_n \times \{0,1\}^m \to \{0,1\}^{2k(\lceil\log
n\rceil+1)}$ and deletion correction function
$\quad {g_{\mathsf{pattern}}}: \{0,1\}^{n-k}
\times \{0,1\}^{2k(\lceil\log n\rceil+1)} \times \{0,1\}^m\to \{0,1\}^n \cup
\{{\text{Fail}}\}$,
both computable in $O_k(n(\log n)^4)$ time, such that for every pattern $p\in\{0,1\}^m$, every $k$-mixed $s\in\{0,1\}^n$, and an arbitrary $s'\in \sigma_k(s)$ that is $p$-preserving with respect to $s$, one has $${g_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s',{h_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s,p),p)=s \ .$$
We first define the hash function ${h_{\mathsf{pattern}}}$ as follows.
Assume we are given a mixed string $r\in\mathcal M_n$ and a pattern $p\in \{0,
1\}^m$. Let $a_1,\ldots,a_u$ be the $p$-split points of $r$. Then we let strings $w_0,\ldots,w_u$ be defined by $w_0=r_0\cdots
r_{a_1-1}$, $w_u=r_{a_u}\cdots r_{n-1}$, and for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}u-1$, $w_j=r_{a_j}\cdots r_{a_{j+1}-1}$. Thus $\{w_j\}$ are the strings that $r$ is broken into by splitting it at the split points. By the definition of a mixed string, each $w_j$ has length at most $d$ (as defined in ).
We let $\ell_j$ be the length of $w_j$, let $v_j$ be $w_j$ padded to length $d$ by leading 0’s, and let $y_j = \hash_2(v_j)$ as defined in Lemma \[lem:small-string\], with the binary representation of the length of $\ell_j$ appended. We can compute $y_j$ in time $O_k((\log n)^2(\log \log
n)^{2k})$ and $y_j$ has length $v$ satisfying $$\label{eq:len-of-hash}
v=O\left( 2k(k\log k)^2\log n \frac{\log\log\log n}{\log \log n}+\ceil{\log d}
\right) < \log n $$ for large enough $n$.
Let $x_j$ be the number whose binary representation is $y_j$. Then based on the length of $y_j$, we have that $x_j<n$. Let $q$ be the smallest power of $2$ that is at least $n+2k$. We then apply lemma \[lem:RS\] to $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^n$ (with all those that are not defined being assigned value $0$) to obtain $(y_1,\ldots,y_{2k}) = {\mathsf{RS}}(x) \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{2k}$. For $1{\leqslant}j {\leqslant}2k$, let $S_j$ be the binary representation of $y_k$, padded with leading 0’s so that its length is $\lceil \log n \rceil+1$.
Finally, we define the hash value $${h_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s,p) = S_1\cdots S_{2k} \ .$$ Clearly, the length of ${h_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s,p)$ equals $2k (\lceil \log n \rceil + 1)$.
To compute ${g_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s',\tilde{h},p)$, where $s'$ is a subsequence of $s$ that is $p$-pattern preserving with respect to $s$, we split $\tilde{h}$ into $2k$ equal-length blocks, calling them $S_1,\ldots, S_{2k}$. We compute $(x'_1,\ldots,x'_n)$ from $s'$ in the same way that we computed $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ from $s$ when defining ${h_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s,p)$. Now, assuming $\tilde{h}={h_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s,p)$, there are at most $k$ values of $j$ such that $x'_j\ne x_j$, since there are at most $k$ deletions. We can use Lemma \[lem:RS\] and $S_1,\ldots, S_{2k}$ to correct these $k$ errors. From a corrected value of $x_j$, we can obtain the value of $w'_j$ and $\ell_j$. Since $\ell_j$ is the length of $w_j$, we can use it to remove the proper number of leading zeroes from $w'_j$ and obtain $w_j$. Thus we can restore the original $s$ in $O_k(n(\log n)^4 + n(\log n)^2(\log \log n)^{2k})$ time. Since $(\log \log n)^{2k} {\leqslant}O_k(1) + O(\log n)$,[^4] the overall decoding time is $O_k(n (\log n)^4)$.
With the above lemma in place, we are now ready to prove the main theorem of this section.
[(of Theorem \[thm:hash\])]{} Given a mixed string $s \in \mathcal{M}_n$, the hash $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(s)$ is computed by computing ${h_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s,p)$ from Lemma \[thm:hashforonep\] for each pattern $p\in\{0,1\}^m$ and concatenating those hashes in order of increasing $p$. For the decoding, to compute $G_{\mathsf{mixed}}(s',
H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(s))$ for a $s' \in \sigma_k(s)$, we run ${g_{\mathsf{pattern}}}$ from Lemma \[thm:hashforonep\] on each of the $2^m$ subhashes corresponding to each $p \in \{0,1\}^m$, and then take the majority (we can perform the majority bitwise so that it runs in $O_k(n)$ time). When deleting a bit from $s$, at most $(2m-1)$ patterns $p$ are affected (since at most $m$ are deleted and at most $m-1$ are created). Thus $k$ deletions will affect at most $k(2m-1)$ patterns of length $m$. Since $m$ was chosen such that $2^m> 2k(2m-1)$, we have that $s'$ is $p$-preserving with respect to $s$ for a majority of patterns $p$. Therefore, we will have ${g_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s',{h_{\mathsf{pattern}}}(s,p),p)=s$ for a majority of patterns $p$, and thus $G_{\mathsf{mixed}}$ reconstructs the string $s$ correctly.
Encoding into Mixed Strings {#sec:enc-to-mixed}
===========================
The previous section describes how to protect mixed strings against deletions. We now turn to the question of encoding an arbitrary input string $s \in \{0,1\}^n$ into a mixed string in $\mathcal{M}_n$.
Let $\mu : \{0, 1\}^n \times \{0, 1\}^L \to \{0, 1\}^n$ be the function which takes a string $s$ of length $n$ and a string $t$, called the *template*, of length $L$, and outputs the bit-wise XOR of $s$ with $t$ concatenated $\lceil n / L \rceil$ times and truncated to a string of length $n$.
We will apply the above function with the parameter choice $$\label{eq:def-of-L}
L=\ceil{m2^m(\log(n2^m)+1)}{\leqslant}\ceil{10000k(\log k)^2\log n}-1 \ .$$ Equation \[eq:def-of-L\] follows since for $k {\geqslant}2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lceil m 2^m(\log (n2^m) + 1)\rceil &{\leqslant}(\log k + \log \log (k+1) + 6)(64 k\log (k+1))(\log n + m + 1)\\
&{\leqslant}(8\log k)(128k \log k)(2\log n)\\
&{\leqslant}\lceil 10000k(\log k)^2(\log n)\rceil - 1\end{aligned}$$
Notice that for all $s \in \{0, 1\}^n$ and $t \in \{0, 1\}^L$, $\mu(\mu(s, t), t) = s$. Notice also that $\mu$ is computable in $O(n)$ time. It is not hard to see that for any $s \in \{0,1\}^n$, the string $\mu(s,t)$ for a random template $t \in \{0,1\}^L$ will be $k$-mixed with high probability. We now show how to find one such template $t$ that is suitable for $s$, deterministically in near-linear time.
\[lem:mixed-string\] There exists a function $T : \{0, 1\}^n \to \{0, 1\}^L$ such that for all $s \in \{0, 1\}^n$, $\mu(s, T(s)) \in \mathcal M_n$. Also, $T$ is computable in $O(k^3(\log k)^3 \ n\log n) = O_k(n\log n)$ time.
For a given string $s$ and template $t$, we say that a pair $(i,p)\in
\{0,1,\dots,\floor{n/L}-1\} \times \{0,1\}^m$ is an *obstruction* to $r =
\mu(s, t)$ being mixed if the substring of $r_{iL+1}\cdots r_{iL+L}$ does not include the pattern $p$ as a substring.
We will choose $T(s)$ algorithmically. For $0{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}\floor{L/m}-1$, at the beginning of step $j$ we have we will have $b_j$ potential obstructions. Clearly, $b_0=\floor{n/L}2^m$. At step $j$, we will specify the values of $t_{jm+1}\cdots t_{jm+m}$. If we chose these bits randomly, then $\mathbb{E}[b_{j+1}]=(1-2^{-m})b_j$. Thus we can check all of the $2^m$ possibilities and find some way to specify the bits so that $b_{j+1}{\leqslant}(1-2^{-m})b_j$. This will then give us that $$b_{\floor{L/m}}{\leqslant}(1-2^{-m})^{\floor{L/m}}(\floor{n/L}2^m){\leqslant}e^{-\floor{L/m}2^{-m}}n2^m<1$$ by our choice of $L$ in .
Thus we can find a template $T(s)$ with no obstructions in $\floor{L/m}$ steps. The definition of an obstruction tells us that then every substring of $r = \mu(s, T(s))$ of length $2L{\leqslant}\floor{20000k(\log k)^2\log n} = d$ contains every pattern of length $m$, so the string $r \in \mathcal M_n$.
Let us estimate the time complexity of finding $T(s)$. Fix a step $j$, $0 {\leqslant}j < \floor{L/m}$. Going over all possibilities of $t_{jm+1}\cdots t_{jm+m}$ takes $2^m$ time, and for each estimating the reduction in number of potential obstructions takes $O(n 2^m)$ time. The total runtime is thus $O(n 4^m L/m) = O(n 8^m \log (n 2^m)) = O(k^3 (\log k)^3 n \log n)$.
The Encoding/Decoding Scheme: Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] {#sec:proof-of-thm}
===========================================================
Combining the results from Sections \[sec:hash-for-mixed\] and \[sec:enc-to-mixed\], we can now construct the encoding/decoding functions ${\mathsf{Enc}}$ and ${\mathsf{Dec}}$ which satisfy Theorem \[thm:main\]. But first, as a warm-up, we consider a simple way to obtain such maps for codewords of slightly larger length $N {\leqslant}n + O(k^3\log k\log n)$ (i.e., the redundancy has a cubic rather than quadratic dependence on $k$). Let $s$ be the message string we seek to encode. First compute $t = T(s)$ and $r = \mu(s, t)$ as per Lemma \[lem:mixed-string\]. Then, define the encoding of $s$ as $${\mathsf{Enc}}(s)= \langle r, \
{\text{rep}}_{k+1}(t), \ {\text{rep}}_{k+1}(H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r) \ \rangle \ ,$$ where $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(\cdot)$ is the deletion-correcting hash function for mixed strings from Theorem \[thm:hash\], and ${\text{rep}}_{k+1}$ is the $(k+1)$-repetition code which repeats each bit $(k+1)$ times. Since $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$ is the most intensive computation, ${\mathsf{Enc}}(s)$ can be computed in $O_k(n(\log n)^4)$ time and its length is $$\begin{aligned}
n + (k+1)L + (k+1) |H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)| & {\leqslant}n + (k+1)O(k(\log k)^2\log n) + (k+1)O(k^2\log k\log n)\\
&{\leqslant}n + O(k^3\log k\log n).\end{aligned}$$ We now describe the efficient decoding function ${\mathsf{Dec}}$. Suppose we receive a subsequence $s' \in \sigma_k({\mathsf{Enc}}(s))$, First, we can easily decode $t$ and $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$, since we know the lengths of $t$ and $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$ beforehand. Also the first $n-k$ symbols of $s'$ yield a subsequence $r'$ of $r$ of length $n-k$. Then, as shown in Theorem \[thm:hash\], $r = G_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r', H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r))$ and this can be computed in $O_k(n (\log n)^4)$ time. Finally, we can compute $s =
\mu(r, t)$, so we have successfully decoded the message $s$ from $s'$, as desired.
Now, we demonstrate how to obtain the improved encoding length of $n + O(k^2\log k\log n)$. The idea is to use Lemma \[lem:small-string\] to protect $t$ and $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$ with less redundancy than the naive $(k+1)$-fold repetition code.
[(of Theorem \[thm:main\])]{} Consider the slightly modified encoding $$\label{eq:final-encoding}
{\mathsf{Enc}}(s) = \langle r, \ t, \ {\text{rep}}_{k+1}(\hash_2(t)), \
H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r), \ {\text{rep}}_{k+1}(\hash_2(H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r))) \ \rangle \ .$$ The resulting codeword can be verified to have length $O(k^2(\log
k)(\log n))$ for large enough $n$; the point is that $\hash_2()$ applied to $t$ and $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$, which are $O_k(\log n)$ long strings, will result in strings of length $o_k(\log n)$, so we can afford to encode them by the redundancy $(k+1)$ repetition code, without affecting the dominant $O_k(\log n)$ term in the overall redundancy.
Since we know beforehand, the starting and ending positions of each of the five segments in the codeword , we can in $O(n)$ time recover subsequences of $r$, $t$, ${\text{rep}}_{k+1}(\hash_2(t))$, $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$, and ${\text{rep}}_{k+1}(\hash_2(H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r))$ with at most $k$ deletions in each. By decoding the repetition codes, we can recover $\hash_2(t)$ and $\hash_2(H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r))$ in $O(n)$ time. Then, using the algorithm described in Lemma \[lem:small-string\], we can recover $t$ and $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$ in $O_k(n'^2(\log n')^{2k})$ time where $n' = \max (L,
|H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)|) = O(k^2\log k\log n)$. Once $t$ and $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$ are recovered, we can proceed as in the previous argument and decode $s$ in $O_k(n(\log n)^4)$ time, as desired.
Efficient Algorithm for Correcting Insertions and Deletions {#sec:insertions}
===========================================================
By a theorem of Levenshtein [@Levenshtein66], we have that our code works not only on the $k$-bit deletion channel but also on the $k$-bit insertion and deletion channel. The caveat though with this theorem is that the decoding algorithm may not be as efficient. In this section, we demonstrate a high-level overview of a proof that, with some slight modifications, the code we constructed for $k$ deletions can be efficiently decoded on the $k$-bit insertion and deletion channel. Although the redundancy will be slightly worse, its asymptotic behavior will remain the same.
To show that our code works, we argue that suitable modifications of each of our lemmas allow the result to go through.
- Lemma \[lem:brute-force\] works for the $k$-bit insertion and deletion channel by Levenshtein’s result [@Levenshtein66]. Since encoding/decoding were done by brute force the efficiency will not change by much.
- To modify Lemma \[lem:small-string\] we show that the code which corrects $3k$ deletions can also correct $k$ insertions and $k$ deletions nearly as efficiently. If the codeword transmitted is $s_1, \hdots , s_{n'}$ where each $s_i$ is of length at most $\lceil \log n\rceil$ then in the received word, if $s_i$ was supposed to be in positions $i_a$ to $i_b$, then positions $i_a + k$ to $i_b - k$ must contain bits from $s_i$ except possibly for $k$ spurious insertions. Using Lemma \[lem:brute-force\] modified for insertions, we can restore $s_i$ using brute force, and thus we can restore the original string with about the same runtime as before.
- Lemma \[lem:RS\] and Lemma \[thm:hashforonep\] do not change because the underlying error-correcting code does not depend on deletions or insertions.
- Theorem \[thm:hash\] does not change because the hash works in an error-correcting way and the number of affected “foiled” patterns is roughly the same.
- Lemma \[lem:mixed-string\] does not change.
- Theorem \[thm:main\] needs some modifications. The encoding has the same general structure except we use the hash functions of the modified lemmas and we use a $(3k+1)$-fold repetition code instead of a $(k+1)$-fold repetition code. That is, our encoding is $$\phi(s) = \langle r,~ t,~ {\text{rep}}_{3k+1}(\hash_2(t)),~ H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r),~ {\text{rep}}_{3k+1}(\hash_2(H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r))) \rangle \ .$$ In the received codeword we can identity each section with up to $k$ bits missing on each side and $k$ spurious insertions inside. In linear time we can correct the $(3k+1)$-repetition code by taking the majority vote on each block of length $3k+1$. Thus, we will have $\hash_2(t)$ and $\hash_2(H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r))$ from which we can obtain $t$, $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$, and finally $r$ and $s$ in polynomial (in fact, near-linear) time as in the deletions-only case.
Thus, we have exhibited an efficient code encoding $n$ bits with $O(k^2 \log k \log n)$ redundancy and which can be corrected in near-linear time against any combination of insertions and deletions totaling $k$ in number.
Concluding remarks {#sec:conclusion}
==================
In this paper, we exhibit a first-order asymptotically optimal efficient code for the $k$-bit deletion channel. Note that to improve the code length past $n + O(k^2 \log k \log n)$, we would need to modify our hash function $H_{\mathsf{mixed}}(r)$ so that either it would use shorter hashes for each particular pattern $p$ or it would require using fewer patterns $p$. The former would require distributing the hash information between different patterns, which may not be possible since the patterns do not synchronize with each other. An approach through the latter route seems unlikely to improve past $n + O(k^2 \log n)$ since an adversary is able to “ruin" $k$ essentially independent patterns because the string being transmitted is $k$-mixed.
Another interesting challenge is to give a deterministic one-way protocol with $\mathrm{poly}(k \log n)$ communication for synchronizing a string $x \in \{0,1\}^n$ with a subsequence $y \in
\sigma_k(x)$ (the model discussed in Section \[sec:sync\]). The crux of our approach is such a protocol when the string $x$ is mixed, but the problem remains open when $x$ can be an arbitrary $n$-bit string.
Another intriguing question is whether there is an extension of the Varshamov-Tenengolts (VT) code for the multiple deletion case, possibly by using higher degree coefficients in the check condition(s) (for example, perhaps one can pick the code based on $\sum_{i=1}^n i^a
x_i$ for $a=0,1,2,\dots,d$ for some small constant $d$). Note that this would also resolve the above question about a short and efficient deterministic hash for the synchronization problem. However, for the case of two deletions there are counterexamples for $d {\leqslant}4$, and it might be the case that no such bounded-degree polynomial hash works even for two deletions.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The second author thanks Michael Saks for valuable discussions about the problem of recovering from multiple deletions and in particular about the possibility of finding a VT-like code for correcting two deletions.
[10]{}
V. I. Levenshtein. . , 10:707, 1966.
R. R. Varshamov and G. M. Tenengol’ts. Codes which correct single asymmetric errors. , 26(2):286–290, 1965.
Neil J. A. Sloane. On single-deletion-correcting codes. In [*Ohio State University*]{}, pages 273–291, 2001.
Albertus S. J. Helberg and Hendrik C. Ferreira. On multiple insertion/deletion correcting codes. , 48(1):305–308, 2002.
Khaled A. S. Abdel[-]{}Ghaffar, Filip Paluncic, Hendrik C. Ferreira, and Willem A. Clarke. On [H]{}elberg’s generalization of the levenshtein code for multiple deletion/insertion error correction. , 58(3):1804–1808, 2012.
F. Paluncic, Khaled A.S. Abdel-Ghaffar, H.C. Ferreira, and W.A. Clarke. A multiple insertion/deletion correcting code for run-length limited sequences. , 58(3):1809–1824, March 2012.
Leonard J. Schulman and David Zuckerman. Asymptotically good codes correcting insertions, deletions, and transpositions. , 45(7):2552–2557, Nov 1999.
Venkatesan Guruswami and Carol Wang. Deletion codes in the high-noise and high-rate regimes. In [*Proceeding of RANDOM*]{}, 2015. To appear; available from arXiv:1411.6667.
Graham Cormode, Mike Paterson, S[ü]{}leyman Cenk Sahinalp, and Uzi Vishkin. Communication complexity of document exchange. In [*Proceedings of the 11th Annual [ACM-SIAM]{} Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)*]{}, pages 197–206, 2000.
Alon Orlitsky. Interactive communication of balanced distributions and of correlated files. , 6(4):548–564, 1993. Preliminary version in FOCS’91.
Hossein Jowhari. Efficient communication protocols for deciding edit distance. In [*20th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms*]{}, pages 648–658, 2012.
Utku Irmak, Svilen Mihaylov, and Torsten Suel. Improved single-round protocols for remote file synchronization. In [*Proceedings of 24th Annual Joint Conference of the [IEEE]{} Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM)*]{}, pages 1665–1676, 2005.
Diptarka Chakraborty, Elazar Goldenberg, and Michal Koucky. Low distortion embedding from edit to [H]{}amming distance using coupling. , 22:111, 2015.
Shuhong Gao. A new algorithm for decoding [R]{}eed-[S]{}olomon codes. In [*Communications, Information and Network Security, V.Bhargava, H.V.Poor, V.Tarokh, and S.Yoon*]{}, pages 55–68. Kluwer, 2002.
Khaled A.S. Abdel-Ghaffar, Hendrik C. Ferreira, and Ling Cheng. On linear and cyclic codes for correcting deletions. In [*Information Theory, 2007. ISIT 2007. IEEE International Symposium on*]{}, pages 851–855, June 2007.
Linear deletion codes cannot have rate better than $\frac{1}{k+1}$ {#app:linear-limits}
==================================================================
In this section, we generalize the work of [@Ghaffaretal07] (who did the $k=1$ case) to demonstrate that the best asymptotic rate achievable by a linear $k$-bit binary deletion code is $1 /
(k+1)$. Note that this is achieved by the $k+1$-repetition code.
\[thm:lin\] Let $C$ be a $n$-bit linear code for the $k$-bit deletion channel. Then, $\text{dim}(C) {\leqslant}n / (k+1) + (k+1)^2$.
Define $C^0 = C, C^1, \hdots C^k$ to be subspaces of $\mathbb F_2^n$ of dimension $\text{dim}(C)$ such that
$$C^i = \{(x_{i+1}, \hdots, x_n, x_1, \hdots, x_i)\,|\,(x_1, \hdots, x_n) \in C\}.$$
\[lem:lin-shift\] For all $0 {\leqslant}i < j {\leqslant}k$, $$\dim (C^i \cap C^j) {\leqslant}\gcd (j - i, n).$$
If $z \in C^i \cap C^j$, then there exists $x, y \in C$ such that $$z = (x_{i+1}, \hdots, x_n, x_1, \hdots, x_n) = (y_{j+1}, \hdots, y_n, y_1, \hdots, y_j).$$ Since $j > i$, we have that $(x_{i+1}, \hdots x_{n-j+i}) = (y_{j+1}, \hdots, y_n)$. Thus, when $x$ and $y$ are passed through the $k$-deletion channel, they could output the same result since $k {\geqslant}j$. Thus, $x = y$. Hence, $x_{\ell} = x_{\ell + j - i}$ (indices modulo $n$) for all $\ell \in \{1, \hdots, n\}$. Thus, there are at most $2^{\gcd (j - i, n)}$ choices for $x$, so $\dim (C^i \cap C^j) {\leqslant}\gcd (j - i, n)$.
From the lemma, we can see that $$\begin{aligned}
n &{\geqslant}\dim \left(\sum_{i=0}^kC^i\right)\\
&{\geqslant}(k+1)\dim (C) - \sum_{i=0}^k\sum_{j=i+1}^k\dim (C^i \cap C^j)\\
&{\geqslant}(k+1)\dim (C) - (k+1)^3.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\dim(C) {\leqslant}(k+1)^2 + n / (k+1),$ as desired.
If we let $n$ be a prime, then $\dim (C^i \cap C^j) {\leqslant}\gcd (j - i, n) = 1$. Furthermore, the only possible non-trivial intersection is $11\hdots 1$. Thus, the sum of these $k+1$ vector spaces would have to have dimension at least $(k+1)(\dim (C) - 1) + 1$, from which we can get that $\dim (C) {\leqslant}(n + k) / (k+1)$.
[^1]: [[email protected]]{}. Research supported in part by an REU supplement to NSF CCF-0963975.
[^2]: [[email protected]]{}. Research supported in part by NSF grants CCF-0963975 and CCF-1422045.
[^3]: [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: For instance, $(\log \log n)^{2k} {\leqslant}O(2^{2k^2} + \log n)$, because either $\log \log n {\leqslant}2^k$ in which case $(\log \log n)^{2k} {\leqslant}2^{2k^2}$, or $(\log \log n)^{2k} {\leqslant}(\log \log n)^{2 \log \log \log n} {\leqslant}O(\log n)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A method of MC simulations including quantum interference, proposed recently by A.Krzywicki and the present author, is explained.'
author:
- |
A.Bialas\
Institute of Physics, Jagellonian University\
Reymonta 4, 30-059 Cracow, Poland
title: 'HBT Interference, Wigner functions and MC Simulations'
---
[**1. Introduction.**]{}
The aim of this talk is to explain details of a scheme for MC simulations of multiparticle production including HBT interference which we proposed recently together with Andrzej Krzywicki [@bk]. The problem became suddenly of great practical importance, when it was realized that the HBT effects may seriously affect some precise measurements of the standard model parameters [@ls]. As we have heard yesterday from Krzysztof Fialkowski, the existing implementations of quantum interference into standard MC codes suffer from many problems, theoretical as well as practical ones [@h; @fw]. Therefore construction of a viable MC code correcly including the interference effects is badly needed. To do this, however, it seems first necessary to formulate the problem and the goals to be achieved. It should perhaps be emphasized at this point that the effects of HBT interference are by no means “trivial” or “automatic”, as it is sometimes believed. On the contrary, they depend in essential way on the physics of the problem. Consequently, there is no single, unique method of implementing the HBT interference into existing codes. One must therefore be careful to spell out the underlying physical assumptions.
We begin in the next section by a brief reminder of the relation between the distributions in x-space and in momentum space which will allow to introduce the necessary concepts and to formulate the assumptions. In Section 3 the physical meaning of the procedure is explained in terms of Wigner functions. Some comments and outlook are given in the last section.
[**2. Density matrix and relation between x-space and p-space.**]{}
Let $\psi (q_1,q_2,...q_N,\alpha) \equiv \psi(q,\alpha)$ be the probability amplitude for production of N particles with momenta $q_1,q_2,....q_N \equiv
q$. $\alpha$ denotes a collection of all other quantum numbers which may be relevant to the process in question (they may be, e.g., the momenta of other particles which we do not wish to consider explicitly in a “semi-inclusive” measurement). The density matrix in momentum space is then $$\rho(q,q')= \int d\alpha \psi(q,\alpha) \psi^*(q',\alpha) \label{1}$$ This matrix gives all available information about the system in question. The observed spectrum of particles reads $$\Omega(q)= \int d\alpha \mid \psi(q,\alpha) \mid ^2 = \rho(q,q) \label{2}$$ We see from this formula that measurement of the momentum spectrum provides only a rather limited information about the system: only the diagonal elements of the density matrix are determined.
Let us now consider the coordinate space. We write $$\psi(q,\alpha) = \int dx <q \mid x> \psi(x,\alpha) \label{3}$$ where $\psi(x,\alpha) $ is the probability amplitude for producing N particles at the points ($ x_1,x_2,...x_N \equiv x$) and $<q \mid x>$ is the known transformation matrix between momentum and coordinate space which shall be specified later. Introducing the density matrix in coordinate space $$\rho(x,x') = \int d\alpha \psi(x,\alpha) \psi^*(x',\alpha) \label{4}$$ we obtain the relation $$\rho(q,q') =\int dx dx' <q\mid x>\rho(x,x') <x'\mid q'> \label{5}$$ which shows that [*transformation between description of the system in momentum and in coordinate space requires the knowledge of the full density matrix*]{}. The measured distributions (which give only the diagonal elements) are not enough.
To continue, we need an explicit form of the transformation matrix $<q\mid x>$. As it is different for identical and non-identical particles, we shall treat these two cases separately.
[**(i) non-identical particles**]{}
In this case $$<q\mid x> = exp(iqx) \equiv exp[i(q_1x_1+q_2x_2+...q_Nx_N)] \label{6}$$ (all powers of $2\pi$ are included in normalization of $dx$ and $dq$). Substituting this into (\[5\]) we have $$\rho_0(q,q')= \int dx dx' e^{i(qx-q'x')}\rho(x,x') =
\int dx^+dx^-e^{i(q^-x^++q^+x^-)}\rho(x,x') \label{7}$$ where $$q^+=\frac12(q+q'); q^- = q-q'; x^+=\frac12(x+x') ; x^- = x-x' \label{8}$$ (from now on we denote the quantities referring to non-identical particles by a subscript $0$).
From (\[7\]) we obtain for the spectrum of non-identical particles $$\Omega_0(q) = \rho_0(q,q) = \int dx^+ dx^- e^{iqx^-} \rho(x^+,x^-). \label{9}$$ This formula shows explicitly that the measured momentum spectrum of non-identical particles does not give any information on distribution of particles in coordinate space: the $x^+$ dependence is integrated over. Instead, we obtain information on $x^-$ dependence, i.e., to what degree the density matrix in coordinate space is non-diagonal. In more physical terms, the momentum spectrum gives information only on the [*coherence properties*]{} of the system in the coordinate space. Indeed, the off-diagonal part of the density matrix measures how much the result of the integration over the internal quantum numbers of the system (denoted by $\alpha$ in the Eq.(\[4\])) is affected by the cancellations due to “incoherent” summation of terms with “randomly” distributed phases. For illustration, let us consider a simple parametrizaton of the density matrix in the form $$\rho(x^+,x^-) = \rho(x^+) e^{-(x^-)^2/l_c^2(x^+)} \label{12}$$ where $\rho(x^+)$ is the distribution of particles in coordinate space and $l_c(x^+)$ is the “coherence lenght”. In this case we obtain $$\Omega_0(q) = \int dx^+ \rho(x^+) l_c^3(x^+) e^{-4q^2l_c^2(x^+)} \label{13}$$ and we see explicitly that the momentum spectrum measures the average value of a quantity depending on the coherence lenght $l_c(x^+)$.
This point is dramatically emphasized for a limiting case of the system which is fully incoherent in coordinate space, i.e. for which the density matrix is purely diagonal ($l_c \rightarrow 0$). In this case we obtain the spectrum which is [*entirely independent*]{} of q! (see e.g. [@boal] for a more detailed discussion of this result and other effects of incoherence).
One final remark about normalization: one sees from (\[9\]) that $$\int \Omega_0(q) dq =\int dx^+ \rho(x^+,x^-=0)= \int dx \rho(x,x).
\label{14}$$
[**(ii) identical particles.**]{}
In this case we have to symmetrize the transformation matrix over particle momenta and positions and thus we obtain $$<q\mid x> = \frac1{(N!)^{1/2}} \sum_P e^{iq_Px} \label{15}$$ where P is a permutation of the numbers (1,2,...N) and $q_P$ are the momenta $(q_1,q_2,...,q_N)$ ordered according to the permutation P. Introducing (\[15\]) into (\[4\]) we have $$\rho(q,q') =\frac1{N!} \sum_{P,P'} \int dx dx'e^{i(q_Px-q'_{P'}x')}\rho(x,x').
\label{16}$$ Using (\[7\]) this can be rewritten as $$\rho(q,q')=\frac1{N!} \sum_{P,P'} \rho_0(q_P,q'_{P'}) \label{17}$$ so that we obtain for the momentum distribution of the identical particles $$\Omega(q) = \rho(q,q)=\frac1{N!} \sum_{P,P'} \int dx^+ dx^- e^{i(q_{PP'}^- x^+
+q_{PP'}^+x^-)} \rho(x^+,x^-) \label{18}$$ where $q_{PP'}^+ = \frac12 (q_P+q_{P'})$ and $q_{PP'}^-=q_P-q_{P'}$. Eq.(\[18\]) shows explicitly that momentum distribution of identical particles gives information on both $x^-$ and $x^+$ dependence of the density matrix. For the example (\[12\]) one obtains $$\Omega(q) =\frac1{N!} \sum_{PP'} \int dx^+ e^{iq_{PP'}^-x^+}\rho(x^+)l_c^3(x^+)
e^{-4 (q_{PP'}^+)^2 l_c^2(x^+)} \label{19}$$ which clearly shows that the dependence on momentum differences $q_{PP'}^-$ is sensitive to $x^+$ dependence of the particle density in coordinate space $\rho(x^+)$ and of the “coherence length” $l_c(x^+)$.
Three remarks are in order.
\(a) The momentum spectrum of N particles given by (\[18\]) is expressed in terms of the density matrix of N particles in the coordinate space and thus cannot be reduced (without further assumptions) to the expression involving only single particle density. In particular, it depends on all N-particle correlations in the coordinate space. Usually these correlations are neglected (i.e. the density matrix $\rho(x^+,x^-)$ is written as a product of single particle matrices). Although this is a reasonable procedure in the absence of any aditional information, it should be kept in mind that future data may require to include these correlations [@bk; @eg].
\(b) The normalization of the spectrum (\[18\]) is different from that of non-identical particles given by (\[14\]). Integration over particle momenta gives $$\int \Omega(q)dq = \frac1{N!}\sum_{PP'}\int dx_P \rho(x_P,x_{P'})=\int
\Omega_0(q)dq + \sum_{P'\neq P}\int dx_P\rho(x_P,x_{P'}). \label{20}$$ This result shows that the quantum interference changes not only the distribution of produced particles but also the production cross-section (i.e. it acts as final-state interaction).
\(c) When all particle momenta are equal to each other we obtain from (\[2\]) and (\[17\])
$$\Omega(q) = N! \Omega_0(q) \qquad if\ q_1=q_2=...=q_N \label{20a}$$
consistent with the standard treatment.
[**3.Wigner functions.**]{}
The density matrix has a clear physical meaning, as seen from Eqs. (\[1\]) and (\[4\]). Its intuitive meaning is, however, more difficult to grasp. Therefore it is useful to consider a Fourier transform $$W(q^+,x^+)= \int dx^- e^{iq^+x^-} \rho(x^+,x^-) \label {19a}$$ which is the generalization of the well known Wigner function (defined usually for single particle spectrum). It is seen from (\[19a\]) that $W(q^+,x^+)$ is a quantum-mechanical generalization of the classical particle density in momentum and in coordinate space (Boltzmann phase-space density).
Using (\[19a\]) and (\[9\]),(\[16\]) the particle densities for non-identical and identical particles can be respectively written as $$\Omega_0(q) = \int dx W(q,x) \label{19b}$$ $$\Omega(q)=\frac1{N!} \sum_{PP'} \int dx W(\frac{q_P+q_{P'}}2 ,
x)e^{i(q_P-q_{P'})x}
\label{21}$$ From these relations one sees again explicitly that while the momentum distribution of non-identical particles does not give any information on the particle distribution in x-space, the measured momentum spectrum of identical particles is sensitive to x-dependence of the Wigner function, i.e. to x-dependence of the distribution.
The advantage of using the Wigner functions is that they appeal to one’s intuition (being the analog of the Boltzmann distribution) and thus the resulting formulas are easier to interpret. Of course it should be kept in mind that this analogy is limited by the fact that a Wigner function is -in general- locally not positive definite. It can oscillate and, as seen from (\[19b\]),the oscillations cancel out only after integration over $x$. However, these oscillations can play a significant role in the Eq.(\[21\]) for identical particles by conspiring with oscillating terms in the integrand to contribute significantly to the result. This is how quantum mechanics shows up in the problem. Thus regarding Wigner functions as Boltzmann phase-space density is possible only when they are appropriately smoothed out to remove the oscillations. The price to pay is that, in general, the resulting probabilistic description can only be trusted for when the momentum differences in (\[21\]) are not too large.
[ **4.The proposal for MC simulation.**]{}
Standard Monte Carlo algorithms generate multiparticle events according to an assumed model for the momentum spectrum $\Omega_0(q)$ which does not include quantum interference. The problem is to correct the weights of these Monte Carlo events once they were generated.
It is clear that this cannot be achieved without additional assumptions. Our proposal is to assume that the corrected spectrum is given by $\Omega(q)$ of the Eq.(\[21\]) with [*the same*]{} Wigner function as that present in (\[19b\]).
I would like to emphasize that this assumption is far from obvious, although it is usually accepted without further comments (see, e.g.,[@boal]). It assumes that the identical and non-identical particles are produced in the same way. Clearly, this can only be an approximation (resonance production, for example, influences differently identical and non-didentical particles). As discussed by Bo Andersson at this meeting, it is also violated -generally- in the Lund model [@ah]. Hopefully it is not unreasonable for events with many particle which we are concerned with [^1].
For an effective use of the Eqs.(\[19b\],\[21\]) we need an expression for the Wigner function which reproduces the spectrum $\Omega_0(q)$ for non-identical particles. Therefore we write $$W(q,x)=\Omega_0(q) w(q,x). \label{22}$$ It follows from (\[19b\]) that $w(q,x)$ obeys the normalization condition $$\int w(q,x) dx = 1. \label{22a}$$ We see that $w(q,x)$ is the quantum analog of the conditional probability: given that particles with momenta $q_1,q_2,...,q_N$ are present in the final state, $w$ is the probability that they were emitted at the points $x_1,x_2,...,x_N$.
When (\[22\]) is inserted into (\[21\]) we obtain for the correcting weights $$S(q) \equiv \frac{\Omega(q)}{\Omega_0(q)} =\frac1{N!} \sum_{PP'}
\frac{\Omega_0(\frac{q_P+q_{P'}}2)}{\Omega_0(q_P)}
\hat{w}(\frac{q_P+q_{P'}}2,q_P-q_{P'}) \label{23}$$ where $$\hat{w}(q,\Delta ) = \int dx w(q,x) e^{i\Delta x} \label{24}$$ with $$\hat{w}(q,0) = 1. \label{24a}$$
Clearly, $w(q,x)$ is rather arbitrary and must eventually be determined by analysis of the data. In absence of any information, and to exploit fully the intuitive meaning of Wigner functions, we propose -as a first step- to neglect possible oscillations and to take $w(q,x)$ in a form which is everywhere positive definite, so that it can indeed interpreted as a probability distribution.
The formula (\[23\]) cannot be used at it stands for most of the existing MC algorithms because they use an iterative procedure which provides $\Omega_0(q)$ only for one given set of momenta and not all the sets needed in (\[23\]). This difficulty can be dealt with by observing that one does not make a big error by replacing in (\[23\]) $\Omega_0(\frac{q_P+q_{P'}}2)$ by $\Omega_0(q_P)$. Indeed, those terms in (\[23\]) where this approximation is poor are suppressed by the rapidly decreasing factors $\hat{w}$ and thus need not be calculated with great precision. Eq.(\[23\]) now becomes $$S(q) = \frac1{N!} \sum_{PP'}
\hat{w}(\frac{q_P+q_{P'}}2,q_P-q_{P'}) \label{25}$$
The same argument can be used to see that the weights given by (\[25\]) are positive, as required for MC simulations. To this end we observe that, as seen from (\[24a\]), they are certainly positive if the difference between particle momenta are small. Thus the positivity is quaranteed in the region where our approximation for Wigner functions is valid. As we have argued before, outside of this region the non-diagonal $w(\frac{q_P+q_{P'}}2, q_P-q_{P'})$ are small and -whether positive or not- do not play any role in the sum (\[25\]).
To proceed, further working assumptions are needed. In [@bk] we proposed to start with $w(q,x)$ in a factorized form, each factor being a superposition of exponentials. Such factorization is most likely not exact (some indications of this were shown by Hans Eggers at this meeting [@eg]) and may be corrected when the actual data are fitted. For more details we refer the reader to [@bk].
[**Acknowledgments**]{} I would like to thank Wolfram Kittel for invitation to the meeting and for a kind hospitality. This work has been supported by the KBN grant N0 2 P03B 083 08 and by PECO grant from the EEC Programme “Human Capital and Mobility”, Network “Physics at High Energy Colliders”, Contract Nr: ERBICIPDCT940613.
[99]{} A.Bialas and A.Krzywicki, Phys.Letters B354 (1995) 134. L.Lonnblad and T.Sjostrand, Phys.Letters B351 (1995) 293; W.J.Metzger, private communication. S.Haywood, Report Rutherford Lab. RAL 94-07 (1995). K.Fialkowski and R.Wit, Z. Phys. C (in print), and K.Fialkowski, these proceedings. D.H.Boal, C.-K.Gelbke and B.K.Jennings, Rev.Mod.Phys. 62 (1990) 553 and references therein.
B.Andersson and W.Hofmann, Phys.Letters 169B (1986) 364; B.Andersson, these proceedings and private communication. H.C.Eggers, these proceedings.
[^1]: To avoid this assumption one needs either a specific model of multiparicle amplitudes (see e.g. [@ah]) or a direct calculation from the first principles.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We calculate the production of a $W$ boson in association with up to two jets including at least one $b$-jet to next-to-leading order (NLO) in QCD at the CERN Large Hadron Collider with 7 TeV center-of-mass energy. Both exclusive and inclusive event cross section and $b$-jet cross sections are presented. The calculation is performed consistently in the five-flavor-number scheme where both $q\bar q''$ and $bq$ ($q\ne b$) initiated parton level processes are included at NLO QCD. We study the residual theoretical uncertainties of the NLO predictions due to the renormalization and factorization scale dependence, to the uncertainty from the parton distribution functions, and to the values of $\alpha_s$ and the bottom-quark mass.'
---
[**NLO QCD predictions for $W+1$ jet and $W+2$ jet production with at least one $b$ jet at the 7 TeV LHC**]{}\
\
$^{1}$Theoretical Physics Department, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory\
P. O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510\
$^{2}$Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milano and INFN, Sezione di Milano,\
Via Celoria 16, I-20133 Milano, Italy\
$^{3}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD\
21218-2686\
$^{4}$Departamento de Fisica, Universidad Simon Bolivar\
Caracas 1080A, Venezuela\
$^{5}$Physics Department, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL\
32306-4350\
$^{6}$Department of Physics, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY\
14260-1500\
$^{7}$KITP, University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4030, USA\
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The study of $W$ boson production in association with one and two $b$ jets at both the Fermilab Tevatron collider ($p\bar{p}$) and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC, $pp$) has many interesting experimental and theoretical facets. On the experimental side, these processes are backgrounds to $WH$ production with the Higgs boson decaying to $b$ quarks, to single top and top-pair production, and to many new physics searches. On the theoretical side, these processes offer an interesting testing ground for calculational techniques involving heavy quarks with a non-negligible initial-state parton density. Predictions for $W$ boson production in association with $b$ quarks are available at higher order in QCD using various calculational techniques (four-flavor [@Ellis:1998fv; @FebresCordero:2006sj; @Badger:2010mg; @Frederix:2011qg] and five-flavor number schemes [@Campbell:2006cu]) and approximations (massless [@Ellis:1998fv; @Campbell:2006cu] and massive $b$ quarks [@FebresCordero:2006sj; @Badger:2010mg; @Frederix:2011qg]). Recently, NLO fixed-order calculations of the $q\bar q' \to W b\bar b$ parton-level process with massive $b$ quarks have been interfaced with parton-shower Monte Carlo programs within the POWHEG [@Oleari:2011ey] and MC@NLO [@Frederix:2011qg] frameworks.
In this context, the predictions for $W+1$ jet and $W+2$ jet production with at least one $b$ jet include processes where $b$ quarks can have low transverse momentum so that finite $b$-quark mass effects become important. Assuming only massless quarks and gluons in the initial state (i.e. working in a four-flavor-number scheme), this signature can only originate from the diagram in Fig. \[fig:Wbb\](a), i.e. from $q\bar q' \to Wb\bar b$, and its higher-order corrections. The calculation of NLO QCD corrections to $q\bar q' \to Wb\bar b$ of Fig. \[fig:Wbb\](a) with massive $b$ quarks has been provided in [@FebresCordero:2006sj; @Badger:2010mg; @Frederix:2011qg], and made available in MCFM [@MCFM]. It exhibits interesting theoretical features. In particular, large logarithms of the form $\alpha_s\log(m_b/\mu)$ (where $\mu$ is a scale of the order of the maximum $b$-quark transverse momentum) originate from the splitting of a gluon into two almost collinear bottom quarks. This happens for the first time in the parton-level process $qg \to Wb(\bar b) q$ (where $(\bar b)$ denotes an untagged low $p_T$ $\bar b$ quark) depicted in Fig. \[fig:Wbbj\]. This process arises as part of the NLO QCD corrections to $q \bar q' \to Wb\bar b$, but it is intrinsically a tree-level process. As such it exhibits a large renormalization ($\mu_R$) and factorization ($\mu_F$) scale dependence and, because it is enhanced by large logarithms of the form $\alpha_s \log(m_b/\mu)$, it potentially introduces a large systematic uncertainty in the calculation, that could be tamed only by a complete next-to-next-to-leading (NNLO) calculation of $q\bar q' \to Wb\bar
b$. A clever way to reduce this problem is to introduce a $b$-quark parton distribution function (PDF) [@Aivazis:1993pi; @Collins:1998rz], defined purely perturbatively as originating from gluon splitting. In this way, the scale evolution of the $b$-quark PDF resums the large logarithms originating at each order and provides a more stable, although approximate solution. In this approach, the LO process is considered to be $bq \to W b q'$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:Wbb\](b), where the $b$-quark PDF is generated perturbatively from the gluon PDF and the Altarelli-Parisi splitting function for $g\to b\bar b$ splitting, and the $\bar b$ is assumed to have too low a $p_T$ to be observable. This results in exactly the process shown in Fig. \[fig:Wbbj\] with a low-$p_T$ $b$ quark. In this approach, the $b$ quark is treated as massless in the hard scattering process $qb\to Wbq'$, the so-called (simplified) ACOT scheme [@Aivazis:1993pi; @Collins:1998rz], and its mass only appears as a collinear regulator in the initial $g\to b\bar b$ splitting function. The resulting logarithms $\alpha_s\ln(m_b/\mu_F)$ are resummed via DGLAP evolution of the $b$-quark PDF. The NLO QCD calculation of $qb\to Wbq'$ has been performed in Ref. [@Campbell:2006cu] and made available in MCFM [@MCFM]. In fact, as explained in [@Campbell:2008hh], the two tree level processes, $q\bar
q' \to Wb\bar b$ and $qb\to Wbq'$ and their $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections can be combined, as long as sufficient care is taken to subtract logarithmic terms that would otherwise be double counted.
In this paper we will combine NLO QCD calculations of $q\bar q'\to Wb\bar b$ and $qb\to Wbq'$ parton level processes including $b$-quark mass effects to provide precise predictions for $W+1$ jet and $W+2$ jet production with at least one $b$ jet at the 7 TeV LHC. The choice of the experimental signature, jet algorithm, and kinematic cuts has been made according to ATLAS specifications [@atlas]. We will closely follow Ref. [@Campbell:2008hh] where a consistent combination of these two NLO calculations has been performed for the first time to provide predictions for the production of a $W$ boson and one $b$-jet. It is interesting to note that the calculation of Ref [@Campbell:2008hh] has been compared with a measurement of the $b$-jet cross section of $W$ boson production in association with one and two $b$ jets by the CDF collaboration at the Tevatron [@Aaltonen:2009qi]. This comparison found a discrepancy of about two standard deviations [@Cordero:2010qn; @jfl].
After a brief presentation of the theoretical framework in Section \[sec:theory\], we will discuss NLO QCD predictions and their residual uncertainties for the 7 TeV LHC in Section \[sec:results\] and present our conclusions in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
\
(a) (b)
Theoretical Framework {#sec:theory}
=====================
The predictions presented in this paper are based on the combination of NLO QCD calculations of the $q\bar q' \to W b \bar
b$ [@FebresCordero:2006sj; @Badger:2010mg; @MCFM] and $bq \to W
bq$ [@Campbell:2006cu] parton-level processes, as presented in Ref. [@Campbell:2008hh] and implemented in MCFM [@MCFM] (where the leptonic $W$ decay is included), and we refer to [@Campbell:2008hh] for more details.
In the NLO QCD calculation of the $q\bar q' \to W b \bar b$ process the $b$ quark is considered to be massive, and only light quarks ($q\ne b$) are considered in the initial state, i.e. the so-called four-flavor number scheme (4FNS) is used. In the NLO QCD calculation of the $bq \to W b q'$ process the $b$-quark mass is only kept as regulator of the collinear singularity while it is neglected in the hard process so that the hadronic cross section is obtained as follows, $$\sigma_{bq}^{NLO}=\int dx_1 dx_2 b(x_1,\mu) \left[
\sum_q q(x_2,\mu_F) \hat\sigma_{bq}^{NLO}(m_b=0)+
g(x_2,\mu_F) \hat \sigma_{bg}^{LO}(m_b=0) \right]\,\,\,.$$ An approximate solution of the DGLAP evolution equation for the $b$-quark PDF $b(x,\mu_F)$ with initial condition $b(x,\mu_F)=0$ at $\mu_F=m_b$ exhibits the collinear logarithm at leading order in $\alpha_s$ as follows [@Aivazis:1993pi; @Collins:1998rz], $$\tilde b(x,\mu_F)=\frac{\alpha_s(\mu_R)}{\pi} \log\left(\frac{\mu_F}{m_b}\right) \int_x^1
\frac{dz}{z} P_{qg}(z) g\left(\frac{x}{z},\mu_F\right)\,\,\,.$$ When combining the NLO calculation of this process with the NLO calculation of $q\bar q'\to Wb\bar b$ this contribution has to be subtracted in order to avoid double counting of the process of Fig. \[fig:Wbbj\] which is already included in the 4FNS NLO QCD calculation. The full five-flavor number scheme (5FNS) result at NLO QCD, including an all order resummation of collinear initial-state logarithms via DGLAP evolution, is then obtained schematically as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:5fns}
\sigma_{\mathrm{Full}}^{NLO}&=& \sigma_{\mathrm4FNS}^{NLO}(m_b \ne 0) + \sigma_{bq}^{NLO} \nonumber\\
&-& \sum_q\int dx_1 dx_2 \tilde b(x_1,\mu_F) q(x_2,\mu_F) \hat \sigma_{bq}^{LO}(m_b=0)\,\,\,.\end{aligned}$$ In fact, the situation is slightly more complicated because the NLO computations of the $q \bar q' \to W b \bar b$ and of the $b q \to W b q'$ processes are made in two different schemes, one in the $\overline{\textrm{MS}}$ scheme and the other in a decoupling scheme. Hence, in Eq. (\[eq:5fns\]) a scheme change is also assumed, for which we refer the reader to the literature [@Aivazis:1993pi; @Collins:1998rz; @Cacciari:1998it] for further details. This said, we now present the sub-processes relevant for our analysis. In detail, $\sigma_{4FNS}^{NLO}$ and $\sigma_{bq}^{NLO}$ in this paper include the following parton level processes: 0.5cm
----------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$q\bar q'\to Wb\bar b$ at tree level \[Fig. \[fig:Wbb\](a)\] and one loop ($m_b\neq 0$)
$\sigma_{4FNS}^{NLO}$ $q\bar q'\to Wb\bar bg$ at tree level ($m_b\neq 0$)
$gq\to Wb\bar bq'$ at tree level (Fig. \[fig:Wbbj\]), ($m_b\neq 0$)
$bq\to Wbq'$ at tree level \[Fig. \[fig:Wbb\](b)\] and one loop ($m_b=0$)
$\sigma_{bq}^{NLO}$ $bq\to Wbq'g$ at tree level ($m_b=0$)
$bg\to Wbq'\bar q$ at tree level ($m_b=0$)
----------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5cm We present results for $\sigma_{\mathrm{Full}}^{NLO}$ and $\sigma_{4FNS}^{NLO}$ separately in Tables \[tab:inclusive\]-\[tab:exclusive\] for the signatures described in the following section. We leave a full discussion of these results until Section \[sec:results\], but here simply note that the scale dependence of the difference $\sigma_{\mathrm{Full}}^{NLO}-\sigma_{4FNS}^{NLO}$ clearly shows the impact of the initial-state collinear logarithms. The difference is negligible for scales of the order of the $b$-quark mass but can amount to about 40% of $\sigma_{\mathrm{Full}}^{NLO}$ for $\mu \approx
360$ GeV.
Note that we do not include contributions to $Wbj$ production which arise from $c\to Wb$ transitions (we assume $V_{cb}=0$), since these contributions are suppressed by the smallness of $V_{cb}$ and the charm quark PDF. For instance, the dominant contribution to $Wbj$ production at the LHC when considering $|V_{cb}|=0.04$ is expected to be $cg \to W bg$. Using the setup of Table \[tab:parameters\] we found for the inclusive $W^+b$ event cross section at LO QCD with $\mu=\mu_0$: $290 \times |V_{cb}|^2=0.5$ pb, which is about 1% of the result presented in Table \[tab:inclusive\].
In the calculation of $\sigma_{\mathrm{Full}}^{NLO}$ in the full 5FNS of Eq. (\[eq:5fns\]) we assume the number of light flavors to be $n_{lf}=5$ in both the running of $\alpha_s(\mu_R)$ and in the determination of the one-loop gluon self energy, $\Sigma_{gg}$, i.e. we only decouple the top quark from the running of $\alpha_s$ in the modified $\overline{\rm
MS}$ scheme. This choice is motivated by the fact that we usually choose renormalization scales $\mu_R$ considerably larger than $m_b$. Alternatively, one can choose to include the $b$-quark mass in the calculation of $\Sigma_{gg}$ (as done in the implementation of $q\bar q'\to Wb\bar b$ in POWHEG [@Oleari:2011ey]) and/or also decouple the $b$ quark ($n_{lf}=4$). The different treatments generally result in differences of about a few per cent in the cross sections presented in Section \[sec:results\].
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Predictions are provided for $W+1$ jet and $W+2$ jet production where at least one jet is a $b-$jet as will be measured by ATLAS at the 7 TeV LHC [@atlas]. Jets are clusters of partons built using the anti-$k_T$ algorithm which passed the kinematic cuts specified in Table \[tab:parameters\]. In the following, $b$ denotes a jet containing one $b$ quark or one $\bar{b}$ antiquark, while $(bb)$ denotes a jet containing a $b$ and $\bar b$ quark. $b$ and $(bb)$ jets may also contain a light parton. $j$ labels a jet without $b$ quarks. We will provide predictions for event and $b$-jet cross sections for the following signatures:
- $Wb$ inclusive: one and two-jet events with $b$ jets containing a single $b$, i.e. $Wb+Wbj+Wb\bar b$.
- $W(bb)$ inclusive: one and two-jet events with one $(bb)$ jet, i.e. $W(bb)+W(bb)j$. This signature can only result from processes contributing to $
\sigma_{4FNS}^{NLO}$ listed in Section \[sec:theory\].
- $Wb$ exclusive: one-jet events with one $b$ jet containing a single $b$, i.e. $Wb$.
- $W(bb)$ exclusive: one-jet events with one $(bb)$ jet, i.e. $W(bb)$ This signature can only result from the processes contributing to $
\sigma_{4FNS}^{NLO}$ listed in Section \[sec:theory\].
The event and $b$-jet cross sections have been obtained consistently at NLO in the 5FNS following Ref. [@Campbell:2008hh] and as briefly described in Section \[sec:theory\].
If not stated otherwise, all results are obtained assuming $\mu_R=\mu_F=\mu$, where $\mu_R$ and $\mu_F$ denote the renormalization and factorization scales respectively. We vary $\mu$ between $\mu_0/4$ and $4\mu_0$ with $\mu_0=M_W+2
m_b$. Results for the event cross sections corresponding to the four signatures described above are given in Tables \[tab:inclusive\]-\[tab:exclusive\], where we consider non-decaying $W$ bosons. The theoretical uncertainty due to the scale dependence can be estimated using these results. Inclusive and exclusive event cross sections for $pp\to W^\pm bX\to e^\pm\nu bX$ assuming $\mu=\mu_0$ are provided in Table \[tab:eventcut\]. The results have been obtained by multiplying the total cross sections of Tables \[tab:inclusive\]-\[tab:exclusive\] with the branching ratio $\text{BR}(W^\pm \to e^\pm \nu)=0.10805$ (labeled as “no cuts”) and by requiring ATLAS inspired lepton cuts, $p_T^e > 20$ GeV, $|\eta^e|<2.5$, $p_T^\nu > 25$ GeV, $m_T^W > 40$ GeV, $R(l,j)>0.5$ (labeled as “ATLAS cuts”). All these cuts are implemented in the full NLO computation including $W$ decay of MCFM [@MCFM].
The PDF uncertainties are estimated using the NNPDF2.1 [@Ball:2010de], CTEQ6.6 [@Nadolsky:2008zw], and MSTW08 [@Martin:2009iq] sets of PDFs as presented in Tables \[tab:incerror\]-\[tab:excerror\]. Also shown are predictions for the event cross sections for different values of $\alpha_s$ obtained with NNPDF2.1 [@Ball:2010de]. The dependence of our predictions on the value of the $b$-quark mass is at the level of a few percent, as can be seen from Tables \[tab:incmb\]-\[tab:excmb\].
[ll]{} 7 TeV LHC: $\;\;\;\;\;\,$ $p_{Tj}>25$ GeV & $|y_j|<2.1$\
anti$-k_T$ jet algorithm & $p=-1, R=0.4$\
\
$M_W=80.41$ GeV & $m_b=4.7$ GeV\
LO: CTEQ6L1 & NLO: CTEQ6.6 [@Nadolsky:2008zw]\
$\alpha_S^{LO}(M_Z)=0.130$ & $\alpha_S^{NLO}(M_Z)=0.118$\
$g_w^2=8M_W^2G_F/\sqrt 2=0.4266177$ & $G_F=1.16639\times 10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$\
$V_{ud}=V_{cs}=0.974$ & $V_{us}=V_{cd}=0.227$ ($V_{ub}=V_{cb}=0$)\
The predictions for the event cross sections for $W+1$ jet and $W+2$ jets with at least one $b$ (or $(bb)$) jet, denoted as $\sigma_{1j+2j}$, $W+1 b$ jet (or $(bb)$ jet), denoted as $\sigma_{1j}$, and $W+2$ jets with at least one $b$ (or $(bb)$) jet, denoted as $\sigma_{2j}$, are provided separately in Table \[tab:wobs\]. They are obtained from the results of Tables \[tab:inclusive\]-\[tab:exclusive\] as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{1j+2j}&=&
\left[\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(Wb\,\mathrm{incl.})+\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(W(bb)\,\mathrm{incl.}) \right] \\
\sigma_{1j}&=&
\left[\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(Wb\,\mathrm{excl.})+\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(W(bb)\,\mathrm{excl.}) \right] \\
\sigma_{2j}&=& \sigma_{1j+2j}-\sigma_{1j}\end{aligned}$$ The $b$-jet cross sections for $W+1$ jet and $W+2$ jets with at least one $b$ jet are provided separately in Table \[tab:bjet\]. They can be obtained from the $Wb$ and $W(bb)$ inclusive event cross sections of Table \[tab:inclusive\] when the $Wb\bar{b}$ contribution (normally included in the $Wb$ inclusive signatures) is counted twice (since it contains two $b$ jets). More explicitly, using the $Wb\bar b$ cross section separately provided in Table \[tab:wobs\] in parentheses, the $b$-jet cross section can be obtained from the event cross sections in Table \[tab:inclusive\] as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{b-\mathrm{jet}}&=&
\left[\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(Wb\,\mathrm{incl.})-\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(Wb\bar{b})\right]+
2\,\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(Wb\bar{b})+\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(W(bb)\,\mathrm{incl.})\\
&=&\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(Wb\,\mathrm{incl.})+
\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(Wb\bar{b})+\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(W(bb)\,\mathrm{incl.})\\
&=&\sigma_{1j+2j}+\sigma_{\mathrm{event}}(Wb\bar{b})\end{aligned}$$
$W^+ (b b)$ incl. $W^- (b b)$ incl.
--------------- ------ ------------------- ------ ------------------- ------ ------ -- --
Full 4FNS 4FNS Full 4FNS 4FNS
$\mu=\mu_0/4$ 66.3 67.3 18.6 40.8 41.2 11.4
$\mu=\mu_0/2$ 60.4 52.5 13.8 37.2 32.2 8.6
$\mu=\mu_0$ 56.7 42.6 10.9 34.8 26.3 6.8
$\mu=2 \mu_0$ 53.2 35.5 8.8 32.7 21.9 5.4
$\mu=4 \mu_0$ 50.0 30.1 7.4 30.7 18.7 4.5
: \[tab:inclusive\]Inclusive event cross sections (in pb), LHC ($\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV). No branching ratios or tagging efficiencies are included. The Monte Carlo integration error is 0.5%.
$W^+ (b b)$ excl. $W^- (b b)$ excl.
--------------- ------ ------------------- ------ ------------------- ------ ------ -- --
Full 4FNS 4FNS Full 4FNS 4FNS
$\mu=\mu_0/4$ 36.7 36.9 9.4 22.8 22.3 5.7
$\mu=\mu_0/2$ 35.3 35.2 7.8 21.8 21.5 4.9
$\mu=\mu_0$ 33.9 26.2 6.7 20.7 16.2 4.3
$\mu=2 \mu_0$ 32.2 22.8 5.9 19.8 14.2 3.7
$\mu=4 \mu_0$ 30.3 19.9 5.2 18.8 12.5 3.3
: \[tab:exclusive\]Exclusive event cross sections (in pb), LHC ($\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV). No branching ratios or tagging efficiencies are included. The Monte Carlo integration error is within 0.5%.
$W (b b)$ incl. $W (b b)$ excl.
------------------ ------ ----------------- ------ ----------------- ------ ------ -- --
4FNS Full 4FNS 4FNS Full 4FNS
$W^+$ no cuts 4.6 6.1 1.2 2.8 3.7 0.7
$W^+$ ATLAS cuts 2.2 2.8 0.5 1.3 1.7 0.3
$W^-$ no cuts 2.8 3.8 0.7 1.8 2.2 0.5
$W^-$ ATLAS cuts 1.3 1.6 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.2
: \[tab:eventcut\]Inclusive and exclusive event cross sections (in pb), LHC ($\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV), for $pp\to W^\pm bX\to e^\pm\nu bX$ (with $\mu=\mu_0$ and CTEQ6.6 [@Nadolsky:2008zw]). The “no cuts” result is obtained by multiplying the total cross sections of Table \[tab:inclusive\] and Table \[tab:exclusive\], respectively, with the branching ratio $\text{BR}(W^\pm \to e^\pm \nu)=0.10805$. The “ATLAS cuts” result is obtained by requiring $p_T^e > 20$ GeV, $|\eta^e|<2.5$, $p_T^\nu > 25$ GeV, $m_T^W > 40$ GeV, $R(l,j)>0.5$. All these cuts are implemented in the full NLO computation including $W$ decay of MCFM [@MCFM].
$W^+ (b b)$ incl. $W^- (b b)$ incl.
---------------------------- ------ ------------------- ---------------- ------------------- ---------------- --------------- -- --
4FNS Full 4FNS 4FNS Full 4FNS
NNPDF2.1 [@Ball:2010de] 44.1 59.2 $\pm$ 0.7 11.4 $\pm$ 0.1 27.6 36.2 $\pm$ 0.6 7.1 $\pm$ 0.1
CT10 [@Lai:2010vv] 42.1 56.1 $\pm$ 1.5 10.9 $\pm$ 0.3 26.5 34.7 $\pm$ 1.0 6.9 $\pm$ 0.2
CTEQ6.6 [@Nadolsky:2008zw] 42.6 56.8 $\pm$ 1.4 10.9 $\pm$ 0.2 26.3 34.6 $\pm$ 1.0 6.8 $\pm$ 0.2
MSTW2008 [@Martin:2009iq] 44.2 59.8 $\pm$ 0.7 11.5 $\pm$ 0.1 28.6 37.9 $\pm$ 0.5 7.4 $\pm$ 0.1
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.114$ 39.2 52.0 10.1 24.3 31.6 6.3
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.124$ 49.6 66.9 12.8 31.0 41.3 8.0
: Inclusive event cross sections (in pb) for different PDF sets including PDF uncertainties (NNPDF2.1: full error set. CT10 [@Lai:2010vv]/MSTW2008 [@Martin:2009iq]: central set), and for different values of $\alpha_s$ obtained with NNPDF2.1 [@Ball:2010de] (with $\mu_R=\mu_F=\mu_0$). []{data-label="tab:incerror"}
$W^+ (b b)$ excl. $W^- (b b)$ excl.
---------------------------- ------ ------------------- --------------- ------------------- ---------------- --------------- -- --
4FNS Full 4FNS 4FNS Full 4FNS
NNPDF2.1 [@Ball:2010de] 26.5 34.9 $\pm$ 0.5 7.0 $\pm$ 0.1 16.9 21.6 $\pm$ 0.4 4.4 $\pm$ 0.1
CT10 [@Lai:2010vv] 26.1 33.6 $\pm$ 1.0 6.8 $\pm$ 0.2 16.3 20.8 $\pm$ 0.7 4.2 $\pm$ 0.2
CTEQ6.6 [@Nadolsky:2008zw] 26.2 33.9 $\pm$ 0.9 6.7 $\pm$ 0.2 16.2 20.8 $\pm$ 0.7 4.3 $\pm$ 0.2
MSTW2008 [@Martin:2009iq] 27.4 35.6 $\pm$ 0.5 7.1 $\pm$ 0.1 17.6 22.4 $\pm$ 0.3 4.6 $\pm$ 0.1
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.114$ 24.1 31.1 6.2 14.9 18.9 3.8
$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.124$ 30.4 39.7 7.8 19.0 24.5 4.9
: Exclusive event cross sections (in pb) for different PDF sets including PDF uncertainties (NNPDF2.1: full error set. CT10 [@Lai:2010vv]/MSTW2008 [@Martin:2009iq]: central set), and for different values of $\alpha_s$ obtained with NNPDF2.1 [@Ball:2010de] (with $\mu_R=\mu_F=\mu_0$).[]{data-label="tab:excerror"}
$W^+ (b b)$ incl. $W^- (b b)$ incl.
--------------- ------ ------------------- ------ ------------------- ------ ------ -- --
4FNS Full 4FNS 4FNS Full 4FNS
$m_b=4.2~$GeV 44.8 58.4 12.8 27.7 35.8 7.9
$m_b=5.0$ GeV 40.8 55.7 10.0 25.2 34.0 6.2
: Inclusive event cross sections (in pb) for different values of the $b$ quark mass ($m_b$) obtained with the CTEQ6.6 PDF set [@Nadolsky:2008zw] and $\mu_R=\mu_F=\mu_0$.[]{data-label="tab:incmb"}
$W^+ (b b)$ excl. $W^- (b b)$ excl.
--------------- ------ ------------------- ------ ------------------- ------ ------ -- --
4FNS Full 4FNS 4FNS Full 4FNS
$m_b=4.2~$GeV 27.8 35.3 8.0 17.2 21.5 5.0
$m_b=5.0$ GeV 25.0 33.3 6.1 15.5 20.2 3.8
: Exclusive event cross sections (in pb) for different values of the $b$ quark mass ($m_b$) obtained with the CTEQ6.6 PDF set [@Nadolsky:2008zw] and $\mu_R=\mu_F=\mu_0$.[]{data-label="tab:excmb"}
$W^+_{1j+2j}$ $W^+_{1j}$ $W^+_{2j}$ $W^-_{1j+2j}$ $W^-_{1j}$ $W^-_{2j}$
--------------- --------------- ------------ ------------ --------------- ------------ ------------
$\mu=\mu_0/4$ 84.9 \[5.6\] 46.1 38.8 52.2 \[3.2\] 28.5 23.7
$\mu=\mu_0/2$ 74.2 \[5.3\] 43.1 31.1 45.8 \[3.1\] 26.7 19.1
$\mu=\mu_0$ 67.6 \[5.0\] 40.6 27.0 41.6 \[2.9\] 25.0 16.6
$\mu=2 \mu_0$ 62.0 \[4.6\] 38.1 23.9 38.1 \[2.7\] 23.5 14.6
$\mu=4 \mu_0$ 57.4 \[4.2\] 35.5 21.9 35.2 \[2.5\] 22.1 13.1
: Event cross sections (in pb), LHC ($\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV) for $W+1$ and $W+2$ jet production with at least one $b$ jet, $W+1$ $b$ jet, and $W+2$ jets with at least one $b$ jet (where here $b$ jet denotes a jet with a single $b$ or $(bb)$ pair). The event cross sections for $Wb\bar b$ are provided separately in parentheses. No branching ratios or tagging efficiencies are included. The Monte Carlo integration error is within 0.5%. []{data-label="tab:wobs"}
$\sigma_{b-\mathrm{jet}}(W^+)$ $\sigma_{b-\mathrm{jet}}(W^-)$
--------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
$\mu=\mu_0/4$ 90.5 55.4
$\mu=\mu_0/2$ 79.5 48.9
$\mu=\mu_0$ 72.6 44.5
$\mu=2 \mu_0$ 66.6 40.8
$\mu=4 \mu_0$ 61.6 37.7
: $b$-jet cross sections (in pb) for $W+1$ and $W+2$ jet production where at least one jet is a $b$ jet, LHC ($\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV). No branching ratios or tagging efficiencies are included. The Monte Carlo integration error is 0.5%. []{data-label="tab:bjet"}
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper we have computed the cross section for the production of a $W$ boson in association with up to two jets, including at least one $b$-jet, at the $7$ TeV LHC. The calculation consistently combines next-to-leading order corrections to the parton level processes $q\bar q' \to W b \bar b$ [@FebresCordero:2006sj; @Badger:2010mg; @MCFM] and $bq \to W bq$ [@Campbell:2006cu] according to the procedure presented in Ref. [@Campbell:2008hh]. We have particularly focussed on performing a systematic study of our prediction, considering a number of sources of theoretical uncertainty, under a set of cuts that will be used by the ATLAS collaboration [@atlas].
Our results can be summarized as follows, where we have put together all sources of uncertainty considered in this paper. The event cross section for $W$ production with one or two jets with at least one $b$ jet at NLO QCD at the LHC (7 TeV) as will be measured by ATLAS [@atlas] is, $$\sigma_{1j+2j}(W^++W^-)=109.2 ~{}^{+27.9}_{-16.6} \, ({\rm scale}) ~{}^{+7.4}_{-1.9} \, ({\rm PDF})
~{}^{+5.7}_{-3.3} \, (m_b) ~{\rm pb}$$ The central value corresponds to the CTEQ6.6 PDF set, $\mu = \mu_0$ and $m_b=4.7$ GeV. In the assessment of the theoretical uncertainty we have considered a very conservative scale variation from $\mu_0/4$ to $4\mu_0$, i.e. ranging from approximately $20$ to $360$ GeV. The PDF uncertainty is assessed by conmparing the nominal CTEQ6.6 prediction with the results obtained for CT10 and MSTW08, while $m_b$ is varied from $4.2$ to $5$ GeV.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Tobias Golling and Andrea Messina from the ATLAS collaboration for many fruitful discussions and for providing us all the information necessary to obtain the results presented in this paper. L.R. and D.W. thank the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP) for the kind hospitality extended to us while this work was being completed. The work of L.R. is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-97IR41022. The work of D.W. is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants NSF-PHY-0547564 and NSF-PHY-0757691. Fermilab is operated by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the United States Department of Energy. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY05-51164 and by a US-Italy Fulbright Visiting Student Researcher Fellowship.
[99]{}
R. K. Ellis and S. Veseli, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 011501 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9810489\]. F. Febres Cordero, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 034007 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0606102\]. S. Badger, J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, JHEP [**1103**]{}, 027 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.6647 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pittau and P. Torrielli, arXiv:1106.6019 \[hep-ph\].
J. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, F. Maltoni and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 054015 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0611348\]. C. Oleari and L. Reina, \[arXiv:1105.4488 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, MCFM - Monte Carlo for FeMtobarn processes, http://mcfm.fnal.gov/.
J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, F. Febres Cordero, F. Maltoni, L. Reina, D. Wackeroth and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 034023 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.3003 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. A. G. Aivazis, J. C. Collins, F. I. Olness and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 3102 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9312319\]. J. C. Collins, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 094002 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9806259\]. ATLAS Collaboration, in preparation.
F. F. Cordero, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, PoS [**RADCOR2009**]{}, 055 (2010) \[arXiv:1001.3362 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Campbell, F. Febres Cordero, L. Reina, private communication.
T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], arXiv:0909.1505 \[hep-ex\].
M. Cacciari, M. Greco, P. Nason, JHEP [**9805** ]{} (1998) 007. \[hep-ph/9803400\].
P. M. Nadolsky, H. -L. Lai, Q. -H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, D. Stump, W. -K. Tung, C. -P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. [**D78**]{}, 013004 (2008). \[arXiv:0802.0007 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. D. Ball, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo and M. Ubiali, Nucl. Phys. B [**838**]{}, 136 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.4407 \[hep-ph\]\]. H. L. Lai, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, Z. Li, P. M. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 074024 (2010) \[arXiv:1007.2241 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C [**63**]{}, 189 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.0002 \[hep-ph\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Klaudius Scheufele
- Shashank Subramanian
- George Biros
bibliography:
- 'bib/literature.bib'
- './../tex/lib\_alzh.bib'
title: 'Calibration of Biophysical Models for tau-Protein Spreading in Alzheimer’s Disease from PET-MRI'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro .unnumbered}
============
01-intro.tex
Results {#sec:res .unnumbered}
=======
03-res.tex
Discussion {#sec:discussion .unnumbered}
==========
04-dis.tex
Methods {#sec:meth .unnumbered}
=======
02-meth.tex
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Cascading breakdowns of real networks are severe accidents in recent years, such as the blackouts of the power transportation networks in North America. In this paper, we study the effects of geographical structure on the cascading phenomena of load-carried scale-free networks, find that more geographically constrained networks tend to have larger cascading breakdowns. Explanations by the effects of circles and large betweenness of small degree nodes are provided.'
author:
- 'Liang Huang$^{2}$, Lei Yang$^{2,3}$ and Kongqing Yang$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Geographical effects on cascading breakdowns of scale-free networks'
---
Recently dynamical processes on networks has been highly concerned and widely investigated [@ws; @watts0; @strogatz]. Among many of the dynamical features of networks, robustness attracts much attention [bai,cohenr,coheni,newmanr]{}, much of which focus on scale-free (SF) networks, i.e., the degrees of nodes satisfy a power law distribution: $%
P(k)\sim k^{-\lambda }$, for their ubiquity in real systems [@CN-review]. The heterogeneity of the degrees often makes the scale-free networks sensitive to intentional attack [@coheni; @newmanr], while it is resilience to random breakdowns [@cohenr; @newmanr], and also resilience under avalanche phenomena by the role of the hubs that sustain large amounts of grain, playing the role of reservoirs [@sdp]. Furthermore, for cascading failures, the load-carried SF network is fragile even when one attacks only one node or very few nodes with the largest degrees [cascade]{}.
Since many real networks exist in two or three dimensional physical spaces, it is helpful to study the geographical complex networks and it has attracted much attention recently [@lesf; @snsf; @GCN-other; @GCN-yang; @geoperc]. It has been shown that geographical structure has great influence on percolation thresholds [@geoperc]. Since many real systems bear cascading failures, such as power grid networks, traffic lines, Internet, etc., and also lay on the two dimensional global surface, the influence of geographical structures on cascading breakdowns is of highly importance and up to now is rarely studied.
In this paper, we study the effects of geographical structure on the cascading phenomena of load-carried scale-free networks, in which each node carries a certain type of load, such as power, traffic, etc., and if the node is broken down, its load will be redistributed to its neighbors. We investigate the Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld (BTW) sandpile model [@sdp; @btw] as a prototypical model on a weighted lattice embedded SF (WLESF) network [GCN-yang]{}; and further study the betweenness distribution. Both validate that the more spatially loosely connected network is more robust under cascading failures, i.e., they have less huge avalanche events. The network is generated as follows [@GCN-yang]. It begins with an $L\times L$ lattice, with periodical boundary conditions, and for each node assigned a degree $k$ drawn from the prescribed SF degree distribution $P(k)\sim
k^{-\lambda }$, $k\geqslant m$. Then a node $i$ is picked out randomly, according to a Gaussian weight function $f_{i}(r)=De^{-\left( \frac{r}{A%
\sqrt{k_{i}}}\right) ^{2}}$, it selects other nodes and establishes connections until its degree quota $k_{i}$ is filled or until it has tried many enough times, avoiding duplicate connections. The process is carried out for all the nodes in the lattice. The clustering parameter $A$ controls the spatial denseness of the connections. For large $A$ limits, e.g. $A\sqrt{%
m}\gg L$, the weight function will be trivial, and the network becomes a SF random (SFR) network, i.e., random otherwise than SF degree distribution [@grn]. To compare, we also investigated lattice embedded SF (LESF) networks with nearest neighbor connections [@lesf]. Here, we assume that the time scales governing the dynamics are much smaller than that characterizing the network evolvement, thus the static geographical network models are suitable for discussing the problems.
The rules we adopted for sandpile dynamics are as follows: (i) At each time step, a grain is added at a randomly chosen node $i$. (ii) If the height at the node $i$ reaches or exceeds a prescribed threshold $z_{i}=k_{i}$, the degree of the node $i$, then it becomes unstable and all the grains at the node topple to its adjacent nodes: $h_{i}=h_{i}-k_{i}$; and for each $i$’s neighbor $j$: $h_{j}=h_{j}+1$; during the transfer, there is a small fraction $f$ of grains being lost, which plays the role of sinks without which the system becomes overloaded in the end. (iii) If this toppling causes any of the adjacent nodes to be unstable, subsequent topplings follow on those nodes in parallel until there is no unstable node left, forming an avalanche event. (iv) Repeat (i) –(iii).
The main feature of the BTW sandpile model on Euclidean space is the emergence of a power law with an exponential cutoff in the avalanche size distribution, $p(s)\sim s^{-\tau ^{\prime }}e^{-s/s_{c}}$, where $s$ is the avalanche size, i.e., the number of toppling nodes in an avalanche event, and $s_{c}$ is its characteristic size. In our studies, nodes toppled more than once in an avalanche event is seldom [@sdp], unless for the very large avalanches, which have already exceeded the exponential cutoffs. Thus we study the avalanche area, which is the number of distinct nodes that toppled in an avalanche event, instead of avalanche size. The avalanche area distribution follows the same form as that of avalanche sizes$$p(a)\sim a^{-\tau }e^{-a/a_{c}}, \label{ps}$$where $a$ is the avalanche area, and $a_{c}$ its characteristic size. A typical example is shown in Fig. \[sa\].
For BTW sandpile model on SFR networks, K. S. Goh *et al.* [@sdp] have shown that the avalanche area exponent $\tau $ increases as $\lambda $ decreases, caused by the increasing number of hubs playing the role of reservoirs. Here, we will demonstrate that for the densely connected scale-free geographical networks, the reservoir effect is weakened, and the network has a smaller $\tau $.
Figure \[chnn\] represents the avalanche area distribution for different $%
\lambda $ of LESF networks and WLESF networks with $A=1$. It shows that as $%
\lambda $ decreases, the curve of avalanche area distribution is steeper, corresponds to larger $\tau $. These are the same as the results in Ref. [@sdp]. The avalanche area exponent $\tau $ for these data are fitted by formula \[ps\], and is presented in Fig. \[yA1tau\], together with that of SFR networks for comparison. The data for SFR networks we obtained is consistent with that of [@sdp]. For large $\lambda $ large $N$ limits, the SFR network tends to ER random graphs, for which $\tau \simeq 1.5$ [sdp,bona]{}; while LESF network tends to a super lattice, with each node has $%
m$ neighbors; since in our studies $m=4$, the network limits to a normal $2D$ lattice, which has a value of $1.01(2)$ for $\tau $, consistent with the previous results [@btw; @OFC].
The avalanche area exponent for different $A$ of WLESF network is shown in Fig. \[yan\]. As $A$ goes larger, avalanche area exponent $\tau $ increases, the curves of avalanche area distribution become sharper in the double-log plot (see inset of Fig. \[yan\]), which corresponds to fewer large avalanche events. This transition in $\tau $ illuminates that when the network is geographically more loosely connected, it will be harder for large cascading events to occur.
The range of an edge is the length of the shortest paths between the nodes it connected in the absence of itself [@watts0; @range]. If an edge’s range is $l$, it will probably belong to an $l+1$ circle. Thus the distribution of range in a network sketches the distribution of circles. The inset of Fig. \[sdpf\] shows that when the spatial constrains is slighter, as $A$ goes larger, the range distribution drifts to larger ranges. It means that spatially loosely connected networks have fewer small order circles but more higher order circles. If there are many small order circles, the toppling grains are easier to meet, and the nodes with much less grains, i.e., fewer than $z-1$, especially those with $z-2$ or $z-3$ grains, could also reach the toppling threshold $z$ and topple. Larger order circles contribute less to this effect. The main frame of Fig. \[sdpf\] shows the fraction of nodes toppled in avalanches that have precisely $z-1$ grains. As the network is less geographically constrained and has fewer small order circles, the fraction of toppling nodes with $z-1$ grains increases, justifies our reasoning. This effect contributes to the large avalanche events of the densely connected networks, and explains the decrease of avalanche area exponent $\tau $ as the network is more geographically constrained.
In the following section, we studied the betweenness distribution of these geographical networks. The betweenness, or betweenness centrality, of node $%
i $ is defined as the total number of shortest paths between pairs of nodes that pass through $i$ [@btnc]. If a pair of nodes has two shortest paths, the nodes along those paths are given a betweenness of $1/2$ each. The betweenness distribution for SF networks is reported to follow a power law $P_{B}\sim b^{-\delta }$, and for $2<\lambda \leqslant 3$, the exponent is $\delta \approx 2.2(1)$ [@sdp]. We find that the betweenness distribution of LESF network decays much slower than that of SFR networks, as Fig. \[btnd\] demonstrates for a particular case. The distributions for WLESF networks lay between them, but do not appear in the graph for clearness. The same holds for other $\lambda $ and $m$ values. Thus there are more large betweenness nodes in LESF networks than in SFR networks. To comprehend this, we plot the betweenness vs node’s degree in Fig. \[btndt\]. For LESF networks the betweenness of the same degree is distributed much more diffusively, and on average are larger. It could be seen that even nodes with small degree $k$ could have unusually large betweenness.
When an avalanche occurs, the front of toppling nodes spread along geodesics, i.e., along the shortest paths between nodes. Since the betweenness of a node is the number of shortest paths passing through it, larger betweenness means that it will have higher possibility to receive grains in avalanching processes. In the above sandpile model, the toppling threshold is the node’s degree, thus the node that has large betweenness but small degree will be easier to topple. As Fig. \[btndt\] shows, LESF network have more such nodes than SFR networks, and the situation changes continuously for WLESF network with increasing $A$. This could also account for the decreasing avalanche area component $\tau $ as the network is more geographically constrained.
In conclusion, by studying avalanching processes on geographical SF networks, we find that besides the reservoir effects of the hubs in SF networks, geography has great influences on the critical exponents of these systems. The decreasing avalanche area component $\tau $ for the more geographically constrained network hints high risks for such network to breakdown through cascading failures, since they have a much higher possibility to experience huge avalanche events, due to the denser connections and huge number of smaller order circles and larger betweenness of small degree nodes. Since many real networks that carried some kinds of loads, i.e., power, traffic, data packets, etc., are imbedded in the $2D$ global surface and highly clustered, our results indicate that they will suffer more severe risks under node failures.
The work is supported by China National Natural Sciences Foundation with grant 49894190 of major project and Chinese Academy of Science with grant KZCX1-sw-18 of major project of knowledge innovation engineering. L. Yang thanks the support of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (RGC) and the Hong Kong Baptist University Faculty Research Grant (FRG). K. Yang thanks the support of Institute of Geology and Geophysics, CAS.
[99]{} D. J. Watts & S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) **393**, 440 (1998).
D. J. Watts, *Small Worlds* (Princeton University, Princeton, NJ) 1999.
S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) **410**, 268 (2001).
R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabasi, Nature (London) **406**, 378 (2000).
R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, and S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 4626 (2000).
R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, and S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 3682 (2001).
D. S. Callaway, M. E. J. Newman, S. H. Strogatz, and D. J. Watts, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 5468 (2000).
R. Albert and A.-L. Barabási, Rev. Mod. Phys. **74**, 47 (2002); M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Rev. **45**, 167 (2003); S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, *Evolution of Networks* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003); R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, *Evolution and Structure of the Internet* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).
K.-I. Goh, D.-S. Lee, B. Kahng, and D. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 148701 (2003).
A. E. Motter and Y.-C. Lai, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 065102 (2002); L. Zhao, K. Park, and Y.-C. Lai, Phys. Rev. E **70**, 035101(R) (2004).
A. F. Rozenfeld, R. Cohen, D. ben-Avraham, and S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 218701 (2002), D. ben-Avraham, A. F. Rozenfeld, R. Cohen and S. Havlin, Physica A **330**, 107 (2003).
C. P. Warren, L. M. Sander, and I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 056105 (2002).
S. S. Manna and P. Sen, Phys. Rev. E **68**, 26104 (2003); R. Xulvi-Brunet and I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 026118 (2002); J. Dall and M. Christensen, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 016121 (2002); G. Nemeth and G. Vattay, Phys. Rev. E **67**, 036110 (2003); C. Herrmann, M. Barthélemy, P. Provero, Phys. Rev. E **68**, 26128 (2003).
K. Yang, L. Huang and L. Yang, Phys. Rev. E **70**, 015102(R) (2004).
L. Huang, L. Yang, K. Yang, preprint cond-mat/0503391.
P. Bak, C. Tang, and K.Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. **59**, 381 (1987); Phys. Rev. A **38**, 364 (1988).
M. E. J. Newman, S. H. Strogatz, and D. J. Watts, Phys. Rev. E. **64**, 026118 (2001).
E. Bonabeau, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **64**, 327 (1995).
Z. Olami, H. J. S. Feder, and K. Christensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **68**, 1244 (1992); K. Christensen and Z. Olami, Phys. Rev. A **46**,1829 (1992).
S.A. Pandit and R.E. Amritkar, Phys. Rev. E **60**, 1119(R) (1999); A. E. Motter, T. Nishikawa, and Y.-C. Lai, Phys. Rev. E. **66**, 065103(R) (2002).
L.C. Freeman, Sociometry **40**, 35 (1977); M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E **64**, 016131 (2001); **64**, 016132 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'F. Aharonian'
- 'A.G. Akhperjanian'
- 'A.R. Bazer-Bachi'
- 'M. Beilicke'
- 'W. Benbow'
- 'D. Berge'
- 'K. Bernlöhr'
- 'C. Boisson'
- 'O. Bolz'
- 'V. Borrel'
- 'I. Braun'
- 'F. Breitling'
- 'A.M. Brown'
- 'R. Bühler'
- 'I. Büsching'
- 'S. Carrigan'
- 'P.M. Chadwick'
- 'L.-M. Chounet'
- 'R. Cornils'
- 'L. Costamante'
- 'B. Degrange'
- 'H.J. Dickinson'
- 'A. Djannati-Ataï'
- 'L.O’C. Drury'
- 'G. Dubus'
- 'K. Egberts'
- 'D. Emmanoulopoulos'
- 'P. Espigat'
- 'F. Feinstein'
- 'E. Ferrero'
- 'G. Fontaine'
- 'Seb. Funk'
- 'S. Funk'
- 'Y.A. Gallant'
- 'B. Giebels'
- 'J.F. Glicenstein'
- 'P. Goret'
- 'C. Hadjichristidis'
- 'D. Hauser'
- 'M. Hauser'
- 'G. Heinzelmann'
- 'G. Henri'
- 'G. Hermann'
- 'J.A. Hinton'
- 'W. Hofmann'
- 'M. Holleran'
- 'D. Horns'
- 'A. Jacholkowska'
- 'O.C. de Jager'
- 'B. Khélifi'
- 'Nu. Komin'
- 'A. Konopelko'
- 'I.J. Latham'
- 'R. Le Gallou'
- 'A. Lemière'
- 'M. Lemoine-Goumard'
- 'T. Lohse'
- 'J.M. Martin'
- 'O. Martineau-Huynh'
- 'A. Marcowith'
- 'C. Masterson'
- 'T.J.L. McComb'
- 'M. de Naurois'
- 'D. Nedbal'
- 'S.J. Nolan'
- 'A. Noutsos'
- 'K.J. Orford'
- 'J.L. Osborne'
- 'M. Ouchrif'
- 'M. Panter'
- 'G. Pelletier'
- 'S. Pita'
- 'G. Pühlhofer'
- 'M. Punch'
- 'B.C. Raubenheimer'
- 'M. Raue'
- 'S.M. Rayner'
- 'A. Reimer'
- 'O. Reimer'
- 'J. Ripken'
- 'L. Rob'
- 'L. Rolland'
- 'G. Rowell'
- 'V. Sahakian'
- 'L. Saugé'
- 'S. Schlenker'
- 'R. Schlickeiser'
- 'U. Schwanke'
- 'H. Sol'
- 'D. Spangler'
- 'F. Spanier'
- 'R. Steenkamp'
- 'C. Stegmann'
- 'G. Superina'
- 'J.-P. Tavernet'
- 'R. Terrier'
- 'C.G. Théoret'
- 'M. Tluczykont'
- 'C. van Eldik'
- 'G. Vasileiadis'
- 'C. Venter'
- 'P. Vincent'
- 'H.J. Völk'
- 'S.J. Wagner'
- 'M. Ward'
date: 'received ... / accepted ...'
title: 'Discovery of Very High Energy $\gamma$-Ray Emission from the BL Lac Object H2356$-$309 with the [H.E.S.S.]{} Cherenkov Telescopes'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) spans the complete electromagnetic spectrum from radio waves to very-high-energy (VHE; E$>$100GeV) $\gamma$-rays. In the widely-accepted unified model of AGN [e.g. @rees:1984a; @urry:1995a], the “central engine” of these objects consists of a super-massive black hole (up to 10$^9$M$_\odot$) surrounded by a thin accretion disk and a dust torus. In [some]{} radio-loud AGN, i.e. objects with a radio to B-band flux ratio F$_\mathrm{5GHz}$/F$_\mathrm{B}$$>$10, two relativistic plasma outflows (jets) [presumably]{} perpendicular to the plane of the accretion disk have been observed.
AGN are known to be VHE $\gamma$-ray emitters since the detection of Mrk421 above 300GeV by the Whipple group [@punch:1992a], [[who]{} pioneered the imaging atmospheric-Cherenkov technique.]{} At very high energies, a number of AGN ($\approx$10) were subsequently detected by different groups using a similar technique. Almost all these objects [are [BL Lacertae (BL Lac)]{} objects, [belonging to the class of Blazars (BL Lac objects and Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars),]{}]{} i.e. AGN having their jet pointing at a small angle to the line of sight. The only confirmed VHE detection of an extragalactic object not belonging to the BL Lac class is the giant radio galaxy M87 [@aharonian:2003b; @aharonian:2005f].
Two broad peaks are present in the observed SED of AGN. The first peak is located in the [radio, optical, and X-ray bands]{}, the second peak is found at higher energies and can extend to the VHE band. The observed broad-band emission from AGN is commonly explained by two different model types. In leptonic models, the lower-energy peak is explained by synchrotron emission of relativistic electrons and the high-energy peak is assumed to result from inverse Compton (IC) scattering of electrons off a seed-photon population, see e.g. @sikora:2001a and references therein. In hadronic models, the [emission is]{} assumed to be produced via the interactions of relativistic protons with matter [@pohl:2000a], ambient photons [@mannheim:1993a] or magnetic fields [@aharonian:2000c], or [via the interactions of relativistic protons with]{} [photons and magnetic fields]{} [@muecke:2001a].
The observed $\gamma$-ray emission [from BL Lac objects]{} shows high [variability]{} ranging from short bursts of sub-hour duration to long-time activity of the order of months. Detailed studies of variability of BL Lac type objects can contribute to the understanding of their intrinsic acceleration mechanisms [e.g. @krawczynski:2001a; @aharonian:2002e]. Additionally, observations of distant objects in the VHE band provide an indirect measurement of the SED of the Extragalactic Background Light (EBL), see e.g. @stecker:1992a [@primack:1999a] and references therein. Due to the absorption of VHE $\gamma$-rays via e$^+$e$^-$ pair production with the photons of the EBL, the shape of the observed VHE spectra is distorted as compared to the intrinsically emitted spectra. Using a given spectral shape of the EBL, the observed AGN spectrum can be corrected for this absorption. The resulting intrinsic (i.e., corrected) spectrum can then be compared to basic model assumptions on the spectral shape of the $\gamma$-ray emission, thereby constraining the applied shape of the EBL. In this context, it is especially important to detect AGN at higher redshifts but also to study the spectra of objects over a wide range of redshifts, in order to disentangle the effect of the EBL from the intrinsic spectral shape of the objects. To date, the redshifts of VHE emitting [BL Lac objects]{} [with measured spectra]{} range from $z = 0.033$ to $z = 0.129$.
The high frequency peaked BL Lac object (HBL) H2356$-$309, identified in the optical by @schwartz:1989a, is hosted by an elliptical galaxy located at a redshift of $z = 0.165$ [@falomo:1991a]. The object was first detected in X-rays by the satellite experiment UHURU [@forman:1978a] and subsequently by the Large Area Sky Survey experiment onboard the HEAO-I satellite [@wood:1984a]. The spectrum of H2356$-$309 as observed by BeppoSAX [@costamante:2001a] is not compatible with a single power law model, indicating that the peak of the synchrotron emission lies within the energy range [of BeppoSAX]{}. A broken power law fit yields a synchrotron peak around 1.8keV, with a detection of the source up to 50keV. These observations qualified the object as an *extreme synchrotron blazar*.
A selection of TeV candidate BL Lac objects was proposed by @costamante:2002a. The objects were selected from several BL Lac samples and using information in the radio, optical and X-ray bands. VHE predictions for the selected objects were given by the authors based on a parametrisation proposed by @fossati:1998a, suitable for predictions of high state flux of an average source population. [The authors also gave VHE flux predictions based on]{} a simple one-zone homogeneous SSC model [@ghisellini:2002a], appropriate for a quiescent state of the specific VHE source candidate. H2356$-$309 is included in this list and the predicted integral flux values above 300GeV for H2356$-$309 are 8.4$\times$[10$^{-12}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$]{}for the parametrisation and 1.9$\times$[10$^{-12}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$]{} for the SSC model. [It should be noted that no absorption due to the EBL was taken into account in these calculations.]{} In this paper the discovery of VHE $\gamma$-rays from H2356$-$309 with the [H.E.S.S.]{} Cherenkov telescopes in 2004 is reported. With a redshift of $z = 0.165$, is one of the most distant AGN detected at VHE energies so far. [ was observed by [H.E.S.S.]{}from June to December 2004 (see sections \[hessobs\] and \[hessres\]). Simultaneous observations were carried out with RXTE [(Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer)]{} in X-rays on 11th of November 2004 (see section \[rxtesection\]), with the Nançay decimetric radio telescope (NRT) between June and October 2004 (see section \[nrtsection\]) and with ROTSE[-III]{} (see section \[rotsesection\]) in the optical, covering the whole 2004 [H.E.S.S.]{} observation campaign. ]{}
[H.E.S.S.]{} Observations {#hessobs}
=========================
The system of four [H.E.S.S.]{} ACTs, located on the Khomas Highlands in Namibia (23$^\circ$16’18”S 16$^\circ$30’00”E), is fully operational since December 2003. For a review see, e.g., @hinton:2004a. [H.E.S.S.]{} data are taken in runs with a typical duration of 28 minutes. The data on H2356$-$309 were taken with the telescopes pointing with an offset of 0.5$^\circ$ relative to the object position (wobble mode, [offset in either]{} right ascension [or]{} declination). The sign of the offset is alternated for successive runs to reduce systematic effects. H2356$-$309 was observed with the complete stereoscopic system from June to December 2004 for a total raw observation time of more than 80 hours. In order to reduce systematic effects that arise due to varying observation conditions, quality selection criteria are applied before data analysis on a run-by-run basis. The criteria are based on the mean trigger rate (corrected for zenith-angle dependency), trigger rate stability, weather conditions and hardware status. [During the 2004 observations of H2356$-$309 atmospheric conditions were not optimal ([due to]{} brushfires), resulting in a dead-time corrected]{} high-quality data set of $\approx$40h live-time at an average zenith angle of 20$^\circ$.
These data are calibrated as described in @aharonian:2004c. [Thereafter,]{} before shower reconstruction, a standard image cleaning [[@lemoine-goumard:2005a]]{} is applied to the shower images to remove night-sky background noise. [Moreover,]{} in order to avoid systematic effects from shower images truncated by the camera edge, only images having a distance between their centre of gravity and the centre of the camera of less than 2$^\circ$ are used in the reconstruction. Furthermore, a minimum image amplitude [(i.e., the sum of the intensities of all pixels being part of the image)]{} is required for use in the analysis to assure a good quality reconstruction. Previous [H.E.S.S.]{} publications are mostly based on the standard analysis [[@aharonian:2005c]]{}. Here we present results from the 3D Model analysis which [is presented in detail in @lemoine-goumard:2005a and]{} was also used in @aharonian:2005d. [This method uses]{} independent calibration and simulation chains and [is]{} briefly described in the following [paragraphs]{}.
[H.E.S.S.]{} 3D Model Analysis
------------------------------
The principle of the 3D Model reconstruction method [@lemoine-goumard:2004a; @lemoine-goumard:2005a; @aharonian:2005d] is based on a 3-dimensional (3D) shower model using the stereoscopic information from the telescopes. The shower is modelled as a 3D Gaussian photosphere with anisotropic angular distribution. For each camera pixel the expected light is calculated with a path integral along the line of sight. The observed images are then compared to the model images using a log-likelihood fit with eight parameters, [described in detail in @lemoine-goumard:2005a.]{} For each detected shower [at least two images]{} are required for the reconstruction of the [angle $\theta$ (the angle between the object position and the reconstructed shower direction)]{}, [shower]{} core impact position [(measured as a radius with respect to the center of the telescope array)]{}, energy and the transverse standard deviation $\sigma_T$ of the shower. [The dimensionless reduced 3D width $\omega$ [(used for $\gamma$-hadron separation)]{} is defined as $\omega = \sigma_T \rho / D_S$, with the density of air $\rho$ and the column density $D_S$ at shower maximum. ]{} The energy spectrum [of the $\gamma$-ray excess]{} is obtained from a comparison of the [reconstructed energy distributions]{} [to the expected distributions for a given spectral shape]{}. For the determination of the expected number, $\gamma$-ray acceptances calculated from simulations are taken into account. This *forward folding* method was first developed within the CAT collaboration [@piron:2000a]. [ The quality of the reconstruction improves when only events with a number of triggered telescopes $N_{tel} \ge 3$ are accepted. In the analysis used in this paper, results from the 3D Model are given using this cut. A spectral analysis using an $N_{tel} \ge 2$ cut yields consistent results. ]{}
The on-source data are taken from a circular region of radius $\theta$ around the object position (on-source region). The background is estimated from 11 control regions (off-source regions) of the same size and located at the same radial distance to the camera centre as the on-source region and normalised accordingly. The significance [in standard deviations above background (subsequently $\sigma$)]{} of any excess is calculated following the likelihood method of @li:1983a. All cuts applied are summarised in Table \[cuttable\]. [Cut values were optimised using simulated $\gamma$-ray samples and independent background data samples.]{}
cut value
---------------------------- ----------------
distance 2deg
image amplitude $>$60ph.e.
\# of telescopes $\ge$3
core impact position $\le$300m
mean reduced scaled width –
mean reduced scaled length –
reduced 3D width $\omega$ $<$0.002
$\theta^2$ $<$0.01deg$^2$
: \[cuttable\]Summary of applied cuts. The cut in image amplitude is given in photoelectrons (ph.e.).
[H.E.S.S.]{} Results {#hessres}
====================
Signal
------
In Figure \[thetasq\], the distribution of the squared angular distances $\theta^2$ from H2356$-$309, reconstructed with the 3D-Model ([$N_{tel} \ge 3$]{}), is shown. In the data taken from the on-source region a clear accumulation of events is seen at low $\theta^2$-values, [i.e. close to the position of H2356$-$309.]{} The off-region shows a flat distribution as expected for a pure background measurement. With a number of on-source events of [${N_{on}}$]{} = [1706]{} off-source events [${N_{off}}$]{} = [13784]{} [and]{} [a]{} normalisation [factor]{} $\alpha$=[0.0909]{} [(the ratio between the solid angles for on- and off-source measurements)]{}, the data yield an excess of [${N_{on}}$]{} - $\alpha$[${N_{off}}$]{} = [453]{} $\gamma$-rays at a significance-level of [11.6$\sigma$]{}. A fit of a 2-dimensional Gaussian to an uncorrelated excess sky-map yields a point-like emission and a location (23$h$59$m$09.42$s$$\pm$2.89$s$, -30$^\circ$37’22.7”$\pm$34.5”) consistent with the position of H2356$-$309 (23$h$59$m$07.8$s$, -30$^\circ$37’38”), [as obtained by @falomo:1991a using observations in the optical and near-infrared.]{}
[These results are summarised in Table \[results\].]{} [Additionally, the results from the standard analysis are given. The results for the 3D Model analysis used in this paper are also given using $N_{tel} \ge 2$ for easier comparison with the standard analysis.]{}
standard analysis
-------------------------- ------------------ ------------------- -----------------
$N_{tel} \ge 3$ $N_{tel} \ge 2$ $N_{tel} \ge 2$
[${N_{on}}$]{} (events) [1706]{} [4389]{} [3776]{}
[${N_{off}}$]{} (events) [13784]{} [40420]{} [35280]{}
normalisation $\alpha$ [0.0909]{} [0.0909]{} [0.0903]{}
Excess (events) [453]{} [715]{} [591]{}
Significance [11.6$\sigma$]{} [10.9$\sigma$]{} [9.7$\sigma$]{}
: \[results\]Summary of analysis results from the 3D Model analysis (using two different cuts in telescope multiplicity). [For comparison, the standard analysis results are also given.]{}
Energy Spectrum and Variability
-------------------------------
The differential energy spectrum obtained from the 3D-Model analysis ([$N_{tel} \ge 3$]{}) is shown in Figure \[spectra\]. The [spectral parameters were obtained]{} from a maximum likelihood fit of a power law hypothesis $dN/dE = N_0 (E/\mathrm{TeV})^{-\Gamma}$ to the data, resulting in a flux-normalisation of N$_0$ = [([$3.00\,\pm\,0.80_\mathrm{stat}\,\pm\,0.31_\mathrm{sys}$]{})$\times$[10$^{-13}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$]{}]{}, and a spectral index of $\Gamma$ = [$3.09\,\pm\,0.24_\mathrm{stat}\,\pm\,0.10_\mathrm{sys}$]{}. The $\chi^2$ value of the spectral fit is 6.6 for 7 degrees of freedom, corresponding to a $\chi^2$-probability of $P(\,\chi^2)$ = [0.47]{}. In order to eliminate any systematic effects that might arise from poor energy estimation at lower energies [(due to an over-estimation, on average, of low energies), the beginning of the fit range is set to the value of the post-cuts spectral energy threshold, i.e. 200GeV for the 3D Model analysis [of this data set]{}.]{} Systematic errors [(0.1 for the index and 20% for the flux)]{} are [dominated by atmospheric effects, i.e.]{} a limited knowledge of the atmospheric profile needed as input for the simulations. [A detailed description of systematic errors can be found in e.g., @aharonian:2006a]{}. The parameters of the spectral fit are summarised in Table \[spectraltable\]. [Additionally, the results from the standard analysis are given for comparison.]{} The data-points used in Figure \[spectra\] are listed in Table \[spectralpoints\].
----- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
$\Gamma$ ${N_0}$ ${P(\,\chi^2)}$
$[$[10$^{-13}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$TeV$^{-1}$]{}$]$
(1) [$3.09\,\pm\,0.24_\mathrm{stat}\,\pm\,0.10_\mathrm{sys}$]{} [$3.00\,\pm\,0.80_\mathrm{stat}\,\pm\,0.31_\mathrm{sys}$]{} [0.47]{}
(2) [$3.06\,\pm\,0.21_\mathrm{stat}\,\pm\,0.10_\mathrm{sys}$]{} [$3.07\,\pm\,0.75_\mathrm{stat}\,\pm\,0.31_\mathrm{sys}$]{} [0.60]{}
----- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
: \[spectraltable\]Summary of the parameters of power law fits ($dN/dE = N_0 (E/\mathrm{TeV})^{-\Gamma}$). [For comparison with the 3D Model analysis (1) used here, the results from]{} the standard analysis (2) [are also given.]{} [Both analyses yield consistent results.]{} In addition to the parameter values, the $\chi^2$ probabilities of the fits are given.
----------- ----------------------------- --------------------------
E $\Phi$ $\Delta\Phi$
$[$TeV$]$
0.223 2.06$\,\times\,10^{-11}$ 7.13$\,\times\,10^{-12}$
0.270 2.18$\,\times\,10^{-11}$ 4.36$\,\times\,10^{-12}$
0.329 1.04$\,\times\,10^{-11}$ 2.46$\,\times\,10^{-12}$
0.403 5.77$\,\times\,10^{-12}$ 1.48$\,\times\,10^{-12}$
0.494 2.12$\,\times\,10^{-12}$ 8.51$\,\times\,10^{-13}$
0.604 1.26$\,\times\,10^{-12}$ 5.45$\,\times\,10^{-13}$
0.742 5.50$\,\times\,10^{-13}$ 3.29$\,\times\,10^{-13}$
0.912 5.77$\,\times\,10^{-13}$ 2.31$\,\times\,10^{-13}$
1.113 $<$4.06$\,\times\,10^{-13}$ –
----------- ----------------------------- --------------------------
: \[spectralpoints\]Differential flux for different energy bins. The upper limit is given for a confidence level of 99%.
[The average integral flux above 200GeV in the year 2004 ([fitting]{} with a [fixed]{} spectral index of 3.09) is $\overline{I(>200\,\mathrm{GeV})}$ = [(4.1$\pm$0.5)$\times$[10$^{-12}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$]{}]{} [(statistical error only)]{}. Light-curves of I($>$200GeV) versus the modified Julian date (MJD) of the observation]{} are shown in Figure \[lc\] for two different time-scales. The monthly flux variation is shown in the upper panel and the average monthly flux from June to December of 2004 is shown in the lower panel. A fit of a constant yields no evidence for nightly variability [(P($\chi^2$)=0.18)]{}. [The ASM [(All Sky Monitor)]{} shows no significant [X-ray]{} excess nor variability in the same monthly intervals.]{}
Multi-Wavelength Analysis and Results
=====================================
RXTE analysis {#rxtesection}
-------------
The RXTE/PCA [[@jahoda:1996a]]{} observed H2356$-$309 twice for a total of 5.4 ks on 11 November 2004 after a [Target of opportunity]{} was triggered on this target. [Due to poor weather conditions, [H.E.S.S.]{}-observations were not possible on the night of November 11, or on the 2 prior nights. However, the RXTE observations can be considered simultaneous to the [H.E.S.S.]{} observation campaign of November.]{} The STANDARD2 data were extracted using the ftools in the HEASOFT 6.0 analysis software package provided by NASA/GSFC and filtered using the RXTE Guest Observer Facility recommended criteria. Only the signals from the top layer (X1L and X1R) are used from the PCA. The average spectrum shown in the SED (Figure \[sed\]) is derived by using PCU0, PCU2 and PCU3 data. The faint-background model is used and only the 3–20 PHA channel range is kept in [XSPEC v. 11.3.2]{}, or approximately 2–$10\,\rm keV$. The column density is fixed to the Galactic value of $N_{\rm H} =
1.33\times 10^{20}\,\rm cm^{-2}$ obtained from the PIMMS nH program[^1] and is used in an absorbed power law fit. This yields an X-ray photon index $\Gamma_X
= 2.43 \pm 0.11$ and a flux of $9.7 ^{+0.3}_{-1.3}\times10^{-12}\,\rm
erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}$ in the 2–$10\,\rm keV$ band. The $\chi^2$ of the fit is 11 for 14 degrees of freedom, or a $\chi^2$ probability $P(\,\chi^2) = 0.68$. This flux level is approximately a factor of 3 lower than what was reported from BeppoSAX observations by [@costamante:2001a] and with a softer photon index than what was observed above 2 keV.
NRT analysis {#nrtsection}
------------
The Nançay radio-telescope is a single-dish antenna with a collecting area of $200\times34.56$ m$^2$ equivalent to that of a $94\,{\rm m}$-diameter parabolic dish [@vandriel:1996a]. The half-power beam width at $11\,\rm cm$ is $1.9\,{\rm arcmin}$ (EW) $\times 11.5\,{\rm arcmin}$ (NS) (at zero declination), and the system temperature is about $45\,\rm K$ in both horizontal and vertical polarisations. The point source efficiency is $0.8\,{\rm K}\,{\rm Jy}^{-1}$, and the chosen filter bandwidth was 12.5 MHz for each polarisation, split into two sub-bands of 6.25 MHz each. Data [were processed using]{} the Nançay local software NAPS and SIR.
A monitoring program with this telescope on extragalactic sources visible by both the NRT and [H.E.S.S.]{} is in place since 2001. For the campaign described here it consisted of a measurement at $11\,\rm cm$ every two or three days. Between 4 and 14 individual 1-minute drift scans were performed for each observation, and the flux [calibration was done]{} using a calibrated noise diode emission for each drift scan. The average flux for the measurements carried out between 11 June and 10 October 2004 was $40\pm8\,\rm mJy$. [This observed flux is [most likely]{} dominated by emission produced in jet regions further out from the core and thus represents an upper limit of [any]{} emission model for the total SED.]{}
ROTSE-III Analysis {#rotsesection}
------------------
The ROTSE-III [(Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment)]{} array is a world-wide network of four 0.45m robotic, automated telescopes built for fast ($\approx$ 6s) response to GRB triggers from satellites such as HETE-2 (High Energy Transient Explorer 2) and Swift. The ROTSE-III telescopes have a wide ($1.85^\circ\times1.85^\circ$) field of view imaged onto a Marconi 2048$\times$2048 pixel back-illuminated thinned CCD and are operated without filters. The ROTSE-III systems are described in detail in @akerlof:2003a. The ROTSE-IIIc telescope, located at the [H.E.S.S.]{} site, has been used to perform an automated monitoring programme of blazars, including H2356$-$309. Data is analysed as described in @aharonian:2005g and references therein. During the observation periods covered by [H.E.S.S.]{} the apparent R-band magnitude m(R) from H2356$-$309 as measured by ROTSE-III has its maximum at m(R)=16.1 and its minimum at m(R)=16.9. [The host galaxy has been resolved in the optical [@falomo:1991a; @scarpa:2000a] and near-infrared [@cheung:2003a]. These observations show that H2356$-$309 is a normal elliptical galaxy with an effective radius of about 1.8arcsec in the R band. The contribution of the galaxy to the observed ROTSE-III flux is estimated to be m(R)=17 using a standard de Vaucouleurs radial profile.]{}
Discussion
==========
In Figure \[sed\], a broad-band SED obtained from archival data, and simultaneous optical (ROTSE-III) and X-ray (RXTE) data together with the [H.E.S.S.]{} results presented in this paper is shown. [Additionally, the result of a simple leptonic model is given as a solid line.]{} The simplest leptonic scenario is a one-zone homogeneous, time independent, synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) model as initially proposed by @jones:1974a for compact non-thermal extragalactic sources.
[Here, we adopt a description with a spherical emitting region of]{} radius $R$ and homogeneous magnetic field $B$, propagating with Doppler factor $\delta$ with respect to the observer. [The high energy electron distribution is described by a broken power law between Lorentz factors $\gamma_{\rm min}$ and $\gamma_{\rm max}$, with a break at $\gamma_{\rm b}$ and a normalisation $K$ [@katarzynski:2001a].]{} [[This]{} SSC scenario is used, taking into account absorption by the EBL, to reproduce the simultaneous data of H2356$-$309.]{} The density of the EBL is not well known in the $\mu$m wavelength regime. Given the high redshift of H2356$-$309 ($z = 0.165$) and a comparatively hard VHE spectrum, important constraints on the EBL density can be derived from the [H.E.S.S.]{} data. This question is addressed in detail in @aharonian:2005a where constraints on the density of the EBL are derived from [H.E.S.S.]{} observations of 1ES1101$-$232 and H2356$-$309. Here, we use the P0.45 parametrisation from this paper which is very close to the lower limit from galaxy counts.
As shown in Figure \[sed\], [using a model with]{} a reasonable set of parameters provides a satisfactory fit [to the simultaneous x-ray and VHE data]{}. The emitting region is characterised by $\delta=18$, $B=0.16$G and $R=3.4\,\times\,10^{15}$cm. The electron [power-law]{} distribution is described by $K=1.2\,\times\,10^{4}$cm$^{-3}$, $\gamma_{\rm min}=10^{3}$, $\gamma_{\rm max}=3\,\times\,10^{6}$. The Lorentz factor at break energy $\gamma_{\rm b}$ is located at $\gamma_{\rm b} = 2.5\,\times\,10^5$ to place the peak emission in between optical and X-rays [while providing a good fit to the [H.E.S.S.]{} data]{}. We take the canonical index $\alpha_{1}$=2 for the low-energy end and found $\alpha_{2}$=4.0 for the high-energy end so as to fit the [observed]{} X-ray power law spectrum. Lowering $\gamma_{\rm min}$ extends the fit to lower frequencies and enhances IC emission in the MeV-GeV domain. Synchrotron self-absorption cuts off emission below IR frequencies when using low values of $\gamma_{\rm min}$. Radio emission arises from regions further out in the jet. [Similar to the case of PKS2155-304 [@aharonian:2005g] we cannot exclude a possible contribution of such an extended region to the optical flux measured by ROTSE[-III]{}. This may soften some of the above-mentioned constraints]{}.
[Although our VHE observations provide strong constraints on the physical parameters of single-zone SSC models, there is still some freedom of choice for the parameters that could be constrained [further]{} by a better understanding of the origin of the optical emission, a better spectral coverage in the X-ray and sub-TeV region [and the observation of possible variability.]{}.]{}
Conclusions
===========
The high frequency peaked BL Lac object H2356$-$309, located at a redshift of $z = 0.165$, was discovered in the VHE regime by the [H.E.S.S.]{} Cherenkov telescopes. Two different reconstruction and analysis methods were applied to the data both yielding consistent results. No strong evidence for variability in the VHE band is found within the [H.E.S.S.]{} observations. The same holds true in the X-ray band, where the object [does]{} not show any strong flux variability, neither in the ASM nor in the pointed observations. Additionally, the RXTE flux, observed simultaneously to the [H.E.S.S.]{} observations, is lower than the previously-measured BeppoSAX flux. This might indicate that our observations took place during a relatively low state of emission.
For the first time, an SED comprising simultaneous radio, optical, X-ray and VHE measurements was made. [A simple one-zone SSC model, taking into account absorption by the EBL [@aharonian:2005a], [provides]{} a satisfactory description of these data]{}.
Given the high redshift of the object, the observed [H.E.S.S.]{} spectrum provides strong constraints on the density of the EBL [@aharonian:2005a]. Future observations of H2356$-$309 with [H.E.S.S.]{} will improve the accuracy of the spectral measurement and might also allow an extension of the observed spectrum to higher energies. This will provide further constraints on the absorption of $\gamma$-rays by the EBL.
The support of the Namibian authorities and of the University of Namibia in facilitating the construction and operation of [H.E.S.S.]{} is gratefully acknowledged, as is the support by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), the Max Planck Society, the French Ministry for Research, the CNRS-IN2P3 and the Astroparticle Interdisciplinary Programme of the CNRS, the U.K. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), the IPNP of the Charles University, the South African Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation, and by the University of Namibia. We appreciate the excellent work of the technical support staff in Berlin, Durham, Hamburg, Heidelberg, Palaiseau, Paris, Saclay, and in Namibia in the construction and operation of the equipment.
The authors acknowledge the support of the ROTSE-III collaboration. Special thanks also to R. Quimby from the University of Texas for providing tools for data-reduction.
[36]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, F. A. 2000, New Astronomy, 5, 377
Aharonian, F. A. [et al.]{} (HEGRA Collaboration) 2002, å, 393, 89
Aharonian, F. A. [et al.]{} (HEGRA Collaboration) 2003, å, 403, L1
Aharonian, F. A. [et al.]{} [([H.E.S.S.]{} Collaboration) ]{}2004, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 109
Aharonian, F. A. [et al.]{} [([H.E.S.S.]{} Collaboration) ]{}2005, , 430, 865
Aharonian, F. A. [et al.]{} [([H.E.S.S.]{} Collaboration) ]{}2005, , 442, 177
, F. A. [et al.]{} [([H.E.S.S.]{} Collaboration) ]{}2005, , 442, 895
Aharonian, F. A. [et al.]{} [([H.E.S.S.]{} Collaboration) ]{}2005, [in preparation]{}
Aharonian, F. A. [et al.]{} [([H.E.S.S.]{} Collaboration) ]{}2005, [submitted to Nature, astro-ph/0508073]{}
[ Aharonian, F. A. [et al.]{} [([H.E.S.S.]{} Collaboration) ]{}2006, , in press, astro-ph/0511678]{}
, C. W., [Kehoe]{}, R. L., [McKay]{}, T. A., [et al.]{} 2003, , 115, 132
Cheung, C. C., Urry, C. M., Scarpa, R. Giavalisco, M. 2003, [ApJ]{}, 599, 155
, L. & [Ghisellini]{}, G. 2002, å, 384, 56
Costamante, L., Ghisellini, G., Giommi, P., [et al.]{} 2001, å, 371, 512
, R. 1991, , 101, 821
, W., [Jones]{}, C., [Cominsky]{}, L., [et al.]{} 1978, [ApJ]{}Supplement, 38, 357
, G., [Maraschi]{}, L., [Celotti]{}, A., [et al.]{} 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 299, 433
, G., [Celotti]{}, A., & [Costamante]{}, L. 2002, , 386, 833
, J. A. 2004, New Astronomy Review, 48, 331
Jahoda, K., & PCA Team 1996, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 28, 1285
, T. W., [O’dell]{}, S. L., & [Stein]{}, W. A. 1974, [ApJ]{}, 188, 353
, K., [Sol]{}, H., & [Kus]{}, A. 2001, , 367, 809
, H., [Sambruna]{}, R., Kohnle, A., [et al.]{} 2001, [ApJ]{}, 559, 187
Lemoine-Goumard, M. & Degrange, B. 2004, AIP Conference Proceedings 745, 697
Lemoine-Goumard, M., Degrange, B., & Tluczykont, M. 2006, [Astropart. Phys., 25, 195]{}
Li, T. P. & Ma, Y. Q. 1983, [ApJ]{}, 272, 317
Mannheim, K. 1993, å, 269, 67
Mücke, A. & Protheroe, R. J. 2001, Astroparticle Physics, 15, 121
2000, PhD thesis, [Université de Paris XI]{}
Pohl, M. & Schlickeiser, R. 2000, å, 354, 395
Primack, J. R, Bullock, J. S, Summerville, R. S, & MacMinn, D. 1999, Astroparticle Physics, 11, 93
, M., [Akerlof]{}, C. W., [Cawley]{}, M. F., [et al.]{} 1992, Nature, 358, 477
Rees, M. J. 1984, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 471
Scarpa, R., Urry, C. M., Padovani, P., Calzetti, D., & O’Dowd, M. 2000, [ApJ]{}, 544, 258
Schwartz, D., Brissenden, R. J. V., Thuoy, I. R., [et al.]{} 1989, “in Lecture Notes in Physics, edited by L. Maraschi, Maccacaro, T. and Ulrich, M.-H. (Springer Berlin), Vol. 334, p. 211”
, M. & [Madejski]{}, G. M. 2001, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 558, 275
, F. W., [de Jager]{}, O. C., & [Salamon]{}, M. H. 1992, , 390, L49
Urry, C. M. & Padovani, P. 1995, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 107, 803
, W., [Pezzani]{}, J., & [Gerard]{}, E. 1996, in High-Sensitivity Radio Astronomy, 229
, K. S., [Meekins]{}, J. F., [Yentis]{}, D. J., [et al.]{} 1984, , 56, 507
[^1]: See http://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/Tools/w3pimms.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We associate to a unimodular lattice $\Gamma $, endowed with an automorphism of square $-1$, a principally polarized abelian variety $A_\Gamma =\Gamma _{\mathbb{R}}/\Gamma $. We show that the configuration of $i$-invariant theta divisors of $A_\Gamma $ follows a pattern very similar to the classical theory of theta characteristics; as a consequence we find that $A_\Gamma $ has a high number of vanishing thetanulls. When $\Gamma =E_8$ we recover the 10 vanishing thetanulls of the abelian fourfold discovered by R. Varley.'
address: |
Laboratoire J.-A. Dieudonné\
UMR 7351 du CNRS\
Université de Nice\
Parc Valrose\
F-06108 Nice cedex 2, France
author:
- Arnaud Beauville
title: Abelian varieties associated to Gaussian lattices
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
A *Gaussian lattice* is a free, finitely generated ${\mathbb{Z}}[i]$-module $\Gamma $ with a positive hermitian form $\Gamma \times \Gamma \rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}[i]$. Equivalently, we can view $\Gamma $ as a lattice over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ endowed with an automorphism $i$ of square $-1_{\Gamma }$. This gives a complex structure on the vector space $\Gamma _{\mathbb{R}}:=\Gamma \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} {\mathbb{R}}$; we associate to $\Gamma $ the complex torus $A_\Gamma :=\Gamma_{{\mathbb{R}}}/\Gamma $.
As a complex torus $A_\Gamma $ is isomorphic to $E^g$, where $E$ is the complex elliptic curve ${\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}[i]$ and $g=\frac{1}{2} {\operatorname{rk}}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}\Gamma $. More interestingly, the hermitian form provides a *polarization* on $A_\Gamma $ (see (\[abvar\]) below); in particular, if $\Gamma $ is unimodular, $A$ is a principally polarized abelian variety (p.p.a.v. for short), which is indecomposable if $\Gamma $ is indecomposable.
The first non-trivial case is $g=4$, with $\Gamma $ the root lattice of type $E_8$ (Example \[examples\].1). The resulting p.p.a.v. is the abelian fourfold discovered by Varley [@V] with a different (and more geometric) description; it has 10 “vanishing thetanulls” (even theta functions vanishing at 0), the maximum possible for a 4-dimensional indecomposable p.p.a.v. In fact this property characterizes the Varley fourfold outside the hyperelliptic Jacobian locus [@D].
Our aim is to explain this property from the lattice point of view, and to extend it to all unimodular lattices. It turns out that we can mimic the classical theory of theta characteristics, replacing the automorphism $(-1)$ by $i$. We will show:
$\bullet$ The group $A_i$ of $i$-invariant points of $A_\Gamma $ is a ${\mathbb{F}}_2$-vector space of dimension $g$; it admits a natural non-degenerate bilinear symmetric form $b$.
$\bullet$ The set of $i$-invariant theta divisors of $A_\Gamma $ is an affine space over $A_i$, isomorphic to the space of quadratic forms on $A_i$ associated to $b$ (see (\[f2\])).
$\bullet$ Let $\Theta$ be an $i$-invariant theta divisor, and $Q$ the corresponding quadratic form. The multiplicity $m_0(\Theta )$ of $\Theta $ at $0$ satisfies $$2m_0 (\Theta ) \equiv \sigma (Q)+g\quad \mathrm{(mod.\ 8)}\, ,$$ where $\sigma $ is the *Brown invariant* of the form $Q$ (\[f2\]).
As a consequence, we obtain a high number of $i$-invariant divisors $\Theta $ with $m_0(\Theta )\equiv 2$ $(\mathrm{mod.}\ 4)$; each of them corresponds to a vanishing thetanull. When $\Gamma $ is even, this number is $2^{\frac{g}{2} -1}(2^{\frac{g}{2} }-(-1)^{\frac{g}{4} })$; for $g=4$ we recover the 10 vanishing thetanulls of the Varley fourfold.
Gaussian lattices
=================
Lattices
--------
As recalled in the Introduction, a Gaussian lattice is a free finitely generated $\Gamma $ endowed with a positive hermitian form[^1] $H:\Gamma \times \Gamma \rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}[i]$. We write $H(x,y)=\allowbreak S(x,y)+iE(x,y)$; $S$ and $E$ are ${\mathbb{Z}}$-bilinear forms on $\Gamma $, $S$ is symmetric, $E$ is skew-symmetric, and we have $$S(ix,iy)= S(x,y) \quad,\quad E(ix,iy)= E(x,y) \quad,\quad E(x,y)=S(ix,y)\ .$$
We will rather view a Gaussian lattice as an ordinary lattice (over ${\mathbb{Z}}$) with an automorphism $i$ such that $i^2=-1_\Gamma $: the last formula above defines $E$, and we have $H=S+iE$.
We have $\det S =\det E =(\det H)^2$; the lattice is *unimodular* when these numbers are equal to 1. It is [*even*]{} if $S(x,x)$ is even for all $x\in \Gamma $. We say that $\Gamma $ is *indecomposable over* ${\mathbb{Z}}[i]$ if it cannot be written as the orthogonal sum of two nonzero Gaussian lattices; this is of course the case if $\Gamma $ is indecomposable over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, but the converse is false (Example 3 below).
Examples
--------
1\) For $ g$ even, the lattice $\Gamma _{2g}$ is $$\Gamma _{2g}:= \{(x_j)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2g}\ |\ x_j\in \frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{Z}}\ ,\ x_j - x_k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\ ,\ \sum x_j\in 2{\mathbb{Z}}\}\ .$$ The inner product is inherited from the euclidean structure of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2g}$, and the automorphism $i$ is given in the standard basis $(e_j)$ by $$ie_{2j-1}=e_{2j}\qquad ie_{2j}=-e_{2j-1}\quad\hbox{for }\ 1\leq j\leq g\ .$$ The lattice $\Gamma _{2g}$ is unimodular, indecomposable when $g>2$, and even if $g$ is divisible by 4. The first case $g=4$ gives the root lattice $E_8$.
The automorphism $i$ is *unique* up to conjugacy: for $g=4$ this is classical [@C], and for $g\geq 6$ this follows easily from the fact that ${\operatorname{Aut}}(\Gamma _{2g})$ is the semi-direct product $({\mathbb{Z}}/2)^{2g-1}\rtimes \mathfrak{S}_{2g}$, acting by permutation and even changes of sign of the basis vectors $(e_j)$.
2\) The Leech lattice $\Lambda_{24} $ admits an automorphism of square $-1$ [@C-S], also unique up to conjugacy.
3\) Let $\Gamma _0$ be a lattice, and $\Gamma := \Gamma _0\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathbb{Z}}[i]$. The inner product of $\Gamma _0$ extends to an hermitian inner product on $\Gamma $, which is then a gaussian lattice. If $\Gamma _0$ is unimodular, resp. even, resp. indecomposable, $\Gamma $ is unimodular, resp. even, resp. indecomposable over ${\mathbb{Z}}[i]$.
The abelian variety {#abvar}
--------------------
Let $\Gamma $ be a Gaussian lattice, of rank $2g$ over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. We put $\Gamma _{{\mathbb{R}}}:=\Gamma \otimes _{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathbb{R}}$ and $A_\Gamma :=\Gamma_{\mathbb{R}}/\Gamma $. The automorphism $i$ defines a complex structure on $\Gamma _{{\mathbb{R}}}$, so that $A_\Gamma $ is a complex torus. Since $\Gamma $ is a free ${\mathbb{Z}}[i]$-module, $A_\Gamma $ is isomorphic to $E^g$, where $E$ is the complex elliptic curve ${\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}[i]$.
The positive hermitian form $H$ extends to $\Gamma _{\mathbb{R}}$, and its imaginary part $E$ takes integral values on $\Gamma $: this is by definition a *polarization* on $A_\Gamma $. The polarization is principal if and only if $\Gamma $ is unimodular; the p.p.a.v. $A_\Gamma $ is indecomposable (i.e. is not a product of two nontrivial p.p.a.v.) if and only if $\Gamma $ is indecomposable over ${\mathbb{Z}}[i]$.
The multiplication by $i$ on $\Gamma _{\mathbb{R}}$ induces an automorphism of $A_\Gamma $, that we simply denote $i$. Conversely, let $A=V/\Gamma $ be a complex torus, of dimension $g$, with an automorphism inducing on $T_0(A)=V$ the multiplication by $i$. Then $\Gamma $ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}[i]$-module, thus isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}[i]^g$, so that $A$ is isomorphic to $E^g$; polarizations of $A$ correspond bijectively to positive hermitian forms on $\Gamma $.
Linear algebra over ${\mathbb{F}}_2[i]$
=======================================
Linear algebra over ${\mathbb{F}}_2$ {#f2}
------------------------------------
We consider a vector space $V$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_2$, of dimension $g$, with a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $b$ on $V$. Two different situations may occur:
$\bullet$ $b(x,x)=0$ for all $x\in V$; in that case $b$ is a symplectic form.
$\bullet$ $b(x,x)$ is not identically zero; it is then easy (using induction on $g$) to prove that $V$ admits an orthonormal basis with respect to $b$.
A *quadratic form associated to $b$* is a function $q:V\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}/4$ such that $$q(x+y)=q(x)+q(y)+2 b(x,y)\qquad \mathrm{for}\ x,y\in V\ ,$$ where multiplication by 2 stands for the isomorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}/2{\vbox{\hbox to .8cm{\hfill{$\scriptstyle\sim$}\hfill}
\nointerlineskip\hbox to .8cm{{\hfill$\longrightarrow $\hfill}} }}2{\mathbb{Z}}/4{\mathbb{Z}}\subset {\mathbb{Z}}/4{\mathbb{Z}}$.
Observe that this implies $\ q(0)=0\ $ and $\ q(x)\equiv b(x,x)\ (\mathrm{mod.}\ 2)$. We denote by $\mathcal{Q}_b$ the set of quadratic forms associated to $b$; it is an affine space over $V$, the action of $V$ on $\mathcal{Q}_b$ being given by $(\alpha +q)(x)=q(x)+2b(\alpha ,x)$ for $q\in \mathcal{Q}_b$, $\alpha ,x\in V$.
When $b$ is symplectic, $q$ takes it values in $2{\mathbb{Z}}/4{\mathbb{Z}}\cong {\mathbb{Z}}/2$; the corresponding form $q':V\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}/2$ is a quadratic form associated to $b$ in the usual sense, that is satisfies $\ q'(x+y)=q'(x)+q'(y)+\allowbreak b(x,y)\ $ for $x,y\in V$.
The *Brown invariant* $\sigma(q)\in {\mathbb{Z}}/8$ of a form $q\in\mathcal{Q}_b$ has been introduced in [@B] as a generalization of the Arf invariant; it can be defined as follows. If $b$ is symplectic, we put $\sigma (q):=4\,\mathrm{Arf}(q')$, where $q':V\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}/2$ is the form defined above. Otherwise $b$ admits an orthonormal basis $(e_1,\ldots ,e_g)$; we have $q(e_i)=\pm 1$, and we let $g^+$ (resp. $g^-$) be the number of basis vectors $e_i$ such that $q(e_i)= 1$ (resp. $-1$). Then $\sigma (q)=g^+-g^-\ (\mathrm{mod.}\ 8)$.
Linear algebra over {#f2i}
--------------------
Let $\Gamma $ be a unimodular Gaussian lattice of rank $2g$ over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. We put $A_2:=\Gamma /2\Gamma $; this is naturally identified with the 2-torsion subgroup of $A_\Gamma $. We have the following structures on $A_2$:
$a)$ $A_2$ is a free ${\mathbb{F}}_2[i]$-module of rank $g$. We put $\varepsilon :=1+i$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_2[i]$; then ${\mathbb{F}}_2[i]={\mathbb{F}}_2[\varepsilon ]$, with $\varepsilon ^2=0$. The subgroup $A_i$ of $i$-invariant elements is ${\operatorname{Ker}}\varepsilon =\varepsilon A_2 $; it is a ${\mathbb{F}}_2$-vector space of dimension $g$.
$b)$ The form $E$ induces on $A_2$ a symplectic form $e$ (the Weil pairing for $A_\Gamma $). Since $E(x,iy)=\allowbreak -E(ix,y)$, we have, for $\alpha ,\beta \in A_2$, $$e(\alpha ,\varepsilon \beta )=e(\varepsilon \alpha ,\beta )\quad\hbox{hence}\quad e(\varepsilon \alpha ,\varepsilon \beta )=0\ ;$$ thus $A_i$ is a Lagrangian subspace of $A_2$.
$c)$ The form $x\mapsto S(x,x) $ induces a quadratic form $Q:A_2\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}/4$ associated with the bilinear symmetric form $(\alpha ,\beta )\mapsto e(\alpha ,i\beta )$ (\[f2\]). In particular we have $Q(\alpha )\equiv e(\alpha ,i\alpha )\ (\mathrm{mod.}\ 2)$.
Since $S((1+i)x,(1+i)x)=2S(x,x)$, we have $Q(\varepsilon \alpha )=2Q(\alpha )=2e(\alpha ,i\alpha )$.
Let $q:A_2\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}/4$ be an $i$-invariant quadratic form associated to $e$. The formulas $$b(\varepsilon \alpha, \varepsilon \beta )=e(\alpha , \varepsilon \beta )\quad,\quad Q_q(\varepsilon \alpha )=q(\alpha )-Q(\alpha )\qquad \hbox{for }\ \alpha,\beta \in A_2 \, ,$$ define on $A_i=\varepsilon A_2$ a non-degenerate symmetric form $b$ and a quadratic form $\ Q_q:A_i\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}/4\ $ associated with $ b $.
[*Proof* : ]{}Since $A_i={\operatorname{Ker}}\varepsilon $ is isotropic for $e$, the expression $e(\alpha , \varepsilon \beta )$ is a bilinear function $b$ of $\varepsilon \alpha $ and $\varepsilon \beta $; it is symmetric by $b)$. If $e(\alpha , \varepsilon \beta )=0$ for all $\beta $ in $A_2$ we have $\alpha \in A_i$ because $A_i$ is Lagrangian, hence $\varepsilon \alpha =0$, so $b$ is non-degenerate.
Put $\tilde Q_q(\alpha )=q(\alpha )-Q(\alpha )\in {\mathbb{Z}}/4$ for $\alpha \in A_2$. We have $$\tilde Q_q(\alpha +\beta )= \tilde Q_q(\alpha ) + \tilde Q_q(\beta ) +2e( \alpha ,\varepsilon \beta )\ .$$ Take $\beta =\varepsilon \gamma $. Since $q$ is $i$-invariant we have $q(\varepsilon \gamma )=2e(\gamma ,i\gamma )=Q(\varepsilon \gamma )$ by $c)$, hence $\tilde Q_q(\varepsilon \gamma )=0$ and $\tilde Q_q(\alpha +\varepsilon \gamma )=\tilde Q_q(\alpha )$. Thus $\tilde Q_q$ defines a quadratic form $Q_q$ on $A_i$ associated to $b$.
Let $\mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$ be the set of $i$-invariants quadratic forms on $A_2$ associated to $e$. If $q\in\mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$ and $\alpha \in A_2$, we have $\alpha +q\in \mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$ if and only if $\alpha $ belongs to $A_i^\perp=A_i$; in other words, $\mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$ is an affine subspace of ${\mathcal{Q}}_e$, with direction $A_i$.
The map $q\mapsto Q_q$ is an affine isomorphism of $\mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$ onto $\mathcal{Q}_b$.
\[q\] [*Proof* : ]{}We just have to prove the equality $Q_{\alpha +q}=\alpha +Q_q$ for $q\in \mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$, $\alpha \in A_i$. Let $\beta \in A_i$; we write $\beta =\varepsilon \beta'$ for some $\beta '\in A_2$. Then $$Q_{\alpha +q}( \beta ) = 2e(\alpha ,\beta ') + q(\beta ')-Q(\beta ')=2b(\alpha ,\beta )+Q_q(\beta )\ .\qed$$
\[syz\] Let $\alpha \in A_2$; we have $b(\varepsilon \alpha ,\varepsilon \alpha )= e(\alpha ,\varepsilon \alpha )=e(\alpha ,i\alpha )\equiv Q(\alpha )\ (\mathrm{mod.}\ 2)$, hence *the form $b$ is symplectic if and only if $\Gamma $ is even*. In this case we have $e(\alpha ,i\alpha )=0$ for all $\alpha \in A_2$; it follows that $\mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$ is the set of forms vanishing on $A_i$. Since $A_i$ is Lagrangian for $e$, this implies that these forms, viewed as quadratic forms $A_2\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}/2$, are all even (that is, their Arf invariant is $0$).
$i$-invariant theta divisors
============================
Reminder on theta characteristics {#theta}
---------------------------------
We first recall the classical theory of theta characteristics on an arbitrary p.p.a.v. $A =V/\Gamma $. Let $A_2\cong \Gamma /2\Gamma $ be the 2-torsion subgroup of $A$, $\mathcal{T}$ the set of symmetric theta divisors on $A$, and $\mathcal{Q}_e$ the set of quadratic forms on $A_2$ associated to the Weyl pairing $e$. The ${\mathbb{F}}_2$-vector space $A_2$ acts on $\mathcal{T}$ by translation, and on $\mathcal{Q}_e$ by the action defined in (\[f2\]); both sets are affine spaces over $A_2$, and there is a canonical affine isomorphism $q\mapsto \Theta _q$ of $\mathcal{Q}_e$ onto $\mathcal{T}$. It can be defined as follows ([@M], §2). Let $\gamma \in \Gamma $, and let $\bar\gamma $ be its class in $A_2$. For $z\in V$, we put $$e_\gamma (z)=i^{q(\bar\gamma )}e^{ \pi H(\gamma ,z+\frac{\gamma }{2})}\ .$$ We define an action of $\Gamma $ on the trivial bundle $V\times {\mathbb{C}}$ by $\gamma .(z,t)=(z+\gamma ,e_\gamma (z)t)$; then the quotient of $V\times {\mathbb{C}}$ by this action is the line bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_A(\Theta _q)$ on $A$.
The main results
----------------
We go back to the abelian variety $A_\Gamma $ associated to a Gaussian lattice $\Gamma $. We assume that $\Gamma $ is unimodular. We use the notation of (\[f2i\]). The isomorphism $\mathcal{Q}_e{\vbox{\hbox to .8cm{\hfill{$\scriptstyle\sim$}\hfill}
\nointerlineskip\hbox to .8cm{{\hfill$\longrightarrow $\hfill}} }}\mathcal{T}$ is compatible with the action of $i$, so $i$-invariant theta divisors correspond to forms $q\in\mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$.
Let $q\in \mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$, and let $L$ be the line bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_{A_\Gamma }(\Theta _q)$. We have $i^*L\cong L$; we denote by $\iota :i^*L\rightarrow L$ the unique isomorphism inducing the identity of $L_0$. For each $\alpha \in A_i$, $\iota$ induces an isomorphism $\iota(\alpha ):L_\alpha \rightarrow L_\alpha $.
\[i(a)\] $\iota (\alpha )$ is the homothety of ratio $i^{Q_q(\alpha )}$.
[*Proof* : ]{}The isomorphism $\iota^{-1}:L{\vbox{\hbox to .8cm{\hfill{$\scriptstyle\sim$}\hfill}
\nointerlineskip\hbox to .8cm{{\hfill$\longrightarrow $\hfill}} }}i^*L$ corresponds to a linear automorphism $j$ of $L$ above $i$: $$\xymatrix{L \ar[r]^{ j }\ar[d] &L \ar[d] \\
A_\Gamma \ar[r]^{i} &\ A_\Gamma \ . }$$ Consider the automorphism $\tilde j:(z,t)\mapsto (iz,t)$ of $\Gamma _{\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{C}}$. Since $ e_{i\gamma}(iz) =e_{\gamma}(z) $, we have $\tilde j (\gamma .(z,t))=(i\gamma).\tilde j(z,t) $. Thus $ \tilde j$ factors through an isomorphism $ L\rightarrow L $ above $i$ which is the identity on $ L_{0} $, hence equal to $ j $; that is, we have a commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{\Gamma _{\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{C}}\ar[r]^{\tilde j}\ar[d]_\pi &\Gamma _{\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{C}}\ar[d]^\pi \\
L \ar[r]^j & L
}$$ where $ \pi $ is the quotient map.
Let $ \alpha\in A_i $, and let $\gamma $ be an element of $ \Gamma $ whose class $(\mathrm{mod.}\ 2\Gamma) $ is $ \alpha $. Then $ \delta:=\frac{i\gamma}{2} -\frac{\gamma}{2} $ belongs to $ \Gamma $. We have $$j(\pi (\frac{\gamma}{2},t))= \pi(\frac{i\gamma}{2},t) =\pi(\frac{\gamma}{2},e_\delta(\frac{\gamma}{2})_{}^{-1} t) \ ,$$ hence $ \iota(\alpha) =j(\alpha )^{-1} $ is the homothety of ratio $e_\delta(\frac{\gamma}{2}) $. Let $ \beta $ be the class of $ \delta $ in $ A_2 $. Since $ \gamma=-(1+i)\delta $, we have $ \alpha=\varepsilon\beta $, hence $$e_\delta(\frac{\gamma}{2})= i^{q(\beta )}e^{ \frac{\pi }{2} H(\delta ,\gamma +\delta )}
= i^{q(\beta )-H(\delta,\delta)} = i^{Q_q(\alpha )}\ .\qed$$
From $\iota :i^*L\rightarrow L$ we deduce an isomorphism $\iota^\flat :L{\vbox{\hbox to .8cm{\hfill{$\scriptstyle\sim$}\hfill}
\nointerlineskip\hbox to .8cm{{\hfill$\longrightarrow $\hfill}} }}i_*L$, inducing on global sections an automorphism of $H^0(A_\Gamma ,L)$.
\[arf\] $\iota ^\flat$ acts on $H^0(A_\Gamma ,L)$ by multiplication by $e^{\frac{i\pi }{4}(\sigma (Q_q)+g)}$.
Note that $\sigma (Q_q)\equiv g\ (\mathrm{mod.}\ 2)$ ([@B], Thm. 1.20, (vi)), so this number is a power of $i$.
[*Proof* : ]{}Since $\dim H^0(A_\Gamma ,L)=1$ it suffices to compute ${\operatorname{Tr}}\iota ^\flat$. This is given by the holomorphic Lefschetz formula [@A-B] applied to $(i,\iota )$. Since $H^i(A_\Gamma ,L)=0$ for $i>0$, we find $${\operatorname{Tr}}\iota^\flat =\sum_{\alpha \in A_i}\frac{{\operatorname{Tr}}\iota (\alpha )}{ (1-i)^g} = (1-i)^{-g} \sum_{\alpha \in A_i} i^{Q_q(\alpha )}\, .$$
We have $ (1-i)^{-g}=2^{-\frac{g}{2}}e^{\frac{i\pi g}{4}} $ and $ \sum_{\alpha \in A_i} i^{Q_q(\alpha )}=2^{\frac{g}{2}}e^{\frac{i\pi }{4}\sigma(Q_q) } $ ([@B], Thm. 1.20, (xi)), hence the result.
Let $\alpha \in A_i$, and let $m_\alpha (\Theta_q)$ be the multiplicity of $\Theta_q $ at $\alpha $. We have $$2m_\alpha (\Theta _q) \equiv \sigma (Q_q)+g- 2Q_q(\alpha )\quad \mathrm{(mod.\ 8)}\, .$$
[*Proof* : ]{}Let $\theta $ be a nonzero section of $H^0(A_\Gamma ,L)$. Choose a local non-vanishing section $s$ of $L$ around $\alpha $. We can write $\theta =fs$ in a neighborhood of $\alpha $, with $f\in {\mathcal{O}}_{A_\Gamma ,\alpha }$. We have $\iota ^\flat(\theta )=i^k \theta $ with $2k \equiv \sigma (Q_q)+g\ \mathrm{(mod.}\ 8)$ (Proposition \[arf\]), hence $$(i^*f )\iota ^\flat(s) =i^k fs\ .$$ We look at this equality in $\mathfrak{m}_\alpha^m L/\mathfrak{m}_\alpha^{m+1}L$, where $\mathfrak{m}_\alpha $ is the maximal ideal of ${\mathcal{O}}_{A_\Gamma ,\alpha }$ and $m:=\allowbreak m_\alpha (\Theta )$. We have $i^*f=i^mf\ (\mathrm{mod.}\ \mathfrak{m}_\alpha ^{m+1})$, and $\iota ^\flat(s) =\iota (\alpha )s \ (\mathrm{mod.}\ \mathfrak{m}_\alpha L)$. We obtain $i^m \iota (\alpha )=i^k $, hence the result in view of Proposition \[i(a)\].
The number of $i$-invariant theta divisors $\Theta $ with $m_0(\Theta )\equiv 2\ \mathrm{(mod.}\ 4)$ is $$2^{\frac{g}{2} -1}(2^{\frac{g}{2} }-(-1)^{\frac{g}{4} })\quad \hbox{if $\Gamma $ is even, \ and}\quad 2^{g-2}-2^{\frac{g}{2}-1}\cos\frac{\pi g}{4} \quad \hbox{if $\Gamma $ is odd;}$$ each of these divisors corresponds to a vanishing thetanull.
[*Proof* : ]{}According to the Proposition, we have $m_0(\Theta_q )\equiv 2$ $\mathrm{(mod.}\ 4)$ if and only if $\sigma (Q_q)\equiv 4-g$ $\mathrm{(mod.}\ 8)$. When $q$ runs over $\mathcal{Q}_e^{(i)}$, $Q_q$ runs over $\mathcal{Q}_b$ (Lemma \[q\]), so we must find how many elements $Q$ of $\mathcal{Q}_b$ satisfy $\sigma (Q)\equiv 4-g$ $\mathrm{(mod.}\ 8)$.
If $\Gamma $ is even (so that $g$ is divisible by $4$), we identify $\mathcal{Q}_b$ with the set of quadratic forms $Q: A_2\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}/2$ associated with the symplectic form $b$; the previous congruence becomes $\mathrm{Arf}(Q)\equiv 1+\frac{g}{4}\ (\mathrm{mod.}\ 2) $. There are $2^{\frac{g}{2} -1}(2^{\frac{g}{2} }+1)$ such forms with Arf invariant $0$ and $2^{\frac{g}{2} -1}(2^{\frac{g}{2} }-1)$ with Arf invariant 1, hence the result.
Assume that $\Gamma $ is odd; we choose an orthonormal basis $(e_1,\ldots ,e_g)$ for $b$. The forms $Q\in \mathcal{Q}_b$ are determined by their values $Q(e_i)=\pm 1$; the condition is that the number $g^+$ of $+1$ values satisfies $$2g^+ -g\equiv 4-g \ (\mathrm{mod.}\ 8)\ ,\ \hbox{hence }\ g^+\equiv 2\ (\mathrm{mod.}\ 4)\ .$$ The number of forms with the required property is thus the number of subsets $E\subset \{1,\ldots ,g\}$ with $\mathrm{Card}(E)\equiv 2\ (\mathrm{mod.}\ 4)$, that is $${g\choose 2}+{g\choose 6}+\ldots = \frac{1}{4}\bigl[(1+1)^g+(1-1)^g-(1+i)^g-(1-i)^g\bigr] =2^{g-2}-2^{\frac{g}{2}-1}\cos\frac{\pi g}{4}\ . \qed$$
Thus we find a number of vanishing thetanulls asymptotically equivalent to $2^{g-1}$ when $\Gamma $ is even, and $2^{g-2}$ when $\Gamma $ is odd. These numbers are rather modest, at least by comparison with the number of vanishing thetanulls of a hyperelliptic Jacobian, which is asymptotically equivalent to $2^{2g-1}$. However, when $\Gamma $ is even, the vanishing thetanulls of $A_\Gamma $ have the particular property of being “syzygetic” in the classical terminology, which just means that the corresponding quadratic forms (\[theta\]) lie in an affine subspace of ${\mathcal{Q}}_e$ which consists of even forms (Remark \[syz\]). Such a subspace has dimension $\leq g$, and it might be that the number given by the Corollary in the even case is the maximum possible for a syzygetic subset of vanishing thetanulls.
Complements
===========
Automorphisms
-------------
The automorphism group of $A_\Gamma $ is the centralizer of $i$ in ${\operatorname{Aut}}(\Gamma )$. This group can be rather large: it has order 46080 for $\Gamma =E_8$ and 2012774400 for $\Gamma =\Lambda _{24}$ [@C-S]. For the lattice $\Gamma _{2g}$ (Example \[examples\].1) with $g>4$, it has order $2^{2g-1}g!$.
For the lattice $\Gamma =\Gamma _0\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathbb{Z}}[i]$ of Example \[examples\].3, ${\operatorname{Aut}}(A_\Gamma )$ is generated by $i$ and the group ${\operatorname{Aut}}(\Gamma _0)$. Note that there are examples of unimodular lattices (even or odd) $\Gamma_0 $ with ${\operatorname{Aut}}(\Gamma_0 ) = \allowbreak \{\pm 1\}$ [@Ba], so that ${\operatorname{Aut}}(A_\Gamma )$ is reduced to $\{\pm 1,\pm i\}$.
Jacobians
---------
We observe that for $g>1$ the p.p.a.v. $A_\Gamma $ can *not* be a Jacobian. Indeed, let $C$ be a curve of genus $g$; if $JC\cong A_\Gamma $, Torelli theorem provides an automorphism $u$ of $C$ inducing either $ i$ or $-i$ on $JC$, hence also on $T_0(JC)=H^0(C,K_C)^*$. Then $u$ acts trivially on the image of the canonical map $C\rightarrow {\mathbb{P}}(H^0(C,K_C)^*)$; this implies that $u$ is the identity or that $C$ is hyperelliptic and $u$ is the hyperelliptic involution. But in these cases $u$ acts on $H^0(C,K_C)$ by multiplication by $\pm 1$, a contradiction.
[A-B]{}
M. Atiyah, R. Bott : *A Lefschetz Fixed Point Formula for Elliptic Complexes: II. Applications*. Ann. of Math. (2) **88** (1968), 451–491.
R. Bacher : *Unimodular lattices without nontrivial automorphisms*. Int. Math. Res. Notes **2** (1994), 91–95.
E.H. Brown, Jr. : *Generalizations of the Kervaire invariant*. Ann. of Math. (2) **95** (1972), 368–383.
R. W. Carter : *Conjugacy classes in the Weyl group*. Compositio Math. **25** (1972), 1–59.
J.H. Conway, N. Sloane : *$D_4$, $E_8$, Leech and certain other lattices are symplectic*. Invent. Math. **117** (1994), no. 1, 53–55.
O. Debarre : *Annulation de thêtaconstantes sur les variétés abéliennes de dimension quatre*. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. **305** (1987), no. 20, 885–888.
D. Mumford: *Abelian varieties*. Oxford University Press, London, 1970.
R. Varley : *Weddle’s surfaces, Humbert’s curves, and a certain $4$-dimensional abelian variety*. Amer. J. Math. **108** (1986), no. 4, 931–952.
[^1]: Our convention is that $H(x,y)$ is ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear in $y$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is conjectured that the Haldane phase of the $S=1$ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg chain and the $S=1/2$ ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic alternating Heisenberg chain is stable against any strength of randomness, because of imposed breakdown of translational symmetry. This conjecture is confirmed by the density matrix renormalization group calculation of the string order parameter and the energy gap distribution.'
address: |
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science,\
Saitama University, Urawa, Saitama 338-8570, JAPAN
author:
- Kazuo Hida
date: Received 24 February 1999
title: |
Density Matrix Renormalization Group Study\
of the Haldane Phase in Random One-Dimensional Antiferromagnets
---
[H]{} v\#1
In the recent studies of quantum many body problem, the ground state properties of the random quantum spin systems have been attracting a renewed interest [@dg1; @bl1; @df1; @kh1; @hy1; @bsc1; @cfg1; @hy2; @kh3; @mon1; @yn1; @yn2; @tkt1; @ren1; @ha1]. Among them, the effect of randomness on the spin gap state of quantum spin chains has been extensively studied theoretically and experimentally [@hy1; @bsc1; @cfg1; @hy2; @kh3; @mon1; @yn1; @yn2; @tkt1; @ren1; @ha1].
The real space renormalization group (RSRG) method has been often used for the study of random quantum spin chains. Using this method, it has been exactly proved that the ground state of the $S=1/2$ random antiferromagnetic Heisenberg chain (RAHC) is the random singlet(RS) state[@dg1; @bl1; @df1] irrespective of the strength of randomness. Hyman et al.[@hy1] have applied this method to the $S=1/2$ dimerized RAHC and have shown that the dimerization is relevant to the RS phase. They concluded that the ground state of this model is the random dimer (RD) phase in which the string long range order survives even in the presence of randomness[@hy1; @hy2]. These results are numerically confirmed using the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method[@kh1; @kh3].
The effect of randomness on the Haldane phase is also studied by Boechat and coworkers[@bsc1; @cfg1] and Hyman and Yang[@hy2] using the RSRG method for the original model and the low energy effective model, respectively. These authors predicted the possibility of the RS phase for strong enough randomness. This problem has been further studied by Monthus and coworkers using the numerical analysis of the RSRG equation for the square distribution of exchange coupling[@mon1]. They predicted that the Haldane-RS phase transition takes place at a finite critical strength of randomness. In the finite neighbourhood of the critical point, the Haldane phase belongs to the Griffith phase with finite dynamical exponent $z > 1$. Hereafter this phase is called the random Haldane (RH) phase. On the other hand, Nishiyama[@yn1] has carried out the exact diagonalization study of the $S=1$ RAHC. He observed that the Haldane phase is quite robust against randomness and the string order remains finite unless the bond strength is distributed down to zero. He also carried out the quantum Monte Carlo simulation[@yn2] and found no random singlet phase even for strong randomness. On the contrary, the quantum Monte Carlo simulation by Todo [*et al.*]{}[@tkt1] suggested the presence of the RS phase for strong enough randomness.
In the absence of randomness, the present author has given a physical picture of the Haldane phase as the limiting case of the $S=1/2$ Heisenberg chain with bond alternation in which the exchange coupling takes two different values $J$ and $\JF$ alternatingly[@kreg1]. In the extreme case of $\JF \rightarrow
-\infty$, this system tends to the $S=1$ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg chain. The string order remains long ranged over the whole range $-\infty < \JF < J$ and only vanishes at $J=\JF$. The perfect string order is realized for $\JF=0$. As discussed by Hyman et al [@hy1], this is the direct consequence of the imposed breakdown of translational symmetry. Because the randomness cannot recover the translational symmetry, the string order is expected to remain finite over the whole range $-\infty < \JF < J$ for any strength of randomness. Therefore we may safely conjecture that the Haldane phase of the $S=1$ RAHC should also remain stable for any strength of randomness.
In the following, we confirm this conjecture using the DMRG method[@kh1; @wh1] which allows the calculation of the ground state and low energy properties of large systems with high accuracy. We use the algorithm introduced in ref. [@kh1]. This method has been successfully applied to the spin-1/2 RAHC and weakly dimerized spin-1/2 RAHC in which the system is gapless or has very small gap in the absence of randomness. Namely, in these systems the characteristic energy scale of the regular system is much smaller than the strength of randomness even for weak randomness. Compared to these examples, present model is less dangerous because the regular system has a finite gap and the characteristic energy scale of the regular system is comparable to the strength of randomness even in the worst case. We investigate not only the $S=1$ RAHC but also the $S=1/2$ random ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic alternating Heisenberg chain (RFAHC) which interpolates the $S=1/2$ dimerized RAHC and the $S=1$ RAHC.
The Hamiltionan of the $S=1/2$ RFAHC is given by, $$\label{eq:ham}
\H = \sum_{i=1}^{N} 2J_i\v{S}_{2i-1}\v{S}_{2i}+
2J_{\mbox{F}}\v{S}_{2i}\v{S}_{2i+1},\ \ \mid \v{S}_{i}\mid = 1/2,$$ where $J_{\mbox{F}}=\mbox{const.}$ and $J_i$’s are distributed randomly with probability distribution,
$$P(J_i)=
\left\{\matrix{1/W & \mbox{for}\ 1-W/2 < J_i <1+W/2 \cr
0 & \mbox{otherwise.}}
\right.$$
The width $W$ of the distribution represents the strength of randomness. The maximum randomness is defined by $W=2$, because the ferromagnetic bonds appear among $J_i$’s for $W > 2$. It should be noted that the appearance of the random ferromagnetic bonds can drive the system to the completely different fixed point called large spin phase[@wes1]. Although the crossover between the random Haldane phase and the large spin phase is an interesting issue, we leave this problem outside the scope of the present study.
The ground state of the regular counterpart of this model ($W=0$) is the Haldane phase with long range string order defined by $\ostr = \lim_{l, N \rightarrow \infty} \ostr(l;N)$[@kreg1]. Here $\ostr (l;N)$ is the string correlation function in the chain of length $N$ defined only for odd $l$ as, $$\label{eq:ost2}
\ostr (l;N) = -4<\exp \left\{\img\pi \sum_{k=2i+1}^{2i+l+1} S_{k}^z \right\} >.$$ where $<...>$ denotes the ground state average. In the presence of randomness, the string order is defined as the sample average of $\ostr$. In the limit $J_{\mbox{F}} \rightarrow -\infty$, the string order parameter (\[eq:ost2\]) reduces to the one for the $S=1$ chain[@dnr; @tasaki].
First, we calculate $\ostr$ for the $S=1/2$ RFAHC and $S=1$ RAHC using the DMRG method. The calculation is performed with open boundary condition. For the $S=1/2$ RFAHC, the bonds at the both ends of the chain are chosen to be antiferromagnetic to avoid the quasi-degeneracy of the ground state. The two boundary spins are not counted in the number of spins $2N$ to keep the consistency with the $S=1$ chain (see below). The average is taken over 200 samples with $N \leq 29$ (58 spins). The string order for the finite system $\ostr(N)$ is estimated from $\ostr(l; N )$ averaged over 6 values of $l$ around $l=N/2$. The maximum number $m$ of the states kept in each step is 100. Similar calculation is also performed for the $S=1$ RAHC. In this case, the additional spins with $S=1/2$ are added at the both ends of the chain to remove the quasi-degeneracy as proposed by White and Huse for the regular chain[@wh3]. The average is taken over 400 samples with $N \leq 42$ where $N$ is the number of $S=1$ spins. In this case, we take $m=80$ and $\ostr(N)$ is estimated from $\ostr(l; N )$ averaged over 12 values of $l$ around $l=N/2$. We have confirmed that these values of $m$ are large enough from the $m$-dependence of the obtained values of $\ostr(N)$.
Figure \[fig1\] shows the size dependence of the string order. Typical sizes of the error bars estimated from the statistical flucuation among samples are less than the size of the symbols unless they are explicitly shown in the figures. The extrapolation is made under the assumption $$\ostr(N) \simeq \ostr +CN^{-2\eta} \exp(-N/\xi).
\label{extra}$$ where $C$ and $\xi$ are the constants to be determined by fitting. The exponent $2\eta$ characterize the size dependence of the string order parameter at the RH-RS critical point where $\xi$ should diverge as $\ostr(N) \sim N^{-2\eta}$. This value is estimated as follows: According to Monthus et al.[@mon1], at the critical point, $\ostr(N)$ behaves as $\Gamma^{-2(3-\phi)}$ with $\phi =
\sqrt{5}$ while the logarithmic energy scale $\Gamma$ varies with the system size as $\Gamma \sim N^{1/3}$. Therefore $\ostr(N)$ should scale as $N^{-2(3-\phi)/3} \sim N^{-0.5092}$ at the critical point resulting in $2\eta =
0.5092$. It should be noted that the low energy effective model of Hyman and Yang[@hy2] also applies for the $S=1/2$ RFAHC with finite $J_{\mbox{F}} <0
$ by construction. The extrapolated values of $\ostr$ are plotted against $1/\mid \JF \mid$ in Fig. \[fig2\]. The string order is perfect at $J_{\mbox{F}}=0$, where the ground state is a simple assembly of local singlets[@kreg1] and should decrease with the increase of $\mid J_{\mbox{F}}\mid$. This behavior is clearly seen in Fig \[fig2\]. In this extrapolation scheme, the string long range order remains finite even at $W =2$ for both $S=1/2$ RFAHC and $S=1$ RAHC.
To check our extrapolation scheme, we also made the extrapolation assuming the size dependence $N^{-2\eta}$ expected at the RH-RS critical point in Fig. \[fig3\] for $S=1$ RAHC. In the RH phase, the extrapolated values thus obtained can be understood as the lower bound. For $W \geq 1.9$, it is clear that the extrapolated values remain definitely positive. Therefore the extrapolation using Eq. (\[extra\]) is appropriate in this region rather than the power law extrapolation. For $W=2$, the extrapolated value is very small but still positive ($\simeq 0.018$).
Even if we do not rely on the values for $W=2$ extrapolated using Eq. (\[extra\]), we can convince ourselves the stability of the RH phase at $W=2$ by the following argument. In Fig. \[fig4\], we plot $\ostr$ extrapolated using Eq. (\[extra\]) for $S=1$ RAHC against $2-W$ for $W \leq
1.9$. If we assume the critical behavior $\ostr \sim (W_c-W)^{1.173}$ predicted by Monthus et al.[@mon1], it is highly unlikely that the string order disappears at finite values of $W_c$ less than 2.
Especially, this excludes the possibility $W_c
\simeq 1.485$ predicted by Monthus et al.[@mon1]. In general, it is not surprising that the RSRG method gives incorrect value for the critical point even if it gives correct values for the critical exponents, because the RSRG transformation is not exact at the initial stage of renormalization. Furthermore, Monthus et al.[@mon1] have neglected the effective ferromagnetic coupling between the next nearest neighbour interaction which appear after decimation of two $S=1$ spins. (See the discussion following eq. (2.20) of ref. [@mon1].) The neglect of this term is equivalent to the introduction of the antiferromagnetic next nearest neighbour interaction as a counter term in the bare interaction. In terms of the RFAHC, such interaction makes the distinction between the even and odd bonds meaningless and can recover the translational symmetry leading to the destruction of the string order erroneously.
To further confirm the stability of the RH phase at the most dangerous point $\JF \rightarrow -\infty$ and $W \simleq 2$, we calculate the energy gap distribution for the $S=1$ RAHC. In the RH phase, the fixed point distribution of the energy gap $\Delta$ is given by $P(x) = P_0 \exp(-P_0x)$ where $x \equiv \ln (\Omega/\Delta)$, $\Omega$ is the energy cut-off and $P_0$ is the nonuniversal constant[@hy2]. For the finite size systems, $\Omega $ scales as $N^{-1/P_0}$[@hy2]. Therefore the dynamical exponent $z$ is given by $z
=1/P_0$. Furthermore, this distribution implies $$<\ln(1/\Delta)> = P_0^{-1}\ln N + \mbox{const.}$$ $$\sigma \equiv \sqrt{<(\ln \Delta-<\ln \Delta >)^2>} = P_0^{-1}=z$$ for $N >> 1$. In Fig. \[fig5\], we plot $<\ln (1/\Delta) >$ and $\sigma$ against $\ln N$. The error bars are estimated from the statistical flucutation among samples. The average is taken over more than 100 samples with $N \leq
50$. For the most random case $W=2$, the average is taken over 219 samples. In this case, we have taken $m=100$ in most cases. For the confirmation of the accuracy, however, we recalculated with $m=150$ for the samples with very small gap (less than $10^{-3}$) but the difference was negligible. Actually, the latter data are also plotted in Fig. \[fig5\] for $W=2$. But they are almost covered by the data with $m=100$ and are invisible in Fig. \[fig5\]. Therefore we may safely neglect the $m$-dependence for less dangerous case $W < 2$.
It is evident that $<\ln (1/\Delta) >$ behaves linearly with $\ln N$ and $\sigma$ tends to a constant value as $N \rightarrow \infty$. We can estimate the values of $z (=1/P_0)$ from the gradient $d<\ln(1/\Delta)>/d\ln N$ for large $N$. These values are indicated by the arrows in Fig. \[fig5\] and they are consistent with those estimated from $\sigma$ for large $N$ within the error bars. On the other hand, Figs. \[fig6\](a) and (b) show the plot of $<\ln(1/\Delta)>$ against $N^{1/3}$ and $N^{1/2}$ which are the expected size dependence at the RH-RS critical point and within the RS phase, respectively[@mon1]. Both plots are less linear compared to Fig. \[fig5\]. These results confirm that the ground state of the $S=1$ RAHC remains in the RH phase down to $W=2$.
It should be also noted that the finite size effect becomes serious only if one hopes to conclude the [*presence*]{} of the RS phase. Even in the RH phase, the string order or the gap distribution might behave RS-like if the system size is not enough. Actually, the authors of ref. [@mon1] needed extremely large number of spins to conclude that their calculation leads to the RS phase. But the RS phase can never behave RH-like by the finite size effect because the RS phase has divergent correlation length. Therefore, it is relatively easy to [*exclude*]{} the possibility of RS phase if the deviation from the RS-like behavior is already observed for relatively small systems, which is the case of the present calculation.
In summary, it is conjectured that the Haldane phase of the $S=1$ RAHC and the $S=1/2$ RFAHC is stable against any strength of randomness, because of the imposed breakdown of translational symmetry. This conjecture is confirmed by the DMRG calculation of the string order and the energy gap distribution.
The numerical calculations have been performed using the FACOM VPP500 at the Supercomputer Center, Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo. The author thanks H. Takayama and S. Todo for useful discussion and comments. This work is partially supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.
[1]{}
S.-k. Ma, C. Dasgupta and C. K. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**43**]{} (1979) 1434; C. Dasgupta and S.-k. Ma: Phys. Rev. B [**22**]{} (1980) 1305.
R. N. Bhatt and P. A. Lee: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{} (1982) 344.
D. S. Fisher: Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{} (1994) 3799 .
K. Hida: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**65**]{} (1996) 895; J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**65**]{} (1996) 3412(E). R. A. Hyman, K. Yang, R. N. Bhatt and S. M. Girvin: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{} (1996) 839. B. Boechat, A. Saguia and M. A. Continentino: Solid. State Commun. [**98**]{} (1996) 411. M. A. Constantino, J. C. Fernandes, R. B. Guimarães, B. Boechat, H. A. Borges, J. V. Vararelli, E. Haanappel, A. Lacerda and P. R. J. Silva: Phil. Mag. [**B73**]{} (1996) 601. R. A. Hyman and K. Yang: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{} (1997) 1783. K. Hida: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**66**]{} (1997) 3237. C. Monthus, O. Golinelli and Th. Jolicœur: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 3254.
Y. Nishiyama: Physica. [**A252**]{} 35 (1998); [**A258**]{} 499(E) (1998). Y. Nishiyama: Eur. Phys. J. [**B6**]{} 335 (1998).
S. Todo, K. Kato and H. Takayama: cond-mat.9803088 and private communication. L. P. Regnault, J. P. Renard, G. Dhalenne and A. Revcolevschi: Europhys. Lett. [**32**]{} (1995) 579.
M. Hase, K. Uchinokura, R. J. Birgeneau, K. Hirota and G. Shirane: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**65**]{} (1996) 1392.
K. Hida: Phys. Rev. [**B45**]{} (1992) 2207.
S. R. White: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}(1992) 2863; Phys. Rev. [**B48**]{}(1993) 10345. E. Westerberg, A. Furusaki, M. Sigrist and P. A. Lee: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 4302; Phys. Rev.[B55]{} (1997) 12578. M. den Nijs and K. Rommelse: Phys. Rev. [**B40**]{} 4709 (1989). H. Tasaki: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{} 798 (1991). S. R. White and D. A. Huse: Phys. Rev. [**B48**]{}(1993) 3844.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The [Near-Bipartiteness]{} problem is that of deciding whether or not the vertices of a graph can be partitioned into sets $A$ and $B$, where $A$ is an independent set and $B$ induces a forest. The set $A$ in such a partition is said to be an independent feedback vertex set. Yang and Yuan proved that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is polynomial-time solvable for graphs of diameter $2$ and [[NP]{}]{}-complete for graphs of diameter $4$. We show that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is [[NP]{}]{}-complete for graphs of diameter $3$, resolving their open problem. We also generalise their result for diameter $2$ by proving that even the problem of computing a minimum independent feedback vertex is polynomial-time solvable for graphs of diameter $2$.'
author:
- Marthe Bonamy
- 'Konrad K. Dabrowski'
- Carl Feghali
- |
\
Matthew Johnson
- Daniël Paulusma
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: |
Independent Feedback Vertex Sets for\
Graphs of Bounded Diameter[^1]
---
Introduction
============
A graph is [*near-bipartite*]{} if its vertex set can be partitioned into sets $A$ and $B$, where $A$ is an independent set and $B$ induces a forest. The set $A$ is said to be an [*independent feedback vertex set*]{} and the pair $(A,B)$ is said to be a [*near-bipartite decomposition*]{}. This leads to the following two related decision problems.
[.99]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[Near-Bipartiteness]{}</span>\
----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Instance:* [a graph $G$.]{}
*Question:* [is $G$ near-bipartite (that is, does $G$ have an independent feedback vertex set)?]{}
----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[.99]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{}</span>\
----------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Instance:* [a graph $G$ and an integer $k\geq 0$.]{}
*Question:* [does $G$ have an independent feedback vertex set of size at most $k$?]{}
----------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting $k=n$ shows that the latter problem is more general than the first problem. Thus, if [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is [[NP]{}]{}-complete for some graph class, then so is [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{}, and if [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{} is polynomial-time solvable for some graph class, then so is [Near-Bipartiteness]{}.
Note that every near-bipartite graph is $3$-colourable, that is, its vertices can be coloured with at most three colours such that no two adjacent vertices are coloured alike. The problems [$3$-Colouring]{} [@Lo73] and [Near-Bipartiteness]{} [@BLS98] (and thus [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{}) are [[NP]{}]{}-complete. However, their complexities do not necessarily coincide on special graph classes. Grötschel, Lovász and Schrijver [@GLS84] proved that [Colouring]{} is polynomial-time solvable for perfect graphs even if the permitted number of colours $k$ is part of the input. However, Brandstädt et al. [@BBKNP13] proved that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} remains [[NP]{}]{}-complete for perfect graphs. The same authors also showed that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is polynomial-time solvable for $P_4$-free graphs.
Yang and Yuan [@YY06] proved that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} also remains [[NP]{}]{}-complete for graphs of maximum degree $4$. To complement their hardness result, Yang and Yuan [@YY06] showed that every connected graph of maximum degree at most $3$ is near-bipartite except the complete graph $K_4$ on four vertices. This also follows from a more general result of Catlin and Lai [@CL95]. Recently we gave a linear-time algorithm for finding an independent feedback vertex set in a graph of maximum degree at most $3$ [@BDFJP17], and also proved that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is [[NP]{}]{}-complete even for line graphs of maximum degree $4$ [@BDFJP17b]. It is also known that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is [[NP]{}]{}-complete for planar graphs; this follows from a result of Dross, Montassier and Pinlou [@DMP16]; see the arXiv version of [@BDFJP17] for details.
Tamura, Ito and Zhou [@TIZ15] proved that [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{} is [[NP]{}]{}-complete for planar bipartite graphs of maximum degree $4$ (note that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is trivial for bipartite graphs). They also proved that [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{} is linear-time solvable for graphs of bounded treewidth, chordal graphs and $P_4$-free graphs (the latter result generalising the result of [@BBKNP13] for [Near-Bipartiteness]{} on $P_4$-free graphs). In [@BDFJP17b] we proved that finding a minimum independent feedback vertex set is polynomial-time solvable even for $P_5$-free graphs. We refer to [@AGSS16; @MPRS12] for FPT algorithms with parameter $k$ for finding an independent feedback vertex set of size at most $k$.
The [*distance*]{} between two vertices $u$ and $v$ in a graph $G$ is the length (number of edges) of a shortest path between $u$ and $v$. The [*diameter*]{} of a graph $G$ is the maximum distance between any two vertices in $G$. In addition to their results for graphs of bounded maximum degree, Yang and Yuan [@YY06] proved that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is polynomial-time solvable for graphs of diameter at most $2$ and [[NP]{}]{}-complete for graphs of diameter at most $4$. They asked the following question, which was also posed by Brandstädt et al. [@BBKNP13]:
[*What is the complexity of [Near-Bipartiteness]{} for graphs of diameter $3$?*]{}
[**Our Results.**]{} We complete the complexity classifications of [Near-Bipartiteness]{} and [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{} for graphs of bounded diameter. In particular, we prove that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is [[NP]{}]{}-complete for graphs of diameter $3$, which answers the above question. We also prove that [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{} is polynomial-time solvable for graphs of diameter $2$. This generalises the result of Yang and Yuan [@YY06] for [Near-Bipartiteness]{} restricted to graphs of diameter $2$.
\[t-main\] Let $k\geq 0$ be an integer.
(i) If $k\leq 2$, then [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{} (and thus [Near-Bipartiteness]{}) is polynomial-time solvable for graphs of diameter $k$.\
(ii) If $k\geq 3$, then [Near-Bipartiteness]{} (and thus [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{}) is [[NP]{}]{}-complete for graphs of diameter $k$.
We prove Theorem \[t-main\] (i) in Section \[s-poly\]. Yang and Yuan [@YY06] proved their result for [Near-Bipartiteness]{} by giving a polynomial-time verifiable characterisation of the class of near-bipartite graphs of diameter $2$. We use their characterisation as the starting point for our algorithm for [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{}. In fact our algorithm not only solves the decision problem but even finds a minimum independent feedback vertex set in a graph of diameter $2$.
We prove Theorem \[t-main\] (ii) in Section \[s-diam3\] by using a construction of Mertzios and Spirakis [@MS16], which they used to prove that [$3$-Colouring]{} is [[NP]{}]{}-complete for graphs of diameter $3$. The outline of their proof is straightforward: a reduction from [$3$-Satisfiability]{} that constructs, for any instance $\phi$, a graph $H_\phi$ that is $3$-colourable if and only if $\phi$ is satisfiable. We reduce [$3$-Satisfiability]{} to [Near-Bipartiteness]{} for graphs of diameter $3$ using the same construction, that is, we show that $H_\phi$ is near-bipartite if and only if $\phi$ is satisfiable. As such, our result is an observation about the proof of Mertzios and Spirakis, but, owing to the intricacy of $H_\phi$, this observation is non-trivial to verify. In Section \[s-diam3\] we therefore repeat the construction and describe our reduction in detail, though we rely on [@MS16] where possible in the proof.
Independent Feedback Vertex Set for Diameter $2$ {#s-poly}
================================================
In this section we show how to compute a minimum independent feedback vertex set of a graph of diameter $2$ in polynomial time. As mentioned, our proof relies on a known characterisation of near-bipartite graphs of diameter $2$ [@YY06]. In order to explain this characterisation, we first need to introduce some terminology.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and let $X\subseteq V$. Then the [*$2$-neighbour set*]{} of $X$, denoted by $A_X$, is the set that consists of all vertices in $V\setminus X$ that have at least two neighbours in $X$. A set $I\subseteq V$ is [*independent*]{} if no two vertices of $I$ are adjacent. For $u\in V$, we let $G-u$ denote the graph obtained from $G$ after deleting the vertex $u$ (and its incident edges). A graph is [*complete bipartite*]{} if its vertex set can be partitioned into two independent sets $S$ and $T$ such that there is an edge between every vertex of $S$ and every vertex of $T$. If $S$ or $T$ has size $1$, the graph is also called a [*star*]{}.
\[t-yy06\] A graph $G=(V,E)$ of diameter $2$ is near-bipartite if and only if one of the following two conditions holds:
(i) \[cond:i\]there exists a vertex $u$ such that $G-u$ is bipartite; or
(ii) \[cond:ii\]there exists a set $X$, $4\leq |X|\leq 5$, such that $(A_X,V\setminus A_X)$ is a near-bipartite decomposition.
As noted in [@YY06], Theorem \[t-yy06\] can be used to solve [Near-Bipartiteness]{} in polynomial time for graphs of diameter $2$, as conditions \[cond:i\] and \[cond:ii\] can be checked in polynomial time. However, Theorem \[t-yy06\] does not tell us how to determine the size of a minimum independent feedback vertex set.
In order to find a minimum independent feedback vertex set, we will distinguish between the two cases of Theorem \[t-yy06\]. This leads to two corresponding lemmas.
\[l-1\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a near-bipartite graph of diameter $2$ that contains a vertex $u$ such that $G-u$ is bipartite. Then it is possible to find a minimum independent feedback vertex set of $G$ in polynomial time.
We can partition $V\setminus\{u\}$ into four independent sets $S_1$, $S_2$, $T_1$, $T_2$ (some of which might be empty) such that
(i) \[prop:i\]$S_1\cup S_2$ and $T_1\cup T_2$ form bipartition classes of $G-u$;
(ii) \[prop:ii\]$u$ is adjacent to every vertex of $S_1\cup T_1$; and
(iii) \[prop:iii\]$u$ is non-adjacent to every vertex of $S_2\cup T_2$.
Moreover, as $G$ has diameter $2$, it follows that given a vertex of $S_2$ (respectively, $T_2$) and a vertex of $T_1\cup T_2$ (respectively, $S_1\cup S_2$), these two vertices must either be adjacent or have a common neighbour. As the latter is not possible, we deduce that
(i) \[prop:iv\]every vertex of $S_2$ is adjacent to every vertex of $T_1\cup T_2$, and every vertex of $T_2$ is adjacent to every vertex of $S_1\cup S_2$ (see also \[fig:STu\]).
=\[circle,draw=black, fill=black, minimum size=5pt, inner sep=1pt\] =\[draw,black\]
///in [ (0,-2)/T/1/below, (0,2)/S/1/above, (5,-2)/T/2/below, (5,2)/S/2/above]{}
(0.6,-0.4) rectangle (3.4,0.4); (1) at (1,0) ; (2) at (2,0) ; (3) at (3,0) ; at (2,0) [$\name_\number$]{};
\(u) at (0,0) ;
/in [1/1,1/2,2/1,2/2,1/3,2/3,3/3,3/2,3/1]{} [ (S1) – (T2) – (S2) – (T1); ]{}
in [1,2,3]{} [ (S1) – (u) – (T1); (S2) – (u) – (T2); ]{}
at (u) [$u$]{};
A (not necessarily proper) $2$-colouring of the vertices of a graph is *good* if the vertices coloured $1$ form an independent set and the vertices coloured $2$ induce a forest. The set of vertices coloured $1$ in a good $2$-colouring is said to be a *$1$-set* and is, by definition, an independent feedback vertex of $G$. A good $2$-colouring of $G$ is [*optimal*]{} if its $1$-set is of minimum possible size among all good $2$-colourings. Our algorithm colours vertices one by one with colour $1$ or $2$ to obtain a number of good $2$-colourings. We will establish that our approach ensures that at least one of our good $2$-colourings is optimal. Therefore, as our algorithm finds different good $2$-colourings, it only needs to remember the smallest $1$-set seen so far. We note that $G$ certainly has good $2$-colourings as, for example, we can let either $S_1\cup S_2$ or $T_1\cup T_2$ be the set of vertices coloured $1$.
We say that an edge is a [*$1$-edge*]{} if both its end-points have colour $1$ and say that a cycle of $G$ is a [*$2$-cycle*]{} if all its vertices have colour $2$. Our algorithm will consist of a number of branches depending on the way we will colour the vertices of $G$. Whenever we detect a $1$-edge or a $2$-cycle in a branch, we can discard the branch as we know that we are not going to generate a good $2$-colouring. Before we describe our algorithm, we first prove the following claim. Here, we say that an independent set $I$ is a [*twin-set*]{} if every vertex of $I$ has the same neighbourhood.
[[[*Claim .* ]{}]{}[*\[clm:1\]Let $I$ be a twin-set. In every optimal $2$-colouring, at least $|I|-1$ vertices of $I$ obtain the same colour.*]{}\
]{} We prove Claim \[clm:1\] as follows. If $|I|=1$, the claim is trivial. Suppose $|I|\geq 2$ and let $J$ be the neighbourhood of the vertices of $I$. Note that $J$ is non-empty since $|I|\geq 2$ and $G$ is connected. Let $c$ be an optimal $2$-colouring of $G$. If $c$ gives colour $1$ to a vertex of $J$, then every vertex of $I$ must receive colour $2$. Now suppose that $c$ gives colour $2$ to every vertex of $J$. If $|J|=1$, then $c$ colours every vertex of $I$ with colour $2$, as doing this will not create a $2$-cycle. If $|J|\geq 2$ then, in order to avoid a $2$-cycle, at least $|I|-1$ vertices of $I$ must be coloured $1$. This proves Claim \[clm:1\].
By \[prop:i\], \[prop:iii\], \[prop:iv\], we find that $S_2$ and $T_2$ are twin-sets. Let $Z$ be the set of isolated vertices in the subgraph of $G$ induced by $S_1\cup T_1$. Then by \[prop:i\], \[prop:ii\], \[prop:iv\], the neighbourhood of every vertex in $Z\cap S_1$ (respectively, $Z\cap T_1$) is $T_2\cup \{u\}$ (respectively, $S_2\cup \{u\}$). So $Z\cap S_1$ and $Z\cap T_1$ are twin-sets.
We choose one vertex from each non-empty set in $\{S_2,T_2,Z\cap S_1,Z\cap T_1\}$ and let $W$ be the set of chosen vertices. Note that the choice of the vertices in $W$ can be done arbitrarily, since all four of these sets are twin-sets. We now branch by giving all vertices in $S_2 \setminus W$ the same colour, all vertices in $T_2 \setminus W$ the same colour, all vertices in $(Z\cap S_1)\setminus W$ the same colour and all vertices in $(Z\cap T_1)\setminus W$ the same colour. We then branch by colouring the at most four vertices of $W$ with every possible combination of colours. Hence the total number of branches is at most $2^8$. We discard any branch that yields a $1$-edge or $2$-cycle. Let $S_1' = S_1 \setminus Z$ and $T_1'=T_1 \setminus Z$. For each remaining branch we try to colour the remaining vertices of $G$, which are all in $S_1'\cup T_1'\cup \{u\}$, and keep track of any minimum $1$-set found. In the end we return a $1$-set of minimum size (recall that $G$ has at least two $1$-sets).
For any remaining branch we do as follows. We first give colour $1$ to $u$. Then every vertex of $S_1'\cup T_1'$ must get colour $2$. If this does not yield a $1$-edge or $2$-cycle, we obtain a $1$-set, which we remember if it is the smallest one found so far.
We now give colour $2$ to $u$. If $u$ was the only remaining vertex, we check for the presence of a $1$-edge or a $2$-cycle, and if none is present, we remember the $1$-set found if it is the smallest one found so far. Otherwise, we let $D_1,\ldots,D_r$ for some integer $r\geq 1$ be the connected components of the (bipartite) graph induced by $S_1'\cup T_1'$. As these vertices do not belong to $Z$, each $D_i$ contains at least one edge. Moreover, each $D_i$ is bipartite. For $i \in \{1,\ldots,r\}$, we denote the two non-empty bipartition classes of $D_i$ by $D_i^1$ and $D_i^2$ such that $|V(D_i^1)|\leq |V(D_i^2)|$. The following claim is crucial.
[[[*Claim .* ]{}]{}[*\[clm:2\]For $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, we must either colour all vertices of $D_i^1$ with colour $1$ and all vertices of $D_i^2$ with colour $2$, or vice versa.*]{}\
]{} We prove Claim \[clm:2\] as follows. Suppose that $D_i^1$ contains a vertex with the same colour as a vertex of $D_i^2$. As $D_i$ is connected and bipartite, this means that $D_i$ contains an edge $vw$ whose end-vertices are either both coloured $1$ or coloured $2$. In the first case, we obtain a $1$-edge. In the second case the vertices $u$, $v$ and $w$ form a $2$-cycle in $G$. Hence we must use colours $1$ and $2$ for different partition classes of $D_i$. This proves Claim \[clm:2\].
We now proceed as follows. First suppose that $S_2 \cup T_2$ is non-empty. If we coloured a vertex in $S_2$ (respectively $T_2$) with colour $1$, then every vertex in $T_1'$ (respectively $S_1'$) must be coloured $2$ and therefore every vertex in $S_1'$ (respectively $T_1'$) must be coloured $1$ by Claim \[clm:2\]. Again, in this case we discard the branch if a $1$-edge or $2$-cycle is found; otherwise we remember the corresponding $1$-set if it is the best set found so far. In every other case, we must have coloured every vertex of non-empty set $S_2\cup T_2$ with colour $2$. Without loss of generality, assume that there is a vertex $s \in S_2$ that is coloured $2$. Then at most one vertex of $T_1'$ may have colour $2$, as otherwise we obtain a $2$-cycle by involving the vertices $s$ and $u$. We branch by guessing this vertex and then colouring it either $1$ or $2$, while assigning colour $1$ to all other vertices of $T_1'$. Then the only vertices with no colour yet are in $S_1'$, but their colour is determined by the colours of the vertices in $T_1'$ due to Claim \[clm:2\].
We are left to deal with the case where $S_2\cup T_2=\emptyset$. Claim \[clm:2\] tells us that we must either give every vertex of $D_i^1$ colour $1$ and every vertex of $D_i^2$ colour $2$, or vice versa. For $i \in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ we give colour $1$ to every vertex of every $D_i^1$; as $|V(D_i^1)|\leq |V(D_i^2)|$, this is the best possible good $2$-colouring for this branch.
The correctness of our algorithm follows from the fact that we distinguish all possible cases and find a best possible good $2$-colouring (if one exists) in each case. Note that it takes polynomial time to find the sets $S_1$, $S_2$, $T_1$ and $T_2$. Moreover, the number of branches is $O(n)$ and each branch can be processed in polynomial time, as we only need to search for a $1$-edge or $2$-cycle. Hence our algorithm runs in polynomial time.
\[l-2\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a near-bipartite graph of diameter $2$ that contains no vertex $u$ such that $G-u$ is bipartite. Then it is possible to find a minimum independent feedback vertex of $G$ in polynomial time.
As $G$ is near-bipartite, it has an independent feedback vertex set. Let $A$ be a minimum independent feedback vertex set. We claim that $G$ contains a set of vertices $X$ of size $4\leq |X|\leq 5$ such that $A_X=A$. This would immediately give us a polynomial-time algorithm. Indeed, it would suffice to check, for every set $X$ of size $4\leq |X|\leq 5$, whether $(A_X,V\setminus A_X)$ is a near-bipartite decomposition and to return a set $A_X$ of minimum size that satisfies this condition. This takes polynomial time.
To prove the above claim we will follow the same line of reasoning as in the proof of Theorem \[t-yy06\] However, our arguments are slightly different, as we need to prove a stronger statement.
Let $B=V\setminus A$ and let $F$ be the subgraph of $G$ induced by $B$. By definition, $F$ is a forest, so all of its connected components are trees.
We will first consider the case where $F$ has a connected component $T$ of diameter at least $3$. Let $P$ be a longest path in the tree $T$ on vertices $v_1,\ldots,v_p$ in that order. As $T$ has diameter $3$, we find that $p\geq 4$. If $p\leq 5$, then we let $X=\{v_1,\ldots,v_p\}$. If $p\geq 6$, then we let $X=\{v_1,v_2,v_{p-1},v_p\}$. We will show that $A=A_X$. Let $u\in A$. As $G$ has diameter $2$ and $A$ is an independent set, $u$ is adjacent to $v_1$ or to a neighbour $v^*$ of $v_1$ in $B$. In the latter case, if $v^*\neq v_2$ then $v^*$ must have a neighbour in $\{v_2,\ldots,v_p\}$, otherwise we have found a path that is longer than $P$, but in this case $B$ contains a cycle, a contradiction. Hence, $u$ has at least one neighbour in $\{v_1,v_2\}$, and similarly, $u$ has at least one neighbour in $\{v_{p-1},v_p\}$. So $A\subseteq A_X$. Now suppose $u\in A_X$. Note that $u\neq v_3$ due to our choice of $X$. Then the subgraph of $G$ induced by $V(P)\cup \{u\}$ contains a cycle. Hence $u$ must belong to $A$. So $A_X\subseteq A$. We conclude that $A=A_X$.
We now consider the case where every connected component of $F$ has diameter at most $2$. Such components are either isolated vertices or stars (we say that the latter components are [*star-components*]{} and that their non-leaf vertex is the [*star-centre*]{}; if such a component consists of a single edge, we arbitrarily choose one of them to be the star-centre). If $F$ contains no star-components, then $G$ is bipartite and therefore $G-u$ is bipartite for every vertex $u$, a contradiction. If $F$ contains exactly one star-component, then by choosing $u$ to be the star-centre we again find that $G-u$ is bipartite. Hence $F$ contains at least two star-components $D_1$ and $D_2$. For $i=1,2$, let $v_i$ be the star-centre and let $w_i$ be a leaf in $D_i$.
We choose $X=\{v_1,v_2,w_1,w_2\}$ and show that $A=A_X$. Let $u\in A$. As $G$ has diameter $2$ and $A$ is an independent set, $u$ is either adjacent to $w_1$ or to a neighbour of $w_1$ in $B$. If this neighbour is not $v_1$, then $D_1$ is not a star-component, a contradiction. Hence, $u$ has at least one neighbour in $\{v_1,w_1\}$, and similarly, $u$ has at least one neighbour in $\{v_2,w_2\}$. So $A\subseteq A_X$. Now suppose $u\in A_X$. Then $X\cup \{u\}$ induces either a connected subgraph of $G$ that contains both $D_1$ and $D_2$ (and is therefore not a star-component) or a subgraph with a cycle. Hence $u$ must belong to $A$. So $A_X\subseteq A$. We conclude that $A=A_X$. This completes the proof of our claim and thus the proof of the lemma.
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section.
\[t-p\] The problem of finding a minimum independent feedback vertex set of a graph of diameter $2$ can be solved in polynomial time.
Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph of diameter $2$. We first check in polynomial time whether $G$ contains a vertex $u$ such that $G-u$ is bipartite. If so, then we apply Lemma \[l-1\]. If not, then we check in polynomial time whether $G$ contains a set $X$ of size $4\leq |X|\leq 5$ such that $(A_X,V\setminus A_X)$ is a near-bipartite decomposition. If so, then $G$ is near-bipartite and we apply Lemma \[l-2\]. If not, then $G$ is not near-bipartite due to Theorem \[t-yy06\].
We note that the running time of the algorithm in Theorem \[t-p\] is determined by the time it takes to find and process each set $X$ of size $4\leq |X|\leq 5$. This takes $O(n^7)$ time, as checking the existence of a set $X$ takes $O(n^5)$ time using brute force, determining the $2$-neighbour set $A_X$ takes $O(n)$ time and checking if $(A_X,V\setminus A_X)$ is a near-bipartite decomposition takes $O(n^2)$ time.
Near-Bipartiteness for Diameter $3$ {#s-diam3}
===================================
In this section we prove that [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is [[NP]{}]{}-complete for graphs of diameter $3$. In order to prove this, we use a construction of Mertzios and Spirakis [@MS16]. To introduce this construction, we first consider the constraint graph $J$ defined in Figure \[fig:constraint-graph\].
\[lem:constraint-graph\] Let $X$ be a subset of $\{X_1, X_2, X_3\} \subset V(J)$ containing at most two vertices. Then there exists a near-bipartite decomposition $(A,B)$ of $J$ such that, for $1 \leq p \leq 3$, $X_p \in A$ if and only if $X_p \in X$.
Noting the automorphic equivalence of $X_2$ and $X_3$, it is sufficient to consider the following two cases. If $X$ is a subset of $\{X_1, X_2\}$, let $A=X \cup \{Y_6,Y_7\}$. If $X = \{X_2,X_3\}$, let $A= \{X_2,X_3,Y_4\}$.
Notice that there is no near-bipartite decomposition of $J$ with $\{X_1,X_2,X_3\} \subseteq A$. Combined with the above lemma, this gives an idea of how this will be used later. The vertices $X_1$, $X_2$ and $X_3$ will represent literals in a clause of an instance of [$3$-Sat]{} and membership of $A$ will indicate that a literal is false: thus $A$ can be extended to a near-bipartite decomposition except when every literal is false. (In [@MS16], a weaker result was shown: one can always find a $3$-colouring of $J$ such that members of a chosen *proper* subset of $\{X_1, X_2, X_3\}$ belong to the same class and excluded members do not belong to that class.)
Let $\phi$ be an instance of [$3$-Sat]{} with $m$ clauses $C_1, \ldots, C_m$ and $n$ variables $v_1,\ldots,v_n$. We may assume that each clause has three distinct literals. For a clause $C_k$ in $\phi$, we describe a *clause graph* ${\mathcal C}^k$, illustrated within Figure \[fig:hphi\]. We think of ${\mathcal C}^k$ as an array of $n+5m+1$ rows and eight columns. In each row except the last, every (row,column) position contains exactly two vertices, which we refer to as the *true vertex* and the *false vertex*, and we say that these two vertices are *mates*. The first $n$ rows form the *variable block* of the graph and we think of row $i$ as representing the variable $v_i$. The next $5m$ rows are made up of $m$ *clause blocks* ${\mathcal C}^{k,1}, {\mathcal C}^{k,2}, \ldots, {\mathcal C}^{k,m}$, each of five rows. Every true vertex of the variable and clause blocks is joined by an edge to every false vertex in the same row except its mate. Hence the vertices of each row induce a complete bipartite graph minus a matching. In the final row, each column contains a single vertex, and each of these vertices is joined by an edge to every other vertex in the same column. We call this row the *dominating block*. We complete the definition of the clause graph by describing how we add further edges so that it contains the constraint graph $J$ as an induced subgraph. Let the literals of $C_k$ be $x_{\ell_1},x_{\ell_2},x_{\ell_3}$. We choose vertices from the first three columns of the variable block of ${\mathcal C}^k$ that we will denote $X_1^k, X_2^k, X_3^k$ to represent the literals. If $x_{\ell_p}$ is the variable $v_i$, then we choose as $X_p^k$ a vertex from row $i$ and column $p$, and choose the true vertex if the literal is positive and the false vertex if the literal is a negated variable. For $p \in \{4,\ldots,8\}$, let $Y_p^k$ be the true vertex from the $(p-3)$th row and $p$th column of the clause block ${\mathcal C}^{k,k}$. Finally add the ten edges $\{ X_1^kY_4^k, X_2^kY_5^k, X_2^kY_8^k, X_3^kY_6^k, X_3^kY_7^k, Y_4^kY_5^k, Y_4^kY_6^k, Y_5^kY_7^k, Y_6^kY_8^k, Y_7^kY_8^k\}$ so that $\{X_1^k,X_2^k,X_3^k, Y_4^k, Y_5^k,Y_6^k,Y_7^k,Y_6^k\}$ induces the constraint graph $J$.
=\[circle,draw=black, fill=black, minimum size=5pt, inner sep=1pt\] =\[draw,black\]
We now define the graph $H_\phi$. It contains:
- the disjoint union of clause graphs ${\mathcal C}^k$, $1 \leq k \leq m$ (we think of the clause graphs as being arranged side-by-side, so that they form an array of $n+5m+1$ rows and $8m$ columns),
- edges from each true vertex of each clause graph to each false vertex in the same row of other clause graphs, and
- an additional vertex $v_0$ joined to each vertex in the dominating block of each clause graph.
Note that each column of $H_\phi$ contains exactly one vertex that is in a constraint graph $J$ and the only rows that contain more than one such vertex are those in the variable block.
For an instance $\phi$ of [$3$-Sat]{}, $H_\phi$ has diameter $3$.
Note that in [@MS16], Lemma 2 proves the bound on the diameter for a graph that is a spanning subgraph of $H_\phi$ which is, of course, sufficient for an upper bound for the diameter of $H_\phi$ and it is easy to see that the diameter is not less than $3$. We note also that $H_\phi$ does not contain any triangles or any vertices that are siblings (two vertices are siblings if the neighbourhood of one is a subset of the neighbourhood of the other) so [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is also [[NP]{}]{}-complete for such instances.
\[thm:diam3\] [Near-Bipartiteness]{} is [[NP]{}]{}-complete for graphs of diameter at most $3$.
We prove that [$3$-Sat]{} can be polynomially-reduced to [Near-Bipartiteness]{} by showing that $\phi$ is satisfiable if and only if $H_\phi$ has a near-bipartite decomposition $(A,B)$.
($\Rightarrow$) Suppose that $\phi$ has a satisfying assignment. Let $v_0$ be in $A$, and let the vertices of all the dominating blocks be in $B$. If the variable $v_i$ is true, then let $B$ contain all the true vertices of row $i$ of the variable blocks of each clause graph. Otherwise let $B$ contain the false vertices. In each case, let $A$ contain the mates of these vertices. Consider the constraint graph that is an induced subgraph of each clause graph. The vertices $X_1$, $X_2$ and $X_3$ have been assigned to either $A$ or $B$ with at most two, representing false literals, belonging to $A$. By Lemma \[lem:constraint-graph\], we can assign the remaining vertices of the subgraph (which are all true vertices of clause blocks) to $A$ and $B$ such that on the subgraph they form a near-bipartite decomposition. When we assign a true vertex of a clause block to $A$ or $B$, we assign all other true vertices in the same row of $H_\phi$ to the same set and assign their mates to the other set. As each row of the clause blocks contains only one vertex in a constraint graph, this process assigns every vertex in $H_\phi$ to exactly one of $A$ and $B$, and we have assigned every vertex of $H_\phi$ to $A$ or $B$.
It is immediately clear that $A$ is an independent set. We must show that $B$ contains no cycles. We know that $B$ contains all the vertices of the dominating blocks and, in each row, either all the true vertices or all the false vertices. Thus if $B$ contains a cycle then all the vertices of the cycle belong to the same clause graph (the only edges going between distinct clause graphs are those joining true vertices to false vertices in the same row). Let $G_B$ be a subgraph of a clause graph induced by vertices of $B$. Then each true and false vertex not in the constraint graph has degree $1$ (due to the edge joining it to the dominating block), and each vertex in the dominating block has at most one neighbour with degree more than $1$ (since it only has one neighbour in the constraint graph). Thus if $G_B$ contains a cycle then it belongs to the constraint graph, contradicting how $A$ and $B$ were chosen.
($\Leftarrow$) Suppose $A$ and $B$ form a near-bipartite decomposition of $H_\phi$. Then $B$ can be decomposed into two independent sets, and these, along with $A$, can be considered a $3$-colouring. In [@MS16 Theorem 5], it is shown that if $H_\phi$ has a $3$-colouring, then $\phi$ is satisfiable.
Conclusions {#s-con}
===========
We completed the computational complexity classifications of [Near-Bipartiteness]{} and [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{} for graphs of diameter $k$ for every integer $k\geq 0$. We showed that the complexity of both problems jumps from being polynomial-time solvable to [[NP]{}]{}-complete when $k$ changes from $2$ to $3$.
We recall that near-bipartite graphs are $3$-colourable. Interestingly, the complexity of [$3$-Colouring]{} for graphs of diameter $k$ has not yet been settled, as there is one remaining case left, namely when $k=2$. This is a notorious open problem, which has been frequently posed in the literature (see, for example, [@BKM12; @BFGP13; @MS16; @Pa15]). We note that the approach of solving [Near-Bipartiteness]{} and [Independent Feedback Vertex Set]{} for graphs of diameter $2$ does not work for [$3$-Colouring]{}. For instance, we cannot bound the size of the set $X$ in Lemma \[l-2\] if we drop the condition that the union of two colour classes must induce a forest.
[^1]: This paper received support from EPSRC (EP/K025090/1), London Mathematical Society (41536), the Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2016-258) and Fondation Sciences Mathématiques de Paris. The hardness result (Theorem \[thm:diam3\]) of this paper has been announced in an extended abstract of the Proceedings of MFCS 2017 [@BDFJP17].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have made a detailed temperature-dependent photoemission study of VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) thin films, which show a metal-insulator transition at $\sim$ 300 K. Clean surfaces were obtained by annealing the films in an oxygen atmosphere. Spectral weight transfer between the coherent and incoherent parts accompanying the metal-insulator transition was clearly observed. We also observed a hysteretic behavior of the spectra for heating-cooling cycles. We have derived the “bulk” spectrum of the metallic phase and found that it has a strong incoherent part. The width of the coherent part is comparable to that given by band-structure calculation in spite of its reduced spectral weight, indicating that the momentum dependence of the self-energy is significant. This is attributed to by ferromagnetic fluctuation arising from Hund’s rule coupling between different $d$ orbitals as originally proposed by Zylbersztejn and Mott. In the insulating phase, the width of the V $3d$ band shows strong temperature dependence. We attribute this to electron-phonon interaction and have reproduced it using the independent boson model with a very large coupling constant.'
author:
- 'K. Okazaki$^{1,}$[@adr], H. Wadati$^1$, A. Fujimori$^{1,2}$, M. Onoda$^3$, Y. Muraoka$^4$ and Z. Hiroi$^4$'
title: 'Photoemission study of the metal-insulator transition in VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) : Evidence for strong electron-electron and electron-phonon interaction'
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
To elucidate the physical properties of Mott-Hubbard systems has been one of the most challenging subjects in condensed matter physics and has continued to pose controversial theoretical as well as experimental issues. In this respect, the single-particle spectral function of transition-metal oxides, particularly of early transition-metal oxides, is of fundamental importance in the physics of Mott-Hubbard systems. In fact, the coexistence of the coherent part \[the quasi-particle (QP) band\] and the incoherent part (a remnant of the upper and lower Hubbard bands) in the spectral function and spectral weight transfer between them as a function of electron correlation strength $U/W$, where $U$ is the Coulomb repulsion energy and $W$ is the bandwidth, are a remarkable manifestation of electron correlation as identified in the photoemission spectra of V and Ti oxides. [@Fujimori; @Inoue] Theoretically, dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) applied to the Hubbard model has successfully reproduced these characteristic features. [@DMFT] Comparison between experiment and theory, however, has not been straightforward. In DMFT, the self-energy is necessarily local, and therefore the density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level ($E_{\rm F}$), namely, the spectral intensity at $E_{\rm F}$ remains the same as that of the non-interacting system and electron correlation effect manifests itself as the narrowing of the coherent QP band. Experimentally, the reduction of the DOS at $E_{\rm F}$ rather than the narrowing of the coherent part was observed in the photoemission spectra of Ca$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$VO$_3$, suggesting the importance of the momentum dependence of the self-energy. [@Fujimori; @Inoue] However, a recent “bulk-sensitive” photoemission study of the same compounds has shown that the QP band is indeed narrowed and the DOS at $E_{\rm F}$ remains unchanged from that predicted by band-structure calculation, indicating that the self-energy is nearly momentum-independent as assumed in DMFT. [@Sekiyama] In the present work, we have studied another typical Mott-Hubbard system VO$_2$, which undergoes a metal-insulator transition as a function of temperature, and examined the spectral function of the “bulk” to see whether the self-energy is momentum-independent or not. Our results have shown that the self-energy is [*momentum-dependent*]{}, probably due to ferromagnetic fluctuations arising from the multi-orbital nature of the V $3d$ band of the rutile structure.
VO$_2$ is well-known for its first-order metal-insulator transition (MIT) at 340 K. [@Morin] The transition is accompanied by a structural transition. In the high temperature metallic phase it has a rutile structure while in the low temperature insulating phase ($M_1$ phase) the V atoms dimerize along the $c$-axis and the dimers twist, resulting in a monoclinic structure. The magnetic susceptibility changes from paramagnetic to nonmagnetic in going from the metallic to the insulating phases. Hence, this transition is analogous to a Peierls transition and in fact the importance of electron-phonon interaction has been demonstrated by Raman scattering [@Raman] and x-ray diffraction [@XRD] studies. On the basis of local-density approximation (LDA) band-structure calculation, Wentzcovitch [*et al.*]{} [@Wentzcovitch] concluded that the insulating phase of VO$_2$ is an ordinary band (Peierls) insulator. On the other hand, the magnetic susceptibility of the high-temperature metallic phase is unusually high and temperature dependent, indicating the importance of electron-electron correlation. Furthermore, Cr-doped VO$_2$ or pure VO$_2$ under uniaxial pressure in the \[110\] direction of the rutile structure has another monoclinic insulating phase called $M_2$ phase. In the $M_2$ phase, half of the V atoms form pairs and the other half form zig-zag chains. [@Marezio] While the V atoms in the pairs are nonmagnetic, those in the zig-zag chains have local moment and are regarded as one-dimensional Heisenberg chains according to an NMR study [@Pouget]. Based on these observations for the $M_2$ phase, Rice [*et al.*]{} [@Rice] objected Wentzcovitch [*et al.*]{}’s argument. Thus it still remains highly controversial whether the MIT of VO$_2$ is driven by electron-phonon interaction (resulting in a Peierls insulator) or electron-electron interaction (resulting in a Mott insulator forming a spin-Peierls-like state).
To deal with the above problems, photoemission spectroscopy is a powerful technique and in fact has been extensively applied to this material. [@Wertheim; @Blaauw; @Sawatzky; @Shin; @Bermudez; @Goering; @Okazaki] However, detailed photoemission studies of the MIT has been hampered because the transition temperature of bulk VO$_2$ is rather high and therefore it is difficult to keep the surface clean in an ultra-high vacuum for the high-temperature metallic phase. Also, because the transition is strongly first-order with the structural change, the sample is destroyed when it crosses the MIT and one can go through the transition only once for one sample.
In this work, we have avoided those experimental difficulties by using thin film samples epitaxially grown on TiO$_2$(001) surfaces using the pulsed laser deposition technique. [@Muraoka] After having obtained a clean surface by oxygen annealing, the surface remained fairly stable for several hours even in the high-temperature metallic phase and allowed us to study detailed temperature-induced changes both in the metallic and insulating phases including the hysteretic behavior across the MIT. Spectral weight transfer between the coherent and incoherent parts of the V $3d$ spectral function accompanying the metal-insulator transition was clearly observed. We have attempted to deduce the “bulk” photoemission spectrum by subtracting surface contributions from the measured spectra. We compare the “bulk” spectrum with the band-structure calculation to discuss electron correlation in the metallic phase, particularly possible momentum dependence of the self-energy. We have also found a strong temperature dependence in the spectra of the insulating phase and attributed it to strong electron-phonon interaction.
Experimental
============
VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) thin films were prepared using the pulsed laser deposition technique as described in Ref. . A V$_2$O$_3$ pellet was used as a target. During the deposition, the substrate temperature was kept at 733 K and oxygen pressure was maintained at 1.0 Pa. The film thickness was about 10 nm. The epitaxial growth was confirmed by four-cycle x-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements and the MIT was confirmed by electrical resistivity measurements showing a jump of about thee orders of magnitude. The transition temperature in the films was 295 K on heating cycle and 285 K on cooling cycle, while the MIT occurs at 340 K in bulk samples. [@Morin] The reduced MIT temperature of the films is due to the compressive strain from the TiO$_2$ substrate. [@Muraoka] Bulk VO$_2$ single crystals were prepared by the chemical vapor transport method and measured as described in Ref. .
X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) and ultra-violet photoemission spectroscopy (UPS) measurements were performed using the Mg $K\alpha$ line ($h\nu$ = 1253.6 eV) for XPS and the He I resonance line ($h\nu$ = 21.2 eV) for UPS with a VSW hemispherical analyzer. Estimation of the instrumental resolution and binding energy calibration were made by measuring gold spectra. The total energy resolution was $\sim$ 0.8 eV for XPS and $\sim$ 30 meV for UPS. Clean surfaces were obtained by annealing the films in a preparation chamber connected to the spectrometer at 643 K under $\sim$ 1 Pa oxygen atmosphere for 1 hour prior to the photoemission measurements.
Results
=======
![\[Fig1\]O $1s$ and V $2p$ core-level XPS spectra of VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) thin film.](Fig1){width="9cm"}
Figure \[Fig1\] shows the O $1s$ and V $2p$ core-level XPS spectra of a VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) film taken at room temperature. Contributions from the Mg $K\alpha_3$ and $K\alpha_4$ satellites have been subtracted. The O 1s peak shows a single peak without any contamination signals at higher binding energies, indicating that the surface became sufficiently clean by the above procedure.
![\[Fig2\]Valence-band photoemission spectra of VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) thin film. Secondary electron background has been subtracted.](Fig2){width="8cm"}
![\[Fig3\]Photoemission spectra of VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) thin film in the V $3d$ band region. (a) Raw data. Dotted and dot-dashed lines indicate estimated contributions from the tail the O $2p$ band. (b) V $3d$ band with the O $2p$ contributions being subtracted. The inset shows a hysteretic behavior of the spectral intensity around $E_{\rm F}$ across the MIT. (c) Photoemission spectra of a bulk single crystal VO$_2$. Top: Raw data; Bottom: Background being subtracted.](Fig3){width="7.8cm"}
Figure \[Fig2\] shows the valence-band UPS spectra of VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) taken at 300 K and 280 K. The secondary electron background has been subtracted following the procedure of Li and Henrich. [@Henrich] The structures from binding energies $E_B$ $\simeq$ 2 to 12 eV are due to the O $2p$ band. The region from $E_B$ $\simeq$ 2 eV to $E_{\rm F}$ is the V $3d$ band. While the O $2p$ band shows no clear temperature dependence, the V $3d$ band shows a temperature dependence, indicating that the MIT occurred between 280 and 300 K.
Figure \[Fig3\] (a) and (b) shows the UPS spectra of VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) in the V $3d$ band region taken at various temperatures. First the temperature was decreased from 300 K to 150 K, then it was increased again to above 300 K. The spectra showed good reproducibility within this temperature cycle. The tail of the O $2p$ band has been subtracted as shown in Fig. \[Fig3\] (a) and the resulting spectra have been normalized to the integrated intensity from $E_B$ = – 0.3 to 2.3 eV, as shown in Fig. \[Fig3\](b). The MIT is clearly seen as the change in the spectral intensity at $E_{\rm F}$ accompanied by the spectral weight transfer between the low binding-energy region $E_B$ = 0-0.5 eV (coherent part) and the high binding-energy region $E_B$ = 0.5-2 eV (incoherent part). The spectra of the films (Fig. \[Fig3\](b)) are almost identical to that of the bulk sample (Fig. \[Fig3\](c)) except for the somewhat stronger temperature dependence of the film spectra. Because of the much higher stability of the film surface in vacuum, we could obtain the spectra with much higher signal-to-noise ratio at much smaller temperature intervals in the whole temperature range. Also, the film retained the original spectra after several temperature cycles whereas the bulk single crystal broke into pieces once it crossed the MIT. In the previous study of bulk single crystals, [@Okazaki] detailed temperature-dependent studies were therefore limited to the low-temperature insulating phase, where the crystal did not break. The present temperature dependence in the insulating phase has reproduced the bulk crystal results.
Here, we have observed a hysteretic behavior in the spectra with temperature across the MIT, as demonstrated by the temperature dependence of the intensity around $E_{\rm F}$ (integrated from $E_B$ = – 0.2 to 0.5 eV) shown in the inset of Fig. \[Fig3\] (b). The hysteretic behavior is seen over the temperature range of $\sim$ 10 K. This may indicate the co-existence of metallic and insulating regions with changing volume fractions in this temperature range. Photoemission spectra of another system which shows a first-order temperature-induced metal-insulator transition, $R$NiO$_3$, also shows a similarly gradual temperature dependence. [@Ni1; @Ni2] In the case of $R$NiO$_3$, the hysteretic behavior in the transport and thermodynamic properties extends over a wide temperature range of several tens K, [@Ni3] and correspondingly the photoemission spectra show a more gradual temperature dependence over the wider temperature range.
 Subtraction of “surface” contributions with various ratios from the photoemission spectrum of the metallic phase. (b) Comparison of the spectra in (a) with the XPS spectrum from Ref. . Here, the curves in (a) have been broadened with a Gaussian to account for the lower energy resolution of XPS.](Fig4){width="7.8cm"}
Recently, it has been demonstrated that photoemission spectra of transition-metal oxides are strongly influenced by surface contributions. In particular, the incoherent part centered around $E_B$ = 1-1.5 eV contains more surface contributions than the coherent part. [@Maiti; @Sekiyama] Since the surface layer tends to have a smaller bandwidth $W$ and hence a larger $U/W$, the surface layer tends to have stronger incoherent part and weaker coherent part than in the bulk. [@Maiti; @Liebsch] In order to remove such surface contributions and to analyze the electronic structure of bulk materials, we attempted to deduce the “bulk” spectrum in the metallic phase under several assumptions. If the thickness of the surface layer is $d$ and the photoelectron escape depth is $\lambda$, the observed spectrum $F(\omega)$ is given by $$F(\omega)=F^s(\omega)(1-e^{-d/\lambda})+F^b(\omega)e^{-d/\lambda},$$ where $F^s(\omega)$ and $F^b(\omega)$ are the “surface” and the “bulk” spectra, respectively. As the electronic properties of the surface layer of VO$_2$ are not precisely known, in the following analyses, we consider the extreme case where the photoemission spectra of the surface layer largely consists of the incoherent part. Therefore, the intensity of the incoherent part in the “bulk” spectrum deduced below should be regarded as the lower bound for the actual bulk one.
Assuming that the spectrum at 280 K ($< T_{MI}$) represents the “surface” spectrum, because the photoelectron escape depth $\lambda$ is not precisely known, we subtracted the “surface” contribution with various ratios as shown in Fig. \[Fig4\] (a). Here, “20% subtracted” means that the intensity of the subtracted insulator-like spectrum was 20% of the total intensity. In Fig. \[Fig4\] (b), we compare the “bulk sensitive” XPS spectrum in the literature [@Wertheim] with those spectra in (a) after having broadened them with a Gaussian function corresponding to the lower experimental energy resolution of XPS ($\sim 0.55$ eV). One can see that the XPS spectrum is in best agreement with “20% subtracted” spectrum. According to the “universal curve” of the photoelectron escape depth, [@Brundle] the escape depth is $\sim$ 10 [Å]{} for $h\nu$ = 21.2 eV and $\sim$ 15 [Å]{} for XPS ($h\nu$ = 1486.6 eV), respectively. Using the surface layer thickness of $2c$ (= 5.7 [Å]{}) on the (001) surface of the rutile structure, where $c$ is the $c$-axis lattice constant, the surface contribution is $\sim$ 44% for $h\nu$ = 21.2 eV and $\sim$ 32% for $h\nu$ = 1486.6 eV, respectively. Hence, the “20% subtracted” spectrum should have 30% surface contribution and therefore it is reasonable that the “20% subtracted” spectrum is in agreement with the XPS spectrum. After all, we consider that the “bulk” spectrum is given by the “40% subtracted” spectrum.
Discussion
==========
Metallic phase
--------------
![\[Fig5\] “Bulk” spectrum is compared with the LDA band-structure calculation from Ref. .](Fig5){width="8cm"}
In Fig. \[Fig5\], we compare the “bulk” spectrum thus deduced with the LDA band-structure calculation. [@Nikolaev] The calculated density of states (DOS) is multiplied by the Fermi-Dirac distribution function at 350 K and broadened with a Gaussian corresponding to the instrumental energy resolution. The width of the coherent part $\sim$ 0.5 eV is similar to that given by the band-structure calculation. This means that $m^*/m_b$ is $\sim$ 1, where $m^*$ is the average effective mass of the QP and $m_b$ is the average bare band mass of the V $3d$ band. From the spectral weight ratio of the coherent part to the incoherent part, $1:2$, the renormalization factor becomes $Z \sim
1/3$. From the ratio of the intensity at $E_{\rm F}$ of the spectra to the DOS given by the band-structure calculation, one can estimate the average $k$-mass defined by $m_k/m_b =
\bigl|\frac{\partial\varepsilon_k} {\partial k}|_{k=k_F}\bigr|/
\bigl|\frac{\partial\varepsilon_k}{\partial k}|_{k=k_F}+
\frac{\partial{\rm Re} \Sigma(k,\omega)}{\partial k}|_{k=k_F}\bigr|$, as $m_k/m_b\sim$ 0.3. Thus, we again obtain $m^*/m_b = (1/Z)(m_k/m_b) \sim$ 1. Note that we have assumed that the surface layer is without the coherent part around $E_{\rm F}$. If the surface spectrum has a finite coherent part, the coherent part of the “bulk” spectrum would be further reduced and the deduced $k$-mass would be even smaller. Hence, $m_k/m_b \sim 0.3$ deduced here should be taken as the upper limit for $m_k/m_b$, and therefore on can safely conclude the $m_k/m_b$ is smaller than unity. That is, the momentum dependence of the self-energy is not negligible in the metallic phase of VO$_2$.
Our finding $m_k/m_b < 1$ is contrasted with the “bulk” spectra of Sr$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$VO$_3$ reported by Sekiyama [*et al*]{}. [@Sekiyama] In their result, the width of the coherent part of the V $3d$ band of SrVO$_3$ is reduced by a factor of $\sim$ 40 % compared with the LDA result, and the spectral weight of the coherent part is also reduced by $\sim$ 40% due to the transfer of spectral weight to the incoherent part, resulting in almost the same spectral intensity at $E_{\rm F}$ as that of the LDA value, that is, the self-energy has negligible momentum dependence in Sr$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$VO$_3$. The origin of the momentum dependence of the self-energy in VO$_2$ is not known at this moment. One possibility is poor screening of long-range Coulomb interaction, but it is unlikely that the screening effect is so different between VO$_2$ and Sr$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$VO$_3$. Another possible origin of the momentum dependence is ferromagnetic fluctuations in VO$_2$ considering the enhanced magnetic susceptibility in the metallic phase, corresponding to $m^*/m_b \sim 6$ (Ref. ). Recently, Liebsch and Ishida [@Liebsch2] proposed that the multi-orbital nature of the V $3d$ band is important to describe the metallic phase of VO$_2$ (Ref. ), following the idea originally proposed by Zylbersztejn and Mott. [@Zylbersztejn] According to these works, the occupancy of the $t_{2g}$ orbitals is very different between the metallic and the insulating phases due to lattice distortion in the insulating phase and this affects the role of local Coulomb interaction in each phase. If many orbitals contribute to the metallic conductivity, ferromagnetic correlation may arise from Hund’s coupling between those orbitals. Further studies are necessary to confirm this scenario.
Insulating phase
----------------
As stated in Sec. \[Intro\], it has been controversial whether the insulating band gap is primarily caused by the lattice distortion or the electron-electron interaction. In order address this issue, it is useful to examine the photoemission spectral line shape of the V $3d$ band in the insulating phase.
![\[Fig6\] UPS spectrum in the insulating phase (280 K) compared with the LDA$+U$ band-structure calculation ($U = 4.0$ eV). [@LDA+U]](Fig6){width="8cm"}
In Fig. \[Fig6\], we compare the UPS spectrum of the insulating phase with the DOS given by the LDA$+U$ band-structure calculation ($U$ = 4.0 eV) by Huang [*et al.*]{}, [@LDA+U] where the effect of electron-electron interaction is taken into account on the mean-field (i.e. Hartree-Fock) level. The figure shows that, although the insulating gap can be produced by the LDA$+U$ method, the Gaussian-like broad spectrum of V $3d$ band cannot be reproduced. This disagreement between theory and experiment cannot be explained by a surface effect because since the bulk component should have finite contribution ($\sim$ 60 %) even for this low photon energy and therefore the sharp feature should be clearly visible overlapping the surface signals. This means that electron-electron interaction on the mean-field level is not sufficient to understand the photoemission spectrum of the insulating VO$_2$. Here, we point out that the photoemission spectra of a double-layer manganite La$_{1.2}$Sr$_{1.8}$Mn$_2$O$_7$ also show a broad Gaussian-like line shape in striking contrast with LDA band-structure calculation, and this discrepancy has been attributed to the strong electron-phonon coupling. [@Mn] Furthermore, one can recognize that the spectra of VO$_2$ show very strong temperature dependence in the insulating phase as shown in Fig \[Fig3\]. The same temperature dependence was observed in the spectra of bulk single crystal and was attributed to electron-phonon interaction, because the core-level spectra also show a similarly strong temperature dependence. [@Okazaki]
![\[Fig7\]Comparison of the spectral function of the independent boson model with the photoemission spectra of VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) in the insulating phase. (a) Spectrum at 150 K and its Gaussian-broadened (FWHM $=$ 200 meV) spectrum, (b) Independent boson model calculation, (c) Measured photoemission spectra \[the same as Fig. \[Fig3\]\].](Fig7){width="7.5cm"}
Simple thermal broadening cannot explain the observed temperature dependence as shown in Fig. \[Fig7\] (a), where the photoemission spectrum taken at 150 K and the same spectrum broadened with a Gaussian, whose FWHM is 200 meV ($\sim$ $8k_{\rm B}T$ at 300 K) are compared. In order to simulate the temperature-dependence based on the electron-phonon interaction mechanism, we introduce the spectral function of the independent boson model at finite temperature given by [@Mahan] $$\begin{aligned}
A(\omega)=e^{-g(2N+1)}\sum_l\frac{g^l}{l!}\sum_{m=0}^l{}_l C_mN^m(N+1)
^{l-m} \\
\times \delta(\omega-\varepsilon_c+\Delta-(l-2m)\omega_0),\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is the phonon occupation number, $g$ is the electron-phonon coupling constant, $\omega_0$ is the average phonon energy, the $\Delta
= g\omega_0$ is the electron self-energy shift due to coupling to phonons and $\varepsilon_c$ gives the peak position of the spectra. This spectral function describes the situation where spectral weight is transfered from the zero-phonon line at the lowest binding energy $\varepsilon_c-\Delta$ to $\varepsilon_c-\Delta+(l-2m)\omega_0$ by emitting $(l-m)$ phonons or absorbing $m$ phonons. Because this spectral function consists of a series of delta functions, one has to broaden this function to compare with the photoemission spectra. For this purpose, we use a simplified model self-energy $\Sigma(\omega)=G\omega/(\omega+i\gamma)^2$, which simulates the “life time” broadening which increases with increasing binding energy. [@Saitoh] In Fig. \[Fig7\] (b) and (c), we compare the spectral function of the independent boson model with the photoemission spectra of VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) in the insulating phase. We have chosen the parameters as $\varepsilon_c=1.2$ eV, $g=40$ and $\omega_0=0.03$ eV (Ref. ) for the independent boson model and $G=1.5$ eV$^2$ and $\gamma=2$ eV for the broadening. Because the tail of the lower binding energy side of the photoemission spectrum reaches the vicinity of $E_{\rm F}$, we have chosen the coupling constant $g$ so that $\varepsilon_c-\Delta \sim 0$. Hence, $g=\varepsilon_c/\omega_0 \approx
40$. One can see that the temperature-dependent spectral function of the independent boson model qualitatively reproduces the photoemission spectra.
The extremely large coupling constant $g=40$ may appear unphysical at first sight. However, Citrin [*et al.*]{} [@Citrin] have shown that in ionic crystals the coupling constant can be large and reported $g =
55$ for KI based on their analysis of temperature-dependent core-level photoemission spectra. They have estimated the value of $g$ using the expression $g = e^2(6/\pi V)^{1/3}(1/\varepsilon_\infty
-1/\varepsilon_0) / \omega_0$, where $V$ is the volume of a primitive unite cell, $\varepsilon_\infty$ and $\varepsilon_0$ are the high- and low-frequency limits of the dielectric constant. For VO$_2$, $V \sim$ 29.5 Å$^3$, $\varepsilon_\infty$ and $\varepsilon_0$ have been given as 5 and 30 in Ref. , respectively. From these values, $g$ is calculated as $\sim$ 32. On the other hand, Egdell [*et al.*]{} [@Egdell] have used $1/2R$ in stead of $(6/\pi V)^{1/3}$ for perovskite-type V oxides, where $R$ is the ionic radius of the transition-metal ion. In this case, $g$ becomes as large as 47. ($R$ is 0.82 [Å]{} for VO$_2$. [@Gervais]) Hence, we can say that $g =
30-50$ is a reasonable value for the electron-phonon coupling constant for VO$_2$.
Finally, we comment on how the strong electron-electron interaction and the strong electron-phonon coupling are related with each other in VO$_2$ (and probably in other transition-metal oxides as well). In ionic crystals, the on-site Coulomb repulsion energy $U$ is given by $ U =
e^2/2 \varepsilon_\infty R$. Therefore, according to Egdell [*et al.*]{}’s expression, [@Egdell] the large $U$ and the large $g$ is related with each other though $\varepsilon_\infty$. This means that the strong electron-phonon interaction is a consequence of strong electron-electron interaction.
Conclusion
==========
We have studied the electronic structure of VO$_2$ by measuring the photoemission spectra of VO$_2$/TiO$_2$(001) thin films. The metal-insulator transition was clearly observed as a change in the spectral intensity at $E_{\rm F}$ accompanied by spectral weight transfer between the coherent and incoherent parts of the spectral function. From comparison of the “bulk” spectrum in the metallic phase and the band-structure calculation, we have concluded that, while the mass enhancement factor $m^*/m_b$ is almost unity, the momentum dependence of the self-energy is important in the metallic phase, possibly due to ferromagnetic fluctuations arising from the multi-orbital character of the V $3d$ band. In the insulating phase, the V $3d$ band is strongly broadened as the temperature is increased. We attribute this temperature dependence to the electron-phonon interaction and reproduced it using the independent boson model with a very large coupling constant. This indicates that, while electron-electron interaction is necessary to produce the band gap in the insulating phase, electron-phonon interaction is important to fully understand the electronic structure and charge transport in VO$_2$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank A. Liebsch, S. Biermann and T. Mizokawa for enlightening discussions. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Priority Area “Novel Quantum Phenomena in Transition Metal Oxides” from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.
[99]{} Present address: Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan
A. Fujimori, I. Hase, H. Namatame, Y. Fujishima, Y.Tokura, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, K. Takegahara, and F. M. F. de Groot, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1796 (1992).
I. H. Inoue, I. Hase, Y. Aiura, A. Fujimori, Y. Haruyama, T. Maruyama, and Y. Nishihara, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2539 (1995).
A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 13 (1996).
A. Sekiyama, H. Fujisawa, S. Imada, H. Eisaki, S. I. Uchida, K. Takegahara , H. Harima, Y. Saitoh, and S. Suga, cond-mat/0206471.
F. J. Morin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**3**]{}, 34 (1959).
R. Srivastava and L. L. Chase, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**27**]{}, 727 (1971). D. B. McWhan, M. Marezio, J. P. Remeika, and P. D. Dernier, Phys. Rev. B [**10**]{}, 490 (1974).
R. M. Wentzcovitch, W. W. Schulz, and P. B. Allen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **72**]{}, 3389 (1994).
M. Marezio, D. B. McWhan, J. P. Remeika, and P. D. Dernier, Phys. Rev. B [**5**]{}, 2541 (1971).
J. P. Pouget, H. Lauois, T. M. Rice, P. Dernier, A. Gossard, G. Villeneuve, and P. Hagenmuller, Phys. Rev. B [**10**]{}, 1801 (1974).
T. M. Rice, H. Launois, and J. P. Pouget, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, (1994) 3042.
G. K. Wertheim, M. Capagna, H. J. Guggenheim, J. P. Remeika, and D. N. E. Buchanan, AIP Conf. Proc. [**24**]{}, 235 (1975). C. Blaauw, F. Leenhouts, F van der Woude, and G. A. Sawatzky, J. Phys. C [**8**]{}, 459 (1979). G. A. Sawatzky and D. Post, Phys. Rev. B [**20**]{}, 1546 (1979). S. Shin, S. Suga, M. Taniguchi, M. Fujisawa, H. Kanzaki, A. Fujimori, H. Daimon, Y. Ueda, K. Kosuge, and S. Kachi, Phys. Rev. B [ **41**]{}, 4993 (1990). V. M. Bermudez, R. T. Williams, J. P. Long, R. K. Reed, and P. H. Klein, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 9266 (1992). E. Goering, M. Schramme, O. M$\ddot{u}$ller, R. Barth, H. Paulin, M. Klemm, M. L. denBoer, and S. Horn, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 4225 (1997). K. Okazaki, A. Fujimori, and M. Onoda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**71**]{}, 822 (2002).
Y. Muraoka, Y. Ueda, and Z. Hiroi, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**63**]{}, 965 (2002).
X. Li and V. E. Henrich, J. Electron. Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. [ **63**]{}, 253 (1993).
I. Vobornik, L. Perfetti, M. Zacchigna, M. Grioni, G. Margaritondo, J. Mesot, and M. Medarde, and P. Lacorre, Phys. Rev. B [ **60**]{}, R8426 (1999). K. Okazaki, T. Mizokawa, A. Fujimori, E. V. Sampathkumaran, M. J. Martinez-Lope, and J. A. Alonso, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 073101 (2003). J. Blasco and J. Garcia, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**6**]{}, 10759 (1994).
K. Maiti, P. Mahadevan, and D. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2885 (1998).
A. Liebsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 096401 (2003).
C. R. Brundle, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. [**11**]{}, 212 (1974).
A. V. Nikolaev, Yu. N. Kostrubov, and B. V. Andreev, Sov. Phys. Solid State [**34**]{}, 1614 (1992).
G. Villeneuve, A. Bordet, A. Casalot, and P. Hagenmuller, Mater. Res. Bull. [**6**]{}, 119 (1971); J. P. Pouget, P. Lederer, D. S. Schreiber, H. Launois, D. Wohlleben, A. Casalot, and G. Villenueve, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [ **33**]{}, 1961 (1972).
A. Liebsch and H. Ishida, cond-mat/0310216.
M. S. Laad, L. Craco, and E. M$\ddot{u}$ller-Hartmann, cond-mat/0305081.
A. Zylbersztejn and N. F. Mott, Phys. Rev. B [**11**]{}, 4383 (1975).
X. Huang, W. Yang, and U. Eckern, cond-mat/9808137.
D. S. Dessau, T. Saitoh, C. -H. Park, Z. -X. Shen, P. Villella, N. Hamada, Y. Moritomo, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **81**]{}, 192 (1998).
G. D. Mahan, [*Many-Particle Physics*]{}, (Plenum, New York, 1981) Sec. 4.3.
T. Saitoh, A. Sekiyama, T. Mizokawa, A. Fujimori, K. Ito, H. Nakamura, and M. Shiga, Solid State Commun. [**95**]{}, 307 (1995).
F. Gervais and W. Kress, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{}, 4809 (1985).
P. H. Citrin, P. Eisenberger, and D. R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**33**]{}, 965 (1974).
R. G. Egdell, M. R. Harrison, M. D. Hill, L. Porte, and G. Wall, J. Phys. C [**17**]{}, 2889 (1984).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Nicolas Eisen [email protected]'
title: 'ON THE HOLOMORPHIC EXTENSION OF CR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM NON GENERIC CR SUBMANIFOLDS OF $\C^L$'
---
Introduction
============
Statement of Results
--------------------
Let $\n$ be a smooth generic submanifold of $\C^{k+m}$ of CR dimension $k$ and $h$ a smooth CR map from $\n$ into some $\C^{n}$ verifying $dh(0)=0$. Set $L=k+m+n$, we construct a CR submanifold $N$ of $\C^{p}$ near the origin as the graph of $h$ over $\n$, that is $N=\{(\n,h(\n))\}$. It turns out that any non generic CR submanifold of $\C^L$ can be obtained in that fashion, see for example [@[Bo]]. The main question we address in this paper is the possible holomorphic extension of CR functions of $N$ to some wedge $\W$ in a complex transverse direction. We say that a vector in $\C^L$ is [**complex transversal**]{} to $N$ at $p \in N$ if $v \not \in $ span$_{\C}T_pN$. For totally real submanifolds of $\C^L$, we have the following well known result (see the remarks following for different proofs of this result). If $N$ is a non generic totally real submanifold of $\C^L$ and $ v \in \C^L$ is complex transversal to $N$ at $p$. Then for any continuous function $f$ on a neighborhood of $p$ in $N$ there exists $\W_v$, a wedge of direction $v$ whose edge contains $N$ such that $f$ has a holomorphic extension to $\W_v$. In this paper, we shall study the case where $N$ is not totally real, that is we consider CR submanifolds of $\C^L$ given by $N=\{(\n,h(\n))\}$ where $\n$ is generic in $\C^{k+m}$ of CR dimension $k>0$. We say that a CR distribution extends holomorphically to a wedge $\W$ if there exists a holomorphic function $F$ in $W$ such that the boundary value of $F$ on $N$ is $f$, i.e $<f,\varphi>=
\lim_{\lambda \to 0^+} \int_{N}F(x+\lambda v)\varphi(x)dx$ for any $v \in \W$.
\[th\] Let $N=\{(\n,h(\n))\} $ be a smooth ($\CC^{\infty})$ non generic CR submanifold of $\C^{k+1}\times \C^n$ such that $\n \subset \C^{k+1}$ is a hypersurface. If $f$ is a CR distribution on $N$ then for any $p \in
N$ and any $v$ complex transversal to $N$ at $p$, there exists a wedge $\W$ of direction $v$ whose edge contains a neighborhood of $p$ in $N$ and $F\in \O(\W)$ such that the boundary value of $F$ on $N$ is $f$.
We obtain some extension results for arbitrary $\n$ for decomposable CR distributions. Since the CR structure of $N$ is determined by $\n$, the CR distributions of $N$ are precisely the CR distributions of $\n$.
\[D1\] A CR distribution $u$ on $\n$ is decomposable at the point $Z\in \n$ if, near $Z$, $u=\sum_{j=1}^KU_j$ where the $U_j$ are CR distributions extending holomorphically to wedges $\W_j$ in $\C^{k+m}$ with edges $\n$. We shall say a CR distribution $u$ on $N$ is decomposable at a point $p=(p',h(p'))$ if $u$ is decomposable at $p'$ on $\n$.
\[t1\] Let $N=\{(\n,h(\n))\} $ be a smooth ($\CC^{\infty})$ non generic CR submanifold of $\C^{k+m+n}$ such that the function $h$ decomposable at some $p'_0 \in \n$. Let $v$ be a complex transversal vector to $N$ at $p_0=(p'_0,h(p'_0))$.
[**(A)**]{} If $f$ is a decomposable CR distribution at $p_0$, then, near $p_0$, there exists a wedge $\W$ of direction $v$ whose edge contains a neighborhood of $p_0$ in $N$ and $F\in \O(\W)$ such that the boundary value of $F$ on $N$ is $f$.
[**(B)**]{} There exists a wedge $\W$ of direction $v$ and $\{F_{\l}\}_{\l=1}^n$, $F_{\l}\in
\O(\W)$ such that $dF_1\wedge ...\wedge dF_n\not = 0$ on $\W$ and each $F_{\l}$ vanishes to order one on $N$.
We also get as a corollary:
\[t3\] Let $M$ be a smooth ($\CC^{\infty}$) generic submanifold of $\C^L$ containing through some $p_0 \in M$ a proper smooth ($\CC^{\infty}$) CR submanifold $N=(\n,h(\n))$ of same CR dimension, write $p_0=(p'_0,h(p'_0))$ with $p'_0\in \n$. Assume that the function $h$ decomposable at $p'_0$. Let $v\in T_{p_0}M \setminus
\left [span_{\C}T_{p_0}N\right ]$. If $f$ is a decomposable CR distribution at $p_0$, then there exists a wedge $\W$ in $M$ of direction $v$ whose edge contains $N$ and $F$ smooth ($\CC^{\infty}$) CR functions on $\W$ such that the boundary value of $F$ on $N$ is $f$. Furthermore, there exists a collection of smooth CR functions $\{g_{\l}\}_{\l=1}^n$ vanishing to order one on $N$ and such that $dg_1\wedge....\wedge
dg_n \not=0 $ on $\W$.
Remarks
-------
The equivalent of theorem \[th\] for totally real manifolds (mentioned in the introduction) can be proved in several ways, one way is to follow the theory of analytic vectors of an elliptic operator due to Treves (see section 3.2). Another way is to use the following result: Let $N$ be a smooth submanifold of the boundary of $\Omega$, a strictly pseudoconvex domain in $\C^L$. If $N$ is complex tangential ($TN
\subset (T(\partial \Omega) \cap iT(\partial \Omega))$) then $N$ is a Pic interpolating set. See for example [@[Na]] or [@[Ru]]. Given $N$, a totally real non generic submanifold of $\C^L$, one can easily construct $\Omega$ as above and deduce the theorem.
The boundary value of a holomorphic function is well defined for functions of slow growth, that is there exists a constant $C>0$ and a positive integer $\ell$ such that $|F(z)|\leq {{C}\over{|dist(z,N)|^{\ell}}},$ where $dist(z,M)$ denotes the distance from a point $z$ to $N$. Conversely any CR distribution which extends holomorphically to a wedge $\W$ is given by the boundary value of a holomorphic function of slow growth. See for example [@[BER]].
As it is noted in [@[Tr-3]] on most CR submanifolds of $\C^L$ all CR functions are decomposable, hence the hypotheses of theorem \[t1\] hold in a generical sense. However, they are examples of CR submanifolds of $\C^L$ on which indecomposable CR functions exist, see [@[Tr-3]] for the general theory and [@[Rosay]] for an elementary explanation of such examples. It turns out that on Trépreau’s original example of a CR manifold where undecomposable CR functions exist we still do get holomorphic extension of CR functions to complex transversal wedges (see section 3.2).
Theorem \[t1\] implies that the extension obtained is not unique, which differs greatly with the holomorphic extension results obtained for generic submanifolds. We wish to point out the differences between our results and the previously known results on holomorphic extension of CR functions. The most general result on holomorphic extension is Tumanov’s theorem which states that if $M$ is a generic submanifold of $\C^L$ that is minimal at some $p_0$ then there exists a wedge $\W$ with edge $M$ (near $p_0$), such that one gets a “forced” unique local holomorphic extension of CR functions defined in a neighborhood of $p_0$ in $M$.
One should note that the question of CR extension can be viewed as a Cauchy problem with Cauchy data on a characteristic set $N$. In [@[Ei]] we constructed an example of an abstract CR structure where there is no such CR extension propriety. It is very easy to construct an abstract CR structure where there is no CR function vanishing on $N$ to finite order (see the example at the end of this paper).
Off course the situation is greatly different if we impose holomorphic extension to a full neighborhood of $N$, as the next example shows.
[**Example**]{} Let $I_n~~n>0$ be a sequence of disjointed intervals (separated by some open sets) in $\R$ accumulating to the origin and let $u$ be a smooth function such that $u|_{I_n}=1/n$. Let $\gamma=\{(s,u(s))\} \subset
\C^2$. Suppose $f$ is holomorphic on a neighborhood of the origin and that $f|_{\gamma}=0$, then $f(w_1,{{1} \over {n}})=0$ for all $n$ for $|w_1|$ small enough and thus $f \equiv 0$.
Background
----------
The first result on holomorphic extension of CR function is due to Lewy [@[Le]]. He proved that if a hypersurface was Levi nondegenerate at $p_0$ then CR functions extend holomorphically to one side of the hypersurface. This result was generalized by Boggess and Polking [@[Bo-Po]] for arbitrary dimensions. In the case of Levi flatness Trépreau [@[Tr-1]] proved that if a hypersurface in $\C^n$ is minimal at $p_0$ (it contains through $p_0$ no $n-1$ dimensional complex manifold), then CR functions extend holomorphically to one side of the hypersurface. The generalization of Trépreau’s result to arbitrary codimension is due to Tumanov [@[Tu-1]], in which he states that if the manifold $M$ is minimal at $p_0$ (it contains through $p_0$ no proper submanifolds of same CR dimension) then CR functions extend to a wedge in ${\C}^n$ with edge $M$. CR extension to manifolds of higher CR dimension has been dealt with in works by Taiani and Hill [@[Hi-Ta]], Tumanov [@[Tu-2]] as a well as in a recent paper by Eastwood and Graham [@[Ea-Gr]]. For general background on CR geometry, we recommend the books by Baouendi, Ebenfelt, Rothschild [@[BER]], Boggess [@[Bo]] and Jacobowitz [@[Ja]] and the survey paper on holomorphic extension by Trépreau [@[Tr-2]].
Outline of the Paper
--------------------
The main part of this paper is the proof of theorem\[t1\], we then obtain theorem \[th\] as a corollary. We show that it suffices to consider the case where $N$ is given as a trivial CR graph, that is $N=\{(\n,0)\}$. We then solve a Dirichlet problem on some open subset $\Omega$ of $\n \times \R^n$, by Treves’s analytic vector theory, this yields holomorphy in the $w$ variables. To obtain holomorphy in $z$ we need to proceed with a deformation on $\n$ so that the “boundary” of $\Omega$ (boundary with respect to the variables of the elliptic operator) $\partial
\Omega$ is a CR submanifold of $\n \times \R^n$ of same CR dimension.
Acknowledgements
----------------
The author would like to thank Jean-Pierre Rosay for some helpful remarks and fruitful discussions as well as Jean-Michel Bony for the references for the Dirichlet problem for elliptic operators and Joel Merker for the help with the pictures.
Complex Transversal Holomorphic Extension in Manifolds of type $N=(\n,0)$
=========================================================================
We first consider the case where the graph of $\n$ is trivial, i.e. $h
\equiv 0$.
\[Th2\] Let $N=\{(\n,0)\} $ be a smooth ($\CC^{\infty})$ non generic CR submanifold of $\C^{k+m+n}$. Let $\{v\}$ be complex transversal to $N$ at $p_0$. If $f$ is a CR distribution on $N$ that is decomposable at $p_0$, then there exists a wedge $\W$ of direction $v$ whose edge contains $N$ and $F\in \O(\W_{v})$ such that the boundary value of $F$ on $N$ is $f$.
The main tool to prove theorem \[Th2\] is the following proposition:
\[Prop1\] Let $N=\{(\n,0)\} $ be a smooth ($\CC^{\infty})$ non generic CR submanifold of $\C^{k+m+n}$ and let $f$ be a distribution on $N$ that admits a holomorphic extension to a wedge $\W$ in $\C^{k+m}$ with edge $\n$ near $p_0$, then for any $v$ complex transversal to $N$ at $p_0$, there exists a wedge $\W_v$ in $\C^{k+m+n}$ of direction $v$ whose edge contains $\n$ and $F \in \O(\W_v)$ such that the boundary value of $F$ on $N$ is $f$.
[**Proof of Theorem \[Th2\].**]{} We assume proposition \[Prop1\]. Let $v$ be a complex transversal vector and let $u$ be a CR distribution on $\n$. By hypothesis, $u=\sum_{j=1}^{K}
U_j$ where each $U_j$ is a CR distribution that extends holomorphically to a wedge $\W_j\subset
\C^{k+m}$ with edge $\n$. We thus apply proposition \[Prop1\] to each $U_j$ to obtain a holomorphic extension to wedges $\W'_j$ all in the direction $v$. Let $\W=\cap_{j=1}^K \W'_j$ we conclude that the function $\sum_{j=1}^{K}
U_j$ is holomorphic in $\W$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{K}U_j=u$ on $\n$. This concludes the proof of theorem \[Th2\]. $\blacksquare$
The remainder of this section will be devoted to the proof of proposition \[Prop1\].
Local Coordinates
-----------------
We begin with a choice of local coordinates on $\n$. $\n$ is a generic manifold in $\C^{k+m}$. We introduce local coordinates near $p_0$. We may choose a local embedding so that $p_0=0$ and $\n$ is parameterized in $\C^{k+m}=\C^k_z \times \C^m_{w'}$ by
$$\label{e1}
\n=\{(z,w')\in \C^k \times \C^m:Im(w')=a(z,
Re(w')),~~ a(0)=da(0)=0\}.$$
We will denote by $s=Re(w') \in \R^m$, we thus have
$$\label{e2}
\n=\{(z,s+ia(z,s)\}\subset \C^k \times \C^m,~~~ T_0\n=\C^k\times \R^m.$$
Define $\C T_p\n=T_p\n \otimes \C$ and $T^{0,1}_p\n=T^{0,1}_p\C^{k+m} \cap \C T_p\n$. We say that $\n$ is a CR manifold if dim$_{\C}T^{0,1}_p\n$ does not depend on $p$. The CR vector fields of $\n$ are vector fields $L$ on $\n$ such that for any $p\in \n$ we have $L_p \in T^{0,1}_p\n$. One can choose a basis $\L$ of $ T^{0,1}\n$ near the origin consisting of vector fields $L_j$ of the form
$$\label{e3}
L_j={{\partial} \over {\partial \overline z_j}}+\sum_{\ell=1}^nF_{j
\ell} {{\partial} \over {\partial s_{\ell}}}.$$
The wedge $\W$ in $\C^{k+m}$ with edge $\n$ on which we have holomorphic extension of the function $f$ in a neighborhood of the origin is of the form $$\W=\left (\U+i\Gamma\right ),$$ where $\U$ is a neighborhood of the origin in $\n$ and $\Gamma$ is a conic neighborhood of some vector $\mu$ in $\R^m\setminus
\{0\}$. We make another linear change of variables, identifying the vector $\mu$ with $(1,1,...,1)$ thus not changing \[e2\]. We therefore have for some $\eta>0$ and $B_{\eta}(0)$, a ball centered at the origin in $\C^{k+m}$ of radius $\eta$
$$\label{e4}
\begin{array}{l}
\W=\left (\U+i\Gamma\right ){\rm~~ ,where~} \U=B_{\eta}(0)\cap \n~~
{\rm and~} \Gamma~{\rm is~ a~conic~
neighborhood~ of~}\\
(1,1,....,1) ~{\rm in~} \R^m\setminus \{0\},\\
f~{\rm~extends~holomorphically~to~}\W=
\left (\U+i\Gamma\right )\cap B_{\eta}(0).
\end{array}$$
Deformations
------------
Denote by $B_{r}$ the ball of radius $r$ centered at the origin in $\R^m$ and $\B_r$ the unit ball centered at the origin in $\C^k$. Let $d \in \R$ be such that for $\eta$ given by \[e4\] we have $$\label{e7}
0<d<{{\eta}\over {\sqrt m}}.$$ Let $\epsilon>0$ be given, let $\{b_j\}_{j=1}^m$ be $\CC^{\infty}$ functions so that
$$\label{e8}
\begin{cases}
b_j|_{\B_{\epsilon} \times B_{\epsilon}}=a_j|_{\B_{\epsilon} \times
B_{\epsilon}},\\
b_j=d~{\rm if}~s \in \R^{m} \setminus
B_{2\epsilon}
\end{cases}$$
Define the generic submanifold of $\C^k \times \C^m$ $\ti \n$ as follows
$$\label{e9}
\ti \n=\{(z,s+ib(z,s)):(z,s) \in \C^k \times \R^m\}.$$
[**Notation.**]{} We shall use the following convention, if $M$ is a manifold defined in a neighborhood of the origin, parametrized by $\C^k \times \R^{m}$, then $M|_{B_r}$ is defined by
$$M|_{B_r} =\{(Z(z,x)):x \in B_r\}.$$ With the above notation we then have $$\ti \n|_{ B_{\epsilon}}= \n|_{ B_{\epsilon}},$$
which we illustrate with the following picture.
p2.pstex\_t
\[p1\] For $\epsilon$ small enough, there exists $b_j$ as in \[e8\] so that $f$ (as in proposition \[Prop1\]) extends to a CR distribution on $\ti \n$ in a $\eta$ neighborhood of the origin.
\[coro1\] There is no loss of generality in assuming that the functions $a$ in \[e1\] verify \[e8\], i.e., one can replace $\n$ by $\ti \n$.
[**Proof of Proposition \[p1\].**]{} The main tool is the following lemma.
\[l1\] There exists $b_j $ so that for $\epsilon$ small enough we have
$$\left (\ti \n \cap V_{\eta}\right ) \subset \overline \W,$$ where $\W$ and $V_{\eta}$ are as in \[e4\].
[**Proof of Lemma \[l1\].**]{}
By \[e2\] we have $$\label{e10}
\|a_j\|_{L^{\infty}(\B_{3\epsilon} \times B_{3\epsilon})}<C\epsilon^2.$$
Choose $\vartheta$ and $\xi$ positive $\CC^{\infty}$ functions so that
$$\label{e11}
\begin{cases}
\vartheta=\vartheta(s),~~~\xi=\xi(s),\\
\vartheta=0~{\rm on}~B_{\epsilon}~{\rm and}~\vartheta=1
~{\rm on}~\R^m \setminus B_{{{4}\over {3}} \epsilon},\\
\xi=1 ~{\rm on}~B_{{{4}\over {3}} \epsilon},
\xi=0 ~{\rm on}~~\R^m \setminus B_{{{5}\over {3}} \epsilon}.
\end{cases}$$
Define the functions $b_j$ as follows, $$b_1=d \vartheta+(1-\vartheta)a_1$$ and $b_j$ for $1<j\leq m$ is given by $$b_j=a_j+\xi\vartheta (d-a_1)+(1-\xi)(d-a_j),$$ where $d$ is given by \[e7\]. We see that $b_j=a_j$ if $s\in B_{\epsilon}$ and $b_j=d$ if $s \in B_{3\epsilon}
\setminus B_{2\epsilon}$.
We need to show now that a point $(z,s+ib(z,s))$ is in the wedge $\W$. Write $ (z,s+ib(z,s))=(z,s+ia)+(0,iv)$ where $v$ is given by $$v=\vartheta(d-a_1) \left(1,...,1\right )+
(1-\xi)\left (0,a_1-a_2,...,a_1-a_j,...,a_1-a_m\right )$$
By \[e10\] $a_j=O(\epsilon^2)$, so if $\epsilon$ is small enough we see that $ (z,s+ib(z,s))\in \W$ To conclude the proof of lemma \[l1\], we need to make sure that $\epsilon$ is also small enough so that $(z,s+id) \in B_{\eta}(0)
$ when $(z,s)\in \B_{3\epsilon}
\times B_{3\epsilon}$, which we can do by \[e7\]. $\blacksquare$
The proof of proposition \[p1\] is now immediate, the CR extension of $f$ to $\ti \n$ is given by the restriction of the holomorphic extension of $f$ to $\ti
\n$, which is possible by the preceding lemma. $\blacksquare$
[**(Abuse of) Notation.**]{} From henceforth we shall be working on $\ti \n$. However, to keep the notation as simple as possible we will forget the tilde and keep the $\n$.
Resolution of a Dirichlet Problem
---------------------------------
Consider the generic manifold $\n \times
\R^n \subset \C^{k+m}\times \C^n$.
\[l2\] A basis $\L$ of the CR vector fields $\n \times
\R^n$ consists of vector field $ L_j$ of the form
$$\label{e17}
L_j={{\partial} \over {\partial \overline z_j}}+\sum_{l=1}^mf_{j,l}
{{\partial} \over {\partial s_l}},$$
where the $ L_j$ can be chosen to verify the following property.
If $s \in \R^{m} \setminus B_{2\epsilon}$ we have $$L_j={{\partial} \over {\partial \overline z_j}}.$$
The proof of the first part of lemma \[l2\] can be found in any textbook on CR geometry. The second part is just a consequence of the construction of $ \n$.
### Construction of the operator $\Delta_{\n\times\R^n}$
\[l3\] There exists $m$ vector fields $R_j$ of the form $$R_j=\sum_{l=1}^m a_{jl}(z,s){{\partial} \over {\partial s_l}}$$ where the $a_{jl}$ are smooth functions, such that
\(i) $R_{j}( w'_l)=\delta_{jl}$, $j,l \in \{1,...,m\}$,
\(ii) $[R_j,R_l]=0$,
\(iii) $[ L_j,R_l]=0$,
\(iv) the set $\{ L_1,..., L_k, \overline{ L_1},...,\overline
{ L_k},R_1,...,R_{m}\}$ span the complex tangent plane to $ \n $ near the origin.
The proof of the lemma is classic. (ii) (iii) and (iv) are a consequence of (i). We thus determine the $R_j$ by solving for their coefficients in (i) (see for example [@[BER]] Lemma 8.7.13 page 234).
\[r1\] We note that the $R_j$’s verifies the following property,
if $j \leq m$ then $$R_j|_{0}= R_j|_{\C^k\times \left [\R^{m}\setminus
B_{2\epsilon}\right ]}={{\partial}\over {\partial s_j}}.$$
The equivalent of lemma \[l3\] for $\n\times\R^n$, is given by
\[l’3\] The $m+n$ vector fields given by $\{R_1,....,R_m,{{\partial}\over{\partial
t_1}},...,{{\partial}\over{\partial t_n}}\}$ verify the same properties as in lemma \[l3\], where we replace $ \n$ by $\n\times\R^n$.
Define $\Delta_{\n\times\R^n}$ by
$$\label{e1.1}
\Delta_{\n\times\R^n}=\sum_{j=1}^{m}R_j^2 +\sum_{j=1}^{n}
{{\partial^2}\over{{\partial
t_j}}^2} .$$
From \[r1\] and lemma \[l3\] (iii) we deduce immediately the following:
\[p2\] The operator $-\Delta_{\n\times\R^n}$ is strongly elliptic of degree two on $\n\times\R^n$ with smooth ($\CC^{\infty}$) coefficients and no constant terms.
$\Delta_{\n\times\R^n}$ is a differential operator in the variables $s$ and $t$ whose coefficient functions depend smoothly on the $z$ variable. We are going to study a Dirichlet problem on $\n\times\R^n$. To do this, we need $\Omega$ some open set in $\n\times\R^n$ with boundary $\partial \Omega$ parametrized by some closed submanifold of $\R^{n+m}$ of codimension one (recall that $\Delta_{\n\times\R^n}$ is a differential operator in the variables $s$ and $t$).
The reason we went to the trouble of redefining $ \n$ was to be able to define an open set $\Omega$ whose boundary is a CR submanifold of $\n\times\R^n$ of same CR dimension containing near the origin $\n$.
### Construction of the open set $\Omega$
In $\R^{m+n}$ let $\omega$ be an open set contained in $\R^{m+n} \cap \{t_1>0\}$ and whose boundary (see figure) is the union of two submanifolds $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, verifying the following properties.
[**(1)**]{} $\gamma_1$ is given by $t_1=0$ for $(s,t)\in B_{2\epsilon}$.
[**(2)**]{} $\gamma_2 \subset B_{3\epsilon}\setminus B_{2\epsilon}$ is such that
\(i) $\gamma_1 \cup \gamma_2$ bounds an open set $\omega$,
\(ii) $\gamma_1 \cup \gamma_2$ is smooth.
Define $\Omega$ by $$\Omega=\{(z, w(z,s,t): z\in \B_{3\epsilon}, (s,t) \in \omega\}.$$ The boundary of $\Omega$ on which we shall impose the Dirichlet data is defined to be $$\partial \Omega=\{(z , w(z,s,t):z\in \B_{3\epsilon} ,(s,t) \in \gamma_1 \cup \gamma_2
\}.$$
\[l4\] $\partial \Omega$ is a smooth CR submanifold of $\n \times \R^n $ of same CR dimension.
[**Proof of Lemma \[l4\].**]{} The lemma is clear for the part of $\gamma_1$ which contains $\n
\times \R^{n-1}$. Out of $\n
\times \R^{n-1}$ by lemma\[l2\] the generators of the CR vector fields $L_j$ are equal to ${{\partial} \over {\partial \overline z_j}}$, hence the lemma. $\blacksquare$
We have the following picture.
p4.pstex\_t
Denote by $(D)$ the Dirichlet problem on $\Omega$, i.e. $${(D)}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\begin{cases}
\Delta_{\n\times\R^n} (u)=0~~{\rm in}~\Omega,\\
u=g~~{\rm on}~\partial \Omega.
\end{cases}$$
We now have the following result, which seems well known but is not so easy to find in the literature.
\[proba\] For $g \in \D'(\partial \Omega)$, $(D)$ has a unique solution.
For a reference, we send the reader to [@[C-P]] theorem 5.2 and remark 5.3 page 263-265, as well as [@[Ho]] chapter 10.
Let $S$ be the solution operator for $(D)$, that is for $g \in \D'(\partial \Omega)$, we have
$$\label{ee2}
\begin{cases}
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta_{\n\times\R^n} (S(g))=0~~{\rm in}~~\Omega,\\
S(g)=g ~~{\rm on}~\partial \Omega.
\end{array}
\end{cases}$$
\[p3\] Let $ L_j \in
\L$ and let $g$ be a CR distribution on $\partial {\Omega}$ then we have $$L_j(S(g))=0.$$
\[LL1\] If $f$ is a CR distribution on $\partial \Omega $ then for any $ L_j \in \L$ we have $$L_j(S(f))|_{\partial \Omega}=0.$$
[**Proof of Lemma \[LL1\].**]{} The lemma holds since $\partial \Omega$ is a CR submanifold of $\n\times\R^n$ and $f$ is a CR distribution on $\partial \Omega$, so $ L_j(S(f))|_{\partial \Omega}= L|_{\partial \Omega}(f|_{\partial \Omega})=0$.
[**Proof of Proposition \[p3\].**]{} Consider $ L_j(S(g))$. By lemma \[l3\] (iii) we have $$\Delta_{\n\times\R^n} L_j(S(g))= L_j\Delta_{\n\times\R^n}(
S(g)),$$ hence we have $$\label{e1.3}
\Delta_{\n\times\R^n} \left [ L_j(S(g))\right]=0.$$
By lemma \[LL1\] $ L_j(S(g))$ vanishes on $\partial \Omega$, hence by theorem \[proba\] we have $ L_j(S(g))=0$ in $\Omega$. $\blacksquare$
Analytic Vector Theory
----------------------
In this section we present the results developed by Baouendi and Treves [@[Ba-Tr]] and later by Treves in [@[Tre]]. We have included this section for the sake of completeness and claim no originality whatsoever. We will state the main results needed here, sending the reader who wishes to read the details of the proofs to [@[Tre]].
Using the notations $R_{m+j}={{\partial}\over{\partial t_j}}$ and $R^{\alpha}=R_1^{\alpha_1}...R_{m+n}^{\alpha_{m+n}}$ for $\alpha \in
\NN^{m+n}$, we shall say that a continuous function $f$ in $\omega$ is an analytic vector of the system of vector fields $\{R_1,...,R_{n+m}\}$ if $R^{\alpha}f \in \CC^0 $ for any $\alpha \in
\NN^{n+m}$, and if to every compact set $K$ of $\omega$ there is a constant $\rho>0$ such that, in $K$, $$\label{2.2.1}
\sup_{\alpha \in
\NN^{n+m}} \left ( \rho^{|\alpha|} {{ |R^{\alpha}f|} \over {\alpha!}}
\right )<\infty.$$
Let $p
=(z, w(z,s_0,t_0)) \in \Omega$ so that with our previous notation $(s_0,t_0) \in \omega$. We are using the following convention
$$(z, w(z,s_0,t_0)) \in \Omega \Leftrightarrow (z,s_0,t_0) \in
\B_{3\epsilon}\times \omega.$$
\[p5\] (Lemma 4.1 in [@[Ba-Tr]]). Let $p
=(z, w(z,s_0,t_0)) \in \Omega$, let $\U$ be an open neighborhood of $(s_0,t_0)$ in $ \omega$, $K$ a compact subset of $\U$. To every pair of positive constants $C_1, C_2$, there is another pair of positive constants $C_1',C_2'$ with $C_2'$ independent of $C_1$ such that for any $\CC^{\infty}$ function $f$ in an open neighborhood of the closure of $\U$, if we have, for all $k\in \NN$ and all $z\in
\B_{3\epsilon}$, $$\label{e3.1}
\|\Delta_{\n\times\R^n} ^k f\|_{L^{\infty}(\U)} \leq C_1 C_2^k (2k)!,$$ then for every $z \in \B_{3\epsilon}$ and every $\alpha \in \NN^{n+m}$ $$\label{e3.2}
\|R^{\alpha} f\|_{L^{\infty}(K)}\leq C_1'{C_2'}^{|\alpha|}|\alpha|!$$
\[p4\] (Proposition II.4.1 in [@[Tre]]). Let $p \in \Omega$, in order that $f\in \CC^0$ be an analytic vector of the system of vector fields $\{R_1,...,R_{n+m}\}$ it is necessary and sufficient that there exists an open neighborhood $\V$ of $p$ in $\C^k \times \C^{n+m}$ and a continuous function $
F(z,w)$ in $\V$ holomorphic with respect to $w$ and such that $f(z,s,t)=F(z, w(z,s,t))$.
The main difficulty in the proof of proposition \[p4\] is to show that the function defined by $$F(z, w,s,t)=\sum_{\alpha \in \NN^{m+n}}{{R^{\alpha}f(z,s,t)} \over
{\alpha!}}
\left ( w- w(z,s,t) \right )^{\alpha}$$ is equal to $f$ for $ w$ near $ w(z,s,t)$ in $\Omega$ if $f$ is an analytic vector of the vector fields $\{R_1,...,R_{n+m}\}$.
We shall use proposition \[p5\] to construct analytic vectors of the vector fields $\{R_1,...,R_{n+m}\}$ and then apply proposition \[p4\] to these vectors to obtain a holomorphic extension in the variables $ w$.
Proof of Proposition \[Prop1\]
------------------------------
We have $$\label{e'5}
T_0N=\C^k\times \R^m \times \{0\}\subset \C^k\times \C^m\times\C^n.$$ If $v$ is complex transversal to $N$ at the origin, then $v\in\{0\}
\times \{0\} \times\C^n$. Therefore after a linear change of variables in $\C^{k+m+n}$ (viewed as a linear change of variables in $\C^n$ being the identity on $\C^{k+m}$ so that \[e4\] is unaffected) we may assume that $v$ has the following form $$\label{cpx}
v=(0,0,v'),~~v'=(1,0,...,0) \in \R^n \times\{0\}\subset \C^n.$$
We first show that $f$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of $\Omega$.
[**Notation**]{} Given $P=(z, w)$ a point in $\Omega$, $\U$ will denote a neighborhood of $ w$ in $\Omega$ and $U$ will denote a neighborhood of $ w$ in $\C^{m+n}$.
[**(A) Holomorphy in $ w$**]{}
By construction, we have $\Delta_{\n\times\R^n} S(f)=0$ on $\Omega$. Let $Q=(z_0, w_0) \in \Omega$. By proposition \[p5\], $S(f)$ is an analytic vector for the vector fields $R_j$ on some open neighborhood $\U_1$ of $ w_0$. By proposition \[p4\], $S(f)$ extends holomorphically as a function of $ w$ to a function denoted by $ F_1$ when $(z, w)$ is in some open neighborhood $\B_{3\epsilon}\times
U_1$ of $(z_0, w_0)$. Let $ w_1 \in \U_1$, $ w_1 \not = w_0$. Consider then $P=(z_0, w_1)$. By the above reasoning, we find the existence of neighborhoods $\U_2$ and $U_2$ of $ w_1 $ and a function $ F_2$ defined on $\B_{3\epsilon} \times
U_2$, holomorphic as a function of $ w$ such that $$S(f)=F_2|_{\B_{3\epsilon} \times
\U_2}.$$
[**Claim:**]{} $
F_1= F_2$ on $\B_{3\epsilon} \times \left [U_1 \cap U_2\right ]$.
[**Proof of the Claim.**]{} For $z$ fixed, $(\U_1 \cap \U_2) $ can be viewed as a totally real submanifold of $\C^{m+n}$. The function $G=
F_1- F_2$ extends holomorphically to $(U_1 \cap U_2)$ as a function of $ w$ and is null on $(\U_1 \cap \U_2)$, and is thus null where it is defined.
Using the claim, we conclude that the function $S(f)$ extends holomorphically as a function of $ w$ to a neighborhood $\UU$ of $\Omega$ in $\C^{m+n}$.
[**(B) Holomorphy in $z$**]{}
Let $ L_j \in \L$. Since $S(f)$ extends holomorphically as a function of $ w$, we have $$\label{e4.2}
L_j(S(f))=\left [{{\partial} \over {\partial \overline {z_j}}}
S(f) \right ]_{\Omega}.$$
By proposition \[p4\], $ L_j(S(f))=S( L_j(f))$ and since $f$ is CR and $S(0)=0$, we have $$\label{e4.3}
\left [{{\partial} \over {\partial \overline {z_j}}}
S(f) \right ]_{\Omega}=0.$$
Note then that ${{\partial} \over {\partial \overline {z_j}}}
S(f)$ is a holomorphic function of $ w$, for $z$ fixed. It vanishes on a totally real generic submanifold of $\C^{n+m}$ and thus it is null where it is defined.
We note that $\ S(f)$ is holomorphic on a set of the form $\B_{3\epsilon} \times \left [\R_+^{n+m} \times i
\Gamma \right ]$ where $R_+^{n+m}=\R^{n+m} \cap \{t_1>0\}$ and $\Gamma \subset
\R^{n+m}$, thus by theorem 2.5.10 in [@[Ho]], we conclude that if $ch\Gamma$ stands for the convex hull of $\Gamma$ then $S(f)$ is holomorphic on $\B_{3\epsilon} \times \left [\R_+^{n+m} \times i ch\Gamma \right
] $.
To conclude the proof of proposition \[Prop1\] we need to show that the holomorphic extension obtained has slow growth and thus its boundary value agrees with our original CR distribution $f$. $S(f)$ is holomorphic in some wedge $\W$ and admits a boundary value when approaching $\n \times \{0\}$ along $\n \times \R^{n} \cap \{t_1>0\}$, hence $S(f)$ has at most slow growth when approaching $\n \times \{0\}$ along $\n \times \R^{n} \cap \{t_1>0\}$. By continuity, it has at most slow growth on any wedge $\W^0 \subset \W$, hence $S(f)$ admits a boundary value on $\n \times \{0\}$, which by uniqueness of boundary value is $f$. This concludes the proof of proposition \[Prop1\]. $\blacksquare$
Proof of the Main Results and Remarks
=====================================
Proof of the Results on Decomposable CR Distributions
-----------------------------------------------------
[**Proof of Theorem \[t1\].**]{} Recall that $ N=\{( \n,h( \n))\}$. Consider the CR map $h:
\n \to \C^n$. By theorem \[Th2\], each $h_j$ extends holomorphically to some wedge $\W_j$. Set $\W =\cap_{j=1}^n \W_j$. Define $F:( \n,0) \to (\n,\kappa h( \n))$ where $\kappa \in \R^*$ by $$F(z,w',w'')=(z,w',w''+\kappa h(z,w')).$$ Clearly, there exists $\kappa\not = 0$ so that on $\overline \W$, the Jacobian of $F$ is non zero, without loss of generality, we can assume that $\kappa=1$. Hence $F$ is a biholomorphism from $\W$ to $F(\W)$ extending smoothly to a diffeomorphism from $\overline \W$ to $F(\overline \W)$. Since $dh(0)=0$, $F$ is tangent to the identity at the origin, hence there exists $\W'$ a wedge of direction $v$ such that $\W'\subset F(\W)$. We then conclude that any decomposable CR distribution on $N$ extends holomorphically to a complex transversal wedge of direction $v$.
To prove (B), we note that $f_j=w''_j-h_j$ are holomorphic in $\W$ and, since $dh_j(0)=0$, we conclude that $$d(w''_1-h_1)\wedge...\wedge d(w''_n-h_n)\not =0~~{\rm on} \W.$$ Each $f_j$ vanishes to order one on $N$ since $F^{-1}(z,w',w'')=(z,w',w''-h)=(z,w',t)$. $\blacksquare$
[**Proof of Corollary \[t3\].**]{} Let $M$ and $N$ be as in the hypothesis of theorem \[t3\]. After a linear of variables, we may assume that $p_0=0$ and that near the origin, $M$ is parametrized by $$M=\{z,u+iv(z,u):(z,u) \in \C^k \times \R^{p-k}\}.$$ By the implicit function theorem, we may assume that $N$ is given as a subset of $M$ by
$$\begin{cases}
u_{p-k-n}=\mu_1(z,u_1,...,u_{p-k-n-1}),...,
u_{p-k}=\mu_n(z,u_1,...,u_{p-k-n-1}),\\
\mu(0)=d\mu(0)=0.
\end{cases}$$ Denote by $s=(u_1,...,u_{p-k-n-1}) \in \R^m$ and $t=(u_{p-k-n},...,u_{p-k}) \in \R^n$. Setting $t'=t-\mu$, in the $(z,s,t')$ coordinates, we have $N$ given as a subset of $M$ by $t'=0$ and $$N=\{(z,w'(z,s),h(z,w'):(z,s)\in \C^k \times \R^m\},$$ where $h$ is a CR map from $\n:=\{z,w'(z,s)\}$. We can now apply theorem \[t1\] to obtain the CR extension as the restriction of the holomorphic extension of $f$ to $\W \cap M$. The second part follows in the same manner. $\blacksquare$
The non Decomposable Case
-------------------------
[**Trépreau’s Example**]{}
We wish to note that on the particular class of manifolds of CR dimension $k$ containing through the origin $\C^k$, we do get a complex transversal extension result for any CR functions. Trépreau’s original example of a CR submanifold of $\C^3$ which admits non decomposable CR functions, is the following $$\label{e111}
\m=\{(z,s_1+is_2|z|^2,s_2-is_1|z|^2):(z,s_1,s_2)\in \C \times \R
\times \R\}$$ On this particular example, we do get holomorphic extension to [**complex transversal**]{} wedges of [**any**]{} CR distribution.
\[lader\] Let $M=\{(\m,h(\m)\}$ be a non generic CR submanifold of $\C^L$ where $\m$ is given by \[e111\], then the conclusions of theorem \[t1\] hold for CR distributions.
[**Proof of Proposition \[lader\].**]{} As seen previously, there is no loss of generality in assuming that $M=\{(\m,0)\} \subset \C^{k+m}\times \C^n$ and that if $v$ is a complex transversal vector to $M$ at the origin, then $v=(1,0,....,0)
\subset \R^n \times \{0\} \subset \C^n$. Let $f$ be a $\CC^0$ CR function on $M$, consider $\m\times
\R^n$ and the associated elliptic operator $\Delta_{\m\times
\R^n}$. As previously, we solve a Dirichlet problem with boundary data $f$. Denote the solution $S(f)$, by our previous arguments $S(f)$ is holomorphic in the variables $w$ on a neighborhood of $\Omega$ denoted $\V(\Omega)$. Note that since $\m$ contains through the origin $\C\times \{0\}$ then $\V(\Omega)$ contains $\left (\C\times \{0\}\times \R^n\right )\cap \{t_1>0\}$. Let $\U$ be a neighborhood of the origin in $\C_z$ and let $\xi$ be a smooth cut off function which is one on $\U$ and zero on a neighborhood of $\overline \U$. Set $F=\xi \overline \partial S(f)$ a $(0,1)$ form on a $\V(\Omega)$ with continuous coefficient. Since $S(f)$ is holomorphic in $w$, we have $\overline \partial S(f)={{\partial}\over
{\partial {\overline z}}}S(f)$. Since $f$ is CR, we get $F|_{(\m \cap \U) \times\R^n}=0$. Let $u={{\partial}\over
{\partial {\overline z}}}F\!*\!{{1}\over{\pi z}}
$ then $u$ is holomorphic in $w$ and $u|_{\m\times
\R^n}=0$. The desired extension for $f$ is thus obtained by considering $S(f)-u$. $\blacksquare$
We can generalize this result to any CR submanifold of CR dimension $k$ which contains through a point $p_0$ $\C^k\times \{0\}$. We state without proving the next result, since the proof of this result is identical to the proof of proposition \[lader\] one has to replace ${{1}\over{\pi z}}$ by an appropriate integral kernel solving $\overline \partial_z$ on a ball in $\C^k$.
\[der\] Let $M$ be a non generic smooth ($\CC^{\infty}$) CR submanifold of $\C^L$ of CR dimension $k$. If the reunion of the CR orbits through $ p_0\in M$ is a complex manifold then the conclusions of theorem \[t1\] hold for CR distributions.
We thus get as a corollary
(Theorem \[th\]) Let $N=\{(\n,h(\n))\} $ be a smooth ($\CC^{\infty})$ non generic CR submanifold of $\C^{k+m+n}$ such that $\n \subset \C^{k+m}$ is a hypersurface. If $f$ is a CR distribution on $N$ then for any $p \in N$ and any $v$ complex transversal to $N$ at $p$, there exists a wedge $\W$ of direction $v$ whose edge contains a neighborhood of $p$ in $N$ and $F\in \O(\W)$ such that $F|_N=f$.
[**Proof of the corollary**]{} To prove the corollary, we need the following result.
\[th1\] Let $\n$ be a generic submanifold of $\C^n$ minimal as some $p\in \n$. Then any CR distribution near $p$ admits a unique holomorphic extension to some wedge $\W$ with edge $\n$.
[**Proof of theorem \[th1\].**]{} This result is well known so we will only sketch the proof. Set $k=CRdim (\n)$, choose coordinates in $\C^n$ so that $\C^n=\C^k_z \times \C^{n-k}_w$. Construct the vector fields $R_j$ as in lemma \[l3\]. Denote by $\{L_j\}_{j=1}^{k}$ a basis for the CR vector fields. By proposition \[p4\] (using the terminology of Baouendi and Treves) the system of vector fields $R_j$ is normal at $p$ (definition 4.1 in [@[Ba-Tr]]). Let $f$ be a CR distribution on $\n$, by theorem 4.1 in [@[Ba-Tr]] there exists $u\in \CC^0$ and $\ell \in \NN$ such that $$\left [\Delta_{\n \times \R^n}\right ]^{\ell} u=f,$$ $$L_j(u)=0.$$ By Tumanov’s theorem $u$ extends holomorphically to some wedge $\W$, denote by $U$ the holomorphic extension of $u$ to $\W$. The holomorphic extension of $f$ is then given by $(\sum_{j=1}^{n-k}{{\partial^2} \over {\partial w_j^2}})^{\ell}U$. $\blacksquare$
We now proceed with the proof of the corollary. Let $p\in N$, $p=(p',h(p'))$, if $\n$ is minimal at $p'$, then any CR distribution is decomposable (it extends holomorphically to a wedge by the above theorem), hence by theorem \[t1\] we are done. If $\n$ is not minimal at $p'$, then it contains a proper submanifold $\n'$ of same CR dimension, since $\n$ is a hypersurface, $\n'$ is a complex manifold, hence by theorem \[der\] we are done. $\blacksquare$
We can now construct functions holomorphic in a complex transversal wedge vanishing to infinite order on a non generic CR submanifold of $\C^L$.
\[coro\] Let $N=\{(\n,h(\n))\}$ be a non generic smooth CR submanifold of $\C^L$ such that either $\n$ is a hypersurface or $h$ is decomposable at $p'\in \n$. Then for any $v$ complex transversal to $N$ at $p=(p',h(p'))$ there exists a wedge $\W$ of direction $v$ and $g \in \O(\W)$ such that $g \not \equiv 0$ and $g$ vanishes to infinite order on $N$.
[**Proof of Corollary \[coro\].**]{} Choose coordinates $(z,w',w'') \in \C_z^k\times \C_{w'}^m\times \C_{w''}^n$ such that $\n \subset \C_z^k\times \C_{w'}^m$. After a linear change of variables, we can assume that $v$, the complex transversal vector is given by $v=(0,0,v'') \in \C^{k}\times \C^m \times \C^n$ with $v''=(1,0,...,0)$. Consider the function $\mu$ defined by $$\mu=
\begin{cases}
e^{-{{1}\over{w''_1}}}~~~~w''_1\not=0,\\
0~~~~w''_1\not=0.
\end{cases}$$ Then $\mu$ is holomorphic on any wedge with direction $v$ off edge $\n\times\{0\}$ and vanishes to infinite order on $\n\times\{0\}$. Consider $F$ the biholomorphism constructed in the proof of theorem \[t1\], $F(z,w',w'')=(z,w',w''-h(z,w'))$. The desired function $g$ is then given by $g=\mu(F^{-1}(z,w',w''))$. $\blacksquare$
[**Note.**]{} The function $g$ does not extend holomorphically to any neighborhood of $N$. This situation differs greatly from the holomorphic extension situation in the generic case. Indeed, let $M$ be a generic manifold where any CR function in a neighborhood of some point $p\in
M$ extends holomorphically to a neighborhood of $p$. Let $\W$ be a wedge attached to $M$, then any function which is holomorphic in $\W$ and at least $\CC^1$ on $M$ extends holomorphically to a full neighborhood of $p$. However, if we now consider $\M=\{(M,h(M))\}$ then the function $g$ in corollary \[coro\] does not extend holomorphically to a full neighborhood of $\M$.
In [@[Ei]] we constructed an example of an abstract CR structure where there is no CR extension. It is even easier to construct an example where there is no non trivial CR function vanishing on $N$.
[**Example.**]{} Let $L$ be a real analytic vector field (the Lewy operator for example) of the form $$L={{\partial} \over {\partial \bar z}}+f(z,s){{\partial} \over
{\partial s}},$$ that is not solvable (Hörmander’s theorem [@[Ho]]). Let $g$ be a smooth function not in the image of $L$, then define the abstract CR structure $(M,\L)$ where $\L$ is given by $$\L=L+tg{{\partial} \over
{\partial t}},$$ then the equation $\L(tu)=0$ is not solvable. Indeed, suppose it was, then we would have $$t\L(u)+u\L(t)=t(\L(u)+ug)=0,$$ decomposing $u=u_0+tu_1$ where $u_0=u_0(z,s)$ we obtain $$L(Log(u_0))+g=0.$$
By real analycity of $L$, we see that there are plenty of non trivial functions in the kernel of $\L$.
[99]{}
R.A.Airapetyan, [*Extension of CR functions from piecewise-Smooth CR Manifolds*]{}, Math.USSR-Sb., [**134**]{}, [**176**]{}, (1987), 111-120.
S.Baouendi, P.Ebenfelt, L.Rothschild, [*Real Submanifolds in Complex Space and their Mappings*]{}, Princeton University Press.
S.Baouendi, F.Treves, [*Locally integrable system of complex vector fields.*]{} Ann. Math.[**113**]{},387-421 (1981).
A.Boggess, [*CR Manifolds and the Tangential Cauchy-Riemann Complex.*]{} Studies in Advanced Mathematics, CRC Press, 1991.
A.Boggess, J.C.Polking, [*Holomorphic Extension of CR Functions.*]{} Duke Math.J.[**49**]{} (1982),757-784.
J.Chazarain; A.Piriou, [*Introduction à la théorie des équations aux dérivées partielles linéaires.*]{} Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1981.
M.G.Eastwood, C.R.Graham, [*Edge of the Wedge Theory in Hypo-analytic Manifolds*]{} Preprint (?).
N.Eisen, [*On the Extension of CR Functions to CR Manifolds of Same CR Dimension, The Real Analytic Setting*]{} Preprint.
C.D.Hill, G.Taiani, [*Families of analytic discs in ${\C}^n$ with boundaries on a prescribed CR submanifold.*]{} Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl.Sci.(4) [**5**]{}, (1978), no. 2, 327–380.
L.Hörmander, [*Linear Partial Differential Operators.*]{} Springer-Verlag,[**116**]{}, (1964), Second Printing.
L.Hörmander, [*An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables.* ]{} North Holland, Third Edition.
H.Jacobowitz, [*An Introduction to CR Structures.*]{} Mathematical Surveys and Monograph, [**32**]{}, American Mathematical Society.
H.Lewy, [*On the local character of the solutions of an atypical linear differential equation in three variables and a related theorem for regular functions of two complex variables.*]{} Ann.Math.[**64**]{}, (1956), 514-522.
A.Nagel, [*Smooth zero sets and interpolation sets for some algebras of holomorphic functions on strictly pseudoconvex domains.* ]{} Duke Math. J. 43 (1976), no. 2, 323-348.
J-P.Rosay, [*Trépreau’s example, a pedestrian approach.*]{} Enseign. Math. (2) 39 (1993), no. 3-4, 259-268.
W.Rudin, [*Peak-interpolation sets of class $\CC^1$.*]{} Pacific J. Math. 75 (1978), no. 1, 267-279.
J.M.Trépreau, [*Sur le prolongement holomorphe des fonctions C-R défines sur une hypersurface réelle de classe ${\mathcal C}^ 2$ dans ${\C}^ n.$* ]{}Invent. Math. [**83**]{} (1986), no. 3, 583-592.
J.M.Trépreau, [*Holomorphic extension of CR functions: a survey.*]{} Partial differential equations and mathematical physics (Copenhagen, 1995; Lund,1995), 333-355, Progr. Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., 21, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1996.
J.M.Trépreau, [*Sur la Propagation des Singularités dans les Variétés CR.*]{} Bull. Soc. math. France, [**118**]{}, 1990, 403-450.
F.Treves, [*Hypo-Analytic Structures, Local Theory.*]{} Princeton University Press.
A.E Tumanov, [*Extension of CR functions into a wedge from a manifold of finite type.*]{} (Russian), Mat.Sbornik [**136**]{} (1988),128-139; English transl. in Math USSR Sbornick, [**64**]{} (1989), 129-140.
A.E Tumanov, [*Extending CR functions from manifolds with boundaries.*]{} Math. Res. Lett. [**2**]{} (1995), no. 5, 629-642.
Nicolas Eisen\
Département de Mathématiques, UMR 6086 CNRS\
Université de Poitiers\
[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The 15-vertex model of Statistical Mechanics is studied on a square domain with partially oriented boundary. With DWBC the model would reduce to the six-vertex model, but more general boundary configurations are available. After establishing the dynamic version of the model we simulate with it to find the typical equilibrium states for a set of increasingly complex boundaries. Among others they yield almost isotropic non-trivial limit shapes even though the microscopic model is highly asymmetric.
.05truein Keywords: vertex model, domain wall, limit shape, arctic curve, pca
author:
- |
Kari Eloranta\
University of Helsinki\
[[email protected]]{}
title: 'The bounded 15-vertex model'
---
Introduction
============
In the vertex models of Statistical Mechanics the spin variables at vertices are replaced by arrow orientations on the edges of a given lattice. A [**vertex rule**]{} determines the allowed local vertex configurations and once these are obeyed everywhere globally we have a legal vertex configuration.
The best know such model is the six-vertex/Ice model defined on the square lattice ([@B]). Its vertex rule requires exactly two incoming and two outgoing arrows. This can of course be relaxed in various ways, some of them even physically meaningful. Perhaps the two best know in physics literature lead to 15-vertex and 19-vertex models ([@WM]). The latter posits as its vertex rule an equal number of incoming and outgoing arrows (unoriented edges are allowed). With direct enumeration one gets 19 allowed vertex configurations.
The 15-vertex rule is a simplification of the 19-vertex rule. Its allowed vertex configurations are illustrated in Figure 1 (unoriented edges dotted).
{height="1.6cm"} {height="1.6cm"}
Inside the broken line on the left is the doublet of allowed Ice vertices. The quadruplet inside the dotted frame in the center is the one distinguishing the 15-vertex rule. If the missing rotations of these L-type vertex configurations are added, the resulting quadruplet augments the set to the 19-vertex rule. Therefore 15-vertex rule is a rotationally asymmetric reduction of the 19-vertex rule. In the natural 9-dimensional basis of the neighboring edge pairs one can define the R-matrix. It is indicated on the right: black entries for the 15-vertex rule and additional four gray ones for the 19-vertex one.
In this study we treat 15-vertex configuration simply as combinatorial objects and do not attempt to interpret them physically. For this particular reason we do not here pay attention to vertex weights. Furthermore we confine ourselves to a simple square domain with a given boundary condition (arrow/blank edge arrangement on the boundary). The reason is that we want to see if and how the limit shape phenomena, observed both in six-vertex and in 19-vertex models, arises in this interpolating model. The much more developed theory for dimer-type models (e.g. [@KO]) of course covers these domains and thereby perhaps gives some useful insight and perspective for these more involved models.
.2truein In summary the bounded 15-vertex rule exhibits a far richer limit shape behavior even on a square domain than the six-vertex rule. Without any parametrization of the dynamic rule (corresponding at equilibrium to specific static weights), the mere fact that we can go beyond the Domain Wall Boundary Condition on the square gives a multitude of possibilities to shape the typical equilibrium configurations. Our simulations suggest a hierarchy in the complexity of the limits shapes appearing as a function of distance from DWBC.
Preliminaries
=============
For the purposes of this study we concentrate on the square lattice ${\rm {\bf Z}}^2$ alone and a square domain in it. This is mainly to make our results comparable to a string of earlier studies in the same set up (e.g. [@CP]). Rules of our general type presupposing an even vertex degree of the ambient graph are possible on more exotic graphs/lattices and some of them have indeed been investigated earlier (see e.g. [@E3]). In spite of their undeniable interest, to keep the focus on the 6/15/19-vertex rule frame, we skip possible lattice dependent considerations here.
The [**Domain Wall Boundary Condition**]{} (DWBC) is shown on the inscribed square on the left of Figure 2: the arrows are alternatively all in or all out for an entire side as we circumscribe the square. The diamond around the square will be motivated shortly.
{height="4cm"} {height="4cm"}
[**Height**]{} is a function from to the dual lattice ${\rm {\bf Z}}^2+\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ to the integers. Moving from nearest neighboring dual lattice point to another the height increases by one if we cross a left-pointing configuration arrow, decreases by one if the crossed arrow is right-pointing and remains constant if no arrow is encountered. Given a configuration the height function defines a discrete surface over it which is unique up to an additive constant. The discrete derivative of height is referred to as the [**tilt**]{} of the surface.
The indicated boundary arrow arrangement on the diamond of Figure 2 will force some of the configuration in the interior of the diamond and in particular projects down as DWBC on the boundary of the square. A particularly simple fill-in of this (smoothed) wire frame is on the right; height surface shaped like a [**ridge roof**]{} with maximal tilts on both sides of the ridge.
.2truein Suppose now there is an unoriented interior edge $U$ in the domain. Whether it is horizontal/vertical correspondingly at its left/bottom end by the 15-vertex rule there must be a neighboring unoriented edge either towards W or S (or both). Hence there is an unoriented path to the boundary in the $3^{\rm rd}$ quadrant rooted at the left/bottom end of $U.$ Same argument connects the other end point of $U$ in its first quadrant with an unoriented path to the boundary, hence
In a 15-vertex configuration unoriented interior edge implies unoriented boundary edges.
Since DWBC is fully occupied by arrows this obviously implies
Under DWBC the sets of six- and 15-vertex configurations agree.
DWBC is of course just one particular way of generating non-trivial limit shapes in the Ice-model context. Even sticking to a square domain, by setting the boundary arrow arrangement to have alternating extreme tilt ($\pm 1$) as one circumambulates the boundary yields a multitude of such examples (see [@E1]). But Corollary 1 implies that to find something genuinely novel in bounded 15-vertex model we need to go beyond DWBC and its fully arrow occupied relatives.
Dynamic model
=============
To simulate the model we need a dynamic version of it. The [**elementary actions/moves**]{} or [**flips**]{} must be compatible with the set of static vertex rules. By their local nature we will have an efficient (even parallel) way of computing the perturbations of a given configuration in a bounded domain.
Since 15-vertex rule incorporates the six-vertex rule its well known generating action of reversal of unidirectional loops obviously has to be included (action II below). A bit more is needed to catch all of 15-vertex configurations. Figure 3 shows the set of minimal actions that connect all 15-vertex configurations sharing a boundary configuration.
{height="1.75cm"}
The unisotropy of the vertex rule (the framed center set in Figure 1) is reflected in the limited rotational symmetry of action I. One should also compare this action set to the much richer super set needed to generate the fully symmetric 19-vertex model ([@E2]).
To computationally best utilize these actions one splits the configuration on ${\rm {\bf Z}}^2$ into a checkerboard of even and odd unit squares each of which symbol value is determined by its edges. There are $81$ possible symbols according to the edge (un)orientations. For efficient computation the natural arrays of these units correspond geometrically to a diamond inscribing the square domain. In each iteration step all of the eligible even/odd squares are randomly updated. This can be done [*independently*]{} of the other sites of the same color. After the iteration the odd/even lattice is updated according to the arrow (un)orientation changes. Our Probabilistic Cellular Automaton ((PCA) implements the action rules of Figure 3 in alternating sequence $\left({\rm I_e,\ II_e,\ I_o,\ II_o,\ I_e,\ldots}\right)$ with transition probabilities $1/2$ (for best speed) to each direction for both flip types I and II. It is simply a random walk on the finite graph of allowed configurations sharing the given boundary.
One of the diamond arrays has its boundary unit squares half fixed (two outermost edges) guaranteeing that the given boundary condition on the diamond is preserved. An example of this was indicated in Figure 2, left. The fixing of the diamond boundary in this given way forces the DWBC on the interior square for all times under the PCA.
.2truein Since neither action changes the number of unoriented edges in the unit square we have for the 15-vertex rule:
For a given boundary condition the number of unoriented arrows in the fill-in configurations is constant.
This is very different from 19-vertex model where the annihilation/creation of unidirectional unit loops is generically present. Then only lower and upper bounds for the arrow number are possible ([@E2]).
The following small observation will be useful in the next section. It is due to the fact that only action I ever moves a blank path of minimal width.
An straight unoriented path from one side of the diamond across to the opposite one cannot branch under the 15-vertex dynamics.
Game of boundaries
==================
To investigate the possible novel limit shape behavior in the 15-vertex rule we now step beyond DWBC. This is possible since we can introduce blank (unoriented) edges on the boundary, hence to the initial condition of our PCA. We will show how to do this and the results in roughly increasing complexity.
An already rather diverse set of more general boundary conditions is obtained by perturbing just the cross section of the ridge roof over the diamond in Figure 2, right. The entire height surface is still determined by the SW-NE translation of the cross section. The simplest version of this process of this is just shaving the sharp ridge off, Figure 4, middle. We call the resulting height surface K-type: the initial condition has two neighboring blank (unoriented) lines (zig-zags really) running parallel to the SW-NE diagonal. This alters DWBC on the inscribed square by introducing two doublets of unoriented edges to its SW and NE corners. This non-DWBC boundary condition on the square will prevail for all times under the PCA iteration.
{height="2cm"}
In the subsequent renderings of the simulations we concentrate of the cumulative action distributions of both types over the diamond. The reason for not showing snapshots of configurations is that action distributions are far more informative. From them one can at the equilibrium read the approximate limit shape, the dominant action creating it and the intensity variations within the active areas. In domino terminology, where there is no action, the configuration has a frozen region whereas the presence of either action indicates a temperate region. The intensity of the action at a given point (darkness of the pixel) reflects the local liveliness of typical configurations (number of close graph neighbors). These plots should be viewed as illustrations of the [**entropy geometry**]{} of the given action under the fixed boundary condition on the diamond/square.
In the plots the diamond is tilted clockwise by $\pi/4$ from Figure 2 so that the imagined ridge of the height surface runs horizontally in a square. Neighboring plots have alternating slightly tinted backgrounds to better see the full diamond domain.
.2truein Figure 5 shows the cumulative densities of actions I and II and their pointwise sum at the equilibrium for a K-type boundary/initial condition. With the given diamond size the boundary condition differs by 0.5% from DWBC. The rendered distributions are shown within the entire diamond. The darker the distribution, the higher the activity. In the equilibrium outside the blob & sickle there is no activity i.e. I+II defines the tempered domain.
As the PCA runs, the originally parallel neighboring blank zig-zags drift apart and action II takes over the center just like in the six-vertex model. By the last Corollary of the Section 3 the blank ribbons cannot branch and indeed they behave much like elastic bands attached by the initial condition to the center points of the sides. Action I on the ribbons feeds the other action by creating new unidirectional unit squares. Action II in turn is responsible for the bulk of disorder. In this interaction the blank frontiers are slowly pushed aside by the growing disk.
At the equilibrium the ribbons affect the limit shape only marginally. We expect that at the scaling limit their contribution is likely to be negligible and the six-vertex limit shape with uniform weights to prevail. Note also that this boundary condition is asymptotically DWBC. From Figure 5 it is nevertheless surprising that inspite of the strong intrinsic asymmetry in the 15-vertex Rule (and our initial state as well) even well before the scaling limit the shape of the tempered domain is remarkably symmetric.
{height="4.5cm"}
In addition to geometric matching the action density supports they agree well in intensity as indicated on the left of Figure 6 (same data, now sums rendered 3-d). Only with heavy bias can one distinguish their relative contributions near the boundary (right).
{height="5cm"} {height="5cm"}
If the blank paths (initially neighboring zig-zag-lines) move cleanly away from the top the limit shape forms in a best way as above. But the evolution of the shape even with K-type boundary can get somewhat exotic. If one of the paths entangles early on in the iteration at the top of the roof one may end up with a situation indicated in Figure 7 for an extended period.
{height="3.5cm"}
To further illuminate the state here, we have added a filtered snapshot at the end of the run (iterate 60.000) of the locations of vertices with unoriented incident edges (two per vertex). The corner point seems at least metastable. Whether it will always be removed by a large deviation event remains open. In that case the larger disk grows at the expense of the smaller resulting in a the typical limit shape of Figure 5.
.2truein From the above one can perhaps guess that it might be possible to parallel transport copies of the blank SW-NE-diagonal path anywhere on the ridge roof and still get a 15-vertex legal initial condition. The cross section of such construction is on the right in Figure 4 and we call it T-type.[^1] These are of course even further away from DWBC than K-type. However they do not impose a constant boundary condition on the inscribed square anymore as we will shortly see.
Figure 8 illustrates typical equilibria in the case of T-type boundary condition. In the top row of the Figure in addition to the K-type flat top (two neighboring blank zig-zags) there are initially also two other blank zig-zags further out (terraces on the on the height surface). During the evolution they wiggle like a Brownian bridges but cannot match the action II driven central disordered expanding blob. They also can not cross each other oŕ the neutral paths pushed away from the diagonal. The limit shape seems to be a slightly oblate disk.
Note that the top and bottom zig-zags enter the inscribed square (inscribed diamond in the figures). Since they move around under the PCA iteration, there is no more a fixed boundary condition on the inscribed square. The natural domain for this type of boundary condition is the diamond itself, not the inscribed square.
{height="3.5cm"}
{height="3.5cm"}
Under still stronger boundary asymmetry one can encounter situations like the one rendered in the second set of Figure 8. Now in addition to the zig-zag pair at the roof top there are initially three more parallel blank zig-zags across one of the slopes. While slowly moving up in relative unison they heavily limit the motion of the blank ribbon sandwiched between them and the expanding central disk. The resulting equilibrium geometry seems to depend primarily on the relative distance of the attachment points of the blank ribbons on the sides.
.2truein Finally Figure 9 shows a typical sample from a set of runs in a complicated situation where multiple zig-zags are initially bundled together at the top of the height surface (i.e. the original ridge of Figure 2 has been heavily planed). In this particular case there were initially six neighboring straight parallel zig-zags at the top. Their end points of course stick and the ribbons survive all times, but as they wiggle down the slopes they also interact intensely. And being confined to a narrow shuttle they cross the mid-ridge with high probability. This leads to a more complex case of the phenomenon already recorded in Figure 7. The resulting multi blob picture may well be generic. One possible scenario is a necklace of even size disks (equilibrium through surface tension which can be defined for the height surfaces) or in a (rare?) case a unique disk that has wiped out all the smaller ones. Possible metastability of all of this needs further study since already modest size runs indicate that at least the smallest disks can vanish in the PCA evolution.
{height="3.5cm"}
Conclusion
==========
15-vertex model of Statistical Mechanics is in a way an interpolating model between the intensely studied six-vertex model and the more general but rather intimidating 19-vertex model. While 15-vertex model lacks the high complexity of the latter, the missing symmetry in the local rule sets it apart from both of the other models. We find that this strong microscopic unisotropy does not need to carry over to macroscopic features like limit shapes. Interestingly the bounded 15-vertex rule allows non-DWBC yet still under such boundary produces six-vertex like highly isotropic limit shape. Moreover there is a hierarchy of more complicated 15-vertex legal boundary conditions and non-trivial limit shapes seem possible and even likely in all of them. The characterization of them is challenging due to possible metastability effects.
Acknowledgment
==============
The author would like to thank Nicolai Reshetikhin for bringing this model to his attention.
.2truein
[4]{}
Baxter, R.J.: Exactly solvable models in statistical mechanics. Academic Press, 1982.
F. Colomo, A. Pronko, The arctic curve of the domain wall six-vertex model, arXiv: 0907.1264v2, 2009.
K. Eloranta. Diamond Ice, J. of Stat. Phys., 96, 5/6,1999.
K. Eloranta. The bounded 19-vertex Model, arXiv: 1710.03609, 2017.
K. Eloranta. Archimedean Ice, Discrete and Cont. Dynamical Systems - A, 33: 9, Sept. 2013.
W. Jockusch, J. Propp and P. Shor. Random domino tilings and the Arctic Circle Theorem, arXiv: math/9801068.
R. Kenyon, A. Okounkov. Limit shapes and the complex Burgers equation, Acta Math. 199 no. 2, 263–302, 2007.
F. Y. Wu, J.-M. Maillard (eds.). Exactly Solved Models, World Scientific Publishing Company, 2009.
[^1]: Just to continue with the ancient tradition going all the way back to dominoes and their Aztec-domain (\[JPS\]): K for Kheops/Khufu for its well known leveled top and T for Teotihuacan and its stepped/terraced pyramids.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'With a semiclassical quasi-static model we achieve an insight into the complex dynamics of two correlated electrons under the combined influence of a two-center Coulomb potential and an intense laser field. The model calculation is able to reproduce experimental data of nitrogen molecules for a wide range of laser intensities from tunnelling to over-the-barrier regime, and predicts a significant alignment effect on the ratio of double over single ion yield. The classical trajectory analysis allows to unveil sub-cycle molecular double ionization dynamics.'
author:
- 'J. Liu'
- 'D.F. Ye'
- 'J. Chen'
- 'X. Liu'
title: Complex Dynamics of Correlated Electrons in Molecular Double Ionization by an Ultrashort Intense Laser Pulse
---
Within the strong-field physics community, there has been increasing interest on double ionization (DI) of molecules in intense laser pulses and a large variety of novel phenomena has emerged. The diatomic molecules show a much higher double ionization yield than the prediction of the single-active-electron (SAE) model by many orders of magnitude [@guo; @cornaggia], and DI yield as well as ionized-electron momentum distribution exhibit a strong dependence on molecular structure and alignment [@alnaser; @eremina; @zeidler]. Experimental data indicate that a rescattering mechanism is responsible for nonsequential double ionization (NSDI) caused by strong correlation between two electrons. In this process, which has been extensively investigated for atoms [@becker], an electron freed by tunnelling ionization is driven by the laser electric field into a recollision with its parent ion. This essentially classical rescattering picture implicitly suggests that the well synchronized recolliding electron burst with respect to the laser field be an alternative attosecond pulse source for the probe of molecular dynamics [@Niikura]. However the details of this pivotal recolliding event for molecules remain unknown.
The complexity of the dynamics of the two correlated electrons responding to a two-center nuclear attraction and the laser force, on the other hand, poses a great challenge to any theoretical treatment. For instance, a time-dependent, three-dimensional quantum mechanical computation from first principles has not yet been accomplished even for the simpler case of atoms [@taylor]. This leaves approximate approaches developed recently, such as one-dimensional quantum model [@pegarkov], many-body S-matrix [@beck] and simplified classical methods [@saddlepoint]. However, the complex electron dynamics which is crucial for molecular DI is still not fully explored and the theoretical results can not account for experimental data quantitatively. In this letter, we employ a feasible semiclassical theory, i.e. an *ab initio* 3D calculation including classical rescattering and quantum tunnelling effects, providing an intuitive way of understanding the complex dynamics involved in the molecular DI. Our calculation is capable of reproducing unusual excess DI rate for a wide range of laser intensities quantitatively (see Fig. 1), thus consolidating the classical rescattering view of molecular DI. In particular, with classical trajectory analysis, we are able to unveil the sub-cycle dynamics behind molecular DI and predict a significant influence of molecular alignment on the ratio of double over single ion yield.
The model we propose here is in the spirit of that of semiclassical treatment of DI of atoms in high-intensity field [@liuchenfu]. We consider a molecule composed of two nucleus and two valence electrons interacting with an infrared laser pulse. When the laser intensity is smaller than a threshold value (see Fig. \[37T\]), one electron is released at the outer edge of the suppressed Coulomb potential through quantum tunnelling (Fig. \[firstion\](a)) with a rate $\varpi(t_{0})$ given by molecular ADK formula [@adk]. The initial position of the tunnelled electron can be derived from the equation, $
-\frac{1}{r_{a1}}-\frac{1}{r_{b1}}+\int\frac{\left\vert \Psi(\mathbf{r}%
^{^{\prime}})\right\vert ^{2}}{\left\vert \mathbf{r}_{1}\mathbf{-r}%
^{^{\prime }}\right\vert }d\mathbf{r}^{^{\prime}}+I_{p1}-z_{1}%
\varepsilon(t_{0})=0\, $ with $x_{1}=y_{1}=0$. The wavefunction $\Psi$ is given by the linear combination of the atomic orbital-molecular orbital (LCAO-MO) approximation [@liuchen]. The initial velocity of tunnelled electron is set to be $(v_{\perp}\cos\varphi,v_{\perp}\sin%
\varphi,0)$, where $v_{\perp}$ is the quantum-mechanical transverse velocity distribution satisfying $
w(v_{\perp})dv_{\perp}=\frac{2(2I_{p1})^{1/2}v_{\perp}}{\varepsilon(t_{0})}%
\exp(-\frac{v_{\perp}^{2}(2I_{p1})^{1/2}}{\varepsilon(t_{0})})dv_{\perp
}$, and $\varphi$ is the polar angle of the transverse velocity uniformly distributed in the interval $[0,2\pi]$ [@liuchenfu].
For the bound electron, the initial position and momentum are depicted by single-electron microcanonical distribution (SMD) [@smd]$, F(\mathbf{r}_{2},\mathbf{p}_{2})=k\delta\lbrack I_{p2}-\mathbf{p}%
_{2}^{2}/2-W(r_{a2},r_{b2})],$ where $k$ is the normalization factor, $I_{p2}$ denotes the ionization energy of molecular ions, and $%
W(r_{a2},r_{b2})=-1/r_{a2}-1/r_{b2}$ is the total interaction potential between the bound electron and two nuclei.
The above scheme is only applicable when the laser intensity is lower than the threshold value [@liuchen]. To give a complete description of the DI of molecular system for the whole range of the laser intensities (see Fig. 1), one need to extend the above model to the over-the-barrier regime (Fig. 2b). This is done by constructing the initial conditions with double-electron microcanonical distribution (DMD) [@dmd], i.e., $F(\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2},\mathbf{p}_{1},\mathbf{p}_{2})=%
\frac{1}{2}[f_{\alpha }(\mathbf{r}_{1}\mathbf{,p}_{1})f_{\beta }(\mathbf{r}%
_{2}\mathbf{,p}_{2})+f_{\beta }(\mathbf{r}_{1}\mathbf{,p}_{1})f_{\alpha }(%
\mathbf{r}_{2}\mathbf{,p}_{2})],$ with $f_{\alpha ,\beta }(\mathbf{r,p})=k\delta \lbrack I_{p1}-\frac{\mathbf{p}^{2}%
}{2}-W(r_{a},r_{b})-V_{\alpha ,\beta }(\mathbf{r)}], $ where $
V_{\alpha ,\beta }(\mathbf{r)=}\frac{1}{r_{b,a}}[1-(1+\kappa
r_{b,a})e^{-2\kappa r_{b,a}}] $ represents the mean interaction between the electrons, $\kappa $ can be obtained by a variational calculation of the ionization energy of molecules.
The subsequent evolution of the two-electron system with the above initial conditions is simulated by the classical Newtonian equations of motion: $
%\begin{equation}
\frac{d^{2}\mathbf{r}_{i}}{dt^{2}}=\mathbf{\varepsilon }(t)-%
\bigtriangledown(V_{ne}^{i}+V_{ee}).
%\label{Newton}
%\end{equation}
$ Here index i denotes the two different electrons, $V_{ne}^{i}$ and $V_{ee}$ are Coulomb interaction between nuclei and electrons and between two electrons, respectively. $V_{ne}^{i}
=-\frac{1}{r_{ai}}-\frac{1}{r_{bi}}, V_{ee} =
\frac{1}{\left\vert \mathbf{r}_{1}-\mathbf{r}_{2}\right\vert },$ where $%
r_{ai}$ and $r_{bi}$ are distances between the ith electron and nucleus a and b. The above Newtonian equations of motion are solved using the 4-5th Runge-Kutta algorithm and DI events are identified by energy criterion. In our calculations, more than $10^5$ weighted (i.e., by rate $\varpi(t_{0})$) classical two-electron trajectories are traced and a few thousands or more of DI events are collected for statistics. Convergency of the numerical results is further tested by increasing the number of launched trajectories twice.
The above model is applied to the study on DI of molecular nitrogen. We first calculate the ratio between the double and single ionization yield with respect to the peak laser intensities from $%
5\times 10^{13}$W/cm$^{2}$ to $1\times 10^{15}$W/cm$^{2}$. In Fig. \[37T\] the calculated results is compared with that of recent experiments of Cornaggia *et.al.* [@cornaggia] and a good agreement is obtained for such a broad range of laser intensities.
In the following, we proceed to explore the correlated electron dynamics responsible for DI of molecular nitrogen. The classical trajectory method allows us to select out the individual DI trajectories and back analyze their dynamics in detail. The typical electron trajectories are shown in Fig. 3, presented in an energy versus time plot. The threshold value of 0.185 PW/cm$^2$ separates the DI data into two parts. When the peak laser intensity is below this value, there exist two dominant processes responsible for emitting both electrons, namely, collision-ionization(CI) and collision-excitation-ionization(CEI), as shown in Fig. \[evl\](a)(b), respectively. For CI, the tunnelled electron is driven back by the oscillating laser field to collide with the bound electron near its parent ion causing an instant ($\sim$ attosecond) ionization. For CEI, DI event is created by recollision with electron impact excitation followed by a time-delayed ($\sim$ a few optical periods) field ionization of the excited state. When the laser intensity is above the threshold value, over-the-barrier ionization emerges. In this regime we observe more complicated trajectories for DI processes. Except for CI (Fig. 3(c)) and CEI (Fig. 3(d)) trajectories similar to tunnelling case, there are multiple-collision trajectories as shown in Fig. 3(e),(f) as well as collisionless trajectory of Fig. 3(g). In Fig. 3(e) and (f), initially two valence electrons entangle each other, experience a multiple-collision and then emit. The four types of trajectories shown in Fig. 3(c-f) represent the dominant processes of DI in the plateau regime from 0.185PW/cm$^2$ to 0.5PW/cm$^2$, each of them accompanied by one or multiple times of collisions between two electrons [@paulus; @ho; @liux]. However, above 0.5PW/cm$^2$, DI is dominated by a collisionless sequential ionization whose typical trajectory is represented by Fig. 3(g). In this regime results from our model agree with ADK theory.
The analysis of trajectories of electron-electron pairs may provide insight into the complicated dynamics of DI with sub-cycle time resolution, and the important information is revealed by the laser field phase at the moments of collision and ionization [@feuerstein; @weckenbrock]. We choose three typical laser intensities, $0.12$PW/cm$^{2}$, $0.4$PW/cm$^{2}$ and $1$PW/cm$^{2}$, representing the tunnelling, plateau and sequential ionization regime, respectively.
Fig. \[timeall\](a) shows the diagram of DI yield versus laser phase at the moment of closest collision. In the tunnelling regime (i.e., $0.12$PW/cm$^{2}$), we note that the collision can occur throughout most of the laser cycle and the peak emerges slightly before the zeroes of the laser field. This is consistent with the prediction of simple-man model [@corkum] and recent results from purely classical calculation [@haan]. However, for the other two cases, the collision between the two correlated electrons occurs mainly at peak laser field. This is because the ionization mechanism changes at the transition to over-the-barrier regime, where both electrons rotate around the nuclei and their distance could be very close before one of them is driven away by the external field.
Fig. \[timeall\](b) plots DI yield as a function of the laser phase at the instant of ionization. Most DI occurs around the maximum of laser field for different intensity regime. Interestingly, for the tunnelling case, we observe a peak shift of $\sim 30^o$ off the field maximum. With assuming that the colliding electron leaves the atom with no significant energy and electron-electron momentum exchange in final state is negligible [@assuming], the parallel momentum $k_{1,2,}^{||}$ of each electron results exclusively from the acceleration in the optical field: $k_{1,2}^{||}=\pm 2\sqrt U_p \sin\omega t_{ion}$ [@weckenbrock]. The above shifted peak indicates the accumulation of the emitted electrons at $k_{1}^{||}=k_{2}^{||}=\pm
\sqrt U_p $ in the first and third quadrants of parallel momentum plane $(k_{1}^{||}, k_{2}^{||})$. It is consistent with the experimental data of Ref. [@zeidler] (see their Fig. 2).
Fig. \[timeall\](c) shows the phase angle of momentum vector $(k_{1}^{||},k_{2}^{||})$ with respect to the delayed time between the closest collision and ionization. The integration over the phase angle gives total DI yield versus the delayed time. In all three cases we observe a long-tail up to several optical periods. For the sequential ionization of 1PW/cm$^2$, it means that the second electron is slowly (i.e., waiting for a few optical cycles) ionized after the first electron is deprived from nuclei by the laser field. In the tunnelling regime, the long-tail indicates that CEI mechanism is very pronounced for the molecular DI and contributes to $\sim~$80% of the total DI yield.
This observation is different from purely classical simulation [@haan], where CI effect is believed to be overestimated. Our results, however, are consistent with experimental data for Ar atom [@feuerstein], where ionization potential and laser field parameters are close to our case. The reason is stated as follows: For the intensity of $0.12$PW/cm$^{2}$, the maximal kinetic energy of the returned electron is $3.17U_{p}=0.85a.u.$, still smaller than the ionization energy of $N_{2}^+$. Even with the assistance of the Coulomb focusing [@brabec], it is not easy for the returned electrons to induce too many CI events. Furthermore, such time delay might provide more physics beyond simple rescattering scenario. Recently a statistical thermalization model has been proposed for the nonsequential multiple ionization of atoms in the tunneling regime [@attothermal]. This model shows that sharing of excess energy between the tunnelled electron and the bound electrons takes some time, resulting in a time delay on attosecond time scale between recollision and ionization. Our simulation upholds this picture of attosecond electron thermalization: on upper panel of Fig. \[timeall\](c), two bright spots are observed at a similar time delay on subfemtosecond time scale for CI trajectory.
The regular patterns in upper and lower panels of Fig. \[timeall\](c) exhibit that the ejection of electrons in the same-hemisphere and opposite-hemisphere emerge alternately with respect to the delayed time. For a time delay of odd half-laser-cycles, two electrons emit in the same direction. In contrast, they emit in the opposite direction for an even half-laser-cycles time delay. In mid of Fig. \[timeall\](c), on the other hand, the irregular pattern emerges as the signature of complicated multiple-collision trajectories for DI in the plateau regime. It implies that the trajectories of two electrons entangle with each other before DI ionization occurs and the electrons’ motion might be chaotic [@liuhu].
When the light intensity is high enough, it has been consensus that DI behavior of atoms is determined by essentially electron physics in the presence of laser field [@haan; @liuchenfu]. Good correspondence between our theoretical calculations and experimental data confirms the validity of the above picture in molecular DI case. In our model, after tunnelling electrons travel much of the time in the intense laser field like a classical object and solely electron collision physics determines the fate of DI of molecules. However, the inherent nuclear degree of freedom of molecule do manifest themselves as the significant alignment effect in our model. To clearly demonstrate it, we calculate the ratios between double and single ionization at different molecular alignment angles. Main results are presented in Fig. \[angle\]. It shows that, i) The ratio between DI and single-ionization yield is less for perpendicular molecules than that of parallel molecules; ii) This anisotropy becomes more dramatic for a shorter laser pulse. Further explorations show that molecular alignment also significantly affects the correlated momentum distribution of emitted electrons. Details will be presented elsewhere [@li].
In summary, we exploit a semiclassical quasi-static model to achieve insight into the correlated electron dynamics in molecular DI under the relevant experimental conditions, i.e., highly nonperturbative fields with femtosecond or shorter time resolution. Our calculation unveils sub-cycle dynamics behind molecular DI and predicts a significant influence of the molecular alignment on the ratio of double over single ion yield. Because molecular alignment is controllable with present technique [@zeidler] the above results can be regarded as our theoretical prediction which may be tested in future experiments.
This work is supported by NNSF of China No.10574019, CAEP Foundation 2006Z0202, and 973 research Project No. 2006CB806000. We thank J. H. Eberly stimulating discussions and are indebted to C. Figueira de Morisson Faria for reading the manuscript carefully and useful suggestions.
C. Guo, M. Li, J.P. Nibarger, and G.N. Gibson Phys. Rev. A 58, R4271 (1998).
C. Cornaggia and Ph. Hering, Phys. Rev. A **62**, 023403 (2000).
A.S. Alnaser et.al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 113003 (2004)
E. Eremina *et.al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 173001 (2004)
D. Zeidler, A. Staudte, A.B. Bardon, D.M. Villeneuve, R. Dörner, and P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 203003 (2005).
See, for example, A. Becker, R. Dörner and R. Moshammer, J. Phys. B **38**, S753 (2005), and references therein.
H. Niikura, *et al*., Nature (London) **417** , 917 (2002); **421** , 826 (2003).
For the treatment of nonsequntial double ionization of Helium, see, for example, J.S. Parker *et al.*, J. Phys. B **36**, L393 (2003).
A.I. Pegarkov, E. Charron and A. Suzor-Weiner, J. Phys. B **32**, L363(1999).
A. Becker and F. H. M. Faisal, J. Phys. B **38**, 1 (2005).
J. S. Prauzner-Bechcicki, K. Sacha, B. Eckhardt and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. A **71** , 033407 (2005).
Li-Bin Fu, Jie Liu, Jing Chen, and Shi-Gang Chen Phys. Rev. A **63**, 043416 (2001); Li-Bin Fu, Jie Liu, and Shi-Gang Chen Phys. Rev. A 65, 021406 (2002). The atomic ADK theory has been extended to diatomic molecules, see, for example, X.M.Tong *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A **66** , 033402 (2002) and I. V. Litvinyuk *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 233003 (2003). An explicit analytic expression has also been derived in [@li]. However, we found that the employment of atomic ADK formula instead of the complicated molecular ADK formula does not lead to significant discrepancy in calculating the ratios between double and single ionization. So, for simplicity we adopt $
\varpi(t_{0})=\frac{4(2I_{p1})^{2}}{\varepsilon(t_{0})}\exp(-\frac{%
2(2\left\vert I_{p1}\right\vert )^{3/2}}{3\varepsilon(t_{0})})$ in our following calculations.
J. Liu and J. Chen, Chin. Phys. Lett. **23** 91 (2006).
R. Abrines and I.C. Percival, Proc.Phys.Soc. London **88** , 861 (1966); J.G. Leopold and I.C. Percival, J.Phys.B **12** , 709 (1979).
L. Meng, C.O. Reinhold and R.E. Olson, Phys. Rev. A **40** , 3637 (1989).
G. G. Paulus, W. Becker, W. Nicklich and H. Walther, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. **27**, L703 (1994).
P.J. Ho and J.H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 193002 (2005)
X. Liu *et.al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 263001 (2004).
B. Feuerstein *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **87** , 043003 (2001).
M. Weckenbrock *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 213002 (2004). P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. **71** , 1994 (1993).
S.L. Haan, L. Breen, A. Karim, and J.H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 103008 (2006), and references therein.
Note that these assumptions have been checked by directly tracing the trajectories.
T. Brabec, M.Yu. Ivanov, and P.B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. A **54**, R2551 (1996).
X. Liu, C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, W. Becker and P. B. Corkum , J. Phys. B **39**, L305 (2006).
B. Hu, J. Liu and S.G Chen, Phys. Lett. A **236**, 533 (1997)
Y. Li, J. Chen, S.P. Yang, and J. Liu, in preparation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The warping matrix has been defined for knot projections and knot diagrams by using warping degrees. In particular, the warping matrix of a knot diagram represents the knot diagram uniquely. In this paper we show that the rank of the warping matrix is one greater than the crossing number. We also discuss the linearly independence of knot diagrams by considering the warping incidence matrix.'
author:
- 'Taira Akiyama [^1]'
- 'Ayaka Shimizu [^2]'
- 'Ryohei Watanabe [^3]'
title: The rank of a warping matrix
---
Introduction
============
The warping matrix is defined for oriented knot projections or diagrams on $S^2$ with all information of warping degree. It is shown in [@shimizu-wm] that there is one-to-one correspondence between oriented knot diagrams on $S^2$ and warping matrices. Hence the warping matrix can be used as a notation for oriented knots. However, it is not easy to calculate warping matrices for knot projections and diagrams with a large crossing number; the size of the warping matrix of a knot projection with $c$ crossings is $2^c \times 2c$, and that of a knot diagram is $(2^c -1) \times 2c$. One of the motivations on the study of warping matrix is to reduce the size of the matrix. In this paper we show the following theorem:
Let $P$ be an oriented knot projection on $S^2$, and $M(P)$ the warping matrix of $P$. We have the following equality: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{rank} M(P)=c(P)+1,\end{aligned}$$ where $c(P)$ is the crossing number of $P$. \[mainthm\]
Let $D$ be an oriented knot diagram on $S^2$, and $c(D)$ the crossing number of $D$. Let $\overline{M}(D)$ be the *warping matrix of $D$ without signs*, which is mentioned concretely in Section 2. We also have the following theorem:
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{rank} \overline{M}(D)=c(D)+1. \end{aligned}$$ \[mainthm2\]
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we review the warping matrix. In Section 3, we prove Theorem \[mainthm\] and \[mainthm2\]. In Section 4, we define the warping incidence matrix of a knot diagram. In Section 5, we investigate linearly independence for knot diagrams.
Warping matrix
==============
In this section we review the warping degree and warping matrix. See [@shimizu-wd] and [@shimizu-wm] for details. Let $D$ be an oriented knot diagram on $S^2$. Take a base point of $D$ avoiding crossing points. We denote by $D_b$ the pair of $D$ and $b$. A crossing point $p$ is a *warping crossing point* of $D_b$ if we meet $p$ as an undercrossing first when we travel $D$ from $b$. The *warping degree* $d(D_b)$, which is defined by Kawauchi in [@kawauchi], of $D_b$ is the number of the warping crossing points of $D_b$.
Let $P$ be an oriented knot projection on $S^2$. Take a base point at each edge of $P$, where edge means a part of $P$ between two crossings which has no crossings in the interior. Label them $b_1, b_2, \dots ,b_{2c}$ in order of traversal from an edge. From $P$, we obtain $2^c$ knot diagrams by giving over/under information at each crossing of $P$. We call them $D^1, D^2, \dots ,D^{2^c}$. The *warping matrix* $M(P)$ of $P$ is the $2^c \times 2c$ matrix defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
M(P)=( & a_{i j}), \\
\text{where } & a_{i j}=d(D^i _{b_j}). \end{aligned}$$
An example is shown in Fig. \[image\]. We consider warping matrices up to permutations on rows and cyclic permutations on columns.
![Warping matrix.[]{data-label="image"}](image.eps){width="130mm"}
Each row of $M(P)$ is said to be the *warping degree sequence* of the corresponding diagram. As mentioned in Proposition 2.2 in [@shimizu-wm], warping matrices of knot projections have the following properties:
- On each row, the difference of two elements which are next to each other is one.
- On each column, $n$ appears $\begin{pmatrix}
c \\
n
\end{pmatrix}$ times $(n=0,1,2, \dots , c)$.
The *ou matrix* $U(P)$ of $P$ is the matrix obtained from $M(P)$ by the multiplication $$\begin{aligned}
U(P)=M(P) \times A,\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is the $2c \times 2c$ matrix as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
A= \left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
-1 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 1 \\
1 & -1 & \ldots & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & \ldots & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \ldots & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \ldots & 1 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right) .\end{aligned}$$
We give an example.
The warping matrix $M(P)$ of the knot projection $P$ depicted in Fig. \[twist\] is
![Knot projection $P$.[]{data-label="twist"}](twist.eps){width="30mm"}
$$\begin{aligned}
M(P)= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & 2 & 1\\
1 & 2 & 1 & 2\\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
2 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right) \end{aligned}$$
and the ou matrix of $P$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
U(P)= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & 2 & 1\\
1 & 2 & 1 & 2\\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
2 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
-1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 1 & -1 & -1 \\
1 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 & -1 & 1 \\
-1 & -1 & 1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) .\end{aligned}$$ \[ou-matrix\]
Each row of $U(P)$ corresponds to a knot diagram, each column corresponds to a crossing, and each element represents the over/under information where $1$ means over and $-1$ means under. Since we pass each crossing twice, there are just $c$ pairs of columns uniquely such that the sum of them is $\bm{0}$. For example, $U(P)$ of Example \[ou-matrix\] has the pairs 1st and 4th, and 2nd and 3rd. From the pairing, we can recover the Gauss diagram of $P$.\
We define the warping matrix without signs for knot diagrams. Let $D$ be an oriented knot diagram on $S^2$, and $P$ the knot projection obtained from $D$ by ignoring the over/under information. We define the warping matrix $\overline{M}(D)$ to be the matrix acquired from $M(P)$ by deleting the row of $D$. We can also obtain $\overline{M}(D)$ from the ordinary warping matrix $M(D)$ just by removing the signs of elements. For example, we have
$$\overline{M} ( \parbox[c]{11mm}{\usebox{\boxa}})=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 2 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 2 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 \\
2 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 \\
2 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
3 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 \\
\end{pmatrix}$$
(cf. Fig. \[image\]).
Proof of Theorem \[mainthm\] and \[mainthm2\]
=============================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[mainthm\] and \[mainthm2\]. We show the following lemma:
Let $c$ be an integer which is greater than 1. Let $a_1, a_2, \dots ,a_c, a_{c+1}$ be integers. We have the following equation. $$\begin{aligned}
\left|
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_1 & -1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & 1 \\
a_2 & 1 & -1 & \ldots & 1 & 1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{c-1} & 1 & 1 & \ldots & -1 & 1 \\
a_c & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & -1 \\
a_{c+1} & -1 & -1 & \ldots & -1 & -1
\end{array}
\right|
= -2^{c-1} \left( \sum _{i=1}^c a_i +(c-2) a_{c+1} \right)
\label{formula1}\end{aligned}$$
By adding the $(c+1)$th row to the other rows, the equation (\[formula1\]) is equivalent to:
$$\begin{aligned}
\left|
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_1 +a_{c+1} & -2 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 0 \\
a_2 +a_{c+1} & 0 & -2 & \ldots & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{c-1} +a_{c+1} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & -2 & 0 \\
a_c +a_{c+1} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & -2 \\
a_{c+1} & -1 & -1 & \ldots & -1 & -1
\end{array}
\right|
= -2^{c-1} \left( \sum _{i=1}^c a_i +(c-2) a_{c+1} \right)
\label{formula2}\end{aligned}$$
We will show the equation (\[formula2\]) by an induction on $c$.\
$\bullet$ For $c=2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|
\begin{array}{ccc}
a_1 +a_3 & -2 & 0 \\
a_2 +a_3 & 0 & -2 \\
a_3 & -1 & -1
\end{array}
\right|
= -2(a_1 + a_2)\end{aligned}$$ Hence (\[formula2\]) holds for $c=2$.\
$\bullet$ Assume (\[formula2\]) holds for $c=k-1$ for an integer $k$ greater than two. Now we consider the case $c=k$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\left|
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_1 +a_{k+1} & -2 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 0 \\
a_2 +a_{k+1} & 0 & -2 & \ldots & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{k-1} +a_{k+1} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & -2 & 0 \\
a_k +a_{k+1} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & -2 \\
a_{k+1} & -1 & -1 & \ldots & -1 & -1
\end{array}
\right|\end{aligned}$$
The Laplace expansion along the $(k+1)$th column yields: $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^{k+(k+1)}\times (-2)
\left|
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_1 +a_{k+1} & -2 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
a_2 +a_{k+1} & 0 & -2 & \ldots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \\
a_{k-1} +a_{k+1} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & -2 \\
a_{k+1} & -1 & -1 & \ldots & -1
\end{array}
\right|\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
+(-1)^{(k+1)+(k+1)}\times (-1)
\left|
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_1 +a_{k+1} & -2 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
a_2 +a_{k+1} & 0 & -2 & \ldots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \\
a_{k-1} +a_{k+1} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & -2 \\
a_k +a_{k+1} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0
\end{array}
\right|\end{aligned}$$ Laplace expansion again along the $k$th row at the second term yields: $$\begin{aligned}
2
\left|
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_1 +a_{k+1} & -2 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
a_2 +a_{k+1} & 0 & -2 & \ldots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \\
a_{k-1} +a_{k+1} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & -2 \\
a_{k+1} & -1 & -1 & \ldots & -1
\end{array}
\right|
-(-1)^{k+1}(a_k+a_{k+1})
\left|
\begin{array}{cccc}
-2 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
0 & -2 & \ldots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \ldots & -2
\end{array}
\right|
\label{formula3}\end{aligned}$$ Remark the $(k, 1)$ element of the first matrix in (\[formula3\]) is $a_{k+1}$. By assumption, (\[formula3\]) is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
& 2 \left\{ -2^{(k-1)-1} \left( \sum _{i=1}^{k-1} a_i + (k-1-2) a_{k+1} \right) \right\} - (-1)^{k+1}(a_k+a_{k+1})(-2)^{k-1}\\
& =-2^{k-1} \left( \sum _{i=1}^{k-1} a_i + (k-3) a_{k+1} \right) -2^{k-1}(a_k+a_{k+1})\\
& =-2^{k-1} \left( \sum _{i=1}^{k-1} a_i + (k-3) a_{k+1} +a_k +a_{k+1} \right) \\
& =-2^{k-1} \left( \sum _{i=1}^k a_i +(k-2)a_{k+1} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Hence (\[formula2\]) holds.
\[ranklem\]
By multiplying by $-1$ the $(c+1)$th column, we obtain the following corollary from Lemma \[ranklem\]:
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_1 & -1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & -1 \\
a_2 & 1 & -1 & \ldots & 1 & -1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{c-1} & 1 & 1 & \ldots & -1 & -1 \\
a_c & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & 1 \\
a_{c+1} & -1 & -1 & \ldots & -1 & 1
\end{array}
\right|
= 2^{c-1} \left( \sum _{i=1}^c a_i +(c-2) a_{c+1} \right) .
\label{formula4}\end{aligned}$$ \[lankcor\]
Now we prove Theorem \[mainthm\].
*Proof of Theorem \[mainthm\].* For a $2^c \times 2c$ matrix $M(P)=( \bm{a}_1, \bm{a}_2, \dots ,\bm{a}_{2c})$, subtract $\bm{a}_{2c-1}$ from $\bm{a}_{2c}$, $\bm{a}_{2c-2}$ from $\bm{a}_{2c-1}$, $\bm{a}_{2c-3}$ from $\bm{a}_{2c-2}$, $\dots$, and $\bm{a}_1$ from $\bm{a}_2$. Let $( \bm{a}, \bm{v_1}, \bm{v_2}, \dots ,\bm{v_{2c-1}})$ be the matrix we obtain by the procedure. Note that $( \bm{v_1}, \bm{v_2}, \dots ,\bm{v_{2c-1}})$ is a submatrix of $U(P)$. By the property of ou matrix, there are just $(c-1)$ pairs of columns $\bm{v}_i$ and $\bm{v}_j$ uniquely such that $\bm{v}_i + \bm{v}_j = \bm{0}$. For each pair, add one to the other. By reordering some columns $\bm{v}_i$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\bm{a}, \bm{v_{\varphi _1}}, \bm{v_{\varphi _2}}, \dots ,\bm{v_{\varphi _c}}, \bm{0}, \bm{0}, \dots ,\bm{0} ).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{rank} M(P) \le c(P)+1. \end{aligned}$$ Next we show that $\bm{a}, \bm{v_{\varphi _1}}, \bm{v_{\varphi _2}}, \dots ,\bm{v_{\varphi _c}}$ are linearly independent. Since the columns $\bm{v_{\varphi _1}}, \bm{v_{\varphi _2}}, \dots ,\bm{v_{\varphi _c}}$ correspond to all the $c$ crossings, and the rows correspond to all the over/under information, we can obtain the following $(c+1) \times (c+1)$ submatrix of $( \bm{a}, \bm{v_{\varphi _1}}, \bm{v_{\varphi _2}}, \dots ,\bm{v_{\varphi _c}} )$ by reordering some rows $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_1 & -1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & 1 \\
a_2 & 1 & -1 & \ldots & 1 & 1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{c-1} & 1 & 1 & \ldots & -1 & 1 \\
a_c & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & -1 \\
a_{c+1} & -1 & -1 & \ldots & -1 & -1
\end{array}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $a_i$ is an element of $\bm{a}$ $(i=1,2,\dots ,c+1)$. By Lemma \[ranklem\], the determinant of the submatrix is $$\begin{aligned}
-2^{c-1} \left( \sum _{i=1}^c a_i +(c-2) a_{c+1} \right) . \end{aligned}$$ Remark that elements of $\bm{a}$ are all non-negative and there are at most one $0$. Hence the determinant is non-zero. Therefore $\bm{a}, \bm{v_{\varphi _1}}, \bm{v_{\varphi _2}}, \dots ,\bm{v_{\varphi _c}}$ are linearly independent. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{rank} M(P) = c(P)+1. \end{aligned}$$ $\square$
We prove Theorem \[mainthm2\].
*Proof of Theorem \[mainthm2\].* Similar to Theorem \[mainthm\] except that $\overline{M}(D)$ has one row fewer than $M(P)$. Remark that we can obtain at least one of the following two submatrices $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_1 & -1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & 1 \\
a_2 & 1 & -1 & \ldots & 1 & 1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{c-1} & 1 & 1 & \ldots & -1 & 1 \\
a_c & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & -1 \\
a_{c+1} & -1 & -1 & \ldots & -1 & -1
\end{array}
\right)
\ \text{and} \
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_1 & -1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & -1 \\
a_2 & 1 & -1 & \ldots & 1 & -1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{c-1} & 1 & 1 & \ldots & -1 & -1 \\
a_c & 1 & 1 & \ldots & 1 & 1 \\
a_{c+1} & -1 & -1 & \ldots & -1 & 1
\end{array}
\right) , \end{aligned}$$ which are the matrices of Lemma \[ranklem\] and Corollary \[lankcor\]. $\square$
Warping incidence matrix
========================
In this section we define the warping incidence matrix for oriented knot diagrams. Let $D$ be an oriented knot diagram on $S^2$ with $c$ crossings. Label the edges $e_1, e_2, \dots , e_{2c}$ in order of traversal from an edge. Label the crossings $v_1, v_2, \dots ,v_c$. The *warping incidence matrix* $m(D)$ of $D$ is defined as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
m(D)=( a_{i j}), \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{where } a_{i j}=
\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \text{(} v_i \text{ is a warping crossing point of } D_{b_j} \text{)}\\
0 & \text{(} v_i \text{ is not a warping crossing point of }D_{b_j} \text{)},
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$
where $b_j$ is a base point on $e_j$. An example is shown in Fig. \[image2\]. We consider warping incidence matrices up to permutations on rows and cyclic permutations on columns.
![Warping incidence matrix.[]{data-label="image2"}](image2.eps){width="130mm"}
By definition, we have the following:
The sum of all the rows of the warping incidence matrix of a knot diagram $D$ is the warping degree sequence of $D$.
We show the following proposition.
Let $m(D)=(a_{i j})$ be the warping incidence matrix of a knot diagram $D$ with $c(D)=c$. For any integer $k \in \{ 1,2, \dots ,c \}$, there exists an integer $l \in \{ 1,2, \dots , 2c \}$ uniquely such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left \{ \begin{array}{l}
a_{k \ l-1}=0, \\
a_{k \ l}=1 \text{ and} \\
a_{i \ l-1}=a_{i \ l} \ (i \neq k ).
\end{array} \right.
\label{kl-formula}\end{aligned}$$ \[kl\]
See Fig. \[crossings\]. At the $k$th row in $m(D)$, $1$ appears from $l$th column through $m$th column because the corresponding edges have the crossing $v_k$ as a warping crossing point, whereas $0$ appears from $(m+1)$th column through $(l-1)$th column. Hence we have $a_{k \ l-1}=0$ and $a_{k \ l}=1$. Since the two edges $e_{l-1}$ and $e_l$ have the same warping crossing points except at $v_k$, we have $a_{i \ l-1}=a_{i \ l}$ for $i \ne k$.
![A crossing and four edges.[]{data-label="crossings"}](crossings.eps){width="60mm"}
We have the following corollaries:
Let $D$ be a knot diagram, and let $D^i$ be the diagram obtained from $D$ by a crossing change at the crossing $v_i$. Then, $m(D^i)$ is obtained from $m(D)$ by switching 0 and 1 at the $i$th row. \[cc-cor\]
We can obtain the Gauss diagram of $D$ without signs from $m(D)$.
We show the following lemma:
Let $D$ be a knot diagram with $c(D)=c$. Let $m(D)$ be the warping incidence matrix of $D$, and $\bm{v_i}$ the $i$th row of $m(D)$ $(i=1,2, \dots ,c)$. Then $\bm{v_1}, \bm{v_2}, \dots ,\bm{v_c}$ and $\bm{1}$ are linearly independent, where $\bm{1}$ is the row vector $(1 1 \dots 1)$ with length $2c$. \[keylem\]
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda _1 \bm{v_1} + \lambda _2 \bm{v_2} + \dots +\lambda _c \bm{v_c} + \lambda _{c+1} \bm{1} = \bm{0}.
\label{l-combination}\end{aligned}$$ For each $k \in \{1,2, \dots ,c \}$, there exists an integer $l$ satisfying (\[kl-formula\]) in Proposition \[kl\]. Since the $l$th and $(l-1)$th elements of (\[l-combination\]) are zero, the difference of them, which is $\lambda _k$, is also zero. Hence we have $\lambda _1 = \lambda _2 = \dots = \lambda _c =0$ and therefore $\lambda _{c+1} =0$.
From Lemma \[keylem\], we have the following corollary:
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{rank} m(D)=c(D). \end{aligned}$$
Linearly independent diagrams
=============================
By Theorem \[mainthm\], each warping matrix $M(P)$ of a knot projection $P$ has $(c(P)+1)$ linearly independent rows. We say that knot diagrams obtained from a same knot projection $P$ are *linearly independent* if the corresponding rows in $M(P)$ are linearly independent. We have the following theorem.
Let $D$ be a knot diagram with $c$ crossings. Then $D$ and all the $c$ diagrams obtained from $D$ by a single crossing change are linearly independent. \[prop-independent\]
Let $m(D)$ be the warping incidence matrix of $D$, and $\bm{v_i}$ be the $i$th row of $m(D)$. As mentioned in Section 4, the warping degree sequence $s(D)$ of $D$ is obtained by $\bm{v_1}+\bm{v_2}+ \dots +\bm{v_c}$. Let $D^i$ be the knot diagram obtained from $D$ by a crossing change at $v_i$. By Corollary \[cc-cor\], we have $s(D^i)=\bm{v_1}+\bm{v_2}+ \dots + \bm{v_{i-1}}+( \bm{1} - \bm{v_i})+\bm{v_{i+1}}+ \dots +\bm{v_c}$. We will prove that $s(D), s(D^1), s(D^2), \dots $ and $s(D^c)$ are linear independent. By subtracting $s(D)$ from the others, it is sufficient to show that $(\bm{v_1}+\bm{v_2}+ \dots +\bm{v_c})$, $( \bm{1}-2 \bm{v_1})$, $( \bm{1}-2 \bm{v_2}), \dots $ and $( \bm{1}-2 \bm{v_c})$ are linearly independent. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda _o (\bm{v_1}+\bm{v_2}+ \dots +\bm{v_c}) +\lambda _1 ( \bm{1}-2 \bm{v_1}) + \dots + \lambda _c( \bm{1}-2 \bm{v_c})=\bm{0}. \end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
( \lambda _0 -2\lambda _1)\bm{v_1} + ( \lambda _0 -2\lambda _2)\bm{v_2} + \dots +( \lambda _0 -2\lambda _c)\bm{v_c} + ( \lambda _1 +\lambda _2 + \dots +\lambda _c)\bm{1}=0.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[keylem\], we have $\lambda _0 -2\lambda _1=\lambda _0 -2\lambda _2= \dots =\lambda _0 -2\lambda _c=\lambda _1 +\lambda _2 + \dots +\lambda _c=0$. Hence $\lambda _0=\lambda _1= \dots = \lambda _c=0$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
A. S. expresses gratitude to Professors Kazuaki Kobayashi and Takako Kodate for valuable discussions and suggestions. T. A., A. S. and R. W. are grateful to Yukari Fuseda, Yuui Onoda and Professor Yoshiro Yaguchi for valuable discussions.
[99]{} A. Kawauchi: *Lectures on knot theory* (in Japanese), Kyoritsu shuppan Co. Ltd, 2007. A. Shimizu: *The warping degree of a knot diagram*, J. Knot Theory Ramifications [**19**]{} (2010), 849–857. A. Shimizu: *The warping matrix of a knot diagram*, to appear in Contemporary Mathematics. (arXiv:1508.03425)
[^1]: Department of Information and Computer Engineering, Gunma National College of Technology, 580 Toriba-cho, Maebashi-shi, Gunma, 371-8530, Japan.
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Gunma National College of Technology, 580 Toriba-cho, Maebashi-shi, Gunma, 371-8530, Japan. Email: [email protected]
[^3]: Department of Information and Computer Engineering, Gunma National College of Technology, 580 Toriba-cho, Maebashi-shi, Gunma, 371-8530, Japan.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[We analyze the evolution of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime within the framework of $f(R)$ metric gravity using an exponential model. We show that $f(R)$ gravity may lead to a vanishing effective cosmological constant in the far future ([*i.e.*]{} $R\rightarrow 0$) and yet produce a transient accelerated expansion at present time with a potentially viable cosmological history. This is in contrast with several $f(R)$ models which, while viable, produce in general a non-vanishing effective cosmological constant asymptotically in time ($R\rightarrow 4\Lambda_{\rm eff}$). We also show that relativistic [*stars*]{} in asymptotically flat spacetimes can be supported within this framework without encountering any singularity, notably in the Ricci scalar $R$.]{}'
author:
- 'Luisa G. Jaime'
- Marcelo Salgado
title: Cosmic acceleration in asymptotically Ricci flat Universe
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
$f(R)$ gravity has been proposed recently as a [*natural*]{} mechanism to generate an effective cosmological constant even if $f(0) \equiv 0$ (for a review see [@Sotiriou2010; @Capozziello2008a; @deFelice2010; @Jaime2012a] and references therein) and also as a model for cosmic inflation in the early Universe [@Starobinsky1979]. This effective cosmological constant is then capable to explain the current accelerated expansion of the Universe [@Perlmutter1999; @Riess1998; @Amanullah2010]. The heuristic argument that allows to appreciate this property in simple grounds is as follows: the field equations of this kind of theories give rise to an evolution equation for the Ricci scalar $R$ \[cf. Eq. (\[traceR\]) of Section \[sec:f(R)\]\]. If the trace $T$ of the energy momentum of matter vanishes, then this equation admits $R=R_1= const$ as solution when $R_1$ is a solution of the algebraic equation $2f(R_1)-R_1f_R(R_1)=0$ (provided $f_{RR}(R_1)\neq 0$) where the subindex $R$ refers to a derivative of $f(R)$ with respect to such variable. When this solution is replaced in the field equations, the latter become the Einstein field equations endowed with an effective cosmological constant $\Lambda_{\rm eff}= R_1/4$ and an effective gravitational constant [@Jaime2016]. Now, even though $T$ does not vanish in general, notably, during the matter dominated epoch, detailed numerical analyses of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetime within $f(R)$ gravity [@Jaime2012a] show that $R$ evolves from a given value in the past (say from a matter dominated Universe where $T\approx -\rho_{\rm matt}$) to the attractor solution $R_1$ in the future while $\rho_{\rm matt}\sim a^{-3}$ vanishes as the scale factor grows. Therefore, asymptotically in time $R\rightarrow R_1$ and $T\rightarrow 0$. Thus, $f(R)$ gravity generates in a dynamical fashion an effective cosmological constant in the future. Of course at present time $R\approx R_1$ and $T\approx -0.3$ (in units of critical energy density), so in fact the effective equation of state of the [*geometric dark energy*]{} $\omega_X$ mimicked by $f(R)$ gravity is not constant but evolves in cosmic time such that $\omega_X\rightarrow -1$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$, but $\omega_X\approx -1$ at present time [@Jaime2014]. Moreover, thanks to this behavior, several $f(R)$ models can be in good agreement with the luminosity distance-redshift relation inferred from type I supernovae (SNIa) [@Jaime2012a].
Now, as regards the Solar System constraints within $f(R)$ gravity, this is a particularly subtle issue which has been the object of a long debate in the past but that seems to be more or less settle today for certain models, but not entirely in general (cf. [@Faulkner2007]). The point is that $f(R)$ gravity can be recasted as a kind of Brans-Dicke (BD) theory with a parameter $\omega_{\rm BD}\equiv 0$. This is because the scalar-degree of freedom has a vanishing kinetic contribution. Since observations require $\omega_{\rm BD} \gtrsim 4\times 10^4$, the naive conclusion is that $f(R)$ gravity is blatantly ruled out. The caveat of this argument is that in fact the emergent scalar-tensor theory is [*not*]{} exactly the original BD theory with $\omega_{\rm BD}\equiv 0$ but it is endowed with a scalar-field potential. Therefore, if the potential has certain features, the theory can exhibit a [*chameleon*]{} like behavior [@Khoury2004] which is responsible for suppressing the large deviations from general relativity (GR) in regions around the Sun. As a consequence, some $f(R)$ models can survive the Solar System tests [@Hu2007; @Faulkner2007]. However, in order to check that this indeed happens require, in principle, a very detailed numerical analysis that involves a high numerical accuracy, and which has to be done in a case-by-case basis, i.e., for each specific $f(R)$ model.
A similar kind of accuracy is involved when constructing realistic neutron stars. This can be seen from the fact that $f(R)$ models built to explain the cosmic acceleration involves a natural length scale $\ell\sim 1/\sqrt{\Lambda_{\rm eff}}$. This scale is huge compared to the length scales involved in neutron stars, which are of the order of ten kilometers. These lengths scales can be translated into density scales, which are of the order $\Lambda_{\rm eff}/G_0\sim\rho_{\rm crit}$, while the energy-densities characteristic of a neutron star are several orders of magnitude larger than the cosmological values during most of the cosmic evolution. Therefore, handling such contrasts of densities are numerically challenging.
In the case of GR endowed with a cosmological constant, usually one constructs neutron star models embedded in a spacetime that is asymptotically flat (AF) by simply neglecting the cosmological constant. However, in $f(R)$ gravity one cannot simply set $\Lambda_{\rm eff}\equiv 0$ as this quantity emerges dynamically. Moreover, most of alternative $f(R)$ models have an intrinsic scale $R_*\sim \Lambda_{\rm eff}$ which cannot be set to zero (see Section \[sec:f(R) model\]).
A partial solution to this technical problem consists in trying to construct “compact” objects that are large compared to neutron stars so as to avoid the handling of two different scales, but which are however, relativistic in the sense that its pressure is large and comparable to its energy density and whose mass-to-radius ratio $G_0 M/c^2 R$ is similar to the one of a neutron star.
These relativistic objects can be used as a testbed for $f(R)$ theory in dealing with the [*strong*]{} gravity regime. It turns, however, that even in this simplified scenario some attempts to find relativistic objects failed due to the appearance of a [*curvature singularity*]{} [@Kobayashi2008; @Kobayashi2009; @Babichev2009; @Upadhye2009]. Furthermore, detailed analyses showed that such a drawback can be in fact avoided [@Jaime2011]. However, this entails changing the original parameters of the $f(R)$ model, which can put in jeopardy the cosmological and even the Solar System tests. In other words, as of today, there is no single $f(R)$ self-consistent model compatible with all the tests of general relativity while satisfying the condition $f(0)=0$, i.e., a $f(R)$ model without the inclusion of an explicit cosmological constant[^1]. Otherwise, such problems can be avoided by simply selecting $f_{\rm GR}(R)= R-2\Lambda$, which corresponds to GR with a cosmological constant.
At this point one can then argue, why not selecting $f_{\rm GR}(R)$ , which is the simplest and the most successful model. Perhaps the most honest answer we can give [*a posteriori*]{} is that there are some measurements of the Hubble expansion $H$ at different epochs that are in [*mild*]{} tension with the $\Lambda$CDM model [@boss2014]. Moreover in [@Zhao2017] a statistical analysis shows that these tensions might be relieved with a dynamical dark energy and in [@Jaime2015] it was argued that $f(R)$ gravity could help to alleviate them. So, if such dark energy turns out to be varying in cosmic time with an equation of state (EOS) different from the value $\omega_{\rm DE}=-1$, then we would have a concrete prediction other than the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. Therefore, modified gravity has the potential of dealing with such tensions in a very well defined manner. It is then worth pursuing the analysis of such possibility, even if at the end the $\Lambda$CDM model is confirmed by future experiments and the tensions are solved by a better statistics.
In this article we want to explore an exponential $f(R)$ model such that $R_1\equiv 0$ and thus, $\Lambda_{\rm eff}\equiv 0$. That is, a model where the attractor solution in cosmology is the one where the effective cosmological constant vanishes asymptotically in time, but where the transient behavior of $R$ is such that its value today is close to the observed value $R\sim 4\Lambda$ as predicted by the $\Lambda$CDM model. Furthermore, in this kind of $f(R)$ model neutron stars can be embedded naturally in an AF spacetime where $R\rightarrow 0$ at spatial infinity.
It is important to emphasize that the exponential $f(R)$ model that we use contrasts with seemingly related models that are, however, cosmologically nonviable, like the popular $R^n$ model [@Amendola2007a; @Amendola2007b; @Amendola2007c; @Jaime2013]. Whereas most of the cosmologically viable models analyzed so far posses a non zero $\Lambda_{\rm eff}$ [@Starobinsky2007; @Hu2007; @Miranda2009; @Jaime2012a]. In fact, some of these $f(R)$ models admit also $R_1=0$ as a solution when $T=0$, but this is [*not*]{} an attractor solution in cosmology. Besides, even if one tried (somehow) to reinforce the asymptotic solution $R_1=0$ in such models [@Starobinsky2007; @Hu2007], one would encounter a singularity in the equation of motion for $R$ at the place where $f_{RR}$ vanishes \[cf. Eq. (\[traceR\]) of Section \[sec:f(R)\]\] before reaching the value $R=R_1=0$.
The exponential model that we analyze has $R_1=0$ as an attractor solution in cosmology (Section \[sec:cosmologysols\]), and in addition $f_{RR}$ is positive definite. These features make also possible to construct AF spacetimes, namely, solutions of compact objects with this kind of asymptotics (Section \[sec:SSSsols\]).
$f(R)$ gravity {#sec:f(R)}
==============
The field equation in $f(R)$ theory is derived from the following action: $$\label{f(R)}
S[g_{ab},{\mbox{\boldmath{$\psi$}}}] =
\!\! \int \!\! \frac{f(R)}{2\kappa} \sqrt{-g} \: d^4 x
+ S_{\rm matt}[g_{ab}, {\mbox{\boldmath{$\psi$}}}] \; ,$$ where $\kappa \equiv 8\pi G_0$ ($c=1$), $f(R)$ is an [*a priori*]{} arbitrary function of the Ricci scalar $R$, and ${\mbox{\boldmath{$\psi$}}}$ represents schematically the matter fields.
The field equation arising from variation of the action (\[f(R)\]) with respect to the metric is $$\label{fieldeq1}
f_R R_{ab} -\frac{1}{2}fg_{ab} -
\left(\nabla_a \nabla_b - g_{ab}\Box\right)f_R= \kappa T_{ab}\,\,,$$ where $f_R=\partial_R f$, $\Box= g^{ab}\nabla_a\nabla_b$ is the covariant D’Alambertian and $T_{ab}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of matter. From this equation it is not difficult to show that $T_{ab}$ is conserved, i.e., $\nabla^a T_{ab}=0$ [@Jaime2016]. We rewrite Eq. (\[fieldeq1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fieldeq2}
&& f_R G_{ab} - f_{RR} \nabla_a \nabla_b R -
f_{RRR} (\nabla_aR)(\nabla_b R) \nonumber \\
&+& g_{ab}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(Rf_R- f\right)
+ f_{RR} \Box R + f_{RRR} (\nabla R)^2\right] \nonumber\\
& & = \kappa T_{ab}\,\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{ab}= R_{ab}-g_{ab}R/2$ is the Einstein tensor and $(\nabla R)^2:= g^{ab}(\nabla_aR)(\nabla_b R)$. The trace of equation Eq. (\[fieldeq2\]) yields $$\label{traceR}
\Box R= \frac{1}{3 f_{RR}}\left[\rule{0mm}{0.4cm}\kappa T - 3 f_{RRR} (\nabla R)^2 + 2f- Rf_R \right]\,\,\,,$$ where $T:= T^a_{\,\,a}$. Using (\[traceR\]) in (\[fieldeq2\]) we find
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{fieldeq3}
G_{ab} &=& \frac{1}{f_R}\Bigl{[} f_{RR} \nabla_a \nabla_b R +
f_{RRR} (\nabla_aR)(\nabla_b R) \nonumber \\
& &- \frac{g_{ab}}{6}\Big{(} Rf_R+ f + 2\kappa T \Big{)}
+ \kappa T_{ab} \Bigl{]} \; .\end{aligned}$$
We use Eqs. (\[traceR\]) and (\[fieldeq3\]) as the fundamental field equations in this paper, much along the lines described in [@Jaime2011; @Jaime2012a].
As stressed before, we see that Eq. (\[traceR\]) admits $R=R_1= const$ as a particular solution when the energy-momentum tensor of matter is traceless ($T\equiv 0$) provided $R_1$ is an algebraic root of the function: $$d{{\cal V}}/dR:= (2f- Rf_R)/(3f_{RR}) \; .$$
Aside from some “exceptional” cases where both the numerator $2f- Rf_R$ and the denominator $f_{RR}$ vanish at $R_1$ (for example $R^n$ model [@Jaime2013]), in general, if $f_{RR}(R_1)\neq 0$, $R_1$ is only a root of: $$\label{dV}
dV/dR:= (2f- Rf_R)/3 \; .$$
In this instance, the “potential” $V(R)= -R f(R)/3 + \int^R f(x) dx$ is useful to track the critical points at $R_1$, notably, the extrema (maxima or minima). So, the three possibilities is $R_1$ to be positive, negative or zero, which are associated with a de Sitter, anti de Sitter or Ricci flat, “points”, respectively. Clearly the exact location of the critical points depends on the form of the $f(R)$ model and also on the specific value of the parameters involved in this function.
In the following Section we describe the specific exponential $f(R)$ model used in this work, and then test it in a cosmological scenario and within the context of relativistic objects in hydrostatic equilibrium in order to asses some of its most basic viability.
The exponential $f(R)$ model {#sec:f(R) model}
============================
As mentioned in the Introduction, several $f(R)$ models have been proposed in the past in order to produce an accelerated expansion in the Universe with a non vanishing effective cosmological constant. However, in this work we focus on a specific model that allows for asymptotically Ricci flat solutions without encountering any singularity. We thus assume the model: $$\label{ecu-fR-exp}
f(R)= R - \beta R_{*} (1- e^{-R/R_{*}})$$ where $R_*$ and $\beta$ are positive parameters. In particular, $R_*$ fixes the scale, and we take $R_*= 4 H_0^2$, while $\beta$ is dimensionless. Here $H_0$ stands for the current Hubble expansion. The value of $\beta$ determines the existence of several critical points for the “potential” $V(R)$ at $R_1$. In particular for $0<\beta\leq 1$, the potential $V(R)$ has one minimum at $R_1=0$ where in addition $f(R_1)=0$. Moreover, for $R/R_* > {\rm ln} \beta$ the scalar $f_R$ is strictly positive, and vanishes at $R/R_*= {\rm ln} \beta$. Thus, taking $0<\beta<1$ ensures that the minimum at $R_1=0$ of $V(R)$ never coincides with the value where $f_R$ vanishes. In fact, for $0<\beta<1$ the scalar $f_R= 1-\beta e^{-R/R_{*}}$ is positive definite in the domain $R\in [0,\infty)$, although $f_R$ could vanishes if $R$ becomes negative enough (see Figure \[fig:f-f1\]). However, in all the cases that we analyzed the cosmological dynamics is such that $R$ is never as negative as to fall into this pathology. Finally, we stress that $f_{RR}= \beta e^{-R/R_{*}}/R_*$ is positive definite for $\beta >0$.
![Top: The exponential $f(R)$ model for $\beta = 1.0,\, 0.8\,$ and $0.5$ with $R_*=4H_{0}^{2}$ ($R$ and $f(R)$ in units of $H_0^2$). Bottom: First derivative of $f(R)$ for the same parameters.[]{data-label="fig:f-f1"}](f-exp-3.eps "fig:") ![Top: The exponential $f(R)$ model for $\beta = 1.0,\, 0.8\,$ and $0.5$ with $R_*=4H_{0}^{2}$ ($R$ and $f(R)$ in units of $H_0^2$). Bottom: First derivative of $f(R)$ for the same parameters.[]{data-label="fig:f-f1"}](f1-exp-3.eps "fig:")
In the past we have shown preliminary evidence that a viable cosmology is possible for this model [@JaimeExp] when $\beta\geq 1$. Notably, when $\Lambda_{\rm eff}\neq 0$ ($\beta >1$). Nevertheless, as far as we are aware [@Exponential], there are not detailed studies about the viability of $f(R)$ models allowing for asymptotically Ricci flat solutions[^2]. The goal of this paper is to fill that gap. In particular, we show that even if in this specific model $\Lambda_{\rm eff}\equiv 0$, the Ricci scalar $R$ has nevertheless a transient behavior which allows for an adequate accelerated expansion at present time, but with $R\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$. As we mentioned above, this is possible when $0<\beta\leq 1$. Here we report the capabilities of the Ricci flat scenarios in a FRW cosmology and in the construction of relativistic stars.
The potential $V(R)$ associated with this model is depicted in Figure \[fig:Potentials\] for three different values of $\beta \in (0,1]$. In this domain of $\beta$ the potential exhibit only a (global) minimum at $R=0$, which corresponds to the asymptotic value reached in cosmology at late times (see Section \[sec:cosmologysols\]), and also to the asymptotic value reached at spatial infinity (see Section \[sec:SSSsols\]). As $\beta\rightarrow 1$ the potential “flattens” around $R=0$, which makes the Ricci scalar $R$ to reach its asymptotic value $R=0$ monotonically and “slowly” in cosmic time. On the other hand, as $\beta$ decreases from $\beta=1$, the potential becomes like one of a harmonic oscillator near the minimum and $R$ can oscillate in cosmic time near $R=0$. These oscillations are otherwise damped due to the “friction” term generated by the expansion of the Universe (see Section \[sec:cosmologysols\]).
For $\beta>1$ the potential $V(R)$ develops several critical points, one being a global minimum which is associated with a de Sitter point [@JaimeExp].
![The potential $V(R)$ (in units of $H_0^4$) associated with the exponential $f(R)$ model for $\beta = 0.5, \, 0.8$ and $1$ ($R$ in units of $H_0^2$). Notice that in each case the potential $V(R)$ has one critical point (a global minimum at $R=0$) corresponding to the value reached by $R$ at late cosmic times and also in asymptotically flat spacetimes. The minimum at $V(0)$ grows as $\beta\rightarrow 0$, reaching the maximum value $V(0)= 0$ in this limit. The minimum-minimorum is reached at $\beta=1$ when $\beta\in (0,1]$.[]{data-label="fig:Potentials"}](V-3-exp.eps)
In the following Sections we will analyze the cosmological scenario and the static and spherically symmetric spacetime, respectively.
Cosmology {#sec:cosmology}
=========
We focus on a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime,
$$\label{SSmetric}
ds^2 = - dt^2 + a^2(t) \left[ \frac{dr^2}{1-k r^2} + r^2 \left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\varphi^2\right)\right]\,\,\,,$$
where $k=\pm 1,0$, and for simplicity analyze only the case $k=0$.
We also assume that the energy-momentum tensor of matter $T_{ab}$, described by a perfect-fluid, is a mixture of dark matter, baryons and radiation but in an epoch where the interaction between them can be neglected.
Under these assumptions, Eqs. (\[traceR\]) and (\[fieldeq3\]) lead respectively to, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{traceRt}
&& \ddot R = -3H \dot R - \frac{3f_{RRR} \dot R^2 + 2f- f_R R-\kappa (\rho_{\rm bar}+ \rho_{\rm DM}) }{3 f_{RR}} \nonumber \\
&& \,\,\,\\
\label{Hgen}
&& H^2 = \frac{\kappa}{3}\left(\rule{0mm}{0.3cm} \rho +\rho_{X}\right) \,\,\,,\\
\label{Hdotgen}
&& \dot{H}= -H^2 -\frac{\kappa}{6}\left\{\rule{0mm}{0.4cm} \rho +\rho_{X}+3\left(p_{\rm rad}+ p_{X}\right) \right\} \,\,\,,\\
\label{Hubble}
&& H = \dot a/a \,\,\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{}\,\,= d/dt$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhoX}
\rho_X&=& \frac{ \frac{1}{2}(f_{R}R-f)-3f_{RR}H\dot{R} + \kappa\rho(1-f_{R}) }{\kappa f_{R}},\\
\label{pressX}
p_X &=& \frac{ \frac{1}{2}(f_{R}R-f)+3f_{RR}H\dot{R} - \kappa(\rho-3p_{{\rm rad}}f_{R}) }{3\kappa f_{R}},\end{aligned}$$ are the density and pressure of the [*geometric dark energy*]{} (GDE), respectively.
As usual, the matter variables obey their own dynamics provided by $\nabla_a T^{ab}_I=0$, where $I=1-3$, for each matter component (baryons, dark matter and photons) which for the actual case leads to the standard conservation equation $\dot \rho_I - 3H (\rho_I + p_I)=0$. So $T_{ab}=\sum_{I=1}^{3} T^{ab}_I$. In the above equations $\rho = \sum_{I=1}^{3} \rho_{I}$. The corresponding equations of state (EOS) are $p_{\rm bar,DM}=0$ for baryons and dark matter, $p_{\rm rad}=\rho_{\rm rad}/3$ for photons, and the $X$–fluid variables (\[rhoX\]) and (\[pressX\]), which satisfy a similar conservation equation, has the following EOS (for a thorough discussion about EOS of GDE in $f(R)$ see [@Jaime2014]): $$\label{EOSX1b}
\omega_{X}= \frac{p_{X}}{\rho_{X}}=
\frac{3H^2-3\kappa\,p_{\rm rad}-R}{3\left(3H^2-\kappa\rho\right)}= \frac{1-\Omega_{\rm rad} -R/(3H^2)}{3 \Omega_X}\,\,\,,$$ which evolves in cosmic time. Here $\Omega_X= \kappa \rho_X/(3 H^2)$ and $\Omega_{\rm rad}= \kappa \rho_{\rm rad}/(3 H^2)$. Similar fractional (dimensionless) energy-densities will be defined for the other matter components such that $\Omega_X+\sum_{I=1}^{3} \Omega_I=1$. Hereafter $\Omega_{\rm matt}:= \sum_{I=1}^{3} \Omega_I= \Omega_{\rm rad} + \Omega_{\rm bar}+ \Omega_{\rm DM}$. The [*total*]{} EOS is defined by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{EOSTOT}
\omega_{\rm tot} &:=& \frac{p_{\rm tot}}{\rho_{\rm tot}}= \frac{p_{\rm rad}+p_{X}}{\rho +\rho_{X}}= \nonumber \\
& &-\frac{1}{3}\left[ \frac{\frac{1}{2}\left(f_{R}R+f \right) + 3f_{RR}H\dot{R}-\kappa\rho}
{\frac{1}{2}\left( f_{R}R-f\right) -3f_{RR}H\dot{R} + \kappa \rho}\right] \,\,\,,\end{aligned}$$
where (\[rhoX\]) and (\[pressX\]) were used in the last equality. The total EOS is directly related with the deceleration parameter by ($k=0$) $$\label{EOSTOT2}
q := -\frac{\ddot a}{aH^2}= \frac{1}{2}\left(1+ 3 \omega_{\rm tot}\right) \,\,\,.$$ From this equation we see that acceleration and deceleration occur when $\omega_{\rm tot}<-1/3$ and $\omega_{\rm tot}>-1/3$, respectively. In particular, when $\omega_{\rm tot}\rightarrow -1$, the Universe is dominated by dark-energy.
With all these ingredients we are able to analyze numerically the previous equations following the strategy detailed in [@Jaime2012a]. This analysis in presented in the following Section \[sec:cosmologysols\].
Asymptotically Ricci flat solutions in cosmology {#sec:cosmologysols}
------------------------------------------------
As we discussed in the Introduction, one of the features that makes $f(R)$ gravity appealing is that it can produce an accelerated expansion at late times as generated purely by geometry due to the emergence of an effective cosmological constant $\Lambda_{\rm eff}= R_1/4$ from the dynamics of $R$.
By integrating numerically the equations of Section \[sec:cosmology\] we show that it is possible to have a viable cosmology even when $\Lambda_{\rm eff}\equiv 0$. The expansion of the Universe under this particular dynamics can provide a matter dominated epoch followed by an accelerated one, even when asymptotically solutions goes to $R \rightarrow 0$. Figures \[fig:R-plano\] and \[fig:H-plano\] depict the Ricci scalar and the expansion rate $H$, respectively, during the cosmological evolution for two prototype values $\beta=1$ and $\beta=0.8$. Let us focus first on the value $\beta=1$. In this case, $R$ “rolls” slowly and monotonically towards the value $R=0$ through the potential $V(R)$ (cf. Figure \[fig:Potentials\]). When $R$ reaches the flat region of the potential a slowly varying effective cosmological “constant” appears and produces a transient accelerated expansion similar to the one observed at present time. Notice that the Hubble expansion, as depicted in Figure \[fig:H-plano\], evolves from a high value at $z\gg 1$ (where $z=\frac{1}{a/a_0}-1$ and $a_{0}$ is the value of the scale factor today) to a vanishing value at very late times $z\rightarrow -1$, corresponding to $t\rightarrow \infty$. This means that the scale factor reaches a maximum when $t\rightarrow \infty$. This is reminiscent of the late-time behavior associated with a matter dominated model in GR (i.e. one without a cosmological constant and $k=0$ ) where $H^2~\sim a^{-3}= (z+1)^3$, which vanishes as $z\rightarrow -1$, i.e., $a\rightarrow \infty$.
However, unlike the GR scenario, in this $f(R)$ model we have the following behavior: a radiation dominated epoch followed by a matter dominated era, both with a decelerated period $\ddot a<0$, associated with $\omega_{\rm tot}>-1/3$ (cf. Figure \[fig:EOS\]), then an accelerated period with $\ddot a>0$ corresponding to the epoch where the GDE dominates and which is associated with $\omega_{\rm tot}>-1/3$, and finally, a future period where again the Universe decelerates until the expansion stops at infinite time (cf. Figure \[fig:EOS\]).
The bottom-panel of Figure \[fig:H-plano\] zooms the behavior of $H$ at late times ($z\sim -1$). Notice that for $\beta = 1$ the value $f_R(R=0)=0$ is reached at $t\rightarrow \infty$.
As concerns the value $\beta=0.8$, the dynamics change dramatically as compared to $\beta= 1$. The potential $V(R)$ behaves more like the potential of a harmonic oscillator. In this case $R$ “rolls” down the potential from a high value $R$ at $z\gg 1$ and pass beyond the minimum at $R_1=0$, despite the friction term, and start oscillating about the minimum. Notice however, that the oscillations start only in the future $z<0$, and prior to that, when $R>0$, an accelerated expansion takes place. During this period the GDE contribution dominates over its matter counterpart (cf. Figure \[fig:Ome-todo\]).
Although $R$ can become negative during the oscillating period, the maximum negative amplitude of the oscillations is small enough to prevent a negative or zero $f_R$ where the equations become ill-defined. The amplitude is then damped due to the expansion of the Universe and ultimately $R$ vanishes asymptotically in time ($z\rightarrow -1$).
The oscillating behavior of $R$ is imprinted in $H$. The expansion $H$ oscillates in the future and the amplitude damps and vanishes as $z\rightarrow -1$. The bottom-panel of Figure \[fig:H-plano\] gives the impression that $H$ vanishes at the minima, but this is not the case. It vanishes only at infinite times.
![Top: Ricci scalar (in units of $H_0^2$) versus “red” shift $z$ for $\beta=0.5, \, 0.8$ and $1$ with $R_*= 4H_{0}^{2}$. Bottom: same as the top panel but for $z\sim -1$ which is associated with the “far future”.[]{data-label="fig:R-plano"}](R-3-exp.eps "fig:") ![Top: Ricci scalar (in units of $H_0^2$) versus “red” shift $z$ for $\beta=0.5, \, 0.8$ and $1$ with $R_*= 4H_{0}^{2}$. Bottom: same as the top panel but for $z\sim -1$ which is associated with the “far future”.[]{data-label="fig:R-plano"}](R-3-zoom.eps "fig:")
![Top: Hubble expansion (in units of $H_0$) versus $z$ associated with the cosmological solutions depicted in Figure \[fig:R-plano\]. Bottom: Hubble expansion for $z\sim -1$. Notice that $H\rightarrow 0$ as $z\rightarrow -1$.[]{data-label="fig:H-plano"}](H-3-exp.eps "fig:") ![Top: Hubble expansion (in units of $H_0$) versus $z$ associated with the cosmological solutions depicted in Figure \[fig:R-plano\]. Bottom: Hubble expansion for $z\sim -1$. Notice that $H\rightarrow 0$ as $z\rightarrow -1$.[]{data-label="fig:H-plano"}](H-zoom-3.eps "fig:")
Figure \[fig:Ome-todo\] depicts the dimensionless density fractions for matter and geometric dark energy, for $\beta=1$ (top panel) and $\beta=0.8$ (bottom panel). In both cases, we appreciate the matter dominated epoch $\Omega_X< \Omega_{\rm matt}$ and the GDE dominated era $\Omega_X> \Omega_{\rm matt}$. We remind the reader that the matter density $\Omega_{\rm matt}$ includes radiation, baryons and dark matter. This behavior is very similar to the $\Lambda$CDM model, in particular, notice that at present time ($z=0$) $\Omega_X\sim 0.7$ and $\Omega_{\rm matt}\sim 0.3$.
Figure \[fig:Ome-zoom\] zooms the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:Ome-todo\] near $z=-1$. The oscillating behavior of the densities, induced by the oscillating behavior of $R$ and $H$, is clearly appreciated in this figure and also the way the matter and GDE dominates one over the other in alternating fashion.
![Dimensionless density fractions $\Omega_X$ (geometric dark energy) and $\Omega_{\rm matt}$ (matter) for $\beta = 1$ (top panel) and $\beta = 0.8$ (bottom panel), taking $R_* = 4H_{0}^{2}$ and their comparison with the $\Lambda$CDM evolution (labeled as GR).[]{data-label="fig:Ome-todo"}](Ome-beta1-RG.eps "fig:") ![Dimensionless density fractions $\Omega_X$ (geometric dark energy) and $\Omega_{\rm matt}$ (matter) for $\beta = 1$ (top panel) and $\beta = 0.8$ (bottom panel), taking $R_* = 4H_{0}^{2}$ and their comparison with the $\Lambda$CDM evolution (labeled as GR).[]{data-label="fig:Ome-todo"}](Ome-beta08-RG.eps "fig:")
![Similar to the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:Ome-todo\] but for $z\sim -1$.[]{data-label="fig:Ome-zoom"}](Ome-exp-n08m4-zoom.eps)
![Top: Evolution of the EOS associated with the geometric dark energy. Bottom: Evolution of the total EOS and their comparison with the $\Lambda$CDM evolution (labeled as GR).[]{data-label="fig:EOS"}](wX-exp.eps "fig:") ![Top: Evolution of the EOS associated with the geometric dark energy. Bottom: Evolution of the total EOS and their comparison with the $\Lambda$CDM evolution (labeled as GR).[]{data-label="fig:EOS"}](wtot-n1-n08-RG.eps "fig:")
The EOS for the GDE $\omega_X$ is shown in the top panel of Figure \[fig:EOS\] for $\beta = 1$ and $\beta = 0.8$. We appreciate that $\omega_X$ is not constant and is close to $-1$, notably, in past. As the Universe evolves, the EOS is below the so-called “phantom divide” region ($\omega_X<-1$) and then cross it to become $\omega_X\sim 0.8$ near the present time ($z=0$). This behavior of $\omega_X$ is characteristic of several $f(R)$ models [@Jaime2014], like the Hu–Sawicki [@Hu2007] and the Starobinsky [@Starobinsky2007] models. The main difference here emerges in the far future where $R\rightarrow 0$, while in the other $f(R)$ models $R\rightarrow R_1$, leading to a nonvanishing effective cosmological constant.
The total EOS $\omega_{\rm tot}$ is depicted in the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:EOS\]. This quantity is directly related with the accelerated or decelerated expansion \[cf. Eq. (\[EOSTOT2\])\]. As mentioned before, we see that during the evolution the Universe undergoes several phases of deceleration $\omega_{\rm tot}>-1/3$ and acceleration $\omega_{\rm tot}<-1/3$. Thus, unlike the $\Lambda$CDM model and other $f(R)$ models that generate an effective cosmological constant (including the exponential one with $\beta>1$ [@JaimeExp]) where the Universe accelerates indefinitely in the future, in the exponential models with $0<\beta\leq 1$ the Universe decelerates again in the future until the expansion ceases.
Our results shows that this model is able to explain the accelerated expansion and other cosmological phases adequately, like the $\Lambda$CDM model and some of the $f(R)$ models with $\Lambda_{\rm eff}\neq 0$ [@Jaime2012a].
Before ending the cosmological analysis, a final comment is in order. It is worth stressing that not all the $f(R)$ models that admit an asymptotic Ricci flat solution can produce a successful cosmology. This in part is due to the crossing of a singularity associated with the zeros of the scalar $f_{RR}$ which interposes between the high curvature regime of the early Universe and the low or zero curvature domain of the late-time Universe. For instance, this can happen in the Starobinsky and Hu-Sawicki models [@Starobinsky2007; @Hu2007]. Other models, like the “popular” $f(R)= R^n$ model, can be free of those singularities while admitting an asymptotic Ricci flat solution, nevertheless, such model is simply unable to reproduce a cosmological evolution compatible with observations [@Amendola2007a; @Amendola2007b; @Amendola2007c; @Jaime2013].
Static and spherically symmetric (SSS) spacetimes {#sec:Stars}
=================================================
In this paper we also analyze the existence of relativistic objects within the exponential $f(R)$ model that admit an asymptotically Ricci flat background, in particular, asymptotically flat spacetimes[^3].
In order to perform this analysis we assume a SSS spacetime described by the following metric: $$ds^2 = - n(r) dt^2 + m(r) dr^2+ r^2 \left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\varphi^2\right),$$ The final form of the equations for $n(r)$ and $m(r)$ are [@Jaime2011]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{mprime}
m' &=& \frac{m}{r(2f_{R}+rR'f_{RR})} \Biggl{\{} 2f_{R}(1-m)-2mr^2 \kappa T^{t}_{\,\,t}
\nonumber \\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! +\frac{mr^2}{3}(Rf_{R}+f+2\kappa T)
+ \frac{rR'f_{RR}}{f_{R}}\Bigl{[}\frac{mr^2}{3}(2Rf_{R}-f+\kappa T) \nonumber \\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
-\kappa mr^2(T^{t}_{\,\,t}+T^{r}_{\,\,r})+2(1-m)f_{R}+2rR'f_{RR}\Bigr{]} \Biggr{\}} \; , %\\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{nprime}
n' &=& \frac{n}{r(2f_{R}+rR'f_{RR})} \Bigl{[} mr^2(f-Rf_{R}+2\kappa T^{r}_{\,\,r}) \nonumber \\
&& +2f_{R}(m-1)-4rR'f_{RR} \Bigr{]} \; ,\\
%Ecuacion para n''
\label{nbiprime}
n'' &=& \frac{2nm}{f_{R}} \Bigl{[} \kappa T^{\theta}_{\,\,\theta}-\frac{1}{6}(Rf_{R}+f+2\kappa T)
+ \frac{R'}{rm}f_{RR}\Bigr{]} \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{n}{2r}\Bigl{[}2\left(\frac{m'}{m}-\frac{n'}{n}\right)+\frac{rn'}{n}\left(\frac{m'}{m}
+\frac{n'}{n}\right)\Bigr{]} \; .\end{aligned}$$
For this spacetime the equation for the Ricci scalar reads, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{traceRr}
R'' &=& \frac{1}{3f_{RR}}\Big{[}m(\kappa T+2f- Rf_{R}) - 3f_{RRR}R'^2\Big{]} \nonumber \\
&& +\left(\frac{m'}{2m}-\frac{n'}{2n}-\frac{2}{r}\right)R' \;.\end{aligned}$$
The Ricci scalar computed directly from the metric also satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rr}
R &=& \frac{1}{2r^2n^2m^2}\Bigl{[}4n^2m(m-1)+rnm'(4n+rn') \nonumber \\
&& -2rnm(2n'+rn'')+r^2mn'^2\Bigr{]} \; .
\end{aligned}$$
As concerns the matter sector, we consider a perfect fluid $$\label{ecu:fluido-perfecto}
T_{ab}= (\rho + p)u_a u_b + g_{ab} p \; .$$ where $p(r)$ and $\rho(r)$, are functions of the coordinate $r$ solely.
The behavior of this fluid will be described by the modified Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation which arises from the conservation equation $\nabla^a T_{ab}= 0$. In fact, this equation reads exactly as in GR prior the substitution of the explicit form for $n'$: $$\label{TOV}
p'= -(\rho + p) n'/2n \; .$$ This equation completes our set of differential equations. As concerns the EOS, for simplicity we assume an [*incompressible*]{} fluid where the energy-density is given by a step function. So, the energy density $\rho$ is a nonzero constant $\rho_0$ within the star, but vanishes outside. In this way, Eq. (\[TOV\]) can be integrated without given any further EOS.
In the future we plan to analyze the inclusion of more realistic EOS where the energy-density is not kept constant (e.g. polytropes).
The numerical integration of the equations presented in this section is performed following the approach of [@Jaime2011]. The results will be presented in the next Section \[sec:SSSsols\].
Asymptotically flat solutions for relativistic objects {#sec:SSSsols}
------------------------------------------------------
The existence of relativistic compact objects, like neutron stars, are expected to be supported by any viable theory of gravity. As concerns, $f(R)$ gravity, some models intended to explain the cosmological observations seem to fail in this attempt. As shown by some authors using the scalar-tensor approach to $f(R)$ gravity, a [*singularity*]{} in the Ricci scalar was encountered at some spacetime region (see [@Kobayashi2008; @Kobayashi2009; @Babichev2009; @Upadhye2009] for this kind of results). However, some other models did not exhibit that kind of singularity [@Miranda2009]. In fact, the scalar-tensor approach can be well defined provided $f_R$ is a monotonic function of $R$. Otherwise, the resulting scalar-field potential is not single valued. Moreover, if the Einstein frame is used, this frame can become ill-defined if $f_R$ vanishes. The singularity found by some authors was related with some of those issues. So when $f_{RR}$ and/or $f_R$ are not positive definite, special care must be taken as to define the exact domains where the scalar-tensor approach is valid. In view of this, we believe that it is more advisable to remain in the original frame with its corresponding variables without introducing any other [*fundamental*]{} scalar than $R$ itself. This is precisely what we have done in Section \[sec:Stars\], where no conformal transformation whatsoever was used to obtain the equations for SSS spacetime, nor any scalar $\Phi(R)= f_R$ was promoted as fundamental. This step would entail to invert the latter equation so as to obtain $R=R(\Phi)$, leading to $g(\Phi):= f(R(\Phi))$. As stressed before, this requires $f_R$ to be a monotonic function of $R$, which it is not always the case.
In the past we used the equations of Section \[sec:Stars\] to compute compact objects using two $f(R)$ models embedded in a de Sitter background [@Jaime2011], and showed that they were free of singularities.
We proceed now to follow the same approach used in [@Jaime2011], but for the exponential model and look for asymptotically flat solutions, given the fact that the potential $V(R)$ vanishes at its minimum for $\beta \in (0,1]$. In particular, we focus on those values of $\beta$ used to construct the cosmological models of previous sections which also avoids the singularity in the equations at $f_R(0)=0$, namely $\beta \in (0,1)$. Moreover, we restrict to the simplest case of homogeneous (incompressible) density fluid. As described in [@Jaime2011] we impose regularity conditions at the origin $r=0$ and the value $R|_{r=0}$ is used as a [*shooting*]{} parameter. One then look for an adequate value $R|_{r=0}$ such that $R\rightarrow 0$ at spatial infinity $r\rightarrow \infty$. Moreover, the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass associated with the configuration most converge to a finite value if the spacetime is [*genuinely*]{} asymptotically flat (as opposed to a divergent value if $R\sim 1/r^2$ asymptotically, as it usually happens in spacetimes having a solid deficit angle). We then solve numerically the differential equations (\[mprime\])–(\[traceRr\]) and (\[TOV\]) to find $m(r)$, $n(r)$, $R(r)$ and $p(r)$, respectively, for $r\in [0,\infty)$. In principle, its is not necessarily to solve the second order Eq. (\[nbiprime\]), however, we also solve it and together with (\[Rr\]) we check the self-consistency of our numerical results. Any bug or mistake in the numerical code would reflect in a lack of self-consistency in our solutions. This self-consistency is achieved within the accuracy of the 4th order Runge-Kutta (double-precision) FORTRAN algorithm that we employed to solve the system of equations. So given a sufficiently small integration step, the numerical consistency is found within the numerical errors associated with this algorithm ${\cal O}(10^{-10})$. Furthermore, replacing (\[mprime\])–(\[nbiprime\]) in (\[traceRr\]) leads to an identity $R\equiv R$. However, this identity cannot be taken for granted if a mistake is committed somewhere in the numerical code, notably, when introducing the differential equations in the FORTRAN language.
The numerical results using this methodology are depicted in Figure \[fig:stars1\]. The Ricci scalar is always positive and interpolates monotonically between the center of the star at $r=0$ to spatial infinity without encountering any singularity. Thus, $f_R$ never vanishes in this spacetime, which precludes the equations to become singular when $f_R=0$. We remind the reader that $f_R$ only vanishes when $R<0$ for $\beta\in (0,1)$. The metric components have the typical form of a SSS spacetime generated by a globally regular compact object (see the middle panel of Figure \[fig:stars1\]). The fact that $n=-g_{tt}$ differs from unity at the center of the object ($r=0$) by several percent indicates that the gravitational field is strong there as $n$ represents the square of the so called [*redshift*]{} factor. The [*cusp*]{} produced in the metric component $m=g_{rr}$ at the star’s surface $r_*$ where the pressure vanishes (see the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:stars1\]) is due to the discontinuity associated with the use of a step function for $\rho$. Nevertheless, this cusp can be smoothed out when using a more realistic EOS (e.g. a polytrope) which allows for a density to vary smoothly with $r$, like the pressure itself.
The middle panel of Figure \[fig:stars1\] also depicts the product $-g_{rr} g_{tt}$. In GR this quantity is usually unity outside the star, where the Birkhoff theorem applies, and where the metric is given by the (vacuum) Schwarzschild solution. Thus, this product allows to appreciate the deviations of the metric from the Schwarzschild solution outside the object. These deviations are due to a nontrivial solution of the Ricci scalar outside the star. In GR the Ricci scalar is given by $R=-\kappa T= \kappa(\rho-3p)$. So for the constant-density model, $R$ grows monotonically from its central value $R=\kappa(\rho-3p)|_{r=0}< \rho$ to its value $R\approx \kappa \rho$ near the surface of the star where $p\ll\rho$, and then drops to zero outside the star in a discontinuous way. In the exponential model, $R$ varies smoothly from $r=0$ to spatial infinity where it vanishes. At spatial infinity $R=0$ is clearly a solution of Eq. (\[traceRr\]).
The $g_{rr}=m$ component can be used to compute the ADM mass ${\cal M}$ of the object from the parametrization $g_{rr}(r)= [1 -2M(r)G_0/r]^{-1}$. That is, $M(r)=r(m-1)/(2G_0m).$ So ${\cal M}=M(\infty)$. Notice from Figure \[fig:Madm\] (top and middle panels) that the mass function $M(r)$ converges to the (ADM) mass ${\cal M}$ of the configuration as $r\rightarrow \infty$, and unlike the GR scenario, $M(r)$ grows outside the compact support of the star ($r>r_*$) due to the contributions associated with the effective energy-density $\rho_{eff}$ which extend outside the star. Notably, by the contributions of several $f(R)$ quantities which extend beyond $r_*$. The density $\rho_{eff}$, which includes the fluid’s density $\rho$, can be obtained from the (total) effective energy-momentum tensor that one can define within $f(R)$ gravity \[cf. the right-hand-side of Eq. (\[fieldeq3\]) and Ref. [@Jaime2014] for a discusion\], or more explicitly, from Eq. (\[mprime\]). That is, from Eq. (\[mprime\]) one can write an equation for $M(r)$ in the form $M'= 4\pi \rho_{eff} r^2$ from which $\rho_{eff}$ can be readoff. Figure \[fig:Madm\] (bottom panel) depicts $\rho_{eff}(r)$ showing that it vanishes asymptotically like the Ricci scalar (cf. the top panel of Figure \[fig:stars1\]). Remarkably, this density turns out to be nonnegative which explains the monotonically grow of $M(r)$.
An open problem that remains to be investigated is the study of the stability of stars in the framework of $f(R)$ gravity. This issue requires a separate analysis and is currently under scrutiny [@AlcubierreNosotros].
![Top: Ricci scalar (in units of $R_*$) as a function of $r/r_*$ for $\beta=0.8$. Here $r_*\sim 4.8 \times 10^{-4}$ is the (area) radius of the “star” (in units of $R_*^{-1/2}$ with $R_*= 4H_0^2$) defined to be where the pressure $p$ vanishes. Middle: the metric components $n=-g_{tt}$, $m=g_{rr}$ and $nm= -g_{tt} g_{rr}$. Notice from these two panels the asymptotically-flat behavior of the spacetime. Bottom: fluid’s pressure $p$ (in units of the constant density $\rho_0$) where $\rho=\rho_0=2.8 \times 10^{4} R_*/G_0$ for $r\in [0,r_*]$ and zero outside the object.[]{data-label="fig:stars1"}](1-R-log1masr.eps "fig:") ![Top: Ricci scalar (in units of $R_*$) as a function of $r/r_*$ for $\beta=0.8$. Here $r_*\sim 4.8 \times 10^{-4}$ is the (area) radius of the “star” (in units of $R_*^{-1/2}$ with $R_*= 4H_0^2$) defined to be where the pressure $p$ vanishes. Middle: the metric components $n=-g_{tt}$, $m=g_{rr}$ and $nm= -g_{tt} g_{rr}$. Notice from these two panels the asymptotically-flat behavior of the spacetime. Bottom: fluid’s pressure $p$ (in units of the constant density $\rho_0$) where $\rho=\rho_0=2.8 \times 10^{4} R_*/G_0$ for $r\in [0,r_*]$ and zero outside the object.[]{data-label="fig:stars1"}](1-gtt-grr-log1masr.eps "fig:") ![Top: Ricci scalar (in units of $R_*$) as a function of $r/r_*$ for $\beta=0.8$. Here $r_*\sim 4.8 \times 10^{-4}$ is the (area) radius of the “star” (in units of $R_*^{-1/2}$ with $R_*= 4H_0^2$) defined to be where the pressure $p$ vanishes. Middle: the metric components $n=-g_{tt}$, $m=g_{rr}$ and $nm= -g_{tt} g_{rr}$. Notice from these two panels the asymptotically-flat behavior of the spacetime. Bottom: fluid’s pressure $p$ (in units of the constant density $\rho_0$) where $\rho=\rho_0=2.8 \times 10^{4} R_*/G_0$ for $r\in [0,r_*]$ and zero outside the object.[]{data-label="fig:stars1"}](1-P-log1masr.eps "fig:")
![Top: Mass function $M$ (in units of $10^{-5}c^2/(G_0R_*^{1/2})$) associated with the configuration of Figure \[fig:stars1\]. Middle: similar to the top panel but using a logarithmic variable on the horizontal axis in order to zoom out the inner region of the star. The ADM mass ${\cal M}$ corresponds to the value $M$ at $r\rightarrow \infty$. Bottom: effective energy-density (in units of $R_*/G_0$) as defined in the main text. Unlike the pressure $p$ and the density $\rho$ of the fluid, this density does not vanish exactly for $r>r_*$, i.e., outside the compact support of the star $r\in [0,r_*]$; it vanishes asymptotically like the Ricci scalar (cf. the top panel of Figure \[fig:stars1\]).[]{data-label="fig:Madm"}](M-radio-final.eps "fig:") ![Top: Mass function $M$ (in units of $10^{-5}c^2/(G_0R_*^{1/2})$) associated with the configuration of Figure \[fig:stars1\]. Middle: similar to the top panel but using a logarithmic variable on the horizontal axis in order to zoom out the inner region of the star. The ADM mass ${\cal M}$ corresponds to the value $M$ at $r\rightarrow \infty$. Bottom: effective energy-density (in units of $R_*/G_0$) as defined in the main text. Unlike the pressure $p$ and the density $\rho$ of the fluid, this density does not vanish exactly for $r>r_*$, i.e., outside the compact support of the star $r\in [0,r_*]$; it vanishes asymptotically like the Ricci scalar (cf. the top panel of Figure \[fig:stars1\]).[]{data-label="fig:Madm"}](1-M-log1masr.eps "fig:") ![Top: Mass function $M$ (in units of $10^{-5}c^2/(G_0R_*^{1/2})$) associated with the configuration of Figure \[fig:stars1\]. Middle: similar to the top panel but using a logarithmic variable on the horizontal axis in order to zoom out the inner region of the star. The ADM mass ${\cal M}$ corresponds to the value $M$ at $r\rightarrow \infty$. Bottom: effective energy-density (in units of $R_*/G_0$) as defined in the main text. Unlike the pressure $p$ and the density $\rho$ of the fluid, this density does not vanish exactly for $r>r_*$, i.e., outside the compact support of the star $r\in [0,r_*]$; it vanishes asymptotically like the Ricci scalar (cf. the top panel of Figure \[fig:stars1\]).[]{data-label="fig:Madm"}](1-rho-eff-log1masr.eps "fig:")
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this paper we analyze the viability of a FRW cosmology within the framework of an exponential $f(R)$ model where the effective cosmological constant vanishes asymptotically in cosmic time. The accelerated expansion is produced by a transient behavior of the Ricci scalar that allows for a sufficiently long (geometric) dark energy domination that follows after the matter dominated era. Depending on the parameters of the model, this dark-energy domination drops in the far future in a monotonic way or in an oscillating fashion until the Universe stop expanding. All these features can be summarized by looking to the total EOS, which behaves in different ways according to the dominating type of component (e.g. matter or dark energy). The resulting cosmology does not differ significantly from the $\Lambda$CDM model of GR. However, the exponential model predicts a very specific variation on the effective EOS of dark energy, which can be confronted with future observations [@surveys].
The current analysis was limited in several aspects. For instance, we did not attempt to best-fit the parameters of the model and the initial conditions used in the numerical integration by using actual data (like SNIa). We did not confront the exponential model to cosmological perturbations, and thus, we were not able to study the anisotropies of the CMB and many other aspects associated with them. We plan to overcome these limitations in a future and more detailed work.
Finally, we explored the capability of the exponential model in the construction of relativistic compact objects within an asymptotically flat background by keeping the same values of the parameters used in the cosmological models with $\beta \in (0,1)$. We showed using a numerical analysis that such objects can indeed be constructed without finding any kind of singularity within a static and spherically symmetric spacetime. This analysis was also limited in several aspects, but allowed us to pave the way for a more delicate study using the same tools. For instance, on the strong gravity aspect, we expect to implement the use of more realistic equations of state for the nuclear matter and try to build actual neutron-star sized objects. On the weak gravity side, we plan to investigate if some sort of chameleon mechanism appears and allows for the exponential model to actually pass the Solar System tests. This analysis requires the handling of a huge numerical precision [@Hu2007] which is beyond the capabilities of the standard “crunch-number” programming.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by DGAPA–UNAM grants IN107113, RR107015 and SEP–CONACYT grants CB–166656 and CB–239639.
[99]{}
T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, .
S. Capozziello, and M. Francaviglia, .
A. De Felice, and S. Tsujikawa, .
L. G. Jaime, L. Patiño, and M. Salgado, arXiv: 1211.0015.
A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. [**30**]{}, 682 (2007).
S. Perlmutter [*et al.*]{}, .
A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, .
R. Amanullah [*et al.*]{}, (Supernova Cosmology Project), .
P. Cañate, L. G. Jaime, and M. Salgado, .
L. G. Jaime, L. Patiño and M. Salgado, .
T. Faulkner, M. Tegmark, E. F. Bunn, and Y. Mao, .
L. Khoury and A. Weltman, ; [*ibid*]{},
W. Hu, and I. Sawicky, .
T. Kobayashi, and K. Maeda, .
T. Kobayashi, and K. Maeda, .
E. Babichev, and D. Langlois, ; [*idem*]{}, arXiv: gr-qc/0911.1297
A. Upadhye, and W. Hu, .
L. G. Jaime, L. Patiño, and M. Salgado, .
S. Yazadjiev, D. Doneva, K. Kokkotas, K. V. Staykov, ; L. Sagunski [*et al.*]{}, arXiv: gr-qc/1709.06634
T. Delubac [*et al.*]{}, .
G. B. Zhao [*et al.*]{}, .
L. G. Jaime, .
L. Amendola, D. Polarski, and S. Tsujikawa, .
L. Amendola, R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, and S. Tsujikawa, .
L. Amendola, D. Polarski, and S. Tsujikawa, .
L. G. Jaime, L. Patiño, and M. Salgado, .
A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. [**86**]{}, 157 (2007).
V. Miranda, S. Jorás, I. Waga and M. Quartin, .
L. G. Jaime, M. Salgado and L. Patiño, .
R. Kerner, ; E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Zerbini, ; L. Yang, C. C. Lee, L. W. Luo, and C. Q. Geng, ; K. Bamba, C. Q. Geng, and C. C. Lee, ; E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Zerbini, ; E. Elizalde, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, and S. Zerbini, arXiv: 1108.6184; E. V. Linder, .
J. C. Degollado, L. G. Jaime, S. Joras, M. Salgado and M. Alcubierre (in preparation).
R. Laureijs [*et al.*]{} \[EUCLID Collaboration\] (ESA/SRE) arXiv: 1110.3193.
L. Amendola [*et al.*]{} \[Euclid Theory Working Group Collaboration\], arXiv: 1606.00180
A. Aghamousa [*et al.*]{} \[DESI Collaboration\], (FERMILAB-PUB-16-517-AE) arXiv: 1611.00036.
[^1]: Several authors have used $f(R)$ gravity to test its implications in the strong gravity regime but without invoking the theory as a model for dark-energy [@neutronstarsf(R)] . Thus, the intrinsic scale $R_*$ involved in such models has no relationship with the cosmological scales and the technical problems alluded in the main text are avoided.
[^2]: Strictly speaking the GR model with $f_{\rm GR}(R)= R-2\Lambda$ does not allow for asymptotically Ricci flat solutions.
[^3]: SSS spacetimes with a Ricci scalar behaving asymptotically as $R~\sim 1/r^2$ have a solid deficit angle, and so, they are not asymptotically Minkowski (cf. [@Jaime2016]). Thus the fact that the Ricci scalar vanishes asymptotically does not guarantee asymptotic flatness.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper concerns with the hydrodynamic limit of the Kob-Andersen model, an interacting particle system that has been introduced by physicists in order to explain glassy behavior, and widely studies since. We will see that the density profile evolves in the hydrodynamic limit according to a non-degenerate hydrodynamic equation, and see how the diffusion coefficient decays as density grows.'
author:
- Assaf Shapira
bibliography:
- 'ka\_HL.bib'
title: 'Hydrodynamic limit of the Kob-Andersen model'
---
\#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[\#1]{}
Introduction
============
The Kob-Andersen (KA) model is an interacting particle system on $\zz^{d}$, where each site of the lattice is allowed to contain at most one particle, and particles could jump to an empty neighboring site only under a certain constraint. More precisely, depending on a parameter $k$, every particle jumps with rate $1$ to each of its neighboring sites, provided that the particle has at least $k$ empty neighbors both before and after the jump (so for $k=1$ we obtain the symmetric simple exclusion process). This model has been introduced in the physics literature ([@KobAndersen]) as one member of a large family of interacting particle systems called *kinetically constrained lattice gases* (KCLGs), which model certain aspects of glassy behavior (see [@GarrahanSollichToninelli2011; @RitortSollich]).
In this paper we will study the hydrodynamic limit of the KA model. Consider a finite box with periodic boundary conditions $\mathbb{T}_{N}^{d}=\zz^{d}/N\zz^{d}$, and run the KA dynamics inside $\mathbb{T}_{N}^{d}$. The configuration at time $s$ could be described as an empirical measure $\nu_{s}^{(N)}$ on the continuous torus $\mathbb{T}^{d}=\rr^{d}/\zz^{d}$: for a rectangle $R\subset\left[0,1\right]^{d}$, seen as a subset of $\mathbb{T}^{d}$, $\nu_{s}^{(N)}(R)$ will count the number of particles in $(NR)\cap\mathbb{T}_{N}^{d}$, normalized by $N^{-d}$ (so that the total mass remains independent of $N$). The initial configuration that we choose will be approximated by some profile $\rho_{0}:\mathbb{T}^{d}\rightarrow\left[0,1\right]$, i.e., the measure $\nu_{0}^{(N)}$ will be close to a measure $\nu_{0}$ that has density $\rho_{0}$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure. A simple example of such initial configuration is given by placing a particle at each site $x\in\zz^{d}$ independently at random with probability $\rho_{0}(x/N)$.
In many systems, the relevant time scale over which $\nu_{N}^{s}$ changes macroscopically is the diffusive time scale $N^{2}$ (see, e.g., [@KipnisLandim; @Spohn2012IPS]). That is, fixing a time $t$, we expect the random measure $\nu_{N^{2}t}^{(N)}$ to satisfy a law of large numbers, converging almost surely to some limiting measure $\nu_{t}$. We also expect this limiting measure to have a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure, namely $\nu_{t}=\rho(\theta,t)\text{d}\theta$, which solves the diffusion equation: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rho=\grad\,D(\rho)\grad\rho,\quad\rho(\theta,0)=\rho_{0}(\theta).\label{eq:HE}$$ The parameter $D(\rho)$ is the *diffusion coefficient*, and when it is non-zero we obtain indeed a macroscopic density profile that changes over diffusive time scales.
Hydrodynamic limits of other KCLGs have been analyzed in [@GoncalvesLandimToninelli; @BlondelGoncalvesSimon]. They present two example of *non-cooperative* KCLGs, in which one is able to identify structures (called *mobile clusters*) that could move freely in $\zz^{d}$. This way, even though particles could be blocked, mobile clusters behave effectively in an unconstrained manner. In *cooperative* KCLGs there are no such mobile clusters, so in order to move a particle from one site to the other one needs the cooperation of a diverging number of particles. This property has a major contribution to the glassy behavior of many KCLGs.
Unlike the models previously studied in [@GoncalvesLandimToninelli; @BlondelGoncalvesSimon], the KA model is cooperative. Due to this cooperative nature, the combinatorics behind the KA model becomes much more complicated. Consider the following question – starting from a stationary measure and assuming that there is a particle at the origin, will this particle eventually move, or could it stay at the origin forever? When the model is non-cooperative the probability to stay forever at the origin is clearly $0$ – we know that there is some non-zero density of mobile clusters in $\zz^{d}$ which diffuse freely, so at some point one of them will reach the origin and move the particle. When the model is cooperative, as in the case of the KA model, already this basic question becomes much more complicated. In some cooperative models the particle might remain blocked forever with positive probability, possibly depending on the density of the initial configuration. In the case of the KA model, it is shown in [@ToninelliBiroliFisher] that all particles will eventually move with probability $1$, unless the initial density equals $1$.
In the context of the hydrodynamic limit, the techniques used in [@GoncalvesLandimToninelli; @BlondelGoncalvesSimon] cannot be simply adapted to cooperative models. It is shown in Appendix \[sec:appendix\] that cooperative KCLGs are non-gradient, a fact which makes the analysis of the hydrodynamic limit much more involved. Another property of non-cooperative models used in [@BlondelGoncalvesSimon] is that the probability for a site to stay blocked forever for the dynamics in $\mathbb{T}_{N}^{d}$ decreases exponentially fast with the volume $N^{d}$, since it is bounded by the probability that no mobile cluster is found in $\mathbb{T}_{N}^{d}$. In the KA model, on the other hand, even though this probability decays to $0$, the decay is not fast enough.
Recently, a few methods have been developed to overcome some of these difficulties, proving diffusive scaling of the relaxation time [@MST19KA] and of the motion of a tagged particle [@BlondelToninell2018KAtagged; @ES20KAtagged] in the stationary setting. In both cases, the behavior is the same as that of the simple exclusion process, with time scales that are all slowed down by a factor which diverges quickly as the density approaches $1$. For example, in the case $k=d=2$, the relaxation time at density $\rho$ in a box of side $N$ behaves (roughly) like $e^{C/(1-\rho)}N^{2}$; and the path of a tagged particle in $\zz^{2}$ converges to a standard Brownian motion as the length scale $N$ diverges, when time is scaled (roughly) as $e^{C/(1-\rho)}N^{2}$.
The hydrodynamic limit of the KA model has been studied in the physics literature, both heuristically and numerically. In [@Sellitto2002] the model has been analyzed, under the (wrong) assumption that the diffusion coefficient $D(\rho)$ vanishes for $\rho>\rho_{c}\approx0.88$. [@TeomyShokef2017KAHL] study the diffusion coefficient in two dimensions both numerically and under a mean-field approximation. This approximation yields a diffusion coefficient that behaves polynomially in $\rho$, and is in rather good agreement with numerical results for low densities. [@AritaKrapivskyMallick2018] provide a perturbative analysis of the diffusion coefficient in two dimensions, considering finite range effects, and obtaining a polynomial in $\rho$ which approximates $D(\rho)$ very accurately as long as $\rho$ is not too big. In view of other quantities related to the KA model studied in [@MST19KA; @ES20KAtagged], a natural conjecture for the high density regime is that the diffusion coefficient remains positive whenever $\rho<1$, and as $\rho$ tends to $1$ it decays (roughly) as $e^{-C/(1-\rho)}$ (in the case $k=d=2$). This conjecture has been raised in [@AritaKrapivskyMallick2018] and was supported by numerical simulations.
The hydrodynamic limit in its full generality, though, cannot exist for this model – consider, for example, the case $k=d=2$, and an initial density $\rho_{0}$ bounded above $\frac{8}{9}$. Fix $N\in3\nn$, and construct the following initial configuration – for every $x\in\mathbb{T}_{N}^{2}$, if $x\notin3\zz^{2}$ place a particle at $x$ (deterministically). Otherwise, place a particle at $x$ independently at random with probability $9\rho_{0}(x/N)-8$. These configurations have limiting density $\frac{1}{9}\left(9\rho_{0}(x/N)-8\right)+\frac{8}{9}=\rho_{0}$, so one may naively expect that, starting the KA dynamics from such a configuration, the particle density will converge to the solution of the hydrodynamic equation (\[eq:HE\]) with initial density $\rho_{0}$. However, observing the initial configuration more carefully, one sees that it is blocked – no site has two empty neighbors, so the constraint is not satisfies. In this case particles do not move, and the dynamics will certainly not follow the hydrodynamic limit. Still, since blocked configurations are very rare ([@ToninelliBiroliFisher]), we may hope that a hydrodynamic limit does exist in a weaker sense, that would allow us to avoid these untypical configurations.
The same problem also appears in [@GoncalvesLandimToninelli], and they suggest two solutions – the first is to restrict the initial configuration, e.g., to an independent product of Bernoulli random variables with parameter $\rho_{0}(x/N)$. This prevents the issue discussed above, where the configuration is entirely blocked from the beginning, but one must work harder in order to show that blocked configurations are not created later on during the dynamics. Another approach, also considered in [@GoncalvesLandimToninelli], is to permit transitions in which the constraint is not satisfied, but with a vanishing rate. Namely, for some $\varepsilon>0$, we introduce soft constraints, which allow a particle to move with rate $1$ when it has $k$ empty neighbors before and after the jump, and with rate $\varepsilon$ otherwise. This softening of the constraint enables the system to unblock the blocked configurations, and still the main contribution to the overall dynamics comes from the allowed transitions (where the constraint is satisfies).
This is the approach we will take – consider the KA model with $\varepsilon$-soft constraints, which has a hydrodynamic limit with diffusion coefficient $D^{(\varepsilon)}$. We analyze this coefficient, showing that, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$, it converges to a strictly positive limiting coefficient $D$. This result tells us that when $\varepsilon$ is very small, it has a very mild effect on the hydrodynamic limit; and the role it plays (of unblocking configurations), though crucial for the convergence to the hydrodynamic limit, takes a negligible amount of time compared to the hydrodynamic scale. We also analyze the value of $D$ at large densities, finding upper and lower bounds for its decay, which match up to sub-leading corrections. The decay that we obtain is of the same type as the corresponding factor in [@MST19KA; @ES20KAtagged]; so in particular for the case $k=d=2$, as conjectured is [@AritaKrapivskyMallick2018], $D$ decays (roughly) as $e^{-C/(1-\rho)}$.
Model and main result
=====================
The Kob-Andersen model in dimension $d$ is a Markov process on $\Omega=\{0,1\}^{\zz^{d}}$, depending on a parameter $2\le k\le d$. For a configuration $\eta\in\Omega$, we say that $x\in\zz^{d}$ is *occupied* if $\eta(x)=1$ and *empty* if $\eta(x)=0$. The elements of $\zz^{d}$ are called *sites*, and we will consider the (undirected) graph structure given by the edge set $$\mathcal{E}(\zz^{d})=\left\{ (x,y)\in\zz^{d}\times\zz^{d},y\in x+\{\pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\}\right\} ,$$ where $e_{1},\dots,e_{d}$ are the standard basis vectors. We will sometimes write $x\sim y$ to denote $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}(\zz^{d})$.
For each configuration $\eta\in\Omega$ and edge $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}(\zz^{d})$, we define the constraint $$c_{x,y}=\begin{cases}
1 & \sum_{z:y\sim z\neq x}(1-\eta(z))\ge k-1\text{ and }\sum_{z:x\sim z\neq y}(1-\eta(z))\ge k-1,\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}\label{eq:constraint}$$ The KA dynamics is then defined as the Markov process whose generator, operating on a local function $f:\Omega\rightarrow\rr$, is given by $$\mathcal{L}f(\eta)=\sum_{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}(\zz^{d})}c_{x,y}(\eta)\grad_{x,y}f(\eta),\label{eq:generator}$$ where $$\grad_{x,y}f(\eta)=f(\eta^{x,y})-f(\eta),$$ and $\eta^{x,y}$ is the configuration obtained from $\eta$ by exchanging the occupation at $x$ and at $y$. This process, for any $\rho\in(0,1)$, is reversible with respect to the measure $\mu_{\rho}$, which is a product measure of Bernoulli random variables with parameter $\rho$. When clear from the context we will sometimes omit the subscript $\rho$.
As discussed in the introduction, in order to study the hydrodynamic limit we introduce the *soft constraint* for some $\varepsilon>0$: $$c_{x,y}^{(\varepsilon)}=\begin{cases}
1 & c_{x,y}=1,\\
\varepsilon & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\label{eq:softconstraint}$$ and the *soft dynamics* defined by the generator $$\mathcal{L}^{(\varepsilon)}f(\eta)=\sum_{(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}(\zz^{d})}c_{x,y}^{(\varepsilon)}(\eta)\grad_{x,y}f(\eta).\label{eq:softgenerator}$$
The introduction of the soft constraints allows us to use the general result of [@VaradhanYau97]. Fix $\varepsilon>0$, and let $$D^{(\varepsilon)}(\rho)=\frac{1}{2\rho(1-\rho)}\inf_{f}\mu_{\rho}\left[\sum_{\alpha}c_{0,e_{\alpha}}^{(\varepsilon)}\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}\left(\eta(e_{1})-\eta(0)\right)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right],\label{eq:vy}$$ where the infimum is taken over all local functions $f:\Omega\rightarrow\rr$. The operator $\tau_{x}$ is the translation by $x$, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
(\tau_{x}f)(\eta) & =f(\tau_{x}\eta),\\
(\tau_{x}\eta)(y) & =\eta(x+y).\end{aligned}$$ In this setting, by [@VaradhanYau97], the density profile of the soft dynamics converges in the hydrodynamic limit to the solution of the hydrodynamic equation (\[eq:HE\]), with diffusion coefficient $D^{(\varepsilon)}(\rho)$. For more details on the exact sense in which this convergence takes place we refer the reader to [@VaradhanYau97; @KipnisLandim]. We are thus left with showing that this limit is non-trivial, i.e., that $D^{(\varepsilon)}(\rho)\neq0$, which would imply that the hydrodynamic scale is the correct one to look at.
In general, the diffusion coefficient is a matrix given by (see [@Spohn2012IPS]) $$D_{\alpha\beta}=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{t}\,\frac{1}{2\rho(1-\rho)}\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}x_{\alpha}x_{\beta}\left(\mu_{\rho}(\eta(0)\,e^{t\mathcal{L}}\eta(x))-\rho^{2}\right).$$ The reason that $D^{(\varepsilon)}(\rho)$ in equation (\[eq:vy\]) is a real number, is that in our case $D$ is a scalar matrix: the dynamics is invariant under inversion of a single coordinate (i.e., $x\mapsto x-(2x\cdot e_{\alpha})\,e_{\alpha}$), and therefore, if $\alpha\neq\beta$, the sum $\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}x_{\alpha}x_{\beta}(\mu(\eta(0)\,e^{t\mathcal{L}}\eta(x))-\rho^{2})$ must vanish. That is, $D$ is a diagonal matrix. Since the dynamics is also invariant under permutation of coordinates, all diagonal elements are equal, i.e., $D$ is scalar. This fact is crucial, since the result of [@VaradhanYau97] requires the uniqueness of the solution of the hydrodynamic equation, which is not guaranteed for non-scalar $D$.
By equation (\[eq:vy\]) the diffusion coefficient is decreasing with $\varepsilon$, and hence converging to a limit: $$D(\rho)=\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}D^{(\varepsilon)}(\rho).\label{eq:D_eps0}$$ We will show that this limit is positive, so when $\varepsilon$ is very small, the density profile converges to the solution of equation (\[eq:HE\]), with a diffusion coefficient $(1+o(1))D(\rho)$.
\[thm:main\]For all $\rho\in(0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
D(\rho)\ge & \begin{cases}
C/\exp\left(\lambda\log(1/q)^{2}\,q^{-1/(d-1)}\right) & k=2,\\
C/\exp^{k-1}\left(\lambda q^{-1/(d-k+1)}\right) & k\ge3,
\end{cases}\\
D(\rho)\le & C'/\exp^{k-1}(\lambda'q^{-1/(d-k+1)}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\exp^{k}(\cdot)$ is the $k$-th iterate of the exponential. The constants $C,C',\lambda,\lambda'$ are all strictly positive, and may depend only on $d$ and $k$.
\[sec:lowerbound\]Proof of the lower bound
==========================================
The purpose of this section is to prove $$\begin{aligned}
D^{(0)} & \ge L^{-\lambda},\label{eq:lowerbound}\\
L & =\begin{cases}
C\exp\left(\lambda\log(1/q)^{2}\,q^{-1/(d-1)}\right) & k=2,\\
C\exp^{k-1}\left(\lambda q^{-1/(d-k+1)}\right) & k\ge3.
\end{cases}\label{eq:lowerboundL}\end{aligned}$$ Throughout the section $\lambda$ and $C$ denote generic positive constants, depending only on $k$ and $d$. This will prove the first inequality of Theorem \[thm:main\] since $D\ge D^{(0)}$.
The proof is based on a comparison to the diffusion coefficient of a random walk on the infinite component of a percolation cluster. The idea behind the proof, is that even though at small scale particles are blocked, at a large scale there is high probability that somewhere a droplet containing many empty sites could approach the particle allowing it to move; and this is the scale which determines the diffusion coefficient. This mechanism is constructed in [@MST19KA; @ES20KAtagged] using the notion of a *multistep move* – a sequence of exchanges, all allowed for the KA dynamics, moving a particle with the aid of a nearby droplet.
We start by providing the exact definition of a multistep move (see also [@MST19KA]):
Fix $\mathcal{M}\in\Omega$ and $T\in\nn$. A *$T$-step move* $M$ is a function from $\mathcal{M}$ to $\left(\Omega\times\zz^{d}\times\{\pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d},0\}\right)^{T+1}$, described by a sequence of functions $M=\left\{ \eta_{t}(\eta),x_{t}(\eta),e_{t}(\eta)\right\} _{t=0}^{T}$, such that, for all $\eta\in\mathcal{M}$,
1. $\eta_{0}(\eta)=\eta$,
2. for all $t\in\{1,\dots,T\}$, $\eta_{t}(\eta)=\eta_{t-1}(\eta)^{x_{t},x_{t}+e_{t}}$,
3. for all $t\in\{1,\dots,T\}$, $c_{x_{t},x_{t}+e_{t}}(\eta_{t}(\eta))=1$, where by convention we set $c_{x,x}(\eta)=1$ for all $x,\eta$.
Fix a $T$-step move $M$ with domain $\mathcal{M}$. Then, for $t\in\{1,\dots,T\}$, the *loss of information* at time $t$, denoted $\loss_{t}(M)$, is defined as $$2^{\loss_{t}(M)}=\sup_{\eta'\in\mathcal{M}}\#\{\eta\in\mathcal{M}:\eta_{t}(\eta)=\eta_{t}(\eta'),x_{t}(\eta)=x_{t}(\eta'),e_{t}(\eta)=e_{t}(\eta')\}.$$ We also set $\loss(M)=\sup_{t}\loss_{t}(M)$.
The multistep move that we will define will allow us to move a particle at $x$ to the site $x+Le_{\alpha}$ ($\alpha\in\{1,\dots,d\}$). The choice of $L$ in equation (\[eq:lowerboundL\]) guarantees that such a multistep move could indeed be applied.
We will therefore consider the coarse grained lattice $\zz_{L}^{d}=L\zz^{d}$, and split the configuration $\eta$ in two – the occupation of the sites of $\zz_{L}^{d}$ denoted $\etab\in\overline{\Omega}=\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\zz_{L}^{d}}$, and that of the sites outside $\zz_{L}^{d}$ denoted $\omega\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\zz^{d}\setminus\zz_{L}^{d}}$. We will also split the measure in two, such that $\etab$ distributes according to $\mub$ and $\omega$ according to $\nu$. The coarse grained lattice has a graph structure (isomorphic to $\zz^{d}$), i.e., two vertices $i,j$ are connected by an edge if $i-j\in\left\{ \pm\eb_{1},\dots,\pm\eb_{d}\right\} $, where $\eb_{\alpha}=Le_{\alpha}$. We denote the edge set by $\mathcal{E}(\zz_{L}^{d})$.
The multistep move that will allow particles to move on $\zz_{L}^{d}$ will require sufficiently many empty sites in the configuration $\omega$, a requirement manifested in a certain percolation process on $\mathcal{E}(\zz_{L}^{d})$.
The combinatorial input that we will use in this section is contained in the following lemma:
\[lem:multistepmove\]There exists a percolation process $\cb(\omega)\in\Pi=\{0,1\}^{\mathcal{E}(\zz^{d})}$ and $T$-step moves $M^{\pm\eb_{1}},\dots,M^{\pm\eb_{d}}$ such that:
1. For $q$ small enough, $\cb_{ij}$ is stationary and ergodic, and dominates a Bernoulli percolation process with parameter $1-o(1)$ as $q$ tends to $0$.
2. $T\le CL^{\lambda}$.
3. For any $\eb\in\{\pm\eb_{1},\dots,\eb_{d}\}$ consider the move $M^{\eb}$. Then:
1. The domain of $M^{\eb}$, $\dom M^{\eb}$, consists of the configurations in which $\cb_{0,\eb}=1.$
2. $2^{\loss(M^{\eb})}\le C\,L^{\lambda}$.
3. For any $\eta\in\text{Dom}M^{\eb}$, denoting $M^{\eb}=\left\{ \eta_{t}(\eta),x_{t}(\eta),e_{t}(\eta)\right\} _{t=0}^{T}$, at the final configuration $$\eta_{T}(\eta)=\eta^{0,\eb}.$$
The lemma is proven in [@ES20KAtagged], lemmas 3.9 and 3.14. See also [@MST19KA].
The reason for the iterated exponential scaling of $D(\rho)$ hides in the proof of Lemma \[lem:multistepmove\], and explained in details in [@ES20KAtagged; @MST19KA; @ToninelliBiroliFisher]. It is based on induction over both $k$ and $d$, of two different scales. The first scale, $l(k,d)$, is the scale at which cluster of empty sites could typically advance. For $k=1$, for example, the constraint is always satisfied and $l(1,d)=1$. Perhaps more interesting is the case $k=d=2$, where a row of empty sites of length $l$ could only move if there is an empty site in a neighboring row. This becomes likely at $l(k,d)\approx1/q$. This is the scale of the *droplets*, which are those empty clusters of size $l$ that are able to move in $\zz^{d}$.
The second scale, $L(k,d)$, is the typical distance to a droplet, so $L(k,d)\approx q^{-l(k,d)}$. If we look at a particle and consider its neighborhood at scale $L(k,d)$, we are likely to find a droplet, that would be able to move to the vicinity of that particle and help it jump.
In order to understand the scaling of $D(\rho)$, we should understand the two scales $l(k,d)$ and $L(k,d)$. Consider the set $[1,L(k-1,d-1)]^{d}$. If we empty the entire boundary of this set, it could serve as a droplet – take, for example, the surface $\{0\}\times[1,L(k-1,d-1)]^{d-1}$. This is a $d-1$ dimensional surface, and each of its sites has an empty neighbor to the right coming from $[1,L(k-1,d-1)]^{d}$. Therefore, any move for the KA dynamics with parameters $k-1,d-1$ could be applied to that surface. Since its size is $L(k-1,d-1)$, it is likely to contain a droplet. Hence, using this droplet, we are able to move freely the sites on the surface. With slightly more careful analysis, it could be shown that by rearranging the sites on $\{0\}\times[1,L(k-1,d-1)]^{d-1}$ the set $[1,L(k-1,d-1)]^{d}$ could “swallow” this surface, thus moving one step to the left. That is, $[1,L(k-1,d-1)]^{d}$ is, indeed, a droplet; and so $l(k,d)\approx L(k-1,d-1)$.
The two relations, $L(k,d)\approx q^{-l(k,d)}$ and $l(k,d)\approx L(k-1,d-1)$, show that the two scales indeed behave as an iterated exponential. The scaling of the diffusion coefficient could then be explained heuristically, if we imagine that the particles are mostly blocked, except those in the vicinity of a droplet. Since the sites that are able to move have density $L^{-d}$, the diffusion coefficient scales polynomially in $L$.
An immediate consequence of point one of Lemma \[lem:multistepmove\] is that the graph induced by the edges for which $\cb$ equals $1$ has a unique infinite connected component. Let $\mathcal{C}$ denote this infinite component. In [@Faggionato08] (see also [@Spohn90SelfDiff]), it is shown that the diffusion coefficient of a random walk on $\mathcal{C}$ is given by the following variational formula: $$\overline{D}=\inf_{\psi}\sum_{\alpha}\nu\left[\cb_{0,e_{\alpha}}\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}+\psi(\tau_{\eb_{\alpha}}\cb)-\psi(\cb)\right)^{2}|0\in\mathcal{C},\eb_{\alpha}\in\mathcal{C}\right],$$ where the infimum is taken over function $\psi:\Pi\rightarrow\rr$ that depend on finitely many edges.
The input we need from [@Faggionato08; @DeMasiFerrariGoldsteinWick] is the positivity of the diffusion coefficient:
\[lem:RWoncluster\]There exists $\overline{D}_{0}>0$ such that for all $\psi:\Pi\to\rr$ and all $\rho\in(0,1)$, $$\sum_{\alpha}\nu\left[\cb_{0,e_{\alpha}}\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}+\psi(\tau_{\eb_{\alpha}}\cb)-\psi(\cb)\right)^{2}\right]\ge\overline{D}_{0}.$$
This is a direct consequence of [@Faggionato08 Lemma 2.1] and the first point of Lemma \[lem:multistepmove\].
In order to relate the diffusion coefficient given in equation (\[eq:vy\]) to $\overline{D}$, we use the following proposition:
Fix a local function $g:\overline{\Omega}\times\Pi\rightarrow\rr$. Then there exists a local function $\psi:\Pi\rightarrow\rr$, such that $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\nu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}+\psi(\tau_{\eb_{\alpha}}\cb)-\psi(\cb)\right)^{2}\right]\le\frac{1}{2\rho(1-\rho)}\times\\
\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\mub\otimes\nu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0))-\sum_{i\in\zz_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right)^{2}\right],\end{gathered}$$ where $\overline{\grad}$ is the gradient operating only on $\etab$ (i.e., $\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)=g(\tau_{i}\,\etab^{0,\eb_{\alpha}},\tau_{i}\cb)-g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)$).
Note first that the sum $\sum_{i\in\zz_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)$ is finite (and hence well defined) since $g$ is local. We are therefore allowed, throughout the proof, to replace it by a sum over a large enough torus $\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}=\zz_{L}^{d}/N\zz_{L}^{d}$ for large $N$ (depending on $g$). We start by writing the left hand side of the inequality as $$\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\nu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\left(\text{I}+\text{II}+\text{III}\right)\right],$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\text{I} & =\delta_{\alpha,1},\\
\text{II} & =2\delta_{\alpha,1}\left(\psi(\tau_{\eb_{1}}\cb)-\psi(\cb)\right),\\
\text{III} & =\left(\psi(\tau_{\eb_{\alpha}}\cb)-\psi(\cb)\right)^{2};\end{aligned}$$ and the right hand side (noting that $\cb$ depends only on $\omega$ and not on $\etab$) as $$\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\nu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}(\text{I}'+\text{II}'+\text{III}')\right],$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\text{I}' & =\mub\left[\delta_{\alpha,1}(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0))^{2}\right],\\
\text{II}' & =-2\delta_{\alpha,1}\,\mub\left[(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0))\,\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{1}}\,g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right],\\
\text{III}' & =\mub\left[\left(\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right)^{2}\right].\end{aligned}$$
We now compare term by term. The term $\text{I},\text{I}'$ do not depend on $\psi$: $\text{I}'=\delta_{\alpha,1}2\rho(1-\rho),$ so indeed $\text{I}\le\frac{1}{2\rho(1-\rho)}\text{I}'$.
For the other terms we need to specify our choice of $\psi$: $$\psi(\cb)=2\mub\left[\etab(0)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right].$$
Fix $\eb\in\left\{ \eb_{1},\dots,\eb_{d}\right\} $. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(\tau_{\eb}\cb) & =2\mub\left[\etab(0)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i+\eb}\cb)\right]=2\mub\left[\etab(\eb)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}g(\tau_{i+\eb}\etab,\tau_{i+\eb}\cb)\right]\\
& =2\mub\left[\etab(0)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}g(\tau_{i}\,\etab^{0,\eb},\tau_{i}\cb)\right],\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\psi(\tau_{\eb_{\alpha}}\cb)-\psi(\cb)=\mub\left[2\etab(0)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,g(\tau_{i}\,\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right].\label{eq:translatios_to_grad}$$ Observe now that $\etab(0)=\etab(\eb_{1})$ implies $\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{1}}\,g(\tau_{i}\,\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)=0$, and otherwise $\etab(\eb_{1})=1-\etab(0)$, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0))\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{1}}\,g(\tau_{i}\,\etab,\tau_{i}\cb) & =(1-2\etab(0))\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{1}}\,g(\tau_{i}\,\etab,\tau_{i}\cb).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\mub\left[(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0))\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{1}}\,g(\tau_{i}\,\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right]=\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}\mub\left[\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{1}}\,g(\tau_{i}\,\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right]-(\psi(\tau_{\eb_{1}}\cb)-\psi(\cb)),$$ and noting that $\mub\left[\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{1}}\,g(\tau_{i}\,\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right]=0$ (the gradient of any function has $0$ expected value), we obtain $$\text{II}=\text{II}'.$$ Finally, for the last term we use again equation (\[eq:translatios\_to\_grad\]), together with Jensen’s inequality and the fact that $\etab(0)^{2}\le1$: $$\text{III}\le\mub\left[\left(2\etab(0)\sum_{i\in\mathbb{T}_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,g(\tau_{i}\,\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right)^{2}\right]\le4\,\text{III}'.$$
\[cor:coarsegrained\_annealed\]For all local $g:\overline{\Omega}\times\Pi\rightarrow\rr$, $$\frac{1}{2\rho(1-\rho)}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\mub\otimes\nu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0))-\sum_{i\in\zz_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right)^{2}\right]\ge\overline{D}_{0},$$ where $\overline{D}_{0}$ is the positive constant given in Lemma \[lem:RWoncluster\].
The next step of the proof is to use the multistep move given in Lemma \[lem:multistepmove\] in order to compare $\overline{D}_{0}$ with $D$.
\[prop:pathargument\]Fix a local function $f:\Omega\rightarrow\rr$. Then there exists a local function $g:\overline{\Omega}\times\Pi\rightarrow\rr$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\mu\left(\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}c_{0,e_{\alpha}}(\eta)\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}(\eta(e_{\alpha})-\eta(0))-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}(\tau_{x}f)\right)^{2}\right)\ge\\
L^{-\lambda}\,\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\mub\otimes\nu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0))-\sum_{i\in\zz_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right)^{2}\right].\end{gathered}$$
Let $g(\etab,\cb)=\mu\left[\frac{1}{L}\sum_{y\in\left[L\right]^{d}}\tau_{y}f(\eta)\middle|\etab,\cb\right]$. We use Lemma \[lem:multistepmove\] in order to write, for all $x\in\zz^{d}$ and $\alpha\in\left\{ 1,\dots,d\right\} $, denoting $M^{\eb_{\alpha}}=\left\{ \eta_{t}(\eta),x_{t}(\eta),e_{t}(\eta)\right\} _{t=0}^{T}$, $$\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f=\sum_{t=1}^{T}\grad_{x_{t},x_{t}+e_{t}}\tau_{x}f(\eta_{t})=\sum_{t=1}^{T}\tau_{x_{t}}\,\grad_{0,e_{t}}\tau_{x-x_{t}}f(\eta_{t}).$$ We also note that during the multistep move, the total particle flow (defined as the change in $\sum_{x}x\eta(x)$) is $$\begin{aligned}
Le_{\alpha}\left(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0)\right) & =\sum_{t=1}^{T}e_{t}\left(\eta_{t}(x_{t}+e_{t})-\eta_{t}(x_{t})\right)=\sum_{t=1}^{T}e_{t}\tau_{x_{t}}\left(\eta_{t}(e_{t})-\eta_{t}(0)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using these two identities, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and the properties of the move, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\mub\otimes\nu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\left(e_{1}\cdot e_{\alpha}(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0))-\sum_{i\in\zz_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,g(\tau_{i}\etab,\tau_{i}\cb)\right)^{2}\right]\le\\
\frac{1}{L^{2}}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\mu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\left(e_{1}\cdot Le_{\alpha}(\etab(\eb_{1})-\etab(0))-\sum_{i\in\zz_{L}^{d}}\overline{\grad}_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\,\sum_{y\in\left[L\right]^{d}}\tau_{i+y}f(\eta)\right)^{2}\right]=\\
\frac{1}{L^{2}}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\mu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\left(e_{1}\cdot\sum_{t=1}^{T}e_{t}\tau_{x_{t}}\left(\eta_{t}(e_{t})-\eta_{t}(0)\right)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\tau_{x_{t}}\,\grad_{0,e_{t}}\tau_{x-x_{t}}f(\eta_{t})\right)^{2}\right]\le\\
\frac{T}{L^{2}}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\mu\left[\cb_{0,\eb_{\alpha}}\tau_{x_{t}}\,c_{0,e_{t}}(\eta_{t})\left(e_{1}\cdot e_{t}\left(\eta_{t}(e_{t})-\eta_{t}(0)\right)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{t}}\tau_{x}f(\eta_{t})\right)^{2}\right]\le\\
\frac{T}{L^{2}}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\sum_{\eta\in\Omega}\mu(\eta)\sum_{\eta'\in\Omega}\One_{\eta'=\eta_{t}}\sum_{\beta=1}^{d}\One_{e_{\beta}=e_{t}}c_{0,e_{\beta}}(\eta')\left(e_{1}\cdot e_{\beta}\left(\eta'(e_{\beta})-\eta'(0)\right)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{\beta}}\tau_{x}f(\eta')\right)^{2}\le\\
\frac{T^{2}}{L^{2}}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}2^{\text{Loss}(M^{\eb_{\alpha}})}\sum_{\eta'\in\Omega}\mu(\eta')\sum_{\beta=1}^{d}c_{0,e_{\beta}}(\eta')\left(e_{1}\cdot e_{\beta}\left(\eta'(e_{\beta})-\eta'(0)\right)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{\beta}}\tau_{x}f(\eta')\right)^{2}.\end{gathered}$$ The result follows by inserting the bounds for $T$ and $\loss(M)$ given in Lemma \[lem:multistepmove\].
The proof of the lower bound (\[eq:lowerbound\]) follows from Proposition \[prop:pathargument\], Corollary \[cor:coarsegrained\_annealed\], and the variational characterization of $D^{(0)}$ in equation (\[eq:vy\]).
Proof of the upper bound
========================
In order to construct the test function we will use a process tightly related to the Kob-Andersen model, called the *$k$-neighbor bootstrap percolation* (see, e.g., [@Morris17BP]).
Fix $V\subseteq\zz^{d}$ and fix $A\subseteq V$. The *bootstrap percolation in $V$ starting from $A$* is a deterministic process defined for $t=1,2,\dots$ as $$\begin{aligned}
A_{0} & =A\cap V,\\
A_{t+1} & =A_{t}\cup\{x\in V:\#\{y\in A_{t}\text{ such that }y\sim x\}\ge k\}.\end{aligned}$$ The limit $\cup_{t\ge0}A_{t}$ is called the *span of $A$ in $V$*, and denoted by $[A]^{V}$. We say that two sites $x$ and $y$ are *connected for the bootstrap percolation in $V$ starting from $A$* if they are connected in $[A]^{V}$ (thought of as the subgraph of $\zz^{d}$ induced by the set $[A]^{V}$), that is, if there is a nearest neighbor path $x=x_{1},\dots,x_{n}=y$ such that $x_{1},\dots x_{n}\in[A]^{V}$.
For $\eta\in\Omega$, we define $$A_{\eta}=\{x:\zz^{d}:\eta_{x}=0\}.$$ We may refer to the bootstrap percolation in $V$ starting from $A_{\eta}$ as the bootstrap percolation starting from $\eta$. When context allows we omit the explicit mention of $V$, $A$, or both.
The test function we will construct will depend on a scale $$l=\exp^{k-2}(\lambda q^{-\frac{1}{d-k+1}}).\label{eq:lupper}$$ Throughout the section $\lambda$ and $C$ denote generic positive constants.
Fix $\eta\in\Omega$. A site $x\in\left[-2l,2l\right]^{d}$ is called *relevant* if it is not connected to $\left\{ 0,1\right\} \times\left[-2l,2l\right]^{d-1}$ for the bootstrap percolation in $\left[-2l,2l\right]^{d}$; and otherwise it is called *irrelevant*. Denote the set of relevant sites by $\mathcal{R}(\eta)$.
We divide the box $\left[-l,l\right]^{d}$ in two parts – the left part $\Lambda_{-}=\left[-l,0\right]\times\left[-l,l\right]^{d-1}$, and the right part $\Lambda_{+}=\left[1,l\right]\times\left[-l,l\right]^{d-1}$. The test function we consider is $$f(\eta)=\frac{1}{2\left(l+1\right)^{d-1}}\left(\sum_{x\in\Lambda_{+}\cap\mathcal{R}}\eta(x)-\sum_{x\in\Lambda_{-}\cap\mathcal{R}}\eta(x)\right).\label{eq:testfunction}$$ Hence, the purpose of this section is to prove that for $\varepsilon$ small enough $$\mu\left[\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}c_{0,e_{\alpha}}^{(\varepsilon)}\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}\left(\eta(e_{1})-\eta(0)\right)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right]\le e^{-\lambda l}.$$
First, observe that since $f$ depends on $(2l+1)^{d}$ sites and its maximum is smaller than $2^{d}l$, $$\mu\left[\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}\varepsilon\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}\left(\eta(e_{1})-\eta(0)\right)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right]\le d\varepsilon(1+(2l+1)^{d}\cdot2^{d}l)^{2}=O(\varepsilon).$$ Therefore, since $c_{0,e_{\alpha}}^{(\varepsilon)}=(1-\varepsilon)c_{0,e_{\alpha}}+\varepsilon$, if suffices to prove $$\mu\left[\sum_{\alpha=1}^{d}c_{0,e_{\alpha}}\left(\delta_{\alpha,1}\left(\eta(e_{1})-\eta(0)\right)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right]\le e^{-\lambda l}.\label{eq:testineq}$$
Since the analysis of $f$ will require us to understand when particles enter or exit different boxes (and in particular $\Lambda_{\pm}$), we will need to introduce some notation. First, for a set $\Lambda\subset\zz^{d}$, we say that an (undirected) edge $(x,y)$ is on the *boundary* of $\Lambda$, and write $(x,y)\in\overline{\partial}\Lambda$, if one vertex is in $\Lambda$ and the other outside $\Lambda$. The *(inner) boundary* $\partial\Lambda$ are the sites in $\Lambda$ that have a neighbor outside $\Lambda$.
For $\alpha=1,\dots,d$ we define the *boundary in the $e_{\alpha}$ direction* $$\partial^{\alpha}\Lambda=\left\{ x:(x,x-e_{\alpha})\in\overline{\partial}\Lambda\right\} .$$ We will write $\Lambda_{l}=\left[-l,l\right]^{d}$ (and $\Lambda_{2l}=\left[-2l,2l\right]^{d}$), as well as $$\Lambda_{l}^{\alpha}=\left[-l,l\right]^{\alpha-1}\times\left\{ 0\right\} \times\left[-l,l\right]^{d-\alpha}.$$ Finally, for $x_{0}\in\Lambda_{l}^{\alpha}$, we denote the two boundary sites above and below $x_{0}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
x_{0}^{+\alpha} & =x_{0}+\left(l+1\right)e_{\alpha},\\
x_{0}^{-\alpha} & =x_{0}-le_{\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $x_{0}^{\pm\alpha}\in\partial^{\alpha}\Lambda_{l}$.
We will start with a few basic properties of bootstrap percolation.
\[obs:bp\_monotonicity\]Let $U\subseteq V\subseteq\zz^{d}$, and fix $A\subset\zz^{d}$. Then $[A]^{U}\subseteq[A]^{V}$.
\[obs:BPandKA\]Fix $\eta\in\Omega$, and consider a set $V\subset\zz^{d}$. Assume that, for two neighboring sites $x,y\in V$, the constraint $c_{x,y}$ is satisfied in $V$, that is, $c_{x,y}=1$ even when setting all sites out of $V$ to be occupied. Then $[A_{\eta}]^{V}=[A_{\eta^{x,y}}]^{V}$.
Assume without loss of generality that $\eta(x)=1$ and $\eta(y)=0$, and note that $[A_{\eta}]^{V}\subseteq[A_{\eta}\cup\{x\}]^{V}$. On the other hand, since $c_{x,y}=1$ in $V$, the site $x$ will be added to $A_{\eta}$ after a single step of the bootstrap percolation. Denoting the set after that single step by $A'$, $[A_{\eta}\cup\{x\}]^{V}\subseteq[A']^{V}=[A_{\eta}]^{V}$. Therefore $[A_{\eta}]^{V}=[A_{\eta}\cup\{x\}]^{V}$. The same argument shows that $[A_{\eta^{x,y}}]^{V}=[A_{\eta}\cup\{x\}]^{V}$.
\[obs:bpcluster\]Fix $A\subset\zz^{d}$, $V\subset\zz^{d}$, and $x\in V$. Let $U$ be the set of sites connected to $x$ in $[A]^{V}$. Then $[A]^{U}=U$.
Let $(A_{t})_{t\ge0}$ denote the bootstrap percolation in $V$ starting with $A$, and assume by contradiction $[A]^{U}\subsetneq U$. Since $U\subseteq[A]^{V}$, there exists a first time $t$ for which some $y\in U\setminus[A]^{U}$ is contained in $A_{t}$. By minimality, $A_{t-1}\cap U\subseteq[A]^{U}$, and since $y\notin[A]^{U}$ it has at most $k-1$ neighbors in $A_{t-1}\cap U$. On the other hand, it has at least $k$ neighbors in $A_{t}$. Therefore, it must have at least one neighbor in $V\setminus U$. This is a contradiction, since $U$ is a connected component containing $y$.
\[claim:bp\_distantinfluence\]Fix $A\subset\zz^{d}$. Consider two sets $B\subset B'\subset\zz^{d}$, a site $z\in B$, and any $S\subset\zz^{d}$. Assume that $z$ is connected to $S$ for the bootstrap percolation in $B'$, but not for the bootstrap percolation in $B$. Then $z$ is connected to $\partial B$ for the bootstrap percolation in $B'$.
Assume that $z$ is not connected to $\partial B$ for the bootstrap percolation in $B'$, so in particular its connected component in $[A]^{B'}$, denoted $U$, is entirely contained in $B$. By Observation \[obs:bpcluster\] and monotonicity of the bootstrap percolation, $U=[A]^{U}\subseteq[A]^{B}$. This is a contradiction, since by assumption $U\cap S\neq\emptyset$ but $[A]^{B}\cap S=\emptyset$.
\[prop:non0grad\]Fix an edge $\left(x,x-e\right)$ and configuration $\eta$ such that $c_{0,e}=1$ and $\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f\neq0$. Then one of the following holds:
1. $0\in x+\left(\Lambda_{2l+1}\setminus\Lambda_{2l-1}\right)$ (equivalently $x\in\Lambda_{2l+1}\setminus\Lambda_{2l-1}$), and there exists $y\in x+\partial\Lambda_{l}$ such that the bootstrap percolation in $x+\Lambda_{2l}$ connects $y$ to $x+\partial\Lambda_{2l-2}$, either for $\eta$ or $\eta^{0,e}$. In this case $\left|\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f\right|\le C\,l$.
2. $\left(0,e\right)\in x+\overline{\partial}\Lambda_{l}$ (equivalently $\left(x,x-e\right)\in\overline{\partial}\Lambda_{l}$) and $-x$ is relevant for $\tau_{x}\eta$. In this case $$\begin{aligned}
\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f & =\frac{\eta(e)-\eta(0)}{2(2l+1)^{d-1}}\times\begin{cases}
1 & 0\in x+\Lambda_{+}\cap\partial\left[-l,l\right]^{d}\\
-1 & e\in x+\Lambda_{+}\cap\partial\left[-l,l\right]^{d}\\
-1 & 0\in x+\Lambda_{-}\cap\partial\left[-l,l\right]^{d}\\
1 & e\in x+\Lambda_{-}\cap\partial\left[-l,l\right]^{d}
\end{cases}\nonumber \\
& =\frac{\eta(e)-\eta(0)}{2(2l+1)^{d-1}}\times\begin{cases}
1 & x\in\Lambda_{-}\cap\partial\left[-l,l\right]^{d}\\
-1 & x-e\in\Lambda_{-}\cap\partial\left[-l,l\right]^{d}\\
-1 & x\in\Lambda_{+}\cap\partial\left[-l,l\right]^{d}\\
1 & x-e\in\Lambda_{+}\cap\partial\left[-l,l\right]^{d}
\end{cases}.\label{eq:testfunction_grad}\end{aligned}$$
$f$ could only change when the set of relevant sites changes, or when a relevant site changes its occupation.
The first case corresponds to point 1 – for the set of relevant sites for $\tau_{x}\eta$ to change, $[A_{\eta}]^{x+\Lambda_{2l}}$ must change, and by Observation \[obs:BPandKA\] this is only possible if $c_{0,e}$ is only satisfied with the help of sites outside $x+\Lambda_{2l}$. In particular, it implies that $0$ must be close to the boundary, and more precisely $0\in x+\left(\Lambda_{2l+1}\setminus\Lambda_{2l-1}\right)$. To understand the second implication, we may assume without loss of generality that there is some site $z\in\Lambda_{l}$ which is connected to $\{0,1\}\times[-2l,2l]^{d-1}$ in $[A_{\eta}]^{x+\Lambda_{2l}}$ but not in $[A_{\eta^{0,e}}]^{x+\Lambda_{2l}}$. By monotonicity of bootstrap percolation and using again Observation \[obs:BPandKA\], $z$ cannot be connected to $\{0,1\}\times[-2l,2l]^{d-1}$ in $[A_{\eta}]^{\Lambda_{2l-2}}$. Then, by Claim \[claim:bp\_distantinfluence\], $z$ is connected to $\partial\Lambda_{2l-2}$ in $[A_{\eta}]^{x+\Lambda_{2l}}$. To finish the first point, we only need the rough bound $|f(\eta)|\le\frac{|\Lambda_{+}|+|\Lambda_{-}|}{2(2l+1)^{d-1}}$.
In the second case, we note first that for a relevant site to change occupation a particle must move into or out of $\Lambda_{\pm}$, so indeed $\left(0,e\right)\in x+\overline{\partial}\left[-l,l\right]^{d}$, and by Observation \[obs:BPandKA\] the set of relevant sites remains fixed. In this case $\grad_{(0,e)}\tau_{x}f$ is given by following carefully the four options – moving into $\Lambda_{+}$, out of $\Lambda_{+}$, into $\Lambda_{-}$, or out of $\Lambda_{-}$.
An important tool we will use in order to bound the probability of certain events will be the following lemma:
\[lem:CM\]Let $l'<10l$, and fix $x,y\in\Lambda_{l'}$. Then, assuming that the constant $\lambda$ in equation (\[eq:lupper\]) is small enough, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(x\text{ connected to }y\text{ in }[A_{\eta}]^{\Lambda_{l'}}) & \le\left(C\norm{x-y}_{\infty}^{d-1}q\right)^{\lambda\norm{x-y}_{\infty}} & \quad k=2,\\
\mu(x\text{ connected to }y\text{ in }[A_{\eta}]^{\Lambda_{l'}}) & \le q^{\lambda\norm{x-y}_{\infty}} & \quad k\ge3.\end{aligned}$$
\[claim:becomingrelevant\_prob\]Fix $x\in\Lambda_{2l+1}$, and consider the event $E_{x,x-e}$, that there exists $y\in x+\partial\Lambda_{l}$ such that the bootstrap percolation in $x+\Lambda_{2l}$ connects $y$ to $x+\partial\Lambda_{2l-2}$, either for $\tau_{x}\eta$ or $\tau_{x}\eta^{0,e}$. Then $$\mu(E_{x,x-e})\le Ce^{-\lambda l}.$$
First, note that there are $Cl^{d-1}$ possible choices of $y$. For any such choice, by Lemma \[lem:CM\], the probability for $x$ to be connected to $y$ is bounded by $(Cl^{d-1}q)^{\lambda l}$ for $k=2$ and $q^{\lambda l}$ for $k\ge3$; both of which are, indeed, smaller than $Ce^{-\lambda l}$.
The last corollary covers the first case of Proposition \[prop:non0grad\], and we now move to the second.
Fix $x\in\partial^{1}\left[-l,l\right]^{d}$. Then $-x$ is irrelevant for $\tau_{x}\eta$ with probability smaller than $Ce^{-\lambda l}$.
For $-x$ to be irrelevant it must be connected to one of $2(4l+1)^{d-1}$ sites on $\{0,1\}\times[-2l,2l]^{d-1}$. All of these sites are at distance at least $l-2$ from $x$, and the statement follows by direct application of Lemma \[lem:CM\].
\[claim:updown\_nocanlelation\]Fix $\alpha\in\{2,\dots,d\}$ and $x_{0}\in\Lambda_{l}^{\alpha}$. Let $E_{\alpha}(x_{0})$ be the event, that $-x_{0}^{+\alpha}$ is relevant for $\tau_{x_{0}^{+\alpha}}\eta$, but $-x_{0}^{-\alpha}$ is irrelevant for $\tau_{x_{0}^{-\alpha}}\eta$. Then for all $\eta\in E_{\alpha}(x_{0})$, the origin is connected to $\partial\Lambda_{l}$ in $[A_{\eta}]^{\Lambda_{3l}}$. Moreover, $$\mu(E_{\alpha}(x_{0}))\le Ce^{-\lambda l}.$$
Let $S=x_{0}+\left\{ 0,1\right\} \times\zz^{d-1}$,$B_{-}=x_{0}^{-\alpha}+\Lambda_{2l}$,$B_{+}=x_{0}^{+\alpha}+\Lambda_{2l}$. Saying that $-x_{0}^{+\alpha}$ is relevant for $\tau_{x_{0}^{+\alpha}}\eta$ is the same as saying that $0$ is connected to $B_{+}\cap S$ in $[A_{\eta}]^{B_{+}}$; and saying that $-x_{0}^{-\alpha}$ is irrelevant for $\tau_{x_{0}^{-\alpha}}\eta$ is the same as saying that that $0$ is not connected to $B_{-}\cap S$ in $[A_{\eta}]^{B_{-}}$.
In particular, setting $z=0$, $B=B_{-}$ and $B'=\Lambda_{3l}$, $A_{\eta}$ satisfies the conditions of Claim \[claim:bp\_distantinfluence\]. Therefore $0$ is connected to $\partial B_{-}$ in $[A_{\eta}]^{B'}$, which implies the result since $0\in\Lambda_{l}\subset B_{-}$. The probability estimate follows from Lemma \[lem:CM\].
\[claim:updowncancelation\]Fix $\alpha\neq1$, and a configuration $\eta$ such that $\eta\notin\cup_{x_{0}\in\Lambda_{l}^{\alpha}}E_{\alpha}(x_{0})$, and $c_{0,e_{\alpha}}(\eta)=1$. Then $$\sum_{x\in\partial^{\alpha}\Lambda_{l}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f=0.$$
We split the sum according to the projection of $x$ on $\Lambda_{l}^{\alpha}$ – $$\sum_{x\in\partial^{\alpha}\Lambda_{l}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f=\sum_{x_{0}\in\Lambda_{l}^{\alpha}}\left(\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x_{0}^{+\alpha}}f+\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x_{0}^{-\alpha}}f\right).$$ Fix one of these summands. If $-x_{0}^{+\alpha}$ is irrelevant for $\tau_{x_{0}^{+\alpha}}\eta$, since $\eta\notin E_{\alpha}(x_{0})$, also $-x_{0}^{-\alpha}$ is irrelevant for $\tau_{x_{0}^{-\alpha}}\eta$, and both gradients vanish. If, on the other hand, they are both relevant, $$\begin{aligned}
\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x_{0}^{+\alpha}}f & =\frac{\eta(e_{\alpha})-\eta(0)}{2\left(2l+1\right)^{d-1}}\times\begin{cases}
-1 & x_{0}\in\Lambda_{-},\\
1 & x_{0}\in\Lambda_{+};
\end{cases}\\
\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x_{0}^{-\alpha}}f & =\frac{\eta(e_{\alpha})-\eta(0)}{2\left(2l+1\right)^{d-1}}\times\begin{cases}
1 & x_{0}\in\Lambda_{-},\\
-1 & x_{0}\in\Lambda_{+};
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and their sum is $0$.
\[claim:perpendicular\_directions\]Fix $\alpha\neq1$. Then $$\mu\left[c_{0,e_{\alpha}}\left(\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right]\le Ce^{-\lambda l}.$$
We split in the different cases described in Proposition \[prop:non0grad\]: $$\mu\left[c_{0,e_{\alpha}}\left(\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right]\le2\mu\left[c_{0,e_{\alpha}}\left(\sum_{x\in\Lambda_{2l+1}\setminus\Lambda_{2l-1}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right]+2\mu\left[c_{0,e_{\alpha}}\left(\sum_{x\in\partial^{\alpha}\Lambda_{l}}\grad_{0,e_{\alpha}}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right].$$ We can bound the first term using Claim \[claim:becomingrelevant\_prob\]: $$\mu\left[c_{0,e_{\alpha}}\left(\sum_{x\in\Lambda_{2l+1}\setminus\Lambda_{2l-1}}\One_{E(x,x-e_{\alpha})}Cl\right)^{2}\right]\le Cl^{d}\mu\left[\sum_{x}\One_{E(x,x-e_{\alpha})}\right]\le Ce^{-\lambda l}.$$ The second term, according to Claim \[claim:updowncancelation\], vanishes under $\cap_{x_{0}}E_{\alpha}(x_{0})^{c}$, so we are left with an error term which by Claim \[claim:updown\_nocanlelation\] is bounded by
$$\mu\left[\left(\frac{|\partial^{\alpha}\Lambda_{l}|}{2(2l+1)^{d-1}}\right)^{2}\sum_{x_{0}\in\Lambda_{l}^{\alpha}}\One_{E_{\alpha}(x_{0})}\right]\le Ce^{-\lambda l}.$$
\[claim:paralleldirection\]For $e=e_{1}$, $$\mu\left[c_{0,e}\left(\eta(e)-\eta(0)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right]\le Ce^{-\lambda l}.$$
The proof of the claim consists in showing that each site on $\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}$ contributes $\frac{\eta(e)-\eta(0)}{|\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}|}$ to the sum, up to a small error term.
First, using Proposition \[prop:non0grad\], we write $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\left[c_{0,e}\left(\eta(e)-\eta(0)-\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right]\le & 2\mu\left[c_{0,e_{\alpha}}\left(\sum_{x\in\Lambda_{2l+1}\setminus\Lambda_{2l-1}}\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right]\\
& +2\mu\left[c_{0,e}\left(\eta(e)-\eta(0)-\sum_{x\in\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}}\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\right].\end{aligned}$$ The first term, just as in the proof of Claim \[claim:perpendicular\_directions\], is bounded by $Ce^{-\lambda l}$ according to Claim \[claim:becomingrelevant\_prob\].
In order to bound the second term, we start by assuming that all sites of $-\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}$ are relevant. In this case, $$\sum_{x\in\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}}\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f=\sum_{x\in\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}}\frac{\eta(e)-\eta(0)}{2(2l+1)^{d-1}}=\eta(e)-\eta(0),$$ so $$\mu\left[c_{0,e}\left(\eta(e)-\eta(0)-\sum_{x\in\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}}\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\One_{-\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}\subseteq\mathcal{R}}\right]=0.$$ Finally, since sites of $\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}$ are at distance at least $l$ from $\left\{ 0,1\right\} \times\left[-2l,2l\right]^{d-1}$, by Lemma \[lem:CM\] the probability that $\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}$ contains irrelevant sites is smaller than $Ce^{-\lambda l}$, so $$\mu\left[c_{0,e}\left(\eta(e)-\eta(0)-\sum_{x\in\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}}\grad_{0,e}\tau_{x}f\right)^{2}\One_{-\partial^{1}\Lambda_{l}\not\subseteq\mathcal{R}}\right]\le Ce^{-\lambda l}.$$ The claim thus follows by summing the contribution of the three terms.
All that is left is to combine claims \[claim:perpendicular\_directions\] and \[claim:paralleldirection\], proving inequality (\[eq:testineq\]) and hence the second part of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Further problems
================
- Prove convergence to a hydrodynamic limit without the soft constraint from a more restricted family of initial states (as in [@GoncalvesLandimToninelli]).
- Analyze the model with a soft constraint that tends to $0$ with the size of the system (as in [@GoncalvesLandimToninelli]).
- Improve the bounds on the diffusion coefficient, and in particular find matching upper and lower bound without a logarithmic correction. In the case of the closely related Fredrickson-Andersen model, where similar bounds have been obtained for the spectral gap ([@TowardsUniversality]), the logarithmic correction could be removed, and, moreover, the exact constant multiplying $1/(1-\rho)^{d-k+1}$ could be identified [@HMT2020].
- Understand the hydrodynamic limit of more KCLGs. The comparison argument of Section \[sec:lowerbound\] could be used in order to estimate the diffusion coefficient whenever an appropriate multi-step move could be constructed, and may be useful in lager generality than presented here. A challenging direction would be the study of non-isotropic models, in which the results of [@VaradhanYau97] cannot be used directly.
- The bounds on the diffusion coefficient may have consequences other than the hydrodynamic limit – in general, we expect the correlation $\mu(\eta(0)e^{t\mathcal{L}}\eta(x))-\rho^{2}$ to behave like $\rho(1-\rho)(4\pi t\,D)^{-d/2}\,e^{-\frac{x^{2}}{4tD}}$ (see, e.g., [@Spohn2012IPS]). It has been shown in [@CMRT2010] that, for $x=0$, this correlation decays at least as fast as $C\,(\log t)^{5}/t$ for some unidentified constant $C$, and any progress towards the predicted $\rho(1-\rho)(4\pi t\,D)^{-d/2}\,e^{-\frac{x^{2}}{4tD}}$ would be an interesting result.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Clément Erignoux, Alessandra Faggionato, Fabio Martinelli, and Patrícia Gonçalves for very useful discussions. I acknowledge the support of the ERC Starting Grant 680275 MALIG.
\[sec:appendix\]The gradient condition in cooperative models
============================================================
In this appendix we will see that cooperative kinetically constrained lattice gas models (KCLGs) are non-gradient.
A general KCLG is a Markov process with configuration space $\Omega=\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\zz^{d}}$, determined by a set of constraints giving each edge $(x,y)\in\mathcal{E}(\zz^{d})$ a rate $c_{x,y}(\eta)\in\{0\}\cup[1,\infty)$, for any configuration $\eta\in\Omega$. We will make the following assumptions:
1. The model is homogeneous, i.e., the constraint is translation invariant.
2. The constraint $c_{x,y}$ depends only on the configuration outside $x$ and $y$.
3. The constraints have finite range, i.e., $c_{x,y}$ depends only on the occupation of sites in the box $x+\Lambda_{R}$, where $R$ is called the *range*.
4. The constraint is non-degenerate, i.e., for every edge $(x,y)$ of $\zz^{d}$ there exist a configuration $\eta$ such that $c_{x,y}(\eta)>0$ and $\eta'$ such that $c_{x,y}(\eta')=0$.
5. For fixed $x,y$ the constraint $c_{x,y}(\eta)$ is a decreasing function of $\eta$, i.e., adding more empty sites could only help the constraint to be satisfied.
With such constraints, the process is given by a generator as in equation (\[eq:generator\]).
Fix a KCLG and two configurations $\eta,\eta'$. We say that $\eta'$ is *connected* to $\eta$ if there exists a sequence of configuration $\eta_{0},\dots,\eta_{T}$ such that $\eta_{0}=\eta$, $\eta_{T}=\eta'$, and for all $t\in\{0,\dots,T-1\}$ there exist $x_{t+1}\sim y_{t+1}$ such that $\eta_{t+1}=\eta_{t}^{x_{t+1},y_{t+1}}$, with $c_{x_{t+1},y_{t+1}}(\eta_{t})\ge1$. For any fixed $e$, we say that $\eta'$ is $e$*-connected* to $\eta$ if, in addition, $y_{t+1}=x_{t+1}+e$ and $\eta_{t}(x_{t})=0$, namely, all transitions move a vacancy in the direction $e$ (or, equivalently, a particle in the direction $-e$). Note that $\eta'$ is connected to $\eta$ if and only if $\eta$ is connected to $\eta'$; and $\eta'$ is $e$-connected to $\eta$ if and only if $\eta$ is $(-e)$-connected to $\eta'$.
Let $A\subseteq\zz^{d}$. The configuration $\eta_{A}$ is defined as $$\eta_{A}(x)=\begin{cases}
0 & x\in A,\\
1 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
KCLGs could be either *cooperative* or *non-cooperative* (see [@CMRT2010 Definition 1.1]). We remind here that a non-cooperative model is model in which there exists a *mobile cluster*, defined as follows:
Let $A$ be a finite non-empty subset of $\zz^{d}$. We say that $A$ is a *mobile cluster* if:
1. For all $z\in\zz^{d}$, the configuration $\eta_{A}$ is connected to the configuration $\eta_{z+A}$.
2. For every edge $(x,y)$, there exists a translation $z\in\zz^{d}$ such that $c_{x,y}(\eta_{z+A})\ge1$.
The second condition in the above definition is meant to allow, whenever a configuration contains an empty cluster, to move a particle across an edge $(x,y)$ – first move the mobile cluster to its vicinity, guaranteeing that the constraint is satisfied, then exchange $\eta(x)$ with $\eta(y),$ and finally move the mobile cluster back to its initial position. It remains, however, possible, that while moving the mobile cluster the original occupation of $x$ and $y$ has changed, and the resulting configuration will not be $\eta^{x,y}$. Still, our result will also hold replacing this condition with the more restrictive one, that for all $\eta$ in which the sites of $A$ are empty, and for every edge $(x,y)$, the configurations $\eta$ and $\eta^{x,y}$ are connected using $O(\norm x)$ exchanges.
Gradient models are interacting particle systems in which the current is a gradient of some local function, a property which significantly simplifies the analysis of their hydrodynamic limits (see, e.g., [@KipnisLandim Definition 2.5]). The purpose of this appendix is to prove the following result:
\[thm:cooperativeisnongradient\]Cooperative KCLGs are non-gradient.
In order to prove that a model is non-gradient, we will consider the model on a torus, and show that the integral of the current does not always vanish –
\[fact:gradient0integral\]Consider a KCLG, and assume that for $N$ large enough, there exists a configuration on the torus $\eta\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} ^{\zz^{d}/N\zz^{d}}$, such that $$\sum_{x,y\in\zz^{d}/N\zz^{d}}(x-y)(\eta(x)-\eta(y))c_{x,y}(\eta)\neq0.$$ Then the model is non-gradient.
The construction of such $\eta$ for a cooperative KCLG is based on the notion of reachable sites –
We say that a site is *reachable* from a configuration $\eta$ if it is empty for some $\eta'$ which is connected to $\eta$. For $e\in\left\{ \pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\right\} $ we say that a site is $e$-reachable for a configuration $\eta$ if it is empty for some $\eta'$ which is $e$-connected to $\eta$. The *$e$-stretch* of $\eta$ is defined as $$\sup\left\{ e\cdot x:x\text{ is }e\text{-reachable}\right\} .$$
By the definition of non-cooperative models, it is immediate that if $\eta$ contains a mobile cluster then for every site $x$ there exists $\eta'$ connected to $\eta$ for which $\eta'(x)=0$. In the next proposition we will see that if we require $e$-connectivity the converse is also true –
\[prop:infinitereachable\_noncooperative\]Assume that for all $e\in\left\{ \pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\right\} $ there exists a finite subset $A_{e}$ of $\zz^{d}$, such that the $e$-stretch of $\eta_{A_{e}}$ is infinite. Then the model is non-cooperative.
Before proving this proposition, we will see how it implies Theorem \[thm:cooperativeisnongradient\]. Consider a cooperative KCLG, so by Proposition \[prop:infinitereachable\_noncooperative\] for some $e\in\{\pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\}$ and any $L\in\nn$, configurations that are entirely filled outside $\Lambda_{L}$ have finite $e$-stretch. We will assume without loss of generality that $e=e_{1}$.
Since the model is non-degenerate, there exists a configuration $\eta_{0}$ for which $c_{0,e_{1}}(\eta_{0})=1$. Since the model has finite range $R$, we may assume that this configuration is entirely filled outside $\Lambda_{R}$; and since the constraint does not depend on the occupation at $0$ and $e_{1}$ we assume $\eta_{0}(0)=0$ and $\eta_{0}(e_{1})=1$. We will now construct a sequence of configuration starting at $\eta_{0}$, so that $\eta_{i+1}$ is obtained from $\eta_{i}$ by moving a $0$ to the right, i.e., $\eta_{i+1}=\eta_{i}^{x_{i},x_{i}+e_{1}}$ for some $x_{i}$ such that $c_{x_{i},x_{i}+e_{1}}(\eta_{i})>0$, $\eta_{i}(x_{i})=0$, and $\eta_{i}(x_{i}+e_{1})=1$. When, for some $i$, more than one such choice of $x$ is possible, we choose one arbitrarily. We stop when none of the sites satisfy the required conditions.
Since the $e_{1}$-stretch is finite the construction must stop at some step $n<\infty$. On the other hand, we chose $\eta_{0}$ such that $c_{0,e_{1}}(\eta_{0})\ge1$, $\eta_{0}(0)=0$, and $\eta_{0}(e_{1})=1$, so $n\ge1$. Hence, for the configuration $\eta=\eta_{n}$, for all $x\in\zz^{d}$ $$c_{x,x+e_{1}}(\eta)(1-\eta(x))\eta(x+e_{1})=0,$$ but for $x^{*}=x_{n-1}$ we know that $$c_{x^{*},x^{*}+e_{1}}(\eta)\eta(x^{*})(1-\eta(x^{*}+e_{1}))\ge1.$$ That is, $$\sum_{x\in\zz^{d}}(\eta(x)-\eta(x+e_{1}))c_{x,x+e_{1}}(\eta)\ge1.$$ Since $\eta$ is filled outside $\Lambda_{R+n}$, we may as well sum over $x$ in a large enough torus $\zz^{d}/(100R+n)\zz^{d}$. Therefore, by Fact \[fact:gradient0integral\], the model is indeed non-gradient.\
We return to the proof of Proposition \[prop:infinitereachable\_noncooperative\].
\[claim:infinitestretch\_movingcluster\]Fix a finite non-empty $A\subset\zz^{d}$, and $e\in\left\{ \pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\right\} $. Assume that the $e$-stretch of $\eta_{A}$ is infinite. Then there exists a finite non-empty $A'\subset\zz^{d}$ and a strictly positive integer $n$, such that $\eta_{A'}$ is $e$-connected to $\eta_{ne+A'}$.
First, we may assume without loss of generality that $A$ has the minimal possible size, among sets for which the $e$-stretch of $\eta_{A}$ is infinite; and for notational convenience we also assume $e=e_{1}$. Set $k=\left|A\right|$, and fix $L$ such that $A\subset\Lambda_{L}$.
We will start by showing the following property:
For all $j<k$, there exists $s^{(j)}$ such that for all $B\subset(-\infty,0]\times\zz^{d-1}$ with $\left|B\right|=j$, the $e_{1}$-stretch of $\eta_{B}$ is at most $s^{(j)}$. In particular, there exists $L^{(j)}$ such that the maximal possible $e_{1}$-stretch for such a set is obtained for some **$B\subset[-L^{(j)},0]\times\zz^{d-1}$**.
For $j=1$ choosing $s^{(1)}=L^{(1)}=0$ suffices since no particle could move. For $j>1$, let $L^{(j)}=j(h^{(j-1)}+R)$ and $s^{(j)}$ the maximal $e_{1}$-stretch of $\eta_{B}$ for any **$B\subset[-L^{(j)},0]\times\zz^{d-1}$**. Note that $s^{(j)}$ is well defined since particles cannot move in directions orthogonal to $e_{1}$, so we may assume without loss of generality that $B\subset[-L^{(j)},0]\times[-jR,jR]^{d-1}$; and it is finite since $j<k$.
Assume now that for some $B\subset(-\infty,0]\times\zz^{d-1}$ of size $j$ the $e_{1}$-stretch of $\eta_{B}$ is more than $s^{(j)}$. We can assume without loss of generality that $0\in B$, and by construction there must be a site $x\in B$ outside $[-L^{(j)},0]\times\zz^{d-1}$. Due to our choice of $L^{(j)}$, the set $B$ could be separated by a strip of width $h^{(j-1)}+R$, namely, there exists $n\in\zz$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
B & =B_{-}\cup B_{+},\\
B_{-} & \subset(-\infty,n]\times\zz^{d},\\
B_{+} & \subset(n+h^{(j-1)}+R,0]\times\zz^{d}.\end{aligned}$$ However, since the $e_{1}$-stretch of $\eta_{B_{-}}$ is at most $h^{(j-1)}$, it would never be able to influence transitions to the right of $n+h^{(j-1)}+R$, thus the $e_{1}$-stretch of $B$ cannot be larger than that of $B_{-}$, which is a contradiction.
As a result of this claim, there exists $s<\infty$, such that for any set $B$ of size strictly less than $k$, the $e_{1}$-stretch of $B$ is at most $s$ plus its maximal $e_{1}$ coordinate.
Since the $e_{1}$-stretch of $\eta_{A}$ is infinite, there exists an $e_{1}$-reachable site $x$ with $$e\cdot x>\binom{(2L+1)^{d-1}k(s+R)}{k}+s+1.$$ Consider a sequence of **$T$** flips which empties that site. We denote the set of empty sites at step $t$ by $A_{t}$, so that $A_{0}=A$ and $A_{T}\ni x$; and $a_{t}$ denotes the rightmost coordinate of $A_{t}$ (i.e., $a_{t}=\max_{y\in A_{t}}\{e_{1}\cdot y\}$). Assume now that at some time $t$ we are able to identify a non-empty set $\tilde{A}_{t}$ whose rightmost coordinate is $\tilde{a}_{t}$, such that all sites of $A_{t}\setminus\tilde{A}_{t}$ are at least $s+R$ to the right of $\tilde{a}_{t}$, i.e., $a_{t}<e_{1}\cdot y-s-R$ for all $y\in A_{t}\setminus\tilde{A}_{t}$. We then know that the $0$’s coming from $\tilde{A}_{t}$ will never be able to reach distance $R$ from the sites of $A_{t}\setminus\tilde{A}_{t}$, thus the set $A_{t}\setminus\tilde{A}_{t}$ moves as if these sites were filled. In particular, it could not go further than distance $s$, hence $a_{t}>\binom{(2L+1)^{d-1}k(h+s)}{k}+1$. That means that for at least $\binom{(2L+1)^{d-1}k(s+R)}{k}+1$ times $t$ with different values of $a_{t}$, $$A_{t}\subset\left[a_{t}-k(s+R),a_{t}\right]\times\left[-L,L\right]^{d-1}.$$ This box has volume $(2L+1)^{d-1}k(s+R)$, so by the pigeonhole principle there exist $t$ and $t'$ with $a_{t}<a_{t'}$ such that $A_{t}-a_{t}e_{1}=A_{t'}-a_{t'}e_{1}$. This finishes the proof by taking $A'=A_{t}-a_{t}e_{1}$ and $n=a_{t'}-a_{t}$, and using the translation invariance of the model.
\[claim:empyingtraslations\]Fix any finite $B\subset\zz^{d}$ and $e\in\zz^{d}$, and assume that there exists a finite non-empty $A\subset\zz^{d}$ such that the $e$-stretch of $\eta_{A}$ is infinite. Then there exist a finite non-empty set $A'\subset\zz^{d}$ such that for all $m\in\nn$, the configuration $\eta_{A'}$ is $e$-connected to a configuration $\eta_{m}$ in which all the sites of $me+B$ are empty. Moreover, we can assume that no site after $me+B$ is empty, i.e., $\eta_{m}(x)=1$ whenever $x\cdot e>m+\sup_{y\in B}y\cdot e$.
By the Claim \[claim:infinitestretch\_movingcluster\] there exists $L\in\nn$, $A''\subset\Lambda_{L}$, and $n\in\nn$, such that $\eta_{A''}$ is $e$-connected to $\eta_{ne+A''}$. Note that we may, equivalently, choose any $A''$ which is a translation of $A_{\eta}$ for any $\eta$ in the path connecting $\eta_{A''}$ with $\eta_{ne+A''}$. We will therefore assume without loss of generality that $0\in A''$, but $e\cdot x<0$ for all $x\in A\setminus\{0\}$.
Denote $B=\{b_{1},\dots,b_{k}\}$, with $e\cdot b_{1}\ge\dots\ge e\cdot b_{k}$, and consider the union $$A_{0}=\bigcup_{i=1}^{k}\left(b_{i}+A''-inLe\right).$$ This union is disjoint, since $A''\subset\Lambda_{L}$, and by repeating $L$ times the sequence of flips required to move $A''$ to $ne+A''$, we can move $b_{1}+A''-nLe$ to $b_{1}+A''$, reaching a configuration in which $b_{1}$ is empty. Then, repeating this sequence again $2L$ times we can move $b_{2}+A''-2nLe$ to $b_{2}+A''$. This is allowed since during the first sequence we do not changes the configuration at the sites of $b_{2}+A''-2nLe$; and the in the resulting configuration both $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ are empty. We continue in the same manner, until we reach a configuration $\eta_{0}'$ in which the sites of $B$ are all empty.
Consider now for $j=0,\dots,n-1$ the set $$A_{j}=A_{0}-knLje+je.$$ As before, applying repeatedly the sequence that allowed us to move $A''$ we can reach a configuration $\eta_{j}$ (connected to $\eta_{A_{j}}'$) in which the sites of $je+B$ are empty. Furthermore, $A_{j}$ and $A_{j'}$ are disjoint for $j\neq j'$, so, indeed, taking $$A'=\bigcup_{j=0}^{n-1}A_{j},$$ for $j=0,\dots,n-1$, the configuration $\eta_{A'}$ is $e$-connected to a configuration $\eta_{j}$ for which the sites of $je+B$ are empty. Finally, since $A'$ is a disjoint union of copies of $A''$, we can translate each of them by $ne$, and if we do that in the right order (starting with $b_{1}+A''-nLe$ and ending with $b_{k}+A''-knL(n-1)e+(n-1e)$) they will never intersect. Hence $\eta_{ne+A'}$ is $e$-connected to $\eta_{A'}$, and the result follows.
\[claim:flippingedgetotheright\]Fix $e\in\left\{ \pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\right\} $ and $L\in\nn$. Assume that there exists a finite non-empty $A\subset\zz^{d}$ such that the $e$-stretch of $\eta_{A}$ is infinite. Then there exists $L'$ and $A'\subset\Lambda_{L'}$ such that for all $x\in\left[L',\infty\right]\times\left[-L,L\right]^{d-1}$ and every configuration $\eta$ for which the sites of $A'$ are empty, $\eta$ is connected to $\eta^{x,x+e}$.
We assume without loss of generality that $e=e_{1}$. The first observation needed in order to prove this claim, is that there is a configuration for which the constraint $c_{x,x+e_{1}}$ is satisfied, but none of the sites to the right of $x$ are empty, i.e., $x+\left[1,\infty\right]\times\zz^{d-1}$ is entirely occupied. This is true since, if the $e_{1}$-stretch of $\eta_{A}$ is infinite for finite $A$, at some point the rightmost $0$ has to move to the right.
We then find a finite non-empty $B_{0}\subset\left[-\infty,0\right]\times\zz^{d-1}\setminus\{0\}$ such that $c_{0,e_{1}}(\eta_{B_{0}})=1$. Let $$B=\bigcup_{z\in\{0\}\times\left[-L,L\right]^{d-1}}\left(z+B_{0}\right).$$ Then, in particular, $c_{x,x+e_{1}}(\eta_{B})=0$ for $x\in\{0\}\times\left[-L,L\right]^{d-1}$.
We now apply Claim \[claim:empyingtraslations\] to find a finite non-empty set $A'\subset\zz^{d}$ such that for all $m\in\nn$, the configuration $\eta_{A'}$ is $e$-connected to a configuration $\eta_{m}$ in which all the sites of $me+B$ are empty. We define $L'$ such that $A'\subset\Lambda_{L'}$, and then, for every $x\in\left[L',\infty\right]\times\left[-L,L\right]^{d-1}$, taking $m=e_{1}\cdot x$ yields $c_{x,x+e_{1}}(\eta_{m})=1$. Therefore, if we take any configuration $\eta$ for which $A'$ is empty, by performing the same transitions that connected $\eta_{A'}$ to $\eta_{m}$, we reach a configuration for which $c_{x,x+e_{1}}=1$. Note that this is done without changing the configuration neither at $x$ nor at $x+e_{1}$. We then exchange $x$ and $x+e_{1}$, and fold back all the transitions we have done before, reaching the configuration $\eta^{x,x+e_{1}}$.
\[claim:russiandoll\]Assume that for all $e\in\{e_{1},\dots,e_{d}\}$ there exists a finite set $A_{e}\subset\zz^{d}$ such that the $e$-stretch of $\eta_{A_{e}}$ is infinite, and fix $e'\in\{e_{1},\dots,e_{d}\}$. Then there exists $L\in\nn$ and $A\subset\Lambda_{L}$ such that for any $\eta$ in which the sites of $A$ are empty, and any $x\in\left[L+1,\infty\right]^{d}$, the configuration $\eta^{x,x+e'}$ is connected to $\eta$.
Without loss of generality we fix $e=e_{1}$. By Claim \[claim:flippingedgetotheright\] we can define $L_{1}\in\nn$ and $A_{1}\subset\Lambda_{L_{1}}$ be such that for all $x_{1}\in\left[L_{1},\infty\right]\times\{0\}^{d-1}$ and every configuration $\eta$ for which the sites of $A_{1}$ are empty, $\eta$ is connected to $\eta^{x_{1},x_{1}+e_{1}}$. Using Claim \[claim:empyingtraslations\] we can find $L_{2}\in\nn$ and $A_{2}\in\Lambda_{L_{2}}$ such that, for every $x_{2}\in\{0\}\times\left[L_{2},\infty\right]\times\{0\}^{d-1}$, the configuration $\eta_{A_{2}}$ is connected to a configuration $\eta$ in which the sites of $x_{2}+A_{1}$ are empty, and during the sequence of configurations connecting the two only edges of $\left[-\infty,-L_{2}\right]^{d}$ were flipped. We continue in the same manner, for $i=1,\dots,d$, to construct $L_{i}$ and $A_{i}\subset\Lambda_{L_{i}}$ such that for all $x_{i}\in\{0\}^{i-1}\times\left[L_{i},\infty\right]\times\{0\}^{d-i}$, the configuration $\eta_{A_{i}}$ is connected to a configuration in which the sites of $x_{i}+A_{i-1}$ are empty, and during the sequence of configurations connecting the two only edges of $\left[-\infty,-L_{i}\right]^{d}$ were flipped.
Let $L=L_{d}$, $A=A_{d}$, and fix $\eta$ in which the sites of $A$ are empty and $x\in\left[L+1,\infty\right]^{d}$. We write $x=x_{1}+\dots+x_{d}$ for $x_{i}\in\{0\}^{i-1}\times\left[L_{i},\infty\right]\times\{0\}^{d-i}$. By our construction of $A$, $\eta$ is connected to a configuration $\eta'$ in which the set $A_{1}+x_{2}+\dots+x_{d}$ is empty, and during the sequence of configurations connecting the two the sites $x$ and $x+e_{1}$ remained untouched. Then, by the construction of $A_{1}$, we can connect $\eta'$ to $\eta'^{x,x+e_{1}}$. All that is left is to rewind the steps leading to $\eta'$, and the proof is complete.
\[claim:flipping\_edges\]Assume that for all $e\in\{e_{1},\dots,e_{d}\}$ there exists a finite set $A_{e}\subset\zz^{d}$ such that the $e$-stretch of $\eta_{A_{e}}$ is infinite. Then there exists $L\in\nn$ and $A\subset\Lambda_{L}$ such that for any $\eta$ in which the sites of $A$ are empty, any $x\in\left[L+1,\infty\right]^{d}$, and any $e'\in\{e_{1},\dots,e_{d}\}$, the configuration $\eta^{x,x+e'}$ is connected to $\eta$.
The only difference between this claim and Claim \[claim:russiandoll\] is that now $e'$ is chosen after $A$ is fixed. In order to achieve that, we apply Claim \[claim:russiandoll\] $d$ times, with $e'=e_{i}$ for all $i\in\{1,\dots,d\}$, obtaining $d$ numbers $L_{1},\dots,L_{d}\in\nn$ and $d$ sets $A_{1}\in\Lambda_{L_{1}},\dots,A_{d}\in\Lambda_{L_{d}}$. Taking $L=\max_{i}L_{i}$ and $A=\cup_{i=1}^{d}A_{i}$ will suffice – fix $\eta$ in which the sites of $A$ are empty, every $x\in\left[L+1,\infty\right]^{d}$ and $i\in\{1,\dots,d\}$. In particular $x\in\left[L_{i}+1,\infty\right]^{d}$, and that the sites of $A_{i}$ are empty in $\eta$, so by construction of $A_{i}$ we know that $\eta^{x,x+e_{i}}$ is connected to $\eta$.
We are now ready to prove Proposition \[prop:infinitereachable\_noncooperative\].
We assume that for all $e\in\{\pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\}$ there exists a finite set $A_{e}\subset\zz^{d}$ such that the $e$-stretch of $\eta_{A_{e}}$ is infinite, and construct a mobile cluster $A$.
First, use Claim \[claim:flipping\_edges\] in order to find $L_{+}\in\nn$ and $A_{+}\subset\Lambda_{L_{+}}$ such that for any $\eta$ in which the sites of $A_{+}$ are empty, any $x\in\left[L_{+}+1,\infty\right]^{d}$, and any $e\in\{e_{1},\dots,e_{d}\}$, the configuration $\eta^{x,x+e}$ is connected to $\eta$. Similarly (by flipping $\zz^{d}$), we can find $L_{-}\in\nn$ and $A_{-}\subset\Lambda_{L_{-}}$ such that for any $\eta$ in which the sites of $A_{-}$ are empty, any $x\in\left[-\infty,-L_{-}-1\right]^{d}$, and any $e\in\{-e_{1},\dots,-e_{d}\}$, the configuration $\eta^{x,x+e}$ is connected to $\eta$. It will be more convenient to consider translations of these sets, $$\begin{aligned}
A'_{+} & =A_{+}-(L_{+}+2)e_{1}-\dots-(L_{+}+2)e_{d},\\
A'_{-} & =A_{-}+(L_{-}+2)e_{1}+\dots+(L_{-}+2)e_{d}.\end{aligned}$$ This way, for any $\eta$ in which the sites of $A_{+}'$ are empty, any $x\in\left[2,\infty\right]^{d}$, and any $e\in\{\pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\}$, the configuration $\eta^{x,x+e}$ is connected to $\eta$; and for any $\eta$ in which the sites of $A_{-}'$ are empty, any $x\in\left[-\infty,-2\right]^{d}$, and any $e\in\{\pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\}$, the configuration $\eta^{x,x+e}$ is connected to $\eta$. Let $$A=A'_{+}\cup A_{-}'$$ We will show that it is a mobile cluster. Since already $A_{+}'$ allows us to flip edges is its vicinity, we only need to show that $\eta_{A}$ is connected to $\eta_{e+A}$ for all $e\in\{\pm e_{1},\dots,\pm e_{d}\}$. To do that, we note that, since the sites of $A_{-}'$ are all in $\left[2,\infty\right]$, the configuration $\eta_{A}$ is connected to $\eta_{A'_{+}\cup(e+A_{-}')}$. In this new configuration the sites of $e+A_{-}'$ are empty, and since the sites of $A_{+}'$ are all in $\left[-\infty,-2\right]^{d}+e$ it is connected to $\eta_{(e+A_{+}')\cup(e+A_{-}')}=\eta_{e+A}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Prediction of toxicity levels of chemical compounds is an important issue in Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) modeling. Although toxicity prediction has achieved significant progress in recent times through deep learning, prediction accuracy levels obtained by even very recent methods are not yet very high. We propose a multimodal deep learning method using multiple heterogeneous neural network types and data representations. We represent chemical compounds by strings, images, and numerical features. We train fully connected, convolutional, and recurrent neural networks and their ensembles. Each data representation or neural network type has its own strengths and weaknesses. Our motivation is to obtain a collective performance that could go beyond individual performance of each data representation or each neural network type. On a standard toxicity benchmark, our proposed method obtains significantly better accuracy levels than that by the state-of-the-art toxicity prediction methods.'
author:
- Abdul Karim
- Jaspreet Singh
- Avinash Mishra
- Abdollah Dehzangi
- 'M. A. Hakim Newton'
- Abdul Sattar
bibliography:
- 'pkaw2019.bib'
title: Toxicity Prediction by Multimodal Deep Learning
---
Introduction
============
Every year a broad spectrum of chemical compounds are produced in various laboratories all over the world. A large number of these chemical compounds are suspected to be toxic or hazardous for human life, and at the end, many of them are proven so. As a result, [*toxicity prediction*]{} has become one of the most important issues in Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) modeling [@karim2019efficient; @wu2018moleculenet]. Various functional groups and their specific three dimensional orientations make chemical compounds toxic in nature. The principal metric used for the measurement of toxicity is the concentration of compounds and the time of exposure to humans [@mcfarland1970parabolic]. The concentration of compounds that cause toxic or hazardous effect on human health are measured by experiments and are considered as [*endpoints*]{}. The exposure of toxic compounds to humans can take place through oral or intravenous uptake or inhalation. There exist several toxicity metrics but the most popular one is IGC50 [@zhu2008combinatorial]. IGC50 measures the concentration of the compounds that inhibit 50% of growth on test population.
QSAR modelling has made significant progress in recent years through deep learning [@kato2016molecular]. To predict molecular activities via computational models, molecules are usually represented as strings of a given textual language such as Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) [@bjerrum2017smiles]. Such SMILES strings can then be used to compute various types of numerical features (e.g. physicochemical descriptors) and molecular images [@yap2011padel]. Numerical features have been used in various traditional machine learning approaches such as K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forest (RF), and Fully Connected Neural Networks (FCNN) [@lima2016use]. On the other hand, molecular images have been used in Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) [@goh2018much]. Computation of molecular images needs relatively less domain specific expertise than that of numerical features, but CNN models using them still achieve reasonable performance levels [@goh2018much] compared to the other models using numerical features. SMILES strings can also be transformed into a vector representation and used in Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) for molecular activity prediction [@goh2018smiles2vec].
In recent work on toxicity prediction, physicochemical descriptors and fingerprints are used in deep neural networks and consensus models by TopTox [@wu2018quantitative] to predict regression activity such as Pearson correlation coefficient $R^2$ between the experimental and predicted toxicity levels. Another system named AdmetSAR [@yang2018admetsar] uses molecular fingerprints to predict $R^2$ values by RF, SVM, and KNN models. Yet another system referred to here by the name Hybrid2D [@karim2019efficient] uses a hybridization of shallow neural networks and decision trees on 2D features only to predict $R^2$ values. TopTox, AdmetSAR, and Hybrid2D use an IGC50-based benchmark dataset as one of their benchmarks and obtain accuracy levels 0.80–0.83 on that dataset. Clearly, these are not very high accuracy levels.
In this paper, we propose a [*multimodal deep learning method*]{} that uses multiple [*heterogeneous*]{} neural network types and data representations. We represent the formula of a chemical compound as a SMILES string and as a molecular image. We further represent the chemical compound using numerical features obtained from physicochemical descriptors. We train an RNN on vector representations of SMILES strings, FCNN on numerical feature values, and CNN on molecular images. We then build an ensemble from the RNN, the FCNN, and the CNN using an Ensemble Averaging (EA) method or a Meta Neural Network (MNN) to obtain the final output. Each data representation type or each neural network type has its own strengths and weaknesses. Our motivation is to obtain a collective performance that could go beyond the individual performance of each data representation or each neural network type. Our multimodal approach is different from a typical ensembling approach as the latter uses homogeneous neural networks and data representations. On the IGC50 toxicity benchmark dataset, our proposed method obtains significantly better accuracy levels (0.84–0.88) than that by the state-of-the-art toxicity prediction methods TopTox, AdmetSAR, and Hybrid2D.
In the rest of the paper, Section \[secPreliminaries\] covers preliminaries of toxicity prediction and neural networks, Section \[secMethodologies\] describes our multimodal deep learning approach, Section \[secResults\] provides experimental results, and Section \[secConclusions\] presents conclusions.
Preliminaries\[secPreliminaries\]
=================================
We give overviews of SMILES strings, the IGC50 dataset, and neural networks.
SMILES Strings
--------------
SMILES is a text-based chemical language that is used to describe the information about the structure of a molecule in a single line of characters [@weininger1988smiles]. SMILES strings obey a regular grammar or syntax. Various types of characters are used to denote atoms and bonds between them. For example, c is used for representing aromatic carbon whereas C represents aliphatic carbon. There are special characters like “=” and “-” to denote double and single bonds respectively. An example of a SMILE string is “CC1=CC(=O)C2=C(C=CC=C2O)C1=O”.
IGC50 Dataset
-------------
Among several toxicity metrices, IGC50 is one of the most important endpoints [@zhu2008combinatorial]. IGC50 measures the concentration of compounds that inhibit 50% of growth on test population. The benchmark dataset, denoted henceforth by IGC50 dataset and used in this work, has IGC50 values and their test population is Tetrahymena Pyriformis [@wu2018quantitative]. Tetrahymena Pyriformis is an aquatic animal (Protozoa) that lives in fresh water. It is pear-shaped, $50\times 30$ pm in length, multiplies in 3h to 4h and can be cultured in a single membered sterile culture [@new4; @new5]. Thus, IGC50 in the given dataset refers to acute aquatic toxicity of compound on Tetrahymena Pyriformis population. The time of exposure considered here is 40h, which indicates that population of Tetrahymena Pyriformis are exposed to these compounds for 40h and then reduction in growth was measured [@wu2018quantitative]. IGC50 values reported in the given dataset is measured in $-\log_{10}(C)$ where $C$ is the concentration in $\textrm{mol}/\textrm{L}$ [@wu2018quantitative]. There are 1792 compounds in the IGC50 dataset. These compounds are represented as SMILES strings with lengths ranging from 2 to 52 characters.
Neural Networks
---------------
A [*deep neural network*]{} (DNN) has multiple hidden layers while a [*shallow neural network*]{} (SNN) typically has only one hidden layer. We refer the reader to [@schmidhuber2015deep] for the concepts and mathematics of deep learning on DNNs. Below we briefly cover various types of neural networks based on their architectures.
1. [**FCNN.**]{} A neural network in which each unit of one layer is connected to all units of the next layer is termed as a [*fully connected neural network*]{} (FCNN). FCNNs take numerical features as an input to predict the output.
2. [**CNN.**]{} A [*convolutional neural network*]{} is a special type of neural network for the image data. CNNs can extract low level features from images and compute more complex features as we go deeper in the networks [@szegedy2015going]. Variants of CNN like Inception, Alexnet and Resnet have been developed and employed as highly accurate image classification models [@he2016deep].
3. [**RNN.**]{} A [*recurrent neural network*]{} is a specialized neural network for sequential data. RNNs can learn features directly from the sequence data without explicitly computing features. RNNs use their internal state (memory) to process the sequence of data. They have shown great success in natural language processing and machine translation [@mikolov2013efficient]. RNNs usually are prone to short term memory problem [@hochreiter1997long]. The information flows from one cell to another sequentially and might be corrupted later in the network for longer sequences. Long short-term memory (LSTM) units or gated recurrent units (GRU) in RNN offer solutions to the short term memory problem [@cho2014learning].
4. [**Ensembles.**]{} An [*ensemble*]{} is a collection of multiple [*component neural networks*]{}. [*Ensemble averaging*]{} (EA) is a method to average out the outputs of multiple component neural networks in an ensemble. A [*meta neural network*]{} (MNN) may also be used for averaging out. Ensembles of neural networks often perform better than individual neural networks. Usually the data representations and the network types (e.g. FCNN or CNN or RNN) of all the neural networks in an ensemble are the same. An MNN if used is normally a shallow FCNN. We assume the FCNN, CNN, or RNN component neural networks used in ensembles are deep neural networks.
Methodologies\[secMethodologies\]
=================================
Our multimodal deep learning method uses multiple heterogeneous neural network types and data representations within an ensemble of neural networks. \[figMultimodal\] shows the proposed multimodal deep learning architecture. SMILES strings of chemical compounds are first transformed into a vector format, or a molecular image format, or a set of numerical features. Then, an RNN, a CNN, and an FCNN are trained respectively on the vector format, image format, and the numerical features. The coupling between the data representations and the neural network types are because the respective neural networks are the best suited ones for the respective data representations. The outputs of the component RNN, CNN, and FCNN are the averaged out through an EA method or using an MNN to obtain the final output. We further describe each part of the architecture.
(ss) at (-5,0) \[draw,text width=30,rounded corners=5\] [SMILES Strings]{};
(fcin) at (-3,-1.5) \[draw,thick\] [Transform]{}; (cin) at (-3,0) \[draw,thick\] [Transform]{}; (rin) at (-3,1.5) \[draw,thick\] [Transform]{};
(ss.south east) – (fcin.west); (ss.east) – (cin.west); (ss.north east) – (rin.west);
(tdd) at (-1,-1.5) \[draw,text width=30,rounded corners=5\] [Numerical Features]{}; (mi) at (-1,0) \[draw,text width=30,rounded corners=5\] [Molecular Images]{}; (vf) at (-1,1.5) \[draw,text width=30,rounded corners=5\] [Vector Format]{};
(fcin.east) – (tdd.west); (cin.east) – (mi.west); (rin.east) – (vf.west);
(fcnn) at (1,-1.5) \[draw,thick,minimum width=30,minimum height=20\] [FCNN]{}; (cnn) at (1,0) \[draw,thick,minimum width=30,minimum height=20\] [CNN]{}; (rnn) at (1,1.5) \[draw,thick,minimum width=30,minimum height=20\] [RNN]{};
(tdd.east) – (fcnn.west); (mi.east) – (cnn.west); (vf.east) – (rnn.west);
(fcout) at (2.75,-1.5) \[draw,rounded corners=5\] [Output]{}; (cout) at (2.75,0) \[draw, rounded corners=5\] [Output]{}; (rout) at (2.75,1.5) \[draw, rounded corners=5\] [Output]{};
(fcnn.east) – (fcout.west); (cnn.east) – (cout.west); (rnn.east) – (rout.west);
(ea) at (4.5,0) \[draw,thick,minimum height=30,text width=25\] [EA or MNN]{}; (fcout.east) – (ea.south west); (cout.east) – (ea.west); (rout.east) – (ea.north west);
(fout) at (6.5,0) \[draw,text width=30,rounded corners=5\] [Final Output]{};
(ea.east) – (fout.west);
Vector Representation
---------------------
Each character of a SMILES string is represented by a 50 component one-hot vector, where only one bit is high and all other bits are low.
Molecular Images
----------------
SMILES strings are used to generate 2D molecular images [@goh2018much]; see \[fig:Images\]. An open source python library rdkit is used to generate 2D drawings of the SMILES strings in the IGC50 dataset [@landrum2013rdkit]. The 2D coordinates are mapped onto a grid of size $100\times 100$ with a pixel resolution of $0.2\si{\angstrom}$. Depending upon the presence of bonds or atoms, the gray scale images are color coded with 4 channels. Each channel encode different information about the molecule. Layer zero is used for the information about the bonds and the other three layers are for atomic numbers, gasteiger charges, and hybridization.
![Computing a molecular image from 2D coordinates generated from a SMILES string by using an open source python library rdkit[]{data-label="fig:Images"}](Fig1.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Numerical Features
------------------
2D numerical features used are less multifarious in nature and easy to calculate. 1422 2D features are computed using an open source software PADEL descriptor [@yap2011padel]. The main reason for using 2D features is that these descriptors have shown promising prediction power in a previous study [@karim2019efficient].
Input Output
------------
All the three types of input data generated from the SMILES strings in the IGC50 dataset are fed into three types of suitable deep learning approaches to predict Pearson correlation coefficient $R^2$ values.
FCNN
----
We use a neural network with two hidden layers, each consisting of 100 units. The training data size is 1792 molecules with 1422 2D numerical features as described before. A random optimization technique [**REF**]{} is used to obtain the optimized values of the neural network parameters as shown in Table \[tab1\]. Adam optimization with default learning rate is used as the back propagation gradient descent [@kingma2014adam]. The drop out is used after first hidden layer only.
Parameter Name Parameter Value Parameter Name Parameter Value
---------------- ----------------- ------------------------- -----------------
Epochs 400 Initialization Function Glorot-Normal
DropOut 0.1 Activation (1st layer) Sigmoid
Mini-batch 1024 Activation (2nd layer) Relu
: Optimized parameters for FCNN[]{data-label="tab1"}
CNN
---
We use a three stage Resnet as shown in \[fig:Resnet\]a. The Resnet consists of residual connections (skip connections), which make it prone to the vanishing gradient problem [@he2016deep]. It allows the gradient to propagate to the early layer without vanishing. This type of skip connection is inherited in convolutional block and identity blocks in the network as shown in \[fig:Resnet\]b and c. Adam optimizer with default learning rate and 128 batch size are used. The number of epochs is 150 with an early stopping criterion. The implementation detail of each layer is given below.
![Resnet architecture used in CNN[]{data-label="fig:Resnet"}](Fig2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
- [**Input:**]{} Input image is of the shape ($100\times 100$) with 4 channels.
- [**Stage 1:**]{} The 2D convolution has 64 filters of shape (7, 7) and uses a stride of (2, 2). BatchNorm is applied to the channels axis of the input. MaxPooling uses a (3, 3) window and a (2, 2) stride.
- [**Stage 2:**]{} The convolutional block uses three set of filters of size \[64, 256, 256\] each with a shape (1, 1) and stride (1, 1). The identity block use two sets of filters of size \[64,256\] each with a shape (1, 1) and stride (1, 1).
- [**Stage 3:**]{} The convolutional block uses three set of filters of size \[128, 512, 512\] each with a shape (1, 1) and stride (1, 1). The identity block use two sets of filters of size \[128, 512\] each with a shape (1, 1) and stride (1, 1)
- [**Average pooling:**]{} The 2D average pooling uses a window of shape (2, 2).
- [**Flatten:**]{} It is a function that converts the pooled features from the max pooling layer into a single column feature vector.
- [**Fully connected:**]{} A dense layer which is fully connected to the previous single column vector generated by flatten. For a regression problem like in case of IGC50 molecular images, it consists of single neuron or unit.
RNN
---
We developed a variant of RNN which involves 1D convolutions instead of LSTM or GRU as shown in Figure \[fig:RNN\]. The reason of using 1D convolution instead of GRU or LSTM is because IGC50 molecules are shorter in length. All the unique SMILES characters in the sequence are mapped to integer numbers using a dictionary. One-hot vector encoded characters are fed into a network. An embedding layer is used to compute an embedded vector representation of SMILES sequence. It should be noted that ReLu activation function is used with convolution layers while linear activation function is used with fully connected or dense layer. Adam optimizer with default learning rate and 128 batch size is used. The number of epochs is 150 with an early stopping criterion. The implementation detail of the RNN architecture in Figure \[fig:RNN\] is given below.
(node1) at (-0.5,0) \[minimum height=30,text width=30\] [One-Hot Vectors]{}; (node2) at (2,0) \[draw,minimum height=30,text width=40\] [Embedding Layer]{}; (node3) at (5,0) \[draw,minimum height=30,text width=40\] [3 $\times$ 1D Convolution]{}; (node4) at (7.5,0) \[draw,minimum height=30,text width=40\] [Flatten]{}; (node5) at (10,0) \[draw,minimum height=30,text width=40\] [Fully Connected]{}; (node1) – (node2); (node2) – (node3); (node3) – (node4); (node4) – (node5);
- [**One-hot vectors:**]{} Every character of each SMILES string is one hot vector encoded and fed into embedded layer.
- [**Embedding layer:**]{} One-hot vectors for 50 dimensional space.
- [**1D convolution layer:**]{} Each 1D convolution is performed using 92 filters with size of 10, 5 and 3 respectively.
- [**Flatten:**]{} A function that flatten out the output of 1D convolution.
- [**Fully connected or dense:**]{} The fully connected layer computes the output. It is densely connected all neurons from the previous layer.
EA or MNN
---------
Each of the component FCNN, CNN, and RNN is trained independently. When the EA method is used, the final output is the average of the output of the component neural networks. When an MNN is used, we consider the outputs of the FCNN, CNN, and RNN as three input features to the MNN and then train the MNN. The MNN has only one hidden layer with 10 neurons. We use Adam optimizer with the default learning rate to optimise the MNN. Also, we use 400 epochs and an early stopping criterion. After performing hyper-parameter random search, we use mini-batch size of 512, drop-out of 0.4, glorot-normal initialization function and sigmoid activation.
Implementation
--------------
All the neural network models are built using a Keras deep learning framework on a system with NVidia Tesla K40 GPU.
Results\[secResults\]
=====================
We split the data into train(70%) and test(30%) sets randomly in the beginning of modeling. The test set is kept aside (blind) for the final testing after finalizing the hyper-parameters like epoch, drop-out, activation function, mini-batch size and initialization function using 5 fold cross-validation (CV) on the train set. Table \[tabResults\] presents the $R^2$ values obtained by component neural works, their ensembles, and the existing state-of-the-art methods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCNN CNN RNN EA MNN TopTox AdmetSAR Hybrid2D
---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---------------------------------------------------------- -------- ---------- ----------
CV 0.80 0.78 0.85 **0.88 & NA & 0.82 & 0.83\
Test & & 0.78 & 0.79 & 0.84 & **0.86 & 0.80 & NA & 0.81\
****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Performance comparison on ($R^2$) values using IGC50 dataset\[tabResults\][]{data-label="tab3"}
Component Neural Networks
-------------------------
FCNN achieves better performance than CNN and RNN on test and CV. For CV, FCNN achieves 2% better accuracy than CNN and 4% better than RNN. For test, FCNN outperforms CNN and RNN base model by 3% and 2% respectively.
Ensemble Performance
--------------------
For CV, the EA method improves the ($R^2$) value to 0.85 whereas the MNN approach improves it to 0.88. For test, the EA method improves the ($R^2$) value to 0.84 whereas the MNN approach improves it to 0.86.
Existing Methods
----------------
We compare the performance of our proposed methods with three state-of-the-art toxicity prediction methods. These three methods are described below.
1. [**TopTox**]{} [@wu2018quantitative] uses various types of approaches such as single task deep neural network, multi-task deep neural network and consensus models to verify the predictive power of element specific topological descriptors, auxiliary molecular descriptors (AUX), and a combination of both.
2. [**AdmetSAR**]{} [@yang2018admetsar] represents molecules by fingerprints such as MACCS, Morgan and AtomParis implemented with RDKit. Machine learning algorithms including RF, SVM, and KNN are used to build the models.
3. [**Hybrid2D**]{} [@karim2019efficient] is using hybrid optimization of shallow neural network and decision trees to prerdict $R^2$ values using only 2D Features.
As we see from Table \[tabResults\], performance of our ensembled approaches are better than that of all the three existing methods both on CV and test.
Analyses and Discussions
------------------------
From the results in Table \[tabResults\], it appears interesting that RNN with the vector representation of just SMILES strings and CNN with molecular images obtain similar performances on IGC50 datasets. It raises the question as to the usefulness of the CNN with molecular images. We leave this for future study. While ensembles improve performance over component neural networks, the MNN approach appears to be better than the EA approach.
We selected the IGC50 dataset which has relatively small compounds compared to the other datasets. This is because large molecules are difficult to encode in fixed sized 2D molecular images. We leave it for future study to use some other datasets or using some other data representations.
Conclusions\[secConclusions\]
=============================
Multimodal data representations and network types best suited to the data representations can capture various aspects of a machine learning task. In this paper, we propose a multimodal deep learning method that uses multiple heterogeneous neural network types and data representations. We represent the formula of a chemical compound in a textual language, in an image format and also in terms of numerical features. We then build an ensemble from various types of deep neural networks suitable for the data representations. Our multimodal approach is different from a typical ensembling approach as the latter uses homogeneous neural networks and data representations. On the IGC50 toxicity benchmark dataset, our proposed method obtains significantly better accuracy levels (0.84–0.88) than that (0.80–0.83) by the state-of-the-art toxicity prediction methods.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We gratefully acknowledge the support of NVIDIA Corporation with the donation of the Titan XP GPU used for this research.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study two-dimensional charge-imbalanced electron-hole systems embedded in an optical microcavity. We find that strong coupling to photons favors states with pairing at zero or small center of mass momentum, leading to a condensed state with spontaneously broken time-reversal and rotational symmetry, and unpaired carriers that occupy an anisotropic crescent-shaped sliver of momentum space. The crescent state is favoured at moderate charge imbalance, while a Fulde–Ferrel–Larkin–Ovchinnikov-like state — with pairing at large center of mass momentum — occurs instead at strong imbalance. The crescent state stability results from long-range Coulomb interactions in combination with extremely long-range photon-mediated interactions.'
author:
- Artem Strashko
- 'Francesca M. Marchetti'
- 'Allan H. MacDonald'
- Jonathan Keeling
bibliography:
- 'literature.bib'
title: 'Crescent states in charge-imbalanced polariton condensates'
---
*Introduction—* At low-carrier densities, electrons and holes in two-dimensional semiconductors pair into bosonic excitons that can condense at low enough temperatures [@keldysh1964possible; @comte82:exciton1; @high2012spontaneous; @fogler2014high; @Wang_Nature_2019]. Exciton condensation is expected to survive the frustration of unequal electron and hole densities [@Pieri2007; @Subashi2010; @Kazuo2010; @Parish_EPL2011; @Varley_Lee_PRB2016], which favors condensed electron-hole pairs that acquire a finite centre-of-mass momentum forming a state similar to the Fulde–Ferrel [@Fulde-Ferrell_PR1964] (FF) and Larkin–Ovchinnikov [@Larkin-Ovchinnikov_1964] (LO) phases (abbreviated as FFLO) known from superconductors. The prospect of FFLO phases has also been extensively discussed in the context of cold atoms [@sheehy2007bec]. Although FFLO phases are common to imbalanced two-component fermions with attractive interactions, more exotic alternatives, such as phase separation in momentum space (also named “breached pair” or “Sarma” phases) have been suggested in special cases [@sarma1963influence; @Forbes2005:BP]. In neutral systems, these uniform density imbalanced phases compete with, and are largely replaced by, phase separation in real space [@zwierlein2006fermionic; @partridge2006pairing; @shin2006observation]. For the charged electron-hole systems we focus on here, however, the electrostatic energy forbids phase separation and exotic uniform states are a stronger possibility.
![(a) Semiconductor quantum well embedded in a planar microcavity, with net charge tuned by a gate voltage between the bottom mirror and the grounded semiconductor. (b) Occupied bands with finite excitation and charge. (c) Typical anisotropic crescent state, represented by the electron occupation numbers, which reaches one at low temperatures inside the yellow crescent-shaped region. (d) $k_y=0$ momentum space slice of (c), showing both occupations and electron-hole coherence. Inside the Fermi surface (yellow in (c)), both conduction and valence bands are occupied so coherence vanishes. Elsewhere in momentum space only one state is occupied. Results were calculated using the model parameters explained in the text: target charge density $n_0 = 8.125 \times 10^{-2} {a_{\text{B}}}^{-2}$, excitation chemical potential relative to band gap $\mu_{ex}-E_G = {E_{\text{B}}}$, temperature $k_B T = 0.04{E_{\text{B}}}$, photon cutoff frequency $\omega_0 = 3.06{E_{\text{B}}}$, matter-light coupling momentum cutoff $\kappa = 2.5 {a_{\text{B}}}^{-1}$, matter-light coupling $g_0 = 0.8 {E_{\text{B}}}{a_{\text{B}}}$, mass ratio $m_e/m_h=1$, $\varepsilon = 1$, and capacitive energy $\alpha = 800 {E_{\text{B}}}{a_{\text{B}}}^2$. []{data-label="fig:cartoon"}](cartoon){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The boson condensation temperature increases significantly when optically-pumped two-dimensional semiconductors are placed in a planar microcavity, designed so that long-wavelength confined photons are close to resonance with excitons [@Kasprzak_Nature2006; @Balili2007a]. The resulting quasiparticles, exciton-polaritons, are photon–exciton hybrids, that have a greatly reduced mass [@Weisbuch1992]. This favors long-range coherence, and yields condensates that are more robust than without a cavity [@Carusotto:2013gh]. In this Letter we examine the influence of a resonant planar microcavity on condensation phenomena in 2D semiconductor structures with unequal electron and hole densities — see Fig. \[fig:cartoon\](a-b). We find strong matter-light coupling favors small pairing-momentum states over FFLO states with larger pairing momentum — specifically it induces breached pair states and anisotropic crescent states, explained below, which spontaneously break both rotational and time-reversal symmetry. The anisotropic states place excess carriers in a compact crescent-shaped sliver in momentum space on the edge of the region occupied by electron-hole pairs, as illustrated in Figs. \[fig:cartoon\](c-d), instead of spreading them isotropically. The crescent and breached pair states arise only because of coupling to light, and are stabilized by the small photon mass. Further, as discussed later, the anisotropy also requires long-range Coulomb interactions. As such, while the electron-hole-photon model we will introduce below is superficially similar to the two-channel model of ultracold fermionic atoms [@Giorgini08:RMP], there are crucial differences: For atoms, interactions are contact-like and, most importantly, the analogue of the photon is a “closed channel” molecular state, with a mass twice that of the atoms. In addition, phase separation in real space dominates the phase diagram of cold atoms [@zwierlein2006fermionic; @partridge2006pairing; @shin2006observation]. The states we propose here are therefore unique to polaritonic systems. The new crescent states can be identified experimentally by strongly anisotropic electrical transport characteristics that can be reoriented by altering the polariton-confinement landscapes or by weak resonant optical excitation. In the following we first explain the calculations that allow us to predict the crescent states, and then discuss properties that could identify them experimentally.
[*Model—*]{} We consider a model of electrons and holes confined in two-dimensional (2D) quantum wells, subject to Coulomb interactions, and coupled to cavity photons. The Hamiltonian is thus ($\hbar=1$, $4\pi\varepsilon_0=1$): $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:H}
\hat{H} = \sum_{{{\bf k}}} \left[ \left( \frac{k^2}{2m_e} + E_G \right) \hat{e}_{{{\bf k}}}^{\dagger} \hat{e}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}} +
\frac{k^2}{2m_h} \hat{h}_{{{\bf k}}}^{\dagger} \hat{h}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}} \right]
\\
+ \frac{1}{2S} \sum_{{{\bf k}},{{\bf k}}^\prime,{\mathbf{p}}} V_{{\mathbf{p}}}
\Big{\{}
\hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}+{\mathbf{p}}} \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}^\prime-{\mathbf{p}}} \hat{e}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}^\prime} \hat{e}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}} +
\hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}+{\mathbf{p}}} \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}^\prime-{\mathbf{p}}} \hat{h}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}^\prime} \hat{h}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}} \\ -
2 \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}+{\mathbf{p}}} \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}^\prime-{\mathbf{p}}} \hat{h}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}^\prime} \hat{e}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}}
\Big{\}} + \alpha S (\hat{n}_c - n_0)^2
\\
+ \sum_{{{\bf k}}} \omega_{{{\bf k}}} \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}} \hat{a}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}}
+ \sum_{{{\bf k}},{\mathbf{p}}}\frac{g_{{{\bf k}}} }{\sqrt{S}} \left( \hat{e}_{{{\bf k}}}^{\dagger} \hat{h}_{{\mathbf{p}}-{{\bf k}}}^{\dagger} \hat{a}^{\mathstrut}_{{\mathbf{p}}} + \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{{\mathbf{p}}} \hat{h}^{\mathstrut}_{{\mathbf{p}}-{{\bf k}}} \hat{e}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}} \right),\end{gathered}$$ where $S$ is the system area. The first term in $\hat{H}$ describes non-interacting electrons and holes with masses $m_{e}$ and $m_{h}$ in a two-dimensional semiconductor with band gap $E_G$. The second term is the mutual Coulomb interaction ${V_{{\bf p}}= 2 \pi e^2 / \varepsilon p}$, while the third term gives the dependence of the electrostatic energy on the system charge density. Here $\alpha=e^2 S/2C$ is an (intensive) capacitive scale, which depends on the gating geometry. The target charge density, $n_0$, is proportional to a tunable gate voltage. Typically $\alpha$ is large compared to the corresponding interaction scale ($e^2 n_{e}^{-1/2}/\varepsilon$) so that the actual charge imbalance which minimizes the free energy is nearly identical to the target charge density, i.e. $\langle \hat{n}_c \rangle \simeq n_0$, where $$\hat{n}_c = \frac 1 S \sum_{{\bf k}}\left( \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{\bf k}}\hat{e}^{\mathstrut}_{{\bf k}}- \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{\bf k}}\hat{h}^{\mathstrut}_{{\bf k}}\right) = \hat{n}_e - \hat{n}_h.$$ Including the electrostatic energy realistically, as we do in Eq. , allows us to use the grand-canonical ensemble without generating unphysical phase separations, and thereby allows us to consider more general variational ansatz states. The final line of Eq. accounts for the cavity photons and their coupling to electrons and holes. We assume a single branch of cavity photons, and approximate the dispersion as quadratic, $\omega_{{\bf k}}= \omega_0 + {k^2}/{2m_{ph}}$, with typical mass $m_{ph} \simeq 10^{-4} m_e$. In the following we measure lengths in units of the 2D exciton Bohr radius ${a_{\text{B}}}=\varepsilon/(2\mu e^2)$, where $\mu=m_em_h/(m_e+m_h)$, and energies in units of ${E_{\text{B}}}=1/(2\mu{a_{\text{B}}}^2)$.
To avoid the ultraviolet divergences produced by a momentum-independent matter-light coupling [@BCS_polariton; @polariton_MacDonald; @Kamide_Ogawa_PRL; @Kamide_Ogawa_PRB; @Levinsen2019], we take $g_{{{\bf k}}} = g_0 e^{- |{{\bf k}}|/\kappa}$, and choose $1/\kappa$ to be of the order of the material lattice constant. This cutoff breaks the theory gauge invariance under the replacement $\hat{e}_{{\mathbf{k}}} \to \hat{e}_{{\mathbf{k}} + e{\mathbf{A}}}, \hat{h}_{{\mathbf{k}}} \to \hat{h}_{{\mathbf{k}}-e{\mathbf{A}}}$, which could be recovered by taking $\kappa \to \infty$ and renormalizing the photon frequency; see Refs. [@Levinsen2019; @Supp]. Full gauge invariance requires consistency of the band and matter-light coupling Hamiltonians [@Andolina2019], and is crucial to recover the no-go theorems precluding ground state superradiance [@rzazewski75; @Andolina2019].
To control the excitation density we introduce a chemical potential $\mu_{ex}$, and replace $\hat{H} \to \hat{H} - S \mu_{ex} \hat{n}_{ex}$, where $$\hat{n}_{ex} = \frac{1}{S} \sum_{{{\bf k}}} \left[ \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{{\bf k}}\hat{a}^{\mathstrut}_{{\bf k}}+ {\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}}\left(\hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{\bf k}}\hat{e}^{\mathstrut}_{{\bf k}}+ \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{\bf k}}\hat{h}^{\mathstrut}_{{\bf k}}\right) \right].$$ The energy shift accounts for the time-dependence of the non-equilibrium condensates that form at finite excitation density. The no-go theorem does not apply for a system at finite excitation density [@eastham01]. We note that because we make the rotating wave approximation, equal shifts in $\omega_0,E_G$ and $\mu_{ex}$ have no effect.
[*Variational approach—*]{} To estimate the *finite temperature* phase diagram of our model, we use a variational ansatz for the density matrix [@kleinert2009path], $\hat{\rho}_{v} = \exp(-\beta \hat{H}_v)/\mathcal{Z}_v$, $\mathcal{Z}_v=\text{Tr}[\exp(-\beta \hat{H}_v)]$. We then minimise the free energy corresponding to this density matrix, $F_v=\langle \hat{H} \rangle_v + k_B T \, \text{Tr}[\hat{\rho}_v \ln \hat{\rho}_v] = \langle \hat{H} - \hat{H}_v\rangle_v - k_B T \ln \mathcal{Z}_v$, where $\langle \hat{X} \rangle_v = \text{Tr}(\hat{\rho}_v \hat{X})$. Standard thermodynamic identities allow one to show that $F_v$ is an upper bound on the true free energy.
The variational Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_v$ should be chosen to be solvable, and for our model, we should allow for electron-hole coherence, photon coherence, population imbalance, and arbitrary polariton momentum ${{\bf Q}}$. We therefore consider a variational Hamiltonian of the form: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{MF_var_hamilt}
\hat{H}_{v} =
\nu_{{{\bf Q}}} \sqrt{S} \phi ( \hat{a}^{\dagger}_{{\bf Q}}+ \hat{a}^{\mathstrut}_{{\bf Q}}) +
\sum_{{\bf q}}\nu_{{\bf q}}\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{{\bf q}}\hat{a}^{\mathstrut}_{{\bf q}}\\ + \sum_{{\bf k}}\begin{pmatrix}
\hat{e}_{\frac{{{\bf Q}}}{2} + {{\bf k}}}^{\dagger} & \hat{h}_{\frac{{{\bf Q}}}{2} - {{\bf k}}}^{\mathstrut}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\eta_{{{\bf k}}}^e & \Delta_{{{\bf k}}} \\
\Delta_{{{\bf k}}} & - \eta_{{{\bf k}}}^h
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat{e}_{\frac{{{\bf Q}}}{2} + {{\bf k}}}^{\mathstrut} \\
\hat{h}_{\frac{{{\bf Q}}}{2} - {{\bf k}}}^{\dagger}
\end{pmatrix}.\end{gathered}$$ We can derive an expression for $F_v$ in terms of the eigenvalues and eigenstates of $\hat{H}_{v}$ (see supplemental material [@Supp]). The first term in Eq. is chosen so that the photon density is $\phi^2$. The results below are then obtained by minimizing over the variational parameters ($\phi, \nu_{{\bf q}}, \eta^e_{{\bf k}}, \eta^h_{{\bf k}}, \Delta_{{\bf k}}, {{\bf Q}}$). Because this ansatz contains only pairing of fermions and displacement of bosons, it is equivalent to mean field theory approaches.
[*Pairing phases—*]{} Previous work [@Varley_Lee_PRB2016] explored the ground-state phase diagram of Eq. in the absence of coupling to photons, using the grand canonical ensemble with a charge imbalance chemical potential $\mu_c$ ($\hat{H} \to \hat{H} - \mu_c S \hat{n}_c $) in place of a realistic electrostatic energy [^1]. It predicted first order phase transitions between a balanced condensate with $\langle \hat{n}_c \rangle = 0$ and an imbalanced $\langle \hat{n}_c \rangle \neq 0$ anisotropic FFLO condensate with non-zero center-of-mass momentum $Q \sim |\langle \hat{n}_{e}\rangle^{1/2} - \langle \hat{n}_{h}\rangle^{1/2}|$. When applied to the exciton only problem, our more realistic description of electrostatics shows that the transition between a ${{\bf Q}}={{\bf 0}}$ condensate and the FFLO state (see Ref. [@Supp]) is continuous as a function of gate voltage.
When the balanced condensate is coupled to photons, it becomes a polaritonic state, with exciton–photon coherence, further lowering its energy. In contrast, coupling to photons has little influence on the FF state because excitons with center of mass momentum ${{\bf Q}}$ couple to photons at the same momentum, and the small photon mass places these far off resonance. The photon fraction in the FF state is therefore very small, and we thus refer to this state as dark. Coupling to photons therefore favors states with a small center of mass momentum. Numerical minimization indeed reveals that, at moderate imbalance, coupling to photons yields a bright polaritonic condensate state with ${{\bf Q}}$ small but non-zero. Surprisingly, this state accommodates excess charged carriers by spontaneously breaking rotational and time reversal symmetry. At larger imbalance, the expected FF phase is recovered — for the extremely charge imbalanced case, see Ref. [@tiene_2019].
![ Electron occupation $\langle \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{\mathbf{Q}}
/2 + {\mathbf{k}}} \hat{e}^{}_{{\mathbf{Q}}/2 + {\mathbf{k}}} \rangle$ [[ for various imbalance values $n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^2$: (a) 0, (b) $6.25\times 10^{-3}$, (c) $1.875 \times 10^{-2}$, (d) $0.125$, (e) $0.1875$, (f) $0.25$. ]{}]{} Labels on each panel indicate the phases as described in the text. [[ The values of $Q {a_{\text{B}}}$ are (c) $0.5 \times 10^{-6}$, (d) $0.5 \times 10^{-5}$, (f) $1.05$, ]{}]{} and zero for panels (a),(b),(e). Other parameters are as in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\]. []{data-label="fig:state_vs_n0"}](state_vs_n0){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:state\_vs\_n0\] shows how the electron momentum distribution changes with charge imbalance — corresponding cross sections showing also hole occupation and coherence are presented in [@Supp]. Panel (a) shows the case with $n_0=0$, i.e. balanced populations. At small $n_0$ (panel (b)), the state maintains ${{\bf Q}}={{\bf 0}}$ to take optimal advantage of the photon-mediated electron-hole coupling. In the zero temperature limit, accommodating extra charges requires forming a Fermi surface, which encloses regions of momentum space in which both valence and conduction band states are occupied. At low charge imbalance, the Fermi sea forms a ring at the outer edge of the region of paired electrons. We will refer to the state at low carrier densities as a “weak breached pair” (WBP) state, as it is reminiscent of the two-Fermi surface breached pair state described in Ref. [@Forbes2005:BP]. In contrast to the fully breached pair, the coherence in Fig. \[fig:state\_vs\_n0\](b), is only weakly suppressed in the region where extra electrons exist because the temperature is comparable to the conduction band Fermi energy. For intermediate values of $n_0$, illustrated in panels (c,d), we find a surprising broken rotational symmetry anistropic state with $0 < Q \ll |\langle \hat{n}_{e}\rangle^{1/2} - \langle \hat{n}_{h}\rangle^{1/2}|$. The unpaired carriers in this state are contained in a Fermi pocket with a crescent shape on the edge of the otherwise circular electron distribution, hence we refer to it as the crescent state (CS). As $n_0$ increases further, the crescent extends in angle. Eventually it is replaced by a filled annulus (panel e), equivalent to the breached pair (BP) state of Ref. [@Forbes2005:BP], and related to the Sarma state [@sarma1963influence]. Finally, at large enough $n_0$, one recovers the dark FF state. Further increasing $n_0$ brings the system to a normal state (not shown). This sequence occurs at high excitation density. At low excitation density (not shown) the BP state is replaced by a Sarma state where excess particles occupy a single isotropic Fermi surface [@sarma1963influence], matching the extreme imbalance limit [@tiene_2019].
[*Phase diagram —*]{} Figure \[fig:F\_phi\_dn\_anis\_vs\_n0\] illustrates how the minimum free energy state evolves with target charge density and temperature by plotting charge imbalance, electronic excitation density, photon density, and anisotropy $\mathcal{A} \equiv \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}}| \hat{{\mathbf{k}}} \cdot \hat{{\mathbf{Q}}} |\langle \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{\mathbf{Q}}/2 + {\mathbf{k}}} \hat{e}^{}_{{\mathbf{Q}}/2 + {\mathbf{k}}} \rangle / \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \langle \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{\mathbf{Q}}/2 + {\mathbf{k}}} \hat{e}^{}_{{\mathbf{Q}}/2 + {\mathbf{k}}} \rangle$. This figure demonstrates that that the crescent state persists over a wide temperature range, before being replaced by the weakly breached pair (isotropic) state. From this figure we see that most transitions, other than those into and out of the $BP$ state are continuous.
![[[Evolution of state with target charge density $n_0$ at $k_B T = 0.04 {E_{\text{B}}}$ (left) and with temperature $T$ at $n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^{2} = 0.075 $ (right);]{}]{} other parameters as in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\]. Top panels show excitonic density (black; left axis) and charge imbalance (blue; right axis). The dashed blue line shows $n_0$. Bottom panels show anisotropy (black; left axis) and photon density $\phi^2$ (blue; right axis).[]{data-label="fig:F_phi_dn_anis_vs_n0"}](n0_and_T_depend_together){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The quantities plotted in Fig. \[fig:F\_phi\_dn\_anis\_vs\_n0\] allow us to classify phases, and extract the phase diagrams in Fig. \[fig:ph\_diagr\]. Because the BP and crescent states have significant photon fractions, the small photon mass should allow them to survive to high temperature even when the collective fluctuations (absent in our mean-field theory) are included [@Keeling2005]. In contrast, the excitonic FF state should be restricted to low temperatures, due to the larger excitonic mass. Since the crescent state is stabilised by the matter-light coupling, an experimentally accessible way to alter its robustness is by changing the photon cutoff frequency, $\omega_0$, [*e.g.*]{}, using a wedge cavity. When the photon is detuned far above the exciton energy, the cavity plays little role and excitonic results should be recovered. Figure \[fig:ph\_diagr\](a) shows such a phase diagram, [*vs.*]{} $n_0$ and $\omega_0$. Because physical states require $\mu_{ex} < \omega_0$, the lower boundary of this phase diagram cuts off just above this limit. As expected the crescent state becomes less prominent with increasing $\omega_0$, although a narrow stability interval persists up to large detunings.
![ Phase diagrams. [[Left: vs charge density $n_0$ and photon cutoff frequency $\omega_0$ at $k_B T=0.04 {E_{\text{B}}}$. ]{}]{} [[Right: vs charge density $n_0$ and temperature $T$ at $\omega_0 = 3.06 {E_{\text{B}}}$. The dashed lines indicate $\omega_0 = 3.06{E_{\text{B}}}$ (left) and $k_B T = 0.04 {E_{\text{B}}}$ respectively.]{}]{} All other parameters are as in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\].[]{data-label="fig:ph_diagr"}](phase_diagrams){width="1.0\linewidth"}
[*Crescent State Properties—*]{} The crescent state is anisotropic, like the FF state, but has a significant photon fraction and a qualitatively smaller pairing momentum. Because of its anisotropy, it is not immediately clear whether it has zero net current as expected by Bloch’s theorem [@Bohm49:Bloch]. An explicit calculation shows that the crescent state has a non-zero excitonic current (electron current plus hole current) that is balanced by an equal and opposite photon current — i.e. a counterflow condensate state — generated by a shift in the condensate pair momentum from ${{\bf Q}}={{\bf 0}}$ to ${{\bf Q}}_{min} \ne 0 $ [^2]. The momentum shift balances matter energy gain against photon kinetic energy cost. Since the shift is small enough to leave the electron and hole distributions almost unchanged, we can approximate ${{\bf Q}}_{min} \simeq(m_{ph}/|\phi|^2 )[ \sum_{{{\bf k}}} {\mathbf{k}} [ \langle \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}} \hat{e}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}}\rangle/m_e + \langle \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}} \hat{h}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}} \rangle/m_h]$, [*i.e.*]{}, $|{{\bf Q}}_{min}|$ is parametrically small due to the small photon to electron mass ratio. Indeed, as noted in the caption of Fig. \[fig:state\_vs\_n0\], our numerical results for $|{{\bf Q}}_{min}|$ in the crescent state are orders of magnitude smaller than in the FF state.
Since Bloch’s theorem [@Bohm49:Bloch] can be generalized to a coupled photon-matter system, we expect that the charge current (electron current minus hole current) also vanishes. In our numerical calculations, we find that this cancellation is imperfect, but ascribe the non-zero numerical result to the UV matter-light coupling cutoff $\kappa$ discussed previously. In the supplemental material [@Supp], we show that this charge current vanishes as the UV cutoff diverges.
The crescent state is a metal with a Fermi surface for unpaired electrons, and we expect that it will exhibit metallic transport properties. The anisotropic Fermi surface in Fig. \[fig:state\_vs\_n0\] implies anisotropic electrical transport with larger conduction along the thin direction of the crescent, [*i.e.*]{} in the direction parallel to ${{\bf Q}}$, that can be used to identify the crescent state experimentally. Any weak perturbation, for example weak resonant excitation or spatial anisotropy of a weak polariton confinement landscape, can be used to control the sense of anisotropy - possibly [*in situ.*]{} Also, since the crescent state breaks inversion symmetry, nonlinear [*ac*]{} response is also expected to exhibit rectification.
Notably, both strong matter-light coupling and long-range Coulomb interactions are required to stabilize the CS crescent state. While the photon promotes ${{\bf Q}}\approx {{\bf 0}}$ pairing, it is the long-range Coulomb interaction which favors anisotropy. Indeed, screening the Coulomb interaction eventually leads to a continuous transition from the anisotropic crescent state to an isotropic state (see Ref. [@Supp]). We therefore expect that our mean-field calculations overestimate the stability range of the crescent state.
[*Conclusions—*]{} Since the crescent and breached pair unbalanced states are polaritonic, they are expected to survive to high temperatures and should therefore be accessible in current experiments involving doped quantum wells [@Brunhes_PRB1999; @Rapaport_PRB2001; @Qarry_SST2003; @Bajoni_PRB2006; @Gabbay_PRL2007; @Smolka_Science2014] or two-dimensional materials in cavities [@Sidler_NP2016; @chakraborty2018control; @fernandez2019electrically]. Our work focuses on the small imbalance regime where we are most confident about our conclusions. At high doping, one instead may consider Fermi-edge (Mahan) excitons, see e.g. [@mahan2013:many; @Pimenov_PRB2017] and refs. therein. Open questions include how the states we consider here connect to these Fermi-edge states, the effects of electronic screening in a charge doped system, and practical treatments that go beyond mean-field theory.
[*Acknowledgments—*]{} We acknowledge helpful discussions with J. Levinsen, M. Parish, and P. Pieri. The Flatiron Institute is a division of the Simons Foundation. AS acknowledges support from the EPSRC CM-CDT (EP/L015110/1) and a travel award from the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance. AS, AHM and JK acknowledge financial support from a Royal Society International Exchange Award, IES\\R2\\170213. FMM acknowledges financial support from the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO), project No. MAT2017-83772-R. JK acknowledges financial support from EPSRC program “Hybrid Polaritonics” (EP/M025330/1). AHM acknowledges support from Army Research Office (ARO) Grant \# W911NF-17-1-0312 (MURI). This work was performed in part at Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-1607611 and partially supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation.
Supplementary Material for: “Crescent states in charge-imbalanced polariton condensates”
========================================================================================
Variational free energy
=======================
We provide here explicit expressions for the variational free energy, $F_v$. To derive this, we note that diagonalising the Hamiltonian in Eq. requires a shift of the photon operator, $\hat{a}_{{\bf Q}}\to \hat{a}_{{{\bf Q}}} - \sqrt{S} \phi$. The fermionic part of the Hamiltonian is diagonalised by a unitary transform: $$\begin{pmatrix}
\hat{e}_{{{{\bf Q}}}/{2} + {{\bf k}}}^{} \\
\hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{{\bf Q}}}/{2} - {{\bf k}}}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
u_{{{\bf k}}} & \upsilon_{{{\bf k}}} \\
-\upsilon_{{{\bf k}}} & u_{{{\bf k}}}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat{c}_{+,{{\bf k}}}^{} \\
\hat{c}_{-,{{\bf k}}}^{\dagger}
\end{pmatrix} ,$$ where
\[u\_and\_v\_functions\] $$\begin{aligned}
u_{{{\bf k}}} &= \sqrt{\frac 1 2 \left( 1 + \frac{\eta_{{{\bf k}}}^e + \eta_{{{\bf k}}}^h }{2 E_{{{\bf k}}}} \right)}, \\
\upsilon_{{{\bf k}}} &= - \operatorname{sign}(\Delta_{{{\bf k}}})
\sqrt{\frac 1 2 \left( 1 - \frac{\eta_{{{\bf k}}}^e + \eta_{{{\bf k}}}^h }{2 E_{{{\bf k}}}} \right)}, \\
E_{{{\bf k}}} &= \sqrt{\left( \frac{\eta_{{{\bf k}}}^e + \eta_{{{\bf k}}}^h }{2} \right)^2 + \Delta_{{{\bf k}}}^2 }.
\label{eq:spectrum}\end{aligned}$$
We define the resulting eigenvalues of the diagonalised Fermionic problem as $$\varepsilon_{{{\bf k}}}^{\pm}=E_{{{\bf k}}} \pm (\eta^e_{{{\bf k}}} - \eta^h_{{{\bf k}}})/2.$$ Using this, expressions such as the electron $N_{{{\bf k}}}^e = \langle \hat{e}_{{{\bf k}}+ {\mathbf{Q}} / 2}^{\dagger} \hat{e}_{{{\bf k}}+ {\mathbf{Q}} / 2}^{} \rangle$ and hole $N_{{{\bf k}}}^h =\langle \hat{h}_{{\mathbf{Q}} / 2 - {{\bf k}}}^{\dagger} \hat{h}_{{\mathbf{Q}} / 2 - {{\bf k}}}^{} \rangle$ populations can be expressed in terms of variational parameters via: $$\begin{aligned}
N^e_{{\bf k}}&= u^2_{{\bf k}}n_F(\varepsilon^+_{{\bf k}}) + \upsilon^2_{{\bf k}}[ 1 - n_F(\varepsilon^-_{{\bf k}}) ],\\
N^h_{{\bf k}}&= \upsilon^2_{{\bf k}}[ 1 - n_F(\varepsilon^+_{{\bf k}})] + u^2_{{\bf k}}n_F(\varepsilon^-_{{\bf k}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $n_F(\varepsilon)$ is the Fermi distribution. Because the variational state is Gaussian, the expectations of quartic terms in the Hamiltonian can be decoupled via Wick’s theorem. When putting this all together, we will first take the continuum (large $S$ limit), where momentum sums become integrals. Then, as described in the main text, we use ${a_{\text{B}}}=\varepsilon/(2\mu e^2)$ as a lengthscale, and so introduce a dimensionless momentum $\tilde{{{\bf k}}}={a_{\text{B}}}{{\bf k}}$. We thus find:
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{variat_free_energy}
{\displaystyle\frac{F_v}{S {a_{\text{B}}}^{-2}}} =
- \int\!\frac{d\tilde{{{\bf k}}}}{(2 \pi)^2}
\Bigg{[}
\varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}} n_F(\varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}}) + \frac{1}{\beta} \ln \left( 1 + e^{-\beta \varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}}} \right) + (\varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}} \to \varepsilon^{-}_{{{\bf k}}})
\Bigg{]}
+
\frac{\alpha}{{a_{\text{B}}}^2}
\left\{
\iint \frac{d\tilde{{{\bf k}}} d\tilde{{{\bf k}}}'}{(2\pi)^4} N^c_{{\bf k}}N^c_{{{\bf k}}^\prime} - 2 n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^2 \int\! \frac{d\tilde{{{\bf k}}}}{(2\pi)^2} N^c_{{{\bf k}}}
\right\}
\\ + \frac{E^X_{ee} + E^X_{hh}}{S {a_{\text{B}}}^{-2}}
- \iint \frac{d\tilde{{{\bf k}}} d\tilde{{{\bf k}}}'}{(2\pi)^4}
\Bigg{\{}
\frac{V_{{{\bf k}}-{{\bf k}}^\prime}}{{a_{\text{B}}}^2}
u_{{{\bf k}}} \upsilon_{{{\bf k}}}
\Big{[}
1 - n_F(\varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}}) - n_F(\varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}})
\Big{]}
u_{{{\bf k}}^\prime} \upsilon_{{{\bf k}}^\prime}
\Big{[}
1 - n_F(\varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}^\prime}) - n_F(\varepsilon^{-}_{{{\bf k}}^\prime})
\Big{]}
\Bigg{\}} \\ +
\int \frac{d\tilde{{{\bf k}}}}{(2 \pi)^2}
\Bigg{\{}
E^e_{{{\bf k}}+ \frac{{{\bf Q}}}{2}} N^e_{{\bf k}}+
E^h_{\frac{{{\bf Q}}}{2} - {{\bf k}}} N^h_{{{\bf k}}}
\Bigg{\}}
+\phi^2 {a_{\text{B}}}^2 (\omega_{{\bf Q}}- \mu_{ex})
+
2\phi {a_{\text{B}}}\int \frac{d\tilde{{{\bf k}}}}{(2 \pi)^2}
\frac{g_{{{\bf k}}+\frac{{{\bf Q}}}{2}}}{{a_{\text{B}}}} u_{{{\bf k}}} \upsilon_{{{\bf k}}}
\Big{[}
n_F(\varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}}) + n_F(\varepsilon^{-}_{{{\bf k}}}) - 1
\Big{]}.\end{gathered}$$
Here $N^c_{{{\bf k}}} = N^e_{{\bf k}}- N^h_{{\bf k}}$, the bare electronic energies are:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{el_tot_energy}
E^e_{{{\bf k}}} &= {E_{\text{B}}}\frac{m_h \tilde{k}^2}{m_e + m_h}
+ E_G - \frac 1 2 \mu_{ex}, \\
E^h_{{{\bf k}}} &= {E_{\text{B}}}\frac{m_e \tilde{k} ^2}{m_e + m_h}
- \frac 1 2 \mu_{ex},
\label{hole_tot_energy} \end{aligned}$$
written in terms of ${E_{\text{B}}}=1/(2 \mu {a_{\text{B}}}^2)$ and the exchange energies $$\frac{E^X_{ee/hh}}{S {a_{\text{B}}}^{-2}} =
- \frac 1 2 \iint \frac{d\tilde{{{\bf k}}} d\tilde{{{\bf k}}}^\prime}{(2 \pi)^4} N^{e/h}_{{\bf k}}\frac{V_{{{\bf k}}-{{\bf k}}^\prime}}{{a_{\text{B}}}^2} N^{e/h}_{{{\bf k}}^\prime}.$$
We may note that in Eq. , the quantities $n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^2$ and $\phi {a_{\text{B}}}$ are dimensionless, while $\alpha/{a_{\text{B}}}^2$, $V_{{\bf p}}/{a_{\text{B}}}^2$ and $g_{{{\bf p}}}/{a_{\text{B}}}$ have units of energy as expected. For the Coulomb interactions, we may define: $$v_{\tilde{{{\bf p}}}} \equiv \frac{V_{{{\bf p}}}}{{a_{\text{B}}}^2} = \frac{2 \pi {E_{\text{B}}}}{\tilde{p}}$$ Since we include the global electrostatic energy explicitly, we use a definition where $V_{{{\bf 0}}}$ is set to zero.
Numerical evaluation
--------------------
At each point in the numerical minimisation, one must evaluate the energy and its derivatives. Calculation of the expectation of the Coulomb interactions requires a 4D integral of the form $$I_C = \iint d \tilde{{{\bf k}}} d \tilde{{{\bf k}}}^\prime f(\tilde{{{\bf k}}}) v_{\tilde{{{\bf k}}}-\tilde{{{\bf k}}}^\prime} f (\tilde{{{\bf k}}^\prime}).$$ Evaluating this on a grid of $N\times N$ points would require $N^4$ operations, significantly limiting the values of $N$ that can be used. However, by rewriting this integral one can significantly reduce the computational effort involved. Using the Fourier transform $\tilde{f}(\tilde{{{\bf x}}}) \equiv \int {d\tilde{{{\bf k}}}} f(\tilde{{{\bf k}}}) e^{i\tilde{{{\bf k}}}\cdot \tilde{{{\bf x}}}}/{(2\pi)^2}$, one can rewrite $I_C$ as a 2D integral in real space $I_C = \int d\tilde{{{\bf x}}} |\tilde{f}(\tilde{{{\bf x}}})|^2 \tilde{v}(\tilde{{{\bf x}}})$, which now requires only $N^2$ operations. At the same time, Fast Fourier Transform of a 2D function requires $O(N^2 \ln N)$ operations. Therefore, calculating the integral $I_C$ in real space reduces the scaling of the number of operations from $N^4$ to $N^2 \ln N$ allowing to do the full 2D optimisation efficiently on a reasonable momentum grid, e.g. for $10^4$ $k$-points. To implement the above idea, in the second line of Eq. we define $f(\tilde{{{\bf k}}}) = u_{{{\bf k}}} \upsilon_{{{\bf k}}}
[1 - n_F(\varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}}) - n_F(\varepsilon^{+}_{{{\bf k}}})]$. Exchange energies can be rewritten in the same way: $E^X_{ee/hh} = - \frac 1 2 \int d{{\bf x}}|\tilde{N}^{e/h}({{\bf x}})|^2 \tilde{v}(\textbf{x})$.
We numerically implement the minimisation by using the truncated Newton algorithm from the SciPy [@SciPy] library. As local minima can exist in the free energy landscape (see below), we use a method equivalent to an adiabatic sweep. Specifically, as we vary a control parameter, we use the optimal variational parameters found for one value of the control parameter as initial conditions for the minimisation at the next value of the control parameter. As discussed further below, where there can be hysteresis, we use repeated sweeps with increasing and decreasing control parameters.
Electron, hole and coherence cross sections at ky=0 {#sec:state_vs_n0__ky_0}
===================================================
![Cross sections at $k_y=0$, showing the electron and hole populations, and electron-hole coherence. Panels shown here correspond to those shown in Fig. \[fig:state\_vs\_n0\] of the main text. []{data-label="fig:state_vs_n0__ky_0_cut"}](state_vs_n0__ky_0_cut){width="1.0\linewidth"}
![Cross sections at $k_y=0$ for various temperatures as indicated, [[for charge density $n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^2=0.075$. ]{}]{} All other parameters as in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\] of the main text. []{data-label="fig:state_vs_T__ky_0_cut"}](state_vs_T__ky_0_cut){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Figures \[fig:state\_vs\_n0\_\_ky\_0\_cut\] and \[fig:state\_vs\_T\_\_ky\_0\_cut\] show cross sections of the electron and hole densities and the coherence function at varying charge density and temperature. In plotting these figures, the rotational symmetry breaking is always chosen such that there is symmetry about the $k_y=0$ line, so that any crescent will intersect the cross section shown. As also discussed in the caption of Fig. \[fig:cartoon\] of the main text, these cross sections show that within the crescent or ring, both conduction and valence bands are occupied, while at other momenta, a total of one band is filled, so that electron and hole populations are equal. At low enough temperatures, the crescent or breached pair states show a complete suppression of the hole population within the Fermi surface. When the temperature becomes comparable to the conduction band Fermi energy, the suppression is weaker.
First-order phase transitions {#sec:CC_BP_1st_ord_ph_tr}
=============================
As seen from the evolution of the anisotropy order parameter with charge imbalance shown in Fig. \[fig:F\_phi\_dn\_anis\_vs\_n0\], the transition from the crescent state (CS) state to the breached pair (BP) state is discontinuous. This indicates the transition is first order, associated with the existence of two distinct local minima of the free energy. Figure \[fig:increasing\_decreasing\_n\_0\] shows that corresponding to this, one sees hysteresis in the anisotropy, as measured by comparing an adiabatic sweep of increasing vs decreasing the charge density $n_0$.
![Hysteresis associated with the counterflow condensate to breached pair transition. Data is collected using adiabatic sweeps of charge density (i.e. using minimum found at the previous value of $n_0$ as the initial guess for the next value of $n_0$). Three sweeps are shown; first increasing $n_0$ (f1), then decreasing $n_0$ (b) and then again increasing $n_0$ (f2). The first forward sweep did not achieve a global minimum so should be discarded; the subsequent sweeps do find consistent solutions for most $n_0$, but hysteresis is seen around the CS-BP transition. All other parameters are as in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\].[]{data-label="fig:increasing_decreasing_n_0"}](increasing_decreasing_n_0){width="1.0\linewidth"}
As well as the existence of separate local minima for the CS and BP state, one can also find parameter regimes where the CS and FF state solutions exist as competing local minima. Indeed, as seen from the phase diagram, Fig. \[fig:ph\_diagr\], at large photon energy $\omega_0$, there is a direct CS-FF transition. Figure \[fig:fflo\_vs\_crescent\] illustrates this, showing the free energy landscape vs $Q$ and the solutions corresponding to the two local minima.
![Coexisting local minima corresponding to counterflow condensate and FFLO states. Top panels show the free energy and photon order parameter vs pairing wavevector $Q$. The top left panel is an expanded region of small $Q$ around the optimal wavevector for the CS state. The bottom two panels show the electron mode occupation for the CS (left) and FF (right) solutions, corresponding to the red stars shown in the top panels. [[Parameters are $n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^2 = 0.1$, $\omega_0 = 3.1 {E_{\text{B}}}$, ]{}]{} and all other parameters as in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\][]{data-label="fig:fflo_vs_crescent"}](fflo_vs_crescent){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Gauge invariance {#sec:cutoff_and_gauge_inv}
================
As mentioned in the Letter, the exponential momentum cutoff $\kappa$ for the matter-light interaction regularise the UV divergence, but breaks gauge invariance. In this section we discuss the consequence of this and a possible way to restore the gauge invariance by considering $\kappa \to \infty$ and renormalising the photon frequency [@Levinsen2019]. We focus here on the invariance under transformations involving a static and uniform change of the vector potential, as these are sufficient to understand the issues introduced by the cutoff $\kappa$. A more complete discussion of the necessity of gauge invariant models when considering ground-state phase transitions can be found in Ref. [@Andolina2019].
Consider a simple gauge transformation by adding a constant vector-potential to the electron and hole momenta, ${{\bf k}}\to {{\bf k}}\pm e {{\bf A}}$, where $e$ is the electronic charge, and the sign of shift depends on the type of quasiparticle. After this shift the kinetic energy part of the Hamiltonian then becomes: $$\sum_{{{\bf k}}}
\frac{1}{2m}
\Bigg{\{}
\left({{\bf k}}+ e{{\bf A}}\right)^2 \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}} \hat{e}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}} + \left({{\bf k}}- e{{\bf A}}\right)^2 \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}} \hat{h}^{\mathstrut}_{{{\bf k}}}
\Bigg{\}}.$$ To be gauge invariant, the model must be invariant under this transformation. Relabeling operators $\hat{e}_{{{\bf k}}} \to \hat{e}_{{{\bf k}}+e{{\bf A}}}$ and $\hat{h}_{{{\bf k}}} \to \hat{h}_{{{\bf k}}-e{{\bf A}}}$ clearly recovers the original kinetic part of the Hamiltonian. One can also readily check that this relabeling does not affect the Coulomb term. However, it does change the matter-light interaction term $\sum_{{{\bf k}}} g_{{{\bf k}}}^{\mathstrut} \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}} \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf q}}-{{\bf k}}} \hat{a}_{{{\bf q}}}^{\mathstrut}$, as this now becomes: $$\sum_{{{\bf k}}} g_{{{\bf k}}}^{\mathstrut} \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}+e{{\bf A}}} \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf q}}-{{\bf k}}-e{{\bf A}}}\hat{a}_{{{\bf q}}}^{\mathstrut} =
\sum_{{{\bf k}}} g_{{{\bf k}}-e{{\bf A}}}^{\mathstrut} \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf k}}} \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf q}}-{{\bf k}}}\hat{a}_{{{\bf q}}}^{\mathstrut}.$$ One clearly sees that the momentum dependence of the coupling constant makes the model gauge dependent.
The total charge current can be related to the derivative of the free energy with respect to vector potential, i.e. ${\bf j_A}=d F/d {{\bf A}}$. Since the free energy $F$ of a gauge-invariant model cannot depend on a constant gauge shift, the charge current in such a case is identically zero. However, since our model breaks the gauge invariance, $F({{\bf A}})$ has a minimum at a non-zero value of ${{\bf A}}$, which implies a finite charge current at ${{\bf A}}={{\bf 0}}$, ${\bf j_0}=dF/d{{\bf A}}|_{{{\bf A}}={{\bf 0}}}$.
To recover gauge invariance within our model, one needs a momentum independent coupling $g_{{\bf k}}$, or equivalently, to send the cut-off to infinity, $\kappa \to \infty$. This introduces an ultraviolet divergence, however, as shown in Ref. [@Levinsen2019], this divergence can be removed renormalising the bare photon frequency. Following Ref. [@Levinsen2019], one can show that to keep the renormalised photon frequency constant under a change in the momentum cutoff from $\kappa_1$ to $\kappa_2$ requires a shift of the bare photon energy $\omega_0$. At large $\kappa$ this shift is approximately given by $\delta \omega_0 \approx (g_0^2 \mu / \pi) \ln(\kappa_2 / \kappa_1)$. In Fig. \[fig:Gauge\_question\] we plot $F({{\bf A}})$ for various values of the cutoff, [[$\kappa {a_{\text{B}}}= 2.5, 3.75, 5.0$.]{}]{} In plotting this figure, we in fact choose the value $\omega_0$ at each cutoff $\kappa$ so as to ensure that the free energy at $A=0$ remains constant. Note that this means that in this figure we implicitly use a renormalisation scheme where the shift of $\omega_0$ is chosen for the non-zero value of $n_0$ used in this figure. The bare frequencies used are given in the caption.
![(a) Free energy $F({{\bf A}})$ versus constant vector potential shift ${{\bf A}}$ and (b) corresponding charge current, ${\bf j_A}=dF({{\bf A}})/d{{\bf A}}$. [[The three lines correspond to photon cutoff frequency and momentum cutoffs $\omega_0 = 3.06 {E_{\text{B}}}, \kappa = 2.5 {a_{\text{B}}}^{-1}$ (blue), $\omega_0 = 3.1055 {E_{\text{B}}}, \kappa = 3.75 {a_{\text{B}}}^{-1}$ (orange) and $\omega_0 = 3.1435 {E_{\text{B}}}, \kappa = 5.0{a_{\text{B}}}^{-1}$ (green).]{}]{} (c,d) electron occupations at the positions of the free energy minima [[for $\kappa=2.5 {a_{\text{B}}}^{-1}$ and $\kappa=5.0 {a_{\text{B}}}^{-1}$. Target charge density $n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^2 = 0.1$;]{}]{} all other parameters are the same as in the main part of the paper.[]{data-label="fig:Gauge_question"}](Gauge_question){width="1.0\linewidth"}
From Fig. \[fig:Gauge\_question\] we see firstly that the overall scale of the current (or equivalently the variation of the $F({{\bf A}})$ with ${{\bf A}}$) reduces with increasing cutoff. Moreover, in the right panels of this figure we plot the electron mode occupations at the minimum of $F({{\bf A}})$, $A_{min}$, for [[$\kappa{a_{\text{B}}}= 2.5, 5.0$.]{}]{} It is clear that changing the cutoff does not significantly change the electron distribution. These results suggest that, in the limit $\kappa \to \infty$, by renormalising the bare photon frequency, we obtain gauge invariant results, which remain qualitatively the same as those we found with a finite cutoff.
Second-order BC-FF phase transition without a photon, me=mh
===========================================================
In this section we present the behaviour of the purely excitonic system, using the explicit gating scheme we consider to fix the charge density. Previous work [@Varley_Lee_PRB2016] found a first order transition between a balanced condensate phase and an FFLO state, by working in the grand canonical ensemble and thus introducing a chemical potential for imbalance, $H \to H - \mu_{c} S n_c $. However, Ref. [@Varley_Lee_PRB2016] also neglected intraspecies interactions, i.e. electron-electron and hole-hole repulsion. @Subashi2010 in contrast found that including such intraspecies interactions makes phase transitions continuous. Here, we show that with our explicit gating process and including intraspecies interactions, even in the absence of photons, we indeed observe a second order transition, with the pairing $Q$-vector growing continuously as density imbalance increases — see Fig. \[fig:fflo\_2nd\_opt\]. As shown in the figure, we in fact find that, within our gating model, a narrow region of a weakly breached pair state exists between the balanced condensate and FFLO states — i.e. a state with excess charge density on a ring near the Fermi surface.
![Second order phase transitions for the excitonic limit (no coupling to light). (a) Evolution of anisotropy (black, left) and center of mass momentum $Q$ (blue, right) vs increasing density imbalance $n_0$. (b) Momentum resolved net charge distribution $N_{{{\bf k}}}^c=\langle \hat{e}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf Q}}/2 + {{\bf k}}} \hat{e}^{}_{{{\bf Q}}/2 + {{\bf k}}} - \hat{h}^{\dagger}_{{{\bf Q}}/2 - {{\bf k}}} \hat{h}^{}_{{{\bf Q}}/2 - {{\bf k}}} \rangle$ at small imbalance, showing a weakly BP state. (c) Same quantity at larger imbalance, showing the appearance of the FF state. (d) Electron and hole occupation, coherence at [[$n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^2 = 0.01$]{}]{} — just into the FF state. Note the opposite momentum offset for electron and hole states.[]{data-label="fig:fflo_2nd_opt"}](fflo_2nd_opt){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Energetic origin of the CS state
================================
Effects of screening on the CS state
------------------------------------
While it is the coupling to light which stabilizes ${{\bf Q}}\simeq {{\bf 0}}$ imbalanced states vs FF states, in this section we prove that the anisotropic crescent state also requires long-ranged Coulomb interactions. To demonstrate this, Fig. \[screening\_effect\] shows how the anisotropy changes as we introduce screening of the Coulomb interaction. We consider a Yukawa potential, $V_{{\bf k}}(\kappa_S) = 2\pi e^2 / \varepsilon(k + \kappa_S)$, where $1/\kappa_S$ is a screening length, such that $\kappa_S=0$ recovers the unscreened Coulomb interaction. As seen in Fig. \[screening\_effect\], the anisotropy vanishes when the screening length approaches the bare exciton Bohr radius. From the colormaps, we see that as anisotropy vanishes, the crescent state is replaced by the breached pair state.
![ Effect of screening $V_{{\bf k}}(\kappa_S) = 2\pi e^2 / \varepsilon(k + \kappa_S)$; [[$n_0{a_{\text{B}}}^2 = 0.1$, $\omega_0 = 3.06 {E_{\text{B}}}$,]{}]{} other parameters are the same as in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\]. Top left panel shows the dependence of anisotropy on screening. Other panels show electron occupations corresponding to points highlighted by red crosses. []{data-label="screening_effect"}](screening_effect){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Competition of kinetic and Coulomb energies
-------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:nature\_CC\_BP\] provides further evidence that the Coulomb interactions are important in driving the formation of the anisotropic phase. In this figure we show have the electronic kinetic and Coulomb energies vary as we cross the boundary between the CS and BP phase. For the first order transition with increasing target charge density, we see clearly that the first order boundary is a competition between the CS state, with higher kinetic energy and lower exchange, and the BP state with lower kinetic energy but higher exchange. This confirms the conclusion above that it is the long-range Coulomb interaction which favours the CS state.
![Energy decomposition of free energy at the boundary of CS and BP phases. Top left and right panels show, for reference, anisotropy versus charge density $n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^2$ and temperature $T$ respectively. Bottom panels show corresponding kinetic energy (sum of electron and hole kinetic energies) and exchange energy (total of electron-electron, hole-hole and electron-hole terms). All parameters are the same as in left and right panels of Fig. \[fig:F\_phi\_dn\_anis\_vs\_n0\] respectively.[]{data-label="fig:nature_CC_BP"}](nature_CC_BP){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Mass imbalance
==============
In the Letter, we presented results only for the case where the conduction and valence band have equal masses. In this section, we show how mass imbalance — which is usually present in real materials — affects the CS state.
![(a) Anisotropy versus target charge density $n_0$ at different mass imbalance. (b-e) electron occupations at [[$n_0 {a_{\text{B}}}^2 = 0.075$ ]{}]{} corresponding to different mass ratios as labelled. All other parameters are the same as in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\].[]{data-label="Q0state_anis_vs_memh"}](Q0state_anis_vs_memh){width="1.0\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[Q0state\_anis\_vs\_memh\] we plot the dependence of anisotropy on $n_0$, and the electron occupations at [[$n_0 = 0.075 {a_{\text{B}}}^{-2}$,]{}]{} for four values of $m_e/m_h$ ranging from $0.1$ to $4.0$. Typically electron mass is lower than the hole mass, $m_e/m_h<1$. However, since our Hamiltonian is invariant under a transformation $e \leftrightarrow h, n_0 \to -n_0$, one can consider the behaviour for $m_e/m_h > 1$ as indicating the behaviour when there is hole doping rather than electron doping.
Clearly, all results are qualitatively the same, although as seen from Fig. \[Q0state\_anis\_vs\_memh\](a), a reduced mass ratio shrinks the range of $n_0$ where the CS state occurs. In addition, changing mass ratio distorts the region of momentum space where the extra electrons are found. Heavier electrons — Fig. \[Q0state\_anis\_vs\_memh\](e) — lead to a more extended crescent, while lighter electrons to a less extended one — Fig. \[Q0state\_anis\_vs\_memh\](b).
At yet higher target charge densities $n_0$, the system adopts either the FF state or a normal state. When the mass ratio $m_e/m_h$ becomes small (for electron doping), the FF state becomes less stable, and is replaced by the normal state [@Varley_Lee_PRB2016]. This comes from the increased separation of electron and hole Fermi surfaces when $m_e \ll m_h$ and $n_e > n_h$. In contrast, the opposite mass ratio brings Fermi energies closer.
[^1]: Ref. [@Varley_Lee_PRB2016] however neglects intraspecies interactions which may affect its conclusions, see [@Subashi2010]
[^2]: We note that in principle a similar statement, that a non-zero photon current and exciton current exist, but cancel at the optimum ${{\bf Q}}$, also holds for the FF state. However as the FF state is almost entirely dark, this photonic current is negligible.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A. S. Rajpurohit , F. Allard , G. D. C. Teixeira , D. Homeier , S. Rajpurohit , O. Mousis'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
date: 'Received May 1, 2016; accepted '
title: Photospheric properties and fundamental parameters of M dwarfs
---
[M dwarfs are an important source of information when studying and probing the lower end of the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram, down to the hydrogen-burning limit. Being the most numerous and oldest stars in the galaxy, they carry fundamental information on its chemical history. The presence of molecules in their atmospheres, along with various condensed species, complicates our understanding of their physical properties and thus makes the determination of their fundamental stellar parameters more challenging and difficult. ]{} [The aim of this study is to perform a detailed spectroscopic analysis of the high-resolution H-band spectra of M dwarfs in order to determine their fundamental stellar parameters and to validate atmospheric models. The present study will also help us to understand various processes, including dust formation and depletion of metals onto dust grains in M dwarf atmospheres. The high spectral resolution also provides a unique opportunity to constrain other chemical and physical processes that occur in a cool atmosphere. ]{} [The high-resolution APOGEE spectra of M dwarfs, covering the entire H-band, provide a unique opportunity to measure their fundamental parameters. We have performed a detailed spectral synthesis by comparing these high-resolution H-band spectra to that of the most recent BT-settl model and have obtained fundamental parameters such as effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity (${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ and \[Fe/H\], respectively). ]{} [We have determined ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ and \[Fe/H\] for 45 M dwarfs using high-resolution H-band spectra. The derived ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ for the sample ranges from 3100 to 3900 K, values of ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ lie in the range 4.5 $\le$ ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ $\le$ 5.5, and the resulting metallicities lie in the range -0.5 $\le$ \[Fe/H\] $\le$ +0.5. We have explored systematic differences between effective temperature and metallicity calibrations with other studies using the same sample of M dwarfs. We have also shown that the stellar parameters determined using the BT-Settl model are more accurate and reliable compared to other comparative studies using alternative models. ]{}
Introduction
============
The lower end of the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram has proven extremely useful in the last few decades as most of the very-low-mass stars (VLM) in the Galaxy are located in that region. Seventy percent of the Galactic stellar population [@Bochanski2010] consists of these VLMs, in particular M dwarfs, and they contribute approximately 40$\%$ of the total stellar mass budget of the Galaxy [@Gould1996; @Mera1996; @Henry1998]. Depending on its metallicity, the mass of any particular M dwarf ranges from 0.6 $M_{\odot}$ to the hydrogen-burning limit of about 0.075 $M_{\odot}$ [@Chabrier2000]. M dwarf populations show great diversity, in that one can find young metal-rich M dwarfs in open clusters, whereas galactic halos [@Green1994] and the globular clusters [@Cool1996; @Renzini1996] are known to host metal-poor M dwarfs that are billions of years old. Therefore, M dwarfs are one of the most important stellar components of the Galaxy, carrying fundamental information on the Galaxy’s structure, formation, and chemical history. Recently, brown dwarfs and super earths were found around M dwarfs [@Bonfils2012; @Anglada2016; @Gillon2017] which makes them an important laboratory to study and understand their formation.
Despite the large number of M dwarfs in the Galaxy, a homogenous sample, in terms of age and metallicity, is very difficult to obtain, as high-resolution images and good S/N spectra are rare because of their intrinsics faintness. Moreover, the non-existence of true continuum makes it difficult or impossible to isolate different spectral diagnostics and to disentangle the effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity (${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$, and \[Fe/H\]). The presence of diatomic and triatomic molecules along with dust in M dwarf atmospheres, as we go from early to late M dwarfs, makes access to the spectral continuum nearly impossible both in the optical and in the near-infrared (NIR). Nevertheless, because of their cool temperature and low metal content, M dwarfs provide the best laboratory to study the dust and cloud formation as well as radiative transfer in their atmosphere.
As the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ of M dwarfs decreases from early to late M dwarfs, the optical and NIR spectra of M dwarfs indicate large numbers of diatomic (SiH, CaH, TiO, VO, CrH, FeH, OH, CO) and triatomic (CaOH, H$_2$O) molecules. The Rayleigh-Jeans branch of M dwarfs spectral energy distribution (SED) in Infra-Red (IR) (>1.3 $\mu$m) is dominated by the H$_2$O and CO molecular absorption bands, whereas in the corresponding optical part (>0.4 $\mu$m) to near-IR (<1.3 $\mu$m) their SED is governed by TiO, VO and metal hydrides. Due to the presence of the these complex and crowded band structures, access to true continuum is not possible, and thus a pseudo-continuum is created, which usually shows the strongest and often resonant atomic lines at lower resolution [@Allard1990; @Allard1995]. In cooler M dwarfs with spectral type M6 or later, the outermost temperatures of their atmospheres are cool enough to form dust and clouds [see e.g., @Tsuji1996a; @Tsuji1996b; @Allard1997; @Ruiz1997; @Allard1998]. These various physical and chemical processes complicate the understanding of their cool atmospheres, thus making determination of their stellar properties even more difficult.
The proper classification of M dwarf spectra requires the comparison of a grid of synthetic spectra with observations. These comparisons can thus be used to derive M dwarfs’ fundamental parameters. Such comparisons also help to disentangle and quantify basic physical properties and fundamental parameters such as ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$, and \[Fe/H\]. Thus far, ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$, and \[Fe/H\]) have not been determined for M dwarfs with great accuracy. Different groups have used various traditional techniques to estimate the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ of M dwarfs based on broadband photometry and black-body approximations. These relatively old, traditional techniques are not as reliable because the true continua of cool M-dwarfs is embedded in complex and broad molecular absorptions. Furthermore, in M dwarf atmospheres, the complexity increases significantly as dust and cloud formation occurs with decreasing ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$. In the optical part of their SEDs, this can be seen as the weakening of TiO-, VO-, CaH-, and CaOH-band opacities by dust Rayleigh scattering, whereas as in the infrared (IR) region, the weakening of water bands occurs due to the greenhouse effect [@Allard2001] or dust back-warming.
Models of the atmospheres of cool, low-mass stars and substellar objects have been the subject of tremendous development in recent decades [@Brott2005; @Helling2008a; @Allard2012; @Allard2013]. Because of this advancement, a number of studies is being carried out to derive the accurate stellar parameters of very-low-mass stars and brown dwarfs using both optical and near-infrared (NIR) observations [@Burgasser2006; @Bayo2014; @Bayo2017; @Rajpurohit2012a; @Rajpurohit2013; @Rajpurohit2014; @Rajpurohit2016]. [@Bayo2017] and [@Bayo2014] show the importance of consistent fundamental parameters by estimating their atmospheric parameters from optical and in the NIR with low-resolution spectra and photometry of M dwarfs, simultaneously. Through revised solar abundances by [@Asplund2009] and [@Caffau2011], and by incorporating updated atomic and molecular line opacities which govern the SED of M dwarfs, atmospheric models such as the BT-Settl [@Allard2013] have seen major improvements in modeling various complex molecular absorption bands. These updated models now also include dust and cloud formation [@Allard2013; @Baraffe2015], which is important for cool M-dwarfs and metal-poor M subdwarfs (sdM), and thus yield promising results which explain the stellar-to-substellar transition and confirm the work of [@Rajpurohit2012a].
In comparison to our Sun, the determination of atmospheric parameters for M dwarfs is very different and challenging. Stellar parameters, such ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ , of M dwarfs remain model-dependent to some extent. There have been many attempts to derive the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ scale of M dwarfs with respect to constant age and metallicity. Due to the lack of very reliable model atmospheres in the past, [@Bessell1991] used indirect methods to derive the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ scale of M dwarfs based on black-body fitting to the NIR bands, whereas [@Wing1979] and [@Veeder1974] fitted much cooler black body to the optical. [@Tsuji1996a] and [@Casagrande2008] provided a good ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ determination using an infrared flux method (IRFM) for dwarfs including M dwarfs. The M dwarfs in the Rayleigh Jeans tail (mostly red-wards of 2.5 $\mu$m) carry little flux compared to black body, thus the IRFM method tends to underestimate ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ for M dwarfs. [@Boyajian2012] used another approach which is based on interferometrically determined radii and bolometric fluxes from photometry to calculate the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ for nearby K and M dwarfs, whereas [@Mann2015] determined the radius and mass by combining the empirical mass-luminosity relationships with evolutionary models, which in turn depend on the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ and metallicity.
Recently, [@Rajpurohit2013] determined the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ of nearby bright M dwarfs from the low-resolution spectra observed in the visible wavelength using the updated BT-Settl model atmosphere. Their study shows that these updated models can now reproduce the slope of their SED very well, unlike previous studies by [@Leggett1996; @Leggett1998; @Leggett2000; @Leggett2001] using previous versions of these models, which were using incomplete opacities and other inaccuracies. The ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ of M dwarfs can be determined with the help of high-resolution spectra [@passegger2016; @Rajpurohit2016]. [@passegger2016; @Rajpurohit2016] used gravity-sensitive features such as Na I, K I and Ca I lines to determine the surface gravity in the optical. Other authors used interferometry to determine the angular diameter of the M dwarfs, together with mass-luminosity relations to derive the mass and ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ (e.g. [@Segransan2003]).
A proper metallicity calibration for M-dwarfs is essential to determine the planet star metallicity relation, which for FGK stars tends towards the super solar metallicities. The metallicity determination of M dwarfs can be done in two ways: photometric- and spectroscopic-based methods which are limited to the moderate-resolution spectra in the visible [@Woolf2006; @Woolf2009], and in the infrared [@Mann2013; @Mann2014; @Terrien2012; @Rojas2010; @Newton2014]. The former techniques use M dwarf photometry in the visible and infrared bands to create \[Fe/H\] calibrations [@Bonfils2005; @Johnson2009; @Schlaufman2010], while the latter ones rely on low- to high-resolution spectra to measure indices and lines in order to establish spectroscopic calibrations or compare them to synthetic spectra, made from M dwarf atmospheric models [@Valenti1998; @Bean2006b; @Bean2006a; @Lindgren2017]. Recently [@Souto2017] presented the first detailed near-IR chemical abundance analysis observed by SDSS-IV-Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE, [@Majewski2015]). The ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ values adopted in this study were derived from the photometric calibrations for M dwarfs by [@Mann2015] for the V-J and R-J colors.
In this paper, we take advantage of the updated BT-Settl model grid and high-resolution H-band spectra to determine the atmospheric parameters (${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${{\mathrm{log}\,g}}$ and \[Fe/H\]) of 45 M dwarfs. In Section \[obs\], we briefly describe the observations and some aspects of data reduction. In Section \[models\], we describe the BT-Settl model atmosphere used in this study. Section \[results\] presents the results and describes the comparison with models and determination of stellar parameters. A Summary and Discussion are presented in Section \[discussion\].
Observational data and sample selection {#obs}
=======================================
Regarding the details of the APOGEE survey along with data reduction the reader is referred to [@Majewski2015; @Wilson2010; @Wilson2012]. The details of APOGEE M dwarfs ancillary project along with target selection and data reduction are described in [@Deshpande2013] and [@Nidever2015]. We obtained spectra of 45 M dwarfs from [@Deshpande2013] M dwarfs ancillary project using SDSS-III Data release 12 [@Alam2015]. The spectral type and photometry are compiled using Simbad and Vizier catalog access through Centre de Donnees astronomiques de Strasbourg and are given in Table \[Table1\].
[lllllllll]{}\
2MASS ID& J &H &K$_s$ &$\alpha$ &$\delta$ &SpT\
2MXXXXX&&&&&&\
\
00131578+6919372& 08.55$\pm$0.024 & 07.98$\pm$0.02 &07.74$\pm$0.02 &03.315773 & 69.327003&M3.0\
00321574+5429027& 09.38$\pm$0.022 & 08.82$\pm$0.01 &08.57$\pm$0.01 &08.065590 & 54.4841&M4.5\
00350487+5953079& 11.03$\pm$0.022 & 10.40$\pm$0.02 &10.16$\pm$0.02 &08.77032& 59.885548&M4.3\
01195227+8409327& 09.85 $\pm$0.026 & 09.31$\pm$0.03 &09.02$\pm$0.02 &19.967825& 84.159111&M5.0\
02085359+4926565& 08.42$\pm$0.023 & 07.81$\pm$0.01 &07.58$\pm$0.02 &32.223315 & 49.449055&M4.0\
03152943+5751330& 11.12$\pm$0.024 & 10.53$\pm$0.03 &10.27$\pm$0.01 &48.872662& 57.85918&M3.5\
03305473+7041145& 09.48$\pm$0.018 &08.93$\pm$0.01 &08.67$\pm$0.01 &52.728069& 70.687378&M3.5\
03425325+2326495& 10.20$\pm$0.022 & 09.54$\pm$0.02 &09.31$\pm$0.02 &55.721897& 23.447109&M4.0\
04063732+7916012& 10.03$\pm$0.027 & 09.48$\pm$0.02 &09.19$\pm$0.02 &61.655503& 79.267006&M4.5\
04125880+5236421& 08.77$\pm$0.032 & 08.24$\pm$0.03 &07.91 $\pm$0.01 &63.245023& 52.611698&M4.0\
05011802+2237015& 10.16$\pm$0.020 & 09.59$\pm$0.02 &09.23$\pm$0.01 &75.325112& 22.617104&M5.0\
05030563+2122362& 09.75$\pm$0.021 & 09.16$\pm$0.02 &08.88$\pm$0.01 &75.773472& 21.376726&M5.0\
05210188+3425119& 11.87$\pm$0.021 & 11.31$\pm$0.01 &11.02$\pm$0.01 &80.257859& 34.419991&M5.0\
05470907-0512106& 10.03$\pm$0.024 & 09.51$\pm$0.02 &09.17$\pm$0.01 &86.787800& -5.202969&M4.5\
06115599+3325505& 10.16$\pm$0.019 & 09.59$\pm$0.02 &09.34$\pm$0.02 &92.983296& 33.430714&M3.5\
06320207+3431132& 10.69$\pm$0.021 & 10.14$\pm$0.01 &09.86 $\pm$0.01 &98.008631& 34.520336&M4.0\
07140394+3702459& 11.97$\pm$0.023 & 11.25 $\pm$0.03 &10.83$\pm$0.01& 108.516439 &37.046108&M8.0\
08501918+1056436& 11.28$\pm$0.023 & 10.67 $\pm$0.02 &10.40$\pm$0.02& 132.579937& 10.945469&M5.0\
09301445+2630250& 08.86$\pm$0.020 & 08.28 $\pm$0.02 &08.02$\pm$0.02 &142.560229& 26.506958&M3.0\
10162955+0318375& 10.85$\pm$0.023 & 10.26 $\pm$0.02 &10.00$\pm$0.02 &154.123134& 3.310419&M4.1\
11005043+1204108& 10.67$\pm$0.024 & 10.11$\pm$0.02 & 09.78$\pm$0.02& 165.210134& 12.069667&M5.0\
11054316+1014093& 08.64$\pm$0.021 & 08.04$\pm$0.05 & 07.79$\pm$0.02& 166.429854& 10.235927&M3.0\
11091225-0436249& 08.20$\pm$0.026 & 07.59 $\pm$0.04& 07.33$\pm$0.02 &167.30107 & -4.606939&M0.5\
11474074+0015201& 08.99$\pm$0.035 & 08.39$\pm$ 0.04& 08.09$\pm$0.02& 176.919765& 0.255604&M4.0\
12045611+1728119& 09.79$\pm$0.021 & 09.18 $\pm$ 0.02& 08.96$\pm$0.02 & 181.233799& 17.469975&M3.5\
12232063+2529441& 10.82$\pm$0.019 & 10.23 $\pm$0.01& 09.98$\pm$0.01& 185.83597& 25.495592&M3.7\
12265737+2700536& 10.19$\pm$0.024 & 09.60$\pm$ 0.02& 09.32$\pm$0.02& 186.739043& 27.014906&M4.5\
13085059+1622039& 09.26$\pm$0.022 & 08.65$\pm$ 0.02& 08.41$\pm$0.01& 197.210793& 16.36775&M3.0\
13345147+3746195& 09.71$\pm$0.02 & 09.14$\pm$ 0.02& 08.88$\pm$0.01& 203.714472& 37.772106&M3.5\
13451104+2852012& 09.88$\pm$0.022 & 09.31$\pm$ 0.02& 09.05$\pm$0.01& 206.296026& 28.867016&M3.4\
14592508+3618321& 10.25$\pm$0.018 & 09.64$\pm$ 0.01& 09.37$\pm$0.01& 224.854502& 36.308922&M3.5\
16370146+3535456& 11.13$\pm$0.022 & 10.54$\pm$ 0.02 &10.24$\pm$0.01& 249.256085 &35.596016&M6.0\
18451027+0620158& 07.65$\pm$0.019 & 07.04$\pm$ 0.02& 06.80$\pm$0.02& 281.292808 &6.337733&M1.0\
18523373+4538317& 10.49$\pm$0.020 & 09.93$\pm$ 0.01& 09.67$\pm$0.01& 283.140551& 45.642147&M5.0\
18562628+4622532& 09.59$\pm$0.021 & 09.01$\pm$ 0.01& 08.71$\pm$0.01& 284.109528& 46.381451&M4.0\
19051739+4507161& 09.85$\pm$0.021 & 09.30$\pm$ 0.01& 09.02$\pm$0.01 &286.322483 &45.121147&M4.0\
19071270+4416070& 10.44$\pm$0.020 & 09.85 $\pm$0.01& 09.55$\pm$0.01& 286.802929 &44.268635&M4.5\
19081576+2635054& 10.36$\pm$0.024 & 09.76$\pm$0.03& 09.47$\pm$0.02& 287.065699 &26.584858&M5.0\
19084251+2733453& 09.75$\pm$0.026 & 09.23$\pm$0.03& 08.95$\pm$0.01 & 287.177127 &27.562593&M4.3\
19321796+4747027& 11.51$\pm$0.020 & 10.93$\pm$0.01& 10.63 $\pm$0.02& 293.074865 &47.78409&M5.0\
19333940+3931372& 08.12$\pm$0.020 & 07.56$\pm$0.02& 07.33 $\pm$0.01 & 293.414198& 39.527016&M2.0\
19430726+4518089& 11.33$\pm$0.023 & 10.75$\pm$0.02& 10.38$\pm$0.01 & 295.780281 &45.302483&M5.5\
19443810+4720294& 11.81$\pm$0.021 & 11.28$\pm$0.01& 11.00$\pm$0.01 & 296.158759& 47.341515&M4.5\
19510930+4628598& 08.58$\pm$0.023 & 08.04$\pm$0.02& 07.77$\pm$0.01 &297.788774 &46.483295&M4.0\
21105881+4657325& 09.87$\pm$0.022 & 09.26$\pm$0.01& 09.05$\pm$0.01 &317.745051& 46.959034&M3.5\
\
\[Table1\]
The presence of broad and complex molecular absorption in H-band makes this region one of the most difficult wavelength regimes for identifying various weak atomic absorption features in the spectra of M dwarfs. The dominant NIR features are due to photospheric absorption by H$_2$O, FeH, CO, OH, and neutral metals. The absorption lines of neutral metals, as well as the bands of H$_2$O and CO, become stronger with decreasing ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$. In the optical region, M dwarfs show strong features relative to the strength of the TiO and VO molecular bands. However, in the NIR regime, the dominant molecular features are due to H$_2$O. Also the single metal species such as FeH will not show the same level of decrease as the double metal TiO. The effect of collisional induced absorption (CIA) by H$_2$ on atomic spectral lines such as those of Fe I, Ca I, Na I, K I, Si I, Mg I, Al I, along with the strengthening of hydride bands such as those on FeH can be seen in their H-band spectra (Fig \[Fig1\]). As expected from the high ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ of M dwarfs, the atomic features such as Ca I, Na I, and K I are massively pressure broadened. The OH and FeH produce more diffuse absorption NIR, unlike TiO and VO which produce distinctive band heads in the optical. The significant opacity source in the H band of M dwarfs is mainly FeH but its relative strength decreases and becomes saturated with decreasing temperature. In general one can see various prominent atomic lines such as Ca I, Na I, K I, Si I, Mg I, and Al I throughout all the observed spectra. However, it is difficult to identify and measure the intensities of these atomic lines in the region where strong molecular absorption features are present.
The Ca I lines at 1.6136 $\mu$m, 1.6150 $\mu$m and 1.6157 $\mu$m, K I lines at 1.5163 $\mu$m and 156168 $\mu$m, Mg I lines at 1.5740 $\mu$m, 1.5748 $\mu$m, and 1.5765 $\mu$m, and Al I lines at 1.6718, 1.6750 and 1.6763 $\mu$m can bee seen in all the observed spectra. These atomic lines become broadened as one goes from early to later M dwarfs. As these atomic lines are so broad, their equivalent widths (EW) are of several angstroms. The strengths of these atomic features depend on various stellar parameters such as ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, \[Fe/H\], and luminosity. These atomic lines which are relatively free from any blends, and which are not contaminated by telluric lines, are ideal features for studying their sensitivity to various stellar parameters.
Models and synthetic spectra {#models}
============================
BT-Settl model atmosphere published by [@Allard2012; @Allard2013] is used in this current study. Their computation of these models is performed with the PHOENIX radiative transfer code [@Hauschildt1997; @Allard2001] by assuming the hydrostatic and chemical equilibrium, convection using the mixing-length theory and a sampling treatment of the opacities. The grid of BT-Settl models extends from ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ 300 to 7000 K in steps of 100 K, log g = 2.5 to 5.5 in steps of 0.5, and \[M/H\] = -2.5 to +0.5 in steps of 0.5 dex , accounting for alpha-enhancement and the latest solar abundances by [@Asplund2009] and [@Caffau2011]. The adopted \[$\alpha$/Fe\] =-0.4 x \[Fe/H\] for -1 $\le$ \[Fe/H\] $\le$ 0 and \[$\alpha$/Fe\] = +0.4 for all lower and +0.0 for supersolar metallicities, thus setting the “knee” of the alpha-enrichment relation to an average disk population value. These different $\alpha$ enhancements are mainly for the thin disc and thick disc [@Edvardsson1993; @Gratton1996; @Fuhrmann1998; @Adibekyan2013]. At a step of 0.1 dex in ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ and metallicity we have interpolated the grid. The effect of metallicity and ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ on various atomic and molecular features can bee seen in Figure \[Fig2\] with varying ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ from 4000 K (top) to 3000 K (bottom) with a step of 500 K and \[Fe/H\] = +0.5 (red) and -0.5 (blue) at constant ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ of 5.0 in each panel. As found in previous studies [@Leggett1998; @Leggett2000], ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ has a relatively small influence on the SED of M dwarfs. But the significant effect of ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ can been seen at high resolution on various atomic line profiles and also on various band systems, whereas metallicity has a large effect on the spectra. We have shown such effects in Figure \[Fig2\] where one can see that with decreasing ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ , various atomic features start vanishing and molecular bands begin to dominate; in particular OH and FeH.
Results
=======
Comparison with models and determination of stellar parameters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spectral synthesis using synthetic spectra requires various parameters such as ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$, and \[Fe/H\] and keeping the Sun as a reference. We followed the same procedure as used in [@Rajpurohit2014; @Rajpurohit2016] to determine ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g},$ and \[Fe/H\] using spectroscopic information in H-band. The typical ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ of M dwarfs is approximately 5.0$\pm$0.2, except for the latest-ype M dwarfs [@Gizis1997] and [@Casagrande2008]; we therefore use models with ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ = 4.5 - 5.5 for our analysis. To determine the stellar parameters of M dwarfs in our sample, we performed a $\chi^2$ minimization using spectral synthesis employing the new BT-Settl model atmospheres across the entire wavelength range of the observed spectra. No weights are applied in our calculation for different parameters. The synthetic spectral fitting is performed using the following steps: In the first step the synthetic spectra are convolved with an isotropic Gaussian profile with measured instrumental resolution which is then interpolated at each wavelength point of the observed spectra. In the following step we compared the observed spectra with that of the entire grid of models by taking the difference between the flux values of the observed and synthetic spectra at every wavelength point. Then, the sum of the squares of these differences is obtained for each model in the grid, and the best model for each object is selected. We retain the best-match values of ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ and \[Fe/H\] as first guess values on these three parameters. This step of synthetic spectral fitting is performed on the set of models which have not been interpolated to a finer grid in ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ and \[Fe/H\]. The comparison is made using a subsample of the model atmosphere grid covering the range of 3000 K $\leq$ ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ $\leq$ 4000 K in steps of 100 K, -0.5 $\leq$ \[Fe/H\] $\leq$ 0.5 in steps of 0.5 dex, and 4.0 $\leq$ log$g$ $\leq$ 5.5 in steps of 0.5 dex. During this step, we keep all the three parameters (${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ and \[Fe/H\]) free. We excluded the spectral regions from 1.580 $ \mu$m to 1.586 $\mu$m and from 1.642 $\mu$m to 1.649 $\mu$m because of the gap in blue to green and green to red arms of APOGEE.
In the second step, the parameters obtained for each object of our sample from the first step are used as an initial guess value and interpolation is done at a step of 0.1 dex in ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ and \[Fe/H\]. Finally, every model of the grid covering the range of 3000 K $\leq$ ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ $\leq$ 4000 K in steps of 100 K, -0.5 $\leq$ \[Fe/H\] $\leq$ 0.5 in steps of 0.1 dex, and 4.0 $\leq$ log$g$ $\leq$ 5.5 in steps of 0.1 dex are again compared to the observed spectrum at each wavelength point, and the $\chi^2$ is calculated to determine the global minima. We retain models that give the lowest $\chi^2$ values as the best fit parameters (${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, [${\mathrm{log}\,g}$]{} and \[Fe/H\]) which are showed in Table \[Table2\]. In the end, the best models are finally inspected visually by comparing them with the corresponding observed spectra. The uncertainties in Table 2 are based on standard deviation of the derived stellar parameters by accepting 1 $\sigma$ variations from the minimum $\chi^2$ which in all cases is calculated using constant $\chi^2$ boundaries and is based on the $\chi^2$ statistic.
We have also checked the behavior of synthetic spectra by visual inspection, looking at the shapes of various atomic species such as Fe I, Ca I, Na I, K I, Si I, Mg I, Al I and some molecular species such as OH, CO, and FeH [for details of the line list, see @Souto2017]. The OH-bands around 1.540 to 1.545 $\mu$m, 1.635 $\mu$m to 1.636 $\mu$m and 1.686 $\mu$m to 1.689 $\mu$m are insensitive to variations of 0.5 dex in ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ but are rather highly sensitive to ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$. However, at a given ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ they shows huge variation over a change of only 100 K in ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$. We have conformed our ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ by looking at the width of gravity-sensitive features such as the K I (1.5163 $\mu$m and 1.5168 $\mu$m) , Ca I (1.6136 $\mu$m, 1.6150 $\mu$m, and 1.6157 $\mu$m), Al (1.6718 $\mu$m, 1.6750 $\mu$m, and 1.6763 $\mu$m), and Mg I (1.5740 $\mu$m, 1.5748 $\mu$m, and 1.5765 $\mu$m) along with the relative strength of metal hydride bands such as FeH. These features are particularly useful gravity discriminants for M dwarfs and sdM. The overall line strength increases with gravity because of high pressure mainly by H$_2$, He, and H I collisions and due to higher electron pressure on alkali lines (see Fig. \[Fig3\]). The effect of ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ can be seen on width of the damping wings which, in addition, increases [@Reiners2005; @Reiners2016a]. The effect of metallicity can also be seen on various atomic features where the molecular absorption is less and these atomic features appear clearly. The synthetic spectrum reproduces line profiles of various atomic lines such as Ti, Fe I, Ca I, Mg I, Si I, Mn I and Al I relatively well. The systematic errors are not eliminated, which arise due to missing or incomplete opacity sources (e.g., FeH-bands and OH and CO bands) are not eliminated [@Baraffe2015] and the derived uncertainties are within the derived values of ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, [${\mathrm{log}\,g},$]{} and \[Fe/H\]
![Difference between the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ calibrations from @Terrien2015 [T15], estimated for the M dwarfs from [@Mann2013b] J (top), H (middle) and K$_s$ (bottom) calibrations and ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ from this work. On the horizontal axis we show the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ that we infer from our best fit BT-Settl model used in this work. The black full line represents the origin and the dashed black lines represent the error from the grid size of 100K.[]{data-label="Fig6"}](fig6_a.pdf){width="8.0cm" height="4.0cm"}
![Difference between the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ calibrations from @Terrien2015 [T15], estimated for the M dwarfs from [@Mann2013b] J (top), H (middle) and K$_s$ (bottom) calibrations and ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ from this work. On the horizontal axis we show the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ that we infer from our best fit BT-Settl model used in this work. The black full line represents the origin and the dashed black lines represent the error from the grid size of 100K.[]{data-label="Fig6"}](fig6_b.pdf){width="8.0cm" height="4.0cm"}
![Difference between the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ calibrations from @Terrien2015 [T15], estimated for the M dwarfs from [@Mann2013b] J (top), H (middle) and K$_s$ (bottom) calibrations and ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ from this work. On the horizontal axis we show the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ that we infer from our best fit BT-Settl model used in this work. The black full line represents the origin and the dashed black lines represent the error from the grid size of 100K.[]{data-label="Fig6"}](fig6_c.pdf){width="8.0cm" height="4.0cm"}
![Difference between the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ calibrations from @Terrien2015 [T15] , estimated for the M dwarfs from H-band relationships given by [@Newton2015], calibrations, and ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ from this work. On the horizontal axis we show the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ that we infer from our best fit BT-Settl model used in this work. The black full line represents the origin and the dashed black lines represent the error from the grid size of 100K.[]{data-label="Fig7"}](fig7.pdf){width="8.0cm" height="4.0cm"}
[cccc]{} 2MASS ID&This study&[@Terrien2015] &[@Terrien2015]\
2MASS J&${T_\mathrm{eff}}$/ ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ /\[Fe/H\]&${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, \[Fe/H\]& ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, \[Fe/H\]\
&&using [@Mann2013b] &using [@Newton2014]\
&& J, H and K calibration&calibration\
\
00131578+6919372 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.3$\pm$0.04&–&–\
00321574+5429027 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.2$\pm$0.04&3366/3271/3285, -0.03/-0.08/-0.05&3206/+0.00\
00350487+5953079 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.0$\pm$0.05&–&–\
01195227+8409327 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.3$\pm$0.06&–&–\
02085359+4926565 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.1$\pm$0.05&3280/3285/3330, +0.08/+0.03/+0.05&3347/+0.14\
03152943+5751330 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.3$\pm$0.05&–&–\
3305473+7041145 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.3$\pm$0.05&–&–\
03425325+2326495 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.0$\pm$0.05&–&–\
4063732+7916012 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.0$\pm$0.06&–&–\
04125880+5236421 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.0$\pm$0.05&3026/3304/3276, +0.02/-0.08/-0.02&–/+0.06\
05011802+2237015 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.5 / -0.5$\pm$0.04&–/3223/3277, +0.21/+0.03/+0.12&–/+0.20\
05030563+2122362 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.1$\pm$0.07&–/3223/3277, +0.13/+0.02/+0.02&–/+0.05\
05210188+3425119 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.5$\pm$0.04&–&–\
05470907-0512106 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.3$\pm$0.06&–&–\
06115599+3325505 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.1$\pm$0.07&3099/3207/3276, +0.02/+0.12/+0.01&–/+0.13\
06320207+3431132 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.4$\pm$0.05&3126/3388/3313, -0.03/-0.05/-0.09&–/+0.03\
07140394+3702459 &3000 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.5$\pm$0.11&–&–\
08501918+1056436 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.0$\pm$0.06&–&–\
09301445+2630250 &3300 / 5.0$\pm$0.5 / -0.3$\pm$0.05&3285/3384/3359, +0.04/+0.13/+0.13&3410/+0.21\
10162955+0318375 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.2$\pm$0.03&3345/3399/3328, -0.03/+0.03/-0.05&3217/+0.00\
11005043+1204108 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.5$\pm$0.11&–/3304/3276, +0.12/-0.07/-0.11&–/+0.05\
11054316+1014093 &3200 / 5.0$\pm$0.5 / -0.0$\pm$0.05&3422/3547/3418, -0.08/-0.10/-0.05&3357/+0.01\
11091225-0436249 &3900 / 4.5$\pm$0.5 / -0.3$\pm$0.04&3670/3786/3803, -0.04/-0.14/-0.04&3659/-0.07\
11474074+0015201 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.4$\pm$0.04&–/3320/3300, +0.10/+0.1/5 +0.03&–/+0.17\
12045611+1728119 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.1$\pm$0.07&3235/3318/3330, -0.09/-0.11/-0.03&3303/+0.05\
12232063+2529441 &3300 / 5.0$\pm$0.5 / -0.4$\pm$0.04&3267/3409/3344, -0.05/-0.01/+0.05&3303/+0.05\
12265737+2700536 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.0$\pm$0.06&–/3304/3280, +0.13/-0.05/ +0.02&–/+0.11\
13085059+1622039 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.4 / -0.4$\pm$0.04&3533/3545/3407, -0.15/-0.10/-0.15&–/+0.11\
13345147+3746195 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.1$\pm$0.04&3219/3348/3297, +0.13/-0.01/+0.14&–/+0.22\
13451104+2852012 &3200 / 5.0$\pm$0.5 / -0.4$\pm$0.04&3385/3441/3383, -0.09/-0.16/-0.09&3399/-0.11\
14592508+3618321 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.0$\pm$0.04&–&–\
16370146+3535456 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.5$\pm$0.04&–&–\
18451027+0620158 &3900 / 4.5$\pm$0.5 / -0.4$\pm$0.04&3707/3812/3779, +0.03/+0.07/-0.03&3664/-0.05\
18523373+4538317 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.0$\pm$0.07&3169/3219/3285, -0.00/-0.08/-0.06&–/-0.03\
18562628+4622532 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.0$\pm$0.05&3091/3379/3307, +0.06/-0.14/-0.03&–/+0.05\
19051739+4507161 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.2$\pm$0.04&3339/3314/3313, -0.06/-0.23/-0.17&3215/-0.14\
19071270+4416070 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.3$\pm$0.06&3163/3269/3288, +0.2/2-0.0/2+0.19&–/+0.25\
9081576+2635054 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.4$\pm$0.06&4747/3449/3280, +0.77/+0.10/+0.26&–/+0.29\
19084251+2733453 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.2$\pm$0.04&–/3368/3316,+0.42/-0.28/-0.30&3217/-0.32\
19321796+4747027 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.3$\pm$0.05&–&\
19333940+3931372 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.1$\pm$0.05&–&\
19430726+4518089 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.2 / -0.5$\pm$0.06&–&\
19443810+4720294 &3100 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.5$\pm$0.04&–&\
19510930+4628598 &3200 / 5.5$\pm$0.3 / -0.0$\pm$0.07&–/3279/3295, +0.06/-0.09/-0.07&–/+0.07\
21105881+4657325 &3300 / 5.0$\pm$0.5 / -0.2$\pm$0.06&–&\
\
\[Table2\]
Summary and Discussion {#discussion}
======================
The high-resolution spectra with good signal-to-noise ratio of M dwarfs is very important and necessary to determine the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g},$ and \[Fe/H\], and also the individual element abundances to a high accuracy. This paper presents the results from the spectral synthesis analysis to determine the fundamental parameters form the high-resolution APOGEE H-band spectra for early to mid M dwarfs using the updated BT-Settl model. In the NIR, particularly in H band, the BT-Settl model has never been tested before with the high-resolution spectra of M dwarfs. Therefore, our present study constitutes a benchmark for model atmospheres of low-mass stars in NIR. The physical parameters ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g},$ and \[Fe/H\] for stars of our sample is determined by comparing the observed spectra with the synthetic spectra. The main purpose of this paper is to disentangle the parameter space (${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g},$ and \[Fe/H\]) with independent information on atmospheric parameters. The comparison of observed spectra with the synthetic spectra is crucial to reveal the inaccuracy or incompleteness of the opacities used in the model. The atmospheric parameters derived from the comparison between our sample and the BT-Settl model are summarized in Table \[Table2\]. For example, Figs. \[Fig4\] and \[Fig5\] show the comparison of the best-fit BT-Settl model (red) with the star of spectral type M1.0 and M3.0 (black) in our sample. Their best fit parameters are given in Table \[Table2\]. The specific strengths of the CO, OH, and FeH-band heads are very well reproduced by the synthetic spectra over the entire M dwarf sequence, showing that the nosy pattern visible at this high spectral resolution is not noise.
The BT-Settl models also predict and reproduce the shape of various atomic lines such as Ca I, Na I, K I, Si I, Mg I, Al I, Ti I rather well and their strengths are well fitted. The observed atomic lines in the spectra are broader and shallower than those predicted by the BT-Settl model in the cooler M dwarfs (spectral type M3 or later). The qualitative behavior of the K I, Al I, Mg I, Ti I and Ca I lines is well reproduced by the BT Settl model as compared to the strong pressure-broadening wings in the early to mid M dwarfs. In the early M dwarfs, the cores of the observed K I, Al I, Mg I and Ca I lines are still visible. The broader absorption component of the atomic lines becomes saturated in M dwarfs later than M6 which were extending a few tens to one hundred angstroms.
The ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ is the parameter that causes the largest uncertainty while determining the other stellar parameters of M dwarfs; their metallicity in particular. Our results for ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ are in good agreement with the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ as a function of spectral type given in [@Rajpurohit2013]. Now we compare our ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g},$ and \[Fe/H\] determination to other works such as [@Terrien2015; @Schmidt2016]. [@Terrien2015] measured the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ for the M dwarfs using color–${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ relations with the method described by [@Mann2013b] along with different temperature indices such as H$_2$O-K2 [@Roja2012], H$_2$O-H [@Terrien2012] and [@Mann2013]. Figure \[Fig6\] shows the comparison of our measured ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ with [@Terrien2015] which clearly shows that [@Terrien2015] overestimates in lower ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ and underestimates in higher ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ among the various calibrations using J, H and K$_s$ bands, when compared to our ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ determinations. This discrepancy could be due to that fact that their determination was based on near-infrared spectra using the SpeX spectrograph which has significantly lower resolution, and many of their individual determinations were from the J/H/K bands which give relatively inconsistent results. These empirical relations give smaller errors as compared to NIR but they are not as precise as model-fitting techniques. We have also compared the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ calculated by [@Terrien2015] based on H-band atomic feature strengths such as Al I, Mg I, K I, Si I (Fig \[Fig7\]) using the strength of atomic features studied in [@Newton2015]. We find an offset of around 200 K between our ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ and [@Terrien2015] which could be due to the fact that [@Newton2015] used a limited number of atomic lines for equivalent width in their analysis where the accurate continuum placement could be the issue.
In four of the stars common common to both ours and the [@Schmidt2016] sample, we find that for stars 2MASSJ 11091225-0436249 and 2MASSJ 18451027+0620158, the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ by [@Schmidt2016] is 200 to 300K lower than our measurements, whereas for 2MASSJ 19333940+3931372 and 2MASSJ 21105881+4657325 the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ by [@Schmidt2016] is 200 to 300K higher. [@Schmidt2016] determine the ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\mathrm{log}\,g},$ and \[Fe/H\] of late-K and early-M dwarfs selected from the APOGEE spectroscopic survey using ASPCAP (APOGEE Stellar Parameters and Chemical Abundances Pipeline) [@Garcia2016]. ASPCAP uses APOGEE ATLAS9 models [@Meszaros2012]. For this same set of four targets, we have compared ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ and \[Fe/H\] with [@Schmidt2016] and found a systematic offset of around 0.5 dex to 1.0 dex. We have also compared the best-fit BT-Settl model (red) and MARCS model (blue) with observed spectra of 2M11091225-0436249 and 2M08501918+1056436 (back). We have chosen the identical atmospheric parameters for MARCS model as mentioned in Table \[Table2\]. We obtain the MARCS [@Gustafsson2008] model which was calculated in 2012 and distributed on the MARCS website[^1]. It is clear from Figs. \[Fig8\] and \[Fig9\] that in the MARCS model, many OH, CO, and FeH bands are missing. Also, the line strength of various atomic species, such as K I, Ti I, Ca I and Al I, is weaker in the MARCS model than in the BT-Settl model which could be due to low-resolution flux samples as provided on the MARCS website. This discrepancy may also be due to the use of somewhat different assumptions concerning convection, and input data such as continuous opacities in MARCS and ATLAS9 models as compared to the BT-Settl model. Exploring such effects is beyond the scope of this study but a proper way would be to compare the best fit parameters derived using different sets of models, which would provide information on model systematics. For the BT-Settl model, a crucial test is to check its consistent accuracy.
Metallicity is a parameter which cannot be constrained independently, but can be determined from spectroscopic analysis. We have also compared our \[Fe/H\] determination with spectroscopically determined metallicity estimates from [@Terrien2015] (see Figs. \[Fig10\] and \[Fig11\]). [@Terrien2015] used both J, H, and K$_s$ band calibration given by [@Mann2013b] and the combinations of EW that effectively trace stellar metallicity from the H-band spectra given by [@Newton2014]. [@Terrien2015] estimated the metallicities of the M dwarfs using the EW of the NaI feature at 2.2 $\mu$m in the K band of Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) spectra as used by [@Newton2014]. We find an average deviation of 0.2 to 0.4 dex in \[Fe/H\] from [@Newton2014] and [@Terrien2015]. A possible explanation for this deviation could problems or differences in the determination of ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$. The \[Fe/H\] and ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ are dependent to the point where there is normally a degeneracy of models based on this interdependence. The different parameter combinations of ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ and ${\mathrm{log}\,g}$ can produce the same \[Fe/H\] at low resolution. These deviations could also be due to the fact that the BT-Settl model provides a better description of the M dwarf atmospheres and therefore more accurate metallicities can be derived than when using other methods, which is also pointed out by [@Lindgren2017].
![Difference between the \[Fe/H\] calibrations from @Terrien2015 [T15], estimated for the M dwarfs from H-band relationships given by [@Newton2014] calibrations and \[Fe/H\] from this work. On the horizontal axis we show the \[Fe/H\] that we infer from our best fit BT-Settl model used in this work. The black full line represents the origin and the dashed black lines represent the error from the grid size of 0.1 dex.[]{data-label="Fig10"}](fig10.pdf){width="8.0cm" height="4.0cm"}
![Difference between the \[Fe/H\] calibrations from @Terrien2015 [T15], estimated for the M dwarfs from [@Mann2013b] J (top), H (middle) and K$_s$ (bottom) calibrations and \[Fe/H\] from this work. On the horizontal axis we show the \[Fe/H\] that we infer from our best fit BT-Settl model used in this work. The black full line represents the origin and the dashed black lines represent the error from the grid size of 0.1 dex.[]{data-label="Fig11"}](fig11_a.pdf){width="8.0cm" height="4.0cm"}
![Difference between the \[Fe/H\] calibrations from @Terrien2015 [T15], estimated for the M dwarfs from [@Mann2013b] J (top), H (middle) and K$_s$ (bottom) calibrations and \[Fe/H\] from this work. On the horizontal axis we show the \[Fe/H\] that we infer from our best fit BT-Settl model used in this work. The black full line represents the origin and the dashed black lines represent the error from the grid size of 0.1 dex.[]{data-label="Fig11"}](fig11_b.pdf){width="8.0cm" height="4.0cm"}
![Difference between the \[Fe/H\] calibrations from @Terrien2015 [T15], estimated for the M dwarfs from [@Mann2013b] J (top), H (middle) and K$_s$ (bottom) calibrations and \[Fe/H\] from this work. On the horizontal axis we show the \[Fe/H\] that we infer from our best fit BT-Settl model used in this work. The black full line represents the origin and the dashed black lines represent the error from the grid size of 0.1 dex.[]{data-label="Fig11"}](fig11_c.pdf){width="8.0cm" height="4.0cm"}
The recent improvement in the BT-Settl model atmosphere could have implications beyond those noted in this study. The description of various physical process at these low temperatures is well explained by BT-Settl models. These models now provide a better fit to the high-resolution spectroscopic observations of M dwarfs and help in accurately determining their atmospheric parameters. To address our offset in metallicity using different sets of model atmospheres, we also made a comparison study with the MARCS model. This comparison suggests that the BT-Settl models describe cool atmospheres more accurately than the MARCS model. We plan to use our method along with the grid of these new BT-Settl models to estimate the stellar parameter of M dwarfs both in optical and in NIR spectra and photometry simultaneously to minimize the differences. The improvements in BT-Settl [@Allard2013], achieved with the revision of solar abundances by [@Asplund2009] and [@Caffau2011], and by including updated atomic and molecular line opacities that dominate both in the optical and NIR range M dwarfs, greatly help to reproduce the extensive and complex molecular absorption band systems present in M dwarf atmospheres.
As compared to other models, the line strength and shape of various atomic and molecular features is very well reproduced by the BT-Settl models but there is still need for improvement in the regions where the fit is not good. This could be due to the lack of various opacity line lists in the model; in particular the FeH line list is missing in the H bandpass. Currently, the ExoMol group is developing an accurate and complete line list for TiO which is the next step to including them in the BT-Settl model before computing detailed model atmosphere grids and interior and evolution models at finer steps in the atmospheric parameters. The three-dimensional radiative hydrodynamics simulations and radiative transfer will help in understanding the effects of temperature inhomogeneities in the atmosphere which begin to have greater impact on the spectrum formation.
The research leading to these results has received funding from the French “Programme National de Physique Stellaire” and the Programme National de Planetologie of CNRS (INSU). The computations were performed at the [*Pôle Scientifique de Modélisation Numérique*]{} (PSMN) at the [*École Normale Supérieure*]{} (ENS) in Lyon, and at the [*Gesellschaft f[ü]{}r Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung G[ö]{}ttingen*]{} in collaboration with the Institut f[ü]{}r Astrophysik G[ö]{}ttingen. DH is supported by Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 881 “The Milky Way System” (subproject A4) of the German Research Foundation (DFG). G. D. C. Teixeira acknowledges support from the fellowship PD/BD/113478/2015 funded by FCT (Portugal) and POPH/FSE (EC). This work was supported in part by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through national funds (UID/FIS/04434/2013) and by FEDER through COMPETE2020 (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007672). We also want to thank the anonymous referee for useful comments, which helped improve the paper.\
Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Participating Institutions. SDSS- IV acknowledges support and resources from the Center for High-Performance Computing at the University of Utah. The SDSS web site is www.sdss.org. SDSS-IV is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS Collaboration including the Brazilian Participation Group, the Carnegie Institution for Science, Carnegie Mellon University, the Chilean Participation Group, the French Participation Group, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Instituto de Astrof?sica de Canarias, The Johns Hopkins University, Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU) / University of Tokyo, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Leibniz Institut f[ü]{}r Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), Max-Planck-Institut f[ü]{}r Astronomie (MPIA Heidelberg), Max-Planck-Institut f[ü]{}r Astrophysik (MPA Garching), Max-Planck-Institut f[ü]{}rExtraterrestrische Physik (MPE), National Astronomical Observatory of China, New Mexico State University, New York University, University of Notre Dame, Observatório Nacional / MCTI, The Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, United Kingdom Participation Group, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, University of Arizona, University of Colorado Boulder, University of Oxford, University of Portsmouth, University of Utah, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University.
[^1]: http://marcs.astro.uu.se
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
nocite:
- '[@Borkowski74; @Borkowski75; @Simon80; @Simon81]'
- '[@Albrecht66; @Bartel66; @Frerejacque66; @Albrecht67; @Bartel67; @Bartel73]'
- '[@Ganichot72; @Kirk73; @Murphy74; @Berger71; @Bartel70]'
---
[**On the rms-radius of the proton**]{}\
\
Abstract
We study the world data on elastic electron-proton scattering in order to determine the proton charge [$rms$-radius]{}. After accounting for the [Coulomb distortion]{} and using a parameterization that allows to deal properly with the higher moments we find a radius of $0.895 \pm 0.018 fm$, which is significantly larger than the radii used in the past.
\
The root-mean-square ([*rms*]{}) radius of the proton is a quantity of great interest for an understanding of the proton; it describes the most important integral property concerning its size. Accurate knowledge of the [$rms$-radius]{} of the charge distribution is needed for the interpretation of high-precision measurements of transitions in hydrogen atoms, studied in connection with measurements of fundamental constants [@Karshenboim01]; these measurements recently have made great progress, and are now limited by the accuracy with which the proton radius is known [@Udem97]. The radius is also needed for the planned measurements of muonic X-ray transitions [@Kottmann01]; these experiments can only scan a narrow frequency range, which must be chosen according to the best value of the [$rms$-radius]{} presently known.
The proton [$rms$-radius]{} in the past in general has been determined from elastic electron-proton scattering. The usual approach has been to employ the most accurate cross sections at low momentum transfer $q$, perform an experimental separation of longitudinal (L, charge) and transverse (T, magnetic) contributions. The resulting charge data as a function of $q^2$ are then fit with an appropriate function to get the [$rms$-radius]{} , [*i.e.*]{} the $q^2=0$ slope of the form factor [^1].
Alternative approaches have included theory-motivated fits such as given by the Vector Dominance Model (VDM) in combination with dispersion relations.
[**Past results.**]{} The initial electron scattering experiments on the proton were performed some 40 years ago by the Hofstadter group at Stanford [@Bumiller61; @Janssens66]. This data, mainly at medium $q$ and not low $q$, was fitted using multi-pole form factors. From the parameters of the fit an [$rms$-radius]{} could be calculated. The resulting value of 0.81$fm$, which is still quoted in the literature, should have long been superseded by values coming from more precise data at [*lower*]{} $q$ which are indeed sensitive to the [$rms$-radius]{}.
In the seventies, accurate low-$q$ data, mainly measured at the Mainz electron accelerator, became available [@Borkowski74]-[@Simon81]. After an L/T-separation, the data were usually fitted with a polynomial expansion of the form factor $$G_e(q)=1 - q^2 \langle r^2 \rangle /6 + q^4 \langle r^4 \rangle /120 -...$$ and, in general, a floating normalization of the individual data sets in order to produce the lowest $\chi^2$. The most prominent result was probably the one obtained by Simon [*et al.*]{} [@Simon80], $r_{rms} = 0.862 \pm 0.012~fm$.
Occasionally, fits with 2- or 4-pole expressions [@Borkowski75b] were performed, and significantly bigger values, [*i.e.*]{} $0.88 \pm 0.02 fm$ and $0.92
\pm 0.02 ~fm$ were found as compared to values determined at very low $q$ [@Murphy74]. The difference was partly understood [@Borkowski75b] as a consequence of different treatments of the [$\langle r^4 \rangle$]{} term.
In parallel, fits based on dispersion relations and the VDM [@Hoehler76; @Mergell96] were performed by several groups. These fits included much more theory input, and were constrained by the need to fit all four nucleon form factors. The most recent value resulting from such fits is the one of Mergell [*et al.*]{}, $0.847 \pm 0.009 fm$. The average, $0.854
\pm 0.012~fm$, of this radius and the one of Simon [[*et al*]{}]{} is quoted as the ”best” value in the compilation of Mohr and Taylor [@Mohr00].
Recent studies have provided additional insight: even for a system as light as the proton, Coulomb distortion of the electron waves needs to be accounted for [@Sick96b; @Sick98]. This Coulomb distortion was shown to solve a long standing puzzle with the deuteron [$rms$-radius]{}, and Rosenfelder demonstrated [@Rosenfelder00] that it also increases the proton [$rms$-radius]{}. Using a restricted set of data and the above mentioned polynomial expansion he showed that the radius increases by about $0.01~fm$ when accounting for Coulomb distortion.
[**Model-independent radii? **]{} In general, the groups studying the proton data have tried to extract a [$rms$-radius]{} that is model-independent. This is possible when using as in eq.(1) the expansion of $G_e(q)$ in terms of the moments [$\langle r^2 \rangle$]{}, [$\langle r^4 \rangle$]{},.. . At very low $q$, one could hope that the $q^4$[$\langle r^4 \rangle$]{}-term is small, such that the [$\langle r^2 \rangle$]{}- term can be determined without using a specific model for $G_e(q)$.
This is true in principle, but very hard in practice. At small $q$ also the $q^2$[$\langle r^2 \rangle$]{}/6-term is small, and it is difficult to determine it accurately from the experimental form factors which are proportional to $1-$[$q^2 \langle r^2 \rangle /6$]{}$+$... . Small systematic errors in the normalization of the cross sections have a strong influence on the small [$q^2 \langle r^2 \rangle /6$]{}-term. When ”eliminating” problems with the normalization of the data by floating them much of the sensitivity to the [$rms$-radius]{} gets lost and the norm-determining (implicit) extrapolation to $q=0$ becomes very sensitive to small $q$-dependent systematic errors in the data (which are always ignored).
In practice, one therefore has to include data at not-so-low $q$ which are also sensitive to the higher moments. The problem with theses moments is particularly detrimental for the proton. The proton has approximately an exponential charge density (or, more accurately speaking, a form factor of the dipole shape, $G_e(q) =
(1+q^2 0.055fm^2)^{-2}$, the Fourier transform of which gives an exponential). For such a density (form factor) the higher moments are increasing with order, [*i.e.*]{} [$\langle r^4 \rangle$]{}= 2.5 [$\langle r^2 \rangle$]{}$^2$, $\langle r^6 \rangle$ =11.6 [$\langle r^2 \rangle$]{}$^3$ etc, hence giving a large contribution to $G(q)$.
The consequence: there is no $q$-region where the [$\langle r^2 \rangle$]{} term dominates the finite size effect to $>$98% [*and*]{} the finite size effect is sufficiently big compared to experimental errors to allow a, say, 2% determination of the [$rms$-radius]{}. There is also no region of $q$ where the [$\langle r^4 \rangle$]{} moment can be determined accurately without getting into difficulty with the $\langle r^6 \rangle$ term. Towards higher $q$, the polynomial expansion is seriously restricted by the convergence radius of $\sim 1.4 fm^{-1}$.
This situation is illustrated in fig.\[term\] which shows the contribution of the various $q^n$ terms to the finite size effect. This problematic situation with the higher moments is at the origin of the difficulties of determining a model-independent proton [$rms$-radius]{}.
[**Continued-fraction expansion. **]{} Continued Fraction (CF) expansions $$G_{e}(q) = \frac{1 \hfill}{\displaystyle 1
+ \frac{q^2b_1 \hfill }{\displaystyle 1
+ \frac{q^2b_2 \hfill }{\displaystyle 1
+ \cdots}}}$$ are a subclass of Padé approximants which have initially been introduced to solve the ”problem of moments”, [*i.e.*]{} to find a function $f(z)$ specified by its moments $\langle z^n \rangle$ [@Jones80] and to accelerate the convergence of poorly converging series [@Haenggi80]. The radius of convergence of the CF expansion is much larger than the one of the polynomial expansion, although within the convergence radius of the latter it agrees exactly with it.
The moments of interest are directly linked to the coefficients $b_1, b_2, ..
b_N$ the coefficients of $q^2$, $q^4$,... are given by $b_1^2$, $b_1^2+b_1 b_2$,... . An important advantage, already exploited in fits of the deuteron form factor [@Klarsfeld86], is the fact that the parameters $b_1$, $b_2$ for exponential-type densities are well decoupled. This is a consequence of the fact that the CF is the natural parameterization for form factors resulting from exchange-poles at $q^2 < 0$, the physical mechanism exploited in the VDM.
[**Tests of CF-expansion. **]{} In order to study the dependence introduced by the usage of the CF expansion with given number N of terms and given $q_{max}$, we have used pseudo-data. These cross sections were generated using parameterized expressions for the form factors (dipole form, or the dispersion relation parameterization of Hoehler [*et al.*]{} [@Hoehler76]). The pseudo data were generated at the energies and angles of the experimental data, with the error bars of the experimental data. In the fits, the pseudo data were used as calculated from the parameterization, or with random fluctuations calculated from the experimental error bars superimposed.
Fits of these pseudo-data were performed with the CF expansion with a variable number N of terms, and with variable $q_{max}$ of the points fitted. We have studied the scatter of the resulting fitted [$\langle r^2 \rangle$]{} values, and their deviation from the known radius used in the generation of the pseudo-data. In these tests, we have been rather generous in accepting fits, [*i.e.*]{} by including fits with $\chi^2 \leq 1.2
\chi^2_{min}$.
When using the region $1 fm^{-1} < q_{max} < 5 fm^{-1}$ and 2 to 5 terms in the CF-expansion, we find a scatter of the fitted [$rms$-radii]{} of $\pm 0.010 fm$ around the true (input) values. This scatter we take as representative of the uncertainty due to the choice of N and $q_{max}$; it covers the statistical error (which for pseudo- and real data is the same by construction) as well.
[**Analysis of world data. **]{} In order to determine the proton [$rms$-radius]{} we use the world cross sections [@Bumiller61]-[@Bartel70] for $q<4 fm^{-1}$. The most precise data relevant for the radius determination have been measured at Mainz [@Borkowski74]-[@Simon81]. These data are [*absolute*]{}, that is they have small systematic uncertainties in the absolute normalization. This type of data is the most useful one for a determination of the [$rms$-radius]{}.
We use for our fits the primary cross sections. When parameterizing both $G_e(q)$ and $G_m(q)$ with the CF expansion and fitting $G_e$ and $G_m$ simultaneously to the cross sections, the L/T-separation is automatically performed, with superior quality as compared to the standard approach of separating L and T for each individual experiment.
The Coulomb corrections are calculated in second-order Born approximation according to [@Sick98] using an exponential charge density. These corrections are applied to the cross section data, such that the subsequent fit can be performed in PWIA as has been done in the past.
In the fits we use all data with their standard random uncertainties. The error matrix is used to compute the random uncertainty of derived quantities. In order to evaluate the effect of the systematic uncertainties (normalization uncertainties) the individual data sets are changed by their quoted uncertainties, refitted and the resulting changes quadratically added.
In the fits one finds experimental data sets (for instance the 40 years old Stanford data) that have much too large a $\chi^2$; these points, however, do not inappropriately influence the final result, so we have not increased their error bars just to get a good-looking $\chi^2$. We also find small discrepancies in the overall normalization of some data sets ([*e.g.*]{} the data set of ref. [@Simon81] seems $\sim$1% high). We have chosen to keep the norm at the experimental value, and not float the data. For such precision experiments more than half the effort has gone into the determination of the overall normalization; ignoring this effort by floating the norm (or greatly mitigating its influence by treating the normalization as just one further data point) does not do justice to the experiments and leads to loss of much information. Again, the effects upon the [$rms$-radius]{} of the observed ”discrepancies” have been found to be small and are covered by the quoted uncertainty.
As a check we have also used the polynomial expansion, with $q_{max} = 1.2
fm^{-1}$ and the $q^4$ coefficient taken from a fit that explains the higher-$q$ data. We find the same [$rms$-radius]{} as with the CF fit, but a larger uncertainty and a higher sensitivity to the $q_{max}$ employed.
The quality of the fits is quite good. We show in fig.\[rat\] the ratio of experimental cross sections and fit for the CF parameterization and 5 CF coefficients. The $\chi^2$ is 512 for 310 data points [^2]. The resulting [$rms$-radius]{} is $0.895 fm$. The uncertainty due to N, $q_{max}$ and statistics is $\pm0.010 fm$, the systematic uncertainty $0.013fm$. This yields as the final result for the charge radius of the proton $r_{rms}^e = 0.895 \pm 0.018 fm$. This radius is significantly larger than the values generally cited in the literature. It agrees with the most accurate value derived from atomic transitions [@Udem97] $0.890 \pm 0.014 fm$.
[**Differences to previous determinations. **]{} It may be interesting to understand why previous analyses gave smaller radii. Simon [*et al.*]{} [@Simon80] ($r_{rms}=0.862fm$) used the polynomial expansion up to $q^4$ and $q_{max}=1.2fm^{-1}$, but found a [$\langle r^4 \rangle$]{}- moment that was a factor of ten smaller than given by fits that explain the proton data to higher $q$; this difference comes from very small systematic problems in the data which we have not further explored. When repeating their fit with the [$\langle r^4 \rangle$]{}- moment given by a fit that explains the data to larger $q$, [*e.g.*]{} the one from the CF fit, one finds a radius that agrees with the one we find.
The fits based on dispersion relations and the VDM are strongly constrained by theory and the need to fit all four nucleon form factors. When looking at the ratio of experimental and VDM cross sections with the resolution employed in fig. \[rat\] the systematic deviations of the fits [@Hoehler76; @Mergell96] from the data at low $q$ are immediately obvious.
Rosenfelder [@Rosenfelder00] ($r_{rms}=0.880fm$), whose primary interest was the exploration of the effect of Coulomb distortion, also used the polynomial expansion, with the [$\langle r^4 \rangle$]{} term taken from a low-$q$ fit quoted in the literature. When correcting his value for a better [$\langle r^4 \rangle$]{} value from a good fit to the higher-$q$ data and accounting for differences in the data set, one arrives at the value of the proton [$rms$-radius]{} we find.
[**Conclusions. **]{} From an analysis of the [*world*]{}-data on e-p scattering we determine the proton [$rms$-radius]{} and find a value that is significantly larger than previous values. The change is understood as a consequence of treating properly the higher moments $\langle r^n \rangle$.
[**Acknowledgment. **]{} The author acknowledges discussions with Savely Karshenboim which triggered this study.
[10]{} S.G. Karshenboim , 551:238, 2001 T. Udem [*et al.*]{} , 79:2646, 1997. F. Kottmann [*et al.*]{} , 138:55 2001. F.A. Bumiller [*et al.*]{} , 124:1623, 1961. T. Janssens [*et al.*]{} , 142:922, 1966. F. Borkowski [*et al.*]{} , 222:269, 1974. F. Borkowski [*et al.*]{} , 93:461, 1975. G.G. Simon et.al. , 333:381, 1980. G.G. Simon [*et al.*]{} , 364:285, 1981. W. Albrecht [*et al.*]{} , 17:1192, 1966. W. Bartel [*et al.*]{} , 17:608, 1966. D. Frerejacque [*et al.*]{} , 141:1308, 1966. W. Albrecht [*et al.*]{} , 18:1014, 1967. W. Bartel [*et al.*]{} , 25B:236, 1967. W. Bartel [*et al.*]{} , 58:429, 1973. D. Ganichot [*et al.*]{} , 178:545, 1972. P.N. Kirk [*et al.*]{} , D:125, 1973. J.J. Murphy II [*et al.*]{} , 9:2125, 1974. Ch. Berger [*et al.*]{} , 35B:87, 1971. W. Bartel [*et al.*]{} , 33:245, 1970. F. Borkowski [*et al.*]{} , 275:29, 1975. G. Hoehler [*et al.*]{} , 114:505, 1976. P. Mergell [*et al.*]{} , 596:367, 1996. P. Mohr and B. Taylor. , 72:351, 2000 I. Sick and D. Trautmann. , 375:16, 1996. I. Sick and D. Trautmann. , 637:559, 1998. R. Rosenfelder. , 479:381, 2000. W.B. Jones and W.J. Thron. P. H[ä]{}nggi, F. Roesel and D. Trautmann. , 37:242, 1980. S. Klarsfeld [*et al.*]{} , 456:373, 1986.
[^1]: This quantity can be determined without making use of the nonrelativistic notion of the charge density as a Fourier transform of the form factor.
[^2]: The $\chi^2$ would reduce to 370 when adding quadratically 3% to the Stanford error bars, with an increase of $r_{rms}$ of $0.002fm$. A norm change of 1% of [@Simon81] would increase $r_{rms}$ by $0.007fm$ and decrease $\chi^2$ by 60.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
John F. R. Duncan[^1]\
Jeffrey A. Harvey[^2]
date: 2014 December 28
title: ' <span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span> '
---
Introduction
============
In his 2002 Ph.D thesis [@Zwegers] Zwegers gave an intrinsic definition of mock theta functions and provided new insight into three families of such functions, constructed
1. in terms of Appell–Lerch sums,
2. as the Fourier coefficients of meromorphic Jacobi forms, and
3. via theta functions attached to cones in lattices of indefinite signature.
The first two constructions have played a central role in recently observed moonshine connections between finite groups and mock theta functions. These started with the observation in [@Eguchi2010] that the elliptic genus of a K3 surface has a decomposition into characters of the $N=4$ superconformal algebra with multiplicities that at low levels are equal to the dimensions of irreducible representations of the Mathieu group $M_{24}$. Appell–Lerch sums appear in this analysis in the so called “massless" characters. This Mathieu moonshine connection was conjectured in [@UM; @MUM] to be part of a much more general phenomenon, known as umbral moonshine, which attaches a vector-valued mock modular form $H^X$, a finite group $G^X$, and an infinite-dimensional graded $G^X$-module $K^X$ to the root systems of each of the $23$ Niemeier lattices. The analysis in [@MUM] relied heavily on the construction of mock modular forms in terms of meromorphic Jacobi forms and built on the important work in [@Dabholkar:2012nd] extending the analysis of [@Zwegers] and characterizing special Jacobi forms in terms of growth conditions.
Whilst the existence of the $G^X$-modules $K^X$ has now been proved [@Gannon:2012ck; @umrec] for all Niemeier root systems $X$, no explicit construction of the modules $K^X$ is yet known.
However, in this paper we construct the $G^X$-module $K^X$ for the case that $X=E_8^3$. To do so we employ the third characterization of mock theta functions in terms of indefinite theta functions. This enables us to employ the formalism of vertex operator algebras [@Bor_PNAS; @FLM] which has been so fruitfully employed (in [@FLM; @borcherds_monstrous] to name just two) in the understanding of monstrous moonshine [@MR554399; @Tho_FinGpsModFns; @Tho_NmrlgyMonsEllModFn].
See [@mnstmlts] for a recent review of moonshine both monstrous and umbral, and many more references on these subjects.
To explain the methods of this paper in more detail, we first recall the [*Pochammer symbol*]{} $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:intro-poch}
(x;q)_n :=\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} (1-xq^k), \end{gathered}$$ and the fifth order mock theta functions $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}
\chi_0(q)&:=\sum_{n\geq 0} \frac{q^{n} }{(q^{n+1};q)_n},\\
\chi_1(q)&:= \sum_{n\geq 0} \frac{q^{n} }{(q^{n+1};q)_{n+1}},
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ from Ramanujan’s last letter to Hardy [@MR2280843; @MR947735]. The conjectures of [@MUM] (see also [@mumcor]) imply the existence of a bi-graded super vector space $K^X=\bigoplus_r K^X_r=\bigoplus_{r,d}K^{X}_{r,d}$ that is a module for $G^X\simeq S_3$ and satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:intro:KXmocktheta}
\begin{split}
{\operatorname{sdim}}_qK^X_1&=-2q^{-1/120}+\sum_{n>0}\dim K^X_{1,n-1/120}q^{n-1/120}=2q^{-1/120}(\chi_0(q)-2),\\
{\operatorname{sdim}}_qK^X_7&=\sum_{n>0}\dim K^X_{7,n-49/120}q^{n-49/120}=2q^{71/120}\chi_1(q).
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ Here ${\operatorname{sdim}}_q V:=\sum_{n}(\dim (V_{\bar 0})_n-\dim (V_{\bar 1})_n)q^n$ for $V$ a ${{\mathbb Q}}$-graded super space with even part $V_{\bar 0}$ and odd part $V_{\bar 1}$.
According to work [@MR2558702] of Zwegers, we have identities $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:intro:zwegers}
\begin{split}
2-\chi_0(q)&=\frac{1}{(q;q)_{\infty}^2}\left(\sum_{k,l,m\geq 0}+\sum_{k,l,m<0}\right)(-1)^{k+l+m}q^{(k^2+l^2+m^2)/2+2(kl+lm+mk)+(k+l+m)/2},\\
\chi_1(q)&=\frac{1}{(q;q)_{\infty}^2}\left(\sum_{k,l,m\geq 0}+\sum_{k,l,m<0}\right)(-1)^{k+l+m}q^{(k^2+l^2+m^2)/2+2(kl+lm+mk)+3(k+l+m)/2},
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ where $(x;q)_{\infty}:=\prod_{n\geq 0}(1-xq^n)$. In this article we use (\[eqn:intro:zwegers\]) as a starting point for the construction of a super vertex operator algebra $V^X$ (cf. (\[eqn:va:cnstn-VX\])). We show that canonically-twisted modules for $V^X$, constructed explicitly in §\[sec:va:cnstn\] (cf. (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Vtw\])), furnish a bi-graded $G^X$-module for which the graded trace functions are exactly compatible with the predictions of [@MUM]. In other words, we construct the analogue of the moonshine module ${V^{\natural}}$, of Frenkel–Lepowsky–Meurman [@FLMBerk; @FLMPNAS; @FLM], for the $X=E_8^3$ case of umbral moonshine.
To prove that our construction is indeed the $X=E_8^3$ counterpart to ${V^{\natural}}$, we verify the $X=E_8^3$ analogue of the Conway–Norton moonshine conjecture, proven by Borcherds in [@borcherds_monstrous] in the case of the monster, which predicts that the trace functions arising are uniquely determined by their automorphy and their asymptotic behavior near cusps. Thus we verify the $X=E_8^3$ analogues of both of the two major conjectures of monstrous moonshine.
To prepare for precise statements of results, recall that vector-valued functions $H^X_g(\tau)=(H^X_{g,r}(\tau))$ on the upper half plane ${{\mathbb H}}$ are considered in [@MUM], for $g\in G^X\simeq S_3$, where the components are indexed by $r\in {{\mathbb Z}}/60{{\mathbb Z}}$. Define $o(g)$ to be the order of an element $g\in G^X$. The $H^X_g$ are not uniquely determined in [@MUM], except for the case that $g=e$ is the identity, $o(g)=1$. But it is predicted that $H^X_g$ is a mock modular form of weight $1/2$ for $\Gamma_0(o(g))$, with shadow given by a certain vector-valued unary theta function $S^X_g$ (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht-SXg\])), and specified polar parts at the cusps of $\Gamma_0(o(g))$. In more detail, $H^X_g$ should have the same polar parts as $H^X:=H^X_e$ at the infinite cusp of $\Gamma_0(o(g))$, but should have vanishing polar parts at any non-infinite cusps. In practice, this amounts to the statement that we should have $$\begin{gathered}
H^X_{g,r}(\tau)=\begin{cases} \mp 2q^{-1/120}+O(q^{119/120}),&\text{ if $r=\pm 1,\pm11,\pm19,\pm29\pmod{60}$,}\\
O(1),&\text{ otherwise,}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ for $q=e^{2\pi {{\bf i}}\tau}$, and all components of $H^X_g(\tau)$ should remain bounded as $\tau\to 0$, if $g\neq e$. (For if $g\neq e$ then $o(g)=2$ or $o(g)=3$, and then $\Gamma_0(o(g))$ has only one cusp other than the infinite one, and this is the cusp represented by $0$.)
Our main result is the following, where the functions $T^X_g$ are defined in §\[sec:mcktht:um\] (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht-TXg\])) in terms of traces of operators on canonically-twisted modules for $V^X$.
\[thm:intro-maintheorem\] Let $g\in G^X$. If $o(g)\neq 3$ then $2T^X_{g}$ is the Fourier expansion of the unique vector-valued mock modular form of weight $1/2$ for $\Gamma_0(o(g))$ whose shadow is $S^X_g$, and whose polar parts coincide with those of $H^X_g$. If $o(g)=3$ then $2T^X_g$ is the Fourier expansion of the unique vector-valued modular form of weight $1/2$ for $\Gamma_0(3)$ which has the multiplier system $\rho_{3|3}\overline{\sigma^X}$, and polar parts coinciding with those of $H^X_g$.
Here $\sigma^X:{\operatorname{\textsl{SL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}})\to{{\textsl{GL}}}_{60}({{\mathbb C}})$ denotes the multiplier system of $S^X:=S^X_e$ (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht:um-sigmaX\])), and $\rho_{3|3}:\Gamma_0(3)\to {{\mathbb C}}^\times$ is defined in (\[eqn:mcktht:um-rho33\]).
Armed with Theorem \[thm:intro-maintheorem\], we may now define the $H^X_g$ concretely and explicitly, for $g\in G^X$, by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:intro-HXg}
H^X_g(\tau):=2T^X_g(\tau),\end{gathered}$$ where $T^X_g(\tau)$ denotes the function obtained by substituting $e^{2\pi {{\bf i}}\tau}$ for $q$ in the series expression (\[eqn:mcktht-TXg\]) for $T^X_g$.
Expressions for the components of $H^X_g$ are given in §5.4 of [@MUM], in terms of fifth order mock theta functions of Ramanujan, for the cases that $o(g)=1$ and $o(g)=2$, but it is not verified there that these prescriptions define mock modular forms with the specified shadows. Our work confirms these statements, as the following theorem demonstrates.
\[thm:intro-rammcktht\] We have the following identities. $$\begin{gathered}
H^{X}_{1A,1}(\tau)
=\begin{cases}\label{eqn:intro-rammcktht1}
\pm 2q^{-1/120} \left( \chi_0(q) - 2 \right),&\text{ if $r=\pm 1,\pm 11,\pm 19,\pm 29$,} \\
\pm 2q^{71/120} \chi_1(q), &\text{ if $r=\pm 7,\pm 13,\pm 17,\pm 27$.}
\end{cases}\\
H^{X}_{2A,1}(\tau)
=\begin{cases}\label{eqn:intro-rammcktht2}
\mp 2 q^{-1/120} \phi_0(-q), &\text{ if $r=\pm 1,\pm 11,\pm 19,\pm 29$,} \\
\pm 2 q^{-49/120} \phi_1(-q), &\text{ if $r=\pm 7,\pm 13,\pm 17,\pm 27$.}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$
The fifth order mock theta functions $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ were defined by Ramanujan (also in his last letter to Hardy), by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:intro-phi01}
\phi_0(q)&:=\sum_{n\geq 0} q^{n^2} {(-q;q^2)_n},\\
\phi_1(q)&:=\sum_{n\geq 0} q^{(n+1)^2} {(-q;q^2)_n}.
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$
The identities (\[eqn:intro-rammcktht1\]) follow immediately from Theorem \[thm:intro-maintheorem\], since the the $V^X$-modules used to define the $T^X_g$ have been constructed specifically so as to make Zwegers’ identity (\[eqn:intro:zwegers\]) manifest. By contrast, the $o(g)=2$ case of Theorem \[thm:intro-rammcktht\] requires some work, since the expressions we obtain naturally from our construction of $T^X_g$ do not obviously coincide with (\[eqn:intro-rammcktht2\]). Thus the proof of Theorem \[thm:intro-rammcktht\] entails non-trivial $q$-series identities which may be of independent interest.
\[cor:intro-qseriesid\] We have $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:intro-qseriesid1}
&\left( \sum_{k,m \ge 0} -
\sum_{k,m <0} \right)_{k=m \pmod{2}}
(-1)^m q^{k^2/2+m^2/2+4km+k/2+3m/2} \\
&\qquad= {\prod_{n>0} (1+q^n)} \left( \sum_{k,m \ge 0} -
\sum_{k,m <0} \right) (-1)^{k+m}
q^{3 k^2+m^2/2 +4km+k+m/2},
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{eqn:intro-qseriesid7}
&\left( \sum_{k,m \ge 0} -
\sum_{k,m <0} \right)_{k=m \pmod{2}}
(-1)^m q^{k^2/2+m^2/2+4km+3k/2+5m/2} \\
&\qquad= {\prod_{n>0} (1+q^n)} \left( \sum_{k,m \ge 0} -
\sum_{k,m <0} \right) (-1)^{k+m}
q^{3 k^2+m^2/2 +4km+3k+3m/2}.
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$
The reader who is familiar with modularity results on trace functions attached to vertex operator algebras (cf. [@Zhu_ModInv; @Dong2000; @MR2046807]) and super vertex operator algebras (cf. [@DonZha_MdlrOrbVOSA]) may find it surprising that the functions we construct are (generally) mock modular, rather than modular, and have weight $1/2$, rather than weight $0$. In light of Zwegers’ work [@Zwegers; @MR2558702], it is clear that we can obtain trace functions with mock modular behavior by considering vertex algebras constructed according to the usual lattice vertex algebra construction, but with a cone (or union of cones, cf. §\[sec:va:cva\]) taking on the role usually played by a lattice. A suitably chosen cone is the main ingredient for our construction of $V^X$. A general procedure for constructing super vertex operator algebras from cones in arbitrary signature is formalized in Theorem \[thm:va:cva-VD\].
Note however that the cone vertex algebra construction does not, on its own, naturally give rise to trace functions with weight $1/2$. For this we introduce a single “free fermion” to the cone vertex algebra that we use to construct $V^X$, and we insert the zero mode (i.e. $L(0)$-degree preserving component) of the canonically-twisted vertex operator attached to a generator when we compute graded traces on canonically-twisted modules for $V^X$. In practice, this has the effect of multiplying the cone vertex algebra trace functions by $\eta(\tau):=q^{1/24}\prod_{n>0}(1-q^n)$.
We remark that this technique may be profitably applied to other situations. For example, it is known (cf. e.g. [@MR1650637]) that the moonshine module $V^\natural$, when regarded as a module for the Virasoro algebra, is a direct sum of modules $L(h,24)$, for $h$ ranging over non-negative integers, satisfying $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{{tr}}}_{L(h,24)}q^{L(0)-c/24}=\begin{cases}
(1-q)q^{-23/24}\eta(\tau)^{-1}&\text{ for $h=0$,}\\
q^{h-23/24}\eta(\tau)^{-1}&\text{ for $h>0$,}
\end{cases} \end{gathered}$$ where $c=24$. Also, the multiplicity of $L(0,24)$ is $1$, and the multiplicity of $L(1,24)$ is $0$. Consequently, the weight $1/2$ modular form $\eta(\tau)J(\tau)$, with $J(\tau)=q^{-1}+O(q)$ the (so normalized) elliptic modular invariant, is almost the generating function of the dimensions of the homogeneous spaces of Virasoro highest weight vectors in $V^\natural$. Indeed, the actual generating function is just $q^{1/24}\eta(\tau)J(\tau)+1$.
Certainly $\eta(\tau)J(\tau)$ has nicer modular properties than the Virasoro highest weight generating function of $V^\natural$, and moreover, an even more striking connection to the monster, as four of the dimensions of non-trivial irreducible representations for the monster appear as coefficients: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:intro-fourans}
\eta(\tau)J(\tau)=\cdots+196883q^{25/24}+21296876q^{49/24}+842609326q^{73/24}+19360062527q^{97/24}+\cdots\end{gathered}$$ (cf. p.220 of [@atlas]). This function $\eta(\tau)J(\tau)$ can be obtained naturally as a trace function on a canonically-twisted module for a super vertex operator algebra. For if we take $V$ to be the tensor product of $V^\natural$ with the super vertex operator algebra obtained by applying the Clifford module construction to a one dimension vector space (see §\[sec:va:cliffmod\] for details), then, choosing an irreducible canonically-twisted module $V_{{\rm tw}}$ for $V$, and denoting by $p(0)$ the coefficient of $z^{-1}$ in the canonically-twisted vertex operator attached to a suitably scaled element $p\in V$ with $L(0)p=\frac12 p$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:intro-VetaJ}
{\operatorname{{tr}}}_{V_{{\rm tw}}}p(0)q^{L(0)-c/24}=\eta(\tau)J(\tau),\end{gathered}$$ where now $c=49/2$. (See §\[sec:va:cliffmod\] for more detail.)
The importance of trace functions such as (\[eqn:intro-VetaJ\]) within the broader context of modularity for super vertex operator algebras is analyzed in detail in [@MR3077918]. (See also [@MR3205090].)
The organization of the paper is as follows. In §\[sec:va\] we recall some familiar constructions from vertex algebra and use these to construct the super vertex operator algebra $V^X$, and its canonically-twisted modules $V^{X,\pm}_{{{\rm tw}},a}$, which play the commanding role in this work. We recall the lattice construction of super vertex algebras in §\[sec:va:latva\], modules for lattice super vertex algebras in §\[sec:va:latvamod\], and the Clifford module super vertex algebra construction in §\[sec:va:cliffmod\]. New material appears in §\[sec:va:cva\], where we attach a super vertex operator algebra to a cone in an indefinite lattice. Using this, we formulate the construction of $V^X$ and the $V^{X,\pm}_{{{\rm tw}},a}$ in §\[sec:va:cnstn\]. We also equip these spaces with $G^X$-module structure in §\[sec:va:cnstn\], and compute explicit expressions (cf. Proposition \[prop:va:cnstn-tracefnexpressions\]) for the graded traces of elements of $G^X$.
In §\[sec:mcktht\] our focus moves from representation theory to number theory, as we seek to determine the properties of the graded traces arising from the action of $G^X$ on the $V^\pm_{{{\rm tw}},a}$. We recall the relationship between mock modular forms and harmonic Maass forms in §\[sec:mcktht:maass\], and we recall some results on Zwegers’ indefinite theta series in §\[sec:mcktht:indtht\]. The proofs of our main results, Theorems \[thm:intro-maintheorem\] and \[thm:intro-rammcktht\], are the content of §\[sec:mcktht:um\].
We give tables with the first few coefficients of the $H^X_g$ in §\[sec:coeffs\].
We frequently employ the notational convention $e(x):=e^{2\pi i x}$.
Vertex Algebra {#sec:va}
==============
This section begins with a review of the lattice (super) vertex algebra construction in §\[sec:va:latva\], and the natural generalization of this which defines lattice vertex algebra modules in §\[sec:va:latvamod\]. We review the special case of the Clifford module super vertex algebra construction we require in §\[sec:va:cliffmod\]. We introduce cone vertex algebras in §\[sec:va:cva\], and put all of the preceding material together for the construction of $V^X$, and its canonically-twisted modules, in §\[sec:va:cnstn\].
Lattice Vertex Algebra {#sec:va:latva}
----------------------
We briefly recall, following [@Bor_PNAS; @FLM], the standard construction which associates a super vertex algebra $V_L$ to a central extension of an integral lattice $L$. We also employ [@MR2082709] as a reference. Set ${\mathfrak{h}}:=L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb C}}$, and extend the bilinear form on $L$ to a symmetric ${{\mathbb C}}$-bilinear form on ${\mathfrak{h}}$ in the natural way. Set $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}:={\mathfrak{h}}[t,t^{-1}]\oplus {{\mathbb C}}{\bf c}$, for $t$ a formal variable, and define a Lie algebra structure on $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ by declaring that ${\bf c}$ is central, and $[u\otimes t^m,v\otimes t^n]=m{{\langle}}u,v{{\rangle}}\delta_{m+n,0}\,{\bf c}$ for $u,v\in{\mathfrak{h}}$ and $m,n\in{{\mathbb Z}}$. We follow tradition and write $u(m)$ as a shorthand for $u\otimes t^m$. The Lie algebra $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ has a triangular decomposition $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}=\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^+$ where $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^{\pm}:={\mathfrak{h}}[t^{\pm 1}]t^{\pm 1}$ and $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0:={\mathfrak{h}}\oplus {{\mathbb C}}{\bf c}$.
We require a bilinear function $b:L\times L\to {{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ with the property that $b(\lambda,\mu)+b(\mu,\lambda)={{\langle}}\lambda,\mu{{\rangle}}+{{\langle}}\lambda,\lambda{{\rangle}}{{\langle}}\mu,\mu{{\rangle}}+2{{\mathbb Z}}$. If $\{\varepsilon_i\}$ is an ordered ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis for $L$ then we may take $b$ to be the unique such function for which $$\begin{gathered}
b({\varepsilon}_i,{\varepsilon}_j)=\begin{cases}
0&\text{when $i\leq j$,}\\
1&\text{when $i>j$.}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ Set $\beta(\lambda,\mu):=(-1)^{b(\lambda,\mu)}$, and define ${{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L]$ to be the ring generated by symbols ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$ for $\lambda\in L$ subject to the relations ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}{{\bf v}}_{\mu}=\beta(\lambda,\mu){{\bf v}}_{\lambda+\mu}$.
The algebra ${{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L]$ is isomorphic to the quotient ${{\mathbb C}}[\hat{L}]/{{\langle}}\kappa+1{{\rangle}}$, where $\hat{L}$ is the unique (up to isomorphism) central extension of $L$ by ${{\langle}}\kappa{{\rangle}}\simeq{{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
aa'=\kappa^{{{\langle}}\bar{a},\bar{a}'{{\rangle}}+{{\langle}}\bar{a},\bar{a}{{\rangle}}{{\langle}}\bar{a}',\bar{a}'{{\rangle}}}a'a,\end{gathered}$$ for $a,a'\in \hat{L}$ lying above $\bar{a},\bar{a}'\in L$, respectively. (Cf. [@FLM].)
Now define a $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^+$-module structure on ${{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L]$ by setting ${\bf c}{{\bf v}}_{\lambda}={{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$ and $u(m){{\bf v}}_{\lambda}= \delta_{m,0} {{\langle}}u,\lambda{{\rangle}}{{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$ for $u\in {\mathfrak{h}}$ and $\lambda\in L$, and define $V_L$ to be the induced $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}$-module, $$\begin{gathered}
V_L:=U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}})\otimes_{U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^+)}{{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L].\end{gathered}$$ Then, according to §5.4.2 of [@MR2082709], for example, $V_L$ admits a unique super vertex algebra structure $Y:V_L\to ({\operatorname{End}}V_L)[[z,z^{-1}]]$ such that $1\otimes {{\bf v}}_{0}$ is the vacuum vector, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:latva-Yu}
Y(u(-1)\otimes {{\bf v}}_{0},z)=\sum_{n\in{{\mathbb Z}}} u(n)z^{-n-1}\end{gathered}$$ for $u\in {\mathfrak{h}}$, and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:latva-Ylambda}
Y(1\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda},z)=
\exp\left(-\sum_{n<0}\frac{\lambda(n)}{n}z^{-n}\right)
\exp\left(-\sum_{n>0}\frac{\lambda(n)}{n}z^{-n}\right)
{{\bf v}}_{\lambda}z^{\lambda(0)}\end{gathered}$$ for $\lambda \in L$. Here ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$ denotes the operator $p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\mu}\mapsto \beta(\lambda,\mu)p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+\mu}$, and $z^{\lambda(0)}(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\mu}):=(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\mu}) z^{{{\langle}}\lambda,\mu{{\rangle}}}$. Note that we have $$\begin{gathered}
V_L\simeq S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)\otimes {{\mathbb C}}[L]\end{gathered}$$ as modules for $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0$.
Given that $\{{\varepsilon}_i\}$ is a basis for $L$, choose ${\varepsilon}_i'\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$ such that ${{\langle}}{\varepsilon}_i',{\varepsilon}_j{{\rangle}}=\delta_{i,j}$, and define $$\begin{gathered}
\omega:=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^3{\varepsilon}_i'(-1){\varepsilon}_i(-1)\otimes {{\bf v}}_0. \end{gathered}$$ Then $\omega$ is a conformal element for $V_L$ with central charge equal to the rank of $L$. If we define $L(n)\in {\operatorname{End}}V_L$ so that $Y(\omega,z)=\sum_{n\in {{\mathbb Z}}}L(n)z^{-n-2}$ then $[L(0),v(n)]=-nv(n)$ and $1\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$ is an eigenvector for $L(0)$ with eigenvalue ${{\langle}}\lambda,\lambda{{\rangle}}/2$. Note that we do not assume that the bilinear form on $L$ is positive-definite. Vectors of non-positive length in $L$ will give rise to infinite dimensional eigenspaces for $L(0)$, so in general $(V_L,Y,{{\bf v}}_0,\omega_u)$ is a conformal super vertex algebra, but not a super vertex operator algebra.
Automorphisms of $L$ can be lifted to automorphisms of $V_L$. For suppose given $g\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(L)$ and a function $\alpha:L\to \{\pm 1\}$ satisfying $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:latva-alphacond}
\alpha(\lambda+\mu)\beta(\lambda,\mu)=\alpha(\lambda)\alpha(\mu)\beta(g\lambda,g\mu)\end{gathered}$$ for $\lambda,\mu\in L$. Then we obtain an automorphism $\hat{g}$ of ${\operatorname{Aut}}(V_L)$ by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:latva-hatg}
\hat{g}(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_\lambda):=\alpha(\lambda) (g\cdot p)\otimes{{\bf v}}_{g\lambda},\end{gathered}$$ for $p\in S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)$ and $\lambda\in L$, where $g\cdot p$ denotes the natural extension of the action of ${\operatorname{Aut}}(L)$ on ${\mathfrak{h}}=L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb C}}$ to $S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)$, determined by $g\cdot u(m)=(gu)(m)$ for $u\in{\mathfrak{h}}$.
For example, take $g$ to be the [*Kummer involution*]{} of $L$, given by $g\lambda=-\lambda$ for $\lambda\in L$. Then $\beta(\lambda,\mu)=\beta(-\lambda,-\mu)$ for all $\lambda,\mu\in L$, since $\beta$ is bi-multiplicative, so we may take $\alpha\equiv 1$ in (\[eqn:va:latva-alphacond\]). We denote the corresponding automorphism of $V_L$ by $\theta$, and note that the action of $\theta$ on $V_L$ is given explicitly as follows. If $p\in S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$ in variables $u_i(-m_i)$, where $u_i\in{\mathfrak{h}}$ and the $m_i$ are positive integers, then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:latva-theta}
\theta(p\otimes v_{\lambda})=(-1)^k p\otimes v_{-\lambda}.\end{gathered}$$
Lattice Vertex Algebra Modules {#sec:va:latvamod}
------------------------------
Let $\gamma$ be an element of the dual lattice $L^*:=\{\lambda\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}\mid {{\langle}}\lambda,L{{\rangle}}\subset{{\mathbb Z}}\}$. Define ${{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L+\gamma]$ to be the complex vector space generated by symbols ${{\bf v}}_{\mu+\gamma}$ for $\mu\in L$, regarded as an ${{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L]$-module according to the rule ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}\cdot{{\bf v}}_{\mu+\gamma}=\beta(\lambda,\mu){{\bf v}}_{\lambda+\mu+\gamma}$. Equip ${{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L+\gamma]$ with an $U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^+)$-module structure much as before, by letting ${\bf c}{{\bf v}}_{\mu+\gamma}={{\bf v}}_{\mu+\gamma}$ and $u(m){{\bf v}}_{\mu+\gamma}=\delta_{m,0}{{\langle}}u,\mu+\gamma{{\rangle}}{{\bf v}}_{\mu+\gamma}$ for $u\in{\mathfrak{h}}$ and $\mu\in L$. Let $V_{L+\gamma}$ be the $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}$-module defined by setting $V_{L+\gamma}:=U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}})\otimes_{U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^+)}{{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L+\gamma]$. Then we have an isomorphism $$\begin{gathered}
V_{L+\gamma}\simeq S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)\otimes {{\mathbb C}}[L+\gamma]\end{gathered}$$ of modules for $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-$. Define vertex operators $Y_{\gamma}:V_L\to({\operatorname{End}}V_{L+\gamma})[[z,z^{-1}]]$ using the same formulas as before but interpret the operator ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$ in (\[eqn:va:latva-Ylambda\]) as ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\mu+\gamma})=\beta(\lambda,\mu)p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+\mu+\gamma}$, according to the ${{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L]$-module structure on ${{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L+\gamma]$ prescribed above. Note that the construction of $V_{L+\gamma}$ depends upon the choice of coset representative $\gamma\in L^*$, so that $V_{L+\gamma}$ might be different from $V_{L+\gamma'}$, as a ${{\mathbb C}}_{\beta}[L]$-module, for example, even when $L+\gamma=L+\gamma'$, but different choices of coset representative are guaranteed to define isomorphic $V_L$-modules according to [@MR1245855].
The construction just described may be generalized so as to realize certain twisted modules for $V_L$. We give a brief description here, and refer to §3 of [@MR1284796] for more details.
Choose a vector $h\in{\mathfrak{h}}$. Then for $p\in S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)$ and $\lambda\in L$ we have $h(0)p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda}={{\langle}}h,\lambda{{\rangle}}p\otimes{{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$. So if $h$ is chosen to lie in $L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$ then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:latvamod-sigmah}
g_h:=e^{2\pi i h(0)}\end{gathered}$$ is a finite order automorphism of $V_L$, which acts as multiplication by $e^{2\pi i {{\langle}}h,\lambda{{\rangle}}}$ on the vector $p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$. The kernel of the map $L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}\to {\operatorname{Aut}}(V_L)$ given by $h\mapsto g_h$ is exactly $L^*$, so $(L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}})/L^*$ is naturally a group of automorphisms of $V_L$. We may construct all the corresponding twisted modules for $V_L$ explicitly.
To do this choose an $h$ in $L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$ and let ${{\mathbb C}}[L+h]$ be the complex vector space generated by symbols ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda+h}$ for $\lambda\in L$. Just as before, we define a $U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^+)$-module structure on ${{\mathbb C}}[L+h]$ by setting ${\bf c}{{\bf v}}_{\mu}={{\bf v}}_{\mu}$ and $u(m){{\bf v}}_{\mu}=\delta_{m,0}{{\langle}}u,\mu{{\rangle}}{{\bf v}}_{\mu}$ for $u\in{\mathfrak{h}}$ and $\mu\in L+h$. Let $V_{L+h}$ be the $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}$-module defined by setting $V_{L+h}:=U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}})\otimes_{U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^+)}{{\mathbb C}}[L+h]$, so that we have an isomorphism $$\begin{gathered}
V_{L+h}\simeq S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)\otimes {{\mathbb C}}[L+h]\end{gathered}$$ of modules for $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-$. Taking $M$ to be a positive integer such that $Mh\in L^*$, define vertex operators $Y_h:V_L\to({\operatorname{End}}V_{L+h})[[z^{1/M},z^{-1/M}]]$ using the same formulas as before but interpret the operator ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$ in (\[eqn:va:latva-Ylambda\]) as ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\mu+h})=\beta(\lambda,\mu)p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+\mu+h}$. Then $V_{L+h}=(V_{L+h},Y_{h})$ is an irreducible $g_h$-twisted module for $V_L$, and any $g_h$-twisted module for $V_L$ is of the form $V_{L+h'}$ for some $h'\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$ that is congruent to $h$ modulo $L^*$.
Note that the action of $L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$ on $V_L$, given by $h\mapsto g_{h}$, extends to the $g_{h'}$-twisted module $V_{L+h'}$, for $h'\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$. For given $h,h'\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$, we may define $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:latvamod-sigmahtw}
g_{h}(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+h'}):=e^{2\pi i {{\langle}}h,\lambda{{\rangle}}}(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+h'})\end{gathered}$$ for $p\in S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)$ and $\lambda\in L$. Then we have $g_h Y_{h'}(a,z)b=Y_{h'}(g_h a,z)g_h b$ for $a\in V_L$ and $b\in V_{L+h'}$.
Clifford Module Vertex Algebra {#sec:va:cliffmod}
------------------------------
We also require the standard procedure—see [@MR1123265] for a general treatment, and [@MR1372717] for the special, one-dimensional case we consider here—which attaches a Clifford module super vertex operator algebra to a vector space equipped with a symmetric bilinear form.
So let ${\mathfrak{p}}$ be a one dimensional complex vector space equipped with a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form ${{\langle}}\cdot\,,\cdot{{\rangle}}$. Set $\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}={\mathfrak{p}}[t,t^{-1}]t^{1/2}$ and write $a(r)$ for $a\otimes t^r$. Extend the bilinear form from ${\mathfrak{p}}$ to $\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ by requiring that ${{\langle}}a(r),b(s){{\rangle}}={{\langle}}a,b{{\rangle}}\delta_{r+s,0}$. Set $\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}^{\pm}={\mathfrak{p}}[t^{\pm 1}]t^{\pm 1/2}$, write ${{\langle}}\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}^{\pm}{{\rangle}}$ for the sub algebra of ${\operatorname{Cliff}}(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}})$ generated by $\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}^{\pm}$ and define a one-dimensional ${{\langle}}\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}^+{{\rangle}}$-module ${{\mathbb C}}{{\bf v}}$ by requiring that ${\bf 1}{{\bf v}}={{\bf v}}$ and $a(r){{\bf v}}=0$ for $a\in {\mathfrak{p}}$ and $r>0$. Here ${\operatorname{Cliff}}(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}})$ denotes the [*Clifford algebra*]{} attached to $\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}$, which we take to be the quotient of the tensor algebra $T(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}})={{\mathbb C}}{\bf 1}\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}^{\otimes 2}\oplus \cdots$ by the ideal generated by expressions of the form $u\otimes u+\frac{1}{2}{{\langle}}u,u{{\rangle}}{\bf 1}$ for $u\in \hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}$.
Observe that the induced ${\operatorname{Cliff}}(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}})$-module, $A({\mathfrak{p}})={\operatorname{Cliff}}(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}})\otimes_{{{\langle}}\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}^+{{\rangle}}}{{\mathbb C}}{{\bf v}}$, is isomorphic to $\bigwedge(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}^-){{\bf v}}$ as a ${{\langle}}\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}^-{{\rangle}}$-module. We obtain a super vertex algebra structure on $A({\mathfrak{p}})$ by setting $$\begin{gathered}
Y(a(-1/2){{\bf v}},z)=\sum_{n\in{{\mathbb Z}}}a(n+1/2)z^{-n-1}\end{gathered}$$ for $a\in {\mathfrak{p}}$, for the reconstruction theorem of [@MR2082709] ensures that this rule extends uniquely to a super vertex algebra structure $Y:A({\mathfrak{p}})\otimes A({\mathfrak{p}})\to A({\mathfrak{p}})((z))$ with $Y({{\bf v}},z)={\operatorname{Id}}$.
Let $p\in{\mathfrak{p}}$ such that ${{\langle}}p,p{{\rangle}}=-2$. We obtain a super vertex operator algebra structure, with central charge $c=1/2$, by taking $$\begin{gathered}
\omega=\frac{1}{4}p(-3/2)p(-1/2){{\bf v}}\end{gathered}$$ to be the Virasoro element.
To construct canonically-twisted modules for $A({\mathfrak{p}})$ set $\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}}={\mathfrak{p}}[t,t^{-1}]$ and extend the bilinear form from ${\mathfrak{p}}$ to $\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}}$ as before by requiring that ${{\langle}}a(r),b(s){{\rangle}}={{\langle}}a,b{{\rangle}}\delta_{r+s,0}$. Set $\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}}^{>}={\mathfrak{p}}[t]t$ and $\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}}^{\leq}={\mathfrak{p}}[t^{-1}]$, and define a $1$-dimensional ${{\langle}}\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}}^>{{\rangle}}$-module ${{\mathbb C}}{{\bf v}}_{{{\rm tw}}}$ by requiring, much as before, that ${\bf 1}{{\bf v}}_{{{\rm tw}}}={{\bf v}}_{{{\rm tw}}}$ and $a(r){{\bf v}}=0$ for $a\in {\mathfrak{p}}$ and $r>0$. Then for the induced ${\operatorname{Cliff}}(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}})$-module, $$\begin{gathered}
A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{{\rm tw}}}:={\operatorname{Cliff}}(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}})\otimes_{{{\langle}}\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}}^>{{\rangle}}}{{\mathbb C}}{{\bf v}}_{{{\rm tw}}},\end{gathered}$$ there is a unique linear map $Y_{{{\rm tw}}}:A({\mathfrak{p}})\otimes A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{{\rm tw}}}\to A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{{\rm tw}}}((z^{1/2}))$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:Ytwu}
Y_{{{\rm tw}}}(u(-1/2){{\bf v}},z)=\sum_{n\in {{\mathbb Z}}}u(n)z^{-n-1/2}\end{gathered}$$ for $u\in{\mathfrak{p}}$, and $(A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{{\rm tw}}},Y_{{{\rm tw}}})$ is a canonically-twisted module for $A({\mathfrak{p}})$. Again one may use (a suitably modified formulation of) the reconstruction theorem of [@MR2082709] to see this (cf. [@MR2074176]). We refer to [@MR1372717] for a concrete and detailed description of $Y_{{{\rm tw}}}$. Note that $A({\mathfrak{p}})$ is isomorphic to $\bigwedge(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}}^{\leq}){{\bf v}}$ as a ${{\langle}}\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}}^{\leq}{{\rangle}}$-module.
With $p\in{\mathfrak{p}}$ as above, such that ${{\langle}}p,p{{\rangle}}=-2$, we have $p(0)^2={\bf 1}$ in ${\operatorname{Cliff}}({\mathfrak{p}})$. Set $$\begin{gathered}
{{\bf v}}_{{\rm tw}}^\pm:=({\bf 1}\pm p(0)){{\bf v}}_{{\rm tw}},\end{gathered}$$ so that $p(0){{\bf v}}_{{\rm tw}}^\pm=\pm{{\bf v}}_{{\rm tw}}^\pm$. Then $A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}=A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}^+\oplus A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}^-$ is a decomposition of $A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}$ into irreducible canonically-twisted $A({\mathfrak{p}})$-modules, where $A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}^\pm$ denotes the sub module of $A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}$ generated by ${{\bf v}}_{{\rm tw}}^\pm$. $$\begin{gathered}
A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{{\rm tw}}}^\pm:={\operatorname{Cliff}}(\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}})\otimes_{{{\langle}}\hat{{\mathfrak{p}}}_{{{\rm tw}}}^>{{\rangle}}}{{\mathbb C}}{{\bf v}}_{{{\rm tw}}}^\pm\end{gathered}$$ From (\[eqn:Ytwu\]) we see that the $L(0)$-degree preserving component of $Y_{{\rm tw}}(p(-1/2){{\bf v}},z)$ is $p(0)$. Computing the graded-trace of $p(0)$ on $A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}^{\pm}$, we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cliffmod-trpAtw}
{\operatorname{{tr}}}_{A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}^{\pm}}p(0)q^{L(0)-c/24}=\pm q^{1/24}\prod_{n>0}(1-q^n),\end{gathered}$$ where the factor $q^{1/24}$ appears because $L(0){{\bf v}}_{{\rm tw}}^{\pm}=\frac{1}{16}{{\bf v}}_{{\rm tw}}^{\pm}$ and $c=1/2$.
Cone Vertex Algebra {#sec:va:cva}
-------------------
Let $L$ be an integral lattice as before, and suppose $\{{\varepsilon}_i\}$ is a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis for $L$. Define $P$ to be the monoid of non-negative rational combinations of the chosen basis vectors ${\varepsilon}_i$, $$\begin{gathered}
P:=\left\{\sum_i \alpha_i{\varepsilon}_i\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}\mid \alpha_i\geq 0,\,\forall i\right\},\end{gathered}$$ and define $N$ to be the semigroup of strictly negative rational combinations of the ${\varepsilon}_i$, $$\begin{gathered}
N:=\left\{\sum_i \alpha_i{\varepsilon}_i\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}\mid \alpha_i< 0,\,\forall i \right\}.\end{gathered}$$ Define $D:=P\cup N$ to be the union of $P$ and $N$. Our goal in this section is to attach a vertex algebra structure to the intersection $D\cap L$. For convenience we use the abbreviated notation $D(L):=D\cap L$, and more generally $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cva-DLgamma}
D(L+\gamma):=D\cap (L+\gamma)\end{gathered}$$ for $\gamma\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$. We interpret the notations $P(L+\gamma)$ and $N(L+\gamma)$ similarly.
Given $K\subset L$ write $V_K$ for the $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}$-submodule of $V_L$ generated by the ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$ for $\lambda\in K$, $$\begin{gathered}
V_K\simeq S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)\otimes {{\mathbb C}}[K].\end{gathered}$$ Observe that if $K\subset L$ is closed under addition and contains $0$—i.e. if $K$ is a submonoid of $L$—then $V_K$ is a sub super vertex algebra of $V_L$, and $\omega$ is a conformal element for $V_K$. Furthermore, if $K'\subset L$ satisfies $K+K'\subset K'$ then the restriction of the vertex operators $a\otimes b\mapsto Y(a,z)b$ to $V_{K}\otimes V_{K'}<V_L\otimes V_L$ equips $V_{K'}$ with a module structure over $V_K$.
So in particular, $V_{P(L)}$ (cf. (\[eqn:va:cva-DLgamma\])) is a conformal super vertex algebra. If the basis $\{{\varepsilon}_i\}$ is chosen so that $P$ has no non-trivial vectors with non-positive length squared, then the eigenspaces for the action of $L(0)$ on $V_{P(L)}$ are finite-dimensional, the eigenvalues of $L(0)$ are contained in $\frac{1}{2}{{\mathbb Z}}$ and bounded from below, and thus $V_{P(L)}$ is a super vertex operator algebra.
We will now show that the super vertex algebra structure on $V_{P(L)}$ extends naturally to $V_{D(L)}=V_{P(L)}\oplus V_{N(L)}$. For this we require a $V_{P(L)}$-module structure on $V_{N(L)}$, which we achieve by implementing the following standard method (cf. e.g. §2 of [@MR1284796]).
Suppose that $g$ is an automorphism of a super vertex algebra $V=(V,Y,{{\bf v}})$ and, $g_M\in {{\textsl{GL}}}(M)$ is a linear automorphism of a $V$-module $M=(M,Y_M)$ satisfying $g_MY_M(a,z)m=Y_M(ga,z)g_Mm$ for $a\in V$ and $m\in M$. Observe then that we obtain a new $V$-module structure $M^g:=(M,Y_M^g)$ on the vector space underlying $M$ by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cva-Ymg}
Y_M^g(a,z)m:=g_MY_M(a,z)g_M^{-1}m\end{gathered}$$ for $a\in V$ and $m\in M$. Indeed, we have $Y_M^g(a,z)=Y_M(ga,z)$.
Now take $M=V=V_L$ and $g=g_M=\theta$ in (\[eqn:va:cva-Ymg\]), where $\theta\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(V_L)$ is the involution defined in §\[sec:va:latva\], determined by requiring that $\theta(1\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda})=1\otimes {{\bf v}}_{-\lambda}$ for $\lambda\in L$, and $[\theta,u(m)]=-u(m)$ for $u\in {\mathfrak{h}}$ (cf. (\[eqn:va:latva-theta\])). Observe that $\theta$ maps $V_{N(L)}$ to $V_{(-N)\cap L}$ which is a subspace of $V_{P(L)}$. Since $$\begin{gathered}
P+(-N)=\{\lambda+\mu\mid \lambda\in P,\,\mu\in -N\}\end{gathered}$$ is a subset of $-N$, the space $V_{(-N)\cap L}$ is even a $V_{P(L)}$-submodule of $V_{P(L)}$, so we obtain a $V_{P(L)}$-module structure on $V_{N(L)}$ by restricting the map $a\otimes b\mapsto Y^{\theta}(a,z)b$ to $V_{P(L)}\otimes V_{N(L)}$. Note that $Y^{\theta}(a,z)b=\theta Y(a,z)\theta b=Y(\theta a,z)b$.
For a vertex algebra structure on $V_{D(L)}$ we must also identify maps $V_{N(L)}\otimes V_{P(L)}\to V_{N(L)}((z))$ and $V_{N(L)}\otimes V_{N(L)}\to V_{P(L)}((z))$. For the first of these we use $\widetilde{Y}(a,z)b:=Y(a,z)\theta b$. For the second we set $\widetilde{Y}(a,z)b:=\theta Y(a,z)b=Y(\theta a, z)\theta b$. To summarize, we define a vertex operator correspondence $\widetilde{Y}:V_{D(L)}\otimes V_{D(L)}\to V_{D(L)}((z))$, by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cva-vdvops}
\widetilde{Y}(a,z)b
:=\begin{cases}
Y(a,z)b,&\text{ for $a,b\in V_{P(L)}$,}\\
Y(\theta a,z)b,&\text{ for $a\in V_{P(L)}$ and $b\in V_{N(L)}$,}\\
Y(a,z)\theta b,&\text{ for $a\in V_{N(L)}$ and $b\in V_{P(L)}$,}\\
\theta Y(a,z)b,&\text{ for $a,b\in V_{N(L)}$,}\\
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ where $Y$ denotes the usual vertex operator correspondence on $V_L$, determined by (\[eqn:va:latva-Yu\]) and (\[eqn:va:latva-Ylambda\]).
\[thm:va:cva-VD\] The four-tuple $(V_{D(L)},\widetilde{Y},{{\bf v}},\omega)$ is a conformal super vertex algebra. It is a super vertex operator algebra if $D$ has no non-trivial vectors of non-positive length squared.
The proof is a standard exercise in lattice vertex algebra computations. The fundamental reason that the construction works is the fact that we obtain a commutative monoid structure $\tilde{+}$ on $D$ when we define $$\begin{gathered}
\lambda\tilde{+}\mu
:=\begin{cases}
\lambda+\mu,&\text{ for $\lambda,\mu\in P$,}\\
-\lambda+\mu,&\text{ for $\lambda\in P$ and $\mu\in N$,}\\
\lambda-\mu,&\text{ for $\lambda\in N$ and $\mu\in P$,}\\
-\lambda-\mu,&\text{ for $\lambda,\mu\in N$.}\\
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ The remaining details are left to the reader.
Observe that the decomposition $V_{D(L)}=V_{P(L)}\oplus V_{N(L)}$ determines a ${{\mathbb Z}}/2$-grading on $V_{D(L)}$. We call this the [*sign grading*]{}, and we define the [*sign automorphism*]{} of $V_{D(L)}$ to be the linear map $s:V_{D(L)}\to V_{D(L)}$ determined by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cva-signaut}
s(a):=\begin{cases}
a,&\text{ when $a\in V_{P(L)}$,}\\
-a,&\text{ when $a\in V_{N(L)}$.}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ It follows easily from the definition (\[eqn:va:cva-vdvops\]) of the super vertex algebra structure on $V_{D(L)}$ that $s$ is indeed an automorphism of $V_{D(L)}$.
We can construct certain twisted (and untwisted) modules for $V_{D(L)}$, by suitably modifying the constructions recalled in §\[sec:va:latvamod\]. Namely, for $h\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$ take $V_{D(L+h)}$ to be the $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}$-module defined by setting $V_{D(L+h)}:=U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}})\otimes_{U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^+)}{{\mathbb C}}[D(L+h)]$, where ${{\mathbb C}}[D(L+h)]$ is the complex vector space generated by symbols ${{\bf v}}_{\mu}$ for $\mu\in D\cap(L+h)$, regarded as a $U(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^0\oplus \hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^+)$-module by setting ${\bf c}{{\bf v}}_{\mu}={{\bf v}}_{\mu}$ and $u(m){{\bf v}}_{\mu}=\delta_{m,0}{{\langle}}u,\mu{{\rangle}}{{\bf v}}_{\mu}$ for $u\in{\mathfrak{h}}$ and $\mu\in D\cap(L+h)$. As usual, we have an isomorphism $$\begin{gathered}
V_{D(L+h)}\simeq S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)\otimes {{\mathbb C}}[D(L+h)]\end{gathered}$$ of modules for $\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-$. Taking $M$ to be a positive integer such that $Mh\in L^*$, define vertex operators $\widetilde{Y}_h:V_{D(L)}\to({\operatorname{End}}V_{D(L+h)})[[z^{1/M},z^{-1/M}]]$ using (\[eqn:va:latva-Yu\]), (\[eqn:va:latva-Ylambda\]) and (\[eqn:va:cva-vdvops\]), but interpret the operator ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}$ in (\[eqn:va:latva-Ylambda\]) as ${{\bf v}}_{\lambda}(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\mu+h})=\beta(\lambda,\mu)p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+\mu+h}$.
\[thm:va:cva-VDh\] Let $h\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$. Then the pair $(V_{D(L+h)},\widetilde{Y}_h)$ is a $g_h$-twisted module for $V_{D(L)}$. In particular, $(V_{D(L+h)},\widetilde{Y}_h)$ is a $V_{D(L)}$-module when $h\in L^*$.
Main Construction {#sec:va:cnstn}
-----------------
We now take $L={{\mathbb Z}}{\varepsilon}_1+{{\mathbb Z}}{\varepsilon}_2+{{\mathbb Z}}{\varepsilon}_3$ to be the rank $3$ lattice with bilinear form ${{\langle}}\cdot\,,\cdot{{\rangle}}$ determined by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-bilinearform}
{{\langle}}{\varepsilon}_i,{\varepsilon}_j{{\rangle}}=2-\delta_{i,j}.\end{gathered}$$ Then $L$ is an integral, non-even lattice with signature $(1,2)$. Set $\rho:=({\varepsilon}_1+{\varepsilon}_2+{\varepsilon}_3)/5$ and observe that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-iplambdarho}
{{\langle}}\lambda,\rho{{\rangle}}=k+l+m\end{gathered}$$ for $\lambda=k{\varepsilon}_1+l{\varepsilon}_2+m{\varepsilon}_3$, so $\rho$ belongs to the dual $L^*$ of $L$. In fact, $L^*/L$ is cyclic of order $5$, and $\rho+L$ is a generator. If we set $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-Lj}
L^j:=\{\lambda\in L\mid {{\langle}}\lambda,\rho{{\rangle}}=j{\hspace{-1.5ex}\pmod{2}}\},\end{gathered}$$ then $L=L^0\cup L^1$ is the decomposition of $L$ into its even and odd parts, by which we mean that ${{\langle}}\lambda,\lambda{{\rangle}}$ is even or odd according as $\lambda$ lies in $L^0$ or $L^1$.
Let $V_L$ be the super vertex operator algebra attached to $L$ via the construction of §\[sec:va:latva\], where the bilinear function $b:L\times L\to {{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ is determined by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-b}
b({\varepsilon}_i,{\varepsilon}_j):=\begin{cases}
0&\text{when $i\leq j$,}\\
1&\text{when $i>j$.}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$
There is an obvious action of the symmetric group $S_3$ on $L$, by permutations of the basis vectors ${\varepsilon}_i$. We lift this action to $V_L$ in the following way. Recall from §\[sec:va:latva\] that a lift $\hat{g}\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(V_L)$ of an automorphism $g\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(L)$ is determined by a choice of function $\alpha:L\to \{\pm 1\}$ satisfying (\[eqn:va:latva-alphacond\]). Observe that any such automorphism $\hat{g}$ restricts to an automorphism of $V_{D(L)}$, so long as $g$ preserves the subset $D(L)\subset L$. Taking $\mu=k\lambda$ in (\[eqn:va:latva-alphacond\]) we have $\alpha((k+1)\lambda)=\alpha(\lambda)\alpha(k\lambda)\beta(\lambda,\lambda)^k\beta(g\lambda, g\lambda)^k$, since $\beta$ is bi-mulitplicative, so given the prescription (\[eqn:va:cnstn-b\]) we see that $\beta(\lambda,\lambda)=k_1k_2+k_2k_3+k_3k_1$ for $\lambda=k_1{\varepsilon}_1+k_2{\varepsilon}_2+k_3{\varepsilon}_3$, which is invariant under the action of $S_3$. So actually $\beta(\lambda,\lambda)=\beta(g\lambda,g\lambda)$, and thus we may assume $\alpha(k\lambda)=\alpha(\lambda)^k$ in (\[eqn:va:latva-alphacond\]) for $\lambda\in L$ and $k$ a positive integer, when $g$ acts by permuting the ${\varepsilon}_i$. Observe also that for $\lambda,\mu,\nu\in L$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\alpha(\lambda+\mu+\nu)\beta(\lambda,\mu)\beta(\mu,\nu)\beta(\nu,\lambda)
=\alpha(\lambda)\alpha(\mu)\alpha(\nu)\beta(g\lambda,g\mu)\beta(g\mu,g\nu)\beta(g\nu,g\lambda)\end{gathered}$$ according to (\[eqn:va:latva-alphacond\]), which specializes to $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:va:cnstn-alphavareps}
&\alpha(\lambda)\beta({\varepsilon}_1,{\varepsilon}_2)^{k_1k_2}\beta({\varepsilon}_2,{\varepsilon}_3)^{k_2k_3}\beta({\varepsilon}_3,{\varepsilon}_1)^{k_3k_1}\\
&=\alpha({\varepsilon}_1)^{k_1}\alpha({\varepsilon}_2)^{k_2}\alpha({\varepsilon}_3)^{k_3}
\beta(g{\varepsilon}_1,g{\varepsilon}_2)^{k_1k_2}\beta(g{\varepsilon}_2,g{\varepsilon}_3)^{k_2k_3}\beta(g{\varepsilon}_3,g{\varepsilon}_1)^{k_3k_1}
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ for $\lambda=k_1{\varepsilon}_1+k_2{\varepsilon}_2+k_3{\varepsilon}_3$.
Consider the case that $g=\sigma$ is the cyclic permutation $(123)$. From (\[eqn:va:cnstn-alphavareps\]) we see that we may lift $\sigma$ to ${\operatorname{Aut}}(V_L)$ by taking $\alpha({\varepsilon}_i)=1$ for $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, and more generally $\alpha(k_1{\varepsilon}_1+k_2{\varepsilon}_2+k_3{\varepsilon}_3)=(-1)^{k_2k_3+k_3k_1}$, in the construction of §\[sec:va:latva\]. We denote the corresponding automorphism of $V_L$ by $\hat{\sigma}_0$. $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-sigma}
\hat{\sigma}_0(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{k_1{\varepsilon}_1+k_2{\varepsilon}_2+k_3{\varepsilon}_3})
:=(-1)^{k_2k_3+k_3k_1}(\sigma\cdot p)\otimes{{\bf v}}_{k_3{\varepsilon}_1+k_1{\varepsilon}_2+k_2{\varepsilon}_3}\end{gathered}$$ Next consider $g=\tau:=(12)$. Applying (\[eqn:va:cnstn-alphavareps\]) we see that we may lift $\tau$ to ${\operatorname{Aut}}(V_L)$ by taking $\alpha({\varepsilon}_i)=1$ as before, and more generally $\alpha(k_1{\varepsilon}_1+k_2{\varepsilon}_2+k_3{\varepsilon}_3)=(-1)^{k_1k_2}$, in the construction of §\[sec:va:latva\]. We denote the corresponding automorphism of $V_L$ by $\hat{\tau}_0$. $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-tau}
\hat{\tau}_0(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{k_1{\varepsilon}_1+k_2{\varepsilon}_2+k_3{\varepsilon}_3})
:=(-1)^{k_1k_2}(\tau\cdot p)\otimes{{\bf v}}_{k_2{\varepsilon}_1+k_1{\varepsilon}_2+k_3{\varepsilon}_3}\end{gathered}$$ Using (\[eqn:va:cnstn-sigma\]) and (\[eqn:va:cnstn-tau\]) one can check that $\hat{\sigma}_0^3=\hat{\tau}_0^2=(\hat{\tau}_0\hat{\sigma}_0)^2={\operatorname{Id}}$ in ${\operatorname{Aut}}(V_L)$, so $\hat{\sigma}_0$ and $\hat{\tau}_0$ do indeed generate a copy of $S_3$ in ${\operatorname{Aut}}(V_L)$.
Observe that $V_L=V_{L^0}\oplus V_{L^1}$ is the decomposition of $V_L$ into its even and odd parity subspaces, where $L^j$ is defined by (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Lj\]). Recall the automorphisms $g_h$ of $V_L$, defined for $h\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}$ by (\[eqn:va:latvamod-sigmah\]). Then we see from (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Lj\]) that the canonical involution of $V_L$, acting as $+1$ on the even subspace $V_{L^0}$, and $-1$ on the odd subspace $V_{L^1}$, is realized by $g_{\rho/2}$. So the canonically-twisted modules for $V_L$ are exactly the $V_{L+a\rho/2}$, for $a\in\{1,3,5,7,9\}$ (cf. §\[sec:va:latvamod\]).
The prescription (\[eqn:va:latvamod-sigmahtw\]) furnishes an extension of the action of the canonical involution $g_{\rho/2}$, from $V_L$ to $V_{L+a\rho/2}$. Since $\rho$ is $S_3$-invariant we may also extend the actions of $\hat\sigma_0$ and $\hat\tau_0$ to $V_{L+a\rho/2}$, by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:va:cnstn-sigtaunoughtVLtw}
\hat\sigma_0(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+a\rho/2})&:=(-1)^{k_2k_3+k_3k_1}(\sigma\cdot p)\otimes{{\bf v}}_{\sigma\lambda+a\rho/2},\\
\hat\tau_0(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+a\rho_2})&:=(-1)^{k_1k_2}(\tau\cdot p)\otimes{{\bf v}}_{\tau\lambda+a\rho/2},
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ for $p\in S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)$ and $\lambda=k_1{\varepsilon}_1+k_2{\varepsilon}_2+k_3{\varepsilon}_3$.
Now consider $V_{D(L)}=(V_{D(L)},\widetilde{Y},{{\bf v}}_0,\omega)$, where $D$ is the cone determined by the basis $\varepsilon_i$, $$\begin{gathered}
D=\left\{\sum_{i=1}^3 \alpha_i\varepsilon_i\in L\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}}{{\mathbb Q}}\mid \alpha_i\geq 0,\,\forall i, \text{ or } \alpha_i<0\,,\forall i\right\},\end{gathered}$$ and $\widetilde{Y}$ is the vertex operator correspondence defined by (\[eqn:va:cva-vdvops\]) in §\[sec:va:cva\]. Observe that if we set $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-leprime}
{\varepsilon}_i':=2\rho-{\varepsilon}_i\end{gathered}$$ for $i\in\{1,2,3\}$ then ${{\langle}}{\varepsilon}_i',{\varepsilon}_j{{\rangle}}=\delta_{i,j}$. Since the values ${{\langle}}\varepsilon_i,\varepsilon_j{{\rangle}}$ are all positive, there are no non-trivial vectors $\lambda\in D$ with ${{\langle}}\lambda,\lambda{{\rangle}}\leq 0$. So, by virtue of Theorem \[thm:va:cva-VD\], the super vertex algebra $V_{D(L)}$ becomes a super vertex operator algebra, with central charge $c=3$, when equipped with the conformal element $$\begin{gathered}
\omega=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^3{\varepsilon}_i'(-1){\varepsilon}_i(-1)\otimes {{\bf v}}_0. \end{gathered}$$ Observe that the actions (\[eqn:va:cnstn-sigma\]) and (\[eqn:va:cnstn-tau\]), of $\hat\sigma_0$ and $\hat\tau_0$, respectively, restrict from $V_L$ to $V_{D(L)}$, since $D$ is invariant under coordinate permutations. We define automorphisms $\hat\sigma$ and $\hat\tau$ for $V_{D(L)}$, by taking $\hat\sigma:=\hat\sigma_0$ and $\hat\tau:=\hat\tau_0\circ s$, where $s$ is the sign automorphism of $V_{D(L)}$, defined in §\[sec:va:cva\]. Since $s$ has order two and commutes with $\hat\tau_0$ we see that $\hat\sigma$ and $\hat\tau$ generate a copy of $S_3$ in ${\operatorname{Aut}}(V_{D(L)})$, and we denote this group $\hat{G}$. $$\begin{gathered}
\hat{G}:={{\langle}}\hat\sigma,\hat\tau{{\rangle}}<{\operatorname{Aut}}(V_{D(L)})\end{gathered}$$
Theorem \[thm:va:cva-VDh\] and the discussion above furnish us with canonically-twisted $V_{D(L)}$-modules $V_{D(L+a\rho/2)}$ for $a$ an odd integer. Note that this furnishes five distinct canonically-twisted $V_{D(L)}$-modules, since the isomorphism type of $V_{D(L+a\rho/2)}$ is determined by $a\pmod{10}$, since $k=10$ is the minimal positive integer such that $k\rho/2\in L$. We extend the action of the canonical involution $g_{\rho/2}$ from $V_{D(L)}$ to $V_{D(L+a\rho/2)}$ just as we do for $V_L$-modules (cf. (\[eqn:va:latvamod-sigmahtw\])), by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:sigmaVxtn}
g_{\rho/2}(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+a\rho/2}):=(-1)^{{{\langle}}\rho,\lambda{{\rangle}}}p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+a\rho/2}\end{gathered}$$ for $p\in S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)$ and $\lambda+a\rho/2\in D(L+a\rho/2)$. Similarly, we extend the actions of $\hat\sigma$ and $\hat\tau$, from $V_{D(L)}$ to $V_{D(L+a\rho/2)}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:va:cnstn-sigtauVDLtw}
\hat\sigma(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+a\rho/2})&:=(-1)^{k_2k_3+k_3k_1}(\sigma\cdot p)\otimes{{\bf v}}_{\sigma\lambda+a\rho/2},\\
\hat\tau(p\otimes {{\bf v}}_{\lambda+a\rho_2})&:=
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{k_1k_2}(\tau\cdot p)\otimes{{\bf v}}_{\tau\lambda+a\rho/2},&\text{ if $\lambda+a\rho/2\in P$,}\\
(-1)^{k_1k_2+1}(\tau\cdot p)\otimes{{\bf v}}_{\tau\lambda+a\rho/2},&\text{ if $\lambda+a\rho/2\in N$,}
\end{cases}
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ and thus obtain actions of $\hat{G}$ on the canonically-twisted $V_{D(L)}$-modules, $V_{D(L+a\rho/2)}$. In (\[eqn:va:cnstn-sigtauVDLtw\]) we write $p$ for an element of $S(\hat{{\mathfrak{h}}}^-)$, and assume $\lambda=k_1{\varepsilon}_1+k_2{\varepsilon}_2+k_3{\varepsilon}_3$.
We now let $V^X$ denote the tensor product super vertex operator algebra $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-VX}
V^X:=A({\mathfrak{p}})\otimes V_{D(L)}.\end{gathered}$$ We write $V_{{{\rm tw}},a}^\pm$ for the canonically-twisted $V^X$-module, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-Vtw}
V^{\pm}_{{{\rm tw}},a}:=A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}^{\pm}\otimes V_{D(L+a\rho/2)}.\end{gathered}$$ We extend the action of $\hat{G}\simeq S_3$ from $V_{D(L)}$ to $V^X$, and from $V_{D(L+a\rho/2)}$ to $V^{\pm}_{{{\rm tw}},a}$, by letting $\hat{G}$ act trivially on the Clifford module factors, setting $$\begin{gathered}
\hat\sigma(u\otimes v):=u\otimes \hat\sigma(v),\quad
\hat\tau(u\otimes v):=u\otimes \hat\tau(v),\end{gathered}$$ for $u\in A({\mathfrak{p}})$ and $v\in V_{D(L)}$, and for $u\in A({\mathfrak{p}})_{{\rm tw}}^\pm$ and $v\in V_{D(L+a\rho/2)}$.
Given $g\in \hat{G}$ and $a$ an odd integer, we now define $T^{\pm}_{g,a}$ to be the trace of the operator $gg_{\rho/2}p(0)q^{L(0)-c/24}$ on the canonically-twisted $V^X$-module $V^{\pm}_{{{\rm tw}},a}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmga}
T^{\pm}_{g,a}:=
{\operatorname{{tr}}}_{V^{\pm}_{{{\rm tw}},a}}gg_{\rho/2}p(0)q^{L(0)-c/24}.\end{gathered}$$
Recall that $(q;q)_\infty=\prod_{n>0}(1-q^n)$ (cf. (\[eqn:intro-poch\])). Our concrete construction allows us to compute explicit formulas for the trace functions $T^{\pm}_{g,a}$.
\[prop:va:cnstn-tracefnexpressions\] The trace functions $T^{\pm}_{g,a}$ admit the following expressions, for $a\in\{1,3,5,7,9\}$. $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\pm}_{e,a}&=\pm\frac{q^{-1/12}}
{(q;q)^2_{\infty}}
\left(\sum_{k,l,m\geq 0}+\sum_{k,l,m<0}\right)
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmeaexplicit}
(-1)^{k+l+m}q^{(k^2+l^2+m^2)/2+2(kl+lm+mk)+a(k+l+m)/2+3a^2/40}\\
T^{\pm}_{\hat\tau,a}&=\pm\frac{q^{-1/12}}
{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}
\left(\sum_{k,m\geq 0}-\sum_{k,m<0}\right)\label{eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmtauaexplicit}
(-1)^{k+m}q^{3k^2+m^2/2+4km+a(2k+m)/2+3a^2/40}\\
T^\pm_{\hat\sigma,a}&=\pm q^{-1/12}\frac{(q;q)_{\infty}}{(q^3;q^3)_{\infty}}\label{eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmsigmaaexplicit}
\sum_{k\in{{\mathbb Z}}}(-1)^kq^{15k^2/2+3ak/2+3a^2/40}\end{aligned}$$
First consider the case that $g=e$ is the identity. From the definition (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmga\]) of $T^{\pm}_{e,a}$ we derive $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmeadirect}
T^{\pm}_{e,a}
=\pm\frac{1}
{(q;q)_{\infty}^2}
\sum_{\mu\in D(L+a\rho/2)}(-1)^{{{\langle}}\mu-a\rho/2,\rho{{\rangle}}}q^{{{\langle}}\mu,\mu{{\rangle}}/2-1/12},\end{gathered}$$ for any odd integer $a$. If also $0<a<10$ then $D(L+a\rho/2)=D(L)+a\rho/2$, and so in this situation we may replace $\mu$ with $k{\varepsilon}_1+l{\varepsilon}_2+m{\varepsilon}_3+a\rho/2$ in the summation, where either $k,l,m\geq 0$ or $k,l,m<0$. This leads to (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmeaexplicit\]) directly, according to the definition (\[eqn:va:cnstn-bilinearform\]) of ${{\langle}}\cdot\,,\cdot{{\rangle}}$, and the identity (\[eqn:va:cnstn-iplambdarho\]). The term $3a^2/40$ appears because ${{\langle}}\rho,\rho{{\rangle}}=3/5$.
Next take $g=\hat\tau$. We compute $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmtauadirect}
T^{\pm}_{\hat\tau,a}(q)=\pm\frac{1}{(q^2;q^2)_{\infty}}
\left(\sum_{\substack{\mu\in P(L+a\rho/2)\\ \tau\mu=\mu}}-
\sum_{\substack{\mu\in N(L+a\rho/2)\\ \tau\mu=\mu}}\right)
(-1)^{{{\langle}}\mu-a\rho/2,\rho+{\varepsilon}_1'{{\rangle}}}q^{{{\langle}}\mu,\mu{{\rangle}}/2-1/12}\end{gathered}$$ using the definition (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmga\]) of $T^{\pm}_{g,a}$, and the formula (\[eqn:va:cnstn-sigtauVDLtw\]) for the action of $\hat\tau$. (See also (\[eqn:va:cnstn-leprime\]).) Note that the sign change for summands with $\mu\in N(L+a\rho_2)$ is a consequence of the fact that the action of $\hat\tau$ is defined by composing $\hat\tau_0$ (cf. (\[eqn:va:cnstn-sigtaunoughtVLtw\])) with the sign automorphism $s$ (cf. (\[eqn:va:cva-signaut\])). Restricting to $0<a<10$, we obtain (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmtauaexplicit\]) from (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmtauadirect\]) in much the same way as above, by taking $\mu=k{\varepsilon}_1+k{\varepsilon}_2+m{\varepsilon}_3+a\rho/2$ in the summations, with $k,m\geq 0$ in the first of these, and $k,m<0$ in the second. The factor $(-1)^k$ in $(-1)^{k+m}$, corresponding to $(-1)^{{{\langle}}\mu-a\rho/2,{\varepsilon}_1'{{\rangle}}}$ in (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmtauadirect\]), arises from the factor $(-1)^{k_1k_2}=(-1)^{k^2}=(-1)^k$ in (\[eqn:va:cnstn-sigtauVDLtw\]).
Finally we consider $g=\hat\sigma$ (cf. (\[eqn:va:cnstn-sigtauVDLtw\])). Then the appropriate analogue of (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmeadirect\]) and (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmtauadirect\]) is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmsigmaadirect}
T^{\pm}_{\hat\sigma,a}(q)=\pm\frac{(q;q)_{\infty}}{(q^3;q^3)_{\infty}}
\sum_{\substack{\mu\in D(L+a\rho/2)\\ \sigma\mu=\mu}}
(-1)^{{{\langle}}\mu-a\rho/2,\rho{{\rangle}}}q^{{{\langle}}\mu,\mu{{\rangle}}/2-1/12}.\end{gathered}$$ We obtain (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmsigmaaexplicit\]) from (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmsigmaadirect\]), by restricting to $0<a<10$, and substituting $\mu=k{\varepsilon}_1+k{\varepsilon}_2+k{\varepsilon}_3+a\rho/2=(5k+a/2)\rho$ in the summation. This completes the proof of the proposition.
Mock Theta Functions {#sec:mcktht}
====================
In this section we consider the modular properties of the trace functions defined in §\[sec:va:cnstn\], computed explicitly in Proposition \[prop:va:cnstn-tracefnexpressions\]. We recall some basic facts about Maass forms in §\[sec:mcktht:maass\], including their relationship to mock modular forms. We require some facts about theta series of cones in indefinite lattices due to Zwegers [@Zwegers], which we recall in §\[sec:mcktht:indtht\]. The proof of our main result, Theorem \[thm:intro-maintheorem\], appears in §\[sec:mcktht:um\]. In particular, we identify the umbral McKay–Thompson series attached to $X=E_8^3$ as trace functions arising from the action of $G^X$ on canonically-twisted modules for $V^X$ in §\[sec:mcktht:um\].
Harmonic Maass Forms {#sec:mcktht:maass}
--------------------
Define the weight $1/2$ [*Casimir operator*]{} $\Omega_{\tfrac12}$, a differential operator on smooth functions $H:{{\mathbb H}}\to{{\mathbb C}}$, by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-cas}
(\Omega_{\frac12}H)(\tau):=
-4\Im(\tau)^2\frac{\partial^2H}{\partial\tau\partial\overline{\tau}}(\tau)
+i\Im(\tau)\frac{\partial H}{\partial\overline{\tau}}(\tau)
+\frac{3}{16}H(\t).\end{gathered}$$ Note that $\Omega_{\tfrac12}=\Delta_{\tfrac 12}+\tfrac{3}{16}$, where $\Delta_{k}$ is the hyperbolic Laplace operator in weight $k$.
Following the work [@BruFun] of Bruinier–Funke (cf. [@ono_unearthing; @zagier_mock]), a [*harmonic weak Maass form*]{} of weight $1/2$ for $\Gamma<{\operatorname{\textsl{SL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}})$ is defined to be a smooth function $H:{{\mathbb H}}\to {{\mathbb C}}$ that transforms as a (not necessarily holomorphic) modular form of weight $1/2$ for $\Gamma$, is an eigenfunction for $\Omega_{\frac12}$ with eigenvalue $3/16$, and has at most exponential growth as $\tau$ approaches cusps of $\Gamma$.
Define $\beta(x)$ for $ x \in {{\mathbb R}}_{ \ge 0}$ by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:indtht-beta}
\beta(x) := \int_x^\infty u^{-1/2} e^{- \pi u} {\rm d}u.\end{gathered}$$ Note that $\beta$ is related to the incomplete Gamma function by $\sqrt{\pi}\beta(x)=\Gamma(1/2,\pi x)$. If $H$ is a harmonic weak Maass form of weight $1/2$ then we can canonically decompose $H$ into its [*holomorphic*]{} and [*non-holomorphic*]{} parts, $H=H^++H^-$, where $$\begin{aligned}
H^+(\tau)&
=\sum_{n\gg -\infty}c_H^+(n)q^n,\label{eqn:mcktht:um-Hp}\\
H^-(\tau)&
=2ic_H^-(0)\sqrt{2\Im(\tau)}-i\sum_{n>0}c_H^-(n){\frac{1}{\sqrt{2n}}}\beta(4n\Im(\tau))q^{-n},\label{eqn:mcktht:um-Hm}\end{aligned}$$ for some uniquely determined values $c_H^{\pm}(n)\in {{\mathbb C}}$. (Cf. §3 of [@BruFun]. See also §5 of [@zagier_mock] and §7.1 of [@Dabholkar:2012nd].) Note that $n$ should be allowed to range over rational values in (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Hp\]) and (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Hm\]).
We may define the [*mock modular forms*]{} of weight $1/2$ to be those holomorphic functions $H^+:{{\mathbb H}}\to{{\mathbb C}}$ which arise as the holomorphic parts of harmonic weak Maass forms of weight $1/2$. For $H^\pm$ as above, the [*shadow*]{} of $H^+$ is defined, up to a choice of scaling factor $C$, by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-Hpshadow}
g(\tau):=C{\sqrt{2\Im(\tau)}}\overline{\frac{\partial H^-}{\partial\overline{\tau}}}=C\sum_{n\geq 0}c^-_H(n)q^n.\end{gathered}$$ Then so long as $c_H^-(0)=0$ (i.e. $g$ is a cusp form), the function $H^-$ is the [*Eichler integral*]{} of $g$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-Hmshadow}
H^-(\tau)=
\frac{e(-\tfrac18)}{C}\int_{-\overline{\tau}}^\infty \frac{\overline{g(-\overline{z})}}{\sqrt{z+\tau}}{\rm d} z.\end{gathered}$$ In this setting, the weak harmonic Maass form $H=H^++H^-$ is called the [*completion*]{} of $H^+$.
Various choices for $C$ can be found in the literature. In [@MUM] we find $C=\sqrt{2m}$ in the case that $H=(H_r)$ is a $2m$-vector-valued Maass form for some $\Gamma_0(N)$, such that $$\begin{gathered}
(H\cdot\theta)(\t,z):=\sum_r H_r(\tau)\theta_{m,r}(\tau,z)\end{gathered}$$ transforms likes a (not necessarily holomorphic in $\tau$) Jacobi form of weight $1$ and index $m$ for $\Gamma_0(N)$, where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:maass-tht}
\theta_{m,r}(\tau,z):=\sum_{k\in{{\mathbb Z}}}q^{(2km+r)^2/4m}e^{2\pi i z(2km+r) }.\end{gathered}$$
The cases of relevance to us here all have $m=30$, so we take $C=\sqrt{60}$ henceforth in (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Hpshadow\]) and (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Hmshadow\]). All the shadows arising in this work will be linear combinations of the unary theta functions $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht-Smr}
S_{m,r}(\tau):=\left.\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\theta_{m,r}(\tau,z)\right|_{z=0}=\sum_{k\in{{\mathbb Z}}}(2km+r)q^{(2km+r)^2/4m},\end{gathered}$$ where $m=30$ and $r\neq 0 \pmod{30}$. In particular, we will not encounter any examples for which the shadow $g$ (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Hpshadow\])) is not a cusp form.
Indefinite Theta Series {#sec:mcktht:indtht}
-----------------------
We will be concerned with quadratic forms of signature $(1,1)$, and so take $r=2$ in the notation of [@Zwegers]. (Even though our main construction uses a lattice of signature $(1,2)$, it will develop in §\[sec:mcktht:um\] that the trace functions (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmeaexplicit\]) and (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmtauaexplicit\]) can be analyzed in terms of theta series of indefinite lattices with signature $(1,1)$. The remaining trace function (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmsigmaaexplicit\]) is essentially a theta series with rank $1$, and consequently can be handled by classical methods.)
Given a symmetric $2\times 2$ matrix $A$, we define a quadratic form $Q: {{\mathbb R}}^2 \to {{\mathbb R}}$, by setting $$Q(x):= \frac{1}{2} ( x,A x),$$ where $(\cdot\,,\cdot)$ denotes the usual Euclidean inner product on ${{\mathbb R}}^2$. The associated bilinear form is $$B(x,y):= ( x, A y) = Q(x+y)-Q(x)-Q(y) \, .$$ Henceforth assume that $A$ has signature $(1,1)$. Then the set of vectors $c \in {{\mathbb R}}^2$ with $Q(c)<0$ is non-empty and has two components. Let $C_Q$ be one of these components. Two vectors $c^{(1)},c^{(2)}$ belong to the same component if $B(c^{(1)},c^{(2)})<0$. Thus, picking a vector $c_{0}$ in $C_Q$ we may identify $$C_Q= \left\{ c \in {{\mathbb R}}^2 \mid Q(c)<0, ~B(c,c_0)<0 \right\} \, .$$ Zwegers also defines a set of representatives of [*cusps*]{}, $$S_Q:= \left\{ c \in {{\mathbb Z}}^2 \mid \text{$c$ primitive, $Q(c)=0$, $B(c,c_0)<0$} \right\} \, .$$
Define the [*indefinite theta function*]{} with characteristics $a, b \in {{\mathbb R}}^2$, with respect to $c^{(1)}, c^{(2)} \in C_Q$, by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:mcktht:indtht-vartheta}
&\vartheta^{c^{(1)},c^{(2)}}_{a,b}(\tau) :=\\
& \sum_{\nu \in a + {{\mathbb Z}}^2} \left( E \left( \frac{B(c^{(1)},\nu)}{\sqrt{-Q(c^{(1)})}} \sqrt{\Im(\tau)} \right) -E \left( \frac{B(c^{(2)},\nu)}{\sqrt{-Q(c^{(2)})}} \sqrt{\Im(\tau)} \right) \right)
q^{Q(\nu)} e^{2 \pi i B(\nu,b)},
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ where $E(z) := {\operatorname{sgn}}(z) (1-\beta(z^2))$. Corollary 2.9 of [@Zwegers] (cf. also Theorem 3.1 of [@zagier_mock]) shows that $\vartheta^{c^{(1)},c^{(2)}}_{a,b}(\tau)$ is a non-holomorphic modular form of weight $1$.
Presently we will see that these indefinite theta functions can be used to define harmonic Maass forms whose non-holomorphic parts can be written in terms of the functions $$\label{eqn:mcktht-Rab}
R_{a,b}(\tau) := \sum_{\nu \in a+{{\mathbb Z}}} {\operatorname{sgn}}(\nu) \beta(2 \nu^2 \Im(\tau)) q^{-\nu^2/2} e^{- 2 \pi i \nu b}.$$
Note that the $R_{a,b}$ are Eichler integrals (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Hmshadow\])) of unary theta functions of weight $3/2$. Indeed, we have $$\label{eqn:mcktht-Rabgab}
R_{a,b}(\tau)
=e(-\tfrac18) \int_{- \bar \tau}^{i \infty} \frac{g_{a,-b}(z)}{\sqrt{z+\tau}}{\rm d}z,$$ for $$\label{eqn:mcktht-gab}
g_{a,b}(\tau) :=\sum_{\nu \in a+{{\mathbb Z}}} \nu q^{\nu^2/2} e^{2 \pi i \nu b}.$$ Observe also that $$\label{eqn:mcktht-gabSmr}
g_{\frac{r}{2m},0}(m \tau) = \frac{1}{2m} S_{m,r}(\tau)$$ (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht-Smr\])), which is useful for comparing the results of [@Zwegers] to those of [@MUM].
Define $\langle c \rangle_{{\mathbb Z}}^\perp:=\{ \xi \in {{\mathbb Z}}^r \mid B(c, \xi)=0 \}$. For future use we quote the $r=2$ case of Proposition 4.3 from [@Zwegers].
\[prop:mcktht-Zwegersprop\] Let $c \in C_Q \cap {{\mathbb Z}}^2$ be primitive. Let $P_0\subset {{\mathbb R}}^2$ be the finite set determined by requiring that $$\begin{gathered}
\left\{ \mu \in a+{{\mathbb Z}}^2 \mid 0 \leq \frac{B(c,\mu)}{2 Q(c)} <1 \right\}
= \bigsqcup_{\mu_0 \in P_0} \left( \mu_0 + \langle c \rangle_{{\mathbb Z}}^\perp \right).\end{gathered}$$ Then we have $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:mcktht-Zwegersprop}
\sum_{\nu \in a + {{\mathbb Z}}^2} &{\operatorname{sgn}}\left( B(c,\nu) \right) \beta \left( - \frac{B(c,\nu)^2}{Q(c)} \Im(\tau) \right)
e^{2 \pi i Q(\nu) \tau + 2 \pi i B(\nu,b)} \\
& = - \sum_{\mu_0 \in P_0} R_{\frac{B(c,\mu_0)}{2Q(c)},B(c,b)} (-2 Q(c) \tau) \cdot \sum_{\xi \in \mu_0^\perp + \langle c \rangle_{{\mathbb Z}}^\perp} e^{2 \pi i Q(\xi) \tau + 2 \pi i B(\xi,b^\perp)},
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ where $\mu_0^\perp= \mu_0 - \frac{B(c,\mu_0)}{2 Q(c)} c $ and $b^\perp= b - \frac{B(c,b)}{2 Q(c)} c$.
Note that the term $$\sum_{\xi \in \mu_0^\perp + \langle c \rangle_{{\mathbb Z}}^\perp} e^{2 \pi i Q(\xi) \tau + 2 \pi i B(\xi,b^\perp)}$$ is a classical (positive-definite) theta function of weight $1/2$.
The indefinite theta function construction (\[eqn:mcktht:indtht-vartheta\]) is applied to mock theta functions of Ramanujan (other than $\chi_0$ and $\chi_1$, which are treated in [@MR2558702]) in [@Zwegers]. Amongst those appearing are the four functions $F_0$, $F_1$, $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$, where $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ are defined in (\[eqn:intro-phi01\]), and $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:mcktht:um-F01}
F_0(q)&:=\sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{q^{2n^2}}{(q;q^2)_n},\\
F_1(q)&:=\sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{q^{2n(n+1)}}{(q;q^2)_{n+1}}.
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ These are amongst the fifth order mock theta functions introduced by Ramanujan in his last letter to Hardy.
To study these functions Zwegers introduces $6$-vector-valued mock modular forms $$\begin{gathered}
F_{5,1}(\tau)=(F_{5,1,r}(\tau)),\quad F_{5,2}(\tau)=(F_{5,2,r}(\tau)),\end{gathered}$$ on pages 74 and 79, respectively, of [@Zwegers]. Inspecting their definitions, and substituting $2\tau$ for $\tau$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
F_{5,1,3}(2\tau)&=q^{-1/120}(F_0(q)-1), &F_{5,2,3}(2\t)&=q^{-1/120}\phi_0(-q),\label{eqn:mcktht:indtht-F5Fphi0}\\
F_{5,1,4}(2\tau)&=q^{71/120}F_1(q), &F_{5,2,4}(2\t)&=-q^{-49/120}\phi_1(-q).\label{eqn:mcktht:indtht-F5Fphi1}\end{aligned}$$
The content of Proposition 4.10 of [@Zwegers] is that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-HFG1}
H_{5,1}(\tau)=F_{5,1}(\tau)-G_{5,1}(\tau),\end{gathered}$$ where the vector-valued functions $H_{5,1}$ and $G_{5,1}$ are such that the components of $2\eta(\tau) H_{5,1}(\tau)$ are non-holomorphic indefinite theta functions of the form $\vartheta_{a,b}^{c^{(1)},c^{(2)}}(\tau)$ (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht:indtht-vartheta\])), and the third and fourth components of $G_{5,1}$ satisfy $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-G3RRRR}
G_{5,1,3}(2\tau)=-\frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\frac{19}{60},0}+R_{\frac{29}{60},0}-R_{\frac{49}{60},0}-R_{\frac{59}{60},0}\right)(60\tau), \\
G_{5,1,4}(2\tau)=-\frac{1}{2}\left(R_{\frac{13}{60},0}+R_{\frac{23}{60},0}-R_{\frac{43}{60},0}-R_{\frac{53}{60},0}\right)(60\tau).
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-G4RRRR}\end{gathered}$$ (Cf. (\[eqn:mcktht-Rab\]) for $R_{a,b}$.) Moreover, $H_{5,1}(\tau)$ is an eigenfunction for $\Omega_{\frac12}$ with eigenvalue $3/16$ (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht:um-cas\])). In other words, the components of $H_{5,1}=(H_{5,1,r})$ are harmonic weak Maass forms of weight $1/2$ (cf. §\[sec:mcktht:maass\]).
Proposition 4.13 of [@Zwegers] establishes a similar result for $F_{5,2}$, namely $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-HFG2}
H_{5,2}(\tau)=F_{5,2}(\tau)-G_{5,2}(\tau),\end{gathered}$$ where $H_{5,2}$ is again a harmonic weak Maass form of weight $1/2$, and $G_{5,2}=-G_{5,1}$.
The left hand sides of (\[eqn:mcktht:um-HFG1\]) and (\[eqn:mcktht:um-HFG2\]) are harmonic weak Maass forms of weight $1/2$, so they admit canonical decompositions into holomorphic (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Hp\])) and non-holomorphic (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Hm\])) parts. The summands $F_{5,1}$ and $F_{5,2}$ on the right hand sides are holomorphic by construction, and the $R_{a,b}$ are of the same form as (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Hm\]) by construction (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht-Rab\])), so the right hand sides of (\[eqn:mcktht:um-HFG1\]) and (\[eqn:mcktht:um-HFG2\]) are precisely the decompositions of $H_{5,1}$ and $H_{5,2}$ into its holomorphic and non-holomorphic parts.
Equivalently, the four functions $F_{5,j,r}$ are mock modular forms of weight $1/2$ with completions given by the $H_{5,j,r}$, and the $G_{5,j,r}$ are the Eichler integrals of their shadows. Thus we can describe their shadows explicitly. Applying (\[eqn:mcktht-Rabgab\]), (\[eqn:mcktht-gab\]) and (\[eqn:mcktht-gabSmr\]), and the identities $g_{1-a,0}=g_{-a,0}=-g_{a,0}$, we see that $F_{5,1,3}(2\tau)$ and $-F_{5,2,3}(2\tau)$ have the same shadow $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:indtht-F5123shadow}
\frac12(S_{30,1}+S_{30,11}+S_{30,19}+S_{30,29})(\tau),\end{gathered}$$ while $F_{5,1,4}(2\tau)$ and $-F_{5,2,4}(2\tau)$ both have shadow given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:indtht-F5124shadow}
\frac12(S_{30,7}+S_{30,13}+S_{30,17}+S_{30,27})(\tau).\end{gathered}$$
McKay–Thompson Series {#sec:mcktht:um}
---------------------
In this section we prove our main result, Theorem \[thm:intro-maintheorem\], that the trace functions arising from the action of $G^X$ on the $V^\pm_{{{\rm tw}},a}$ recover the Fourier expansions of the mock modular forms $H^X_g$ attached to $g\in G^X\simeq S_3$ by umbral moonshine at $X=E_8^3$.
To formulate this precisely, let $T^X_{g}=(T^X_{g,r})$ be the vector of Laurent series in (rational powers of) $q$, with components indexed by ${{\mathbb Z}}/60{{\mathbb Z}}$, such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht-TXg}
T^X_{g,r}:=\begin{cases}
T^{\mp}_{g,1},&\text{ for $r=\pm 1,\pm 11,\pm 19,\pm 29\pmod{60}$,}\\
T^{\mp}_{g,7},&\text{ for $r=\pm 7,\pm 13,\pm 17,\pm 23\pmod{60}$,}\\
0,&\text{ else,}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ and define the [*polar part at infinity*]{} of $T^X_{g}$ to be the vector of polynomials in (rational powers of) $q^{-1}$ obtained by removing all non-negative powers of $q$ in each component $T^X_{g,r}$. Let $g\mapsto\bar{\chi}_g^X$ be the natural permutation character of ${G^X}$, so that $\bar{\chi}_g$ is $3$, $1$ or $0$, according as $g$ has order $1$, $2$ or $3$, and define a vector $S^X_g=(S^X_{g,r})$ of theta series, with components indexed by ${{\mathbb Z}}/60{{\mathbb Z}}$, by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht-SXg}
S^X_{g,r}:=\begin{cases}
\pm\bar{\chi}_g(S_{30,1}+S_{30,11}+S_{30,19}+S_{30,29}),&\text{ if $r=\pm1,\pm11,\pm19,\pm 29\pmod{60}$,}\\
\pm\bar{\chi}_g(S_{30,7}+S_{30,13}+S_{30,17}+S_{30,23}),&\text{ if $r=\pm7,\pm13,\pm17,\pm 23\pmod{60}$,}\\
0&\text{ else.}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ (Cf. (\[eqn:mcktht-Smr\]).)
Set $S^X:=S^X_e$, and let $\sigma^X:{\operatorname{\textsl{SL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}})\to{{\textsl{GL}}}_{60}({{\mathbb C}})$ denote the multiplier system of $S^X$, so that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-sigmaX}
\sigma^X(\gamma)S^X(\gamma\tau)(c\tau+d)^{-3/2}=S^X(\tau) \end{gathered}$$ for $\tau \in{{\mathbb H}}$ and $\gamma\in {\operatorname{\textsl{SL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}})$, when $(c,d)$ is the lower row of $\gamma$. Our next goal (to be realized in Proposition \[prop:mcktht:um-TXg\]) is to show that $2T^X_g$ is a mock modular form with shadow $S^X_g$ for $g\in G^X$. This condition tells us what the multiplier system of $T^X_g$ must be, at least when $o(g)$ is $1$ or $2$ (as $S^X_g$ is identically zero when $o(g)=3$). For the convenience of the reader we describe this multiplier system in more detail now.
It is cumbersome to work with matrices in ${{\textsl{GL}}}_{60}({{\mathbb C}})$, but we can avoid this since any non-zero component of $T^X_g$ is $\pm1$ times $T^X_{g,1}$ or $T^X_{g,7}$. That is, we can work with the $2$-vector-valued functions $\check T^X_g:=(T^X_{g,1},T^X_{g,7})$ and $\check S^X_{g}:=(S^X_{g,1},S^X_{g,7})$. If $h=(h_r)$ is a modular form of weight $1/2$ with multiplier system conjugate to that of $S^X$, and satisfying $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht-hr}
h_{r}:=\begin{cases}
h_{1},&\text{ for $r=\pm 1,\pm 11,\pm 19,\pm 29\pmod{60}$,}\\
h_{7},&\text{ for $r=\pm 7,\pm 13,\pm 17,\pm 23\pmod{60}$,}\\
0,&\text{ else,}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ then, setting $\check h=(h_1,h_7)$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\check{h}\left(\frac{a\t+b}{c\t+d}\right)\check\nu\left(\frac{a\t+b}{c\t+d}\right)
(c\tau+d)^{-1/2}=\check{h}(\t)\end{gathered}$$ where $\check\nu:{\operatorname{\textsl{SL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}})\to{{\textsl{GL}}}_2({{\mathbb C}})$ is determined by the rules $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:mcktht-checknu}
\check\nu
\begin{pmatrix}
1&1\\
0&1
\end{pmatrix}
&=
\begin{pmatrix}
e(-\tfrac{1}{120})&0\\
0&e(-\tfrac{49}{120})
\end{pmatrix},\\
\check\nu
\begin{pmatrix}
0&-1\\
1&0
\end{pmatrix}
&=\frac{2e(\frac{3}{8})}{\sqrt{15}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\sin(\pi\tfrac{1}{30})+\sin(\pi\tfrac{11}{30})&\sin(\pi\frac{7}{30})+\sin(\pi\frac{13}{30})\\
\sin(\pi\tfrac{7}{30})+\sin(\pi\frac{13}{30})&-\sin(\pi\frac{1}{30})-\sin(\pi\frac{11}{30})
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$
We now return to our main objective: the determination of the modularity of $T^X_g$ for $g\in {G^X}$. To describe the multiplier system for $T^X_g$ when $o(g)=3$ we require the function $\rho_{3|3}:\Gamma_0(3)\to {{\mathbb C}}^\times$, defined by setting $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-rho33}
\rho_{3|3}\left(\begin{matrix}a&b\\c&d\end{matrix}\right):=e\left(\frac{cd}{9}\right).\end{gathered}$$ Evidently $\rho_{3|3}$ has order $3$, and restricts to the identity on $\Gamma_0(9)$.
\[prop:mcktht:um-TXg\] Let $g\in G^X$. Then $2T^X_g$ is the Fourier series of a mock modular form for $\Gamma_0(o(g))$ whose shadow is $S^X_g$. The polar part at infinity of $2T^X_g$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
T^X_{g,r}=\begin{cases} \mp 2q^{-1/120}+O(1),&\text{ if $r=\pm 1,\pm11,\pm19,\pm29\pmod{60}$,}\\
O(1),&\text{ otherwise,}
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ and $2T^X_g$ has vanishing polar part at all non-infinite cusps of $\Gamma_0(o(g))$. If $o(g)=3$ then the multiplier system of $2T^X_g$ is given by $\gamma\mapsto \rho_{3|3}(\gamma)\overline{\sigma^X(\gamma)}$.
According to our definition (\[eqn:mcktht-TXg\]), the components of $T^X_g$ are $T^{\pm}_{g,1}$ or $T^{\pm}_{g,7}$. In practice it is more convenient to work with $T^{\pm}_{g,3}$ than $T^{\pm}_{g,7}$, and we may do so because these functions coincide up to a sign (depending upon $g$). To see this, observe that $D(L+a\rho/2)=-D(L-a\rho/2)$ for $a$ an odd integer. Then comparing with the expressions (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmeadirect\]), (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmtauadirect\]) and (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmsigmaadirect\]), we see that $T^{\pm}_{g,a}=T^{\pm}_{g,-a}$ when $o(g)=1$ or $3$, and $T^{\pm}_{g,a}=-T^\pm_{g,-a}$ when $o(g)=2$. We also have $T^\pm_{g,a}=-T^\pm_{g,a+10}$ for all $g$, so in particular, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht-37equiv}
\begin{split}
T^{\pm}_{e,7}&=-T^{\pm}_{e,3},\\
T^{\pm}_{\hat\tau,7}&=T^{\pm}_{\hat\tau,3},\\
T^{\pm}_{\hat\sigma,7}&=-T^{\pm}_{\hat\sigma,3}.
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$
We will now verify that the series $T^X_g$ are Fourier expansions of vector-valued mock modular forms, and we will determine their shadows. For the case that $g=e$ we compute $3/40-1/12=-1/120$ and $27/40-1/12=71/120$, and see, upon comparison of (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmeaexplicit\]) with (\[eqn:intro:zwegers\]), that $T^{\pm}_{e,1}(q)=\pm q^{-1/120}(2-\chi_0(q))$ and $T^{\pm}_{e,3}=\pm q^{71/120}\chi_1(q)$. In particular, $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:mcktht:um-Tchi}
2T^-_{e,1}&=2q^{-1/120}(\chi_0(q)-2),\\
2T^-_{e,7}&=2q^{71/120}\chi_1(q)
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht-37equiv\])). Note that identities $H^X_{e,1}=2q^{-1/120}(\chi_0(q)-2)$ and $H^X_{e,7}=2q^{71/120}\chi_1(q)$ are predicted in §5.4 of [@MUM], but it is not verified there that this specification yields a mock modular form with shadow $S^X=S^X_e$.
We will determine the modular properties of $2T^-_{e,1}$ and $2T^-_{e,7}$ by applying the results of Zwegers on $F_0$, $F_1$, $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ that we summarized in §\[sec:mcktht:indtht\]. To apply these results we first recall the expressions $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}\label{eqn:mcktht:um-chiFphi}
\chi_0(q) &= 2 F_0(q) - \phi_0(-q), \\
\chi_1(q) &= 2 F_1(q) + q^{-1} \phi_1(-q),
\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ which are proven in §3 of [@MR1577032]. (The first of these was given by Ramaujan in his last letter to Hardy, where he also mentioned the existence of a similar formula relating $\chi_1$, $F_1$ and $\phi_1$.) Thus we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-TFF}
2T^-_{e,1}=4F_{5,1,3}(2\tau)-2F_{5,2,3}(2\tau),\\
2T^-_{e,7}=4F_{5,1,4}(2\tau)-2F_{5,2,4}(2\tau),\end{gathered}$$ upon comparison of (\[eqn:mcktht:indtht-F5Fphi0\]), (\[eqn:mcktht:indtht-F5Fphi1\]), (\[eqn:mcktht:um-Tchi\]) and (\[eqn:mcktht:um-chiFphi\]).
Applying the results of Zwegers on $F_{5,1}$ and $F_{5,2}$ recalled in §\[sec:mcktht:indtht\], and the equations (\[eqn:mcktht:indtht-F5123shadow\]) and (\[eqn:mcktht:indtht-F5124shadow\]) in particular, we conclude that $2T^-_{e,1}$ and $2T^-_{e,7}$ are mock modular forms of weight $1/2$, with respective shadows given by $$\begin{gathered}
3(S_{30,1}+S_{30,11}+S_{30,19}+S_{30,29})(\tau),\\
3(S_{30,7}+S_{30,13}+S_{30,17}+S_{30,27})(\tau).\end{gathered}$$ In other words, the shadow of $T^X_{e}$ is precisely $S^X_e$, as we required to show. The modular transformation formulas for $H_{5,1}(\tau)$ and $H_{5,2}(\tau)$ given in Propositions 4.10 and 4.13 of [@Zwegers], respectively, show that $T^X_e$ transforms in the desired way under ${\operatorname{\textsl{SL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}})$.
We now consider the case that $o(g)=2$. We may take $g=\hat\tau$. We again begin by using the results recalled in §\[sec:mcktht:indtht\] to analyze the components $T^-_{\hat\tau,1}$ and $T^-_{\hat\tau,7}$ separately. For $T^-_{\hat\tau,1}$ let $$A = \begin{pmatrix} 6 & 4 \\ 4 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, ~ a= \begin{pmatrix} 1/10 \\ 1/10 \end{pmatrix}, ~ b=\begin{pmatrix} 3/20 \\ -2/20 \end{pmatrix}, ~ c^{(1)}= \begin{pmatrix} -1 \\ 4 \end{pmatrix}, ~ c^{(2)}= \begin{pmatrix} -2 \\ 3 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Then a direct computation using $$\begin{gathered}
\nu=\begin{pmatrix} k+\frac{1}{10} \\ m+\frac{1}{10} \end{pmatrix}, \;
Q(\nu)= 3 k^2+\frac{m^2}{2} + 4km+k+\frac{m}{2}+\frac3{40},\;
B(\nu,b)= \frac{k+m}{2} + \frac{1}{10},\\
\quad {\operatorname{sgn}}\left( B(c^{(1)},\nu) \right) ={\operatorname{sgn}}\left(k+\frac{1}{10}\right),\;
{\operatorname{sgn}}\left( B(c^{(2)},\nu) \right)= {\operatorname{sgn}}\left(-m-\frac{1}{10}\right),\end{gathered}$$ gives $$2T^-_{\hat\tau,1}= - \frac{e(-\frac{1}{10})
}
{\eta(2 \tau)} \sum_{\nu \in a +{{\mathbb Z}}^2} \left( {\operatorname{sgn}}\left( B(c^{(1)},\nu) \right) - {\operatorname{sgn}}\left( B(c^{(2)},\nu) \right) \right)
e^{2 \pi i Q(\nu) \tau+ 2 \pi i B(\nu,b)}.$$ Comparing this to the indefinite theta function construction (\[eqn:mcktht:indtht-vartheta\]) we find that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{theta}
\begin{split}
& \vartheta_{a,b}^{c^{(1)},c^{(2)}}(\tau) = -
e(\tfrac{1}{10})\eta(2 \tau) 2T^-_{\hat\tau,1}(\tau) \\
& +\sum_{ \nu \in a + {{\mathbb Z}}^2}
\left(\sum_{k=1}^2(-1)^k
{\operatorname{sgn}}(B(c^{(k)},\nu)) \beta \left( - \frac{B(c^{(k)},\nu)^2 \Im (\tau)}{Q(c^{(k)})} \right)
\right)
q^{Q(\nu)}e^{2 \pi i B(\nu, b)}.
\end{split}
\end{gathered}$$
We now use Proposition \[prop:mcktht-Zwegersprop\] to rewrite the terms involving $c^{(1)}$ and $c^{(2)}$ in the second line of (\[theta\]). For the term with $c^{(1)}$ the set $P_0$ of Proposition \[prop:mcktht-Zwegersprop\] has one element, $\mu_0=\frac{1}{10} \left(\begin{smallmatrix} -9 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$, and we find $\langle c^{(1)} \rangle_{{\mathbb Z}}^\perp= \left\{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ m \end{smallmatrix}\right)\mid m \in {{\mathbb Z}}\right\}$, $b^\perp= \frac12\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\ {1} \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $\mu_0^\perp=\frac12\left( \begin{smallmatrix} 0 \\- {7} \end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Thus $$\sum_{\xi \in \mu_0^\perp + \langle c \rangle_{{\mathbb Z}}^\perp} e^{2 \pi i Q(\xi) \tau + 2 \pi i B(\xi,b^\perp)}
=
e(-\tfrac{1}{4})
\sum_{m \in {{\mathbb Z}}} (-1)^m q^{(m-1/2)^2/2}=0,$$ so this term vanishes.
For the term with $c^{(2)}$ the set $P_0$ consists of three elements, $\mu_0=\frac{1}{10}\binom{1}{1},\frac{1}{10}\binom{1}{11},\frac{1}{10}\binom{1}{21}$, and we have $B(c^{(2)},\mu_0)/2 Q(c^{(2)})= \frac1{30}, \frac{11}{30}, \frac{21}{20}$, in the respective cases. The last value of $\mu_0$ also leads to a vanishing contribution, while the other two values lead to $$-
e(\tfrac{1}{12})R_{\frac{1}{30},-\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau) \eta(2 \tau) -
e(-\tfrac{1}{12})R_{\frac{11}{30},-\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau) \eta(2 \tau),$$ which we see by applying Euler’s identity $$q^{1/12} \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}} (-1)^k q^{3k^2+k}= \eta(2 \tau) .$$ We thus have $$\label{eqn:mcktht:um-tau1}
-
e(-\tfrac{1}{10})\frac{\vartheta^{c^{(1)},c^{(2)}}_{a,b}(\tau)}{\eta(2 \tau)} = 2T^-_{\hat\tau,1} -
e(-\tfrac{1}{60})R_{\frac{1}{30},-\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau) -
e(-\tfrac{11}{60})
R_{\frac{11}{30},-\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau).$$ In particular, $T^-_{\hat\tau,1}$ is the Fourier expansion of a holomorphic function on ${{\mathbb H}}$, which we henceforth denote $T^-_{\hat\tau,1}(\tau)$.
Since $T^-_{\hat\tau,1}(\tau)$ is holomorphic, the function (\[eqn:mcktht:um-tau1\]) is a harmonic weak Maass form of weight $1/2$, according to Proposition 4.2 of [@Zwegers]. (Cf. also §\[sec:mcktht:maass\].) Thus we are in a directly similar situation to that encountered at the end of §\[sec:mcktht:indtht\]. Namely, we have that $T^-_{\hat\tau,1}(\tau)$ is a mock modular form of weight $1/2$ (for some congruence subgroup of ${\operatorname{\textsl{SL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}})$), and the second and third summands of the right hand side of (\[eqn:mcktht:um-tau1\]) comprise the Eichler integral of its shadow. Applying (\[eqn:mcktht-Rabgab\]), (\[eqn:mcktht-gab\]) and (\[eqn:mcktht-gabSmr\]), and also $$\begin{gathered}
e(-\tfrac{1}{60})g_{\frac{1}{30},\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau)+e(-\tfrac{11}{60})g_{\frac{11}{30},\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau)
=\frac{1}{30}\left(
S_{30,1}+S_{30,11}+S_{30,19}+S_{30,29}
\right)(\tau),\end{gathered}$$ we conclude that the shadow of $2T^-_{\hat\tau,1}(\tau)$ is indeed $S^X_{\hat\tau,1}(\tau)$ (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht-SXg\])).
For $T^-_{\hat\tau,7}$ we take $A$, $b$, $c^{(1)}$, $c^{(2)}$ as before but set $a=\frac{1}{10}\binom{3}{3}$. We now have $$\begin{gathered}
\nu=\begin{pmatrix} k+\frac{3}{10} \\ m+\frac{3}{10} \end{pmatrix},\;
Q(\nu)= 3 k^2 + \frac{m^2}{2}+ 4km+3k+\frac{3 m}{2}-\frac{27}{40},\;
B(\nu,b)= \frac{k+m}{2} + \frac{3}{10},\\
{\operatorname{sgn}}\left( B(c^{(1)},\nu) \right) ={\operatorname{sgn}}(k+3/10),\;{\operatorname{sgn}}\left( B(c^{(2)},\nu) \right)= {\operatorname{sgn}}(-m-3/10).\end{gathered}$$
Proceeding as we did for $T^-_{\hat\tau,1}$, the contribution from the $c^{(1)}$ term vanishes again. For the $c^{(2)}$ term we find that $P_0$ consists of the three values $\mu_0=\frac{1}{10}\binom{3}{3},\frac{1}{10}\binom{3}{13},\frac{1}{10}\binom{3}{23}$, and we have $B(c^{(2)},\mu_0)/2 Q(c^{(2)})= \frac{3}{30}, \frac{13}{30}, \frac{23}{20}$, respectively. The first value of $\mu_0$ leads to a vanishing contribution while the other two terms lead to $$-
e(-\tfrac{3}{10})\frac{\vartheta^{c^{(1)},c^{(2)}}_{a,b}(\tau)}{\eta(2 \tau)} = 2T^-_{\hat\tau,7} -
e(-\tfrac{13}{60})R_{\frac{13}{30},-\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau) -
e(-\tfrac{23}{60})R_{\frac{23}{30},-\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau).$$
We conclude thus that $T^-_{\hat\tau,7}$ is a the Fourier expansion of a mock modular form of weight $1/2$, and using $$\begin{gathered}
e(-\tfrac{13}{60})g_{\frac{13}{30},\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau)+e(-\tfrac{23}{60})g_{\frac{23}{30},\frac{1}{2}}(15 \tau)
=\frac{1}{30}\left(
S_{30,7}+S_{30,13}+S_{30,17}+S_{30,23}
\right)(\tau)\end{gathered}$$ we see that the shadow of $2T^-_{\hat\tau,1}(\tau)$ is $S^X_{\hat\tau,1}(\tau)$ (cf. (\[eqn:mcktht-SXg\])). So we have verified that the shadow of $2T^-_{g}=(2T^-_{g,r})$ is $S^X_g=(S^X_{g,r})$ for $o(g)=2$.
Corollary 2.9 of [@Zwegers] details the modular transformation properties of the indefinite theta functions $\vartheta^{c^{(1)},c^{(2)}}_{a,b}(\tau)$. Applying these formulas, much as in the proofs of Propositions 4.10 and 4.13. in [@Zwegers], we see that $2T^-_{\hat\tau}$ transforms in the desired way under the action of $\Gamma_0(2)$.
Corollary 2.9 also enables us to compute the expansion of $2T^-_{\hat\tau}$ at the cusp of $\Gamma_0(2)$ represented by $0$. We ultimately find that both $T^-_{\hat\tau,1}(\tau)$ and $T^-_{\hat\tau,7}(\tau)$ vanish as $\tau\to 0$. Thus $2T^-_{\hat\tau}$ has no poles away from the infinite cusp.
It remains to consider the case $o(g)=3$, but this can be handled by applying classical results on positive-definite theta functions, since the formula (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmsigmaaexplicit\]) gives $T^-_{\hat\sigma,1}$ and $T^-_{\hat\sigma,7}$ explicitly in terms of the Dedekind eta function and the theta series of a rank one lattice. We easily check that these functions transform in the desired way under $\Gamma_0(3)$, and have no poles away from the infinite cusp of $\Gamma_0(3)$. In particular, $2T^-_{\hat\sigma}$ is modular, and has vanishing shadow.
We are now ready to prove our main results.
Proposition \[prop:mcktht:um-TXg\] demonstrates that the functions $2T^X_g$ are mock modular forms of weight $1/2$ with the claimed shadows, multiplier systems, and polar parts. It remains to verify that they are the unique such functions.
The uniqueness in case $g=e$ is shown in Corollary 4.2 of [@MUM], using the fact (see Theorem 9.7 in [@Dabholkar:2012nd]) that there are no weak Jacobi forms of weight 1. We will give a different (but certainly related) argument here.
Consider first the case that $o(g)$ is $1$ or $2$. It suffices to show that if $h=(h_r)$ is a modular form of weight $1/2$, transforming with the same multiplier system as $H^X$ under $\Gamma_0(2)$, with $h_r$ vanishing whenever $r$ does not belong to $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-rrestriction}
\{\pm 1,\pm 7,\pm 11,\pm 13,\pm 17,\pm 19,\pm 23, \pm 29 \},\end{gathered}$$ then $h$ vanishes identically. The multiplier system for $H^X$ is trivial when restricted to $\Gamma(120)$, so the components $h_r$ are modular forms for $\Gamma_0(2)\cap\Gamma(120)=\Gamma(120)$. Satz 5.2. of [@Sko_Thesis] is an effective version of the celebrated theorem of Serre–Stark [@MR0472707] on modular forms of weight $1/2$ for congruence subgroups of ${\operatorname{\textsl{SL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}})$. It tells us that the space of modular forms of weight $1/2$ for $\Gamma(120)$ is spanned by certain linear combinations of the [*thetanullwerte*]{} $\theta^0_{n,r}(\tau):=\theta_{n,r}(\tau,0)$, and the only $n$ that can appear are those that divide $30$. On the other hand, the restriction (\[eqn:mcktht:um-rrestriction\]) implies that any non-zero component $h_r$ must belong to one of $q^{-1/120}{{\mathbb C}}[[q]]$ or $q^{71/120}{{\mathbb C}}[[q]]$. We conclude that all the $h_r$ are necessarily zero by checking, using $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mcktht:um-thetanullwerte}
\theta_{n,r}^0(\tau)=\sum_{k\in{{\mathbb Z}}}q^{(2kn+r)^2/4n},\end{gathered}$$ that none of the $\theta^0_{n,r}$ belong to either space, for $n$ a divisor of $30$.
The case that $o(g)=3$ is very similar, except that the $h_r$ are now modular forms on $\Gamma_0(9)\cap \Gamma(120)$, which contains $\Gamma(360)$, and the relevant thetanullwerte are those $\theta_{n,r}^0$ with $n$ a divisor of $90$. We easily check using (\[eqn:mcktht:um-thetanullwerte\]) that there are non-zero possibilities for $h_r$, and this completes the proof.
Taking now (\[eqn:intro-HXg\]) as the definition of $H^X_g$, the identities (\[eqn:intro-rammcktht1\]) follow directly from the definition (\[eqn:mcktht-TXg\]) of $T^X_g$, and the explicit expressions (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmeaexplicit\]) for the components of $T^X_e$.
The identities (\[eqn:intro-rammcktht2\]) follow from the characterization of $H^X_g$ for $o(g)=2$ that is entailed in Theorem \[thm:intro-maintheorem\]. Indeed, using Zwegers’ results (viz., Propositions 4.10 and 4.13 in [@Zwegers]) on the modularity of $\phi_0(-q)$ and $\phi_1(-q)$, we see that the function defined by the right hand side of (\[eqn:intro-rammcktht2\]) is a vector-valued mock modular form with exactly the same shadow as $2T^X_{\hat\tau}$, transforming with the same multiplier system under $\Gamma_0(2)$, and having the same polar parts at both the infinite and non-infinite cusps of $\Gamma_0(2)$. So it must coincide with $H^X_{2A,1}=2T^X_{\hat\tau}$ according to Theorem \[thm:intro-maintheorem\]. This completes the proof.
Andrews established Hecke-type “double sum” identities for $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ in [@MR814916]. Rewriting these slightly, we find $$\begin{gathered}
\phi_0(-q)=\frac{(q;q)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_\infty^2}\label{eqn:mcktht:um-phi0Hecke}
\left( \sum_{k,m \ge 0} -
\sum_{k,m <0} \right)_{\text{$k=m$ mod $2$}}
(-1)^m q^{k^2/2+m^2/2+4km+k/2+3m/2},\\
-q^{-1}\phi_1(-q)=\frac{(q;q)_{\infty}}{(q^2;q^2)_\infty^2}\label{eqn:mcktht:um-phi1Hecke}
\left( \sum_{k,m \ge 0} -
\sum_{k,m <0} \right)_{\text{$k=m$ mod $2$}}
(-1)^m q^{k^2/2+m^2/2+4km+3k/2+5m/2}.\end{gathered}$$ Armed with the identities (\[eqn:intro-rammcktht2\]), we obtain (\[eqn:intro-qseriesid1\]) and (\[eqn:intro-qseriesid7\]) by comparing (\[eqn:mcktht:um-phi0Hecke\]) and (\[eqn:mcktht:um-phi1Hecke\]) with the explicit expression (\[eqn:va:cnstn-Tpmtauaexplicit\]) for the components of $T^X_{\hat\tau}$.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Miranda Cheng for particularly helpful discussions and advice that took place in the early stages of this work. We also thank Ching Hung Lam for discussions on the vertex operator algebra structure here employed. The research of J.D. was supported in part by the Simons Foundation (\#316779). Both authors gratefully acknowledge support from the U.S. National Science Foundation (grants 1203162 and 1214409).
Coefficients {#sec:coeffs}
============
$[g]$ 1A 2A 3A
-------------- ------- ------- -------
${\Gamma}_g$ $1|1$ $2|1$ $3|3$
-1 -2 -2 -2
119 2 2 2
239 2 -2 2
359 4 0 -2
479 2 -2 2
599 6 2 0
719 4 0 -2
839 6 2 0
959 6 -2 0
1079 10 2 -2
1199 6 -2 0
1319 12 0 0
1439 10 -2 -2
1559 14 2 2
1679 14 -2 2
1799 18 2 0
1919 14 -2 2
2039 24 4 0
2159 22 -2 -2
2279 26 2 2
2399 26 -2 2
2519 34 2 -2
2639 30 -2 0
2759 42 2 0
2879 40 -4 -2
2999 48 4 0
3119 48 -4 0
3239 58 2 -2
3359 56 -4 2
3479 72 4 0
3599 70 -2 -2
3719 80 4 2
3839 84 -4 0
3959 100 4 -2
4079 96 -4 0
4199 116 4 2
4319 116 -4 -4
4439 134 6 2
4559 140 -4 2
: \[tab:coeffs:30+6,10,15\_7\]$H^{X}_{g,7}$, $X=E_8^3$
$[g]$ 1A 2A 3A
-------------- ------- ------- -------
${\Gamma}_g$ $1|1$ $2|1$ $3|3$
71 2 -2 2
191 4 0 -2
311 4 0 -2
431 6 2 0
551 6 -2 0
671 8 0 2
791 8 0 2
911 12 0 0
1031 10 -2 -2
1151 14 2 2
1271 16 0 -2
1391 18 2 0
1511 18 -2 0
1631 24 0 0
1751 24 0 0
1871 30 2 0
1991 30 -2 0
2111 36 0 0
2231 38 -2 2
2351 46 2 -2
2471 46 -2 -2
2591 54 2 0
2711 60 0 0
2831 66 2 0
2951 68 -4 2
3071 82 2 -2
3191 84 0 0
3311 98 2 2
3431 102 -2 0
3551 114 2 0
3671 122 -2 2
3791 138 2 0
3911 144 -4 0
4031 162 2 0
4151 174 -2 0
4271 192 4 0
4391 200 -4 2
4511 226 2 -2
4631 238 -2 -2
: \[tab:coeffs:30+6,10,15\_7\]$H^{X}_{g,7}$, $X=E_8^3$
[10]{}
S. Zwegers, [*[Mock Theta Functions]{}*]{}. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, 2002, [[arXiv:0807.4834 \[math.NT\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4834).
T. Eguchi, H. Ooguri, and Y. Tachikawa, “[Notes on the K3 Surface and the Mathieu group $M_{24}$]{},” [*Exper.Math.*]{} [**20**]{} (2011) 91–96, [[arXiv:1004.0956 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0956). M. C. N. Cheng, J. F. R. Duncan, and J. A. Harvey, “[Umbral Moonshine]{},” [ *Commun. Number Theory Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} (2014) no. 2, , [[arXiv:1204.2779 \[math.RT\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2779). M. C. N. Cheng, J. F. R. Duncan, and J. A. Harvey, “[Umbral Moonshine and the Niemeier Lattices]{},” [*Research in the Mathematical Sciences*]{} [**1**]{} (2014) no. 3, 1–81, [[arXiv:1307.5793 \[math.RT\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5793). A. Dabholkar, S. Murthy, and D. Zagier, “[Quantum Black Holes, Wall Crossing, and Mock Modular Forms]{},” [[arXiv:1208.4074 \[hep-th\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4074). T. Gannon, “[Much ado about Mathieu]{},” [[arXiv:1211.5531 \[math.RT\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5531). J. F. R. [Duncan]{}, M. J. Griffin, and K. Ono, “A proof of the umbral moonshine conjecture,” [*in preparation*]{} .
R. Borcherds, “Vertex algebras, [Kac]{}-[Moody]{} algebras, and the [Monster]{},” [*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.*]{} [**83**]{} (1986) no. 10, 3068–3071.
I. B. Frenkel, J. Lepowsky, and A. Meurman, [*Vertex operator algebras and the [M]{}onster*]{}, vol. 134 of [*Pure and Applied Mathematics*]{}. Academic Press Inc., Boston, MA, 1988.
R. E. Borcherds, “[Monstrous moonshine and monstrous Lie superalgebras]{},” [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**109, No.2**]{} (1992) 405–444.
J. H. Conway and S. P. Norton, “Monstrous moonshine,” [[*Bull. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**11**]{} (1979) no. 3, 308–339](http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/blms/11.3.308). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/blms/11.3.308>.
J. G. Thompson, “Finite groups and modular functions,” [*Bull. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**11**]{} (1979) no. 3, 347–351.
J. G. Thompson, “Some numerology between the [F]{}ischer-[G]{}riess [M]{}onster and the elliptic modular function,” [*Bull. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**11**]{} (1979) no. 3, 352–353.
J. F. R. [Duncan]{}, M. J. Griffin, and K. Ono, “Moonshine,” [[arXiv:1411.6571 \[math.RT\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6571).
S. Ramanujan, [*Collected papers of [S]{}rinivasa [R]{}amanujan*]{}. AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2000. Edited by G. H. Hardy, P. V. Seshu Aiyar and B. M. Wilson, Third printing of the 1927 original, With a new preface and commentary by Bruce C. Berndt.
S. Ramanujan, [*The lost notebook and other unpublished papers*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988. With an introduction by George E. Andrews.
M. C. N. Cheng, J. F. R. Duncan, and J. A. Harvey, “[Weight One Jacobi Forms and Umbral Moonshine]{},” [*in preparation*]{} .
S. Zwegers, “On two fifth order mock theta functions,” [[*Ramanujan J.*]{} [ **20**]{} (2009) no. 2, 207–214](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11139-008-9138-9). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11139-008-9138-9>.
I. B. Frenkel, J. Lepowsky, and A. Meurman, “A moonshine module for the [M]{}onster,” in [*Vertex operators in mathematics and physics (Berkeley, Calif., 1983)*]{}, vol. 3 of [*Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ.*]{}, pp. 231–273. Springer, New York, 1985.
I. B. Frenkel, J. Lepowsky, and A. Meurman, “A natural representation of the [F]{}ischer-[G]{}riess [M]{}onster with the modular function [$J$]{} as character,” [*Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.*]{} [**81**]{} (1984) no. 10, Phys. Sci., 3256–3260.
Y. Zhu, “Modular invariance of characters of vertex operator algebras,” [ *Journal of the American Mathematical Society*]{} [**9**]{} (1996) no. 1, 237–302.
C. Dong, H. Li, and G. Mason, “Modular invariance of trace functions in orbifold theory and generalized [M]{}oonshine,” [*Communications in Mathematical Physics*]{} [**214**]{} (2000) 1–56, [[q-alg/9703016]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/q-alg/9703016).
M. Miyamoto, “Modular invariance of vertex operator algebras satisfying [$C_2$]{}-cofiniteness,” [[*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**122**]{} (2004) no. 1, 51–91](http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-04-12212-2). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-04-12212-2>.
C. Dong and Z. Zhao, “Modularity in orbifold theory for vertex operator superalgebras,” [[ *Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**260**]{} (2005) no. 1, 227–256](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-005-1418-2). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-005-1418-2>.
K. Harada and M. L. Lang, “Modular forms associated with the [M]{}onster module,” in [*The [M]{}onster and [L]{}ie algebras ([C]{}olumbus, [OH]{}, 1996)*]{}, vol. 7 of [*Ohio State Univ. Math. Res. Inst. Publ.*]{}, pp. 59–83. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1998.
J. Conway, R. Curtis, S. Norton, R. Parker, and R. Wilson, [*[Atlas of finite groups. Maximal subgroups and ordinary characters for simple groups. With comput. assist. from J. G. Thackray.]{}*]{} Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
J. Van Ekeren, “Modular invariance for twisted modules over a vertex operator superalgebra,” [[*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**322**]{} (2013) no. 2, 333–371](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-013-1758-2). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-013-1758-2>.
J. van Ekeren, [“Vertex operator superalgebras and odd trace functions,”](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02952-8_13) in [*Advances in [L]{}ie superalgebras*]{}, vol. 7 of [*Springer INdAM Ser.*]{}, pp. 223–234. Springer, Cham, 2014. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02952-8_13>.
E. Frenkel and D. Ben-Zvi, [*Vertex algebras and algebraic curves*]{}, vol. 88 of [*Mathematical Surveys and Monographs*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second ed., 2004.
C. Dong, “Vertex algebras associated with even lattices,” [[*J. Algebra*]{} [**161**]{} (1993) no. 1, 245–265](http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jabr.1993.1217). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jabr.1993.1217>.
C. Dong and G. Mason, “Nonabelian orbifolds and the boson-fermion correspondence,” [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**163**]{} (1994) no. 3, 523–559. <http://projecteuclid.org/getRecord?id=euclid.cmp/1104270584>.
A. J. Feingold, I. B. Frenkel, and J. F. X. Ries, [[*Spinor construction of vertex operator algebras, triality, and [$E^{(1)}_8$]{}*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/conm/121), vol. 121 of [ *Contemporary Mathematics*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1991. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/conm/121>.
A. J. Feingold, J. F. X. Ries, and M. D. Weiner, [“Spinor construction of the [$c=\frac12$]{} minimal model,”](http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/conm/193/02366) in [*Moonshine, the [M]{}onster, and related topics ([S]{}outh [H]{}adley, [MA]{}, 1994)*]{}, vol. 193 of [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, pp. 45–92. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1996. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/conm/193/02366>.
E. Frenkel and M. Szczesny, “Twisted modules over vertex algebras on algebraic curves,” [[*Adv. Math.*]{} [**187**]{} (2004) no. 1, 195–227](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2003.07.019). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2003.07.019>.
J. H. Brunier and J. Funke, [*On Two Geometric Theta Lifts,*]{} Duke Math. Journal [**125**]{} (2004), 45–90.
K. Ono, [*Unearthing the visions of a master: harmonic [M]{}aass forms and number theory,*]{} Current developments in mathematics, 2008, 347–454. Int. Press, Somerville, MA.
D. Zagier, “Ramanujan’s mock theta functions and their applications (after [Z]{}wegers and [O]{}no-[B]{}ringmann),” [*Astérisque*]{} (2009) no. 326, Exp. No. 986, vii–viii, 143–164 (2010). S[é]{}minaire Bourbaki. Vol. 2007/2008.
G. N. Watson, “The [M]{}ock [T]{}heta [F]{}unctions (2),” [[*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**S2-42**]{} no. 1, 274](http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.274). <http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.274>.
N.-P. Skoruppa, [*[Ü]{}ber den [Z]{}usammenhang zwischen [J]{}acobiformen und [M]{}odulformen halbganzen [G]{}ewichts*]{}. Bonner Mathematische Schriften \[Bonn Mathematical Publications\], 159. Universit[ä]{}t Bonn Mathematisches Institut, Bonn, 1985. Dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universit[ä]{}t, Bonn, 1984.
J.-P. Serre and H. M. Stark, “Modular forms of weight [$1/2$]{},” in [ *Modular functions of one variable, [VI]{} ([P]{}roc. [S]{}econd [I]{}nternat. [C]{}onf., [U]{}niv. [B]{}onn, [B]{}onn, 1976)*]{}, pp. 27–67. Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 627. Springer, Berlin, 1977.
G. E. Andrews, “The fifth and seventh order mock theta functions,” [[*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [ **293**]{} (1986) no. 1, 113–134](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2000275). <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2000275>.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, U.S.A.
[^2]: Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Arrival processes to service systems often display fluctuations that are larger than anticipated under the Poisson assumption, a phenomenon that is referred to as *overdispersion*. Motivated by this, we analyze a class of discrete stochastic models for which we derive heavy-traffic approximations that are scalable in the system size. Subsequently, we show how this leads to novel capacity sizing rules that acknowledge the presence of overdispersion. This, in turn, leads to robust approximations for performance characteristics of systems that are of moderate size and/or may not operate in heavy traffic.'
author:
- 'Britt W.J. Mathijsen[^1]'
- 'A.J.E.M. Janssen'
- 'Johan S.H. van Leeuwaarden'
- 'Bert Zwart [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Robust heavy-traffic approximations for service systems facing overdispersed demand'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
One of the most prevalent assumptions in queueing theory is the assumption that arrivals of jobs occur according to a Poisson process. Although natural and convenient from a mathematical viewpoint, the Poisson assumption often fails to be confirmed in practice. A deterministic arrival rate implies that the demand over any given period is a Poisson random variable, whose variance equals its expectation. A growing number of empirical studies shows that the variance of demand typically deviates from the mean significantly. Recent work [@Kim2015b; @Kim2015a] reports variance being strictly less than the mean in health care settings employing appointment booking systems. This reduction of variability can be accredited to the goal of the booking system to create a more predictable arrival pattern. On the other hand, in other scenarios with no control over the arrivals, the variance can dominate the mean, see [@Avramidis:2004; @Bassamboo2010; @Bassamboo2009; @Brown2005; @Chen2001; @Gans2003; @Gurvich2010; @koolejongbloed; @kimwhitt; @maman; @Mehrotra2010; @Robbins2010; @Steckley2009; @Zan2012]. The feature that variability is higher than one expects from the Poisson assumption is referred to as [*overdispersion*]{} and serves as the primary motivation for this work.
Stochastic models with the Poisson assumption have been widely applied to optimize capacity levels in service systems. When stochastic models, however, do not take into account overdispersion, resulting performance estimates are likely to be overoptimistic. The system then ends up being underprovisioned, which possibly causes severe performance problems, particularly in critical loading. A significant part of the queueing literature has focused on extending Poisson arrival processes to more bursty arrival processes, and analyze these models using, for example, matrix-analytic models [@Neuts1981; @Latouche1999]. In this paper, we focus on a different cause of overdispersion in arrival processes, which is *arrival rate uncertainty*. Since model primitives, in particular the arrival rate, are typically estimated through historical data, these are prone to be subject to forecasting errors. In the realm of Poisson processes, this inherent uncertainty can be acknowledged by viewing the arrival rate $\Lambda_n$ itself as being stochastic. The resulting doubly stochastic Poisson process, also known as Cox process (first presented in [@Cox1955]), implies that demand in a given interval $A_{k,n}$ follows a mixed Poisson distribution. In this case, the expected demand per period equals $\mu_n = \E[\Lambda_n]$, while the variance is $\sigma_n^2 = \E[\Lambda_n]+\Var\Lambda_n$. By selecting the distribution of the mixing factor $\Lambda_n$, the magnitude of overdispersion can be made arbitrarily large, and only a deterministic $\Lambda_n$ leads to a true Poisson process.
The mixed Poisson model presents a useful way to fit both the mean and variance to real data, particularly in case of overdispersion. The mixing distribution can be estimated parametrically or non-parametrically, see [@koolejongbloed; @maman]. A popular parametric family is the Gamma distribution, which gives rise to an effective data fitting procedure that uses the fact that a Gamma mixed Poisson random variable follows a negative binomial distribution. We will in this paper adopt the assumption of a Gamma-Poisson mixture as the demand process.\
We investigate the impact of this modeling assumption within the context of a classical model in queueing theory, which is the reflected random walk. In particular, we consider a sequence of such random walks, indexed by $n$, with increments $A_{k,n}-s_n$, where $A_{k,n}\sim\,{\rm Pois}(\Lambda_n)$ and $s_n$ is denotes the system capacity, and we consider a regime in which the system approaches heavy traffic. We are especially interested in the impact of overdispersion on the way performance measures scale, and how they impact capacity allocation rules.
A sensible candidate capacity allocation rule is $s_n = \mu_n + \beta \sigma_n$ for some $\beta>0$, which is equivalent to the scaling $$\frac{\mu_n}{\sigma_n}\,(1-\rho_n) \to \beta, \text{ for } \qquad n\to\infty,$$ where $\rho_n := \mu_n/s_n$ denotes the utilization. We will verify mathematically that this is asymptotically the appropriate choice and our methods allow to quantify the accuracy of the resulting performance formulae for finite systems. Studies that have adressed similar capacity allocation problems with stochastic arrival rates include [@Kocaga2015; @maman; @Whitt1999; @Whitt2006]. Of the aforementioned papers, our work best relates to [@maman], in the sense that we also assess the asymptotic performance of queueing system having a stochastic arrival rate in heavy traffic. We therefore expand the paradigm of the QED regime, in order to have it accommodate for overdispersed demand that follows from a doubly stochastic Poisson process.
The first part of our analysis relates to [@Sigman2011b], in which a sequence of cyclically thinned queues, denoted by $G_n/G_n/1$ queues, is considered. Here, $G_n$ indicates that only every $n^{th}$ point of the original point process is considered. In this framework, it is shown that the stationary waiting time can be characterized as the maximum of a random walk, in which the increments grow indefinitely. Under appropriate heavy-traffic scaling, the authors prove convergence to a Gaussian random walk, and moreover characterize the limits the stationary waiting time moments. Our work differs with respect to [@Sigman2011b] in the sense that we study a discrete-time model, rather than the continuous-time $G_n/G_n/1$ queue. Also, the presence of the overdispersion requires us to employ an alternative scaling.
Furthermore, our approach through Pollaczek’s formula, allows us to derive estimates for performance measures in pre-limit, i.e. large but finite-size, systems. Mathematically, this second part of our analysis is related to previous work [@Janssen2015]. In particular, we use a refinement of the saddle point technique to establish our asymptotic estimates. The associated analysis is substantially more involved in the present situation, as we will explain in Section \[sec:robust\_analysis\].\
**Structure of the paper**. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Our model is introduced in Section \[modelSection\] together with some preliminary results. In Section 3 we derive the classical heavy-traffic scaling limits for the queue length process in the presence of overdispersed arrivals both for the moments and the distribution itself. Section 4 presents our main theoretic result, which provides a robust refinement to the heavy-traffic characterization of the queue length measures in pre-limit systems. In Section 5, we describe the numerical results and demonstrate the heavy-traffic approximation.
Model description and preliminaries {#modelSection}
===================================
We consider a sequence of discrete stochastic models, indexed by $n$, in which time is divided into periods of equal length. At the beginning of each period $k=1,2,3,...$ new demand $A_{k,n}$ arrives to the system. The demands per period $A_{1,n},A_{2,n},...$ are assumed independent and equal in distribution to some non-negative integer-valued random variable $A_n$. The system has a service capacity $s_n\in\mathbb{N}$ per period, so that the recursion $$\label{mm1}
Q_{k+1,n} = \max\{Q_{k,n} + A_{k,n}-s_n,0\}, \qquad k=0,1,2,... ,$$ with $Q_{n}(0) = 0$. For brevity, we define $\mu_n:= \E A_{n}$ and $\sigma_n^2 = \Var A_n$. The duality principle shows that this expression is equivalent to $$\label{mm2}
Q_{k+1,n} {{\;\buildrel{d}\over= \;}}\max_{0\leq j\leq k}\Bigl\{{\sum_{i=1}^j} (A_{i,n}-s_n)\Bigr\}, \qquad k=0,1,2,... ,$$ i.e. the maximum of the first $k$ steps of a random walk with steps distributed as $A_n-s_n$. Even more so, we can characterize $Q_{n}$, the stationary queue length, as $$\label{mm3}
Q_{n} {{\;\buildrel{d}\over= \;}}\max_{k\geq 0}\Bigl\{{\sum_{i=1}^k} (A_{i,n}-s_n)\Bigr\}.$$ The behavior of $Q_{k,n}$ greatly depends on the characteristics of $A_n$ and $s_n$. First, note that $\mu_n<s_n$ is a necessary condition for the maximum to be finite and therefore for the queue to be stable. Before continuing the analysis of $Q_{n}$, we impose a set of conditions on the asymptotic properties of $s_n,\mu_n$ and $\sigma_n$.
\[as1\] \
1. [(Asymptotic growth)]{} $$\mu_n,\sigma_n \to \infty, \quad \text{\rm for } n\to\infty.$$
2. [(Persistence of overdispersion)]{} $$\sigma_n^2/\mu_n \to \infty \quad \text{\rm for } n\to\infty.$$
3. [(Heavy-traffic condition)]{} The utilization $\rho_n := \mu_n/s_n \to 1$ as $n\to\infty$, while $$\label{mm5}
s_n = \mu_n + \beta\, \sigma_n,$$ for some $\beta > 0$. This is equivalent to requiring $$\label{mm4}
(1-\rho_n)\frac{\mu_n}{\sigma_n} \to \beta, \qquad \text{as }n\to\infty.$$
Assumption \[as1\] is assumed to hold throughout the remainder of this paper.
Since we are mainly interested in the system behavior in heavy traffic, it is appropriate to study the queue length process in a scaled form. Substituting $s_n$ as in Assumption \[as1\](c), and dividing both sides of by $\sigma_n$, gives
$$\label{mm6}
\frac{Q_{n}}{\sigma_n} = \max_{k\geq 0} \Bigl\{{\sum_{i=1}^k} \Bigl(\frac{A_{i,n}-\mu_n}{\sigma_n} - \beta\Bigr)\Bigr\}.$$
By defining $\hat{Q}_n := Q_n/\sigma_n$ and $\hat{A}_{i,n} := (A_{i,n}-\mu_n)/\sigma_n$, we see that the scaled queue length process is in distribution equal to the maximum of a random walk with i.i.d. increments distributed as $\hat{A}_n-\beta$. Besides $\E\hat{A}_n = 0$ and $\Var \hat{A}_n=1$, the scaled and centered arrival counts $\hat{A}_n$ has a few other nice properties which we turn to later in this section.
The model in is valid for any distribution of $A_n$, also for the original case where the number of arrivals follows a Poisson distribution with fixed parameter $\lambda_n$, but Assumption \[as1\](b) does not hold then. Instead, we assume $A_n$ to be Poisson distributed with uncertain arrival rate rendered by the non-negative random variable $\Lambda_n$. This $\Lambda_n$ is commonly referred to as the *prior* distribution, while $A_n$ is given the name of a Poisson mixture, see [@Grandell1997]. Given that the moment generation function of $\Lambda_n$, denoted by $M^\Lambda_n(\cdot)$, exists, we are able to express the probability generating function (pgf) of $A_n$ through the former. Namely, $$\label{mm7}
\tilde{A}_n(z) = \E [\E[ z^{A_n} | \Lambda_n ] ] = \E[ \exp(\Lambda_n(z-1))] = M^\Lambda_n(z-1).$$ From , we get $$\label{mm8}
\mu_n = \E A_n = \E\Lambda_n,\qquad
\sigma_n^2 = \Var A_n = \Var \Lambda_n + \E\Lambda_n,$$ so that $\mu_n<\sigma_n^2$ if $\Lambda_n$ is non-deterministic. Assumption \[as1\](b) hence translates to $$\Var \Lambda_n/\E \Lambda_n\rightarrow \infty, \qquad n\rightarrow\infty.$$ The next result relates the converging behavior of the centered and scaled $\Lambda_n$ to that of $\hat{A}_n$.
\[gaussStep\] Let $\mu_n,\sigma_n^2\rightarrow\infty$ and $\sigma_n^2/\mu_n\rightarrow\infty$. If $$\hat{\Lambda}_n := \frac{\Lambda_n-\mu_n}{\sigma_n}{{\;\buildrel{d}\over\Rightarrow\;}}N(0,1), \qquad \text{\normalfont for } n\rightarrow\infty,$$ where $N(0,1)$ denotes a standard normal variable, then $\hat{A}_n$ converges weakly to a standard normal variable as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
The proof can be found in Appendix \[formalSec\].
The prevalent choice for $\Lambda_n$ is the Gamma distribution. The Gamma-Poisson mixture turns out to provide a very good fit to arrival counts observed in service systems, as was observed by [@koolejongbloed]. Assuming $\Lambda_n$ to be of Gamma type with scale and rate parameters $a_n$ and $1/b_n$, respectively, we get $$\label{r0}
\tilde{A}_n(z) = \Bigl(\frac{1}{1+b_n(1-z)}\Bigr)^{a_n},$$ in which we recognize the pgf of a negative binomial distribution with parameters $a_n$ and $1/(b_n+1)$, so that $$\label{t21}
\mu_n = a_nb_n,\qquad \sigma_n^2 = a_nb_n(b_n+1).$$
Note that in the context of a Gamma prior, the restrictions in Assumption \[as1\] reduce to only two rules. For completeness, we include the revised list below.
\[as2\] \
1. [(Asymptotic regime and persistence of overdispersion)]{} $$a_n, b_n \to \infty, \quad \text{\rm for } n\to\infty.$$
2. [(Heavy-traffic condition)]{} Let $$s_n = a_n b_n + \beta \sqrt{a_n b_n(b_n+1)},$$ for some $\beta>0$, or equivalently $$(1-\rho_n)\sqrt{a_n} \to \beta, \quad \text{\rm for } n\to\infty.$$
The next result follows from the fact that $\Lambda_n$ is a Gamma random variable:
\[scaledLambdaLemma\] Let $\Lambda_n\sim\text{\normalfont Gamma}(a_n,1/b_n)$, $A_n\sim{\rm Poisson }(\Lambda_n)$ and $a_n,b_n\rightarrow \infty$. Then $\hat{A}_n$ converges weakly to a standard normal random variable as $n\rightarrow \infty$.
With Lemma \[gaussStep\] in mind, it is sufficient to prove that $\hat{\Lambda}_n\Rightarrow N(0,1)$ for this particular choice of $\Lambda_n$. We do this by proving the pointwise convergence of the cf of $\hat{\Lambda}_n$ to $\exp({-} t^2/2)$, the cf of the standard normal distribution. Let $\varphi_{G}(\cdot)$ denote the characteristic function of a random variable $G$. By basic properties of the cf, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\hat{\Lambda}_n}(t) &= \ee^{-i\mu_nt/\sigma_n}\,\varphi_{\Lambda_n}(t/\sigma_n)
= \ee^{-i\mu_nt/\sigma_n} \Bigl(1-\frac{i b_nt}{\sigma_n}\Bigr)^{-a_n}\nonumber\\
&= \exp\Bigl[ -\frac{i\mu_nt}{\sigma_n}\, - a_n\,{\rm ln}\Bigl(1-\frac{i b_nt}{\sigma_n}\Bigr)\Bigr]\nonumber\\
\label{g13d}
&= \exp\Bigl[ -\frac{i\mu_nt}{\sigma_n} -a_n\Bigl( {-}\frac{i\,b_nt}{\sigma_n} + \frac{b_n^2t^2}{2\sigma_n^2} + O( b_n^3/\sigma_n^3)\Bigr)\Bigr] \nonumber\\
&= \exp\Bigl[ -\frac{b_n\,t^2}{2(b_n+1)} + O\left(1/\sqrt{a_n}\right)\Bigr] \rightarrow \exp\left({-} t^2/2\right),\end{aligned}$$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$. By Lévy’s continuity theorem this implies $\hat{\Lambda}_n$ is indeed asymptotically standard normal.
The characterization of the arrival process as a Gamma-Poisson mixture is of vital importance in later sections.
Expressions for the stationary distribution\[expressionsSubsec\]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Our main focus is on the stationary queue length distribution, denoted by $$\mathbb{P}(Q_{n}=i) =\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} \mathbb{P}(Q_{k,n}=i).$$ Denote the pgf of $Q_{n}$ by $$\label{t1}
\tilde{Q}_n(w) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \P(Q_{n}=i) w^i.$$ To continue our analysis of $Q_{n}$, we need one more condition on $A_n$.
\[as3\] The pgf of $A_n$, denoted by $\tilde{A}_n(w)$, exists within $|z|<r_0$, for some $r_0>1$, so that all moments of $A_n$ are finite.
We next recall two characterizations of $\tilde{Q}_n(w)$ that play prominent roles in the remainder of our analysis. The first characterization of $\tilde{Q}_n(w)$ originates from a random walk perspective. As we see from , the (scaled) stationary queue length is equal in distribution to the all-time maximum of a random walk with i.i.d. increments distributed as $A_n-\beta$ (or $\hat{A}_n-\beta$ in the scaled setting). Spitzer’s identity, see e.g. [@Asmussen2003 Theorem VIII4.2], then gives $$\label{t3}
\tilde{Q}_n(w) = \exp\Bigl\{\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\,\Big(\E\big[w^{\left(\sum_{i=1}^k \{A_{i,n}-s_n\}\right)^+}\big]-1\Big)\Bigr\},$$ where $(x)^+ = \max\{x,0\}$. Hence, $$\label{t4}
\E Q_{n} = \tilde{Q}_n'(1) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\E\Bigl[ {\sum_{i=1}^k} (A_{i,n} - s_n) \Bigr]^+,$$ $$\label{t4a}
\Var Q_{n} = \tilde{Q}_n''(1)+Q_n'(1)-\left(\tilde{Q}_n'(1)\right)^2 = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\E\Bigl[ \Big({\sum_{i=1}^k} (A_{i,n} - s_n) \Big)^+\Bigr]^2,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t5}
\P(Q_{n}=0) = \tilde{Q}_n(0) &= \exp\Bigl\{{-}{\sum_{k=1}^\infty}\frac{1}{k} \P\Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^k (A_{i,n}-s_n) > 0\Bigr) \Bigr\}.\end{aligned}$$ A second characterization follows from Pollaczek’s formula, see [@Abate1993; @Janssen2015]: $$\label{t6}
\tilde{Q}_n(w) = \exp\Bigl\{ \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|z|=1+\eps} {\rm ln}\Bigl(\frac{w-z}{1-z}\Bigr) \,\frac{(z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_n(z))'}{z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_n(z)}\, dz\Bigr\},$$ which is analytic for $|w|<r_0$, for some $r_0>1$. Therefore, $\eps>0$ has to be chosen such that $|w|<1+\eps<r_0$. This gives $$\label{t7}
\E Q_{n} = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{|z|=1+\eps} \frac{1}{1-z}\,\frac{(z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_n(z))'}{z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_n(z)}\, \dd z,$$ $$\label{t7a}
\Var Q_{n} = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{|z|=1+\eps} \frac{{-}z}{(1-z)^2}\,\frac{(z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_n(z))'}{z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_n(z)}\, \dd z,$$ $$\label{t8}
\P(Q_{n}=0) = \exp\Bigl\{ \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|z|=1+\eps} {\rm ln}\Bigl(\frac{z}{z-1}\Bigr) \,\frac{(z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_n(z))'}{z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_n(z)}\, \dd z\Bigr\}.$$
Pollaczek-type integrals like - first occurred in the work of Pollaczek on the classical single-server queue (see [@Abate1993; @Cohen1982; @Janssen2008] for historical accounts). These integrals are fairly straightforward to evaluate numerically and hence give rise to efficient algorithms for performance evaluation [@Abate1993; @boon2017pollaczek]. The integrals also proved useful in establishing heavy-traffic results by asymptotic evaluation of the integrals in various heavy-traffic regimes [@Kingman1962; @Cohen1982; @Janssen2015; @boon2017pollaczek2], and in this paper we follow that approach for a heavy-traffic regime that is suitable for overdispersion.
Heavy-traffic limits
====================
In this section we present the result on the convergence of the discrete process $\hat{Q}_{n}$ to a non-degenerate limiting process and of the associated stationary moments. The latter requires an interchange of limits. Using this asymptotic result, we derive two sets of approximations for $\E Q_n$, $\Var Q_n$ and $\P(Q_{n}=0)$, that capture the limiting behavior of $Q_{n}$. The first set provides a rather crude estimation for the first cumulants of the queue length process for any arrival process $A_{n}$ satisfying Assumption \[as1\]. The second set, which is the subject of the next section, is derived for the specific case of a Gamma prior and is therefore expected to provide more accurate, robust approximations for the performance metrics.
We start by indicating how the asymptotic properties of the scaled arrival process give rise to a proper limiting random variable describing the stationary queue length. The asymptotic normality of $\hat{A}_{n}$ provides a link with the Gaussian random walk and nearly deterministic queues [@Sigman2011a; @Sigman2011b]. The main results in [@Sigman2011a; @Sigman2011b] were obtained under the assumption that $\rho_n\sim 1-\beta/\sqrt{n}$, in which case it follows from [@Sigman2011b Thm. 3] that the rescaled stationary waiting time process converges to a reflected Gaussian random walk.
We shall also identify the Gaussian random walk as the appropriate scaling limit for our stationary system. However, since the normalized natural fluctuations of our system are given by $\mu_n/\sigma_n$ instead of $\sqrt{n}$, we assume that the load grows like $\rho_n \sim 1 - \frac{\beta}{\mu_n/\sigma_n}$. Hence, in contrast to [@Sigman2011a; @Sigman2011b], our systems’ characteristics display larger natural fluctuations, due to the mixing factor that renders the arrivals. Yet, by matching this overdispersed demand with the appropriate hedge against variability, we again obtain Gaussian limiting behavior. This is not surprising, since we saw in Lemma \[gaussStep\] that the increments start resembling Gaussian behavior for $n\rightarrow\infty$. The following result summarizes this.
\[gaussianThm\] Let $\Lambda_n$ be a non-negative random variable such that $(\Lambda_n-\mu_n)/\sigma_n$ is asymptotically standard normal, with $\mu_n$ and $\sigma_n$ as defined in , and $\E[\Lambda_n^3]<\infty$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Then under Assumption \[as1\], for $n\rightarrow \infty$,
1. $\hat{Q}_{n} {{\;\buildrel{d}\over\Rightarrow\;}}M_\beta$,
2. $\mathbb{P}(Q_{n} = 0) \rightarrow \mathbb{P}(M_\beta=0)$,
3. $\E\hat{Q}_{n} \rightarrow \E M_\beta$,
4. $\Var \hat Q_n \rightarrow \Var\, M_\beta$,
where $M_\beta$ is the all-time maximum of a random walk with i.i.d. normal increments with mean $-\beta$ and unit variance.
The proof of Theorem \[gaussianThm\] is given in Appendix \[formalSec\]. The following result shows that Theorem \[gaussianThm\] also applies to Gamma mixtures, which is a direct consequence of Corollary \[scaledLambdaLemma\].
Let $\Lambda_n\sim$ $(a_n,b_n)$. Then under Assumption \[as2\] the four convergence results of Theorem \[gaussianThm\] hold true.
It follows from Theorem \[gaussianThm\] that the scaled stationary queueing process converges under to a reflected Gaussian random walk. Hence, the performance measures of the original system should be well approximated by the performance measures of the reflected Gaussian random walk, yielding heavy-traffic approximations.
Like our original system, the Gaussian random walk falls in the classical setting of the reflected one-dimensional random walk, whose behavior is characterized by both Spitzer’s identity and Pollaczek’s formula. In particular, Pollaczek’s formula gives rise to contour integral expressions for performance measures that are easy to evaluate numerically, also in heavy-traffic conditions. The numerical evaluation of such integrals is considered in [@Abate1993]. For $\E M_\beta$ such an integral is as follows $$\label{g13e}
\E M_\beta = {-}\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^\infty {\rm Re}\Bigl[\frac{1-\phi(-z)}{z^2}\Bigr]\dd y,$$ with $\phi(z) = \exp(-\beta\,z+\tfrac12\,z^2)$, the Laplace transform of a normal random variable with mean $-\beta$ and unit variance, and $z=x+iy$ with an appropriately chosen real part $x$. Note that this integral involves complex-valued functions with complex arguments. Similar Pollaczek-type integrals exist for $\mathbb{P}(M_\beta=0)$ and $\Var M_\beta$; see [@Abate1993]. The following result simply rewrites these integrals in terms of a real integral and uses the fact that the scaled queue length process mimics the maximum of the Gaussian random walk for large $n$.
\[abateThm\] Under Assumption \[as1\], the leading order behavior of $\mathbb{P}(Q_{n}=0)$, $\E Q_n$ and $\Var Q_n$ as $n\to\infty$ is characterized by, respectively, $$\label{h1a}
\exp\Bigl[\frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^\infty \frac{\beta/\sqrt{2}}{\tfrac12\beta^2+t^2}\,{\rm ln}\Bigl(1-e^{-\tfrac12\beta^2-t^2}\Bigr)\dd t\Bigr],\\$$ $$\label{h1}
\frac{\sqrt{2}\sigma_n}{\pi}\int_0^\infty \frac{t^2}{\tfrac12\beta^2+t^2}\, \frac{\exp(-\tfrac12\beta^2- t^2)}{1-\exp(-\tfrac12 \beta^2 - t^2)} \dd t,\\$$ $$\label{h1b}
\frac{\sqrt{2}\beta\sigma_n^2}{\pi}\,\int_0^\infty \frac{t^2}{(\tfrac12 \beta^2+t^2)^2}\frac{\exp(-\tfrac12\beta^2- t^2)}{1-\exp(-\tfrac12 \beta^2 - t^2)} \dd t.$$
According to [@Abate1993 Eq. (15)], $$\label{z1}
{-}\,{\rm ln}\,[\mathbb{P}(M_\beta=0)] = c_0,\quad \E M_\beta = c_1, \quad \Var\, M_\beta = c_2,$$ where $$\label{z2}
c_n = \frac{(-1)^nn!}{\pi} \,{\rm Re}\Bigl[\int_0^\infty \frac{{\rm ln}\,(1-\exp(\beta\,z+\tfrac12 z^2))}{z^{n+1}} \dd y\Bigr],$$ in which $z={-}x+i\,y$, $y\geq 0$, and $x$ is any fixed number between 0 and $2\beta$. Take $x=\beta$, so that $$\label{z3}
\beta z+\tfrac12 z^2 = {-}\tfrac12\beta^2 - \tfrac12 y^2\leq 0,\quad y\geq 0.$$ For $n=0$, this gives $$\begin{aligned}
c_0 &= \frac{1}{\pi}\,{\rm Re}\Bigl[\int_0^\infty \frac{{\rm ln}\,(1-\exp({-}\tfrac12 \beta^2-\tfrac12 y^2))}{{-}\beta+i\,y} \dd y\Bigr] \nonumber\\
&= {-}\frac{1}{\pi}\,\int_0^\infty \frac{\beta}{\beta^2+y^2}\,{\rm ln}\,(1-\exp({-}\tfrac12 \beta^2- \tfrac12 y^2)) \dd y\nonumber\\
\label{z4}
&= {-}\frac{1}{\pi}\,\int_0^\infty \frac{\beta/\sqrt{2}}{\tfrac12\beta^2+t^2}\,{\rm ln}\,(1-\exp({-}\tfrac12 \beta^2-t^2)) \dd t,\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $$\label{z5}
{\rm Re }\Bigl[\frac{1}{{-}\beta+i\, y}\Bigr] = \frac{{-}\beta}{\beta^2+y^2},$$ together with the substitution $y=t\sqrt{2}$. For $n=1,2,\ldots,$ partial integration gives $$\begin{aligned}
c_n &= \frac{(-1)^n n!}{\pi} \, {\rm Re}\Bigl[\int_0^\infty \frac{{\rm ln}(1-\exp(-\tfrac12\beta^2-\tfrac12 y^2))}{({-}\beta+i\,y)^{n+1}} \dd y\nonumber\\
&= \frac{(-1)^{n-1}(n-1)!}{\pi}\,{\rm Im}\Bigl[\int_0^\infty {\rm ln}(1-\exp(-\tfrac12\beta^2-\tfrac12 y^2))\dd \Bigl(\frac{1}{(-\beta+i\,y)^n}\Bigr)\Bigr]\nonumber\\
\label{z6}
&= {-}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}(n-1)!}{\pi} {\rm Im}\Bigl[ \int_0^\infty \frac{y}{(-\beta+i\,y)^n}\,\frac{\exp(-\tfrac12\beta^2-\tfrac12 y^2)}{1-\exp(-\tfrac12\beta^2-\tfrac12 y^2)}\dd y\Bigr],\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $$\label{z7}
{\rm Im}\Bigl[\frac{{\rm ln}(1-\exp(-\tfrac12\beta^2-\tfrac12 y^2))}{(-\beta+i\,y)^n}\Bigr]\Bigl|_0^\infty\Bigr. = 0.$$ Using $$\label{z8}
\frac{1}{(-\beta+i\,y)^n} = (-1)^n\,\frac{(\beta+i\,y)^n}{(\beta^2+y^2)^n},$$ we then get $$\label{z9}
c_n = \frac{(n-1)!}{\pi}\,{\rm Im}\,\Bigl[\int_0^\infty \frac{y(\beta+i\,y)^n}{(\beta^2+y^2)^n}\,\frac{\exp(-\tfrac12\beta^2-\tfrac12 y^2)}{1-\exp(-\tfrac12\beta^2-\tfrac12 y^2)}\dd y\Bigr],$$ which after substitution of $y=t\sqrt{2}$ gives and .
Robust heavy-traffic approximations {#sec:robust_analysis}
===================================
We shall now establish robust heavy-traffic approximations for the canonical case of Gamma-Poisson mixtures; see .
\[saddlepointThm\] Let $a_n,b_n$ and $s_n$ be as in Assumption \[as2\]. Then the leading order behavior of $\E Q_n$ is given by $$\label{r1}
\frac{\sqrt{2}\,\beta_n}{\pi}\Bigl(\frac{b_n+\rho_n}{1-\rho_n}\Bigr)\,\int_{0}^\infty \frac{t^2}{\tfrac12\beta^2_n+t^2}\,\frac{\exp({-}\tfrac12\beta^2_n-t^2)}{1-\exp({-}\tfrac12\beta^2_n-t^2)} \dd t\,(1+o(1)),$$ where $$\label{r2}
\beta_n^2 = s_n\Bigl(\frac{1-\rho_n}{b_n+1}\Bigr)^2\Bigl(1+\frac{b_n}{\rho_n}\Bigr).$$ Furthermore, the leading order behavior of $\mathbb{P}(Q_{n}=0)$ and $\Var Q_n$ is given by $$\label{r3}
\exp\Bigl[\frac{1}{\pi}\,\frac{b_n+\rho_n}{b_n+1}\,\int_0^\infty \frac{\beta_n/\sqrt{2}}{\tfrac12\beta^2_n+t^2}\,{\rm ln}\,\Bigl(1-\ee^{{-}\tfrac12\beta^2_n-t^2}\Bigr)\dd t\Bigr],$$ and $$\label{r4}
\frac{\beta_n^3/\sqrt{2}}{\pi}\Bigl(\frac{b_n+\rho_n}{1-\rho_n}\Bigr)^2\Bigl(\frac{b_n+1}{b_n+\rho_n}+1\Bigr)\int_0^\infty \frac{t^2}{(\tfrac12 \beta_n+t^2)^2}\, \frac{\exp({-}\tfrac12\beta_n-t^2)}{1-\exp({-}\tfrac12\beta_n^2-t^2)}\dd t,$$ respectively.
The proof of Theorem \[saddlepointThm\] requires asymptotic evaluation of the Pollaczek-type integrals -, for which we shall use a *non-standard* saddle-point method. The saddle point method in its standard form is typically suitable for large deviation regimes, for instance excess probabilities, and it cannot be applied to asymptotically characterize other stationary measures such as the mean or mass at zero. Indeed, in the presence of overdispersion the saddle point converges to one (as $n\to\infty$), which is a singular point of the integrand, and renders the standard saddle point method useless. Our non-standard saddle point method, originally proposed by [@debruijn] and also applied in [@Janssen2015], aims specifically to overcome this challenge. Subsequently, we apply the non-standard saddle-point method to turn these contour integrals into practical approximations. In contrast to the setting of [@Janssen2015], the analyticity radius tends to one in the setting with overdispersion, which is a singular point of the integrand. For the proof of Theorem \[saddlepointThm\], we therefore modify the special saddle-point method developed in [@Janssen2015] to account for this circumstance.
Our starting point is the probability generating function of the number of arrivals per time slot, given in , which is analytic for $|z|<1+1/b_n=:r$. Under Assumption \[as2\], we consider $\E {Q}_n$ as given in . We set $$\label{a7}
g(z) = -{\rm ln }\,z+\frac{1}{s_n}\,{\rm ln }\big[\tilde{A}_{n}(z)\big] = -{\rm ln }\,z - \frac{a_n}{s_n}\,{\rm ln }\left(1+(1-z)b_n\right),$$ to be considered in the entire complex plane with branch cuts $(-\infty,0]$ and $[r,\infty)$. The relevant saddle point $z_{\rm sp}$ is the unique zero $z$ of $g'(z)$ with $z\in(1,r_0)$. Since $$\label{a8}
g'(z) = -\frac{1}{z} + \frac{\rho_n}{1+(1-z)b_n},$$ this yields, $$\label{a9}
1+(1-z_{\rm sp})b_n = \rho_n z_{\rm sp},\quad {\rm i.e., } \quad z_{\rm sp} = 1+\frac{1-\rho_n}{\rho_n+b_n}.$$ We then find $$\label{a10}
\E {Q}_n = \frac{s_n}{2\pi i} \int_{|z| = 1+\eps} \frac{g'(z)}{z-1}\,\frac{\exp(s_n\,g(z))}{1-\exp(s_n\,g(z))}\dd z,$$ and take $1+\eps = z_{\rm sp}$. There are no problems with the branch cuts since we consider $\exp(s_ng(z))$ with integer $s_n$.\
We continue as in [@Janssen2015] and thus we intend to substitute $z=z(v)$ in the integral in , where $z(v)$ satisfies $$\label{k1}
g(z(v)) = g(z_{\rm sp})-\tfrac12\,v^2\,g''(z_{\rm sp}) =: q(v)$$ on a range ${-}\tfrac12\delta_n \leq v\leq \tfrac12 \delta_n$ with $\delta_n \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$. Note that, this range depends on $n$, whereas these bounds $\pm \tfrac{1}{2} \delta_n$ remained bounded away from zero in [@Janssen2015]. This severely complicates the present analysis. We consider the approximate representation $$\label{k2}
\frac{-s_n\,g''(z_{\rm sp})}{2\pi i}\int_{-\tfrac12 \delta_n}^{\tfrac12 \delta_n}\frac{v}{z(v)-1}\,\frac{\exp(s_n\,q(v))}{1-\exp(s_n\, q(v))} \dd v$$ of $\E {Q}_n$. We have to operate here with additional care, since both the analyticity radius $r=1+1/b_n$ and the saddle point $z_{\rm sp}$ outside zero $r_0$ tend to 1 as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Specifically, proceeding under the assumptions that $(1-\rho_n)^2a_n$ is bounded while $a_n\rightarrow\infty$ and $b_n\geq 1$, see Assumption \[as2\], we have from that $$\label{a19}
z_{\rm sp}-1=\frac{1-\rho_n}{b_n+\rho_n} = \frac{1-\rho_n}{b_n} + O\Bigl(\frac{1-\rho_n}{b^2_n}\Bigr),$$ where the $O$-term is small compared to $(1-\rho_n)/b_n$ when $b_n\rightarrow\infty$. Next, we approximate $r_0$, using that $r_0>1$ satisfies $$\label{a20}
{-}{\rm ln}\, r_0 - \frac{\rho_n}{b_n}\, {\rm ln}\,(1+(1-r_0)b_n) = 0.$$ Write $r_0 = 1+u/b_n$, so that we get the equation $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= {-}{\rm ln}\,\left(1+\frac{u}{b_n}\right) - \frac{\rho_n}{b_n}\,{\rm ln }(1-u)\nonumber \\
\label{a21}
&= {-}\frac{u}{b_n}\Bigl(1-\rho_n-\tfrac12\Bigl(\frac{1}{b_n}+\rho_n\Bigr)u-\tfrac{1}{3}\Bigl(\frac{-1}{b^2_n}+\rho_n\Bigr)u^2+\cdots\Bigr),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the Taylor expansion of ${\rm ln}(1+x)$ at $x=0$. Thus we find $$\label{a22}
u=\frac{2(1-\rho_n)}{\rho_n+1/b_n}+O(u^2) = 2(1-\rho_n)+O((1-\rho_n)^2)+O\Bigl(\frac{1-\rho_n}{b_n}\Bigr),$$ and so, $$\label{a23}
r_0 = 1+2\,\frac{1-\rho_n}{b_n}+O\Bigl(\frac{(1-\rho_n)^2}{b_n}\Bigr) + O\Bigl(\frac{1-\rho_n}{b^2_n}\Bigr).$$ In we choose $\delta_n$ so large that the integral has converged within exponentially small error using $\pm\delta_n$ as integration limits, and, at the same time, so small that there is a convergent power series $$\label{a26}
z(v) = z_{\rm sp}+iv+ \sum_{k=2}^\infty c_k(iv)^k, \qquad \text{for } |v| \leq \tfrac12 \delta_n.$$ To achieve these goals, we supplement the information on $g(z)$, as given by $\eqref{a7}-\eqref{a9}$, by $$\label{a27}
g''(z)=\frac{1}{z^2}+\frac{\rho_nb_n}{(1+(1-z)b_n)^2},\quad g''(1) = 1+\rho_nb_n,\quad g''(z_{\rm sp}) =\frac{1}{z_{\rm sp}^2}\Bigl(1+\frac{b_n}{\rho_n}\Bigr).$$ Now $$\label{a36}
\exp(s_n\,q(v)) = \exp(s_n\,g(z_{\rm sp}))\exp(-\tfrac12\,s_n\,g''(z_{\rm sp})\,v^2),$$ and $$\label{a37} s_n\, g''(z_{\rm sp})v^2 = s_n\,b_nv^2(1+o(1)) = a_n(b_n\,v)^2(1+o(1)).$$ Therefore, approximates $\E {Q}_n$ with exponentially small error when we take $\tfrac12 \delta_n$ of the order $1/b_n$.
We next aim at showing that we have a power series for $z(v)$ as in that converges for $|v|\leq\tfrac12\delta_n$ with $\tfrac12\delta_n$ of the order $1/b_n$.
Let $$\label{a38}
r_n:=\frac{1}{2\,b_n}-(z_{\rm sp} -1 ),\quad m_n:= \tfrac{2}{3}\rho_nr_n\sqrt{\frac{b_n+\rho_n^{-1}}{b_n+\rho_n}},$$ where we assume $r_n>0$. Then holds with real coefficients $c_k$ satisfying $$\label{a39}
|c_k|\leq\frac{r_n}{m_n^k},\quad k=2,3,\ldots.$$
We let $$\label{a40}
G(z):=\frac{2(g(z)-g(z_{\rm sp}))}{g''(z_{\rm sp})(z-z_{\rm sp})^2}.$$ Then $G(z_{\rm sp})=1$ and so we can write as $$\label{a41}
F(z):=(z-z_{\rm sp})\sqrt{G(z)} = i v$$ when $|z-z_{\rm sp}|$ is sufficiently small. Since $F(z_{\rm sp})=0$, $F'(z_{\rm sp})=1$, the Bürmann-Lagrange inversion theorem implies validity of a power series as in , with real $c_k$ since $G(z)$ is positive and real for real $z$ close to $z_{\rm sp}$. We therefore just need to estimate the convergence radius of this series from below.
To this end, we start by showing that $$\label{a42}
{\rm Re}[g''(z)] > \frac{4}{9}\,\rho_n^2\frac{b_n+\rho_n^{-1}}{b_n+\rho_n},\quad |z-z_{\rm sp}|\leq r_n.$$ For this, we consider the representation $$\label{a43}
G(z) = 2\int_{0}^1\int_0^1 \frac{g''(z_{\rm sp}+s\,t(z-z_{\rm sp}))}{g''(z_{\rm sp})} \,t\dd s\dd t.$$ We have for $\zeta\in\mathbb{C}$ and $|\zeta-1|\leq 1/2b_{n}\leq 1/2$ from that $$\label{a44}
{\rm Re}[g''(\zeta)] = {\rm Re}(1/\zeta^2) + \rho_nb_n\,{\rm Re}\Bigl[\Bigl(\frac{1}{1+(1-\zeta)b_n}\Bigr)^2\Bigr]\geq \tfrac{4}{9}(1+\rho_nb_n).$$ To show the inequality in , it suffices to show that $$\label{a45}
\min_{|\xi-1|\leq 1/2} {\rm Re}\Bigl(\frac{1}{\xi^2}\Bigr) = \frac{4}{9}.$$ The minimum in is assumed at the boundary $|\xi-1|=1/2$, and for a boundary point $\xi$, we write $$\label{a46}
\xi= 1+\tfrac12\cos\theta+\tfrac12 i \sin\theta, \quad 0\leq \theta\leq 2\pi,$$ so that $$\label{a47}
{\rm Re}\Bigl(\frac{1}{\xi^2}\Bigr) = \frac{1+\cos\theta+\tfrac{1}{4}\cos 2\theta}{(\tfrac{5}{4}+\cos\theta)^2}.$$ Now $$\label{a48}
\frac{\dd}{d\theta} \Bigl[\frac{1+\cos\theta+\tfrac{1}{4}\cos2\theta}{(\tfrac{5}{4}+\cos\theta)^2}\Bigr] = \frac{\sin \theta\,(1-\cos \theta)}{4(\tfrac{5}{4}+\cos\theta)^3}$$ vanishes for $\theta=0,\pi,2\pi$, where ${\rm Re}(1/\xi^2)$ assumes the values $4/9$, 4, 4/9, respectively. This shows .
We use with $\xi = \zeta$ and with $\xi=1+(1-\zeta)b_n$, with $$\label{a49}
\zeta = \zeta(s,t) = z_{\rm sp} + s\,t\,(z-z_{\rm sp}),\quad 0\leq s,\, t\leq 1,$$ where we take $\zeta$ such that $|\zeta-1|\leq 1/2b_n$. It is easy to see from $1<z_{\rm sp}<1+1/2b_n$ that $|\zeta-1|\leq 1/2b_n$ holds when $|z-z_{\rm sp}|\leq r_n=1/2b_n-(z_{\rm sp}-1)$. We have, furthermore, from that $0<g''(z_{\rm sp})\leq 1+b_n/\rho_n$. Using this, together with where $\zeta$ is as in , yields $$\label{a50}
{\rm Re}[G(z)] \leq \frac{4}{9}\,\frac{1+\rho_nb_n}{1+b_n/\rho_n}\,2\,\int_0^1\int_0^1 t\,\dd s\,\dd t = \tfrac{4}{9}\,\rho_n^2\,\frac{b_n+\rho_n^{-1}}{b_n+\rho_n}$$ when $|z-z_{\rm sp}|\leq r_n$, and this is . We therefore have from that $$\label{a51}
|F(z)|>r_n\cdot\frac{2}{3}\rho_n\sqrt{\frac{b_n+\rho_n^{-1}}{b_n+\rho_n}} = m_n,\quad |z-z_{\rm sp}|=r_n.$$ Hence, for any $v$ with $|v|\leq m_n$, there is exactly one solution $z=z(v)$ of the equation $F(z)-iv=0$ in $|z-z_{\rm sp}|\leq r_n$ by Rouché’s theorem. This $z(v)$ is given by $$\label{a52}
z(v) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\,\int_{|z-z_{\rm sp}|=r_n} \frac{F'(z)\,z}{F(z)-iv}\dd z,$$ and depends analytically on $v$, $|v|\leq m_n$. From $|z(v)-z_{\rm sp}|\leq r_n$, we can finally bound the power series coefficients $c_k$ according to $$\label{a53}
|c_k| = \Bigl|\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|iv|=m_n} \frac{z(v)-z_{\rm sp}}{(iv)^{k+1}}\dd(iv)\Bigr| \leq \frac{r_n}{m_n^k},$$ and this completes the proof of the lemma.
We have $z_{\rm sp}-1=o(1/b_n)$, see , and so $$\label{a54}
r_n = \frac{1}{2b_n}(1+o(1)),\quad m_n = \frac{1}{3b_n}(1+o(1)),$$ implying that the radius of convergence of the series in is indeed of order $1/b_n$ (since we have assumed $b_n\geq 1$).
We let $\delta_n=m_n$, and we write for $0\leq v\leq \tfrac12\delta_n$ $$\label{a55}
\frac{v}{z(v)-1}+\frac{{-}v}{z({-}v)-1} = \frac{-2iv\,{\rm Im}(z(v))}{|z(v)-1|^2},$$ where we have used that all $c_k$ are real, so that $z(-v)=z(v)^*$, where $ ^*$ denotes the complex conjugate. Now from and realness of the $c_k$, we have $$\label{a56}
{\rm Im}(z(v)) = v+\sum_{l=1}^\infty c_{2l+1}(-1)^l\,v^{2l+1} = v+O(v^3),$$ and in similar fashion $$\label{a57}
|z(v)-1|^2 = (z_{\rm sp}-1)^2+v^2+O((z_{\rm sp}-1)^2v^2) + O(v^4)$$ when $0\leq v\leq \tfrac12\delta_n$. The order terms in - are negligible in leading order, and so we get for $\mu_{Q_{n}}$ via the leading order expression $$\label{a58}
\frac{{-}s_n\,g''(z_{\rm sp})}{2\pi i}\,\int_0^{\tfrac12\delta_n}\frac{{-}2iv^2}{(z_{\rm sp}-1)^2+v^2}\,\frac{\exp(s_n\,q(v))}{1-\exp(s_n\, q(v))}\dd v.$$ We finally approximate $q(v) = g(z_{\rm sp})-\tfrac12 g''(z_{\rm sp})v^2$. There is a $z_1$, $1\leq z_1\leq z_{\rm sp}$ such that $$\label{a59}
g(z_{\rm sp}) = {-}\tfrac12(z_{\rm sp}-1)^2\,g''(z_1),$$ and, see and , $$\label{a60}
g''(z_1) = g''(z_{\rm sp}) + O((1-\rho_n)b_n).$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
s_n\,q(v) &= {-}\tfrac12 s_n\,g''(z_{\rm sp})\,[(z_{\rm sp}-1)^2+v^2]+O((1-\rho_n)b_ns_n(z_{\rm sp}-1)^2),\nonumber\\
&= {-}\tfrac12 s_n\,g''(z_{\rm sp})[(z_{\rm sp}-1)^2+v^2]+O((1-\rho_n)^2a_n),\label{a61}\end{aligned}$$ where has been used and $a_nb_n = s_n(1+o(1))$ Therefore, the $O$-term in tends to 0 by our assumption that $(1-\rho_n)^2a_n$ is bounded. Thus, we get for $\mu_{Q_{n}}$ in leading order $$\label{a62}
\frac{s_n g''(z_{\rm sp})}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\tfrac12\delta_n}\frac{v^2}{(z_{\rm sp}-1)^2+v^2}\,
\frac{\exp(-\tfrac12 g''(z_{\rm sp})s_n((z_{\rm sp}-1)^2+v^2))}{1-\exp(-\tfrac12 g''(z_{\rm sp})s_n((z_{\rm sp}-1)^2+v^2))} \dd v,$$ When we substitute $t=v\sqrt{s_n\,g''(z_{\rm sp})/2}$ and extend the integration in to all $t\geq 0$ (at the expense of an exponentially small error), we get for $\mu_{Q_{n}}$ in leading order $$\label{a63}
=\frac{1}{\pi}\,\sqrt{2\,s_n\,g''(z_{\rm sp})}\,\int_{0}^\infty \frac{t^2}{\tfrac12\beta_n^2}\,\frac{\exp({-}\tfrac12\beta^2_n-t^2)}{1-\exp({-}\tfrac12\beta^2_n-t^2)}\dd t,$$ where $$\label{a64}
\beta^2_n = s_n\,g''(z_{\rm sp})(z_{\rm sp}-1)^2.$$ Now using and , we get the result of Theorem \[saddlepointThm\]. A separate analysis of $\beta_n$ is provided in Section \[convRobust\].
Main insights & numerics
========================
Through Theorem \[saddlepointThm\], we can write as $$\label{ra1}
\E {Q}_n = \tilde{\sigma}_n\,\E[ M_{\beta_n}]$$ with $$\label{ra5}
\tilde{\sigma}_n = \beta_n \Bigl(\frac{b_n+\rho_n}{1-\rho_n}\Bigr).$$
This robust approximation for $\E {Q}_n$ is suggestive of the following two properties that extend beyond the mean system behavior, and hold at the level of approximating the queue by $\sigma_n$ times the Gaussian random walk:
- At the process level, the space should be normalized with $\sigma_n$, as in . The approximation suggests that it is better to normalize with $\tilde{\sigma}_n$. Although $\tilde \sigma_n\to\sigma_n$ for $n\to\infty$, the $\tilde \sigma_n$ is expected to lead to sharper approximations for finite $n$.
- Again at the process level, it seems better to replace the original hedge $\beta$ by the robust hedge $\beta_n$. This thus means that the original system for finite $n$ is approximated by a Gaussian random walk with drift $-\beta_n$. Apart from this approximation being asymptotically correct for $n\to \infty$, it is also expected to approximate the behavior better for finite $n$.
Convergence of the robust hedge\[convRobust\]
---------------------------------------------
We next examine the accuracy of the heavy-traffic approximations for $\E {Q}_n$ and $\sigma^2_Q$, following Corollary \[abateThm\] and Theorem \[saddlepointThm\]. We expect the robust approximation to be considerably better than the classical approximation when $\beta_n$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_n$ differ substantially from their limiting counterparts. Before substantiating this claim numerically, we present a result on the convergence rates of $\beta_n$ to $\beta$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_n$ to $\sigma_n$.
\[gammanProp\] Let $a_n,b_n$ and $s_n$ as in Assumption \[as2\]. Then $$\label{r3a}
\beta_n^2 = \beta^2\Bigl(1 - \frac{1}{1+b_n+\sigma_n/\beta}\Bigr).$$
From , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_n^2 &= s_n\Bigl(\frac{1-\rho_n}{b_n+1}\Bigr)^2\Bigl(1+\frac{b_n}{\rho_n}\Bigr)= \frac{1}{s_n}\Bigl(\frac{s_n-a_nb_n}{b_n+1}\Bigr)^2\Bigl(1+\frac{s_n}{a_n}\Bigr)\nonumber\\
\label{x1}
&= \frac{1}{s_n}\frac{\beta^2\,a_nb_n(b_n+1)}{(b_n+1)^2}\Bigl(1+\frac{s_n}{a_n}\Bigr) = \beta^2\,\frac{b_n}{b_n+1}\,\Bigl(1+\frac{a_n}{s_n}\Bigr) =:\beta^2\,\bar{F}_n.\end{aligned}$$ Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{F_n} &= \frac{b_n}{b_n+1}\,\Bigl(1+\frac{a_n}{s_n}\Bigr) = \frac{b_n}{b_n+1}+\frac{1}{b_n+1}\,\frac{a_nb_n}{s_n}\nonumber\\
&= 1-\frac{1}{b_n+1}\,\Bigl(1-\frac{a_nb_n}{s_n}\Bigr) = 1-\frac{1}{b_n+1}\,\frac{\beta\,\sigma_n}{s_n}\nonumber\\
&= 1-\frac{1}{b_n+1}\,\frac{1}{1+\frac{\mu_n}{\beta\sigma_n}} = 1-\frac{1}{b_n+1+\frac{1}{\beta}\sqrt{a_nb_n(b_n+1)}},\end{aligned}$$ which together with $\sigma_n^2=a_nb_n(b_n+1)$ proves the proposition.
Note that $\beta_n$ always approaches $\beta$ from below. Also, shows that $b_n$ is the dominant factor in determining the rate of convergence of $\beta_n$.
\[sigmanProp\] Let $\tilde{\sigma}_n$ as in . Then $$\tilde{\sigma}_n = \sigma_n + b_n\beta_n + O(1).$$
Straightforward calculations give $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\sigma}_n &= \beta_n\,\Bigl(\frac{s_nb_n+a_nb_n}{s_n-a_nb_n}\Bigr) \nonumber\\
&= \frac{\beta_n}{\beta}\,\frac{b_n}{\sigma_n}\,(s_n+a_n)
= \frac{\beta_n}{\beta}\,\sqrt{\frac{b_n}{a_n(b_n+1)}}\left(a_n(b_n+1)+\beta\sqrt{a_nb_n(b_n+1)}\right)\nonumber\\
&= \frac{\beta_n}{\beta}\left(\sqrt{a_nb_n(b_n+1)}+\beta b_n\right) = \frac{\beta_n}{\beta}\,\sigma_n + \beta_n b_n.\end{aligned}$$ Applying Proposition \[gammanProp\] together with the observation $$\sigma_n \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{1+b_n+\sigma_n/\beta}} = \sigma_n(1 + O(1/\sqrt{a_n}b_n)) = \sigma_n + O(1)$$ yields the result.
In Figure \[fig:convHedge\], we visualize the convergence speed of both parameters in case $\mu_n=n$, $\sigma_n = n^\delta$ with $\delta=0.7$ and $\beta=1$. This implies $a_n = n/(n^{2\delta}-1)$ and $b_n = n^{2\delta}-1$.
We observe that $\beta_n$ starts resembling $\beta$ fairly quickly, as predicted by Proposition \[gammanProp\]; $\tilde{\sigma}_n$, on the other hand, converges extremely slowly to its limiting counterpart. Since $\E{Q}_n$ and $\Var Q_n$ are approximated by $\tilde{\beta}_n$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_n$, multiplied by a term that remains almost constant as $n$ grows, the substitution of $\sigma_n$ by $\tilde{\sigma}_n$, is essential for obtaining accurate approximations, as we illustrate further in the next subsection.
Comparison between heavy-traffic approximations
-----------------------------------------------
We set $\mu_n=n$ and $\sigma^2_n=n^{2\delta}$ with $\delta>\tfrac{1}{2}$, so that $s_n = n+\beta n^{\delta}$, and $a_n =n/(n^{2\delta-1}-1)$ and $b_n = n^{2\delta-1}-1$.
$s_n$ $\rho_n$ $\E Q_n$ $\sqrt{\Var Q_n}$
------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ------------------- ------- -------
5 0.609 0.343 0.246 0.363 1.002 0.835 0.978
10 0.683 0.535 0.400 0.551 1.239 1.063 1.216
50 0.815 1.405 1.168 1.405 1.995 1.817 1.971
100 0.855 2.113 1.824 2.105 2.445 2.270 2.420
500 0.920 5.446 5.006 5.412 3.923 3.762 3.899
: Numerical results for the Gamma-Poisson case with $\beta=1$ and $\delta=0.6$.[]{data-label="gammaPoisson1"}
$s_n$ $\rho_n$ $\E Q_n$ $\sqrt{\Var Q_n}$
------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- ------------------- ------- -------
5 0.550 0.462 0.284 0.479 1.162 0.896 1.130
10 0.587 0.852 0.521 0.855 1.570 1.213 1.528
50 0.668 3.197 2.093 3.106 3.025 2.433 2.947
100 0.700 5.561 3.784 5.377 3.983 3.270 3.887
500 0.766 19.887 14.741 19.202 7.514 6.455 7.361
: Numerical results for the Gamma-Poisson case with $\beta=1$ and $\delta=0.8$.[]{data-label="gammaPoisson2"}
$s_n$ $\rho_n$ $\E Q_n$ $\sqrt{\Var Q_n}$
------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------------- -------- --------
5 0.949 11.532 11.306 11.495 3.634 3.559 3.602
10 0.961 17.565 17.268 17.548 4.474 4.398 4.444
50 0.979 46.368 45.869 46.418 7.241 7.168 7.218
100 0.984 70.340 69.735 70.430 8.910 8.839 8.888
500 0.991 184.900 183.989 185.108 14.422 14.357 14.404
: Numerical results for the Gamma-Poisson case with $\beta=0.1$ and $\delta=0.6$.[]{data-label="gammaPoisson3"}
$s_n$ $\rho_n$ $\E Q_n$ $\sqrt{\Var Q_n}$
------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ------------------- -------- --------
5 0.931 15.730 15.209 15.909 4.276 4.127 4.233
10 0.939 27.561 26.672 27.958 5.652 5.466 5.605
50 0.955 100.660 97.967 102.070 10.760 10.476 10.698
100 0.961 175.591 171.360 177.818 14.189 13.855 14.117
500 0.971 638.097 626.346 644.105 26.963 26.490 26.864
: Numerical results for the Gamma-Poisson case with $\beta=0.1$ and $\delta=0.8$.[]{data-label="gammaPoisson4"}
Tables \[gammaPoisson1\] to \[gammaPoisson4\] present numerical results for various parameter values. The exact values are calculated using the method in Appendix \[numprocs\]. Several conclusions are drawn from these tables. Observe that the heavy-traffic approximations based on the Gaussian random walk, and , capture the right order of magnitude for both $\E Q_n$ and $\Var Q_n$. However, the values are off, in particular for small $s_n$ and relatively low $\rho_n := \E[A_{n}] / s_n$. The inaccuracy also increases with the level of overdispersion. In contrast, the approximations that follow from Theorem \[saddlepointThm\], and are remarkably accurate. Even for small systems with $s_n = 5$ or 10, the approximations for $\E Q_n$ are within 6$\%$ of the exact value for small $\rho_n$ and within $2\%$ for $\rho_n$ close to 1. For $\sigma_Q^2$, these percentages even reduce to $3\%$ and $1\%$, respectively. For larger values of $s_n$ these relative errors naturally reduce further. Overall, we observe that the approximations improve for heavily loaded systems, and the corrected approximations are particularly useful for systems with increased overdispersion.
Proofs of convergence results {#formalSec}
=============================
This section presents the details of the proof of Lemma \[gaussStep\] and Theorem \[gaussianThm\], using the random walk perspective of the process $\{Q_{k,n}\}_{k=0}^\infty$. This section is structured as follows. The next two lemmata are necessary for proving the first assertion of Theorem \[gaussianThm\], concerning the weak convergence of the scaled process to the maximum of the Gaussian random walk, which is summarized in Proposition \[prop6\]. The two remaining propositions of this section show convergence of $\hat{Q}_{n}$ at the process level as well as in terms of the three characteristics.
Let us first fix some notation: $$\label{b1}
Y_{k,n} := \hat{A}_{k,n}-\beta,\quad
S_{k,n} = \sum_{i=1}^k Y_{i,n},$$ with $S_{0,n} = 0$ and $k=1,2,...$. Then can be rewritten as $$\label{g5a}
\hat{Q}_{n} {{\;\buildrel{d}\over= \;}}\max_{0\leq k} \Bigl\{ \sum_{i=1}^k Y_{i,n}\Bigr\} =: M_{\beta,n},$$ Last, we introduce the sequence of independent normal random variables $Z_1,Z_2,\ldots$ with mean $\-\beta$ and unit variance 1, and $$M_\beta {{\;\buildrel{d}\over= \;}}\max_{k\geq 0} \{\sum_{i=1}^k Z_i\}$$
Proof of Lemma \[gaussStep\]
----------------------------
We show weak convergence of the random variable $\hat{A}_{n}$, as defined in , to a standard normal random variable. Since $\hat{\Lambda}_n$ is asymptotically standard normal, its characteristic function converges pointwise to the corresponding limiting characteristic function, i.e. $$\label{g8}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \phi_{\hat{\Lambda}_n}(t) = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \ee^{-i\mu_nt/\sigma_n}\,\phi_{\Lambda_n}(t/\sigma_n) = \ee^{{-}t^2/2},\qquad \forall t\in \mathbb{R}.$$ Furthermore, by definition of $A_{n}$, $$\label{g9}
\phi_{A_{n}}(t) = \E\left[ \exp(\Lambda_n(\ee^{it}-1))\right] = \phi_{\Lambda_n}\left(-i(\ee^{it}-1)\right),$$ so that $$\label{g10}
\phi_{\hat{A}_{k,n}}(t) = \ee^{-i\mu_nt/\sigma_n}\,\phi_{A_{k,n}}(t/\sigma_n) = \ee^{-i\mu_nt/\sigma_n}\phi_{\Lambda_n}\left(-i(\ee^{it/\sigma_n}-1)\right).$$ Now fix $t\in\mathbb{R}$. By using $$\label{g11}
-i({\varepsilon}^{it/\sigma_n} - 1) = \frac{t}{\sigma_n} -\frac{it^2}{2\sigma_n^2} + O\left(t^3/\sigma_n^3\right),$$ we expand the last term in , $$\label{g12}
\phi_{\Lambda_n}(t/\sigma_n) + \Bigl(-\frac{i\,t^2}{2\sigma_n^2}+O\left(t^3/\sigma_n^3\right)\Bigr)
\phi_{\Lambda_n}'(t/\sigma_n) + O\Bigl(\Bigl(-\frac{i\,t^2}{2\sigma_n^2}+O\left(\frac{t^3}{\sigma_n^3}\right)\Bigr)^2\phi_{\Lambda_n}''\Big(\frac{t}{\sigma_n}\Big)\Bigr)$$ $$\label{g13}
= \phi_{\Lambda_n}(t/\sigma_n) - \Bigl(\frac{i\,t^2}{2\sigma_n^2}+O\left(t^3/\sigma_n^3\right)\Bigr)
\phi_{\Lambda_n}'(\zeta)$$ for some $\zeta$ such that $|\zeta - t/\sigma_n| < |i(1-\ee^{it/\sigma_n})-t/\sigma_n|$. Also, $$\begin{aligned}
|\phi_{\Lambda_n}'(u)| &= \left|\frac{\d}{\dd u}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \ee^{iux}\dd F_{\Lambda_n}(x)\right| = \left|\int_{0}^{\infty} ix\,\ee^{iux}\dd F_{\Lambda_n}(x)\right| \nonumber\\
\label{g13a}
&\leq \int_{-\infty}^\infty |ix\,\ee^{iux}|\,\dd F_{\Lambda_n}(x) = \int_0^\infty x\dd F_{\Lambda_n}(x) = \mu_n\end{aligned}$$ for all $u\in\mathbb{R}$. Hence, by substituting , $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \phi_{\hat{A}_{k,n}}(t)-\ee^{-i\mu_nt/\sigma_n}\phi_{\Lambda_n}(t/\sigma_n)\right| &= \left|\ee^{-i\mu_nt/\sigma_n}\,\left(\frac{i\,t^2}{2\sigma_n^2}+O(t^3/\sigma_n^3)\right)\,\phi_{\Lambda_n}'(\zeta)\right|\nonumber\\
& \leq \left(\frac{t^2}{2\sigma_n^2}+O(t^3/\sigma_n^3)\right) |\phi_{\Lambda_n}'(\zeta)|\nonumber\\
& = \frac{\mu_n t^2}{\sigma_n^2} + O\left(\frac{\mu_nt^3}{\sigma_n^3}\right),
\label{g13b}\end{aligned}$$ which tends to zero as $n\rightarrow \infty$ by our assumption that $\mu_n/\sigma_n^2\rightarrow 0$. Finally, $$\label{g13c}
\left| \phi_{\hat{A}_{k,n}}(t)-\ee^{-\tfrac12 t^2}\right| \leq \left| \phi_{\hat{A}_{k,n}}(t)-\ee^{-i\mu_nt/\sigma_n}\phi_{\Lambda_n}(t/\sigma_n)\right| +
\left| \ee^{-i\mu_nt/\sigma_n}\phi_{\Lambda_n}(t/\sigma_n) - \ee^{-\tfrac12 t^2}\right|,$$ in which both terms go to zero for $n\rightarrow \infty$, by and . Hence $\phi_{\hat{A}_{k,n}}(t)$ converges to $\ee^{{-}t^2/2}$ for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$, so that we can conclude by Lévy’s continuity theorem that $\hat{A}_{k,n} {{\;\buildrel{d}\over\Rightarrow\;}}N(0,1)$.
Proof of Theorem \[gaussianThm\]
--------------------------------
To secure convergence in distribution of $\hat{Q}_{n}$ to $M_\beta$, i.e. the maximum of a Gaussian random walk with negative drift, the first assertion of Theorem \[gaussianThm\]. the following property of the sequence $\{Y_{k,n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ needs to hold.
\[uilemma\] Let $Y_{k,n}$ be defined as in with $\mu_n,\sigma_n^2 < \infty$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Then the sequence $\{(Y_{k,n})^+\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is uniform integrable, i.e. $$\label{g14}
\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}\sup_n \E\Big[Y_{k,n}^+ |\mathbbm{1}_{\{|Y^{+}_{k,n}|\geq K\}}\Big] = 0.$$
Because the sequence $\{Y_{k,n}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ is i.i.d. for all $n$, we omit the index $k$ in this proof. First, fix $K>0$ and note that $$\label{g15}
\E[|Y^{+}_n|\mathbbm{1}{\{|Y^{+}_n|\geq K\}}] = \E[Y^{+}_n\mathbbm{1}{\{Y^{+}_n\geq K\}}] = \E[Y_{n}\mathbbm{1}_{\{Y_{n}\geq K\}}].$$ This last expression can be bounded from above using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, so that $$\label{g16}
\E[Y_{n}\mathbbm{1}_{\{Y_{n}\geq K\}}] \leq \E[ Y^2_n]^{1/2}\,\mathbb{P}(Y_{n}\geq K)^{1/2}.$$ By the definition of $Y_{n}$, we know $\E [Y_{n}] = -\beta$ and $\Var Y_{n} = \Var A_{n} / \sigma_n^2 = 1$. Using this information, we find $$\label{g17}
\E[Y_n^2] = \Var Y_{n} + (\E[Y_{n}])^2 = 1+\beta^2$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}(Y_{n}\geq K )&=\mathbb{P}(Y_{n}+\beta\geq K+\beta) \leq \mathbb{P}(|Y_{n}+\beta|\geq K+\beta)\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{\Var Y_{n}}{(K+\beta)^2} = \frac{1}{(K+\beta)^2},
\end{aligned}$$ where we used Chebyshev’s inequality for the last upper bound. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} \sup_n \E[|Y_n^{+}|\mathbbm{1}_{\{|Y_n^{+}|\geq K\}}] &=
\lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} \sup_n \E[Y_{n}\mathbbm{1}_{\{Y_{n}\geq K\}}]\nonumber\\
&\leq \lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} \sup_n \E[Y_n^2]^{1/2}\,\mathbb{P}(Y_{n}\geq K )^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\leq \lim_{K\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\sqrt{1+\beta^2}}{K+\beta} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
By combining the properties proved in Lemma \[gaussStep\] and \[uilemma\] with Assumption \[as2\], the next result follows directly by [@Asmussen2003 Thm. X6.1].
\[maxRWprop\] Let $\hat{Q}_{n}$ as in . Then $$\hat{Q}_{n}{{\;\buildrel{d}\over\Rightarrow\;}}M_\beta,\qquad {\rm as}\ n\rightarrow\infty.$$
Although Proposition \[maxRWprop\] tells us that the properly scaled $Q_{n}$ converges to a non-degenerate limiting random variable, it does not cover the convergence of its mean, variance and the empty-queue probability. In order to secure convergence of these performance measures as well, we follow the approach similar [@Sigman2011b], using Assumptions \[as2\] and \[as3\].
\[prop6\] Let $\hat{Q}_{n}$ as in , $\mu_n,\sigma_n^2 \rightarrow \infty$ such that both $\sigma_n^2/\mu_n\rightarrow \infty$ and $\E[\hat{A}_n^3]$ $<\infty$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b16}
\mathbb{P}(\hat{Q}_{n}= 0)&\rightarrow \mathbb{P}(M_\beta = 0),\\
\E [\hat{Q}_{n}]&\rightarrow \E [M_\beta],\\
\Var \hat{Q}_{n}&\rightarrow \Var M_\beta,\end{aligned}$$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
First, we recall that $\hat{Q}_{n}{{\;\buildrel{d}\over= \;}}M_{\beta,n}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, so that $\mathbb{P}(\hat{Q}_{n} = 0) = \mathbb{P}(M_{\beta,n}=0)$, $\E[\hat{Q}_{n}]=\E[M_{\beta,n}]$ and $\Var\,\hat{Q}_{n}=\Var\,M_{\beta,n}$ as defined in . Our starting point is Spitzer’s identity, see [@Asmussen2003 p. 230], $$\label{b17}
\E[\ee^{it M_{\beta,n}}] = \exp\Bigl( \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} (\E[\ee^{itS_{k,n}^+}]-1)\Bigr),$$ with $S_{k,n}$ as in , and $M_{\beta,n}$ the all-time maximum of the associated random walk. Simple manipulations of give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{y1}
{\rm ln}\,\mathbb{P}(M_{\beta,n} = 0) &= -\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\,\mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > 0),\\
\label{y2}
\E[M_{\beta,n}] &= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} \E[S^+_{k,n}] = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\int_0^\infty \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > x) \dd x,\\
\label{y3}
\Var M_{\beta,n} &= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} \E[(S^{+}_{k,n})^2] =\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\int_0^\infty \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > \sqrt{x}) \dd x.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[gaussStep\], we know $$\label{y4}
\mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > y) = \mathbb{P}\left( {\sum_{i=1}^k} Y_{i,n} > y \right) \rightarrow \mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^k Z_i> y\right),$$ for $n\rightarrow \infty$, where the $Z_i$’s are independent and identically normally distributed with mean $-\beta$ and variance 1. Because equivalent expressions to - apply to the limiting Gaussian random walk, it is sufficient to show that the sums converge uniformly in $n$, so that we can apply dominated convergence to prove the result.
We start with the empty-queue probability. To justify interchangeability of the infinite sum and limit, note $$\label{y5}
\mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > 0) \leq \mathbb{P}(|S_{k,n}+k\beta| > k\beta )\leq \frac{k}{\beta^2k^2} = \frac{1}{\beta^2k},$$ where we used that $\E[ S_{k,n}] = k\E [Y_{1,n}] = -k\beta$ and $\Var S_{k,n} = k$ and apply Chebychev’s inequality, so that $$\label{y6}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > 0) \leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\beta^2 k^2} < \infty, \qquad \forall n\in\mathbb{N}.$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} {\rm ln}\,\mathbb{P}(\hat{Q}_{n}= 0) &= \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} - \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > 0) = -\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > 0)\nonumber\\
&= -\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} \mathbb{P}({\sum_{i=1}^k} Z_i > 0) = {\rm ln}\,\mathbb{P}(M_\beta = 0),\end{aligned}$$ Finding a suitable upper bound on $\frac{1}{k}\int_0^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{Q}_{n}>x) dx$ and $\frac{1}{k}\int_0^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{Q}_{n}>\sqrt{x}) \dd x$ requires a bit more work. We initially focus on the former, the latter follows easily. The following inequality from [@Nagaev1979] proves to be very useful: $$\label{y8}
\mathbb{P}(\bar{S}_k>y) \leq C_r\,\Bigl(\frac{k\,\sigma^2}{y^2}\Bigr)^2 + k\,\mathbb{P}(X>y/r),$$ where $\bar{S}_k$ is the sum of $k$ i.i.d. random variables distributed as $X$, with $\E[X] = 0$ and $\Var\, X=\sigma^2$, $y > 0$, $r>0$ and $C_r$ a constant only depending on $r$. We take $r=3$ for brevity in the remainder of the proof, although any $r>2$ will suffice. We analyze the integral in two parts, one for the interval $(0,k)$ and one for $[k,\infty)$. For the first part, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{y9}
\int_0^k\mathbb{P}(S_{k,n}>x) \dd x &=\int_0^k \mathbb{P}({\sum_{i=1}^\infty}\hat{A}_{i,n} > x+k\beta)\dd x\, \leq\, \int_0^k \mathbb{P}({\sum_{i=1}^\infty}\hat{A}_{i,n} > k\beta)\dd x \nonumber\\
&= k\,\mathbb{P}({\sum_{i=1}^k }\hat{A}_{i,n} > k\beta) \,\leq\, \frac{C_3}{k^2\beta^6} + k^2\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}> \tfrac{1}{3}k),\end{aligned}$$ where we used in the last inequality. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{y10}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{1}{k}\, \int_0^k \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n}>x)\dd x &\leq \, \frac{C_3}{\beta^6}\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-3} +\sum_{k=1}^\infty k\,\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}k) \nonumber \\
&\leq C_1^*+\sum_{k=1}^\infty k\,\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}k).\end{aligned}$$ With the help of the inequality (see [@Sigman2011b]), $$\label{y11}
(b-a)a\,\mathbb{P}(X>b) \leq \int_a^b x\,\mathbb{P}(X>x) \dd x \qquad \forall 0<a<b,$$ we get by taking $a=(k-1)/3$ and $b=k/3$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{y12}
k\,\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}k) &\leq \frac{9\,k}{k-1}\int_{(k-1)/3}^{k/3} x\,\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>x) \dd x \nonumber \\
&\leq 18\int_{(k-1)/3}^{k/3} x\,\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>x) \dd x,\end{aligned}$$ for $k\geq 2$. Since the tail probability for $k=1$ is obviously bounded by 1, this yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{y13}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty k\,\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}k) &\leq 1+18\sum_{k=2}^\infty\int_{(k-1)/3}^{k/3} x\,\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>x) \dd x\nonumber\\
&\leq 1+ \int_{0}^{\infty} x\,\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>x)\dd x \leq 1+\E[\hat{A}_{1,n}^2] < \infty,\end{aligned}$$ since $\hat{A}_{1,n}$ has finite variance by assumption. This completes the integral over the first interval. For the second part, we use again to find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{y14}
\int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n}>x)dx &=\int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}({ \sum_{i=1}^\infty}\hat{A}_{i,n} > x+k\beta)dx \leq \int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}({\sum_{i=1}^\infty}\hat{A}_{i,n} > x)\dd x\nonumber \\
&\leq C_3\int_k^\infty \frac{k^2}{x^6} dx + k\int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{i,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}x)\dd x\nonumber \\
&= \frac{5 C_3}{k^3}+ k\int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{i,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}x) \dd x.\end{aligned}$$ So, $$\label{y15}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} \int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n}>x)dx \leq C_2^* + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{i,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}x) \dd x,$$ for some constant $C_2^*$. Last, we are able to upper bound the second term in by Tonelli’s theorem: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{i,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}x) \dd x &\leq \int_1^\infty x\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}x) \dd x \nonumber\\
\label{y16}
&\leq 9\int_0^\infty y\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>y) \dd y = 9\E[\hat{A}_{1,n}^2] < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Combining the results in , , and , we find $$\label{y17}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} \int_0^\infty \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} >x)\dd x < \infty,$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \E[\hat{Q}_{n}] &= \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\int_0^\infty \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > x)\dd x \nonumber\\
&= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} \int_0^\infty\mathbb{P}({\sum_{i=1}^k} Z_i > x)\dd x = \E [M_\beta].\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we show how the proof changes for the convergence of $\Var \hat{Q}_{n}$. The expressions for $\E [\hat{Q}_{n}]$ and $\Var \hat{Q}_{n}$ in and only differ in the term $\sqrt{x}$. Hence only minor modifications are needed to also prove convergence of the variance. Note that boundedness of the integral over the interval $(0,k)$ in - remains to hold when substituting $\sqrt{x}$ for $x$. changes into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{y18}
\int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n}>\sqrt{x})\dd x &=\int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}({\sum_{i=1}^\infty}\hat{A}_{i,n} > \sqrt{x}+k\beta)\dd x \nonumber \\
&\leq C_3\int_k^\infty \frac{k^2}{(\sqrt{x}+k\beta)^6} dx + k\,\int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}\sqrt{x}) \dd x \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{C_4^*}{k}+ k\,\int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}\sqrt{x}) \dd x,\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C_4^*$, so that $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} \int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n}>\sqrt{x})\dd x \leq C_4^* + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}\sqrt{x}) \dd x.$$ Lastly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \int_k^\infty \mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}\sqrt{x}) \dd x &\leq \int_1^\infty x\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>\tfrac{1}{3}\sqrt{x}) \dd x \nonumber\\
\label{y17a}
&\leq 18\int_0^\infty y^2\mathbb{P}(\hat{A}_{1,n}>y) \dd y = 18\E[\hat{A}_{1,n}^3] < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the sum describing the variance is also uniformly convergent in $n$, so that interchanging of infinite sum and limit is permitted and $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \Var\,\hat{Q}_{n} &= \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\int_0^\infty \mathbb{P}(S_{k,n} > \sqrt{x})\dd x \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k} \int_0^\infty\mathbb{P}\Big({\sum_{i=1}^k} Z_i > \sqrt{x}\Big)\dd x = \Var M_\beta.\end{aligned}$$
Numerical procedures {#numprocs}
====================
An alternative characterization of the stationary distribution is based on the analysis in [@Boudreau1962] and considers a factorization in terms of (complex) roots: $$\label{t9}
Q_{n}(w) = \frac{(s_n-\E [A_{n}])(w-1)}{w^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_{n}(w)}\,\prod_{k=1}^{s_n-1} \frac{w-z^n_k}{1-z^n_k},$$ where $z_1^n,z_2^n...,z_{s_n-1}^n$ are the $s_n-1$ zeros of $z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_{n}(z)$, in $|z|<1$, yielding $$\label{c2}
\E Q_n = \frac{\sigma_n^2}{2(s_n-\mu_n)}-\frac{s_n-1+\mu_n}{2} + \sum_{k-1}^{s_n-1} \frac{1}{1-z^n_k},$$ $$\label{c3}
\mathbb{P}(Q_{n}=0) = \frac{s_n-\mu_A}{\tilde{A}_{n}(0)}\prod_{k=1}^{s-1}\frac{z^n_k}{z^n_k-1},$$ which for our choice of $\tilde{A}_{n}(z)$ becomes $$\label{c4}
\E Q_n = \frac{a_nb_n(b_n+1)}{2\beta\sqrt{a_n}b_n}-\frac{2a_nb_n+\beta\sqrt{a_nb_n(b_n+1)}-1}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{s_n-1} \frac{1}{1-z^n_k},$$ $$\label{c5}
\mathbb{P}(Q_{n}=0) = \beta \sqrt{a_nb_n(b_n+1)}(1+b_n)^{a_n}\prod_{k=1}^{s_n-1} \frac{z^n_k}{z^n_k-1}.$$ where $z_1,...,z_{s_n-1}$ denote the zeros of $z^{s_n} - \tilde{A}_{n}(z)$ in $|z|<1$. These zeros exist under the assumption $s_n > a_nb_n$; see [@rouche]. A robust numerical procedure to obtain these zeros is essential for a base of comparison. We discuss two methods that fit these requirements. The first follows directly from [@Janssen2005].\
\[fixedIterLemma\] Define the iteration scheme $$\label{c6}
z_k^{n,l+1} = w^n_k [\tilde{A}_{n}(z_k^{n,l})]^{1/s_n},$$ with $w^n_k = \ee^{2\pi ik/s_n}$ and $z_k^{n,0}=0$ for $k=0,1,\ldots,s_{n-1}$. Then $z_k^{n,l} \rightarrow z_k^n$ for all $k=0,1,...,s_n-1$ for $l\rightarrow \infty$.
The successive substitution scheme given in is the fixed point iteration scheme described in [@Janssen2005], applied to the pgf of our arrival process. The authors show that, under the assumption of $\tilde{A}_{n}(z)$ being zero-free within $|z|\leq 1$, the zeros can be approximated arbitrarily closely, given that the function $[\tilde{A}_{n}(z)]^{1/s_n}$ is a contraction for $|z|\leq 1$, i.e. $$\label{c7}
\Bigl|\frac{\dd}{\dd z}[\tilde{A}_{n}(z)]^{1/s_n}\Bigr| < 1.$$ In our case, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c8}
\Bigl|\frac{\dd}{\dd z}[\tilde{A}_{n}(z)]^{1/s_n}\Bigr| = \Bigl|\frac{\dd}{\dd z}\left(1+(1-z)b_n\right)^{-a_n/s_n}\Bigr| = \frac{a_nb_n}{s_n}\Bigl|1+(1-z)b_n\Bigr|^{-a_n/s_n-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $a_nb_n/s_n = \rho_n$ is close to, but less than 1 and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c9}
|1+(1-z)b_n| \geq |1+b_n|-|z|b_n = 1+(1-|z|)b_n \geq 1,\end{aligned}$$ when $|z|\leq 1$. Hence the expression in is less than 1 for all $|z|\leq 1$. Evidently, $\tilde{A}_{n}(z)$ is also zero-free in $|z|\leq 1$. Thus [@Janssen2005 Lemma 3.8] shows that $z_k^{n,l}$ as in converges to the desired roots $z^n_k$ for all $k$ as $l$ tends to infinity.
The asymptotic convergence rate of the iteration in equals\
$\frac{\dd}{\dd z}[\tilde{A}_{n}(z)]^{1/s_n}$ evaluated at $z=z_k^n$. Hence, convergence is slow for zeros near 1 and fast for zeros away from 1.
A different approach is based on the Bürmann-Lagrange inversion formula.
\[BLLemma\] Let $w^n_k = e^{2\pi ik/s_n}$ and $\alpha_n = a_n/s_n$. Then the zeros of $z^{s_n}-\tilde{A}_{n}(z)$ are given by $$z_k^n = \sum_{l=1}^\infty \frac{1}{l!}\,\frac{\beta[l\alpha_n+l-1)}{\beta(l\alpha_n)}\,\frac{b_n+1}{b_n}\Bigl(\frac{b_n}{(b_n+1)^{\alpha_n+1}}\Bigr)^l (w_k^n)^l,$$ for $k=0,1,...,s_n-1$.
Note that we are looking for $z$’s that solve $$\label{c10}
z\,[\tilde{A}_{n}(z)]^{-1/s_n} = z\left(1+(1-z)b_n\right)^{a_n/s_n} = w,$$ where $w = w_k = \ee^{2\pi i k/s_n}$. The Bürmann-Lagrange formula for $z=z(w)$, as can be found in [@debruijn Sec. 2.2] for $z=z(w)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
z(w) &= \sum_{l=1}^\infty \frac{1}{l!}\,\left(\frac{\dd}{\dd z}\right)^{l-1}\left[\left(\frac{z}{z(1+(1-z)b_n)^{a_n/s_n}}\right)^l\right]_{z=0}\,w^l\nonumber\\
\label{c11}
&= \sum_{l=1}^\infty \frac{1}{l!}\,\left(\frac{\dd}{\dd z}\right)^{l-1}\left[\left(1+(1-z)b_n)^{-l\,a_n/s_n}\right)\right]_{z=0}\,w^l.\end{aligned}$$ Set $\alpha_n = a_n/s_n$. We compute $$\label{c1}
\left(\frac{\dd}{\dd z}\right)^{l-1}\left[ (1+(1-z)b_n)^{-l\alpha_n}\right]_{z=0} = \frac{\beta(l\alpha_n+l-1)}{\beta(l\alpha_n)}\,\frac{1+b_n}{b_n}\,\left(\frac{b_n}{(1+b_n)^{\alpha_n+1}}\right)^l.$$ With $c_n = b_n/(1+b_n)^{\alpha_n+1}$ and $d_n = (1+b_n)/b_n$, we thus have $$\label{c13}
z(w) = d_n\,\sum_{l=1}^\infty \frac{\beta(l\alpha_n+l-1)}{\beta(l+1)\beta(l\alpha_n)} c_n^l\,w^l.$$ By Stirling’s formula $$\label{c14}
\frac{\beta(l\alpha_n+l-1)}{\beta(l+1)\beta(l\alpha_n)} = \frac{D}{l\sqrt{l}}\left(\frac{(\alpha_n+1)^{\alpha_n+1}}{\alpha_n^{\alpha_n}}\right)^l,$$ where $D=\alpha_n^{1/2}(\alpha_n+1)^{-3/2}(2\pi)^{-1/2}$. Now, $$\label{c15}
\frac{(\alpha_n+1)^{\alpha_n+1}}{\alpha_n^{\alpha_n}}\, c_n = \frac{(\alpha_n+1)^{\alpha_n+1}}{\alpha_n^{\alpha_n}}\cdot \frac{b_n}{(1+b_n)^{\alpha_n+1}} = \left(\frac{b_n+\rho_n}{b_n+1}\right)^{\rho_n/b_n + 1}\left(\frac{1}{\rho_n}\right)^{\rho_n/b_n}.$$ This determines the radius of convergence $r_{\rm BL}$ of the above series for $z(w)$: $$\label{c16}
\frac{1}{r_{\rm BL}} := \left(\frac{b_n+\rho_n}{b_n+1}\right)^{\rho_n/b_n + 1}\left(\frac{1}{\rho_n}\right)^{\rho_n/b_n}.$$ The derivative with respect to $\rho_n$ of the quantity $$\label{c17}
\left(1+\frac{\rho_n}{b_n}\right) {\rm ln }\left(\frac{b_n+\rho_n}{b_n+1}\right)+\frac{\rho_n}{b_n}\,{\rm ln}\left(\frac{1}{\rho_n}\right)$$ is given by $$\label{c18}
\frac{1}{b_n}{\rm ln }\Bigl(\frac{b_n+\rho_n}{b_n\rho_n+\rho_n}\Bigr) > 0$$ for $0<\rho_n<1$ and $b_n>0$. Furthermore, the quantity in vanishes at $\rho_n=1$ and is therefore negative for $0<\rho_n<1$ and $b_n>0$.
The formula for the radius of convergence in clearly shows the decremental effect of both having a large $b_n$ and or having $\rho_n$ close to 1. The quantities $\beta(l\alpha+l-1)/(\beta(l+1)\beta(l\alpha))$ in the power series for $z(w)$ are not very convenient for recursive computation, although normally $\alpha = a_n/s_n$ is a rational number.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands ({b.w.j.mathijsen,a.j.e.m.janssen,j.s.h.v.leeuwaarden}@tue.nl)
[^2]: Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, P.O. Box 94079, 1090 GB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ([email protected])
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $N_{g,n}$ denote the nonorientable surface of genus $g$ with $n$ boundary components and ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ its mapping class group. We obtain an explicit finite presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ for $n\in\{0,1\}$ and all $g$ such that $g+n>3$.'
address:
- 'Université de Bourgogne, Institut de Mathématiques de Bourgogne, UMR 5584 du CNRS, B.P. 47870, 21078 Dijon cedex, France.'
- 'Institute of Mathematics, Gdańsk University, Wita Stwosza 57, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland'
author:
- Luis Paris
- 'B[ł]{}ażej Szepietowski'
title: A presentation for the mapping class group of a nonorientable surface
---
Introduction
============
Let $F$ be a compact surface with (possibly empty) boundary and let $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}_m=\{P_1,\dots,P_m\}$ be a set of $m$ distinguished points in the interior of $F$, called [*punctures*]{}. We define ${\mathcal{H}}(F,\mathcal{P})$ to be the group of all, orientation preserving if $F$ is orientable, homeomorphisms $h\colon F\to F$ such that $h(\mathcal{P})=\mathcal{P}$ and $h$ is equal to the identity on the boundary of $F$. The [*mapping class group*]{} ${\mathcal{M}}(F,\mathcal{P})$ of $F$ relatively to $\mathcal{P}$ is the group of isotopy classes of elements of ${\mathcal{H}}(F,\mathcal{P})$. The [*pure mapping class group*]{} ${\mathcal{PM}}(F,\mathcal{P})$ is the subgroup of ${\mathcal{M}}(F,\mathcal{P})$ consisting of the isotopy classes of homeomorphisms fixing each puncture. If $\mathcal{P}=\emptyset$ then we drop it in the notation and write simply ${\mathcal{M}}(F)$. If $\mathcal{P}=\{P\}$ then we write ${\mathcal{M}}(F,P)$ instead of ${\mathcal{M}}(F,\{P\})$. A compact surface of genus $g$ with $n$ boundary components will be denoted by $S_{g,n}$ if it is orientable, or by $N_{g,n}$ if it is nonorientable.
Historically, McCool [@McC] gave the first algorithm for finding a finite presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g,1})$ for any $g$. His approach is purely algebraic and no explicit presentation has been derived from this algorithm. In their groundbreaking paper [@HT] Hatcher and Thurston gave an algorithm for computing a finite presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g,1})$ from its action on a simply connected simplicial complex, the [*cut system complex*]{}. By this algorithm, Harer [@Harer] obtained a finite, but very unwieldy, presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g,1})$ for any $g$. This presentation was simplified by Wajnryb [@W; @W1], who also gave a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g,0})$. Using Wajnryb’s result, Matsumoto [@Mat] found other presentations for ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g,1})$ and ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g,0})$, and Gervais [@Gerv] found a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g,n})$ for arbitrary $g\ge 1$ and $n$. Starting from Matsumoto’s presentations, Labruère and Paris [@LabPar] computed a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g,n},\mathcal{P}_m)$ for arbitrary $g\ge 1$, $n$ and $m$. Benvenuti [@Benv] and Hirose [@Hir] independently recovered the Gervais presentation from the action of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g,n})$ on two different variations of the Harvey’s curve complex [@Harvey], instead of the cut system complex.
Until present, finite presentations of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n},\mathcal{P}_m)$ were know only for a few small values of $(g,n,m)$, with $g\le 4$. Using results of Lickorish [@Lick1; @Lick2], Chillingworth [@Chill] found a finite generating set for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ for arbitrary $g$. This set was extended for $m>0$ by Korkmaz [@K], and for $n+m>0$ and $g\ge 3$ by Stukow [@Stu_bdr]. For every nonorientable surface $N_{g,n}$ there is a covering $p\colon S_{g-1,2n}\to N_{g,n}$ of degree two. By a result of Birman and Chillingworth [@BC], generalised for $n>0$ in [@SzepB], ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ is isomorphic to the subgroup of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g-1,2n})$ consisting of elements commuting with the covering involution. However, since the image of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ has infinite index in ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g-1,2n})$, it seems that it would be very hard to obtain a finite presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ from a presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{g-1,2n})$. In [@Szep_Osaka] an algorithm for finding a finite presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ for any $g$ and $n$ is given, based on a result of Brown [@Br] and the action of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ on the curve complex (following the idea of [@Benv]). By this algorithm, an explicit finite presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{4,0})$ was obtained in [@Szep1].
In this paper we apply the algorithm given in [@Szep_Osaka] to find an explicit finite presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ for $n\in\{0,1\}$ and all $g$ such that $g+n>3$. We present ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})$ as a quotient of the free product ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\ast{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$, where $g=2\rho+r$ and $r\in\{1,2\}$. The factor ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})$ comes from an embedding of $S_{\rho,r}$ in $N_{g,1}$ and it is generated by Dehn twists. The factor ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$, which is isomorphic to the braid group, comes from the embedding ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})$ defined in [@SzepB], and it is generated by $g-1$ crosscap transpositions. There are three families of defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})$: (A) relations from ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})$ between Dehn twists, (B) braid relations between crosscap transpositions, and (C) relations involving generators of both types. A presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ is obtained from that of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})$ by adding three relations.
The presentations for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})$ and ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ are given respectively in Theorems \[mainA\] and \[mainB\] in Section \[sec\_pres\]. They are proved simultaneously by induction on $g$. The base cases $(g,n)\in\{(3,1), (4,0)\}$ are proved in Section \[sec\_base\]. Theorem \[mainA\] is proved in Section \[sec\_mainA\] under the assumption that Theorem \[mainB\] is true. The proof of Theorem \[mainB\] uses the action of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ on the ordered complex of curves defined in Section \[sec\_curves\], and it occupies Sections \[sec\_v2\], \[sec\_v13\], where presentations of stabilisers of vertices are calculated, and Sections \[sec\_edges\], \[sec\_triangles\], where we deal with relations corresponding to simplices of dimensions 1 and 2.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
First version of this paper was written during the second author’s visit to Institut de Mathématiques de Bourgogne in Dijon in the period 01.10.2011 – 30.09.2012 supported by the MNiSW “Mobility Plus” Program 639/MOB/2011/0. He wishes to thank the Institut for their hospitality. The second author was also partially supported by the MNiSW grant N N201 366436.
Preliminaries {#sec_preli}
=============
Simple closed curves and Dehn twists.
-------------------------------------
By a [*simple closed curve*]{} in $F$ we mean an embedding $\gamma\colon S^1\to F\backslash{\partial\! F}$. Note that $\gamma$ has an orientation; the curve with the opposite orientation but same image will be denoted by $\gamma^{-1}$. By abuse of notation, we will often identify a simple closed curve with its oriented image and also with its isotopy class. We say that $\gamma$ is [*generic*]{} if it does not bound a disc nor a Möbius band and is not isotopic to a boundary component. According to whether a regular neighbourhood of $\gamma$ is an annulus or a Möbius strip, we call $\gamma$ respectively [*two-*]{} or [*one-sided*]{}. We say that $\gamma$ is [*nonseparating*]{} if $F\backslash\gamma$ is connected and [*separating*]{} otherwise.
Given a two-sided simple closed curve $\gamma$, $T_\gamma$ denotes a Dehn twist about $\gamma$. On a nonorientable surface it is impossible to distinguish between right and left twists, so the direction of a twist $T_\gamma$ has to be specified for each curve $\gamma$. In this paper it is usually indicated by arrows in a figure. Equivalently we may choose an orientation of a regular neighbourhood of $\gamma$. Then $T_\gamma$ denotes the right Dehn twist with respect to the chosen orientation. Recall that $T_\gamma$ does not depend on the orientation of $\gamma$.
Crosscap slides and transpositions.
-----------------------------------
We begin this subsection by describing a convention used in all figures in this paper. We explain this on the example of Figure \[U\]. The shaded discs represent crosscaps; this means that their interiors should be removed, and then antipodal points in each resulting boundary component should be identified. The small arrows on two sides of the curve $\alpha$ indicate the direction of the Dehn twist $T_\alpha$.
Let $N=N_{g,n}$ be a nonorientable surface of genus $g\ge 2$. Suppose that $\mu$ and $\alpha$ are two simple closed curves in $N$, such that $\mu$ is one-sided, $\alpha$ is two-sided and they intersect in one point. Let $K\subset N$ be a regular neighbourhood of $\mu\cup\alpha$, which is homeomorphic to the Klein bottle with a hole. On Figure \[U\] a homeomorphism of $K$ is shown, which interchanges the two crosscaps keeping the boundary of $K$ fixed. It may be extended by the identity outside $K$ to a homeomorphism of $N$, which we call [*crosscap transposition*]{} and denote as $U_{\mu,\alpha}$. We define [*crosscap slide*]{} $Y_{\mu,\alpha}$ to be the composition $$Y_{\mu,\alpha}=T_\alpha U_{\mu,\alpha},$$ where $T_\alpha$ is the Dehn twist about $\alpha$ in the direction indicated by the arrows in Figure \[U\]. If $M\subset K$ is a regular neighbourhood of $\mu$, which is a Möbius strip, then $Y_{\mu,\alpha}$ may be described as the effect of pushing $M$ once along $\alpha$ (Figure \[Y\]). Observe that $Y_{\mu,\alpha}$ reverses the orientation of $\mu$. Up to isotopy, $Y_{\mu,\alpha}$ does not depend on the choice of the regular neighbourhood $K$. It also does not depend on the orientation of $\mu$ but does depend on the orientation of $\alpha$, as $Y_{\mu,\alpha^{-1}}=Y^{-1}_{\mu,\alpha}$. For any $h\in{\mathcal{M}}(N)$ we have the formula $$hY_{\mu,\alpha}h^{-1}=Y_{h(\mu),h(\alpha)}.$$ The crosscap slide was introduced under the name Y-homeomorphism by Lickorish, who proved that ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ is generated by Dehn twists and one crosscap slide for $g\ge 2$ [@Lick1; @Lick2].
Exact sequences.
----------------
Given an exact sequence of groups $$1\to K\to G\stackrel{\rho}{\to}H\to 1$$ and presentations $K={\left<S_K\,|\,R_K\right>}$ and $H={\left<S_H\,|\,R_H\right>}$, a presentation for $G$ may be obtained as follows. For each $x\in S_H$ we choose $\widetilde{x}\in G$ such that $\rho(\widetilde{x})=x$ and let $$\widetilde{S_H}=\{\widetilde{x}\,|\,x\in S_H\}.$$ For each $r=x_1^{\epsilon_1}\cdots x_k^{\epsilon_1}\in R_H$ let $\widetilde{r}=\widetilde{x_1}^{\epsilon_1}\cdots\widetilde{x_k}^{\epsilon_1}$. Since $\rho(\widetilde{r})=1$, there is a word $w_r$ over $S_K$ representing the same element of $G$ as $\widetilde{r}$. Let $$R_1=\{\widetilde{r}w_r^{-1}\,|\,r\in R_H\}.$$ Since $K$ is a normal subgroup of $G$, for $x\in S_H$ and $y\in S_K$ we have $\widetilde{x}y\widetilde{x}^{-1}\in K$ and there is a word $w(x,y)$ over $S_K$ representing the same element of $G$ as $\widetilde{x}y\widetilde{x}^{-1}$. Let $$R_2=\{\widetilde{x}y\widetilde{x}^{-1}w(x,y)^{-1}\,|\,x\in S_H, y\in S_K\}.$$ Proof of the following lemma is left to the reader.
\[ext\_pres\] $G$ admits the presentation $$G={\left<S_K\cup \widetilde{S_H}\,|\, R_K\cup R_1\cup R_2\right>}.$$
The generators $S_K$ and $\widetilde{S_H}$ will be called [*kernel*]{} and [*cokernel*]{} generators respectively. The relators $R_K$, $R_1$ and $R_2$ will be called [*kernel, cokernel*]{} and [*conjugation*]{} relators respectively. In this paper we work with relations rather then relators.
The inclusion $\mathcal{P}_{m-1}\subset\mathcal{P}_m$ gives rise to a [*forgetful homomorphism*]{} $\mathfrak{f}\colon{\mathcal{PM}}(F,\mathcal{P}_m)\to{\mathcal{PM}}(F,\mathcal{P}_{m-1})$. By [@Bir1], if the Euler characteristic of $F\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1}$ is negative, then we have the following [*Birman exact sequence*]{}. $$\label{Bir_es}
1\to\pi_1(F\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1},P_m)\stackrel{\mathfrak{p}}{\to}{\mathcal{PM}}(F,\mathcal{P}_m)
\stackrel{\mathfrak{f}}{\to}{\mathcal{PM}}(F,\mathcal{P}_{m-1})\to 1.$$ Although the above result is proved in [@Bir1] for orientable $F$, the same proof works for nonorientable $F$ as well. The homomorphism $\mathfrak{p}\colon\pi_1(F\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1},P_m)\to{\mathcal{PM}}(F,\mathcal{P}_m)$ is called the [*point pushing map*]{}. Suppose that $\gamma$ is a simple loop on $F\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1}$ based at $P_m$ and let $A$ be its regular neighbourhood. If $[\gamma]$ denotes the homotopy class of $\gamma$, then $\mathfrak{p}[\gamma]$ is isotopic to a homeomorphism equal to the identity outside $A$, and obtained by pushing $P$ once along $\gamma$ keeping the boundary of $A$ fixed, see Figure \[sl\]. Note that $A$ is a Möbius band if $\gamma$ is one-sided, or an annulus if $\gamma$ is two-sided. In the latter case $\mathfrak{p}[\gamma]$ may be expressed in terms of Dehn twists about the boundary components of $A$.
\[push1\] Suppose that $\gamma$ is a two-sided simple loop based at $P_m$ and $\delta_1$, $\delta_2$ are the boundary components of a regular neighbourhood of $\gamma$. Then $\mathfrak{p}[\gamma]=T_{\delta_1}T_{\delta_2}$, where the directions of the twists are determined by the orientation of $\gamma$ as indicated by arrows on the left hand side of Figure \[sl\].
The group ${\mathcal{PM}}(F,\mathcal{P}_m)$ acts on $\pi_1(F\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1},P_m)$ in the obvious way. The next lemma says that $\mathfrak{p}$ is ${\mathcal{PM}}(F,\mathcal{P}_m)$-equivariant.
\[push2\] For $h\in{\mathcal{PM}}(F,\mathcal{P}_m)$ and $[\gamma]\in\pi_1(F\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1},P_m)$ we have $\mathfrak{p}(h[\gamma])=h\mathfrak{p}[\gamma]h^{-1}$.
Suppose that $N$ is a nonorientable surface. We define ${\mathcal{PM}}^+(N,\mathcal{P}_m)$ to be the subgroup of ${\mathcal{PM}}(N,\mathcal{P}_m)$ consisting of the isotopy classes of homeomorphisms preserving local orientation at each puncture. Observe that it is a normal subgroup of index $2^m$. For $1\le m\le n$ choose $m$ boundary components $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_m$ of $N_{g,n}$. Consider the surface $N_{g,n-m}$ as being obtained from $N_{g,n}$ by gluing a disc with a puncture $P_i$ in its interior along $\gamma_i$ for $i=1,\dots,m$. Let $\mathcal{P}_m=\{P_1,\dots,P_m\}$. Since every homeomorphism in ${\mathcal{H}}(N_{g,n})$ may be extended by the identity on the discs to an element of ${\mathcal{H}}(N_{g,n-m},\mathcal{P}_m)$, thus the inclusion $\imath\colon N_{g,n}\to N_{g,n-m}$ induces a homomorphism $$\imath_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})\to{\mathcal{PM}}^+(N_{g,n-m},\mathcal{P}_m).$$ It is clearly surjective, and if $(g,n)\neq(1,1)$ then its kernel is the free abelian group of rank $m$ generated by the Dehn twists $T_{\gamma_i}$ for $i=1,\dots,m$ (see [@Stu_geom Theorem 3.6]). Summarising, we have the following exact sequence. $$\label{Cup_es}
1\to{\mathbb{Z}}^m\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})\stackrel{\imath_\ast}{\to}{\mathcal{PM}}^+(N_{g,n-m},\mathcal{P}_m)\to 1.$$
Blow up homomorphism and crosscap pushing map. {#blowup_cpush}
----------------------------------------------
In this subsection we recall from [@Szep2] the definitions of blowup homomorphism and crosscap pushing map which will be important tools in what follows.
Let $F$ be a surface with $m\ge 1$ punctures $\mathcal{P}_m=\{P_1,\dots,P_m\}$. Let $U=\{z\in\mathbb{C}\,|\,|z|\le 1\}$ and for $i=1,\dots,m$ fix an embedding $e_i\colon U\to F\backslash{\partial\! F}$ such that $e_i(0)=P_i$. Let $\widetilde{F}$ be the nonorientable surface obtained by removing from $F$ the interiors of $e_i(U)$ and then identifying $e_i(z)$ with $e_i(-z)$ for $z\in S^1={\partial\! U}$ and $i=1,\dots,m$. Thus $\widetilde{F}=N_{g+m,n}$ if $F=N_{g,n}$ or $\widetilde{F}=N_{2g+m,n}$ if $F=S_{g,n}$.
We define a [*blowup homomorphism*]{} $$\mathfrak{b}\colon{\mathcal{M}}(F,\mathcal{P}_m)\to{\mathcal{M}}(\widetilde{F})$$ as follows. Represent $h\in{\mathcal{M}}(F,\mathcal{P}_m)$ by a homeomorphism $h\colon F\to F$ such that for some permutation $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Sym}}_m$ we have $h(e_i(z))=e_{\sigma(i)}(z)$ or $h(e_i(z))=e_{\sigma(i)}(\overline{z})$ for $z\in U$ and $i=1,\dots,m$. Such $h$ commutes with the identification leading to $\widetilde{F}$ and thus induces an element $\mathfrak{b}(h)\in{\mathcal{M}}(\widetilde{F})$. We refer the reader to [@Szep2] for a proof that $\mathfrak{b}$ is well defined (the proof in [@Szep2] is only for $m=1$ but it can be easily modified to work for $m>1$). The next proposition is proved in [@SzepB] for $F=S_{0,1}$ but the same proof works for any $F$.
\[blowup\_inj\] The blowup homomorphism $\mathfrak{b}\colon{\mathcal{M}}(F,\mathcal{P}_m)\to{\mathcal{M}}(\widetilde{F})$ is injective for any surface $F$.
We define the [*crosscap pushing map*]{} $$\mathfrak{c}\colon\pi_1(F\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1},P_m)\to{\mathcal{M}}(\widetilde{F})$$ as the composition $\mathfrak{c}=\mathfrak{b}\circ\mathfrak{p}$, where $\mathfrak{p}$ is the point pushing map from the Birman exact sequence (\[Bir\_es\]). If $\gamma$ is a simple loop on $F\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1}$ based at $P_m$, then it follows immediately from the description of $\mathfrak{p}[\gamma]$, that $\mathfrak{c}[\gamma]$ is either a crosscap slide if $\gamma$ is one-sided, or a product of two Dehn twists about the boundary components of a Möbius band with a hole if $\gamma$ is two-sided (just replace the puncture with a crosscap on Figure \[sl\]).
Notation. {#notation}
---------
Let us represent $N_{g,0}$ and $N_{g,1}$ as respectively a sphere or a disc with $g$ crosscaps. This means that interiors of $g$ small pairwise disjoint discs should be removed from the sphere/disc, and then antipodal points in each of the resulting boundary components should be identified. Let us arrange the crosscaps as shown on Figure \[aI\] and number them from $1$ to $g$. For each nonempty subset $I\subseteq\{1,\dots,g\}$ let $\gamma_I$ be the simple closed curve shown on Figure \[aI\]. Note that $\gamma_I$ is two-sided if and only if $I$ has even number of elements. In such case $T_{\gamma_I}$ will be the Dehn twist about $\gamma_I$ in the direction indicated by arrows on Figure \[aI\].
The following curves will play a special role and so we give them different names.
- $\mu_i=\gamma_{\{i\}}$ for $i=1,\dots,g$
- $\alpha_i=\gamma_{\{i,i+1\}}$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$
- $\beta=\gamma_{\{1,2,3,4\}}$
- $\beta_j=\gamma_{\{1,\dots,2j+2\}}$ for $2\le 2j\le g-2$
- $\xi=\gamma_{\{1,\dots,g\}}$
Note that $\beta=\beta_1$ and if $g=2\rho+2$ then $\xi=\beta_\rho$. We also give names to elements of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ associated with these curves.
- $a_i=T_{\alpha_i}$,
- $y_i=Y_{\mu_{i+1},\alpha_i}$,
- $u_i=U_{\mu_{i+1},\alpha_i}$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$,
- $b=T_\beta$,
- $b_j=T_{\beta_j}$ for $2\le 2j\le g-2$
- $v=Y_{\mu_4,\beta}$,
- $c=T_{\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}}$
- $r_g=a_1\cdots a_{g-1}u_{g-1}\cdots u_1$
If the surface is closed ($n=0$) then $r_g$ is isotopic to the homeomorphism induced by the reflection of Figure \[aI\] across the line containing centers of the shaded discs (see [@Szep1 Remark 2.4]).
Presentations {#sec_pres}
=============
The groups ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{1,0})$ and ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{1,1})$ are trivial by [@E Theorem 3.4]. The following presentations were obtained in [@Lick1; @Stu_Fund; @BC] respectively. $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{M}}(N_{2,0})=&\langle a_1,y_1\,|\, a_1^2=y_1^2=(a_1y_1)^2=1\rangle\\
{\mathcal{M}}(N_{2,1})=&\langle a_1,y_1\,|\, a_1y_1a_1=y_1\rangle\\
{\mathcal{M}}(N_{3,0})=&\langle a_1,a_2,y_2\,|\, a_1a_2a_1=a_2a_1a_2, y_2^2=(a_1y_2)^2=(a_2y_2)^2=(a_1a_2)^6=1\rangle\end{aligned}$$ In this section we describe some other known presentations of various mapping class groups and also state our main theorems which provide presentations for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ for $n\in\{0,1\}$ and $g+n\ge 4$.
Orientable subsurface.
----------------------
[cc]{}
&
Consider a regular neighbourhood $\Sigma$ of the union of the curves $\alpha_i$ for $i=1,\cdots,g-1$. This is an orientable subsurface of $N_{g,n}$ homeomorphic to $S_{\rho,r}$, where $r\in\{1,2\}$ and $g=2\rho+r$ (Figure \[fig\_S\]). The following theorem, whose proof is given in the Appendix, provides a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})$, which will be a part of the presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$.
\[presS\] For $r\in\{1,2\}$, $\rho\ge 1$ and $g=2\rho+r$, ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})$ admits a presentation with generators $a_i$, $b_j$ for $1\le i\le g-1$, $0\le 2j\le g-2$ and relations:
- $a_ia_j=a_ja_i\quad$ for $|i-j|>1$,
- $a_ia_{i+1}a_i=a_{i+1}a_ia_{i+1}\quad$ for $1\le i\le g-2$,
- $a_ib_1=b_1a_i\quad$ for $i\ne 4$ if $g\ge 4$,
- $b_1a_4b_1=a_4b_1a_4\quad$ if $g\ge 5$,
- $(a_2a_3a_4b_1)^{10}=(a_1a_2a_3a_4b_1)^6\quad$ if $g\ge 5$,
- $(a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6b_1)^{12}=(a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6b_1)^{9}\quad$ if $g\ge 7$,
- $b_0=a_1$,
- $b_{i+1}=(b_{i-1}a_{2i}a_{2i+1}a_{2i+2}a_{2i+3}b_{i})^5(b_{i-1}a_{2i}a_{2i+1}a_{2i+2}a_{2i+3})^{-6}\quad$for $2\le 2i\le g-4$,
- $b_\rho a_{2\rho-3}=a_{2\rho-3}b_\rho\quad$ if $g=2\rho+2>6$,
- $b_2b_1=b_1b_2\quad$ if $g=6$.
It follows immediately from above presentation that ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})$ is generated by $b=b_1$ and $a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$. Moreover, if $g$ is odd, then we can drop the generators $b_j$ for $j\ne 1$ and the relations (A7, A8). The resulting presentation is the same as the one given in [@Mat]. However, if we wanted to do the same for even $g$, then in the relations (A9a, A9b) the generator $b_\rho$ would have to be replaced by its expression in terms of $b$ and the $a_i$’s.
\[Sigma\_inj\] The map $\jmath_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ induced by the inclusion of $\Sigma$ in $N_{g,n}$ is injective for $n=1$, whereas for $n=0$ its kernel is an infinite cyclic group generated by $(a_1\cdots a_{g-1})^k$, where $k=g$ if $g$ is even, or $k=2g$ if $g$ is odd. The composition of $\jmath_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})$ with $\imath_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})\to{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)$ is also injective.
Set $x=(a_1\cdots a_{g-1})^k$. If $g$ is odd then $x$ is equal to a Dehn twist about the boundary of $\Sigma$, while if $g$ is even then $x$ is the product of twists about the two boundary components (see [@LabPar]). The complement in $N_{g,n}$ of the interior of $\Sigma$ is either a Möbius band with $n$ holes if $g$ is odd, or an annulus with $n$ holes if $g$ is even. By [@Stu_geom Theorem 3.6], the maps $\jmath_\ast$ and $\imath_\ast\circ\jmath_\ast$ are injective for $n=1$, whereas for $n=0$ the kernel of $\jmath_\ast$ is an infinite cyclic group generated by $x$.
Punctured disc and sphere. {#disc_sphere}
--------------------------
Mapping class groups of a punctured disc or sphere are very closely related to braid groups. In fact ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$ is isomorphic to the Artin braid group on $g$ strands, while ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,0},\mathcal{P}_g)$ is isomorphic to the quotient of the group of spherical braids on $g$ strands by its center. Both groups are generated by $g-1$ elements called elementary braids or half twists. For $n\in\{0,1\}$ we have the blowup homomorphism $$\mathfrak{b}\colon{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,n},\mathcal{P}_g)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$$ defined in Subsection \[blowup\_cpush\] which is injective and maps the elementary braids on the crosscap transpositions $u_i$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$ (see [@SzepB]). From now on we will identify ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,n},\mathcal{P}_g)$ with its image in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$. The generators $u_i$ satisfy the well known defining relations listed in the following theorem (see [@Bir-book]).
\[pres\_braids\] The group ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$ admits a presentation with generators $u_i$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$ and relations
- $u_iu_j=u_ju_i\quad$ for $|i-j|>1$,
- $u_iu_{i+1}u_i=u_{i+1}u_iu_{i+1}\quad$ for $i=1,\dots,g-2$.
The group ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,0},\mathcal{P}_g)$ is isomorphic to the quotient of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$ by the relations
- $(u_1\cdots u_{g-1})^g=1$,
- $(u_1\cdots u_{g-2})^{g-1}=1$.
For $k=1,\dots,g$ we define $\Delta_k\in{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$ as $$\Delta_1=1,\qquad
\Delta_k=(u_1\cdots u_{k-1})\Delta_{k-1}$$ The following relations hold in ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$.
- $\Delta_k u_i=u_{k-i}\Delta_k\quad$ for $i=1,\dots,k-1$
- $\Delta_k=\Delta_{k-1}(u_{k-1}\cdots u_1)$
- $\Delta_k^2=(u_1\cdots u_{k-1})^k$
- $\Delta_k^2=\Delta_{k-1}^2(u_{k-1}\cdots u_1)(u_1\cdots u_{k-1})$
Equalities (B6) and (B8) are straightforward consequences of (B5) and (B7), which can be found in [@BS]. By (B7) the relations (B3, B4) are respectively $\Delta_g^2=1$ and $\Delta_{g-1}^2=1$. It follows immediately from (B8) that one of them may be replaced in the presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,0},\mathcal{P}_g)$ by $$(\textrm{B4a})\quad (u_{g-1}\cdots u_1)(u_1\cdots u_{g-1})=1.$$ By (B5) $\Delta_g^2$ is central in ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$. Geometrically it is the right Dehn twist about the boundary of $N_{g,1}$.
\[Delta\_in\_stab\] In ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$ we have $$\Delta_g^2=u_{g-1}^2(u_{g-2}u_{g-1}^2u_{g-2})\cdots(u_1\cdots u_{g-1}^2\cdots u_1)$$
By expanding (B8) inductively we have $$\Delta_g^2=u_{1}^2(u_{2}u_{1}^2u_{2})\cdots(u_{g-1}\cdots u_{1}^2\cdots u_{g-1}).$$ Conjugating both sides by $\Delta_g$ we obtain the desired equality.
Main theorems.
--------------
\[mainA\] Let $g=2\rho +r$ for $r\in\{1,2\}$ and $\rho\ge 1$. The group ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})$ is isomorphic to the quotient of the free product ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\ast{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$ by the following relations.
- $a_1u_i=u_ia_1\quad$ for $i=3,\dots,g-1$
- $a_iu_{i+1}u_i=u_{i+1}u_ia_{i+1}\quad$ for $i=1,\dots,g-2$
- $a_{i+1}u_iu_{i+1}=u_iu_{i+1}a_i\quad$ for $i=1,\dots,g-2$
- $a_1u_1a_1=u_1$
- $u_2a_1a_2u_1=a_1a_2$
- $(u_3b)^2=(a_1a_2a_3)^2(u_1u_2u_3)^2\quad$ if $g\ge 4$
- $u_5b=bu_5\quad$ if $g\ge 6$
- $a_4u_4(a_4a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4)b=ba_4u_4\quad$ if $g\ge 5$
\[mainB\] Let $g=2\rho +r$ for $r\in\{1,2\}$. For $g\ge 4$ the group ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ is isomorphic to the quotient of the free product ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\ast{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,0},\mathcal{P}_g)$ by the relations (C1–C8) from Theorem \[mainA\] and
- $a_1(a_2\cdots a_{g-1}u_{g-1}\cdots u_2)a_1=a_2\cdots a_{g-1}u_{g-1}\cdots u_2$
Let $g=2\rho +r$ for $r\in\{1,2\}$. We define
- as the quotient of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\ast{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)$ by the relations (C1–C8),
- as the quotient of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\ast{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,0},\mathcal{P}_g)$ by the relations (C1–C8, D).
The very essential idea of the proof of above theorems is the following. In the first step we are going to show that there is a homomorphism $\varphi_{g,n}\colon\mathcal{G}_{g,n}\to {\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ and then the rest of the paper will be devoted to proving that it has an inverse.
Let $g=2\rho +r$ for $r\in\{1,2\}$. For $n\in\{0,1\}$ the map $$(\jmath_\ast\ast\mathfrak{b})\colon {\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\ast{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,n},\mathcal{P}_g)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$$ induces a homomorphism $\varphi_{g,n}\colon\mathcal{G}_{g,n}\to {\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$.
We have to show that the relations (C1–C8, D) are satisfied in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$. For $|i-j|>1$ the crosscap transposition $u_i$ is equal to the identity in a neighbourhood of the curve $\alpha_j$ and thus it commutes with the twist $a_j$. Thus (C1) is satisfied and analogously (C7). Observe that $u_{i+1}u_i(\alpha_{i+1})=\alpha_i$ and the local orientation used to define $a_i$ agrees with that induced by $u_{i+1}u_i$ from the local orientation used to define $a_{i+1}$. Thus $(u_{i+1}u_i)a_{i+1}(u_{i+1}u_i)^{-1}=a_i$ which is equivalent to (C2) and (C3) is proved analogously. Since $u_i$ preserves $\alpha_i$ but reverses orientation of its neighbourhood thus $$(\ast)\qquad u_ia_iu_i^{-1}=a_i^{-1}\qquad\mathrm{for\ }1\le i\le g-1.$$ In particular (C4) is satisfied. Let $x=a_ia_{i+1}$. It can be easily checked that $x(\mu_{i+1})=\mu_{i+2}^{-1}$ and $x(\alpha_i)=\alpha_{i+1}^{-1}$. It follows that $xy_ix^{-1}=y^{-1}_{i+1}$, hence $xa_iu_ix^{-1}=u_{i+1}^{-1}a_{i+1}^{-1}=a_{i+1}u_{i+1}^{-1}$, where the last equality follows from $(\ast)$. By the braid relation (A2) we have $xa_ix^{-1}=a_{i+1}$ and thus $$(\ast\ast)\qquad u_{i+1}a_ia_{i+1}u_i=a_ia_{i+1}\qquad\mathrm{for\ }1\le i\le g-2.$$ In particular (C5) is satisfied. Let $K$ be a regular neighbourhood of $\beta\cup\alpha_3\cup\mu_4$. It is homeomorphic to Klein bottle with two holes and one of its boundary components is isotopic to $\alpha_1$ while the other one is isotopic to $y_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}y_2^{-1}(\alpha_1)$. By [@Szep_Osaka Lemma 7.8] we have $$\begin{aligned}
&(u_3b)^2=a_1y_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}y_2^{-1}a_1y_2u_3y_2=
a_1\underline{u_2^{-1}a_2^{-1}}u_3^{-1}\underline{u_2^{-1}a_2^{-1}}a_1a_2\underline{u_2u_3a_2}u_2\stackrel{(\ast,C3)}{=}\\
&a_1a_2\underline{u_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}a_2}u_2^{-1}a_1a_2a_3u_2u_3u_2\stackrel{(C2)}{=}
a_1a_2a_3\underline{u_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}a_1a_2a_3}u_2u_3u_2
\stackrel{(\ast\ast)}{=}\\
&(a_1a_2a_3)^2u_1u_2u_1u_2u_3u_2\stackrel{(B1,B2)}{=}(a_1a_2a_3)^2(u_1u_2u_3)^2\end{aligned}$$ which proves (C6). Let $z=a_4a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
z&=(a_4u_4)(u_4^{-1}a_3u_3u_4)(u_4^{-1}u_3^{-1}a_2u_2u_3u_4)(u_4^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4)\\
&=y_4(u_4^{-1}y_3u_4)(u_4^{-1}u_3^{-1}y_2u_3u_4)(u_4^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}y_1u_2u_3u_4)\\
&=Y_{\mu_5,\gamma_{\{4,5\}}}Y_{\mu_5,\gamma_{\{3,5\}}}Y_{\mu_5,\gamma_{\{2,5\}}}Y_{\mu_5,\gamma_{\{1,5\}}}\end{aligned}$$ Consider the surface $N'$ obtained by cutting $N_{g,n}$ along $\mu_5$ and then gluing a disc with a puncture $P$ along the resulting boundary component. Then $N_{g,n}$ may be seen as being obtained from $N'$ by blowing up the puncture and we have the crosscap pushing map $\mathfrak{c}\colon\pi_1(N',P)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ whose image contains the crosscap slides $Y_{\mu_5,\gamma_{\{i,5\}}}$ for $i=1,2,3,4$. Since this is a homomorphism, thus $z$ is isotopic to the effect of pushing $\mu_5$ once along $\gamma_{\{1,2,3,4,5\}}$. One of the boundary components of the regular neighbourhood of $\mu_5\cup \gamma_{\{1,2,3,4,5\}}$ is isotopic to $\beta$, while the other one is isotopic to $y_4^{-1}(\beta)$. From Lemma \[push1\] we have $z=y_4^{-1}by_4b^{-1}$ which is equivalent to (C8). Finally it is easy to check that if the surface is closed (i.e. $n=0$) then $a_2\cdots a_{g-1}u_{g-1}\cdots u_2$ preserves the curve $\alpha_1$ (up to isotopy) and reverses orientation of its neighbourhood, which proves the relation (D).
Consider the exact sequence (\[Cup\_es\]) in the case $m=1$. $$1\to{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})\stackrel{\imath_\ast}{\to}{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)\to 1.$$ The kernel of $\imath_\ast$ is generated by the Dehn twist $T_{{\partial\! N_{g,1}}}=\Delta_g^2$. Let ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1$ denote the quotient of ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}$ by the normal closure of $\Delta_{g}^2$. Since $\imath_\ast(\varphi_{g,1}(\Delta_g^2))=1$, there is a homomorphism $\varphi_{g,0}^1\colon{\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1\to{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)$ such that $\varphi_{g,0}^1\circ p=\imath_\ast\circ\varphi_{g,1}$, where $p\colon{\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}\to{\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1$ is the canonical projection. By abuse of notation, we will denote by the same symbols the generators of ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}$ and their images in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1$. We will prove in Section \[sec\_mainA\] that $\varphi_{g,0}^1$ is an isomorphism.
Some consequences of the defining relations.
--------------------------------------------
Throughout this paper we will often have to verify that some relations are satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$ or ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1$ . In this subsection we prove the most useful ones.
\[useful\_C\] The following relations hold in $\mathcal{G}_{g,n}$ for $n=0,1$.
- $a_iu_j=u_ja_i\quad$ for $|j-i|>1$
- $a_iu_ia_i=u_i\quad$ for $i=1,\cdots,g-1$
- $u_{i+1}a_ia_{i+1}u_i=a_ia_{i+1}\quad$ for $i=1,\cdots,g-2$
- $(bu_3)^2=(u_3b)^2=(a_1a_2a_3)^2(u_1u_2u_3)^2$
- $u_ib=bu_i\quad$ for $i=5,\cdots,g-1$.
Fix $i>1$ and let $x=(u_{i-1}u_i)\cdots(u_2u_3)(u_1u_2)$. By (C3) we have $xa_1x^{-1}=a_i$ and by the relations (B1,B2) we have $xu_1x^{-1}=u_i$ and $$xu_jx^{-1}=\begin{cases}
u_j\textrm{\ for\ }j>i+1\\
u_{j-2}\textrm{\ for\ }3\le j<i+1
\end{cases}$$ Thus (C1a) may be obtained by conjugating by $x$ both sides of (C1). If we set $y=u_1u_2\cdots u_{g-1}$, then, for $i\in\{1,\dots,g-2\}$, we have $yu_iy^{-1}=u_{i+1}$ by (B1,B2) and $ya_iy^{-1}=a_{i+1}$ by (C1a,C3). Hence (C4a,C5a) follow from (C4,C5) by applying conjugation by $y$ as many times as needed. We have $$u_3(a_1a_2a_3)^2=(a_1a_2a_3)u_2^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3)=(a_1a_2a_3)^2u_1$$ by (C1a,C5a) and $u_1(u_1u_2u_3)^2=(u_1u_2u_3)^2u_3$ by (B1,B2). Thus $u_3$ commutes with $(a_1a_2a_3)^2(u_1u_2u_3)^2$, which together with (C6) proves (C6a). If $i>5$ then for $z=(a_{i-1}a_i)\cdots(a_5a_6)$ we have $zu_5z^{-1}=u_i^{\pm 1}$ by (C5a) and $zbz^{-1}=b$ by (A3). Thus (C7a) is obtained by conjugating both sides of (C7) by $z$.
\[useful\_T\] The following relations hold in $\mathcal{G}_{g,n}$ for $n=0,1$
- $\Delta_k a_i=a^{-1}_{k-i}\Delta_k\quad$ for $2\le k\le g$ and $i=1,\dots,k-1$
- $r_g^2=\Delta_g^2$
- $r_ga_i=a_ir_g$ for $i=2,\dots,g-1$
- $u_ir_gu_i=r_g$ for $i=2,\dots,g-1$
In $\mathcal{G}^1_{g,0}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{g,0}$ we have
- $r_g^2=1$
We prove (E1) by induction on $k$. For $k=2$ it is equivalent to (C4). Suppose (E1) is true for some $k\ge 2$. For $i\le k-1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{k+1}a_i&=(u_1\cdots u_k)\Delta_k a_i=(u_1\cdots u_k)a^{-1}_{k-i}\Delta_k
\stackrel{(C1a,C3)}{=}a^{-1}_{k+1-i}(u_1\cdots u_k)\Delta_k=a^{-1}_{k+1-i}\Delta_{k+1}\end{aligned}$$ and for $i=k$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{k+1}a_k&=\Delta_k(u_k\cdots u_1)a_k\stackrel{(C1a,C2)}{=}
\Delta_k a_{k-1}(u_k\cdots u_1)
=a_1^{-1}\Delta_k(u_k\cdots u_1)=a_1^{-1}\Delta_{k+1}\end{aligned}$$ which finishes the proof of (E1).
Let $x=a_1\cdots a_{g-1}$ and $z=u_{g-1}\cdots u_1$, so that $r_g=xz$. We are going to prove by induction on $i$ that $$(\ast)\quad xz(u_2\cdots u_{g-1})(u_2\cdots u_{g-2})\cdots(u_2\cdots u_{i+1})x=\Delta_g\Delta_{i}$$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$. If $i=1$ then $(\ast)$ becomes $x\Delta_gx=\Delta_g$ and it follows from (E1). Suppose that $(\ast)$ holds for some $i<g-1$. By (C1a,C5a) we have $(u_2\cdots u_{i+1})x=x(u_i\cdots u_1)^{-1}$ and $$xz(u_2\cdots u_{g-1})\cdots(u_2\cdots u_{i+2})x=\Delta_g\Delta_{i}(u_{i}\cdots u_1)=\Delta_g\Delta_{i+1}.$$ For $i=g-1$ we obtain $$xzx=\Delta_g\Delta_{g-1}\iff (xz)^2=\Delta_g\Delta_{g-1}z=\Delta_g^2$$ which is equivalent to (E2). For $i=2,\dots,g-1$ we have $a_ix=xa_{i-1}$ by (A1, A2), $a_{i-1}z=za_i$ by (C1a, C2), $u_ix=xu_{i-1}^{-1}$ by (C1a, C5a), $u_{i-1}z=zu_i$ by (B1, B2). The relations (E3, E4) follow. In ${\mathcal{G}}^1_{g,0}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$ we have $\Delta^2_g=1$ (B3) and thus (E2a) is a consequence of (E2).
\[useful\_T\_closed\] In $\mathcal{G}_{g,0}$ we have
- $r_ga_i=a_ir_g$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$
- $u_ir_gu_i=r_g$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$
- $(a_1\cdots a_{g-1})^2=(u_{g-1}\cdots u_1)^{-2}=(u_1\cdots u_{g-1})^2$
- $(a_1\cdots a_{g-1})^k=1$, where $k=g$ if $g$ is even or $k=2g$ if $g$ is odd.
For $i>1$ (E3a, E4a) are the same as (E3, E4), while for $i=1$ (E3a) follows from (D, C4), and $$r_gu_1r_g\stackrel{C5}{=}r_ga_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}a_1a_2r_g\stackrel{E3a}{=}a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}r_gu_2^{-1}r_ga_1a_2\stackrel{E4}{=}u_1^{-1}$$ By (E2a) we have $$\begin{aligned}
&1=r_g^2=r_g(a_1\cdots a_{g-1}u_{g-1}\cdots u_1)\stackrel{E3a}{=}(a_1\cdots a_{g-1})r_g(u_{g-1}\cdots u_1)\\
&=(a_1\cdots a_{g-1})^2(u_{g-1}\cdots u_1)^2\stackrel{B4a}{=}(a_1\cdots a_{g-1})^2(u_1\cdots u_{g-1})^{-2}\end{aligned}$$ This proves (E5), which together with (B3) implies (E6).
\[Da\_replace\] In the presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ given in Theorem \[mainB\] the relation (D) may be replaced by $$\mathrm{(Da)}\quad a_{g-1}(u_{g-2}\cdots u_1a_1\cdots a_{g-2})a_{g-1}=u_{g-2}\cdots u_1a_1\cdots a_{g-2}$$
If we conjugate both sides of (Da) by $\Delta_g$, then by (B5) and (E1) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&a_1^{-1}(u_2\cdots u_{g-1}a^{-1}_{g-1}\cdots a^{-1}_2)a_1^{-1}=u_2\cdots u_{g-1}a^{-1}_{g-1}\cdots a^{-1}_2\stackrel{C4}{\iff}\\
&a_1(u_1u_2\cdots u_{g-1}a^{-1}_{g-1}\cdots a^{-1}_2)a_1^{-1}=u_1u_2\cdots u_{g-1}a^{-1}_{g-1}\cdots a^{-1}_2\stackrel{B4a}{\iff}\\
&a_1(u_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}\cdots u_{g-1}^{-1}a^{-1}_{g-1}\cdots a^{-1}_2)a_1^{-1}=u_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}\cdots u_{g-1}^{-1}a^{-1}_{g-1}\cdots a^{-1}_2\stackrel{C4}{\iff}\\
&a_1^{-1}(u_2^{-1}\cdots u_{g-1}^{-1}a^{-1}_{g-1}\cdots a^{-1}_2)a_1^{-1}=u_2^{-1}\cdots u_{g-1}^{-1}a^{-1}_{g-1}\cdots a_2^{-1} \end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to (D).
\[shortcut\_AB\] Suppose that $w$ is either (1) a word in the generators $u_i$ and their inverses or (2) a word in the generators $a_i$, $b_j$ and their inverses. Then $w$ represents the trivial element of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ or ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)$ if and only if it represents the trivial element of ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$ or ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1$ respectively.
Case (1) follows from the injectivity of $\mathfrak{b}\colon{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,n},\mathcal{P}_g)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ (Proposition \[blowup\_inj\]) and the fact that the kernel of $\imath_\ast\circ\mathfrak{b}\colon{\mathcal{M}}(S_{0,1},\mathcal{P}_g)\to{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)$ is generated by $\Delta_g^2$, which is trivial in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1$. Analogously for (2), we have that $\jmath_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})$ and $\imath_\ast\circ\jmath_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\to{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)$ are injective by Proposition \[Sigma\_inj\]. For $n=0$ we have to check that the image under the map ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\to{\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$ of the kernel of $\jmath_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ is trivial. This is the case by Proposition \[Sigma\_inj\] and the relation (E6).
\[useful\_g4\] In $\mathcal{G}^1_{4,0}$ we have:
- $bu_3u_2b^{-1}=(a_1a_2a_3)^3u_2u_3(a_1a_2a_3)^{-1}$
- $bu_3u_2u_1b=(a_1a_2a_3)^3(u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3)^3$
- $((a_1a_2a_3)^{-4}br_4)^2=1$
In $\mathcal{G}_{4,0}$ we have
- $(br_4)^2=1$
Let $x=a_1a_2a_3$ and $z=u_1u_2u_3$. We have $$(C6a)\ (bu_3)^2=(u_3b)^2=x^2z^2,\quad (i)\ u_2=x^{-1}u_3^{-1}x,\quad (ii)\ u_1=x^{-1}u_2^{-1}x,$$ the last two relations following from (C5a). Since $b$ commutes with $x$, from (C6a, i, ii) we obtain $$(iii)\ (b^{-1}u_2)^2=x^{-1}z^{-2}x^{-1},\qquad (iv)\ (bu_1)^2=z^2x^2.$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\underline{bu_3}u_2b^{-1}\stackrel{C6a}{=}x^2z^2u_3^{-1}\underline{b^{-1}u_2b^{-1}}\stackrel{(iii)}{=}
x^2z^2u_3^{-1}x^{-1}z^{-2}\underline{x^{-1}u_2^{-1}}
\stackrel{(ii)}{=}x^2\underline{z^2u_3^{-1}}x^{-1}\underline{z^{-2}u_1}x^{-1}\\
&=
x^2u_1u_2u_3u_1u_2x^{-1}\underline{u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}u_3^{-1}}u_2^{-1}x^{-1}
\stackrel{B1,B2}{=}x^2u_1u_2u_3u_1u_2\underline{x^{-1}u_2^{-1}}u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}x^{-1}\\
&\stackrel{(ii)}{=}x^2\underline{u_1u_2u_3u_1u_2u_1}x^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}x^{-1}=
x^2\underline{\Delta_4x^{-1}}u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}x^{-1}\\
&\stackrel{E1}{=}x^3\Delta_4u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}x^{-1}\stackrel{(B1,B2)}{=}x^3u_2u_3x^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&bu_3u_2u_1b=(bu_3u_2b^{-1})(bu_1b)=(x^3\Delta_4u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}\underline{u_2^{-1}x^{-1}})(z^2\underline{x^2u_1^{-1}})\\
&\stackrel{(i,ii)}{=}x^3\Delta_4u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}x^{-1}\underline{u_3u_1u_2u_3u_1u_2}x^2=
x^3\Delta_4u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}x^{-1}\Delta_4x^2\\
&\stackrel{E1,B5}{=}x^3\Delta^2_4(u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}x^3\stackrel{B3}{=}x^3(u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}x^3\end{aligned}$$ $$(x^{-4}br_4)^2=x^{-3}\underline{bu_3u_2u_1b}x^{-3}u_3u_2u_1\stackrel{(G2)}{=}(u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}u_3u_2u_1=
1$$ The relation (G3a) follows from (G3) and (E6).
The base cases. {#sec_base}
===============
In this section we deduce the main theorems for $(g,n)\in\{(3,1),(4,0)\}$ from the presentations of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ obtained in [@Szep_Osaka; @Szep1]. Theorem \[mainA\] for $g=3$ follows from the following.
\[g3n1\] The map $\varphi_{3,1}\colon{\mathcal{G}}_{3,1}\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{3,1})$ is an isomorphism.
By [@Szep_Osaka Theorem 7.16] ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{3,1})$ admits a presentation with generators $a_1$, $a_2$, $u_2$, $d$ (called respectively $B$, $A_1$, $U$, $A_2$ in [@Szep_Osaka]), where $d$ is a Dehn twist about the curve $a_1^{-1}u_2(\alpha_1)$. The defining relations are $$\begin{aligned}
&(i)\ a_2d=da_2\qquad (ii)\ a_2a_1a_2=a_1a_2a_1\qquad (iii)\ da_1d=a_1da_1\qquad
(iv)\ u_2a_2u_2^{-1}=a_2^{-1}\\
&(v)\ u_2a_1u_2^{-1}=a_1d^{-1}a_1^{-1}\qquad
(vi)\ (du_2)^2=(u_2d)^2\qquad (vii)\ (du_2)^2=(a_2d^2a_1)^3.\end{aligned}$$ We define $\psi\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{3,1})\to{\mathcal{G}}_{3,1}$ on the generators as $\psi(a_1)=a_1$, $\psi(a_2)=a_2$, $\psi(u_2)=u_2$, $\psi(d)=a_1^{-1}u_2a_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}a_1$. To prove that $\psi$ is a homomorphism we have to show that it respects the relations (i–vii). This is obvious for (v) and (ii, iv) are (A2,C4a). $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(d)&=a_1^{-1}\underline{u_2a_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}}a_1\stackrel{C3}{=}a_1^{-1}u_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}\underline{u_1a_1}
\stackrel{C4}{=}a_1^{-1}\underline{u_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}}u_1\\
&\stackrel{C5}{=}a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_2u_1=(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1\\
\psi(a_2)\psi(d)&=a_2(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1\stackrel{A2}{=}(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}a_1u_2u_1
\stackrel{C2}{=}(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1a_2=\psi(d)\psi(a_2)\end{aligned}$$ The relation $\psi(d)\psi(a_1)\psi(d)=\psi(a_1)\psi(d)\psi(a_1)$ is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
&(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1a_1(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1=a_1(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1a_1\iff\\
&u_2\underline{u_1a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_2}u_1=a_2u_2u_1a_1\stackrel{C5}{\iff}
u_2a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_1=a_2u_2u_1a_1\end{aligned}$$ The last relation follows easily from (C4a). $$\begin{aligned}
(\psi(d)\psi(u_2))^2&=(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1u_2(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1u_2\\
&=(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}\Delta_3(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}\Delta_3\stackrel{E1}{=}\Delta_3^2\\
(\psi(u_2)\psi(d))^2&=u_2(\psi(d)\psi(u_2))^2u_2^{-1}=u_2\Delta^2_3u_2^{-1}=\Delta^2_3=(\psi(d)\psi(u_2))^2\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&(\psi(a_2)\psi(d)^2\psi(a_1))^3=(a_2(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}u_2u_1a_1)^3\\
&\stackrel{A2}{=}(a_2(a_2a_1a_2)^{-1}u_2u_1(a_2a_1a_2)^{-1}u_2u_1a_1)^3
=a_1^{-1}(a_2^{-1}u_2\underline{u_1a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}}a_2^{-1}u_2u_1)^3a_1\\
&\stackrel{C5}{=}a_1^{-1}(\underline{a_2^{-1}u_2a_2^{-1}}a_1^{-1}\underline{u_2^{-1}a_2^{-1}u_2}u_1)^3a_1
\stackrel{C4a}{=}a_1^{-1}(u_2a_1^{-1}a_2u_1)^3a_1\\
&=a_1^{-1}(u_2a_1^{-1}\underline{a_2u_1u_2}a_1^{-1}\underline{a_2u_1u_2}a_1^{-1}a_2u_1)a_1
=a_1^{-1}(u_2a_1^{-1}u_1u_2u_1u_2a_2u_1)a_1\\
&=a_1^{-1}(u_2a_1^{-1}\Delta_3u_2a_2u_1)a_1\stackrel{B5,E1}{=}
a_1^{-1}(\Delta_3u_1\underline{a_2u_2a_2}u_1)a_1\\
&\stackrel{C4a}{=}a_1^{-1}(\Delta_3u_1u_2u_1)a_1=a_1^{-1}\Delta_3^2a_1\stackrel{E1}{=}\Delta_3^2=(\psi(d)\psi(u_2))^2\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\psi$ is a homomorphism. Observe that ${\mathcal{G}}_{3,1}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{3,1})$ are generated by $a_1$, $a_2$ and $u_2$. Indeed, the generator $u_1$ of ${\mathcal{G}}_{3,1}$ is redundant because of (C5) and the generator $d$ of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{3,1})$ is redundant because of (v). Since for $x\in\{a_1, a_2, u_2\}$ we have $\psi(\varphi_{3,1}(x))=x=\varphi_{3,1}(\psi(x))$ thus $\psi$ is the inverse of $\varphi_{3,1}$.
\[genus3\_shortcut\] Suppose that $g\ge 4$, $i\in\{1,\dots,g-2\}$ is fixed and $w\in{\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$ is represented by a word in the generators $a_i$, $u_i$, $a_{i+1}$, $u_{i+1}$ and their inverses. Then $\varphi_{g,n}(w)=1$ if and only if $w=1$.
Consider a subsurface $K\subset N_{g,n}$ which is a disc with crosscaps $i, i+1, i+2$. Thus $K$ is a copy of $N_{3,1}$. By [@Stu_geom Theorem 3.6] the map $\imath_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(K)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$ induced by the inclusion of $K$ in $N_{g,n}$ is injective, except for the case $(g,n)=(4,0)$ where its kernel is generated by a Dehn twist about the boundary of $K$. As in the proof of Theorem \[g3n1\], there is a homomorphism $\psi\colon\imath_\ast({\mathcal{M}}(K))\to{\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$ such that $\psi(x)=x$ for $x\in\{a_i,a_{i+1},u_i,u_{i+1}\}$. For $(g,n)=(4,0)$ we additionally have to verify that $\psi(T_{{\partial\! K}})=1$, which is true by (B4), because either $T_{{\partial\! K}}=\Delta_2^2$ if $i=1$, or $T_{{\partial\! K}}=\Delta_3\Delta_2^2\Delta_3$ if $i=2$. Since $\psi(\varphi_{g,n}(w))=w$ the corollary is proved.
Theorem \[mainB\] for $g=4$ follows from the following.
\[g4n0\] The map $\varphi_{4,0}\colon{\mathcal{G}}_{4,0}\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{4,0})$ is an isomorphism.
By [@Szep1 Theorem 2.1] ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{4,0})$ admits the presentation with generators $a_i,u_i,$ for $i=1,2,3$, $b$, $r_4$, $d$ (the last two generators are denoted respectively as $t$ and $a_4$ in [@Szep1]), where $d$ is a Dehn twist about the curve $a_2^{-1}u_3(\alpha_2)$. The defining relations are (A1–A3, B1, C1, C4, C5a, E2a, E3a, E4, E6, G3a) and $$\begin{aligned}
&(i)\ r_4=a_1a_2a_3u_3u_2u_1\qquad (ii)\ u_3a_2u_3^{-1}=a_2d^{-1}a_2^{-1}\qquad
(iii)\ u_1^2=u_3^2\\
&(iv)\ (u_3b)^2=1\qquad
(v)\ (u_3d)^2=1\qquad
(vi)\ da_3=a_3d\\
&(vii)\ da_2d=a_2da_2\qquad
(viii)\ (da_2a_3)^4=1\qquad
(ix)\ u_3du_3^{-1}=u_1du_1^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ We define $\psi\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{4,0})\to{\mathcal{G}}_{4,0}$ on the generators as $\psi(a_i)=a_i$, $\psi(u_i)=u_i$ for $i=1,2,3$, $\psi(b)=b$, $\psi(r_4)=a_1a_2a_3u_3u_2u_1$ and $\psi(d)=a_2^{-1}u_3a_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}a_2$. To show that $\psi$ is a homomorphism we have to show that the relations (iii–ix) are satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}_{4,0}$. By Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\] the relation (iii) is satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}_{4,0}$. The relations (v,vi,vii,viii) can be rewritten using (ii) in the generators $a_2, u_2, a_3, u_3$ and so they hold in $\mathcal{G}_{4,0}$ by Corollary \[genus3\_shortcut\]. We have $$(u_3b)^2\stackrel{(C6)}{=}(a_1a_2a_3)^2(u_1u_2u_3)^2\stackrel{(E5)}{=}(a_1a_2a_3)^4\stackrel{(E6)}{=}1$$ As in the proof of Theorem \[g3n1\] we have $\psi(d)=(a_2a_3a_2)^{-1}u_3u_2$ and $\psi(u_3)\psi(d)\psi(u_3)^{-1}=\psi(u_1)\psi(d)\psi(u_1)^{-1}$ is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
&u_3(a_2a_3a_2)^{-1}u_3u_2u_1=u_1\underline{(a_2a_3a_2)^{-1}u_3u_2u_3}\stackrel{(C2,C3,C4a)}{\iff}\\
&u_3(a_2a_3a_2)^{-1}u_3u_2u_1=u_1u_3u_2u_3a_2a_3a_2\stackrel{(B1)}{\iff}\\
&(a_2a_3a_2)^{-1}\underline{u_3u_2u_1(a_2a_3a_2)^{-1}}=u_1u_2u_3\stackrel{(C1a,C2)}{\iff}\\
&\underline{(a_2a_3a_2)^{-1}(a_1a_2a_1)^{-1}}u_3u_2u_1=u_1u_2u_3\stackrel{(A1,A2)}{\iff}\\
&(a_1a_2a_3)^{-2}=u_1u_2u_3(u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}\stackrel{(E5)}{\iff}\\
&(u_3u_2u_1)^2=u_1u_2u_3(u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ The last relation is satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}_{4,0}$ by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\]. Since $\varphi_{4,0}\circ\psi=id$, hence $\psi$ is injective, and since ${\mathcal{G}}_{4,0}$ is generated by $a_i, u_i$ and $b$, it is also surjective. It follows that $\varphi_{4,0}$ is an isomorphism.
Curve complexes {#sec_curves}
===============
Definitions and simple connectedness.
-------------------------------------
Let $N=N_{g,n}$. Suppose that $C=(\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_m)$ is an $m$-tuple of generic curves on $N$. We say that $C$ is a [*generic $m$-tuple of disjoint curves*]{} if for $i\ne j$
- $\gamma_i$ is disjoint from $\gamma_j$, and
- $\gamma_i$ is neither isotopic to $\gamma_j$ nor to $\gamma^{-1}_j$.
We denote by $N_C$ the compact surface obtained by cutting $N$ along $C$. If $C'=(\gamma'_1,\dots,\gamma'_m)$ then we say that $C$ and $C'$ are [*equivalent*]{} if $\gamma_i$ is isotopic to ${\gamma'}^{\pm 1}_i$ for $i=1,\dots,m$, and [*equivalent up to permutation*]{} if $\gamma_i$ is isotopic to ${\gamma'}_{\tau(i)}^{\pm 1}$ for $i=1,\dots,m$ and for some permutation $\tau\in{\mathrm{Sym}}_m$. We denote by $[C]=[\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_m]$ the equivalence class of $C$, and by ${\left<C\right>}={\left<\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_m\right>}$ its equivalence class up permutation.
The [*complex of curves*]{} ${\mathcal{C}}(N)$ is a simplicial complex whose $m$-simplices are the equivalence classes up to permutation of generic $(m+1)$-tuples of disjoint curves on $N$. We are going to use its two full subcomplexes: ${\mathcal{C}}_0(N)$ is the subcomplex of ${\mathcal{C}}(N)$ consisting of simplices ${\left<C\right>}$ such that $N_C$ is connected; ${\mathcal{D}}(N)$ is the subcomplex of ${\mathcal{C}}_0(N)$ consisting of simplices ${\left<C\right>}$ such that $N_C$ is nonorientable.
The [*ordered complex of curves*]{} ${\mathcal{C}}^{ord}(N)$ is a $\Delta$-complex (in the sense of [@Hat], Chapter 2) whose $m$-simplices are the equivalence classes of generic $(m+1)$-tuples of disjoint curves on $N$. If $[\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_{m+1}]$ is an $m$-simplex then its faces are the $(m-1)$-simplices $[\gamma_1,\dots,\widehat{\gamma_i},\dots,\gamma_{m+1}]$ for $i=1,\dots,m+1$, where $\widehat{\gamma_i}$ means that $\gamma_i$ is deleted. We define the subcomplexes ${\mathcal{C}}^{ord}_0(N)$ and ${\mathcal{D}}^{ord}(N)$ as the ordered versions of ${\mathcal{C}}_0(N)$ and ${\mathcal{D}}(N)$.
The complex of curves was introduced by Harvey [@Harvey] and the ordered complex of curves by Benvenuti [@Benv]. The following theorem was proved for the unordered complexes in [@Wahl Theorems 5.4, 5.5]. To obtain the result for their ordered versions, the proof of [@Benv Proposition 8] can be applied.
\[simplyc\_wahl\] The complexes ${\mathcal{C}}_0(N_{g,n})$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_0^{ord}(N_{g,n})$ are simply connected for $g\ge 5$; ${\mathcal{D}}(N_{g,n})$ and ${\mathcal{D}}^{ord}(N_{g,n})$ are simply connected for $g\ge 7$.
The mapping class group ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$ acts on the set of isotopy classes of generic curves on $N$, and thus it also acts on the complexes ${\mathcal{C}}(N)$, ${\mathcal{C}}_0(N)$, ${\mathcal{D}}(N)$ and their ordered versions by permuting their simplices. We say that two simplices $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$ are [*${\mathcal{M}}(N)$-equivalent*]{} if $\sigma_2=h\sigma_1$ for some $h\in{\mathcal{M}}(N)$. Observe that ${\mathcal{C}}^{ord}(N)$ has a natural orientation (the vertices of every simplex are ordered) preserved by ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$. In particular, ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$ acts on the $1$-simplices of ${\mathcal{C}}^{ord}(N)$ without inversion, which simplifies the statement of Brown’s theorem below. This is the only, purely technical, reason for considering ${\mathcal{C}}^{ord}(N)$ instead of ${\mathcal{C}}(N)$.
The structure of a stabiliser. {#struct_stab}
------------------------------
Let $N=N_{g,n}$. Suppose that $C=(\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_m)$ is a generic $m$-tuple of disjoint curves on $N$ such that $N_C$ is connected. Suppose that $\gamma_i$ are two-sided for $i\le r$ and one-sided for $i>r$.
Let ${\mathrm{Stab}}[C]={\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N)}[C]$ denote the stabiliser of the simplex $[C]$ with respect to the action of ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$ on $C_0^{ord}(N)$. This is the subgroup of ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$ consisting of the isotopy classes of homeomorphisms fixing each curve $\gamma_i$. We define ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[C]={\mathrm{Stab}}^+_{{\mathcal{M}}(N)}[C]$ to be the subgroup of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[C]$ consisting of the isotopy classes of homeomorphisms fixing each curve $\gamma_i$, preserving its orientation, and preserving its sides if $\gamma_i$ is two-sided. We have an exact sequence $$\label{stab_es}
1\to{\mathrm{Stab}}^+[C]\to{\mathrm{Stab}}[C]\stackrel{\eta}{\to}\mathbb{Z}_2^{m+r},$$ where $\eta(h)$ is the vector $(e_i)_{i=1}^{m+r}$ defined as follows
- for $i=1,\dots,m$, $e_i=0$ if $h$ preserves orientation of $\gamma_i$ and $e_i=1$ otherwise,
- for $j=1,\dots,r$, $e_{m+j}=0$ if $h$ preserves sides of $\gamma_j$ and $e_{r+j}=1$ otherwise.
\[eta\_onto\] The map $\eta$ is not surjective in general and its image depends on $C$. For example, if $N_C$ is orientable and $m>1$ then $\eta$ is not onto. Indeed, suppose that $h\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[C]$ preserves sides of $\gamma_j$ for $j=1,\dots, r$. Then since $N_C$ is orientable, $h$ either preserves orientation of each $\gamma_i$ or reverses orientation of each $\gamma_i$. On the other hand, we leave it as an exercise for the reader to check that if $N_C$ is nonorientable then $\eta$ is surjective.
The gluing map $N_C\to N$ induces a surjective homomorphism $$\rho_C\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_C)\to{\mathrm{Stab}}^+[C].$$ For $i=1,\dots,r$ let $\delta_i$, $\delta'_i$ be the boundary components of a regular neighbourhood $A_i$ of $\gamma_i$. Note that if $T_{\delta_i}$, $T_{\delta'_i}$ are right Dehn twists with respect to some orientation of $A_i$, then $T_{\delta_i}^{-1}T_{\delta'_i}\in\ker\rho_C$. For $i=r+1,\dots,m$ let $\epsilon_i$ be the boundary curve of a regular neighbourhood $M_i$ of $\gamma_i$ and note that $T_{\epsilon_i}\in\ker\rho_C$. By [@Szep_Osaka Lemma 4.1] $\ker\rho_C$ is the free abelian group of rank $m$ generated by $T_{\delta_i}^{-1}T_{\delta'_i}$ for $i=1,\dots,r$ and $T_{\epsilon_j}$ for $i=r+1,\dots,m$. Summarising, we have the following exact sequence $$\label{cut_es}
1\to{\mathbb{Z}}^m\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_C)\stackrel{\rho_C}{\to}{\mathrm{Stab}}^+[C]\to 1.$$ Suppose that $N_C$ is nonorientable and $C$ consists entirely of one-sided curves ($r=0$). Let $N'$ be the surface obtained by cutting $N$ along $\gamma_i$ and gluing a disc with a puncture $P_i$ along the resulting boundary component for $i=1,\dots,m$. Note that $N$ may be seen as being obtained from $N'$ by blowing up the punctures $\mathcal{P}_m=\{P_1,\dots,P_m\}$, and we have the blowup homomorphism $\mathfrak{b}\colon{\mathcal{PM}}(N',\mathcal{P}_m)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N)$, whose image is contained in ${\mathrm{Stab}}[C]$.
\[blow\_stab\] $\mathfrak{b}\colon{\mathcal{PM}}(N',\mathcal{P}_m)\to{\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N)}[C]$ is an isomorphism.
Since $\mathfrak{b}$ is injective by Proposition \[blowup\_inj\], it suffices to show that its image is equal to ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N)}[C]$. It follows immediately from the definitions that $\rho_{C}=\mathfrak{b}\circ\imath_\ast$, where $\imath_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{C})\to{\mathcal{M}}^+(N',\mathcal{P}_m)$ is the map induced by the inclusion of $N_{C}$ in $N'$. Thus the image of $\mathfrak{b}$ contains ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[C]$. As $N'$ is nonorientable by assumption, $\pi_1(N'\backslash(\mathcal{P}_m\backslash\{P_i\}),P_i)$ contains a homotopy class of one-sided loops, whose image under the crosscap pushing map $\mathfrak{c}\colon\pi_1(N'\backslash(\mathcal{P}_m\backslash\{P_i\}),P_i)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N)$ is a crosscap slide reversing the orientation of $\gamma_i$ and equal to the identity on $\gamma_j$ for $j\ne i$ . It follows that the image of $\mathfrak{b}$ is equal to ${\mathrm{Stab}}{[C]}$.
Let us identify $N_{g-1,n}$ with the surface obtained from $N'$ by blowing up $\mathcal{P}_{m-1}$, and by abuse of notation, treat $C'=(\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_{m-1})$ as a generic $(m-1)$-tuple of disjoint curves on $N_{g-1,n}$. Consider the following commutative diagram $$\begin{CD}
\pi_1(N'\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1},P_m) @>\mathfrak{p}>> {\mathcal{PM}}(N',\mathcal{P}_{m}) @>\mathfrak{f}>> {\mathcal{PM}}(N',\mathcal{P}_{m-1})\\
@| @VV\mathfrak{b}V @VV\mathfrak{b}V \\
\pi_1(N'\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1},P_m) @>\mathfrak{c}>> {\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})}[C] @>\zeta>> {\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-1,n})}[C']
\end{CD}$$ whose top row is a part of the Birman exact sequence (\[Bir\_es\]), $\mathfrak{c}$ is the crosscap pushing map and $\zeta=\mathfrak{b}\circ\mathfrak{f}\circ\mathfrak{b}^{-1}$. As the vertical maps are isomorphisms, exactness of (\[Bir\_es\]) implies exactness of the sequence $$\label{stab_bir_es}
1\to\pi_1(N'\backslash\mathcal{P}_{m-1},P_m)\stackrel{\mathfrak{c}}{\to}{\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})}[C]\stackrel{\zeta}{\to}{\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-1,n})}[C']\to 1.$$
Orbits and a presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$. {#orbits}
------------------------------------------------
For the rest of this section we fix $g\ge 5$ and $N=N_{g,0}$. Let $\widetilde{X}$ denote ${\mathcal{D}}^{ord}(N)$ if $g\ge 7$ or ${\mathcal{C}}^{ord}_0(N)$ if $g\in\{5,6\}$. Let $X=\widetilde{X}/{\mathcal{M}}(N)$ and $p\colon\widetilde{X}\to X$ be the canonical projection. Observe that $X$ inherits from $\widetilde{X}$ the structure of a $\Delta$-complex. Let ${\mathcal{S}}_m(X)$ (resp. ${\mathcal{S}}_m(\widetilde{X})$) be the set of $m$-simplices of $X$ (resp. $\widetilde{X}$). The simplices of dimension $0$, $1$ and $2$ will be called [*vertices*]{}, [*edges*]{} and [*triangles*]{} respectively. Observe that the canonical projection $p\colon\widetilde{X}\to X$ induces a surjection $p\colon{\mathcal{S}}_m(\widetilde{X})\to{\mathcal{S}}_m(X)$. In the present subsection we will determine a section to $p$ for $m=0,1,2$, that is a map $s\colon {\mathcal{S}}_m(X)\to{\mathcal{S}}_m(\widetilde{X})$ such that $p\circ s=identity$. We also describe a presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$ obtained by applying Brown’s theorem to the action of ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$ on $\widetilde{X}$.
For $C=(\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_m)$ and $I\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}$ let $C_I=(\gamma_i)_{i\in I}$. The following proposition is a special case of [@Szep_Osaka Proposition 5.2].
\[orbits\_descr\] Two simplices $[C]=[\gamma_1,\cdots,\gamma_m]$ and $[C']=[\gamma'_1,\cdots,\gamma'_m]$ of $\widetilde{X}$ are ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$-equivalent if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied.
- For every $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, $\gamma_i$ is one-sided if and only if $\gamma'_i$ is one-sided.
- For every $I\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}$, the surface $N_{C_I}$ is orientable if and only if $N_{C'_I}$ is orientable.
Note that the second condition is vacuous for $\widetilde{X}={\mathcal{D}}^{ord}(N)$, that is if $g\ge 7$. As an immediate corollary we see that every vertex of $\widetilde{X}$ is ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$-equivalent to one of the following (see Subsection \[notation\] for definitions).
- $[\alpha_1]$ – two-sided curve with a non-orientable complement,
- $[\mu_g]$ – one-sided curve with a non-orientable complement,
- $[\xi]$ – curve with an orientable complement, one-sided for odd $g$ or two-sided for even $g$.
We define $$\begin{aligned}
&v_1=p[\alpha_1],\ v_2=p[\mu_g],\ v_3=p[\xi],\qquad
s(v_1)=[\alpha_1],\ s(v_2)=[\mu_g],\ s(v_3)=[\xi].\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${\mathcal{S}}_0(X)=\{v_1, v_2\}$ if $g\ge 7$ or ${\mathcal{S}}_0(X)=\{v_1, v_2, v_3\}$ if $g\in\{5,6\}$.
$e$ $s(e)$ $s(t(e))$ $h_e$ $N_{s(e)}$ $g$
------- ----------------------------------- -------------- -------------------------- ------------- ---------
$e_1$ $[\alpha_1,\mu_g]$ $[\mu_g]$ $1$ $N_{g-3,3}$ $\ge 5$
$e_2$ $[\alpha_1,\alpha_3]$ $[\alpha_1]$ $a_2a_3a_1a_2$ $N_{g-4,4}$ $\ge 5$
$e_3$ $[\mu_g,\mu_{g-1}]$ $[\mu_g]$ $a_{g-1}^{-1}$ $N_{g-2,2}$ $\ge 5$
$e_4$ $[\alpha_1,\xi]$ $[\xi]$ $1$ $S_{1,g-2}$ $5,6$
$e_5$ $[\mu_5,\beta_1]$ $[\alpha_1]$ $a_4ba_3a_4a_2a_3a_1a_2$ $S_{1,3}$ $5$
$e_6$ $[\alpha_1,\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}]$ $[\alpha_1]$ $a_2ca_1a_2$ $S_{1,4}$ $6$
$e_7$ $[\mu_6,\gamma_{\{1,2,3,4,5\}}]$ $[\mu_6]$ $b_2^{-1}$ $S_{2,2}$ $6$
: \[tabE\] The edges of $X$.
If $e$ is an edge of $X$ or $\widetilde{X}$, then we denote by $i(e)$ and $t(e)$ its initial and terminal vertices respectively, and by $\overline{e}$ the edge with the same vertices as $e$ but with the opposite orientation. We define edges $e_i\in {\mathcal{S}}_1(X)$ for $i\in\{1,\dots,7\}$ as $e_i=p(s(e_i))$, where $s(e_i)$ are defined in the second column of Table \[tabE\].
\[edges\_descr\] If $g\ge 7$ then ${\mathcal{S}}_1(X)=\{e_1,\overline{e_1},e_2,e_3\}$;\
If $g=5$ then ${\mathcal{S}}_1(X)=\{e_1,\overline{e_1},e_2,e_3,e_4,\overline{e_4},
e_5,\overline{e_5}\}$;\
If $g=6$ then ${\mathcal{S}}_1(X)=\{e_1,\overline{e_1},e_2,e_3,e_4,\overline{e_4},
e_6,e_7\}$.
Let $[C]=[\gamma_1,\gamma_2]$ be any edge of $\widetilde{X}$. If $N_C$ is nonorientable, then it follows easily from Proposition \[orbits\_descr\] that $[C]$ is ${\mathcal{M}}(
N)$ equivalent to one of the edges $s(e_1)$, $\overline{s(e_1)}$, $s(e_2)$, or $s(e_3)$. This finishes the proof for $g\ge 7$. Suppose that $N_C$ is orientable. There are two cases: (1) $N_{(\gamma_1)}$ and $N_{(\gamma_2)}$ are nonorientable; (2) $N_{(\gamma_1)}$ or $N_{(\gamma_2)}$ is orientable. In the case (1) $C$ is ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$-eqivalent to one of the edges $s(e_5)$, $\overline{s(e_5)}$, $s(e_6)$, or $s(e_7)$. Suppose that we are in case (2) and $N_{(\gamma_2)}$ is orientable. Since $N_C$ is connected, there is a curve on $N$ disjoint from $\gamma_1$ and intersecting $\gamma_2$ in one point. As such curve must be one-sided, $N_{(\gamma_1)}$ is nonorientable and $[C]$ is ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$-equivalent to $s(e_4)$.
The representatives $s(e_i)$ of the edges $e_i$ for $i\in\{1,\dots,7\}$ have been chosen in such a way that $i(s(e_i))=s(i(e_i))$. The elements $h_{e_i}$ defined in the fourth column of Table \[tabE\] satisfy $h_{e_i}(s(t(e_i))=t(s(e_i))$. For $i\in\{1,4,5\}$ we define $s(\overline{e_i})=h_{e_i}^{-1}(\overline{s(e_i)})$ and $h_{\overline{e_i}}=h_{e_i}^{-1}$. In this way, for every $e\in {\mathcal{S}}_1(X)$ we have $i(s(e))=s(i(e))$ and $h_{e}(s(t(e))=t(s(e))$. The conjugation map $c_e$ defined as $c_e(x)=h_{e}^{-1}xh_e$ maps ${\mathrm{Stab}}\,t(s(e))$ onto ${\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(t(e))$; in particular $c_e({\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(e))\subset{\mathrm{Stab}}\, s(t(e))$.
$f$ $s(f)$ $\nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3$ $\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_3$ $g$
---------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------
$f_1$ $[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\alpha_5]$ $v_1, v_1, v_1$ $e_2, e_2, e_2$ $\ge 6$
$f_2$ $[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\mu_g]$ $v_1, v_1, v_2$ $e_2, e_1, e_1$ $\ge 5$
$f_3$ $[\alpha_1,\mu_g,\mu_{g-1}]$ $v_1, v_2, v_2$ $e_1, e_3, e_1$ $\ge 5$
$f_4$ $[\mu_g,\mu_{g-1},\mu_{g-2}]$ $v_2, v_2, v_2$ $e_3, e_3, e_3$ $\ge 5$
$f_5$ $[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\xi]$ $v_1, v_1, v_3$ $e_2, e_4, e_4$ $5,6$
$f_6$ $[\mu_6,\mu_5,\beta]$ $v_2, v_2, v_1$ $e_3, \overline{e_1}, \overline{e_1}$ $6$
$f_7$ $[\mu_5,\mu_4,\gamma_{\{1,2,3\}}]$ $v_2, v_2, v_2$ $e_3, e_3, e_3$ $5$
$f_8$ $[\alpha_1,\mu_6,\gamma_{\{1,\dots,5\}}]$ $v_1, v_2, v_2$ $e_1, e_7, e_1$ $6$
$f_9$ $[\alpha_1,\mu_5,\beta]$ $v_1, v_2, v_1$ $e_1, e_5, e_2$ $5$
$f_{10}$ $[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}]$ $v_1, v_1, v_1$ $e_2, e_2, e_6$ $6$
: \[tabT\] The triangles of $X$.
Suppose that $\widetilde{f}=[\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3]\in{\mathcal{S}}_2(\widetilde{X})$ and $f=p(\widetilde{f})\in {\mathcal{S}}_2(X)$. For a permutation $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Sym}}_3$ we define $\widetilde{f}^\sigma=[\gamma_{\sigma(1)},\gamma_{\sigma(2)},\gamma_{\sigma(3)}]$ and $f^\sigma=p[\widetilde{f}^\sigma]$. We say that $\widetilde{f}^\sigma$ (resp. $f^\sigma$ ) is a permutation of $\widetilde{f}$ (resp. $f$). We also define $\varepsilon_1(f)=p[\gamma_1,\gamma_2]$, $\varepsilon_2(f)=p[\gamma_2,\gamma_3]$, $\varepsilon_3(f)=p[\gamma_1,\gamma_3]$, and $\nu_i(f)=p[\gamma_i]$ for $i=1,2,3$.
We define triangles $f_i\in {\mathcal{S}}_2(X)$ for $i\in\{1,\dots,10\}$ as $f_i=p(s(f_i))$, where $s(f_i)$ are defined in the second column of Table \[tabT\].
\[triangles\_descr\] Every triangle of $X$ is a permutation of $f_i$ for some $i\in\{1,\dots,10\}$.
Suppose that $f=p[C]$ for $C=(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3)$. If $N_C$ is nonorientable, then by Proposition \[orbits\_descr\], $f$ is determined up to permutation by the number of one-sided vertices. It follows that $f$ is a permutation of one of the triangles: $f_1$ (if $g\ge 7$), $f_2$ (if $g\ge 6$), $f_3$ or $f_4$. We assume that $N_C$ is orientable, $g\in\{5,6\}$. There are three cases.
Case 1: $N_{(\gamma_i,\gamma_j)}$ are nonorientable for all $1\le i<j\le 3$. Then again $f$ is determined up to permutation by the number of one-sided vertices, and it is a permutation of one of the triangles: $f_1$, $f_2$, $f_6$ or $f_7$.
Case 2: $N_{(\gamma_i)}$ is orientable for some $i\in\{1,2,3\}$. Assume $i=3$. By the same argument as in the proof of Proposition \[edges\_descr\] (case (2)), $N_{(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)}$ is nonorientable and $f=f_5$ by Proposition \[orbits\_descr\].
Case 3: $f$ contains one of the edges: $e_5$, $e_6$ or $e_7$. Assume $p[\gamma_1,\gamma_2]=e_i$ for $i\in\{5,6,7\}$. Since $N_{(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)}$ is orientable, thus $\gamma_3$ is two-sided and it is easy to see, by similar argument as in the proof of Proposition \[edges\_descr\] (case (2)), that $N_{(\gamma_i,\gamma_3)}$ are nonorientable for $i=1,2$. It follows that $f$ is a permutation of one of the triangles $f_8$, $f_9$ or $f_{10}$.
[cc]{}
&
Let $f=f_i$ for some $i\in\{1,\dots, 10\}$. For $j=1,2,3$ we let $\nu_j=\nu_j(f)$, $\varepsilon_j=\varepsilon_j(f)$ and define $\widetilde{\varepsilon_j}$ to be the edge of $s(f)$ such that $p(\widetilde{\varepsilon_j})=\varepsilon_j$ (Figure \[tr\]). The representatives $s(f)$ have been chosen in such a way that $\widetilde{\varepsilon_1}=s(\varepsilon_1)$. For $j=1,2,3$ we choose $x_j=x_j(f)\in{\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(\nu_j)$ such that $$\label{the_x_i}
x_1(s(\varepsilon_3))=\widetilde{\varepsilon_3},\quad
h_{\varepsilon_1}x_2(s(\varepsilon_2))=\widetilde{\varepsilon_2},\quad
h_{\varepsilon_1}x_2h_{\varepsilon_2}x_3h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_3}=x_1.$$ For $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Sym}}_3$ we define $s(f^\sigma)=z_\sigma(s(f))^\sigma$ and $x_j(f^{\sigma})$ according to the following table:
$\sigma$ $(1,2)$ $(1,3)$ $(2,3)$ $(1,2,3)$ $(1,3,2)$
----------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$z_\sigma$ $h_{\varepsilon_1}^{-1}$ $h_{\varepsilon_2}^{-1}x_2^{-1}h_{\varepsilon_1}^{-1}$ $x_1^{-1}$ $x_2^{-1}h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_1}$ $h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_3}x_1^{-1}$
$x_1(f^\sigma)$ $x_2$ $x_3$ $x_1^{-1}$ $x_2^{-1}$ $x_3^{-1}$
$x_2(f^\sigma)$ $x_1$ $x_2^{-1}$ $x_3^{-1}$ $x_3$ $x_1^{-1}$
$x_3(f^\sigma)$ $x_3^{-1}$ $x_1$ $x_2^{-1}$ $x_1^{-1}$ $x_2$
In this way the equations $\widetilde{\varepsilon_1}=s(\varepsilon_1)$ and (\[the\_x\_i\]) are satisfied for every $f\in {\mathcal{S}}_2(X)$. We check this for $\sigma=(1,2)$, the other cases can be checked similarly. Let $f'=f^{(1,2)}$, and for $j=1,2,3$, $x_j'=x_j(f')$, $\varepsilon_j'=\varepsilon_j(f')$. We have $\varepsilon_1'=\overline{\varepsilon_1}$, $\varepsilon_2'=\varepsilon_3$, $\varepsilon_3'=\varepsilon_2$, the edges of $s(f')$ are $\widetilde{\varepsilon_1'}=h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_1}(\overline{\widetilde{\varepsilon_1}})$, $\widetilde{\varepsilon_2'}=h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_1}(\widetilde{\varepsilon_3})$, $\widetilde{\varepsilon_3'}=h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_1}(\widetilde{\varepsilon_2})$, and $s(\varepsilon_1')=s(\overline{\varepsilon_1})=h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_1}(\overline{s(\varepsilon_1}))=
\widetilde{\varepsilon_1'}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&x'_1(s(\varepsilon_3'))=x_2(s(\varepsilon_2))=h_{\varepsilon_1}^{-1}(\widetilde{\varepsilon_2})=
\widetilde{\varepsilon_3'},\\
&h_{\varepsilon_1'}x_2'(s(\varepsilon_2'))=
h_{\varepsilon_1}^{-1}x_1(s(\varepsilon_3))=h_{\varepsilon_1}^{-1}(\widetilde{\varepsilon_3})=
\widetilde{\varepsilon_2'},\\
&h_{\varepsilon_1'}x_2'h_{\varepsilon_2'}x_3'h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_3'}=
h_{\varepsilon_1}^{-1}x_1h_{\varepsilon_3}x_3^{-1}h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_2}=x_2=
x'_1.\end{aligned}$$ The following theorem is a special case of a general result of Brown [@Br] (cf. [@Szep_Osaka Theorem 6.3]).
\[Brown\] Suppose that:
- for each $v\in {\mathcal{S}}_0(X)$ the stabiliser ${\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(v)$ admits a presentation ${\left<S_v\,|\,R_v\right>}$,
- for each $e\in {\mathcal{S}}_1(X)$ the stabiliser ${\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(e)$ is generated by $G_e$.
Then ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$ admits a presentation with generators $$\bigcup_{v\in {\mathcal{S}}_0(X)}S_v \cup\{h_e\, |\,e\in {\mathcal{S}}_1(X)\}$$ and relations:
- $\bigcup_{v\in {\mathcal{S}}_0(X)}R_v$,
- $h_{e_1}=1$ and (if $g\in\{5,6\}$) $h_{e_4}=1$,
- $h_e^{-1}\imath_e(x)h_e=c_e(x)$ for $e\in {\mathcal{S}}_1(X)$ and $x\in G_e$, where $\imath_e\colon{\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(e)\to {\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(i(e))$ is the inclusion and $c_e\colon{\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(e)\to {\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(t(e))$ is the conjugation map defined above,
- $h_{\varepsilon_1(f)}x_2(f)h_{\varepsilon_2(f)}x_3(f)h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_3(f)}=x_1(f)$ for $f\in {\mathcal{S}}_2(X)$.
Recall that in order to prove Theorem \[mainB\] we want to define a homomorphism $\psi\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})\to{\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$, which will be the inverse of $\varphi_{g,0}$. We will use the presentation from Theorem \[Brown\] and define $\psi$ on the generators and prove that it respects the defining relations. To this end we need presentations of ${\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(v)$ and generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(e)$ which will be obtained by using the exact sequences defined in the previous subsection and the induction hypothesis.
The stabiliser of $[\mu_g]$. {#sec_v2}
============================
In this section we are assuming $n\in\{0,1\}$, $g+n\ge 4$ and that Theorems \[mainA\] and \[mainB\] are true for $g-1$.
\[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\] The stabiliser ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]={\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})}[\mu_{g}]$ is generated by $u_i$, $a_i$, $b_j$ for $1\le i\le g-2$, $2\le 2j\le g-3$ and $a_{g-1}u_{g-1}$. There is a homomorphism $\psi_{v_2}\colon{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]\to{\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$ such that $\varphi_{g,n}\circ\psi_{v_2}=\mathrm{id}_{{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]}$ and $\psi_{v_2}(x)=x$ for each generator $x$ of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$.
We will obtain a presentation of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$ by applying Lemma \[ext\_pres\] to the exact sequence (\[stab\_bir\_es\]), which in this case is $$1\to\pi_1(N_{g-1,n},P)\stackrel{\mathfrak{c}}{\to}{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]\stackrel{\zeta}{\to}{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-1,n})\to 1,$$ where we assume that $N_{g-1,n}$ was obtained by cutting $N_{g,n}$ along $\mu_{g}$ and then gluing a disc with puncture $P$ along the resulting boundary component.
The kernel $\pi_1(N_{g-1,n},P)$ is generated by the homotopy classes of the loops $\eta_i$ in Figure \[loop\] for $i=1,\dots,g-1$. Let $\sigma_i=\mathfrak{c}[\eta_i]=Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{i,g\}}}$. If $n=1$ then $\pi_1(N_{g-1,n},P)$ is free, while if $n=0$, then there is a single kernel relation: $$(\mathrm{K})\qquad \sigma_{g-1}^2\cdots \sigma_1^2=1.$$ By the induction hypothesis ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-1,n})$ admits the presentation given in Theorem \[mainA\] if $n=1$ or \[mainB\] if $n=0$. In the latter case we replace the relation (D) by (Da) (see Lemma \[Da\_replace\]). For the cokernel generators we take $u_i, a_i$ and $b_j$ for $1\le i\le g-2$, $0\le 2j\le g-3$. Observe that all defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-1,n})$ are satisfied also in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,n})$, except (B4) and (Da) if $n=0$, in which case we have instead $$\begin{aligned}
&(\widetilde{\textrm{B4}})\ (u_1\cdots u_{g-3})^{g-2}=\sigma_{g-1}^2\\
&(\widetilde{\textrm{Da}})\ a_{g-2}(u_{g-3}\cdots u_1a_1\cdots a_{g-3})a_{g-2}(u_{g-3}\cdots u_1a_1\cdots a_{g-3})^{-1}=\sigma_{g-1}^2\sigma_{g-2}\sigma_{g-1}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ These relations hold in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ because the corresponding relations, with each $\sigma_i$ replaced by $\mathfrak{p}[\eta_i]$, hold in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-1,0},P)$. Indeed, by Lemma \[push1\], $\mathfrak{p}[\eta_{g-1}^2]$ is equal to a product of two Dehn twists about the boundary curves of a regular neighborhood of a simple loop homotopic to $\eta_{g-1}^2$. One of these curves bounds a Möbius strip, and hence the twist is trivial, while the other curve bounds $N_{g-2,1}$ and the twist is equal to $\Delta^2_{g-2}=(u_1\cdots u_{g-3})^{g-2}$. Analogously, $\mathfrak{p}[\eta_{g-1}^2\eta_{g-2}\eta_{g-1}^{-1}]$ is equal to the product of Dehn twists about the curves $\alpha_{g-2}$ and $u_{g-3}\cdots u_1a_1\cdots a_{g-3}(\alpha_{g-2})$.
To determine the conjugation relations we have to express $x\sigma_ix^{-1}$ in terms of the kernel generators for $i=1,\dots,g-1$ and each cokernel generator $x$. This can be done by first expressing $x[\eta_i]$ in the generators of $\pi_1(N_{g-1,n},P)$, and then applying $\mathfrak{c}$ together with Lemma \[push2\]. Since every cokernel generator can be expressed in terms of $u_i$ for $i=1,\dots,g-2$, $a_{g-2}$ and $b$, we only have to use these cokernel generators to produce the conjugation relations. As a result we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
&(1)\ u_i\sigma_{i+1}u_i^{-1}=\sigma_i,\quad
(2)\ u_i\sigma_iu_i^{-1}=\sigma_i^{-2}\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i^2,\quad
(3)\ u_i\sigma_ju_i^{-1}=\sigma_j \textrm{\ for\ } j\ne i,i+1,\\
&(4)\ a_{g-2}\sigma_{g-1}a_{g-2}^{-1}=\sigma_{g-1}^2\sigma_{g-2},\quad
(5)\ a_{g-2}\sigma_{g-2}a_{g-2}^{-1}=\sigma_{g-2}^{-1}\sigma_{g-1}^{-1}\sigma_{g-2},\\
&(6)\ a_{g-2}\sigma_ja_{g-2}^{-1}=\sigma_j \textrm{\ for\ }j<g-2,\quad
(7)\ b\sigma_jb^{-1}=\sigma_j \textrm{\ for\ }j>4,\\
&(8)\ b\sigma_4b^{-1}=\sigma_4\delta,\quad
(9)\ b\sigma_4^2\sigma_3b^{-1}=\sigma_4^2\sigma_3\delta,\quad
(10)\ b\sigma_4^2\sigma_3^2\sigma_2b^{-1}=\sigma_4^2\sigma_3^2\sigma_2\delta,\\
&(11)\ b\sigma_4^2\sigma_3^2\sigma_2^2\sigma_1b^{-1}=\sigma_4^2\sigma_3^2\sigma_2^2\sigma_1\delta,
\quad\textrm{where\ }\delta=\sigma_4\sigma_3\sigma_2\sigma_1.\end{aligned}$$ We also have the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
&a_3\sigma_{4}a_{3}^{-1}=\sigma^2_4\sigma_3,\quad a_{2}a_{3}\sigma_{4}a_{3}^{-1}a_{2}^{-1}=\sigma_4^2\sigma^2_{3}\sigma_{2}\\
&a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}\sigma_{4}a_{3}^{-1}a_{2}^{-1}a_{1}^{-1}=\sigma_4^2\sigma^2_{3}\sigma_{2}^2\sigma_{1},\quad
a_j\delta a_j^{-1}=\delta,\textrm{\ for\ }j=1,2,3, \end{aligned}$$ but since every $a_i$ can be expressed in terms of $a_{g-2}$ and $u_j$’s by (C2), these relations are consequences of (C2), (1–6) and the kernel relation (K). Since $b$ commutes with $a_j$ for $j=1,2,3$ (A3), the relations above together with (8) imply (9, 10, 11). This shows that (9, 10, 11) are redundant, they follow from other relations. For $i>1$, if we conjugate both sides of (2) by $u_iu_{i-1}$, then by using (B2), (1), (3) we obtain the relation $u_{i-1}\sigma_{i-1}u_{i-1}^{-1}=\sigma_{i-1}^{-2}\sigma_i\sigma_{i-1}^2$. If follows that we only need (2) with $i=g-2$. Therefore we replace (2) by $$\textrm{(2')\ }u_{g-2}\sigma_{g-2}u_{g-2}^{-1}=\sigma_{g-2}^{-2}\sigma_{g-1}\sigma_{g-2}^2.$$ We claim that we can also replace (3) by $$\textrm{(3')\ }u_i\sigma_{g-1}u_i^{-1}=\sigma_{g-1}\quad\mathrm{for\ }i\le g-3.$$ Indeed, if we set $x=u_ju_{j+1}\cdots u_{g-2}$, then $x\sigma_{g-1}x^{-1}=\sigma_j$ by (1), for $i<j-1$ we have $xu_ix^{-1}=u_i$ by (B1), and for $i>j$ we have $xu_{i-1}x^{-1}=u_i$ by (B1,B2). Thus (3) follows from (3’) by applying conjugation by $x$. Similarly, it can be easily proved, using (1) and (C1a, C7a), that (6, 7) can be replaced by $$\textrm{(6')\ }a_{g-2}\sigma_{g-3}a_{g-2}^{-1}=\sigma_{g-3}\qquad
\textrm{(7')\ }b\sigma_{g-1}b^{-1}=\sigma_{g-1}\textrm{\ if\ }g>5.$$ We have $\sigma_{g-1}=y_{g-1}=a_{g-1}u_{g-1}$, and $\sigma_i=(u_i\cdots u_{g-2})a_{g-1}u_{g-1}(u_i\cdots u_{g-2})^{-1}$ for $i<{g-1}$ by (1). It follows that ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$ is generated by the elements listed in the theorem. To prove that the mapping $\psi_{v_2}(x)=x$ for $x$ a generator of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$ extends to a homomorphism, we have to check that (K, $\widetilde{\textrm{B4}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{Da}}$, 2’, 3’, 4, 5, 6’, 7’, 8) are satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$.
By (1), the kernel relation (K) can be rewritten using only the generators $u_i$ and $\sigma_{g-1}^2$. Since $\sigma_{g-1}^2=(a_{g-1}u_{g-1})^2=u_{g-1}^2$ by (C4a), (K) is satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$ by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\], and so is ($\widetilde{\textrm{B4}}$). By (Da) in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&a_{g-1}^{-1}=(u_{g-2}\cdots u_1a_1\cdots \underline{a_{g-2})a_{g-1}(a_{g-2}^{-1}}\cdots a_1^{-1}u_1^{-1}\cdots u_{g-2}^{-1})\stackrel{(B1,B2,C1)}=\\
&u_{g-2}a_{g-1}^{-1}(u_{g-3}\cdots u_1a_1\cdots a_{g-3})a_{g-2}(a_{g-3}^{-1}\cdots a_1^{-1}u_1^{-1}\cdots u_{g-3}^{-1})a_{g-1}u_{g-2}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and after substitution ($\widetilde{\textrm{Da}}$) becomes $$a_{g-2}(u_{g-2}a_{g-1}^{-1})^{-1}a_{g-1}^{-1}(u_{g-2}a_{g-1}^{-1})=\sigma_{g-1}^2\sigma_{g-2}\sigma_{g-1}^{-1}.$$ Since $\sigma_{g-1}$ and $\sigma_{g-2}$ can be expressed in the generators $a_{g-1}$, $a_{g-2}$, $u_{g-1}$, $u_{g-2}$, the last relation holds in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$ by Corollary \[genus3\_shortcut\] and so do (2’, 4, 5). (3’) follows from (B1, C1a), (6’) follows from (C3, A1, C1a), (7’) follows from (A3, C7a). By (B1, B2, C1a, C2) we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sigma_4=(u_4\cdots u_{g-2})a_{g-1}u_{g-1}(u_4\cdots u_{g-2})^{-1}=
(u_{5}\cdots u_{g-1})^{-1}a_4u_4(u_{5}\cdots u_{g-1})\\
&\delta=(u_5\cdots u_{g-1})^{-1}a_4a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4(u_5\cdots u_{g-1})\end{aligned}$$ and we see that (8) follows from (C8) and the fact that $(u_{5}\cdots u_{g-1})$ commutes with $b$ (C7a). Thus $\psi_{v_2}$ is a homomorphism and obviously $\varphi_{g,n}\circ\psi_{v_2}=\mathrm{id}_{{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]}$.
\[relC9\] If $g\ge 5$ then the following relation holds in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}$. $$(\mathrm{C9})\quad b(a_4a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4)=(a_4a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4)b.$$
By (C8) we have $a_4a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4=(a_4u_4)^{-1}b(a_4u_4)b^{-1}$. (C9) is satisfied in $M(N_{g,1})$ because $(a_4u_4)^{-1}b(a_4u_4)$ is a Dehn twist about the curve $(a_4u_4)^{-1}(\beta)$, which is disjoint from $\beta$ up to isotopy. Since $b$, $a_4u_4\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$, (C9) also holds in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}$ by Theorem \[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\].
We define $\mathcal{S}_{g,n}(v_2)$ to be the image of $\psi_{v_2}$ in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,n}$. By Theorem \[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\] $\psi_{v_2}$ is an isomorphism onto $\mathcal{S}_{g,n}(v_2)$, whose inverse is the restriction of $\varphi_{g,n}$.
\[Delta2\_central\] $\Delta_g^2$ is central in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}$.
Since $u_{g-1}^2=(a_{g-1}u_{g-1})^2$ by (C4a), thus $u_{g-1}^2\in \mathcal{S}_{g,n}(v_2)$. By Lemma \[Delta\_in\_stab\], $\Delta^2_g\in\mathcal{S}_{g,1}(v_2)$. Since $\varphi_{g,1}(\Delta_g^2)$ is a Dehn twist about the boundary of $N_{g,1}$, thus it is central in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})$, and since the restriction of $\varphi_{g,1}$ to $\mathcal{S}_{g,1}(v_2)$ is an isomorphism, thus $\Delta_g^2$ is central in $\mathcal{S}_{g,1}(v_2)$. Note that ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}$ is generated by $\mathcal{S}_{g,1}(v_2)$, $u_{g-1}$, and if $g=4$ then also $b$. By (B5) $\Delta_g^2$ commutes with $u_{g-1}$ and it remains to prove that it commutes with $b$ if $g=4$. By (C6a) $b$ commutes with $(a_1a_2a_3)^2(u_1u_2u_3)^2$, and by (A3) it commutes with $(a_1a_2a_3)^2$, hence it commutes with $(u_1u_2u_3)^2$ and with $\Delta_4^2=(u_1u_2u_3)^4$.
\[five\] $\varphi_{g,1}$ is an isomorphism if and only if $\varphi_{g,0}^1$ is an isomorphism.
By Lemma \[Delta2\_central\] the normal closure of $\Delta_g^2$ is a cyclic subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}$. Moreover, as $\ker\imath_\ast$ is infinite cyclic, thus the restriction of $\varphi_{g,1}$ to the subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}$ generated by $\Delta_g^2$ is an isomorphism onto $\ker\imath_\ast$. We have the following commutative diagram. $$\begin{CD}
1 @>>> {\mathbb{Z}}@>>> {\mathcal{G}}_{g,1} @>>> {\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1 @>>> 1\\
@. @| @VV\varphi_{g,1}V @VV\varphi_{g,0}^1V \\
1 @>>> {\mathbb{Z}}@>>> {\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1}) @>\imath_\ast>> {\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P) @>>> 1
\end{CD}$$ Since the rows are exact, the corollary follows from the five lemma.
Let $\mathcal{S}_{g,0}^1(v_2)$ be the image of $\mathcal{S}_{g,1}(v_2)$ under the canonical projection $p\colon{\mathcal{G}}_{g,1}\to{\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1$. Since ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)}[\mu_g]=\imath_\ast({\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,1})}[\mu_g])$, there is an isomorphism $$\psi_{v_2}^1\colon {\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)}[\mu_g]\to\mathcal{S}_{g,0}^1,$$ such that $\imath_\ast\circ\psi_{v_2}^1=\psi_{v_2}\circ p$, and whose inverse is the restriction of $\varphi_{g,0}^1$.
Proof of Theorem \[mainA\]. {#sec_mainA}
===========================
In this section we assume that $g\ge 4$ is fixed, Theorem \[mainB\] is true for $g$ and Theorem \[mainA\] is true for $g-1$. The last assumption implies that Theorem \[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\] is true for $g$, as well as Lemma \[relC9\] and Corollary \[five\]. Theorem \[mainA\] for $g$ will follow from Corollary \[five\] and the following theorem.
\[mainA\_punctured\] $\varphi_{g,0}^1\colon{\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}^1\to{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)$ is an isomorphism.
First we will obtain a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0},P)$ by applying Lemma \[ext\_pres\] to the Birman exact sequence (\[Bir\_es\]) $$1\to\pi_1(N_{g,0},P)\stackrel{\mathfrak{p}}{\to}{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0},P)\stackrel{\mathfrak{f}}{\to}{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})\to 1$$ and the presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ given in Theorem \[mainB\]. Then we will apply the Reidemeister-Schreier method to find a presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)$, which is an index $2$ subgroup of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0},P)$.
To obtain a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0},P)$ we proceed in the same way as we did in the proof of Theorem \[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\], with the following differences: (1) we use the sequence (\[Bir\_es\]) instead of (\[stab\_bir\_es\]); (2) in the presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ we use (D) instead of (Da), and we replace the relation (B4) by the equivalent relation $$(\textrm{B4b})\, (u_2\cdots u_{g-1})^{g-1}=1,$$ obtained by conjugating (B4) by $\Delta_g$; (3) to produce the conjugation relations we use the cokernel generators $u_i$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$, $b$ and $a_1^{-1}$ (instead of $a_{g-1}$). As a result we obtain a presentation with kernel generators $\sigma_i=\mathfrak{p}[\eta_i]$ for $i\in\{1,\dots, g\}$ and cokernel generators $u_i, a_i$ and $b_j$ for $1\le i\le g-1$, $0\le 2j\le g-2$. There is the single kernel relation $$(\mathrm{K})\qquad \sigma_{g}^2\cdots \sigma_1^2=1,$$ the cokernel relations are the defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ except for (B4b) and (D), instead of which we have
- $(u_2\cdots u_{g-1})^{g-1}=\sigma_{1}^2$
- $a_1(a_2\cdots a_{g-1}u_{g-1}\cdots u_2)a_1(a_2\cdots a_{g-1}u_{g-1}\cdots u_2)^{-1}=(\sigma_2\sigma_1)^{-1}$
By Lemma \[relC9\], if $g\ge 5$ then (C9) is a consequence of the cokernel relations.
The conjugation relations are $$\begin{aligned}
&(1)\ u_i\sigma_{i+1}u_i^{-1}=\sigma_i,\quad
(2)\ u_i\sigma_iu_i^{-1}=\sigma_i^{-2}\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i^2,\quad
(3)\ u_i\sigma_ju_i^{-1}=\sigma_j \textrm{\ for\ } j\ne i,i+1,\\
&(4)\ a_1^{-1}\sigma_1a_1=\sigma_2\sigma_1^2,\quad
(5)\ a_1^{-1}\sigma_2a_1=\sigma_2\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{-1},\quad
(6)\ a_1^{-1}\sigma_ia_1=\sigma_i\textrm{\ for\ }i>2,\\
&(7)\ b^{-1}\sigma_jb=\sigma_j \textrm{\ for\ }j>4,\quad
(8)\ b^{-1}\sigma_1b=\delta\sigma_1,\quad
(9)\ b^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1^2b=\delta\sigma_2\sigma_1^2,\\
&(10)\ b^{-1}\sigma_3\sigma_2^2\sigma_1^2b=\delta\sigma_3\sigma_2^2\sigma_1^2,\quad
(11)\ b^{-1}\sigma_4\sigma_3^2\sigma_2^2\sigma_1^2b=\delta\sigma_4\sigma_3^2\sigma_2^2\sigma_1^2,
\quad\textrm{where\ }\delta=\sigma_4\sigma_3\sigma_2\sigma_1.\end{aligned}$$ For $i>1$ and $j\notin\{i,i+1\}$ we have $$a_i^{-1}\sigma_ia_i=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i^2,\quad a_i^{-1}\sigma_{i+1}a_i=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i^{-1}\sigma_{i+1}^{-1},\quad a_i^{-1}\sigma_ja_i=\sigma_j.$$ Since $a_i$ can be expressed in terms of $a_1$ and the $u_k$’s by (C2) or (C3), these relations follow from (C2,C3), (1–6) and (K). As a consequence of the above relations we have $$\begin{aligned}
&a_1^{-1}\sigma_1a_1=\sigma_2\sigma_1^2,\quad a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}\sigma_1a_1a_2=\sigma_3\sigma_2^2\sigma^2_1\\
&a_3^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}\sigma_1a_1a_2a_3=\sigma_4\sigma_3^2\sigma^2_2\sigma_1^2,\quad
a_j^{-1}\delta a_j=\delta,\textrm{\ for\ }j=1,2,3. \end{aligned}$$ These relations together with (8) and (A3) imply (9,10,11). Hence the last relations are redundant. We also have $$\begin{aligned}
&(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1(a_2a_1a_3a_2)=
(a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}(\sigma_3\sigma_2^2\sigma_1)(a_1a_3a_2)=\\
&(a_3a_2)^{-1}(\sigma_3\sigma_2)(a_3a_2)=
a_2^{-1}(\sigma_4\sigma_3^2\sigma_2)a_2=\sigma_4\sigma_3.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that (8) can be replaced by $$\textrm{(8')\ } b^{-1}\sigma_1b=(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1(a_2a_1a_3a_2)\sigma_2\sigma_1^2.$$ Similarly as in the proof of Theorem \[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\] it can be proved that (2,3,6,7) can be replaced by $$\begin{aligned}
&\textrm{(2')\ } u_1\sigma_1 u_1^{-1}=\sigma_1^{-2}\sigma_2\sigma_1^2,\quad
\textrm{(3')\ } u_i\sigma_1 u_i^{-1}=\sigma_1\textrm{\ for\ }i\ge 2,\\
&\textrm{(6')\ } a_1^{-1}\sigma_3 a_1=\sigma_3,\quad
\textrm{(7')\ } b\sigma_5 b^{-1}=\sigma_5.\end{aligned}$$ We have $$a_1^{-1}\sigma_3 a_1\stackrel{(1)}{=}a_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}\sigma_1u_1u_2a_1\stackrel{(C3)}{=}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}\sigma_1a_2u_1u_2.$$ Therefore we can replace (6’) by (6”) $a_2^{-1}\sigma_1 a_2=\sigma_1$. By (1), the relation $(5)$ is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
&a_1^{-1}u_1^{-1}\sigma_1u_1a_1=u_1^{-1}\sigma_1u_1\sigma_1^{-1}u_1^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}u_1\stackrel{(C4)}{\Longleftrightarrow}\\
&a_1\sigma_1a_1^{-1}=\sigma_1u_1\sigma_1^{-1}u_1^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}\stackrel{(1)}{\Longleftrightarrow}
a_1\sigma_1a_1^{-1}=\sigma_1u_1\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_2^{-1}u_1^{-1} \textrm{\ (5')}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $z=a_4a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4$. We have $$\sigma_5\stackrel{(1)}{=}(u_1u_2u_3u_4)^{-1}\sigma_1(u_1u_2u_3u_4)=
z^{-1}(a_4a_3a_2a_1)\sigma_1(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}z.$$ Since $z$ commutes with $b$ by (C9), we can replace (7’) by $$\textrm{(7'')\ } b^{-1}(a_4a_3a_2a_1)\sigma_1(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}b=(a_4a_3a_2a_1)\sigma_1(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}.$$ Summarising, we have reduced the conjugation relations to the following ones, which are rewritten in a convenient way.
- $u_i\sigma_{i+1}u_i^{-1}=\sigma_i$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$
- $\sigma_1u_1\sigma_1^{-1}=(\sigma_2\sigma_1)^{-1}\sigma_1^2u_1$
- $\sigma_1u_i\sigma_1^{-1}=u_i$ for $i\ge 2$
- $\sigma_1a_1\sigma_1^{-1}=a_1(\sigma_2\sigma_1)$
- $\sigma_1^{-1}a_1\sigma_1=u_1(\sigma_2\sigma_1)^{-1}u_1^{-1}a_1$
- $\sigma_1a_2\sigma_1^{-1}=a_2$
- $\sigma_1(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}b(a_4a_3a_2a_1)\sigma_1^{-1}=(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}b(a_4a_3a_2a_1)$
- $\sigma_1b\sigma_1^{-1}=b(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}\sigma_2\sigma_1(a_2a_1a_3a_2)\sigma_2\sigma_1$
Since all defining relations of $\mathcal{G}_{g,0}^1$ appear as cokernel relations in our presentation, the relations (E2a, E3) from Lemma \[useful\_T\] are consequences of the cokernel relations. Let $r=r_g$ and note that ($\widetilde{\textrm{D}}$) can be rewritten as $$\sigma_2\sigma_1=a_1^{-1}ru_1^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_1r^{-1}\stackrel{C4, E2a}{=}a_1^{-1}ra_1r.$$
[**Claim 1:**]{} (R7) is redundant.
[*Proof of Claim 1.*]{} By (A1–A4) we have $$(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}b(a_4a_3a_2a_1)=(ba_4a_3a_2)a_1(ba_4a_3a_2)^{-1}$$ thus (R7) is equivalent to $$\sigma_1(ba_4a_3a_2)a_1(ba_4a_3a_2)^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}=(ba_4a_3a_2)a_1(ba_4a_3a_2)^{-1}$$ It is a consequence of (R3), (R6) and (C3) that $\sigma_1$ commutes with $a_2$, $a_3$ and $a_4$. It follows that the relation above is equivalent to $$(b^{-1}\sigma_1b\sigma_1^{-1})a_4a_3a_2(\sigma_1a_1\sigma_1^{-1})(a_4a_3a_2)^{-1}(\sigma_1b^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}b)=(a_4a_3a_2)a_1(a_4a_3a_2)^{-1}$$ Let $L$ denote the left hand side of the last relation. By ($\widetilde{D}$, R4, R8) we have $$\begin{aligned}
L&=((a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}a_1^{-1}ra_1r(a_2a_1a_3a_2)a_1^{-1}ra_1r)a_4a_3a_2(ra_1r)\cdot\\
&a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_4^{-1}(ra_1^{-1}ra_1(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}ra_1^{-1}ra_1(a_2a_1a_3a_2)),\end{aligned}$$ and since $$\begin{aligned}
&(a_2a_1a_3a_2)a_1^{-1}ra_1\underline{ra_4a_3a_2r}a_1\underline{ra_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_4^{-1}r}a_1^{-1}ra_1(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}\stackrel{(E2a, E3)}{=}\\
&(a_2a_1a_3a_2)a_1^{-1}r\underline{a_1a_4a_3a_2a_1a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_1^{-1}}ra_1(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}\stackrel{(A1,A2)}{=}\\
&(a_2a_1a_3a_2)a_1^{-1}\underline{ra_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_4a_3a_2r}a_1(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}\stackrel{(E2a, E3)}{=}\\
&(a_2a_1a_3a_2)a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_4a_3a_2a_1(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}\stackrel{(A1,A2)}{=}a_3^{-1}a_4a_3,\end{aligned}$$ thus $$\begin{aligned}
&L=a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}\underline{a_1^{-1}ra_1ra_3^{-1}a_4a_3ra_1^{-1}ra_1}a_2a_1a_3a_2\stackrel{(E2a, E3, A1)}{=}\\
&a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_4a_3a_2a_1a_3a_2\stackrel{(A1,A2)}{=}(a_4a_3a_2)a_1(a_4a_3a_2)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ This ends the proof of Claim 1, which allows us to rule out (R7) from the presentation. Then we make the following transformations.
[**(1)**]{} By using the relations (R1) and ($\widetilde{\textrm{B4b}}$) we rewrite (K) in the generators $u_i$. By Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\], (K) can be removed from the presentation.
[**(2)**]{} In (C8) we replace $a_4a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4$ by the right hand side of the following equation, which is a consequence of (B1, B2, C2). $$\begin{aligned}
&a_4u_4(u_4^{-1}a_3u_3u_4)(u_4^{-1}u_3^{-1}a_2u_2u_3u_4)(u_4^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4)=\\
&a_4u_4(u_3a_4u_4u_3^{-1})(u_2u_3a_4u_4u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1})(u_1u_2u_3a_4u_4u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1})\end{aligned}$$ In this way (C8) is expressed in the generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$. [**(3)**]{} In (C6) we replace $(a_1a_2a_3)^2(u_1u_2u_3)^2$ by its expression in the generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$ resulting from the following equations. $$\begin{aligned}
&(a_1a_2a_3)^2(u_1u_2u_3)^2\stackrel{(C1a,C3)}{=}a_1a_2a_3a_1a_2(u_1u_2u_3)^2a_1
\stackrel{(A1, B1, B2)}{=}\\
&a_1a_2a_1a_3a_2(u_2u_3u_1u_2u_3^2)a_1=a_1a_2a_1a_3u_3(u_3^{-1}a_2u_2u_3)u_1u_2u_3^2a_1\stackrel{(B2, C2)}{=}\\
&a_1a_2a_1a_3u_3(u_2a_3u_3u_2^{-1})u_1u_2u_3^2a_1\stackrel{(C4a)}{=}a_1a_2a_1(a_3u_3)u_2(a_3u_3)u_2^{-1}u_1u_2(a_3u_3)^2a_1\end{aligned}$$
[**(4)**]{} Using Lemma \[Delta\_in\_stab\], we replace $(u_1\cdots u_{g-1})^g$ by $$u_{g-1}^2(u_{g-2}u_{g-1}^2u_{g-2})\cdots(u_1\cdots u_{g-1}^2\cdots u_1)$$ in (B3), and $(u_2\cdots u_{g-1})^{g-1}$ by $$u_{g-1}^2(u_{g-2}u_{g-1}^2u_{g-2})\cdots(u_2\cdots u_{g-1}^2\cdots u_2)$$ in ($\widetilde{\textrm{B4b}}$). Note that these are expressions in the generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$.
[**(5)**]{} We replace $(\sigma_2\sigma_1)$ by $a_1^{-1}ra_1r$ in (R2–R6, R8) and by $u_1^{-1}\sigma_1u_1\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_1^2$ in ($\widetilde{\textrm{D}}$), then we rule out the generators $\sigma_i$ for $i>1$ together with (R1).
[**(6)**]{} If $g=4$, then we replace the right hand side of (R8) by $b(a_1a_2a_3)^{-4}$. We have to prove that this yields an equivalent relation. Let $w=a_1a_2a_3$, $z=u_3u_2u_1$. We have $r=wz$ and $$\begin{aligned}
ra_1^{-1}ra_1&=wza_2a_3za_1\stackrel{(C1a,C2)}{=}wa_1a_2z^2a_1\stackrel{(B1,B2)}{=}
wa_1a_2(u_3^2u_2u_3u_1u_2)a_1\\
&\stackrel{(C1a,C3)}{=}wa_1a_2a_3(u_3^2u_2u_3u_1u_2)=w^2z^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the inverse of the right hand side of (R8) times $b$ equals $$\begin{aligned}
&w^2z^2\underline{(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}w^2}z^2(a_2a_1a_3a_2)
\stackrel{(A1,A2)}{=}w^2z^2a_3^2z^2(a_2a_1a_3a_2)\\
&\stackrel{(B1,B2)}{=}w^2\underline{(u_3^2u_2u_1u_3u_2)a_3^2}z^2(a_2a_1a_3a_2)
\stackrel{(C1,C2)}{=}w^2a_1^2z^4a_2a_1a_3a_2\\
&\stackrel{(B3)}{=}w^2a_1^2a_2a_1a_3a_2\stackrel{(A1,A2)}{=}(a_1a_2a_3)^4.\end{aligned}$$
[**(7)**]{} In (A9) we replace $b_\rho$ by the expression in the generators $b$ and $a_i$ resulting from (A7,A8). Then we rule out the generators $b_j$ for $j\ne 1$ together with (A7, A8).
As a result of these transformations we obtain a presentation with generators $a_i, u_i$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$, $b$ and $\sigma_1$, which we will denote simply as $\sigma$. Until the end of this proof, we will denote ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0},P)$ as ${\mathcal{M}}$, ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)$ as ${\mathcal{M}}^+$, $\mathcal{G}_{g,0}^1$ as ${\mathcal{G}}$, and $\varphi_{g,0}^1$ as $\varphi$.
In the next step we obtain a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}^+$ by the Reidemeister-Shreier method, for which we take $\{1,\sigma\}$ as a transversal of ${\mathcal{M}}/{\mathcal{M}}^+$. The generators of ${\mathcal{M}}^+$ are: $$b,\, a_i,\, u_i,\, b'=\sigma b\sigma^{-1},\, a_i'=\sigma a_i\sigma^{-1},\, u_i'=\sigma u_i\sigma^{-1},\, \sigma^2,$$ for $i=1,\dots,g-1$. Note that every defining relation (Rel) of ${\mathcal{M}}$ can be regarded as a relation in the generators of ${\mathcal{M}}^+$. Conjugating (Rel) by $\sigma$ yields another relation (Rel’), obtained by replacing in (Rel) every $x\in\{a_i, u_i, b\}$ by $x'$, and every $x'$ by $\sigma^2x\sigma^{-2}$. The relations (Rel) and (Rel’), for all defining relations (Rel) of ${\mathcal{M}}$, are the defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}^+$.
Let $G_{{\mathcal{M}}^+}=\{a_i, u_i, a_i', u_i'\,|\,1\le i\le g-1\}\cup\{b, b', \sigma^2\}$ denote the set of generators of ${\mathcal{M}}^+$. We define $\psi\colon G_{{\mathcal{M}}^+}\to{\mathcal{G}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi(x)=x\quad\textrm{for\ }x\in\{a_i, u_i\,|\,i=1,\dots,g-1\}\cup\{b\},\\
&\psi(a'_i)=a_i,\quad \psi(u'_i)=u_i\quad\textrm{for\ }i=2,\dots,g-1,\\
&\psi(\sigma^2)=u_{g-1}^2(u_{g-2}u_{g-1}^2u_{g-2})\cdots(u_2\cdots u_{g-1}^2\cdots u_2),\\
&\psi(a'_1)=ra_1r,\\
&\psi(u_1')=ra_1^{-1}ra_1\psi(\sigma^2)u_1,\\
&\psi(b')=b(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}a_1^{-1}ra_1r(a_2a_1a_3a_2)a_1^{-1}ra_1r\end{aligned}$$ Observe that for $x\in G_{{\mathcal{M}}^+}$ we have $\varphi(\psi(x))=x$. In order to show that $\psi$ can be extended to a homomorphism $\psi\colon{\mathcal{M}}^+\to{\mathcal{G}}$, we have to show that it respects the defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}^+$.
It is obvious that $\psi$ respects the relations (A1–A6, A9, B1–B3, C1–C8, $\widetilde{\textrm{B4b}}$, R2, R3, R4, R6, R8).
Let $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}_{g,0}^1(v_2)$ and recall that this is the subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}$ generated by $a_i$, $u_i$ for $i\in\{1,\dots,g-2\}$, $a_{g-1}u_{g-1}$ and if $g>4$ then also $b$. Suppose that $w=x_1^{\varepsilon_1}\cdots x_k^{\varepsilon_k}$, where $x_i\in G_{{\mathcal{M}}^+}$ and $\varepsilon_i\in\{1,-1\}$. We say that $w$ [*is expressible in*]{} $\mathcal{S}$ if $\psi(x_1)^{\varepsilon_1}\cdots \psi(x_k)^{\varepsilon_k}\in\mathcal{S}$, and a relation in ${\mathcal{M}}^+$ is expressible in $\mathcal{S}$ if its both sides are expressible in $\mathcal{S}$. If $x_1^{\varepsilon_1}\cdots x_k^{\varepsilon_k}=1$ is a relation expressible in $\mathcal{S}$, then since $\varphi(\psi(x_i))=x_i$ and the restriction of $\varphi$ to $\mathcal{S}$ is an isomorphism, $\psi(x_1)^{\varepsilon_1}\cdots \psi(x_k)^{\varepsilon_k}=1$. Thus $\psi$ respects the relations expressible in $\mathcal{S}$.
Set $G_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}=\{a_i, u_i, a_i', u_i'\,|\,1\le i\le g-2\}\cup\{\sigma^2, a_{g-1}u_{g-1}, a'_{g-1}u'_{g-1}, u^2_{g-1}, {u'}^2_{g-1}\}$ plus $\{b,b'\}$ if $g>4$. Observe that every element of $G_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}$ is expressible in ${\mathcal{S}}$, hence every word on $G_{{\mathcal{M}}+}\cup G_{{\mathcal{M}}+}^{-1}$ obtained as a concatenation of elements of $G_{{\mathcal{S}}+}\cup G_{{\mathcal{S}}+}^{-1}$ is expressible in ${\mathcal{S}}$. It follows that the following relations are expressible in $\mathcal{S}$, hence are respected by $\psi$: (R2’, R4’, R5, R5’, R6’, $\widetilde{\textrm{D}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{D}}$’, B3’, $\widetilde{\textrm{B4b}}$’, C4’, C5’, C8’) and (R8’) if $g>4$. (R3’) is expressible in $\mathcal{S}$ for $i<g-1$, and for $i=g-1$ it is $\sigma^2u_{g-1}\sigma^{-2}=u'_{g-1}$. Since $\psi(u'_{g-1})=\psi(u_{g-1})=u_{g-1}$ and $\psi(\sigma^2)$ is a word in the $u_i$’s, thus $\psi$ respects (R3’) for $i=g-1$ by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\].
(C6’) is expressible in $\mathcal{S}$.
[*Proof of Claim 2.*]{} The right hand side of (C6’) (after transformation (3)) is a concatenation of elements of $G_{{\mathcal{S}}+}\cup G_{{\mathcal{S}}+}^{-1}$, thus it is expressible in ${\mathcal{S}}$. It suffices to show that the same is true for the left hand side. There is nothing to do if $g>4$, so we assume $g=4$. Let $w=(a_1a_2a_3)$. $$\begin{aligned}
&(\psi(u_3')\psi(b'))^2=(u_3bw^{-4})^2\stackrel{(A3)}{=}u_3w^{-4}(bu_3)^2u_3^{-1}w^{-4}
\stackrel{(C6a)}{=}
u_3w^{-2}(u_1u_2u_3u_1u_2)w^{-4}\\
&=u_3\underline{w^{-2}\Delta_4} u_1^{-1}w^{-4}\stackrel{(E1)}{=}u_3\Delta_4 \underline{w^{2}u_1^{-1}w^{-4}}
\stackrel{(C1a, C5a)}{=}
u_3\Delta_4 u_3^{-1}w^{-2}=u_3^2u_2u_1u_3u_2w^{-2}\\
&\stackrel{(A1,A2)}{=}
u_3^2u_2u_1(u_3u_2a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1})(a_1a_2)^{-2}=
u_3^2u_2u_1(u_3u_2a_2^{-1}u_3^{-1})u_3a_3^{-1}(a_1a_2)^{-2}\\
&\stackrel{(B2, C3, C4a)}{=}
u_3^2u_2u_1(u_2^{-1}a_3u_3u_2)a_3u_3(a_1a_2)^{-2}\in\mathcal{S}\end{aligned}$$
[**Claim 3.**]{} We have $\psi(b')=rb^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3)^4r$.
[*Proof of Claim 3.*]{} If $g=4$ then we have $\psi(b')=b(a_1a_2a_3)^{-4}$ and the claim follows from (G3) in Lemma \[useful\_g4\]. By looking at the effect of $r\sigma$ on the curve $\beta$ it can be checked that $r\sigma(\beta)$ and $\beta$ are isotopic to the boundary curves of a regular neighbourhood of the union of $\alpha_i$ for $i\in\{1,2,3\}$. Hence the chain relation $brb'r=(a_1a_2a_3)^4$ holds in ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g,0},P)$. If $g>4$ then the last relation is expressible in $\mathcal{S}$ and the claim follows.
It follows from Claim 3 and $\psi(a_i')=ra_ir$ (E3), that if $w'$ is a word in $a_i'$, $b'$ and their inverses, then $\psi(w')=rwr$, where $w$ is a word in $a_i$, $b$ and their inverses. If $w'$ represents the trivial element of ${\mathcal{M}}^+$, then so does $w$, and by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\] $\psi(w')=1$ in ${\mathcal{G}}$. Thus $\psi$ respects the relations (A1’–A6’,A9’).
We check that $\psi$ respects the remaining defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}^+$.
(B1’): $u_i'u_j'=u_j'u_i'$. If $i,j>1$ then (B1’) is the same as (B1), and if $i,j<g-1$ then it is expressible in $\mathcal{S}$. It remains to show that $\psi(u_{g-1}')=u_{g-1}$ commutes in ${\mathcal{G}}$ with $\psi(u_1')=ra_1^{-1}ra_1\psi(\sigma^2)u_1$, which is true, because $ru_{g-1}=u_{g-1}^{-1}r$ (E4), $u_{g-1}$ commutes with $a_1$, $u_1$ (B1, C1) and $\psi(\sigma^2)=(u_2\cdots u_{g-1})^{g-1}$ is central in the subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}$ generated by $u_i$ for $i>1$ (B5).
(C1’): $a_1'u_i'=u_i'a_1'$ for $i>1$. This relation is respected, because $\psi(u_i')=u_i$ commutes with $\psi(a_1')=ra_1r$ by (C1, E4)
(B2’, C2’, C3’) are either the same as (B2, C2, C3) if $i>1$, or they are expressible in $\mathcal{S}$ if $i=1$.
(C7’): $u'_5b'=b'u_5'$. This relation is respected, because $\psi(u_5')=u_5$ commutes with $\psi(b')=rb^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3)^4r$ by (C1a, C7, E4).
(R8’) for $g=4$ is $\sigma^2b\sigma^{-2}=b'(a_1'a_2'a_3')^{-4}$. Let $w=(a_1a_2a_3)$. Because $\psi$ respects (A3’), we have $$\psi(b')(\psi(a_1')\psi(a_2')\psi(a_3'))^{-4}=(\psi(a_1')\psi(a_2')\psi(a_3'))^{-4}\psi(b')=rw^{-4}rw^{-4}b,$$ $\psi(\sigma^2)=(u_3u_2)^3$, and $$\begin{aligned}
&(u_3u_2)^3b(u_3u_2)^{-3}=rw^{-4}rw^{-4}b \iff
w^4rw^4r(u_3u_2)^3=b(u_3u_2)^3b^{-1}
\stackrel{(G1)}{\iff}\\
&w^4rw^4r(u_3u_2)^3=(w^3u_2u_3w^{-1})^3\iff
w^4rw^4r(u_3u_2)^3=w^3u_2u_3w^2u_2u_3w^2u_2u_3w^{-1}\\
&\iff wrw^5(u_3u_2u_1u_3u_2u_3)\underline{u_2u_3u_2w}=u_2u_3w^2u_2\underline{u_3w^2}u_2u_3\stackrel{(C1a, C5a)}{\iff}\\
&wrw^5\underline{\Delta_4 w}u_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}=u_2u_3w^2u_2w^2u_1u_2u_3\stackrel{(E1)}{\iff}
wrw^4\Delta_4=u_2u_3w^2u_2w^2\Delta_4\iff\\
&wrw^2=u_2u_3w^2u_2\stackrel{(C1a, C5a)}{\iff}
wrw^2=wu_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}w\iff r^2=1.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\psi$ respects the defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}^+$, it extends to a homomorphism, which is the inverse of $\varphi$.
The stabilisers of $[\alpha_1]$ and $[\xi]$. {#sec_v13}
============================================
In this section we assume that $g\ge 5$ is fixed, Theorems \[mainA\] and \[mainB\] are true for genera less then $g$ and consequently Theorem \[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\] and Lemma \[relC9\] are true for $g$.
The stabiliser of $[\xi]$.
--------------------------
\[two-holed-torus\] Let $g>4$. In ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$ we have $b^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3)^4=\Delta_4b^{-1}\Delta_4^{-1}=r_gbr_g$.
First we show that these relations hold in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$. Let $\Sigma$ be a regular neighbourhood of the union of the curves $\alpha_i$ for $i\in\{1,2,3\}$ orientated so that $a_i$ are right Dehn twists. $\Sigma$ is a two holed torus, whose one boundary component is isotopic to $\beta$. Let $\beta'$ be the other boundary component and denote as $b'$ the right Dehn twist about $\beta'$. We have the well known relation $(a_1a_2a_3)^4=bb'$ (called two holed torus or $3$-chain relation). It can be checked that $\Delta_4$ and $r_g$ preserve $\Sigma$ up to isotopy and map $\beta$ on $\beta'$. Moreover, $\Delta_4$ reverses and $r_g$ preserves the orientation of $\Sigma$. Thus $b'=\Delta_4b^{-1}\Delta_4^{-1}=r_gbr_g$ (recall that $r_g$ has order two in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ by (E2a)) and the relations from the lemma are satisfied in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$. To see that they are also satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$ note that they are composed of elements of ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})}[\mu_g]$ (because $g>4$) and hence it suffices to apply the homomorphism $\psi_{v_2}$ from Theorem \[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\].
\[pres\_Stab\_xi\] Let $g\in\{5,6\}$. The stabiliser ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]={\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})}[\xi]$ is generated by $a_i$, $b_j$ for $1\le i\le g-1$, $2\le 2j\le g-2$ and $\Delta_4$ if $g=5$, or $u_5^{-1}\Delta_4$ and $r_6$ if $g=6$. There is a homomorphism $\psi_{v_3}\colon{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]\to{\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$ such that $\varphi_{g,0}\circ\psi_{v_3}=\mathrm{id}_{{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]}$ and $\psi_{v_3}(x)=x$ for each generator $x$ of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$.
Let ${\mathrm{Stab}}={\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$, ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+={\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\xi]$, ${\mathcal{G}}={\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$, $\varphi=\varphi_{g,0}$. Recall from Subsection \[struct\_stab\] that ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+=\rho_{\xi}({\mathcal{M}}(N_{\xi}))$, where $N_{\xi}$ is obtained by cutting $N_{g,0}$ along $\xi$ and $\rho_{\xi}$ is the homomorphism induced by the gluing map. $N_{\xi}$ is homeomorphic to $S_{2,g-4}$ and it is easy to see that ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+=\rho_{\xi}({\mathcal{M}}(N_{\xi}))=\jmath_\ast({\mathcal{M}}(S_{2,g-4}))$, where $\jmath_\ast$ is the map induced by the inclusion in $N_{g,0}$ of a regular neighbourhood of the union of the curves $\alpha_i$ for $i\in\{1,\dots,g-1\}$. It follows that ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ is generated by $a_i$, $b_j$ for $1\le i\le g-1$, $2\le 2j\le g-2$. Moreover, by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\] every relation in ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ between these generators is also a relation in ${\mathcal{G}}$. By applying Lemma \[ext\_pres\] to the sequence (\[stab\_es\]) $$1\to{\mathrm{Stab}}^+\to{\mathrm{Stab}}\to{\mathbb{Z}}_2^{g-4}\to 1,$$ we see that ${\mathrm{Stab}}$ is generated by ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ and $g-4$ cokernel generators. If $g=5$, then for the cokernel generator we take $\Delta_4$, which preserves the curve $\xi$ and reverses its orientation. If $g=6$, then for the cokernel generators we take $u_5^{-1}\Delta_4$, which reverses orientation of $\xi$ and preserves its sides, and $r=r_6$ which preserves orientation of $\xi$ and swaps its sides. It remains to check that the mapping $\psi_{v_3}(x)=x$ for $x$ a generator of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$ respects the cokernel and conjugation relations.
[**Case $g=5$.**]{} The cokernel relation is (B4) $\Delta_4^2=1$. The conjugation relations are (E1) $\Delta_4 a_i\Delta_4=a^{-1}_{4-i}$ for $i\in\{1,2,3\}$ and $$(1)\ \Delta_4 b\Delta_4=b(a_1a_2a_3)^{-4},\quad
(2)\ \Delta_4 a_4\Delta_4=(a_1a_2a_3)a_4^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3)^{-1}.$$ These relations are satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}$, (1) by Lemma \[two-holed-torus\] and (2) because $$\begin{aligned}
&(a_1a_2a_3)a_4^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3)^{-1}\stackrel{(Da)}{=}
(u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}a_4(u_3u_2u_1)\\
&\stackrel{(C1a)}{=}(u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}\Delta_3^{-1}a_4\Delta_3(u_3u_2u_1)
=\Delta_4 a_4\Delta_4.\end{aligned}$$ [**Case $g=6$.**]{} The cokernel relations are (E2a) $r^2=1$ and $$(3)\quad(u_5^{-1}\Delta_4)^2=1,\qquad (4)\quad(ru_5^{-1}\Delta_4)^2=1.$$ They are satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}$ because $u_5$ commutes with $\Delta_4$ by (B1) and $$\begin{aligned}
&u_5^{-2}\stackrel{(B4a)}{=}(u_4\cdots u_1)(u_1\cdots u_4)\stackrel{(B8)}{=}\Delta_5^2\Delta_4^{-2}\stackrel{(B3)}{=}\Delta_4^{-2}\\
&(ru_5^{-1}\Delta_4)^2\stackrel{(E4a)}{=}u_5\Delta_4^{-1}u_5^{-1}\Delta_4=1.\end{aligned}$$ The conjugation relations are (E3a) $r a_ir=a_i$ for $i\in\{1,\dots,5\}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&(5)\ rbr=b^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3)^4,\quad (6)\ u_5^{-1}\Delta_4b\Delta_4^{-1}u_5=b(a_1a_2a_3)^{-4}\\
&(7)\ u_5^{-1}\Delta_4a_i\Delta_4^{-1}u_5=a^{-1}_{4-i}\textrm{\ for\ } i\in\{1,2,3\},\quad (8)\ u_5^{-1}\Delta_4a_5\Delta_4^{-1}u_5=a^{-1}_5\\
&(9)\ u_5^{-1}\Delta_4a_4\Delta_4^{-1}u_5=(a_1a_2a_3a_4)a_5^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3a_4)^{-1} \end{aligned}$$ (5, 6) follow from Lemma \[two-holed-torus\] and (C1a, C7), (7) from (C1a, E1) and (8) from (C1a, C4a). We have $$\begin{aligned}
&u_5^{-1}\Delta_4a_4\Delta_4^{-1}u_5\stackrel{(3)}{=}\Delta_4^{-1}u_5a_4u_5^{-1}\Delta_4
\stackrel{(C3)}{=}\Delta_4^{-1}u_4^{-1}a_5u_4\Delta_4\stackrel{(B1, C1a)}{=}\\
&(u_4u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}a_5(u_4u_3u_2u_1)\stackrel{(Da)}{=}(a_1a_2a_3a_4)a_5^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3a_4)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ which proves that (9) holds in ${\mathcal{G}}$. We do not need to check that $\psi_{v_3}$ respects the conjugation relations expressing $rb_2r$ and $u_5^{-1}\Delta_4b_2\Delta_4^{-1}u_5$ in the generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$, because they follow from (A8) and the remaining conjugation relations.
The stabiliser of $[\alpha_1]$.
-------------------------------
\[pres\_stab\_alpha1\] Let $g\ge 5$. The stabiliser ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]={\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})}[\alpha_1]$ is generated by $u_i$, $a_i$ for $i\in\{1,3,\dots,g-1\}$, $b_j$ for $2\le 2j\le g$, $c=T_{\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}}$ (if $g\ge 6$), $v=Y_{\mu_4,\beta}$ and $r_g$. There is a homomorphism $\psi_{v_1}\colon{\mathrm{Stab}}_{[\alpha_1]}\to{\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$ such that $\varphi_{g,0}\circ\psi_{v_1}=\mathrm{id}_{{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]}$ and $\psi_{v_1}(c)=(a_1\cdots a_5)^2b(a_1\cdots a_5)^{-2}$, $\psi_{v_1}(v)=a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3$ and $\psi_{v_1}(x)=x$ for the remaining generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]$.
Let ${\mathrm{Stab}}={\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]$, ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+={\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\alpha_1]$, ${\mathcal{G}}={\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$ and $\varphi=\varphi_{g,0}$. First we are going to define a homomorphism $\psi^+\colon{\mathrm{Stab}}^+\to{\mathcal{G}}$ such that $\varphi\circ\psi^+=\mathrm{id}_{{\mathrm{Stab}}^+}$. Recall the exact sequence (\[cut\_es\]) $$1\to{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{\alpha_1})\stackrel{\rho}{\to}{\mathrm{Stab}}^+\to 1,$$ where $N_{\alpha_1}$ is obtained by cutting $N_{g,0}$ along $\alpha_1$, and $\rho=\rho_{\alpha_1}$ is induced by the gluing. In order to define $\psi^+$ it suffices to construct a homomorphism $\psi'\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{\alpha_1})\to{\mathcal{G}}$ satisfying $\psi'(\ker\rho)=1$ and $\varphi\circ\psi'=\rho$.
Since $N_{\alpha_1}$ is homeomorphic to $N_{g-2,2}$, we need a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$, which can be obtained from the sequence (\[Cup\_es\]) $$1\to{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})\to{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g-2,1},P)\to 1,$$ provided that we have a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g-2,1},P)$.
[**Step 1: a presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g-2,1},P)$.**]{} We proceed in the same way as in the proof of Theorem \[mainA\_punctured\]. First we apply Lemma \[ext\_pres\] to the Birman exact sequence $$1\to\pi_1(N_{g-2,1},P)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,1},P)\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,1})\to 1$$ and the presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,1})$ given in Theorem \[mainA\]. As a result we obtain a presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,1},P)$ on generators $a_i$, $u_i$ for $1\le i\le g-3$, $b_j$ for $2\le 2j\le g-2$ and $\sigma_l$ for $1\le l\le g-2$. Since $\pi_1(N_{g-2,1},P)$ is free, there are no kernel relations. The cokernel relations are (A1–A9, B1, B2, C1–C8) and the conjugation relations are (1–11), the same as in the proof of Theorem \[mainA\_punctured\], and by repeating the arguments from that proof we can reduce the conjugation relations to (R1–R8). Then we make the transformations (2, 3, 7) from the proof of Theorem \[mainA\_punctured\] and instead of (5) we replace $(\sigma_2\sigma_1)$ by $a_1^{-1}\sigma_1 a_1\sigma_1^{-1}$ in (R2, R5, R8) and by $u_1^{-1}\sigma_1u_1\sigma_1^{-1}\sigma_1^2$ in (R4). Then we rule out the generators $\sigma_i$ for $i>1$ together with (R1). By the Reidemeister-Schreier method we obtain a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g-2,1},P)$ on the generators $b$, $a_i$, $u_i$, $b'=\sigma b\sigma^{-1}$, $a_i'=\sigma a_i\sigma^{-1}$, $u_i'=\sigma u_i\sigma^{-1}$ and $\sigma^2$, where $\sigma=\sigma_1$. The relations are the defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,1},P)$ (Rel) and their conjugates by $\sigma$ (Rel’). Note that $a_i'=a_i$ and $u_i'=u_i$ for $i>1$ while $b'$ and $\sigma^2$ may be expressed in the remaining generators by (R8) and (R2) respectively. We record for future reference the following remark.
\[gensNg11\] ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g-2,1},P)$ is generated by $a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,g-3$, $u_j$ for $j=1,\dots,g-4$, $a_{g-3}u_{g-3}$, $a_1'$, $a_1'u_1'$, and $b$ if $g-2\ge 4$.
[**Step 2: a presentation for ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$**]{} We apply Lemma \[ext\_pres\] to the sequence (\[Cup\_es\]). Let $d_1$ and $d_2$ be Dehn twists about the boundary components of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$, such that $d_1$ generates the kernel of the map ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})\to{\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g-2,1},P)$. We are assuming that $N_{g-2,2}=N_{g-2,1}\backslash U$, where $U$ is a small open neighbourhood of $P$, and we treat $b$, $b'$, $a_i$, $a_i'$ (resp. $u_i$, $u_i'$ ) for $i\in\{1,\dots,g-3\}$ as Dehn twists (resp. crosscap transpositions) on $N_{g-2,2}$. These will be our cokernel generators of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$, together with $\sigma^2$ defined according to (R2) as $\sigma^2=a_1^{-1}a_1'u_1'u_1^{-1}$. There are two types of defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$: (I) The conjugation relations: $d_1x=xd_1$, for which it suffices to take the cokernel generators $x$ from Remark \[gensNg11\]. (II) The cokernel relations: for every defining relation $w=1$ of ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g-2,1},P)$ we have a relation $w=d_1^k$ in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$, where $k$ is some integer depending on $w$. We denote as ($\widetilde{\textrm{Rel}}$) and ($\widetilde{\textrm{Rel'}}$) the cokernel relations corresponding to (Rel) and (Rel’) respectively.
[**Step 3: definition of $\psi'$.**]{} There is a homeomorphism $f\colon N_{g-2,2}\to N_{\alpha_1}$ inducing an isomorphism $f_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})\to{\mathcal{M}}(N_{\alpha_1})$ such that $f_\ast(a_i)=a_{i+2}$, $f_\ast(u_i)=u_{i+2}$, for $i\in\{1,\dots,g-3\}$, $f_\ast(b)=T_{\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}}=c$, $f_\ast(a_1')=b$, $f_\ast(b')=b_2$ and $f_\ast(u_1')=U_{\mu_4,\beta}=T_{\beta}^{-1}Y_{\mu_4,\beta}=b^{-1}v$. We assume that the Dehn twists $d_1$, $d_2$ are such that $\rho(f_\ast(d_1))=a_1=\rho(f_\ast(d_2^{-1}))$.
We define $\psi'\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{\alpha_1})\to{\mathcal{G}}$ as $\psi'=\theta\circ f_\ast^{-1}$, where $\theta\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})\to{\mathcal{G}}$ is defined on the generators as: $$\begin{aligned}
&\theta(d_1)=a_1,\quad\theta(a_i)=a_{i+2},\quad\theta(u_i)=u_{i+2}\quad\textrm{for\ }i\in\{1,\dots,g-3\},\\
&\theta(a_1')=b,\quad\theta(u_1')=b^{-1}a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_1,\\
&\theta(b)=(a_1\cdots a_5)^2b(a_1\cdots a_5)^{-2},\quad\theta(b')=b_2,\\
&\theta(\sigma^2)=\theta(a_1)^{-1}\theta(a_1')\theta(u_1')\theta(u_1)^{-1}=a_2a_1u_1u_2.\end{aligned}$$ For every generator $x$ of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$ we have $\varphi(\theta(x))=\rho(f_\ast(x))$. This is obvious for all generators except $b$ and $u'_1$. We have $\varphi(\theta(b))=(a_1\cdots a_5)^2b(a_1\cdots a_5)^{-2}$, $\rho(f_\ast(b))=c$, and since $(a_1\cdots a_5)^2$ maps $\beta$ on $\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}$, the equality holds. We have $\rho(f_\ast(u_1'))=b^{-1}v$, $\varphi(\theta(u_1'))=b^{-1}a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_1$ and since the crosscap pushing map is a homomorphism, thus $$\begin{aligned}
v&=Y_{\mu_4,\beta}=Y_{\mu_4,\gamma_{\{3,4\}}}Y_{\mu_4,\gamma_{\{2,4\}}}Y_{\mu_4,\gamma_{\{1,4\}}}=
y_3(u_3^{-1}y_2u_3)(u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}y_1u_2u_3)\\
&=a_3u_3(u_3^{-1}a_2u_2u_3)(u_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}a_1u_1u_2u_3)=a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3.\end{aligned}$$ By abuse of notation we are going to denote $\theta(b)$ by $c$ and $b\theta(u_1')$ by $v$. We also set $e=\theta(\sigma^2)=a_2a_1u_1u_2$. In order to prove that $\theta$ is a homomorphism, we have to check that it respects the defining relations of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$.
[**Step 4: proof that $\theta$ is a homomorphism.**]{} Let $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}_{g,0}(v_2)$ and let $\mathcal{A}$ be the subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}$ generated by $b$ and the $a_i$’s. Suppose that $w$ is a word in the generators of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$ and their inverses. We say that $w$ is expressible in $\mathcal{S}$ or in $\mathcal{A}$ if it is mapped by $\theta$ on an element of $\mathcal{S}$ or $\mathcal{A}$ respectively. By similar argument as in the proof of Theorem \[mainA\_punctured\], $\theta$ respects the relations expressible in $\mathcal{S}$, and by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\] it also respects the relations expressible in $\mathcal{A}$. Since $\theta(d_1)=a_1\in \mathcal{S}\cap\mathcal{A}$, a cokernel relation $w=d_1^k$ is expressible in $\mathcal{S}$ or $\mathcal{A}$ if and only if $w$ is. By this observation we will be able to deduce that $\theta$ respects some cokernel relations without having to determine the exponent $k$.
The conjugation relations are mapped by $\theta$ on $a_1\theta(x)=\theta(x)a_1$ for each cokernel generator $x$ from Remark \[gensNg11\]. Note that $\theta(x)\in\mathcal{S}\cup\mathcal{A}$ and since $a_1\in \mathcal{S}\cap\mathcal{A}$, thus $\theta$ respects the conjugation relations.
Let $s=(u_1\cdots u_{g-1})$. By (C1a, C3) we have $s^2a_is^{-2}=a_{i+2}=\theta(a_i)$, and by (B1, B2) $s^2u_is^{-2}=u_{i+2}=\theta(u_i)$ for $i\in\{1,\dots,g-3\}$. Also $$s^2bs^{-2}\stackrel{(E5)}{=}(a_1\cdots a_{g-1})^2b(a_1\cdots a_{g-1})^{-2}
\stackrel{(A1, A3)}{=}c=\theta(b).$$ If (Rel) is one of the relations (A1–A6, A9, B1, B2, C1–C8) then ($\widetilde{\textrm{Rel}}$) is the same as (Rel) and it is mapped by $\theta$ on its conjugate by $s^2$.
If (Rel) is one of the relations (R2, R3, R6) then ($\widetilde{\textrm{Rel}}$) is the same as (Rel) and it is trivially preserved by $\theta$. ($\widetilde{\textrm{R2'}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{R4}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{R4'}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{R5}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{R5'}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{C4'}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{C8'}}$) are expressible in $\mathcal{S}$. ($\widetilde{\textrm{A1'}}-\widetilde{\textrm{A6'}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{A9'}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{R7}}$, $\widetilde{\textrm{R8}})$ are expressible in $\mathcal{A}$.
Note that $(\widetilde{\textrm{R7}})$ is $$(a_4a_3a_2a_1')^{-1}b'(a_4a_3a_2a_1')=(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}b(a_4a_3a_2a_1),$$ and $(\widetilde{\textrm{R7'}})$ is $$\sigma^2(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}b(a_4a_3a_2a_1)\sigma^{-2}=(a_4a_3a_2a_1')^{-1}b'(a_4a_3a_2a_1').$$ We already know that $\theta$ respects $(\widetilde{\textrm{R7}})$ and to prove the same for $(\widetilde{\textrm{R7'}})$ it suffices to show that $e=\theta(\sigma^2)$ commutes in ${\mathcal{G}}$ with $(a_6a_5a_4a_3)^{-1}c(a_6a_5a_4a_3)$. It follows from earlier part of the proof that in ${\mathcal{G}}$ we have $$(a_6a_5a_4a_3)^{-1}c(a_6a_5a_4a_3)=s^2(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}b(a_4a_3a_2a_1)s^{-2},$$ where $s=(u_1\dots u_{g-1})$. Setting $w=(a_4a_3a_2a_1)^{-1}b(a_4a_3a_2a_1)$, it suffices to show that it commutes with $s^{-2}es^2$. We have $$e=a_2a_1u_1u_2=a_2u_2(u_2^{-1}a_1u_1u_2)\stackrel{(B1,C2)}{=}(a_2u_2)u_1(a_2u_2)u_1^{-1}.$$ By (B1, B2, B3) $s^{-2}u_1s^2=s^{g-2}u_1s^{2-g}=u_{g-1}$, and as (R7) is valid only for $g-2\ge 5$, $u_{g-1}$ commutes with $w$ by (C1a, C7a). By (B1, B2, C1a, C3) we have $$s^{-2}a_2u_2s^2=s^{-1}a_1u_1s=u_{g-1}^{-1}(u_1\cdots u_{g-2})^{-1}a_1u_1(u_1\cdots u_{g-2})u_{g-1}.$$ Since $w$ and $(u_1\cdots u_{g-2})^{-1}a_1u_1(u_1\cdots u_{g-2})$ are in $\mathcal{S}$ and they commute in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$, they also commute in ${\mathcal{G}}$. We already proved that $w$ commutes with $u_{g-1}$, hence it commutes with $s^{-2}es^2$ and $\theta$ respects $(\widetilde{\textrm{R7'}})$.
($\widetilde{\textrm{R3'}}$) and ($\widetilde{\textrm{R6'}}$) are $\sigma^2u_i=u_i\sigma^2$ for $i\ge 2$ and $\sigma^2a_2=a_2\sigma^2$ respectively, and they are mapped on $eu_{i+2}=u_{i+2}e$, $ea_4=a_4e$, which follow from (A1, B1, C1a).
($\widetilde{\textrm{B1'}}$) is either the same as (B1) or $u_1'u_j=u_ju_1'$ for $j>2$. The last relation is mapped by $\theta$ on $b^{-1}vu_i=u_ib^{-1}v$ for $i>4$, which follows from (B1, C1a, C7a). ($\widetilde{\textrm{B2'}}$) is either the same as (B2) or $u_2u_1'u_2=u_1'u_2u_1'$, which is mapped on $$\begin{aligned}
& u_4b^{-1}vu_4=b^{-1}vu_4b^{-1}v \iff u_4b^{-1}a_4^{-1}(a_4vu_4)=b^{-1}a_4^{-1}(a_4vu_4)b^{-1}v\\
&\iff ba_4bu_4b^{-1}a_4^{-1}=b(a_4vu_4)b^{-1}v(a_4vu_4)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $b,v\in\mathcal{S}$ and $a_4vu_4\in\mathcal{S}$ (see transformation (5) in the proof of Theorem \[mainA\_punctured\]), thus it suffices to show that the left hand side of the last relation is also in $\mathcal{S}$. This is true because $$\begin{aligned}
&\underline{ba_4b}u_4b^{-1}a_4^{-1}\stackrel{(A4)}{=}
a_4\underline{ba_4u_4b^{-1}}a_4^{-1}\stackrel{(C8)}{=}
a_4a_4u_4a_4vu_4a_4^{-1}\stackrel{(C4a)}{=}a_4u_4va_4u_4.\end{aligned}$$ ($\widetilde{\textrm{C1'}}$) is $a_1'u_i=u_ia_1'$ for $i>2$ and it is mapped on (C7a) $bu_j=u_jb$ for $j>4$. ($\widetilde{\textrm{C2'}}$) is either the same as (C2) or $a_1'u_2u_1'=u_2u_1'a_2$, which is mapped on $$bu_4b^{-1}v=u_4b^{-1}va_4 \iff ba_4bu_4b^{-1}a_4^{-1}(a_4vu_4)=ba_4u_4b^{-1}va_4u_4.$$ Both sides of the last relation are in $\mathcal{S}$ because we showed above that $ba_4bu_4b^{-1}a_4^{-1}\in\mathcal{S}$. ($\widetilde{\textrm{C3'}}$) is either the same as (C3) or $a_2u_1'u_2=u_1'u_2a_1'$, which is mapped on $$a_4b^{-1}vu_4=b^{-1}vu_4b\stackrel{(A4)}{\iff} ba_4vu_4=a_4vu_4b.$$ The last relation is equivalent to (C9) from Lemma \[relC9\]. ($\widetilde{\textrm{C5'}}$) is $u_2a_1'a_2u_1'=a_1'a_2$ and it is mapped on $$u_4ba_4b^{-1}v=ba_4\stackrel{(A4)}{\iff}u_4a_4^{-1}ba_4v=ba_4\stackrel{(C4a)}{\iff}
a_4u_4ba_4vu_4=ba_4u_4$$ The last relation follows from (C8, C9). ($\widetilde{\textrm{C7'}}$) is $b'u_5=u_5b'$ and it is mapped on $b_2u_7=u_7b_2$, which follows from (A8, C1a, C7a). It remains to show that $\theta$ respects the relations ($\widetilde{\textrm{C6'}}$) and ($\widetilde{\textrm{R8'}}$). This follows from the next lemma, whose proof will be given in the next subsection. Recall that a relation in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$ whose both sides are mapped by $\theta$ on elements of ${\mathcal{S}}$ is called expressible in ${\mathcal{S}}$.
\[c6r8\] ($\widetilde{\textrm{C6'}}$) and ($\widetilde{\textrm{R8'}}$) are expressible in $\mathcal{S}$.
[**Step 5: checking that $\psi'(\ker\rho)=1$.**]{} Recall that $d_1$, $d_2$ are Dehn twists about the boundary components of $N_{g-2,2}$ such that $\rho(f_\ast(d_1d_2))=1$, and so $f_\ast(d_1d_2)$ is a generator of $\ker\rho$. We have $\psi'(f_\ast(d_1d_2))=\theta(d_1d_2)$ and to prove $\theta(d_1d_2)=1$ it suffices to show $\theta(d_1d_2)\in\mathcal{S}$. Let $z=\sigma_{g-2}^2\cdots \sigma_1^2\in\mathfrak{p}(\pi_1(N_{g-2,1},P))$. By Lemma \[push1\], in ${\mathcal{M}}^+(N_{g-2,1},P)$ we have the relation $$z=d_2^{\varepsilon}(u_1\cdots u_{g-3})^{g-2},$$ where $\varepsilon\in\{-1,1\}$, which gives in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})$ $$z(u_1\cdots u_{g-3})^{2-g}=d_2^\varepsilon d_1^k$$ for some $k\in\mathbb{Z}$. We have $$\theta(d_1d_2)^\varepsilon=\theta(z)(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})^{2-g}a_1^{\varepsilon-k}.$$ Since $(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})^{2-g}\in\mathcal{S}$ by Lemma \[Delta\_in\_stab\], it suffices to prove $\theta(z)\in\mathcal{S}$ and clearly it is enough to show that $\theta(\sigma_{g-2}^2)\in\mathcal{S}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\theta(\sigma_{g-2}^2)=\theta((u_1\cdots u_{g-3})^{-1}\sigma^2(u_1\cdots u_{g-3}))=\\
&(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})^{-1}a_2a_1u_1u_2(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})=\\
&(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})^{-1}a_2u_2(u_1a_2u_2u_1^{-1})(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})=\\
&(u_2\cdots u_{g-2})a_{g-1}u_{g-1}(u_2\cdots u_{g-2})^{-1}(u_1\cdots u_{g-2})a_{g-1}u_{g-1}(u_1\cdots u_{g-2})^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from (B1, B2, C1a, C3).
[**Step 6: extending $\psi^+$.**]{} We have a homomorphism $\psi^+\colon{\mathrm{Stab}}^+\to{\mathcal{G}}$ defined as $\psi^+(\rho(x))=\psi'(x)$ for $x\in{\mathcal{M}}(N_{\alpha_1})$. Since $\rho\circ f_\ast\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-2,2})\to{\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ is an epimorphism, ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ is generated by $u_i$, $a_i$ for $i\in\{3,\dots,g-1\}$, $b$, $c$ ,$v$ and $a_1$. By the definition of $\psi'$ (Step 3) we have $\psi^+(c)=(a_1\cdots a_5)^2b(a_1\cdots a_5)^{-2}$, $\psi^+(v)=a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3$ and $\psi^+(x)=x$ for the remaining generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$. Also $\psi^+(b_2)=b_2$, and by (A8) $\psi^+(b_j)=b_j$ for $j\ge 3$.
By applying Lemma \[ext\_pres\] to the sequence (\[stab\_es\]) we see that ${\mathrm{Stab}}$ is generated by ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ and two cokernel generators, for which we take $u_1$ (preserves orientation of $\alpha_1$ and swaps its sides) and $r=r_g$ (reverses orientation of $\alpha_1$ and preserves its sides). We let $\psi_{v_1}$ be equal to $\psi^+$ on ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ and $\psi_{v_1}(u_1)=u_1$, $\psi_{v_1}(r)=r=a_1\cdots a_{g-1}u_{g-1}\cdots u_1$. Note that $\varphi(\psi_{v_1}(x))=x$ for every generator $x$ of ${\mathrm{Stab}}$. It remains to check that $\psi_{v_1}$ respects the cokernel and conjugation relations. The cokernel relations are (E2a) $r^2=1$, (E4a) $(ru_1)^2=1$ and $u_1^2=(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})^{g-2}$ which holds in ${\mathcal{G}}$ by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\].
By Remark \[gensNg11\], ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ is generated by $u_{g-1}$, $b$, $c$, $v$ and $a_i$ for $i=1,3,\dots,g-1$. Set $$w=(u_4\cdots u_{g-1})(a_4\cdots a_{g-1})^{-1}=(u_4\cdots u_{g-2})a_{g-1}u_{g-1}(a_4\cdots a_{g-2})^{-1}.$$ The conjugation relations are (E3a) $ra_ir=a_i$, (E4) $ru_{g-1}r=u^{-1}_{g-1}$, (C1a) $u_1a_iu_1^{-1}=a_i$ for $i=3,\dots,g-1$, (C4) $u_1a_1u_1^{-1}=a_1^{-1}$, (B1) $u_1u_{g-1}u_1^{-1}=u_{g-1}$ and
- $rbr=w^{-1}b^{-1}w$
- $rvr=a_3w^{-1}a_3^{-1}va_3wa_3^{-1}$
- $rcr=c^{-1}(a_3a_4a_5)^{4}$
- $u_1^{-1}bu_1=u_3^{-1}rb^{-1}ru_3$
- $u_1^{-1}vu_1=u_3^{-1}a_3^{-1}rv^{-1}ra_3u_3$
- $u_1^{-1}cu_1=c$
It can be checked that $wr$ and $a_3wa_3^{-1}r$ preserve the curve $\beta$, preserve its orientation and reverse local orientation of its neighbourhood. Additionally $a_3wa_3^{-1}r$ preserves $\mu_4$. Since $b=T_\beta$ and $v=Y_{\mu_4,\beta}$, thus (1, 2) are satisfied in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$. Since $w\in\mathcal{S}$, they are also satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}$. Similarly, $u_1u_3^{-1}r$ and $u_1u_3^{-1}a_3^{-1}r$ preserve $\beta$, reverse its orientation and local orientation of its neighbourhood. Additionally $u_1u_3^{-1}a_3^{-1}r$ preserves $\mu_4$. It follows that (4, 5) are satisfied in ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ and also in ${\mathcal{G}}$. By Lemma \[two-holed-torus\], $rbr=b^{-1}(a_1a_2a_3)^4$. Conjugating the last relation by $(a_1\cdots a_6)^2$ we obtain (3). Recall from Step 4 that in ${\mathcal{G}}$ we have $c=s^2bs^{-2}$ and $s^{2}u_{g-1}s^{-2}=u_1$ where $s=(u_1\cdots u_{g-1})$. Conjugating the relation $bu_{g-1}=u_{g-1}b$ (C7a) by $s^2$ we obtain (6).
Proof o Lemma \[c6r8\].
-----------------------
To finish the proof of Theorem \[pres\_stab\_alpha1\], we yet have prove that the relations $$\begin{aligned}
&(\widetilde{\textrm{C6'}})\quad (u_3b')^2=a_1'a_2a_1'(a_3u_3)u_2(a_3u_3)u_2^{-1}u_1'u_2(a_3u_3)^2a_1'd_1^{k_1}\\
&(\widetilde{\textrm{R8'}})\quad
\sigma^2b\sigma^{-2}=b'(a_2a_1'a_3a_2)^{-1}{a_1'}^{-1}\sigma^2a_1\sigma^{-2}(a_2a_1'a_3a_2){a_1'}^{-1}\sigma^2a_1\sigma^{-2}d_1^{k_2} \end{aligned}$$ where $k_1, k_2$ are some integers, are expressible in $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}_{g,0}(v_2)$. This is obvious if $g>6$, therefore in this subsection we assume $g=6$. We denote ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{6,0})$ by ${\mathcal{M}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}_{6,0}$ by ${\mathcal{G}}$.
\[expC\] The following relations hold in ${\mathcal{G}}$. $$(1)\quad b_2a_1a_3a_5=cdb\qquad (2)\quad c^{-1}u_5^{-1}du_5c=u_5^{-1}du_5,$$ where $d=(a_4a_3a_5a_4)^{-1}b(a_4a_3a_5a_4)$.
It is easy to check that $(a_4a_3a_5a_4)$ maps the curve $\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6\}}$ on $\beta$ and so $d=T_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6\}}}$. Observe that $\beta_2$, $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_3$ and $\alpha_5$ bound a $4$-holed sphere in $N_{6,0}$, and so in ${\mathcal{M}}$ we have the well known lantern relation, which is (1). The same relation holds also in ${\mathcal{G}}$ by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\].
Since the curves $u_5(\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}})$ and $\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6\}}$ are disjoint up to isotopy, (2) holds in ${\mathcal{M}}$. It can be checked that $w=(u_4u_3u_5u_4)(a_4a_3a_5a_4)^{-1}$ preserves the curve $\beta$ and preserves local orientation of its neighbourhood. It follows that $b$ commutes with $w$ in ${\mathcal{M}}$ and also in ${\mathcal{G}}$, because by (B1, C3,C4a) $$w=u_4u_3(u_5a_4u_4u_5^{-1})a_5u_5a_3^{-1}a_4^{-1}=u_4u_3(u_4^{-1}a_5u_5u_4)a_5u_5a_3^{-1}a_4^{-1}\in\mathcal{S}.$$ It follows that in ${\mathcal{G}}$ we have $d=(u_4u_3u_5u_4)^{-1}b(u_4u_3u_5u_4)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
c&=(a_1\cdots a_5)^2b(a_1\cdots a_5)^{-2}\stackrel{(E5)}{=}(u_5\cdots u_1)^{-2}b(u_5\cdots u_1)^2\\
&\stackrel{(C7,B1)}{=}
(u_4u_3u_5u_4u_2u_3u_1u_2u_1)^{-1}b(u_4u_3u_5u_4u_2u_3u_1u_2u_1)\\
&=(u_2u_3u_1u_2u_1)^{-1}d(u_2u_3u_1u_2u_1)=\Delta_4^{-1}u_1du_1^{-1}\Delta_4.\end{aligned}$$ Since $u_1$ commutes in ${\mathcal{G}}$ with $u_5$ and $c$ (see relation (6) in Step 6 above), (2) is equivalent in ${\mathcal{G}}$ to $$c^{-1}u_5^{-1}\Delta_4c\Delta_4^{-1}u_5c=u_5^{-1}\Delta_4c\Delta_4^{-1}u_5.$$ The last relation holds in ${\mathcal{G}}$ by Theorem \[pres\_Stab\_xi\], because $c$ and $u_5^{-1}\Delta_4$ are in the image of $\psi_{v_3}\colon{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]\to{\mathcal{G}}$.
Clearly the right hand side of ($\widetilde{\textrm{C6'}}$) is expressible in $\mathcal{S}$ and so it suffices to show $(\theta(u_3)\theta(b'))^2=(u_5b_2)^2\in\mathcal{S}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&(u_5b_2)^2\stackrel{(1)}{=}(u_5cdba_1^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_5^{-1})^2
\stackrel{(A1, C1a)}{=}\\
&u_5cdb\underline{a_5^{-1}u_5a_5^{-1}}cdba_1^{-2}a_3^{-2}\stackrel{(C4a)}{=}
(u_5cdb)^2a_1^{-2}a_3^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $b$ commutes with $b_2, a_1, a_2, a_3$ (A3, A9b), it also commutes with $cd$ by (1). By (C7) $b$ commutes with $u_5$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
&(u_5b_2)^2=(u_5cd)^2b^2a_1^{-2}a_3^{-2}=
(u_5c)^2(c^{-1}u_5^{-1}du_5cd)b^2a_1^{-2}a_3^{-2}
\stackrel{(2)}{=}(u_5c)^2u_5^{-2}(u_5d)^2b^2a_1^{-2}a_3^{-2}\end{aligned}$$ By (C6) and the transformation (3) from the proof of Theorem \[mainA\_punctured\], $(u_3b)^2$ can be expressed in ${\mathcal{G}}$ in terms of $a_1$, $u_1$, $a_2$, $u_2$, $a_3u_3$ as $$(u_3b)^2=a_1a_2a_1(a_3u_3)u_2(a_3u_3)u_2^{-1}u_1u_2(a_3u_3)^2a_1.$$ Conjugating this relation by $(a_1\cdots a_5)^2$ we obtain an expression of $(u_5c)^2$ in terms of $a_3$, $u_3$, $a_4$, $u_4$, $a_5u_5$, and conjugating by $(u_4u_3u_5u_4)^{-1}$ we obtain an expression of $(u_5d)^2$ in terms of $a_1$, $u_1$, $(u_3u_4)^{-1}a_2(u_3u_4)$, $(u_3u_4)^{-1}u_2(u_3u_4)$, $a_5u_5$. Hence $(u_5c)^2$ and $(u_5d)^2$ are in $\mathcal{S}$ and so is $(u_5b_2)^2$.
The relation ($\widetilde{\textrm{R8'}}$) is mapped by $\theta$ on $$ece^{-1}=b_2(a_4ba_5a_4)^{-1}{b}^{-1}ea_3e^{-1}(a_4ba_5a_4){b}^{-1}ea_3e^{-1}a_1^{k},$$ where $e=\theta(\sigma^2)=a_2a_1u_1u_2$. Since $e$ commutes with $a_1$ by (B1,C3), $a_2a_1$ commutes with $b_2$, $b$, $a_4$, $a_5$ by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\] and $b(a_4ba_5a_4)=(a_4ba_5a_4)a_5$ by (B2, B4), the relation is equivalent to $$u_1u_2c=b_2a_5^{-1}(a_4ba_5a_4)^{-1}u_1u_2a_3u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}(a_4ba_5a_4)b^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_1^{k}$$ We have to show that $w\in\mathcal{S}$ for $w$ defined as $$w=c^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}b_2a_5^{-1}(a_4ba_5a_4)^{-1}u_1u_2a_3u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}(a_4ba_5a_4)b^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_1^{k}.$$ We define in ${\mathcal{G}}$ three equivalence relations $\sim_L$, $\sim_R$ and $\approx$ as follows. We set $w_1\sim_L w_2$ if there exists $u\in\mathcal{S}$ such that $w_2=uw_1$. Similarly, we set $w_1\sim_R w_2$ if there exists $u\in\mathcal{S}$ such that $w_2=w_1u$. Finally, we set $w_1\approx w_2$ if there exist $u, u'\in\mathcal{S}$ such that $w_2=uw_1u'$. Observe that the equivalence class of $w$ for the relation $\sim_L$ is the coset $\mathcal{S}w$, its equivalence class for the relation $\sim_R$ is the coset $w\mathcal{S}$, and its equivalence class for the relation $\approx$ is the double-coset $\mathcal{S}w\mathcal{S}$. Observe also that $\approx$ is the equivalence relation generated by the union of $\sim_L$ and $\sim_R$. Moreover, we have $w\in\mathcal{S}$ if and only if the equivalence class of $w$ for the relation $\approx$ is $\mathcal{S}$.
By (A1–A4) and (C1a) we have $$\begin{aligned}
&(a_4ba_5a_4)^{-1}u_1u_2a_3u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}(a_4ba_5a_4)=\\
&a_4^{-1}b^{-1}\underline{a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}u_1u_2}a_3\underline{u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}a_4a_5}ba_4=\\
&a_4^{-1}b^{-1}u_1u_2\underline{a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_3a_4a_5}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}ba_4=\\
&a_4^{-1}b^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5a_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}ba_4\sim_R
a_4^{-1}b^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
&w\sim_R c^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}b_2a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}b^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5\stackrel{(1)}{=}\\
&c^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}\underline{(cdba_5^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_1^{-1})a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}b^{-1}}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5=\\
&c^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}ca_5^{-2}a_3^{-1}(a_4a_5a_3a_4)^{-1}b(a_4a_5a_3a_4)ba_4^{-1}b^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5.\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
&(a_4a_5a_3\underline{a_4)ba_4^{-1}b^{-1}}a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5=
a_4a_5a_3b^{-1}\underline{a_4a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5}=\\
&a_4a_5a_3b^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5a_3\sim_R
a_4\underline{a_5a_3b^{-1}}a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5=\\
&a_4b^{-1}\underline{a_5a_3a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5}=
a_4b^{-1}a_3a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5a_4\end{aligned}$$
\[inS1\] $a_5a_4a_3a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5\in\mathcal{S}$.
By (Da) and (C4a) we have $$u_5u_4u_3u_2u_1a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5=a_5u_5u_4u_3u_2u_1a_1a_2a_3a_4\in\mathcal{S}$$ and by (B1, B2, C3, C4a) $$u_5u_4u_3(a_5a_4a_3)^{-1}=u_3^{-1}u_4^{-1}(a_5u_5)u_4u_3u_4^{-1}(a_5u_5)u_4(a_5u_5)\in\mathcal{S}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&a_5a_4a_3a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5\approx
(u_5u_4u_3)a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}u_1u_2(u_5u_4u_3u_2u_1a_1a_2)^{-1}=\\
&(u_5u_4u_3)(u_2u_1a_1\underline{a_2u_2^{-1}}u_1^{-1}a_1a_2)^{-1}(u_5u_4u_3)^{-1}=\\
&(u_5u_4u_3)(\underline{u_2u_1a_1u_2^{-1}}a_2^{-1}\underline{u_1^{-1}a_1}a_2)^{-1}(u_5u_4u_3)^{-1}=\\
&(u_5u_4u_3)(u_1^{-1}u_2a_2\underline{u_1a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}}u_1^{-1}a_2)^{-1}(u_5u_4u_3)^{-1}=\\
&(u_5u_4u_3)(u_1^{-1}u_2a_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}a_2)^{-1}(u_5u_4u_3)^{-1}=(u_5u_4u_3)u_1^2(u_5u_4u_3)^{-1}=u_1^2\approx 1
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[inS1\] $a_1^{-1}u_1u_2a_3a_4a_5\sim_R a_2a_3^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_5^{-1}$ and $$w\sim_R c^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}ca_5^{-2}a_3^{-1}(a_4a_5a_3a_4)^{-1}ba_4b^{-1}a_3a_2a_3^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_5^{-1}.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\underline{ba_4b^{-1}a_3a_2a_3^{-1}}a_4^{-1}a_5^{-1}=
a_4^{-1}ba_4a_2^{-1}a_3a_2a_4^{-1}a_5^{-1}=
a_4^{-1}a_2^{-1}b\underline{a_4a_3a_4^{-1}}a_5^{-1}a_2=\\
&a_4^{-1}a_2^{-1}ba_3^{-1}a_4a_3a_5^{-1}a_2=
a_4^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1}a_3a_2
\sim_R a_4^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$w\sim_R c^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}ca_5^{-2}a_3^{-1}(a_4a_5a_3a_4)^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1}$$ Let $s=a_1\cdots a_5$. By (A1, A2, C1a, C5a) for $i>1$ we have $a_is=sa_{i-1}$ and $u_is=su^{-1}_{i-1}$. We also have $c=s^2bs^{-2}\stackrel{(E6)}{=}s^{-4}bs^4$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&c^{-1}u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}c=
s^{-4}b^{-1}\underline{s^4u_2^{-1}u_1^{-1}s^{-4}}bs^4=
s^{-4}b^{-1}su_5u_4s^{-1}bs^4=\\
&s^{-3}a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}b^{-1}a_4a_5u_5u_4a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}ba_4a_5s^3=\\
&s^{-3}a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_1a_2a_1b^{-1}a_4a_5u_5u_4a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}ba_4a_5a_3a_4a_5a_2a_3a_4a_5a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5\end{aligned}$$ Write $w\approx ABC$ for $A=s^{-3}a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_1a_2a_1$, $B=b^{-1}a_4a_5u_5u_4a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}b$ and $$C=(a_4a_5a_3a_4a_5a_2a_3a_4a_5a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5)(a_5^{-2}a_3^{-1}(a_4a_5a_3a_4)^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1})$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
&A=a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}s^{-3}a_1a_2a_1\sim_L
s^{-3}a_1a_2a_1=
s^{-1}(a_3a_4a_5a_2a_3a_4a_5)^{-1}=\\
&(a_2a_3a_4a_1a_2a_3a_4)^{-1}s^{-1}\sim_L s^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&C=a_4a_5a_3a_4\underline{a_5a_2a_3a_4a_5a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5^{-1}a_3^{-1}}a_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_5^{-1}a_4^{-2}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1}=\\
&a_4a_5a_3a_4a_2a_3a_4\underline{a_5a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_5^{-1}}a_4^{-2}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1}=\\
&a_4a_5a_3a_4a_2a_3a_4a_1a_2a_3\underline{a_5a_4a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_5^{-1}}a_3^{-1}a_4^{-2}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1}=\\
&a_4a_5a_3a_4a_2a_3a_1a_2\underline{a_4a_3a_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_4^{-2}}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1}=\\
&a_4a_5a_3\underline{a_4a_2a_3a_1}a_2a_3^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1}=\\
&a_4a_5a_3a_2a_1\underline{a_4a_3a_2a_3^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_3^{-1}}ba_4a_5^{-1}=
a_4a_5a_3\underline{a_2a_1a_2^{-1}}a_3^{-1}\underline{a_4ba_4}a_5^{-1}=\\
&a_4a_5a_3a_1^{-1}a_2a_1a_3^{-1}ba_4a_5^{-1}b\sim_R a_1^{-1}a_4a_5\underline{a_3a_2a_3^{-1}}ba_4a_5^{-1}=\\
&a_1^{-1}a_4a_5a_2^{-1}a_3a_2ba_4a_5^{-1}\sim_R a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_4a_5a_3ba_4a_5^{-1}=\\
&a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_4a_3ba_5a_4a_5^{-1}\sim_R a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_4a_3ba_4^{-1}a_5\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
w\approx &s^{-1}(b^{-1}a_4a_5u_5u_4a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}b)(a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_4a_3ba_4^{-1}a_5)=\\
&s^{-1}a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}b^{-1}a_4a_5u_5u_4a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}\underline{ba_4b}a_3a_4^{-1}a_5=\\
&s^{-1}a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}b^{-1}a_4a_5u_5u_4ba_5^{-1}\underline{a_4a_3a_4^{-1}}a_5=\\
&s^{-1}a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}b^{-1}a_4a_5u_5u_4ba_3^{-1}\underline{a_5^{-1}a_4a_5}a_3=\\
&s^{-1}a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}b^{-1}a_4a_5u_5u_4ba_3^{-1}a_4a_5a_4^{-1}a_3\sim_R\\ &s^{-1}a_1^{-1}a_2^{-1}(b^{-1}a_4a_5u_5u_4b)a_3^{-1}a_4a_5\end{aligned}$$
\[inS2\]In ${\mathcal{G}}$ we have $$b^{-1}(a_4a_5u_5u_4)^{-1}b=a_4a_5u_4^{-1}vu_4va_5^{-1}a_4^{-1},$$ where $v=a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3$.
Let $y_4=a_4u_4$, $x=u_5y_4u_5^{-1}$, $z=a_4vu_4$. By (B1,C3) we have $$a_4a_5u_5u_4=a_4u_4(u_4^{-1}a_5u_5u_4)=a_4u_4(u_5a_4u_4u_5^{-1})=y_4x$$ and by (C8, C9) $y_4^{-1}by_4=bz$. Conjugating the last relation by $u_5$ and by $x^{-1}$ we obtain, using (C7) $$\begin{aligned}
&u_5y_4^{-1}by_4u_5^{-1}=bu_5zu_5^{-1}\iff x^{-1}bx=bu_5zu_5^{-1}\\
&x^{-1}y_4^{-1}by_4x=x^{-1}bzx=bu_5zu_5^{-1}x^{-1}zx\end{aligned}$$ The last relation is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
&b^{-1}(y_4x)^{-1}b=u_5zu_5^{-1}x^{-1}zy_4^{-1}=
u_5zy_4^{-1}u_5^{-1}zy_4^{-1}=
u_5a_4v\underline{a_4^{-1}u_5^{-1}a_4}va_4^{-1}\stackrel{(C5a)}{=}\\
&u_5a_4\underline{va_5}u_4\underline{a_5^{-1}v}a_4^{-1}\stackrel{(A1,C1a)}{=}
\underline{u_5a_4a_5}vu_4va_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}\stackrel{(C5a)}{=}a_4a_5u_4^{-1}vu_4va_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[inS2\] $$\begin{aligned}
&w^{-1}\approx \underline{a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_3a_4a_5}u_4^{-1}vu_4v\underline{a_5^{-1}a_4^{-1}a_2a_1s}=\\
&a_3a_4a_5\underline{a_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}u_4^{-1}}vu_4va_2a_1sa_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}\stackrel{(C5a)}{=}
a_3a_4a_5u_3a_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}vu_4va_2a_1sa_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}\\
&\approx a_5a_4^{-1}a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3u_4a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3a_2a_1s\sim_L a_5\underline{a_4^{-1}u_3u_4a_3}a_2a_1\underline{u_1u_2u_3a_2a_1}s\\
&=\underline{a_5u_3u_4a_2a_1}a_3a_2u_1\underline{u_2u_3s}=u_3a_2a_1a_5u_4a_3a_2u_1su_1^{-1}u_2^{-1}
\approx a_5u_4a_3a_2u_1s\end{aligned}$$ Since $s\sim_R(u_5u_4u_3u_2u_1)^{-1}$ (see the proof of Lemma \[inS1\]) thus $$\begin{aligned}
&w\approx a_5u_4a_3a_2u_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_4^{-1}u_5^{-1}=
a_5u_5^{-1}(u_5u_4a_3u_3^{-1}u_4^{-1}u_5^{-1})
(u_5u_4u_3a_2u_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_4^{-1}u_5^{-1})=\\
&(a_5u_5)^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_4^{-1}(a_5u_5)^{-1}u_4u_3
u_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_4^{-1}(a_5u_5)^{-1}u_4u_3u_2\approx 1. \end{aligned}$$ Thus ($\widetilde{\textrm{R8'}}$) is expressible in $\mathcal{S}$, which completes the proof of Lemma \[c6r8\] and the proof of Theorem \[pres\_stab\_alpha1\].
Edges. {#sec_edges}
======
In this section we assume that $g\ge 5$ is fixed and denote ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{g,0})$ as ${\mathcal{M}}$, ${\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$ as ${\mathcal{G}}$, $\varphi_{g,0}$ as $\varphi$, and ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}}\sigma$ as ${\mathrm{Stab}}\,\sigma$ for each simplex $\sigma$ of $\widetilde{X}$. We are ready to define $\psi\colon{\mathcal{M}}\to{\mathcal{G}}$ on the generators of ${\mathcal{M}}$ given in Theorem \[Brown\]. In previous sections we defined homomorphisms $\psi_{v_i}\colon{\mathrm{Stab}}\, s(v_i)\to{\mathcal{G}}_{g,0}$ and we let $\psi$ be equal to $\psi_{v_i}$ on ${\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(v_i)$ for $i\in\{1,2,3\}$. For $j\in\{1,\dots,7\}$ we define $\psi(h_{e_i})$ to be the element of ${\mathcal{G}}$ represented by the word in the generators of ${\mathcal{G}}$ given in the fourth column of Table \[tabE\], and $\psi(h_{\overline{e_i}})=\psi(h_{e_i})^{-1}$. Observe that $\varphi\circ\psi$ is the identity on the generators of ${\mathcal{M}}$. In this section we show that $\psi$ respects the relations associated to the edges of $X$. Namely, we show that for $e\in{\mathcal{S}}_1(X)$ we have $$(\ast)\quad \psi(h_e)^{-1}\psi_{i(e)}(x)\psi(h_e)=\psi_{t(e)}(h_e^{-1}xh_e)$$ for $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}\, s(e)$. Since ${\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(\overline{e})=h_e^{-1}{\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(e)h_e$ and $h_{\overline{e}}=h^{-1}_e$, thus it suffices to check $(\ast)$ for $e=e_i$, $i\in\{1,\dots,7\}$.
To prove $(\ast)$ it suffices to show that its left hand side is equal in ${\mathcal{G}}$ to $\psi_{t(e)}(z)$ for some $z\in{\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(t(e))$, because then by applying $\varphi$ to both sides we get $z=h_e^{-1}xh_e$.
\[RelE1\] For $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\mu_g]$ we have $(\ast)\ \psi_{v_1}(x)=\psi_{v_2}(x)$.
By the proof of Theorem \[pres\_stab\_alpha1\], ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]$ is generated by ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\alpha_1]$ and $\{u_1, r_g\}$. Note that $\{u_1, r_g\}\subset{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$ and $\psi_{v_1}(x)=\psi_{v_2}(x)$ for $x\in\{u_1, r_g\}$. It remains to show that the same is true for $x\in H={\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\alpha_1]\cap{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$. Let $N'$ be the surface obtained from $N=N_{g,0}$ by cutting along $\mu_g$ and gluing a disc with puncture $P$ along the resulting boundary component. We have the exact sequence (\[stab\_bir\_es\]): $$1\to\pi_1(N'_{\alpha_1},P)\stackrel{\mathfrak{c}}\to{\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{\alpha_1})}[\mu_g]\stackrel{\zeta}{\to}{\mathcal{M}}(N'_{\alpha_1})\to 1,$$ where $N'_{\alpha_1}$ and $N_{\alpha_1}$ are the surfaces obtained respectively from $N'$ and $N$ by cutting along $\alpha_1$. Set $G={\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{\alpha_1})}[\mu_g]$ and note that $\rho_{\alpha_1}(G)=H$ and $\rho_{\alpha_1}({\mathcal{M}}(N'_{\alpha_1}))={\mathrm{Stab}}^+_{{\mathcal{M}}(N')}[\alpha_1]$. Observe that $\zeta$ maps $\ker\rho_{\alpha_1}\subset G$ isomorphically onto $\ker\rho_{\alpha_1}\subset{\mathcal{M}}(N'_{\alpha_1})$. It follows that $\zeta$ induces a map $\zeta'\colon H\to{\mathrm{Stab}}^+_{{\mathcal{M}}(N')}[\alpha_1]$, which fits in the following commutative diagram $$\begin{CD}
1 @>>> \pi_1(N'_{\alpha_1},P) @>\mathfrak{c}>> G @>\zeta>> {\mathcal{M}}(N'_{\alpha_1}) @>>> 1\\
@. @| @VV\rho_{\alpha_1}V @VV\rho_{\alpha_1}V \\
1 @>>> \pi_1(N'_{\alpha_1},P) @>\rho_{\alpha_1}\circ\mathfrak{c}>> H @>\zeta'>> {\mathrm{Stab}}^+_{{\mathcal{M}}(N')}[\alpha_1] @>>> 1,
\end{CD}$$ whose both rows are exact. We can obtain generators of $H$ from the bottom sequence. Note that $N'$ is homeomorphic to $N_{g-1,0}$ and by the proof of Theorem \[pres\_stab\_alpha1\] (see Step 6), ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+_{{\mathcal{M}}(N')}[\alpha_1]$ is generated by $u_i$, $a_i$ for $i=3,\dots,g-2$, $a_1$, $b$, $v$ and $c$ (if $g\ge 7$). The standard generators of $\pi_1(N'_{\alpha_1},P)$ are mapped by $\rho_{\alpha_1}\circ\mathfrak{c}$ on the crosscap slides $Y_{\mu_g,\alpha_{g-1}}=a_{g-1}u_{g-1}$, $Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{i,g\}}}=u_iY_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{i+1,g\}}}u_i^{-1}$ for $i=3,\dots,g-2$ and $Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{1,2,g\}}}$. It follows that $H$ is generated by $Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{1,2,g\}}}$, $a_{g-1}u_{g-1}$, $u_i$, $a_i$ for $i=3,\dots,g-2$, $a_1$, $b$, $v$ and $c$ (if $g\ge 7$). By the definitions of $\psi_{v_1}$ and $\psi_{v_2}$ given in Theorems \[pres\_stab\_alpha1\] and \[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\], it is easy to check that $\psi_{v_1}(x)=\psi_{v_2}(x)$ for every generator $x$ of $H$, except for $x=Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{1,2,g\}}}$. We have $Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{1,2,g\}}}=(u_4\cdots u_{g-1})^{-1}Y_{\mu_4,\gamma_{\{1,2,4\}}}
(u_4\cdots u_{g-1})$ and\
$Y_{\mu_4,\gamma_{\{1,2,4\}}}=Y_{\mu_4,\alpha_3}^{-1}Y_{\mu_4,\beta}=(a_3u_3)^{-1}v$. Thus, by Theorem \[pres\_stab\_alpha1\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{v_1}(Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{1,2,g\}}})&=(u_4\cdots u_{g-1})^{-1}(a_3u_3)^{-1}a_3a_2a_1u_1u_2u_3
(u_4\cdots u_{g-1})\\
&=(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})^{-1}a_2a_1u_1u_2(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})\\
&=(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})^{-1}(a_2u_2)u_2^{-1}(a_1u_1)u_2
(u_3\cdots u_{g-1})\end{aligned}$$ and it follows from (B1, B2, C3) that $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_{v_1}(Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{1,2,g\}}})=
(u_2\cdots u_{g-2})a_{g-1}u_{g-1}(u_2\cdots u_{g-2})^{-1}\cdot\\
&(u_1\cdots u_{g-2})a_{g-1}u_{g-1}(u_1\cdots u_{g-2})^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $\psi_{v_1}(Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{1,2,g\}}})$ is in the image of $\psi_{v_2}$ and thus it is equal to $\psi_{v_2}(Y_{\mu_g,\gamma_{\{1,2,g\}}})$ by the remark before Lemma \[RelE1\].
\[RelE3\] For $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_{g-1},\mu_g]$ we have $$(\ast)\quad \psi(h_{e_3})^{-1}\psi_{v_2}(x)\psi(h_{e_3})=\psi_{v_2}(h^{-1}_{e_3}xh_{e_3}).$$
To obtain generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_{g-1},\mu_g]$ we use the exact sequence (\[stab\_bir\_es\]) $$1\to\pi_1(N'\backslash\{P_1\},P_2)\to{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_{g-1},\mu_{g}]\to{\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\mathcal{M}}(N_{g-1,0})}[\mu_{g-1}]\to 1$$ where $N'$ is obtained from $N_{g,0}$ by cutting along $\mu_{g-2+i}$ and gluing a disc with puncture $P_i$ along the resulting boundary component for $i\in\{1,2\}$. By Lemma \[ext\_pres\] and the proof of Theorem \[pres\_Stab\_mu\_g\], ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_{g-1},\mu_g]$ is generated by $$Z=\{u_i, a_i\,|\,i=1,\dots,g-3\}\cup\{b, a_{g-2}u_{g-2}, u_{g-2}a_{g-1}u_{g-1}u_{g-2}^{-1}\}.$$ We have $h_{e_3}=a_{g-1}^{-1}$ and $$\psi(h_{e_3})^{-1}\psi_{v_2}(u_2)\psi(h_{e_3})=a_{g-1}u_2a_{g-1}^{-1}=u_2=\psi_{v_2}(u_2)=\psi_{v_2}(h^{-1}_{e_3}u_2h_{e_3}).$$ Analogously $\psi(h_{e_3})^{-1}\psi_{v_2}(a_2)\psi(h_{e_3})=a_2=\psi_{v_2}(h^{-1}_{e_3}u_2h_{e_3})$. For $x\in Z\backslash\{a_2, u_2\}$ we have $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]$ and $\psi_{v_2}(x)=\psi_{v_1}(x)$ by Lemma \[RelE1\]. Since also $h_{e_3}\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]$ and $\psi(h_{e_3})=\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_3})$, thus $$\psi(h_{e_3})^{-1}\psi_{v_2}(x)\psi(h_{e_3})=\psi_{v_1}(h^{-1}_{e_3}xh_{e_3})=\psi_{v_2}(h^{-1}_{e_3}xh_{e_3}).
\qedhere$$
The next lemma follows from [@LabPar Proposition 2.10].
\[torus\_gens\] Let $S=S_{1,r}$ be a torus with $r>1$ boundary components $\delta_1,\dots,\delta_r$. Suppose that $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_r$ and $\beta$ are simple closed curves on $S$ such that (1) $\alpha_i$, $\alpha_{i+1}$, $\delta_i$ bound a pair of pants for $i=1,\dots,r$ and $\alpha_{r+1}=\alpha_1$; (2) $\beta$ intersects each of the curves $\alpha_i$ in one point. Then ${\mathcal{M}}(S)$ is generated by Dehn twists about $\beta$, $\alpha_i$, $\delta_i$ for $i=1,\dots, r$.
\[RelE4\] If $g\in\{5,6\}$ then $(\ast)\ \psi_{v_1}(x)=\psi_{v_3}(x)$ for $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\xi]$.
Denote by $S$ the surface obtained by cutting $N_{g,0}$ along $\alpha_1\cup\xi$. Note that $S$ is homeomorphic to $S_{1,g-2}$. Recall the exact sequence (\[stab\_es\]) $$1\to{\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\alpha_1,\xi]\to{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\xi]\stackrel{\eta}{\to}{\mathbb{Z}}_2^{g-2}.$$ By Remark \[eta\_onto\] $\eta$ is not onto and hence its image has rank at most $g-3$. It follows that this image is spanned by the images of the following elements of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\xi]$: $x_1=a_2a_1^2a_2$ (swaps sides and reverses orientation of $\alpha_1$, preserves sides and orientation of $\xi$), $x_2=a_2a_1a_3a_2\Delta_4$ for $g=5$ or $x_2=a_2a_1a_3a_2(a_5u_5)^{-1}\Delta_4$ for $g=6$ (swaps sides and preserves orientation of $\alpha_1$, reverses orientation of $\xi$ and swaps its sides if $g=6$), $x_3=r_6$ for $g=6$ (swaps sides and reverses orientation of $\alpha_1$, swaps sides and preserves orientation of $\xi$). By Lemma \[ext\_pres\] ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\xi]$ is generated by $x_i$ for $i=1,2,3$ and ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\alpha_1,\xi]$. It follows from Lemma \[torus\_gens\] that ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\alpha_1,\xi]$ is generated by $a_i$ for $i=1,3,\dots,g-1$, $b$, $x_2bx_2^{-1}$ and if $g=6$ then also $b_2$. The generator $x_2bx_2^{-1}$ is redundant and it is trivial to check that $\psi_{v_1}$ and $\psi_{v_3}$ are equal on the remaining generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\alpha_1,\xi]$. For $i=1,2,3$ we have $x_i\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$, it is easy to check that $\psi_{v_3}(x_i)=\psi_{v_2}(x_i)$ and by Lemma \[RelE1\] we have $\psi_{v_2}(x_i)=\psi_{v_1}(x_i)$.
\[gensE2\] ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3]$ is generated by
- ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\mu_g]\cup{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\xi]$ if $g=5$ or $g=6$,
- ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\mu_g]\cup\{a_{g-1}\}$ if $g=7$ or $g\ge 9$.
- ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\mu_g]\cup\{a_7, b_3, T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}, T_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6,7,8\}}}\}$ if $g=8$.
Let ${\mathrm{Stab}}={\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3]$. By Lemma \[ext\_pres\] applied to the sequence (\[stab\_es\]) ${\mathrm{Stab}}$ is generated by ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ and $4$ cokernel generators, for which we take $u_1$, $u_3$, $r_g$ and $a_4a_3^2a_4$. Note that all of them are in ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$ if $g>5$ and if $g=5$ then the last one is in ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$. Let $N'$ be the surface obtained by cutting $N_{g,0}$ along $\alpha_1\cup\alpha_3$. Note that $N'$ is homeomorphic to $N_{g-4,4}$. Denote by $\alpha_1'$ and $\alpha_1''$ (resp. $\alpha_3'$ and $\alpha_3''$) the boundary components of $N'$ resulting from cutting along $\alpha_1$ (resp. $\alpha_3$), where $\alpha_1'$, $\alpha_3'$ and $\beta$ bound a pair of pants in $N'$. To obtain generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ we use the epimorphism $\rho\colon{\mathcal{M}}(N')\to{\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ induced by the gluing map. We consider cases according to the genus.
[cc]{}
&
[**Case $g=5$.**]{} In [@Szep1 Theorem 7.6] a presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(N_{1,4})$ is given, from which we deduce that ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+$ is generated by Dehn twists about curves disjoint from $\mu_g$ and $T_{\delta_1}$, $T_{\delta_2}$, $u_3^{-1}T_{\delta_2}u_3$, where $\delta_1$, $\delta_2$ are shown on Figure \[fig\_N14\]. Since $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ are disjoint from $\xi$, the lemma is proved in this case.
[**Case $g>5$.**]{} Let $N''$ be the surface obtained from $N'$ by gluing a disc with puncture $P_1$ along $\alpha_1'$, a disc with puncture $P_2$ along $\alpha_3'$, and a disc with puncture $P_3$ along $\alpha_3''$. For $i=1,2,3$ we set $\mathcal{P}_i=\{P_1,\dots, P_i\}$ and $H_i={\mathcal{PM}}^+(N'',\mathcal{P}_i)$. For $i=2,3$ we set $K_i=\pi_1(N''\backslash\mathcal{P}_{i-1},P_i)$ and define $G_i$ to be the subgroup of ${\mathcal{PM}}(N'',\mathcal{P}_i)$ consisting of the isotopy classes of homeomorphisms preserving local orientation at each puncture in $\mathcal{P}_{i-1}$. Note that $H_i$ is an index-two subgroup of $G_i$ and we have the following short exact sequence $$\label{Bir_red}
1\to K_i\stackrel{\mathfrak{p}}{\to}G_i\stackrel{\mathfrak{f}}{\to}H_{i-1}\to 1$$ which is a restriction of the Birman sequence (\[Bir\_es\]). We also have the exact sequence (\[Cup\_es\]) $$1\to{\mathbb{Z}}^3\to{\mathcal{M}}(N')\stackrel{\imath_\ast}{\to}H_3\to 1.$$ The kernel generators of ${\mathcal{M}}(N')$ are Dehn twists about the boundary components and they are mapped by $\rho$ on $a_1$ and $a_3$, which are in ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$. Also observe that if $\imath_\ast(x)\in {\mathrm{Stab}}_{H_3}[\mu_g]$ then $\rho(x)\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]$.
[cc]{}
&
Our next goal is to find generators for $H_3$. In fact we will obtain generators for the groups $H_i$, $G_i$ for $i=2,3$ by using the sequence (\[Bir\_red\]) and the method from Step 1 of the proof of Theorem \[pres\_stab\_alpha1\]. We set $$w=Y_{\mu_4,\alpha_4}Y_{\mu_3,\gamma_{\{3,5\}}}=Y_{\mu_4,\alpha_4}u_3Y_{\mu_4,\alpha_4}u_3^{-1}=u_4a_4u_3u_4a_4u_3^{-1}=a_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}u_3u_4.$$ Let $x_1, x_2, x_3$ and $y_2, y_3, z_3$ be the elements of ${\mathcal{PM}}(N'',\mathcal{P}_i)$ obtained by pushing the punctures once along the loops represented in Figure \[fig\_loops\], which we take so that for each $I\subseteq\{5,\dots,g\}$ such that $5\in I$, the following equalities are satisfied, up to isotopy on $N''\backslash\mathcal{P}_3$. $$\begin{aligned}
& x_1(\gamma_I)=\gamma_{\{1,2\}\cup I},\quad x_2(\gamma_I)=\gamma_{\{3,4\}\cup I},\quad x_3(\gamma_I)=u_3^{-1}x_2(\gamma_I),\quad
x_2x_1(\gamma_I)=\gamma_{\{1,2,3,4\}\cup I},\\
& x_3x_1(\gamma_I)=u_3^{-1}x_2x_1(\gamma_I),\quad
x_3x_2(\gamma_I)=w(\gamma_I)\quad x_3x_2x_1(\gamma_I)=wx_1(\gamma_I).\end{aligned}$$ By Remark \[gensNg11\] $H_1={\mathcal{M}}^+(N'',P_1)$ is generated by $a_i$ for $i=5,\dots,g-1$, $u_j$ for $j=5,\dots,g-2$, $a_{g-1}u_{g-1}$, $x_1a_5x_1^{-1}$, $x_1a_5u_5x_1^{-1}$, and $T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}$ if $g\ge 8$. We denote this set of generators by $Z_1$ and, by abuse of notation, we will treat it as a subset of $G_i$ for $i=1,2,3$. The image of $K_2$ in $G_2$ is generated by $y_2$ and $t_j$ for $j=5,\dots,g$ defined as $t_5=x_2$ and $t_{j+1}=u_j^{-1}t_ju_j$. From the sequence (\[Bir\_red\]) we obtain that $G_2$ is generated by $y_2$, $x_2$ and $Z_1$, and its index-two subgroup $H_2$ is generated by $$Z_2=\{y_2, x_2y_2x_2^{-1}, x_2^2\}\cup Z_1\cup x_2 Z_1x_2^{-1}.$$ Similarly, $G_3$ is generated by $y_3$, $z_3$, $x_3$ and $Z_2$, and $H_3$ is generated by $$Z_3=\{y_3, z_3, x_3y_3x_3^{-1}, x_3z_3x_3^{-1}, x_3^2\}\cup Z_2\cup x_3 Z_2x_3^{-1}.$$ Set $Z_1'=Z_1\backslash{\mathrm{Stab}}_{H_3}[\mu_g]$ and observe that $H_3$ is generated by $${\mathrm{Stab}}_{H_3}[\mu_g]\cup Z_1'\cup x_2 Z'_1x_2^{-1}\cup x_3 Z'_1x_3^{-1}\cup x_3x_2 Z'_1x_2^{-1}x_3^{-1}.$$ [**Subcase $g=7$ or $g\ge 9$.**]{} We have $Z'_1=\{a_{g-1}\}$ and $a_{g-1}$ commutes with $x_2$, $x_3$. The lemma follows.
[**Subcase $g=6$.**]{} We have $Z'_1=\{a_5, x_1a_5x_1^{-1}\}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& x_1a_5x_1^{-1}=T_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6\}}},\quad x_2a_5x_2^{-1}=T_{\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}}=c,\quad x_3a_5x_3^{-1}=u_3^{-1}cu_3,\\
& (x_2x_1)a_5(x_2x_1)^{-1}=b_2,\quad (x_3x_1)a_5(x_3x_1)^{-1}=u_3^{-1}b_2u_3,\\
&(x_3x_2)a_5(x_3x_2)^{-1}=wa_5w^{-1}\quad (x_3x_2x_1)a_5(x_3x_2x_1)^{-1}=wT_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6\}}}w^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $a_5$, $c$, $b_2$ and $T_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6\}}}$ are in ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\xi]$ and $u_3$, $w$ are in ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\mu_g]$, the lemma is proved for $g=6$.
[**Subcase $g=8$.**]{} We have $Z'_1=\{a_7, T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}\}$, $a_7$ commutes with $x_2$, $x_3$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& x_2T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}x_2^{-1}=T_{\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6,7,8\}}},\quad x_3T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}x_3^{-1}=u_3^{-1}T_{\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6,7,8\}}}u_3,\\
&(x_3x_2)T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}(x_3x_2)^{-1}=wT_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}w^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ We have $u_3, w\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\mu_g]$, and to finish the proof it suffices to express $T_{\gamma_{\{3,\dots,8\}}}$ in terms of $b_3$ and the remaining generators. Observe that $\beta_3$, $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_3$ and $\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}$ bound a four holed sphere and we have the lantern relation: $$b_3a_1a_3T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}=bT_{\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6,7,8\}}}T_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6,7,8\}}}$$ which does the job, because $a_1$, $a_3$ and $b$ are in ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_8]$.
\[RelE2\] For $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3]$ we have $$(\ast)\quad\psi(h_{e_2})^{-1}\psi_{v_1}(x)\psi(h_{e_2})=\psi_{v_1}(h^{-1}_{e_2}xh_{e_2}).$$
Let $h=h_{e_2}=a_2a_3a_1a_2$. We have $h\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_g]\cap{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$ and $\psi(h)=\psi_{v_2}(h)=\psi_{v_3}(h)$. Therefore for $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\mu_g]$ we have by Lemma \[RelE1\] $$\psi(h)^{-1}\psi_{v_1}(x)\psi(h)=
\psi_{v_2}(h^{-1}xh)=
\psi_{v_1}(h^{-1}xh).$$ Analogously, if $g\in\{5,6\}$ then $(\ast)$ holds for $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\xi]$ by Lemma \[RelE4\]. By Lemma \[gensE2\] this finishes the proof for $g\in\{5,6\}$. For $g\ge 7$ we have $$\psi(h)^{-1}\psi_{v_1}(a_{g-1})\psi(h)=(a_2a_1a_3a_2)^{-1}a_{g-1}(a_2a_1a_3a_2)=a_{g-1}=\psi_{v_1}(a_{g-1}).$$ It can be checked that for $g=8$ in ${\mathcal{M}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&h^{-1}b_3h=b_3, \qquad h^{-1}T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}h=T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}\\
&h^{-1}T_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6,7,8\}}}h=T_{\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6,7,8\}}}=b^{-1}b_3a_1a_3T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}T^{-1}_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6,7,8\}}}\end{aligned}$$ and for $w=a_6a_7a_5a_6a_4a_5a_3a_4$, $$T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}=w^{-1}cw,\qquad
T_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6,7,8\}}}=w^{-1}b_2w,$$ It follows that for $x\in\{b_3, T_{\gamma_{\{5,6,7,8\}}}, T_{\gamma_{\{1,2,5,6,7,8\}}}\}$, $\psi(h)$, $\psi_{v_1}(x)$ and $\psi_{v_1}(h^{-1}xh)$ are in the subgroup of ${\mathcal{G}}$ generated by $a_i$’s and $b_j$’s and so $(\ast)$ is satisfied in ${\mathcal{G}}$ by Lemma \[shortcut\_AB\].
\[RelE5\] If $g=5$ then for $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_5,\beta]$ $$(\ast)\ \psi(h_{e_5})^{-1}\psi_{v_2}(x)\psi(h_{e_5})=\psi_{v_1}(h^{-1}_{e_5}xh_{e_5})$$
By similar argument as in the proof of Lemma \[RelE4\], ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_5,\beta]$ is generated by ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\mu_5,\beta]$ together with $h_{e_5}u_1h_{e_5}^{-1}$ (preserves orientation of $\mu_5$, preserves orientation and swaps sides of $\beta$) and $r_5\Delta_4$ (reverses orientation of $\mu_5$, reverses orientation and preserves sides of $\beta$). By Lemma \[torus\_gens\] ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\mu_5,\beta]$ is generated by $b$, $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ and $e=a_4u_4a_3u_4^{-1}a_4^{-1}$. Note that $\{b, a_1, a_2, a_3, r_5\Delta_4\}\subset{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$ and for $x=b, a_1, a_2, a_3$ we have $\psi_{v_2}(x)=\psi_{v_3}(x)$. Also $\psi_{v_2}(\Delta_4)=\psi_{v_3}(\Delta_4)$ and because $r_5\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\mu_5]\cap{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$, thus $\psi_{v_2}(r_5)=\psi_{v_1}(r_5)=\psi_{v_3}(r_5)$ by Lemmas \[RelE1\] and \[RelE4\]. Also $h_{e_5}=a_4ba_3a_4a_2a_1a_3a_2\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$ and $\psi(h_{e_5})=\psi_{v_3}(h_{e_5})$ and thus $(\ast)$ holds for $x\in\{b, a_1, a_2, a_3, r_5\Delta_4\}$ by Lemma \[RelE4\]. Note that $h_{e_5}=a_4ba_3a_4h_{e_2}$ and $\psi(h_{e_5})=\psi_{v_1}(a_4ba_3a_4)\psi(h_{e_2})$. Also $\psi_{v_2}(e)=\psi_{v_1}(e)$ and $$\psi(h_{e_5})^{-1}\psi_{v_2}(e)\psi(h_{e_5})=\psi(h_{e_2})^{-1}\psi_{v_1}((a_4ba_3a_4)^{-1}e(a_4ba_3a_4))\psi(h_{e_2}).$$ It can be checked that $(a_4ba_3a_4)^{-1}e(a_4ba_3a_4)\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3]$ and thus $(\ast)$ holds for $x=e$ by Lemma \[RelE2\]. Similarly, since $u_1\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\alpha_3]$ $$\psi(h_{e_5})\psi_{v_1}(u_1)\psi(h_{e_5})^{-1}=\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_5}u_1h_{e_5}^{-1})=\psi_{v_2}(h_{e_5}u_1h_{e_5}^{-1})$$ by Lemmas \[RelE1\] and \[RelE2\].
\[RelE6\] If $g=6$ then for $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}]$ $$(\ast)\ \psi(h_{e_6})^{-1}\psi_{v_1}(x)\psi(h_{e_6})=\psi_{v_1}(h^{-1}_{e_6}xh_{e_6})$$
Let $\gamma=\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}$ and $d=u_3u_4u_5u_3u_4u_3$. By similar argument as in the proof of Lemma \[RelE4\], ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\gamma]$ is generated by ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\alpha_1,\gamma]$ together with $u_1a_1$, $h_{e_6}u_1a_1h_{e_6}^{-1}$ and $u_1r_6d$ (preserves sides and reverses orientation of $\alpha_1$, preserves sides and reverses orientation of $\gamma$).
By Lemma \[torus\_gens\] ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\alpha_1,\gamma]$ is generated by $c$, $a_i$ for $i\in\{1,3,4,5\}$, $r_6br_6$ and $d^{-1}bd$. Note that the last element can be expressed in terms of the other generators of ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1,\gamma]$. For $x\in\{c, r_6br_6, u_1r_6d\}\cup\{ a_i\,|\,i=1,3,4,5\}$ we have $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$, and since also $h_{e_6}\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$ and $\psi(h_{e_6})=\psi_{v_3}(h_{e_6})$, thus $(\ast)$ holds by Lemma \[RelE4\].
We have $u_1a_1=Y_{\mu_1,\alpha_1}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&h_{e_6}u_1a_1h_{e_6}^{-1}=Y_{\mu_3,\gamma}=
Y_{\mu_3,\gamma_{\{3,6\}}}Y_{\mu_3,\gamma_{\{3,5\}}}Y_{\mu_3,\gamma_{\{3,4\}}}\\
&=(u_3u_4Y_{\mu_5,\alpha_5}u_4^{-1}u_3^{-1})(u_3Y_{\mu_4,\alpha_4}u_3^{-1})Y_{\mu_3,\alpha_3}
=u_3u_4u_5a_5a_4a_3.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_6}u_1a_1h_{e_6}^{-1})=u_3u_4u_5a_5a_4a_3$. Recall that $c=s^2bs^{-2}$ for $s=a_1\cdots a_5$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi(h_{e_6})\psi_{v_1}(u_1a_1)\psi(h_{e_6})^{-1}=
a_2ca_1a_2u_1a_1a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}c^{-1}a_2^{-1}=
a_2cu_2^{-1}a_2c^{-1}a_2^{-1}\\
&=a_2s^2bs^{-2}u_2^{-1}a_2s^2b^{-1}s^{-2}a_2^{-1}=
sa_1sbs^{-1}u_1a_1sb^{-1}s^{-1}a_1^{-1}s^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ Thus for $x=h_{e_6}u_1a_1h_{e_6}^{-1}$, $(\ast)$ is equivalent to $$a_1sbs^{-1}u_1a_1sb^{-1}s^{-1}a_1^{-1}=s^{-1}u_3u_4u_5a_5a_4a_3s.$$ The last relation holds in ${\mathcal{G}}$ because its both sides are in $\mathcal{S}(v_2)$. Indeed, we have $sbs^{-1}=a_1a_2a_3a_4ba_4^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_2^{-1}a_1^{-1}$ and $s^{-1}u_3u_4u_5a_5a_4a_3s=u_2^{-1}u_3^{-1}u_4^{-1}a_4a_3a_2$. It can be checked that $h_{e_6}^2\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]\cap{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$ and by Lemma \[RelE4\] $\psi(h_{e_6})^2=\psi_{v_3}(h_{e_6}^2)=\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_6}^2)$. It follows that $(\ast)$ holds for $x=u_1a_1$ because $$\psi(h_{e_6})^{-1}\psi_{v_1}(u_1a_1)\psi(h_{e_6})=\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_6}^{-2})\psi(h_{e_6})\psi_{v_1}(u_1a_1)\psi(h_{e_6})^{-1}\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_6}^2)$$ and the right hand side is equal to $\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_6}^{-1}u_1a_1h_{e_6})$ by earlier part of the proof.
\[RelE7\] If $g=6$ then for $x\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_6,\gamma_{\{1,2,3,4,5\}}]$ $$(\ast)\ \psi(h_{e_7})^{-1}\psi_{v_2}(x)\psi(h_{e_7})=\psi_{v_2}(h^{-1}_{e_7}xh_{e_7})$$
Let $\gamma=\gamma_{\{1,2,3,4,5\}}$. By similar argument as in the proof of Lemma \[RelE4\], ${\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_6,\gamma]$ is generated by ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\mu_6,\gamma]$ and an element reversing orientation of $\mu_6$ and $\gamma$, for which we can take $$w=a_2a_1a_3a_2a_4a_3\Delta_5(a_5u_5)^{-1}.$$ The surface obtained by cutting $N_{6,0}$ along $\mu_6\cup\gamma$ is homeomorphic to $S_{2,2}$ and it can be deduced from Theorem \[presS\] that ${\mathrm{Stab}}^+[\mu_6,\gamma]$ is generated by $b$, $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$, $a_4$, $u_4^{-1}a_4^{-1}ba_4u_4$. We have $h_{e_7}=b_2^{-1}$ and $\psi(h_{e_7})=b_2^{-1}$ commutes with $b=\psi_{v_2}(b)$ and $a_i=\psi_{v_2}(a_i)$. It can be checked that for $x\in\{w, u_4^{-1}a_4^{-1}ba_4u_4\}$ we have $x\in {\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]$. Since also $h_{e_7}\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]$ and $\psi(h_{e_7})=\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_7})$, thus $(\ast)$ holds for these $x$ by Lemma \[RelE1\].
Triangles. {#sec_triangles}
==========
In this section we finish the proof of Theorem \[mainB\] by showing that the map $\psi$ defined at the beginning of the previous section respects the relations corresponding to the triangles of $X$. For $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_2(X)$ and $i=1,2,3$ let $\nu_i=\nu_i(f)\in{\mathcal{S}}_0(X)$, $\varepsilon_i=\varepsilon_i(f)\in{\mathcal{S}}_1(X)$, $\widetilde{\varepsilon_i}=\widetilde{\varepsilon_i}(f)\in{\mathcal{S}}_1(\widetilde{X})$ and $x_i=x_i(f)\in{\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(\nu_i)$ be as defined in Subsection \[orbits\]. We have to prove that $$(\ast\ast)\quad\psi(h_{\varepsilon_1})\psi_{\nu_2}(x_2)\psi(h_{\varepsilon_2})\psi_{\nu_3}(x_3)\psi(h_{\varepsilon_3})^{-1}=\psi_{\nu_1}(x_1)$$ holds in ${\mathcal{G}}$. Note that we have not yet chosen the elements $x_i$. Once any two of them are chosen, the third one is determined by the relation $h_{\varepsilon_1}x_2h_{\varepsilon_2}x_3h^{-1}_{\varepsilon_3}=x_1$. As explained in Subsection \[orbits\], for $j\in\{1,\dots,10\}$ and for each permutation $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Sym}}_3$, $x_i(f_j^\sigma)$ are determined by $x_i(f_j)$. Moreover, it is easy to check that if $(\ast\ast)$ holds for $f_j$ then it also holds for $f_j^\sigma$. Therefore it suffices to prove the following.
For $j\in\{1,\dots,10\}$ and $i\in\{1,2,3\}$ the elements $x_i(f_j)$ can be chosen is such a way that $(\ast\ast)$ is satisfied.
Fix $f=f_j$ and let $[\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3]=s(f)$.
[**Case 1.**]{} Suppose that $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_3$ and $h_{\varepsilon_1}(\gamma_3)=\gamma_3$. Then $s(\varepsilon_1)=[\gamma_1, \gamma_2]$ and $h_{\varepsilon_1}[\gamma_1,\gamma_3]=[\gamma_2,\gamma_3]$. Once $x_1$ is chosen such that $x_1[\gamma_1,\gamma_2]=[\gamma_1,\gamma_3]$, then we can take $x_2=x_1$ because $h_{\varepsilon_1}x_1[\gamma_1,\gamma_2]=[\gamma_2,\gamma_3]$, and $x_3$ is determined. The assumption of this case is satisfied for $j\in\{1,4,7\}$. Indeed, for $j=1$ we have $s(f)=[\alpha_1, \alpha_3, \alpha_5]$, $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_3=e_2$, $h_{e_2}=a_2a_3a_1a_2$ and we take $x_1=a_4a_5a_3a_4$. For $j\in\{4,7\}$ we have $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_3=e_3$, $h_{e_3}=a_{g-1}^{-1}$ and $s(f_4)=[\mu_g, \mu_{g-1}, \mu_{g-2}]$, $s(f_7)=[\mu_5, \mu_4, \gamma_{\{1,2,3\}}]$ ($g=5$). We take $x_1(f_4)=a_{g-2}^{-1}$ and $x_1(f_7)=b^{-1}$. It is easy to check that in each case we have $x_3=x_1^{-1}$ and $(\ast\ast)$ is a consequence of the relations (A1, A2, A4).
[**Case 2.**]{} Suppose that $\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_3$, $h_{\varepsilon_3}=1$, $s(\varepsilon_3)=[\gamma_1,\gamma_3]$ and $h_{\varepsilon_1}(\gamma_3)=\gamma_3$. Then $h_{\varepsilon_1}[\gamma_1,\gamma_3]=[\gamma_2,\gamma_3]$ and we can take $x_1=x_2=1$, $x_3=h_{\varepsilon_1}^{-1}$. In this case $(\ast\ast)$ is $\psi(h_{\varepsilon_1})=\psi_{\nu_3}(h_{\varepsilon_1})$. The assumption of this case is satisfied for $j\in\{2,5\}$. Indeed, for $j=2$ we have $\varepsilon_1=e_2$, $\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_3=e_1$, $s(f)=[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\mu_g]$, $h_{e_2}=a_2a_3a_1a_2$. Since $\psi(h_{e_2})=\psi_{v_2}(h_{e_2})$ thus $(\ast\ast)$ holds. For $j=5$ we have $\varepsilon_1=e_2$, $\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_3=e_4$, $s(f)=[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\xi]$ and $(\ast\ast)$ holds because $\psi(h_{e_2})=\psi_{v_3}(h_{e_2})$.
[**Case 3.**]{} Suppose that $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_3$, $h_{\varepsilon_1}=1$, $s(\varepsilon_2)=[\gamma_2,\gamma_3]$ and $h_{\varepsilon_2}(\gamma_1)=\gamma_1$. Analogously as in Case 2 we can take $x_2=x_3=1$, $x_1=h_{\varepsilon_2}$ and $(\ast\ast)$ becomes $\psi(h_{\varepsilon_2})=\psi_{\nu_1}(h_{\varepsilon_1})$. The assumption of this case is satisfied for $j\in\{3,8\}$. Indeed, for $j=3$ we have $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_3=e_1$, $\varepsilon_2=e_3$, $s(f)=[\alpha_1,\mu_g,\mu_{g-1}]$, $h_{e_3}=a_{g-1}^{-1}$ and $(\ast\ast)$ holds because $\psi(h_{e_3})=\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_3})$. For $j=8$ we have $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_3=e_1$, $\varepsilon_2=e_7$, $s(f)=[\alpha_1,\mu_g,\gamma_{\{1,\dots,5\}}]$, $h_{e_7}=b_2^{-1}$ and $(\ast\ast)$ holds because $\psi(h_{e_7})=\psi_{v_1}(h_{e_7})$.
[**Case 4.**]{} Suppose that $j\in\{6,9,10\}$. We have $h_{\varepsilon_i}\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$ and $\psi(h_{\varepsilon_i})=\psi_{v_3}(h_{\varepsilon_i})$ for $i=1,2,3$. If we can choose $x_i\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]\cap{\mathrm{Stab}}\,s(\nu_i)$ such that $\psi_{\nu_i}(x_i)=\psi_{v_3}(x_i)$ then $(\ast\ast)$ will follow from the fact that $\psi_{v_3}$ is a homomorphism.
For $j=6$ we have $s(f)=[\mu_6,\mu_5,\beta]$ and $h_{\varepsilon_1}=a_5^{-1}$. It can be checked that for $x_1=a_4ba_3a_4a_2a_3a_1a_2$ we have $x_1[\mu_6,\alpha_1]=[\mu_6,\beta]$. Since $a_5^{-1}[\mu_6,\beta]=[\mu_5,\beta]$ we can take $x_2=x_1$ and $x_3$ is determined. Clearly $x_1\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]\cap{\mathrm{Stab}}[\mu_6]$ and $\psi_{v_2}(x_1)=\psi_{v_3}(x_1)$. It follows that $x_3\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]\cap{\mathrm{Stab}}[\alpha_1]$ and $\psi_{v_1}(x_3)=\psi_{v_3}(x_3)$ by Lemma \[RelE4\].
For $j=9$ we have $s(f)=[\alpha_1,\mu_5,\beta]$. It can be checked that for $x_1=a_4ba_3a_4$ we have $x_1[\alpha_1,\alpha_3]=[\alpha_1,\beta]$. Since $s(\varepsilon_2)=[\mu_5,\beta]$ and $h_{\varepsilon_1}=1$, we can take $x_2=1$ and $x_3$ is determined. We have $x_3\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$ and $\psi_{v_1}(x_3)=\psi_{v_3}(x_3)$ by Lemma \[RelE4\].
For $j=10$ we have $s(f)=[\alpha_1,\alpha_3,\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}]$, $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_2=e_2$, $\varepsilon_3=e_6$ and $h_{e_2}=a_2a_3a_1a_2$, $h_{e_6}=a_2ca_1a_2$ . We take $x_1=1$ and $x_2=a_4a_5a_3a_4^2ba_3a_4$. It can be checked that $h_{e_2}x_2[\alpha_1,\alpha_3]=[\alpha_3,\gamma_{\{3,4,5,6\}}]$. We have $\psi_{v_1}(x_2)=\psi_{v_3}(x_2)$, $x_3\in{\mathrm{Stab}}[\xi]$ and $\psi_{v_1}(x_3)=\psi_{v_3}(x_3)$ by Lemma \[RelE4\].
The presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})$.
================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[presS\]. For $r=1$ the presentation given in Theorem \[presS\] is essentially the same as the one given in [@Mat], with additional generators and relations. In the case $r=2$ we follow the idea of [@LabPar].
We are going to use some basic facts about geometric representations of Artin groups (see [@LabPar] for details). Let $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ be the Artin groups of types $A_5$ and $D_6$ respectively. For $i\ge 1$ and $j=1,2$ we have homomorphisms $\theta_{i,j}\colon\Gamma_j\to{\mathcal{M}}(S_{\rho,r})$ , such that $\theta_{i,1}$ maps the standard generators of $\Gamma_1$ on $b_{i-1}, a_{2i}, a_{2i+1}, a_{2i+2}, a_{2i+3}$ and $\theta_{i,2}$ maps the standard generators of $\Gamma_2$ on $b_{i-1}, a_{2i}, a_{2i+1}, a_{2i+2}, a_{2i+3}, b_i$. Let $\Delta(\Gamma_j)$ be the fundamental element of $\Gamma_j$ and $C_{i,j}=\theta_{i,j}(\Delta(\Gamma_j))$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&C_{i,1}=b_{i-1}a_{2i}a_{2i+1}a_{2i+2}a_{2i+3}b_{i-1}a_{2i}a_{2i+1}a_{2i+2}b_{i-1}a_{2i}a_{2i+1}b_{i-1}a_{2i}b_{i-1}\\
&C^2_{i,1}=(b_{i-1}a_{2i}a_{2i+1}a_{2i+2}a_{2i+3})^6,\quad
C_{i,2}=(b_{i-1}a_{2i}a_{2i+1}a_{2i+2}a_{2i+3}b_i)^5
.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof of Theorem \[presS\].*]{} Let $S_1=S_{\rho,1}$ and $S_2=S_{\rho,2}$ for a fixed $\rho\ge 1$. We assume that $S_1$ is obtained from $S_2$ by gluing a disc along $\beta_\rho$ (see Figure \[fig\_S\]) and let $P$ be the center of the glued disc. We have the following short exact sequences, which are special cases of (\[Bir\_es\]) and (\[Cup\_es\]). $$\label{Bir_S}
1\to\pi_1(S_1,P)\to{\mathcal{M}}(S_1,P)\to{\mathcal{M}}(S_1)\to 1$$ $$\label{Cup_S}
1\to{\left<b_\rho\right>}\to{\mathcal{M}}(S_2)\to{\mathcal{M}}(S_1,P)\to 1$$ By [@Mat] ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1)$ admits a presentation with generators $b_1$, $a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,2\rho$ and relations (A1–A6). We add to this presentation the generators $b_j$ for $j=0,2,\dots,\rho-1$ and relations (A7,A8). We need to show that (A8) are satisfied in ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1)$. Fix $i\ge 1$ and let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be regular neighbourhoods of $\beta_i\cup\beta_{i-1}\cup\alpha_{2i}\cup\dots\cup\alpha_{2i+3}$ and $\beta_{i-1}\cup\alpha_{2i}\cup\dots\cup\alpha_{2i+3}$ respectively. The boundary of $M_1$ consists of three connected components, one of which is isotopic to $\beta_{i+1}$ and one bounds a disc. Let $\delta$ be the third component and note that the boundary of $M_2$ consists of two connected components isotopic to $\beta_{i+1}$ and $\delta$. By [@LabPar Proposition 2.12] we have $C_{i,2}=T_\delta b_{i+1}^2$ and $C^2_{i,1}=T_\delta b_{i+1}$. The relation (A8) follows and Theorem \[presS\] is proved for $r=1$.
We are going to show that ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1,P)$ admits a presentation with generators $a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,2\rho+1$ and $b_j$ for $j=0,1,\dots,\rho-1$ and relations (A1–A8) and if $\rho\ge 2$ $$\textrm{(A8a)}\quad(b_{\rho-2}a_{2\rho-2}a_{2\rho-1}a_{2\rho}a_{2\rho+1}b_{\rho-1})^5=(b_{\rho-2}a_{2\rho-2}a_{2\rho-1}a_{2\rho}a_{2\rho+1})^6.$$ To prove this we apply Lemma \[ext\_pres\] to the sequence (\[Bir\_S\]). By gluing a punctured annulus along the boundary of $S_1$ we obtain an induced embedding ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1)\to{\mathcal{M}}(S_1,P)$, which is a splitting of (\[Bir\_S\]). Through this embedding we will identify the generators of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1)$ with elements of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1,P)$ which will be the cokernel generators, and the defining relations (A1–A8) of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1)$ will be the cokernel relations in our presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1,P)$. For notational convenience we set $$c_0=b_{\rho-1},\ c_i=a_{2\rho+2-i}\ \textrm{for\ }i=1,\dots,{2\rho+1},\quad d=b_{\rho-2}\ \textrm{if\ }\rho\ge 2.$$ The kernel is freely generated by $$x_1=c_1c_0^{-1},\quad x_i=c_ix_{i-1}c_i^{-1}\ \textrm{for\ }i=2,\dots,2\rho.$$ These will be our kernel generators. We also add $c_1$ to the set of generators together with the relation $$(0)\quad c_1=x_1c_0.$$ The following relations are consequences of (A1–A8). $$\begin{aligned}
&(H1)\ c_ic_j=c_jc_i\quad \textrm{for\ }1\le i<j-1\le 2\rho\\
&(H2)\ c_ic_{i+1}c_i=c_{i+1}c_ic_{i+1}\quad \textrm{for\ }1\le i\le 2\rho\\
&(H3)\ c_0c_i=c_ic_0\quad \textrm{for\ }i\neq 2\qquad
(H4)\ c_0c_2c_0=c_2c_0c_2\\
&(H5)\ dc_i=c_id\quad \textrm{for\ }i\neq 4\qquad
(H6)\ dc_4d=c_4dc_4\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, (H1,H2) are simply (A1,A2) rewritten in the symbols $c_i$, (H4, H6) involve only cokernel generators, and so they are consequences of the cokernel relations, because of the splitting, and so are (H3, H5) for $i\ne 1$. If $i=1$ then the last relations follow from (A1, A8).
Since ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1)$ is generated by $d$ and $c_i$ for $i=0,2,\dots,2\rho$, we can use these cokernel generators to produce the conjugation relations. We write $c_i(x_j)$ instead of $c_ix_jc_i^{-1}$. $$\begin{aligned}
&(1)\ c_i(x_{i-1})=x_i,\quad (2)\ c_i(x_i)=x_ix_{i-1}^{-1}x_i,\quad
(3)\ c_i(x_j)=x_j,\quad\textrm{for\ }i\ge 2, j\notin\{i-1,i\},\\
&(4)\ c_0(x_1)=x_1,\quad (5)\ c_0(x_2)=x_1^{-1}x_2,\quad
(6)\ c_0(x_i)=c_ic_0(x_{i-1})\quad
\textrm{for\ }i>2;\\
&(7)\ d(x_i)=x_i\ \textrm{for\ }i=1,2,3,\quad (8)\ d(x_4)=x_1^{-1}x_2x_3^{-1}x_4,\\
&(9)\ d(x_j)=c_jd(x_{j-1})\quad
\textrm{for\ }j>4.\end{aligned}$$ We are going to show that (2–7,9) are consequences of (0,1) and (H1–H6). (6) follows from (1) and (H3): $$c_0(x_i)=c_0c_i(x_{i-1})=c_ic_0(x_{i-1}).$$ Analogously (9) follows from (1) and (H5). (7) follows from (0, 1, H5), and (3) follows from (0, 1, H1) if $j<i-1$, for $j=i+1$ we have $$c_i(x_{i+1})=c_ic_{i+1}c_i(x_{i-1})=
c_{i+1}c_ic_{i+1}(x_{i-1})=x_{i+1}$$ and for $j=i+1+k$ by induction $$c_i(x_{i+1+k})=c_ic_{i+1+k}(x_{i+k})=
c_{i+1+k}c_i(x_{i+k})=x_{i+1+k}.$$ For $i=2$ (2) is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
&c_2^2c_1c_0^{-1}c_2^{-2}=c_2c_1\underline{c_0^{-1}c_2^{-1}c_0c_1^{-1}c_2c_1}c_0^{-1}c_2^{-1}\iff
c_2c_1c_0^{-1}c_2^{-1}=c_1c_2\underline{c_0^{-1}c_1}c_2^{-1}c_0^{-1}\iff\\
&c_2c_1c_0^{-1}c_2^{-1}=\underline{c_1c_2c_1}c_0^{-1}c_2^{-1}c_0^{-1}\iff
c_0^{-1}c_2^{-1}=c_2c_0^{-1}c_2^{-1}c_0^{-1}\iff c_2c_0c_2=c_0c_2c_0\end{aligned}$$ and for $i>2$ $$\begin{aligned}
&c_ix_ic_i^{-1}=c_ic_{i-1}x_{i-2}\underline{c_{i-1}^{-1}c_i^{-1}c_{i-1}}x_{i-2}^{-1}\underline{c_{i-1}^{-1}
c_ic_{i-1}}x_{i-2}c_{i-1}^{-1}c_i^{-1}\iff\\
&c_ic_{i-1}x_{i-2}c_{i-1}^{-1}c_i^{-1}=c_{i-1}x_{i-2}c_ic_{i-1}^{-1}\underline{c_i^{-1}x_{i-2}^{-1}
c_i}c_{i-1}c_i^{-1}x_{i-2}c_{i-1}^{-1}\iff\\
&\underline{c_{i-1}^{-1}c_ic_{i-1}}x_{i-2}\underline{c_{i-1}^{-1}c_i^{-1}c_{i-1}}=\underline{x_{i-2}c_i}c_{i-1}^{-1}x_{i-2}^{-1}
c_{i-1}\underline{c_i^{-1}x_{i-2}}\iff\\
&c_i\underline{c_{i-1}c_{i}^{-1}x_{i-2}c_ic_{i-1}^{-1}}c_i^{-1}=c_ix_{i-2}c_{i-1}^{-1}x_{i-2}^{-1}
c_{i-1}x_{i-2}c_i^{-1}\iff\\
&x_{i-1}=x_{i-2}c_{i-1}^{-1}x_{i-2}^{-1}
c_{i-1}x_{i-2}\iff\\
&c_{i-1}x_{i-1}c_{i-1}^{-1}=c_{i-1}x_{i-2}c_{i-1}^{-1}x_{i-2}^{-1}
c_{i-1}x_{i-2}c_{i-1}^{-1}=x_{i-1}x_{i-2}^{-1}x_{i-1}.\end{aligned}$$ and we are done by induction. (4) is equivalent to $c_0c_1=c_1c_0$ and (5) to $$\begin{aligned}
&c_0c_2c_1\underline{c_0^{-1}c_2^{-1}c_0^{-1}}=c_0c_1^{-1}c_2c_1c_0^{-1}c_2^{-1}\iff
c_2c_1c_2^{-1}=c_1^{-1}c_2c_1.\end{aligned}$$ Finally we are going to show that (8) follows from (0,1), (H1–H6) and (A8a). Let $C_j=C_{\rho-1,j}$ for $j=1,2$ so that we have $$\begin{aligned}
&C_1=dc_4c_3c_2c_1dc_4c_3c_2dc_4c_3dc_4d,\quad
C^2_1=(dc_4c_3c_2c_1)^6,\quad
C_2=(dc_4c_3c_2c_1c_0)^5
.\end{aligned}$$ We leave it as an exercise for the reader to check that by using (0,1) and (H1–H6) the relation (8) can be rewritten as $$C_1=c_0c_2c_1c_3c_2c_0c_4c_3c_2c_1dc_4c_3c_2c_0,$$ and by (H1–H6) we have $$C_2=C_1c_0c_2c_1c_3c_2c_0c_4c_3c_2c_1dc_4c_3c_2c_0.$$ Thus we have obtained the relation $C_2=C_1^2$, which is exactly (A8a).
We can drop the generators $x_i$ and relations (0–9) to obtain a presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1,P)$ with generators $a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,2\rho+1$ and $b_j$ for $j=0,1,\dots,\rho-1$ and relations (A1–A8,A8a).
Now we will obtain a presentation of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_2)$ by applying Lemma \[ext\_pres\] to the sequence (\[Cup\_S\]). We take the generators of ${\mathcal{M}}(S_1,P)$ as cokernel generators and $b_\rho$ as kernel generator. The relations (A1–A8) are satisfied in ${\mathcal{M}}(S_2)$ and the cokernel relation corresponding to (A8a) is $C_2C_1^{-2}=b_\rho$ which gives (A8) for $i+1=\rho$. The conjugation relations are $$(\ast)\quad b_\rho y=y b_\rho$$ for every cokernel generator $y$. It suffices to consider $y=a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,2\rho+1$ and $y=b_1$ if $\rho\ge 2$. If $\rho=1$ then $(\ast)$ follows from (A3), so we suppose that $\rho\ge 2$. Since $b_\rho=C_2C_1^{-2}$ and $C_2$, $C_1^2$ are central in $\theta_{\rho-1,2}(\Gamma_2)$ and $\theta_{\rho-1,1}(\Gamma_1)$ respectively, $(\ast)$ is a consequence of (H1–H6) for $y=c_i=a_{2\rho+2-i}$, $i=1,2,3,4$ and $y=d=b_{\rho-2}$. In particular $b_\rho$ commutes with $a_1=b_0$ if $\rho=2$ and with $b_1$ if $\rho=3$. If $\rho\ge 3$ then it follows from (A1–A8) that $b_\rho$ commutes with $a_i$ for $i\le 2\rho-4$ and $b_1$ if $\rho\ge 4$. Finally (A9a, A9b) imply that it also commutes with $a_{2\rho-3}$ if $\rho\ge 3$ and $b_1$ if $\rho=2$. Since all conjugation relations are consequences of (A1–A9), ${\mathcal{M}}(S_2)$ admits the presentation from Theorem \[presS\].
[99]{} S. Benvenuti. Finite presentations for the mapping class group via the ordered complex of curves. Adv. Geom. 1 (2001), 291–321. J. S. Birman. Mapping class groups and their relationship to braid groups. Comm. Pure App. Math. 22 (1969), 213–238. J. S. Birman. Braids, links and mapping class groups. Annals of Math. Studies 82 (1974). J. S. Birman, D. R. J. Chillingworth. On the homeotopy group of a non-orientable surface. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 71 (1972), 437–448. E. Brieskorn, K. Saito. Artin-Gruppen and Coxeter-Gruppen. Invent. Math. 17 (1972), 245–271. K. S. Brown. Presentations for groups acting on simply-connected complexes. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 32 (1984), 1–10. D. R. J. Chillingworth. A finite set of generators for the homeotopy group of a non-orientable surface. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 65 (1969), 409–430. D. B. A. Epstein. Curves on 2-manifolds and isotopies. Acta Math. 115 (1966), 83–107. S. Gervais. A finite presentation of the mapping class group of a punctured surface. Topology 40 (2001), 703–725. J. Harer. The second homology group of the mapping class group of an orientable surface. Inv. Math. 72 (1982), 221–239. W. J. Harvey. Boundary structure of the modular group. In: Riemann surfaces and related topics: Proc. 1978 Stony Brook Conf., Ann. Math. Stud. 97, Princeton University Press (1981), 245–251. A. Hatcher, W. Thurston. A presentation for the mapping class group of a closed orientable surface. Topology 19 (1980), 221–237. A. Hatcher. Algebraic Topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002. S. Hirose. A complex of curves and a presentation for the mapping class group of a surface. Osaka J. Math. 39 (2002), 797–820. N. V. Ivanov. Complexes of curves and Teichmüller modular groups. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 42, No. 3 (1987), 49-91; English transl.: Russ. Math. Surv. 42, No. 3 (1987) 55–107. M. Korkmaz. Mapping class groups of nonorientable surfaces. Geom. Dedicata 89 (2002), 109–133. . Presentations for the punctured mapping class groups in terms of Artin groups. Algebr. Geom. Topol. 1 (2001), 73–114. . Homeomorphisms of non-orientable two-manifolds. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 59 (1963), 307–317. . On the homeomorphisms of a non-orientable surface. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 61 (1965), 61–64. . A presentation of mapping class groups in terms of Artin groups and geometric monodromy of singularities. Math. Ann. 316 (2000), 401–418. J. McCool. Some finitely presented subgroups of the automorphism group of a free group. J. Algebra 35 (1975), 205–213. L. Paris, D. Rolfsen. Geometric subgroups of mapping class groups. J. Reine. Angew. Math. 521 (2000), 47–83. M. Stukow. Dehn twists on nonorientable surfaces. Fund. Math. 189 (2006), 117–147. M. Stukow. Generating mapping class groups of nonorientable surfaces with boundary. Adv. Geom. 10 (2010), 249–273. M. Stukow. Commesurability of geometric subgroups of mapping class groups. Geom. Dedicata 143 (2009), 117–142. B. Szepietowski. A presentation for the mapping class group of a non-orientable surface from the action on the complex of curves. Osaka J. Math. 45 (2008), 283–326. . A presentation for the mapping class group of the closed non-orientable surface of genus 4. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 213 (2009), 2001–2016. . Embedding the braid group in mapping class groups. Publ. Mat. 54 (2010), 359–368. . Crosscap slides and the level 2 mapping class group of a nonorientable surface. Geom. Dedicata 160 (2012), 169–183. N. Wahl. Homological stability for the mapping class groups of non-orientable surfaces. Invent. Math. 171 (2008), 389–424. B. Wajnryb. A simple presentation for the mapping class group of an orientable surface. Israel J. Math. 45 (1983), 157–174. B. Wajnryb. An elementary approach to the mapping class group of a surface. Geom. Topol. 3 (1999), 405–466.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Most state-of-the-art approaches for speaker recognition work on a short utterance level. Given the speech signal, these algorithms extract a sequence of speaker embeddings from short segments and those are averaged to obtain an utterance level speaker representation. In this work we propose the use of an attention mechanism to obtain a discriminative speaker embedding given non fixed length speech utterances. Our system is based on a that encodes short-term speaker features from the spectrogram and a self multi-head attention model that maps these representations into a long-term speaker embedding. The attention model that we propose produces multiple alignments from different subsegments of the encoded states over the sequence. Hence this mechanism works as a pooling layer which decides the most discriminative features over the sequence to obtain an utterance level representation. We have tested this approach for the verification task for the VoxCeleb1 dataset. The results show that self multi-head attention outperforms both temporal and statistical pooling methods with a $18\%$ of relative EER. Obtained results show a $58\%$ relative improvement in EER compared to i-vector+PLDA.'
address: 'Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain'
bibliography:
- 'article.bib'
title: 'Self Multi-Head Attention for Speaker Recognition'
---
**Index Terms**: Speaker Embeddings, Speaker Verification, Multi-Head Self Attention, Attention Models
Introduction
============
Recently there have been several attempts to apply Deep Learning (DL) in order to build speaker embeddings. Speaker embedding is often referred to a single low dimensional vector representation of the speaker characteristics from a speech signal extracted using a model. For text-independent , which is the focus of this work, these models can be trained either in a supervised (e.g., [@variani2014deep; @snyder2017deep]) or in an unsupervised (e.g., [@vasilakakis2013speaker; @safari2016features]) fashion. Supervised speaker embeddings are produced by training a deep architecture using speaker-labeled background data. This network, which is capable to produce high-level features, is usually trained to discriminate the background speakers. Then in the testing phase, the output layer is discarded, the feature vectors of an unknown speaker are given through the network, and the pooled representation from the activation of a given hidden layer are considered as the speaker embedding [@variani2014deep; @snyder2017deep; @bhattacharya2017deep; @snyder2018x]. The reported results from different works have shown that, in most of cases, the largest improvements are obtained on short utterances compared to the conventional i-vectors [@bhattacharya2017deep; @snyder2017deep]. That suggests that technology can model the speaker characteristics of a short-duration speech signal better than the traditional signal processing techniques.
In [@variani2014deep], the inputs of the network are the speaker feature vectors stacked over a context window. They use a with max-pooling and dropout regularization applied on the last two hidden layers. There are also other works which employes other deep architectures such as and [@bhattacharya2017deep; @li2018full]. Snyder *et al.*, in [@snyder2016deep] introduced a temporal pooling to extract speaker embeddings and a architecture with a PLDA-like objective function. This function operates on pairs of embeddings to maximize the probability for the embeddings of the same speakers and minimize it otherwise. In [@snyder2017deep], they take advantage of a which is further followed by a statistical pooling and a classifier. The statistical pooling layer aggregates input segments over the variable-length and prepares the fixed-dimensional statistics vectors as the inputs of a feed-forward network. The second part of the network has only two hidden layers whose activations can be used as speaker embeddings. The preliminary results showed that these embeddings outperform the traditional i-vectors [@dehak2011front] for short duration speech segments [@snyder2017deep]. However, [@snyder2018x] a recent work has shown that data augmentation, consisting of added noise and reverberation, can significantly improve the performance of these embeddings (*x-vectors* as they referred to), while it is not so effective for i-vectors [@snyder2018x]. There have also been some efforts to improve the quality and generalization powers of *x-vectors* by the modification applied to the network architecture [@novoselov2018deep] and the training procedure [@li2018gaussian; @zeinali2018improve; @huang2018angular].
Attention mechanisms are one of the main reasons of the success of sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) models in tasks like or [@bahdanau2014neural; @vaswani2017attention; @chan2015listen]. In seq2seq models, these algorithms are applied over the encoded sequence in order to help the decoder to decide which region of the sequence must be either translated or recognized. For speaker recognition, these models have been also used for text-dependent speaker verification. In works like [@bhattacharya2017deep; @zhang2016end; @chowdhury2017attention], attention is applied over the hidden states of a in order to pool these states into speaker embeddings. The same idea has been also used for text-independent verification. In [@cai2018exploring], a unified framework is introduced for both speaker and language recognition. In this architecture, variable-length input utterance is fed into a network that encodes an utterance level representation. In addition to temporal pooling, they have also adopted a self-attention pooling mechanism and a learnable dictionary encoding layer to get the utterance level representation. Multi-head attention is a newly emerging attention mechanism which is originally proposed in [@vaswani2017attention] for a *Transformer* architecture and appeared very effective in many seq2seq models such as [@vaswani2017attention; @chiu2018state; @dehghani2018universal].
In this paper we present a multi-head attention based network for speaker verification. This mechanism is used as a self attentive pooling layer to create an utterance level embedding. Given a set of encoded representations from a feature extractor, self attention performs a weighted average of these representations. This mechanism differs from other pooling methods in that the average weights are also trained as network parameters. In comparison with other works like [@cai2018exploring], our approach introduces a major improvement by using multi-head attentions (instead of single-head attention as in [@cai2018exploring]). This allows the model to attend to different parts of the sequence, which is one of the main limitations of vanilla self attentive pooling. In the same way, multi-head also helps the network to attend to different sub-sets of the encoded representations. Therefore the encoder is not forced to create overall speaker embeddings from the feature level. Attention allows the encoder to create different sets of features, so the model can attend to the most discriminative patterns from different positions of the sequence. The main contribution of this works is the introduction of a pooling layer which takes advantage of multi-head self attention mechanism to create more discriminative speaker embeddings. We compare this pooling mechanism with temporal and statistical pooling layers. In order to show the effectiveness of the proposed approach, these embeddings will be assessed in a text-independent speaker verification task.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 explains self multi-head attention pooling. Section 3 illustrates the architecture of the system. Section 4 gives the details of the system setup. Experimental results are presented in section 5. The concluding remarks and some future works are given in section 6.
Self Multi-Head Attention Pooling
=================================
Self attentive pooling attention was initially proposed in [@cai2018exploring] for text-independent speaker verification. Their objective was to use a trainable and more adapted layer for pooling than vanilla temporal average. Given a sequence of encoded hidden states from a network, temporal pooling averages these representations over the time to obtain a final encoded embedding. The main problem of this method is that assumes that all the elements of the sequence must contribute equally in obtaining the utterance level representation. Self attentive pooling is a mechanism that through a trainable layer is able to assign a weight over each representation of the sequence. Hence given these weights, the utterance level representation is obtained through the respective weighted average of these representations.
Consider a sequence of hidden of sequence states $h=[h_1 h_2 ... h_N]$, with $h_t\in \mathbb{R}^{d} $, and a trainable $u \in \mathbb{R}^d$. We can define a relevance scalar weight for each element of the sequence trough a softmax layer:
$$\centering
w_t = \frac{\exp{(h^{T}_{t}u)}}{\sum^{N}_{l=1}\exp{(h^{T}_{l}u)}}$$
Given the set of weights over all the elements of the sequence, we can then obtain the pooled representation as the weighted average of the hidden states:
$$\centering
c = \sum^{N}_{t=1}h^{T}_{t}w_t$$
This attention mechanism has some limitations. The main restriction is that attention weights are calculated considering the whole information of the embedding. Therefore, we assume that all the discriminative information of the signal must come from the same encoded representations of the utterance.
![An example of the Self Multi-Head Attention Pooling with $3$ heads.[]{data-label="FIG: multihead-attn"}](Soft_MHA_Attention_3){width="3.2in"}
Multi-head attention model was firstly introduced in [@vaswani2017attention]. This approach consists on splitting the encoded representations of the sequence into homogeneous sub-vectors called heads (Figure \[FIG: multihead-attn\]). If we consider a number of $k$ heads for the multi-head attention, now $h_t=[h_{t1}h_{t2}...h_{tk}]$ where $h_{tj} \in \mathbb{R}^{d/k}$. We can compute then the head size as $d/k$. In the same way we have also a trainable parameter $u=[u_1u_2...u_k]$ where $u_j \in \mathbb{R}^{d/k}$. A different attention is then applied over each head of the encoded sequence:
$$\centering
w_{tj} = \frac{\exp{(h^{T}_{tj}u_j)}}{\sum^{N}_{l=1}\exp{(h^{T}_{lj}u_j)}}$$
where $w_{tj}$ corresponds to the attention weight of the head $j$ on the step $t$ of the sequence. If each head corresponds to a subspace of the hidden state, the weight sequence of that head can be considered as a probability distribution function from that sub-space features over the sequence. We then compute a new pooled representation for each head in the same way than vanilla self attention:
$$\centering
c_j = \sum^{N}_{t=1}h^{T}_{tj}w_{tj}$$
where $c_j\in \mathbb{R}^{d/k}$ corresponds to the utterance level representation from head $j$. The final utterance level representation is then obtained with the concatenation of the utterance level vectors from all the heads $c=[c_1c_2...c_k]$. This method allows the network to extract different kind information over different regions of the network. Besides, the main advantage of this attention variation is that it does not increase the complexity of the model adding more parameters on the model. Instead of having a global $u$ attention vector, we have now a subset of attention vector $u_j$ which sums the same number of components than $u$.
System Description
==================
Figure \[FIG: System Diagram\] shows the overall architecture used for this work. The proposed neural network is a based encoder and an attention based pooling layer followed by a set of dense layers. The network is fed with variable length mel-spectrogram features. These features are then mapped into a sequence of speaker representations trough a encoder. This feature extractor is based on of the VGG proposed in [@hori2017advances] for the task. In our case, we have extended this architecture so as to work for speaker verification. Our adapted VGG is composed of three convolution blocks, where each block contains two concatenated convolutional layers followed by a max pooling layer with a $2$x$2$ stride. Hence given a spectrogram a of $N$ frames, the VGG performs a down-sampling reducing its output into a sequence of $N/8$ representations. Given this set of representations, the attention mechanism is then used to transform the encoded states of the into an overall speaker representation. Finally this fixed length embedding is feed into a set of layers and a softmax layer. We refer to bottle neck layer previous to the softmax layer as the speaker embedding. The softmax layer corresponds to the speaker labels of the train partition corpus. Hence the network is trained as a speaker classifier. The speaker embedding layer corresponds to the speaker representation that will be used for the speaker verification task.
![System Diagram.[]{data-label="FIG: System Diagram"}](Basic_Diagram_2){width="3.3in"}
Layer Size In Dim. Out Dim. Stride Feat Size
--------- ------ --------- ---------- -------- -----------
conv11 3x3 1 128 1x1 128xN
conv12 3x3 128 128 1x1 128xN
mpool1 2x2 - - 2x2 64xN/2
conv21 3x3 128 256 1x1 64xN/2
conv22 3x3 256 256 1x1 64xN/2
mpool2 2x2 - - 2x2 32xN/4
conv31 3x3 256 512 1x1 32xN/4
conv32 3x3 512 512 1x1 32xN/4
mpool3 2x2 - - 2x2 16XN/8
flatten - 512 1 - 8192xN/8
: Architecture. In and Out Dim. refers to the input and output feature maps of the layer. Feat Size refers to the dimension of each one of this output feature maps.[]{data-label="TAB: Network Dimensions"}
Experimental Setup
==================
The proposed system in this work will be tested on VoxCeleb1 [@Nagrani17]. This corpus is a large multimedia database that contains over $100,00$ utterances for $1,251$ celebrities, extracted from videos uploaded to *Youtube*. For each person in the corpus there is an average of $18$ videos. Each of these videos has been split into approximately $123$ short speech utterances of $8.2$ seconds average length. The proposed approaches will be evaluated on the original VoxCeleb1 speaker verification protocol [@Chung18b]. Hence the network is trained with VoxCeleb1 development partition and evaluated on the test set.
Three different baselines will be considered to compare with the presented approach. The soft multi-head attention pooling will be evaluated against two statistical based methods: temporal and statistical pooling. In order to evaluate them, this pooling layers will replace the attention pooling block without modifying any other parameter of the network. The speaker vectors used for the verification tests will be extracted from the same speaker embedding layer for each of the pooling methods. The metric used to compute the scores between embeddings for the verification task is cosine distance. Additionally we have also considered an i-vector + PLDA baseline [@dehak2011front; @prince2007probabilistic]. The i-vector is created from $20$ MFCC + delta coefficients features. The extraction is performed using a $1024$ and a $400$ total variability matrix. G-PLDA[@prince2007probabilistic] is applied with $200$ eigenvector size.
**Approach** **DCF** **EER**
--------------------------- ------------ ---------
I-vector + PLDA 0.0078 $9.54$
CNN + Temporal Pooling 0.0047 $4.91$
CNN + Statistical Pooling 0.0046 $4.9$
CNN + Att. Pooling 0.005 $4.71$
CNN + MHA Pooling **0.0045** **4.0**
: Evaluation results of the text-independent verification task on VoxCeleb 1. The results for our proposed architecture have been obtained using cosine scoring.[]{data-label="TAB: Results"}
![DET curves for the experiments on VoxCeleb 1 verification task. MHA stands for the Multi-Head Attention.[]{data-label="FIG: DET-curves"}](DET.png){width="2.6in"}
{width="6.5in"}
The proposed network has been trained to classify variable length speaker utterances. For feature extraction we have used librosa [@brian_mcfee_2019_2564164] to extract $128$ dimension mel-spectrograms. The encoder is then feed with $128$x$N$ spectrograms to obtain a sequence of $8192$x$N/8$ encoded hidden representations. The setup of the feature extractor can be found on Table \[TAB: Network Dimensions\]. The pooling layer maps the encoded sequence into an unique speaker representation. The following Block consists on two consecutive dense layers with $1024$ and $500$ dimension, where the last layer correspond to the speaker embedding. A final softmax layer is then fed with the speaker embedding. Batch normalization has been applied on the $1024$ dense layer and $0.2$ dropout on the softmax layer. Adam optimizer has been used to train all the models with standard values and learning rate of $1e-4$. Finally we have applied a $5$ epochs patience early stopping criterion.
Results
=======
The proposed attention pooling layer has been evaluated with different approaches in the VoxCeleb1 text-independent verification task and presented in Table \[TAB: Results\]. Performance is evaluated using the and the minimum Decision Cost Function (DCF) calculated using $C_{FA}=1$, $C_{M}=1$, and $P_{T}=0.01 $. MHA Pooling refers to the best self multi-head attention model that we have trained. This model has a $128$ head size, which corresponds to $64$ heads per encoded representation. I-vector with PLDA have shown the worst results for this task. As it has mentioned before, i-vectors performance decreases in short-utterance condition. Following the i-vector, the statistical based pooling layers have scored $4.91\%$ and $4.9\%$ EER, respectively. Vanilla self attentive pooling performance has shown a $4.71\%$ EER. Similar to the work proposed in [@cai2018exploring], self attentive pooling doesn’t lead to a big improvement. Here it has only shown a $4\%$ improvement relative improvement. Self Multi-Head attention has shown the best result of all the evaluated approaches. It outperforms both i-vector+PLDA and statistical based pooling layers with a $58\%$ EER and $18\%$ EER improvement, respectively. In comparison with self attentive pooling layer, MHA also shows a noticeable improvement of $14 \%$ EER.
Figure \[FIG: DET-curves\] shows the curves of the i-vector+PLDA baseline and our proposed architecture with different pooling mechanisms. It shows that not only at the EER but also at all other working points MHA pooling outperforms other pooling mechanisms by a large margin.
In order to understand the improvement achieved with self-multihead attention pooling in comparison with vanilla attention models, we have assessed their attention weights. Figure \[FIG: Attention\] shows the weight values created over the encoded features of the CNN for both vanilla and multi-head attention pooling in one of the VoxCeleb1 test utterances. On the top we can appreciate how each of the several heads of the multi-head model attends to different regions of the sequence. That suggests that the model is able to capture sub-sets of features from the encoded representations in different parts of the signal. On the bottom, the weight values from vanilla attention model are compared with the averaged weights of the different heads of the multi-head model (cumulative multi-head). Vanilla attention weights have a more uniform distribution over the sequence than the weights showed by the heads of the multi-head model in the top image. If we compare the weight alignment created from both vanilla attention and cumulative multi-head, several discriminative regions are commonly detected. However, there are some regions of the sequence attended by the MHA model that vanilla attention has not detected. That suggests that MHA degrees of freedom permits the detection procedure to focus on more specific regions of the sequence.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have applied a self multi-head attention mechanism to obtain speaker embeddings at level utterance by pooling short-term features. This pooling layer have been tested in a neural network based on a CNN that maps spectrograms into sequences of speaker vectors. These vectors are then input to the pooling layer, which output activation is then connected to a set of dense layers. The network is trained as a speaker classifier and a bottleneck layer from the fully connected block is used as speaker embedding. We have evaluated this approach with other pooling methods for the text-independent verification task using the speaker embeddings and applying cosine distance. The presented approach have outperformed standard pooling methods based on statistical layers and vanilla attention models. We have also analyzed the multi-head attention alignments over a sequence. This analysis have shown that self multi head attention layer allows to capture specific sub-sets of features over different regions of a sequence.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was supported in part by the Spanish Project DeepVoice (TEC2015-69266-P).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The commuting graph of a finite soluble group with trivial centre is investigated. It is shown that the diameter of such a graph is at most 8 or the graph is disconnected. Examples of soluble groups with trivial centre and commuting graph of diameter 8 are provided.'
address: |
School of Mathematics\
University of Birmingham\
Edgbaston\
Birmingham B15 2TT\
United Kingdom
author:
- Christopher Parker
title: The commuting graph of a soluble group
---
Introduction
============
Suppose that $G$ is a group. The *commuting graph* $\Gamma(G)$ of $G$ is the graph which has vertices the non-central elements of $G$ and two distinct vertices of $\Gamma(G)$ are adjacent if and only if they commute in $G$.
\[1\] Suppose that $G$ is a finite soluble group with trivial centre. Then
1. $\Gamma(G)$ is disconnected if and only if $G$ is a Frobenius group or a $2$-Frobenius group.
2. If $\Gamma(G)$ is connected, then $\Gamma(G)$ has diameter at most $8$.
Furthermore, there exist soluble groups $G$ with trivial centre such that $\Gamma(G)$ has diameter $8$.
In Theorem \[1\] (i), a *$2$-Frobenius group* is a group $G$ which has proper normal subgroups $K$ and $L$ such that $L$ is a Frobenius group with kernel $K$ and $G/K$ is a Frobenius group with kernel $L/K$. Note that if $G$ is a $2$-Frobenius group, then $G/K$ is metacyclic.
In [@G], an infinite family of finite soluble groups $G$ with $Z(G)=1$ and $\Gamma(G)$ connected of diameter $6$ is presented. These examples prompted the work described in this paper. In his PhD thesis, Woodcock [@W] showed that if $G$ is a non-trivial soluble group with trivial centre in which all the non-trivial Sylow $r$-subgroups, $r$ a prime, are not cyclic or, in addition, if $r=2$, not generalized quaternion, then $G$ has diameter at most $7$. In work of Segev and Seitz which was required for the study of the multiplicative group of a division algebra (they prove that finite quotients of the multiplicative group of a finite dimensional division algebra are soluble in collaboration with Rapinchuk [@R]), it is demonstrated that the commuting graph of a classical simple group defined over a field of order greater than $5$ is either disconnected or has diameter at most $10$ and at least $4$ [@SS Corollary (pg. 127), Theorem 8]. They also prove that the commuting graphs of the exceptional Lie type groups other than $\mathrm E_7(q)$ and the sporadic simple groups are disconnected [@SS Theorem 6]. In [@I] Iranmanesh and Jafarzadeh demonstrate that the commuting graph of $\mathrm{Sym}(n)$ and $\mathrm {Alt}(n)$ is either disconnected or has diameter at most $5$ and, in the same article, they conjecture that there is an absolute upper bound for the diameter of a connected commuting graph of a non-abelian finite group. Theorem \[1\] confirms this conjecture for finite soluble groups with trivial centre. In [@Heg], an example of a $2$-group with commuting graph of diameter 10 is given and they present a family of randomly created $2$-groups of class two which they conjecture have unbounded diameter commuting graph. None-the-less the conjecture that the diameter of the commuting graph of a group with trivial centre has an absolute upper bound may be correct.
In Section 3, we prove that the commuting graph of a soluble group with trivial centre is either disconnected of has diameter at most $8$. Also in Section 3 and at the same time as we prove the main statement, we show that the commuting graph is disconnected if and only if $G$ is either a Frobenius or $2$-Frobenius group. This latter statement is most probably well-known as in this case the prime graph is also disconnected [@Gr; @Will]. Guided by our attempt to prove that the diameter of such a graph was at most $7$, in Section 4, we conjure up a family of connected commuting graphs of diameter $8$. One of the smallest groups in the family has order $11^{20}5^23221=54173193341944394740910525$.
If $\{x,y\}$ is an edge in $\Gamma(G)$ or, if $ x=y$, then we write $x \sim y$. In particular, $x \sim y$ indicates that $x,y \in G \setminus Z(G)$. If $x $ and $ y $ are vertices in $\Gamma(G)$, then $\mathrm d(x,y)$ denotes the distance between $x$ and $y$. Our group theoretic notation is mostly standard and follows that in [@Aschbacher; @Gor]. In particular we mention that for a group $G$, $G^\#$ is the set of non-identity elements of $G$.
Preliminary results
===================
Before we engage in the proof of Theorem \[1\], we post five preliminary results which are well-known and will be used frequently.
\[Frob\] Suppose that $X$ is a group and $X= JK$ with $J$ a proper normal subgroup of $X$ and $K$ a complement to $J$. Then $C_X(k) \le K$ for all $k \in K^\#$ if and only if $X$ is a Frobenius group.
If $X$ is a Frobenius group then this statement is found in [@Gor 2.7.6 (iv)]. Suppose that $X= JK$ with $J$ a proper normal subgroup of $X$ and $K$ a complement to $J$. Assume that $h \in (K \cap K^g)^\#$ for some $g\in X$. Then, as $X= JK=KJ$, $g = kj$ for some $j \in J$ and $k \in K$. Thus $$K \cap K^g= K\cap K^j.$$ Since $h, h^{j^{-1}} \in K$ and $J$ is normal in $X$, $h^{-1}h^{j^{-1}}= [h,j^{-1}] \in J\cap K=1$. Consequently $j \in C_X(h) \le K\cap J=1$. It follows that if $K \cap K^g \ne 1$, then $g \in K$ and $K= K^g$. Hence $X$ is a Frobenius group.
The next lemma is similar to the preceding one except and the proof is left as an exercise.
\[Frob2\] Suppose that $J$ is a proper normal subgroup of $X$. Then $X$ is a Frobenius group if and only if $C_X(j) \le J$ for all $j \in J^\#$.
The next lemma describes the structure of a Frobenius complement and goes back to Burnside.
\[meta\] Suppose $X$ is a Frobenius complement. Then every Sylow subgroup of $X$ is cyclic or generalized quaternion. Furthermore, any two elements of prime order commute and if $X$ has odd order then $X$ is metacyclic.
[@Hu Satz 8.18, p. 506].
The next lemma delivers elements with non-trivial centralizers.
\[fps\] Let $p,q,r$ be distinct primes, $X$ be a group of order $r$ which acts faithfully on a $q$-group $Q$ and $V$ be a faithful $\mathrm{GF}(p)XQ$-module. Additionally, if $q=2$ and $r$ is a Fermat prime, assume that $Q$ is abelian. Then $C_V(X)\ne 0$.
See [@Aschbacher 36.2].
One final celebrated result: Frobenius kernels are nilpotent.
\[T\]If $G$ admits a fixed-point-free automorphism of prime order, then $G$ is nilpotent.
See [@Gor Theorem 10.2.1] for example.
Proof of the theorem
====================
The first two lemmas confirm that the commuting graphs of Frobenius groups and $2$-Frobenius groups are disconnected. They are surely well-known.
\[L0\] If $X$ is a Frobenius group, then $\Gamma(X)$ is disconnected.
Suppose $K$ is a Frobenius complement of $X$. Then $C_X(k) \le K$ for all $k \in K^\#$ by Lemma \[Frob\]. Hence the vertices of $\Gamma$ in $K^\#$ are only connected to vertices in $K^\#$ and this means $\Gamma(X)$ is disconnected with one of the connected component having vertices contained in $K^\#$.
\[L01\] If $X$ is a $2$-Frobenius group, then $\Gamma(X)$ is disconnected.
Let $K$ and $L$ be normal subgroups of $X$ such that $L$ is a Frobenius group with kernel $K$ and $X/K$ is a Frobenius group with kernel $L/K$. Let $J$ be a complement to $K$ in $L$ and $M = N_X(J)$. Then, by the Frattini Argument, $X= MK$ and $M \cap K= 1$. Hence $M$ is a complement to $K$ in $X$. Thus $M \cong X/K$ is a Frobenius group. We consider the subgraph of $\Gamma(X)$ spanned by the elements of $J^\#$ and claim that this is disconnected from $X\setminus J$. So let $j \in J^\#$ and consider $C_X(j)$. We have $C_M(j) \le J$ and $C_L(j) \le J$ as $L$ and $M$ are Frobenius groups. Let $x \in C_X(j)$. Then $x= mk$ for some $m \in M$ and $k \in K^\#$. Thus $j^x= j$ and this means $j^m = j^{k^{-1}}$. Hence $j^m \in M$ and $j^{k^{-1}} \in L$. Therefore $$j^m =j^{k^{-1}}\in L \cap M= JK \cap M= (K \cap M)J= J.$$ Since $M$ is a Frobenius group with complement $J$, $m \in J$ and, as $L$ is a Frobenius group with complement $J$, $k^{{-1}}\in J$. But then $x \in J$ and so $C_X(j) \le J$. This proves our claim.
The remainder of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[1\]. Suppose that $G$ is a finite soluble group with $Z(G)=1$. Set $\Gamma= \Gamma(G)$. Because $G$ has trivial centre, $G^\#= G\setminus\{1\}$ is the vertex set of $\Gamma(G)$. Note that the next two lemmas apply to arbitrary finite groups.
\[L1\] Assume that $N$ is a minimal normal subgroup of $G$ and set $F= C_G(N)$. If $a,b \in G^\#$ and $\d(a,b) > 4$, then either $C_G(a) \cap F = 1$ or $C_G(b) \cap F=1$.
If $C_G(a) \cap F \ne 1$ and $C_G(b) \cap F\ne 1$. Then there exist $n \in N^\#$ and $c, d \in F^\#$ such that $$a\sim c \sim n \sim d\sim b,$$ which is a contradiction as $d(a,b) > 4$.
The next lemma more-or-less explains why the structure of groups with a large diameter commuting graph have very uncomplicated and restricted structure.
\[L2\] Suppose that the diameter of $\Gamma$ is at least $7$. If $N$ is a minimal normal subgroup of $G$, then $C_G(N) = F(G)$.
Set $F= C_G(N)$ and let $c,d \in G^\#$ be such that $\d(c,d)>6$. Since $F(G)$ is nilpotent, $F(G) \le F$. Let $a \in \langle c \rangle$ and $b \in \langle d \rangle$ have prime order. Because $\d(c,d) > 6$, $\d(a,b) > 4$ and so Lemma \[L1\] gives $C_F(a)=C_G(a) \cap F = 1$ or $C_F(b)=C_G(b) \cap F=1$. Therefore Thompson’s Theorem \[T\] shows $F$ is nilpotent. Since $F$ is normal in $G$, $F \le F(G)$ and so $F=F(G)$, as claimed.
From now on we fix $F= F(G)$. Let $J$ be the preimage of $F(G/F)$, $Z$ be the preimage of $Z(J/F)$. We also let $V$ be a minimal normal subgroup of $G$. Thus $V \le F$ and $F= C_G(V)$ by Lemma \[L2\].
\[L6\] Suppose that the diameter of $\Gamma$ is at least $7$. Then $|J/F|$ is coprime to $|F|$.
Assume that $s$ is a prime which divides $|F|$ and let $S \in \syl_s(J)$. Then $Z(SF) \ne 1$ and, as $SF$ is normal in $G$, there exists a minimal normal subgroup $N$ of $G$ contained in $Z(SF)$. However, by Lemma \[L2\], $F= C_G(N)$ thus $S \le F$ and this proves the lemma.
For the remainder of this section, aiming to prove Theorem \[1\] by contradiction, we assume that
> *$G$ is not a Frobenius group or a $2$-Frobenius group and the diameter of $\Gamma$ is greater than $8$.*
Let $x, y \in G^\#$ be such that $\d(x,y)>8$. Note that there may be no path between $x$ and $y$ as we have not assumed that $\Gamma$ is connected. Let $x_r$ be an element of prime order $r$ in $\langle x\rangle$ and $y_s $ be an element of prime order $s$ in $\langle y\rangle$. Furthermore, suppose that $r$ and $s$ are chosen to be maximal. Obviously $\d(x_r,y_s)> 6$.
\[L4\] Either all elements of $C_G(x_r)^\#$ or all elements of $C_G(y_s)^\#$ act fixed-point-freely on $F$.
Assume the statement is false and let $f \in C_F(a)^\#$ and $g \in C_F(b)^\#$ where $a \in C_G(x_r)^\#$ and $b \in C_G(y_s)^\#$. Then there exists $v \in V^\#$ such that $$x\sim x_r \sim a\sim f \sim v \sim g \sim b \sim y_s \sim y,$$ which contradicts $\d(x,y)>8$.
Because of Lemma \[L4\] we may, without loss of generality, assume that every element of $C_G(x_r)^\#$ acts fixed-point-freely on $F$. Lemma \[Frob\] gives the following immediate consequence of this choice.
\[L5\] We have $C_G(x_r)F$ is a Frobenius group. In particular, $G \ne C_G(x_r)F$.
The next two lemmas could easily be combined into one for our forthcoming arguments; however, the separation of them more transparently indicates the structure of groups which are likely to provide extremal examples of large diameter commuting graphs and explains why in our examples constructed in Section 4 we have required $C_G(x_r)$ to have odd order.
\[Cxrodd\] The subgroup $C_G(x_r)$ has odd order and is metacyclic.
Suppose that $z \in C_G(x_r)$ is an involution. Then, as every non-trivial element of $C_G(x_r)$ acts fixed-point-freely on $F$, $z$ is the unique involution of $C_G(x_r)$ by Lemma \[meta\]. Therefore $F$ is inverted by $z$, $x$ centralizes $z$, $F$ is abelian and $G= C_G(z)F$.
As $G$ is not a Frobenius group, there exists $d \in C_G(z)^\#$ such that $C_F(d) \ne 1$ by Lemma \[Frob\]. Assume $C_F(y_s) \ne 1$. Then we have $$x \sim z \sim d \sim f \sim f_1\sim y_s \sim y$$ where $f, f_1 \in F^\#$, a contradiction. Hence $C_F(y_s)=1$ and $y$ centralizes $z^f$ for some $f \in F$. Observe $d^f \in C_G(z^f)$ and $C_F(d)= C_F(d)^f=C_F(d^f)$. Hence there exists $f_1 \in C_F(d)^\#$ such that $$x \sim z \sim d \sim f_1 \sim d^f \sim z^f \sim y$$ the final straw. Hence $|C_G(x_r)|$ is odd and the fact that $C_G(x_r)$ is metacyclic follows from Lemma \[meta\].
The fact that $G$ is soluble plays a critical role in the next lemma.
\[L7\] We have $x_r \in Z$ and $Z/F$ is cyclic.
Suppose that $x_r \not \in Z$. Then, as $J/F= F(G/F)$ and $G/F$ is soluble, there exists a prime $t$ such that the Sylow $t$-subgroup of $J/F$ is not centralized by $x_r$. Suppose first that $t= r$. Let $R \in \syl_r(J\langle x_r\rangle)$ with $x_r \in R$. Then $x_r\not\in Z(R)$. Let $z_r \in Z(R)^\#$ have order $r$. Then $\langle z_r, x_r \rangle$ is elementary abelian of order $r^2$ and, as $r$ is coprime to $|F|$, by [@Gor Theorem 5.3.16], $$V= \langle C_V(z)\mid z \in \langle z_r, x_r \rangle^\#\rangle$$ contrary to the choice of $x_r$ to have every element of $C_G(x_r)^\#$ acting fixed-point-freely on $F$. Therefore $t \ne r$. Choose $ T \in \syl_t(J)$ to be $\langle x_r\rangle$ invariant. Since $C_V(x_r)=0$, noting that $T\langle x_r\rangle$ acts faithfully on $V$ by Lemma \[L2\], Lemma \[fps\] implies that $T$ is a $2$-group and that every abelian characteristic subgroup of $T$ is centralized by $x_r$. In particular, $Z(T)$ is centralized by $x_r$. Thus $C_G(x_r)$ has even order which is contrary to Lemma \[Cxrodd\]. Thus $x_r$ centralizes $J/F$ and so $x_r \in Z$. Finally as some complement to $Z$ in $F$ is contained in $C_G(x_r)$ and all abelian subgroups of $C_G(x_r)$ are cyclic by Lemma \[meta\], $Z/F$ is cyclic.
\[L11\] We have $G= N_G(\langle x_r\rangle)F$, $N_G(\langle x_r\rangle) \cap F=1$ and $G/C_G(x_r)F$ is cyclic of order dividing $r-1$.
Since, by Lemma \[L7\], $Z/F$ is cyclic, $\langle x_r\rangle F$ is a normal subgroup of $G$. Hence $G= N_G(\langle x_r\rangle)F$ by the Frattini Argument. As $F \cap C_G( x_r) =1$ and $F$ is normal in $G$, $N_G(\langle x_r\rangle) \cap F=1$. Because $x_r$ has order $r$ and $\mathrm{Aut}(\langle x_r\rangle)$ is cyclic of order $r-1$, we obtain $G/C_G(x_r)F$ is cyclic of order dividing $r-1$.
\[L13\] There exists $d \in G^\#$, $c \in C_G(x_r)^\#$ and $v \in V^\#$ such that $$x_r\sim c \sim d \sim v.$$ Furthermore, $c$ can be chosen of prime order.
Recall from Lemma \[L5\], $C_G(x_r)F$ is a Frobenius group and $G \ne C_G(x_r)F$. Let $K$ be chosen so that $ C_G(x_r) \le K \le N_G( \langle x_r\rangle)$ is maximal by containment such that $KF$ is a Frobenius group. As $G$ is not a Frobenius group, $G \ne KF$. Observe that, since $G/C_G(x_r)F$ is cyclic by Lemma \[L11\], $KF$ is normal in $G$ and $K$ is normal in $N_G( \langle x_r\rangle)$.
If $C_G(k) \le K$ for all $k \in K^\#$, then, in particular, $C_{N_G(\langle x_r \rangle)}(k) \le K$ for all $k \in K^\#$. Since $K$ is a proper normal subgroup of $N_G(\langle x_r \rangle)$, $N_G(\langle x_r \rangle)$ is a Frobenius group with kernel $K$ by Lemma \[Frob2\]. But then Lemma \[L13\] and the choice of $K$ implies that $G$ is a $2$-Frobenius group, which is a contradiction. Hence there exists $k \in K^\#$ such that $C_G(k) \not \le K$. Let $k\in K$ be any such element. If $g \in C_G(k)$, then $K \cap K^g \ge \langle k \rangle$ and so, as $KF$ is a Frobenius group, $g$ normalizes $K$. Thus $C_G(k) \le N_G(K) = N_G(\langle x_r\rangle)$ and this is true for all $k \in K^\#$.
Let $d_0 \in N_G( \langle x_r\rangle)\setminus K$ be of minimal order such that $C_K(d_0) \ne 1$. Then $|K\langle d_0\rangle: K| =t$ for some prime $t$. From the maximal choice of $K$, $K \langle d_0 \rangle $ is not a Frobenius complement in $F K\langle d_0 \rangle$ and so there exists $d \in K \langle d_0 \rangle$ such that $C_F(d)\ne 1$ by Lemma \[Frob\]. Since $C_F(k)= 1$ for all $k \in K^\#$, we have $\langle d \rangle \cap K = 1$. Therefore, from the minimal choice of $d_0$, we have $K \langle d_0 \rangle= K\langle d \rangle$ and $d$ has order $t$. Now, either $d$ centralizes some $t$-element of $K$ or $t$ and $|K|$ are coprime. In the latter case, as $C_K(d_0^n) \ge C_K(d_0)$ for all integers $n$, the minimal choice of the order of $d_0$ implies that $d_0$ has order $t$ as well. Therefore, in this case, $\langle d \rangle$ and $\langle d_0\rangle $ are conjugate in $K\langle d_0 \rangle$ by Sylow’s Theorem. Thus whatever happens we have $C_K(d) \ne 1$. If $V$ is a $t$-group then $C_V(d)\ne 1$. So assume that $V$ is not a $t$-group. Then, as $d \in N_G( \langle x_r\rangle)\setminus K$ and $K \ge C_G(x_r)$, $d$ acts non-trivially on $\langle x_r\rangle$ and so, by Lemma \[fps\], $C_V(d) \ne 1$. Now let $c \in C_K(d)$ be chosen of prime order. Since $c \in K$ and $K$ is a Frobenius complement in $KF$, $C_V(c)\le C_F(c)=1$ and, since $c$ normalizes $\langle x_r \rangle$, $c \in C_G(x_r)$ by Lemma \[fps\] (or \[meta\]). Thus choosing $v \in C_V(d)^\#$ we have the result as claimed.
\[L14\] Suppose that $e \in C_G(y_s)^\#$. Then $C_F(e)= 1$.
If this statement is false, then $C_F(e)\ne 1$ for some $e \in C_G(y_s)^\#$. Let $f \in C_F(e)^\#$. Lemma \[L13\] provides $c \in C_G(x_r)^\#$, $d \in G^\#$, $v \in V^\# \subseteq Z(F)^\#$ such that $$x\sim x_r \sim c \sim d \sim v \sim f\sim e \sim y_s \sim y$$ which contradicts $\d(x,y) > 8$.
Using Lemma \[L13\] there exists $c \in C_G(x_r)^\#$, $d \in G^\#$ and $v \in V^\#$ such that $x_r \sim c \sim d \sim v$. Moreover we may suppose that $c$ has prime order. Since $|C_G(x_r)|$ has odd order and any two elements of prime order commute in $C_G(x_r)$, we have $c \in Z(F(C_G(x_r)))$ and so $c \in Z$ and $\langle x_r,c \rangle$ are contained in a complement to $F$ in $Z$. Because of Lemma \[L14\] the situation between $x_r$ and $y_s$ is symmetric. In particular, $y_s \in Z$ by Lemma \[L7\]. Therefore, there exists an element $h$ of $F$ such that $\langle y_s, c^h \rangle$ is contained in a complement to $F$ in $Z$. Especially, $c^h$ centralizes $y_s$. Hence, as $V \le Z(F)$, we have the following path between $x$ and $y$: $$x\sim x_r \sim c\sim d \sim v=v^h \sim d^h\sim c^h \sim y_s \sim y$$ which contradicts $\d(x,y) > 8$. This contradiction finally disproves the hypothesis that $G$ in not a Frobenius group or a $2$-Frobenius group and the diameter of $\Gamma$ is greater than $8$. Hence $G$ is either a Frobenius group or a $2$-Frobenius group or $\Gamma$ has diameter at most $8$. In the former cases, Lemmas \[L0\] and \[L01\] say $\Gamma$ disconnected. This proves Theorem \[1\].
Examples of diameter 8
======================
In this section we present a series of examples of soluble groups $G$ with trivial centre such that $\Gamma(G)$ is connected and the diameter of $\Gamma(G)$ is $8$. This demonstrates that the bound on the diameter of $\Gamma(G)$ obtained in Theorem \[1\] (ii) is optimal. We adopt the notation from the previous section. The examples appear in a situation similar to that studied in Lemma \[L4\].
First we select $q$ a power of an odd prime such that the prime $r$, with $r \ge 5$, divides $q-1$ exactly. Let $\mathbb F = \mathrm{GF}(q^r)$ and $\beta$ be the Frobenius automorphism of $\mathbb F$ of order $r$. Note that $r^2$ divides $q^r-1$. Let $t$ be a prime which divides $(q^r-1)/(q-1)$ but not $q-1$. As an example of this type of formation we may take $q=11$. In this case $r=5$ and $t= 3221$.
Let $V$ be a $4$-dimensional symplectic space over $\mathbb F$ defined with respect to the form which has matrix $J=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&0&0&1\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&-1&0&0\\
-1&0&0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Then $H= {\mathrm{Sp}}(V)= \{A \in \mathrm{GL}(V)\mid AJA^T=J\}$ where $A^T$ is the transpose of $A$. Let
$$F = \left\{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0&0\\
a&1&0&0\\
b&x&1&0\\
c&d&-a&1
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\mid a,b,c,d,x \in \mathbb F, xa=d-b\right\}.$$ Then $F$ has order $q^{4r}$ and, since $q$ is odd, $F$ has nilpotency class $3$. In fact $F$ is a Sylow subgroup of $H$, but this is unimportant for our considerations. Let $$z= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
d&0&0&0\\
0&e&0&0\\
0&0&e^{-1}&0\\
0&0&0&d^{-1}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$$ have order $r^2$ and be such that $d, e \in \mathbb F$ are elements of order $r^2$ and the set $\{d^r,d^{-r},e^r,e^{-r}\}$ has order $4$ (which is why we need $r \ge 5$). Then $z \in N_H(F)$ and it is elementary to check that $C_F(z^r)=1$ as $x$ acts on $V$ with distinct eigenvalues. Let $$c= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
f&0&0&0\\
0&f&0&0\\
0&0&f^{-1}&0\\
0&0&0&f^{-1}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$$ where $f \in \mathbb F$ has order $t$. This time we calculate $$C_F(c) = \left\{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0&0\\
a&1&0&0\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&0&-a&1
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\mid a\in \mathbb F\right\}$$ which therefore has order $q$ and is elementary abelian.
Recall that $\beta$ induces an automorphism of $H$ by applying $\beta$ to the entries of the matrices in $H$. We also denote this automorphism by $\beta$. Notice that $\beta$ normalizes $F$, $\langle z\rangle$ and $\langle c\rangle$. Consider $x=z\beta $ in the semi-direct product $H\rtimes \langle \beta\rangle$. Let $D = \langle x, c\rangle$.
\[Dstruct\] $x^r$ has order $r$ and commutes with $c$ and $c^x= c^q \ne c$. In particular, $D$ is metacyclic of order $r^2t$ and $Z(D)=\langle x^r\rangle$.
We just have to consider the elements $d$ and $e$ of $\mathbb F$. We have $(d \beta)^ r= d^{q^{r-1}+ \dots + q +1} \in \mathrm{GF}(q)$ (the fixed field of $\beta$ when acting on $\mathbb F$)and thus has order $r$. A similar statement holds for $e$ and therefore $x^r$ is a diagonal matrix and commutes with $c$.
Since $z$ commutes with $c$, we have $c^x= c^\beta= c^q$.
Finally, as $\langle c \rangle$ is normalized by $x$, we have $D/\langle c \rangle \cong \langle x \rangle$. This proves the result because $\langle x \rangle$ has order $r^2$ and $\langle c \rangle $ has order $t$ is not centralized by $x$ but is centralized by $x^r$.
Set $G= FD \le H \rtimes \langle \beta\rangle$. This is the group which we will demonstrate has a connected commuting graph of diameter $8$. Proving this statement is now our main aim. We let $\Gamma= \Gamma(G)$.
$G$ is not a Frobenius or $2$-Frobenius group. In particular, $\Gamma$ is connected.
Suppose the statement is false. Obviously $G$ is not a Frobenius group as $C_F(c) \ne 1$. Thus there are proper normal subgroups $K$ and $L$ of $G$ such that $L$ is a Frobenius group with kernel $K$ and $G/K$ is a Frobenius group with kernel $L/K$. Since the kernels of Frobenius groups coincide with the Fitting subgroup, we have $K \le F(G)=F$ and $F/K \le L/K$. But then $F \le L$ and so $K= F$. Since, by Lemma \[Dstruct\], $G/F$ is not a Frobenius group we have a contradiction. Now Theorem \[1\] (i) says that $\Gamma$ is connected.
The following statements hold.
1. $C_G(x) = \langle x\rangle$;
2. $C_G(x_r) = D$ for any element $x_r$ of order $r$ in $C_G(x)$; and
3. $C_G(c^*) = \langle c,x^r\rangle C_F(c)$ for any element $c^*$ of order $t$ in $C_X(x^r)$.
We have already seen $C_F(x)=1$ and $C_D(x)=\langle x \rangle$. Hence (i) holds. We also know $C_F(x^r)= 1$, so as $c$ and $x^r$ commute, we have (ii). Finally, if $w \in D^\#$ and $C_F(w) \ne 1$, then $w \in \langle c\rangle$ and this means (iii) holds.
We now set $g= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
1&1&1&0\\
0&1&0&1
\end{smallmatrix}\right) \in F$ and put $y= x^g$.
\[M3\] If $g\in C_F(c)^\#$ and $h \in (C_F(c)^g)^\#$, then $[g,h]\ne 1$.
We have $$C_F(c)^g = \left\{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0&0\\
a&1&0&0\\
-a&0&1&0\\
0&-a&-a&1
\end{smallmatrix}\right)\mid a\in \mathbb F\right\}$$ and then readily calculate that the lemma holds.
\[M4\] $\d(x,y) = 8$ and $\Gamma$ has diameter $8$.
Notice that, if $a \sim b \sim c$, then, for all integers $n$, $a \sim b^n \sim c$ so long as $b^n \ne 1$. In particular, this means that we may assume that in a path from $x$ to $y$, the inner terms of the path have prime order. Since $C_G(x)= \langle x \rangle$ and $C_G(y)= \langle y\rangle$, any path from $x$ to $y$ must have the form $$x \sim x^r\sim \dots \sim (x^r)^g \sim x^g= y.$$ By Lemma \[M3\] (ii), $C_G(x^r)= D$ and the only way to advance from $x$ is to move to an element of order $t$. There is a unique cyclic group of this order in $D$ and so we must have $$x \sim x^r\sim c \sim \dots \sim c^g \sim (x^r)^g \sim x^g= y.$$ The next vertex must be contained in $$C_G(c)= \langle x^r \rangle \langle c \rangle C_F(c)$$ by Lemma \[M3\](iii). The elements of prime order in $C_G(c)$ are conjugate to elements of $\langle x^r\rangle$, $C_F(c)$ or $\langle c \rangle$. Suppose that $x \sim x^r \sim c \sim (x^r)^h$ for some $h \in C_G(c)$. Then the “prime" neighbours of $(x^r)^h$ are in the abelian group $\langle (x^r)^h, c \rangle$ and so there is no way we can take this route without returning via some power of $c$. It follows that there must exists $w \in C_F(c)^\#$ and $w^* \in C_F(c^g)^\#$ such that $$x \sim x^r\sim c \sim w \sim \dots \sim w^* \sim c^g \sim (x^r)^g \sim x^g= y.$$ By Lemma \[M3\], there are no choices of $w\in C_F(c)^\#$ and $w^* \in C_F(c^g)^\#$ such that $[w,w^*]=1$. Since $F$ is nilpotent, we have $\d(w,w^*)=2$ and so we conclude $\d(x,y)=8$. As $\Gamma$ is connected, we obtain $\Gamma$ has diameter $8$ by using Theorem \[1\].
Finally we note that as $q=11$, $r=5$ and $t= 3221$ satisfies our initial criteria we have an explicit example of order $11^{20}5^23221$.
[99]{} Aschbacher, M. Finite group theory. Second edition. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 10. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. Giudici M. and Pope A. On bounding the diameter of the commuting graph of a group, http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3731.pdf, 2012. Gorenstein, D. Finite groups. Harper & Row, Publishers, New York-London 1968. Gruenberg, K. W. and Kegel O., Unpublished manuscript, 1975. Hegarty, P. and Zhelezov, D. Can connected commuting graphs of finite groups have arbitrarily large diameter? Preprint arXiv:1204.5456v3, 2012.
Huppert, B. Endliche Gruppen. I. Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 134 Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York 1967. Iranmanesh A. and Jafarzadeh A. On the commuting graph associated with the symmetric and alternating groups, J. Algebra Appl., 7 (2008), 129–-146. Rapinchuk, A. S., Segev, Y. and Seitz, G. M. Finite quotients of the multiplicative group of a finite dimensional division algebra are solvable. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 (2002), no. 4, 929–978. Segev Y. and Seitz G. M., Anisotropic groups of type $A_n$ and the commuting graph of finite simple groups. Pacific Journal of Mathematics. 202 (2002), 125-225. Williams, J. S. Prime graph components of finite groups. J. Algebra 69 (1981), no. 2, 487–513. Woodcock, T. J. Commuting Graphs of Finite Groups. PhD thesis, University of Virginia, 2010.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Spectral heat kernel/zeta function regularization procedures are employed in this paper to control the divergences arising from vacuum fluctuations of Bogomolnyi-Prasad-Sommerfield vortices in the Abelian Higgs model. Zero modes of vortex fluctuations are the source of difficulties appearing when the standard Gilkey-de Witt expansion is performed. A modified GdW expansion is developed to diminish the impact of the infrared divergences due to the vortex zero modes. With this new technique at our disposal we compute the one-loop vortex mass shift in the planar AHM and the quantum corrections to the string tension of the magnetic flux tubes living in three dimensions. In both cases it is observed that weak repulsive forces surge between these classically non interacting topological defects caused by vacuum quantum fluctuations.'
author:
- |
A. Alonso Izquierdo$^{(a)}$, J. Mateos Guilarte$^{(b)}$, and M. de la Torre Mayado$^{(b)}$\
[, [*University of Salamanca, SPAIN*]{}]{}\
[, [*University of Salamanca, SPAIN*]{}]{}
title: |
**Quantum magnetic flux lines, BPS vortex\
zero modes, and one-loop string tension shifts**
---
PACS: 11.15.Kc; 11.27.+d; 11.10.Gh
Introduction
============
Magnetic flux tubes with vortex filaments at their core were discovered by Abrikosov in the Ginzburg-Landau theory of Type II superconductivity [@Abrikosov1957:spj]. In that context these extended string like objects are macroscopic and do not require an specific treatment in a quantum framework. Nielsen and Olesen, however, rediscovered identical extended objects in the relativistic Abelian Higgs model, see [@Nielsen1973:npb], and proposed for them to play a r$\hat{\rm o}$le in hadronic physics as dual strings. It is thus clear after the Nielsen-Olesen proposal that in this new framework the vortex filaments are of quantum nature and there is the need of clarifying to what kind of quantum state they correspond. It was later shown by Bogomolnyi [@Bogomolny1976:sjnp; @Prasad1975:prl] that Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen vortices, seen in a two dimensional space, belong to a special class of topological solitons when the masses of the scalar and vector particles in the AHM are equal, or, the correlation lengths of scalar and magnetic fields correspond to the critical point between Type I and Type II phases in Ginzburg-Landau superconductors.
It is thus natural to try the understanding of quantum Bogomolnyi-Prasad-Sommerfield planar vortices in the framework of the general quantum theory of solitons. The first successful attempts in this direction were achieved by Vassilevich in [@Vassilevich2003:prd], and Rebhan et al. in [@Rebhan2004:npb], by attacking this problem in the $N=2$ supersymmetric AHM. Almost simultaneously Bordag and Drozdov in [@Bordag2003:prd] computed the vacuum energy due to purely fermionic fluctuations on a Nielsen-Olesen vortex. Together with other colleague we performed similar calculations in the purely bosonic planar AHM in References [@Alonso2004:prd] and [@Alonso2005:prd]. We used the spectral heat kernel/zeta function regularization procedure to control the divergences, both ultraviolet and infrared, arising in the computation of vacuum energies caused by one-loop fluctuations of BPS vortices, as well as those associated to tadpole and self-energy graphs. Invented by Hawking [@Hawking1977:cmp] and Dowker et al [@Dowker1976:prd] to describe quantum fields in curved space-times this method was used for the first time in the analysis of quantum fluctuations of kinks and solitons by van Nieuwenhuizen et al in [@Bordag2002:prd] within a $N=2$ supersymmetric framework. We took profit of these ideas to calculate the quantum corrections to the masses of several types of topological kinks in scalar field models with different number of fields in References [@Alonso2002:npb; @Alonso2002:npb2; @Alonso2004:npb].
The vortex Casimir energy is the main ingredient in the formula giving the vortex mass (2D) or string tension (3D) quantum corrections. It is formally given by the trace, both in the matrix and the $L^2$-functional sense, of the square root of the matrix elliptic partial differential operator that governs the one-loop vortex fluctuations. This Hessian operator is a matrix second-order partial differential operator (PDO) of Schr$\ddot{\rm o}$dinger type. Its square root is defined in the framework of complex powers of elliptic (pseudo) differential operators, a well developed and sound mathematical theory. The formal trace is then the spectral zeta function of the elliptic PDO exhibiting analytical properties in the complex $s$-plane of the exponent. Nevertheless, use of the zeta function with the purpose of regularizing divergences in QFT requires to dispose of more detailed information about its description. The usual strategy developed by the physicist’s community is to take profit of the more tractable spectral heat function to pass to the zeta function via Mellin transform, see e.g. References [@Elizalde1994; @Vassilevich2003:prc; @Avramidi2002:npp]. In particular it is a common technique in dealing with quantum fields on curved spaces and/or extended/solitonic backgrounds to start from the high-temperature (short time) asymptotic expansion of the heat equation kernel following the seminal works of deWitt [@deWitt1965] and Gilkey [@Gilkey1975:jdg] [[^1]]{}. All this machinery is well behaved if the field fluctuations are strictly $L^2$. In QFT, however, two characteristics of the spectrum of the PDO at the stake disturb this naif picture: (1) First, usually there are fluctuations belonging to the continuous spectrum. To cope with this problem one put the system in a normalization box and impose periodic boundary conditions on the fields. Equivalently, a toric variety is taken as space and only at the end the volume is allowed to go to infinity. (2) Second, much more dangerous is the existence of massless particles and/or zero mode fluctuations. These long range fluctuations do not disappear in the low temperature (long time) regime and use of the high temperature asymptotics is made dubious. Barvinsky and Vilkovisky proposed to introduce non-local terms to treat this problem in covariant perturbation theory, see e.g. Reference [@Barvinsky1990:npb], an idea that was put at work by Gusev and Zelnikov [@Gusev2000:prd] to compute the effective action in dilatonic two-dimensional gravity. Recall that effective actions are related to determinants of elliptic PDO, susceptible of being regularized by means of the derivative of the spectral zeta function at the origin of the $s$-complex plane.
E. Weinberg in [@Weinberg1979:prd] showed an index theorem in the open $\mathbb{R}^2$-plane for the deformation operator arising from the linear perturbations of the first-order partial differential equations satisfied by self-dual/BPS vortices. The theorem, see also [@Weinberg2012], stated that the algebraic kernel of the deformation operator has dimension $2 N$ where $N$ is the number of quanta of magnetic flux (vorticity) carried by the vortex solution. This means that there exist $2 N$ zero modes of fluctuation around BPS vortices linearly independent. Our main goal in this paper is to compute the quantum correction to the BPS vortex string tension induced by the vortex fluctuations taking into account the existence of these vortex zero modes. Essentially we shall follow an strategy similar to that developed in [@Barvinsky1990:npb] and [@Gusev2000:prd] but we shall adapt our treatment to the heat kernel/zeta function procedure as applied in quantum theory of solitons. Specifically, our new technique is tailored in order to incorporate the impact of zero modes in the infrared in the Gilkey-deWitt heat kernel expansion. In fact, in Reference [@Alonso2012:epjc] we proposed and tested the improved heat kernel expansion, with the impact of zero modes under control, in scalar one-field theory models in order to compute one-loop kink mass shifts. Limitations in the use of the standard GdW procedure arise when zero modes enter the game because the asymptotic low temperature behaviour of the heat function cannot be reproduced and we were forced to restrict the Mellin transform to a finite range near the high temperature regime. The contributions of the low energy fluctuations to the spectral zeta function are thus almost suppressed. In this sense the question about if the quantum fluctuations induce forces between the BPS vortices remained unsolved because of the lack of control on the previously mentioned source of errors.
The idea to repair this difficulty was to include in the heat kernel expansion a (non local) term that takes care of the effect of zero modes surviving in the low temperature range. The new term induced by the zero modes depends of an arbitrary a priori function of the (fictitious) temperature which is chosen by demanding two properties: (1) The known behaviour of the heat kernel not only at high but also at low temperature are reproduced. (2) The solution of the recurrence relations implied by the asymptotic expansion is minimally perturbed by the arbitrary function. This modification allowed a much more precise evaluation of the Mellin’s transform of the heat trace to obtain the spectral zeta extending the integration interval to all the temperature range. By this token we are able to fix not only the zeta function near the poles but also the entire part. Because in the kink case many exact evaluations of kink mass quantum corrections are known we were able to check that the improved heat kernel expansion offered much closer approximations to the exact results as compared with the results obtained by using the standard GdW method. Moreover, in Reference [@Alonso2014:jhep] we extended the procedure to many component scalar field theory. In these type of models there are families of BPS kinks in such a way than other kink zero modes besides the translational zero mode arises. The results also were much more precise than those previously obtained using the standard GdW expansion, see e.g. [@Alonso2006:hepth] and [@Mateos2009:pos]. More interesting, in this last paper we do not only consider the problem in $(1+1)$-dimensional space-time but we analyzed the one-loop fluctuations in a three dimensional perspective where kinks become domain walls. In Reference [@Rebhan2002:njp] the same problem was addressed over standard supersymmetric kink domain walls relying on dimensional regularization procedures. Our method consequently also works for extended objects of $p$-brane type and, in the case of the model we studied, an interesting phenomenon was unveiled: within a family of classically degenerate BPS kinks repulsive forces were induced by the quantum fluctuations that broke the classical degeneracy. We plan to address an identical issue in the moduli space of BPS vortices in the Abelian Higgs model. Jaffe and Taubes showed in [@Jaffe1980] that the vortex moduli space is the set of $N$ unordered points in $\mathbb{R}^2$. As a consequence vortices with one quantum of magnetic flux move freely without any interaction. The $2N$ vortex zero modes obey to this freedom in the critical point between Type II and Type I superconductivity phases, in the first case surge repulsive whereas in the second case attractive forces between vortices. We shall discuss wether or not this classical picture is maintained at one-loop order after the effect of vortex fluctuations is accounted for. We shall perform the pertinent calculations generalizing the improved GdW heat kernel procedure developed previously for scalar field theories to Abelian gauge theories with spontaneous symmetry breaking. The analysis will be first focused in the planar AHM where the BPS vortices are topological solitons. After that we shall move to study the same problem in a three dimensional space, where we find BPS vortices magnetic tubes or vortex strings. To perform this task, evaluation of the quantum corrections to BPS vortices by using the modified GdW expansion we need a detailed information of the spectrum of the matrix second-order PDO that governs the vortex fluctuations. All the information needed about vortex zero modes and bound states is collected in our recent papers [@Alonso2016:plb] and [@Alonso2016:jhep] where pertinent References can be found.
The organization of the paper is as follows: In Section §.2 we thoroughly address the problem described above in the planar system. Subsection §.2.1 summarize the well known facts about planar BPS fluctuations, in sub-Section §.2.2 the modified or improved GdW heat kernel expansion is generalized to planar Abelian gauge systems with spontaneous symmetry breaking by one scalar field, and finally, in sub-Section §.2.3 the one-loop mass shifts of rotationally symmetric planar BPS vortices are computed. The new one-loop mass vortex shifts performed in this work, although qualitatively compatible with those obtained in [@Alonso2005:prd], are of much greater precision because the new technique is able to incorporate also the effect of zero modes in the spectral zeta function. Section §.3 is fully devoted to describe the quantum corrections at one loop order of the BPS vortex string tensions in the three dimensional Abelian Higgs model. These results are completely new. Some conclusions about the new approach developed here and the induction of repulsive forces between BPS due to their quantum fluctuations offered in Section §.4, where further comments on possible generalizations/extensions of this problem to other physical scenarios are elaborated.
One-loop mass shifts of rotationally symmetric planar BPS vortices
==================================================================
Quantum fluctuations of BPS vortices in the planar Abelian Higgs model
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Abelian Higgs model describes the minimal coupling between an $U(1)$-gauge field and a complex scalar field in a phase where the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken. In terms of non-dimensional variables, $x^\mu \rightarrow \frac{1}{e v}x^\mu$, and fields, $\phi\rightarrow v\phi$, $A_\mu \rightarrow v A_\mu$, where $e$ and $v$ are respectively the gauge coupling and the modulus of the vacuum expectation value of the scalar field, the action functional for the AHM in (2+1)-dimensions reads $$S[\phi,A]=\frac{v}{e}\int d^3x \left[ -\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu \nu} + \frac{1}{2} (D_\mu \phi)^* D^\mu \phi -\frac{\kappa^2}{8} (\phi^* \phi-1)^2 \right] \, \, \, .
\label{action1}$$ The main ingredients entering this formula are: the complex scalar field $\phi=\phi_1+i\phi_2$, the vector gauge potential $A=(A_0,A_1,A_2)$, the covariant derivative $D_\mu \phi = (\partial_\mu -i A_\mu)\phi$ and the field tensor $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$. We choose a systems of units where $c=1$, but $\hbar$ has dimensions of length$\times$mass. The metric tensor in the Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}^{(2,1)}$ is chosen as $g_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag}(1,-1,-1)$ with $\mu,\nu=0,1,2$. The parameter $\kappa^2=\frac{\lambda}{e^2}$, where $\lambda$ is the quartic self-coupling of the scalar field, measures the ratio between the square of the masses of the Higgs, $M^2=\lambda v^2$, and the vector particles, $m^2=e^2 v^2$. Bogomolnyi-Prasad-Sommerfield (self-dual) vortices arise when the parameter $\kappa^2$ is set to unity, $\kappa^2=1, $ in the action (\[action1\]). These vortices are solitonic topological defects (static and spatially localized solutions of the field equations) for which the static energy density functional $$V[\phi,A]=v^2\int d^2 x \Big[ \frac{1}{4} F_{ij} F_{ij} + \frac{1}{2} (D_i\phi)^* D_i\phi + \frac{1}{8} (\phi^*\phi-1)^2 \Big]$$ is finite. A Bogomolnyi arrangement of $V[\phi,A]$ $$V[\phi,A]=\frac{v^2}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \, d^2x \, \left\{\Big(F_{12}\pm\frac{1}{2}(\phi^*\phi-1)\Big)^2+\big\vert D_1\phi\pm i D_2 \phi\vert^2\right\}+\frac{v^2}{2} \,\,\Big\vert \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \, d^2x \, F_{12}\Big\vert \label{bogs}$$ leads us to conclude that solutions of the first-order PDE system $$D_1\phi \pm i D_2 \phi =0 \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} F_{12}\pm \frac{1}{2} (\phi^*\phi -1)=0 \label{pde1}$$ complying with the asymptotic boundary conditions $$\phi^* \phi|_{S_\infty^1}=1 \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{0.5cm} D_i\phi|_{S_\infty^1}=0 \hspace{0.5cm} \equiv \hspace{0.5cm}
\phi |_{S^1_\infty}=e^{i N \theta} \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{0.5cm} A_i|_{S^1_\infty}=-i N\phi^*\partial_i \phi|_{S^1_\infty} \label{asymptotic}$$ where $\theta =\arctan \frac{x^2}{x^1}$, $S_r^1= \{(x^1,x^2): x^1 x^1+x^2 x^2=r^2 \}$ and $S_\infty^1=\lim_{r\to +\infty} S_r$, have a classically quantized magnetic flux: $\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\, dx^1dx^2 \, F_{12}(x^1,x^2)=N\in\mathbb{Z}$.
It is clear from (\[asymptotic\]) that the vector field $A_i$ is asymptotically purely vorticial. Jaffe and Taubes, showed, see [@Jaffe1980], that the solutions are determined from $N$ points freely located in the $\mathbb{R}^2$ plane, around each of which the vector field $A_i$ is a quantized vortex, the total magnetic charge being equal to $N$. It is well known that these magnetically charged objects are also solutions of the second-order static field equations and, because they satisfy the PDE system (\[pde1\]), the BPS vortices are absolute minima of the action in the different topological sectors characterized by $N$. Therefore, these BPS or self-dual vortices are stable. The upper signs in (\[pde1\]) refer to the topological defects with a positive winding number, $N>0$, (vortices), of the map from the $\mathbb{R}^2$ boundary circle $S_\infty^1$ at infinity to the vacuum circle $S^1_1$ determined by the asymptotic behaviour of the complex field, see (\[asymptotic\]). Solutions of (\[pde1\]) with the lower signs are topological defects with negative winding number, $N<0$, (anti-vortices).
Without loss of generality, we shall focus in this paper on solutions with positive magnetic charge, although an identical analysis could be easily developed for anti-vortices. We shall denote by $$\psi(\vec{x};N)=\psi_1(\vec{x};N) + i \, \psi_2(\vec{x};N) \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} V(\vec{x};N)=(V_1(\vec{x};N),V_2(\vec{x};N))$$ the scalar and vector fields of the BPS vortex solutions; the vorticity number, the magnetic charge, will be specified if necessary. Perturbations of these vortex classical solutions in the form $$\widetilde{A}_i(\vec{x};N)= V_i(\vec{x};N) +\epsilon \, a_i(\vec{x}) \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} \widetilde{\phi}_i(\vec{x};N)=\psi_i(\vec{x};N) + \epsilon\, \varphi_i(\vec{x}) \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} i=1,2 \label{perturbed}$$ respond to small fluctuations around the topological defects and open a window to observe the behaviour of these objects in the quantum world up to the semi-classical or one-loop order.
The analysis of the physics of the BPS vortex small fluctuations starts by assembling them in a four-component column which we write as the transpose of the four-component field vector $$\xi(\vec{x})=\left( \begin{array}{cccc}a_1(\vec{x}) & a_2(\vec{x}) & \varphi_1(\vec{x}) & \varphi_2(\vec{x}) \end{array} \right)^{\rm t}\, \, .$$ In order to avoid spurious pure gauge fluctuations we impose the background gauge condition $$B(a_k,\varphi,\phi)=\sum_{k=1}^2 \partial_k a_k-(\psi_1 \varphi_2-\psi_2\varphi_1)=0
\label{backgroundgauge}$$ which can be generated as a field equation by adding to the action the following gauge fixing term: $$S^{(GF)}=\frac{1}{2} \int d^3 x [B(a_k,\varphi,\psi)]^2 \, \, .$$ The expansion of the action up to quadratic order in the fluctuations plus the gauge fixing term reads $$\delta^{(2)}S+S^{(GF)}= -\frac{v}{e}\int_{\mathcal{R}^{2,1}} \, dx^0 dx^1 dx^2\,\left\{ \xi^{\rm t}(x^0,\vec{x})\left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial (x^0)^2}+{\cal H}^+\right] \xi(x^0,\vec{x})\right\}+o(\xi^3)$$ where $${\cal H}^+= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-\Delta + |\psi|^2 & 0 & -2D_1 \psi_2 & 2 D_1 \psi_1 \\
0 & -\Delta +|\psi|^2 & -2 D_2 \psi_2 & 2 D_2 \psi_1 \\
-2 D_1 \psi_2 & -2 D_2\psi_2 & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (3|\psi|^2-1)+V_kV_k & -2 V_k \partial_k -\partial_k V_k \\
2D_1\psi_1 & 2 D_2 \psi_1 & 2V_k \partial_k + \partial_k V_k & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (3|\psi|^2-1) + V_kV_k
\end{array} \right) \label{operator1}$$ is the Hessian or second-order fluctuation operator and terms of third and quartic order in the perturbations are neglected. In the operator ${\cal H}^+$ we denote: $D_1\psi_1 = \partial_1 \psi_1 + V_1 \psi_2$, $D_2\psi_1 = \partial_2 \psi_1 + V_2 \psi_2$, $D_1\psi_2 = \partial_1 \psi_2 - V_1 \psi_1$ and $D_2\psi_2 = \partial_2 \psi_2 - V_2 \psi_1$. In this background gauge the classical energy up to the quadratic order in the small fluctuations is now easily derived: $$H^{(2)}+H^{(GF)}=\frac{v^2}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\, dx^1dx^2 \, \left\{\frac{\partial\xi^t}{\partial t}(\vec{x},t)\frac{\partial\xi}{\partial t}(\vec{x},t)+\xi^t(\vec{x},t){\cal H}^+\xi(\vec{x},t)\right\} +o(\xi^3)\, .$$ We impose finiteness of the norm on the static fluctuations, equivalently the fixed time perturbations, $\xi(\vec{x})$: $\|\xi(\vec{x})\|^2 = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2x [ (a_1(\vec{x}))^2 + (a_2(\vec{x}))^2 + (\varphi_1(\vec{x}))^2 + (\varphi_2(\vec{x}))^2 ] < +\infty$. Thus, the four component vectors of real functions $\xi(\vec{x})$ belong to the Hilbert space of square integrable vector functions, $\xi(\vec{x})\in \oplus_{a=1}^{4}\, L^2_a(\mathbb{R}^2)$. A previous step to quantize this system is to perform the normal mode expansion, i.e., use the eigenvectors of ${\cal H}^+$ as a base to expand the fluctuations: $${\cal H}^+ \xi_\omega(\vec{x})=\omega^2 \xi_\omega(\vec{x}) \, \, , \, \, \omega^2\geq 0 \quad , \qquad \quad \xi(\vec{x},t)= \int[d\omega] \, e^{i \omega t} a^t(\omega) \, \xi_\omega(\vec{x}) \label{fluctspec} \, \, .$$ It is well known, see [@Alonso2016:jhep] and References quoted therein to find a summary, that the ${\cal H}^+$ operator has a kernel of dimension $2 N$, i.e., there are $2 N$ lineally independent eigenfunctions of zero eigenvalue in the spectrum of ${\cal H}^+$. There is also a discrete set of eigenfunctions with positive eigenvalues but lesser than one: $0<\omega^2<1$. These are eigenfunctions of ${\cal H}^+$ where the positive fluctuations are trapped in bound states at the vortex core. Finally, there are eigenfunctions in the continuous spectrum of ${\cal H}^+$ with threshold precisely at $\omega^2=1$. In formula (\[fluctspec\]) the $a^t(\omega)$-coefficients describe the four-vector normal modes of fluctuation and the integration symbol $\int [d\omega]$ means that the expansion encompasses both fluctuations in the pure point spectrum and those in the continuous spectrum.
It is interesting at this point to summarize a heat function proof of the Atiyah-Singer-Weinberg index theorem [@Weinberg1979:prd; @Weinberg2012]. Weinberg showed the existence of $2N$ linearly independent zero modes $\xi_0(\vec{x})$ of ${\cal H}^+$ (eigenfunctions with zero eigenvalues). Weinberg’s proof rely on a supersymmetric structure built on perturbations of solutions of (\[pde1\]) which are still solutions. Perturbing the PDE (\[pde1\]) system of three equations together with the background gauge one finds that new solutions arise, complying with the background gauge, if and only if the perturbations belong to the kernel of the deformation operator ${\cal D}$: $$\hspace{-2cm}{\cal D}= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-\partial_2 & \partial_1 & \psi_1 & \psi_2 \\
-\partial_1 & -\partial_2 & -\psi_2 & \psi_1 \\
\psi_1 & -\psi_2 & -\partial_2 + V_1 & -\partial_1 -V_2 \\
\psi_2 & \psi_1 & \partial+V_2 & -\partial_2 + V_1
\end{array} \right) \quad ,\quad \quad \hspace{1cm}{\cal D}\xi_0(\vec{x})=0 \label{zeromode1} \, \, .$$ It is easy to check that the Hessian ${\cal H}^+$ factorizes as the product of the ${\cal D}$ operator times its adjoint: ${\cal H}^+={\cal D}^\dagger \, {\cal D}$. Besides of showing that the four-vector columns $\xi_0(\vec{x})$ are zero modes of ${\cal H}^+$, this factorization hides a supersymmetric quantum mechanical structure where the partner Hamiltonian of ${\cal H}^+$ is: $${\cal H}^- = {\cal D} \, {\cal D}^\dagger= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
-\Delta + |\psi|^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\Delta +|\psi|^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (|\psi|^2+1)+V_kV_k & -2 V_k \partial_k -\partial_k V_k \\
0 & 0 & 2V_k \partial_k + \partial_k V_k & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (|\psi|^2+1) + V_kV_k
\end{array} \right)$$ ${\cal H}^+$ and ${\cal H}^-$ are isospectral operators (although the spectral densities in the continuous spectra may differ). Thus, the index of ${\cal D}$, regularized by means of the spectral heat functions of ${\cal H}^\pm$, $${\rm ind}\,{\cal D}= {\rm dim}\,{\rm Ker}\,{\cal D}-{\rm dim}\,{\rm Ker}\,{\cal D}^\dagger={\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal H}^+} - {\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal H}^-} \ \, ,$$ where $\beta$ is a fictitious inverse temperature, is independent of $\beta$. It is possible to evaluate the difference between the functional traces in the $\beta=0$ limit having in mind that the operators ${\cal H}^\pm$ have the structure of Schr$\ddot{\rm o}$dinger operators: ${\cal H}^\pm = {\cal H}_0+ \vec{\mathbf{Q}}(\vec{x})\cdot \vec{\nabla} + \mathbf{U}^\pm(\vec{x})$, where ${\cal H}_0$ is the Helmoltz operator times the $4\times 4$ unit matrix and the matrix potentials read: [$$\mathbf{U}^\pm(\vec{x})= \left(\begin{array}{cccc}\vert\psi\vert^2-1 & 0 & -(D_1\psi_2\pm D_1 \psi_2) & D_1\psi_1\pm D_1 \psi_1\\ 0 & \vert\psi\vert^2-1 & -(D_2\psi_2\pm D_2 \psi_2) & D_2\psi_1\pm D_2 \psi_1\\ -(D_1\psi_2\pm D_1 \psi_2) & -(D_2\psi_2\pm D_2\psi_2) & (1\pm\frac{1}{2})(\vert\psi\vert^2-1)+V_kV_k & 0 \\ D_1\psi_1\pm D_1 \psi_1 & D_2\psi_1\pm D_2 \psi_1 & 0 & (1\pm\frac{1}{2})(\vert\psi\vert^2-1)+V_kV_k
\end{array}\right). \label{vspot}$$]{} Use of the high-temperature heat trace asymptotic expansions, $${\rm Tr}_{L^2}{\rm exp}(-\beta{\cal H}^\pm)\simeq \frac{e^{-\beta}}{4\pi} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \, {\rm tr} [ c_n({\cal H}^\pm)]\beta^{n-1}$$ leads to estimate the index in the form: $${\rm ind}\,{\cal D}=\lim_{\beta\to 0} \left({\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal H}^+} - {\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal H}^-} \right)=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left({\rm tr} [ c_1({\cal H}^+)]-{\rm tr}[ c_1({\cal H}^-)] \right).$$ Here ${\rm tr}$ refers to the conventional $(4\times 4)$-matrix trace and the divergent ${\rm tr} [c_0({\cal H}^\pm)]$ terms have been discarded because they cancel each other in the index formula. We shall see that $${\rm tr}[ c_1({\cal H}^\pm)]=-{\rm tr} \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \, d^2x \, U^\pm(\vec{x}) \, \, , \quad \, \, \mbox{henceforth}, \, \, \, \, \quad
{\rm ind}\,{\cal D}=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \, d^2x \, \left(1-\vert \psi\vert^2\right)= 2 N \label{vind} \, \, .$$ But ${\cal H}^-$ is a positive definite operator such that ${\rm dim}\,{\rm Ker}\,{\cal D}^\dagger=0$, which means that ${\cal H}^+$ has $2N$ zero modes.
BPS vortex heat kernel asymptotic expansion: impact of zero modes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One of the main goals in this paper is to compute one-loop vortex mass shifts. In References [@Alonso2004:prd; @Alonso2005:prd; @Alonso2008:npb], see also the reviews [@Alonso2006:hepth; @Mateos2009:pos], we performed these calculations by applying the spectral zeta function regularization procedure to the second-order small vortex fluctuation operator ${\cal H}^+$ both in the Abelian Higgs model and in Semilocal Abelian gauge systems. The scheme developed by our group was based in the standard Gilkey-de Witt heat kernel asymptotic expansion. An important obstacle found in developing this program is that the Gilkey-de Witt approach is well established only for operators with strictly positive spectrum and the operator ${\cal H}^+$ exhibits zero modes. In the papers [@Alonso2012:epjc; @Alonso2014:jhep] two of us improved on the Gilkey-de Witt expansion by showing how to generalize the method to cope with the existence of zero modes. Application of the generalized Gilkey-de Witt heat kernel asymptotic expansion to the computation of one-loop kink mass shifts showed a remarkably better precision and unveiled the appearance of forces between kinks of pure quantum nature.
In this Section, having in the back of the mind computations of BPS vortex mass shifts, we shall generalize the standard Gilkey-de Witt heat kernel expansion to operators with zero modes in its spectrum within the class of the BPS vortex Hessian operator ${\cal H}^+$. The new development is one of the main novel proposals in this paper. With this objective in mind, but looking at a larger class of operators containing ${\cal H}^+$, we consider a general second-order $D\times D$ matrix PDO of the form $${\cal H} = - \textbf{I} \, \Delta + \textbf{u}^2 + \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) + \vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla} \label{generaloperator}$$ where $\textbf{I}$ is the $D\times D$ identity matrix, $\Delta= \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2}$ is the 2D Laplacian, $\textbf{u}= {\rm diag}\,\{u_1,\dots,u_D\}$ is a constant $D\times D$ diagonal matrix determined by the asymptotic behaviour, $\vert \vec{x}\vert\to \infty$, of ${\cal H}$ and $\textbf{U}(\vec{x}) = (U_{ab}(\vec{x}))_{D\times D}$ with $a,b=1,2, \dots, D$, is a $D\times D$-matrix potential well. Besides $\vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) =(\textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x}),\textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x}))$ is a vector field of matrices such that the last term in (\[generaloperator\]) reads $$\vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla} = \Big(\sum_{i=1}^2 [\textbf{Q}_i(\vec{x})]_{ab} \, \partial_i\Big)_{D\times D}$$ We assume that $$\lim_{\vert\vec{x}\vert\rightarrow +\infty} \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) = \textbf{0} \hspace{0.5cm},\hspace{0.5cm} \lim_{\vert\vec{x}\vert\rightarrow +\infty} \textbf{Q}(\vec{x}) = \textbf{0} \label{generaloperator0}$$ which implies that the operator (\[generaloperator\]) asymptotically behaves as the PDO ${\cal H}_0=- \textbf{I} \, \Delta+ \textbf{u}^2 $. It is direct to check that the second-order small vortex fluctuation operator is encompassed in formula (\[generaloperator\]) for $D=4$ and the following assignments of vacuum diagonal matrix and first-order PDO vector field $$\textbf{v}={\rm diag}\,\{1,1,1,1\} \quad , \quad \quad
\textbf{Q}_k(\vec{x})= \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -2V_k \\ 0 & 0 & 2V_k & 0 \end{array} \right)\, \, ,$$ whereas the $4\times 4$-matrix potential well is defined in (\[vspot\]).
The Gilkey-de Witt approach aims to construct a power series expansion of the ${\cal H}$-spectral heat trace $h_{\cal H}(\beta) = {\rm Tr}_{L^2} \, e^{-\beta \, {\cal H}}$ by taking advantage of the fact that this function can be obtained from integration all over the plane of the diagonal ${\cal H}$-heat equation kernel: $$h_{{\cal H}}(\beta) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\, d^2 x \,\, {\rm tr}\, \textbf{K}_{\cal H} (\vec{x},\vec{x};\beta) \label{heatfunction0}$$ i.e., the trace in both the $L^2$-functional and $D\times D$-matrix senses of the integral kernel of the ${\cal H}$-heat equation: $$\Big( \frac{\partial}{\partial \beta} + {\cal H} \Big) \mathbf{K}_{\cal H} (\vec{x},\vec{y},\beta) =0 \hspace{0.5cm} , \hspace{0.5cm} \mathbf{K}_{\cal H}(\vec{x},\vec{y};0)=\delta^{(2)}(\vec{x}-\vec{y} ) \, \textbf{I}_{D\times D} \, \, . \label{heatequation}$$ Completeness of the eigenfunctions of ${\cal H}$ allows to write the fundamental solution of equation (\[heatequation\]) as the expansion $$\textbf{K}_{\cal H}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) + \sum_{n=1}^{N_B} \Xi_n(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_n^\dagger (\vec{y}) e^{-\beta \omega_n^2} + \int [dk_1 dk_2] \, \Xi_{\vec{k}}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{\vec{k}}^\dagger(\vec{y}) \, e^{-\beta \omega^2(\vert\vec{k}\vert)} \label{integralkernel01}$$ Here $N_{\rm zm}$ denotes the number of zero modes $\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})$, $N_{\rm zm}$ linearly independent functions belonging to the algebraic kernel of ${\cal H}$, $N_B$ is the number of bound states $\Xi_n(\vec{x})$ in ${\rm Spec}({\cal H})$, and $\Xi_{\vec{k}}(\vec{x})$ are the continuous spectrum eigenfunctions of the operator ${\cal H}$. They are $D$-component functions and form an orthonormal basis in the Hilbert space $\oplus_{a=1}^D L^2_a(\mathbb{R}^2)$. The $\beta=0$ (infinite temperature) condition in (\[heatequation\]) is derived from the completeness of the set of ${\cal H}$-eigenfunctions.
The standard Gilkey-de Witt cunning strategy is based in using the knowledge of the ${\cal H}_0$ heat kernel. In a normalizing square of area $L^2$ it reads: $$\mathbf{K}_{{\cal H}_0} (\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \frac{l^2}{4\pi \beta} \, e^{-\frac{\|\vec{x}-\vec{y}\|^2}{4\beta}} \, e^{-\beta \textbf{u}^2} \hspace{0.5cm}, \hspace{0.5cm} e^{-\beta \textbf{u}^2}= {\rm diag}\,\{e^{-\beta u_1^2}, \dots, e^{-\beta u_D^2}\} \, \, \, , \, \, \, l=mL\label{hk0}$$ and therefore in this context the ${\cal H}$ heat kernel is assumed to follow the factorization: $$\textbf{K}_{\cal H}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) \, \textbf{K}_{{\cal H}_0} ( \vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) \label{factorizacion0}$$ Plugging this ansatz into the heat equation (\[heatequation\]) another equation for $\textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$ (usually called transfer equation) arises that is solved by expanding $\textbf{A}$ as a power series in $\beta$.
This procedure is well behaved if the spectrum of the operator ${\cal H}$ is strictly positive provided that the infinite temperature condition $\textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};0)=\textbf{I}_{D\times D}$ is fixed. However, if the operator exhibits zero modes the factorization (\[factorizacion0\]) is inconsistent because the left and right members in (\[factorizacion0\]) behave in different ways at zero temperature, see (\[integralkernel01\]) and (\[hk0\]): $$\lim_{\beta \rightarrow +\infty} \textbf{K}_{{\cal H}} (\vec{x},\vec{y}; \beta) = \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \quad , \qquad \quad \lim_{\beta\rightarrow +\infty} \mathbf{K}_{{\cal H}_0} (\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)=0 \label{Kinfinity} \, \, ,$$ due to the fact that $\textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$ grows as a power of $\beta$ when $\beta\to +\infty$. In order to amend this discrepancy we replace the factorization (\[factorizacion0\]) by the following one: $$\textbf{K}_{{\cal H}}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) \, \mathbf{K}_{{\cal H}_0} ( \vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) + \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} e^{-\frac{\|\vec{x}-\vec{y}\|^2}{4\beta}} \, \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \,\, \textbf{G}(\beta) \, \, .
\label{factorizacion1}$$ Good agreement between the zero temperature regime when zero modes are present, together the usual conditions at infinity temperature not affected by zero modes, are guaranteed provided that the matrix function $\textbf{G}(\beta)$ and the matrix density $\textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$ satisfy: $$\lim_{\beta \rightarrow +\infty} \textbf{G}(\beta)= \textbf{I}_{D\times D} \quad , \quad \quad \lim_{\beta\to 0} \textbf{G}(\beta)=0 \qquad \quad , \qquad \quad \lim_{\beta\to 0}\textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)= \textbf{I}_{D\times D} \label{initialconditionC}$$ The matrix density $\textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$, like $\textbf{A}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)$ in the standard GdW method, relates the positive part of ${\rm Spec}{\cal H}$ to ${\rm Spec}{\cal H}_0$ in the ${\cal H}$-heat kernel, whereas the second term in the right hand side of (\[factorizacion1\]) encodes the contribution of zero modes.
The power series expansion $$\textbf{C}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) \, \beta^n \label{expansion5}$$ together with the factorization (\[factorizacion1\]) is plugged into the heat equation (\[heatequation\]) as in the standard GdW procedure. The PDE (\[heatequation\]) is converted thereafter into the following relations between the coefficients of the modified GdW expansion and their derivatives: $$\begin{aligned}
&& -\,\frac{1}{2\beta} \,(\vec{x}-\vec{y}) \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{c}_0(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + \sum_{n=0}^\infty \Big[(n+1)\textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \Delta \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})+ (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + \nonumber \\ && + \, \textbf{U}(\vec{x})\, \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + [\textbf{u}^2,\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})] + \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \frac{1}{2} \,(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \,\,\textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) \Big] \beta^n + \nonumber \\ && +\, \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} 4 \pi \Big[ \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \Big( \beta \frac{d\textbf{G}}{d\beta}(\beta) + \textbf{G}(\beta) \Big) + (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \, \textbf{G}(\beta) - \nonumber\\ && -\,\frac{1}{2}\, (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \, \textbf{G} (\beta) \Big] e^{\beta \textbf{u}^2} =\textbf{0} \, . \label{mgdwrr}\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that eventually we shall take the limit $\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}$ we can neglect the contribution of the first term in this relation. Before of attempting to solve (\[mgdwrr\]) there is the need of selecting $\textbf{G}(\beta)$. Restricted by the zero and infinite temperature behaviours (\[initialconditionC\]) and looking for optimizing the structure of (\[mgdwrr\]) we choose: $$\textbf{G}(\beta)=1-e^{-\beta \textbf{u}^2} \, \, . \label{zmgfunction}$$ Substituting this $\textbf{G}(\beta)$ function into (\[mgdwrr\]), expanding the lower two rows in (\[mgdwrr\]) as a power series in $\beta$ and equalizing terms of the same power of $\beta$, a recurrence relation for the matrix densities $\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})$ arises. We obtain $$\textbf{c}_1(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \Delta \textbf{c}_0(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_1(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{c}_0(\vec{x},\vec{y})=\textbf{0} \label{recurrence0}$$ for the first coefficient and $$\begin{aligned}
&& (n+1)\,\textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \Delta \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_{n+1}(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) + [\textbf{u}^2,\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})] + \nonumber \\ && + \,\vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla} \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y}) - \frac{1}{2} \, (\vec{x}-\vec{y}) \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x})\,\, \textbf{c}_{n+1} (\vec{x},\vec{y}) + 4 \pi \Big[ \Big(\delta_{n1}+\frac{1}{n!} \Big) \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}}\,\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) + \label{recurrence1} \\ && + \,\frac{1}{n!}\, \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot \vec{\nabla} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) - \frac{1}{2 \, (n!\,)} (\vec{x}-\vec{y})\cdot\vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\,\Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{y}) \, \Big] \, \textbf{u}^{2n}=\textbf{0}\nonumber \, .\end{aligned}$$ for the remaining ones. Note that the $n=0$ equation has been written separately because, given the choice of $\textbf{G}(\beta)$, zero modes do not enter at this order. Thus, the densities $\textbf{c}_{n}(\vec{x},\vec{y})$ for $n=1,2,3,\dots$ can be identified recursively using (\[recurrence0\]) and (\[recurrence1\]) in terms of the zero order density $\textbf{c}_{0}(\vec{x},\vec{y})$, which is fixed by the infinite temperature condition (\[initialconditionC\]) and the definition (\[expansion5\]), to be the constant $D\times D$ identity matrix: $\textbf{c}_0(\vec{x},\vec{y})=\textbf{I}_{D\times D}$.
Evaluation of the ${\cal H}$-spectral heat trace (\[heatfunction0\]) requires to take the limit $\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}$ of the densities before of integrating them. But sending the densities to the diagonal $\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{x})$ and solving simultaneously the recurrence relations is a very subtle manoeuvre. The reason is that going to the $\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}$ limit and computing partial derivatives with respect to $x_i$ as required in (\[recurrence0\]) and (\[recurrence1\]) are not mutually commuting operations. To handle this situation we introduce the $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$-order densities $${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) = \lim_{\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}} \frac{\partial^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2} }{\partial x_1^{\alpha_1} \partial x_2^{\alpha_2}}\left(\textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{y})\right) \label{mayuscoef}$$ where the partial derivatives are calculated first and the limit is taken later. Calculation of the partial derivative of the relations (\[recurrence0\]) and (\[recurrence1\]) of order $\alpha_1$ with respect to $x_1$ and order $\alpha_2$ with respect to $x_2$ and taking consecutively the limit $\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}$ provide us with the recurrence relations for these diagonal magnitudes ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x})$. The partial derivatives of the first Seeley diagonal density ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x})$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} {}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1} \Big\{ {}^{(\alpha_1+2,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) + {}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2+2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) - \nonumber \\ && - \, \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1\choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{U}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) \,\,-\,\, [\textbf{u}^2,{}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x})] \,\,- \label{recurrence2} \\ && -
\sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \Big[ \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}}\,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1+1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) \Big] + \nonumber \\ && - \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \Big[ \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\,{}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2+1)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) \Big] + \nonumber \\ && + \frac{\alpha_1}{2} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1-1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1-1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2}\textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\,{}^{(\alpha_1-k_1-1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x}) + \nonumber \\ && + \frac{\alpha_2}{2} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2-1} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2-1 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2}\textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}}\,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2-1)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x}) \Big\} \nonumber \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ while the subsequent, $n>1$, derivatives of the diagonal Seeley densities verify the formula [$$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} {}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_{n+1}(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{n+\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1} \Big\{ {}^{(\alpha_1+2,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) + {}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2+2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) - \nonumber\\ && - \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1\choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{U}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) \,\, -\,\, [\textbf{u}^2,{}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x})] \,\,- \nonumber \\ && -
\sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \Big[ \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}}\,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1+1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) + \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2+1)} \textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) \Big] + \nonumber \\ && + \,\, \frac{\alpha_1}{2} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1-1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1-1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2}\textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\, {}^{(\alpha_1-k_1-1,\alpha_2-k_2)} \textbf{C}_{n+1}(\vec{x}) + \nonumber \\ && + \,\, \frac{\alpha_2}{2} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2-1} {\alpha_1 \choose k_1} {\alpha_2-1 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2}\textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \,\,\,\,{}^{(\alpha_1-k_1,\alpha_2-k_2-1)} \textbf{C}_{n+1}(\vec{x})-\label{recurrence3} \\ && -\,\, 4\pi \Big( \delta_{n1}+\frac{\alpha_1+\alpha_2+1}{n!}\Big) \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \frac{\partial^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{\alpha_1} \partial x_2^{\alpha_2}} \,\,\,\Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{u}^{2n} + \nonumber \\ && +\,\,\frac{2\pi\alpha_1}{n!} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1-1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2} {\alpha_1-1\choose k_1} {\alpha_2 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \frac{\partial^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-k_1-k_2-1}\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{\alpha_1-k_1-1} \partial x_2^{\alpha_2-k_2}} \,\,\,\Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{u}^{2n}\, + \nonumber \\ && +\,\,\frac{2\pi\alpha_2}{n!} \sum_{k_1=0}^{\alpha_1} \sum_{k_2=0}^{\alpha_2-1} {\alpha_1\choose k_1} {\alpha_2-1 \choose k_2} \frac{\partial^{k_1+k_2} \textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{k_1} \partial x_2^{k_2}} \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \frac{\partial^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-k_1-k_2-1}\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})}{\partial x_1^{\alpha_1-k_1} \partial x_2^{\alpha_2-k_2-1}}\,\,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{u}^{2n} \,\,
\Big\} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$]{} Again, the choice of $\textbf{G}(\vec{x})$ implies that derivatives of the first diagonal Seeley density ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x})$ are not affected by the presence of the zero modes in the spectrum of ${\cal H}$. These recurrence relations start from the, constant, zero order Seeley densities: $${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \textbf{C}_0(\vec{x}) = \delta_{\alpha_1 0} \,\, \delta_{\alpha_2 0}\,\, \textbf{I}_{D\times D} \label{initialcondition3}$$ which are directly identified from the infinite temperature condition and the definition (\[mayuscoef\]). From (\[recurrence2\]) and (\[recurrence3\]) together with (\[initialcondition3\]) we easily derive low order diagonal densities: $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(0,0)} \textbf{C}_1(\vec{x}) &=& - \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) \label{Seeley1}\\
{}^{(0,0)} \textbf{C}_2(\vec{x}) &=& -\frac{1}{6}\, \Delta \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) + \frac{1}{6} \, (\vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\nabla}) \, \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) + \frac{1}{12} \, \vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) -\frac{1}{6} \, (\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}))\, \, \textbf{U}(\vec{x}) + \nonumber \\ &+& \frac{1}{2} \,\, \textbf{U}^2(\vec{x}) + \frac{1}{2}\,\, [\textbf{u}^2,\textbf{U}(\vec{x})] - 4 \pi \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}) \,\, \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{u}^2 \label{Seeley2} \, \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where we observe that the impact of zero modes start at second order. In fact, all the new densities are the sum of the old Seeley densities plus terms induced by the zero modes proportional to $\textbf{u}^{2n-2}$. We remark that in this formula the vectorial notation $\vec{\textbf{Q}} (\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{\textbf{Q}}(\vec{x}) = \textbf{Q}_1(\vec{x})^2 + \textbf{Q}_2(\vec{x})^2$ has been used. In the solution of the recurrence relations (\[recurrence2\]) and (\[recurrence3\]), e.g., up to order $n$, one needs to compute all the lower than $n$ densities and their derivatives. For instance, in order to obtain ${}^{(0,0)} C_6^{ab}(\vec{x})$ for ${\cal H}^+$ there is the need of knowing the diagonal densities and their derivatives ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} C_5^{ab}(\vec{x})$ for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2=0,1,2$ as data, which in turn demands the knowledge of ${}^{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} C_4^{ab}(\vec{x})$ for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2=0,1,2,3,4$, etcetera. It can be checked that the estimation of the Seeley densities ${}^{(0,0)} C_n^{ab}(\vec{x})$ at order $n$ demands the calculation of $\frac{8}{3}(n+1)(n+2)(4n+3)$ densities and their derivatives with lower $n$ of that type, a challenging task for a Mathematica program.
Formulas (\[factorizacion1\]) and (\[expansion5\]) allow us to write the diagonal of the heat integral kernel in the $\oplus_{a=1}^4 L_a^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$ Hilbert space as an asymptotic series in $\beta$: $$\textbf{K}_{{\cal H}}(\vec{x},\vec{x};\beta) = \lim_{\vec{y}\rightarrow \vec{x}} \textbf{K}_{{\cal H}}(\vec{x},\vec{y};\beta) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \sum_{n=0}^\infty {}^{(0,0)}\textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) \,\, \beta^{n-1}\,\, e^{-\beta \textbf{u}^2} + \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})\,\ \Xi_{0\ell}^\dagger (\vec{x}) \,\, \textbf{G} (\beta) \label{mgdwhk1}$$ where, of course, ${}^{(0,0)}\textbf{C}_n(\vec{x}) = \textbf{c}_n(\vec{x},\vec{x})$ by definition. Spatial integration over $\mathbb{R}^2$ and taking the matrix trace of all the summands in (\[mgdwhk1\]) offer us the asymptotic high temperature expansion $$h_{{\cal H}}(\beta) - h_{{\cal H}_0} (\beta) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^D \, [\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}
)]_{aa} \,\, e^{-\beta u_a^2} \,\, \beta^{n-1} + \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^D \, [f_\ell({\cal H})]_{aa} \,\, (1-e^{-\beta u_a^2}) \label{asymptoticseries0}$$ for the difference between the spectral heat traces of the ${\cal H}$ and ${\cal H}_0$ operators. Here, we denote as $$\begin{aligned}
{} [c_n({\cal H})]_{aa} &=& \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2 x \, \, [{}^{(0,0)}\textbf{C}_n(\vec{x})]_{aa} = \Big\langle [{}^{(0,0)}\textbf{C}_n(\vec{x})]_{aa} \Big\rangle \\
{} [f_\ell({\cal H})]_{aa} &=& \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2 x \, \, (\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}))_{a} (\Xi_{0\ell}^*(\vec{x}))_{a}= \Big\langle (\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x}))_{a}(\Xi_{0\ell}^*(\vec{x}))_{a} \Big\rangle \, \, \, ,\end{aligned}$$ the diagonal elements in the matrix sense of the Seeley coefficients, coming from integration of the diagonal elements in the functional sense of the Seeley densities. The convention $\langle f(x) \rangle =\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2 x \, f(\vec{x})$ will be used in some expressions later in the paper in order to alleviate the notation.
Another important spectral function is the generalized zeta function, formally defined as: $$\zeta_{{\cal H}}(s) ={\rm Tr}_{L^2}\, {\cal H}^{-s} \, \, \mbox{\lq\lq}="
\sum_n \frac{1}{\omega_n^{2s}} \label{zetadef}$$ which will play an essential r$\hat{\rm o}$le in the computation of the vortex mass quantum corrections. The spectral zeta function is a meromorphic function of the complex variable $s$ defined via analytic continuation following the Riemann zeta function pattern. Connection between the heat trace $h_{{\cal H}}(\beta)$ and the spectral zeta function $\zeta_{{\cal H}}(s)$ is established via Mellin transform, $$\zeta_{{\cal H}}(s) = \frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \int_0^\infty d\beta \, \beta^{s-1} \, h_{{\cal H}} (\beta) \, \, .$$ Application of this transformation to the asymptotic expansion (\[asymptoticseries0\]) of the heat trace leads to the formula $$\zeta_{{\cal H}}(s)-\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s) = \frac{1}{4\pi \,\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^D \, [c_n({\cal H})]_{aa} \, (u_a^2)^{1-n-s} \, \Gamma[s+n-1] - \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^D \, [f_\ell({\cal H})]_{aa} \, (u_a^2)^{-s} \label{asymptoticseries1} \, \, \, ,$$ which explicitly shows the meromorphic structure of this difference of generalized zeta functions with isolated poles located at the poles of the Euler Gamma function $\Gamma(s+n-1)$ and the singularities due to the zero modes regularized in the last term in (\[asymptoticseries1\]). The residua at the poles are also easily identified.
Spectral zeta function regularization of one-loop vortex mass shifts
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard lore in the semiclassical quantization of solitons tells us that the one-loop vortex mass shift $\Delta E_V$ in the AHM is the sum of two terms: (1) First, one computes the vortex Casimir energy, which is the energy of the state where all the vortex modes of fluctuation are unoccupied measured with respect to the energy of the state where the vacuum fluctuation modes are also unoccupied. [[^2]]{} (2) Second, the contribution of the mass renormalization counterterms up to one loop order is added in such a way that the remaining divergence in the Casimir energy, after subtraction of the zero point vacuum energy, is cancelled out. Identification of the mass renormalization counterterms in the Lagrangian is achieved in perturbation theory. Because we plan to renormalize particle masses we shall work the Feynman rules in the Feynman-’t Hooft renormalizable $R$-gauge. This gauge is the vacuum sector counterpart of the background gauge for fluctuations around the vortices. The $R$-gauge induces a complex ghost field $\chi(\vec{x},t)$ in the action functional needed to restore the unitarity lost after adding the gauge fixing term. The ghost degrees of freedom give rise to its own Casimir energy and mass renormalization couterterms, which is subtracted -the ghosts are fermionic particles- to the corresponding energies coming from the bosonic field fluctuations. This routine is well established and standardized in the physical literature, see [@Alonso2004:prd; @Alonso2005:prd; @Alonso2006:hepth; @Mateos2009:pos; @Alonso2008:npb]. We shall denote the total contribution of the Casimir energies to the vortex classical energy as $\Delta E_V^C$, that of the mass renormalization counterterms as $\Delta E_V^R$, while the total vortex mass shift will be: $\Delta E_V= \Delta E_V^C + \Delta E_V^R$.
The self-dual vortex energies up to one-loop order in the AHM are the sum of the classical energies plus the energies of the fluctuations $\xi$. Choosing the background gauge and accounting only the fluctuations at one-loop or quadratic order the vortex energy reads: $$E_V = \pi |n| v^2 + \frac{\hbar m}{2} \int d^2 x \,\, [\xi^T(\vec{x}) \,{\cal H}^+ \,\xi(\vec{x}) ] + o(\xi^3) \quad , \quad m=ev \, .$$ The energy of ghosts, which is negative due to the fermionic character of these fictitious particles, is the sum of one quadratic and one interacting term: $$\Delta E_V^{\rm ghost}+ E_{\rm I}^{\rm ghost}=- \frac{\hbar m}{2} \int d^2 \vec{x} \,\, [ \,\chi^* (\vec{x})\, {\cal H}^G \,\chi(\vec{x})] - \frac{\hbar^2 e^2}{2}\int d^2 \vec{x}[ (\psi^*(\vec{x}) \varphi(\vec{x}) + \psi(\vec{x})\varphi^*(\vec{x})) \, \chi^*(\vec{x}) \chi(\vec{x})\,].$$ The PDO operator ${\cal H}^G$ entering in the quadratic ghost term is $${\cal H}^G = - \Delta + |\psi|^2 \, \, ,$$ an ordinary Schr$\ddot{\rm o}$dinger operator that governs one-loop ghost fluctuations around the vortex, in contrast to ${\cal H}^+$ which is the matrix PDO (\[operator1\]).
Thus, $\Delta E_V^C$ is the sum of the vortex Casimir energies of the bosonic $a_1,a_2,\varphi_1,\varphi_2$ fluctuations minus the Casimir energy of the fermionic fluctuation $\chi$. In sum, the vortex Casimir energy is given by the formal formula $$\Delta E_V^C = \frac{\hbar m}{2} \Big[ \, {\rm Tr}_{\oplus_{a=1}^4 L^2_a(\mathbb{R}^2)} \, ({\cal H}^+)^\frac{1}{2} - {\rm Tr}_{\oplus_{a=1}^4 L^2_a(\mathbb{R}^2)} \, ({\cal H}_0)^\frac{1}{2} - [{\rm Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}\,({\cal H}^{\rm G})^\frac{1}{2} - {\rm Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}\,({\cal H}_0^{\rm G})^\frac{1}{2}\,] \, \Big] \label{Casimir1}$$ where we recall that ${\cal H}_0 = -{\textbf I} \Delta + {\rm diag}\,(1,1,1,1)$ and ${\cal H}_0^G = -\Delta + 1$ are the corresponding second-order vacuum fluctuation operators.
The zeta function regularization procedure takes profit of the analytical continuation of the divergent quantity $\Delta E_V^C$ (\[Casimir1\]) to the $s$-complex plane and assigning to the vortex Casimir energy its finite value at a regular point. This strategy is justified from the general theory about the analytical structure of spectral zeta functions of positive operators, in our problem we shall consider the spectral zeta functions of the PDO ${\cal H}^+$, ${\cal H}_0$, ${\cal H}^{\rm G}$, and ${\cal H}_0^{\rm G}$. Thus, we shall regularize the vortex Casimir energy in the form: $$\Delta E_V^C(s) = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \Big\{ \zeta_{{\cal H}^+}(s) - \zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s) - \Big( \zeta_{{\cal H}^G}(x) -\zeta_{{\cal H}_0^G}(s) \Big) \Big\} \, ,\label{Casimir0}$$ where $\mu$ is a parameter of dimension $L^{-1}$ needed to keep correct the physical dimensions of energy away from the physical value $s=-\frac{1}{2}$: $ \Delta E_V^C= \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \Delta E_V^C(s)$.
The spectral heat kernel/zeta function control of divergences in QFT is a procedure that encompasses several different but related aspects.
1. Ultraviolet divergences arising in fluctuating topological defects are regularized by using the spectral zeta function of the Hessian operator. In odd dimensional spaces the zeta function giving the Casimir energy falls in a pole at $s=-\frac{1}{2}$ and one must go away from the pole in the $s$-complex plane to obtain a regularization of $\Delta E^C$, but in even dimensions the spectral zeta function is directly finite at the value of $s=-\frac{1}{2}$.
2. The meromorphic structure of the spectral zeta function is clarified when it is obtained via Mellin transform of the heat kernel high temperature expansion. Poles appear in Euler Gamma functions $\Gamma(s+n-\frac{d}{2})$, i.e., at negative integers or zero values of $s+n-\frac{d}{2}$. Also, infrared divergences appear in the lower Seeley coefficients. Integration of low densities over the whole space gives rise to divergences proportional to the volume, or, the logarithm of the volume, etcetera. Regularization of these divergences requires to restrict the system to a cube of volume $V=l^d=(mL)^d$.
3. After these regularizations were performed some renormalizations have to be done. In $(1+1)$- or $(2+1)$-dimensional space-times, where QFT models are usually superrenormalizable, zero point and mass renormalization, taming the divergences due to the tadpoles and self-energy graphs, are enough.
4. It remains to deal with the delicate question of finite renormalizations. We shall stick to the heat kernel renormalization criterion, tantamount to the vanishing of the tadpole graph. In the limit of infinite particle masses there are no quantum fluctuations, thus there should be no quantum corrections. This means that the contribution of all the coefficients multiplied by non negative powers of mass must be exactly cancelled in the renormalization process. In one and two spatial dimensions only $\textbf{c}_0$ and $\textbf{c}_1$ survive when the particles become infinitely heavy and the annihilation of their contribution fixes our renormalization criterion.
5. Zero modes, however, respond to rigid motions which survive in the infinite mass regime and the above criterion does not apply to their contributions.
The heat kernel/zeta function technology applied in the computation of (\[Casimir1\]) requires to write (\[asymptoticseries1\]) for both the ${\cal H}={\cal H}^+$ and ${\cal H}={\cal H}^G$ operators arising in the Abelian Higgs model. The difference between the spectral zeta functions of the PDO’s ${\cal H}^+$ and ${\cal H}_0$ reads: $$\zeta_{{\cal H}^+}(s) - \zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s) = \frac{1}{4\pi \,\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^4 \, \frac{[c_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2n+2s-2}} \, \Gamma[s+n-1] - \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^4 \, [f_\ell({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} u^{-2s} \,$$ where, although the $\vert\vec{x}\vert\to +\infty$ asymptotics of the matrix potential in ${\cal H}^+$ is $\textbf{u}={\rm diag}\,\{1,1,1,1\}$, we have written $u_a=u$, $a=1,2,3,4$, in order to later analyze the $u\to +\infty$, infinite particle masses, limit. We remark that the subtraction of $\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s)$ corresponds exactly to zero point renormalization: $$\lim_{s\to -\frac{1}{2}}\, \frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_{a=1}^4\, \frac{c_0[{\cal H}^+]_{aa}}{u^{2s-2}}\Gamma[s-1]=u^3\frac{l^2}{\pi}\Gamma[-{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}]=\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \, \, .$$ The lower Seeley coefficients are easily obtained from (\[Seeley1\]) and (\[Seeley2\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a=1}^4 [c_1({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} &=& \Big\langle 5(1-|\psi|^2) - 2 V_kV_k \Big\rangle \\
\sum_{a=1}^4 [c_2({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} &=& \Big\langle -\frac{5}{6} \Delta |\psi|^2 -\frac{1}{3} \Delta(V_kV_k) + 4 \sum_{i,j=1}^2 (D_i \psi_j)^2 + \frac{13}{4} (1-|\psi|^2)^2 -\\ && -2V_kV_k(1-|\psi|^2) + \frac{1}{3} (V_kV_k)^2 \Big\rangle -4 \pi \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^4 \, [f_\ell({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}u^2 \, \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where we observe also that the new Seeley coefficients are the sum of the old coefficients plus the last term induced by the zero modes.
Simili modo, the ghost spectral zeta function regularizes the ghost Casimir energy: $$\zeta_{{\cal H}^{\rm G}}(s) - \zeta_{{\cal H}_0^{\rm G}}(s) = \frac{1}{4\pi \,\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \, \frac{c_n({\cal H}^{\rm G})}{u^{2s+2n-2}} \, \Gamma[s+n-1] - \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}^G} \, f_\ell({\cal H}^{\rm G}) \, u^{-2s}$$ Again, we leave free the asymptotic value of $U^{\rm G}(\vec{x})$ to ponder the heat kernel renormalization criterion, although we know that $U^{\rm G}(\vec{x})=\vert\psi \vert^2(\vec{x})\, \, \, \equiv \, \, \, u=1$ for the vortex. $N_{\rm zm}^{\rm G}$ denotes the zero mode number in the ${\cal H}^{\rm G}$-spectrum. The first and second ghost Seeley coefficients are: $$c_1( {\cal H} ^{\rm G}) = \left\langle 1- |\psi|^2 \right\rangle \hspace{0.5cm}\mbox{and}\hspace{0.5cm} c_2( {\cal H} ^{\rm G}) = \left\langle -{\textstyle\frac{1}{6}} \Delta |\psi|^2 + {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(|\psi|^2-1)^2 \right\rangle -4 \pi \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}^G} \, f_\ell({\cal H}^{\rm G}) u^2$$ Because zero modes $\Xi_{0\ell}(\vec{x})$ are orthogonal to each other and normalized it is clear that: $$\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}} \sum_{a=1}^4 \, [f_\ell({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} = N_{\rm zm} \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{0.5cm} \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\rm zm}^G} \, f_\ell({\cal H}^{\rm G}) = N_{\rm zm}^{\rm G} \, .$$ But the vortex zero mode number is $2N$, twice the vorticity, and $0$ for the ghost fluctuation operator ${\cal H}^{\rm G}$ which is a positive operator. Thus, $N_{\rm zm}=2N$ and $N_{\rm zm}^{\rm G}=0$ and the total BPS vortex Casimir energy (\[Casimir0\]) is $$\lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \Delta E_V^C(s) = \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \Big\{ \frac{1}{4\pi \,\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \Big( \sum_{a=1}^4\frac{[\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s+2n-2}} - \frac{c_n({\cal H}^G)}{u^{2n+2s-2}} \Big) \, \Gamma[s+n-1] -2N u^{-2s}\, \Big\} \, \, \, . \label{vortcas}$$ Note that the first summand in (\[vortcas\]) is proportional to $u$: $$\frac{\hbar m}{2}\frac{1}{4\pi\Gamma(-\frac{1}{2})}\Big(\sum_{a=1}^4\, c_1({\cal H}^+)_{aa}-c_1({\cal H}^{\rm G})\Big)\Gamma(-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) u=
\frac{\hbar m}{4\pi}\cdot \Big\langle 2(1-\vert\psi\vert^2)-V_kV_k\Big\rangle \cdot u \, .$$ Therefore the contribution of this term must be exactly annihilated in a renormalization procedure adjusted to suppress it without leaving any finite remnants. The next term is proportional to $1/u$ and, thus, is susceptible to be kept, as well as all the higher order than $2$ terms.
In fact, the only renormalization, after control of the zero point divergences, remaining in the planar AHM is the mass renormalization. In References [@Alonso2004:prd] and [@Alonso2006:hepth], together with other collaborators, we identified the energy induced by the counterterms needed to tame the tadpoles and self-energy divergent graphs in a minimal renormalization scheme, i.e., only subtracting the infinities arising in these graphs. The divergent mass renormalization energy is: $$\Delta E_V^R = 2 \,\hbar\, m \,I(u) \, \Big\langle\Sigma_1(\psi,V_k)\Big\rangle$$ where $$\Big\langle\Sigma_1(\psi,V_k)\Big\rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} d^2 x \Big[ 1-|\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{2} V_kV_k \Big] = \Big\langle 1-|\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{2} V_kV_k \Big\rangle \quad ,$$ obviously proportional to $\sum_{a=1}^4\, c_1({\cal H}^+)_{aa}-c_1({\cal H}^{\rm G})$, and $I(u)$ is the divergent integral $$I(u)=\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2+u^2}}$$ arising in closed loop propagators. The idea is to regularize also $I(u)$ by means of the zeta function procedure: $$I(u,s)=\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{1}{(k_1^2+k_2^2+u^2)^{s+1}} = \frac{1}{2}\zeta_{-\Delta +u^2} (s+1) \, \, ,$$ which implies that: $$I(u)=I(u,-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})= \lim_{s\to -\frac{1}{2}} \, \zeta_{-\Delta +u^2} (s+1)= \zeta_{-\Delta +u^2}({\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})\, .$$ Recall that ${\cal H}_0$ is a $4\times 4$ diagonal matrix PDO whose components are Helmoltz operators: $-\Delta+u^2$. Thus, $\zeta_{-\Delta+u^2}(\frac{1}{2})= \frac{1}{4} \,\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(\frac{1}{2})$. Moreover, we knew that, $$\zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s)=\frac{1}{\pi} \frac{\Gamma[s-1]}{\Gamma[s]} u^{2-2s} \hspace{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{1cm} \zeta_{{\cal H}_0^{\rm G}}(s)=\frac{1}{4\pi} \frac{\Gamma[s-1]}{\Gamma[s]} u^{2-2s} \, \, ,$$ therefore, the regularized mass renormalization energy reads: $$\Delta E_V^R = \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \Delta E_V^R(s)= \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} \frac{\hbar \mu}{4 \pi} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{\Gamma[s]}{\Gamma[s+1]} \cdot\, u^{-2s} \cdot\, \Big\langle\Sigma_1(\psi, V_k)\Big\rangle \, .$$ The sum of the analytical continuations of the Casimir and mass renormalization energies $\Delta E_V^C(s) + \Delta E_V^R(s)$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hspace{-0.7cm}\Delta E_V^C(s) + \Delta E_V^R(s)= \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \Big\{ \frac{1}{4\pi} \Big\langle 5(1-|\psi|^2)- 2 V_kV_k\Big\rangle u^{-2 s}- \frac{1}{4\pi} \left\langle 1-|\psi|^2 \right\rangle u^{-2s}\\ && +\frac{1}{4\pi \Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=2}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2n+2s-2}} \Gamma[s+n-1] -2N u^{-2s} - \frac{1}{4\pi \Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{c_n({\cal H}^G)}{u^{2s+2n-2}} \Gamma[s+n-1] + \\ && + \frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{1}{s} \left\langle 1-|\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{2} V_kV_k \right\rangle \cdot u^{-2s}
\Big\} = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \Big\{\Big( \frac{1}{\pi} + \frac{1}{2\pi s} \Big) \left\langle 1- |\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{2} V_kV_k \right\rangle \cdot u^{-2s} + \\
&& + \frac{1}{4\pi \Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=2}^\infty \Big( \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[c_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s+2n-2}} - \frac{c_n({\cal H}^G)}{u^{2s+2n-2}} \Big) \Gamma[s+n-1] - 2N u^{-2s} \Big\} \, \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $\Gamma(s+1)=s\Gamma(s)$. The key observation is that, according to the heat kernel renormalization criterion, the contribution of the first order Seeley coefficients is exactly cancelled by the minimal subtraction scheme chosen in our mass renormalization prescription. This statement can be easily checked by looking at the first term in the last equality at the physical value $s=-\frac{1}{2}$. Therefore, the one-loop BPS vortex mass shift is obtained in this approach by the asymptotic formula: $$\Delta E_V = \lim_{s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}} [\Delta E_V^C(s) + \Delta E_V^R(s)]$$ which provides us with the final response $$\Delta E_V = -\frac{\hbar m}{16 \pi^\frac{3}{2}} \sum_{n=2}^\infty \Big( \sum_{a=1}^4 [\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} - c_n({\cal H}^G) \Big) \, \Gamma[n-{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}] - \hbar m N \label{quantumshift} \, \, .$$
One-loop mass shifts of BPS rotationally symmetric vortices: surge of weak quantum forces
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of formula (\[quantumshift\]) guides us towards the computation of one-loop mass shifts for BPS circularly symmetric vortices, solutions of the PDE system (\[pde1\]) of the form $$\psi(x_1,x_2)=f_N(r) \, e^{iN\theta} \hspace{0.5cm};\hspace{0.5cm} V_r(r,\theta)=0 \, \, \, , \, \, \, V_\theta(r,\theta)= \frac{N}{r} \, \beta_N(r)$$ where $r=\sqrt{x^1x^1+x^2x^2}$ and $\theta={\rm arctan}\frac{x^2}{x^1}$ are polar coordinates in the plane. In this case the just mentioned PDE system becomes the ODE system: $$f_N'(r)=\frac{N}{r} f_N(r) [1-\beta_N(r)]\hspace{0.5cm};\hspace{0.5cm} \beta_N'(r)=\frac{r}{2N}[1-f_N^2(r)] \label{ode1} \, \, .$$ The subindex $N$ in $f_N(r)$ and $\beta_N(r)$ reminds us that the radial profiles depend on the vorticity $N$, i.e., they are different in different topological sectors. The well known procedure for finding solutions of these ordinary equations proceed in three steps: (1) Solving the (\[ode1\]) near $r=0$ one finds $f_N(r)\simeq_{r\to 0} D_N r^N$ and $\beta_N(r)\simeq_{r\to 0} E_N r^2$, where $D_N$ and $E_N$ are integration constants, that are regular solutions near the origin. (2) The asymptotic conditions (\[asymptotic\]) demand that $f_N(r)\rightarrow 1$ and $\beta_N(r)\rightarrow 1$ in the $r\rightarrow \infty$ limit. One solves then the (\[ode1\]) system very far from the origin. An smooth sewing between the two regimes requires a precise choice of $D_N$ and $E_N$. (3) This shooting procedure is numerically implemented to build interpolating solutions to (\[ode1\]) at intermediate distances. In this way the circularly symmetric BPS $N$-vortex solutions are obtained, and these $N$-vortex profiles are basic ingredients in the one-loop BPS vortex mass shift formula (\[quantumshift\]).
The remaining ingredients needed in formula (\[quantumshift\]) are the $2N$ orthonormal zero mode fluctuations of the circularly symmetric $N$-vortices of the form, see [@Alonso2016:jhep], [$$\xi_0(\vec{x},N,k)= r^{N-k-1} \left( \begin{array}{c} h_N(r) \, \sin[(N-k-1)\theta] \\ h_N(r) \, \cos[(N-k-1)\theta] \\ - \frac{h_N'(r)}{f_N(r)} \, \cos(k\theta) \\ - \frac{h_N'(r)}{f_N(r)} \, \sin(k\theta) \end{array} \right)
\,
, \, \, \, \xi_0^\perp(\vec{x},N,k)= r^{N-k-1} \left( \begin{array}{c} h_N(r) \, \cos[(N-k-1)\theta] \\ -h_N(r) \, \sin[(N-k-1)\theta] \\ - \frac{h_N'(r)}{f_N(r)} \, \sin(k\theta) \\ \frac{h_N'(r)}{f_N(r)} \, \cos(k\theta) \end{array} \right) \, , \label{zeromode4}$$]{} where $k=0,1,2,\dots,N-1$, and the zero mode radial profile $h_N(r)$ verifies the ODE $$-r \, h_N''(r)+[1+2k-2N\,\beta_N(r)]\,h_N'(r) + r \,f_N^2(r)\, h_N(r)=0 \label{ode5}$$ with boundary conditions $h_N(0)\neq 0$ and $\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} h_N(r)=0$. Again a numerical approach applied to solve (\[ode5\]) with the just prescribed conditions at the origin and at infinity offer us quite precise knowledge of the $2N$ zero mode fluctuations of a BPS vortex solution with vorticity $N$ [@Alonso2016:jhep]. All this information allows us to use the recurrence relations (\[recurrence2\]) and (\[recurrence3\]) in order to obtain the Seeley coefficients $\sum_{a=1}^4 [\textbf{c}_k({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}$ and $c_k({\cal H}^G)$ entering in the vortex mass quantum correction formula (\[quantumshift\]). The practical use of (\[quantumshift\]) involves the truncation of the series at a finite order $n_T$, i.e., replacing the series by the partial sum: $$\Delta E_V = -\frac{\hbar m}{16 \pi^\frac{3}{2}} \sum_{n=2}^{n_T} \Big( \sum_{a=1}^4 [\textbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} - c_n({\cal H}^G) \Big) \, \Gamma[n-{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}] - \hbar m N \label{truncaquantumshift} \, \, .$$ We estimate the vortex mass quantum correction by applying (\[truncaquantumshift\]) with $n_T=6$. Computation of the lower six Seeley coefficients requires the calculation of 4043 functional coefficients ${}^{(\alpha,\gamma)}C_n^{ab}(\vec{x})$. We develope this program by using the symbolic software platform *Mathematica*. The code of this task can be found in the web page http//:campus.usal.es/$\sim$mpg/General/MathematicaTools.htm. Estimation of the matrix and functional traces of these densities provides us with the previously mentioned Seeley coefficients. The results are displayed in Table 1 and Table 2.
----- -------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
$n$ $N=1$ $N=2$ $N=3$ $N=4$ $N=5$
$2$ $5.20990655$ $10.75849898$ $14.59990245$ $17.58450757$ $20.05604942$
$3$ $0.60457807$ $0.64034809$ $-1.43031758$ $-5.93852744$ $-13.0290730$
$4$ $0.10055209$ $-0.23427492$ $-1.42368210$ $-3.57770210$ $-6.70544685$
$5$ $0.02634327$ $-0.11250983$ $-0.50804216$ $-1.20295070$ $-2.21121000$
$6$ $0.00468414$ $-0.03251509$ $-0.12931186$ $-0.29574333$ $-0.53589538$
----- -------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
: *Values of the $n$-th Seeley coefficients for the small $N$-vortex fluctuation operator ${\cal H}^+$ entering in the planar vortex mass quantum correction (\[quantumshift\]).*
----- -------------- -------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
$n$ $N=1$ $N=2$ $N=3$ $N=4$ $N=5$
$2$ $2.60573638$ $6.80907379$ $11.49149074$ $16.45567556$ $21.55628055$
$3$ $0.31910464$ $1.34189515$ $2.60714103$ $4.00530969$ $5.48466835$
$4$ $0.02297681$ $0.20498547$ $0.46776735$ $0.77192241$ $1.10205597$
$5$ $0.00122645$ $0.02380029$ $0.06735758$ $0.12074591$ $0.18031589$
$6$ $0.00006965$ $0.00219104$ $0.00800451$ $0.01580181$ $0.02478549$
----- -------------- -------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
: *Values of the $n$-th Seeley coefficients for the ghost operator ${\cal H}^G$ entering in the planar vortex mass quantum correction (\[quantumshift\]).*
In Table 3 we display the response of this formula up to $n_T=6$. The last row offers the best estimation of the BPS $N$-vortex mass quantum correction. In the graphic we observe that the mass shift of a circularly symmetric vortex of vorticity $N$ is greater (less negative) than the mass shift of $N$ quanta of magnetic flux infinitely appart from each other. This means that one-loop fluctuations induce (very weak) repulsive forces between vortices, or, equivalently, that BPS vortices are pushed by quantum fluctuations towards a Type II superconductivity phase.
$n_T$ $\rule[-0.3cm]{0cm}{0.9cm} \frac{\Delta E_V^{N=1}}{\hbar m}$ $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=2}}{\hbar m}$ $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=3}}{\hbar m}$ $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=4}}{\hbar m}$ $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=5}}{\hbar m}$
------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
$2$ $-1.0518$ $-2.0786$ $-3.0618$ $-4.0225$ $-4.9701$
$3$ $-1.0546$ $-2.0716$ $-3.0217$ $-3.9235$ $-4.7860$
$4$ $-1.0558$ $-2.0650$ $-2.9935$ $-3.8586$ $-4.6695$
$5$ $-1.0567$ $-2.0599$ $-2.9720$ $-3.8093$ $-4.5803$
$6$ $-1.0573$ $-2.0554$ $-2.9541$ $-3.7686$ $-4.5071$
: *Estimation of the quantum correction to the $N$-vortex mass up to vorticity $N=5$ computed from the $2\leq n_T \leq 6$ partial sums of the series (\[quantumshift\]).*
---------------------------------------------
{height="3cm"}
---------------------------------------------
: *Estimation of the quantum correction to the $N$-vortex mass up to vorticity $N=5$ computed from the $2\leq n_T \leq 6$ partial sums of the series (\[quantumshift\]).*
One-loop string tension shifts for cylindrically symmetric BPS vortex filaments
===============================================================================
In this Section we shall try to compute one-loop BPS vortex tension shifts in the (3+1)-dimensional AHM. The BPS planar vortex solutions assuming cylindrical symmetry, i.e., infinitely repeated in the new dimension, become the famous self-dual Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen magnetic filaments or tubes. The AHM action functional in $(3+1)$ Minkowski space-time at the BPS point is: $$S[\phi,A]=\frac{1}{e^2}\int d^4 x \Big[ - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} + \frac{1}{2} (D_\mu \phi)^* D^\mu \phi -\frac{1}{8} (\phi^*\phi-1)^2 \Big] \, \, .$$ The differences with respect to the planar AHM action are: (1) $d^4x=dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3$; (2) $\vec{x}=x^1\vec{e}_1+x^2\vec{e}_2+x^3\vec{e}_3$ where $\vec{e}_i\cdot\vec{e}_j=\delta_{ij}$, $i,j=1,2,3$; (3) $g_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$ with $\mu, \nu=0,1,2,3$; (4) the gauge connection has four components: $A_\mu=(A_0,A_1,A_2,A_3)$ and (5) the antisymmetric EM tensor field $F_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial A_\nu}{\partial x^\mu} -\frac{\partial A_\mu}{\partial x^\nu}$ encompasses $6$ independent components: $3$ components of the electric field $E_i(\vec{x})= F_{0i}(\vec{x})$ and $3$ components of the magnetic field $B_i(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_{ijk} F_{jk}(\vec{x})$.
Static cylindrically symmetric field configurations are independent of $x^0$ and $x^3$: $\phi=\phi(x_1,x_2)$, $A_\alpha=A_\alpha(x_1,x_2)$. To make this restriction gauge invariant we choose the temporal and axial gauges: $A_0=A_3=0$. For configurations with these symmetries the first-order PDE (\[ode1\]) system still admit BPS vortex solutions. Seen in three dimensions, the BPS vortices become cylindrical magnetic tubes with the axis along the third dimension $x^3$ and, therefore the planar solutions are the cross sections at $x^3$ fixed of these stringy topological defects. Like in the previous Sections, we are interested in studying the one-loop fluctuations around these infinitely long BPS vortex filaments. The main novelty here are the fluctuations in the third dimension, i.e., the fluctuations are functions also of $x^3$: $\varphi(x^1,x^2,x^3)$. Moreover, although the axial gauge has been chosen to fix the BPS vortex solutions, perturbations in the third component of the gauge potential must be taken into account: $$\phi(\vec{x})=\psi(x^1,x^2)+\varphi(\vec{x}) \qquad , \qquad A_\alpha(\vec{x})=V_\alpha(x^1,x^2)+a_\alpha(\vec{x}) \, \, \, , \alpha=1,2 \, \, \, , \, \, \, A_3(\vec{x})=a_3(\vec{x})$$ The vortex filament fluctuations are assembled in a five component column vector $\xi(\vec{x})$ that includes also fluctuations in the third component of the vector potential $a_3(\vec{x})$: $$\xi(x^1,x^2,x^3)=\left( \begin{array}{ccccc} a_1(x^1,x^2,x^3) & a_2(x^1,x^2,x^3) & a_3(x^1,x^2,x^3) & \varphi_1(x^1,x^2,x^3) & \varphi_2(x^1,x^2,x^3) \end{array} \right)^t \, .$$ To exclude spurious pure gage fluctuations we impose the background gauge $$B(a_k,\varphi,\phi)=\sum_{j=1}^3 \partial_j a_j(\vec{x}) -\left[ \psi_1(x^1,x^2) \varphi_2(\vec{x}) - \psi_2(x^1,x^2) \varphi_1(\vec{x}) \right]=0$$ Expanding the classical action plus the gauge fixing term up to the quadratic order in $\xi$ we unveil the second-order fluctuation operator: [$${\cal L}= \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
-\Delta + |\psi|^2 & 0 & 0 & -2D_1 \psi_2 & 2 D_1 \psi_1 \\
0 & -\Delta +|\psi|^2 & 0 & -2 D_2 \psi_2 & 2 D_2 \psi_1 \\
0 & 0 & - \Delta + |\psi^2| & 0 & 0\\
-2 D_1 \psi_2 & -2 D_2\psi_2 & 0 & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (3|\psi|^2-1)+V_k V_k & -2 V_k \partial_k -\partial_k V_k \\
2D_1\psi_1 & 2 D_2 \psi_1 & 0 &2V_k \partial_k + \partial_k V_k & -\Delta +\frac{1}{2} (3|\psi|^2-1) + V_k V_k
\end{array} \right) \label{operatorL}$$]{} We remark that in $3$D the three-dimensional Laplacian enters : $\Delta=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2}$. The structure of the matrix PDO (\[operatorL\]) shows that the $a_3$-fluctuations are decoupled and do not mix with the other four fluctuations. Therefore, one-loop string tension shifts to be extracted from the spectrum of ${\cal L}$-fluctuations come from the spectra of the two operators $${\cal K}= - \mathbf{I}_{4\times 4} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2} + {\cal H}^+ \hspace{0.8cm},\hspace{0.8cm} {\cal L}_3= - \Delta + |\psi^2|$$ accounted for separately. The matrix PDO ${\cal K}$ is in turn obtained by adding to the 1D Laplacian along the $x_3$-axis times the $4\times 4$ unit matrix the old Hessian operator (\[operator1\]) working in the $(2+1)$D AHM, fully analyzed in previous Sections. It is clear that the eigenvalues of the ${\cal K}$ operator, ${\cal K} F_n(\vec{x})= \varepsilon_n^2 F_n(\vec{x})$ are of the form $$\varepsilon_n^2 = \omega_n^2 + k_3^2$$ where $\omega_n^2$ are the eigenvalues of ${\cal H}^+$. $k_3\in \mathbb{R}$ belongs to the continuous spectrum of the $1$D Laplacian and has spectral density $\rho(k_3)=\frac{l}{2\pi}$ when particle motion in the third spatial dimension $x_3$ is confined to an interval of (non dimensional) length $2l=2 m L$, which eventually will go to infinity. The ${\cal K}$-heat function $H_{\cal K}(\beta)$, after subtraction of the ${\cal K}_0$-heat function where ${\cal K}_0$ is obtained by replacing ${\cal H}^+$ with ${\cal H}_0$, is essentially obtained from $h_{{\cal H}^+}(\beta)$ and $h_{{\cal H}_0}(\beta)$: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\cal K}(\beta)- H_{{\cal K}_0}(\beta) &=& {\rm Tr}_{{\rm L}^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal K}}- {\rm Tr}_{{\rm L}^2}\, e^{-\beta {\cal K}_0} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty dk_3 \frac{l}{2\pi} \Big[ h_{{\cal H}^+}(\beta) - h_{{\cal H}_0}(\beta) \Big] e^{-\beta k_3^2} = \\&=& \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \beta^{-\frac{1}{2}} [h_{\cal H}(\beta) - h_{{\cal H}_0}(\beta) ] \, \, .\end{aligned}$$ The Mellin transform allows us to calculate the difference between the spectral zeta functions ${\cal Z}_{\cal K}(s)- {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}_0}(s)$ of the ${\cal K}$ and ${\cal K}_0$ operators: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Z}_{\cal K}(s)- {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}_0}(s) &=& \frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \int_0^\infty d\beta \beta^{s-1} [H_{\cal K}(\beta)-H_{{\cal K}_0}(\beta)] = \frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \int_0^\infty d\beta \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \beta^{s-\frac{3}{2}} [h_{\cal H}(\beta) - h_{{\cal H}_0}(\beta)]= \\ &=& \frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \frac{ l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \Gamma[s-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}] \Big[ \zeta_{\cal H}(s-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) - \zeta_{{\cal H}_0}(s-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big] \, \, .\end{aligned}$$ Following the same pattern as in Section §.2 we regularize the $3$D vortex Casimir energy $\Delta E_V^C$ by using the spectral zeta function at a regular point in the $s$-complex plane $$\Delta E_V^C({\cal K})(s) = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \Big[ {\cal Z}_{\cal K}(s) - {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}_0}(s) \Big] = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \zeta_{\cal H} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) -\zeta_{{\cal H}_0} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) \Big] \label{rvsts}$$ in such a way that in the limit $s\rightarrow - \frac{1}{2}$, which is a pole of $\Delta E_V^C({\cal K})(s)$, the physical response is recovered. Moreover, the contribution of the fermionic ghost particles, encoded in the spectrum of the PDO, $${\cal H}^{G} = - \Delta + |\psi^2| = - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2} - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_2^2} - \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_3^2} + |\psi^2| \, \, ,$$ must be subtracted, whereas fluctuations are accounted for, and must be added, by the spectrum of ${\cal L}_3$. Thus, the $3$D regularized vortex Casimir energy is the sum of these three contributions: $$\Delta E_V^C(s) = \Delta E_V^C({\cal K})(s) - \Delta E_V^C({\cal H}^G)(s) + \Delta E_V^C({\cal L}_3)(s)$$ coming from the ${\cal K}$, ${\cal L}_3$ and ${\cal H}^G$-fluctuations. By regularizing also the contributions of the ghost and $a_3$ fluctuations by means of their spectral zeta functions $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E_V^C({\cal K}^{\rm G})(s) &=& \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \Big[ {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}^G}(s) - {\cal Z}_{{\cal K}_0^G}(s) \Big] =
\frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \zeta_{{\cal H}_0^G} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) - \zeta_{{\cal H}^G} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) \Big] \\
\Delta E_V^C({\cal L}_3)(s) &=& \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \Big[ {\cal Z}_{{\cal L}_3}(s) - {\cal Z}_{{\cal L}_{30}}(s)\Big] = \frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \zeta_{{\cal L}_3} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) -\zeta_{{\cal L}_{30}} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) \Big]\end{aligned}$$ we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E_V^C(s)&=&\frac{\hbar \mu}{2} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \zeta_{\cal H} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) -\zeta_{{\cal H}_0} (s-\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) \Big] = \nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{\hbar \mu l}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \Big(\frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \cdot \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \Big[ \frac{1}{4\pi \Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^4\frac{ [\mathbf{c}_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s+2n-3}} \Gamma[s+n-{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}]-2 N u^{-2s+1}\Big] \label{divregce}\end{aligned}$$ because ${\cal H}^G$ and ${\cal L}_3$ are identical PDO’s and thus the ghost and the third component vector potential fluctuations annihilate each other. We recall that $N$ is the vorticity of the vortex string.
Once we have derived (\[divregce\]), a renormalization process must be implemented in order to tame the divergences of $\Delta E_V^C (s)$ at the physical limit $s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}$. Within the zeta function regularization procedure the more severe divergences appear in the lower three terms of the asymptotic expansion. To put into practice the renormalization procedure we distinguish between the contributions to $\Delta E_V^C (s)$ of divergent and finite terms: $$\Delta E_V^C (s) = \Delta E_V^{C(1)}(s) + \Delta E_V^{C(2)}(s) + \Delta E_V^{C_3}(s) + \Delta E_V^{C_{ZM}}(s) \, \, .$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E_V^{C(1)}(s) &=& \frac{\hbar \mu l }{16\pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \cdot \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[\mathbf{c}_1({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s-1}} \\
\Delta E_V^{C(2)}(s) &=& \frac{\hbar \mu l}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2}\Big)^s \cdot \frac{\Gamma[s+\frac{1}{2}]}{4\pi \Gamma[s]} \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[\mathbf{c}_2({\cal H}^+)]_{aa}}{u^{2s+1}}\end{aligned}$$ refer respectively to the contribution of the first and second Seeley coefficients in the asymptotic series formula of the vortex Casimir energy $\Delta E_V^C(s)$. Of course, the contribution of the ${\rm tr}\,\textbf{c}_0({\cal H}^+)$ would be even more divergent, but it does not appear in the vortex Casimir energy because it is canceled by the contribution of the vacuum zeta function ${\cal Z}({\cal H}_0)(-1/2)$, i.e., by zero point renormalization. The interesting facts to be pointed out about the divergences of the $3$D vortex string Casimir energy are: (1) $\Delta E_V^{C(1)}(-1/2)$ has a divergence proportional to $\Gamma(-1)$. (2) The divergence of $\Delta E_V^{C(2)}(-1/2)$ arises as the pole of $\Gamma(s)$ at $s=0$. (3) Factors respectively of $u^2$ and $u^0$ in these lower two terms of the series tell us that these contributions would survive in the infinite mass limit. Therefore, the divergences coming from massive fluctuations, i.e., appearing in factors of the old Seeley coefficients, must be exactly cancelled according to the heat kernel renormalization criterion. Moreover, the exponents of $u$ encode in the spectral zeta function the standard divergences of QFT: for instance, divergences coming from the $c_1$ coefficients correspond to quadratic divergences in the Feynman graphs when a momentum cutoff is used, those appearing in $c_2$ contributions come from QFT logarithmic divergences[[^3]]{}.
The remaining summands in the series, however, $$\Delta E_V^{C_3}(s) = \frac{\hbar \mu l }{16\pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \cdot\frac{1}{\Gamma[s]} \sum_{n=3}^\infty \sum_{a=1}^4 \frac{[c_n({\cal H})]_{aa}}{u^{2s+2n-3}} \Gamma[s+n- {\textstyle\frac{3}{2}} ]$$ are finite at $s=-1/2$ and proportional to negative powers of $u$, a fact that tells us that they escape from the need of renormalization. The zero mode contribution, however, survives even in the infinite mass limit but it is divergent at the physical value of the $s$ complex parameter. Indeed, $$\Delta E_V^{C_{ZM}}(s) = -\frac{\hbar \mu l}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \cdot \frac{\Gamma[s-\frac{1}{2}]}{\Gamma[s]} \, N \, u^{-2s+1}$$ is divergent at $s=-1/2$ because $\Gamma(s-1/2)$ has a pole there. It is of note that this contribution is proportional to twice the vorticity $2N$, a number that counts the zero modes.
In order to fix the renormalizations needed it is convenient a closer analysis of the vortex Casimir energy divergences near the dangerous pole at $s=-1/2$. A power expansion of the divergent contributions in the neighborhood of this point shows the just mentioned structure: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E_V^{C(1)}(s) &=& \hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{16 \pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{1-\gamma-\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \sum_{a=1}^4 [c_1({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} u^2 \\
\Delta E_V^{C(2)}(s) &=& \hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{16 \pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{-1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{\gamma+\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \Big( \Big\langle \Sigma_2(\psi,V_\alpha)\Big\rangle -8\pi N u^2 \Big) \\
\Delta E_V^{C_{ZM}}(s) &=& -\hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{2 \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{1-\gamma-\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \,N u^2\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is the Euler Gamma constant and $\psi(s)$ is the Digamma function. The second Seeley coefficient has been split into two summands $$\sum_{a=1}^4 [c_2({\cal H^+})]_{aa} =\Big\langle\Sigma_2(\psi,V_\alpha)\Big\rangle-8\pi N u^2$$ distinguishing between the zero mode contribution $-8\pi N$ and the contribution of the vortex fields expressed in terms of the old second Seeley coefficient, that is, derived in the standard GdW procedure, proportional to $\Big\langle \Sigma_2 (\psi, V_\alpha)\Big\rangle$ where $\Sigma_2$ is: [$$\Sigma_2(\psi,V_\alpha) = -\frac{5}{6} \Delta |\psi|^2 - \frac{1}{3} \Delta (\sum_{\alpha=1}^2V_\alpha V_\alpha) + 4 \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^2 (D_\alpha \psi_\beta)^2 + \frac{13}{4} (1-|\psi|^2)^2 - 2\sum_{\alpha=1}^2V_\alpha V_\alpha(1-|\psi|^2) + \frac{1}{3} (\sum_{\alpha=1}^2V_\alpha V_\alpha)^2 \, \, .$$]{} All the singular contributions to the vortex Casimir energy can be rearranged in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Delta E_V^{C(1)}(s)+\Delta E_V^{C(2)}(s)+ \Delta E_V^{C_{ZM}}(s)\simeq_{s\to -1/2} \\
&& \simeq_{s\to -1/2} \left\{ \hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{16 \pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{1-\gamma-\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \sum_{a=1}^4 [c_1({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} u^2 + \right. \\ && + \hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{16 \pi \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{-1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{\gamma+\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}} + o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \Big\langle \Sigma_2(\psi,V_\alpha)\Big\rangle- \\ && \left. -\hbar \mu \Big( \frac{\mu^2}{m^2} \Big)^s \frac{m L}{2 \sqrt{\pi}} \Big( \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})} + \frac{1-\gamma-\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}}- \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}(s+\frac{1}{2})}+ \frac{\gamma+\psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}}+ o(s+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}) \Big) \,N u^2 \right\}\end{aligned}$$ There appear three types of singularities that need to be cancelled: (1) In the first line the divergences appear in the contribution to the vortex Casimir energy of the first Seeley coefficients. The heat kernel renormalization criterion demands exact cancellation of this divergent term proportional to $u^2$ by subtracting the appropriate contribution to the energy of some mass renormalization counter-terms. In particular a minimal renormalization scheme must be implemented to tame the quadratic divergences of the Higgs tadpole plus the self-energy graphs of all the scalar and vector bosons, as well as the fermionic ghosts. Use of the vacuum spectral zeta function is convenient to regularize the pertinent divergent graphs. We will not develop this delicate procedure here, see [@Alonso2004:prd; @Alonso2005:prd; @Alonso2006:hepth; @Mateos2009:pos; @Alonso2008:npb] to see how this renormalization works in the superenormalizable, henceforth, easier planar AHM. Simply we shall take equal to zero the contribution written in the first line legitimated by the heat kernel renormalization criterion [[^4]]{}. (2) The same situation happens with the divergent contributions in the second line coming from the old second Seeley coefficient because it is proportional to $u^0$ and survives in the infinite mass limit. The divergences, even being smoother, are more involved. One must cope now with the subdominant logarithmic divergences of the graphs just mentioned plus the logarithmic divergences of one-loop graphs with three Higgs legs plus all the one-loop graphs with four external legs of the fields working in the AHM. This means that we shall use the energies due to the counter-terms arising in the coupling constant and wave function [[^5]]{} renormalizations adjusted to exactly cancel the contribution in the second line. (3) In the third line we observe an exact cancelation between the divergences due to the zero modes. There is, however, a finite remnant that must be kept because the heat kernel renormalization criterion does not apply to massless fluctuations.
Finally the one-loop vortex mass shift per length unit is obtained by taking the limit $s\rightarrow -\frac{1}{2}$ in the sum of the finite remnant of the whole zero mode contribution plus the partial sum up to $n_T$ order in the series of finite terms $\Delta E_V^{C_3}(s)$ taking of course the physical value $u=1$: $$\frac{\Delta E_V^{C}}{L} = - \frac{\hbar m^2}{32\pi^2} \sum_{n=3}^{n_T} \sum_{a=1}^4 [c_n({\cal H}^+)]_{aa} \Gamma[n- 2 ] -\frac{\hbar m^2}{4\pi } \,N \label{quantumshift3} \, \, .$$ This energy per unit length is precisely the one-loop string tension shift induced in the BPS vortices by quantum fluctuations.
In Table 4 we display the responses obtained from this formula up to $n_T=6$ for several values of the vorticity $N$. The last row offers the best estimations of the $N$-vortex string tension quantum corrections. The necessary Seeley coefficients were previously displayed in Table 1.
$n_T$ $\rule[-0.3cm]{0cm}{0.9cm} \frac{\Delta E_V^{N=1}}{\hbar m^2 L}$ $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=2}}{\hbar m^2 L}$ $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=3}}{\hbar m^2 L}$ $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=4}}{\hbar m^2 L}$ $\frac{\Delta E_V^{N=5}}{\hbar m^2 L}$
------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
$3$ $-0.0815$ $-0.1612$ $-0.2342$ $-0.2995$ $-0.3566$
$4$ $-0.0818$ $-0.1604$ $-0.2297$ $-0.2882$ $-0.3354$
$5$ $-0.0820$ $-0.1597$ $-0.2265$ $-0.2806$ $-0.3214$
$6$ $-0.0821$ $-0.1591$ $-0.2240$ $-0.2749$ $-0.3112$
: *Estimation of the quantum correction to the $N$-vortex filament string tension up to vorticity $N=5$ computed from the $3\leq n_T\leq 3$ partial sums of the series (\[quantumshift3\]).*
---------------------------------------------
{height="3cm"}
---------------------------------------------
: *Estimation of the quantum correction to the $N$-vortex filament string tension up to vorticity $N=5$ computed from the $3\leq n_T\leq 3$ partial sums of the series (\[quantumshift3\]).*
Conclusions and further comments
================================
From the results in this work we draw two main conclusions:
- The modified Gilkey-de Witt heat kernel expansion designed in References [@Alonso2012:epjc] and [@Alonso2014:jhep] to control the impact of zero modes in the calculations of quantum corrections to kink masses and domain wall surface tensions due to one-loop fluctuations in scalar field theory has been successfully generalized to analyze one-loop fluctuations of both planar and cylindrical BPS vortices in the Abelian Higgs model.
- The new estimations are more precise than those obtained in [@Alonso2004:prd] and [@Alonso2005:prd] by using the standard Gilkey-deWitt expansion. The archive of new data clearly suggests that weak repulsive forces between BPS vortices arise caused by the one-loop vortex fluctuations. In extended $N=2$ supersymmetry, however, the one-loop vortex mass shift and the central charge are adjusted in such a way that one may say the BPS bound is preserved at the quantum level, see [@Rebhan2004:npb]. Thus, one may conclude that some degree of extended supersymmetry is needed in order to preserve the BPS character of topological solitons in the quantum domain.
We stress that our calculations have been performed over a dilute gas of vortices with a few number of quanta of magnetic flux spread over the whole plane. In Reference [@Ferreiros2014:prd], however, a different arrangement of vortices has been analyzed. The authors addressed the quantization of a bunch of magnetic flux quanta in a parallelogram, a normalization square, such that the Bradlow limit was almost reached. This means that, after imposing quasi-periodic boundary conditions on the fluctuations, the magnetic flux of the vortex configuration is very close to the area of the equivalent genus one Riemann surface. Exactly at the Bradlow limit the zero modes form the first Landau level of the Landau problem posed in this Riemann surface and a reshaping of the work of Ferreiros at al from the point of view proposed in this paper will be probably rewarding. Although the new technique has been designed to deal with one-loop fluctuations or vacuum energies of low dimensional topological solitons one may speculate with its application to other extended objects supporting zero modes of fluctuation. For instance, it is tempting to try this quantization method on the BPS magnetic monopoles of the bosonic sector in the ${\cal N}=2$ SUSY gauge theory of Seiberg and Witten, see [@Seiberg1994:npb], and compare the results obtained with those achieved in the supersymmetric framework in [@Rebhan2006:jhep].
We have successfully applied the improved zeta function procedure in calculations of domain wall surface tension [@Alonso2014:jhep] and in the regularization of tunnel determinants in quantum mechanics, see [@Alonso2014:aip]. It seems plausible that the new method may be also effective in the analysis of tunnel determinants appearing in connection with Yang-Mills and/or gravitational instantons, see [@Hawking1977:cmp; @Belavin1975:plb; @Hooft1986:pr; @Gibbons1978:plb; @Eguchi1978:plb]. Other objects of the greatest physical interest as black holes may be understood as solitons, see e.g. [@Salam1976:plb]. Thus, our method is of potential interest in dealing with quantum fields in the background of solitonic black holes. To finish, one might think about the applicability of the improved Gilkey-deWitt expansion to more exotic topological solitons as, for instance, the BPS vortices of two species arising in the gauged non-linear $\mathbb{CP}^N$ [@Alonso2015:jhep], or, to compactons appearing in models with higher-order kinetic terms, see [@Bazeia2015:prd] where one-loop correction to their classical masses have been computed.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors acknowledge the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad for financial support under grant MTM2014-57129-C2-1-P. They are also grateful to the Junta de Castilla y León for financial help under grant VA057U16.
[99]{}
A.A. Abrikosov. On the magnetic properties of superconductors of the second group. , 32:1442, 1957.
H.B. Nielsen and P. Olesen. Vortex lines models for dual strings. , 61:45, 1973.
E.B. Bogomolny. Stability of classical solutions. , 24:449, 1976.
M.K. Prasad and C.M. Sommerfield. Exact classical solution for the ’t hooft monopole and the julia-zee dyon. , 35:760, 1975.
D. Vassilevich. Quantum corrections to the mass of the supersymmetric vortex. , 68:045005, 2003.
A. Rebhan; P. van Nieuwenhuizen and R. Wimmer. Nonvanishing quantum corrections to the mass and central charge of the $n=2$ vortex and bps saturation. , 679:382, 2004.
M. Bordag and I. Drozdov. Fermionic vacuum energy from a nielsen-olesen vortex. , 68:065026, 2003.
A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes; J. Mateos Guilarte and M. de la Torre Mayado. Quantum corrections to the mass of self-dual vortices. , 70:061702, 2004.
A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes; J. Mateos Guilarte and M. de la Torre Mayado. Quantum oscillations of self-dual abrikosov-nielsen-olesen vortices. , 71:125010, 2005.
S. Hawking. Zeta function regularization of path integrals in curved space-time. , 55:133, 1977.
J. Dowker and R. Critchley. Effective lagrangian and energy momentum tensor in de sitter space. , 13:3224, 1976.
M. Bordag; A. Goldhaber; P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Vassilevich. Heat kernel and zeta function regularization for the mass of the susy kink. , 66:125014, 2002.
A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes; M.A. Gonzalez Leon and J. Mateos Guilarte. Generalized zeta functions and one-loop corrections to quantum kink masses. , 635:525, 2002.
A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes; M.A. Gonzalez Leon and J. Mateos Guilarte. Semi-classical mass of quantum $k$-component topological kinks. , 638:378, 2002.
A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes; M.A. Gonzalez Leon and J. Mateos Guilarte. One-loop corrections to classical masses of kink families. , 681:163, 2004.
A. Bytsenko E. Elizalde; S. Odintsov; A. Romeo and S. Zerbini. . World Scientific, Singapore, 1994.
D.V. Vassilevich. Heat kernel expansion: user’s manual. , 388:279, 2003.
I.G. Avramidi. Heat kernel approach in quantum field theory. , 104:3, 2002.
B.S. deWitt. . Gordon and Breach, New York, 1965.
P. Gilkey. The spectral geometry of a riemannian manifold. , 10:601, 1975.
D. Fursaev and D.V. Vassilevich. . Springer, Dordrecht, 2011.
A.O. Barvinsky and G.A. Vilkovysky. Covariant perturbation theory, ii: Second-order in the curvature. , 333:71, 1990.
Y.V. Gusev and A.I. Zelnikov. Two-dimensional effective action for matter fields coupled to the dilaton. , 61:084010, 2000.
E.J. Weinberg. Multivortex solutions of the ginzburg-landau equations. , 19:3008, 1979.
E.J. Weinberg. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 2012.
A. Alonso Izquierdo and J. Mateos Guilarte. Kink fluctuation asymptotics and zero modes. , 72:2170, 2012.
A. Alonso Izquierdo and J. Mateos Guilarte. Quantum induced interactions in the moduli space of bps domain walls. , 01:15, 2014.
A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes; M.A. Gonzalez Leon; M. de la Torre Mayado; J. Mateos Guilarte and J.M. Mu$\tilde{\rm n}$oz Casta$\tilde{\rm
n}$eda. Lectures on the mass of topological solitons. , 0611180:1, 2006.
J. Mateos Guilarte; A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes; M. de la Torre Mayado and M.J. Senosiain. Quantum fluctuations around low-dimensional topological defects. , 013:1, 2009.
A. Rebhan; P. van Nieuwenhuizen and R. Wimmer. One-loop surface tensions of (supersymmetric) kink domain walls from dimensional regularization. , 4:31, 2002.
A. Jaffe and C. Taubes. . Birkhauser, Boston, 1980.
A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes and J. Mateos Guilarte. A note on bps vortex bound states. , 753:29, 2016.
A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes and J. Mateos Guilarte. Dissecting zero modes and bound states on bps vortices in ginzburg-landau superconductors. , 05:1, 2016.
A. Alonso Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes; J. Mateos Guilarte and M. de la Torre Mayado. One-loop corrections to the mass of self-dual semi-local planar topological solitons. , 797:431, 2008.
Y. Ferreiros and A. Gonzalez Arroyo. Quantum corrections to vortex masses and energies. , 90:025004, 2014.
N. Seiberg and E. Witten. Electric-magnetic duality, monopole condensation and confinement in ${\cal n}=2$ supersymmetric yang-mills theory. , 426:19, 1994.
A. Rebhan; P. van Nieuwenhuizen and R. Wimmer. Quantum mass and central charge of supersymmetric monopoles. , 06:056, 2006.
A. Alonso Izquierdo and J. Mateos Guilarte. Tunnel determinants from spectral zeta functions. instanton effects in quantum mechanics. , 1606:321, 2014.
A. Belavin; A. Polyakov; A. Schwartz; Y. Tyupkin. Pseudo-particle solutions of the yang-mills equations. , 59:85, 1975.
G. ’t Hooft. How instantons solve the $u(1)$ problem. , 142:357, 1986.
G. Gibbons and S. Hawking. Gravitational multi-instantons. , 78:430, 1978.
T. Eguchi and A. Hanson. Asymptoticaly flat self-dual solutions to euclidean gravity. , 74:249, 1978.
A. Salam and J. Strathde. Black holes as solitons. , 61:375, 1976.
A. Alonso-Izquierdo; W. Garcia Fuertes and J. Mateos Guilarte. Two species of vortices in massive gauged non-linear sigma models. , 02:139, 2015.
D. Bazeia and D.V. Vassilevich. A note on quantum compactons. , 91:047701, 2015.
[^1]: A lucid discussion of the differences between deWitt and Gilkey approaches may be found in the textbook [@Vassilevich2011] by Fursaev and Vassilevich.
[^2]: This physical phenomenon is akin to the Casimir effect where the energy of photons in vacuum is subtracted from the energy of photons in presence of two conducting plates.
[^3]: The stronger divergences, quartic in $3$D, are associated with vacuum energies, i.e., with $c_0$ coefficients that are proportional to $u^4$. Note also that in the zeta function regularization procedure these quartic divergences reappear in the disguise of $\Gamma(-2)$. Fortunately, these quartic divergences are supressed by zero point renormalization.
[^4]: We remark that ${\rm tr} \,\textbf{c}_1({\cal H}^+)$, like ${\rm tr} \, \textbf{c}_0({\cal H}^+)$, is infrared divergent, although only as $\log L^2$. Mass renormalization takes care also of this infrared divergence.
[^5]: The terms which are field derivatives in $\Sigma_2$ are exactly canceled by wave function renormalization of the scalar and vector massive particles.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
\
We propose a new version of the scalar Weak Gravity Conjecture (WGC) which would apply to any scalar field coupled to quantum gravity. For a single scalar it is given by the differential constraint $(V'')^2\leq (2V'''^2- V''V'''')M_{\text{p}}^2$, where $V$ is the scalar potential. It corresponds to the statement that self-interactions of a scalar must be stronger than gravity for any value of the scalar field. We find that the solutions which saturate the bound correspond to towers of extremal states with mass $m^2(\phi)=m_0^2/((R/m)^2+1/(nR)^2)$, with $R^2=e^\phi$, consistent with the emergence of an extra dimension at large or small $R$ and the existence of extended objects (strings). These states act as WGC states for the scalar $\phi$. It is also consistent with the distance swampland conjecture with a built-in duality symmetry. All of this is remarkable since neither extra dimensions nor string theory are put in the theory from the beginning, but they emerge. This is quite analogous to how the 11-th dimension appears in M-theory from towers of Type IIA solitonic $D0$-branes. From this constraint one can derive several swampland conjectures from a single principle. In particular one finds that an axion potential is only consistent if $f\leq M_{\text{p}}$, recovering a result already conjectured from other arguments. The conjecture has far reaching consequences and applies to several interesting physical systems: i) Among chaotic inflation potentials only those asymptotically linear may survive. ii) If applied to the radion of the circle compactification of the Standard Model to 3D with Dirac neutrinos, the constraint implies that the 4D cosmological constant scale must be larger than the mass of the lightest neutrino, which must be in normal hierarchy. It also puts a constraint on the EW scale, potentially explaining the hierarchy problem. This recovers and improves results already obtained by applying the AdS swampland conjecture, but in a way which is independent from UV physics. iii) It also constraints simplest moduli fixing string models. The simplest KKLT model is compatible with the constraints but the latter may be relevant for some choices of parameters.
A Scalar Weak Gravity Conjecture
================================
The Weak Gravity Conjecture (WGC) was first formulated in [@swampland; @WGC; @distance], see [@review] for a recent review and more references. The most widely studied WGC example is the case of a $U(1)$ gauge boson coupled to gravity. It states that there must always exist a charged particle with mass m and charge q such that $m\leq gqM_{\text{p}}$ in the theory. Arguments based on extremal charged back-holes and string theory examples give solid support to this conjecture, which has been generalized to multiple $U(1)$’s as well as antisymmetric tensor couplings in supergravity and string theory, see ref.[@WGC1; @WGC2; @WGC3; @timo] for some recent reverences and [@review; @vafafederico] for an introduction.
There are however two options concerning what is the most important physical principle underlying the WGC, either 1) It is something primarily related to black-holes and their stability or rather 2) It is the general principle of gravity being the weakest force which is the crucial point. If the second is true, the consequences would be paramount, since there are many physical instances in which interactions may potentially be weaker than gravity without black-holes playing (at least apparently) any role. In the present paper we want to argue that insisting in gravity being always and in any circumstance the weakest force, may have very important implications if applied to scalar particles.
In this paper we put forward the proposal of a [*Strong Scalar WGC*]{} which is defined by eq.(\[ours\]), corresponding to the statement that the self-interactions of a scalar must be stronger than the gravitational force for all values of the scalar field. This must be true for any scalar in the theory, and not only for a particular set of WGC states. The extremal version of the equation yields a surprise: the solutions are compatible with towers of momenta and winding of an emerging dimension. Those towers become massless for $|\phi|\rightarrow \infty$, in agreement, with expectations from the swampland distance conjecture [@distance; @review; @vafafederico]. We interpret these towers as massive solitonic states which appear playing the role of WGC states. This structure is analogous to the behaviour in string theory in which towers of solitonic states (D-branes) become massless or tensionless for large fields. Thus the simplest theory you can think of, a scalar coupled to quantum gravity, secretly contains several features of string theory: emerging extra dimensions, winding strings and duality.
The scalar weak gravity conjecture
----------------------------------
The WGC case for purely scalar interactions is not obvious, since clear arguments based on blackhole physics are lacking. Still it has been argued that a variant of the WGC applies to axions with masses replaced by instanton actions and gauge couplings replaced by $1/f$, with $f$ the axion decay constant. For axions the corresponding bound is [@swampland; @WGC; @WGC1; @review] S\_[inst]{} M\_ , where $S_{inst}$ is the instanton action. For the theory to be within control one asks for $S_{inst}\geq 1$, leading to the constraint $f\leq M_{\text{p}}$. This is relevant for models of natural inflation in which values for $f$ larger than $M_{\text{p}}$ are in general required in order to get appropriate inflation.
Palti formulated a first version of a Scalar Weak Gravity Conjecture (SWGC) in the following terms [@Palti] (see also [@timoscalar] and [@Lust; @review]). We consider a particle H with mass $m$ which is coupled to a light scalar $\phi$ with a trilinear coupling proportional to $\mu=\partial_\phi m$. Then the conjecture is that, as $m_\phi \rightarrow 0$, (\_m)\^2 . The statement is that the force mediated by $\phi$ must be stronger than the gravitational force and $m^2(\phi)$ is considered as a function of $\phi$ so that $m^2=V''$. So the above expression may be written as (V”’)\^2 . \[palti\] Here the particle $H$ acts as a WGC particle in the sense that it is there to guarantee that there is at least one particle with interactions stronger than gravity. The philosophy sounds similar to the WGC for gauge $U(1)$ interactions. However, both situations are apparently very different. In particular the scalar has no charge which could create a blackhole stability problem as with charged fields under a $U(1)$, and the generalization is not obvious.
![ Pictorial representation of the the Strong Scalar Weak Gravity Conjecture[]{data-label="higgsfinal"}](Figura2.pdf)
A Strong scalar WGC
-------------------
As formulated by Palti, the above bound does not apply to any scalar, but only to WGC scalars which interact with a scalar $\phi$ and whose mass is a function of $\phi$. That is for example the case of some string particle (like a lightest KK mode) which depends on the moduli of a compactification. The conjecture does not apply as it stands to the fields $\phi$ themselves. With the above expression one finds that the marginal situation for the mass of the WGC scalar $H$ occurs for m\^2 = m\_0\^2e\^[/M\_]{} . This gives the expected behaviour which appears in the distance conjecture at large $\phi$ [@distance] (see also [@paltidistance]). So this scalar $H$ could be like the first member of a tower. However this exponential behaviour is at odds with the properties of axions, whose potential is periodic and hence inconsistent with eq.(\[palti\]). Also, the exponential must be $e^{-\phi/M_{\text{p}}}$ for large $\phi$ but one must change to $e^{\phi/M_{\text{p}}}$ for $\phi \rightarrow - \infty$, and there is no single function which includes both behaviours simultaneously. We propose that the above formulated SWGC needs to be modified in such a way that both issues may be circumvented. Furthermore we will insist that our new SWGC applies to any scalar in the theory. The latter possibility was termed [*Super SWGC*]{} in [@Palti].
We propose the formulation of a Strong version of a Scalar Weak Gravity Conjecture (SSWGC) for the case of a single scalar as follows:
[*i) The potential of any canonically normalized real scalar $V(\phi)$ in the theory must verify for any value of the field the constraint:*]{}
\[ours\]
with primes denoting derivation with respect to $\phi$. Compared to eq.(\[palti\]) here there is a new term $V^{\prime \prime \prime \prime}$ associated to the quartic interaction of the scalars. Such a term was not present in the SWGC bound in the previous paragraph because such an interaction among the $H$ fields is not mediated by $\phi$ and hence it should not be included. In our case it is different because our condition applies to any scalar, including massive mediators. In our conjecture there are no additional WGC H scalars present in the spectrum to verify a WGC. Rather the states playing that role will be towers of extremal collective objects, as described in section (\[clave\]).
Eq.(\[ours\]) looks like a condition which imposes that the strength of a scalar interaction must always be stronger than gravity. The presence of the quartic term is crucial to obtain the required consistency for the axion potential and is also justified a posteriori by the results in section (\[clave\]). In fact the factors and signs of the terms in the left are crucial in order to obtain the nice results in that section. We come short of having a Feynman graph explanation for the above differential constraint. One can motivate this expression by considering the short distance behaviour of the potential between two scalars, see fig.(\[higgsfinal\]). At short distances the first term comes from the exchange of the scalar $\phi$, which has the same attractive behaviour than the Newtonian term, $V\simeq -1/r$. The second term includes a direct quartic piece, which is repulsive and proportional to a Dirac delta, hence an UV contribution. On the other hand, in the IR regime, due to the trilinear coupling being super-renormalizable, the first term gives rise to an effective contact term which is attractive. Thus one cannot factor out a universal distance dependence. In fact eq.(\[ours\]) seems to encapsulate mixed UV and IR effects. This is perhaps not surprising considering the results in section (\[clave\]). The presence of the quartic terms is crucial for the presence of winding states and duality in the emergent dimension.
Before proceeding, some comments about simple potentials are in order:
- A linear potential $V=a\phi+c$ always verify our SSWGC. This means that the value of $|\phi|$ is unconstrained and may be trans-Planckian with no inconsistency.
- A pure quadratic potential $V=m^2\phi^2$ is special. In this case the condition is violated for any value of $\phi$ with $m^2>0$. This may be interpreted as a condition that [*forbids the existence of massive scalars with no interaction other than gravity*]{}. It reminds the $U(1)$ WGC which also states that gauge bosons must have at least one charged particle to interact with.
- For a purely cubic(quartic) potential $V=\mu\phi^3(V=\lambda\phi^4)$ the conditions are fulfilled only if $|\phi|\leq \sqrt{2}M_{\text{p}}(|\phi|\leq \sqrt{6}M_{\text{p}})$.
An exponential potential of the simple runaway form $V=\exp(\pm \alpha\phi)$ passes the test as long as $|\alpha|\geq 1/M_{\text{p}}^2$. Note also that the constraint is insensitive to $V'$ and $V$ themselves so insensitive to whether the theory is in dS or AdS and the conditions for minima. So the constraints here discussed seem unrelated to the dS conditions of ref.[@dS1; @dS2; @krishnan; @dS3; @masdS]. In particular our condition is compatible but independent from the dS conjecture.
The above constraint may be easily generalized to the case of several scalars fields.
A first test: the axion potential
---------------------------------
If the SSWGC applies to any scalars, it should apply also to axions and their periodic potentials which we know appear in string theory whenever an axion-like scalar couples to a non-Abelian gauge group. So one may consider the axion example as a test for the conjecture. The leading instanton contribution to the axion potential has the form V = - (/f)) . In this case the SSWGC gives (2 \^2(/M\_) +\^2(/M\_)) . Here we have constrained ourselves to the region in which $V''\geq 0$ in which the leading cosine instanton term is expected to dominate. The above expression yields f\^2 M\_\^2(1+2 \^2(/M\_)) and, since the bound must be true for all $\phi$, one obtains $f\leq M_{\text{p}}$. So we see we can derive from the SSWGC the condition that the decay constant f of an axion cannot exceed $M_{\text{p}}$ [@swampland; @WGC; @WGC1]. In the present case this comes about because otherwise the scalar interactions would be weaker than gravitation.
The extremal equation: towers of states and an emerging dimension {#clave}
------------------------------------------------------------------
We can consider the [*extremal*]{} case for a single scalar in which the scalar interactions equal the gravitational one. Then the constraint may be written as a differential equation on the field dependent mass $m^2(\phi)$: 2((m\^[2]{})\^[ ]{})\^2 - m\^2( (m\^[2]{})\^[ ]{})- = 0 . \[guay\] One obtains the extremal solutions for $m^2$ (with $\phi$ in $M_{\text{p}}$ units): m\^2() = . For this to be a solution one must have $B\geq0$. Concerning $A$, we chose it positive (otherwise $m^2$ would always be negative for all $\phi$). Defining a field $R=e^{\phi/2}$, with kinetic metric $2(dR/R)^2$ one can rewrite the above expression in the more suggestive way m\^2 = . For $N,M\not=0$ one can also write m\^2 = m\_0\^2 , [M]{}\_[N,M]{}\^2=N\^2R\^2 + . \[masilla\] Here ${\cal M}_{N,M}$ looks like the spectrum of a string compactification in a circle, with the duality invariance R 1/R ; M N . Note also that for large(small) $R$ one gets the limits: m\_\^2 [m\_0\^2]{} M\^2e\^[-]{} ; m\_[-]{}\^2 [m\_0\^2]{} N\^2e\^ For integer $N,M$ this has the structure of towers of winding and momenta becoming light as the scalar $\phi$ goes to infinity. Our interpretation is that these towers are the WGC scalars which are required so that gravity keeps on being the weakest force when $|\phi|$ goes to infinity. If $\phi$ is identified with a modulus, this is precisely the statement in the swampland distance conjecture [@distance; @paltidistance; @irene; @thomas]. Notice also that the extremal solutions know about winding and hence about string theory. This is in agreement with the argument in [@vafafederico] that the distance conjecture requires the existence of extended objects. Thus towers of quantized momenta and winding from a 5D string compactified on a circle saturate the 4D Strong scalar WGC. This is remarkable, since there is no explicit circle compactification nor winding strings in the original differential equation. A dimension of radius $R$ emerges from the condition of the Strong SWGC conjecture. If this is the case, there should also be an emerging graviphoton under which the momenta are charged, justifying a posteriori choosing $N,M$ integers. Note finally that obviously one could rather identify $e^\phi$ with a [*gauge*]{} coupling $g$ of the complete theory, in which case as $g^2\rightarrow 0$ a tower of states become massless to preclude the presence of global symmetries in the effective theory.
The argument goes also in the opposite direction. Consider a 4D theory obtained upon compactification of a 5D string theory on a circle. Then the masses of the particles in the KK and winding towers depend on the radion in such a way that their potential verifies the differential equation (\[guay\]). This gives support to the proposed conjecture and the equation.
Given the above discussion, we propose a second conjecture:
Note that the structure is analogous to how the 11-th dimension appears from Type IIA string theory at strong coupling. The analogue of the above extremal states are the towers of $D0$-branes of string theory building up the KK modes of the 11-th dimension. Thus the simplest system one can think of with a single scalar coupled to quantum gravity secretly has several features characteristic of string theory.
Extremal potentials
-------------------
Independently of the existence of these towers of states, it is interesting the question of whether one can write down potentials saturating the bound. By integrating $V''$ one can obtain general forms of potentials verifying the extremal case in which the inequality is saturated. One finds solutions of the general form V’ = \^[-1]{}(e\^) + C . Further integration yields for the extremal potential V()\_[extr]{} = ( \_2(-ie\^) - \_2(ie\^)) + C + D . where $\text{Li}_2$ is the dilogarithm function and $i=\sqrt{-1}$. In spite of its complex appearance the potential is real (for real constants). One can see that the first term grows linear with $\phi$ as $\phi\rightarrow +\infty$ and is damped exponentially as $\phi \rightarrow - \infty$. This asymptotic linear behavior is in agreement with our comment above that linear potentials always satisfy the differential constraint.
This class of potentials depend on 4 real constants $A,B,C,D$. For $A=0$ one just gets straight lines. For other choices one may get also runaway potentials as well as minima which may be dS, AdS or Minkowski depending on the choice for D. Some simple interesting cases are as follows:
- i\) $A=B=1; C=D=0$, fig.\[extremal\] in blue. The potential is linear at large $\phi$ and exponentially decreasing for large negative $\phi$. So this is an example of a runaway potential.
- ii\) $A=B=1; C=-1$,$D=0$, fig.\[extremal\] in red. The potential shows a minimum and behaves linearly for $|\phi|>M_{\text{p}}$. This minimum may be in dS or AdS depending on the choice for $D$.
- iii\) Those two cases saturate the bound but are not duality invariant. If however one insists in a duality invariance $\phi \leftrightarrow -\phi$ one has V()\_[extr]{} = (\_2(-ie\^) - \_2(ie\^)) + (-) The potential is then symmetric with a minimum at $\phi=0$. For $A=2, B=1$, $C=D=0$ this is depicted in fig.\[extremal\] in black. This class of potentials is interesting in its own right and may have interesting physical applications e.g. in inflation. In particular, given its asymptotic linear behaviour, it should give rise to a variation of linear inflation.
![Examples of extremal potentials.[]{data-label="extremal"}](extremal.pdf)
Constraints on some simple potentials
-------------------------------------
It is interesting to see what are the constraints for a scalar potential of the form V() = m\^2\^2 + \^4 . It is easy to see one finds the constraint (\^2 - m\^2) (m\^2+ \^2)\^2 . Note that the term in the right is strongly suppressed by the $M_p^{-2}$ factor, so that in practice (for $\phi^2\ll M_p^2$) the constraint amounts to the left hand side being positive. This is automatic for $m^2<0$ and $\lambda$ positive. This is similar to the situation in the SM. On the other hand for $m^2>0$ the constraint is only obeyed for $\phi^2>(2/3)m^2$.
A simple class of SUSY superpotentials is the exponential one, $W=e^{-\alpha M}$, with $M$ a canonically normalized complex scalar. The condition may be written as 2(V\_[MM\^\*M\^\*]{})(V\_[M\^\*MM]{}) - (V\_[MM\^\*]{})(V\_[MMM\^\*M\^\*]{}) . It is easy to check that this exponential superpotential leads to a potential passing the SSWGC constraint as long as $|\alpha |\geq 1/M_{\text{p}}^2$, for any value of $M$. One can also test a cubic superpotential which may appear in e.g. in string flux compactifications, i.e. W(T) = T\^2 + T\^3 . The differential inequation yields \^2 . One sees that trans-Planckian trips of $T$ would in this case violate the bound. And also the scalar interaction coupling is bounded below by $\lambda^2 \geq \frac {m^2}{M_{\text{p}}^2}$. This is consistent with the idea that gravity must be the weakest force. Let us comment that in fact instead of the global SUSY potential one should have used the $N=1$ supergravity potential. However this does not modify the result because the additional terms in the potential have an extra Planck mass supression.
Applications
=============
The above introduced Strong SWGC may have an important impact whenever there is some Planck suppressed scalar interaction with the risk of becoming weaker than gravity. Here we list four important applications leaving a more detailed account for a future publication.
Inflation
---------
We already mentioned that among polynomial potentials, the linear case is the only one that allows for trans-Planckian excursions. So among chaotic inflation models [@chaotic] the linear one is singled out as the unique class which can lead to sufficient inflation. As is well known, linear potentials may yield 50-60 e-folds of inflation with tensor perturbations with $r\simeq 0.07$. This relatively large value will soon be experimentally tested. Note that instead of a purely linear potential one may consider e.g. the potential in examples ii) or iii) above which behave linearly for $|\phi|>M_{\text{p}}$. It is interesting to note that linear potentials do appear in string theory realizations of monodromy inflation, see [@Silverstein:2008sg; @McAllister:2008hb; @McAllister:2014mpa; @Dong:2010in; @Marchesano:2014mla]. There the stability of the potentials against corrections is guaranteed due to shift symmetries. One type of potentials in this class has the form [@McAllister:2008hb] V(b) = A(1 + B b\^2)\^[1/2]{} where $b$ is a Type IIB (monodromic) axionic field and we set $M_{\text{p}}=1$. A simple way to check the validity of the Strong SWGC, Eq (\[ours\]) is by plotting 2(V\^)\^[2]{}- V\^V\^- ()\^2 Then eq.(\[ours\]) means $\chi\geq 0$. We plot in fig.(\[starobinsky\])-a that quantity for the above potential with $A=1$ and several values of $B$. We see that the bound seems to be obeyed. In fact one can check that above $b\simeq 2$ the bound is slightly violated at the per-mil label, something not visible in the figure. However we do not have control of the theory to that level and one may say that this model passes the test. There are several other schemes leading to linear potentials which we will not discuss here, see e.g. [@McAllister:2008hb; @Higgsotic].
More generally one may consider monomial potentials of the form $V=\phi^a$, $a\geq 0$. For them the condition $\chi \geq 0$ gives $(a-1)(a-2) M^2_\text{p} -\phi^2 \geq 0$. For $0\leq a <1$ the potential has only tiny violations of the bound at small $\phi$, in the region $\phi < \sqrt{(a-1)(a-2)} M_\text{p} $. The same formula applies for $a>2$, here the violations are large but are trans-Planckian for $a>2.7$. However, for $1<a\leq2$ the bound is irremediably violated at all points of field space. Finally, $a=0$ and $a=1$ are the only pure monomials which satisfy the bound at all points of field space.
Another popular inflaton potential is the Starobinsky model [@Starobinsky; @Mukhanov], which has the general form V = ( 1 - e\^[-/M\_]{})\^ 2 . The same structure appears also in Higgs inflation [@higgsflation]. In Fig.(\[starobinsky\])-b we plot $\chi$ as a function of the canonical field in units of Planck mass. Essentially the same thing happens for the Starobinsky model. the simplest version of it would be inconsistent with the Strong SWGC, since at some points in field space the condition is violated. It needs to be modified at large trans-Planckian distances. Adding a perturbation may possibly make it consistent.
![ a) The value of $\chi$ for $A=1$ and $B=0.2,0.5,1.0$. The SSWGC implies $\chi \geq 0$. b) The value of $\chi$ for the Starobinsky potential.[]{data-label="starobinsky"}](laraiz.pdf "fig:") ![ a) The value of $\chi$ for $A=1$ and $B=0.2,0.5,1.0$. The SSWGC implies $\chi \geq 0$. b) The value of $\chi$ for the Starobinsky potential.[]{data-label="starobinsky"}](starobinsky_chi.pdf "fig:")
These are just a couple of examples, just to show that the constraint is potentially very strong. It would be interesting to study these and other examples in more detail.
Constraints on the SM from its 3D compactification
--------------------------------------------------
Consider the SM compactified in a circle of radius $R$ down to 3D. This radius is a modulus and has associated a quantum fluctuation field $\phi$ with canonical kinetic term given by $R=r e^\frac{\phi}{M^{3d}_{\text{p}}\sqrt{2}}$. Here $r$ is any given reference scale to measure $R$ which we set equal to 1 GeV and $M^{3d}_{\text{p}}$ is the 3D Planck mass. Let us concentrate on the deep infrared region, well below the electron threshold, with $R\gg 1/m_e$. As explained in [@Nima] the 3D one-loop effective potential for $R$ is given by the expression $$V(R)\ =\ \ \frac {2\pi r^3 \Lambda_4}{R^2}\ -\ 4 \left( \frac {r^3}{720\pi R^6} \right) \ +\sum_{\nu_e,\nu_\mu,\nu_\tau}\
r^{3} V_{\mathcal{C}}\left[R,m_{\nu_i}\right]\ .
\label{potuno}$$ The first term comes from the 4D cosmological term $\Lambda_4$ after dimensional reduction (and going to the 3D Einstein frame). The second comes from the one-loop Casimir energy associated to the only two massless particles, the photon and the graviton. The factor 4 gives the number of helicity degrees of freedom of those fields. The remaining term is the contribution to the Casimir energy of the three neutrinos compactified with periodic boundary conditions, and is given by $$V_{\mathcal{C}}\left[R,m_{\nu_i}\right]=\frac{n_{\nu_i}\ m_{\nu_i}^{2}}{8\pi^{4}R^{4}}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{K_{2}(2\pi m_{\nu_i} n R )}{n^{2}} .
\label{potdos}$$ Here $n_{\nu_i}$ is the number of helicities for each neutrino (2 for Majorana and 4 for Dirac) and $K_{n}$ are modified Bessel functions of the second kind. This potential is reliable since the contributions from higher thresholds are exponentially suppressed compared to the neutrino contributions by factors of order $e^{-m/m_\nu}$. It has local minima in AdS if neutrinos are Majorana [@Nima]. This is due to the fact that the lightest neutrino contributes positively to the potential with 2 degrees of freedom, which is not enough to compensate for the 4 bosonic degrees of freedom contributing negatively from photon and graviton. However, if the lightest neutrino is Dirac (and it is lighter than the c.c. scale $\Lambda_4^{1/4}$) it contributes positively with 4 (instead of 2) degrees of freedom, which is enough to compensate for the 4 massless degrees of freedom of the photon and the graviton. The potential is then monotonously decreasing for large R and no AdS minima develops. This fact has been used to obtain bounds on the lightest neutrino mass and the 4D cosmological constant [@IMV1] by imposing the condition suggested in [@OV] that AdS non-SUSY vacua are in the swampland (see also [@2toro; @Gonzalo; @Hamada]). One obtains four very relevant implications for the SM [@IMV1]:
- The lightest neutrino is Dirac.
- The lightest neutrino has a mass $m_{\nu_1}\leq 7.7\times 10^{-3}$ eV for normal hierarchy and $m_{\nu_3}\leq 2.5 \times 10^{-3}$ eV for inverted hierarchy.
- The 4D c.c. is bounded below by $\Lambda_4 \geq a(m_{\nu_1})^4$, with $a\simeq 1$. This is in agreement with the fact that the c.c. scale $\Lambda_4^{1/4}\simeq 10^{-3}$ eV is of order of the scale of neutrino masses.
- Since Dirac neutrino masses are proportional to the Higgs vev (i.e. $m_{\nu_1}=h_{\nu_1}<H>$), an upper bound on the lightest neutrino mass implies un upper bound on the Higgs vev (at fixed Yukawa). This may give an understanding of the stability of the EW scale.
Here we will show that similar (but not identical) interesting constraints on the SM may be obtained from the Strong SWGC here discussed if extended to 3D. This is very attractive since, for the AdS swampland condition to apply, the AdS minima obtained must be absolutely stable, and this is always difficult to prove (one cannot rule out some instability in the UV). It is important to remark that they are totally independent conjectures. In fact, the AdS criteria forbids Majorana masses while the Strong SWGC allows them. Interestingly, both set very similar bounds for the lightest Dirac neutrino mass. We will show is that unless the lightest Dirac neutrino is sufficiently light, the form of the scalar potential for $\sigma$ is not consistent with the 3D version of equation (\[ours\]), for some value of $R$ the scalar interaction becomes weaker than gravitation.
We want to check if the effective potential of the SM compactified on a circle verifies Eq. (\[ours\]). For practical reasons it is useful to define: $$\frac{\tilde{\chi}}{M^2_\text{p}} \equiv2\left(\frac{V^{\prime\prime\prime}}{V^{\prime\prime}}\right)^{2}-\frac{V^{\prime\prime\prime\prime}}{V^{\prime\prime}},$$ since the plots become easier to read. On the other hand, the intuition on what could change if a perturbation to the potential is included is lost, since we are taking ratios. In terms of this new variable Eq. (\[ours\]) is $\tilde{\chi} \geq 1$. In computing $\tilde{\chi}$ all derivatives are taken with respect to the canonical field $\phi$. However, in Fig (\[neutrinos\]) we plot it with respect to $R$, for simplicity. The derivatives can be computed analytically using standard formulas involving the $K_{n}$ functions. We find that for normal neutrino hierarchy the Strong SWGC is violated unless the lightest neutrino is lighter than $1.5\times 10^{-3}$ eV, see fig.(\[neutrinos\]).
![ Bound on neutrino mass for normal hierarchy[]{data-label="neutrinos"}](neutrinos.pdf)
Interestingly, in the case of inverted hierarchy we obtain a lower and not an upper bound on the lightest neutrino mass. In particular we find that the lightest neutrino must have $m_{\nu} \geq 1.6 \, \text{meV}$. We can combine this bound with the results in [@IMV1; @2toro] to conclude that, if both conjectures are true, the SM with inverse hierarchy would be in the Swampland. Normal hierarchy is therefore another non-trivial prediction that arises from the conjecture. It is interesting that present data already show a slight preference for the normal hierarchy.
Constraints on the SM Higgs mass
--------------------------------
Independently of the above 3D constraints on the SM, one can consider possible SSWGC constraints directly in 4D. Here the natural candidate to give rise to interactions weaker than gravity at some scale is the Higgs field. The bound in eq(\[ours\]) is a bound on the mass of a scalar (for all $\phi$). Since the mass is suppressed by a $1/M_{\text{p}}$ factor one may expect that it will trivially be obeyed by any particle physics model. In fact this is not necessarily the case. It may happen that for some particular value of $\phi$ the term in the left hand side cancels exactly. In other words, defining () = 2(V”’)\^2 - V”V”” , one can obtain a bound m\^4() () M\_\^2 . \[jerar\] This means that if, [*at some finite value of $\phi$*]{}, $\delta(\phi)$ vanishes or is very small, then the bound could be violated, indicating that our model is wrong or incomplete.
In the case of the physical Higgs field $H$ of the SM the above differential equations would have an additional positive term $(g_1^2+g_2^2)$ contributing to $\delta(H)$ from the exchange of electroweak gauge bosons. It is known that above the EW region, the potential for the Higgs reaches a maximum at $Q_{\text{max}}$ and eventually decreases and becomes negative in a region around $Q_{ins}\simeq 10^{11}-10^{13}$ GeV, see e.g.[@Espinosa] and references therein. The maximum turns out to be close to the instability scale $Q_{ins}$ and $\delta(H)$ may vanish close to that scale [@preparation]. This would be the signal that either some new physics appear at that point or else one has to modify the SM below $Q_{\text{max}}$ so that this zero of the Higgs interaction never appears. In particular, a SUSY version of the SM like e.g. the MSSM may avoid this potential problem. The Higgs potential in the SUSY case is monotonous, with no maxima at any intermediate region developing. Thus SUSY would be here present not to solve the hierarchy problem in the traditional sense (absence of quadratic divergences) but rather to avoid that at any point the Higgs interaction becomes weaker than gravity.
In this connection note that in eq.(\[jerar\]) the left hand side is quadratically divergent whereas the right hand side involves only logarithmically divergent quantities. This would be indicating that the usual arguments about to the instability of scalar masses against quantum corrections are at odds with constraints coming from WGC arguments. An analogous observation but in a different context was already made in [@remmen]. We leave a detail study of the numerical effect of our bound on the SM for future work [@preparation].
Moduli fixing in flux string vacua
-----------------------------------
The scalar potential of string compactification moduli is another instance in which interactions weaker than gravity could appear, since moduli fields have Planck suppressed interactions. Let us consider here as the simplest example the KKLT [@kklt]. In this model one assumes that the complex structure moduli are fixed due to fluxes at a higher scale. One also assumes there is a single Kahler modulus $T$ which also governs the strength of a gaugino condensation superpotential W = W\_0 + ce\^[2aT]{} . Here $W_0$ is a constant term induced by the fluxes and the gauge group resides on a set of D7-branes. This yields a minimum in AdS. In order to up-lift the vacuum to dS one assumes there are e.g. a set of anti-D3 branes on top of a throat at some point in the compact CY. This yields an additional term $\delta V=D/(T+T^*)^3$, where D is proportional to the number of branes and may contain model dependent suppression factors. Setting the axion in $\text{Im} \, T$ to zero and letting $\text{Re}\, T=\sigma$, the potential has the form V\_[KKLT]{}() = ( + W\_0 + ce\^[-2a ]{}) + . The kinetic term is $$K_{i\overline{j}}\partial_{\mu}T^{i}\partial^{\mu}\overline{T}^{j}=\frac{3}{4T_{R}^{2}}\left(\left(\partial_{\mu}T_{R}\right)\left(\partial^{\mu}T_{R}\right)+\left(\partial_{\mu}T_{I}\right)\left(\partial^{\mu}T_{I}\right)\right) \ ,$$ so the field is related to the canonically normalized field $\phi$ by $\sigma=T_{R}=e^{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \phi}$. The condition $\tilde{\chi}\geq 1 $ is given by a very complicated expression which is a ratio of exponentials and polynomia in $T_{R}=\sigma$. We find that, as long as $W_{0}$ is large enough to generate a minimun, the potential verifies the SSWGC at all values of $\sigma$. The form of the potential for the parameters given in [@kklt] is shown with a black line in fig.\[KKLT\]. The figure in the right shows the ratio $\tilde{\chi}=\delta(\sigma)/V''^2$ which should be everywhere bigger than one for the bound from eq.(\[ours\]) to be verified. One sees that the bound is respected for the original parameters in [@kklt]. However for smaller $ |W_0| $ (in blue in the figure) the bound may be violated, although in the cases we have analyzed the potential has no minima.
![ KKLT potential for the parameters in the original ref.[@kklt] in black. In red and blue we show alternative choices for $W_0$. For the choice in blue the bound is violated, but the potential does not have a minimum.[]{data-label="KKLT"}](kklt.pdf "fig:") ![ KKLT potential for the parameters in the original ref.[@kklt] in black. In red and blue we show alternative choices for $W_0$. For the choice in blue the bound is violated, but the potential does not have a minimum.[]{data-label="KKLT"}](kklt_dos.pdf "fig:")
At large $\sigma$ the largest exponential dominates and $\tilde{\chi}=6$ so the SSWGC is always verified. It would be interesting to study the constraints in other moduli fixing string models.
Discussion
==========
In this paper we have put forward a scalar version of the WGC. We call it [*Strong SWGC*]{} because we conjecture that it applies to any scalar, and not only to those which may be playing a role as “WGC scalars”. The conjectured is summarized by eq.(\[ours\]) which should apply for all values of the field. The constraint may be interpreted as the condition that the strength of the interactions of any two scalars must be bigger than its gravitational interaction. This leads to a number of conclusions which unify and encompass some known swampland conjectures. The axion decay constants are constrained by $f\leq M_{\text{p}}$. There are extremal solutions leading to an emergent dimension with radius $R$ and masses with a structure $m^2\ =\ \frac {m_0^2}{1/(NR)^2\ +\ (R/M)^2} $, with a duality symmetry built in. The swampland distance conjecture arises at small and large $R$ and requires the existence of extended objects (strings). There are two extra interesting results: i) There cannot be massive scalars without any interaction other than gravity and ii) Among polynomial potentials only the linear one is consistent with the conditions and hence allow for trans-Planckian trips.
The implications of this SSWGC are remarkable for both cosmology and particle physics: 1) In single field chaotic inflation the linear potential is uniquely selected as the only class of potentials in which trans-Planckian trips may take place. This leads to a solid prediction: if large single field inflation is operative, the tensor-to-scalar ratio should be around $r=0.07$. Starobinsky or some linear monodromy inflation models need to be corrected to be viable 2) If applied to the 3D radion of the circle compactification of the SM, the SSWGC implies that the lightest Dirac neutrino has a mass bounded above by the c.c. scale, $m_{\nu_1}\lesssim \Lambda_4^{1/4}$. Combining the results of [@IMV1; @2toro] with the results of this work we find that the lightest neutrino must be Dirac and the hierarchy must be normal (not inverted). Furthermore, the bound on the neutrino mass implies a constraint on the Higgs vev (for fixed Yukawa). This would give an understanding of the Higgs stability against quantum corrections in the SM. Somewhat similar SM predictions were in fact already derived in terms of the AdS swampland conjecture of [@OV] in ref.[@IMV1]. However those predictions relied on the stability of the induced AdS 3D potential, which is difficult to establish in the absence of UV information. In the derivation from the SSWGC here considered the information required is purely local and independent from any UV information. 3) The SSWGC may be applied to the Higgs field in the SM, suggesting that new physics should appear at an intermediate scale or below. This would be independent of the traditional argument based on the absence of quadratic divergences, and 4) The SSWGC can be applied to moduli fixing models of string compactification. The simplest KKLT scenario is consistent with the constraints, although the parameters of moduli fixing potentials would be constrained.
Although the conjecture looks very attractive and predictive and it is able to encompass several of the proposed swampland conjectures, further effort should be made to understand its physical origin as coming from a “gravity as the weakest force" condition. In addition, the role of the extremal solutions as towers of solitonic states needs to be understood. The generalization to more complex situations with many scalars is also important. Finally, it would be interesting to find out what is it precisely that goes wrong when the scalar interaction is weaker than gravity. While the WGC for charged particles and gauge bosons is relatively well understood in terms of extremal charged black-holes, its generalization to scalar fields and interactions remains challenging. We hope the present paper may be useful to shed some new light into this question.
**Acknowledgments**
We thank J.R. Espinosa, A. Herráez, F. Marchesano, M. Montero, E. Palti, A. Uranga, and I. Valenzuela for useful discussions. We thank Ido Ben-Dayan for prompting us to check the case of the SM Higgs potential. This work has been supported by the ERC Advanced Grant SPLE under contract ERC-2012-ADG-20120216-320421, by the grants FPA2016-78645-P and FPA2015-65480-P from the MINECO, and the grant SEV-2016-0597 of the “Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa" Programme. E.G. is supported by the Spanish FPU Grant No. FPU16/03985.
[99]{}
C. Vafa, “The String landscape and the swampland,” hep-th/0509212
N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis and C. Vafa, “The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,” JHEP [**0706**]{} (2007) 060 \[hep-th/0601001\]
H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland,” Nucl. Phys. B [**766**]{}, 21 (2007) \[hep-th/0605264\].
E. Palti, “The Swampland: Introduction and Review,” arXiv:1903.06239 \[hep-th\].
T. Rudelius, “Constraints on Axion Inflation from the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JCAP [**1509**]{} (2015) no.09, 020 \[arXiv:1503.00795 \[hep-th\]\]\
M. Montero, A. M. Uranga and I. Valenzuela, “Transplanckian axions!?,” JHEP [**1508**]{} (2015) 032 \[arXiv:1503.03886 \[hep-th\]\]\
J. Brown, W. Cottrell, G. Shiu and P. Soler, “Fencing in the Swampland: Quantum Gravity Constraints on Large Field Inflation,” JHEP [**1510**]{} (2015) 023 \[arXiv:1503.04783 \[hep-th\]\]\
J. Brown, W. Cottrell, G. Shiu and P. Soler, “On Axionic Field Ranges, Loopholes and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1604**]{}, 017 (2016) \[arXiv:1504.00659 \[hep-th\]\]\
B. Heidenreich, M. Reece and T. Rudelius, “Weak Gravity Strongly Constrains Large-Field Axion Inflation,” JHEP [**1512**]{} (2015) 108 \[arXiv:1506.03447 \[hep-th\]\]\
A. de la Fuente, P. Saraswat and R. Sundrum, “Natural Inflation and Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{} (2015) no.15, 151303 \[arXiv:1412.3457 \[hep-th\]\]\
A. Hebecker, P. Mangat, F. Rompineve and L. T. Witkowski, “Winding out of the Swamp: Evading the Weak Gravity Conjecture with F-term Winding Inflation?,” Phys. Lett. B [**748**]{} (2015) 455 \[arXiv:1503.07912 \[hep-th\]\]\
T. C. Bachlechner, C. Long and L. McAllister, “Planckian Axions and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1601**]{} (2016) 091 \[arXiv:1503.07853 \[hep-th\]\]\
T. Rudelius, “On the Possibility of Large Axion Moduli Spaces,” JCAP [**1504**]{} (2015) no.04, 049 \[arXiv:1409.5793 \[hep-th\]\]\
D. Junghans, “Large-Field Inflation with Multiple Axions and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1602**]{} (2016) 128 \[arXiv:1504.03566 \[hep-th\]\]\
K. Kooner, S. Parameswaran and I. Zavala, “Warping the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” Phys. Lett. B [**759**]{}, 402 (2016) \[arXiv:1509.07049 \[hep-th\]\]\
D. Harlow, “Wormholes, Emergent Gauge Fields, and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1601**]{}, 122 (2016) \[arXiv:1510.07911 \[hep-th\]\]\
L. E. Ibáñez, M. Montero, A. Uranga and I. Valenzuela, “Relaxion Monodromy and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1604**]{} (2016) 020 \[arXiv:1512.00025 \[hep-th\]\]\
A. Hebecker, F. Rompineve and A. Westphal, “Axion Monodromy and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1604**]{} (2016) 157 \[arXiv:1512.03768 \[hep-th\]\].
B. Heidenreich, M. Reece and T. Rudelius, “Evidence for a Lattice Weak Gravity Conjecture,” arXiv:1606.08437 \[hep-th\]\
M. Montero, G. Shiu and P. Soler, “The Weak Gravity Conjecture in three dimensions,” arXiv:1606.08438 \[hep-th\]\
P. Saraswat, “The Weak Gravity Conjecture and Effective Field Theory,” arXiv:1608.06951 \[hep-th\]\
D. Klaewer and E. Palti, “Super-Planckian Spatial Field Variations and Quantum Gravity,” arXiv:1610.00010 \[hep-th\]\
L. McAllister, P. Schwaller, G. Servant, J. Stout and A. Westphal, “Runaway Relaxion Monodromy,” arXiv:1610.05320 \[hep-th\]\
A. Herráez and L. E. Ibáñez, “An Axion-induced SM/MSSM Higgs Landscape and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1702**]{} (2017) 109 \[arXiv:1610.08836 \[hep-th\]\]\
M. Montero, “Are tiny gauge couplings out of the Swampland?,” \[arXiv:1708.02249 \[hep-th\]\]\
L. E. Ibáñez and M. Montero, “A Note on the WGC, Effective Field Theory and Clockwork within String Theory,” JHEP [**1802**]{} (2018) 057 \[arXiv:1709.02392 \[hep-th\]\]\
G. Aldazabal and L. E. Ibáñez ‘A Note on 4D Heterotic String Vacua, FI-terms and the Swampland,’’ Phys. Lett. B [**782**]{} (2018) 375 \[arXiv:1804.07322 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Cheung, J. Liu and G. N. Remmen, “Proof of the Weak Gravity Conjecture from Black Hole Entropy,” arXiv:1801.08546 \[hep-th\]\
T. W. Grimm, E. Palti and I. Valenzuela, \`‘Infinite Distances in Field Space and Massless Towers of States,’’ arXiv:1802.08264 \[hep-th\]\
B. Heidenreich, M. Reece and T. Rudelius, “Emergence and the Swampland Conjectures,” arXiv:1802.08698 \[hep-th\]\
S. Andriolo, D. Junghans, T. Noumi and G. Shiu, “A Tower Weak Gravity Conjecture from Infrared Consistency,” arXiv:1802.04287 \[hep-th\]\
R. Blumenhagen, D. Klaewer, L. Schlechter and F. Wolf, “The Refined Swampland Distance Conjecture in Calabi-Yau Moduli Spaces,” arXiv:1803.04989 \[hep-th\]\
A. Landete and G. Shiu, “Mass Hierarchies and Dynamical Field Range,” arXiv:1806.01874 \[hep-th\]\
Y. Hamada, T. Noumi and G. Shiu, “Weak Gravity Conjecture from Unitarity and Causality,” arXiv:1810.03637 \[hep-th\].
S. J. Lee, W. Lerche and T. Weigand, “Tensionless Strings and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1810**]{} (2018) 164 \[arXiv:1808.05958 \[hep-th\]\]\
S. J. Lee, W. Lerche and T. Weigand, “Modular Fluxes, Elliptic Genera, and Weak Gravity Conjectures in Four Dimensions,” arXiv:1901.08065 \[hep-th\].
T. D. Brennan, F. Carta and C. Vafa, “The String Landscape, the Swampland, and the Missing Corner,” arXiv:1711.00864 \[hep-th\].
E. Palti, “The Weak Gravity Conjecture and Scalar Fields,” JHEP [**1708**]{} (2017) 034 \[arXiv:1705.04328 \[hep-th\]\].
S. J. Lee, W. Lerche and T. Weigand, “A Stringy Test of the Scalar Weak Gravity Conjecture,” Nucl. Phys. B [**938**]{} (2019) 321 \[arXiv:1810.05169 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Lust and E. Palti, “Scalar Fields, Hierarchical UV/IR Mixing and The Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1802**]{} (2018) 040 \[arXiv:1709.01790 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Klaewer and E. Palti, “Super-Planckian Spatial Field Variations and Quantum Gravity,” JHEP [**1701**]{} (2017) 088 \[arXiv:1610.00010 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko and C. Vafa, “De Sitter Space and the Swampland,” arXiv:1806.08362 \[hep-th\].
P. Agrawal, G. Obied, P. J. Steinhardt and C. Vafa, “On the Cosmological Implications of the String Swampland,” Phys. Lett. B [**784**]{} (2018) 271 \[arXiv:1806.09718 \[hep-th\]\].
S. K. Garg and C. Krishnan, “Bounds on Slow Roll and the de Sitter Swampland,” arXiv:1807.05193 \[hep-th\].
H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu and C. Vafa, “Distance and de Sitter Conjectures on the Swampland,” arXiv:1810.05506 \[hep-th\].
G. Dvali and C. Gomez, “On Exclusion of Positive Cosmological Constant,” arXiv:1806.10877 \[hep-th\].\
G. Dvali, C. Gomez and S. Zell, “Quantum Breaking Bound on de Sitter and Swampland,” arXiv:1810.11002 \[hep-th\]\
D. Andriot, “On the de Sitter swampland criterion,” Phys. Lett. B [**785**]{} (2018) 570 \[arXiv:1806.10999 \[hep-th\]\]\
C. Roupec and T. Wrase, “de Sitter extrema and the swampland,” Fortsch. Phys. [**2018**]{} 1800082 \[arXiv:1807.09538 \[hep-th\]\]\
J. P. Conlon, “The de Sitter swampland conjecture and supersymmetric AdS vacua,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**33**]{} (2018) no.29, 1850178 \[arXiv:1808.05040 \[hep-th\]\]\
S. Kachru and S. P. Trivedi, “A comment on effective field theories of flux vacua,” arXiv:1808.08971 \[hep-th\]\
H. Murayama, M. Yamazaki and T. T. Yanagida, “Do We Live in the Swampland?,” arXiv:1809.00478 \[hep-th\]\
G. Buratti, E. Garcia-Valdecasas and A. M. Uranga, “Supersymmetry Breaking Warped Throats and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” arXiv:1810.07673 \[hep-th\]\
M. Montero, “A Holographic Derivation of the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” arXiv:1812.03978 \[hep-th\]\
C. Cordova, G. B. De Luca and A. Tomasiello, “Classical de Sitter Solutions of Ten-Dimensional Supergravity,” arXiv:1812.04147 \[hep-th\]\
G. Buratti, J. Calderon and A. M. Uranga, “Transplanckian Axion Monodromy !?,” arXiv:1812.05016 \[hep-th\].
T. W. Grimm, E. Palti and I. Valenzuela, “Infinite Distances in Field Space and Massless Towers of States,” JHEP [**1808**]{} (2018) 143 \[arXiv:1802.08264 \[hep-th\]\].
T. W. Grimm, C. Li and E. Palti, “Infinite Distance Networks in Field Space and Charge Orbits,” arXiv:1811.02571 \[hep-th\].
A. D. Linde, [*“Chaotic Inflation,”*]{} Phys. Lett. B [**129**]{} (1983) 177.
E. Silverstein and A. Westphal, [*“Monodromy in the CMB: Gravity Waves and String Inflation,”*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 106003 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3085 \[hep-th\]\].
L. McAllister, E. Silverstein and A. Westphal, [*“Gravity Waves and Linear Inflation from Axion Monodromy,”*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 046003 (2010) \[arXiv:0808.0706 \[hep-th\]\]. L. McAllister, E. Silverstein, A. Westphal and T. Wrase, “The Powers of Monodromy,” JHEP [**1409**]{}, 123 (2014) \[arXiv:1405.3652 \[hep-th\]\].
X. Dong, B. Horn, E. Silverstein and A. Westphal, [*“Simple exercises to flatten your potential,”*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{} (2011) 026011 \[arXiv:1011.4521 \[hep-th\]\]. F. Marchesano, G. Shiu and A. M. Uranga, [*“F-term Axion Monodromy Inflation,”*]{} JHEP [**1408**]{}, 157 (2014) \[arXiv:1406.2729 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Baumann and L. McAllister, [*“Inflation and String Theory,”*]{} arXiv:1404.2601 \[hep-th\].
L. E. Ibáñez and I. Valenzuela, [*“The Higgs Mass as a Signature of Heavy SUSY,”*]{} JHEP [**1305**]{} (2013) 064 \[arXiv:1301.5167 \[hep-ph\]\]\
L. E. Ibáñez, F. Marchesano and I. Valenzuela, “Higgs-otic Inflation and String Theory,” JHEP [**1501**]{} (2015) 128 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)128 \[arXiv:1411.5380 \[hep-th\]\].
A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B [**91**]{} (1980) 99 \[Phys. Lett. [**91B**]{} (1980) 99\] \[Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. [**3**]{} (1987) 130\].
V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, “Quantum Fluctuations and a Nonsingular Universe,” JETP Lett. [**33**]{} (1981) 532 \[Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**33**]{} (1981) 549\].
For a review and references see F. Bezrukov, [*“The Higgs field as an inflaton,”*]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**30**]{} (2013) 214001 \[arXiv:1307.0708 \[hep-ph\]\].
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and G. Villadoro, “Quantum Horizons of the Standard Model Landscape,” JHEP [**0706**]{} (2007) 078 \[hep-th/0703067 \[HEP-TH\]\].
H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Non-supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**21**]{} (2017) 1787 \[arXiv:1610.01533 \[hep-th\]\].
L. E. Ibáñez, V. Martin-Lozano and I. Valenzuela, “Constraining Neutrino Masses, the Cosmological Constant and BSM Physics from the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1711**]{} (2017) 066 \[arXiv:1706.05392 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Non-supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**21**]{} (2017) 1787 \[arXiv:1610.01533 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Gonzalo, A. Herráez and L. E. Ibáñez, “AdS-phobia, the WGC, the Standard Model and Supersymmetry,” JHEP [**1806**]{} (2018) 051 \[arXiv:1803.08455 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Gonzalo and L. E. Ibáñez, “The Fundamental Need for a SM Higgs and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” Phys. Lett. B [**786**]{} (2018) 272 \[arXiv:1806.09647 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. Hamada and G. Shiu, “Weak Gravity Conjecture, Multiple Point Principle and the Standard Model Landscape,” JHEP [**1711**]{} (2017) 043 \[arXiv:1707.06326 \[hep-th\]\].
J.R. Espinosa, E. Gonzalo and L.E. Ibáñez, in progress (2019).
G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, “Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO,” JHEP [**1208**]{} (2012) 098 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2012)098 \[arXiv:1205.6497 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, “Naturalness and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{} (2014) 051601 \[arXiv:1402.2287 \[hep-ph\]\]\
S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, “De Sitter vacua in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 046005 \[hep-th/0301240\].
R. Blumenhagen, D. Klaewer and L. Schlechter, “Swampland Variations on a Theme by KKLT,” arXiv:1902.07724 \[hep-th\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
DESY 19-130\
July 12, 2019
[**A Goldilocks Higgs**]{}
.3cm
\
$^a$[*Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA*]{}\
$^b$[*Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Theory Group, D-22603 Hamburg, Germany*]{}\
ABSTRACT
The Higgs could couple to a topological 4-form sector which yields a complex vacuum structure. In general such couplings could lead to direct CP violation in the Higgs sector. In many of the Higgs vacua electroweak symmetry is unbroken. In just as many it breaks when the 4-form flux is large enough. For a fixed value of flux, the symmetry breaking vacua have a smaller vacuum energy than the symmetric ones, where the difference is quantized because it is set by the $4$-form flux. This leads to the possibility that there is a value of the 4-form flux for any UV contributions to the Higgs [*vev*]{} that automatically cancels it down to the right value, $\sim$ TeV, if the 4-form charges are quantized in the units of the electroweak scale. This would still leave the cosmological constant which could be selected anthropically.
Introduction
============
Why is the Standard Model (SM) so light? In the standard formulation of the SM, the masses of all particles, including the Higgs, are set by the Higgs [*vev*]{} after the electroweak (EW) spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB). However, if there are any additional heavy degrees of freedom in the universe, which could either play a role in the unification of forces or be dark matter, that have non-ignorable couplings to the Higgs, the Higgs [*vev*]{} would receive significant contributions from their vacuum fluctuations. If string theory is right, this seems inevitable, since all of light QFT should be understood as an EFT with many heavy states integrated out. Without an obvious cancellation mechanism as for example low scale SUSY, it is puzzling to see that such heavy states do not influence the observed low energy physics more significantly.
The SM, therefore, appears to be special. Its specialty is tracked down to the special value of a single dimensional number, the Higgs [*vev*]{}. This evokes an obvious analogy to another very special dimensional parameter characterizing the universe, the cosmological constant. A possible way to understand its smallness is to imagine that it is a characteristic of a nontrivial structure of the manifold of vacua in the theory, rather than an unpredictable parameter in a simple vacuum. The Higgs [*vev*]{} might be similar. We might not have a single vacuum hosting the light low energy theory, enforced by local dynamics controlled by symmetries which preclude UV contaminations. Instead we may have a large multiplicity of Higgs vacua where the possible [*vevs*]{} are quantized with a step size $\sim$ TeV. In this case, the observed features of the SM could be understood as a cosmological coincidence without any need for new dynamics and new particles. The Higgs [*vev*]{} selection would be very weakly anthropic, while the cosmological constant in these vacua could then be selected by the more refined cosmological evolution combined with anthropic boundary conditions.
In this communication we will present a framework which realizes such a scenario. The idea is simple: imagine that the Higgs [in general might not be ]{} a CP-even state, and that it has an ‘axion’-like admixture, [and let it couple]{} to a 4-form sector. If this is the case, the Higgs effective potential could include terms such as V \_ F\^ ||\^2 \[mixing\] such as those which appear in 4D flux monodromy models of inflation [@Kaloper:2008fb; @Kaloper:2008qs; @Kaloper:2011jz; @Kaloper:2016fbr; @DAmico:2017cda], but where $c$ could be a number of indefinite CP[^1]. Since the whole action should be invariant, and the term $\epsilon F$ is CP-odd, this means that in principle $|\phi|^2$ is also CP-indefinite. E.g., if we fix $c$ to be CP-even, then the field which couples to $\epsilon F$ would have to be an axion-like mode, if $c$ were CP-odd, the field coupling to $\epsilon F$ would be a CP-even scalar and so on. Here we instead assume the general case, and consider a $c$ which is [*a priori*]{} CP-indefinite. Note that terms like this have been used previously to set up landscapes of of $\theta_{QCD}$ and gauge hierarchy [@nicolai; @Dvali:2001sm; @Dvali:2003br; @Dvali:2004tma; @Dvali:2005an] and have been [found]{} to give new angles of attack on the cosmological constant problem [@nicolai; @Dvali:2001sm; @Brown:1987dd; @Brown:1988kg; @Bousso:2000xa; @Polchinski:2006gy]. Specifically, Higgs-$4$-form couplings were investigated in [@Dvali:2003br; @Dvali:2004tma].
Since the 4-form field strength $F_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} = 4 \partial_{[\mu} A_{\nu\lambda\sigma]}$ is dimension-2, this term is actually renormalizable, and aside from [allowing]{} the Higgs to be of indefinite CP, it could have been included in the SM from the start. However, since the 4-form field strength is additive, $F \sim N q$ where $N$ is an integer and $q$ the charge of a membrane sourcing the flux of $F$, the field strengths could easily be very large, of either sign. Further, it will take discrete values, separated by a unit of $q$, leading to many different low energy theories of the Higgs sector.
Thus any UV contributions to the Higgs [*vev*]{} can be compensated by the 4-form flux in some of the vacua, however large these corrections might be. If the unit of charge is picked to be $c q \sim {\rm TeV}^2$, the flux of the 4-form will be just right to cancel the large UV corrections for some value of $N$.
A Christmas Tree of Electroweak Vacua
=====================================
Let us now flesh out the details. For simplicity we only work with the Higgs sector. The idea is to assume that the Higgs potential includes the standard terms, V\_0 = ||\^4 - ||\^2 + where however $v$ can be arbitrarily large, including any possible UV contribution from above the EW scale; $\Lambda$ is an a priori arbitrary contribution to the cosmological constant in the vacuum. We will take it to be a globally dynamical variable, similar to [@Bousso:2000xa; @Polchinski:2006gy]. In addition, we add the terms ‘monodromizing’ the Higgs [*vev*]{}, V = \_ F\^ ||\^2 - F\_\^2 and then we dualize $F$, replacing it with its dual magnetic field strength. This amounts to adding V = \_ (F\^ - 4 \^[\[]{} A\^[\]]{}) to the effective potential. Adding them up gives our modification to the SM Lagrangian, = - F\_\^2 + \_ F\^ + 16 \_ (\^ Q) A\^ . The last term says that locally $Q$ is a constant, which can only change by a membrane emission, since a membrane with a charge $q$ couples to $A$ by d\^3 e\^[abc]{} \_a x\^\_b x\^\_c x\^A\_ . This means that $Q$ is quantized in the units of the membrane charge $q$, $Q = Nq$. Now completing the square in $F$ and integrating it out yields the final formula for the extended Higgs potential, V = ||\^4 - ||\^2 + 12 (Q + c ||\^2)\^2 + = ||\^4 - ||\^2 + 12 Q\^2 + where |&=& + 2c\
|v\^2 &=& v\^2 - 2c Q . Note that the effective potential (7) resembles the relaxion [@gkr; @choi] realized via a monodromy [@ibanez], which was ‘frozen’ out and replaced by a locally constant value $Q$. Such a model was explored in [@Herraez:2016dxn].
The formula in Eq. (9) is particularly important. Since $Q = Nq$, no matter what $v^2$ is, we can always pick an integer $N$ such that $\bar v^2$ is in the TeV window required to keep the SM at the observed scales. This means that in order to make this natural, and avoid gross fine tunings we must pick cq \^2 . In this case, we are guaranteed that there is a vacuum branch for any $v \gg$ TeV, such that N\_\* = is the integer closest to the ratio $v^2/cq$ from below, for any $v^2$. In other words, whatever the UV physics that could affect the Higgs [*vev*]{}, there is a flux of $F$ that compensates it, retaining the expectation value of the Higgs in the EW window.
Note, that in this case the neighboring values of the flux, $N= N_* \pm 1$ are already problematic from the low energy point of view. For $N = N_*+1$, the EW symmetry is restored, since $v^2 - 2cq (N_*+1)$ flips sign, as the flux overcompensates $v^2$. For $N = N_* -1$, the Higgs [*vev*]{} is larger by ${\cal O}(1)$, rendering the SM particles all heavier, while all the charges remain fixed. This is problematic for low energy physics, in particular BBN. If we require that the universe should evolve to allow nontrivial very low energy dynamics instead of being a cold boring place, this clearly favors[^2] the critical flux with $N_*$.
Further issues – and insights – arise when we consider the cosmological constant contribution from EW SSB. In vacua with $N > N_*$ for a fixed $v^2$, we have [$\bar v^2 < 0$]{} and there is no EW SSB. The SM in these states is completely massless, relativistic, yet with the net vacuum energy given by 12 N\^2 q\^2 + . Such universes are very inhospitable. They can only have radiation being inflated away forever, or rapidly crunching up if $\Lambda$ is sufficiently negative.
In contrast, in the vacua with $N < N_*$, EW SSB takes place in the IR, when the universe cools down, and the effective cosmological constant in these states is \_[N]{} = 12 N\^2 q\^2 + - 14 . If we compare the cosmological constants in the preferred state $N_*$ and the state $N_*-1$ right next to it, we find that \[eq:CCspacing\] = \_[N\_\*]{} - \_[N\_\*-1]{} (1- ) . Since $\bar \lambda = \lambda + 2c$ – and $c$ includes the CP-violating effects in the Higgs sector – it is natural to expect that c\_[CP-even]{}/|1 . This implies that the cosmological constant in the state with $N_*-1$, adjacent to the conventional SM, is much smaller. The cosmological dynamics which picks the late low energy state of the universe, introducing dynamics in the additional cosmological constant term $\Lambda$, as in for example [@Bousso:2000xa; @Polchinski:2006gy; @weinberg; @Wein], would therefore have to pick the state with $N_*$, since the adjacent states either
- a\) don’t break EW symmetry or
- b\) break it too badly, making SM too heavy.
Further, since the adjacent state with $N_*-1$ has a much smaller cosmological constant, once [$\Lambda_{N_*}$]{} is selected to be \~10\^[-122]{} [M\_[P]{}]{}\^4 the cosmological constant in the state $N_*-1$ will be huge and negative. The situation is depicted in Fig. \[fig:ChristmasTree\] for a choice of toy model parameters.
We note that the spacing of the cosmological constant values around zero $\Delta\Lambda\sim qv^2/c = \frac{1}{c^2} cq\,v^2 \sim {\rm TeV}^2 v^2$ is of the same scale as the scale of the residual cosmological constant in low-energy supersymmetry with $\Lambda_{MSSM} \sim m_{3/2}^2 {M_{\rm P}}^2$ since there $v\sim m_{3/2}\sim {\rm TeV}$ and $M_{\rm GUT}<v<{M_{\rm P}}$. Hence, in our setup the scale of residual cosmological constant problem is reduced about as much as in models with low-energy supersymmetry as long as $c$ is not too small.
This means, if our universe ever transitions to such a state it will crunch immediately due to a huge negative vacuum energy. However, since a probability of such a transition is suppressed by P \~( - ) \~( - ) such disastrous transitions are extremely unlikely if the scale of the brane tension is controlled by the UV (that is, by scales of order $v$ so $\sigma \sim v^3$). In that case, \^4/v\^6 \~v\^6 q\^3 and the state with $N_*$ units of flux is as stable as can be. In the early universe, of course, transitions can and will occur more rapidly – at larger values of $\Lambda$ – which will populate states with $N_*$ units of flux early on. These will be the states which will support interesting low energy cosmology, explaining why we observe it [@weinberg; @Wein]. Note also from Eq. (9) that while initially the cosmological constant for the states $N < N_*$ decreases, becoming negative if $\Lambda_{N_*}$ is anthropically selected to be in the observed window, this quickly turns around and $\Lambda_N$ starts to grow again thanks to $c< \bar \lambda$. We show the distribution of the cosmological constant for a numerical example in Fig. \[fig:CCs\].
This means that the universe with the correct small Higgs [*vev*]{} is really a rather special place. Most of the other universes in our framework have a much larger cosmological constant, with either too large a Higgs [*vev*]{} or without EW SSB. There may be some universes “nearby” where the Higgs [*vev*]{} is ${\cal O}(1)$ larger, that would be a problem for cosmochemistry. However those few universes would have a large negative cosmological constant once the SM one is selected, and hence are doubly disfavored.
Discussion
==========
In summary, we have found that a nontrivial coupling of the Higgs to topological sectors – modeled here by a 4-form fluxes and a monodromy-like mixing of the Higgs [*vev*]{} with it – can generate a mini-multiverse of Higgs vacua. Many of them yield wrong low energy dynamics for the SM. The SM is either too heavy, or EW SSB never happens. However, if the charge of the membrane sourcing the 4-form flux is set by the EW scale, there is always one vacuum, supporting the right SM which can get a small cosmological constant by cosmological evolution obeying anthropic boundary conditions. The couplings to the 4-form which allow for this are in fact power counting renormalizable, preserving the SM dynamics to the tee. [However, new physics can enter if we assume that the Higgs is a CP-indefinite state, so that we allow for a general coupling which]{} breaks CP explicitly. This might be a way to experimentally probe the proposal – or at least, to constrain it, by finding that the Higgs sector does not break CP. Another possible test is cosmology. The relaxation dynamics of the cosmological constant requires nucleation of bubbles, and if the charges are set by the EW scale, the creation of such bubbles in the late universe might have affected the cosmological gravitational wave background.
.5cm
[**Note Added**]{}: While this manuscript was being written, ref. [@Giudice:2019iwl] appeared which has significant overlap with our work.
.5cm
[**Acknowledgments**]{}: We would like to thank G. D’Amico and A. Lawrence for many very useful discussions. We also thank Brothers Grimm for inspiration. NK thanks CERN Theory Division, DESY Theory Group, Mainz MITP and KITP, UCSB for kind hospitality in the course of this work. AW thanks CERN Theory Division for kind hospitality in the course of this work. NK is supported in part by the DOE Grant DE-SC0009999. AW is supported by the ERC Consolidator Grant STRINGFLATION under the HORIZON 2020 grant agreement no. 647995, as well as by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306.
[99]{}
N. Kaloper and L. Sorbo, “A Natural Framework for Chaotic Inflation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 121301 (2009). N. Kaloper and L. Sorbo, “Where in the String Landscape is Quintessence,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 043528 (2009). N. Kaloper, A. Lawrence and L. Sorbo, “An Ignoble Approach to Large Field Inflation,” JCAP [**1103**]{}, 023 (2011). N. Kaloper and A. Lawrence, “London equation for monodromy inflation,” Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 6, 063526 (2017). G. D’Amico, N. Kaloper and A. Lawrence, “Monodromy Inflation in the Strong Coupling Regime of the Effective Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**121**]{}, no. 9, 091301 (2018).
A. Aurilia, H. Nicolai and P. K. Townsend, “Hidden Constants: The Theta Parameter of QCD and the Cosmological Constant of N=8 Supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B [**176**]{}, 509 (1980).
G. R. Dvali and A. Vilenkin, “Field theory models for variable cosmological constant,” Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 063509 (2001). G. Dvali and A. Vilenkin, “Cosmic attractors and gauge hierarchy,” Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 063501 (2004). G. Dvali, “Large hierarchies from attractor vacua,” Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 025018 (2006). G. Dvali, “Three-form gauging of axion symmetries and gravity,” hep-th/0507215. G. Dvali, “A Vacuum accumulation solution to the strong CP problem,” Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 025019 (2006).
J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, “Dynamical Neutralization of the Cosmological Constant,” Phys. Lett. B [**195**]{}, 177 (1987). J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, “Neutralization of the Cosmological Constant by Membrane Creation,” Nucl. Phys. B [**297**]{}, 787 (1988).
R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, “Quantization of four form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant,” JHEP [**0006**]{}, 006 (2000). J. Polchinski, “The Cosmological Constant and the String Landscape,” hep-th/0603249.
P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, “Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, no. 22, 221801 (2015). K. Choi and S. H. Im, “Realizing the relaxion from multiple axions and its UV completion with high scale supersymmetry,” JHEP [**1601**]{}, 149 (2016). L. E. Ibanez, M. Montero, A. Uranga and I. Valenzuela, “Relaxion Monodromy and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1604**]{}, 020 (2016). A. Herraez and L. E. Ibanez, “An Axion-induced SM/MSSM Higgs Landscape and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP [**1702**]{}, 109 (2017). R. Harnik, G. D. Kribs and G. Perez, “A Universe without weak interactions,” Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 035006 (2006).
S. Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Problem,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1 (1989).
S. Weinberg, “Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 2607 (1987).
G. F. Giudice, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, “The Selfish Higgs,” arXiv:1907.05370 \[hep-ph\].
[^1]: The specific CP properties of $c$ depend on the UV completion. For example if we start with a compactification which includes terms $\propto G_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} F^{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} |\phi|^2$, where $G$ and $F$ are two different $4$-forms, and $G$ has a magnetic flux whose discharge is much more suppressed than the $F$ flux, there resulting $4D$ term will be (\[mixing\]) where $c$ is CP-odd. However there could be configurations with terms $\propto G^2 \epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} F^{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} |\phi|^2$ which break CP, and thus a general construction may involve both types of contributions.
[^2]: We are assuming that the Yukawa couplings to the EW fermions are fixed to their observed values reflecting the observed reality. This is our [*prior*]{}, which for example excludes the limit of the ‘weakless’ universe [@weakless].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report a computational first-principles study of positron trapping at vacancy defects in metals and semiconductors. The main emphasis is on the energetics of the trapping process including the interplay between the positron state and the defect’s ionic structure and on the ensuing annihilation characteristics of the trapped state. For vacancies in covalent semiconductors the ion relaxation is a crucial part of the positron trapping process enabling the localization of the positron state. However, positron trapping does not strongly affect the characteristic features of the electronic structure, e.g., the ionization levels change only moderately. Also in the case of metal vacancies the positron-induced ion relaxation has a noticeable effect on the calculated positron lifetime and momentum distribution of annihilating electron-positron pairs.'
author:
- 'I. Makkonen'
- 'M. J. Puska'
title: Energetics of positron states trapped at vacancies in solids
---
Introduction
============
Positron annihilation spectroscopy [@Krause-Rehberg99] is widely used in studying vacancy-type defects in metals and semiconductors. This is based on the fact that vacancies, in neutral or negative charge states, act as efficient positron traps due to the reduced repulsion of positive ions. Also the electron density is reduced at vacancies and by measuring the ensuing lifetime increase with respect to the delocalized positron bulk state one can estimate the extent of the open volume in defects. The momentum distribution of annihilating electron-positron pairs measured by Doppler broadening spectroscopy is at high momenta specific for the annihilating core electrons and thereby it enables the chemical identification of atoms surrounding vacancies. For a given sample, the identification of the most abundant open-volume defect type, such as vacancy and vacancy agglomerates or vacancy-impurity complex, is based on the knowledge of the general behavior of positron annihilation results, i.e., on the information how the measured annihilation characteristics depend on the open volume or the chemical environment of defects. This knowledge has been acquired by measuring well-characterized reference samples including well-annealed (perfect bulk) materials as well as defected materials such as those containing monovacancies due to electron irradiation. Moreover, theoretical predictions of positron annihilation characteristics significantly support the defect identification. [@Puska94]
In order to interpret experimental results it is also important to understand the positron trapping process in detail. The trapping coefficient is an important quantity in determining defect concentrations. Its values have been estimated also theoretically for model systems by assuming that the positron gives in the trapping process its binding energy to excited electron-hole pairs or to phonons. [@Hodges70; @Nieminen79; @Puska90] In the present computational work our main theme is the effect of the positron on the ion lattice during the trapping process. Because the ion vibration frequency, which is of the order of the Debye phonon frequency, is much larger than the positron annihilation rate the ions around the defect have time prior to positron annihilation to relax to minimize the total energy of the defect-positron system. The ion relaxation affects the localization of the positron state and the annihilation characteristics. Below we argue using first-principles total-energy calculations that the positron-induced lattice relaxation is indispensable for the existence of localized positron states at vacancies in covalent semiconductors and thereby it completely determines the ensuing annihilation characteristics. In these systems, the strong influence of the positron is possible because the energy landscape as a function of the ion positions around the vacancy is very flat. Actually, the effect of the trapped positron is found so strong that it practically cancels the possible symmetry-lowering Jahn-Teller distortion of the vacancy. For vacancies in metals the influence of the trapped positron on the ion positions and especially on the energetics of the trapping process is smaller. However, the trapped positron causes a small increase in the open vacancy volume and thereby noticeable chances in the positron lifetime and in the momentum distribution of the annihilating pairs. It is important to note this from the modeling point of view.
In the case of semiconductors, positron annihilation has been used also to extract detailed information about the electronic structures of the defects, i.e., to determine the ionization levels of vacancy-type defects [@Corbel88; @Saarinen91a; @Saarinen91b; @LeBerre95; @Kuisma97; @Kauppinen99; @Arpiainen02; @Tuomisto05] or just to probe the changes in their charge states. [@Makinen92] In these experiments the charge state of the defect changes due to the thermal ionization or by illumination with light. The charge state change is then seen as a change in the positron lifetime reflecting electronic-structure-induced changes in the ion positions or as a dramatic change in the positron trapping rate when positive defects do not trap positrons. The question rising immediately in the first case is how much the positron-induced ionic relaxation affects the positions of the ionization levels by modifying or eventually breaking bonds between ions next to the vacancy. Our prediction is that although the changes in the ionic structure are rather large their effect on the ionization levels is minor.
Finally, we would like to point out that the comparison of calculated positron annihilation characteristics with the measured ones constitutes the fundamental test for theories describing electronic properties of materials and the positron-electron interactions as well as for many computational approximations. For delocalized positron states in perfect bulk solids there exist several systematic comparisons [@Puska83; @Puska89; @Barbiellini96; @Makkonen06] but for positron states trapped at vacancy defects comparisons treating several materials and systems on the same footing are scarce. The reason may be in difficulties arising in the theoretical description, e.g. in the density-functional theory [@Hohenberg64; @Kohn65] (DFT) the local-density approximation (LDA) for the electron exchange and correlation underestimates the energy band gap in semiconductors which may have severe consequences on the localized electron states and the ionic structure at defects. Moreover, the electron-positron correlation effects are known worse for localized positron states than for delocalized ones. Lastly, the broken translational symmetry leads to computational approximations such as the supercell method which requires large computer resources in order to show convergence of the results with respect to the supercell size. The aim of the present study is to remedy the situation by providing results for a representative set of materials. We consider metals with different lattice structures (close-packed Al, Cu, Mg, and body-centered-cubic Fe) and elemental (Si, Ge) and compound semiconductors (GaAs, GaN) with different degrees of bond ionicity. The structure of the present paper is as follows. In Sec. \[theory\] we review shortly the theory and computational methods used. The results are given and described in Sec. \[results\] and they are discussed along comparisons with experimental results in Sec. \[discussion\]. Section \[conclusions\] presents our conclusions.
Theory and computational details {#theory}
================================
Theoretical models {#models}
------------------
We perform first-principles electronic-structure calculations based on DFT for various vacancy defects in metals and in semiconductors. These calculations give the ionic positions by requiring that the total energy is minimized. This is equivalent to vanishing of the Hellman-Feynman forces on ions, calculated from the ground-state electron density. The trapped positron state at a defect can be included by generalizing to the two-component density-functional theory [@Boronski86] (2CDFT). For defects in semiconductors calculations optimizing the electronic and ionic structures as well as the positron density within the 2CDFT have appeared. [@Gilgien94; @Puska95; @Saito96; @Tang97; @Makhov05]
In the present work we apply the so-called conventional scheme in which $(i)$ the localized positron density does not directly affect the average DFT electron density (the positron and its screening electron cloud form a neutral quasiparticle entering the system) and $(ii)$ the positron state and annihilation characteristics are calculated in the LDA and at the zero-positron-density limit of the electron-positron correlation functionals. For example, this means that the potential entering the single-particle equation for the positron state $\psi_+(\mathbf{r})$ reads as $$\label{pospot}
V_{+}(\mathbf{r})=\phi(\mathbf{r})+V_{\text{corr}}\textbf{(}n_{-}(\mathbf{r})\textbf{)},$$ where $\phi (\mathbf{r})$ is the Coulomb potential due to electrons and nuclei, $n_{-}(\mathbf{r})$ the electron density and $V_{\text{corr}}(n_{-})$ is the electron-positron correlation energy [@Boronski86] for a positron in a homogeneous electron gas with density $n_{-}$. It has been shown that the effects of the above two approximations largely cancel each other’s effects so that the conventional scheme and 2CDFT results for positron annihilation characteristics, for the total energy of the defect-positron system and for the positron trapping energy are very similar. [@Boronski86; @Puska95] Besides due to the conceptual simplification, we prefer the conventional scheme also because the 2CDFT functionals for finite positron densities are not accurately known.
When we relax the ions surrounding a defect with a trapped positron we minimize the total energy which in the conventional scheme is the sum of the DFT total energy for the electron-ion system and the positron energy eigenvalue. Thus, although our calculation is not a self-consistent 2CDFT calculation the positron state and the electron density are coupled via the ionic structure. In practice, we calculate the positron-induced Hellman-Feynman forces on ions using the so-called atomic superposition method (for details, see Ref. ).
The total annihilation rate $\lambda$ which is the inverse of the positron lifetime $\tau$ is obtained from the overlap integral of the electron density $n_-({\bf r})$ and positron density $n_+({\bf r})=\vert \psi_{+}({\bf r})\vert^2$ $$\lambda = \frac{1}{\tau}=\pi r_e^2 c \int n_-({\bf r})n_+({\bf r})
\gamma \textbf{(}n_-({\bf r})\textbf{)} d{\bf r}.$$ Above, $\gamma(n_-)$ is the enhancement factor for a positron a homogeneous electron gas [@Boronski86] with density $n_{-}$, and $r_e$ and $c$ are the classical electron radius and the speed of light, respectively. We calculate the momentum distribution $\rho({\bf p})$ of the annihilating electron-positron pairs using the state-dependent enhancement scheme. [@Alatalo96; @Barbiellini97] I.e., $$\rho({\bf p})=\pi r_e^2 c \sum_j \gamma_j \bigg\vert \int e^{-i{\bf p} \cdot {\bf r}}\psi_+({\bf r})
\psi_j({\bf r}) d{\bf r}\bigg\vert ^2,$$ where $\psi_j(\mathbf{r})$ and $\gamma_j$ are the wave function and the state-dependent enhancement factor (in the LDA) for the electron state $j$.
Besides the agreement with the 2CDFT the results obtained with the conventional scheme compare reasonably well also with experiment. [@Puska95; @Makkonen06] First and foremost, the measured changes in the positron lifetime and in the relative changes in the core annihilation rate between the vacancy and bulk states are reproduced.
The most important aspect of the present work is the energetics of the defect-positron system. We define the positron trapping energy at a vacancy defect (the energy released in the trapping process) as the total energy difference between the systems of $(i)$ a defect and a delocalized positron and $(ii)$ the same defect trapping a positron. Within the conventional scheme we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
E_{t} & = & \Delta
E_{\text{tot}}=(E+\varepsilon^{+}_{\text{bulk}})-
(E_{e^{+}}+\varepsilon^{+}_{\text{defect}}) \nonumber\\
& = & (\varepsilon^{+}_{\text{bulk}}-\varepsilon^{+}_{\text{defect}})
-(E_{e^{+}}-E),
\label{trappingE}\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ is the total energy of the electron-ion system of the defect supercell without the localized positron, $E_{e^{+}}$ that with the localized positron. $\varepsilon^{+}_{\text{bulk}}$ and $\varepsilon^{+}_{\text{defect}}$ are the energy eigenvalues of the positron in the delocalized bulk state and in the localized state at the vacancy, respectively. The last form in Eq. (\[trappingE\]) shows that the trapping energy consists of the decrease of the positron energy eigenvalue and the increase in the (strain) energy stored in the ion lattice. In general, the Kohn-Sham eigenvalues in the 2CDFT have no physical meaning but as we have only one positron in the lattice and we use the conventional scheme the electron-positron interactions affect only the positron energy eigenvalue $\varepsilon^{+}$ and the above analysis is justified.
The ionization level $\varepsilon(Q/Q')$ between the charge states $Q$ and $Q'$ of a defect is defined as the position of the chemical potential $\mu_{e}$ relative to the top of the valence band $E_{v}$ so that the total energies of these two charge states are equal. I.e., we solve for $\mu_{e}$ in $$E_{\text{tot}}^{Q}+Q(E_{v}+\mu_{e})=E^{Q'}_{\text{tot}}+Q'(E_{v}+\mu_{e}),
\label{ionlevel}$$ where $E^{Q}_{\text{tot}}$ is the total energy of the supercell with the defect in the charge state $Q$ and the term $Q(E_{v}+\mu_{e})$ arises because $Q$ electrons are added to ($Q > 0$) or taken from ($Q < 0$) the electron reservoir at the chemical potential level $E_{v}+\mu_{e}$.
Calculation methods
-------------------
In the supercell approach we use one has to take care of well-known artifacts. First, the energy eigenvalue $\varepsilon^{+}_{\text{bulk}}$ of the delocalized positron in Eq. (\[trappingE\]) and the valence band maximum $E_{v}$ in Eq. (\[ionlevel\]) are taken from the calculation for the perfect periodic bulk material. Because the energy zeroes differ between different supercells we align the effective potentials for the defect and bulk supercells far from the defect both in the case of electrons and the positron. Second, in order to avoid long-range Coulomb interactions between charged supercells in the superlattice we use a neutralizing uniform background charge. The unphysical energy terms due to the monopole-monopole interactions between the periodic images of the defects are corrected by the method by Makov and Payne. [@Makov95] However, in the case of defects in GaN we do not apply these corrections because they lead to an overcorrection. Since we are primarily interested not in the absolute values of the ionization levels but in their changes due to the localization of the positron the energy corrections are actually not of utmost importance.
Our computational methods are described in more detail in Ref. and here we will give only the main features. We perform electronic structure calculations within the LDA (Ref. ). The description of the electron-ion interaction is based on the projector augmented-wave (PAW) method [@PAW] implemented in the plane-wave code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vasp</span> (Refs. ). Using the PAW total charge density including the free atom core electrons the positron potential is constructed according to Eq. (\[pospot\]) and the lowest-energy positron state is calculated on a three-dimensional real-space point grid.
The lattice constants of the perfect bulk lattices are optimized and used in the defect calculations to define the supercell volume. For Si, Ge, and GaAs we use cubic 216-atom supercells. The Brillouin zone is sampled in the case of Si and GaAs using a $2^{3}$ Monkhorst-Pack (MP) $\mathbf{k}$ point meshes [@Monkhorst76] whereas for Ge we use the $L$-point sampling in order to avoid the artificial hybridization of the deep level and band states in the LDA (see Ref. ). Cutoff energies for Si, Ge, and GaAs are 246 eV, 270 eV, and 209 eV, respectively. We model wurtzite GaN using an orthorhombic 96-atom supercell, a $3^{3}$ MP $\mathbf{k}$-mesh and a cutoff energy of 400 eV. The hexagonal close-packed (hcp) Mg is modeled using an orthorhombic 48-atom supercell, a $8\times6\times 6$ $\mathbf{k}$-mesh and the cutoff of 263 eV. For the body-centered cubic (bcc) Fe we calculate the magnetic ground states using a cubic 54-atom supercell, a $8^{3}$ MP $\mathbf{k}$-mesh and a cutoff energy of 268 eV. For defects in the face-centered cubic (fcc) metals Cu and Al we use cubic 108-atom supercells, a $6^{3}$ and $8^{3}$ MP $\mathbf{k}$-meshes and the cutoff energies of 342 eV and 301 eV, respectively.
Results
=======
Ion relaxation in positron trapping at vacancies {#relaxations}
------------------------------------------------
We study first the energetics of the trapping process, i.e., the interplay between the lowering of the positron energy eigenvalue and the energy stored in the strained lattice around the vacancy. Vacancies in Al and in Si represent two very different types of behaviors. In order to facilitate the scanning of the energy landscape when the ions relax due to the positron-induced forces we consider only the breathing-type ion relaxation. Thus, the point symmetries of the Al and Si vacancies are constrained to be $O_h$ and $T_{d}$, respectively. The reaction coordinate is the relaxation of the nearest-neighbor ions of the vacancy from their ideal lattice positions. The positions of the other ions in the supercell are optimized.
The results for the Al vacancy are shown in Fig. \[confcoord\](a). The energy of the electron-ion system (the uppermost curve) and the positron energy eigenvalue (the lowest curve) as well as their sum, the total energy of the system (the curve in the middle), are shown as a function of the relaxation of the nearest-neighbor ions. The energy zero is chosen to be the total energy of the vacancy and the trapped positron with ions relaxed without positron-induced forces. Then the uppermost curve corresponds also to the total energy of the vacancy and a delocalized positron. The smallest relaxation shown corresponds to the equilibrium ion positions of the Al vacancy without the trapped positron. The picture of the positron trapping process is clear. First, a fast (fast compared to the time scale of ionic movement) vertical Franck-Condon shift of the positron from the delocalized bulk state to the localized ground state at the vacancy takes place via electron-hole excitation \[A$\rightarrow$B in Fig. \[confcoord\](a)\]. Then, the ions move slightly outward to minimize the total energy of the vacancy-positron system (B$\rightarrow$C). The escape of the positron from the trapped state via thermal processes, the so-called detrapping process, is very unlike due to large separation of two uppermost total energy curves.
![Configuration-coordinate diagrams for (a) the monovacancy in Al and (b) the neutral monovacancy in Si. The dotted lines show the positron energy eigenvalue (relative to the one in perfect bulk), dash lines correspond to the energy of the lattice and the delocalized positron and solid lines the total energy of the defect-positron system as functions of the relaxation of the vacancy. Positive (negative) sign denotes outward (inward) relaxation. The points A, B, and C denote different stages in the positron trapping process.\[confcoord\]](confcoord){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
The energetics for the neutral Si vacancy trapping a positron is depicted in Fig. \[confcoord\](b). Actually, in this case we cannot find a bound positron state for the strongest inward relaxations and therefore the curves join at the leftmost point corresponding to the $T_d$ symmetric equilibrium relaxation without the trapped positron. At smaller inward relaxations a bound state exists and the positron energy eigenvalue decreases. Surprisingly, the energy stored in the electron-ion system and the lowering of the positron energy eigenvalue cancel each other rather accurately and the sum curve is very flat over a large range of ionic relaxation. The total energy shows a maximum and at small outward relaxations a minimum which gives a trapping energy \[Eq. (\[trappingE\])\] of 0.05 eV. In the trapping process a thermalized positron would “clear” a larger empty volume and a slightly deeper potential well for itself. In this way the trapping process is analogous to the self-trapping of electrons or holes in small polaron states in ionic crystals (see for example Ref. ). The flat total energy surface means that at finite temperatures the ions can be quite far from their absolute minimum energy configuration. However, the entropy contribution to the free energy would favor a larger open volume; The situation that all the four nearest-neighbor atoms are very close each other (strong inward relaxation) is very unlikely due to the small corresponding phase-space volume. As a consequence (assuming that positron detrapping is a vertical Franck-Condon process) there would also be a finite effective detrapping energy related to the distance between the two uppermost total energy curves in Fig. \[confcoord\](b). The detrapping energy would be of the order of tenths of an eV.
In conclusion, the main characteristic differences between positron trapping at Al and Si vacancies are the much larger change in the positron energy eigenvalue for the Al vacancy and the much larger ion relaxation at the Si vacancy. The repulsive effect of the localized positron is stronger than one might expect on the basis of its small charge. The zero-point motion of the positron increases the force on the neighboring ions because the positron density penetrates closer to their nuclei. For example, we estimate that in the case of the Si vacancy the force due to a classical positive unit point charge at the center of the vacancy is only $\sim 50$% of the force due to the localized positron. For the Al vacancy the $O_h$ symmetry persists also without constraints but for the neutral Si vacancy a symmetry lowering Jahn-Teller distortion is expected. In fact, when the defect is relaxed without a localized positron we find a Jahn-Teller distortion with the $D_{2d}$ symmetry that lowers our calculated trapping energy slightly so that it even becomes negative. When the positron is trapped at the vacancy its repulsion practically restores the $T_{d}$ symmetry of the vacancy. Within the numerical accuracy we can consider the trapping energy to be practically zero. The flatness of the energy landscape will be a general characteristic feature of the Si vacancy trapping a positron.
Trapped positron states and annihilation at vacancies
-----------------------------------------------------
Next we present our first-principles results for various semiconductors and metals. Figure \[positrondensities\] shows the calculated positron densities at Al, Fe, and Si vacancies and in corresponding defect-free lattices. Thus, examples of fcc and bcc metals and tetrahedrally-bonded semiconductors are considered. The vacancies in metals localize the positron state effectively whereas in Si the positron density tends to leak along the open interstitial channels, which is reflected also in the smaller maximum value of the positron density. Because of the higher coordination number the Coulomb repulsion due to the nuclei is larger in the interstitial regions in the fcc and bcc lattices than in the open interstitial channels in the diamond structure of Si. Therefore the positron energy eigenvalue will decrease in the trapping process more in the fcc and bcc metals than in semiconductors
![Positron densities in monovacancies (left, contour spacing 0.01 Å$^{-3}$) in Al, Fe and Si and corresponding perfect lattices (right, contour spacing one tenth of the maximum value). The dots in the figures denote the locations of the nuclei on the plane.\[positrondensities\]](densities){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
More quantitatively, we calculate positron trapping energies at vacancies and analyze how localized positrons affect the volumes and symmetries of the defects. Moreover, for vacancies in semiconductors we determine thermodynamical ionization levels in the energy band gap with and without a trapped positron. Our main results are presented in Table \[energetics\] and they are discussed in the following subsections.
### Trapping energies
The positron trapping energies with components giving the lowering of the positron energy eigenvalue and the energy stored in the ion lattice are shown on the leftmost data columns in Table \[energetics\] \[see the last form in Eq. (\[trappingE\])\]. Several trends can be seen. First of all, the positron trapping energy at vacancies ($V$) in metals is typically clearly larger than that in semiconductors, i.e., the values for $V_{\text{Al}}$, $V_{\text{Fe}}$, and $V_{\text{Cu}}$ are of the order of 2 eV whereas the values for $V_{\text{Si}}$ and $V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaAs are at most a few tenths of an eV. As can be seen in Table \[energetics\] this difference originates mainly from the fact that the lowering of the positron energy eigenvalue is larger in metals than in semiconductors. This in turn reflects the reduction of the positron-nucleus Coulomb repulsion which is larger when a vacancy is created in metal lattices with a larger atomic density and higher coordination number than in tetrahedrally coordinated semiconductor lattices with large open interstitial channels. However, there are exceptions from this general trend. Among the vacancies in metals, $V_{\text{Mg}}$ has a very low positron trapping energy which reflects the relatively low atom and electron densities. $V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaN has a positron trapping energy similar to metals. This is no wonder because due to the size difference between the Ga and N atoms the Ga atom density in GaN is more than 60% of that in the Ga metal. The high atom density increases the positron-nucleus repulsion in the perfect GaN lattice and the lowering of the energy eigenvalue in trapping.
------------------------- ----- --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------------ ------------------- --------------------- -------- ------------------
Defect $Q$ $E_{t}$ $\varepsilon^{+}_{\text{bulk}}-\varepsilon^{+}_{\text{defect}}$ $E_{e^{+}}-E$ $\varepsilon$($Q/Q$–1) $(V-V_{0})/V_{0}$ Symmetry $\tau$ $W_{\text{rel}}$
(eV) (eV) (eV) (eV) (%) (ps)
$V$ in Si 0 –0.17 0.69 0.86 0.47 (0.47) +20.5 (–43.1) $T_{d}$ ($D_{2d}$) 260 0.55
–1 –0.17 0.80 0.97 +13.3 (–54.8)[^1] $T_{d}$ ($D_{3d}$) 255 0.57
$V_{\text{Ge}}$ in Ge 0 (0.05) (–42.5) ($D_{2d}$)
–1 (–45.3) ($D_{2}$)
$V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaAs –2 0.39 0.75 0.36 0.74 (0.81) –13.0 (–37.3) $T_{d}$ ($T_{d}$) 237 0.68
–3 0.46 0.84 0.38 –16.2 (–37.5) $T_{d}$ ($T_{d}$) 234 0.69
$V_{\text{As}}$ in GaAs 0 (0.21) (–41.1) ($D_{2d}$)
–1 (–51.1) ($D_{2d}$)
$V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaN –2 1.82 2.05 0.23 1.22 (1.43) +59.0 (+29.7) $C_{3v}$ ($C_{3v}$) 216 0.57
–3 2.04 2.28 0.24 +60.7 (+29.4) $C_{3v}$ ($C_{3v}$) 216 0.55
$V_{\text{N}}$ in GaN 0 (2.62) (–7.7) ($C_{3v}$)
–1 (–19.5) ($C_{3v}$)
$V$ in bcc Fe 1.67 2.34 0.67 +8.4 (–6.2) $O_{h}$ ($O_{h}$) 159 0.75
$V$ in hcp Mg 0.34 0.49 0.15 +6.3 (–2.9) $C_{3h}$ ($C_{3h}$) 289 0.56
$V$ in fcc Cu 2.20 2.58 0.38 +7.4 (–3.8) $O_{h}$ ($O_{h}$) 163 0.74
$V$ in fcc Al 1.89 2.35 0.46 +8.8 (–5.1) $O_{h}$ ($O_{h}$) 242 0.78
------------------------- ----- --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------------ ------------------- --------------------- -------- ------------------
According to Table \[energetics\] the energy stored in to the lattice relaxation during the positron trapping process is of the same order of magnitude, $\sim 0.5$ eV. However, the crucial difference between typical metals and semiconductors is that for metals this energy is only a fraction of the energy which the positron gains in the lowering of the energy eigenvalue while for semiconductors it is of the same order of magnitude. Indeed, in the case of $V_{\text{Si}}$, and $V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaAs the two components of the trapping energy nearly cancel each other.
Our calculations predict that the trapped positron state and the accompanying ionic relaxation at $V_{\text{Si}}$ is only a metastable configuration and that the global energy minimum corresponds to an unperturbed vacancy and a delocalized positron. The energy barrier between these two minima is only some tenths of meV larger than the absolute value of the predicted negative trapping energy. The actual situation differs from that depicted in Fig. \[confcoord\](b) because allowing the symmetry-breaking the Jahn-Teller effect lowers the energy of the vacancy relaxed without the trapped positron.
In the case of $V_{\text{Ge}}$ and $V_{\text{As}}$ in GaAs we find a bound positron state when the ions are frozen at ideal lattice positions or the nearest neighbor ions are relaxed outwards. But when we start optimizing the ion positions the vacancy relaxes strongly inward destroying the bound state. $V_{\text{Ge}}$ can be contrasted with $V_{\text{Si}}$; The increase in the lattice constant from Si to Ge does not compensate the increase in the ion size and not even a metastable configuration with a bound positron state is found. For $V_{\text{N}}$ in GaN we did not found a bound positron state even when the ions neighboring the vacancy were frozen at positions corresponding to reasonable outward relaxations. In the latter case this can be explained by the small size of the N ion.
### Defect geometries
The relative changes $(V-V_0)/V_0$ in the vacancy open volume are also given in Table \[energetics\]. Here $V_0$ and $V$ refer to the volumes of the ideal (atoms at the ideal lattice sites) and relaxed vacancies, respectively. $V_0$ and $V$ are calculated as the volumes of polyhedra restricted by the nearest-neighbor atoms of the vacancy. The numbers in the parenthesis show that without trapped positrons vacancies in metals and in typical semiconductors have a tendency to shrink, i.e., the nearest neighbor atoms relax inward toward the center of the vacancy. The relaxation is large for semiconductors whereas in metals the ions remain close to their ideal lattice positions. In GaN the N atoms neighboring $V_{\text{Ga}}$ relax outward which reflects again the role of large Ga atoms in determining the lattice constant. The trapped positron increases the open volume. The effect is very dramatic in the case of semiconductors in which the volume increase of the vacancies is several tens of percents. For the neutral $V_{\text{Si}}$ it is even of the order of 60%. The changes in the vacancy open volume are reflected in the positron lifetime and the momentum density of the annihilating electron-positron pairs (see Ref. ). The effect is strong also in the case of metals although the changes in the ionic relaxations are smaller.
The strong effect of the trapped positron is seen also in the results for the vacancy point symmetry in semiconductors. Fig. \[deeplevel\](a) illustrates the case of the neutral $V_{\text{Si}}$. Without the trapped positron the Jahn-Teller effect lowers the point symmetry to $D_{2d}$ and we see that the dangling bonds pointing toward the center of the vacancy hybridize to two pairs of bonds between the nearest-neighbor atoms. In Table \[energetics\] the symmetry of the plain singly negative $V_{\text{Si}}$ is $D_{3d}$ corresponding to the split-vacancy configuration where one of the atoms neighboring the vacancy relaxes so that a divacancy with an atom in the center results. These results for the Si vacancy are in good agreement with previous LDA results. [@Puska98; @Wright06] With a positron localized at $V_{\text{Si}}$ the ideal lattice point symmetry $T_d$ is practically restored. As seen in Fig. \[deeplevel\](b) for the neutral $V_{\text{Si}}$ the strong positron repulsion increases the distances and weakens the bonds between the nearest-neighbor atoms of the vacancy and the atoms end up at the ideal-lattice point-symmetry positions within the numerical accuracy. However, the deep localized electron state is not destroyed. This is the case also for the negative $V_{\text{Si}}$ and there will be ionization levels in the band gap also when the vacancy traps a positron.
![(Color online) The density of the localized electron state at a neutral Si vacancy when (a) there is no localized positron at the vacancy ($D_{2d}$ symmetry) and (b) a positron is localized at the vacancy (symmetric $T_{d}$).\[deeplevel\]](deeplevel){width="\columnwidth"}
### Ionization levels
The positions of the thermodynamic ionization levels for vacancies in semiconductors are also given in Table \[energetics\]. Figure \[levels\] shows as an example the determination of the level $\varepsilon$(–2/–3) for $V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaAs without and with a trapped positron. The position of the ionization level is given by the point where the total energies cross. We see that the introduction of the positron lowers the thermodynamical ionization level. According to Table \[energetics\] the lowering of the ionization level due to positron trapping is a general trend which reflects the lowering of the positron energy eigenvalue at the vacancy due to the excess negative charge. Slightly surprisingly, the magnitude of the lowering is only of the order of 0.1 eV in spite of the rather large ion relaxations due to the trapped positron. The small change is due to the fact that the magnitudes of the ion relaxation in the adjacent charge states before or after the positron trapping are rather similar and because the excess electron density is rather delocalized and does not strongly lower the positron energy eigenvalue.
![Total energy (zero level arbitrary) of a system comprised of a positron and the Ga vacancy in GaAs as function of the charge state of the vacancy and electron chemical potential $\mu_{e}$. The positron is either trapped at the vacancy or in the delocalized bulk state.\[levels\]](levels){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
The behavior of the thermodynamic ionization levels in relation to the positron trapping is an important result justifying positron experiments devoted for determining ionization levels. Namely, we could think that the neutral and negatively charged states could become thermodynamically unstable with respect to loosing a bound electron when a positron is trapped. However, the lowering of the ionization levels indicates that this does not occur. Actually, within our model the trapped positron can then affect (lower) the measured ionization levels only in the case of the level $\varepsilon(0/-)$ and maybe also in the case of the level $\varepsilon$(–/–2). Namely, we expect that only the neutral or the singly negative charge state (not counting the charge of the localized positron) can trap an electron due to the positron-induced changes within the positron lifetime. The more negative charge states effectively repel free electrons hindering their trapping. The situation is similar to the positron trapping at positively charged vacancies. [@Puska90] On the other hand, the ionization level $\varepsilon(+/0)$ between the positive and the neutral charge state is determined in the positron experiments by the fact that a positive defect does not trap a positron, and therefore the possible change of the vacancy charge state from the neutral to the negative one does not affect the determination of this level.
### Positron annihilation characteristics
Positron lifetimes calculated for the different defects are also given in Table \[energetics\]. The LDA for the electron-positron enhancement effects calculated with the Boroński-Nieminen interpolation form underestimates the positron lifetimes in comparison with experiment. The underestimation is especially strong for materials containing $d$ electrons such as transition metals and the III–V compound semiconductors such as GaN. Also the lattice constants calculated within the LDA for the electron exchange and correlation effects are too small compared with the measured ones decreasing the positron lifetimes. Therefore rather than the absolute lifetime values the differences or the ratios between the positron defect and bulk lifetimes are the most important figures. The ratios between the defect and bulk lifetimes are according to Table \[energetics\] about 1.1–1.25 and 1.5–1.8 for typical semiconductors and metals, respectively. For $V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaN and for $V_{\text{Mg}}$ the ratios are 1.65 and 1.32, respectively. The ratios reflect the degree of the localization of the positron at the vacancies and, in general, their trends are similar to the trends in the positron trapping energies. It is interesting to note that the change of the charge state to a more negative one slightly decreases the positron lifetime in typical semiconductors whereas the lifetime in $V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaN is insensitive to the charge state. The deep-level electron wave functions in $V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaN are rather delocalized and adding more electrons on the deep levels does not appreciably change the total electron density and correspondingly the ionic relaxations.
Figure \[ratio\] shows ratio curves between the coincidence Doppler broadening momentum distributions of annihilating electron-positron pairs for vacancies and for the corresponding bulk lattices. The measured and calculated curves for triply-negative Ga vacancies in GaN and in GaAs are shown. The data correspond to the \[0001\] and \[001\] directions. The calculated distributions are convoluted with Gaussian functions with the full width at the half maximum of 5.3 and 5.5 $\times 10^{-3}\ m_{0}c$ for GaN and GaAs, respectively, corresponding to the experimental resolutions. The calculated curves quantitatively reproduce the experimental trends. At low momenta the ratio for GaN is higher than that for GaAs reflecting the larger reduction of the electron density at the vacancy in GaN. At high momenta the GaAs curve is above the GaN curve due the contribution of As 3d electrons in GaAs. The agreement at high momenta shows that our scheme is able to predict the overlap of the positron and core electron densities or at least the relative change in the positron-core electron overlap between the localized and delocalized positron states.
![The experimental and calculated Doppler spectra (ratio to bulk) of triply negative Ga vacancies in GaN ($\circ$, dash line) and GaAs ($\bullet$, solid line). The experimental data are from Refs. and , respectively.\[ratio\]](ratio){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
To enable further studies of trends between different materials Table \[energetics\] shows the relative $W$ parameters of vacancies, $W_{\text{rel}}=W_{\text{defect}}/W_{\text{bulk}}$, that is an experimental parameter reflecting the decrease in core annihilation compared to the delocalized bulk state. Here $W_{\text{defect}}$ is the $W$ parameter (integral over high-momentum part of the Doppler spectrum) corresponding to the localized defect state and $W_{\text{defect}}$ that of the delocalized bulk state. The momentum window used is in all cases $15-30\times
10^{-3}\ m_{0}c$. The $W_{\text{rel}}$ parameter reflects the positron localization and the extent of the high-momentum core electrons inside the vacancy. For example, it is interesting to note that the $W_{\text{rel}}$ parameter is clearly smaller for Mg than for Al.
Discussion and comparison with experiment {#discussion}
=========================================
Our model gives for vacancies in typical metals and for cation vacancies in compound semiconductors positron binding energies which are large enough that positron detrapping at elevated temperatures even near the melting point is unlikely. The predicted increases in the positron lifetimes in trapping are in agreement with experimental values. For example, for Al the calculated increase is 83 ps in agreement with the experimental one of 85 ps (Ref. ) and for for $V_{\text{Ga}}$ in GaN the calculated and measured increases are 85 and 75 ps (Ref. ), respectively. The calculated and measured electron-positron momentum distributions at high momenta also show a good correspondence (Fig. \[ratio\] gives an example) meaning that our model is able to reproduce the positron overlap with ion cores in a reasonable manner.
The agreement between theory and experiment becomes less clear when the predicted positron trapping energy decreases. In the case of positron trapping at vacancies in Mg the calculated positron lifetime increase is from 219 ps to 289 ps whereas the much smaller increase from 225 ps to 255 ps has been measured between well a annealed sample and a sample with thermally generated vacancies. [@Hautojarvi82] The calculated large lifetime increase is also reflected in a rather small $W_{\text{rel}}$ parameter of 0.56 for $V_{\text{Mg}}$. However, the calculated positron trapping energy of 0.34 eV is in agreement with the estimate of $0.3-0.4$ eV by Hautojärvi *et al*. [@Hautojarvi82] One possible source of the theory-experiment disagreement could be difficulties in extracting bulk and vacancy lifetimes for Mg in measurements.
Our calculations predict a vanishingly small positron trapping energy at vacancies in Si, of the order of thermal energy at room temperature. The trapped positron state does not exist when the vacancy is relaxed without the influence of the localized positron, which in principle prevents positron trapping at the vacancy at zero temperature. Our result is, however, even qualitatively wrong since the predicted trapping energy is negative. However, the behavior of $V_{\text{Si}}$ during positron trapping is unique reflecting the very flat energy landscape the ions feel around the vacancy. The flatness is due to the different competing possibilities for bonding and rebonding in a covalent material. The flat energy landscape is also behind the scatter of the DFT results for the structure and energetics of the Si vacancy. Only recently, when calculations with very large supercells (up to 1000 Si atoms) have become possible the results show a satisfactory numerical convergence. [@Wright06] Figure \[confcoord\](b) shows that the energy landscape of the Si vacancy with a trapped positron is even flatter than that of the plain vacancy. This means, as discussed above, that the entropy contribution should be taken into account when describing the trapped state at finite temperatures. However, one should bear in mind that the errors arising, e.g., from the LDA’s for the electron-positron correlation energy and for the electron-electron exchange and correlation may be of the order of tenths of an eV. For example, the scatter in the calculated formation energies for $V_{\text{Si}}$ is of this order or even larger. Thus, our scheme may describe even qualitatively incorrectly the actual positron trapping process in borderline cases such as $V_{\text{Si}}$.
The flat energy landscape for $V_{\text{Si}}$ would introduce strong temperature-dependence to positron trapping and detrapping processes. In our model \[Fig. \[confcoord\](b)\] the positron trapping would, in principle, be possible at finite temperatures because part of the time the vacancy volume is so large that a bound positron state exists. This probability is, however, strongly temperature-dependent and in the experiments the trapping rate as a function of temperature is seen to be rather constant except for the case of negative defects for which the trapping rate decreases with increasing temperature. [@Puska90]
The concept of positron binding energy seems to be a difficult one to define or at least it is difficult to get a quantitative agreement between experiment and theory even if the computational results were exact. First of all, one of the assumptions behind the relation between trapping and detrapping rates [@Manninen81] typically used in the interpretation of experimental data is that the excitations of the positron are decoupled from the excitations of the system. According to our calculation this clearly is not the case. Secondly, the positron detrapping energy (the threshold energy needed to detrap a localized positron) in the case of $V_{\text{Si}}$ strongly depends on the detrapping mechanism (fast vertical transition vs slow transition due to phonons) and on the ionic structure of the defect at the instant of detrapping \[see Fig. \[confcoord\](b)\]. In the case of this kind of an energy landscape it is difficult to draw conclusions about the actual positron trapping and detrapping processes. According to our calculations the strain energy stored in the relaxation of the vacancy is so large that all the released energy can be stored in it (analogously to the trapping of a small polaron). However, although the energy is conserved between the initial and final states the differing time scales in electronic (transition of the positron from delocalized to localized state) and ionic processes (relaxation of the vacancy during positron trapping) complicate the picture. Although our results may not in all cases be even qualitatively correct they clearly suggest that the models for positron trapping in semiconductors [@Puska90] need refinement.
Recent measurements of heavily As-doped Si indicate that positron trapping energies at vacancy defects in highly As-doped Si may be low and thermal detrapping is possible. [@Kuitunen07] Namely Kuitunen [*et al.*]{}found that positron detrapping happens from the Si vacancy decorated by three As atoms ($V_{\text{Si}}-{\text{As}}_3$) at temperatures above 500 K. For vacancies decorated with one or two As atoms they did not notice positron detrapping. Using the relation between the detrapping and trapping rates derived by Manninen and Nieminen [@Manninen81] Kuitunen [*et al.*]{}determined for $V_{\text{Si}}-{\text{As}}_3$ the trapping energy of 0.27 eV. Our scheme gives a clearly smaller positron trapping energy of 0.06–0.1 eV for $V_{\text{Si}}-{\text{As}}_3$. Similarly to the case of $V_{\text{Si}}$ we do not find for $V_{\text{Si}}-{\text{As}}$ and $V_{\text{Si}}-{\text{As}}_2$ an energetically favored trapped positron state but just a metastable configuration in disagreement with the experimental trend. The trend in our trapping energies is exactly the opposite; the trapping energy increases with the increasing number of As atoms ($n=0,...,3$). This is because the large As ions around the vacancy do not relax inwards as strongly as the neighboring Si ions so that the energy stored in the ionic lattice in the positron trapping process is smaller for the As decorated vacancy than for the clean vacancy. A well-known shallow positron trap in Si with open volume is the complex formed by a vacancy and an interstitial oxygen. For it, the reported positron binding energies are of the order of 40–50 meV (Refs. ). The open volume of the $V-\text{O}$ complex is so small (see Ref. ) that we do not expect it to trap positrons in our calculations.
The fact that a bound positron state can be found at $V_{\text{Ge}}$ or at $V_{\text{As}}$ in GaAs when freezing the ions at ideal positions means that the bound positron states are very close to appear, and an improvement in the theoretical description could lead to bound positron states also for optimized ion positions. In experimental works [@Polity99; @Wurschum89; @Moser85] positron lifetime components between 279 and 292 ps are assigned to $V_{\text{Ge}}$. The measured lifetimes can be contrasted to the measured bulk lifetime of 228 ps (Ref. ). These vacancy lifetimes are already quite close to the theoretical estimate of 316 ps for an ideal divacancy in Ge (the corresponding bulk lifetime is 229 ps). [@Puska89] For an ideal neutral monovacancy we get the lifetime of 246 ps which is only 33 ps longer than our bulk lifetime. These comparisons suggest that the experimentally observed lifetime components are too long to be explained by annihilation at ideal monovacancy-size defects. Measurements [@Saarinen91a] for $n$-type GaAs show the lifetimes of 257 ps and 295 ps (the experimental bulk lifetime is 231 ps). These were assigned to negative and neutral As vacancies possibly associated with impurity atoms on the basis of measured ionization levels and corresponding old computational results [@Puska89b; @Xu90] which suggested that the levels of $V_{\text{As}}$ are near the conduction band. The measurements gave ionization levels of $\varepsilon(+/0)$ = $E_c$ – 0.140 eV and $\varepsilon(0/-)$ = $E_c$ – 0.030 eV, where $E_{c}$ is the conductance band minimum. Our first-principles results, which are in accordance with those in Ref. , indicate that these ionization levels of clean $V_{\text{As}}$ in GaAs are close to the top of the valence band. This supports also the conclusions that the defects observed in positron measurements are not clean vacancies.
Finally, our calculations for $V_{\text{N}}$ in GaN suggest that bound positron states at small anion vacancies in compound semiconductors are not possible. This should be contrasted with a positron annihilation study in which the detection of N vacancies is reported. [@Hautakangas03] In the interpretation, however, the short lifetime component is associated with $V_{\text{N}}$-impurity complexes and not with isolated $V_{\text{N}}$.
Conclusions
===========
We have studied, using first-principles calculations, the role of lattice relaxations around vacancies in the positron trapping process in various metals and semiconductors. In metals the trapping energies are typically of the order of 1…2 eV. The lattice relaxes due to the trapped positron and the positron annihilation parameters change but especially the qualitative effects are small. The most important difference between typical metals and semiconductors is the magnitude of the strain energy stored in the lattice compared to the lowering of the positron energy eigenvalue. For semiconductors these two can be of the same order of magnitude because of the smaller reduction of nucleus repulsion in the trapping process. This leads to rather small values for the trapping energy.
In the case of covalently bonded elemental semiconductors such as Si and Ge the energy landscape of the positron-vacancy system is extremely flat which suggests that entropic considerations have to be taken into account when discussing the ionic structure of the vacancy with a localized positron at finite temperatures. For Si the calculations give, in disagreement with experiments, vanishingly small or rather sightly negative trapping energies suggesting that trapping of thermalized positrons would not even be energetically favorable.
Also the vacancy in Ge and anion vacancies in compound semiconductors are challenging tests for theoretical methods since in the calculations there is either no bound positron state at the vacancy or the trapping is energetically unfavorable and there is no local energy minimum configuration at which the positron is trapped at the vacancy. Furthermore, for the vacancy in Si the configuration with the trapped positron is just a metastable state while in the ground state the positron is in the delocalized bulk state. An interesting finding is that a localized positron cancels all the Jahn-Teller distortions we observed when having no positron at the vacancy.
In general, the higher the predicted positron trapping energy is the better is the agreement between our results and experiments. However, also in the case of defects in Si we get a surprisingly good agreement in calculated lifetimes and Doppler broadening spectra for the metastable state.
We have also studied the effect of the localized positron on the electronic structure of the vacancies in semiconductors by evaluating thermodynamical ionization levels of vacancies. The positron-induced changes are usually only of the order of 0.1 eV. In general, the levels move closer to the valence band maximum. A positron-induced change in the defect charge state in this model is likely only in the case of a neutral defect since positive ones do not trap positrons and negative ones electrons within the lifetime of the trapped positron.
We are grateful for discussions with Academy Prof. R. M. Nieminen and Dr. F. Tuomisto. We also acknowledge the generous computer resources from the Center of Scientific Computing, Espoo, Finland. I.M. acknowledges the financial support by the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, Vilho, Yrjö, and Kalle Väisälä Foundation.
[54]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , in **, edited by (, , ).
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , in **, edited by , , (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
[^1]: Split vacancy.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study the inverse problem of recovering Sturm–Liouville operators on the half-line with a Bessel-type singularity inside the interval from the given Weyl function. The corresponding uniqueness theorem is proved, a constructive procedure for the solution of the inverse problem is provided, also necessary and sufficient conditions for the solvability of the inverse problem are obtained.\
**Key words:** inverse problem, Sturm–Liouville operator, nonintegrable singularity, Weyl function.\
**AMS Classification:** [34A55, 34B24, 34L05, 34L05, 47E05]{}
---
**AN INVERSE PROBLEM FOR STURM–LIOUVILLE OPERATORS ON THE HALF-LINE HAVING BESSEL-TYPE SINGULARITY IN AN INTERIOR POINT**\
[**A. Fedoseev**\
]{}
1. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
===============
Consider the differential equation $$\ell y = -y''+\Big(\frac{\nu_0}{(x-a)^2}+q(x)\Big)y=\lambda y,\quad x>0,
\label{initeq}$$ on the half-line with a Bessel-type singularity at an interior point $a>0$. Here $q(x)$ is a complex-valued function and $\nu_0$ is a complex number. Let $\nu_0=\nu^2-1/4$ and to be definite, we assume that $Re\,\nu>0,$ $\nu\neq 1,2,\ldots$ (the other cases require minor modifications). We also assume that $q(x)|x-~a|^{\min(0,1-2Re\,\nu)} \in L(0,T)$ for some $T>a$ and $q(x)\in L(T,\infty)$. We denote the class of such functions $q(x)$ by $W$.
The paper deals with the boundary value problem ${\cal L=L}(q)$ for differential equation with the Dirichlet boundary condition $y(0)=0$ and an additional *matching conditions* near the singular point $x=a$. We consider in some sense arbitrary matching conditions with a transition matrix $A=[a_{jk}]_{j,k=1,2},$ that connects solutions of in a neighbourhood of the singular point (for details, see Section 2). In the special case without singularities ($\nu_0=0$) the above-mentioned matching conditions correspond to the conditions $$\left[\begin{array}{l} y \\ y' \end{array} \right] (a+0)=
A\left[\begin{array}{l} y \\ y' \end{array} \right] (a-0).
\label{matchcondwithoutnu}$$
The goal of the present paper is to study the inverse problem of reconstructing ${\cal L}$ from the given Weyl function. Inverse problems for differential equations with singularities inside an interval are important in mathematics and its applications. A wide class of differential equations with turning points can be reduced to equations with singularities. For example, inverse problems for such equations occur in electronic engineering in designing heterogeneous transmission channels with given characteristics [@yurko-freiling-99]. Boundary value problems with a discontinuity at an interior point also arise in geophysical models of the Earth’s crust [@lapwood81]. Inverse problems for equations with singularities and turning points are used in investigations of the discontinuous solutions of some integrable nonlinear equations of mathematical physics [@const98]. Note that in different problems of natural sciences, various matching conditions for solutions with the corresponding transition matrices $A$ are used.
Direct and inverse problems for the classical Sturm-Liouville operators without singularities were studied fairly completely (see [@rundell97; @marchenko77; @levitan84; @yurko-NOVA; @mclaughlin86] and references therein). In the case of $\nu_0=0$, self-adjoint operators with the conditions of the form were studied in [@hald84; @shep94; @yurko-00-IT]. The case in which a singularity lies at an endpoint of the interval (i.e., $a = 0$) was considered in [@stash53; @yurko-92-DU; @yurko-93-IP; @yurko-95-MS]. In [@yurko-02-DU], the equation under the Robin boundary condition was considered and the inverse problem of recovering equation from the given spectral data under spectrum simplicity restriction was studied. The uniqueness theorem for the higher-order equation on the half-line having nonintegrable singularity was proved in [@tamkang11].
Spectral analysis of the singular non-self-adjoint boundary value problem ${\cal L}$ on the half-line with arbitrary matching conditions produces essential qualitative modifications in the analytic techniques, especially in inverse spectral problems. For the boundary value problem with discontinuities, the behaviour of the spectrum is more complicated than for classical Sturm–Liouville operators. In particular, the discrete spectrum can be unbounded and partially lie on the continuous spectrum. In contrast to the work [@yurko-02-DU] in this paper we investigate the inverse problem of recovering equation under the Dirichlet boundary condition from the given Weyl function and we will not require any conditions on the spectrum. The method of transformation operators applied in [@marchenko77; @levitan84; @hald84; @shep94] to classical Sturm–Liouville operators is inconvenient for problem ${\cal L}$. The analysis of the inverse problem in the present paper is based on the ideas of the method of the spectral mappings [@yurko-VSP]. In Section 2, we study spectral properties of the boundary value problem ${\cal L}$ and introduce for the problem ${\cal L}$ so-called Weyl function which is a generalization of the notion of the Weyl function for the classical Sturm-Liouville operators [@marchenko77; @levitan84; @yurko-NOVA]. In Sections 3 and 4, we investigate the inverse problem of recovering ${\cal L}$ from the given Weyl function. The uniqueness theorem is proved and a constructive procedure for the solution of the inverse problem is obtained in Section 3. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the solvability of the inverse problem are obtained in Section 4.
2. Spectral properties {#spectral-properties .unnumbered}
======================
Let $\lambda=\rho^2$ and $\mathrm{Im}\,\rho\geq0$. Consider the functions $$C_j(x,\lambda)=(x-a)^{\mu_j} \sum^\infty_{k=0} c_{jk}(\rho (x-a))^{2k} ,\; j=1,2,$$ where $c_{10}c_{20}=(2\nu)^{-1}$, $$\mu_j=(-1)^j\nu+1/2,\, c_{jk}=(-1)^k c_{j0}
\,\Big( \prod^k_{s=1} ((2s+\mu_j)(2s+\mu_j-1)-\nu_0)\Big)^{-1}.$$ Here and below $z^{\mu}=\exp(\mu(\mbox{ln}|z|+i\arg z))$, $\arg z \in (-\pi, \pi]$. If $x>a$ or $x<a$ then the functions $C_j(x,\lambda)$ are solutions of with $q(x)\equiv 0$. Let the functions $s_j(x,\lambda)$, $j=1,2$ be solutions of the following integral equations for $x>a$ and $x<a$: $$s_j(x,\lambda)=C_j(x,\lambda)+{\oldint\limits}^x_{a} g(x,t,\lambda)q(t)s_j(t,\lambda)\,dt,$$ where $g(x,t,\lambda)=C_1(t,\lambda)C_2(x,\lambda)-C_1(x,\lambda)C_2(t,\lambda)$. For each fixed $x$ the functions $s_j(x,\lambda)$ are entire in $\lambda$ of order 1/2 and form a fundamental system of solutions of . Moreover $$\det[s_j^{(m-1)}(x,\lambda)]_{j,m=\overline{1,2}}\equiv 1.
\label{detsj}$$
Let $A=[a_{jk}]_{j,k=1,2}$, $\det A\ne 0$ be a given matrix with complex numbers $a_{jk}$. We introduce the functions $\{\sigma_j(x,\lambda)\}_{j=1,2}$, $x\in J_{-}\cup J_{+}$, $J_{\pm}=\{\pm (x-a)>0\}$ by the formula $$\sigma_j(x,\lambda)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
s_j(x,\lambda), & x\in J_{-},\\
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{2}a_{kj}s_k(x,\lambda),& x\in J_{+}.
\end{array}\right.
\label{sigmajinsk}$$ The fundamental system of solutions $\{\sigma_j(x,\lambda)\}$ is used to match solutions in a neighborhood of the singular point $x=a$. It follows from that $$\det[\sigma_j^{(m-1)}(x,\lambda)]_{j,m=1,2}\equiv
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1,\quad & x\in J_{-}, \\ \det A,\quad & x\in J_{+}.
\end{array}\right.
\label{detsigmaj}$$
We introduce numbers $\xi_{jk}$, $j,k=1,2$ by $$\left[ \begin{array}{ll}
\xi_{11} & \xi_{12} \\ \xi_{21} & \xi_{22}
\end{array}\right]= \frac{1}{2\sin\pi\nu}
\left[ \begin{array}{ll}
-a_{11}e^{2\pi i\nu}+a_{22}e^{-2\pi i\nu} & -i(a_{11}e^{\pi i\nu}-a_{22}e^{-\pi i\nu}) \\
-i(a_{11}e^{\pi i\nu}-a_{22}e^{-\pi i\nu}) & a_{11}-a_{22}
\end{array}\right] .
\label{ksimatrix}$$ The behaviour of the spectrum of the boundary value problem ${\cal L}$ depends on the numbers $\xi_{jk}$. We consider the most difficult special case in which $|\xi_{jj}|>|\xi_{12}|>0$, since in this case the discrete spectrum is unbounded and essential qualitative modifications in the investigation of the direct and inverse problems are arised. To be definite we set $a_{12}=0$ (the other case requires minor modifications).
We set $$\begin{array}{c}
\varphi_1(x,\lambda)=\sigma'_2(0,\lambda)\sigma_1(x,\lambda)-
\sigma'_1(0,\lambda)\sigma_2(x,\lambda),\\[3mm]
\varphi_2(x,\lambda)=\sigma_1(0,\lambda)\sigma_2(x,\lambda)-
\sigma_2(0,\lambda)\sigma_1(x,\lambda).
\end{array}
\label{phiinsigmasys}$$ The functions $\varphi_j(x,\lambda)$, $j=1,2,$ are solutions of equation for $x\in J_{\pm}$, and satisfy the initial conditions $$\varphi_j^{(m-1)}(0,\lambda)=\delta_{jm},\quad j,m=1,2,
\label{phicond}$$ where $\delta_{jm}$ is the Kronecker delta. By virtue of and , $$\det[\varphi_j^{(m-1)}(x,\lambda)]_{j,m=1,2}\equiv
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1,\quad & x\in J_{-}, \\ \det A,\quad & x\in J_{+}.
\end{array}\right.
\label{detphij}$$ Denote $[1]_a=1+O\Big(|\rho(x-a)|^{-1}+|\rho|^{-1}\Big)$, when $|\rho(x-a)|\geq1$, $|\rho|\to\infty$. The following Lemmas were proved in [@yurko-02-DU].
By $\Pi_{+}$ we denote the $\lambda$-plane with the two-sided cut $\Pi_0$ along the ray $\Lambda_{+}:=\{\lambda:\, \lambda\ge 0\}$ and we set $\Pi:=\overline\Pi_{+}\setminus\{0\}$. Under the mapping $\rho\to\rho^2=\lambda$ the sets $\Pi_{+},\,\Pi_{0}$ and $\Pi$ correspond to the sets $\Omega_{+}=\{\rho:\;\mbox{Im}\,\rho >0\}$, $\Omega_0=\{\rho:\; \mbox{Im}\,\rho=0\}$ and $\Omega=\{\rho:\;\mbox{Im}\,\rho\ge 0,\,\rho\ne 0\}$ respectively.
We introduce the so-called *discontinuous Jost solution* $e(x,\rho)$, $x\ge 0, \mbox{Im}\,\rho\ge 0$ of equation , which can be expressed as $$e(x,\rho)=
\sum_{k=1}^{2} A_k(\rho)\sigma_k(x,\lambda),\quad x\in J_{\pm},
\label{jostinsigmak}$$ and satisfies the condition $$\lim_{x\to\infty} e(x,\rho)\exp(-i\rho x)=1.
\label{limjost}$$
Denote $S_{k_0}=\left\{\rho:\;\arg\rho\in\Big(\frac{k_0\pi}2,\frac{(k_0+1)\pi}2\Big)\right\}$, $k_0=0,1$ and $$\Delta(\rho)=e(0,\rho),\quad \mbox{Im}\,\rho\ge 0.
\label{Delta}$$ The function $\Delta(\rho)$ is called the *characteristic function* of the boundary value problem ${\cal L}$. It follows from Lemma 2 that the function $\Delta(\rho)$ is analytic for $\rho\in\Omega_{+}$ and continuous for $\rho\in\Omega$. Moreover, $$\Delta(\rho)=(\det A)^{-1}
\Big([\xi_{12}]-[\xi_{jj}]\exp(2i\rho a)\Big), \quad
|\rho|\to\infty,\;\rho\in\overline{S_{2-j}},\;j=1,2,
\label{Deltaest}$$ where $[1]=1+O(\rho^{-1})$, $|\rho|\to\infty$. For sufficiently large $|\rho|$ the function $\Delta(\rho)$ has countable set of zeros of the form $$\rho_k=\rho_k^{\pm}+O(k^{-1}), \quad k\to\pm\infty,
\label{rhokestinrhok-+}$$ where the numbers $\rho_k^{\pm}=\frac{\pi}{a}(k+\theta_{\pm})$ are the zeros of the functions $$\Delta^{\pm}(\rho)=\xi_{12}-\xi_{jj}\exp(2i\rho a),\; \rho\in S_{2-j},\; j=1,2
\label{Delta-+}$$ and $$\theta_{\pm}=-\frac{i}{2\pi}\ln\Big|\frac{\xi_{12}}{\xi_{jj}}\Big|
+\frac{1}{2\pi}\arg\Big(\frac{\xi_{12}}{\xi_{jj}}\Big)
\label{theta-+}$$ ($``-"$ corresponds to $j=1$ and $``+"$ corresponds to $j=2$). Obviously, $\mbox{Im}\,\theta_{\pm}>0$. To be definite, we assume that $\arg\Big(\frac{\xi_{12}}{\xi_{jj}}\Big)\in [0,2\pi)$. We set $\Lambda=\{\lambda=\rho^2: \rho\in\Omega,\;\Delta(\rho)=0\}$, $\Lambda'=\{\lambda=\rho^2: \;\rho\in\Omega_{+},\,\Delta(\rho)=0\}$, $\Lambda''=\{\lambda=\rho^2:\;\rho\in\Omega_0,\,\rho\ne 0,\,\Delta(\rho)
=0\}$. Obviously, $\Lambda=\Lambda'\cup\Lambda''$, $\Lambda'$ is a countable unbounded set and $\Lambda''$ is a bounded set. Denote $$\Phi(x,\lambda)=e(x,\rho)/ \Delta(\rho),\quad M(\lambda):=\Phi'(0,\lambda).
\label{PhiandM}$$ The function $\Phi(x,\lambda)$ is a solution of and satisfies the conditions $\Phi(0,\lambda)=1$, $\Phi(x,\lambda)=O(\exp(i\rho x))$, $x\to\infty$, $\rho\in\Omega$. Function $\Phi(x,\lambda)$ is called the *Weyl solution* for ${\cal L}$. The function $M(\lambda)$ is called the [*Weyl function*]{} for ${\cal L}$. Let fixed matrix $A$ and number $\nu_0$ be given.
**Problem 1.** *Recover $q(x)$ by the given Weyl function $M(\lambda)$.*
Here and in the sequel, $\varphi(x,\lambda):=\varphi_2(x,\lambda)$. Clearly, $$M(\lambda)=e'(0,\rho)/ \Delta(\rho),
\label{Minjost}$$ $$\Phi(x,\lambda)=\varphi_1(x,\lambda)+M(\lambda)\varphi(x,\lambda).
\label{Phiinphi}$$ Then by , we have $$\langle\Phi(x,\lambda),\varphi(x,\lambda)\rangle=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, &\mathrm{for}\; x\in J_-,\\
\det A, &\mathrm{for}\; x\in J_+.
\end{array}\right.
\label{<phiPhi>}$$ Relations and , in combination with Lemma 2, lead to the following assertion.
The set of singularities of the Weyl function $M(\lambda)$ is called the *spectrum* of ${\cal L}$ and is denoted by $sp\,{\cal L}$. The values of $\lambda$, for which equation has a nontrivial solution of the form $y(x)=\sum_{k=1}^{2}a_k \sigma_k(x,\lambda)$, satisfying the conditions $y(0)=0,\; y(\infty)=0$ (i.e., $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty} y(x)=0$), are called the *eigenvalues* of ${\cal L}$, and the corresponding solutions are called *eigenfunctions*.
Suppose that $\lambda_0 =\rho_0^2 >0$ is an eigenvalue and $y_0(x)$ is the corresponding eigenfunction. Since the functions $\{e(x,\rho_0), e(x,-\rho_0)\}$ form a fundamental solution system of in $J_{\pm}$, we have $y_0(x)=C_1e(x,\rho_0)+C_2e(x,-\rho_0)$. As $x\to\infty$ we have $y_0(x)\sim 0$, $e(x,\pm\rho_0)\sim\exp(\pm i\rho_0 x)$. But this is possible only if $C_1=C_2=0$. Further, if $\lambda_0 =\rho_0^2 >0$ and $\Delta(\rho_0)=0$, then $0\ne\langle e(x,\rho_0)$, $e(x,-\rho_0)\rangle_{|x=0} =-e'(0,\rho_0)\Delta(-\rho_0)$, and consequently $\Delta(-\rho_0)\ne 0$. The proof is complete. $\hfill\Box$
$$e(x,\rho_k)=\beta_k \varphi(x,\lambda_k),
\quad \beta_k \ne 0,\quad \lambda_k=\rho_k^2.
\label{jostinphi}$$
Let $\lambda_k\in\Lambda'$. It follows from that $e(0,\rho_k)=\Delta(\rho_k)=0$, and relation , implies that $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty} e(x,\rho_k)=0$. Therefore, $e(x,\rho_k)$ is an eigenfunction, and $\lambda_k=\rho_k^2$ is an eigenvalue. In addition, it follows from and that $\langle e(x,\rho_k),\varphi(x,\lambda_k)\rangle=0$, i.e., relation holds.
Conversely, let $\lambda_k=\rho_k^2,\;\mbox{Im}\,\rho_k>0$ be an eigenvalue and $y_k(x)$ be an eigenvalue. Obviously, $y_k'(0)\ne 0$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $y_k'(0)=1$. Whence it follows that $y_k(x)\equiv\varphi(x,\lambda_k).$ Since $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty} y_k(x)=0$, we have $y_k(x)=\beta_k^0 e(x,\rho_k)$, $\beta_k^0\ne 0$. This implies . Therefore, $\Delta(\rho_k)=e(0,\rho_k)=0$, and $\varphi(x,\lambda_k)$ and $e(x,\rho_k)$ are eigenfunctions. The proof is complete. $\hfill\Box$
We set $$G_{\delta}:=
\{\rho:\;\mbox{Im}\,\rho\ge 0,\;|\rho-\rho_k|\ge\delta,\;\rho_k\in\Lambda\}.$$ Using , and Lemma 2, we obtain for $|\lambda|\to\infty$, $\rho\in G_\delta\cap\overline S_{2-j}$, $j=1,2$ $$M(\lambda)=i\rho\Big(M_0^\pm(\lambda)+O\big(\frac1\rho\big)\Big),
\label{Mineq}$$ $$M_0^\pm(\lambda)=\frac{\xi_{12}+\xi_{jj}\exp(2i\rho a)}{\xi_{12}-\xi_{jj}\exp(2i\rho a)},$$ where $``-"$ corresponds to $j=1$ and $``+"$ corresponds to $j=2$.
3. Solution of the inverse problem {#solution-of-the-inverse-problem .unnumbered}
==================================
In this section we prove the uniqueness theorem for the solution of this inverse problem. For this purpose we use ideas of the contour integral method. In the analysis of the inverse problem, along with ${\cal L}$ we consider a boundary value problem $\tilde{\cal L}$ of the same form but with different coefficients $\tilde q$. If a certain symbol $\gamma$ denotes an object related to ${\cal L}$, then the corresponding symbol $\tilde\gamma$ with tilde will denote the analogous object related to $\tilde{\cal L}$, and $\widehat\gamma:=\gamma-\tilde\gamma$.
Define matrix $P(x,\lambda)=[P_{kj}(x,\lambda)]_{k,j=1,2}$ by formulas $$\begin{gathered}
P_{k1}(x,\lambda)=-\frac1{\eta(x)}\Big(\varphi^{(k-1)}(x,\lambda)\tilde\Phi'(x,\lambda)-\Phi^{(k-1)}(x,\lambda)\tilde\varphi'(x,\lambda)\Big),\\
P_{k2}(x,\lambda)=-\frac1{\eta(x)}\Big(\Phi^{(k-1)}(x,\lambda)\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)-\varphi^{(k-1)}(x,\lambda)\tilde\Phi(x,\lambda)\Big),
\end{gathered}
\label{Pk12}$$ where $\eta(x)=1$ if $x\in J_{-}$, and $\eta(x)=\det A$ if $x\in J_{+}$. In virtue of it follows, that $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi(x,\lambda)=P_{11}(x,\lambda)\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)+P_{12}(x,\lambda)\tilde\varphi'(x,\lambda),\\
\Phi(x,\lambda)=P_{11}(x,\lambda)\tilde\Phi(x,\lambda)+P_{12}(x,\lambda)\tilde\Phi'(x,\lambda).
\end{gathered}
\label{phiandPhiinPk12}$$ It follows from , Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 that $$\begin{gathered}
|\varphi^{(m)}(x,\lambda)|\leq C|\rho|^{m-1}|\exp (-i\rho x)|,\\
|\Phi^{(m)}(x,\lambda)|\leq C_\delta|\rho|^{m}|\exp (i\rho x)|,\quad \rho\in G_\delta,\\
|\varphi^{(m)}(x,\lambda)-\tilde\varphi^{(m)}(x,\lambda)|\leq C|\rho|^{m-2}|\exp (-i\rho x)|,\\
|\Phi^{(m)}(x,\lambda)-\tilde\Phi^{(m)}(x,\lambda)|\leq C_\delta|\rho|^{m-1}|\exp (i\rho x)|,\quad \rho\in G_\delta \cap \tilde G_\delta.
\end{gathered}
\label{phiandPhiest}$$ for $x>0$ and $m=0,1$. Using , and we obtain $$P_{jk}(x,\lambda)-\delta_{jk}=O(\rho^{-1}),\quad j\le k; \qquad P_{21}(x,\lambda)=O(1),
\label{Pkest}$$ for $x\ge 0$ and $\rho\in G_\delta$, $|\rho|\to\infty$. By the assumptions we have $M(\lambda)=\widetilde M(\lambda)$. Then, from and , we conclude, that for each fixed $x$ functions $P_{jk}(x,\lambda)$ are entire functions of $\lambda$. Taking into account , we obtain $P_{11}(x,\lambda)\equiv 1$, $P_{12}(x,\lambda) \equiv 0$. Substituting these relations into , we find that $\varphi(x,\lambda)\equiv\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)$, $\Phi(x,\lambda)\equiv\tilde\Phi(x,\lambda)$ for all $x$ and $\lambda$, whence it follows that ${\cal L}=\tilde{\cal L}$, which completes the proof of Theorem 4. $\hfill\Box$
Now we are going to construct the solution of the inverse problem. We say that ${\cal L} \in V$, if $q(x)\in W$. The inverse problem we will be solved in the class $V$.
Let $\tilde {\cal L}={\cal L}(\tilde q)$ is chosen such, that $\widehat M(\lambda)=O(1)$ (it can always be done due to ). Denote $$D(x,\lambda,\mu)=\frac{1}{\eta(x)}\frac{\langle \varphi(x,\lambda),
\varphi(x,\mu)\rangle}{\lambda-\mu},\quad
r(x,\lambda,\mu)=D(x,\lambda,\mu)\widehat M(\mu).
\label{Ddef}$$ It follows from Lemma 1 that if $\lambda=\rho^2$, $\mu=\theta^2$, $0\le \mbox{Im}\,\rho\le C$, $0\le \mbox{Im}\,\theta\le C$, then for fixed $x\in J_{\pm}$ the following estimates are valid: $$|D(x,\lambda,\mu)|\le\frac{C}{|\rho||\theta|(|\rho\mp\theta|+1)},\quad
|\varphi(x,\lambda)|\le C,
\quad \pm \mbox{Re}\,\rho\,\mbox{Re}\,\theta\ge 0.
\label{Dest}$$ Functions $\tilde r$ and $\tilde D$ are defined similarly, but with $\tilde\varphi$ instead of $\varphi$. Let us take $h>0$ such, that $\mbox{Im}\,\rho_k<h,\; \mbox{Im}\,\tilde\rho_k<h$ for each $\rho_k\in
\Lambda,\; \tilde\rho_k\in\tilde\Lambda.$ Let $\gamma=\{\lambda=u+iv:\;
u=(2h)^{-2}v^2-h^2\}$ is image of the set $\mbox{Im}\,\rho=h$ by the mapping $\lambda=\rho^2$. We set $J_\gamma=\{\lambda:\;\lambda\not\in\gamma\,\cup\,\mbox{int}\,\gamma\}$.
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{maineq}
\tilde \varphi(x,\lambda)=\varphi(x,\lambda)-\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu,\\
\label{mainrel}
r(x,\lambda,\mu)-\tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)-\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \tilde r(x,\lambda,\xi)r(x,\xi,\mu)\,d\xi =0,\\
\label{mainPhieq}
\tilde \Phi(x,\lambda)=\Phi(x,\lambda)-\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \frac{\langle\tilde\Phi(x,\lambda),\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\rangle}{\lambda-\mu}\widehat M(\mu)\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu,\quad \lambda\in J_\gamma.\end{gathered}$$ *Here (and further when it is necessary) the integral is treated in the sense of principal value:* ${\oldint\limits}_\gamma=\lim\limits_{R\to\infty}{\oldint\limits}_{{\gamma}_R}$.
We choose positive numbers $r_N=((N+\chi)\pi/a)^2$ so, that circles $\theta_N:=\{\lambda:\; |\lambda|=r_N\}$ are lying in $G_{\delta}$ for sufficient small $\delta>0$. We set $\theta_{N,0}=\{\lambda:\;|\lambda|\le r_N\}$, $\gamma_N=(\gamma\cap\theta_{N,0})\cup\{\lambda:\;|\lambda|=r_N, \;\lambda\in \mbox{int}\,\gamma\}$ (with counterclockwise orientation). According to Cauchy’s integral formula we have $$P_{1k}(x,\lambda)=\delta_{1k}+\frac1{2\pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma_N} \frac{P_{1k}(x,\mu)}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu+
\frac1{2\pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\theta_N} \frac{P_{1k}(x,\mu)-\delta_{1k}}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu, \; \lambda\not\in\mathrm{int}\,\gamma_N.$$ Using , we get $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac1{2\pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\theta_N} \frac{P_{1k}(x,\mu)-\delta_{1k}}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu=0,$$ and, therefore $$P_{1k}(x,\lambda)=\delta_{1k}+\frac1{2\pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \frac{P_{1k}(x,\mu)}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu,\quad\lambda\in J_\gamma.
\label{P1keq}$$
By virtue of and $$\varphi(x,\lambda)=\tilde \varphi(x,\lambda)+\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\frac{\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)P_{11}(x,\mu)+\tilde\varphi'(x,\lambda)P_{12}(x,\mu)}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu,\;\lambda\in J_\gamma.$$ Using , we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi(x,\lambda)=\tilde \varphi(x,\lambda)-\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\bigg(\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)\Big(\varphi(x,\mu)\tilde\Phi'(x,\mu)-\Phi(x,\mu)\tilde\varphi'(x,\mu)\Big)+\\
+\tilde\varphi'(x,\lambda)\Big(\Phi(x,\mu)\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)-\varphi(x,\mu)\tilde\Phi(x,\mu)\Big)\bigg)\,\frac{d\mu}{\lambda-\mu}.\end{gathered}$$ Hence, and from it follows , since terms with $\varphi(x,\mu)$ are equal to nil by the Cauchy’s theorem.
Relations and can be derived in a similar way. Theorem 5 is proved. $\hfill\Box$
For each given $x\geq0$, relation can be treated as a linear equation with respect to $\varphi(x,\lambda)$. We will call the *main equation* of inverse problem.
Consider the Banach space $C(\gamma)$ of continuous bounded functions $z(\lambda)$, $\lambda\in\gamma$ with the norm $\|z\|=\sup\limits_{\lambda\in\gamma}|z(\lambda)|$.
For fixed $x\geq0$ we consider the following linear bounded operators in $C(\gamma)$: $$\tilde Az(\lambda)=z(\lambda)-\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)z(\mu)\,d\mu,\quad Az(\lambda)=z(\lambda)+\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} r(x,\lambda,\mu)z(\mu)\,d\mu.$$ Then $$\tilde AAz(\lambda)=z(\lambda)+\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\Big(r(x,\lambda,\mu)-\tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)-
\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \tilde r(x,\lambda,\xi)r(x,\xi,\mu)\,d\xi\Big)z(\mu)\,d\mu.$$ In view of this yields $\tilde AAz(\lambda)=z(\lambda)$, $z(\lambda)\in C(\gamma)$. Swapping $\cal L$ and $\tilde{ \cal L}$, we similarly get $A\tilde Az(\lambda)=z(\lambda)$. Thus $\tilde AA=A\tilde A=E$, where $E$ is identity operator. Therefore, the operator $\tilde A$ has a bounded inverse operator and the main equation can be uniquely solved for each $x\geq0$. $ \hfill\Box$
Thus, we have obtained the following algorithm for the solution of the inverse problem.
\
1) [*We choose $\tilde{\cal L}\in V$.*]{}\
2) [*We find $\varphi(x,\lambda)$ from the main equation .*]{}\
3) [*We construct $q(x)$ by the formula* ]{} $$q(x)=\lambda+\frac{\varphi''(x,\lambda)}{\varphi(x,\lambda)}-\frac{\nu_0}{(x-a)^2}.$$
4. Necessary and sufficient conditions {#necessary-and-sufficient-conditions .unnumbered}
======================================
In this section we formulate necessary and sufficient conditions for the solvability of the inverse problem. To simplify calculations we suppose that the model boundary value problem $\tilde {\cal L}={\cal L}(\tilde q)$ is chosen such, that for $|\rho|\to\infty$, $$\widehat M(\lambda)=O\Big(\frac1{\rho^2}\Big).
\label{Mcondness4}$$ In particular, if potentials have additional smootheness than condition is valid for any model boundary value problem $\tilde {\cal L}$.
We set $$\varepsilon_0(x)=\frac1{2\pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_\gamma \tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\varphi(x,\mu)\widehat M(\mu)\,d\mu,\quad
\varepsilon(x)=-2\varepsilon'_0(x),
\label{epsdef}$$ $$p(x):=\frac{\nu_0}{(x-a)^2}+q(x).
\label{p(x)}$$
$$\label{qinq}
q(x)=\tilde q(x)-\varepsilon(x).$$
Differentiating twice by $x$, and using and the relation $$\frac d{dx}\frac{\langle\varphi(x,\lambda),\varphi(x,\mu)\rangle}{\lambda-\mu}=\varphi(x,\lambda)\varphi(x,\mu),$$ we get $$\tilde \varphi'(x,\lambda)+\varepsilon_0(x)\tilde \varphi(x,\lambda)=
\varphi'(x,\lambda)-\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)\varphi'(x,\mu)\,d\mu,
\label{phi'eq}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde \varphi''(x,\lambda)=\varphi''(x,\lambda)-\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)\varphi''(x,\mu)\,d\mu-\\
-\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
2\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\widehat M(\mu)\varphi'(x,\mu)\,d\mu-\\
-\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\Big(\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\Big)'\widehat M(\mu)\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu.
\end{gathered}
\label{phi''eq}$$ Substituting in derivative of the second order from the equation , and then substituting $\varphi(x,\lambda)$, using we get $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde p(x)\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)=p(x)\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)+
\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\langle\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\rangle\widehat M(\mu)\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu+\\
+\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
2\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\widehat M(\mu)\varphi'(x,\mu)\,d\mu+\\
+\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\Big(\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\Big)'\widehat M(\mu)\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu.
\end{gathered}$$ Hence we get . $\hfill\Box$
Let us formulate necessary and sufficient conditions for the solvability of the inverse problem. Denote as $\mathbf{W}$ the set of functions $M(\lambda)$ such that\
(i) $M(\lambda)$ is analytic in $\Pi_+$ excluding a countable set of poles $\Lambda'$ and continuous in $\Pi\setminus\Lambda$ ($\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ are depend of each function $M(\lambda)$).\
(ii) holds when $|\lambda|\to\infty$.
\
1) [*(asymptotics) there exists $\tilde{\cal L}\in V$ such, that holds;*]{}\
2) [*(S-condition) for each fixed $x\geq0$ equation has a unique solution $\varphi(x,\lambda)\in C(\gamma)$;*]{}\
3) [*$\varepsilon(x)\in W$, where the function $\varepsilon(x)$ is defined by .*]{}\
[*Under these conditions the function $q(x)$ can be constructed by formula .*]{}
The necessity of Theorem 8 is proved above. We prove the sufficiency. Let the function $M(\lambda)\in \mathbf{W}$ be given, and it satisfies conditions from Theorem 8, and let the function $\varphi(x,\lambda)$ be the solution of the main equation . Then gives analytic continuation for $\varphi(x,\lambda)$ in the whole $\lambda$-plane, moreover for each fixed $x\geq0$, the function $\varphi(x,\lambda)$ is entire in $\lambda$ of order 1/2. It can be shown that the functions $\varphi^{(\nu)}(x,\lambda)$, $\nu=0,1$, are absolutely continuous on the compacts if $|x-a|\geq\varepsilon$, for each fixed $\varepsilon>0$, and $$|\varphi^{(\nu)}(x,\lambda)|\leq C|\rho|^{\nu-1} \exp(|\tau|x),\quad\lambda\in\gamma.
\label{phiestsuff}$$ We construct the function $\Phi(x,\lambda)$ from the relations , and ${\cal L}={\cal L}(q)$ by formula . It is clear, that ${\cal L}\in V$.
$$\ell\varphi(x,\lambda)=\lambda\varphi(x,\lambda),\quad\ell\Phi(x,\lambda)=\lambda\Phi(x,\lambda).$$
Differentiating twice by $x$ we get and . It follows from , and it follows $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde\ell\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)=\ell\varphi(x,\lambda)-
\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)\ell\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu-\\
-\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\langle\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda),\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\rangle\widehat M(\mu)\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu.
\end{gathered}
\label{lphieqsuff}$$ Using , we similarly obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde\Phi'(x,\lambda)+\varepsilon_0(x)\tilde\Phi(x,\lambda)=\Phi'(x,\lambda)-\\
-\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\frac{\langle\tilde\Phi(x,\lambda),\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\rangle}{\lambda-\mu}\widehat M(\mu)\varphi'(x,\mu)\,d\mu,
\end{gathered}
\label{Phieqsuff}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde\ell\tilde\Phi(x,\lambda)=\ell\Phi(x,\lambda)-
\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\frac{\langle\tilde\Phi(x,\lambda),\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\rangle}{\lambda-\mu}\widehat M(\mu)\ell\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu-\\
-\frac1{2 \pi i}\frac1{\eta(x)}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
\langle\tilde\Phi(x,\lambda),\tilde\varphi(x,\mu)\rangle\widehat M(\mu)\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu.
\end{gathered}
\label{lPhieqsuff}$$ It follows from , that $$\begin{gathered}
\lambda\tilde\varphi(x,\lambda)=\ell\varphi(x,\lambda)-
\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)\ell\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu-\\
-\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma}
(\lambda-\mu)\tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)\varphi(x,\mu)\,d\mu.
\end{gathered}$$ Taking into account, we find, that for fixed $x\geq0$ $$\eta(x,\lambda)+\frac1{2 \pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \tilde r(x,\lambda,\mu)\eta(x,\mu)\,d\mu=0,\quad \lambda\in\gamma,
\label{etaeqsuff}$$ where $\eta(x,\lambda)=\ell\varphi(x,\lambda)-\lambda\varphi(x,\lambda)$. According to we have for fixed $x\geq 0$ $$|\eta(x,\lambda)|\leq C|\rho|,\quad\lambda\in\gamma.
\label{etaest1}$$ Using estimates and we arrive to estimate $|\eta(x,\lambda)|\leq C$ for $\lambda\in\gamma$. By virtue of S-condition from Theorem 8 the homogeneous equation have only trivial solution $\eta(x,\lambda)\equiv0$. Therefore, $$\ell\varphi(x,\lambda)=\lambda\varphi(x,\lambda).$$ Hence and from together with we get $\ell\Phi(x,\lambda)=\lambda\Phi(x,\lambda)$. $\hfill\Box$
*Let us continue the proof of Theorem 8*. We set $x=0$ in , . Then we have $$\varphi(0,\lambda)=\tilde\varphi(0,\lambda)=0,\quad \varphi'(0,\lambda)=\tilde\varphi(0,\lambda)=1.
\label{phicondsuff}$$ Using and , we calculate $$\label{Phi0rel}
\Phi(0,\lambda)=\tilde\Phi(0,\lambda)=1,\quad
\Phi'(0,\lambda)=\tilde\Phi'(0,\lambda)+
\frac 1{2\pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_\gamma\frac{\widehat M(\mu)}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu.$$ We fix $\lambda\in J_\gamma$. From , taking into account the estimates $$\begin{gathered}
|\tilde\varphi^{(m)}(x,\mu)|\le C|\theta|^{m-1}|\exp(-i\theta x)|,\quad \mu=\theta^2,\quad x\geq0,\quad m=0,1,\\[3mm]
|\tilde\Phi^{(m)}(x,\lambda)|\le C_\delta|\rho|^{m}|\exp(i\rho x)|,\quad x\geq0, \quad\rho\in G_\delta,
\end{gathered}$$ we get that $$\Phi(x,\lambda)=O(\exp(i\rho x+2h x)), x\to\infty.$$ Hence, and since $\Phi(0,\lambda)=1$, it follows, that the function $\Phi(x,\lambda)$ is a Weyl solution. Further, from we have $$\Phi'(0,\lambda)=\widetilde M(\lambda)+\frac1{2\pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_\gamma\frac{\widehat M(\mu)}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu,$$ According to Cauchy’s integral formula $$\widehat M(\lambda)=\frac1{2\pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma_N} \frac{\widehat M(\mu)}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu+
\frac1{2\pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\theta_N} \frac{\widehat M(\mu)}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu, \; \lambda\not\in\mathrm{int}\,\gamma_N.$$ Then for $N\to\infty$ we get $$\widehat M(\lambda)=\frac1{2\pi i}{\oldint\limits}\limits_{\gamma} \frac{\widehat M(\mu)}{\lambda-\mu}\,d\mu,\quad\lambda\in J_\gamma.$$ Therefore, $\Phi'(0,\lambda)=\widetilde M(\lambda)+\widehat M(\lambda)=M(\lambda)$, i.e. $M(\lambda)$ is the Weyl function for ${\cal L}$. $\hfill\Box$
[**Remark 1.**]{} Similar results for the Robin boundary condition $y'(0)-hy(0)=0$ are obtained in [@fedoseev-izvsgu-12].
[**Acknowledgment.**]{} This research was supported in part by Grants 10-01-00099 and 10-01-92001-NSC of Russian Foundation for Basic Research and Taiwan National Science Council.
[99]{} Freiling G and Yurko V A 1999 Reconstructing parameters of a medium from incomplete spectral information [*Results Math.*]{} [**35**]{} 228-49 Lapwood F R and Usami T 1981 [*Free Oscillations of the Earth*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Constantin A 1998 On the inverse spectral problem for the Camassa-Holm equation [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**155**]{} 352-63 Chadan K, Colton D, Päivärinta L and Rundell W 1997 [*An Introduction to Inverse Scattering and Inverse Spectral Problems (SIAM Monographs on Mathematical Modeling and Computation)*]{} (Philadelphia: SIAM) Marchenko V A 1977 [*Sturm-Liouville Operators and Their Applications*]{} (Kiev: Naukova Dumka)\
Marchenko V A 1986 [*Sturm-Liouville Operators and Their Applications*]{} (Basle: Birkhäuser) (Engl. Transl.) Levitan B M 1984 [*Inverse Sturm-Liouville problems*]{} (Moscow: Nauka) (Engl. Transl.)\
Levitan B M 1987 [*Sturm-Liouville problems*]{} (Utrecht: VNU Science) Freiling G and Yurko V A 2001 [*Inverse Sturm-Liouville Problems and their Applications*]{} (New York: NOVA Science) McLaughlin J R 1986 Analytical methods for recovering coefficients in differential equations from spectral data [*SIAM Rev.*]{} [**28**]{} 53-72 Hald O H 1984 Discontinuous inverse eigenvalue problems [*Commun. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**37**]{} 539-77 Shepelsky D G 1994 The inverse problem of reconstruction of the medium‘s conductivity in a class of discontinuous and increasing functions [*Adv. Sov. Math.*]{} [**19**]{} 209-231 Yurko V A 2000 Integral transforms connected with discontinuous boundary value problems [*Integral Transforms and Special Functions*]{} [**10**]{} 141-64 Stashevskaya V V 1953 On inverse problems of spectral analysis for a certain class of differential equations [*Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR*]{} [**93**]{} 409-12 Yurko V A 1992 Inverse problem for differential equations with a singularity [*Differ. Uravneniya*]{} [**28**]{} 1355-62\
Yurko V A 1992 [*Differ. Equ.*]{} [**28**]{} 1100-7 (Engl. Transl.) Yurko V A 1993 On higher-order differential operators with a singular point [*Inverse Problems*]{} [**9**]{} 495-502 Yurko V A 1995 On higher-order differential operators with a singularity [*Matem. Sbornik*]{} [**186**]{} 133-60\
Yurko V A 1995 [*Sbornik: Mathematics*]{} [**186**]{} 901-28 (Engl. Transl.) Yurko V A 2002 On recovering singular non-selfadjoint differential operators with a singularity inside the interval [*Differ. Uravneniya*]{} [**38**]{} 645-59\
Yurko V A 2002 [*Differ. Equ.*]{} [**38**]{} 678-94 (Engl. Transl.) Fedoseev A 2011 Inverse problems for differential equations on the half-line having a singularity in an interior point [*Tamkang J. Math.*]{} [**42**]{} 343-54 Yurko V A 2002 [*Method of Spectral Mappings in the Inverse Problem Theory (Inverse and Ill-posed Problems Series)*]{} (Utrecht: VSP) Fedoseev A E 2012 Inverse problem for Sturm–-Liouville operator on the half-line having nonintegrable singularity in an interior point [*Izv. Saratov. Univ. Mat. Mekh. Inform.*]{} [**12:4**]{} 49-55 (Russian)
Alexey Fedoseev
Department of Mathematics
Saratov State University
Astrakhanskaya 83, Saratov 410012, Russia
E-mail: fedoseev\[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Erik S. Van Vleck and Aijun Zhang[^1]\
Department of Mathematics\
University of Kansas\
Lawrence, KS 66045\
U.S.A.
title: Competing Interactions and Traveling Wave Solutions in Lattice Differential Equations
---
0.5cm
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
\[section\] u ł Ø å[A]{}
\#1[$\underline{\hbox{#1}}$]{}
[**Abstract.**]{} The existence of traveling front solutions to bistable lattice differential equations in the absence of a comparison principle is studied. The results are in the spirit of those in Bates, Chen, and Chmaj [@BCC], but are applicable to vector equations and to more general limiting systems. An abstract result on the persistence of traveling wave solutions is obtained and is then applied to lattice differential equations with repelling first and/or second neighbor interactions and to some problems with infinite range interactions.
[**Key words.**]{} bistable; traveling waves; competing interaction; Fredholm operator; lattice differential equation.
[**Mathematics subject classification.**]{} 39A12, 34K31, 35K57, 37L60
Introduction
============
We study the existence of traveling wave solutions for lattice differential equations (LDEs) by means of a perturbation argument and Fredholm theory for mixed type functional differential equations. In particular, we prove persistence of traveling waves for a general class of lattice differential equations with bistable nonlinearity. Consider the following equation, $$\begin{cases}
\label{main-eq}
{\displaystyle}\dot{u}_{j}=d_{1}(u_{j+1}-2u_{j}+u_{j-1})+d_{2}(u_{j+2}-2u_{j}+u_{j-2})-f_{a}(u_{j}),\quad j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\cr
f_{a}(u)=u(u-a)(u-1),\quad a, d_{1}, d_{2} \in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}.
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ Our primary interest is in competing interactions between first and second nearest neighbors when $d_1<0$ and $d_2<0$. We develop a general technique for continuation of solutions of vector dissipative lattice differential equations and obtain results on existence of traveling front solutions for (\[main-eq\]) when $d_1<0$, $0<-d_2\ll 1$ and when $d_2<0$ and $|d_1|\ll 1$.
Our contribution is to develop techniques based upon the implicit function theorem that are applicable for vector equations that are similar to that developed by Bates, Chen, and Chmaj [@BCC] for scalar equations. Whereas in [@BCC] the limiting system is the traveling wave equation associated with the PDE $u_t = u_{xx} - f(u)$, we consider, through the use of the Fredholm theory for mixed type functional differential equations [@MPJ], limiting equations that may correspond to lattice differential equations. Among the chief motivations in this work (and in [@BCC]) for the use of implicit function theorem based techniques is the desire to handle cases in which there does not exist a comparison principle.
Traveling wave solutions to (\[main-eq\]) have been extensively studied when $d_1 >0$ and $d_2=0$. In particular, the work of Weinberger based upon the development of an abstract comparison principle is applicable to both PDEs and LDEs, although primarily for monostable as opposed to bistable problems. Zinner proved existence of traveling fronts using topological fixed point results [@Z92] and stability [@Z91] in the bistable case. A general stability theory was developed by Chow, Mallet-Paret, and Shen [@CMPS] and Shen employed comparison principle techniques to prove results on existence, uniqueness, and stability of traveling fronts in which $f\equiv f(u,t)$ may depend periodically on $t$. More recently Chen, Guo, and Wu developed a framework for existence, uniqueness, and stability of bistable equations in periodic media [@CGW] and Hupkes and Sandstede [@HS10] prove the existence of traveling pulse solutions for discrete in space Fitz-Hugh Nagumo equations that occur when coupling a relaxation variable to the discrete Nagumo equation ((\[main-eq\]) with $d_1>0$ and $d_2=0$).
Associated with traveling waves for (\[main-eq\]) when $d_1>0$ and $d_2 = 0$ is the mixed type functional differential equations $$-c \varphi'(\xi) = d_1(\varphi(\xi-1)-2\varphi(\xi)+\varphi(\xi+1))-f(\varphi(\xi))$$ which results from the traveling wave ansatz $u_j(t) = \varphi(j-ct)$. Among the important contributions to the study of these types of equations is the pioneering work of Rustichini [@Rus1; @Rus2], the development by Mallet-Paret of a Fredholm theory for linear mixed type function differential equations [@MPJ] and its use to understand the global structure of traveling wave solutions [@JMP99a]. Exponential dichotomies for these equations were investigated in [@HSS] and [@LMP] and center manifold theory and Lin’s method were developed in [@HL2] and [@HL3], respectively.
The case in which $d_1 <0$ and $d_2 =0$ was investigated in [@VVV] and [@BVV]. In [@VVV] a model was developed for the dynamics of twinned microstructures that arise in martensitic phase transformation, e.g., in shape memory alloys, which led to (\[main-eq\]) in an overdamped limit. Subsequently, the bistable nonlinearity $f(u) = u - H(u-a)$, $H$ the Heaviside step function, was employed and transform techniques were utilized to determine waveforms and wavespeeds. In [@BVV] the cubic nonlinearity was employed and the problem was converted to a periodic media problem so that the results of [@CGW] could be applied. A wealth of traveling wave solutions of both bistable and monostable type were revealed. Similar techniques may be used to determine traveling fronts when $d_2<0$ and $d_1=0$ which results in two decoupled systems of equations. In [@VVV; @BVV] one of the essential ideas (see also [@CMPVV]) was to convert to a system in terms of odd and even lattice sites. This effectively allows us to consider connecting orbit problems between vector equilibria as opposed to connecting orbit problems between time independent spatially periodic solutions. Existence and structure of traveling fronts for higher space dimension versions of (\[main-eq\]) was recently investigated in [@HVV] using comparison principle and continuation techniques.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \[prelim\] we present some of the notation we will employ and background on Fredholm theory from [@MPJ] for linear mixed type functional differential equations. In addition, we summarize two approaches to the existence of traveling wave solutions in lattice differential equations. The first due to Chen, Guo, and Wu [@CGW] provides existence, uniqueness and stability results for traveling front solutions of (\[main-eq\]) when $d_1$ and $d_2$ are positive. The second is due to Bates, Chen, and Chmaj [@BCC] and provides existence of traveling front solutions when $d_1 + 4d_2 >0$. Section \[persist\] contains our main results and establishes the persistence of traveling wave solutions for vector equations. In particular, we consider systems of lattice equations and allow, under certain non-restrictive conditions, general limiting systems. In section \[twaves\] we consider the application of general results in section \[persist\] to the existence of traveling fronts to (\[main-eq\]) for values of $d_1, d_2$ which even after rewriting as a system (equivalently in a periodic media) do not possess a comparison principle. We end up with conclusions in section \[conclusion\].
Preliminaries and Notation {#prelim}
==========================
Fredholm Alternative for Lattice Differential Equations
-------------------------------------------------------
If $X,Y$ are Banach spaces with norms $\|\cdot\|_{X}, \|\cdot\|_{Y}$ respectively, then we let $L(X,Y)$ denote the Banach space of bounded linear operators $T:X \to Y$. Denote the kernel and range of $T \in L(X,Y)$ by $$K(T)=\{x \in X | Tx=0\} \quad and \ R(T)=\{y \in Y | y=Tx \ for \ some \ x \in X\}.$$ Recall that T is a **Fredholm operator** if T satisfies the following:\
(i) $K(T)$ is finite dimensional in X;\
(ii) $R(T)$ is closed and also finite dimensional in Y.\
The Fredholm index of T is defined as $$ind(T)=dim(K(T))-codim(R(T)).$$
$\|\cdot\|_{L^{2}}$,$\|\cdot\|_{L^{\infty}}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{H^{1}}$ denote the norms of the spaces $L^{2}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$, $L^{\infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$ and $H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$, respectively. Also, $\langle f,g \rangle:=\int [f_{1}g_{1}+ ...+f_{N}g_{N}]dx$, where $f=(f_{1},...,f_{N}),g=(g_{1},...,g_{N}) \in L^{2}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$. We call $f \perp g$ if and only if $\langle f,g \rangle=0$. $K^{\perp}(T)$ denotes the orthogonal complement of the kernel $K(T)$, that is, $K^{\perp}(T)=\{f \in X: \langle f,g \rangle=0$ for all $g \in K(T)\}$.
In [@MPJ], Mallet-Paret investigated the Fredholm alternative for the following functional differential equations of mixed type, for $1\leq p\leq \infty$, $$\label{Fredholm-eq}
u'(x)=\sum_{j=1}^{N_{1}} A_{j}(x)u(x+r_{j})+f(x), u \in W^{1,p}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},I^{N})
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where I is some bounded interval, $r_{1}=0$, and $r_{j}\neq r_{k},1\leq j < k \leq N_{1}, N_{1} \geq 2$.
We may write it as $$\label{Fredholm-eq1}
u'(x)=L u + f(x),
\vspace{-.1in}$$
and we have the homogeneous equation $$\label{Fredholm-eq2}
u'(x)=L u.
\vspace{-.1in}$$
If $A_{j}(x)$ is a constant matrix, which is independent of $x$, we denote it by $A_{j,0}$ and then we may write equation (\[Fredholm-eq2\]) as $$\label{Fredholm-eq3}
u'(x)=L_{0} u.
\vspace{-.1in}$$
Define $\Delta_{L_{0}}(s)=sI-\sum_{j=1}^{N_{1}} A_{j,0}e^{sr_{j}}$. We say (\[Fredholm-eq3\]) is **hyperbolic** if $\Delta_{L_{0}}(i \theta)\neq 0, \theta \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
In the case, ${\displaystyle}\lim_{x \to \pm\infty} A_{j}(x) =A^{\pm}_{j,0}$ for $1\leq j \leq N_{1}$. Let $L_{0}^{\pm}u:=\sum_{j=1}^{N_{1}} A_{j,0}^{\pm}u(x+r_{j})$. We say equation (\[Fredholm-eq2\]) is **asymptotically hyperbolic** if equations (\[Fredholm-eq3\]) with replacing $L_{0}$ by $L_{0}^{\pm}$ are hyperbolic.
Define $\Lambda_{L}$ by $$\label{F-operator}
\Lambda_{L} u=-c u'(x)-L u.
\vspace{-.1in}$$
We recall Theorem A in Mallet-Paret’s paper [@MPJ]:
\[Fredholm-prop\](See [@MPJ]) For each p with $1\leq p\leq \infty$, $\Lambda_{L}$ is a Fredholm operator from $W^{1,p}$ to $L^{p}$ provided that equation $-c u'(x)=L u$ is asymptotically hyperbolic.
We note here that for linear mixed type functional differential equations the standard formula for computation of the Fredholm index is generally not valid, but this is remedied using the spectral flow formula (see [@MPJ] Theorem C).
Traveling waves for Bistable Dynamics
-------------------------------------
In this subsection, we will state the results of the study of the traveling waves of lattice equations for bistable dynamics in [@CGW] and [@BCC]. In [@CGW], consider a general system of spatially discrete reaction diffusion equations for $u(t)=\{u_{n}(t)\}_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$: $$\label{CGW-eq}
\dot{u}_{n}(t)=\sum_{k}a_{n,k}u_{n+k}(t)+f_{n}(u_{n}(t)), n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}, t>0, \vspace{-.1in}$$ where the coefficients $a_{n,k}$ are real numbers and have the following assumptions:\
A1. **Periodic medium**. There exists a positive integer N such that $a_{n+N,k} = a_{n,k}$ and $f_{n+N}(\cdot) = f_{n}(\cdot) \in C^{2}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ for all $n, k \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$.\
A2. **Existence of ordered, periodic equilibria**. There exist $\vec{\phi}^{\pm}=\{\phi^{\pm}_{n}\}_{n\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ such that
${\displaystyle}\sum_{k}a_{n,k}\phi^{\pm}_{n+k} + f_{n}(\phi^{\pm}) = 0, \phi^{\pm}_{n+N} = \phi^{\pm}_{n}, \phi_{n}^{-} < \phi^{+}_{n}, n\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}.$ After an appropriate change-of-variables, the equilibria take the form $\vec{\phi}^{-}= \vec{0}$ and $\vec{\phi}^{+}= \vec{1}$.\
A3. **Finite-range interaction**. There exists a positive integer $k_{0}$ such that $a_{n,k} = 0$ for $|k| > k_{0}$ and for all $n\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}.$\
A4. **Nondecoupledness**. For every integer pair $i \neq j$, there exist integers $i_{0}, i_{1}, . . . , i_{m}$ such that $i_{0} = i$ and $i_{m} =j$ with ${\displaystyle}\prod_{s=0}^{m-1}a_{i_{s},i_{s+1}-i_{s}} > 0$.\
A5. **Ellipticity**. $a_{n,k} > 0$ for all $k\neq 0$ and ${\displaystyle}a_{n,0} =-\sum_{k\neq 0}a_{n,k}< 0, n\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}.$\
[*\[CGW-prop\] (See [@CGW]). Assume that $\vec{0}$ and $\vec{1}$ are steady-states and any other N-periodic state $\vec{\phi}=\{\phi_{n}\}_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ with $\phi_{n} \in (0, 1)$, if it exists, is unstable. Then the problem (\[CGW-eq\]) admits a solution $(c, \vec{w})$ satisfying $\vec{w}(-\infty) =\vec{0} < \vec{w}(\xi) < \vec{1} = \vec{w}(+\infty)$ for all $\xi \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}.$*]{}
The following theorem is followed by Bates, Chen and Chmaj’s results Theorem 1 in [@BCC]. Consider the following system, $$\label{BCC-eq}\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle}c_{\epsilon} u'-\frac{1}{\epsilon^{2}}\sum_{k>0}\alpha_{k}(u(x+\epsilon k)-2u(x)+u(x-\epsilon k))+f(u)=0,\quad \cr u(\pm \infty)=\pm 1,
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ under the assumptions:(i) $f\in C^{2}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ has exactly three zeros, $-1$, $q \in (-1,1)$ and 1, with $f_{u}(\pm 1)>0$;\
(ii) ${\displaystyle}\sum_{k>0}\alpha_{k}k^{2}=1, \sum_{k>0}|\alpha_{k}|k^{2}<\infty$, and ${\displaystyle}\sum_{k>0}\alpha_{k}(1- cos(kz))\geq 0$ for all $z \in [0,2\pi]$.\
As $\epsilon \to 0$, we have $$\label{BCC-ref-eq}\begin{cases}
c u'-u''+f(u)=0,\quad \cr u(\pm \infty)=\pm 1.
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ It is well-known that (\[BCC-ref-eq\]) has a unique traveling wave solution denoted by $(c_{0},\phi_{0})$.
[*\[BCC-prop\](See [@BCC]) Suppose $c_{0}\neq 0$. Then there exists a positive constant $\epsilon^{*}$ such that for every $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon^{*})$, the problem (\[BCC-eq\]) admits a solution $(c_{\epsilon},\phi_{\epsilon})$ satisfying ${\displaystyle}\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}(c_{\epsilon},\phi_{\epsilon})=(c_{0},\phi_{0})$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\times H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$.* ]{}
Next, with the Fredholm theory in [@HVV] and ideas in [@BCC], we will study the existence of traveling waves to vector LDEs in an abstract framework.
Persistence of Traveling Waves to Lattice Differential Equations with Perturbations {#persist}
===================================================================================
In this section, our goal is to study the persistence of traveling waves of the lattice differential equations, $$\label{Refrence-eq}
\Lambda u + F(u)=0, u(+\infty)=\vec{1}, u(-\infty)=\vec{0};
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $\Lambda$ is defined as in (\[F-operator\]), that is, $\Lambda u=-c u'(x)-{\displaystyle}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{1}} A_{j}(x)u(x+r_{j})$ with $r_{1}=0$, and $r_{j}\neq r_{k},1\leq j < k \leq N_{1}, N_{1} \geq 2$. The perturbed system of (\[Refrence-eq\]) is of the form, $$\label{Perturbed-eq}
\Lambda u + \epsilon B u+ F(u)=0, u(+\infty)=\vec{1}, u(-\infty)=\vec{0}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $\epsilon >0$ and $Bu:= {\displaystyle}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{2}} B_{j}(x)u(x+l_{j})$ with $l_{1}=0$, and $l_{j}\neq l_{k},1\leq j < k \leq N_{2}\leq \infty, N_{2} \geq 2$. We now give the assumptions for the systems of (\[Refrence-eq\]) and (\[Perturbed-eq\]). We make the following assumption for the nonlinear term:
[**(H1)**]{}[*$F_{i} \in C^{2}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, with $F_{i}(0)=0, F_{i}(1)=0$ for i=1,..., N.*]{}
We remark that even though our application examples in next section focus on bistable nonlinearity, (H1) is a more general assumption. Assume that
[**(H2)**]{}[*There exists a traveling wave solution connecting $\vec{0}$ and $\vec{1}$ for (\[Refrence-eq\]).*]{}
We let $(c_{0},\phi_{0})$ be a traveling wave with speed $c_{0}>0$ for (\[Refrence-eq\]). We make the following assumption for the perturbed term:
[**(H3)**]{}[*B is a bounded operator from $H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$ to $L^{2}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$ with $B\vec{0}=0$ and $B\vec{1}=0$.*]{}
For simplicity, let $\Lambda_{\epsilon}= \Lambda + \epsilon B$. We may write (\[Perturbed-eq\]) in $$\label{Perturbed-eq1}
\Lambda_{\epsilon}+ F(u)=0, u(+\infty)=\vec{1}, u(-\infty)=\vec{0}.
\vspace{-.1in}$$
It is natural to hope that at least for small $\epsilon$, (\[Perturbed-eq1\]) also has a traveling wave solution.
Let $\gamma(\phi_{0})$ be a N by N matrix with $\gamma_{ii}=F_{i}'(\phi_{0})$ otherwise $\gamma_{ij}=0$ for $i \neq j$, and $L_{0}^{+}\phi:=c_{0}\phi'- \Lambda_{0} \phi+ \gamma(\phi_{0})\phi $ and $L_{0}^{-}\phi:=-c_{0}\phi'- \Lambda_{0}^{*}\phi+ \gamma(\phi_{0})\phi $, where $\Lambda_{0}^{*}\Psi$ is the adjoint operator of $\Lambda_{0}$. We assume that
[**(H4)**]{} [*$L_{0}^{\pm}$ are Fredholm Operators from $H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$ to $L^{2}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$.*]{}
By Theorem \[Fredholm-prop\], if $L_{0}^{\pm}$ are asymptotically hyperbolic then (H4) is satisfied. This is equivalent to check the assumption that $L_{0}^{\pm}$ are hyperbolic at $\pm\infty$. Note that $\phi_{0}(\infty)=\vec{1}$ and $\phi_{0}(-\infty)=\vec{0}$. Let $\hat{L}_{\infty}^{+}\phi:=c_{0}\phi'- \Lambda_{0} \phi+ \gamma(1)\phi $, $\hat{L}_{-\infty}^{+}\phi:=c_{0}\phi'- \Lambda_{0} \phi+ \gamma(0)\phi $, $\hat{L}_{\infty}^{-}\phi:=-c_{0}\phi'- \Lambda_{0}^{*}\phi+ \gamma(1)\phi $ and $\hat{L}_{-\infty}^{-}\phi:=-c_{0}\phi'- \Lambda_{0}^{*}\phi+ \gamma(0)\phi $. Then (H4) is equivalent to the following:
[**($\hat{H}4$)**]{} [*$\hat{L}_{\infty}^{\pm}$ and $\hat{L}_{-\infty}^{\pm}$ are hyperbolic.*]{}
In applications, we may use ($\hat{H}4$) instead of (H4) if needed since ($\hat{H}4$) can be more easily verified.
[ *\[traveling-wave-thm\] Suppose $c_{0}\neq 0$. Assume $H1-H4$. Then there exists a positive constant $\epsilon^{*}$ such that for every $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon^{*}]$, the problem admits a solution $(c_{\epsilon},\phi_{\epsilon})$ satisfying $$\lim_{c_{\epsilon} \to c_{0}}(c_{\epsilon},\phi_{\epsilon})=(c_{0},\phi_{0}).$$* ]{}
To prove Theorem \[traveling-wave-thm\], with the arguments of perturbation of Fredholm operators, we borrow ideas from [@BCC], which are applicable to vector LDEs. We made assumption (H2) for instead of giving some specific equation having a traveling wave solution like . Existing literature like Theorem \[CGW-prop\] in Section 2 that Chen, Guo and Wu proved in [@CGW] can provide nice candidates for satisfying (H2). To verify (H4), the Fredholm alternative theory (See [@MPJ] and [@HVV]) plays an important role.
Let $X:=H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$. Since $L_{0}^{\pm}$ are Fredholm operators and $dim(K(L_{0}^{\pm}))$ is finite, X can be decomposed by $X=X_{1} \bigoplus X_{2}$ with $X_{2}=K(L_{0}^{+})$. Let $S:=L_{0}^{+}|_{X_{1}}$ be the restriction of $L_{0}^{+}$ on $X_{1}$. Then we have
$L_{0}^{+}$ are surjective from $X$ to $Y_{1}$ with $Y_{1}=R(L_{0}^{+})$ and then $S:X \to Y_{1}$ has a bounded inverse.
First we define $X_{\eta}:=\{\phi \in H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N}):\|\phi\|_{H^{1}}\leq\eta\},$ where $\eta$ will be determined later. Following the ideas as in [@BCC], we let $\phi=\phi_{0}+\psi$ for $\psi \in X_{\eta}$ and formulate the problem as $$\label{Reformulation-eq1}
L_{0}^{+}\psi=R(c,\psi),
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $$L_{0}^{+}\psi= c_{0}\psi'-\Lambda_{0}\psi+\gamma(\phi_0)\psi,
\vspace{-.1in}$$ $$R(c,\psi)=(c_{0}-c)(\phi_{0}'+\psi')+\epsilon B(\psi+\phi_{0})-N(\phi_{0},\psi),
\vspace{-.1in}$$ $$N(\phi_{0},\psi)=F(\phi_{0}+\psi)-F(\phi_{0})-\gamma(\phi_0)\psi.
\vspace{-.1in}$$
In some places, we need study the operator of $L_{\epsilon}^{+}=c_{0}\psi'-\Lambda_{\epsilon}\psi+\gamma(\phi_0)\psi$, and its adjoint $$L_{\epsilon}^{-}\psi=- c_{0}\psi'-\Lambda^{*}_{\epsilon}\psi+\gamma(\phi_0)\psi,$$ where $\Lambda_{\epsilon}^{*}$ is the adjoint operator of $\Lambda_{\epsilon}$.
Since the inverse of $S=L_{0}^{+}|_{X_{1}}$ exists, let $T\psi=(S)^{-1}R(c,\psi)$ and we may rewrite (\[Reformulation-eq1\]) as $$\label{Reformulation-eq2}
T\psi=\psi.
\vspace{-.1in}$$ Then, we can prove the existence of the traveling wave solutions by showing that there is a fixed point for T.
Let $\psi_{0}^{+}=\phi'_{0}/\|\phi'_{0}\|_{L^{2}}$.
\[estimate-lm2\] $\,$
- $L_{0}^{+}\psi_{0}^{+}=0$. There exists $\psi_{0}^{-} \in L^{2}$ such that $L_{0}^{-}\psi_{0}^{-}=0$ with $\|\psi_{0}^{-}\|_{L^{2}}=1$. Moreover $\psi_{0}^{\pm} \in H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$.
- There exists a positive constant $C_{0}$, which depends only on F, such that $$\|\phi\|_{H^{1}}\leq C_{0}\|L_{0}^{\pm}\phi\|_{L^{2}}$$ for all $\phi \in H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$ satisfying $\phi \perp \psi_{0}^{\pm}$.
\(1) $L_{0}^{+}\psi_{0}^{+}=0$ follows by differentiating the equation and a direct computation. By Theorem \[Fredholm-prop\], $dim(K(L_{0}^{+}))=dim(K(L_{0}^{-}))$, and then there exists $\psi_{0}^{-} \in L^{2}$ such that $L_{0}^{-}\psi_{0}^{-}=0$ with $\|\psi_{0}^{-}\|_{L^{2}}=1$. Note that $c_{0}(\psi_{0}^{+})'=\Lambda_{0} \psi_{0}^{+}- \gamma(\phi_0)\psi_{0}^{+} $ and $c_{0}(\psi_{0}^{-})'=- \Lambda_{0}^{*}\psi_{0}^{-}+ \gamma(\phi_0)\psi_{0}^{-}$, which imply that $\psi_{0}^{\pm} \in H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$.\
(2) If not, there would exist sequences $\{\phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty} \subset H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$ and $\{\psi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty} \subset L^{2}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$ such that $L_{0}^{\pm}\phi_{n}=\psi_{n}$, $\psi_{n} \in K^{\perp}(L_{0}^{\pm})$, but $$\|\phi_{n}\|_{H^{1}}\geq n\|L_{0}^{\pm}\phi_{n}\|_{L^{2}}.$$ Without loss of generality, we assume $\|\phi_{n}\|_{H^{1}}=1$. Thus, we have $ \|L_{0}^{\pm}\phi_{n}\|_{L^{2}} \to 0$ in $ L^{2}$ as $n \to \infty$. As $\{\phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty} \subset H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{N})$ is bounded, there exists a subsequence such that $\phi_{n_{j}} \to u$ in $L^{2}$. As $L_{0}^{\pm}$ are closed, we have $L_{0}^{\pm} u=0$, which implies that $u \in K(L_{0}^{\pm})$. On the other hand, by the construction, u is in the orthogonal complement of $L_{0}^{\pm}$ denoted by $K^{\perp}(L_{0}^{\pm})$. Note that $K(L_{0}^{\pm})\cap K^{\perp}(L_{0}^{\pm}) =\{0\}$, then $u \equiv 0$, which contradicts with $\|u\|_{H^{1}}=1$.\
Let $c(\psi)$ be the unique constant such that $R(c,\psi)\bot \psi_{0}^{-}$. Thus we have
\[speed-lm\] $R(c,\psi)\bot \psi_{0}^{-}$ if and only if $$c(\psi)=c_{0}+\frac{\langle \epsilon B\phi_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle+\langle\epsilon B\psi,\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle-\langle N(\phi_{0},\psi),\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle}
{\langle \phi'_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle+\langle \psi',\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle}.$$
It can be verified by direct computation.
\[estimate-lm33\]
- There exists a $K_{0}>0$ such that $$|c(\psi)-c_{0}|\leq K_{0};$$
- There exists a $K_{1}>0$ such that $$|c(\psi)-c(\hat{\psi})|\leq K_{1}\|\psi-\hat{\psi}\|_{H^{1}};$$
- There exists some $K_{2}< 1 /C_{0}$ such that $$\|R\psi-R\hat{\psi}\|_{L^{2}}\leq K_{2} \|\psi-\hat{\psi}\|_{H^{1}}.$$
(1). Let $\hat{\delta}:=\frac{1}{2}\langle \phi'_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle (>0)$ and then for $\psi \in X_{\eta}$, $\langle \phi'_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle+\langle \psi',\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle>\hat{\delta}$ provided $\eta < \hat{\delta}$. Note that $$|N^{(i)}(\phi_{0},\psi)|\leq M \eta|\psi^{(i)}|$$ and $$|N^{(i)}(\phi_{0},\psi)-N^{(i)}(\phi_{0},\hat{\psi})|\leq M \eta|\psi^{(i)}-\hat{\psi}^{(i)}|,i=1,2,$$ where $M={\displaystyle}\max_{1 \leq i \leq N}\{\sup_{|s|\leq 1+\hat{\delta}}|F_{i}''(s)|\}$. Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
|c(\psi)-c_{0}|&=|\frac{\langle \epsilon B\phi_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle
+\langle \epsilon B\psi,\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle-\langle N(\phi_{0},\psi),\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle}{\langle \phi'_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle+\langle \psi',\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle}|\\
&\leq \hat{\delta}^{-1}| \langle \epsilon B\phi_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle+\langle \epsilon B\psi,\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle-\langle N(\phi_{0},\psi),\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle|\\
&\leq \hat{\delta}^{-1}[\| (\epsilon B\phi_{0})\|_{L^{2}}+\epsilon \|B\| \eta+M \eta^{2}]:=K_{0},\end{aligned}$$\
(2). $|c(\psi)-c(\hat{\psi})|\leq K_{1}\|\psi-\hat{\psi}\|_{H^{1}},$ where $K_{1}=\hat{\delta}^{-2}[\| (\epsilon B\phi_{0})\|_{L^{2}}+(\hat{\delta}+\eta)(\|\epsilon B\|+M \eta)].$\
(3). By (1) and (2), $\|R\psi-R\hat{\psi}\|_{L^{2}}\leq K_{2} \|\psi-\hat{\psi}\|_{H^{1}},
$ where $K_{2}=\hat{\delta}^{-2}[\hat{\delta}+\eta+\|\phi'_{0}\|_{L^{2}}][\| (\epsilon B\phi_{0})\|_{L^{2}}+(\hat{\delta}+\eta)(\|\epsilon B\|+M \eta)].$ Since $\| (\epsilon B\phi_{0})\|_{L^{2}} \to 0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$, and $\eta \in (0,\hat{\delta})$, by choosing $0< \epsilon^{*}\ll 1$ and appropriate $\eta$ we can make $K_{2}$ small enough such that $C_{0}K_{2}<1$ for any $\epsilon \in (0, \epsilon^{*})$.
Define $$T \psi=S^{-1}R(c(\psi),\psi).$$
For each $\psi$, there are unique $v \in X_{1}$ $w \in X_2$ such that $\psi=v+w$. Hence $\psi$ is a solution of $L_0^+ \psi=R(c(\psi),\psi)$ if and only if $v= S^{-1}R(c(v+w),v+w)$ for $w \in X_2$. If suffices to prove that there exists a $\lambda<1$ such that $\|T\psi-T\hat{\psi}\|_{H^{1}}\leq \lambda \|\psi-\hat{\psi}\|_{H^{1}}$ for all $\psi, \hat{\psi} \in X_{\eta}$ with $\psi=v+w, \hat{\psi}=\hat{v} +w$ for fixed $w \in X_{2}$. Therefore, for each $(\epsilon,w) \in (0,\epsilon^{*})\times X_{2}$, by the above Lemmas \[estimate-lm2\] and \[estimate-lm33\] with $\psi^{+}_{0}=w$, $\|T\psi-T\hat{\psi}\|_{H^{1}}\leq C_{0}\|R\psi-R\hat{\psi}\|_{L^{2}}\leq C_{0}K_{2} \|\psi-\hat{\psi}\|_{H^{1}}.$ $\lambda= C_{0}K_{2}<1$. Hence, for each $(\epsilon,w) \in (0,\epsilon^{*})\times X_{2}$, there exists a unique fixed point $v(x;\epsilon,w) \in X_{1}$. Then $\phi(x;\epsilon,w)=\phi_{0}+v(x;\epsilon,w)+w$ is a traveling wave solution to the perturbed equation.
Next we prove the case with $\epsilon =\epsilon^{*}$. We simply put $\phi(x;\epsilon,w)=\phi_{\epsilon}(x)$. Note that $|\phi_{\epsilon}(\xi)|\leq 1$ and $|\phi'_{\epsilon}(\xi)|\leq \|\Lambda\|+\epsilon^{*}\|B\|+ {\displaystyle}\max_{0 \leq \xi\leq 1} |F(\xi)|$. By Arzel$\grave{a}-$ Ascoli theorem, there exists a subsequence $u_{\epsilon_{k}}$ that converges uniformly on bounded set. Recall that $$c(\psi)=c_{0}+\frac{\langle \epsilon B\phi_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle+\langle\epsilon B\psi,\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle-\langle N(\phi_{0},\psi),\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle}
{\langle \phi'_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle+\langle \psi',\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle}.$$ Let $c_{\epsilon^{*}}={\displaystyle}\lim_{\epsilon_{k} \to \epsilon^{*}}c_{\epsilon}.$ This completes the proof.
\[extensionremark\] Replacing $(c_{0},\phi_{0})$ by $(c_{\epsilon^{*}},\phi_{\epsilon^{*}})$ and following the arguments of the proofs in Theorems \[traveling-wave-thm\], $\epsilon^{*}$ can be extended further unless (H4) is not satisfied.\
Furthermore, if the dimension of the kernel of $L_0^+$ is 1, we can have that the solution set $TW(\epsilon)=\{\phi(x;\epsilon,w): \phi(x;\epsilon,w)=\phi_{0}(x)+v(x;\epsilon,w)+w(x),w \in X_{2}\}$ is one dimensional. Then we can have the equivalent solution set for $TW(\epsilon)=\{\phi(x;\epsilon,\alpha): \phi(x;\epsilon,\alpha)=\phi_{0}(x)+v(x;\epsilon,\alpha)+\alpha \phi_{0}'(x), \alpha \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\}$. We have the following theorem related to the uniqueness of traveling wave solutions.
[ *\[traveling-wave-thm-uniqueness\] Assume that $dim(K(L_0^+)=1$. There exist a neighbourhood $U(\epsilon,\alpha)$ of $0 \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ such that for $(\epsilon,\alpha) \in U(\epsilon,\alpha)$, $\phi(x;\epsilon,\alpha)$ is unique up to translation for every fixed $\epsilon$.*]{}
Note that $TW(\epsilon)=\{\phi(x;\epsilon,\alpha): \phi(x;\epsilon,\alpha)=\phi_{0}(x)+v(x;\epsilon,\alpha)+\alpha \phi_{0}'(x), \alpha \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\}$. On the other hand, we let $TW_{1}(\epsilon)=\{\phi(x+h;\epsilon,0): h \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\}$. We denote the mapping from $(\epsilon,h)$ to $\alpha$ by $\alpha=g(\epsilon,h)$ such that $$\phi(x+h;\epsilon,0)=\phi_{0}(x)+v(x;\epsilon,\alpha)+\alpha \phi_{0}'(x).$$ We claim that g is one to one with respect to h. Otherwise, we assume there exist $h_{2}>h_{1}$ such that $\phi(x+h_{1};\epsilon,0)=\phi(x+h_{2};\epsilon,0)$. Thus $\phi(x;\epsilon,0)$ is periodic with period $h_{2}-h_{1}$, which contradicts with $\phi(\infty;\epsilon,0)=0$ and $\phi(-\infty;\epsilon,0)=1$. Note that $\phi(x;\epsilon,0) \in TW(\epsilon) \cap TW_{1}(\epsilon)$ and $g(0,0)=0$. Let $G(x;\epsilon,h,\alpha)=\phi_{0}(x)+v(x;\epsilon,\alpha)+\alpha \phi_{0}'(x)-\phi(x+h;\epsilon,0).$ Note that $v(x;\epsilon,\alpha)=S^{-1}R(c(\psi),\psi)$ with $\psi(x)=v(x;\epsilon,\alpha)+\alpha \phi_{0}'(x)$. Since $\frac{\partial R(c(\psi),\psi)}{\partial \psi}|_{\psi=0}=0$ implies that $\frac{\partial v(\epsilon,\alpha)}{\partial \alpha}|_{(\epsilon,\alpha)=(0,0)}=0$, we have $G_{\alpha}(x;\epsilon,h,\alpha)|_{(\epsilon,h,\alpha)=(0,0,0)}=\phi_{0}'\neq 0$. By the Implicit Function Theorem, we have that there exists a neighborhood of $(\epsilon,h)=(0,0)$ such that $\alpha=g(\epsilon,h)$ which is continuous. This completes the proof.
In [@MPJ], Mallet-Paret provided some sufficient conditions for the one dimensional kernel to scalar LDEs and in [@HVV], Hupkes and the first author of current paper generated the results in [@MPJ] to vector LDEs,
$$\label{HVV-eq}
{u}_{t}(x,t)=\gamma u_{xx}(x,t)+\sum_{j=1}^{N} A_{j}(x)[u(x+r_{j})-u(x)]-f(u(x,t),\rho),
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $\gamma \geq 0$ and $\rho \in V \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Assume that,\
[**($HA$)**]{} [*A is irreducible (i.e,it is not similar to a block upper-triangular matrix) and nonnegative.*]{}
We assume that (Hf1-3) and (HS1-2), which are listed in Section 2 of [@HVV].
[**($h$)**]{} [*The conditions (HA),(Hf1-3), and (HS1-2) are all satisfied with the understanding that $V=\{0\}$ and $f(\cdot;0)=f(\cdot)$.*]{}
We remark that, for typical bistable nonlinearity, $f(u)=u(u-\rho)(u-1)$ for $0<\rho<1$, (Hf1-3), and (HS1) are satisfied. (HA) is the key assumption which implies the comparison principle and the existence of principal eigenvalue and corresponding positive eigenfunction. For a mixed type equation, (HA) is not satisfied and we may lose the comparison principle.
\[HVV-prop\] Consider the Equation with $|c|>0$ and suppose that (h) is satisfied. Suppose furthermore that for some $\alpha > 0$ the function $P \in BC({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^n)$ has the asymptotics $$|P(\xi)|=O(e^{-\alpha|\xi|}), \xi \to -\infty, |P(\xi)-1|=O(e^{-\alpha|\xi|}), \xi \to \infty.$$ Finally, suppose that that there exists a nontrivial solution $p \in W^{s_{r};\infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^n)$ to that has $P(\xi)>0$ for all $\xi \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Then the operator $\Lambda_{c,\gamma}$ is a Fredholm operator with $$dim Ker(\Lambda_{c,\gamma})=dim Ker(\Lambda^{*}_{c,\gamma})=codim Range(\Lambda_{c,\gamma})=1.$$ In addition, the element $p \in Ker(\Lambda_{c,\gamma})$ satisfies $p(\xi)>0$ for $\xi \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and there exists $p^* \in Ker(\Lambda^*_{c,\gamma})$ satisfies $p^*(\xi)>0$ for $\xi \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
Applications:Existence of Traveling Waves for Mixed Type LDEs {#twaves}
=============================================================
We will introduce four examples in this section. In the first three subsections, we consider equation . In the last subsection, we consider the perturbations of equation with infinity range interactions. Let $d= d_{1}+4d_{2}$. ${u_{j}}$ is called a stationary solution of if ${u_{j}}$ satisfies $d_{1}(u_{j+1}-2u_{j}+u_{j-1})+d_{2}(u_{j+2}-2u_{j}+u_{j-2})-f_{a}(u_{j})=0$. ${u_{j}}$ is called a N-Periodic stationary solution of if ${u_{j}}$ is a stationary solution and $u_{j+N}=u_{j}$.
Traveling Waves Connecting 0 and 1
----------------------------------
Define $$A_{\epsilon}u:=\frac{1}{\epsilon^{2}}[d_{1}(u(x+\epsilon)-2u(x)+u(x-\epsilon))+
d_{2}(u(x+2\epsilon)-2u(x)+u(x-2\epsilon))].$$
Consider the following equation, $$\begin{cases}
\label{main-eq1}
cu'-A_{\epsilon}u+f_{a}(u)=0,\quad j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\cr
f_{a}(u)=u(u-a)(u-1),\quad \cr u(-\infty)=0,u(\infty)=1\quad.
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$
As $\epsilon \to 0$, we have $$\label{ref-eq}\begin{cases}
c u'-d u''+f_{a}(u)=0,\quad \cr
f(u)=u(u-a)(u-1), \quad \cr u(-\infty)=0,u(\infty)=1\quad,
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ For $d>0$, it is well-known that the equation has a unique traveling wave $\phi_{0}$ and the speed $c_{0}$.
Now we consider the system (\[main-eq1\]). By changing variables, we can make f satisfy (i) in Theorem \[BCC-prop\]. Equation (\[main-eq1\]) is a particular case with $k=2$ of the equation (\[BCC-eq\]). For assumption (ii), ${\displaystyle}\sum_{k>0}\alpha_{k}(1- \cos(kz))\geq 0$ for all $z \in [0,2\pi]$ is equivalent to the following assumption: $$\noindent{\bf (A1)} \quad {d_{1}+4d_{2}>0.}$$ Thus, if we assume (A1), both assumptions in Theorem \[BCC-prop\] are satisfied, and we have
[ *\[positive-equilibrium-solu-thm\] Suppose $c_{0}\neq 0$. Assume that (A1) holds. Then there exists a positive constant $\epsilon^{*}$ such that for every $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon^{*})$, the problem (\[main-eq1\]) admits a solution $(c_{\epsilon},\phi_{\epsilon})$ satisfying ${\displaystyle}\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}(c_{\epsilon},\phi_{\epsilon})=(c_{0},\phi_{0})$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\times H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$.* ]{}
\[wave-rk1\] If both $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$ are positive, then (A1) are satisfied automatically. One of them may be negative in the (A1).
If (A1) is not satisfied, for $d<0$, we will transform our model to a new one which is in the framework of perturbation method developed in the previous section. In section 4.2, we will consider the case with $d < 0$ but $d_{1}$ dominates $d_{2}$ in the sense $|d_{1}|\gg |d_{2}|$. In section 4.3, we will deal with the case with $d < 0$ but $d_{2}$ dominates $d_{1}$ in the sense $|d_{2}|\gg |d_{1}|$.
Traveling Waves Connecting Two 2-Periodic States
------------------------------------------------
As in the work of Brucal - Hallare and Van Vleck [@BVV], we will use a 2-D transformation. First we write the even and odd nodes of the above equation as $x=\{x_{j}\}_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^{N}}$ and $y=\{y_{j}\}_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^{N}}$, respectively, and obtain $$\label{main-eq220}
\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle}\dot{x}_{k}=d_{1}(y_{k}-2x_{k}+y_{k-1})+d_{2} (x_{k+1}-2x_{k}+x_{k-1})-f_{a}(x_{k}),\quad j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^N\cr
{\displaystyle}\dot{y}_{k}=d_{1}(x_{k+1}-2y_{k}+x_{k})+d_{2} (y_{k+1}-2y_{k}+y_{k-1})-f_{a}(y_{k})
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$
To compute the equilibria, define $(x_{\pm},y_{\pm})$ by $$\lim_{j \to -\infty}(x_{j},y_{j})=(x_{-},y_{-}),\lim_{j \to \infty}(x_{j},y_{j})=(x_{+},y_{+})$$ The equilibria satisfy $E:=\{(x,y) \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2} | y=x+\frac{f_{a}(x)}{2d_{1}},f_{a}(x)=-f_{a}(y)\}$. Let $$v_{j}=\frac{x_{j}-x_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}},w_{j}=\frac{y_{j}-y_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}}.$$ Then substituting into we obtain $$\label{main-eq22}
\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle}\dot{v}_{k}=d_{e}(w_{k}-2v_{k}+w_{k-1})+d_{2} (v_{k+1}-2v_{k}+v_{k-1})-f_{e}(v_{k}),\quad j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^N\cr
{\displaystyle}\dot{w}_{k}=d_{o}(v_{k+1}-2w_{k}+v_{k})+d_{2} (w_{k+1}-2w_{k}+w_{k-1})-f_{o}(w_{k}),
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $d_{e}=d_{1}\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}},d_{o}=d_{1}\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}}$ and $$f_{e}=(x_{+}-x_{-})^{2}f_{a_{e}}(v_{j}), f_{o}=(y_{+}-y_{-})^{2}f_{a_{o}}(w_{j}),$$with $$a_{e}=-\frac{f''(x_{-})}{x_{+}-x_{-}}-1,a_{o}=-\frac{f''(y_{-})}{y_{+}-y_{-}}-1.$$
By choosing proper x,y such that $d_{e},d_{0} >0$. If $d_{2}=0$, this is the case studied in [@BVV]. We remark that the case with $d_{2}=0$ can be easily extended to the case with $d_{2}\geq 0$.
Let $\Psi:=(v,w)^{T}$. Define $$\Delta_{0}\Psi:=\begin{cases}
\label{main-eq2}
\frac{1}{h^{2}}d_{e}(w(x)-2v(x)+w(x-h)),\quad j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^N\cr
\frac{1}{h^{2}}d_{o}(v(x+h)-2w(x)+v(x)),
\end{cases}$$ and $$\Delta_{\epsilon}\Psi:=\begin{cases}
\label{main-eq22n}
\frac{1}{h^{2}} [d_{e}(w(x)-2v(x)+w(x-h))+\epsilon d_{2} (v(x+h)-2v(x)+v(x-h))],\cr
\frac{1}{h^{2}} [d_{o}(v(x+h)-2w(x)+v(x))+\epsilon d_{2} (w(x+h)-2w(x)+w(x-h))].
\end{cases}$$
If $g(x)=(g_{1}(x),g_{2}(x))^{T} \in H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2})$, we denote $g'=(g'_{1},g'_{2})^{T}$. Now consider $$\label{main-eq2n}
\begin{cases}
c \Psi'-\Delta_{\epsilon}\Psi + F(\Psi)=0,\quad
\quad \cr \Psi(-\infty)=0,\Psi(\infty)=1\quad,
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ and $$\label{ref-eq2}
\begin{cases}
c \Psi'-\Delta_{0}\Psi + F(\Psi)=0,\quad
\quad \cr \Psi(-\infty)=0,\Psi(\infty)=1\quad,
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $d_{e}=d\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}},d_{o}=d\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}}$ and $F(\Psi)=(f_{e}(v), f_{o}(w))^{T}$.
We can pick those equilibria $(x^{\pm},y^{\pm})$ such that after the transformation, any other 2-periodic state $\vec{\phi}=\{\phi_{n}\}_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ with $\phi_{n} \in (0, 1)$, if it exists, is unstable. By Theorem \[CGW-prop\], there exists a traveling wave solution $(c_{0},\phi_{0})$ for . To study the system , we will apply the perturbation arguments in Section 3.1.
Let $\phi=\phi_{0}+\psi$. Following [@BCC], we formulate the problem as $$L_{0} \psi=R(c,\psi),$$ where $$L_{0} \psi= c_{0}\psi'-\Delta_{0}\psi+\gamma(\phi_0)\psi,$$ $$R(c,\psi)=(c_{0}-c)(\phi_{0}'+\psi')+(\Delta_{\epsilon}-\Delta_{0})(\phi_{0}+\psi)-N(\phi_{0},\psi),$$ $$N(\phi_{0},\psi)=F(\phi_{0}+\psi)-F(\phi_{0})-\gamma(\phi_0)\psi.$$
To investigate the assumption (H4), we let $L_{\epsilon}\phi:=c_{\epsilon}\phi'- \Delta_{\epsilon}\phi+ \gamma(\phi_{\epsilon}) \phi $ and $L_{\epsilon}^{*}\phi:=-c_{\epsilon}\phi'- \Delta_{\epsilon}^{*}\phi+ \gamma(\phi_{\epsilon}) \phi $, where $c_{\epsilon}\neq 0$, $\phi_{\epsilon}(\infty)=1$ and $\phi_{\epsilon}(-\infty)=0$, where $$\Delta^{*}_{\epsilon}\Phi:=\begin{cases}
\label{main-eq26}
\frac{1}{h^{2}} [d_{o}w(x)-2 d_{e}v(x)+d_{o}w(x-h)+\epsilon d_{2} (v(x+h)-2v(x)+v(x-h))],\cr
\frac{1}{h^{2}} [d_{e}v(x+h)-2d_{o}w(x)+d_{e}v(x)+\epsilon d_{2} (w(x+h)-2w(x)+w(x-h))].
\end{cases}.$$
\[main-lm1\] For any $\phi \in H^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2})$, $\langle \Delta_{\epsilon}\phi,\phi' \rangle = 0$.
The proof follows from the direct computation.
We assume that
[**(B1)**]{} [*$L_{\epsilon}(\pm\infty)$ and $L_{\epsilon}^{*}(\pm\infty)$ are hyperbolic.*]{}
We rewrite operators $L_{\epsilon}(\pm\infty)\phi:=c_{\epsilon}\phi'- \Delta_{\epsilon}\phi+ \gamma^{\pm} \phi $ and $L_{\epsilon}^{*}(\pm\infty)\phi:=-c_{\epsilon}\phi'- \Delta_{\epsilon}^{*}\phi+ \gamma^{\pm} \phi $, where $\gamma^{\pm}=\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} \gamma^{\pm}_{1} & 0\\
0 &\gamma^{\pm}_{2}\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ for i=1,2 with $\gamma^{+}_{1}=f_{e}'(1),\gamma^{+}_{2}=f_{o}'(1)$ and $\gamma^{-}_{1}=f_{e}'(0),\gamma^{-}_{2}=f_{o}'(0)$.
To determine whether $L_{\epsilon}(\pm\infty)$ or $L_{\epsilon}^{*}(\pm\infty)$ are hyperbolic, we need to determine if $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}(\pm\infty)}(i\theta)\neq 0$ or $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}^{*}(\pm\infty)}(i\theta)\neq 0$ for $\theta \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, where $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}(\pm\infty)}(s):= det(sI-{\displaystyle}\Sigma_{i=1}^{3}A_{i}^{+} e^{r_{i} s})$ and $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}^{*}(\pm\infty)}(s):= det(sI-{\displaystyle}\Sigma_{i=1}^{3}A_{i}^{-} e^{r_{i} s})$ with $A_{1}^{+} =\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & \frac{d_{e}}{h^{2}}\\
0 & 0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), A_{2}^{+} =\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} -\frac{2d_{e}}{h^{2}}- \gamma_{1}^{\pm}& \frac{d_{e}}{h^{2}}\\
\frac{d_{0}}{h^{2}}& -\frac{2d_{0}}{h^{2}}- \gamma_{2}^{\pm}\end{smallmatrix}\bigr), A_{3}^{+} =\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 0\\
\frac{d_{0}}{h^{2}} & 0\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$, and $A_{1}^{-}=(A_{3}^{+})^{T}$, $A_{2}^{-}=(A_{2}^{+})^{T}$,$A_{3}^{-}=(A_{1}^{+})^{T}$, where $(A_{i}^{+})^{T}$ is the transpose of $A_{i}^{+}$ for $i=1,2,3$. First we consider the operator $L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)$. Without loss of generality, we set $h=1$ and $s=i\theta$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(s)&=|\bigl(\begin{matrix} s-[\epsilon d_{2}(e^{-s}-2-e^{s})-2d_{e}-\gamma_{1}^{\pm}] & -d_{e}(1+e^{-s})\\
-d_{o}(1+e^{s}) & s-[\epsilon d_{2}(e^{-s}-2-e^{s})-2d_{o}-\gamma_{2}^{\pm}]\end{matrix}\bigr)|\\
&=|\bigl(\begin{matrix} s-[2\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)-2d_{e}-\gamma_{1}^{\pm}] & -d_{e}(1+e^{-s})\\
-d_{o}(1+e^{s}) & s-[2\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)-2d_{o}-\gamma_{2}^{\pm}]\end{matrix}\bigr)|\\
&=-\theta^{2}-i[4\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)-2d_{e}-\gamma_{1}^{\pm}-2d_{o}-\gamma_{2}^{\pm}]\theta\\
&\quad +[2\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)-2d_{e}-\gamma_{1}^{\pm}][2\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)-2d_{o}-\gamma_{2}^{\pm}]-2d_{e}d_{o}(1+cos\theta).\end{aligned}$$ The imaginary part $Im(\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(s))=[4\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)-2d_{e}-\gamma_{1}^{\pm}-2d_{o}-\gamma_{2}^{\pm}]\theta$.
The real part $Re(\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(s))=-\theta^{2}+[2\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)-2d_{e}-\gamma_{1}^{\pm}][2\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)-2d_{o}-\gamma_{2}^{\pm}]-2d_{e}d_{o}(1+cos\theta)$. We have the following lemma.
If $\theta \neq 0$, $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(i \theta)\neq 0$.
Let $s=i \theta$. If $Im(\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(s))=0$ and $\theta \neq 0$, then $4\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)-2d_{e}-\gamma_{1}^{\pm}-2d_{o}-\gamma_{2}^{\pm}=0$. Thus, $2\epsilon d_{2}(cos\theta-1)=d_{e}+d_{o}+1/2\gamma_{1}^{\pm}+1/2\gamma_{2}^{\pm}]$. Plugging into $Re(\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(s))$, we have $Re(\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(s))=-\theta^{2}+[d_{o}-d_{e}-1/2\gamma_{1}^{\pm}+1/2\gamma_{2}^{\pm}][d_{e}-d_{o}+1/2\gamma_{1}^{\pm}-1/2\gamma_{2}^{\pm}]-2d_{e}d_{o}(1+cos\theta).$ Since $d_{o}d_{e}=d_{1}^{2}$, we have $Re(\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(s))=-\theta^{2}-[d_{o}-d_{e}-1/2\gamma_{1}^{\pm}+1/2\gamma_{2}^{\pm}]^{2}-2d_{1}^{2}(1+cos\theta)<0.$
Note that $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(s)=\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}^{*}({\pm}\infty)}(s)$ since they are symmetric with respect to $d_{o},d_{e}$. Thus, we have the following corollary.
The following are equivalent:
- $L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)$ are hyperbolic;
- $L_{\epsilon}^{*}({\pm}\infty)$ are hyperbolic;
- $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(0)\neq 0$ or $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}^{*}({\pm}\infty)}(0)\neq 0$.
We remark that for some typical bistable nonlinearity, we do have $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(0)\neq 0$ or $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}^{*}({\pm}\infty)}(0)\neq 0$.
If $\gamma_{1}^{\pm}\gamma_{2}^{\pm}>0$, $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(0)\neq 0$ and $\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}^{*}({\pm}\infty)}(0)\neq 0$.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon_{L_{\epsilon}({\pm}\infty)}(0)&=|\bigl(\begin{matrix} 2d_{e}+\gamma_{1}^{\pm} & -2d_{e}\\
-2d_{o} & 2d_{o}+\gamma_{2}^{\pm}\end{matrix}\bigr)|\\
&=2d_{e}\gamma_{2}^{\pm}+2d_{o}\gamma_{1}^{\pm}+\gamma_{1}^{\pm}\gamma_{2}^{\pm}\\
&>0.
\end{aligned}$$
Recall that in \[ref-eq2\], $f_{e}(u)=(x_{+}-x_{-})^{2}u(u-a_{e})(u-1)$ and $f_{o}(u)=(y_{+}-y_{-})^{2}u(u-a_{o})(u-1)$. As long as $a_{e},a_{o} \in (0,1)$, it is easy to verify that $f'_{e}(1)f'_{o}(1)>0$ and $f'_{e}(0)f'_{o}(0)>0$. Thus, we have $\gamma_{1}^{\pm}\gamma_{2}^{\pm}>0$ and then (B1) or (H4) is satisfied.
Let $c(\psi)$ be the unique constant such that $R(c,\psi)\bot \psi_{0}^{-}$ so that $$c(\psi)=c_{0}+\frac{\langle \triangle_{\epsilon}\phi_{0}-\triangle_{0}\phi_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle+\langle (\triangle_{\epsilon}-\triangle_{0})\psi,\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle-\langle N(\phi_{0},\psi),\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle}
{\langle \phi'_{0},\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle+\langle \psi',\psi_{0}^{-} \rangle}.$$ Define $$T \psi=S^{-1}R(c(\psi),\psi).$$
[ *\[Existence-tws-thm\] Suppose $c_{0}\neq 0$. The problem (\[ref-eq2\]) admits a traveling wave solution.*]{}
It suffices to verify the assumptions (H1-H4) in Theorem \[traveling-wave-thm\]. Note that $$f_{e}=(x_{+}-x_{-})^{2}f_{a_{e}}(v_{j}), f_{o}=(y_{+}-y_{-})^{2}f_{a_{o}}(w_{j}).$$ As long as we choose those $f_{e}, f_{o}$ with bistable nonlinearities, (H1) is satisfied. By the choices of equilibria, $d_{e}$ and $d_{o}$ are positive. By Theorem \[CGW-prop\], (H2) is satisfied. Let $B=\triangle_{1}-\triangle_{0}$. It is obvious that $B\vec{1}=B\vec{0}=0$. Note that $$\|B\phi_{\epsilon}\|_{L^{2}}^{2}=(d_{2})^{2}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}[v(x+h)-2v(x)+v(x-h)]^{2}dx+ (d_{2})^{2}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}[w(x+h)-2w(x)+w(x-h)]^{2}dx\\$$ Since $v(\infty)=1$ and $v(-\infty)=0$, there exists $M>0$ such that $\int_{|x|>M}[v(x+h)-2v(x)+v(x-h)]^{2}dx <1$ and $\int_{|x|>M}[w(x+h)-2w(x)+w(x-h)]^{2}dx <1$. Thus, $\|B\phi_{\epsilon}\|_{L^{2}}^{2} <\infty$ and (H3) is satisfied. Note that the assumption (H4) is automatically satisfied. By Remark \[extensionremark\], $\epsilon$ can be extended to 1. This completes the proof.
Up to now we studied the cases under $d>0$ and $d<0$ with $|d_{1}|\gg |d_{2}| $. Next we study the case $d<0$ with $|d_{2}|\gg |d_{1}|$.
Traveling Waves Connecting Two 4-Periodic States
------------------------------------------------
If $|d_{2}|\gg |d_{1}|$, 2-D transformation may not work because (H4) may not be satisfied. Instead of writing the nodes in ordered pairs, we write the nodes of the equation as $w=\{w_{j}\}_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^{N}}$, $x=\{x_{j}\}_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^{N}}$, $y=\{y_{j}\}_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^{N}}$ and $z=\{z_{j}\}_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^{N}}$, respectively. We obtain $$\label{main-eq320}
\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle}\dot{w}_{k}=d_{1}(z_{k-1}-2w_{k}+x_{k})+d_{2} (y_{k-1}-2w_{k}+y_{k})-f_{a}(w_{k}),\cr
{\displaystyle}\dot{x}_{k}=d_{1}(w_{k}-2x_{k}+y_{k})+d_{2} (z_{k-1}-2x_{k}+z_{k})-f_{a}(x_{k}),\cr
{\displaystyle}\dot{y}_{k}=d_{1}(x_{k}-2y_{k}+z_{k})+d_{2} (w_{k}-2y_{k}+w_{k+1})-f_{a}(y_{k}),\cr
{\displaystyle}\dot{z}_{k}=d_{1}(y_{k}-2z_{k}+w_{k+1})+d_{2} (x_{k}-2z_{k}+x_{k+1})-f_{a}(z_{k}),\quad k \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^N.
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$
To compute the equilibria, define $(w_{\pm},x_{\pm},y_{\pm},z_{\pm})$ by $$\lim_{j \to -\infty}(w_{j},x_{j},y_{j},z_{j})=(w_{-},x_{-},y_{-},z_{-}),\lim_{j \to \infty}(w_{j},x_{j},y_{j},z_{j})=(w_{+},x_{+},y_{+},z_{+}).$$
The equilibria $(w,x,y,z) \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{4}$ satisfies $$\label{main-eq321}
\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle}d_{1}(z-2w+x)+2d_{2} (y-w)=f_{a}(w),\cr
{\displaystyle}d_{1}(w-2x+y)+2d_{2} (z-x)=f_{a}(x),\cr
{\displaystyle}d_{1}(x-2y+z)+2d_{2} (w-y)=f_{a}(y),\cr
{\displaystyle}d_{1}(y-2z+w)+2d_{2} (x-z)=f_{a}(z).
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$
Let $$\hat{w}_{j}=\frac{w_{j}-w_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}}, \hat{x}_{j}=\frac{x_{j}-x_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}},\hat{y}_{j}=\frac{y_{j}-y_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}}, \hat{z}_{j}=\frac{z_{j}-z_{-}}{z_{+}-z_{-}}.$$ Then substituting into , for simplicity, we discard the hats for w,x,y,z and obtain $$\label{main-eq322}
\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle}\dot{w}_{k}=a_{14}z_{k-1}-b_{11}w_{k}+b_{12}x_{k}+a_{13}y_{k-1}+b_{13} y_{k}-f_{1}(w_{k}),\cr
{\displaystyle}\dot{x}_{k}=b_{21}w_{k}-b_{22}x_{k}+b_{23}y_{k}+a_{24}z_{k-1}+b_{24}z_{k}-f_{2}(x_{k}),\cr
{\displaystyle}\dot{y}_{k}=b_{32}x_{k}-b_{33}y_{k}+b_{34}z_{k}+b_{31}w_{k}+c_{31}w_{k+1}-f_{3}(y_{k}),\cr
{\displaystyle}\dot{z}_{k}=b_{43}y_{k}-b_{44}z_{k}+c_{41}w_{k+1}+b_{42}x_{k}+c_{42}x_{k+1}-f_{4}(z_{k}),\quad k \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^N,
\end{cases}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $A_{1}=(a_{ij})$, $A_{2}=(b_{ij})$ and $A_{3}=(c_{ij})$ are 4 by 4 matrices given by
$$A_{1}=\left( \begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & d_{2}\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}}& d_{1}\frac{z_{+}-z_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}}\\
0 & 0 & 0& d_{2}\frac{z_{+}-z_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}}\\
0 & 0 & 0& 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& 0\\
\end{matrix}\right),$$
$$A_{2}=\left( \begin{matrix} -b_{11} & d_{1}\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}} & d_{2}\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}}& 0\\
d_{1}\frac{w_{+}-w_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}} & -b_{22} & d_{1}\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}}& d_{2}\frac{z_{+}-z_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}}\\
d_{2}\frac{w_{+}-w_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}} & d_{1}\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}} & -b_{33}& d_{1}\frac{z_{+}-z_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}} \\
0 & d_{2}\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{z_{+}-z_{-}} & d_{1}\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{z_{+}-z_{-}}& -b_{44}\\
\end{matrix}\right),$$ $$A_{3}=\left( \begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & 0& 0\\
0 & 0 & 0& 0\\
d_{2}\frac{w_{+}-w_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}} & 0 & 0& 0 \\
d_{1}\frac{w_{+}-w_{-}}{z_{+}-z_{-}} & d_{2}\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{z_{+}-z_{-}} & 0& 0\\
\end{matrix}\right),$$ with $b_{ii}$ (i=1,2,3,4) is such that $A_{1}+A_{2}+A_{3}=0$. Note that $(A_{1}+A_{2}+A_{3}) \mathbf{\vec{1}}=0$, since $\mathbf{\vec{1}}$ is an equilibrium, we have $f_{i}(1)=0$. Obviously, $f_{i}(0)=0$. Thus, $f_{i}(\xi)$ is of form $f_{i}(\xi)=k_{i}\xi(\xi-c_{i})(\xi-1)$ for some $k_{i}, c_{i} \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
For simplicity, let $x(\xi)=(w(\xi),x(\xi),y(\xi),z(\xi))^{T}$ and $F(x)=(f_{1}(w),f_{2}(x),f_{3}(y),f_{4}(z))^{T}$, then we consider the following system of equations in
$$\label{4D-eq}
cx'(\xi)-\sum_{j=1}^{3} A_{j}(\xi)x(\xi+r_{j})+F(x)=0, x(-\infty)=\vec{0}, x(\infty)=\vec{1},
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $r_{1}=-h$, $r_{2}=0$ and $r_{1}=h$.\
Choose the equilibria with $w_{+}-w_{-}>0, x_{+}-x_{-}>0, y_{+}-y_{-}<0$, and $z_{+}-z_{-}<0$ (or with $w_{+}-w_{-}<0, x_{+}-x_{-}<0, y_{+}-y_{-}>0$, and $z_{+}-z_{-}>0$). Without loss of generality, assume $d_{1}<0$. We rewrite the system of equations (\[4D-eq\]) as the following: $$\label{4D-system}
cx'(\xi)-\sum_{j=1}^{3} \tilde{A}_{j}(\xi)x(\xi+r_{j})+\sum_{j=1}^{3} B_{j}(\xi)x(\xi+r_{j})+F(x)=0, x(-\infty)=\vec{0}, x(\infty)=\vec{1}
,
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $r_{1}=-h$, $r_{2}=0$ and $r_{1}=h$,\
$$\tilde{A}_{1}=\left( \begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & d_{2}\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}}& d_{1}\frac{z_{+}-z_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}}\\
0 & 0 & 0& d_{2}\frac{z_{+}-z_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}}\\
0 & 0 & 0& 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& 0\\
\end{matrix}\right),$$
$$\tilde{A}_{2}=\left( \begin{matrix} -\tilde{b}_{11} & 0 & d_{2}\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}}& 0\\
0 & -\tilde{b}_{22} & 0& d_{2}\frac{z_{+}-z_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}}\\
d_{2}\frac{w_{+}-w_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}} & 0 & -\tilde{b}_{33}& d_{1}\frac{z_{+}-z_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}} \\
0 & d_{2}\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{z_{+}-z_{-}} & d_{1}\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{z_{+}-z_{-}}& -\tilde{b}_{44}\\
\end{matrix}\right),$$ $$\tilde{A}_{3}=\left( \begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & 0& 0\\
0 & 0 & 0& 0\\
d_{2}\frac{w_{+}-w_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}} & 0 & 0& 0 \\
d_{1}\frac{w_{+}-w_{-}}{z_{+}-z_{-}} & d_{2}\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{z_{+}-z_{-}} & 0& 0\\
\end{matrix}\right),$$ and $B_{1}=B_{3}=0$
$$B_{2}=d_{1}\left( \begin{matrix} -\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}} & \frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{w_{+}-w_{-}} & 0 & 0\\
\frac{w_{+}-w_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}} & -\frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}}-\frac{w_{+}-w_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}} & \frac{y_{+}-y_{-}}{x_{+}-x_{-}} & 0\\
0 & \frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}} & -\frac{x_{+}-x_{-}}{y_{+}-y_{-}} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\end{matrix}\right),$$ with $\tilde{b}_{ii}$ (i=1,2,3,4) is such that $\tilde{A}_{1}+\tilde{A}_{2}+\tilde{A}_{3}+B_{2}=0$.
Consider the reference system, $$\label{Ref-4D-eq}
cx'(\xi)-\sum_{j=1}^{3} \tilde{A}_{j}(\xi)x(\xi+r_{j})+F(x)=0, x(-\infty)=\vec{0}, x(\infty)=\vec{1},
\vspace{-.1in}$$ where $r_{1}=-h$, $r_{2}=0$ and $r_{1}=h$.\
We can pick those equilibria $(w^{\pm}, x^{\pm},y^{\pm}, z^{\pm})$ such that after the transformation to $\vec{0}$ and $\vec{1}$, any other 4-periodic state $\vec{\phi}=\{\phi_{n}\}_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ with $\phi_{n} \in (0, 1)$, if it exists, is unstable. In this paper, we focus on the cases having bistable dynamics after the transformation. By Theorem \[CGW-prop\], there exists a traveling wave solution $(c_{0}, \phi_{0})$ for (\[Ref-4D-eq\]).
Denote $\Lambda x:=\sum_{j=1}^{3} A_{j}(\xi)x(\xi+r_{j}).$ Let $B x:=\sum_{j=1}^{3} B_{j}(\xi)x(\xi+r_{j})$ and $\Lambda_{\epsilon}= \Lambda+\epsilon B$. We consider the following: $$\label{Perturbed-4D-eq} cx'-\Lambda_{\epsilon} x+F(x)=0, x(-\infty)=\vec{0}, x(\infty)=\vec{1}.
\vspace{-.1in}$$
Let $L_{0}^{+}\phi:=c_{0}\phi'- \Lambda_{0} \phi+ \gamma(\phi_{0})\phi $ and $L_{0}^{-}\phi:=-c_{0}\phi'- \Lambda_{0}^{*}\phi+ \gamma(\phi_{0})\phi $, where $\Lambda_{0}^{*}\Psi$ is the adjoint operator of $\Lambda_{0}$. We assume that 1em
[**(D1)**]{} [*$L_{0}^{\pm}$ are asymptotically hyperbolic.*]{}
[ *\[4D-existence-thm\] Suppose $c_{0}\neq 0$. Assume $(D1)$. Then there exists a positive constant $\epsilon^{*}$ such that for every $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon^{*}]$, the problem admits a solution $(c_{\epsilon},\phi_{\epsilon})$ satisfying $$\lim_{c_{\epsilon} \to c_{0}}(c_{\epsilon},\phi_{\epsilon})=(c_{0},\phi_{0}).$$* ]{}
By Remark \[extensionremark\], we can extend $\epsilon^{*}$ if $(H4)$ is satisfied. If we can extend $\epsilon^{*}$ to 1, then we successfully get the existence of traveling wave solution for Equation . We remark that, unlike the previous 2D case, (H4) is not automatically satisfied for this 4D system. At the end of each extension, we have to check the assumption (H4). Let $L_{\epsilon}(\pm\infty)\phi:=c_{\epsilon}\phi'- \Delta_{\epsilon}\phi+ \gamma^{\pm} \phi $ and $L_{\epsilon}^{*}(\pm\infty)\phi:=-c_{\epsilon}\phi'- \Delta_{\epsilon}^{*}\phi+ \gamma^{\pm} \phi $, where $\gamma^{\pm}=\begin{pmatrix} \gamma^{\pm}_{1} & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 &\gamma^{\pm}_{2}& 0& 0\\
0 & 0&\gamma^{\pm}_{3}& 0\\
0& 0& 0&\gamma^{\pm}_{4}
\end{pmatrix}$ for i=1,2,3,4 with $\gamma^{+}_{i}=f_{i}'(1),\gamma^{-}_{i}=f_{i}'(0)$ for i=1,2,3,4. (H4) is equivalent to the following: 1em [**($\hat{D}1$)**]{} [*$L_{\epsilon}(\pm\infty)$ and $L_{\epsilon}^{*}(\pm\infty)$ are hyperbolic.*]{}
In this section we have considered $\tilde A_j$ such that the results in [@CGW] on existence of traveling waves for bistable problems give monotone waveforms for the limiting system. This yields, via the results in [@HVV], a one dimensional kernel for the linearization about the reference solution. Alternatively, if perturbations include all terms multiplying $d_1$, then the limiting system is decoupled and (A4) is not satisfied. However, by considering the even and odd systems independently, the linearization about the reference solution has a two dimensional kernel and the behavior of solutions under perturbation may be analyzed using the bifurcation equations obtained through the Lyapunov-Schmidt reduction.
Traveling Waves for LDEs with Infinite-Range Interactions
---------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we study the a generalized model of [@CGW] by adding some infinite range interactions. Consider the following: $$\label{Infinity-CGW-eq}
\dot{u}_{n}(t)=\sum_{k}a_{n,k}u_{n+k}(t)+f_{n}(u_{n}(t)), n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}, t>0, \vspace{-.1in}$$ where the coefficients $a_{n,k}$ are real numbers satisfying $\sum_{k}a_{n,k}e^{k\lambda}<\infty$ for any $\lambda \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and satisfy the assumptions (A1,A2,A4,A5). Compared with the equation in [@CGW], the essential difference is in (A3) and (A5), where we remove the assumption (A3), finite range interactions, and consider an infinite sum in (A5).
Consider the finite range interaction problem as in [@CGW], $$\label{Infinity-CGW-refeq}
\dot{u}_{n}(t)=\sum_{0<|k|\leq k_{0}}a_{n,k}[u_{n+k}(t)-u_{n}(t)]+f_{n}(u_{n}(t)), n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}, t>0. \vspace{-.1in}$$ By Theorem \[CGW-prop\], there exists a traveling wave solution $(c_{0}, \phi_{0})$ for (\[Infinity-CGW-refeq\]). Let $$(\Lambda u)_{n}(t):=-c u_{n}'(t)+\sum_{0<|k|\leq k_{0}} a_{n,k}[u_{n+k}(t)-u_{n}(t)]$$ and $$(B u)_{n}(t):=\sum_{|k| > k_{0}}a_{n,k}[u_{n+k}(t)-u_{n}(t)].$$ Let $\Lambda_{\epsilon}= \Lambda+\epsilon B$. Then we have the perturbed equation of , $$\label{CGW-Perturbed-eq}
(\Lambda_{\epsilon} u)_{n}(t)+f_{n}(u_{n}(t))=0,u_{n}(+\infty)=1 \ and \ u_{n}(-\infty)=0, n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}, t>0. \vspace{-.1in}$$
Let $(L_{0}^+ u)_{n}(t):=(\Lambda u)_{n}(t)+f'_{n}((\phi_{0})_{n})u_{n}(t)$. Let $$(\hat{L}_{\infty}^{+}\phi)_{n}(t):=(\Lambda u)_{n}(t)+ f'_{n}(1)\phi$$ and $$(\hat{L}_{-\infty}^{+}\phi)_{n}(t):=(\Lambda u)_{n}(t)+ f'_{n}(0)\phi.$$ Then we have their adjoint operators, denoted by $\hat{L}_{\infty}^{-}\phi$ and $\hat{L}_{-\infty}^{-}\phi$. We make an assumption,\
[**($E1$)**]{} [*$\hat{L}_{\infty}^{\pm}$ and $\hat{L}_{-\infty}^{\pm}$ are hyperbolic.*]{}
Let ${\displaystyle}(B_{k_{0}}\phi)_{i}:=\sum_{|k|< k_{0}}a_{n,k}e^{k\mu}\phi_{i+k}$ for given $\mu \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Consider the eigenvalue problem: $$\label{BCC-eigen-eq}
\lambda \phi_{i}=(B_{k_{0}}\phi)_{i} + L_{i} \phi_{i}
\vspace{-.1in}$$ with $\phi_{i+n}=\phi_{i}\geq 0$, $\|\phi\|_{\infty}=1$ and $L_{i} \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
For each $k_{0}$, if $B_{k_{0}}$ is irreducible and quasipositive(i.e, off-diagonal elements are nonnegative), then principal eigenvalue exists, denoted by $\lambda(k_{0})$. Moreover, if both $\lambda(k_{0})$ and $\lambda(\infty)$ exist, ${\displaystyle}\lim_{k_{0} \to \infty }\lambda(k_{0})= \lambda(\infty)$.
The existence of a principal eigenvalue is followed by Krein-Rutman theorem. Moreover, we have that ${\displaystyle}\lambda(k_{0})=\lim_{n \to \infty}\|B_{k_{0}}^{n}\|^{1/n}$, which implies that ${\displaystyle}\lim_{k_{0} \to \infty }\lambda(k_{0})= \lambda(\infty)$.
Let $(\lambda_{0},\{\phi_{i}^{0}\})$ and $(\lambda_{1},\{\phi_{i}^{1}\})$ be the corresponding principal eigenvalue and eigenvectors for $L_{i}=f_{i}'(0)$ and $f_{i}'(1)$ respectively.
\[lemma4.5\] A traveling wave must have exponential tails: $$\lim_{i-ct \to -\infty}\frac{u_{i}(t)}{e^{(i-ct)\lambda_{0}}\phi_{i}^{0}}=h^{-},\lim_{i-cti-ct \to \infty}\frac{u_{i}(t)}{e^{(i-ct)\lambda_{1}}\phi_{i}^{1}}=h^{+},$$ where $(\lambda_{0},\{\phi_{i}^{0}\})$ and $(\lambda_{1},\{\phi_{i}^{1}\})$ are the corresponding principal eigenvalue and eigenvectors for eigenvalue problem .
This can be proved by modifying the arguments (replacing $k_{0}$, that defines the finite range of interactions, with n, the period of the media) in the proof of Theorem 2 of [@CGW].
Then we have the following theorem.
*\[IR-Thm\] Assume that (E1) and $\vec{0}$ and $\vec{1}$ are steady-states and any other N-periodic state $\vec{\phi}=\{\phi_{n}\}_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ with $\phi_{n} \in (0, 1)$, if it exists, is unstable. Then*
- There exists an $\epsilon^*$ such that for all $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon^*]$, the problem (\[CGW-Perturbed-eq\]) admits a solution $(c, \vec{w})$ satisfying $\vec{w}(-\infty) =\vec{0} < \vec{w}(\xi) < \vec{1} = \vec{w}(+\infty)$ for all $\xi \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}.$
- If for some positive integer $k_{0}$ and $\Pi(k_0)$ which is such that ${\displaystyle}\sum_{|k|>k_{0}}a_{n,k} <\Pi(k_0)$ and $K_{2}<1/C_{0}$ in Lemma \[estimate-lm33\], the problem (\[Infinity-CGW-eq\]) admits a solution $(c, \vec{w})$ satisfying $\vec{w}(-\infty) =\vec{0} < \vec{w}(\xi) < \vec{1} = \vec{w}(+\infty)$ for all $\xi \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}.$
Moreover, for $0<\epsilon\ll 1$, $c\dot{\phi}_{n}(\xi)<0$ for $c \neq 0$, $n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $\xi \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}.$
The existence of traveling waves follows from the arguments in Section 3. Next we show that monotonicity persists under small perturbations. By the arguments in Theorem 2 of [@CGW] (see Lemma \[lemma4.5\]), a traveling wave must have exponential tails: $$\lim_{i-ct \to -\infty}\frac{u_{i}(t)}{e^{(i-ct)\lambda_{0}}\phi_{i}^{0}}=h^{-},\lim_{i-cti-ct \to \infty}\frac{u_{i}(t)}{e^{(i-ct)\lambda_{1}}\phi_{i}^{1}}=h^{+},$$ where $(\lambda_{0},\{\phi_{i}^{0}\})$ and $(\lambda_{1},\{\phi_{i}^{1}\})$ are the corresponding principal eigenvalue and eigenvectors for $L_{i}=f_{i}'(0)$ and $f_{i}'(1)$ respectively: $$\mu \phi_{i}=\Sigma_{k}a_{n,k}\phi_{i+k} + L_{i} \phi_{i},$$ with $\phi_{i+n}=\phi_{i}\geq 0$, $\|\phi\|_{\infty}=1$. Dividing the Equation by $e^{(i-ct)\lambda_{0}}\phi_{i}^{0}$ and taking the limit for $i-ct \to - \infty$, we have ${\displaystyle}\lim_{i-ct \to -\infty}\frac{\frac{\partial u_{i}(t)}{\partial t}}{e^{(i-ct)\lambda_{0}}\phi_{i}^{0}}=\lambda_{0}h^{-}$. Similarly we have ${\displaystyle}-\lim_{i-ct \to \infty}\frac{\frac{\partial u_{i}(t)}{\partial t}}{e^{(i-ct)\lambda_{1}}\phi_{i}^{1}}=\lambda_{1}h^{+}$. Note that $\lambda_{0}>0$ and $\lambda_{1}<0$. We have that $\frac{\partial u_{i}(t)}{\partial t}$ has the same sign as $|i-ct|>M$ for some large M. Thus the traveling wave will preserve the monotonicity at the two far ends for small perturbation because the principal eigenvalue will preserve the sign for small perturbation. Obviously, $\frac{\partial u_{i}(t)}{\partial t}$ will preserve the sign on $i-ct \in [-M,M]$ for small perturbation. This completes the proof.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we develop an existence theory via perturbation arguments for traveling wave solutions of vector lattice differential equations. Motivation comes from problems in which there is not a comparison principle. In particular, we consider lattice differential equations in which there are repelling first and/or second nearest neighbor interactions. The structure of the kernel (see Proposition 8.2 in [@HVV]) of the linearized operator of the limiting system is central to our analysis. Our general result is modeled after the perturbation arguments in [@BCC]. A possible alternative approach is the Newton/Lyapunov-Schmidt method developed in [@HL1; @HVV]. Finally, we employ the technique developed here to show the existence of traveling waves for bistable lattice differential equations in periodic media with infinite range interactions. Although the results obtained here are primarily of a local nature, they may be extended to global continuation results in certain cases. This necessitates a Fredholm theory for linearized operators that do not satisfy a strict ellipticity conditions such as (A5), e.g., see [@BCC], together with results on the dimension and structure of the kernel. While the Fredholm theory for problems with infinite range interactions is not well developed, the results in [@LVV] apply to certain infinite range interactions.
[99]{} P. W. Bates, X.F. Chen, A. Chmaj, Traveling waves of bistable dynamics on a lattice. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 35 (2003), no. 2, 520-546. M. Brucal - Hallare, E.S. Van Vleck, Traveling fronts in an antidiffusion lattice Nagumo model, (2011) SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Sys. 10 921-959. J.W. Cahn, J. Mallet-Paret, E.S. Van Vleck, Traveling wave solutions for systems of ODEs on a two-dimensional spatial lattice. (1999) SIAM J. Appl. Math. 59 455-493. X.F. Chen, J.S. Guo, C.C. Wu, Traveling waves in discrete periodic media for bistable dynamics. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 189 (2008), no. 2, 189-236. S.N. Chow, J. Mallet-Paret, W.X. Shen, Traveling waves in lattice dynamical systems. J. Differential Equations 149 (1998), no. 2, 248–291. J. Harterich, B. Sandstede, A. Scheel, Exponential dichotomies for linear non-autonomous functional differential equations of mixed type. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 51 (2002), no. 5, 1081-1109. H. J. Hupkes , S. M. Verduyn-Lunel, Analysis of Newton’s method to compute travelling waves in discrete media. J. Dynam. Differential Equations 17 (2005), no. 3, 523–572. H. J. Hupkes , S. M. Verduyn-Lunel, Center manifold theory for functional differential equations of mixed type. J. Dynam. Diff. Eqns. 19 (2007), no. 2, 497-560. H. J. Hupkes, S. M. Verduyn-Lunel, Lin’s method and homoclinic bifurcations for functional differential equations of mixed type. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 58 (2009), no. 6, 2433-2487. H. J. Hupkes, B. Sandstede, Traveling pulse solutions for the discrete FitzHugh-Nagumo system. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 9 (2010), no. 3, 827-882. H.J. Hupkes, E.S. Van Vleck, Negative diffusion and traveling waves in high dimensional lattice systems. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 45 (2013), no. 3, 1068-1135. C. Lamb and E.S. Van Vleck, Neutral Mixed Type Functional Differential Equations. (2012) [*submitted.*]{} J. Mallet-Paret and S. M. Verduyn-Lunel, Exponential dichotomies and Wiener-Hopf factorizations for mixed-type functional differential equations, J. of Differential Equations, to appear. J. Mallet-Paret, The Fredholm alternative for functional differential equations of mixed type. J. Dynamics and Differential Equations, 11:1-48, 1999. J. Mallet-Paret, The global structure of traveling waves in spatially discrete dynamical systems, J. Dyn. Diff. Eqn. 11, 49-127, 1999. J. Mallet-Paret, Traveling waves in spatially-discrete dynamical systems of diffusive type, Lecture Notes in Math, 1822, 231-298, 2003. A. Rustichini, Functional-differential equations of mixed type: the linear autonomous case. J. Dynam. Differential Equations 1 (1989), no. 2, 121–143, A. Rustichini, Hopf bifurcation for functional-differential equations of mixed type. J. Dynam. Differential Equations 1 (1989), no. 2, 145–177. A. Vainchtein and E.S. Van Vleck, Nucleation and propagation of phase mixtures in a bistable chain," (2009) Phys. Rev. B. 79 144123-1-11. B. Zinner, Stability of traveling wavefronts for the discrete Nagumo equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 22, 1016-1020, 1991. B. Zinner, Existence of traveling wavefront solutions for the discrete Nagumo equation, J. Diff. Eqn, 96, 1-27, 1992.
[^1]: Email addresses. Erik Van Vleck: [email protected], Aijun Zhang: [email protected]. Zhang was supported in part by the Robert D. Adams Fund and Van Vleck was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1115408.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
1.5cm -1in 0.1cm 23.cm
[E. Hernández$^a$ and E. Oset$^b$]{}
$^a$
$^b$
ABSTRACT
A new mechanism for the $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^0$ reaction close to threshold is suggested coming from the isoscalar excitation of the Roper and its decay into $N (\pi\pi)_{s-wave}$, with one of the $\pi^0$ emitted and the other one reabsorbed on the second nucleon. The mechanism can lead to important interference with other mechanisms and, together with experiment, serves to exclude large ranges of the $2\pi$ $N^*$ decay parameters allowed by the $N^*$ partial decay widths.
Introduction
============
The large discrepancies between early calculations of the $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^0$ cross section close to threshold, based on the one body mechanism and the rescattering term [@1; @2; @3; @4], and the experimental data [@5; @6] have stimulated further work looking for a solution to the puzzle. Short range contributions associated to the isoscalar excitation of negative energy components on the nucleons were suggested as a possible explanation of the puzzle [@7; @8] and similar ideas using exchange currents with heavy mesons have also been discussed [@9].
It was soon realized [@10] that because the rescattering process involves the isoscalar $\pi N$ amplitude around threshold, and this amplitude is abnormally small on shell, off shell effects should be relevant since the $\pi N$ amplitude appears there half off shell. Quantitative evaluations were done in [@11] using two different off shell extrapolations in order to estimate uncertainties and it was shown that the use of the off shell extrapolations enhanced appreciably the cross section and could by itself explain the data. Further work along these lines was done in [@12] improving on the small one body mechanism and using a different off shell extrapolation obtained from one version of the Bonn meson exchange model for the $\pi N$ interaction [@13].
The works of [@11] and [@12] share many things in common, with quantitative differences mostly due to the different off shell extrapolations used. In both cases a substantial increase of the cross section is found due to off shell effects (smaller in ref. [@12]), together with a constructive interference between the one body and the rescattering terms.
The realization that QCD at low energies can be effectively taken into account by means of effective chiral Lagrangians [@14] has led to the developments of Chiral Perturbation Theory ($\chi$PT) [@15; @16; @17; @18], providing, in principle, and ideal tool to tackle the problem of the off shell extrapolation in the $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^0$ process. This has led to some work along these lines [@9; @19; @20] with a main common feature, with respect to [@11; @12], which is the negative interference between the one body and rescattering terms, opposite to the findings of [@11; @12]. Another difference is the small cross sections obtained along these lines. This approach has been further revised in [@21] where the authors note that several approximations done in the coordinate space treatment of former chiral approaches induced large uncertainties. The improved work of [@21] in momentum space produces a much larger rescattering term and consequently larger cross sections. Yet, the interference between the one body and rescattering terms is negative as in former approaches.
Further clarifications on the chiral approach appear in the recent paper [@22] which concludes that present $\chi$PT calculations are not yet at the level of providing quantitative results for the rescattering term. The large size of the momentum involved in the half off shell $\pi N$ amplitude requires the evaluation of higher loops, and their corresponding counterterms. Actually, an accurate evaluation of this amplitude might as well require the use of non perturbative unitary techniques with coupled channels, as done in [@23; @24; @25]. A very accurate description of $K^- p$ scattering going to $K^- p, \bar{K}^0 n,
\Sigma^+ \pi^-, \Sigma^- \pi^+$ and $\Lambda \pi^0$, together with the dynamical generation of the $\Lambda (1405)$ resonance below $K^- p$ threshold was obtained in these works. One of the findings of [@25] was the relevance of including the $\eta \Lambda$ and $\eta \Sigma^0$ channels in the approach, even if they are not open at low $K^-$ energies, with some cross sections increased by a factor three due to the inclusion of these channels. This hints that the inclusion of coupled channels in the $\pi N$ interaction might be relevant even at pion threshold. Another result in [@25] was the realization that $SU (3)$ symmetry, in the limit of equal masses, is broken unless all coupled channels from the octets of $1/2^+$ baryons and $0^-$ mesons are included in the coupled channel approach.
Further work along the lines of $\chi$PT is carried out in [@26]. In this case pionic loops, including two pion exchange diagrams that might simulate $\sigma$ exchange decaying into two $\pi^0$, one of which is emitted and the other one reabsorbed into the second nucleon, are included. An excellent agreement with experiment is claimed, even when the one body term is excluded. The same occurs in a OBE model by the same authors which explicitly accounts for the mechanism described above [@27], which leads the authors to claim that this is the basic mechanism describing the process, irrespective of the formalism chosen. Other OBE models, not including that latter mechanism also claim to reproduce the data for $N N \rightarrow N N \pi$ in different isospin channels [@28].
Undoubtedly much progress is being made, but the main conclusion might be that the process is more complicated than originally thought and that much work remains to be done.
The present work calls the attention on new mechanisms, not yet explored, and that could be relevant for the $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^0$ reaction, when considered in connection with the rescattering term, due to interference. The mechanism is related to Roper excitation and its decay into $N (\pi \pi)^{I = 0}_{s = \hbox{wave}}$. This mechanism is present in most $2 \pi$ production processes around threshold, $\pi N \rightarrow \pi \pi N$ [@29; @30], $\gamma N \rightarrow \pi \pi N$ [@31] and $N N \rightarrow N N \pi \pi$ [@32]. In this latter process this mechanism is by far the dominant one around threshold in $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^+ \pi^-$, $p p \pi^0 \pi^0$, where the two pions can be in $I = 0$ and, within uncertainties, the agreement with data is acceptable. This gives us some confidence about the size of the mechanism evaluated here which corresponds to the dominant one for $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^0 \pi^0$ in which one $\pi^0$ is emitted and the other one reabsorbed on the second nucleon.
Isoscalar Roper excitation in the $N N \rightarrow N N^*$ reaction
==================================================================
The clean experimental signal for $N^* (1440)$ excitation in $(\alpha, \alpha')$ collisions on a proton target [@33] provided evidence of a strong isoscalar excitation of the Roper in N N collisions. The experiment was analyzed in [@34] by means of a model which included $\Delta$ excitation in the projectile (fig. 1a) together with Roper excitation on the target (fig. 1b), including the interference of both terms (for the part of $N^* \rightarrow N \pi$). For the isoscalar excitation of the Roper in diagram 1b an empirical amplitude was constructed assuming an effective $``\sigma"$ exchange (although in a more microscopical picture it would be a combination of $\sigma$ and $\omega$ exchange). This effective $\sigma$ was assumed to have the same coupling to NN as in the Bonn model [@35] while the coupling to $N N^*$ was fitted to the data. The couplings used were
$$\frac{g^2_{\sigma N N}}{4 \pi} = 5.69 \; ; \;
\frac{g^2_{\sigma N N^{*}}}{4 \pi} = 1.33$$
and a monopole form factor with $\Lambda_{\sigma} = 1.7 \, GeV$ together with $m_{\sigma} = 550 \, MeV$, as in [@35] were used. With this input, which contains $g_{\sigma N N^*}$ as the only parameter, a good reproduction of the data of [@33] was obtained.
In the $N N \rightarrow N N \pi \pi$ reaction studied in [@32] the same input for the isoscalar Roper excitation was used and the diagrams of fig. 2, together with the corresponding ones with $N^*$ excitation on the first nucleon, plus 13 other mechanisms, including $\Delta$ excitation and chiral terms, were used. Contrary to the case of the $(\alpha, \alpha')$ reaction where only the isoscalar exchange is allowed, here we can also exchange an $I=1$ object, but is was shown in [@32] that the strength of the isoscalar exchange was much larger than the corresponding one with $I = 1$, so here only the isoscalar excitation is considered. The results of [@32] showed that in the $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^0 \pi^0$ reactions the mechanisms of fig. 2 with $N^* \rightarrow N (\pi \pi)^{I = 0}_{s-wave}$ dominated the cross sections close to threshold, where the other mechanisms either vanished or became very small.
With all this previous work described, there is then a clear mechanism which could be relevant for $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^0$ close to threshold and this is the one depicted in fig. 3, which corresponds to the same mechanism of fig. 2 for $2 \pi^0$ production, where one of the pions is reabsorbed on the first nucleon, giving rise to the box diagrams of the figure. This is the mechanism which we evaluate in the next section.
Box diagram with isoscalar $N^*$ excitation
===========================================
For the evaluation of the box diagrams of fig. 3 we need the following Lagrangians: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\sigma p p}(x)=g_{\sigma NN}\ \bar{\Psi}_p (x)\Psi_p (x)\ \sigma (x)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\pi^0 p p }(x)=\frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_{\pi}}\ \bar{\Psi}_p (x)
\gamma^{\mu} \gamma_5\Psi_p (x)\ \partial_{\mu}\pi^0 (x)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\sigma p N^*}(x)=g_{\sigma N N^*}\ \bar{\Psi}_{N^*} (x)
\Psi_p (x)\ \sigma (x) + h.c.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\pi^0 \pi^0 p N^*}(x) &=& g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}\
\frac{m_{\pi}^2}{f_{\pi}^2}\ \bar{\Psi}_{N^*} (x)
\Psi_p (x)\ \pi^0 (x) \pi^0 (x) \nonumber \\
& & +\ g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}\ \frac{1}{f_{\pi}^2}\ \bar{\Psi}_{N^*} (x)
\Psi_p (x)\ \partial^0 \pi^0 (x)\ \partial^0 \pi^0 (x) + h.c.\end{aligned}$$
The lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\pi^0 \pi^0 p N^*}(x)$ , with the second piece in its Lorentz covariant form, was first used in ref. [@30] to evaluate the decay $N^*(1440) \rightarrow N (\pi \pi)_S$. In [@30] the couplings $g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}$ and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}$ are called respectively $-c_1^*$ and $-c_2^*$. In this latter lagrangian we have set the energy of the Roper equal to its mass with respect to the formal one written in [@30]. This is a good approximation in the present case. In that lagrangian $f_{\pi}$ stands for the pion decay constant $f_{\pi}=92.4 \ MeV$.
The couplings $ g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}$ and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}$ are not fully known. The main constraint to their values comes from the study of the decay $N^*(1440) \rightarrow N (\pi \pi)_S$. In ref. [@32] it is found that: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{N (\pi \pi)_S} = \alpha\
g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}^{\ 2}
+\ \beta g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}^{\ 2}
+\ \gamma\ g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}\
g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=0.497\ 10^{-3}\ GeV^3$, $\beta=3.66\ 10^{-3}\ GeV^3$ and $\gamma=2.69\ 10^{-3}\ GeV^3$. For $\Gamma_{N (\pi \pi)_S}$ they use a branching ratio of $7.5\%$ and a total width of $350\ MeV$. The above ellipse is not able by itself to fix both parameters and in fact, as seen in fig. 4, it spans over a large range of values. Further constraints were obtained in ref.[@32] from an analysis of the $\pi^- p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^- n$ reaction data. Within the model used the experiment seemed to favour intermediate values in the ellipse. We also point out here that in ref. [@30] the signs of both $g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}$ and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}$ are taken to be the same as the ones for the corresponding couplings in the $NN \pi \pi$ vertices. In this paper we will leave open the possibility for a different signs assignment.
The net contribution of the four diagrams to the invariant amplitude is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}&=&-2\ i\ g_{\sigma NN}\ g_{\sigma N N^*}\ \frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_{\pi}}
\ \int \frac{d^4q}{(2 \pi)^4}\ \left( \ g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}\ m_{\pi}^2-
g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}\ q^0 p_{\pi}^0 \right)\ \frac{1}{f_{\pi}^2} \nonumber \\
& & \times \ D_{\pi}(q)\ D_{\sigma} (p_3-p_1-q)\ \left( F_{\pi}(q)\right)^2
\left( F_{\sigma}(p_3-p_1-q)\right)^2 \nonumber \\
& & \times \ \bar{u}_{s3}(\vec{p}_3)\left(\gamma^{\mu}
\gamma_5 S_p(p_3-q)+
S_p(p_1+q) \gamma^{\mu} \gamma_5\right) u_{s1}(\vec{p}_1)\nonumber \\
& & \times \left\{ \bar{u}_{s4}(\vec{p}_4)
S_{N^*}(p_4+p_{\pi}+q) u_{s2}(\vec{p}_2)
+ \bar{u}_{s4}(\vec{p}_4)
S_{N^*}(p_2-p_{\pi}-q) u_{s2}(\vec{p}_2) \right\}\nonumber \\[.2cm]
& & + \ (\ exchange \ diagrams\ ) \end{aligned}$$ where we have included monopole form factors $F_{\sigma}$ and $F_{\pi}$ for each of the sigma and pion vertices. For the latter we use $\Lambda_{\pi}=1.25 \, GeV$. For the nucleon and Roper propagators we will take the positive energy part alone through the decomposition: $$\begin{aligned}
S(p)=\frac{1}{2 E(\vec{p})}
\frac{E(\vec{p}) \gamma^0 - \vec{p}\ \vec{\gamma} +m}{p^0-E(\vec{p})+i \epsilon}
+\frac{1}{2 E(\vec{p})}
\frac{E(\vec{p}) \gamma^0 + \vec{p}\ \vec{\gamma} +m}{p^0+E(\vec{p})+i \epsilon}\end{aligned}$$ Due to energy denominators the positive energy part (first term in eq. (5) ) should give, and in fact does, the dominant contribution to the amplitude.
The Roper contribution will be included on top of the rescattering term. As we will see the relevance of the Roper mechanism might show if not as a large absolute contribution yes with a large interference with the rescattering term. For the evaluation of the rescattering term we follow ref. [@11]. We shall use the $\lambda_1$ parameter due to Hamilton [@36], which for the half off-shell situation that we encounter here gives a larger value than the on shell $\lambda_1^{on-shell}=0.0075$. In our case $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_1(q,p_{\pi})=-\ \frac{1}{2}\ (1+\epsilon)\ m_{\pi}
\ \left(a_{sr}+a_{\sigma}\ \frac{m_{\sigma}^2}
{m_{\sigma}^2-(q+p_{\pi})^2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ with $\epsilon=m_{\pi}/M$ being $M$ the nucleon mass, $a_{\sigma}=0.220 m_{\pi}^{-1}$, $a_{sr}=-0.233 m_{\pi}^{-1}$ and $m_{\sigma}=550 \ MeV$. Note the q here has opposite sign to the one in ref. [@11].
The complex structure of the amplitude in eq. (4) makes the evaluation of Final/Initial State Interactions Effects (FSI/ISI) a really hard task. We will not attempt here such a calculation and will content ourselves with the evaluation of the cross section without FSI/ISI. With these effects being very important near threshold, we can not make strong statements about the exact role played by the new mechanism but our hope is that we can get at least an indication of its relevance.
Results, discussion and conclusion.
===================================
In the following we show and comment the theoretical results obtained with different sets of values for $g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}$ and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}$.
In Table 1 we use and which are the values favoured in the analysis of ref. [@32]. As we see, the contribution of the Roper mechanism is by itself very small. The rescattering contribution alone is also small but, as shown in ref. [@11], in this case FSI/ISI would bring theoretical predictions into a fairly good agreement with experimental data. When one takes the Roper and the rescattering terms together the interference gives a reduction of the rescattering prediction by roughly a factor of three. Thus, and although the Roper contribution alone is too small, the net effect is, through interference, to reduce significantly the contribution of the dominant rescattering term.
In Table 2 we use and . This set of values is quoted in ref. [@32] as compatible with the experimental errors in the reaction. Now the contribution of the Roper mechanism is comparable, though smaller, to the one of the rescattering term. The interference between the two is destructive and the net result is a very small cross section compared to the data.
In Table 3 the results shown correspond to and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}=1.98\
GeV^{-1}$ . This is as before but with opposite signs. Now the interference is constructive and the results at some energies are bigger than the data.
In Table 4 we have and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}= 2.678\
GeV^{-1}$ . The contribution of the Roper mechanism is very small but again the interference increases the results obtained with the rescattering term.
One can also choose a set of values for which the Roper mechanism alone overwhelms the data. This is done in Table 5 where we have used and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}=34.61\ GeV^{-1}$ corresponding to one of the extremes of the ellipse. One would not expect FSI/ISI effects to bring the results closer to experiment in this case and such extreme situations have to be discarded. In fact these extreme cases are also excluded by the analysis of the reaction.
We mention once again that we are not including FSI/ISI effects in the calculation. Thus, all the results presented here have to be taken with due caution as we know these effects are very important.
In spite of that crude approximation, we think that from the above results it emerges the fact that the Roper mechanism introduced here can be relevant for the understanding of the $p p \rightarrow p p \pi^0$ reaction. Even for the cases where the Roper contribution alone is too small, the interference with the dominant rescattering term is important. This situation is reminiscent of the role played by the Born or one-body term considered in calculations where FSI/ISI are included.
The second teaching of these calculations, is that, even at the qualitative level that we have analyzed the reaction, one can certainly exclude a wide range of values of $g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}$ and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}$ of the ellipse of fig. 4 allowed by the $N^*$ decay into two isoscalar s-wave pions. It is clear that the values situated towards the extreme of the ellipse can easily be discarded and only values around the origin could be compatible with experiment, provided other mechanisms give sizeable contributions to the reaction. It is rewarding to see that such conclusions are in agreement with findings in ref. [@32] coming from a more detailed analysis for the $\pi N \rightarrow \pi \pi N$ reaction.
A more quantitative analysis of the mechanism discussed would be advisable although the FSI/ISI corrections would require lengthy calculations. At the present time, where so many different mechanisms are suggested, most of them claiming an explanation of the experiment, we feel that it suffices to show that this mechanism is there and that its interference with other mechanisms can completely change the results obtained ignoring it. With our knowledge about this reaction increasing with time and different mechanisms settling down on a firm basis, a future detailed study taking all these mechanisms into consideration would be an interesting task to tackle.
Acknowledgements: This work has been partly supported by DGICYT, contract no. PB96-0753 and Junta de Castilla y Leon contract no. SA73/98.
[99]{} D. D. Koltun and A. Reitan, Phys. Rev. C141 (1966) 1413 J. M. Laget, Phys. Rev. C35 (1987) 832 G. A. Miller and P. U. Sauer, Phys. Rev. C441 (1991) R1725 J. A. Niskanen, Phys. Lett. B289 (1992) 277 H. O. Meyer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2846; Nucl. Phys. A539 (1992) 663 M. Drochner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 454; C. Heimberg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1012 T. S. H. Lee and D. O. Riska, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 2237 C. J. Horowitz et al., Phys. Rev. C49 (1994) 1337 U. van Kolck, G. A. Miller and D. O. Riska, Phys. Lett. B388 (1996) 679 F. Hachenberg and H. J. Pirner, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 112 (1978) 401 E. Hernández and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B350 (1995) 158 C. Hanhart, J. Haidenbauer, A. Reuber, C. Schütz and J. Speth, Phys. Lett. B358 (1995) 21 C. Schütz, J. W. Durso, K. Holinde and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. C49 (1994) 2671 S. Weinberg, Physica A96 (1979) 327; J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 158 (1984) 142 J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250 (1985) 465, 517, 539 A. Pich, Rep. Prog. Phys. 58 (1995) 563 G. Ecker, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 35 (1995) 1 U. G. Meissner, Rep. Prog. Phys. 56 (1993) 903 B. Y. Park, F. Myhrer, J. R. Molones, T. Meissner and K. Kubodera, Phys. Rev. C53 (1996) 1519 T. D. Cohen, J. L. Friar, G. A. Miller and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B388 (1996) 679 T. Sato, T. S. H. Lee, F. Myhrer and K. Kubodera, Phys. Rev. C56 (1997) 1246 C. Hanhart, J. Haidenbauer, M. Hoffmann, U. G. Meissner and J. Speth, Phys. Lett. B424 (1998)8 N. Kaiser, P. B. Siegel and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A594 (1995) 325 N. Kaiser, T. Waas and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A612 (1997) 297 E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A635 (1998) 99 E. Gedalin, A. Moalem and L. Razdolskaya, nucl-th/9803029 E. Gedalin, A. Moalem and L. Razdolskaya, nucl-th/9803028 R. Shyam and U. Mosel, Phys. Lett. B426 (1998) 1 E. Oset and M. J. Vicente-Vacas, Nucl. Phys. A446 (1985) 584 V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. B457 (1995) 147 J. A. Gómez-Tejedor and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A571 (1994) 667; ibid. A600 (1996) 413 L. Alvarez-Ruso, E. Oset and E. Hernández, Nucl. Phys. A633 (1998) 519 H. P. Morsch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 1336 S. Hirenzaki, P. Fernández de Córdoba and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C53 (1996) 277 R. Machleidt, K. Holinde and Ch. Elster, Phys. Reports 149 (1987) 1 G. Hamilton, High Energy Physics, ed. E.H.S. Burhop, Vol. 1 (Academic Press, New York 1967) p.194.
$\eta$ $\sigma_{Roper}$ $\sigma_{Rescat.}$ $\sigma_{Total}$ $\sigma_{Exp.}$
-------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------ ---------------------
0.203 $1.7\ 10^{-2}$ 0.10 $3.7\ 10^{-2}$ $0.70\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.306 $8.5\ 10^{-2}$ 0.52 0.19 $1.91\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.407 0.26 1.6 0.56 $3.83\ \pm \ 0.11$
0.517 0.65 3.9 1.4 $6.18\ \pm \ 0.20$
: Cross sections for the $p p\rightarrow p p \pi^0 $ reaction evaluated for different values of $\eta=p_{\pi\ max}/m_{\pi}$. Here $g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}=7.27\ GeV^{-1} $ and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}=0 $ (Point 1 in fig. 4). We show results for the Roper mechanism alone ($\sigma_{Roper}$), rescattering alone ($\sigma_{Rescat.}$), and the full calculation($\sigma_{Total}$). For comparison we also show experimental data taken from ref. \[5\] All cross sections are in microbarns.
(Point 2 in fig. 4).
$\eta$ $\sigma_{Roper}$ $\sigma_{Rescat.}$ $\sigma_{Total}$ $\sigma_{Exp.}$
-------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------ ---------------------
0.203 $6.6\ 10^{-2}$ 0.10 $4.2\ 10^{-3}$ $0.70\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.306 0.33 0.52 $2.1\ 10^{-2}$ $1.91\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.407 1.0 1.6 $6.1\ 10^{-2}$ $3.83\ \pm \ 0.11$
0.517 2.6 3.9 0.15 $6.18\ \pm \ 0.20$
: Same as Table 1 but with $g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}=12.7\ GeV^{-1} $ and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}=-1.98\
GeV^{-1}$
(Point 3 in fig. 4).
$\eta$ $\sigma_{Roper}$ $\sigma_{Rescat.}$ $\sigma_{Total}$ $\sigma_{Exp.}$
-------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------ ---------------------
0.203 $6.6\ 10^{-2}$ 0.10 0.33 $0.70\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.306 0.33 0.52 1.7 $1.91\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.407 1.0 1.6 5.1 $3.83\ \pm \ 0.11$
0.517 2.6 3.9 12.8 $6.18\ \pm \ 0.20$
: Same as Table 1 but with and
(Point 4 in fig. 4).
$\eta$ $\sigma_{Roper}$ $\sigma_{Rescat.}$ $\sigma_{Total}$ $\sigma_{Exp.}$
-------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------ ---------------------
0.203 $1.8\ 10^{-3}$ 0.10 0.13 $0.70\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.306 $9.1\ 10^{-3}$ 0.52 0.67 $1.91\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.407 $2.8\ 10^{-2}$ 1.6 2.0 $3.83\ \pm \ 0.11$
0.517 $7.3\ 10^{-2}$ 3.9 5.0 $6.18\ \pm \ 0.20$
: Same as Table 1 but with $g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}=0$ and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}=2.678\
GeV^{-1}$
(Point 5 in fig. 4).
$\eta$ $\sigma_{Roper}$ $\sigma_{Rescat.}$ $\sigma_{Total}$ $\sigma_{Exp.}$
-------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------ ---------------------
0.203 5.0 0.10 6.5 $0.70\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.306 26 0.52 33 $1.91\ \pm \ 0.05$
0.407 78 1.6 102 $3.83\ \pm \ 0.11$
0.517 197 3.9 256 $6.18\ \pm \ 0.20$
: Same as Table 1 but with $g_{1 \pi \pi N N^*}=-95.74\ GeV^{-1}$ and $g_{2 \pi \pi N N^*}=34.61\
GeV^{-1}$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The magnetic correlations in the charge- and orbital-ordered manganite have been studied by elastic and inelastic neutron scattering techniques. Out of the well-defined CE-type magnetic structure with the corresponding magnons a competition between CE-type and ferromagnetic fluctuations develops. Whereas ferromagnetic correlations are fully suppressed by the static CE-type order at low temperature, elastic and inelastic CE-type correlations disappear with the melting of the charge-orbital order at high temperature. In its charge-orbital disordered phase, exhibits a dispersion of ferromagnetic correlations which remarkably resembles the magnon dispersion in ferromagnetically ordered metallic perovskite manganites.'
author:
- 'D. Senff'
- 'O. Schumann'
- 'M. Benomar'
- 'M. Kriener'
- 'T. Lorenz'
- 'Y. Sidis'
- 'K. Habicht'
- 'P. Link'
- 'M. Braden'
title: ' Melting of magnetic correlations in charge-orbital ordered La$_{0.5}$Sr$_{1.5}$MnO$_4$ : competition of ferro and antiferromagnetic states '
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Charge ordering is one of the key elements to understand colossal magnetoresistivity (CMR) in the manganite oxides. The large drop of the electric resistivity at the metal-insulator transition can only partially be explained by the Zener double-exchange mechanism.[@millis95a] The larger part of it seems to arise from the competition between ferromagnetic (FM) metallic and charge-ordered insulating states, and recent experimental and theoretical investigations focus on electronically soft phases and phase separation scenarios.[@uehara99a; @moreo99a; @woodward04a; @milward05a; @sen07a] The metal-insulator transition can be considered as the stabilization of the FM metallic phase over charge-ordered insulating states by an external parameter as e.g. temperature or magnetic field.[@tokura00a; @murakami03a]
![(Color online) Schematic representation of the charge, orbital and spin ordering in the CE-type arrangement, as proposed by Goodenough.[@goodenough55a] The orbital and the magnetic lattices of the Mn$^{3+}$-subsystem are indicated by the dotted and dashed lines, respectively. Notice that the zigzag chains run along the \[110\]-direction. []{data-label="Fig-Sketch-CE"}](Fig1.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}\
At half doping, the insulating, charge-orbital ordered (COO) phase appears most stable, and an ordered state appears as a generic feature in the phase diagrams of cubic manganites [R$_{1-x}$A$_x$MnO$_3$]{} (R=La or a rare earth, A=Sr, Ba, Ca,...),[@tokura00a] as well as in those of single and double-layered systems, as and .[@sternlieb96a; @argyriou00a] In spite of its relevance for the CMR effect and in spite of the enormous number of publications in this field, the properties of the charge-ordered state are not fully established till today. Early investigations on La$_{0.5}$Ca$_{0.5}$MnO$_3$ by Wollan and Koehler[@wollan55a] and by Goodenough[@goodenough55a] proposed a checkerboard ordering of charges with sublattices of Mn$^{3+}$ and Mn$^{4+}$ sites. Simultaneously, the single $e_g$ orbitals on the sites order in a stripe-like pattern, giving rise to zigzag paths with each $e_g$ orbital bridging two neighbours with $3d^3$ configuration and an empty $e_g$ level, see Fig. \[Fig-Sketch-CE\]. This orbital arrangement implies a FM ordering along the zigzag chains and an antiferromagnetic (AFM) coupling between adjacent chains, referred to as CE-type ordering,[@wollan55a] and it explains the observed structural and magnetic superlattice reflections in diffraction experiments.[@radaelli97a; @murakami98a] More recently, an alternative model, consisting of a coherent ordering of magnetic dimers, called Zener-Polarons, has been proposed,[@daoud02a] which is fundamentally different. Whereas in the initial model charge and orbital ordering is located on the Mn sites, the alternative model proposes the ordering of charges to be located on the Mn-O-Mn bonds. The two concepts remain matter of strong controversy [@efremov04a; @grenier04a; @goff04a; @rodriguez05a; @senff06a; @trokiner06a] with the more recent work favoring the initial site-centered model. In particular for there is strong evidence that the bond-centered model cannot be applied.[@senff06a] One should, however, consider the possibility that different manganites exhibit different types of charge-orbital order. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the site-centered model of charge and orbital ordering is only schematic. Different crystallographic studies [@goff04a; @argyriou00a; @jirak85a; @damay98a; @jirak00a; @ourselves] find structural distortions in the charge-ordered phase which are far smaller than what is expected for a full integer ordering into and valencies. Nevertheless we will use throughout this paper this / nomenclature for clarity.
The origin of the charge-ordered state is also under debate, and different theoretical studies focus on very different aspects. It has been shown, that the COO state can be stabilized primarily by cooperative Jahn-Teller distortions. In this scenario the magnetic ordering of the CE type appears as a secondary effect.[@yunoki00a; @popovic02a; @dong06a] On the other hand, it has been argued, that based on anisotropic magnetic exchange interactions the COO can be stabilized by purely electronic effects.[@solovyev99a; @brink99a] In this sense the COO state is of magnetic origin, which naturally explains its melting in magnetic fields.[@solovyev99a; @solovyev03a; @solovyev01a]
The single-layered material is particularly well suited for the experimental investigation of the properties of the COO state. Charge and orbital ordering occurs in this compound below ${T_\text{CO}}$=220K and has been investigated by various techniques.[@sternlieb96a; @larochelle01a; @mahadevan01a; @wilkins03a; @dhesi04a] Magnetic ordering of the CE type occurs below ${T_\text{N}}$=110K.[@sternlieb96a] Compared to the perovskite manganites, the COO state is exceptionally stable in and only very high fields of the order of 30[T]{} can melt the ordered state implying negative magnetoresistance effects.[@tokunaga99a] Good metallic properties are, however, never achieved in the single layered manganites , neither by magnetic field nor by doping.[@moritomo95a; @larochelle05a]
In a recent work we have studied the magnetic excitation spectrum of the CE-type ordering in at low temperatures.[@senff06a] The analysis of the spin-wave dispersion is fully consistent with the classical charge and orbital-order model[@goodenough55a] and underlines the dominant character of the FM intrachain interaction: The magnetic structure has to be regarded as a weak AFM coupling of stable FM zigzag elements. In this article we address the thermal evolution of the CE magnetic ground state and report on the development of the static and dynamic magnetic correlations as studied in neutron scattering experiments and in macroscopic measurements: The magnons of the static CE order transform into anisotropic short-range magnetic correlations remaining clearly observable for ${T_\text{N}}<T<{T_\text{CO}}$. Here magnetic correlations can be described by a loose AFM coupling of FM zigzag-chain fragments. These CE-type fluctuations compete with isotropic ferromagnetic correlations between ${T_\text{N}}$ and ${T_\text{CO}}$, and they fully disappear upon melting the COO state above ${T_\text{CO}}$. Instead, in the charge- and orbital-disordered phase above ${T_\text{CO}}$ we find purely FM correlations, which remarkably resemble those observed in the metallic FM phases in cubic manganites.
Experimental
============
crystallizes in a tetragonal structure of space-group symmetry $I4/mmm$ with room-temperature lattice constants $a=3.86{\text{\AA}}$ and $c=12.42{\text{\AA}}$.[@senff05a] For most of the neutron scattering experiments we used the same crystal as for the analysis of the spin-wave dispersion.[@senff06a] The thermodynamic measurement and some parts of the neutron scattering experiments were done with a different sample. All crystals were grown using the same floating-zone technique as described in Ref. . Elastic neutron scattering experiments were performed at the thermal double-axis diffractometer 3T.1 and at the triple-axis spectrometer G4.3, both installed at the Laboratoire Léon Brillouin (LLB) in Saclay. Selected scans measured at the high-flux instrument 3T.1 were repeated with the same neutron energy $E$=14.7[meV]{} at the G4.3 spectrometer with an energy resolution $\Delta E\lesssim0.6$[meV]{} to estimate the influence of slow magnetic fluctuations. The double-axis spectrometer integrates over a sizeable energy interval, but all data taken on both instruments agree quantitatively very well, suggesting that the diffuse magnetic scattering is associated with time scales longer than $\sim$10$^{-11}$sec. Data using polarized neutrons were acquired at the FLEX spectrometer at the Hahn-Meitner Institut (HMI) in Berlin. Inelastic neutron data were collected on the spectrometers 1T, 2T and 4F, installed at the thermal and cold sources at the LLB, and on the cold instrument PANDA at the Forschungsreaktor FRM II in Munich. At all instruments the (002) Bragg reflection of pyrolytic graphite (PG) was used as a monochromator and to analyze the energy of the scattered neutrons. The energy on the analyzer side was always fixed to $E_f=14.7$[meV]{} at the thermal instruments, and typically to $E_f=4.66$[meV]{} on the cold machines. To suppress spurious contaminations by second harmonic neutrons an appropriate filter, either PG or cooled Beryllium, was mounted in front of the analyzer. In most of the measurements, the sample was mounted with the tetragonal $c$ axis vertical to the scattering plane, so that scattering vectors $(h\,k\,0)$ were accessible. Some data were collected in a different scattering plane defined by the \[110\] and \[001\] directions of the tetragonal structure.
Specific-heat measurements were carried out using a home-build calorimeter working with a “continuous heating” method. Magnetization was measured in a commercial vibrating sample magnetometer and electric resistivity by standard four-contact method.
Results
=======
Before starting the discussion of our results we illustrate the different structural and magnetic superstructures of the COO state with the aid of Fig. \[Fig-Sketch-CE\]. Below ${T_\text{CO}}$ the checkerboard arrangement of the nominal and sites doubles the structural unit cell to lattice spacings $\sqrt{2}a\times\sqrt{2}a$ with $a\sim3.8$Å the lattice constant of the original tetragonal cell. The concomitant orbital ordering reduces the symmetry and the nuclear lattice becomes orthorhombic with lattice constants $2\sqrt{2}a$ along \[110\] and $\sqrt{2}a$ along \[1-10\]. The ordering of charges and orbitals is related to superstructure reflections with ${\bm k}_\text{CO}=\pm(\tfrac{1}{2}\,\tfrac{1}{2}\,0)$ and ${\bm k}_\text{OO}=\pm(\tfrac{1}{4}\,\tfrac{1}{4}\,0)$ in diffraction experiments, respectively. We emphasize once more that the interpretation of the superstructure in terms of integer charge and orbital ordering is only qualitative. The analysis of the real structural distortion reveals much smaller effects than expected for an integer charge ordering and still needs quantitative studies and analyzes. Considering the magnetic ordering, the CE-type structure can be divided into two sublattices distinguishing between the two magnetic species. For the Mn$^{3+}$ ions the magnetic unit cell is of the same size as the nuclear one, $\sqrt{2}a\times 2\sqrt{2}a$, but it is rotated by $90^\circ$ with the long axis along \[1-10\] and propagation vectors ${\bm k}_{\text{Mn}^{3+}}=\pm(\tfrac{1}{4}\,{-\tfrac{1}{4}}\,0)$. Therefore, the Mn$^{3+}$ spins and the the orbital lattice contribute at different ${\bm Q}$ positions, e.g. there is a magnetic contribution at ${\bm Q}=(0.75\,0.25\,0)\equiv (0.25\,{-0.25}\,0)$, but not at ${\bm Q}=(0.25\,0.25\,0)$, where the orbital lattice contributes. The Mn$^{4+}$ spins contribute to neither of these positions, but to positions indexed by ${\bm k}_{\text{Mn}^{4+}}=\pm(\tfrac{1}{2}\,0\,0)$ and $\pm(0\, \tfrac{1}{2}\,0)$. The full magnetic cell has to be described in a pseudocubic lattice with $2\sqrt{2}a$ along \[110\] and \[1-10\], as shown in Fig. \[Fig-Sketch-CE\]. However, the orthorhombic distortion of the tetragonal symmetry induces a twinning due to the orbital ordering in a sample crystal, as the zigzag chains can either run along \[110\] (orientation I) or along \[1-10\] (orientation II), and the arrangement described above is superimposed by the same, but rotated by $90^\circ$. Both twin orientations contribute equally strong in our samples, but for the analysis we will always refer to the orientation I depicted in Fig. \[Fig-Sketch-CE\]. We emphasize that the twinning due to the COO orthorhombic distortion is the only one occuring in , whereas the octahedron tilt and rotation distortions in the perovskite manganates imply a complex twinning with up to twelve superposed domain orientations.
In a scattering experiment the superposition of both twin orientations mixes structural and magnetic contributions at a quarter-indexed position. The magnetic contribution of orientation I is superimposed by the orbital contribution of orientation II and vice versa. Both contributions can, however, be well separated using polarized neutrons. In the classical polarization analysis spin-flip scattering (SF) is always magnetic, whereas non spin-flip scattering (NSF) can be either magnetic or structural: Magnetic moments aligned perpendicular to both, the scattering vector ${\bm Q}$ and the neutron’s polarization $\bm
P$, contribute to the SF channel, those aligned parallel to $\bm P$ to the NSF channel.[@moon69a] Table \[Table-COO-FLEX\] summarizes the results of the longitudinal polarization analysis of selected superstructure reflections at $T=5$[K]{} determined at the FLEX spectrometer for three different choices of the neutron quantization axis, $\bm P||{\bm Q}$ $(x)$, $\bm P\bot{\bm Q}$ and within the $ab$ plane $(y)$, and $\bm P\bot{\bm Q}$ and perpendicular to the $ab$ plane $(z)$. In addition to the quarter-indexed reflections, Table \[Table-COO-FLEX\] also includes the half-indexed reflection ${\bm Q}=(0.5\,1\,0)$ and the integer-indexed reflection ${\bm Q}=(2\,0\,0)$. These reflections are entirely magnetic, respectively nuclear, and serve as reference positions for the analysis of the quarter-indexed reflections, providing an estimate of the experimental accuracy with flipping ratios FR=I$^\text{SF}$:I$^\text{NSF}$ of the order of 15. Inspecting the distribution of magnetic intensity at ${\bm Q}=(0.5\,1\,0)$ in the various $\bm P_j$ channels immediately clarifies, that the magnetic moments are confined to the $ab$ planes; a canting of the moments out of the planes must be less than ${\sim}5^\circ$, in good agreement with other estimations.[@sternlieb96a] Knowing the experimentally determined FR’s, the scattering observed at a quarter-indexed position can be decomposed into magnetic and structural contributions, see the last column of Table \[Table-COO-FLEX\]. With increasing $|{\bm Q}|$ the magnetic scattering is suppressed following the square of the form factor and, simultaneously, the structural component is enhanced. For small $|{\bm Q}|$, the observed intensity is, however, entirely of magnetic origin, and in the following we may associate any scattering appearing around ${\bm Q}=(0.75\,0.25\,0)$ with magnetic correlations.
----------------------- ----- ------- ------- ------- ---------------------------------------------
${\bm Q}$ $\text{I}_\text{mag}/\text{I}_\text{struc}$
\[0.5ex\] (0.750.250) SF 14511 1087 14619
NSF 796 14179 848 $1.00\,/\,0.00$
\[0.5ex\] (0.750.750) SF 1625 161 1624
NSF 208 1659 264 $0.94\,/\,0.06$
\[0.5ex\] (1.250.250) SF 3013 475 3194
NSF 486 3085 498 $0.91\,/\,0.09$
\[0.5ex\] (1.750.250) SF 8550 4475 7508
NSF 72665 76331 72745 $0.05\,/\,0.95$
\[0.5ex\] (0.510) SF 12999 1200 13091
NSF 797 12653 734 $1.00\,/\,0.00$
\[0.5ex\] (200) SF 2486 1903 1800
NSF 30032 30846 31304 $0.00\,/\,1.00$
\[0.5ex\]
----------------------- ----- ------- ------- ------- ---------------------------------------------
: Results of the longitudinal polarization analysis for various magnetic and structural Bragg positions at $T=5$[K]{}. For each ${\bm Q}$ position the observed neutron intensity is shown for the different choices of the neutron quantization axis $\bm P_j$, $\bm P||{\bm Q}$ (x), $\bm P\bot{\bm Q}$ and within (y), and $\bm P\bot{\bm Q}$ and perpendicular to the scattering plane (z), and the spin flipper on (SF) or off (NSF). The last column gives the calculated decomposition of the observed intensity into magnetic and structural components. []{data-label="Table-COO-FLEX"}
Elastic magnetic scattering
---------------------------
The thermal evolution of the static magnetic correlations around ${\bm Q}=(0.75\,0.25\,0)$ has been determined in the elastic neutron scattering experiments at the spectrometers 3T.1 and G4.3 at the LLB. Within the estimated experimental energy resolution “static” refers to magnetic correlations on a time scale longer than $\sim$10$^{-11}$[sec.]{} In Fig. \[Fig-COO-Maps\] we show mappings of the reciprocal space around the magnetic CE position ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}=(0.75\,0.25\,0)$ including the FM position ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}=(1\,0\,0)$ for four different temperatures, above ${T_\text{CO}}$ in the charge- and orbital-disordered phase at 250[K]{}, in the COO phase above ${T_\text{N}}$ at 200[K]{} and at 150[K]{}, and below ${T_\text{N}}$ in the CE-ordered state at 100[K]{}. All four maps exhibit strong magnetic response, and the comparison of the different temperatures directly reveals drastic changes in the character of the magnetic correlations.
In the charge- and orbital-disordered phase at $T=250$[K]{}, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Maps\]a, the magnetic scattering appears as a broad and isotropic feature centered around ${\bm Q}_\text{FM}=(1\,0\,0)$. In the K$_2$NiF$_4$ type structure corresponding to space group $I4/mmm$, $(1\,0\,0)$ is not a three-dimensional Bragg point due to the body-centered stacking of the MnO$_2$ layers. But when neglecting any magnetic inter-layer coupling, i.e. analyzing magnetic correlations in a single layer, any $(1\,0\,q_l)$ is a two-dimensional Bragg position sensing FM in-plane correlations. From the width of the signal in the $(h\,k\,0)$ plane a nearly isotropic in-plane correlation length $\xi_\text{iso}\approx8{\text{\AA}}$ can be estimated for ferromagnetic clusters, see below. From the $Q_l$ dependence of the FM signal at $(0\,0\,Q_l)$ studied on a slightly under-doped sample [@reutler-unpublished], we may deduce the fully two-dimensional nature of the FM scattering and that the moments are aligned predominantly within the planes in accordance with the anisotropy of the magnetic susceptibility.
![(Color online) Intensity mappings of the elastic magnetic scattering around the magnetic CE-type position ${\bm Q}_\text{mag}=(0.75\,0.25\,0)$ and around the two-dimensional FM zone center $(1\,0\,0)$ at various temperatures (a) above the charge-orbital ordering at $T=250$[K]{}, (b,c) below ${T_\text{CO}}$ but above the Néel transition at $T=200$[K]{}, and $T=150$[K]{}, and (d) below the AFM transition at $T=100$[K]{}. All maps were calculated from a grid of $41\times41$ data points with $\Delta q_h=\Delta q_k=0.0125$. The two arrows in (c) denote the directions of the scans investigated in more detail, scan (1) senses the stacking of zigzag fragments in the CE phase and scan (2) their length. []{data-label="Fig-COO-Maps"}](Fig2.png "fig:"){width="47.50000%"}\
![(Color online) Temperature dependence of the elastic magnetic intensity along scan 1, perpendicular to the zigzag chains. (a) Contour plot derived from a grid of data with $\Delta T=10$K and $\Delta
q_k=0.005\tfrac{2\pi}{a}$. (b) Representative raw-data scans underlying the contour plot. For clarity, the data are successively shifted vertically by 300counts. The inset gives the profile of the magnetic Bragg reflection at low temperatures, T=2.5[K]{}. Lines correspond to fits as described in the text. In all data a minor contamination by second harmonic neutrons centered at ${\bm Q}=(1\,0\,0)$ is subtracted. The different scattering of the two CE-type reflections arises from the Mn form-factor and geometry conditions. []{data-label="Fig-COO-Perp"}](Fig3.png "fig:"){width="42.50000%"}\
With the transition into the COO phase the magnetic correlations abruptly change. At $T=200$[K]{}, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Maps\]b, the FM signal around ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}$ has drastically lost intensity, while, simultaneously, magnetic intensity is increased along the path $(1\,0\,0) \rightarrow(0.75\,0.25\,0)$. Upon further cooling, intensity is transferred from ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}$ to the quarter-indexed position ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}=(0.75\,0.25\,0)$ and at $T=150$[K]{} two separate features are well distinguished in the mapping, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Maps\]c. The transition into the CE phase at ${T_\text{N}}$ finally completely suppresses the FM response and at 100[K]{} all magnetic scattering is centered at the magnetic CE-type Bragg reflection ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Maps\]d.
To further analyze the competition between FM- and CE-type correlations we studied the temperature dependence along the two lines depicted in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Maps\]c in more detail. Scan 1 runs along \[1-10\] and connects ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}$ and ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$, while scan 2 is oriented perpendicular along \[110\] and crosses scan 1 at ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$. As around ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$ only the magnetic scattering of the twin orientation with the zigzag chains running along \[110\] contributes (orientation I), scan 1 probes the magnetic correlations perpendicular to the chains, i.e. the stacking of the FM zigzag chains within the MnO$_2$ planes. In contrast, scan 2 determines the correlations parallel to the chains.
Let us start with the discussion of the thermal evolution of the magnetic scattering along scan 1, see Fig. \[Fig-COO-Perp\]. At the highest temperature investigated, $T=250$[K]{}, the spectrum consists of a broad, Lorentzian-shaped feature centered at ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}=(1\,0\,0)$, as is already evident in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Maps\]a. This signal is due to ferromagnetic planar correlations of limited correlation length. With decreasing temperature the signal stays roughly unaffected, until charge and orbital ordering sets in at ${T_\text{CO}}\approx220$[K]{}. Below ${T_\text{CO}}$ the signal at ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}$ looses spectral weight and additional weak and very broad features become apparent around (1$\mp\varepsilon$$\pm\varepsilon\,0)$. The latter features continuously sharpen, gain in intensity and shift outward until they finally lock into the commensurate CE-type positions with $\varepsilon=\pm0.25$ close to ${T_\text{N}}\approx110$[K]{}. Within the magnetically ordered phase below ${T_\text{N}}$, we do not find any evidence for FM correlations anymore and the AFM CE-type reflections become sharp and resolution limited at low temperature, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Perp\]b.
![(Color online) Temperature dependence of the elastic magnetic intensity along scan 2, parallel to the zigzag chains, at selected temperatures (a) above and (b) below the Néel transition at ${T_\text{N}}=110$[K]{}. Note that for the scans at 150[K]{} and 130[K]{} the scale on the ordinate is the same in both panels. In all data a common background is subtracted. Lines correspond to fits with either Lorentzians or Gaussians as discussed in the text.[]{data-label="Fig-COO-Parallel"}](Fig4.png "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}\
The thermal evolution along scan 2, i.e. along \[110\] and parallel to the zigzag chains, is shown in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Parallel\]. At $T=250$[K]{} no signal is observable at ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$. However, below the COO transition a magnetic signal emerges, which is easily separated from the background level already at 220[K]{}, i.e. more than 100K above ${T_\text{N}}$. Note, that there is no structural component in the scattering at these $|{\bm Q}|$ values, see above. The magnetic signal at ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$ rapidly sharpens and increases in intensity, reflecting the transfer of spectral weight from ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}$ along the path $(1\,0\,0) \rightarrow (0.75\,0.25\,0)$ to ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$. The magnetic phase transition at ${T_\text{N}}$ is evidenced by the change of the line shape, below 110[K]{} the profile changes from a Lorentzian into a Gaussian with the width determined by the experimental resolution. The intensity of the reflection increases monotonically down to the lowest temperature investigated, $T=3$[K]{}.
So far we have only discussed the magnetic correlations within the layers. In Fig. \[Fig-COO-3d\] we show raw-data scans along ${\bm Q}=(0.25\,0.25\,q_l)$ for various temperatures below ${T_\text{CO}}$ aiming at the magnetic correlations along \[001\]. In contrast to the in-plane correlations, the scans along \[001\] are not structured above ${T_\text{N}}$. The CE-type magnetic correlations are entirely two-dimensional for $T>{T_\text{N}}$. Below the magnetic phase transition at ${T_\text{N}}$ a well defined structure develops along $q_l$, and two distinct sets of reflections centered around half- and integer-indexed $q_l$ values are detected. Both types of reflections can be associated with a different stacking along the $c$ axis, and the observed distribution of intensity with the half-indexed $q_l$ values dominating agrees well with former observations.[@sternlieb96a; @larochelle05a] Along \[001\] the profile of the reflections is always significantly broader than the experimental resolution, indicating a finite correlation length perpendicular to the layers of about 50Å even at lowest temperatures.
![(a) (Color online) Raw-data scans along the line $(0.25\,0.25\,q_l)$ for various temperatures below ${T_\text{CO}}$. Gray-shaded areas mark spurious contributions by the scattering from Aluminium. (b) Raw-data scans along \[001\] centered around $q_l=2.5$ for various temperatures close to ${T_\text{N}}$. Lines denote fits with Lorentzians. []{data-label="Fig-COO-3d"}](Fig5.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}\
For a quantitative analysis of the diffuse magnetic scattering we modeled all spectra assuming Lorentzian or, at lower temperatures, Gaussian line shapes for the different contributions. The integrated intensity of the reflection then directly determines the square of the magnetic order parameter, and the width, corrected for resolution effects, is proportional to the inverse of the magnetic correlation length. The results of this analysis are summarized in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Neutrons\]. Structural superlattice reflections probing the order parameter of the orbital and the charge ordering, which set the frame for the discussion of the magnetic correlations, appear below ${T_\text{CO}}=221(1)$[K]{}, in good agreement with the literature.[@larochelle01a; @wilkins03a; @dhesi04a] The temperature dependencies of the intensity of the FM scattering at ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}=(1\,0\,0)$ and that of the CE-type reflection ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}=(0.75\,0.25\,0)$ as determined from the scans presented in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Perp\] and Fig. \[Fig-COO-Parallel\] are shown in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Neutrons\]a–c. With the transition into the COO phase at ${T_\text{CO}}$ the intensity of the FM correlations decreases and vanishes close to ${T_\text{N}}$. The in-plane correlation length of the FM signal is isotropic and temperature independent, $\xi_\text{iso}\approx8{\text{\AA}}$. Below ${T_\text{N}}$ no FM signal can be detected anymore in our neutron scattering experiments. In contrast, the AFM correlations of the CE type emerge with the transition into the COO phase and compete with the FM phases between ${T_\text{CO}}$ and ${T_\text{N}}$. Even in this pure half-doped material the transition between the high-temperature FM correlations and the CE-type ordered state seems to occur via a microscopic phase separation.[@milward05a; @sen07a] We may not fully exclude that the coexistence of CE-type and FM scattering is caused by a canting or a rotation of the spins within a single magnetic cluster, but the different ${\bm Q}$ shape of the scattering as well as the different temperature dependencies of the associated correlation lengths render such an explanation unlikely.
![Summary of the results of the analysis of the elastic magnetic scattering showing the temperature dependence of (a) the intensity observed at the FM position ${\bm Q}=(1\,0\,0)$, and (b,c) at the AFM position ${\bm Q}=(0.75\,0.25\,0)$ on a linear, and logarithmic scale, (d) of the determined correlation length $\xi$ in a direction parallel to the chains, $\xi_{||}$, perpendicular to the chains, and within the $ab$ plane, $\xi_{\bot}$, and along the tetragonal axis, $\xi_c$, and (e) of the position of the AFM-signal along the line ${\bm Q}=($1$\mp\varepsilon$$\pm\varepsilon\,0)$. []{data-label="Fig-COO-Neutrons"}](Fig6.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
The observed peak-height of the magnetic scattering at the CE-type Bragg reflection does not exhibit a clear anomaly at ${T_\text{N}}$ and the thermal evolution appears continuous in the entire temperature regime below 220[K]{}, although the major intensity increase is found below ${T_\text{N}}$. The temperature dependence of the magnetic reflections, for example (0.5,1,0), sensing the magnetic order of the Mn$^{4+}$ sites perfectly scales with that of the quarter-indexed ones sensing the Mn$^{3+}$ order confirming the close coupling of the two magnetic sublattices forming the complex CE-type magnetic ordering. A clear indication for the magnetic phase transition at ${T_\text{N}}$ is, however, seen in the behavior of the magnetic correlation lengths, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Neutrons\]d. The AFM correlations of the CE type exhibit a pronounced anisotropy and temperature dependence. Both in-plane correlation lengths, $\xi_{||}$ parallel and $\xi_{\bot}$ perpendicular to the zigzag chains, rapidly increase and finally diverge as the temperature decreases towards ${T_\text{N}}\approx110$[K]{}. For $T>{T_\text{N}}$ $\xi_{||}$ is always larger than $\xi_{\bot}$, indicating that the intrachain correlations are much better defined than the interchain correlations. Close to ${T_\text{N}}$ the ratio between $\xi_{||}$ and $\xi_{\bot}$ is most pronounced attaining a factor of $\sim$4, and $\xi_{||}$ diverges at slightly higher temperatures than $\xi_{\bot}$. The magnetic transition at ${T_\text{N}}$ has to be interpreted as the coherent AFM ordering of preformed FM zigzag chains. The ratio of $\xi_{||}/\xi_{\bot}$ perfectly reflects the ratio of the magnetic interaction parameters in the CE phase at low temperature, where the interaction along the chain is by far dominating [@senff06a]. The out-of-plane correlation length for the CE ordering, $\xi_c$, is also included in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Neutrons\]d. In contrast to the in-plane correlations, $\xi_c$ remains finite at lowest temperatures, $\xi_c\approx50{\text{\AA}}$, and the inter-layer correlation rapidly disappears above ${T_\text{N}}$. Finally, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Neutrons\]e displays the evolution of the AFM peak position along the line (1$\mp\varepsilon$$\pm\varepsilon\,0)$. The incommensurability $\varepsilon$ directly reflects the AFM coupling between adjacent or more distant zigzag chains. With the onset of the magnetic correlations near ${T_\text{CO}}$, $\varepsilon$ increases monotonically and locks slightly above ${T_\text{N}}$ into the commensurate value $\varepsilon=0.25$. Hence, the modulation wavelength perpendicular to the zigzag chains decreases upon cooling until at ${T_\text{N}}$ adjacent chains couple antiferromagnetically. The asymmetric shape of the CE-type diffuse scattering close to ${T_\text{N}}$, see e.g. Fig. \[Fig-COO-Perp\]b, has to be ascribed to the asymmetric distribution of $\varepsilon\le0.25$: The stacking of the zigzag chains cannot occur with a repetition scheme shorter than nearest-neighbor chains, which is $2\sqrt{2}a$ corresponding to $\varepsilon=0.25$.
We emphasize that the well defined, three-dimensional magnetic CE-type order together with the full suppression of the FM response is reminiscent of the high quality of our crystal. An earlier sample of [@reutler-unpublished] as well as the crystal used in Ref. exhibit significantly reduced CE-type correlation lengths. The high quality of the sample is further documented by a clear specific-heat anomaly observed at ${T_\text{CO}}$, see below.
Thermodynamic properties
------------------------
The unusual evolution of the magnetic state with static short-range correlations appearing 100[K]{} above ${T_\text{N}}$ also affects the thermodynamic quantities. In Fig. \[Fig-COO-Macro\] we show the temperature dependence of the electric resistivity $\rho_{ab}(T)$ along the planes, the specific heat $c_p(T)$, and the macroscopic $dc$ magnetization $M_\bot(T)$ and $M_{||}(T)$ for a field $H=1$[T]{} applied perpendicular and parallel to the layers, respectively. All three quantities show a well-defined anomaly at ${T_\text{CO}}$, but none around ${T_\text{N}}$. The electric resistivity $\rho_\text{ab}$ exhibits insulating behavior with a significant jump-like increase at ${T_\text{CO}}$ reflecting the real-space ordering of the charge carriers.[@moritomo95a] Note, that we find no hysteresis in the temperature dependence of the resistivity at ${T_\text{CO}}$. The specific heat displays a pronounced anomaly at the same temperature documenting the well-defined character of the COO transition in our crystal. Below ${T_\text{CO}}$, however, the specific heat seems to be determined by phononic contributions, and it is difficult to detect a clear signature for an additional release of entropy around the magnetic ordering, which, however, is consistent with the formation of short-range magnetic correlations well above ${T_\text{N}}$.
![(a) Temperature dependence of the in-plane electric resistivity $\rho_{ab}$, (b) the specific heat $c_p$, and (c) the macroscopic magnetization for a field $H=1$[T]{} applied parallel and perpendicular to the $ab$ planes. Vertical grey lines mark ${T_\text{CO}}$ and ${T_\text{N}}$ as determined in the neutron scattering experiments. []{data-label="Fig-COO-Macro"}](Fig7.png "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
The macroscopic magnetization $M(T)$, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Macro\]c, is directly correlated with the neutron scattering results presented above. For $T>{T_\text{CO}}$, $M(T)$ increases linearly upon cooling and $M_\bot$ is always smaller than $M_{||}$, as there is an easy plane anisotropy parallel to the MnO$_2$ layers. The magnetization reaches a maximum slightly above ${T_\text{CO}}$, at $\approx240$[K]{}, and it is strongly suppressed at the transition into the COO phase. Upon further cooling $M(T)$ continues to decrease down to $T=90$[K]{} and it roughly scales with the temperature dependence of the magnetic neutron intensity observed at ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}$. Remarkably, there is no well defined signature of the Néel transition, as $M(T)$ varies continuously across ${T_\text{N}}$, both for $H\bot ab$ and $H||ab$. This behavior may be ascribed to the FM preordered zigzag chain fragments with considerable AFM coupling already above ${T_\text{N}}$. At the Néel transition only the stacking of the zigzag chains becomes better defined. In this sense the AFM transition may be considered as an order disorder one.[@solovyev01a] The ratio between $M_\bot$ and $M_{||}$ agrees with the expectations for an AFM order of moments aligned within the $ab$ planes due to an easy-plane anisotropy. Below $T\approx135$[K]{} $M_\bot$ is larger than $M_{||}$, whereas the opposite is observed in the paramagnetic phase. At low temperatures, below $T\approx50$[K]{}, both magnetization components $M_\bot$ and $M_{||}$ exhibit a pronounced Curie-like upturn. Usually, a low temperature upturn in the magnetization is associated with sample-dependent impurities, but in the case of it might be a generic feature as it is observed in various studies using different sample crystals.[@moritomo95a]
The most prominent feature concerns the sudden magnetization drop at the COO transition. As pointed out by Moritomo et al., the singular behavior at ${T_\text{CO}}$ can be attributed to the quenching of the double-exchange interaction with the localization of the $e_g$ electrons into the charge-ordered state,[@moritomo95a] which is supported by ESR measurements.[@marumoto03a] The neutron analysis, however, clearly shows, that the FM correlations are not just reduced at ${T_\text{CO}}$, but they become replaced by the AFM CE-type fluctuations even well above the Néel transition. Due to the distinct magnetic symmetries, the magnetic transition from a FM state to the AFM CE-type order must be of first order allowing for phase coexistence.
Dynamic magnetic correlations
-----------------------------
So far we have only considered the thermal evolution of the static magnetic correlations. The anisotropic character of the AFM correlation and the competition between AFM and FM interactions should, however, also significantly influence the dynamic magnetic properties. The development of the magnetic correlations at finite energy transfer has been studied in the experiments at the spectrometers 4F, 1T, 2T, and PANDA.
In our previous work [@senff06a] we established the low-energy part of the magnetic excitations in the CE-type ordered state which can be well described by spin-wave theory. At low temperatures, the magnon dispersion is anisotropic with a steep dispersion along the zigzag chains, reflecting the dominant FM interaction along this direction.[@senff06a] The pronounced magnon anisotropy can be taken as a strong indication against the bond-centered dimer model, whereas it is naturally described within the CE-type orbital and magnetic model.
In the CE-ordered phase at $T=5$[K]{} the spin-wave spectrum is gaped at the antiferromagnetic zone center, ${\bm q}=0$, see Fig. \[Fig-COO-Gap\]a, and two distinct magnon contributions can be resolved. The degeneracy of the two AFM magnon branches seems to be removed due to anisotropy terms. As already seen in the high-temperature behaviour of $M(T)$, exhibits an easy-plane single-ion anisotropy above the COO transition. Due to the orthorhombic symmetry in the COO phase, the easy-plane anisotropy [@bonesteel93a] must transform into an easy-axis symmetry, which is hidden by the twinning in the macroscopic measurements. The magnetic anisotropy, however, is visible in the excitation spectra in the form of the observed zone-center gap and splitting. At the antiferromagnetic zone center we find two magnon excitations around 1.0[meV]{} and 2.0[meV]{}, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Gap\]a. The splitting of the modes is, however, restricted to the zone center, and for finite momentum $|{\bm q}|$ both modes merge rapidly into a single excitation, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Gap\]b.
![(Color online) (a) Energy scan at the AFM zone center ${\bm Q}=(0.75\,0.75\,0)$ at $T=[4]$[K]{}, and (b) at different positions perpendicular to the propagation of the chains at ${\bm Q}=(\text{0.75+$q_h$}\,\text{0.75-$q_h$}\,0)$. (c) $q_l$ dependence of the magnon signal taken with a different experimental setup. Lines denote fits to the data. See text for details. []{data-label="Fig-COO-Gap"}](Fig8.png "fig:"){width="47.50000%"}\
To probe the character of the two zone-center modes we studied their $q_l$ dependence, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Gap\]c. As only the component of the magnetization perpendicular to the scattering vector contributes in neutron scattering, increasing $q_l$ will suppress a fluctuation polarized along the $c$ axis while a mode fluctuating perpendicular to $c$ will remain less affected or even increase in intensity. For this purpose we used a scattering plane defined by \[110\]/\[001\], where the steep \[1-10\] branch of the dispersion points along the vertical axis. As the vertical $\bf Q$ resolution is low on a focusing triple-axis spectrometer, this configuration integrates over a sizeable part of the vertical dispersion strongly affecting the shape of the measured signal. In the scans taken using this configuration, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Gap\]c, the two magnon contributions appear only as a rather broad feature while they can be easily separated with the usual configuration with $c$ vertical to the scattering plane. Due to the weak interlayer coupling the dispersion along $c$ is negligible and hence the integration is very efficient with \[001\] vertical. To take the different experimental conditions into account and to resolve the two different magnon contributions in all scans, we convoluted the four-dimensional resolution function with the dispersion surface as derived in Ref. using the ResLib-code.[@reslib06a] In a first step we evaluated the data taken with \[001\] vertical and refined the magnon energies at ${\bm q}=0$ yielding $\omega_1=0.97(2)$[meV]{} and $\omega_2=1.97(4)$[meV]{}, respectively. Using these values as a starting point we modeled the data taken in the second setup. As a first result, all data with different $q_l$ values can simultaneously be described using the same magnon frequencies. There is no measurable spin-wave dispersion vertical to the layers. As a second fit parameter we modeled the intensity distribution at the various $q_l$ positions. With increasing $|{\bm Q}|$, the signal $\omega_1$ follows the square of the magnetic formfactor, while the signal $\omega_2$ is additionally suppressed. Assuming the mode $\omega_2$ to be entirely polarized along $c$, we find a good agreement with the data, and the splitting of the magnon frequencies can be fully ascribed to different magnetic anisotropies: Fluctuations within the layers are more favorable than those along the $c$ axis as it is expected. The sizeable gap associated with the in-plane anisotropy, $\omega_1$=0.97meV is remarkable as it documents that magnetic moments are also pinned through the orbital anisotropy of the zigzag chains.
![(Color online) (upper panel) ${\bm Q}$ scans at a finite energy $E=2.75$[meV]{} for different temperatures across the CE position $({0.75}\, {-0.75}\, 0)$ in a direction (a) parallel to the zigzag chains, \[110\], and (b) perpendicular to the chains along \[1-10\]. (lower panel) Raw-data scans tracking (c) the temperature dependence of the magnetic fluctuations around the FM position ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}=(1\,0\,0)$ with $E=2.75$[meV]{}, and (d) the ${\bm q}$ dependence of the FM fluctuations for $T=250$[K]{}. All scans are corrected for the different Bose contributions after the substraction of a linear background. For clarity, subsequent scans are shifted by a constant amount on the abscissa. Lines correspond to fits with Gaussians. []{data-label="Fig-COO-Fluc"}](Fig9.png "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}\
To determine the temperature dependence of the magnetic fluctuations we scanned the excitations around ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}=(0.75\, {-0.75}\, 0)$ and ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}=(1\,0\,0)$ in different directions at a constant energy of $E=2.75$[meV]{}. These scans were performed at 10[K]{} and 100[K]{} in the CE ordered phase, in the COO phase above ${T_\text{N}}$ at \[130\][K]{} and at 200[K]{}, and in the disordered phase at 250[K]{}, see Fig. \[Fig-COO-Fluc\]. First, we discuss the thermal evolution around ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$. At $T=10$[K]{} and along \[110\], i.e. parallel to the zigzag chains, the spectrum can be decomposed into the two magnon contributions centered at ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}+{\bm q}$ and ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}-{\bm q}$, see Fig. \[Fig-COO-Fluc\]a. However, as the dispersion in this direction is steep, both signals strongly overlap in agreement with our previous study.[@senff06a] With increasing temperature, the magnon signal is suppressed following roughly the magnetic order parameter and shifts outward due to the overall softening of the magnetic dispersion. In consequence, the magnon contributions are fully resolved at $T=100$K, which is corroborated by further scans at 4[meV]{} exhibiting a similar behavior (data not shown). Upon heating across ${T_\text{N}}$ the inelastic response broadens, but we do not observe a significant change in the magnon frequencies. At 200[K]{} the spectrum can be described by two contributions centered at the same positions as at 100[K]{}, indicative of the stable FM interaction within the zigzag chain fragments. In the perpendicular direction, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Fluc\]b, the two magnon contributions are separated already at 10[K]{}, as in this direction the spin-wave velocity is significantly reduced.[@senff06a] Upon heating, the signal shifts outward, too, but this shift is more pronounced than that parallel to the chains. Furthermore, for $T>{T_\text{N}}$ the inelastic intensity is fully smeared out, and at $T=200$[K]{} we do not find any correlations which can be associated with the inter-zigzag coupling, whereas, in the direction along the chains the inelastic intensity is still well centered around ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$. The inelastic CE-type magnetic correlations are thus turning one-dimensional in character between ${T_\text{N}}$ and ${T_\text{CO}}$: Only the magnetic coupling within a zigzag fragment remains finite close to ${T_\text{CO}}$. Above the charge-orbital ordering the magnetic fluctuations reminiscent of the CE-type magnetic order are completely suppressed.
Around the FM ${\bm Q}$ point we find a fundamentally different behavior of the magnetic fluctuations. ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}=(1\,0\,0)$ is also a Bragg position of the CE-type magnetic structure, and therefore inelastic neutron scattering may detect the CE-type spin-wave modes also around (100) but with a strongly reduced structure factor, see Fig. 3 in Ref. . However, the scattering around (100) does not evolve like the CE-order parameter and the associated fluctuations described above. The inelastic intensity close to $(1\,0\,0)$ remains well-defined over the entire temperature range up to highest temperatures, see Fig. \[Fig-COO-Fluc\]c. At $T=250$[K]{} the differences between the spectra around the different ${\bm Q}$ positions are most evident: Around ${{\bm Q}_\text{CE}}$ no inelastic signal can be detected anymore, whereas the dynamic correlations around ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}$ are clearly structured. These fluctuations are entirely FM in character – there is no evidence for CE-type correlations left at this temperature – and they have to be associated with the isotropic FM clusters revealed in the diffuse magnetic scattering. As around ${{\bm Q}_\text{FM}}$ both types of magnetic correlations may contribute, CE-type as well as FM ones, the thermal progression of the dynamics around this position, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Fluc\], documents how the isotropic FM correlations compete with and finally are replaced by the CE-type ordering (upon cooling), as it is fully consistent with the coexistence of different magnetic phases in the elastic scattering.
At T=250[K]{}, i.e. above any magnetic and charge ordering, we followed the ${\bm q}$ dependence of the FM fluctuations up to a maximal energy of 35[meV]{} along the main symmetry directions in the MnO$_2$ layers, see Fig. \[Fig-COO-Fluc\]d. The inelastic response is always rather broad in ${\bm Q}$ space, and above 12.5[meV]{} two different features overlap strongly, which are, however, centered at equivalent ${\bm q}$ positions in neighboring FM Brillouin zones, (100) and (110). With increasing energy both signals disperse towards the FM zone boundary, which they finally reach close to 30[meV]{} at (10.50). In the diagonal direction along \[110\] the energies of the FM fluctuation extend to even higher energies (raw data not shown), and the resulting dispersion of the FM fluctuations in the disordered phase above the COO transition is summarized in Fig. \[Fig-COO-DispFM\].
![(Color online) ${\bm q}$ dependence of the FM fluctuations in the disordered phase at T=250[K]{} for ${\bm q}=(q_h\,0\,0)$ and ${\bm q}=(q_h\,q_h\,0)$. Solid lines denote a fit to the data using an isotropic dispersion relation according to Eq. \[EqDispFM\], dotted lines give the magnon dispersion in the FM metallic state (T=\[10\][K]{}) of the perovskite taken from Ref. . []{data-label="Fig-COO-DispFM"}](Fig10.png "fig:"){width="42.50000%"}\
On a square lattice, the spin-wave dispersion for a Heisenberg ferromagnet with isotropic exchange $J_\text{iso}$ between nearest neighbors is given by: $$\label{EqDispFM}
\hbar\omega({\bm q})= 4J_\text{iso} S(2-\cos(2\pi q_h)-\cos(2\pi q_k)).$$ The observed ${\bm q}$ dependence of the magnetic correlations is reasonably well described by this simple Hamiltonian with only a single nearest-neighbor interaction, underlining the isotropic character of the FM correlations above ${T_\text{CO}}$. The slight overestimation of the frequencies at the low-$|{\bm q}|$ limit may arise from the finite size of the FM clusters. We do not find evidence for an excitation gap, and the best fit to the data yields an exchange energy $2J_\text{iso}S=7.5(5)$[meV]{}. The strength of the ferromagnetic exchange in the disordered phase is significantly reduced compared to the FM interaction in the CE structure, $2J_\text{FM}S\approx18$[meV]{} along the zigzag chains,[@senff06a] but still points to a sizable hopping mediated through the Zener double exchange even though the single-layer compound remains insulating. Furthermore, $2J_\text{iso}$ is well comparable with the magnetic exchange interaction in the FM metallic phases of perovskite manganites: The spin-wave dispersion in the FM phase of the CMR-compound is included in Fig. \[Fig-COO-DispFM\], which is also described by a single nearest-neighbor exchange interaction.[@perring96a] The dispersion of magnetic correlations in paramagnetic and the magnon dispersion in FM are remarkably similar. Therefore, the strength of the Zener exchange in the disordered phase above the COO transition in the insulating compound must be of similar magnitude as that in the metallic state of the perovskite CMR compounds.[@ye06a] The fact that the dispersion is perfectly isotropic parallel to the planes fully excludes the interpretation that the FM clusters are formed by the coupling of FM zigzag chain fragments.
Comparative Discussion of the temperature dependencies of the magnetic correlations
===================================================================================
The combination of the macroscopic and of the neutron scattering studies results in a comprehensive description of the evolution of the magnetic correlations in upon heating across the magnetic and the charge/orbital transition temperatures. The untwinned nature of the -sample crystal – besides the twinning directly introduced through the COO order – is of great advantage, as we may easily interpret the distinct signals. Real-space sketches of the magnetic correlations for different temperatures are presented in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Sketches\] to illustrate the different stages of the magnetic ordering between the short-range FM clusters at high temperature and the well-defined CE-type magnetic order at low temperature. In the following we will discuss the evolution of the magnetic order with increasing temperature. Although the details of the magnetic ordering might depend on the precise composition of the half-doped manganite,[@mathieu06a] and in particular on its single-layer, double-layer or perovskite structure, the general aspects, how magnetic correlations evolve with temperature, should be qualitatively the same, as previous less comprehensive studies indicate.[@bouloux81a; @kumar97a; @bao97a; @millange00a; @tomioka02a; @ye05a]
At low temperature, exhibits the well established CE-type magnetic order [@sternlieb96a] with no trace of another coexisting magnetic phase, see Fig. \[Fig-COO-Sketches\]a. Moreover, the magnon excitations in this phase can be well described within spin-wave theory and perfectly agree with the site-centered charge-orbital ordering model. In the spin-wave velocity is highly anisotropic as the magnetic interactions along the zigzag chains are by far the strongest.[@senff06a] The localized electron on the Mn$^{3+}$ site seems to yield a strong magnetic bridging within the zigzag chains, as discussed by Solovyev.[@solovyev03a; @solovyev01a]
![(Color online) Real-space sketches of the magnetic correlations in the -layers for various temperatures, (a) in the long-range ordered phase below ${T_\text{N}}$, (b,c) in the paramagnetic, but orbital ordered state ${T_\text{N}}<T<{T_\text{CO}}$, and (d) in the disordered regime above ${T_\text{CO}}$. Qualitatively, the four sketches are correlated to the intensity mappings presented in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Maps\], as indicated by the temperatures associated with each sketch. []{data-label="Fig-COO-Sketches"}](Fig11.png "fig:"){width="47.50000%"}\
The magnetic transition at ${T_\text{N}}$ is uncommon, as one does not find any signature of it in the temperature dependence of the magnetization in as well as in many half-doped perovskite manganites.[@bouloux81a; @kumar97a; @bao97a; @millange00a; @tomioka02a; @ye05a] The smooth variation of the susceptibility across ${T_\text{N}}$ relates to the temperature dependence of the magnetic diffuse scattering. Short-range magnetic correlations of the CE type persist above ${T_\text{N}}=110$[K]{} and can be observed up to ${T_\text{CO}}=220$[K]{}. These correlations are purely two dimensional and restricted to single layers. Moreover, the rod-like structure of the magnetic scattering within the $a^*b^*$ planes documents the strong anisotropy of these two-dimensional correlations: The coupling parallel to the chains is considerably better defined than that in the perpendicular direction in perfect agreement with the magnetic interaction parameters deduced from the spin-wave dipersion [@senff06a]. For ${T_\text{N}}<T<{T_\text{CO}}$ zigzag fragments are formed as isolated objects, see Fig. \[Fig-COO-Sketches\]b and c. With the reduction of temperature down towards ${T_\text{N}}$, the typical length $\xi_{||}$ of the zigzag fragments grows and interchain correlations begin to develop on a length scale $\xi_\bot$, thereby adapting more and more Mn spins into the CE-type correlated matrix, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Sketches\]c. All zigzag elements finally order at ${T_\text{N}}$ and the long-range CE-type ordering establishes in the layers, Fig. \[Fig-COO-Sketches\]a. Perfect three-dimensional ordering is, however, not achieved and the correlation length perpendicular to the planes remains finite.
The magnetic transition at ${T_\text{N}}$ has thus to be considered as the coherent ordering of preformed FM zigzag-chain fragments into the two-dimensional CE-type structure. A recent neutron scattering study on the related material, , has revealed similar features in the short-range magnetic correlations. Ye et al. report on anisotropic magnetic correlations above ${T_\text{N}}$, which are interpreted in terms of an electronically smecticlike phase.[@ye05a] An unusual thermal evolution of the magnetic order across ${T_\text{N}}$ seems to be a characteristic feature of the CE-type ordering.
The picture of preformed FM zigzag fragments is furthermore supported by the thermal evolution of the inelastic magnetic fluctuations, which above ${T_\text{N}}$ exhibit similar anisotropies as the static diffuse scattering. Furthermore, the softening of the magnon frequencies parallel to the chains is less pronounced than that perpendicular to the chains, once more demonstrating the predominance of the FM coupling along the chains within the COO state.[@senff06a]
In between the magnetic transition at ${T_\text{N}}$ and charge-orbital ordering at ${T_\text{CO}}$ we find a coexistence of the CE-type and FM elastic correlations documenting, how ferromagnetism and the CE-type order compete at these intermediate temperatures. With increasing temperature and approaching ${T_\text{CO}}$ the FM correlations get more and more weight, as it is indicated in the sketches in Fig. \[Fig-COO-Sketches\]b and c. It is remarkable that even in this pure half-doped material with an apparently very stable charge-orbital order, FM and CE-type elastic correlations coexist over a wide temperature interval. This behavior points to microscopic phase separation.[@uehara99a; @moreo99a; @sen07a] Although we may not fully exclude it, the interpretation of the coexisting FM and CE-type magnetic correlation by a spin rotation within a single cluster seems very unlikely, as the correlation lengths behave fully differently with temperature.
In the disordered phase above ${T_\text{CO}}$ the CE-type elastic and inelastic magnetic correlations are fully suppressed. This behavior strongly contrasts with observations in cuprates or nickelates where magnetic correlations reminiscent of stripe order persist far into the charge disordered phases.[@stripe-ni1; @stripe-ni2; @stripe-ni3; @stripe-cu-1; @cheong91a; @nakajima95a; @tranquada97a; @bourges03a] One has to conclude that at the charge- and orbital-order transition at ${T_\text{CO}}$ not only the long-range order disappears, but that also the dynamic COO fluctuations become suppressed. This might be the consequence of the first order character of the charge- and orbital-order transition in , which is already imposed by symmetry. Although our results clearly indicate that the dynamic fluctuations of the CE-type-associated charge-orbital order depicted in Fig. \[Fig-Sketch-CE\] are lost above ${T_\text{CO}}$, we think that some charge and orbital ordering persists on a local scale as it is frequently labeled through polaronic effects. Such local electron-lattice coupling should be associated with the strong phonon renormalization observed, e.g. in La$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$.[@reichardt99a]
In the charge- and orbital-disordered phase, there is, however, strong diffuse ferromagnetic scattering proving the existence of isotropic FM clusters with an average size of 8${\text{\AA}}$, see Fig. \[Fig-COO-Sketches\]d. The loosely antiferromagnetically bound FM zigzag chain fragments seem to transform into these clusters upon heating across ${T_\text{CO}}$. This picture perfectly agrees with the jump in the static susceptibility at ${T_\text{CO}}$. The magnetization of is typical for the CE-type ordering and can be compared to those of other charge-ordered perovskite manganites with a narrow one-electron bandwidth.[@kumar97a; @millange00a; @tomioka02a] In addition to the suppression of the double-exchange interaction due to the charge ordering, the onset of the AFM correlations explains the large drop of $M(T)$ at ${T_\text{CO}}$. The further reduction of $M(T)$ below ${T_\text{CO}}$ scales with the decrease of the FM intensity in the diffraction experiments and underlines the competition of FM and CE-type correlations.
The observed sequence of magnetic phases – isotropic short-range ferromagnetic correlations above ${T_\text{CO}}$, anisotropic correlations for ${T_\text{N}}<T<{T_\text{CO}}$ and long range ordering below ${T_\text{N}}$ – is also stabilized in various theoretical approaches.[@solovyev03a; @brey05a; @daghofer06a] Based on anisotropic magnetic exchange interactions, Solovyev predicts a magnetically disordered state consisting of stable FM-ordered zigzag elements for ${T_\text{N}}<T<{T_\text{CO}}$,[@solovyev03a] just as observed in our neutron data. However, whether or not these magnetic fluctuations are strong enough to stabilize the COO state, as originally proposed in Ref. , can not be finally answered from the present data. However, we emphasize that the CE-type magnetic fluctuations (both elastic and inelastic ones) are very weak slightly below the charge-orbital order shedding some doubt on the interpretation that the magnetic mechanism alone is strong enough to stabilize the charge- and orbital-ordered state.
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we have studied the magnetic correlations in the charge- and orbital-ordered manganite by elastic and inelastic neutron scattering techniques and by macroscopic thermodynamic measurements. The twin-free real structure of single crystals allows for a very precise analysis of the diffuse scattering and of the inelastic fluctuations.
The Néel transition in has to be considered as an order-disorder transition of FM zigzag chain fragments, thereby explaining the absence of well-defined anomalies in the magnetization at ${T_\text{N}}$, which is characteristic for numerous charge- and orbital-ordered perovskite materials as well. The in-plane magnetic correlations in are highly anisotropic in character, as the magnetic coupling within the zigzag chains is strongly dominating, whereas adjacent chains are only loosely coupled. FM correlations are fully suppressed below ${T_\text{N}}$ in the CE-type magnetic state in our high-quality crystal of , but in between ${T_\text{N}}$ and ${T_\text{CO}}$ AFM CE-type and FM correlations compete, with the FM fluctuations gaining more weight upon approaching the charge-orbital order transition at ${T_\text{CO}}$. The coexistence of diffuse FM and CE-type correlations with different ${\bm Q}$ shape indicates that microscopic phase separation occurs even in this pure half-doped material.
Inelastic fluctuations reminiscent of the CE-type order can be followed up to ${T_\text{CO}}$, but only the dispersion along the zigzag chains remains steep emphasizing once more the dominant role of the FM interaction along the zigzag chains. With the transition into the charge-orbital disordered phase above ${T_\text{CO}}$, the CE-type elastic and the inelastic correlations become fully suppressed. This behavior is fundamentally different from that of the magnetic stripe-type fluctuations in the layered cuprates or nickelates, where inelastic magnetic correlations reminiscent of a static stripe phase can be observed far above the charge ordering or even in samples which actually do not exhibit static stripe ordering at all. [@stripe-ni1; @stripe-ni2; @stripe-ni3; @stripe-cu-1; @cheong91a; @nakajima95a; @tranquada97a; @bourges03a] In the COO transition is of first order and apparently suppresses all traces of the complex low-temperature CE-type magnetic ground state. Instead of the CE-type magnetic fluctuations, strong isotropic in-plane FM correlations govern the charge-orbital disordered phase above ${T_\text{CO}}$. The sizeable elastic diffuse scattering is directly related with the large magnetic susceptibility. In addition there are well-defined inelastic fluctuations. It is remarkable, that the dispersion of these FM correlations in the disordered phase of so closely resembles the magnon dispersion of the FM metallic perovskite phases. All our observations together underline the competition between FM and AFM CE-type magnetic correlations in . These FM and AFM states are less different in character than one might naively think. The extra $e_g$ electron per two Mn sites in constitutes the isotropic FM interaction in the charge-orbital disordered phase above ${T_\text{CO}}$; the same electron apparently also provides the dominant oriented FM interaction when it localizes in the orbital-ordered phase.
The COO transition at ${T_\text{CO}}$ is clearly associated with the crossover between FM and AFM CE-type correlations. However it is difficult to decide whether these different magnetic fluctuations are just the consequence or the cause of the charge- and orbital-order transition. The fact that CE-type correlations are found immediately below ${T_\text{CO}}$ may be taken as evidence for a magnetic mechanism of the COO transition. However, close to ${T_\text{CO}}$ the CE-type fluctuations are very weak (much weaker than at low temperature) and sizeable, even stronger FM correlations remain closely below ${T_\text{CO}}$. This suggests that the transition into the charge- and orbital-ordered state is further driven by some non-magnetic mechanism, as e.g. by Jahn-Teller distortions.
[*Acknowledgments*]{} This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the Sonderforschungsbereich 608. We thank P. Reutler and D. Khomskii for numerous stimulating discussions, as well as P. Baroni for technical support.
[25]{}
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
A. J. Millis, P. B. Littlewood, and B. I. Shraiman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 5144 (1995).
M. Uehara, S. Mori, C. H. Chen, and S.-W. Cheong, Nature [**399**]{}, 560 (1999).
A. Moreo, S. Yunoki, and E. Dagotto, Science [**283**]{}, 2034 (1999).
F. M. Woodward, J. W. Lynn, M. B. Stone, R. Mahendiran, P. Schiffer, J. F. Mitchell, D. N. Argyriou, and L. C. Chapon, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 174433 (2004).
G. C. Milward, M. J. Calder[ó]{}n, and P. B. Littlewood, Nature [**433**]{}, 607 (2005).
C. Şen, G. Alvarez, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 127202 (2007).
Y. Tokura and N. Nagaosa, Science [**288**]{}, 462 (2000).
S. Murakami and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 197201 (2003).
B. J. Sternlieb, J. P. Hill, U. C. Wildgruber, G. M. Luke, B. Nachumi, Y. Moritomo, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2169 (1996).
D. N. Argyriou, H. N. Bordallo, B. J. Campbell, A. K. Cheetham, D. E. Cox, J. S. Gardner, K. Hanif, A. dos Santos, and G. F. Strouse, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 15269 (2000).
E. O. Wollan and W. C. Koehler, Phys. Rev. [**100**]{}, 545 (1955).
J. B. Goodenough, Phys. Rev. [**100**]{}, 564 (1955).
P. G. Radaelli, D. E. Cox, M. Marezio, and S.-W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 3015 (1997).
Y. Murakami, H. Kawada, H. Kawata, M. Tanaka, T. Arima, Y. Moritomo, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1932 (1998).
A. Daoud-Aladine, J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, L. Pinsard-Gaudart, M. T. Fernández-Díaz, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 097205 (2002).
D. Efremov, J. [van den Brink]{}, and D. Khomskii, Nature Materials [**3**]{}, 853 (2004).
S. Grenier, J. P. Hill, D. Gibbs, K. J. Thomas, M. v. Zimmermann, C. S. Nelson, V. Kiryukhin, Y. Tokura Y. Tomioka, D. Casa, T. Gog, and C. Venkataraman, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 134419 (2004).
R. J. Goff and J. P. Attfield, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 140404 (2004).
E. E. Rodriguez, T. Proffen, A. Llobet, J. J. Rhyne, and J. F. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 104430 (2005).
D. Senff, F. Krüger, S. Scheidl, M. Benomar, Y. Sidis, F. Demmel, and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 257201 (2006).
A. Trokiner, A. Yakubovskii, S. Verkhovskii, A. Gerashenko, and D. Khomskii, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 092403 (2006).
Z. Jirak, S. Krupicka, Z. Simsa, M. Dlouha, and S. Vraatislav, J. of Magn. and Magn. Mat. [**53**]{}, 153 (1985).
F. Damay, Z. Jirak, M. Hervieu, C. Martin, A. Maignan, B. Raveau, G. André, and F. Bourrée, J. of Magn. and Magn. Mat. [**190**]{}, 221 (1998).
Z. Jirak, F. Damay, M. Hervieu, C. Martin, B. Raveau, G. André, and F. Bourrée, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 1181 (2000).
O. Schumann, D. Senff, M. Benomar, and M. Braden (unpublished).
S. Yunoki, T. Hotta, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 3714 (2000).
Z. Popović, and S. Satpathy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 197201 (2002).
S. Dong, S. Dai, X. Y. Yao, K. F. Wang, C. Zhu, and J.-M. Liu, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 104404 (2006).
I. V. Solovyev and K. Terakura, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2825 (1999).
J. van den Brink, G. Khaliullin, and D. Khomskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 5118 (1999).
I. V. Solovyev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 177201 (2003).
I. V. Solovyev, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 174406 (2001).
S. Larochelle, A. Mehta, N. Kaneko, P. K. Mang, A. F. Panchulla, L. Zhou, J. Arthur, and M. Greven, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 095502 (2001).
P. Mahadevan, K. Terakura, and D. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 066404 (2001).
S. B. Wilkins, P. D. Spencer, P. D. Hatton, S. P. Collins, M. D. Roper, D. Prabhakaran, and A. T. Boothroyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 167205 (2003).
S. S. Dhesi, A. Mirone, C. De Nadai, P. Ohresser, N. B. Brookes, P. Reutler, A. Revcolevschi, A. Tagliaferri, O. Toulemonde, and G. van der Laan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 056402 (2004).
M. Tokunaga, N. Miura, Y. Moritomo, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 11151 (1999).
Y. Moritomo, Y. Tomioka, A. Asamitsu, Y. Tokura, and Y. Matsui, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 3297 (1995).
S. Larochelle, A. Mehta, L. Lu, P. K. Mang, O. P. Vajk, N. Kaneko, J. W. Lynn, L. Zhou, and M. Greven, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 024435 (2005).
D. Senff, P. Reutler, M. Braden, O. Friedt, D. Bruns, A. Cousson, F. Bouree, M. Merz, B. Büchner, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 024425 (2005).
P. Reutler, O. Friedt, B. B[ü]{}chner, M. Braden, and A. Revcolevschi, J. Cryst. Growth [**249**]{}, 222 (2003).
R. M. Moon, T. Riste, and C. Koehler, Phys. Rev. [**181**]{}, 920 (1969).
P. Reutler, Y. Sidis, and M. Braden (unpublished).
K. Marumoto, K. Soda, S. Kuroda, and Y. Moritomo, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**72**]{}, 582 (2003).
N. E. Bonesteel, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 11302 (1993).
A. Zheludev, *ResLib* 3.3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2006).
T. G. Perring, G. Aeppli, S. M. Hayden, S. A. Carter, J. P. Remeika, and S.-W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 711 (1996).
F. Ye, P. Dai, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, H. Sha, J. W. Lynn, H. Kawano-Furukawa, Y. Tomioka, Y. Tokura, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 047204 (2006).
R. Mathieu, M. Uchida, Y. Kaneko, J. P. He, X: Z. Yu, R. Kumai, T. Arima, Y. Tomioka, A. Asamitsu, Y. Matsui, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 020404(R) (2006).
J.-C. Bouloux, J.-L. Soubeyroux, A. Daouda, and G. [Le Flem]{}, Mat. Res. Bull. [**16**]{}, 855 (1981).
N. Kumar and C. N. R. Rao, J. of Solid State Chem. [**129**]{}, 363 (1997).
W. Bao, J. D. Axe, C. H. Chen, and S.-W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 543 (1997).
F. Millange, S. de Brion, and G. Chouteau, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 5619 (2000).
Y. Tomioka and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 104416 (2002).
F. Ye, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, P. Dai, J. W. Lynn, H. Kawano-Furukawa, H. Yoshizawa, Y. Tomioka, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 212404 (2005).
C. H. Chen, S-W. Cheong, and A. S. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett. **71**, 2461 (1993).
V. Sachan, D. J. Buttrey, J. M. Tranquada, J. E. Lorenzo, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B. **51**, 12742 (1995).
J. M. Tranquada, D. J. Buttrey, and V. Sachan, Phys. Rev. B. **54**, 12318 (1996).
P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, M. Braden, K. Nakajima, and J. M. Tranquada, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 147202 (2003).
S.-W. Cheong, G. Aeppli, T. E. Mason, H. Mook, S. M. Hayden, P. C. Canfield, Z. Fisk, K. N. Clausen, and J. L. Martinez, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 1791 (1991)
J. M. Tranquada, B. J. Sternlieb, J. D. Axe, Y. Nakamura, and S. Uchida, Nature **375**, 561 (1995).
K. Nakajima, K. Yamada, S. Hosoya, Y. Endoh, M. Greven, and R. J. Birgenau, Z. Physik B **96**, 479 (1995).
J. M. Tranquada, P. Wochner, and D. J. Buttrey, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 2133 (1997)
W. Reichardt and M. Braden, Physica B **263**, 416 (1999).
L. Brey, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 174426 (2005).
M. Daghofer, A. M. Oles, D. R. Neuber, and W. von der Linden, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 104451 (2006).
[^1]: Spektrometer PANDA, Institut für Festkörperphysik, TU Dresden
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Results of recent observations of the Galactic bulge demand that we discard a simple picture of its formation, suggesting the presence of two stellar populations represented by two peaks of stellar metallicity distribution (MDF) in the bulge. To assess this issue, we construct Galactic chemical evolution models that have been updated in two respects: First, the delay time distribution (DTD) of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) recently revealed by extensive SN Ia surveys is incorporated into the models. Second, the nucleosynthesis clock, the $s$-processing in asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, is carefully considered in this study. This novel model first shows that the Galaxy feature tagged by the key elements, Mg, Fe, Ba for the bulge as well as thin and thick disks is compatible with a short-delay SN Ia. We present a successful modeling of a two-component bulge including the MDF and the evolutions of \[Mg/Fe\] and \[Ba/Mg\], and reveal its origin as follows. A metal-poor component ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$$\sim$-0.5) is formed with a relatively short timescale of $\sim$1 Gyr. These properties are identical to the thick disk’s characteristics in the solar vicinity. Subsequently from its remaining gas mixed with a gas flow from the disk outside the bulge, a metal-rich component ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$$\sim$+0.3) is formed with a longer timescale ($\sim$ 4 Gyr) together with a top-heavy initial mass function that might be identified with the thin disk component within the bulge.'
author:
- 'Takuji Tsujimoto$^{1}$ and Kenji Bekki$^{2}$'
title: 'Two-Component Galactic Bulge Probed with Renewed Galactic Chemical Evolution Model'
---
Introduction
============
The Galactic bulge is classified as a boxy bulge that is associated with bars and is likely generated through disk instability processes [e.g., @Kuijken_95; @Bureau_99]. Its kinematics and surface brightness profile are indeed shown to be cylindrical rotation [@Howard_09; @Shen_10] and be near-exponential rather than $r^{1/4}$ [@Kent_91], respectively as evidence for boxy bulge. This view suggests that the formation of the Galactic bulge is closely connected to disk evolution, resulting in a longer timescale for its formation than that expected for classical bulges, considered to be merger products as a result of hierarchical galaxy formation in the cold dark matter (CDM) Universe [@Aguerri_01; @Scannapieco_03]. Thus, this views favors a recent finding of a large age span of $\sim$2-13 Gyr among microlensed turn-off bulge stars [@Bensby_11], though the color-magnitude diagrams of the Galactic bulge show no clear signature of the presence of a young stellar population [e.g., @Zoccali_03; @Clarkson_08].
In general, it is expected that a disk instability forming the bulge induces a vertical mixing, which leads to erasing a metallicity gradient along a minor axis. This contradicts the observed result showing a clear \[Fe/H\] gradient [@Zoccali_08]. This problematic issue is solved by introducing two components, i.e., thick and thin disks, as the origin of Galactic bulge [@Bekki_11a]. Their scenario is as follows: The first disk is disturbed by an ancient minor merger, which induces a vertical growth of the disk and transforms it into a thick disk, and subsequently the thin disk starts to form with an accompanying bar formation in the central region. In such a two-component disk, a vertical mixing induced by a bar buckling functions incompletely in a sense that the high latitude region in the thick disk is not well mixed. In the end, the resultant bulge shows a vertical metallicity gradient as well as a cylindrical rotation, both of which are compatible with the observed results.
Two components of the Galactic bulge were first proposed by @Babusiaux_10 in terms of chemistry and kinematics. They find the metal-poor population kinematically associated with an old spheroidal or a thick disk and the metal-rich population with a bar-like kinematics. Furthermore, very recently, a double-peaked metallicity distribution (MDF) of bulge stars has been reported with two different tracers, i.e., red clump giants [@Hill_11] and microlensed dwarf stars [@Bensby_11]. Two results basically point to the same conclusion that the metallicity of one peak is metal-poor at \[Fe/H\]$\sim$ -0.6 - -0.3 and the other metal-rich at \[Fe/H\]$\sim$+0.3.
In view of chemical evolution, the MDF should be examined together with the time evolution of the elemental abundance pattern generally described as \[X/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\]. One aspect of the converged knowledge on this for the bulge is that the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratio decreases with an increasing \[Fe/H\] for the metal-rich regime [e.g., @Alves_10; @Hill_11; @Bensby_11], which bears witness to the presence of contribution from type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) to chemical enrichment in the bulge. Here we should highlight recent results regarding the delay time distribution (DTD) of SNe Ia yielded by the studies on the SN Ia rate in distant and nearby galaxies [@Mannucci_06; @Sullivan_06; @Totani_08; @Maoz_11]. Their findings dramatically shorten the SN Ia’s delay time, compared with its conventional timescale of $\sim$1 Gyr, which will have a significant impact on Galactic chemical evolution.
This renewed picture of a SNIa clocking should be tied up with another nucleosynthesis clock, the $s$-process operating in an asymptotic giant branch (AGB) star. These two different delayed-timings to release the nucleosynthesis product will create variation in stellar abundances among the elements such as Mg, Fe, and Ba, from which we can decipher the evolutionary pathway to the present through detailed modeling. In this paper, incorporating the new SN Ia DTD and AGB yield into the Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) model, we explore the chemical evolution of the Galactic bulge, highlighting its two components. To strengthen the rigidness of the model, we first complete the reproduction of the chemical feature of the Galactic thin and thick disks.
Two Nucleosynthesis Clocks
==========================
Chemical enrichment at an early stage is promoted by the product from short-lived massive stars through type II SNe (SNe II), and subsequently with a time delay, heavy elements from SNe Ia and AGB stars come to an entry. As a result, the relative contribution from SNe Ia or AGB stars to the ISM in comparison with SNe II, which is imprinted in individual stellar abundances of long-lived stars, can be utilized as an age-dating for the stars. The updates of the input for these delayed contributors are briefly described.
SNe Ia
------
It is difficult to estimate the evolutionary timescale of SN Ia progenitors from purely theoretical arguments due to difficulties in identifying the binary companions of SN Ia’s progenitors. Therefore, the break in the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratio seen in the solar neighborhood stars due to the switchover of the major Fe source from SNe II to SNe Ia at \[Fe/H\] $\sim$-1 had long been the only information available for deducing the delay time of SNe Ia by theoretically estimating the elapsed time until \[Fe/H\]$\sim$-1. This assessment indeed leads to a considerably long delay time of $\sim$1-1.5 Gyr [e.g., @Pagel_95; @Yoshii_96]. However, recently we have entered a new phase in our understanding of SN Ia delay time. Its distribution, i.e., the DTD, is revealed by the survey of SN Ia rate in extragalaxies, the individual galaxy ages of which are deduced. Surprisingly, it turns out that young progenitors for SNe Ia are dominant [@Mannucci_06; @Sullivan_06], and that the DTD is proportional to $t_{\rm delay}^{-1}$ for the approximate range of 0.1 Gyr $\leq t_{\rm delay} \leq$10 Gyr [@Totani_08; @Maoz_10]. This implies that about 70% of SNe Ia explodes with a time delay within 1 Gyr. Such a form of DTD can be predicted by the theoretical models for the progenitor of SNe Ia: a double-degenerate (DD) scenario, i.e., merging of double C+O white dwarfs with a combined mass surpassing the Chandrasekhar mass limit [e.g., @Yungelson_00; @Greggio_05] or a single-degenerate (SD) scenario, i.e., accretion of hydrogen-rich matter via mass transfer from a binary companion [@Hachisu_08]. In this study, we apply this new SN Ia DTD to Galactic chemical evolution, and for its normalization we assume the mass of the primary component of binary, which eventually produce SNe Ia through accretion or merging, in the range of $3-8$ . In the end, the SN Ia rate is calculated so that the fraction of the stars that end up with SNe Ia for this mass range is 0.08, which is distributed with a DTD $\propto t_{\rm delay}^{-1}$ for $0.1\leq t_{ \rm delay}\leq10$ Gyr. Its fraction has been obtained through previous works as well as recheck by this study. In §3, we will see a fatal problem that we have noticed in a previous approach to try to determine the SN Ia DTD within the Galaxy thanks to advancement of the observed data.
![Comparison of the theoretical \[Ba/Fe\] ratio expected for AGB stars as a function of \[Fe/H\] with the observed abundances of Post-AGB stars (red circles), Ba stars (blue squares), and Carbon stars (crosses). Solid lines denote the ratio of Ba yield synthesized in AGB stars to stellar metallicity used for model calculations. The Ba yield corresponding to dashed line showing a better fit to the observation is also applied to calculations (see Fig.3). Two dotted curves represent the maximal and minimal predictions from AGB models with a range of $^{13}$C-pocket efficiencies [@Busso_01]. ](f1.eps){width="7cm"}
$s$-processing
--------------
Low-mass AGB stars ($M <$3) release the $s$-process elements during the thermally pulsing AGB phase [e.g., @Gallino_98]. Mainly due to large uncertainties in convective mixing and $^{13}$C-pocket efficiencies, the $s$-process nucleosynthesis allows a wide range for the level of a possible production. On the other hand, abundances of the surface of AGB stars can be directly compared with the nucleosynthesis results. Here we focus on the element, Ba. Figure 1 shows the observed abundances of Post-AGB stars, Ba stars, and Carbon stars [@Kappeler_11 references therein]. Note that all observed data reside in the theoretically allowable range [@Busso_01] denoted by dashed lines. Here we determine the best empirical Ba yield as a function of stellar \[Fe/H\] so as to reproduce the Ba evolution of thin disk stars within an observationally acceptable range in terms of AGB abundances. For \[Fe/H\]$>$-1, the Ba yield given by dashed line which is fully consistent with the data fails to reproduce the chemical evolution of the thin disk. Alternatively, we adopt the Ba yield for stars with a mass of 1.5-3 corresponding to the solid line which is rather close to the upper envelope of the observed \[Ba/Fe\]-\[Fe/H\] plane.
![Predicted features of chemical evolution in the thick disk, compared with the observed quantities. [*Top panel*]{}: The \[Mg/Fe\]-\[Fe/H\] diagram. The observed data are taken from @Bensby_05, @Ruchti_11, and @Venn_04, denoted by filled circles, small circles, and small crosses, respectively. [*Middle panel*]{}: The \[Ba/Mg\]-\[Fe/H\] diagram. The \[Ba/Mg\] ratios from @Venn_04 are shifted by +0.15 dex to broadly adjust their average to the level of data from @Bensby_05. ](f2.eps){width="7cm"}
Chemical Evolution of Disks
===========================
Solar neighborhood stars are a mixture of stars belonging to different Galactic components, i.e., halo, thick disk, and thin disk. A growing understanding of the kinematic properties of individual stars thanks to Hipparcos data has enabled us to precisely select thick and thin disk stars [e.g., @Feltzing_03]. It then reveals that the observed break in \[$\alpha$/Fe\] is seen among thick disk stars (Fig. 2), and that all thin disk stars follow a decreasing \[$\alpha$/Fe\] trend (Fig. 3). Accordingly, our previous view that some fraction of thin disk stars populates a plateau of \[$\alpha$/Fe\] with respect to \[Fe/H\] has to be discarded. In this study, we examine the evolution of \[Mg/Fe\] and \[Ba/Mg\] (not \[Ba/Fe\] so as to prevent the effect of $s$-processing from being hidden by SN Ia contamination). In addition, we focus on the chemical evolution for \[Fe/H\]0 since the origin of metal-rich disk stars should be assessed with an extra evolution factor such as either stellar migration [@Roskar_08; @Bekki_11b] or bulge winds [@Tsujimoto_07; @Tsujimoto_10].
We should note that Ba is synthesized through not only $s$-process but also $r$-process. The theoretical interpretation of abundance data on very metal-poor stars implies that the mass range for the $r$-process is 8-10 [@Mathews_92; @Ishimaru_99] as identified with the collapsing O-Ne-Mg core [@Wheeler_98], 20-25 [@Tsujimoto_00], or 12-30 [@Cescutti_06] with heavy weighing on lower mass progenitors. Here, as the site for $r$-process, we adopt the mass range of 20-25 and the Ba yield deduced by @Tsujimoto_00. We do not have to be exact in the mass range because its variance influences only the behavior of $r$-process enrichment at a very early epoch, outside the focus of this study.
![Predicted features of chemical evolution in the thin disk. In the models, chemical evolution is assumed to start from the remaining gas after the formation of the thick disk, and the results are shown by solid curves. The dashed curve is the result calculated with the Ba yield, the metallicity dependence of which corresponds to the dashed line in Fig.1. The \[Ba/Mg\] ratios from @Venn_04 are shifted by +0.15 dex as in Fig. 2. ](f3.eps){width="7cm"}
Since the present GCE models are essentially the same as those adopted in our previous paper [e.g., @Tsujimoto_10; @Bekki_11b], we briefly describe the models. The basic picture is that the Galactic thin and thick disks were formed by the gas infall from outside the disk region. For the infall rate, we apply an exponential form with a timescale $\tau_{\rm in}$. Taking into account the relatively rapid formation of the thick disk and the presence of a G-dwarf problem for the thin disk, we assume a rather short timescale of $\tau_{\rm in}$=0.5 Gyr for the thick disk, and a much longer timescale of $\tau_{\rm in}$=5 Gyr for the thin disk. The metallicity $Z_{\rm in}$ of infalling gas is assumed to be pre-enriched [see @Bekki_11b]. For the thick disk, we set \[Fe/H\] = -1.3 since the MDF of thick disk stars shows a sharp increase from \[Fe/H\]$\sim$-1.3 to the peak [@Wyse_95]. For the thin disk, the metallicity is determined by an implication from the cosmic evolution of damped Ly$\alpha$ systems [@Wolfe_05], the metallicity of which is around \[Fe/H\] = -1.5 at the epoch of thin disk formation. Thus, in our models an infalling gas for the thick disk is somewhat more enriched than that for the thin disk, which is reflected in the Ba abundance while an enhanced SN II-like \[$\alpha$/Fe\] is assumed for both. In the end, the adopted values of $Z_{\rm in}$ are (\[Fe/H\], \[Mg/H\], \[Ba/H\]) = (-1.3, -0.9, -1.1), (-1.5, -1.1, -1.7) for thick and thin disks, respectively. An initial gas of the thick disk formation is set to retain the same abundances as in $Z_{\rm in}$. The star formation rate (SFR) is assumed to be proportional to the gas fraction with a constant coefficient $\nu$ for the duration $\Delta_{\rm SF}$. The higher value of $\nu$=2 Gyr$^{-1}$ for $\Delta_{\rm SF}$= 1.5 Gyr is adopted for the thick disk, compared with $\nu$=0.4 Gyr$^{-1}$ and $\Delta_{\rm SF}$=12 Gyr for the thin disk. For the initial mass function (IMF), we assume a power-law mass spectrum with a slope $x$ of $-1.35$ (a Salpeter’s) together with a mass range ($m_l$, $m_u$)=(0.05 , 50 ) [@Tsujimoto_97].
In Figure 2, we show the model results for the evolution of \[Mg/Fe\] and \[Ba/Mg\] against \[Fe/H\] in the thick disk. We see a good agreement with the observations. In particular, a successful reproduction of the \[Mg/Fe\] feature suggests that a new SN Ia DTD revealed by extragalaxy studies is compatible with the Milky Way case. In the \[Ba/Mg\]-\[Fe/H\] diagram, we find an apparent offset between in the observed \[Ba/Mg\] values between @Bensby_05 and @Venn_04 for both thick and thin disks. Therefore, the \[Ba/Mg\] data by @Venn_04 are shifted by +0.15 dex, which is equivalent to a mean difference between two data sets for -0.5$\leq$\[Fe/H\]$\leq$-0.2.
We regard the thick disk as a first disk which is heated up by an ancient minor merger, that is subsequently followed by the gradual formation of a secondary disk, i.e., the thin disk. Such a first thick disk can also be formed through clump merging in an unstable primordial disk [@Bournaud_07]. In these scenarios, we assume that star formation within the thin disk occurs after the termination of star formation in the thick disk, and thus the thin disk stars start forming from the thick disk’s remaining gas (corresponding to $\sim 10$% of the original gas) mixed with the gas accreted onto the disk. Accordingly, chemical abundances of the first stars in the thin disk are similar to those of the most metal-rich stars in the thick disk. As shown in Figure 2, the thick disk formation leaves the metal-rich gas as an end product of its chemical evolution. As a result, the evolution of \[Mg/Fe\] starts from \[Fe/H\]$\sim$0 (Fig. 3). Then, \[Fe/H\] and \[Mg/Fe\] decreases and increases, respectively, owing to dilution by metal-poor infalling gas. This reverse evolution comes to an end when the chemical enrichment by star formation exceeds the effect of gas dilution, and subsequently an usual evolutionary path appears. Our claim is that the remaining metal-rich gas after the thick disk formation results in the presence of no metal-poor thin disk stars. In the plot of \[Ba/Mg\], there are few observed data which coincide with the predicted early evolutionary path until \[Fe/H\]$\sim$-0.8. We note that it is not a contradictory result because the predicted fraction of stars riding this path is very small.
Chemical Evolution of Bulge
===========================
We examine the chemical evolution of the Galactic bulge from a viewpoint that it is composed of two different populations. Models are constructed based on two-peaked MDF [@Hill_11; @Bensby_11]. Our grand picture of their formation is that (i) first, a metal-poor population (MPP) is formed with a relatively short timescale, and (ii) subsequently from its remaining gas plus a gas inflow from an inner disk, a metal-rich population (MRP) starts to form with a longer timescale. For the model of MPP, we assume a pre-enriched initial gas abundance, (\[Fe/H\], \[Mg/H\], \[Ba/H\])=(-1.3, -0.9, -1.1), so as to reproduce lack of stars for \[Fe/H\]-1.3 in the MDF and high Ba abundances of the most metal-poor stars. Abundances of an infalling gas are assumed to be the same. The enriched gas is considered to be an end result of chemical processing associated with the halo formation. The results calculated with ($\tau_{\rm in}$, $\nu$, $\Delta_{\rm SF}$)=(0.3, 4, 1) together with a Salpeter IMF are shown by blue curves in Figure 4.
![Predicted features of chemical evolution for the two-component bulge. The model results for metal-poor and metal-rich components are shown by blue and red curves, respectively. The calculated MDFs are convolved using the Gaussian with a dispersion of 0.1 dex in \[Fe/H\] considering a measurement error expected in the data. The MDF summing each distribution up with a ratio of 0.5/0.5 is denoted by a black solid curve. The model distribution and the observed one by @Bensby_11 are normalized to coincide with the total number of the sample stars used by @Hill_11.The observed data are taken from @Hill_11 [filled circles] and @Bensby_11 [open circles] for the MDF, @Bensby_11 [filled circles] and @Gonzalez_11 [small crosses] for \[Mg/Fe\], and @Bensby_11 for \[Ba/Mg\]. ](f4.eps){width="7cm"}
MRP is calculated with an initial condition given by a metal-rich gas abundance as an end result of a former MPP’s formation under the setting of ($\tau_{\rm in}$, $\nu$, $\Delta_{\rm SF}$)=(1.5, 3, 4). An inflow gas from an inner disk is assumed to be enriched up to (\[Fe/H\], \[Mg/H\], \[Ba/H\])=(-0.3, -0.3, -0.5). This subsolar metallicity is expected in the chemical evolution of the inner disk at an early epoch since at the inner disk an efficient chemical enrichment proceeded but the present-day gas abundance is not so metal-rich such as \[Fe/H\]$\sim$ +0.2-0.3 inferred from Cepheids [@Andrievsky_04]. This together with the consideration that sufficient time for the release of SN Ia and $s$-process products elapsed results in the above elemental abundances. In addition, in its modeling, we find that a top-heavy IMF is indispensable to make a metal-rich MDF as observed. Otherwise, a peak in the MDF results in being close to \[Fe/H\]$\sim$0 with an end metallicity unreachable to \[Fe/H\]$\sim$+0.3. Here we assume $x$=1.05. The results are shown by red curves. In the MDF (top panel), each contribution denoted by colored curves is summed up with an equal ratio according to an observed implication, to construct the predicted MDF (black curve) that can be compared with the observed two-peaked one. We also see that the predicted \[Mg/Fe\] and \[Ba/Mg\] evolutions are consistent with the observed features. Note that a gas fraction at the end of star formation for each case of MPP and MRP is 9%, 8%, respectively in our calculations. @Cescutti_11 first shows the Ba evolution in the bulge, calculating \[Ba/Fe\] together with the Mg/Fe evolution. Combination of these two evolutions broadly yields little evolution of \[Ba/Mg\] ($\sim$-0.4 $-$ -0.5) at least for \[Fe/H\]0. Its predicted level that is lower than the observed \[Ba/Mg\] on the whole is likely to be caused by a low Ba yield for the $s$-process in their models.
Our new chemical evolution models have demonstrated that a top-heavy IMF is required to explain the observed MDF and dependences of \[Mg/Fe\] and \[Ba/Mg\] on \[Fe/H\] in the bulge stars. Some previous studies support a top-heavy IMF in the bulge from a different angle. @Dokkum_08 revealed that IMFs in early-type galaxies at $0.02 \le z \le 0.83$ are significantly flatter than the present-day value of the Galaxy. @Larson_98 discussed a number of items of observational evidence that support top-heavy IMFs in high-redshift spheroidal galaxies. In addition, @Maness_07 claimed a top-heavy IMF in the Galactic center. We find an alternative model to explain the metal-rich part of MDF with the IMF unchanged. The device of this model is an assumed inflow which will chemically evolve to \[Fe/H\]$\sim$+0.5 during the bulge formation. However, its scenario implicitly presumes a top-heavy IMF in an inner disk outside the bulge. Therefore, we conclude that a top-heavy IMF is unavoidable for the chemical evolution of the inner Galaxy.
In our scenario, metal-rich bulge stars are formed through an inflow from the inner thin disk. On the other hand, the bulge enriches the disk with large-scale winds to induce the production of metal-rich disk stars [@Tsujimoto_10]. In this way, we present a new view on Galactic chemical evolution that an interplay between the bulge and the disk accelerates their chemical enrichment each other.
Discussion
==========
One-component bulge
-------------------
The complexity of the stellar population in the Galactic bulge has just entered the stage of debate on its potentiality. The one-component bulge is still a plausible view in terms of the MDF [@Fulbright_06; @Zoccali_08] or stellar kinematics [@Howard_09]. Thus, it is worthwhile to refer to the chemical evolution based on a single-peaked MDF derived from red giants in the Baade window [@Fulbright_06]. The reason different types of stars yields different MDFs remains unexplained [@Bensby_11 for a detailed discussion]. First, we show that the model with an enhanced star formation is not sufficient to reproduce the chemical feature of bulge stars. The dashed curve in the top panel of Figure 5 represents a resultant MDF calculated by the model with a rapid collapse ($\tau_{\rm in}$=0.3 Gyr), a high SFR ($\nu$=2 Gyr$^{-1}$), and $\Delta_{\rm SF}$=2 Gyr together with a Salpeter IMF. These setting results in a final gas fraction of 10%. For the metallicity of an initial gas as well as of an infalling gas, we assume a very low-metal content, (\[Fe/H\], \[Mg/H\], \[Ba/H\])=(-3.0, -2.6, -3.2). The MDF thus obtained is entirely skewed to a low metallicity. In addition, the predicted \[Mg/Fe\] curve in the middle panel is lower than the observed data in a metal-rich regime.
{width="7cm"}
On the other hand, the predicted \[Ba/Mg\] in the bottom panel exhibits a sharper rise from a much lower metallicity than is expected from the observation. These inconsistencies are resolved by the models with a flatter IMF ($x$=1.05), as shown by solid curves, which give a good agreement with the observed MDF as well as the observed correlations of \[Mg/Fe\] and \[Ba/Mg\] with \[Fe/H\]. This flat IMF is fairly consistent with those claimed by several authors, such as $x=1.1$ [@Matteucci_90] and $x=0.95$ (Ballero et al. 2007a,b). The necessity of a top-heavy IMF in the bulge can be also concluded from the following argument. An anticipated rapid collapse realizes the condition approximated by a closed-box model. In this approximation, the mean metallicity of stars will become the heavy-element yield when the remaining gas approaches zero [@Tinsley_80]. In other words, the location of a peak in the MDF is fundamentally determined by the IMF (not by the SF efficiency).
In the end, our study has demonstrated that a top-heavy IMF is the key factor to efficiently drive chemical enrichment in the bulge, whether one-component or two-components. Recently revealed two-component bulge should be validated by a bigger database of a large sample of bulge stars to confirm the dip around \[Fe/H\]$\sim$0 in the MDF.
Halo vs. short-delayed SNe Ia
-----------------------------
The well-known fact for the Galactic halo is basically no indication of SNe Ia for the elemental abundance of halo stars, which exhibits a plateau of \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratio over a whole metallicity range. It turns out that in the CDM Universe halo stars were rapidly formed in the Galactic building blocks, likely in dwarf galaxies, with its termination probably due to huge energy released by numerous SNe II before the major occurrence of of short-delayed SNe Ia. Thus, individual building blocks must be formed with a very short timescale ($\sim 10^8$yr), while an assembly of them finally makes the stellar halo which exhibits an age span of a few Gyr [@De; @Angeli_05]. Observational studies reveal that the chemical abundances of the Galactic stellar halo are significantly different from those of the present-day dwarf galaxies around the Galaxy in the sense that halo stars have higher \[alpha/Fe\] [e.g., @Shetrone_01; @Tolstoy_03; @Venn_04]. Recent theoretical calculations based on the $\Lambda$ CDM model show that the majority of the Galactic halo stars are formed from a few relative massive dwarfs in which star formation is rather rapid and thus the stars are chemically enriched primarily by SNe II to have an enhanced \[alpha/Fe\] ratio [@Robertson_05]. These numerical results should be reanalyzed by introducing the new DTD for SNe Ia.
It would be interesting to check if the $s$-process elements from AGB stars starting to release with a timescale of a few $10^8$yr are imprinted in the abundances of halo stars. In the case where the $s$-process operated in the stellar halo, the \[$s$-process/$r$-process\] ratio such as \[Ba/Eu\] or \[La/Eu\] switches its constant value to an increasing feature from a certain metallicity owing to a gradual $s$-process contribution superimposed on the $r$-process material in the ISM. Observationally, the metallicity indicating this onset among the Galactic halo stars is difficult to detect since it is hidden by a large scatter in the abundance ratios. @Gilroy_88 find the onset of $s$-processing at \[Fe/H\]$\sim$-2. On the other hand, recent study claims no indication of the $s$-process at least until \[Fe/H\]$\sim$-1.4 [@Roederer_10]. For \[Fe/H\]$>$-1.4, either the presence or the absence of $s$-processing is very unclear because \[La/Eu\] continues to make a plateau while \[Pb/Eu\] shows an upward trend with an increasing \[Fe/H\]. This issue points to the need for further studies.
If the signature of $s$-processing will be detected among halo stars, how do we connect the new DTD to the chemistry of halo stars? A deficiency of binary stars in the Galactic globular clusters (GCs) compared to the field is reported [e.g., @Pryor_89; @Cote_96]. Suppose that this observed fact results from the lack of binaries with short separations in GCs, some of which will be the progenitors of short-delayed SNe Ia in either a DD scenario or a SD scenario. Then, the GC stars are expected to be hardly enriched by SNe Ia. These GCs are suggested to be originally formed within galactic building blocks [@Searle_78], and halo stars can be regarded as the stripped stars of the blocks [@Bekki_01]. Therefore, we can hypothesize that in individual blocks both GCs and halo stars shared giant molecular clouds, where a lower fraction of close binary stars could be formed due to their high densities, as their birth place. In addition, recent observed result based on chemically unusual red giants implies that a significant fraction of halos stars are originated from disintegrated GCs [@Martell_11]. Accordingly, halo stars could avoid the contamination by SNe Ia in their chemical history. The compatibility of the presence of $s$-process among halo stars with the short-delayed DTD can be also understood consistently if $s$-process elements are produced in fast-rotating massive stars [@Pignatari_08; @Chiappini_11].
Conclusions
===========
The new model for the Galactic bulge with two episodes of star formation is presented. We show that it explains the two-peaked MDF recently deduced from red clump stars, that can avoid a contamination of disk stars more reliably than red giants, as well as from microlensed dwarf stars. We stress that this successful MDF reproduction is accompanied by a coincidence of the observed and predicted evolutions of \[Mg/Fe\] and \[Ba/Mg\]. In particular, we first examine the \[Ba/Mg\] evolution in the bulge, adopting a new Ba yield, which results in the compatibility with an observed level of Ba abundances for both disks and the bulge. Our result will give feedback to the $s$-process nucleosynthesis calculations. We find that an early \[Ba/Mg\] trend supports a pre-enriched gas for the bulge formation, which is consistent with lack of metal-poor stars in the observed MDF with two peaks.
The new DTD for SNe Ia is found to be compatible with the chemical evolution of the Galaxy, leaving room for further discussion on chemical abundances of halo stars. This short-delayed SNe Ia virtually enhance the Fe production with a short timescale together with SNe II. Our study, however, confirms that a top-heavy IMF is still required to explain the chemical feature of the Galactic bulge. Many works thus far have been devoted to the investigation of the effect of various SN Ia DTDs on chemical evolution in the solar vicinity, focusing on the observed \[$\alpha$/Fe\] break [e.g., @Matteucci_09; @Kobayashi_09]. On this matter, we claim that the discussion on the DTD in this context should be assessed by comparing the modeled chemical feature of the thick disk with the corresponding observed one.
The authors wish to thank an anonymous referee for his/her valuable comments and excellent review, that has considerably improved the paper. This paper is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1066293 and the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics. TT is assisted in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (21540246) of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
Andrievsky, S. M., Luck, R. E., Martin, P., & Lépine, J. R. D. 2004, A&A, 413, 159 Aguerri, J. A. L., Balcells, M., & Peletier, R. F. 2001, A&A, 367, 428 Allende Prieto, C., Barklem, P. S., Lambert, D. L., & Cunha, K. 2004, A&A, 420, 183 Alves-Brito, A., Meléndez, J., Asplund, M., & Ramírez, I., & Yong, D. 2010, A&A, 513, 35 Babusiaux, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A77 Ballero, S. K., Kroupa, P., & Matteucci, F. 2007a, A&A, 467, 117 Ballero, S. K., Matteucci, F., Origlia, L., & Rich, R. M. 2007b, A&A, 467, 123 Bekki, K., & Tsujimoto, T. 2011a, MNRAS, 416, L60 Bekki, K., & Tsujimoto, T. 2011b, ApJ, 738, 4 Bekki, K., & Chiba, M. 2001, ApJ, 558, 666 Bensby, T., Zenn, A. R., Oey, M. S., & Feltzing, S. 2007, ApJ, 663, L13 Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., Lundström, I., & Ilyiin, I. 2005, A&A, 433, 185 Bensby, T., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A41 Bensby, T., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A134 Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 237 Bureau, M., & Freeman, K. C. 1999, AJ, 118, 126 Busso, M., Gallino, R., Lambert, D. L., Travaglio, C., & Smith, V. V. 2001, ApJ, 557, 802 Cescutti, G., & Matteucci, F. 2011, A&A, 525, A126 Cescutti, G., François, P., Matteucci, F., Cayrel, R., & Spite, M. 2006, A&A, 448, 557 Chiappini, C., et al. 2011, Nature, 472, 454 Clarkson, W., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1110 Cote, P., Pryor, C., McClure, R. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Hesser, J. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 574 De Angeli, et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 116 Feltzing, S., Bensby, T., & Lundström, I. 2003, A&A, 397, L1 Fulbright, J. P., McWilliam, A., & Rich, R. M. 2006, ApJ, 636, 821 Gallino, R., et al. 1998, ApJ, 497, 388 Gilroy, K. K., Sneden, C., Pilachowski, C. A., & Cowan, J. J. 1988, ApJ, 327, 298 Gonzalez, O., A., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A54 Greggio, L. 2005, A&A, 441, 1055 Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Nomoto, K. 2008, ApJ, 683, L127 Hill, V., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A80 Howard, C. D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, L153 Ishimaru, Y., & Wanajo, S. 1999, ApJ, 511, L33 Käppeler, F., Gallino, R., Bisterzo, S., & Aoki, W. 2011, Review of Modern Physics, 83, 157 Kent, S. M., Dame, T. M., & Fazio, G. 1991, ApJ, 378, 131 Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1466 Kuijken, K., & Merrifield, M. R. 1995, ApJ, 443, L13 Larson, R. B. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 569 Maness, H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1024 Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M., & Panagia, N. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 773 Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Della Valle, M., & Panagia, N. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1508 Maoz, D., Sharon, K., & Gal-Yam, A. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1879 Martell, S. L., Smolinski, J. P., Beers, T. C., & Grebel, E. K. 2011, A&A, 534, A136 Mathews, G. J., Bazan, G., & Cowan, J. J. 1992, ApJ, 391, 719 Matteucci, F., Spitoni, E., Recchi, S., & Valiante, R. 2009, A&A, 501, 531 Matteucci, F., & Brocato, E. 1990, ApJ, 365, 539 Pagel, B. E. J., & Tautvaišiené, G. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 505 Pignatari, M., Gallino, R., Meynet, G., Hirschi, R., Herwig, F., & Wiescher, M. 2008, ApJ, 687, L95 Pryor, C., McClure, R. D., Hesser, J. E., & Fletcher, J. M. 1989, in Dynamics od dense stellar systems, ed., D. Merrit (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 175 Robertson, B., Bullock, J. S., Font, A. S., Johnston, K. V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, ApJ, 632, 872 Roederer, I. U., Cowan, J. I., Karakas, A. I., Kratz, K.-L., Lugaro, M., Simmerer, J., Farouqi, K., & Sneden, C. 2010, ApJ, 724, 975 Roškar, R., Debattista, V. P., Quinn, T. R., Stinson, G. S., & Wadsley, J. 2008b, ApJ, 684, L79 Ruchti, G. R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 9 Scannapieco, C., & Tissera, P. B. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 880 Searle, L., & Zinn, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, 357 Shen, J. Rich, R. M., Kormendy, J., Howard, C. D., De Propris, R., & Kunder, A. 2010, ApJ, 720, L72 Shetrone, M. D., Côté, P., & Sargent, W. L. 2001, ApJ, 548, 592 Sullivan, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 868 Tinsley, B. M. 1980, FCPh, 5, 28 Tolstoy, E., Venn, K. A., Shetrone, M., Primas, F., Hill, V., Kaufer, A., & Szeifert, T. 2003, AJ, 125, 707 Totani, T., Morokuma, T., Oda, T., Doi, M., & Yasuda, N. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1327 Tsujimoto, T. 2007, ApJ, 665, L115 Tsujimoto, T., Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Freeman, K. C. 2010, PASJ, 62, 447 Tsujimoto, T., Shigeyama, T., & Yoshii, Y. 2000, ApJ, 531, L33 Tsujimoto T., Yoshii Y., Nomoto K., Matteucci F., Thielemann F.-K., Hashimoto M., 1997, ApJ, 483, 228 van Dokkum, P. G. 2008, ApJ, 684, 29 Venn, K. A., Irwin, M., Shetrone, M. D., Tout, C. A., Hill, V., & Tolstoy, E. 2004, AJ, 128, 1177 Wheeler, J. C., Cowan, J. J., & Hillebrandt, W. 1998, ApJ, 493, 101 Wolfe, A. M., Gawiser, E., & Prochaska, J. X. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 861 Wyse, R. F. G., & Gilmore, G. 1995, AJ, 110, 2771 Yoshii, Y., Tsujimoto, T., & Nomoto, K. 1996, ApJ, 462, 266 Yungelson, L., & Livio, M. 2000, ApJ, 528, 108 Zoccali, M., et al. 2003, A&A, 399, 931 Zoccali, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 177
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a general theory of the Open Gromov-Witten invariant on Calabi-Yau three-folds. In this paper we construct the Open Gromov-Witten potential. The evaluation of the potential on its critical points leads to numerical invariants.'
address: 'Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik, Bonn'
author:
- Vito Iacovino
date: 'version: '
title: 'Open Gromov-Witten theory on Calabi-Yau three-folds II'
---
Introduction
============
This paper is a continuation of [@I1]. Let $M$ be a Calabi-Yau three-fold and let $L$ be a Special Lagrangian submanifold of $M$. In [@I1] we construct the Open Gromov-Witten invariant in the case that each connected component of $L$ has the rational homology of a sphere. In this paper we consider the problem without any restriction on the topology of the Lagrangian.
We construct the Open Gromov-Witten potential $S$, that is the effective action of the Open Topological String ([@W]). $S$ is a homotopy class of solutions of the Master equation in the ring of the functions on $H^*(L)$ with coefficients in the Novikov ring. $S$ is defined up to master homotopy. The master homotopy is unique up to equivalence. The construction of $S$ is made in terms of perturbative Chern-Simons integrals on the Lagrangian submanifold. This work makes more apparent the relation with the work of Witten ([@W]).
For acyclic connections, the perturbative expansion of Chern-Simons theory has been constructed rigorously by Axelrod and Singer ([@AS]) and Kontsevich ([@Ko]). The perturbative expansion has been recently generalized to non-acyclic connections by Costello ([@Co]) (see also [@I]). We will need to consider only abelian Chern-Simons theory. We will use the geometric approach similar to [@I]. The abelian Chern-Simons theory is in some sense trivial since it has not tree-valent vertices. Its partition function is related to the Ray-Singer torsion. The Gromov-Witten potential is defined by some generalization of Wilson loop integral. In the Appendix we recall the geometric construction of the propagator for the abelian Chern-Simons theory. The usual anomaly of non-abelian Chern-Simons theory ([@AS], [@I]) does not enter in the analysis. Therefore it is not necessary to pick a frame of the Lagrangian submanifold. In the last section consider the higher genus potential. This is a formal expansion in the string constant $\lambda$. The potential is defined up to quantum master homotopy.
In the particular case that there is an anti-holomorphic involution, our invariant coincide with the one of [@So]. It is actually easy to see the contribute of the multi-disks (associated to trees with at least two vertices) cancel out due to the action of the involution. It is also clear that in the higher genus case this cancellation does not hold. This make clear why the argument of [@So] cannot be extended to higher genus invariants. It is necessary to consider multi-curves also in this particular case.
In the case of the $S^1$-action considered in [@L] the correction of the multi-curves are not zero. Therefore our invariant computes corrections to the invariant of [@L]. This correction should be particular relevant in comparison with physics computations of the multi-covering formula and Gupakumar-Vafa invariants.
The evaluation of $S$ on its critical points leads to numerical invariants. In general this invariant is not associated to a fixed relative homology class, but to a fixed area. This problem is already present in the particular case that there is an anti-holomorphic involution (see [@So]) where instead of counting disks in a fixed homological class it is possible only to fix the projection of the class in the $-1$ eigenspace of the involution acting on $H_2(M,L,{\mathbb{Q}})$. We believe that the critical points of $S$ are related to the homotopy classes of bounding chains ([@FO3]). This correspondence should shed light on the relation between our invariant and the invariant of Joyce ([@Jo]).
Systems of homological chains
=============================
For each decorated tree $T$, let $C_T(L)$ be the orbifold $$C_T(L) = \left( \prod_{e \in E^(T)} C_e(L) \right) / \text{Aut}(T) .$$ The boundary of $C_T(L)$ can be decomposed in boundary faces corresponding to isomorphims classes of pairs $(T,e)$ where $e$ is an internal edges $$\partial_e C_T(L) = \left( C_e(L) \times \prod_{e' \neq e} C_{e'}(L) \right) / \text{Aut}(T,e) .$$
A system of homological chains $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ assigns to each decorated tree $T$ an homological chains $W_T \in C_{|E(T)|}( C_T(L) , o_T) $ with twisted coefficients in $o_T$. We identify two systems of homological chains if they represent the same collection of currents. We assume the following properties.
- For each $T \in \mathcal{T}$, $W_T$ intersects transversely the boundary of $C_T(L)$. For each internal edge $e$ define $ \partial_e W_T = W_T \cap \partial_e C_T(L)$. Since $\partial C_2(L) \rightarrow L$ is an $S^2$-fibration, the induced map $$\label{chain-fibration}
\partial_e C_T(L) \rightarrow L \times C_{T/e}(L)$$ is an $S^2$-fibration. We assume that there exist homological chains $$\partial_e' W_T \in C_{|E(T)| -3}( C_{T/e}(L) , o_T )$$ such that $\partial_e W_T$ is the geometric preimage of $\partial_e' W_T$ over the $S^2$-fibration (\[chain-fibration\]). Here we need to consider the homological chains as chains
Let $\partial_e^0 W_T$ be the image of $\partial_e' W_T$ using the projection $ L \times C_{T/e}(L) \rightarrow C_{T/e}(L) $. Define $$\partial_v W_T = \sum_{T'/e=(T,v)} \partial_e^0 W_{T'}$$ where the sum is over all the trees $T'$ and edges $e \in T'$ such that $T'/e \cong (T,v)$. We assume that $$\label{boundary-collection}
\partial W_T = \sum_{v \in V(T)} \partial_v W_T + \sum_{e \in E(T)} \partial_e W_T.$$ Equation (\[boundary-collection\]) is considered as an equation of currents.
Homotopies
----------
An homotopy $Y_{\mathcal{T}}$ between $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ and $W_{\mathcal{T}}'$ is a collection of homological chains $$Y_T \in C_{|E(T)|+1}([0,1] \times C_T(L) , o_T )$$ that satisfy condition $(B)$ and $$\label{boundary-homotopy}
\partial Y_T = \sum_{v \in V(T)} \partial_v Y_T + \sum_{e \in E(T)} \partial_e Y_T + \{ 0 \} \times W_T - \{ 1 \} \times W_T'$$
Suppose that $Y_{\mathcal{T}}$ and $X_{\mathcal{T}}$ are two homotopies between $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ and $W_{\mathcal{T}}'$. We say that $Y_{\mathcal{T}}$ is equivalent to $X_{\mathcal{T}}$ if there exists a collection of chains $Z_{\mathcal{T}}$ with $$Z_T \in C_{|E(T)|+2}([0,1]^2 \times C_T(L) ,o_T )$$ that satisfy condition $(B)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundary-equivalence}
\partial Z_T & \hspace{-0.1in} =& \hspace{-0.1in} \sum_{v \in V(T)} \partial_v Z_T + \sum_{e \in E(T)} \partial_e Z_T \\
& \hspace{-0.1in} +& \hspace{-0.1in} [0,1] \times \{ 0 \} \times W_T - [0,1] \times \{ 1 \} \times W_T' + \{ 0 \} \times Y_T - \{ 1 \} \times X_T
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Degenerate system of chains
---------------------------
Observe that it is possible to describe a systems of chains as chains on $L^{H(T)}$ instead of $C_T(L)$ as follows. For each $T \in \mathcal{T}$ we have an homological chain $W_T \in C_{|E(T)|}( L^{H(T)}) \otimes o_T$ such that for each $e \in E(T)$ intersect transversely $$\Delta_e= \pi_e^{-1} (\Delta) .$$ Here $\Delta \in L^2$ is the diagonal and $\pi_e : L^{H(T)} \rightarrow L^2$ is the natural projection. The existence of $W_T$ is equivalent to condition $(B)$. Define $\partial_e W_T = W_T \cap \Delta_e$. Observe that from $\partial_e W_T$ we can define a chain $\partial_e^0 W_{T}$ on $L^{H(T/e)}$. Equation (\[boundary-collection\]) is equivalent to $$\partial W_T = \sum_{T'/e=T} \partial_e^0 W_{T'} .$$ The same considerations apply to homotopies and equivalence of homotopies. A germ of of homotopies is given by a collection of chains $$Y_T \in C_{|E(T)|+1}([0,\delta) \times L^{H(T)}, o_T)$$ for some $\delta >0$ such that on the open interval $(0,\delta)$, $Y_{\mathcal{T}}$ satisfies the compatibility condition on the boundary and the following transversality condition on the intersection $ Y_T \cap (\{ 0 \} \times \Delta_e )$ holds. Locally we consider $\psi : [0, \delta) \times D \rightarrow [0,\delta) \times L^{H(T)}$ where $D$ is some domain of ${\mathbb{R}}^{|H(T)|}$. Consider the set $U$ of points $p \in D$ such that $\psi(p,0) \in \pi_e^{-1}(\Delta)$. We assume that over $U$, $ \psi'(p,0)$ defines a section of $ T (L^{H(T)})/ T(\Delta_e) $ that is transverse to the zero section.
A germ of equivalence of homotopies is a collection of chains $$Z_T \in C_{|E(T)|+2}([0,1] \times [0,\delta) \times L^{H(T)}, o_T ).$$ that are transverse to the diagonals on $[0,1] \times (0, \delta)$, are compatible in the boundary, $ Z_T \cap ([0,1] \times \{ 0 \} \times L^{H(T)}) $ is zero as $|E(T)|+1$ current and the intersection $ Z_T \cap ([0,1] \times \{ 0 \} \times \Delta_e )$ is transverse in the same sense we described above for germs of homotopies.
A degenerate chain is an equivalence class of germs of homotopies. The definition of homotopy and equivalence of homotopies extends naturally to degenerate chains.
Gluing property
---------------
Let $\mathcal{T}^1$ be the set of decorated trees with one marked internal edge. Let $\mathcal{T}^{0,1}$ be the set of decorated trees with one marked external edge. Observe that $$\mathcal{T}^1 = (\mathcal{T}^{0,1} \times \mathcal{T}^{0,1}) / {\mathbb{Z}}_2$$
To the element $(T,e) \in \mathcal{T}^1$ corresponds $(T_1,e_1), (T_2,e_2) \in \mathcal{T}^{0,1}$ where $T_1$ and $T_2$ are the trees made cutting the edge $e$ in two edges $e_1$ and $e_2$.
In this section we will consider system of chains on the set $ \mathcal{T}^1$ and $\mathcal{T}^{0,1}$. The definitions of homotopy of chains and equivalence of homotopy extend straightforwardly to these systems. Also using the forgetful map $\mathcal{T}^1 \rightarrow \mathcal{T}$ and $\mathcal{T}^{0,1} \rightarrow \mathcal{T}$ a system of chain $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ induces a system of chains $W_{\mathcal{T}^1}$ and $W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}}$.
\[gluing\] A system of chain $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ has the gluing property if $$W_{\mathcal{T}^1} = W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} \times W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} .$$
We wnat now define a notion of gluing property up to homotopy that it is easier to satisfy.
Let $\mathcal{T}^2$ be the set of decorated trees with two marked ordered internal edges. Observe that there exist an action of the $S_2$ on $\mathcal{T}^2$ that switch the order of the marked edges.
Assume that there is an homotopy $Y_{\mathcal{T}^1}$ between $W_{\mathcal{T}^1}$ and $W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} \times W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} $. Let $Y_{\mathcal{T}^2}$ be the induced homotopy on $\mathcal{T}^2$. Then $Y_{\mathcal{T}^2}$ is an homotopy between $W_{\mathcal{T}^2}$ and $W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} \times W_{\mathcal{T}^{1,1}} $ and the composition $$\label{YY-comp}
Y_{\mathcal{T}^2} \circ (W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} \times Y_{\mathcal{T}^{1,1}})$$ is an homotopy between $W_{\mathcal{T}^2}$ and $W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} \times W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,2}} \times W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}}$.
\[gluing-hom\] $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ has the the gluing property up to homotopy if it is assigned an equivalence class of homotopies $Y_{\mathcal{T}^1}$ between $W_{\mathcal{T}^1}$ and $W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} \times W_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} $ such that the homotopy (\[YY-comp\]) is invariant up to equivalence by the switch of the order of the marked edges.
The following proposition proves that from a system of chains with the gluing property up to homotopy we can construct a system of chains with the gluing property in a canonical way.
\[product-construction\] Let $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ be a system of chains with the gluing property up to homotopy (Definition \[gluing-hom\]). There exists a system of chain $W_{\mathcal{T}}^0$ with the gluing property and an homotopy $Y_{\mathcal{T}}^0$ between $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ and $W_{\mathcal{T}}^0$ such that $$\label{YY0-comp}
(Y_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}}^0 \times Y_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}}^0) \circ Y_{\mathcal{T}^1} \sim Y_{\mathcal{T}^1}^0$$
Let $A \in H_2(M,L)$ and $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}^+$. Assume that the homotopy $Y^0$ has been constructed on $\mathcal{T}_l(B)$ if $ \omega(B) < \omega (A)$ or $B=A$ and $l < k$. From these data we can define the composition $$\label{YY0-induction}
(Y_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}}^0 \times Y_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}}^0)_{\mathcal{T}^1_k(A)} \circ Y_{\mathcal{T}^1_k(A)} .$$ Observe that the equivalence class of the image on $\mathcal{T}^2_k(A)$ of (\[YY0-induction\]) is invariant by the switch of the order of the decorated edges. It follows that there exists an homotopy $Y^0_{\mathcal{T}_k(A)}$ such that the image on $\mathcal{T}^1_k(A)$ is equivalent to (\[YY0-induction\]).
Observe that the $W^0_{\mathcal{T}}$ constructed in Proposition \[product-construction\] is not unique. In each step of the inductive argument we have the freedom to choice a representative of $W_T$ where $T$ is the tree with $k$ external edges and only one vertex in the homology class $A$. It is clear that if $W^0$ and $W^1$ are two system of chains with the gluing property constructed in Proposition \[product-construction\], there exists an homotopy with the gluing property between $W^0$ and $W^1$. Moreover the equivalence class of this homotopy is uniquely determined.
Open Gromov-Witten potential
============================
Master Equation
---------------
In the appendix we construct (after choicing some geometric data) the propagator $P \in \Omega^2(C_2(L))$ of the abelian Chern-Simons theory. Observe that the property (\[parity\]) implies that, for each internal edge $e \in T$, $\pi_e^*(P)$ is a differential two-form with twisted coefficients in $o_e$.
Let $\alpha_i \in \Omega^*(L)$ be a basis of $\Psi$ as in the Appendix. Let $x_i$ be the coordinates on $H^*(L)[1]$ dual on the basis $\alpha_i$.
The differential form $$\label{psi}
\psi = \sum_i x_i \alpha_i \in \mathcal{O}(H^*(L)[1]) \otimes \Omega^*(L).$$ does not depend on the basis $\alpha_i$.
For each $T \in \mathcal{T}$ let $CS_T \in \mathcal{O}(H^*(L)[1]) \otimes \Omega^*(C_T(L))$ the differential form defined by $$\label{differentialform}
CS_T = \bigwedge_{e \in E^{in}(T)} \pi_e^*(P) \wedge \bigwedge_{e \in E^{ex}(T)} \pi_e^*( \psi).$$ Remember that for each $e \in E(T)$ we have an isomorphism $\partial_e C_T(L) \cong \partial C_2(L) \times C_{T/e}$. From (\[singularity2\]) it follows that $$\label{singularity3}
i^*_{\partial_e} ( CS_T )= \eta \wedge CS_{T/e} .$$ We now prove that (\[singularity3\]) implies that it is possible to define the integral of the collection of differential forms $CS_{\mathcal{T}}$ on a degenerate chain.
Let $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ be a degenerate chain and let $Y_{\mathcal{T}}$ be a germ of homotopies representing $W_{\mathcal{T}}$. Define $ Y_T^{\epsilon} = Y_T \cap ( \{ \varepsilon \} \times C_T(L) ) $. The transversality conditions of degenerate chains imply that $Y_T^{\varepsilon}$ converges as a current on $C_T(L)$. Therefore the limit $ \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{Y_T^{\varepsilon}} CS_T $ exists.
\[homhom1\] For each $A \in H_2(M,L)$, the limit $$\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{T \in \mathcal{T}(A)} \int_{Y_T^{\varepsilon}} CS_T$$ does not depend on the germ of homotopy $Y_{\mathcal{T}}$ representing $W_{\mathcal{T}}$.
Let $Y_{\mathcal{T}} $ and $X_{\mathcal{T}} $ be two germs of homotopies representing $W_{\mathcal{T}}$. We need to prove that $$\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{T \in \mathcal{T}(A)} \int_{Y_T^{\varepsilon}} CS_T = \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{T \in \mathcal{T}(A)} \int_{X_T^{\varepsilon}} CS_T .$$
Equation (\[boundary-equivalence\]) implies $$\partial Z_T^{\varepsilon} = Y_T^{\varepsilon} - X_T^{\varepsilon} + \sum_{v \in V(T)} \partial_v Z_T^{\varepsilon} + \sum_{e\in E(T)} \partial_e Z_T^{\varepsilon} .$$ By Stokes theorem $$\label{stokes}
\int_{Y_T^{\varepsilon}} CS_T- \int_{X_T^{\varepsilon}} CS_T = \int_{Z_T^{\varepsilon}} d CS_T - \sum_{v \in V(T)} \int_{\partial_v Z_T^{\varepsilon} } CS_T- \sum_{e\in E(T)} \int_{\partial_e Z_T^{\varepsilon}} CS_T.$$ We also have $$\label{cancelchain2}
\partial_v Z_T^{\varepsilon} = \sum_{T'/e=(T,v)} \partial_e^0 Z_{T'}^{\varepsilon}$$ where the sum over all the tree $T'$ and edges $e \in T'$ such that $T'/e \cong (T,v)$. Formula (\[cancelchain2\]) and (\[singularity3\]) imply that in the sum over all the trees of (\[stokes\]) the last two terms of (\[stokes\]) cancel. Therefore $$\sum_T \int_{Y_T^{\varepsilon}} CS_T - \sum_T \int_{X_T^{\varepsilon}} CS_T = \sum_T \int_{Z_T^{\varepsilon}} d CS_T.$$ The lemma follows since $$\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_{Z_T^{\varepsilon}} d CS_T =0$$ because $Z_T^{\varepsilon} \rightarrow 0$ as current on $C_T(L)$.
Denote by $$\int_{W_{\mathcal{T}(A)}} CS_{\mathcal{T}(A)}$$ the limit in Lemma \[homhom1\].
Suppose now that $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ is a system of chain with the gluing property. The effective action (with coefficients in the Novikov ring) is defined by $$\label{action}
S = \sum_{A} S(A) T^{\omega(A)}.$$ where $S(A) \in \mathcal{O}(H^*(L))$ is given by $$\label{actionA}
S(A) = \int_{W_{\mathcal{T}(A)}} CS_{\mathcal{T}(A)}$$
Analogously let $Y_{\mathcal{T}}$ be an homotopy of chains with the gluing property. Let $\pi : Y_{\mathcal{T}} \rightarrow [0,1]$ be the natural projection. The extended effective action $\tilde{S}$ is defined by $$\label{actionfam}
\tilde{S} = \sum_{A} \tilde{S}(A) T^{\omega(A)}.$$ where $\tilde{S}(A) \in \Omega^*([0,1]) \otimes \mathcal{O}(H^*(L)) $ is given by $$\label{actionAfam}
\tilde{S}(A)= \pi_* (CS_{\mathcal{T}(A)} )$$ We have the
\[master-homotopy\] $\tilde{S}$ is an homotopy of master solutions: $$d \tilde{S} +\frac{1}{2} \{ \tilde{S}, \tilde{S} \} =0.$$
The lemma follows directly from the gluing property and formula (\[differential\])
We need to consider the dependence of $S$ on the data of that we used to construct to propagator $P$ (see Appendix). Using the argument of [@I] it follows that two different data lead to master homotopic solutions. Here the point is to construct the extended propagator for a family of data and use it to define the extended potential as above.
The potential
-------------
Let $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ the system of chain associated to a coherent pertubation in the boundary constructed in [@I1]. Recall that two different perturbations lead to homotopic $ W_{\mathcal{T}} $ with the homotopy determined up to equivalence.
$W_{\mathcal{T}}$ has the gluing property up to homotopy.
Let $ s_{\mathcal{T}^1} $ and $s_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} $ be the pertubations induced by $ s_{\mathcal{T} }$ on $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}^1}(J) $ and $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}}(J) $ respectively. We have a natural map $$\label{cutedge3}
\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}^1} \rightarrow ( \overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} \times \overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} ) / {\mathbb{Z}}_2$$ $ s_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} \times s_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} $ is a perturbation of the left side of (\[cutedge3\]). Its pull-back on the right side of (\[cutedge3\]) is a section of the obstruction bundle of $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}^1} $ that is not transverse in the boundary. There exists a section $\tilde{s}_{\mathcal{T}^1}$ on the obstruction bundle of $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}^1} \times [0,1]$ such that $\tilde{s}_{\mathcal{T}^1}$
- is coherent in the boundary.
- restricted to $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}} \times \{ 1 \}$ is equal to $s_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}} \times s_{\mathcal{T}^{0,1}}$
- restricted to $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}} \times \{ 0 \}$ is equal to $ s_{\mathcal{T}^1} $
- is transverse to the zero section outside $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{\mathcal{T}} \times \{ 0 \}$.
From $\tilde{s}_{\mathcal{T}^1}$ we can construct the homotopy $Y_{\mathcal{T}^1}$ of Definition \[gluing-hom\].
Let $W_{\mathcal{T}}^0$ be a system of chains constructed in Lemma \[product-construction\] from the $W_{\mathcal{T}}$ above. As observed after Lemma \[product-construction\], two different solutions for $W_{\mathcal{T}}^0$ are connected by an homotopy uniquely determined up to equivalence. We use $W_{\mathcal{T}}^0$ in formula (\[action\]) to define the Open Gromov-Witten potential $S$.
The Gromov-Witten potential $S$ depends on some choice. To two different choices corresponds a master homotopy (determined up to equivalence) between the associated potentials.
The Proposition follows from the observations above and Lemma \[master-homotopy\].
Enumerative invariants
----------------------
An element $\sum_E x_E T^{E}$ is a critical point of $S$ if $$\label{critical}
(\partial_x S)(\sum_E x_E T^{E}) =0$$ where the identity (\[critical\]) has to be expanded as a formal series in $T$.
The value of $S$ on its critical points is an invariant.
Assume that $\tilde{S}$ is a solution of the master homotopy equation as in Lemma \[master-homotopy\]. Write $ \tilde{S} = S_t + B_t dt $. The equation $d \tilde{S} + \{ \tilde{S}, \tilde{S} \} =0$ is equivalent to $$\label{master-homotopy2}
\frac{d}{dt} S_t + \{ S_t, B_t \} =0.$$ Let $ x_t $ be one parameter smooth family of elements of $\mathcal{O}(H) \otimes \Lambda $ such that $x_t$ is a critical points of $S_t$ for each $t$. By equation (\[master-homotopy2\]) $ S_t(x_t) =0 $. Therefore $$\frac{d}{dt} (S_t(x_t))= (\frac{d}{dt} S_t) (x_t) + \langle \partial_x S_t , \frac{d}{dt} x_t \rangle = 0.$$
Higher genus
============
We use the same notation of the last section of [@I1].
We can apply the same argument of before to construct a system of chains $W_{\mathcal{G}'}^0$ with the gluing property. Define the effective action $S_{(g,h)}(A) \in \mathcal{O}(H^*(L))$ by $$\label{higher-actionA}
S_{(g,h)}(A) = \int_{W_{\mathcal{G}_{(g,h)}(A)}} CS_{\mathcal{G}}$$
The total action (with coefficients in the Novikov ring and string coupling $\lambda$) is given by $$\label{higher-action}
S = \sum_{A,g,h} \lambda^{2g-2 +h} S_{(g,h)}(A) T^{\omega(A)}.$$ The one parameter version $\tilde{S}$ satisfies the quantum master equation $$d \tilde{S} + \lambda \Delta \tilde{S} + \frac{1}{2} \{ \tilde{S}, \tilde{S} \} =0.$$
Abelian Chern-Simons
====================
Let $C_2(L)$ the geometric blow up along the diagonal of $L^2$ (see [@AS]). $C_2(L)$ is a manifold with boundary. The boundary $\partial C_2(L)$ is isomorphic to the sphere normal bundle of the diagonal $\Delta$ of $L \times L$.
We will define the propagator as a differential form of degree two on $C_2(L)$. Our construction depends by the following data
- a metric on $M$
- a connection on $TM$ compatible with the metric
- A subspace $\Psi \subset \Omega^*(L)$ of closed differential form such that the natural projection $$\Psi \rightarrow H^*(L)$$ is an isomorphism.
Let $\alpha_i \in \Omega(L)$, $\beta_i \in \Omega(L)$ be basis of $\Psi$ such that $\int \alpha_i \wedge \beta_j = \delta_{ij}$.
Define $K \in \Omega^3(L \times L) $ by $$\label{kappa}
K= \sum_i \alpha_i \otimes \beta_i
$$
The differential form $K$ does not depend by the basis $\alpha_i, \beta_i$.
Propagator
----------
Fix an orthogonal frame of $TL$ on an small open subset $U \subset L$. On $U$ the $S(TL)$ is a trivial bundle with fiber $ S^2 $. Denote by $\theta_i$ the $1$-form components of the connection in this local system. Consider the differential form of the spherical bundle $S(TU)$ $$\label{singularity}
\frac{\omega + d(\theta^i x_i)}{ 4 \pi}$$ where $\omega$ is the standard volume form of $S^2$ and $x_i$ are the restriction to $S^2$ of the standard coordinates of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. The differential form (\[singularity\]) is independent by the choice of the local frame of $TU$. It follows that there exists a globally defined differential form $ \eta \in \Omega^2(S(TL))$ such that $\eta$ agree with (\[singularity\]) for each local frame.
Denote by $\pi_{\partial} : \partial C_2(L) \rightarrow L $ the natural projection. Let $i_{\partial}: \partial C_2(L) \rightarrow C_2(L)$ be the inclusion. Let $r : L \times L \rightarrow L \times L$ be the reflection on the diagonal $r(x,y)=(y,x)$. The map $r$ induces a map on $C_2(L)$ that we still denote by $r$.
There exists a differential form $P \in \Omega^2(C_2(M))$ such that $$\label{singularity2}
i_{\partial}^* P = \eta$$ $$\label{differential}
d P = K$$ $$\label{parity}
r^* P = - P$$ and $$\label{contraction}
\langle P, \alpha_1 \otimes \alpha_2 \rangle =0
$$ for each $ \alpha_1,\alpha_2 \in \Psi$.
If $P' \in \Omega^2(C_2(M))$ is another differential form such that (\[singularity2\]), (\[differential\]), (\[contraction\]) and (\[parity\]) hold, then there exist $\phi \in \Omega^1(C_2(M))$ such that $P-P'= d \phi$ and $i_{\partial}^* \phi=0$.
Let $U$ be a small tubular neighborhood of the diagonal. Let $\pi_U : U \rightarrow S(TL) $ be the inducted map. Let $\rho$ be a cutoff function equal to one in a neighborhood of $S(TL)$ and zero outside a compact subset of $U$. Define preliminarily $ P$ as $$P = \rho (\pi_U^* \eta).$$ Equation (\[singularity2\]) holds.
The differential form $ P$ is closed in a neighborhood of $\partial C_2(TL)$, therefore we can consider $d P$ as a closed form on $\Omega^2(L \times L)$. For any closed differential form $\tau \in \Omega^3(L \times L)$, integrating by parts we have $$\int_{M^2} (d P) \wedge \tau = \int_{C_2(L)} (d P) \wedge \tau = \int_{S(TM)} P \wedge i^*_{\Delta} \tau = \int_{\Delta} \tau$$ where in the last equality we have applied (\[singularity2\]). It follows that $dP$ and $K$ are in the same cohomology class in $\Omega^3(L \times L )$. Therefore there exists a differential form $\phi \in \Omega^2(L \times L)$ such that $$K = dP + d \phi .$$ Replacing $P$ with $P + \phi$ equation (\[differential\]) holds.
Observe that (\[singularity2\]) and (\[differential\]) do not change if we add to $P$ a closed form of $\Omega^2(L \times L)$. Of course we can find a such differential such that also (\[contraction\]) holds. Finally, $P$ will also satisfy (\[parity\]) if we choice the cut off function $\rho$ such that $r^* \rho = \rho$ and the differential form that we add to $P$ are antisymmetric.
Now suppose that $P' \in \Omega^2(C_2(M))$ is another differential form as in the lemma.
Since $i_{\partial}^* (P-P')=0$, $P-P'$ defines an element of $H^2(C_2(L),S(TL))$. Since $ H^2(C_2(L),S(TL)) \cong H^2(L \times L, \Delta)$, there exists $\phi_1 \in \Omega^1(C_2(L))$ with $i_{\partial}^* \phi_1 =0$ such that $P-P' -d \phi_1 $ is an element of $\Omega^2(L \times L, \Delta) $. Of course we can assume that $r^*(\phi_1)=-\phi_1$.
Property (\[contraction\]) and $i_{\partial}^* \phi_1 =0$ imply that $\langle P - P' - d \phi_1, \alpha_1 \otimes \alpha_2 \rangle =0$ for each $\alpha_1, \alpha_2 \in \Psi_2 $. It follows that the image on $H^2(L \times L)$ of $ P - P' - d \phi_1$ is trivial. Thererefore there exists $\phi_2 \in \Omega^1(L \times L)$ such that $ P - P' - d \phi_1 = d \phi_2$. We can assume that $r^*(\phi_2)=-\phi_2$, and then in particular $i_{\partial}^* (\phi_2) =0$. Therefore $$P - P' = d (\phi_1 + \phi_2)$$ with $i_{\partial}^* (\phi_1 + \phi_2) =0$.
[10]{}
S. Axelrod, I. M. Singer, *Chern-Simons perturbation theory*, Proceedings of the XXth International Conference on Differential Geometric Methods in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, 2 (New York, 1991), 3–45, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1992. *Chern-Simons perturbation theory II* J. Differential Geom. 39 (1994), no. 1, 173–213.
K. J. Costello, *Renormalisation and the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism*, arXiv:0706.1533.
K. Fukaya; K. Ono, *Arnold conjecture and Gromov-Witten invariant*, Topology 38 (1999), no. 5, 933–1048.
K. Fukaya, Y.-G. OH, H. Ohta, K. Ono, *Lagrangian intersection Floer theory - anomaly and obstruction*.
M. Kontsevich, *Feynman diagrams and low-dimensional topology. First European Congress of Mathematics*, Vol. II (Paris, 1992), 97–121.
D. Joyce, *Kuranishi homology and Kuranishi cohomology*, arXiv:0707.3572.
V. Iacovino, *Master Equation and Perturbative Chern-Simons theory*, arXiv:0811.2181.
V. Iacovino, [Open Gromov-Witten theory on Calabi-Yau three-folds I]{}, arXiv:0907.5225.
M. Liu, *Moduli of J-Holomorphic Curves with Lagrangian Boundary Conditions and Open Gromov-Witten Invariants for an $S^1$-Equivariant Pair*, arXiv:math/0210257.
J. P. Solomon *Intersection theory on the moduli space of holomorphic curves with Lagrangian boundary conditions*, arXiv:math/0606429.
E. Witten, *Chern-Simons Gauge Theory As A String Theory*, arXiv:hep-th/9207094.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we address some modelling issues related to biological growth. Our treatment is based on a recently-proposed, general formulation for growth within the context of Mixture Theory (*Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids*, **52**, 2004, 1595–1625). We aim to enhance this treatment by making it more appropriate for the biophysics of growth in porous soft tissue, specifically tendon. This involves several modifications to the mathematical formulation to represent the reactions, transport and mechanics, and their interactions. We also reformulate the governing differential equations for reaction-transport to represent the incompressibility constraint on the fluid phase of the tissue. This revision enables a straightforward implementation of numerical stabilisation for the hyperbolic, or advection-dominated, limit. A finite element implementation employing an operator splitting scheme is used to solve the coupled, non-linear partial differential equations that arise from the theory. Motivated by our experimental model, an [*in vitro*]{} scaffold-free engineered tendon formed by self-assembly of tendon fibroblasts (*Tissue Engineering*, **10**, 2004, 755–761), we solve several numerical examples demonstrating biophysical aspects of tissue growth, and the improved numerical performance of the models.'
author:
- 'H. Narayanan[^1]'
- 'E. M. Arruda[^2]'
- 'K. Grosh[^3]'
- 'K. Garikipati[^4]'
bibliography:
- 'bmmb05.bib'
date: 'University of Michigan, Ann Arbor'
title: 'The micromechanics of fluid-solid interactions during growth in porous soft biological tissue'
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
*Growth* involves the addition or depletion of mass in biological tissue. Growth occurs in combination with *remodelling*, which is a change in microstructure, and possibly with *morphogenesis*, which is a change in form in the embryonic state. The physics of these processes are quite distinct, and for modelling purposes can, and must, be separated. Our previous work [@growthpaper], upon which we now seek to build, drew in some measure from @CowinHegedus:76 [@EpsteinMaugin:2000], and @TaberHumphrey:2001, and was focused upon a comprehensive account of the coupling between transport and mechanics. The origins of this coupling were traced to the balance equations, kinematics and constitutive relations. A major contribution of that work was the identification and discussion of several driving forces for transport that are thermodynamically-consistent, in the sense that specification of these relations does not violate the Clausius-Duhem dissipation inequality.
There have been a number of significant papers on biological growth and remodelling in the last 7–8 years of which we touch upon some, whose approaches are either similar to ours in some respects or differ in important ways. @HumphreyRajagopal:02 provided a mathematical treatment of *adaptation* in a tissue, which includes growth and remodelling in the sense of this paper. The authors identified adaptation as perhaps the most important mechanical characteristic of biological tissue. They introduced the notion of evolving natural configurations to model the state of material deposited at different instants in time. The treatment of the growth part of the deformation gradient in this paper bears some resemblance to this idea, although a detailed development has not been pursued here. The focus, instead, is on detailing some aspects of the problem that derive from treatment of the tissue as a porous medium, or as a mixture of interacting species. @PreziosiFarina:2002 developed an extension to the classical Darcy’s Law to incorporate mass exchanges between reacting species. This consideration is relevant to growth problems; however, in our opinion, these issues were subsumed in @growthpaper, upon which this paper is based. Many of the ideas employed here are applicable to tumour growth problems; however, due to our current focus on tendon, we do not include phenomena such as angiogenesis and cell migration [see for example @Brewardetal:2003]. The changes in concentration that occur with growth tend to cause swelling or contraction of the tissue. This phenomenon has been accounted for previously by us in fields unrelated to Biology, using the idea of thermal expansion. See, for example, @Rao2:00 and @Garikipatietal:01, which, too, are probably not the first instances of this idea. In the literature on biological growth this connection was made by @KlischHoger:2003.
In the present paper, we seek to restrict the range of physically-admissible models in order to gain greater physiological relevance for modelling growth in soft biological tissue. We also include one improvement in the mathematical/numerical treatment: The advection-diffusion equations for mass transport require numerical stabilisation in the advection-dominated regime (the hyperbolic limit). We draw upon the enforcement of the incompressibility limit for the fluid phase to facilitate this development. Below, we briefly introduce each aspect that we have considered, but postpone details until relevant sections in the paper.
- For a tissue undergoing finite strain, the transport equations can be formulated, mathematically, in terms of concentrations with respect to either the reference or current (deformed) configuration. However, the physics of fluid-tissue interactions and the imposition of relevant boundary conditions is best understood and represented in the current configuration.
- The state of saturation is crucial in determining whether the tissue swells or shrinks with infusion/expulsion of fluid. This aspect has been introduced into the formulation.
- The fluid phase, whether slightly compressible or incompressible, can develop compressive stress without bound. However, it can develop at most a small tensile stress [@cavitationchris], having implications for the stiffness of the tissue in tension as against compression. Although this also has implications for void formation through cavitation, the ambient pressure in the tissue under normal physiological conditions ensures that this manifests itself only as a reduction in compressive pressure.
- When modelling transport, it is common to assume Fickean diffusion [@KuhlSteinmann:02]. This implies the existence of a mixing entropy due to the configurations available to molecules of the diffusing species at fixed values of the macroscopic concentration. The state of fluid saturation directly influences its mixing entropy.
- If fluid saturation is maintained, void formation in the pores is disallowed even under an increase in the pores’ volume. This has implications for the fluid exchanges between a deforming tissue and a fluid bath with which it is in contact.
- Recognising the incompressibility of the fluid phase, it is common to treat soft biological tissue as either incompressible or nearly-incompressible [@Fung:1993]. At the scale of the pores (the microscopic scale in this case), however, a distinction exists in that the fluid is exactly (or nearly) incompressible, while the porous solid network is not obviously incompressible.
- In @growthpaper, the acceleration of the solid phase was included as a driving force in the constitutive relation for the flux of other phases. However, acceleration is not frame-invariant and its use in constitutive relations is inappropriate.
- Chemical solutes in the extra-cellular fluid are advected by the fluid velocity and additionally undergo transport under a chemical potential gradient relative to the fluid. In the hyperbolic limit, where advection dominates, spatial instabilities emerge in numerical solutions of these transport equations [@Brooks:82; @Paper6]. Numerical stabilisation of the equations is intimately tied to the mathematical representation of fluid incompressibility.
- The modelling of solid-fluid mechanical coupling carries strong implications for the stiffness of tissue response, the nature of fluid transport, and since nutrients are dissolved in the fluid, ultimately for growth. We present upper and lower bounds for this problem and computations of coupled boundary value problems with these bounds.
These issues are treated in detail in relevant sections of the paper, which is laid out as follows: Balance equations and kinematics are discussed in Section \[sec:2\], constitutive relations for reactions, transport and mechanics in Section \[sec:3\], and numerical examples are presented in Section \[numericalimplementation\]. Conclusions are drawn in Section \[sec:5\].
Balance equations and kinematics of growth {#sec:2}
==========================================
In this section, the coupled, continuum balance equations governing the behaviour of growing tissue are summarised and specialised as outlined in Section \[sec:1\]. For detailed continuum mechanical arguments underlying the equations, the interested reader is directed to @growthpaper.
The tissue of interest is an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^3$ with a piecewise smooth boundary. At a reference placement of the tissue, $\Omega_0$, points in the tissue are identified by their reference positions, $\bX \in \Omega_0$. The motion of the tissue is a sufficiently smooth bijective map $\Bvarphi: \overline{\Omega}_0
\times [0,T] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$, where $\overline{\Omega}_0 :=
\Omega_0 \cup \partial\Omega_0$; $\partial\Omega_0$ being the boundary of $\Omega_0$. At a typical time $t \in [0,T]$, $\Bvarphi(\bX,t)$ maps a point $\bX$ to its current position, $\bx$. In its current configuration, the tissue occupies a region $\Omega_t = \Bvarphi_t
(\Omega_0)$. These details are depicted in Figure \[cp\]. The deformation gradient $\bF := \partial \Bvarphi/ \partial\bX$ is the tangent map of $\Bvarphi$.
The tissue consists of numerous species, of which the following groupings are of importance for the models: A solid species, consisting of solid *collagen fibrils* and *cells*,[^5] denoted by $\mathrm{c}$, an extra-cellular *fluid* species denoted by $\mathrm{f}$ and consisting primarily of water, and *solute* species, consisting of precursors to reactions, byproducts, nutrients, and other regulatory chemicals. A generic solute will be denoted by $\mathrm{s}$. In what follows, an arbitrary species will be denoted by $\iota$, where $\iota = \mathrm{c,f,s}$.
The fundamental quantities of interest are mass concentrations, $\rho_0^\iota(\bX,t)$. These are the masses of each species per unit system volume in $\Omega_0$. Formally, these quantities can also be thought of in terms of the maps $\rho_0^\iota: \overline{\Omega}_0
\times [0,T] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, upon which the formulation imposes some smoothness requirements. By definition, the total [*material density*]{} of the tissue at a point is a sum of these concentrations over all species $\sum\limits_{\iota}\rho_0^\iota =
\rho_0$. Other than the solid species, $\mathrm{c}$, all phases have mass fluxes, $\bM^\iota$.[^6] These are mass flow rates per unit cross-sectional area in the reference configuration *defined relative to the solid phase*. The species have mass sources (or sinks), $\Pi^\iota$.
Balance of mass for an open system {#bomass}
----------------------------------
As a result of mass transport (via the flux terms) and inter-conversion of species (via the source/sink terms) introduced above, the concentrations, $\rho_0^\iota$, change with time. In local form, the balance of mass for an arbitrary species in the reference configuration is
$$\frac{\partial\rho_0^\iota}{\partial t} = \Pi^\iota -
\mathrm{\small{DIV}}[\bM^\iota],\;\forall\,\iota,
\label{massbalance1}$$
recalling that, in particular, $\bM^{c} = \bzero$. Here, $\mathrm{\small{DIV}[\bullet]}$ is the divergence operator in the reference configuration. The functional forms of $\Pi^\iota$ are abstractions of the underlying biochemistry, physiologically relevant examples of which are discussed in Section \[sources\], and the fluxes, $\bM^\iota$, are determined from the thermodynamically-motivated constitutive relations described in Section \[flux const\].
The behaviour of the entire system can be determined by summing over all species $\iota$. Additionally, sources and sinks satisfy the relation
$$\sum\limits_\iota\Pi^\iota = 0, \label{sourcebalance}$$
which is consistent [@growthpaper] with the Law of Mass Action for reaction rates and with Mixture Theory [@TruesdellNoll:65].
### The role of mass balance in the current configuration {#curr-ref-mb}
In order to proceed, we must first introduce the central kinematic assumption underlying the formulation: We assume that the pore structure deforms with the collagenous phase. Therefore, the deformation gradient, $\bF$, is common to c and the fluid-filled pore spaces. Furthermore, in what follows, we will treat the fluid as ideal and nearly-incompressible, i.e. as elastic (Section \[compfluid\]). This combination of kinematic and constitutive assumptions to be elaborated upon, implies that the stress in the fluid phase is determined by the elastic part of $\bF$ (see Sections \[growthkinem\] and \[compfluid\]). For clarity we denote it as $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}$. Importantly, the pore-filling fluid under stress can also undergo transport relative to the pore network; i.e., relative to the collagenous phase. This is the fluid flux, denoted by $\bM^\mathrm{f}$ in the reference configuration. Note that the specification of constitutive relations for the flux is still open at this point in the discussion. At the outset, we preclude stress in any of the solute species, s. Only the solid collagen and fluid bear stress.
Although the initial/boundary value problem of mass transport can be consistently posed in the reference configuration, the evolving current configuration, $\Omega_t$, is of greater interest from a physical standpoint for growth problems. It follows from the discussion in the preceding paragraph that the shape and size of pores in $\Omega_t$ is determined by $\bF$. Therefore, at the boundary, the fluid concentration with respect to $\Omega_t$ remains constant if the boundary is in contact with a fluid bath. Accordingly, this is the appropriate Dirichlet boundary condition to impose under normal physiological conditions. This is shown in an idealised manner in Figure \[fbc\].
![If the pore structure at the boundary deforms with the tissue and this boundary is in contact with a fluid bath, the fluid concentration with respect to the current configuration, i.e., $\rho^\mathrm{f}$, remains constant.[]{data-label="fbc"}](concentration.eps){width="7.50cm"}
In the interest of applying boundary conditions (either specification of species flux or concentration) that are physically meaningful, we use the local form of the balance of mass in the current configuration,
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho^\iota}{\mathrm{d}t} = \pi^\iota-
\mathrm{\small{div}}[\bm^\iota] - \rho^\iota
\mathrm{\small{div}}[\bv],\;\forall\,\iota, \label{massbalcurr}$$
where $\rho^\iota(\bx,t),\pi^\iota(\bx,t)$, and $\bm^\iota(\bx,t)$ are the current mass concentration, source and mass flux of species $\iota$ respectively and $\bv(\bx,t)$ is the velocity of the solid phase. They are related to corresponding reference quantities as $\rho^\iota = \left(\mathrm{det} \left(\bF\right)
\right)^{-1} \rho_0^\iota$, $\pi^\iota = \left(\mathrm{det}
\left(\bF\right) \right)^{-1} \Pi^\iota$ and $\bm^\iota =
\left(\mathrm{det} \left(\bF\right) \right)^{-1} \bF \bM^\iota$. The spatial divergence operator is $\mbox{\small{div} [\textbullet]}$, and the left hand-side in Equation (\[massbalcurr\]) is the material time derivative relative to the solid, which may be written explicitly as $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vert_X$, implying that the reference position of the solid collagenous skeleton is held fixed.
The kinematics of growth induced by changes in concentration {#growthkinem}
------------------------------------------------------------
Local volumetric changes are associated with changes in the concentrations of the solid collagen and fluid, $\iota =
\mathrm{c,f}$. If the material of the solid collagen or fluid remains stress free, it swells with an increase in concentration (mass of the species per unit system volume), and shrinks as its concentration decreases. This leads to the notion of a *growth deformation gradient*. One aspect of the coupling between mass transport and mechanics stems from this phenomenon. In the setting of finite strain kinematics, the total deformation gradient, $\bF$, is decomposed into the growth component of the solid collagen, $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{c}}$, a *geometrically-necessitated elastic component* accompanying growth, $\widetilde{\bF}^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{c}}$ and an *additional elastic component due to external stress*, $\overline{\bF}^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{c}}$. Later, we will write $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{c}} =
\overline{\bF}^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{c}}\widetilde{\bF}^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{c}}$. This split is analogous to the classical decomposition of multiplicative plasticity [@Lee:69] and is similar to the approach followed in existing literature on biological growth [see for e.g. @Klischetal:2001; @TaberHumphrey:2001; @AmbrosiMollica:2002]. As explained in Section \[curr-ref-mb\], we assume that the fluid-filled pores also deform with $\bF$, and that a component, $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}$, of this total deformation gradient tensor, determines the fluid stress. We also assume a fluid growth component, $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}}$, which we elaborate below, and that $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}} =
\bF$. As with the solid collagen we admit $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}
=
\overline{\bF}^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}\widetilde{\bF}^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}$, the sub-components carrying the same interpretation as for the solid collagen. However, we do not explicitly use this last decomposition.
The elastic-growth decomposition is visualised in . Assuming that the volume changes associated with growth described above are isotropic, a simple form for the growth part of the deformation gradient tensor is
$$\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\iota} = \left(
\frac{\rho_0^\iota}{\rho_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}^\iota} \right)^
{\frac{1}{3}}
{\bf 1},\quad \iota = \mathrm{c,f}
\label{isotropicgrowth}$$
where $\rho_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}^\iota(\bX)$ is the reference concentration at the initial time, and [**1**]{} is the second-order isotropic tensor.[^7] In the state, $\bF = \bF^{\mathrm{g}^\iota}$, the species would be stress free. The kinematics being local, the action of $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\iota}$ alone can result in incompatibility, which is eliminated by the geometrically-necessary elastic deformation $\widetilde{\bF}^{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\iota}}}$, which causes an internal, self-equilibrated stress. The component $\overline{\bF}^{\mathrm{e}^\iota}$ is associated with the external stress.
### Saturation and tissue swelling {#satswel}
The degree of saturation of the solid phase plays a fundamental role in determining whether the tissue responds to an infusion (expulsion) of fluid by swelling (shrinking). In particular, the isotropic swelling law defined by Equation (\[isotropicgrowth\]) has to be generalised to treat the case in which the solid phase is not saturated by fluid.
Figure \[satswelfig\] schematically depicts two possible scenarios. If the tissue is unsaturated in its current configuration, as in A, then, on a microscopic scale, it contains unfilled voids. It is thus capable of allowing an influx of fluid, which tends to increase its degree of saturation until fully saturated, as in B. This increase does not cause swelling of the tissue in the local stress-free state, as there is free volume for incoming fluid to occupy. However, once the tissue is saturated in the current configuration, an increase in the fluid content causes swelling in the stress-free state, as depicted in C, since there is no free volume for the entering fluid to occupy. It is this second case that is modelled by (\[isotropicgrowth\]). It is worth emphasizing that this argument holds for $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}}$, which is the local stress-free state of deformation of the fluid-containing pores at a point. The actual deformation gradient, $\bF =
\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}}$, also depends on the the elastic part, $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}$, which is determined by the constitutive response of the fluid. Under stress, an incompressible fluid will have $\mathrm{det}\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}} = 1$ and therefore a fluid-saturated tissue will swell with fluid influx, $\mathrm{det}\bF
= \mathrm{det}\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}} > 1$. A compressible fluid may have $\mathrm{det}\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}} < 1$ allowing $\mathrm{det}\bF < 1$ even with $\mathrm{det}\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}} >1$. Even in this case, however, in the stress-free state there will be swelling.
Therefore, for the fluid phase, the isotropic swelling law can be extended to the unsaturated case by introducing a degree of saturation, $\tilde{v}^\iota$, defined in the current configuration, $\Omega_t$. We have $\tilde{v}^\iota =
\rho^\iota/\tilde{\rho}^\iota$, where $\tilde{\rho}^\iota$ is the intrinsic density in $\Omega_t$ and is given by $\tilde{\rho}^\iota =
\tilde{\rho}^\iota_0/\mathrm{det}\bF$. Note that the intrinsic reference density, $\tilde{\rho}^\iota_0$, is a material property. Upon solution of the mass balance equation (\[massbalcurr\]) for $\rho^\iota$, the species volume fractions, $\tilde{v}^\iota$, can therefore be computed in a straightforward fashion. The sum of these volume fractions is our required measure of saturation defined in $\Omega_t$. Also, recognizing that for the dilute solutions obtained with physiologically-relevant solute concentrations, the saturation condition is very well approximated by $\tilde{v}^\mathrm{f} +
\tilde{v}^\mathrm{s} = 1$, we proceed to redefine the fluid growth-induced component of the pore deformation gradient tensor as follows:
$$\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \left(
\frac{\rho_0^\mathrm{f}}{\rho_{0_{\mathrm{sat}}}^\mathrm{f}} \right)^
{\frac{1}{3}}{\bf 1},&
\tilde{v}^\mathrm{f} + \tilde{v}^\mathrm{s} = 1 \\ {\bf 1},& \mathrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.
\label{saturation}$$
In (\[saturation\]) $\rho_{0_{\mathrm{sat}}}^\mathrm{f}$ is the reference concentration value at which the tissue attains saturation in the current configuration.
With this redefinition of $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}}$ it is implicit that $\tilde{v}^\mathrm{f} + \tilde{v}^\mathrm{s} > 1$ is non-physical. Saturation holds in the sense that $\tilde{v}^\mathrm{f} +
\tilde{v}^\mathrm{s} = 1$, and it actually allows $\sum_\iota
\tilde{v}^\iota > 1$ if the sum is over all species. It has been common in the soft tissue literature to assume that, under normal physiological conditions, soft tissues are fully saturated by the fluid and is appropriate for $\iota =
\mathrm{f}$. However, this treatment of saturation and swelling induced by the fluid phase is necessary background for Section \[tensionfluid\] where we discuss the response of the fluid phase under tension. This treatment also holds relevance for partial drying, which *ex vivo* or *in vitro* tissue may be subject to under certain laboratory conditions, and is central to the mechanics of drained porous media other than biological tissue, most prominently, soils.
Balance of momenta {#bomom}
------------------
In soft tissues, the species production rate and flux that appear on the right hand-side in Equations (\[massbalance1\]) and (\[massbalcurr\]), are strongly dependent on the local state of stress. To correctly model this coupling, the balance of linear momentum should be solved to determine the local state of strain and stress.
The deformation of the tissue is characterised by the map $\Bvarphi(\bX,t)$. Recognising that, in tendons, the solid collagen fibrils and fibroblasts do not undergo mass transport, the material velocity of this species, $\bV =
\partial\Bvarphi/\partial t$, is used as the primitive variable for mechanics. Each remaining species can undergo mass transport relative to the solid collagen. For this purpose, it is useful to define the material velocity of a species $\iota$ *relative to the solid skeleton* as: $\bV^\iota =
(1/\rho_0^\iota)\bF\bM^\iota$. Thus, the total material velocity of a species $\iota$ is $\bV+\bV^\iota$.
The total first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor, $\bP$, is the sum of the partial stresses $\bP^{\,\iota}$ (borne by a species $\iota$) over all the species present. Recognizing that solutes in low concentrations, and do not bear appreciable stress, the partial stresses and momentum balance equation are defined only for the solid collagen and fluid phases. With the introduction of these quantities, the balance of linear momentum in local form over $\Omega_0$ for solid collagen and fluid is,
$$\begin{split}
\rho_0^\iota\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\bV+\bV^\iota\right) &
=\rho^\iota_0\left(\bg+\bq^\iota\right) +
\mathrm{\small{DIV}}[\bP^{\,\iota}]\\
& \quad -\left(\mathrm{\small{GRAD}}\left[\bV+
\bV^\iota\right]\right)\bM^\iota, \quad \iota = \mathrm{c,f}
\label{linearmombalance}
\end{split}$$
where $\bg$ is the body force per unit mass, and $\bq^\iota$ is an interaction term denoting the force per unit mass exerted upon $\iota$ by all other species present. The final term with the (reference) gradient denotes the contribution of the flux to the balance of momentum. In practise, the relative magnitude of the fluid mobility (and hence flux) is small, so the final term on the right hand side of Equation (\[linearmombalance\]) is negligible, resulting in a more classical form of the balance of momentum. Furthermore, in the absence of significant acceleration of the tissue during growth, the left hand-side can also be neglected, reducing (\[linearmombalance\]) to the quasi-static balance of linear momentum.
The balance of momentum of the entire tissue is obtained by summing Equation (\[linearmombalance\]) over $\iota = \mathrm{c,f}$. Additionally, recognising that the rate of change of momentum of the entire tissue is affected only by external agents and is independent of internal interactions, the following relation arises.
$$\sum\limits_{\iota =
\mathrm{c}}^\mathrm{f}\left(\rho^\iota_0\bq^\iota+\Pi^\iota
\bV^\iota
\right)= 0. \label{qrelation}$$
This is also consistent with Classical Mixture Theory [@TruesdellNoll:65]. See @growthpaper for further details on balance of linear momentum, and the formulation of balance of angular momentum. We only note here that the latter principle leads to a symmetric partial Cauchy stress, $\Bsigma^\iota$ for each species in contrast with the unsymmetric Cauchy stress of [@EpsteinMaugin:2000].
Constitutive framework and specific models {#sec:3}
==========================================
As is customary in field theories of continuum physics, the Clausius-Duhem inequality is obtained by multiplying the Entropy Inequality (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) by the temperature field, $\theta$, and subtracting it from the Balance of Energy (the First Law of Thermodynamics). We assume the Helmholtz free energy per unit mass of species $\iota$ to have the form:[^8] $\psi^{\iota} = \hat{\psi}^\iota(\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\iota},
\theta, \rho_0^\iota)$. Substituting this in the Clausius-Duhem inequality results in a form of this inequality that the specified constitutive relations *must not* violate. Only the valid constitutive laws relevant to the examples that follow are listed here. For details, see [@growthpaper].
An anisotropic network model based on entropic elasticity {#wlcm}
---------------------------------------------------------
The partial first Piola-Kirchhoff stress of collagen, modelled as a hyperelastic material, is $\bP^{\,\mathrm{c}} = \rho_0^\mathrm{c} \partial
\psi^\mathrm{c}/ \partial\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{c}}$. Recall that $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{c}} = \bF\bF^{\mathrm{g}^{\mathrm{c}^{-1}}}$ is the elastic part, and $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{c}}$ is the growth part, respectively, of the deformation gradient, of collagen. Following Equation (\[isotropicgrowth\]), if we were considering unidirectional growth of collagen along a unit vector $\be$, we would have $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{c}} = \frac{\rho^\mathrm{c}_{0}}
{\rho^\mathrm{c}_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}} \be \otimes \be$, with $\rho^\mathrm{c}_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}$ denoting the initial concentration of collagen at the point.
The mechanical response of tendons in tension is determined primarily by their dominant structural component: highly oriented fibrils of collagen. In our preliminary formulation, the strain energy density for collagen has been obtained from hierarchical multi-scale considerations based upon an entropic elasticity-based worm-like chain (WLC) model [@KratkyPorod:49]. The WLC model has been widely used for long chain single molecules, most prominently for DNA [@MarkoSiggia:95; @Riefetal:97; @Bustamanteetal:2003], and recently for the collagen monomer [@Sunetal:2002]. The central parameters of this model are the chain’s contour length, $L$, and persistence length, $A$. The latter is a measure of its stiffness and given by $A = \chi/k\theta$, where $\chi$ is the bending rigidity, $k$ is Boltzmann’s constant and $\theta$ is the temperature. See @LandLif for general formulation of statistical mechanics models of long chain molecules.
To model a collagen network structure, the WLC model has been embedded as a single constituent chain of an eight-chain model [@Bischoffetal:2002; @Bischoffetal1:2002], depicted in . Homogenisation via averaging then leads to a continuum Helmholtz free energy function, $\hat{\psi}^\mathrm{c}$:[^9]
$$\begin{split}
\rho^\mathrm{c}_{0}\hat{\psi}^\mathrm{c} (\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{c}},\rho^\mathrm{c}_{0})
&= \frac{N k \theta}{4 A}\left(\frac{r^2}{2L} + \frac{L}{4(1-r/L)} -
\frac{r}{4}\right)\\ & +
\frac{\gamma}{\beta}({J^{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{c}^{-2\beta}}}} -1) +
\gamma{\bf 1}\colon(\bC^{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{c}}}-{\bf 1})\\ &-\frac{N
k \theta}{4\sqrt{2L/A}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2A}{L}} + \frac{1}{4(1 -
\sqrt{2A/L})} -\frac{1}{4} \right) Z,\\ Z &=
\log\left(\lambda_1^{{\mathrm{e}}^{a^\mathrm{2}}}
\lambda_2^{{\mathrm{e}}^{b^\mathrm{2}}}
\lambda_3^{{\mathrm{e}}^{c^\mathrm{2}}}\right).
\label{wlcmeq}
\end{split}$$
Here, $N$ is the density of chains, and $a,b$ and $c$ are lengths of the unit cell sides aligned with the principal stretch directions. The material model is isotropic only if $a=b=c$.
The elastic stretches along the unit cell axes are, respectively, denoted by $\lambda_1^{\mathrm{e}},
\lambda_2^{\mathrm{e}}$ and $\lambda_3^{\mathrm{e}}$, $\bC^{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{c}}} =
\bF^{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{T}}}}
\bF^{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{c}}}$ is the elastic right Cauchy-Green tensor of collagen. The factors $\gamma$ and $\beta$ control the bulk compressibility of the model. The end to end chain length is given by $r = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{a^2\lambda_1^{\mathrm{e}^2} +
b^2\lambda_2^{\mathrm{e}^2}+c^2\lambda_3^{\mathrm{e}^2}}$, where $\lambda^\mathrm{e}_I =
\sqrt{\bN_I\cdot\bC^{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{c}}}\bN_I}$, and $\bN_I,\,I =
1,2,3$ are the unit vectors along the three unit cell axes, respectively. In our numerical simulations that appear below in Section \[numericalimplementation\], the numerical values used for the parameters introduced in (\[wlcmeq\]) are based on those in @kuhlremod05.
A nearly incompressible ideal fluid {#compfluid}
-----------------------------------
In this preliminary work, the fluid phase is treated as nearly incompressible and ideal, i.e., inviscid. The partial Cauchy stress in the fluid is $$\Bsigma^\mathrm{f} =
\mathrm{det}(\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}
\bP^{\,\mathrm{f}}\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{fT}}
= h(\rho^\mathrm{f}){\bf 1},\label{Pf}$$
where a large value of $h^\prime(\rho^\mathrm{f})$ ensures near-incompressibility.
### Response of the fluid in tension; cavitation {#tensionfluid}
The response of the ideal fluid, as defined by , does not distinguish between tension and compression, i.e., whether $\mathrm{det}(\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}) \gtreqless 1$. Being (nearly) incompressible, the fluid can develop compressive hydrostatic stress without bound—a case that is modelled accurately. However, the fluid can develop at most a small tensile hydrostatic stress [@cavitationchris],[^10] and the tensile stiffness is mainly from the collagen phase. This is not accurately represented by (\[Pf\]), which models a symmetric response in tension and compression.
Here, we preclude all tensile load carrying by the fluid by limiting $\mathrm{det}(\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}) \leq 1$. We first introduce an additional component to the relation between deformation of the pore space, given by $\bF$, the fluid stress-determining tensor, $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}$ and the growth tensor for the fluid, $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}}$. Consider the cavitation (void forming) tensor, $\bF^{\mathrm{v}}$, defined by
$$\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}}
\bF^{\mathrm{v}} = \bF.
\label{fvoid}$$
We restrict the formulation to include only saturated current configurations at $t = 0$. Following Section \[satswel\] we have $\tilde{v}^\mathrm{f} + \tilde{v}^\mathrm{c} = 1$ at $t = 0$, the saturation condition in $\Omega_t$ when solutes are at low concentrations. At times $t > 0$ Equation (\[saturation\]) holds for $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}}$. If $\mathrm{det}[\bF(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}] \le 1$ we set $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}} = \bF(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}$ and $\bF^{\mathrm{v}} = {\bf 1}$ for no cavitation. Otherwise, since $\mathrm{det}[\bF(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}] > 1$, we specify $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}} =
\mathrm{det}[\bF(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}]^{-1/3}\bF(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}$ thus restricting $\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}$ to be unimodular and allow cavitation by writing $\bF^{\mathrm{v}} = \bF(\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}$. These conditional relations are summarized as
$$\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\bF(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1},\; \bF^{\mathrm{v}} = {\bf 1},&
\mathrm{det}[\bF(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}] \le 1\\
\mathrm{det}[\bF(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}]^{-1/3}\bF(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1},
& \\
\qquad\qquad \bF^{\mathrm{v}} = \bF(\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{f}}\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{f}})^{-1}
& \mathrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.
\label{cavitation}$$
Constitutive relations for fluxes {#flux const}
---------------------------------
From @growthpaper, the constitutive relation for the flux of extra-cellular fluid relative to collagen in the reference configuration takes the following form,
$$\bM^\mathrm{f} = \bD^\mathrm{f}\left(\rho_0^\mathrm{f}\bF^T\bg +
\bF^T\mathrm{\small{DIV}}\left[\bP^{\,\mathrm{f}}\right] -
\rho_0^\mathrm{f}\mathrm{\small{GRAD}}\mu^\mathrm{f}\right),
\label{fluidflux}$$
where $\bD^\mathrm{f}$ is the positive semi-definite mobility of the fluid, and isothermal conditions are assumed in order to approximate the physiological ones. Experimentally determined transport coefficients (e.g. for mouse tail skin [@Swartzetal:99] and rabbit Achilles tendons [@Hanetal:2000]) are used for the fluid mobility values. The terms in the parenthesis on the right hand-side of sum to give the total driving force for transport. The first term is the contribution due to gravitational acceleration. In order to maintain physiological relevance, this term has been neglected in the following treatment. The second term arises from stress divergence; for an ideal fluid, it reduces to a pressure gradient, thereby specifying that the fluid moves down a compressive pressure gradient, which is Darcy’s Law. The third term is the gradient of the chemical potential, $\mu^\mathrm{f} = e^\mathrm{f} - \theta \eta^\mathrm{f}$, where $e^\mathrm{f}$ is the mass-specific internal energy, $\theta$ is temperature and $\eta^\mathrm{f}$ is the mass-specific entropy. The entropy gradient included in this term results in classical Fickean diffusion if only mixing entropy exists, as discussed in the following section. For a detailed derivation and discussion of , the reader is directed to @growthpaper.
### Saturation and Fickean diffusion of the fluid {#fick}
![Depicted at a microscopic scale, only unsaturated tissues A and B can undergo Fickean diffusion of the fluid. C is saturated.[]{data-label="fick_fig"}](saturation.eps){width="7.50cm"}
As depicted in Figure \[fick\_fig\], only when pores are unsaturated are there multiple configurations available to the fluid molecules at a fixed fluid concentration. This leads to a non-zero mixing entropy. In contrast, if saturated, there is a single available configuration (degeneracy), resulting in zero mixing entropy. Consequently, Fickean diffusion, which arises from the gradient of mixing entropy can exist only in the unsaturated case. However, even a saturated pore structure can demonstrate concentration gradient-dependent mass transport phenomenologically: The fluid stress depends on fluid concentration (see Equation (\[Pf\])), and fluid stress gradient-driven flux appears as a concentration gradient-driven flux.
The saturation dependence of Fickean diffusion is modelled by using the measure of saturation introduced in Section \[satswel\]. We rewrite the chemical potential as
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu^\mathrm{f} &=&
e^\mathrm{f} - \theta\eta^\mathrm{f},\nonumber\\
\eta^\mathrm{f} &\to& 0, \quad \mbox{as}\, \tilde{v}^\mathrm{f} +
\tilde{v}^\mathrm{c} \to 1.
\label{fickeanmobility}\end{aligned}$$
It is again important to note that under physiological conditions, soft tissues are fully saturated by fluid, and it is appropriate to set $\mu^\mathrm{f} = e^\mathrm{f}$.
### Transport of solute species {#solutespecies}
The dissolved solute species, denoted by s, undergo long range transport primarily by being advected by the fluid. In addition to this, they undergo diffusive transport relative to the fluid. This motivates an additional velocity split of the form $\bV^s=\widetilde{\bV^\mathrm{s}}+\bV^\mathrm{f}$, where $\widetilde{\bV^\mathrm{s}}$ denotes the velocity of the solute relative to the fluid. The constitutive relation for the corresponding flux, denoted by $\widetilde{\bM^s}$, has the following form, similar to Equation (\[fluidflux\]) defined for the fluid flux.
$$\widetilde{\bM^\mathrm{s}} = \bD^\mathrm{s}\left(
- \rho^\mathrm{s}_0\mathrm{\small{GRAD}}\left[e^\mathrm{s} -
\theta\eta^\mathrm{s}\right]\right),
\label{soluteflux}$$
where $\bD^\mathrm{s}$ is the positive semi-definite mobility of the solute relative to the fluid, and again, isothermal conditions are assumed to approximate the physiological ones. Following Section \[bomom\] there are no stress-dependent contributions to $\widetilde{\bM^\mathrm{s}}$.
### Frame invariance and the contribution from acceleration {#dropping_accn}
In our earlier treatment [@growthpaper], the constitutive relation for the fluid flux had a driving force contribution arising from the acceleration of the solid phase, $-\rho_0^\mathrm{f}\bF^{\mathrm{T}}\frac{\partial \bV}{\partial t}$. This term, being motivated by the reduced dissipation inequality, does not violate the Second Law and supports an intuitive understanding that the acceleration of the solid skeleton in one direction must result in an inertial driving force on the fluid in the opposite direction. However, as defined, this acceleration is obtained by the time differentiation of kinematic quantities,[^11] and does not transform in a frame-indifferent manner. Unlike the superficially similar term arising from the gravity vector,[^12] the acceleration term presents an improper dependence on the frame of the observer. Thus, its use in constitutive relations is inappropriate, and the term has been dropped in .
### Incompressible fluid in a porous solid {#incompfluid}
Upon incorporation of the additional velocity split, $\bV^\mathrm{s}=\widetilde{\bV^\mathrm{s}}+\bV^f$, described in Section \[solutespecies\], the resulting mass transport equation (\[massbalcurr\]) for the solute species is
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho^\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{d}t} = \pi^\mathrm{s}-
\mathrm{div} \left[\widetilde{\bm^\mathrm{s}}+
\frac{\rho^\mathrm{s}}{\rho^f}\bm^f\right] - \rho^\mathrm{s}
\mathrm{div}[\bv].
\label{massbalcurrsol}$$
In the hyperbolic limit, where advection dominates, spatial oscillations emerge in numerical solutions of this equation [@Brooks:82; @Paper6]. However, the form in which the equation is obtained is not in standard advection-diffusion form, and therefore is not amenable to the application of standard stabilisation techniques [@Paper6]. In part, this is because although the (near) incompressibility of the fluid phase is embedded in the balance of linear momentum via the fluid stress, it has not yet been explicitly incorporated into the transport equations. This section proceeds to impose the fluid incompressibility condition and deduces implications for the solute mass transport equation, including a crucial simplification allowing for its straightforward numerical stabilisation.
From , the local form of the balance of mass for the fluid species (recalling that $\Pi^\mathrm{f}=0$) in the current configuration is
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho^f}{\mathrm{d}t} = - \mathrm{div}\left[\bm^f\right]
- \rho^f \mathrm{div}\left[\bv\right].
\label{fluidtransporteqn}$$
In order to impose the incompressibility of the fluid, we first denote by $\rho_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}^{f}$ the [*initial*]{} value of the fluid reference concentration. Recall that the fluid concentration with respect to the reference configuration evolves in time; $\rho^\mathrm{f}_0 = \rho^\mathrm{f}_0(\bX,t)$. Therefore we can precisely, and non-trivially, define $\rho_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}^{\mathrm{f}}(\bX)$
$$\begin{split}
\rho_{0}^{\mathrm{f}}(\bX,0)
&=:\rho_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}^{\mathrm{f}}(\bX)\\
&=\rho_{\mathrm{ini}}^{\mathrm{f}}(\bx\circ\Bvarphi)
J(\bX, t)\\ &=\frac{\rho^{\mathrm{f}}
(\bx\circ\Bvarphi,t)} {J^{f_\mathrm{g}}(\bX,t)}
J(\bX,t)\\ &=\rho^{\mathrm{f}} (\bx\circ\Bvarphi,t)
\cancelto{\approx 1\ \forall\ t}
{J^{f_\mathrm{e}}}(\bX,t).\\
\label{incompderiv}
\end{split}$$
In (\[incompderiv\]), $J := \mathrm{det}(\bF)$ and $J^{f_\mathrm{g}} :=
\mathrm{det}(\bF^{\mathrm{g}^{\mathrm{f}}})$. The quantity $\rho_{\mathrm{ini}}^{\mathrm{f}}$ is defined by the right hand-sides of the first and second lines of (\[incompderiv\]). To follow the argument, consider, momentarily, a *compressible* fluid. If the current concentration, $\rho^\mathrm{f}$, changes due to elastic deformation of the fluid and by transport, then $\rho_{\mathrm{ini}}^{\mathrm{f}}$ as defined is not a physically-realized fluid concentration. It bears a purely mathematical relation to the current concentration, $\rho^\mathrm{f}$, since the latter quantity represents the effect of deformation of a tissue point as well as change in mass due to transport at that point. If the contribution due to mass change at a point is scaled out of $\rho^\mathrm{f}$ the quotient is identical to the result of dividing $\rho_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}^{\mathrm{f}}$ by the deformation only. This is expressed in the relation between the right hand-sides of the second and third lines of (\[incompderiv\]). The elastic component of fluid volume change in a pore is $J^{f_\mathrm{e}} :=
\mathrm{det}(\bF^{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{f}}})$, which appears in the third line of (\[incompderiv\]) via the preceding arguments. Clearly then, for a fluid demonstrating near incompressibility intrinsically (i.e., the true density is nearly constant), we have $J^{f_\mathrm{e}}
\approx 1$ as indicated. Equation (\[incompderiv\]) therefore shows that for a nearly incompressible fluid occupying the pores of a tissue, if we further assume that the pore structure deforms as the solid collagenous skeleton, $\rho_0^\mathrm{f}(\bX,0) \approx
\rho^\mathrm{f}(\bx\circ\Bvarphi,t)$. The fluid concentration as measured in the current configuration is approximately constant in space and time. This allows us to write,
$$\frac{\partial} {\partial t}\left(
\rho_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}^{f}(\bX) \right) \equiv 0 \Rightarrow
\frac{\partial} {\partial t}\left(\rho^{f} (\bx\circ\Bvarphi,t)
\right)\Big\vert_{\bX} = 0,$$
which is the hidden implication of our assumption of a homogeneous deformation, i.e., $\bF$ is the deformation gradient of solid collagen and the pore spaces. This leads to $\frac{\mathrm{d}
\rho^f} {\mathrm{d}
t}=0$.[^13] We therefore proceed to treat our fluid mass transport at steady state. Rewriting the flux $\bm^{\mathrm{f}}$ from as the product $\rho^{\mathrm{f}}
\bv^{\mathrm{f}}$ and using the result derived above, $$\begin{split}
0 &= \left. \frac{\partial \rho^f}{\partial t} \right|_{\bX}\\ &=
-\mathrm{div}\left[\rho^f \bv^{f}\right] - \rho^f
\mathrm{div}\left[\bv\right].
\end{split}
\label{incomprimpl}$$
Returning to (\[massbalcurrsol\]) with this result,
$$\begin{split}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho^\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{d}t} &= \pi^\mathrm{s}-
\mathrm{div} \left[\widetilde{\bm^\mathrm{s}}+
\frac{\rho^\mathrm{s}}{\rho^f}\bm^f\right] - \rho^\mathrm{s}
\mathrm{div}[\bv]\\ &= \frac{\rho^\mathrm{s}}{\rho^f}\left(\cancelto{0}
{-\mathrm{div}\left[\rho^f \bv^{f}\right] - \rho^f
\mathrm{div}[\bv]}\right)\\ &\quad{} + \pi^\mathrm{s} -
\mathrm{div}\left[\widetilde{\bm^\mathrm{s}}\right]
-\bm^f\cdot\mathrm{grad}\left[\frac{ \rho^\mathrm{s}}{\rho^f}\right].\\
\end{split}$$
Thus, using the incompressibility condition (\[incomprimpl\]), we get the simplified form of the balance of mass for an arbitrary solute species, s,
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho^\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\pi^\mathrm{s} -
\mathrm{div}\left[\widetilde{\bm^\mathrm{s}}\right] -
\frac{\bm^f\cdot\mathrm{grad}\left[\rho^\mathrm{s}\right]}{\rho^f} +
\frac{\rho^\mathrm{s} \bm^f \cdot \mathrm{grad}\left[\rho^f\right]}
{\rho^{f^2}}.
\label{stdform}$$
Using the pushed-forward form of (\[soluteflux\]), this is now in standard advection-diffusion form,
$$\begin{split}
& \frac{\mathrm{d}\rho^\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{d}t} - \underbrace{
\mathrm{div}\left[\bar{\bD^\mathrm{s}} \mathrm{grad}
\left[ \rho^\mathrm{s}\right]\right]}_\text{Diffusion term}
- \underbrace{\pi^\mathrm{s}}_\text{Source term} =
\\ \ & - \underbrace{\frac{\bm^f\cdot\mathrm{grad}\left[\rho^\mathrm{s}\right]}{\rho^f}}
_\text{Advection term} +
\underbrace{ \frac{\rho^\mathrm{s} \bm^f \cdot \mathrm{grad}\left[\rho^f\right]}
{\rho^{f^2}},}_\text{Additional, $\rho^\mathrm{s}$-dependent source term}
\end{split}
\label{morestdform}$$
where $\bar{\bD^\mathrm{s}}$ is a positive semi-definite diffusivity, $\bm^{f}/\rho^{f}$ is the advective velocity, and $
\pi^\mathrm{s}$ is the volumetric source term. This form is well suited for stabilisation schemes such as the streamline upwind Petrov-Galerkin (SUPG) method (see, for e.g., [@Paper6]), described briefly below, which limit spatial oscillations otherwise observed when the element [*Peclet number*]{} is large.
### Stabilisation of the simplified solute transport equation {#solutetranspstab}
In weak form, the SUPG-stabilised method for Equation (\[morestdform\]) is
$$\begin{split}
&\int_{\Omega} w^{\mathrm{h}} \left(
\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho^{\mathrm{s}^{h}}}{\mathrm{d}t} +
\bm^f\cdot\mathrm{grad}\left[\frac{
\rho^{\mathrm{s}^{h}}}{\rho^f}\right] \right)
d\Omega\\ &+\int_{\Omega} \left( \mathrm{grad}
\left[w^{\mathrm{h}}\right] \cdot \bar{\bD^\mathrm{s}} \mathrm{grad}
\left[ \rho^{\mathrm{s}^{h}}\right] \right)\ d\Omega\\ +&
\sum_{\mathrm{e}=1}^{\mathrm{n_{el}}} \int_{\Omega_{\mathrm{e}}}
\tau \frac{\bm^{f}}{\rho^f} \cdot \mathrm{grad} \left[w^{\mathrm{h}}\right] \left(
\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho^{\mathrm{s}^{h}}}{\mathrm{d}t} +
\bm^f\cdot\mathrm{grad}\left[\frac{
\rho^{\mathrm{s}^{h}}}{\rho^f}\right] \right) \ d\Omega\\ -&
\sum_{\mathrm{e}=1}^{\mathrm{n_{el}}} \int_{\Omega_{\mathrm{e}}}
\tau \frac{\bm^{f}}{\rho^f} \cdot \mathrm{grad} \left[w^{\mathrm{h}}\right]
\left(\mathrm{div}\left[\bar{\bD^\mathrm{s}}\ \mathrm{grad} \left[
\rho^{\mathrm{s}^{h}}\right]\right]\right) \ d\Omega\\ = &
\int_{\Omega} w^{\mathrm{h}} \pi^\mathrm{s} \ d\Omega +
\int_{\Gamma_{\mathrm{h}}} w^{\mathrm{h}} h \ d\Gamma\\ +&
\sum_{\mathrm{e}=1}^{\mathrm{n_{el}}} \int_{\Omega_{\mathrm{e}}}
\tau \frac{\bm^{f}}{\rho^f} \cdot \mathrm{grad} \left[w^{\mathrm{h}}\right]
\pi^\mathrm{s} \ d\Omega,
\label{stabilizedmassbal}
\end{split}$$
where quantities with the superscript $\mathrm{h}$ represent finite-dimensional approximations of infinite-dimensional field variables, $\Gamma_{\mathrm{h}}$ is the Neumann boundary, and this equation introduces a numerical stabilisation parameter $\tau$, which we have calculated from the $\mathrm{L}_{2}$ norms of element level matrices, as described in [@tezduyarsupg].
Nature of the sources {#sources}
---------------------
There exists a large body of literature, [@CowinHegedus:76; @EpsteinMaugin:2000; @AmbrosiMollica:2002], that addresses growth in biological tissue mainly based upon a single species undergoing transport and production/annihilation. However, when chemistry is accounted for, it is apparent that growth depends on cascades of complex biochemical reactions involving several species, and additionally involves intimate coupling between mass transfer, biochemistry and mechanics. An example of this chemo-mechanical coupling is described in [@Provenzanoetal:2003].
The modelling approach followed in this work is to select appropriate functional forms of the source terms for collagen, $\Pi^{\mathrm{c}}$, and the solutes, $\Pi^{\mathrm{s}}$, that abstract the complexity of the biochemistry. In our earlier exposition [@growthpaper], we used simple first order chemical kinetics to define $\Pi^{\mathrm{c}}$. Other forms, which have been studied in the literature, can be used:
\(1) [*Michaelis-Menten*]{} enzyme kinetics (see, for e.g., [@Sengersetal:2004]), which involves a two-step reaction with the collagen and solute production terms given by
$$\Pi^\mathrm{s} =
\frac{-(k_{\mathrm{max}}\rho^{\mathrm{s}})}
{(\rho^{\mathrm{s}}_m+\rho^{\mathrm{s}})}
\rho_{\mathrm{cell}}, \quad\Pi^\mathrm{c} = -\Pi^\mathrm{s},
\label{enzymekineticseq}$$
where $\rho_{\mathrm{cell}}$ is the concentration of fibroblasts, $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ is the maximum value of the solute production reaction rate constant, and $\rho^{\mathrm{s}}_m$ is half the solute concentration corresponding to $k_{\mathrm{max}}$. For details on the chemistry modelled by the Michaelis-Menten model, see, for e.g., @sbromadill.
\(2) [*Strain energy-dependent*]{} sources that induce growth at a point when the energy density deviates from a reference value. An example of source terms of this form was originally proposed in the context of bone growth [@HarriganHamilton:93]. We are not aware of studies that have developed similar functional forms for soft tissue, and therefore have adapted this example from the bone growth literature, recognizing that this topic is in need of further study. Suitably weighted by a relative concentration ratio, and written for collagen, this source term has the form
$$\Pi^\mathrm{c} =
\left(\frac{\rho^\mathrm{c}_0}{\rho^\mathrm{c}_{0_\mathrm{ini}}}\right)^{-m}
\psi_{\mathrm{F}}-\psi_{\mathrm{F}}^*,
\label{strainsrc}$$
where $\psi_{\mathrm{F}}$ is the mass-specific strain energy function, and $\psi_{\mathrm{F}}^*$ is a reference value of this strain energy density. Equation (\[strainsrc\]) models collagen production when the strain energy density (weighted by a concentration ratio) at a point exceeds this reference value, and models annihilation otherwise.
Numerical examples {#numericalimplementation}
==================
![Engineered tendon constructs. See @Calve:04 for details.[]{data-label="engconst"}](one-construct.eps){width="7.50cm"}
The theory presented in the preceding sections results in a system of non-linear, coupled partial differential equations. A finite element formulation employing a staggered scheme based upon operator splits [@Armero-poroplasticity:99; @Garikipatiox2:01] has been implemented in [FEAP]{} [@feapmanual] to solve the coupled problem. As an example, in the biphasic problem involving solid and fluid phases only, the basic solution scheme involves keeping the displacement field fixed while solving for the concentration fields using the mass transport equations. The resulting concentration fields are then fixed to solve the mechanics problem. This procedure is repeated until the resulting fields satisfy the differential equations within a specified numerical tolerance.
The following examples aim to demonstrate the mathematical formulation and aspects of the coupled phenomena as the tissue grows. The model geometry, based on our engineered tendon constructs (see Figure \[engconst\] and @Calve:04), is a cylinder 12 mm in length and 1 mm$^2$ in cross-sectional area. The corresponding finite element mesh using hexahedral elements, is shown in Figure \[egmesh\].
The following numerical examples involve solution of a common set of partial differential equations. The constutive models, however, vary as we demonstrate the behaviour engendered by the many modelling assumptions discussed in the paper. The balance of linear momentum that we solve is (\[linearmombalance\]) summed for $\iota =
\mathrm{c,f}$, with the constraint in (\[qrelation\]) imposed. The absence of significant acceleration in the problems under consideration allows us to solve the balance of linear momentum quasi-statically. The fluid mass balance equation is solved in the current configuration, i.e. (\[massbalcurr\]) for $\iota = \mathrm{f}$, but mass balance for the solid collagenous phase is solved in the reference configuration, i.e. (\[massbalance1\]) for $\iota =
\mathrm{c}$. Mass balance for the solute is also solved in the current configuration, but using the stabilized scheme in weak form (\[stabilizedmassbal\]). The Backward Euler algorithm is used for all mass transport equations. The constitutive relation for the solid collagen follows (\[wlcmeq\]). The constitutive relation for the fluid stress follows (\[Pf\]) with $$h(\rho^\mathrm{f}) =
\frac{1}{2}\kappa^\mathrm{f}\left(\frac{\rho_{0_\mathrm{ini}}^\mathrm{f}}{\rho^\mathrm{f}}
- 1\right)^2,$$
where $\kappa^\mathrm{f}$ is the fluid bulk modulus. The tissue is modelled as being fluid saturated in $\Omega_t$ at $t = 0$, i.e. (\[saturation\]$_1$) holds with $\rho^\mathrm{f}_{0_\mathrm{sat}} =
\rho^\mathrm{f}_{0_\mathrm{ini}}$. However, the tissue is allowed to become unsaturated in $\Omega_t$ for $t > 0$ due to void formation. Then, the conditions set out in (\[cavitation\]) apply. The chemical potential is then given by (\[fickeanmobility\]). The numerical examples that follow discuss further specialization of the constitutive relations to other cases discussed in the preceding sections. The numerical values of parameters[^14] that have been used appear in Table \[parameters\].
Non-linear projection methods [@simotaylorpister:85] are used to treat the near-incompressibility imposed by the fluid. Mixed methods, as described in [@Garikipatiox2:01], are used for stress (and strain) gradient driven fluxes.
The initial and boundary conditions have been chosen in order to model a few common mechanical and chemical interventions on engineered tissue. However, we will not attempt detailed descriptions of experiments, choosing to focus instead on results that can be directly related to the models. A more detailed comparison with experiments is forthcoming in a separate communication.
A multiphasic problem based on enzyme-kinetics {#enzyme_kinetics_eg}
----------------------------------------------
Value Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------
Chain density ($N$) $7\times 10^{21}$ $\mathrm{m}^{-3}$
Temperature ($\theta$) $310.6$ K
Persistence length ($A$) $2.10$ –
Fully-stretched length ($L$) $2.125$ –
Unit cell axes ($a,\;b,\;c$) $1.95,\;1.95,\;2.43$ –
Bulk compressibility factors ($\gamma,\;\beta$) $1000,\; 4.5$ –
Fluid bulk modulus ($\kappa^f$) $1$ GPa
Fluid mobility tensor ($D^\mathrm{f}_{ij} = D^\mathrm{f}\delta_{ij}$) $1\times 10^{-14}$ s
Fibroblast concentration ($\rho_{\mathrm{cell}}$) 0.2 kg.m$^{-3}$
Max. reaction rate ($k_{\mathrm{max}} = 5$) 5 s$^{-1}$
Max. solute concentration ($\rho^{\mathrm{s}}_m$) 0.2 kg.m$^{-3}$
Solute diffusivity ($\bD^\mathrm{s}$) $1\times 10^{-9}$ m$^{-2}$s
: Material parameters used in the analysis.[]{data-label="parameters"}
This first example can be viewed as a model for localised, bolus delivery of regulatory chemicals to the tendon while accounting for mechanical (stress) effects. A single solute species[^15] is considered, denoted by s, and a uniform distribution of fibroblasts that are characterised by their cell concentration, $\rho_{\mathrm{cell}}$. Both, Fickean diffusion of the solute, and stress gradient driven fluid flow are incorporated in this illustration. We use Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetics \[Equation (\[enzymekineticseq\])\] to determine the rates of solute consumption and collagen production as a function of solute concentration. This non-linear relationship for our choice of parameters is visualised in Figure \[eg3menten\]. Here, the fluid phase does not take part in reactions, and hence $\Pi^\mathrm{f}=0$.
![Variation of the collagen source term (kg.m$^{-3}$.s$^{-1}$) with solute concentration (kg.m$^{-3}$).[]{data-label="eg3menten"}](enzyme-kinetics.eps){width="7.50cm"}
The tendon immersed in the bath is subjected to a constrictive radial load, such as would be imposed upon manipulating it with a set of tweezers, as depicted in Figure \[constrictload\]. The maximum strain in the radial direction—experienced half-way through the height of the tendon—is 10%. The applied strain in the radial direction decreases linearly with distance from the central plane, and vanishes at the top and bottom surfaces of the tendon.
The initial collagen concentration and the initial fluid concentration are both 500 kg.m$^{-3}$ at every point in the tendon, and the fluid concentration in the bath is 500 kg.m$^{-3}$. In addition, a solute-rich bulb of radius 0.15 mm is introduced with its centre on the axis of the tendon and situated 3 mm below the upper circular face of the tendon. The initial solute concentration is 0.05 kg.m$^{-3}$ at all other points in the tendon, and increases linearly with decreasing radius in this bulb to 1 kg.m$^{-3}$ at its centre (see Figure \[eg3ini\]). The parameters used are listed in Table \[parameters\], and are relevant to tendons.
![The solute concentration (kg.m$^{-3}$) initially.[]{data-label="eg3ini"}](initial-solute-concentration.eps){width="7.50cm"}
The aim of this example is to compare the influences upon solute transport from two mechanisms: Fluid stress gradient-driven transport, arising from the applied constrictive load, and solute concentration gradient-driven transport. These mechanisms have both been implicated in nutrient supply to cells in soft tissue. The results of this numerical example demonstrate that because the magnitude of the fluid mobility for stress gradient driven transport is orders of magnitude smaller than the diffusion coefficient for the solute through the fluid, there is relatively only a small stress gradient driven flux, and the transport of the solute is diffusion dominated. As a result, the solute diffuses locally, but displays no observable advection along the fluid. As the diffusion-driven solute concentration in a region increases, the enzyme-kinetics model results in a small source term for collagen production, and we observe nominal growth. Figure \[eg3conc\] shows the collagen concentration at an early time, $t=5\times10^{-2}$ s.
![The collagen concentration (kg.m$^{-3}$) at time $t=5\times10^{-2}$ s.[]{data-label="eg3conc"}](final-collagen-concentration.eps){width="7.50cm"}
This example incorporates all of the theory discussed in the paper. However, it is a valuable exercise in modelling to simplify the boundary value problem, and supress some of the coupled phenomena in order to gain a better understanding of some effcts. This is the approach followed in the next two numerical examples. The detailed transport and mechanics induced by the constrictive radial load are discussed first in Section \[pinching\].
Examples exploring the biphasic nature of porous soft tissue {#firstorder}
------------------------------------------------------------
In these calculations, only two phases—fluid and collagen—are included for the mass transport and mechanics. The parameters used in the analysis are presented in Table \[parameters\].
### The tendon under constriction {#pinching}
In this example, the tendon immersed in a bath is subjected to the same constrictive radial load as in Section \[enzyme\_kinetics\_eg\]. Since that example demonstrated an insignificant amount of local collagen production over this time scale, we have simplified the problem by setting the source term $\Pi^\mathrm{c} = 0$. The total duration of the simulation is 10 s, and the radial strain is applied as a displacement boundary condition, increasing linearly from no strain initially to the maximum strain at time $t = 1~\mathrm{s}$. Again, both the initial collagen concentration and the initial fluid concentration are 500 kg.m$^{-3}$ at every point in the tendon. This tendon is exposed to a bath where the fluid concentration is 500 kg.m$^{-3}$.
While solving the balance of momentum for the biphasic problem of the solid collagen and a fluid phase, we currently treat the tissue as a single entity and employ a summation of Equation (\[linearmombalance\]) over both species. Additionally, condition (\[qrelation\]) allows us to avoid constitutive prescription of the momentum transfer terms between solid collagen and fluid phases, $\bq^\mathrm{c}$ and $\bq^\mathrm{f}$. This facilitates considerable simplification of the problem, but such a treatment requires additional assumptions on the detailed deformation of the constitutive phases of the tissue. An explicit assumption we have drawn on thus far is the equality of the deformation gradient of the solid collagen and pore spaces, allowing us to use the deformation gradient $\bF$, suitably decomposed to account for change in fluid concentration, to model the fluid stress. This assumption and its consequences have been discussed in Sections \[bomass\], \[growthkinem\], \[satswel\], \[compfluid\], \[tensionfluid\] and \[incompfluid\]. Since the imposition of a common deformation gradient results in an upper bound for the effective stiffness of the tissue and magnitudes of the fluxes established, we refer to it as the [*upper bound model*]{}. This assumption plays a fundamental role in determining the fluid flux driven by the fluid stress gradient.
For this upper bound model, Figure \[eg2flux\] shows the fluid flux in the vertical direction at the final stage of the constriction phase of the simulation, i.e. at time $t=1$ s. The flux values are positive above the central plane, forcing fluid upward, and negative below, forcing fluid fluid downward. This stress-gradient induced fluid flux results in a reference concentration distribution of the fluid that is higher near the top and bottom faces, as seen in Figure \[eg2conc\].
As a result, these regions would have seen a higher production of collagen, or preferential growth, in the presence of non-zero source terms. As discussed in Section \[curr-ref-mb\], the mass transport equations are solved in the current configuration, where physical boundary conditions can be set directly. The values reported in Figure \[eg2conc\] are pulled back from the current configuration. The current concentrations do not change for this boundary value problem.
Solving a problem of this nature in the reference configuration using $\rho_0^\mathrm{f} = $ const. as the boundary condition to represent immersion of the tendon in a fluid bath yields non-physical results, such as an unbounded flow. This occurs since the imposed strain gradient causes a stress gradient in the fluid that does not decay. The imposed boundary condition on $\rho_0^\mathrm{f}$ prevents a redistribution of concentration that would have provided an opposing, internal gradient of stress, which in turn would drive the flux to vanish.
The tendon is held fixed in the radial direction after the constriction phase. The applied stress sets up a pressure wave in the fluid travelling toward the top and bottom faces. As the fluid leaves these surfaces, we observe that the tendon relaxes. This is seen in Figure \[topdisp\], which plots the vertical displacement of the top face with time, showing a decrease in height of the tendon after the constriction phase. We keep the centre of the bottom face of the tendon fixed.
In order to define a range of the magnitude of fluid flux, we now introduce the [*lower bound model*]{} (on effective stiffness of the tissue and, consequently, the magnitude of the fluid flux). For this lower bound, we replace the earlier strain homogenisation requirement with a stress homogenisation requirement, [*viz.*]{} equating the hydrostatic stress of the solid phase and the fluid pressure in the current configuration:
$$p^{\mathrm{f}}=\frac{1}{3} \mathrm{\small{tr}}[\Bsigma^{c}],
\label{equalpr}$$
where $p^{\mathrm{f}}$ is the fluid pressure in the current configuration, $\mbox{\small{tr}[\textbullet]}$ is the trace operator, and $\Bsigma^{c}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{J^{c}}} \bP^{\mathrm{c}}
\bF^{\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{T}}}$ is the Cauchy stress of the solid. The Cauchy stress of an ideal fluid can be defined from its current pressure as Figure [\[lowerbound\]]{} reports the value of the vertical flux under the lower bound modelling assumption, using boundary conditions identical to the previous calculation at time $t=1$ s, the final stage of the constriction phase of the simulation.
The fluid flux values reported in Figures \[eg2flux\] and \[lowerbound\] (corresponding to the upper and lower bound modelling assumptions, respectively) are qualitatively similar, but differ by about three orders of magnitude. This wide range points to the importance of imposing the appropriate mechanical coupling model between interacting phases. Note, however, that we have computed bounds for the range of possible fluid flux values under the specified mechanical loading. Recall, furthermore, that the example in Section \[enzyme\_kinetics\_eg\] used the upper bound model, and yet resulted in no discernible advective solute transport. This suggests strongly that, given the parameters in Table \[parameters\], convective transport of nutrients in tendons is dominated by diffusive transport. In future work, we will detail models that result in precise field values for the fluxes, which will replace the upper and lower bounds discussed here.
This numerical example also points to the fact that a convenient measure of the strength of coupling between the mechanics and mass transport equations is the ratio of the variation in hydrostatic stress of the fluid to that of the solid. In the lower bound case, where the fluid response is defined by Equation (\[equalpr\]), it is instructive to note that this ratio is unity. As a result, it is seen that the lower bound case exhibits significantly weaker coupling than the upper bound case. In the latter, variation in the common deformation gradient, $\delta
\bF$, causes instantaneous variation in and in , where $\kappa^{\mathrm{c}}$ is the bulk modulus of the solid. The ratio $\frac{\delta p^{\mathrm{f}}}{\frac{1}{3} \delta
\mathrm{\small{tr}}[\Bsigma^{c}]}$ is therefore .
The strength of coupling between the equations plays a principal role in the rate of convergence of the solution, as observed in Table \[resnorms\], where the residual norms of the equilibrium equation (and corresponding CPU times in seconds for an IntelXeon 3.4 GHz machine) are reported for the first 8 iterations of each of the two cases. Recall that the staggered scheme involves solution of the mechanics equation keeping the concentrations fixed, and the mass transport equation keeping the displacements fixed, in turn, until the solution converges. The table does not report the value of the residual norms arising from the solution of the mass transport equation for the fluid, which occurs after each reported solve of the of the mechanics equation. Although the initial mechanics residual norms in successive passes are decreasing linearly in both cases, the rapid decrease in this quantity in the weakly-coupled case ensures convergence in far fewer iterations than the strongly coupled case. Thus, the corresponding CPU times reported are also lower for the weakly coupled case. This is advantageous. In addition to being more physical, as argued at the beginning of Section \[swelling\] immediately below, the lower bound, weakly-coupled case makes it feasible to drive problems to longer, physiologically-relevant time-scales through the use of larger time steps.
------ ------------------------- --------- ------------------------- ---------
Pass
Residual CPU (s) Residual CPU (s)
1 $ 2.138\times 10^{-02}$ 29.16 $6.761 \times 10^{-04}$ 28.5
$ 3.093\times 10^{-04}$ 55.85 $1.075 \times 10^{-04}$ 55.1
$ 2.443\times 10^{-06}$ 82.37 $4.984 \times 10^{-06}$ 81.8
$ 2.456\times 10^{-08}$ 109.61 $1.698 \times 10^{-08}$ 107.9
$ 4.697\times 10^{-14}$ 135.83 $3.401 \times 10^{-13}$ 134.1
$ 1.750\times 10^{-16}$ 163.18 $1.1523\times 10^{-17}$ 161.1
2 $ 5.308\times 10^{-06}$ 166.79 $5.971 \times 10^{-08}$ 192.5
$ 4.038\times 10^{-10}$ 193.36 $4.285 \times 10^{-11}$ 218.6
$ 1.440\times 10^{-14}$ 220.45 $2.673 \times 10^{-15}$ 246.1
$ 4.221\times 10^{-17}$ 247.04 $ $
3 $ 5.186\times 10^{-06}$ 250.62 $2.194 \times 10^{-09}$ 277.3
$ 3.852\times 10^{-10}$ 277.44 $2.196 \times 10^{-13}$ 304.2
$ 1.369\times 10^{-14}$ 304.16 $1.096 \times 10^{-17}$ 331.6
$ 4.120\times 10^{-17}$ 331.47 $ $
4 $ 5.065\times 10^{-06}$ 335.16 $8.160 \times 10^{-11}$ 363.2
$ 3.674\times 10^{-10}$ 362.24 $7.923 \times 10^{-15}$ 390.2
$ 1.300\times 10^{-14}$ 388.79 $ $
$ 4.021\times 10^{-17}$ 416.08 $ $
5 $ 4.948\times 10^{-06}$ 419.59 $3.078 \times 10^{-12}$ 421.4
$ 3.503\times 10^{-10}$ 446.24 $3.042 \times 10^{-16}$ 448.6
$ 1.236\times 10^{-14}$ 473.20 $ $
$ 3.924\times 10^{-17}$ 500.85 $ $
6 $ 4.832\times 10^{-06}$ 504.65 $1.179 \times 10^{-13}$ 479.9
$ 3.340\times 10^{-10}$ 531.28 $1.291 \times 10^{-17}$ 507.0
$ 1.174\times 10^{-14}$ 558.17 $ $
$ 3.829\times 10^{-17}$ 585.27 $ $
7 $ 4.720\times 10^{-06}$ 589.01 $4.592 \times 10^{-15}$ 537.8
$ 3.184\times 10^{-10}$ 616.24 $5.152 \times 10^{-18}$ 564.6
$ 1.116\times 10^{-14}$ 643.29 $ $
$ 3.737\times 10^{-17}$ 670.83 $ $
8 $ 4.609\times 10^{-06}$ 674.46 $1.816 \times 10^{-16}$ 595.5
$ 3.034\times 10^{-10}$ 701.74 $5.040 \times 10^{-18}$ 622.3
$ 1.060\times 10^{-14}$ 727.74 $ $
$ 3.646\times 10^{-17}$ 755.58 $ $
------ ------------------------- --------- ------------------------- ---------
: Mechanics equation residual norms and corresponding CPU times in seconds for the first 8 passes of each of the two cases for a typical time increment, $\Delta t=$ 0.1 s.[]{data-label="resnorms"}
### A swelling problem {#swelling}
Motivated mainly by the recognition that the lower bound model for solid-fluid mechanical coupling ensures convergence to a self-consistent solution in just a few passes of the staggered solution scheme, we adopt this version of the coupling for our final problem. On this note we point out that solution of the individual balances of linear momentum equation for the solid collagenous and fluid phases with the momentum transfer terms \[$\bq^\mathrm{c}, \bq^\mathrm{f}$ in (\[linearmombalance\])\] is a statement of momentum balance between them. There is reason to suppose, therefore, that equating the solid collagen and fluid stress, or some component of these tensors as done in the lower bound model, is a reasonable approximation to explicitly solving the balance of linear momentum for each phase, including the momentum transfers. In contrast, equating the deformation gradient of the solid collagen with deformation of the pore spaces subjects the fluid to a stress state also determined by this deformation gradient in the upper bound model. This approximation does not correspond to an underlying physical principle comparable to the satisfaction of individual balances of linear momentum for solid collagen and fluid, with momentum transfers. It is therefore somewhat less motivated and more questionable. Clearly, a rigorous analysis or numerical comparisons of all three models: upper bound, lower bound and direct solution of individual solid-fluid momentum balances, must be carried out to conclusively demonstrate this. It is a possible topic for a future paper.
In this example we will demonstrate the mechanical effects of growth due to collagen production. In the interest of focusing on this issue we assume that fibroblasts are available, and that the fluid phase bears the necessary nutrients for collagen production dissolved at a suitable, constant concentration. Collagen production is assumed to be governed by a first-order rate law. Newly-produced collagen has proteoglycan molecules bound to it, and they in turn bind water. We model this effect by associating a loss of nutrient-bearing free fluid with collagen production. A fluid sink $\Pi^\mathrm{f}$ is introduced following first order kinetics,
$$\Pi^\mathrm{f} = -k^\mathrm{f}(\rho_0^\mathrm{f}
- \rho_{0_\mathrm{ini}}^\mathrm{f}),$$
as in @growthpaper. Here $k^\mathrm{f}$ is the reaction rate, taken to be 0.07 $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, and $\rho_{0_\mathrm{ini}}^\mathrm{f}$ is the initial concentration of fluid. The collagen source is mathemaically equivalent to the fluid sink: $\Pi^\mathrm{c} =
-\Pi^\mathrm{f}$. When $\rho_{0}^\mathrm{f} >
\rho_{0_\mathrm{ini}}^\mathrm{f}$, collagen is produced.
The boundary conditions in this example correspond to immersion of the tendon in a nutrient-rich bath. The initial collagen concentration is 500 kg.m$^{-3}$ and the fluid concentration is 400 kg.m$^{-3}$ at every point in the tendon. When this tendon is exposed to a bath where the fluid concentration is 410 kg.m$^{-3}$, i.e. $\rho^\mathrm{f}(\bx,t)=410~\mathrm{kg.m}^{-3} \forall \bx \in
\partial\Omega_t$, nutrient-rich fluid is transported into the tissue, due to the pressure difference, induced by the concentration difference, between the fluid in the tendon and in the bath (fluid stress gradient-driven flux). Thereby, the nutrient concentration is elevated, leading to collagen production, fluid consumption and, eventually, growth due to additional collagen.
Figure \[before\_growth\] shows the initial collagen concentration in the tendon. After it has been immersed in the nutrient-rich bath for 1800 s, the tendon shows growth and the collagen concentration is higher as seen in Figure \[after\_growth\]. On performing a uniaxial tension test on the tendon before and after growth, it is observed (Figure \[stress\_strain\]) that the grown tissue is stiffer and stronger due to its higher collagen concentration. Also note that there is a rapid, fluid transport-dominated swelling of the tendon between 0 and 25 s following immersion in the fluid bath (Figure \[volume\_evolution\]). This causes a small volume change of $\approx 1.6$%. In this transport-dominated regime the contribution to tendon growth from collagen production is small. However, the fluid-induced swelling saturates, and between 25 and 1800 s the reaction producing collagen dominates the growth process, producing a further $\approx 6.8$% volume change. Noting that the range of collagen concentration in Figure \[after\_growth\] is $585-626\; \mbox{kg.m}^{-3}$, and that (\[isotropicgrowth\]) gives $\bF^{\mathrm{g}^\mathrm{c}} = \left(
\frac{\rho_0^\mathrm{c}}{\rho_{0_{\mathrm{ini}}}^\mathrm{c}}
\right)^ {\frac{1}{3}} {\bf 1}$, this portion of the volume change is quite clearly due to collagen production. The total volume change of $8.4$% corresponds to changes in each linear dimension of the tendon by only $\approx 2.7$%, and is not discernible upon comparing Figures \[before\_growth\] and \[after\_growth\]. It is, however, manifest in Figure \[volume\_evolution\].
Conclusion {#sec:5}
==========
In this paper, we have discussed a number of enhancements to our original growth formulation presented in @growthpaper. That formulation has served as a platform for posing a very wide range of questions on the biophysics of growth. Some issues, such as saturation, incompressibility of the fluid species and its influence upon the tissue response, and the roles of biochemical and strain energy-dependent source terms are specific to soft biological tissues. We note, however, that other issues are also applicable to a number of systems with a porous solid, transported fluid and reacting solutes. Included in these are issues of current versus reference configurations for mass transport, swelling, Fickean diffusion, fluid response in compression and tension, cavitation and the strength of solid-fluid coupling..
These issues have been resolved using arguments posed easily in the framework derived in @growthpaper. The interactions engendered in the coupled reaction-transport-mechanics system are complex, as borne out by the numerical examples in Section \[numericalimplementation\]. We are currently examining combinations of sources defined in Section \[sources\], and aim to calibrate our choices from tendon growth experiments. The treatment of these issues has led to a formulation more suited to the biophysics of growing soft tissue, making progress toward our broader goal of applying it to the study of wound healing, pathological hypertrophy and atrophy, as well as a study of drug efficacy and interaction.
[^1]: Research Assistant, Department of Mechanical Engineering
[^2]: Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Program in Macromolecular Science and Engineering
[^3]: Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Department of Biomedical Engineering
[^4]: Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics
[^5]: At this point, we do not distinguish the solid species further. This is a good approximation to the physiological setting for tendons, which are relatively acellular and whose dry mass consists of up to 75% collagen [@Nordinetal:2001].
[^6]: Currently, we do not consider certain physiological processes, such as the migration of fibroblasts within the extra-cellular matrix during wound healing, which may otherwise be modelled as mass transport.
[^7]: This choice is only the simplest possible. Given the highly directional micro-structure and mechanical properties of many tissues, it seems likely that anisotropic growth is actually more common. Wolff’s Law for bone growth is one example. This is a topic of ongoing investigation, and one that we will report on in greater detail in a future communication.
[^8]: Conceivably, the mass-specific Helmholtz free energy of one species could be a function of the concentration of other species. Ion concentrations, for instance, can determine the state of osmotic tension of certain soft tissues. Therefore, this choice represents a constitutive restriction.
[^9]: Under the isothermal conditions assumed here, $\hat{\psi}^\mathrm{c}$ is independent of $\theta$ in the strain energy. Accordingly, we have the parametrisation ${\psi}^\mathrm{c}=\hat{\psi}^\mathrm{c}
(\bF^{\mathrm{e}^\mathrm{c}},\rho^\mathrm{c}_{0})$ .
[^10]: Where, we are referring to the fluid being subject to net tension, not a reduction in fluid compressive stress from reference ambient pressure.
[^11]: And not in terms of acceleration [*relative to fixed stars*]{} for e.g., as discussed in [@TruesdellNoll:65 Page 43].
[^12]: Where every observer has an implicit knowledge of the directionality of the field relative to a fixed frame, allowing it to transform objectively. Specifically, under a time-dependent rigid body motion imposed on the current configuration carrying $\bx$ to $\bx^+ = \bc(t) + \bQ(t)\bx$, where $\bc(t) \in \mathbb{R}^3$ and $\bQ(t) \in \mbox{SO}(3)$, it is understood that the acceleration due to gravity in the transformed frame is $\bg^+ = \bQ^\mathrm{T}\bg$ and is therefore frame-invariant. However, $\ba^+ = \ddot{\bc} + 2\dot{\bQ}\bv +
\ddot{\bQ}\bx + \bQ\ba$ , and is therefore not frame-invariant.
[^13]: Which results in a very large pressure gradient driven flux due to incompressibility.
[^14]: The mobility tensor reported in Table \[parameters\] is an order-of-magnitude estimate recalculated from @Hanetal:2000 to correspond to the mobility used in this paper. These authors reported a mean value of $0.927\times 10^{-14}$ s, with a range of $1.14\times
10^{-14}--0.58\times 10^{-14}$ s in terms of the mobility used here. Theirs is the mobility parallel to the fiber direction in Rabbit Achilles tendon. Our usage of it is as an isotropic mobility. Using anisotropic mobilities, or different values from the reported range changes the result quantitatively, but not qualitatively.
[^15]: Here, we envision the solute to be a protein playing an essential role in growth by catalysing underlying biochemical reactions. An important example of this is a family of proteins, TGF$\beta$, which is a multi-functional peptide that controls numerous functions of many cell types [@Alberts:02].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Calculations of equilibrium properties of dense matter predict that at subnuclear densities nuclei can be rodlike or slablike. To investigate whether transitions between phases with non-spherical nuclei can occur during the collapse of a star, we perform quantum molecular dynamic simulations of the compression of dense matter. We have succeeded in simulating the transitions between rodlike and slablike nuclei and between slablike nuclei and cylindrical bubbles. Our results strongly suggest that non-spherical nuclei can be formed in the inner cores of collapsing stars.'
author:
- 'Gentaro Watanabe$^{a,b,c}$, Toshiki Maruyama$^{d}$, Katsuhiko Sato$^{b,e}$, Kenji Yasuoka$^{f}$ and Toshikazu Ebisuzaki$^{c}$'
title: 'Simulation of Transitions between “Pasta” Phases in Dense Matter '
---
In ordinary matter, atomic nuclei are roughly spherical because, in the liquid drop picture of the nucleus, effects of the nuclear surface tension are greater than those of the Coulomb forces. When the density of matter approaches that of atomic nuclei, calculations predict that, in equilibrium state, the nuclei will adopt different shapes, such as cylinders and slabs, etc. These phases with non-spherical nuclei are often referred to as “pasta” phases [@rpw; @hashimoto].
In the initial stage of the supernova explosions, matter in the collapsing iron cores experiences an adiabatic compression, which leads to an increase of the density in the central region from $\sim 10^{9}$ g cm$^{-3}$ to around the normal nuclear density $\rho_{0}=0.165$ fm$^{-3}$ just before the star rebounds; the temperature there reaches the order of 1 MeV. The pasta phases are thus expected to be formed in the inner cores during the collapse of stars. However, such a speculation is based on phase diagrams of the equilibrium state (e.g., Refs. [@lassaut; @qmd_hot] for finite temperatures) or static and perturbative calculations [@review; @iida]. It is still unclear whether or not the pasta phases can be formed and the transitions between them can be realized during the collapse, which lasts less than a second. Because of the drastic changes of nuclear shape that occur under non-equilibrium conditions, this problem is more difficult than the realization of the pasta phases by cooling at constant density, as demonstrated in Ref. [@qmd], and an [*ab-initio*]{} approach is called for.
In the present Letter, we solve the problem about the transitions between pasta phases using a dynamical framework for nucleon many-body systems called the quantum molecular dynamics (QMD) [@aichelin]. QMD is a suitable approach to describe thermal fluctuations and is efficient enough to treat large systems consisting of several nuclei. Furthermore, at the relevant temperatures of several MeV, shell effects, which cannot be described by QMD, are less important because they washed out by thermal fluctuations.
The pasta phases have recently begun to attract the attention of researchers (see, e.g., Ref. [@burrows] and references therein). The mechanism of the collapse-driven supernova explosion has been a central mystery in astrophysics for almost half a century. Previous studies suggest that the revival of the shock wave by neutrino heating is a crucial process. As has been pointed out in Refs. [@gentaro2; @qmd] and elaborated in Refs. [@horowitz2; @prep], the existence of the pasta phases instead of uniform nuclear matter increases the neutrino opacity of matter in the inner core significantly [@note_opacity] due to the neutrino coherent scattering by nuclei [@freedman; @sato1]; this affects the total energy transferred to the shocked matter. Thus the pasta phases could play an important role in the future study of supernova explosions.
In the present study, we use a nuclear force given by a QMD Hamiltonian with medium-EOS parameter set in Ref. [@maruyama]. This Hamiltonian contains the momentum dependent “Pauli potential”, which reproduces the effects of the Pauli principle phenomenologically. Parameters in the other terms of the Hamiltonian are determined to reproduce the saturation properties and the properties of finite nuclei in the ground state, especially of heavier ones relevant to the present study [@maruyama]. It is also confirmed that a QMD Hamiltonian close to the present model provides a good description of nuclear reactions including the low energy region (several MeV per nucleon) [@niita], which would be important for the present case.
Using the above QMD Hamiltonian, we perform simulations of symmetric nuclear matter with 16384 nucleons in a cubic box with periodic boundary condition (see Ref. [@prep] for other cases). The system contains equal numbers of protons (and neutrons) with spin up and spin down. The relativistic degenerate electrons which ensure charge neutrality are treated as a uniform background because, at subnuclear densities, the effect of the electron screening is small [@review; @screening]. The Coulomb energy, taking account of the Gaussian charge distribution of the proton wave packets, is calculated by the Ewald method. The temperature $T$ is measured by the effective kinetic temperature for momentum-dependent potentials, which is consistent with the temperature in the Boltzmann statistics [@qmd]. The QMD equations of motion are integrated by the fourth-order Gear predictor-corrector method with a multiple time step algorithm. Integration time steps $\Delta t$ are adaptive in the range of $\Delta t < 0.1$ – $0.2$ fm$/c$.
As the initial condition, we use samples of the columnar phase and of the laminar phase of 16384-nucleon system at $T\simeq1$ MeV obtained in Ref. [@qmd_hot]. In preparing them, we first combine eight replicated 2048-nucleon samples in the ground state ($T\simeq0$ MeV; nucleon number density $\rho=0.225\rho_0$ for the phase with rodlike nuclei and $0.4\rho_0$ for the case of slablike nuclei) into a 16384-nucleon sample, and then put random noise on the positions and the momenta of nucleons up to $0.1$ fm and $1$ MeV$/c$, respectively. We equilibrate the sample at $T=1$ MeV for $\sim$ 4000 – 5000 fm$/c$ using the Nosé-Hoover thermostat for momentum-dependent potentials [@qmd_hot]. We further relax the sample for $\sim$ 5000 fm$/c$ without the thermostat.
Starting from the above sample, we simulate the adiabatic compression. In the case starting from the phase with rodlike nuclei \[slablike nuclei\], the density is increased by 2$\times 10^{-4} \rho_0$ \[1$\times10^{-4} \rho_0$\] every 100 steps by changing the box size (the particle positions are rescaled at the same time). The average rate of change for the density is $\simeq$1.3$\times 10^{-5} \rho_0/$(fm$/c$) \[$\simeq$7.1$\times 10^{-6} \rho_0/$(fm$/c$)\]; this rate ensures the adiabaticity of the simulated compression process with respect to the change of nuclear structure [@adiabat]. Finally, we relax the compressed sample at $\rho=$0.405 $\rho_0$ \[0.490 $\rho_0$\]. These final densities are those of the phase with slablike nuclei \[cylindrical bubbles\] in the equilibrium phase diagram at $T \simeq 1$ MeV [@qmd_hot].
The resulting time evolution of the nucleon distribution is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Starting from the phase with rodlike nuclei \[Fig. 1-(1); $\rho=0.225 \rho_0$ (volume fraction of nuclear matter region $u=0.20$ – 0.22 [@volume]) at time $t=0$\], the phase with one-dimensional layered lattice of slablike nuclei is formed \[Fig. 1-(9); $\rho=0.405 \rho_0$ ($u=0.41$ – 0.45) at $t=17720$ fm$/c$\]. During the compression, the temperature increases gradually up to $\simeq 1.35$ MeV in the final state. We note that, in the process of the compression, the phase with rodlike nuclei persists as a metastable state, and moreover, until nuclei begin to touch and fuse they are not elongated along the plane of the final slabs \[see Fig. 1-(2)\]. This shows that the transition from the phase with rodlike nuclei to the slablike nuclei is not triggered by the fission instability. This result is consistent with a previous study, which shows the stability of the rodlike nuclei against a small quadrupolar deformation of the cross section [@iida]. When the internuclear spacing becomes small enough and once some pair of neighboring rodlike nuclei touch due to thermal fluctuations, they fuse \[see the lower two nuclei in the middle column in Figs. 1-(3) and 1-(4); $u=0.27$ – 0.30 at $t=6050$ fm$/c$\]. Like a chain reaction, such connected pairs of rodlike nuclei further touch and fuse with neighboring nuclei in the same lattice plane \[see Figs. 1-(5) and 1-(6)\]. Each fusion process in the chain reaction proceeds on a time scale of order $10^2$ fm$/c$, which is much shorter than the time scale of the density change [@adiabat].
The transition from the phase with slablike nuclei to the phase with cylindrical holes is shown in Fig. 2 ($u=0.42$ – 0.45 and 0.55 – 0.59 at $t=0$ and 27370 fm$/c$). When the internuclear spacing decreases enough, neighboring slablike nuclei touch due to the thermal fluctuation as in the above case. Once nuclei begin to touch ($u=0.49$ – 0.52 at $t=8460$ fm$/c$), bridges between the slabs are formed at many places on a time scale (of order 100 fm$/c$) much shorter than that of the compression \[cf. Figs. 2-(3) and 2-(4)\]. After that the bridges cross the slabs nearly orthogonally for a while, which makes hollow regions on a square lattice rather than the final triangular one. Nucleons in the slabs continuously flow into the bridges, which become wider and merge together to form cylindrical holes. Afterwards, the connecting regions consisting of the merged bridges move gradually, and the cylindrical holes relax to form a triangular lattice. The final temperature in this case is $\simeq 1.3$ MeV.
Let us now investigate the detailed time evolution of the nuclear structure. The integral mean curvature and the Euler characteristic (see, e.g., Ref. [@minkowski]) are powerful tools for this purpose. Suppose there is a set of regions $R$, where the density is higher than a threshold density $\rho_{\rm th}$. The integral mean curvature and the Euler characteristic for the surface of this region $\partial R$ are defined as surface integrals of the mean curvature $H$ and the Gaussian curvature $G$, respectively; i.e., $\int_{\partial R} H dA$ and $\chi \equiv \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\partial R} G dA$, where $dA$ is the area element of the surface of $R$. The topological quantity $
%\begin{eqnarray}
\chi = \mbox{(number of isolated regions)}
- \mbox{(number of tunnels)} + \mbox{(number of cavities)}\
\label{euler}
%\end{eqnarray}
$ [@note_euler]. We calculate these quantities using the density field of nucleons on $128^3$ grid points (see Ref. [@qmd] for detailed procedures).
In Figs. 3-(A) and 3-(B), the quantities $\int_{\partial R} H dA$ and $\chi$ calculated for each nucleon distribution in Fig. 1 are shown as functions of $\rho_{\rm th}$. In this case, the initial condition is the phase with rodlike nuclei, whose structure is well characterized by the plateau of $\int_{\partial R} H dA \simeq 4000$ fm \[see the red curve in Fig. 3-(A)\]. The slablike nuclei in the final state, on the other hand, are characterized by $\int_{\partial R} H dA \simeq 0$ fm, corresponding to the plateau of the gray curve in Fig. 3-(A).
The behavior of $\chi$ clearly shows that the rodlike nuclei begin to touch between $t=5290$ and 6050 fm$/c$, when the plateau value of $\chi$ starts to deviate from zero, characterizing the rodlike nuclei, to negative values, characterizing the multiply connected structures such as sponges. We note that before the nuclei touch, the change in $\int_{\partial R} H dA$ is small except for lower values of $\rho_{\rm th} \lesssim 0.1 \rho_0$. This reflects the facts that the phase with rodlike nuclei persists as a metastable state and that the transition is not induced by the fission instability [@note_fission]. Also the behavior of $\chi$ should be noted; as can be seen from Fig. 4-(A), it becomes negative between the phase with rodlike nuclei ($\chi\simeq 0$ and $\int_{\partial R}HdA >0$) and the phase with slablike nuclei ($\chi\simeq 0$ and $\int_{\partial R}HdA \simeq 0$). This implies that the transition proceeds through a transient state with “spongelike” structure. The state which gives the smallest $\chi$ at $t\simeq 9840$ fm$/c$ corresponds to the moment when all of the rodlike nuclei are connected to others by small bridges; after that, the connected nuclear rods relax into slablike nuclei, i.e., the bridges in the slablike structures merge to form the nuclear slabs and those across the slabs disappear. The whole transition process can be divided into the “connecting stage” and the “relaxation stage” before and after this moment; the former starts when the nuclei begin to touch and it takes $\simeq 3000$ – 4000 fm$/c$ and the latter takes more than 8000 fm$/c$.
The same quantities are shown for the transition from the phase with slablike nuclei to the phase with cylindrical bubbles in Figs. 3-(C), 3-(D), and 4-(B). The initial and the final structures are characterized by the plateau values of $\int_{\partial R} H dA \simeq 0$ and $\simeq -2000$ fm, respectively. From Figs. 3-(D), and 4-(B), we see that the slablike nuclei begin to touch at $t \lesssim 8460$ fm$/c$ and the connection of the slablike nuclei by the small bridges are completed at $t \lesssim 12000$ fm$/c$ corresponding to the state with the lowest $\chi$. In this case, the connecting stage lasts for $\simeq 3000$ – $4000$ fm$/c$ and the relaxation stage for more than $15000$ fm$/c$. In the latter period, the bridges merge to form cylindrical holes shown by the increase of $\chi$ toward zero, and, simultaneously, their positions relax into a triangular lattice as mentioned before.
In conclusion, we have succeeded in simulating the dynamical process of two types of transitions between pasta phases at subnuclear densities. Our calculations support the idea that transitions between pasta phases can occur during stellar collapse. The particular transitions we have examined are triggered by the thermal fluctuation, not by the fission instability. They consist of the connecting stage and the relaxation stage. The total time of the connecting stage is $3000$ – $4000$ fm$/c$ in our simulations, which could be shortened by the artificial compression. However, we can conclude that the connecting stage would be complete in a time scale of order $10^3$ fm$/c$ taking account of the facts that each connecting process observed in this stage proceeds much faster than the compression and that the time scale of ordinary nuclear fission is about $1000$ fm$/c$. The relaxation stage takes about $10000$ fm$/c$ or more. A remaining challenge is to investigate the transition from the bcc lattice of spherical nuclei to the triangular lattice of rodlike nuclei [@prep]. If this process is confirmed, the existence of the pasta phases in supernova cores will be almost established.
G. W. is grateful to C. J. Pethick and K. Iida for valuable discussions and comments. G. W. also appreciates M. Shimizu, L. M. Jensen, P. Urkedal, T. Iitaka and T. Shimobaba. T. M. thanks S. Chiba for discussions and kind suggestions. This work was supported in part by the Nishina Memorial Foundation, by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology through Research Grant No. S14102004, No. 14079202 and No. 14-7939, and by RIKEN through Research Grant No. J130026.
[99]{} D. G. Ravenhall, C. J. Pethick and J. R. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 2066 (1983). M. Hashimoto, H. Seki and M. Yamada, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**71**]{}, 320 (1984). M. Lassaut [*et al.*]{}, Astron. Astrophys. [**183**]{}, L3 (1987). G. Watanabe [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 055805 (2004). C. J. Pethick and D. G. Ravenhall, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**45**]{}, 429 (1995). K. Iida, G. Watanabe and K. Sato, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**106**]{}, 551 (2001). G. Watanabe [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{}, 012801(R) (2002); [*ibid.*]{}, [**68**]{}, 035806 (2003). J. Aichelin, Phys. Rep. [**202**]{}, 233 (1991). A. Burrows, S. Reddy and T. A. Thompson, Nucl. Phys. [**A**]{}, in press (astro-ph/0404432). G. Watanabe, K. Iida and K. Sato, Nucl. Phys. [**A687**]{}, 512 (2001); Erratum, Nucl. Phys. [**A726**]{}, 357 (2003). C. J. Horowitz, M. A. Pérez-García, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 045804 (2004). G. Watanabe [*et al.*]{}, in preparation. The cross section for the neutrino coherent scattering is approximated to be proportional to the static structure factor of neutrons, whose peak height for the columnar and laminar phases ($x=0.3$, $T=1$ MeV) is $O(10^2)$ [@prep]. D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D [**9**]{}, 1389 (1974). K. Sato, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**53**]{}, 595 (1975). T. Maruyama [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{}, 655 (1998). K. Niita, JAERI-conf. [**96-009**]{}, 22 (1996) (in Japanese). G. Watanabe and K. Iida, Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{}, 045801 (2003). According to the typical value of the density difference between each pasta phase, $\sim 0.1\rho_0$, we increase the density to the value corresponding to the next pasta phase taking the order of $10^4$ fm$/c$, which is much longer than the typical time scale of the nuclear fission, $\sim 1000$ fm$/c$. Therefore, if a dynamical phenomenon of nuclei whose time scale is less than the order of $10^4$ fm$/c$ is observed during the compression, its dynamics is determined by the intrinsic physical properties of the system not by the density change applied externally, whose time scale is much shorter than that of the actual stellar collapse. We here assume that the nuclear surface corresponds to the isodensity surface for a threshold density (see later) of $\rho_{\rm th}=0.45$ – $0.5 \rho_0$. We should mention that the nuclear surface cannot be characterized by a single value of $\rho_{\rm th}$ except for the state before the fusion and after the system is fully relaxed because the density in the nuclear matter region in the transient states is quite inhomogeneous. K. Michielsen and H. De Raedt, Phys. Rep. [**347**]{}, 461 (2001). The value of $\chi$ is positive for the phases with spherical nuclei and spherical bubbles, and is zero for the other ideal pasta phases, i.e., the phases of rodlike nuclei, slablike nuclei, and cylindrical bubbles. $\int_{\partial R}H dA$ should decrease before $\chi$ deviates from zero if the transition is triggered by the fission instability, i.e., nuclei deform largely before they touch. We see, however, only a minor change of $\int_{\partial R}HdA$ before $\chi$ decreases.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have studied the effective response of composites of spherical particles each having a dielectric profile which varies along the radius of the particles. We developed a first-principles approach to compute the dipole moment of the individual spherical particle and hence the effective dielectric response of a dilute suspension. The approach has been applied to two model dielectric profiles, for which exact solutions are available. Moreover, we used the exact results to validate the results from the differential effective dipole approximation, recently developed to treat graded spherical particles of an arbitrary dielectric profile. Excellent agreement between the two approaches were obtained. While the focus of this work has been on dielectric responses, the approach is equally applicable to analogous systems such as the conductivity and elastic problems.'
address:
- '$^1$Department of Physics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong'
- |
$^2$College of Information Science and Technology, East China Normal University,\
Shanghai 200 062, China
author:
- 'L. Dong$^1$, G. Q. Gu$^{1,2}$, K. W. Yu$^1$'
title: |
First-principles approach to dielectric response of\
graded spherical particles
---
Introduction
============
Functionally graded materials (FGM) are inhomogeneous materials with spatially varying material properties. These materials have received considerable attention as one of the advanced inhomogeneous composite materials in various engineering applications since first being reported in the 1980s [@Yamanouchi]. The change in the composition induces material and microstructure gradients, and makes the FGM very different in behavior from the homogeneous materials and conventional composite materials [@Yamanouchi; @Holt]. These materials can be tailored in their materials properties via the design of the gradients. For mechanical properties, the main advantages of a graded material profile range from the improved bonding strength, toughness, to wear and corrosion resistance. Other benefits include the reduced residual and thermal barrier coatings of high temperature components in gas turbines, the surface hardening for tribological protection and graded interlayers used in multilayered microelectronic and optoelectronic components [@Yamanouchi; @Holt; @Ilschner].
Over the past few years, there have been a number of attempts, both analytical and experimental, to study the responses of FGM to mechanical [@Atkinson; @Delale; @Erdogan; @Chen; @PGu], thermal [@Jin; @Jin1; @Noda] and electric [@Zhu; @Scanchez] loads and for different microstructure in various systems. Nevertheless, the responses of composites of FGM inclusion, which is formed when graded inclusions are suspended randomly in a host medium, should be more useful and interesting. Various different attempts have been made to treat the composite materials of homogeneous inclusions [@Jackson] as well as multi-shell inclusions [@Gu1; @Fuhr; @Arnold; @Chan]; there exist many methods to study the effective properties of composite materials in the literature. However, these established theories for homogeneous inclusions cannot be applied. It is thus necessary to develop a new theory to study the effective properties of graded composite materials under externally applied fields. In this paper, we will develop a first-principles approach for calculating the effective response of graded composite materials.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we present the formalism. We will solve the field equations analytically for graded spherical inclusions. In sections III, we obtain the exact solution for a power-law profile, and in section IV, for a linear profile. In section V, we use the exact solution to validate a recently proposed approximate theory. Discussion and conclusion will be given.
Formalism
=========
In this section, we will focus on the dielectric response as an example. The formalism can equally be applied to analogous systems like the conductivity and elastic problems. More precisely, for a composite of graded spherical inclusions, we will find its response to an externally applied electric field. The formalism involves two major parts: firstly we will calculate the local electric field distribution in a graded spherical inclusion and then the induced dipole moment of the inclusion. The two-dimensional composite of graded cylindrical inclusions has been discussed in [@Gu]. In this work, we will extend the analysis to the more realistic case of three-dimensional composites of graded spherical inclusions. We will study two model dielectric profiles, namely, the power-law and linear profiles for which exact solutions of the local electric field and the dipole moment can be obtained.
We consider a graded spherical inclusion of radius $a$ suspended in a homogeneous host medium, subjected to a uniform electric field $\vec{E}_0$ along the $z$-axis. We will consider a low concentration of suspended inclusions. Thus, the interaction among the inclusions can be neglected and the effective dielectric properties of the composite can be obtained from the responses of a single inclusion under an effective electric field $\bar{E}$. For dielectric response, the constitutive relation of a graded spherical inclusion reads =\_[i]{}(r)\_[i]{}. where $\ep_{i}(r)$ is the dielectric profile of the graded spherical inclusion. The relation for the host medium is =\_[m]{}\_[m]{}. where $\ep_{m}$ is the dielectric constant of the host medium. The Maxwell’s equations read =0, \[gradient\] and =0. To this end, $\vec{E}$ is the gradient of a scalar potential $\Phi$: =-. \[pot\] Eq.(\[gradient\]) and Eq.(\[pot\]) can be combined into a partial differential equation: ((r) ) = 0. We will normalize the dielectric profile to the dielectric constant of the host medium $\ep_{m}$ for convenience. Without loss of generality, we may also let $a=1$.
In spherical coordinates, the electric potential $\Phi$ satisfies (r\^2(r) ) + ((r) ) + ((r))=0, \[comm\] where $\ep(r)=\ep_{i}(r)/\ep_{m}$, $\ep_{i}(r)$ is the dielectric constant of the inclusion and $\ep_{m}$ is the dielectric constant of the host medium.
We consider the applied electric field along the $z$-axis, thus $\Phi$ is independent of the angle $\varphi$. If we write $\Phi = R(r)\Theta(\theta)$, after a separation of variables, we obtain the ordinary differential equation for the radial function $R(r)$, (r\^2) +-n(n+1)R=0. \[general\] where $n$ is an integer, $\ep(r)$ is a dimensionless dielectric constant, while $\ep(r)=\ep_{i}(r)/\ep_{m}$ in the inclusion, and $\ep(r)=1$ in the host medium.
The potential can be obtained by solving Eq.(\[general\]). In the dilute limit, the dipole moment of the graded spherical inclusion can be derived. We take the average of the operator $\vec{D}-\ep_{m}\vec{E}$ in the whole volume of the composite material, then \_[V]{} (-\_[m]{}) dV =|[D]{}-\_[m]{}|[E]{}, \[operator\] where $V$ is the volume of the whole composite material, $\bar{A}$ denotes the average of an operator $A$ in the composite material. The integrand vanishes in the host medium, and thus Eq.(\[operator\]) becomes \_[\_[i]{}]{} (-\_[m]{}) dV =|[D]{}-\_[m]{}|[E]{}, where $\Omega_{i}$ is the region occupied by the inclusion.
Now, we can define the effective constitutive relation for the composite material: |[D]{}=\_[e]{}|[E]{}, where $\ep_{e}$ is the effective dielectric constant of the composite material. Thus \_[\_[i]{}]{} (\_[i]{}-\_[m]{}) dV =(\_[e]{}-\_[m]{})|[E]{}. \[equation\] Eq.(\[equation\]) gives the polarization of the composite and it can be used to calculate the effective dielectric properties of the composite material at a low particle concentration.
Exact solution for a power-law profile
======================================
The dielectric constant in the particle is taken as a power-law function of the radius. In this case, $\ep(r)=c_{k}r^k$, with $k \ge 0$ where $0\le r \le1$. Then the radial equation becomes +-=0. \[Re\] As this is a homogeneous equation, it admits a power-law solution, R(r)=r\^[s]{}. \[R(r)\] Substituting it into Eq.(\[Re\]), we obtain the equation s\^[2]{}+s(k+1)-n(n+1)=0. The solution to this equation is s\^[k]{}=. The potentials in the inclusion and the host medium are given, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{i}(r,\theta)&=&A_{0}+\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left[A_{n}
r^{s_{+}^{k}(n)}+B_{n}r^{s_{-}^{k}(n)} \right]P_{n}(\cos\theta),\nonumber\\
\Phi_{m}(r,\theta)&=&C_{0}+\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left[C_{n}
r^{n}+D_{n}r^{-(n+1)} \right]P_{n}(\cos\theta).
\label{potential}\end{aligned}$$ As $r\to \infty$, the potential is given by the far field \_[m]{}=-E\_[0]{}r, while $r\to 0$, $\Phi_{i}$ attains a finite value. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{i}(r,\theta)&=& A_{1} r^{s_{+}^{k}(1)} P_{1}(\cos\theta),
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{m}(r,\theta)&=&-E_{0}r\cos\theta
+\frac{D_{1}}{r^{2}}P_{1}(\cos\theta).\end{aligned}$$Meanwhile, the potential functions should satisfy the boundary conditions, as follow: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{i}(r,\theta)\left|_{r=1} \right.&=&\Phi_{m}(r,\theta)\left|_{r=1}
\right.,\nonumber\\
\ep(r)\frac{\partial \Phi_{m}(r,\theta)}{\partial r}\left|_{r=1}
\right.&=&\frac{\partial
\Phi_{i}(r,\theta)}{\partial r}\left|_{r=1} \right..
\label{bc}\end{aligned}$$ We obtain: -E\_[0]{}+D\_[1]{}=A\_[1]{}, -E\_[0]{}-2D\_[1]{}=c\_[k]{}A\_[1]{}s\_[+]{}\^[k]{}(1). It is not difficult to solve these equations and obtain the coefficients, A\_[1]{}=E\_[0]{}, D\_[1]{}=E\_[0]{}. where $s=s_{+}^{k}(1)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\sqrt{(k+1)^{2}+8} - (k+1)\right]$. Then the potentials are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{m}(r,\theta)&=&-E_{0}r\cos\theta+\frac{D_{1}}{r^{2}}\cos\theta,
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{i}(r,\theta)&=&A_{1}r^{s}\cos\theta.\end{aligned}$$ The electric field $E_{i}$ along the $z$-axis in the inclusion can be derived from the potential $\Phi_{i}$, E\_[iz]{}=-A\_[1]{}r\^[s-1]{}. \[E\] In the dilute limit, the polarization can be calculated from the following equation: 4 \_[m]{}E\_[0]{} b=\_[\_[i]{}]{} (\_[i]{}(r)-\_[m]{})E\_[iz]{}(r,) dV, where $b$ is the dipole factor, which measures the degree of polarization of the graded spherical inclusion against the host medium, and $\Omega_{i}$ is the region occupied by the inclusion. After performing the integral, we obtain b=(- ). \[b\] When $k=0$, $\ep(r)=c_{k}$ is a constant, then s=1 and b= This is just the dipole factor in the homogeneous case.
Linear profile with a small slope
=================================
In this section, we consider $\ep(r)$ as a linear function of the radius. This is a simple graded material that can be made easily. Moreover, other materials can be simulated using piecewise linear functions. For the inclusion, (r)=d+cr. According to Eq.(\[general\]), the radial function for the inclusion satisfies the following equation: +( +) -R=0. \[lineareq\] where $r=\xi \hat{r}$, and $\xi=d/c$. We consider the case with a small slope, that is, $\vert \xi \vert=\vert d/c \vert >1$, we can express the solution in a power series. The power series solution is: f\_[n]{}()=\_[k=0]{}\^C\_[k]{}\^[n]{}\^[k+]{}. Then the radial equation \[Eq.(\[lineareq\])\] becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}C_{k}^{n}\left[(k+\rho)(k+\rho-1)+2(k+\rho)-n(n+1)
\right]\hat{r}^{k+\rho-2}\nonumber\\
+ \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}C_{k}^{n}\left[(k+\rho)(k+\rho-1)
+3(k+\rho)-n(n+1)\right]\hat{r}^{k+\rho-1}=0.
\label{relation}\end{aligned}$$The coefficient of each term should vanish, and the lowest term satisfies: C\_[0]{}\^[n]{}=0. This equation is for the characteristic equation of the differential equation \[Eq.(\[lineareq\])\]. Solving it, we obtain = n [or]{} -(n+1). Similarly, the recursion relation can also be found from Eq.(\[relation\]), C\_[k+1]{}\^[n]{}=-C\_[k]{}\^[n]{}. This power series solution is absolutely convergent in the region $0\leq \hat{r}<1$. Thus, we can use this solution to study the response of composite material to the external field, as long as $\vert d/c \vert >1$.
Consider the properties of the potential at infinity and at the origin, the potentials are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{m}(r,\theta)&=&-E_{0}r\cos\theta+\frac{D_{1}}{r^{2}}\cos\theta,
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{i}(r,\theta)&=&A_{1}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}C_{k}^{1}
(\frac{c}{d}r)^{k+1}\cos\theta.\end{aligned}$$Moreover, from the boundary conditions, we obtain the coefficients $A_{1}$ and $D_{1}$, A\_[1]{}=, D\_[1]{}=E\_[0]{}. where \_[1]{}=\_[k=0]{}\^C\_[k]{}\^[1]{}( )\^[k+1]{}, \_[2]{}=\_[k=0]{}\^C\_[k]{}\^[1]{}(k+1)( )\^[k+1]{}. Then the $z$-component of the electric field can also be calculated E\_[iz]{}=-A\_[1]{}\_[k=0]{}\^C\_[k]{}\^[1]{}( )\^[k+1]{}r\^[k]{}(k\^[2]{}+1). Thus we obtain the dipole factor b= . where \_[3]{}=\_[k=0]{}\^C\_[k]{}\^[1]{}()\^[k+1]{} . When $c=0$, $\ep(r)$ is a constant, Eq.(40) reduces to the homogeneous case. Thus, when $c\to 0$, the dipole factor is given by b==. This result is the same with that in the homogeneous case.
Comparison with differential effective dipole approximation
===========================================================
In this section, we compare the exact results with the differential effective dipole approximation (DEDA) [@Yu], recently developed to treat arbitrary graded profiles. We start with the differential equation for the dipole factor [@Yu]: = -[13r\_[m]{}(r)]{}\[(1 + 2b)\_[m]{} - (1 - b)(r)\] \[(1 + 2b)\_[m]{} + 2(1 - b)(r)\], where $\ep_{m}=1$. Thus the dipole factor of a graded spherical inclusion can be calculated by solving the above differential equation with a given graded profile $\ep(r)$. The nonlinear first-order differential equation can be integrated, if we are given the graded profile $\ep(r)$ and the initial condition $b(r=0)$.
We have evaluated DEDA for for two model graded profiles: (a) power-law profile $\ep(r) = C r^n$, and (b) linear profile $\ep(r) = A + B r$. Note that we have changed notations slightly to agree with those of Ref.[@Yu]. The numerical integration has been done by the fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm with a step size $\delta r=0.01$. In Fig.1(a), we plot the dipole factor $b$ versus $C$ for various index $n>0$. It is clear that $b$ increases monotonically as the dielectric contrast $C$ increases, while it decreases with the index $n$. It is attributed to the fact that the average dielectric constant decreases as $n$ increases. Similarly, in Fig.1(b) we plot $b$ versus $A$ for various slope $B$. We obtained similar behavior as in Fig.1(a).
It is instructive to compare the exact results with the DEDA results. In Fig.1, we compared the exact results with the DEDA results for a spherical inclusion with a power-law profile and a linear profile. The agreement is excellent. Note that exact results are unavailable for $A<B$ in the linear profile. Thus, we would say the DEDA is a very good approximation for graded spherical inclusions.
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
Here a few comments are in order. In this work, we have developed a first-principles approach to compute the dipole moment of the individual spherical inclusion and hence the effective dielectric response of a dilute suspension. The approach has been applied to two model dielectric profiles, for which exact solutions are available. Moreover, we used the exact results to validate the results from the differential effective dipole approximation, which is valid for graded spherical inclusions of an arbitrary dielectric profile. Excellent agreement between the two approaches were obtained. Note that an exact solution is very few in composite research and to have one yields much insight. It is thus worth spending time on finding one. To this end, it is also instructive to obtain the analytic result for the piecewise linear profiles [@Gu].
It is instructive to extend the present approach to nonlinear graded composites. The introduction of a graded dielectric profile in nonlinear composites provides an extra dimension to tune the enhanced nonlinear response. For instance, a graded interfacial layer on the spherical inclusions may help to control the local field fluctuations, and hence the nonlinear response. The perturbation approach [@Gu-Yu] as well as the variational approach [@Yu-Gu] are just suitable for this extension.
Our approach can be applied to biological cells, as the interior of biological cells must be inhomogeneous in nature and can be treated as a graded material. To this end, Freyria et. al. [@Freyria] observed a graded cell response when they studied the cell-implant interactions experimentally. Thus the complex dielectric function can be modeled to vary continuouly along the radius of the cells, namely, the conductivity can change rapidly near the boundary of cells and a power-law profile prevails, while the dielectric function may vary only slightly and thus a linear profile suffices. Work is in progress along this direction [@Huang].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the RGC Earmarked Grant under project number CUHK 4245/01P. G.Q.G. acknowledges his research grant here. We thank J. P. Huang for his assistance in the numerical solutions and plotting figures.
M. Yamanouchi, M. Koizumi, T. Hirai and I. Shiota, [*Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Functionally Graded Materials*]{}, Sendai, Japan, 1990. J. B. Holt, M. Koizumi, T. Hirai and Z. A. Munir, Ceramic transaction: functionally graded materials, Vol. [**34**]{}, Westerville, OH: The American Ceramic Society, 1993. B. Ilschner and N. Cherradi, [*Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Structural and Functionally Graded Materials*]{}, Lausanne, Switzerland: Presses Polytechniquies et Universititaires Romands, 1994. C. Atkinson and R. D. List, Int. J. Eng. Sci. [**16**]{}, 717 (1978). F. Delale and F. Erdogan, J. Appl. Mech. [**50**]{}, 609 (1983). F. Erdogan, A. C. Kaya and P. E. Joseph, J. Appl. Mech. [**58**]{}, 410 (1991). Y. F. Chen and F. Erdogan, J. Mech. Phys. Solids [**44**]{}, 771 (1996). P. Gu and R. J. Asaro, Int. J. Solids Struct. [**34**]{}, 1 (1997). Z. H. Jin and N. Noda, J. Eng. Sci. [**31**]{}, 793 (1993). Z. H. Jin and N. Noda, J. Therm. Stresses [**17**]{}, 591 (1994). N. Noda and Z. H. Jin, Int. J. Solids Struct. [**30**]{}, 1039 (1993). X. Zhu, Q. Wang and Z. Meng, J. Mat. Sci. Lett. [**14**]{}, 516 (1995). Z. J. Sanchez-Herencia, R. Mereno and J. R. Jurado, J. Euro. Ceramic Soc. [**20**]{}, 1611 (2000). J. D. Jackson, [*Classical Electrodynamics*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1975). G. Q. Gu and K. W. Yu, Acta Physica Sinica [**40**]{}, 709 (1991). G. Fuhr and P. I. Luzmin, Biophys. J. [**50**]{}, 789 (1986). W. M. Arnold and U. Zimmermann, Z. Naturforsch. [**37c**]{}, 908 (1982). K. L. Chan, P. R. C. Gascoyne, F. F. Becker and P. Pethig, Biochim. Biophys. Acta [**1349**]{}, 182 (1997). G. Q. Gu and K. W. Yu, unpublished. K. W. Yu, J. T. K. Wan, M. F. Law, K. K. Leung, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C [**9**]{}, 1447 (1998). K. W. Yu, G. Q. Gu and J. P. Huang, cond-mat/0211532. G. Q. Gu and K. W. Yu, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 4502 (1992). K. W. Yu and G. Q. Gu, Phys. Lett. A [**193**]{}, 311 (1994). A. M. Freyria, E. Chignier, J. Guidollet, P. Louisot, Biomaterials [**12**]{}, 111 (1991). J. P. Huang, K. W. Yu, G. Q. Gu and Mikko Karttunen, Phys. Rev. E, May 2003; cond-mat/0212518.
Fig.1/Dong, Gu, Yu
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Molecular outflows from young protostars are widely believed to be collimated by magnetic fields, but there has been little observational evidence to support this hypothesis. Using the new technique of millimetre-wavelength spectropolarimetry, we demonstrate the existence of a magnetic field in the NGC2024-FIR5 outflow lobe. The 1.3 mm J=2–1 transition of carbon monoxide (CO) is polarized at a level of approximately 1 %, in a direction within 10–15$^{\circ}$ of the outflow axis. This agrees with theoretical models where the magnetic field channels the outflowing gas, and shows that the process can be effective as far as 0.1 pc from the protostar.'
author:
- 'J.S. Greaves and W.S. Holland'
- 'D. Ward-Thompson'
title: |
Measurement of the magnetic field direction in the\
NGC2024-FIR5 protostellar outflow
---
Introduction
============
Many models predict that the outflows from young protostars are magnetically collimated (e.g. Uchida & Shibata 1985; Pudritz 1986; Shu et al. 1994; Fiege & Henricksen 1996). The collimation may take place within a few stellar radii, or be maintained at much larger distances, for example by alignment of the magnetic field with streamlines in the extended protostellar envelope. These theories have previously been very difficult to test, as the outflow emission is weak compared to that of the ambient cloud. Detection of the Zeeman effect in molecular lines is thus very difficult, and the more sensitive technique of mapping of polarized thermal dust emission (e.g. Hildebrand et al. 1996) cannot be used, as there is no velocity information to separate the envelope and outflow.
This problem can now be addressed with spectropolarimetry in the millimetre-wave regime, a recently developed technique (e.g. Greaves et al. 1999) utilising the Goldreich-Kylafis effect. In the presence of a magnetic field, Zeeman splitting of the rotational levels of molecules occurs, and rotational transitions can then be polarized, due to imbalances in the magnetic sublevel populations (Goldreich & Kylafis 1981). The percentage polarization is sensitive to optical depth and excitation conditions, since both polarizations saturate if $\tau \gg 1$, and the sub-level populations equalise if collisional transition rates significantly exceed radiative rates. However, with suitably chosen molecular lines, spectropolarimetry can be used to map magnetic fields [*as a function of velocity*]{}. There is an ambiguity in the field direction, since the polarization direction may be either parallel or perpendicular to the net field in the plane of the sky, but this can be resolved for simple velocity structures (Kylafis 1983).
Detections of magnetic fields using this technique have previously been published by Glenn et al. (1997) for the envelope of the evolved star IRC+10216, and by Greaves et al. (1999) for two molecular clouds and the ‘2 pc ring’ around the Galactic Centre. These are all bright sources and the deepest observations so far are those of Girart, Crutcher & Rao (1999), who used the BIMA array to map the environment of the NGC1333-IRAS4A protostellar system. Surprisingly, they did not find a field clearly aligned with the outflow axis, but did detect strong polarization (2–10%) in a region within the flow where the magnetic field appears to be deflecting the gas.
In this [*Letter*]{}, we present results of a similar experiment for the molecular outflow from the vicinity of the massive young source NGC2024-FIR5. This outflow has been extensively mapped (e.g. Richer et al. 1992) and extends several arcmin to the south, but has apparently no northern lobe. We have used the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope to search for polarized CO J=2–1 rotational emission (at 1.3 mm wavelength) in the bright, highly collimated, red-shifted lobe. Polarization was detected at a low level ($\approx$ 1 %), and the results are discussed in the context of the outflow structure.
Observations
============
The observations were made on 10 December 1996, using the single-polarization heterodyne receiver A2 (Davies et al. 1992) at the JCMT, located on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. The backend was a digital auto-correlation spectrometer, set to a resolution of 0.156 MHz. Standard observing techniques were used, with position-switching 0.5$^{\circ}$ west for sky subtraction, and three-load calibration (ambient, sky and cold load). The polarimeter module, consisting of a rotating half-wave plate (Murray et al. 1992), was mounted externally in front of the receiver, and the wave plate was ‘stepped’ at intervals of 22.5$^{\circ}$ around a complete circle (one waveplate cycle), to produce a set of 16 spectra. The half-wave plate rotates the source plane of polarization with respect to that accepted by the single-polarization receiver, and modulations in the CO spectra were subsequently analysed as a function of waveplate angle. The reduction techniques were developed after the observations were completed, and are described below and in more detail by Greaves et al. (1999).
Two positions were observed, centred on the positions shown in Figure 1. The integrated intensities in the outflow line wings, as a function of waveplate position, were fitted for the polarization parameters using a least-squares procedure (Nartallo 1995), which gives the Stokes parameters Q and U of the polarization, in the receiver frame of reference. Half-cycles were fitted, each containing 8 spectra, and points were allowed to be dropped to improve the fits, although only 8 % of the final data was removed in this way. The noise appears to be dominated by a few anomalous signals (probably produced by calibration errors or brief sky changes), and removing these data decreases the reduced-$\chi^2$ of the fits by a factor of two. If these poorer data are left in, the final position angles change by about 10–15$^{\circ}$.
An instrumental polarization (IP) was then subtracted, measured using the same technique on the 1.3 mm continuum emission of Saturn, which was assumed to be unpolarized. The IP was found to be $0.5 \pm
0.15$ % at a position angle of $169 \pm 8^{\circ}$ in az-el co-ordinates, and is thought to be dominated by the vertical weave of the JCMT ‘windblind’. The IP measurement used was calculated over the wing velocities, but is the same within the errors for the whole passband used (approximately 300 km s$^{-1}$). The IP-subtracted values were then corrected for parallactic angle and a fixed rotation due to the instrument position in the receiver cabin, and coadded to give the final results listed in Table 1. Additionally, the data were reduced by the same algorithms but subtracting spectra taken 45$^{\circ}$ apart, to produce Stokes spectra Q(v) and U(v). The results for the brighter outflow position are shown in Figure 2, after converting to p(v),$\theta$(v), the polarization percentage and direction (measured anti-clockwise from +Declination).
Results
=======
The two positions observed are a bright peak in the red-shifted outflow, and a more generic point 40 arcsec to the south. After 5 and 4 waveplate cycles respectively (2560 and 2048 seconds of integration), the rms noise levels are $\approx 20$ mK per rebinned 2 km s$^{-1}$ spectral channel, compared to the line wing brightness of $\sim$ 5 K. The integrated intensities in the wings were approximately 60 and 30 K km s$^{-1}$, in the T$_A^*$ antenna temperature scale (corrected for atmospheric opacity but not the main-beam efficiency, which was approximately 0.7). The fainter position is about three times lower in integrated intensity than any of our previously published data (Greaves et al. 1999).
Polarization was detected at both positions, with similar levels of around 1 % (Table 1). The significance level of the data is high, with detections of 3.5 and 4.8 sigma. Using the statistical methods of Clarke & Stewart (1986), these detections are real at the 99.9 % confidence level. No special procedures were used to enhance the signal-to-noise, although one fit was eliminated for each position, out of the ten and eight originally obtained. One of these discrepant fits was clearly associated with a change in intensity (most likely a sky fluctuation), while the other was not explained but the Stokes parameters were out of phase by $\sim 80^{\circ}$ compared to the final result.
To confirm that the results are real, a further short observation of the northern position was made on 13 August 2000. Polarization spectra from a single waveplate cycle indicated p,$\theta$ of $1.8 \pm 0.5$ %,$-5 \pm
8^{\circ}$. Although conditions allowed only this short test, the result is in good agreement with the 1996 data. Significantly, the observing parameters were completely different, including a new receiver, wider spectrometer setting, different planet (Uranus) used for the instrumental polarization measurement, and a parallactic angle higher by 100$^{\circ}$. A further ‘null’ test for instrument systematics is to observe a source where little polarization is expected, for example a very optically thick line. This test was performed in July 1996, during polarimetry of the CO J=3–2 emission towards the Galactic Centre (cf. Greaves et al. 1999), and p $\sim 0.1 \pm 0.3$ % was measured in a very bright position in the south of the ‘2 pc ring’. This confirms that polarization is not always detected and strengthens the case for low instrumental residuals.
Outflow polarization
--------------------
The polarization position angles are –6$^{\circ}$ and +21$^{\circ}$, and are well aligned with the outflow axis. We estimate the flow orientation to be 5$^{\circ}$ east of north on large scales, although the angle may be higher nearer to the origin, presumed to be FIR5 (marked in the figure by a square symbol) or a fainter source nearby (Chernin 1996). Thus the polarization is within about 10$^{\circ}$ and 15$^{\circ}$ of the flow axis at the north and south points, respectively. There may be a slight bending of the polarization coinciding with local fluctuations in flow direction (Figure 1), but this is at the limits of the errors.
The percentage polarization is in very good agreement with theoretical values. Deguchi & Watson (1984) have modelled CO polarization in sources with velocity gradients, and for the outflow optical depth and density conditions ($\tau$(CO) $\sim$ 5, n(H$_2$) $\sim$ 10$^3$ cm$^{-3}$, Richer et al. 1989, 1992), they predict p values up to about 1.0 %, depending on viewing angle (their Figures 2 and 5). The observed values are at this level, consistent with the calculations if the outflow is close to the plane of the sky, as seems likely from the large extent and high apparant collimation.
The polarized spectra for the north position are shown in Figure 2. The errors for single spectral channels are considerable (averaging $\pm 0.6$ % over 2 km s$^{-1}$), and thus only broad conclusions can be drawn, but the percentage and direction in the red wing appear to be approximately constant. The mean values are 1.0 % and –9$^{\circ}$, in good agreement with the results from the fits (Table 1), confirming that the two analysis methods agree. The polarization spectra for the South position are considerably noisier per channel, as the wing intensity is a factor of two less, and these spectra are not shown.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
The observed polarization direction is a direct diagnostic of the orientation of the magnetic field in the plane of the sky. Kylafis (1983) has shown that the polarization will be either perpendicular or parallel to the field direction, even for quite low field strengths (B $\sim$ 1 $\mu$G). Further, if the outflow is assumed to have a one-dimensional velocity field, it is possible to distinguish between these two orientations. For large $\tau$(CO), the polarization will generally be seen parallel to the field, unless the field is at a large angle to the velocity gradient (Kylafis 1983). The criterion for the field and polarization to be parallel is cos$^2 \alpha > 1/3$ ($\alpha <
54.7^{\circ}$), where $\alpha$ is the angle between the velocity gradient and the field.
For NGC2024, Richer et al. (1992) have found that the flow is accelerated, with the fastest moving material further from the star, so we assume that the dominant velocity gradient is along the outflow axis. Then the most probable interpretation of the data is that the magnetic field lies close to the flow axis, i.e. $\alpha \sim 0^{\circ}$, and the polarization will be produced near the flow axis, as observed. It is unlikely that the p vectors are perpendicular to the field, as then the field would lie across the flow axis ($\alpha \sim 90^{\circ}$), and this would impede the flow by channeling ionized molecules sideways.
Magnetic channeling of the outflow is not implausible on energy grounds. For a gas cylinder, the magnetic energy is given by $B^2 R^2 / 8$ for a unit length (e.g. Chandrasekhar & Fermi 1953), and the outflow kinetic energy will be $M v^2 / 2$. Adopting an outflow radius (cf. Figure 1) of $R \sim 0.03$ pc or $1 \times 10^{17}$ cm, the mass per unit length is $M \sim 3 \times 10^{14}$ g, and a lower limit on the bulk outflow speed is $v \sim 10$ km s$^{-1}$ (cf. Figure 2). This gives a required magnetic field strength, for the two energies to be equivalent, of $\geq
350 \mu{\rm G}$. However, since the magnetic field affects only [*orthogonal*]{} flow, then the energy required is reduced when the field and flow are nearly aligned. Adopting an outflow opening angle of $\pm
5-10^{\circ}$ (cf. Fig. 4 of Richer et al. 1992), the cross-wise velocity is only 1–2 km s$^{-1}$ and B $\geq 35-70 \mu{\rm G}$ should provide sufficient energy to keep the flow well collimated. This is not excessive, given that Crutcher et al. (1999) have measured a lower limit to the line-of-sight field component of 80 $\mu{\rm G}$, in the main cloud emission near our North point.
In summary, the spectropolarimetry observations have shown that the outflow gas is in fact magnetized, and that the net field direction is aligned within a few degrees of the flow axis, as predicted in most models. If the magnetic field is channeling the outflowing gas, this process must be effective at quite large distances from the star (1 arcmin, or about 0.1 pc at a distance of 415 pc). We see little sign of ‘magnetic deflections’ as in the NGC1333-IRAS4A outflow observed in CO J=2–1 spectropolarimetry by Girart et al (1999), using the BIMA array with a $9 \times 6''$ synthesized beam. The NGC2024 outflow is relatively straight, although the small differences in our North and South polarization directions do appear to follow slight bends in the flow at the limits of the errors.
We would like to thank Per Friberg, Bill Dent, Sye Murray and Ramon Nartallo for vital assistance with the polarimeter hardware and software, Ramprasad Rao for some very useful discussions, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. The JCMT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre, on behalf of the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, the Netherlands Organisation for Pure Research, and the National Research Council of Canada.
Chandrasekhar S., & Fermi E., 1953, ApJ 18, 116 Chernin, L.M., 1996, ApJ, 460, 711 Clarke D., & Stewart B. G., 1986, Vistas in Astron., 29, 27 Crutcher R. M., Roberts D. A., Troland T. H., & Goss W. M., 1999, ApJ 515, 275 Davies S. R., Cunningham C. T., Little L. T., & Matheson D.N. 1992, Int. J. Infrared Millimeter Waves, 13, 647 Deguchi S., & Watson W. D. 1984, ApJ, 285, 126 Fiege J. D., & Henricksen R. N. 1996, MNRAS 281, 1038 Girart J. M., Crutcher R. M., & Rao R. 1999, ApJ 525, L109 Glenn J., Walker C. K., & Jewell P. R. 1997, ApJ, 479, 325 Goldreich P., & Kylafis N. D. 1981, ApJ, 243, L75 Greaves J. S., Holland W. S., Friberg P., & Dent W. R. F. 1999, ApJ, 512, L139 Kylafis N. 1983, ApJ, 267, 137 Murray A. G., Flett A. M., Murray G., & Ade P.A.R. 1992 Infrared Phys., 33, 113 Nartallo R. 1995, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh Pudritz, R. 1986, ApJ, 293, 216 Richer J. S., Hills R. E., & Padman R. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 525 Richer J. S., Hills R. E., Padman R., & Russell A. P. G. 1989, MNRAS, 241, 231 Shu F., Najita J., Ostriker E., Wilkin F., Ruden S., & Lizano S. 1994, ApJ 429, 781 Uchida Y., & Shibata K. 1985, PASJ, 37, 515 Wardle J. F. C., & Kronberg P. P. 1974, ApJ, 194, 249
[**Figure Captions**]{}
[lcccc]{} North & $05h\; 39m\; 12.1s, -01^{\circ}\; 57'\; 24''$ & 18–30 & 0.91 $\pm$ 0.26 & –6 $\pm$ 8 South & $05h\; 39m\; 12.1s, -01^{\circ}\; 58'\; 04''$ & 20–34 & 1.30 $\pm$ 0.27 & 21 $\pm$ 6
(80,220)
(80,120)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider a Riemannian cylinder $\Omega$ endowed with a closed potential $1$-form $A$ and study the magnetic Laplacian $\Delta_A$ with magnetic Neumann boundary conditions associated with those data. We establish a sharp lower bound for the first eigenvalue and show that the equality characterizes the situation where the metric is a product. We then look at the case of a planar domain bounded by two closed curves and obtain an explicit lower bound in terms of the geometry of the domain. We finally discuss sharpness of this last estimate.
*2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 58J50, 35P15.*
*Key words and phrases. Magnetic Laplacian, Eigenvalues, Upper and lower bounds, Zero magnetic field*
author:
- Bruno Colbois and Alessandro Savo
bibliography:
- 'CS.bib'
title: 'Lower bounds for the first eigenvalue of the magnetic Laplacian\'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Let $(\Omega,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary. Consider the trivial complex line bundle $\Omega\times\bf C$ over $\Omega$; its space of sections can be identified with $C^{\infty}(\Omega,\bf C)$, the space of smooth complex valued functions on $\Omega$. Given a smooth real 1-form $A$ on $\Omega$ we define a connection $\nabla^A$ on $C^{\infty}(\Omega,\bf C)$ as follows: $$\label{connection}
\nabla^A_Xu=\nabla_Xu-iA(X)u$$ for all vector fields $X$ on $\Omega$ and for all $u\in C^{\infty}(\Omega,\bf C)$; here $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection assocated to the metric $g$ of $\Omega$. The operator $$\label{magnetic laplacian}
\Delta_A=(\nabla^A)^{\star}\nabla ^A$$ is called the [*magnetic Laplacian*]{} associated to the magnetic potential $A$, and the smooth two form $$B=dA$$ is the associated [*magnetic field*]{}. We will consider Neumann magnetic conditions, that is: $$\label{mneumann}
\nabla^A_Nu=0\quad\text{on}\quad{\partial}\Omega,$$ where $N$ denotes the inner unit normal. Then, it is well-known that $\Delta_A$ is self-adjoint, and admits a discrete spectrum $$0\le {\lambda}_1(\Delta_A)\le {\lambda}_2(\Delta_A) \le ... \to \infty.$$
The above is a particular case of a more general situation, where $E\to M$ is a complex line bundle with a hermitian connection $\nabla^E$, and where the magnetic Laplacian is defined as $\Delta_E=(\nabla^E)^{\star}\nabla ^E$.
The spectrum of the magnetic Laplacian is very much studied in analysis (see for example [@BDP] and the references therein) and in relation with physics. For *Dirichlet boundary conditions*, lower estimates of its fundamental tone have been worked out, in particular, when $\Omega$ is a planar domain and $B$ is the constant magnetic field; that is, when the function $\star B$ is constant on $\Omega$ (see for example a Faber-Krahn type inequality in [@Er1] and the recent[@LS] and the references therein, also for Neumann boundary condition). The case when the potential $A$ is a closed $1$-form is particularly interesting from the physical point of view (Aharonov-Bohm effect), and also from the geometric point of view. For Dirichlet boundary conditions, there is a serie of papers for domains with a pole, when the pole approaches the boundary (see [@AFNN; @NNT] and the references therein). Last but not least, there is a Aharonov-Bohm approach to the question of nodal and minimal partitions, see chapter 8 of [@BH].
For *Neumann boundary conditions*, we refer in particular to the paper [@HHHO], where the authors study the multiplicity and the nodal sets corresponding to the ground state ${\lambda}_1$ for non-simply connected planar domains with harmonic potential (see the discussion below).
Let us also mention the recent article [@LLPP] (chapter 7) where the authors establish a *Cheeger type inequality* for ${\lambda}_1$; that is, they find a lower bound for ${\lambda}_1(\Delta_A)$ in terms of the geometry of $\Omega$ and the potential $A$. In the preprint [@ELMP], the authors approach the problem via the Bochner method.
Finally, in a more general context (see [@BBC]) the authors establish a lower bound for ${\lambda}_1(\Delta_A)$ in terms of the *holonomy* of the vector bundle on which $\Delta_A$ acts. In both cases, implicitly, the flux of the potential $A$ plays a crucial role.
[$\bullet\quad$]{}From now on we will denote by $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)$ the first eigenvalue of $\Delta_A$ on $(\Omega,g)$.
Main lower bound
----------------
Our lower bound is partly inspired by the results in [@HHHO] for plane domains. First, recall that if $c$ is a closed parametrized curve (a loop), the quantity: $$\Phi^A_c=\dfrac{1}{2\pi}\oint_{c}A$$ is called the [*flux*]{} of $A$ across $c$. (We assume that $c$ is travelled once, and we will not specify the orientation of the loop, so that the flux will only be defined up to sign: this will not affect any of the statements, definitions or results which we will prove in this paper). Let then $\Omega$ be a fixed plane domain with one hole, and let $\Phi^A$ be the flux of the harmonic potential $A$ across the inner boundary curve. In Theorem 1.1 of [@HHHO] it is first remarked that $\lambda_1(\Omega, A)$ is positive if and only if $\Phi^A$ is not an integer (but see the precise statement in Section 2.1 below). Then, it is shown that $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)$ is maximal precisely when $\Phi^A$ is congruent to $\frac 12$ modulo integers. The proof relies on a delicate argument involving the nodal line of a first eigenfunction; in particular, the conclusion does not follow from a specific comparison argument, or from an explicit lower bound.
In this paper we give a geometric lower bound of $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)$ when $\Omega$ is, more generally, a [*Riemannian cylinder*]{}, that is, a domain $(\Omega,g)$ diffeomorphic to $[0,1]\times{{\bf S}^{1}}$ endowed with a Riemannian metric $g$, and when $A$ is a closed potential $1$-form : hence, the magnetic field $B$ associated to $A$ is equal to $0$. The lower bound will depend on the geometry of $\Omega$ and, in an explicit way, on the flux of the potential $A$.
Let us write $\partial\Omega=\Sigma_1\cup\Sigma_2$ where $$\Sigma_1=\{0\}\times{{\bf S}^{1}}, \quad \Sigma_2=\{1\}\times{{\bf S}^{1}}.$$ We will need to foliate the cylinder by the (regular) level curves of a smooth function $\psi$ and then we introduce the following family of functions.
$$\begin{aligned}{\cal F}_{\Omega}=\{\psi:\Omega\to{{\bf R}}: \quad &\text{\it $\psi$ is constant on each boundary component}\\
&\text{\it and has no critical points inside $\Omega$}\}
\end{aligned}$$
As $\Omega$ is a cylinder, we see that ${\cal F}_{\Omega}$ is not empty. If $\psi\in{\cal F}_{\Omega}$, we set: $$K=K_{\Omega,\psi}=\dfrac{\sup_{\Omega}{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}}{\inf_{\Omega}{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}}.$$ It is clear that, in the definition of the constant $K$, we can assume that the range of $\psi$ is the interval $[0,1]$, and that $\psi=0$ on $\Sigma_1$ and $\psi=1$ on $\Sigma_2$. Note that the level curves of the function $\psi$ are all smooth, closed and connected; moreover they are all homotopic to each other so that the flux of a closed $1$-form $A$ across any of them is the same, and will be denoted by $\Phi^A$.
We say, briefly, that $\Omega$ is [*$K$-foliated by the level curves of $\psi$.*]{} We also denote by $d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})$ the minimal distance between $\Phi^A$ and the set of integer $\bf Z$: $$d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2=\min\Big\{(\Phi^A-k)^2: k\in\bf Z\Big\}.$$
Finally, we say that [*$\Omega$ is a Riemannian product*]{} if it is isometric to $[0,a]\times{{\bf S}^{1}}(R)$ for suitable positive constants $a,R$.
\[main3\]
a\) Let $(\Omega,g)$ be a Riemannian cylinder, and let $A$ be a closed $1$-form on $\Omega$. Assume that $\Omega$ is $K$-foliated by the level curves of the smooth function $\psi\in{\cal F}_{\Omega}$. Then: $$\label{cylinder}
\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\geq\dfrac{4\pi^2}{KL^2}\cdot d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2,$$ where $L$ is the maximum length of a level curve of $\psi$ and $\Phi^A$ is the flux of $A$ across any of the boundary components of $\Omega$.
b\) Equality holds if and only if the cylinder $\Omega$ is a Riemannian product.
[$\bullet\quad$]{}It is clear that we can also state the lower bound as follows: $$\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\geq\dfrac{4\pi^2}{\tilde K_{\Omega}}\cdot d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2,$$ where $\tilde K_{\Omega}$ is an invariant depending only $\Omega$: $$\tilde K_{\Omega}=\inf_{\psi\in{\cal F}_{\Omega}}K_{\Omega,\psi}L_{\psi}^2\quad\text{and}\quad L_{\psi}=\sup_{r\in {\rm range}(\psi)}{\lvert{\psi^{-1}(r)}\rvert}.$$ It is is not always easy to estimate $K$. In Section \[estimate K\] we will show how to estimate $K$ in terms of the metric tensor. Note that $K\geq 1$; we will see that in many interesting situations (for example, for revolution cylinders, or for smooth embedded tubes around a closed curve) one has in fact $K=1$.
Doubly connected planar domains
-------------------------------
We now estimate the constant $K$ above when $\Omega$ is an annular region in the plane, bounded by the inner curve $\Sigma_1$ and the outer curve $\Sigma_2$.
[$\bullet\quad$]{}We assume that the inner curve $\Sigma_1$ is convex.
From each point $x\in\Sigma_1$, consider the ray $\gamma_x(t)=x+tN_x$, where $N_x$ is the exterior normal to $\Sigma_1$ at $x$ and $t\geq 0$. Let $Q(x)$ be the first intersection of $\gamma_x(t)$ with $\Sigma_2$, and let $$r(x)=d(x,Q(x)).$$ We say that $\Omega$ is [*starlike with respect to $\Sigma_1$*]{} if the map $x\to Q(x)$ is a bijection between $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$; equivalently, if given any point $y\in\Sigma_2$, the geodesic segment which minimizes distance from $y$ to $\Sigma_1$ is entirely contained in $\Omega$.
For $x\in\Sigma_1$, we denote by $\theta_x$ the angle between $\gamma'_x$ and the outer normal to $\Sigma_2$ at the point $Q(x)$, and we let $$m\doteq\min_{x\in\Sigma_1}{\cos\theta_x}.$$ Note that as $\Omega$ is starlike w.r.t. $\Sigma_1$, one has $\theta_x\in [0,\frac{\pi}2]$ and then $m\geq 0$.
[$\bullet\quad$]{}To have a positive lower bound, we will assume that $m>0$ (that is, $\Omega$ is [*strictly*]{} starlike w.r.t. $\Sigma_1$).
We also define $$\label{annulus}
\twosystem
{\beta=\min\{r(x): x\in\Sigma_1\}}
{B=\max\{r(x): x\in\Sigma_1\}}$$
We then have the following result.
\[main2\] Let $\Omega$ be an annulus in ${{\bf R}^{2}}$, which is strictly-starlike with respect to its inner (convex) boundary component $\Sigma_1$. Assume that $A$ is a closed potential having flux $\Phi^A$ around $\Sigma_1$. Then: $$\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\geq \dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2} \dfrac{\beta m}{B} d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2$$ where $\beta$ and $B$ are as in , and $L$ is the length of the outer boundary component. If $\Sigma_2$ is also convex, then $m\geq \beta/B$ and the lower bound takes the form: $$\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\geq \dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2} \dfrac{\beta^2}{B^2} d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2.$$
In section \[sharpness\], we will explain why we need to control $\dfrac{\beta}{B}$, $L$, and why we need to impose the starlike condition. If $\beta=B$ and $\Sigma_2$ is the circle of length $L$ we get the estimate $$\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\geq \dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2} d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2$$ which is the first eigenvalue of the magnetic Laplacian on the circle with potential $A$ (see section \[riemannian circle\]). If $\Sigma_2$ and $\Sigma_1$ are two concentric circles of respective lengths $L$ and $L_{\epsilon} \to L$, the domain is a thin annulus with $\lambda_1 \to \dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2} d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2$ which shows that our estimate is sharp.
Our aim is to use these estimates on cylinders as a basis stone in order to study the same type of questions on compact surfaces of higher genus.
Proof of the main theorem
=========================
Preliminary facts and notation {#preliminary}
------------------------------
First, we recall the variational definition of the spectrum. Let $\Omega$ be a compact manifold with boundary and $\Delta_A$ the magnetic Laplacian with Neumann boundary conditions. One verifies that $$\int_{\Omega}(\Delta_Au)\bar u=\int_{\Omega}{\lvert{\nabla^Au}\rvert}^2,$$ and the associated quadratic form is then $$Q_A(u)=\int_{\Omega}{\lvert{\nabla^Au}\rvert}^2.$$ The usual variational characterization gives:
$$\lambda_1(\Omega,A)= \min\Big\{ \frac{Q_A(u)}{\Vert u\Vert^2}:\ u\in C^{1}(\Omega,\mathbb C) / \{0\}\Big\}$$
The following proposition (which is well-known) expresses the [*gauge invariance*]{} of the spectrum of the magnetic Laplacian.
\[basic facts\] a The spectrum of $\Delta_A$ is equal to the spectrum of $\Delta_{A+d\phi}$ for all smooth real valued functions $\phi$; in particular, when $A$ is exact, the spectrum of $\Delta_A$ reduces to that of the classical Laplace-Beltrami operator acting on functions (with Neumann boundary conditions if ${\partial}\Omega$ is not empty).
b If $A$ is a closed $1$-form, then $A$ is gauge equivalent to a unique (harmonic) $1$-form $\tilde A$ satisfying $$\twosystem
{d\tilde A=\delta\tilde A=0\quad\text{on}\quad \Omega}
{\tilde A(N)=0\quad\text{on}\quad {\partial}\Omega}$$ The form $\tilde A$ is often called the [Coulomb gauge]{} of $A$. Note that $\tilde A$ is the harmonic representative of $A$ for the absolute boundary conditions.
a This comes from the fact that $
\Delta_A e^{-i\phi}=e^{-i\phi} \Delta_{A+d\phi}
$ hence $\Delta_A$ and $\Delta_{A+d\phi}$ are unitarily equivalent.
b Consider a solution $\phi$ of the problem: $$\twosystem{\Delta\phi=\delta A \quad\text{on}\quad \Omega,}
{{\dfrac{{\partial}\phi}{\bdN}}=A(N) \quad\text{on}\quad {\partial}\Omega.}$$ Then one checks that $\tilde A=A-d\phi$ is a Coulomb gauge of $A$. As $\phi$ is unique up to an additive constant, $d\phi$, hence $\tilde A$, is unique.
We now focus on the first eigenvalue. Clearly, if $A=0$, then $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)=0$ simply because $\Delta_A$ reduces to the usual Laplacian, which has first eigenvalue equal to zero and first eigenspace spanned by the constant functions. If $A$ is exact, then $\Delta_{A}$ is unitarily equivalent to $\Delta$, hence, again, $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)=0$. In fact one checks easily from the definition of the connection that, if $A=d\phi$ for some real-valued function $\phi$ then $
\nabla^{A}e^{i\phi}=0,
$ which means that $u=e^{i\phi}$ is $\nabla^A$-parallel hence $\Delta_A$-harmonic. On the other hand, if the magnetic field $B=dA$ is non-zero then $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)>0$.
It then remains to examine the case when $A$ is closed but not exact. The situation was clarified in [@Sh] for closed manifolds and in [@HHHO] for Neumann boundary conditions.
\[shikegawa\]The following statements are equivalent:
a\) $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)=0$;
b\) $dA=0$ and $\Phi^A_c\in\bf Z$ for any closed curve $c$ in $\Omega$.
Thus, the first eigenvalue vanishes if and only if $A$ is a closed form whose flux around every closed curve is an integer; equivalently, if $A$ has non-integral flux around at least one closed loop, then $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)>0$.
Proof of the lower bound
------------------------
From now on we assume that $\Omega$ is a Riemannian cylinder. Fix a first eigenfunction $u$ associated to $\lambda_1(\Omega, A)$ and fix a level curve $$\Sigma_r=\{\psi=r\}, \quad\text{where $r\in [0,1]$.}$$ As $\psi$ has no critical points, $\Sigma_r$ is isometric to ${{\bf S}^{1}}(\frac{L_r}{2\pi})$, where $L_r$ is the length of $\Sigma_r$. The restriction of $A$ to $\Sigma_r$ is a closed $1$-form denoted by $\tilde A$; we use the restriction of $u$ to $\Sigma_r$ as a test-function for the first eigenvalue $\lambda_1(\Sigma_r,\tilde A)$ and obtain: $$\label{level}
\lambda_1(\Sigma_r,\tilde A)\int_{\Sigma_r}{\lvert{u}\rvert}^2\leq\int_{\Sigma_r}{\lvert{\nabla^{\tilde A}u}\rvert}^2.$$ By the estimate on the eigenvalues of a circle done in Section \[sectioncircle\] below we see : $$\lambda_1(\Sigma_r,\tilde A)=\dfrac{4\pi^2}{L_r^2}d(\Phi^{\tilde A},{\bf Z})^2,$$ where $\Phi^{\tilde A}$ is the flux of $\tilde A$ across $\Sigma_r$. Now note that $\Phi^{\tilde A}=\Phi^{A}$, because $\tilde A$ is the restriction of $A$ to $\Sigma_r$; moreover $L_r\leq L$ by the definition of $L$. Therefore: $$\label{llower}
\lambda_1(\Sigma_r,\tilde A)\geq \dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2}d(\Phi^{ A},{\bf Z})^2$$ for all $r$. Let $X$ be a unit vector tangent to $\Sigma_r$. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^{\tilde A}_{X}u&=\nabla_{X}u-i\tilde A(X)u\\
&=\nabla_{X}u-iA(X)u\\
&=\nabla^A_{X}u.
\end{aligned}$$ The consequence is that: $$\label{energy}
{\lvert{\nabla^{\tilde A}u}\rvert}^2={\lvert{\nabla^{\tilde A}_{X}u}\rvert}^2={\lvert{\nabla^{A}_{X}u}\rvert}^2\leq {\lvert{\nabla^{A}u}\rvert}^2.$$ [$\bullet\quad$]{}[*Note that equality holds in iff $\nabla^A_{N}u=0$ where $N$ is a unit vector normal to the level curve $\Sigma_r$ (we could take $N=\nabla\psi/{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}$).*]{}
For any fixed level curve $\Sigma_r=\{\psi=r\}$ we then have, taking into account , and : $$\dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2}d(\Phi^{ A},{\bf Z})^2\int_{\psi=r}{\lvert{u}\rvert}^2\leq \int_{\psi=r}{\lvert{\nabla^Au}\rvert}^2.$$ Assume that $B_1\leq{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}\leq B_2$ for positive constants $B_1,B_2$. Then the above inequality implies: $$\dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2}d(\Phi^{ A},{\bf Z})^2\cdot B_1\int_{\psi=r}\dfrac{{\lvert{u}\rvert}^2}{{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}}\leq B_2\int_{\psi=r}\dfrac{{\lvert{\nabla^Au}\rvert}^2}{{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}}.$$ We now integrate both sides from $r=0$ to $r=1$ and use the coarea formula. Conclude that $$\dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2}d(\Phi^{ A},{\bf Z})^2\cdot B_1\int_{\Omega}{{\lvert{u}\rvert}^2}\leq B_2\int_{\Omega}{\lvert{\nabla^Au}\rvert}^2.$$ As $u$ is a first eigenfunction, one has: $$\int_{\Omega}{\lvert{\nabla^Au}\rvert}^2=\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\int_{\Omega}{\lvert{u}\rvert}^2.$$ Recalling that $K=\frac{B_2}{B_1}$ we finally obtain the estimate .
Proof of the equality case {#equalitycase}
--------------------------
If the cylinder $\Omega$ is a Riemannian product then it is obvious that we can take $K=1$ and then we have equality by Proposition \[cyl\] below. Now assume that we do have equality: we have to show that $\Omega$ is a Riemannian product. Going back to the proof, we must have the following facts.
[**F1.**]{} [*All level curves of $\psi$ have the same length $L$*]{}.
[**F2.**]{} [*${\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}$ must be constant and, by renormalization, we can assume that it is everywhere equal to $1$.* ]{}Then, $\psi:\Omega\to [0,a]$ for some $a>0$ and we set $$N\doteq\nabla\psi.$$
[**F3.**]{} [*The eigenfunction $u$ on $\Omega$ restricts to an eigenfunction of the magnetic Laplacian of each level set $\Sigma_r=\{\psi=r\}$, with potential given by the restriction of $A$ to $\Sigma_r$.*]{}
[**F4.**]{} [*One has $\nabla^A_Nu=0$ identically on $\Omega$.* ]{}
### First step: description of the metric
$\Omega$ is isometric to the product $[0,a]\times {{\bf S}^{1}}(\frac{L}{2\pi})$ with metric $$\label{metric}
g={{\begin{pmatrix}}{1&0\\}{0&\theta^2(r,t)\\}{\end{pmatrix}}}, \quad (r,t)\in [0,a]\times [0,L]$$ where $\theta(r,t)$ is positive and periodic of period $L$ in the variable $t$. Moreover $\theta(0,t)=1$ for all $t$.
We first show that the integral curves of $N$ are geodesics; for this it is enough to show that $
\nabla_NN=0
$ on $\Omega$. Let $e_1(x)$ be a vector tangent to the level curve of $\psi$ passing through $x$. Then, we obtain a smooth vector field $e_1$ which, together with $N$, forms a global orthonormal frame. Now $${\langle{\nabla_NN},{N}\rangle}=\dfrac 12 N\cdot{\langle{N},{N}\rangle}=0.$$ On the other hand, as the Hessian is a symmetric tensor: $${\langle{\nabla_NN},{e_1}\rangle}=\nabla^2\psi(N,e_1)=\nabla^2\psi(e_1,N)={\langle{\nabla_{e_1}N},{N}\rangle}=\dfrac 12e_1\cdot{\langle{N},{N}\rangle}=0.$$ Hence $\nabla_NN=0$ as asserted. As each integral curve of $N=\nabla\psi$ is a geodesic meeting $\Sigma_1$ orthogonally, we see that $\psi$ is actually the distance function to $\Sigma_1$. We introduce coordinates on $\Omega$ as follows. For a fixed point $p\in\Omega$ consider the unique integral curve $\gamma$ of $N$ passing through $p$ and let $x\in\Sigma_1$ be the intersection of $\gamma$ with $\Sigma_1$ (note that $x$ is the foot of the unique geodesic which minimizes the distance from $p$ to $\Sigma_1$). Let $r$ be the distance of $p$ to $\Sigma_1$. We then have a map $
\Omega\to [0,a]\times\Sigma_1
$ which sends $p$ to $(r,x)$. Its inverse is the map $F: [0,a]\times\Sigma_1\to\Omega$ defined by $$F(r,x)=\exp_x(rN).$$ Note that $F$ is a diffeomeorphism; we call the pair $(r,x)$ the [*normal coordinates*]{} based on $\Sigma_1$. We introduce the arc-length $t$ on $\Sigma_1$ (with origin in any assigned point of $\Sigma_1$) and recall that $L$ is length of $\Sigma_1$ (which is also the length of $\Sigma_2)$). Let us compute the metric $g$ in normal coordinates. Since $N={\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}r}}$ one sees that $g_{11}=1$ everywhere; for any fixed $r=r_0$ we have that $F(r_0,\cdot)$ maps $\Sigma_1$ diffeomorphically onto the level set $\{\psi=r_0\}$ so that ${\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}r}}$ and ${\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}}$ will be mapped onto orthogonal vectors, and indeed $g_{12}=0$. Setting $\theta(r,t)^2={\langle{{\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}}},{{\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}}}\rangle}$ one sees that the metric takes the form . Finally note that $
\theta(0,t)=1
$ for all $t$, because $F(0,\cdot)$ is the identity.
### Second step : Gauge invariance
Let $\Omega$ be any Riemannian cylinder and $A=f(r,t)\,dr+h(r,t)\,dt$ a closed $1$-form on $\Omega$. Then, there exists a smooth function $\phi$ on $\Omega$ such that $$A+d\phi=H(t)\,dt$$ for a smooth function $H(t)$ depending only on t. Hence, by gauge invariance, we can assume from the start that $A=H(t)\,dt$.
Consider the function $
\phi(r,t)=-\int_0^rf(x,t)\,dx.
$ Then: $$A+d\phi=\tilde h(r,t)\,dt$$ for some smooth function $\tilde h(r,t)$. As $A$ is closed, also $A+d\phi$ is closed, which implies that ${\dfrac{{\partial}\tilde h}{\bdr}}=0$, that is, $
\tilde h(t,r)
$ does not depend on $r$; if we set $H(t)\doteq\tilde h(t,0)$ we get the assertion.
[$\bullet\quad$]{}We point out the following consequence. If $u=u(r,t)$ is an eigenfunction, we know from [**F4**]{} above that $\nabla^A_Nu=0$, where $N={\dfrac{{\partial}}{\bdr}}$. As $
\nabla^A_Nu={\dfrac{{\partial}u}{\bdr}}-iA({\dfrac{{\partial}}{\bdr}})u
$ and $A=H(t)\,dt$ we obtain $A({\dfrac{{\partial}}{\bdr}})=0$ hence $
{\dfrac{{\partial}u}{\bdr}}=0
$ at all points of $\Omega$. This implies that $$\label{uoft}
u=u(t)$$ depends only on $t$.
### Third step : spectrum of circles and Riemannian products {#sectioncircle}
In this section, we give an expression for the eigenfunctions of the magnetic Laplacian on a circle with a Riemannian metric $g$ and a closed potential $A$. Of course, we know that any metric $g$ on a circle is always isometric to the canonical metric $g_{\rm can}=\,dt^2$, where $t$ is arc-length. But our problem in this proof is to reconstruct the global metric of the cylinder and to show that it is a product, and we cannot suppose a priori that the restricted metric of each level set of $\psi$ is the canonical metric. The same is true for the restricted potential: we know that it is Gauge equivalent to a potential of the type $a\,dt$ for a scalar $a$, but we cannot suppose a priori that it is of that form.
We refer to Appendix \[riemannian circle\] for the complete proof of the following fact.
\[circle\] Let $(M,g)$ be the circle of length $L$ endowed with the metric $
g=\theta(t)^2\,dt^2
$ where $t\in [0,L]$ and $\theta(t)$ is a positive function, periodic of period $L$. Let $A=H(t)\,dt$. Then, the eigenvalues of the magnetic Laplacian with potential $A$ are: $$\lambda_k(M,A)=\dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2}(k-\Phi^A)^2, \quad k\in\bf Z$$ with associated eigenfunctions $$u_k(t)=e^{i\phi(t)}e^{\frac{2\pi i (k-\Phi^A)}{L}s(t)}, \quad k\in\bf Z.$$ where $\phi(t)=\int_0^tH(\tau)\,d\tau$ and $s(t)=\int_0^t\theta(\tau)\,d\tau$.
In particular, if the metric is the canonical one, that is, $g=dt^2$, and the potential $1$-form is harmonic, so that $A=\frac{2\pi \Phi^A}{L}dt$, then the eigenfunctions are simply : $$u_k(t)=e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{L}t}, \quad k\in\bf Z.$$
We remark that if the flux $\Phi^A$ is not congruent to $1/2$ modulo integers, then the eigenvalues are all simple. If the flux is congruent to $1/2$ modulo integers, then there are two consecutive integers $k,k+1$ such that $
\lambda_{k}=\lambda_{k+1}.
$ Consequently, the lowest eigenvalue has multiplicity two, and the first eigenspace is spanned by $$e^{i\phi(t)}e^{\frac{\pi i}{L}s(t)}, \, e^{i\phi(t)}e^{-\frac{\pi i}{L}s(t)}.$$ The following proposition is an easy consequence (for a proof, see also Appendix \[riemannian circle\]).
\[cyl\] Consider the Riemannian product $\Omega=[0,a]\times{{\bf S}^{1}}(\frac{L}{2\pi})$, and let $A$ be a closed $1-$form on $\Omega$. Then, the spectrum of $\Delta_A$ is given by $$\dfrac{\pi^2 h^2}{a^2}+\dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2}(k-\Phi^A)^2, \quad h, k\in{\bf Z}, h\geq 0.$$ In particular, $$\lambda_1(\Omega,A)=\dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2}d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2.$$
### Fourth step : a calculus lemma
In this section, we state a technical lemma which will allow us to conclude. The proof is conceptually simple, but perhaps tricky at some points; then, we decided to put it in Appendix \[technical lemma\].
\[calculus\] Let $s:[0,a]\times [0,L]\to {{\bf R}}$ be a smooth, non-negative function such that $$s(0,t)=t,\quad s(r,0)=0, \quad s(r,L)=L \quad\text{and}\quad {\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdt}}(r,t)\doteq\theta(r,t)>0.$$ Assume that there exist smooth functions $p(r),q(r)$ with $p(r)^2+q(r)^2>0$ such that $$p(r)\cos(\frac{\pi}{L}s(r,t))+q(r)\sin(\frac{\pi}{L}s(r,t))=F(t)$$ where $F(t)$ depends only on $t$. Then $p$ and $q$ are constant and $
{\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdr}}=0
$ so that $$s(r,t)=t$$ for all $(r,t)$.
### End of proof of the equality case
Assume that equality holds. Then, if $u$ is an eigenfunction, we know that $u=u(t)$ by the discussion in and $u$ restricts to an eigenfunction on each level circle $\Sigma_r$ for the potential $A=H(t)\,dt$ above (see Fact 3 at the beginning of Section \[equalitycase\] and the second step above).
We assume that $\Phi^A$ is congruent to $\frac 12$ modulo integers. This is the most difficult case; in the other cases the proof is a particular case of this, it is simpler and we omit it.
Recall that each level set $\Sigma_r$ is a circle of length $L$ for all $r$, with metric $g=\theta(r,t)^2\,dt$. As the flux of $A$ is congruent to $\frac 12$ modulo integers, we see that there exist complex-valued functions $w_1(r),w_2(r)$ such that $$u(t)=e^{i\phi(t)}\Big(w_1(r)e^{\frac{\pi i}{L} s(r,t)}+w_2(r)e^{-\frac{\pi i}{L} s(r,t)}\Big),$$ which, setting $f(t)=e^{-i\phi(t)}u(t)$, we can re-write $$\label{rewrite}
f(t)=w_1(r)e^{\frac{\pi i}{L} s(r,t)}+w_2(r)e^{-\frac{\pi i}{L} s(r,t)}.$$ Recall that here $\phi(t)=\int_0^tH(\tau)\,d\tau$ and $$s(r,t)=\int_0^t\theta(r,\tau)\,d\tau.$$ We take the real part on both sides of and obtain smooth real-valued functions $F(t), p(r),q(r)$ such that $$F(t)=p(r)\cos({\frac{\pi}{L}}s(r,t))+q(r)\sin(\frac{\pi}{L} s(r,t)).$$ Since $\theta(0,t)=1$ for all $t$, we see $$s(0,t)=t.$$ Clearly $s(r,0)=0$; finally, $s(r,L)=\int_0^L\theta(r,\tau)\,d\tau=L$, being the length of the level circle $\Sigma_r$. Thus, we can apply Lemma \[calculus\] and conclude that $s(r,t)=t$ for all $t$, that is, $$\theta(r,t)=1$$ for all $(r,t)$ and the metric is a Riemannian product.
It might happen that $p(r)=q(r)\equiv 0$. But then the real part of $f(t)$ is zero and we can work in an analogous way with the imaginary part of $f(t)$, which cannot vanish unless $u\equiv 0$.
General estimate of $K_{\Omega,\psi}$ {#estimate K}
-------------------------------------
We can estimate $K_{\Omega,\psi}$ for a Riemannian cylinder $\Omega=[0,a]\times{{\bf S}^{1}}$ if we know the explicit expression of the metric in the normal coordinates $(r,t)$, where $t\in [0,2\pi]$ is arc-length : $$g=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
g_{11} & g_{12} \\
g_{21} & g_{22}
\end{array}
\right).$$ If $g^{ij}$ is the inverse matrix of $g_{ij}$, and if $\psi=\psi(r,t)$ one has: $${\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}^2=g^{11}\Big({\dfrac{{\partial}\psi}{\bdr}}\Big)^2+2g^{12}{\dfrac{{\partial}\psi}{\bdr}}{\dfrac{{\partial}\psi}{\bdt}}+
g^{22}\Big({\dfrac{{\partial}\psi}{\bdt}}\Big)^2.$$ The function $\psi(r,t)=r$ belongs to ${\cal F}_{\Omega}$ and one has: $
{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}^2=g^{11},
$ which immediately implies that we can take $$K_{\Omega,\psi}\leq \dfrac{\sup_{\Omega}g^{11}}{\inf_{\Omega}g^{11}}.$$ Note in particular that if $\Omega$ is rotationally invariant, so that the metric can be put in the form: $$g=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \alpha(r)^2
\end{array}
\right),$$ for some function $\alpha(r)$, then $K_{\Omega,\psi}=1$. The estimate becomes $$\label{simple}
\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\geq\dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2}\cdot d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2,$$ where $L$ is the maximum length of a level curve $r={\rm const}$.
Yet more generally, one can fix a smooth closed curve $\gamma$ on a Riemannian surface $M$ and consider the tube of radius $R$ around $\gamma$: $$\Omega=\{x\in M: d(x,\gamma)\leq R\}.$$ It is well-known that if $R$ is sufficiently small (less than the injectivity radius of the normal exponential map) then $\Omega$ is a cylinder with smooth boundary which can be foliated by the level sets of $\psi$, the distance function to $\gamma$. Clearly ${\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}=1$ and holds as well.
A concrete example where we could estimate the width $R$ is the case of a compact surface $M$ of genus $\ge 2$ and curvature $-a^2\le K\le -b^2$, $a \ge b >0$. Let $\gamma$ be a simple closed geodesic. Then, using the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, one can show that $R$ is bounded below by an explicit positive constant $R=R(\gamma,a)$, hence the $R$-neighborhood of $\gamma$ is diffeomorphic to the product $S^1 \times (-1,1)$ (see for example [@CF]). If we take $\Omega$ as the Riemannian cylinder of width $R(\gamma,a)$ having one boundary component equal to $\gamma$ then we can foliate $\Omega$ with the level sets of the distance function to $\gamma$ and so $K=1$ and holds, with $L$ given by the length of the other boundary component.
Proof of Theorem \[main2\]: plane annuli {#convex}
========================================
Let $\Omega$ be an annulus in ${{\bf R}^{2}}$, which is starlike with respect to its inner convex boundary component $\Sigma_1$. Assume that $A$ is a closed potential having flux $\Phi^A$ around $\Sigma_1$. Recall that we have to show: $$\label{annuliestimate}
\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\geq \dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2} \dfrac{\beta m}{B} d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2$$ where $\beta, B$ and $m$ will be recalled below and $L$ is the length of the outer boundary component. If we assume that $\Sigma_2$ is also convex, then we show that $m\geq \beta/B$ and the lower bound takes the form: $$\label{annuliestimatetwo}
\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\geq \dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2} \dfrac{\beta^2}{B^2} d(\Phi^A,{\bf Z})^2.$$
Before giving the proof let us recall notation. For $x\in\Sigma_1$, the ray $\gamma_x$ is the geodesic segment $\gamma_x(t)=x+tN_x$, where $N_x$ is the exterior normal to $\Sigma_1$ at $x$ and $t\geq 0$. The ray $\gamma_x$ meets $\Sigma_2$ at a first point $Q(x)$, and we let $
r(x)=d(x,Q(x)).
$ For $x\in\Sigma_1$, we denote by $\theta_x$ the angle between the ray $\gamma'_x$ and the outer normal to $\Sigma_2$ at the point $Q(x)$, and we let $$m\doteq\min_{x\in\Sigma_1}{\cos\theta_x}.$$ We assume that $\Omega$ is strictly starlike, that is, $m>0$; in particular $Q(x)$ is unique. Recall also that: $$\label{annulus}
\beta=\min_{x\in\Sigma_1}r(x), \quad B=\max_{x\in\Sigma_1}r(x).$$ We construct a suitable smooth function $\psi$ and estimate the constant $K=K_{\Omega,\psi}$ with respect to the geometry of $\Omega$. The starlike assumption implies that each point in $\Omega$ belongs to a unique ray $\gamma_x$. Then we can define a function $\psi:\Omega\to [0,1]$ as follows: $$\psi=\threesystem
{0\quad\text{on}\quad\Sigma_1}
{1\quad\text{on}\quad\Sigma_2}
{\text{linear on each ray from $\Sigma_1$ to $\Sigma_2$}.}$$ Estimates and now follow from Theorem \[main3\] together with the following Proposition.
\[estimate doubly convex\] a At all points of $\Omega$ one has: $
\frac{1}{B}\leq{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}\leq\frac{1}{\beta m}.
$ Therefore: $$K_{\Omega,\psi}=\dfrac{\sup_{\Omega}{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}}{\inf_{\Omega}{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}}\leq\dfrac{B}{\beta m}.$$ b One has $$\sup_{r\in [0,1]}{\lvert{\psi^{-1}(r)}\rvert}=L={\lvert{\Sigma_2}\rvert}.$$ c If $\Sigma_2$ is also convex, then $m\geq \beta/B$ hence we can take $K=\beta^2/B^2$.
The proof of the Proposition \[estimate doubly convex\] depends on the following steps.
[**Step 1.**]{} [*On the ray $\gamma_x$ joining $x$ to $Q(x)$, consider the point $Q_t(x)$ at distance $t$ from $x$, and let $\theta_x(t)$ be the angle between $\gamma'_x$ and $\nabla\psi(Q_t(x))$. Then the function $$h(t)=\cos(\theta_x(t))$$ is non-increasing in $t$. As $\theta_x(r(x))=\theta_x$ we have in particular: $$\cos(\theta_x(t))\geq \cos(\theta_x)\geq m$$ for all $t\in [0,r(x)]$ and $x\in\Sigma_1$.*]{}
[**Step 2.**]{} [*The function $r\to{\lvert{\psi^{-1}(r)}\rvert}$ is non-decreasing in $r$.*]{}
[**Step 3.**]{} [*If $\Sigma_2$ is also convex we have $m\geq \beta/B$.*]{}
We will prove Steps 1-3 below.
[**Proof of Proposition \[estimate doubly convex\]**]{}. a) At any point of $\Omega$, let $\nabla^R\psi$ denote the radial part of $\nabla\psi$, which is the gradient of the restriction of $\psi$ to the ray passing through the given point. As such restriction is a linear function, one sees that $$\dfrac{1}{B}\leq{\lvert{\nabla^R\psi}\rvert}\leq \dfrac{1}{\beta}.$$ Since ${\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}\geq{\lvert{\nabla^R\psi}\rvert}$ one gets immediately $${\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}\geq\dfrac{1}{B}.$$ Note that $\theta_x(t)$, as defined above, is precisely the angle between $\nabla\psi$ and $\nabla^R\psi$, so that, using Step 1,
$${\lvert{\nabla^R\psi}\rvert}={\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}\cos\theta_x(t)\geq m{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}$$ hence: $${\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}\leq \dfrac{1}{m}{\lvert{\nabla^R\psi}\rvert}\leq\dfrac{1}{\beta m}.$$ as asserted. It is clear that b) and c) are immediate consequences of Steps 2-3.
**Proof of Step 1.** We use a suitable parametrization of $\Omega$. Let $l$ be the length of $\Sigma_1$ and consider a parametrization $\gamma:[0,l]\to \Sigma_1$ by arc-length $s$ with origin at a given point in $\Sigma_1$. Let $N(s)$ be the outer normal vector to $\Sigma_1$ at the point $\gamma(s)$. Consider the set: $$\tilde\Omega=\{(t,s)\in [0,\infty)\times [0,l): t\leq \rho(s)\}$$ where we have set $\rho(s)=r(\gamma(s))$. The starlike property implies that the map $
\Phi:\tilde\Omega\to \Omega
$ defined by $$\Phi(t,s)=\gamma(s)+tN(s)$$ is a diffeomorphism. Let us compute the Euclidean metric tensor in the coordinates $(t,s)$. Write $\gamma'(s)=T(s)$ for the unit tangent vector to $\gamma$ and observe that $N'(s)=k(s)T(s)$, where $k(s)$ is the curvature of $\Sigma_1$ which is everywhere non-negative because $\Sigma_1$ is convex. Then: $$\twosystem
{d\Phi(\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t})=N(s)}
{d\Phi(\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}s})=(1+tk(s))T(s)}$$ If we set $\Theta(t,s)=1+t k(s)$ the metric tensor is: $$g={{\begin{pmatrix}}{1&0\\}{0&\Theta^2\\}{\end{pmatrix}}}$$ and an orthonormal basis is then $(e_1,e_2)$, where $$e_1=\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}, \quad e_2=\dfrac{1}{\Theta}\dfrac{{\partial}}{{\partial}s}.$$ In these coordinates, our function $\psi$ is written: $$\psi(t,s)=\dfrac{t}{\rho(s)}.$$ Now $$\twosystem
{{\langle{\nabla\psi},{e_1}\rangle}={\dfrac{{\partial}\psi}{\bdt}}=\dfrac{1}{\rho(s)}}
{{\langle{\nabla\psi},{e_2}\rangle}=\dfrac{1}{\Theta}{\dfrac{{\partial}\psi}{\bds}}=-\dfrac{t\rho'(s)}{\Theta(t,s)\rho(s)^2}}.$$ It follows that $${\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}^2=\dfrac{1}{\rho^2}+\dfrac{t^2\rho'^2}{\Theta^2\rho^4}=
\dfrac{\Theta^2\rho^2+t^2\rho'^2}{\Theta^2\rho^4}.$$ Recall the radial gradient, which is the orthogonal projection of $\nabla\psi$ on the ray, whose direction is given by $e_1$. If we fix $x\in\Sigma_1$, we have $$\theta_x(t)=\text{angle between $\nabla\psi$ and $e_1$}$$ and we have to study the function $$h(t)=\cos\theta_x(t)=\dfrac{{\langle{\nabla\psi},{e_1}\rangle}}{{\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}}=\dfrac{1}{\rho(s){\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}}$$ for a fixed $s$. From the above expression of ${\lvert{\nabla\psi}\rvert}$ and a suitable manipulation we see $$h(t)^2=\dfrac{\Theta^2}{\Theta^2+t^2g^2}$$ where $g=\rho'(s)/\rho(s)$. Now $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d}{dt}\dfrac{\Theta^2}{\Theta^2+t^2g^2}&=\dfrac{2t\Theta g^2}{(\Theta^2+t^2g^2)^2}
(t{\dfrac{{\partial}\Theta}{\bdt}}-\Theta)\\
\end{aligned}$$ As $\Theta(t,s)=1+tk(s)$ one sees that $t{\dfrac{{\partial}\Theta}{\bdt}}-\Theta=-1$ hence $$\dfrac{d}{dt}h(t)^2=-\dfrac{2t\Theta g^2}{(\Theta^2+t^2g^2)^2}\leq 0$$ Hence $h(t)^2$ is non-increasing and, as $h(t)$ is positive, it is itself non-increasing.
[**Proof of Step 2.**]{} In the coordinates $(t,s)$ the curve $\psi^{-1}(r)$ is parametrized by $\alpha:[0,l]\to\tilde\Omega$ as follows: $$\alpha(u)=(r\rho(u),u)\quad u\in [0,l].$$ Then: $$\begin{aligned}
{\lvert{\psi^{-1}(r)}\rvert}&=\int_0^l\sqrt{g(\alpha'(u),\alpha'(u))}\,du\\
&=\int_0^l\sqrt{r^2\rho'(u)^2+(1+rk(u)\rho(u))^2}\,du
\end{aligned}$$ Convexity of $\Sigma_1$ implies that $k(u)\geq 0$ for all $u$; differentiating under the integral sign with respect to $r$ one sees that indeed $\frac{d}{dr}{\lvert{\psi^{-1}(r)}\rvert}\geq 0$ for all $r\in [0,1]$.
[**Proof of Step 3.**]{} Let $T_x$ be the tangent line to $\Sigma_2$ at $Q(x)$ and $H(x)$ the point of $T_x$ closest to $x$. As $\Sigma_2$ is convex, $H(x)$ is not an interior point of $\Omega$, hence $$d(x,H(x))\geq\beta.$$ The triangle formed by $x, Q(x)$ and $H(x)$ is rectangle in $H(x)$, then we have: $$r(x)\cos\theta_x=d(x,H(x)).$$ As $r(x)\leq B$ we conclude: $$B \cos\theta_x\geq \beta,$$ which gives the assertion.
Sharpness of the lower bound {#sharpness}
============================
An upper bound
--------------
In this short paragraph, we give a simple way to get an upper bound when the potential $A$ is *closed*. Then, we will use this in different kinds of examples, in order to show that the assumptions of Theorem \[main2\] are sharp. The geometric idea is the following: if we have a region $D \subset \Omega$ such that the first absolute cohomology group $H^1(D)$ is $0$, then we can estimate from above the spectrum of $\Delta_A$ in $\Omega$ in terms of the spectrum of the usual Laplacian on $D$. The reason is that the potential $A$ is $0$ on $D$ up to a gauge transformation; then, on $D$, $\Delta_A$ becomes the usual Laplacian and any eigenfunction of the Laplacian on $D$ may be extended by $0$ on $\Omega$ and thus used as a test function for the magnetic Laplacian on the whole of $\Omega$.
Let us give the details. Let $D$ be a closed subset of $\Omega$ such that, for some (small) $\delta>0$ one has $H^1(D^{\delta},{{\bf R}})=0$, where $D^{\delta}=\{p\in \Omega: {\rm dist}(p,D) < \delta\}$. This happens when $D^{\delta}$ has a retraction onto $D$. We write $$\partial D= (\partial D\cap \partial \Omega) \cup (\partial D \cap \Omega)=\partial^{\rm ext}D\cup\partial^{\rm int}D$$ and we denote by $(\nu_j(D))_{j=1}^{\infty}$ the spectrum of the Laplacian acting on functions, with the Neumann boundary condition on $\partial^{\rm ext}D$ (if non empty) and the Dirichlet boundary condition on $\partial^{\rm int}D$.
\[upperharmonic\] Let $\Omega$ be a compact manifold with smooth boundary and $A$ a closed potential on $\Omega$. Assume that $D\subset \Omega$ is a compact subdomain such that $H^1(D,\textbf R)=H^1(D^{\delta},\textbf R)=0$ for some $\delta>0$. Then we have $$\lambda_k(\Omega,A) \le \nu_k(D)$$ for each $k\geq 1$.
**Proof.** We recall that for any function $\phi$ on $\Omega$, the operator $\Delta_A$ and $\Delta_{A+d\phi}$ are unitarily equivalent and have the same spectrum. As $A$ is closed and, by assumption, $H^1(D^{\delta},\textbf R)=0$, $A$ is exact on $D^{\delta}$ and there exists a function $\tilde \phi$ on $D^{\delta}$ such that $A+d\tilde\phi=0$ on $D^{\delta}$.
We consider the restriction of $\tilde\phi$ to $D$ and extend it differentiably on $\Omega$ by using a partition of unity $(\chi_1,\chi_2)$ subordinated to $(D^{\delta},\Omega/D)$. Then, setting $$\phi\doteq\chi_1 \tilde\phi$$ we see that $\phi$ is a smooth function on $\Omega$ which is equal to $\tilde\phi$ on $D$ so that, on $D$, one has $A+d\phi=0$. We consider the new potential $\tilde A=A+d\phi$ and observe that $\tilde A=0$ on $D$.
Now consider an eigenfunction $f$ for the mixed problem on $D$ (Neumann boundary conditions on $\partial^{\rm ext}D$ and Dirichlet boundary conditions on $\partial^{\rm int}D$), and extend it by $0$ on $\Omega\setminus D$. As $\tilde A=0$ on $D$, we see that $${\lvert{\nabla^{\tilde A}f}\rvert}^2={\lvert{\nabla f}\rvert}^2,$$ and we get a test function having the same Rayleigh quotient as that of $f$. Thanks to the usual min-max characterization of the spectrum, we obtain, for all $k$: $$\lambda_k(\Omega,A) = \lambda_k(\Omega,\tilde A)\le \nu_k(D).$$
Sharpness
---------
We will use Proposition \[upperharmonic\] to show the sharpness of the hypothesis in Theorem \[main2\]. Let us first show that we need to control the ratio $\frac{BL}{\beta}$.
\[Blarge\] In the first situation, we give an example where the ratio $\frac{BL}{\beta} \to \infty$ and the distance $\beta$ between the two components of the boundary is uniformly bounded from below. We want to show that $\lambda_1\to 0$. We consider an annulus $\Omega$ composed of two concentric balls of radius $1$ and $R+1$ and same center, with $R\to \infty$. We have $B=\beta=R$ and $L \to \infty$.
From the assumptions we get the existence of a point $x\in \Omega$ such that the ball $B(x,\frac{R}{2})$ of center $x$ and radius $\frac{R}{2}$ is contained in $\Omega$. Proposition \[upperharmonic\] implies that $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)$ is bounded from above by the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet problem for the Laplacian of the ball, which is proportional to $\frac{1}{R^2}$ and tends to zero because $R\to\infty$.
\[example1\] Next, we construct an example to show that if the distance $\beta$ tends to $0$ and $B$ and $L$ are uniformly bounded from below and from above, then again $\lambda_1 \to 0$. We again use Proposition \[upperharmonic\]. Fix the rectangles : $$R_2 = [-4,4]\times [0,4], \quad R_{1,\epsilon}=[-3,3]\times [\epsilon,2]$$ and consider the region $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ given by the closure of $R_2\setminus R_{1,\epsilon}$. Note that $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ is a planar annulus whose boundary components are convex and get closer and closer as $\epsilon\to 0$.
{width="70mm"}
We show that, for any closed potential $A$ one has: $$\label{small}
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\lambda_1(\Omega_{\epsilon},A)=0.$$ Consider the simply connected region $D_{\epsilon}\subset\Omega_{\epsilon}$ given by the complement of the rectangle $[-1,1]\times [0,\epsilon]$. Now $D_{\epsilon}$ has trivial $1$-cohomology; by Proposition \[upperharmonic\], to show it is enough to show that $$\label{enough}
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\nu_1(D_{\epsilon})=0.$$ By the min-max principle : $$\nu_1(D_{\epsilon})=\inf\Big\{ \frac{\int_{D_{\epsilon}}\vert \nabla f\vert^2}{\int_{D_{\epsilon}}f^2} : f=0\,\,\text{on}\,\, {\partial}D_{\epsilon}^{\rm int} \Big\}$$ where $${\partial}D_{\epsilon}^{\rm int} =\{(x,y)\in\Omega_{\epsilon}:x=\pm 1, y\in [0,\epsilon]\}.$$ Define the test-function $f:D_{\epsilon}\to{{\bf R}}$ as follows. $$f=\threesystem{1\quad\text{on the complement of $[-2,2]\times[0,\epsilon]$}}
{x-1\quad\text{on $[1,2]\times [0,\epsilon]$}}
{-x-1\quad\text{on $[-2,-1]\times [0,\epsilon]$}}$$ One checks easily that, for all $\epsilon$: $$\int_{D_{\epsilon}}\vert \nabla f\vert^2=2\epsilon, \quad \int_{D_{\epsilon}}f^2\geq {\rm const}>0$$ Then follows immediately by observing that the Rayleigh quotient of $f$ tends to $0$ as $\epsilon\to 0$
\[example small\] In the example we constructed previously the two boundary components approach each other along a common set of positive measure (precisely, a segment of total length $6$). In the next example we sketch a construction showing that, in fact, this is not necessary.
So, let us fix the outside curve $\Sigma_2$ and choose a family of inner convex curves $\Sigma_1$ such that $B$ is bounded below (say, $B\ge 1$) and $\beta \to 0$ (no other assumption is made). Then, we want to show that $\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\to 0$.
Fix points $x\in \Sigma_2$, $y\in \Sigma_1$ such that $d(x,y)=\beta$. We take $b=2\beta$ and introduce the balls of center $x$ and radius $b$ and $\sqrt b$, denoted by $B(x,b)$ and $B(x,\sqrt b)$, respectively. Then the set $D=\Omega\setminus (B(x,b)\cap\Omega)$ is simply connected so that, by Proposition \[upperharmonic\]: $$\lambda_1(\Omega,A)\leq \nu_1(D)$$ and it remains to show that $\nu_1(D)\to 0$ as $b\to 0$.
Introduce the function $F(r)$ ( $r$ being the distance to $x$): $$F(r)=\threesystem{1\quad\text{on the complement of $B(x,\sqrt b)$}}
{0\quad\text{on $B(x,b)$}}
{\frac{-2}{\ln b} (\ln r -\ln b)\quad\text{on $B(x,\sqrt b)-B(x,b)$}}$$ and let $f$ be the restriction of $F$ to $D$. As $f=0$ on ${\partial}^{\rm int}D={\partial}B(x,b)\cap\Omega$, we see that $f$ is a test function for the eigenvalue $\nu_1(D)$. A straightforward calculation shows that, as $b\to 0$, we have $$\int_D \vert \nabla f\vert^2 \to 0;$$ on the other hand, as $B \ge 1$, the volume of $D$ is uniformly bounded from below, which implies that $$\int_D f^2 \ge C >0.$$ We conclude that the Rayleigh quotient of $f$ tends to $0$ as $b \to 0$, which shows the assertion.
\[example2\] The following example shows that we need to impose some condition on the outer curve in order to get a positive lower bound as in Theorem \[main2\].
It is an easy and classical fact that, in order to create a small eigenvalue for the Neumann problem, it is sufficient to deform a domain locally, near a boundary point, as indicated by the mushroom-shaped region shown in the figure below. Up to a gauge transformation, we can suppose that the potential $A$ is locally $0$ in a neigborhood of the mushroom, and we have to estimate the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian with Dirichlet boundary condition at the basis of the mushroom (which is a segment of length $\epsilon$) and Neumann boundary condition on the remaining part of its boundary, as required by Proposition \[upperharmonic\].
{width="70mm"}
The only point is to take the value of the parameter $\epsilon$ much smaller than $\delta$ as $\delta \to 0$. Take for example $\epsilon =\delta^4$ and consider a function $u$ taking value $1$ in the square of size $\delta$ and passing linearly from $1$ to $0$ outside the rectangle of sizes $\epsilon,\delta$. The norm of the gradient of $u$ is $0$ on the square of size $\delta$ and $\frac{1}{\delta}$ in the rectangle of size $\delta,\epsilon$.
Then the Rayleigh quotient is $$R(u) \le \frac{\frac{1}{\delta^2}\delta \epsilon}{\delta^2}=\frac{\epsilon}{\delta^3}$$ which tends to $0$ as $\delta \to 0$.
Moreover, we can make such local deformation keeping the curvature of the boundary uniformly bounded in absolute value (see Example 2 in [@CGI]).
Appendix
========
Spectrum of circles and Riemannian products {#riemannian circle}
-------------------------------------------
We first prove Proposition \[circle\].
Let then $(M,g)$ be the circle of length $L$ with metric $g=\theta(t)^2dt^2$, where $t\in [0,L]$ and $\theta(t)$ is periodic of period $L$. Given the $1$-form $A=H(t)dt$ we first want to find the harmonic $1$-form $\omega$ which is cohomologous to $A$; that is, we look for a smooth function $\phi$ so that $
\omega=A+d\phi
$ is harmonic. Now a unit tangent vector field to the circle is $$e_1=\dfrac{1}{\theta} \dfrac{d}{dt}.$$ Write $\omega=G(t)\,dt$. Then $$\delta\omega=-\dfrac 1{\theta}\Big(\dfrac{G}{\theta}\Big)'.$$ As any $1$-form on the circle is closed, we see that $\omega$ is harmonic iff $G(t)=c\theta(t)$ for a constant $c$. We look for $\phi$ and $c\in{{\bf R}}$ so that $$\phi'=-H+c\theta.$$ As $\phi$ must be periodic of period $L$, we must have $\int_0^L\phi'=0$. As the volume of $M$ is $L$, we also have $\int_0^L\theta=L$. This forces $$c=\dfrac{1}{L}\int_0^LH(t)\,dt.$$ On the other hand, as the curve $\gamma(t)=t$ parametrizes $M$ with velocity $\frac{d}{dt}$, one sees that the flux of $A$ across $M$ is given by $$\Phi^A=\dfrac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^LH(t)\,dt.$$ Therefore $
c=\frac{2\pi}{L} \Phi^A
$ and a primitive could be $$\phi(t)=-\int_0^tH+c\int_0^t\theta.$$ Conclusion:
[$\bullet\quad$]{}[*The form $A=H(t)dt$ is cohomologous to the harmonic form $\omega=c\theta\, dt$ with $c=\frac{2\pi}{L} \Phi^A$*]{}.
We first compute the eigenvalues. By gauge invariance, we can use the potential $\omega$. In that case $$\Delta_{\omega}=-\nabla^{\omega}_{e_1}\nabla^{\omega}_{e_1}.$$ Now $$\nabla^{\omega}_{e_1}u=\dfrac{u'}{\theta}-icu$$ hence $$\nabla^{\omega}_{e_1}\nabla^{\omega}_{e_1}u=\dfrac{1}{\theta}\Big(\dfrac{u'}{\theta}-icu\Big)'-ic\Big(\dfrac{u'}{\theta}-icu\Big).$$ After some calculation, the eigenfunction equation $\Delta_{\omega}u=\lambda u$ takes the form: $$-u''+\dfrac{\theta'}{\theta}u'+2ic \theta u'+c^2\theta^2 u=\lambda\theta^2 u.$$ Recall the arc-length function $s(t)=\int_0^t\theta(\tau)\,d\tau$. We make the change of variables: $$u(t)=v(s(t)), \quad\text{that is}\quad v=u\circ s^{-1}.$$ Then: $$\twosystem
{u'=v'(s)\theta}
{u''=v''(s)\theta^2+v'(s)\theta'}$$ and the equation becomes: $$-v''+2ic v'+c^2v=\lambda v$$ with solutions : $$v_k(s)=e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{L}s}, \quad \lambda=\dfrac{4\pi^2}{L^2}(k-\Phi^A)^2, \quad k\in\bf Z.$$ Now Gauge invariance says that $$\Delta_{A+d\phi}=e^{i\phi}\Delta_Ae^{-i\phi};$$ and $v_k$ is an eigenfunction of $\Delta_{A+d\phi}$ iff $e^{-i\phi}v_k$ is an eigenfunction of $\Delta_A$. Hence, the eigenfunctions of $\Delta_A$ (where $A=H(t)\,dt$) are $$u_k=e^{-i\phi}v_k,$$ where $\phi(t)=-\int_0^tH+c\, s(t)$ and $c=\frac{2\pi}{L}\Phi^A$. Explicitly: $$\label{eigenfunctions}
u_k(t)=e^{i\int_0^tH}e^{\frac{2\pi i(k-\Phi^A)s(t)}{L}}$$ as asserted in Proposition \[circle\].
Let us know verify the last statement. If the metric is $g=dt^2$ then $\theta(t)=1$ and $s(t)=t$. If $A$ is a harmonic $1$-form then it has the expression $A=\frac{2\pi \Phi^A}{L}dt$. Taking into account we indeed verify that $u_k(t)=e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{L}t}$.
[$\bullet\quad$]{}We now prove Proposition \[cyl\].
Here we assume that $\Omega$ is a Riemannian product $[0,a]\times{{\bf S}^{1}}(\frac{L}{2\pi})$ with coordinates $(r,t)$ and the canonical metric on the circle. We fix a closed potential $A$ on $\Omega$. By gauge invariance we can assume that $A$ is a Coulomb gauge, and by what we said above we have easily $$A=\dfrac{2\pi \Phi^A}{L}\,dt.$$ Then $A$ restrict to zero on $[0,a]$; as $A(N)=0$ on ${\partial}\Omega$ the magnetic Neumann conditions reduce simply to ${\dfrac{{\partial}u}{\bdN}}=0$. At this point we apply a standard argument of separation of variables; if $\phi(r)$ is an eigenfunction of the usual Neumann Laplacian on $[0,a]$, and $v(t)$ is an eigenfunction of $\Delta_A$ on ${{\bf S}^{1}}(\frac{L}{2\pi})$, we see that the product $u(r,t)=\phi(r)v(t)$ is indeed an eigenfunction of $\Delta_A$ on $\Omega$. As the set of eigenfunctions we obtain that way is a complete orthonormal system in $L^2(\Omega)$, we see that each eigenvalue of the product is the sum of an eigenvalue in the Neumann spectrum of $[0,a]$ and an eigenvalue in the magnetic spectrum of the circle, as computed before. We omit further details.
Proof of Lemma \[calculus\] {#technical lemma}
---------------------------
For simplicity of notation, we give the proof when $a=L=1$. This will not affect generality. Then, assume that $s : [0,1]\times [0,1]\to{{\bf R}}$ is smooth, non-negative and satisfies $$s(0,t)=t,\quad s(r,0)=0,\quad s(r,1)=1\quad\text{and}\quad {\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdt}}(r,t)\doteq \theta(r,t)>0.$$ Assume the identity $$\label{identity}
F(t)=p(r)\cos(\pi s(r,t))+q(r)\sin(\pi s(r,t))$$ for real-valued functions $F(t),p(r),q(r)$, such that $p(r)^2+q(r)^2>0$. Then we must show: $$\label{sr}
{\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdr}}=0$$ everywhere.
Differentiate with respect to $t$ and get: $$\label{fprime}
F'(t)=-\pi p(r)\theta(r,t)\sin(\pi s)+\pi q(r)\theta(r,t)\cos(\pi s)$$ and we have the following matrix identity $${{\begin{pmatrix}}{\cos(\pi s)&\sin(\pi s)\\}{-\pi\theta\sin(\pi s)&\pi\theta\cos(\pi s)\\}{\end{pmatrix}}}{\begin{pmatrix}p\\#2\end{pmatrix}}={\begin{pmatrix}F\\#2\end{pmatrix}}.$$ We then see: $$p(r)=F(t)\cos(\pi s)-\dfrac{F'(t)}{\pi\theta}\sin(\pi s).$$ Set $t=0$ so that $s=0$ and $p(r)=F(0)\doteq p$ is constant; the previous identity becomes $$\label{p}
p=F(t)\cos(\pi s)-\dfrac{F'(t)}{\pi\theta}\sin(\pi s).$$ Observe that: $$\label{changes}
\twosystem
{F'(0)=\pi q(r)\theta(r,0)}
{F'(1)=-\pi q(r)\theta(r,1)}$$ [$\bullet\quad$]{}Assume $F'(0)=0$. Then, as $\theta(t,r)$ is positive one must have $q(r)=0$ for all $r$, hence $p\ne 0$ and $
F(t)=p\cos(\pi s),
$ from which, differentiating with respect to $r$, one gets easily $
{\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdr}}=0
$ and we are finished.
[$\bullet\quad$]{}We now assume that $F'(0)\ne 0$: then we see from that $q$ is not identically zero and the smooth function $F':[0,1]\to{{\bf R}}$ changes sign. This implies that
[$\bullet\quad$]{}[*there exists $t_0\in (0,1)$ such that $F'(t_0)=0$.*]{}
Now evaluated at $t=t_0$ gives: $$p=F(t_0)\cos(\pi s(r,t_0))$$ for all $r$. Differentiate w.r.t. $r$ and get, for all $r\in [0,1]$: $$0=\sin(\pi s(r,t_0)){\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdr}}(r,t_0).$$ Since $s(r,t)$ is increasing in $t$, we have $$0<s(r,t_0)<s(r,1)=1.$$ Hence $\sin(\pi s(r,t_0))>0$ and we get $${\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdr}}(r,t_0)=0.$$ writes: $$F(t)=p\cos(\pi s)+q(r)\sin(\pi s),$$ and then, differentiating w.r.t. $r$: $$0=-p\pi \sin(\pi s){\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdr}}+q'(r)\sin(\pi s)+\pi q(r)\cos(\pi s){\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdr}}.$$ Evaluating at $t=t_0$ we obtain $
0=q'(r)\sin(\pi s(r,t_0))
$ which implies $$q'(r)=0$$ hence $q(r)=q$, a constant. We conclude that $$F(t)=p\cos(\pi s)+q\sin(\pi s)$$ for constants $p,q$. We differentiate the above w.r.to $r$ and get: $$0=\Big(-\pi p \sin(\pi s)+\pi q\cos(\pi s)\Big){\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdr}}$$ for all $(r,t)\in [0,1]\times [0,1]$. Now, the expression inside parenthesis is non-zero a.e. on the square. Then one must have ${\dfrac{{\partial}s}{\bdr}}=0$ everywhere and the final assertion follows.
Bruno Colbois
Université de Neuchâtel, Institut de Mathématiques\
Rue Emile Argand 11\
CH-2000, Neuchâtel, Suisse
[email protected]
Alessandro Savo
Dipartimento SBAI, Sezione di Matematica\
Sapienza Università di Roma, Via Antonio Scarpa 16\
00161 Roma, Italy
[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate critical properties of a spatial evolutionary game based on the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Simulations demonstrate a jump in the component densities accompanied by drastic changes in average sizes of the component clusters. We argue that the cluster boundary is a random fractal. Our simulations are consistent with the fractal dimension of the boundary being equal to 2, and the cluster boundaries are hence asymptotically space filling as the system size increases.'
author:
- 'Sergei Kolotev$^{1, 2}$'
- 'Aleksandr Malyutin$^{1,2}$'
- 'Evgeni Burovski$^{1, 2}$'
- 'Sergei Krashakov$^{2, 3}$'
- 'Lev Shchur$^{1, 2, 3}$'
title: Dynamic fractals in spatial evolutionary games
---
The surge of interest in game theory can be traced to the seminal works of John Nash in the middle of the 20th century. The main subject of classical game theory is finding the optimal strategy in games between two or more individuals (players or agents), where each individual has several possible behaviors. A repeated game is a situation where the same agents play the game with the same rules multiple times. Rational behavior of an agent then evolves with time based on the memory of past encounters. An agent’s strategy thus evolves, the so-called evolution of cooperation [@Axelrod81; @Axelrod06].
A prototypical model in game theory is the so-called Prisoner’s Dilemma, played by two agents in discrete time steps. In each round of the game, each agent uses one of two possible strategies, *cooperate* $\mathcal{C}$ or *defect* $\mathcal{D}$, and receives a payoff that depends on the strategies of the agent and its opponent [@Tadelis2013].
Evolutionary game theory (see, e.g., [@Jonker78; @Smith82; @Weibull95; @Nowak06] and the references therein) investigates the behavior of large populations, where a macroscopic number of agents use a finite number of strategies. While classical game theory deals with individual agents, evolutionary game theory focuses on the winning strategies themselves rather than individuals. Spatial evolutionary games are played with agents arranged in some spatial structures and interacting with other agents in their immediate neighborhoods. Various geometries have been explored, including regular grids [@Nowak92; @Nowak93], random graphs and small world networks [@Szabo05], and evolving random graphs [@Perc09; @Helbing2013].
The spatial arrangement of agents yields emergent geometric structures—groups of agents who synchronize their behaviors with their neighbors and compete with other groups. The temporal evolution of these geometric structures can be highly nontrivial.
In this letter, we study a simple version of an evolutionary game based on the Prisoner’s Dilemma [@Nowak92; @Nowak93]. The game is deterministic, and the time evolution is governed by a single parameter, the payoff ratio. Although the local rules are apparently simple, the steady state of the game features a series of very different dynamic regimes separated by sharp transitions. We characterize the geometric properties of the emergent structures across transitions.
We obtained several results that might be surprising for the statistical physics community. We found that transitions between steady states of the structures are not related to any kind of transitions known in statistical mechanics. The transitions are sharp but are not similar to first-order thermodynamic transitions [@Binder-review]. Clusters of agents with similar strategies do percolate from boundary to boundary of the finite systems investigated. And in contrast to the percolation clusters in thermodynamic equilibrium [@Review-universality; @Thouless], the dimension of the fractals is 2 in the plane. A cluster boundary looks very irregular, and the dimension of the boundary is again equal to the dimension of the space.
Following Refs. [@Nowak92; @Nowak93], we define the game rules as follows: $L^2$ agents are arranged on an $L\times L$ rectangular grid in two dimensions. The game is globally synchronous and is played in discrete time steps. At each time step, an agent interacts with its eight neighbors (the chess king’s moves) and itself [^1]. The total score of an agent in a round is the sum of the payoffs of all nine games played in the current round. When all pairwise games are played and all payoffs are known, agents change their strategies for the next round. Various adaptation behaviors are possible. We use the simplest case of maximally opportunistic agents with a short memory: at each time step, an agent adopts the strategy with the maximum payoff among itself and its opponents in the preceding round. For two agents, this strategy is trivial. It becomes more interesting when the maximally opportunistic adaptation is used in a spatial evolutionary context.
The payoff an agent receives in an elementary game depends on the strategies of the agent and its opponent. We use the following payoff structure [@Nowak92; @Nowak93]: (i) If both agents defect, they receive nothing. (ii) If both agents cooperate, each of them receives a payoff of $S$, which we set to $S=1$ without loss of generality. (iii) In the interaction of $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$, the defector receives a payoff $T>S$ and the cooperator receives zero. The payoff structure hence depends on only one parameter, the payoff ratio $b=T/S$.
The spatial game can obviously be described as a cellular automaton with a particular set of transition rules, but the description in terms of cellular automata turns out to be very complex: the state of an agent in the next round depends on the payoffs of its neighbors, which in turn depend on their neighbors. Because 25 agents are relevant, the transition table size is $2^{25}$, in contrast to the transition matrix for Conway’s Game of Life, which has $2^9=512$ rules.
*Qualitative analysis.—* The game is deterministic, and the full time evolution is completely defined by the initial conditions (the spatial distribution of strategies $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ at $t=0$) and the value of the payoff parameter $b$. The discrete structure of the payoffs leads to a series of very different dynamic regimes separated by sharp transitions at special values of $b$. Moreover, for fixed initial conditions, the dynamics is exactly identical for all values of $b$ between these transition points. Statistical fluctuations enter via our use of random, unstructured initial conditions: physical observables are calculated as averages over both time evolution in the steady state (which is deterministic given initial conditions) and the ensemble average over a set of realizations of initial conditions (where the steady states are equivalent in the statistical sense).
It is instructive to consider the time evolution of small local objects, i.e., clusters of one strategy embedded into a sea of the other strategy. For $b<1$, defectors always lose. For $b>3$, cooperators unconditionally win. For $1<b<9/5$, a zoo of various small objects (gliders, rotators, etc.) are possible. Small clusters of $\mathcal{D}$ remain small and large clusters of $\mathcal{D}$ shrink. Conversely, for $b>9/5$, a 2$\times$2 or larger cluster of $\mathcal{D}$ grows. The situation is reversed for defectors: a 2$\times$2 cluster of $\mathcal{C}$ grows for $b<2$, while a large cluster of $\mathcal{C}$ shrinks for $b>2$.
Therefore, $9/5<b<2$ is the fierce competition regime where clusters of $\mathcal{C}$ can grow in regions of $\mathcal{D}$ and vice versa. Starting from a single defector in a center of a large game field, the steady state is a dynamic fractal with a well-defined average density of $\mathcal{D}$, the “evolutionary kaleidoscope" in Ref. [@Nowak93].
*Numerical simulations.—* To study the time evolution of the game with random, unstructured initial conditions, we use a direct numerical simulation. We arrange $L^2$ agents on an $L\times L$ square grid with $L$ up to 1000. We use periodic boundary conditions to minimize edge effects. We use up to 2$\times$10$^5$ time steps for small lattices and up to 2$\times$10$^3$ time steps for larger lattices. For the initial state of the game field at $t=0$, we assign the strategy $\mathcal{C}$ to an agent with a fixed probability $p_i$. We consider up to 100 realizations of the initial conditions (replicas). To compute steady-state averages, we discard the first 10$^3$ iterations for equilibration.
In agreement with Refs. [@Nowak92; @Nowak93], we find that typical configurations of the game field change drastically across the critical value of $b_c=9/5$. For $b<b_c$, cooperators form relatively static web-like structures spanning the entire game field; for $b>b_c$, the game field features “blobs" of various sizes (see Fig. \[fig:snapshots\]). Clusters of both $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ move, grow, and collide chaotically, leading to the game field changing at time scales of the order of several time steps.
{width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"} {width="33.00000%"}
To quantify the apparent changes of the game dynamics as $b$ varies, we compute the average density of cooperators in the steady state for a range of payoffs $b>1$. For each value of $b$, we take 25 independent realizations of the initial conditions and compute time averages of the density of cooperators discarding the first $10^3$ time steps for equilibration and averaging over up to $2\times 10^4$ steps. Figure \[fig:coop\_dens\] shows the results of these simulations. We clearly see a sharp transition around the predicted value $b_c=9/5$, where the average steady state density of $\mathcal{C}$ drops from $\sim 0.7$–$0.9$ to $\sim 0.3$.
![Density of cooperators $f_C$ as function of the payoff $b$ with lattice sizes 20$\times$20 (circles), 50$\times$50 (triangles), and 100$\times$100 (squares). All simulations are performed at $b = 1.651, 1.675, 1.701, 1.725, 1.751, 1.775,
1.801, 1.825, 1.851$ (for clarity, triangles are shifted horizontally slightly to the right and squares, to the left). Error bars are shown for all points and reflect averaging over 25 independent realizations of the initial conditions, each simulated for 2$\times 10^4$ generations. Dashed lines are to guide the eye. We note that for $b>9/5$, the average density agrees with the magic value $f_C=12\,\log{2}-8\approx0.318$ [@Nowak93]. See the text for discussion.[]{data-label="fig:coop_dens"}](fig1_1__.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Several features stand out in Fig. \[fig:coop\_dens\]. First, not only the average value changes at $b=b_c$, but also the spread of individual measurements increases dramatically. The spread itself is clearly a finite-size effect, which progressively decreases as $L$ increases. Second, the average density $f_C$ for $b>b_c$ agrees well with the value $f_C = 12\log{2}-8\approx0.32$, found in [@Nowak93] for regular “evolutionary kaleidoscopes," which develop from an initial state with a single cooperator and $L^2-1$ defectors.
*Cluster size distribution.—* To characterize the transition at $b=b_c$, we perform the following simulation. At each time step, we decompose the game field into connected clusters of $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$, and record the “mass" (i.e., the number of sites) of each cluster. Figure \[fig:cluster\_size\_distribution\] shows the distribution $w(m)$ of masses of clusters of $\mathcal{D}$ for $b<b_c$ and $b>b_c$, collected over 1000 time steps of 100 independent realizations of initial conditions for $L=100$. For $b<b_c$, clusters larger than the system size are virtually nonexistent, and the distribution has a maximum at the size of around 10 sites. The middle part of the distribution, for $20<m<80$, is well fit by an exponential function $w(m)\sim B\exp(-\lambda m)$ with the best-fit values $B = 0.16(2)$ and $\lambda = 0.12(1)$ (numbers in parentheses represent the fit error bars in units of the last digit). We now stress that the smoothness of the distribution is a result of averaging over the initial conditions: the cluster size distribution for each particular replica is noisy and does not display any discernible structure.
For $b>b_c$, the situation is markedly different: the distribution is monotonic, where the initial faster-than-exponential drop for $m\lesssim L$ is followed by a long tail that is well fit by an exponential decay $w(m>100)\sim B\exp(-\lambda m)$ with $B=3.7(2)\times10^{-3}$ and $\lambda=0.018(2)$. Here, the time averaging is much more effective than for $b<b_c$ because the game field changes substantially at the time scale of several time steps.
![Cluster mass distributions $w(m)$ normalized such that $\sum_m w(m)=1$, for $b=1.79$ (top) and $b = 1.81$ (bottom). Here, $L = 100$, and the initial condition is that an agent is a defector with probability $p_i=0.21$. The simulations are done for 100 independent realizations of initial conditions. Each realization is simulated for 100 (1000) steps for $b=1.79$ ($b=1.81$) after a 1000 steps for equilibration. Longer simulation times do not change the picture, and the results are independent of the system size. See the text for discussion.[]{data-label="fig:cluster_size_distribution"}](cluster_distribution_1_79_2.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Cluster mass distributions $w(m)$ normalized such that $\sum_m w(m)=1$, for $b=1.79$ (top) and $b = 1.81$ (bottom). Here, $L = 100$, and the initial condition is that an agent is a defector with probability $p_i=0.21$. The simulations are done for 100 independent realizations of initial conditions. Each realization is simulated for 100 (1000) steps for $b=1.79$ ($b=1.81$) after a 1000 steps for equilibration. Longer simulation times do not change the picture, and the results are independent of the system size. See the text for discussion.[]{data-label="fig:cluster_size_distribution"}](cluster_distribution_1_81_2.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
*Cluster boundaries.—* We again decompose the game field into connected clusters at each time step. We then record the total length of the interface between the areas occupied by $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$. We define the interface length $p$ as the number of bonds connecting agents of different kinds (the total number of bonds is $2L^2$ on an $L\times L$ game field with periodic boundary conditions). This definition of the interface length clearly depends on the system size. A natural expectation is that $p$ scales as some power $\theta$ of the system size $L$. Several scenarios are possible. If we naively regard clusters of strategies as droplets of immiscible liquids, then we expect $p\propto L$. A space-filling curve would have $p\propto L^2$. A power-law scaling with a noninteger exponent would indicate that the interface is fractal [@Wang2017].
For each value of $b$, we simulate for a range of $L$ and measure the steady-state average value of $p$. We then fit the results with a power law $p(L)\sim A\times L^\theta+c$ with $A$, $c$, and $\theta$ as fitting parameters. Here, $A$ is the amplitude, and we also include the free term $c$. We expect the scaling exponent $\theta$ to differentiate between the regimes $b<b_c$ and $b>b_c$. The results are summarized in Table \[table:perimeter\]. We find that the amplitude $A$ depends on $b$ only weakly. The value of the parameter $c$ somehow reflects what can be seen in Fig. \[fig:snapshots\], i.e., that the effective correlations are of the order of the lattice spacing in the left figures and larger in the right figure. Most surprisingly, the scaling exponent $\theta$ is consistent with $\theta=2$ *for all values* of $b$.
$b$ $\theta$ $A$ $c$
------ ---------- --------- ---------
1.81 1.99(1) 0.35(1) -20(05)
1.79 1.99(1) 0.34(1) -13(11)
1.74 2.07(5) 0.22(4) 5(9)
1.64 2.03(2) 0.29(2) -5(6)
1.49 2.00(3) 0.30(3) -2(8)
1.39 2.02(3) 0.24(3) 2(6)
1.32 2.03(2) 0.18(2) 5(4)
1.28 1.96(5) 0.26(5) -4(9)
1.19 1.98(4) 0.24(4) -1(7)
: Interface length as a function of $L$. Fit errors are shown in units of the last digit. For each value of $b$, we simulate with $L$ from $10$ to $200$ and fit the results with $p(L)\sim A\times L^\theta+c$. See the text for discussion.[]{data-label="table:perimeter"}
To double-check this result, we further calculate using a more traditional definition of the fractal dimension of the interface. Namely, we use the standard definition of the fractal dimension of a closed set in two dimensions, the so-called Minkowski dimension [@BisoiMishra2001; @JiangLiu2012]. Let $N(\ell)$ be the minimum number of boxes necessary to completely cover the cluster interface with boxes of linear extent $\ell$. Then the Minkowski dimension is defined as $$d_s=\lim_{\ell\to0}\frac{\log N(\ell)}{-\log\ell}.
\label{minkowski_dim}$$
Because the game field is inherently discrete, we use the following procedure. We cover the interface with boxes of increasing linear size $\ell$ and linearly fit the logarithm of the number of covering boxes as a function of logarithm of $\ell$. In our fitting procedure, we discard both the smallest box sizes of the order of several lattice spacings (because the discreteness of the lattice is essential at these scales) and the largest box sizes of the order of $L$ (because any curve is space filling at these length scales).
We simulate 10 independent realizations of the initial configuration with the probability $p_i=0.21$ of an agent being a defector. For each run, we take 20 snapshots, separated by 10 time steps. For each snapshot, we use to extract the Minkowski dimension. The fitting procedure is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:minkowski181\] for the system size $L=200$ and the parameter value $b=1.81$. The results averaged over both time and initial conditions are reported in Table \[table:minkowski\].
![Box counting for an interface with $b=1.81$ and $L=200$. Other system sizes and payoff parameters are similar. Points are the number of square boxes of a given linear extent needed to completely cover the interface. The straight line is a linear fit $\log N(\ell)\propto1.95\,\log{(1/\ell)}$ in the window $-4.2<\log(1/\ell)<-2.6$. See the text for discussion.[]{data-label="fig:minkowski181"}](1_81_200x200.png){width="\columnwidth"}
$L$ $d_s (b = 1.79)$ $d_s (b=1.81)$
------ ------------------ ---------------- --
100 1.776(1) 1.380(1)
200 1.762(1) 1.762(1)
500 1.936(1) 1.936(1)
1000 1.957(1) 1.957(1)
: Minkowski dimension of the interface. The numbers in parentheses show the errors in units of the last digit and include both fitting errors and statistical variations between measurements.[]{data-label="table:minkowski"}
We find that the values of both the scaling exponent of the cluster interface $\theta$ (see Table \[table:perimeter\]) and the Minkowski dimension of the cluster interface $d_s$ tend to the limit value of 2 as $L\to\infty$. In other words, the cluster boundary (and the cluster interface) are not lines but rather scale as the surface area. In the pictures at the center and the right in Fig. \[fig:snapshots\], it is not easy to see that all three different objects (blue regions, red regions, and the boundary between them) have the properties of surfaces. Nevertheless, the analysis presented here supports this nonobvious fact.
The simulated system in the range of parameters investigated always reaches some state (after a sufficient relaxation from the initial state), which is either steady-state or almost steady-state with the small local details at the boundaries being cyclic with a few time steps and not influencing the discussed global geometry. The result of the analysis is that the geometric structures emerge as the steady (or almost steady) state of the complex dynamic process. The rules are local, but the steady-state structures demonstrate some global behavior.
There are examples of regular fractals with boundaries described by the fractal dimension 2: Julia sets and the boundary of the Mandelbrot set [@Shishikura1998]. In our case, the steady-state structures are quite random self-organized structures, not regular fractals. At the same time, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no previous examples of random self-organized structures with the cluster interface filling the space as we have shown here.
We stress that our structures shown in Fig. \[fig:snapshots\] look similar to those emerging in various examples of percolation, including discontinuous percolation (see, e.g., the short review [@HHerrmann2015]) and the mixing-phase transition [@Bar-Mukamel], but the interfaces in those examples never scale with the exponent 2. Another difference is that the behavior changes only for a discrete set of the control parameter value $b$ and we do not have a distance to these critical values, as with usual critical phenomena [@Review-universality].
We thank Lev Barash for the discussion on the fractal dimension of regular fractals. This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant No. 16-07-01122, development of algorithms for simulations) and the Russian Science Foundation (Grant No. 14-21-00158).
[99]{}
R. Axelrod, W.D. Hamilton, *The Evolution of Cooperation*, Science, **211**(4489), 1390 (1981).
see, e.g., R. Axelrod, *The Evolution of Cooperation*, Basic Books, 2006, and references therein.
see, e.g., S. Tadelis, *Game Theory: An Introduction*, Princeton University Press, 2013, and references therein.
P.D. Taylor and L.B. Jonker, *Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics*, Math. Biosci., **40**(12), 145156 (1978).
J. Maynard Smith, *Evolution and the Theory of Games*, Cambridge University Press, (1982).
J.W. Weibull, *Evolutionary Game Theory*, MIT Press, (1995).
M.A. Nowak, *Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the equations of life*, The Belknap Press, (2006).
M.A. Nowak and R.M. May, *Evolutionary games and spatial chaos*, Nature **359**, 826 (1992).
M.A. Nowak and R.M. May, *The spatial dilemmas of evolution*, Int. J. Birurcation and Chaos **3**(1), 35-78 (1993).
C. Hauert and G. Szabo, *Game theory and physics*, Am. J. Phys. **73**(5), 405414 (2005).
A. Szolnoki and M. Perc, *Emergence of multilevel selection in the prisoner’s dilemma game on coevolving random networks*, New J. Phys. **11**, 093033, (2009).
D. Helbing, *Globally networked risks and how to respond*, Nature **497**, 51 (2013).
K. Binder, *Theory of first-order phase transitions*, Rep. Prog. Phys., **211**, 783 (1987).
V. Privman, P.C. Hohenberg, and A. Aharony, *Universal Critical-Point Amplitude Relations*, in *Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena*, Vol. 14, edited by C. Domb and J.L. Lebowitz (Academic, New York, 1991).
D.J. Thouless, *Long-Range Order in One-Dimensional Ising Systems*, Phys. Rev, **187**, 732 (1969).
W. Wang, M. A. Moore, H.G. Katzgraber, *The Fractal Dimension of Interfaces in Edwards-Anderson and Long-range Ising Spin Glasses: Determining the Applicability of Different Theoretical Descriptions*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **119**, 100602 (2017).
A.K. Bisoi, J. Mishra, *On calculation of fractal dimension of images*, Pattern Recognition Letters, **22**, 631 (2001).
S. Jiang, D. Liu, *Box-Counting Dimension of Fractal Urban Form: Stability Issues and Measurement Design*, International Journal of Artificial Life Research, **3**(3), 41 (2012).
M. Shishikura, *The Hausdorff dimension of the boundary of the Mandelbrot set and Julia sets*, Annals of Mathematics **147**, 225 (1998).
H. Herrmann, *Discontinuous percolation*, J. of Phys: Conf. Series [**681**]{},012003 (2015).
A. Bar and D. Mukamel, *Mixed-Order Phase Transition in a One-Dimensional Model*, Phys. Rev. Lett., **112**, 015701 (2014).
[^1]: The presence of self-interaction can be motivated by considering an agent to represent a group of individuals. Self-interaction then encapsulates some internal dynamics of this group. The qualitative features of the model are independent of the inclusion of self-interaction.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct a chiral formalism for processes involving both energetic hadrons and soft Goldstone bosons, which extends the application of soft-collinear effective theory to multibody B decays. The nonfactorizable helicity amplitudes for heavy meson decays into multibody final states satisfy symmetry relations analogous to the large energy form factor relations, which are broken at leading order in $\Lambda/m_b$ by calculable factorizable terms. We use the chiral effective theory to compute the leading corrections to these symmetry relations in $B\to M_n \pi \ell\bar \nu$ and $B\to M_n \pi \ell^+\ell^-$ decays.'
author:
- Benjamín Grinstein
- Dan Pirjol
title: Chiral symmetry and exclusive B decays in the SCET
---
1\. *Introduction.* The study of processes involving energetic quarks and gluons is simplified greatly by going over to an effective theory which separates the relevant energy scales. The soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) [@Bauer:2000ew] simplifies the proof of factorization theorems and allows a systematic treatment of power corrections. SCET has been applied to both inclusive and exclusive hard processes with energetic final state particles.
In this paper we present a combined application of the SCET with chiral perturbation theory which can be used to study exclusive processes involving both energetic light hadrons and soft pseudo Goldstone bosons and photons. The main observation is that once the dynamics of the collinear degrees of freedom has been factorized from that of the soft modes, usual chiral perturbation theory methods can be applied to the latter, unhampered by the presence of the energetic collinear particles which might have upset the momentum power counting in $p/\Lambda_\chi$. The chiral formalism has been applied previously to compute matrix elements of operators appearing in hard scattering processes, such as DIS and DVCS [@parton; @parton1; @ChSa]. Our paper extends these results to processes with both soft and collinear hadrons.
We focus here on exclusive B decays, which are described by three well-separated scales: hard $Q\sim m_b$, hard-collinear $\sqrt{\Lambda Q}$ and the QCD scale $\Lambda \sim 500$ MeV. This requires the introduction of a sequence of effective theories QCD $\to$ SCET$_{\rm I} \to$ SCET$_{\rm II}$, containing degrees of freedom of successively lower virtuality [@bpsff]. The intermediate theory ${\rm SCET}_{\rm I}$ contains hard-collinear quarks $\xi_n$ and gluons $A_n^\mu$ with virtuality $p_{\rm hc}^2 \sim \Lambda Q$ and ultrasoft quarks and gluons $q, A_\mu$ with virtuality $\Lambda^2$. Finally, one matches onto ${\rm SCET}_{\rm II}$ which includes only soft $q, A_\mu$ and collinear $\xi_n, A_n^\mu$ modes with virtuality $p^2 \sim \Lambda^2$. The expansion parameter in both effective theories can be chosen as $\lambda^2 \sim \Lambda/m_b$.
In the low energy theory SCET$_{II}$ the soft and collinear modes decouple at leading order and the effective Lagrangian is simply a sum of the kinetic terms for each mode $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}^{(0)} = {\cal L}_\xi^{(0)} + \sum_q \bar q (i{D\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}-m_q) q
+ {\cal L}_{A_n}^{(0)} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The matching of an arbitrary operator $O$ onto SCET$_{II}$ can be written symbolically as [@bpsff] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fact}
O \to T \otimes O_S \otimes O_C + O_{\rm nf} + \cdots\end{aligned}$$ where the ellipses denote power suppressed contributions. The first term is a ‘factorizable’ contribution, with $O_S, O_C$ soft and collinear operators convolved with a Wilson coefficient $T$ depending on the arguments of $O_S, O_C$. $O_{\rm nf}$ denote ‘nonfactorizable’ operators. Their precise form depends on the IR regulator adopted for SCET$_{\rm II}$; for example, in dimensional regularization they might take the form of $T$ products of operators involving messenger modes [@mess].
This formalism has been used to study exclusive B decays into energetic light hadrons (e.g. $B\to \pi\ell\nu$ and $B\to K^*\gamma$) [@bpsff; @Beneke:2003pa; @CK; @pol], and nonleptonic decays into 2 energetic light hadrons such as $B\to \pi\pi$ [@CKpipi; @bprs]. This paper presents an extension of this formalism to describe multi-body B decays to one energetic hadron plus multiple soft pions and photons. Such decays received increased attention recently [@multi; @exp] due to their ability to extend the reach of existing methods for determining weak parameters.
In Sec. 2 we introduce the SCET formalism and review the derivation of the large energy symmetry relations for the $B\to M$ form factors [@ffrel; @bpsff; @ps1]. We show that similar relations exist for B decays into multibody final states containing one collinear hadron $M_n$ plus soft hadrons $X_S$, $B\to M_n X_S$. Sec. 3 develops a chiral formalism for computing the matrix elements of the soft operators in (\[fact\]) $\langle X_S|O_S|B\rangle$ with $X_S$ containing only soft Goldstone bosons. As an application we discuss in Sec. 4 the semileptonic and rare radiative decays $B\to M_n \pi_S \ell\bar\nu$ and $B\to M_n \pi_S \ell^+\ell^-$.
2\. *Symmetry relations.* The most general SCET$_{I}$ operator appearing in the matching of SM currents $\bar q\Gamma b$ for $b\to u\ell\bar \nu$ or $b\to s\gamma$ decays has the form (we neglect here light quark masses, which can be included as in [@masses]) $$\begin{aligned}
{\nonumber}J^{\rm eff}_\mu &=&
c_1(\omega)\, \bar q_{n,\omega} \gamma^\perp_\mu P_L\, b_v\\
&& +\,
[c_2(\omega) v_\mu + c_3(\omega) n_\mu ]\,\, \bar q_{n,\omega} P_R\, b_v \\
\label{JeffSCET}
&+& b_{1L}(\omega_i)\, J^{(1L)}_{\mu}(\omega_i)
+ b_{1R}(\omega_i)\, J^{(1R)}_\mu(\omega_i) {\nonumber}\\
&& + \, [b_{1v}(\omega_i) v_\mu + b_{1n}(\omega_i) n_\mu ]\,\, J^{(10)}(\omega_i) {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ These are the most general operators allowed by power counting and which contain a left-handed collinear quark. We neglect $O(\lambda)$ operators of the form $\bar q_n {\cal P}_\perp^\dagger \Gamma b_v$ which do not contribute below. The relevant modes are soft quarks and gluons with momenta $k_s \sim \Lambda$ and collinear quarks and gluons moving along $n$. $n_\mu,\bar n_\mu$ are unit light-cone vectors satisfying $n^2 = \bar n^2 = 0, n\cdot \bar n = 2$.
The $O(\lambda)$ operators are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
J^{(1L,1R)}_\mu(\omega_1,\omega_2) &=& \bar q_{n,\omega_1}\,
\Gamma^{(1L,1R)}_{\mu\alpha}
\Big[\frac1{\bar n\cdot {\cal P}} ig {\cal B}^\alpha_{\perp n}\Big]_{\omega_2}
b_v , {\nonumber}\\
J^{(10)}(\omega_1,\omega_2) &=& \bar q_{n,\omega_1}\,
\Big[\frac1{\bar n\cdot {\cal P}} ig {{\cal B}\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}^\perp_n\Big]_{\omega_2}
P_L\, b_v , \end{aligned}$$ with $\{\Gamma^{(1L)}_{\mu\alpha}\,, \Gamma^{(1R)}_{\mu\alpha}\} =
\{\gamma^\perp_\mu \gamma^\perp_\alpha P_R\,, \gamma^\perp_\alpha \gamma^\perp_\mu P_R\}$. The action of the collinear derivative $i\partial_\mu$ on collinear fields is given by the momentum label operator ${\cal P}_\mu = \frac12 n_\mu \bar n\cdot {\cal P} + {\cal P}^\perp_\mu$. The collinear gluon field tensor is $ig {\cal B}_\mu = W^\dagger
[\bar n\cdot iD_c, iD_{c\mu}^\perp] W$. The Wilson coefficients $c_i,b_i$ depend on the Dirac structure of the QCD current $\Gamma$ and are presently known to next-to-leading order in matching [@Bauer:2000ew; @oneloop1; @oneloop2].
After matching onto SCET$_{\rm II}$, the effective current (\[JeffSCET\]) contains the factorizable operators $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fact2}
&& J_\mu^{\rm fact} = -\frac{1}{2\omega}
\int dx dz dk_+ b_{1L}(x,z) J_\perp(x,z,k_+) \\
&&\qquad\qquad \times
((\bar qY)_{k_+} \nslash \gamma^\perp_\mu \gamma_\perp^\lambda P_R (Y^\dagger b_v))
(\bar q_{n,\omega_1}
\frac{\bnslash}{2} \gamma_\perp^\lambda q_{n,\omega_2}) {\nonumber}\\
&&
- \frac{1}{2\omega}
\int dx dz dk_+ b_{1R}(x,z) J_\parallel(x,z,k_+) {\nonumber}\\
&&\qquad\qquad \times
((\bar qY)_{k_+} \nslash \gamma^\perp_\mu P_R (Y^\dagger b_v))(\bar q_{n,\omega_1}
\frac{\bnslash}{2} P_L q_{n,\omega_2}) {\nonumber}\\
&&
- \frac{1}{\omega}
\int dx dz dk_+ [b_{1v}(x,z) v_\mu + b_{1n}(x,z) n_\mu)]{\nonumber}\\
&& \qquad \times J_\parallel(x,z,k_+)
((\bar qY)_{k_+} \nslash P_L (Y^\dagger b_v))(\bar s_{n,\omega_1}
\frac{\bnslash}{2} P_L q_{n,\omega_2}) {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $J_{\perp,\parallel}$ are jet functions defined as in [@bprs]. We denoted here $\omega_1 = x\omega, \omega_2 = -\omega (1-x),
\omega = \omega_1 - \omega_2$. This has the factorized form of Eq. (\[fact\]), with the Wilson coefficient $T$ given by $b_i \otimes J_{\parallel,\perp}$.
-------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- --------------
constraints parameters \# of indep.
parameters
QCD – $H^{V-A}_{\pm,L,0}\,,H^{T}_{\pm,L}$ 7
SCET $H^{V-A}_\lambda \propto H^{T}_\lambda\,, H_0\propto H_t$ $\zeta_{\perp,0}\,, S^{(L,R)}$ 2 + 2
1-body $H_+^{V-A} \,, H_+^T \sim O(\frac{\Lambda}{m_b})\,, $ $\zeta_{\perp,0}\,, S^{(0)}$ 2 + 1
-------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- --------------
: \[table\] Counting the independent hadronic parameters required for a general $B\to M_n X_S$ decays in QCD, SCET and for a 1-body hadronic state $X_S=0$.
The nonfactorizable operator $O_{\rm nf}$ in Eq. (\[fact\]) arises from matching the LO SCET$_{I}$ operators onto SCET$_{II}$ [@bpsff]. The precise form of the latter operators is not essential for our argument, which depends only on the Dirac structure of the SCET$_{I}$ operators. Before proceeding to write down the SCET predictions for these matrix elements, we define more precisely the kinematics of the process.
The transition $B\to M_n X_S$ induced by the current $J_\mu = \bar q\Gamma_\mu b$ can be parameterized in QCD in terms of 4 helicity amplitudes defined as $$\begin{aligned}
H_\lambda^{(\Gamma)}(M_n,X_S) = \langle M_n X_S|\bar q \Gamma_\mu \varepsilon^{*\mu}_\lambda
b| B\rangle\end{aligned}$$ with $\varepsilon_{\pm, 0, t}^\mu$ a set of four orthogonal unit vectors defined in the rest frame of $v$ as $\varepsilon_\pm^\mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt2}(0,1,\mp i,0)\,, \varepsilon_0^\mu =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2}}
(|\vec q|,0,0,q_0)\,, \varepsilon_t^\mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2}} (q_0, 0, 0, |\vec q|)$. These definitions correspond to the choice $n=(1,0,0,1)$, $\bar n = (1,0,0,-1)$.
In the language of helicity amplitudes, the most general matrix elements of the nonfactorizable operators are given in terms of the 2 parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zeta}
&&
\langle M_n X_S|\bar q_{n,\omega} {\varepsilon\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}_-^* P_L b_v|\bar B\rangle =
2E_M \zeta_\perp(E_M,X_S)\\
&& \langle M_n X_S|\bar q_{n,\omega} P_R b_v|\bar B\rangle = 2E_M \zeta_0(E_M,X_S)
{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ $\zeta_{\perp,0}(E_M,X_S)$ are complex quantities depending on the momenta, spins and flavor of the particles in the final state.
The relations Eq. (\[zeta\]) imply several types of SCET predictions for the nonfactorizable contributions to the helicity amplitudes. The most important one is the vanishing of the right-handed (nonfactorizable) helicity amplitudes at leading order in $1/m_b$, for any current $\Gamma$ coupling only to left chiral collinear quarks $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hel0}
H_+^{\rm nf}(\bar B \to M_n X_S) = 0\,.
$$ For decays to one-body states, this constraint leads to the well-known large energy form factor relations $m_B/(m_B+m_V) V(E)= (m_B+m_V)/(2E) A_1(E)$ (for $\Gamma_{V-A} = \gamma_\mu P_L$) and $T_1(E) = m_B/(2E) T_2(E)$ (for $\Gamma_T = i\sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu P_R$) [@ffrel; @ps1; @oneloop2]. The argument above extends this result to hadrons of arbitrary spin and multibody states $M_n X_S$.
Another prediction is a relation between the time-like and longitudinal nonfactorizable contributions to the helicity amplitudes for an arbitrary current $\Gamma$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hel0t}
\frac{H^{\rm nf}_t(B\to M_n X_S)}{H^{\rm nf}_0(B\to M_n X_S)} &=&
\frac{c_2 (v\cdot \varepsilon_t^*) + c_3 (n\cdot \varepsilon_t^*)}
{c_2 (v\cdot \varepsilon_0^*) + c_3 (n\cdot \varepsilon_0^*)}\\
&+& O(\frac{{\Lambda_{QCD}}}{m_b})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Finally, SCET predicts also the ratio of helicity amplitudes mediated by different currents, into any state $M_n X_S$ containing one energetic collinear particle, e.g. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HVA}
&& \frac{H_-^{V-A}(B\to M_n X_S)}{H_-^{T}(B\to M_n X_S)} =
\frac{c_1^{(V-A)}(E_M)}{c_1^{(T)}(E_M)}\\
&& \hspace{3cm} + O(\frac{{\Lambda_{QCD}}}{m_b}) \nonumber \\
&& \frac{H_0^{V-A}(B\to M_n X_S)}{H_0^{T}(B\to M_n X_S)} = \\
&&\quad \frac{c_2^{(V-A)} (v\cdot \varepsilon_0^*) + c_3^{(V-A)} (n\cdot \varepsilon_0^*)}
{c_2^{(T)} (v\cdot \varepsilon_0^*) + c_3^{(T)} (n\cdot \varepsilon_0^*)}
+ O(\frac{{\Lambda_{QCD}}}{m_b}){\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ These relations are in general broken by the factorizable contributions from Eq. (\[fact2\]). For example, the helicity zeros (\[hel0\]) could disappear if the $b_{1R}$ term gives a nonvanishing contribution (note that the $b_{1R(L)}$ term in Eq. (\[fact2\]) contributes only to the $H_{+(-)}$ helicity amplitude). For a 1-body state, this is forbidden by angular momentum conservation since the collinear part of the operator can only produce a longitudinally polarized meson. [*However, this constraint does not apply for multibody final states $M_n X_S$*]{} (except in channels of well defined $J^P$ quantum numbers). In particular, this means that the helicity zero Eq. (\[hel0\]) receives corrections at leading order in $1/m_b$. These corrections are computed in Sec. 4. The factorizable corrections to these relations are parameterized in terms of the soft functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Smu}
&&S^{(R)}(k_+,S_X) = \langle X_S|
(\bar q Y)_{k_+} \nslash {\varepsilon\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}_+^* P_R (Y^\dagger b_v) |\bar B\rangle\\
&&S^{(L)}_{\lambda}(k_+,S_X) = \langle X_S|
(\bar q Y)_{k_+} \nslash {\varepsilon\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}_-^* \gamma^\perp_\lambda P_R
(Y^\dagger b_v)|\bar B\rangle{\nonumber}\\
&& \hspace{3cm} \equiv - \frac12 S^{(L)}(k_+, X_S) \varepsilon_+^\lambda
{\nonumber}\\
&&S^{(0)}(k_+,S_X) = \langle X_S|
(\bar q Y)_{k_+} \nslash P_L
(Y^\dagger b_v)|\bar B\rangle{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Parity invariance of the strong interactions gives one relation among these functions in channels with $X_S^{J\Pi}$ of well-defined spin $J$ and intrinsic parity $(-)^\Pi$ $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(L)}(k_+, S_X^{J\Pi}) &=& \langle X_S^{J\Pi}|
(\bar q Y)_{k_+} \nslash P_R (Y^\dagger b_v)|\bar B\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&=& (-)^{J+\Pi-1} S^{(0)}(k_+, \hat R_\pi \hat P S_X^{J\Pi})\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat P$ is the parity operator and $\hat R_\pi$ the rotation operator by $180^\circ$ around the $y$ axis.
Compared with the decays into one-body hadronic states, for which only the soft function $S^{(0)}$ is required, this represents an increase in the number of independent parameters. However, the total number is still less than in QCD (see Table 1), such that predictive power is retained. In the next section we construct a chiral formalism which can be used to compute these matrix elements for any state $X_S$ containing only soft pions.
3\. *Chiral formalism.* We construct here the representation of the soft operator $O_S$ giving the soft functions in (\[Smu\]) in the low energy chiral theory. Since we are interested in B decays, the appropriate tool is the heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory developed in Refs. [@hhchpt]. The main result is that the matrix elements of $O_S$ depend only on the B meson light cone wave function.
The effective Lagrangian that describes the low momentum interactions of the $B$ mesons with the pseudo-Goldstone bosons $\pi, K$ and $\eta$ is invariant under chiral $SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R$ symmetry and under heavy quark spin symmetry. This requires the introduction of the heavy quark doublet $(B, B^*)$ as the relevant matter field. The chiral Lagrangian for matter fields such as the $B^{(*)}$ must be written in terms of velocity dependent fields, to preserve the validity of the chiral expansion.
The chiral effective Lagrangian describing the ground state mesons containing a heavy quark $Q$ is [@hhchpt] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lag}
{\cal L} &=& {f^2 \over 8}Tr
\left( \partial^{\mu} \Sigma
\partial_{\mu} \Sigma^\dagger \right)
+\lambda_0 Tr\ \left[ m_q \Sigma + m_q \Sigma^\dagger \right]\\
& &
-i Tr \bar H^{(Q)a} v_{\mu} \partial^{\mu} H_a^{(Q)} \nonumber \\
& &+{i \over 2} Tr \bar H^{(Q)a} H_b^{(Q)} v^{\mu} \left[ \xi^\dagger
\partial_{\mu} \xi + \xi \partial_{\mu} \xi^\dagger \right]_{ba} \nonumber\\
& &+{{ig} \over 2} Tr \bar H^{(Q)a} H_b^{(Q)} \gamma_{\nu} \gamma_5
\left[\xi^\dagger \partial^{\nu} \xi - \xi \partial^{\nu}
\xi^\dagger \right]_{ba} + \cdots \nonumber
$$ where the ellipsis denote light quark mass terms, $O(1/m_b)$ operators associated with the breaking of heavy quark spin symmetry, and terms of higher order in the derivative expansion. The pseudoscalar and vector heavy meson fields $P_a^{(Q)}$ and $P^{*(Q)}_{a\mu}$ form the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
H_a^{(Q)} = \frac{1+{v\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}}{2} \left[ P^{*(Q)}_{a \mu} \gamma^{\mu}
- P_a^{(Q)} \gamma_5 \right]. \end{aligned}$$ For $Q=b$, $(P_1^{(b)},P_2^{(b)},P_3^{(b)})=
(B^-, \bar B^0, \bar B_s)$, and similarly for $P^{*(b)}_{a\mu}$. The field $H^{(Q)}_a$ transforms as a $\bar 3$ under flavor $SU(3)_V$, $$\begin{aligned}
H^{(Q)}_a \rightarrow H^{(Q)}_b \ U^\dagger_{ba} .\end{aligned}$$ and describes $\bar B$ and $\bar B^*$ mesons with definite velocity $v$. For simplicity of notation we will omit the subscript $v$ on $H$, $P$ and $P^*_\mu$. The pseudo-Goldstone bosons appear in the Lagrangian through $\xi = e^{iM/f}$ ($\Sigma=\xi^2$) where $$\begin{aligned}
M = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
{1\over\sqrt2}\pi^0 +
{1\over\sqrt6}\eta &
\pi^+ & K^+ \\
\pi^-& -{1\over\sqrt2}\pi^0 + {1\over\sqrt6}\eta&K^0 \\
K^- &\bar K^0 &- {2\over\sqrt6}\eta \\
\end{array}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ and the pion decay constant $f \simeq 135$ MeV. These fields transform as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma \to L \Sigma R^\dagger\,,\qquad \xi \to L \xi U^\dagger = U \xi R^\dagger\end{aligned}$$ The Lagrangian Eq. (\[Lag\]) is the most general Lagrangian invariant under both the heavy quark and chiral symmetries to leading order in $m_q$ and $1/m_Q$.
The symmetries of the theory constrain also the form of operators such as currents. For example, the left handed current $L^{\nu}_a = \bar q_a \gamma^\nu P_L Q$ in QCD can be written in the low energy chiral theory as [@hhchpt] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{JL}
L^{\nu}_a = \frac{i \alpha}{2}
\mbox{Tr} [\gamma^\nu P_L H_b^{(Q)} \xi^\dagger_{ba}] + ...,\end{aligned}$$ where the ellipsis denote higher dimension operators in the chiral and heavy quark expansions. The parameter $\alpha$ is obtained by taking the vacuum to B matrix element of the current, which gives $\alpha=f_B\sqrt{m_B}$ (we use a nonrelativistic normalization for the $|B^{(*)}\rangle$ states as in [@hhchpt]).
In the SCET we require also the matrix elements of nonlocal operators $O_S$, which appear in Eq. (\[fact\]). To leading order in $1/m_b$ these operators are quark bilinears $$\begin{aligned}
& &O^a_{L,R}(k_+) = \\
& &\quad \int \frac{d x_-}{4\pi} e^{-\frac{i}{2} k_+ x_-}
\bar q^a(x_-) Y_n(x_-,0) P_{R,L} \Gamma b_v(0)\,.{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Under the chiral group they transform as $(\mathbf{\overline{3}}_L, \mathbf{1}_R)$ and $(\mathbf{1}_L, \mathbf{\overline{3}}_R)$. In analogy with the local current (\[JL\]) we write for $O^a_{L,R}(k_+)$ in the chiral theory $$\begin{aligned}
\label{JOL}
&& O^a_{L}(k_+) = \frac{i}{4}
\mbox{Tr} [\hat \alpha_L(k_+) P_R\Gamma H_b^{(Q)} \xi^{\dagger }_{ba}],\\
\label{JOR}
&& O^a_{R}(k_+) = \frac{i}{4}
\mbox{Tr} [\hat \alpha_R(k_+) P_L\Gamma H_b^{(Q)} \xi_{ba}]\end{aligned}$$ where the most general form for $\hat \alpha_{L,R}(k_+)$ depends on eight unknown functions $a_i(k_+)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \alpha_{L,R}(k_+) = a_{1L,R} + a_{2L,R} \nslash + a_{3L,R} {v\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}+
\frac12 a_{4L,R} [\nslash, {v\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}]\end{aligned}$$ The heavy quark symmetry constraint $H^{(Q)} {v\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}= - H^{(Q)}$ reduces the number of these functions to four. Taking the vacuum to B meson matrix element fixes the remaining functions as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{alpha}
\hat\alpha_L(k_+) =\hat\alpha_R(k_+) = f_B \sqrt{m_B} [\bnslash \phi_+(k_+) +
\nslash \phi_-(k_+)]\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_\pm(k_+)$ are the usual light-cone wave functions of a B meson, defined by [@wv] $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int \frac{dz_- }{4\pi} e^{-\frac{i}{2} k_+ z_-}
\langle 0 | \bar q_i(z_-)Y_n(z_-,0) b_v^j(0)|\bar B(v)\rangle = \\
&& -\frac{i}{4}f_B \sqrt{m_B} \left\{
\frac{1+{v\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}}{2} [\bnslash n\cdot v \phi_+(k_+) +
\nslash \bn\cdot v \phi_-(k_+) ]\gamma_5 \right\}_{ij} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We find thus the remarkable result that the B meson light-cone wave functions are sufficient to fix the pion matrix elements of the nonlocal operators $O_{L,R}^a(k_+)$.
The same result can be obtained also by considering only local operators. Let us consider the operator $O_L^a(k_+)$ (the same results are obtained for $O_R^a(k_+)$). Expanding in a power series of the distance along the light cone one is led to consider the matrix elements of the operator symmetric and traceless in its indices $$\begin{aligned}
\label{On}
O_{L}^{a,\mu_1\mu_2\cdots \mu_N} &=& \bar q^a (-i {\overleftarrow D})^{\{ \mu_1}
\cdots (-i {\overleftarrow D})^{\mu_N \}} P_{R} \Gamma b_v\, \\
& & - (\mbox{traces}){\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Heavy quark and chiral symmetry constrain the chiral effective representation of this operator to be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
O_{L}^{a,\mu_1\mu_2\cdots \mu_N} =
\frac{i}{4}
\mbox{Tr} [\sum_j \alpha_{N,j} X_j^{\mu_1\mu_2\cdots \mu_N} P_R\Gamma H_b^{(Q)} \xi^{\dagger }_{ba}],\end{aligned}$$ where the sum over $j$ includes the most general symmetric and traceless structures $X$ formed from $\gamma_\mu, v_\mu, g_{\mu\nu}$. There are many such structures, but only 2 of them survive when contracted with $n_{\mu_1}\cdots n_{\mu_N}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& X_0^{\mu_1\mu_2\cdots \mu_N} = v^{\mu_1}v^{\mu_2} \cdots v^{\mu_N} -
(g^{\mu_i \mu_j}\mbox{-terms}) \\
&& X_1^{\mu_1\mu_2\cdots \mu_N} = \gamma^{\{\mu_1}v^{\mu_2} \cdots v^{\mu_N\}}
- (g^{\mu_i \mu_j}\mbox{-terms}){\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ This gives the chiral representation of the projection of the operators (\[On\]) on the light-cone $$\begin{aligned}
&& \bar q^a (-i n\cdot {\overleftarrow D})^N P_{R} \Gamma b_v \\
&& \qquad \to
\frac{i}{4}
\mbox{Tr} [(\alpha_{N,0} + \nslash \alpha_{N,1})
P_R\Gamma H_b^{(Q)} \xi^{\dagger }_{ba}],{\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ which makes it clear that the constants $\alpha_{N,0}, \alpha_{N,1}$ are uniquely fixed in terms of the $B\to $ vacuum matrix elements of the operators (\[On\]). Assuming that the B light-cone wave functions are well behaved at large $k_+$, these matrix elements are related to the moments of $\phi_\pm(k_+)$. Specifically, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{N,0} &=& -2f_B \sqrt{m_B}
\int \mbox{d} k_+ (k_+)^N \phi_+(k_+)\,.
$$ In particular, for $N=1$ this gives $\alpha_{1,0}=-\frac83 f_B \sqrt{m_B} \bar\Lambda$, which agrees with Ref. [@GrPi].
Beyond leading order in $1/m_b$ many more operators can be written. For example, the matrix elements of $O_L^a$ with one insertion of the chromomagnetic term in the HQET Lagrangian ${\cal L}_m = g\bar b_v \sigma_{\mu\nu} G^{\mu\nu} b_v$ gives structures of the form $$\begin{aligned}
T\{O_L^a, i{\cal L}_m\}\to \mbox{Tr}[X^{\mu\nu}
P_R \Gamma \frac{1+{v\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}}{2}i\sigma_{\mu\nu} H_b^{(Q)} \xi^\dagger_{ba} ]\end{aligned}$$ with $X^{\mu\nu} = \beta_1 [n^\mu, \gamma^\nu] + \beta_2 i\sigma^{\mu\nu} +
\nslash \beta_3 [n^\mu, \gamma^\nu] + \beta_4 \nslash i\sigma^{\mu\nu} $. The proliferation of unknown constants (see also [@GrBo]) spoils the simple leading order result that knowledge of the $B\to$ vacuum matrix element is sufficient to fix all low energy constants.
The operators in Eqs. (\[JOL\]), (\[JOR\]) (together with (\[alpha\])) give the desired representation of the soft operators $O_{L,R}$ in the chiral effective theory, and can be used to compute their matrix elements on states with a $B$ meson and any number of pseudo Goldstone bosons.
![\[fig1\] Feynman diagrams for $\bar B \to M_n \pi $. The filled circle denotes one insertion of the soft operator $O_S$. The collinear hadron $M_n$ is not shown.](B2KSpi0.eps){height="1.5cm"}
4\. *Application: $\bar B\to M_n \pi\ell\bar\nu$ and $\bar B\to M_n \pi\ell^+\ell^-$.* As an application we compute the factorizable corrections to the symmetry relations (\[hel0\]), (\[HVA\]) for the transverse helicity amplitudes in $\bar B\to M_n \pi\ell\bar\nu$ in the region of the phase space with one energetic meson $M_n = \pi, \rho, K^*,$ etc. plus one soft pion.
The factorizable contribution to the transverse helicity amplitudes for $B\to M_n \pi$ are given by the matrix elements of Eq. (\[fact2\]). Specifically, one has for $M_n$ a pseudoscalar meson $$\begin{aligned}
\label{amp1P}
&& H^{\rm fact}_{+}(\bar B\to P_n(k) X_S) = \\
&& \hspace{2cm} C \frac18 f_B f_P m_B S_{R}(X_S)
\langle b_{1R} J_\parallel \phi_P \rangle {\nonumber}\\
\label{H-2P}
&& H^{\rm fact}_{-}(\bar B\to P_n(k) X_S) = 0\end{aligned}$$ and for $M_n$ a vector meson $$\begin{aligned}
\label{amp1}
&& H^{\rm fact}_{+}(\bar B\to V_n(k,\eta) X_S) = \\
&& \qquad C \frac{f_B f_V m_B m_V}{8\bar n\cdot p_V} S_{R}(X_S) (\bn\cdot \eta^*)
\langle b_{1R} J_\parallel \phi_V^\parallel \rangle {\nonumber}\\
\label{H-2}
&& H^{\rm fact}_{-}(\bar B\to V_n(k,\eta) X_S) = \\
&& \qquad -\frac14 C f_B f_V^\perp m_B
S_{L}(X_S) (\varepsilon_-^*\cdot \eta^*)
\langle b_{1L} J_\perp \phi^\perp_V \rangle {\nonumber}$$ We used here the short notation $\langle b_i J_a \phi^a \rangle =
\int dx dz dk_+ b_i(x,z) J_a(x,z,k_+) \phi_+(k_+)
\phi^a(x)$. The isospin factor $C$ depends on the collinear meson, e.g. $C(\rho^0)=1/\sqrt2,
C(\rho^\pm) = 1$. The corresponding results for the 1-body factorizable decay amplitudes are obtained from these expressions by taking $S_R \to 0\,, S_L \to 1$.
Inspection of the results (\[amp1P\])-(\[H-2\]) gives the following conclusions, valid to all orders in $\alpha_s$.
i\) The null result in Eq. (\[H-2P\]) means that the symmetry relation (\[HVA\]) for $\bar B\to P_n X_S$ transitions is not broken by factorizable corrections and [*is thus exact to leading order in $1/m_b$*]{}. This leads, [*e.g.,*]{} to a relation between $\bar B\to
(\bar K_n\pi_S)_{h=-1} e^+e^-$ and $\bar B\to (\pi_n \pi_S )_{h=-1} e^-\bar\nu$.
ii\) The vanishing of the $H_{+}$ nonfactorizable helicity amplitudes in $\bar B$ decay Eq. (\[hel0\]) is violated by the factorizable terms Eqs. (\[amp1P\]), (\[amp1\]). These terms are however calculable in chiral perturbation theory for $X_S$ containing only soft pions. For both $M_n = P,V$, the pion carries $m_3=+1$ angular momentum; the $V_n$ collinear meson is emitted longitudinally polarized.
The soft functions $S_{R,L}(p_\pi)$ in Eq. (\[amp1P\]), (\[H-2\]) can be computed explicitly in terms of the chiral perturbation theory diagrams in Fig. 1. We find $$\begin{aligned}
&& S_R(p_\pi) = \frac{g}{f_\pi}
\frac{\varepsilon_+^*\cdot p_\pi}{v\cdot p_\pi + \Delta - i\Gamma_{B^*}/2} \\
\label{SLchpt}
&& S_L(p_\pi) = \frac{1}{f_\pi}\left(
1 - g \frac{e_3 \cdot p_\pi}
{v\cdot p_\pi + \Delta - i\Gamma_{B^*}/2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta = m_{B^*} - m_B \simeq 50$ MeV and $\Gamma_{B^*}$ the width of the $B^*$ meson. While the soft matrix elements in Eq. (\[Smu\]) have a factorized form $S^{(i)}(k_+,S_X) = \phi_+(k_+) S_i(S_X)$, the total factorizable amplitude is not simply the product $B\to B^*\pi$ times $B^*\to M_n$, due to the direct graph in Fig. 1a (nonvanishing only for $S_L$). At threshold, the relation Eq. (\[SLchpt\]) gives a soft pion theorem which fixes the soft function in $B\to M_n \pi$ in terms of the factorizable contribution to the $B\to M_n $ transition. Note that the $B^*$ width in the propagator is a source of strong phases at leading order in $1/m_b$. These results can be extended to final states containing multiple soft pions, without introducing any new unknown hadronic parameters.
5\. *Conclusions.* We presented in this paper the application of the soft-collinear effective theory to B decays into multibody final states, containing one energetic meson plus soft pseudo Goldstone bosons. The additional ingredient is the application of heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory [@hhchpt] to compute the matrix elements with Goldstone bosons of the nonlocal soft operators obtained after factorization. (This assumes that the only SCET operators contributing to these decays are the same as those describing $B\to M_n$ transitions [@bpsff].) Heavy quark and chiral symmetry are powerful constraints which fix all these couplings in terms of the usual B light-cone wave functions. This simplicity should be contrasted with the case of the twist-2 DIS and DVCS operators, whose matrix elements on nucleons plus soft pions require additional couplings not constrained by the nucleon structure functions [@ChSa].
Some of the symmetry predictions of SCET rely on angular momentum conservation arguments which are invalidated when the final hadronic state contains more than one hadron (see Eq. (\[hel0\])), already at leading order in the $1/m_b$ expansion. The chiral formalism presented here allows the systematic computation of these effects. We point out the existence of an exact relation Eq. (\[HVA\]) among left-handed helicity amplitudes in $\bar B\to P_n X_S$ transitions induced by different $b\to q_n$ currents.
These results extend the applicability of SCET to B decays into multibody states $M_n X_S$ containing one energetic particle. It is interesting to note that the corrections to these predictions scale like $\mbox{max}(\Lambda/E_M\,, p_S/\Lambda_{\chi pT})$, rather than $m_X/E_M$. This suggests that the range of validity of factorization in these decays might be wider than previously thought, a fact noted empirically in Refs. [@DX] in the context of the $B\to DX$ decays. Many more problems can be studied using the formalism described here, e.g., the leading SU(3) violating contributions to the factorizable contributions, analogous to the effects considered in Ref. [@parton1; @fB].
We are grateful to Martin Savage for useful discussions. B.G. was supported in part by the DOE under Grant DE-FG03-97ER40546. D.P. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement DOE-FC02-94ER40818.
[99]{}
C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 014006 (2001) C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 114020 (2001) C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B [**516**]{}, 134 (2001) C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 054022 (2002) J. W. Chen and X. d. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 152002 (2001) \[Erratum-ibid. [**88**]{}, 249901 (2002)\]. J. W. Chen and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 202001 (2004). J. W. Chen and M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A [**735**]{}, 441 (2004).
C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 071502 (2003)
T. Becher, R. J. Hill and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 054017 (2004). M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B [**685**]{}, 249 (2004); B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B [**690**]{}, 249 (2004). J. g. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 034013 (2003). B. Grinstein, Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti and D. Pirjol, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 011504 (2005).
J. g. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 071502 (2003); J. Chay and C. Kim, Nucl. Phys. B [**680**]{}, 302 (2004)
C. W. Bauer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 054015 (2004). D. Atwood, T. Gershon, M. Hazumi and A. Soni, arXiv:hep-ph/0410036; D. Atwood, T. Gershon, M. Hazumi and A. Soni, arXiv:hep-ph/0410036. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[BABAR Collaboration\], arXiv:hep-ex/0408032; A. Bondar \[Belle Collaboration\], arXiv:hep-ex/0411004. J. Charles [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 014001 (1999); G. Burdman and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 113008 (2001). A. K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**564**]{}, 231 (2003) D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 094005 (2003) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**69**]{}, 019903 (2004)\]; D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, eConf [**C030603**]{}, MEC04 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0309053\].
M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo and D. s. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B [**692**]{}, 232 (2004); R. J. Hill [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**0407**]{}, 081 (2004); T. Becher and R. J. Hill, JHEP [**0410**]{}, 055 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0408344\].
A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 272 (1997); M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B [**592**]{}, 3 (2001) H. Kawamura [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**523**]{}, 111 (2001) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**536**]{}, 344 (2002)\]. M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 2188 (1992); G. Burdman and J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Lett. B [**280**]{}, 287 (1992); T. M. Yan [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 1148 (1992) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**55**]{}, 5851 (1997)\]. B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol, Phys. Lett. B [**533**]{}, 8 (2002).
Z. Ligeti, M. E. Luke and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**507**]{}, 142 (2001) C. W. Bauer, B. Grinstein, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 014010 (2003) C. G. Boyd and B. Grinstein, Nucl. Phys. B [**442**]{}, 205 (1995). B. Grinstein [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**380**]{}, 369 (1992).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Differentiable image sampling in the form of backward warping has seen broad adoption in tasks like depth estimation and optical flow prediction. In contrast, how to perform forward warping has seen less attention, partly due to additional challenges such as resolving the conflict of mapping multiple pixels to the same target location in a differentiable way. We propose softmax splatting to address this paradigm shift and show its effectiveness on the application of frame interpolation. Specifically, given two input frames, we forward-warp the frames and their feature pyramid representations based on an optical flow estimate using softmax splatting. In doing so, the softmax splatting seamlessly handles cases where multiple source pixels map to the same target location. We then use a synthesis network to predict the interpolation result from the warped representations. Our softmax splatting allows us to not only interpolate frames at an arbitrary time but also to fine tune the feature pyramid and the optical flow. We show that our synthesis approach, empowered by softmax splatting, achieves new state-of-the-art results for video frame interpolation.'
author:
- |
Simon Niklaus\
Portland State University\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Feng Liu\
Portland State University\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Softmax Splatting for Video Frame Interpolation
---
@addto@macromaketitle
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
SepConv - $\mathcal{L}_F$ [@Niklaus_ICCV_2017] ToFlow [@Xue_IJCV_2019] CyclicGen [@Liu_AAAI_2019] CtxSyn - $\mathcal{L}_F$ [@Niklaus_CVPR_2018] DAIN [@Bao_CVPR_2019] Ours - $\mathcal{L}_F$
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
\[fig:teaser\]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Softmax Splatting for Frame Interpolation {#sec:method}
=========================================
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we presented softmax splatting for differentiable forward warping and demonstrated its effectiveness on the application of frame interpolation. The key research question that softmax splatting addresses is how to handle cases where different source pixels forward-warp to the same target location in a differentiable way. Further, we show that feature pyramids can successfully be employed for high-quality image synthesis, which is an aspect of feature pyramids that has not been explored yet. Our proposed frame interpolation pipeline, which is enabled by softmax splatting and conceptually simple, compares favorably in benchmarks and achieves new state-of-the-art results.
**Acknowledgments.** We are grateful for the feedback from Long Mai and Jon Barron, this paper would not exist without their support. All source image footage shown throughout this paper originates from the DAVIS challenge.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the diffusion of cosmic rays into molecular cloud complexes. Using the cosmic-ray diffusion formalism of Protheroe, et al. (2008), we examine how cosmic rays diffuse into clouds exhibiting different density structures, including a smoothed step-function, as well as Gaussian and inverse-$r$ density distributions, which are well known to trace the structure of star-forming regions. These density distributions were modelled as an approximation to the Galactic centre cloud , a recently-discovered massive dust clump that exhibits limited signs of massive star formation and thus may be the best region in the Galaxy to observe synchrotron emission from secondary electrons and positrons. Examination of the resulting synchrotron emission, produced by the interaction of cosmic ray protons interacting with ambient molecular matter producing secondary electrons and positrons reveals that, due to projection effects, limb-brightened morphology results in all cases. However, we find that the Gaussian and inverse-$r$ density distributions show much broader flux density distributions than step-function distributions. Significantly, some of the compact (compared to the $2.2''''$ resolution, 5.3 GHz JVLA observations) sources show non-thermal emission, which may potentially be explained by the density structure and the lack of diffusion of cosmic rays into the cloud. We find that we can match the 5.3 and 20 GHz flux densities of the non-thermal source JVLA 1 and 6 from Rodr[í]{}guez & Zapata (2014) with a local cosmic ray flux density, a diffusion coefficient suppression factor of $\chi=0.1-0.01$ for a coefficient of $3\times10^{27}$ , and a magnetic field strength of 470 .'
author:
- 'Jones, D. I.'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Prospects for Detection of Synchrotron Emission from Secondary Electrons and Positrons in Starless Cores: Application to '
---
Introduction
============
The question of the penetration of cosmic rays (CRs) into molecular clouds and any resulting emission is an important question in high-energy astrophysics. @Gabici2007 considered CR diffusion (and resulting CR proton interactions) into a typical molecular cloud of $n_{\rm{\tiny H}_2}=300$ , $B=10$ and CR diffusion coefficients typical for the Galactic disk. They found that GeV to TeV energy CR protons would indeed penetrate to the centre of such a cloud, and thus clouds should be a target for gamma-ray observations. At GHz radio frequencies, this hypothesis has been tested several times. Firstly, [@Jones2008 hereafter J08] searched two massive, isolated molecular clouds for evidence of synchrotron emission on the basis that the same protons that produce gamma rays (through inelastic $pp$ collisions and subsequent neutral pion decay) will also produce MeV–GeV secondary electrons and positrons[^1] (through the decay of the charged pions produced concomitantly with the neutral pions) that will radiate at GHz frequencies. However, the confusion of any possible non-thermal emission with optically thick and thin thermal emission produced by star-formation processes, made any detection all but impossible. Furthermore, @Protheroe2008 [hereafter P08] and @Jones2011 analysed radio emission from the Sagittarius B2 (Sgr B2) giant molecular cloud for such synchrotron emission because of the enhanced CR flux density thought to be present in the central regions of our Galaxy. The main results of these studies are that the diffusion of CRs are severely limited into dense cores of molecular clouds, and that clouds with a Gaussian density structure (such as suggested by (1,1) studies by @Ott2014) will show a “limb-brightened” morphology. The outcome of these investigations is that it is vital for unambiguous detection of synchrotron emission at GHz frequencies that the target clouds that, whilst being massive ($\gtrsim10^4$ ) and dense ($\gtrsim10^3$ ), also do not show signs of star formation, since the thermal radiation that forming stars quickly produce, will swamp any ability for detection of non-thermal emission. These considerations leave precious few clouds as potential targets. Moreover, as @Ginsburg2012 found no starless, massive dust clumps in the first Galactic quadrant – implying a very short timescale for massive star formation (viz. $\lesssim0.5$ Myr) – the window to observe synchrotron emission from secondary electrons in massive clumps is thus also likely to be short.
The Galactic centre cloud, , was recently shown – at least in terms of massive star, and possibly globular cluster, formation – to be a very important object [@Longmore2012]. Though it was discovered 20 years ago [@Lis1994], it is remarkable for such a massive ($\sim10^5$ ), dense ($\sim2.0\times10^4$ ) clump to exhibit a weak water maser as the sole sign of massive star formation. Given that a radio study of [@Rodriguez2013] at 5.3 and 20.9 GHz with the Karl G. Jansky VLA (JVLA) showed only a small number ($<7$) of dense radio continuum clumps, this suggests that this cloud is the best chance in the Galaxy to observe synchrotron emission from secondary electrons. Some important information about is summarised in Table \[table:comp\]. That three of the sources found by @Rodriguez2013 exhibit non-thermal spectra thus compelled us to model the structure of this cloud in order to investigate whether, given the high mass of the cloud, synchrotron emission from secondary electrons, together with the expected exclusion of the CRs from the dense parts of the cloud, could explain the observed non-thermal emission.
[llll]{} $2\times10^5$ & $2\times10^4$ & & 3\
Predicted Synchrotron Emissivity and CR Diffusion {#sec:model}
=================================================
Synchrotron Emissivity due to Secondary Electrons
-------------------------------------------------
As outlined in , the synchrotron emissivity, $j_\nu$, due to secondary electrons, in units of $erg$ $s^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$, at frequency, $\nu$, is obtained by appropriate integration over the ambient electron number density spectrum: $$\label{eq:synch}
j_\nu({\mathbf r})=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3}{4\pi m_e c^2}\left(\frac{B_\perp}{1\rm{~G}}\right)\int^\infty_{m_e c^2}F(\nu/\nu_c)n(E, {\mathbf r})d E,$$ where $e=4.8\times10^{-10}$ e.s.u. is the charge of the electron and $m_e c^2=8.18\times10^{-7}$ erg, $B_\perp$ is the magnetic field strength in Gauss, and $F(\nu/\nu_c)$ is the first synchrotron function evaluated as a function of the critical frequency; $\nu_c=4.19\times10^6(E/m_e c^2)^2(B_\perp/1{\rm~G})$ Hz. Here, $n(E, {\bf r})dE$ is the ambient spectrum of secondary particles, we have taken the same losses (ionisation, bremsstrahlung and synchrotron) into account as in : $$n(E,{\mathbf r}) = \frac{\int^\infty_Eq_\pm(E,{\mathbf r})dE}{dE/dt},$$ for an appropriate production spectrum of secondary electrons, $q_\pm(E,{\bf r})$, for which we use the spectrum of @Kamae2006, normalised to the proton spectrum found by the PAMELA experiment [@Adriani2011].
{width="50.00000%"}{width="50.00000%"}
Density Distribution of the Cloud {#sec:density}
---------------------------------
As will be shown below, an estimate of the CR distribution within a cloud is critically dependant on how the density structure of the cloud is modelled. showed that the large-scale distribution of molecular material in Sgr B2 can be modelled well by a 2-dimensional Gaussian structure with standard deviation $\sigma=2.75$ pc. On the other hand, as discussed in @Johnston2014, probability density functions (PDFs) of either the volume or column density have been used in an attempt to elucidate the structures of molecular clouds and to investigate the various physical processes contributing to this overall structure. It has been shown that PDFs of active Galactic star forming regions actively forming stars show a power-law tail, in addition to a log-normal PDF (@Johnston2014 and references therein). In virial mass modelling, the density profile is modelled as $\rho({\bf r})\propto r^p$. Studies have shown that the median power for a sample of star-forming regions is $p=-1.8$ [@Mueller2002], similar to the $p=-1.1,-2.0$ models discussed here. However, given that shows no sign of such a power-law tail [@Johnston2014], and that Figure 9 of @Rathborne2014 shows a “centrally condensed” density structure for , we have modelled such a structure using a smoothed step-function with functional form: $$f(r) =\frac{ae^{cr} + be^{dr}}{e^{cd} + e^{dr}}.$$ This function produces a step function from $a$ to $b$ at a value of $c=2.95$ pc, with $d$ controlling the “steepness” of the cutoff, with smaller values giving a sharper cutoff (here, we use the somewhat-arbitrarily chosen $d=6$, though we find that modest changes in $d$ do not significantly effect the overall structure). However, in order to more fully explore the density-structure parameter space, we have also modelled a Gaussian of standard deviation $\sigma=2.95$ pc as well as inverse-$r$ density distributions ($1/r^2$ and $1/r^{1.1}$). We have normalised the step function and inverse-$r$ density distributions to the peak density of $2\times10^4$ obtained by @Rathborne2014.
CR Diffusion into Molecular Clouds {#sec:CRdiff}
----------------------------------
As described in , we treat the diffusion of CRs into a molecular cloud described by the above density profiles as analogous to radiative transfer principle of absorption and scattering, giving a cloud an effective optical depth to CRs. Here the absorption, $\tau_a$ and scattering, $\tau_s$ are: $$\tau_a = \int^R_r0.5[2n_{H_2}(r^{\prime})]\sigma_{pp}dr^{\prime}$$ and $$\tau_s = \int^R_r\frac{c}{3D(E,r^{\prime})}dr^{\prime},$$ where $\sigma_{pp}$ is the proton-proton interaction cross-section, and $D(E)$ is the diffusion coefficient as defined in @Gabici2007: $$D(E) = 3\times10^{27}\chi\left[\frac{E/(1{\rm~GeV})}{B/(3{\rm~}\mu{\rm G})}\right]^{0.5},$$ where $\chi$ is the factor introduced to account for possible suppression of the diffusion of CRs. This changes the CR intensity at radius $r$, $I_{\rm{\tiny CR}}(E,r)$ by the factor $e^{-\tau_\star(E,r)}$, where $\tau_\star=\tau_a(\tau_a + \tau_s)$.
We briefly note that in order that the synchrotron emission from secondaries be observable, the secondary electrons are required to be produced and to decay within the confines of any putative cloud. As was shown in , the diffusion distance for a magnetic field of 600 in a density of $10^4$ is $\sim0.5$ pc, much smaller than the 2.97 pc radius of the cloud. Thus, given that magnetic field strength obtained for is similar, we suggest that it is reasonable to assume that ambient CRs will interact and produce secondaries within the cloud, and not be able to diffuse, or be advected away from the cloud.
Figure \[fig:CRpen\] (a) and (b) shows the penetration factor, $e^{-\tau_\star}$, obtained for the density distributions discussed in Section \[sec:density\] using a peak density of $2\times10^4$ and a magnetic field strength perpendicular to the line of sight, $B_\perp=600$ . The value of $B_\perp=470$ is motivated by the result of @Johnston2014, who found a total magnetic field strength of $B\sim470$ , and, following the arguments of (i.e., $B_\perp=\pi B_{\textrm{\tiny{LOS}}}/2=\pi B/4$, since $\langle B_{\textrm{\tiny{LOS}}}\rangle=B/2$), hence $B_\perp=470$ is a reasonable estimate. These values are well within the range of that known in Galactic centre clouds of 120 to 5.7 mG [@Johnston2014].
The importance of Figures \[fig:CRpen\](a) and (b) are that if the conditions are favourable (i.e., few signs of massive star formation, combined with high magnetic fields, densities and masses), then sensitive radio studies of such cloud can illuminate the structures of the clouds; centrally-condensed clouds will exhibit synchrotron emission close to its centre, whereas clouds at later evolutionary stages – such as evidenced by PDFs with power-law tails and/or inverse-$r$ or Gaussian density profiles – will contain the bulk of the CRs at larger distances from their centres. This gives an important link between the evolutionary stage of the cloud and where CRs, and hence synchrotron emission, should be observed.
From the synchrotron emissivity and by appropriate integration, the angular distribution of flux density is obtained and shown in Figure \[fig:flux\] for a Gaussian and step-function density distribution, in panel (a) and for a $1/r^2$ only (due to them being so similar) density distributions in panel (b). This figure shows the important role that the overall density distribution plays in the expected synchrotron emissivity as a function of distance from the centre of the cloud. Because the step-function density distribution reflects a sharp cloud boundary, whereas Gaussian and inverse-$r$ distributions represent a more gradual decline in the density, any resulting synchrotron emission will be observed closer to the centre of the cloud than is expected for the other density distributions (this is also evidenced in Figure \[fig:CRpen\]). And, given that the density distributions of clouds are known to change throughout their life cycles (e.g., the evolution of a power-law tail of PDFs; @Johnston2014), synchrotron emission may be observed at different distances from a cloud depending on the stage of (massive) star formation that it is at. Thus, for a centrally condensed cloud, such as represented as the step-function density profile shown in Figure \[fig:flux\] (a), we predict detectable synchrotron emission, on mJy/beam levels at $\sim3-4$ pc from the centre of the cloud.
{width="45.00000%"}{width="45.00000%"}
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
Application to
---------------
Figure \[fig:flux\] (a) and (b) shows the flux density (in units of Jy/beam, where the beam is $2.2''$) expected for a cloud with the characteristics of . It is significant then that in their radio continuum study of , @Rodriguez2013 found three compact, thermal sources but also three compact sources that possess a non-thermal spectrum between 5.3 and 20.9 GHz (i.e., sources JVLA 1, 2, 6 and 7 – see their Figure 1). Figure \[fig:flux\] shows that for reasonable magnetic field values, our model can explain the compact, non-thermal sources observed towards , [*assuming that they are related to the clump*]{}, and are not background galaxies. There are, however, good reasons to think that at least two of these non-thermal sources – JVLA 6 and 1 – are indeed associated with , whilst the other two – JVLA 2 and 7 are background sources. Firstly, sources JVLA 2 and 7 are located further away from the centre of the source than JVLA 6 and 1, for which JVLA 6 is located within the blue contours defining the source in Figure 1 of @Rodriguez2013, and JVLA 6 lying (in projection) just exterior to the source at the position of the greatest density gradient of the clump. This fits well with the scenario outlined in the previous section; synchrotron emission located at the edge of the cloud. Secondly, the JVLA 6 and 1 also possess flatter spectral indices (viz. $\alpha=-0.3$ and –0.9 for JLVA source 1 and 6, for a spectral index calculated as $\alpha=d\log S_\nu/d\log\nu$), than JVLA 2 and 7, suggesting that the latter are indeed background sources.
If sources JVLA 1 and 6 are co-located with , Figure \[fig:flux\] suggests that in their environment, the CR diffusion suppression factor is $\sim0.1$ and 0.01, respectively, with a magnetic field value of $\sim470$ . We obtain these estimates by comparing the distance of these sources away from the centre of the source, and matching the flux density observed at 5.3 GHz, with that predicted by our model. This conclusion is entirely reasonable, given the parameters in our model, and may even be an underestimate since given the density of CR sources is expected to rise towards the GC, one might expect an increase in the flux of CRs there. We also note that if the density distribution of a molecular cloud changes as it evolves, then so will the location of synchrotron emission resulting from secondary electrons. If a step-function-like density distribution is typical of molecular clouds that are just starting to form massive stars, then any synchrotron emission would be observed near to the clouds centre, whereas, if an inverse-$r$ function is more typical of the density structure, then any such emission would be located further from the cloud centre. Finally, we note that the above applies only to the overall density of the cloud, and not to fine structures. However, if, as shown in [@Battersby2014], massive star formation results in cores with a mean ambient density structure of $\rho\propto r^{-1.8}$, then the sensitive new radio telescopes, such as JVLA, LOFAR, ASKAP and the SKA should be able to observe non-thermal sources which appear to be background sources shining through the cloud, but may in fact be compact regions of non-thermal synchrotron emission due to secondary electrons due to small, condensed cores within the larger parent cloud. Finally, given the additional sensitivity of the next generation of radio telescopes, it is possible that the broad emission, and not just the limb-brightened regions could be detected.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. We thank the anonymous referee for comments that greatly improved the manuscript. We thank S. Thoudam, C. van Eck, M. Haverkorn, J. Ott for enlightening discussions, and R. Yang and E. Kafexhiu for discussions about the production spectrum of secondary electrons and positrons.
[^1]: Hereafter, for brevity, we refer to any secondaries produced as simply electrons
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The purpose of the present paper is to study the limit cycles of one-parameter perturbed plane Hamiltonian vector field $X_\varepsilon$ $$X_\varepsilon : \left\{
\begin{array}{llr}
\dot{x}=\;\; H_y+\varepsilon f(x,y)\\
\dot{y}=-H_x+\varepsilon g(x,y),
\end{array} \;\;\;\;\; H~=\frac{1}{2} y^2~+U(x)
\right.$$ which bifurcate from the period annuli of $X_0$ for sufficiently small $\varepsilon$. Here $U$ is a univariate polynomial of degree four without symmetry, and $f, g$ are *arbitrary* cubic polynomials in two variables.
We take a period annulus and parameterize the related displacement map $d(h,\varepsilon)$ by the Hamiltonian value $h$ and by the small parameter $\varepsilon$. Let $M_k(h)$ be the $k$-th coefficient in its expansion with respect to $\varepsilon$. We establish the general form of $M_k$ and study its zeroes. We deduce that the period annuli of $X_0$ can produce for sufficiently small $\varepsilon$, at most 5, 7 or 8 zeroes in the interior eight-loop case, the saddle-loop case, and the exterior eight-loop case respectively. In the interior eight-loop case the bound is exact, while in the saddle-loop case we provide examples of Hamiltonian fields which produce 6 small-amplitude limit cycles. Polynomial perturbations of $X_0$ of higher degrees are also studied.
author:
- |
Lubomir Gavrilov\
*Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, *Université de Toulouse\
*F-31062 Toulouse, *France\
Iliya D. Iliev\
*Institute of Mathematics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences\
*Bl. 8, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria******
title: Cubic perturbations of elliptic Hamiltonian vector fields of degree three
---
Introduction
============
We consider cubic systems in the plane which are small perturbations of Hamiltonian systems with a center. Our goal is to estimate the number of limit cycles produced by the perturbation. The Hamiltonians we consider have the form $H=y^2+U(x)$ where $U$ is a polynomial of degree 4. In this paper we exclude from consideration the four symmetric Hamiltonians $H=y^2+x^2\pm x^4$, $H=y^2-x^2+x^4$ and $H=y^2+x^4$ because they require a special treatment. Therefore, one can use the following normal form of the Hamiltonian $$\label{ham}
H=\frac12y^2+\frac12x^2-\frac23x^3+\frac{a}{4}x^4,\quad a\neq 0,\frac89.$$ An easy observation shows that the following four topologically different cases occur: $$\begin{array}{ll}
a<0 & \mbox{\rm saddle-loop,}\\
0<a<1 & \mbox{\rm eight loop,}\\
a=1 & \mbox{\rm cuspidal loop,}\\
a>1 & \mbox{\rm global center.}\\
\end{array}$$ There is one period annulus in the saddle-loop and the global center cases, two annuli in the cuspidal loop case, and three annuli in the eight loop case. Take small $\varepsilon>0$ and consider the following one-parameter perturbation of the Hamiltonian vector field associated to $H$: $$\label{per}
\begin{array}{l}
\dot{x}=H_y+\varepsilon f(x,y),\\
\dot{y}=-H_x+\varepsilon g(x,y),\end{array}$$ where $f$ and $g$ are arbitrary cubic polynomials with coefficients $a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ at $x^iy^j$, respectively. As well known, if we parameterize the displacement map by the Hamiltonian level $h$, then the following expansion formula holds $$\label{exp}
d(h,\varepsilon)=\varepsilon M_1(h)+\varepsilon^2 M_2(h)+\varepsilon^3 M_3(h)
+\ldots, \quad h\in \Sigma$$ where $\Sigma$ is an open interval depending on the case and the period annulus we consider. There is a lot of papers investigating system (\[per\]), but most of them deal with $M_1(h)$ only or consider perturbations like $f(x,y)=0$, $g(x,y)=(\alpha_0+\alpha_1x+\alpha_2x^2)y$. See e.g. the book by Colin Christopher and Chengzhi Li [@chli07] for more comments and references. In what follows we consider for a first time the full 20-parameter cubic deformation (\[per\]) of the Hamiltonian system associated to $H$. We suppose, however, that the arbitrary cubic polynomials $f, g$ do not depend on the small parameter $\varepsilon$. To study the full neighborhood of the Hamiltonian system associated to $H$, it is also necessary to allow that $f,g$ depend analytically on $\varepsilon$.
Our first goal will be to calculate explicitly the first several coefficients $M_1$, $M_2$, etc. in (\[exp\]) and then determine the least integer $m$ such that system (\[per\]) becomes integrable provided that the first $m$ coefficients in (\[exp\]) do vanish.
Let us rewrite system (\[per\]) in a Pfaffian form $$\label{pfaff}
dH=\varepsilon\omega,\quad \omega=g(x,y)dx-f(x,y)dy.$$ We first establish that if $M_1(h)\equiv 0$, then one can express the cubic one-form $\omega$ in the perturbation as $$\label{one}
\textstyle
\omega=d[Q(x,y)-(\frac{a}{5}\lambda-\frac25\mu)x^5-\frac{a}{6}\mu x^6]
+(\lambda x+\mu x^2)dH$$ where $Q(x,y)=\sum_{1\leq i+j\leq 4}q_{ij}x^iy^j$ and $\lambda$, $\mu$ are parameters. Obviously, there are simple explicit linear formulas connecting $q_{ij}$, $\lambda$ and $\mu$ to the coefficients of $f$ and $g$. We shall consider $q_{ij}$, $\lambda$ and $\mu$ as the parameters of the perturbation.
\[t1\] The perturbation $(\ref{per})$, $(\ref{pfaff})-(\ref{one})$ is integrable if and only if either of the two conditions holds:
$\lambda=\mu=0$;
[*2)*]{} $q_{01}=q_{11}=q_{21}=q_{31}=q_{03}=q_{13}=0$.
In the first case system $(\ref{per})$, $(\ref{pfaff})$ becomes Hamiltonian and in the second one it becomes time-reversible.
If $M_1(h)=M_2(h)=M_3(h)=M_4(h)\equiv 0$, then the perturbation is integrable.
When the perturbation is integrable, all coefficients $M_k(h)$ do vanish in the respective period annulus and the Poincaré map is the identity. When the perturbation is not integrable (that is neither of the conditions in Theorem \[t1\] holds), one can prove the following result. Take an oval $\delta(h)$ contained in the level set $H=h$, $h\in\Sigma$ and define the integrals $$I_k(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}x^kydx, k=0,1,2,\ldots$$
\[t2\] The first four coefficients $M_k(h)$, $1\leq k\leq 4$ have the form $$M_k(h)=\alpha_k(h)I_0(h)+\beta_k(h)I_1(h)+\gamma_k(h)I_2(h)$$ where $\alpha_k(h)$, $\beta_k(h)$, $\gamma_k(h)$ are polynomials of degree at most one. The second coefficient $M_2(h)$ has the maximum possible number of zeroes in $\Sigma$ among $M_k(h)$.
We use the above results in deriving upper bounds for the number of limit cycles bifurcating from the open period annuli in the cases when the Hamiltonian has three real and different critical values. For this, we take a perturbation with $M_1(h)\equiv 0$ and $M_2(h)\not\equiv 0$, with all six coefficients independently free.
\[t3\] [*(i)*]{} In the interior eight-loop case, at most five limit cycles bifurcate from each one of the annuli inside the loop.
[*(ii)*]{} In the exterior eight-loop case, at most eight limit cycles bifurcate from the annulus outside the loop.
[*(iii)*]{} In the saddle-loop case, at most seven limit cycles bifurcate from the unique period annulus.
The proof is based on a refinement of Petrov’s method which we apply to the much more general case when the coefficients in $M_k(h)$ are polynomials of arbitrary degree $n$, thus $M_k(h)$ being an element of a module of dimension $3n+3$.
\[t4\] Let the coefficients $\alpha_k(h)$, $\beta_k(h)$ and $\gamma_k(h)$ in the expression of $M_k(h)$ be polynomials of degree $n$ with real coefficients. Then $M_k(h)$ has in the respective interval $\Sigma$ at most $3n+2$ zeroes in the interior eight-lop case, at most $4n+4$ in the exterior eight-loop case, and at most $4n+3$ zeroes in the saddle-loop case.
In order to demonstrate that Chebyshev’s property (no more zeroes than the dimension minus one) would not also hold in the saddle-loop case, we provide an estimate from below for the number of bifurcating small-amplitude limit cycles around the center at the origin which concerns all Hamiltonian parameters $a\neq 0, \frac89$.
\[t5\] For $a$ close to $-\frac83$, function $M_1(h)$ can produce four small limit cycles around the origin. For $a$ close to $-\frac89$, function $M_2(h)$ can produce six such limit cycles. For all other values of $a\in\R$, the number of small limit cycles produced by the function $M_k(h)$ equals its dimension minus one.
The limit cycle in addition in the saddle-loop case is obtained by moving slightly the Hamiltonian parameter $a$ in appropriate direction from the respective fraction.
The paper is organized as follows. At the beginning, we compute explicitly the coefficients $M_k$ for $k=1, 2, 3, 4$. It is easily seen that for each $k$ they form a set which is
- a vector space of dimension four, for $k=1$
- a vector space of dimension six, for $k=2$
- a union of three distinct five-dimensional vector spaces, for $k=3$
- a union of three distinct straight lines, for $k=4$,
and when $M_1=M_2=M_3=M_4=0$, then the perturbation becomes integrable. The function $M_2$ takes therefore the form $$\label{m22}
M_2(h) = \alpha_1I_0(h)+\beta_1I_1(h)+\gamma_1I_2(h)$$ where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are arbitrary linear functions in $h$.
Next, considering the generalized situation when $M_2$ is a function of the form (\[m22\]) in which $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are arbitrary degree $n$ polynomials in $h$, we establish that $M_2$ would have at most $3n+2$ zeroes in the interior eight-loop case, $4n+4$ zeroes in the exterior eight-loop case, $4n+3$ zeroes in the saddle-loop case. We apply these results to our problem by taking $n=1$. Finally, we provide examples of Hamiltonian fields in the saddle-loop case which produce 4 and 6 small-amplitude limit cycles, respectively when $M_1\not\equiv 0$, and $M_1\equiv 0$ but $M_2\not\equiv 0$. For all other cases, the number of such small-amplitude limit cycles is less than the respective dimension.
Calculation of the coefficients $M_k(h)$
========================================
In this section we are going to calculate the first four coefficients in (\[exp\]). We use the recursive procedure proposed by Françoise [@fran96], see also [@ilie96], [@ilie98a].
The coefficient $M_1(h)$
------------------------
We begin with the easy calculation of $M_1(h)$.
\[p1\] [(i)]{} The function $M_1(h)$ has the form $$\label{m1}
M_1(h)=\alpha_1I_0(h)+\beta_1I_1(h)+\gamma_1I_2(h),$$ where $\alpha_1$ is a first-degree polynomial in $h$ and $\beta_1$, $\gamma_1$ are constants, depending on the perturbation.
[(ii)]{} If $M_1(h)\equiv 0$, then one can rewrite the one-form $\omega$ as $(\ref{one})$ where $Q$ is a polynomial of degree four without constant term and $\lambda$, $\mu$ are constant parameters.
[**Proof.**]{} By a simple calculation, one can rewrite $\omega$ in the form $\omega=dQ(x,y)+yq(x,y)dx$ with $Q$ and $q$ certain polynomials of degree 4 and 2, respectively. Denote for a moment by $c_{ij}$ the coefficient in $q$ at $x^iy^j$. Then $$yq(x,y)dx=(c_{01}+c_{11}x)y^2dx+(c_{00}+c_{10}x+c_{20}x^2)ydx+c_{02}y^3dx.$$ Next, $y^3dx=(2H-x^2+\frac43x^3-\frac{a}{2}x^4)ydx=(2H-x^2)ydx
+yd(\frac13x^4-\frac{a}{10}x^5).$ Using the identity $
\frac13x^4-\frac{a}{10}x^5=\frac{4}{15a}H-\frac25xH+(\frac{8}{45a}+\frac15)x^3
-\frac{2}{15a}x^2-\frac{2}{15a}y^2+\frac15xy^2$ we derive the equation $$\label{rec}
\textstyle
y^3dx= d(\frac17xy^3-\frac{2}{21a}y^3)+(\frac{2}{7a}-\frac37x)ydH
+[\frac{12}{7}H-\frac{2}{7a}x+(\frac{4}{7a}-\frac37)x^2]ydx.$$ Replacing in the formula above and taking into account that $M_1(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}\omega=\oint_{\delta(h)}yq(x,y)dx$, one obtains formula (\[m1\]) with $$\textstyle \alpha_1=c_{00}+\frac{12}{7}c_{02}h,\quad
\beta_1=c_{10}-\frac{2}{7a}c_{02},\quad
\gamma_1=c_{20}+(\frac{4}{7a}-\frac37)c_{02}.$$ Now, $M_1(h)\equiv 0$ is equivalent to $c_{00}=c_{10}=c_{20}=c_{02}=0$ (see Corollary \[star\] below) and $\omega$ becomes $\omega=dQ-\frac12y^2(\lambda+2\mu x)dx$ where $\lambda=-2c_{01}$, $\mu=-c_{11}$. On the other hand (modulo terms $dQ$) $$\begin{array}{l}
-\frac12y^2(\lambda+2\mu x)dx=(\lambda x+\mu x^2)d(H-\frac12x^2+\frac23x^3
-\frac{a}{4}x^4)\\
=(\lambda x+\mu x^2)dH+(\lambda x+\mu x^2)(-x+2x^2-ax^3)dx\\
= (\lambda x+\mu x^2)dH+d(-\frac{a}{5}\lambda x^5+\frac25\mu x^5
-\frac{a}{6}\mu x^6). \end{array}$$ Proposition \[p1\] is proved. $\Box$
The coefficient $M_2(h)$
------------------------
By (\[one\]), if $\lambda=\mu=0$, then the perturbation is Hamiltonian and all coefficients $M_k$ do vanish. We will assume below that $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are not both zero. Then the calculation of $M_2(h)$ makes sense. Denote by $q_{ij}$ the coefficient at $x^iy^j$ in $Q$. Below, we split $Q$ into an odd and even part $Q=Q_1+Q_2$ with respect to $y$.
\[p2\] [(i)]{} If $M_1(h)\equiv 0$, then the function $M_2(h)$ has the form $$\label{m2}
M_2(h)=\alpha_2I_0(h)+\beta_2I_1(h)+\gamma_2I_2(h),$$ where $\alpha_2$, $\beta_2$ and $\gamma_2$ are first-degree polynomials in $h$ with coefficients depending on the perturbation.
[(ii)]{} If $M_1(h)=M_2(h)\equiv 0$, then the odd part of $Q(x,y)$ becomes:
$Q_1=q_{11}(x-2x^2+ax^3)y,\quad$ if $\mu=0$;
$Q_1=-\frac12q_{11}(1-2x+ax^2)y,\quad$ if $\lambda=0$;
$Q_1=q_{11}(x+\frac{a\lambda}{2\mu}x^2)y,\quad$ if $a\leq 1$ and $a\lambda^2+4\lambda\mu+4\mu^2= 0$;
$Q_1=0,\quad$ if $\lambda\mu\neq 0$ and $a\lambda^2+4\lambda\mu+4\mu^2\neq 0$.
[**Proof.**]{} As well known, the second coefficient in (\[exp\]) is obtained by integrating the one-form $\omega_2=(\lambda x+\mu x^2)\omega$, that is $$M_2(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}\omega_2=\oint_{\delta(h)}(\lambda x+\mu x^2)dQ(x,y)=
-\oint_{\delta(h)} (\lambda +2\mu x) Q_1(x,y)dx$$ $$=-\oint_{\delta(h)} (\lambda +2\mu x)[(q_{01}+q_{11}x+q_{21}x^2+q_{31}x^3)y
+(q_{03}+q_{13}x)y^3]dx.$$ Next, multiplying (\[rec\]) by $x$ and expressing the first term on the right-hand side in a proper form, we obtain identity $$\label{rec1}
\begin{array}{l}
xy^3dx=d(\frac18x^2y^3-\frac{1}{14a}xy^3-\frac{1}{126a^2}y^3)
+(\frac{1}{42a^2}+\frac{3}{14a}x-\frac38x^2)ydH\\
+[(\frac{1}{7a}+\frac32x)H-\frac{1}{42a^2}x+(\frac{1}{21a^2}-\frac{2}{7a})x^2
+(\frac{1}{2a}-\frac38)x^3]ydx.
\end{array}$$ In a similar way, multiplying (\[rec1\]) by $x$, we get $$\label{rec2}
\begin{array}{l}
x^2y^3dx=d(\frac19x^3y^3-\frac{1}{18a}x^2y^3-\frac{2}{189a^2}xy^3
-\frac{2}{1701a^3}y^3)\\
+(\frac{2}{567a^3}+\frac{2}{63a^2}x+\frac{1}{6a}x^2-\frac13x^3)ydH
+[(\frac{4}{189a^2}+\frac{2}{9a}x+\frac43x^2)H\\
-\frac{2}{567a^3}x+(\frac{4}{567a^3}-\frac{8}{189a^2})x^2
+(\frac{2}{27a^2}-\frac{5}{18a})x^3+(\frac{4}{9a}-\frac13)x^4]ydx.
\end{array}$$ Replacing the values from (\[rec\]), (\[rec1\]) and (\[rec2\]) in the above formula of $M_2(h)$, we obtain $$M_2(h)=-[q_0I_0(h)+q_1I_1(h)+q_2I_2(h)+q_3I_3(h)+q_4I_4(h)]$$ where $$\begin{array}{rl}
q_0=& \lambda q_{01}+[\frac{12}{7}\lambda q_{03}
+\frac{1}{7a}(\lambda q_{13}+2\mu q_{03})+\frac{8}{189a^2}\mu q_{13}]h,\\
q_1=& \lambda q_{11}+2\mu q_{01}-\frac{2}{7a}\lambda q_{03}
-\frac{1}{42a^2}(\lambda q_{13}+2\mu q_{03})-\frac{4}{567a^3}\mu q_{13}\\
&+[\frac32\lambda q_{13}+3\mu q_{03}+\frac{4}{9a}\mu q_{13}]h,\\
q_2=& \lambda q_{21}+2\mu q_{11} +(\frac{4}{7a}-\frac37)\lambda q_{03}
+(\frac{1}{21a^2}-\frac{2}{7a})(\lambda q_{13}+2\mu q_{03})\\
& +(\frac{8}{567a^3}-\frac{16}{189a^2})\mu q_{13}+\frac83\mu q_{13}h,\\
q_3=&\lambda q_{31}+2\mu q_{21}+(\frac{1}{2a}-\frac38)
(\lambda q_{13}+2\mu q_{03})+(\frac{4}{27a^2}-\frac{5}{9a})\mu q_{13},\\
q_4= &2\mu q_{31}+(\frac{8}{9a}-\frac23)\mu q_{13}.
\end{array}$$ In order to remove integrals $I_3, I_4$, we use the identity $$\oint_{\delta(h)}(x^k U'+{\textstyle\frac23}kx^{k-1}U)ydx=0,\quad
\textstyle {U=h-\frac12x^2+\frac23x^3-\frac14ax^4}$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{reck}
\textstyle\frac{k+6}{6}aI_{k+3}=\frac{4k+18}{9}I_{k+2}-\frac{k+3}{3}I_{k+1}
+\frac{2k}{3}hI_{k-1}.$$ Used with $k=0,1,2$, this relation yields $$\label{I345}
\begin{array}{l}
I_3=\frac{2}{a}I_2-\frac{1}{a}I_1,\\
I_4=(\frac{88}{21a^2}-\frac{8}{7a})I_2-\frac{44}{21a^2}I_1+\frac{4}{7a}hI_0,\\
I_5=(\frac{572}{63a^3}-\frac{209}{42a^2})I_2-
(\frac{286}{63a^3}-\frac{5}{4a^2}-\frac{1}{a}h)I_1+\frac{26}{21a^2}hI_0.
\end{array}$$ Replacing, we finally derive formula (\[m2\]) with $$\begin{array}{l}
\alpha_2=-q_0-\frac{4}{7a}q_4h,\\[1ex]
\beta_2=-q_1+\frac{1}{a}q_3 +\frac{44}{21a^2}q_4,\\[1ex]
\gamma_2=-q_2-\frac{2}{a}q_3+(\frac{8}{7a}-\frac{88}{21a^2})q_4.
\end{array}$$ Then $M_2(h)\equiv 0$ is equivalent to $\alpha_2=\beta_2=\gamma_2=0$ (see Corollary \[star\] below). Taking the coefficients at $h$ zero, we obtain that either $\mu=q_{03}=q_{13}=0$ or $\mu\neq 0$ and $q_{31}=q_{03}=q_{13}=0$. In the first case, $\lambda\neq 0$ and taking the coefficients at 1 zero, we easily obtain $q_{01}=0$, $q_{21}=-2q_{11}$, $q_{31}=aq_{11}$ which is case (a). In the second case above, if $\lambda=0$, then one easily obtains $q_{01}=-\frac12q_{11}$, $q_{21}=-\frac{a}{2}q_{11}$ which is case (b). If $\lambda\neq 0$, then taking the coefficients at 1 zero yields $q_{01}=0$ and equations $-\lambda q_{11}+\frac{2}{a}\mu q_{21}=0$, $-2\mu q_{11}-(\lambda+\frac{4}{a}\mu) q_{21}=0$. Provided that $a\lambda^2+4\lambda\mu+4\mu^2=0$ (it is possible for $a\leq 1$ only), one has $q_{21}=\frac{a\lambda}{2\mu}q_{11}$ which is case (c). Otherwise, one obtains $q_{11}=q_{21}=0$ which is case (d). Proposition \[p2\] is proved. $\Box$
The coefficient $M_3(h)$
------------------------
It turns out that if $Q_1=0$ then the perturbation is integrable. This is because the perturbed system (\[per\]) becomes time-reversible in this case. Below we are going to consider the three cases (a), (b), (c) when $q_{11}\neq 0$. For them, the next coefficient $M_3(h)$ in (\[exp\]) should be calculated. For this purpose, we need to express the one-form $\omega_2=(\lambda x+\mu x^2)\omega$ as $dS_2+s_2dH$ and then integrate the one-form $\omega_3=s_2\omega$.
\[p3\] Assume that $q_{11}\neq 0$.
[(i)]{} If $M_1(h)=M_2(h)\equiv 0$, then the function $M_3(h)$ has the form $$\label{m3}
M_3(h)=\alpha_3I_0(h)+\beta_3I_1(h)+\gamma_3I_2(h),$$ where $\alpha_3$, $\beta_3$ are first-degree polynomials in $h$ with coefficients depending on the perturbation and $\gamma_3$ is a constant.
[(ii)]{} If $M_1(h)=M_2(h)=M_3(h)\equiv 0$, then the even part of $Q(x,y)$ becomes
$\!\! Q_2=q_{20}x^2-(\frac43q_{20}+\frac13\lambda)x^3+(\frac{a}{2}q_{20}
+\frac12\lambda-\frac14\mu)x^4+(q_{02}-\frac13\lambda x-\frac13\mu x^2)y^2
+q_{04}y^4$
where $\mu=0$ in case [*(a)*]{}, $\lambda=0$ in case [*(b)*]{} and $a\lambda^2+4\lambda\mu+4\mu^2=0$ in case [*(c)*]{}.
[**Proof.**]{} To find $s_2$, is suffices to perform the calculations modulo exact forms. Let us handle first case (a). By (\[one\]) one obtains (neglecting the exact forms) $$\omega_2=\lambda xd[(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)y^2+q_{04}y^4+
q_{11}(x-2x^2+ax^3)y]+\lambda^2x^2dH.$$ Then $xdq_{11}(x-2x^2+ax^3)y=-q_{11}(x-2x^2+ax^3)ydx=
-q_{11}yd(H-\frac12y^2)=-q_{11}ydH$. Similarly, $$\begin{array}{l}
xd(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)y^2=
2xd(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)H\\
=-2(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)Hdx
=2(q_{02}x+\frac12q_{12}x^2+\frac13q_{22}x^3)dH.\end{array}$$ Finally, $$\begin{array}{l}
xdq_{04}y^4=
q_{04}xd[4H^2-4H(x^2-\frac43x^3+\frac{a}{2}x^4)] =8q_{04}xHdH\\
+4q_{04}H(x^2-\frac43x^3+\frac{a}{2}x^4)dx
=4q_{04}(2xH-\frac13x^3+\frac13x^4-\frac{a}{10}x^5)dH.
\end{array}$$ Summing up all terms together, we obtain for case (a) $$\textstyle
s_2=\lambda^2x^2-\lambda q_{11}y
+2\lambda(q_{02}x+\frac12q_{12}x^2+\frac13q_{22}x^3)
+4\lambda q_{04}(2xH-\frac13x^3+\frac13x^4-\frac{a}{10}x^5).$$
In a similar way, we consider (b). In this case, $$\textstyle
\omega_2=\mu x^2d[(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)y^2+q_{04}y^4-\frac12
q_{11}(1-2x+ax^2)y]+\mu^2x^4dH.$$ Then $-\frac12x^2d(1-2x+ax^2)y=(x-2x^2+ax^3)ydx=ydH$, $$\begin{array}{l}
x^2d(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)y^2=
2x^2d(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)H\\
=-4(q_{02}x+q_{12}x^2+q_{22}x^3)Hdx
=4(\frac12q_{02}x^2+\frac13q_{12}x^3+\frac14q_{22}x^4)dH,\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
x^2dy^4=
x^2d[4H^2-4H(x^2-\frac43x^3+\frac{a}{2}x^4)] =8x^2HdH\\
+8H(x^3-\frac43x^4+\frac{a}{2}x^5)dx
=8(x^2H-\frac14x^4+\frac{4}{15}x^5-\frac{a}{12}x^6)dH.
\end{array}$$ Summing up all needed terms, we obtain in case (b) the formula $$\textstyle
s_2=\mu^2x^4+\mu q_{11}y
+4\mu(\frac12q_{02}x^2+\frac13q_{12}x^3+\frac14q_{22}x^4)
+8\mu q_{04}(x^2H-\frac14x^4+\frac{4}{15}x^5-\frac{a}{12}x^6).$$ Finally, in case (c) we have $a\lambda^2+4\lambda\mu+4\mu^2=0$ and $$\textstyle
\omega_2=(\lambda x+\mu x^2)d[(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)y^2+q_{04}y^4+
q_{11}(x+\frac{a\lambda}{2\mu}x^2)y]+(\lambda x+\mu x^2)^2dH.$$ As above, $$\begin{array}{l}
(\lambda x+\mu x^2)dq_{11}(x+\frac{a\lambda}{2\mu}x^2)y=
-q_{11}(x+\frac{a\lambda}{2\mu}x^2)(\lambda+2\mu x)ydx\\
=-q_{11}yd(\frac{\lambda}{2}x^2+\frac{a\lambda^2+4\mu^2}{6\mu}x^3+
\frac{a\lambda}{4}x^4)=-\lambda q_{11}yd(H-\frac12y^2)=-\lambda q_{11}ydH,
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
(\lambda x+\mu x^2)d(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)y^2
=-2H(q_{02}+q_{12}x+q_{22}x^2)(\lambda+2\mu x)dx\\
=[2\lambda q_{02}x+(\lambda q_{12}+2\mu q_{02})x^2
+\frac23(\lambda q_{22}+2\mu q_{12})x^3+\mu q_{22}x^4]dH,\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
(\lambda x+\mu x^2)dq_{04}y^4=
q_{04}(\lambda x+\mu x^2)d[4H^2-4H(x^2-\frac43x^3+\frac{a}{2}x^4)]\\
=8q_{04}(\lambda x+\mu x^2)HdH+4q_{04}H(x^2-\frac43x^3+\frac{a}{2}x^4)(\lambda+2\mu x)dx\\
=4q_{04}[2(\lambda x+\mu x^2)H-\frac13\lambda x^3+(\frac13\lambda-\frac12\mu)x^4
-(\frac{a}{10}-\frac{8}{15}\mu)x^5-\frac{a}{6}\mu x^6]dH.
\end{array}$$ Summing up all terms, we obtain in case (c) the respective formula $$\begin{array}{l}
s_2=(\lambda x+\mu x^2)^2-\lambda q_{11}y+
2\lambda q_{02}x+(\lambda q_{12}+2\mu q_{02})x^2
+\frac23(\lambda q_{22}+2\mu q_{12})x^3\\
+\mu q_{22}x^4+4q_{04}[2(\lambda x+\mu x^2)H-\frac13\lambda x^3+
(\frac13\lambda-\frac12\mu)x^4-(\frac{a}{10}\lambda-\frac{8}{15}\mu)x^5
-\frac{a}{6}\mu x^6].\end{array}$$
In order to calculate $M_3$ at once for all three cases (a), (b), (c), we shall use the formula of $s_2$ for case (c) from which the other two cases are obtained by taking $\mu$ or $\lambda$ zero. Indeed, let us denote by $s_2^0$ the even part of $s_2$ with respect to $y$. Then $s_2=\kappa y+s_2^0$ where $\kappa=-\lambda q_{11}$ in cases (a), (c) and $\kappa=\mu q_{11}$ in case (b). Then $$M_3(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}s_2\omega=\oint_{\delta(h)}\kappa yd[Q_2
+({\textstyle\frac25}\mu-{\textstyle\frac{a}{5}}\lambda)x^5\
-{\textstyle\frac{a}{6}}\mu x^6]+\oint_{\delta(h)}s_2^0dQ_1=I+J.$$ We further have $$I=\kappa\oint_{\delta(h)}[(q_{10}+2q_{20}x+3q_{30}x^2+4q_{40}x^3+
(2\mu-a\lambda)x^4-a\mu x^5)y+(\textstyle\frac13q_{12}
+\textstyle\frac23 q_{22}x)y^3]dx$$ $$=\kappa(q_0I_0+q_1I_1+q_2I_2+q_3I_3+q_4I_4+q_5I_5)$$ with $$\begin{array}{l}
q_0=q_{10}+(\frac47q_{12}+\frac{2}{21a}q_{22})h,\\
q_1=2q_{20}-\frac{2}{21a}q_{12}-\frac{1}{63a^2}q_{22}+q_{22}h,\\
q_2=3q_{30}+(\frac{4}{21a}-\frac17)q_{12}+(\frac{2}{63a^2}-\frac{4}{21a})q_{22},\\
q_3=4q_{40}+(\frac{1}{3a}-\frac14)q_{22},\\
q_4=2\mu-a\lambda,\\
q_5=-a\mu,\end{array}$$ (we used (\[rec\]) and (\[rec1\]) as well). On the other side, integrating by parts one can rewrite $J$ as $J=-\oint_{\delta(h)}(s_2^0)'Q_1dx =J_1+J_2$ where $J_2$ is the part corresponding to the expression in $s_2^0$ which contains $q_{04}$. Let us first verify that $J_2=0$. Indeed, one can establish by easy calculations that $$\begin{array}{l}
4q_{04}[(2\lambda+4\mu x)H-\lambda x^2+
(\frac43\lambda-2\mu)x^3-(\frac{a}{2}\lambda-\frac{8}{3}\mu)x^4
-a\mu x^5]\\
=8q_{04}(\lambda+2\mu x)(H-\frac12x^2+
\frac23x^3-\frac{a}{4}x^4)
=4q_{04}(\lambda+2\mu x)y^2,\\
-Q_1(\lambda+2\mu x)=\kappa y(x-2x^2+ax^3).\end{array}$$ Hence, $$J_2=4\kappa q_{04}\oint_{\delta(h)}(x-2x^2+ax^3)y^3dx=
4\kappa q_{04}\oint_{\delta(h)}y^3d(H-{\textstyle \frac12}y^2)=0.$$ What $J_1$ concerns, another easy calculation shows that $$\begin{array}{l}
-2[(\lambda x+\mu x^2)(\lambda+2\mu x)+\lambda q_{02}+(\lambda q_{12}
+2\mu q_{02})x +(\lambda q_{22}+2\mu q_{12})x^2+2\mu q_{22}x^3]Q_1\\
=2\kappa (x-2x^2+ax^3)[q_{02}+(q_{12}+\lambda)x+(q_{22}+\mu)x^2]y
\end{array}$$ for all three cases. Therefore, by integrating, one obtains $$J=J_1=\kappa(r_1I_1+r_2I_2+r_3I_3+r_4I_4+r_5I_5)$$ where $$\begin{array}{l}
r_1=2q_{02},\\
r_2=2\lambda-4q_{02}+2q_{12},\\
r_3=2\mu-4\lambda+2aq_{02}-4q_{12}+2q_{22},\\
r_4=2a\lambda-4\mu+2aq_{12}-4q_{22},\\
r_5=2a\mu+2aq_{22}.
\end{array}$$ Combining with the formula of $I$ and using (\[I345\]), one obtains expression (\[m3\]) with coefficients $$\begin{array}{l}
\alpha_3=\kappa[q_0+\frac{4}{7a}h(q_4+r_4)+\frac{26}{21a^2}h(q_5+r_5)],\\
\beta_3=\kappa[q_1+r_1-\frac{1}{a}(q_3+r_3)-\frac{44}{21a^2}(q_4+r_4)-
(\frac{286}{63a^3}-\frac{5}{4a^2}-\frac{1}{a}h)(q_5+r_5)],\\
\gamma_3=\kappa[q_2+r_2+\frac{2}{a}(q_3+r_3)+(\frac{88}{21a^2}-\frac{8}{7a})(q_4+r_4)
+(\frac{572}{63a^3}-\frac{209}{42a^2})(q_5+r_5)].
\end{array}$$ It is seen that $\alpha_3$ and $\beta_3$ are first-degree polynomials while $\gamma_3$ is a constant polynomial. This proves part (i) of the statement. To prove part (ii), assume that $M_3(h)$ vanishes, which is equivalent to $\alpha_3=\beta_3=\gamma_3=0$ (see Corollary \[star\] below). Then by straightforward calculations one obtains that this is equivalent to $$\textstyle
q_{10}=0,\;\;\;
q_{30}=-\frac43q_{20}-\frac13\lambda,\;\;\;
q_{40}=\frac{a}{2}q_{20}+\frac12\lambda-\frac14\mu,\;\;\;
q_{12}=-\frac13\lambda,\;\;\;
q_{22}=-\frac13\mu$$ which yields the needed formula of $Q_2$. Proposition \[p3\] is proved. $\Box$
The coefficient $M_4(h)$
------------------------
Replacing the values of the coefficients we just calculated, we obtain $$\begin{array}{rl}
\omega=&(2q_{20}-\lambda x-\mu x^2)(x-2x^2+ax^3)dx\\
&+d[Q_1+(q_{02}-\frac13\lambda x-\frac13 \mu x^2)y^2+q_{04}y^4]+
(\lambda x+\mu x^2)dH,\\
s_2=&\frac23(\lambda x+\mu x^2)^2+\kappa y+2q_{02}(\lambda x+\mu x^2)\\
&+4q_{04}[2(\lambda x+\mu x^2)H-\lambda(\frac13x^3-\frac13x^4+\frac{a}{10}x^5)
-\mu(\frac12x^4-\frac{8}{15}x^5+\frac{a}{6}x^6)].\end{array}$$
\[p4\] Assume that $q_{11}\neq 0$ and $M_1(h)=M_2(h)=M_3(h)\equiv 0$. Then the function $M_4(h)$ has the form $$\begin{array}{l}
M_4(h)=\lambda q_{11}^3[2hI_0(h)-(3ah+\frac34-\frac{2}{3a})I_1(h)
+(\frac32-\frac{4}{3a})I_2(h)],\quad \mu=0,\\[1ex]
M_4(h)=-\frac12\mu q_{11}^3[I_0(h)-2I_1(h)+aI_2(h)],\quad \lambda=0,\\[1ex]
M_4(h)=-(\frac{\lambda^2}{\mu^2}+\frac{3\lambda}{2\mu}) q_{11}^3[2\mu I_1(h)
+a\lambda I_2(h)],\quad \lambda\mu\neq 0,\quad
a\lambda^2+4\lambda\mu+4\mu^2= 0.
\end{array}$$ Moreover, $M_4(h)\not\equiv 0$.
[**Proof.**]{} In what follows, it is useful to introduce notations $$\begin{array}{l}
A=\lambda(\frac13x^3-\frac13x^4+\frac{a}{10}x^5)+
\mu(\frac12x^4-\frac{8}{15}x^5+\frac{a}{6}x^6),\\
B=\frac12x^2-\frac23x^3+\frac{a}{4}x^4,\qquad L=\lambda x+\mu x^2.
\end{array}$$ Then $dA=2BdL$, $(2q_{20}-L)dB=d[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A]$ and one can rewrite the expressions of $\omega$ and $s_2$ as follows: $$\begin{array}{rl}
\omega &=(2q_{20}-L)B'dx+d[Q_1+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]+ LdH,\\
&=d[Q_1+ (2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]+ LdH,\\
s_2&=\frac23L^2+\kappa y+2q_{02}L+4q_{04}(2LH-A).\end{array}$$ Below, we are going to express the one-form $\omega_3=s_2\omega$ in the form $\omega_3=dS_3+s_3dH$ in order to calculate $M_4(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}\omega_4$ where $\omega_4=s_3\omega$. As above, we can perform our calculations modulo exact forms. Thus, $$\omega_3=s_2\omega=s_2LdH+ \mbox{\rm (odd part)}\;+\; \mbox{\rm (even part)},$$ $$\begin{array}{rl}
\mbox{\rm (odd part)}=&
\kappa y[(2q_{20}-L)dB+d((q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4)]\\
&+[\frac23L^2+2q_{02}L+4q_{04}(2LH-A)]dQ_1\\
&=\kappa y[(2q_{20}-L)dB-\frac13d(Ly^2)]\\
&-Q_1(\frac43LL'+2q_{02}L'+8q_{04}HL'-8q_{04}BL')dx-8q_{04}LQ_1dH\\
&=\kappa y(2q_{20}+\frac13L+2q_{02}+4q_{04}y^2)dB-\frac13\kappa yd(Ly^2)
-8q_{04}LQ_1dH\\
&=[\kappa y(2q_{20}+\frac13L+2q_{02}+4q_{04}y^2)-8q_{04}LQ_1]dH\\
&-\frac13\kappa yd(Ly^2)-\frac13\kappa y^2Ldy\\
&=[\kappa y(2q_{20}+\frac13L+2q_{02}+4q_{04}y^2)-8q_{04}LQ_1]dH.
\end{array}$$ We used that $-Q_1L'=\kappa yB'$ and $\frac12y^2=H-B$. Similarly, by using the identity $(2q_{20}-L)dB=d[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A]$ one obtains $$\begin{array}{rl}
\mbox{\rm (even part)}=&\kappa ydQ_1+[\frac23L^2+2q_{02}L+4q_{04}(2LH-A)]\times\\
&\times[(2q_{20}-L)dB+d((q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4)]\\
&=-\kappa Q_1dy-[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]\times\\
&\times d[\frac23L^2+2q_{02}L+4q_{04}(2LH-A)]\\
&=-[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]
[\frac43L+2q_{02}+4q_{04}y^2]dL\\
&-8q_{04}L[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]dH
-\kappa y^{-1}Q_1dH\\
&=-[2q_{02}^2+\frac23q_{02}L-\frac49L^2+4q_{04}((2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A)]y^2dL\\
&-(6q_{02}q_{04}y^4+4q_{04}^2y^6)dL\\
&-8q_{04}L[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]dH
-\kappa y^{-1}Q_1dH\\
&=[4q_{02}^2L+\frac23q_{02}L^2-\frac{8}{27}L^3+8q_{04}X]dH\\
&+[24q_{02}q_{04}(2LH-A)+96q_{04}^2(LH^2-AH+Y)]dH\\
&-8q_{04}L[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]dH
-\kappa y^{-1}Q_1dH
\end{array}$$ where $dX=[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A]dL$ and $dY=B^2dL$. Finally, summing up all terms with $dH$, we obtain the expression $$\begin{array}{rl}
s_3=&\kappa y(2q_{20}+\frac43L+2q_{02}+4q_{04}y^2)-8q_{04}LQ_1\\
&+4q_{02}^2L+\frac83q_{02}L^2+\frac{10}{27}L^3+4q_{04}(L+6q_{02})(2LH-A)\\
&+8q_{04}X+96q_{04}^2(LH^2-AH+Y)\\
&-8q_{04}L[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]
-\kappa y^{-1}Q_1.
\end{array}$$ It should be mentioned that some terms in $s_3$ were included in $s_2$ and $s_1=L$, too. Since $M_2(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}s_1\omega\equiv 0$, the terms $H^kL$ have no impact in the values of $M_3(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}s_2\omega$ and $M_4(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}s_3\omega$. In the proof of Proposition \[p3\], we have established that $J_2=\oint_{\delta(h)}(2LH-A)\omega\equiv 0$. By $M_3(h)\equiv 0$, one obtains that the terms $H^kA$ and $\frac23L^2+\kappa y$ will have no impact on the value of $M_4(h)$, too. Using these facts, one can rewrite $M_4(h)$ in the form $$M_4(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}(\sigma_1\omega+\sigma_2\omega+\sigma_3\omega)=
K_1+K_2+K_3$$ where $$\begin{array}{rl}
\sigma_1=&\kappa y(2q_{20}-2q_{02}+\frac43L+4q_{04}y^2)-8q_{04}LQ_1\\
& -8q_{04}L[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4],\\
\sigma_2=&\frac{10}{27}L^3+4q_{04}L(2LH-A)+8q_{04}X+96q_{04}^2Y,\\
\sigma_3=&-\kappa y^{-1}Q_1.\end{array}$$ Below, we are going to verify that $K_1+K_2=0$. Therefore $$M_4(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}\sigma_3\omega=\oint_{\delta(h)}\sigma_3dQ_1=
\kappa \oint_{\delta(h)} y^{-1}Q_{1x}Q_1dx.$$ Then the three formulas in Proposition \[p4\] follow by simple calculations making use of (\[I345\]). Since it is assumed that $(|\lambda|+|\mu|)q_{11}\neq 0$, $M_4(h)$ is not identically zero. Note that the coefficient at the third formula in Proposition \[p4\] vanishes for $2\lambda+3\mu=0$, however this is equivalent to $a=\frac89$, a value corresponding to the symmetric eight loop, which was excluded from consideration here.
To finish the proof, it remains to calculate $K_2$ and $K_1$. We obtain (modulo one-forms $dR+rdH$ which yield zero integrals) $$\begin{array}{rl}
\sigma_2\omega&=\sigma_2dQ_1=
-Q_1d[\frac{10}{27}L^3+4q_{04}(2L^2H-LA)+8q_{04}X+96q_{04}^2Y]\\
&=-Q_1[\frac{10}{9}L^2L'+8q_{04}(2LH-\frac12A-BL)L'\\
&+8q_{04}((2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A)L'+96q_{04}^2B^2L']dx\\
&=-Q_1L'[\frac{10}{9}L^2+8q_{04}(2q_{20}B+Ly^2)+96q_{04}^2B^2]dx\\
&=\kappa y[\frac{10}{9}L^2+8q_{04}(2q_{20}B+Ly^2)+96q_{04}^2B^2]dB\\
&=\kappa y(\frac{10}{9}L^2+8q_{04}Ly^2)d(H-\frac12y^2)
=-\kappa(\frac{10}{9}L^2y^2+8q_{04}Ly^4)dy\\
&=\kappa(\frac{20}{27}Ly^3+\frac85q_{04}y^5)L'dx.
\end{array}$$ Finally (again modulo one-forms $dR+rdH$), $$\begin{array}{rl}
\sigma_1\omega&=
[\kappa y(2q_{20}-2q_{02}+\frac43L+4q_{04}y^2)-8q_{04}LQ_1]\omega\\
&-8q_{04}L[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]dQ_1\\
&= [\kappa y(2q_{20}-2q_{02}+\frac43L+4q_{04}y^2)-8q_{04}LQ_1]\omega\\
&+8q_{04}Q_1L'[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]dx
+8q_{04}LQ_1\omega\\
&=\kappa y(2q_{20}-2q_{02}+\frac43L+4q_{04}y^2)\omega\\
&-8q_{04}\kappa y[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]dB\\
&=\kappa y(2q_{20}-2q_{02}+\frac43L+4q_{04}y^2)\omega\\
&+8q_{04}\kappa y^2[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]dy\\
&=\kappa y(2q_{20}-2q_{02}+\frac43L+\frac43q_{04}y^2)\omega.
\end{array}$$ Since $$\begin{array}{rl}
\omega&=d[(2q_{20}-L)B+\frac12A+(q_{02}-\frac13L)y^2+q_{04}y^4]\\
&=[(2q_{02}-2q_{20}+\frac13L)y+4q_{04}y^3]dy-\frac13y^2dL,
\end{array}$$ we last obtain by easy calculations that $\sigma_1\omega=-\kappa(\frac{20}{27}Ly^3+\frac85q_{04}y^5)dL$. Proposition \[p4\] is proved. $\Box$
The Petrov module
=================
We will use the notation introduced in the previous sections.
The set of Abelian integrals $${\cal A}_H = \left\{ \int_{\delta(h)} \omega : \omega = Pdx+Qdy, P, Q \in \R[x,y]\right\}$$ is a real vector space, but also a $\R[h]$ module generated by $I_0, I_1, I_2$ with the multiplication $$h\cdot \int_{\delta(h)} \omega = \int_{\delta(h)} H(x,y)\omega$$ Consider also the Petrov module $${\cal P}_H = \frac{\Omega^1 }{ d \Omega^0 + \Omega^0 d H }$$ where $\Omega^1$ is the vector space of polynomial one-forms on $\R^2$, and $ \Omega^0= \R[x,y]$. It is a $\R[h]$ module with multiplication $$h\cdot \omega = H(x,y) \omega .$$ Let $h$ be a non-critical value of $H$. The complex algebraic curve $$\Gamma_h = \{x,y)\in \C^2: H(x,y)= h \}$$ has the topological type of a torus with two punctures. It follows that its first homology (co-homology) group is of dimension three. According to [@gavr98 Theorem 1.1] the Petrov module ${\cal P}_H$ associated to $H$ is a free $\R[h]$ module generated by $\omega_0,\omega_1,\omega_2$.
The natural map $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}_H & \rightarrow & {\cal A}_H \\
\omega & \mapsto & \int_{\delta(h)} \omega\end{aligned}$$ is an isomorphism of $\R[h]$ modules.
[**Proof.**]{} The method of proof of the above Proposition goes back to Ilyashenko [@ilya69]. The claim follows from [@gavr98 Proposition 3.2] except in the cuspidal case ($a=1$), and for the exterior annulus in the eight loop case. In the case of a cuspidal loop we note that, by making use of the Picard-Lefschetz formula, the orbit of $\delta(h)$ under the monodromy group of $H$ spans the first homology group of $\Gamma_h$. Therefore the arguments [@gavr98 Proposition 3.2] apply. In the case when $\delta(h)$ is represented by an oval which belongs to the exterior period annulus of $\{dH=0\}$ (in the so called eight loop case), the cycle $\delta(h)$ turns out to be vanishing along a suitable path in the complex $h$-plane, although this is less obvious - see [@gail05 page 1170 and Fig.4] for a proof. The arguments used in the proof of [@gavr98 Proposition 3.2] apply once again. $\Box$
The above result implies the following
\[star\] Let $\alpha(h), \beta(h), \gamma(h))$ be (real or complex) polynomials in $h$. The Abelian integral $$\label{abelian}
I(h)= \alpha(h)I_0(h)+ \beta(h)I_1(h)+ \gamma(h)I_2(h)$$ is identically zero, if and only if $\alpha(h), \beta(h), \gamma(h)$ are identically zero.
From now on we denote by ${\cal A}_n$ the space of of Abelian integrals of the form (\[abelian\]), with $$\deg \alpha \leq n, \deg \beta \leq n, \deg \gamma \leq n.$$
The maximal dimension of the vector space ${\cal A}_n$ equals $3(n+1)$.
\[remark1\] The vector space of Abelian integrals ${\cal A}_n$ coincides with the space of Abelian integrals $$\label{abelianp}
\int_{\delta(h)} P(x,y) dx + Q(x,y) dy$$ where $P,Q$ are real polynomials of weighted degree $4n+5$, where the weight of $x$ is $1$ and the weight of $y$ is $2$. Therefore the result follows also from [*[@gavr98 p.582]*]{}.
Zeroes of Abelian integrals
===========================
In this section we find upper bounds for the number of the zeroes of the Abelian integrals ${\cal A}_n$ defined in (\[abelian\]) on the interval of existence of the ovals $\delta(h)$. Similar results were earlier obtained for the space of non-weighted Abelian integrals (\[abelianp\]) ($\deg P, \deg Q \leq n$) by Petrov [@petr90] and Liu [@liu03], see the survey of Christopher and Li [@chli07]. Our upper bounds however do not follow from the aforementioned papers, see Remark \[remark1\]. They will be proved along the lines, given in [@gavr99 section 7].
All families of cycles will depend continuously on a parameter $h$ and will be defined without ambiguity in the complex half-plane $\{h: Im (h) >0\}$. This will allow a continuation on $\C$ along any curve avoiding the real critical values of $H$. In particular, it will be supposed that all three critical values of $H$ are real.
The interior eight-loop case
----------------------------
Using the normal form (\[ham\]) we can suppose that $\frac89 < a < 1$. Let $\delta (h) \subset \{H=h\}$ be a continuous family of ovals defined on a maximal open interval $\Sigma =(h_c,h_s)$, where for $h=h_c=0$ the oval degenerates to a point $\delta (h_c)$ which is a center and for $h=h_s>0$ the oval becomes a homoclinic loop of the Hamiltonian system $dH=0$. The family $\{ \delta (h)\}$ represents a continuous family of cycles vanishing at the center $\delta (h_c)$.
The space of Abelian integrals ${\cal A}_n$ corresponding to Fig. \[fig1\] is Chebyshev on the interval of existence of $\delta(h)$.
[**Proof.**]{} We note first that $I_0(h), I_1(h), I_2(h)$ can be expressed as linear combinations of $I_0'(h), I_1'(h), I_2'(h)$, whose coefficients are polynomials in $h$ of degree one. Therefore the vector space $${\cal A}_n' = \{I'(h): I(h) \in {\cal A}_n \}$$ coincides with the vector space of Abelian integrals $$\{ \alpha(h)I_0'(h)+ \beta(h)I_1'(h)+ \gamma(h)I_2'(h) : \deg \alpha \leq n, \deg \beta \leq n, \deg \gamma \leq n \} .$$ We shall prove the Chebyshev property of ${\cal A}_n' $ in the complex domain $${\cal D } = \C \setminus [h_s, \infty) .$$ in which $I'(h)$ has an analytic extension, see fig.\[fig1plus\]. For this purpose we apply the argument principle to the function $$F(h) = \frac{I'(h)}{I_0'(h)}.$$
We note that $I_0'(h)$ is a complete elliptic integral of first kind and hence cannot vanish in ${\cal D }$. For sufficiently big $|h|$ the function $F(h)$ behaves as $h^{n+\frac12}$ and hence the increment of the argument of $F$ along a circle with a sufficiently big radius is close to $(2n+1)\pi$. Along the interval $[h_s, \infty)$ the imaginary part of $F(h)$ can be computed by making use of the Picard-Lefshetz formula. Namely, let $\{\delta_s(h)\}_h$ be a continuous family of cycles, vanishing at the saddle point as $h$ tends to $h_s$. Then along $[h_s, \infty)$ the family $\delta(h)$ has two analytic complex-conjugate continuations $\delta^\pm (h)$, $\delta^+ = \bar{\delta^-}$ and moreover, by the Picard-Lefshetz formula the cycle $$\delta^+(h) - \delta^-(h)= \delta_s(h)$$ where the identity should be understood up to homology equivalence. This implies the following identity along $[h_s, \infty)$ $$2 Im(F(h)) = \frac{\int_{\delta^+(h)} \omega'}{\int_{\delta^+_0(h)} \omega_0'}-
\frac{\int_{\delta^-(h)} \omega'}{\int_{\delta^-_0(h)} \omega_0'}
=
\frac{W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}$$ where $$W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0') =
\det
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\int_{\delta(h)} \omega' & \int_{\delta_s(h)} \omega' \\
\int_{\delta(h)} \omega'_0 & \int_{\delta_s(h)} \omega'_0
\end{array}
\right) .$$ Following [@gavr99 section 7] we may use the reciprocity law on the elliptic curve $\{H=h\} $ to compute $$W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0') =
p(h)+ q(h)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dx}{y}$$ where $p(h),q(h)$ are suitable degree $n$ polynomials, $ \pm \infty$ are the two “infinite” points on the compactified Riemann surface $\Gamma_h$, and the integration is along some path connecting $ \pm \infty$ on $\Gamma_h$.
It is easy to check now that the function $p(h)+ q(h)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dx}{y}$ can have at most $2n+1$ zeroes on $[h_s, \infty)$. For this, consider an analytic continuation of this function to the complex domain $\C \setminus (-\infty,h_0]$ where $h_0$ is a critical value of $H$, $h_0< h_s$, see fig.\[fig1plus\]. By the Picard-Lefshetz formula, the imaginary part of $p(h)+ q(h)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dx}{y}$ along the branch cut $(-\infty,h_0)$ equals $$\tilde{q}(h)\int_{\delta_(h)} \frac{dx}{y}$$ where $\tilde{q}$ differs from $q$ by an addition of a constant. We conclude that the imaginary part of this function vanishes at most $n$ times. This combined to the asymptotic behavior $$p(h)+ q(h)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dx}{y} \sim h^{n}\times const.$$ gives that the increase of the argument along a big circle is close to $2\pi n$ and finally, that our function can have at most $2n+1$ zeroes on $\C \setminus (-\infty,h_0]$. Now we come back to the function $F(h)$ and conclude that it can have at most $3n+2$ zeroes in the complex domain ${\cal D}$, counted with the multiplicity. As $I(0)=0$ the same conclusion holds true for $I(h)$ on the real interval $(-\infty, h_s)$. $\Box$
Through the proof we did not inspect the behavior of $F(h)$ near the branch point $h_s$. In the original papers of Petrov a small circle centered at $h_s$ is removed and the behavior of $F$ along it is taken into account. It is important to note that, we do not remove a small circle here, because we use a slightly improved version of the argument principle, as explained in section 2.4 of [@gavr13]. It allows one to apply the argument principle, even if $F$ is not analytic at $F(h_s)$, provided that $F$ has a continuous limit at $h_s$, which is not zero. The case when $F(h_s) = 0$ is studied then by a small perturbation (by adding a real constant for instance) - this does not decrease the number of zeroes of $F$ in the complement of the branch cut. Of course, the same considerations hold true for the function $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dx}{y}$ in its respective domain of analyticity.
The saddle-loop case
--------------------
In the normal form (\[ham\]) we suppose that $a < 0$. As before, we let $\delta (h) \subset \{H=h\}$ be a continuous family of ovals defined on a maximal open interval $\Sigma =(h_c,h_s)$, where for $h=h_c=0$ the oval degenerates to a point $\delta (h_c)$ which is a center and for $h=h_s>0$ the oval becomes a homoclinic loop of the Hamiltonian system $dH=0$. The family $\{ \delta (h)\}$ represents a continuous family of cycles vanishing at the center $\delta (h_c)$.
The space of Abelian integrals ${\cal A}_n$ corresponding to the shadowed area on Fig. \[fig3\] is of dimension $3n+3$, and each Abelian integral from ${\cal A}_n$ can have at most $4n+3$ zeroes.
[**Proof.**]{} We shall prove the Chebyshev property of ${\cal A}_n' $ in the complex domain $${\cal D } = \C \setminus [h_s, \infty) .$$ in which $I'(h)$ has an analytic extension. For this purpose we apply the argument principle to the function $$F(h) = \frac{I'(h)}{I_0'(h)}.$$ Indeed, a local analysis shows that at $h_s, h_0$ the function $F|_{\cal D } $ has continuous limits, which we assume to be non-zero. $I_0'(h)$ is a complete elliptic integral of first kind and hence cannot vanish in ${\cal D }$. For sufficiently big $|h|$ the function $F(h)$ behaves as $h^{n+\frac12}$ and hence the increment of the argument of $F$ along a circle with a sufficiently big radius is close to $(2n+1)\pi$. Along the intervals $(h_s, h_0)$ and $(h_0, \infty)$ the imaginary part of $F(h)$ can be computed by making use of the Picard-Lefshetz formula. Namely, let $\{\delta_s(h)\}_h$, $\{\delta_0(h)\}_h$ be the continuous family of cycles, vanishing at the saddle points $h_s$ and $h_0$ respectively, as $h$ tends to $h_s$ and $h_0$. As in the preceding section we deduce that along $[h_s, h_0)$, $$2 Im(F(h))
=
\frac{W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}, \;\; h \in (h_s, h_0)$$ while along $ (h_0, \infty)$ $$2 Im(F(h)) =
\frac{W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}
+
\frac{W_{\delta,\delta_0}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}
, \;\; h \in (h_0, \infty) .$$ The function $$W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0'), \; h \in (h_s, h_0)$$ allows an analytic continuation in $\C \setminus [h_0,\infty)$ and exactly as in the preceding section we compute that it can have at most $2n+1$ zeroes there. More precisely, $W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')$ has an analytic continuation in $\C \setminus [h_0,\infty)$. The number of its zeroes in this domain is bounded by $n$ (coming from the behavior at infinity) plus one plus the number of the zeroes of $$2 Im ( W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0') )= W_{\delta_0,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')
= q(h)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dx}{y}, \;\; h\in (h_0,\infty)$$ where $q$ is a degree $n$ polynomial. Similarly, the function $$W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0') + W_{\delta,\delta_0}(\omega',\omega_0'), \; (h_0, \infty)$$ allows an analytic continuation in $\C \setminus [h_s,h_0]$ and its zeroes there are bounded by $n$ plus plus one plus the number of the zeroes of $$2 Im( W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0') + W_{\delta,\delta_0}(\omega',\omega_0'))=
W_{\delta_s,\delta_0}(\omega',\omega_0')= q(h)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dx}{y}, \;\; h\in (h_s,h_0) .$$ Summing up the above information, we get that the function $F(h)$ can have at most $4n+3$ zeroes in the complex domain ${\cal D}$, counted with the multiplicity. As $I(0)=0$ the same conclusion holds true for $I(h)$ on the real interval $(-\infty, h_s)$. $\Box$
The exterior eight-loop case
-----------------------------
In this section we consider the exterior eight-loop case, with period annulus as shown on fig.\[fig4\] and $\frac89 < a < 1$. Let $\delta (h) \subset \{H=h\}$ be the continuous family of ovals defined on the maximal open interval $\Sigma =(h_s,\infty)$
The space of Abelian integrals ${\cal A}_n$ corresponding to the shadowed area on Fig. \[fig4\] is of dimension $3n+3$, and each Abelian integral from ${\cal A}_n$ can have at most $4n+4$ zeroes.
[**Proof.**]{} We shall evaluate the number of the zeroes of a function from ${\cal A}_n' $ in the complex domain $${\cal D } = \C \setminus (-\infty,h_s] .$$ in which $I'(h)$ has an analytic extension. For this purpose we apply the argument principle to the function $$F(h) = \frac{I'(h)}{I_0'(h)}.$$ As before, a local analysis shows that at $h_s, h_c^1, h_c^2$ the function $F|_{\cal D } $ has continuous limits, which we assume to be non-zero. $I_0'(h)$ is a complete elliptic integral of first kind and hence cannot vanish in ${\cal D }$. For sufficiently big $|h|$ the function $F(h)$ behaves as $h^{n+\frac12}$ and hence the increment of the argument of $F$ along a circle with a sufficiently big radius is close to $(2n+1)\pi$. It remains to study the number of the zeroes of the imaginary part of $F(h)$ along the intervals $$(-\infty , h_c^1), \; (h_c^1,h_c^2), \; (h_c^2,h_s) .$$ Namely, let $\{\delta_s(h)\}_h$, $\{\delta_c^1(h)\}_h$, $\{\delta_c^2(h)\}_h$ , where $Im h \geq 0$, be the continuous family of cycles, vanishing at the saddle points as $h$ tends to $h_s$, and $h_c^1$ or $h_c^2$, respectively. These cycles are defined up to an orientation, and we consider their continuation to ${\cal D } = \C \setminus (-\infty,h_s]$, as well the limits along the branch cut $(-\infty,h_s]$. The family of exterior loops $\{\delta(h)\}$ is expressed in terms of these vanishing cycles as follows $$\delta(h) = \delta_c^1(h) + \delta_c^2(h) + \delta_s(h), \; h \in {\cal D }$$ (the orientations of the vanishing cycles are fixed from this identity). Let $\delta^+(h)=\delta(h)$ be the continuation of $\delta(h)$ on $(-\infty,h_s]$, along paths contained in the upper complex half-plane, and $\delta^-(h)$ be the continuation on $(-\infty,h_s]$ along paths contained in the lower complex half-plane. The Picard-Lefschetz formula easily implies $$\delta^-(h) = \delta_c^1(h) + \delta_c^2(h) - \delta_s(h), h \in (h_c^2,h_s)$$ $$\delta^-(h) = \delta_c^1(h) - \delta_s(h), h \in (h_c^1,h_c^2)$$ $$\delta^-(h) = - \delta_s(h), h \in (-\infty, h_c^1)$$
As in the preceding section we deduce that along the branch cut $ (-\infty,h_s)$ we have $$\label{im1}
2 Im(F(h))
=
\frac{W_{\delta,2\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}, \;\; h \in (h_c^2, h_s)$$ and $$\label{im2}
2 Im(F(h)) =
\frac{W_{\delta,2\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}
+
\frac{W_{\delta,\delta_c^2}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}
, \;\; h \in (h_c^1, h_c^2)$$ and $$\label{im3}
2 Im(F(h)) =
\frac{W_{\delta,2\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}
+
\frac{W_{\delta,\delta_c^1+\delta_c^2}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}=
\frac{W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')}{|I'_0(h)|^2}, \;\; h \in (-\infty,h_c^1) .$$ Clearly, the function $W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')$ has an analytic continuation in $\C \setminus [h_c^1, h_c^2]$. Its number of zeroes in this domain depends on the zeroes of $$2 Im( W_{\delta,\delta_s}(\omega',\omega_0')) = W_{\delta_c^1,\delta_c^2}(\omega',\omega_0')
=q(h)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dx}{y}, \;\; h\in (h_c^1, h_c^2) .$$ Thus, the total number of the zeroes of the functions (\[im1\]), (\[im3\]) is bounded by $n+1$ plus the number of the zeroes of $q(h)$ on the interval $(h_c^1, h_c^2)$. Finally, similar considerations show that the function (\[im2\]) has an analytic continuation in $$\C \setminus \{ (-\infty, h_c^1) \cup (h_c^2, \infty) \}$$ and its zeroes in this domain are bounded by $n+1$ plus the number of the zeroes of the polynomial $q(h)$ on the interval $ (-\infty, h_c^1) \cup (h_c^2, \infty) $.
Summing up the above information, we get that the function $F(h)$ can have at most $4n+3$ zeroes in the complex domain ${\cal D}$, counted with the multiplicity. Therefore the Abelian integral $I(h)$ has at most $4n+4$ zeroes on the real interval $(-\infty, h_s)$. $\Box$
Lower bounds for the number of zeroes of $M_k(h)$
=================================================
In this section we provide examples which show that Chebyshev’s property would not hold in the saddle-loop case. For this purpose, we study the number of small-amplitude limit cycles bifurcating around the center at the origin.
We begin with the system satisfied by the basic integrals $I_k(h)$. It is derived in a standard way by using (\[ham\]), (\[I345\]) and the formula $I_k'(h)=\oint_{\delta(h)}(x^k/y)dx$.
\[l1\]The integrals $I_0(h)$, $I_1(h)$ and $I_2(h)$ satisfy the system $$\begin{array}{l}
\frac43hI_0'-\frac{2}{9a}I_1'-(\frac13-\frac{4}{9a})I_2'=I_0,\\
\frac{2}{9a}hI_0'+(h+\frac{1}{4a}-\frac{10}{27a^2})I_1'
-(\frac{13}{18a}-\frac{20}{27a^2})I_2'=I_1,\\
-(\frac{4}{15a}-\frac{56}{135a^2})hI_0'+(\frac{4}{15a}h+\frac{29}{45a^2}-\frac{56}{81a^3})I_1'
+(\frac45h+\frac{4}{15a}-\frac{46}{27a^2}+\frac{112}{81a^3})I_2'=I_2.
\end{array}$$
We use this system to find the expansions of integrals $I_k$, $k=0,1,2$ near $h=0$. Denoting $c=I'_0(0)\neq 0$, one obtains
\[l2\] The following expansions hold near $h=0$: $$\begin{array}{rl}
I_0(h) & =c[h+(\frac53-\frac38a)h^2+(\frac{385}{27}-\frac{35}{4}a
+\frac{35}{64}a^2)h^3\\[2mm]
& + (\frac{85085}{486}-\frac{25025}{144}a+\frac{5005}{128}a^2
-\frac{1155}{1024}a^3)h^4\\[2mm]
&+1001(\frac{7429}{2916}-\frac{2261}{648}a
+\frac{1615}{1152}a^2-\frac{85}{512}a^3+\frac{45}{16384}a^4)h^5+\ldots],\\[2mm]
I_1(h) & =c[h^2+(\frac{70}{9}-\frac{35}{12}a)h^3
+(\frac{5005}{54}-\frac{5005}{72}a+\frac{1155}{128}a^2)h^4\\[2mm]
&+1001(\frac{323}{243}-\frac{323}{216}a+\frac{85}{192}a^2-\frac{15}{512}a^3)h^5
\\[2mm]
&+1001(\frac{185725}{8748}-\frac{185725}{5832}a+\frac{52003}{3456}a^2-
\frac{11305}{4608}a^3+\frac{1615}{16384}a^4)h^6 +\ldots],\\[2mm]
I_2(h) & =c[\frac12h^2+(\frac{35}{9}-\frac58a)h^3
+(\frac{5005}{108}-\frac{385}{16}a+\frac{315}{256}a^2)h^4\\[2mm]
&+1001(\frac{323}{486}-\frac{85}{144}a+\frac{15}{128}a^2-\frac{3}{1024}a^3)h^5
\\[2mm]
&+1001(\frac{185725}{17496}-\frac{52003}{3888}a+\frac{11305}{2304}a^2
-\frac{1615}{3072}a^3+\frac{255}{32768}a^4)h^6 +\ldots].
\end{array}$$
[**Proof.**]{} We rewrite the system from Lemma \[l1\] in the form $({\bf A}h+{\bf B}){\bf I}'={\bf E}{\bf I}$ where ${\bf I}=(I_0,I_1,I_2)^\top$. As ${\bf I}(h)$ is a solution which is analytical near zero and ${\bf I}(0)=0$, one can replace $${\bf I}(h)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty {\bf V}_k h^k,\quad
{\bf V}_k=(V_{0,k},V_{1,k},V_{2,k})^\top$$ in the system. Then the coefficient at $h^k$ should be zero, which yields the equation $$(k+1){\bf B}{\bf V}_{k+1}=({\bf E}-k{\bf A}){\bf V}_k.$$ Since ${\bf I}'(0)=(c,0,0)^\top= {\bf V}_1$, one can solve the system above with respect to $(V_{0,k},V_{1,k+1}, V_{2,k+1})$ and thus to obtain via recursive procedure formulas for all ${\bf V}_k$, $k=2,3,\ldots$. Explicitly, $$\begin{array}{rl}
(8-9a)V_{1,k+1}&=[8-9a+(88-87a)\frac{k-1}{k+1}]V_{0,k}
-(48a-36a^2)\frac{k-1}{k+1}V_{1,k},\\
(8-9a)V_{2,k+1}&=[4-\frac92a+(44-\frac{63}{2}a)\frac{k-1}{k+1}] V_{0,k}
-24a\frac{k-1}{k+1}V_{1,k},\\
V_{0,k+1}&=\frac{6k-1}{3k}V_{1,k+1}-a\frac{4k-1}{4k}V_{2,k+1},\;\;\;
k=1,2,3,\ldots
\end{array}$$ Applying these formulas, we obtain the expansions in Lemma 2. $\Box$
[**Proof of Theorem \[t5\].**]{} Consider the following linear combinations $$\begin{array}{ll}
J_0=I_0, & \hspace{10mm} J_3=\alpha_1 hI_0+\beta_1 I_1+\gamma_1 I_2,\\
J_1=I_1, &\hspace{10mm} J_4=\alpha_2 hI_0+(\beta_2+\delta_2h)I_1+\gamma_2 I_2,\\
J_2=I_1-2I_2, &\hspace{10mm} J_5=\alpha_3 hI_0+(\beta_3+\delta_3h)I_1+(\gamma_3+\eta_3 h)I_2,
\end{array}$$ where $$\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha_1=a,
& \hspace{10mm} \delta_2=\frac83a^2+a^3, \\[2mm]
\beta_1=-\frac{11}{3}+\frac{21}{40}a,
& \hspace{10mm}\alpha_3=\frac{17}{81}a-\frac{775}{5148}a^2+\frac{63}{9152}a^3, \\[2mm]
\gamma_1=\frac{22}{3}-\frac{61}{20}a,
& \hspace{10mm} \beta_3=-\frac{187}{243}+\frac{55}{72}a-\frac{1085}{9152}a^2-\frac{189}{73216}a^3, \\[2mm]
\alpha_2=\frac{208}{63}a-\frac23a^2,
& \hspace{10mm}\gamma_3=\frac{374}{243}-\frac{631}{324}a+\frac{155}{288}a^2-\frac{315}{36608}a^3, \\[2mm]
\beta_2=-\frac{2288}{189}+\frac{52}{9}a+\frac14a^2,
& \hspace{10mm}\delta_3=\frac{119}{702}a^2-\frac{147}{1144}a^3-\frac{189}{18304}a^4, \\[2mm]
\gamma_2=\frac{4576}{189}-\frac{1144}{63}a+\frac56a^2,
& \hspace{10mm} \eta_3=\frac{49}{234}a^3.
\end{array}$$ The coefficients above are chosen so that $J_k(h)=O(h^{k+1})$ near zero for $0\leq k \leq 5$. Their explicit values are determined from the respective linear systems. By calculation, then one obtains $$\begin{array}{ll}
J_0=c[h+\ldots],
& \hspace{5mm} J_3=c[\frac{49}{32}a^2(a+\frac83)h^4+(\frac{68992}{405}+O(a+\frac83))h^5+\ldots], \\[2mm]
J_1=c[h^2+\ldots],
& \hspace{5mm} J_4=c[\frac{154}{9}a^4h^5+\ldots], \\[2mm]
J_2=c[-\frac53ah^3+\ldots],
& \hspace{5mm} J_5=c[\frac{49}{128}a^5(a+\frac89)h^6+(-119(\frac23)^{14}+O(a+\frac89))h^7+\ldots]. \\[2mm]
\end{array}$$ Let us fix the Hamiltonian parameter $a$ be a little bit smaller that $-\frac83$, so that we would have $J_3=c[\delta_4h^4+\delta_5h^5+O(h^6)]$ with $|\delta_4|<\!\!<|\delta_5|$ and $\delta_4<0<\delta_5$. Then, one can choose a linear combination $J(h)$ of $J_k$, $0\leq k\leq 3$, such that $J(h)=c\sum_{k=1}^5\delta_kh^k[1+O(h)]$ will satisfy $\delta_k\delta_{k+1}<0$ and $|\delta_k|<\!\!<|\delta_{k+1}|$. Therefore, $J(h)$ would have 4 small positive zeroes. As the four coefficients in (\[m1\]) are independently free, one can take a small perturbation such that $M_1(h)=J(h)$ will produce 4 small-amplitude limit cycles around the center at the origin. The proof of the claim concerning $M_2(h)$ is the same, as long as we fix the parameter $a$ a little bit smaller than $-\frac89$ and construct in the same way a linear combination $J(h)=c\sum_{k=1}^7\delta_kh^k[1+O(h)]$ with coefficients having the same properties, thus $M_2(h)$ producing 6 small positive zeroes in the saddle-loop case.
For all other $a\in\R$ different from $0$, $-\frac83$ and $\pm\frac89$, any linear combination of $J_k$, $0\leq k\leq m$ where $m=3,4,5$, will have at most $m$ small positive zeroes. Moreover, $M_k(h)$, $k=1,2,3$ can be expressed as linear combination of the respective $J_k$, thus having as much zeroes at its dimension minus one. It is easy to see that $M_4(h)$ has no small positive zeroes at all. $\Box$
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Part of the paper was written while the second author was visiting the Institut of Mathematics, University of Toulouse III (Paul Sabatier). He is obliged for the hospitality.
[10]{}
Colin [Christopher]{} and Chengzhi [Li]{}. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2007.
J. P. Francoise. Successive derivatives of a first return map, application to the study of quadratic vector fields. , 16(1):87–96, 1996.
Lubomir Gavrilov. Petrov modules and zeros of [A]{}belian integrals. , 122(8):571–584, 1998.
Lubomir Gavrilov. Abelian integrals related to [M]{}orse polynomials and perturbations of plane [H]{}amiltonian vector fields. , 49(2):611–652, 1999.
Lubomir Gavrilov. . , 47(3):174–186, 2013.
Lubomir Gavrilov and Iliya D. Iliev. The displacement map associated to polynomial unfoldings of planar [H]{}amiltonian vector fields. , 127(6):1153–1190, 2005.
I. D. Iliev. Higher-order [M]{}elnikov functions for degenerate cubic [H]{}amiltonians. , 1(4):689–708, 1996.
I. D. Iliev. On second order bifurcations of limit cycles. , 58(2):353–366, 1998.
Yu. S. Ilyashenko. The appearance of limit cycles under a perturbation of the equation [$dw/dz=-R_{z}/R_{w}$]{}, where [$R(z,\,w)$]{} is a polynomial. , 78 (120):360–373, 1969.
Changjian [Liu]{}. , 16(3):1151–1163, 2003.
G. S. Petrov. Nonoscillation of elliptic integrals. , 24(3):45–50, 96, 1990.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The effect of a measurement time duration on the parameters of magnetization curves for an ensemble of identical noninteracting single-domain particles with equally oriented axes under the uniaxial anisotropy has been specified for different experiment modes, in particular for the cases of relaxation measurements and the continuous sweep of a static magnetic field. The relation between a blocking temperature and experiment characteristics has been found for these modes. A recursion method to calculate the magnetization reversal curves for such an ensemble of particles is proposed. By comparing the results of calculations of the magnetic properties by the recursion and Monte-Carlo methods, an algorithm to establish the relation between the equivalent measurement time and such parameters of the Monte-Carlo method as the number of steps and the value of aperture is suggested.'
author:
- 'A.A. TIMOPHEEV, S.M. RYABCHENKO'
title: |
DEPENDENCE OF THE MAGNETIZATION\
OF AN ENSEMBLE OF SINGLE-DOMAIN PARTICLES\
ON THE MEASUREMENT TIME WITHIN VARIOUS EXPERIMENTAL AND COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
---
\[sec:level1\]Introduction
==========================
The problems of the magnetism of nanoparticles have attracted the attention of scientists for many decades. More than a half-century ago, the English physicists E. Stoner and E. Wohlfarth developed a simple model of magnetization reversal for uniaxially anisotropic single-domain particles at $T=0$ K \[1\]. According to this model, during the reversal, all spins in each particle turn in such a way that they remain parallel to each other all the time, i.e. the absolute value of the magnetic moment for each particle remains constant, and only a mutual orientation of the magnetic moments of various particles changes. In such a case, the energy of the ensemble of particles depends only on one collective variable, for example, on a total magnetization vector. Within the frame of this model, all the particles constituting a sample are assumed to have the same shape, volume $V$, and orientation of the crystallographic anisotropy axes. The volume fraction $f$ of these single-domain particles in a specimen is sufficiently small and, thus, the interparticle interaction can be neglected. The objects, whose behavior corresponds to this model, are small (in order to satisfy the condition for them to be single domains) magnetic particles (see, for example, \[2\]) placed in a nonmagnetic metallic or dielectric matrix.
The density of magnetic energy $U$ for a sample can be represented as the sum of the energy density of a magnetic anisotropy, which includes the anisotropy caused by demagnetization fields (a shape-dependent anisotropy term) and that of the interaction of the magnetic moment with an external field $H$. In the simplest case of a uniaxial anisotropy with regard for the first anisotropy constant only, the density of magnetic energy has the form$$U={\frac{{f}}{{N}}}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}{U_{i}}}\text{,} \label{eq1a}$$where$$U_{i}=-K\cos ^{2}(\theta _{i}-\theta _{1})-mH\cos (\theta _{i}).
\label{eq2a}$$Here, $U_{i}$ is the density of magnetic energy for the separate $i$-th particle, $N$ is the number of magnetic particles in the sample volume, $K$ is the first constant of the uniaxial anisotropy of a particle, $m$ is its magnetization, $\theta _{i}$ is the angle between the magnetic moment of the $i$-th particle and the magnetic field direction, and $\theta _{1}$ is the angle between the easy magnetization axis of a particle (for all the particles its direction is assumed to be identical) and the magnetic field direction. For a sample which resides without an external magnetic field as long as possible, the total magnetization $M$ will turn to zero, since the numbers of particles with the magnetic moments oriented in parallel and antiparallel to the easy magnetization axis equal each other. On the contrary, the value of magnetization becomes finite upon the application of a magnetic field to the ensemble of particles. Hence, in the case where the observation duration of such the ensemble is infinitely long, its behavior will be characteristic of a paramagnet, in spite of the fact that the particles are ferromagnetic.
Neel \[3\] and Brown \[4\] took the fact into consideration that a drastic removal of the magnetic field from the ensemble of single-domain particles results in a time decay of the residual magnetization $M(t)$ according to the exponential law:$$M(t)=M(0)\,\exp \left( {-{\frac{{t}}{{\tau }}}}\right) ,
\label{eq3a}$$where $M(0)$ is the magnetization value at the initial time moment and $\tau $ is the relaxation time. The latter characterizes the thermally activated reversal of the direction of the magnetic moment of a separate particle between two possible minima of its potential energy. The hopping probability obeys the Arrhenius law which yields $$\tau ={\frac{{1}}{{\nu _{0}\left( {\exp \left( {-{\frac{{E_{mb}-E_{m1}}}{{kT}%
}}}\right) +\exp \left( {-{\frac{{E_{mb}-E_{m2}}}{{kT}}}}\right) }\right) }}}%
, \label{eq4a}$$where $k$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ is the temperature, and $E_{m1}$, $%
E_{m2}$, and $E_{mb}$ are the energies for two minima and a barrier between them, respectively. The expressions for these energy values contain the product of the particle volume $V$ and the corresponding energy density $U_{i}$ which is dependent on the relative orientation of the particle magnetic moment and the field. As a result, the relaxation time $\tau $ strongly depends on the particle volume, temperature, and the value of the applied magnetic field. If the magnetic field is zero, the energy minima are equally deep. The application of a finite field makes the energy of one of them increase, while that of another one decrease. In a strong magnetic field, when the particle’s Zeeman energy exceeds that of the uniaxial anisotropy, the higher-energy minimum disappears. For the magnetic particles under discussion, the typical values of the preexponential factor $\nu _{0}$ in (\[eq4a\]) are between $10^{8}$ and $10^{10}$ s$^{-1}$. In the Arrhenius law, this factor is called “the attempt frequency”. For estimations, its value can be assumed to equal the precession frequency for the magnetic moment in an effective magnetic field. Neel named these materials, which are the independent single-domain magnetic particles, superparamagnets and called their quasiparamagnetic behavior as superparamagnetism.
For the superparamagnets, the shape of magnetization curves strongly varies, depending on the duration $t$ of the measurement process (measuring time). For each chosen value $t$, a blocking temperature $%
T_{b}$ can be introduced, which divides the whole region of temperatures into two ones with different magnetization behaviors. For one of them, the hopping, which occurs during the measuring time, of the particle magnetic moments between two energy minima should necessarily be taken into account. But, for the second one, these effects are not essential and, thus, can be neglected. It is suitable to choose the temperature, at which the temperature-dependent relaxation time $\tau $ becomes equal to the measuring time $t$, as a blocking temperature. For $T\gg T_{b}$, the measuring time $t\gg \tau $, and the magnetic moment of a particle has enough time to make multiple jumps between the energy minima. As a result, the populations of these minima do not differ from the equilibrium ones and the behavior of such a system of particles will be close to that of the ensemble of paramagnetic atoms, which is characterized by the absence of magnetization hysteresis. In this case, the magnetization of the ensemble of particles can be described by formula$$M(H)=f\, \overline{m(H)}, \label{eq5a}$$where the time-averaged particle magnetization, which is identical for all the particles, equals$$\overline {m(H)} = {\frac{{m}}{{{\int\limits_{ - \pi} ^{\pi}
{\exp\left( { - {\frac{{U_{i} V}}{{kT}}}} \right) }} d\theta
_{i}}} }\quad {\int\limits_{ - \pi} ^{\pi} {\exp\left( { -
{\frac{{U_{i} V}}{{kT}}}} \right) \cos (\theta _{i} )}} d\theta
_{i} . \label{eq6a}$$
The short-time measurements, for which $t<\tau $, correspond to $T<T_{b}$. In this case, there is no enough time for the transitions between the energy minima to occur, and the equilibrium populations for the states with different orientations of the magnetic moments of particles are not achieved during the measuring time. The system is in a metastable state and the curves of magnetization reversal display the hysteresis. The coercivity $H_{c}$ depends on the measuring time, anisotropy energy, and temperature. For the ensemble of uniaxial single-domain particles, Neel and Brown suggested a simple formula which connects these three parameters:$$H_{c}(T)=H_{c}(0){\left\{ {1-{\left[ {{\frac{{kT\ln (t/t_{0})}}{{E_{0}}}}}%
\right] }^{1/\alpha }}\right\} }\text{,} \label{eq7a}$$where $t_{0}=\nu _{0}^{-1}$, $E_{0}=KV$ is the height of the energy barrier between the two minima at $H=0$, and the exponent $\alpha $ is the parameter which depends on the orientation of a magnetic field relative to the easy axis of magnetization. For the case of the ensemble of uniaxial particles, whose easy axes are aligned along the magnetic field, $\alpha =2$.. For an arbitrary, but identical for all the particles, orientation of easy axes (with respect to the magnetic field direction), $\alpha $ is given as (see \[5\])$$\alpha =0.86+1.14\left( {(\cos ^{2/3}(\theta _{1})+\sin
^{2/3}(\theta _{1}))^{-3/2}}\right) . \label{eq8a}$$If the directions of the particles’ easy axes are uniformly distributed over the space, $\alpha =4/3$.
In the literature sources, for the case of $\alpha =2$, one can often find a representation of formula (\[eq7a\]) in the form$$H_{c}(T)=H_{c}(0)\left( {1-\sqrt{T/{T_{_{b}}^{\text{NB}}}}}\right)
, \label{eq9a}$$where$$T_{b}^{\text{NB}}=\frac{KV}{k\ln (t/t_{0})} \label{eq10a}$$is the blocking temperature in the Neel–Brown approximation. It is worth noting that, depending on the form of the anisotropy energy definition in the above expressions, the anisotropy constant $K$ can appear with a factor of 2. In spite of a relative simplicity, formulas (\[eq7a\]) – (\[eq9a\]) successfully discribe experimental results.
As was shown in work \[6\], formulas (\[eq7a\]) – (\[eq9a\]) can be supplemented with the expression accounting for the dependence of the particle saturation magnetization on temperature. This will result in a deviation of these expressions from the power dependence for the temperatures which are too close to the Curie temperature of ferromagnetic particles. The further improvements are reduced to the account of the distribution of particles over sizes or anisotropy values or the account, in various approximations, of a magnetic dipole-dipole interaction between the particles.=1
However, the analytical calculation of the magnetization hysteresis curves for the systems under consideration meets serious difficulties even for a minimal number of independent parameters. At the same time, the power of modern computer systems makes it possible to carry out such calculations by numerical methods. One of the difficulties, which arise when one carries on the numerical calculations and tries to compare their results with experiment, is related to the correctness of the identification of a measuring time $t$, which appears in calculations, with a real duration of experiment. This implies that a relevant “protocol” of measurements should be taken into account.
In modeling the properties of the ensembles of magnetic nanoparticles, the method of Monte–Carlo (MC) \[7–12\] has gained a significant popularity. However, this method does not include the “ real” measuring time. Instead of it, the MC method contains such parameters as the number of mathematical iterations (MC steps) and the magnitude of angular aperture used to update the magnetization direction. At the same time, the literature sources known to us do not contain an explicit relation between these parameters of the MC method and the equivalent measuring time, which corresponds to these calculations. In a few works (see, for example, \[10, 13\]), to correlate the number of MC steps with the measuring time, the results of MC calculations are compared with the data of actual magnetostatic measurements. The conclusions of these works are reduced to that the number of MC steps, being optimal from the viewpoint of the likelihood of the results obtained and the reasonable duration of calculations, corresponds to unrealistically short measuring times in real experiments, even for the calculations carried out with the use of high-performance modern computers. Though a number of papers devoted to this problem has been published for the last decade, the methods how to establish the correspondence between the equivalent measuring time and MC simulation parameters remain ambiguous.=1
It should be noted that the calculation, which would be able to account for the mode of carrying out the experiment, of the magnetization curves for the ensemble of single-domain particles has remained a problem, for a solution of which various approaches continue to be proposed (see, for example, \[14, 15\]).
A method developed in this work for the modeling of the magnetization curves doesn’t suffer from the above disadvantage. In what follows, we call it a recursion method (RM). In the literature sources, we haven’t met any examples of the use of such a method. Its adequacy is grounded on the favorable outcome of the comparison of its results with those of both the MC simulations and basic formulas of the Neel–Brown model \[3,4\] described above. Basing on such comparison, we will be able to establish a specific relation between the parameters of MC simulation (the number of MC steps and the magnitude of angular aperture) and the measuring time which corresponds to these parameters. The method we offer is suitable for the analysis of the magnetization curves for superparamagnetic systems consisting of uniaxially anisotropic particles and comprises the cases where the anisotropy axes are either parallel to each other or randomly oriented. There are no restrictions on its utilization to the modeling of the behavior of uniaxial systems with a nonzero second anisotropy constant and even the systems with a cubic anisotropy. However, to simplify the analysis, the modeling is carried out, in what follows, for the ensemble of uniaxial particles, whose axes are aligned in parallel to the magnetic field direction ($\theta _{1}=0$) with regard for only the first anisotropy constant.
Dependence of Blocking Temperature on Measuring Time for Various Measurement Protocols
======================================================================================
Consider an ensemble of identical noninteracting spherical single-domain particles, each of which has volume $V$ and is characterized by the uniaxial crystallographic anisotropy. We assume that the easy axes of particles are aligned in parallel to the external magnetic field, i.e. we choose $%
\theta _{1}=0$. We take only the first anisotropy constant into account. Let us rewrite formula (\[eq2a\]) in terms of dimensionless units by carrying out a division of its left and right parts by the anisotropy constant $K$$$U_{{\rm red}}=-\cos ^{2}(\theta )-2h\cos (\theta ), \label{eq11a}$$where $h=Hm/(2K)$ is the dimensionless magnetic field. Here and below, the index $i$ in the notations of the energy density for a separate particle and the angle characterizing the direction of its magnetic moment will be omitted. The parameter $T_{\rm
red}=kT/(KV)$ is used as a dimensionless temperature. Let us also give the definition of the dimensionless measuring time $t_{\rm red}=t\nu
_{0}$, where $\nu _{0}$ is the parameter which has a frequency dimension \[see expression (\[eq4a\]) for the probability of the thermally activated reversal of particle magnetic moments\] and $t$ is a real measuring time in seconds.
For the fields $h\in (-1,1)$, the solutions of the equation $\frac{\partial U_{\rm {red}}}{\partial \theta }=0$ give us the coordinates of two energy minima: $\theta _{m1}=\pi $ and $\theta
_{m1}=0$. The barrier between these minima is observed at $\theta
_{b}=\arccos (-h)$. The reduced energies corresponding to these angles are $E_{1}=(-1+2h)$, $E_{2}=(-1-2h)$, and $E_{b}=h^{2}$. Substituting these quantities into formula (\[eq4a\]), the expression for the dimensionless relaxation time $\tau _{\rm red}$, which characterizes the thermally activated jumps between these minima, can be written as$$\tau _{\rm red}={\frac{{1}}{{\exp }\left[ {-\left( {h-1}\right) ^{2}/T%
}_{\rm red}\right] {+\exp }\left[ {-\left( {1+h}\right) ^{2}/T}_{\rm {red%
}}\right] }}. \label{eq12a}$$
As was noted above, the blocking temperature $T_{b}$ depends on the measuring time $t_{\rm red}$. It is seen that the use of the condition $t_{\rm red}=\tau _{\rm red}(T_{\rm red}=T_{b}^{r})$ for the determination of the relaxation time leads to the relation $$T_{b}^{r}=1/\ln (2t_{\rm red}). \label{eq13a}$$Here, $T_{b}^{r}$ is the blocking temperature in a zero magnetic field taken in the dimensionless form defined above. This expression doesn’t coincide with that for the blocking temperature in the Neel–Brown approximation, $T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}$ (a reduction of $T_{b}^{\rm {NB}}$ determined from expression (\[eq10a\]) to a dimensionless unit results in $T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}=1/\ln
(t_{\rm red})$). Thus, the Neel–Brown approximation corresponds to neither the condition $t=\tau (T=T_{b})$ (with expression for $\tau $ in the form (\[eq4a\])) nor this relation.
Actually, formula (\[eq9a\]) along with expression (\[eq10a\]) for $%
T_{b}^{\rm {NB}}$ can be obtained from the following considerations. In the case of high fields and low temperatures, i.e. when $h/T_{\rm red}\gg 1$, we can neglect the second exponential term in (\[eq4a\]) (or in a dimensionless expression (\[eq12a\])). Let us take into account only the time, which is necessary for the thermally activated reversal of a particle magnetic moment from a metastable to the basic state, and ignore the backward jumps. In this case,$$\tau _{\rm red}^{\ast }\approx \left\{ \exp \left[ -(h-1)^{2}/T_{\rm {red%
}}\right] \right\} ^{-1}. \label{eq14a}$$
A formal extrapolation, which is not strictly accurate, of this expression to the zero magnetic field and its equating with a measuring time leads to a definition of the effective blocking temperature $T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}$ in this approximation as$$T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}=1/\ln (t_{\rm red}), \label{eq15a}$$i.e. to the formula which was obtained by means of reduction of (\[eq10a\]) to the dimensionless units. It is seen that $T_{b}^{r}$ (see (\[eq13a\])) and $T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}$ (see (\[eq15a\])) are connected by a simple relation $(T_{b^{\ast }}^{r})^{-1}=$ $(T_{b}^{r})^{-1}-\ln (2)$.
The most important point in the approximation \[3,4\] is probably the expression for the temperature dependence of coercivity \[see (\[eq7a\]) and (\[eq9a\])\]. At low temperatures, the criterion $h/T_{\rm red}\gg 1$ can already be fulfilled for a coercive field ($h=h_{c}$) and, thus, approximation (\[eq14a\]), along with the definition, which follows from it, of the blocking temperature, i.e. $T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}$ becomes justified.
Consider the question as to which type of experimental data and measurement mode corresponds the Neel–Brown approximation in more details. Expression (\[eq9a\]) with definition (\[eq10a\]) \[or (\[eq12a\])in dimensionless units\] for a blocking temperature can be obtained proceeding from the assumption that the field which corresponds to coercivity is the one, for which $\tau _{\rm red}(h=h_{c})=t_{\rm
red}$. Then the relation$$t_{\rm red}\;\approx \left\{ \exp \left[ {-{\frac{{\left( {h_{c}(T_{%
\rm {red}})-1}\right) ^{2}}}{{T_{\rm red}}}}}\right] \right\} ^{-1}
\label{eq16a}$$will be valid for the low temperature region of the coercivity vs temperature dependence. After taking the logarithm on both left and right parts of (\[eq16a\]), we obtain the expression for the temperature dependence of coercivity:$$h_{c}(T_{\rm red})=\;1-\sqrt{T_{\rm red}\ln \,(t_{\rm
red})}.\label{eq17a}$$
Defining a blocking temperature as that, at which the extrapolation of a low temperature part of the temperature dependence of coercivity with either formula (\[eq9a\]) or (\[eq17a\]) reaches zero value for a preset measuring time, we can write the expression for the temperature dependence of coercivity as$$h_{c}(T_{\rm red})=1-\sqrt{T_{\rm red}/T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}},
\label{eq18a}$$where $T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}$ is determined from formula (\[eq15a\]).
However, one should keep in mind that, to derive Eq. (\[eq18a\]), we had to use assumption (\[eq16a\]) which is not completely accurate in the strict sense. Moreover, it should be remembered that, to obtain (\[eq15a\]), we used one more approximation which consisted in the extrapolation of the low-temperature high-field part of the $\tau
_{\rm red}^{\ast }$ vs $h $ dependence to the zero field. In fact, the measuring time, which goes into these equations, can be interpreted as the time, during which the system relaxes from the magnetosaturated state after the instantaneous switching-on of the given field. Such a definition of the measuring time is related to the relaxation measurements. For the relaxation experiments under consideration, the time dependence of the magnetization is given as$$M(h,t_{\rm red} ) = M_{\rm equ} (h) + (M_{0} {\rm sign}(h_{\rm
satur} ) -$$ $$\label{eq19a} -M_{\rm equ} (h))\exp \left( - {\frac{{t_{\rm red}}}
{{\tau (h,T_{\rm red} )}}}\right) .$$ Here, $M_{\rm {equ}}(h)$ is the equilibrium magnetization in a field $h$, which for the system under study is determined as $M_{\rm {equ}%
}(h)=M_{0}\tanh (2h/T_{\rm red})$, sign$(h_{\rm {satur}})$ is the sign of the saturation field, and $M_{0}$ is the saturation magnetization. At the same time, the coercivity is determined from the condition $M(h_{c},t_{\rm {%
red}})=0$ which differs from the condition $t_{\rm red}=\tau _{\rm {red}%
}(h_{c},T_{\rm red})$. The latter, perhaps, might be used as an approximate condition. At low temperatures and sufficiently high coercivities (when $%
h_{c}/T_{\rm red}\gg 1$, which is a criterion of the applicability of approximation (\[eq14a\])), it is either a relation $\exp \left[ -t_{\rm red}/\tau _{%
\rm {red}}(h_{c},T_{\rm red})\right] \approx 1/2$ or $t_{\rm red}=\tau _{%
\rm {red}}(h_{c},T_{\rm red})\ln (2)$ that would better satisfy the requirement $M(h_{c},t_{\rm red})=0$. Thus, we will use them instead of ([eq16a]{}). The utilization of such an approximation makes it possible to obtain the equation for the temperature dependence of coercivity. This equation has the same form as formula (\[eq9a\]), in which the effective blocking temperature $T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}$ is substituted by $T_{b^{\ast \ast }}^{r}$. The latter coincides with neither (\[eq10a\]) nor (\[eq15a\]); it equals$$T_{b^{\ast \ast }}^{r}=\;{\frac{{1}}{{\ln \,[t_{\rm red}/\ln (2)]}}}={%
\frac{{1}}{{\ln (t_{\rm red})-\ln [\ln (2)]}}}\rm {.}
\label{eq20a}$$It is seen that $(T_{b\ast \ast }^{r})^{-1}=$ $(T_{b\ast }^{r})^{-1}-{\ln
[\ln (2)]=}T_{b}^{r}-{\ln (2)-\ln [\ln (2)]}$.
To correctly determine $T_{b}$ and obtain the expression for the coercivity vs $T$ dependence, one should not only find the measuring time, but also take the measurement protocol for the magnetic characteristics of a system of particles into account.
Consider the relaxation experiments where the saturating magnetic field, which acts on the system, is instantaneously (or rapidly enough in real conditions so that $t\ll \tau $) transformed into some other field $h$, after which the system relaxes with time. In this case, let the measurements of the magnetization be continuously carried out during a time interval $t_{%
\rm {red}}$. Consider the ways of the determination of both $T_{b}^{r}$ \[see (\[eq13a\])\] and the effective blocking temperature $T_{b^{\ast }}^{r}$ \[see (\[eq18a\])\] to make it possible to specify the temperature dependence of coercivity. It is pertinent to take a temperature at which $\tau _{\rm
red}(h=0)=t_{\rm red}$ \[with regard for (\[eq12a\]) for $\tau
_{\rm red}$\] as $T_{b}^{r}$. If this condition is fulfilled, the zero-field magnetization (the so-called remanent magnetization) has to be $e$ times less than the saturation magnetization (here and below, the number $e$ means the base of the natural logarithm). To measure the coercivity according to this method and to determine the blocking temperature from the $h_{c}(T_{\rm
red})$ dependences, it is necessary at each measurement temperature and at a certain field which has the opposite sign relative to the initial saturation field, to record a time point, at which the magnetic relaxation curve crosses the zero value. The corresponding field will equal the coercivity at the given values of temperature and measuring time. At low temperatures, it will correspond to the solution of the equation$$t_{\rm red} = [\exp\,\left( { - {\frac{{\left( {1 - h_{c}
(T_{\rm red} ,t_{\rm red} )} \right)^{2}}}{{T_{\rm red}}} }}
\right) +$$
$$\label{eq21a} +\exp\,\left( { - {\frac{{\left( {1 + h_{c} (T_{\rm
red} ,t_{\rm red} )} \right)^{2}}}{{T_{\rm red}}} }} \right)]^{ -
1} \ln 2 .$$
Then, for each value of $t_{\rm red}$, one should plot the dependence $%
h_{c}(T_{\rm red})|_{t_{\rm red}}$ and find $T_{b\ast \ast }^{r}(t_{%
\rm {red}})$ from the approximation of its low temperature part by formula (\[eq18a\]), in which $T_{b\ast \ast }^{r}$ substitutes for $%
T_{b\ast }^{r}$. A solution of Eq. (\[eq21a\]), which describes the temperature dependence of coercivity, can be found only numerically. As was noted above, it gives a correct criterion for the determination of $h_{c}(T_{%
\rm {red}},t_{\rm red})$ only for the temperatures lower than $T_{b\ast \ast }^{r}$. To find the temperature dependence of $h_{c}$ over the whole range of temperatures, it is necessary to solve the equation $M(h_{c},t_{%
\rm {red}})=0$ with the use of expressions (\[eq12a\]) and (\[eq19a\]) for $\tau _{\rm red}$ and $M(h,t_{\rm red})$, respectively. It should be noted that the $h_{c}(T_{\rm red})$ dependence found in such a way doesn’t exhibit a sharp break by turning into zero at the blocking temperature. On the contrary, it diminishes smoothly over a certain temperature range above the blocking temperature.
Figure 1 shows the temperature dependences of coercivity for various measuring times $t_{\rm red}$ calculated by means of the numerical solution of Eq. (\[eq21a\]) and the equation $M(h_{c},t_{\rm
red})=0$ with the components described above. The quantities $\sqrt{T_{\rm red}/T_{b\ast
\ast }^{r}(t_{\rm red})}=\sqrt{T_{\rm red}\cdot \left\{ \ln (t_{\rm {%
red}})-\ln \left[ \ln (2)\right] \right\} }$ are taken as the units of the abscissa axis.
As is seen from the figure, all the curves coincide with each other at low temperatures. Extrapolation of the low temperature branches to higher $x$ values gives $\sqrt{T_{\rm red}/T_{b\ast
\ast }^{r}(t_{\rm red})}=1$. However, the real curves do not follow the extrapolated one. On the contrary, they diverge to different sides in the vicinity of the effective blocking temperature. The curves obtained from Eq. (\[eq21a\]) turn into zero below $T_{b\ast \ast }^{r}$, while those obtained from the condition $%
M(h_{c},t_{\rm red})=0$ diminish smoothly above $T_{b\ast \ast
}^{r}$. For very great values of $t_{\rm red}$ ($t_{\rm
red}>10^{5}$), the curves remain linear practically to $T_{b\ast
\ast }^{r}$. It should be noted that, taking $\nu _{0}\approx 10^{8}\div $ $10^{10}$ s$^{-1}$ into account, only such values of $t_{\rm red}$ are characteristic of real measurements. The shorter the measuring time, the lower is the temperature, at which the curves start to deviate from the linear law which corresponds to formula (\[eq18a\]) where the effective blocking temperature equals $%
T_{b\ast \ast }^{r}$. At the same time, both the temperature smearing of a sharp transition in the vicinity of $h_{c}=0$ and the transition retention to the temperatures above the blocking temperature disguises a deviation of the blocking temperature from $T_{b\ast \ast }^{r}$ at short (almost unlikely in practice) measuring times. For this reason, if one employs the relaxation method to measure a coercivity, the deviation from formula (\[eq18a\]), in which $T_{b\ast \ast }^{r}$ serves as the effective blocking temperature, will appear only in the form of the aforementioned smearing. The temperature smearing of the transition, which is observed as $h_{c}$ tends to zero, seems to be natural, since the hysteresis is a manifestation of the metastability at a finite measuring time. Such a hysteresis will occur, to a greater or lesser extent, at any finite temperatures. It is worth noting that the coercivity, even being negligibly small at $T>T_{b}$, doesn’t turn into zero.
In principle, the relaxation measurement protocol considered above is used in practice. However, the protocol of the continuous sweep of a magnetic field (CSMF) with certain rate is more often used for magnetostatic measurements. In the course of its implementation, the relaxation of the magnetization to its equilibrium value occurs in a magnetic field, which continuously changes. The case where the sweeping rate is infinitely small corresponds to the infinitely great measuring time. In this case, the system is in an equilibrium state, and such a case corresponds to $T_{b}\rightarrow 0$. For the regions where superparamagntism becomes clearly apparent and $%
T_{b}\neq 0$, the sweeping rate becomes comparable with the relaxation time $%
\tau $. Under these conditions, the concept of a measuring time should be made more specific and related to the experiment conditions and the blocking temperature definition.
In the case of the CSMF studies, the simplest and natural way to analyze and describe the system properties may be the analysis of a hypothetical protocol of measurements, in which the whole range of the field sweep is divided into equal intervals. In this case, the magnetic field sweep can be regarded as a series of jumps, each of which being characterized by a specific waiting time $t_{w}$ after the previous jump. In this case, the magnetization for each field point will relax during $t_{w}$ from the value at the previous point. Such a method can be called as recursive, since, in order to describe the magnetization relaxation at the $n$-th field point, one should reconstruct a successive series of magnetization relaxations for all $n-1$ previous points. In the limit where the interval between successive points tends to zero, we obtain the CSMF protocol. It is appropriate to define the measuring time as a sweep time for the unit field interval (taken in dimensionless units), i.e. to define $t_{\rm red}$ as the quantity which is reciprocal to the sweep rate averaged over the whole intervals.
Figure 2 shows the dependences of the blocking temperatures defined in different ways on $1/\ln (t_{\rm red})$: $T_{b}^{r}$ was obtained from expression (\[eq13a\]), while $T_{\rm
{b-scan}}^{r}$ was calculated numerically by means of the RM for different values of $n$, where $n$ is the number of intervals, into which the unit field interval $\Delta h=1$ was divided. In calculations, the $T_{\rm {b-scan}}^{r}$ was regarded as a value of the reduced temperature, at which the remanent magnetization was $e$ times less than the saturation magnetization.
It is seen that all dependences, which are calculated with the use of the RM, lie between two curves, one of which is the curve obtained from ([eq13a]{}), while the other is some limiting curve, to which the calculated results tend when $n$ goes to infinity. This curve corresponds to the CSMF case. It is clear that the solution corresponding to $n=1$, i.e. when one point falls on a unit interval, coincides with that obtained from formula (\[eq13a\]). One can see that the results start to diverge from the limiting solution already for $n\sim 200$.
The dependences $h_{c}(T_{\rm red})$ were also calculated for the case $%
n\rightarrow \infty $. Extrapolation of their low temperature regions to the temperatures where $h_{c}\rightarrow 0$ resulted in the same dependences of $%
T_{\rm {b-scan}}^{r}(t_{\rm red})$ as those which were determined from the expression for the remanent magnetization. For all $t_{\rm red}$ values, except for the shortest ones ($t_{\rm red}<5$), the curves $%
h_{c}(T_{\rm red})$ correspond to Eq. (\[eq18a\]), in which $T_{\rm {%
b-scan}}^{r}(t_{\rm red})$ substitutes for $T_{b\ast }^{r}$.
The analysis of the data in Fig. 2 shows that the CSMF case is the limiting case of relaxation measurements when the measuring time is reduced. In fact, in the former case, the system resides in the saturated state for a considerable part of the sweep time which falls on a unit field interval. The effective sweep time from the saturating field to the zero (or coercive)
one turns out to be far shortest than $t_{\rm red}$ defined above for the CSMF protocol. For this protocol, one can introduce the effective measuring time $t_{\rm red}^{\rm {eff}}$, at which $T_{\rm {b-scan}%
}^{r}(t_{\rm red})$ in the CSMF case will coincide with $T_{b}^{r}(t_{\rm {%
red}}^{\rm {eff}})$ in the case of relaxation measurements, i.e. it will equal $1/\ln (2t_{\rm red}^{\rm {eff}})$. It is appropriate to regard such time as the sweep period for the field, at which the equilibrium magnetization changes from zero to a certain value $aM_{0}$. Then, from the fitting of the limiting curve in Fig. 2, we should find the optimal value of $a$ (its expected value is about 2). Such an approach leads to the equation $t_{%
\rm {red}}^{\rm {eff}}=t_{\rm red}$arctg $h(a)/\left[ 2\ln (2t_{\rm {%
red}}^{\rm {eff}})\right] $, whose solution is$$t_{\rm red}^{\rm {eff}}(t_{\rm red},a)={\frac{{t_{\rm red}}\, \rm {%
arctanh }\,(a)}{2W\left[ {t_{\rm red}}\, \rm {{arctanh
}}\,{(a)}\right] }}\rm {.} \label{eq22a}$$Here, $W(x)$ is the so-called Lambert $W$-function which is a reciprocal function to $x=W(x)\exp (W(x))$. This function was introduced into mathematical physics relatively recently \[18\]. In a number of cases, for example in a popular program “Mathematica” developed by “Wolfram Research” company, it is denoted as “ProductLog”. The examples of the solution of various tasks of mathematical physics with the use of this function are presented in \[19\].
The calculations we carried out have shown that the expression$$T_{\rm {b-scan}}^{r}(t_{\rm red})=1/\ln \left[ 2t_{\rm red}^{\rm {eff%
}}(t_{\rm red},a=0.45167)\right] \label{eq23a}$$approximates the limiting curve of Fig. 2 with a high precision. Noticeable deviations are observed only for the smallest $t_{\rm red}$ values ($t_{%
\rm {red}}<5$), which are of minor importance from the practical point of view. Thus, this approximation requires only one fitting parameter $a$.
Taking into account that the $W(x)$ function is not widely used in the scientific literature, we also found the approximation of the limiting curve for $T_{\rm {b-scan}}^{r}(t_{\rm red})$ by a power series of $\left[ \ln
(2t_{\rm red})\right] ^{-1}$:$$T_{\rm b - scan}^{r} (t_{\rm red} ) = {\frac{{1}}{{\ln \,(2t_{\rm red}
)}}} \times$$ $$\label{eq24a} \times\left( {1 + a_{0} + {\frac{{a_{1}}} {{\ln
\,(2t_{\rm red} )}}} + {\frac{{a_{2}^{}}} {{[\ln \,(2t_{\rm red}
)]^{2}}}} + {\frac{{a_{3}}} {{[\ln (2t_{\rm red} )]^{3}}}}.....}
\right)$$ with four fitting parameters: $a_{0}=0.01$, $%
a_{1}=5.197$, $a_{2}=-3.581$, and $a_{3}=-1.602$. Finally, we note that, in real CSMF experiments, ${t_{\rm red}}$ is usually between $10^{10} $ and $10^{14}$. For this reason, the discrepancies in the determination of a blocking temperature are almost unnoticeable for different measurement methods.
Recursion Method
================
Before turning to a description of the calculation method for magnetic reversal curves for different measuring times, it should be noted that its implementation, as also in the case of MC modeling, requires some efforts in the programming of a calculation procedure. We will use the same dimensionless parameters as in Section 2: $h=Hm/(2K)$ is the magnetic field, $t_{\rm red}=t\nu _{0}$ is the measuring time, $T_{\rm {red}%
}=kT/(KV)$ is the temperature, $n$ is the number of points per unit field interval, and $\overline{m_{\rm red}}=f\overline{m}/(fm_{s})=M_{\rm red}$- is average magnetization for measuring time, which normalized on a saturation magnetization $m_{s}$.
The method is based on the following prerequisites.
1\. The hysteresis, which is a result of the metastability, will become apparent at a finite measuring time only if the state of a system is characterized by two minima in the dependence of its energy on the orientation of a particle magnetic moment. The hysteresis originates from the metastability with regard to thermally activated jumps over a potential barrier. In its turn, the metastability appears as a result of the finiteness of a measuring time.
2\. In real magnetostatic measurements, the ratio of a barrier energy at $H=0$ to a thermal energy, at which the deblocking of a magnetic moment occurs, is near 25. That is why we assume that, even at temperatures higher than the blocking temperature, the orientation of a magnetic moment will be localized in one of the minima, rather than smeared by temperature over a wide range of angles $\theta $.
3\. To determine the magnetization of a system, the concept of potential well (minimum) populations is introduced. This concept is based on the distribution statistics of magnetic moment directions in an infinitely great ensemble of identical and equally oriented particles.
4\. In dimensionless units, the magnetization of the system depends only on the coordinates of minima ($\theta _{m1},\theta _{m2}$) and their populations ($N_{1},N_{2}$): $M_{\rm red}=N_{1}\cos
(\theta _{m1})+N_{2}\cos (\theta _{m2})$.
The limits of applicability of this method will be discussed later on; we will concentrate now only on the calculation procedure.
We reduce formula (\[eq2a\]) for the density of energy of a separate particle to that in the dimensionless units (the index $i$, which refers to the number of a particle, will be omitted again, as was done in (\[eq11a\])):$$U_{r}=-\cos ^{2}(\theta -\theta _{1})-2h\cos (\theta ).
\label{eq25a}$$Consider the energy profile $U_{r}$ in the phase space $\theta \in (-\pi ,\pi
]$ as a function of the magnetic field $h$. The energy minimum will correspond to the equilibrium orientation of the magnetic moment. The number of extrema can be found by solving the equation $\partial U_{r}/\partial
\theta =0$. Substituting the roots of this equation into the expression $%
\partial ^{2}U_{r}/\partial \theta ^{2}$, we can find out if a given root corresponds to the energy minimum or maximum.
The method developed consists of a few successive steps. At first, the system is assumed to reside in a saturating magnetic field. Then we sequentially change the field to smaller values and calculate the magnetization, to which the system will come during the time interval which is equal to the period of the system residence at a certain field point $%
h_{k}$. The relaxation time is determined by the form of the potential in a field $h_{k}$. According to this method, the calculations should start from a negative field, which is high enough so that the energy displays only one minimum, and finish at a sufficiently high positive field, for which the energy again displays only one minimum. Thus, the calculation procedure can tentatively be divided into three stages.
The first stage is applicable when the field is negative and the state of the system is characterized by only one energy minimum. This stage includes:
1\. Determination of the total number of extrema in the range $\theta \in
(-\pi ,\pi ]$ and their separation into minima and maxima.
2\. If the state of the system is characterized by only one energy minimum, then $N_{1}=1$ and $N_{2}=0$, and the magnetization equals $M_{\rm {red}%
}=N_{1}\cos (\theta _{m1})+N_{2}\cos (\theta _{m2})$. If there are two minima, we should go on to the second stage.
3\. Recording the magnetization for a given field point $h_{k}$, changing the field to $h_{k+1}=h_{k}+\Delta $, and going on to item 1.
The second stage is applicable when the state of the system is characterized by two energy minima and includes:
4\. Determination of the total number of extrema in the range $\theta \in
(-\pi ,\pi ]$ and their separation into minima and maxima.
5\. If the state of the system is characterized by a single energy minimum, then we should go on to the third stage. If there are two minima, a temporal evolution of $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ should be considered. This includes:
a\) determination of the equilibrium populations $N_{1\infty }$ and $%
N_{2\infty }$, i.e. the values of $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ when the time interval is infinite:$$N_{1\infty }={\frac{{1}}{{1+\exp }\left[ {-(E}_{2}-E_{1}{)/T}_{\rm red}%
\right] }}\rm {, \ \ \ }N_{2\infty }=1-N_{1\infty }\rm {,}
\label{eq26a}$$where $E_{1}=U_{r}(\theta _{m1})$ and $E_{2}=U_{r}(\theta _{m2})$ are the energy values for the first and second minima, respectively;
b\) tracing the relaxation of $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ for the time interval $%
t_{\rm {loc}}=t_{\rm red}/n$:$$N_{1t}=N_{1\infty }+\left( {N_{1}-N_{1\infty }}\right) \,\exp \left( -t_{%
\rm {loc}}/\tau _{\rm red}\right) \rm {,} \label{eq27a}$$$$\tau _{\rm red}=\frac{1}{\exp \left[ -(E_{b}-E_{1})/T_{red}\right]
+\exp \left[ -(E_{b}-E_{2})/T_{red}\right] }\rm {.} \label{eq28a}$$
c\) recording the new values of $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$:$$N_{1}=N_{1t}\rm {, \ }N_{2}=1-N_{1t}\rm {.}$$
6\. Calculation of the magnetization $M_{\rm
red}=N_{1}\cos (\theta _{m1})+N_{2}\cos (\theta _{m2})$.
7\. Fixation of the magnetization for a given field point $h_{l}$, changing the field to $h_{l+1}=h_{l}+\Delta $, and going on to item 4.
The third stage is applicable when the field is positive, and there is no second minimum. This stage includes:
8\. Determination of the total number of extrema in the range $\theta \in
(-\pi ,\pi ]$ and separation of them into minima and maxima.
9\. If the state of the system is characterized by only one energy minimum, then $N_{1}=0$ and $N_{2}=1$ and the magnetization equals $M_{\rm {red}%
}=N_{1}\cos (\theta _{m1})+N_{2}\cos (\theta _{m2})$.
10\. Fixation of the magnetization for a given field point $h_{m}$, changing the field to $h_{m+1}=h_{m}+\Delta $, and going on to item 8.
The greater $n$, the more minutely the magnetization curve will be calculated. At the same time, the real time interval spent on the measurement of the complete hysteresis loop (${\{}-h,h{\}},{\{}h,-h{\}}$) will equal $t=2t_{\rm red}\Delta
h/\nu _{0}$ s, where $\Delta h $ is the interval (taken in dimensionless units) of the complete sweep of the magnetic field. If one does not need to model the partial hysteresis loops, it is enough to carry out the calculations for the interval ${\{}-h,h{\}}$, because the second interval ${\{}h,-h{\}}$ will be symmetric relative to the coordinate origin ($0,0$). To obtain the magnetization curves for an ensemble which is characterized by a distribution of some particles’ parameters, it is necessary to divide the distribution function into sufficiently small intervals and, having calculated the separate curves for each of the intervals (i.e. for the average values of a parameter in this interval), to sum them.=1
The inset in Fig. 3 shows the results of the modeling of magnetization curves for the ensemble of uniaxial particles, whose easy axes are aligned in parallel to the magnetic field. The calculations were made for $t_{\rm {red}%
}=1.25\times 10^{6}$ and $n=125$. The temperature $T_{\rm red}$ was varied from 0 to 0.02. The temperature dependence of coercivity (squares) is well described by formula (\[eq7a\]) and has a square-root character ($\alpha =2 $) for the given orientation of the particle easy axes. The plot of this curve in the form $h_{c}(\sqrt{T_{\rm red}})$ (triangles) confirms the latter fact. Such a dependence is a straight line and its extrapolation to the intersection with the ordinate axis unambiguously determines the blocking temperature $T_{b}^{\rm
red}$= $(0.3\pm 0.005)^{2}$ = $0.09\pm 0.003$. At the same time, the calculation of $T_{\rm {b-scan}}^{r}(t_{\rm {red}%
}=1.25\times 10^{6})$ according to formulas (\[eq23a\]) and (\[eq24a\]) in the case $n\rightarrow \infty $ (or, at least, $n\geq 200$) gives 0.0915. Thus, the value of $T_{b}^{\rm red}$ = $0.09$ obtained from Fig. 3 well agrees with that found from (\[eq23a\]) and (\[eq24a\]).
The temperature dependence of the remanent magnetization $M_{r}$ normalized to the saturation magnetization exhibits a sharp rise (see Fig. 3, circles) at temperatures where $h_{c}$ becomes noticeable.
As was expected, the value $T_{\rm red}=$ $T_{b}^{\rm red}=0.09$ corresponds to a decrease in the remanence by a factor of 2.718. This means that the plots of the temperature dependences of the coercivity and the remanent magnetization normalized to the blocking temperature (see expression ([eq23a]{}) or (\[eq24a\])) should coincide. Figure 4,[*a*]{} shows the results of the RM modeling obtained on the same ensemble of particles, but for different values of the measuring time. These data replotted in the coordinates where the abscissa axis is scaled by $T_{\rm {b-scan}%
}^{r}(t_{\rm red})$ are presented in Fig. 4,[*b*]{}. It is seen that almost all the $H_{c}\left[ T_{\rm red}/T_{\rm {b-scan}}^{r}(t_{\rm {red%
}})\right] $ curves overlap one another. Replotting these curves in the coordinates with a “rooted abscissa” shows that, at temperatures far lower than the blocking temperature, they are well described by formula (\[eq9a\]).
A characteristic feature of the $M_{r}\left[ T_{\rm red}/T_{\rm {b-scan}%
}^{r}(t_{\rm red})\right] $ dependence is a broadening of the front of the $%
M_{r}$ growth with decrease in $t_{\rm red}$. All the curves intersect one another at a point, whose ordinate equals 0.368, i.e. $1/e$. Thus, the simulated magnetization curves, as well as the $H_{c}(T_{\rm red})$ and $%
M_{r}(T_{\rm red})$ dependences obtained from them, are in compliance with the regularities described in Section 2, which determine their behavior over a wide range of measuring time values.
The RM calculations of the magnetization curves were also carried out for the ensembles of particles with 3D- and 2D-distributions of easy axes. The results obtained well agree with the data calculated by the MC method \[1,6,7\]. The fact that the time of computer calculations is much less within the RM than that within the MC method gives us an additional argument in favor of the method we have proposed here.
It is worth noting that the method developed contains a series of approximations, which can lead to some inaccuracy of the results obtained. The most important approximation is related to a failure to consider the thermal fluctuations of a magnetic moment in the vicinity of an energy minimum . This, in turn, gives rise to an inaccuracy in the determination of the magnetization at sufficiently high temperatures (or for very short values of the measuring time ($t_{\rm red}\leq 5$)). It should be stressed once more that, in the first place, the RM is used for the calculations of the it[hysteresis]{} loops of the magnetization. To study the magnetization curves it[above]{} it[the blocking temperature]{}, it is enough to utilize formula (\[eq5a\]). With the use of this formula, one can also estimate the measure of inaccuracy for the magnetization calculated by the RM at temperatures higher than the blocking temperature. It is obvious that the higher the temperature, the greater is the inaccuracy. To check the role of this factor, we calculated the magnetization curves for $t_{\rm red}=1.25\times 10^{4}$ and $T_{\rm {red}%
}>$ $T_{b}^{\rm red}$ (namely, for $T_{\rm red}=0.2$) by the RM and formula (\[eq6a\]). The maximal error in the determination of the magnetization did not exceed $1.5\%$. The measuring times, which are shorter than the above value, are hardly possible in practice.
Monte–Carlo Method
==================
For the modeling by Monte–Carlo method, the standard algorithm suggested by Metropolis et al. \[16\] was used. It is known that, for a sufficiently great number of steps $N_{\rm {MC}}$, such an algorithm leads to the Boltzmann distribution. This means that a system comes to the thermodynamic equilibrium and thus, no metastability and, respectively, no hysteresis will be observed unless we introduce some special tricks. In a general case, for a great number of MC steps, the results will tend to those which can be obtained with the use of formula (\[eq5a\]). To “catch” the metastability in the process of magnetization reversal, it is necessary to use a finite number of MC steps and restrict the generation of a trial random orientation of the magnetic moment in the vicinity of the current orientation by a certain not great aperture $\Delta \theta $, instead of the generation over the whole phase space.
This trick is one of the standard MC techniques to model the hysteresis loops \[7, 10, 12\]. The procedure of modeling is divided into two stages: a thermalization of the system and a magnetization reversal process itself.
The system thermalization is regarded as the procedure consisting from tens to hundreds of thousands of MC steps at high negative fields and sufficiently high temperatures. This procedure is aimed at bringing the system to a state which is equivalent to the thermal equilibrium. To model the magnetization reversal process, one should give an increment in the magnetic field and perform a given number of MC steps for each field point. Such algorithm is widely used, and we won’t describe it in details (see its description, for example, in \[10,12,17\]). Here, we only note that, in our calculations, we set the aperture value $\Delta \theta =6%
%TCIMACRO{\U{b0}}%
%BeginExpansion
{{}^\circ}%
%EndExpansion
$ (the role of the aperture will be discussed below). The thermalization procedure was carried out for $T_{\rm red}=0.5$, $h=-10$, and $N_{\rm {MC%
}}=10000$. To compare the efficiency of the MC method and RM, we performed a series of calculations of the magnetization curves for various $T_{\rm {%
red}}$ by both methods. To determine the blocking temperature, we utilized the extrapolation of a low-temperature region of the $h_{c}(\sqrt{T_{\rm red}}%
)$ dependence, which is linear in these coordinates, to its intersection with the abscissa axis. In both cases, 300 field points fell on one magnetization curve ($-2<h<2$), which meant that $n$ was equal to $75$. Then we carried out the calculations of the $H_{c}(T_{\rm red})$ and $%
M_{r}(T_{\rm red})$ dependences according to the MC method with $N_{\rm {%
MC}}=5\times 10^{6}$, a measuring time $t_{\rm red}$ for the RM procedure was fitted in such a way that the dependences obtained agreed as much as possible with the results of the MC modeling.=1
Figure 5 presents the $H_{c}(T_{\rm red})$ and $M_{r}(T_{\rm
red})$ dependences obtained by the MC method (squares and circles) and RM (solid lines) for the ensemble of particles, whose easy axes are aligned along the magnetic field. It is seen from the figure that, in spite of the disadvantages of the RM, which were formulated in Section 3, both the methods give almost identical dependences. Since the duration of the MC calculations was sufficiently long (it took 46 min to calculate one magnetization curve), only a small number of particles (5 particles in the ensemble) was taken for calculations and this resulted in a noticeable data scattering. On the contrary, it took no more than a minute to make the RM calculations for one magnetization curve. In the case under consideration, the number of MC steps at each field point was $5\times 10^{6}$, while the RM with a fitting procedure described above gave $t_{\rm {loc}%
}=8\times 10^{3}$, which means that, for $n=75$, $t_{\rm red}=nt_{\rm {loc}%
}=6\times 10^{5}$. Since the parameter $\nu _{0}$ is of the order of $%
10^{8}-10^{11}$, the actual measuring time for such a kind of the MC procedure corresponds to $10^{-4}-10^{-7}$ s. This is, of course, an extremely small time interval. At the same time, it is pertinent to specify the interrelation between the number of MC steps and the aperture, on the one hand, and the real time interval,
Relationship Between the Parameters of MC Modeling and Real Measuring Time
==========================================================================
It is appropriate to assume that, for the MC procedure, the equivalent real measuring time $t_{\rm red}$ should be proportional to $nN_{\rm {MC}}$. For this reason, the results obtained in Section 2 were used to search for such a dependence. At first, the calculations of the blocking temperature $%
T_{b}^{\rm red}$ were carried out by both methods for different measuring times (different numbers of MC steps).
Figure 6 shows the dependences obtained along with a theoretical curve which corresponds to formulas (\[eq23a\]) and (\[eq24a\]). To make a comparison of the results to be more covenient, all the dependences were represented in the form $T_{b}^{\rm red}\left[ \ln (t_{\rm {sys}}/t_{\rm {fit}})\right]
$, where $t_{\rm {sys}}$ is the effective measuring time characteristic of each method (for the RM and the theoretical dependence, $t_{\rm {%
sys}}=t_{\rm red}$; for the MC procedure, $t_{\rm {sys}}=nN_{\rm {MC}}$), and $t_{\rm {fit}}$ is the fitting parameter specific for each procedure. It turned out that, for the RM procedure and the theoretical dependence, $t_{\rm {fit}}=1$. It was also confirmed that, for the MC procedure, firstly, the equivalent measuring time is actually proportional to $nN_{\rm {MC}}$, and, secondly, the coefficient of proportionality is about $450$. It is seen that the points calculated by both methods agree well with the theoretical curve. Based on this, the relation between the number of MC steps and the equivalent measuring
time was obtained in the form$$t_{\rm red}^{\rm {MC}}\approx nN_{\rm {MC}}/450.
\label{eq29a}$$
One can estimate the number of MC steps which corresponds to the measuring time $t\nu _{0}=10^{10}$. It equals approximately $5\times 10^{12}$. Taking into account that one MC step contains a few tens of operations and that a modeling is performed for an ensemble of particles, the necessary computational resources exceed $10^{14}$ operations. Thus, it is concluded that the computational capability of modern computers is not sufficient to carry out the real time modeling. It is obvious that, for some calculations, it is more important to deal with a great number of particles in an ensemble and less important whether the number of MC steps is great or small. However, to simulate, for example, the ZFC/FC (zero field cooling/field cooling) procedure, the value of the measuring time is likely to be decisive.
Let us discuss the origin of the parameter $t_{\rm {fit}}$ for the MC procedure. The only parameter which we have not yet varied is the generation aperture $\Delta \theta $. It was noted that the MC calculations above were carried out under the condition that $\Delta \theta =6%
%TCIMACRO{\U{b0}}%
%BeginExpansion
{{}^\circ}%
%EndExpansion
$. Let us start from the assumption that it is the parameter $\Delta \theta $ that determines the $t_{\rm {fit}}$ value. To make sure of this, we performed the MC calculations of $T_{b}^{\rm
red}(N_{\rm {MC}})$ dependences for various values of aperture ($\Delta \theta =1.5\div 48%
%TCIMACRO{\U{b0}}%
%BeginExpansion
{{}^\circ}%
%EndExpansion
$).
Figure 7 presents the results of this modeling. As is seen from the figure, for the calculations with a small number of MC steps, $T_{b}^{\rm {%
red}}$ strongly depends on $N_{\rm {MC}}$. As $N_{\rm {MC}}$ increases, the aperture value to a lesser extent affects $T_{b}^{\rm red}$. At the same time, a family of $T_{b}^{\rm
red}\left[ \ln (nN_{\rm {MC}})\right]
$ dependences can be well approximated by a function $T_{\rm {b-scan}}(nN_{%
\rm {MC}}/t_{\rm {fit}})$. It follows from general considerations that $t_{%
\rm {fit}}(\Delta \theta )$ should be dependent on $U_{r}$, its derivatives, or its integrals. However, we have not succeed in finding the precise analytic dependence. We can only note that, for $\Delta \theta <45%
%TCIMACRO{\U{b0}}%
%BeginExpansion
{{}^\circ}%
%EndExpansion
$, the admissible expression resulted from the fitting of the data in Fig. 7 is$$t_{\rm {fit}}\approx 4.9/\left[ \sin ^{2}(\Delta \theta )\right]
. \label{eq30a}$$Thus, we have obtained the final expressions which answer a question about which measuring time corresponds to the MC calculations:$$t_{\rm red}^{\rm {MC}}\approx \;{\frac{{\sin ^{2}(\Delta \theta )}}{{%
4.9\;}}}nN_{\rm {MC}}, \label{eq31a}$$$$~T_{b}^{\rm {MC}}\approx T_{\rm {b-scan}}\left[ n{\frac{{N_{\rm {MC}}}}{{%
4.9}}}\sin ^{2}(\Delta \theta )\right] .\label{eq32a}$$
Conclusions
===========
In this work, the recursion method has been developed for the calculations of the magnetic properties of the ensemble of single-domain particles. Its applicability to the system of oriented particles with a uniaxial anisotropy is demonstrated. There are no hindrances to apply such a procedure to the case of a cubic anisotropy, introduce the distribution function for a certain parameter, make the anisotropy constant temperature-dependent, or even introduce the dipole-dipole interaction between the particles of an ensemble. It is also not difficult to model the ZFC/FC procedure. In our opinion, the RM results will far better reflect the real experiments, than the results of the MC modeling.
The relation, which correlates the magnetic parameters of the ensemble of uniaxially anisotropic magnetic particles with a measuring time for these properties in various experimental procedures, is obtained.
It is shown that, depending on a kind of experiment, the relationship between the blocking temperature and the measuring time has somewhat different forms.
The calculations of the magnetization curves for the ensemble of uniaxial single-domain particles are carried out for different measuring times. The similar calculations performed by the Monte-Carlo technique confirm the adequacy of the method developed here. The latter method requires far less computational resources
in comparison with the modeling of an analogous task by the Monte–Carlo method.
With the use of the new method, we succeeded in the establishment of the empirical dependence between the number of MC steps and the generation aperture of a random direction of the magnetic moment, on the one hand, and the measuring time, which corresponds to these parameters, on the other hand. It is shown that the parameters, which are usually used for the MC modeling of the behavior of ensembles of magnetic particles, correspond to unlikely short values of the measuring time.
[Translated from Ukrainian by A.I. Tovstolytkin]{}
\[1\] E.C. Stoner and E.P. Wohlfarth, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A [**240**]{}, 599 (1948). \[2\] S.V. Vonsovskii, [*Magnetism*]{} (Moscow, Nauka, 1971), Chapter 23, Section 6 (in Russian). \[3\] L. Neel, Ann. Geophys. [**5**]{}, 99 (1949). \[4\] W.F. Brown, Phys. Rev. [**130**]{}, 1677 (1963). \[5\] H. Pfeiffer, Phys. Status Solidi A [**118**]{}, 295 (1990). \[6\] Lin He and Chinping Chen, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 184424 (2007). \[7\] J. García-Otero, M. Porto, J. Rivas, and A. Bunde, J. Appl. Phys. **85**, 2287 (1999). \[8\] O. Iglesias, A. Labarta, Physica B **372**, 247 (2005). \[9\] O. Iglesias, A. Labarta, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 184416 (2001). \[10\]D.A. Dimitrov and G.M. Wysin, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 9237 (1996). \[11\] L. Wang, J. Ding, H.Z. Kong, Y. Li, and Y.P. Feng, Phys. Rev. B **64**, 214410 (2001). \[12\] O.V. Billoni, S.A. Cannas, and F.A. Tamarit, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 104407 (2005). \[13\] R.W. Chantrell, N. Walmsley, J. Gore, and M. Maylin, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 024410 (2000). \[14\] M.A. Chuev, Pis’ma v Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **85**, 744 (2007). \[15\] O. Michele, J. Hesse, and H. Bremers, J. Phys.: Cond. Matter **18**, 4921 (2006). \[16\] N. Metropolis, A.W. Rosenbluth, M.N. Rosenbluth, A.H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. **21**, 1087 (1953). \[17\] C.M.P. Russell and K.M. Unruh, J. Appl. Phys. **99**, 08H909 (2006). \[18\] R.M. Corless, G.H. Gonnet, D.E.J. Hare [*et al.*]{}, Adv. Comput. Math. **5**, 329 (1996). \[19\] S.R. Valluri D.J. Jeffrey, and R.M. Corless, Canadian J. Phys. **78**, 823 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A.A. Vasil’eva'
title: 'Kolmogorov widths of weighted Sobolev classes on a multi-dimensional domain with conditions on the derivatives of order $r$ and zero'
---
Introduction
============
The problem on estimating the Kolmogorov and linear widths of weighted Sobolev classes is studied since 1970’s [@el_kolli; @trieb_mat_sb]. These classes can be defined differently, depending on smaller-order derivatives and boundary conditions. For example, in [@triebel12; @mieth1; @mieth2; @vas_width_raspr] the weighted Sobolev classes are defined only by conditions on the higher-order derivatives; in [@lo1; @lo2; @lo3; @triebel; @trieb_mat_sb; @boy_1; @myn_otel; @ait_kus1; @ait_kus2] they are defined by conditions on the derivatives of different orders. Also notice that in [@step_lom; @edm_lang; @konov_leviat; @lang_j_at1; @lif_linde] the weighted Sobolev spaces on an interval or a semi-axis are defined as the image of a weighted Riemann-Liouville operator (the criterion of boundedness of such operators was obtained by V.D. Stepanov [@stepanov2; @stepanov1]).
Here we consider the weighted Sobolev spaces with conditions on the highest order and zero derivatives.
First we recall the definitions of the class $W^r_{p,g}(\Omega)$ and the space $L_{q,v}(\Omega)$.
Let $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a domain, and let $g$, $v:\Omega\rightarrow (0, \, \infty)$ be measurable functions. Given a distribution $f$ on $\Omega$, we set $\displaystyle \nabla
^r\!f=\left(\partial^{r}\! f/\partial
x^{\overline{\beta}}\right)_{|\overline{\beta}| =r}$ (the partial derivatives are taken in a sense of distributions; $\overline{\beta} =(\beta_1, \, \dots, \, \beta_d)$, $|\overline{\beta}| =\beta _1+ \ldots+\beta _d$). Let $l_{r,d}$ be the number of components of the vector-valued distribution $\nabla
^r\!f$. We set $$W^r_{p,g}(\Omega)=\left\{f:\ \Omega\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}\big| \; \exists
\psi :\ \Omega\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{l_{r,d}}\!:\ \| \psi \|
_{L_p(\Omega)}{\leqslant}1, \, \nabla ^r\! f=g\cdot \psi\right\}$$ (we denote the corresponding function $\psi$ by $\displaystyle\frac{\nabla ^r\!f}{g}$), $${\cal W}^r_{p,g}(\Omega)={\rm span}\,W^r_{p,g}(\Omega),$$ $$\| f\|_{L_{q,v}(\Omega)}{=}\| fv\|_{L_q(\Omega)},\qquad
L_{q,v}(\Omega)=\left\{f:\Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}| \; \ \| f\|
_{L_{q,v}(\Omega)}<\infty\right\}.$$
We define the set $M$ as the intersection of the class $W^r_{p_1,g}(\Omega)$ and the unit ball of the space $L_{p_0,w}(\Omega)$; i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{m_def} M = \left\{ f:\Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}:\; \left\|
\frac{\nabla ^r f}{g}\right\|_{L_{p_1}(\Omega)}{\leqslant}1, \quad
\|wf\|_{L_{p_0}(\Omega)}{\leqslant}1\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
For $d=1$, $p_1=p_0>1$, $q{\geqslant}1$, the criterion for boundedness of $M$ in the space $L_{q,v}(\Omega)$ was obtained by R.O. Oinarov [@r_oinarov]. Then this result was generalized by V.D. Stepanov and E.P. Ushakova [@st_ush] for $0<p_0{\leqslant}q$, $1<p_1{\leqslant}q<\infty$ and $0<q<p_1<\infty$, $p_0=p_1>1$.
For multi-dimensional domain problems on embeddings of weighted Sobolev classes with restrictions on derivatives of different orders were studied by A. Kufner, P.I. Lizorkin, M.O. Otelbaev, K. Mynbaev, L.K. Kusainova, O.V. Besov and other authors (see, e.g., [@lo1; @myn_otel; @besov; @caso_ambr; @kus1; @kufner]).
We recall that the Kolmogorov $n$-width of a subset $C$ in a normed space $X$ is the quantity $$d_n(C, \, X) = \inf _{L\in {\cal L}_n(X)} \sup _{x\in C} \inf
_{y\in L}\|x-y\|;$$ here ${\cal L}_n(X)$ is a family of subspaces in $X$ of dimension at most $n$; the linear $n$-width is the quantity $$\lambda_n(C, \, X) = \inf _{A\in L(X, \, X), \, {\rm rk}\, A{\leqslant}n}
\sup _{x\in C}\|x-Ax\|$$ (here $L(X, \, X)$ is the family of linear continuous operators on $X$, ${\rm rk}\, A$ is the dimension of the image of $A$).
Triebel [@triebel; @trieb_mat_sb] obtained the estimates for the Kolmogorov widths of the set $M$ for $p_1=p_0{\leqslant}q$; $\Omega$ is a domain with smooth boundary, the weights are the powers of the distance from $\partial \Omega$. The parameters are such that the orders of widths depend only on the conditions on the highest-order derivatives. In the papers of Lizorkin and Otelbaev [@lo3], Aitenova and Kusainova [@ait_kus1; @ait_kus2], in the book of Mynbaev and Otelbaev [@myn_otel] estimates for the linear widths of the set $M$ in $L_{q,v}$ were obtained for $p_0=p_1$ and general weights. For $q{\leqslant}2$ or $p_1{\geqslant}2$ under some conditions on the weights the upper and the lower estimates are the same in the sense of orders. In addition, in [@myn_otel] the special case $\Omega = {\mathbb{R}}^d$, $g(x)=(1+|x|)^\beta$, $w(x)=(1+|x|)^\sigma$, $v(x)=(1+|x|)^\lambda$ was considered (again for $p_0=p_1$; for $p_1<2<q$ the upper and the lower estimates are different in the sense of orders). Boykov [@boy_1] obtained the order estimates for the Kolmogorov widths of the classes $\cap _{k=0}^r
W^k_{p_k,g_k}(K)$, where $p_k=\infty$ for $0{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}l$, $p_k=p$ for $l+1{\leqslant}k{\leqslant}r$, $K$ is a cube, $g_i$ are the powers of the distance from $\partial K$. The conditions on the parameters are such that the orders of the $n$-widths depend only on the restrictions on the high-order derivatives.
In this paper we obtain the order estimates for the Kolmogorov widths of the set $M$ in the space $L_{q,v}(\Omega)$. In the first two examples $\Omega$ is a John domain, the weights are the functions of distance from some $h$-subset of $\partial \Omega$ (the necessary definitions will be given later). In the third example $\Omega={\mathbb{R}}^d$, the weights are powers of $1+|x|$ (as in [@myn_otel]).
We denote by $B_a(x)$ the euclidean ball of radius $a$ with the center in the point $x$.
\[fca\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a bounded domain, $a>0$. We write $\Omega \in {\bf FC}(a)$ if there is a point $x_*\in \Omega$ such that for all $x\in \Omega$ there are a number $T(x)>0$ and a curve $\gamma _x:[0, \, T(x)] \rightarrow\Omega$ with the following properties:
1. $\gamma _x$ has the natural parametrization with respect to the euclidean norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$,
2. $\gamma _x(0)=x$, $\gamma _x(T(x))=x_*$,
3. $B_{at}(\gamma _x(t))\subset \Omega$ for all $t\in [0, \, T(x)]$.
We say that $\Omega$ is a John domain (or satisfies the John condition) if $\Omega\in {\bf FC}(a)$ for some $a>0$.
As examples of such domains we can take bounded domains with Lipschitz boundary and the Koch’s snowflake. The domain $\{(y, \,
z)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}\times {\mathbb{R}}:\; 0<z<1, \; |y|<z^\sigma\}$ for $\sigma>1$ does not satisfy the John condition. Yu.G. Reshetnyak [@resh1; @resh2] proved that for a John domain the condition for embedding of a non-weighted Sobolev class into a non-weighted Lebesgue space is the same as for a cube.
\[h\_set\] [(see [@m_bricchi1]).]{} Let $\Gamma\subset
{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a nonempty compact set, $h:(0, \, 1] \rightarrow (0, \,
\infty)$ be a non-decreasing function. We say that $\Gamma$ is an $h$-set if there is a constant $c_*{\geqslant}1$ and a finite countable-additive measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ such that ${\mathrm {supp}\,}\mu=\Gamma$ and $$c_*^{-1}h(t){\leqslant}\mu(B_t(x)){\leqslant}c_* h(t)$$ for all $x\in \Gamma$ and $t\in (0, \, 1]$.
Examples of $h$-sets are Lipschitz manifolds of dimension $k$ (then $h(t)=t^k$), some Cantor-type sets, the Koch’s curve.
In order to formulate the main results we need
\[theta\_j\] Given $s_*$, $\tilde \theta$, $\hat \theta\in {\mathbb{R}}$, we define the numbers $j_0\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\theta_j\in {\mathbb{R}}$ $(1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}j_0)$ as follows.
1. For $p_0{\geqslant}q$, $p_1{\geqslant}q$: $j_0=2$, $\theta_1=s_*$, $\theta_2 = \tilde
\theta$.
2. For $p_0>q$, $p_1<q{\leqslant}2$: $j_0=3$, $\theta_1=s_*+\frac 1q-\frac{1}{p_1}$, $\theta_2 = \tilde \theta$, $\theta_3 =\hat \theta$.
3. For $p_0>q$, $2{\leqslant}p_1<q$: $j_0=4$, $\theta_1=s_*$, $\theta_2 =
\frac{q(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}{2}$, $\theta_3 =\tilde \theta$, $\theta_4=
\frac{q\hat \theta}{2}$.
4. For $p_0>q$, $p_1<2<q$: $j_0=5$, $\theta_1=s_* +\frac 12 -\frac
{1}{p_1}$, $\theta_2 =\frac{q(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}{2}$, $\theta_3=\tilde \theta$, $\theta_4 = \hat\theta + \frac 12-\frac
1q$, $\theta_5 = \frac{q\hat \theta}{2}$.
5. For $p_0{\leqslant}q$, $p_1{\leqslant}q{\leqslant}2$: $j_0=2$, $\theta_1= s_*+\frac 1q-\frac {1}{p_1}$, $\theta_2 = \hat \theta$.
6. For $p_0<q{\leqslant}2$, $p_1>q$: $j_0=3$, $\theta_1 = s_*$, $\theta_2=\tilde \theta$, $\theta_3 =\hat \theta$.
7. For $p_0<q$, $q>2$, $\max\{p_0, \, p_1\}{\leqslant}2$: $j_0=4$, $\theta_1 =s_* + \frac 12 -\frac
{1}{p_1}$, $\theta_2 =\frac{q(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}{2}$, $\theta_3 =\hat
\theta +\frac 12 -\frac 1q$, $\theta_4 =\frac{q\hat \theta}{2}$.
8. For $p_0<q$, $q>2$, $\min\{p_0, \, p_1\}{\geqslant}2$: $j_0=4$, $\theta_1 =s_*$, $\theta_2 =\frac{q(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}{2}$, $\theta_3 =\tilde \theta$, $\theta_4 =\frac{q\hat \theta}{2}$.
9. For $p_0<q$, $q>2$, $\min \{p_0, \, p_1\}<2< \max \{p_0, \,
p_1\}$: $j_0=5$, $\theta_1=s_* +\min\left\{\frac 12 -\frac
{1}{p_1}, \, 0\right\}$, $\theta_2 =\frac{q(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}{2}$, $\theta_3 =\tilde \theta$, $\theta_4 = \hat \theta +\frac 12-\frac
1q$, $\theta_5 =\frac{q\hat\theta}{2}$.
Given $d\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s_st} s_*=\frac rd.\end{aligned}$$
Consider the first example.
Let $\Omega \subset \left(-\frac 12, \, \frac 12\right)^d$, $\Omega \in {\bf FC}(a)$, $\Gamma \subset\partial \Omega$ be an $h$-set, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h_theta} h(t) = t^\theta,\end{aligned}$$ $0{\leqslant}\theta <d$, $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $1<p_0, \, p_1{\leqslant}\infty$, $1<q<\infty$, $\beta$, $\lambda$, $\sigma\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gw} g(x) ={\rm \, {\mathrm {dist}}}^{-\beta}(x, \, \Gamma), \quad w(x)
={\rm dist}^{-\sigma}(x, \, \Gamma), \quad v(x) ={\rm \,
{\mathrm {dist}}}^{-\lambda}(x, \, \Gamma).\end{aligned}$$
We denote $\mathfrak{Z}=(r, \, d, \, p_0, \, p_1, \, q, \, a, \,
c_*, \theta, \, \beta, \, \lambda, \, \sigma)$, $\mathfrak{Z}_*=(\mathfrak{Z}, \, R)$, where $R={\rm diam}\,
\Omega$, $c_*$ is from Definition \[h\_set\].
We set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{til_th} \tilde \theta =\frac rd \cdot \frac{\sigma -\lambda
+ \frac{d-\theta}{q} -\frac{d-\theta}{p_0}}{\beta +\sigma
-\left(r+\frac{d}{p_0} -\frac{d}{p_1}\right)\left(1-\frac
{\theta}{d}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hat_th} \hat \theta =\frac{\sigma \left(\frac rd +\frac
1q-\frac{1}{p_1}\right) +\beta\left(\frac 1q -\frac{1}{p_0}\right)
-\lambda\left(\frac rd +\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac{1}{p_1}\right)}{\beta
+\sigma -\left(r+\frac{d}{p_0} -\frac{d}{p_1}\right)\left(1-\frac
{\theta}{d}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
We use the following notation for order equalities and inequalities. Let $X$, $Y$ be sets, $f_1$, $f_2:\ X\times
Y\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$. We write $f_1(x, \,
y)\underset{y}{\lesssim} f_2(x, \, y)$ (or $f_2(x, \,
y)\underset{y}{\gtrsim} f_1(x, \, y)$) if for each $y\in Y$ there exists $c(y)>0$ such that $f_1(x, \, y){\leqslant}c(y)f_2(x, \, y)$ for all $x\in X$; $f_1(x, \, y)\underset{y}{\asymp} f_2(x, \, y)$ if $f_1(x, \, y) \underset{y}{\lesssim} f_2(x, \, y)$ and $f_2(x, \,
y)\underset{y}{\lesssim} f_1(x, \, y)$.
\[main1\] Let (\[s\_st\]), (\[h\_theta\]), (\[gw\]), (\[til\_th\]), (\[hat\_th\]) hold, $\frac rd +\min \left\{\frac
1q, \, \frac{1}{p_0}\right\}-\frac{1}{p_1}>0$, $$\min\left\{\beta
+ \sigma - r -\frac{d-\theta}{p_0} +\frac{d-\theta}{p_1}, \, \beta
+\sigma - r-\frac{d}{p_0} +\frac{d}{p_1}\right\}>0;$$ let $\tilde
\theta>0$ for $p_0{\geqslant}q$, $\hat \theta>0$ for $p_0<q$. The set $M$ is defined by (\[m\_def\]), the numbers $j_0\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\theta_j$ are as in Definition \[theta\_j\]. Suppose that there exists $j_*\in \{1, \, \dots, \, j_0\}$ such that $\theta_{j_*}<
\min _{j\ne j_*} \theta_j$. Then $$d_n(M, \, L_{q,v}(\Omega)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_*}{\asymp}
n^{-\theta_{j_*}}.$$
Consider the second example.
Let $\Omega \subset \left(-\frac 12, \, \frac 12\right)^d$, $\Omega \in {\bf FC}(a)$, let $\Gamma \subset \partial \Omega$ be an $h$-set, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gvw} g(x)=\varphi_g({\rm dist}\, (x, \, \Gamma)), \quad
w(x) =\varphi_w({\rm dist}\, (x, \, \Gamma)), \quad v(x)
=\varphi_v({\rm dist}\, (x, \, \Gamma)),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h_gam} h(t) = |\log t|^{-\gamma}, \quad \gamma {\geqslant}0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gw_1} \varphi_g(t) = t^{-\beta} |\log t|^{\mu}, \quad
\varphi_w(t) = t^{-\sigma} |\log t|^{\alpha}, \quad \varphi_v(t) =
t^{-\lambda} |\log t|^{\nu},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lim_case} \beta + \lambda = r +\frac dq -\frac{d}{p_1},
\quad \sigma -\lambda = \frac{d}{p_0} - \frac{d}{q}.\end{aligned}$$
We set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{til_th2} \tilde \theta = \frac rd \cdot \frac{\alpha -\nu +
(\gamma+1)\left(\frac{1}{p_0}-\frac{1}{q}\right)}{\mu+\alpha
+(\gamma+1)\left(\frac rd+\frac{1}{p_0}-\frac{1}{p_1}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hat_th2} \hat \theta = \frac{\alpha\left(\frac{r}{d}+\frac
1q-\frac{1}{p_1}\right)+\mu\left(\frac 1q-\frac{1}{p_0}\right
)-\nu\left(\frac rd +\frac{1}{p_0}- \frac{1}{p_1}\right)}
{\mu+\alpha+(\gamma+1)\left(\frac
rd+\frac{1}{p_0}-\frac{1}{p_1}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
We denote $\mathfrak{Z}=(r, \, d, \, p_0, \, p_1, \, q, \, a, \,
c_*, h, \, \varphi_g, \, \varphi_w, \, \varphi_v)$, $\mathfrak{Z}_*=(\mathfrak{Z}, \, R)$, where $R={\rm diam}\,
\Omega$.
\[main2\] Let $\frac rd +\min\left\{\frac 1q, \,
\frac{1}{p_0}\right\} -\frac{1}{p_1}>0$, let (\[s\_st\]), (\[gvw\]), (\[h\_gam\]), (\[gw\_1\]), (\[lim\_case\]), (\[til\_th2\]), (\[hat\_th2\]) hold, $\min \{\mu+\alpha
+(\gamma+1)(1/p_0-1/p_1), \, \mu + \alpha\}>0$. Suppose that $\tilde \theta>0$ for $p_0{\geqslant}q$, $\hat\theta>0$ for $p_0<q$. The set $M$ is defined by (\[m\_def\]), $j_0\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\theta_j$ are as in Definition \[theta\_j\]. Suppose that there exists $j_*\in \{1, \, \dots, \, j_0\}$ such that $\theta_{j_*}< \min
_{j\ne j_*} \theta_j$. Then $$d_n(M, \, L_{q,v}(\Omega)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_*}{\asymp}
n^{-\theta_{j_*}}.$$
Consider the third example.
Let $\Omega = {\mathbb{R}}^d$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gw_2} g(x)=(1+|x|)^\beta, \quad w(x) = (1+|x|)^\sigma,
\quad v(x) = (1 + |x|)^\lambda.\end{aligned}$$ We set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{til_theta3} \tilde \theta = \frac rd \cdot \frac{\sigma
-\lambda + \frac{d}{p_0}-\frac{d}{q}}{\beta +\sigma
+r+\frac{d}{p_0} - \frac{d}{p_1}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hat_theta3} \hat \theta =
\frac{\sigma\left(\frac{r}{d}+\frac 1q- \frac{1}{p_1}\right)
+\beta(\frac 1q- \frac{1}{p_0}) -\lambda \left(\frac rd
+\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac{1}{p_1}\right)}{\beta +\sigma
+r+\frac{d}{p_0} - \frac{d}{p_1}}.\end{aligned}$$
Denote $\mathfrak{Z}=(r, \, d, \, p_0, \, p_1, \, q, \, \beta, \,
\lambda, \, \sigma)$.
\[main3\] Let (\[s\_st\]), (\[gw\_2\]), (\[til\_theta3\]), (\[hat\_theta3\]) hold, and let $\frac rd+\min\left\{\frac 1q, \,
\frac{1}{p_0}\right\}-\frac{1}{p_1}>0$, $\min\{\beta+\sigma
+d/p_0-d/p_1, \, \beta + \sigma\}>0$. Suppose that $\tilde
\theta>0$ for $p_0{\geqslant}q$, $\hat\theta>0$ for $p_0<q$. The set $M$ is defined by (\[m\_def\]), $j_0\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\theta_j$ are as in Definition \[theta\_j\]. Suppose that there is $j_*\in \{1, \,
\dots, \, j_0\}$ such that $\theta_{j_*}< \min _{j\ne j_*}
\theta_j$. Then $$d_n(M, \, L_{q,v}({\mathbb{R}}^d)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}}{\asymp}
n^{-\theta_{j_*}}.$$
Notice that in [@myn_otel] the problem on estimating the linear widths of the set $M$ from the third example was considered for $p_0=p_1$; for $q{\leqslant}2$ and $\frac{p_1}{p_1-1}{\leqslant}2$ order estimates for the linear widths were obtained.
The paper is organized as follows. In §2 the upper estimate for the Kolmogorov widths of the abstract function classes $BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_0}(\Omega)$ is obtained; in §3 the lower estimate is obtained. In §4–5 these results are applied for proofs of Theorems \[main1\]–\[main3\].
Upper estimates for widths of $BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_0}(\Omega)$.
======================================================================
Let $(\Omega, \, \Sigma, \, {\rm mes})$ be a measure space. We say that sets $A$, $B\subset \Omega$ are disjoint if ${\rm mes}(A\cap
B)=0$. Let $E$, $E_1, \, \dots, \, E_m\subset \Omega$ be measurable sets, $m\in {\mathbb{N}}\cup \{\infty\}$. We say that $\{E_i\}_{i=1}^m$ is a partition of $E$ if the sets $E_i$ are disjoint and ${\rm mes}\left(\left(\cup _{i=1}^m
E_i\right)\bigtriangleup E\right)=0$.
We denote by $\chi_E(\cdot)$ the indicator function of $E$.
Let $1< p_0, \, p_1{\leqslant}\infty$, $1{\leqslant}q< \infty$. Suppose that for each measurable subset $E\subset \Omega$ the following spaces are defined (see [@vas_width_raspr]):
- the spaces $X_{p_i}(E)$ with seminorms $\|\cdot\|_{X_{p_i}(E)}$, $i=0, \, 1$,
- the Banach space $Y_q(E)$ with norm $\|\cdot\|_{Y_q(E)}$,
which satisfy the following conditions:
1. $X_{p_i}(E)=\{f|_E:\; f\in X_{p_i}(\Omega)\}$, $i=0, \, 1$, $Y_q(E)=\{f|_E:\; f\in
Y_q(\Omega)\}$;
2. if ${\rm mes}\, E=0$, then $\dim \, Y_q(E)=\dim \, X_{p_i}(E)=0$, $i=0, \, 1$;
3. if $E\subset \Omega$, $E_j\subset \Omega$ ($j\in {\mathbb{N}}$) are measurable subsets, $E=\sqcup _{j\in {\mathbb{N}}} E_j$, then $$\|f\|_{X_{p_i}(E)}=\left\| \bigl\{
\|f|_{E_j}\|_{X_{p_i}(E_j)}\bigr\}_{j\in
{\mathbb{N}}}\right\|_{l_{p_i}},\quad f\in X_{p_i}(E), \; i=0, \, 1,$$ $$\|f\|_{Y_q(E)}=\left\| \bigl\{\|f|_{E_j}\|
_{Y_q(E_j)}\bigr\}_{j\in {\mathbb{N}}}\right\|_{l_q}, \quad f\in Y_q(E);$$
4. if $E\in \Sigma$, $f\in Y_q(\Omega)$, then $f\cdot \chi_E\in
Y_q(\Omega)$.
We denote $$BX_{p_i}(\Omega) = \{f\in X_{p_i}(\Omega):\;
\|f\|_{X_{p_i}(\Omega)}{\leqslant}1\}, \quad i=0, \, 1.$$
Let ${\cal P}(\Omega)\subset X_{p_1}(\Omega)$ be a subspace of dimension $r_0\in {\mathbb{N}}$. For each measurable subset $E\subset
\Omega$ we denote $${\cal P}(E)=\{P|_E:\; P\in {\cal P}(\Omega)\}.$$ Let $G\subset
\Omega$ be a measurable subset, and let $T$ be a partition of $G$. We set $${\cal S}_{T}(\Omega)=\{f:\Omega\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}:\, f|_E\in {\cal
P}(E),\; E\in T, \; f|_{\Omega\backslash G}=0\}.$$ If $T$ is finite and for each $E\in T$ the inclusion ${\cal
P}(E)\subset Y_q(E)$ holds, then ${\cal S}_{T}(\Omega)\subset
Y_q(\Omega)$ (see property 4).
For each finite partition $T=\{E_j\}_{j=1}^n$ of a set $E$ and for each function $f\in Y_q(\Omega)$ we set $$\|f\|_{p_i,q,T}=\left(\sum \limits _{j=1}^n
\|f|_{E_j}\|_{Y_q(E_j)} ^{p_i}\right)^{\frac{1}{p_i}}.$$
Suppose that there exist a partition $\{\Omega _{t,j}\}_{t{\geqslant}t_0,
\, j\in \hat J_t}$ of $\Omega$ into measurable subsets ($t_0\in
{\mathbb{Z}}_+$) and numbers $c{\geqslant}1$, $s_*>\left(\frac{1}{p_1} -\frac
1q\right)_+$, $k_*\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\gamma_*{\geqslant}0$, $\alpha_*\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $\mu_*\in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that the following assumptions hold.
\[supp1\] The inclusion $X_{p_1}(\Omega_{t,j})\subset Y_q(\Omega_{t,j})$ holds for each $t{\geqslant}t_0$, $j\in \hat J_t$.
\[supp2\] The following estimate holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{card_jt} {\rm card}\, \hat J_t{\leqslant}c\cdot 2^{\gamma_*k_*t},
\quad t{\geqslant}t_0.\end{aligned}$$
\[supp3\] For each $t{\geqslant}t_0$, $j\in \hat J_t$ there is a sequence of partitions $\{T_{t,j,m}\}_{m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+}$ of the set $\Omega_{t,j}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ttj0} T_{t,j,0} = \{\Omega_{t,j}\}, \quad {\rm card}\,
T_{t,j,m}{\leqslant}c\cdot 2^m,\end{aligned}$$ and for all $E\in T_{t,j,m}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{card_e} {\rm card}\, \{E'\in T_{t,j,m\pm 1}:\; {\rm mes}\,
(E\cap E')>0\} {\leqslant}c.\end{aligned}$$
\[supp4\] If $p_0{\geqslant}q$, then for each $E\in T_{t,j,m}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_yqe} \|f\|_{Y_q(E)}{\leqslant}c\cdot 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{m\left(\frac{1}{p_0}-\frac 1q\right)}\|f\|_{X_{p_0}(E)}.\end{aligned}$$
\[supp5\] For each $E\in T_{t,j,m}$ there is a linear continuous projection $P_E:Y_q(\Omega) \rightarrow {\cal P}(\Omega)$ such that for all $f\in X_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap X_{p_0}(\Omega)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fpef} \|f-P_Ef\|_{Y_q(E)}{\leqslant}c \cdot 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m\left(s_*+\frac 1q-\frac{1}{p_1}\right)} \|f\| _{X_{p_1}(E)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pef} \|P_Ef\|_{Y_q(E)}{\leqslant}c\cdot 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{m\left(\frac{1}{p_0}-\frac 1q\right)}\|f\|_{X_{p_0}(E)}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $$\mathfrak{Z}_0=(p_0, \, p_1, \, q, \, r_0, \, c, \, k_*,\, s_*, \,
\gamma_*, \, \mu_*, \, \alpha_*).$$
We define the partitions $$T_{t,m} = \{E\in T_{t,j,m}:\; j\in \hat J_t\}, \quad \hat T_{t,m}
= \{E\cap E':\; E\in T_{t,m}, \; E'\in T_{t,m+1}\}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ttm} {\rm card}\, T_{t,m} \stackrel{(\ref{card_jt}),
(\ref{ttj0})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} 2^{\gamma
_*k_*t}\cdot 2^m, \quad {\rm card}\, \hat T_{t,m}
\stackrel{(\ref{card_e})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{\gamma _*k_*t}\cdot 2^m.\end{aligned}$$
Let $$\nu'_{t,m} = \dim\, {\cal S}_{ T_{t,m}}(\Omega), \quad
\nu_{t,m} = \dim\, {\cal S}_{\hat T_{t,m}}(\Omega).$$
We define the operator $P_{t,m}:Y_q(\Omega)\rightarrow
Y_q(\Omega)$ by $$P_{t,m}f = \sum \limits _{j\in \hat J_t} \sum \limits _{E\in
T_{t,j,m}} P_Ef \cdot \chi _E.$$ Then ${\rm Im}\, P_{t,m} \subset {\cal S}_{T_{t,m}}(\Omega)$, ${\rm Im}\, (P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m})\subset {\cal S}_{\hat
T_{t,m}}(\Omega)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rk_ptm} {\rm rk}\, P_{t,m}{\leqslant}\nu'_{t,m}
\stackrel{(\ref{ttm})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{\gamma _*k_*t}\cdot 2^m, \quad {\rm rk}\,
(P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m}){\leqslant}\nu_{t,m}
\stackrel{(\ref{ttm})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{\gamma _*k_*t}\cdot 2^m.\end{aligned}$$
We set $\Omega_t=\cup _{j\in \hat J_t} \Omega _{t,j}$.
Applying the Hölder’s inequality and the inequality $$\left(\sum \limits _{i=1}^k |x_i|^q\right)^{1/q} {\leqslant}\left(\sum
\limits _{i=1}^k |x_i|^p\right)^{1/p}, \quad (x_i)_{i=1}^k\in
{\mathbb{R}}^k, \quad p{\leqslant}q,$$ we obtain that for $f\in BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_0}(\Omega)$ the following estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_m_ptm} \|f-P_{t,m}f\|_{Y_q(\Omega_t)}
\stackrel{(\ref{fpef}),
(\ref{ttm})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{k_*t\left(\mu_*+\gamma_*(1/q-1/p_1)_+\right)}\cdot
2^{-m(s_*-(1/p_1-1/q)_+)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ptm1f_m_ptmf} \|P_{t,m+1}f - P_{t,m}f\| _{p_1,q,\hat
T_{t,m}} \stackrel{(\ref{card_e}),(\ref{fpef})}
{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ptm_p0} \|P_{t,m}f\|_{p_0,q,T_{t,m}}
\stackrel{(\ref{pef})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m(1/p_0-1/q)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ptm_p011111} \|P_{t,m}f\|_{Y_q(\Omega_t)}
\stackrel{(\ref{pef})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m(1/p_0-1/q)}, \quad \text{if} \quad
p_0{\leqslant}q,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ptm1_m_ptm_p0} \|P_{t,m+1}f - P_{t,m}f\| _{p_0,q,\hat
T_{t,m}} \stackrel{(\ref{card_e}),
(\ref{pef})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m(1/p_0-1/q)}.\end{aligned}$$
We denote by $l_p^\nu$ the space ${\mathbb{R}}^\nu$ with the norm $\|(x_1,
\, \dots, \, x_\nu)\|_{l_p^\nu}=\left(\sum \limits _{j=1}^\nu
|x_j|^p\right)^{1/p}$. By $B_p^\nu$ we denote the unit ball in $l_p^\nu$.
There exist isomorphisms $A_{t,m}: {\cal S}_{\hat T_{t,m}}(\Omega)
\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{\nu_{t,m}}$ and $A'_{t,m}: {\cal S}_{
T_{t,m}}(\Omega) \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{\nu'_{t,m}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{atm} \|A_{t,m}f\|_{l_{p_1}^{\nu_{t,m}}}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \|f\|_{p_1,q,\hat T_{t,m}},
\quad \|A_{t,m}f\|_{l_{p_0}^{\nu_{t,m}}}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \|f\|_{p_0,q,\hat T_{t,m}},
\quad f\in {\cal S}_{\hat T_{t,m}}(\Omega),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{atm1} \|A_{t,m}^{-1}(c_j)_{j=1}^{\nu_{t,m}}\|
_{Y_q(\Omega)} \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
\|(c_j)_{j=1}^{\nu_{t,m}}\| _{l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{atm2} \|A'_{t,m}f\|_{l_{p_0}^{\nu'_{t,m}}}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \|f\|_{p_0,q,T_{t,m}}, \quad
f\in {\cal S}_{T_{t,m}}(\Omega), \quad
\|(A'_{t,m})^{-1}(c_j)_{j=1}^{\nu'_{t,m}}\| _{Y_q(\Omega)}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \|(c_j)_{j=1}^{\nu'_{t,m}}\|
_{l_q^{\nu'_{t,m}}}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $E \in \hat T_{t,m}$, ${\rm mes}(E)>0$, $\nu_E =\dim {\cal
P}(E)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nu_e} \nu_E{\leqslant}r_0.\end{aligned}$$ By John’s ellipsoid theorem, there is an isomorphism $A_E: {\cal
P}(E)\rightarrow l_2^{\nu_E}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_e} \|A_Ef\|_{l_2^{\nu_E}}{\leqslant}\|f\|_{Y_q(E)}{\leqslant}\sqrt{\nu_E} \|A_Ef\|_{l_2^{\nu_E}}, \quad f\in {\cal P}(E).\end{aligned}$$ We set for $f\in {\cal S}_{\hat T_{t,m}}(\Omega)$ $$A_{t,m}f =(A_E(f|_E))_{E\in \hat T_{t,m}}.$$ Then from (\[nu\_e\]) and (\[a\_e\]) we get (\[atm\]), (\[atm1\]). The isomorphism $A'_{t,m}$ satisfying (\[atm2\]) can be constructed similarly.
Let $W_{t,m}$ be the set of sequences $(c_j)_{j=1} ^{\nu_{t,m}}\in
{\mathbb{R}}^{\nu_{t,m}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w_tm} \begin{array}{c} \left(\sum \limits
_{j=1}^{\nu_{t,m}}|c_j|^{p_1} \right)^{1/p_1} {\leqslant}2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}, \\ \left(\sum \limits
_{j=1}^{\nu_{t,m}}|c_j|^{p_0} \right)^{1/p_0} {\leqslant}2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m(1/p_0-1/q)}.\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
Let $l\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dl} d_l((P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m})(BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap
BX_{p_0}(\Omega)), \, Y_q(\Omega))
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} d_l(W_{t,m}, \,
l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dl1} d_l(P_{t,m}(BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_0}(\Omega)), \,
Y_q(\Omega)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(1/q-1/p_0)}d_l(B_{p_0}^{\nu'_{t,m}},
\, l_q^{\nu'_{t,m}}).\end{aligned}$$
Let $L\subset l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}$ be an extremal subspace for the widths $d_l(W_{t,m}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}})$, let $E_{t,m}:l_q^{\nu_{t,m}} \rightarrow L$ be the metric projection, and let $I_{t,m}: l_q^{\nu_{t,m}} \rightarrow l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}$ be the identity operator. From (\[ptm1f\_m\_ptmf\]), (\[ptm1\_m\_ptm\_p0\]) and (\[atm\]) it follows that $$A_{t,m}(P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m})(BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_0}(\Omega))
\subset \hat c(\mathfrak{Z}_0) W_{t,m}$$ for some positive constant $\hat c(\mathfrak{Z}_0)$. Hence, $$d_l((P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m})(BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_0}(\Omega)), \,
Y_q(\Omega)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}$$$$\lesssim
d_l(A_{t,m}^{-1}A_{t,m}(P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m})(BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap
BX_{p_0}(\Omega)), \, Y_q(\Omega))
\stackrel{(\ref{atm1})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim d_l(A_{t,m}(P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m})(BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap
BX_{p_0}(\Omega)), \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}) {\leqslant}$$$${\leqslant}\|(I_{t,m}-E_{t,m})A_{t,m}(P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m})(BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap
BX_{p_0}(\Omega))\|_{l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}}\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}$$ $$\lesssim\|(I_{t,m}-E_{t,m})W_{t,m}\|_{l_{q}^{\nu_{t,m}}} =
d_l(W_{t,m}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}).$$
The inequality (\[dl1\]) can be proved similarly applying (\[ptm\_p0\]) and (\[atm2\]).
Let $k_0>0$, $k_1>0$, $\nu\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $1< \tilde q < \infty$, $\frac{1}{\tilde q} =\frac{1-\lambda}{p_1}+\frac{\lambda}{p_0}$, $\lambda\in (0, \, 1)$. Then the Hölder’s inequality yields the inclusion $$k_0B_{p_0}^\nu\cap k_1B_{p_1}^\nu \subset
k_0^{\lambda}k_1^{1-\lambda} B_{\tilde q}^\nu$$ (it is also the particular case of Gallev’s result [@galeev1 Theorem 2]).
If $\frac 1q = \frac{1-\lambda}{p_1} + \frac{\lambda}{p_0}$ with $\lambda \in (0, \, 1)$, then by (\[w\_tm\]) and the equality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1lams}
(1-\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\lambda(1/q-1/p_0)=(1-\lambda)s_*\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wkm_lq} W_{k,m} \subset
2^{k_*t\left((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda \alpha_*\right)} \cdot
2^{-ms_*(1-\lambda)}B_q^{\nu_{t,m}},\end{aligned}$$ $$d_l((P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m})(BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_0}(\Omega)), \,
Y_q(\Omega))
\stackrel{(\ref{dl})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{k_*t\left((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda \alpha_*\right)} \cdot
2^{-ms_*(1-\lambda)};$$ in particular, for $l=0$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wkm_lqd0} \|P_{t,m+1}f-P_{t,m}f\|
_{Y_q(\Omega_t)}\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
2^{k_*t\left((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda \alpha_*\right)} \cdot
2^{-ms_*(1-\lambda)}, \quad f\in BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap
BX_{p_0}(\Omega).\end{aligned}$$
If $\frac 12 = \frac{1-\tilde\lambda}{p_1} +
\frac{\tilde\lambda}{p_0}$ with $\tilde\lambda \in (0, \, 1)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wkm_l2} W_{k,m} \subset 2^{k_*t\left( (1-\tilde\lambda)
\mu_*-\tilde\lambda \alpha_*\right)} \cdot
2^{-m((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\tilde \lambda
(1/q-1/p_0))}B_2^{\nu_{t,m}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{array}{c} d_l((P_{t,m+1}-P_{t,m})(BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap
BX_{p_0}(\Omega)), \, Y_q(\Omega))
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \\ \lesssim 2^{k_*t\left(
(1-\tilde\lambda) \mu_*-\tilde\lambda \alpha_*\right)} \cdot
2^{-m((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\tilde \lambda
(1/q-1/p_0))} d_l(B_2^{\nu_{t,m}}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}).
\end{array}$$
We denote $\tilde \Omega_t = \cup _{l{\geqslant}t} \Omega_l$.
\[emb1\] Let $p_0{\geqslant}q$, $\frac{\alpha_*}{\gamma_*}>
\frac{1}{q} -\frac{1}{p_0}$. The for each $t{\geqslant}t_0$ and for each function $f\in BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_1}(\Omega)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p0geq_emb} \|f\|_{Y_q(\tilde\Omega_t)}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
2^{-(\alpha_*-\gamma_*/q+\gamma_*/p_0)k_*t} .\end{aligned}$$
By Hölder’s inequality, $$\|f\|_{Y_q(\tilde\Omega_t)}^q = \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} \sum
\limits _{j\in \hat J_l} \|f\|^q_{Y_q(\Omega_{l,j})}
\stackrel{(\ref{ttj0}),(\ref{f_yqe})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
\sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} \sum \limits _{j\in \hat J_l}
2^{-q\alpha_*l} \|f\|^q _{X_{p_0}(\Omega_{l,j})}
\stackrel{(\ref{card_jt})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t}
2^{\gamma_*\left(1-\frac{q}{p_0}\right)k_*l}\cdot 2^{-q\alpha_*l}
\|f\|^q _{X_{p_0}(\Omega_{l})} \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
2^{-q(\alpha_*-\gamma_*/q+\gamma_*/p_0)k_*t}.$$
\[emb2\] Let $p_0{\leqslant}q$ and $p_1{\leqslant}q$, or $p_0<q$, $p_1>q$. Suppose that $\alpha_*+\mu_*>0$, $\alpha_*\left(s_*+\frac
1q-\frac{1}{p_1}\right)>\mu_*\left(\frac{1}{p_0}-\frac 1q\right)$. Then for each $t{\geqslant}t_0$ and for each function $f\in
BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_1}(\Omega)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p0lq_emb} \|f\|_{Y_q(\tilde\Omega_t)}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
2^{-\frac{\alpha_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)-\mu_*(1/p_0-1/q)}
{s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1}k_*t}.\end{aligned}$$
If $p_0=q$, (\[p0lq\_emb\]) follows from (\[p0geq\_emb\]). Further we assume that $p_0<q$.
We define $m_l\in {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mt_def} 2^{\mu_*k_*l}\cdot 2^{-\left(s_*+\frac 1q
-\frac{1}{p_1}\right)m_l} = 2^{-\alpha_*k_*l}\cdot
2^{\left(\frac{1}{p_0}-\frac 1q\right)m_l}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mt_form} 2^{\left(s_*+\frac{1}{p_0}- \frac{1}{p_1}\right)
m_l} = 2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*)k_*l}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $s_*+\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac{1}{p_1} = \left(s_* + \frac
1q -\frac{1}{p_1}\right) +\left(\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac 1q\right)>0$.
We claim that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sum_emb} \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} \|P_{l,0}f\|
_{Y_q(\Omega_l)} + \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}0}
\|P_{l,m+1}f - P_{l,m}f\| _{Y_q(\Omega_l)}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
2^{-\frac{\alpha_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)-\mu_*(1/p_0-1/q)}
{s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1}k_*t}.\end{aligned}$$ This estimate yields that $$f|_{\Omega_t} = \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} P_{l,0}f + \sum \limits
_{l{\geqslant}t} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}0} (P_{l,m+1}f - P_{l,m}f)$$ (the series converges in $Y_q(\Omega)$) and (\[p0lq\_emb\]) holds.
First we consider the case $p_1{\leqslant}q$. Then for $f\in
BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_1}(\Omega)$ $$\sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} \|P_{l,0}f\| _{Y_q(\Omega_l)} + \sum
\limits _{l{\geqslant}t} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}0} \|P_{l,m+1}f - P_{l,m}f\|
_{Y_q(\Omega_l)} \stackrel{(\ref{ptm1f_m_ptmf}),
(\ref{ptm_p011111}), (\ref{ptm1_m_ptm_p0})}
{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*l} + \sum \limits
_{l{\geqslant}t} \sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}m_l} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*l}\cdot
2^{m\left(\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac 1q\right)} + \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t}
\sum \limits _{m> m_l} 2^{\mu_*k_*l}\cdot 2^{-m\left(s_* +\frac 1q
-\frac{1}{p_1}\right)}\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*l}\cdot
2^{m_l\left(\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac 1q\right)} + \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} 2^{\mu_*k_*l}\cdot 2^{-m_l\left(s_* +\frac 1q
-\frac{1}{p_1}\right)} \stackrel{(\ref{mt_def})}
{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim\sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*l}\cdot
2^{m_l\left(\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac 1q\right)}
\stackrel{(\ref{mt_form})} {\underset{\mathfrak{Z}}{\lesssim}}
2^{-\frac{\alpha_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)-\mu_*(1/p_0-1/q)}
{s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1}k_*t}.$$
Let $p_1>q>p_0$. Then there exists $\lambda\in (0, \, 1)$ such that $\frac 1q =\frac{1-\lambda}{p_1} +\frac{\lambda}{p_0}$. Hence, $$\sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} \|P_{l,0}f\| _{Y_q(\Omega_l)} + \sum
\limits _{l{\geqslant}t} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}0} \|P_{l,m+1}f - P_{l,m}f\|
_{Y_q(\Omega_l)} \stackrel{(\ref{ptm_p011111}),
(\ref{ptm1_m_ptm_p0}),
(\ref{wkm_lqd0})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*l} + \sum \limits
_{l{\geqslant}t} \sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}m_l} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*l}\cdot
2^{m\left(\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac 1q\right)} + \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t}
\sum \limits _{m> m_l} 2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda
\alpha_*)k_*l}\cdot 2^{-ms_*(1-\lambda)}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*l}\cdot
2^{m_l\left(\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac 1q\right)} + \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} 2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda \alpha_*)k_*l}\cdot 2^{-m_l
s_*(1-\lambda)}
\stackrel{(\ref{1lams}),(\ref{mt_def})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{l{\geqslant}t} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*l}\cdot
2^{m_l\left(\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac 1q\right)}
\stackrel{(\ref{mt_form})} {\underset{\mathfrak{Z}}{\lesssim}}
2^{-\frac{\alpha_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)-\mu_*(1/p_0-1/q)}
{s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1}k_*t}.$$
This completes the proof of (\[sum\_emb\]).
Now we obtain the upper estimates for $d_n(BX_{p_0}(\Omega) \cap
BX_{p_1}(\Omega), \, Y_q(\Omega))$.
We need the following corollary from Gluskin’s theorem [@bib_gluskin].
\[gl\_teor\] Let $1{\leqslant}p<q<\infty$, $q>2$, $\lambda _{pq} =\min
\left\{1, \, \frac{\frac 1p-\frac 1q}{\frac 12-\frac 1q}\right\}$, $n{\leqslant}N/2$. Then $$d_n(B_p^N, \, l_q^N) \underset{p,q}{\asymp} \min \{1, \,
n^{-1/2}N^{1/q}\} ^{\lambda_{pq}}.$$ If $1{\leqslant}p{\leqslant}q{\leqslant}2$, $n{\leqslant}N/2$, then $$d_n(B_p^N, \, l_q^N) \underset{p,q}{\asymp} 1.$$ The upper estimates for the Kolmogorov widths also hold for $N/2<
n{\leqslant}N$.
For $1{\leqslant}q{\leqslant}p{\leqslant}\infty$ the following equation holds [@pietsch1], [@stesin]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pietsch_stesin} d_n(B_p^N, \, l_q^N) = (N-n)^{\frac
1q-\frac 1p}.\end{aligned}$$
We denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{til_theta} \tilde \theta = \frac{s_*\left(\alpha_*
+\frac{\gamma_*}{p_0} -\frac{\gamma_*}{q}\right)}{\mu_* + \alpha_*
+\gamma_*\left(s_* +\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac{1}{p_1}\right)}, \quad
\hat \theta = \frac{\alpha_*\left(s_* +\frac 1q
-\frac{1}{p_1}\right) +\mu_*\left(\frac 1q
-\frac{1}{p_0}\right)}{\mu_* + \alpha_* +\gamma_*\left(s_*
+\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac{1}{p_1}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Let the numbers $j_0\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\theta_j\in {\mathbb{R}}$ ($1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}j_0$) be as in Definition \[theta\_j\].
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s1qp} \min \left\{s_*, \, s_* +\frac 1q -\frac{1}{p_1},\;
s_*+\frac{1}{p_0} -\frac{1}{p_1}\right\}>0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mua} \min\left\{\mu_* +\alpha_*+\frac{\gamma_*}{p_0}
-\frac{\gamma_*}{p_1}, \, \mu_*+\alpha_* \right\}>0.\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that $\alpha_*> \frac{\gamma_*}{q} -\frac{\gamma_*}{p_0}$ for $p_0 {\geqslant}q$, $\alpha_*\left(s_*+\frac 1q-\frac{1}{p_1}\right)>
\mu_*\left(\frac{1}{p_0}-\frac 1q\right)$ for $p_0{\leqslant}q$, $p_1{\leqslant}q$ or $p_0<q$, $p_1>q$. Suppose that there is $j_*\in \{1, \,
\dots, \, j_0\}$ such that $\theta_{j_*}< \min _{j\ne j_*}
\theta_j$. Then $$d_n(BX_{p_0}(\Omega) \cap BX_{p_1}(\Omega), \, Y_q(\Omega))
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} n^{-\theta_{j_*}}.$$
We define the numbers $\hat m_t$, $\overline{m}_t$, $\tilde m_t$, $m_t\in {\mathbb{R}}$ by equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hat_mt} 2^{\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{\hat m_t}=n,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{line_mt} 2^{\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{\overline{m}_t}=n^{q/2}
\quad(\text{for }q>2),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{til_mt} 2^{-(\alpha_*+\gamma_*/p_0 - \gamma_*/q)k_*t} =
2^{(\mu_*+\gamma_*/q-\gamma_*/p_1)k_*t}\cdot 2^{-s_*\tilde m_t},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mt} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m_t(1/p_0-1/q)} =
2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m_t(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)};\end{aligned}$$ $\tilde t(n)$ and $t(n)$ are defined by equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1111} \hat m_{\tilde t(n)}=\tilde m_{\tilde t(n)}, \quad
\hat m_{t(n)}=m_{t(n)}.\end{aligned}$$
Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{til_mt_t} 2^{\tilde m_t s_*} = 2^{(\mu_* + \alpha_*
+\gamma_*/p_0 -\gamma_*/p_1)k_*t},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mt_t} 2^{m_t(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1)} = 2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*) k_*t},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tn} 2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1))k_*\tilde
t(n)} = n^{s_*},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tn1} 2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1))k_* t(n)}
= n^{s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1}.\end{aligned}$$ If $q>2$, we also define the number $\hat t(n)$ by equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2222} \overline{m}_{\hat t(n)} = m_{\hat t(n)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tn_hat} 2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1))k_*
\hat t(n)} = n^{(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1)q/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Notice that from (\[s1qp\]), (\[mua\]), (\[1111\]), (\[til\_mt\_t\]), (\[mt\_t\]), (\[tn\]), (\[tn1\]), (\[2222\]), (\[tn\_hat\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2t} 2^{\hat m_{t(n)}} = n^{\beta_1}, \quad 2^{\hat
m_{\tilde t(n)}}=n^{\beta_2}, \quad 2^{\overline{m}_{t(n)}} =
n^{\beta_3}, \quad \beta_i>0, \quad i=1, \, 2, \, 3.\end{aligned}$$
Further $\varepsilon>0$ is a sufficiently small number; it will be chosen later by $\mathfrak{Z}_0$.
First we consider $p_0{\geqslant}q$.
[**Case $p_0{\geqslant}q$, $p_1{\geqslant}q$.**]{} We define the numbers ${m}^*_t$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2mt} 2^{{m}^*_t} = 2^{\hat m_t-\varepsilon|t-t_*(n)|};\end{aligned}$$ here $t_*(n)=0$ or $t_*(n)=\tilde t(n)$ (we will choose $t_*(n)$ later by $\mathfrak{Z}_0$). By (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[tn\]) and (\[2t\]), if $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small, we have $m_t^*>0$ for $0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)$.
We set $Pf|_{\Omega_t} = P_{t,[{m}^*_t]}f$, $t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}[\tilde
t(n)]$, $Pf|_{\tilde \Omega_{[\tilde t(n)]+1}} =0$. Then $${\rm
rk}\, P \stackrel{(\ref{rk_ptm}), (\ref{hat_mt}), (\ref{2mt})}
{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0, \varepsilon}{\lesssim}} n,$$ $$\|f-Pf\| _{Y_q(\Omega)} {\leqslant}\sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}[\tilde
t(n)]}\|f-P_{t,m}f\|_{Y_q(\Omega_t)} + \|f\|_{Y_q(\tilde
\Omega_{[\tilde t(n)]+1})} \stackrel{(\ref{f_m_ptm}),
(\ref{p0geq_emb}), (\ref{hat_mt}), (\ref{2mt})}
{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)}
2^{(\mu_*+\gamma_*/q-\gamma_*/p_1)k_*t} \cdot
2^{s_*\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot n^{-s_*}\cdot
2^{s_*\varepsilon|t-t_*(n)|} +
2^{-(\alpha_*+\gamma_*/p_0-\gamma_*/q)k_*\tilde t(n)}
\stackrel{(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)}
2^{(\mu_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1))k_*t} \cdot n^{-s_*}\cdot
2^{s_*\varepsilon|t-t_*(n)|}+
2^{(\mu_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1))k_*\tilde t(n)} \cdot
n^{-s_*}=:S.$$ If $\mu_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)<0$, then we set $t_*(n)=0$ and get $S \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} n^{-s_*}$. If $\mu_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)>0$, then we set $t_*(n)=\tilde
t(n)$ and obtain $$S \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
2^{(\mu_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1))k_*\tilde t(n)} \cdot n^{-s_*}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\asymp}} n^{-\tilde \theta}.$$ By conditions of theorem, $s_*\ne \tilde \theta$; therefore, $\mu_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1) \ne 0$.
[**Case $p_0>q$, $p_1< q{\leqslant}2$.**]{} We define $\lambda \in (0, \,
1)$ by equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1q1l1p1} \frac 1q = \frac{1-\lambda}{p_1} +
\frac{\lambda}{p_0}.\end{aligned}$$ Then (\[wkm\_lqd0\]) holds.
Since $p_1<q<p_0$, we have $t(n)<\tilde t(n)$ by (\[tn\]), (\[tn1\]). Let $t_*(n)=0$ or $t_*(n)=t(n)$, $t_{**}(n)=t(n)$ or $t_{**}(n) = \tilde t(n)$ (they will be chosen later by $\mathfrak{Z}_0$). We define the numbers $m_t^*$ ($t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)$) and $m_t^{**}$ ($t(n)< t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)$) by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2_mt_st} 2^{m_t^*}=2^{\hat m_t-\varepsilon|t-t_*(n)|},
\quad 2^{m_t^{**}} = 2^{\hat m_t-\varepsilon|t-t_{**}(n)|}.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[tn\]) and (\[2t\]), for small $\varepsilon>0$ and $t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)$ the numbers $m_t^*$ and $m_t^{**}$ are positive.
For $f\in BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_1}(\Omega)$ the following equation holds: $$f = f\cdot \chi _{\tilde \Omega _{[\tilde t(n)]+1}}+\sum \limits
_{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)} P_{t,[m_t^*]}f + \sum \limits _{t(n)<t{\leqslant}[\tilde t(n)]} P_{t,[m_t^{**}]}f+$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)} (f - P_{t,[m_t^*]}f) + \sum
\limits _{t(n)<t{\leqslant}[\tilde t(n)]} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}[m_t^{**}]}
(P_{t,m+1}f-P_{t,m}f).$$ We have $$\sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)} {\rm rk}\, P_{t,[m_t^*]} + \sum
\limits _{t(n)<t{\leqslant}\tilde t_n} {\rm rk}\, P_{t,[m_t^{**}]}
\stackrel{(\ref{rk_ptm}), (\ref{2_mt_st})}{\underset
{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)} 2^{\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{\hat m_t}\cdot 2^{-\varepsilon|t-t_*(n)|} + \sum \limits
_{t(n)<t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)} 2^{\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{\hat m_t}\cdot
2^{-\varepsilon|t-t_{**}(n)|}
\stackrel{(\ref{hat_mt})}{\underset{\varepsilon,
\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n,$$ $$\|f\|_{Y_q(\tilde \Omega _{[\tilde t(n)]+1})}
\stackrel{(\ref{p0geq_emb})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{-(\alpha_*+\gamma_*/p_0-\gamma_*/q) k_*\tilde t(n)}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\tilde
\theta}.$$ This together with (\[f\_m\_ptm\]), (\[wkm\_lqd0\]) yield that it remains to estimate the sum $$\sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m_t^*(s_*+1/q -1/p_1)} + \sum \limits _{t(n)<t {\leqslant}\tilde
t(n)} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}m_t^{**}} 2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda
\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot 2^{-ms_*(1-\lambda)}
\stackrel{(\ref{2_mt_st})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-\hat m_t(s_*+1/q -1/p_1)+\varepsilon (s_*+1/q
-1/p_1)|t-t_*(n)|} +$$ $$+\sum \limits _{t(n)<t {\leqslant}\tilde t(n)}
2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda \alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot 2^{-\hat
m_ts_*(1-\lambda)+\varepsilon (1-\lambda)s_* |t-t_{**}(n)|} =:S.$$
By (\[1lams\]), (\[1111\]) and (\[mt\_t\]), we get $$2^{\mu_*k_*t(n)}\cdot 2^{-\hat m_{t(n)}(s_*+1/q -1/p_1)}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\asymp} 2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda
\alpha_*)k_*t(n)}\cdot 2^{-\hat m_{t(n)}s_*(1-\lambda)}.$$
Recall that $\theta_{j_*}<\min _{j\ne j_*} \theta_j$ by conditions of theorem. Taking into account (\[hat\_mt\]) and appropriately choosing $t_*(n)$ and $t_{**}(n)$ we get $S
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} S_1(n)+ S_2(n)+S_3(n)$, where $$S_1(n)= 2^{-\hat m_0(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} \stackrel{(\ref{hat_mt})}{=}
n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1},$$ $$S_2(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*t(n)}\cdot 2^{-\hat m_{t(n)}(s_*+1/q -1/p_1)}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{hat_mt}),
(\ref{tn1})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\asymp}} n^{-\hat\theta},$$ $$S_3(n) = 2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda \alpha_*)k_*\tilde
t(n)}\cdot 2^{-\hat m_{\tilde t(n)}s_*(1-\lambda)} \stackrel{
(\ref{1111}), (\ref{til_mt_t})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\asymp}}$$ $$\asymp
2^{-(\alpha_*+(1-\lambda)(\gamma_*/p_0-\gamma_*/p_1))k_*\tilde
t(n)} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{tn}),
(\ref{1q1l1p1})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\asymp}} n^{-\tilde
\theta}.$$
[**Case $p_0>q>2$, $q>p_1{\geqslant}2$.**]{} The numbers $t_1(n){\leqslant}\tilde
t(n)$, $m_1(n){\leqslant}n^{q/2}$ will be chosen later by $\mathfrak{Z}_0$. For $0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)$ we define the numbers $m_t^*$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mt_st} 2^{m_t^*} = 2^{\hat m_t-\varepsilon |t-t_1(n)|}.\end{aligned}$$ As in previous cases, we get $m_t^*>0$ for small $\varepsilon$. For $0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)$ we set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{l_tm} l_{t,m} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \left \lceil
n\cdot 2^{-\varepsilon(|t-t_1(n)|+|m-m_1(n)|)}\right \rceil, \quad
m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t, \\ 0, \quad m>\overline{m}_t.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Then for sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pmt_rk} \sum \limits _{t=t_0}^{[\tilde t(n)]} {\rm rk}\,
P_{t,\lceil m_t^*\rceil} \stackrel{(\ref{rk_ptm}),(\ref{hat_mt}),
(\ref{mt_st})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0,\varepsilon}{\lesssim}} n,
\quad \sum \limits _{t=t_0}^{[\tilde t(n)]} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}\lceil m_t^*\rceil } l_{t,m}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0,\varepsilon}{\lesssim} n.\end{aligned}$$
For $f\in BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_1}(\Omega)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_f_cdot} f = f\cdot \chi_{\tilde \Omega _{[\tilde
t(n)]+1}} + \sum \limits _{t=t_0}^{[\tilde t(n)]} P_{t,\lceil
m_t^*\rceil }f + \sum \limits _{t=t_0}^{[\tilde t(n)]} \sum
\limits _{m{\geqslant}[m_t^*]} (P_{t,m+1} f - P_{t,m}f).\end{aligned}$$
By (\[p0geq\_emb\]), (\[til\_theta\]) and (\[tn\]), $\|f\cdot
\chi_{\tilde \Omega _{[\tilde t(n)]+1}}\|_{Y_q(\Omega)}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} n^{-\tilde \theta}$. This together with (\[dl\]), (\[pmt\_rk\]) and (\[f\_f\_cdot\]) yields that it remains to estimate the sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sum_dl} \sum \limits _{t=0}^{[\tilde t(n)]} \sum \limits
_{m{\geqslant}[m_t^*]} d_{l_{t,m}} (W_{t,m}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}) =: S.\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1q_lam} \frac 1q =\frac{1-\lambda}{p_1}
+\frac{\lambda}{p_0}.\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[gl\_teor\] and (\[rk\_ptm\]), (\[w\_tm\]), (\[wkm\_lq\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dltmp} d_{l_{t,m}}(W_{t,m}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}})
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)m}\left(l_{t,m}^{-1/2}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}\cdot
2^{m/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dltmq} d_{l_{t,m}}(W_{t,m}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}})
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim}
2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-(1-\lambda)s_*m}.\end{aligned}$$ If $\hat t(n)<\tilde t(n)$, we define the numbers $m_t'$ by $$2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)m_t'}\left(n^{-1/2}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}\cdot
2^{m'_t/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}} =
2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-(1-\lambda)s_*m_t'}.$$ Then by (\[1lams\]) and (\[1q\_lam\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3333} 2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1)m_t'}\left( n^{-1/2}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}\cdot 2^{m_t'/q}\right)
^{\frac{1/p_1-1/p_0}{1/2-1/q}} =1.\end{aligned}$$ If $m_t'=\hat m_t$, then $t=\tilde t(n)$ by (\[hat\_mt\]) and (\[tn\]); if $m_t'=\overline{m}_t$, then $t=\hat t(n)$ by (\[line\_mt\]) and (\[tn\_hat\]). Notice that if the factor multiplying $m_t'$ in the exponent in left-hand-side of (\[3333\]) is zero, then $\tilde t(n)=\hat t(n)$.
We split the set $\{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n), \;
m_t^*{\leqslant}m<\infty\}$ into the following subsets: $${\rm I} = \{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n), \; m_t^*{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t; \;m{\leqslant}m_t', \; \text{if }\hat t(n)<t{\leqslant}\tilde
t(n)\},$$ $${\rm II}=\{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\min(\tilde t(n), \, \hat t(n)),
\; m{\geqslant}\overline{m}_t\},$$ $${\rm III} = \{(t, \, m):\; \hat t(n)<t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n),\; m{\geqslant}m_t'\}.$$
For $(t, \, m)\in {\rm I} \cup {\rm II}$ we apply (\[dltmp\]), for $(t, \, m)\in {\rm III}$ we apply (\[dltmq\]).
We apply Lemma 6 from [@vas_bes], (\[hat\_mt\]), take into account that $\theta _{j_*}<\min _{j\ne j_*} \theta_j$ by theorem conditions, chose appropriately the numbers $\varepsilon$, $t_1(n)$, $m_1(n)$ and obtain the estimate $S
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} S_1(n)+S_2(n)+S_3(n)+S_4(n)$, where $$S_1(n) =2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)\hat m_{0}}\left(n^{-1/2}\cdot
2^{\hat
m_{0}/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}
\stackrel{(\ref{hat_mt})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
n^{-s_*},$$ $$S_2(n) =2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)\overline{m} _{0}}\left(n^{-1/2}\cdot
2^{\overline{m}_{0}/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}
\stackrel{(\ref{line_mt})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
n^{-q(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)/2},$$ $$S_3(n) =2^{\mu_*k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)\hat{m}_{\tilde t(n)}}\left(n^{-1/2}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*k_*\tilde t(n)/q}\cdot 2^{\hat{m}_{\tilde
t(n)}/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),(\ref{hat_mt}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\tilde
\theta},$$ $$S_4(n)=2^{\mu_*k_*\hat t(n)}\cdot
2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)\overline{m}_{\hat t(n)}}\left(n^{-1/2}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*k_*\hat t(n)/q}\cdot 2^{\overline{m}_{\hat
t(n)}/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{line_mt}),
(\ref{tn_hat})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-q\hat
\theta/2}.$$
[**Case $p_0>q>2>p_1$.**]{} Let $\frac 1q =\frac{1-\lambda}{p_1}
+\frac{\lambda}{p_0}$, $\frac 12 =\frac{1-\tilde \lambda}{p_1} +
\frac{\tilde \lambda}{p_0}$. As in previous case, we define $m_t^*$ and $l_{t,m}$ by (\[mt\_st\]) and (\[l\_tm\]) and get that it suffices to estimate the sum (\[sum\_dl\]). By Theorem \[gl\_teor\], (\[rk\_ptm\]), (\[w\_tm\]), (\[wkm\_lq\]) and (\[wkm\_l2\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dltmp1} d_{l_{t,m}}(W_{t,m}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}})
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)m}l_{t,m}^{-1/2}\cdot 2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}\cdot
2^{m/q},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dltmq1} d_{l_{t,m}}(W_{t,m}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}})
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim}
2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-(1-\lambda)s_*m},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dltm2} \begin{array}{c} d_{l_{t,m}}(W_{t,m}, \,
l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim} \\ \lesssim
2^{((1-\tilde \lambda)\mu_*-\tilde \lambda \alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\tilde \lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m}
l_{t,m}^{-1/2}\cdot 2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}\cdot 2^{m/q}. \end{array}\end{aligned}$$ We define the numbers $m_t'$ by $$2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-(1-\lambda)s_*m_t'} =$$ $$=2^{((1-\tilde \lambda)\mu_*-\tilde \lambda \alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\tilde
\lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m_t'} n^{-1/2}\cdot 2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}\cdot
2^{m_t'/q}.$$ Taking into account (\[1lams\]), we get that $$2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot 2^{-(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1)m'_t}\cdot
\left(n^{-1/2}\cdot 2^{\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{m'_t/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/p_0}{1/2-1/q}}=1.$$ Notice that if the factor multiplying of $m_t'$ in the exponent is zero, then $\hat t(n) = \tilde t(n)$.
If $m'_t=\hat m_t$, then $t=\tilde t(n)$ by (\[hat\_mt\]) and (\[tn\]); if $m'_t=\overline{m}_t$, then $t=\hat t(n)$ and $m'_t=m_t$ by (\[line\_mt\]) and (\[tn\_hat\]).
We split the set $\{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n), \;
m_t^*{\leqslant}m<\infty\}$ into the subsets $${\rm I} = \{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n), \; m_t^*{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t, \; m{\geqslant}m_t\},$$ $${\rm II}=\{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\min(\hat t(n), \, \tilde t(n)),
\; m{\geqslant}\overline{m}_t\},$$ $${\rm III}= \{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n), \; m{\geqslant}m_t^*, \;
m{\leqslant}m_t; \; m{\leqslant}m_t'\text{ for }\hat t(n)<t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)\},$$ $${\rm IV}=\{(t, \, m):\; \hat t(n)<t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n), \; m{\geqslant}m_t'\}.$$
For $(t, \, m)\in {\rm I}\cup {\rm II}$ we apply (\[dltmp1\]); for $(t, \, m)\in {\rm III}$ we apply (\[dltm2\]); for $(t, \,
m)\in {\rm IV}$ we apply (\[dltmq1\]).
As in the previous case, we apply Lemma 6 from [@vas_bes] and get that for appropriate $\varepsilon>0$, $t_1(n)$ and $m_1(n)$ the estimate $S\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
S_1(n)+S_2(n)+S_3(n)+S_4(n)+S_5(n)$ holds with $$S_1(n) =2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)\hat m_{0}}n^{-1/2}\cdot 2^{\hat
m_{0}/q} \stackrel{(\ref{hat_mt})} {\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}
{\lesssim}} n^{-s_*-\frac 12 +\frac{1}{p_1}},$$ $$S_2(n) = 2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)\overline{m}_{0}}n^{-1/2}\cdot
2^{\overline{m}_{0}/q}
\stackrel{(\ref{line_mt})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
n^{-q(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)/2},$$ $$S_3(n) =2^{\mu_*k_*t(n)}\cdot 2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1) \hat
m_{t(n)}}n^{-1/2}\cdot 2^{\gamma_*k_*t(n)/q}\cdot 2^{\hat
m_{t(n)}/q} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{hat_mt}),
(\ref{tn1})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\hat \theta
-\frac 12 +\frac 1q},$$ $$S_4(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*\hat t(n)}\cdot
2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)\overline{m}_{\hat t(n)}}n^{-1/2}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*k_*\hat t(n)/q}\cdot 2^{\overline{m}_{\hat t(n)}/q}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{line_mt}),
(\ref{tn_hat})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-q\hat
\theta/2},$$ $$S_5(n) =2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{-(1-\lambda)s_*\hat m_{\tilde t(n)}} \stackrel{(\ref{1111}),
(\ref{til_mt_t})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\asymp}}$$ $$\asymp 2^{(1-\lambda)(\mu_*+\alpha_*)k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{-\alpha_*k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot 2^{-(1-\lambda)
(\mu_*+\alpha_*+\gamma_*/p_0-\gamma_*/p_1)k_*\tilde
t(n)}\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\asymp}} n^{-\tilde \theta}.$$
Now we consider $p_0{\leqslant}q$.
[**Case $p_0{\leqslant}q{\leqslant}2$, $p_1{\leqslant}q$.**]{} Let $t_*(n)=0$ or $t_*(n)=t(n)$ (it will be chosen later by $\mathfrak{Z}_0$). We define the numbers $m_t^*$ by equation $2^{m_t^*} = 2^{\hat m_t
-\varepsilon |t-t_*(n)|}$. By (\[tn1\]) and (\[2t\]), $m_t^*>0$ for $t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)$ and small $\varepsilon>0$.
We set $Pf|_{\Omega_t}=P_{t,\lceil m_t^*\rceil}f$, $t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}[t(n)]$, $Pf|_{\tilde\Omega _{[t(n)]+1}}=0$. Then ${\rm rk}\, P
\stackrel{(\ref{rk_ptm}),(\ref{hat_mt})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
n$, $$\|f-Pf\|_{Y_q(\Omega)} \stackrel{(\ref{f_m_ptm}),(\ref{p0lq_emb}),
(\ref{hat_mt})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}
2^{-\frac{\alpha_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)
-\mu_*(1/p_0-1/q)}{s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1}k_*t(n)} +$$$$+\sum \limits
_{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1}\cdot
2^{\varepsilon(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)|t-t_*(n)|}.$$ If $\mu_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)<0$, we set $t_*(n)=0$ and for small $\varepsilon>0$ we get $\|f-Pf\|_{Y_q(\Omega)}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1}$; if $\mu_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)>0$, we set $t_*(n)=t(n)$ and get $\|f-Pf\|_{Y_q(\Omega)} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{tn1})}
{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim}} n^{-\hat \theta}$. If $\mu_*+\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)=0$, then $s_*+\frac
1q-\frac{1}{p_1}=\hat \theta$, which contradicts with theorem conditions.
[**Case $p_0< q{\leqslant}2$, $p_1>q$**]{}. Here we argue as for $p_0>q$, $p_1<q{\leqslant}2$; the number $\lambda$ is defined by (\[1q1l1p1\]). The numbers $m_t^*$, $m_t^{**}$ are defined by (\[2\_mt\_st\]). Notice that by (\[tn\]), (\[tn1\]) and inequality $p_0<p_1$ we have $\tilde t(n)<t(n)$. It remains to estimate the sum $$\sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)}
\|f-P_{t,m^*_t}f\|_{Y_q(\Omega_t)} + \sum \limits _{\tilde
t(n)<t{\leqslant}t(n)} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}m_t^{**}}
\|P_{t,m+1}f-P_{t,m}f\|_{Y_q(\Omega_t)}
+\|f\|_{Y_q(\Omega_{[t(n)]+1})}=:A.$$ By (\[f\_m\_ptm\]), (\[wkm\_lqd0\]), (\[p0lq\_emb\]), (\[til\_theta\]), (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[tn1\]), (\[2\_mt\_st\]) $$A\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}\sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)} 2^{(\mu_*+\gamma_*/q-\gamma_*/p_1)k_*t}\cdot
2^{s_*\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot n^{-s_*}\cdot
2^{s_*\varepsilon|t-t_*(n)|} +$$ $$+\sum \limits _{\tilde t(n)<t{\leqslant}t(n)} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}m_t^{**}} 2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-ms_*(1-\lambda)} + n^{-\hat{\theta}}
\stackrel{(\ref{2_mt_st})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}$$ $$\lesssim \sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\tilde t(n)}
2^{(\mu_*+\gamma_*/q-\gamma_*/p_1)k_*t}\cdot
2^{s_*\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot n^{-s_*}\cdot
2^{s_*\varepsilon|t-t_*(n)|} +$$ $$+\sum \limits _{\tilde t(n)<t{\leqslant}t(n)}
2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*s_*(1-\lambda)k_*t}\cdot n^{-s_*(1-\lambda)} \cdot
2^{\varepsilon s_*|t-t_{**}(n)|(1-\lambda)} +
n^{-\hat{\theta}}=:S.$$ Since $\theta_{j_*}<\min _{j\ne j_*}\theta_j$ by theorem conditions and $$2^{(\mu_*+\gamma_*/q-\gamma_*/p_1)k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{s_*\gamma_*k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot n^{-s_*}
\stackrel{(\ref{tn})}{=}
2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*s_*(1-\lambda)k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot n^{-s_*(1-\lambda)},$$ we have $S \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}
S_1(n)+S_2(n)+S_3(n)+n^{-\hat\theta}$, where $$S_1(n)= n^{-s_*}, \quad S_2(n)
=2^{(\mu_*+\gamma_*/q-\gamma_*/p_1)k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{s_*\gamma_*k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot n^{-s_*}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\tilde
\theta},$$ $$S_3(n) = 2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t(n)}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*s_*(1-\lambda)k_*t(n)}\cdot n^{-s_*(1-\lambda)}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{tn1}),
(\ref{1q1l1p1})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\hat
\theta}.$$
Further we consider $q>2$.
The numbers $t_1(n){\leqslant}\hat t(n)$, $m_1(n){\leqslant}n^{q/2}$ will be chosen later by $\mathfrak{Z}_0$. The numbers $l_{t,m}$ are defined by (\[l\_tm\]).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2_mt_st1} 2^{m_t^*} = \max \{2^{\hat m_t-\varepsilon
|t-t_1(n)|}, \, 1\}.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[tn\_hat\]) and (\[2t\]), for $t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)$ and sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ we have $2^{m_t^*}=2^{\hat
m_t-\varepsilon |t-t_1(n)|}$; hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rank_p} \sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}[t(n)]} {\rm rk}\,
P_{t,\lceil m_t^*\rceil} \stackrel{(\ref{rk_ptm}), (\ref{hat_mt}),
(\ref{2_mt_st1})} {\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n.\end{aligned}$$
For $f\in BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_1}(\Omega)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_sum} f = \sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}[\hat t(n)]}
P_{t,\lceil m_t^*\rceil }f + \sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}[\hat
t(n)]} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}\lceil m_t^*\rceil} (P_{t,m+1}f -
P_{t,m}f) + f\cdot \chi _{\tilde \Omega _{[\hat t(n)]+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[p0lq\_emb\]), (\[til\_theta\]) and (\[tn\_hat\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ost} \|f\|_{Y_q(\tilde \Omega_{[\hat t(n)]+1})}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} n^{-q\hat \theta/2}.\end{aligned}$$ From (\[dl\]), (\[dl1\]), (\[l\_tm\]), (\[rank\_p\]), (\[f\_sum\]), (\[ost\]) it follows that it suffices to estimate the sum $$\sum \limits _{t_0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}[\hat t(n)]} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}\lceil
m_t^*\rceil} d_{l_{t,m}} (W_{t,m}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}})+$$$$+\sum
\limits _{[t(n)]<t{\leqslant}[\hat t(n)]} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m_t^*(1/q-1/p_0)}d_{l_{t,\lceil
m_t^*\rceil}}(B_{p_0}^{\nu'_{t,\lceil m_t^*\rceil}}, \,
l_q^{\nu'_{t,\lceil m_t^*\rceil}}) =:S_0.$$
[**Case $\max\{p_0, \, p_1\}{\leqslant}2< q$.**]{} We have $B_{p_0}^\nu
\subset B_2^\nu$, $B_{p_1}^\nu\subset B_2^\nu$; therefore, we get by (\[w\_tm\]) $$S_0{\leqslant}\sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)} \sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}m_t^*}
2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}d_{l_{t,m}}(B_2^{\nu_{t,m}}, \,
l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}) +$$ $$+\sum \limits _{t(n){\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n)} \sum \limits _{m_t^*{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}m_t}2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m(1/q-1/p_0)}d_{l_{t,m}}(B_2^{\nu_{t,m}}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,m}})
+$$$$+\sum \limits _{t(n){\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n)} \sum \limits _{m>
m_t} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}d_{l_{t,m}}(B_2^{\nu_{t,m}}, \,
l_q^{\nu_{t,m}})=:S.$$ Applying Theorem \[gl\_teor\] and taking into account (\[rk\_ptm\]), we get that in the first and the third sums there are decreasing geometric progressions in $m$, and in the second sum there is an increasing geometric progression in $m$. Taking into account (\[line\_mt\]) and (\[mt\_t\]), we get $$S\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}t(n)} \sum \limits _{m_t^*{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t}2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} 2^{\gamma
k_*t/q}\cdot 2^{m/q}\cdot l_{t,m}^{-1/2}+$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{t(n){\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n)} \sum \limits
_{m=m_t}^{\overline{m}_t}2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}
2^{\gamma k_*t/q}\cdot 2^{m/q}\cdot l_{t,m}^{-1/2} =:\tilde S.$$ Notice that $\theta_{j_*}<\min _{j\ne j_*}\theta_j$ by theorem condition. Applying Lemma 6 from [@vas_bes] and taking into account (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[line\_mt\]), (\[1111\]), (\[l\_tm\]), (\[2\_mt\_st1\]), we get that for appropriate $t_1(n)$ and $m_1(n)$ the estimate $\tilde S
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} S_1(n)+S_2(n)+ S_3(n) +S_4(n)$ holds with $$S_1(n) = n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1}\cdot n^{1/q-1/2} = n^{-s_*-1/2+1/p_1},
\quad S_2(n) = n^{-\frac{q}{2}(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)},$$ $$S_3(n) =2^{\mu_*k_*t(n)}\cdot 2^{\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)k_*t(n)}
\cdot n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1} \cdot n^{1/q-1/2}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn1})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\hat \theta
+1/q-1/2},$$ $$S_4(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*\hat t(n)}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)k_*\hat t(n)}\cdot n^{-\frac q2
(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn_hat})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-q\hat
\theta/2}.$$
[**Case $2{\leqslant}p_0<q$, $2{\leqslant}p_1{\leqslant}q$.**]{} We define the numbers $m_t'$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mt_pr} \begin{array}{c} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m_t'(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} \left(n^{-\frac 12}\cdot
2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac {m_t'}{q}}\right)
^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}} =
\\=2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m_t'(1/q-1/p_0)}\left(n^{-\frac
12}\cdot 2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac
{m_t'}{q}}\right)^{\frac{1/p_0-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}. \end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m_t'\left(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1\right)} = \left(n^{-\frac 12}\cdot
2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac
{m_t'}{q}}\right)^{\frac{1/p_0-1/p_1}{1/2-1/q}};$$ by (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[line\_mt\]), (\[1111\]), (\[tn\]), (\[2222\]), (\[tn\_hat\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mtn} m'_{\tilde t(n)}=\tilde m_{\tilde t(n)}=\hat m_{\tilde
t(n)}, \quad m'_{\hat t(n)} = m_{\hat t(n)} = \overline{m}_{\hat
t(n)}.\end{aligned}$$
Applying Theorem \[gl\_teor\] together with (\[rk\_ptm\]) and (\[w\_tm\]), we have $$S_0\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\min\{\tilde t(n), \, \hat t(n)\}} \sum \limits _{m_t^*{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}
\left(l_{t,m}^{-\frac 12}\cdot 2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot
2^{\frac mq}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}} +$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{\tilde t(n)<t{\leqslant}\hat t(n)} \sum \limits
_{m^*_t{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}m_t'}2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m(1/q-1/p_0)}\left(l_{t,m}^{-\frac 12}\cdot
2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac
mq}\right)^{\frac{1/p_0-1/q}{1/2-1/q}} +$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{\tilde t(n)<t{\leqslant}\hat t(n)} \sum \limits _{
m_t'{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t}2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} \left(l_{t,m}^{-\frac 12}\cdot
2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac
mq}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}+$$ $$+\sum \limits _{0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n)}\sum \limits _{m{\geqslant}\overline{m}_t} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}=:S.$$ In the second sum there is an increasing geometric progression in $m$, in the last sum there is a decreasing geometric progression in $m$. Applying Lemma 6 from [@vas_bes] and taking into account (\[mt\_pr\]), (\[mtn\]), we get that $S
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} S_1(n)+S_2(n)+S_3(n)+S_4(n)$, where $$S_1(n)= n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1} \left(n^{-\frac 12}\cdot
n^{\frac
1q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}} = n^{-s_*}, \quad S_2(n)
=n^{-\frac q2 (s_*+1/q-1/p_1)},$$ $$S_3(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)\gamma_*k_*\tilde t(n)}n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1}
\left(n^{-\frac 12}\cdot n^{\frac
1q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\tilde
\theta},$$ $$S_4(n) =2^{\mu_*k_*\hat t(n)}\cdot 2^{-m'_{\hat
t(n)}(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{tn_hat}),
(\ref{mtn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\frac{q\hat
\theta}{2}}.$$
[**Case $q>2$, $p_0<q$, $p_1{\leqslant}q$, $\min\{p_0, \,
p_1\}<2<\max\{p_0, \, p_1\}$.**]{} Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{12till} \frac 12 = \frac{1-\tilde\lambda}{p_1}
+\frac{\tilde\lambda}{p_0}.\end{aligned}$$ Then (\[wkm\_l2\]) holds.
If $p_0>2>p_1$, the number $m_t'$ is defined by equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p02p1}
\begin{array}{c}
2^{((1-\tilde\lambda)\mu_*-\tilde\lambda \alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\tilde\lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m_t'}
\cdot n^{-\frac 12}\cdot 2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot
2^{\frac{m'_t}{q}} =
\\
= 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{(1/p_0-1/q)m_t'} \left(n^{-\frac 12}
\cdot 2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac{m_t'}{q}}\right)
^{\frac{1/p_0-1/q}{1/2-1/q}};
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ if $p_1>2>p_0$, it is defined by equation $$\begin{array}{c}
2^{((1-\tilde\lambda)\mu_*-\tilde\lambda \alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\tilde\lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m_t'}
\cdot n^{-\frac 12}\cdot 2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot
2^{\frac{m'_t}{q}} =
\\
= 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m'_t(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}\left(n^{-\frac 12}
\cdot 2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac{m_t'}{q}}\right)
^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}.
\end{array}$$ In both cases we get by (\[12till\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2p0p1} 2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m_t'(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1)}= \left(n^{-\frac 12}\cdot
2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac{m_t'}{q}}\right)
^{\frac{1/p_0-1/p_1}{1/2-1/q}};\end{aligned}$$ from (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[line\_mt\]), (\[1111\]), (\[tn\]), (\[2222\]), (\[tn\_hat\]) we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mtiln} m'_{\tilde t(n)}=\hat m_{\tilde t(n)}=\tilde
m_{\tilde t(n)}, \quad m'_{\hat t(n)} = \overline{m}_{\hat t(n)}=
m_{\hat t(n)}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the equality $s_*+\frac{1}{p_0}-\frac{1}{p_1} = \frac
1q \cdot \frac{\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_0}}{\frac 12-\frac1q}$ holds if and only if $\tilde t(n)=\hat t(n)$ (then $m_t'$ cannot be defined by (\[2p0p1\])).
Let us estimate the sum $S_0$.
For $p_0>2>p_1$ we define the subsets $${\rm I}=\{(t, \, m):\; t{\geqslant}0, \; m_t^*{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t, \;
m{\geqslant}m_t\},$$ $${\rm II}=\{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n), \; m{\geqslant}\overline{m}_t\},$$ $${\rm III} =\{(t, \, m):\; t(n){\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n), \; m{\geqslant}m_t^*,
\; m{\leqslant}m_t; \; m{\geqslant}m_t'\; \text{for}\; \tilde t(n)<t{\leqslant}\hat
t(n)\},$$ $${\rm IV} =\{(t, \, m):\; \tilde t(n)<t{\leqslant}\hat t(n),\; m{\geqslant}m_t^*,
\; m{\leqslant}m_t'\}.$$
For $(t, \, m)\in {\rm I}\cup {\rm II}$ we apply the inclusion $W_{t,m}\subset 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)m}B_{p_1}^{\nu_{t,m}}$, for $(t, \, m)\in {\rm
III}$ we apply (\[wkm\_l2\]), for $(t, \, m)\in {\rm IV}$ we apply the inclusion $W_{t,m} \subset 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m(1/q-1/p_0)} B_{p_0}^{\nu_{t,m}}$. By Theorem \[gl\_teor\], we get $$S_0 \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \sum \limits _{(t, \,
m)\in {\rm I}} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}
l_{t,m}^{-\frac{1}{2}}2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot
2^{\frac{m}{q}}+ \sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm II}}
2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} +$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm III}}
2^{((1-\tilde\lambda)\mu_*-\tilde\lambda \alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1) +\tilde\lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m}
\cdot l_{t,m}^{-\frac 12}\cdot 2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot
2^{\frac{m}{q}} +$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm IV}} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{(1/p_0-1/q)m} \left(l_{t,m}^{-\frac 12} \cdot
2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac{m}{q}}\right)
^{\frac{1/p_0-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}=:S.$$ In the second sum there is a decreasing geometric progression in $m$, in the fourth sum there is an increasing geometric progression in $m$. Applying Lemma 6 from [@vas_bes] and taking into account (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[line\_mt\]), (\[mt\_t\]), (\[p02p1\]), (\[2p0p1\]), (\[mtiln\]), we get that for appropriate $t_1(n)$ and $m_1(n)$ the estimate $S\underset{\mathfrak{Z}}{\lesssim} S_1(n) +
S_2(n)+S_3(n)+S_4(n)+S_5(n)$ holds with $$S_1(n) = n^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} n^{-1/2}\cdot n^{1/q} =
n^{-s_*-1/2+1/p_1},$$ $$S_2(n) = n^{-\frac{q}{2}(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} n^{-1/2}\cdot
(n^{q/2})^{\frac 1q} = n^{-\frac{q}{2}(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)},$$ $$S_3(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*t(n)}\cdot 2^{\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)k_*t(n)}
\cdot n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1} n^{-1/2+1/q} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn1})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}}n^{-\hat \theta
+1/q-1/2},$$ $$S_4(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*\hat t(n)}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)k_*\hat t(n)} \cdot n^{-\frac{q}{2}
(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn_hat})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-q\hat
\theta/2},$$ $$S_5(n) = 2^{-\alpha_*k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot 2^{-\gamma_*
(1/p_0-1/q)k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot n^{1/p_0-1/q} \cdot n^{1/q-1/p_0}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\tilde
\theta}.$$
For $p_1>2>p_0$ we set $${\rm I}=\{(t, \, m):\; t{\geqslant}0, \; m_t^*{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t, \;
m{\geqslant}m_t'\},$$ $${\rm II}=\{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n), \; m{\geqslant}\overline{m}_t\},$$ $${\rm III} =\{(t, \, m):\; m{\geqslant}m_t^*, \; m{\leqslant}m_t', \; m{\geqslant}m_t\},$$ $${\rm IV} =\{(t, \, m):\; t{\leqslant}\hat t(n),\; m{\geqslant}m_t^*, \; m{\leqslant}m_t\}.$$
As in the previous case, we get that for appropriate $t_1(n)$ and $m_1(n)$ $$S_0 \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \sum \limits _{(t, \,
m)\in {\rm I}} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}
\left(l_{t,m}^{-1/2}2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}\cdot
2^{m/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}+ \sum \limits _{(t, \,
m)\in {\rm II}} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} +$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm III}}
2^{((1-\tilde\lambda)\mu_*-\tilde\lambda \alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1) +\tilde\lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m}
\cdot l_{t,m}^{-\frac 12}\cdot 2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot
2^{\frac{m}{q}} +$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm IV}} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{(1/p_0-1/q)m} l_{t,m}^{-\frac 12} \cdot
2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot
2^{\frac{m}{q}}\underset{\mathfrak{Z}}{\lesssim}$$ $$\lesssim S_1(n) + S_2(n)+S_3(n)+S_4(n)+S_5(n),$$ where $$S_1(n) = n^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} \left(n^{-1/2}\cdot
n^{1/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}} = n^{-s_*},$$ $$S_2(n) = n^{-\frac{q}{2}(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} \left(n^{-1/2}\cdot
(n^{q/2})^{\frac 1q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_1-1/q}{1/2-1/q}} =
n^{-\frac{q}{2}(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)},$$ $$S_3(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)k_*\tilde t(n)} \cdot n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1}
n^{-1/p_1+1/q} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\tilde
\theta},$$ $$S_4(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*\hat t(n)}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)k_*\hat t(n)} \cdot n^{-\frac{q}{2}
(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn_hat})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-q\hat
\theta/2},$$ $$S_5(n) = 2^{-\alpha_*k_* t(n)}\cdot 2^{-\gamma_*
(1/p_0-1/q)k_*t(n)}\cdot n^{1/p_0-1/q} \cdot n^{1/q-1/2}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn1})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-\hat
\theta+1/q-1/2}.$$
[**Case $q>2$, $2{\leqslant}p_0<q$, $p_1>q$.**]{} Let $\frac 1q =
\frac{1-\lambda}{p_1} +\frac{\lambda}{p_0}$. Then (\[wkm\_lq\]) holds.
We define the numbers $m_t'$ by equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1mt_pr}
\begin{array}{c}
2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m'_t(1/p_0-1/q)}\left(n^{-\frac
12}2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac{m'_t}{q}}\right)
^{\frac{1/p_0-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}=
\\
= 2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-((1-\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m'_t}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1mt_pr1} 2^{(\mu_*+\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m'_t(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1)} = \left(n^{-\frac 12}\cdot
2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}\cdot
2^{\frac{m_t'}{q}}\right)^{\frac{1/p_0-1/p_1}{1/2-1/q}};\end{aligned}$$ by (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[line\_mt\]), (\[1111\]), (\[tn\]), (\[2222\]), (\[tn\_hat\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hat_m} \hat m_{\tilde t(n)}=\tilde m_{\tilde
t(n)}=m'_{\tilde t(n)}, \quad \overline{m}_{\hat t(n)}=m_{\hat
t(n)}= m'_{\hat t(n)}.\end{aligned}$$
We define the number $\overline{t}(n)$ by equation $\tilde
m_{\overline{t}(n)}=\overline{m}_{\overline{t}(n)}$. We split the set $\{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n), \; m{\geqslant}m_t^*\}$ into subsets $${\rm I} =\{(t, \, m):\; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n), \; m_t^*{\leqslant}m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t, \; m{\geqslant}\tilde m_t\},$$ $${\rm II} = \{(t, \, m):\; m{\geqslant}\overline{m}_t, \; 0{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\overline{t}(n)\},$$ $${\rm III} =\{(t, \, m):\; m{\leqslant}\tilde m_t, \; m{\leqslant}\overline{m}_t,
\; m{\geqslant}m_t'\},$$ $${\rm IV} =\{(t, \, m):\; \overline{t}(n){\leqslant}t{\leqslant}\hat t(n), \;
m{\geqslant}\overline{m}_t\},$$ $${\rm V} = \{(t, \, m):\; m{\leqslant}m_t', \; m{\geqslant}m_t^*, \; t{\leqslant}\hat
t(n)\}.$$
For $(t, \, m)\in {\rm I}\cup {\rm II}$ we use the inclusion $W_{t,m} \subset 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)m}
B_{p_1}^{\nu_{t,m}}$, for $(t, \, m)\in {\rm III}\cup {\rm IV}$ we apply (\[wkm\_lq\]), for $(t, \, m)\in {\rm V}$ we use the inclusion $W_{t,m} \subset 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-(1/q-1/p_0)m} B_{p_0} ^{\nu_{t,m}}$.
By Theorem \[gl\_teor\] and (\[pietsch\_stesin\]), we get $$S_0\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in
{\rm I}\cup {\rm II}} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}(2^{\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot 2^m)^{1/q-1/p_1}+$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm III}\cup {\rm IV}}
2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-s_*(1-\lambda)m} +$$ $$+\sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm V}} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{m(1/p_0-1/q)} \left(l_{t,m}^{-1/2}2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}\cdot
2^{m/q}\right)^{\frac{1/p_0-1/q}{1/2-1/q}}=:S.$$ Applying Lemma 6 from [@vas_bes], (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[line\_mt\]), (\[til\_mt\_t\]), (\[1mt\_pr\]), (\[1mt\_pr1\]), (\[hat\_m\]) and taking into account that in ${\rm I}\cup{\rm II}\cup{\rm III}\cup{\rm IV}$ there is a decreasing geometric progression in $m$, and in ${\rm V}$ there is an increasing geometric progression in $m$, we get that for appropriate $t_1(n)$ and $m_1(n)$ the estimate $S\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim} S_1(n) + S_2(n) + S_3(n)$ holds with $$S_1(n) = n^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}n^{1/q-1/p_1} = n^{-s_*},$$ $$S_2(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1}\cdot n^{1/q-1/p_1} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim}} n^{-\tilde
\theta},$$ $$S_3(n) =2^{-\alpha_*k_*\hat t(n)}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*(1/q-1/p_0)k_*\hat t(n)} \cdot
n^{(1/p_0-1/q)\frac{q}{2}} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn_hat})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim}} n^{-q\hat
\theta/2}.$$
[**Case $p_0<2<q{\leqslant}p_1$.**]{} Let $\frac 1q=\frac{1-\lambda}{p_1} +
\frac{\lambda}{p_0}$, $\frac 12 = \frac{1-\tilde\lambda}{p_1}
+\frac{\tilde \lambda}{p_0}$. Then (\[wkm\_lq\]), (\[wkm\_l2\]) hold.
We define the numbers $m_t'$ by equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ltill} \begin{array}{c} 2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda
\alpha_*)k_*t} \cdot
2^{-((1-\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m_t'} =
\\
=2^{((1-\tilde\lambda)\mu_*-\tilde\lambda \alpha_*)k_*t} \cdot
2^{-((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\tilde\lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m_t'}\cdot
n^{-\frac 12}\cdot 2^{\frac{m_t'}{q}}\cdot
2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$2^{(\tilde \lambda-\lambda)(\mu_*+\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot 2^{-(\tilde
\lambda-\lambda)(s_*+1/p_0-1/p_1)m_t'}= n^{-\frac 12}\cdot
2^{\frac{m_t'}{q}}\cdot 2^{\frac{\gamma_*k_*t}{q}};$$ by (\[hat\_mt\]), (\[line\_mt\]), (\[1111\]), (\[tn\]), (\[2222\]), (\[tn\_hat\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2mpr} m'_{\tilde t(n)}=\hat m_{\tilde t(n)}=\tilde
m_{\tilde t(n)}, \quad m'_{\hat t(n)} = \overline{m}_{\hat t(n)}
=m _{\hat t(n)}.\end{aligned}$$
We define the subsets ${\rm I}-{\rm IV}$ as in the previous case, and set $${\rm V}=\{(t, \, m):\; m{\leqslant}m_t', \; m{\geqslant}m_t^*, \; m{\geqslant}m_t\},$$ $${\rm VI} = \{(t, \, m):\; t{\leqslant}\hat t(n), \; m{\geqslant}m_t^*, \; m{\leqslant}m_t\}.$$
For $(t, \, m)\in {\rm I} \cup {\rm II}$ we use the inclusion $W_{t,m} \subset 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)m}
B_{p_1}^{\nu_{t,m}}$, for $(t, \, m)\in {\rm III}\cup {\rm IV}$ we apply (\[wkm\_lq\]), for $(t, \, m)\in {\rm V}$ we apply (\[wkm\_l2\]), in ${\rm VI}$ we apply the inclusion $$W_{t,m} \subset 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-(1/q-1/p_0)m} B_{p_0}
^{\nu_{t,m}}.$$
We get $$S_0\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} \sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in
{\rm I}\cup {\rm II}} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}(2^{\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot 2^m)^{1/q-1/p_1}+$$ $$+ \sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm III}\cup {\rm IV}}
2^{((1-\lambda)\mu_*-\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-s_*(1-\lambda)m} +$$ $$+\sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm V}}
2^{((1-\tilde\lambda)\mu_*-\tilde\lambda\alpha_*)k_*t}\cdot
2^{-((1-\tilde\lambda)(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)+\tilde \lambda(1/q-1/p_0))m}
l_{t,m}^{-1/2}2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}2^{m/q}+$$ $$+\sum \limits _{(t, \, m)\in {\rm VI}} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{m(1/p_0-1/q)} l_{t,m}^{-1/2}2^{\gamma_*k_*t/q}\cdot 2^{m/q}=:S.$$
In the first and the second sums there is a decreasing geometric progression in $m$, in the last sum there is an increasing geometric progression in $m$. Applying Lemma 6 from [@vas_bes] and taking into account (\[til\_mt\]), (\[mt\]), (\[ltill\]), (\[2mpr\]), we get that for appropriate $t_1(n)$ and $m_1(n)$ the estimate $S\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0}{\lesssim} S_1(n)+S_2(n)
+S_3(n) + S_4(n)$ holds with $$S_1(n) = n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1}\cdot n^{1/q-1/p_1}= n^{-s_*},$$ $$S_2(n) = 2^{\mu_*k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
2^{\gamma_*(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)k_*\tilde t(n)}\cdot
n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1}\cdot n^{1/q-1/p_1} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}),
(\ref{tn})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim}} n^{-\tilde
\theta},$$ $$S_3(n) =2^{-\alpha_*k_*\hat t(n)}\cdot 2^{-(1/p_0-1/q)\gamma_*k_*
\hat t(n)}\cdot n^{-\frac{q}{2}(1/q-1/p_0)} n^{-1/2}\cdot n^{\frac
q2\cdot \frac 1q} \stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{tn_hat})}
{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim}} n^{-q\hat \theta/2},$$ $$S_4(n)=2^{-\alpha_*k_*t(n)}\cdot 2^{\gamma_*(1/q-1/p_0)k_*t(n)}
\cdot n^{1/p_0-1/q} n^{-1/2}\cdot n^{1/q}
\stackrel{(\ref{til_theta}), (\ref{tn1})}
{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_0} {\lesssim}} n^{-\hat \theta +1/q-1/2}.$$ This completes the proof.
Lower estimates for widths of $BX_{p_1}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_0}(\Omega)$.
======================================================================
Let $c{\geqslant}1$, $t_0\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$. Suppose that for all integers $t{\geqslant}t_0$, $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$ there are functions $\varphi_j^{t,m}\in
X_{p_0}(\Omega) \cap X_{p_1}(\Omega)$ ($1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}\nu_{t,m}$) with pairwise disjoint supports such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nu_tm} \nu_{t,m} {\geqslant}c^{-1}2^{\gamma_*k_*t}\cdot 2^m
=:\nu'_{t,m},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{func_est} \begin{array}{c} \|\varphi_j^{t,m}\|
_{Y_q(\Omega)} = 1, \quad \|\varphi _j^{t,m}\| _{X_{p_0}(\Omega)}
{\leqslant}c\cdot 2^{\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot2^{m\left(\frac 1q
-\frac{1}{p_0}\right)}, \\ \|\varphi _j^{t,m}\| _{X_{p_1}(\Omega)}
{\leqslant}c\cdot 2^{-\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m\left(s_*+1/q-1/p_1\right)}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ We denote $\mathfrak{Z}_1 = (c, \, t_0, \, q, \, p_0, \, p_1, \,
s_*, \gamma_*, \, \alpha_*, \, \mu_*)$. The numbers $\tilde
\theta$ and $\hat \theta$ are defined by (\[til\_theta\]).
\[low\_est\] Let (\[s1qp\]), (\[mua\]), (\[nu\_tm\]), (\[func\_est\]) hold. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{low_est1} d_n(BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX _{p_1}(\Omega), \,
Y_q(\Omega)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\gtrsim} n^{-s_*-1/q+1/p_1}
d_n(B_{p_1}^{2n}, \, l_q^{2n}),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{low_est2} d_n(BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX _{p_1}(\Omega), \,
Y_q(\Omega)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\gtrsim} n^{-\tilde
\theta},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{low_est3} d_n(BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX _{p_1}(\Omega), \,
Y_q(\Omega)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\gtrsim} n^{-\hat
\theta-(1/2-1/q)_+};\end{aligned}$$ if $q>2$, $p_1<q$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{low_est4} d_n(BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX _{p_1}(\Omega), \,
Y_q(\Omega)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\gtrsim}
n^{-q(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)/2};\end{aligned}$$ if $q>2$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{low_est5} d_n(BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX _{p_1}(\Omega), \,
Y_q(\Omega)) \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\gtrsim} n^{-q\hat
\theta/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\nu'_{t,m}{\geqslant}2n$, $L= {\rm span}\, \{\varphi_1^{t,m}, \,
\dots, \, \varphi_{\nu_{t,m}}^{t,m}\}$, and let $W_{t,m}$ be the set of sequences $(c_1, \, \dots, \, c_{\nu_{t,m}})\in
{\mathbb{R}}^{\nu_{t,m}}$ such that $$\|(c_j)_{j=1}^{\nu_{t,m}}\|_{l_{p_0}^{\nu _{t,m}}} {\leqslant}2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m(1/p_0-1/q)}, \quad
\|(c_j)_{j=1}^{\nu_{t,m}}\|_{l_{p_1}^{\nu _{t,m}}} {\leqslant}2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{m_set} M= \left\{\sum \limits _{j=1}^{\nu_{t,m}}
c_j\varphi_j^{t,m}:\; (c_j)_{j=1}^{\nu_{t,m}}\in W_{t,m}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Since the functions $\varphi_j^{t,m}$ have pairwise disjoint supports, there is a linear projection from $Y_q(\Omega)$ onto $L$ with unit norm. It follows from the properties of the Kolmogorov widths that $$d_n(BX_{p_0}(\Omega)\cap BX_{p_1}(\Omega), \, Y_q(\Omega))
\stackrel{(\ref{func_est}),(\ref{m_set})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\gtrsim}}
d_n(M, \, Y_q(\Omega)) =$$$$=d_n(M, \, L)
\stackrel{(\ref{func_est}),(\ref{m_set})} {=} d_n(W_{t,m}, \,
l_q^{\nu_{t,m}}).$$
Let $t=t_0$. By (\[s1qp\]), there is $\tilde c=\tilde
c(\mathfrak{Z}_1)$ such that for sufficiently large $n$ and for $\nu'_{t_0,m}{\geqslant}2n$ the inclusion $W_{t_0,m} \supset \tilde c
\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} B_{p_1}^{\nu_{t_0,m}}$ holds. We take $m$ such that $2n{\leqslant}\nu'_{t_0,m}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\lesssim} n$ or $2n^{q/2}{\leqslant}\nu'_{t_0,m} \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\lesssim} n^{q/2}$, apply (\[nu\_tm\]) and Theorem \[gl\_teor\], and obtain (\[low\_est1\]) and (\[low\_est4\]).
The set $\min \{2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m(1/p_0-1/q)}, \,
2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}\} B_1^{\nu_{t,m}}$ is contained in $W_{t,m}$. Let $m_t$ be defined by equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2akt} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{m_t(1/p_0-1/q)} =
2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-m_t(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$d_n(W_{t,[m_t]}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,[m_t]}})
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\gtrsim} 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-m_t(s_*+1/q-1/p_1)} d_n(B_1^{\nu_{t,[m_t]}}, \,
l_q^{\nu_{t,[m_t]}}).$$ We take $t(n)$ and $\hat t(n)$ such that $2n{\leqslant}\nu'_{t(n),[m_{t(n)}]} \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\lesssim} n$ and $2n^{q/2}{\leqslant}\nu'_{\hat t(n),[m_{\hat t(n)}]}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\lesssim} n^{q/2}$. Applying (\[nu\_tm\]) and (\[2akt\]), we get (\[low\_est3\]) and (\[low\_est5\]).
The set $\min \{2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-\gamma_*k_*t/p_0}\cdot
2^{-m/q}, \, 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-\gamma_*k_*t/p_1}\cdot
2^{-m(s_*+1/q)}\} B_\infty^{\nu_{t,m}}$ is contained in $W_{t,m}$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{akt2} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot 2^{-\gamma_*k_*t/p_0}\cdot
2^{-\tilde m_t/q} = 2^{\mu_*k_*t}\cdot2^{-\gamma_*k_*t/p_1}\cdot
2^{-\tilde m_t(s_*+1/q)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$d_n(W_{t,[\tilde m_t]}, \, l_q^{\nu_{t,[\tilde m_t]}})
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\gtrsim} 2^{-\alpha_*k_*t}\cdot
2^{-\gamma_*k_*t/p_0}\cdot 2^{-\tilde m_t/q}
d_n(B_\infty^{\nu_{t,[\tilde m_t]}}, \,
l_q^{\nu_{t,[\tilde m_t]}})
\stackrel{(\ref{nu_tm})}{\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\gtrsim}}$$ $$\gtrsim 2^{-(\alpha_*+\gamma_*/p_0-\gamma_*/q)k_*t}.$$ We take $\tilde t(n)$ such that $2n{\leqslant}\nu'_{\tilde t(n),[\tilde
m_{\tilde t(n)}]} \underset{\mathfrak{Z}_1}{\lesssim} n$. Applying (\[nu\_tm\]) and (\[akt2\]), we get (\[low\_est2\]).
Upper estimates for widths of weighted Sobolev classes
======================================================
As $X_{p_1}(\Omega)$ we take the space ${\cal
W}^r_{p_1,g}(\Omega)$ with seminorm $\|f\|_{{\cal
W}^r_{p_1,g}(\Omega)} = \left\|\frac{\nabla^r f}{g}\right\|
_{L_{p_1}(\Omega)}$, as $X_{p_0}(\Omega)$ we take $L_{p_0,w}(\Omega)$ with norm $\|f\|_{L_{p_0,w}(\Omega)}=\|wf\|_{L_{p_0}(\Omega)}$, as $Y_q(\Omega)$ we take $L_{q,v}(\Omega)$ with norm $\|f\|_{L_{q,v}(\Omega)}=\|vf\|_{L_q(\Omega)}$, as ${\cal
P}(\Omega)$ we take the space ${\cal P}_{r-1}(\Omega)$ of polynomials of degree at most $r-1$.
First we consider the function classes from Theorems \[main1\], \[main2\].
Let $\Omega\in {\bf FC}(a)$, and let $\Gamma \subset \partial
\Omega$ be an $h$-set. In [@vas_vl_raspr], [@vas_vl_raspr2] the numbers $\overline{s}=\overline{s}(a, \,
d)\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $b_*=b_*(a, \, d)>0$ were defined and the partition of the domain $\Omega$ into subdomains $\Omega [\eta_{j,i}]\in
{\bf FC}(b_*)$ ($j{\geqslant}j_{\min}$, $i\in \tilde I_j$) was constructed, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{diam_om_ji} {\rm diam}\, \Omega [\eta_{j,i}]
\underset{a,\,d}{\asymp} 2^{-\overline{s}j}; \quad {\rm dist}\,
(x, \, \Gamma) \underset{a,\,d}{\asymp} 2^{-\overline{s}j}, \quad
x\in \Omega [\eta_{j,i}]; \quad {\rm card}\, \tilde I_j
\underset{a,\, d, \, c_*}{\lesssim}
\frac{h(2^{-\overline{s}j_{\min}})} {h(2^{-\overline{s}{j}})}.\end{aligned}$$
[**Upper estimate in Theorem \[main1\].**]{} We set $\hat J_t =
\tilde I_t$, $\Omega _{t,i}= \Omega[\eta_{t,i}]$. Then Assumption \[supp1\] follows from the Sobolev embedding theorem [@resh1], [@resh2] (since $r +\frac dq-\frac{d}{p_1}>0$ and $\Omega _{t,i}\in {\bf FC}(b_*)$). Assumption \[supp2\] with $\gamma_* = \theta$, $k_*=\overline{s}$ follows from (\[h\_theta\]) and (\[diam\_om\_ji\]). From [@vas_width_raspr Lemma 8] we get Assumption \[supp3\]; the same lemma together with (\[gw\]), (\[diam\_om\_ji\]) yield (\[fpef\]) with $\mu_* = \beta+\lambda -r -\frac{d}{q} +\frac{d}{p_1}$. Assumption \[supp4\] with $\alpha_*=\sigma-\lambda +\frac dq
-\frac{d}{p_0}$ follows from Hölder’s inequality, (\[gw\]) and (\[diam\_om\_ji\]). It remains to check (\[pef\]). Notice that the elements of the partition $T_{t,j,m}$ belong to ${\bf
FC}(b_*)$; it follows from [@vas_john Lemma 7] (Lemma 8 from [@vas_width_raspr] is the corollary of Lemma 7 from [@vas_john]). Hence, there are concentric balls $B_E\subset
\Omega _{t,i} \subset \tilde B_E$ of radii $R_E
\underset{a,d}{\asymp} 2^{-\overline{s}t}\cdot 2^{-\frac md}$ and $\tilde R_E \underset{a,d}{\asymp} 2^{-\overline{s}t}\cdot
2^{-\frac md}$, respectively. The operator $P_E$ is defined as follows: first the orthogonal projection in $L_2(B_E)$ onto ${\cal
P}_{r-1}(B_E)$ is constructed, then the polynomials are extended onto $E$. We have $$\|P_Ef\|_{L_q(E)} {\leqslant}\|P_Ef\|_{L_q(\tilde B_E)}
\underset{a,d,q,r}{\lesssim} \|P_Ef\|_{L_q(B_E)}
\underset{a,q,d,r}{\lesssim} 2^{(1-1/q)(\overline{s}td+m)}
\|P_Ef\|_{L_1(B_E)} \underset{d,r}{\lesssim}$$ $${\leqslant}2^{(1-1/q)(\overline{s}td+m)} \|f\|_{L_1(B_E)}
\underset{a,d,p_0}{\lesssim}
2^{(1/p_0-1/q)(\overline{s}td+m)}\|f\|_{L_{p_0}(B_E)}{\leqslant}2^{(1/p_0-1/q)(\overline{s}td+m)}\|f\|_{L_{p_0}(E)}.$$ We apply (\[gw\]) together with (\[diam\_om\_ji\]) and obtain (\[pef\]).
[**Upper estimate in Theorem \[main2\].**]{} We set $\{\Omega_{t,i}\} _{i\in \hat J_t} = \{\Omega [\eta_{j,i}]\}
_{2^t{\leqslant}\overline{s}j<2^{t+1},i\in \tilde I_j}$. Arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[main1\] and applying (\[gvw\]), (\[h\_gam\]), (\[gw\_1\]), (\[lim\_case\]), (\[diam\_om\_ji\]), we get Assumptions \[supp1\]–\[supp5\] with $k_*=1$, $\gamma_*=\gamma+1$, $\alpha_*=\alpha-\nu$, $\mu_*=\mu+\nu$.
[**Upper estimate in Theorem \[main3\].**]{} We set $\Omega_0 =
(-1, \, 1)^d$, $\Omega _t =(-2^t, \, 2^t)^d \backslash [-2^{t-1},
\, 2^{t-1}]^d$; let $\{\Omega _{t,j}\}_{j\in \hat J_t}$ be the partition of $\Omega_t$ into cubes with side length 1. Then ${\rm
card}\, \hat J_t \underset{d}{\asymp} 2^{td}$. As in the proofs of the previous theorems, we get by (\[gw\_2\]) Assumptions \[supp1\]–\[supp5\] with $\gamma_*=d$, $\mu_*=\beta+\lambda$, $\alpha_*=\sigma-\lambda$.
Lower estimates for widths of weighted Sobolev classes
======================================================
Let $\psi \in C_0^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $\|\psi\|_{L_q({\mathbb{R}}^d)}=1$, ${\rm
supp}\, \psi \subset [0, \, 1]^d$.
In the first and the second examples the functions $g$, $v$, $w$ have the form $g(x)=\varphi_g({\rm dist}\, (x, \, \Gamma))$, $w(x)
=\varphi_w({\rm dist}\, (x, \, \Gamma))$, $v(x) =\varphi_v({\rm
dist}\, (x, \, \Gamma))$.
In [@vas_vl_raspr2 p. 118] the number $k_{**}=k_{**}(\mathfrak{Z})$ was defined and the family of cubes $\{\Delta_{j,i}\}_{i\in I_j}$ was constructed, such that $\Delta_{j,i}\subset \Omega$, ${\rm mes}\, \Delta_{j,i}
\underset{a,d,c_*}{\asymp} 2^{-dk_{**}j}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ij} {\rm card}\, I_j \underset{a, \, d, \, c_*}{\gtrsim}
\frac{h(2^{-k_{**}j_{\min}})}{h(2^{-k_{**}j})}\end{aligned}$$ (here the number $j_{\min}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$ depends on ${\rm
diam}\,\Omega$, $c_*$ is from Definition \[h\_set\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dist} {\rm dist}\, (x, \, \Gamma) \underset{a, \, d, \,
c_*}{\asymp} 2^{-k_{**}j}, \quad x\in \Delta _{j,i}.\end{aligned}$$ For each $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_+$ we take a partition of $\Delta_{j,i}$ into cubes $\Delta_{j,i,l} = x_{j,i,l} + \rho _{j,i,m}[0, \, 1]^d$, $1{\leqslant}l{\leqslant}l_m$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ltm} l_m \underset{d}{\asymp} 2^m, \quad \rho _{j,i,m}
\underset{a,d,c_*}{\asymp} 2^{-k_{**}j}\cdot 2^{-m/d}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\psi _{j,i,l}(x) = c_{j,i,l}\psi\left(\frac{x-x_{j,i,l}}
{\rho_{j,i,m}}\right)$, where $c_{j,i,l}>0$ is such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psi_jil} \|\psi _{j,i,l}\|_{L_{q,v}(\Delta_{j,i,l})} = 1.\end{aligned}$$ Then by (\[dist\]), (\[ltm\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jm1} \|\psi_{j,i,l}\| _{{\cal W}^r_{p_1,g}(\Delta_{j,i,l})}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_*}{\asymp} 2^{(r +d/q-d/p_1)k_{**}j}\cdot
2^{m(r/d +1/q-1/p_1)}\cdot
\frac{1}{\varphi_g(2^{-k_{**}j})\varphi_v(2^{-k_{**}j})},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jm0} \|\psi_{j,i,l}\| _{L_{p_0,w}(\Delta_{j,i,l})}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_*}{\asymp} 2^{(d/q-d/p_0)k_{**}j} \cdot
2^{m(1/q-1/p_0)}\cdot \frac{\varphi_w(2^{-k_{**}j})}
{\varphi_v(2^{-k_{**}j})}.\end{aligned}$$
[**Lower estimate in Theorem \[main1\].**]{} We take $\{\varphi^{t,m}_\nu\} _{1{\leqslant}\nu{\leqslant}\nu_{t,m}} =\{\psi
_{t,i,l}\}_{i\in I_t, \, 1{\leqslant}l{\leqslant}l_m}$. By (\[h\_theta\]), (\[ij\]) and (\[ltm\]), $\nu_{t,m}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_*}{\gtrsim} 2^{\theta k_{**}t}\cdot 2^m$. Hence, (\[nu\_tm\]) holds with $\gamma_*=\theta$, $k_*=k_{**}$. By (\[gw\]), (\[psi\_jil\]), (\[jm1\]) and (\[jm0\]), we get (\[func\_est\]) with $\alpha_* = \sigma-\lambda +\frac dq
-\frac{d}{p_0}$, $\mu_*=\beta +\lambda - r -\frac dq+
\frac{d}{p_1}$, $s_*=\frac rd$. It remains to apply Theorem \[low\_est\].
[**Lower estimate in Theorem \[main2\].**]{} We take $\{\varphi^{t,m}_\nu\} _{1{\leqslant}\nu{\leqslant}\nu_{t,m}} =\{\psi
_{j,i,l}\}_{2^t{\leqslant}j< 2^{t+1}, \, i\in I_j, \, 1{\leqslant}l{\leqslant}l_m}$. By (\[h\_gam\]), (\[ij\]) and (\[ltm\]), $\nu_{t,m}
\underset{\mathfrak{Z}_*}{\gtrsim} 2^{(\gamma +1)t}\cdot 2^m$. Hence, (\[nu\_tm\]) holds with $\gamma_*=\gamma+1$, $k_*=1$. By (\[gw\_1\]), (\[lim\_case\]), (\[psi\_jil\]), (\[jm1\]) and (\[jm0\]), we have (\[func\_est\]) with $\alpha_* =
\alpha-\nu$, $\mu_*=\mu+\nu$, $s_*=\frac rd$.
[**Lower estimate in Theorem \[main3\].**]{} We set $\Omega_0 =
(-1, \, 1)^d$, $$\Omega _t =(-2^t, \, 2^t)^d \backslash [-2^{t-1},
\, 2^{t-1}]^d;$$ let $\{\Omega _{t,j}\}_{j\in \hat J_t}$ be the partition of $\Omega_t$ into cubes with side length 1, let $\{\Delta _{t,j,l}\}_{1{\leqslant}l{\leqslant}2^{[m/d]}}$ be a partition of $\Omega_{t,j}$ into cubes with side length $2^{[m/d]}$, $\Delta_{t,j,l} = x_{t,j,l} + \rho _{t,j,m}[0, \, 1]^d$, $\psi
_{t,j,l}(x)=c_{t,j,l}\psi\left(\frac{x-x_{t,j,l}}
{\rho_{t,j,m}}\right)$, where $c_{t,j,l}>0$ is such that $\|\psi_{t,j,l}\|_{L_{q,v}(\Delta_{t,j,l})}=1$. Applying (\[gw\_2\]), we get (\[nu\_tm\]) with $\gamma_*=d$, $k_*=1$ and (\[func\_est\]) with $\mu_* = \beta+\lambda$, $\alpha_*=\sigma-\lambda$, $s_*=\frac rd$.
M.S. Aitenova, L.K. Kusainova, “On the asymptotics of the distribution of approximation numbers of embeddings of weighted Sobolev classes. I”, [*Mat. Zh.*]{} [**2**]{}:1 (2002), 3–9.
M.S. Aitenova, L.K. Kusainova, “On the asymptotics of the distribution of approximation numbers of embeddings of weighted Sobolev classes. II”, [*Mat. Zh.*]{} [**2**]{}:2 (2002), 7–14.
O.V. Besov, “Sobolev’s embedding theorem for a domain with irregular boundary”, [*Sb. Math.*]{} [**192**]{}:3 (2001), 323–346.
I.V. Boykov, “Approximation of some classes of functions by local splines”, [*Comput. Math. Math. Phys.*]{} [**38**]{}:1 (1998), 21–29.
M. Bricchi, “Existence and properties of $h$-sets”, [*Georgian Mathematical Journal*]{}, [**9**]{}:1 (2002), 13–-32.
L. Caso, R. D’Ambrosio, “Weighted spaces and weighted norm inequalities on irregular domains”, [*J. Appr. Theory*]{}, [**167**]{} (2013), 42–58.
D.E. Edmunds, J. Lang, “Approximation numbers and Kolmogorov widths of Hardy-type operators in a non-homogeneous case”, [*Math. Nachr.*]{} [**297**]{}:7 (2006), 727–742.
A. El Kolli, “n-ième épaisseur dans les espaces de Sobolev”, [*J. Approx. Theory*]{}, [**10**]{} (1974), 268–294.
E.M. Galeev, “The Kolmogorov diameter of the intersection of classes of periodic functions and of finite-dimensional sets”, [*Math. Notes*]{}, [**29**]{}:5 (1981), 382–388.
E.D. Gluskin, “Norms of random matrices and diameters of finite-dimensional sets”, [*Math. USSR-Sb.*]{}, [**48**]{}:1 (1984), 173–182.
V.N. Konovalov, D. Leviatan, “Kolmogorov and linear widths of weighted Sobolev-type classes on a finite interval”. [*Anal. Math.*]{} [**28**]{}:4 (2002), 251–278.
A. Kufner, [*Weighted Sobolev spaces*]{}. Teubner-Texte Math., 31. Leipzig: Teubner, 1980.
L.K. Kusainova, “Embedding the weighted Sobolev space $W^l_p(\Omega; v)$ in the space $L_p(\Omega; \omega)$”. [*Sb. Math.*]{} [**191**]{}:2 (2000), 275–290.
J. Lang, “Improved estimates for the approximation numbers of Hardy-type operators”. [*J. Appr. Theory*]{}, [**121**]{}:1 (2003), 61–70.
M.A. Lifshits, W. Linde, “Approximation and entropy numbers of Volterra operators with application to Brownian motion”, [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**157**]{}, issue 745.
P.I. Lizorkin, M. Otelbaev, “Imbedding theorems and compactness for spaces of Sobolev type with weights”, [*Math. USSR-Sb.*]{} [**36**]{}:3 (1980), 331–349.
P.I. Lizorkin, M. Otelbaev, “Imbedding theorems and compactness for spaces of Sobolev type with weights. II”, [*Math. USSR-Sb.*]{} [**40**]{}:1 (1981), 51–77.
P.I. Lizorkin, M. Otelbaev, “Estimates of approximate numbers of the imbedding operators for spaces of Sobolev type with weights”, [*Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.*]{}, [**170**]{} (1987), 245–266.
E.N. Lomakina, V.D. Stepanov, “Asymptotic Estimates for the Approximation and Entropy Numbers of a One-Weight Riemann–Liouville Operator”, [*Siberian Adv. Math.*]{}, [**17**]{}:1 (2007), 1–36.
T. Mieth, “Entropy and approximation numbers of embeddings of weighted Sobolev spaces”, [*J. Appr. Theory*]{}, [**192**]{} (2015), 250–272.
T. Mieth, “Entropy and approximation numbers of weighted Sobolev spaces via bracketing”, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**270**]{} (2016), 4322–4339.
K. Mynbaev, M. Otelbaev, [*Weighted function spaces and the spectrum of differential operators.*]{} Nauka, Moscow, 1988.
R. Oinarov, “On weighted norm inequalities with three weights”. [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} (2), [**48**]{} (1993), 103–116.
A. Pietsch, “$s$-numbers of operators in Banach space”, [*Studia Math.*]{}, [**51**]{} (1974), 201–223.
Yu.G. Reshetnyak, “Integral representations of differentiable functions in domains with a nonsmooth boundary”, [*Sibirsk. Mat. Zh.*]{}, [**21**]{}:6 (1980), 108–116 (in Russian).
Yu.G. Reshetnyak, “A remark on integral representations of differentiable functions of several variables”, [*Sibirsk. Mat. Zh.*]{}, [**25**]{}:5 (1984), 198–200 (in Russian).
V.D. Stepanov, E.P. Ushakova, “On Integral Operators with Variable Limits of Integration”, [*Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.*]{}, [**232**]{} (2001), 290–309.
V. D. Stepanov, “Two-weighted estimates of Riemann–Liouville integrals”, [*Math. USSR-Izv.*]{}, [**36**]{}:3 (1991), 669–681.
V.D. Stepanov, “Weighted norm inequalities for integral operators and related topics”. Nonlinear analysis, function spaces and applications, Vol. 5 (Prague, 1994), 139–175, Prometheus, Prague, 1994.
M.I. Stesin, “Aleksandrov diameters of finite-dimensional sets and of classes of smooth functions”, [*Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR*]{}, [**220**]{}:6 (1975), 1278–1281 \[Soviet Math. Dokl.\].
H. Triebel, “Interpolation properties of $\varepsilon$-entropy and diameters. Geometric characteristics of imbedding for function spaces of Sobolev–Besov type”, [*Math. USSR-Sb.*]{}, [**27**]{}:1 (1975), 23–37.
H. Triebel, [*Interpolation theory. Function spaces. Differential operators*]{}. Mir, Moscow, 1980.
H. Triebel, “Entropy and approximation numbers of limiting embeddings, an approach via Hardy inequalities and quadratic forms”, [*J. Approx. Theory*]{}, [**164**]{}:1 (2012), 31–46.
A.A. Vasil’eva, “Kolmogorov and linear widths of the weighted Besov classes with singularity at the origin”, [*J. Appr. Theory*]{}, [**167**]{} (2013), 1–41.
A.A. Vasil’eva, “Embedding theorem for weighted Sobolev classes on a John domain with weights that are functions of the distance to some $h$-set”, [*Russ. J. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**20**]{}:3 (2013), 360–373.
A.A. Vasil’eva, “Embedding theorem for weighted Sobolev classes on a John domain with weights that are functions of the distance to some $h$-set”, [*Russ. J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**21**]{}:1 (2014), 112–122.
A.A. Vasil’eva, “Widths of function classes on sets with tree-like structure”, [*J. Appr. Theory*]{}, [**192**]{} (2015), 19–59.
A.A. Vasil’eva, “Widths of weighted Sobolev classes on a John domain”, [*Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.*]{}, [**280**]{} (2013), 91–119.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Xubo Wang\
\
Lu Qin\
\
Lijun Chang\
\
- |
Ying Zhang\
\
Dong Wen\
\
Xuemin Lin\
\
bibliography:
- 'sigproc.bib'
title: 'Graph3S: A Simple, Speedy and Scalable Distributed Graph Processing System'
---
Acknowledgments {#sec:ack}
===============
Lu Qin is supported by ARC DE140100999 and DP160101513. Lijun Chang is supported by ARC DP160101513 and FT180100256. Ying Zhang is supported by ARC DE140100679 and DP170103710. Xuemin Lin is supported by NSFC61232006, ARC DP150102728, DP140103578 and DP170101628.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Unpaired Image-to-Image Translation (I2IT) tasks often suffer from lack of data, a problem which self-supervised learning (SSL) has recently been very popular and successful at tackling. Leveraging auxiliary tasks such as rotation prediction or generative colorization, SSL can produce better and more robust representations in a low data regime. Training such tasks along an I2IT task is however computationally intractable as model size and the number of task grow. On the other hand, learning sequentially could incur catastrophic forgetting of previously learned tasks. To alleviate this, we introduce Lifelong Self-Supervision (LiSS) as a way to pre-train an I2IT model (e.g., CycleGAN) on a set of self-supervised auxiliary tasks. By keeping an exponential moving average of past encoders and distilling the accumulated knowledge, we are able to maintain the network’s validation performance on a number of tasks without any form of replay, parameter isolation or retraining techniques typically used in continual learning. We show that models trained with LiSS perform better on past tasks, while also being more robust than the CycleGAN baseline to color bias and entity entanglement (when two entities are very close).'
author:
- 'Victor Schmidt[^1]'
- Makesh Narsimhan Sreedhar
- Mostafa ElAraby
- Irina Rish
title: 'Towards Lifelong Self-Supervision For Unpaired Image-to-Image Translation'
---
Introduction
============
Motivation
----------
In recent years generative unsupervised image-to-image translation (I2IT) has gained tremendous popularity, enabling style transfer [@cyclegan] and domain adaptation [@cycada], raising awareness about wars [@deepempathy] and Climate Change [@vicc] and even helping model cloud reflectance fields [@aicd]. I2IT has become a classical problem in computer vision which involves learning a conditional generative mapping from a source domain $\mathcal{X}$ to a target domain $\mathcal{Y}$. For example, generating an image $\hat{y}$ of a zebra conditioned on an image $x$ of a horse. Obviously, there is no ground-truth data for this transformation and we cannot therefore leverage pairs $(x, y)$ to learn this generative mapping. This is the challenge that unpaired I2IT addresses.
One of the main limitations of the I2IT task is that data is often scarce and hard to acquire [@vicc; @cyclegan; @lee2018diverse]. To overcome this difficulty, self-supervised learning (SSL) appears to be a promising approach. In SSL, a model is trained on an [*auxiliary task*]{} (e.g., image rotations prediction) that leverages unsupervised data in order to obtain better representations which can help a downstream task learn faster when few (labeled) samples are available [@jing2019self-supervised]. Given the variety of such potential auxiliary tasks, one could hope to jointly train many of them along with the main task, thereby improving the performance on the latter. However, this may be impractical in the context of I2IT since the models are typically quite large, making parallel training of self-supervised and translation tasks computationally intractable. On the other hand, any form of sequential learning may result into catastrophic forgetting [@FRENCH1999128] and counter the benefits of SSL. In this paper, we therefore investigate how [*continual learning*]{}, a set of approaches designed to make sequential learning across multiple tasks robust to catastrophic forgetting, can be used to enable self-supervised pre-training of unpaired I2IT models.
We show that self-supervised auxiliary tasks improve CycleGAN’s translations with more semantic representations and that distillation [@hinton; @zhai2019lifelong] retains the knowledge acquired while pre-training the networks. For easier reference, we call this framework “Lifelong Self-Supervision”, or *LiSS*, and show its results on CycleGAN’s performance in Section \[sec:experiments\].
Related Work
------------
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) [@gangoodfellow] have had tremendous success in generating realistic and diverse images [@karras2019analyzing; @YiLLR19; @brock2018large]. Generative I2IT approaches often leverage GANs to align the distributions of the source and target domains and produce realistic translations [@huang2018multimodal]. In their seminal work, @isola2016image proposed a principled framework for I2IT by introducing a weighted average of a conditional GAN loss, along with an $L_1$ reconstruction loss to leverage pairs (for instance edges $\leftrightarrow$ photos or labels $\leftrightarrow$ facade). To address the setting where pairs are not available, @cyclegan introduced the cycle-consistency loss which uses two networks to symmetrically model source$\rightarrow$target and source$\leftarrow$target. The cycle-consistency induces a type of self-supervision by enforcing a reconstruction loss when an image goes through one network and then the other. Many attempts have since been made to improve the diversity [@huang2018multimodal; @lee2018diverse] and semantic consistency [@mo2018instagan; @mejjati2018unsupervised] of CycleGAN-inspired I2IT models by leveraging an encoder-decoder view of the models. We keep with the CycleGAN encoder-decoder model, and use self-supervision to encourage the encoder to encode meaningful features for the decoder to work with (see section \[sec:approach\] for more details).\
Self-supervised learning tries to leverage the information already present in samples to produce data-efficient representations. This is often measured by pre-training a standard supervised network on an auxiliary (or *pretext*) task, and then measuring its performance on the actual dataset on a fixed, low budget of labels [@jing2019self-supervised]. Though not new [@de1994learning], it has gained a lot of popularity in the deep learning era with important successes in language modeling [@pennington2014glove; @devlin2018bert; @howard2018universal] speech recognition [@ravanelli2020multitask], medical imaging [@raghu2019transfusion] and computer vision in general [@jing2019self-supervised]. Indeed, computer vision models seem to benefit significantly from self-supervised learning as the amount of unlabeled data can be very large, while labeling can be expensive [@jing2019self-supervised]. In this context, many visual pre-training tasks have been proposed, such as image rotation prediction [@gidaris2018unsupervised], colorization [@colorization], and solving jigsaw puzzles [@jigsaw]. In addition to these context-based and generation-based pre-training methods, one can also leverage pseudo-labels from a pre-trained model in free semantic label-based methods [@jing2019self-supervised]. In our work we therefore add a depth prediction pretext task, as advocated by [@doersch2017multitask], based on inferences from MegaDepth [@li2018megadepth]. As the number of pretext tasks increases, so does the memory and computational time needed to process samples. This is especially problematic for generation-based methods which can be as computationally and memory intensive as the downstream task’s model. We cannot therefore hope to train large models such as those used in I2IT, in parallel with all these tasks.\
One must therefore derive a learning procedure which ensures that the networks do not forget as they change tasks: this is the focus of continual (or lifelong) learning. Neural networks have been plagued by the inability to maintain performance on previously accomplished tasks when they are trained on new ones - a phenomenon that has been coined *catastrophic forgetting* [@kirkpatrick2017overcoming]. Various continual learning methods have been developed to mitigate forgetting which can be categorized as follows [@lange2019continual]: replay-based methods, regularization-based methods and parameter isolation methods. In their work, @matsumotocontinual use the parameter-isolation method PiggyBack [@mallya2018piggyback] in order to learn a sequence of I2IT tasks without forgetting the previous ones. @zhai2019lifelong on the other hand uses distillation [@hinton] in order to perform such tasks. In this work, we borrow ideas from the latter and apply them to a sequence of self-supervised tasks followed by a translation task.
Approach {#sec:approach}
========
Model {#subsec:model}
-----
Our main contribution is a continual learning framework which maintains self-supervised performance and improves unpaired I2IT representations. We chose as our I2IT model the simple and well-understood CycleGAN [@cyclegan].
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a set of $n = |\mathcal{T}|$ tasks such that $\{T^{(k)} | k < n-1 \}$ is a set of self-supervised tasks and $T^{(n-1)}$ is an I2IT task such as horse$\leftrightarrow$zebra [@cyclegan]. The model is composed of two domain-specific sets of networks $M_A = \{G_A, D_A\}$ and $M_B = \{G_B, D_B \}$ where $G_i$ is a multi-headed generator and $D_i$ is a set of discriminators (1 per generative pretext task and 1 for the translation task). From now on, $i$ will be either $A$ or $B$ in which case $j$ is $B$ or $A$. All the following is symmetric in $i$ and $j$.
Let us focus on $G_i$. It is composed of an encoder $E_i$ and a set of $n$ task-specific heads $H_i^{(k)}$ which map from the encoder’s output space to $T^{(k)}$’s output space. Let $x_i$ be a sample from domain $i$ and $z_i = E_i(x_i)$. In our work, we focus on the following 4 pretext tasks:
1. $T^{(0)}$ is a rotation task, inspired from [@gidaris2018unsupervised], and $H_i^{(0)}$ performs a classification task: $H_i^{(0)}(z_i) \in [0, 1]^4$ as there are 4 possible rotations ($0^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$, $180^{\circ}$ and $270^{\circ}$). When appropriate (see \[subsec:schedule\]) we train $H_i^{(0)}\circ E_i$ with a cross-entropy objective $\mathcal{L}^{(0)}$.
2. $T^{(1)}$ is a jigsaw puzzle as introduced by [@jigsaw]. We split the image into 9 equal sub-regions which we randomly reorder according to 64 pre-selected permutations (out of the $9!$ possible ones): $H_i^{(1)}(z_i) \in [0, 1]^{64}$. Similarly, we train $H_i^{(1)}\circ E_i$ with a cross-entropy objective $\mathcal{L}^{(1)}$.
3. $T^{(2)}$ is a relative depth prediction task inspired from [@jiang2017selfsupervised]: $H_i^{(2)}(z_i) \in \mathbb{R}^{h\times w}$. $H_i^{(2)}\circ E_i$ is trained with an $L_1$ objective $\mathcal{L}^{(2)}$ with respect to pseudo-labels obtained from a pre-trained MegaDepth model [@li2018megadepth].
4. $T^{(3)}$ is a colorization task, as per [@colorization; @larsson2017colorproxy]: $H^{(3)}(z_i) \in [-1, 1]^{3 \times h \times w}$. Because a gray image can have several possible colorizations, we train $H_i^{(3)} \circ E_i$ by a mixture of $L^1$ loss with respect to $x_i$ and a GAN loss from a discriminator $D_i^{(3)}$: $\mathcal{L}^{(3)} = 0.1 L_1 + 0.9 L_{GAN}$
The downstream translation task is based on CycleGAN’s losses. For simplicity, in the following equations we call $G_i$ what is actually $H^{(4)}_i\circ E_i$, that is to say the standard CycleGAN generator.
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
L_{GAN} :{} & (G_i, D_i, x_i, x_j) \mapsto \mathbb{E}_{x_i}[\log(D_i(x_i))]\ +\\ &\mathbb{E}_{x_j}[\log(1 - D_i(G_i(x_j))))]
\end{split}\\
L_{idt}:{} & (G_i, x_i) \mapsto ||x_i - G_i(x_i) ||_1\\
L_{cyc}:{} & (G_i, G_j, x_i) \mapsto ||x_i - G_i(G_j(x_i)) ||_1\\
\mathcal{L}^{(4)} ={} & L_{GAN} + \lambda_{idt} L_{idt} + \lambda_{cyc}L_{cyc}\end{aligned}$$
The overall model for domain $i$ is therefore composed of a shared encoder network and a set of $n$ heads which map from this latent space to their specific task’s output space. We now need to understand how these tasks can be combined together in order to enable forward transfer from each of the self-supervised tasks to the translation task, without forgetting.
Training Schedule {#subsec:schedule}
-----------------
When trying to incorporate self-supervised learning ideas into the I2IT framework, one could naively train all the heads in *parallel* ($\lambda^{(k)}$ are scalars weighting the contribution of each loss):
$$\mathcal{L}^{parallel} = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \lambda^{(k)} \mathcal{L}^{(k)}$$
As explained previously, not only is this approach slower in that each sample has to go through all heads, but it also forces us to use smaller batch sizes for memory constraints.
Another naive approach would be to perform each task sequentially. Given an ordering $\tau$ of $\mathcal{T}$, one could train the model with:
$$\mathcal{L}^{sequential}_{\tau(k)} = \lambda^{(\tau(k))} \mathcal{L}^{(\tau(k))}$$
In this *sequential* training schedule, the model transitions from ($H_i^{(k)}, \mathcal{L}^{sequential}_{k}$) to ($H_i^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{L}^{sequential}_{k+1}$) according to some curriculum. For readability and without loss of generality, we omit $\tau$ from now on. In our experiments we implement a threshold-based curriculum where the transition from one task to the next depends on its performance (in both domains $A$ and $B$) on some validation metric (see Section \[sec:setup\]).\
In this paper we introduce Lifelong Self-Supervision, a *continual* schedule which is similar to the sequential with the addition of a distillation loss. Inspired by @tarvainen2017ean, we maintain an exponential moving average of past encoder parameters, therefore keeping a weighted memory of all past encoders at the cost of single additional one. Formally, let $E_i^{(k)}$ be the frozen state of $E_i$ at the end of the $k^{th}$ task, *i.e.* when transitioning from $T^{(k)}$ to $T^{(k+1)}$. Then we define the (non-trainable) reference encoder $\tilde{E_i}^{(k)}$ as follows:
$$\label{eq:EMA}
\tilde{E_i}^{(k)}= \Bigg\{\begin{array}{lr}
0 & \text{if } k=0\\
E_i^{(0)} & \text{if } k=1\\
\alpha E_i^{(k-1)} + (1-\alpha) \tilde{E_i}^{(k-1)} & \text{if } k>1
\end{array}$$
With $\alpha \in [0, 1]$. We use $\tilde{E_i}$ in an additional distillation term in the loss, minimizing the distance between the current and reference encoded spaces:
$$L_{dist}^{(k)}: (\tilde{E_i}^{(k)}, E_i, x_i) \mapsto ||\tilde{E_i}^{(k)}(x_i) - E_i(x_i) ||_1$$
$$\mathcal{L}^{continual}_t = \mathcal{L}^{sequential}_{t} + \beta L_{dist}^{(t)}$$
These ideas are general and not specific to I2IT or CycleGAN ; this is why LiSS refers to $(\mathcal{T}, \mathcal{L}^{continual})$, not to a specific model.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Setup {#sec:setup}
-----
To evaluate the effect of LiSS on CycleGAN’s performance, we compare it with a baseline CycleGAN from [@cyclegan] and to the two aforementioned naive training schedules: *sequential* and *parallel*. We compare these 4 models on the horse$\leftrightarrow$zebra dataset on a dataset of flooded$\leftrightarrow$non-flooded street-level scenes from [@vicc] (the task is to simulate floods). As our goal is to understand how to efficiently leverage a set of given pretext tasks to improve representations, we keep $\mathcal{T}$ constant across experiments.\
All models are trained with the same hyper-parameters. We use the RAdam optimizer [@radam] with a learning rate of $0.0005$. We keep $\lambda_{idt}$ and $\lambda_{cyc}$ to their default values and set all $\lambda^{(k)}$ to $1$. We leave the analysis of $\alpha$’s exact impact for future work and set it to $0.5$ across experiments (see Eq. \[eq:EMA\]). Results are compared after $230$k translation steps. The continual and sequential models therefore have more total steps of training but in all cases $H^{(n-1)}_i$ is trained for $230$k steps (*i.e.* 24 hours of training with the LiSS training schedule). We set a fixed curriculum as per section \[subsec:model\] with thresholds at 85% for classification tasks, and $L_1$ distance of 0.15 for regression tasks. These were set to be $\sim$ 95% of the parallel schedule’s final validation performance. Batch-size is set to 5, for LiSS and *sequential* schedules, but to 3 for the *parallel* schedule[^2].
Image-to-Image Translation
--------------------------
Figure \[fig:h2z\] and \[fig:floods\] show how the LiSS framework visually fares against the other schedules. Images are referred to as $[i, j]$ meaning row $i$ and column $j$ in those figures.
While our setup does not quite match the pixelwise translation performance of CycleGAN, the model learns some interesting semantic features. Unlike CycleGAN which tends to merge distinct instances of entities that are very close to each other (Figure \[fig:h2z\]’s image $[1, 1]$ for instance), our model is able to disentangle these instances and retain them as separate entities after translation. We can also see from Figure \[fig:h2z\]’s image $[1, 4]$ and Figure \[fig:floods\]’s images $[1, 0]$ and $[1, 2]$ that CycleGAN relies on color-based features, as evidenced by the zebra stripes projected on the brown patch of ground and the sky artificats. On the other hand, adding self-supervised tasks makes the models less sensitive to such glaring errors (see rows below the aforementioned CycleGAN translations in Figures \[fig:h2z\] and \[fig:floods\]).
Compared to the parallel schedule, LiSS keeps relevant features without enforcing a continuous training of $H_i^{(k<n-1)}$, which gives useful freedom to the model. It is able to have a similar translation performance and better color consistency, though one could argue that the parallel’s translations are visually slightly better.
The sequential schedule on the other hand seems to have slightly worse translation performance. We can see that some of the useful “knowledge” the two other models still have is no longer available to the translation head as the smaller zebra is merged with the taller one in Figure \[fig:h2z\]’s image $[4, 1]$ and the brown patch in image $[4, 4]$ shows slight stripes.
{width="80.00000%" height="9cm"}
{width="80.00000%" height="9cm"}
Continual Learning Performance
------------------------------
Our main finding is that Lifelong Self-Supervision partially prevents forgetting. We can see in figures 5 and \[fig:floodsplots\] that our formulation preserves the model from a forgetting as severe as in *sequential* training while providing enough flexibility for it to learn new tasks.\
In both datasets, we observe that the naive training schedules behave as expected: the *sequential* one is able to learn new tasks the fastest as the model is less constrained. However, it is noticed that the sequential setup forgets previous tasks almost instantly as it changes its focus to a new task. On the other hand, the more constrained *parallel* schedule shows that continuously training on tasks allows the model to master them all at once. This however comes at a memory and time cost as we could not fit more than 3 samples per batch (vs 5 for the other schedules), and the average processing time per sample is much larger (0.27s against an average of 0.12s for the other schedules). This means that to complete 230k translation steps, the *parallel* schedule typically takes more than $17$h when LiSS only takes $12$h (counting all the pretext tasks).
Figures 5 and \[fig:floodsplots\] show how LiSS maintains accuracies for the Rotation and Jigsaw tasks while performing slightly worse on the Depth prediction and Colorization tasks. As the encoder produces increasingly richer representations, the distillation loss prevents it from mapping input images to regions that would harm previous tasks. Because of our problem’s sequential nature, decoding heads $H^{(k < n-1)}_i$ do not change after they have achieved the curriculum’s required performance and the burden of producing stable yet informative features entirely relies on the encoders $E_i$ as the heads cannot adjust to its changes.\
Table \[table:h2ztransitions\] and \[table:floodstransitions\] show that it takes more steps for the tasks to be learnt with LiSS. Intuitively, when training sequentially, the encoders are free to adjust exactly to the task. When training with LiSS, they are more constrained and it takes more iterations for them to reach the same performance on pretext tasks. This constraint is however pliable enough for encoders to adjust to new tasks.
Schedule Task Start\_Step End\_Step
------------ -------------- ------------- -----------
LiSS Rotation 0 8 000
Jigsaw 8 000 158 000
Depth 158 000 170 000
Colorization 170 000 172 000
Sequential Rotation 0 24 000
Jigsaw 24 000 96 000
Depth 96 000 102 000
Colorization 102 000 108 000
: Transition steps for the horse$\protect\leftrightarrow$zebra task. Translation starts when the colorization task is mastered.[]{data-label="table:h2ztransitions"}
\[fig:h2zplots\]
Discussion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We propose a method, Lifelong Self-Supervision (LiSS), enabling CycleGAN to leverage sequential self-supervised auxiliary tasks to improve its representations. By distilling the knowledge of a reference encoder (which is an exponential moving average of previous encoders, in parameter space) we prevent catastrophic forgetting of the auxiliary tasks, thereby allowing CycleGAN to better disentangle instances of objects to be translated and rely less on colors. This framework can bring benefits of training on all the tasks at once at a much lower memory and computational cost as it only requires us to keep one additional encoder. Our exploratory experiments show encouraging results which will need further investigation in future work to produce a principled framework.
Open questions include the exact impact of the reference encoder’s algebra (namely exponential moving average versus other moving averages and the impact of $\alpha$), a more thorough hyper-parameter search in order to tune $\lambda^{(k)}$ and $\beta$ and achieve better pixel-level results. Additionally, exploring schedules and auxiliary tasks would allow for a better understanding of how SSL can improve unpaired I2IT models. Finally, while CycleGAN’s simplicity allowed us to isolate LiSS’s contribution to improved translations, exploring its capabilities on more complex architecture is a promising direction for future work.
Implementation details {#sec:appendix}
======================
Model Task Start\_Step End\_Step
------------ -------------- ------------- -----------
LiSS Rotation 0 24 000
Jigsaw 24 000 158 000
Depth 158 000 174 000
Colorization 174 000 176 000
Sequential Rotation 0 28 000
Jigsaw 28 000 114 000
Depth 114 000 122 000
Colorization 122 000 124 000
: Transition steps for the flooded$\leftrightarrow$non-flooded task. Translation starts when the colorization task is mastered.[]{data-label="table:floodstransitions"}
Our framework’s network architecture follows the baseline CycleGAN [@cyclegan] with some differences in the generator to support self supervision. We use “ResnetBlock” to denote residual blocks [@residual_blocks]. “C$\times$H$\times$W-S-P Conv” represents a convolutional layer with C channels having kernel size H$\times$W with padding P and stride S. “NConv” denotes a convolutional layer followed by an instance norm. “TConv” denotes transpose convolution layer proposed by @conv_transpose followed by instance norm.
#### Discriminator Network Architecture.
We use $70\times70$ PatchGANs [@isola2017image_patchgan; @li2016precomputed_patchgan; @ledig2017photo_patchgan] as the one used in the original CycleGAN [@cyclegan] baseline model shown in Table \[table:discriminatorarch\]. The discriminator’s output is a real or fake label for overlapping $70\times70$ patches. The GAN loss function then compares the target’s label real or fake to the average of patches predictions of the input image.
#### Encoder Network Architecture.
The encoder network’s architecture is inspired from [@johnson2016perceptual], as shown in Table \[table:encoderarch\]. The network starts with a reflection padding of size 3 and zero padded 7x7 convolutions to avoid severe artifacts around the borders of the generated images, followed by 3x3 convolutional blocks with padding 1 and stride 2 to downsample the input image and finally by 3 Residual Blocks.
#### Translation and Colorization Head Architectures
The translation head’s network’s architecture follows the standard CycleGAN generator [@cyclegan] as shown in Table \[table:decoderarch\]. It consists of 3 residual blocks followed by upsampling convolutions. For colorization to share the encoder with other tasks, we repeat gray scale images along the channel dimension.
#### Rotation Network Architecture.
The rotation head’s architecture is inspired from [@gidaris2018unsupervised] and shown in Table \[table:rotarch\]. The network performs a simple classification task out of 4 possible rotations ($0^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$, $180^{\circ}$ and $270^{\circ}$).
#### Jigsaw Network Architecture.
Jigsaw’s network predicts the correct indices order of shuffled patches of an input image. The network consists of a set of convolutions extracting useful features from input image and then a fully connected layer to map it to the possible permutations. The model’s architecture shown in Table \[table:jigsawarch\] performs a classification task over 64 possible permutations of shuffled images order.
#### Depth Prediction Network Architecture.
Depth network architecture is inspired from [@jiang2017selfsupervised] and shown in Table \[table:deptharch\]. The network is trained on labels predicted using a pre-trained MegaDepth Model [@li2018megadepth].
[^1]: For correspondence : `[email protected]`\
Work under review for CVPR 2020’s Continual Vision Workshop.\
Code: <https://github.com/vict0rsch/LiSS>
[^2]: these are the largest values which fit in a Nvidia V100’s 16GB of GPU memory.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We prove a new upper bound on the number of $r$-rich lines (lines with at least $r$ points) in a ‘truly’ $d$-dimensional configuration of points $v_1,\ldots,v_n \in \C^d$. More formally, we show that, if the number of $r$-rich lines is significantly larger than $n^2/r^d$ then there must exist a large subset of the points contained in a hyperplane. We conjecture that the factor $r^d$ can be replaced with a tight $r^{d+1}$. If true, this would generalize the classic Szemerédi-Trotter theorem which gives a bound of $n^2/r^3$ on the number of $r$-rich lines in a planar configuration. This conjecture was shown to hold in $\R^3$ in the seminal work of Guth and Katz [@GK10] and was also recently proved over $\R^4$ (under some additional restrictions) [@SS14]. For the special case of arithmetic progressions ($r$ collinear points that are evenly distanced) we give a bound that is tight up to low order terms, showing that a $d$-dimensional grid achieves the largest number of $r$-term progressions.
The main ingredient in the proof is a new method to find a low degree polynomial that vanishes on many of the rich lines. Unlike previous applications of the polynomial method, we do not find this polynomial by interpolation. The starting observation is that the degree $r-2$ Veronese embedding takes $r$-collinear points to $r$ linearly dependent images. Hence, each collinear $r$-tuple of points, gives us a dependent $r$-tuple of images. We then use the design-matrix method of [@BDWY12] to convert these ‘local’ linear dependencies into a global one, showing that all the images lie in a hyperplane. This then translates into a low degree polynomial vanishing on the original set.
author:
- 'Zeev Dvir[^1]'
- 'Sivakanth Gopi[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'richlines.bib'
title: On the number of rich lines in truly high dimensional sets
---
Introduction
============
The Szemerédi-Trotter theorem gives a tight upper bound on the number of incidences between a collection of points and lines in the real plane. We write $A\lesssim B$ to denote $A\le C\cdot B$ for some absolute constant $C$ and $A \approx B$ if we have both $A \lesssim B$ and $B \lesssim A$.
\[thm-Szemeredi-Trotter\] Given a set of points $V$ and a set of lines $\L$ in $\R^2$, let $I(V,\L)$ be the set of incidences between $V$ and $\L$. Then, $$I(V,\L)\lesssim |V|^{2/3}|\L|^{2/3}+|V|+|\L|.$$
This fundamental theorem has found many applications in various areas (see [@Dvir-survey] for some examples) and is known to also hold in the complex plane $\C^2$ [@Toth; @Zahl]. In recent years there has been a growing interest in high dimensional variants of line-point incidence bounds [@SSZ13; @Kollar14; @Rudnev14; @SS14; @ST12; @BS14]. This is largely due to the breakthrough results of Guth and Katz [@GK10] who proved the Erdös distinct distances conjecture. One of the main ingredients in their proof was an incidence theorem for configurations of lines in $\R^3$ satisfying some ‘truly 3 dimensional’ condition (e.g, not too many lines in a plane). The intuition is that, in high dimensions, it is ‘harder’ to create many incidences between points and lines. This intuition is of course false if our configuration happens to lie in some low dimensional space. In this work we prove stronger line-point incidence bounds for sets of points that do not contain a large low dimensional subset.
To state our main theorem we first restate the Szemerédi-Trotter theorem as a bound on the number of $r$-rich lines (lines containing at least $r$ points) in a given set of points. Since our results will hold over the complex numbers we will switch now from $\R$ to $\C$. The complex version of Szemeredi-Trotter was first proved by Toth [@Toth] and then proved using different methods by Zahl [@Zahl]. For a finite set of points $V$, we denote by $\cL_r(V)$ the set of $r$-rich lines in $V$. The following is equivalent to Theorem-\[thm-Szemeredi-Trotter\] (but stated over $\C$).
\[thm-r-richlines-2dimensions\] Given a set $V$ of $n$ points in $\C^2$, for $r\ge 2$, $$|\cL_r(V)|\lesssim \frac{n^2}{r^3}+\frac{n}{r}.$$
Theorem \[thm-r-richlines-2dimensions\] is tight since a two dimensional square grid of $n$ points contains $\gtrsim n^2/r^3$ lines that are $r$-rich. We might then ask whether a $d$-dimensional grid $G_d = \{1,2,\ldots,h\}^d$, with $h \approx n^{1/d}$, has asymptotically the maximal number of $r$-rich lines among all $n$-point configurations that do not have a large low dimensional subset. It can be shown that for $r\ll_d n^{1/d}$,$$|\cL_r(G_d)| \approx_d \frac{n^2}{r^{d+1}},$$ where the subscript $d$ denotes that the constants in the inequalities may depend on the dimension $d$ [@SoVu04]. Clearly, we can obtain a larger number of rich lines in $\C^d$ if $V$ is a union of several low dimensional grids. For example, for some $\alpha\gg_d 1$ (We use $A \gg B$ to mean $A \geq C\cdot B$ for some sufficiently large constant $C$) and $d>\ell>1$, we can take a disjoint union of $r^{d-\ell}/\alpha$ $\ell$-dimensional grids $G_{\ell}$ of size $\alpha n/r^{d-\ell}$ each. Each of these grids will have $\gtrsim_d \alpha^2n^2/r^{2d-\ell+1}$ $r$-rich lines and so, together we will get $\gtrsim_d \alpha n^2/r^{d+1}$ rich lines. We can also take a union of $n/r$ lines containing $r$ points each, to get more $r$-rich lines than in the $d$-dimensional grid $G_d$ when $r\gg_d n^{1/d}$. We thus arrive at the following conjecture which, if true, would mean that the best one can do is to paste together a number of grids as above.
\[conj-rich\] For $r\ge 2$, suppose $V \subset \C^d$ is a set of $n$ points with $$|\cL_r(V)| \gg_d \frac{n^2}{r^{d+1}}+\frac{n}{r}.$$ Then there exists $1<\ell<d$ and a subset $V' \subset V$ of size $ \gtrsim_d n/r^{d-\ell}$ which is contained in an $\ell$-flat (i.e., an $\ell$-dimensional affine subspace).
This conjecture holds in $\R^3$ [@GK10] and, in a slightly weaker form, in $\R^4$ [@SS14]. We compare these two results with ours later in the introduction. Our main result makes a step in the direction of this conjecture. First of all, our bound is off by a factor of $r$ from the optimal bound (i.e., with $n^2/r^{d}$ instead of $n^2/r^{d+1}$). Secondly, we are only able to detect a $d-1$ dimensional subset (instead of finding the correct $\ell$ which may be smaller).
\[thm-manyrichlines\] For all $d \geq 1$ there exists constants $C_d,C_d'$ such that the following holds. Let $V \subset \C^d$ be a set of $n$ points and let $r \geq 2$ be an integer. Suppose that for some $\alpha\ge 1$, $$|\cL_r(V)|\ge C_d\cdot\alpha\cdot \frac{n^2}{r^{d}}.$$ Then, there exists a subset $\tilde V \subset V$ of size at least $C_d'\cdot\alpha\cdot \frac{n}{r^{d-2}}$ contained in a $(d-1)$-flat. We can take the constants $C_d,C_d'$ to be $d^{cd},d^{c'd}$ for absolute constants $c,c'>0$.
Notice that the theorem is only meaningful when $r \gg d$ (otherwise the factor $r^d$ in the assumption will be swallowed by the constant $C_d$). On the other hand, if $r \gg n^{1/(d-1)}$ then the conclusion always holds. Hence, the theorem is meaningful when $r$ is in a ‘middle’ range. Notice also that for $d=2,3$ and $r$ sufficiently small, the condition of the theorem also cannot hold, by the Szemeredi-Trotter theorem. However, when $d$ becomes larger, our theorem gives non trivial results (and becomes closer to optimal for large $d$). The proof of Theorem \[thm-manyrichlines\] actually shows (Lemma \[lem-findpoly\]) that, under the same hypothesis, most of the rich lines must be contained in a hypersurface of degree smaller than $r$. This in itself can be very useful, as we will see in the proof of Theorem \[thm-newsumproduct\] which uses this fact to prove certain sum-product estimates. The existence of such a low-degree hypersurface containing most of the curves can also be obtained when there are many $r$-rich curves of bounded degree with ‘two degrees of freedom’ i.e. through every pair of points there are at most $O(1)$ curves (see Remark \[rem-bounded-degree-curves\]).
#### Counting arithmetic progressions {#counting-arithmetic-progressions .unnumbered}
An $r$-term arithmetic progression in $\C^d$ is simply a set of $r$ points of the form $\{y,y+x,y+2x, \ldots,y+(r-1)x\}$ with $x,y \in \C^d$. This is a special case of $r$ collinear points and, for this case, we can derive a tighter bound than for the general case. In a nutshell, we can show that a $d$-dimensional grid contains the largest number of $r$-term progressions, among all sets that do not contain a large $d-1$ dimensional subset. The main extra property of arithmetic progressions we use in the proof is that they behave well under products. That is, if we take a Cartesian product of $V$ with itself, the number of progressions of length $r$ squares.
For a finite set $V \subset \C^d$, let us denote the number of $r$-term arithmetic progressions contained in $V$ by $\AP_r(V)$. We first observe that, for all sufficiently small $r$, the grid $G_d$ (defined above) contains at least $\gtrsim_d n^2/r^d$ $r$-term progressions. To see where the extra factor of $r$ comes from, notice that the $2r$-rich lines in $G_d$ will contain $r$ arithmetic progressions of length $r$ each. Our main theorem shows that this is optimal, as long as there is no large low-dimensional set.
\[thm-apbound\] Let $0 < \epsilon < 1$ and $V \subset \C^d$ be a set of size $n$ and suppose that for some $r \geq 4$ we have $$\AP_r(V) \gg_{d,\epsilon} \frac{n^2}{r^{d-{\epsilon}}}.$$ Then, there exists a subset $\tilde V \subset V$ of size $\gtrsim_{d,\epsilon} \frac{n}{r^{{2d/{\epsilon}}-1}}$ contained in a hyperplane.
Related Work
------------
Using the incidence bound between points and lines in $\R^3$ proved in [@GK10], one can prove the following theorem from which Conjecture \[conj-rich\] in $\R^3$ trivially follows (see Appendix \[sec-stronger-thm1\]).
\[thm-conj-d=3\] Given a set $V$ of $n$ points in $\R^3$, let $s_2$ denote the maximum number of points of $V$ contained in a $2$-flat. Then for $r\ge 2$, $$|\L_r(V)|\lesssim \frac{n^2}{r^4}+\frac{ns_2}{r^3}+\frac{n}{r}.$$
Similarly, using the results of in [@SS14], we can prove the following theorem from which a slightly weaker version of Conjecture \[conj-rich\] in $\R^4$ trivially follows (see Appendix \[sec-stronger-thm1\]).
\[thm-conj-d=4\] Given a set $V$ of $n$ points in $\R^4$, let $s_2$ denote the maximum number of points of $V$ contained in a 2-flat and $s_3$ denote the maximum number of points of $V$ contained in a quadric hypersurface or a hyperplane. Then there is an absolute constant $c>0$ such that for $r\ge 2$, $$|\L_r(V)|\lesssim 2^{c\sqrt{\log n}}\cdot \left(\frac{n^2}{r^5}+\frac{ns_3}{r^4}+\frac{ns_2}{r^3}+\frac{n}{r}\right).$$
We are not aware of any examples where points arranged on a quadric hypersurface in $\R^4$ result in significantly more rich lines than in a four dimensional grid. It is, however, possible that one needs to weaken Conjecture \[conj-rich\] so that for some $1<\ell<d$, an $\ell$-dimensional hypersurface of constant degree (possibly depending on $\ell$) contains $\gtrsim_d n/r^{d-\ell}$ points.
To make the comparison with the above theorems easier, Theorem \[thm-manyrichlines\] can be stated equivalently as follows:
\[thm-manyrichlines-equiv\] Given a set $V$ of $n$ points in $\C^d$, let $s_{d-1}$ denote the maximum number of points of $V$ contained in a hyperplane. Then for $r\ge 2$, $$|\L_r(V)| \lesssim_d \frac{n^2}{r^d} + \frac{ns_{d-1}}{r^2}.$$
In [@SoVu04], it was shown that $|\L_r(V)|\lesssim_d \frac{n^2}{r^{d+1}}$ when $V\subset \R^d$ is a [*homogeneous*]{} set. This roughly means that the point set is a perturbation of the grid $G_d$. In [@LaSo07], the result was extended for pseudolines and homogeneous sets in $\R^n$ where pseudolines are a generalization of lines which include constant degree irreducible algebraic curves. Adding the homogeneous condition on a set is a much stronger condition (for sufficiently small $r$) than requiring that no large subset belongs to a hyperplane (however, we cannot derive these results from ours since our dependence on $d$ is suboptimal).
Overview of the proof
---------------------
The main tool used in the proof of Theorem \[thm-manyrichlines\] is a rank bound for design matrices. A [*design matrix*]{} is a matrix with entries in $\C$ and whose support (set of non-zero entries) forms a specific pattern. Namely, the supports of different columns have small intersections, the columns have large support and rows are sparse (see Definition \[def-designmatrix\]). Design matrices were introduced in [@BDWY12; @DSW12] to study quantitative variants of the Sylvester-Gallai theorem. These works prove certain lower bounds on the rank of such matrices, depending only on the combinatorial properties of their support (see Section \[sec-design-matrices\]). Such rank bounds can be used to give [*upper bounds*]{} on the dimension of point configurations in which there are many ‘local’ linear dependencies. This is done by using the local dependencies to construct rows of a design matrix $M$, showing that its rank is high and then arguing that the dimension of the original set is small since it must lie in the kernel of $M$.
Suppose we have a configuration of points with many $r$-rich lines. Clearly, $r \geq 3$ collinear points are also linearly dependent. However, this conclusion does not use the fact that $r$ may be larger than 3. To use this information, we observe that a certain map, called the Veronese embedding, takes $r$-collinear points to $r$ linearly dependent points in a larger dimensional space (see Section \[sec-veronese-embedding\]). Thus we can create a design matrix using these linear dependencies similarly to the constructions of [@BDWY11; @DSW12] to get an upper bound on the dimension of the [*image*]{} of the original set, under the Veronese embedding. We use this upper bound to conclude that there is a polynomial of degree $r-2$ which contains all the points in our original configuration. We then proceed in a way similar to the proof of the Joints conjecture by Guth and Katz [@GK10b] to conclude that there is a hyperplane which contains many points of the configuration (by finding a ‘flat’ point of the surface).
Application: Sum-product estimates
----------------------------------
Here, we show a simple application of our techniques to prove sum product estimates over $\C$. The estimates we will get can also be derived from the Szemerédi-Trotter theorem in the complex plane (see Section \[sec-newsumproduct-usingST\]) and we include them only as an example of how to use a higher dimensional theorem in this setting. We hope that future progress on proving Conjecture \[conj-rich\] will result in progress on sum product problems.
We begin with some notations. For two sets $A,B \subset \C$ we denote by $A+B = \{a+b \,|\, a,b \in A\}$ the sum set of $A$ and $B$. For a set $A \subset \C$ and a complex number $t \in \C$ we denote by $tA = \{ ta \,|\, a \in A \}$ the dilate of $A$ by $t$. Hence we have that $A+tA = \{ a + ta'\,|\, a,a' \in A\}$.
\[thm-newsumproduct\] Let $A \subset \C$ be a set of $N$ complex numbers and let $1\ll C \ll \sqrt{N}$. Define the set $$T_C = \left\{ t \in \C \,\left|\, |A + tA| \leq \frac{N^{1.5}}{C\sqrt{\log N}} \right. \right\}.$$ Then, $ |T_C| \lesssim \frac{N}{C^2}.$
By taking $C$ to be a large constant, an immediate corollary is:
Let $A \subset \C$ be a finite set. Then $$| A+ A\cdot A| = |\{ a + bc \,|\, a,b,c \in A\}| \gtrsim \frac{|A|^{1.5}}{\sqrt{\log |A|}}.$$
Organization
------------
In Section \[sec-prelim\] we give some preliminaries, including on design matrices and the Veronese embedding. In Section \[sec-manyrichlines\] we prove Theorem \[thm-manyrichlines\]. In Section \[sec-apbound\] we prove Theorem \[thm-apbound\]. In Section \[sec-newsumproduct\] we prove Theorem \[thm-newsumproduct\]. In Appendix \[sec-stronger-thm1\] we give a possible strengthening of Conjecture \[conj-rich\] along with the proofs of Theorem \[thm-conj-d=3\] and Theorem \[thm-conj-d=4\].
Acknowledgements
----------------
We thank Ben Green and Noam Solomon for helpful comments. Research supported by NSF grant CCF-1217416 and by the Sloan fellowship. Some of the work on the paper was carried out during the special semester on ‘Algebraic Techniques for Combinatorial and Computational Geometry’, held at the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics (IPAM) during Spring 2014.
Preliminaries {#sec-prelim}
=============
We begin with some notations. For a vector $v \in \C^n$ and a set $I \subset [n]$ we denote by $v_I \subset \C^I$ the restriction of $v$ to indices in $I$. We denote the [*support*]{} of a vector $v \in \C^d$ by $\supp(v) = \{ i \in [d]\,|\, v_i \neq 0 \}$ (this notation is extended to matrices as well). For a set of $n$ points $V \subset \C^d$ and an integer $\ell$, we denote by $V^\ell \subset \C^{d\ell}$ its $\ell$-fold Cartesian product i.e. $V^\ell=V\times V\times \cdots \times V\ (\ell\ \mathrm{times})$ where we naturally identify $\C^d\times \C^d\times \cdots \times \C^d\ (\ell\ \mathrm{times})$ with $\C^{d\ell}$.
Design matrices {#sec-design-matrices}
---------------
Design matrices, defined in [@BDWY12], are matrices that satisfy a certain condition on their support.
\[def-designmatrix\] Let $A$ be an $m \times n$ matrix over a field $\F$. Let $R_1,\ldots,R_m \in \F^n$ be the rows of $A$ and let $C_1,\ldots,C_n \in \F^m$ be the columns of $A$. We say that $A$ is a [*$(q,k,t)$-design matrix*]{} if
1. For all $i \in [m]$, $|\supp(R_i)| \leq q$.
2. For all $j \in [n]$, $|\supp(C_j)| \geq k$.
3. For all $j_1 \neq j_2 \in [n]$, $|\supp(C_{j_1}) \cap \supp(C_{j_2}) | \leq t$.
Surprisingly, one can derive a general bound on the rank of complex design matrices, despite having no information on the values present at the non zero positions of the matrix. The first bound of this form was given in [@BDWY12] which was improved in [@DSW12].
\[thm-rankbound\] Let $A$ be an $m \times n$ matrix with entries in $\C$. If $A$ is a $(q,k,t)$ design matrix then the following two bounds hold $$\begin{aligned}
\rank(A) \geq n - \frac{ntq^2}{k}.\label{eq-rank1}\\
\rank(A) \geq n - \frac{mtq^2}{k^2}.\label{eq-rank2}\end{aligned}$$
The Veronese embedding {#sec-veronese-embedding}
----------------------
We denote by $$\m(d,r) = \binom{d+r}{d}$$ the number of monomials of degree at most $r$ in $d$ variables. We will often use the lower bound $\m(d,r) \geq (r/d)^d$. The Veronese embedding $\phi_{d,r} : \C^d \mapsto \C^{\m(d,r)}$ sends a point $a = (a_1,\ldots,a_d) \in \C^d$ to the vector of evaluations of all monomials of degree at most $r$ at the point $a$. For example, the map $\phi_{2,2}$ sends $(a_1,a_2)$ to $(1,a_1,a_2,a_1^2,a_1a_2,a_2^2)$. We can identify each point $w \in \C^{\m(d,r)}$ with a polynomial $f_w \in \C[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ of degree at most $r$ in an obvious manner so that the value $f_w(a)$ at a point $a \in \C^d$ is given by the standard inner product ${\langle w,\phi_{d,r}(a) \rangle}$. We will use the following two easy claims.
\[cla-veronese-vanish\] Let $V \subset \C^d$ and let $U = \phi_{d,r}(V) \subset \C^{\m(d,r)}$. Then $U$ is contained in a hyperplane iff there is a non-zero polynomial $f \in \C[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ of degree at most $r$ that vanishes on all points of $V$.
Each hyperplane in $\C^{\m(d,r)}$ is given as the set of points having inner product zero with some $w \in \C^{\m(d,r)}$. If we take the corresponding polynomial $f_w \in \C[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ we get that it vanishes on $V$ iff $\phi_{d,r}(V)$ is contained in the hyperplane defined by $w$.
\[cla-veronese-line\] Suppose the $r+2$ points $v_1,\ldots,v_{r+2} \in \C^d$ are collinear and let $\phi = \phi_{d,r} : \C^d \mapsto \C^{\m(d,r)}$. Then, the points $\phi(v_1),\ldots,\phi(v_{r+2})$ are linearly dependent. Moreover, every $r+1$ of the points $\phi(v_1),\ldots,\phi(v_{r+2})$ are linearly independent.
Denote $u_i = \phi(v_i)$ for $i=1\ldots r+2$. To show that the $u_i$’s are linearly dependent it is enough to show that, for any $w \in \C^{\m(d,r)}$, if all the $r+1$ inner products ${\langle w,u_1 \rangle}, \ldots, {\langle w,u_{r+1} \rangle}$ are zero, then the inner product ${\langle w,u_{r+2} \rangle}$ must also be zero. Suppose this is the case, and let $f_w \in \C[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ be the polynomial of degree at most $r$ associated with the point $w$ so that ${\langle w,u_i \rangle} = f_w(v_i)$ for all $1 \leq i \leq r+1$. Since the points $v_1,\ldots,v_{r+2}$ are on a single line $L \subset \C^d$, and since the polynomial $f_w$ vanishes on $r+1$ of them, we have that $f_w$ must vanish identically on the line $L$ and so $f_w(v_{r+2})= {\langle w,u_{r+2} \rangle} =0$ as well.
To show the ‘moreover’ part, suppose in contradiction that $u_1,\ldots,u_r$ span $u_{r+1}$. We can find, by interpolation, a non zero polynomial $f \in \C[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ of degree at most $r$ such that $f(v_1)= \ldots = f(v_r) = 0$ and $f(v_{r+1})=1$. More formally, we can translate the line containing the $r+1$ points to the $x_1$-axis and then interpolate a degree $r$ polynomial in $x_1$ with the required properties using the invertibility of the Vandermonde matrix. Now, let $w \in \C^{\m(d,r)}$ be the point such that $f = f_w$. We know that ${\langle w,u_i \rangle}=0$ for $i=1\ldots r$ and thus, since $u_{r+1}$ is in the span of $u_1,\ldots,u_r$, we get that $f(v_{r+1}) = {\langle w,u_{r+1} \rangle}=0$ in contradiction. This completes the proof.
Polynomials vanishing on grids
------------------------------
We recall the Schwartz-Zippel lemma.
\[lem-SZ\] Let $S \subset \F$ be a finite subset of an arbitrary field $\F$ and let $f \in \F[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ be a non-zero polynomial of degree at most $r$. Then $$\lvert \{ (a_1,\ldots,a_d) \in S^d \subset \F^d \,\,|\,\, f(a_1,\ldots,a_d)=0 \}\rvert \leq r \cdot |S|^{d-1}.$$
An easy corollary is the following claim about homogeneous polynomials.
\[lem-SZ-hom\] Let $S \subset \F$ be a finite subset of an arbitrary field $\F$ and let $f \in \F[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ be a non-zero homogeneous polynomial of degree at most $r$. Then $$\lvert \{ (1,a_2,\ldots,a_d) \in \{1\} \times S^{d-1} \,\,|\,\, f(1,a_2,\ldots,a_d)=0 \}\rvert \leq r \cdot |S|^{d-2}.$$
Let $g(x_2,\ldots,x_d) = f(1,x_2,\ldots,x_d)$ be the polynomial one obtains from fixing $x_1=1$ in $f$. Then $g$ is a polynomial of degree at most $r$ in $d-1$ variables. If $g$ was the zero polynomial then $f$ would have been divisible by $1-x_1$ which is impossible for a homogeneous polynomial. Hence, we can use Lemma \[lem-SZ\] to bound the number of zeros of $g$ in the set $S^{d-1}$ by $r \cdot |S|^{d-2}$. This completes the proof.
Another useful claim says that if a degree one polynomial (i.e., the equation of a hyperplane) vanishes on a large subset of the product set $V^\ell$, then there is another degree one polynomial that vanishes on a large subset of $V$.
\[lem-hyperplaneproduct\] Let $V \subset \C^d$ be a set of $n$ points and let $V^\ell \subset \C^{d\ell}$ be its $\ell$-fold Cartesian product. Let $H \subset \C^{d\ell}$ be an affine hyperplane such that $|H \cap V^\ell| \geq \delta \cdot n^\ell$. Then, there exists an affine hyperplane $H' \subset \C^d$ such that $|H' \cap V| \geq \delta \cdot n$.
Let $h \in \C^{d\ell}$ be the vector perpendicular to $H$ so that $x \in H$ iff ${\langle x,h \rangle}=b$ for some $b \in \C$. Observing the product structure of $\C^{d\ell} = (\C^d)^\ell$ we can write $h = (h_1,\ldots,h_\ell)$ with each $h_i \in \C^d$. W.l.o.g suppose that $h_1 \neq 0$. For each $a = (a_2,\ldots,a_\ell) \in V^{\ell-1}$ let $V^\ell_a = V \times \{a_2\} \times \ldots \{a_\ell\}$. Since there are $n^{\ell-1}$ different choices for $a \in V^{\ell-1}$, and since $$|V^\ell \cap H| = \sum_{a \in V^{\ell-1}}|V^\ell_a \cap H|,$$ there must be some $a$ with $|V^\ell_a \cap H| \geq \delta \cdot n$. Let $H' \subset \C^d$ be the hyperplane defined by the equation $$x \in H' \,\,\text{iff}\,\, {\langle x,h_1 \rangle}+ {\langle a_2,h_2 \rangle} + \ldots + {\langle a_\ell,h_\ell \rangle} = b.$$ Then, $H' \cap V$ is in one-to-one correspondence with the set $V^\ell_a \cap H$ and so has the same size.
A graph refinement lemma
------------------------
We will need the following simple lemma, showing that any bipartite graph can be refined so that both vertex sets have high minimum degree (relative the to the original edge density).
\[lem-refine\] Let $G=(A\sqcup B, E)$ be a bipartite graph with $E \subset A \times B$ and edge set $E\ne \phi$. Then there exists non-empty sets $A'\subset A$ and $B'\subset B$ such that if we consider the induced subgraph $G'=(A'\sqcup B',E')$ then
1. The minimum degree in $A'$ is at least $\frac{|E|}{4|A|}$
2. The minimum degree in $B'$ is at least $\frac{|E|}{4|B|}$
3. $|E'|\ge |E|/2$.
We will construct $A'$ and $B'$ using an iterative procedure. Initially let $A'=A$ and $B'=B$. Let $G'=(A'\sqcup B',E')$ be the induced subgraph of $G$. If there is a vertex in $A'$ with degree (in the induced subgraph $G'$) less than $\frac{|E|}{4|A|}$, remove it from $A'$. If there is a vertex in $B'$ with degree (in the induced subgraph $G'$) less than $\frac{|E|}{4|B|}$, remove it from $B'$. At the end of this procedure, we are left with sets $A',B'$ with the required min-degrees. We can count the number of edges lost as we remove vertices in the procedure. Whenever a vertex in $A'$ is removed we lose at most $\frac{|E|}{4|A|}$ edges and whenever a vertex from $B'$ is removed we lose at most $\frac{|E|}{4|B|}$ edges. So $$|E'|\ge |E|-|A|\frac{|E|}{4|A|}-|B|\frac{|E|}{4|B|}\ge |E|/2.$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm-manyrichlines\] {#sec-manyrichlines}
======================================
The main technical tool will be the following lemma, which shows that one can find a vanishing polynomial of low degree, assuming each point is in many rich lines.
\[lem-findpoly\] For each $d \geq 1$ there is a constant $K_d \leq 32(2d)^d$ such that the following holds. Let $V \subset \C^d$ be a set of $n$ points and let $r\geq 4$ be an integer. Suppose that, through each point $v \in V$, there are at least $k$ $r$-rich lines where $$k \geq K_d\cdot \frac{ n}{r^{d-2}}.$$ Then, there exists a non-zero polynomial $f \in \C[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ of degree at most $r-2$ such that $f(v)=0$ for all $v \in V$.
If we have the stronger condition that the number of $r$-rich lines through each point of $V$ is between $k$ and $8k$ then we can get the same conclusion (vanishing $f$ of degree $r-2$) under the weaker inequality $$k \geq K_d\cdot \frac{n}{r^{d-1}}.$$
Let $V = \{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ and let $\phi = \phi_{d,r-2} : \C^d \mapsto \C^{\m(d,r-2)}$ be the Veronese embedding with degree bound $r-2$. Let us denote $U = \{u_1,\ldots,u_n\} \subset \C^{\m(d,r-2)}$ with $u_i = \phi(v_i)$ for all $i \in [n]$.
We will prove the lemma by showing that $U$ is contained in a hyperplane and then using Claim \[cla-veronese-vanish\] to deduce the existence of the vanishing polynomial. Let $M$ be an $n \times \m(d,r-2)$ matrix whose $i$’th row is $u_i = \phi(v_i)$. To show that $U$ is contained in a hyperplane, it is enough to show that $\rank(M) < \m(d,r-2)$. This will imply that the columns of $M$ are linearly dependent, which means that all the rows lie in some hyperplane.
We will now construct a design matrix $A$ such that $A \cdot M=0$. Since $\rank(A) + \rank(M) \leq n$, we will be able to translate a lower bound on the rank of $A$ (which will be given by Theorem \[thm-rankbound\]) to the required upper bound on the rank of $M$. Each row in $A$ will correspond to some collinear $r$-tuple in $V$. We will construct $A$ in several stages. First, for each $r$-rich line $L \in \cL_r(V)$ we will construct a set of $r$-tuples $R_L \subset \binom{V}{r}$ such that
1. Each $r$-tuple in $R_L$ is contained in $L \cap V$.
2. Each point $v \in L \cap V$ is in at least one $r$-tuple from $R_L$.
3. Every pair of distinct points $u,v \in L \cap V$ appear together in at most two $r$-tuples from $R_L$.
If $|L \cap V|$ is a multiple of $r$, we can construct such a set $R_L$ easily by taking a disjoint cover of $r$-tuples. If $|L \cap V|$ is not a multiple of $r$ (but is still of size at least $r$) we can take a maximal set of disjoint $r$-tuples inside it and then add to it one more $r$-tuple that will cover the remaining elements and will otherwise intersect only one other $r$-tuple. This will guarantee that the third condition holds. We define $R \subset {V \choose r}$ to be the union of all sets $R_L$ over all $r$-rich lines $L$. We can now prove:
\[cla-rtuples\] The set $R \subset {V \choose r}$ defined above has the following three properties.
1. Each point $v \in V$ is contained in at least $k$ $r$-tuples from $R$.
2. Every pair of distinct points $u,v \in V$ is contained together in at most two $r$-tuples from $R$.
3. Let $(v_{i_1},\ldots,v_{i_r}) \in R$. Then there exists $r$ non zero coefficients $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{r} \in \C$ so that $ \alpha_1 \cdot u_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_r \cdot u_{i_r} = 0$.
If, in addition, we know that each point belongs to at most $8k$ rich lines (as in the second part of the lemma) then we also have that $|R|\le 16nk/r$.
The first property follows from the fact that each $v$ is in at least $k$ $r$-rich lines and that each $R_L$ with $v \in L$ has at least one $r$-tuple containing $v$. The second property follows from the fact that each pair $u,v$ can belong to at most one $r$-rich line $L$ and that each $R_L$ can contain at most two $r$-tuples with both $u$ and $v$. The fact that the $r$-tuple of point $u_{i_1},\ldots,u_{i_r}$ is linearly dependent follows from Claim \[cla-veronese-line\]. The fact that all the coefficients $\alpha_j$ are non zero holds since no proper subset of that $r$-tuple is linearly dependent (by the ‘moreover’ part of Claim \[cla-veronese-line\]). If each point is in at most $8k$ lines then each point is in at most $16k$ $r$-tuples (at most two on each line). This means that there could be at most $16nk/r$ tuples in $R$ since otherwise, some point would be in too many tuples.
We now construct the matrix $A$ of size $m\times n$ where $m=|R|$. For each $r$-tuple $(v_{i_1},\ldots,v_{i_r}) \in R$ we add a row to $A$ (the order of the rows does not matter) that has zeros in all positions except $i_1,\ldots,i_r$ and has values $\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_r$ given by Claim \[cla-rtuples\] in those positions. Since the rows of $M$ are the points $u_1,\ldots,u_n$, the third item of Claim \[cla-rtuples\] guarantees that $A \cdot M = 0$ as we wanted. The next claim asserts that $A$ is a design matrix.
\[cla-Adesign\] The matrix $A$ constructed above is a $(r,k,2)$-design matrix.
Clearly, each row of $A$ contains at most $r$ non zero coordinates. Since each point $v \in V$ is in at least $k$ $r$-tuples from $R$ we have that each column of $A$ contains at least $k$ non-zero coordinates. The size of the intersection of the supports of two distinct columns in $A$ is at most two by item (2) of Claim \[cla-rtuples\].
We now use Eq. (\[eq-rank1\]) from Theorem \[thm-rankbound\] to get $$\rank(A)\ge n-\frac{2nr^2}{k}.$$ This implies (using $r \geq 4$) that $$\rank(M) \leq \frac{2nr^2}{k} \leq \left(\frac{r-2}{d}\right)^d < \m(d,r-2),$$ if $$k \geq 2(2d)^d \cdot \frac{n}{r^{d-2}}.$$
If we have the additional assumption that each point is in at most $8k$ lines then, using the bound $m= |R| \leq 16nk/r $ in Eq. (\[eq-rank2\]) of Theorem \[thm-rankbound\]. We get
$$\rank(A) \geq n-\frac{2mr^2}{k^2} \geq n - \frac{32nr}{k}$$ which gives $$\rank(M) \leq \frac{32nr}{k} < \m(d,r-2)$$ for $$k \geq 32(2d)^d \frac{n}{r^{d-1}}.$$ Hence, the rows of $M$ lie in a hyperplane. This completes the proof of the lemma.
\[rem-bounded-degree-curves\] Lemma \[lem-findpoly\] can be extended to the case where we have $r$-rich curves of bounded degree $D=O(1)$ with ‘two degrees of freedom’ i.e. through every pair of points there can be at most $C=O(1)$ distinct curves (e.g. unit circles). Under the Veronese embedding $\phi_{d,{\left\lfloor \frac{r-2}{D}\right\rfloor}}$, the images of $r$ points on a degree $D$ curve are linearly dependent. So we can still construct a design matrix as in the above proof where the design parameters depend on $D,C$. Once we get a hypersurface of degree ${\left\lfloor \frac{r-2}{D}\right\rfloor}$ vanishing on all the points, the hypersurface should also contain all the degree $D$ $r$-rich curves.
We will now use Lemma \[lem-findpoly\] to prove Theorem \[thm-manyrichlines\]. The reduction uses Lemma \[lem-refine\] to reduce to the case where each point has many rich lines through it. Once we find a vanishing low degree polynomial we analyze its singularities to find a point such that all lines though it are in some hyperplane.
Since $\cL_r(V)\le n^2$ for all $r\ge 2$, by choosing $C_d> R_d^d$ we can assume that $r\ge R_d$ for any large constant $R_d$ depending only on $d$.
Let $\cL = \cL_r(V)$ be the set of $r$-rich lines in $V$ and let $I=I(\L,V)$ be the set of incidences between $\L$ and $V$. By the conditions of the theorem we have $$\label{eq-largeI}
|I| \ge r|\cL| \geq C_d\cdot\frac{\alpha n^2}{r^{d-1}}.$$
Applying Lemma \[lem-refine\] to the incidence graph between $V$ and $\L$, we obtain non-empty subsets $V' \subset V$ and $\cL' \subset \cL$ such that each $v \in V'$ is in at least $k=\frac{|I|}{4n}$ lines from $\cL'$ and such that each line in $\cL'$ is $r/4$-rich w.r.t to the set $V'$ and $$|I'|=|I(\L',V')|\ge |I|/2.$$ We would like to apply Lemma \[lem-findpoly\] with the stronger condition that each point is incident on approximately the same number of lines (which gives better dependence on $r$). To achieve this, we will further refine our set of points using dyadic pigeonholing.
Let $V'=V'_1\sqcup V'_2\sqcup \cdots$ be a partition of $V'$ into disjoint subsets where $V'_j$ is the set of points incident to at least $k_j=2^{j-1}k$ and less than $2^{j}k$ lines from $\L'$. Let $I'_j=I(\L',V'_j)$, so that $$\sum_{j\ge 1} |I_j'|=|I'|\ge |I|/2.$$ Since $\sum_{j\ge 1}\frac{1}{2j^2}<1$, there exists $j$ such that $|I'_j|\ge \frac{|I|}{4j^2}.$ Let us fix $j$ to this value for the rest of the proof.
We will first upper bound $j$. Since $|I_j'|>0$, $V_j'$ is non-empty and let $p\in V'_j$. There are at least $k_j$ $(r/4)$-rich lines through $p$ and by choosing $R_d\ge 8$, there are at least $r/4-1\ge r/8$ points other than $p$ on each of these lines and they are all distinct. So, $$n=|V|\ge 2^{j-1}k\cdot \frac{r}{8} = \frac{2^{j-6}r|I|}{n}\ge C_d \frac{2^{j-6}\alpha n}{r^{d-2}}\ge \frac{2^{j-6}n}{r^{d-2}}.$$ This implies $j\lesssim d\log r$ where we assumed above that $C_d\ge 1$.
Since the lines in $\L'$ need not be $r/4$-rich w.r.t $V'_j$, we need further refinement. Apply Lemma \[lem-refine\] again on the incidence graph $I'_j= I(\L',V'_j)$ to get non-empty $V''\subset V'_j$ and $\L''\subset \L'$ and $$|I''|=|I(\L'',V'')|\ge \frac{|I'_j|}{2}\ge \frac{|I|}{8j^2} \ge \frac{r|\L|}{8j^2}.$$ Each line in $\L''$ is incident to at least $$\frac{|I'_j|}{4|\L'|} \geq \frac{r}{16j^2}=r_0$$ points from $V''$ and so $\L''$ is $r_0$-rich w.r.t $V''$. And each point in $V''$ is incident to at least $$\frac{|I'_j|}{4|V'_j|}\ge \frac{k_j}{4}=2^{j-3} k=k_0$$ and at most $2^{j}k=8k_0$ lines from $\L''$. Since $j\lesssim d\log r$, we can assume $r_0=\frac{r}{16j^2}\ge 4$ by choosing $R_d \gg d^3$.
The following claim shows that we can apply Lemma \[lem-findpoly\] to $V''$ and $\L''$
$k_0\ge K_d\cdot\frac{|V''|}{r_0^{d-1}}$ where $K_d$ is the constant in Lemma \[lem-findpoly\]
We have $$|V''|\le |V'_j| \le \frac{|I|}{2^{j-1}k}=\frac{n}{2^{j-3}}.$$ So it is enough to show that $$k_0\ge K_d\cdot\frac{ n}{2^{j-3} r_0^{d-1}}.$$ Substituting the bounds we have for $k_0$ and $r_0$, this will follow from to $$|I| \ge 16K_d\cdot 2^{4d}\cdot \left(\frac{j^{2(d-1)}}{2^{2j}}\right) \frac{n^2}{r^{d-1}}$$ which follows from Eq. (\[eq-largeI\]) by choosing $C_d>16K_d\cdot 2^{4d}\cdot \max_j\left(\frac{j^{2(d-1)}}{2^{2j}}\right)$.
Hence, by Lemma \[lem-findpoly\], there exists a non-zero polynomial $f \in \C[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ of degree at most $r_0-2$, vanishing at all points of $V''$. W.l.o.g suppose $f$ has minimal total degree among all polynomials vanishing on $V''$. Since $f$ has degree at most $r_0-2$ it must vanish identically on all lines in $\cL''$.
We say that a point $v \in V''$ is ‘flat’ if the set of lines from $\cL''$ passing through $v$ are contained in some affine hyperplane through $v$. Otherwise, we call the point $v$ a ‘joint’. We will show that there is at least one flat point in $V''$. Suppose towards a contradiction that all points in $V''$ are joints. Let $v \in V''$ be some point and let $\nabla f(v)$ be the gradient of $f$ at $v$. Since $f$ vanishes identically on all lines in $\cL''$ we get that $\nabla f(v)=0$ ($v$ is a singular point of the hypersurface defined by $f$). We now get a contradiction since one of the coordinates of $\nabla f$ is a non-zero polynomial of degree smaller than the degree of $f$ that vanishes on the entire set $V''$.
Hence, there exists a point $v \in V''$ and an affine a hyperplane $H$ passing through $v$ such that all $r_0$-rich lines in $\cL''$ passing through $v$ are contained in $H$. Since there are at least $k_0$ such lines, and each line contain at least $r_0-1$ points in addition to $v$, we get that $H$ contains at least $$(r_0-1)k_0 \geq \frac{r}{32j^2}\cdot 2^{j-3}\frac{|I|}{4n} \ge C_d \left(\frac{2^{j-10}}{j^2}\right) \frac{\alpha n}{r^{d-2}}\ge C_d' \frac{\alpha n}{r^{d-2}}$$ points from $V$ where $C_d'= C_d \cdot \min_j \left(\frac{2^{j-10}}{j^2}\right)$. Observing the proof we can take the constants to be $C_d=d^{\Theta(d)}$ and $C'_d=\frac{C_d}{2^{11}}$.
\[rem-hyperplane\_lines\] Observe that, we can take $\L$ to be any subset of $\L_r(V)$ of size $\ge C_d \frac{\alpha n^2}{r^d}$ and obtain the same conclusion. Moreover, the hyperplane $H$ that we obtain at the end contains $k_0\gtrsim \frac{\alpha n}{r^{d}}$ lines of $\L$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm-apbound\] {#sec-apbound}
================================
We will reduce the problem of bounding $r$-term arithmetic progressions to that of bounding $r$-rich lines using the following claim:
\[cla-ap\_to\_richline\] Let $V\subset \C^d$ then $\AP_r(V)\le |\L_r([r] \times V)|$ where $[r]=\{0,1,\cdots,r-1\}$
For $u,w\in \C^d, w\ne 0$, let $(u,u+w,\cdots,u+(r-1)w)$ be an $r$-term arithmetic progression in $V$. Then the line $\{(0,u)+z(1,w)\}_{z\in \C}$ is $r$-rich w.r.t the point set $[r]\times V \subset \C^{1+d}$; moreover this mapping is injective.
We need the following claim regarding arithmetic progressions in product sets.
\[cla-aptensor\] Let $V \subset \C^d$ be a set of $n$ points and let $\ell \geq 1$ be an integer. Then, for all $r \geq 1$, the product set $V^\ell \subset \C^{d\ell}$ satisfies $$\AP_r(V^\ell) \geq \AP_r(V)^\ell.$$
Let $P(V)$ be the set of $r$-term arithmetic progressions in $V$ and let $P(V^\ell)$ be the set of $r$-term progressions in $V^\ell$. We will describe an injective mapping from $P(V)^\ell$ into $P(V^\ell)$. For $u,w \in \C^d$ let $L_{u,w} = \{u,u+w,\ldots,u+(r-1)w\}$ be the $r$-term progression starting at $u$ with difference $w$. Let $u_1,\ldots,u_\ell,w_1,\ldots,w_\ell \in \C^d$ such that $L_{u_i,w_i} \in P(V)$ for each $i \in [\ell]$. We map them into the arithmetic progression $L_{u,w} \in P(V^\ell)$ with $u = (u_1,\ldots,u_\ell)$ and $w = (w_1,\ldots,w_\ell)$. Clearly, this map is injective (care should be taken to assign each progression a unique difference since these are determined up to a sign).
Let us assume $\AP_r(V)\gg_{d,\epsilon} \frac{n^2}{r^{d-\epsilon}}$. Let $\ell=\lceil\frac{1}{\epsilon}\rceil$. By Claim \[cla-aptensor\], $\AP_r(V^\ell)\ge \AP_r(V)^\ell$. Let $\L$ be the collection of $r$-rich lines w.r.t $[r]\times V^\ell\subset \C^{1+d\ell}$ corresponding to non-trivial $r$-term arithmetic progressions in $V^\ell$, as given by Claim \[cla-ap\_to\_richline\]. So $$|\L_r([r]\times V^\ell)|\ge |\L| = \AP_r(V^\ell)\ge \AP_r(V)^\ell\gg_{d,\epsilon} \frac{n^{2\ell}}{r^{d\ell-\epsilon\ell}}\ge \frac{n^{2\ell}}{r^{d\ell -1}}= \frac{(n^{\ell}r)^2}{r^{d\ell+1}}.$$ By Theorem \[thm-manyrichlines\] (choosing the constants appropriately), there is a hyperplane $H$ in $\mathbb{C}^{1+d\ell}$ which contains $\gtrsim_{d,\epsilon} \frac{n^\ell r}{r^{d\ell-1}}$ points of $[r]\times V^\ell$. Moreover, by Remark \[rem-hyperplane\_lines\], $H$ contains some of the lines of $\L$. So $H$ cannot be one of the hyperplanes $\{z_{1}=i\}_{i\in [r]}$ because they do not contain any lines of $\L$. So the intersection of $H$ with one of the $r$ hyperplanes $\{z_{1}=i\}_{i\in [r]}$ (say $j$) gives a $(d\ell-1)$-flat which contains $\gtrsim_{d,\epsilon} \frac{n^\ell}{r^{d\ell-1}}$ points of $V^\ell\times \{j\}$. This gives a hyperplane $H'$ in $\C^{d\ell}$ which contains $\gtrsim_{d,\epsilon} \frac{n^\ell}{r^{d\ell-1}}$ points of $V^\ell$. Now by Lemma \[lem-hyperplaneproduct\], we can conclude that there is a hyperplane in $\mathbb{C}^d$ which contains $\gtrsim_{d,\epsilon} \frac{n}{r^{d\ell-1}}\ge \frac{n}{r^{2d/\epsilon-1}}$ points of $V$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm-newsumproduct\] {#sec-newsumproduct}
======================================
Suppose in contradiction that $|T_C| > \lambda N/C^2$ for some large absolute constant $\lambda$ which we will choose later. Let $Q \subset T_C$ be a set of size $$|Q| = \left\lceil \frac{\lambda N}{C^2} \right\rceil$$ containing the zero element $0 \in Q$ (we have $0 \in T_C$ since the sum-set $|A+0A| = |A|$ is small). Let us denote by $$r = |Q|$$ and let $$m = \frac{N^{1.5}}{C\sqrt{\log N}}.$$ Let $$d = \lceil 100\log N \rceil.$$ We will use our assumption on the size of $Q$ to construct a configuration of points $V \subset \C^d$ with many $r$-rich lines. Then we will use Lemma \[lem-findpoly\] to derive a contradiction. The set $V$ will be a union of the sets $$V_t = \{t\} \times (A+ tA)^{d-1} = \{ (t,a_2 + t b_2, \ldots, a_d + tb_d) \,|\, a_i,b_j \in A \}$$ over all $t \in Q$. That is $$V = \bigcup_{t \in Q} V_t.$$ Notice the special structure of the set $$V_0 = \{0\} \times A^{d-1}.$$ We denote by $$\label{eq-Vsize}
n = |V| \leq r \cdot m^{d-1}$$
Notice that, by construction, for every $a = (0,a_2,\ldots,a_d)$ and every $b = (1,b_2,\ldots,b_d)$ (with all the $a_i,b_j$ in $A$), the line through the point $a \in V_0$ in direction $b$ is $r$-rich w.r.t $V$. Let us denote by $\cL \subset \cL_r(V)$ the set of all lines of this form. We thus have $$|\cL| = N^{2d-2}.$$ Let $I=I(V,\L)$, then $|I|\ge r|\L|$. We now use Lemma \[lem-refine\] to find subsets $V' \subset V$ and $\cL' \subset \cL$ such that each point in $V'$ is in at least $$k = \frac{rN^{2d-2}}{4n}$$ lines from $\cL'$, each line in $\cL'$ is $r_0=r/4$-rich w.r.t to the set $V'$ and $$|I(V',L')|\ge |I|/2.$$ Observe that, since each line in $\L'$ contains at most $r$ points from $V'$, we have $$|\L'|\ge |I(V',\L')|/r\ge |\L|/2.$$ The following claim shows that we can apply Lemma \[lem-findpoly\] on the set $V'$.
$$k \geq K_d\frac{n}{r_0^{d-2}}.$$ where $K_d=32(2d)^d$ is the constant in Lemma \[lem-findpoly\]
Plugging in the value of $k,r_0$ and rearranging, we need to show that $$\frac{N^{2d-2} r^{d-1}}{32(8d)^d} \geq n^2.$$ Using Eq. (\[eq-Vsize\]) to bound $n$ we get that it is enough to show $$\frac{N^{2d-2}r^{d-1}}{32(8d)^d} \geq \frac{r^2 N^{3d-3}}{C^{2d-2} (\log N)^{d-1}}.$$ Rearranging, we need to show that $$r^{d-3} \geq \frac{32(8d)^{d}N^{d-1}}{(C^2)^{d-1}(\log N)^{d-1}}.$$ We now raise both sides to the power $1/(d-3)$ and use the fact that, for $\ell > \log X$, we have $1 \leq X^{1/\ell} \leq 2$. Thus it is enough to show $$r \geq \frac{K' d N}{C^2 \log N}$$ for some absolute constant $K'$. Plugging in the value of $d$ we get that the claim would follow if $$r \geq \frac{100K'N}{C^2}$$ which holds by choosing $\lambda=100K'$.
Since $C\ll\sqrt{N}$, $r_0\ge 4$. Applying Lemma \[lem-findpoly\], we get a non-zero polynomial $f \in \C[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ of degree at most $r_0-2$ that vanishes on all points in $V'$. This means that $f$ must also vanish identically on all lines in $\cL'$ (since these are all $r_0$-rich w.r.t $V'$). Since each line in $\cL'$ intersects $V_0$ exactly once, and since $|V_0| = N^{d-1}$, we get that there must be at least one point $v \in V_0$ that is contained in at least $|\cL'|/N^{d-1} \geq \frac{1}{2}N^{d-1}$ lines (in different directions) from $\cL'$. Let $\tilde f$ denote the homogeneous part of $f$ of highest degree. If $f$ vanishes identically on a line in direction $b \in \C^d$, this implies that $\tilde f(b) = 0$ (to see this notice that the leading coefficient of $g(t) = f(a + tb)$ is $\tilde f(b)$). Hence, since all the directions of lines in $\cL'$ are from the set $\{1\} \times A^{d-1}$, we get that $\tilde f$ has at least $\frac{1}{2}N^{d-1}$ zeros in the set $\{1\} \times A^{d-1}$. This contradicts Lemma \[lem-SZ-hom\] since the degree of $\tilde f$ is at most $r_0-2=r/4-2 < N/2$ (since $r = \lceil \lambda N/C^2 \rceil$ and $C \gg1$). This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm-newsumproduct\].
A proof of Theorem \[thm-newsumproduct\] using Szemerédi-Trotter in $\C^2$ {#sec-newsumproduct-usingST}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a slightly stronger version of Theorem \[thm-newsumproduct\] (without the logarithmic factor), which we prove using a simple application of the two-dimensional Szemerédi-Trotter theorem (to derive Theorem \[thm-newsumproduct\] replace $C$ with $C\sqrt{N}$).
Let $A\subset \C$ be a set of $N$ complex numbers and let $C\gg1$. Define $$T_C=\left\{t\in \C: |A+tA|\le \frac{N^2}{C}\right\}.$$ Then $$|T_C|\lesssim \frac{N^2}{C^2}.$$
Define the set of points $$P=\bigcup_{t\in T_C}\{t\}\times(A+tA)$$ and the set of lines $$\cL=\{(z,a+za')_{z\in \C}: a,a'\in A\}$$ in $\C^2$. Each line in $\cL$ contains $r=|T_C|$ points from $P$. So by using Theorem \[thm-r-richlines-2dimensions\], we have $$|\cL|\le K\left(\frac{|P|^2}{r^3}+\frac{|P|}{r}\right)$$ where $K$ is some absolute constant. By construction, $|P|\le |T_C|N^2/C=rN^2/C$ and $|\cL|=N^2$. So $$\frac{N^2}{K}\le \frac{N^4}{rC^2}+\frac{N^2}{C}\Rightarrow r\le \frac{2KN^2}{C^2}$$ where we assumed that $C\ge 2K$.
Towards an optimal incidence theorem for points and lines in $\C^d$ {#sec-stronger-thm1}
===================================================================
For $\alpha \ge 1$ and some $1<\ell<d$, by pasting together $r^{d-\ell}/\alpha$ $\ell$-dimensional grids of size $\alpha n/r^{d-\ell}$ each, we get $\gtrsim_d \alpha n^2/r^{d+1}$ $r$-rich lines. This motivates a stronger version of Conjecture \[conj-rich\].
\[conj-stronger\] Suppose $V \subset \C^d$ is a set of $n$ points and let $\alpha\ge 1$. For $r\ge 2$, if $$|\cL_r(V)| \gg_d \alpha\frac{n^2}{r^{d+1}}+\frac{n}{r},$$ then there is an integer $\ell$ such that $1<\ell<d$ and a subset $V' \subset V$ of size $ \gtrsim_d \alpha n/r^{d-\ell}$ which is contained in an $\ell$-flat.
The above conjecture is equivalent to the following conjecture.
\[conj-equivalent-formulation\] Given a set $V$ of $n$ points in $\C^d$, let $s_\ell$ denote the maximum number of points of $V$ contained in an $\ell$-flat. Then for $r\ge 2$, $$|\L_r(V)|\lesssim_d \frac{n^2}{r^{d+1}}+n\sum_{\ell=2}^{d-1}\frac{s_\ell}{r^{\ell+1}}+\frac{n}{r}.$$
\[conj-equivalent-formulation\] $\Rightarrow$ \[conj-stronger\] is trivial. To show the other direction, if $$|\cL_r(V)| \lesssim_d \frac{n^2}{r^{d+1}}+\frac{n}{r},$$ we are done. Else, let $$|\cL_r(V)| = C_d\left( \alpha\frac{n^2}{r^{d+1}}+\frac{n}{r}\right)$$ for some $\alpha\ge 1$ and some $C_d\gg_d 1$. By \[conj-stronger\], for some $1<\ell<d$, we have $s_\ell \gtrsim_d \alpha n/r^{d-\ell}$. So we have $$|\cL_r(V)| \lesssim_d \left( \frac{ns_\ell}{r^{\ell+1}}+\frac{n}{r}\right).$$ This implies \[conj-equivalent-formulation\].
Note that Theorem \[thm-manyrichlines-equiv\] and thus Theorem \[thm-manyrichlines\], trivially follow from Conjecture \[conj-equivalent-formulation\] by observing that $s_{d-1}\ge s_{d-2}\ge \cdots \ge s_1 \ge r$. Conjecture \[conj-equivalent-formulation\], if true, can be used to give an optimal bound on incidences between points and lines in $\C^d$ in terms of $s_\ell$’s by standard arguments.
For $d=2$, Conjecture \[conj-equivalent-formulation\] is exactly Theorem \[thm-r-richlines-2dimensions\]. Using the incidence bounds of [@GK10] and [@SS14] we can prove Conjecture \[conj-equivalent-formulation\] for $\R^3$ and ‘almost’ prove it for $\R^4$ (these are stated as Theorem \[thm-conj-d=3\] and Theorem \[thm-conj-d=4\] respectively). As already discussed, it is possible that one needs to weaken Conjecture \[conj-equivalent-formulation\] so that $s_\ell$ is the maximum number of points in an $\ell$-dimensional hypersurface of constant degree (possibly depending on $\ell$).
For completeness, we include in this section a short derivation of Theorems \[thm-conj-d=3\] and \[thm-conj-d=4\] from the incidence bounds of [@GK10] and [@SS14] which we now state.
\[thm-incidencesinR3\] Let $V$ be a set of $n$ points and $\L$ be a set of $m$ lines in $\R^3$. Let $q_2$ be the maximum number of lines in a hyperplane (2-flat). Then, $$|I(V,\L)|\lesssim n^{1/2}m^{3/4}+n^{2/3}m^{1/3}q_2^{1/3}+n+m.$$
\[thm-incidencesinR4\] Let $V$ be a set of $n$ points and $\L$ be a set of $m$ lines in $\R^4$. Let $q_3$ be the maximum number of lines of $\L$ contained in a quadric hypersurface or a hyperplane and $q_2$ be the maximum number of lines of $\L$ contained in a 2-flat. Then, $$|I(V,\L)|\lesssim 2^{c\sqrt{\log n}}\left(n^{2/5}m^{4/5}+n\right)+n^{1/2}m^{1/2}q_3^{1/4}+n^{2/3}m^{1/3}q_2^{1/3}+m$$ for some absolute constant $c$.
Let $\L=\L_r(V)$ be the set of $r$-rich lines and let $|\L|=m$. Let $q_2$ be the maximum number of lines of $\L$ contained in a hyperplane. By Theorem \[thm-incidencesinR3\], $$rm\le |I(V,\L)|\lesssim n^{1/2}m^{3/4}+n^{2/3}m^{1/3}q_2^{1/3}+n+m.$$ From this it follows that $$m \lesssim \frac{n^2}{r^4}+\frac{nq_2^{1/2}}{r^{3/2}}+\frac{n}{r}.$$ Now we will upper bound $q_2$. Let $\L'\subset \L$ be a set of $q_2$ lines contained in some hyperplane $H$ and let $V'=V\cap H$. We know that $|V'|\le s_2$. By applying Theorem \[thm-r-richlines-2dimensions\] to $\L',V'$ in $H$, we get $$q_2=|\L'|\lesssim \frac{|V'|^2}{r^3}+\frac{|V'|}{r} \le \frac{s_2^2}{r^3}+\frac{s_2}{r}\Rightarrow q_2^{1/2}\lesssim \frac{s_2}{r^{3/2}}+\frac{s_2^{1/2}}{r^{1/2}}.$$ Using this bound on $q_2$ we get, $$m\lesssim \frac{n^2}{r^4}+\frac{ns_2}{r^3}+\frac{ns_2^{1/2}}{r^2}+\frac{n}{r}\lesssim \frac{n^2}{r^4}+\frac{ns_2}{r^3}+\frac{n}{r}$$ where in the last step we used AM-GM inequality.
In this proof $c$ represents some absolute constant which can vary from step to step. Let $\L=\L_r(V)$ be the set of $r$-rich lines and let $|\L|=m$. Let $q_3$ be the maximum number of lines of $\L$ contained in a quadric hypersurface or a hyperplane and $q_2$ be the maximum number of lines of $\L$ contained in a 2-flat. By Theorem \[thm-incidencesinR4\], $$rm\le |I(V,\L)|\lesssim 2^{c\sqrt{\log n}}\left(n^{2/5}m^{4/5}+n\right)+n^{1/2}m^{1/2}q_3^{1/4}+n^{2/3}m^{1/3}q_2^{1/3}+m$$. From this it follows that $$\label{eq-thm-conj-d=4}
m\lesssim 2^{c\sqrt{\log n}}\left(\frac{n^2}{r^5}+\frac{n}{r}\right)+\frac{nq_3^{1/2}}{r^2}+\frac{nq_2^{1/2}}{r^{3/2}}.$$ By applying Theorem \[thm-r-richlines-2dimensions\] to the collection of $q_2$ lines contained in a 2-flat, we get $$q_2\lesssim\frac{s_2^2}{r^{3}}+\frac{s_2}{r}.$$ Now we will upper bound $q_3$. Let $\L'\subset \L$ be a set of $q_3$ lines contained in some quadric or hyperplane $Q$ and let $V'=V\cap Q$. We know that $|V'|\le s_3$. By applying Theorem \[thm-incidencesinR4\] again to $\L',V'$, we get $$rq_3\le |I(V',\L')| \lesssim 2^{c\sqrt{\log s_3}}\left(s_3^{2/5}q_3^{4/5}+s_3\right)+s_3^{1/2}q_3^{3/4}+s_3^{2/3}q_3^{1/3}q_2^{1/3}+q_3$$ $$\Rightarrow q_3\lesssim 2^{c\sqrt{\log s_3}}\cdot \left(\frac{s_3^2}{r^5}+\frac{s_3}{r}\right)+\frac{s_3^2}{r^4}+\frac{s_3q_2^{1/2}}{r^{3/2}}.$$ Substituting these bounds on $q_3,q_2$ in Eq. \[eq-thm-conj-d=4\] and using AM-GM inequality a few times gives $$m\lesssim2^{c\sqrt{\log n}}\left(\frac{n^2}{r^5}+\frac{n}{r}\right)+\frac{ns_3}{r^4}\left(1+\frac{2^{c\sqrt{\log s_3}}}{r^{1/2}}\right)+\frac{ns_2}{r^3} \lesssim 2^{c\sqrt{\log n}}\left(\frac{n^2}{r^5}+\frac{ns_3}{r^4}+\frac{ns_2}{r^3}+\frac{n}{r}\right).$$
[^1]: Department of Computer Science and Department of Mathematics, Princeton University. Email: `[email protected]`.
[^2]: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University. Email: `[email protected]`.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we present a pseudospectral method in the disk. Unlike the methods known until now, the disk is not duplicated. Moreover, we solve the Laplace equation subjected to nonhomogeneous Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin boundary conditions and the biharmonic equation subjected to nonhomogeneous Dirichlet conditions by only using the elements of the corresponding differentiation matrices. It is worth noting that we don not use any quadrature, do not need to solve any decoupled system of ordinary differential equations, do not use any pole condition and do not require any lifting. We solve several numerical examples showing that the spectral convergence is being met. The pseudospectral method developed in this paper can be applied to estimate Sherwood numbers integrating the mass flux to the disk and it can be easily implemented to solve Lotka-Volterra systems and nonlinear problems involving chemical reactions.'
author:
- |
Marcela Molina-Meyer$^{1}$, Frank Richard Prieto Medina\
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Departamento de Matemáticas\
Avenida de la Universidad 30, 28911, Leganés, Spain
title: '**Polar differentiation matrices for the Laplace equation in the disk subjected to nonhomogeneous Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin boundary conditions and the biharmonic equation subjected to nonhomogeneous Dirichlet conditions** '
---
*Keywords*: Nonhomogeneous Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin boundary conditions. Laplace equation. Biharmonic equation. Differentiation matrices. Chebyshev Fourier collocation points. Nonlinear problems.
Introduction
============
The Laplace operator is widely used in mathematical models of macroscopic chemotaxis, hydrodynamic, semiconductors, mass transfer, growth of species or in the research and development of new acoustic and optical instruments. See [@markovich] and [@metas]. Concurrently, the biharmonic operator is present in mathematical models of elasticity, such as the flexure of thin plates, or in the dynamics of bio-fluids, such as arterial blood flows. See [@HughesMarsden], [@Sweers] and [@Selvaduarai]. In electrochemical experiments, the diffusion coefficient is determine using a rotating disk electrode tecnique by measuring Sherwood numbers, [@Igor]. The pseudospectral method developed in this paper can be applied to estimate Sherwood numbers integrating the mass flux to the disk, [@rotatingdisk] and [@Igor]. Moreover, it can be implemented to solve Lotka Volterra systems, [@JLGMMM], and nonlinear problems involving chemical reactions, [@finlayson].
Sometimes, as in [@JLGEDM], [@Rosa] , [@JLGMMM], [@JLGMMMiso], [@Hsu], [@JLGMMMTELL] and [@LGMMR] the simulations of solutions of some non-linear equations and non-linear systems allow us to conjecture open problems. In fact more realistic mathematical models, of engineering problems, ecological and biological phenomena, can be derived by using variable coefficients, nonlinear terms and non-homogeneous boundary conditions. In [@Rosa], [@JLGMMM], [@JLGEDM], [@JLGMMMiso] and [@JLGMMMTELL], Fourier pseudospectral methods are used, and in [@Hsu] and [@LGMMR], Chebyshev pseudospectral methods are applied. Very recently, [@young] reviewed the treatment of boundary conditions involving fluxes in orthogonal collocation methods. Although one dimensional domains are considered in all these papers.
Nowadays it is necessary to develop efficient and accurate numerical methods to finely analyze the behavior of some non-radially symmetric solutions of two dimensional linear and non-linear equations involving the Laplace and the biharmonic operators. In this respect, the differentiation matrices obtained in this paper allow to calculate the numerical solutions in the disk subject to all types of non-homogeneous boundary conditions, whether they are Dirichlet, Neumann or Robin. Moreover, this paper offers all the calculations needed to solve the Laplace and the biharmonic nonhomogeneous equations by only using the elements of the differentiation matrices.
Unfortunately, the methods used in [@BernardidiscoNavier], [@BernardidiscoLaplace], [@shen1], [@shen2] [@Treflibro], [@Forpolar], [@HWK] and [@Towsendolver] can only be applied in case of homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions. All this papers propose to use a lifting in case of nonhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions. In fact, none of these references solve problems subject to Neumann or Robin boundary conditions. Using a lifting has many disadvantages, it is necessary to calculate it beforehand because it is needed to reformulate the original problem, it implies that certain conditions of smoothness on the boundary conditions must be assumed and in the case of having boundary conditions provided by a table, these data must first be interpolated. Hence, using a lifting significantly increases the computational cost. However, the pseudo-spectral method presented in this paper require no lifting as we compute the polar differentiation matrices differentiating the interpolation polynomial in the disk that satisfies the nonhomogeneous boundary conditions. In conclusion, our method is a direct method with lower computational cost.
Furthermore, collocation methods are well known because of their advantages: they are direct and easy to implement and in the case of Chebyshev Gauss Lobatto (CGL) collocation points, if the data are sufficiently smooth, the approximate solution has spectral accuracy. In [@R], [@CMAT], [@QV], [@Shenlibro] and [@CY] the convergence and stability of the collocation method are demonstrated in cases where the discrete bilinear form is exact and the collocation method matches a Galerkin method.
In fact, in [@Towsendolver] and [@DriscollHale] to incorporate the boundary conditions some rows of the matrix obtained by the Tau method are removed. Unfortunately, excluding rows eliminates some projections of the best approximation whose consequence could be a drastic undesired change in the numerical solution. In addition, in [@DriscollHale] the interpolation polynomial of CGL points (extrema of the first-kind Chebyshev polynomial) satisfies the boundary conditions, but the equation is asked to be satisfied in a Chebyshev Gauss grid (roots of the first-kind Chebyshev polynomial) of a lower order. Therefore, the resulting differentiation matrices are rectangular and do not correspond to any discrete Galerkin method. Moreover, a fictitious point outside the domain is also introduced in [@For] resulting in an unstable method according to [@DriscollHale].
In this paper, we propose a method that does not require any pole condition. Unfotunately, [@shen1], [@shen2] [@HWK] and [@Towsendwright] apply a Fourier Galerkin method which results in a decoupled system of boundary value problems where pole conditions need to be imposed. In particular, [@HWK] uses a collocation method for each boundary value problem.
Nevertheless, in [@Towsendwright] the Fourier Chebyshev spectral method is applied in a rectangular domain that corresponds to repeating the disk twice and the solution should finally be restricted to the sector of the rectangle that corresponds to the positive radii. In [@BayonaFonberg] are considered fictitious points outside the disk, but the equation must be satisfied on the boundary what distorts the original problem. Many times the solution does not have the sufficient regularity on the boundary to be able to apply the operator of partial differential equations. Moreover, in [@Trefftz] and [@CY] as a consequence of applying Gaussian quadrature, two separated sets of weights are required, one in the interior of the domain and one on the boundary.
Even more, the importance of the polar differentiation matrices could be inferred from the commentary ”[*One needs a Fourier Galerkin-Chebyshev collocation method*]{} ” in Section 3.9 of [@CMAT]. To deduce them, we first derived the trigonometric polynomial corresponding to each concentric circle of radius equal the CGL positive points. Then, using Corollary 1.47 and Theorem 1.4.2 in [@Stenger], due to the smoothness of the solution and the properties of Dirichlet kernel, we proved that the above interpolation polynomial coincides with the approximate solution proposed in [@WD]. Thereof, following the former results of polar sampling in [@Stark] and in [@libro1], we obtained the positive CGL points in the radial coordinate. At this time, it should be noted that considering only positive radii is not an original idea of [@Forpolar], but to [@Marvasti].
Now, to start with the Laplace and biharmonic polar differentiation matrices we introduce the collocation points in the disk
$$\label{puntoscolocacion}
(r_k,\theta_l)= \left(R \,cos ( \dfrac{(k-1) \> \pi}{N_r}), \dfrac{2\pi \> l }{N_{\theta}} \right), \quad 1 \leq k \leq \frac{N_r+1}{2} , \quad 1 \leq l \leq {N_{\theta}}.$$
Thereupon, from the symmetry property $$\label{simetria}
u (r_{N_r+2-i},\theta_j)= u(r_i,\theta_{j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}), \quad 1 \leq j \leq \frac {N_{\theta}}{2}, \quad 1 \leq i \leq \frac{N_r+1}{2},$$ defined in [@Marvasti], we obtain the interpolation polynomial in the disk $$\begin{aligned}
\label{numeincogintro}
u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r,\theta) & = & \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left[ S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta-\theta_l) L_k(r) + S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}) L_{N_r+2-k}(r) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{k,l}=u(r_k,\theta_l)$, $
S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta) = \dfrac{sin\left( \dfrac{N_{\theta} \theta}{2}\right)}{N_{\theta}\, tan\left( \dfrac{\theta}{2}\right)}$ and $L_k$’s are the corresponding Lagrange polynomials. In particular, $N_{r}$ must be an odd number to avoid the origin being a collocation point and $N_{\theta}$ must be an even number to be able to apply the properties of the Dirichlet kernel. Specifically, the existence and uniqueness of Fourier Chebyshev interpolation polynomials in the disk were first proved in [@Blending] and [@shen1]. According to the information at our disposal, the expression (\[numeincogintro\]) of the interpolation polynomial in the disk has been obtained for the first time in this paper. Concretely, we obtained the interpolation polynomial in the disk with a total of ${\frac {N_r+1} 2} \times N_\theta$ unknown coefficients, corresponding to the values of the numerical solution in the collocation points defined in . Unlike the methods known so far, the disk is not duplicated. We should note here that the first ideas on polar differentiation matrices were developed in [@TFMFrank].
Thereupon to obtain polar differentiation matrices we proceeded in five steps. First, we imposed that $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r,\theta)$ satisfies the boundary conditions. Second, we cleared from the equations obtained above, in the case of the Laplace equation, all the values of $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r,\theta)$ on the boundary and, in the case of the biharmonic equation, all the values of the two outer circles. Third, we substituted all these boundary values in . Fourth, we applied the Laplace and biharmonic operators in the remaining interior collocation points, respectively. And finally, we developed both operations on block matrices and Kronecker products obtaining a smaller and less ill conditioned system.
Moreover, the deduced linear systems have smaller effective condition numbers, see [@Trefftz]. In particular, a finite difference preconditioner for a Fourier-Chebyshev collocation method was developed in [@WD], even though in our case it is not indispensable to use a preconditioner as the numerical solutions achieve rapid or spectral convergence. Note that there is no preconditioner used in [@Weideman], [@JLGEDM], [@Treflibro], [@For] or [@Hsu].
Remarkably, even though there exists no explicit solution for the cases of piece-wise constant boundary conditions of the Laplace equation in the disk, we can accurately calculate the numerical solution and its convergence can be checked using Poisson’s formula. Moreover, despite the fact that there is also no explicit solution of the biharmonic equation in the disk for piecewise constant boundary conditions, to use the Green Function in [@Sweers] could provide an interesting test to verify the convergence of the numerical solution.
It is noteworthy, that this paper provides a finite rank approximation of the resolvent operator associated with each boundary value problem whenever the collocation method matches with a Galerkin method, see [@Ahues]. Notwithstanding that, this paper does not use any quadrature, it does not need to differentiate between weights on the boundary and the interior of the domain, it does not need to solve any uncoupled system of ordinary differential equations and it does not require any lifting.
So far, no explicit formulas of differentiation matrices associated with one dimensional boundary value problems subjected to nonhomogeneous Neumann or Robin boundary conditions have been published in the literature, [@CY], [@Treflibro], [@For], [@DriscollHale] and [@Trefblock] . In this paper, based on the ideas in [@R], we obtain explicit formulas for these cases. Moreover, through a new approach in which $N+1$ CGL collocation points are used, we solved the biharmonic equation directly, both in an interval and in the disk. In the case of one-dimensional fourth order equations, as there are two conditions at each end point of the interval, we cleared the values of the interpolation polynomial in the points $x_1,x_2,x_N$ and $x_{N+1}$ in terms of the values of the approximate solution at the remaining inner points, obtaining a system of N-3 equations for the N-3 unknowns. Unfortunately, the idea of [@FunaroHein] for homogeneous boundary conditions, that has been widely used in the literature to solve fourth order equations, see [@Muiteref] and [@Treflibro], can not be applied in the case of nonhomogeneous boundary conditions. Note that liftings are used in [@Weideman]. Moreover, for the biharmonic equation if CGL collocation points are considered, the continuous bilinear form is not equal anymore to the discrete bilinear form, which forces in [@CY] and [@FunaroHein] to choose as collocation points the zeros of the second derivative of the Chebyshev polynomial of order $N$.
Finally to show how to use differentiation matrices in different types of problems, linear and non-linear, of second or fourth order, in an interval or in a disk, in each section we have included illustrative numerical examples of each case, all of them showing rapid or exponential convergence.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 is concerned with second order one dimensional equations subjected to Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin nonhomogeneous boundary conditions and fourth order one dimensional equations subjected to Dirichlet nonhomogeneous boundary conditions. In Section 3, a detailed deduction of the interpolation polynomial in the disk is given, the Laplace differentiation matrices in polar coordinates are deduced and calculated, using Kronecker products and operations by blocks, for each nonhomogeneous Laplace equation, subjected to Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin nonhomogeneous conditions on the boundary. Lastly, the differentiation matrix for the nonhomogeneous biharmonic equation in the disk is thoroughly deduced and calculated.
Differentiation matrices in one dimension {#1dimension}
=========================================
To describe our further results, we require some preliminaries about differentiation matrices. First, we consider the CGL nodes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CGL}
y_i = cos \left( \dfrac{(i-1) \> \pi}{N}\right), & & i=1,...,N+1.\end{aligned}$$ as well as its related Lagrange polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lag}
\widehat{L}_i(y)=\prod_{\substack{k=1 \\ k \neq i}}^{N+1} \left( \dfrac{y-y_k}{y_i-y_k}\right)
& & i=1,...,N+1.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we use (\[CGL\]), we change the variables $$\begin{aligned}
\label{malladonuevo}
x = \dfrac{(b-a)\> y + b+a}{2}, \end{aligned}$$ and we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{malladonuevo2}
x_i = \dfrac{(b-a)\> y_i + b+a}{2}, & & i=1,...,N+1, \end{aligned}$$ which yields to the following Lagrange polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
L_i(x)=L_i\left(\dfrac{(b-a)\> y + b+a}{2}\right)= \widehat{L}_i(y). &&\end{aligned}$$
Thereupon, we consider the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{problemaunidimensional}
\dfrac{d^{\gamma}u}{dx^{\gamma}} + F(x,u) = 0, & x\in(a,b),\end{aligned}$$
whose suitable regular solution $u : [a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ might satisfy either Dirichlet, Neumann or Robin homogeneous or nonhomogeneous boundary conditions. In particular, $F(x,u)$ might be a linear or a non linear function and the index $\gamma$ might be either 2 or 4. It is the purpose of this article to approximate the solution of (\[problemaunidimensional\]) by the interpolation polynomial $P_N(x)$ of $u(x)$ of degree $N$, satisfying $P_N(x_i)=u(x_i), \; i=1,...,N+1.$ Consequently, we define $u_N(x)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PI}
u_N(x) = P_N(x) \coloneqq \sum_{i=1}^{N+1} a_i\> L_i(x).\end{aligned}$$ In this case, $a_i = u(x_i)$, for every $i=1,...,N+1$. We observe that the approximation of the first derivative of $u$ at $x=x_i$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{du}{dx}(x_i) \approx \dfrac{du_N}{dx}(x_i) = \dfrac{dP_N}{dx}(x_i) = \sum_{j=1}^{N+1} a_j\> \dfrac{dL_j}{dx}(x_i) = \left(\dfrac{2}{b-a} \right) \sum_{j=1}^{N+1} a_j\> \dfrac{\widehat{L}_j}{dy}(y_i).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the pseudo-spectral derivative, which we will denote as $D_N$, is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Matrizprimeraderivada}
(D_N)_{i\>j} = \left(\dfrac{2}{b-a}\right) \dfrac{d\widehat{L}_j}{dy}(y_i), & &1\leq i,j \leq N+1.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the $m$-th pseudo-spectral derivative of $u$, denoted by $D_N^{(m)}$, can be computed as $$\begin{aligned}
D_N^{(m)} = D_N^m = \underbrace{D_N \cdot \cdot \cdot D_N}_{m-times}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
D_N^{(2)} = D_N^2, & \hbox{and} & D_N^{(4)} = D_N^4. \end{aligned}$$ In the case $a=-1$ and $b=1$, computationally practical methods for deriving the entries of $D_N$ can be found, for instance, in [@GHO] and in [@GT], where explicit formulas are given.
In next section, we will operate on both matrices $D_N^{(2)}$ and $D_N^{(4)}$ in order to generate new matrices in which each type of boundary condition is incorporated into both of them.
Second order differentiation matrices in one dimension {#s2do}
------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we build second order differentiation matrices enforcing either Dirichlet, Neumann or Robin boundary conditions.
### Nonhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions
Suppose that $u(x)$ satisfies the nonhomogeneous boundary conditions, $u(a)=\alpha$ and $u(b)=\beta$, where $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{R}$. Therefore, $u_N(x_{N+1})=u_N(a)=P_N(a)=u(a)=\alpha$ and $u_N(x_1)=u_N(b)=P_N(b)=u(b)=\beta$. In this case, we approximate the second order derivatives of $u$ at the interior points $x_i$, $i=2,...,N$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d^2 u}{dx^2}(x_i) \, \approx \, \dfrac{d^2 u_N}{dx^2}(x_i) \, = \, \beta \> (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>1} + \sum_{j=2}^{N}(D_N^{(2)})_{i\>j} \> u(x_j) + \alpha \> (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>N+1}.\end{aligned}$$
First, to describe our further results precisely some notation are required: the matrix ${\widehat{D}_D},$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left( {\widehat{D}_D}\right)_{i\>j} \, = \,(D_N^{(2)})_{i+1 \> j+1}, & &\quad 1 \leq i,j \leq N-1
\end{aligned}$$ the vector $\overrightarrow{W_D},$ $$\begin{aligned}
(\overrightarrow{W_D})_i \,= \,\beta \> (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1\>1} + \alpha \> (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1\>N+1}, & & \quad 1 \leq i,j \leq N-1. \end{aligned}$$ and the affine transformation $ T_D : \mathbb{R}^{N-1} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N-1}$ $$\begin{aligned}
T_D (\vec{u}_{N-1} ) \, = \, {\widehat{D}_D} \> \vec{u}_{N-1} + \overrightarrow{W_D},\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{u}_{N-1}=(u(x_2),...,u(x_N))$, which discretizes the second order derivative on $(a,b)$ subjected to Dirichlet conditions.
### Nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary conditions
Consecutively, if we enforce $u'(a) = \alpha$ and $u'(b)=\beta$, the values of $u_N(a)$ and $u_N(b)$ can be obtained from $\dfrac{du_N}{dx}(x_1)= \beta$, $\dfrac{du_N}{dx}(x_{N+1})= \alpha$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sistema1}
\left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> 1} & (D_N)_{N+1 \> N+1}\\
(D_N)_{1 \> 1} & (D_N)_{1 \> N+1}
\end{array}\right) \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
u(x_1) \\ u(x_{N+1}) \end{array}\right) & = & \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right) - \sum_{j=2}^{N} \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> j} \\ (D_N)_{1 \> j} \end{array}\right) \> u(x_j).\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if we introduce the notation $$\begin{aligned}
Q = \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> 1} & (D_N)_{N+1 \> N+1}\\
(D_N)_{1 \> 1} & (D_N)_{1 \> N+1}
\end{array}\right), & H= \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
\alpha \\ \beta \end{array}\right), & \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
G_j = \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> j} \\ (D_N)_{1 \> j} \end{array}\right), & j=2, \cdots, N, \end{aligned}$$ the formula (\[sistema1\]) can be rewritten as: $$\label{FMsistema1}
Q \> \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
u(x_1) \\ u(x_{N+1}) \end{array}\right) = H - \sum_{j=2}^{N} G_j \> u(x_j).$$ Therefore, $$\label{Newmnnrecover}
\left( \begin{array}{cllll}
u(x_1) \\ u(x_{N+1}) \end{array}\right) = Q^{-1}\> H - \sum_{j=2}^{N} Q^{-1}\>G_j \> u(x_j).$$ Particularly, we demonstrate the non singularity of the matrix $Q$ in following proposition.
For each integer $N>1$, the matrix $Q$ is nonsingular.
Note that $$det(Q) = \dfrac{(2N^2+1)^2-9}{9(b-a)^2}.$$ Hence, $det(Q)\neq 0$ for each integer $N>1$.
Consequently, using (\[Newmnnrecover\]), the pseudo spectral approximation of the second derivative of $u$ at the interior points $x=x_i$ is given by $$\begin{split}
\dfrac{d^2u}{dx^2}(x_i) & \approx \dfrac{d^2 u_N}{dx^2}(x_i) \, = \sum_{j=2}^{N} \left( (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>j} - (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>1} F_{1}^{Q^{-1}G_j} - (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>N+1} F_{2}^{Q^{-1}G_j} \right) \> u(x_j) \\ &\quad + (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>1} F_{1}^{Q^{-1}H} + (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>N+1} F_{2}^{Q^{-1}H}, \>\>\>\>\> i=2,...,N.
\end{split}$$ Here, $F_i^A$ stands for the $i$-th row of the matrix $A$. Therefore, we define the matrix $\widehat{D}_{Ne}$ and the vector $\overrightarrow{W_{Ne}}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
(\widehat{D}_{Ne})_{i \> j} = (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1\>j+1} - (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1\>1} F_{1}^{Q^{-1}G_{j+1}} - (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1\>N+1} F_{2}^{Q^{-1}G_{j+1}}, \quad 1\leq i,j \leq N-1\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(\overrightarrow{W_{Ne}})_i & = & F_{1}^{Q^{-1}H} \> (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1 \> 1} + F_{2}^{Q^{-1}H} \> (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1 \> N+1}, \quad 1\leq i \leq N-1, \end{aligned}$$
which allows us to define the discretization of the second order derivative on $(a, b)$ subjected to Neumann conditions through the affine transformation $T_{Ne} : \mathbb{R}^{N-1} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N-1},$ $$\begin{aligned}
T_{Ne}(\vec{u}_{N-1}) & = & \widehat{D}_{Ne} \>\vec{u}_{N-1} + \overrightarrow{W_{Ne}},\end{aligned}$$ being $\vec{u}_{N-1}=(u(x_2),...,u(x_N))$.
### Nonhomogeneous Robin boundary conditions
Hereunder, we suppose that $$\label{robincond}
\left\{\begin{array}{clllll}
\alpha u(a) - \beta u'(a) = g_1\\
\alpha u(b) + \beta u'(b) = g_2,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\alpha, \beta , g_1, g_2 \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\alpha \beta > 0$. Therefore, the values $u_N(x_{N+1})=u_N(a)$ and $u_N(x_1)=u_N(b)$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sistema2}
\left( \begin{array}{cllll}
-\beta (D_N)_{N+1 \> 1} & \alpha-\beta (D_N)_{N+1 \> N+1}\\
\alpha + \beta (D_N)_{1 \> 1} & \beta (D_N)_{1 \> N+1}
\end{array}\right) \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
u(x_1) \\ u(x_{N+1}) \end{array}\right) = \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
g_1 \\ g_2 \end{array}\right) - \sum_{j=2}^{N} \beta \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
-(D_N)_{N+1 \> j} \\ (D_N)_{1 \> j} \end{array}\right) \> u(x_j).\end{aligned}$$ Thereupon, if we set $$\begin{aligned}
Q_R =\left( \begin{array}{cllll}
-\beta (D_N)_{N+1 \> 1} & \alpha-\beta (D_N)_{N+1 \> N+1}\\
\alpha + \beta (D_N)_{1 \> 1} & \beta (D_N)_{1 \> N+1}
\end{array}\right) , & H_R= \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
g_1 \\ g_2 \end{array}\right), & \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
G_{R,j} = \beta \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
-(D_N)_{N+1 \> j} \\ (D_N)_{1 \> j} \end{array}\right) \quad j=2,...,N,\end{aligned}$$ the formula (\[sistema2\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{FMsistema2}
Q_R \> \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
u(x_1) \\ u(x_{N+1}) \end{array}\right) = H_R - \sum_{j=2}^{N} G_{R,j} \> u(x_j).$$
Thus, $$\label{Robinrecover}
\left( \begin{array}{cllll}
u(x_1) \\ u(x_{N+1}) \end{array}\right) = Q_R^{-1}\> H_R - \sum_{j=2}^{N} Q_R^{-1}\>G_{R,j} \> u(x_j).$$ The invertibility of the matrix $Q_R$ is guaranteed thanks to the following proposition.
For each integer $N>1$, the matrix $Q_R$ is nonsingular.
(Proof by contradiction)
We observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{detrobin}
det(Q_R) & = & \dfrac{9\beta^2-[3\alpha(b-a)+\beta(2N^2+1)]^2}{9(b-a)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if $det(Q_R)=0$ for some integer $N_0>1$ yields $$3\alpha (b-a) + \beta (2N_0^2+1)= \pm 3|\beta|.$$ Nevertheless, the above equality does not hold because $\alpha \beta >0$. Thus $det(Q_R) \neq 0$ for each integer $N>1$.
As we have argued in the previous sections and using (\[Robinrecover\]), we can approximate the second derivative of $u$ at the interior points as: $$\begin{split}
\dfrac{d^2u}{dx^2}(x_i) &\approx \dfrac{d^2u_N}{dx^2}(x_i) = \sum_{j=2}^{N} \left( (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>j} - (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>1} F_{1}^{Q_R^{-1}G_{R,j}} - (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>N+1} F_{2}^{Q_R^{-1}G_{R,j}} \right) \> u(x_j)\\ &\quad + (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>1} F_{1}^{Q_R^{-1}H_R} + (D_N^{(2)})_{i\>N+1} F_{2}^{Q_R^{-1}H_R}, \quad \quad 2\leq i \leq N.
\end{split}$$
Consequently, we define the matrix $\widehat{D}_{R}$ and the vector $\overrightarrow{W_R}$ whose entries are: $$\begin{aligned}
(\widehat{D}_{R})_{i \> j} = (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1\>j+1} - (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1\>1} F_{1}^{Q_R^{-1}G_{R,j+1}} - (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1\>N+1} F_{2}^{Q_R^{-1}G_{R,j+1}}, \quad 1 \leq i,j \leq N-1 \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(\overrightarrow{W_R})_i& = & F_{1}^{Q_R^{-1}H_R} \> (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1 \> 1} + F_{2}^{Q_R^{-1}H_R} \> (D_N^{(2)})_{i+1 \> N+1}, \quad 1 \leq i \leq N-1.\end{aligned}$$
Lastly, we discretize the second order derivative on $(a, b)$ subjected to Robin conditions through the affine transformation $T_{R} : \mathbb{R}^{N-1} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N-1}$ defined by $$T_{R} (\vec{u}_{N-1}) = \widehat{D}_{R} \> \vec{u}_{N-1} + \overrightarrow{W_R},$$ being $\vec{u}_{N-1}=(u(x_2),...,u(x_N))$.
Fourth order differentiation matrix in one dimension {#s4to}
----------------------------------------------------
In this section, the previous ideas are extended in order to discretize the biharmonic problem. In this case, we suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fronteracuartoorden}
u(a)=\alpha_1, \; u(b)=\beta_1, \; u'(a)=\alpha_2 \; \hbox{ and } \; u'(b)=\beta_2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if we assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fronteracuartoordenN}
u_N(a)=\alpha_1, \; u_N(b)=\beta_1, \; u'_N(a)=\alpha_2 \; \hbox{ and } \; u'_N(b)=\beta_2, \end{aligned}$$ we find that $$\label{sistema3}
\begin{split}
\left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> 2} & (D_N)_{N+1 \> N}\\
(D_N)_{1 \> 2} & (D_N)_{1 \> N}
\end{array}\right) \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
u(x_2) \\ u(x_{N}) \end{array}\right)& = \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
\alpha_2 \\ \beta_2 \end{array}\right) - \beta_1 \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> 1} \\ (D_N)_{1\>1} \end{array}\right) \\ & \quad - \alpha_1 \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \>N+1} \\ (D_N)_{1\>N+1} \end{array}\right)
- \sum_{j=3}^{N-1} \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> j} \\ (D_N)_{1 \> j} \end{array}\right) \> u(x_j).
\end{split}$$ Consequently, if we introduce the notation $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{BH} & = \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> 2} & (D_N)_{N+1 \> N}\\
(D_N)_{1 \> 2} & (D_N)_{1 \> N}
\end{array}\right), \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
G_{BH,j}& = \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> j} \\ (D_N)_{1 \> j} \end{array}\right), \quad j=3,...,N-1, \\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
H_{BH} & = & \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
\alpha_2 \\ \beta_2 \end{array}\right) - \beta_1 \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \> 1} \\ (D_N)_{1\>1} \end{array}\right) - \alpha_1 \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
(D_N)_{N+1 \>N+1} \\ (D_N)_{1\>N+1}.\end{array}\right), \end{aligned}$$ we can rewrite the formula (\[sistema3\]) as $$\label{FMsistema3}
Q_{BH} \> \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
u(x_2) \\ u(x_{N}) \end{array}\right) = H_{BH} - \sum_{j=3}^{N-1} G_{BH,j} \> u(x_j),$$ which implies that $$\label{BArecover}
\left( \begin{array}{cllll}
u(x_2) \\ u(x_{N}) \end{array}\right) = Q_{BH}^{-1}\> H_{BH} - \sum_{j=3}^{N-1} Q_{BH}^{-1}\>G_{BH,j} \> u(x_j).$$ Therefore, the values of $u_N(x_2)$ and $u_N(x_{N})$ are deduced from .
The following result establishes the invertibility of the matrix $Q_{BH}$.
\[invQBA\] For every integer $N>1$, the matrix $Q_{BH}$ is non singular. Moreover,$$\begin{aligned}
detQ_{BH} = o(N^5) & as & N \uparrow \infty. \end{aligned}$$
The determinant of the matrix $Q_{BH}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
det(Q_{BH}) & = & \dfrac{64cos(\pi/N)}{(b-a)^2sin^4(\pi/N)}. \end{aligned}$$ It is clear that $det(Q_{BH})\neq 0$ for every integer $N>1$.
On the other hand, we can obtain the discretization of the fourth derivative of $u$ at the interior points $x_i$ as follows: $$\begin{split}
\dfrac{d^4u}{dx^4}(x_i) & \approx \dfrac{d^4u_N}{dx^4}(x_i)= \beta_1 (D_N^{(4)})_{i\>1} + \alpha_1 (D_N^{(4)})_{i\>N+1} + (D_N^{(4)})_{i\>2} F_{1}^{Q_{BA}^{-1}H_{BA}} + (D_N^{(4)})_{i\>N} F_{2}^{Q_{BA}^{-1}H_{BA}}\\
& \quad + \sum_{j=3}^{N-1} \left( (D_N^{(4)})_{i\>j} - (D_N^{(4)})_{i\>2} F_{1}^{Q_{BA}^{-1}G_{BA,j}} - (D_N^{(4)})_{i\>N} F_{2}^{Q_{BA}^{-1}G_{BA,j}} \right) \> u(x_j), \>\>\>\>\> i=3,...,N-1.
\end{split}$$
Thereupon, if we introduce the matrix $\widehat{D}_{BA}$ and the vector $\overrightarrow{W_{BA}}$: $$\begin{split}
(\widehat{D}_{BA})_{i \> j} = & (D_N^{(4)})_{i+2\>j+2} - (D_N^{(4)})_{i+2\>2} F_{1}^{Q_{BA}^{-1}G_{BA,j+2}} \\ & \quad - (D_N^{(4)})_{i+2\>N} F_{2}^{Q_{BA}^{-1}G_{BA,j+2}}, \quad \quad \quad 1\leq i,\>j \leq N-3,
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
( \overrightarrow{W_{BA}})_{i} = & \, \beta_1 (D_N^{(4)})_{i+2\>1} + \alpha_1 (D_N^{(4)})_{i+2\>N+1} + (D_N^{(4)})_{i+2\>2} F_{1}^{Q_{BA}^{-1}H_{BA}} \\
& \quad + (D_N^{(4)})_{i+2\>N} F_{2}^{Q_{BA}^{-1}H_{BA}}, \quad \quad \quad i=1,...,N-3,
\end{split}$$ we can define the affine transformation $T_{BA} : \mathbb{R}^{N-3} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N-3}$ as follows: $$T_{BA} (\vec{u}_{N-3}) =\widehat{D}_{BA} \> \vec{u_{N-3}} + \overrightarrow{W_{BA}},$$ being $$\vec{u}_{N-3}=(u(x_3),...,u(x_{N-1})),$$ which discretizes the fourth order derivative on $(a, b)$ subjected to the boundary conditions .
General discrete formulation of one dimensional problems {#seccionpd}
--------------------------------------------------------
In this section, using the approach given in Section \[s2do\], we will provide an unified general discretization of problem (\[problemaunidimensional\]) for $\gamma=2$. Depending on the type of boundary condition, whether Dirichlet, Neumann or Robin, we write the discretization of (\[problemaunidimensional\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P_2o}
\widehat{D}_{\omega} \,\vec{u} + F(x_2,...,x_N,\vec{u}) + \overrightarrow{W_{\omega}} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{u}=(u(x_2),...,u(x_N))$ and the subscript $\omega \in \{D,Ne,R\}$.
Similarly, using the approach given in Section \[s4to\], we discretize the problem (\[problemaunidimensional\]), for $\gamma=4$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p4o}
\widehat{D}_{BH} \, \overrightarrow{u_{BH}} + F(x_3,...,x_{N-1}, \overrightarrow{u_{BH}}) + \overrightarrow{W_{BH}} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ being $\overrightarrow{u_{BH}} = (u(x_3),...,u(x_{N-1}))$.
We observe that there are $N-1$ unknowns in the problem , while problem has $N-3$ unknowns. Moreover, in case that the function $F$ in (\[problemaunidimensional\]) is linear in the variable $u$, both linear systems and can be solved isolating the unknowns. Notwithstanding, if $F$ is a non linear function in the variable $u$, the Newton method has to be used to approximate the value of the unknowns in (\[P\_2o\]) and in (\[p4o\]), respectively. Finally, the Table \[appsol\] summarizes how to compute the coefficients $a_i$’s for different types of boundary conditions.
\[h\]
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
\
Boundary conditions & Coefficients $a_i$ & Solution’s boundary values\
Nonhomogeneous Dirichlet & $(\beta,u(x_2),...,u(x_N),\alpha)$ & $u(x_1)=\beta$ and $u(x_{N+1})=\alpha$\
$\gamma=2$ & &\
Nonhomogeneous Neumann & $(u(x_1),u(x_2),...,u(x_N),u(x_{N+1}))$ & $u(x_1)$ and $u(x_{N+1})$ are\
$\gamma=2$& & computed through (\[Newmnnrecover\]).\
Nonhomogeneous Robin & $(u(x_1),u(x_2),...,u(x_N),u(x_{N+1}))$ & $u(x_1)$ and $u(x_{N+1})$ are\
$\gamma=2$& & computed through (\[Robinrecover\]).\
Nonhomogeneous Dirichlet & $(\beta_1,u(x_2),u(x_3),...,u(x_{N-1}),u(x_N),\alpha_1)$ & $u(x_1)=\beta_1$, $u(x_{N+1})=\alpha_1$,\
biharmonic equation & & $u(x_2)$ and $u(x_{N})$ are\
$\gamma=4$ & & computed in (\[BArecover\]).\
Solving nonhomogeneous one dimensional problems
-----------------------------------------------
As an application of discretization, in (\[P\_2o\]) and (\[p4o\]), four examples are solved: a nonhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary value problem, a non linear Neumann boundary value problem, a Robin boundary value problem and a fourth order boundary value problem.
Let $$\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll} \label{ejnum1}
\dfrac{d^2u}{dx^2} & = -\dfrac{12p(2x-1)}{(p+(2x-1)^2)^{5/2}}, & x \in (0,1)\\
u(0) & = 1 &\\
u(1)& = 0. &
\end{array}\right.$$ The exact solution of (\[ejnum1\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
u(x) = \dfrac{2x-1}{\sqrt{p+(2x-1)^2}} -
\dfrac{(2\sqrt{p+1}+p+1)(2x-1)}{2(p+1)}.\end{aligned}$$
The left half of Figure \[ej1\] shows a plot of $u_{500}(x)$ in the case $p=10^{-3}$, and the right half, shows a plot of the corresponding absolute error. The Table \[tabla1\] collects the $L_2$ and $L_{\infty}$ errors from [@LGBM] and the error obtained by using the method proposed in this paper which is substantially smaller than the corresponding ones for other known methods.
\[h\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![ [ (Left) The numerical solution $u_{500}(x)$ of the BVP (\[ejnum1\]) for $p=10^{-3}$. (Right) The absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="ejemplodirichlet"}](D1.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![ [ (Left) The numerical solution $u_{500}(x)$ of the BVP (\[ejnum1\]) for $p=10^{-3}$. (Right) The absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="ejemplodirichlet"}](D3.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
\[ej1\]
\[h\]
---------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- --------------- ------------------------ -- -- -- -- -- --
Norm Shooting Finite Finite Discontinuous One dimensional
method difference Element Galerkin differentiation matrix
$||\cdot ||_2$ 1.76e-004 9.04e-006 1.75e-004 1.75e-004 1.66e-008
$||\cdot||_{\infty}$ 2.14e-006 1.15e-003 1.43e-006 1.43e-006 5.64e-009
---------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- --------------- ------------------------ -- -- -- -- -- --
: [Errors obtained by taking a grid of 501 collocation points (N=500). The numerical simulations using shooting, finite difference, finite element and discontinuous Galerkin method have been computed in [@LGBM]. ]{} []{data-label="tabla1"}
Let $$\label{n1dexp}
\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll}
\dfrac{d^2u}{dx^2} & = -e^{-2u} & x\in(0,1)\\
u_x(0) & =1 &\\
u_x(1) & =1/2, &
\end{array}\right.$$ The exact solution of (\[n1dexp\]) is $u(x) = log(1+x)$. If we take $N=20$ and we solve the nonlinear system of equations derived from the discretization of (\[n1dexp\]) via Newton Method with a tolerance of $1e-08$, we aill obtain a maximum error of $6.9056e-14$. Thereby, the results obtained in [@PSP] have been enhanced.
The left part of Figure \[ejemploneumann\] shows the $u_{20}(x)$ and, the right part, shows the plot of the corresponding absolute error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
![ [ (Left) Plot of the approximate $u_{20}(x)$ of the BVP (\[n1dexp\]). (Right) Plot of the absolute error. ]{}[]{data-label="ejemploneumann"}](n1dsolution.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![ [ (Left) Plot of the approximate $u_{20}(x)$ of the BVP (\[n1dexp\]). (Right) Plot of the absolute error. ]{}[]{data-label="ejemploneumann"}](n1derror.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
Let $$\label{n1dro}
\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll}
-e^x\>\dfrac{d^2u}{dx^2} & = 15 \,cos(4x)-8 \, sin(4x) & x\in(0,2\pi)\\
u(0)-u_x(0) & =2 &\\
u(2\pi)+u_x(2\pi) & =0. &
\end{array}\right.$$ The exact solution of (\[n1dro\]) is $u(x) = cos(4x) \,e^{-x}$. The left part of Figure \[ejemplorobin\] shows the plot of $u_{200}(x)$ while the right part shows the plot of the absolute. The maximum error obtained in this case is $1.6388e-12$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![ [ (Left) Plot of $u_{200}(x)$ of the BVP (\[n1dro\]). (Right) Plot of the absolute error. ]{}[]{data-label="ejemplorobin"}](Robin1dsolution.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![ [ (Left) Plot of $u_{200}(x)$ of the BVP (\[n1dro\]). (Right) Plot of the absolute error. ]{}[]{data-label="ejemplorobin"}](Robin1derror.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Let $$\label{n1d4or}
\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll}
0.005 \>\dfrac{d^4u}{dx^4} - u & = 10 & x\in(-1,1)\\
u(-1)=u(1) & =0 &\\
u_x(-1)=u_x(1) & =0. &
\end{array}\right.$$ The exact solution of \[n1d4or\] is $$u(x) = \dfrac{10 \,sinh(50) \,cos(50x)\,+\,10\, sin(50)\, cosh(50x)}{cosh(50)\, sin(50)+cos(50) \,sinh(50)}-10.$$ Finally, the left part of Figure \[ejemploBa\] shows a plot of $u_{400}(x)$ for $N=400$. Concurrently, the right part shows a plot of the absolute error. In this case, the maximum error obtained is $1.7163e-07$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![ [ (Left) Plot of $u_{400}(x)$ of the BVP (\[n1d4or\]). (Right) Plot of the absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="ejemploBa"}](Ba1dsolution.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![ [ (Left) Plot of $u_{400}(x)$ of the BVP (\[n1d4or\]). (Right) Plot of the absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="ejemploBa"}](Ba1derror.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Polar differentiation matrices {#2dimensiones}
==============================
In this section, the polar differentiation matrices are defined, for the first time in the literature, giving a substantial leap with the target of incorporating all type of boundary conditions in the differentiation matrices. To begin with, we introduce $u : B_R(0) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, which satisfies both $$\begin{aligned}
\label{problemabidimensional}
\Delta^{\gamma}u + F(x,y,u) = 0, & & (x,y)\in B_R(0) \end{aligned}$$ and certain general boundary conditions where $F$ may be a linear or non linear function. It is worth noting that if $\gamma=1$, we deal with the Laplacian $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(\cdot) = \dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}(\cdot) + \dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}(\cdot),\end{aligned}$$ while if $\gamma=2$, we work with the biharmonic operator $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^2(\cdot) = \dfrac{\partial^4}{\partial x^4}(\cdot) + 2 \dfrac{\partial^4}{\partial x^2 \partial y^2}(\cdot) + \dfrac{\partial^4}{\partial y^4}(\cdot).\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, instead of solving (\[problemabidimensional\]) in $(x,y)$-space, we consider the following change of variables $$\begin{aligned}
x=r\>cos(\theta), & & y=r\>sin(\theta).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if we see the problem (\[problemabidimensional\]) in terms of $r$ and $\theta$, we can rewrite it as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{problemapolar}
\Delta^{\gamma}_{(r,\theta)} u + F(r,\theta,u) = 0 & & (r,\theta) \in [0,R)\times (0,2\pi], \end{aligned}$$ where the Laplace and the biharmonic operators are respectively: $$\begin{split}
\Delta_{(r,\theta)} & \coloneqq \dfrac{\partial^2 }{\partial r^2} + \dfrac{1}{r} \dfrac{\partial }{\partial r} + \dfrac{1}{r^2} \dfrac{\partial^2 }{\partial \theta^2} \\
\\
\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)} & \coloneqq \dfrac{\partial^4 }{\partial r^4} + \dfrac{2}{r^2} \dfrac{\partial^4 }{\partial r^2 \partial \theta^2} + \dfrac{1}{r^4} \dfrac{\partial^4 }{\partial \theta^4} + \dfrac{2}{r} \dfrac{\partial^3 }{\partial r^3} - \dfrac{2}{r^3} \dfrac{\partial^3 }{\partial r \partial \theta^2} - \dfrac{1}{r^2} \dfrac{\partial^2 }{\partial r^2} + \dfrac{4}{r^4} \dfrac{\partial^2 }{\partial \theta^2} + \dfrac{1}{r^3} \dfrac{\partial }{\partial r}.
\end{split}$$ We note that, to avoid dividing by zero in $\Delta_{(r,\theta)}$ and $\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}$, we take $N_r+1$ as the number of discretization points in the $r$-direction, being $N_r$ odd. Moreover, in order to use the symmetry properties in $\theta$, we choose $N_{\theta}$ to be even.
Therefor, we define $$\label{uappr}
u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r,\theta) = \sum_{k=1}^{N_r +1} L_k(r) \> P_k(\theta),$$ where $L_k$’s are the corresponding Lagrange polynomials associated to the nodes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{malladoenr}
r_i = R\> y_i=R \,cos \left( \dfrac{(i-1) \> \pi}{N_r}\right), & & 1\leq i \leq N_r+1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{y_1,...,y_{N_r+1}\}$ are the CGL points, and $$P_k(\theta)=\sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}}a_{k,l} S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta-\theta_l)$$ is the trigonometric interpolants of $u(r_k,\theta)$ at the points $\theta_l$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{malladoentheta}
\theta_l = \dfrac{2\pi \> l }{N_{\theta}}, & & 1\leq l \leq N_{\theta},\end{aligned}$$
and $ S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta)=D_e(N_{\theta}/2, \theta)$ is the Dirichlet kernel. Thereupon, due to the smoothness of $u(r_k,\theta)$, Theorem 1.4.2 and Corollary 1.4.7 in [@Stenger], and $h_\theta = \frac {2 \pi}{N_\theta},$ $$S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta) = \dfrac{sin\left( \dfrac{N_{\theta} \theta}{2}\right)}{N_{\theta} tan\left( \dfrac{\theta}{2}\right)}.$$ We observe that; from we obtain $a_{k,l}=u(r_k,\theta_l)$ for all $1\leq k \leq N_r+1$ and $1 \leq l \leq N_{\theta}$.
On the other hand, $$u (r_{N_r+2-i},\theta_j)= u(r_i,\theta_{j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}), \quad 1 \leq j \leq \frac {N_{\theta}}{2}, \quad 1 \leq i \leq \frac{N_r+1}{2}.$$ Therefore, $$\label{relacioncoef}
a_{N_r+2-i,j}= a_{i,j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}, \quad 1 \leq j \leq \frac {N_{\theta}}{2}, \quad 1 \leq i \leq \frac{N_r+1}{2} .$$ Hence, we can rewrite as follows: $$u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r,\theta) = \sum_{k=1}^{N_r +1} L_k(r) \> \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{\overline{k}=-N_{\theta}/2}^{N_{\theta}/2 \>\>\> \prime}
\hat{a_{k\overline{k}}} \> e^{i\overline{k}\theta} ,$$ where $$\hat{a_{k\overline{k}}} = \frac{1}{N_{\theta}} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \> e^{-i\overline{k}\theta_l}.$$ Furthermore, the prime indicates that the terms $k=\pm N_{\theta}/2$ are multiplied by $1/2$. Henceforth, we approximate the solution of (\[problemapolar\]) by the following sum of finite series $$\begin{aligned}
\label{APPSOL2D}
u(r,\theta) \approx u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}} (r,\theta) = P_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}} (r,\theta)\coloneqq \sum_{k=1}^{N_r+1} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l}\, S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta - \theta_l)\, L_{k}(r). \end{aligned}$$ Finally, if we use (\[relacioncoef\]), we can rewrite $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r,\theta)$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{numeincog}
u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r,\theta) & = & \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left[ S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta-\theta_l) L_k(r) + S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}) L_{N_r+2-k}(r) \right].\end{aligned}$$ From the above formula it is deduced that there are actually $({\frac{N_r+1}{2})N_{\theta}}$ number of unknowns in $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}} (r,\theta)$.
Polar differentiation matrices of the Laplace operator
------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we build the differentiation matrix $D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}$, which discretizes $\Delta_{(r,\theta)}$ in the disk of radius $R$. In order to do this, we consider the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
(D_{N_r}^{(m)})_{i\>j} = \left(\dfrac{1}{R^m}\right) \dfrac{d^m \widehat{L_j}}{dy^m}(y_i), & & 1 \leq i,j \leq N_r+1, \>\>\> m=1,2,3,4,... \end{aligned}$$ and its submatrices defined as $$\begin{aligned}
(D_1^{(m)})_{i \> j} = (D_{N_r}^{(m)})_{i \> j}, \quad (D_2^{(m)})_{i \> j} = (D_{N_r}^{(m)})_{\frac{N_r+1}{2}+i \>\> N_r+2-j} , & & 1 \leq i,j \leq \frac{N_r+1}{2}. \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $D_{N_{\theta}}^{(m)}$ denotes the matrix whose corresponding entries are $$\begin{aligned}
(D_{N_{\theta}}^{(m)})_{k\>l} = \dfrac{d^mS_{N_{\theta}}}{d\theta^m}(\theta_k-\theta_l), \quad 1 \leq k,l \leq N_{\theta}. \end{aligned}$$ We observe that $D_{N_{\theta}}^{(m)}$, unlike $D_{N_r}^{(m)}$, cannot be obtained multiplying $m$-times $D_{N_{\theta}}^{(1)}$.
The next calculations make strong use of (\[numeincog\]), $$\left. \frac{\partial^2 u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial \theta^2}\right|_{(r_i,\theta_j)} = \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left( S''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l) L_k(r_i) + S''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}) L_{N_r+2-k}(r_i) \right)
= \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{i,l} S''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l),$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left. \frac{\partial u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial r}\right|_{(r_i,\theta_j)} & = & \left(\dfrac{1}{R}\right) \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left( S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l) ) \dfrac{d \widehat{L_k}}{dy}(y_i) + S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})\dfrac{d \widehat{L_{N_r+2-k}}}{dy}(y_i) \right) \\& & \\
& = & \left(\dfrac{1}{R}\right) \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \left( a_{k,j} \dfrac{d \widehat{L_k}}{dy}(y_i) + a_{k,j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}} \dfrac{d \widehat{L_{N_r+2-k}}}{dy}(y_i) \right)
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left. \frac{\partial^2 u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial r^2}\right|_{(r_i,\theta_j)} & = &\left(\dfrac{1}{R^2}\right) \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left[ S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l) ) \dfrac{d^2 \widehat{L_k}}{dy^2}(y_i) + S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})\dfrac{d^2 \widehat{L_{N_r+2-k}}}{dy^2}(y_i) \right].
\\ & & \\
& = & \left(\dfrac{1}{R^2}\right) \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \left( a_{k,j} \dfrac{d^2 \widehat{L_k}}{dy^2}(y_i) + a_{k,j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}} \dfrac{d^2 \widehat{L_{N_r+2-k}}}{dy^2}(y_i) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, taking all the above into account, we define the matrix $D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}$ as follows: $$\label{laplacedisco}
D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}=(D_{1}^{(2)} + H \> D_{1}^{(1)}) \otimes \left( \begin{array}{cllll} I & 0 \\ 0 & I \end{array} \right) + (D_{2}^{(2)} + H \> D_{2}^{(1)}) \otimes \left( \begin{array}{cllll} 0 & I \\ I & 0 \end{array} \right) + H^{2} \otimes D_{N_{\theta}}^{(2)},$$ where I stands for the identity of order $\frac{N_\theta}{2} \times \frac{N_\theta}{2}$ and $H$ is the $ \frac{N_r+1}{2} \times \frac{N_r+1}{2}$ diagonal matrix $H_{i\>i} = r^{-1}_{i}$ for $i=1,..., \frac{N_r+1}{2}$.
From now on, we use the following notation: $$\vec{u}^\bold{*}= \sum_{i=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\theta}} \, u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}} (r_i,\theta_j) \,\, \vec{e}_{N_{\theta}(i-1)+j},$$ where $\vec{e}_1, \vec{e}_2, \cdots,$ $\vec{e}_{(\frac{N_r+1}{2})N_{\theta}}$ are the $(\frac{N_r+1}{2})N_{\theta}$ elements of the usual basis of $\mathbb{R}^{(\frac{N_r+1}{2})N_{\theta}}$.
Henceforth, if we distinguish the values of $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}$ in the interior of the disk and we reject the grid points of the boundary, $ u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r_1,\theta_j), \, 1 \leq j \leq N_{\theta}$, we yield
$$\vec{u}= \sum_{i=2}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\theta}} \,u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r_i,\theta_j) \,\, \vec{e}_{N_{\theta}(i-2)+j}.$$
We will build in the following subsections the corresponding differentiation matrices of the polar Laplace operator enforcing, respectively, Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin boundary conditions.
### Nonhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions
Suppose that $u(R,\theta)=f(\theta)$ for $\theta \in (0,2\pi]$, being $f$ a continuous function on $[0,2\pi]$, so as the Dirichlet kernel properties are satisfied. Nonetheless, this condition can be weakened in order to solve the problems arising from applications. Furthermore, the corresponding numerical solution converges. Therefore, if we set $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{f}= \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\theta}} \, f(\theta_j) \, \vec{e}_{j} & \mbox{and}& \vec{u}^1= \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\theta}} \, u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r_1,\theta_j) \, \, \vec{e}_{j} \end{aligned}$$ the boundary condition implies that $\vec{u}^1=\vec{f}$ and $\Delta_{(r,\theta)}$ evaluated at the interior collocation points $(r_i,\theta_j)$, for all $i=2,..., \frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $j=1,...,N_{\theta}$, can be approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{(r,\theta)} \; u \approx D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^* = D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{f} + D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u},& & \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
(D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}})_{i\>j} = (D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}})_{N_{\theta}+i \> j}, & 1\leq i \leq (\frac{N_r-1}{2})N_{\theta}, & 1 \leq j \leq N_{\theta} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}})_{i\>j} = (D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}})_{N_{\theta}+i \> N_{\theta}+j}, & & 1\leq i,j \leq (\frac{N_r-1}{2})N_{\theta}. \end{aligned}$$ To finish this section, we define the discretization of $\Delta_{(r,\theta)}$ on $[0,R)\times(0,2\pi]$, subjected to nonhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions through the affine map which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{laplace1}
T^D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}(\vec{u}) = D^D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \> \vec{u} + \overrightarrow{W^D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}},\end{aligned}$$ being $ D^D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} = D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}$ and $\overrightarrow{W^D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}} = D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{f}$.
### Nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary conditions
Now, we suppose that $\frac{\partial u}{\partial r} (R,\theta)= g(\theta)$, for $\theta \in (0,2\pi]$, being $g$ a continuous function on $[0,2\pi]$. Therefore, $$\left. \frac{\partial u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial r}\right|_{(r_1,\theta_j)}= g(\theta_j), \quad 1 \leq j \leq N_{\theta}.$$ In this case, we must consider the matrix that discretizes $\dfrac{\partial}{\partial r}(\dot)$ on $[0,R]\times (0,2\pi]$: $$\label{matrizp}
P = D_1^{(1)} \otimes \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
I & 0 \\ 0 & I
\end{array}\right) + D_2^{(1)} \otimes \left( \begin{array}{cllll}
0 & I \\ I & 0
\end{array}\right),$$ where $I$ stands for the $\frac{N_\theta}{2} \times \frac{N_\theta}{2}$ identity matrix. If we highlight the elements of the matrix $P$ corresponding to $r_1=R$, it yields to the following matrices:$$\begin{aligned}
(P_1)_{i\> j}=(P)_{i \> j}, & &(P_2)_{i \>k}=(P)_{i\> N_{\theta}+k}, \end{aligned}$$ for $1 \leq i,j \leq N_{\theta}$ and $1 \leq k \leq (\frac{N_r-1}{2})N_{\theta}$. Therefore, denoting $\vec{g}= \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\theta}} \, g(\theta_j) \, \vec{e}_{j},$ the nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary conditions implies that $$\label{CC}
\vec{g}= P_1 \vec{u}^1 + P_2 \vec{u}.$$ Finally, we obtain $$\label{CCC}
\vec{u}^1 = P_1^{-1} \left[\vec{g} - P_2 \> \vec{u} \right].$$ The following proposition guarantees the invertibility of the matrix $P_1$.
\[invP1\] For each integer $N_{\theta} \geq 2$ even and each integer $N_r > 1 $, the matrix $P_1$ is nonsingular.
Note that the matrix $P_1$ has the following form: $$\left(\begin{array}{c|ccc}
(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\> I & (D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1}\> I \\
\hline
(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1}\> I & (D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\> I
\end{array}\right),$$ where $I$ denotes the identity matrix of order $\frac{N_\theta}{2} \times \frac{N_\theta}{2}$. As the matrix $(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\> I$ is non singular we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
det(P_1) & = & det((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\> I)\>det((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\> I - ((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1}\> I)((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\> I)^{-1}((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1}\> I)) \\
& = & \left[\left((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\right)^2 - \left((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{N_\theta}{2}} \\
&= & \left( \dfrac{(2N_r^2+1)^2 - 9}{36} \right)^{\frac{N_\theta}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that $det(P_1)=0$ if and only if $N_r=1$. Thus, $det(P_1)\neq 0$ for each even integer $N_{\theta} \geq 2$ and each integer $N_r >1$.
Finally, the approximation of $\Delta_{(r,\theta)}$ at the interior collocation points $(r_i,\theta_j)$ for all $i=2,..., \frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $j=1,...,N_{\theta}$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{(r,\theta)} \; u \approx D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^* & = & D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^1 + D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u} \\ & = & D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}\left[ P_1^{-1} \left[\vec{g} - P_2 \vec{u} \right] \right] + D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u} \\
& = & D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} P_1^{-1} \vec{g} + \left[D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} - D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} P_1^{-1} P_2 \right]\vec{u}.\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, we observe that the affine transformation $T^{Ne}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} : \mathbb{R}^{ (\frac{N_r-1}{2})N_{\theta}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{ (\frac{N_r-1}{2})N_{\theta}}$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{laplace2}
T^{Ne}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}(\vec{u}) = D^{Ne}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \> \vec{u} + \overrightarrow{W^{Ne}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $ D^{Ne}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} = D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}- D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}\>P_1^{-1}\>P_2 $, and $\overrightarrow{W^{Ne}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}} = D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \> P_1^{-1} \vec{g}$, discretizes $\Delta_{(r,\theta)}$ on $[0,R)\times(0,2\pi]$ subjected to nonhomogeneous Neumann boundary conditions.
### Nonhomogeneous Robin boundary conditions
In this section, we assume that $a(\theta)\>u(R,\theta)+b(\theta)\> \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} (R,\theta))=h(\theta)$, where the functions $a,b$ and $h$ are continuous on $[0,2\pi]$ and satisfy $a(\theta)\> b(\theta) > 0$ for all $\theta \in [0,2\pi]$. To describe this boundary conditions, some notations are required: we denote $\vec{h}= \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\theta}} \, h(\theta_j) \, \vec{e}_{j}$ and, given $c\in \{a,b\}$, we denote $M_c$ the diagonal matrix satisfying $(M_c)_{j,j}=c(\theta_j)$ for $j=1,...,N_{\theta}$. Therefore, $$\label{cccc}
\vec{h} = (M_a+M_b\>P_1) \> \vec{u}^1 + M_b\>P_2 \> \vec{u}$$ where the matrices $P_1$ and $P_2$ are defined in . Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Recuprobin2d}
\vec{u}^1 & = & (M_a + M_b \> P_1)^{-1} \> \vec{h} - (M_a + M_b \> P_1)^{-1} \> M_b \> P_2 \> \vec{u}. \end{aligned}$$ The invertibility of the matrix $M_a + M_b \> P_1$ is proved in the following proposition:
\[invRobin\] The matrix $M_a + M_b \> P_1$ is nonsingular for each integer $N_{\theta} \geq 2$ even and each integer $N_r > 1$.
The proof is based on the following block structure of the matrix $M_a + M_b \> P_1$: $${\small \left( \begin{array}{ccc|ccc}
a(\theta_1)+b(\theta_1)(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1} & & & b(\theta_1)(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1} & & \\
& \ddots & & & \ddots & \\
& & a(\theta_{\frac{N_\theta}{2}})+b(\theta_{\frac{N_\theta}{2}})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1} & & & b(\theta_{\frac{N_\theta}{2}})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1} \\
\hline
b(\theta_{\frac{N_\theta}{2}+1})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1} & & & a(\theta_{\frac{N_\theta}{2}+1})+b(\theta_{\frac{N_\theta}{2}+1})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1} & & \\
& \ddots & & & \ddots & \\
& & b(\theta_{N_{\theta}})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1}& & & a(\theta_{N_{\theta}})+b(\theta_{N_{\theta}})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}
\end{array}\right)}.$$ where $$det \left( \begin{array}{cllllll}
a(\theta_1)+b(\theta_1)(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1} & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & a(\theta_{\frac{N_\theta}{2}})+b(\theta_{\frac{N_\theta}{2}})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1} \end{array}\right) = \prod_{j=1}^{\frac{N_\theta}{2}} \left[ a(\theta_j) + b(\theta_j)(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\right] \neq 0.$$ In this direction, the next notation $$M_a + M_b \> P_1 = \left( \begin{array}{c|c}
B & C \\
\hline
D & E
\end{array}\right)$$ provides us with $$\begin{aligned}
det \,(M_a + M_b \> P_1) & = & det(B) \> det(E-DB^{-1}C) \\
& = & \prod_{j=1}^{\frac{N_\theta}{2}} \left[ \left(a(\theta_j) + b(\theta_j)(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\right) \left(a(\theta_{j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}) + b(\theta_{j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\right) \right.\\
& & \>\>\>\>\>\>\>\> \left. -b(\theta_j)b(\theta_{j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})\left((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1}\right)^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ Arguing by contradiction and supposing that $det(M_a + M_b \> P_1) = 0$, we yield that there exists $j_0 \in \{1,...,\frac{N_\theta}{2}\}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
a(\theta_{j_0})a(\theta_{j_0+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})+a(\theta_{j_0})b(\theta_{j_0+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1} + b(\theta_{j_0})a(\theta_{j_0+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})(D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1} = \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad
b(\theta_{j_0})b(\theta_{j_0+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})\left[\left((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r+1}\right)^2 -\left((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>1}\right)^2\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Notwithstanding, the above equality cannot be right due to $a(\theta)b(\theta)>0$ for all $\theta \in [0,2\pi]$. Thus $det(M_a + M_b \> P_1)\neq 0$ for each integer $N_{\theta} \geq 2$ even and each integer $N_r > 1$.
Finally, we approximate for all $i=2,..., \frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $j=1,...,N_{\theta}$, $\Delta_{(r,\theta)}\>u$ at the collocation points $(r_i,\theta_j)$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{(r,\theta)} \; u \approx D_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^* &= & D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^1 + D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u} \\
& =& D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \left((M_a + M_b \> P_1)^{-1} \> \vec{h} - (M_a + M_b \> P_1)^{-1} \> M_b \> P_2 \> \vec{u} \right) + D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u} \\
&= & D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}\>(M_a+M_b P_1)^{-1}\vec{h} + \left( D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} - D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}\>(M_a+M_b P_1)^{-1}\>M_b\> P_2 \right)\> \vec{u}. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, the affine transformation $T^{R}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} : \mathbb{R}^{ (\frac{N_r-1}{2})N_{\theta}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{ (\frac{N_r-1}{2})N_{\theta}}$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{laplace3}
T^{R}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}(\vec{u}) = D^{R}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \> \vec{u} + \overrightarrow{W^{R}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $ D^{R}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} = D^2_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}- D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}\>(M_a+M_b P_1)^{-1}\>M_b\> P_2$ and, $\overrightarrow{W^{R}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}} = D^1_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}\>(M_a+M_b P_1)^{-1}\> \vec{h}$, discretizes $\Delta_{(r,\theta)}$ on $[0,R)\times(0,2\pi]$ subjected to nonhomogeneous Robin boundary conditions.
Polar differentiation matrix of the biharmonic operator
-------------------------------------------------------
This section addresses a discretization of the biharmonic operator $\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}$ in the disk of radius $R$. It follows from (\[numeincog\]), that $$\begin{aligned}
\left. \frac{\partial^4 u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial r^4}\right|_{(r_i,\theta_j)} & = &\left(\dfrac{1}{R^4}\right) \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left[ S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l) ) \dfrac{d^4 \widehat{L_k}}{dy^4}(y_i) + S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})\dfrac{d^4 \widehat{L_{N_r+2-k}}}{dy^4}(y_i) \right]
\\ & & \\
& = & \left(\dfrac{1}{R^4}\right) \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \left( a_{k,j} \dfrac{d^4\widehat{L_k}}{dy^4}(y_i) + a_{k,j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}} \dfrac{d^4 \widehat{L_{N_r+2-k}}}{dy^4}(y_i) \right),\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\left. \frac{\partial^3 u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial r^3}\right|_{(r_i,\theta_j)} & = &\left(\dfrac{1}{R^3}\right) \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left[ S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l) ) \dfrac{d^3 \widehat{L_k}}{dy^3}(y_i) + S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})\dfrac{d^3 \widehat{L_{N_r+2-k}}}{dy^3}(y_i) \right]
\\ & & \\
& = & \left(\dfrac{1}{R^3}\right) \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \left( a_{k,j} \dfrac{d^3\widehat{L_k}}{dy^3}(y_i) + a_{k,j+\frac{N_\theta}{2}} \dfrac{d^3 \widehat{L_{N_r+2-k}}}{dy^3}(y_i) \right),\end{aligned}$$
$$\left. \frac{\partial^4 u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial \theta^4}\right|_{(r_i,\theta_j)} = \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left( S''''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l) L_k(r_i) + S''''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}) L_{N_r+2-k}(r_i) \right)
= \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{i,l} S''''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l),$$ $$\left. \frac{\partial^3 u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial r \, \partial \theta^2}\right|_{(r_i,\theta_j)} = \left(\dfrac{1}{R}\right)\sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left( S''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l) \dfrac{d\widehat{L_k}}{dy}(y_i) + S''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}})
\dfrac{d\widehat{L_{N_r+2-k}}}{dy}(y_i)
\right)$$ and $$\left. \frac{\partial^4 u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial \theta^4}\right|_{(r_i,\theta_j)} = \sum_{k=1}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{k,l} \left( S''''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l) L_k(r_i) + S''''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}) L_{N_r+2-k}(r_i) \right)
= \sum_{l=1}^{N_{\theta}} a_{i,l} S''''_{N_{\theta}}(\theta_j-\theta_l).$$ Therefore, rewriting $\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}$ as $$\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)} \coloneqq \dfrac{\partial^4 }{\partial r^4}
+ \dfrac{2}{r} \dfrac{\partial^3 }{\partial r^3}
- \dfrac{1}{r^2} \dfrac{\partial^2 }{\partial r^2}
+ \dfrac{1}{r^3} \dfrac{\partial }{\partial r}
+ \dfrac{2}{r^2} \dfrac{\partial^4 }{\partial r^2 \partial \theta^2}
- \dfrac{2}{r^3} \dfrac{\partial^3 }{\partial r \partial \theta^2}
+ \dfrac{1}{r^4} \dfrac{\partial^4 }{\partial \theta^4}
+ \dfrac{4}{r^4} \dfrac{\partial^2 }{\partial \theta^2},$$ and concatenating all the above derivates of $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}$ at the collocation points, we obtain the following expression for the differentiation matrix $D_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{biarmonicodisco}
D_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} & = & \left(D_{1}^{(4)} + 2HD_{1}^{(3)}-H^2D_{1}^{(2)}+H^3D_{1}^{(1)}\right) \otimes \left( \begin{array}{cllll} I & 0 \\ 0 & I \end{array} \right)\\
& & +\left(D_{2}^{(4)} + 2HD_{2}^{(3)}-H^2D_{2}^{(2)}+H^3D_{2}^{(1)}\right) \otimes \left( \begin{array}{cllll} 0 & I \\ I & 0 \end{array} \right) \\
& & + \left[ \left(2H^2D_{1}^{(2)}-2H^3D_{1}^{(1)}\right) \otimes \left( \begin{array}{cllll} I & 0 \\ 0 & I \end{array} \right) +\left(2H^2D_{2}^{(2)}-2H^3D_{2}^{(1)}\right) \otimes \left( \begin{array}{cllll} 0 & I \\ I & 0 \end{array} \right)\right] \left( I_{ \frac{N_r+1}{2}} \otimes D_{N_{\theta}}^{(2)} \right) \\
& & + H^4 \otimes \left[ D_{N_{\theta}}^{(4)} + 4D_{N_{\theta}}^{(2)} \right] ,\end{aligned}$$ where the matrices $H$ and $I$ are defined as in previous sections and in particular, $I_{ \frac{N_r+1}{2}}$ is the $( \frac{N_r+1}{2})\times( \frac{N_r+1}{2})$ identity matrix.
### Nonhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions
In this case, we assume the following boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CC4to2D}
\mbox{ $u(R,\theta)=f(\theta)$ and $\frac{\partial u}{\partial r} (R,\theta)= g(\theta)$}\end{aligned}$$ being both $f$ and $g$ continuous functions on $[0,2\pi]$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{u}^1= \vec{f} &\hbox{ and } \left. \frac{\partial u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}}{\partial r}\right|_{(r_1,\theta_j)} =g(\theta_j), &1\leq j \leq N_{\theta}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hereinafter in this paper, $$\vec{u}^{**}= \sum_{i=3}^\frac{N_r+1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\theta}} \, u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r_i,\theta_j) \,\, \vec{e}_{N_{\theta}(i-3)+j}.$$ and $$\vec{u}^2= \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\theta}} \, u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r_2,\theta_j) \,\, \vec{e}_{j}.$$
Likewise, as we are dealing with the biharmonic equation and enforcing two boundary conditions in , we need to define now three submatrices of the matrix P given in : $$\begin{aligned}
(P_1)_{i\>j} = (P)_{i\>j}, & (P_2)_{i,\>j}=(P)_{i\>j+N_{\theta}}, & \mbox{for $1\leq i,j \leq N_{\theta},$}\\
(P_3)_{i\>j} = (P)_{i\>j+2N_{\theta}}, & & \mbox{for $1\leq i \leq N_{\theta}$ and $1 \leq j \leq (\frac{N_r-3}{2})N_{\theta}$.}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain from \[CC4to2D\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{despu2}
\vec{g} = P_1 \vec{f} + P_2 \vec{u}^2 + P_3 \vec{u}^{**}.\end{aligned}$$ The following proposition shows the invertivility of the matrix $P_2$.
\[pppp\] For each integer $N_{\theta} \geq 2$ even and each integer $N_r > 1$, the matrix $P_2$ is nonsingular.
The matrix $P_2$ has the form: $$\left(\begin{array}{c|cc}
\left(D_{N_r}^{(1)}\right)_{1\>2}I & \left(D_{N_r}^{(1)}\right)_{1\>N_r}I\\
\hline
\left(D_{N_r}^{(1)}\right)_{1\>N_r}I & \left(D_{N_r}^{(1)}\right)_{1\>2}I
\end{array}\right),$$ where $I$ is the $\frac{N_\theta}{2} \times \frac{N_\theta}{2}$ identity matrix. Now, since $ \left(D_{N_r}^{(1)}\right)_{1\>N_r}I$ is nonsingular the determinant of $P_2$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
det(P_2) & = & det((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>2}\> I)\>det((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>2}\> I - ((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r}\> I)((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>2}\> I)^{-1}((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r}\> I)) \\
& = & \left[\left((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>2}\right)^2 - \left((D_{N_r}^{(1)})_{1\>N_r}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{N_\theta}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $det(P_2) \neq 0$ due to $y_2 \neq y_{N_r}$. Thus, $P_2$ is nonsingular, for each integer $N_{\theta} \geq 2$ even and each integer $N_r > 1$.
Accordingly to the Proposition (\[pppp\]), we can isolate $\vec{u}^2$ from (\[despu2\]) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{recupBA2d}
\vec{u}^2 = P_2^{-1} \vec{g} - P_2^{-1} P_1 \vec{f} - P_2^{-1}P_3 \vec{u}^{**}.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, the approximation of $\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)} u$ on $[0,R)\times(0,2\pi]$ at the interior collocation points $(r_i,\theta_j)$, for $i=3,...,N_r+1$ and $j=1,...,N_{\theta}$, remains as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)} u \approx D_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^*&=&
D^1_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^1 + D^2_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^2
+ D^3_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^{**}, \\
&=&
D^1_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{f} + D^2_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} \left( P_2^{-1} \vec{g} - P_2^{-1} P_1 \vec{f} - P_2^{-1}P_3 \vec{u}^{**} \right)
+ D^3_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} \vec{u}^{**},
\\ & = & \left(D^1_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}-D^2_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}P_2^{-1}P_1\right)\vec{f} + D^2_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} P_2^{-1}\vec{g} + \left(D^3_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}-D^2_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} P_2^{-1}P_3\right)\vec{u}^{**}, \end{aligned}$$
where $D^i_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}$’s are the submatrices of $D_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}$ whose entries are respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\left(D^1_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}\right)_{i\>j}=\left(D_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}\right)_{i+2N_{\theta}\>j} ,& \left(D^2_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}\right)_{i\>j}=\left(D_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}\right)_{i+2N_{\theta}\>j+N_{\theta}},&
\left(D^3_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}\right)_{i\>j}=\left(D_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}\right)_{i+2N_{\theta}\>k+2N_{\theta}}, \end{aligned}$$ for $1 \leq i \leq (\frac{N_r-1}{2})N_{\theta}$, $1 \leq j \leq N_{\theta}$ and $1 \leq k \leq (\frac{N_r-3}{2})N_{\theta}$.
In closing, we define the affine map $T^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} : \mathbb{R}^{ (\frac{N_r-3}{2})N_{\theta}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{ (\frac{N_r-3}{2})N_{\theta}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{laplace4}
T^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}(\vec{u}^{**}) = D^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} \> \vec{u}^{**} + \overrightarrow{W^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $ D^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} = D^3_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}-D^2_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}P_2^{-1}P_3$ and $\overrightarrow{W^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}} = \left(D^1_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}-D^2_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}P_2^{-1}P_1\right)\vec{f} + D^2_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}P_2^{-1}\vec{g}$. This affine map $T^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}$ discretizes $\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}$ on $[0,R)\times(0,2\pi]$ subjected to nonhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions.
General discrete formulation for the Laplace equation and the biharmonic equations in a disk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We describe two general abstract formulations of the problem (\[problemabidimensional\]). In particular, in the case of the Laplace operator, from (\[laplace1\]), (\[laplace2\]) and (\[laplace3\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sistema12d}
N^{\omega}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} \coloneqq D^{\omega}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}}\vec{u} + F(r_2,...,r_{ \frac{N_r+1}{2}},\theta_1,...,\theta_{N_{\theta}},\vec{u}) + \overrightarrow{W^{\omega}_{\Delta_{(r,\theta)}} } =0.\end{aligned}$$ The superscript $\omega \in \{D, Ne, R\}$ refers to the type of boundary conditions, i.e. Dirichet, Neumann or Robin, respectively.
Likewise, in the case of the biharmoic operator, (\[laplace4\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sistema22d}
N^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} \coloneqq D^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}}\vec{u}^{**}+ F(r_3,...,r_{ \frac{N_r+1}{2}},\theta_1,...,\theta_{N_{\theta}},\vec{u}^{**}) + \overrightarrow{W^{BH}_{\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}} } =0. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we note that the system (\[sistema22d\]) has $( \frac{N_r-3}{2}) N_{\theta}$ unknowns while the system (\[sistema12d\]) has $ (\frac{N_r-1}{2})N_{\theta}$ unknowns. As discussed above in Section \[seccionpd\], depending on the linearity or nonlinearity of the function $F$, different standard methods can be used to solve either (\[sistema12d\]) or (\[sistema22d\]) systems. Futher on, in Table \[tabla2\] we summarized the values $a_{k,l}=u(r_k,\theta_{l})$ of the approximate $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2},N_{\theta}}(r,\theta)$ at the collocation points depending on each type of boundary condition.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}\
Boundary conditions & Coefficients $a_{k,l}$ & Solution’s boundary values\
Nonhomogeneous Dirichlet & $a_{k,l}=u(r_k,\theta_l)$ and $a_{1,l}=f(\theta_l),$ & $u(r_1,\theta) = f(\theta)$\
& for $2\leq k\leq \frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $1\leq l \leq N_{\theta}.$ &\
Nonhomogeneous Neumann & $a_{k,l}=u(r_k,\theta_l),$ & $u(r_1,\theta_l)$ for $1 \leq l \leq N_{\theta}$\
& for $1\leq k\leq \frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $1\leq l \leq N_{\theta}.$ & are computed through (\[CCC\]).\
Nonhomogeneous Robin & $a_{k,l}=u(r_k,\theta_l),$ & $u(r_1,\theta_l)$ for $1 \leq l \leq N_{\theta}$\
& for $1\leq k\leq \frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $1\leq l \leq N_{\theta}$ & are computed through (\[Recuprobin2d\]).\
Nonhomogeneous Dirichlet & $a_{k,l}=u(r_k,\theta_l)$ and $a_{1,l}=f(\theta_l)$ & $u(r_1,\theta) = f(\theta),$ and\
biharmonic equation & for $2\leq k\leq \frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $1\leq l \leq N_{\theta}.$ & $u(r_2,\theta_l)$ for $1 \leq l \leq N_{\theta}$\
& & are computed through (\[recupBA2d\]).\
Solving numerical examples of the Laplace and the biharmonic nonhomogeneous equations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, six numerical examples are developed, three correspond to the Laplace operator and three to the biharmonic operator. The developed simulations are computed using the differentiation matrices calculated in the previous subsections, either for $\Delta_{(r,\theta)}$ or $\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}$.
The actual solution of the Laplace equation subjected to nonhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ej2d1}
\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll}
\Delta_{(r,\theta)}u & = 0 & (r,\theta) \in [0,1)\times[0,2\pi)\\
u(1,\theta) & = sin^3\theta & \theta \in [0,2\pi),
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ is given by $u(r,\theta)=0.75\, - 0.25\, r^3\, sin(3\,\theta).$ The approximate solution, in the case $\frac{N_r+1}{2}=28$ and $N_{\theta}=60$, takes the form $$u_{28,60}(r,\theta) = \sum_{k=1}^{28} \sum_{l=1}^{60} a_{k,l} \left[ S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta-\theta_l) L_k(r) + S_{N_{\theta}}(\theta-\theta_{l+\frac{N_\theta}{2}}) L_{N_r+2-k}(r) \right].$$ The Figure \[dirichlet2dplots\] shows a graph of the computed solution $u_{28,60}(r,\theta)$ and its absolute error. Nonetheless, in the Table \[tabladirichlet\], we list the maximum errors for different values of $\frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $N_{\theta}$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![ [ (Left) Computed solution $u_{28,60}(r,\theta)$ of (\[ej2d1\]). (Right) The absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="dirichlet2dplots"}](Dirichlet2dsolapprox.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![ [ (Left) Computed solution $u_{28,60}(r,\theta)$ of (\[ej2d1\]). (Right) The absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="dirichlet2dplots"}](Dirichlet2dErrorNyMfijos.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Simulation 1 Simulation 2 Simulation 3 Simulation 4 Simulation 5
------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
$\frac{N_r+1}{2}$ 11 28 51 51 101
$N_{\theta}$ 30 60 40 60 100
Maximum Error 4.5242e-15 2.6887e-14 1.7447e-13 5.9730e-14 6.6391e-14
: [Maximum errors in the Dirichlet problem for different choices of $\frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $N_{\theta}$.]{}[]{data-label="tabladirichlet"}
Consider the exact solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ej2d2}
\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll}
\Delta_{(r,\theta)}u - u & = r\,(2+5\,sin^2\theta)-r^3sin^2\theta & (r,\theta) \in [0,1)\times[0,2\pi)\\
u_r(1,\theta) & = 3\,sin^2\theta & \theta \in [0,2\pi),
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ which is given by $u(r,\theta) = r^3\,sin^2\theta$. Once again, we have computed the maximum errors for different values of $\frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $N_{\theta}$, which are collected in the Table \[tablaneumann\]. The Figure \[neumann2dplots\] shows the plots of the numerical solution and the absolute error for $\frac{N_r+1}{2}=31$ and $N_{\theta}=50$. The maximum error obtained with this choice can be found in the Table \[tablaneumann\].
The nonlinear Fisher equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ej2d3}
\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll}
-\Delta_{(r,\theta)}u & = 3 u-u^2 & (r,\theta) \in [0,1)\times[0,2\pi)\\
u(1,\theta)+u_r(1,\theta) & = 3 & \theta \in [0,2\pi),
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ This equation has its unique positive solution given by $u \equiv 3$. In Table \[tablarobin\] we have collected some maximum errors, computed for different values of $\frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $N_{\theta}$. A plot of the numerical solution and the absolute error can be found in the Figure \[robin2dplots\] for $\frac{N_r+1}{2}=31$ and $N_{\theta}=50$. The maximum error obtained with this choice can be found in the Table \[tablarobin\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![ [ (Left) Computed solution $u_{31,50}(r,\theta)$ of (\[ej2d2\]). (Right) The absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="neumann2dplots"}](n2dsolution.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![ [ (Left) Computed solution $u_{31,50}(r,\theta)$ of (\[ej2d2\]). (Right) The absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="neumann2dplots"}](n2derror.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Simulation 1 Simulation 2 Simulation 3 Simulation 4
------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
$\frac{N_r+1}{2}$ 31 51 101 151
$N_{\theta}$ 50 40 40 40
Maximum Error 2.4389e-04 9.5423e-05 2.5333e-05 1.1491e-05
: [Maximum errors in the Neumann problem (\[ej2d2\]) for different choices of $\frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $N_{\theta}$.]{}[]{data-label="tablaneumann"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![ [ (Left) Computed solution $u_{28,60}(r,\theta)$ of (\[ej2d3\]). (Right) The absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="robin2dplots"}](r2dsolution.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![ [ (Left) Computed solution $u_{28,60}(r,\theta)$ of (\[ej2d3\]). (Right) The absolute error.]{}[]{data-label="robin2dplots"}](r2derror.jpg "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Simulation 1 Simulation 2 Simulation 3 Simulation 4 Simulation 5
------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
$\frac{N_r+1}{2}$ 11 31 31 101 101
$N_{\theta}$ 40 50 100 30 50
Maximum Error 2.9168e-12 4.2902e-11 1.1023e-10 1.1723e-09 1.7640e-09
: [Robin problem (\[ej2d3\]): Maximum error for different values of $\frac{N_r+1}{2}$ and $N_{\theta}$.]{}[]{data-label="tablarobin"}
Consider the biharmonic equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BH2d}
\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll}
\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}u & = 0 & (r,\theta) \in [0,1)\times[0,2\pi)\\
u(1,\theta) & = -0.25 & \theta \in [0,2\pi),\\
u_r(1,\theta) & = -0.5(1+cos(\theta)) & \theta \in [0,2\pi),
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ whose exact solution is $u(r,\theta)=0.25(1-r^2)(1+r\>cos(\theta))-0.25$. We compute the approximate solution $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2}, N_{\theta}}(r,\theta)$, in the case $\frac{N_r+1}{2}=62$ and $N_{\theta}=40$. Here, the maximum error between $u_{62,40}(r,\theta)$ and the exact solution $u(r,\theta)$ is $8.1766e-04$. The Figure \[BH\] shows a plot of the computed solution $u_{62,40}(r,\theta)$.
![ [ Computed solution $u_{62,40}(x,y)$ of (\[BH2d\]) in cartesian coordinates. ]{}[]{data-label="BH"}](BH2d.jpg){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
The exact solution of the biharmonic equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BH2d1}
\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll}
\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}u & = 0 & (r,\theta) \in [0,1)\times[0,2\pi)\\
u(1,\theta) & = cos(2\theta) & \theta \in [0,2\pi),\\
u_r(1,\theta) & = 0 & \theta \in [0,2\pi),
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ is $u(r,\theta)=(2r^2-r^4)cos(2\theta))$. We compute the approximate solution $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2}, N_{\theta}}(r,\theta)$, in the case $\frac{N_r+1}{2}=48$ and $N_{\theta}=40$. Here, the maximum error between $u_{48,40}(r,\theta)$ and the exact solution $u(r,\theta)$ is $1.9727e-04$ improving the result in [@YUref]. The Figure \[BH1\] shows a plot of the computed solution $u_{48,40}(x,y)$.
![ [ Computed solution $u_{48,40}(x,y)$ of (\[BH2d1\]) in cartesian coordinates. ]{}[]{data-label="BH1"}](finalej.jpg){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
In closing, we consider the biharmonic equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BH2d2}
\left\{ \begin{array}{clllll}
\Delta^2_{(r,\theta)}u & = 45cos(\theta) & (r,\theta) \in [0,1)\times[0,2\pi)\\
u(1,\theta) & = cos(2\theta) & \theta \in [0,2\pi),\\
u_r(1,\theta) & = 4cos(2\theta) & \theta \in [0,2\pi),
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ whose exact solution is $u(r,\theta)=r^4\>cos(2\theta)$. We calculate numerically the approximate solution $u_{\frac{N_r+1}{2}, N_{\theta}}(r,\theta)$, in the case $\frac{N_r+1}{2}=33$ and $N_{\theta}=60$. Here, the maximum error between $u_{33,60}(r,\theta)$ and the exact solution $u(r,\theta)$ is $4.9969e-05$. The Figure \[BH2\] shows a plot of $u_{33,60}(x,y)$.
![ [ Computed solution $u_{33,60}(x,y)$ of (\[BH2d1\]) in cartesian coordinates. ]{}[]{data-label="BH2"}](ejem2.jpg){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
Conclusions
===========
The differentiation matrices deduced in this paper will be of the utmost importance, since a large number of equations, which model a broad range of applications such as Navier-Stokes equations, are now subjected to nonhomogeneous boundary conditions and could hereafter be solved with an efficient, simple and direct method. The construction and calculation of each differentiation matrix has been a cumbersome procedure. Nonetheless, we have provided a clear development for each equation and for its respective Dirichlet, Neumann and Robin nonhomogeneous boundary conditions.
This paper is completed with a collection of linear and nonlinear numerical examples, whose solutions exhibit a spectral accuracy, underling, once again, the advantages of using collocation methods. Now more than ever, no lifting is needed.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work has been partially supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain under Research Grant MAT2015-65899-P.
[99]{}
M. Ahues, A. Largillier, B. Limaye, Spectral Computations for Bounded Operators, Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York, 2001.
J. Aurentz, L. Trefethen, Block operators and spectral discretizations, SIAM Review 59 (2) (2017), pp. 423-446.
L. Berbesi-Márquez, Solución numérica de problemas de valor de frontera para ecuaciones diferenciales ordinarias, Tesis de Pregrado, Universidad de los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela, 2010.
V. Bayona, N.Flyer, B. Fornberg, G. Barnett, On the role of polynomials in RBF-FD approximations: II. Numerical solution of elliptic PDEs, Journal of Computational Physics 332 (2017), pp.257-273.
Z. Belhachmi, C. Bernardi, A. Karageorghis, Spectral element discretization of the circular driven cavity, Part II: The bilaplacian equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 38 (2001), pp. 1926-1960.
C. Bernardi, Y. Maday, Spectral Methods, in: P.G. Ciarlet and J.-L. Lions (Eds.), Handbook of Numerical Analysis, vol. V, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1997, pp. 209-485.
C. Bernardi, A. Karageorghis, Spectral element discretization of the circular driven cavity, Part I: The Laplace equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 36 (1999), pp. 1435-1465.
O. M. Bucci, C. Gennarelli, C. Savarese, Fast and accurate near-field-far-field transformation by sampling interpolation of plane-polar measurements, IEEE transactions on antennas and propagation 39 (1) (1991), pp. 48-55.
C. Canuto, M. Hussaini, A. Quarteroni, T. Zang, Spectral Methods. Fundamentals in Single Domains, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2006.
T. Driscoll, N. Hale, Rectangular spectral collocation, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis 36 (1) (2016), pp. 108-132.
H. Eisen, W. Heinrichs, K. Witsch, Spectral collocation methods and polar coordinate singularities, J. Comput. Phys. 96 (2)(1991), pp. 241-257.
B. T. Ellison, I. Cornet, Mass Transfer to a Rotating Disk, J. Electrochem. Soc. 118 (1) (1971), pp. 68-72.
B. Finlayson, The Method of Weighted Residuals and Variational Principles, with Application in Fluid Mechanics, Heat and Mass Transfer, Volume 87, Academic Press, New York and London, 1972.
B. Fornberg, A pseudospectral approach for polar and spherical geometries, SIAM J. Sci. Comp. 16 (1995), pp. 1071-1081.
B. Fornberg, A pseudospectral fictitious point method for high order initial-boundary value problems, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 28 (5) (2006), pp. 1716- 1729.
D. Funaro, W. Heinrich, Some results about the pseudospectral approximation of one dimensional fourth order problems, Numer. Math. 58 (1990), pp. 399-418.
F. Gazzola, H. Grunau, G. Sweers, Polyharmonic boundary value problems. A monograph on positivity preserving and nonlinear higher order elliptic equations in bounded domains, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1991, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.
R. Gómez-Reñasco, J. López-Gómez, On the existence and numerical computation of classical and non-classical solutions for a family of elliptic boundary value problems, Nonlinear Analysis 48 (2002), pp. 567–605.
D. Gottlieb, M. Hussaini, S. Orszag, Theory and applications of spectral methods in: R. Voigt, D. Gottlieb, M. Hussaini (Eds.), Spectral Methods for Partial Differential Equations, SIAM (1984), Philadelphia , pp. 1-54.
D. Gottlieb, E. Turkel, Topics in spectral methods, in: F. Brezzi (Ed.), Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1127, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1985, pp. 115-155.
W. Huang, D. Sloan, Pole conditions for singular problems: the pseudospectral approximation, J. Comput. Phys. 107 (1993), pp. 254-261.
S. Hsu, J. López-Gómez, L. Mei, M. Molina Meyer, A nonlocal problem from conservation biology, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis. 46(6) (2014), pp. 4035-4059.
Z. Li, T. Lu, H. Hu, A. Cheng, Trefftz and Collocation Methods, WIT Press, Cambridge, 2008.
J. López-Gómez, Metasolutions of Parabolic Equations in Population Dynamics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2015.
J. López-Gómez, J. C. Eilbeck, K. Duncan, M. Molina Meyer, Structure and numerical simulation of solution manifolds in a strong coupled elliptic system, IMA J. Numer. Anal. 12 (1992), pp. 405-428.
J. López-Gómez, M. Molina Meyer, Superlinear indefinite systems: beyond Lotka-Volterra models, Journal of Differential Equations 221(2006), pp. 343-411.
J. López-Gómez, M. Molina Meyer, Bounded components of positive solutions of abstract fixed point equations: mushrooms, loops and isolas. J. Differential Equations 209 (2005), pp. 416-441.
J. López-Gómez, M. Molina Meyer, A. Tellini, Intricate dynamics caused by facilitation in competitive environments within polluted habitat patches. European J. Appl. Math. 25 (2014), pp. 213-229.
J. López-Gómez, M. Molina Meyer, P. Rabinowitz, Global bifurcation diagrams of one nodesolutions in a class of degenerate boundary value problems. Discrete and continuous dynamical systems. Series B. 22 (3) (2017), pp. 923-946.
P. Markowich, Applied Partial Differential Equations: A Visual Approach, Springer Verlag, Wien New York, 2006.
J. Marsden, T.Hughes, Mathematical foundations of elasticity, Dover, New York, 1994.
F. Marvasti, Extension of Lagrange interpolation to 2-D nonuniform samples in polar coordinates, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems 37(4) (1989), pp. 567-568.
B.K. Muite, A numerical comparison of Chebyshev methods for solving fourth order semilinear initial boundary value problems, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 234 (2010), pp. 317-342.
R. Peyret, Spectral Methods for Incompressible Viscous Flow, Applied Mathematical Sciences 148, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2002.
P. S. Phang, Z. A. Majid, M. Suleiman, F. Ismail, Solving boundary value problems with Neumann conditions using direct method, World Applied Sciences Journal 21 (2013), pp. 129-133.
, Numerical simulation of positive solutions of the heterogeneous logistic equation in circular domains, Master Thesis UC3M, Madrid, September (2013).
A. Quarteroni, Blending Fourier and Chebyshev interpolation, J. Approx. Theory 51 (1987), pp. 115-126.
A. Quarteroni, A. Valli, Numerical Approximation of Partial Differential Equations, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1997.
A. Selvaduarai, Partial Differential Equations in Mechanics 2: The Biharmonic Equation, Poisson’s Equation, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2000.
J. Shen, Efficient spectral-Galerkin methods III: polar and cylindrical geometries, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 18(6) (1997), pp. 1583-1604.
J. Shen, New fast Chebyshev-Fourier algorithm for Poisson-type equations in polar geometries, Applied Numerical Mathematics 33 (2000), pp. 183-190.
J. Shen, T. Tang, L. Wang, Spectral Methods: Algorithms, Analysis and Applications, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics 41, Spinger Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2011.
I. Shevchuk, Turbulent heat and mass transfer over a rotating disk for the Prandtl or Schmidt numbers much larger than unity: an integral method, Heat Mass Transfer 45 (2009), pp. 1313-1321.
H. Stark, Polar, spiral, and generalized sampling and interpolation, in: Robert J. Marks II (Ed.), Advanced Topics in Shannon Sampling and Interpolation Theory, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1993, pp. 185-218.
F. Stenger, Handbook of Sinc Numerical Methods, Chapman & Hall/CRC Numerical Analysis and Scientific Computing Series, Boca Ratón, 2010.
A. Townsend, S. Olver, The automatic solution of partial differential equations using a global spectral method, J. Comput. Phys. 299 (2015), pp. 106-123.
L. Trefethen, Spectral Methods in MATLAB, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2000.
L. Young, Orthogonal collocation revisited, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 345(1) (2019), pp. 1033-1076.
P. Yu, Z. Tian, A compact scheme for the streamfunction-velocity formulation of the 2D steady incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in polar coordinates, J. Sci Comput 56(1) (2013), pp. 165-189.
J. Weideman, S. Reddy, A MATLAB differentiation matrix suite, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 26(4) (2000), pp. 465-519.
H. Wilber, A. Townsend, G. Wright, Computing with functions in spherical and polar geometries II. The disk, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 39(3) (2016), pp. 238-262.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we propose a fault detection and isolation based attack-aware multi-sensor integration algorithm for the detection of cyberattacks in autonomous vehicle navigation systems. The proposed algorithm uses an extended Kalman filter to construct robust residuals in the presence of noise, and then uses a parametric statistical tool to identify cyberattacks. The parametric statistical tool is based on the residuals constructed by the measurement history rather than one measurement at a time in the properties of discrete-time signals and dynamic systems. This approach allows the proposed multi-sensor integration algorithm to provide quick detection and low false alarm rates for applications in dynamic systems. An example of INS/GNSS integration of autonomous navigation systems is presented to validate the proposed algorithm by using a software-in-the-loop simulation.'
author:
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Attack-Aware Multi-Sensor Integration Algorithm\
for Autonomous Vehicle Navigation Systems
---
Introduction
============
Security of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) has garnered significant attention as a major issue with regard to autonomous vehicles. Today’s autonomous vehicles enable the deployment of safety technologies, such as automatic emergency braking, collision warning, and Vehicle-to-Everything technologies. In the near future, these systems will be available in all vehicles to help achieve zero fatalities, zero injuries, and zero accidents. However, behind the great potential of these innovations, a new challenge of ensuring security from cyberattacks needs to be addressed.
A typical autonomous vehicle receives and transmits a great deal of information between sensors, actuators, and the electronic control units, all providing access for attackers [@petit2015potential]. From this point of view, cybersecurity is imperative. Units that govern safety should be protected from malicious attacks, unauthorized access, or dubious activities, all of which could cause harmful outcomes. For example, an autonomous vehicle’s navigation system must be secured because it controls real-time position data directly linked to the physical behavior of the vehicle. We have a real-world example [@miller2015remote] in which a hack was able to remotely hijack a car, and other examples [@kerns2014unmanned; @shepard2012evaluation] in which unmanned aerial vehicles were captured and controlled via Global Positioning System (GPS) signal spoofing. Practical studies on the analysis of security vulnerabilities of autonomous vehicles have been discussed in [@miller2014survey; @amoozadeh2015security]. Similarly, an extensive study of potential cybersecurity threats to autonomous vehicles was published in the open literature [@petit2015potential]. This study presented many possible attack methods and identified that sensor spoofing and false data injection could result in the worst safety related issue.
Securing autonomous vehicles’ safety is challenging because it requires the full knowledge of applications that consist of numerous hardware and multi-layered architectures [@urbina2016survey]. For instance, an autonomous vehicle navigation system is generally comprised of multiple sensors such as Inertial Navigation System (INS) and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). These two different types of sensors have inherent limitations so that integration methodologies for such systems have been widely introduced to combine the advantages of both technologies [@rezaei2007kalman]. However, an integrated system does not have any safety functions against cyberattacks, leaving it highly vulnerable. Additionally, the lack of knowledge of multi-sensor integration makes autonomous vehicles more exposed to cyberattacks. A fault tolerant multi-sensor perception system was presented to provide fault-free inputs for critical functions of mobile robots [@bader2017fault]. All of the previously mentioned studies suggest that there are rapidly growing needs for ensuring cybersecurity in autonomous vehicles.
One of the common approaches for achieving security guarantee is the Fault Detection and Isolation (FDI) method. This approach has been widely studied in various applications such as spacecraft [@pirmoradi2007efficient], aircraft [@abbaspour2016detection], power system [@mohanty2008cumulative], and automobile [@huang2015design]. In general, a fault detection algorithm generates a residual and compares it with a predefined threshold. If the residual exceeds the threshold, the algorithm reveals a fault and an alarm is triggered. In this manner, abnormal dynamic behavior and abrupt system changes caused by cyberattacks can be detected. The authors in [@hwang2010survey; @patcha2007overview] have presented a remarkable comparison of existing residual generation algorithms and threshold determination techniques.
The primary focus of attack detection for dynamic systems is to generate residuals and design decision rules based upon these residuals. Ideal residuals would be zero under normal operation when there is no attack. However, residuals are subject to the presence of noise and unknown errors in real-world applications [@gustafsson2000adaptive]. For this reason, it is challenging to generate robust residuals that are insensitive to noise and uncertainties yet sensitive to attacks in order to provoke a quick alarm [@basseville1993detection]. Optimal filters and state observers have been proposed to generate a sequence of residuals that resemble white noise in normal operation [@oonk2014extended; @marino2015discrete]. After residual generation, an attack alarm will be triggered at the moment residuals exceed the threshold. Another challenge here is to determine the threshold limit. This is a fundamental limitation of attack detection because determining thresholds is a compromise between detecting true attacks and avoiding false alarms. Some studies have proposed statistical approaches to generate an adaptive threshold in order to avoid false alarms [@fillatre2014statistical; @pradhan2006moving]. Others have used a hypothesis test with Boolean questions to determine system attacks [@murguia2016characterization].
Although the aforementioned studies have presented various strategies and solutions for attack detection, there are still questions to address. The lack of knowledge of interaction among sensors, actuators, and electronic control units increases the possibilities of being compromised by unidentified source. Therefore, the following research questions can be raised:
- [How will the driver know when he or she has to take back control from full self-driving mode due to security breach?]{}
- [How will the system identify possible attacks against multi-sensors that are tightly coupled instead of a single sensor?]{}
- [How will the system present state estimates as close to the true value as possible in the presence of noise without compromising response time or sensitivity?]{}
To provide answers to the questions, this paper focuses on possible attacks on the autonomous vehicle navigation systems. It is a highly vulnerable system because it handles signals from external sources. Thus, this study determines that a vehicle’s navigation system is being attacked if any abrupt change or unexpected dynamic behavior has been identified by a proposed algorithm. We assume that system alterations are caused by false data injection attacks, corrupted signal reading, sensor failure, or any combination of these.
To summarize, the main contributions of this work are as follows:
1. Development of an attack-aware multi-sensor integration algorithm for the autonomous vehicle navigation system;
2. Generation of robust residuals in the presence of uncertainties;
3. Design of a parametric statistical test that enables the proposed algorithm to generate a quick detection alarm and low false alarm rate;
4. Application of the proposed algorithm to the detection of attack on INS/GNSS integration of autonomous vehicles;
5. Verification of the application in a customized software-in-the-loop simulation.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:met\], an attack-aware multi-sensor integration is developed with the strategies of residual generation and threshold determination. In Section \[sec:application\], the proposed attack detection algorithm with an application to the autonomous navigation system is introduced and a simulation is designed to validate it. Finally, conclusions and future works are discussed in Section \[sec:con\].
Problem Formulation {#sec:met}
===================
This section provides a Kalman filter-based estimation for a multi-sensor integration and detection algorithm. The system model that we consider is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:blocks\]. The actuator sends a command to the plant in accordance with the control input and then the sensors measure some of the states. These states are fed into the state estimator to predict the states. Lastly, the detector determines if there is an attack on the sensor through comparison between state estimations and sensor measurements.
![An overview of the proposed attack-aware multi-sensor integration system. An attack is introduced to the sensor.[]{data-label="fig:blocks"}](figures/blocks.png){width="3.5"}
Attack Model
------------
We investigate attacks in the state or measurement equation of a discrete liner time-invariant (LTI) system represented by a state-space model. The state-space model with given matrices $A, B$, and $C$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
x(k+1) & = Ax(k) + Bu(k) + \nu(k) \label{eq:ss_normal_sys} \\
y(k) &= Cx(k) + \omega(k), \label{eq:ss_normal_mea}
\end{aligned}$$ where $x \in \mathcal{R}^{n}$, $y \in \mathcal{R}^{m}$, and $u \in \mathcal{R}^{r}$ represent state vector, output vector, and control input vector, respectively, and where $\nu$ and $\omega$ are process and measurement noise that are represented by two independent white noise sequences with covariance matrices $Q$ and $R$, respectively. If a sensor is being compromised that means unknown signals have been injected, added, or modified to the sensor, the LTI system (\[eq:ss\_normal\_sys\]) and (\[eq:ss\_normal\_mea\]) can be written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ss_attack}
\begin{split}
x(k+1) & = Ax(k) + Bu(k) + \nu(k) \\
y_{\alpha}(k) &= Cx(k) + \alpha(k) + \omega(k),
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha \in \mathcal{R}^{m}$ denotes additive attacks on a sensor and the state with the subscript $\alpha$ represents the system after an attack occurs. The key idea behind this is that the difference induced by attacks would be observable from the detection algorithm in the presence of uncertainties.
Multi-sensor Integration {#sec:met:integration}
------------------------
![Subsystems of the sensor and the state estimator. These subsystem are used in the Kalman filter-based multi-sensor integration.[]{data-label="fig:integration"}](figures/integration.png){width="3.4"}
A state estimator is designed to predict states from available measurements since not all the states of a system are observable in real-world applications. Two typical navigation solutions of autonomous vehicles, INS and GNSS measurements, are considered as shown in Fig. \[fig:integration\]. An INS uses an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) to track the position, velocity, and orientation of a vehicle relative to an initial point, orientation, and velocity. A GNSS provides satellite signals that can be processed in a GNSS receiver, allowing the receiver to estimate its current position and velocity. The advantages of both technologies can be combined by fusing these navigation solutions. There are no states directly affected by the INS measurements or the GNSS measurements in the system model (\[eq:ss\_normal\_sys\]), but they interact through the output vector (\[eq:ss\_normal\_mea\]) determined by the measurement models: $$\label{eq:output}
y =
\begin{bmatrix}
y_{\text{GNSS}} \\ y_{\text{INS}}
\end{bmatrix}.$$
Under the assumption that the system will stay in the steady-state until any attacks happen, it enables the system to identify any abrupt changes on sensor measurements. An estimator dynamics given by the following steady-state Kalman filter is considered: $$\hat{x}(k+1) = A\hat{x}(k) + Bu(k) + K[y(k) - \hat{y}(k)],$$ where Kalman gain is $K = PC^{T}(CPC^{T} + R)^{-1}$ with the covariance matrix given by $P = A[P-PC^{T}(CPC^{T}+R)^{-1}CP]A^{T} + Q$. Note that the detectability of $(A,C)$ ensures the existence of such estimator. This multi-sensor integration gives a continuous position estimation and achieves precise vehicle control.
Detection Algorithm {#sec:met:detection}
-------------------
![A subsystem of the detector. A hypothesis testing determines the system functionality.[]{data-label="fig:detection"}](figures/detection.png){width="3.4"}
The main idea of the detection capability is to generate robust residuals to uncertainties and determine sensitive thresholds to false alarm. As shown in Fig. \[fig:detection\], the detector determines the system condition at each time step through statistical hypothesis testing that compares the residual and threshold generated. The residual is the difference between the actual measurements and the estimates. A sequence of the residuals is defined as $$\label{eq:resi}
r(k) = y_{\alpha}(k) - \hat{y}(k).$$
The residuals evolve with the output estimate given by $\hat{y}(k) = C \hat{x}$ and the estimation error defined as $e(k) = x- \hat{x}$. The residual dynamics is written as $$r(k+1) =Ce(k+1) + \alpha(k+1),$$ where the estimation error dynamics given by $e(k+1) = (A-KC) e(k)$. Regardless of the availability of prior information, the residual is ideally zero before the attack and nonzero after the attack. Thus, if the system is under normal operation, the mean of the residuals will be zero and the covariance will have a value: $$\begin{aligned}
E[r(k+1)]&=0 \\
\Sigma[r(k+1)]&=CPC^{T} + R,
\end{aligned}$$ where $E[\cdot]$ denotes the expected value and $\Sigma[\cdot]$ denotes the covariance matrix. The system is able to construct a two-sided hypothesis testing to make a decision at each time step when given a set of samples. It determines the system’s abnormal behavior with the null hypothesis of normal operation and the alternative hypothesis of abnormal operation as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:htest}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{H}_{0}: r(k) & \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\Sigma) \\
\mathcal{H}_{1}: r(k) & \nsim \mathcal{N}(0,\Sigma),
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{N}(\sigma,\Sigma)$ denotes the probability density function of the Gaussian random variable with mean $\sigma$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma$. The test will continue as long as the decision favors the hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_{0}$ while the test will be stopped and restarted if the decision favors $\mathcal{H}_{1}$. Decision rules for rejecting the null hypothesis are based on the Cumulative Summation (CUSUM) algorithm which was introduced by Page [@page1954continuous]. In case of the system described in (\[eq:htest\]), the two-sided CUSUM test is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cusum}
S(k+1)=
\begin{cases}
\max{(0,S(k) + |r(k+1)|)} & \text{ if } S(k) \le \tau(k) \\
0 \text{ and } k_{\alpha}=k & \text{ if } S(k) > \tau(k).
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
The null hypothesis is rejected if the test statistics $S$ is greater than the threshold $\tau$. In this case, the test provides an attack alarm time $k_{\alpha}$ and the test starts over. The null hypothesis is accepted if the test statistics $S$ is less than or equal to the threshold $\tau$. The test continues without stopping in this case. In practice, this test collects a number of samples and calculates their weighted sum to detect a significant change in the mean of samples. Note that a selection of the sample size $N = 1,2, \cdots, k+1$ is to find a balance between response time and sensitivity while a selection of the threshold is to find a balance between sensitivity and a false alarm rate.
Application to Navigation System of Autonomous Vehicles {#sec:application}
=======================================================
In this section, the proposed attack-aware integration algorithm is applied to a navigation system of an autonomous vehicle in the presence of uncertainties and unknown attacks on sensors. It is imperative that units such as the navigation system that govern safety are protected from malicious attacks, unauthorized access, or dubious activities. This is because a small change could result in significant changes in behavior. For the simulation studies, a vehicle model and sensor models are considered. An EKF is used for online estimation and multi-sensor integration as described in Section \[sec:met:integration\]. According to the detection algorithm in Section \[sec:met:detection\], a significant change in the mean is detected and indicates an attack. A numerical simulation with a robotic simulator demonstrates the performance of the proposed algorithm. The following assumptions are considered through the simulation: no attack on multiple sensors at a time; a random attack injection time; an arbitrary magnitude of attack but greater than sensor biases.
Design of Software-in-the-loop Simulation (SILS)
------------------------------------------------
A software-in-the-loop simulation is designed to evaluate the proposed algorithm with an application of autonomous vehicles. The complete model of the simulation is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:sils\]. The simulation runs on Robot Operating System (ROS), and it includes two ROS nodes as shown in Fig. \[fig:rosnodes\]. One node is MATLAB that runs the multi-sensor integration and the detection algorithm, and another node is Gazebo that runs the robotic simulator in a customized world as shown in Fig. \[fig:gazebo\]. Each node is able to create a unique topic in ROS message type. It enables each node to exchange data via topic subscription and publication without conflict.
For the model of an autonomous vehicle in the simulation, the CAT Vehicle, a full-sized model of Ford Escape developed by the Compositional Systems Laboratory at the University of Arizona [@catvehicle], was used. It was actuated to be controllable through unique ROS topics. The simulation started with providing a set of desired waypoints to the mathematical model of the vehicle in MATLAB. The model then published the velocity commands subscribed by the robotic simulator in Gazebo. The CAT Vehicle in Gazebo followed the commands and published its local position data subscribed by the position controller in MATLAB to generate a new velocity command for the next time step. This feedback loop ran continuously and recursively until the vehicle reached the final destination regardless of attacks, and the sampling rate was 10 Hz.
Implementation
--------------
A loosely coupled INS/GNSS navigation model with a vehicle model is considered to represent an autonomous vehicle navigation system. Firstly, an EKF-based multi-sensor integration is developed for the residual generation. It is comprised of the state model and the measurement model. Consider the equation of motion for the vehicle is governed by the following dynamics: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:con}
\begin{split}
\dot{x} &= v_{x} \cos{\theta} - v_{y} \sin{\theta} \\
\dot{y} &= v_{x} \sin{\theta} + v_{y} \cos{\theta},
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $x, y, v_{x}$, and $v_{y}$ represent the position along the eastern axis, the position along the northern axis, the velocity along the eastern axis, and the velocity along the northern axis, respectively. The yaw angle is represented as $\theta$. The continuous time state equations can be discretized with the sampling time $T$ which gives the nonlinear discrete-time state model under normal operation as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
x(k+1) &= x(k) + T v_{x}(k) \cos{\theta(k)} - T v_{y}(k) \sin{\theta(k)} \\
y(k+1) &= y(k) + T v_{x}(k) \sin{\theta(k)} + T v_{y}(k) \cos{\theta(k)} \\
\theta(k+1) &= \theta(k) + T \dot{\theta}(k) \\
v_{x}(k+1) &= v_{x}(k) + T a_{x}(k) \\
v_{y}(k+1) &= v_{y}(k) + T a_{y}(k) \\
\dot{\theta}(k+1) &= \dot{\theta}(k) \\
a_{x}(k+1) &= a_{x}(k) \\
a_{y}(k+1) &= a_{y}(k) \\
b_{\dot{\theta}}(k+1) &= b_{\dot{\theta}}(k) \\
b_{a_{x}}(k+1) &= b_{a_{x}}(k) \\
b_{a_{y}}(k+1) &= b_{a_{y}}(k),
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
and the linear measurement model under normal operation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mea_normal}
\begin{split}
y_{x}(k+1) &= x(k) \\
y_{y}(k+1) &= y(k) \\
y_{\theta}(k+1) &= \theta(k) \\
y_{\dot{\theta}}(k+1) &= \dot{\theta}(k) + b_{\dot{\theta}}(k) \\
y_{a_{x}}(k+1) &= a_{x}(k) + b_{a_{x}}(k) \\
y_{a_{y}}(k+1) &= a_{y}(k) + b_{a_{y}}(k),
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ and $b$ represent the acceleration and bias, respectively. Note that the process noise $\nu$ and measurement noise $\omega$ are additive to each equation. These models are linearized to correspond with the state-space model in (\[eq:ss\_normal\_sys\]) and (\[eq:ss\_normal\_mea\]) by using the state and measurement Jacobian matrices. In addition, initial states $x(0)$, state error covariance $P$, process noise covariance $Q$, and measurement noise covariance $R$ are carefully chosen according to hardware specifications. The models in (\[eq:con\])-(\[eq:mea\_normal\]) integrate multiple sensors to predict the vehicle states under normal operation. This integrated architecture ensures that a continuous navigation solution is always produced, regardless of the existence of attacks. Following the state estimation under normal condition, the system under attack (\[eq:ss\_attack\]) is considered. These two different measurement models are used for the residual generation in (\[eq:resi\]). The decision rules in (\[eq:cusum\]) then determine if there is a significant change in the vehicle position at each time step. It is verified in the following section.
Results
-------
![North position estimation error corresponding to an attack in the vehicle navigation system. A peak is observed around 40 seconds but it does not indicate that the peak has been caused by the attack.[]{data-label="fig:EstErr"}](figures/EstErr.eps){width="3.5in" height="2.5in"}
![North position measurement error corresponding to an attack in the vehicle navigation system. The measurement error jumped around the 40 second mark by approximately 10 meters but it does not guarantee that the shift occurred due to the attack.[]{data-label="fig:MeaErr"}](figures/MeaErr.eps){width="3.5in" height="2.5in"}
![Test statistics evolution corresponding to an attack in the vehicle navigation system. The proposed algorithm identified a significant change of the residuals that exceeds the upper limit of the threshold as soon as the attack was initiated at 40 seconds.[]{data-label="fig:ResEvol"}](figures/ResEvol.eps){width="3.5in" height="2.5in"}
During the simulation, an attack was introduced at the GNSS receiver at 40 seconds to test if the proposed detection algorithm can identify the attack. A separate function from the detection algorithm injected the attack into the receiver measurement if the simulation clock reached 40 seconds, and there was no data exchange with the detection algorithm. The magnitude of the attack was 10 meters, which is larger than the GNSS receiver bias.
The estimation error in Fig. \[fig:EstErr\] shows the estimation performance of the multi-sensor integration. There are quite small errors, which means it provides a continuous and high-bandwidth navigation solution, until a peak around 40 seconds. The peak may imply that there was an attack around 40 seconds but it is insufficient evidence to determine that the peak was due to an attack. This is because an attack is not the only cause of a peak during state estimation. For example, it can be caused by signal attenuation, data loss, time delay, bursty packet dropping, etc. Similarly, the measurement error in Fig. \[fig:MeaErr\] indicates that there was an abrupt shift around 40 seconds on the north sensor measurement. This is not sufficient to determine if an attack was introduced because it is unable to verify where the shift originates. Consequently, one can indicate a suspicious jump or shift from the multi-sensor integration but it is insufficient to determine that there is an attack on the vehicle. On the other hand, the evolution of the test statistics in Fig. \[fig:ResEvol\] clearly shows that there was a significant change that caused the residual to jump the upper bound of the threshold around the 40 second mark. The test statistics were calculated by (\[eq:cusum\]), and the upper and lower bounds of the threshold were generated by using the weighted sum of the first 10 samples. Based upon these parameters, the detector in the navigation system determined that there was an attack around 40 seconds when the residual went above the upper limit of the threshold, and the corresponding time was automatically generated. It was 40.2 seconds in this simulation, two time steps behind the attack (i.e. an attack was injected at $k=400$ but $k_{\alpha}=402$), a fairly quick detection because it was only two sampling steps behind the actual attack. In addition, there were a number of ups and downs prior to the attack but they stayed within the threshold boundary, allowing the detection algorithm to avoid a false alarm. Thus in this application, using the proposed attack-aware multi-sensor integration system provides a method to detect an attack as quickly as possible with no false alarm.
Conclusion {#sec:con}
==========
This research presented a statistical approach to the problem of attack detection on the multi-sensor integration of autonomous vehicle navigation systems. Starting with a state-space model of the system under attack, a parametric statistical tool with a multi-sensor integration strategy was developed to identify an attack. Finally, a simulation was designed to verify the proposed detection system and results were presented. A few limitations in this study remain: 1) the detection system was unable to identify an attack that was smaller than the sensor bias, but the vehicle was still under the control, and 2) the detection system was unable to detect an attack if any change occurred at the very beginning of samples. These remaining research questions will be addressed in the future.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The genus of knots is one of the fundamental invariant and can be seen as a complexity of knots. In this paper we give a lower bound of the knot genus using the Dehornoy floor, which is a measure of complexity of braids in terms of the Dehornoy ordering.'
address: 'Graduate School of Mathematical Science, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8914, Japan'
author:
- Tetsuya Ito
title: Braid ordering and knot genus
---
Introduction
============
Let $B_{n}$ be the degree $n$ braid group, defined by the presentation $$B_{n} =
\left\langle
\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2},\cdots ,\sigma_{n-1}
\left|
\begin{array}{ll}
\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}=\sigma_{j}\sigma_{i} & |i-j|\geq 2 \\
\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{i}=\sigma_{j}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j} & |i-j|=1 \\
\end{array}
\right.
\right\rangle.$$
The [*Dehornoy ordering*]{} $<_{D}$ is a left-invariant total ordering of the braid group $B_{n}$ defined as follows. For two $n$-braids $\alpha$ and $\beta$, we define $\alpha <_{D} \beta$ if and only if the braid $\alpha^{-1}\beta$ admit a word representative which contains at least one $\sigma_{i}$ and contains no $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1},\sigma_{2}^{\pm1}\cdots ,\sigma_{i-1}^{\pm 1},\sigma_{i}^{-1}$ for some $1\leq i \leq n-1$. Many other equivalent definitions of the Dehornoy ordering are known, hence the Dehornoy ordering is a quite natural structure of the braid group $B_{n}$ [@ddrw1],[@ddrw2].
Let $\Delta = (\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{n-1})(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{n-2})\cdots(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2})(\sigma_{1})\in B_{n}$ be the Garside fundamental braid. The Garside fundamental braid has special properties and plays an important role in the braid group. For example, the center of the braid group is an infinite cyclic group which is generated by $\Delta^{2}$. Using the Dehornoy ordering and the Garside fundamental braid $\Delta$, for each braid $\beta$, we define the [*Dehornoy floor*]{} $[\beta]_{D}$, which is a measure of a complexity of braids, as follows.
The Dehornoy floor $[\beta]_{D}$ of a braid $\beta \in B_{n}$ is a non-negative integer defined by $$[\beta]_{D} = \min \{ m \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\: | \Delta^{-2m-2} <_{D} \beta <_{D} \Delta^{2m+2}\: \}.$$
The purpose of this paper is to compare the Dehornoy floor, which is a fundamental complexity of a braid in the Dehornoy ordering view point, and the genus of links described as a closure of the braid, which is the most fundamental complexity of links in topological view point.
Our main result is the following.
\[thm:main\] Let $\beta \in B_{n}$ be a braid and $\chi(\widehat{\beta})$ be the maximal Euler characteristics of an orientable spanning surface whose boundary is $\widehat{\beta}$. Then, the inequality $$[\beta ]_{D} < \frac{3}{2}-\frac{2\chi(\widehat{\beta})}{n+2}$$ holds.
As a consequence, we obtain a new lower bound of knot genus.
\[c1\] Let $K$ be an oriented knot and $g(K)$ be the genus of $K$. If $K$ is represented as the closure of an $n$-braid $\beta$, then the inequality $$[\beta ]_{D} < \frac{4g(K)}{n+2} -\frac{2}{n+2}+ \frac{3}{2} \leq g(K)+1$$ holds.
Thus we conclude that the closure of a complex braid with respect to the Dehornoy ordering is also complex with respect to a topological view point.\
**Acknowledgments.** The author gratefully acknowledges the many helpful suggestions of professor Toshitake Kohno during the preparation of the paper. This research was supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we present some of basic facts of the Dehornoy ordering and Birman-Menasco’s braid foliation theory which will be used in later.
Properties of the Dehornoy floor
--------------------------------
In this subsection we review some properties of the Dehornoy ordering and the Dehornoy floor. For details, see [@i]. For $1\leq i < j \leq n$, let $\{a_{i,j}\}$ be an $n$-braid defined by $$a_{i,j}= (\sigma_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\cdots \sigma_{j-2})\sigma_{j-1}(\sigma_{j-2}^{-1}\cdots\sigma_{i+1}^{-1} \sigma_{i}^{-1}).$$
The braids $\{a_{i,j}\}_{1<i<j\leq n}$ are called the [*band generators*]{}. The following properties of the Dehornoy floor are proved by Malyutin, Netsvetaev and the author.
\[prop:dehornoyfloor\] Let $\alpha,\beta \in B_{n}$. Then the following holds.
1. If a braid $\beta$ is conjugate to a braid which is represented by a word which contains $s$ $\sigma_{1}$ and $k$ $\sigma_{1}^{-1}$, then $[\beta]_{D} < max\{s,k\}$ holds.
2. $|[\beta]_{D}-[\alpha]_{D}|\leq 1$ if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are conjugate.
3. $[\alpha \beta]_{D} \leq [\alpha]_{D} + [\beta]_{D} + 1$.
4. If a braid $\beta$ is conjugate to a braid represented as a product of $m$ band generators, then $[\beta]_{D} < \frac{m}{n}$ holds.
These properties will be used later to estimate the Dehornoy floor.
Braid foliation theory
----------------------
In this subsection, we summarize a basic machinery of Birman-Menasco’s braid foliation theory in the case of the incompressible Seifert surface. For details of the braid foliation theories, see [@bf].
Fix an unknot $A \in S^{3}$, called [*axis*]{} and choose a meridinal disc fibration $H = \{ H_{\theta}\;|\; \theta \in [0,2\pi]\}$ of the solid torus $S^{3} \backslash A$. An oriented link $L$ in $S^{3} \backslash A$ is called a [*closed braid*]{} with axis $A$ if $L$ intersects every fiber $H_{\theta}$ transversely and each fiber is oriented so that all intersections of $L$ are positive.
Let $F$ be an oriented, connected spanning surface of $L$ with the maximal Euler characteristics. An orientation of $F$ is defined so that $L = \partial F$ holds. We remark that such a surface is always incompressible in $S^{3} \backslash L$. Then the intersections of fiber $\{H_{\theta}\}$ with $F$ induce a singular foliation of $F$, whose leaves consist of the connected components of the intersection with fibers. The braid foliation techniques are, in short, modifying this foliation simpler as possible and obtain a standard position or representation of braids and surfaces. We say a fiber $H_{\theta}$ is [*regular*]{} if $H_{\theta}$ transverse $F$ and [*singular*]{} if $H_{\theta}$ tangent to $F$. A non-singular leaf is called [*a-arc*]{} if one of its boundary point lies on $L$ and the other lies on $A$. Similarly, non-singular leaf is called a [*b-arc*]{} if both of its boundary points lie on $A$. We say b-arc $b$ is [*essential*]{} if the both connected components of $H_{\theta} \backslash b$ are pierced by $L$.
$F$ can be isotoped to a good position with respect to the fibration which satisfies the following conditions, which we call [*braid-foliation conditions*]{} [@bf].
1. Axis $A$ pierces $F$ transversely in finitely many points.
2. For each point $v \in A\cap F$, there exists a neighborhood $N_{v}$ of $v$ such that $F\cap N_{v}$ is a radially foliated disc.
3. All but finitely many fibers $H_{\theta}$ intersect $F$ transversely, and each of the exceptional fiber is tangent to $F$ at exactly one point. Moreover, each point of tangency is a saddle tangency and lies in the interior of $F \cap H_{\theta}$.
4. All regular leaves are a-arc or b-arc, and every b-arc is essential.
Now assume that $F$ satisfies the braid foliation conditions. We call an intersection point of $A\cap F$ [*vertex*]{}. For each vertex $p$, the valance of vertex $p$ is, by definition, the number of singular leaves which pass $p$. We say a singular point is an [*aa-singularity*]{} if the singular point is derived from two a-arcs. An [*ab-singularity*]{} and a [*bb-singularity*]{} are defined by the same way. Each type of singularity has a foliated neighborhood as shown in the figure \[fig:regions\]. We call these neighborhoods of singularities [*regions*]{}. The decomposition of the surface $F$ into regions defines a cellular decomposition of $F$. It is directly checked that the valance of a vertex which is previously defined, the number of singular leaves which pass the vertex, coincide with the usual definition of the valance in this cellular decomposition.
![aa-,ab-,bb- tiles[]{data-label="fig:regions"}](aa_ab_bb_tile.eps){width="70mm"}
We say the sign of a singular point $p$ in the fiber $H_{\theta}$ is [*positive*]{} (resp. [*negative*]{}) if the outward pointing normal vector of $F$ at $p$ agrees (resp. disagrees) with the normal vector of the fiber $H_{\theta}$ at $p$.
The notion of sign is used to decrease the valance of a vertex by an isotopy of the surface $F$.
\[lem:folchange\] Let $F$ be foliated surface as the above. If there exist adjacent bb-singular points along the neighborhood of a vertex $v$ with the same signs, then by an isotopy of $F$, we can decrease the valance of $v$ by one.
Proof of theorem \[thm:main\]
=============================
In this section we prove theorem \[thm:main\]. The strategy of proof is the following. We first establish the Euler characteristic formula for a Seifert surface, which relate the valance of vertices and the Euler characteristics of the surface. Next we estimate the Dehornoy floor of the braid using the valance of vertices. Combining these two results, we obtain the desired estimation.
We call a $n$-punctured disc $D_{n} = \{ z \in {\mathbb{C}}\: |\: |z| \leq n+1 \} \backslash \{1,2,3,\cdots, n\}$ the [*standard*]{} $n$-[*punctured disc*]{}. We regard an $n$-braid $\beta$ as a move of puncture points of the standard $n$-punctured disc. We call the region $D_{n} \cap \{ z \in D_{n} \:|\: \textrm{Im} z \leq 0\}$ the [*lower half of the standard punctured disc*]{}.
Let $F$ be a spanning surface of a closed $n$-braid $L=\widehat{\beta}$ with the maximal Euler characteristics. We isotope $F$ so that $F$ satisfies the braid-foliation conditions. Let $V(a,b)$ be the number of vertices in the tiling of $F$ whose valance is $a+b$ and which have $a$ a-arcs as their edges and $b$ b-arcs as their edges. We call such a vertex [*type*]{} $(a,b)$-[*vertex*]{}.
The following lemma has proved in [@bm] using the simple Euler characteristic argument.
\[lem:eulerform\]
$$\begin{aligned}
& \lefteqn{2V(1,0)+2V(0,2)+V(0,3)-4 \chi(F) } \hspace{1cm} \\
&=& V(2,1)+2V(3,0) + \sum_{v=4}^{\infty}\sum_{\alpha=0}^{v}(v+\alpha -4)V(v,\alpha ) \\\end{aligned}$$
Now we extract information of the closed braid $\widehat{\beta}$ via the braid foliation of $F$. The following lemma is the core of this paper.
\[lem:estimate\] If $F$ has a type $(a,b)$-vertex, then the inequality $$[\beta]_{D} < a + \frac{b}{2} - \frac{1}{2}$$ holds.
We prove the lemma by estimating the number of $\sigma_{1}^{\pm 1}$ in the braid $\beta$. The proof of lemma is divided into five steps. In the first step, we modify the closed braid $\widehat{\beta}$ and the surface $F$ so that we can decompose the braid into smaller pieces. In the second step we obtain an explicit description of the modified braid by using braid foliation. In the third step we describe the method to simplify the obtained description of the braid so that it contains less $\sigma_{1}^{\pm 1}$. The fourth step is devoted ti the proof in case of $a=0$ or $b=0$. In the last step, we treat the case both $a$ and $b$ are non-zero.\
**Step 1: Modifying surface and closed braid**\
Let $v$ be a type $(a,b)$ vertex of $F$. Let $\{ H_{\theta_{i}} \; | \; i=1,2, \cdots, a + b, \; \; \theta_{i}< \theta_{i+1}\}$ be a sequence of singular fibers around $v$. That is, $H_{\theta_{i}}$ is a singular fiber which contains a singular leave which pass the vertex $v$. We denote the leaf in $H_{\theta}$ which passes $v$ by $\delta_{\theta}$.
Take a sufficiently small number $\varepsilon >0$ so that there are no singularities in the interval $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon,\theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$ except $H_{\theta_{i}}$. We modify the closed braid $\widehat{\beta}=L$ and the surface $F$ so that they satisfy the following conditions.
1. $H_{\theta_{i} \pm \varepsilon} \backslash (H_{\theta_{i} \pm \varepsilon} \cap L)$ is the standard $n$-punctured disc $D_{n}$.
2. All vertices and a-arcs in a fiber $H_{\theta_{i} \pm \varepsilon}$ lie in the lower half of the disc $H_{\theta_{i} \pm \varepsilon} =D_{n}$.
3. The vertex $v$ lies at the leftmost position in the boundary of lower half of the disc $D_{n}$.
4. If all of $\{ \delta_{\theta} \}$ are b-arc in the interval $[\theta_{i}+\varepsilon,\theta_{i+1}-\varepsilon]$, then these b-arcs do not move in $[\theta_{i}+\varepsilon,\theta_{i+1}-\varepsilon]$.
These conditions are achieved by the following way. First we isotope $\beta$ and $F$ so that the condition (3) and (4) holds. Now the condition (1) and (2) are achieved by the isotopy near singular fibers $H_{\theta_{i}}$, which preserves the condition (3) and (4).
We denote this modified closed braid by $\widehat{\beta'}$. By cutting the closed braid $\widehat{\beta'}$ at the fiber $H_{\theta_{1}- \varepsilon}$, we obtain a braid $\beta'$. Since the above modification is an isotopy of the closed braid $\widehat{\beta}$ and the surface $F$ in the complement of the axis of $\widehat{\beta}$, so the braid $\beta'$ is conjugate to the original braid $\beta$. The benefit of this modification is the following. First, from the condition (1), we can decompose the braid $\beta'$ by the product of sub-braidings in each interval $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon,\theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$ and $[\theta_{i}+\varepsilon,\theta_{i+1}-\varepsilon]$. The conditions (2)-(4) will be used to obtain the description of $\beta'$ in step 2.\
**Step 2: Description of $\beta'$**\
Our next task is to obtain an explicit description of the braid $\beta'$. First of all, we study the braiding near the singularities, that is, the braiding in the interval $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon , \theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$.
By seeing the moves of leaves on surfaces, we can obtain the explicit form of the braiding in each interval $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon,\theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$. Especially, from the condition (2) and (3) in step 1, we have already known the first and the last configurations of leaves, so it is not hard to see how the leaves move. Here we simply state a result. We will present the moves of leaves by showing figures, which will convince the reader of the result. See [@bh] for detailed arguments to obtain a braid word via the braid foliation.
If the singularity in $H_{\theta_{i}}$ is an aa-singularity, then the braiding in $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon,\theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$ is given by $$a_{1,j}^{\pm 1}=(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{j-1}\sigma_{j}^{\pm 1}\sigma_{j-1}^{-1}\cdots \sigma_{1}^{-1}).$$ This is a band generator, which corresponds to a twisted band between two disc neighborhood of vertices. Thus, one aa-singularity produces one $\sigma_{1}^{\pm 1}$. See figure \[fig:aa-singularity\].
![Moves of of leaves near aa-singularity[]{data-label="fig:aa-singularity"}](aa-singularity.eps){width="90mm"}
If the singularity in $H_{\theta_{i}}$ is an ab-singularity, then the braiding in $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon,\theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$ is given by $$(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{j}) \textrm{ or } (\sigma_{j}^{-1}\sigma_{j-1}^{-1}\cdots \sigma_{1}^{-1}).$$
We say an ab-singularity giving the former type of words [*type a-b*]{}. The name type a-b is derived from the fact that along the neighborhood of an ab-singularity, the leaf $\delta_{\theta}$ is changed from a-arc to b-arc. Similarly, an ab-singularity giving the latter type of words [*type b-a*]{}. See figure \[fig:ab-singularity\].
![Move of leaves near ab-singularity[]{data-label="fig:ab-singularity"}](ab-singularity.eps){width="90mm"}
There are two kinds of ab-singularities. The first kind ab-singularity is an ab-singularity such that the a-arc is attached to the b-arc from the right side, as depicted in the figure \[fig:ab-singularity\](a). The second kind ab-singularity is an ab-singularity such that the a-arc is attached to the b-arc from the left side, as depicted in the figure \[fig:ab-singularity\](b). Although both kinds of ab-singularities provide the same braid words if their types are the same, but the configurations of b-arcs and braid strands after the ab-singularities are different. Therefore, in some cases we must distinguish them.
Around a bb-singularity, all a-arcs are not changed. Thus the link $L$, viewing as a boundary points of a-arcs, does not move in the neighborhood of the bb-singularity. Thus, a bb-singularity does not produce any $\sigma_{1}^{\pm 1}$. Therefore, when the singularity contained in $H_{\theta_{i}}$ is a bb-singularity, then the braiding in the interval $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon,\theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$ is trivial.
Next we study a braiding outside the neighborhood of singularities, that is, in the interval $I=[\theta_{i}+\varepsilon,\theta_{i+1}-\varepsilon]$. First observe there exist two types of such intervals $[\theta_{i}+\varepsilon,\theta_{i+1}-\varepsilon]$. Namely,
1. An interval between two aa-singularities, or an interval between an aa-singularity and an ab-singularity.
2. An interval between an ab-singularity and an aa-singularity, or an interval between two bb-singularities.
We call each type of intervals [*type A, type B*]{} respectively because in a type A (resp. type B) interval, the leaf $\delta_{\theta}$ is always an a-arc (resp. b-arc).
Let $I$ be a type A interval and $\beta_{I}$ be the braiding in the interval $I$. Let us denote the the $1$st strand of the braid $\beta_{I}$, which corresponds to the boundary point of the a-arc $\delta_{\theta}$, by $b_{1}$. Since in the interval $I$, the a-arcs $\delta_{\theta}$ do not form a singularity, the strand $b_{1}$ is not braided with other strands of $\beta_{I}$. Therefore the braid $\beta_{I}$ can be written as in the left diagram of figure \[fig:braiding\_in\_interval\].
Next we consider the braiding in a type B interval $J$. Since the b-arc $\delta_{\theta}$ is essential, the leaf $\delta_{\theta}$ separates each fiber $H_{\theta}$ into two components, both of which are pierced by $L$. Recall that we have modified the surface $F$ so that in the interval $J$, the leaf $\delta_{\theta}$ does not move ( condition (4) in step 1). Therefore the braiding in type B interval splits, so we can write the braiding as in the right diagram of figure \[fig:braiding\_in\_interval\].
![Braiding in interval $[\theta_{i}+\varepsilon,\theta_{i+1}-\varepsilon]$[]{data-label="fig:braiding_in_interval"}](braiding_in_interval.eps){width="60mm"}
**Step 3: Simplification procedure**\
We obtained an explicit description of the whole braiding of $\beta'$. The next step is to simplify the obtained braid so that it contains less $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$ as possible. We introduce two operations of simplification, the [*ab-B simplification*]{} and the [*B-B simplification*]{}.
First we explain the ab-B simplification. Let $N$ be the $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of an ab-singular point and $I$ be the adjacent type $B$ interval. From step 2, the braiding in $N \cup I$ can be written as in the left diagram of figure \[fig:modification1\].
If the ab-singularity is the first kind, that is, the a-arc is attached from right, then a braid box in $I$ which contains the strands $1$ can be shifted across the braiding in $N$ so that the modified braid contains only one $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$. If the ab-singularity is the second kind, that is, the a-arc is attached from left, then the braiding in $N$ is amalgamated into the adjacent braiding box in $I$ so that we can neglect the braiding derived from $N$. See figure \[fig:modification1\]. In the figure, we show the type a-b singularity case. The type b-a singularity case is similar.
![ab-B simplifications[]{data-label="fig:modification1"}](newmodification.eps){width="100mm"}
Next we explain the B-B simplification. Assume that two type B intervals $I_{1},I_{2}$ are adjacent to the interval $J$, which is a neighborhood of a bb-singularity. Then by exchanging the order of braid boxes in $I_{2}$, we can modify the braiding in the interval $I_{1}\cup J \cup I_{2}$ as in figure \[fig:modification2\]. Then the obtained braiding in $I_{1} \cup J \cup I_{2}$ contains only one $\sigma_{1}$ and $\sigma_{1}^{-1}$.\
![B-B simplifications[]{data-label="fig:modification2"}](newmodification2.eps){width="80mm"}
**Step 4: Proving lemma in $a=0$ or $b=0$ case**\
Now we are ready to prove the lemma. First we consider the case $b=0$. In this case, there exist only aa-singularities around the vertex $v$. Recall that we have shown that one aa-singularity provides only one $\sigma_{1}^{\pm 1}$. Thus, the braid $\beta'$ has at most $a$ $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$. Hence by proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\], we obtain $[\beta]_{D} < a$. Since both $[\beta]_{D}$ and $a$ are integers, we conclude the inequality $[\beta]_{D} < a - \frac{1}{2}$ holds.
Next we consider the case $a=0$. In this case, there exist only bb-singularities around the vertex $v$. Then, around the vertex $v$, there are $b$ type B intervals. By performing the B-B simplification which we described in step 3, we conclude that the braid $\beta'$ has at most $\frac{b}{2}$ $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$. Thus, by proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\], we obtain the inequality $[\beta]_{D} < \frac{b}{2}$. If $b$ is even, then both $[\beta]_{D}$ and $\frac{b}{2}$ are integers. Thus we conclude that the inequality $[\beta]_{D} < \frac{b}{2} - \frac{1}{2}$ holds. If $b$ is odd, then there must be adjacent bb-singular points with the same sign around the vertex $v$. Now the lemma \[lem:folchange\] implies that we can decrease the valance of $v$ by one by moving the surface $F$. Therefore in this case we also obtain the inequality $[\beta]_{D} < \frac{b}{2}-\frac{1}{2}$.\
**Step 5: Proving lemma in $a\neq 0$ and $b \neq 0$ case**\
We complete the proof by showing the case that both $a$ and $b$ are non zero.
In this case, there must exist at least two ab-singularities around the vertex $v$. Then the cycle of singularities around the vertex $v$ are decomposed as the repetitions of the sub-cycles of the form $$\{ \underbrace{aa \rightarrow aa \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow aa}_{k\; \mbox{times}} \rightarrow ab \rightarrow \underbrace{ bb \rightarrow bb \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow bb}_{l\;\mbox{times}} \rightarrow ab \}$$
which contains $k$ aa-singularities and $l$ bb-singularities. We remark that $k$ and $l$ might be zero.
Recall that from step 2, one aa-singularity provide at most one $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$ and type A intervals and bb-singularities have no contributions to the number of $\sigma_{1}^{\pm 1}$. Thus, the aa-singularities and type A intervals contribute the number of $\sigma_{1}^{\pm 1}$ by at most $k$.
We reduce the number of $\sigma_{1},\sigma_{1}^{-1}$ derived from ab-singularities and type B intervals using the ab-B and B-B simplifications described in step 3. First observe that there are three patterns of ab-singularities in the sub-cycle.
1. Both ab-singularities are from left.
2. One ab-singularity is from left, and the other is form right.
3. Both ab-singularities are from right.
We consider each case separately.
If both ab-singularities are from left, then the ab-B simplification amalgamates the braiding derived from the ab-singularities with the adjacent braid block derived from the type B interval. So we can neglect the braiding derived from the ab-singularities. Thus in this case, we only need to consider the contribution of $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$ derived from type B intervals. Then, the number of type B intervals is $l+1$, so these type B intervals contribute at most $\frac{l+1}{2}$ $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$. Consequently, in this case the sub-cycle contains at most $(\frac{l+1}{2}+k)$ $\sigma_{1}$ or $\sigma_{1}^{-1}$.
Next we assume that one of the ab-singularities is from left and the other is from right. Then by preforming the ab-B simplification, the ab-singularity from right is modified together with the adjacent type B interval so that they contribute one $\sigma_{1}$ or $\sigma_{-1}$. This ab-B simplification deletes one type B intervals. The braiding derived from the ab-singularity from left is amalgamated with the adjacent type B intervals, so we can neglect it. The number of remaining type B intervals is $l$, so the type B intervals contribute at most $\frac{l}{2}$ $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$. As a result, in this case there are at most $(\frac{l}{2}+1+k)$ $\sigma_{1}$ or $\sigma_{1}^{-1}$ in the sub-cycle.
Finally, assume that the both of ab-singularities are from right. Then after ab-B simplifications, the ab-singularities, modified with the adjacent type B intervals, provide one $\sigma_{1}$ and $\sigma_{1}^{-1}$. The ab-B simplifications deletes two type B intervals. Thus the number of remaining type B intervals is $l-1$, and they contribute at most $(\frac{l-1}{2}$ $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1})$. Therefore in this case sub-cycle contains at most $(\frac{l-1}{2}+1+k)$ $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$.
Summarizing, we conclude that each sub-cycle contains at most $(k+1+\frac{l}{2})$ $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1}$. Therefore if we want to the braid $\beta'$ contains $\sigma_{1}$ or $\sigma_{1}^{-1}$ as many as possible, then the number of sub-cycles in the cycle of singularities around the vertex $v$ must be one. Then there are $a-1$ aa-singularities and $b-1$ bb-singularities around $v$, so we conclude that the modified braid $\beta'$ has a word representative which has at most $a+\frac{b-1}{2}$ $\sigma_{1}$ or $\sigma_{1}^{-1}$. Since the original braid $\beta$ is conjugate to $\beta'$, by proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\] we conclude that $[\beta]_{D} < a + \frac{b}{2}-\frac{1}{2}$.
Now we are ready to prove theorem \[thm:main\].
Let $L$ be an oriented link and $F$ be a Seifert surface of $L$ with maximal Euler characteristics. Take a closed braid representative $\widehat{\beta}$ of $L$ and isotope $F$ and $L$ so that $F$ satisfies the braid-foliation conditions.
If there exists a vertex of type (2,0), (1,1), (1,2), (0,2), (0,3) or (0,4), then lemma \[lem:estimate\] shows $[\beta]_{D} < 2$, hence we obtain the inequality $[\beta]_{D}<\frac{3}{2}$. Therefore we can assume that there exist no vertices of such types. Thus, the Euler characteristic formula is now written as $$-4 \chi(F)= V(2,1)+2V(3,0)+\sum_{v=4}^{\infty}\sum_{a=0}^{v}(v+a-4)V(a,v-a).$$
First assume that $F$ is foliated by only a-arcs. In this case, there exist exactly $n$ vertices on $F$ and exactly $-\chi(F) + n$ aa-singularities on $F$ because aa-singularity can be seen as a twisted band attached to disc neighborhoods of vertices. Therefore, the braid $\beta$ is conjugate to a braid written by a product of $n-\chi(F)$ band generators. Therefore from proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\], we establish the inequality $[\beta]_{D} < 1-\frac{\chi(F)}{n} \leq \frac{3}{2}- \frac{2\chi(F)}{n+2}$.
Now assume that $F$ contains both b-arc and a-arc. Let $(a,b)$ be a pair of integers such that the value $a+\frac{b}{2} = \frac{v+a}{2}$ is minimal among the all pair $(a,b)$ which satisfy $V(a,b) \neq 0$. Since $F$ contains b-arcs, there exist at least $n+2$ vertices in the foliation. Hence from the Euler characteristic formula, the inequality $$-4 \chi(F) \leq (2a+b-4)(n+2)$$ holds. Therefore we obtain the inequality $$\frac{-2\chi(F)}{n+2} + 2 \leq a+\frac{b}{2}.$$ Therefore lemma \[lem:estimate\] gives desired estimation.
We close this paper by giving a simple generalization. There exist infinitely many families of left-invariant total orderings of the braid groups called [*Thurston-type orderings*]{}. The Dehornoy ordering is a special one of a Thurston type ordering [@sw]. Thurston type orderings have similar properties of the Dehornoy ordering. Especially the proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\] also holds for the Thurston floor, which is defined by using a Thurston type ordering instead of the Dehornoy ordering. Hence our main theorem also holds if we use a Thurston floor instead of using the Dehornoy floor.
[\[BF\]]{} J.Birman, E.Finkelstein, [*[Studying surfaces via closed braids,]{}*]{} J. Knot theory Ramifications. , **7**, No.3 (1998), 267-334. J.Birman, M.Hirsch, [*[A new algorithm for recognizing the unknot,]{}*]{} Geometry $\&$ Topology , **2**, (1998), 175-220. J.Birman, W.Menasco, [*[Studying surfaces via closed braids VI: Non finiteness theorem,]{}*]{} Pacific J. of Math., **156**, No.2 (1992), 265-285. P.Dehornor, I.Dynnkov, D.Rolfsen and B.Wiest, [*[Why are the braids orderable ?,]{}*]{} Panoramas et Synthéses **14**, Soc. Math. France. 2002. P.Dehornoy, I.Dynnkov, D.Rolfsen and B.Wiest, [*[Ordering Braids,]{}*]{} Mathematical Surveys and Monographs **148**, Amer. Math. Soc. 2008. T.Ito, [*[Braid ordering and the geometry of closed braid,]{}*]{} e-print, arXiv:0805.1447v2 A.Malyutin, N.Netsvetaev, [*[Dehornoy’s ordering on the braid group and braid moves,]{}*]{} St.Peterburg Math. J. **15**, No.3 (2004), 437-448. A.Malyutin, [*[Twist number of (closed) braids,]{}*]{} St.Peterburg Math. J. **16**, No.5 (2005), 791-813. H.Short, B.Wiest, [*[Ordering of mapping class groups after Thurston,]{}*]{} Enseign. Math. **46**,(2000), 279-312.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'University of Notre Dame, Department of Physics, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA'
- |
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, and\
University of Notre Dame, Department of Physics, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
author:
- 'G.J. MATHEWS, P. MARRONETTI'
- 'J.R. WILSON'
title: RELATIVISTIC STUDIES OF CLOSE NEUTRON STAR BINARIES
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
The physical processes occurring during the last orbits of a neutron star binary are currently a subject of intense interest.[@wm95]$^-$[@baumgarte] In part, the recent surge in interest stems from relativistic numerical hydrodynamic simulations in which it has been noted [@wm95; @wmm96; @mw97] that as the stars approach their final orbits they experience compression. Indeed, for an appropriate equation of state, numerical simulations [@mw97] indicate that binary neutron stars heat significantly before individually collapsing toward black holes many seconds prior to merger. The orbit frequency is also significantly lower than that of Newtonian or post-Newtonian point sources, and the inner most stable orbit occurs at a larger separation distance.[@wmm96] All of these effects could have a significant impact on the anticipated gravity wave signal from merging neutron stars. They could also provide an energy source for cosmological gamma-ray bursts.[@mw97]
However, a number of recent papers [@lai]$^-$[@baumgarte] have not observed this effect in Newtonian,[@lai] 1PN,[@shabata; @wiseman] weak field multipole expansions,[@brady; @flanagan; @thorne] or in binaries in which rigid corotation has been imposed.[@baumgarte] Moreover, this flurry of activity has caused some confusion as to the physics responsible for the effects observed in the numerical calculations. Here, we present a brief derivation of the physics which drives the compression and discuss how such terms are missed in the various approximation schemes. We describe simulations which demonstrate that the compression forces do not appear in simple linear motion or rigid corotation. We also summarize the implications of these results on the gravity wave signal of close neutron star binaries.
The basic physical processes which induce compression can be traced to completely general terms in the hydrodynamic equations of motion.[@mw97] We begin with the usual ADM (3+1) metric [@adm62; @york79] in which there is a slicing of the spacetime into a one-parameter family of three-dimensional hypersurfaces $\gamma_{i j}$ separated by differential displacements in a time-like coordinate $\alpha$, $$ds^2 = -(\alpha^2 - \beta_i\beta^i) dt^2 +
2 \beta_i dx^i dt + \gamma_{ij}dx^i dx^j~~.
\label{metric}$$ The conformally flat metric condition ([*CFC*]{}) expresses the three metric of Eq. (\[metric\]) as $\gamma_{i j} = \phi^4 \delta_{ij}$. It is common practice to impose this condition when solving the initial value problem in numerical relativity (which is in essence what we do). One question, however, is the amount of hidden radiation [@abrahams] contained in the CFC solution. We have estimated this by decomposing the extrinsic curvature into longitudinal $K^{i j}_L$ and transverse $K^{i j}_T$ components as proposed by York.[@york73] By this order-of-magnitude estimate, we find that the “hidden” gravitational radiation energy density is a small fraction of the total gravitational mass energy of the system, $
\int K^{i j}_T K_{Tij} {dV\over 8 \pi} \approx 2 \times 10^{-5} ~
{\rm M_G}$. Similarly, the multipole estimate of the power loss in gravitational radiation is a small fraction of the energy in orbital motion $\dot J/\omega J\sim 10^{-4}$. Hence, the CFC is probably a good approximation to the initial data for the binaries we study.
The vanishing of the spatial components of the divergence of the energy momentum tensor $(T_\mu^{~i})_{;\mu} = 0$ leads to an evolution equation for the covariant four momentum, $$\begin{aligned}
{\dot S_i}& + & S_i{\dot \gamma \over\gamma}
-{1\over\gamma}{\partial\over\partial x^j}(S_iV^j\gamma)
+ {\alpha \partial P\over \partial x^i}
- S_j {\partial \beta^j \over \partial x^i} \nonumber \\
&+ & (\rho(1 + \epsilon) + P)\biggl(W^2{\partial \alpha \over \partial x^i}
+ \alpha {U_j U_k \over 2 } {\partial \gamma^{j k}
\over \partial x^i}\biggr) = 0~~.
\label{hydromom}\end{aligned}$$ In an orbiting system it is convenient to allow $\beta^j$ to follow the the orbital motion of the stars. In which case, the term $S_j (\partial \beta^j /\partial x^i)$ contains the centrifugal force (plus some small frame drag). The term containing $\partial \alpha/\partial x^i$ is the analog of the Newtonian gravitational force.
The term with $(U_j U_k /2 ) \partial \gamma^{j k}
/\partial x^i$ is the compression driving force. It does not have a Newtonian analog. This term vanishes for a star at rest with respect to the observer or in the flat-space limit. However, for a star with fluid motion in curved space, it describes an additional force represented as a product of velocities times the gradient of the three metric. For simple linear motion the effects of this term should cancel to leave the stellar structure unchanged. Similarly, this term appears to cancel [@baumgarte] for fluid motion in which the four velocity can be taken as proportional to a simple Killing vector. However, for more general states of motion (e.g. noncorotating stars, differential rotation, meridional circulation, turbulent flow, etc.) the effects of this force must be evaluated numerically. Indeed, the sign of this force is such that a lower energy configuration for a binary star than that of rigid corotation is obtained by allowing the fluid to respond to this force term. We find [@wm98] that the numerical relaxation of binary stars from corotation (or any other initial spin configuration) produces a state of almost no net spin in which the central density and gravitational binding energy increase.
We have performed numerous numerical tests which substantiate that this term does indeed vanish when the hydrodynamics is artificially constrained to uniform translation, stationary stars in a tidal field, or approximate rigid corotation. Indeed, the constrained stars remain near the central density of an isolated star, while the binary stars show an increase in central density which grows as $\sim(v/c)^4$. We have also analyzed [@wm98] the nature and formation of this state in more detail by imposing an initial rigid angular velocity in the frame of the orbiting stars in the range $-900 < \omega_S < 900$ rad sec$^{-1}$, corresponding to $-0.03 < J_S/m_0^2 < 0.12$. In each case, the stars relax to a state of almost no net spin within about three sound crossing times ($\sim 0.6$ msec).
We have also used a multipole expansion [@wmm96] to extract the gravity wave signal. A striking feature of these simulations is that the frequency varies slowly as the orbit decays (less chirp). This imples a higher signal to noise for gravity wave detectors at low frequencies ($\sim 100$ Hz). At least part of the differences with PN estimates [@kidder] can be attributed to the effects of finite stellar size.[@shabata] However, we attribute most of this difference to time dilation and length contraction in the strong field of the binary.[@wmm96] As the stars collapse, an abrupt change in the gravity wave frequency might also be detected. Furthermore, the orbit instability can occur when the specific orbital angular momentum is in excess of unity.[@wmm96] Hence, a very large amount of gravity wave emission may accompany the final merger to a single Kerr black hole.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Work at University of Notre Dame supported in part by DOE Nuclear Theory DE-FG02-95ER40934, NSF PHY-97-22086, and by NASA CGRO NAG5-3818. Work performed in part under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract W-7405-ENG-48 and NSF grant PHY-9401636.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} J.R. Wilson and G.J. Mathews, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**75**]{}, 4161 (1995).
J.R. Wilson, G.J. Mathews, & P. Marronetti, Phys. Rev. [**D54**]{}, 131 7 (1996).
G. J. Mathews and J. R. Wilson, Astrophys. J, 482, 929 (1997).
D. Lai, Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 4878 (1996).
M. Shabata, Prog. Theo. Phys., [**96**]{}, 317 (1996).
A. G. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett., Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 1189 (1997).
P. Brady and S. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 1186 (1997).
E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D., submitted (1997) (gr-qc)/9706045).
K. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D., submitted (1997) gr-qc/9706057.
T. W. Baumgarte, G. B. Cook, M. A. Scheel, S. L. Shapiro & S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 1182 (1997); gr-qc/9705023; gr-qc/9709026.
J. R. Wilson, in [*Sources of Gravitational Radiation*]{}, ed. L . Smarr (Cambridge; Cambridge Univ. Press) p. 423 (1979).
R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, in [*Gravitation*]{}, ed. L. Witten (New York: Wiley), p. 227 (1962).
J. W. York, Jr., in [*Sources of Gravitational Radiation*]{}, ed. L . Smarr (Cambridge; Cambridge Univ. Press) p. 83 (1979).
A. M. Abrahams, in [*Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, Kyoto 1991*]{}, H. Sato, T. Nakamura, eds., World Scientific: Singapore) p. 345 (1992).
J. W. York, Jr., J. Math. Phys., [**14**]{}, 456.
J.R. Wilson and G.J. Mathews, Phys. Rev. Lett., [*submitted*]{} (1997).
L. E. Kidder, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, Phys. Rev., [**D47**]{}, 3281 (1993).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Existing proactive caching policies are designed by assuming that all users request contents with identical activity level at uniformly-distributed or known locations, among which most of the policies are optimized by assuming that user preference is identical to content popularity. However, these assumptions are not true based on recent data analysis. In this paper, we investigate what happens without these assumptions. To this end, we establish a framework to optimize caching policy for base stations exploiting heterogeneous *user preference*, *activity level*, and *spatial locality*. We derive success probability and average rate of each user as utility function, respectively, and obtain the optimal caching policy maximizing a weighted sum of average utility (reflecting network performance) and minimal utility of users (reflecting user fairness). To investigate the intertwined impact of individual user request behavior on caching, we provide an algorithm to synthesize user preference from given content popularity and activity level with controlled preference similarity, and validate the algorithm with real datasets. Analysis and simulation results show that exploiting individual user behavior can improve both network performance and user fairness, and the gain increases with the skewness of spatial locality, and the heterogeneity of user preference and activity level.'
author:
- 'Dong Liu and Chenyang Yang [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'dongbib.bib'
title: Caching at Base Stations with Heterogeneous User Demands and Spatial Locality
---
=1
Caching policy, user preference, content popularity, spatial locality, activity level.
Introduction
============
Owing to the 80-20 rule in terms of user behavior in requesting contents, caching at the wireless edge is a promising approach for supporting the ever-increasing wireless data traffic. By caching at BSs, the traffic load of backhaul and service latency of users can be reduced, which improves network throughput, energy efficiency and user experience dramatically [@bigdata; @liu2016energy]. By caching at user devices, users can fetch the requested contents directly from their own storage and/or from nearby users via device-to-device (D2D) communications, which can further offload wireless traffic [@Niki13; @czy]. Facing the limited storage size at wireless edge while with huge number of contents, optimizing proactive caching policy by exploiting the skewed distribution of user demands is critical in reaping the benefit of wireless edge caching [@bigdata; @liu2016energy; @Niki13; @czy].
Most proactive caching policies are optimized based on *content popularity*, under the assumptions of exactly known or completely unknown user locations. Assuming that the location where each user sends request is known *a priori* when optimizing caching policy, deterministic caching polices were proposed in [@femtocachingTIT; @BER; @chenzhen]. A policy minimizing the average download delay was proposed in [@femtocachingTIT], which was shown with minor performance loss when the users are with unknown locations by simulation. The caching policies were respectively optimized to minimize average bit error rate in [@BER], and to maximize the successful transmission probability for cellular network with cooperative transmission in [@chenzhen]. Considering that user locations are hard to predict, user and BS locations are assumed as Poisson point process (PPP) in [@Blaszczyszyn2015optimal; @wen2017cache; @czy; @xiuhua; @TMX]. A probabilistic caching policy was proposed in [@Blaszczyszyn2015optimal] and then extended into multi-tier heterogeneous networks in [@wen2017cache] to maximize the success probability, and was optimized to maximize the cache-hit probability in [@czy], where the policy for every BS in the same tier is identical. A deterministic caching policy was jointly optimized with user association to maximize the supported traffic load in [@xiuhua], and coded caching policies were optimized that respectively maximize average fractional offloaded traffic and average ergodic rate in [@TMX]. Both works deal with unknown user locations by deriving the probability of a user associated with a BS. A coded caching policy was optimized to minimize energy consumption in [@EE], which deals with unknown user locations by assuming known probability that a user is in the coverage of a BS.
While proactive caching is motivated by the Pareto principle for user behavior, owing to the isolation among different disciplines, the following facts regarding user behavior are largely overlooked in the literature of proactive caching:
1\) *Content popularity reflects average interests of multiple users*, but cannot reflect the preference of an individual user. This is because user preferences are heterogeneous, which has been widely acknowledged in recommendation systems [@ekstrand2011collaborative].
2\) *Activity levels of users are heterogeneous*. As reported in [@traffic; @traffic2], 80% of the daily network traffic is generated by less than 20% of all users.
3\) *A user does not send requests in every cell with equal probability (i.e., exhibits spatial locality), and users have different spatial distributions when sending requests*. As reported in [@traffic; @traffic2; @Understanding], most mobile users periodically initiate content requests in limited number of locations with high probability. Specifically, big data analysis in [@Understanding] shows that 80% of the users only send requests for contents from less than four places, which implies that the probability that in which cell a user is located when sending requests is predictable from the request history. Hence, existing assumptions on user location (i.e., perfectly known or uniformly distributed throughout the network) are either too optimistic or too pessimistic.
User preference can be predicted via machine learning techniques such as collaborative filtering [@hofmann2004latent; @ekstrand2011collaborative] and deep learning [@DL], which has been leveraged in wireless networks recently [@bigdata; @zhang2016clustered; @CBQ; @liujuan; @Preference]. An immediate way to employ user preferences for caching is to aggregate them into local content popularity of a cell as proposed in [@bigdata], where the preferences are learned at the core network of a mobile network operator (MNO) by monitoring and analyzing historical traffic. While caching at BSs should consider the demand statistics of all users in a cell, the performance may differ by exploiting the coarse-grained user behavior (i.e., content popularity) and fine-grained behavior (i.e., user preference and spatial locality). The gain from caching at the wireless edge could be further improved if the caching policies are optimized directly with individual user preference as in [@zhang2016clustered; @CBQ; @Preference] for D2D communications and in [@liujuan] for fog radio access networks. To evaluate the performance of proposed caching policies, user preferences were assumed as Zipf distributions with different ranks in [@zhang2016clustered; @liujuan] without validation, and were synthesized in [@Preference] with a hierarchical parametric model proposed in [@Individual] based on a real dataset.
Heterogeneous spatial locality, user preference and activity level introduce new challenges and possible benefits into wireless edge caching. Existing framework based on fixed user locations [@femtocachingTIT; @chenzhen; @BER; @liujuan] or uniformly distributed user and BS locations modeled by homogeneous PPP [@Blaszczyszyn2015optimal; @wen2017cache; @czy; @xiuhua; @TMX] cannot capture the spatial locality. When each user with individual preference sends file request in some cells with high probability, the user locations are no longer independent with BS locations, and the users are no longer equivalent among each other as implied by the PPP model. Although more complex model, such as Poisson Cluster Process [@PCP], can capture the coupling between BS and user locations, the non-equivalence among users due to the heterogeneity in both user preference and spatial locality still makes the model not applicable. Moreover, since users are no longer statistically equivalent to each other, maximizing the network average performance, e.g., the success probability or average rate of a randomly chosen user, cannot let every user benefit from caching. The *caching interests* of users may conflict, e.g., a user may prefer a BS to cache one file while the other user may prefer the BS to cache another file. Hence, caching policy will affect the fairness among users. This indicates that caching can bring a new dimension to addressing the user fairness issue in application level, which differs from the traditional way of improving fairness with radio resource allocation based on channel information. In this paper, we investigate when and how spatial locality and preference heterogeneity of users impact caching. Since no existing optimization frameworks can be applied for this purpose, we establish a new framework, where BS locations are fixed (rather than uniformly distributed), which are true in practical networks, and users are non-uniformly located among different cells. We improve both network performance and user fairness, taking max-min fairness [@maxmin] as an example. We consider success probability or average achievable rate as *user utility* and optimize caching policy to maximize a weighted sum of average user utility and minimal user utility. The major contributions of this paper are summarized as follows:
- Instead of assuming user location as perfectly known or completely unknown, we assume that the probabilities of each user sending requests in different cells are known, which can capture the spatial locality of individual user. We consider a general probabilistic caching policy, where the BSs can cache files based on different probability distribution to accommodate the user preference heterogeneity and the user spatial locality.
- Different from existing literature only maximizing the average performance, we consider both network performance and user fairness in optimization. We show that the optimization problem is equivalent to a non-convex signomial programming problem. We solve the problem efficiently by successively solving a series of convex problems, and analyze the behavior of the policy under special cases. Our results show that exploiting individual user behavior can improve both metrics remarkably, whose gain is large when user preferences are less similar, spatial locality is strong, and user activity level is heterogeneous.
- We examine the assumptions on individual user behavior in requesting contents by analyzing two real datasets [@MSD; @Lastfm]. We provide an algorithm to synthesize user preference from the data generated with given content popularity, which can be used for caching policy evaluation with flexibly controlled user behavior statistics and is validated by real datasets.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we present the system model and define user behaviors and show their relations. Section III derives the success probability and average rate of users, and optimizes the caching policy exploiting user preference and spatial locality. Section IV analyzes user behavior from real datasets and proposes a user preference synthesization algorithm. Simulations and conclusions are provided in Sections V and VI, respectively.
System Model and User Behavior in Requesting Contents
=====================================================
Consider a cache-enabled wireless network, where each BS is equipped with a cache and connected to the core network via limited-capacity backhaul. The considered region contains $N_u$ users and $N_b$ BSs as shown in Fig. \[fig:network\], where two example layouts are provided respectively with Voronoi tessellation cell boundaries and with hexagonal cells.
Caching Policy and User Association
-----------------------------------
We consider a general probabilistic caching policy to accommodate heterogeneous user preference and spatial locality by allowing each BS to cache files with different probability distribution. Each BS can cache at most $N_c$ files from a content library consisting of $N_f$ equal-sized files that all the users in the considered region may request. Denote $c_{fb}$ $(0\leq c_{fb} \leq 1)$ as the probability that the $b$th BS caches the $f$th file. To realize the probabilistic caching policy for fixed BS locations, each BS can determine which specific files should be cached based on $\{c_{fb}\}_{b=1,\cdots,N_b, f=1,\cdots,N_f}$ by the method in [@Blaszczyszyn2015optimal] periodically (e.g., in every few hours to reduce the overhead for content replacement). Considering that user preference changes much slower than traffic load, the caching policy can be optimized and updated during off-peak time. When $c_{f1} = \cdots = c_{fN_b}$, the caching policy is identical for every BS, as existing caching policies in homogeneous networks [@Blaszczyszyn2015optimal], or as exsiting caching polices for BSs in the same tier of heterogeneous networks [@wen2017cache]. When $c_{fb}\in \{0,1\}$, it degenerates into deterministic caching policy.
Since the coverage of BSs could be overlapped, to increase the cache-hit probability, each user is allowed to associate with one of the $K$-nearest neighbor BSs (called *neighboring BS set*) to download the requested file from the BS’s cache. Then, each (irregular or regular) cell can be divided into several small regions formed by the $K$-nearest neighbor Voronoi tessellation [@knn] (shown by dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:network\]), so that for a user in each small region the neighboring BS set is fixed. For example, when a user is located in $\mathcal{D}_{11}$ of Fig. \[fig:layout\_general\] with $K = 2$, the nearest BS and the second nearest BS are BS$_1$ and BS$_2$, respectively, where $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$ denotes the $j$th small region of the $i$th cell. The nearest BS is called the *local BS* of the user.
Since caching is more beneficial for networks with stringent-capacity backhaul [@Niki13], we assume that backhaul is the bottleneck for content delivery, i.e., a user can achieve higher data rate when downloading from the cache than from the backhaul. Therefore, if the requested file is cached in the neighboring BS set, the user will associate with the nearest BS[^3] that caches the requested file and download from the cache. Otherwise, the user will associate with the local BS and fetch the file via backhaul. To avoid strong inter-cell interference inside the neighboring BS sets, especially the interference generated from the local BS to a user when the user downloads file from other BSs [@liu2016energy], the BSs within the neighboring BS set use different frequency resource.
Then, the receive signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) of the $u$th user when it is located at $\mathbf{x}_u$ and downloads from the $b$th BS is given by $$\gamma_{ub}(\mathbf{x}_u) = \frac{Ph_{ub}r_{ub}^{-\alpha}}{\sum_{b'\in \Phi_b, b' \neq b} P h_{ub'} r_{ub'}^{-\alpha} + \sigma^2 } \triangleq \frac{S_{ub}}{I_{ub} + \frac{\sigma^2}{P}}$$ where $P$ is the transmit power of BS, $h_{ub}$ and $r_{ub} = || \mathbf{x}_u - \mathbf{y}_b ||$ are respectively the channel power and Euclidean distance between the $u$th user and the $b$th BS, $\mathbf{x}_u = (x_{u1}, x_{u2})$ and $\mathbf{y}_{b} = (y_{b1}, y_{b2})$ are respectively the coordinates of the $u$th user and the $b$th BS, $\alpha$ is the pathloss exponent, $\Phi_b$ denotes the BS set that shares the same frequency with the $b$th BS, and $\sigma^2$ is the noise power. We consider Rayleigh fading and hence $h_{ub}$ follows exponential distribution with unit mean.
User Behavior in Requesting Contents
------------------------------------
*Spatial Locality* of a user is captured by its location probability distribution, denoted as $\mathbf{a}_u =[a_{u1},\cdots, a_{u_{N_b}}]$ for the $u$th user, where $a_{ui}$ is the probability that the user is located in the $i$th cell when initiating a file request. The user location probability matrix is denoted by $\mathbf{A} = [\mathbf a_1^T, \cdots, \mathbf{a}_{N_u}^T]^T$. Since proactive caching policy is optimized during off-peak time, which might be hours in advance to the time of delivering content, the exact location (e.g., $\mathbf{x}_u$) where a mobile user will send a request is hard to predict. To reflect the predictability of $\mathbf A$ and the uncertainty on the exact location, we assume that $\mathbf A$ is known, but a user is uniformly distributed in a cell if the user sends request in the cell. Our work can be easily extended if fine-grained prediction for user location (e.g., the probability that the $u$th user is located in $\mathbf{x}_u$) can be predicted.
*Global Content Popularity* is the probability distribution of the file requests in the considered region, denoted as $\mathbf{p} = [p_1, \cdots, p_{N_f}]$, where $p_f$ is the probability that a file requested by the users in the $N_b$ cells is the $f$th file. *Local Content Popularity* is the probability distribution of the requests in one cell, denoted as $\mathbf{p}_i = [p_{1i}, \cdots, p_{N_fi}]$ for the $i$th cell, where $p_{fi}$ is the probability that a file requested by the users in the $i$th cell is the $f$th file. *User Preference* of a user is the probability distribution of the requests from the user, denoted as $\mathbf{q}_u = [q_{u1}, \cdots, q_{uN_f}]$ for the $u$th user, where $q_{uf} \in [0,1]$ is the probability that a file requested by the $u$th user is the $f$th file, and let $\mathbf{Q} = [\mathbf{q}_1^T, \cdots, \mathbf q_{N_u}^T]^T$ denote the user preference matrix.
*User Activity Level Heterogeneity* is captured by a distribution denoted as $\mathbf{v} = [v_1, \cdots, v_{N_u}]$, where $v_u$ is the probability that a file request in the $N_b$ cells is sent from the $u$th user.
Based on the law of total probability, the relation between the global content popularity and user preference for the $f$th file can be expressed as $$p_{f} = \sum_{u=1}^{N_u} v_uq_{uf} = \mathbb{E}_u [q_{uf}] \label{eqn:relation}$$ where $\mathbb{E}_u$ denotes the expectation with respect to $u$, i.e., the requesting user. This relation shows that global content popularity is the average of user preferences in a region.
Similarly, the relation between the local content popularity in the $i$th cell and user preference for the $f$th file can be expressed as $$p_{fi} = \frac{\sum_{u = 1}^{N_u}a_{ui} v_u q_{uf}}{\sum_{f = 1}^{N_f}\sum_{u = 1}^{N_u}a_{ui} v_u q_{uf}} = \frac{\sum_{u = 1}^{N_u}a_{ui}v_u q_{uf}}{\sum_{u = 1}^{N_u}a_{ui}v_u} \label{eqn:local}$$
Either when the shape of probability distribution $\mathbf{q}_u$ differs from that of $\mathbf{q}_m$, or when the rankings of the elements in $\mathbf{q}_u$ and $\mathbf{q}_m$ differ, the two users have different preferences. To reflect the relation between the preferences of two users, we consider cosine similarity frequently used in collaborative filtering [@ekstrand2011collaborative], defined as $\cos(\mathbf{q}_u, \mathbf{q}_{m}) \triangleq \frac{\mathbf{q}_u\mathbf{q}_m^T}{||\mathbf{q}_u||\cdot||\mathbf{q}_m||}$. To use one parameter to characterize the heterogeneity of user preference in a region, we consider average similarity, which is the cosine similarity averaged over all the two-user pairs, i.e., $${\rm sim}(\mathbf{Q}) \triangleq \frac{2}{N_u(N_u - 1)}\sum_{u = 1}^{N_u - 1}\sum_{m = u + 1}^{N_u} \cos(\mathbf{q}_u, \mathbf{q}_{m}) \label{eqn:avecos}$$
In practice, user preference $\mathbf{Q}$ and activity level $\mathbf{v}$ can be learned by implicit feedback collaborative filtering techniques such as probabilistic latent semantic analysis [@hofmann2004latent; @CBQ] or matrix factorization[@hu2008collaborative; @bigdata], and user location probability $\mathbf{A}$ can also be learned by machine learning, all at the service gateway of MNO by analyzing historical requests. They are assumed perfect in this work, since our focus is to find when exploiting individual user behavior is beneficial.
From and , we can obtain the following observation. [**Observation:**]{}
Caching Policy Optimization With Individual User Behavior
==========================================================
We consider two widely adopted metrics for content delivery, average achievable rate and success probability.[^4] The success probability is defined as the probability that a user can download the requested file from cache with receive SINR larger than a threshold $\gamma_0$ [@wen2017cache; @Blaszczyszyn2015optimal].
In this section, we first derive the success probability and average achievable rate of each user considering spatial locally and heterogeneous user behavior. Then, we establish a framework to optimize caching policy that improves both network performance and user fairness. Since the optimal policy is not with closed-form expression, we demonstrate its behavior analytically in special cases and numerically with toy examples.
Let $k(\mathbf{x}_u)$ denote the index of the $k$th nearest BS of the $u$th user located at $\mathbf{x}_u$. Then, $1(\mathbf{x}_u)$ denotes the index of the local BS (i.e., the nearest BS) of the $u$th user. Based on the law of total probability, the success probability of the $u$th user can be expressed as $$\begin{gathered}
s_u(\gamma_0) =\mathbb{E}_{f, \mathbf{x}_u} \Bigg[\sum_{k=1}^{K} \Big[c_{f,k(\mathbf x_u)} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} \left(1 - c_{f,l(\mathbf{x}_u)}\right) \Big] \\
\times \mathbb{P}\left( \gamma_{u,k(\mathbf{x}_u)}(\mathbf{x}_u) > \gamma_0 ~|~ \mathbf{x}_u\right) \Bigg] \label{eqn:su}\end{gathered}$$ where $c_{f,k(\mathbf x_u)}\prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{f,l(\mathbf x_u)}) $ is the probability that the $1$st to the $(k-1)$th nearest BSs of the $u$th user do not cache the $f$th file and the $k$th nearest BS caches the $f$th file, $\mathbb{P}( \gamma_{u,k(\mathbf x_u)}(\mathbf{x}_u) > \gamma_0 ~ |~ \mathbf{x}_u)$ is the success probability when the user located at $\mathbf x_u$ downloads from the cache of its $k$th nearest BS, and $\mathbb{E}_{f, \mathbf{x}_u}$ denotes the expectation over user request and location.
Similarly, the average achievable rate of the $u$th user can be expressed as $$\begin{gathered}
\bar R_u = \mathbb{E}_{ f, \mathbf x_u, \mathbf{h}_u}\Bigg[\sum_{k=1}^{K + 1} \Big[c_{f,k(\mathbf x_u)} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} \left(1 - c_{f,l(\mathbf{x}_u )}\right) \Big] \\
\times R_{u,k(\mathbf x_u)}(\mathbf{x}_u) \Bigg] \label{eqn:Ru}\end{gathered}$$ where $R_{u,k(\mathbf x_u)}(\mathbf{x}_u) = W_u \log_2(1 + \gamma_{u,k(\mathbf x_u)}(\mathbf{x}_u))$ is the instantaneous data rate of the $u$th user when the user is located at $\mathbf{x}_u$ and downloads from the cache of its $k$th nearest BS, $W_u$ and $\mathbf h_{u} = [h_{u1}, \cdots, h_{uN_b}]$ are the transmission bandwidth for the $u$th user and channel vector of the user. To unify the expression, we denote the instantaneous data rate when the $u$th user is associated with the local BS to download the file from backhaul as $R_{u,K+1}(\mathbf{x}_u) = \min\{W_u \log_2(1 + \gamma_{u,1(\mathbf x_u)}(\mathbf{x}_u)), C^{\rm bh}_u\}$, where $C^{\rm bh}_u$ is the backhaul bandwidth allocated to the user. Since proactive caching policy is optimized in a much larger time scale (at least in hours) than radio resource allocation (in milliseconds), we do not jointly optimize caching policy and transmission resource allocation.
The success probability of the $u$th user is $$\begin{gathered}
s_u(\gamma_0) = \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf} \sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{J_i}\frac{a_{ui}|\mathcal{D}_{ij}|}{|\mathcal{D}_i|} \\
\times \sum_{k=1}^{K} \Big[c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \Big] {\sf s}_{uk_{ij}}(\gamma_0) \label{eqn:su0}
\end{gathered}$$ where $k_{ij}$ denotes the $k$th nearest BS when the user is located in the $j$th region of the $i$th cell $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$, $|\mathcal{D}_{ij}|$ is the area of $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$, $|\mathcal{D}_i|$ is the area of the $i$th cell, $J_i$ is the number of small regions in the $i$th cell, ${\sf s}_{uk_{ij}}(\gamma_0) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{ij}|}\iint_{\mathbf{x}_u \in \mathcal{D}_{ij}}$ ${\sf G}_{k_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{u}, \gamma_0) {\rm d}x_{u1}{\rm d}x_{u2} $ is the success probability when the user is located within $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$ and downloads from the cache of the $k$th nearest BS, and ${\sf G}_{k_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{u},\gamma_0) = e^{-\gamma_0 ||\mathbf{x}_u - \mathbf{y}_{k_{ij}}||^\alpha\frac{\sigma^2}{P}} \prod_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}}^{ b \neq {k_{ij}}}\big(1 + \gamma_0 \frac{||\mathbf{x}_u - \mathbf{y}_{k_{ij}}||^\alpha}{||\mathbf{x}_u - \mathbf{y}_b||^\alpha}\big)^{-1}$.
See Appendix A.
The average achievable rate of the $u$th user is $$\bar R_u= \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf}
\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{J_i}\frac{a_{ui}|\mathcal{D}_{ij}|}{|\mathcal{D}_i|}
\sum_{k=1}^{K+1} \Big[c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \Big] {\sf R}_{uk_{ij}} \label{eqn:Ru0}$$ where $${\sf R}_{uk_{ij}} =
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\!\!\!\!\frac{W_u}{|\mathcal{D}_{ij}|} \iint_{\mathbf{x}_u \in \mathcal{D}_{ij}} \big[\delta_{uk_{ij}k_{ij}} {\sf F}_{k_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u ) +
\sum_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}, b\neq k_{ij}} \\
\quad\quad(\delta_{ubk_{ij}}-\delta_{ub\bar k_{ij}}) {\sf F}_b(\mathbf{x}_u)\big]{\rm d}x_{u1}{\rm d}x_{u2},~\text{if}~k\leq K \\
\!\!\!\!\frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{ij}|} \iint_{\mathbf{x}_u \in \mathcal{D}_{ij}}
\left[\int_{0}^{C_u^{\rm bh}} {\sf G}_{1_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_{u}, 2^{\frac{t}{W_u} - 1}) {\rm d}t \right]
\\\quad\quad{\rm d}x_{u1}{\rm d}x_{u2} ,~\text{if}~k = K + 1
\end{array}
\right.$$ is the average achievable rate when the user is located within $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$ and downloads from the cache of the $k$th nearest BS (or from the backhaul if $k= K + 1$), $\delta_{ubk_{ij}} =\prod_{b'\in\Phi_{k_{ij}}}^{ b'\neq b} \frac{r_{ub'}^{\alpha}}{r_{ub'}^{\alpha} - r_{ub}^{\alpha}}$, $\delta_{ub\bar k_{ij}} = \prod_{b'\in\Phi_{k_{ij}}}^{b'\neq b,k_{ij}} \frac{r_{ub'}^{\alpha}}{r_{ub'}^{\alpha} - r_{ub}^{\alpha}} $, $
{\sf F}_b(\mathbf{x}_u) =-\frac{\exp({\frac{\sigma^2}{P} ||\mathbf{x}_u - \mathbf{y}_b||^\alpha})}{\ln 2} {\rm Ei}(- \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P}||\mathbf{x}_u - \mathbf{y}_b||^\alpha) + \log_2 \frac{\sigma^2}{P}
$, and ${\rm Ei}(x)= -\int_{-x}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-t}}{t}dt$ is the exponential integral.
See Appendix B.
The success probability and average achievable rate of each user in the propositions are in closed-form with respect to the caching probabilities, user location probabilities and preferences, which enables us to optimize caching policy and analyze the impact of spatial locality and preference heterogeneity. Although ${\sf s}_{uk_{ij}}(\gamma_0)$ and ${\sf R}_{uk_{ij}}$ in and contain numerical integrals, their values only depend on network configurations such as BS locations, SINR threshold, transmit power, noise power, and pathloss exponent. When we optimize the caching policy for a given network, these two terms can be treated as constant after being computed.
When considering the hexagonal cell model shown in Fig. \[fig:layout\], the two terms do not depend on $i$ and $j$ due to the symmetry of the BS topology. Then, we only need to compute ${\sf s}_{uk_{ij}}(\gamma_0)$ and ${\sf R}_{uk_{ij}}$ when $i=j=1$, i.e., when the user is located in the shaded area $\mathcal{D}_{11}$ of Fig. \[fig:layout\], without loss of generality. Since ${\sf s}_{uk_{ij}}(\gamma_0) = {\sf s}_{uk_{11}}(\gamma_0)$ and ${\sf R}_{uk_{ij}} = {\sf R}_{uk_{11}}$ for $\forall i,j$, we can use notations ${\sf s}_{uk}(\gamma_0)$ and ${\sf R}_{uk}$ to replace ${\sf s}_{uk_{ij}}(\gamma_0)$ and ${\sf R}_{uk_{ij}}$. Besides, with the hexagonal model, the integral domain $\iint_{\mathbf{x}_u \in \mathcal{D}_{11}}$ for computing ${\sf s}_{uk}(\gamma_0)$ and ${\sf R}_{uk}$ can be explicitly expressed as $\int_{0}^{D}\!\!\int_{0}^{\frac{x_{u2}}{\sqrt{3}}}$, and the area of $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$ can be obtained as $|\mathcal{D}_{ij}| = \frac{D^2}{2\sqrt{3}}$, where $D$ denotes the cell radius. Then, the integrals can be numerically computed, e.g., by the built-in function [integral2]{} in MATLAB.[^5] In Fig. \[fig:numerical\], we show the numerical results of the two terms under typical network configurations given in Section V, which suggest that $K$ can be set as a small number, i.e., the size of the neighboring BS set is small.
Caching Policy Optimization
---------------------------
We can see from Propositions 1 and 2 that $s_u(\gamma_0)$ and $\bar R_u$ have same function structure with respect to $\{c_{fb}\}$. To unify the optimization framework, we introduce a *user utility* function as $$T_u \triangleq \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf} \sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{J_i}\frac{a_{ui} |\mathcal{D}_{ij}|}{|\mathcal D_{i}|}\sum_{k=1}^{K + 1} \Big[(c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \Big] {\sf T}_{uk_{ij}} \label{eqn:Tuij}$$ where ${\sf T}_{uk_{ij}}$ denotes the utility of the $u$th user when the user downloads from the cache of its $k$th nearest BS (or from the backhaul if $k = K+1$) when located in $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$. ${\sf T}_{uk_{ij}}$ can either be ${\sf s}_{uk_{ij}}(\gamma_0)$ or ${\sf R}_{uk_{ij}}$, and then $T_{u}$ represents either the success probability $s_u(\gamma_0)$ or the average achievable rate $\bar R_u$ of the $u$th user accordingly. For the hexagonal model, degenerates into $$T_u = \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{12}\frac{a_{ui}}{12}\sum_{k=1}^{K + 1} \Big[(c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \Big] {\sf T}_{uk} \label{eqn:Tu}$$ Since and have the same function structure, we only consider the hexagonal model in the following for notational simplicity, but the results are applicable to arbitrary BS distribution.
From the network perspective, we employ *network utility* as a metric to reflect the average user experience of all users in the network as $$\begin{gathered}
T =\mathbb{E}_u [T_u] =\sum_{u=1}^{N_u} v_u T_u = \sum_{u=1}^{N_u}v_u\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{12}\frac{a_{ui}}{12} \\
\times \sum_{k=1}^{K + 1} \Big[c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \Big] {\sf T}_{uk} \label{eqn:R}\end{gathered}$$ where $T$ represents the *network success probability* or the *network average rate*, which is the success probability or the average achievable rate averaged over all the content requests in the considered region. If we set $\gamma_0 = 0$, then the network success probability degenerates into the *cache-hit probability*, another often-used metric in the literature of caching [@czy].
From the user fairness perspective, we consider max-min fairness [@maxmin] to reflect the worst user experience, which lets every user benefit from caching in its own experience. This is achieved by maximizing the minimal utility among all the users in the $N_b$ cells.
Both network average utility and minimal user utility can reflect user experience, but from different perspectives. To provide the flexibility for a cache manager in balancing the two metrics, we formulate the following optimization problem that maximizes their weighted sum
$$\begin{aligned}
{\sf P}_0: ~~\max_{\{c_{fb}\}} ~& (1-\eta) T + \eta\min_{u=1,\cdots,N_u}\left\{ T_u \right\} \label{eqn:obj}\\
s.t. ~&\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} c_{fb} \leq N_c,~ \forall b \label{eqn:size}\\
& 0\leq c_{fb} \leq 1,~ \forall f, b \label{eqn:pro}
\end{aligned}$$
where is equivalent to the cache size constraint for probabilistic caching policy [@Blaszczyszyn2015optimal], and is the probability constraint. The value of weight $\eta$ depends on how the cache manager (e.g., the MNO) trades off between network average performance and user fairness. By setting $\eta$ as $0$ or $1$, we can obtain a problem of maximizing the network utility (referred to as Problem ${\sf P}_1$) or a problem maximizing the minimal utility among users (referred to as Problem ${\sf P}_2$).
Based on variable replacement $z_{fb} \triangleq 1 - c_{fb}$, the expressions of the two metrics can be rewritten as $
T_u ={\sf T}_{u1} -\frac{1}{12} \sum_{f=1}^{N_f}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{12}a_{ui}q_{uf} \sum_{k=1}^{K} (\mathsf{T}_{uk} - \mathsf{T}_{u,K+1})\prod_{l=1}^{k} z_{fl_{ij}}
$ and $
\min_{u=1,\cdots,N_u}\{T_u\} = {\sf T}_{u1} - \frac{1}{12}\max_{u=1,\cdots,N_u} \{\sum_{f=1}^{N_f}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{12}a_{ui}q_{uf} \sum_{k=1}^{K} (\mathsf{T}_{uk} - \mathsf{T}_{u,K+1})\prod_{l=1}^{k} z_{fl_{ij}} \}
$, respectively. By further introducing an auxiliary variable $t$ and extra constraints, we can convert the original problem ${\sf P}_0$ equivalently into
$$\begin{aligned}
{\sf SP}: \min_{\{z_{fb}\}, t} & (1-\eta) \sum_{u=1}^{N_u}\sum_{f=1}^{N_f}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{12} v_ua_{ui}q_{uf} \nonumber \\
& \times \sum_{k=1}^{K} (\mathsf{T}_{uk} - \mathsf{T}_{u,K+1})\prod_{l=1}^{k} z_{fl_{ij}} + \eta t \label{eqn:obj1}\\
s.t. ~& \sum_{f=1}^{N_f}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{12}a_{ui}q_{uf} \sum_{k=1}^{K} (\mathsf{T}_{uk} - \mathsf{T}_{u,K+1}) \nonumber \\
& \times \prod_{l=1}^{k} z_{fl_{ij}} \leq t, ~\forall u
\label{eqn:conmax} \\
& N_f - \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} z_{fb} \leq N_c,~ \forall b \label{eqn:consize} \\
& 0\leq z_{fb} \leq 1,~ \forall f, b \label{eqn:prob}
\end{aligned}$$
Since the utility of a user when downloading from the cache at the $k$th nearest BS is larger than that at the $(k+1)$th nearest BS due to shorter BS-to-user distance, we have ${\sf T}_{uk} \geq {\sf T}_{u,K+1}$. Hence, the objective function is a posynomial function[^6] with respect to $\{z_{fb}\}$ and $t$. Constraint can be rewritten as $\sum_{f=1}^{N_f}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{12}a_{ui}q_{uf} \sum_{k=1}^{K} (\mathsf{T}_{uk} - \mathsf{T}_{u,K+1})t^{-1}\prod_{l=1}^{k} z_{fl_{ij}} \leq 1$, where the left hand side is also a posynoimal function. However, the left hand side of constraint is a signomial function due to the negative sign before the term $\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} z_{fb}$. Therefore, ${\sf SP}$ is a signomial programming problem, which is truly nonconvex [@Chiang].
To solve the problem, we first replace by a posynomial function based on the arithmetic-geometric inequality. Given a set of non-negative weights $\{\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)}\}$ with $\sum_{f = 1}^{N_f} \varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)} = 1$, the arithmetic-geometric inequality gives $\sum_{f = 1}^{N_f}z_{fb} \geq \prod_{f = 1}^{N_f} \big({z_{fb}}/{\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)}}\big)^{\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)}}
$, where the equality holds if and only if $\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)} = {z_{fb}}/{\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} z_{fb}}$ [@Chiang]. Then, any set of variables $\{z_{fb}\}$ satisfying a more strict constraint $
N_f - \prod_{f = 1}^{N_f} \big({z_{fb}}/{\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)}}\big)^{\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)}} \leq N_c
$ will also satisfy . By replacing with such a more strict constraint and after some manipulations, we can obtain a condensed problem as
$$\begin{aligned}
{\sf GP}^{(n)}: \min_{\{z_{fb}\}, t} & (1-\eta) \sum_{u=1}^{N_u}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\sum_{j=1}^{12} \sum_{f=1}^{N_f}v_ua_{ui}q_{uf} \nonumber \\
&\times \sum_{k=1}^{K} (\mathsf{T}_{uk} - \mathsf{T}_{u,K+1})\prod_{l=1}^{k} z_{fl_{ij}} + \eta t \\
s.t. ~&(N_f - N_c) \prod_{f = 1}^{N_f}\! \left({z_{fb}}/{\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)}}\right)^{-\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)}} \!\!\leq 1,~ \forall b \label{eqn:contight} \\
& \eqref{eqn:conmax}, \eqref{eqn:prob}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
where any feasible solution of ${\sf GP}^{(n)}$ is a feasible solution of ${\sf SP}$. ${\sf GP}^{(n)}$ is a geometric programming problem since the objective function and all the constraints are posynomial functions. By taking variable replacements $\tilde z_{fb} = \ln z_{fb}$, $\tilde t = \ln t$ and logarithmic transformation on the objective function and constraints, we can convert ${\sf GP}^{(n)}$ into a convex problem [@boyd2004convex] whose global optimal solution can be found by standard convex optimization method, say interior-point method whose computational complexity is in the order of $\mathcal{O}((N_uN_bN_f)^{3.5})$ [@nemirovski2004interior].
Since ${\sf GP}^{(n)}$ can serve as an accurate approximation of ${\sf SP}$ when $\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)} \approx {z_{fb}}/{\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} z_{fb}}$, to improve the accuracy, the value of $\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)}$ should be updated iteratively by solving a series of problems ${\sf GP}^{(1)}, {\sf GP}^{(2)},\cdots$. Let $\{ z_{fb}^{(n)} \}$ denote the optimal solution of ${\sf GP}^{(n)}$. By successively updating $\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)} = z_{fb}^{(n-1)}/\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} z_{fb}^{(n-1)}$, we can obtain $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)} = \lim\limits_{n\to \infty} z_{fb}^{(n)}/\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} z_{fb}^{(n)}$, which suggests that the approximation is accurate (and hence ${\sf GP}^{(n)}$ is equivalent to the original ${\sf SP}$) within the neighborhood of $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty} z_{fb}^{(n)}$. In fact, point $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty} z_{fb}^{(n)}$ obtained by such successive approximation method is proved to satisfy the Karush-Kuhn-Tucher (K.K.T) condition of the original ${\sf SP}$ and is reported to converge to the global optimal solution of ${\sf SP}$ in most experiments [@Chiang].[^7] Finally, considering the equivalence between ${\sf P}_0$ and ${\sf SP}$, we can obtain $c_{fb}^* = 1- \lim\limits_{n\to \infty}z_{fb}^{(n)}$ as an optimal solution of the original problem ${\sf P}_0$. The whole procedure of solving ${\sf P_0}$ is given in Algorithm 1. The computational complexity of Algorithm 1 is $\mathcal{O}(L(N_uN_bN_f)^{3.5})$, where $L$ is number of iterations for $z_{fb}^{(n)}$ to converge that is not large as shown by simulations in Section V.
An initial feasible caching solution $\{c_{fb}^{(0)}\}$, e.g., ${c}_{fb}^{(0)} = {N_c}/{N_f}$, and error tolerance $\epsilon$. Optimal caching policy $ \{c_{fb}^*\}$ $ z_{fb}^{(0)} =1 - c_{fb}^{(0)} $, initialize $ z_{fb}^{(1)} = {\sf inf}$ and $n = 1$ Update $\varepsilon_{fb}^{(n)} = z_{fb}^{(n-1)}/\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} z_{fb}^{(n-1)}$ Obtain the optimal solution of ${\sf GP}^{(n)}$, i.e, $\{z_{fb}^{(n)}\}$, by solving the converted convex problem using interior-point method. $n\leftarrow n + 1$ $ c_{fb}^{*} =1 - z_{fb}^{(n)}$
Analysis for Special Cases
--------------------------
To reveal how spatial locality, user preference heterogeneity, and different performance metrics affect the caching policy, we analyze the optimal solutions of Problem ${\sf P}_1$ and Problem ${\sf P}_2$, respectively, which are referred to as *Policy 1* and *Policy 2* in the following.
Policy 1 satisfies $c_{fb}^* \in \{0, 1\}$.
Suppose that there exists $c^*_{f'b'}$ satisfying $0<c^*_{f'b'}<1$, e.g., $0<c^*_{11}<1$. If we fix the value of $\{c_{fb}^*\}_{f = 1, \cdots, N_f, b = 2,\cdots, N_b}$ and optimize $\{c_{f1}\}_{f=1,\cdots, N_f}$, then the objective function $T$ can be rewritten as $\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} \zeta_f c_{f1} + \zeta_0$ by further considering , where $\{\zeta_f\}_{f = 1, \cdots,N_f}$ are constants that do not depend on $\{c_{f1}\}_{f=1,\cdots, N_f}$. Then, the problem maximizing the network utility can be reformulated as $\max_{\{c_{f1}\}} \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} \zeta_f c_{f1} + \zeta_0$ subject to $\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} c_{f1}\! \leq\! N_c$ and $ 0\!\leq c_{f1}\! \leq 1,~ \forall f$, which is a linear programming problem. We can easily see that the optimal solution is $c^*_{fb} = 1$ if $n(f) \leq N_c$ and $c^*_{fb} = 0$ if $n(f) > N_c$, where $n(f)$ denotes the ranking of the value $\zeta_f$ in $\{\zeta_1, \cdots, \zeta_{N_f}\}$ in descending order. Therefore, $c_{11}^* \in \{0, 1\}$, which contradicts with $0<c^*_{11}<1$.
Corollary 1 means that when only maximizing the network utility (e.g., network average rate or equivalently average sum rate, and cache-hit probability), probabilistic caching policy degenerates into deterministic caching policy as designed in [@femtocachingTIT; @liujuan; @CBQ]. The result is due to the fixed BS topology. When considering user fairness, probabilistic policy should be employed.
To analyze when exploiting user preference is beneficial, we denote the network utility based on global content popularity as $\tilde T$. It is obtained by replacing $q_{uf}$ in with $p_f$ as $\tilde T =\sum_{u=1}^{N_u}v_u \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} p_{f} T_{uf}$, where $T_{uf} \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^{N_b} \sum_{j=1}^{12}\frac{a_{ui}}{12}\sum_{k=1}^{K + 1} \big[(c_{fk_{ij}} $ $\prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \big] {\sf T}_{uk}$ is the utility of the $u$th user when downloading the $f$th file. Considering , we have $\tilde T = \mathbb{E}_u [\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} p_f T_{uf}] =\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} p_f \mathbb{E}_u [ T_{uf}] = \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} \mathbb{E}_u [q_{uf}] \mathbb{E}_u [T_{uf}] $. From , the network utility based on user preference can be expressed as $T = \mathbb{E}_u [\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf} T_{uf}] = \sum_{f=1}^{N_f}\mathbb{E}_u [ q_{uf} T_{uf}]$. Then, we can obtain the following corollary.
The network utility only depends on global content popularity (i.e., $T = \tilde T$) if and only if $q_{uf}$ and $T_{uf}$ are uncorrelated with respect to $u$ (i.e., $\mathbb{E}_u [ q_{uf} T_{uf}] = \mathbb{E}_u [q_{uf}] \mathbb{E}_u [T_{uf}]$).
When users preferences are homogeneous (i.e., $q_{uf} = p_f$), $q_{uf}$ does not depend on $u$ and hence is uncorrelated with $T_{uf}$. Or, when users are without spatial locality and with identical transmission resource (i.e., $a_{ui} = 1/N_b$ and ${\sf T}_{1k} = \cdots = {\sf T}_{N_uk}$), we have $T_{uf}= T_{1f} = \cdots = T_{N_uf}$, which does not depend on $u$ and hence is uncorrelated with $q_{uf}$. In both cases, using the knowledge of global content popularity is sufficient for optimizing caching policy to achieve the maximal network utility, i.e., exploiting user preference does not yield better caching policy.
To provide insight for the impact of objective and user behavior on caching policy, in the following corollaries we consider a case where ${\sf T}_{1k} = \cdots = {\sf T}_{N_uk} \triangleq {\sf T}_k$, i.e., the utility of every user when downloading from the cache of its $k$th nearest BS is identical. This implies identical transmission resource for each user as shown from the expression of ${\sf R}_{uk}$. In this case, $T$ in degenerates into a function of $p_{fi}$, i.e., using the knowledge of local content popularity is sufficient for optimizing caching policy to achieve the maximal value of network utility.
When the user utility of downloading from local BS’s cache far exceeds that from the second nearest BS’s cache, Policy 1 is $c_{fb}^* = 1$ if $n(f,b) \leq N_c$, and $c_{fb}^* = 0$ if $n(f,b) > N_c$, where $n(f,b)$ denotes the ranking of the value $p_{fb}$ in $\{p_{1b},\cdots,p_{N_fb}\}$ in descending order.
When ${\sf T}_1 \gg {\sf T}_2$, $T$ in degenerates into $
\lim_{{\sf T}_2/{\sf T}_1 \to 0}T = \frac{{\sf T}_1}{12} \sum_{u,f,j,i} a_{ui}v_uq_{uf}\big( c_{fi} + \sum_{k=2}^{K + 1} \big[c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \big] \frac{{\sf T}_{k}}{{\sf T}_{1}} \big) = {\sf T}_1\sum_{u,f,i} a_{ui}v_uq_{uf} c_{fi}
$, from which we can see that maximizing $T$ subject to and is equivalent to maximizing $\sum_{u,f} a_{ui}v_uq_{uf} c_{fi}$ for $\forall j$ subject to $\sum_{f=1}^{N_f}c_{fi}\leq N_c$ and $0\leq c_{fi}\leq1$. Considering , we have $\sum_{u,f} a_{ui}v_uq_{uf} c_{fi} = (\sum_{u = 1}^{N_u}a_{ui}v_u)\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} p_{fi} c_{fi} $. Then, Policy 1 is to let the $i$th BS to cache the $N_c$ files with the largest values of $p_{fi}$.
In typical wireless networks, when regarding average achievable rate as the utility (i.e., $\mathsf T_k = \mathsf R_{uk}$), ${\sf T}_1$ is much larger than ${\sf T}_2$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:R\_vs\_k\] due to shorter BS-to-user distance. Then, Corollary 3 suggests that Policy 1 tends to cache the most locally popular files at each BS. When choosing success probability as the utility (i.e., $\mathsf T_k = \mathsf s_{uk}(\gamma_0)$), ${\sf T}_1$ and ${\sf T}_2$ can be close if the SINR threshold $\gamma_0$ is not high (e.g., $-5$ dB) as shown in Fig. \[fig:suc\_vs\_gamma\]. Then, Policy 1 tends to cache the locally popular files in the neighboring BS sets more distributively, which can increase cache-hit probability by file diversity (i.e., content diversity [@chenzhen]).
If the spatial location probabilities, activity level and preferences are identical for all users, Policy 1 will be the same as Policy 2.
If $\mathbf{a}_1 = \cdots =\mathbf{a}_{N_u}$, $v_u=1/N_u$ and $q_{uf}=p_f$, $T$ in will degenerate into $T = T_u, \forall u$ and hence $T = \min_{u=1,\cdots, N_u}\{T_u\}$. Then, problems ${\sf P}_1$ and ${\sf P}_2$ are equivalent.
Corollary 4 suggests that if one assumes that each user has no difference in spatial locality, activity level and preference (and with identical transmission resources) (i.e., there is no difference among users statistically), maximizing the network utility is equivalent to maximizing the minimal utility among users. In practice, these assumptions are hardly true. This implies a tradeoff between maximizing network utility and maximizing user fairness.
Numerical Examples
------------------
To help understand the impact of heterogeneous user preference given that users are with spatial locality on the behavior of Policy 1 and Policy 2, we consider two toy examples respectively with one BS and two BSs, and consider average rate as the utility. There are two user equipments (UEs) and three files. The global popularity is $\mathbf p = [0.46, 0.30, 0.24]$ and the activity level distribution is $\mathbf v = [0.6, 0.4]$. For each example, we compare two cases with homogeneous user preference ($\mathbf q_1 = \mathbf q_2 = \mathbf{p} = [0.46, 0.30, 0.24]$) and heterogeneous user preference ($\mathbf q_1 = [0.75, 0.25, 0], \mathbf q_2 = [0.02, 0.38, 0.60]$), respectively, where the user preference satisfies the relation $ v_1 \mathbf q_1 + v_2 \mathbf q_2 = \mathbf p$ given by . The cache size is $N_c = 1$. The caching policy of the $b$th BS is denoted as $\mathbf{c}_b = [c_{1b},c_{2b},c_{3b}]$.
[*1) Single-cell:*]{} In this case, both users are located in the same cell and the user location probability matrix becomes $\mathbf{A} = \left[1, 1\right]^T$.
The optimization results are given in Fig. \[fig:example1\]. We can see that when user preferences are homogeneous, both policies let BS$_1$ cache the most preferable file of UE$_1$ and UE$_2$, i.e., file 1.
When user preferences become heterogeneous, the most preferred file of UE$_1$ and UE$_2$ are file 1 and file 3, respectively. Therefore, UE$_1$ prefers BS$_1$ to cache file 1 so that its utility can be maximized while UE$_2$ prefers BS$_1$ to cache file 3, i.e., the *caching interests* of both UEs conflict with each other. Since UE$_1$ is more active than UE$_2$, which results in higher local content popularity for file 1, Policy 1 lets BS$_1$ cache file 1, which agrees with Corollary 3. This, however, sacrifices the utility of UE$_2$ and makes UE$_2$ achieving the minimal utility. Therefore, to ensure max-min fairness, Policy 2 allocates non-zero probability to BS$_1$ to cache the most preferable file of UE$_2$, i.e., file 3. Compared with the case of homogeneous user preference, the minimal utility decreases due to the conflict of users’ caching interests.
[*2) Two-cell:*]{} In this case, each cell has one user and $\mathbf{A} =\left[\begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right]$.
The optimization results are given in Fig. \[fig:example2\]. In this case, it is interesting to see that when user preferences are homogeneous, the caching interests of both users are exactly the opposite, i.e., UE$_1$ prefers its local BS (i.e., BS$_1$) to cache its most preferable file (i.e., file 1) and its neighboring BS (i.e., BS$_2$) to cache its second preferable file (i.e., file 2), while UE$_2$ prefers BS$_2$ to cache file 1 and BS$_1$ to cache file 2. Since UE$_1$ has higher activity level, Policy 1 lets BSs cache files according to UE$_1$’s cache interest, which scarifies the utility of UE$_2$. Policy 2 lets each BS cache the most preferable file (i.e., file 1) of its local user with a higher probability and cache the second preferable file (i.e., file 2) of its local user with a lower probability.
When user preferences are heterogeneous, UE$_1$ prefers BS$_1$ to cache file 1 and BS$_2$ to cache file 2, while UE$_2$ prefers BS$_2$ to cache file 3 and BS$_1$ to cache file 2. As a result, Policy 1 lets each BS cache the most preferable file of its local user, i.e., BS$_1$ caches file 1 and BS$_2$ caches file 3. Since UE$_2$ has the minimal utility, Policy 2 is more prone to let BSs cache the files preferred by UE$_2$, i.e., allocating non-zero probability to BS$_1$ to cache the second preferable file of UE$_2$ (i.e., file 2). Compared with the case of homogeneous user preference, both the network utility and minimal utility increase, which can be explained as follows.
1. When user preferences are heterogeneous, the most favorable files of the users located in different cells differ. File diversity can be achieved by simply letting each BS satisfy the caching interest of its local user, which increases the cache-hit probability since files are cached less redundantly in the neighboring BS set.
2. With given content popularity, the preferences of both users are more skewed when the preferences are less similar. Skewed user preference means less uncertain user behavior in requesting files, which amplifies the gain of file diversity.
The two examples show that the heterogeneity of user preferences is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the caching interests of users located in the same cell conflict with each other when user preferences become heterogeneous, which degrades user fairness. On the other hand, the caching interests of users located in different cells are less conflicting when user preferences are heterogeneous, so that file diversity can be achieved with less scarifice of users’ caching interests. Besides, the uncertainty of user demands reduces for a given content popularity, which is beneficial for both network utility and user fairness.
Real Datasets Analysis and User Preference Synthesis
====================================================
In this section, we first examine the common assumptions on user activity level and user preference, and analyze preference similarity based on two real datasets. To reveal the entangled impact of user behavior in different aspects on caching gain, we then provide an algorithm to synthesize user preferences with given content popularity, user activity level and controlled average similarity. Finally, we validate the algorithm by the datasets.
User Behavior Analysis with Real Datasets {#subsec:a}
-----------------------------------------
We use *Million Songs Dataset (MSD)*[@MSD] and *Lastfm-1K Dataset* [@Lastfm], which are widely used for evaluating music recommendation algorithms, to analyze the user behavior of requesting songs. The reason why we chose these two music datasets is that a song could be requested by a user many times, such that the ground truth of user preference can be obtained from the frequency of each user’s requests for each song. To capture the main trend of user demand statistics, we choose the $100$ most active users and the 500 most popular files requested by these users for analysis, which account for more than 90% of the requests in the datasets.
In Fig. \[fig:popularity\], we show the content popularity in descending order. We can see that the popularity for both datasets can be fitted as Mandelbrot-Zipf distribution (M-Zipf) with expression $p_f = (f + \beta_p)^{-\delta_p}/\sum_{n=1}^{N_f}(n + \beta_p)^{-\delta_p}$, where $\delta_p$ is the Zipf skewness parameter and $\beta_p$ is the plateau factor [@Individual]. When $\beta_p=0$, it degenerates into Zipf distribution. The fitted M-Zipf parameters are $\beta_p = 500$, $\delta_p = 2.68$ for Lastfm, and $\beta_p = -0.49$, $\delta_p = 0.64$ for MSD, respectively.
In Fig. \[fig:activelevel\], we show the activity level in descending order. We can see that user activity level distribution can also be well fitted as M-Zipf distribution for both datasets, whose parameters are $\beta_v = 2.89$, $\delta_v = 0.42$ for Lastfm, and $\beta_v = 100$, $\delta_v = 4.69$ for MSD, respectively.
In Fig. \[fig:preference\], we show the number of requests for each file of the $10$th (i.e., more active) and $90$th (i.e., less active) users in the two datasets. To show the shape of user preference, we re-rank the files by the number of requests for each user. We can see that user preference is also skewed. Besides, it can be fitted by M-Zipf distribution (not shown to make the figure more clear) rather than Zipf distribution as assumed in [@liujuan], and the parameters are quite different for users. In fact, the preference ranking is also different for each user. For example, in MSD, the top-$5$ preferable files of UE$_{10}$ and UE$_{90}$ are files with popularity ranking $[52,36,41,20,31]$ and files with ranking $[186,50,24,97,158]$, respectively.
In Fig. \[fig:similarity\], we show the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the cosine similarity between every two-user pair. We can see that the results are quite different for Lastfm and MSD. For Lastfm, more than 90% of the user preference similarity is larger than $0.8$, while for MSD, about 80% of similarity is smaller than $0.2$. The average similarity can be computed by , which are $0.84$ for Lastfm and $0.04$ for MSD, respectively.
These two datesets illustrate that content popularity, activity level distribution, user preference and preference similarity vary significantly for different catalogs of contents and different groups of users. While the obtained specific distribution and parameters are non-generic, these results can demonstrate that the assumptions on identical user preference and activity level are untrue.
User Preference Synthesization
------------------------------
Any real dataset is generated by a specific collection of users for a specific catalog of contents. It is impossible to evaluate caching policies with all real datasets. This calls for a synthetic method to generate data that can reflect user behavior in requesting contents with flexibly controlled key factors affecting caching, i.e., content popularity, user preference, preference similarity and activity level. If we synthesize user preferences using the methods in [@liujuan; @Individual] and aggregate them to obtain content popularity, the content popularity will change when we adjust user preference similarity or activity level, then we cannot differentiate the impact of each factor.
In what follows, we provide an algorithm to synthesize user preferences with adjustable average similarity for any given content popularity and user activity level. The basic idea of the algorithm is as follows. (i) To synthesize generic data without specifying the distribution, we only consider the relation between user preference and content popularity and the probability constraint. The distribution (and hence the shape) of user preference is implicitly determined by the distribution of content popularity and the similarity among user preferences. In particular, from the relation $\sum_{u=1}^{N_u} v_u q_{uf} = p_f$ in and the probability constraint $\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf} = 1$ with $0\leq q_{uf}\leq 1$, we can find an upper bound of the preference of the $u$th user for the $f$th file as $\bar q_{uf} = \min\{\frac{p_f}{v_u},1\}$. (ii) Considering that content popularity is the average of user preferences, a small deviation from the content popularity indicates a large user preference similarity. This suggests that we can control the similarity by introducing a parameter $\theta$ to adjust the variance of $q_{uf}$, given that directly controlling user preference similarity according to is hard. In particular, we can use $\theta$ ($0\leq \theta \leq 1$) to adjust the variance by selecting $q_{uf}$ uniformly from $[\theta p_f, \theta p_f + (1 - \theta)\bar q_{uf}]$, e.g., when $\theta = 1$, $q_{uf} = p_f$; when $\theta = 0$, the variance of $q_{uf}$ achieves the maximal value. (iii) To ensure the selected random variable satisfying the relation in and the probability constraint, the preference of each user is generated in a successive manner.
In particular, We first randomly chose a user and determine its preference. For the $u$th user, we randomly choose a file $f_1$ from the file set $\mathcal{F} = \{1, \cdots, N_f\}$ and determine $q_{uf_1}$. Then, we remove $f_1$ from $\mathcal{F}$. Because $\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf} = 1$, the sum of the preferences of the $u$th user for the files in $\mathcal{F}$, denoted as $l \triangleq \sum_{f\in \mathcal{F}} q_{uf}$, should be updated as $l = 1 - q_{uf_1}$. Again, we randomly choose a file $f_2$ from $\mathcal{F}$. Note that $q_{uf_2}$ is now upper bounded by $\bar q_{uf_2} = \min\{\frac{p_{f_2}}{v_u}, l\}$. After randomly setting $q_{uf_2} \in [\theta p_{f_2}, \theta p_{f_2} + (1 - \theta)\bar q_{uf_2}]$, $q_{uf_2}$ is further adjusted as $q_{uf_2} \leftarrow \min\big\{ q_{uf_2}\big(\frac{l}{\sum_{f'\in \mathcal{F}} p_{f'} }\big){}^{\theta}, \bar q_{uf_2}\big\}$ by a scaling factor $\big(\frac{l}{\sum_{f'\in \mathcal{F}} p_{f'} }\big){}^{\theta}$ to control the deviation of the mean value of user preference from content popularity, where $\sum_{f'\in \mathcal{F}} p_{f'}$ is the sum of content popularity of the files in $\mathcal{F}$. When user preference is identical to content popularity, i.e., $q_{uf} = p_f$ for $\forall f$, we have $l = \sum_{f'\in \mathcal{F}} p_{f'} $. When $l>\sum_{f'\in \mathcal{F}} p_{f'} $ (i.e., the mean value of user preference for files in $\mathcal{F}$ exceeds the content popularity), the factor $\big(\frac{l}{\sum_{f'\in \mathcal{F}} p_{f'} }\big){}^{\theta} \geq 1$, which increases the value of $q_{uf_2}$ and decrease the value of $l = 1 - q_{uf_1} - q_{uf_2}$ to make $l$ closer to $\sum_{f'\in \mathcal{F}} p_{f'}$ in the next iteration. This reduces the deviation of mean value of user preference from content popularity, and vice versa. The exponent $\theta$ controls not only the variance of user preference as we mentioned before, but also the scaling factor here, which controls the mean value of user preference. As $\theta$ increases, the scaling factor makes the mean value of user preference closer to the content popularity. By repeating the procedure for the rest of files in $\mathcal{F}$, ${\mathbf q}_u$ can be obtained. Next, we update the content popularity for the rest of users by subtracting $v_u\mathbf{q}_u$ from the original content popularity, and continue similar procedure. Finally, $\mathbf{Q}$ can be obtained. The whole procedure of the synthesization is shown in Algorithm 2.
$\mathbf{p}$, $\mathbf v$, $\theta$ $\mathbf Q$ $\mathbf Q \leftarrow \mathbf 0$, $\boldsymbol{\rho} \leftarrow \mathbf p$, $\mathcal{U}\leftarrow \{1, \cdots, N_u\}$ Randomly chose a user $u$ in $\mathcal{U}$ $\mathcal{F} = \{1, \cdots, N_f\}$, $l \triangleq \sum_{f\in\mathcal{F}}q_{uf} = 1$ Randomly chose a file $f$ in $\mathcal{F}$ $\bar{q}_{uf} \leftarrow \min\left\{\frac{\rho_f}{v_u},l\right\}$, for $f = 1, \cdots, N_f$ Set $q_{uf}\in [\theta p_f, \theta p_f + (1-\theta)\bar{q}_{uf}]$ randomly $q_{uf} \leftarrow \min\Big\{ q_{uf}\big(\frac{l}{\sum_{f'\in \mathcal{F}} p_{f'} }\big){}^{\theta}, \bar q_{uf}\Big\}$ $l\leftarrow l - q_{uf}$, remove $f$ from $\mathcal{F}$ $ \tilde{\mathcal{F}} \leftarrow \{ f ~ | ~q_{uf} < \bar q_{uf}\}$ Randomly chose a file $f'$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{F}}$ $\tilde q_{uf'}\leftarrow \min\{q_{uf'} + l, \bar q_{uf'}\}$ $l \leftarrow l - (\tilde q_{uf'} - q_{uf'})$, $q_{uf'} \leftarrow \tilde q_{uf'}$ Remove $f'$ from $\tilde{\mathcal{F}}$ $\boldsymbol{\rho} \leftarrow \boldsymbol{\rho} \!-\! v_u \mathbf{q}_u$, $\mathbf p \leftarrow \frac{\boldsymbol{\rho}}{\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} \rho_f}$, remove $u$ from $\mathcal{U}$
The relation between $\theta$ and average similarity of user preference for the two datasets is shown in Fig. \[fig:theta\], from which we can see that the average similarity increases monotonically with $\theta$ as expected. When generating synthetic data, we can obtain $\theta$ with desired average similarity from Fig. \[fig:theta\] and then use the obtained $\theta$ together with $\mathbf p$ and $\mathbf v$ to synthesize user preference.
In Fig. \[fig:preference\], we plot the synthetic user preferences of the $10$th and $90$th active users based on the popularity and activity level of Lastfm and MSD datasets. We chose $\theta = 0.98$ and $\theta = 0.21$ for Lastfm and MSD, respectively, so that the average similarities of user preferences in the real datasets and synthetic data are identical. We can see that the distribution of the synthetic user preference is almost the same as the datasets.
In Fig. \[fig:similarity\], we further plot the CDF of the similarity $\cos(\mathbf{q}_u, \mathbf{q}_m)$ of the synthetic user preference to compare the distribution of user preference similarity between the synthetic data and real data. We can see that the synthetic data can fit both real datasets well.
Both Algorithm 2 and the method in [@Individual] can fit real datasets well, but they have their own pros and cons, leading to different targeting applications. In [@Individual], the user preference for each content is synthesized as the probability that a user prefers a specific genre multiplied by the popularity of a content within this genre. Such model is able to capture some inner structure of the data, which can help understanding user’s request pattern and is more flexible in controlling the user preference with more parameters. On the other hand, Algorithm 2 does not require the direct modeling of user preference, which may avoid the bias introduced by particular datasets. Moreover, Algorithm 2 is able to control user preference similarity, activity level and content popularity separately, which can differentiate the impact of each factor for performance evaluation. Besides, in some scenarios, user preference may exhibit a clustering effect such that users in one cell have strong correlation in their preferences. Algorithm 2 is able to capture such clustering effect by implementing in a cascading fashion as follows. We can first generate the preferences of $M$ virtual users as cluster centers by Algorithm 2 and use $\theta$ to adjust the distance (measured by similarity) between the cluster centers. Then, we can generate user preference within each cluster, again using Algorithm 2 by regarding the preference of virtual user as the content popularity within the cluster and use $\theta$ to adjust the user preference similarity inside each cluster. With the generated user preferences, we can assign the same location probability distribution $\mathbf a_u$ to the users within the same cluster so that users in one cell will have strong correlation in their preferences.
Simulation Results
==================
In this section, we compare the performance of the proposed caching policies with prior works, and analyze the impact of user preference similarity, user activity level and spatial locality by simulation based on the synthetic data.
Consider $N_b = 7$ cells with radius $D = 40$ m as shown in Fig. \[fig:layout\].[^8] The backhaul bandwidth and the downlink transmission bandwidth for each user are set as $C_u^{{\rm bh}} = 1$ Mbps and $W_u = 5$ MHz, respectively. We consider Rayleigh fading channels and pathloss modeled as $35.5+37.6\log_{10}(r_{ub})$ in dB. The transmit power of BS and the noise power are $21$ dBm and $-174$ dBm/Hz, respectively. To reduce simulation time, the total number of users in the considered region is set as $N_u = 50$, $N_f = 100$ files, and $N_c = 10$, i.e., each BS can cache 10% of the total files. The Zipf’s skewness parameters for global content popularity and activity level distribution are set as $\delta_p = 0.6$ and $\delta_v = 0.4$, respectively, according to the data analysis in Section \[subsec:a\]. The user location probability distribution is modeled as Zipf distribution with skewness parameter $\delta_a = 1$ based on the measured data in [@traffic; @traffic2]. A larger value of $\delta_a$ indicates that a user sends requests in few cells with high probability. Unless otherwise specified, this setting is used throughout the simulation.
The following caching policies are simulated for comparison:
1. [*“Local Pop"*]{}: This is the caching policy used in [@ahlehagh2014video; @bigdata], where each BS caches the most popular files according to the local content popularity within its cell given by .
2. [*“Femtocaching"*]{}: This is a deterministic caching policy based on global content popularity, identical activity level and known user location, which is optimized under the same assumptions as the policy proposed in [@femtocachingTIT]. For a fair comparison, we obtain this policy to maximize the network utility. To show the impact of location uncertainty, the policy is obtained based on one realization of user location and remains unchanged for other realizations.
3. [*“Femtocaching (UP)"*]{}: This is a deterministic caching policy based on user preference, activity level and known user location, which is optimized under the same assumptions as a policy proposed in [@liujuan] except using the network utility as objective function and considering heterogeneous activity level. Again, the policy is obtained based on one realization of user location and remains unchanged for other realizations. The only difference of this policy with Policy 1 lies in the assumption on user location, since Policy 1 degenerates into deterministic policy as stated in Corollary 1.
4. [*“Policy 1 (Pop)"*]{}: This is a probabilistic caching policy obtained from problem ${\sf P}_1$ by using global content popularity (i.e., replacing $q_{uf}$ with $p_f$) and setting identical user activity level. The only difference of this policy with “Femtocaching" lies in the assumption on user location, according to Corollary 1.
5. [*“Policy 2 (Pop)"*]{}: This is a probabilistic caching policy obtained from problem ${\sf P}_2$ by using global content popularity and setting identical user activity level.
In Fig. \[fig:R\_vs\_cos\], we show the impact of user preference similarity on the network performance. We can see that “Policy 1 (Pop)" almost performs the same as “Femtocaching". However, “Femtocaching (UP)" is inferior to “Femtocaching" when user preference is less similar, because “Femtocaching (UP)" does not consider the uncertainty of user location. These results indicate that location uncertainty has large impact when user preference is heterogeneous. The network average rate of Policy 1 is the highest and the gain over global popularity based methods (i.e., “Femtocaching" and “Policy 1 (Pop)") increases with the decrease of preference similarity. This comes from the file diversity and more skewed user preference as explained in Section III-C.
In Fig. \[fig:min\_vs\_cos\], we show the impact of user preference similarity on user fairness. We can see that Policy 2 provides higher minimal average rate than other baseline policies unless ${\rm sim}(\mathbf Q)=1$. However, “Policy 2 (Pop)" is inferior to “Femtocaching (UP)", because the knowledge of user preference is important for improving user fairness. The minimal average rate of Policy 2 first decreases and then increases with the preference similarity, due to the combination effects of heterogeneous user preference as explained in the end of Section III-C. We also show the performance of a corresponding non-caching system, over which Policy 2 can provide 800% $\sim$ 10000% gain in terms of the minimal average rate. Since the network average rate and minimal average rate of the non-caching system are almost the same (that is about $1$ Mbps in the considered setting), which are not affected by user preference similarity, spatial locality and activity level skewness parameters, we do not show the related results in the sequel.
In Fig. \[fig:a\], we show the impact of spatial locatity. As shown in Fig. \[fig:R\_vs\_a\], the network average rates of “Local Pop" and user preference based caching policies increase with $\delta_a$. When $\delta_a = 0$, i.e., each user sends requests in each of the $N_b$ cells with equal probability, “Policy 1 (Pop)" achieves the same performance as Policy 1, which verifies Corollary 2. When $\delta_a = 5$, i.e., each user is with $ \frac{1^{-5}}{\sum_{i=1}^{7}i^{-5}} = 0.96$ probability located in the most probable cell, Policy 1 has 30% gain over “Policy 1 (Pop)". This suggests that the gain of network average rate by exploiting user preference highly relies on the spatial locality of user. As shown in Fig. \[fig:min\_vs\_a\], the minimal average rates of “Local Pop" and Policy 2 also increase with $\delta_a$. When $\delta_a = 5$, Policy 2 can triple the minimal average rate compared with other caching policies. On the contrary, spatial locality has little impact on both network average rates and minimal average rates achieved by the global popularity based caching policies (i.e., “Femtocaching" and “Policy 1 (Pop)").
In Fig. \[fig:s\], we show the impact of user activity level skewness. As shown in Fig. \[fig:suc\_vs\_s\], the network average rates of all caching policies increase with $\delta_v$. This is because when the user activity level distribution is more skewed, the caching solutions are determined more by the preferences of highly active users. As a result, the average rates of these active users increase, which yields higher network average rate. As shown in Fig. \[fig:min\_vs\_s\], the minimal average rate of Policy 2 is highest, and the performance gain increases with $\delta_v$.
In Figs. \[fig:Q\], \[fig:a\] and \[fig:s\], “Femtocaching" and “Policy 1 (Pop)" almost perform the same, and “Femtocaching" and “Policy 2 (Pop)" perform closely. This is because when user preference and activity level are regarded as identical, there is no difference among users statistically as explained in [@femtocachingTIT], and hence the uncertainty of user location has little impact.
As shown in previous results with average achievable rate as the network utility, the performance of “Local Pop" and Policy 1 is very close. This can be explained by Corollary 3 since the average rate when downloading from the nearest BS’s cache is much larger than the average rate when downloading from the second nearest BS’s cache. When using success probability as the network utility, the performance trends are similar, but the gap between Policy 1 and “Local Pop" is larger (not shown due to the lack of space). This is because the success probabilities when the user downloads from the nearest and second nearest BSs’ caches will be close if $\gamma_0$ is relatively small, e.g., $\gamma_0 = -5$ dB (equivalent to $2$ Mbps rate requirement with $W_u = 5$ MHz).
![CDF of success probability, $\gamma_0 = -5$ dB, ${\rm sim}(\mathbf{Q}) = 0.2$.[]{data-label="fig:cdf"}](user_cdf){width="40.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig:cdf\], we show the CDF of success probability achieved by Policy 1 and Policy 2. We can see that with Policy 2, the proportion of users with low success probability (e.g., $s_u < 0.3$) is lower than Policy 1, while the proportion of users with high success probability is also lower, resulting in a tradeoff between network average performance and user fairness.
![Tradeoff between network performance and user fairness, $\gamma_0=-5$ dB, ${\rm sim}(\mathbf{Q}) = 0.2$.[]{data-label="fig:tradeoff"}](tradeoff){width="40.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig:tradeoff\], we show such tradeoff by solving problem ${\sf P}_0$ with different values of $\eta$. It is shown that the proposed policy can improve network performance and user fairness simultaneously compared with the baseline policies in a wide range of $\eta$ (i.e., $0\leq \eta \leq 0.8$).
From the observation in Section II, the corollaries in Section III-B as well as the simulations in this section, we can summarize the assumptions that make the user preference based caching policies the same as the content popularity based caching policies in Table \[tab:con\]. Without these assumptions, exploiting individual user behavior is beneficial for local caching.
Objectives Assumptions Equivalent to caching policies based on
------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
Identical transmission resouce & \[0\][\*]{}[Global/local content popularity]{}
Without spatial locality
Homogeneous user preference Global/local content popularity
Identical transmission resource Local content popularity
\[0\][\*]{}[User Fairness]{} Identical transmission resource & \[0\][\*]{}[Global/local content popularity]{}
Homogeneous user preference and activity level &
Identical spatial location probability distribution
\[tab:con\]
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
In this paper, we investigated when the user behavior in terms of spatial locality, heterogeneous preference and activity level impact proactive caching by establishing a caching policy optimization framework to maximize a weighted sum of the network utility and the minimal utility among users. We showed the relation between the global content popularity, local content popularity, user preference and spatial locality. To evaluate the entangled impacts of content popularity, user preference and activity level on the performance of wireless edge caching, we provided an algorithm to synthesize user preference with given content popularity, user activity level and adjustable user preference similarity, and validated it with two real datasets. We found that the gain of exploiting individual user behavior is large under realistic settings, where user preferences are less similar, user activity level distribution is skewed, and more importantly, users are with strong spatial locality. Simulation results showed that both the network performance and user fairness achieved by the proposed policy are superior to prior works based on either content popularity or user preference.
In practice, learning individual user preference is more computationally complex than learning content popularity. Moreover, content provider (CP) usually transfers data to wireless users via secure connections [@r2]. Consequently, security issues could be a barrier for MNO to learn user preference or content popularity for proactive caching, or even for reactive caching. Nevertheless, new security protocols have been proposed to enable the MNOs to perform caching on encrypted requests as discussed in [@barriers]. On the other hand, there is a recent trend of the convergence in managing cache by MNOs and CPs [@soft]. User preference can be learned by a CP and then shared with a MNO. Alternatively, a CP can install its own caches in wireless edge [@barriers] or lease the caches from a MNO [@r2], and the MNO shares the user location distribution information to the CP for optimizing caching policy toward better user experience. Such cooperation is possible since user experience can be improved significantly, which is a win-win situation.
Acknowledgment
==============
We sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.
Proof of Proposition 1
======================
From , by taking the expectation over user request $f$, we can obtain $$\begin{gathered}
s_u =\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}_u} \Bigg[\sum_{k=1}^{K} \Big[c_{f,k(\mathbf x_u)} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{f,l(\mathbf{x}_u )}) \Big] \\
\times\mathbb{P}\left( \gamma_{u,k(\mathbf{x}_u)}(\mathbf{x}_u) > \gamma_0 ~|~ \mathbf{x}_u\right) \Bigg] \label{eqn:su1}\end{gathered}$$ Since the $k$th nearest BS of the $u$th user $k(\mathbf{x}_u)$ depends on user location, the expectation over $\mathbf{x}_u$ cannot move into the summation over $k$. Since we have divided each cell into small regions as shown in Fig. \[fig:network\], the $k$th nearest BS of the $u$th user only depends on which small region of which cell the user is located in rather than the exact location $\mathbf{x}_u$. Therefore, we can denote $k_{ij}$ as the $k$th nearest BS when the user is located in the $j$th small region of the $i$th cell (i.e., $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$). Then, based on the law of total expectation, can be derived as $$\begin{aligned}
s_u =&\sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf}\mathbb{E}_{ij}\Bigg[\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}_u \in \mathcal{D}_{ij}} \Bigg[\sum_{k=1}^{K} \Big[c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \Big] \nonumber \\
& \times \mathbb{P}\left( \gamma_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) > \gamma_0 ~|~ \mathbf{x}_u \right) \Bigg]\Bigg] \nonumber \\
\overset{(a)}{=}& \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf}\mathbb{E}_{ij}\Bigg[\sum_{k=1}^{K} \Big[c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \Big] \nonumber \\
&\times \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}_u \in \mathcal{D}_{ij}} \left[ \mathbb{P}\left( \gamma_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) > \gamma_0 ~|~ \mathbf{x}_u \right) \right]\Bigg] \nonumber \\
=& \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}
\sum_{j=1}^{J_i}\frac{a_{ui} |\mathcal{D}_{ij}|}{|\mathcal{D}_{i}|}
\sum_{k=1}^{K} \Big[c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \Big] {\sf s}_{uk_{ij}} \label{eqn:su2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{E}_{ij}$ denotes the expectation over $i$ and $j$, $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf x_u\in \mathcal{D}_{ij}}$ denotes the expectation over $\mathbf{x}_u$ within $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$, step $(a)$ safely moves $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf x_u\in \mathcal{D}_{ij}}$ into the summation over $k$ since $k_{ij}$ does not depend on $\mathbf{x}_u$ anymore given that $\mathbf x_u\in \mathcal{D}_{ij}$, $\frac{a_{ui} |\mathcal{D}_{ij}|}{|\mathcal{D}_{i}|}$ is the probability that $\mathbf{x}_u \in \mathcal{D}_{ij}$, and ${\sf s}_{uk_{ij}} \triangleq \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}_u\in \mathcal{D}_{ij}} \left[ \mathbb{P}\left( \gamma_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) > \gamma_0 ~|~ \mathbf{x}_u \right) \right]$ is the success probability when the user is located in $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$ and downloads from its $k$th nearest BS’s cache.
To obtain ${\sf s}_{uk_{ij}}$, we first derive the success probability conditioned on given user location as $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{P}\left( \gamma_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) > \gamma_0\!~ |\!~ \mathbf{x}_u \right) \! = \!\mathbb{P}\left( h_{uk_{ij}} \! \geq \! \gamma_0 r_{uk_{ij}}^{\alpha} \big( I_{uk_{ij}} + \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P}\big)~\Big| ~\mathbf{x}_u \! \right) \! \nonumber\\
&\overset{(a)}{=}\! \mathbb{E}_{I_{uk_{ij}}}\!\!\left[ \exp\left(- \gamma_0 r_{uk_{ij}}^{\alpha} \big(I_{uk_{ij}} + \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P}\big)~\Big|~ \mathbf{x}_u \right) \right] \nonumber \\
& \overset{(b)}{=} e^{-\gamma_0 r_{uk_{ij}}^{\alpha}\frac{\sigma^2}{P}} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf h_{u}}\Bigg[ \prod_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}, b \neq k} \exp\left(- \gamma_0 r_{uk_{ij}}^{\alpha} h_{ub} r_{ub}^{-\alpha} \right) \Bigg] \nonumber \\
&= e^{-\gamma_0 r_{uk_{ij}}^{\alpha}\frac{\sigma^2}{P}}\prod_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}, b \neq k_{ij}} \left(1 + \gamma_0 r_{uk_{ij}}^{\alpha} r_{ub}^{-\alpha}\right)^{-1} \label{eqn:suk}\end{aligned}$$ where step $(a)$ is from $h_{uk_{ij}}\sim \exp(1)$ for Rayleigh fading, step $(b)$ is upon substituting $I_{uk_{ij}} = \sum_{b\in\Phi_{k_{ij}},b \neq k_{ij}} h_{ub} r_{ub}^{-\alpha}$, and the last step is because $\{h_{ub}\}$ are independently distributed and $h_{ub} \sim \exp(1)$. Then, by averaging over user location within small region $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&{\sf s}_{uk_{ij}}(\gamma_0) = \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}_u\in \mathcal{D}_{ij}} \left[ \mathbb{P}\left( \gamma_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) > \gamma_0 | \mathbf{x}_u \right) \right] \nonumber \\
&= \iint\limits_{\mathbf{x}_u \in \mathcal{D}_{ij}} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{ij}|} \mathbb{P}\left( \gamma_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) > \gamma_0 | \mathbf{x}_u \right) {\rm d}x_{u1}{\rm d}x_{u2} \label{eqn:sk}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by substituting into and then into , Proposition 1 can be proved.
Proof of Proposition 2
======================
Similar to the derivation of , we can obtain $$\bar R_u= \sum_{f=1}^{N_f} q_{uf}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}
\sum_{j=1}^{J_i}\frac{a_{ui} |\mathcal{D}_{ij}|}{|\mathcal{D}_{i}|}
\sum_{k=1}^{K} \Big[c_{fk_{ij}} \prod_{l=1}^{k-1} (1 - c_{fl_{ij}}) \Big] {\sf R}_{uk_{ij}} \label{eqn:Ru1}$$ where ${\sf R}_{uk_{ij}} \triangleq \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}_u\in \mathcal{D}_{ij}, \mathbf{h}_u} \left[ R_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) \right]$ is the average achievable rate (taken over user location $\mathbf{x}_u$ and channel fading) when the user is located in $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$ and downloads from the cache of the $k$th nearest BS (or from the backhaul if $k = K+1$).
To obtain $\mathsf R_{uk_{ij}}$, we first derive the average rate (taken over channel fading) conditioned on given user location when $k\leq K$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u} \left[ R_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) \right] = & \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u}
\left[ \log_2(1 + \gamma_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u)) \right] \nonumber \\
= & \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u} \left[ \log_2\left(S_{uk_{ij}} + I_{uk_{ij}} + \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P} \right) \right] \nonumber \\
&- \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u} \left[ \log_2\left(I_{uk_{ij}} + \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P} \right) \right] \label{eqn:Ehu}\end{aligned}$$ Since $S_{uk_{ij}} + I_{uk_{ij}} = \sum_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}} h_{ub} r_{ub}^{-\alpha}$ and $I_{uk_{ij}} = \sum_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}, b\neq k_{ij}} h_{ub} r_{ub}^{-\alpha}$ are the sum of independent exponential distributed random variables with given $\{r_{ub}^{-\alpha}\}$, the probability density function of $S_{uk_{ij}} + I_{uk_{ij}}$ and $I_{uk_{ij}}$ with given user location can be derived, respectively, as $
f_{S_{uk_{ij}} + I_{uk_{ij}}|\mathbf{x}_u}(x) = \sum_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}} \delta_{ubk_{ij}} r_{ub}^{\alpha} e^{-xr_{ub}^{\alpha}}$ and $f_{I_{uk_{ij}}|\mathbf{x}_u}(x) = \sum_{b\in \Phi_b, b\neq k_{ij}} \delta_{ub\bar k_{ij}}r_{ub}^{\alpha} e^{-xr_{ub}^{\alpha}}$, where $\delta_{ubk_{ij}} =\prod_{b'\in\Phi_{k_{ij}}}^{ b'\neq b} \frac{r_{ub'}^{\alpha}}{r_{ub'}^{\alpha} - r_{ub}^{\alpha}}$ and $\delta_{ub\bar k_{ij}} = \prod_{b'\in\Phi_{k_{ij}}}^{b'\neq b,k_{ij}} \frac{r_{ub'}^{\alpha}}{r_{ub'}^{\alpha} - r_{ub}^{\alpha}} $.
Then, we can derive the first term of as $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u} \left[ \log_2\left(S_{uk_{ij}} + I_{uk_{ij}} + \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P} \right) \right] \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}} \delta_{ubk_{ij}} \int_{0}^{\infty} \log_2 \left(x + \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P}\right)r_{ub}^{\alpha} e^{-xr_{ub}^{\alpha}} {\rm d}x \nonumber\\
& = \sum_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}}
\frac{\delta_{ubk_{ij}}}{\ln 2} \left(-e^{\frac{\sigma^2}{P} r_{ub}^\alpha} {\rm Ei}\left(- \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P}r_{ub}^\alpha\right) + \ln \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P}\right) \label{eqn:S+I}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm Ei}(x) = -\int_{-x}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-t}}{t}dt$ denotes the exponential integral. Similar to the derivation of , we can obtain $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u} \big[ \log_2\big(I_{uk_{ij}} + \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P} \big) \big] = \sum_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}},b\neq k_{ij}}
\frac{\delta_{ub\bar k_{ij}}}{\ln 2} \big(-e^{\frac{\sigma^2}{P} r_{ub}^\alpha} {\rm Ei}\big(- \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P}r_{ub}^\alpha\big) + \ln \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P}\big)$. By substituting into , we can obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u} \left[ R_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) \right] = \delta_{uk_{ij}k_{ij}} {\sf F}_{k_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u ) \\+ \sum_{b\in \Phi_{k_{ij}}, b\neq k_{ij}} (\delta_{ubk_{ij}}-\delta_{ub\bar k_{ij}}) {\sf F}_b(\mathbf{x}_u) \label{eqn:Ruk1}\end{gathered}$$ where ${\sf F}_b(\mathbf{x}_u) =-\frac{\exp({\frac{\sigma^2}{P} ||\mathbf{x}_u - \mathbf{y}_b||^\alpha})}{\ln 2} {\rm Ei}\big(- \frac{\sigma^2}{P}||\mathbf{x}_u - \mathbf{y}_b||^\alpha\big) + \log_2 \tfrac{\sigma^2}{P} $.
When $k = K+1$, the user associates with the nearest BS (i.e., the $i$th BS when the user is located in the $i$th cell) and downloads file from the backhaul, we derive $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u}\left[R_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf x_u)\right]$ by considering $\mathbb{E}[X] = \int_0^{\infty} \mathbb{P}(X>t) {\rm d}t$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u}\left[R_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf x_u)\right] \nonumber \\
&= \int_{0}^{\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\min\{W_u \log_2(1 + \gamma_{ui}(\mathbf{x}_u)) , C_u^{\rm bh} \} > t ~|~ \mathbf{x}_u \right) {\rm d} t \nonumber\\
& = \int_{0}^{C_u^{\rm bh} } \mathbb{P}\left(W_u \log_2(1 + \gamma_{ui}(\mathbf{x}_u)) > t ~|~ \mathbf{x}_u \right) {\rm d} t \nonumber \\
& = \int_{0}^{C_u^{\rm bh} } \mathbb{P}\left(\gamma_{ui}(\mathbf{x}_u) > 2^{\frac{t}{W_u}} - 1~|~ \mathbf{x}_u \right) {\rm d} t \nonumber\\
& = \int_{0}^{C_u^{\rm bh}} e^{-(2^{\frac{t}{W_u}} - 1) r_{ui}^{\alpha}\frac{\sigma^2}{P}} \!\!\!\!\prod_{b\in \Phi_{i}, b \neq i} \!\!\!\left(1 + (2^{\frac{t}{W_u}} - 1) r_{ui}^{\alpha} r_{ub}^{-\alpha}\right)^{-1}\!\! {\rm d}t \label{eqn:RuK1}\end{aligned}$$ where the last step is from substituting .
By averaging over user location within small region $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\sf R}_{uk} & = \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x}_u\in \mathcal{D}_{ij}}\left[ \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u} \left[ R_{uk_{ij}}(\mathbf{x}_u) \right]\right] \nonumber\\
& =\frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{ij}|} \iint\limits_{\mathbf{x}_u \in \mathcal{D}_{ij}}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{h}_u} \left[ R_{uk}(\mathbf{x}_u) \right] {\rm d}x_{u1}{\rm d}x_{u2} \label{eqn:Ruk}\end{aligned}$$ Then, by substituting and into , and finally into , Proposition 2 can be proved.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grants with No. 61731002 and 61671036. This paper was presented in part at the IEEE ICC Workshops 2018 [@dongws].
[^2]: The authors are with School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China (e-mail: {dliu, cyyang}@buaa.edu.cn).
[^3]: For mathematical tractability, we do not consider shadowing, which will not change the main trends of the performance.
[^4]: We can also consider successful transmission probability, i.e., the probability that a user can download the requested file from cache with achievable rate larger than a threshold.
[^5]: For arbitrary given BS topology, the small region $\mathcal{D}_{ij}$ becomes irregular so that the integral domain is hard to be expressed explicitly. Nevertheless, the integrals together with areas $|\mathcal D_{ij}|$ and $|\mathcal{D}_i|$ can be computed by Monte Carlo method [@caflisch1998monte].
[^6]: A posynomial function is with the form $f(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{k=1}^{K} \psi_k x_1^{\phi_{1k}} x_2^{\phi_{2k}} \cdots x_n^{\phi_{nk}} $, where $\mathbf{x} =[x_1, \cdots, x_n] \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\psi_k \geq 0$ and $\phi_{ik} \in \mathbb{R}$. If there exists $\psi_k < 0$, then $f(\mathbf{x})$ is a signomial function [@boyd2004convex].
[^7]: Our simulations show that Algorithm 1 can converge to, at least, a local optimal solution. Since ${\sf SP}$ is an intractable NP-hard problem [@Chiang], it is hard to verify whether or not the global optimal solution is found in the large-scale problem as in our case.
[^8]: When the BSs are located randomly as in Fig. \[fig:layout\_general\], the performance is similar and hence not provided due to space limitation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In absence of time-reversal symmetry, viscous electron flow hosts a number of interesting phenomena, of which we focus here on the Hall viscosity. Taking a step beyond the hydrodynamic definition of the Hall viscosity, we derive a generalized relation between Hall viscosity and transverse electric field using a kinetic equation approach. We explore two different geometries where the Hall viscosity is accessible to measurement. For hydrodynamic flow of electrons in a narrow channel, we find that the viscosity may be measured by a local probe of the transverse electric field near the center of the channel. Ballistic flow, on the other hand, is dominated by boundary effects. In a Corbino geometry viscous effects arise not from boundary friction but from the circular flow pattern of the Hall current. In this geometry we introduce a viscous Hall angle which remains well defined throughout the crossover from ballistic to hydrodynamic flow, and captures the bulk viscous response of the fluid.'
author:
- Tobias Holder
- Raquel Queiroz
- Ady Stern
title: Unified description of the classical Hall viscosity
---
#### Introduction.—
In a breakthrough insight, @Avron1995 [@Avron1995] demonstrated the presence of a quantized observable second to the Hall conductivity in incompressible Quantum Hall states. This observable is the Hall viscosity, the antisymmetric and dissipationless part of the viscosity tensor in 2d. Since then, a lot of activity concentrated on working out the properties of this quantity in the gapped state [@Read2009; @Read2011; @Son2012; @Bradlyn2012; @Hoyos2012; @Sherafati2016]. Remarkably, it has been of little relevance for these studies of the Hall viscosity whether the system is assumed to be non-interacting and thus not amenable to hydrodynamic relations. With the advent of clean materials with high mobility, attention was directed to classical electron flow in non-quantizing magnetic fields, with the hope to find a route to measure the Hall viscosity directly [@Torre2015; @Scaffidi2017; @Falkovich2017; @Pellegrino2017; @Delacretaz2017; @Levchenko2017]. In this case, it is necessary to restrict the discussion to viscous flow with electron-electron interactions strong enough to justify the applicability of the hydrodynamic approach. A first measurement of the Hall viscosity in Graphene was reported recently [@Berdyugin2019].
In this letter we aim to provide a unified description of the Hall viscosity which is applicable to both classical viscous fluids as well as classical non-interacting fluids. To this end, we examine the transverse (Hall-)response using both a kinetic approach and the hydrodynamic constitutive relations, providing an exact mapping between the angular moments of the distribution function, transverse electric field and the Hall viscosity.
We analyze two examples, the viscous flow in a narrow channel with diffusive boundaries and the flow through a Corbino disk with specular boundaries. For experiment it is desirable to relate a non-zero Hall viscosity to inhomogeneity corrections in the Hall conductivity/resistivity. In the past, this effort has been stymied by the appearance of additional correction terms of geometric or magnetic nature which depend strongly on sample details. As we demonstrate, in classical fluids these difficulties are connected to the fact that the shear originates purely from boundary friction. Since the Hall viscosity is a bulk quantity, its influence is most optimally measured away from contacts or sample boundaries. Such a bulk measurement can be realized by locally measuring Hall electric field (in a channel) or Hall current density (in a Corbino disk), both of which being quantities which can be measured in viscous fluids [@Yacoby2018; @Ella2018]. Such is possible as long as the fluid remains well in the hydrodynamic regime. In a narrow channel we find that the bulk properties of viscous flow become inaccessible once the interaction mean free path is comparable to the channel width. The reason is intricate boundary effects related to the cyclotron motion of electrons in a magnetic field [@Holder2018b]. To circumvent this issue we suggest a Corbino geometry which can build up shear in the flow in the absence of any boundary friction [@Shavit2018]. In this case it is possible to measure by an electrical measurement the ratio of Hall viscosity to shear viscosity, a quantity which we argue to be applicable not only to classical hydrodynamic but also ballistic electron flow. Not entirely unexpected, in the ballistic case the Hall viscosity is much larger than the shear viscosity, making it likely to be detected.
#### Kinetic equation.—
We use the standard kinetic approach with relaxation time approximation, featuring a momentum-relaxing disorder mean free path $\ell_0$ and a momentum-conserving mean free path $\ell_{ee}$ due to electron-electron interactions [@deJong1995; @Alekseev2016; @Scaffidi2017; @Alekseev2018; @Holder2018b]. Given a cyclotron radius $R_c$, the effective mean free path is $\ell=(\ell_0^{-1}+\ell_{ee}^{-1})^{-1}$ and the magnetic field dependent Gurzhi length is $\ell_c=R_c\sqrt{\ell\ell_0/(4\ell^2+R_c^2)}$. The kinetic equation is $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t} f
+\bm{v}\cdot\nabla_{\bm{r}} f
+e(\bm{E}+\bm{v}\times\bm{B})\cdot\nabla_{\bm{p}} f&=\mathcal{I}(f).
\label{eq:boltzmann}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $v$ is the Fermi velocity, $e$ is the electron charge and $\mathcal{I}$ is the collision integral. At low temperatures, it is enough to track the angular dependence $\theta$ of the distribution function along the Fermi surface. The non-equilibrum distribution function is thus expanded as $f(\bm{r},\bm{p})=f_0-E_F(\partial_{\epsilon} f_0) h(\theta)$ with $E_F$ the Fermi energy. With $x$ the flow direction along the channel, we denote the even (odd) angular moments of $h(\theta)$ by $h_l^{c(s)}$, with $l=0,1,...$ the angular momentum. It holds generally that the transverse electric field $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_y=\tfrac{1}{R_c}h_1^c(y)
-\tfrac{1}{\ell_0}h_1^s(y)
+\tfrac{1}{2}\partial_y h_2^c-\partial_yh_0,\label{eq:selfconsistentEy}\end{aligned}$$ which is nothing else but the $\sin\theta$ component of Eq. . In this expression, $h_1^c$ is proportional to the longitudinal current density, while $h_2^c$ and $h_0$ are produced by stress. As a convention, we define the electric field $\bm{E}$ to be related to the components $\mathcal{E}_x$ and $\mathcal{E}_y$ by $\mathcal{E}_i=e\bm{E} \cdot\hat{\bm{e}_i}/E_F$, that is, $\mathcal{E}$ has units of wavenumbers. For a translationally invariant channel along $x$, the Hall current necessarily vanishes $h_1^s(y)=0$.
The Hall viscosity is defined as the coefficient of the non-dissipative part in the viscosity tensor, which reads for an isotropic system [@Avron1995; @Levitov2016], $$\begin{aligned}
T^{Hall}_{ij}&=\frac{\eta_{xy}}{2}\left(
\epsilon_{ik}(\partial_kv_j+\partial_jv_k)
+\epsilon_{jk}(\partial_kv_i+\partial_iv_k)
\right).
\label{eq:hallvisdef}\end{aligned}$$
Equating the general definition of the viscosity tensor [@Landaubook10], $$\begin{aligned}
T_{ij}&=\int{\mathrm{d}}\theta h(y,\theta) v_i v_j,\end{aligned}$$ with the definition of the Hall viscosity, Eq. , we infer for the $T_{xx}$ component that $$\begin{aligned}
h_0+
\tfrac{1}{2}h_2^c(y)&=\tfrac{1}{v} \eta_{xy}(y)\partial_yh_1^c(y).
\label{eq:hallverbatim}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the $T_{xx}$ component is purely non-dissipative due to absence of any flow in the $y$-direction in the channel, i.e. the velocity gradients are nonzero only along $y$. Here, we also write out the $y$-dependences to emphasize that the Hall viscosity as introduced by Eq is not *a priori* spatially independent. The relation between $\mathcal E_y$ and $\eta_{xy}$ immediately follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_y&=
\tfrac{1}{R_c}h_1^c(y)+\tfrac{1}{v}\partial_y\left[
\eta_{xy}(y)\partial_yh_1^c(y)
\right]
-2\partial_yh_0(y).
\label{eq:halleq}\end{aligned}$$ This expression is our central result for the Hall viscosity, which holds in all discussed transport regimes, be it hydrodynamic, ohmic or ballistic.
For a hydrodynamic state one expects the following relation between current and electric field $$\begin{aligned}
E_y&=\frac{\pi\hbar }{e^2 k_F}\left(
\frac{j_x}{R_c}+
\frac{\eta_{xy}}{v}\frac{\partial^2j_x}{\partial y^2}\right),
\label{eq:hydroEy}\end{aligned}$$ which contains the viscous correction to the bulk Hall response. Within a hydrodynamic approach, it is not transparent how to relate Eq. with moments of the distribution function in the kinetic equation, Eq. . In fact, Eq. follows as a special case from Eq. when it holds that $h_2^c\propto \partial_yh^c_1$. This happens precisely when the kinetic equation is truncated to second order ($l=2$) in angular moments, but is manifestly wrong otherwise due to the presence of higher angular moments [@Holder2018b]. After this truncation, the Hall viscosity can be related to the mean free paths as $\eta_{xy}=v\ell_c^2\ell/2R_c\ell_0$ [@Alekseev2016]. The corresponding Hall resistance is for weak fields and fully diffusive walls $\rho_{xy}\propto 1-6\ell^2/w^2$ [@Scaffidi2017]. Various refinements of this result have been discussed recently [@Delacretaz2017; @Pellegrino2017]. Most importantly, with increasing effective mean free path, the Hall resistance suffers a sign change [@Holder2018b], indicating that the influence of the Hall viscosity entering into this expression has been overestimated.
For a complete solution of the kinetic equation one must also include electrostatic effects, which enter in the charge density $h_0$ in Eq. . For example, in an device without backgate it is $\partial_yh_0={2/(\kappa R_c)}\partial_y\mathcal{H}(h_1^c(y))$, where $\mathcal{H}$ denotes the Hilbert transform [@Holder2018b]. The electrostatic contribution remains small as long as the screening wave vector $\kappa$ fulfills $\kappa w\gg 1$ and we will not discuss it further here.
#### Measurement of $\eta_{xy}$ in narrow channels.—
In a narrow channel the current is made non-uniform by the effect of the edges, which depends on the details of the edges. Yet, the quantity we are interested in is the Hall viscosity of the bulk. Here we rely on recently developed local probes of Hall electric fields [@Yacoby2018; @Ella2018], to provide an experimental setup to carry out a bulk measurement.
A Taylor expansion of Eq. to second order in $\mathcal{E}_y$ and $h_1^c$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_y(0)&=
\frac{h_1^c(0)}{R_c}+\frac{\eta_{xy}(0)}{v}{h_1^c}''(0),
\label{eq:Eyexp1}\\
\mathcal{E}_y''(0)&=\frac{{h_1^c}''(0)}{R_c},
\label{eq:Eyexp2}
\shortintertext{and thus, restoring units}
\eta_{xy}(0)&=\frac{v}{R_c}\left(\frac{E_y(0)}{E_y''(0)}-\frac{\pi\hbar }{e^2k_F R_c }\frac{j_x(0)}{E_y''(0) }\right).
\label{eq:Eyexp3}\end{aligned}$$ Here we made use of the fact that the channel center by symmetry fulfills $\partial_y\eta_{xy}=0$, even outside of the hydrodynamic regime. This is our second important result: A prescription on how to measure $\eta_{xy}$ with a local probe [@Ella2018; @Yacoby2018]. The Hall viscosity can be directly accessed by measuring the transverse Hall profile ($E_y$, $E_y''$) and the local longitudinal resistivity (which yields $j_x$) in the middle of the channel. Remarkably, this result does not suffer from boundary corrections, a source of difficulty for alternative approaches. Instead, while the local measurement of the Hall viscosity $\eta_{xy}(0)$ at the center of the channel indeed yields the Hall viscosity, its value might not be representative of the value elsewhere if $\eta_{xy}$ acquires a spatial dependence. It is a property of hydrodynamic transport that the Hall viscosity is intrinsic and constant within the channel. Only then, Eq. is a useful estimate of the bulk Hall viscosity. On the other hand, a non-parabolic profile of $E_y$ should be viewed a sufficient criterion for *non*-hydrodynamic flow.
Let us compare this setup with the measurement of the spatial variation in the Hall resistivity [@Scaffidi2017; @Delacretaz2017]. To leading order, the gradient expansion of the Hall resistivity reads for $w\gg R_c$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_y&\approx\rho_{xy}^{(0)}h_1^c-\rho_{xy}^{(2)} \ell_c^2\partial_y^2h_1^c.
\label{eq:phenomenologicalEy}\end{aligned}$$ Using the hydrodynamic approximation (truncating at $l=2$) the nontrivial part of the Hall resistance $\rho_{xy}-\rho_{xy}^{(0)}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{xy}-\rho_{xy}^{(0)}&=
\frac{2 \ell}{R_c \ell_0}
\left(1-\frac{w \coth (w/\ell_c)}{(1-r) \ell_c }
\right)^{-1},
\label{eq:fullhall}\end{aligned}$$ where $0\leq r\leq 1$ is a measure for the specularity of the wall. The correction term to the Hall resistivity is therefore not immediately related to the Hall viscosity. However, we note that if we insert Eq. into Eq. , $\rho_{xy}^{(2)}$ has a striking simplification, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{xy}^{(2)}=
\frac{\rho_H^{(0)}h_1^c-\mathcal{E}_y}{R_c^2\partial_y^2h_1^c}
=\frac{2 v\ell}{\ell_0 R_c}=\frac{4\eta_{xy}}{\ell_c^2},
\label{eq:hydroexact}\end{aligned}$$ losing its boundary dependence and indeed capturing the bulk Hall viscosity provided $\ell_c$ is measured simultaneously.
In essence, Eq. can be taken as a general definition of the Hall viscosity in terms of measurable quantities. For hydrodynamic flow, $\eta_{xy}$ is an intrinsic constant of the fluid and thus constant along the entire channel width. In this case, it can be related to the non-local corrections of the Hall resistivity through Eq. .
Let us for completeness apply this procedure to the non-interacting regime. We assume ballistic transport with diffusive boundaries in the limit $w<R_c<\ell_0$. Starting from an exact solution for the ultraballistic limit which was derived in Eqs. (A.80,A.81) in Ref. [@Holder2018b], one can obtain an expression for $\eta_{xy}$ at the center of the channel by expanding Eq. around $y=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{xy}(0)\partial_yh_1^c(y)|_{y=0}&=\frac{v}{2}h_2^c(0)\\
\eta_{xy}(0)&= v w
\frac{\sqrt{2}-\log(1+\sqrt{2})}{4(2+\sqrt{2})}
\label{eq:ballisticeta}\end{aligned}$$ For ballistic transport, $\eta_{xy}(0)$ is therefore purely extrinsic and remains finite for a small B, but only as long as $R_c<\ell_0$. For smaller B-fields with $R_c>\ell_0$ the Hall response weakens. We reiterate that in the ballistic case the Hall viscosity is no longer a bulk quantity but a spatially dependent function, and $\eta_{xy}(0)$ is not sufficient to determine the flow profile completely. It is only upon increasing the magnetic field strength so that $R_c\ll w$, that it becomes possible to employ the expression for hydrodynamic transport, yielding now $\eta_{xy}=v R_c/8$.
#### Viscous Hall angle.—
![Rotation of the second angular moment of the distribution function in a magnetic field. Blue arrows indicate the fluid flow profile in the absence of a transverse electric field. The corresponding local distribution functions are depicted as grey circles. The red arrows are included as a guide to the eye to emphasize the angle by which the distribution function is rotated in a magnetic field.[]{data-label="fig:hallangle"}](hallangle.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
We relate the Hall viscosity in a narrow channel to the shear viscosity by introducing an angle that rotates the second moment of the distribution function in the presence of a magnetic field. At zero field, the second moment assumes the form depicted in Fig. \[fig:hallangle\]. It is antisymmetric along the channel width and encapsulates the velocity changes a flowing particle suffers upon moving from a lower speed slice to a higher speed slice in the fluid and vice-versa. While the elliptical deformation of the distribution function changes sign between lower and upper half of the channel, it is always oriented diagonally. In contrast, in the presence of a magnetic field, the orientation of the elliptical deformation is rotated by the angle $\theta_{vis}/2$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\tan\theta_{vis}&=\frac{\eta_{xy}}{\eta_{xx}}.\end{aligned}$$ In the hydrodynamic limit, this viscous Hall angle becomes $\tan\theta_{vis}=\ell_{ee}/R_c$. In the ultraballistic limit where $\ell_{ee}$, $\ell_0$ are both much larger than the system size with $\ell_{ee}\gg\ell_0$, the viscosity $\eta_{xx}$ vanishes faster than $\eta_{xy}$. The second moment is therefore dominated by the Hall viscosity and the elliptical deformation is now aligned along the axes of the channel rather than diagonal. The viscous Hall angle correspondingly approaches $\pi/2$. This construction can be seen in close analogy to the Hall angle for conductivities, which is classically $\theta_H=\sigma_{xy}/\sigma_{xx}=\ell_0/R_c$. In both cases, the relevant scattering process which enters in the numerator is normalized by the cyclotron orbit, which decreases with increasing magnetic field until eventually the transverse component becomes quantized in the high field limit. In the presence of both momentum relaxing and momentum conserving processes the ratio $\ell/R_c$ due to both relaxation channels approaches the respective purely resistive (viscous) Hall angle for $\ell_0<w<\ell_{ee}$ ($\ell_{ee}<w<\ell_{0}$). This implies that a measurement of the viscous Hall angle in a clean but interacting system gives an estimate of both the interaction mean free path and the Hall viscosity.
#### Measurement of $\eta_{xy}$ in a Corbino disk.—
The viscous Hall angle is particularly insightful in a Corbino geometry with specular boundaries, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:corbino\]. Since the Hall current in azimuthal direction is r-dependent due to the circular geometry, shear is present in the Hall response of the system even for fully specular boundary conditions. In contradistinction, the narrow channel must have diffusive boundaries for viscous effects to appear.
The radial current is $j_r\propto 1/r$ due to charge conservation, while in a hydrodynamic approximation the azimuthal current $j_\varphi$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{j_r}{R_c}+\frac{\eta_{xx}}{v}\nabla^2j_\varphi-
\frac{\eta_{xy}}{v}\nabla^2j_r
&=\frac{j_\varphi}{\ell_0}.
\label{eq:corbino}\end{aligned}$$ The relevant dissipative factors to compare are thus $\ell_0^{-1}$ and $\eta_{xx}/v L^2$, where $L$ is the radial size of the Corbino disk. Likewise, the two dissipationless contributions to Eq. are of size $R_c^{-1}$ and $\eta_{xy}/v L^2$.
Under the assumption that momentum relaxation is small ($\ell_c\gg L$) the Hall angle becomes for the Corbino disk [^1] $$\begin{aligned}
\tan \theta_H&
=\frac{j_\varphi}{j_r}
=\frac{\eta_{xy}}{\eta_{xx}}=
\tan \theta_{vis}.\end{aligned}$$ In other words, for a Corbino geometry with radius smaller than $\ell_c\sim\sqrt{\ell_0\ell}$ and free flow boundary conditions, the resistive Hall angle approaches the viscous Hall angle and the effects of time-reversal breaking viscous flow can be accessed directly by a measurement of the current densities.
![Viscous flow in a Corbino disk. In the presence of a magnetic field in perpendicular direction to the plane, the current between inner and outer ring (blue) has both a longitudinal and a transverse component (red). In a viscous electron fluid the Hall angle is determined by the ratio of the viscosities.[]{data-label="fig:corbino"}](corbino.pdf){width=".67\columnwidth"}
The considerations above neglect that the long momentum relaxing mean free path puts the flow possibly outside the applicability of the hydrodynamic formalism, as discussed before. However, it is possible to iteratively solve the full kinetic equations for the non-interacting case in powers of $1/r$. The details can be found in the supplementary material [@Note1]; taking $\ell_0>L>R_c$, the viscous Hall angle in terms of microscopic quantities becomes $\tan \theta_{vis}=2\ell_0/3R_c$. This is close to the ratio $\eta_{xy}/\eta_{xx}=\ell_0/R_c$ obtained from inserting the ballistic limit into the hydrodynamic expressions. This suggests that the viscous Hall angle remains a well defined bulk quantity throughout the entire crossover from hydrodynamic to ballistic flow. It is still possible that deviations appear in the intermediate regime where all length scales $\ell_0\sim\ell_{ee}\sim R_c$ are comparable. The close connection between interaction dominated and ballistic flow in the Corbino disk compares favorably to a channel geometry, where kinetic and hydrodynamic expressions explicitly disagree in the ballistic limit. For a potential measurement of the Hall viscosity, we point out that the ratio $\eta_{xy}/\eta_{xx}$ is largest for ballistic transport.
#### Conclusions.—
We investigated the microscopic origin of non-dissipative viscous effects in correlated electron flow and explored the common mechanism which underlies both hydrodynamic and ballistic transport. We advocated that the viscosity is most appropriately defined in terms of the second angular moments of the distribution function. Most importantly, bulk hydrodynamic viscous flow appears precisely when the kinetic equation is well approximated by intrinsic viscous coefficients, that is a Hall viscosity which is spatially independent.
In ballistic flow, the effects of correlations can be analyzed employing a quantity resembling the Hall viscosity, revealing an even larger influence of viscous effects in this latter case. The presented local definition of $\eta_{xy}$ (Eq. ) makes it possible to measure the Hall viscosity in a simple channel geometry using only local electrostatic probes close to the center of the channel.
Finally, we introduce the viscous Hall angle, a quantity to capture the bulk viscous response. We show that this quantity is well defined in both ballistic and hydrodynamic limits, given that boundary friction is negligible compared to internal viscous forces. We propose that measuring this angle in a mesoscopic Corbino device allows to isolate the effects of the Hall viscosity from the intricate bulk-boundary interplay normally present in a narrow channel.
#### Acknowledgements.—
We thank A. Rozen, J. Sulpizio, L. Ella and S. Ilani for stimulating discussions. T.H. is supported by the Minerva Foundation. A.S. is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Projektnummer 277101999 – TRR 183 (project B03).
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
======================
In this supplementary material we solve for the azimuthal current density using the hydrodynamic approach and present the a solution of the kinetic equation for transport in a clean Corbino geometry.
Viscous azimuthal current in a Corbino disc
-------------------------------------------
We start from Eq. of the main text. We write it using longitudinal and transverse resistivities $\rho_{xx}$ and $\rho_{xy}$ and impose a longitudinal current $j_r=A/r$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{xy}j_r+\alpha(\eta_{xx}\nabla^2j_\varphi-
\eta_{xy}\nabla^2j_r)
&=\rho_{xx}j_\varphi\\
\left(\partial_r^2+\tfrac{1}{r}\partial_r\right)j_\varphi-
\frac{\rho_{xx}}{\alpha\eta_{xx}}j_\varphi
&=-\frac{\rho_{xy}}{\alpha\eta_{xx}}\frac{A}{r}
+\frac{\eta_{xy}}{\eta_{xx}}\frac{A}{r^3}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we used the shorthand $\alpha=\pi\hbar/e^2 v k_F$. Rescaling the radial coordinate $r=\hat r d$ with the length scale $d=\sqrt{\alpha\eta_{xx}/\rho_{xx}}$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_{\hat r}^2+\tfrac{1}{\hat r}\partial_{\hat r}\right)j_\varphi-
j_\varphi
&=-\frac{\rho_{xy}}{\rho_{xx}d}\frac{A}{{\hat r}}
+\frac{\eta_{xy}}{\eta_{xx}d}\frac{A}{{\hat r}^3}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that microscopically, $d^2=l_c^2/2$. The solution to this differential equation is $$\begin{aligned}
j_\varphi({\hat r})&=\frac{A}{2d{\hat r}^3}
\left(
4\frac{\eta_{xy}}{\eta_{xx}}+(2{\hat r}^2-4)\frac{\rho_{xy}}{\rho_{xx}}
+\pi {\hat r}
\left(\frac{\eta_{xy}}{\eta_{xx}}-\frac{\rho_{xy}}{\rho_{xx}}\right)
\left(2{\hat r} L_{-3}(\hat r)+({\hat r}^2+8)L_{-2}(\hat r)-{\hat r}^2I_0(\hat r)\right)
\right)\notag\\
&+c_1K_0({\hat r})+c_2I_0({\hat r}),\end{aligned}$$ where $I_n(r)$, $K_n(r)$ are the modified Bessel function of first and second kind and $L_n(r)$ is the modified Struve function. $c_1$ and $c_2$ are determined by the boundary conditions. Under the condition that the current decays at large distances, $c_2=0$. For $\hat r\ll1$, $c_1$ enters in a subleading term, which means it only matters when the current is suppressed due to boundary friction. Otherwise, the expansion for small and large $\hat r$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
j_\varphi(r)&=\frac{\eta_{xy}}{\eta_{xx}}\frac{A}{r} &&r\ll d\\
j_\varphi(r)&=\frac{\rho_{xy}}{\rho_{xx}}\frac{A}{r} &&r\gg d,\end{aligned}$$ which is the result presented in the main text. For the expansion at large $r$ we made use of the relations $$\begin{aligned}
L_n(r)&=-\frac{2(n-1)}{r}L_{n-1}(r)+L_{n-2}(r)-\frac{2^{1-n}r^{n-1}}{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(n+\tfrac{1}{2}\right)}\\
L_0(r)-I_0(r)&=-\frac{2}{r\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)}+\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})&& \text{for $r\to\infty$}.\end{aligned}$$
Kinetic equation for rotationally symmetric flow
------------------------------------------------
We begin from the general expression for non-interacting transport, written with polar coordinates $(r,\phi)$ for the spatial dependence, $$\begin{aligned}
\cos(\theta-\phi)\partial_r h(\theta,r,\phi)
+\frac{\sin(\theta-\phi)}{r}\partial_\phi h(\theta,r,\phi)
+\mathcal{E}s(d/r)\cos(\theta-\phi)
+\frac{1}{R_c}\partial_\theta h(\theta,r,\phi)&=
-\frac{h(\theta,r,\phi)}{\ell_0}
\label{eq:fixedframe}\end{aligned}$$ The electric field $\mathcal{E}$ has units of wavenumber, with the physical electric field being $\bm{E}=e\mathcal{E} E_F \bm{\hat e}_r s(d/r)$, where $s(x)$ is a dimensionless function encoding the spatial dependence. Importantly, the problem is rotationally symmetric. This means that a rotation by $\phi$ along the disk also rotates the distribution function by this amount in momentum space. On the other hand, Eq. does not implement this manifestly. We can therefore exchange the derivatives $\partial_\phi\leftrightarrow-\partial_\theta$ only after moving to the rotating frame with $\theta\rightarrow\theta+\phi$. Doing this and demanding rotational invariance for the distribution function, we are left with $$\begin{aligned}
\cos(\theta)\partial_r h(\theta,r)
+\left(\frac{1}{R_c}-\frac{\sin(\theta)}{r}\right)\partial_\theta h(\theta,r)
+\mathcal{E}s(d/r)\cos(\theta)
&=
-\frac{h(\theta,r)}{\ell_0}.\end{aligned}$$ The viscous solution gives us reason to believe that the higher angular moments (in both space and momentum space here) appear at higher powers of $1/r$. Assuming that the disk is large enough that the electric field decays with increasing radius, we make the ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
s(x)&=\frac{1}{x}+\mathcal{O}(x^{-2})\\
h(\theta,r)&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty g_n(\theta)\left(\tfrac{d}{r}\right)^n.\end{aligned}$$ Sorting in powers of $r$, the tower of differential equations becomes $$\begin{aligned}
+\mathcal{E} d\cos(\theta)
+\frac{g_1'(\theta)}{R_c}&=
-\frac{g_1(\theta)}{\ell_0}&&n=1\\
-n\cos(\theta)g_{n}(\theta)
-\sin(\theta)g_{n}'(\theta)
+\frac{g_{n+1}'(\theta)}{R_c}&=
-\frac{g_{n+1}(\theta)}{\ell_0}.&&n > 1\end{aligned}$$ Taking periodic boundary condition, $g_n(0)=g_n(2\pi)$ and $g_0=0$, the solutions are up to $n=3$ $$\begin{aligned}
g_1(\theta)&=\mathcal{E}\ell_0
\frac{\cos\theta+\sin\theta\ell_0/R_c}{1+\ell_0^2/R_c^2}\\
g_{2}(\theta)&=
c_1+\mathcal{E}\ell_0^2
\frac{(1-2\ell_0^2/R_c^2)\cos 2\theta+3\sin 2\theta\ell_0/R_c}{(1+\ell_0^2/R_c^2)(1+4\ell_0^2/R_c^2)}\\
g_{3}(\theta)&=
c_2\cos\theta+c_3\sin\theta+4\mathcal{E}\ell_0^3\frac{(1-11\ell_0^2/R_c^2)\cos 3\theta+6(1-\ell_0^2/R_c^2)\sin 3\theta\ell_0/R_c}{(1+\ell_0^2/R_c^2)(1+4\ell_0^2/R_c^2)(1+9\ell_0^2/R_c^2)}\end{aligned}$$ This confirms our suspicion, the leading $g_1$ contains only currents, while quadrupolar deformations of the Fermi surface first appear in $g_{2}$. For an arbitrary radial dependence of the electric field this conclusion remains unchanged, but additionally not exclusively $g_{2}$ but all terms $g_n$ with $n =2,4,\dots$ will contain quadrupolar contributions. Under the assumptions mentioned in the main text, higher moments can become of similar size compared to the first moments. Of course, with increasing radius of the disk the overall decay with $r^{-n}$ suppresses the higher order angular moments carried by $g_n$ with $n>1$. Here, the relevant length to compare the radial size of the disk with is either $\ell_0$ or $R_c$, whichever is smaller. Note that in the presence of boundary friction, this simple picture would no longer hold, as the diffusive boundary mixes and matches different angular components. We read off the following structure for $h_2^c$ and $h_2^s$, where the higher order terms in $r$ appear for a general radial dependence of the electric field. $$\begin{aligned}
h_2^c&=\mathcal{E} d \cdot f_2^c\left(\tfrac{\ell_0}{R_c}\right)\frac{\ell_0^2}{r^{2}}
+\mathcal{O}(r^{-3})\\
h_2^s&=\mathcal{E} d \cdot f_2^s\left(\tfrac{\ell_0}{R_c}\right)\frac{\ell_0^2}{r^{2}}
+\mathcal{O}(r^{-3})
\shortintertext{with the scaling functions}
f_2^c(x)&=\frac{1-2x^2}{(1+x^2)(1+4x^2)}\\
f_2^s(x)&=\frac{3x}{(1+x^2)(1+4x^2) }\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that $\ell_0>d>R_c$, this simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
h_2^c&=-\mathcal{E} d\frac{R_c^2}{r^{2}}\\
h_2^s&=\tfrac{3}{2}\mathcal{E} d\frac{R_c^3}{\ell_0r^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Using the definition of the viscosity, we conclude that for $\ell_0\rightarrow\infty$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\eta_{xy}}{\eta_{xx}}
&=\left|\frac{h_2^c(r)}{h_2^s(r)}\right|
=\frac{2\ell_0}{3R_c}.\end{aligned}$$ In the kinetic approach, we thus find the ratio $\sigma_{xy}/\sigma_{xx}$ to be not precisely equal but very close in numbers to the ratio $\eta_{xy}/\eta_{xx}$. In the hydrodynamic formalism, both quantities converge to the same value.
[^1]: See supplementary material, where we discuss both the hydrodynamic approach and an iterative solution of the kinetic equation in a Corbino geometry.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Attention-based long short-term memory (LSTM) networks have proven to be useful in aspect-level sentiment classification. However, due to the difficulties in annotating aspect-level data, existing public datasets for this task are all relatively small, which largely limits the effectiveness of those neural models. In this paper, we explore two approaches that transfer knowledge from document-level data, which is much less expensive to obtain, to improve the performance of aspect-level sentiment classification. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approaches on 4 public datasets from SemEval 2014, 2015, and 2016, and we show that attention-based LSTM benefits from document-level knowledge in multiple ways.'
author:
- 'Ruidan He[^^]{}, Wee Sun Lee[^^]{}, Hwee Tou Ng[^^]{},'
- |
Daniel Dahlmeier[^^]{}\
[[^^]{}Department of Computer Science, National University of Singapore]{}\
[[^^]{}SAP Innovation Center Singapore]{}\
[`{ruidanhe,leews,nght}@comp.nus.edu.sg`]{}\
[`[email protected]`]{}
bibliography:
- 'acl2018.bib'
title: |
Exploiting Document Knowledge\
for Aspect-level Sentiment Classification
---
Introduction
============
Given a sentence and an opinion target (also called an aspect term) occurring in the sentence, aspect-level sentiment classification aims to determine the sentiment polarity in the sentence towards the opinion target. An opinion target or target for short refers to a word or a phrase describing an aspect of an entity. For example, in the sentence “*This little place has a cute interior decor but the prices are quite expensive*”, the targets are *interior decor* and *prices*, and they are associated with positive and negative sentiment respectively.
A sentence may contain multiple sentiment-target pairs, thus one challenge is to separate different opinion contexts for different targets. For this purpose, state-of-the-art neural methods [@Wang:16; @Liu:17; @Chen:17] adopt attention-based LSTM networks, where the LSTM aims to capture sequential patterns and the attention mechanism aims to emphasize target-specific contexts for encoding sentence representations. Typically, LSTMs only show their potential when trained on large datasets. However, aspect-level training data requires the annotation of all opinion targets in a sentence, which is costly to obtain in practice. As such, existing public aspect-level datasets are all relatively small. Insufficient training data limits the effectiveness of neural models.
Despite the lack of aspect-level labeled data, enormous document-level labeled data are easily accessible online such as Amazon reviews. These reviews contain substantial linguistic patterns and come with sentiment labels naturally. In this paper, we hypothesize that aspect-level sentiment classification can be improved by employing knowledge gained from document-level sentiment classification. Specifically, we explore two transfer methods to incorporate this sort of knowledge – pretraining and multi-task learning. In our experiments, we find that both methods are helpful and combining them achieves significant improvements over attention-based LSTM models trained only on aspect-level data. We also illustrate by examples that additional knowledge from document-level data is beneficial in multiple ways. Our source code can be obtained from <https://github.com/ruidan/Aspect-level-sentiment>.
Related Work
============
Various neural models [@Dong:14; @Nguyen:15; @Vo:15; @Tang:16a; @Tang:16b; @Wang:16; @zhang:16; @Liu:17; @Chen:17] have been proposed for aspect-level sentiment classification. The main idea behind these works is to develop neural architectures that are able to learn continuous features and capture the intricate relation between a target and context words. However, to sufficiently train these models, substantial aspect-level annotated data is required, which is expensive to obtain in practice.
We explore both pretraining and multi-task learning for transferring knowledge from document level to aspect level. Both methods are widely studied in the literature. Pretraining is a common technique used in computer vision where low-level neural layers can be usefully transferred to different tasks [@Krizhevsky:12; @Zeiler:14]. In natural language processing (NLP), some efforts have been initiated on pretraining LSTMs [@Dai:15; @Zoph:16; @Prajit:17] for sequence-to-sequence models in both supervised and unsupervised settings, where promising results have been obtained. On the other hand, multi-task learning simultaneously trains on samples in multiple tasks with a combined objective [@Collobert:08; @Luong:15a; @Liu:16], which has improved model generalization ability in certain cases. In the work of Mou et al. , the authors investigated the transferability of neural models in NLP applications with extensive experiments, showing that transferability largely depends on the semantic relatedness of the source and target tasks. For our problem, we hypothesize that aspect-level sentiment classification can be improved by employing knowledge gained from document-level sentiment classification, as these two tasks are highly related semantically.
Models
======
Attention-based LSTM
--------------------
We first describe a conventional implementation of an attention-based LSTM model for this task. We use it as a baseline model and extend it with pretraining and multi-task learning approaches for incorporating document-level knowledge.
The inputs are a sentence $s = (w_1, w_2, ..., w_n)$ consisting of $n$ words, and an opinion target $x = (x_1, x_2, ..., x_m)$ occurring in the sentence consisting of a subsequence of $m$ words from $s$. Each word is associated with a continuous word embedding $\mathbf{e}_w$ [@Mikolov:13] from an embedding matrix $\mathbf{E} \in \mathbb{R}^{V \times d}$, where $V$ is the vocabulary size and $d$ is the embedding dimension.
LSTM is used to capture sequential information, and outputs a sequence of hidden vectors: $$[\mathbf{h}_1, ..., \mathbf{h}_n] = \text{LSTM}([\mathbf{e}_{w_1}, ..., \mathbf{e}_{w_n}], \theta_{lstm})$$ An attention layer assigns a weight $\alpha_i$ to each word in the sentence. The final target-specific representation of the sentence $s$ is then given by: $$\mathbf{z} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_i \mathbf{h}_i$$ And $\alpha_i$ is computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_i = \frac{\exp(\beta_i)}{\sum_{j=1}^{n}\exp(\beta_j)} \\
&\beta_i = f_{score}(\mathbf{h}_i, \mathbf{t}) = tanh(\mathbf{h}_i^T \mathbf{W}_a \mathbf{t})\\
&\mathbf{t} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m}\mathbf{e}_{x_i} \label{target_rep}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{t}$ is the target representation computed as the averaged word embedding of the target. $f_{score}$ is a content-based function that captures the semantic association between a word and the target, for which we adopt the formulation used in [@Luong:15b; @He:17] with parameter matrix $\mathbf{W}_a \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$.
The sentence representation $\mathbf{z}$ is fed into an output layer to predict the probability distribution $\mathbf{p}$ over sentiment labels on the target: $$\mathbf{p}=softmax(\mathbf{W}_o \mathbf{z} + \mathbf{b}_o) \label{output layer}$$ We refer to this baseline model as LSTM+ATT. It is trained via cross entropy minimization: $$J = -\sum_{i \in D} \log \mathbf{p}_i(c_i) \label{objective}$$ where $D$ denotes the overall training corpus, $c_i$ denotes the true label for sample $i$, and $\mathbf{p}_i(c_i)$ denotes the probability of the true label.
Transfer Approaches
-------------------
LSTM+ATT is used as our aspect-level model with parameter set $\theta_{aspect} = \{ \mathbf{E}, \theta_{lstm}, \mathbf{W}_a, \mathbf{W}_o, \mathbf{b}_o \}$. We also build a standard LSTM-based classifier based on document-level training examples. This network is the same as the LSTM+ATT apart from the lack of the attention layer. The training objective is also cross entropy minimization as shown in equation (\[objective\]) and the parameter set is $\theta_{doc} = \{ \mathbf{E}^{\prime}, \theta_{lstm}^{\prime}, \mathbf{W}_o^{\prime}, \mathbf{b}_o^{\prime} \}$.
**Pretraining** (PRET): In this setting, we first train on document-level examples. The last hidden vector from the LSTM outputs is used as the document representation. We initialize the relevant parameters $\mathbf{E}, \theta_{lstm}, \mathbf{W}_o, \mathbf{b}_o$ of LSTM+ATT with the pretrained weights, and train it on aspect-level examples to fine tune those weights and learn $\mathbf{W}_a$ which is randomly initialized.
**Multi-task Learning** (MULT): This approach simultaneously trains two tasks – document-level and aspect-level classification. In this setting, the embedding layer ($\mathbf{E}$) and the LSTM layer ($\theta_{lstm}$) are shared by both tasks, and a document is represented as the mean vector over LSTM outputs. The other parameters are task-specific. The overall loss function is then given by: $$L = J + \lambda U \label{overall objective}$$ where $U$ is the loss function of document-level classification. $\lambda \in (0,1)$ is a hyperparameter that controls the weight of $U$.
**Combined** (PRET+MULT): In this setting, we first perform PRET on document-level examples. We use the pretrained weights for parameter initialization for both aspect-level model and document-level model, and then perform MULT as discussed above.
Experiments
===========
Datasets and Experimental Settings
----------------------------------
We run experiments on four benchmark aspect-level datasets, taken from SemEval 2014 [@Pontiki:14], SemEval 2015 [@Pontiki:15], and SemEval 2016 [@Pontiki:16]. Following previous work [@Tang:16b; @Wang:16], we remove samples with *conflicting* polarities in all datasets[^1]. Statistics of the resulting datasets are presented in Table \[data statistics\].
We derived two document-level datasets from Yelp2014 [@tang:15] and the Amazon Electronics dataset [@Mcauley:15] respectively. The original reviews were rated on a 5-point scale. We consider 3-class classification and thus label reviews with rating $<3$, $>3$, and $=3$ as negative, positive, and neutral respectively. Each sampled dataset contains 30k instances with exactly balanced class labels. We pair up an aspect-level dataset and a document-level dataset when they are from a similar domain – the Yelp dataset is used by D1, D3, and D4 for PRET and MULT, and the Electronics dataset is only used by D2.
In all experiments, 300-dimension GloVe vectors [@Pennington:14] are used to initialize $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{E}^\prime$ when pretraining is not conducted for weight initialization. These vectors are also used for initializing $\mathbf{E}^\prime$ in the pretraining phase. Values for hyperparameters are obtained from experiments on development sets. We randomly sample 20% of the original training data from the aspect-level dataset as the development set and only use the remaining 80% for training. For all experiments, the dimension of LSTM hidden vectors is set to 300, $\lambda$ is set to 0.1, and we use dropout with probability 0.5 on sentence/document representations before the output layer. We use RMSProp as the optimizer with the decay rate set to 0.9 and the base learning rate set to 0.001. The mini-batch size is set to 32.
Model Comparison
----------------
Table \[model comparison\] shows the results of LSTM, LSTM+ATT, PRET, MULT, PRET+MULT, and four representative prior works [@Tang:16a; @Tang:16b; @Wang:16; @Chen:17]. Significance tests are conducted for testing the robustness of methods under random parameter initialization. Both accuracy and macro-F1 are used for evaluation as label distribution is unbalanced. The reported numbers are obtained as the average value over 5 runs with random initialization for each method.
We observe that PRET is very helpful, and consistently gives a 1–3% increase in accuracy over LSTM+ATT across all datasets. The improvements in macro-F1 scores are even more, especially on D3 and D4 where the labels are extremely unbalanced. MULT gives similar performance as LSTM+ATT on D1 and D2, but improvements can be clearly observed for D3 and D4. The combination (PRET+MULT) overall yields better results.
There are two main reasons why the improvements of macro-F1 scores are more significant on D3 and D4 than on D1: (1) D1 has much more neutral examples in the training set. A classifier without any external knowledge might still be able to learn some neutral-related features on D1 but it is very hard to learn from D3 and D4. (2) The numbers of neutral examples in the test sets of D3 and D4 are very small. Thus, the precision and recall on neutral class will be largely affected by even a small prediction difference (e.g., with 5 more neutral examples correctly identified, recall is increased by more than 10% on both datasets). As a result, the macro-F1 scores on D3 and D4 are affected more.
Ablation Tests
--------------
Table \[model comparison\] indicates that a large percentage of the performance gain comes from PRET. To better understand the transfer effects of different layers – embedding layer ($\mathbf{E}$), LSTM layer ($\theta_{lstm}$), and output layer ($\mathbf{W}_o, \mathbf{b}_o$) – we conduct ablation tests on PRET with different layers transfered from the document-level model to the aspect-level model. Results are presented in Table \[ablation test\]. “LSTM only” denotes the setting where only the LSTM layer is transferred, and “Without LSTM” denotes the setting where only the embedding and output layers are transferred (excluding the LSTM layer). The key observations are: (1) Transfer is helpful in all settings. Improvements over LSTM+ATT are observed even when only one layer is transferred. (2) Overall, transfers of the LSTM and embedding layer are more useful than the output layer. This is what we expect, since the output layer is normally more task-specific. (3) Transfer of the embedding layer is more helpful on D3 and D4. One possible explanation is that the label distribution is extremely unbalanced on these two datasets. Sentiment information is not adequately captured by GloVe word embeddings. Therefore, with a small number of training examples in the negative and neutral classes, the embeddings trained by aspect-level classification still do not effectively capture the true semantics of the relevant opinion words. Transfer of the embedding layer can greatly help in this case.
Analysis
--------
![Results of PRET+MULT vs. percentage of document-level training data.[]{data-label="percentage"}](acl18short_acc){width="85.00000%"}
![Results of PRET+MULT vs. percentage of document-level training data.[]{data-label="percentage"}](acl18short_f1){width="85.00000%"}
To show that aspect-level classification indeed benefits from document-level knowledge, we conduct experiments to vary the percentage of document-level training examples from 0.0 to 1.0 for PRET+MULT. The changes of accuracies and macro-F1 scores on the four datasets are shown in Figure \[percentage\]. The improvements on accuracies with increasing number of document examples are stable across all datasets. For macro-F1 scores, the improvements on D1 and D2 are stable. We observe sharp increases in the macro-F1 scores of D3 and D4 when changing the percentage from 0 to 0.4. This may be related to their extremely unbalanced label distribution. In such cases, with the knowledge gained from a small number of balanced document-level examples, aspect-level predictions on neutral examples can be significantly improved.
To better understand in which conditions the proposed method is helpful, we analyze a subset of test examples that are correctly classified by PRET+MULT but are misclassified by LSTM+ATT. We find that the benefits brought by document-level knowledge are typically shown in four ways.
First of all, to our surprise, LSTM+ATT made obvious mistakes on some instances with common opinion words. Below are two examples where the target is enclosed in \[\] with its true sentiment indicated in the subscript:
1\. *“I was highly disappointed in the \[food\]$_{neg}$.”*
2\. *“This particular location certainly uses substandard \[meats\]$_{neg}$.”*
In the above examples, LSTM+ATT does attend to the right opinion words, but makes the wrong predictions. One possible reason is that the word embeddings from GloVe without PRET do not effectively capture sentiment information, while the aspect-level training samples are not sufficient to capture that for certain words. PRET+MULT eliminates this kind of errors.
Another finding is that our method helps to better capture domain-specific opinion words due to additional knowledge from documents that are from a similar domain:
1\. *“The smaller \[size\]$_{pos}$ was a bonus because of space restrictions.”*
2\. *“The \[price\]$_{pos}$ is 200 dollars down.”*
LSTM+ATT attends on *smaller* correctly for the first example but makes the wrong prediction as *smaller* can be negative in many cases. It does not even capture *down* in the second example.
Thirdly, we find that LSTM+ATT made a number of errors on sentences with negation words:
1\. *I have experienced no problems, \[works\]$_{pos}$ as anticipated.*
2\. *\[Service\]$_{neg}$ not the friendliest to our party!*
LSTMs typically only show their potential on large datasets. Without sufficient training examples, it may not be able to effectively capture various sequential patterns. Pretraining the network on larger document-level corpus addresses this problem.
Lastly, PRET+MULT makes fewer errors on recognizing neutral instances. This can also be observed from the macro-F1 scores in Table \[model comparison\]. The lack of training examples makes the prediction of neutral instances very difficult for all previous methods. Knowledge from document-level examples with balanced labels compensates for this disadvantage.
Conclusion
==========
The effectiveness of existing aspect-level neural models is limited due to the difficulties in obtaining training data in practice. Our work is the first attempt to incorporate knowledge from document-level corpus for training aspect-level sentiment classifiers. We have demonstrated the effectiveness of our proposed approaches and analyzed the major benefits brought by the knowledge transfer. The proposed approaches can be potentially integrated with other aspect-level neural models to further boost their performance.
[^1]: We remove samples in the 2015/6 datasets if an opinion target is associated with different sentiment polarities.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present high angular resolution dust polarization and molecular line observations carried out with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) toward the Class 0 protostar Serpens SMM1. By complementing these observations with new polarization observations from the Submillimeter Array (SMA) and archival data from the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-wave Astronomy (CARMA) and the James Clerk Maxwell Telescopes (JCMT), we can compare the magnetic field orientations at different spatial scales. We find major changes in the magnetic field orientation between large ($\sim$0.1pc) scales—where the magnetic field is oriented E–W, perpendicular to the major axis of the dusty filament where SMM1 is embedded—and the intermediate and small scales probed by CARMA ($\sim$1000AU resolution), the SMA ($\sim$350AU resolution), and ALMA ($\sim$140AU resolution). The ALMA maps reveal that the redshifted lobe of the bipolar outflow is shaping the magnetic field in SMM1 on the southeast side of the source; however, on the northwestern side and elsewhere in the source, low velocity shocks may be causing the observed chaotic magnetic field pattern. High-spatial-resolution continuum and spectral-line observations also reveal a tight ($\sim$130AU) protobinary system in SMM1-b, the eastern component of which is launching an extremely high-velocity, one-sided jet visible in both and ; however, that jet does not appear to be shaping the magnetic field. These observations show that with the sensitivity and resolution of ALMA, we can now begin to understand the role that feedback (e.g., from protostellar outflows) plays in shaping the magnetic field in very young, star-forming sources like SMM1.\
author:
- 'Charles L. H. Hull'
- 'Josep M. Girart'
- Łukasz Tychoniec
- Ramprasad Rao
- 'Paulo C. Cortés'
- Riwaj Pokhrel
- Qizhou Zhang
- Martin Houde
- 'Michael M. Dunham'
- 'Lars E. Kristensen,'
- 'Shih-Ping Lai'
- 'Zhi-Yun Li'
- 'Richard L. Plambeck'
title: ALMA observations of dust polarization and molecular line emission from the Class 0 protostellar source Serpens SMM1
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Serpens Main molecular cloud is an active star forming region, and the birthplace of a young cluster [e.g., @Eiroa2008], located at a distance of 436$\pm$9pc [@OrtizLeon2017b]. The cloud is composed of a complex network of self-gravitating filaments where star formation is taking place [@Lee2014; @Roccatagliata2015]; there is evidence that a cloud-cloud collision has triggered or enhanced the recent star formation in the region [@DuarteCabral2010; @DuarteCabral2011].
Serpens SMM1,[^1] a Class 0 protostar, is the brightest millimeter source in the cloud [@Testi2000; @Enoch2009; @Lee2014], with a luminosity $L_{\rm bol} = 100\,L_\odot$ [@Goicoechea2012]. It powers a compact ($\sim$2000AU), non-thermal radio jet that is expanding at velocities of $\sim$200, which implies that the radio jet has a dynamical age of only 60yr [@Rodriguez1989; @Curiel1993; @Choi1999; @RodriguezKamenetzky2016]; @Curiel1993 suggest that the radio jet comprises a proto-Herbig-Haro system. The jet has a well collimated molecular outflow counterpart [@Curiel1996] that is also detectable in mid-infrared atomic lines [@Dionatos2010; @Dionatos2014]; the jet appears to be perturbing the dense molecular gas surrounding the outflow cavity [@Torrelles1992], producing copious water maser emission [@vanKempen2009]. Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) observations from @Hull2016a show that the central source (SMM1-a; see Table \[table:sources\]) powers an extremely high-velocity (EHV) molecular jet, which is surrounded by an ionized cavity detected in free-free emission by the VLA. The cavity is most likely ionized either by the precessing high-velocity jet or by UV radiation from the central accreting protostar.
Polarized dust emission can be used as a tracer of magnetic fields in star-forming regions, as “radiative torques” [@Hoang2009] tend to align spinning dust grains with their long axes perpendicular to the ambient magnetic field [@Lazarian2007; @Andersson2015]. Dust polarization observations with (sub)millimeter interferometers have proven useful to trace the magnetic field at the dense core scales [e.g., @Rao1998; @Girart1999; @Lai2001; @Alves2011; @Hull2013; @Hull2014]. When a collapsing protostellar core is threaded by a uniform magnetic field and has low angular momentum [relative to the magnetic energy; @Machida2005], the magnetic field is expected to exhibit an hourglass morphology at the core scale, with the magnetic field orientation along the core’s minor axis [@Fiedler1993; @Galli1993b; @Allen2003; @Goncalves2008; @Frau2011]. This morphology has been seen in some low- and high-mass protostars [@Lai2002; @Girart2006; @Girart2009; @Rao2009; @Tang2009b; @Stephens2013; @Qiu2014; @HBLi2015]. However, it is becoming clear that this situation is not universal: in several cases the magnetic fields threading the cores exhibit complex morphologies [e.g., @Tang2009a; @Girart2013; @Hull2014; @Frau2014; @Hull2017a]. In addition, recent observational studies of a large sample of star-forming sources [@Hull2013; @Hull2014] and analysis of synthetic observations of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations at similar resolution [@JLee2017] show no strong correlation between the outflow orientation and the core’s magnetic field orientation at $\sim$1000AU scales,[^2] although there are studies that do suggest non-random alignment of outflows and magnetic fields at $\sim$10,000AU scales [e.g., @Chapman2013].
In this paper we present ALMA 343GHz (Band 7) polarization observations toward the very embedded intermediate-mass protostar Serpens SMM1. We complement these observations with new Submillimeter Array (SMA; @Ho2004) 345GHz dust polarization observations as well as with archival polarization maps obtained with the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) [@Davis2000; @Matthews2009] and the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-wave Astronomy (CARMA) [@Hull2014]. The ALMA results we present here are among the first results from the ALMA full-polarization system, which has already led to publications on magnetized low- [@Hull2017a] and high-mass star formation [@Cortes2016]; quasar polarization [@Nagai2016]; and protostellar disk polarization [@Kataoka2016b].
In Section \[sec:obs\] we describe the observations and data reduction. In Section \[sec:res\] we present and describe the dust total intensity and polarization maps as well as the molecular line maps. In Section \[sec:dis\] we discuss the changes in magnetic field as a function of spatial scale and the relationship between the magnetic field and the outflows, jet, and dense-gas kinematics. Our conclusions are summarized in Section \[sec:con\].
-------- --------------------------- --------------------------- -----------
Name $\alpha_{\textrm{J2000}}$ $\delta_{\textrm{J2000}}$ $I_{870}$
()
SMM1-a 18:29:49.81 +1:15:20.41 800
SMM1-b 18:29:49.67 +1:15:21.15 106
SMM1-c 18:29:49.93 +1:15:22.02 28.1
SMM1-d 18:29:49.99 +1:15:22.97 10.1
-------- --------------------------- --------------------------- -----------
: SMM1 source properties
\[table:sources\]
**Note.** Properties of the four continuum sources detected in the ALMA data (Figure \[fig:pol\](d), grayscale). $I_{870}$ is the peak intensity of each of the sources in the 870$\micron$ ALMA data.
Observations {#sec:obs}
============
{width="\linewidth"}
ALMA observations
-----------------
The 870 ALMA dust polarization observations that we present were taken on 2015 June 3 and 2015 June 7, and have a synthesized beam (resolution element) of $\sim$$0\farcs33$, corresponding to a linear resolution of $\sim$140AU at a distance of 436pc. The largest recoverable scale in the data is approximately 5$\arcsec$. The ALMA polarization data comprise 8GHz of wide-band dust continuum ranging in frequency from $\sim$336–350GHz, with a mean frequency of 343.479GHz (873$\micron$). The main calibration sources such as bandpass, flux, and phase are selected at run time by querying the ALMA source catalog. The polarization calibrator was selected by hand to be J1751+0939 because of its high polarization fraction. This source was also selected by the online system as the bandpass and phase calibrator. Titan was selected as the flux calibrator. The ALMA flux accuracy in Band 6 (1.3mm) and Band 7 (870) is $\sim$10%, as determined by the observatory flux monitoring program. The gain calibration uncertainty is $\sim$5% in Band 6 and $\sim$10% in Band 7. The accuracy in the bandpass calibration is $\lesssim$0.2% in amplitude and $\lesssim$0.5$\degree$ in phase. For a detailed discussion of the ALMA polarization system, see @Nagai2016.
The dust continuum image, most clearly seen in Figure \[fig:pol\](d), was produced by using the CASA task [**CLEAN**]{} with a Briggs weighting parameter of robust=1. The image was improved iteratively by four rounds of phase-only self-calibration using the total intensity (Stokes $I$) image as a model. The Stokes $I$, $Q$, and $U$ maps (where the $Q$ and $U$ maps show the polarized emission) were each [**CLEANed**]{} independently with an appropriate number of [**CLEAN**]{} iterations after the final round of self-calibration. The rms noise level in the final Stokes $I$ dust map is $\sigma_I = 0.5$, whereas the rms noise level in the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ dust maps is $\sigma_Q \approx \sigma_U \approx \sigma_P = 0.06$, where $\sigma_P$ is the rms noise in the map of polarized intensity $P$ (see Equation \[eqn:P\] below). The reason for this difference is that the total intensity image is more dynamic-range limited than the polarized intensity images. This difference in noise levels allows one to detect polarized emission in some regions where one cannot reliably detect continuum dust emission.
The quantities that can be derived from the polarization maps are the polarized intensity $P$, the fractional polarization $P_\textrm{frac}$, and the polarization position angle $\chi$:
$$\begin{aligned}
P &= \sqrt{Q^2 + U^2} \label{eqn:P} \\
P_\textrm{frac} &= \frac{P}{I} \\
\chi &= \frac{1}{2} \arctan{\left(\frac{U}{Q}\right)}\, .\end{aligned}$$
Note that $P$ has a positive bias because it is always a positive quantity, even though the Stokes parameters $Q$ and $U$ from which $P$ is derived can be either positive or negative. This bias has a particularly significant effect in low-signal-to-noise measurements. We thus debias the polarized intensity map as described in @Vaillancourt2006 and @Hull2015b. See Table \[table:data\] for the ALMA polarization data.
We also present 1.3mm (Band 6) ALMA spectral line data, which were taken in two different array configurations on 2014 August 18 ($\sim$0.3$\arcsec$ angular resolution) and 2015 April 06 ($\sim$1$\arcsec$ resolution). These data include dust continuum as well as , which we use to image the outflow from SMM1 (see Figure \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\] and @Hull2016a); (Figure \[fig:sio\]); and (Figure \[fig:dco+\]).
Finally, we present 1.3mm ALMA continuum data with $\sim$$0\farcs1$ resolution (Pokhrel et al., in prep.), observed on 2016 Sep 10, 2016 Sep 13, and 2016 Oct 31. These data show that SMM1-b is a binary with $\sim$130AU separation, and which we use to pinpoint the driving source of the high-velocity SiO jet (see Section \[sec:MolEm\] and Figure \[fig:sio\]).
SMA observations
----------------
The SMA polarization observations (Figure \[fig:pol\](c)) were taken on 2012 May 25 (compact configuration) and 2012 September 2 and 3 (extended configuration), and have a synthesized beam of $\sim$$0\farcs8$. In the May observations the frequency ranges covered were 332.0–336.0GHz and 344.0–348.0GHz in the lower sideband (LSB) and upper sideband (USB), respectively. The ranges were slightly different for the September observations: 332.7–336.7GHz (LSB) and 344.7–348.7GHz (USB). The correlator provided a spectral resolution of about 0.8MHz, or 0.7at 345GHz. The gain calibrator was the quasar J1751$+$096. The bandpass calibrator was BL Lac. The absolute flux scale was determined from observations of Titan. The flux uncertainty was estimated to be $\sim$20%. The data were reduced using the software packages [**MIR**]{} (see @QiYoung2015 for a description of how to reduce full-polarization data in [**MIR**]{}) and [**MIRIAD**]{} [@Sault1995].
The SMA conducts polarimetric observations by cross correlating orthogonal circular polarizations (CP). The CP is produced by inserting quarter wave plates in front of the receivers, which have native linear polarization. The instrumentation techniques and calibration issues are discussed in detail in @MarroneThesis and @Marrone2008b. The instrumental polarization (“leakage”) calibrator was chosen to be BL Lac, which was observed over a parallactic angle range of $\sim$60$\arcdeg$. We found polarization leakages between 1–2% for the USB, while the LSB leakages were between 2–4%. These leakages were measured to an accuracy of 0.1%.
We performed self-calibration using the continuum data and applied the derived gain solutions to the molecular line data. We produced maps with natural weighting (robust=2) after subtracting the dust continuum emission in the visibility space. Table \[table:T1\] in Appendix \[appendix:lines\] gives the transitions, frequencies, and lower energy levels of the molecular lines detected.
JCMT and CARMA observations
---------------------------
The archival JCMT SCUBA polarization data (Figure \[fig:pol\](a)) were obtained from supplementary data provided by @Matthews2009. These data were first published by @Davis2000; @Matthews2009 performed a fresh reduction of the original @Davis2000 data with a resulting angular resolution of $\sim$20$\arcsec$.
The CARMA polarization data (Figure \[fig:pol\](b)) were taken between 2011 and 2013 as part of the TADPOL survey [@Hull2014], the largest high-resolution ($\sim$1000 AU) interferometric survey to date of dust polarization in low-mass star-forming cores. The data were taken using the 1.3 mm polarization receiver system in the C, D, and E arrays at CARMA, which correspond to angular resolutions at 1.3mm of approximately 1$\arcsec$, 2$\arcsec$, and $4\arcsec$, respectively. The details of the CARMA polarization system can be found in @Hull2015b; for descriptions of the observational setup and the data reduction procedure, see Section 3 of @Hull2014. The image of the CARMA data in Figure \[fig:pol\] is an improved version of Figure 27 in @Hull2014, as the data presented here have been self-calibrated using the Stokes $I$ [**CLEAN**]{} components as a model.
----------- -------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------
Telescope $\lambda$ $\theta_{\textrm{res}}$ $\theta_{\textrm{MRS}}$ $I_{\textrm{peak}}$ $I_{\textrm{rms}}$
($\arcsec$) () ()
ALMA 870$\micron$ $0\farcs35\times0\farcs32$ 5.2 0.80 0.5
SMA 880$\micron$ $0\farcs86\times0\farcs75$ 14.5 1.43 4.0
CARMA 1.3mm $2\farcs90\times2\farcs46$ 41 1.30 6.2
JCMT$^a$ 850$\micron$ $20\arcsec$ — 4.00 —
----------- -------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------
\[table:obs\]
*Note:* $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the observations. $\theta_{\textrm{res}}$ is resolution of the observations, which, in the case of ALMA, the SMA, and CARMA, is the same as the synthesized beam of the interferometric data. $\theta_{\textrm{MRS}}$ is the maximum recoverable scale in the interferometric data, calculated using the shortest baseline in each observation. $I_{\textrm{peak}}$ and $I_{\textrm{rms}}$ are the peak total intensity and the rms noise in the total intensity maps, respectively; the values are calculated as flux density per synthesized beam $\theta_{\textrm{res}}$.
$^a$ For a discussion of the single-dish JCMT observations, noise estimates, and peak fluxes, see @Matthews2009 (including Figure 56).
Results {#sec:res}
=======
Below we discuss in detail a number of results from our continuum and spectral line observations of Serpens SMM1. We begin by describing Figure \[fig:pol\], which shows the total-intensity and polarized dust emission toward SMM1 at various spatial scales using observations from the JCMT, CARMA, the SMA, and ALMA. We then present molecular emission maps from ALMA, including (Figure \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\]), which shows how the outflow is shaping the magnetic field; high-velocity (Figure \[fig:sio\], right panel), which reveals an EHV jet emanating from SMM1-b; and (Figure \[fig:dco+\]) and low-velocity (Figure \[fig:sio\], left panel), which trace the dense gas in which the protostars are embedded.
Total-intensity and polarized dust emission
-------------------------------------------
Here we present the magnetic field derived from the polarized dust emission at the different scales as traced by different telescopes, moving from large to small scales.
*JCMT data:* The JCMT 850$\micron$ dust polarization map (Figure \[fig:pol\](a)) covers the whole $\sim 0.4$pc molecular clump where the SMM1 and SMM9[^3] dense cores are embedded. @Davis2000 found that the magnetic field is relatively uniform and is approximately perpendicular to the major axis of this clump, oriented E–W with a mean position angle of $\sim$80$\degree$. These authors found a magnetic field strength of $\sim 1$mG, estimated using the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi (DCF) technique [@Davis1951; @Chandrasekhar1953].[^4]
While the magnetic field is well ordered in the E–W direction, there is strong depolarization toward the emission peak of SMM1. This is the “polarization hole” phenomenon, where the polarization fraction drops near the dust emission peak. This phenomenon appears in both high- and low-resolution observations of star-forming cores [@Dotson1996; @Girart2006; @Liu2013] and simulations [@Padoan2001; @Lazarian2007; @Pelkonen2009; @JLee2017]. One possible cause of the polarization hole is that the plane-of-sky magnetic field could have structure on <20$\arcsec$ scales that cannot be resolved by the JCMT; this plane-of-sky averaging would reduce the polarization fraction. And indeed, as we zoom into smaller scales in Figure \[fig:pol\] we see more and more complicated magnetic field morphology in the higher resolution CARMA, SMA, and ALMA maps.
*CARMA data:* Figure \[fig:pol\](b) shows the 1.3mm dust emission and the magnetic field derived from CARMA, with a resolution of $\sim$2$\farcs$5. These are interferometric observations, and thus they are not sensitive to structures $\gtrsim\,15\arcsec$ (or $\sim$6000AU) in extent. The magnetic field in the center of SMM1, undetected with the JCMT, is revealed by CARMA to be significantly different from the overall E–W orientation seen in the JCMT data: in the interferometric data, the field near the center of the source appears to be oriented predominantly in the N–S direction.
*SMA data:* As a comparison, Figure \[fig:pol\](c) shows the 880$\micron$ SMA map, which has an even higher resolution of $\sim$$0\farcs8$. The magnetic field derived from the SMA and CARMA data are consistent toward the peak of SMM1. Away from the dust emission peak, both the SMA and the CARMA data show hints that some regions of the magnetic field are oriented along the outflow, consistent with what is seen in the ALMA data (see Figure \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\]). Note that the E–W magnetic field component detected to the east of the source peak in both the CARMA and the ALMA data is not detected by the SMA, most likely due to a combination of dynamic range, signal-to-noise, and the scales recoverable from the higher resolution SMA data.
*ALMA data:* Finally, we arrive at the 870$\micron$ ALMA map, which can be seen in Figure \[fig:pol\](d), and which achieves a resolution of $\sim$$0\farcs33$, or $\sim$140AU. There are two main sources detected in the ALMA maps. Following @Choi2009 [@Dionatos2014; @Hull2016a], we will refer to the brighter eastern source as SMM1-a and the fainter source $\sim$2$\arcsec$ to the WNW as SMM1-b. There are two compact but weaker sources northeast of SMM1-b, which we deem SMM1-c and SMM1-d. SMM1-c has a 3.6cm counterpart [see Figure 1 from @Hull2016a]; such long-wavelength emission cannot be from dust, but rather is tracing ionized gas, suggesting that this source is an embedded protostellar object. SMM1-d has no known counterpart at other wavelengths, although it appears to be the source driving a low-velocity outflow (see Section \[sec:MolEm\] and Figure \[fig:sio\]). Coordinates and peak intensities of all four of the aforementioned sources are listed in Table \[table:sources\], and each source is indicated in Figure \[fig:pol\](d).
It is immediately apparent that the N–S magnetic field orientation that dominates the center of the CARMA and SMA maps is due to the bright, highly polarized emission extending southward from the peak of SMM1-a. However, the ALMA data also show a very clear E–W feature in the magnetic field extending to the east of SMM1-a; both the N–S and E–W features are clearly tracing the edge of the low-velocity bipolar outflow pictured in Figure \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\]. The E–W feature can be seen in the CARMA map (Figure \[fig:pol\](b): see the few E–W line segments to the east of the SMM1-a peak), but at a much lower signal-to-noise than the N–S feature that otherwise dominates the lower resolution CARMA and SMA maps because of its much brighter polarized emission (see Section \[sec:pol\_bias\] for a discussion of this issue). However, to the west of SMM1-a, the magnetic field does not have a preferred orientation and appears relatively chaotic. Indeed, around SMM1-b the magnetic field direction is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the fast, highly collimated jet associated with this source (see Figure \[fig:sio\]). Northeast of SMM1-a, around SMM1-c and SMM1-d, there is very little polarization detected; dividing the rms noise level in this region by the detected Stokes $I$ intensity yields upper limits on the polarization fraction as low as a few $\times$ 0.1%.
Molecular emission {#sec:MolEm}
------------------
In order to put into context the magnetic field morphology with the kinematic properties of the molecular gas, here we present a selected set of molecular emission maps from ALMA: (Figure \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\]), low- and high-velocity (Figure \[fig:sio\]), and (Figure \[fig:dco+\]). The CO and high-velocity SiO emission trace the molecular outflows/jets emanating from the protostars; the low-velocity SiO emission traces extended material experiencing low-velocity shocks or photodesorption of grains’ ice mantles by UV radiation; and the DCO$^+$ traces the dense gas in which the protostars are embedded.
\[hbt!\] ![ Low-velocity red- and blueshifted from the ALMA data (red and blue color scales, respectively), adapted from @Hull2016a. The CO velocity ranges are 2 to 15(redshifted) and –20 to –5(blueshifted) relative to the of SMM1 of $\sim$8.5[@Lee2014]. The peaks of the redshifted and blueshifted moment 0 maps are 3.76 and 4.16, respectively. Line segments represent the inferred magnetic field orientation, reproduced from Figure \[fig:pol\](d). The solid ellipse indicates the synthesized beam of the ALMA dust polarization data (see Figure \[fig:pol\]); the larger open ellipse is the beam of the data, which measures $0\farcs55\times0\farcs45$ at a position angle of –53$\degree$. ](smm1_alma_pol_co.pdf "fig:")
\[fig:alma\_pol\_co\]
Serpens SMM1 is known to be associated with two high-velocity molecular jets powered by SMM1-a and SMM1-b [@Hull2016a and references therein]. The outflow from SMM1-a has a low-velocity component detected in (see Figure \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\]); these results are in agreement with the outflow detected by CARMA in @Hull2014, and with single-dish observations out to $\sim$1$\arcmin$ scales [@Dionatos2010]. The outflow also coincides with the orientation of the radio jet powered by SMM1 [@Curiel1993].
SMM1-a and SMM1-b both have extremely high velocity, highly collimated molecular jets. A high-velocity jet emanating from SMM1-a was reported in @Hull2016a. In Figure \[fig:sio\] we report a high-velocity jet emanating from SMM1-b, the companion to the west of SMM1-a. Furthermore, using 1.3mm ALMA dust continuum data with $\sim$$0\farcs1$ resolution (Pokhrel et al., in prep.), we show that SMM1-b is a binary with a separation of $\sim$$0\farcs3$ ($\sim$130AU), and that the high-velocity, one-sided SiO jet is driven by the eastern member of the binary. Highly asymmetric, one-sided outflows have been seen before [e.g., @Pety2006; @Loinard2013; @Kristensen2013a; @Codella2014]; the origin of the asymmetry is unknown, but it may offer important clues about outflow launching mechanisms or the distribution of ambient material near the driving source.
Neither the high-velocity jet [@Hull2016a] nor the high-velocity jet (Figure \[fig:sio\], right panel) exhibits an obvious relationship with the magnetic field in SMM1. However, the redshifted lobe of the low-velocity outflow is clearly shaping the magnetic field morphology (see Figure \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\]). See Section \[sec:outflow\_shaping\] for further discussion.
The low-velocity SiO reveals a new, highly collimated, redshifted outflow oriented roughly E–W direction (Figure \[fig:sio\]). Its axis points clearly toward the faintest source we detect, SMM1-d. Thus, SMM1-d is likely to be a previously undetected low mass protostar. SMM1-c is the only compact source in the region that does not show clear outflow activity.
We analyze emission to better understand the kinematics of the dense material in the envelope surrounding SMM1-a and SMM1-b. DCO$^+$ traces the dense, $\sim$20–30K molecular gas[^5] around the protostars at scales ranging from a few $\times$ 100AU up to a few $\times$ 1000AU. The line emission shows smooth (and seemingly quadrupolar) velocity gradients of $\sim$1.0within a scale of $\sim$1000AU. However, the gradients, while relatively ordered, have little correlation with the magnetic field or outflow orientations.
Finally, we analyze extended emission near the systemic velocity of SMM1. Narrow-line-width SiO emission at systemic velocities has been detected toward very dense regions around protostars [e.g., @Girart2016]. This type of emission may be due to the presence of low-velocity shocks [@JimenezSerra2010; @Nguyen2013]; however, extended SiO emission near the systemic velocity can also be caused by photodesorption of SiO from dust grains’ icy mantles by UV radiation (see Appendix B of @Coutens2013, and references therein). The low-velocity SiO emission toward SMM1 is patchy, and is spread out across the field of view. While the strongest emission is associated with the E–W SiO outflow mentioned above, the SiO that is spatially coincident with the dust emission has a distinctive $\sim$3000AU arc-like ridge that passes through the lower density region between SMM1-a and SMM1-b. This emission is located in a region with significant depolarization in some places, and a chaotic magnetic field in the regions where polarization is detected. Assuming the emission comes from low-velocity shocks, this suggests that the magnetic field may have been perturbed by a bow-shock front that is crossing the dense core. The large scale of this front suggests an external origin, e.g., from large-scale turbulence; this is consistent with the complex dynamics of Serpens Main [@Lee2014], which may have formed in a cloud-cloud collision [@DuarteCabral2011].
For channel maps and a brief discussion of other dense molecular tracers detected toward SMM1 by the SMA, see Appendix \[appendix:lines\].
\[hbt!\]
\[fig:sio\]
\[hbt!\] 
\[fig:dco+\]
Discussion {#sec:dis}
==========
Magnetic fields at different spatial scales
-------------------------------------------
Optical polarization and (sub)millimeter observations have revealed that magnetic fields at large ($\gtrsim$1pc) scales tend to be relatively uniform and correlated with the molecular cloud morphology [@Pereyra2004; @HBLi2006; @Alves2008; @Goldsmith2008; @Franco2010; @Palmeirim2013; @Fissel2016]. The magnetic fields seem to have a bimodal behavior, where the field is either parallel or perpendicular to the major axis of the cloud [@HBLi2009; @HBLi2013; @Soler2013; @PlanckXXXII; @PlanckXXXV]. This orderliness and bimodality of the magnetic fields is also observed at the $\sim$0.1–0.01pc protostellar core scale [@Koch2014; @Zhang2014]. In addition, recent studies in the NGC 6334 cloud show that the mean magnetic field orientation does not change significantly between $\sim$100pc and $\sim$0.01pc scales [@HBLi2015]. These observational results agree with simulations of magnetically regulated evolution of molecular clouds [@Kudoh2007; @Nakamura2008; @Tomisaka2014].
In Serpens SMM1 at $\gtrsim$0.1pc scales, near-infrared and submillimeter polarization maps show that the magnetic field is perpendicular to the filamentary structure seen in the dust emission [@Davis1999; @Davis2000; @Matthews2009; @Sugitani2010], as observed in many other regions, such as some of those listed above. However, Figure \[fig:pol\] shows that within the core, the magnetic field as traced by CARMA and the SMA appears significantly perturbed, especially compared with the larger-scale component. The dramatic change in the magnetic field configuration between 0.1–0.01pc does not fit with the aforementioned properties of magnetic fields in molecular clouds and cores.
This change in magnetic field orientation from 0.1–0.01pc scales is not unique, and is seen in both high mass sources (e.g., DR21(OH); see @Girart2013) and many low-mass sources [@Hull2014]. Specifically, our SMM1 results can be compared with the ALMA polarization observations of Ser-emb 8, another Class 0 protostellar source in the Serpens Main cloud [@Hull2017a]. After analyzing the observations in concert with high-resolution MHD simulations, @Hull2017a argued that the inconsistency of the magnetic field orientation across several orders of magnitude in spatial scale in Ser-emb 8 may be because the source formed in a highly turbulent, weakly magnetized environment. This may be true for SMM1 as well; however, unlike Ser-emb 8, SMM1 shows clear evidence that the outflow has shaped the field at the small scales observable by ALMA. Below we discuss this and other effects that can help us understand the changes in the magnetic field orientation across multiple spatial scales in SMM1.
Shaping of the magnetic field by the wide-angle, low-velocity outflow from SMMI-a {#sec:outflow_shaping}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear from Figure \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\] that the magnetic field to the SE of SMM1-a is being shaped by the wide-angle, low velocity outflow. In fact, the magnetic field also appears to trace the base of the blueshifted outflow lobe, although there are many fewer independent detections of polarization on that (NW) side of the source (see Section \[sec:MolEm\]). However, while the low-velocity CO outflow corresponds well with the magnetic field morphology toward SMM1, the high-velocity jet components do not. @Hull2016a studied the EHV CO jet emanating to the SE of SMM1-a, which seems to bisect the $\sim$90$\degree$ opening created by the low-velocity outflow, but does not obviously shape the magnetic field lying along either cavity wall. Furthermore, in Figure \[fig:sio\] we show redshifted EHV SiO emission from SMM1-b, which does not obviously shape the magnetic field toward that source.
Why the magnetic field in SMM1 is shaped by the low-velocity outflow but not the high-velocity jet is an open question. In the case of SMM1-a, the wide-angle cavity has probably been excavated by the low-velocity outflow, leaving little material with which the narrow, high-velocity CO jet can interact. At the same time, the pressure from the outflow increases the column density (and possibly compresses the magnetic field) along the edges of the cavity; this allows us to detect the effects of the outflow on the magnetic field pattern because the column density (and thus the brightness of the optically thin polarized and unpolarized dust emission) is highest at the cavity edge. However, in the case of SMM1-b, which has no wide-angle outflow, the narrow SiO jet (and the corresponding EHV CO jet from @Hull2016a) still does not have an obvious effect on the magnetic field, suggesting that perhaps the solid angle of material being affected by the jet is simply too small to be seen in the ALMA polarization maps.
Note that we may see more prominent sculpting of the magnetic field toward SMM1-a because it may be more evolved than SMM1-b, and thus has a wider outflow cavity. Some studies have found a correlation between outflow opening angle and protostellar age, where older sources have wider outflows [@ArceSargent2006]. However, more recent infrared scattered-light studies have come to a variety of conclusions, suggesting that the relationship between outflow opening angle and age is not yet certain [@Seale2008; @Velusamy2014; @Booker2017; @Hsieh2017].
Energetics estimates {#sec:energetics}
--------------------
While it seems reasonable to assume that the outflow has shaped the magnetic field in SMM1-a, it is nonetheless prudent to compare the importance of the three main effects that can shape the magnetic field at the small spatial scales we are probing with the ALMA observations: namely, the outflow, the magnetic field, and gravity. One motivation for making these comparisons is that the magnetic field within the inner $\sim$500AU of the source (as revealed by the ALMA data in Figure \[fig:pol\](d)) does seem to resemble a small hourglass with its axis along the outflow axis (see the discussion of hourglass-shaped fields in Section \[sec:intro\]). A comparison of the magnetic vs. outflow energy can shed light on whether this hourglass-shaped magnetic field immediately surrounding SMM1-a is part of a strongly magnetized preexisting envelope that has shaped the outflow; or whether, as we assume above, that the outflow has shaped the magnetic field and the hourglass shape is simply tracing the base of the outflow cavity.
### Gravitational potential energy
To estimate the gravitational potential energy we must first estimate the mass of the dust measured by ALMA toward SMM1. The ALMA map pictured in Figure \[fig:pol\](d) has a total 343GHz Stokes $I$ flux density $S_{\nu} \sim 4.6$Jy within a circle of radius 4$\arcsec$, or $\sim$1700AU, centered on the peak of SMM1-a. However, the dust nearest to SMM1-a and SMM1-b is likely to be significantly warmer. Thus, we separate the map into three regions: (1) a region immediately surrounding SMM1-a with a flux of $\sim$2.2Jy, (2) a region immediately surrounding SMM1-b with a flux of $\sim$0.3Jy, and (3) the rest of the region, with a flux of 2.1Jy. We assume dust temperatures $T_d \sim 50$K for the dust near SMM1-a and b, and $T_d \sim 20$K for the remainder of the dust.[^6]
We convert the flux $S_{\nu}$ contained within the area under consideration into a corresponding gas mass estimate using the following relation:
$$M_{\mathrm{gas}}=\frac{S_{\nu}d^{2}}{\kappa_{\nu}B_{\nu}\left(T_{\mathrm{d}}\right)}\,\,.
\label{eq:M_gas}$$
$B_{\nu}\left(T_{\mathrm{d}}\right)$ is the Planck function at the frequency of the observations. Using a distance $d=436$pc and an opacity $\kappa_{\nu}=2\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ [@Ossenkopf1994], and assuming a gas-to-dust ratio of 100, we obtain a combined gas mass in all three regions of $M_{\mathrm{gas}}\approx3.8\,M_\sun$.[^7] Using a radius of 1700AU, this quantity can be converted into a mean gas volume density $\rho \sim 1\times10^{-16}\,\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ and mean gas number density $n \sim \,2.9 \times10^7\, \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ (assuming a mean molecular mass of $2.3$).
To calculate the mass of SMM1-a, the most massive protostar in the system, we use mass-luminosity relations for pre-main-sequence stars [@Yorke2002] and find that a protostar with the luminosity of SMM1-a ($L \sim 100\,L_{\odot}$) has a mass of $\sim$3$M_{\odot}$.
Using a total mass of 6.8$M_\odot$ and a radius of 1700AU, we calculate a gravitational potential energy of $E_\textrm{grav} \sim$$4.8 \times 10^{44}$ erg.
### Magnetic field energy
Our calculations for the magnetic field strength follow the procedure outlined in @Houde2016. Specifically, we calculate the dispersion in polarization angles from the ALMA polarization map using the function $1-\left\langle \cos\left[\Delta\Phi\left(\ell\right)\right]\right\rangle$, where the quantity $\ell$ is the distance between a pair of polarization orientations. The dispersion due to the turbulent component of the magnetic field is isolated for the analysis by removing the large-scale component, which comprises a constant term and a second-order term (in $\ell$); this yields a turbulence correlation length of $\delta \simeq 0.3\arcsec$. The effective thickness of the cloud is assumed to be similar to its extent on the sky and is estimated from the width of the autocorrelation function of the polarized flux ($\Delta^{\prime} \simeq 0.44\arcsec$). The combination of $\delta$ and $\Delta^{\prime}$ with the width of the ALMA synthesized beam implies that, on average, approximately one turbulent cell is contained in the column of gas probed by the telescope beam. The resulting turbulent-to-total magnetic energy ratio $\left\langle B_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}\right\rangle / \left\langle B^{2}\right\rangle = 0.25$ [@Hildebrand2009; @Houde2009; @Houde2016]. This quantity is then used with both the mean volume density $\rho$ calculated above as well as the one-dimensional turbulent velocity dispersion $\sigma\left(v\right)\sim 0.8 \:\mathrm{km}\:\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ (from our unpublished $^{13}\mathrm{CS}\left(v=0, 5\rightarrow4\right)$ ALMA data toward this source) to calculate a magnetic field strength of $\sim 5.7$mG (plane-of-the-sky component) with the so-called Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi equation [@Davis1951; @Chandrasekhar1953]:
$$B_{0}\simeq\sqrt{4\pi\rho}\,\sigma\left(v\right)\left[\frac{\left\langle B_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}\right\rangle }{\left\langle B^{2}\right\rangle }\right]^{-1/2}.\label{eq:DCF}$$
Given the energy density of the magnetic field $B^2 / 8 \pi$ and a radius of 1700AU, we calculate the magnetic energy in the material surrounding SMM1 to be $E_B \sim$$9 \times 10^{43}$erg.
### Outflow energy
Following the methods outlined in @Zhang2001 [@Zhang2005], we calculate the energy in the redshifted lobe of the outflow launched by SMM1 using both the ALMA data presented here as well as the CARMA data presented in Figure 27 of @Hull2014. We assume a distance of 436pc, a temperature of 20K, and optically thin emission. We do not correct for the inclination of the outflow. Analysis of the CARMA data yields a total redshifted outflow mass $M_\textrm{out} = 0.03\,M_\odot$, momentum $P_\textrm{out} = 0.29$$M_\odot$, and energy $E_\textrm{out} = 1.53\,M_\odot$()$^2$. The ALMA values are $M_\textrm{out} = 0.006\,M_\odot$, $P_\textrm{out} = 0.021$$M_\odot$, and $E_\textrm{out} = 0.061\,M_\odot$()$^2$. The values calculated from the ALMA data are significantly lower because ALMA is unable to recover a substantial fraction of the large-scale emission from the outflow. It is worth noting that the values calculated from the CARMA data are comparable to the results obtained by @Davis1999, who used JCMT (single-dish) data to measure the energetics for the aggregate sample of outflows in the Serpens Main region. Thus, for the purposes of this energetics analysis, we adopt the CARMA value of $E_\textrm{out} = 1.53\,M_\odot$()$^2$, or $3 \times 10^{43}$erg.
### Energy comparison
The redshifted lobe of the outflow pictured in Figure \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\] has an opening angle of approximately 90$\degree$ in the region of interest, and thus occupies $\sim$$\frac{1}{7}$ of the volume of the sphere surrounding SMM1-a that we use in the magnetic and gravitational energy estimates above. Scaling the magnetic and gravitational energies down by a factor of 7 to compare with the outflow energy $E_\textrm{out} \sim 3 \times 10^{43}$erg, we find $E_B \sim$$1.3 \times 10^{43}$erg and $E_\textrm{grav} \sim$$6.9 \times 10^{43}$ erg.
In summary, the gravitational, magnetic, and outflow energies are all comparable. There is substantial uncertainty in several of the parameters that go into the above estimates: the outflow energy derived from the CARMA data is a lower limit on the true value because of the interferometer’s inability to recover emission at all spatial scales; the dust temperature and optical depth at high resolution are not well constrained; and may or may not be the best species to use to estimate the turbulent line width for the DCF magnetic field estimate. Consequently, while the numbers do not allow us to make a strong claim that either the outflow or the magnetic field is dominant in SMM1, we nonetheless find our assumption—that the outflow may have shaped the magnetic field—to be reasonable.
Biased polarization images due to beam smearing {#sec:pol_bias}
-----------------------------------------------
Figures \[fig:pol\] and \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\] show that the magnetic field follows the edge of the outflow cavity traced by the low-velocity, redshifted CO emission emanating to the SE of SMM1-a. However, the intensity of the polarized emission is very different on the two sides of the cavity: the E–W component is several times weaker than the N–S component. With ALMA we are able to resolve the two components fully; however, previous observations by CARMA and the SMA (see Figure \[fig:pol\]) had 5–10 times lower resolution, which led these two components to be blended together, with the N–S component clearly dominating.
In Figure \[fig:smm1\_poli\] we show polarized intensity maps from both CARMA and ALMA. The CARMA data are at their original resolution (Figure \[fig:smm1\_poli\](b)), whereas the ALMA data are tapered and smoothed to produce a map with the same resolution (Figure \[fig:smm1\_poli\](c)). The similarity is striking: when the ALMA data are smoothed to CARMA resolution, the E–W component is dwarfed by the much brighter N–S component. It is thus clear that we must proceed with caution when revisiting low-resolution polarization maps, as plane-of-sky beam smearing biases the maps in favor of the material with the brightest polarized emission.
\[hbt!\] {width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:smm1\_poli\]
Gravitational infall or dust scattering
---------------------------------------
In the region immediately surrounding SMM1 (within a few $\times$ 100AU; see the inner few resolution elements of Figure \[fig:pol\](d)), the magnetic field orientation looks somewhat radial, which could indicate that the field lines are being dragged in by gravitational collapse, similar to the radial magnetic field configuration that was seen in SMA observations of the high-mass star-forming core W51 e2 [@Tang2009b]. A radial magnetic field pattern is derived from an azimuthal polarization pattern, assuming that the polarization arises from magnetically aligned dust grains (i.e., the magnetic field orientations are perpendicular to the polarization orientations, as was assumed in Figures \[fig:pol\] and \[fig:alma\_pol\_co\] and described in Section \[sec:intro\]). However, an azimuthal polarization pattern can also arise from self-scattering of dust emission from a face-on (or slightly inclined) protoplanetary disk: recent theoretical work has shown that, depending on the combination of dust density, dust-grain growth, optical depth, disk inclination, and resolution of observations, polarization from scattering in disks could contribute to the polarized emission at millimeter wavelengths, perhaps even eclipsing the signal from magnetically aligned dust grains [@Kataoka2015; @Kataoka2016; @Pohl2016; @Yang2016a; @Yang2016b; @Yang2017]. There is now potential evidence for this dust scattering effect from ALMA observations [@Kataoka2016b]; other high-resolution polarization observations by CARMA and the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) [@Stephens2014; @Cox2015; @FernandezLopez2016] may also be consistent with self-scattered dust emission. However, while intriguing, our current data do not allow us to resolve the disk sufficiently well to differentiate between the two scenarios described above. We will further investigate this question of magnetic fields vs. scattering with higher-resolution ALMA polarization observations of SMM1 (Hull et al., in prep.).
Note that in order for scattering of dust emission to be efficient at (sub)millimeter wavelengths, the grains must be of order a few $\times$ 100$\micron$ [@Kataoka2015]. While scattering may be important toward the very center of SMM1, it is highly unlikely that scattering is the dominant effect at scales $\gtrsim$100AU where grains are expected to be a few microns in size. Therefore, nearly all of the polarized emission in all panels of Figure \[fig:pol\] is likely to be produced by magnetically aligned dust grains, especially if the emitting grains reside in a rapidly infalling envelope (as opposed to a rotationally supported disk), where grains are unlikely to grow to hundreds of microns because of the short dynamical timescale and relatively low density of the material.
[cccccc]{} $\alpha_{\textrm{J2000}}$ & $\delta_{\textrm{J2000}}$ & $\chi$ & $\delta\chi$ & $P$ & $I$\
() & () & () & () & &\
277.45868 & 1.25424 & 86.5 & 6.9 & 0.250 & —\
277.45862 & 1.25424 & 95.7 & 6.8 & 0.254 & —\
277.45857 & 1.25424 & 98.3 & 9.4 & 0.182 & —\
277.45868 & 1.25429 & 97.9 & 9.3 & 0.185 & —\
277.45862 & 1.25429 & 104.6 & 7.0 & 0.246 & —\
277.45857 & 1.25429 & 115.5 & 7.5 & 0.230 & —\
277.45673 & 1.25429 & 0.7 & 8.8 & 0.196 & —\
277.45612 & 1.25429 & 27.4 & 9.5 & 0.181 & —\
277.45896 & 1.25435 & 123.1 & 9.0 & 0.192 & —\
277.45873 & 1.25435 & 128.0 & 8.7 & 0.197 & —\
277.45718 & 1.25435 & 84.3 & 8.3 & 0.207 & —\
277.45712 & 1.25435 & 76.9 & 5.6 & 0.304 & —\
277.45707 & 1.25435 & 65.7 & 8.2 & 0.209 & —\
277.45634 & 1.25435 & 53.8 & 8.8 & 0.195 & —\
277.45896 & 1.25441 & 133.4 & 6.6 & 0.261 & —\
277.45840 & 1.25441 & 134.4 & 9.4 & 0.182 & —\
277.45712 & 1.25441 & 64.9 & 9.4 & 0.182 & —\
277.45696 & 1.25441 & 47.4 & 7.5 & 0.230 & —\
277.45896 & 1.25446 & 137.6 & 4.9 & 0.351 & —\
277.45890 & 1.25446 & 142.4 & 7.9 & 0.217 & —\
277.45846 & 1.25446 & 136.7 & 8.4 & 0.204 & —\
277.45840 & 1.25446 & 138.7 & 9.2 & 0.187 & —\
277.45834 & 1.25446 & 136.5 & 8.0 & 0.215 & 1.664\
277.45701 & 1.25446 & 15.2 & 8.9 & 0.193 & —\
277.45696 & 1.25446 & 30.5 & 7.4 & 0.231 & —\
277.45896 & 1.25452 & 142.9 & 5.9 & 0.291 & —\
277.45890 & 1.25452 & 143.9 & 6.0 & 0.288 & —\
277.45834 & 1.25452 & 140.5 & 6.9 & 0.247 & 2.468\
277.45829 & 1.25452 & 138.4 & 9.0 & 0.192 & 2.094\
277.45707 & 1.25452 & 158.2 & 7.0 & 0.247 & —\
277.45701 & 1.25452 & 170.5 & 6.4 & 0.270 & —\
277.45696 & 1.25452 & 6.3 & 8.7 & 0.199 & —\
277.45896 & 1.25457 & 150.3 & 5.9 & 0.290 & —\
277.45890 & 1.25457 & 157.5 & 6.3 & 0.271 & —\
277.45884 & 1.25457 & 170.9 & 7.8 & 0.219 & —\
277.45829 & 1.25457 & 134.5 & 8.0 & 0.215 & 2.933\
277.45723 & 1.25457 & 101.3 & 8.4 & 0.205 & —\
277.45712 & 1.25457 & 131.3 & 7.3 & 0.235 & —\
277.45707 & 1.25457 & 134.4 & 5.0 & 0.345 & —\
277.45701 & 1.25457 & 143.5 & 6.1 & 0.284 & —\
277.45690 & 1.25457 & 175.3 & 9.4 & 0.182 & —\
277.45646 & 1.25457 & 135.1 & 8.5 & 0.202 & —\
277.45896 & 1.25463 & 149.3 & 6.8 & 0.252 & —\
... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...\
\
\[table:data\]
**Note.** $\chi$ is the orientation of the magnetic field, measured counterclockwise from north. $\delta\chi$ is the uncertainty in the magnetic field orientation. $P$ is the polarized intensity. $I$ is the total intensity, reported where $I > 3\,\sigma_I$. Due to differences in dynamic range between the images of Stokes $I$ and polarized intensity, there are cases where $P$ is detectable but $I$ is not. *The full, machine-readable table is available in the online version of this publication.*
Conclusions {#sec:con}
===========
We have analyzed the magnetic field morphology toward the Class 0 protostar Serpens SMM1 using new ALMA and SMA polarization data as well as archival CARMA and JCMT polarization data; the combination of these multiple datasets has allowed us to probe spatial scales from $\sim$80,000 down to $\sim$140AU. We examine the magnetic field morphology in concert with molecular line observations from ALMA and come to the following conclusions:
1. Dramatic changes in the magnetic field morphology occur between the “core” scale of a few $\times$ 0.1pc probed by the JCMT and the much smaller “envelope” scales probed by the CARMA, SMA, and ALMA interferometers. These changes are inconsistent with models of strongly magnetized star formation, which predict that the magnetic field orientation should be preserved across many orders of magnitude in spatial scale.
2. Other sources such as Ser-emb 8 [@Hull2017a] have shown this multi-scale inconsistency in magnetic field morphology. However, unlike Ser-emb 8, SMM1 shows a magnetic field morphology that has clearly been affected by its bipolar outflow: the redshifted lobe of the low-velocity outflow has excavated a wide-angle cavity, compressing the magnetic field along the cavity edges.
3. Conversely, the highly collimated, extremely high-velocity CO and SiO jets emanating from SMM1-a and its nearby companion SMM1-b are not obviously shaping the magnetic field. This suggests that narrow jets do not perturb a large enough fraction of the envelope to have a detectable effect on the magnetic field morphology. Perhaps SMM1-a is more evolved than sources like SMM1-b or Ser-emb 8, and has entered an evolutionary phase where the magnetic field morphology is shaped by the wider, low-velocity outflow. \[conclusions:3\]
4. Outside of the region where the magnetic field is shaped by the low-velocity outflow emanating from SMM1-a, there appears to be significant depolarization in some places, and a chaotic magnetic field in the regions where polarization is detected. This may be due to the presence of a large-scale bow shock crossing the envelope and disturbing the magnetic field morphology.
5. Using $\sim$$0\farcs1$ resolution ALMA continuum observations, we report that the source SMM1-b is a protobinary with $\sim$130AU separation. The eastern component of the binary is powering the extremely high-velocity, one-sided SiO jet mentioned in point \[conclusions:3\].
These observations show that with the sensitivity and resolution of ALMA, we can now begin to understand the role that outflow feedback plays in shaping the magnetic field in very young, star-forming sources like SMM1. Future high-resolution, high-sensitivity ALMA surveys will be necessary to better understand the impact of outflows on the magnetic fields in star-forming cores—in particular, how often protostellar feedback obviously shapes the magnetic field in the natal core, and whether there are correlations between outflow-shaped magnetic fields and source environment, mass, or evolutionary stage.
The authors thank the anonymous referee, whose comments improved the manuscript. C.L.H.H. acknowledges the outstanding calibration and imaging work performed at the North American ALMA Science Center by Crystal Brogan, Jennifer Donovan Meyer, and Mark Lacy. He also acknowledges Katherine Lee, Shaye Storm, and Aaron Meisner for the helpful discussion regarding dust temperature estimates in Serpens. The authors thank all members of the SMA staff who made the SMA observations possible. J.M.G. is supported by the Spanish MINECO AYA2014-30228-C03-02 and the MECD PRX15/00435 grants. Q.Z. and J.M.G. acknowledge the support of the SI CGPS award, “Magnetic Fields and Massive Star Formation,” and the SI SSA grant, “Are Magnetic Fields Dynamically Important in Massive Star Formation?” Q.Z. acknowledges the support of SI Scholarly Studies Awards. Astrochemistry in Leiden is supported by the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy (NOVA), by a Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) professor prize, and by the European Union A-ERC grant 291141 CHEMPLAN. Z.-Y.L. is supported in part by the NASA NNX14AB38G and NSF AST1313083 grants. Support for CARMA construction was derived from the states of California, Illinois, and Maryland, the James S. McDonnell Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Kenneth T. and Eileen L. Norris Foundation, the University of Chicago, the Associates of the California Institute of Technology, and the National Science Foundation. The Submillimeter Array is a joint project between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, and is funded by the Smithsonian Institution and the Academia Sinica. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2013.1.00726.S and ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2015.1.00354.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), NSC and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ. This research made use of APLpy, an open-source plotting package for Python hosted at <http://aplpy.github.com>. The figure in the Appendix was created using the GREG package from the GILDAS data reduction package, available at <http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/GILDAS>.
*Facilities:* JCMT, CARMA, SMA, ALMA.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, A., [Li]{}, Z.-Y., & [Shu]{}, F. H. 2003, , 599, 363
, F. O., [Franco]{}, G. A. P., & [Girart]{}, J. M. 2008, , 486, L13
, F. O., [Girart]{}, J. M., [Lai]{}, S.-P., [Rao]{}, R., & [Zhang]{}, Q. 2011, , 726, 63
, B.-G., [Lazarian]{}, A., & [Vaillancourt]{}, J. E. 2015, , 53, 501
, H. G., & [Sargent]{}, A. I. 2006, , 646, 1070
, J. J., [Megeath]{}, S. T., [Fischer]{}, W. J., [et al.]{} 2017, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 229, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 212.06
, S., & [Fermi]{}, E. 1953, , 118, 113
, N. L., [Davidson]{}, J. A., [Goldsmith]{}, P. F., [et al.]{} 2013, , 770, 151
, M. 2009, , 705, 1730
, M., [Panis]{}, J.-F., & [Evans]{}, II, N. J. 1999, , 122, 519
, C., [Maury]{}, A. J., [Gueth]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2014, , 563, L3
, P. C., [Girart]{}, J. M., [Hull]{}, C. L. H., [et al.]{} 2016, , 825, L15
, A., [Vastel]{}, C., [Cabrit]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2013, , 560, A39
, E. G., [Harris]{}, R. J., [Looney]{}, L. W., [et al.]{} 2015, , 814, L28
, S., [Rodriguez]{}, L. F., [Gomez]{}, J. F., [et al.]{} 1996, , 456, 677
, S., [Rodriguez]{}, L. F., [Moran]{}, J. M., & [Canto]{}, J. 1993, , 415, 191
, C. J., [Chrysostomou]{}, A., [Matthews]{}, H. E., [Jenness]{}, T., & [Ray]{}, T. P. 2000, , 530, L115
, C. J., [Matthews]{}, H. E., [Ray]{}, T. P., [Dent]{}, W. R. F., & [Richer]{}, J. S. 1999, , 309, 141
, L. 1951, Physical Review, 81, 890
, O., [J[ø]{}rgensen]{}, J. K., [Teixeira]{}, P. S., [G[ü]{}del]{}, M., & [Bergin]{}, E. 2014, , 563, A28
, O., [Nisini]{}, B., [Cabrit]{}, S., [Kristensen]{}, L., & [Pineau Des For[ê]{}ts]{}, G. 2010, , 521, A7
, J. L. 1996, , 470, 566
, A., [Dobbs]{}, C. L., [Peretto]{}, N., & [Fuller]{}, G. A. 2011, , 528, A50
, A., [Fuller]{}, G. A., [Peretto]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2010, , 519, A27
, C., [Djupvik]{}, A. A., & [Casali]{}, M. M. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed. B. [Reipurth]{} (ASP), 693
, M. L., [Corder]{}, S., [Dunham]{}, M. M., & [Duch[ê]{}ne]{}, G. 2009, , 707, 103
, D., [Lazarian]{}, A., & [Kowal]{}, G. 2008, , 679, 537
, M., [Stephens]{}, I. W., [Girart]{}, J. M., [et al.]{} 2016, , 832, 200
, R. A., & [Mouschovias]{}, T. C. 1993, , 415, 680
, L. M., [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [Angil[è]{}]{}, F. E., [et al.]{} 2016, , 824, 134
, G. A. P., [Alves]{}, F. O., & [Girart]{}, J. M. 2010, , 723, 146
, P., [Galli]{}, D., & [Girart]{}, J. M. 2011, , 535, A44
, P., [Girart]{}, J. M., [Zhang]{}, Q., & [Rao]{}, R. 2014, , 567, A116
, D., & [Shu]{}, F. H. 1993, , 417, 243
, J. M., [Beltr[á]{}n]{}, M. T., [Zhang]{}, Q., [Rao]{}, R., & [Estalella]{}, R. 2009, Science, 324, 1408
, J. M., [Crutcher]{}, R. M., & [Rao]{}, R. 1999, , 525, L109
, J. M., [Frau]{}, P., [Zhang]{}, Q., [et al.]{} 2013, , 772, 69
, J. M., [Rao]{}, R., & [Marrone]{}, D. P. 2006, Science, 313, 812
, J. M., [Torrelles]{}, J. M., [Estalella]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2016, , 462, 352
, J. R., [Cernicharo]{}, J., [Karska]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 548, A77
, P. F., [Heyer]{}, M., [Narayanan]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2008, , 680, 428
, J., [Galli]{}, D., & [Girart]{}, J. M. 2008, , 490, L39
, R. H., [Kirby]{}, L., [Dotson]{}, J. L., [Houde]{}, M., & [Vaillancourt]{}, J. E. 2009, , 696, 567
, P. T. P., [Moran]{}, J. M., & [Lo]{}, K. Y. 2004, , 616, L1
, T., & [Lazarian]{}, A. 2009, , 697, 1316
, M., [Hull]{}, C. L. H., [Plambeck]{}, R. L., [Vaillancourt]{}, J. E., & [Hildebrand]{}, R. H. 2016, , 820, 38
, M., [Vaillancourt]{}, J. E., [Hildebrand]{}, R. H., [Chitsazzadeh]{}, S., & [Kirby]{}, L. 2009, , 706, 1504
, T.-H., [Lai]{}, S.-P., & [Belloche]{}, A. 2017, , 153, 173
, C. L. H., & [Plambeck]{}, R. L. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 4, 1550005
, C. L. H., [Plambeck]{}, R. L., [Bolatto]{}, A. D., [et al.]{} 2013, , 768, 159
, C. L. H., [Plambeck]{}, R. L., [Kwon]{}, W., [et al.]{} 2014, , 213, 13
, C. L. H., [Girart]{}, J. M., [Kristensen]{}, L. E., [et al.]{} 2016, , 823, L27
, C. L. H., [Mocz]{}, P., [Burkhart]{}, B., [et al.]{} 2017, , 842, L9
, I., [Caselli]{}, P., [Tan]{}, J. C., [et al.]{} 2010, , 406, 187
, J. K., [Bourke]{}, T. L., [Nguyen Luong]{}, Q., & [Takakuwa]{}, S. 2011, , 534, A100
, A., [Muto]{}, T., [Momose]{}, M., [Tsukagoshi]{}, T., & [Dullemond]{}, C. P. 2016, , 820, 54
, A., [Muto]{}, T., [Momose]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2015, , 809, 78
, A., [Tsukagoshi]{}, T., [Momose]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2016, , 831, L12
, P. M., [Tang]{}, Y.-W., [Ho]{}, P. T. P., [et al.]{} 2014, , 797, 99
, L. E., [Klaassen]{}, P. D., [Mottram]{}, J. C., [Schmalzl]{}, M., & [Hogerheijde]{}, M. R. 2013, , 549, L6
, T., [Basu]{}, S., [Ogata]{}, Y., & [Yabe]{}, T. 2007, , 380, 499
, S.-P., [Crutcher]{}, R. M., [Girart]{}, J. M., & [Rao]{}, R. 2001, , 561, 864
—. 2002, , 566, 925
, A. 2007, , 106, 225
, J. W. Y., [Hull]{}, C. L. H., & [Offner]{}, S. S. R. 2017, , 834, 201
, K. I., [Fern[á]{}ndez-L[ó]{}pez]{}, M., [Storm]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2014, , 797, 76
, H., [Griffin]{}, G. S., [Krejny]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2006, , 648, 340
, H.-b., [Dowell]{}, C. D., [Goodman]{}, A., [Hildebrand]{}, R., & [Novak]{}, G. 2009, , 704, 891
, H.-b., [Fang]{}, M., [Henning]{}, T., & [Kainulainen]{}, J. 2013, , 436, 3707
, H.-B., [Yuen]{}, K. H., [Otto]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2015, , 520, 518
, H. B., [Qiu]{}, K., [Zhang]{}, Q., [Girart]{}, J. M., & [Ho]{}, P. T. P. 2013, , 771, 71
, L., [Zapata]{}, L. A., [Rodr[í]{}guez]{}, L. F., [et al.]{} 2013, , 430, L10
, M. N., [Matsumoto]{}, T., [Tomisaka]{}, K., & [Hanawa]{}, T. 2005, , 362, 369
, D. P. 2006, PhD thesis, Harvard University
, D. P., & [Rao]{}, R. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7020, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series
, B. C., [McPhee]{}, C. A., [Fissel]{}, L. M., & [Curran]{}, R. L. 2009, , 182, 143
, A. M., & [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P. 2015, , 798, 88
, H., [Nakanishi]{}, K., [Paladino]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2016, , 824, 132
, F., & [Li]{}, Z.-Y. 2008, , 687, 354
, Q., [Motte]{}, F., [Carlhoff]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2013, , 775, 88
, G. N., [Dzib]{}, S. A., [Kounkel]{}, M. A., [et al.]{} 2017, , 834, 143
, V., & [Henning]{}, T. 1994, , 291, 943
, E. C., [Stone]{}, J. M., & [Gammie]{}, C. F. 2001, , 546, 980
, P., [Goodman]{}, A., [Draine]{}, B. T., [et al.]{} 2001, , 559, 1005
, P., [Andr[é]{}]{}, P., [Kirk]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2013, , 550, A38
, V.-M., [Juvela]{}, M., & [Padoan]{}, P. 2009, , 502, 833
, A., & [Magalh[ã]{}es]{}, A. M. 2004, , 603, 584
, J., [Gueth]{}, F., [Guilloteau]{}, S., & [Dutrey]{}, A. 2006, , 458, 841
, [Adam]{}, R., [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [et al.]{} 2016, , 586, A135
, [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [Aghanim]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2016, , 586, A138
, A., [Kataoka]{}, A., [Pinilla]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2016, , 593, A12
, C., & [Young]{}, K. 2015, SMA Technical Memos, 160
, K., [Zhang]{}, Q., [Menten]{}, K. M., [et al.]{} 2014, , 794, L18
, R., [Crutcher]{}, R. M., [Plambeck]{}, R. L., & [Wright]{}, M. C. H. 1998, , 502, L75+
, R., [Girart]{}, J. M., [Marrone]{}, D. P., [Lai]{}, S.-P., & [Schnee]{}, S. 2009, , 707, 921
, V., [Dale]{}, J. E., [Ratzka]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2015, , 584, A119
, L. F., [Curiel]{}, S., [Moran]{}, J. M., [et al.]{} 1989, , 346, L85
, A., [Carrasco-Gonz[á]{}lez]{}, C., [Araudo]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2016, , 818, 27
, R. J., [Teuben]{}, P. J., & [Wright]{}, M. C. H. 1995, in ASP Conf. Ser. 77: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. [Shaw]{}, H. E. [Payne]{}, & J. J. E. [Hayes]{}, Vol. 4, 433
, J. P., & [Looney]{}, L. W. 2008, , 675, 427
, J. D., [Hennebelle]{}, P., [Martin]{}, P. G., [et al.]{} 2013, , 774, 128
, I. W., [Looney]{}, L. W., [Kwon]{}, W., [et al.]{} 2013, , 769, L15
—. 2014, , 514, 597
, S., [Mundy]{}, L. G., [Lee]{}, K. I., [et al.]{} 2016, , 830, 127
, K., [Nakamura]{}, F., [Tamura]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2010, , 716, 299
, Y.-W., [Ho]{}, P. T. P., [Girart]{}, J. M., [et al.]{} 2009, , 695, 1399
, Y.-W., [Ho]{}, P. T. P., [Koch]{}, P. M., [et al.]{} 2009, , 700, 251
, L., [Sargent]{}, A. I., [Olmi]{}, L., & [Onello]{}, J. S. 2000, , 540, L53
, K. 2014, , 785, 24
, J. M., [G[ó]{}mez]{}, J. F., [Curiel]{}, S., [et al.]{} 1992, , 384, L59
, J. E. 2006, , 118, 1340
, T. A., [Wilner]{}, D., & [Gurwell]{}, M. 2009, , 706, L22
, T., [Langer]{}, W. D., & [Thompson]{}, T. 2014, , 783, 6
, H., [Li]{}, Z.-Y., [Looney]{}, L., & [Stephens]{}, I. 2016, , 456, 2794
, H., [Li]{}, Z.-Y., [Looney]{}, L. W., [et al.]{} 2016, , 460, 4109
, H., [Li]{}, Z.-Y., [Looney]{}, L. W., [Girart]{}, J. M., & [Stephens]{}, I. W. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.05432
, H. W., & [Sonnhalter]{}, C. 2002, , 569, 846
, Q., [Hunter]{}, T. R., [Brand]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2005, , 625, 864
—. 2001, , 552, L167
Zhang, Q., Qiu, K., Girart, J. M., [et al.]{} 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 116
SMA observations of dense molecular tracers toward SMM1 {#appendix:lines}
=======================================================
Table \[table:T1\] shows the list of the molecular lines detected by the SMA toward SMM1, including a number of dense molecular tracers. Figure \[fig:Fmol\] shows the channel maps of the molecules tracing the dense molecular core. The HDCO, [H$^{13}$CN]{}and [H$^{13}$CO$^+$]{}lines trace mostly the region north of the SMM1 peak. The emission peaks at $\sim$8, which is slightly lower than the $\sim$8.5velocity of the clump surrounding the cores [@Lee2014]. The dust peak appears to be mostly devoid of emission from these three lines; this has also been observed in other cores, which are usually hot or warm [e.g., @Rao2009; @Girart2013]. The emission is mainly detected only in the 7–9velocity range, suggesting that the gas is relatively quiescent. In contrast, the SO emission appears to have a significantly broader emission, spanning over 5, and being brighter at the dust emission peak of SMM1-a. This suggests that SO is a good tracer of the warmer and denser molecular environment around SMM1-a or, alternatively, that it has been excited by shocks in the outflow.
---------------------------- ----------- -------
Molecular $\nu$ E$_l$
transition (GHz) (K)
HDCO 5$_{1, 4}$–4$_{1, 3}$ 335.09678 40.17
HC$^{15}$N (4–3)$^a$ 344.20011 24.78
H$^{13}$CN (4–3) 345.33976 24.86
CO (3–2) 345.79599 16.60
SO (9$_8$–8$_7$) 346.52848 62.14
H$^{13}$CO$^+$ (4–3) 346.99835 24.98
SiO (8–7) 347.33082 58.35
---------------------------- ----------- -------
: Molecular lines detected by the SMA[]{data-label="table:T1"}
\
$^a$ Observed only in the compact configuration on 2012 May 25.
{width="\linewidth"}
[^1]: Serpens SMM1 has been known by many names including Serpens FIRS1, Serp-FIR1, Ser-emb 6, IRAS 18273+0113, S68 FIR, S68 FIRS1, and S68-1b.
[^2]: The entire sample of observations from @Hull2014 and the full suite of synthetic observations from @JLee2017 showed random alignment of outflows with respect to magnetic fields. However, weak correlations were found in subsets of the observations and simulations: in @Hull2014, the sources with low polarization fractions showed a slight tendency to have perpendicular outflows and magnetic fields; and in @JLee2017, the synthetic observations from the very strongly magnetized simulation showed a slight tendency to have aligned outflows and magnetic fields.
[^3]: SMM9 is also known as S68N and Ser-emb 8; see @Hull2017a.
[^4]: If we take into account the calibration correction to the DCF technique developed by @Ostriker2001, the expected strength would be a factor of two lower, or $\sim$0.5mG [see also @Falceta2008].
[^5]: In order for DCO$^+$ to be present, the temperature must be cold enough for deuterium chemistry to be active, but not so cold that CO is depleted onto dust grains. See @Jorgensen2011.
[^6]: The $\sim$20K value for the dust not in the immediate vicinity of the protostars is based on an estimate provided by Katherine Lee (2015, private communication). That value was from a dust temperature map of Serpens that was derived from spectral energy distribution (SED) fits to *Herschel* maps; the same method was used by @Storm2016 to estimate temperatures in the L1451 star-forming region, and is described in Section 7.1 of that publication. In all cases, the *Herschel* zero-point fluxes had been corrected using *Planck* maps, as described in @MeisnerFinkbeiner2015.
[^7]: Note that we assume that all of the dust is optically thin; this may not be true very close to SMM1-a, which would result in an underestimate of the gas mass.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Block copolymer melts self-assemble in the bulk into a variety of nanostructures, making them perfect candidates to template the position of nanoparticles. The morphological changes of block copolymers are studied in the presence of a considerable filling fraction of colloids. Furthermore, colloids can be found to assemble into ordered hexagonally close-packed structures in a defined number of layers when softly confined within the phase-separated block copolymer. A high concentration of interface-compatible nanoparticles leads to complex block copolymer morphologies depending on the polymeric composition. Macrophase separation between the colloids and the block copolymer can be induced if colloids are unsolvable within the matrix. This leads to the formation of ellipsoid-shaped polymer-rich domains elongated along the direction perpendicular to the interface between block copolymer domains.'
author:
- Javier Diaz
- 'Marco Pinna[^1]'
- 'Andrei V. Zvelindovsky'
- 'Ignacio Pagonabarraga[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: ' Large scale three dimensional simulations of hybrid block copolymer/nanoparticle systems. [^3] '
---
Introduction
============
Block Copolymers (BCP) are a fascinating class of materials due to their unique chain structure, made of several polymer subchains, joint covalently. This property translates into a rich phase behaviour in the bulk or in thin films. In particular, diblock copolymers have been found to self-assemble into a variety of periodic ordered structures such as lamellar, cylindrical or body-centered cubic spheres[@matsen_unifying_1996]. Colloidal particles sized a few nanoparticles are perfect candidates to be segregated within block copolymers, which, due to their periodic structure can lead to a highly organised nanocomposite material[@langner_mesoscale_2012; @ganesan_theory_2014].
Hybrid block copolymer/nanoparticle systems have been shown to co-assemble forming interesting collective behaviour that is both dependent on the polymeric properties and the number, size and chemical coating of the colloids[@bockstaller_size-selective_2003; @bockstaller_block_2005; @diaz_phase_2018; @diaz_cell_2017]. Many models have focused on the two-dimensional behaviour of such systems[@balazs_multi-scale_2000; @pinna_modeling_2011], which is a physically reasonable approximation as many properties can be inferred from two (2D) to three dimensions (3D). Moreover, many experiments and simulations are devoted to the case of thin films[@dessi_cell_2013; @matsen_thin_1997] and ultra-thin films[@ploshnik_hierarchical_2013; @aviv_quasi-two-dimensional_2019]. Nonetheless, the three-dimensional bulk assembly of block copolymers is considerably richer than the two-dimensional one. Similarly, the possibilities of colloidal assembly in 3D are less restricted, for instance, allowing the formation of two-dimensional layers with internal ordering.
The modification of the NP surface through, for example, grafted polymer chains, has led to a precise control of the localisation of colloids within the BCP phase-separated domain [@chiu_control_2005; @chiu_distribution_2007; @horechyy_nanoparticle_2014] or the interface between them [@kim_effect_2006; @kim_nanoparticle_2007]. Since the presence of nanoparticles can induce a phase transition of the BCP, it is crucial to determine the overall morphology of the polymer nanocomposite system.
Several computational and theoretical techniques have been used to study BCP/NP systems. Strong segregation theory have been used to analytically study the viscoelastic properties of polymer nanocomposites [@kim_morphology_2016; @pryamitsyn_strong_2006; @pryamitsyn_origins_2006] , finding a reduction of the lamella thickness when non-selective nanoparticles are present in the interface. A lamellar to bicontinuous transition was also reported, given by the vanishing of the bending modulus of the diblock copolymer, which is in accordance with experimental findings [@kim_creating_2007].
Monte Carlo have been used [@detcheverry_monte_2008; @kang_hierarchical_2008] to study the assembly of BCP/NP systems on chemically nanopatterned substrates. In close resemblance with experiments, this method allowed to obtain well-ordered assembled nanoparticles. Additionally, Huh et al[@huh_thermodynamic_2000] reported the changes in the diblock copolymer morphologies due to the presence of A-compatible nanoparticles in a diblock copolymer of arbitrary morphology (that is, exploring the composition ratio) using 3D simulations. This provided a phase diagram with only a few points. Molecular Dynamics [@schultz_computer_2005] has been used to study the phase behaviour of BCP/NP systems for different Flory–Huggins parameter values using fixed symmetric diblock copolymers.
Dissipative Particle Dynamics (DPD) [@liu_cooperative_2006; @chen_structure_2010; @posocco_molecular_2010; @maly_self-assembly_2008] has been used to study the aggregation of NPs within BCP melts, finding NP-assembly dependence on the lamella morphology, resulting in a transition to a complex phase. Self Consistent Field Theory (SCFT) [@thompson_predicting_2001; @thompson_block_2002; @matsen_particle_2008; @lee_effect_2002; @ginzburg_influence_2005] has been widely used to study the segregation of nanoparticles within the diblock copolymer domains, reporting the size-selectivity of NP localisation found in experiments[@bockstaller_size-selective_2003]. The Cahn-Hillard equation [@balazs_multi-scale_2000; @ginzburg_modeling_2000; @ginzburg_three-dimensional_2002] has been used to study the dynamical evolution of the phase separation, which is found to be slowed down by the presence of nanoparticles in the polymer blend. In these cases, a moderate volume fraction of nanoparticles that do not interact with each other is considered.
Previous simulation works were using relatively modest sizes of computational boxes. It is known that for block copolymer systems large simulation box sizes are essential [@sevink_self-assembly_2005]. Small simulation boxes can artificially pin systems in intermediate states[@xu_electric_2005]. Our previous parallel CDS scheme[@guo_parallel_2007] has been extended to be coupled with Brownian Dynamics for colloids, using Fortran Coarrays. The relative speed of this computer program allows us to reach considerably large systems, along with a high number of particles, which were previously unavailable. Thanks to this, we can explore a vast range of regimes, both when colloids are a mere additive and when the co-assembly of the system is driven by the dominating high concentration of colloids. As a result we found new phases such as, for instance, coexistence of macroscopically separated colloid rich phase and BCP lamellae, which were not observed in simulations before.
Model
=====
The evolution of the BCP/colloids system is determined by the excess free energy which can be separated as $${ \mathcal{F} }_{tot} = { \mathcal{F} }_{pol}+{ \mathcal{F} }_{cc} +{ \mathcal{F} }_{cpl}$$ with ${ \mathcal{F} }_{pol}$ being the free energy functional of the BCP melt, ${ \mathcal{F} }_{cc}$ the colloid-colloid interaction and the last contribution being the coupling term between the block copolymer and the colloids.
Polymer Dynamics: Cell Dynamics Simulations
-------------------------------------------
The BCP is characterized by the order parameter $\psi({ \mathbf{r} },t)$ which is related to the differences in the local monomer concentration $\phi_A({ \mathbf{r} },t)$ and $\phi_B({ \mathbf{r} },t)$ of block A and B, respectively, $$\psi({ \mathbf{r} },t)=\phi_A({ \mathbf{r} },t)-\phi_B({ \mathbf{r} },t)+(1-2f_0)$$ with the composition ratio $f_0=N_A/(N_A+N_B)$ being the overall volume fraction of monomers A in the system. $\psi({ \mathbf{r} },t)$ is considered the local order parameter, which has a value $0$ for the disordered-or homogeneous- state and $|\psi|>0$ for microphase-separated regions.
The time evolution of $\psi({ \mathbf{r} },t)$ is dictated by the conservation of mass, resulting in the Cahn-Hilliard-Cook equation [@cahn_free_1959; @cook_brownian_1970] $$\frac{\partial\psi ( { \mathbf{r} }, t )}{\partial t}=
M \nabla^2 \left[
\frac{\delta F_{tot} [ \psi] }{ \delta \psi}
\right]+
\eta ( { \mathbf{r} }, t)
\label{eq:cahn}$$ with $M$ being a mobility parameter and $\eta({ \mathbf{r} },t)$ being a gaussian noise parameter that satisfies the fluctuation-dissipation theorem $$\langle \eta({ \mathbf{r} },t) \eta({ \mathbf{r} }',t')\rangle =
-k_B T M \nabla^2 \delta({ \mathbf{r} }-{ \mathbf{r} }')
\delta(t-t')$$ for which we have used the algorithm given by Ball[@ball_spinodal_1990]. $k_BT$ sets the thermal energy scale of the diblock copolymer.
The total free energy present in Equation \[eq:cahn\] is decomposed into purely polymeric, coupling and intercolloidal free energy, respectively, $$F_{tot}=
F_{OK}+F_{cpl}+F_{cc}$$ where the purely polymeric free energy $F_{OK}$ is the standard Ohta-Kawasaki free energy [@ohta_equilibrium_1986]. Furthermore, the diblock copolymer free energy $F_{OK}=F_{sr}+F_{lr}$ can be decomposed in short ranged $$\label{eq:Fshort}
F_{\text{sr}}[\psi]=\int d{ \mathbf{r} }\left[
H(\psi)+\frac{1}{2} D |\nabla\psi|^2
\right]$$ and long-ranged free energy, $$\label{eq:Flong}
F_{lr}[\psi]=
\frac{1}{2} B\int d{ \mathbf{r} }\int d{ \mathbf{r} }'
G({ \mathbf{r} },{ \mathbf{r} }')\psi({ \mathbf{r} })\psi({ \mathbf{r} }')$$ with $G({ \mathbf{r} },{ \mathbf{r} }')$ satisfying $\nabla^2 G({ \mathbf{r} },{ \mathbf{r} }')=-\delta({ \mathbf{r} }-{ \mathbf{r} }')$,i.e., the Green function for the Laplacian.
The local free energy can be written as [@hamley_cell_2000] $$H(\psi)=
\frac{1}{2}\tau'\psi^2
+\frac{1}{3} v(1-2f_0)\psi^3 +\frac{1}{4} u \psi^4$$ where $\tau'=-\tau_0+A(1-2f_0)^2$, $u$ and $v$ can be related to the molecular structure of the diblock copolymer chain [@ohta_equilibrium_1986]. The local free energy $H(\psi)$ possesses 2 minima values $\psi_{-}$ and $\psi_{+}$ which are the values that $\psi({ \mathbf{r} },t) $ takes in the phase-separated domains. Parameter $D$ in Equation \[eq:Fshort\] is related to the interface size $\xi=\sqrt{D/\tau'}$ between domains and $B$ in Equation \[eq:Flong\] to the periodicity of the system $H\propto 1/\sqrt{B}$ as the long ranged free energy takes into account the junction of the two chains in a diblock copolymer.
Contrary to the block copolymer -which is described continuously- NPs are individually resolved. We consider a suspension of $N_p$ circular colloids with a tagged field moving along its center of mass $\psi_c(r)$. The presence of nanoparticles in the BCP is introduced by a coupling term in the free energy, which takes a simple functional form $$F_{cpl}[\psi,\{{ \mathbf{R} }_i\}]=
\sum_{p=1}^{N_p}
\sigma\int d{ \mathbf{r} }\ \psi_{c}\left({ \mathbf{r} }-{ \mathbf{R} }_p \right)
\left[\psi({ \mathbf{r} },t)-\psi_0 \right]^2$$ with $\sigma$ a parameter that controls the strength of the interaction and $\psi_0$ an affinity parameter that is related to the preference of the NP towards different values of the order parameter $\psi({ \mathbf{r} },t)$. A particle with an affinity $\psi_0=1$ is purely coated with copolymer A while a mixed brush would result in $\psi_0=0$. $\psi_c({ \mathbf{r} })$ is a tagged function that accounts for the size and shape of the nanoparticle. At the same time, it can be tuned to define a soft and a hard-core for the nanoparticle regarding the coupling with the BCP. In our simulations we use $$\psi_{c} ({ \mathbf{r} }) =
\exp\left[
1-\frac{1}{1-\left( \frac{| { \mathbf{r} }|}{{R^{eff}}} \right)^\alpha}
\right]
\label{eq:psici}$$ from which we obtain a relationship ${R_{\text{eff}}}= R_0 \left( 1+1/\ln 2 \right)^{1/\alpha} $ such that the tagged field has been reduced to $0.5$ at $r=R_0$. $R_{eff}$ also acts as the cut-off distance in the coupling interaction, i.e., $\psi_c(r>R_{eff})=0$. We select $\alpha =2$ to provide a smooth decay in $\psi_c(r)$.
Nanoparticles are considered soft in their interparticle interaction, following a Yukawa-like potential $$U(r)=
U_0
\left[\frac{
\exp\left(1-r/R_{12} \right)}{r/R_{12}}-1
\right]$$ with $R_{12}=2R_0$ and $r$ being the center-to-center distance.
Colloids undergo diffusive dynamics, described by the Langevin equation in the over damped regime. The center of mass of each colloid ${ \mathbf{R} }_i$ is considered to follow Brownian Dynamics, that is, $$\label{eq:brownian}
{ \mathbf{v} }_i=
\frac{1}{\gamma} \left(
{ \mathbf{f} }^{c-c}+{ \mathbf{f} }^{cpl}+\sqrt{2k_BT\gamma}\xi
\right)$$ with $\gamma$ the friction coefficient, $k_BT$ is the NP thermal energy and $\xi$ is a random gaussian term satisfying fluctuation dissipation theorem. The coupling force ${ \mathbf{f} }_i^{cpl}=-\nabla F_{cpl}$ accounts for the interaction between the nanoparticle and the BCP medium. Similarly, ${ \mathbf{f} }_i^{cc}=-\nabla F_{cc}$.
The order parameter time evolution presented in Equation \[eq:cahn\] is numerically solved using a cell dynamic simulation scheme[@oono_study_1988; @bahiana_cell_1990], for which the laplacian is approximated as $\frac{1}{\delta x ^2} [ \langle\langle X \rangle\rangle -X ] $ with $$\langle\langle \psi \rangle\rangle =
\frac{6}{80} \sum_{NN} \psi +
\frac{3}{80} \sum _{NNN} \psi+
\frac{1}{80} \sum _{NNNN} \psi$$ in three-dimensional systems. NN, NNN and NNNN stand for nearest-neighbour, next-nearest-neighbour and next-next-nearest neighbour, respectively, that is, summation over lattice points around the lattice point $\psi_{ij}$. The lattice is characterized by its spacing $\delta x $.
We have extended the previous CDS parallel scheme[@guo_parallel_2007] into hybrid CDS/Brownian Dynamics parallel implementation using Fortran Coarrays[@fanfarillo_opencoarrays:_2014]. This allow us to study large system sizes and long time behaviour which is essential to understand the ordering and mesoscopic properties that will be studied in this work. In order to study the ordering of colloids and distinguish between fluid and solid-like structures, we make use of the three-dimensional bond order parameter $Q_n$[@rein_ten_wolde_numerical_1996], which takes finite positive values for the case of cubic -$Q_4$- or hexagonal close packed (HCP) -$Q_6$- configurations and both vanishing in the fluid regime.
Results
=======
We aim to study the three dimensional phase behaviour of block copolymers in the presence of colloidal nanoparticles along with the assembly of colloids. Following a complete two-dimensional description of the main parameters in play [@diaz_phase_2018] we consider representative 3D cases of special interest. In this work we use the standard parameters of CDS: $\tau_0=0.35$, $A=1.5$, $u=0.5$, $v=1.5$ $M=1$ and $D=1$. The size of the block copolymer period is controlled by $B=$ which takes a value of $B=0.002$ unless stated otherwise. The thermal scale is set to $k_B T = 0.1$ and the friction constant follows $\gamma = 6\pi R_0 \eta_0$ with viscosity given by $\eta_0 = 0.1$. The coupling strength and the NP-NP interaction scale are set to $\sigma=1$ and $U_0=1$, respectively. The time and length discretization are set to $\delta t =0.1$ and $\delta x =1.0$. Time scales will be expressed in units of the diffusion time of the BCP $\tau_{pol} = \xi^2/(\tau_0 M)$ with $\xi$ being the micro-phase separation length scale. Unless otherwise specified, simulations were performed in $64^3$ box sizes.
NPs compatible with one copolymer
----------------------------------
### Phase transition induced by NPs
One of the most common instances of NP dispersion in BCP is the case of colloidal particles which are coated to be compatible with one of the blocks, for example, when coated with the same homopolymer A in a A-*b*-B diblock copolymer. Such particles have been found to segregate to their preferred domain, both experimentally[@ploshnik_hierarchical_2010] and in simulations[@ginzburg_three-dimensional_2002]. Nonetheless, many works have shown that a considerable concentration of such particles can induce phase transition due to the swelling of hosting domains (in this case, A phase). A full phase diagram has been achieved using Monte Carlo[@huh_thermodynamic_2000] simulations and CDS in two dimensions [@diaz_phase_2018]. In this section we will explore both the morphological transition as the number of particles is increased, as well as the time evolution starting from a disordered block copolymer.
{width="99.99000%"}
NPs with a radius $R_0=1.5$ and symmetric block copolymer $f_0=0.5$ are initially ordered in a lamellar morphology Then, the system with a number of particles $N_p$ is let to evolve for a time $t/\tau_{pol} = 48.3 \times 10^3$ in terms of the polymer diffusion time. Although this final configuration cannot be assured to be the equilibrium structure, it is a representative steady state of the system, after visual inspection and analysis of parameters such as $<|\psi({ \mathbf{r} },t)|>$, as described by Ren et al[@ren_cell_2001]. At low concentrations of particles $\phi_p=0.15$, colloids are simply located within their preferred domain, which in this case is a simple horizontal lamellar domain, as in Figure \[fig:3d.transition\_iso2c\] (a). A larger number of particles results in a stronger confinement of colloids within their preferred phase, which eventually leads to a break-up of the lamellar structure into a cylindrical phase, as can be seen in Figure \[fig:3d.transition\_iso2c\] (right) for a relatively high concentration of $\phi_p=0.465$.
We can gain insight over both the dynamical evolution of such a transition, as well as the equilibrium transition for several values of the number of particles. Firstly, Figure \[fig:3d.Ndomains\] shows the number of block copolymer domains for different values of the colloidal concentration $\phi_p$.The BCP domains can be calculated by identifying the interface between A and B domains. The BCP morphology is consistently lamellar characterized by $8$ domains (result of $4$ BCP periods). As the gray domains are filled with particles the width of the domains is enhanced, up to a transition concentration $\phi_p^*\sim 0.35$. In the transition point the lamellar interface is no longer flat and presents undulation in order to further accommodate the concentration of NPs. After that, the number of BCP domains abruptly drops, which hints of a bi-continuous morphology of well-connected domains. As the concentration of particles is again increased we observe how the block copolymer transitions again into cylindrically-shaped domains with hexagonal packing. The nanoparticles are effectively increasing the fraction of A monomers in the system, which is equivalent to exploring a horizontal deviation in the $f_0-\chi N$ phase diagram for pure block copolymer melts[@matsen_unifying_1996].
{width="80.00000%"}
Secondly, we can track the kinetic pathway to equilibrium following a quench from a disordered state, both for the block copolymer and the NPs. Figure \[fig:3d.longtime.evolution\] shows the Euler characteristic of the block copolymer in time, for the same parameters as Figure \[fig:3d.Ndomains\] and $\phi_p=0.465$. The time evolution of $\chi$ is in fact equivalent to the reported one for a cylinder-forming pure BCP melt[@sevink_kinetic_2004], thus confirming the role of nanoparticles as effectively increasing the hosting monomer fraction. The Euler characteristic can be seen to approach $\chi \to 0$ from negative values which indicates the formation of isolated cylinders from a connected network of cylindrical domains. Bottom-right and right snapshots confirm this assertion.
{width="99.90000%"}
### Assembly of colloids
Conversely,the assembly of colloids under block copolymer confinement can be studied. A value of $f_0=0.39$ is chosen, such that phase transition from lamella to cylinders is prevented[@diaz_phase_2018]. An initially phase-separated block copolymer and initially disordered colloidal set of $N_p$ particles are chosen with a radius $R_0$. As an example, Figure \[fig:3d.assembly.example\] shows the soft confinement induced by three lamellar domains in the colloids. A layered organisation can be hinted in (a) while the hexagonal packing of the layers colloids within each layer can be observed in (b).
{width="99.00000%"}
A-compatible colloids in a lamellar-forming block copolymer are softly confined, as opposed to a hard confinement between parallel plates. In order to have an a priori estimation of the confinement effect, in Figure \[fig:3d.Nneigh\] we plot the reduced diameter of the particle $2R_{eff} / D_{eff}$ where $R_{eff}$ is simply the soft-core radius of the particle(eg. the cut-off of the BCP-NP interaction), while $D_{eff}=H/2-2\xi$ serves as an estimate of the spacing available for the particle, where $H/2$ is half a lamellar period while $2\xi$ is the thickness of the interface.
![Color map of the average number of colloidal neighbors for each simulation of an asymmetric block copolymer mixed with minority-compatible nanoparticles. Circles represent simulation points such that $Q_6>0.15$. []{data-label="fig:3d.Nneigh"}](figure5){width="0.999\linewidth"}
In Figure \[fig:3d.Nneigh\] we can find the average number of first colloidal neighbours for each simulation in a color map (see colorbar on the right). Both the concentration of NPs and the particles size are explored. Visual inspection of the simulation results confirms the assembly of colloids in different number of layers, growing with the concentration of particles present in the system. One can then conclude that an increasing number of particles forces a close-packed type of assembly with increasingly larger number of colloidal layers. Moreover, the relative size of particles and lamellar spacing dictates the rate of growth in the number of layers.
Detailed insight over the ordering of colloids within these layers can be obtained by using the 3D hexagonal close-packing (HCP) order parameter $Q_6$ which is $0.75$ for a perfect HCP configuration[@rein_ten_wolde_numerical_1996]. Similarly, $Q_4$ characterizes the cubic structure. In Figure \[fig:3d.Nneigh\] points for which $Q_6>0.15$ are shown, that is, systems in which the ordering is above that of a disordered liquid. At first sight, one could suspect that the behaviour of $Q_6(\phi_p)$ is non-monotonic, as for a fixed colloidal size it reaches higher values to then decreases.
![$Q_6$ (left axis, blue $\times$) and $Q_4$ (right axis, red $\circ$) order parameters of the colloidal assembly in terms of the fraction of particles in the system $\phi_p$. Snapshots of the final configurations are shown with arrows indicating its respective simulation points in the $Q_6$ curve. Images of the block copolymer are missing in order to help the visualisation of the colloidal horizontal, in-domain, ordering. []{data-label="fig:3d.Qn-phip"}](figure6){width="0.999\linewidth"}
In order to study the behaviour of $Q_n$ and the assembly of colloids, we can focus on an specific particle size $R_0=2.33$ and calculate $Q_n$ for a range of concentrations. In Figure \[fig:3d.Qn-phip\] we can see the non-monotonic behaviour of both order parameters. At low concentration $Q_6$ approximately grows with $\phi_p$ while $Q_4$ remains constant. A considerable positive value of $Q_6$ indicates a degree of interparticle ordering, which is due to the particle size being large enough to induce an effective particle attraction. This is rather weak at low concentrations, but as the 2D monolayers are filled, a close-packing entropic interaction results in a broad peak in $Q_6$. The addition of higher number of particles, instead, does not produce increased ordering but destroys the monolayer structure. This results in a sharp decrease in $Q_6$ and $Q_4$ that is followed by a steady increase in $Q_6$, since a similar behaviour is occurring as in the case of a monolayer, only now we have close-packed hexagonal ordering in two layers of colloids. A sharp decrease is again followed by the formation of a three-layer with considerable colloidal ordering.
A similar behaviour can be found in a mixture of asymmetric($f_0=0.35$), cylinder-forming block copolymer and minority-compatible nanoparticles($\psi_0=-1$). Figure \[fig:3d.cyl.bulk.snaps\] shows the BCP/NP co-assembly in cylinders at low concentration ($\phi_p=0.12$, (a)) and large concentration ($\phi_p=0.33$, (b)). While the cylindrical morphology is preserved in the BCP, the nanoparticles enhance the size of the cylinders without changing the number of domains. In fact, the nanoparticles are confined within the red, minority phase forming arrays of particles along the direction of the cylinders. Figure \[fig:3d.cyl.bulk.snaps\] (c) and (d) show the frontal view of such an arrangement corresponding to the top (a) and (b) snapshots. A radial assembly of colloids along the axis of the cylinders is equivalent to the layered configuration in Figure \[fig:3d.assembly.example\], in which we again observe an increased number of layers with higher concentration.
![Mixture of cylinder-forming BCP ($f_0=0.35$) and minority compatible nanoparticles at two different concentrations (a) and (b). (c) and (d) correspond to the frontal view of (a) and (b), respectively, showing only the colloidal assembly. []{data-label="fig:3d.cyl.bulk.snaps"}](figure7){width="0.999\linewidth"}
Interface-compatible NPs
------------------------
Nanoparticles which are grafted with a mixed brush of homopolymer can be made compatible with the interface between block copolymer domains (neutral NPs)[@kim_creating_2007]. Experimentally, neutral NPs have been found to segregate to the interface between block copolymer domains. At high concentrations, a symmetric block copolymer can undergo lamellar-to-bicontinuous phase transition[@kim_nanoparticle_2007; @kim_tailoring_2009].
We can study an initially-disordered BCP melt with a volume fraction $\phi_p$ of particles with a neutral affinity $\psi_0=0$. The nanoparticle size $R_0=1.5$ as well as the BCP length scales -$D=0.503$ and $B=0.02$- are chosen, following a complete phase diagram exploration of the length scales of the system, which can be found in Figure S1 in the Supplementary Information. In Fig. \[fig:3d.lam-neutral\] (a) the aggregation of NPs in a lamellar-forming BCP can be observed. The concentration of NPs is relatively low $\phi_p=0.1$. This aggregation is driven by the minimisation of the total free energy by creating a NP-rich domain where the order parameter takes an almost zero $\psi\approx 0$ value. This is, in fact, a disordered area induced by the coating of the NP.
In Fig. \[fig:3d.lam-neutral\] (b) a $\phi_p=0.24$ concentration of NPs is shown. For this higher concentration the colloids are able to build an almost continuous network of NP-rich domains. Macrophase separation is occurring, which can be confirmed in Fig. \[fig:3d.lam-neutral.details\] (a), where we run a simulation in a small box $V=32^3$ and $\phi_p=0.27$ with two distinct domains are formed. Additionally, the orientation of lamellar domains with respect to the NP-rich domain is clearly normal with a small tilted effect which is due to the box size effect. The normal orientation is characteristic of a neutral wall[@pinna_block_2010].
In Fig. \[fig:3d.lam-neutral\] (c) the concentration of NPs is high enough -$\phi_p=0.45$- to create a single NP-rich matrix in which the BCP assembles into separated domains. A detail of the simulation can be found in Fig. \[fig:3d.lam-neutral.details\] (b), where the NPs are not shown for clarity. In order to favour a perpendicular to contact angle between the lamellar planes and the BCP/NP boundary, the BCP-rich domains are ellipsoidal shaped. This has been shown in Ref. [@pinna_block_2008] in the context of nanoshells. For these reasons, the BCP-rich domains minimises the free energy by maximising the contact surface between the alternating domains and the NP-rich matrix, and minimising the exposure of A-rich or B-rich only domains to the matrix. This results into isolated, elongated domains which are growing in the direction normal to the interface between domains. In Figure S2 (bottom-left) of the Supplementary Information we can observe the 2D counterpart of ellipsoid-shaped BCP-rich domains. These can be again directly compared to block copolymer/homopolymer blends as in Figure 4 in Ref [@ohta_dynamics_1995].
![Phase transition of a symmetric ($f_0=0.5$) BCP induced by the presence of a concentration $\phi_p$ of neutral nanoparticles. The concentrations of NPs are $\phi_p=0.1$, $0.24$ and $0.45$ for (a), (b) and (c), respectively. System size is $V=128^2\times 64$ using $8$ processors. []{data-label="fig:3d.lam-neutral"}](figure8){width="0.9999\linewidth"}
![ In (a) a simulation in a small box $V=32^3$ with a concentration $\phi_p=0.27$ and the same parameters as in Fig. \[fig:3d.lam-neutral\]. In (b) we show a detail of Fig. \[fig:3d.lam-neutral\] (c) without showing nanoparticles. []{data-label="fig:3d.lam-neutral.details"}](figure9){width="0.999\linewidth"}
Simulations shown in Figure \[fig:3d.lam-neutral\] are the final snapshot for time $t/\tau_{pol} = 1.9 \times 10^5$ scaled with the diffusive time scale of the block copolymer. These are not the equilibrium configuration of the system, but a highly stable state of the evolution. For instance, NP clusters in Figure \[fig:3d.lam-neutral\] would eventually form a single NP cluster. Nonetheless, the segregation of NP clusters into BCP defects (lamellar grain boundaries) slows down the already slow pathway towards equilibrium.
In order to gain insight over the equilibrium configuration of these co-assembled structures, we can perform a long-time calculation up to $t/\tau_{pol} =2.65 \times 10^6$ to obtain the morphology shown in Fig. \[fig:3d.lam-neutral.aggregation\] (a). Here, we can observe a neutral NP-rich area -coloured in transparent yellow- where all NPs are phase-separated from the microphase-separated BCP lamellar domains. In particular, due to periodic boundary conditions, we can identify a single NP-rich domain which has an elongated shape, in the direction of the lamellar interface (normal to the lamellar planes). Electronic supplementary material in Movie 1 shows the slow dynamics that results into this final state, which justifies the need for a highly efficient parallel computer code.
![ Simulation of a low concentration $\phi_p=0.1$ of neutral NPs sized $R_0=1.7$ in a symmetric $B=0.02$ BCP. NP-rich area -given by $-0.2<\psi < 0.2 $- is coloured transparent yellow. []{data-label="fig:3d.lam-neutral.aggregation"}](figure10){width="0.99\linewidth"}
While the assembly of neutral nanoparticles at lamellar-forming has been experimentally studied , cylinder-forming (asymmetric) block copolymers/neutral nanoparticles have not been devoted experimental work. In Figure \[fig:3d.cyl.iface\] we can observe the number of colloidal clusters in an asymmetrical ($f_0=0.35$), cylinder-forming BCP. At low concentrations colloids are found to simply be segregated within the interface of the cylinders. As the interface becomes saturated with nanoparticles, the colloids start to form bridges along neighbouring domains. Figure \[fig:3d.cyl.iface.snaps\] (a) we can observe the segregation of nanoparticles at interfaces. If the concentration of particles is higher than $\phi_p^* \sim 0.213$, nanoparticles form a single percolating cluster. Visual inspection in Figure \[fig:3d.cyl.iface.snaps\] (b), (c) and (d) can draw the conclusion that the block copolymer maintains a phase-separated microstructure even at high concentrations as in $\phi_p=0.28$. This NP-induced morphology in the BCP can be related to that of a 2D asymmetric BCP mixed with neutral NPs, as in Figure 7 (a) in ref [@diaz_phase_2018], where the majority-phase of the BCP forms a continuous, percolating lamellar-like domain, while the minority phase is enclosed by an NP-rich area which together with the minority BCP forms a lamellar-like percolating domain. Similarly, this bicontinuous BCP structure can be related to a lamellar-to-bicontinuous transition found in experiments [@kim_nanoparticle_2007].
![Number of colloidal clusters formed by neutral colloids in a cylinder forming block copolymer mixture as a function of the concentration of particles. []{data-label="fig:3d.cyl.iface"}](figure11){width="0.99\linewidth"}
![ Snapshots of simulation results of neutral nanoparticles in a cylinder-forming block copolymer matrix corresponding to the curve in Figure \[fig:3d.cyl.iface\]. Nanoparticles are segregated to the interface between red and grey domains. []{data-label="fig:3d.cyl.iface.snaps"}](figure12){width="0.99\linewidth"}
Large nanoparticles
-------------------
As an example on the ability of the presented model to scale up to considerably large systems, we can explore the regime in which the NP size is considerably larger than the BCP period. To this end we select parameters $R_0=8.5$ and $B=0.02$ for $N_p=100$ nanoparticles which have an affinity $\psi_0=-1$ in a cylinder-forming BCP $f_0=0.4$. The system size is $V=400^2\times 300$ with $n_p=4\times 4 \times 3$ processors. In Fig. \[fig:3d.largeNP\] (a) the cylinder-forming morphology of the BCP can be observed, along with NPs which create a local perturbation in the nearby BCP. A detail of the BCP assembly near a large NP can be observed in (b), where we can find a spherical shell of the compatible block to the NP, followed by a secondary shell made of the minority copolymer forming cylinders. This behaviour can be directly related to BCP nanoshells, as in Fig. 2 (f) in Reference [@pinna_block_2008].
{width="90.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
Three dimensional simulations of block copolymer/nanoparticle mixtures have been used to analyse the morphological changes induced by colloids in a block copolymer melt, as well as the assembly of colloids within the phase-separated block copolymer. The comparatively fast parallel computational model has allowed us to achieve a vast range of number of particles, in turn making it possible to study the high concentration regime of particles.
The order-to-order phase transition due to the presence of A-compatible nanoparticles in a symmetric, lamellar-forming BCP has been studied in detail in terms of the particle loading. It has been shown that the lamellar-to-cylinder transition evolves through a bicontinuous intermediate state that concludes in the well-defined cylindrical morphology. The time evolution towards this final structure can be tracked with the Euler characteristic, finding intermediate stages of connected networks of elongated domains.
The assembly of colloids in the block copolymer has been studied both in the case of block-A compatible and interface-compatible colloids. In the first case, we have studied the soft-confinement case in which the NP’s ability to diffuse is strongly influenced by the lamellar phase separation. In fact, a layered, hexagonally close-packed assembly of colloids can be found which is driven by the relative length scales between the nanoparticle size and the lamellar spacing. Colloids are found to organize in crystal-like structures forming layers due to the confinement exerted by the BCP. This behaviour is non-monotonic with the number of layers dictated by the NP concentration and intermediate disordered colloidal states between defined layers.
Neutral, interface-compatible nanoparticles have been found to segregate to the surface between A-*b*-B domains. A high concentration of nanoparticles at the interface tends to form NP-rich areas, which in the case of a symmetric lamellar-forming BCP results in macrophase separation of the BCP and NPs. At high concentration NPs tend to form bridges along cylindrical domains, eventually forming a continuous network of nanoparticles. These complex morphologies are due to the presence of colloids and cannot be related to pure BCP phases (differently from lamellar to cylinders phase transitions). Comparisons can be drawn between the morphologies described in Fig. \[fig:3d.lam-neutral\] and computer simulations of ternary blends made of BCP/homopolymer as described by Ref. [@ohta_dynamics_1995].
In this work we have made use of a highly efficient parallel code that can achieve system sizes and time scales which were previously unavailable. For instance, previous CDS/Brownian Dynamics three dimensional simulations[@ginzburg_three-dimensional_2002] reported simulation box of $64^3$ while Figure \[fig:3d.largeNP\] uses $400^2\times 300$. Coarse grained methods such as DPD have reported up to a few BCP periods, while Figure \[fig:3d.largeNP\] is able to simulate a system size of $50^2\times 37$ BCP periods. Additionally, this CDS scheme can reach considerably long time scales as shown in the formation of a single NP aggregate in Figure \[fig:3d.lam-neutral.aggregation\].
Conflicts of interest
=====================
There are no conflicts to declare.
Acknowledgements
================
The work has been performed under the Project HPC-EUROPA3 (INFRAIA-2016-1-730897), with the support of the EC Research Innovation Action under the H2020 Programme; in particular, the authors gratefully acknowledges the computer resources and technical support provided by Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC). I. P. acknowledges support from MINECO (Grant No. PGC2018-098373-B-100), DURSI (Grant No. 2017 SGR 884) and SNF Project No. 200021-175719.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The non-exponential relaxation is shown to result from subordination by inverse tempered $\alpha$-stable processes. The main feature of tempered $\alpha$-stable processes is a finiteness of their moments, and the class of random processes includes ordinary $\alpha$-stable processes as a particular case. Starting with the Cole-Cole response this subordination approach establishes its direct link with the Cole-Davidson law. We derive the relaxation function describing the tempered relaxation. The meaning of the empirical response function is clarified.'
address:
- |
Institute of Radio Astronomy, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences,\
4 Chervonopraporna St., 61002 Kharkov, Ukraine
- |
Institute of Physics, Wroc[ł]{}aw University of Technology,\
Wyb. Wyspia$\acute{n}$kiego 27, 50-370 Wroc[ł]{}aw, Poland
author:
- Aleksander Stanislavsky
- ', Karina Weron'
title: Subordination scenario of anomalous relaxation
---
L${\rm\acute{e}}$vy-stable process ,Subordination ,Non-exponential relaxation
Introduction
============
The major feature of dynamical processes in many complex relaxing systems is their stochastic background [@1; @2]. Particularly, in any dielectric (complex) system under an week external electric field (external action) only a part (active dipoles or objects) of the total number of dipoles is directly governed by changes of the field. But even those dipoles, not contributing to the relaxation dynamics, can have an effect on the behavior of active dipoles [@3]. If the dipoles interact with each other, then their evolution has a random character. Consequently, the behavior of such a relaxing system as a whole will not be exponential in nature. In this case the macroscopic behavior of the complex systems is governed by “averaging principles” like the law of large numbers following from the theory of probability [@4]. The macroscopic dynamics of complex systems is not attributed to any particular object taken from those forming the systems. The finding out an “averaged” object representity for the entire relaxing system is not simple. The relation between the local random characteristics of complex systems and the universal deterministic empirical laws requires a probabilistic justification. There are some points of view on this problem. One of well-known them is based on randomizing the parameters of distributions that describes the relaxation rates in disordered systems. With regard to the dielectric relaxation, each individual dipole in a complex system relaxes exponentially, but their relaxation rates are different and obey a probability distribution (continuous function) [@3; @5]. This approach is successive for getting many empirical response laws and their classification, but it sometime becomes enough complicated to interpret their interrelations and to derive macroscopic response equations..
In this paper we suggest an alternative approach to the analysis of non-exponential relaxation. It is based on subordination of random processes. Recall that in the theory of anomalous diffusion the notation of subordination occupies one of the most important places (see, for example, [@5a] and references therein). So, a subordinated process $Y(U(t))$ is obtained by randomizing the time clock of a random (parent) process $Y(t)$ by means of a random process $U(t)$ called the directing process. The latter process is also often referred to as the randomized time or operational time [@5b]. In the common case the process $Y$ may be both random and deterministic in nature. The subordination of random processes is a starting point for the anomalous diffusion theory.
We develop this approach to relaxation processes. It gives an efficient method for calculating the dynamical evaluating averages of the relaxation processes. In this connection Section \[par2\] is devoted a presentation of recent achievements of this method. Starting with the description of the two-state system evolution as a Markovian process, we develop the analysis on subordinated random processes. The processes differ from the Markovian ones by the temporal variable becoming random. In this context the Cole-Cole relaxation is an evident example. In Section \[par3\] we consider the tempered $\alpha$-stable processes. They overcome the infinite-moment difficulty of the usual (not tempered) $\alpha$-stable processes. As applied to the anomalous diffusion, the tempering gives a preserving the subdiffusive behavior for short times whereas for long times the diffusion is something like normal. Using the processes in Section \[par4\], we develop a subordination scheme for the description of the tempered relaxation. Section \[par5\] formulates major properties of such relaxation. We show that it has a direct relation to the well-known experimental laws of relaxation, in particular, to the Cole-Davidson law. Finally, the conclusions are drawn in Section \[par6\].
Relaxation in Two-State Systems {#par2}
===============================
The simplest ordinary interpretation of relaxation phenomena is based on the concept of a system of independent exponentially relaxing objects (for example, dipoles) with different (independent) relaxation rates [@6]. The relaxation process, following this law (called Debye’s), may be represented by behavior of a two-state system. Let $N$ be the common number of dipoles in a dielectric system. If $N_\uparrow$ is the number of dipoles in the state $\uparrow$, $N_\downarrow$ is the number of dipoles in the state $\downarrow$ so that $N=N_\uparrow+N_\downarrow$. Assume that for $t=0$ the system is stated in order so that the states $\uparrow$ dominate, namely $$\frac{N_\uparrow(t=0)}{N}=n_\uparrow(0)=1,\quad
\frac{N_\downarrow(t=0)}{N}=n_\downarrow(0)=0\,,$$ where $n_\uparrow$ is the part of dipoles in the state $\uparrow$, $n_\downarrow$ the part in the state $\downarrow$. Denote the transition rate by $w$ defined from microscopic properties of the system (for instance, according to the given Hamiltonian of interaction and the Fermi’s golden rule). In the simplest case (D relaxation) the kinetic equation takes the form $$\cases{\dot n_\uparrow(t)-w\,\{n_\downarrow(t)-
n_\uparrow(t)\}=0,&\cr \dot n_\downarrow(t)-w\,\{n_\uparrow(t)-
n_\downarrow(t)\}=0,&\cr}\label{eqa1}$$ where, as usual, the dotted symbol means the first-order derivative. The relaxation function for the two-state system is $$\phi_{\rm D}(t)=1-2n_\downarrow(t)=2n_\uparrow(t)-1=\exp(-2wt).$$ It is easy see that the steady state of the system corresponds to equilibrium with $n_\uparrow(\infty)=n_\downarrow(\infty)=1/2$. Clearly, its response has also an exponential character. However, this happens to be the case of dipoles relaxing irrespective of each other and of their environment. If the dipoles interact with their environment, and the interaction is complex (or random), their contribution in relaxation already will not result in any exponential delay.
Assume that the interaction of dipoles with environment is taken into account with the aid of the temporal subordination. We will consider the evolution of the number of dipoles in the states $\downarrow$ and $\uparrow$. This are parent random processes in the sense of subordination. They may be subordinated by another random process with a probability density, say $p(\tau,t)$. If $n_\uparrow(\tau)$ and $n_\downarrow(\tau)$, taking from Eq.(\[eqa1\]) as probability laws of the parent processes, depend now on a local time $\tau$, then the resulting $n_\uparrow(t)$ and $n_\downarrow(t)$ after the subordination is determined by the integral relation $$n_\uparrow(t)=\int^\infty_0 n_\uparrow(\tau)\,p(\tau,t)\,d\tau\,, \quad
n_\downarrow(t)=\int^\infty_0 n_\downarrow(\tau)\,p(\tau,t)\,d\tau\,.$$ If the directing process (a new time clock or stochastic time arrow [@9]) is an inverse $\alpha$-stable process, its probability density has the following Laplace image $$p^{S}(\tau, t)=\frac{1}{2\pi j}\int_{Br} e^{ut-\tau
u^\alpha}\,u^{\alpha-1}\,du=t^{-\alpha}F_\alpha(\tau/t^\alpha)\,,
\label{eqb1}$$ where $Br$ denotes the Bromwich path. This probability density has a simple physical interpretation. It determines the probability to be at the internal time (or so-called operational time) $\tau$ on the real (physical) time $t$. The function $F_\alpha(z)$ can be expanded as a Taylor series. Besides, it has the Fox’ H-function representation $$F_\alpha(z)=H^{10}_{11}\left(z\Bigg|{(1-\alpha,\alpha)\atop
(0,1)}\right)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{(-z)^k}{k!
\Gamma(1-\alpha(1+k))}\,,$$ where $\Gamma(x)$ is the ordinary gamma function. In the theory of anomalous diffusion the random process $S(t)$ is applied for the subordination of L$\acute{\rm e}$vy (or Gaussian) random processes [@10]. The inverse $\alpha$-stable process accounts for the amount of time that a walker does not participate in the motion process [@11]. If the walker participated all time in the motion process, the internal time and the physical (external) time would coincide.
As was shown in [@9; @12; @13], the stochastic time arrow can be applied to the general kinetic equation. Then the equation describing a two-state system takes the following form $$\cases{D^\alpha
n_\uparrow(t)-w\,\{n_\downarrow(t)-n_\uparrow(t)\}=0,&\cr
D^\alpha
n_\downarrow(t)-w\,\{n_\uparrow(t)-n_\downarrow(t)\}=0,&\cr}\qquad
0<\alpha\leq 1,\label{eqc1}$$ where $D^\alpha$ is the $\alpha$-order fractional derivative with respect to time. Here we use the Caputo derivative [@13a], namely $$D^\alpha
x(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(n-\alpha)}\int^t_0\frac{x^{(n)}(\tau)}
{(t-\tau)^{\alpha+1-n}}\,d\tau,\quad n-1<\alpha<n,$$ where $x^{(n)}(t)$ means the $n$-derivative of $x(t)$. The relaxation function for the two-state system is written as $$\phi_{\rm
CC}(t)=1-2n_\downarrow(t)=2n_\uparrow(t)-1=E_\alpha(-2wt^\alpha),$$ where $E_\alpha(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty z^n/\Gamma(1+n\alpha)$ is the one-parameter Mittag-Leffler function [@14]. It is important to notice that the relaxation function corresponds to the Cole-Cole (CC) law. With reference to the theory of subordination the CC law shows that the dipoles tend to equilibrium via motion alternating with stops so that the temporal intervals between them is random. The random values are governed by an inverse $\alpha$-stable subordinator.
The evolution of $n_\uparrow(t)$ and $n_\downarrow$ in Eq. (\[eqb1\]) can be connected with the Mittag-Leffler distribution. If $Z_n$ denotes the sum of $n$ independent random values with the Mittag-Leffler distribution, then the Laplace transform of $n^{-1/\alpha}Z_n$ is $(1+s^\alpha/n)^{-n}$, which tends to $e^{-s^\alpha}$ as $n$ tends to infinity. Following the arguments of Pillai [@15], this supports an infinity divisibility of the Mittag-Leffler distribution. Due to the power asymptotic form (long tail) the distribution with parameter $\alpha$ is attracted to the stable distribution with exponent $\alpha$, $0<\alpha<1$. The property of the Mittag-Leffler distribution permits one to determine a stochastic process. The process (called Mittag-Leffler’s) arises of subordinating a stable process by a directing (generalized) gamma process [@15]. In this case the relaxation function has the form $$\phi_{\rm
HN}(t)=1-\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^k\Gamma(b+k)}{k!\Gamma(b)\Gamma(1+ab+ak)}
\left(t/\tau_{\rm HN}\right)^{ab+ak}\,, \label{eq13a}$$ where $a$, $b$, $\tau_{\rm HN}$ are constant. The one-side Fourier transformation of the relaxation function gives the Havriliak-Negami (HN) law $$\chi_{\rm HN}(\omega)=\int^\infty_0e^{-i\omega t}\,\left(-\frac{d\phi_{\rm
HN}(t)}{dt}\right)\,dt= \frac{1}{(1+(i\omega\tau_{\rm HN})^a)^b}\,. \label{eqe13b}$$ This result also corresponds to the well-know HN empirical law. Thus, the HN relaxation can be explained from the subordination approach, if the hitting time process of dipole orientations transforms into the Mittag-Leffler process [@16]. For that the hitting time process has an appropriate distribution attracted to the stable distribution. The subordination of the latter results just in the Mittag-Leffler process. It is interesting to observe that the Lévy process subordinated by another Lévy one leads again to the Lévy process, but with other index [@17]. Unfortunately, the description from the Mittag-Leffler process gives nothing for the derivation of any macroscopic response equation like Eq.(\[eqc1\]).
Tempered $\alpha$-stable Process and Its Inverse {#par3}
================================================
The relaxation model based on the inverse $\alpha$-stable process starts with the consideration of $\alpha$-stable processes having the infinite-moment difficult. To overcome it, one can develop an approach stated on tempered $\alpha$-stable processes. The tempered $\alpha$-stable process [@18; @19] has the Laplace image of its distribution in the form $$\tilde{f}(u)=\exp\left(\delta^\alpha-(u+\delta)^\alpha\right)
\,.\label{eq5}$$ When $\delta$ equals to zero, the tempered $\alpha$-stable process becomes simply $\alpha$-stable.
However, the distribution (\[eq5\]) describes only probabilistic properties in terms of internal time. For subordination we need the probability distribution of the inverse tempered $\alpha$-stable process. If $f(\tau,t)$ is the p.d.f. of internal time, then the p.d.f. of its inverse $g(\tau,t)$ can be represented as $$g(\tau,t)=-\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\int_{-\infty}^tf(t',\tau)\,dt'.$$ Taking the Laplace transform of $g(\tau,t)$ with respect to $t$, we get $$\tilde{g}(\tau,u)=-\frac{1}{u}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\tilde{f}(u,\tau)=
\frac{(u+\delta)^\alpha-\delta^\alpha}{u}\,e^{-\tau[(u+\delta)^\alpha-\delta^\alpha]}
\,.\label{eq6}$$ When $\delta\to 0$, Eq. (\[eq6\]) tends to $$\tilde{g}(\tau,u)=u^{\alpha-1}\,e^{-\tau u^\alpha}\,.$$ This expression corresponds to the Laplace image of an inverse $\alpha$-stable p.d.f. describing a directing process in the theory of Cole-Cole relaxation. After the inverse Laplace transform we have Eq.(\[eqb1\]).
In the Laplace space the function $g(\tau,u)$ has a simple form. Because of general properties of the Laplace transform we can find $g(\tau,t)$ explicitly, but its representation is enough complicated and expressed through a integral of the Wright functions [@19a]. For our calculation it will be sufficient to know only the function $g(\tau,u)$. Therefore, we will not present any explicit form $g(\tau,t)$ here.
Macroscopic Response Equation of Tempered Relaxation {#par4}
====================================================
If in Eq.(\[eqa1\]) the value $w$ will depend on time as $a\,A^at^{a-1}$, we come to the description of the Kohlrausch-Williams-Watts (KWW) relaxation. Although such a equation does not contain any (for example, micro/mesoscopic and so on) details about relaxation processes, it is convenient for practical purpose because of its simplicity. When the relaxation follows the CC, CD (Cole-Davidson), HN laws, the equation (\[eqa1\]) is not so simple as in the case of D and KWW relaxation. Recall that the CC relaxation and response functions can be expressed in terms of a solution of the fractional differential equation [@17]. With macroscopic equations for the CD and HN responses the situation becomes more else complicated. Consider the derivation of the macroscopic response equation of tempered relaxation in more details.
For a general type of a Markovian process the general kinetic equation is $$\frac{dp\,(t)}{dt}=\hat{\bf W}p\,(t)\,, \label{eq12}$$ where $\hat{\bf W}$ denotes the transition rate operator (see details, in [@23]). This equation defines the probability $p$ for the system transition from one state into others. Next, we determine a new process governed by an inverse tempered $\alpha$-stable process with the Laplace image (\[eq6\]), namely $$p_\alpha(t)=\int_0^\infty g(t,\tau)\,p(\tau)\,d\tau\,.$$ The Laplace transform $\tilde p_\alpha(s)$ is given by $$\tilde p_\alpha(s)=\int_0^\infty e^{-st}\,p_\alpha(t)\,dt$$ and leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\bf W}\,\tilde
p_\alpha(s)&=&\frac{(s+\delta)^\alpha-\delta^\alpha}{s}\,\hat{\bf
W}\,\tilde p\,((s+\delta)^\alpha-\delta^\alpha)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{(s+\delta)^\alpha-\delta^\alpha}{s}\,\Big\{[(s+\delta)^\alpha-
\delta^\alpha]\,\tilde p\,((s+\delta)^\alpha-\delta^\alpha)-p\,(0)\Big\}\nonumber\\
&=&[(s+\delta)^\alpha-\delta^\alpha]\,\tilde
p_\alpha(s)-\frac{(s+\delta)^\alpha-\delta^\alpha}{s}\,p\,(0)\,.
\label{eq13}\end{aligned}$$ From this it follows $$p_\alpha(t)=p\,(0)+\int^t_0d\tau\,M(t- \tau)\,\hat{\bf W}\,p_\alpha(t)\,, \label{eq14}$$ where the kernel $M(t)$ is written as $$M(t)=e^{-\delta t}\,t^{\alpha-1}\,E_{\alpha,\,\alpha}(\delta^\alpha t^\alpha)\,,$$ where $E_{\alpha,\beta}(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty z^n/\Gamma(\beta+n\alpha)$ is the two-parameter Mittag-Leffler function [@14]. This equation covers a number of particular cases known earlier. For $\alpha=1$ we obtain Eq. (\[eq12\]), and for $\delta=0$ it becomes fractional. If a system has discrete states, then the generating function is of the form $$G(\zeta, t)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\zeta^kp_k(t)\,,$$ where $\zeta$ takes values $\mid\zeta\mid\leq 1$ for a series to converge. With the help of the generating function, one can find the moments by taking the derivative with respect to $\zeta$ and then setting $\zeta=1$. The generating function of the process governed by the stochastic time clock is given by the relation $$G_\alpha(\zeta, t)=\int^\infty_0g(\tau,t)\,G(\zeta,\tau)\,d\tau\,.
\label{eq15}$$ Thus, the generating function for a discrete Markovian process directed by a subordinated process can be obtained from the appropriate generating function of the parent process by immediate integration.
The relaxation in a two-state system under the inverse tempered $\alpha$-stable subordinator gives $$\begin{aligned}
n_\uparrow(t)&=&n_\uparrow(0)+w\int^t_0M(t-
\tau)\,\{n_\downarrow(t)-n_\uparrow(t)\}\,d\tau,\nonumber\\
n_\downarrow(t)&=&n_\downarrow(0)+w\int^t_0M(t-
\tau)\,\{n_\uparrow(t)-n_\downarrow(t)\}\,d\tau\,.\label{eq15a}\end{aligned}$$ For $t\ll 1$ (or $\delta\to 0$) the kernel $M(t)$ takes the power form $t^\alpha/\Gamma(\alpha)$ as a fractional kernel in the integral representation of Eq. (\[eqc1\]). However, for $t\gg 1$ (or $\alpha\to 1$) $M(t)$ becomes constant and, as a result, Eq. (\[eq15a\]) transforms into the integral form of the ordinary equations (\[eqa1\]). From the linearity of these equations it just follows $$\begin{aligned}
n_\uparrow(t)+n_\downarrow(t)&=&n_\uparrow(0)+n_\downarrow(0)\,, \quad
n_\uparrow(t)-n_\downarrow(t)=\nonumber\\ n_\uparrow(0)-n_\downarrow(0)&-&2w
\int^t_0M(t-\tau)\,\{n_\uparrow(\tau)- n_\downarrow(\tau)\}\,d\tau.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
n_\uparrow(t)&=&1-w\int_0^te^{-\delta\tau}\,\tau^{\alpha-1}\,E_{\alpha,\alpha}
([\delta^\alpha-2w]\tau^\alpha)\,d\tau,\nonumber\\
n_\downarrow(t)&=&w\int_0^te^{-\delta\tau}\,\tau^{\alpha-1}\,E_{\alpha,\alpha}
([\delta^\alpha-2w]\tau^\alpha)\,d\tau.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The equations have steady states ($t\to\infty$) corresponding to equilibrium in this system. According to [@24], we know $$\int^\infty_0e^{-ax}\,x^{\alpha-1}\,E_{\alpha,\alpha}(\pm bx)\,dx=\frac{1}{a^\alpha\mp
b},\quad ({\rm Re}(a)>|b|^{1/\alpha}),$$ then $n_\uparrow(\infty)=n_\downarrow(\infty)=1/2$ for any $\delta\geq 0$ and $w>0$ (see, for example, Fig. \[fig1\]). The transition rate $w$ is again defined by microscopic properties of the system. Thus the relaxation function takes the form $$\phi_{\rm temp}(t)=1-2n_\downarrow(t)=1-2w\int_0^t
e^{-\delta\tau}\,\tau^{\alpha-1}\,E_{\alpha,\alpha}
([\delta^\alpha-2w]\tau^\alpha)\,d\tau.$$ The response function $f_{\rm temp}(t)=-d\phi_{\rm temp}(t)/dt$ is written as $$f_{\rm temp}(t)=2w\,
e^{-\delta t}\,t^{\alpha-1}\,E_{\alpha,\alpha}
([\delta^\alpha-2w]t^\alpha)\,.$$ Fig. \[fig3\] demonstrates how to change the response function with the increase of $\delta$.
For the experimental study it is interesting to get the frequency-domain representation of the latter function. Its real part describes a dispersion of the relaxing medium, and its imaginary part is an absorption. The values explicitly can be measured in experiments. The one-side Fourier transformation of the response function gives $$\chi_{\rm temp}(\omega)=\int^\infty_0e^{-i\omega t}\,\left(-\frac{d\phi_{\rm
temp}(t)}{dt}\right)\,dt= \frac{1}{1-\sigma^\alpha+(i\omega/\omega_{\rm
p}+\sigma)^\alpha}\,,\label{eqe16}$$ where $\omega_p=(2w)^{1/\alpha}$ and $0\leq\sigma=\delta/(2w)^{1/\alpha}<\infty$ are constant. The parameter $\omega_p$ is the characteristic frequency of the relaxing system. It is easy to notice that the expression (\[eqe16\]) for $\alpha=1$ is reduced to the D law, for $\delta=0$ (or $\sigma=0$) it describes the CC relaxation, and for $\sigma=1$ it does the CD law (see Fig. \[fig2\]).
![\[fig3\]Response function with different $\delta$ ($w$ = 0.5, $\alpha$ = 0.5).](fig3func.eps){width="13"}
![\[fig2\]Imaginary term of the frequency-domain relaxation function $\chi(\omega)=\chi'(\omega)-i\chi''(\omega)$.](fig2resp.eps){width="13"}
Major Properties of Tempered Relaxation {#par5}
=======================================
The frequency dependence of the dielectric susceptibility for orientational polarization of dipoles has been the subject of experimental and theoretical studies for many years, but still there is no any generally accepted theory capable of explaining the observed phenomena. Experimentally it is well known that the complex dielectric susceptibility $\chi(\omega)=\chi'(\omega)-i\chi''(\omega)$ of most dipolar substances demonstrates a peak in the loss component $\chi''(\omega)$ at a characteristic frequency $\omega_{\rm
p}$, and it is characterized by high- ($\omega\gg\omega_{\rm p}$) and low-frequency ($\omega\ll\omega_{\rm p}$) dependencies. The tempered relaxation shows $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\rm temp}'(\omega)&=&\frac{A+B\cos(C)}{A^2+2AB\cos(C)+B^2}\,,\nonumber\\ \chi_{\rm
temp}''(\omega)&=&\frac{B\sin(C)}{A^2+2AB\cos(C)+B^2}\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $A=1-\sigma^\alpha$, $B=(\sigma^2+\omega^2/\omega_{\rm p}^2)^{\alpha/2}$ and $C=\alpha\arctan(\omega/\delta)$. For small $\omega$ and any positive $\sigma\neq 0$ it is easy to see that $\lim_{\omega\to 0}\chi_{\rm temp}'(\omega)\sim\omega$ and $\lim_{\omega\to 0}\chi_{\rm
temp}''(\omega)\sim 1$ whereas for large $\omega$ we get $\lim_{\omega\to\infty}\chi_{\rm
temp}'(\omega)\sim\omega^{-\alpha}$ and $\lim_{\omega\to\infty}\chi_{\rm
temp}''(\omega)\sim\omega^{-\alpha}$. This implies that $$\lim_{\omega\to\infty}\frac{\chi_{\rm temp}''(\omega)}{\chi_{\rm
temp}'(\omega)}=\tan\Big(\frac{\alpha\pi}{2}\Big) =\cot\Big(n\frac{\pi}{2}\Big)\,,$$ where $n=1-\alpha$, that is in agreement with the experimental results [@1; @2]. However, for small $\omega$ we come to $$\lim_{\omega\to 0}\frac{\chi_{\rm temp}''(\omega)}{\chi_{\rm temp}'(0)-\chi_{\rm
temp}'(\omega)}=\infty\,.$$ This means that the energy lost per cycle does not have a constant relationship to the extra energy that can be stored by a static field. According to such an asymptotic behavior and in Fig. \[fig2\] it is seen that the tempered relaxation takes an intermediate place between the D, CC and CD types of relaxation.
Conclusions {#par6}
===========
In this paper we have represented our progress in the subordination analysis of relaxation phenomena in the complex systems. The approach permits ones to consider many relaxation laws on the unique theoretical base originating from the stochastic nature of relaxation. The general probabilistic formalism treats the relaxation of the complex systems regardless of the precise nature of local interactions. Following this approach, we have derived the empirical relaxation laws and their macroscopic equations, have characterized their parameters, have connected the parameters with local random characteristics of the relaxation processes, have demonstrated how to make the transition from the microscopic random dynamics in the complex stochastic systems to the macroscopic deterministic description by integro-differential equations. It should be pointed out that the form of these equations is a direct sign of complexity evolution in such systems. Although we restricted only by the detailed analysis of two-state systems, due to Eq.(\[eq14\]), this consideration can be developed to the study of many-state systems (as an example, see the analysis of the three-state fractional system in [@13])). The tempered relaxation establishes a connection between several types of relaxation (D, CC and CD). Its asymptotic behavior earnestly shows that starting as a non-exponential relaxation, latter it tends to the D law. Moreover, the theory of subordination suggests a clear interpretation of the tempered relaxation. As applied to the dielectric relaxation, the interaction of dipoles with each other and their environment has a confined time of action on the relaxation process near a starting point of relaxation. Latter they behave independently just as this is the case of exponential (D) relaxation. To put it in another way, the dipoles are strongly connected with each other in the initial stage of relaxation (and, therefore, their response function obeys a non-exponential decay), but the connection is not long-lived, and in an interval of time each dipole evaluates on its own.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
AS is grateful to the Institute of Physics and the Hugo Steinhaus Center for pleasant hospitality during his visit in Wroc[ł]{}aw University of Technology.
A.K. Jonscher, [*Dielectric Relaxation in Solids*]{} (Chelsea Dielectric Press, London, 1983). A.K. Jonscher, [*Universal Relaxation Law*]{} (Chelsea Dielectric Press, London, 1996). A. Jurlewicz, K. Weron, J. Stat. Phys. [**73**]{}, 69(1993); K. Weron, M. Kotulski, Ibid. [**88**]{}, 69(1997);A. Jurlewicz, K. Weron, A. K. Jonscher, IEEE Trans. Dielectrics [**EI8**]{}, 352(2001); A. Jurlewicz, K. Weron J. of Non-Cryst. Sol. [**305**]{}, 112(2002); A. K. Jonscher, A. Jurlewicz, K. Weron, Contemp. Phys. [**44**]{}, 329(2003). A. Jurlewicz, Dissertationes Math. [**431**]{}, 1(2005). A. Jurlewicz, K. Weron, Cell. Molec. Biol. Lett. [**4**]{}, 55(1999); A. Jurlewicz, K. Weron, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**31**]{}, 1077(2000). R. Metzler, J. Klafter, J. Phys. A [**37**]{}, R161(2004). W. Feller, [*An Introduction to Probability and Its Applications*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1996). C.J.F. B${\rm\ddot{o}}$ttcher, P. Bordewijk, [*Theory of Electronic Polarization*]{} (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1978). A.A. Stanislavsky, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 021111(2003). M.M. Meerschaert, H.-P. Scheffler, J. Appl. Probab. [**41**]{}, 623 (2004); P. Becker-Kern, M.M. Meerschaert, H.-P. Scheffler, Ann. Probab. [**32**]{}(1B), 730(2004). B. Baeumer, D. A. Benson, M. M. Meerschaert, Physica A [**350**]{}, 245(2005). A.A. Stanislavsky, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**34**]{}(7), 3649(2003). A.A. Stanislavsky, Theor. and Math. Phys. [**138**]{}, 418(2004). M. Caputo, J. Acousti. Soc. Am. [**66**]{}(1), 176(1979); R. Gorenflo, F. Mainardi, “Fractional calculus: integral and differential equations of fractional order”, In: A. Carpinteri and F. Mainardi (eds.) *Fractals and Fractional Calculus in Continuum Mechanics* (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997), pp. 223-276. , edited by A. Erd${\rm\acute{e}}$lyi (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955), Vol. 3, Chap. 18. R.N. Pillai, Ann. Inst. Statist. Math. [**42**]{}(1), 157(1990). I.M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. E [**63**]{}, 056111(2001). A.A. Stanislavsky, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals [**34**]{}(1), 51(2007). A.I. Saichev, S.G. Utkin, Modern Problems of Statistical Physics [bf 1]{}, 1(2002) (in Russian); A. Piryatinska, A.I. Saichev, and W.A. Woyczynski, Physica A [**349**]{}, 375(2005). J. Rosiński, Stoch. Proc. Appl. [**117**]{}, 677 (2007). R. Gorenflo, Yu. Luchko, and F. Mainardi, Fractional Calc. Appl. Anal. [**2**]{}, 383(1999). N. G. van Kampen, [*Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry*]{} (North-Holland Physics Publishing, Amsterdam, 1984). I. Podlubny, *Fractional Differential Equations* (Academic Press, San Diego, 1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Matrix completion aims to reconstruct a data matrix based on observations of a small number of its entries. Usually in matrix completion a single matrix is considered, which can be, for example, a rating matrix in recommendation system. However, in practical situations, data is often obtained from multiple sources which results in a collection of matrices rather than a single one. In this work, we consider the problem of collective matrix completion with multiple and heterogeneous matrices, which can be count, binary, continuous, etc. We first investigate the setting where, for each source, the matrix entries are sampled from an exponential family distribution. Then, we relax the assumption of exponential family distribution for the noise. In this setting, we do not assume any specific model for the observations. The estimation procedures are based on minimizing the sum of a goodness-of-fit term and the nuclear norm penalization of the whole collective matrix. We prove that the proposed estimators achieve fast rates of convergence under the two considered settings and we corroborate our results with numerical experiments.'
author:
- |
Mokhtar Z. Alaya\
Modal’X, UPL, Univ Paris Nanterre,\
F92000 Nanterre France\
`[email protected]`
- |
Olga Klopp\
ESSEC Business School & CREST\
F95021 Cergy France\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Collective Matrix Completion
---
*Keywords.* High-dimensional prediction; Exponential families; Low-rank matrix estimation; Nuclear norm minimization; Low-rank optimization; Matrix completion
Introduction
============
Completing large-scale matrices has recently attracted great interest in machine learning and data mining since it appears in a wide spectrum of applications such as recommender systems [@Koren09; @bobadilla2013], collaborative filtering (Netflix challenge) [@goldberg92; @rennie05], sensor network localization [@so05; @drineas06; @oh10], system identification [@liu09], image processing [@Hu2013-trruncated6389682], among many others. The basic principle of matrix completion consists in recovering all the entries of an unknown data matrix from incomplete and noisy observations of its entries.
To address the high-dimensionality in matrix completion problem, statistical inference based on low-rank constraint is now an ubiquitous technique for recovering the underlying data matrix. Thus, matrix completion can be formulated as minimizing the rank of the matrix given a random sample of its entries. However, this rank minimization problem is in general NP-hard due to the combinatorial nature of the rank function [@fazel2001; @fazelPhD-2000]. To alleviate this problem and make it tractable, convex relaxation strategies were proposed, e.g., the nuclear norm relaxation [@srebo2005; @candesPower2010; @recht2010a; @negahban2011; @klopp2014] or the max-norm relaxation [@cai2016]. Among those surrogate approximations, nuclear norm, which is defined as the sum of the singular values of the matrix or the $\ell_1$-norm of its spectrum, is probably the most widely used penalty for low-rank matrix estimation, since it is the tightest convex lower bound of the rank [@fazel2001].
#### Motivations.
Classical matrix completion focus on a single matrix, whereas in practical situations data is often obtained from a collection of matrices that may cover multiple and heterogeneous sources. For example, in e-commerce users express their feedback for different items such as books, movies, music, etc. In social networks like Facebook and Twitter users often share their opinions and interests on a variety of topics (politics, social events, health). In this examples, informations from multiple sources can be viewed as a collection of matrices coupled through a common set of users.
Rather than exploiting user preference data from each source independently, it may be beneficial to leverage all the available user data provided by various sources in order to generate more encompassing user models [@cantador2015]. For instance, some recommender system runs into the so-called [*cold-start problem*]{} [@lam2008-coldstart]. A user is new or “cold” in a source when he has few to none rated items. Such user may have a rating history in auxiliary sources and we can use his profile in the auxiliary sources to recommend relevant items in the target source. For example, a user’s favorite movie genres may be derived from his favorite book genres. Therefore, this shared structure among the sources can be useful to get better predictions [@singh2008; @bouchard13; @gunasekar2016].
More generally speaking, collective matrix completion finds a natural application in the problem of recommender system with side information. In this problem, in addition to the conventional user-item matrix, it is assumed that we have side information about each user [@chiang2015NIPS; @jain2013; @fithian2018; @agarwal2011]. For example, in blog recommendation task, we may have access to user generated content (images, tags and text) or user activity (e.g., likes and reblogs). Such side information may be used to improve the quality of recommendation of blogs of interest [@tumblr].
Based on the type of available side information, various methods for recommender systems with side information have been proposed. It can be user generated content [@armentano; @hannon], user/item profile or attribute [@agarwal2011], social network [@jamali; @ma] and context information [@natarajan]. A very interesting surveys of the state-of-the-art methods can be found in [@fithian2018; @natarajan].
On the other hand, our framework includes the model of Mixed Data Frames with missing observations [@pages2014multiple; @udell]. Here matrices collect categorical, numerical and count observations. They appear in numerous applications including in ecology, patient records in health care [@gunasekar2016], quantitative gene expression values [@natarajan2014; @zitnik2014MatrixFD; @zitnik2015], and also in recommender systems and survey data.
#### Main contributions and related literature.
In this paper, we extend the theory of low-rank matrix completion to a collection of multiple and heterogeneous matrices. We first consider general matrix completion setting where we assume that for each matrix its entries are sampled from natural exponential distributions [@lehmCase98]. In this setting, we may have Gaussian distribution for continuous data; Bernoulli for binary data; Poisson for count-data, etc. In a second part, we relax the assumption of exponential family distribution for the noise and we do not assume any specific model for the observations. This approach is more popular and widely used in machine learning. The proposed estimation procedure is based on minimizing the sum of a goodness-of-fit term and the nuclear norm penalization of the whole collective matrix. The key challenge in our analysis is to use joint low-rank structure and our algorithm is far from the trivial one which consists in estimating each source matrix separately. We provide theoretical guarantees on our estimation method and show that the collective approach provides faster rate of convergences. We further corroborate our theoretical findings through simulated experiments.
Previous works on collective matrix completion are mainly based on matrix factorization [@srebo2005]. In a nutshell, this approach fits the target matrix as the product of two low-rank matrices. Matrix factorization gives rise to non-convex optimization problems and its theoretical understanding is quite limited. For example, [@singh2008] proposed the collective matrix factorization that jointly factorizes multiple matrices sharing latent factors. As in our setting, each matrix can have a different value type and error distribution. In [@singh2008], the authors use Bregman divergences to measure the error and extend standard alternating projection algorithms to this setting. They consider a quite general setting which includes as a particular case the nuclear norm penalization approach that we study in the present paper. They do not provide any theoretical guarantee. A Bayesian model for collective matrix factorization was proposed in [@singh2010]. [@horii2014] and [@xu16aligned] also consider collective matrix factorization and investigate the strength of the relation among the source matrices. Their estimation procedure is based on penalization by the sum of the nuclear norms of the sources. The convex formulation for collective matrix factorization was proposed in [@bouchard13] where the authors consider a general situation when the set of matrices do not necessarily have a common set of rows/columns. When this is the case, the estimator proposed in [@bouchard13] is quite similar to ours. Their algorithm is based on the iterative Singular Value Thresholding and the authors conduct empirical evaluations of this approach on two real data sets.
Most of the previous papers focus on the algorithmic side without providing theoretical guarantees for the collective approach. One exception is the paper by [@gunasekar15consistent] where the authors prove consistency of the estimate under two observation models: noise-free and additive noise models. Their estimation procedure is based on minimizing the least squares loss penalized by the nuclear norm. To prove the consistency of their estimator, [@gunasekar15consistent] assume that all the source matrices share the same low-rank factor. They consider the uniform sampling scheme for the observations (see Assumptions 1 and 4 in [@gunasekar15consistent]). Uniform sampling is an usual assumption in matrix completion literature (see, e.g., [@candesPower2010; @candes2009; @davenport14]). This assumption is restrictive in many applications such as recommendations systems. The theoretical analysis in the present paper is carried out for general sampling distributions.
Similar to our setting, matrix completion with side information explores the available user data provided by various sources. For instance [@jain2013] and [@xu2013NIPS] introduce the so-called Inductive Matrix Completion (IMC). It models side information as knowledge of feature spaces. They show that if the features are perfect (e.,g., see Definition 1 in [@chiang2018jmlr] for perfect side information), the sample complexity can be reduced. More precisely, in works on matrix completion with side information, it is usually assumed that one has partially observed low-rank matrix of interest ${{\boldsymbol M}}\in \mathbb{R}^{d_1\times d_2}$ and, additionally, one has access to two matrices of features ${{\boldsymbol A}}\in \mathbb{R}^{d_1\times r_1}$ and ${{\boldsymbol B}}\in \mathbb{R}^{d_2\times r_2}$ where each row of ${{\boldsymbol A}}$ (or ${{\boldsymbol B}}$) denotes the feature of the $i$-th row (or column) entity of ${{\boldsymbol M}}$, $r_i<d_i$ for $i=1,2$ and ${{\boldsymbol M}}={{\boldsymbol A}}{\boldsymbol Z}{{\boldsymbol B}}^{T}$ . The main difference with our setting is that, here, ${{\boldsymbol A}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol B}}$ are assumed to be fully observed while our model allows also missing observations for the set of features. The perfect side information assumption is strong and hard to meet in practice. [@chiang2015NIPS] relaxed it by assuming that the side information may be noisy (not perfect). In this approach, referred as DirtyIMC, they assume that the unknown matrix is modeled as ${{\boldsymbol M}}={{\boldsymbol A}}{\boldsymbol Z}{{\boldsymbol B}}^{T}+ {{\boldsymbol N}}$ where the residual matrix ${{\boldsymbol N}}$ models imperfections and noise in the features.
Several works consider matrix completion side information. For example, [@chiang2015NIPS] proposes a method based on penalization by the sum of the nuclear norms of ${{\boldsymbol M}}$ and of each feature. Our method is based on the penalization by the nuclear norm of the whole matrix built of the matrix ${{\boldsymbol M}}$ and the features ${{\boldsymbol A}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol B}}$. In [@jain2013], the authors study the problem of low-rank matrix estimation using rank one measurements. In the noise-free setting, they assume that all the features are known and that the matrices of features are incoherent. The method proposed in [@jain2013] is based on non-convex matrix factorization. In [@fithian2018], the authors consider a general framework for reduced-rank modeling of matrix-valued data. They use a generalized weighted nuclear norm penalty where the matrix is multiplied by positive semidefinite matrices $P$ and $Q$ which depend on the matrix of features. In [@agarwal2011], the authors introduce a per-item user covariate logistic regression model augmenting with user-specific random effects. Their approach is based on a multilevel hierarchical model.
In the case of the heterogeneous data coming from different sources, these approaches can be applied for recovering each source separately. In contrast, our approach aims at collecting all the available information in a single matrix which results in faster rates of convergence. On the other hand, popular algorithms for matrix completion with side information, such as Maxide in [@xu2013NIPS] and AltMin in [@jain2013], are based on the least square loss which could be not suitable for data coming from non-Gaussian distributions.
If we consider a single matrix, our model includes as particular case $1$-bit matrix completion and, more generally, matrix completion with exponential family noise. $1$-bit matrix completion was first studied in [@davenport14], where the observed entries are assumed to be sampled uniformly at random. This problem was also studied among others by [@cai2013jmlr-onebitmaxnorm; @klopp2015EJS-adaptive-onebit; @alquier2017]. Matrix completion with exponential family noise (for a single matrix) was previously considered in [@pmlr-v40-lafond15] and [@gunasekar2014jmlr]. In these papers authors assume sampling with replacement where there can be multiple observations for the same entry. In the present paper, we consider more natural setting for matrix completion where each entry may be observed at most once. Our result improves the known results on $1$-bit matrix completion and on matrix completion with exponential family noise. In particular, we obtain exact minimax optimal rate of convergence for $1$-bit matrix completion and matrix completion with exponential noise which was known up to a logarithmic factor (for more details see Remark \[example-1bitMC\] in Section \[section-exponential-noise\]).
#### Organization of the paper.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follow. In Section \[subsection-notations\], we introduce basic notation and definitions. Section \[sec:collective\_exponential\_family\_matrix\_completion\] sets up the formalism for the collective matrix completion. In Section \[section-exponential-noise\], we investigate the exponential family noise model. In Section \[section-distribution-free\], we study distribution-free setup and we provide the upper bound on the excess risk. To verify the theoretical findings, we corroborate our results with numerical experiments in Section \[section-numeric-expes\], where we present an efficient iterative algorithm that solves the maximum likelihood approximately. The proofs of the main results and key technical lemmas are postponed to the appendices.
Preliminaries {#subsection-notations}
-------------
For the reader’s convenience, we provide a brief summary of the standard notation and the definitions that will be frequently used throughout the paper.
#### Notation.
For any positive integer $m$, we use $[m]$ to denote $\{1, \ldots, m\}.$ We use capital bold symbols such as ${\boldsymbol X}, {\boldsymbol{Y}}, {{\boldsymbol A}},$ to denote matrices. For a matrix ${{\boldsymbol A}},$ we denote its $(i,j)$-th entry by $A_{ij}$. As usual, let ${\|{{\boldsymbol A}}\|}_F = \sqrt{\sum_{i,j}A_{ij}^2}$ be the Frobenius norm and let ${\|{{\boldsymbol A}}\|}_\infty = \max_{i,j}|A_{ij}|$ denote the elementwise $\ell_\infty$-norm. Additionally, ${\|{{\boldsymbol A}}\|}_{*}$ stands for the nuclear norm (trace norm), that is ${\|{{\boldsymbol A}}\|}_{*} = \sum_i \sigma_i({{\boldsymbol A}})$ where $\sigma_1({{\boldsymbol A}}) \geq \sigma_2({{\boldsymbol A}}) \geq \cdots$ are singular values of ${{\boldsymbol A}}$, and ${\|{{\boldsymbol A}}\|} = \sigma_1({{\boldsymbol A}})$ to denote the operator norm. The inner product between two matrices is denoted by ${\langle {{\boldsymbol A}}, {{\boldsymbol B}}\rangle} = \text{tr}({{\boldsymbol A}}^\top{{\boldsymbol B}}) = \sum_{ij}A_{ij}B_{ij}$, where $\text{tr}(\cdot)$ denotes the trace of a matrix. We write $\partial\Psi$ the subdifferential mapping of a convex functional $\Psi$. Given two real numbers $a$ and $b$, we write $a\vee b = \max(a,b)$ and $a\wedge b = \min(a,b).$ The symbols ${\mathds{P}}$ and ${\mathds{E}}$ denote generic probability and expectation operators whose distribution is determined from the context. The notation ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$ will be used to denote positive constant, that might change from one instance to the other.
A distribution of a random variable $X$ is said to belong to the natural exponential family, if its probability density function characterized by the parameter ${\eta}$ is given by: $$X|\eta \sim f_{h,G}(x|\eta) = h(x)\exp\big({\eta x} - G({\eta})\big),$$ where $h$ is a nonnegative function, called the base measure function, which is independent of the parameter $\eta$. The function $G(\eta)$ is strictly convex, and is called the $\log$-partition function, or the cumulant function. This function uniquely defines a particular member distribution of the exponential family, and can be computed as: $G(\eta) = \log\big(\int_{} h(x) \exp({\eta x})dx\big)$.
If $G$ is smooth enough, we have that ${\mathds{E}}[X] = {G}'(\eta)$ and ${\mathds{V}}ar[X] = {G}''(\eta),$ where $G'$ stands for the derivative of $G$. The exponential family encompasses a wide large of standard distributions such as:
- Normal, $\mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma^2)$ (known $\sigma$), is typically used to model continuous data, with natural parameter $\eta = \frac{\mu}{\sigma^2}$ and $G(\eta) = \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\eta^2$.
- Gamma, $\Gamma(\lambda, \alpha)$ (known $\alpha$), is often used to model positive valued continuous data, with natural parameter $\eta=-{\lambda}$ and $G(\eta) = -\alpha\log(-\eta)$.
- Negative binomial, $\mathcal{NB}(p, r)$ (known $r$), is a popular distribution to model overdispersed count data, whose variance is larger than their mean, with natural parameter $\eta = \log(1 - p)$ and $G(\eta) = -r\log(1 -\exp(\eta))$.
- Binomial, $\mathcal{B}(p,N)$ (known $N$), is used to model number of successes in $N$ trials, with natural parameter $\eta = \log(\frac{p}{1-p})$ (logit function) and $G(\eta) = N\log(1 + \exp(\eta))$.
- Poisson, $\mathcal{P}(\lambda)$, is used to model count data, with natural parameter $\eta = \log(\lambda)$ and $G(\eta) =\exp(\eta)$.
Exponential, chi-squared, Rayleigh, Bernoulli and geometric distributions are special cases of the above five distributions.
Let $S$ be a closed convex subset of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^m$ and $\Phi: S \subset \textbf{dom}(\Phi)\rightarrow {{\mathbb{R}}}$ a continuously-differentiable and strictly convex function. The Bregman divergence associated with $\Phi$ [@bregman1967; @censor1997] $d_\Phi: S \times S \rightarrow [0, \infty)$ is defined as $$d_\Phi(x, y) = \Phi(x) - \Phi(y) - {\langle x - y, \nabla \Phi(y) \rangle},$$ where $\nabla \Phi(y)$ represents the gradient vector of $\Phi$ evaluated at $y$.
The value of the Bregman divergence $d_\Phi(x, y)$ can be viewed as the difference between the value of $\Phi$ at $x$ and the first Taylor expansion of $\Phi$ around $y$ evaluated at point $x$. For exponential family distributions, the Bregman divergence corresponds to the Kullback-Leibler divergence [@banerjee2005] with $\Phi=G$.
Collective matrix completion {#sec:collective_exponential_family_matrix_completion}
============================
Assume that we observe a collection of matrices ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}} = ({\boldsymbol X}^1, \ldots, {\boldsymbol X}^V)$. In this collection components ${\boldsymbol X}^v \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times d_v}$ have a common set of rows. This common set of rows corresponds, for example, to a common set of users in a recommendation system. The set of columns of each matrix ${\boldsymbol X}^v$ corresponds to a different type of entity. In the case of recommender system it can be books, films, video game, etc. Then, the entries of each matrix ${\boldsymbol X}^v$ corresponds to the user’s rankings for this particular type of products.
We assume that the distribution of each matrix ${\boldsymbol X}^v$ depends on the matrix of parameters ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v$. This distribution can be different for different $v$. For instance, we can have binary observations for one matrix ${\boldsymbol X}^{v_1}$ with entries which correspond, for example, to like/dislike labels for a certain type of products, multinomial for another matrix ${\boldsymbol X}^{v_2}$ with ranking going from $1$ to $5$ and Gaussian for a third matrix ${\boldsymbol X}^{v_3}$.
As it happens in many applications, we assume that for each matrix ${\boldsymbol X}^v$ we observe only a small subset of its entries. We consider the following model: for $v\in[V]$ and $(i,j) \in [d_u]\times [d_v]$, let $B^v_{ij}$ be independent Bernoulli random variables with parameter $\pi^v_{ij}$. We suppose that $B^v_{ij}$ are independent from $X^v_{ij}$. Then, we observe $Y^v_{ij} = B^v_{ij}X^v_{ij}$. We can think of the $B^v_{ij}$ as masked variables. If $B^v_{ij} =1$, we observe the corresponding entry of ${\boldsymbol X}^v$, and when $B^v_{ij}=0$, we have a missing observation.
In the simplest situation each coefficient is observed with the same probability, i.e. for every $v\in[V]$ and $(i,j)\in [d_u] \times [d_v], \pi^v_{ij} = \pi$. In many practical applications, this assumption is not realistic. For example, for a recommendation system, some users are more active than others and some items are more popular than others and thus rated more frequently. Hence, the sampling distribution is in fact non-uniform. In the present paper, we consider general sampling model where we only assume that each entry is observed with a positive probability:
\[assump-prob-items\] Assume that there exists a positive constant $0 < p < 1$ such that $$\min_{v\in[V]}\min_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}\pi^v_{ij} \geq p.$$
Let $\Pi$ denotes the joint distribution of the Bernoulli variables $\big\{B_{ij}^v: (i,j)\in [d_u]\times [d_v], v\in[V]\big\}$. For any matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u\times D}$ where $D=\sum_{v\in[V]}d_v$, we define the weighted Frobenius norm $$\begin{aligned}
{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2 = \sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}\pi^v_{ij}(A^v_{ij})^2.\end{aligned}$$ Assumption \[assump-prob-items\] implies ${\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2 \geq p {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\|}_{F}^2.$ For each $v\in[V]$ let us denote $\pi^v_{i{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}} = \sum_{j=1}^{d_v}\pi^v_{ij}$ and $\pi^v_{{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}j} =\sum_{i=1}^{d_u}\pi^v_{ij}$. Note we can easily get an estimations of $\pi^v_{i{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}}$ and $\pi^v_{{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}j}$ using the empirical frequencies: $$\widehat{\pi^v_{i{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}}} = \sum_{j\in[d_v]} B_{ij}^v
\quad \text {and} \quad \widehat{\pi^v_{{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}j}} = \sum_{i\in[d_u]} B_{ij}^v.$$ Let $\pi_{i{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}} = \sum_{v\in[V]}\pi^v_{i{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}}$, $\pi_{{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}j} =\max_{v\in[V]} \pi^v_{{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}j}$, and $\mu$ be an upper bound of its maximum, that is $$\label{upper-bound-marginal}
\max\limits_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times [d_v]}(\pi_{i{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}}, \pi_{{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}j}) \leq \mu.$$
Exponential family noise {#section-exponential-noise}
========================
In this section we assume that for each $v$ distribution of ${\boldsymbol X}^v$ belongs to the exponential family, that is $$\label{exponetial-model}
{X}^v_{ij}|M^v_{ij}\sim f_{h^v,G^v}({X}^v_{ij}|M^v_{ij}) = h^v({X}^v_{ij})\exp\big({X}^v_{ij}M^v_{ij} - G^v(M^v_{ij})\big).$$
We denote ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}= ({{\boldsymbol M}}^1, \ldots, {{\boldsymbol M}}^V)$ and let $\gamma$ be an upper bound on the sup-norm of ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}$, that is $\gamma = |\gamma_1| \vee |\gamma_2|$, where $\gamma_1 \leq M^v_{ij} \leq \gamma_2$ for every $v\in [V]$ and $(i,j) \in [d_u] \times [d_v]$. Hereafter, we denote by $\mathscr{C}_\infty(\gamma) = \big\{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times D}: {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\|}_\infty \leq \gamma\big\}$, the $\ell_\infty$-norm ball with radius $\gamma$ in the space ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times D}$. We need the following assumptions on densities $f_{h^v,G^v}$:
\[assump-Gv-bound\] For each $v\in[V]$, we assume that the function $G^v(\cdot)$ is twice differentiable and there exits two constants $L^2_\gamma, U_\gamma^2$ satisfying: $$\label{assum-frist-claim}
\sup_{\eta \in[-\gamma - \frac{1}{K}, \gamma + \frac{1}{K}]}({G^v})''(\eta) \leq U^2_\gamma,$$ and $$\label{assum-second-claim}
\inf\limits_{\eta \in[-\gamma - \frac{1}{K}, \gamma + \frac{1}{K}]}(G^v)''(\eta) \geq L^2_\gamma,$$ for some $K>0$.
The first statement, , in Assumption \[assump-Gv-bound\] ensures that the distributions of $X^v_{ij}$ have uniformly bounded variances and sub-exponential tails (see Lemma \[lemma-subgaussian-tail-X\] in Appendix \[appendix-sub-exponentail-RV\]). The second one, , is the strong convexity condition satisfied by the log-partition function $G^v$. This assumption is satisfied for most standard distributions presented in the previous section. In Table \[table:glm\], we list the corresponding constants in Assumption \[assump-Gv-bound\].
Model $(G^v)'(\eta)$ $(G^v)''(\eta)$ $ L^2_\gamma$ $U^2_\gamma$
---------------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- --
Normal $\sigma^2 \eta$ $\sigma^2$ $\sigma^2$ $\sigma^2$
Binomial $\frac{Ne^\eta}{1+e^\eta}$ $\frac{Ne^\eta}{(1+e^\eta)^2}$ $\frac{Ne^{-(\gamma + \frac{1}{K})}}{(1 + e^{\gamma + \frac{1}{K}})^2}$ $\frac{N}{4}$
Gamma (if $\gamma_1\gamma_2 >0$) $-\frac{\alpha}{\eta}$ $\frac{\alpha}{\eta^2}$ $\frac{\alpha}{(\gamma + \frac{1}{K})^2}$ $\frac{\alpha}{(|\gamma_1|\wedge |\gamma_2|)^2}$
Negative binomial $\frac{re^\eta}{1 -e^\eta}$ $\frac{re^\eta}{(1-e^\eta)^2}$ $\frac{re^{-(\gamma + \frac{1}{K})}}{(1 - e^{-(\gamma + \frac{1}{K})})^2}$ $\frac{re^{(\gamma + \frac{1}{K})}}{(1 - e^{\gamma + \frac{1}{K}})^2}$
Poisson $e^\eta$ $e^\eta$ $e^{-(\gamma + \frac{1}{K})}$ $e^{(\gamma + \frac{1}{K})}$
: Examples of the corresponding constants $L_\gamma^2$ and $U^2_\gamma$ from Assumption \[assump-Gv-bound\].[]{data-label="table:glm"}
Estimation procedure {#sec:theoretical_guarantees}
--------------------
To estimate the collection of matrices of parameters ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}= ({{\boldsymbol M}}^1, \ldots, {{\boldsymbol M}}^V)$, we use penalized negative log-likelihood. Let ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u\times D}$, we divide it in $V$ blocks ${\boldsymbol W}^v \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u\times d_v}$: ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}= ({\boldsymbol W}^1, \ldots, {\boldsymbol W}^V)$. Given observations ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}= ({\boldsymbol{Y}}^1, \ldots, {\boldsymbol{Y}}^V)$, we write the negative log-likelihood as $$\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}})= -\frac{1}{d_uD} \sum_{v \in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times [d_v]} B_{ij}^v\big(Y_{ij}^vW^v_{ij} - G^v(W^v_{ij})\big).$$ The nuclear norm penalized estimator $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$ of ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}$ is defined as follows: $$\label{def-estimator}
\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} = (\widehat{{{\boldsymbol M}}}^1, \ldots, \widehat{{{\boldsymbol M}}}^V) = \operatorname*{\arg\!\min}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}_\infty(\gamma)}\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}) + \lambda {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\|}_*,$$ where $\lambda$ is a positive regularization parameter that balances the trade-off between model fit and privileging a low-rank solution. Namely, for large value of $\lambda$ the rank of the estimator $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$ is expected to be small.
Let the collection of matrices $(E^v_{11}, \ldots, E^v_{d_ud_v})$ form the canonical basis in the space of matrices of size $d_u \times d_v$. The entry of $(E^v_{ij})$ is $0$ everywhere except for the $(i,j)$-th entry where it equals to $1.$ For $(\varepsilon^v_{ij})_{}$, an $i.i.d$ Rademacher sequence, we define ${\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R = ({\boldsymbol \Sigma}^1_R, \ldots, {\boldsymbol \Sigma}^V_R)$ where for all $v\in [V]$ $${\boldsymbol \Sigma}^v_R = \frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]}\varepsilon^v_{ij}B_{ij}^vE^v_{ij}.$$
We now state the main result concerning the recovery of ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}$. Theorem \[theorem1\] gives a general upper bound on the estimation error of $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$ defined by . Its proof is postponed in Appendix \[proof-theorem1\].
\[theorem1\] Assume that Assumptions \[assump-prob-items\] and \[assump-Gv-bound\] hold, and $\lambda \geq 2 {\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|}.$ Then, with probability exceeding $1 - 4/(d_u+D)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{\Pi,F} \leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}}{p}\max\Big\{d_uD\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\Big(\frac{\lambda^2}{L_\gamma^4} + \gamma^2({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2\Big), \frac{\gamma^2\log(d_u +D)}{{d_uD}}\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$ is a numerical constant.
Using Assumption \[assump-prob-items\], Theorem \[theorem1\] implies the following bound on the estimation error measured in normalized Frobenius norm.
Under assumptions of Theorem \[theorem1\] and with probability exceeding $1 - 4/(d_u +D)$, we have $$\frac{1}{d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{F} \leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}}{p^2}\max\Big\{d_uD\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\Big(\frac{\lambda^2}{L_\gamma^4} + \gamma^2({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2\Big), \frac{\gamma^2\log(d_u +D)}{{d_uD}}\Big\}.$$
In order to get a bound in a closed form we need to obtain a suitable upper bounds on ${\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}]$ and on ${\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|}$ with high probability. Therefore we use the following two lemmas.
\[lemma-ctrl-sigmaR\] There exists an absolute constant ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$ such that $$\label{ctrl-sigmaR}
{\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}] \leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\Big(\frac{\sqrt{\mu} + \sqrt{\log(d_u \wedge D)}}{d_uD}\Big).$$
\[lemma-lemma-ctrl-bSigma\] Let Assumption \[assump-Gv-bound\] holds. Then, there exists an absolute constant ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$ such that, with probability at least $1 - 4 /(d_u + D)$, we have $$\label{lemma-ctrl-bSigma}
{\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|} \leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\bigg(\frac{(U_\gamma \vee K)\big(\sqrt{\mu} + (\log(d_u \vee D))^{3/2}\big)}{d_uD} \bigg).$$
The proofs of Lemmas \[lemma-ctrl-sigmaR\] and \[lemma-lemma-ctrl-bSigma\] are postponed to Appendices \[proof-lemma-ctrl-sigmaR\] and \[proof-lemma-ctrl-bSigma\]. Recall that the condition on $\lambda$ in Theorem \[theorem1\] is that $\lambda \geq 2 {\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|}.$ Using Lemma \[lemma-lemma-ctrl-bSigma\], we can choose $$\lambda = 2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\frac{(U_\gamma \vee K) \big(\sqrt{\mu} + (\log(d_u \vee D))^{3/2}\big)}{d_uD}.$$ With this choice of $\lambda$, we obtain the following theorem:
\[theorem2\] Let Assumptions \[assump-prob-items\] and \[assump-Gv-bound\] be satisfied. Then, with probability exceeding $1 - 4/(d_u+D)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{\Pi,F}
\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})}{pd_uD}&\Big(\gamma^2+ \frac{(U_\gamma \vee K)^2}{L^4_\gamma}\Big) \big(\mu+ \log^3(d_u \vee D)\big),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{F}\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})}{p^2d_uD}
&\Big(\gamma^2+ \frac{(U_\gamma \vee K)^2}{L^4_\gamma}\Big) \big(\mu+ \log^3(d_u \vee D)\big),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$ is an absolute constant.
\[remark-1-expnoise\] Note that the rate of convergence in Theorem \[theorem2\] has the following dominant term: $$\label{dominant-order}
\frac{1}{d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{F} \lesssim \frac{\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\mu}{p^2d_uD},$$ where the symbol $\lesssim$ means that the inequality holds up to a multiplicative constant. If we assume that the sampling distribution is close to the uniform one, that is that there exists positive constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ such that for every $v\in[V]$ and $(i,j)\in[d_u]\times [d_v]$ we have $c_1p \leq \pi^v_{ij} \leq c_2p$, then Theorem \[theorem2\] yields $$\label{dominant-order}
\frac{1}{d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{F} \lesssim \frac{\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})}{p(d_u\wedge D)}.$$
If we complete each matrix separately, the error will be of the order $\sum_{v=1}^V \operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol M}}^v) /p(d_u\wedge D)$. As $\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) \leq \sum_{v=1}^V \operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol M}}^v)$, the rate of convergence achieved by our estimator is faster compared to the penalization by the sum-nuclear-norm.
In order to get a small estimation error, $p$ should be larger than $\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})/(d_u\wedge D)$. We denote $n=\sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}\pi^v_{ij},$ the expected number of observations. Then, we get the following condition on $n$: $$n \geq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) (d_u\vee D).$$
\[example-1bitMC\] In $1$-bit matrix completion [@davenport14; @klopp2015EJS-adaptive-onebit; @alquier2017], instead of observing the actual entries of the unknown matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d \times D}$, for a random subset of its entries $\Omega$ we observe $\{Y_{ij}\in \{+1, -1\}:(i,j)\in\Omega\}$, where $Y_{ij}=1$ with probability $f(M_{ij})$ for some link-function $f$. In [@davenport14] the parameter ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}$ is estimated by minimizing the negative log-likelihood under the constraints ${\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_\infty \leq \gamma$ and ${\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_* \leq \gamma \sqrt{rdD}$ for some $r >0$. Under the assumption that $\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) \leq r,$ the authors prove that $$\label{onebit-davenport}
\frac{1}{dD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{F} \leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_\gamma\sqrt{\frac{r(d \vee D)}{n}},$$ where ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_\gamma$ is a constant depending on $\gamma$ (see Theorem 1 in [@davenport14]). A similar result using max-norm minimization was obtained in [@cai2013jmlr-onebitmaxnorm]. In [@klopp2015EJS-adaptive-onebit] the authors prove a faster rate. Their upper bound (see Corollary 2 in [@klopp2015EJS-adaptive-onebit]) is given by $$\label{onebit-klopplafondsalmon}
\frac{1}{dD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{F} \leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_\gamma \frac{\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})(d\vee D)\log(d \vee D)}{n}.$$ In the particular case of $1$-bit matrix completion for a single matrix under uniform sampling scheme, Theorem \[theorem2\] implies the following bound: $$\frac{1}{dD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{F} \leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_\gamma \frac{\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})(d \vee D)}{n},$$ which improves by a logarithmic factor. Furthermore, [@klopp2015EJS-adaptive-onebit] provide $\operatorname{rank}(M)(d\vee D)/n$ as the lower bound for $1$-bit matrix completion (see Theorem 3 in [@klopp2015EJS-adaptive-onebit]). So our result answers the important theoretical question what is the exact minimax rate of convergence for $1$-bit matrix completion which was previously known up to a logarithmic factor.
In a more general setting of matrix completion with exponential family noise, the minimax optimal rate of convergence was also known only up to logarithmic factor (see [@pmlr-v40-lafond15]). Our result provides the exact minimax optimal rate in this more general setting too. It is easy to see, by inspection of the proof of the lower bound in [@pmlr-v40-lafond15], that the upper bound provided by Theorem \[theorem2\] is optimal for the collective matrix completion.
Note that our estimation method is based on the minimization of the nuclear-norm of the whole collective matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}$. Another possibility is to penalize by the sum of the nuclear norms $\sum_{v\in[V]} {\|{{\boldsymbol M}}^v\|}_*$ (see, e.g., [@klopp2015EJS-adaptive-onebit]). This approach consists in estimating each component matrix independently.
General losses {#section-distribution-free}
==============
In the previous section we assume that the link functions $G^v$ are known. This assumption is not realistic in many applications. In this section we relax this assumption in the sense that we do not assume any specific model for the observations. Recall that our observations are a collection of partially observed matrices ${\boldsymbol{Y}}^v = (B_{ij}^vX_{i,j}^v)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times d_v}$ for $v=1, \ldots, V$ and ${\boldsymbol X}^v = (X_{ij}^v) \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u\times d_v}$. We are interested in the problem of prediction of the entries of the collective matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}=({\boldsymbol X}^1, \ldots, {\boldsymbol X}^V)$. We consider the risk of estimating ${\boldsymbol X}^v$ with a loss function $\ell^v$, which measures the discrepancy between the predicted and actual value with respect to the given observations. We focus on non-negative convex loss functions that are Lipschitz:
\[assumption-lipshitzloss\] (Lipschitz loss function) For every $v\in [V]$, we assume that the loss function $\ell^v(y, \cdot)$ is $\rho_v$-Lipschitz in its second argument: $|\ell^v(y,x) - \ell^v(y,x')| \leq \rho_v|x- x'|.$
Some examples of the loss functions that are $1$-Lipschitz are: hinge loss $\ell(y, y') = \max(0, 1 - yy')$, logistic loss $\ell(y, y') = \log(1 + \exp(-yy'))$, and quantile regression loss $\ell(y, y') = \ell_\tau(y'-y)$ where $\tau\in (0,1)$ and $\ell_\tau(z) = z (\tau - {{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}(z\leq 0))$.
For a matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}= ({{\boldsymbol M}}^1, \ldots, {{\boldsymbol M}}^V) \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u\times D}$, we define the empirical risk as $${R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})= \frac{1}{d_uD} \sum_{v \in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times [d_v]} B^v_{ij}\ell^v(Y^v_{ij}, M^v_{ij}).$$ We define the oracle as: $$\label{oracle-ranking}
{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} = \big({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{{{\boldsymbol M}}}}^1, \ldots, {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{{{\boldsymbol M}}}}^V\big) = \operatorname*{\arg\!\min}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{C}_\infty(\gamma)} {R}_{}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}})$$ where ${R}_{}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) = {\mathds{E}}[{R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}})]$. Here the expectation is taken over the joint distribution of $\{(Y_{ij}^v, B_{ij}^v): (i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v] \text{ and } v\in[V]\}.$ We use machine learning approach and will provide an estimator $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$ that predicts almost as well as ${\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}$. Thus we will consider excess risk ${R}_{}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - {R}_{}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})$. By construction, the excess risk is always positive.
For a tuning parameter $\Lambda > 0$, the nuclear norm penalized estimator $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$ is defined as $$\label{def-estimator-Lip-loss}
\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} \in \operatorname*{\arg\!\min}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{C}_\infty(\gamma)} \big\{{R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}})+ \Lambda {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\|}_*\big\}.$$ We next turn to the assumption needed to establish an upper bound on the performance of the estimator $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$ defined in .
\[assumption-Bernstein-condition\] Assume that there exists a constant ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}> 0$ such that for every ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{C}_\infty(\gamma)$, we have $${R}_{}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - {R}_{}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\geq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}}{d_uD}{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}- {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}^{2}_{\Pi,F}.$$
This assumption has been extensively studied in the learning theory literature [@MENDELSON2008380; @zhang2004behaviourconsitensy; @bartellet2004nips; @alquier2017; @elsener2017], and it is called “Bernstein” condition. It is satisfied in various cases of loss function [@alquier2017] and it ensures a sufficient convexity of the risk around the oracle defined in . Note that when the loss function $\ell^v$ is strongly convex, the risk function inherits this property and automatically satisfies the margin condition. In other cases, this condition requires strong assumptions on the distribution of the observations, for instance for hinge loss or quantile loss (see Section 6 in [@alquier2017]). The following result gives an upper bound on the excess risk of the estimator $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$.
\[theorem-oracle-ranking\] Let Assumptions \[assump-prob-items\], \[assumption-lipshitzloss\] and \[assumption-Bernstein-condition\] hold and set $\rho=\max_{v\in[V]}\rho_v$. Suppose that $\Lambda \geq 2 \sup\{{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}: {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\in \partial{R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\}.$ Then, with probability at least $1 - 4/(d_u+D)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}}{p} \max\Big\{\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})d_uD\Big(\rho^{3/2}\sqrt{\gamma/{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}}({\mathds{E}}[&{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2 + \frac{\Lambda^2}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}} \Big),\\
& \frac{\big(\rho\gamma + \rho^{3/2}\sqrt{\gamma/{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}}}\big)\log(d_u+D)}{d_uD}\Big\}.\\\end{aligned}$$
Theorem \[theorem-oracle-ranking\] gives a general upper bound on the prediction error of the estimator $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$. Its proof is presented in Appendix \[proof-of-theorem-oracle-ranking\]. In order to get a bound in a closed form we need to obtain a suitable upper bounds on $\sup\{{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}: {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\in \partial({R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}))\}$ with high probability.
\[lemma-upper-bound-bSigmastar\] Let Assumption \[assumption-lipshitzloss\] holds. Then, there exists an absolute constant ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$ such that, with probability at least $1 - 4 /(d_u + D)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}\leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\frac{\rho\big(\sqrt{\mu} + \sqrt{\log(d_u \vee D)}\big)}{d_uD},\end{aligned}$$ for all ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\in \partial{R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}).$
The proof of Lemma \[lemma-upper-bound-bSigmastar\] is given in Appendix \[proof-lemma-upper-bound-bSigmastar\]. Using Lemma \[lemma-upper-bound-bSigmastar\] , we can choose $$\Lambda = 2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\frac{\rho\big(\sqrt{\mu} + \sqrt{\log(d_u \vee D)}\big)}{d_uD}$$ and with this choice of $\Lambda$ and Lemma \[lemma-ctrl-sigmaR\], we obtain the following theorem:
\[theorem-excess-risk\] Let Assumptions \[assump-prob-items\], \[assumption-lipshitzloss\] and \[assumption-Bernstein-condition\] hold. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}}{p} \operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\frac{(\rho^2 +\rho^{3/2}\sqrt{\gamma/{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}})(\mu + \log(d_u \vee D))}{d_uD},\end{aligned}$$ with probability at least $1 - 4/(d_u+D)$.
Using Assumption \[assumption-Bernstein-condition\], we get the following corollary:
With probability at least $1 - 4/(d_u+D)$, we have $$\frac{1}{d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_{F}^2 \leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}}{p^2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}} \operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \frac{(\rho^2 +\rho^{3/2}\sqrt{\gamma/{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}})(\mu + \log(d_u \vee D))}{d_uD}.$$
#### $1$-bit matrix completion.
In $1$-bit matrix completion with logistic (resp. hinge) loss, the Bernstein assumption is satisfied with ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}= 1/(4e^{2\gamma})$ (resp. ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}=2\tau$, for some $\tau$ that verifies $|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij} - 1/2| \geq \tau, \forall v\in[V], (i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]$). More details for these constants can be found in Propositions 6.1 and 6.3 in [@alquier2017]. Then, the excess risk with respect to these two losses under the uniform sampling is given by:
\[corollary:logisticloss-1bitMC-excessrisk\] With probability at least $1 - 4/(d_u+D)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \leq {{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}}\frac{\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{p(d_u\wedge D)}.\end{aligned}$$
These results are obtained without a logarithmic factor, and it improves the ones given in Theorems 4.2 and 4.4 in [@alquier2017]. The natural loss in this context is the $0/1$ loss which is often replaced by the hinge or the logistic loss. We assume without loss of generality that $\gamma =1$, since the Bayes classifier has its entries in $[-1, 1]$, and we define the classification excess risk by: $$R_{0/1}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) = \frac{1}{d_uD} \sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}\pi_{ij}^v {\mathds{P}}[X_{ij}^v \neq \text{sign}(M^v_{ij})],$$ for all ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times D}.$ Using Theorem 2.1 in [@zhang2004behaviourconsitensy], we have $$R_{0/1}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R_{0/1}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\sqrt{\frac{\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{p(d_u\wedge D)}}.$$
Numerical experiments {#section-numeric-expes}
=====================
In this section, we first provide algorithmic details of the numerical procedure for solving the problem , then we conduct experiments on synthetic data to further illustrate the theoretical results of the collective matrix completion.
Algorithm
---------
The collective matrix completion problem is a semidefinite program (SDP), since it is a nuclear norm minimization problem with a convex feasible domain [@fazel2001; @srebo2005]. We may solve it, for example, via the interior-point method [@Liu-Interirodoi:10.1137/090755436]. However, SDP solvers can handle a moderate dimensions, thus such formulation is not scalable due to the storage and computation complexity in low-rank matrix completion tasks. In the following, we present an algorithm that solves the problem approximately and in a more efficient way than solving it as SDP.
#### Proximal Gradient.
Problem can be solved by first-order optimization methods such as proximal gradient (PG) which has been popularly used for optimizations problems of the form of [@Beck:2009:FIS:1658360.1658364; @Nesterov2013; @Parikh:2014:PA:2693612.2693613; @jiye2009; @mazumder2010SoftImpute; @Yao:2015:AIS:2832747.2832807]. When $\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}$ has $L$-Lipschitz continuous gradient, that is ${\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}) - \nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}})\|}_F \leq L {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\|}_F$, the PG generates a sequence of estimates $\{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_t\}$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{pgd-algorithm}
{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_{t+1} &= \operatorname*{\arg\!\min}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}}\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}) + ({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_t)^\top \nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_t) + \frac{L}{2} {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_t\|}_F^2 + \lambda{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\|}_*\nonumber\\
&= \text{prox}_{\frac{\lambda}{L}{\|\cdot\|}_*}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t), \text{ where } {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t = {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_t - \frac 1L \nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_t) \end{aligned}$$
and for any convex function $\Psi:{{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u\times D} \mapsto {{\mathbb{R}}}$, the associated proximal operator at ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times D}$ is defined as $$\text{prox}_\Psi({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}) = \operatorname*{\arg\!\min}\big\{\frac 12 {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\|}_F^2 + \Psi({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}): {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times D}\big\}.$$ The proximal operator of the nuclear norm at ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times D}$ corresponds to the singular value thresholding ([SVT]{}) operator of ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}$ [@can2010SVTAlgo]. That is, assuming a singular value decomposition ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}= {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{U}}}{\boldsymbol \Sigma}{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}^\top,$ where ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{U}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times r}$, ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{D\times r}$ have orthonormal columns, ${\boldsymbol \Sigma}= (\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_r)$, with $\sigma_1 \geq \cdots \geq \sigma_r > 0$ and $r = \operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}})$, we have $$\label{svt-prox}
\text{{SVT}}_{\lambda/L}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}) = {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{U}}}\text{diag}((\sigma_1 - \lambda/L)_{+}, \ldots, (\sigma_r - \lambda/L)_{+}){\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}^\top,$$ where $(a)_{+} = \max(a, 0)$.
Although PG can be implemented easily, it converges slowly when the Lipschitz constant $L$ is large. In such scenarios, the rate is ${\mathcal{O}}(1/T)$, where $T$ is the number of iterations [@Parikh:2014:PA:2693612.2693613]. Nevertheless, it can be accelerated by replacing ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t$ in with $$\label{acc-pgd}
{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}_t = (1 + \theta_t) {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_t - \theta_t {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_{t-1}, \quad {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t = {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}_t - \eta \nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}_t).$$ Several choices for $\theta_t$ can be used. The resultant accelerated proximal gradient (APG) (see Algorithm \[algorithm-apgd\]) converges with the optimal ${\mathcal{O}}(1/T^2)$ rate [@Nesterov2013; @Ji:2009:AGM:1553374.1553434].
**initialize:** ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_0 = {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_1 = {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}},$ and $ \alpha_0 = \alpha_1 = 1$.\
#### Approximate SVT [@Yao:2015:AIS:2832747.2832807].
To compute ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_{t+1}$ in the proximal step (SVT) in Algorithm \[algorithm-apgd\], we need first perform [SVD]{} of ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t$ given in . In general, obtaining the [SVD]{} of $d_u\times D$ matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t$ requires ${\mathcal{O}}((d_u \wedge D) d_uD)$ operations, because its most expensive steps are computing matrix-vector multiplications. Since the computation of the proximal operator of the nuclear norm given in does not require to do the full SVD, only a few singular values of ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t$ which are larger than $\lambda/L$ are needed. Assume that there are $\hat k$ such singular values. As ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_t$ converges to a low-rank solution ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_*$, $\hat k$ will be small during iterating. [The power method [@Halkodoi:10.1137/090771806] at Algorithm \[power-method\] is a simple and efficient to capture subspace spanned by top-$k$ singular vectors for $\hat k \geq k$.]{} Additionally, the power method also allows warm-start, which is particularly useful because the iterative nature of APG algorithm. Once an approximation ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}$ is found, we have $\textrm{SVT}_{\lambda/L}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t) = {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\textrm{SVT}_{\lambda/L}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}^\top{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t)$ (see Proposition 3.1 in [@Yao:2015:AIS:2832747.2832807]). We therefore reduce the time complexity on SVT from ${\mathcal{O}}((d_u\wedge D)d_uD)$ to ${\mathcal{O}}(\hat k d_uD)$ which is much cheaper.
**input:** ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u\times D}$, initial ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{R}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{D\times k}$ for warm-start, tolerance $\delta$;\
**initialize** ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_1 = {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{R}}}$;\
Algorithm \[prox-SVT\] shows how to approximate $\textrm{SVT}_{\lambda/L}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t)$. Let the target (exact) rank-$k$ SVD of ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t$ be ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{U}}}_k{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_k{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}_k^\top$. Step 1 first approximates ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{U}}}_k$ by the power method. In steps 2 to 5, a less expensive $\textrm{SVT}_{\lambda/L}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}^\top{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t)$ is obtained from . Finally, $\textrm{SVT}_{\lambda/L}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_t)$ is recovered.
**input:** ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u\times D}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{R}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{D\times k},$ thresholds $\lambda$ and $\delta$;\
${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}= \texttt{PowerMethod}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{R}}}, \delta)$;\
$[{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{U}}}, {\boldsymbol \Sigma}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}] = \text{{SVD}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}^\top {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}})$;\
${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{U}}}= \{u_i | \sigma_i > \lambda\}$;\
${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}= \{v_i | \sigma_i > \lambda\}$;\
${\boldsymbol \Sigma}= \max({\boldsymbol \Sigma}- \lambda{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{I}}}, \mathbf{0});$ // (${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{I}}}$ denotes the identity matrix)\
Hereafter, we denote the objective function in by $\mathscr{F}_{\lambda}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}})$, that is $\mathscr{F}_{\lambda}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}})= \mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}) + \lambda {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\|}_*$, for any ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in\mathscr{C}(\gamma)$. Recall that the gradient of the likelihood $\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}$ is written as $$\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}})= -\frac{1}{d_uD} \sum_{v \in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times [d_v]} B_{ij}^v(Y_{ij}^v - (G^v)'(W^v_{ij})) E^v_{ij}.$$ By Assumption \[assump-Gv-bound\], we have for any ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_u \times D}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}) - \nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}})\|}_F^2 &= \frac{1}{(d_uD)^2}\sum_{v \in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times [d_v]} \{B_{ij}^v((G^v)'(W^v_{ij}) - (G^v)'(Q^v_{ij}))\}^2\\
& \leq \frac{U_\gamma^2}{(d_uD)^2} {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\|}_F^2.\end{aligned}$$ This yields that $\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}$ has $L$-Lipschitz continuous gradient with $L = U_\gamma / (d_uD) \leq 1$. In the following algorithm and the experimental setup, we choose to work with $L=1.$
#### Penalized Likelihood Accelerated Inexact Soft Impute (PLAIS-Impute).
We present here the main algorithm in this paper, referred to as [PLAIS-Impute]{}, which is tailored to solving our collective matrix completion problem. The [PLAIS-Impute]{} is an adaption of the [AIS-Impute]{} algorithm in [@Yao:2015:AIS:2832747.2832807] to the penalized likelihood completion problems. Note that [AIS-Impute]{} is an accelerated proximal gradient algorithm with further speed up based on approximate [SVD]{}. However, it is dedicated only to square-loss goodness-of-fitting. The [PLAIS-Impute]{} is summarized in Algorithm \[algorithm-aisoftimpute\]. The core steps are 10-12, where an approximate SVT is performed. Steps 10 and 11 use the column space of the last iterations (${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}_{t}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}_{t-1}$) to warm-start the power method. For further speed up, a continuation strategy is employed in which $\lambda_t$ is initialized to a large value and then decreases gradually. The algorithm is restarted (at the step 14) if the objective function $\mathscr{F}_{\lambda}$ starts to increase. As [AIS-Impute]{}, [PLAIS-Impute]{} shares both low-iteration complexity and fast ${\mathcal{O}}(1/T^2)$ convergence rate (see Theorem 3.4 in [@Yao:2015:AIS:2832747.2832807]).
**input:** [observed collective matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}$, parameter $\lambda$, decay parameter $\nu \in (0,1)$, tolerance $\varepsilon$;]{}\
$[{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{U}}}_0, \lambda_0, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}_0] = \text{rank-}1$ [SVD]{}$({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}})$;\
**initialize** $c=1,$ $\delta_0 = {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}\|}_F$, ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_0 = {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}_1 = \lambda_0{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{U}}}_0{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{V}}}_0^\top;$\
Synthetic datasets
------------------
#### Software.
The implementation of Algorithm \[algorithm-aisoftimpute\] for the nuclear norm penalized estimator was done in MATLAB R2017b on a desktop computer with macOS system, Intel i7 Core 3.5 GHz CPU and 16GB of RAM. For fast computation of SVD and sparse matrix computations, the experiments call an external package called PROPACK [@Larsen98lanczosbidiagonalization] implemented in C and Fortran. The code that generates all figures given below is available from <https://github.com/mzalaya/collectivemc>.
#### Experimental setup.
In our experiments we focus on square matrices. We set the number of the source matrices $V=3$, then, for each $v\in \{1, 2, 3\}$, the low-rank ground truth parameter matrices ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d \times d_v}$ are created with sizes $d \in \{3000, 6000, 9000\}$ and $d_v \in \{1000, 2000, 3000\}$ (hence $d = D = \sum_{v=1}^3 d_v)$. Each source matrix ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v$ is constructed as ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v = {{\boldsymbol L}}^v{{\boldsymbol R}^v}^\top$ where ${{\boldsymbol L}}^v \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d \times r_v}$ and ${\boldsymbol R}^v \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d_v \times r_v}$. This gives a random matrix of rank at most $r_v$. The parameter $r_v$ is set to $\{5, 10, 15\}$. A fraction of the entries of ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v$ is removed uniformly at random with probability $p\in [0, 1]$. Then, the matrices ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v$ are scaled so that ${\|{{\boldsymbol M}}^v\|}_\infty = \gamma = 1.$
For ${{\boldsymbol M}}^1$, the elements of ${{\boldsymbol L}}^1$ and ${\boldsymbol R}^1$ are sampled i.i.d. from the normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(0.5, 1)$. For ${{\boldsymbol M}}^2$, the entries of ${{\boldsymbol L}}^2$ and ${\boldsymbol R}^2$ are i.i.d. according to Poisson distribution with parameter $0.5$. Finally, for ${{\boldsymbol M}}^3$, the entries of ${{\boldsymbol L}}^3$ and ${\boldsymbol R}^3$ are i.i.d. sampled from Bernoulli distribution with parameter $0.5$. The collective matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}$ is constructed by concatenation of the three sources ${{\boldsymbol M}}^1, {{\boldsymbol M}}^2$ and ${{\boldsymbol M}}^3$, namely ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}= ({{\boldsymbol M}}^1, {{\boldsymbol M}}^2, {{\boldsymbol M}}^3)$. All the details of these experiments are given in Table \[tabledetailsdatasets\].
[clcccc]{} &${{\boldsymbol M}}^1$ & ${{\boldsymbol M}}^2$ & ${{\boldsymbol M}}^3$ & ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}$\
&$(Gaussian)$ & $(Poisson)$ & $(Bernoulli)$ & $(Collective)$\
\*[`exp.1`]{} &$dimension$ & $3000\times1000$ & $3000\times1000$ & $3000\times1000$ & $3000\times3000$\
(l)[2-6]{} (l)[2-6]{} & $rank$ & $5$ & $5$ & $5$ & $unknown$\
(l)[2-6]{}
\*[`exp.2`]{} & $dimension$ & $6000\times2000$ &$6000\times2000$ & $6000\times2000$ & $6000\times6000$\
(l)[2-6]{} & $rank$ & $10$ & $10$ & $10$ & $unknown$\
(l)[2-6]{}
\*[`exp.3`]{} & $dimension$ & $9000\times3000$ &$9000\times3000$ & $9000\times3000$ & $9000\times9000$\
(l)[2-6]{} & $rank$ & $15$ & $15$ & 15 & $unknown$\
(l)[2-6]{}
The details of our experiments are summarized in Figures \[fig:objectives\] and \[fig:learning-ranks\]. In Figure \[fig:objectives\], we plot the convergence of the objective function $\mathscr{F}_{\lambda}$ versus time in the three experiments. Note that PLAIS-Impute inherits the speed of AIS-Impute as it does not require performing SVD and it has both low per-iteration cost and fast convergence rate. In Figure \[fig:objectives\], we plot also the convergence of the objective function $\mathscr{F}_{\lambda}$ versus $-\log(\lambda)$ in the three experiments. The regularization parameter in the PLAIS-Impute is initialized to a large value and decreased gradually. In Figure \[fig:learning-ranks\], we illustrate a learning rank curve obtained by PLAIS-Impute, where the green color corresponds to the input rank and the cyan color to the recovered rank of the collective matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}$.
#### Evaluation.
In our experiments, the PLAIS-Impute algorithm terminates when the absolute difference in the cost function values between two consecutive iterations is less than $\epsilon= 10^{-6}.$ We set the regularization parameter $\lambda \propto {\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|}$ as given by Theorem \[theorem1\]. Note that in step 12 of PLAIS-Impute, the threshold in SVT is given by $\lambda_t$ (defined in step 6), which is decreasing from one iteration to another. This allows to tune the first regularization parameter $\lambda$ in the program . We randomly sample $80\%$ of the observed entries for training, and the rest for testing.
In order to measure the the accuracy of our estimator, we employ the relative error (as, e.g., in [@can2010SVTAlgo; @davenport14; @cai2013jmlr-onebitmaxnorm]) which is widely used metric in matrix completion and is defined by $$\text{RE}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol W}}, {\boldsymbol W}) = \frac{{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol W}} - {\boldsymbol W}^{o}\|}_F}{{\|{\boldsymbol W}^{o}\|}_F},$$ where $\widehat{{\boldsymbol W}}$ is the recovered matrix and ${\boldsymbol W}^{o}$ is the original full data matrix.
We run the PLAIS-Impute algorithm in each experiment by varying the percentage of known entries $p$ from $0$ to $1$. In Figure \[fig:relative\_errors\], we plot the relative errors as a functions of $p$. We observe in Figure \[fig:relative\_errors\] that the relative errors are decaying with $p$. Note that for each $v\in \{1, 2, 3\}$, the estimator $\widehat{{{\boldsymbol M}}^v}$ is calculated separately using the same program . The results shown in Figure \[fig:relative\_errors\] confirm that collective matrix completion approach outperforms the approach that consists in estimating each component source independently.
#### Cold-start problem.
To simulate cold-start scenarios, we choose one of the source matrices ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v$ to be “cold” by increasing its sparsity. More precisely, we proceed in the following way: we extract vector of known entries of the chosen matrix and we set the first $1/5$ fraction of its entries to be equal to $0.$ We denote the obtained matrix by ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v_{\text{cold}}$ and the collective matrix by ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}^v_\text{cold}$. In $\texttt{exp.1}$, $\texttt{exp.2}$ and $\texttt{exp.3}$, we increase the sparsity of ${{\boldsymbol M}}^1$, ${{\boldsymbol M}}^2$, and ${{\boldsymbol M}}^3$, respectively. Hence, we get the “cold” collective matrices ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}^1_\text{cold} = ({{\boldsymbol M}}_{\text{cold}}^1, {{\boldsymbol M}}^2, {{\boldsymbol M}}^3)$, ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}^2_\text{cold} = ({{\boldsymbol M}}^1, {{\boldsymbol M}}_{\text{cold}}^2, {{\boldsymbol M}}^3)$, and ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}^3_{\text{cold}} = ({{\boldsymbol M}}^1, {{\boldsymbol M}}^2, {{\boldsymbol M}}_{\text{cold}}^3)$.
We run $10$ times the PLAIS-Impute algorithm for recovering the source ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v_{\text{cold}}$ and the collective ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}^v_{\text{cold}}$ for each $v=1, 2, 3$. We denote by $\widehat{{{\boldsymbol M}}^v_{\text{comp}}}$ the estimator of ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v_{\text{cold}}$ obtained by running the PLAIS-Impute algorithm only for this component. Analogously, we denote $\widehat{{{\boldsymbol M}}^v_{\text{collect}}}$ the estimator of ${{\boldsymbol M}}^v_\text{cold}$ obtained by extracting the $v$-th source of the collective estimator $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}^v_{\text{cold}}}$.
In Figure \[fig:relative\_errors\_cold\_star\], we report the relative errors $\text{RE}(\widehat{{{\boldsymbol M}}^v_{\text{comp}}},{{\boldsymbol M}}^v_{\text{cold}})$ and $\text{RE}(\widehat{{{\boldsymbol M}}^v_{\text{collect}}},{{\boldsymbol M}}^v_{\text{cold}})$ in the three experiments. We see that, the collective matrix completion approach compensates the lack of informations in the “cold” source matrix. Therefore, this shared structure among the sources is useful to get better predictions.
\
Conclusion
==========
This paper studies the problem of recovering a low-rank matrix when the data are collected from multiple and heterogeneous source matrices. We first consider the setting where, for each source, the matrix entries are sampled from an exponential family distribution. We then relax this assumption. The proposed estimators are based on minimizing the sum of a goodness-of-fit term and the nuclear norm penalization of the whole collective matrix. Allowing for non-uniform sampling, we establish upper bounds on the prediction risk of our estimator. As a by-product of our results, we provide exact minimax optimal rate of convergence for $1$-bit matrix completion which previously was known upto a logarithmic factor. We present the proximal algorithm PLAIS-Impute to solve the corresponding convex programs. The empirical study provides evidence of the efficiency of the collective matrix completion approach in the case of joint low-rank structure compared to estimate each source matrices separately.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank the Associated Editor and the two anonymous Referees for extremely valuable comments and remarks that helped us greatly to improve the paper. This work was supported by grants from DIM Math Innov Région Ile-de-France <https://www.dim-mathinnov.fr>
Proofs
======
We provide proofs of the main results, Theorems \[theorem1\] and \[theorem-oracle-ranking\], in this section. The proofs of a few technical lemmas including Lemmas \[lemma-ctrl-sigmaR\], \[lemma-ctrl-bSigma\] and \[lemma-upper-bound-bSigmastar\] are also given. Before that, we recall some basic facts about matrices.
#### Basic facts about matrices.
The singular value decomposition (SVD) of ${{\boldsymbol A}}$ has the form ${{\boldsymbol A}}= \sum_{l=1}^{\operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol A}})}\sigma_l({{\boldsymbol A}})u_l({{\boldsymbol A}})v_l^\top({{\boldsymbol A}})$ with orthonormal vectors $u_1({{\boldsymbol A}}), \ldots, u_{\operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol A}})}({{\boldsymbol A}})$, orthonormal vectors $v_1({{\boldsymbol A}}), \ldots, v_{\operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol A}})}({{\boldsymbol A}})$, and real numbers $\sigma_1({{\boldsymbol A}}) \geq \cdots \geq \sigma_{\operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol A}})}({{\boldsymbol A}})> 0$ (the singular values of ${{\boldsymbol A}}$). Let $(\mathcal{S}_1({{\boldsymbol A}}),\mathcal{S}_2({{\boldsymbol A}}))$ be the pair of linear vectors spaces, where $\mathcal{S}_1({{\boldsymbol A}})$ is the linear span space of $\{u_1({{\boldsymbol A}}), \ldots, u_{\operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol A}})}({{\boldsymbol A}})\}$, and $\mathcal{S}_2({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}})$ is the linear span space of $\{v_1({{\boldsymbol A}}), \ldots, v_{\operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol A}})}({{\boldsymbol A}})\}$. We denote by $\mathcal{S}_j^\perp({{\boldsymbol A}})$ the orthogonal complements of $\mathcal{S}_j({{\boldsymbol A}})$, for $j=1, 2$ and by $P_\mathcal{S}$ the projector on the linear subspace $\mathcal{S}$ of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}$ or ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{m}$.
For two matrices ${{\boldsymbol A}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol B}}$, we set $\mathscr{P}^\perp_{{{\boldsymbol A}}}({{\boldsymbol B}}) = P_{\mathcal{S}_1^\perp({{\boldsymbol A}})}{{\boldsymbol B}}P_{\mathcal{S}_2^\perp({{\boldsymbol A}})}$ and $\mathscr{P}_{{{\boldsymbol A}}} ({{\boldsymbol B}}) = {{\boldsymbol B}}- \mathscr{P}^\perp_{{{\boldsymbol A}}}({{\boldsymbol B}})$. Since $\mathscr{P}_{{{\boldsymbol A}}} ({{\boldsymbol B}}) = P_{\mathcal{S}_1({{\boldsymbol A}})}{{\boldsymbol B}}+ P_{\mathcal{S}_1^\perp({{\boldsymbol A}})}{{\boldsymbol B}}P_{\mathcal{S}_2({{\boldsymbol A}})}$, and $\operatorname{rank}(P_{\mathcal{S}_j({{\boldsymbol A}})}{{\boldsymbol B}}) \leq \operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol A}})$, we have that $$\label{fact-1-matrix}
\operatorname{rank}(\mathscr{P}_{{{\boldsymbol A}}} ({{\boldsymbol B}})) \leq 2 \operatorname{rank}({{\boldsymbol A}}).$$ It is easy to see that for two matrices ${{\boldsymbol A}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol B}}$ [@klopp2014] $$\label{klopp-thm3}
{\|{{\boldsymbol A}}\|}_* - {\|{{\boldsymbol B}}\|}_* \leq {\|\mathscr{P}_{{{\boldsymbol A}}}({{\boldsymbol A}}- {{\boldsymbol B}})\|}_* - {\|\mathscr{P}^\perp_{{{\boldsymbol A}}}({{\boldsymbol A}}- {{\boldsymbol B}})\|}_*.$$ Finally, we recall the well-known trace duality property: for all ${{\boldsymbol A}}, {{\boldsymbol B}}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n \times m}$, we have $$\label{trace duality}
|{\langle {{\boldsymbol A}}, {{\boldsymbol B}}\rangle}| \leq {\|{{\boldsymbol B}}\|}{\|{{\boldsymbol A}}\|}_*.$$
Proof of Theorem \[theorem1\] {#proof-theorem1}
-----------------------------
First, noting that $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$ is optimal and ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}$ is feasible for the convex optimization problem , we thus have the basic inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]} &B_{ij}^v\big(G^v(\hat{M}^v_{ij}) - Y^v_{ij}\hat{M}^v_{ij}\big) + \lambda{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_* \\
&\qquad \qquad \leq \frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]} B_{ij}^v\big(G^v({M}^v_{ij}) - Y^v_{ij}{M}^v_{ij}\big) + \lambda{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*.\end{aligned}$$ It yields $$\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]} B_{ij}^v\Big(\big(G^v(\hat{M}^v_{ij}) - G^v({M}^v_{ij})\big) - Y^v_{ij}\big(\hat{M}^v_{ij} - {M}^v_{ij}\big)\Big) \leq \lambda({\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_* - {\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*).$$ Using the Bregman divergence associated to each $G^v$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}&\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]}B_{ij}^v d_{G^v}(\hat{M}^v_{ij}, {M}^v_{ij})\\
&\leq \lambda({\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_* - {\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*) - \frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]} B_{ij}^v\big((G^v)'({M}^v_{ij}) - Y^v_{ij} \big)\big(\hat{M}^v_{ij} - {M}^v_{ij}\big).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, using the duality between ${\|\cdot\|}_*$ and ${\|\cdot\|}$, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]} B_{ij}^v d_{G^v}(\hat{M}^v_{ij}, {M}^v_{ij})
&\leq \lambda({\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_* - {\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*) - {\langle \nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}), \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\rangle}\\
&\leq \lambda({\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_* - {\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*) + {\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|} {\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_*.\end{aligned}$$ Besides, using the assumption $\lambda \geq 2{\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|}$ and inequality lead to $$\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]} B_{ij}^v d_{G^v}(\hat{M}^v_{ij}, {M}^v_{ij}) \leq \frac{3\lambda}{2}{\|\mathscr{P}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\big(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\big)\|}_*.$$ Since ${\|\mathscr{P}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_* \leq \sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}})} {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}\|}_F$ for any two matrices ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}$, we obtain $$\label{important-inequ}
\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]} B_{ij}^vd_{G^v}(\hat{M}^v_{ij}, {M}^v_{ij}) \leq \frac{3\lambda}{2}\sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_F.$$ Now, Assumption \[assump-Gv-bound\] implies that the Bregman divergence satisfies $L^2_\gamma(x - y)^2 \leq 2 d_G^{v}(x, y) \leq U^2_\gamma(x - y)^2,$ then we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{second-important-inequ}
\Delta^2_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})
&\leq \frac{2}{L^2_\gamma}\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]} B_{ij}^vd_{G^v}(\hat{M}^v_{ij}, {M}^v_{ij}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Delta^2_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) = \frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times[d_v]} B_{ij}^v(\hat{M}^v_{ij} - {M}^v_{ij})^2.$$ Combining and , we arrive at $$\label{Delta-Frob-norm}
\Delta^2_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) \leq \frac{3\lambda}{L_\gamma^2} \sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_F.$$
Let us now define the threshold $\beta = \frac{946\gamma^2\log (d_u + D)}{pd_uD }$ and distinguish the two following cases that allows us to obtain an upper bound for the estimation error:\
[[*Case 1:*]{}]{} if $(d_uD)^{-1}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi, F}^2 < \beta$, then the statement of Theorem \[theorem1\] is true.\
[[*Case 2:*]{}]{} it remains to consider the case $(d_uD)^{-1}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi, F}^2 \geq \beta$. Lemma \[lemma-crtl-nucl-2\] in Appendix \[appendix-useful-lemmas\] implies ${\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_F \geq \frac{1}{4 \sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})}}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_*$, then we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hatbcm-belongs-tpC}
{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_* \leq \sqrt{32\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{F}.\end{aligned}$$ This leads to $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} \in \mathscr{C}\big(\beta, 32{}\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\big),$ where the set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{C}(\beta, r) = \bigg\{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}_\infty(\gamma): &{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\|}_* \leq \sqrt{r}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{F}\text{ and } (d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2 \geq \beta\bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lemma-prob-upper-bound\] in Appendix \[appendix-useful-lemmas\], we have $$\label{thme1-import-ineq}
\Delta^2_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) \geq \frac{{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2}{2d_uD}
- {44536\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\gamma^2}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2 - \frac{5567\gamma^2}{{d_uD}p}.$$ Together and imply $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{\Pi,F} &\leq \frac{3\lambda}{L^2_\gamma} \sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_F\\
&\qquad + {44536\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\gamma^2}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2 + \frac{5567\gamma^2}{{pd_uD}}\\
& \leq \frac{18\lambda^2d_uD}{pL^4_\gamma} {\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})} + \frac{1}{4d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{\Pi,F}\\
&\qquad + {44536\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\gamma^2}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2 + \frac{5567\gamma^2}{{pd_uD}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{\Pi,F} &\leq \frac{18\lambda^2d_uD}{pL^4_\gamma} {\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})} \\
&\qquad + {44536p^{-1}d_uD\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\gamma^2}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2 +\frac{5567\gamma^2}{{d_uD}p},\end{aligned}$$ and, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}^2_{\Pi,F}
\leq p^{-1}\max\bigg(d_uD\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\bigg(\frac{c_1\lambda^2}{L^4_\gamma} + c_2\gamma^2({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2\bigg), \frac{c_3\gamma^2}{{d_uD}}\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1,c_2$ and $c_3$ are numerical constants. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[theorem1\].
Proof of Lemma \[lemma-ctrl-sigmaR\] {#proof-lemma-ctrl-sigmaR}
------------------------------------
We use the following result:
(Corollary 3.3 in [@bandeira2016]) \[proposition-ctrl-expect-spectral-norm\] Let ${\boldsymbol W}$ be the $n \times m$ rectangular matrix whose entries $W_{ij}$ are independent centered bounded random variables. Then there exists a universal constant ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$ such that $${\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol W}\|}] \leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\Big(\kappa_1 \vee \kappa_2 + \kappa_*\sqrt{\log(n\wedge m)}\Big),$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_1 = \max_{i\in[n]} \sqrt{\sum_{j\in[m]} {\mathds{E}}[W_{i,j}^2]},\quad
\kappa_2 = \max_{j\in[m]} \sqrt{\sum_{i\in[n]} {\mathds{E}}[W_{i,j}^2]}, \quad \text{ and }\quad
\kappa_* = \max_{(i,j)\in[n]\times[m]}|W_{ij}|.\end{aligned}$$
We apply Proposition \[proposition-ctrl-expect-spectral-norm\] to ${\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R = \frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]}\varepsilon^v_{ij}B_{ij}^vE^v_{ij}$. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_1 = \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{i\in[d_u]} \sqrt{\sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{j\in[d_v]} {\mathds{E}}[(\varepsilon^v_{ij})^2(B_{ij}^v)^2]} &= \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{i\in[d_u]} \sqrt{\sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{j\in[d_v]} \pi^v_{ij}}\\
&= \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{i\in[d_u]} \sqrt{\pi_{i{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_2 = \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{v\in[V]}\max_{j\in[d_v]} \sqrt{\sum_{i\in[d_u]} {\mathds{E}}[(\varepsilon^v_{ij})^2(B_{ij}^v)^2]} &=\frac{1}{d_uD} \max_{v\in[V]}\max_{j\in[d_v]} \sqrt{\sum_{i\in[d_u]} \pi^v_{ij}}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{j\in[d_v]} \sqrt{\max_{v\in[V]}\sum_{i\in[d_u]} \pi^v_{ij}}\\
& \leq \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{j\in[d_v]} \sqrt{\pi_{{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}j}},\end{aligned}$$ and $\kappa_* = \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{v\in[V]}\max_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]} |\varepsilon^v_{ij}B_{ij}| \leq \frac{1}{d_uD}.$ Using inequality , we have $\kappa_1 \leq \frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD}$ and $\kappa_2 \leq \frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD}$. Then, $\kappa_1 \vee \kappa_2 \leq \frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD}$, which establishes Lemma \[lemma-ctrl-sigmaR\].
Proof of Lemma \[lemma-lemma-ctrl-bSigma\] {#proof-lemma-ctrl-bSigma}
------------------------------------------
We write $\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) = -\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]} H^v_{ij}E^v_{ij}$, with $H^v_{ij} = B_{ij}^v\big(X^v_{ij} - (G^v)'(M^v_{ij})\big)$. For a truncation level $T > 0$ to be chosen, we decompose $\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})= {\boldsymbol \Sigma}_1 + {\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2$, where $${\boldsymbol \Sigma}_1 = -\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]} \big(H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])\leq T)}} - {\mathds{E}}\big[H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])\leq T)}}\big]\big)E^v_{ij},$$ and $${\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2 = -\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]} \big(H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) > T)}} - {\mathds{E}}\big[H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) > T)}}\big]\big)E^v_{ij},$$ then, the triangular inequality implies ${\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|} \leq {\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_1\|} + {\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}.$ Then, the proof is divided on two steps:
[[*Step 1: control of ${\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_1\|}$.*]{}]{} In order to control ${\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_1\|}$, we use the following bound on the spectral norms of random matrices. It is obtained by extension to rectangular matrices via self-adjoint dilation of Corollary 3.12 and Remark 3.13 in [@bandeira2016].
[@bandeira2016] \[proposition-ctrl-spect-norm\] Let ${\boldsymbol W}$ be the $n \times m$ rectangular matrix whose entries $W_{ij}$ are independent centered bounded random variables. Then, for any $0\leq \epsilon \leq 1/2$ there exists a universal constant ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_\epsilon$ such that for every $x \geq 0$, $${\mathds{P}}\big[{\|{\boldsymbol W}\|} \geq 2\sqrt{2}(1+\epsilon)(\kappa_1 \vee \kappa_2) + x\big] \leq (n \wedge m) \exp\Big(-\frac{x^2}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_\epsilon \kappa^2_*}\Big),$$ where $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$, and $\kappa_*$ are defined as in Proposition \[proposition-ctrl-expect-spectral-norm\].
We apply Proposition \[proposition-ctrl-spect-norm\] to ${\boldsymbol \Sigma}_1$. We compute $$\kappa_1 = \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{i\in[d_u]} \sqrt{\sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{j\in[d_v]} {\mathds{E}}\Big[\big(H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])\leq T)}} - {\mathds{E}}\big[H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])\leq T)}}\big]\big)^2\Big]}.$$ Besides, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}\Big[\big(H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])\leq T)}} - {\mathds{E}}\big[H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])\leq T)}}\big]\big)^2\Big] \leq {\mathds{E}}\big[(H^v_{ij})^2{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) \leq T)}}\big],\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}\big[(H^v_{ij})^2{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) \leq T)}}\big]
&= {\mathds{E}}\big[(B_{ij}^v)^2\big(X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X_{ij}^v])^2{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) \leq T)}}\big]\\
&\leq \pi^v_{ij} {\mathds{V}}ar[X^v_{ij}]\\
&= \pi^v_{ij} (G^v)''(M^v_{ij}).\end{aligned}$$ By Assumption \[assump-Gv-bound\], we obtain ${\mathds{E}}\big[(H^v_{ij})^2{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) \leq T)}}\big] \leq\pi^v_{ij}U_\gamma^2$ for all $v\in[V], (i,j)\in[d_u]\times [d_v]$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_1 \leq \frac{{U_\gamma}}{d_uD}\max_{i\in[d_u]} \sqrt{\sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{j\in[d_v]}\pi^v_{ij}} \leq \frac{{U_\gamma}}{d_uD}\max_{i\in[d_u]} \sqrt{\pi^v_{i{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}}} \leq \frac{U_\gamma\sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_2 &
\leq \frac{U_\gamma}{d_uD}\max_{j\in[d_v]}\sqrt{\max_{v\in[V]}\sum_{i\in[d_u]} \pi^v_{ij}}
\leq \frac{U_\gamma}{d_uD}\max_{j\in[d_v]}\sqrt{\pi_{{\raisebox{-0.80ex}{\scalebox{1.8}{$\cdot$}}}j}}
\leq \frac{U_\gamma\sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD}.\end{aligned}$$ It yields, $\kappa_1 \vee \kappa_2 \leq \frac{U_\gamma\sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD}$. Moreover, we have ${\mathds{E}}\big[H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) \leq T)}}\big] \leq T,$ which entails $\kappa_* \leq \frac{2T}{d_uD}$. By choosing $\epsilon = 1/2$ in Proposition \[proposition-ctrl-spect-norm\], we obtain, with probability at least $1 - 4 (d_u \wedge D) e^{-x^2},$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_1\|}
&\leq \frac{3U_\gamma\sqrt{2\mu}+ 2\sqrt{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{1/2}}xT}{d_uD}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by setting $x = \sqrt{2\log(d_u +D)}$, we get with probability at least $1 - 4/(d_u +D)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{final-ctrl-bSigma1-expnoise}
{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_1\|}
&\leq \frac{ 3U_\gamma\sqrt{2\mu}+ 2\sqrt{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{1/2}}\sqrt{2\log(d_u +D)}T}{d_uD}.\end{aligned}$$
[[*Step 2: control of ${\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}$.*]{}]{} To control ${\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}$, we use Chebyshev’s inequality, that is $${\mathds{P}}\big[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|} \geq {\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}]+ x\big] \leq \frac{{\mathds{V}}ar[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}]}{x^2}, \text{ for all } x > 0.$$ We start by estimating ${\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}]$. We use the fact that ${\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}] \leq {\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}_F]$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}\big[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}_F^2\big] &= \frac{1}{(d_uD)^2}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]} {\mathds{E}}\big[\big(H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) > T)}} - {\mathds{E}}\big[H^v_{ij}{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) > T)}}\big]\big)^2\big]\\
&\leq \frac{1}{(d_uD)^2}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]} {\mathds{E}}\big[(H^v_{ij})^2{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) > T)}}\big]\\
&\leq \frac{1}{(d_uD)^2}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]} \pi^v_{ij}{\mathds{E}}\big[(X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])^2{{\mathds{1}}_{{}}}{_{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) > T)}}\big]\\
&\leq \frac{1}{(d_uD)^2}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]} \pi^v_{ij}\sqrt{{\mathds{E}}\big[(X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])^4\big]} \sqrt{{\mathds{P}}\big[{}{{((X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]) > T)}}\big]}.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lemma-subgaussian-tail-X\], we have that $X_{ij}^v - {\mathds{E}}[X_{ij}^v]$ is an $(U_\gamma, K)$-sub-exponential random variable for every $v \in[V]$ and $(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]$. It yields, using $(2)$ in Theorem \[lemma-properties-sub\], that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}\big[(X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])^p\big] \leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}{p}^p {\|X^v_{ij}\|}_{\psi_1}^p, \text{ for every } p \geq 1,\end{aligned}$$ and by (1) in Theorem \[lemma-properties-sub\] $${\mathds{P}}\big[{}{{|X^v_{ij}- {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}]|> T}}\big] \leq \exp\Big(1 - \frac{T}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{\text{se}} {\|X^v_{ij}\|}_{\psi_1}}\Big),$$ where ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$ and ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{\text{se}}$ are absolute constants. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}\big[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}_F^2\big] &\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}}{(d_uD)^2}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]} \pi^v_{ij} \sqrt{{\|X^v_{ij}\|}_{\psi_1}^4}\sqrt{\exp\Big(1 - \frac{T}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{\text{se}} {\|X^v_{ij}\|}_{\psi_1}}\Big)}\\
&\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}}{(d_uD)^2}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]}(U_\gamma \vee K)^2 \pi^v_{ij}\sqrt{\exp\Big( - \frac{T}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{\text{se}} K}\Big)}. $$ We choose $T = T_* := 4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{\text{se}} (U_\gamma \vee K) \log(d_u\vee D)$. It yields, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}\big[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}_F^2\big] &\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}}{(d_uD)^2} \frac{1}{(d_u\vee D)^2}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]} (U_\gamma \vee K)^2\pi^v_{ij} \\
&\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K)^2}{(d_uD)^2} \frac{1}{(d_u\vee D)^2}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{j \in[d_v]} \pi^v_{ij} \\
&\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K)^2}{(d_uD)^2} \frac{1}{(d_u\vee D)^2}(d_u\vee D) \mu\\
&\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K)^2\mu}{(d_uD)^2d_u\vee D}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $x \mapsto \sqrt{x}$ is concave, we obtain $$\label{crtl-norm-bsigma2-expect}
{\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}] \leq {\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}_F] \leq \sqrt{{\mathds{E}}\big[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}_F^2\big]} \leq \sqrt{\frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K)^2\mu}{(d_uD)^2d_u\vee D}}\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K) \sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD \sqrt{d_u \vee D}}.$$
Let us now control the variance of ${\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}$. We have immediately, using , $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{V}}ar [{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}] \leq {\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}^2] \leq {\mathds{E}}\big[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|}_F^2\big] \leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K)^2\mu}{(d_uD)^2d_u\vee D}.\end{aligned}$$ By Chebyshev’s inequality and using , we have, with probability at least $1 - 4 /(d_u + D)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{final-ctrl-bSigma2}
{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_2\|} \leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K) \sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD \sqrt{d_u \vee D}} + \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K) \sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD} \leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K) \sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, combining and , we obtain, with probability at least $1 - 4/(d_u + D)$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|}
&\leq \frac{3U_\gamma\sqrt{2\mu}+ 8(U_\gamma \vee K){\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{\text{se}}\sqrt{2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{1/2}\log(d_u +D)} \log(d_u\vee D) + {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K) \sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD}\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}})\|}
&\leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\bigg(\frac{(U_\gamma \vee K)\big(\sqrt{\mu} + (\log(d_u\vee D))^{3/2}\big)}{d_uD} \bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$ is an absolute constant. This finishes the proof of Lemma \[lemma-lemma-ctrl-bSigma\].
Proof of Theorem \[theorem-oracle-ranking\] {#proof-of-theorem-oracle-ranking}
-------------------------------------------
We start the proof with the following inequality using the fact that $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$ is the minimizer of the objective function in problem $$0 \leq -({R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}})+ \Lambda {\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*) + ({R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})+ \Lambda {\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_*).$$ Then, by adding $R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \geq 0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})
&\leq -\big\{\big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) - \big(R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)\big\}+ \Lambda \big({\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_* - {\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*\big).\end{aligned}$$ implies ${\|{{\boldsymbol A}}\|}_* - {\|{{\boldsymbol B}}\|}_* \leq {\|\mathscr{P}_{{{\boldsymbol A}}}({{\boldsymbol A}}- {{\boldsymbol B}})\|}_*$ and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation-excess-risk}
R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})
&\leq -\big\{\big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) - \big(R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)\big\} + \Lambda {\|\mathscr{P}_{{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} - \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}})\|}_*\nonumber\\
&\leq -\big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) + \big(R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)\\
&\qquad + \Lambda \sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_F\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Let us now define the threshold $\nu = \frac{32\big(1 + e\sqrt{{3\rho}/{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}\big)\rho\gamma\log(d_u+D)}{3pd_uD}$ and distinguish the two following cases that allows us to obtain an upper bound for the prediction error:\
[[*Case 1:*]{}]{} if $R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})< \nu$, then the statement of Theorem \[theorem-oracle-ranking\] is true.\
[[*Case 2:*]{}]{} it remains to consider the case $R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \geq \nu$. Lemma \[lemma-diff-Empir-loss\] implies $${\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_* \leq \sqrt{32\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_{F},$$ then $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} \in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, 32\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}))$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{Q}(\nu, r) = \bigg\{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{C}_\infty(\gamma): &{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}- {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_* \leq \sqrt{r}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_{F}\text{ and } R({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \geq \nu\bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lemma-prob-upper-bound-loss-case\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemma-prob-upper-oracle-ranking}
&R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) -\big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) \nonumber\\
&\qquad \leq \frac{R({\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{2} + \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\rho^2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}^{-1}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2}{(1/4e) + (1 - 1/\sqrt{4e})\sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, plugging in , we get $$\begin{aligned}
R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) &\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\rho^2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}^{-1}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2}{(1/4e) + (1 - 1/\sqrt{4e})\sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}} + 2\Lambda \sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_F,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}= 1024.$ Then using the fact that for any $a, b \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$, and $\epsilon > 0$, we have $2ab \leq a^2/(2\epsilon) + 2\epsilon b^2$, we get for $\epsilon =p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}/4$ $$\begin{aligned}
R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) &\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}d_uDp^{-1}\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\rho^2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}^{-1}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2}{(1/4e) + (1 - 1/\sqrt{4e})\sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}}\\
&\quad + \Lambda^2d_uD(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}/4)^{-1}\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) + \frac{p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}}{2d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_F^2\\
&\leq \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}d_uDp^{-1}\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\rho^2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}^{-1}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2}{(1/4e) + (1 - 1/\sqrt{4e})\sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}}\\
&\quad + \Lambda^2d_uD(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}/4)^{-1}\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) + \frac{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}}{2d_uD}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Using Assumption \[assumption-Bernstein-condition\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) &\leq \frac{2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}d_uDp^{-1}\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\rho^2{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}^{-1}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2}{(1/4e) + (1 - 1/\sqrt{4e})\sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}} + 8\Lambda^2d_uD(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\\
&\leq (p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})d_uD\Big(\frac{\rho^2({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2}{(1/4e) + (1 - 1/\sqrt{4e})\sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}} + 8\Lambda^2 \Big).\end{aligned}$$ This finishes the proof of Theorem \[theorem-oracle-ranking\].
Proof of Lemma \[lemma-upper-bound-bSigmastar\] {#proof-lemma-upper-bound-bSigmastar}
-----------------------------------------------
By the nonnegative factor and the sum properties of subdifferential calculus [@boyd:2004:CO:993483], we write $$\partial{R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) = \bigg\{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}= \frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v \in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in [d_u]\times [d_v]} B^v_{ij}G^v_{ij}E^v_{ij}: G^v_{ij}\in \partial\ell^v(Y^v_{ij}, {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})\bigg\}$$ Recall that the sudifferential of $\partial\ell^v(Y^v_{ij}, {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})$ at the point ${\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij}$ is defined as $$\partial\ell^v(Y^v_{ij}, {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij}) = \{G^v_{ij}: \ell^v(Y^v_{ij}, {Q}^v_{ij}) \geq \ell^v(Y^v_{ij}, {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij}) + G^v_{ij}({Q}^v_{ij} -{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})\}.$$ Thanks to Assumption \[assumption-lipshitzloss\], we have, for all $G^v_{ij}\in \partial\ell^v(Y^v_{ij}, {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})$ $$|G^v_{ij}({Q}^v_{ij} -{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})| \leq |\ell^v(Y^v_{ij}, {Q}^v_{ij}) - \ell^v(Y^v_{ij}, {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})| \leq \rho_v |{Q}^v_{ij} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij}|,$$ In particular, with ${Q}^v_{ij}\neq{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij}$ for all $v\in[V]$ and $(i,j) \in [d_u]\times[d_v]$, we get $|G^v_{ij}| \leq \rho_v$. Then, any subgradient ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}$ of ${R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}$ has entries bounded by $\rho/(d_uD)$ (recall $\rho = \max_{v\in [V]} \rho_v$). By a triangular inequality and the convexity of ${\|\cdot\|}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|} &\leq {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}- {\mathds{E}}[{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}]\|} + {\|{\mathds{E}}[{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}]\|}\\
&\leq {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}- {\mathds{E}}[{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}]\|} + {\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}],\end{aligned}$$ for any subgradient ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}$ of ${R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}$. On the one hand, we use the fact that ${\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}] \leq {\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}_F] \leq \sqrt{{\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}_F^2]}$. Using , we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}_F^2] &\leq \frac 1{(d_uD)^2}\sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}\rho_v^2{\mathds{E}}[B_{ij}^v]\\
&\leq \frac{\rho^2}{(d_uD)^2}\sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}\pi^v_{ij}\\
&\leq \frac{\rho^2\mu}{(d_uD)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we apply Proposition \[proposition-ctrl-spect-norm\] to ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}- {\mathds{E}}[{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}]$. Taking into account , we upper bound the constants $\kappa_1, \kappa_2$ and $\kappa_*$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_1 &= \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{i \in[d_u]}\sqrt{\sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{j\in[d_v]} {\mathds{E}}[(B^v_{ij}G^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[B^v_{ij}G^v_{ij} ])^2]}\\
&\leq \frac{2\rho}{d_uD}\max_{i \in[d_u]}\sqrt{\sum_{v\in[V]}\sum_{j\in[d_v]} \pi^v_{ij}}\\
&\leq \frac{2\rho\sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_2 &= \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{v \in[V]}\max_{j \in[d_v]}\sqrt{\sum_{i\in[d_u]} {\mathds{E}}[(B^v_{ij}G^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[B^v_{ij}G^v_{ij} ])^2]}\\
&\leq \frac{2\rho}{d_uD}\max_{v \in[V]}\max_{j \in[d_v]}\sqrt{\sum_{i\in[d_u]} \pi^v_{ij}}\\
&\leq \frac{2\rho\sqrt{\mu}}{d_uD},\end{aligned}$$ and $\kappa_* = \frac{1}{d_uD}\max_{v\in[V]}\max_{(i,j)\in[d_u] \times[d_v]}|B^v_{ij}G^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[B^v_{ij}G^v_{ij} ]| \leq \frac{2\rho}{d_uD}$. Now, choose $\epsilon = 1/2$ in Proposition \[proposition-ctrl-spect-norm\], then we obtain, with probability at least $1 - 4(d_u \wedge D) e^{-x^2},$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inequltiybisgmastar}
{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}- {\mathds{E}}[{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}]\|}
&\leq \frac{6\rho\sqrt{2\mu}+ 2\rho\sqrt{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{1/2}}x}{d_uD}.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $x = \sqrt{2\log(d_u +D)}$ in , we get with probability at least $1 - 4/(d_u +D)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{final-ctrl-bSigma1}
{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}
&\leq \frac{(1+6\sqrt{2})\rho\sqrt{\mu}+ 2\rho\sqrt{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}_{1/2}}\sqrt{2\log(d_u+D)}}{d_uD},\end{aligned}$$ for any subgradient ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}$ of ${R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})$.
Technical Lemmas
================
In this section, we provide several technical lemmas, which are used for proving our main results.
Useful lemmas for the proof of Theorem \[theorem1\] {#appendix-useful-lemmas}
---------------------------------------------------
\[lemma-crtl-nucl-2\] Let ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}\in \mathscr{C}_\infty(\gamma)$. Assume that $\lambda \geq 2{\|\nabla \mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}$, and $\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}) + \lambda {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\|}_* \leq \mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}) + \lambda{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}\|}_*.$ Then,
- ${\|\mathscr{P}^\perp_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_ * \leq 3 {\|\mathscr{P}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_*$,
- ${\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}\|}_* \leq 4\sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})}{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}\|}_F$.
We have $\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}) - \mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}) \geq \lambda({\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\|}_* - {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}\|}_*)$. implies $$\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}) - \mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}) \geq \lambda\big({\|\mathscr{P}^\perp_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_* - {\|\mathscr{P}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_*\big).$$ Moreover, by convexity of $\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\cdot)$ and the duality between ${\|\cdot\|}_*$ and ${\|\cdot\|}$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}) - \mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}) &\leq {\langle \nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}),{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\rangle}
\leq {\|\nabla\mathscr{L}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|} {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\|}_*
\leq \frac{\lambda}{2}{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\|}_*.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\label{proof-lemma-1i}
{\|\mathscr{P}^\perp_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_* \leq {\|\mathscr{P}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_* + \frac{1}{2}{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}\|}_*$$ Using the triangle inequality, we get $${\|\mathscr{P}^\perp_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_* \leq 3{\|\mathscr{P}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_*,$$ which proves $(i)$. To prove $(ii)$, note that ${\|\mathscr{P}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}})\|}_* \leq \sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})}{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}\|}_F$, and $(i)$ imply $$\begin{aligned}
{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}\|}_*
& \leq 4 \sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})}{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}- {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}})\|}_F.\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma-prob-upper-bound\] Let $\beta = \frac{946\gamma^2\log (d_u + D)}{pd_uD}$. Then, for all ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}(\beta, r)$, $$\Big|\Delta^2_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) - (d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2]\Big| \leq \frac{(d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2}{2} + {1392r\gamma^2}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2 + \frac{5567\gamma^2}{{d_uD}p}$$ with probability at least $1 - 4/(d_u+D)$.
We use a standard peeling argument. For any $\alpha > 1$ and $0 < \eta < 1 /2\alpha$, we define $$\boldsymbol{\kappa} = \frac{1}{1/(2\alpha) - \eta}\Big(128\gamma^2r({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2 + \frac{512\gamma^2}{{d_uD}p}\Big)$$ and we consider the event $$\mathscr{W} = \bigg\{\exists\,{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}(\beta, r): \Big|\Delta^2_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) - (d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2\Big| > \frac{(d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2}{2} + \boldsymbol{\kappa} \bigg\}.$$ For $s \in \mathbb{N}^*$, set $$\mathcal{R}_s = \Big\{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}(\beta, r): \alpha^{s-1} \beta \leq (d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2 \leq \alpha^s\beta\Big\}.$$ If the event $\mathscr{W}$ holds for some matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}(\beta, r),$ then ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}$ belongs to some $\mathcal{R}_s$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Big|\Delta^2_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) - (d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2\Big| &\geq \frac{(d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2}{2} + \boldsymbol{\kappa}\\
&\geq \frac{1}{2\alpha}\alpha^{s}\beta + \boldsymbol{\kappa}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\theta \geq \beta$ consider the following set of matrices $$\mathscr{C}(\beta, r, \theta) = \Big\{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}(\beta, r): (d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2 \leq \theta\Big\},$$ and the following event $$\mathscr{W}_s = \bigg\{\exists \, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}(\beta, r, \theta): \Big|\Delta^2_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) - (d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2\Big| \geq \frac{1}{2\alpha}\alpha^{s}\beta + \boldsymbol{\kappa}\bigg\}.$$ Note that ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{W}_s$ implies that ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}(\beta,r, \alpha^s\beta)$. Then, we get $\mathscr{W} \subset \cup_s \mathscr{W}_s$. Thus, it is enough to estimate the probability of the simpler event $\mathscr{W}_s$ and then apply a the union bound. Such an estimation is given by the following lemma:
\[lemma-ctrl-processZUpperbd\] Let $${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_\theta = \sup_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}\in \mathscr{C}(\beta, r, \theta)} \Big|\Delta^2_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}}, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}) - (d_uD)^{-1}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}}}} - {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}\|}_{\Pi,F}^2\Big|.$$ Then, we have $${\mathds{P}}\big[{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Z}}}_\theta > \frac{\theta}{2 \alpha} + \boldsymbol{\kappa}\big] \leq 4\exp\bigg(-\frac{pd_uD\eta^2\theta}{8\gamma^2}\bigg).$$
The proof of Lemma \[lemma-ctrl-processZUpperbd\] follows along the same lines of Lemma 10 in [@klopp2015]. We now apply an union bound argument combined to Lemma \[lemma-ctrl-processZUpperbd\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{P}}[\mathscr{W}] \leq {\mathds{P}}[\cup_{s=1}^\infty\mathscr{W}_s] &\leq 4\sum_{s=1}^\infty \exp\bigg(-\frac{pd_uD\eta^2\alpha^s\beta}{8\gamma^2}\bigg)\\
&\leq 4\sum_{s=1}^\infty \exp\bigg(-\frac{pd_uD\eta^2\beta\log \alpha}{8\gamma^2}s \bigg)\\
&\leq \frac{4\exp\bigg(-\frac{pd_uD\eta^2\beta\log \alpha}{8\gamma^2} \bigg)}{1 - \exp\bigg(-\frac{pd_uD\eta^2\beta\log \alpha}{8\gamma^2} \bigg)}.\end{aligned}$$ By choosing $\alpha = e, \eta= 1/4e$ and $\beta$ as stated we get the desired result.
Useful lemmas for the proof of Theorem \[theorem-oracle-ranking\] {#appendix-useful-lemmas-theorem-orcale-ranking}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
\[lemma-diff-Empir-loss\] Suppose $\Lambda \geq 2 \sup\{{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|}: {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\in \partial{R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\}.$ Then $${\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_* \leq 4\sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_F.$$
For any subgradient ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}$ of ${R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})$, we have ${R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} ) \geq {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) + {\langle {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}, \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} \rangle}.$ Then, the definition of the estimator $\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}$, entails $R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}(\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}) \geq \Lambda({\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_* - {\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_*),$ hence ${\langle {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}},{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}-\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}} \rangle} \geq \Lambda({\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*-{\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_*).$ The duality between ${\|\cdot\|}_*$ and ${\|\cdot\|}$ yields $$\Lambda({\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*-{\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}_*\|}) \leq {\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{G}}}\|} {\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}-\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_* \leq \frac \Lambda2 {\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}-\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*$$ then ${\|\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*-{\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}_*\|} \leq \frac 12 {\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}-\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_*.$ Now, implies $${\|\mathscr{P}^\perp_{{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} - \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}})\|}_* \leq {\|\mathscr{P}_{{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} - \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}})\|}_* + \frac 12 {\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}-\widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_* \leq 3 {\|\mathscr{P}_{{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} - \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}})\|}_*.$$ Therefore ${\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} - \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_* \leq 4 {\|\mathscr{P}_{{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} - \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}})\|}_*$. Since ${\|\mathscr{P}_{{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} - \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}})\|}_* \leq \sqrt{2\operatorname{rank}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})} {\|{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} - \widehat{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}\|}_F$, we establish the proof of Lemma \[lemma-diff-Empir-loss\].
\[lemma-prob-upper-bound-loss-case\] Let $$\nu = \frac{32\big(1 + e\sqrt{{3\rho}/{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}\big)\rho\gamma\log(d_u+D)}{3pd_uD},$$ then, with probability at least $1 - 4/(d_u+D)$, the following holds uniformly over ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Big|\big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}})& - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) - \big(R({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)\Big|\\
&\leq \frac{R({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{2} + \frac{16}{(1/4e) + (1 - 1/\sqrt{4e})\sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}}{r\rho^2(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}}({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2.\end{aligned}$$
The proof is based on the peeling argument. For any $\delta > 1$ and $0 < \vartheta < 1 /2\delta$, define $$\label{boldzeta-oracle-ranking}
\boldsymbol{\zeta} = \frac{16{r(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}}\rho^2({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2}{({1}/{2\delta}) + \sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}} - \Big(\vartheta +\sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}\vartheta}\Big)},$$ and we consider the event $$\mathscr{A} = \bigg\{\exists\,{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r): \Big|\big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) - \big(R({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)\Big| > \frac{R({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{2} + \boldsymbol{\zeta} \bigg\}.$$ For $ l\in \mathbb{N}^*$, we define the sequence of subsets $$\mathcal{J}_l = \Big\{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r): \delta^{l-1} \nu \leq R({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \leq \delta^l\nu\Big\}.$$ If the event $\mathscr{A}$ holds for some matrix ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r),$ then ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}$ belongs to some $\mathcal{J}_l$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Big|\big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) - \big(R({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)\Big| &> \frac{R({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})}{2} + \boldsymbol{\zeta}\\
&\geq \frac{1}{2\delta}\delta^{l}\nu + \boldsymbol{\zeta}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\theta \geq \nu$, consider the following set of matrices $$\mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta) = \Big\{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r): R({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}) \leq \theta\Big\},$$ and the following event $$\mathscr{A}_l = \bigg\{\exists \, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta):\Big|\big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) - \big(R({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)\Big| \geq \frac{1}{2\delta}\delta^{l}\nu + \boldsymbol{\zeta}\bigg\}.$$ Note that ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathcal{J}_l$ implies that ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu,r, \delta^l\nu)$. Then, we get $\mathscr{A} \subset \cup_{l} \mathscr{A}_l$. Thus, it is enough to estimate the probability of the simpler event $\mathscr{A}_l$ and then apply a the union bound. Such an estimation is given in Lemma \[supermum-process-inLosslip\], where we derive a concentration inequality for the following supremum of process: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}}_\theta = \sup_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta)}\Big| \big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) - \big(R({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)\Big|\end{aligned}$$ We now apply an union bound argument combined to Lemma \[supermum-process-inLosslip\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{P}}[\mathscr{A}] \leq {\mathds{P}}[\cup_{l=1}^\infty\mathscr{A}_l] &\leq \sum_{l=1}^\infty \exp\Big(-\frac{3d_uD\vartheta\delta^l\nu}{8\rho\gamma}\Big)\\
&\leq \sum_{l=1}^\infty \exp\Big(-\frac{3d_uD\vartheta\log(\delta)\nu}{8\rho\gamma}l\Big)\\
&\leq \frac{\exp\Big(-\frac{3d_uD\vartheta\log(\delta)\nu}{8\rho\gamma}\Big)}{1 - \exp\Big(-\frac{3d_uD\vartheta\log(\delta)\nu}{8\rho\gamma}\Big)},\end{aligned}$$ where se used the elementary inequality that $u^s =e^{s\log(u)} \geq s\log(u)$. By choosing $\delta = e, \vartheta= 1/4e$ and $\nu$ as stated we get the desired result.
\[supermum-process-inLosslip\] One has $${\mathds{P}}\Big[{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}_\theta \geq \Big(1 + \delta\sqrt{\frac{3\rho}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}\Big)\frac{\theta}{2\delta} + \boldsymbol{\zeta}\Big] \leq \exp\Big(-\frac{3d_uD\vartheta\theta}{8\rho\gamma}\Big).$$
The proof of this lemma is based on Bousquet’s concentration theorem:
[@bousquet2002] (see also Corollary 16.1 in [@van2016estimation]) \[bousquet-theorem\] Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a class of real-valued functions. Let $T_1, \ldots, T_N$ be independent random variables such that ${\mathds{E}}[f(T_i)] =0$ and $|f(T_i)|\leq \xi$ for all $i=1, \ldots, N$ and for all $f \in \mathcal{F}.$ Introduce $Z = \sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\Big| \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\big(f(T_i) - {\mathds{E}}[f(T_i)]\big)\Big|$. Assume further that $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}} {\mathds{E}}\big[f^2(T_i)\big] \leq M^2.$$ Then we have for all $t > 0$ $${\mathds{P}}\bigg[Z \geq 2 {\mathds{E}}[Z] + M \sqrt{\frac{2t}{N}} + \frac{4t\xi}{3N}\bigg] \leq e^{-t}.$$
We start by bounding the expectation $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}_\theta] &= {\mathds{E}}\Big[\sup_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta)}\Big| \big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) - \big(R({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)\Big|\Big]\\
&= {\mathds{E}}\Big[\sup_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta)}\Big| \big(R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big) - {\mathds{E}}\big[R_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - {R}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big]\Big|\Big]\\
&= {\mathds{E}}\Big[\sup_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta)}\Big|
\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}B^v_{ij}\big(\ell^v(Y^v_{ij},Q^v_{ij}) - \ell^v(Y^v_{ij},{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})\big)\\
&\hspace{7cm} - {\mathds{E}}\big[B^v_{ij}\big(\ell^v(Y^v_{ij},Q^v_{ij}) - \ell^v(Y^v_{ij},{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})\big)\big]\Big|\Big]\\
&\leq 2{\mathds{E}}\Big[\sup_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta)}\Big|\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}\varepsilon_{ij}^vB^v_{ij}\big(\ell^v(Y^v_{ij},Q^v_{ij}) - \ell^v(Y^v_{ij},{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})\big)\Big|\Big]\\
&\leq 4\rho{\mathds{E}}\Big[\sup_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta)}\Big|\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}\varepsilon_{ij}^vB^v_{ij}(Q^v_{ij} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})\Big|\Big]\\
&\leq 4\rho{\mathds{E}}\Big[\sup_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta)}\Big|{\langle {\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R, {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}- {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}} \rangle}\Big|\Big]\\
&\leq 4\rho{\mathds{E}}\Big[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}\sup_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta)}{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}- {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_*\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from symmetrization of expectations theorem of van der Vaart and Wellener, the second from contraction principle of Ledoux and Talagrand (see Theorems 14.3 and 14.4 in [@buhlmann2011statistics]), and the third from duality between nuclear and operator norms. We have ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}\in \mathscr{Q}(\nu, r, \theta)$ then ${\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}- {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_* \leq \sqrt{r}{\|{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_{F}$ and using Assumption \[assumption-Bernstein-condition\], we have ${\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}- {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_* \leq \sqrt{r(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}\big(R({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}})\big)} \leq \sqrt{r(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}\theta}.$ Then, $${\mathds{E}}[{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}_\theta] \leq 4\sqrt{r(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}\theta}\rho{\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}].$$ For the upper bound $\xi$ in Theorem \[bousquet-theorem\], we have that $$\big|\ell^v(Y^v_{ij},Q^v_{ij}) - \ell^v(Y^v_{ij},{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})\big| \leq \rho_v|Q^v_{ij} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij}\big| \leq 2\rho_v\gamma \leq 2\rho\gamma.$$ Now we compute $M$ in Theorem \[bousquet-theorem\]. Thanks to Assumption \[assumption-Bernstein-condition\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}&\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]}{\mathds{E}}\big[\big(B^v_{ij}\big(\ell^v(Y^v_{ij},Q^v_{ij}) - \ell^v(Y^v_{ij},{\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})\big)\big)^2\big]\\
&\leq \frac{1}{d_uD}\sum_{v\in [V]}\sum_{(i,j)\in[d_u]\times[d_v]} (\rho_v)^2{\mathds{E}}\big[B^v_{ij}(Q^v_{ij} - {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\star$}}{M}}^v_{ij})^2]\\
&\leq \frac{\rho^2}{d_uD}{\|{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}- {\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}\|}_{\Pi, F}^2\\&\leq \frac{\rho^2}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}}(R({\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Q}}}) - R({\accentset{\raisebox{0ex}{$\,\,\star$}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}}}}))\\
&\leq \frac{\rho^2\theta}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, Bousquet’s theorem implies that for all $t>0$, $${\mathds{P}}\Big[{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}_\theta \geq 2{\mathds{E}}[{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}_\theta] + \sqrt{\frac{2\rho^2\theta t}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}d_uD}} + \frac{8\rho \gamma t}{3d_uD}\Big]\leq e^{-t}.$$ Taking $t = \frac{3d_uD\vartheta\theta}{8\rho\gamma}$, we obtain $$\label{equation-bousquet-bXi}
{\mathds{P}}\Big[{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}_\theta \geq 8\gamma\sqrt{r(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}\theta}\rho{\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}] + \Big(\sqrt{\frac{3\rho}{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}\vartheta} + \vartheta\Big)\theta\Big]\leq \exp\Big(-\frac{3d_uD\vartheta\theta}{8\rho\gamma}\Big).$$ Using the fact that for any $a,b\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$, and $\epsilon>0$, $2ab \leq a^2/\epsilon + \epsilon b^2$, we get (for $\epsilon = {1}/{2\delta} + \sqrt{{3\rho}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}} - \Big(\vartheta +\sqrt{{3\rho\vartheta}/{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}\Big)$), we get $$\begin{aligned}
8\gamma\sqrt{r(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}\theta}\rho{\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}] + \Big(\sqrt{\frac{3\vartheta\rho}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}+ \vartheta\Big)\theta
&\leq\frac{16{r(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}}\rho^2({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2}{\frac{1}{2\delta} + \sqrt{\frac{3\rho}{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}} - \vartheta -\sqrt{\frac{3\rho}{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}\vartheta}} + \Big(\frac{1}{2\delta} + \sqrt{\frac{3\rho}{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}\Big)\theta\\
&\leq\frac{16{r(p{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}})^{-1}}\rho^2({\mathds{E}}[{\|{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_R\|}])^2}{\frac{1}{2\delta} + \sqrt{\frac{3\rho}{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}} - \vartheta -\sqrt{\frac{3\rho}{4{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}\vartheta}} + \Big(1 + \delta\sqrt{\frac{3\rho}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}\Big)\frac{\theta}{2\delta}.\end{aligned}$$
Using , we get ${\mathds{P}}\Big[{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}_\theta \geq \Big(1 + \delta\sqrt{\frac{3\rho}{{\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$\varsigma$}}}\gamma}}\Big)\frac{\theta}{2\delta} + \boldsymbol{\zeta}\Big] \leq \exp\Big(-\frac{3d_uD\vartheta\theta}{8\rho\gamma}\Big)$. This finishes the proof of Lemma \[supermum-process-inLosslip\].
Sub-exponential random variables {#appendix-sub-exponentail-RV}
================================
The material here is taken from [@vershyni2010].
A random variable $X$ is sub-exponential with parameters $(\omega, b)$ if for all $t$ such that $|t| \leq 1/b$, $$\label{tail-direct-from-Chernoff-sub-expo}
{\mathds{E}}\big[\exp\big(t(X - {\mathds{E}}[X])\big)\big] \leq \exp\big(\frac{t^2 \omega^2}{2}\big).$$
When $b=0$, we interpret $1/0$ as being the same as $\infty$, it follows immediately from this definition that any sub-Gaussian random variable is also sub-exponential. There are also a variety of other conditions equivalent to sub-exponentiality, which we relate by defining the sub-exponential norm of random variable. In particular, we define the sub-exponential norm (sometimes known as the $\psi_1$-Orlicz in the literature) as $${\|X\|}_{\psi_1} := \sup_{q \geq 1}\frac{1}{q}({\mathds{E}}[|X^q|])^{1/q}.$$ Then we have the following lemma which provides several equivalent characterizations of sub-exponential random variables.
\[lemma-properties-sub\] (Equivalence of sub-exponential properties [@vershyni2010])\
Let $X$ be a random variable and $\omega > 0$ be a constant. Then, the following properties are all equivalent with suitable numerical constants $K_i > 0, i=1, \ldots, 4$, that are different from each other by at most an absolute constant ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$, meaning that if one statement $(i)$ holds with parameter $K_i$, then the statement $(j)$ holds with parameter $K_j \leq {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}K_i$.
1. sub-exponential tails: ${\mathds{P}}[|X| > t] \leq \exp\big(1 -\frac{t}{\omega K_1}\big)$, for all $t \geq 0$.
2. sub-exponential moments: $({\mathds{E}}[|X^q|])^{1/q} \leq K_2\omega {q},$ for all $q\geq 1$.
3. existence of moment generating function (Mgf): ${\mathds{E}}\big[\exp\big(\frac{X}{\omega K_3}\big)\big] \leq e.$
Note that in each of the statements of Theorem \[lemma-properties-sub\], we may replace $\omega$ by ${\|X\|}_{\psi_1}$ and, up to absolute constant factors, ${\|X\|}_{\psi_1}$ is the smallest possible number in these inequalities.
(Mgf of sub-exponential random variables [@vershyni2010]) \[lemma-mgf-subexprv\] Let $X$ be a centered sub- exponential random variable. Then, for $t$ such that $|t| \leq c/{\|X\|}_{\psi_1},$ one has $${\mathds{E}}[\exp(tX)] \leq \exp(C t^2 {\|X\|}^2_{\psi_1})$$ where $C, c > 0$ are absolute constants.
\[lemma-subgaussian-tail-X\] For all $v\in[V]$ and $(i,j)\in [d_u]\times [d_v]$, the random variable $X^v_{i,j}$ is a sub-exponential with parameters $(U_\gamma, K)$, where $K$ is defined in Assumption \[assump-Gv-bound\]. Moreover, we have that ${\|X^v_{i,j}\|}_{\psi_1} = {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K)$ for some absolute constant ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$.
Let $t$ such that $|t|\leq 1/K$, then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathds{E}}[\exp\big(t(X^v_{ij} &- {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])\big)]\\
&= e^{-t(G^v)'(M^v_{ij})}\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}} h^v(x)\exp\big((t + M^v_{ij})x - G^v(M^v_{ij})\big)dx\\
& = e^{G^v(t+M_{ij}^v) - G^v(M_{ij}^v) -t(G^v)'(M^v_{ij})}\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}} h^v(x)\exp\big((t + M^v_{ij})x - G^v(t + M^v_{ij})\big)dx\\
& = e^{G^v(t+M_{ij}^v) - G^v(M_{ij}^v) -t(G^v)'(M^v_{ij})},\end{aligned}$$ where we used in the last inequality the fact that that $\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}} h^v(x)\exp\big((t + M^v_{ij})x - G^v(t + M^v_{ij})\big)dx = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f_{h^v,G^v}(X^v_{i,j}|t+M^v_{ij})dx = 1$. Therefore, an ordinary Taylor series expansion of $G^v$ implies that there exists $t_{\gamma, K} \in [-\gamma - \frac{1}{K}, \gamma + \frac{1}{K}]$ such that $G^v(t+M_{ij}^v) - G^v(M_{ij}^v) -t(G^v)'(M^v_{ij}) = (t^2/2)(G^v)''(t_{\gamma, K}^2)$. By Assumption \[assump-Gv-bound\], we obtain $${\mathds{E}}[\exp\big(t(X^v_{ij} - {\mathds{E}}[X^v_{ij}])\big)] \leq \exp\Big(\frac{t^2U_\gamma^2}{2}\Big).$$ Using Lemma \[lemma-mgf-subexprv\], we get ${\|X^v_{i,j}\|}_{\psi_1} = {\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}(U_\gamma \vee K)$ for some absolute constant ${\raisebox{-0.15ex}{\scalebox{1.30}{$c$}}}$. This proves Lemma \[lemma-subgaussian-tail-X\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a topological theory of the Maslov index for lagrangian and symplectic paths based on a minimal system of axioms. We recover, as particular cases, the Hörmander and the Robbin–Salomon indices.'
author:
- |
M. de Gosson and S. de Gosson\
[email protected]
title: A topological theory of Maslov indices for Lagrangian and symplectic paths
---
Introduction
============
The theory of the Maslov index has recently found new applications in intersection theory.
General notations\[not\]
------------------------
We essentially use the notations of Leray [@Leray]. Let $X=\mathbb{R}^{n} $; the product $X\times X^{\ast }$ is endowed with the canonical symplectic structure defined by: $$\omega (z,z^{\prime })=\left\langle p,x^{\prime }\right\rangle -\left\langle
p^{\prime },x\right\rangle$$if $z=(x,p)$, $z^{\prime }=(x^{\prime }$,$p^{\prime })$. The symplectic group of $(X\times X^{\ast },\omega )$ will be denoted by $Sp(n)$: we have $s\in Sp(n)$ if and only if $\omega (sz,sz^{\prime })=\omega (z,z^{\prime })$ for all $z,z^{\prime }$. The Poincaré group $\pi _{1}(Sp(n))$ is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{Z},+)$ and $Sp(n)$ has thus covering groups $Sp_{q}(n)$ of all orders $q=1,2,...,\infty $ ($Sp_{\infty }(n)$ is the universal covering group of $Sp(n)$). The unitary group $U(n)$ is identified with a subgroup of $Sp(n)$ by defining the action of $u=A+iB$ on $z=x+p$ by the formula $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x^{\prime } \\
p^{\prime }\end{array}\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A & -B \\
B & A\end{array}\right) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
x \\
p\end{array}\right)$$
We denote by $\Lambda (n)$ the Lagrangian Grassmannian of $(X\times X^{\ast
},\omega )$: $\ell \in \Lambda (n)$ if and only if $\ell $ is an $n$ dimensional subspace of $X\times X^{\ast }$ on which the form $\omega $ vanishes. The manifold $\Lambda (n)$ is connected and compact manifold and has dimension $n(n+1)/2$. Its Poincaré group $\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$ is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{Z},+)$ and $\Lambda (n)$ thus has coverings $\Lambda
_{q}(n)$ of all orders $q$. Its universal covering $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ is sometimes called the Maslov bundle.
The group $Sp(n)$, and hence $U(n)$, acts on $\Lambda (n)$. The action of $U(n)$, and hence that of $Sp(n)$, is transitive: the orbit of every $\ell
\in \Lambda (n)$ under the action of $Sp(n)$ is $\Lambda (n)$.
We shall denote by $St_{\ell }(n)$ the stabilizer group of a Lagrangian $\ell $ in $Sp(n)$: $$St_{\ell }(n)=\left\{ s\in Sp(n):s\ell =\ell \right\} \text{.}$$One can show (see [@Arnold; @Dazord; @Leray]) that the fibration $Sp(n)/St_{X^{\ast }}(n)=\Lambda (n)$ defines an isomorphism $$\mathbb{Z}\cong \pi _{1}\left[ Sp(n)\right] \longrightarrow \pi _{1}\left[
\Lambda (n)\right] \cong \mathbb{Z}$$which is multiplication by $2$ on $\mathbb{Z}$. It follows (see [@Leray], Theorem 3,3$^{o}$), p.36) that the action of $Sp(n)$ on $\Lambda (n)$ can be lifted to a transitive action of the universal covering $Sp_{\infty }(n)$ on the Maslov bundle $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ such that $$(\alpha s_{\infty })\ell _{\infty }=\beta ^{2}(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty
})=s_{\infty }(\beta ^{2}\ell _{\infty }) \label{alfabeta}$$for all $(s_{\infty },\ell _{\infty })\in Sp_{\infty }(n)\times \Lambda
_{\infty }(n)$ ; $\alpha $ (resp. $\beta $) is the generator of $\pi
_{1}(Sp(n))$ (resp. $\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$) whose image in $\mathbb{Z}$ is $+1$.
The Lagrangian Grassmannian $\Lambda (n)$ is a stratified manifold; for $\ell \in \Lambda $ and $k$ an integer, $0\leq k\leq n$, $$\Lambda _{\ell }(n,k)=\left\{ \ell ^{\prime }\in \Lambda (n):\dim (\ell \cap
\ell ^{\prime })=k\right\}$$is the stratum of $\Lambda (n)$ of order $k$, relative to the Lagrangian plane $\ell $. We will also use the following notations: $$\Lambda ^{2}(n;k)=\bigcup_{\ell \in \Lambda }\Lambda _{\ell }(k)\text{ \ , \
}\Lambda _{\infty }^{2}(n;k)=\pi ^{-1}(\Lambda ^{2}(k))$$that is: $$\Lambda ^{2}(n;k)=\left\{ (\ell ,\ell ^{\prime })\in \Lambda (n)^{2}:\dim
(\ell \cap \ell ^{\prime })=k\right\}$$$$\Lambda _{\infty }^{2}(n;k)=\left\{ (\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty }^{\prime
})\in \Lambda _{\infty }(n)^{2}:\dim (\ell \cap \ell ^{\prime })=k\right\}
\text{.}$$In particular, $\Lambda _{\infty }^{2}(n;0)$ is the set of pairs $(\ell
_{\infty },\ell _{\infty }^{\prime })$ of elements of $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ whose projections $\ell $ and $\ell ^{\prime }$ are transversal. One proves (see for instance [@Treves]) that $\Lambda _{\ell }(n;0)$ is an open subset of $\Lambda (n)$ and that the $\Lambda _{\ell }(n;k)$ are, for $0\leq
k\leq n$, connected submanifolds of $\Lambda (n)$, of codimension $k(k+1)/2$. The closed set $$\Sigma _{\ell }=\Lambda (n)\setminus \Lambda _{\ell
}(n;0)=\bigcup_{k=1}^{n}\Lambda _{\ell }(k)$$is called the Maslov cycle relative to $\ell $. It is the set of Lagrangians that are not transverse to $\ell $. When $\ell =X^{\ast }$ we call $\Sigma _{\ell }$ the *Maslov cycle*, and denote it by $\Sigma $.
Cohomological notations
-----------------------
It will be economical to use the following elementary notations from the singular Alexander–Spanier cohomology: let $E$ be a set, $k$ a positive integer or $0$, and $(G,+)$ an abelian group. We shall call the functions $f:E^{k+1}\longrightarrow G$ $k$-*cochains on* $E$ *with values in* $G$ (or simply $k$-*cochains*$,$ or *cochains*). The coboundary $\partial f$ of a $k$-cochain is the $(k+1)$-cochain defined by: $$\partial f(a_{0},...,a_{k+1})=\sum_{j=0}^{k+1}(-1)^{j}f(a_{0},...,\widehat{a}_{j},...,a_{k+1})\text{,}$$where the cap deletes the term it covers. We evidently have that $\partial ^{2}f=0$ for every cochain $f$. A $k$-cochain $f$ is a *coboundary* if there exists a cochain $g$ such that $f=\partial g$; a cochain $f$ is a *cocycle* if* *$\partial f=0$. We thus have that every coboundary is a cocycle.
The Keller-Maslov index\[km\]
=============================
In this section we recall the definition of the Keller-Maslov index (seed [@Arnold; @Leray; @Souriau2] for a thorough study).
Using the ideas of Keller [@Keller], Maslov introduced in [@Maslov] an index, whose definition was clarified by [@Arnold] and extended by Leray [@Leray5; @Leray] and one of the authors [@JMPA]. (Dazord [Dazord]{} has given similar results in the more general case of symplectic bundles.) The Keller-Maslov index is designed to count the number of intersections of a Lagrangian loop $\gamma $ with the Maslov cycle $\Sigma $.* *It is defined in the following way. Let $W(n,\mathbb{C})$ be the submanifold of $U(n,\mathbb{C})$ consisting of symmetric matrices: $$W(n,\mathbb{C})=\left\{ u\in U(n,\mathbb{C}):u=u^{t}\right\} \text{.}$$($u^{t}=(u^{\ast })^{-1}$ the transpose of $u$). The mapping $$\Lambda (n)\ni \ell =uX^{\ast }\longmapsto uu^{t}\in U(n,\mathbb{C})$$is a homeomorphism $$\Lambda (n)\ni \ell =uX^{\ast }\longmapsto uu^{t}\in W(n,\mathbb{C})$$The composition of the isomorphism $\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))\cong \pi _{1}(W(n,\mathbb{C}))$ induced by this homeomorphism with the isomorphism $$\pi _{1}(W(n,\mathbb{C}))\ni \lbrack \gamma ]\longmapsto \frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{\gamma }\frac{d(\det w)}{\det w}\in \mathbb{Z} \label{isom1}$$is an isomorphism $$\func{ind}:\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))\ni \lbrack \gamma ]\overset{\cong }{\longmapsto }\func{ind}[\gamma ]\in (\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{+)}\text{.}$$By definition, The Keller-Maslov index on $\Lambda (n)$ is the mapping $m$ that to each Lagrangian loop $\gamma $ associate the integer: $$m(\gamma )=\func{ind}[\gamma ]=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{\gamma }\frac{d(\det w)}{\det w}\text{.} \label{indice}$$
We can easily show that $m(\gamma )$ is zero in the strata of $\Lambda (n)$: $$\func{Im}\gamma \subset \Lambda _{\ell }(n;k)\Longrightarrow m(\gamma )=0\text{.}$$
Let $\beta $ be the generator of $\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$ whose natural image in $\mathbb{Z}$ is $+1$. Its Maslov index is $$m(\beta )=1\text{.} \label{mabetaun}$$ The Keller-Maslov index is an homotopic invariant and in particular $m(\gamma )=0$ if $\gamma $ is contractible to a point. Furthermore, this index possesses the following additivity property: $$m(\gamma \ast \gamma ^{\prime })=m(\gamma )+m(\gamma ^{\prime })
\label{maprop}$$ for all consecutive loops $\gamma $ and $\gamma ^{\prime }$ ($\gamma \ast
\gamma ^{\prime }$ being the loop $\gamma $ followed by the loop $\gamma
^{\prime }$).
One should note the difference between the Keller-Maslov index $m$ on $\Lambda (n)$ and the index $m_{V}$ of loop on a Lagrangian submanifold $V$ in $X\times X^{\ast }$. The index $m_{V}$ is defined in the following way: Let $\ell (\cdot )$ be the continuous mapping that to each $z\in V$ associates the tangent space at $z$ : $\ell (z)=T_{z}V$. This mapping associated to each loop $\gamma _{V}$ in $V$ a loop $\gamma $ in $\Lambda
(n) $, and by definition: $$m_{V}(\gamma _{V})=m(\gamma )\text{.} \label{variete}$$Souriau proved in [@Souriau3] that $$m_{V}(\gamma _{V})\text{ \textit{is an even integer when the manifold} }V\text{ \textit{is oriented}.} \label{sousou}$$In fact, we have the more precise result (see de Gosson [@Wiley]). In what follows we denote by $\Lambda _{2q}(n)$ the connected $2q$-fold covering of $\Lambda (n)$, $q=1,2,...$).
Suppose that the mapping $\ell (\cdot ):V\longrightarrow \Lambda (n)$ is lifted to a continuous mapping $\ell _{2q}(\cdot ):V\longrightarrow \Lambda
_{2q}(n).$ Then $$m_{V}(\gamma _{V})\equiv 0\text{ \ }\func{mod}2q$$ for every loop $\gamma _{V}$ in $V$.
Note that if $\ell (\cdot )$ is lifted to a continuous mapping $\ell
_{\infty }(\cdot ):V\longrightarrow \Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ we have $m(\gamma
_{V})=0$ for every loop $\gamma _{V}$ in $V$ since the universal covering $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ is simply connected.
Definition of the indices $\protect\mu _{\Lambda }$ and $\protect\mu _{Sp}$
===========================================================================
Let $\mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))$ be the set of continuous paths $[0,1]\longrightarrow \Lambda (n)$. If $\lambda $ and $\lambda ^{\prime }$ are two consecutive paths (i.e., if $\lambda (1)=\lambda ^{\prime }(0)$) we shall denote $\lambda \ast \lambda ^{\prime }$ the path $\lambda $ followed by the path $\lambda ^{\prime }$: $$\lambda \ast \lambda ^{\prime }(t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\lambda (2t)\text{ \ \textit{if} \ }0\leq t\leq \tfrac{1}{2}\medskip \\
\lambda ^{\prime }(2t-1)\text{ \ \textit{if} \ }\tfrac{1}{2}\leq t\leq 1\text{.}\end{array}\right.$$We denote by $\lambda ^{-1}$ the inverse of the path $\lambda $ : $\lambda
^{-1}(t)=\lambda (1-t)$. Finally, we shall write $\lambda \sim \lambda
^{\prime }$ when the paths $\lambda $ and $\lambda ^{\prime }$ are homotopic with fixed endpoints.
Axioms for the indices $\protect\mu _{\Lambda }$
------------------------------------------------
\[definition1\]A ”Lagrangian intersection index” is a mapping $$\mu _{\Lambda }:\mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))\times \Lambda (n)\ni (\lambda ,\ell
)\longmapsto \mu _{\Lambda (n)}(\lambda ,\ell )\in \mathbb{Z}$$ having the following four properties:
(L$_{1}$)
: homotopic invariance**:** *If the paths* $\lambda $* and* $\lambda ^{\prime }$* in* $\Lambda (n)$* have the same endpoints, then* $\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell
)=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime },\ell )$ if and only if $\lambda \sim
\lambda ^{\prime }$;
(L$_{2}$)
: Additivity under composition: If $\lambda $ and $\lambda
^{\prime }$ are two consecutive paths, then for all $\ell \in \Lambda (n)$: $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda \ast \lambda ^{\prime },\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda
}(\lambda ,\ell )+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime },\ell )$$
(L$_{3}$)
: Zero in the stratum. If the path $\lambda $ remains in the same stratum $\Lambda _{\ell }(n;k)$, then $\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )$ is zero, i.e., $$\dim \lambda (t)\cap \ell =k\text{ \ }(0\leq t\leq 1)\Longrightarrow \mu
_{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )=0\text{.}$$
(L$_{4}$)
: Restriction to loops. If $\gamma $ is a loop, then $\mu
_{\Lambda }(\gamma ,\ell )=2m(\gamma )$ ($m(\gamma )$ the Maslov index of $\gamma $) for all $\ell $.
(We shall see in \[RSM\] that the condition $\mu _{\Lambda }(\gamma ,\ell
)=2m(\gamma )$, and not $\mu _{\Lambda }(\gamma ,\ell )=m(\gamma )$, is necessary for an index satisfying the axioms (L$_{1}$–L$_{3}$) to be an integer)
We note in particular that the axioms (L$_{2}$) and (L$_{4}$) imply that the index is antisymmetric, i.e. , $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{-1},\ell )=-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )\text{.}
\label{mopp}$$ Indeed, by (L$_{2}$) we have $$\mu _{\Lambda (n)}(\lambda \ast \lambda ^{-1},\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda
(n)}(\lambda ,\ell )+\mu _{\Lambda (n)}(\lambda ^{-1},\ell )$$ but since the loop $\lambda \ast \lambda ^{-1}=\gamma $ is homotopic to a point the axiom (L$_{4}$) implies that $$\mu _{\Lambda (n)}(\lambda \ast \lambda ^{-1},\ell )=2m(\gamma )=0\text{.}$$
The system of axioms (L$_{1}$)–(L$_{4}$) is in fact equivalent to the system of axioms obtained by replacing (L$_{1}$) by an apparently stronger condition (L$_{1}^{\prime }$) we are going to describe below. Let us first define the notion of “homotopy in strata”:
Two Lagrangian paths $\lambda $ and $\lambda ^{\prime }$ are said to be “homotopic in the strata relative to $\ell $” (denoted $\lambda \approx
_{\ell }\lambda ^{\prime }$) if there exits a continuous mapping $h:[0,1]\times \lbrack 0,1]\longrightarrow \Lambda (n)$ such that $$h(t,0)=\lambda (t)\text{ \ , }h(t,1)=\lambda ^{\prime }(t)\text{ \ \textit{for} \ }0\leq t\leq 1$$ and two integers $k_{0},k_{1}$ ($0\leq k_{0},k_{1}\leq n$) such that $$h(0,s)\in \Lambda _{\ell }(n;k_{0})\text{ \ \textit{and} \ }h(1,s)\in
\Lambda _{\ell }(n;k_{1})\text{ \ \textit{for} \ }0\leq s\leq 1\text{.}$$
The intersection indices $\mu _{\Lambda }$ have the following property that makes (L$_{1}$) more precise:
*If the paths* $\lambda $* and* $\lambda ^{\prime }$* are homotopic in strata relative to* $\ell $*, then* $\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda
^{\prime },\ell )$, i.e. , $$\lambda \approx _{\ell }\lambda ^{\prime }\Longrightarrow \mu _{\Lambda
}(\lambda ,\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime },\ell )\text{.}
\label{precis}$$
Suppose that $\lambda \approx _{\ell }\lambda ^{\prime }$ and define the paths $\varepsilon _{0}$ and $\varepsilon _{1}$ joining $\lambda ^{\prime
}(0)$ to $\lambda (0)$ and $\lambda (1)$ to $\lambda ^{\prime }(1)$, respectively, by $\varepsilon _{0}(s)=h(0,1-s)$ and $\varepsilon
_{1}(s)=h(1,s)$ ($0\leq s\leq 1$). Then $\lambda \ast \varepsilon _{1}\ast
\lambda ^{\prime -1}\ast \varepsilon _{0}$ is homotopic to a point, and hence, in view of (L$_{2}$) and (L$_{4}$): $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )+\mu _{\Lambda }(\varepsilon _{1},\ell )+\mu
_{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime -1},\ell )+\mu _{\Lambda }(\varepsilon
_{0},\ell )=0\text{.}$$ But, in view of (L$_{3}$) $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\varepsilon _{1},\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\varepsilon
_{0},\ell )=0$$ and thus $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime -1},\ell )=0$$ hence $\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime
},\ell )$ in view of (\[mopp\]).
A property of relative uniqueness
---------------------------------
The axioms (L$_{1}$–L$_{4}$) do not guaranty the uniqueness of an intersection index. Indeed, if $\mu _{\Lambda }$ is such an index, then the function $\mu _{\Lambda (n)}^{\prime }:\mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))\times
\Lambda (n)\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ defined by $$\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda ,\ell )=\mu (\lambda ,\ell )+\dim (\lambda
(1)\cap \ell )-\dim (\lambda (0)\cap \ell )$$is also an intersection index. We will prove in this section a result of relative uniqueness modulo a $1$-cochain.
Let us introduce the following notations: for every pair of points $(\ell
_{i},\ell _{j})$ of $\Lambda (n)$ we denote $\lambda _{ij}$ or $\lambda
_{ij}^{\prime }$ an arbitrary element of $\mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))$ joining $\ell _{i}$ to $\ell _{j}$. The opposite path $\lambda _{ij}^{-1}$ of $\lambda _{ij}$ will then be denoted $\lambda _{ji}$. Using these notations we can formulate a theorem relating all intersection indices to one another. That is, show that there exists some function allowing us to relate one intersection index to another, thereby giving us a relative uniqueness theorem for intersection indices.
\[un\]Let $\mu _{\Lambda }$ and $\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }$ be two intersection indices on $\Lambda (n)$. For every $\ell \in \Lambda (n)$ there exists a function $f:\mathbb{N}\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ such that: $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01},\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda
_{01},\ell )=f(\dim (\ell _{0}\cap \ell ))-f(\dim (\ell _{1}\cap \ell ))\text{.} \label{kiki}$$
To prove this fact we have to make sure that the left-hand side of ([kiki]{}) does not depend on anything else than $\ell _{0},\ell _{1}$ (and of course $\ell $). We have the essential
for $\ell $ fixed, the difference $\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01},\ell )-\mu
_{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda _{01},\ell )$ depends only on $(\ell _{0},\ell
_{1})$, and the $1$-cochain $\delta _{\ell }$ on $\Lambda (n)$ given by: $$\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0},\ell _{1})=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01},\ell
)-\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda _{01},\ell ) \label{delta}$$is an antisymmetric cocycle: $$\partial \delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2})=0\text{ \ and \ }\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0},\ell _{1})=-\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{1},\ell _{0})
\label{cocasse}$$for all $(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2})\in \Lambda (n)^{3}$.
Suppose that we replace the path $\lambda _{01}$ with another path $\lambda _{01}^{\prime }$ joining $\ell _{0}$ to $\ell _{1}$. Then, there exists a loop $\gamma _{1}$ passing by $\ell _{1}$ and such that $\lambda _{01}^{\prime }\sim \lambda _{01}\ast \gamma _{1}$ and we have, by the axioms (L$_{1}$) and (L$_{4}$): $$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01}^{\prime },\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda
_{01},\ell )+2m(\gamma _{1})\medskip \\
\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda _{01}^{\prime },\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda
}^{\prime }(\lambda _{01},\ell )+2m(\gamma _{1})\end{array}\right. .$$Hence, the difference $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01}^{\prime },\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime
}(\lambda _{01}^{\prime },\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01},\ell )-\mu
_{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda _{01},\ell )=\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0},\ell
_{1})$$depends only on $\ell _{0}$ and $\ell _{1}$ (and $\ell $). We now show that the coboundary of that $1$-cochain is zero: $\partial \delta _{\ell }=0$. Let $(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2})$ be an arbitrary triple of points in $\Lambda (n)$. By the properties (L$_{2}$) and (L$_{4}$) we see that $$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01},\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{02},\ell
)+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )=2m(\gamma _{0})\medskip \\
\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda _{01},\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime
}(\lambda _{02},\ell )+\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda _{12},\ell
)=2m(\gamma _{0})\end{array}\right. \label{accol}$$where $\gamma _{0}=\lambda _{01}\ast \lambda _{12}\ast \lambda _{20}$ is a loop with origin $\ell _{0}$. Substracting the second equality (\[accol\]) from the first and using the definition of $\delta _{\ell }$ we obtain: $$\partial \delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2})=0\text{.}$$The antisymmetry of $\delta _{\ell }$ is an immediate consequence of ([mopp]{}).
\(1) By the definition of $\delta _{\ell }$ we have $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01},\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01}^{\prime
},\ell )=\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0},\ell _{1})\text{.}$$ Since $\delta _{\ell }$ is a cocycle this equality can be written as $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01},\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01}^{\prime
},\ell )=\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0},\ell )-\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{1},\ell )\text{.}$$ We shall show that the $0$-cochain $\ell _{0}\longmapsto \delta _{\ell
}(\ell _{0},\ell )$ is constant in each stratum $\Lambda _{\ell }(n;k)$ and the theorem will follow. We see, by the definition of $\delta _{\ell }$ that $$\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0},\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )-\mu
_{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda ,\ell )$$ where $\lambda $ is an arbitrary path joining $\ell _{0}$ to $\ell $ in $\Lambda (n)$. Let $\lambda ^{\prime }$ be a path joining $\ell _{0}$ to $\ell _{0}^{\prime }$ in $\Lambda _{\ell }(n;k)$. Then $$\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0}^{\prime },\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime
}\ast \lambda ,\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda ^{\prime }\ast
\lambda ,\ell )$$ and in view of the additivity property (L$_{2}$) $$\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0}^{\prime },\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime
},\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda ^{\prime },\ell )+\delta _{\ell
}(\ell _{0},\ell )\text{.}$$ But, by the axiom (L$_{3}$) $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime },\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }(\lambda
^{\prime },\ell )=0$$ and we thus have $\delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0}^{\prime },\ell )=\delta _{\ell
}(\ell _{0},\ell )$, from which we conclude that the mapping $\ell
_{0}\longmapsto \delta _{\ell }(\ell _{0},\ell )$ is constant in the stratum $\Lambda _{\ell }(n;k)$.
The signature cocycle\[cosign\]
-------------------------------
We now present an interesting result that will generalize the axiom (L$_{1}$) and that will enable us to give a notion of signature for every triple of elements of elements in $\Lambda (n)$.
\[3chemins\]Let $\ell _{0}$, $\ell _{1}$, $\ell _{2}$ be three elements of $\Lambda (n)$. Suppose that the paths $\lambda _{ij}$ and $\lambda
_{ij}^{\prime }$ ($0\leq i,j\leq 2$) are such that $$\lambda _{01}\ast \lambda _{12}\ast \lambda _{20}\sim \lambda _{01}^{\prime
}\ast \lambda _{12}^{\prime }\ast \lambda _{20}^{\prime }\text{.}
\label{etoile}$$ Then both sums $$\Sigma =\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01},\ell _{2})+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda
_{12},\ell _{0})+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{20},\ell _{1})$$ and $$\Sigma ^{\prime }=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01}^{\prime },\ell _{2})+\mu
_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12}^{\prime },\ell _{0})+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda
_{20}^{\prime },\ell _{1})$$ are equal: $\Sigma =\Sigma ^{\prime }$. Furthermore, $\Sigma $ does not depend on the choice of $\mu _{\Lambda }$.
There exist loops $\gamma _{0}^{1}$, $\gamma _{0}^{2}$ and $\gamma _{0}^{3}$ passing through $\ell _{0}$ such that $$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\lambda _{01}^{\prime }\sim \gamma _{0}^{1}\ast \lambda _{01}\medskip \\
\lambda _{12}^{\prime }\sim \lambda _{10}\ast \gamma _{0}^{2}\ast \lambda
_{01}\ast \lambda _{12}\medskip \\
\lambda _{20}^{\prime }\sim \lambda _{20}\ast \gamma _{0}^{3}\end{array}
\right. \text{ .}$$ In view of (\[etoile\]) and the properties (L$_{1}$) and (L$_{4}$) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma ^{\prime }=\Sigma +2(m(\gamma _{0}^{1})+m(\gamma _{0}^{2})+m(\gamma
_{0}^{3})) \\
=\Sigma +2m(\gamma _{0}^{1}\ast \gamma _{0}^{2}\ast \gamma _{0}^{3})\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ But (\[etoile\]) implies that $\gamma _{0}^{1}\ast \gamma _{0}^{2}\ast
\gamma _{0}^{3}\sim 0$ and hence that $\mu _{\Lambda (n)}(\gamma
_{0}^{1}\ast \gamma _{0}^{2}\ast \gamma _{0}^{3})=0$ and $\Sigma ^{\prime
}=\Sigma $. It remains to prove that $\Sigma $ is independent of the choice of index $\mu _{\Lambda (n)}$. If $\mu _{\Lambda (n)}^{\prime }$ is another intersection index and $\Sigma ^{\prime }$ the associated sum the relative uniqueness theorem \[un\] tells us that $$\begin{gathered}
\Sigma -\Sigma ^{\prime }=f(\dim (\ell _{0}\cap \ell _{2}))-f(\dim (\ell
_{1}\cap \ell _{2}))+f(\dim (\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{0})) \\
-f(\dim (\ell _{2}\cap \ell _{0}))+f(\dim (\ell _{2}\cap \ell _{1}))-f(\dim
(\ell _{0}\cap \ell _{1}))\end{gathered}$$ that is: $\Sigma -\Sigma ^{\prime }=0$.
This result motivates the following definition
Let $(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2})\in \Lambda (n)^{3}$ and $\lambda _{01}$, $\lambda _{12}$, $\lambda _{20}$ be elements of $\mathcal{C}$ $(\Lambda
(n))$ such that $\lambda _{01}\ast \lambda _{12}\ast \lambda _{20}$ be homotopic to a point. The sum $$\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2})=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda
_{01},\ell _{2})+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell _{0})+\mu _{\Lambda
}(\lambda _{20},\ell _{1}) \label{siglag}$$ is called the signature of the triple $(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2})$. This signature is independent of the choice of intersection index $\mu
_{\Lambda }$ on $\Lambda (n)$.
In Section \[Kashiwa\] we will show that $\func{sign}$ is just the Demazure–Kashiwara signature $\tau $ ([@Marle; @LV]) arising in symplectic geometry.
By (\[mopp\]), the signature is an antisymmetric $2$-cochain $$\func{sign}(\ell _{\varepsilon (0)},\ell _{\varepsilon (1)},\ell
_{\varepsilon (2)})=(-1)^{sgn(\varepsilon )}\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell
_{1},\ell _{2})$$ for every permutation $\varepsilon $ of $\left\{ 0,1,2\right\} $. Furthermore, it possesses the following essential property
\[propos\]The signature is a $2$-cocycle: $$\partial \func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})=0
\label{sicoc}$$ that is $$\begin{gathered}
\func{sign}(\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})-\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell
_{2},\ell _{3}) \\
+\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{3})-\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell
_{1},\ell _{2})=0\text{.}\end{gathered}$$
By the definition of the coboundary operator $\partial $ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\partial \func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})=\func{sign}(\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})-\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{2},\ell _{3}) \\
+\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{3})-\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell
_{1},\ell _{2})\end{gathered}$$ and a calculation making use of (\[mopp\]) and the axiom (L$_{2}$) gives us $$\begin{gathered}
\partial \func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})= \\
\mu _{\Lambda (n)}(\gamma _{1},\ell _{3})+\mu _{\Lambda (n)}(\gamma
_{2},\ell _{1})+\mu _{\Lambda (n)}(\gamma _{3},\ell _{2})+\mu _{\Lambda
(n)}(\gamma _{4},\ell _{0})\end{gathered}$$ where $\gamma _{1}=\gamma _{12}\ast \gamma _{20}\ast \gamma _{01}$, $\gamma
_{2}=\gamma _{23}\ast \gamma _{30}\ast \gamma _{02}$, $\gamma _{3}=\gamma
_{31}\ast \gamma _{10}\ast \gamma _{03}$ and $\gamma _{4}=\gamma _{32}\ast
\gamma _{21}\ast \gamma _{13}$ are loop, hence by (L$_{4}$) $$\partial \func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})=2(m(\gamma
_{1})+m(\gamma _{2})+m(\gamma _{3})+m(\gamma _{3}))\text{.}$$ The loops $\gamma _{1}$, $\gamma _{2}$, $\gamma _{3}$ and $\gamma _{4}$ being contractible to a point, the Maslov indices of this loops are zero and thereby $\partial \func{sign}=0$.
The indices $\protect\mu _{Sp}$
-------------------------------
We shall denote by $\mathcal{C}(Sp(n))$ the set of continuous paths $[0,1]\longrightarrow Sp(n)$.
\[definition2\] A symplectic intersection index is a mapping $$\mu _{Sp}:\mathcal{C}(Sp(n))\times \Lambda (n)\ni (\sigma ,\ell )\longmapsto
\mu _{Sp}(\lambda ,\ell )\in \mathbb{Z}$$satisfying the following four axioms:
(S$_{1}$)
: Homotopic invariance**.** If the symplectic paths $\sigma $ and $\sigma ^{\prime }$ are homotopic with fixed endpoints, then $\mu _{Sp}(\sigma ,\ell )=\mu _{Sp}(\sigma ^{\prime },\ell )$ for all $\ell
\in \Lambda (n)$.
(S$_{2}$)
: Additivity by concatenation**.** If $\sigma $ and $\sigma ^{\prime }$ are two consecutive symplectic paths, and if $\sigma \ast
\sigma ^{\prime }$ is the path $\sigma $ followed by the path $\sigma
^{\prime }$ then $$\mu _{Sp}(\sigma \ast \sigma ^{\prime },\ell )=\mu _{Sp}(\sigma ,\ell )+\mu
_{Sp}(\sigma ^{\prime },\ell )$$ for all $\ell \in \Lambda (n)$.
(S$_{3}$)
: Zero in the stratum**.** If $\sigma $ and $\ell $ are such that $\func{Im}(\sigma \ell )\subset \Lambda (n)_{\ell }$, then $\mu
_{Sp}(\sigma ,\ell )=0$.
(S$_{4}$)
: Restriction to loops. If $\psi $ is a loop in $Sp$, then $\mu _{Sp}(\psi ,\ell )=2m(\psi \ell )$ for all $\ell \in \Lambda (n)$.
As the homotopy axiom (L$_{1}$) for the Lagrangian indices that may be replaced by an axiom (L$_{1}^{\prime }$) of homotopy in the strata the axiom (S$_{1}$) above may be strengthened by the following statement
(S$_{1}^{\prime }$)
: *If the symplectic paths* $\sigma $* and* $\sigma ^{\prime }$* are such that* $\sigma \ell $ and $\sigma ^{\prime }\ell $ *are homotopic in strata relative to* $\ell $*, then* $\mu _{Sp}(\sigma ,\ell )=\mu _{Sp}(\sigma ^{\prime },\ell )$.
The proof of this is identical to that of (L$_{1}^{\prime }$). What is noteworthy is that the data of an intersection index on $\Lambda (n)$ is equivalent to that of an intersection index on $Sp(n)$. Indeed, let $\mu
_{\Lambda }$ be an intersection index on $\Lambda (n)$ and let $\sigma \in
\mathcal{C}(Sp(n))$ be a symplectic path. Then then function $$\mathcal{C}(Sp(n))\times \Lambda (n)\ni (\sigma ,\ell )\longmapsto \mu
(\sigma \ell ,\ell )\in \mathbb{Z} \label{formuleun}$$($\sigma \ell $ being the path $t\longmapsto \sigma (t)\ell $) is an intersection index on $Sp(n)$.
Conversely, to each intersection index $\mu _{Sp}$ we may associate an intersection index $\mu _{\Lambda (n)}$ on $\Lambda (n)$ in the following way. To each $\ell \in \Lambda (n)$ we have a fibration $$Sp(n)\longrightarrow Sp/St(\ell )=\Lambda (n)$$ ($St(\ell )$ being the stabilizer of $\ell $ in $Sp$), hence, every path $\lambda \in \mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))$ can be lifted to a path $\sigma \in
\mathcal{C}(Sp(n))$ such that $\lambda =\sigma \ell $. One verifies that the mapping $$\mu _{\Lambda (n)}:\mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))\times \Lambda (n)\ni (\lambda
,\ell )\longmapsto \mu _{Sp}(\sigma ,\ell )\in \mathbb{Z}
\label{formuledeux}$$ defines an intersection index on the manifold $\Lambda (n)$.
As in the Lagrangian case, we have a relative uniqueness result for the symplectic path intersection indices
Let $\mu _{Sp}$ and $\mu _{Sp}^{\prime }$ be two symplectic intersection indices. There exists a function $f$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\mu _{Sp}(\sigma ,\ell )=\mu _{Sp}^{\prime }(\sigma ,\ell )+ \label{21} \\
f(\dim (\sigma (0)\ell \cap \ell ))-f(\dim (\sigma (0)\ell \cap \ell ))\text{.} \notag\end{gathered}$$
It is a direct consequence of the relative uniqueness theorem for Lagrangian intersection indices.
The indices $\protect\mu _{\infty }$ on $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$
===============================================================
We shall in this section use the same notations as in the previous one for paths joining some point $\ell _{i}$ to another point $\ell _{j}$ in $\Lambda (n)$. Recall that $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ denotes the universal covering of $\Lambda (n)$. We are going to use the intersection index for Lagrangian paths to define an index $\mu _{\infty }:\Lambda _{\infty
}(n)\times \Lambda _{\infty }(n)\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}$.
The definition of $\protect\mu _{\infty }$
------------------------------------------
To each Lagrangian intersection index $\mu _{\Lambda }$ we may associate a $1 $-cochain $\mu _{\infty }$ on the universal covering $\pi :\Lambda
_{\infty }(n)\longrightarrow \Lambda (n)$ in the following way. We choose once and for all a base point $\ell _{0}$ for $\Lambda (n)$. The elements of $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ are then homotopy classes with fixed endpoints of continuous paths of origin $\ell _{0}$ in $\Lambda (n)$. The projection $\pi
$ from $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ onto $\Lambda (n)$ is defined by $\pi (\ell
_{\infty })=\ell $ if $\ell _{\infty }$ is the homotopy class of a path $\lambda $ joining $\ell _{0}$ to $\ell $.
The Leray index associated to $\mu _{\Lambda }$ is the $1$-cochain $\mu
_{\infty }$ on $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ defined by $$\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=-\mu _{\Lambda
(n)}(\lambda _{12},\ell _{0})+\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2})
\label{oignon}$$ where $\ell _{1,\infty }$ and $\ell _{2,\infty }$ are the homotopy classes of the paths $\lambda _{01}$ and $\lambda _{02}$, respectively, and $\lambda
_{12}\sim \lambda _{10}\ast \lambda _{02}$. Also, $\func{sign}$ is the signature cocycle associated to $\mu _{\Lambda }$, as defined in Subsection \[cosign\].
Note that the Leray indices are antisymmetric $$\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=-\mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{2,\infty },\ell _{1,\infty }) \label{antsm}$$ for all $(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })\in \Lambda (n)_{\infty }^{2}$ in view of (\[mopp\]) and the fact that $\limfunc{sign}$ is antisymmetric.
By theorem \[un\] and the fact that the definition of the signature cocycle is intrinsic, two Leray indices $\mu _{\infty }$ and $\mu _{\infty
}^{\prime }$ associated to two intersection indices $\mu _{\Lambda }$ and $\mu _{\Lambda }^{\prime }$ are such that $$\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })-\mu _{\infty }^{\prime
}(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=f(\dim (\ell _{2}\cap \ell
_{0}))-f(\dim (\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{0})) \notag$$ for some function $f:\mathbb{N}\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}$.
The Leray indices have the following properties
\(1) The coboundary of $\mu _{\infty }$ descends to $\Lambda (n)$, i.e. , $\partial \mu _{\infty }=\pi ^{\ast }\func{sign}$. That is, $$\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{1,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })+\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell
_{3,\infty })=\func{sign}(\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3}) \label{unideux}$$ for all $(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })\in \Lambda
_{\infty }(n)^{3}$;
\(2) The action of $\mathbb{\pi }_{1}(\Lambda (n))$ on $\mu _{\infty }$ is given by $$\mu _{\infty }(\gamma _{1}\ell _{1,\infty },\gamma _{2}\ell _{2,\infty
})=\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })+2(m(\gamma
_{1})-m(\gamma _{2})) \label{mabeta}$$ for all $\gamma _{1},\gamma _{2}\in \mathbb{\pi }_{1}(\Lambda (n))$.
*(1)* By the definition (\[oignon\]) of $\mu _{\infty }$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{1,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })+\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell
_{3,\infty })= \\
-(\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell _{0})-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda
_{13},\ell _{0})+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{23},\ell _{0}))+ \\
\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})-\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell
_{1},\ell _{3})+\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})\text{.}\end{gathered}$$ Formula (\[unideux\]) follows: by the axioms (L$_{2}$) and (L$_{4}$), and taking into consideration the fact that $\gamma _{3}=\lambda _{31}\ast
\lambda _{12}\ast \lambda _{23}$ is homotopic to a point, we have $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell _{0})-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{13},\ell
_{0})+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{23},\ell _{0})=2m(\gamma _{3})=0\text{.}$$ By the cocycle property of $\func{sign}$ this yields $$\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})-\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell
_{1},\ell _{3})+\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})=\func{sign}(\ell
_{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})\text{.}$$ *(2)* In view of the antisymmetry of $\mu _{\infty }$ it suffices to show that $$\mu _{\infty }(\gamma \ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=\mu _{\infty
}(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })+2m(\gamma ) \label{cp}$$ for all $\gamma \in \pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$. Let $\gamma $ be a loop with origin $\ell _{0}$. If $\lambda _{01}$ is a representative of $\ell
_{1,\infty }$, then $\gamma \ast \lambda _{01}$is a representative of $\gamma \ell _{1,\infty }$ and, by the definition of $\mu _{\infty }$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\mu _{\infty }(\gamma \ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=-\mu _{\Lambda
}(\lambda _{10}\ast \gamma \ast \lambda _{02},\ell _{0})+\func{sign}(\ell
_{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2}) \\
=-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{10}\ast \lambda _{02},\ell _{0})-2m(\gamma )+\func{sign}(\ell _{0},\ell _{1},\ell _{2}) \\
=\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })+2m(\gamma )\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Formula (\[cp\]) then follows by the definition of the Maslov index.
It is noteworthy that, conversely, the datum of a $1$-cochain $\mu _{\infty
} $ on $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ satisfying the property (\[mabeta\]) above together with a simple topological property, enables us to construct an index, and by theorem \[un\], *all* the Lagrangian intersection indices (and hence all symplectic intersection indices).
\[deep\]Let $\mu _{\infty }$ be a $1$-cochain on $\Lambda (n)$ having the property (\[mabeta\]), and being locally constant on each of the sets $\Lambda _{\infty }^{2}(n;k)$ ($0\leq k\leq n$) defined in Subsection [not]{}. For $(\lambda _{12},\ell )\in \mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))\times \Lambda
(n)$ let us define $\ell _{\infty }$, $\ell _{1,\infty }$ and $\ell
_{2,\infty }$ in the following way:
1. $\ell _{\infty }$ is an arbitrary element of $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ covering $\ell $.
2. $\ell _{1,\infty }$ is the equivalence class of an arbitrary path $\lambda _{01}\in $ $\mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))$ joining $\ell _{0}$ to $\ell
_{1}$.
3. $\ell _{2,\infty }$ is the equivalence class of $\lambda _{02}=\lambda
_{01}\ast \lambda _{12\text{ }}$.
Then the formula $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )=\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell
_{\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{\infty })
\label{foufoun}$$ defines an intersection index. In particular we have $\partial \mu _{\infty
}=\pi ^{\ast }\func{sign}$.
That $\mu _{\Lambda (n)}(\lambda _{12},\ell )$ is independent of the choice of the element $\ell _{\infty }$ of the universal covering $\Lambda _{\infty
}(n)$ covering $\ell $ follows immediately from (\[mabeta\]). Indeed, if $\ell _{\infty }^{\prime }$ covers $\ell $ then there exists an element $\gamma \in \pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$ such that $\ell _{\infty }^{\prime
}=\gamma \ell _{\infty }$ and hence $$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty }^{\prime })=\mu _{\infty
}(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty })-2m(\gamma )\smallskip \\
\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{\infty }^{\prime })=\mu _{\infty
}(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{\infty })-2m(\gamma )\end{array}
\right. \text{\ }$$ and consequently $$\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty }^{\prime })-\mu _{\infty
}(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{1,\infty }^{\prime })=\mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{\infty
})\text{.}$$ Let us show that $\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )$ is also independent of the choice of $\lambda _{01}$ and thereby of the choice of the element $\ell _{1,\infty }$ covering $\ell _{1}$. We replace $\lambda _{01}$ by some path $\lambda _{01}^{\prime }$ and denote $\ell _{1,\infty }^{\prime }$ the element of $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ it defines. Then, there exists an element $\gamma \ $ of $\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$ such that $\ell _{1,\infty }^{\prime
}=\gamma \ell _{1,\infty }$; $\ell _{2,\infty }$ will thus be replaced by $\ell _{2,\infty }^{\prime }=\gamma \ell _{2,\infty }$. Using once again ([mabeta]{}) we have $$\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty }^{\prime },\ell _{\infty })-\mu _{\infty
}(\ell _{1,\infty }^{\prime },\ell _{\infty })=\mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{\infty
})\text{.}$$ It remains to prove that the function $\mu _{\Lambda }$ defined by ([foufoun]{}) satisfies the axioms (L$_{1}$)–(L$_{4}$).
1. Let us replace the path $\lambda _{12}$ by any path $\lambda _{12}^{\prime }$ homotopic (with fixed endpoints) to $\lambda _{12}$. Then $\lambda _{02}=\lambda _{01}\ast \lambda _{12\text{ }}$is replaced by a homotopic path $\lambda _{02}^{\prime }=\lambda _{01}\ast \lambda _{12\text{ }}^{\prime }$and the homotopy class $\ell _{2,\infty }$ does not change. Consequently, $\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12}^{\prime },\ell )=\mu
_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )$.
2. Consider two consecutive paths $\lambda _{12}$ and $\lambda
_{23}$. The index $\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{23},\ell )$ is given by $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{23},\ell )=\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{3,\infty },\ell
_{\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty }^{\prime },\ell _{\infty })$$ where $\ell _{2,\infty }^{\prime }$ is the homotopy class of an arbitrary path $\lambda _{02}^{\prime }$ and $\ell _{3,\infty }$ that of $\lambda
_{02}^{\prime }\ast \lambda _{23}$. Let us choose $\lambda _{02}^{\prime
}=\lambda _{02}$. Then $\ell _{2,\infty }^{\prime }=\ell _{2,\infty }$ and we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{23},\ell
)=\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{1,\infty },\ell _{\infty }) \\
+\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{3,\infty },\ell _{\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty })\end{gathered}$$ that is, $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )+\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{23},\ell
)=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{13},\ell )\text{.}$$
3. Let $\lambda _{12}$ be a path in the strata $\Lambda _{\ell
}(n;k)$ and denote $\ell _{\infty }(t)$ the equivalence class of $\lambda
_{01}\ast \lambda _{12}(t)$. The mapping $t\longmapsto \ell _{\infty }(t)$ being continuous, the composition mapping $t\longmapsto \mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{\infty }(t),\ell _{\infty })$ is locally constant on the interval $[0,1]$. It follows that it is constant on the same interval since $\Lambda _{\ell
}(n;k)$ is connected. Its values is $$\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{\infty }(0),\ell _{\infty })=\mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{\infty }(1),\ell _{\infty })$$ whereof $\mu (\lambda _{12},\ell )=0$.
4. * *Let* *$\gamma \in \pi _{1}(\Lambda
(n),\ell _{0})$. In view of (\[mabeta\]) we have the equality $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\gamma ,\ell )=\mu _{\infty }(\gamma \ell _{0,\infty },\ell
_{\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{0,\infty },\ell _{\infty })=2m(\gamma )\text{.}$$
The following result allows us to compare the indices $\mu _{\Lambda
}(\lambda ,\ell )$ and $\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell ^{\prime })$ corresponding to different choices of Lagrangians $\ell $ and $\ell ^{\prime
}$.
\[chgt\]For all $\lambda _{12}\in \mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))$ and $(\ell
,\ell ^{\prime })\in \Lambda (n)^{2}$ we have $$\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell
^{\prime })=\func{sign}(\ell _{2},\ell ,\ell ^{\prime })-\func{sign}(\ell
_{1},\ell ,\ell ^{\prime }) \label{diff}$$
Considering the notations of theorem \[deep\] we have $$\begin{gathered}
\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell
^{\prime })= \\
\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell
_{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty }^{\prime })-(\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty
},\ell _{\infty })-\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{\infty }^{\prime
})\end{gathered}$$ that is, in view of (\[unideux\]) $$\begin{gathered}
\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )-\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell
^{\prime })= \\
-\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty }^{\prime })+\func{sign}(\ell
_{2},\ell ,\ell ^{\prime })-(-\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty
}^{\prime })+\func{sign}(\ell _{1},\ell ,\ell ^{\prime }))\end{gathered}$$ from which (\[diff\]) immediately follows.
Construction of the canonical index $\bar{\protect\mu}_{\infty }$\[Kashiwa\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A consequence of the relative uniqueness theorem \[un\] is that all Lagrangian intersection indices will be known from the moment we have determined one of them, and it follows from theorem \[deep\] that it suffices for that to construct a Leray index.
Using the intersection theory of Lefschetz chains, Leray has constructed in [@Leray] (Ch.I, §2.5) a function $$m:\Lambda (n)_{\infty }^{2}(0)=\left\{ (\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty
}):\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{2}=0\right\} \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}$$such that $$m(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })-m(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty
})+m(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })=\func{Inert}(\ell _{1},\ell
_{2},\ell _{3}) \label{leray}$$where $\func{Inert}(\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})$ is the index of inertiaof the Lagrangian triple $(\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})$. This index of inertia is defined in the following way. The transversality condition $$\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{2}=\ell _{2}\cap \ell _{3}=\ell _{3}\cap \ell _{1}=0$$being equivalent to $$\ell _{1}\oplus \ell _{2}=\ell _{2}\oplus \ell _{3}=\ell _{3}\oplus \ell
_{1}=X\times X^{\ast }$$the relation $z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3}=0$ ($z_{1}\in \ell _{1}$, $z_{2}\in \ell
_{2} $, $z_{3}\in \ell _{3}$) defines three quadratic forms $$z_{1}\longmapsto \omega (z_{2},z_{3})\text{ , }z_{2}\longmapsto \omega
(z_{3},z_{1})\text{ , }z_{3}\longmapsto \omega (z_{1},z_{2}) \label{leray2}$$such that $$\omega (z_{2},z_{3})=\omega (z_{3},z_{1})=\omega (z_{1},z_{2})\text{.}$$These quadratic forms have the same index of inertia and this index is precisely $\func{Inert}(\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})$.
The function $m$ (which Leray calls Maslov index) can be computed using the following formula, due to Souriau [@Souriau2]: $$m(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[ \theta
_{1}-\theta _{2}+i\func{Tr}\func{Log}(-w_{1}(w_{2}{}^{-1}))\right] +\frac{n}{2} \label{Souriau}$$where $\ell _{1,\infty }$ and $\ell _{2,\infty }$ are identified with $(w_{1},\theta _{1})$ and $(w_{2},\theta _{2})$, respectively (see* *\[km\]). Note that $$\dim (\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{2})=\func{corang}(w_{1}-w_{2}) \label{corang1}$$(it is the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $+1$ of $w_{1}(w_{2}^{-1})$). The logarithm (\[Souriau\]) is defined , for every matrix $u$ that has not the eigenvalue $-1$, by the formula $$\limfunc{Log}(u)=\int_{-\infty }^{0}\left( \left( \lambda I-u\right)
^{-1}-\left( \lambda -1\right) ^{-1}I\right) \,d\lambda$$and hence $\func{Log}w_{1}(w_{2}^{-1})$ is well-defined since in view of (\[corang1\]) $$\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{2}=0\Longleftrightarrow \det (w_{1}-w_{2})\neq 0,$$that is $$+1\text{\ \textit{is not an eigenvalue of} }w_{1}(w_{2}^{-1})\text{.}$$The function $m$ possesses the following properties:
\(1) $m$ is locally constant on its domain $$\Lambda _{\infty }^{2}(n;0)=\left\{ (\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty
}):\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{2}=0\right\} \text{;}$$ (2) The action of $\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$ on $m$ is given by $$m(\gamma _{1}\ell _{1,\infty },\gamma _{2}\ell _{2,\infty })=m(\ell
_{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })+m(\gamma _{1})-m(\gamma _{2})\text{.}
\label{masbeta}$$
(1): Souriaus’ formula (\[Souriau\]) shows that $m$ is continuous and hence locally constant (it takes its values in a discrete space). (2): To prove the equality (\[masbeta\]) we first note that $\pi _{1}(\Lambda
(n))\equiv \pi _{1}(W(n))$ can be identified with the group $$G=\left\{ (I,2k\pi ):k\in \mathbb{Z}\right\}$$acting on $W_{\infty }(n)$ by $$(I,2k\pi )(w,\theta )=(w,\theta +2k\pi )\text{.}$$Under this identification, the generator $\beta $ of $\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$ defined in Proposition \[un\] is identified with $(I,2\pi )$. For all $\gamma \in \pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$ there exists an integer $k$ such that $\gamma =\beta ^{k}$, and hence $$\gamma \ell _{\infty }=\beta ^{k}\ell _{\infty }=(w,\theta +2k\pi )\text{ \
\textit{if} \ }\ell _{\infty }=(w,\theta )\text{.}$$In view of the definition (\[Souriau\]) of $m$ we thus obtain $$\begin{aligned}
m(\gamma _{1}\ell _{1,\infty },\gamma _{2}\ell _{2,\infty })& =m(\beta
^{k_{1}}\ell _{1,\infty },\beta ^{k_{2}}\ell _{2,\infty })-m(\ell _{1,\infty
},\ell _{2,\infty }) \\
& =\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[ 2k_{1}\pi -2k_{2}\pi \right] \\
& =k_{1}-k_{2}\end{aligned}$$hence (\[masbeta\]) in view of the formulae (\[mabetaun\]) and ([maprop]{}).
Let us now set $$\tau =2\func{Inert}-n\text{.} \label{taui}$$We have the important relation $$\tau (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})=\tau ^{_{+}}-\tau ^{_{-}} \label{taua}$$where $\tau ^{_{+}}$ (resp. $\tau ^{_{-}}$) is the number of $>0$ (resp. $<0$) eigenvalues of the quadratic form $$Q(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})=\omega (z_{1},z_{2})+\omega (z_{2},z_{3})+\omega
(z_{3},z_{1}) \label{kubai}$$(see (see [@JMPA]). It follows that $\tau $ is the signature of Demazure–Kashiwara (see [@Demazure; @Marle; @LV]). It is defined on all triples $(\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3}),$ which is not the case for $\func{Inert}$ as seen above.
The function $\tau $ is often called “Maslov index”, or “trilateral Maslov index” in the literature (for instance in [@CLM] and [@LV]). We will not use this terminology.
The signature of Demazure–Kashiwara has the following properties (see Libermann-Marle [@Marle] or Lion-Vergne [@LV]; in Capell *et al*. [@CLM] one can find other interesting properties).
We have:
1. \[tautau\] $\tau \in C_{ant}^{2}(\Lambda (n),\mathbb{Z})^{Sp}$, i.e. , $\tau $ is a $2$-cocycle, totally antisymmetric and $Sp(n)$-invariant : $$\partial \tau =0\text{ \ , }\varepsilon ^{\ast }\tau =(-1)^{sgn(\varepsilon
)}\tau \text{\ \ , \ }s^{\ast }\tau =\tau \label{tauco}$$($\varepsilon $ all permutation of $\left\{ 1,2,3\right\} $, $s\in Sp$).
2. $\tau $ is locally constant on the sets $$\left\{ (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3}):\dim (\ell _{1}\cap \ell
_{2})=k_{1},\dim (\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{2})=k_{2},\dim (\ell _{1}\cap \ell
_{2})=k_{3}\right\}$$
3. Let $A$ a symmetric matrix of order $n$ and $\ell _{A}$ the Lagrangian with equation $p=Ax$. We have $$\tau (X^{\ast },\ell _{A},X)=\func{sign}A \label{taula}$$ where $\func{sign}A$ is the difference between the number of eigenvalues $>0$ and $<0$ of $A$.**
Let us now set $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=2m(\ell _{1,\infty
},\ell _{2,\infty })-n \label{zet}$$ that is, in view of (\[Souriau\]) : $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=\frac{1}{\pi }\left[
\theta _{1}-\theta _{2}+i\func{Tr}\func{Log}(-w_{1}(w_{2}^{-1}))\right]
\text{.} \label{souribis}$$ For $(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })\in \Lambda _{\infty }(n)^{2}$ let us choose $\ell _{3,\infty }\in \Lambda (n)_{\infty }$ such that $$\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{3}=\ell _{2}\cap \ell _{3}=0 \label{123}$$ and *define* $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=\bar{\mu}_{\infty
}(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty
},\ell _{3,\infty })+\tau (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})\text{.}
\label{mules}$$
We can verify, using the cocycle property of $\ \tau $ that
\(1) The right-hand side of (\[mules\]) does not depend on the choice of $\ell _{3,\infty }$ such that we have (\[123\]), which justifies the notation $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })$ (see [@JMPA] where $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ is denoted by $\mu $).
\(2) We have $\partial \bar{\mu}_{\infty }=\pi ^{\ast }\tau $, i.e., $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\infty
}(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })+\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty
},\ell _{3,\infty })=\tau (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3}) \label{remule}$$ for all $(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })\in \Lambda
_{\infty }(n)^{3}$.
We will call $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ the “canonical Leray index” and the Lagrangian and symplectic intersection indices associated to $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ will be call the “canonical intersection indices”. These will be denoted $\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }$ and $\bar{\mu}_{Sp}$, respectively.
The following theorem will show that $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ is indeed a Leray index.
\[fonda\] The function $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ defined by (\[mules\]) is the unique $1$-cochain on $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ having the following two properties:
1. $\partial \bar{\mu}_{\infty }=\pi ^{\ast }\tau $.
2. $\mu _{\infty }$ is locally constant on the sets $\Lambda
_{\infty }^{2}(n;k)$.
Furthermore, this $1$-cochain has the following property:
1. The action of $\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$ on $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ is given by $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\gamma _{1}\ell _{1,\infty },\gamma _{2}\ell _{2,\infty
})=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })+2(m(\gamma
_{1})-m(\gamma _{2}))\text{.} \label{entiers}$$
Let us begin by showing that there exists at most one $1$-cochain $\mu
_{\infty }$ having the properties (1) and (2). To do so, let us denote by $\nu $ the difference $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }^{\prime }$ between two cochains having the stated properties. In this case $$\nu (\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })=\nu (\ell _{1,\infty },\ell
_{3,\infty })-\nu (\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })\text{.}$$ for all $(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })$. We choose $\ell _{3}$ in such a way that $\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{3}=\ell _{2}\cap \ell
_{3}=0$. In view of the definition of $\nu $ and the axiom (L$_{3}$), $\nu
(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })$ will remain constant in connected neighborhoods of $\ell _{1,\infty }$ and $\ell _{2,\infty }$. The function $\nu $ is thereby locally constant on $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)^{2}$. But this space is connected, and having realized this we conclude that $\nu $ is in fact constant. Also choosing $\ell _{1,\infty }=\ell _{2,\infty }$ we find that the values of $\nu $ is zero, and hence that $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }^{\prime }$.
That $\mu _{\infty }$ possesses property (1) is clear from its construction. Let us therefore concentrate on the proof of property (2). Suppose first that $k=0$. In view of the Souriau formula (\[Souriau\]) and definition (\[zet\]), the function $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ is continuous on $\Lambda
_{\infty }^{2}(k)$ and is thereby locally constant since $\bar{\mu}_{\infty
} $ takes discrete values. For arbitrary $k$, it is enough to choose $\ell
_{3} $ transversal to $\ell _{1}$ and $\ell _{2}$ in (\[mules\]) in such a way that $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })$ and $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })$ remain constant, and to apply the property (2) of $\tau $ in Proposition \[tautau\]. Let us finally show that $\mu _{\infty }$ has property (3). Choosing once more $\ell _{3}$ such that $\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{3}=\ell _{2}\cap \ell _{3}=0$, we find that in view of (\[mules\]) and the fact that for all $\gamma \in \pi
_{1}(\Lambda (n))$ the element $\gamma \ell _{\infty }$ has the same projection $\ell $ as $\ell _{\infty }$ $$\begin{gathered}
\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\gamma _{1}\ell _{1,\infty },\gamma _{2}\ell _{2,\infty
})=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\gamma _{1}\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty }) \\
-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\gamma _{2}\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })+\tau
(\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})\text{.}\end{gathered}$$ By (\[masbeta\]) and the definition (\[zet\]) of $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ in the transversal case, we obtain $$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\gamma _{1}\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })+2m(\gamma _{1})\smallskip \\
\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\gamma _{2}\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{3,\infty })+2m(\gamma _{2})\end{array}
\right.$$ and (\[entiers\]) follows.
We point out the fact that Theorem \[fonda\] also shows that:
The Demazure–Kashiwara index is identical to the signature cocycle, i.e., $\tau =\func{sign}$.
This is clear since $\mu _{\infty }$ is a Leray index, so $\partial \mu
_{\infty }=\func{sign}$, and since we also have $\partial \mu _{\infty
}=\tau $.
Further properties of the intersection indices
==============================================
We shall see in the following paragraphs that the properties of the canonical Leray index enable us to show several properties of the Lagrangian and symplectic intersection indices. Indeed, we shall for instance see that these intersection indices are symplectic invariant.
symplectic invariance
----------------------
As we mentioned the results of the preceding section show that the Lagrangian and symplectic intersection indices $\mu _{\Lambda (n)}$ and $\mu
_{Sp}$, respectively, are symplectic invariants. In order to prove this fact we need first to show that the Leray index is invariant under the action of the universal covering space of the symplectic group the following
\[cucul\]The Leray index is invariant under the action of the universal covering space $Sp_{\infty }(n)$ of $Sp(n)$: $$\mu _{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{1,\infty },s_{\infty }\ell _{2,\infty
})=\mu _{\infty }(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty }) \label{leraysp}$$ for all $(s_{\infty },\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })\in Sp_{\infty
}(n)\times \Lambda (n)_{\infty }\times \Lambda (n)_{\infty }$.
Consider the mapping $$\mu _{\infty }^{\prime }:(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{2,\infty })\longmapsto
\mu _{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{1,\infty },s_{\infty }\ell _{2,\infty })\text{.}$$ Since $\tau $ is invariant under the action of $Sp(n)$ we have $\partial \mu
_{\infty }^{\prime }=\tau $. Of course, the function $\mu _{\infty }^{\prime
}$ is locally constant on $\Lambda _{\infty }^{2}(n;0)$ and is therefore identical to $\mu _{\infty }$ in view of the uniqueness property (1) in Theorem \[fonda\].
Having shown this we may now state the following essential result. The invariance of the symplectic intersection indices will then follow from their definition.
The Lagrangian intersection indices are symplectic invariants, i.e., $$\mu _{\Lambda }(s\lambda _{12},s\ell )=\mu _{\Lambda }(\lambda _{12},\ell )\text{ \ for all \ }s\in Sp(n)\text{.} \label{invsymp}$$
In view of Theorem \[un\] and using the fact that $$\dim (s\ell _{1}\cap s\ell _{2})=\dim (\ell _{1}\cap \ell _{2})$$ for all $(s,\ell _{1},\ell _{2})\in Sp(n)\times \Lambda (n)^{2}$ it suffices to consider the case in which $\mu _{\Lambda }$ is the canonical intersection index $\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }$. for $s\in Sp(n)$ we consider an arbitrary symplectic path $\sigma \in \mathcal{C}(Sp(n))$ joining the identity $I$ of $Sp(n)$ to $s$. We denote $s_{\infty }$ the homotopy equivalence class of that path, $s_{\infty }\in Sp_{\infty }(n)$. As in Theorem \[deep\] we denote by $\lambda _{01}$ a path in $\Lambda (n)$ joining $\ell _{0}$ to $\ell _{1}$ and $\ell _{1,\infty }$ it homotopy class. $\ell _{2,\infty }$ is here the homotopy class of the path $\lambda
_{01}\ast \lambda _{12}$. Denoting by $\lambda $ an arbitrary path joining $\ell _{0}$ to $\ell $ in $\Lambda (n)$, and $\ell _{\infty }$ its homotopy class we find $$s_{\infty }\ell _{1,\infty }=\text{class}\left[ t\longmapsto \sigma
(t)\lambda _{01}(t),0\leq t\leq 1\right]$$ $$s_{\infty }\ell _{2,\infty }=\text{class}\left[ t\longmapsto \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\sigma (t)\lambda _{01}(t),0\leq t\leq \tfrac{1}{2}\smallskip \\
\sigma (2t-1)\lambda _{12}(2t-1),0\leq t\leq \tfrac{1}{2}\end{array}
\right. \right]$$ $$s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty }=\text{class}\left[ t\longmapsto \sigma (t)\lambda
(t),0\leq t\leq 1\right] \text{.}$$ Thus, by (\[foufoun\]) in Theorem \[deep\] we obtain $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{2,\infty },s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{1,\infty },s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty })=\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(s\lambda _{01},s\ell )\text{.}$$ But the left-hand side of this equality is $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{2,\infty },\ell _{\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\infty
}(\ell _{1,\infty },\ell _{\infty })=\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{01},\ell
)$$ by Lemma \[cucul\], which proves (\[invsymp\]).
The indices $\bar{\protect\mu}_{\ell }$ on $Sp_{\infty }$
---------------------------------------------------------
Theorem \[deep\] expresses every Lagrangian intersection index as the difference between two values of the Leray index on $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$. We will now show that there is a similar result for symplectic intersection indices. We begin by showing the following result (*cf*. [@JMPA]):
Let $s_{\infty }\in Sp_{\infty }(n)$ and $\ell _{\infty }\in \Lambda
_{\infty }(n)$, with projection $\ell \in \Lambda (n)$. The integer $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty })$ depends solely on $(s_{\infty },\ell )$, and not on the choice of the projection $\ell $ of $\ell _{\infty }$. Hence, there exists for every $\ell \in \Lambda (n)$, a function $\bar{\mu}_{\ell }:Sp_{\infty }(n)\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ such that $$\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{\infty })=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty
},\ell _{\infty })\text{.}$$
Suppose that $\ell _{\infty }$ and $\ell _{\infty }^{\prime }$ are two elements of $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ having the same projection $\ell
\in \Lambda (n)$. There is then a $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $\ell _{\infty
}^{\prime }=\beta ^{k}\ell _{\infty }$. ($\beta $ being the generator of $\pi _{1}(\Lambda (n))$ whose natural image in $\mathbb{Z}$ is $+1$), and in view of (\[alfabeta\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty }^{\prime },\ell _{\infty
}^{\prime })=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }(\beta ^{k}\ell _{\infty
}),\beta ^{k}\ell _{\infty }) \\
=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\beta ^{k}(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty }),\beta ^{k}\ell
_{\infty })\end{aligned}$$ that is $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty }^{\prime },\ell _{\infty
}^{\prime })=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty })$$ by the property (\[entiers\]) in Theorem \[fonda\]) of $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$.
We will call the index $\bar{\mu}_{\ell }$ the “Leray index on $Sp_{\infty
}(n)$” relative to the Lagrangian $\ell $. We will consider in what follows $s_{\infty }\in Sp_{\infty }(n)$ as the homotopy class of a continuous path joining the identity $I$ to an element $s$ (the projection of $s_{\infty }$) in $Sp(n)$.
Let $\sigma _{12}\in \mathcal{C}(Sp(n))$ be a symplectic path joining $s_{1}$ to $s_{2}$ in $Sp(n)$. Let $s_{1,\infty }$ be an arbitrary element of $Sp_{\infty }(n)$ covering $s_{1}$ and $s_{2,\infty }$ the homotopy class of $\sigma _{01}\ast \sigma _{12}$ ($\sigma _{01}$ a representative of $s_{1,\infty }$). We have $$\bar{\mu}_{Sp}(\sigma _{12},\ell )=\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{2,\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty })\text{.} \label{dire}$$
Consider $\ell _{\infty }$ to be the homotopy class of an arbitrary path $\lambda $ joining $\ell _{0}$ (the base point of $\Lambda (n)_{\infty }$) to $\ell $. We have $$s_{1,\infty }\ell _{\infty }=\text{class}\left[ t\longmapsto \sigma
_{01}(t)\lambda (t),0\leq t\leq 1\right]$$ and $$s_{2,\infty }\ell _{\infty }=\text{class}\left[
\begin{array}{c}
t\longmapsto \sigma _{01}(2t)\lambda (2t),0\leq t\leq \frac{1}{2} \\
t\longmapsto \sigma _{12}(2t-1)\lambda (2t-1),\frac{1}{2}\leq t\leq 1\end{array}
\right]$$ hence, by the formulae (\[formuleun\]) and (\[foufoun\]) one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mu}_{Sp}(\sigma _{12},\ell )=\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda (n)}(\sigma _{12}\ell
,\ell ) \\
=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{2,\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{1,\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty })\end{aligned}$$ that is (\[dire\]).
The two important properties of $\bar{\mu}_{\ell ,\infty }$ below are consequences of cohomological property (\[remule\]) of the Leray index
We have
1. $$\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty }s_{2,\infty })=\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty
})+\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{2,\infty })+\tau (\ell ,s_{1}\ell ,s_{1}s_{2}\ell )
\label{cha}$$
for all $(s_{1,\infty },s_{2,\infty })\in Sp_{\infty }(n)$.
2. Let $\ell $ and $\ell ^{\prime }$ be two Lagrangian, then $$\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\ell ^{\prime }}(s_{\infty })=\tau
(s\ell ,\ell ,\ell ^{\prime })-\tau (s\ell ,s\ell ^{\prime },\ell ^{\prime })\text{.} \label{sl}$$
\(1) By the definition of $\bar{\mu}_{\ell }$ we see that $$\begin{gathered}
\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty }s_{2,\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty
})-\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{2,\infty })= \\
\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{1,\infty }s_{2,\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty
})-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{1,\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{2,\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty })\end{gathered}$$ that is, using the $Sp_{\infty }(n)$–invariance and the antisymmetry of $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$: $$\begin{gathered}
\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty }s_{2,\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty
})-\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{2,\infty })=\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{1,\infty
}s_{2,\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty })+ \\
\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(\ell _{\infty },s_{1,\infty }\ell _{\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{1,\infty }s_{2,\infty }\ell _{\infty },s_{1,\infty }\ell
_{\infty })\text{.}\end{gathered}$$ In view of the property (\[remule\]) of $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty }s_{2,\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty
})-\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{2,\infty })=\tau (s_{1}s_{2}\ell ,\ell ,s_{1}\ell )
\\
=\tau (\ell ,s_{1}\ell ,s_{1}s_{2}\ell )\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ (2) By (\[remule\]) and the $Sp_{\infty }(n)$–invariance of $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$, $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty }^{\prime })+\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty },s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty }^{\prime
})=\tau (s\ell ,\ell ,\ell ^{\prime })$$ as well as $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty },s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty
}^{\prime })-\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty },\ell _{\infty
}^{\prime })+\bar{\mu}_{\infty }(s_{\infty }\ell _{\infty }^{\prime },\ell
_{\infty }^{\prime })=\tau (s\ell ,s\ell ^{\prime },\ell ^{\prime })$$ gives us (\[sl\]) by substracting the first identity from the second.
Given two arbitrary Lagrangians $\ell $ and $\ell ^{\prime }$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mu}_{Sp}(\sigma _{12},\ell )-\bar{\mu}_{Sp}(\sigma _{12},\ell ^{\prime
}) &=&\tau (s_{2}\ell ,\ell ,\ell ^{\prime })-\tau (s_{2}\ell ,s_{2}\ell
^{\prime },\ell ^{\prime }) \label{hum} \\
&&-(\tau (s_{1}\ell ,\ell ,\ell ^{\prime })-\tau (s_{1}\ell ,s_{1}\ell
^{\prime },\ell ^{\prime })) \notag\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$ are the endpoints of the path $\sigma _{12}$.
Formula (\[dire\]) yields $$\begin{gathered}
\bar{\mu}_{Sp}(\sigma _{12},\ell )-\bar{\mu}_{Sp}(\sigma _{12},\ell ^{\prime
})= \\
\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{2,\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\ell }(s_{1,\infty })-(\bar{\mu}_{\ell ^{\prime }}(s_{2,\infty })-\bar{\mu}_{\ell ^{\prime }}(s_{1,\infty }))\end{gathered}$$ hence (\[hum\]), using(\[sl\]).
Dimensional additivity
----------------------
The canonical index $\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }$ has the interesting “dimensional additivity” property, which is often included as an axiom for the intersection indices (*cf*. [@Duff]).
Let us introduces the following notations. Let $n^{\prime }$ and $n^{\prime
\prime }$ be two integers $>0$ and set $n=n^{\prime }+n^{\prime \prime }$. We denote by $\Lambda (n^{\prime })$ and $\Lambda (n^{\prime \prime })$ (resp. $Sp(n^{\prime })$ and $Sp(n^{\prime \prime })$) the Lagrangian Grassmannians (resp. the symplectic groups) corresponding to the symplectic spaces $(X^{\prime }\times X^{\prime \ast },\omega ^{\prime })$ and $(X^{\prime \prime }\times X^{\prime \prime \ast },\omega ^{\prime \prime })$. The direct sum $$\Lambda (n^{\prime })\oplus \Lambda (n^{\prime \prime })=\left\{ \ell
^{\prime }\oplus \ell ^{\prime \prime }:\ell ^{\prime }\in \Lambda
(n^{\prime }),\ell ^{\prime \prime }\in \Lambda (n^{\prime \prime })\right\}$$is identified with a submanifold of $\Lambda (n)$ and $$Sp(n^{\prime })\oplus Sp(n^{\prime \prime })=\left\{ s^{\prime }\oplus
s^{\prime \prime }:s^{\prime }\in Sp(n^{\prime }),s^{\prime \prime }\in
Sp(n^{\prime \prime })\right\}$$with a subgroup of $Sp(n)$. By definition $$(s^{\prime }\oplus s^{\prime \prime })(z^{\prime }\oplus z^{\prime \prime
})=s^{\prime }(z^{\prime })\oplus s^{\prime \prime }(z^{\prime \prime })\text{.} \label{sprime}$$Denoting $\tau ^{\prime }$ and $\tau ^{\prime \prime }$ the signatures of triples of elements of $\Lambda (n^{\prime })$ and $\Lambda (n^{\prime
\prime })$ we immediately verify that $$\tau (\ell _{1}^{\prime }\oplus \ell _{1}^{\prime \prime },\ell _{2}^{\prime
}\oplus \ell _{2}^{\prime \prime },\ell _{3}^{\prime }\oplus \ell
_{3}^{\prime \prime })=\tau ^{\prime }(\ell _{1}^{\prime },\ell _{2}^{\prime
},\ell _{3}^{\prime })+\tau ^{\prime \prime }(\ell _{1}^{\prime \prime
},\ell _{2}^{\prime \prime },\ell _{3}^{\prime \prime })\text{.}
\label{tausomme}$$
In view of the identification of $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$ with $W_{\infty
}(n) $ we may define $$\ell _{\infty }^{\prime }\oplus \ell _{\infty }^{\prime \prime }=\left(
w^{\prime }\oplus w^{\prime \prime },\theta ^{\prime }+\theta ^{\prime
\prime }\right)$$ if $\ell _{\infty }^{\prime }=\left( w^{\prime },\theta ^{\prime }\right) $ and $\ell _{\infty }^{\prime \prime }=\left( w^{\prime \prime },\theta
^{\prime \prime }\right) $. This defines an element of $\Lambda (n)_{\infty
} $ since $\left( w^{\prime }\oplus w^{\prime \prime },\theta ^{\prime
}+\theta ^{\prime \prime }\right) \in W_{\infty }(n)$.
The following result describes the relation between the Leray indices on the Maslov bundles $\Lambda _{\infty }(n^{\prime })$, $\Lambda _{\infty
}(n^{\prime \prime })$ and the Leray index on $\Lambda _{\infty }(n)$
Let $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }^{\prime }$ and $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }^{\prime \prime
} $ be the Leray indices on $\Lambda _{\infty }(n^{\prime })$ and $\Lambda
_{\infty }(n^{\prime \prime })$, respectively. The relation between the Leray indices $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }^{\prime }$ and $\bar{\mu}_{\infty
}^{\prime \prime }$ and the Leray index $\bar{\mu}_{\infty }$ on $\Lambda
_{\infty }(n)$ is given by $$\bar{\mu}_{\infty }\left( \ell _{1,\infty }^{\prime }\oplus \ell _{1,\infty
}^{\prime \prime },\ell _{2,\infty }^{\prime }\oplus \ell _{2,\infty
}^{\prime \prime }\right) =\bar{\mu}_{\infty }^{\prime }\left( \ell
_{1,\infty }^{\prime },\ell _{2,\infty }^{\prime }\right) +\bar{\mu}_{\infty
}^{\prime \prime }\left( \ell _{1,\infty }^{\prime \prime },\ell _{2,\infty
}^{\prime \prime }\right) \text{.} \label{muso}$$
Let us begin by supposing that $\ell _{1,\infty }^{\prime },\ell _{2,\infty
}^{\prime }\in \Lambda _{\infty }(n^{\prime })$ and $\ell _{1,\infty
}^{\prime \prime }$, $\ell _{2,\infty }^{\prime \prime }\in \Lambda _{\infty
}(n^{\prime \prime })$ are transversal: $\ell _{1}^{\prime }\cap \ell
_{2}^{\prime }=0$ and $\ell _{1}^{\prime \prime }\cap \ell _{2}^{\prime
\prime }=0$. Then $\ell _{1,\infty }^{\prime }\oplus \ell _{1,\infty
}^{\prime \prime }$ and $\ell _{2,\infty }^{\prime }\oplus \ell _{2,\infty
}^{\prime \prime }$ are also transversal: $$(\ell _{1}^{\prime }\oplus \ell _{1}^{\prime \prime })\cap (\ell
_{2}^{\prime }\oplus \ell _{2}^{\prime \prime })=0$$ and one shows that $$\begin{gathered}
\limfunc{Log}(\left( w_{1}^{\prime }\oplus w_{1}^{\prime \prime }\right)
\left( w_{2}^{\prime }\oplus w_{2}^{\prime \prime }\right) ^{-1})= \\
\limfunc{Log}(w_{1}^{\prime }(w_{2}^{\prime })^{-1})\oplus \limfunc{Log}(w_{1}^{\prime \prime }(w_{2}^{\prime \prime })^{-1})\end{gathered}$$ under the identifications $\ell _{1}^{\prime }\equiv w_{1}^{\prime }$, $\ell
_{2}^{\prime }\equiv w_{2}^{\prime }$, etc. (see [@SdG]). Formula ([muso]{}) follows in the considered case. The general case can be reduced to the transversal case by using the definition (\[mules\]) and the formula (\[tausomme\]).
From this Proposition we immediately deduce that:
Let $\lambda ^{\prime }\in C(\Lambda (n^{\prime }))$ and $\lambda ^{\prime
\prime }\in C(\Lambda (n^{\prime \prime }))$ be Lagrangian paths in $\Lambda
(n^{\prime })$ and $\Lambda (n^{\prime \prime })$. Then $$\lambda ^{\prime }\oplus \lambda ^{\prime \prime }\in \mathcal{C}(\Lambda
(n^{\prime })\oplus \Lambda (n^{\prime \prime }))$$ is identified to a Lagrangian path in $\Lambda (n)$ and $$\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda ^{\prime }\oplus \lambda ^{\prime \prime })=\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda ^{\prime }}(\lambda ^{\prime })+\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda
^{\prime \prime }}(\lambda ^{\prime \prime })$$ where $\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda ^{\prime }}$ and $\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda ^{\prime
\prime }}$ are the canonical Lagrangian intersection indices on $\Lambda
(n^{\prime })$ and $\Lambda (n^{\prime \prime })$.
This is trivial by (\[foufoun\]) and (\[muso\]).
The case of the symplectic intersection indices is deduced immediately, *mutatis mutandis*:
Let $\sigma ^{\prime }\in C(Sp(n^{\prime }))$ and $\sigma ^{\prime \prime
}\in C(Sp(n^{\prime \prime }))$ be symplectic paths in $Sp(n^{\prime })$ and $Sp(n^{\prime \prime })$. Then $$\sigma ^{\prime }\oplus \sigma ^{\prime \prime }\in \mathcal{C}(Sp(n^{\prime
})\oplus Sp(n^{\prime \prime }))$$ is identified with a symplectic path in $Sp$ and $$\bar{\mu}_{Sp}(\sigma ^{\prime }\oplus \sigma ^{\prime \prime })=\bar{\mu}_{Sp^{\prime }}(\sigma ^{\prime })+\bar{\mu}_{Sp^{\prime \prime }}(\sigma
^{\prime \prime })$$ where $\bar{\mu}_{Sp^{\prime }}$ and $\bar{\mu}_{Sp^{\prime \prime }}$ are the canonical symplectic intersection indices on $Sp(n^{\prime })$ and $Sp(n^{\prime \prime })$.
The “spectral flow” formula
---------------------------
Let $(A(t))_{0\leq t\leq 1}$ be a continuous family of real symmetric matrices of order $n$. We define the spectral flow of this continuous family by the formula $$\func{SF}(A(t))_{0\leq t\leq 1}=\func{sign}A(1)-\func{sign}A(0)\text{.}
\label{desf}$$We have the following result, which has been established in a particular case by Duistermaat [@Duistermaat].
Let $\lambda _{A}$ be the Lagrangian path defined by $$\lambda _{A}(t)=\left\{ x\oplus A(t)x\ ,x\in X\right\} \label{lama}$$ and $\sigma _{A}$ be the symplectic path defined by $$\sigma _{A}(t)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I & 0 \\
A(t) & I\end{array}
\right)$$ for $0\leq t\leq 1$. Then $$\func{SF}(A(t))_{0\leq t\leq 1}=\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{A},X)=\bar{\mu}_{Sp}(\sigma _{A},X) \label{SF}$$ where $\func{sign}A(t)$ is the difference between the number of eigenvalues $\lambda >0$ and the number of eigenvalues $<0$ of $A(t)$.
We begin by showing the formula (\[SF\]). The second one follows immediately since $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I & 0 \\
A(t) & I\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
x \\
0\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x \\
A(t)x\end{array}
\right) \text{.}$$ Note that $\dim (\lambda _{A}(t)\cap X^{\ast })=n$ for $0\leq t\leq 1$, hence $$\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{A},X^{\ast })=0 \label{bonard}$$ in view of the axiom (L$_{3}$) which ensures nullity in the strata. In view of formula (\[diff\]) in Proposition \[chgt\] and the antisymmetry of the signature we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{A},X)=\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{A},X)-\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{A},X^{\ast }) \\
=\func{sign}(\lambda _{A}(1),X,X^{\ast })-\func{sign}(\lambda
_{A}(0),X,X^{\ast }) \\
=\func{sign}(X^{\ast },\lambda _{A}(1),X)-\func{sign}(X^{\ast },\lambda
_{A}(0),X)\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\func{sign}=\tau $ we have $$\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{A},X)=\tau (X^{\ast },\lambda _{A}(0),X)-\tau
(X^{\ast },\lambda _{A}(1),X)$$ and hence $$\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda _{A},X)=\func{sign}A(1)-\func{sign}A(0)$$ in view of property (\[taula\]) of $\tau $ in Proposition \[tautau\].
This result is evidently rather trivial in the sense that the spectral flow (\[desf\]) depends only on the extreme values $A(1)$ and $A(0)$. The situation is however far more complicated in the case of infinite dimensional symplectic spaces and requires elaborated functional analytical techniques (see [@BBF1]).
Comparative study of some other indices
=======================================
The Robbin-Salamon-McDuff index\[RSM\]
--------------------------------------
In [@RS1] (see also [@Duff]) Robbin and Salamon have constructed, using differential geometrical methods, a mapping $$\mu _{RS}:\mathcal{C}(\Lambda (n))\times \ell \longrightarrow \tfrac{1}{2}\mathbb{Z}$$ which they call “Maslov index”. They show that their index possesses the four properties which follow:
RS$_{1}$
: *If* $\lambda $* and* $\lambda ^{\prime }$* have same endpoints, then* $\mu _{RS}(\lambda ,\ell )=\mu
_{RS}(\lambda ^{\prime },\ell )$ *if and only if* $\lambda \sim
\lambda ^{\prime }$
RS$_{2}$
: $\mu _{RS}(\lambda \ast \lambda ^{\prime },\ell )=\mu
_{RS}(\lambda ,\ell )+\mu _{RS}^{\prime }(\lambda ^{\prime },\ell )$.
RS$_{3}$
: *If* $\func{Im}\lambda \subset \Lambda _{\ell }(n;k)
$ *then* $\mu _{RS}(\lambda ,\ell )=0$.
RS$_{4}$
: *If* $\gamma $* is a loop in* $\Lambda (n)$* then* $\mu _{RS}(\gamma ,\ell )=m(\gamma )$.
RS$_{5}$
: *If* $\lambda _{A}$* is a Lagrangian path (\[lama\]), then*$\ $$$\mu _{RS}(\lambda _{A},X)=\tfrac{1}{2}\func{sign}A(1)-\tfrac{1}{2}\func{sign}A(0)\text{.} \label{RSF}$$
In fact, there is a simple relation between the indices $\mu _{RS}$ and $\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }$, namely
\[rikiki\]the index $\mu _{RS}$ of Robbin-Salamon is given by $$\mu _{RS}(\lambda ,\ell )=\tfrac{1}{2}\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )$$ where $\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }$ is the canonical intersection index.
The mapping $2\mu _{RS}$ satisfies the axioms (L$_{1}$–L$_{4}$) of a Lagrangian intersection index. Therefore, there must exist an index $\mu _{\Lambda }$ such that $\mu _{\Lambda }=2\mu _{RS}$. By Theorem \[un\] we have thus $$2\mu _{RS}(\lambda ,\ell )=\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\ell )+f(\dim
(\lambda (0)\cap \ell ))-f(\dim (\lambda (1)\cap \ell ))\text{.}$$ for some function $f$. Taking for $\lambda $ the path $\lambda _{A}$ and $\ell =X$ we have, in view of the formulae (\[SF\]) and (\[RSF\]) : $$\begin{gathered}
\func{sign}A(1)-\func{sign}A(0)=\func{sign}A(1)-\func{sign}A(0)+ \\
f(\dim (\lambda _{A}(0)\cap X))-f(\dim (\lambda _{A}(1)\cap X))\text{.}\end{gathered}$$ In view of the equality $$\dim (\lambda _{A}(t)\cap X)=\func{corang}A(t)$$ this is equivalent to $$f(\func{corang}A(0))=f(\func{corang}A(1))$$ for all $A$, Hence $f=0$ since $\func{corang}A(t)$ can take arbitrary values.
Robbin and Salamon use in [@RS1] differentiability properties of Lagrangian paths to construct their index. Furthermore, they invoke deep functional analytical properties (Kato’s theorem concerning the selection of eigenvalues of a path of symmetric matrices).
The Hörmander index
-------------------
In the frame of his studies of pseudo-differential operators, introduces in [@OIF] a mapping $$\xi :\Lambda (n)^{4}\ni (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3},\ell
_{4})\longrightarrow \xi (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3},\ell _{4})\in \tfrac{1}{2}\mathbb{Z}\text{ .}$$ Robbin and Salamon show that the Hörmander index is related to their index $\mu _{RS}$ by the formula $$\xi (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3},\ell _{4})=\mu _{RS}(\lambda _{34},\ell
_{2})-\mu _{RS}(\lambda _{34},\ell _{1}) \label{hör}$$ where $\lambda _{34}$ is an arbitrary Lagrangian path $\Lambda (n)$ joining $\ell _{3}$ to $\ell _{4}$.
The Hörmander index $\xi $ is given by $$\xi (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3},\ell _{4})=\tfrac{1}{2}(\tau (\ell
_{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3})-\tau (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{4}))
\label{ksihö}$$where $\tau $ is the Demazure–Kashiwara cocycle.
In view of Proposition \[rikiki\] and of (\[hör\]) we have $$\xi (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3},\ell _{4})=\tfrac{1}{2}(\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda (n)}(\lambda _{34},\ell _{2})-\bar{\mu}_{\Lambda (n)}(\lambda
_{34},\ell _{1}))\text{.}$$ By the formula (\[diff\]) in Proposition \[chgt\] this is $$\xi (\ell _{1},\ell _{2},\ell _{3},\ell _{4})=\tfrac{1}{2}(\func{sign}(\ell
_{4},\ell _{2},\ell _{1})-\func{sign}(\ell _{3},\ell _{2},\ell _{1}))$$ and hence (\[ksihö\]), since $\func{sign}=\tau $ and the antisymmetry of $\tau $.
[99]{} Arnold, V. I. *A characteristic class entering in quantization conditions*, Funkt. Anal. i. Priloz. **1**(1), 1–14 (in Russian) (1967); Funct. Anal. Appl. **1**, 1–14 (English translation) (1967).
Barge, J. and Ghys, E. *Cocycles d’Euler et de Maslov*, Math. Ann. 294, 235-265 (1992).
Booss-Bavnbek B. and Furutani K. *The Maslov Index: a Functional Analytical Definition and the Spectral Flow Formula*. Tokyo J. Math. **21**(1) (1998).
Cappell, S. E., Lee R., and Miller, E. Y. *On the Maslov index*, Comm. Pure and Appl. Math. **17** (1994).
Dazord, P. *Invariants homotopiques attachés aux fibrés symplectiques*, Ann. Inst. Fourier, Grenoble, **29**(2) (1979), 25–78.
Demazure, M. *Classe de Maslov* *II*, Exposé numéro 10, Séminaire sur le fibré cotangent, Orsay (1975–76).
de Gosson, M. *The structure of* $\mathit{q}$*-symplectic geometry*, J. Math. Pures et Appl. **71** (1992), 429–453.
de Gosson, M. *Maslov Classes, Metaplectic Representation and Lagrangian Quantization*, Research Notes in Mathematics **95** (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 1997).
de Gosson, M. *Lagrangian path intersections and the Leray index: Aarhus Geometry and Topology Conference,* Contemp. Math*. **258** (*Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI*, 2000), 177–184.*
de Gosson, M. and de Gosson, S. *The Cohomological Meaning of Maslov’s Lagrangian Path Intersection Index*, Proceedings of the Conference in the Honor of Jean Leray, Karlskrona 1999, Ed. M. de Gosson (Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2001).
de Gosson, M.and de Gosson, S. *Intersections de chemins dans les variétés de Schubert*. En préparation.
de Gosson, S. Ph.D. Thesis, Växjö (2006).
Duistermaat, J. J. *On the Morse index in variational calculus*, Advances in Mathematics **21** (1976), 173–195
Gutzwiller, M. C. *Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics*, Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics (Springer-Verlag, 1990).
Hörmander, L. *Fourier integral operators I*, Acta Mathematica, **127** (1971), 79–183.
Keller, J. B. *Corrected Bohr-Sommerfeld Quantum Conditions for Nonseparable Systems*, Ann. of Physics **4** (1958), 180–188.
Leray, J. *Complément à la théorie d’ Arnold de l’indice de Maslov*, Convegno di geometrica simplettica et fisica matematica, Instituto di Alta Matematica, Roma (1973).
Leray, J. *Lagrangian Analysis and Quantum Mechanics*,* a mathematical structure related to asymptotic expansions and the Maslov index* (the MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1981); translated from *Analyse Lagrangienne* RCP 25, Strasbourg Collège de France (1976–1977).
Libermann, P. and Marle, C.-M. *Symplectic Geometry and Analytical Mechanics* (D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1987).
Lion, G. and Vergne, M. *The Weil representation, Maslov index and Theta series*, Progress in mathematics **6** (Birkhäuser, 1980).
Maslov, V. P. *Théorie des Perturbations et Méthodes Asymptotiques* (Dunod, Paris, 1972); translated from Russian \[original Russian edition: 1965\].
McDuff, D. and Salamon, D. *Symplectic Topology (*Oxford Science Publications, 1998).
Robbin, J. W. and Salamon, D. A. *The Maslov index for paths*, Topology **32**, 1993, 827–44.
Souriau, J.-M. *Construction explicite de l’indice de Maslov*, Group Theoretical Methods in Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics, **50** (Springer-Verlag, 1975), 17–148.
Souriau, J.-M. *Indice de Maslov des variétés lagrangiennes orientables*, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, Série A, **276** (1973), 1025–1026.
Trèves, F. *Introduction to Pseudo-differential and Fourier Integral Operators* (two Volumes), University Series in Mathematics (Plenum Press, 1980).
Witten, E. in V. I. Arnol’d *et al*. (editors), *Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives*, International Mathematical Union, A.M.S (2000), 343.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We combine *Gaia* data release 1 astrometry with Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) images taken some $\sim 10-15$ years earlier, to measure proper motions of stars in the halo of our Galaxy. The SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions have typical statistical errors of 2 mas/yr down to $r \sim 20$ mag, and are robust to variations with magnitude and colour. Armed with this exquisite set of halo proper motions, we identify RR Lyrae, blue horizontal branch (BHB), and K giant stars in the halo, and measure their net rotation with respect to the Galactic disc. We find evidence for a gently rotating prograde signal ($\langle V_\phi \rangle \sim 5-25$ km s$^{-1}$) in the halo stars, which shows little variation with Galactocentric radius out to 50 kpc. The average rotation signal for the three populations is $\langle V_\phi \rangle = 14 \pm 2 \pm 10$ (syst.) km s$^{-1}$. There is also tentative evidence for a kinematic correlation with metallicity, whereby the metal richer BHB and K giant stars have slightly stronger prograde rotation than the metal poorer stars. Using the Auriga simulation suite we find that the *old* (T $>10$ Gyr) stars in the simulated halos exhibit mild prograde rotation, with little dependence on radius or metallicity, in general agreement with the observations. The weak halo rotation suggests that the Milky Way has a minor *in situ* halo component, and has undergone a relatively quiet accretion history.'
author:
- |
Alis J. Deason$^{1}$[^1], Vasily Belokurov$^{2}$, Sergey E. Koposov$^{2,3}$, Facundo A. Gómez$^{4}$, Robert J. Grand$^{5,6}$, Federico Marinacci$^{7}$, Rüdiger Pakmor$^5$\
$^{1}$Institute for Computational Cosmology, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK\
$^{2}$Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK\
$^{3}$McWilliams Center for Cosmology, Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA\
$^{4}$Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85748, Garching, Germany\
$^{5}$ Heidelberger Institut für Theoretische Studien, Schloss-Wolfsbrunnenweg 35, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany\
$^{6}$ Zentrum für Astronomie der Universität Heidelberg, Astronomisches Recheninstitut, Mönchhofstr. 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany\
$^{7}$Department of Physics, Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: The slight spin of the old stellar halo
---
=1
\[firstpage\]
Galaxy: halo – Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics – Galaxy: stellar content
Introduction
============
Dark matter haloes have spin. This net angular momentum is acquired by tidal torquing in the early universe [@peebles69; @dorosh70; @white84], and is later modified and shaped by the merging and accretion of substructures (e.g. @frenk85 [@catelan96; @bullock01; @gardner01; @vitvitska02; @peirani04; @donghia07]). The acquisition and distribution of angular momenta in haloes is intimately linked to the evolution of the galaxies at their centres. Indeed, the relationship between halo spin and disc/baryonic spin is a fundamental topic in galaxy formation, and has been studied extensively in the literature (e.g. @vandenbosch02 [@sharma05; @zavala08; @bett10; @deason11b; @teklu15; @zavala16]).
Initially, the angular momentum of the galaxy and the dark matter halo can be very well aligned. However, material is continually accreted onto the outer parts of the halo, which can alter its net angular momentum. Hence, while the galaxy and the halo often have aligned angular momentum vectors near their centers, they can be significantly misaligned at larger radii (e.g. @bett10 [@deason11b; @gomez17]). Furthermore, major mergers can cause drastic “spin flips” in both the dark matter angular momenta and the central baryonic component [@bett12; @padilla14].
It is clear that the net spin of haloes is critically linked to their merger histories, and thus their *stellar haloes* could provide an important segue between the angular momenta of the central baryonic disc and the dark matter halo. A large fraction of the halo stars in our Galaxy are the tidal remnants of destroyed dwarfs. Hence, to first order, the spin of the Milky Way stellar halo represents the net angular momentum of all of its past (stellar) accretion events.
The search for a rotation signal in the Milky Way halo dates back to the seminal work by [@frenk80]. The authors used line-of-sight velocities of the Galactic globular cluster system to infer a *prograde* (i.e. aligned with the disc) rotation signal of $V_{\rm rot} \sim 60$ km s$^{-1}$. A prograde signal, with $V_{\rm rot} \sim 40-60$ km s$^{-1}$, in the (halo) globular cluster system has also been seen in several later studies (e.g. @zinn85 [@norris86; @binney17]). However, the situation for the halo stars is far less clear. While most studies agree that the *overall* rotation speed of the stellar halo is probably weak and close to zero [@gould98; @sirko04; @smith09; @deason11a; @fermani13b; @das16], there is some evidence for a kinematic correlation between metal-rich and metal-poor populations [@deason11a; @kafle13; @hattori13] and/or different rotation signals in the inner and outer halo [@carollo07; @carollo10].
An apparent kinematic dichotomy in the stellar halo (either inner vs. outer, or metal-rich vs. metal-poor) could be linked to different formation mechanisms. For example, state-of-the-art hydrodynamical simulations find that a significant fraction of the stellar haloes in the inner regions of Milky Way mass galaxies likely formed *in situ*, and are more akin (at least kinematically) to a puffed up disc component [@zolotov09; @font11; @pillepich15]. Thus, one would expect a stronger prograde rotation signal in the inner and/or metal-rich regions of the Milky Way stellar halo [@mccarthy12], and this theoretical scenario could account for the kinematic differences seen in the observations. However, as the detailed examination by [@fermani13b] shows, apparent kinematic signals depending on distance and/or metallicity can be wrongly inferred due to contamination in the halo star samples and/or systematic errors in the distance estimates to halo stars. Moreover, our observational inferences and comparisons with simulations should (but often do not) take into account the type of stars used to trace the halo. For example, commonly used tracers such as blue horizontal branch (BHB) and RR Lyrae (RRL) stars are biased towards old, metal-poor stellar populations, and this can affect the halo parameters we derive (see e.g. @xue11 [@janesh16]).
So far, our examination of the kinematics of distant halo stars has been almost entirely based on one velocity component. For large enough samples over a wide area of sky, kinematic signatures such as rotation can be teased out using line-of-sight velocities alone. However, at larger and larger radii this line-of-sight component gives less and less information on the azimuthal velocities of the halo stars. Moreover, the presence of cold structures in line-of-sight velocity space [@schlaufman09] can also bias results. It is clearly more desirable to infer a direct rotation estimate from the 3D kinematics of the stars. Studies of distant halo stars with proper motion measurements are scarce [@deason13; @koposov13; @sohn15; @sohn16], but this limitation will become a distant memory as we enter the era of *Gaia*.
*Gaia* is an unprecedented astrometric mission that will measure proper motions for hundreds of millions of stars in our Galaxy. In this contribution, we exploit the first data release of *Gaia* (DR1, @gaia16) to measure the net rotation of the Milky Way stellar halo. Although the first *Gaia* data release does not contain any proper motions, we combine the exquisite astrometry of DR1 with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) images taken some $\sim 10-15$ years earlier to provide a stable and robust catalog of proper motions. Halo star tracers that have previously been identified in the literature are cross-matched with this new proper motion catalog to create a sample of halo stars with 2/3D kinematics.
The paper is arranged as follows. In Section \[sec:pms\] we introduce the SDSS-*Gaia* proper motion catalogue and investigate the statistical and systematic uncertainties in these measurements using spectroscopically confirmed QSOs. Our halo star samples are described in Section \[sec:samples\], and we provide further validation of our proper motion measurements by comparison with models and observations of the Sagittarius stream in Section \[sec:sgr\]. In Section \[sec:like\], we introduce our rotating stellar halo model and apply a likelihood analysis to RRL, BHB and K giant halo star samples. We compare our results with state-of-the-art simulations in Section \[sec:sims\], and re-evaluate our expectations for the stellar halo spin. Finally, we summarise our main conclusions in Section \[sec:conc\].
SDSS-*Gaia* Proper Motions {#sec:pms}
==========================
The aim of this work is to infer the average rotation signal of the Galactic halo using a newly calibrated SDSS-*Gaia* catalog. This catalog (described below) is robust to systematic biases, which is vital in order to measure a rotation signal. Indeed, even with large proper motion errors (of order the size of the proper motions themselves!), with large enough samples distributed over the sky, the rotation signal can still be recovered provided that the errors are largely random rather than systematic.\
The details of the creation of the recalibrated SDSS astrometric catalogue and measurement of SDSS-[*Gaia*]{} proper motions will be described in a separate paper (Koposov 2017 in preparation), but here we give a brief summary of the procedure.
In the original calibration of the astrometry of SDSS sources, exposed in detail by [@pier03], there are two key ingredients. The first is the mapping between pixel coordinates on the CCD $(x,y)$ and the coordinates corrected for the differential chromatic refraction and distortion of the camera $(x',y')$ (see Eqn. 5-10 in @pier03). The second is the mapping between $(x',y')$ and the great circle coordinates on the sky $(\mu, \nu)$ aligned with the SDSS stripe (Eqn. 9, 10, 13, 14 of @pier03). The first transformation does not change strongly with time, requires only a few free parameters and is well determined in SDSS. However, the second transformation that describes the scanning of the telescope, how non-uniform it is and how it deviates from a great circle, as well as the behaviour of anomalous refraction is much harder to measure. In fact, the anomalous refraction and its variation at small timescales is the most dominant effect limiting the quality of SDSS astrometry (see Fig. 13 of @pier03). The reason why those systematic effects could not have been properly addressed by the SDSS project itself is that the density of astrometric standards from UCAC [@zacharias13] and Tycho catalogues used for the derivation of the $(x',y')$, $(\mu,\nu)$ transformation was too low. This is where the *Gaia* DR1 comes to the rescue, with its astrometric catalogue being $\sim$ 4 magnitudes deeper than UCAC. The only issue with using the *Gaia* DR1 catalogue as a reference for SDSS calibration is that the epoch of the *Gaia* catalogue is 2015.0 as opposed to $\sim$ 2005 for SDSS and that the proper motions are not yet available for the majority of *Gaia* DR1 stars.
To address this issue, we first compute the relative proper-motions between *Gaia* and the original SDSS positions in bins in color-magnitude space and pixels on the sky (HEALPix level 16, angular resolution 3.6 deg; @gorski05) that gives us estimates of $\langle \mu_{\alpha}( \mathrm{hpx}, g-i,i) ]\rangle$ $\langle \mu_{\delta}(\mathrm{hpx},g-i,i) \rangle$. Those average proper motions can be used to estimate the expected positions of *Gaia* stars at the epoch of each SDSS scan. $$\hat\alpha_{\rm SDSS} = \alpha_{Gaia} - \langle \mu_{\alpha}(\mathrm{hpx},g-i,i) \rangle \delta T$$ where $\delta T$ is the timespan between *Gaia* and SDSS observation of a given star, hpx is the HEALPix pixel number of the star and $g-i$, and $i$ are colors and magnitudes of the star. With those positions $(\hat{\alpha}_{\rm SDSS}, \hat{\delta}_{\rm SDSS})$ computed for all the stars with both SDSS and *Gaia* measurements we redetermine the astrometric mapping in SDSS between $(x',y')$ pixel coordinates and on the sky great circle $(\mu,\nu)$ coordinates by using a flexible spline model. There are many more stars available in *Gaia* DR1 compared to the UCAC catalog, so in the model we are able to much better describe the anomalous refraction along the SDSS scans and, therefore, noticeably reduce the systematic uncertainties of the astrometric calibration. Furthermore, as a final step of the calibration, we also utilise the galaxies observed by Gaia and SDSS to remove any residual large scale astrometric offsets in the calibrated SDSS astrometry. With the SDSS astrometry recalibrated, the SDSS-[*Gaia*]{} proper motions are then simply obtained from the *Gaia* positions and their recalibrated position in SDSS.
Proper motion errors {#sec:pmerr}
--------------------
![ *Left panel:* The distribution of measured proper motions of SDSS DR12 spectroscopically confirmed QSOs. We find very similar distributions for $\mu_{\alpha}$ and $\mu_\delta$ (also $\mu_\ell$ and $\mu_b$), so for simplicity we use both proper motion measurements in this plot (i.e. $\mu=[\mu_\alpha, \mu_\delta]$). *Top right panel:* A histogram of the time baseline between first epoch SDSS and second epoch *Gaia* measurements ($\Delta T$). *Middle right panel:* Median proper motion of QSOs as a function of time baseline. The median $\mu_{\alpha}$ and $\mu_\delta$ values are shown with the dashed green and blue lines respectively. The median proper motions are consistent with zero at the 0.1 mas/yr level. The grey shaded region indicates median offsets from zero of $\pm 0.1$ mas/yr. *Bottom right panel:* The dispersion in QSO proper motions as a function of $\Delta T$. Here, $\sigma$ is 1.48 times the median absolute deviation. The red dashed line shows the best-fit model for $\sigma(\mu)$, where $\sigma= A+B/\Delta T$. We use this relation to assign proper motion uncertainties to stars in the SDSS-*Gaia* sample as a function of $\Delta T$.[]{data-label="fig:qso_mjd"}](qsos_mjd.pdf){width="8.5cm" height="7.08cm"}
![ Proper motion errors estimated from SDSS DR12 QSOs as a function of $r$-band magnitude (left panel) and $g-r$ colour (right panel). The top and bottom panels show the median and standard deviation of the QSO proper motions. The dashed green and blue lines in the top panels show the median $\mu_{\alpha}$ and $\mu_\delta$ proper motions, and the grey shaded region indicates median offsets from zero of $\pm 0.1$ mas/yr. The dotted line in the bottom panels indicates the median proper motion error of 2 mas/yr. There is a slight correlation of $\sigma(\mu)$with $r$-band magnitude, but this is very minor over the magnitude range probed in this study ($ r \lesssim 19$). Furthermore, there is no variation with colour. []{data-label="fig:qso_mag_col"}](qsos_mag_color.pdf){width="8.5cm" height="4.25cm"}
We quantify the uncertainties in the SDSS-*Gaia* proper motion measurements using spectroscopically confirmed QSOs from SDSS DR12 [@paris17]. This QSO sample is cross-matched with the SDSS-*Gaia* catalog by searching for the nearest neighbour within $1\arcsec$. There are $N=71, 799$ QSOs in the catalog with $r < 20$, and we show the distribution of QSO proper motions in the left-hand panel of Fig. \[fig:qso\_mjd\]. The QSO proper motions are nicely centred around $\mu =0$ mas/yr, and there are no significant high proper motion tails to the distribution. Note that we find no significant differences between the QSO proper motion components $\mu_\alpha$ and $\mu_\delta$, so we group both components together (i.e. $\mu=[\mu_\alpha, \mu_\delta]$) in the figure. However, we do show the $\mu_\alpha$ and $\mu_\delta$ components separately (green and blue dashed lines in the top-right panel) when we show the median proper motions to illustrate that these components *individually* have no significant systematics.
The proper motion errors should roughly scale as $\sigma (\mu) \propto 1/\Delta T$, where $\Delta T$ is the timescale between the first epoch SDSS measurements and the second epoch *Gaia* data[^2]. The SDSS photometry was taken over a significant period of time, and data from later releases have shorter time baselines. Thus, this variation in astrometry timespan is an important parameter when quantifying the proper motion uncertainties in our SDSS-*Gaia* catalog. The top-right panel of Fig. \[fig:qso\_mjd\] shows a (normalised) histogram of the time baselines ($\Delta T$). There is a wide range of time baselines, but most of the SDSS data were taken $\sim 10-15$ years ago. In the bottom-right panel of Fig. \[fig:qso\_mjd\] we show the dispersion in QSO proper motion measurements (defined as $\sigma = 1.48$ times the median absolute deviation) as a function of $\Delta T$, and the middle-right panel shows the median values. The median values are consistent with zero at the level of $\sim 0.1$ mas/yr, and there is no systematic dependence on $\Delta T$. As expected, there is a strong correlation between the dispersion of QSO proper motions and $\Delta T$. The dashed red line shows a model fit to the relation of the form:
$$\label{eqn:sig}
\sigma = A + B/\Delta T,$$
where $A=0.157$ mas/yr and $B=22.730$ mas. It is encouraging that this simple $A+B/\Delta T$ model agrees well with the QSO data, and we find no significant systematic differences between different SDSS data releases. Note that we show in Appendix \[sec:appendix\] that there is no significant systematic variation in the QSO proper motions with position on the sky.
{width="16cm" height="5.33cm"}
We also use the QSO sample to check whether or not the proper motion uncertainties vary significantly with magnitude or colour. In Fig. \[fig:qso\_mag\_col\] we show the dispersion in QSO proper motions as a function of $r$-band magnitude (left panel) and $g-r$ colour (right panel). The dotted lines indicate the median standard deviation in proper motion of 2 mas/yr. There is a weak dependence on r-band magnitude, whereby the QSO proper motion distributions get slightly broader at fainter magnitudes. However, most of the halo stars in this work have $ r < 19$ and there is little variation at these brighter magnitudes. Finally, we find no detectable dependence of $\sigma (\mu)$ on $g-r$ colour. It is worth remarking that the stability of these proper motion measurements to changes in magnitude and colour is a testament to the astrometric stability of the improved SDSS-*Gaia* catalog.\
\
In Section \[sec:like\] we introduce a rotating velocity ellipsoid model for the Milky Way halo stars. In order to test the effects of any systematic uncertainties in the SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions, we also apply this modeling procedure to the sample of SDSS DR12 QSOs. We adopt a “distance” of 20 kpc, which is the mean distance to our halo star samples, and find the best fit rotation ($\langle V_{\rm \phi} \rangle$) value. This procedure gives a best fit value of $\langle V_{\rm \phi} \rangle \sim 10$ km s$^{-1}$. Note, that if there were no systematics present, then there would be no rotation signal. In Fig. \[fig:qso\_mjd\] we showed that the median proper motions of the QSOs was $\sim 0.1$ mas/yr. Indeed, at a distance of 20 kpc, this proper motion corresponds to a velocity of 10 km s$^{-1}$. Thus, although the astrometry systematics in our SDSS-*Gaia* proper motion catalog are small, at the typical distances of our halo stars we cannot robustly measure rotation signals weaker than 10 km s$^{-1}$. We discuss this point further in Section \[sec:res\].
In the remainder of this work, we use Eqn. \[eqn:sig\] to define the proper motion uncertainties of our halo star samples (see below). Thus, we assume that the proper motion errors are random, independent and normally distributed with variance depending only on the time-baseline between SDSS and *Gaia* measurements. Note that since we are trying to measure the *centroid* of the proper motion distribution (i.e. the net rotation), rather than deconvolve it into components or measure their width, we are not very sensitive to knowing the proper motion errors precisely.
Stellar Halo Stars {#sec:samples}
==================
RR Lyrae {#sec:rrl}
--------
RR Lyrae (RRL) stars are pulsating horizontal branch stars found abundantly in the stellar halo of our Galaxy. These variable stars have a well-defined Period-Luminosity-Metallicity relation, and their distances can typically be measured with accuracies of less than 10 percent. Furthermore, RRL have bright absolute magnitudes ($M_V \sim 0.6$), so they can be detected out to large distances in relatively shallow surveys. These low mass, old (their ages are typically in excess of 10 Gyr) stars are ideal tracers of the Galactic halo, and, indeed, RRL have been used extensively in the literature to study the stellar halo (e.g. @vivas06 [@watkins09; @sesar10; @simion14; @fiorentino15]).
In this work, we use a sample of type AB RRL stars from the Catalina Sky Survey [@drake13a; @drake13b; @torrealba15] to infer the rotation signal of the Milky Way stellar halo. This survey has amassed a large number ($N \sim 22,700$) of RRL stars over 33,000 deg$^2$ of the sky, with distances in excess of 50 kpc. The RRL sample is matched to the SDSS-*Gaia* proper motion catalog by searching the nearest neighbours within $10\arcsec$. Our resulting sample contains $N=8590$ RRL stars with measured 3D positions, photometric metallicities (derived using Eqn. 7 from @torrealba15) and proper motions. The distribution of this sample on the sky in Equatorial coordinates is shown in Fig. \[fig:sdss\_rrl\]. When evaluating the Galactic velocity components of the RRL stars, the random proper motion errors (derived in Section \[sec:pms\]) dominate over the distance errors (typically $\sim 7\%$ see e.g. @simion14), so we can safely ignore the RRL distance uncertainties in our analysis. Note that we have checked using mock stellar haloes from the Auriga simulation suite (see Section \[sec:sims\]) that statistical distance uncertainties of $\sim 10\%$ make little difference to our results.
Blue Horizontal Branch
----------------------
Blue Horizontal Branch (BHB) stars, like RRL, are an old, metal poor population used widely in the literature to study the distant halo (e.g. @xue08 [@deason12b]). BHBs have relatively bright absolute magnitudes ($M_g \sim 0.5$), which can be simply parametrised as a function of colour and metallicity (e.g. @deason11c [@fermani13a]). However, unlike their RRL cousins, photometric samples of BHB stars are often significantly contaminated by blue straggler stars, which have similar colours but higher surface gravity. Spectroscopic samples of BHBs can circumvent this problem by using gravity sensitive indicators to separate out the contaminants (e.g. @clewley02 [@sirko04; @xue08; @deason12b]).
In this work we use the spectroscopic SEGUE sample of BHB stars compiled by [@xue11]. This sample was selected to be relatively “clean” of higher surface gravity contaminants, and has already been exploited in a number of works to study the stellar halo (e.g. @xue11 [@deason12a; @kafle13; @hattori13]). By cross-matching this sample with the SDSS-*Gaia* catalog, we identify $N=4553$ BHB stars. We estimate distances to these stars using the $g-r$ colour and metallicity dependent relation derived by [@fermani13a]. Similarly to the RRL stars, we do not take into account the relatively small ($\sim 10\%$) distance uncertainties of the BHBs in our analysis. Our resulting BHB sample has 3D positions, 3D velocities and spectroscopic metallicity estimates.
K Giants
--------
Giant stars are often a useful probe of the stellar halo, owing to their bright absolute magnitudes ($M_r \sim 1$ to $-3$), and large numbers in wide-field spectroscopic surveys (e.g. @morrison00 [@xue14]). Moreover, giants are one of the most common tracers of *external* galaxy haloes (e.g. @gilbert06 [@monachesi16]). In contrast to BHB and RRL stars, giant stars populate all metallicities in old populations. Thus, they represent a less biased tracer of the stellar halo.
The drawback of using giant stars to trace the halo is that spectroscopic samples are required to limit contamination from dwarf stars, and the absolute magnitudes of giants are strongly dependent on colour and metallicity. Here, we use the spectroscopic sample of K giants compiled by [@xue14], who derive distance moduli for each star using a probabilistic framework based on colour and metallicity. A distance modulus PDF is constructed for each star, and we use the mode of the distribution $DM_{\rm peak}$ and interval between the 84% and 16% percentiles, $\Delta DM = \left(DM_{84}-DM_{16}\right)/2$, as the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty. We find $N = 5814$ K giants cross-matched with the SDSS-*Gaia* proper motion sample. Thus, our resulting K giant sample has 3D positions (with distance moduli described using a Gaussian PDF), 3D velocities and spectroscopic metallicities.
Sagittarius Stream {#sec:sgr}
==================
{width="16cm" height="13.71cm"}
![Proper motions in Galactic coordinates ($\mu_l$ left panels, $\mu_b$ right panel) against longitude in the Sagittarius (Sgr) coordinate system. The symbols and colors are identical to Fig. \[fig:sgr\_pms\]. Here, we have zoomed in on the regions of the Sgr stream that have proper motion constraints in the literature. The SDSS-*Gaia* RRL proper motions in the Sgr stream (solid black squares) are in excellent agreement with the literature values.[]{data-label="fig:pm_comp"}](pm_comp_sgr.png){width="8.5cm" height="8.5cm"}
Before introducing our model for halo rotation, we identify RRL stars in our sample that likely belong to the Sagittarius (Sgr) stream. This vast substructure is very prominent in the SDSS footprint [@belokurov06], and thus it may overwhelm any halo rotation signatures associated with earlier accretion events. Furthermore, previous works have independently measured proper motions of Sgr stars[@carlin12; @koposov13; @sohn15], and hence we can provide a further test of our SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions. Note that we use RRL stars (rather than BHBs or K giants) in Sgr as these stars have the most accurate distance measurements, and thus Sgr members can be identified relatively cleanly. We identify Sgr stars according to position on the sky $(\alpha,\delta)$ and heliocentric distance using the approximate stream coordinates used by [@deason12b] and [@belokurov14]. The top panel of Fig. \[fig:sgr\_pms\] shows that our distance selection of Sgr stars agrees well with the [@law10] model. Our selection procedure identifies $N=830$ candidate Sgr associations, which corresponds to roughly 10% of our RRL sample.
In Fig. \[fig:sgr\_pms\] we show proper motions in Galactic coordinates ($\mu_\ell, \mu_b$) as a function of longitude in the Sgr coordinate system (see @majewski03). The red and blue points show the leading and trailing arms of the [@law10] model of the Sgr stream. Note that we only show material stripped within the last 3 pericentric passages of the model orbit. The black filled squares show the median SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions for RRL stars associated with the Sgr stream in bins of Sgr longitude, and the error bars indicate $1.48 \, \mathrm{MAD}/\sqrt{N}$, where MAD $=$ median absolute deviation and $N$ is the number of stars in each bin. It is encouraging that the Sgr stars in our RRL sample agree very well with the model predictions by [@law10]. Proper motion measurements of Sgr stars in the literature are also shown in Fig. \[fig:sgr\_pms\]: these are given by the orange diamonds [@koposov13], cyan squares [@sohn15; @sohn16] and grey triangles [@carlin12]. Our SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions are in excellent agreement with these other (independent) measures (see also Fig. \[fig:pm\_comp\]). Finally, we show the proper motions for the entire sample of SDSS-*Gaia* RRL stars with the open green circles. The stars associated with Sgr are clearly distinct from the overall halo in proper motion space. The solid black line shows the maximum likelihood model for halo rotation computed in Section \[sec:like\]. A model with mild prograde rotation agrees very well with the proper motion data. Note that the variation in proper motion with $\Lambda_\odot$ in the model is largely due to the solar reflex motion. Indeed, the solar reflex motion (in proper motion space) for Sgr stars is lower because they are typically further away than the halo stars. This is the main reason for the stark difference between the proper motions of the two populations in Fig. \[fig:sgr\_pms\].
We also show the heliocentric distances of the Sgr stars as a function of Sgr Longitude in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:sgr\_pms\]. Again, there is excellent agreement with the [@law10] models. This figure shows that we can probe the Sgr proper motions out to $D \sim 50$ kpc, and thus we can accurately trace halo proper motions out to these distances (see Section \[sec:res\]).
In Fig \[fig:pm\_comp\] we zoom in on the regions along the Sgr stream where proper motions have been measured previously in the literature. Here, the agreement with the other observational data is even clearer. In particular, our Sgr leading arm proper motions at $ 240^\circ \lesssim \Lambda_\odot \lesssim 360^\circ$ are in excellent agreement with the *HST* proper motions measured by [@sohn15]. This is a wonderful validation of two completely independent astrometric techniques! Note that the Sgr stream is not the focus of this study, but the proper motion catalog we present here is a useful probe of the stream dynamics. For example, the slight differences between the [@law10] model predictions and our measurements could be used to refine/improve models of the Sgr orbit. We leave this task, and other applications of the Sgr proper motions, to a future study.\
We have now shown, using both spectroscopically confirmed QSOs and stars belonging to the Sgr stream, that our SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions are free of any significant systematic uncertainties. In the following Section we use this exquisite sample to infer the rotation signal of the stellar halo.
Halo Rotation {#sec:like}
=============
In this Section, we use the SDSS-*Gaia* sample of RRL, BHB and K giant stars to measure the average rotation of the Galactic stellar halo. Below we describe our rotating halo model, and outline our likelihood analysis.
In order to convert observed heliocentric velocities into Galactocentric ones, we adopt a distance to the Galactic centre of $R_0=8.3 \pm 0.3$ kpc [@schonrich12; @reid14], and we marginalise over the uncertainty in this parameter in our analysis. Given $R_0$, the total solar azimuthal velocity in the Galactic rest frame is strongly constrained by the observed proper motion of Sgr A$^*$, i.e. $V_{g, \odot} = \mu (\mathrm{Sgr \, A^*}) \times R_0$. We adopt the [@reid04] proper motion measurement of Sgr A$^*$, which gives a solar azimuthal velocity of $V_{g, \odot} = 250 \pm 9$ km s$^{-1}$. Finally, we use the solar peculiar motions $(U_\odot, V_\odot, W_\odot)=(11.1, 12.24, 7.25)$ km s$^{-1}$ derived by [@schonrich10]. Thus, in our analysis, the circular speed at the position of the Sun is $V_c = 238$ km s$^{-1}$ (where $V_{g, \odot}= V_c +V_\odot$). We note that the combination of $R_0=8.5$ kpc and $V_c = 220$ km s$^{-1}$ has been used widely in the literature, so in Section \[sec:res\] we show how our halo rotation signal is affected if we instead adopt these parameters.
Model
-----
We define a (rotating) 3D velocity ellipsoid aligned in spherical coordinates:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:fv}
&&P(v_r,v_\theta,v_\phi|\sigma_r,\sigma_\phi,\sigma_\theta,\langle V_\phi \rangle) = \\
&&\frac{1}{\left(2\pi\right)^{3/2}\sigma_r \sigma_\theta
\sigma_\phi} \mathrm{exp}\left[-\frac{v^2_r}{2\sigma^2_r}-\frac{v^2_\theta}{2
\sigma^2_\theta}-\frac{\left(v_\phi-\langle V_{\phi} \rangle\right)^2}{2
\sigma^2_\phi}\right] \notag\end{aligned}$$
Here, we only allow net streaming motion in the $v_\phi$ velocity coordinate, and assume Gaussian velocity distributions. Note that positive $\langle V_{\phi} \rangle$ is in the same direction as the disc rotation. For simplicity, we assume an isotropic ellipsoid where $\sigma_r=\sigma_\theta=\sigma_\phi=\sigma_*$, but we have ensured that this assumption of isotropy does not significantly affect our rotation estimates (see also Section \[sec:sims\]).
This velocity distribution function can be transformed to Galactic coordinates $(\mu_l, \mu_b, v_{\rm los})$ by using the Jacobian of the transformation $J=4.74047^2 D^2$, which gives $P(\mu_l, \mu_b,v_{\rm los}|\sigma_*,\langle V_\phi \rangle, D)$.
The RRL stars only have proper motion measurements, so, in this case, we marginalise the velocity distribution function along the line-of-sight to obtain $P(\mu_l, \mu_b|\sigma_*,\langle V_\phi \rangle)$. Furthermore, while we can safely ignore the distance uncertainties for the RRL and BHB stars, we do need to take the K giant absolute magnitude uncertainties into account (typically, $\Delta DM \sim 0.35$) . Thus, for the K giants we include a distance modulus PDF in the analysis. Here, we follow the prescription by [@xue14] and assume a Gaussian distance modulus distribution with mean, $\langle DM \rangle = DM_{\rm peak}$ and standard deviation, $\sigma_{DM} = \left(DM_{84}-DM_{16}\right)/2$. Here, $DM_{\rm peak}$ is the most probable distance modulus derived by [@xue14], and $\left(DM_{84}-DM_{16}\right)/2$ is the central 68% interval. This distance modulus PDF was derived by [@xue14] using empirically calibrated colour-luminosity fiducials, at the observed colour and metallicity of the K giants.
$$\begin{aligned}
&&P(\mu_l, \mu_b, v_{\rm los}|\sigma_*,\langle V_\phi \rangle) = \\
&&\int P(\mu_l, \mu_b, v_{\rm los}|\sigma_*,\langle V_\phi \rangle, DM)
\mathcal{N}(DM|DM_0, \sigma_{DM}) d DM \notag\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{N}(DM|DM_0, \sigma_{DM})$ is the normal distribution describing the uncertainty in measuring the distance modulus to a given star.
We then use a likelihood analysis to find the best-fit $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ value. The (isotropic) dispersion, $\sigma_*$, is also a free parameter in our analysis. As we are mainly concerned with net rotation, we assume a flat prior on $\sigma_*$ in the range $\sigma_* =[50,200]$ km s$^{-1}$, and marginalise over this parameter to find the posterior distribution for $\langle V_\phi \rangle$.
When evaluating the likelihoods of individual stars under our model we also take into account the Gaussian uncertainties on proper motions as prescribed by Eq. \[eqn:sig\]. As the likelihood functions are normal distributions, this amounts to a simple convolution operation.
Results {#sec:res}
-------
[c c c c c]{} &\
& &\
& N & $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ \[km s$^{-1}$\] & N & $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ \[km s$^{-1}$\]\
\
All $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$ & 7456 & $12^{+2}_{-3} $ & 6663 & $9^{+3}_{-2}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} >-1.5$ & 4322 & $14^{+3}_{-4} $ & 3983 & $11^{+4}_{-3}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} <-1.5$ & 1460 & $10^{+6}_{-7} $ & 1312 & $6.0^{+7}_{-6}$\
&\
& &\
& N & $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ \[km s$^{-1}$\]& N & $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ \[km s$^{-1}$\]\
\
All $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$& 3947 & $6.0^{+3}_{-3} $ & 3671 & $5.0^{+3}_{-3}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} >-1.5$ & 756 & $18^{+7}_{-7} $ & 715 & $21^{+7}_{-7}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} <-1.5$ & 3191 & $2.0^{+4}_{-3}$ & 2956 & $0.0^{+4}_{-3}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} >-1.5$, PM only & 756 & $15^{+8}_{-9}$ & 715 & $19^{+8}_{-9}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} <-1.5$, PM only & 3191 & $1.0^{+4}_{-4}$ & 2956 & $-1.0^{+4}_{-4}$\
&\
& &\
& N & $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ \[km s$^{-1}$\] & N & $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ \[km s$^{-1}$\]\
\
All $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$& 5284 & $23^{+3}_{-3} $ & 4603 & $19^{+3}_{-3}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} >-1.5$ & 2553 & $28^{+4}_{-4}$ & 2159 & $23^{+4}_{-4}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} <-1.5$ & 2731 & $17^{+4}_{-4}$ & 2444 & $14^{+4}_{-4}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} >-1.5$, $P_{\rm RGB} > 0.8$ & 1748 & $30^{+5}_{-5}$ & 1426 & $23^{+5}_{-5}$\
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]} <-1.5$, $P_{\rm RGB} > 0.8$ & 1985 & $22^{+5}_{-5}$ & 1744 & $18^{+5}_{-5}$\
\[tab:res\]
In this Section, we apply our likelihood procedure to RRL, BHB and K giant stars with SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions. For all halo tracers, we only consider stars with $r < 50$ kpc and $|z| > 4$ kpc. The latter cut is imposed to avoid potential disc stars. In addition, we remove any stars with considerable proper motion ($\mu > 100$ mas/yr), although, in practice this amounts to removing only a handful ($\ll 1\%$) of stars and their exclusion does not affect our rotation estimates. The best fit values of $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ described in this section are summarised in Table \[tab:res\].
In Fig. \[fig:vphi\] we show the posterior distribution for $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ for each of the halo tracers. The solid black, dashed orange and dot-dashed purple lines show the results for RRL, BHBs and K giants, respectively. All the halo tracers favour a mild prograde rotation signal, with $\langle V_\phi \rangle \sim 5-25$ km s$^{-1}$. Note that the RRL model is shown against the proper motion data in Fig. \[fig:sgr\_pms\]. In general, the K giants show the strongest rotation signal of the three halo tracers. This is likely because the K giants have a broader age and metallicity spread than the RRL and BHB stars (see Section \[sec:sims\]). However, the K giant rotation signal is still relatively mild ($\sim 20$ km s$^{-1}$) and similar (within 10-15 km s$^{-1}$) to the RRL and BHB results. The three tracer populations have different distance distributions, so it is not immediately obvious that their rotation signals can be directly compared. However, as we show in Fig. \[fig:vphi\_rad\], we find little variation in the rotation signal with Galactocentric radius, so a comparison between the “average” rotation signal of the populations is reasonable. Finally, we note that we also check that the Sgr stars in our sample make little difference to the overall rotation signal of the halo (see Table \[tab:res\]).
For comparison, the right-hand panel of Fig. \[fig:vphi\] shows the posterior distributions if we adopt other commonly used parameters for distance from the Galactic centre and circular velocity at the position of the Sun: $R_0=8.5$ kpc, $V_c = 220$ km s$^{-1}$. In this case, only the K giants exhibit a detectable rotation signal. It is worth emphasizing that current estimates of the solar azimuthal velocity favour the larger value of $V_c \sim 240$ km s$^{-1}$ [@bovy12; @schonrich12; @reid14] that we use, but it is important to keep in mind that the rotation signal is degenerate with the adopted solar motion. In addition, as discussed in Section \[sec:pms\], the systematic uncertainties of our SDSS-*Gaia* proper motion catalogue are at the level of $\sim 0.1$ mas/yr. Thus, for typical distances to the halo stars of 20 kpc, we cannot robustly measure a rotation signal that is weaker than 10 km s$^{-1}$.
In Fig. \[fig:dm\] we compare the model predictions for $\mu_l$ with the observed data. We show the Galactic longitude proper motion $\mu_l$ because this component is more sensitive than $\mu_b$ to variations in $\langle V_\phi \rangle$. The solid black line shows the difference between the maximum likelihood models and the data as a function of Galactocentric longitude. The error bars indicate the median absolute deviation of the data in each bin. For comparison, we also show with the dashed blue and dot-dashed red lines the model predictions with $\langle V_\phi \rangle \pm 20$ km s$^{-1}$. For all three tracers, the models with very mild prograde rotation agree well with the data.
Our maximum likelihood models give $\sigma^*$ values of 138, 121 and 111 km s$^{-1}$ for the RRL, BHBs and K giants respectively. These values agree well with previous estimates of in the literature [@battaglia05; @brown10; @deason12b; @xue08]. Note that our models assume isotropy, but we find that both radially and tangentially biased models make little difference to our estimates of $\langle V_\phi \rangle$.
![ The posterior $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ distributions for RRL (solid black), BHB (dashed orange) and K giant (dot-dashed purple) tracers. The shaded grey region indicates the approximate systematic uncertainty in the proper motion measurements ($\sim 10$ km s$^{-1}$ at $D=20$ kpc). For comparison, the right-hand panel shows the posterior distributions when a different combination of position of the Sun ($R_0=8.5$ kpc), and circular velocity at the position of the Sun ($V_c = 220$ km s$^{-1}$) is used. With a lower solar azimuthal velocity, the (already mild) rotation signal disappears. Current estimates favour the larger value of $\sim 240$ km s$^{-1}$, but it is worth bearing in mind the degeneracy between the rotation signal and adopted solar motion.[]{data-label="fig:vphi"}](vphi_plot.pdf){width="8.5cm" height="4.25cm"}
{width="16cm" height="3.64cm"}
{width="17cm" height="4.25cm"}
![ The posterior $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ distributions for metal-richer (solid red lines, \[Fe/H\] $>-1.5$) and metal poorer (dashed blue lines, \[Fe/H\] $<-1.5$). RRL, BHBs and K giants are shown in the top, middle and bottom panels, respectively. The metal-richer BHB and K giant stars are mildly biased ($\sim 1\sigma$) towards stronger prograde rotation. The thinner lines show the estimated rotation signals when stars associated with the Sgr stream are excluded. The shaded grey region indicates the approximate systematic uncertainty in the proper motion measurements ($\sim 10$ km s$^{-1}$ at $D=20$ kpc) []{data-label="fig:vphi_met"}](vphi_plot_met.pdf){width="8cm" height="12cm"}
We now investigate if there is a radial dependence on the rotation signal of the stellar halo. Our likelihood analysis is applied to halo stars in radial bins 10 kpc wide between Galactocentric radii $0 < r/\mathrm{kpc} < 50$. The results of this exercise are shown in Fig. \[fig:vphi\_rad\]. The solid black circles show all halo stars, and the open orange circles show the rotation signal when stars likely associated with the Sagittarius (Sgr) stream are removed. Here, the error bars indicate the 1$\sigma$ confidence levels. We find that the (prograde) rotation signal stays roughly constant at $10 \lesssim \langle V_\phi/ \mathrm{km \, s^{-1}} \rangle \lesssim 20$. We do find a stronger rotation signal in the radial bin $ 30 < r/ \mathrm{kpc} < 40$ for both RRL and K giants, but this is attributed to a significant number of Sgr stars in this radial regime. The shaded grey regions in Fig. \[fig:vphi\_rad\] indicate the approximate *systematic* uncertainty in the velocity measurements in each radial bin, assuming a systematic proper motion uncertainty of 0.1 mas/yr. Thus, the prograde rotation is very mild, and we are only just able to discern a rotation signal that is not consistent with zero.
In Fig. \[fig:vphi\_met\] we explore whether or not the rotation signal of the halo stars is correlated with metallicity. The spectroscopic BHB and K giant samples have measured \[Fe/H\] values, and for the RRL we use photometric metallicities measured from the light curves. The metallicity distribution functions of the three halo tracers are different, and we are using both spectroscopic and photometric metallicities. Thus, we only compare “metal-richer” and “metal-poorer” stars using a metallicity boundary of \[Fe/H\] $=-1.5$. This boundary was chosen as the median value of the K giant sample, which is the least (metallicity) biased tracer. In Fig. \[fig:vphi\_met\] we show the posterior probability distributions for the average rotation of the metal-rich (solid red) and metal-poor (dashed blue) tracers. The thinner lines show the posteriors when stars likely associated with the Sgr stream are excluded. There is no evidence for a metallicity dependence in the RRL sample, but both the BHBs and K giants show a slight ($\sim 1\sigma$) bias towards stronger prograde rotation for metal-rich stars.
The lack of a metallicity correlation in the rotation of the RRL stars could be due to the relatively poor photometric metallicity estimates (see e.g. Fig. 10 in @watkins09), which could wash out any apparent signal. On the other hand, the apparent metallicity correlation in the BHB and K giant samples could be caused by contamination. We explore this scenario in more detail below.
Previous work using only line-of-sight velocities have also found evidence for a metal-rich/metal-poor kinematic dichotomy in spectroscopic samples of BHB stars [@deason11a; @kafle13; @hattori13]. However, [@fermani13b] argue that this signal is due to (1) contamination by blue straggler stars, (2) incorrect distance estimates and, (3) potential pipeline systematics in the [@xue11] BHB sample. The BHB sample used in this work should not suffer from significant blue straggler (or main sequence star) contamination. Moreover, our distance calibration is robust to systematic metallicity differences [@fermani13a]. However, we cannot ignore the potential line-of-sight velocity systematics in the [@xue11] sample. [@fermani13b] find that a subsample of hot metal-poor BHB stars exhibit peculiar line-of-sight kinematics, which likely causes the metallicity bias in the rotation estimates. It is worth noting that the peculiar line-of-sight kinematics of the hot BHB stars could also be due to a stream-like structure in the halo, and is not necessarily a pipeline failure. In Table \[tab:res\] we also give the rotation estimates for metal-rich/metal-poor stars computed with proper motions only. The results are only slightly changed when we do not use the BHB line-of-sight velocities, and they agree within $1 \sigma$ of the rotation estimates when 3D velocities are used.
We also investigate whether or not the apparent metallicity correlation in the K giant sample could be due to contamination. For example, if there are (metal-rich) disc stars present in the sample this could lead to a stronger prograde signal in the metal-richer stars. Disc contamination could result from stars being misclassified as giant branch stars (e.g. dwarfs, red clump stars) and thus their distances are overestimated. To this end, we use a stricter cut on the $P_{\rm RGB}$ parameter provided by [@xue14], which gives the probability of being a red giant branch stars. Our fiducial sample has $P_{\rm RGB} > 0.5$. We find that using $P_{\rm RGB} > 0.8$ results in little difference to the rotation signal of the metal-rich stars, and the rotation signal of the metal-poor stars becomes slightly stronger (see Table \[tab:res\]). It does not appear that the sample is contaminated by disc stars, but the (slight) metallicity correlation in the K giant sample does lose statistical significance if a stricter cut on red giant branch classification is used. However, this is likely because the error bars are inflated due to smaller number statistics.
It is worth noting that the tests we perform above on the BHB and K giant samples do not significantly change the rotation signals of the stars (differences are less than $1 \sigma$), so, we are confident that contamination in these samples is not significantly affecting our results. Thus, we conclude that there does appear to be a mild correlation between rotation signal and metallicity in the halo star kinematics.
In summary, we find that the (old) stellar halo, as traced by RRL, BHB and K giant stars, has a very mild prograde rotation signal, and there is a weak correlation between rotation signal and metallicity. Is this the expected result for a Milky Way-mass galaxy stellar halo? Or, indeed, is this rotation signal result consistent with the predictions of the $\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}$ model? In the following Section, we exploit a suite of state-of-the-art cosmological simulations in order to address these questions.
Simulated Stellar Haloes {#sec:sims}
========================
Auriga Simulations
------------------
{width="17cm" height="5.1cm"}
In this Section, we use a sample of $N=30$ high-resolution Milky Way-mass haloes from the Auriga simulation suite. These simulations are described in more detail in [@grand17], and we only provide a brief description here.
A low-resolution dark matter only simulation with box size 100 Mpc $h^{-1}$ was used to select candidate Milky Way-mass ($1 < M_{200}/10^{12}M_\odot < 2$) haloes. These candidate haloes were chosen to be relatively isolated at $z=0$. More precisely, there are no objects with masses greater than half of the parent halo closer than 1.37 Mpc. A $\Lambda$CDM cosmology consistent with the [@planck14] data release is adopted with parameters, $\Omega_m=0.307$, $\Omega_b=0.048$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.693$ and $H_0=100 \, h$ km s$^{-1} $Mpc$^{-1}$, where $h=0.6777$. Each candidate halo was re-simulated at a higher resolution using a multi-mass particle “zoom-in” technique.
The zoom re-simulations were performed with the state-of-the-art cosmological magento-hydrodynamical code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">arepo</span> [@springel10]. Gas was added to the initial conditions by adopting the same technique described in [@marinacci14a; @marinacci14b], and its evolution was followed by solving the MHD equations on a Voronoi mesh. At the resolution level used in this work (level 4), the typical mass of a dark matter particle is $3 \times 10^5M_\odot$, and the baryonic mass resolution is $5 \times 10^4M_\odot$. The softening length of the dark matter particles and star particles grows with time in physical space until a maximum of 369 pc is reached at $z=1.0$ (where z is the redshift). The gas cells have a softening length that scales with the mean radius of the cell, and the maximum physical softening is 1.85kpc.
The Auriga simulations employ a model for galaxy formation physics that includes critical physical processes, such as star formation, gas heating/cooling, feedback from stars, metal enrichment, magnetic fields, and the growth of supermassive black holes (see @grand17 for more details). The simulations have been successful in reproducing a number of observable disc galaxy properties, such as rotation curves, star formation rates, stellar masses, sizes and metallicities.
This work is concerned with stellar haloes of the Auriga galaxies. A future study (Monachesi et al. in preparation) will present a more general analysis of the simulated stellar halo properties. Here, we focus on the net rotation of the Auriga stellar haloes for comparison with the observational results in the preceding sections.
Rotation of Auriga Stellar Haloes
---------------------------------
The definition of “halo stars”, in both observations and simulations, is somewhat arbitrary, and often varies widely between different studies. In this work, for a more direct comparison with our observational results, we spatially select stars within the SDSS survey footprint (see Fig. \[fig:sdss\_rrl\]) with Galactocentric radius $5 < r/\mathrm{kpc} < 50$ and height above disc plane $|z| > 4$ kpc. Note that the scale heights of the Auriga discs are generally thicker than the Milky Way disc (see @grand17), so our spatial selection will likely include some disc star particles, particularly at small radii. Finally, for a fair comparison with the old halo tracers (i.e. RRL, BHBs, and K giants) used in this work, we also select “old” star particles. For this purpose, we consider halo stars that formed more than 10 Gyr ago in the simulations. Note that we align each halo with the stellar disc angular momentum vector, which we compute using all star particles within 20 kpc.
In the left-hand panel of Fig. \[fig:sim\_rot\] we show the distribution of average azimuthal velocity ($\langle V_\phi \rangle$) of halo stars in the 30 Auriga simulations. Here, halo stars are selected within the SDSS survey footprint between 5 and 50 kpc from the Galactic centre, and with height above the disc plane, $|z| > 4$ kpc. The average rotation for all halo stars in this radial range are shown with the grey histogram. Old halo stars (with $T_{\rm form} >$ 10 Gyr) are shown with the green line-filled histogram. The stellar haloes show a broad range of rotation velocities, ranging from $0 \lesssim \langle V_\phi \rangle /\mathrm{km \, s}^{-1} \lesssim 120$, but they are all generally *prograde*. Similarly, the old halo stars exhibit prograde rotation, but they have much milder rotation amplitudes, with $\langle V_\phi \rangle \lesssim 80$ km s$^{-1}$. The average rotation signal of the three Milky Way halo populations we used in Section \[sec:res\] is $14$ km s$^{-1}$. Only 3 percent of the Auriga haloes have net rotation signals $\le 14$ km s$^{-1}$, however, the fraction of “old” simulated haloes with similarly low rotation amplitudes is higher (20 percent).
In the middle- and right-hand panels we show the radial dependence of the rotation signal in the simulations. Here, in the middle panel, the solid black line shows the median value of the 30 Auriga haloes and the grey shaded region indicates the 10th/90th percentiles. Similarly, in the right-hand panel, the solid green line shows the median value of the old halo stars and the green shaded region indicates the 10th/90th percentiles. The rotation signal of the whole halo sample varies with radius and declines from $\langle V_\phi \rangle \sim 70$ km s$^{-1}$ at $r \sim 10$ kpc to $\langle V_\phi \rangle \sim 25$ km s$^{-1}$ at $r \sim 50$ kpc. In contrast, the old halo stars have a fairly constant rotation amplitude with Galactocentric distance of 20-30 km s$^{-1}$. It is likely that the higher rotation amplitude for halo stars at small Galactocentric distances is due to disc contamination and/or the presence of *in situ* stellar halo populations more akin to a “thick disc” component (e.g. @zolotov09 [@font11; @mccarthy12; @pillepich15]). However, the old halo stars will suffer much less contamination from the disc (or disc-like) populations[^3], and they are dominated by stellar populations accreted from dwarf galaxies (see e.g Figure 10 in @mccarthy12). This is likely the reason why the rotation amplitude of the old halo stars is fairly constant with Galactocentric radius.
Finally, it is worth noting that there are a significant number of the Auriga galaxies ($\sim 1/3$) that have an “*ex situ* disc” formed from massive accreted satellites [@gomez17b]. Some of these *ex situ* discs can extend more than 4 kpc above the disc plane, and can be the cause of significant rotation in the stellar halos. However, this is not true for all of the *ex situ* discs in the simulations: some are largely confined to small $|z|$ and will not necessarily affect the rotation signal at the larger Galacocentric radii probed in this work (see @gomez17b).
We also show our observational results from the RRL, BHB and K giant stars in Fig. \[fig:sim\_rot\] (cf. Fig. \[fig:vphi\_rad\]). Here, we show the average (inverse variance weighted) rotation signal from the three populations. In practice, the rotation of the three populations is very similar (see Fig. \[fig:vphi\_rad\]). The observed rotation amplitude in the Galactic halo broadly agrees with the old halo population in the simulations: a mild prograde signal is consistent, and indeed *typical* in the cosmological simulations. The dashed green line in the right-hand panel of Fig. \[fig:sim\_rot\] indicates the 20th percentile level, which agrees well with the observed values. Thus, while the mild prograde rotation of the old Milky Way halo stars is consistent with the simulated haloes, the observed rotation amplitude is on the low side of the distribution of Auriga haloes. We note that the Auriga haloes are randomly selected from the most isolated quartile of haloes (in the mass range $1-2 \times 10^{12}M_\odot$), and thus they are typical field disc galaxies (as opposed to those in a cluster environment). Thus, we can infer that the rotation signal of the old Milky Way halo is fairly low compared to the general field disc galaxy population.
It is not immediately obvious why the old halo stars in the simulations, even out to $r \sim 50$ kpc, have (mild) prograde orbits. If most of these stars come from destroyed dwarf galaxies, then their net spin will be related to the original angular momentum vectors of the accreted dwarfs. Previous studies using cosmological simulations have shown that subhalo accretion is anisotropic along filamentary structures, and is generally biased along the major axis of the host dark matter halo [@bailin05b; @libeskind05; @zentner05]. Indeed, [@lovell11] showed that the subhalo orbits in the Aquarius simulations are mainly aligned with the main halo spin. Hydrodynamic simulations predict that the angular momentum vector of disc galaxies tends to be aligned with the dark matter halo spin, at least in the inner parts of haloes (e.g. @bailin05 [@bett10; @deason11b; @shao16]). Thus, the slight preference for prograde orbits in the accreted stellar haloes is likely due to the filamentary accretion of subhaloes, which tend to align with the host halo major axis and stellar disc. Note that the non-perfect alignment between filaments, dark matter haloes and stellar discs will naturally lead to a relatively weak (but non-zero!) signal. In addition, the orbital angular momentum of massive accreted satellites can align with the host disc angular momentum *after* infall. Indeed, [@gomez17b] show that when *ex situ* discs are formed from the accretion of massive satellites the angular momentum of the dwarfs can be initially misaligned with the disc but can rapidly become aligned after infall. Furthermore, this alignment is not just due to a change in the satellite orbit, but also because of a response of the host galactic disc!
Note that, as mentioned above, some of the old stars will also belong to the *in situ* halo component, which are more likely biased towards prograde (or disc-like) orbits. Thus, it is likely that those haloes with minor net rotation are less dominated by in situ populations. Indeed, the mild prograde rotation we see in the observational samples suggests that the in situ component of the Milky Way is relatively minor. Moreover, as more recent, massive mergers will lead to higher net spin in the halo, the weak rotation signal in the Milky Way halo is indicative of a quiescent merger history (see e.g. @gardner01 [@vitvitska02]).
![ *Left panels:* The distribution of $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ of halo stars in the Auriga simulations that are metal-rich (\[Fe/H\] $>-1$, red) and metal-poor (\[Fe/H\] $<-1$, blue). All halo stars with Galactocentric radius $5 < r/\mathrm{kpc} < 50$ and height above disc plane $|z| > 4$ kpc, are shown in the top panels, and old halo stars ($T_{\rm form} > 10$ Gyr) are shown in the bottom panels. *Right panels:* The variation of $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ with Galactocentric radius. Solid red (metal-rich) and line-filled blue (metal-poor) regions indicate the 10th/90th percentile ranges for the 30 Auriga haloes. The median values are shown with the solid lines. Metal-richer stars tend to have a stronger (prograde) rotation signal than the metal-poorer stars. However, the old halo stars show a much milder metallicity correlation.[]{data-label="fig:sim_rot_met"}](rot_met.pdf){width="8.5cm" height="7.08cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:sim\_rot\_met\] we show how the rotation signal of the Auriga stellar haloes depends on metallicity. We define “metal-rich and “metal-poor” populations as halo stars with metallicities above/below 1/10th of solar (\[Fe/H\] $= -1$). This metallicity boundary was chosen as it roughly corresponds to the median metallicity of the old halo stars in the simulations. However, as is the case in the observations, our choice of metallicity boundary is fairly arbitrary. When all halo stars are considered, there is a tendency for the metal-richer stars to have a stronger prograde rotation. This metallicity correlation is more prominent in the inner regions of the halo. It’s likely that the correlation in the inner regions of the halo is, at least in part, attributed to disc contamination and/or the presence of *in situ* (disc-like) stellar halo populations. Furthermore, most of the strongly rotating *ex situ* disc material in the simulations is contributed by one massive, and thus metal-rich, satellite, which could also cause a metallicity correlation in the halo stars. The old halo stars, which suffer less from disc contamination, show only a very mild ($\sim 5-10$ km s$^{-1}$) bias towards more strongly rotating metal-rich populations. Indeed, we found a weak metallicity correlation in the observed samples of old halo stars, which seems to be in good agreement with the predictions of the simulations.
{width="17cm" height="4.25cm"}
### Tests with mock observations
In Figure \[fig:sim\_rot\] we showed the “true” average rotation signal of the Auriga stellar haloes. This is computed for all halo stars within the SDSS footprint with $5 < r/\mathrm{kpc} < 50$ and $|z| > 4$ kpc directly from the simulations. Now, we generate mock observations from the simulated stellar haloes to see if we can recover this rotation signal using the likelihood method described in Section \[sec:like\]. For the mock observations, we convert spherical coordinates ($r, \theta, \phi$) into Galactocentric coordinates ($D, \ell, b$), and place the “observer” at the position of the Sun $(x,y,z)=(-8.5, 0,0)$ kpc. Old halo stars are identified ($T_{\rm form} > 10$ Gyr) in the coordinate ranges $5 < r/\mathrm{kpc} < 50$ and $|z| > 4$ kpc, and $N \sim 4000-8000$ are randomly selected within the SDSS footprint (see Fig. \[fig:sdss\_rrl\]). The tangential Galactic velocity components ($V_\ell, V_b$) are converted into proper motions, and we apply a scatter of 2 mas/yr, which is the typical observational uncertainty in the SDSS-*Gaia* sample. After applying our modeling technique, we show the resulting best-fit $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ parameters in Fig. \[fig:mock\]. The left, middle and right panels show RRL-, BHB- and K giant-like mocks. The RRL mocks have $N \sim 8000$ stars randomly selected and we marginalise over the line-of-sight velocity. All three Galactic velocity components are used for the BHB and K giant mocks, but the sample sizes are smaller ($N \sim 4000-5000$), and we apply a scatter of 0.35 dex to the distance moduli of the “K giant” stars. Note that we also use these mocks to ensure that we can safely ignore the small ($\sim 10\%$) distance uncertainties in the RRL and BHB populations. In Fig. \[fig:mock\] we show the difference between the true and inferred $\langle V_\phi \rangle$ values as a function of the true rotation signal. The distribution of $\Delta \langle V_\phi \rangle = \langle V_\phi \rangle_{\rm LIKE} - \langle V_\phi \rangle_{\rm TRUE, HALO}$ is similar for all three mock tests, with median offset of $\sim 1$ km s$^{-1}$ and $\sigma=1.48 \times$ MAD of $\sim5$ km s$^{-1}$ (see right-hand inset)[^4]. Thus, even with observational proper motion errors of order the proper motions themselves, we are able to recover the average rotation signal of the stellar halo to $< 10$ km s$^{-1}$. Note that this level of scatter in the simulations is typically less than the *systematic* uncertainty in the SDSS-*Gaia* proper motion catalog of 0.1 mas/yr.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
We have combined the exquisite astrometry from *Gaia* DR1 and recalibrated astrometry of SDSS images taken some $\sim 10-15$ years earlier to provide a stable and robust catalog of proper motions. Using spectroscopically confirmed QSOs, we estimate typical proper motion uncertainties of $\sim 2$ mas/yr down to $r \sim 20$ mag, which are stable to variations in colour and magnitude. Furthermore, we estimate systematic errors to be of order 0.1 mas/yr, which is unrivaled by any other dataset of similar depth. We exploit this new SDSS-*Gaia* proper motion catalogue to measure the net rotation of the Milky Way stellar halo using RRL, BHB and K giant halo tracers. Our main conclusions are summarised as follows.
- We identify (RRL) halo stars that belong to the Sgr stream and compare the SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions along the stream to the [@law10] model. In general, there is excellent agreement with the model predictions for the Sgr leading and trailing arms. Furthermore, previous proper motion measurements in the literature of the Sgr stream [@carlin12; @koposov13; @sohn15] agree very well with the new SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions. These comparisons are a reassuring validation that these new proper motions can be used to probe the Milky Way halo.
- We construct samples of RRL, BHB and K giant stars in the halo with measured proper motions, distances, and (for the spectroscopic samples) line-of-sight velocities. Using a likelihood procedure, we measure a weak prograde rotating stellar halo, with $\langle V_\phi \rangle \sim 5-25$ km s$^{-1}$. This weakly rotating signal is similar for all three halo samples, and varies little with Galactocentric radius out to 50 kpc. In addition, there is tentative evidence that the rotation signal correlates with metallicity, whereby metal-richer BHB and K giant stars exhibit slightly stronger prograde rotation.
- The state-of-the-art Auriga simulations are used to compare our results with the expectations from the $\Lambda$CDM model. The simulated stellar haloes tend to have a net prograde rotation with $0 \lesssim V_{\phi}/\mathrm{km s^{-1}} \lesssim 120$. However, when we compare with “old” ($T_{\rm form} > 10$ Gyr) halo stars in the simulations, which are more akin to the old halo tracers like BHBs and RRL, the prograde signal is weaker and typically $V_{\phi} \lesssim 80$ km s$^{-1}$, in good agreement with the observations. Metal-rich(er) halo stars in the simulations are biased towards stronger prograde rotation than metal-poor(er) halo stars. It is likely that this correlation is, in part, due to contamination by disc stars and/or halo stars formed *in situ*, which are more (kinematically) akin to a disc component. However, the rotation signal of the old halo stars, which are likely dominated by accreted stellar stars, shows only weak, if any, dependence on metallicity. Again, this is in line with the observations.
- The weak prograde rotation of the Milky Way halo is in agreement with the simulations, but is still relatively low compared to the full Auriga suite of 30 haloes ($\sim$ 20th percentile). It is also worth remembering that the net spin of the halo disappears entirely if the circular velocity at the position of the Sun is set to the “standard” 220 km s$^{-1}$. Furthermore, the systematic uncertainty in the SDSS-*Gaia* proper motions of $\sim 0.1$ mas/yr means that rotation signals $\lesssim 10$ km s$^{-1}$ are also consistent with zero. This mild, or zero, halo rotation suggests that above $z=4$ kpc, the Milky Way has (a) a minor, or non-existent, *in situ* halo component and, (b) undergone a relatively quiescent merger history.
- Finally, we use the simulated stellar haloes to quantify the systematic uncertainties in our modeling procedure. Using mock observations, we find that the rotation signals can typically be recovered to $< 10$ km s$^{-1}$. However, we do find that substructures in the halo can significantly bias the results. Indeed, in regions that the Sgr stream is prominent (e.g. $20 < r/\mathrm{kpc} < 30$) our measured rotation signal is increased by the Sgr members.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Carlos Frenk and Volker Springel for providing comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We also thank the anonymous referee for providing valuable comments that improved the quality of our paper.
A.D. is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement n. 308024. V.B. and S.K. acknowledge financial support from the ERC. A.D. and S.K. also acknowledge the support from the STFC (grants ST/L00075X/1 and ST/N004493/1). RG acknowledges support by the DFG Research Centre SFB-881 “The Milky Way System” through project A1.
This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission [*Gaia*]{} (<http://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia>), processed by the [*Gaia*]{} Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, [ <http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium>]{}). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the [*Gaia*]{} Multilateral Agreement.
This work used the DiRAC Data Centric system at Durham University, operated by the Institute for Computational Cosmology on behalf of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk). This equipment was funded by BIS National E-infrastructure capital grant ST/K00042X/1, STFC capital grants ST/H008519/1 and ST/K00087X/1, STFC DiRAC Operations grant ST/K003267/1 and Durham University. DiRAC is part of the National E-Infrastructure.
QSO Proper Motions {#sec:appendix}
==================
In Fig. \[fig:qso\_radec\] we explore how the median QSO proper motions vary with position on the sky. We find that the systematics on the sky are at the level of 0.1-0.2 mas/yr with maximal (mostly non-systematic) deviations of 0.5 mas/yr. This is in stark contrast to what [@tian17] found for their *Gaia*-PS1-SDSS proper motion catalog, where the QSO proper motions have systematic patterns with amplitudes of 2 mas/yr. [@tian17] suggest that these large variations could be due to differential chromatic refraction (DCR) induced motions in the QSOs. Although QSOs are appealing objects to test for proper motion uncertainties and systematics, the possibility of DCR affects is worrisome. However, for discernible DCR affects we would expect strong correlations with airmass and a QSO redshift dependence that does not average to zero (see Figure 3 of @kaczmarczik09). By comparison with Figure 11 in [@leistedt13] we find little correlation between the QSO proper motions with airmass. Furthermore, we showed in Fig. \[fig:qso\_mag\_col\] that there is little dependence on the QSO proper motion distributions with $g-r$ colour (and therefore redshift). We therefore conclude that DCR related affects in our proper motion catalog are minimal, and we can safely use QSOs to quantify our statistical and systematic proper motion uncertainties.
{width="16cm" height="10.67cm"}
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Note we compute $\Delta T$ using the modified Julian dates (MJD) of the SDSS observations and the last date of data collection for *Gaia* DR1, i.e $\Delta T = $ MJD(*Gaia*)-MJD(SDSS) where MJD(*Gaia*)=MJD(16/9/2015)
[^3]: It is worth noting that not *all* old stars will have an external origin, as there are old ($T_{\rm form} > 10$ Gyr) populations present in the disc and *in situ* halo components (see e.g. @mccarthy12 [@pillepich15]).
[^4]: Note that we attribute the outliers with large $\Delta \langle V_\phi \rangle$ to significant substructures in the Auriga haloes.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Results on dynamical fluctuations of charged particles in the pseudorapidity space of central C–Cu interactions at 4.5 $A$ GeV/$c$ are performed in the transformed variables and using higher order scaled factorial moments modifyied to remove the bias of infinite statistics in the normalization. The intermittency behavior is found up to eighth order of the moments increasing with the order and leading to the pronounced multifractality. Two differed intermittent-like rises are obtained, one indicating an occurrence of the non-thermal phase transition, and no critical behavior is found to be reached in another case. The observations may be treated to show different regimes of particle production during the cascade. Comparison with some conventional model approximations notes the multiparticle character of the fluctuations. The results presented can be effective in sense of sensitivity of intermittency to the hadronization phase.'
---
= 1000 =-2cm =-1.5cm
Tbilisi Institute of Physics HE–7/94/E\
October 1994\
[**On dynamics of pseudorapidity fluctuations\
in central C–Cu collisions at 4.5 A GeV/c**]{}\
\
\
\
\
Submitted to [*Physics Letters B*]{}
Introduction
============
At present intermittency [@bp1] seems to be a well-founded fact observed in high-energy multiparticle production [@dw; @ch]. This phenomenon, expressing as the power-law behavior,
$$\langle F_q\rangle \, \propto M^{\varphi_q},
\qquad 0<\varphi_q\leq q-1,
\label{fi}$$
of the $q$-order normalized scaled factorial moments (SFM),
$$\langle F_q\rangle =
\frac{1}{M}
\sum_{m=1}^{M}
\frac{\langle n_m^{[q]}\rangle }
{\langle n_m \rangle ^q}
\label{f}$$
(“vertical” analysis [@dw]–[@pijmp]), identifies dynamical fluctuations. Here $n_m^{[q]}$ is the $q$th power factorial multinomial, $ n_{m}\, (n_m-1)\cdots (n_m-q+1) $, with multiplicity $n_m$ in the $m$th bin from $M$ ones, into which the space of the particles produced are divided. Average is taken over all events.
The intermittency indexes, $\varphi_q$, obtained via (\[fi\]) are shown [@lb; @s; @h] to be related to the fractal codimensions $d_q$ [@pv; @d],
$$\varphi_q=(q-1)\, d_q \; ,
\label{d}$$
and correspondingly reflects the inner structure of fluctuations representing monofractal patterns with the unique $d_q$, or multifractal ones with the hierarchy $d_q>d_p \;, \; q>p$.
Applied to multihadron production processes, formation of such geometrical structures are pointed out [@bqm; @pl] to be a manifestation of one of two possible mechanisms. The first one, leading to the $q$-dependence of $d_q$, is that one connects [@pijmp] with self-similar cascade, rather a “non-thermal” (non-equilibrium) phase transition during the cascade than particle creation within one phase, e.g. hadronic [@ow]. The second scenario assumed at monofractality, is associated with thermal transition [@bqm; @dw], e.g. from a quark-gluon plasma expected to be reached in central collisions of (ultra)relativistic nuclei [@hj].
So study of intermittency decodes through fractality the geometrical and then thermodynamical features of high-energy multiparticle production. Note that the random cascading models being widely used as suitable to describe such processes (e.g., negative binomial distribution) [@k], lead in the most general form to the scaling (\[fi\]) [@bp1] , though they seem to be problematic to reproduce intermittency observed [@fos; @dm; @du]. In general, the observations are still far from the qualitative explanation using existed particle-production codes, and origin of intermittency/fractality is a matter of debates [@dw].
Meanwhile, intermittency turns out to be very sensitive to the hadronic phase [@dw; @pijmp]. Since the interpretation is mostly done in the approach based on the parton cascade models, it is rather difficult to explain the fact that partonic local fluctuations survive the hadronization process [@ow; @hadph]. In this context it is noticeable that “universality” of multihadron production in different type of reactions (from lepton-hadron to nucleus-nucleus) [@fu] can be just a reflection of hadronization dynamics properties [@haddyn]. Thus, search for dynamical fluctuations and its possible treatment in “soft” process terms attracts considerable interest in reactions at intermediate energies.
Important features of intermittency systematics behavior found in high-energy nuclear interactions [@s1]-[@sh] are also already found to be manifested at relativistic energies. Besides purely hadronic model calculations showing intermittent structure due to the random cascade [@li1], enhancement of intermittency with beam energy decrease [@li2] and weakening of the effect with increase complexity of reaction [@inc; @yaf3] are obtained. Recently, processes with low average multiplicity was discussed [@dj; @du] to dominate in the fractional SFM analysis.
Experimental procedure
======================
The present paper deals with the study of the data obtained after processing the pictures of the 2m Streamer Chamber SKM-200 [@a1] equipped with a copper target. The chamber was installed in a 0.8 T magnetic field and it was exposed to the 4.5 $A$ GeV$/c$ $^{12}$C beam at the JINR Synchrophasotron (Dubna). In data taking, the central collision trigger was used: the chamber was started if there were no charged particles with momenta larger than 3 GeV$/c$ in a forward cone of 2.4$^{\circ }$. Details of the set-up design and data reduction procedure are described elsewhere [@a1; @a2]. Systematic errors related to the trigger effects, low energy pion and proton detection, the admixture of electrons etc. have been considered in detail earlier [@a3] and the total contribution does not exceed $3\%$.
The scanning and handling of the film data were carried out on special scanning tables of the Lebedev Physical Institute (Moscow), using the method elaborated in ref. [@t]. The average measurement error in the momentum $\langle \varepsilon_p/p\rangle $ was about $12\% $, and that in the polar angle measurements was $\langle \varepsilon_{\vartheta}\rangle \simeq
2^{\circ }$. To search for dynamical fluctuations the charged particles in the pseudorapidity ($\eta =
- \ln \tan (\vartheta/2)$) region $\Delta\eta=0.2-3.0$ (in the target rest-frame) were used, in which the angular measurement accuracy was not larger than 0.1 in the $\eta$-units. The samples of 305 C–Cu events, which meet the above centrality criterion, have been selected with the average multiplicity of $27.2\pm 0.8$ in the $\Delta \eta$ under consideration.
Earlier we have already analyzed fluctuations in the data presented and existence of non-statistical (dynamical) fluctuations was shown [@yaf3; @pl2; @pl3] within intermittency approach and using multifractal analysis [@h; @dw]. It is noteworthy that only applying the methods with statistical background suppression allowed dynamical nature of the fluctuations to be manifested, while the comparison between data and completely uncorrelated particle-production simulation fails to do that [@yaf1-2]. It is significant in sense of the above discussed “hadronic origin” of the intermittency that analogous observation have been done at ultra-relativistic energies [@1n] (see also ref. [@1l]).
The study [@pl2; @pl3] also showed multifractality of the particle spectra along with multiparticle character of the fluctuations being important to choice of the real particle-production model, as discussed. Multifractality have been also observed at ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions but obliged mainly to the two-particle correlations [@dw; @ch]. Note that multiparticle contribution to the very-short-range correlations are directly observed in our data using the method of factorial cumulants [@prep] as found in hadronic interactions recently [@22z].
Before presenting the results, two important technical remarks should be made. First of all, in the previous investigations we have used “horizontal” analysis of the SFM taking into account the non-flat shape of the one-particle pseudorapidity distribution $\rho(\eta)$ to minimize the difference from “vertical” normalization (\[f\]) [@ch; @pwh]. Note that, though the “corrected” SFM were widely applied to analysis (in particular, at relatively small multiplicities) it implies the fluctuations to be bin-independent (the sum of the quotient in (\[f\]) transforms into the fraction of independent sums, $\sum_{m=1}^{M}\langle
n_m^{[q]}\rangle/\sum_{m=1}^{M}\langle n_m \rangle ^q$) that is, generally, a non-trivial assumption [@pwh; @pijmp]. In our data the slopes of the vertically-normalized moments are significantly greater the corrected ones at $\delta\eta<0.5$ [@prep], while they coincides in collisions of ultra-relativistic ions [@1n].
To overcome the problem and, moreover, to compare the results observed in different experiments a new transformed variable,
$$\stackrel{\sim }{\eta}(\eta)=
\frac{
\int_{\eta_{min}}^{\eta} \rho(\eta')d\eta'}
{\int_{\eta_{min}}^{\eta_{max}} \rho(\eta')d\eta'
} \; ,
\label{nv}$$
have been introduced [@nv; @o], so that $\stackrel{\sim }{\eta}$ is uniformly distributed in the \[0;1\] interval ($\rho(\stackrel{\sim }{\eta}) \approx {\rm const}.$). Due to the scale properties of the variables (\[nv\]), the one-particle spectrum stretches in its central region (not significantly changing at the $\Delta \eta $-edges), eliminating losses from bin-splitting and, thus, allowing to observe higher-order moments.
Another remark regards to the biased estimator of the SFM normalization, being the $q$-particle density function for uncorrelated production of particles in assumption of infinite statistics [@bp1; @pwh; @pijmp]. This sensitively influence the scaling law (\[fi\]) for small bins. Note that a flattening of the moments for $M\ge M_0$ is expected to be a reflection of the attainment of the correlation length [@bp1]. Really, measured SFM go to zero as the bin size aspires to the experimental resolution [@1n], or much before because of the statistics limitations (“empty bin effect” [@eb; @eb2]).
Recently, the modification of the method of the SFM have been proposed [@ks] to remove the bias in the normalization, and then the bias-free moments are defined to be , e.g. at “vertical” analysis,
$$\langle F_q\rangle =
\frac{{\cal N}^q}{M}
\sum_{m=1}^{M}
\frac{\langle n_m^{[q]}\rangle }
{N_m^{[q]}}\; ,
\label{fb}$$
where $N_m$ is the number of particles in the $m$th bin in all $\cal N$ events, $N_m= \sum_{j=1}^{\cal N}(n_m)_j$. The property of the “vertical” and “horizontal” analysis to give the same results if the scaled variables (\[nv\]) are used ($n_m\approx\langle
n\rangle/M$) seems to be also valid for the definition (\[fb\]).
Results and discussion
======================
In fig.1 we show the log-log plots of the modified SFM (\[fb\]) vs. number of bins of the space of “pseudorapidity” (\[nv\]). Though by illustration reasons the dependencies are given only for some orders, viz. $q=3,5,6,8$, they reflect the common peculiarities to be noticed. From the plots and the values of $\varphi_q$ (see table) one can conclude that, besides considerable intermittent behavior, pronounced up to higher orders, there are the different power-like dependences in different intervals. Since at low orders ($q=2,3$) this expresses as two sharply differed slopes: the values at $M\le 22$ are about seven times less than ones at $M\ge 23$, this effect grows weak at $q=4$ and $5$. It is visible also that as the order increase an additional intermittent structure manifests at the range of small bins, but doesn’t in fact survive when five and more particles are required to fill the bin and effect of small statistics becomes sizeable.
However, regardless to the irregularities in the $M$-dependence of the SFM, $\varphi _q$ increase with the order up to higher moments. Moreover, in the $M$-interval of \[7;17\] and especially at $10\le M\le 17$ strong intermittency is seen.
It should be noted that the irregular behavior of the SFM was also observed in our previous investigation [@yaf3], but using of the “ordinary” pseudorapidity variable strongly limited the order of the moment. Transforming $\eta $-spectra into the uniform ones made this effect more pronounced and allowed to consider the SFM of high orders, where a new sub-structure is revealed. Note that strongly non-linear increasing of the log-log plots as presented have been observed in different interactions, from lepton-hadron to heavy ion collisions [@dw], particularly at high-orders of the moments (e.g. [@s1]) and/or at multidimensional analysis [@s2; @1n; @35].
As discussed, intermittency index, or rather codimension (\[d\]) dependence on $q$-order gives an information on the possible particle-production scenario. In fig.2 we demonstrate $d_q$ as a function of $q$ for different $M$-intervals, within which a linear fit of the SFM plots (fig.1) is valid; the corresponding $\varphi_q$-values are shown in the table. From the behavior of the $d_q$ obtained one can definitely conclude that very multifractal structure ($d_p > d_q\,, p>q$) of multiparticle production is revealed, independent of the interval of $M$ considered; no evidence for monofractality, and then for a second-order phase transition is seen. Let us to mention that decrease of the $d_q$ at high order is, in our opinion, connected with relatively small number of particles per event. Meantime, no considerable difference are obtained for some $M$-intervals, namely for the couples of $7\le M\le 17$, $10\le M\le 22$ and $4\le M\le 15$, $2\le M\le 22$.
The multifractality, as noted above, lends support to find the condition for the non-thermal phase, not characterized by a thermodynamical behavior [@pijmp]. As signal of the transition to this phase the existence of a minimum of the function
$$\lambda_q = \frac{\varphi_q + 1}{q}
\label{l}$$
at a certain “critical” value of $q=q_c$ is required. In such a “spin-glass” phase the events are dominated by a few clots in projected distributions, while the “normal” phase is represented by the events with a bulk of peaks and holes [@bz; @bps]. The minimum of eq. (\[l\]), as shown [@bz], may be a manifestation of the fact that these two different phase mixed. Moreover, the phase transition can accompany (or occur inside) the branching process [@pl; @pijmp].
In fig.3 the $\lambda_q$ are displayed as function of the $q$-order for different $M$-intervals with considerably distinguished $d_q$ (see fig.2). A clear minimum at $7\le M\le 17$ ($10\le M\le 22$) and $4\le M\le 15$ ($2\le M\le 22$) are seen, whilst the fits at $2\le M\le 28$ do not exhibit such a feature. In our opinion, this is very intrinsic finding.
Indeed, while sensitive behavior of the SFM in the region of $2\le M\le
22$ are observing right up to eighth order (fig.1 and the table) such a sharp difference of the dependence of $\lambda_q$ may be a signal of a non-trivial dynamical effect[^1]. Referring to the non-thermal phase transition interpretation [@bpnp] one should conclude that fits at different $M$-intervals lead to different cases of the intermittency: “weak” intermittency for monotone function (\[l\]) (large $q_c$) and “stronger” intermittency when minimum is reached at $q=4$ or $5$. The stronger intermittency is related to the so-called “peak transition”, i.e. transition at positive index $q_c$, and the weak case contains the absence of the transition also. In our view, such an ambiguity is related to the cascade mechanism description that includes many steps irregardless to [*the change of the regime of particle production at different bin-averaging scales*]{}. This is, that apparently brings indetermination in treating of the intermittency observations e.g. in $e^+e^-$-annihilation [@bpnp] and, meanwhile, being manifesting in our data is an extra proof of hadronic nature of intermittency observed [@hadph].
Noteworthily, only using of higher-order moments makes clear the hint to the non-thermal transition found earlier slightly visible up to fifth order [@s2; @pl3; @sh]. Whether the minimum is taken place, the low-$p_t$ effect in the intermittency manifested at hadronic interactions [@22z] leads to a clear minimum confirming responsible of hadronization for the effect of intermittency [@bqm]. The $p_t$ range for the stronger intermittency in our case was observed to be of 0.35–0.45 GeV/$c$ like one have been already found searching for the maximum fluctuations [@yaf1-2]. It should be stressed also that since the minimum of the $\lambda_q$ (\[l\]) corresponds [@dw] to zeros of the fractal spectra, the system “frozen” at this point is no longer self-averaging and introducing of new observables is needed [@bsz].
The shown importance of the cascade approach in the multiparticle production and the abovementioned underlying of these processes to describe the hadronization attracts considerable interest to compare the predictions with the observations. Let us to limit oneself what have been earlier studied related to the SFM method, viz. negative binomial distribution (e.g. [@dm]), gaussian approximation [@bp1] and scale-invariant mass-splitting branching model [@ow].
If the negative binomial distribution (NBD) is valid then the SFM are determined by the recurrence relation
$$\langle F_q \rangle =
(1 + \frac{1}{k})\,
(1 + \frac{2}{k})\cdots
(1 + \frac{q-1}{k})\, ,
\label{nbd}$$
where $k$ is one of two NBD parameters should be independent of the $\delta \eta$. The bin dependence of $k$ expected from the intermittent rise at $q=2$ (see table) is a reflection of the instability of the NBD [@F]. Besides, the NBD is a good fit of the data in the central $\eta$-region only, and does not describe the “tails” of the multiplicity spectra, for which it transforms into the $\Gamma$-distribution being stable [@F]. In the previous ref. [@pl3] we have shown that at the values of $\varphi_q$ closed to the experimentally obtained ones, the absolute values of the SFM approach each other when the shape of the $\eta$-spectra is accounted for. From this observation and the noted “central property” of the NBD the satisfactory agreement of the moments based on (\[nbd\]) with the experimentally measured ones in the “flat” spectra over the scaled variable (\[nv\]) have been predicted. This is a fact well seen now from fig. 1 ($\chi^2/NDF$ for the $\langle F_q\rangle $ are less than one standard deviation in all the $M$-regions), may be excluding the case of $q=8$ (e.g. $\chi^2/NDF\approx 6$ at $2\le M\le 22$). Meanwhile, the table shows that the NBD calculated slopes $\varphi_q$ yield the values markedly distinguished from the observed ones in the stronger intermittency case with possible non-thermal phase transition ($7\le M\le 17$, $10\le
M\le 17$), and trend to coincide each other at weak intermittency. In our opinion, this is because of input two-particle character of $k$ calculated from (\[nbd\]): flattening of the NBD prediction with $q$ increase is visible at $q\ge 6$ (fig. 1).
Such a difficult meat when the NBD is applied to the intermittency search makes it problematic to describe the data. Let us note that invalidity of the interpretation of multiparticle production at high energies in the NBD terms was also showed recently [@fos; @dm; @du].
The gaussian (“log-normal”) approximation (GA) predicts the relations for the slopes $\varphi_q$ to be defined as [@bp1]
$$\varphi_q = \frac{\varphi_2}{2}\, q\, (q-1).
\label{gs}$$
In figs. 2 and 3 we show the GA predictions for the $d_q$ (\[d\]) and $\lambda_q$ (\[l\]) using the $\varphi_2$-indexes at $2\le M\le 28$ only. This is done by force of almost equal quantities of the $d_2$ for all the cases of the $M$-intervals considered. One can conclude the GA seems to be also hard to describe the intermittency effect especially when the phase transition is possible. In this sense it is interesting to note that the GA and the NBD approach both are found [@eb] to describe the cascade with small number of steps, reflecting invalidity of these approximations for the multiplicity asymptotics. The non-gaussian character of the correlations in multihadron production was also shown earlier [@dw; @d].
The same result though less clearly is seen (fig. 2 and 3) if the simple scale-invariant cascade model proposed by Ochs and Wosiek [@ow] is applied. In this case a modified power-law,
$$\langle F_q(\delta \eta )\rangle \propto
[g(\delta \eta)]^{\phi_q}\, ,
\label{ow}$$
was showed to be universal dependence for large class of models and of the available data of the one- and multidimensional SFM [@o]. Here $g(\delta \eta )$ is the model-dependent function of $\langle F_2\rangle $, so that $\phi_q = r_q\phi_2$. The conclusion agrees with the earlier observations [@pl3] and shouts to one another obtained in hadronic interactions [@22z].
Thus all used model approximations, being based on the second order moments, indicate [*multiparticle character*]{} of the dynamical fluctuations at (possible) non-thermal ([*peak*]{}) phase transition.
Conclusions
===========
The study of the intermittency phenomenon up to higher ranks of the scaled factorial moments of the pseudorapidity distributions of charged particles produced in central C–Cu interactions at 4.5 GeV/$c$ per nucleon is performed. To eliminate the problem of the spectrum shape and to reach the higher multiple fluctuations the transformed variables are used. The unbiased modification is applied to the moments normalization to avoid a bias at small bins. The study shows existence of intermittent-like increase of the moments at all the orders considered, leading to a pronounced multifractality. The higher moment analysis allows to reveal two sharply differed increases with bin size, one of which indicates stronger intermittency and then non-thermal phase formation, and another one is usually connected with the weak intermittency when the critical $q$-order is not reached. While this comes from the fitting procedure at different bin intervals we are inclined to consider the fact obtained as a manifestation of different regimes of particle production at different scales of random cascading with a non-thermal phase transition inside. The results are compared to ones given in the assumption of a validity of the negative binomial distribution, gaussian approximation and scale-invariant mass-splitting branching model. The essential multiparticle character of the phase transition is indicated. Accounting possible hadronization influence on the dynamical correlations [@bpla] and search for the manifestations of a new matter formation the investigation of higher multiparticle fluctuations in nuclear collisions at intermediate energies gives evidence of further study of the effects observed.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}\
E.S., L.G. and G.L. thank J. Manjavidze and E. Gurvich for useful discussions and L. Rurua and B. Tarkhnishvili for the help in the paper preparation. It is a pleasure to thank Professors K. Fia[ł]{}kowski, P.L. Jain, W. Kittel, I. Otterlund, N. Schmitz and R.M Weiner for sending us the papers not available by the known causes.
[99]{} A. Bia[ł]{}as and R. Peschanski, Nucl. Phys. B 273 (1986) 703; Nucl. Phys. B 308 (1988) 857. E.A. De Wolf, I.M. Dremin and W. Kittel, Usp. Fiz. Nauk 163(1) (1993) 3;\
Nijmegen preprint HEN-362. M. Charlet, Phys. At. Nucl. 56 (1993) 1497. R. Peschanski, Saclay preprint SPhT-90/61 (1990), in: Proc. Santa-Fe Workshop on Intermittency in High-Energy Collisions (March 1990), p. 158. R. Peschanski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 6 (1991) 3681. P. Lipa and B. Buschbeck, Phys. Lett. B 223 (1989) 465. H. Satz, CERN preprint CERN-TH.5589/89 (1989), in: Proc. Hadron Structure ’89 (Smolenice, ČSSR, Sept. 1989), p. 25. R.C. Hwa, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 1456. G. Paladin and A. Vulpiani, Phys. Rep. 156 (1987) 147. I.M. Dremin, Sov. Phys. Usp. 33 (1994) 647. A. Bia[ł]{}as, Nucl. Phys. A 525 (1991) 345c and refs. therein. R. Peschanski, CERN preprint CERN-TH.5963/90 (1990), in: Proc. Strasbourg Workshop on Quark-Gluon Plasma Signatures (Oct. 1990), p. 81;\
Ph. Brax and R. Peschanski, Phys. Lett. B 253 (1991) 225. W. Ochs and J. Wosiek, Phys. Lett. B 214 (1988) 617. See e.g. R.C. Hwa, Z. Phys. C 38 (1988) 277;\
M. Jacob, Nucl. Phys. A 498 (1989) 1c. See e.g. T. Kanki et al., Progr. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 97A (1988) 1; Ibid., 141, and refs. therein. K. Fia[ł]{}kowski, W. Ochs, I. Sarcevic, Z. Phys. C 54 (1992) 621. I.M. Dremin et al., Phys. Lett. B 336 (1994) 119 I.M. Dremin, Usp. Fiz. Nauk 164 (1994) 785. A. Bia[ł]{}as, Nucl. Phys. A 545 (1992) 285c. K. Fia[ł]{}kowski, Z. Phys. C 61 (1994) 313. A. Bia[ł]{}as, Acta Phys. Pol. B 23 (1992) 561;\
P. Bożek and M. Ploszajczak, Nucl. Phys. A 545 (1992) 297c. K. Sengupta et al., Phys Lett. B 236 (1990) 219. P.L. Jain and G. Singh, Phys. Rev. C 44 (1991) 854; Z. Phys. C 53 (1992) 355. EMU01 Collab., M.I. Adamovich et al., Nucl. Phys. B 338 (1992) 3. NA35 Collab., J. Bächler et al., Z. Phys. C 57 (1993) 541. R.K. Shivpuri and N. Parashar, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 219. B.-A. Li, Phys. Lett. B292 (1992) 246; Phys. Rev. C 47 (1993) 693. B.-A. Li and M. Ploszajczak, Phys. Lett. B 317 (1993) 300 N. Angelov, V.B. Lyubimov, R. Togoo, JINR Rapid Comm. 1\[47\]-91 (1991) 27;\
D. Ghosh et al., Phys. Lett. B 272 (1991) 5;\
E.Kh. Bazarov et al., Yad. Fiz. 57 (1994) 435. L.K. Gelovani, E.K. Sarkisyan and G.G. Taran, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 55 (1992) 1380. I.M. Dremin, Pis’ma v ZhETF 59 (1994) 561. A. Abdurakhimov et al., Prib. Tekhn. Eksp. 5 (1978) 53. SKM-200 Collab., A. Abdurakhimov et al., Nucl. Phys. A 362 (1981) 376. M.Kh. Anikina et al., JINR report E1-84-785 (1984). G.G. Taran et al., FIAN (Moscow) preprint No.20 (1987). E.K. Sarkisyan, L.K. Gelovani and G.G. Taran, Phys. Lett. B 302 (1993) 331; Phys. At. Nucl. 56 (1993) 832. E.K. Sarkisyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 318 (1993) 568. E.K. Sarkisyan, I.V.Paziashvili and G.G. Taran, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 53 (1991) 824;\
E.K. Sarkisyan and G.G. Taran, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 55 (1992) 230; Phys. Lett. B 279 (1992) 177; Inst. of Physics (Tbilisi) preprint HE-2/92 (1992). EMU01 Collab., M.I. Adamovich et al., Phys. Lett B 322 (1994) 166. E.K. Sarkisyan et al., in preparation. EHS/NA22 Collab., N. Agababyan et al., Z. Phys. C59 (1993) 405; Phys. Lett. B 332 (1994) 458. A. Bia[ł]{}as and M. Gazdzicki, Phys. Lett. B 252 (1990) 483. W. Ochs, Z. Phys. C 50 (1991) 339. J.M. Alberty, R. Peschanski and A. Bia[ł]{}as, Z. Phys. C 52 (1991) 297. P. Lipa et al., Z. Phys. C 54 (1992) 115. K. Kadija and P. Seyboth, Z. Phys. C 61 (1994) 465;\
H.C. Eggers and P. Lipa, Regensburg preprint TPR-93-24 (1994), hep-ex/9407003. A. Bia[ł]{}as and K. Zalewski, Phys. Lett. B 238 (1990) 413. Ph. Brax and R. Peschanski, Saclay preprint SPhT/91-008 (1991). Ph. Brax and R. Peschanski, Nucl. Phys. B 346 (1990) 65. A. Bia[ł]{}as, A. Szczerba and K. Zalewski, Z. Phys. C 46 (1990) 163. W. Feller, An introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications (Wiley, New York, 1970). A. Bia[ł]{}as, Jagellonian preprint TPJU-17/94 (1994); A. Bia[ł]{}as, R. Peschanski, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 6003.
[**Fig. 1.**]{} The log-log plots of the modified scaled factorial moments (\[fb\]) vs. the number of divisions. The curves present the NBD calculations (\[nbd\]) and the straight lines show the least-squares fits at $10\le M\le 17$.
[**Fig. 2.**]{} The codimensions $d_q$ versus $q$-order.
[**Fig. 3.**]{} The $\lambda _q$-functions (\[l\]).
[**Table 1**]{}
The intermittency indexes $\varphi_q$ compared to the NBD predictions. The errors present the covariance matrix estimators of the linear least-squares fits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$q$ $2\le M\le 42$ $2\le M\le 28$ $2\le M\le 22$ $4\le M\le 15$
----- --------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------
2 0.017$\pm $0.001 – 0.011$\pm $0.001 – 0.009$\pm 0.009$\pm $0.001 –
$0.001 –
3 0.058$\pm $0.001 0.059 0.039$\pm $0.001 0.035 0.037$\pm 0.032$\pm $0.004 0.030
$0.002 0.029
4 0.130$\pm $0.002 0.113 0.087$\pm $0.003 0.066 0.092$\pm 0.079$\pm $0.009 0.057
$0.004 0.029
5 0.121$\pm $0.004 0.180 0.124$\pm $0.007 0.106 0.164$\pm 0.153$\pm $0.019 0.092
$0.008 0.088
6 – 0.113$\pm $0.015 0.153 0.233$\pm $0.013 0.127 0.234$\pm
$0.035 0.133
7 – – 0.268$\pm $0.021 0.172 0.275$\pm $0.059 0.180
8 – – 0.207$\pm $0.031 0.222 0.207$\pm $0.091 0.231
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$q$ $10\le M\le 22$ $7\le M\le 17$ $10\le M\le 17$
----- --------------------------- --------------------------- -----------------------------
2 0.004$\pm $0.002 – 0.012$\pm $0.002 – $-0.013\pm $0.004 –
3 0.051$\pm $0.009 0.020 0.054$\pm $0.006 0.035 0.020$\pm $0.018 0.00003
4 0.194$\pm $0.030 0.039 0.178$\pm $0.015 0.069 0.149$\pm $0.046 0.0019
5 0.450$\pm $0.044 0.062 0.432$\pm $0.031 0.110 0.489$\pm $0.100 0.0035
6 0.894$\pm $0.076 0.089 0.837$\pm $0.058 0.160 1.187$\pm $0.178 0.0055
7 1.416$\pm $ 0.121 0.119 1.346$\pm $0.101 0.216 2.239$\pm $0.277 0.0073
8 1.643$\pm $ 0.200 0.153 1.847$\pm $0.171 0.278 3.490$\pm $0.401 0.0098
[^1]: The contribution of the statistics limitations is estimated to be small for these $M$-intervals.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
6.0in 9.0in 0.0in 0.5in 0.5in 0.08in
\#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3
hep-ph/9910506\
SHEP 99/18
\
[M. Bastero-Gil$^1$, G. L. Kane$^2$ and S. F. King$^1$ ]{}\
\
[*[$^1$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, U.K.\
$^2$Randall Physics Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120]{}*]{}\
[We discuss fine-tuning constraints on supergravity models. The tightest constraints come from the experimental mass limits on two key particles: the lightest CP even Higgs boson and the gluino. We also include the lightest chargino which is relevant when universal gaugino masses are assumed. For each of these particles we show how fine-tuning increases with the experimental mass limit, for four types of supergravity model: minimal supergravity, no-scale supergravity (relaxing the universal gaugino mass assumption), D-brane models and anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking models. Among these models, the D-brane model is less fine tuned.The experimental propects for an early discovery of Higgs and supersymmetry at LEP and the Tevatron are discussed in this framework.]{}
When should physicists give up on low energy supersymmetry? The question revolves around the issue of how much fine-tuning one is prepared to tolerate. Although fine-tuning is not a well defined concept, the general notion of fine-tuning is unavoidable since it is the existence of fine-tuning in the standard model which provides the strongest motivation for low energy supersymmetry, and the widespread belief that superpartners should be found before or at the LHC. Although a precise measure of [*absolute* ]{} fine-tuning is impossible, the idea of [*relative fine-tuning*]{} can be helpful in selecting certain models and regions of parameter space over others.
For example, in a recent paper two of us investigated non-universal soft parameter space and concluded that (i) lowering the high energy gluino mass $M_3$ relative to $M_{1,2}$ reduced fine-tuning (because fine-tuning is mostly sensitive to $M_3$), (ii) having certain relations between the soft parameters at the high energy scale such as one between the up-type Higgs doublet mass and the gluino mass $m_{H_U}\approx 2M_3$, can reduce fine-tuning[^1] [@KK]. These results follow from our observation that fine-tuning is mainly dominated by $M_3$, and this dominant contribution can be partly cancelled by negative contributions from other soft parameters, as can be clearly seen from the expansion of the $Z$ mass in terms of high energy input parameters [@KK], for example for $\tan \beta =2.5$ we find = & & - .87\^2(0) + 3.6[M\_3\^2(0)]{}- .12[ M\_2\^2(0)]{} + .007[M\_1\^2(0)]{}\
& & - .71 [m\_[H\_U]{}\^2(0)]{} + .19[ m\_[H\_D]{}\^2(0)]{} + .48([ m\_Q\^2(0)]{} + [m\_U\^2(0)]{})\
& & - .34[A\_t(0)]{}[M\_3(0)]{} - .07[ A\_t(0)]{}[M\_2(0)]{} - .01[A\_t(0)]{}[M\_1(0)]{} + .09[ A\_t\^2(0)]{}\
& & + .25[M\_2(0)]{}[M\_3(0)]{}+ .03[M\_1(0)]{}[M\_3(0)]{} + .007[M\_1(0)]{}[M\_2(0)]{} \[MZ\] where we have implicitly assumed all the soft breaking parameters to be real, neglecting the phases[^2]. One implication of the fact that fine-tuning is dominated by $M_3$ is the fact that the soft scalar masses can be larger than $M_3$ without increasing fine-tuning, a fact which has recently been emphasised in the framework of minimal supergravity in ref.[@recent].
In this paper we shall extend the discussion in ref.[@KK] in two ways. Firstly we shall study fine-tuning in various supergravity models: minimal supergravity, no-scale supergravity (relaxing the universal gaugino mass assumption), D-brane models and anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking models (AMSB). The common feature of this class of models is that they involve a large mass scale of order the unification scale say $M_U\sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV, and supersymmetry breaking is mediated via some sort of hidden sector supergravity mechanism. Thus our analysis does not extend to either gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking models, or models where the string scale is lowered beneath the unification scale, although it may be lowered to the unification scale. The reason why we choose these models is that they contain the largest mass hierarchy, and hence face the most severe fine-tuning constraints in general. These models also preserve the gauge unification success most simply and directly.
Secondly we focus on the key particles whose experimental mass limits lead most sensitively to increases in fine-tuning. Clearly fine-tuning is not sensitive to squark and slepton masses which can be increased substantially due to the insensitivity of the $Z$ mass formula in Eq.\[MZ\] to soft scalar masses. By contrast the lightest CP even Higgs mass is a very sensitive probe of fine-tuning, as we emphasised previously [@KK], and it is obvious from the foregoing discussion that the gluino mass itself is also a sensitive probe. Although we showed [@KK] that the chargino mass is only a sensitive probe of fine-tuning if one assumes universal gaugino masses, we shall nevertheless include it for illustrative purposes.
The implicit sensitivity of the Z mass coming from changes in $\tan \beta$ as a result of small variations in the high energy inputs, does not appear in Eq.\[MZ\]. This is addressed by the master formula of Dimopoulos and Giudice [@giudice] which yields a fine-tuning parameter which corresponds to the fractional change in the Z mass squared per unit fractional change in the input parameter, \_a=abs ( ) for each input parameter $a$ in the model of interest. The fine-tuning is then simply the maximum value of $\Delta_a$ over all the input parameters. Although there are many more sophisticated measures of fine-tuning available [@giudice; @earlier; @price; @Wright], this basic measure of fine-tuning is adequate for our purposes of comparing relative fine-tunings amongst different models.
The models we consider, and the corresponding input parameters given at the unification scale, are listed below:
1. Minimal supergravity [@recent]. a\_[msugra]{}{m\_0\^2, M\_[1/2]{}, A(0), B(0), (0)}, \[msugra\] where as usual $m_0$, $M_{1/2}$ and $A(0)$ are the universal scalar mass, gaugino mass and trilinear coupling respectively, $B(0)$ is the soft breaking bilinear coupling in the Higgs potential and $\mu(0)$ is the Higgsino mass parameter.
2. No-scale supergravity [@noscale] with non-universal gaugino masses[^3] a\_[no-scale]{}{M\_1(0), M\_2(0), M\_3(0), B(0), (0)} \[noscalesugra\]
3. D-brane model [@dbrane]. a\_[D-brane]{}{m\_[3/2]{}, , \_1, \_2, \_3, B(0), (0)}, \[Dbrane\] where $\theta$ and $\Theta_i$ are the goldstino angles, with $\Theta_1^2+\Theta_2^2+\Theta_3^2=1$, and $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass. The gaugino masses are given by M\_1(0) = M\_3(0) & = & m\_[3/2]{}\_1 e\^[-i\_1]{} ,\
M\_2(0) & = & m\_[3/2]{}\_2 e\^[-i\_2]{} , and there are two types of soft scalar masses m\_[5152]{}\^2 & = & m\_[3/2]{}\^2 \[1-(\^2 +\^2 \_3\^2) \] ,\
m\_[51]{}\^2 & = & m\_[3/2]{}\^2\[1-3\^2 \] ,
4. Anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking [@amsb]. a\_[AMSB]{}{m\_[3/2]{}, m\_0\^2, B(0), (0)} \[AMSB\]
Our numerical results are based on two-loop renormalisation group running of gauge[^4], third generation Yukawa couplings and soft mass parameters [@2soft]. The initial values of the Yukawa couplings are determined by the values of the third generation fermion masses[^5]. The input soft mass parameters are then chosen in order to get electroweak symmetry breaking and the $m_Z$ scale given by the minimisation conditions of the one-loop corrected Higgs potential [@effpot1; @effpot2], $$\frac{m_Z^2}{2}=\frac{m_{H_D}^2 - m_{H_U}^2 \tan \beta^2 -\Delta_Z^2}
{\tan \beta^2-1} - \mu^2\,, \label{min}$$ where $\tan\beta= \langle H_U \rangle / \langle H_D
\rangle$, $\Delta_Z^2$ is the one-loop contribution, and the parameters in Eq. (\[min\]) are evaluated at $m_Z$. In practice, for the numerical calculations we use as input $\tan\beta$ and sign$(\mu)$ (we always take $\mu > 0$) and obtain $\mu(0)$ and $B(0)$ from the minimisation conditions.
Our main results are shown in Figs.1-4, corresponding to SUGRA models 1-4 above. The results are shown for three values of $\tan \beta = 2,3,10$, corresponding to three sets of curves from top left to bottom right, respectively. In each case we plot the maximum sensitivity parameter $\Delta^{max}$ as a function of particle mass, for the lightest CP even Higgs boson (short dashes), the lighter chargino (long dashes) and the gluino (solid). The lightest CP even Higgs boson is calculated using the one-loop RG-improved effective potential approach [@higgsRG], which includes the leading two-loop corrections to the Higgs mass[^6]. The gluino mass also includes the corrections due to gluon/gluino and quark/squark loops [@gluinorc; @pierce].
In Fig.1 we give the fine-tuning results for mSUGRA. The present LEP2 mass limits of around 100 GeV on the Higgs and chargino compete for providing the tightest fine-tuning constraint, while the current Tevatron gluino mass limit of around 250 GeV provides a slightly less severe limit. For a Higgs mass of 100 GeV, $\tan \beta =10$ allows fine-tuning to stay at around 10, but as the Higgs mass increases it rapidly overtakes the chargino mass in importance and as it approaches 110 GeV fine-tuning rises steeply to 100. Comparing Fig.1(a) with $m_0=100$ GeV, to Fig.1(b) with $m_0=1000$ GeV we see that for $\tan \beta =10$ the curves are very similar, as emphasised in ref.[@recent]. However we emphasise that for lower values of $\tan \beta $ fine-tuning increases substantially as $m_0$ is increased from 100 GeV to 1000 GeV in mSUGRA. Also in Fig.1(a) we show results for no-scale mSUGRA with $m_0=0$ for $\tan \beta =2,3$ seen as short lines almost superimposed over the $m_0=100$ GeV lines. The reason why the no-scale lines are so short is that if $M_{1/2}$ is too small the right-handed slepton falls below its experimental limit of 88 GeV, while if $M_{1/2}$ is too large it becomes the LSP. Thus there is only a narrow allowed window for $M_{1/2}$ which in the case of $\tan \beta =10$ is non-existent.
In Fig.2 we give results for a generalised version of no-scale mSUGRA hitherto not considered in the literature in which $m_0=0$ as usual, but now we allow the gaugino masses to be non-universal. For definiteness we take $M_1(0)=M_2(0)$, but allow these gaugino masses to be different from the high energy gluino mass $M_3(0)$. The first point to make is that by relaxing gaugino mass universality, a larger parameter space is opened up and the constraints which forced $M_{1/2}$ into a small allowed range in the no-scale mSUGRA model are now replaced by large allowed regions in non-universal gaugino mass space. For example taking $M_2(0)=M_1(0)=250$ GeV in Fig.2(a) we see a large range of $M_3(0)$ is allowed. Also we find that fine-tuning is generally smaller in this model than mSUGRA for $\tan \beta = 10$. The reason is that although the Higgs curves in Fig.2(a) are very similar to those in Fig.1(a), the chargino curves are very different. In the no-scale model with non-universal gaugino masses a chargino mass limit of around 100 GeV implies a fine-tuning of between 10 and 20, almost independently of $\tan \beta$, whereas in the conventional no-scale model the corresponding fine-tuning is between 20 and 100.
The kinks in the gluino curves in Fig.2(a) correspond to $\Delta_{M_3(0)}$ being replaced by $\Delta_{\mu(0)}$ as the largest fine-tuning parameter as $M_3(0)$ (and thus $\mu(0)$) is increased. For $M_3(0) < M_2(0)$ a partial cancellation occurs in Eq. (\[MZ\]) between $M_3(0)$ and $M_2(0)$ [@KK], which renders the fine-tuning for $\mu(0)$ small. Because of that, in the region where the chargino is lighter and mainly higgsino fine-tuning is quite insensitive to its mass. This can be seen clearly in Fig.2(b), where we show results for $M_2(0)=M_1(0)=500$ GeV. Interestingly for $\tan \beta = 3,10$ the chargino curves are almost flat, due to its Higgsino nature, while for $\tan \beta =2 $ the curve is much steeper. However, for a chargino mass of order 100 GeV, the overall fine-tuning is larger than in Fig. 2(a). This corresponds to the increase in $M_3(0)$ when increasing $M_2(0)$ as required by Eq. (\[MZ\]). For $\tan \beta = 2$ the curves are cut in the region of a light chargino because the lightest stop falls below its experimental lower bound[^7] of around 90 GeV. For the three values of $\tan \beta$ considered, an upper limit on $M_3(0)$ is set by the requirement that the lightest neutralino mass does not exceed the slepton mass.
In Fig.3 we give results for a D-brane scenario, where we take the Goldstino angles $\cos \theta =1$ and $\Theta_3 = 0$. We also set all the scalar masses equal to the universal value $m_{5152}^2$ at the high energy scale[^8] $M_U$. The gaugino masses are again non-universal but now $M_1(0)=M_3(0)$ and the ratio of these masses to $M_2(0)$ is controlled by the Goldstino angles $\Theta_1$ and $\Theta_2$. These are constrained to lie along a unit circle, and thus we have only the freedom to change their ratio $\Theta=\Theta_1/\Theta_2$ when moving along the circumference. Therefore, we compute the fine-tuning for $\Theta$ instead of those for $\Theta_1$ and $\Theta_2$. The results in Fig.3(a) for $M_2(0)=250$ GeV are quite similar to those in Fig.2(a), and imply a similarly low fine-tuning. In Fig.3(b) the choice $M_2(0)=250$ GeV now leads to larger allowed regions than in Fig.2(b) due to the presence of a non-zero scalar mass, with the charginos being now significantly heavier due to their gaugino component. Now the parameters that compete to give the largest fine-tuning are $\mu(0)$ and $\Theta$, and the kink in the gluino curves is due to $\Delta_{\Theta}$ being replaced by $\Delta_{\mu(0)}$ as the maximum sensitivity parameter. The other functions $\Delta_{m{3/2}}$ and $\Delta_\theta$ can become comparable but not dominant. As in the generalised no-scale model, the maximum fine-tuning will be insensitive to a light chargino when this is mainly higgsino.
In Fig.4 we give results for the AMSB model. In the minimal AMSB model where $m_0=0$ the sleptons are predicted to have negative mass squared, so we have followed the common proceedure of simply adding a universal scalar mass squared $m_0^2$ by hand, ensuring that it is large enough to ensure acceptable slepton masses. In Fig.4(a) we choose $m_0=500$ GeV, and in Fig.4(b) we take $m_0=1000$ GeV. In both cases the fine-tuning is dominated by $\Delta_{\mu(0)}$, and is much larger than the other models considered. Typically the value of $\mu(0)$ required by electroweak symmetry breaking is $O$(1 TeV) or larger in this models.
Comparing the results for all the models in Figs.1-4 it is seen that there is slightly less fine-tuning associated with particle masses in the D-brane model than in the other models. However it is also apparent that the results for the no-scale model with non-universal gaugino masses are very similar to the D-brane scenario. The common feature of both these models is non-universal gaugino masses, and the reasons for the reduced fine-tuning are essentially those emphasised in ref.[@KK] (namely that fine-tuning is most sensitive to $M_3(0)$ and so $M_3(0)<M_2(0)$ in general reduces fine-tuning.) However, in the D-brane model there is additionally the possibility of cancellations among different input parameters which help to lower the different fine-tuning parameters. For example, using one-loop semi-analytic solutions to the renormalisation group equations [@carena] and neglecting one-loop effective potential contributions, we find the approximate expressions for $\tan\beta=3$: \_[m\_[3/2]{}]{} && \_[3/2]{}\^2 | \^2( 120.67 \_1\^2 -8.15 \_2\^2 + 10.13 \_2 \_1) -0.32 (1-3 \^2) | \[dm32\]\
\_[(0)]{} && | 5.12 + \_[3/2]{}\^2 \^2(-135.93 \_1\^2 +6.85 \_2\^2 - 11.40 \_2 \_1 ) .\
& &. + 1.14 \_[3/2]{}\^2 (1-3 \^2) | \[dmu\] ,\
\_ && \_[3/2]{}\^2 \_1 \_2 | \^2( 128.81 \_1 \_2 + 5.07 (\_2\^2 - \_1\^2)) | \[dmx\] ,\
\_ && \_[3/2]{}\^2 \^2| 112.14 \_1\^2 -8.15 \_2\^2 + 8.97 \_2 \_1 +0.32 | \[dma\] , where $\tilde{m}_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass scaled by $m_Z$, and we have kept the dependence on $\cos\theta$ but taken $\Theta_3=0$. From the above expressions it is clear that choosing appropiate values for the goldstino angles, $\Delta_{m_{3/2}}$ might be arbitrarily small even for very large values of the gravitino mass, and similarly for $\Delta_{\mu(0)}$ and $\Delta_{\theta}$.
In Fig. (\[demm32\]) we have plotted the contours of constant $\Delta_i$ given in Eqs. (\[dm32\]-\[dma\]). Not suprisingly, all the contours show a hyperbolic behavior: they would more or less follow the curves of constant $M_3(0)$, with fine-tuning increasing with the gluino mass. We have also included the contours of constant $M_2(0)$ for the values considered in Fig. (3). Although $\Delta_{\mu(0)}$, $\Delta_{m_{3/2}}$ and $\Delta_{\theta}$ are all simultaneously small for $\Theta_1 \simeq 0.2$, parts of this region are experimentally excluded due to $\mu $ becoming to small and hence the lightest chargino becoming too light. Nevertheless, there are allowed regions in the plane $m_{3/2}-\Theta_i$, corresponding to a light gluino, where $\Delta_{\mu(0)}$, $\Delta_{m_{3/2}}$ and $\Delta_{\theta}$ are all simultaneously small, and the maximum sensitivity would be given by $\Delta_{\Theta}$. We may try to play with the values of either $\cos\theta$ or $\Theta_3$ in order to find some region where $all$ the fine-tuning is small. However, reducing (increasing) $\cos\theta$ ($\Theta_3$) the slepton masses tend to diminish, making it difficult if not impossible to fulfill the experimental constraints on the SUSY masses[^9].
Any conclusions which are drawn from fine-tuning are always subject to caveats, disclaimers and health warnings. A precise value cannot be placed on fine-tuning, since the definition can always be changed and the question of how much fine-tuning is acceptable is subjective. For this reason we prefer not to give upper bounds on particle masses based on fine-tuning, but clearly subjective upper bounds can be read off from our curves, for those inclined to do so. The main value of our work is to compare different SUGRA models with each other, and within each SUGRA model to compare different regions of parameter space, from the point of view of fine-tuning.
In all models, fine-tuning is reduced as $\tan \beta$ is increased, with $\tan \beta =10$ preferred over $\tan \beta =2,3$. Nevertheless, the present LEP2 limit on the Higgs and chargino mass of about 100 GeV and the gluino mass limit of about 250 GeV implies that $\Delta^{max}$ is of order 10 or higher. The fine-tuning increases most sharply with the Higgs mass. The Higgs fine-tuning curves are fairly model independent, and as the Higgs mass limit rises above 100 GeV come to quickly dominate the fine-tuning. We conclude that the prospects for the discovery of the Higgs boson at LEP2 are good. For each model there is a correlation between the Higgs, chargino and gluino mass, for a given value of fine-tuning. For example if the Higgs is discovered at a particular mass value, then the corresponding chargino and gluino mass for each $\tan \beta$ can be read off from Figs.1-4.
The new general features of the results may then be summarised as follows:
- The gluino mass curves are less model dependent than the chargino curves, and this implies that in all models if the fine-tuning is not too large then the prospects for the discovery of the gluino at the Tevatron are good.
- The fine-tuning due to the chargino mass is model dependent. For example in the no-scale model with non-universal gaugino masses and the D-brane scenario the charginos may be relatively heavy compared to mSUGRA.
- Some models have less fine-tuning than others. We may order the models on the basis of fine-tuning from the lowest fine-tuning to the highest fine-tuning: D-brane scenario $<$ generalised no-scale SUGRA $<$ mSUGRA $<$ AMSB.
- The D-brane model is less fine-tuned partly because the gaugino masses are non-universal, and partly because there are large regions where $\Delta_{m_{3/2}}$, $\Delta_{\mu(0)}$, and $\Delta_\theta$ are all close to zero (see Fig.\[demm32\]). However in these regions the fine tuning is dominated by $\Delta_\Theta$, and this leads to an inescapable fine-tuning constraint on the Higgs and gluino mass.
Finally we should comment on the parameter space dependence of our results. Although the results presented here are for specific choices of parameters, we have performed a detailed analysis of the parameter space of these models and found that the results are representative of the full parameter space, and the qualitative conclusions will not change. We shall present the complete analysis elsewhere [@next].
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
We wish to thank Lisa Everett for useful discussions. S.K. acknowledges useful discussions at the 1999 Durham Collider Workshop.
[99]{}
G. L. Kane and S. F. King, Phys. Lett. [**B 451**]{} (1999) 113, hep-ph/9810374.
J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev, T. Moroi, hep-ph/9909334; J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev, T. Moroi, hep-ph/9908309.
S. Dimopoulos and G.-F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. [**B 357**]{} (1995) 573.
J. Ellis, K. Enqvist, D. Nanopoulos and F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. [**B 276**]{} (1986) 14; R. Barbieri and G.-F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. [**B 306**]{} (1988) 63; G. G. Ross and R. G. Roberts, Nucl. Phys. [**377**]{} (1992) 571; B. de Carlos and A. Casas, Phys. Lett. [**309**]{} (1993) 320; A. Pomarol and D. Tommasini, Nucl. Phys. [**466**]{} (1996) 3; G. W. Anderson and D. J. Castano, Phys. Lett. [**B 347**]{} (1995) 300; G. W. Anderson and D. J. Castano, Phys. Rev. [**D 52**]{} (1995) 1693; G. W. Anderson and D. J. Castano, Phys. Rev. [**D 53**]{} (1996) 2403; G. W. Anderson, D. J. Castano and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. [**D 55**]{} (1997) 2950.
P. Chankowski, J. Ellis and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. [**B 423**]{} (1998) 327; R. Barbieri and A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. [**B 433**]{} (1998) 63; P. Chankowski, J. Ellis, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, hep-ph/9808275; Kwok Lung Chan, Utpal Chattopadhyay, and Pran Nath, Phys. Rev. [**58**]{} (1998) 096004.
D. Wright, hep-ph/9801449, UW/PT-97/27.
For a review see A. B. Lahanas and D. V. Nanopoulos, ; J. L. Lopez and D. V. Nanopoulos, .
L. E. Ibañez, C. Muñoz and S. Rigolin, hep-ph/9812397; M. Brhlik, L. Everett, G. Kane and J. Lykken, hep-ph/9905215.
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, hep-th/9810155; G. Giudice, M. Luty, H. Murayama and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**9812**]{} (1998) 027; J. L. Feng, T. Moroi, L. Randall, M. Strassler and S. Su, hep-ph/9904250; T. Gherghetta, G. Giudice and J. Wells, hep-ph/9904378.
S. P. Martin and M. T. Vaughn, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{} (1994) 2282; I. Jack and D. R. T. Jones, Phys. Lett. [**B333**]{} (1994) 374; Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{} (1994) 3537; I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, S. P. Martin, M. T. Vaughn and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{} (1994) 5481.
A. E. Faraggi and B. Grindstein, Nucl. Phys. [**422**]{} (1994) 3; P. Chankowski, Z. Pluciennik and S. Pokorski, Nucl. Phys. [**439**]{} (1995) 23; M. Bastero-Gil and J. Pérez-Mercader, Nucl. Phys. [ **B450**]{}, 21 (1995); J. Bagger, K. Matchev and D. Pierce, Phys. Lett. [**348**]{} (1995) 443.
D. M. Pierce, J. A. Bagger, K. Matchev, Ren-jie Zhang Nucl. Phys. [**B 491**]{} (1997) 3.
S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**7**]{} (1973) 1888; S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**7**]{} (1973) 2887.
G. Gamberini, G. Ridolfi and F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. [**B331**]{} (1990) 331; R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{} (1992) 3981.
J. Casas, J. Espinosa, M. Quirós and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. [**B436**]{} (1995) 3, Erratum:$ibid$. [**439**]{} (1995) 466; M. Carena, J. Espinosa, M. Quirós and C. Wagner, Phys. Lett. [**B355**]{}(1995) 209; M. Carena, M. Quirós and C. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. [**B461**]{} (1995) 407; H. Haber, R. Hempfling and A. Hoang, Z. Phys. [**C75**]{} (1997) 539.
S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{} (1998) 091701; Phys. Lett. [**B440**]{} (1998) 296; Eur. Phys. Jour. [**C9**]{} (1999) 343.
S. P. Martin, M. T. Vaughn, Phys. Lett. [**B 318**]{} (1993) 331;
M. Carena, P. Chankowski, M. Olechowski, S. Pokorski and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. [**B491**]{} (1997) 103.
M. Bastero-Gil, S.F. King and G.L. Kane (to appear).
[^1]: Another example of how to reduce fine-tuning not mentioned in [@KK] is to increase $M_2$ for fixed $M_3$, due to the cancellation effect.
[^2]: In the most general situation with complex soft breaking terms, the phases will enter in the subleading cross-terms in Eq. (\[MZ\]).
[^3]: This is in fact a new model not previously considered in the literature, although the no-scale model with universal gaugino masses is of course well known. As in the usual no-scale model, this model has the attractive feature that flavour-changing neutral currents at low energies are very suppressed, since all the scalar masses are generated by radiative corrections, via the renormalisation group equations, which only depend on the gauge couplings which are of course flavour-independent.
[^4]: When running the gauge couplings we have included complete threshold effects at order 1-loop [@thresholds] and used the step-function approximation in the 2-loops coefficients.
[^5]: We have included one-loop susy threshold corrections, QCD and electroweak corrections when converting pole mass values to running mass values at the $m_Z$ scale [@pierce].
[^6]: The expected accuracy in the computed Higgs mass is estimated to be $\sim 2$ GeV. A different approach to the calculation of the Higgs mass can be founded in Ref. [@hollik].
[^7]: The same effect can be seen for the D-brane model in Fig. (3).
[^8]: Other choices of the Goldstino angles or the scalar masses will affect mainly the low energy values of the scalar masses, and not so much those of the gauginos (a change in $\cos\theta$ can be compensated by a rescaling of the gravitino mass). This may change the region of the parameter space allowed by the experimental constraints, but it will leave practically unchanged the conclusions on fine-tuning.
[^9]: For example, for $\cos\theta < 0.5 $ and $\tan\beta >3$, the parameter space compatible with experiments shrinks to nothing.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[*In this paper an idea of soft linear spaces and soft norm on soft linear spaces are given and some of their properties are studied. Soft vectors in soft linear spaces are introduced and their properties are studied. Completeness of soft normed linear space is also studied and equivalent soft norms and convex soft sets are studied in soft normed linear space settings.*]{}'
---
**[Sujoy Das$^1$, Pinaki Majumdar$^2$ and S.K. Samanta$^3$]{}**
$^1$Department of Mathematics,
Bidhan Chandra College
Asansol-713304, West Bengal, India
e-mail: sujoy\[email protected]
$^2$Department of Mathematics,
MUC Women’s College
Burdwan-713104, West Bengal, India
e-mail: [email protected]
$^3$Department of Mathematics
Visva Bharati
Santiniketan, West Bengal, India.
e-mail: syamal\[email protected]
\[section\]
\[Theorem\][Definition]{}
\[Theorem\][Theorem]{}
\[Theorem\][Remark]{}
\[Theorem\][Corollary]{}
\[Theorem\][Note]{}
\[Theorem\][Lemma]{}
\[Theorem\][Example]{}
\[Theorem\][Proposition]{}
[**Keywords:**]{} *Soft sets, soft elements, soft vectors, soft linear spaces, soft normed linear spaces, soft Banach spaces, equivalent soft norm, convex soft sets.*\
[**2000 MSC No:**]{} 08A02.
Introduction
============
In the year 1999, Molodtsov [@Mol] initiated the theory of soft sets as a new mathematical tool for dealing with uncertainties. He has shown several applications of this theory in solving many practical problems in economics, engineering, social science, medical science, etc. Research works in soft set theory and its applications in various fields have been progressing rapidly since Maji et al. ([@Maji1],[@Maji2]) introduced several operations on soft sets and applied it to decision making problems. In the line of reduction and addition of parameters of soft sets some works have been done by Chen [@Chen], Pei and Miao [@PM] , Kong et al. [@Kong] , Zou and Xiao [@ZX]. Aktas and Cagman [@AC] introduced the notion of soft group and discussed various properties. Jun ([@Jun1],[@Jun2]) investigated soft BCK/BCI – algebras and its application in ideal theory. Feng et al. [@F1] worked on soft semirings, soft ideals and idealistic soft semirings. Ali et al. [@Ali] and Shabir and Irfan Ali ([@Ali],[@SI]) studied soft semigroups and soft ideals over a semi group which characterize generalized fuzzy ideals and fuzzy ideals with thresholds of a semigroup. The idea of soft topological spaces was first given by M. Shabir, M. Naz [@MM] and mappings between soft sets were described by P. Majumdar, S. K. Samanta [@Pin1]. Feng et al. [@F2] worked on soft sets combined with fuzzy sets and rough sets. A. Recently in ([@S1],[@S2]) we have introduced a notion of soft real sets, soft real numbers, soft complex sets, soft complex numbers and some of their basic properties have been investigated. Some applications of soft real sets and soft real numbers have been presented in real life problems. Two different notions of ’soft metric’ are presented in ([@S3], [@S14]) and some properties of soft metric spaces are studied in both cases.
In this paper we have introduced a notion of soft linear space and soft normed linear space. In section 2, some preliminary results are given. In section 3, a notion of ‘soft linear space’ is given and various properties of soft linear spaces are studied. In section 4, a definition of ‘soft vector’in a soft linear space is given and various properties of soft vectors are studied in details with examples and counter examples. A notion of ‘soft norm’in a soft linear space is introduced in section 5. It has been shown that every ‘soft normed linear space’ is also a ‘soft metric space’[@S3]. In that section, completeness of soft normed linear spaces, equivalent soft norms and convex soft sets are studied in soft normed linear space settings.
Preliminaries
=============
[@Mol] Let $U$ be an universe and $E$ be a set of parameters. Let ${\mathcal P}(U)$ denote the power set of $U$ and $A$ be a non-empty subset of $E$. A pair $(F,A)$ is called a soft set over $U$, where $F$ is a mapping given by $F:A\to {\mathcal P}(U)$. In other words, a soft set over $U$ is a parametrized family of subsets of the universe $U$. For $\varepsilon \in A,\ F(\varepsilon )$ may be considered as the set of $\varepsilon $ – approximate elements of the soft set $(F,A)$.
[@F2] For two soft sets $(F,A)$ and $(G,B)$ over a common universe $U$, we say that $(F,A)$ is a soft subset of $(G,B)$ if
1. $A\subseteq B$ and
2. for all $e\in A,\ F(e)\subseteq $ $G(e)$. We write $(F,A)\widetilde{\subset }$ $(G,B)$.
$(F,A)$ is said to be a soft superset of $(G,B)$, if $(G,B)$ is a soft subset of $(F,A)$. We denote it by$(F,A)\widetilde{\supset }$ $(G,B)$.
[@F2] Two soft sets $(F,A)$ and $(G,B)$ over a common universe $U$ are said to be equal if $(F,A)$ is a soft subset of $(G,B)$ and $(G,B)$ is a soft subset of $(F,A)$.
[@F2] The complement of a soft set $(F,A)$ is denoted by
${(F,A)}^c=(F^c,A)$, where $F^c:A\to {\mathcal P}(U)$ is a mapping given by $F^c\left(\alpha \right)=U-F(\alpha )$, for all $\alpha \in A$.
[@Maji2] A soft set $(F,E)$ over $U$ is said to be an *absolute* soft set denoted by${\rm \ }\check{U}$ if for all $\varepsilon \in E,\ \ F\left(\varepsilon \right)=U$.
[@Maji2] A soft set $(F,E)$ over $U$ is said to be a *null* soft set denoted by${\rm \ }\Phi $ if for all $\varepsilon \in E,\ F\left(\varepsilon \right)=\emptyset $.
[@Maji2] The union of two soft sets $(F,A)$ and $(G,B)$ over the common universe $U$ is the soft set
$\left(H,C\right),$ where $C=A\cup B$ and for all $e\in C,$ $$H\left(e\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
F\left(e\right)\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ e\in A-B \\
G\left(e\right)\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ e\in B-A \\
F\left(e\right)\cup G\left(e\right)\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ e\in A\cap B. \end{array}
\right.$$ We express it as $\left(F,A\right)\widetilde{\cup }\left(G,B\right)=(H,C)$.
The following definition of intersection of two soft sets is given as that of the bi- intersection in [@F1].
[@F1] The intersection of two soft sets $(F,A)$ and $(G,B)$ over the common universe $U$ is the soft set $\left(H,C\right),$ where $C=A\cap B$ and for all $e\in C,$ $H\left(e\right)=F(e)\cap G(e)$. We write $\left(F,A\right)\widetilde{\cap }\left(G,B\right)=(H,C)$.
Let $X$ be an initial universal set and $E$ be the non-empty set of parameters.
[@MM] The difference $(H,E)$ of two soft sets $(F,E)$ and $(G,E)$ over $X$, denoted by $\left(F,E\right)\ \backslash (G,E)$, is defined by $H\left(e\right)=F(e)\backslash G(e)$ for all $e\in E$.
\[p1\] [@MM] Let $(F,E)$ and $(G,E)$ be two soft sets over $X$. Then
- ${((F,E)\widetilde{\cup }(G,E))}^c={\left(F,E\right)}^c\widetilde{\cap }{\left(G,E\right)}^c$
- ${((F,E)\widetilde{\cap }(G,E))}^c={\left(F,E\right)}^c\widetilde{\cup }{\left(G,E\right)}^c.$
[@S1] Let $\ X\ be$ a non-empty set and $E\ $be a non-empty parameter set. Then a function
$\varepsilon :E\to X$ is said to be a soft element of $X.$ A soft element $\varepsilon $ of $X$ is said to belongs to a soft set $A$ of $X$, which is denoted by $\varepsilon \widetilde{\in }A,\ $if $\varepsilon \left(e\right)\in A\left(e\right),\ \forall e\in E.$ Thus for a soft set A of $X$ with respect to the index set $E,$ we have $A\left(e\right)=\left\{\varepsilon \left(e\right),\varepsilon \widetilde{\in }A\right\},$ $e\in E.$
It is to be noted that every singleton soft set (a soft set $(F,E)$ for which $F(e)$ is a singleton set, $\forall e\in E$) can be identified with a soft element by simply identifying the singleton set with the element that it contains $\forall e\in E.$
[@S1] Let $R$ be the set of real numbers and $\mathcal{B}(R)$ the collection of all non-empty bounded subsets of $R$ and $A$ taken as a set of parameters. Then a mapping $F:A\to \mathcal{B}(R)$ is called a *soft real set*. It is denoted by $(F,A)$. If specifically $(F,A)$ is a singleton soft set$,$ then after identifying $(F,A)$ with the corresponding soft element, it will be called a *soft real number*.
We use notations $\tilde{r},\ \tilde{s},\ \tilde{t}$ to denote soft real numbers whereas $\overline{r},\ \overline{s},\ \overline{t}$ will denote a particular type of soft real numbers such that $\overline{r}\left(\lambda \right)=r,\ $for all $\lambda \in A$ etc. For example $\overline{0}$ is the soft real number where $\overline{0}\left(\lambda \right)=0,\ $for all $\lambda \in A.$
[@S3] A mapping $d:SE(\check{X})\times SE(\check{X})\to {{\mathcal R}\left(A\right)}^*$ , is said to be a *soft metric* on the soft set $\check{X}$ if $d$ satisfies the following conditions:
- $d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)\widetilde{\ge }\overline{0},\ $ for all $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$.
- $d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)=\ \overline{0}$ if and only if $\tilde{x}=\tilde{y}.$
- $d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)=d\left(\tilde{y},\tilde{x}\right)$ for all $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$.
- For all $\tilde{x},\tilde{y},\tilde{z}\widetilde{\in }\check{X},d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{z}\right)\widetilde{\le }d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)+d\left(\tilde{y},\tilde{z}\right)$
The soft set $\check{X}$ with a soft metric $d$ on $\check{X}$ is said to be a *soft metric space* and is denoted by $(\check{X},d,A)$ or $(\check{X},d)$. (M1), (M2), (M3) and (M4) are said to be soft metric axioms.
[(Decomposition Theorem)]{} [@S3] If a soft metric $d$ satisfies the condition:
(M5).For $\left(\xi ,\eta \right)\in X\times X,$ and $\lambda \in A$, $\left\{d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)\left(\lambda \right):\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)=\xi ,\tilde{y}\left(\lambda \right)=\eta \right\}$ is a singleton set, and if for$\ \lambda \in A$, $d_{\lambda }:X\times X\to {{\mathcal R}}^+$ is defined by $d_{\lambda }\left(\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right),\tilde{y}\left(\lambda \right)\right)=d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)\left(\lambda \right)$, $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X};$ then $d_{\lambda }$ is a metric on $X.$
[@S3] Let $(\check{X},d)$ be a soft metric space and $\mathcal{B}$ be a non-null collection of soft elements of $\check{X}$. Then $\mathcal{B}$ is said to be ‘*open in* $\check{X}$ *with respect to* $d$’ or ‘ *open in* $(\check{X},d)$’ if all elements of $\mathcal{B}$ are interior elements of $\mathcal{B}$.
[@S3] Let $(\check{X},d)$ be a soft metric space and $(Y,A)$ be a non-null soft subset $\in $ ${\mathcal S}\left(\check{X}\right)\ $in $(\check{X},d)$. Then $(Y,A)$ is said to be ‘*soft open in* $\check{X}$ *with respect to* $d$’ if there is a collection $\mathcal{B}$ of soft elements of $(Y,A)$ such that $\mathcal{B}$ is open with respect to ${\rm d}$ and $\left(Y,A\right)=SS(\mathcal{B})$.
[@S3] Let $(\check{X},d)$ be a soft metric space. A soft set $(Y,A)\in {\mathcal S}(\check{X})$, is said to be ‘*soft closed in* $\check{{\check X}}$ *with respect to* $d$’ if its complement ${(Y,A)}^c$ is a member of ${\mathcal S}(\check{X})$ and is soft open in $(\check{X},d)$.
[@S3] Let $(\check{X},d)$ be a soft metric space and $\mathcal{B}$ be a collection of soft elements of $\check{X}$. A soft element $\tilde{a}\widetilde{\in }\mathcal{B}$ is said to be a *limit element* of $\mathcal{B}$, if every open ball $B\left(\tilde{a},\tilde{r}\right)$ containing $\tilde{a}\ $in $(\check{X},d)$ contains at least one element of $\mathcal{B}$ different from $\tilde{a}$.
The set of all limit elements of $\mathcal{B}$ is said to be the derived set of $\mathcal{B}$ and is denoted by ${\mathcal{B}}^d.$
[@S3] Let $(\check{X},d)$ be a soft metric space and $(Y,A)$ $\in {\mathcal S}(\check{X})$. A soft element $\tilde{a}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$ is said to be a *soft limit element* of $(Y,A)$, if every open ball $B\left(\tilde{a},\tilde{r}\right)$ containing $\tilde{a}$ in $(\check{X},d)$ contains at least one soft element of $(Y,A)$ different from $\tilde{a}$.
A soft limit element of a soft set $(Y,A)$ may or may not belong to the soft set $(Y,A)$.
The set of all soft limit elements of $(Y,A)$ is said to be the derived set of $(Y,A)$ and is denoted by ${(Y,A)}^d.$
[@S3] Let $\left(\check{X},d\right)$ be a soft metric space and $\mathcal{B}$ be a collection of soft elements of $\check{X}$. Then the collection of all soft elements of $\mathcal{B}$ and limit elements of $\mathcal{B}$ in $\left(\check{X},d\right)$ is said to be the *closure* of $\mathcal{B}$ in $\left(\check{X},d\right)$. It is denoted by $\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}$.
[@S3] Let $\left(\check{X},d\right)$ be a soft metric space and$(Y,A)$ be a soft subset $\in {\mathcal S}(\check{X})$. Then the collection of all soft elements of $(Y,A)$ and soft limit elements of $(Y,A)$ in $\left(\check{X},d\right)$ is said to be the *soft closure* of $(Y,A)$ in $\left(\check{X},d\right)$. It is denoted by $\overline{(Y,A)}$.
[@S3] Let $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ be a sequence of soft elements in a soft metric space $\left(\check{X},d\right)$. The sequence $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ is said to be convergent in $\left(\check{X},d\right)$ if there is a soft element $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$ such that $d({\tilde{x}}_n,\tilde{x})\to \overline{0}$ as $n\to \infty $.
This means for every $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0}$, chosen arbitrarily, $\exists $ a natural number $N=N(\widetilde{\varepsilon })$, such that $\overline{0}\widetilde{\le }d({\tilde{x}}_n,\tilde{x})\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }$ , whenever $n>N$.
i.e., $n>N\Longrightarrow {\tilde{x}}_n\in B(\tilde{x},\ \widetilde{\varepsilon })$. We denote this by ${\tilde{x}}_n\to \tilde{x}$ as $n\to \infty $ or by ${\mathop{\lim }_{n\to \infty } {\tilde{x}}_n\ }=\tilde{x}$. $\tilde{x}\ $ is said to be the limit of the sequence ${\tilde{x}}_n$ as $n\to \infty $.
Soft Vector/Linear Spaces
=========================
Let $V$ be a vector space over a field $K$ and let $A$ be a parameter set. A soft set $(F,A)$ where $F:A\to \wp (V)$ will be denoted by $F$ only.
[(Sums and Scalar products of soft sets)]{} Let$F_1,F_2,\dots \dots ,F_n$ be $n$ soft sets in $\left(V,A\right).$ Then $F=F_1+F_2+\dots +F_n$ is a soft set over $\left(V,A\right)$ and is defined as $F\left(\lambda \right)=\left\{x_1+x_2+\dots +x_n;x_i\in F_i\left(\lambda \right),i=1,2,\dots ,n\right\},\ \forall \lambda \in A.$
Let $\alpha \in K$ be a scalar and $F$ be a soft sets over $\left(V,A\right),$ then$\alpha F$ is a soft set over $\left(V,A\right)$ and is defined as follows: $\alpha F=G,\ \ \ G\left(\lambda \right)=\{\alpha x;x\in F(\lambda )\}$, $\lambda \in A.$
Let $V$ be a vector space over a field $K$ and let $A$ be a parameter set. Let $G$ be a soft set over $\left(V,A\right)$. Now $G$ is said to be a soft vector space or soft linear space of $V$ over $K$ if $G(\lambda )$ is a vector subspace of $V,\ \forall \lambda \in A.$
\[ex424\] Consider the Euclidian n-dimensional space ${{\mathcal R}}^n$ over ${\mathcal R}.$ Let $A=\{1,2,3,\dots ,n\}$ be the set of parameters. Let $G:A\to \wp ({{\mathcal R}}^n)$ be defined as follows: $$G\left(i\right)=\left\{t\in {{\mathcal R}}^n;i-th\ co-ordinate\ of\ t\ is\ 0\right\},\ i=1,2,\dots ,n.$$ Then $G$ is a soft vector space or soft linear space of ${{\mathcal R}}^n$ over ${\mathcal R}.$
$\alpha \left(F+G\right)=\alpha F+\alpha G$ for all soft sets $F,G$ over $\left(V,A\right)$ and $\alpha \in K$.
**Proof.** $\left[\alpha \left(F+G\right)\right]\left(\lambda \right)=\left\{\alpha z;z\in \left(F+G\right)\left(\lambda \right)\right\}$
$=\left\{\alpha \left(x+y\right);x\in F\left(\lambda \right),y\in G\left(\lambda \right)\right\}$
$=\{\alpha x+\alpha y;x\in F\left(\lambda \right),y\in G\left(\lambda \right)\}$, $($Since $V$ is a vector space$)$
Again $\left(\alpha F+\alpha G\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\{x^/+y^/;x^/\in \alpha F\left(\lambda \right),y^/\in \alpha G\left(\lambda \right)\}$
$=\{\alpha x^{//}+\alpha y^{//};x^{//}\in F\left(\lambda \right),y^{//}\in G\left(\lambda \right)\}.$
Hence the result follows.
Let $F_1,F_2,\dots \dots ,F_n$, $G_1,G_2,\dots \dots ,G_m$ be soft sets over $\left(V,A\right)$ and let $F=F_1+F_2+\dots +F_n$ and $G=G_1+G_2+\dots +G_m.$ Then $H=F+G,$ where $H=F_1+F_2+\dots +F_n+G_1+G_2+\dots +G_m.$
**Proof.** The proof is straightforward.
\[def401\] Let $x\in V$ and $F$ be a soft setover $\left(V,A\right).$ Then $x+F$ is a soft set over $\left(V,A\right)$ defined as follows: $$\left(x+F\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\left\{x+y;y\in F\left(\lambda \right)\right\},\lambda \in A.$$
Let $U$ be an ordinary subset of $V$ and let $F$ be a soft set over $\left(V,A\right).$ Then $U+F$ is a soft set over $\left(V,A\right)$ defined as follows: $$\left(U+F\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\bigcup_{x\in U}{\left\{x+y;y\in F\left(\lambda \right)\right\}},\lambda \in A.$$ $$\ \ U+F=\bigcup_{x\in U}{(x+F)}$$
**Proof.** Follows from Definition \[def401\] and the Definition of union of soft sets.
[(Soft Vector Subspaces)]{} Let $F$ be a soft vector space of $V$ over $K$. Let $G:A\to \wp (V)$ be a soft set over $\left(V,A\right)$. Then $G$ is said to be a soft vector subspace of $F$ if
- for each $\lambda \in A,G(\lambda )$ is a vector subspace of $V$ over $K$ and
- $F\left(\lambda \right)\supseteq G\left(\lambda \right),\ \forall \lambda \in A.$
A soft subset $G$ of a soft vector space$F$ is a soft vector subspace of $F$ if and only if for all scalars $\alpha $,$\beta \in K,\alpha G+\beta G\subset G.$
**Proof.** Let $G$ be a soft vector subspace of $F$ of $V$ over $K$.
Let $\lambda \in A$, $\left(\alpha G+\beta G\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\{x^/+y^/;x^/\in \alpha G\left(\lambda \right),y^/\in \beta G\left(\lambda \right)\}$
$=\{\alpha x+\beta y;x,y\in G(\lambda )\}\subset G(\lambda ),$
\[Now, $G(\lambda )$ is a vector subspace over $K$ and $x,y\in G(\lambda )$,$\ \alpha $,$\beta \in K\Rightarrow \alpha x+\beta y\in G(\lambda )$\]
$\ \ \alpha G+\beta G\subset G,$ the given condition is satisfied.
Conversely, let the given condition hold.
We have, $\left(\alpha G+\beta G\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\{\alpha x+\beta y;x,y\in G(\lambda )\}\ ,\ \forall \lambda \in A.$
By the given condition, $\alpha G+\beta G\subset G$ i.e., $\{\alpha x+\beta y;x,y\in G(\lambda )\}\subset G(\lambda ),\forall \lambda \in A.$
i.e., for all $x,y\in G\left(\lambda \right)$ and for every scalar $\alpha $,$\beta \in K$, $\alpha x+\beta y\in G\left(\lambda \right)$
$\Rightarrow G(\lambda )$ is a vector subspace of $F$ over $K.$ This is true for all $\lambda \in A.$
Also since $G$ is a soft subset of $F,\ F\left(\lambda \right)\supseteq G\left(\lambda \right),\ \forall \lambda \in A.$
Hence $G$ is a soft vector subspace of $F$.
If $F$ and $G$ be two soft vector subspaces of $H$ over $K$ and $\alpha $ be a scalar, then $F+G$ and $\alpha F$ are soft vector subspaces of $H$ over $K$.
**Proof.** The proof is straight forward.
If $\{F_i\}$ be a family of soft vector subspaces of $H$ over $K$, then $G=\bigcap_i{F_i}$ is a soft vector subspaces of $H$ over $K$.
**Proof.** The proof is straight forward.
Soft vectors in soft vector spaces
==================================
In this section we introduce the concept of soft vectors in soft vector spaces and study some of their basic properties.
Let $G$ be a soft vector space of $V$ over $K$. Then a soft element of $V$ is said to be a soft vector of $G.$In a similar manner a soft element of the soft set $(K,A)$ is said to be a soft scalar, K being the scalar field.
Consider the soft vector space $G$ as Example \[ex424\]. Let $\tilde{x}$ be a soft element of $G$ as the following;
$\tilde{x}\left(i\right)=\left(1,1,..,0_{i-th},..,1\right)\in {{\mathcal R}}^n,i=1,2,..,n.$ Then $\tilde{x}$ is a soft vector of $G.$
A soft vector $\tilde{x}$ in a soft vector space $G$ is said to be the null soft vector if $\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)=\theta ,\ \forall \lambda \in A$, $\theta $ being the zero element of $V$. It will be denoted by $\Theta $. A soft vector is said to be non-null if itis not a null soft vector.
Let $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}$ be soft vectors of $G$ and $\tilde{k}$ be a soft scalar. Then the addition $\tilde{x}+\tilde{y}$ of $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}$ and scalar multiplication $\tilde{k}.\ \tilde{x}$ of $\tilde{k}$ and $\tilde{x}$ are defined by
$\left(\tilde{x}+\tilde{y}\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)+\tilde{y}\left(\lambda \right),\ \ \left(\tilde{k}.\ \tilde{x}\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\tilde{k}\left(\lambda \right).\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right),\ \forall \lambda \in A.$ Obviously, $\tilde{x}+\tilde{y},\tilde{k}.\ \tilde{x}$ are soft vectors of $G.$
In a soft vector space $G$ of $V$ over $K$,
- $\overline{0}.\widetilde{\alpha }=\Theta ,\ $ for all $\widetilde{\alpha }\widetilde{\in }G;$
- $\tilde{k}.\Theta =\Theta ,\ $ for all soft scalar $\tilde{k}.$
- $\left(-\overline{1}\right).\ \widetilde{\alpha }=-\widetilde{\alpha }$$,$ for all $\widetilde{\alpha }\widetilde{\in }\ G.$
**Proof.** (i) We have, $\left(\overline{0}.\widetilde{\alpha }\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\overline{0}\left(\lambda \right).\widetilde{\alpha }\left(\lambda \right)=0.\widetilde{\alpha }\left(\lambda \right)=\ \theta ,\ \ \forall \lambda \in A.$
$\Rightarrow \overline{0}.\widetilde{\alpha }=\Theta ,\ $ for all $\widetilde{\alpha }\widetilde{\in }\ G.$
\(ii) $\left(\tilde{k}.\Theta \right)\left(\lambda \right)=\tilde{k}\left(\lambda \right).\Theta \left(\lambda \right)=\tilde{k}\left(\lambda \right).\theta =\theta ,\ \ \forall \lambda \in A.$
$\Rightarrow \tilde{k}.\Theta =\Theta ,\ $ for all soft scalar $\tilde{k}.$
\(iii) $\left(\left(-\overline{1}\right).\ \widetilde{\alpha }\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\left(-\overline{1}\right)\left(\lambda \right).\widetilde{\alpha }\left(\lambda \right)=\left(-1\right).\widetilde{\alpha }\left(\lambda \right)=-\widetilde{\alpha }\left(\lambda \right)=(-\widetilde{\alpha })\left(\lambda \right),\ $
$\forall \lambda \in A.$
$\Rightarrow \left(-\overline{1}\right).\ \widetilde{\alpha }=-\widetilde{\alpha },$ for all $\widetilde{\alpha }\widetilde{\in }\ G.$
However, $\tilde{k}.\widetilde{\alpha }=\Theta $ does not necessarily imply that either $\tilde{k}=\overline{0}$ or $\widetilde{\alpha }=\Theta $. For example let us consider the soft vector space as Example \[ex424\] Let $\tilde{k}\left(1\right)=1,$ and $\tilde{k}\left(i\right)=0,$ for $i=2,3,..,n\ $ and $\widetilde{\alpha }\left(1\right)=\theta ,$ and $\widetilde{\alpha }\left(i\right)=\left(1,1,..,0_{i-th},..,1\right)\in {{\mathcal R}}^n,i=2,3,..,n.$ Then $\left(\tilde{k}.\widetilde{\alpha }\right)\left(1\right)=\tilde{k}\left(1\right).\ \widetilde{\alpha }\left(1\right)=1.\ \theta =\theta =\Theta \left(1\right)$ and
$\left(\tilde{k}.\widetilde{\alpha }\right)\left(i\right)=\tilde{k}\left(i\right).\ \widetilde{\alpha }\left(i\right)=0.\ \left(1,1,..,0_{i-th},..,1\right)=\theta =\Theta \left(i\right),$ for $i=2,3,..,n$.
$\ \tilde{k}.\widetilde{\alpha }=\Theta ,$ but neither $\tilde{k}=\overline{0}$ nor $\widetilde{\alpha }=\Theta $.
A non-null soft subset $(W,A)$ of a soft vector space $G$ of $V$ over $K$, is a soft subspace of $G$ if and only if $\widetilde{\alpha },\ \widetilde{\beta }\widetilde{\in }(W,A)$ and $\tilde{k},\ \tilde{s}$ be soft scalars then $\tilde{k}.\widetilde{\alpha }+\tilde{s}.\ \widetilde{\beta }\widetilde{\in }(W,A)$.
**Proof.** Let $(W,A)$ be a soft vector sub space of $G$ of $V$ over $K$. Let $\widetilde{\alpha },\ \widetilde{\beta }\widetilde{\in }(W,A)$ and $\tilde{k},\ \tilde{s}$ be soft scalars, then
$\left(\tilde{k}.\widetilde{\alpha }+\tilde{s}.\ \widetilde{\beta }\right)\left(\lambda \right)=\tilde{k}\left(\lambda \right).\widetilde{\alpha }\left(\lambda \right)+\tilde{s}\left(\lambda \right).\widetilde{\beta }\left(\lambda \right)\in W\left(\lambda \right),\ \forall \lambda \in A.$ ($W\left(\lambda \right)$ is a vector subspace of $V$ for each $\lambda \in A,\ \tilde{k}\left(\lambda \right),\ \tilde{s}\left(\lambda \right)\in K$, $\widetilde{\alpha }\left(\lambda \right)+\widetilde{\beta }\left(\lambda \right)\in W\left(\lambda \right),\ \forall \lambda \in A.$) $$\ \tilde{k}.\widetilde{\alpha }+\tilde{s}.\ \widetilde{\beta }\widetilde{\in }\left(W,A\right).$$
Conversely, let the given condition be satisfied.
Then for all soft scalars $\tilde{k},\ \tilde{s}$ and soft vectors $\widetilde{\alpha },\ \widetilde{\beta }\widetilde{\in }\left(W,A\right),\ \tilde{k}.\widetilde{\alpha }+\tilde{s}.\ \widetilde{\beta }\widetilde{\in }\left(W,A\right).$
i.e., $\left(\tilde{k}.\widetilde{\alpha }+\tilde{s}.\ \widetilde{\beta }\right)\left(\lambda \right)\in W\left(\lambda \right),\ \forall \lambda \in A$, i.e., $\tilde{k}\left(\lambda \right).\widetilde{\alpha }\left(\lambda \right)+\tilde{s}\left(\lambda \right).\widetilde{\beta }\left(\lambda \right)\in W\left(\lambda \right),\ $
$\forall \lambda \in A$;
$\Rightarrow \ W\left(\lambda \right)$ is a vector subspace of $V$ for each $\lambda \in A.$ Also it is obvious that, $W\left(\lambda \right)\subset V\left(\lambda \right),\ \forall \lambda \in A.$
Hence, $(W,A)$ is a soft vector sub space of $G$ of $V$ over $K$.
Let $G$ be a soft vector space of $V$ over $K$. Let ${\widetilde{\alpha }}_1,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,\dots ,$
${\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\widetilde{\in }G.$ A soft vector $\widetilde{\beta }$ in $G$ is said to be a linear combination of the soft vectors ${\widetilde{\alpha }}_1,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n$ if $\widetilde{\beta }$ can be expressed as $\widetilde{\beta }={\tilde{c}}_1.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1+{\tilde{c}}_2.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2+..+{\tilde{c}}_n.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n,$ for some soft scalars ${\tilde{c}}_1,\ {\tilde{c}}_2,\ \dots ,{\tilde{c}}_n$.
Consider the soft vector space $G$ as Example \[ex424\].
Let ${\widetilde{\alpha }}_i=\left(1,1,..,0_{i-th},..,1\right)\in {{\mathcal R}}^n,i=1,2,3.$ Then ${\widetilde{\alpha }}_1+\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1+\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2+{\widetilde{\alpha }}_3,\ {\overline{2}.\widetilde{\alpha }}_1+\overline{5}.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2+{\widetilde{\alpha }}_3$ are linear combinations of ${\widetilde{\alpha }}_1,\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_3.$
A finite set of soft vectors $\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\}$ of a soft vector space $G$ is said to be linearly dependent in $G$ if there exists soft scalars ${\tilde{c}}_1,\ {\tilde{c}}_2,\ \dots ,{\tilde{c}}_n$ not all $\overline{0}$ such that
$$\label{eq426}
{\tilde{c}}_1.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1+{\tilde{c}}_2.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2+..+{\tilde{c}}_n.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n=\Theta$$
The set is said to be linearly independent in $G$ if the equality \[eq426\] is satisfied only when ${\tilde{c}}_1=\ {\tilde{c}}_2=\ \dots ={\tilde{c}}_n=\overline{0}$.
An arbitrary set $S$ of soft vectors of $G$ is said to be linearly dependent in $G$ if there exists a finite subset of $S$ which is linearly dependent in $G$.
A set of soft vectors which is not linearly dependent is said to be linearly independent.
A set $S=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\}$ of soft vectors in a soft vector space $G$ over $V$ is linearly independent if and only if the sets
$S\left(\lambda \right)=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left(\lambda \right),{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left(\lambda \right),\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left(\lambda \right)\}$ are linearly independent in $V,\forall \lambda \in A.$
**Proof.** Let $S$ be linearly independent. Then for any set of soft scalars ${\tilde{c}}_1,\ {\tilde{c}}_2,\ \dots ,{\tilde{c}}_n,$
$$\label{eq419}
{\tilde{c}}_1.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1+{\tilde{c}}_2.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2+..+{\tilde{c}}_n.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n=\Theta \Leftrightarrow {\tilde{c}}_1=\ {\tilde{c}}_2=\ \dots ={\tilde{c}}_n=\overline{0}.$$
Let ${\lambda }_0\in A,$ and $S\left({\lambda }_0\right)=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right),{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right),\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)\}.$ Let $c_1.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right)+c_2.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right)+..+c_n.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)=\theta $. Let us consider any set of soft scalars ${\tilde{c}}_1,\ {\tilde{c}}_2,\ \dots ,{\tilde{c}}_n,$ such that ${\tilde{c}}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right)=c_1,{\tilde{c}}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right){=c}_2..{\tilde{c}}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)=c_n;$ then since $S$ is linearly independent, from (\[eq419\]), it follows that,${\tilde{c}}_1=\ {\tilde{c}}_2=\ \dots ={\tilde{c}}_n=\overline{0}$. Hence ${\tilde{c}}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right)={\tilde{c}}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right)=\dots ={\tilde{c}}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)=0$ i.e., $c_1=c_2=\ \dots =c_n=0$. Hence $S\left({\lambda }_0\right)=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right),{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right),\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)\}$ is linearly independent in $V.$
Since ${\lambda }_0\in A,$ is arbitrary, it follows that $S\left(\lambda \right)=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left(\lambda \right),{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left(\lambda \right),\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left(\lambda \right)\},$ are linearly independent in $V,\forall \lambda \in A.$
Conversely let $S\left(\lambda \right)=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left(\lambda \right),{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left(\lambda \right),\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left(\lambda \right)\},\ $ be linearly independent in $V,\forall \lambda \in A.$
Let ${\tilde{c}}_1,\ {\tilde{c}}_2,\ \dots ,{\tilde{c}}_n$ be any set of soft scalars such that ${\tilde{c}}_1.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1+{\tilde{c}}_2.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2+..+{\tilde{c}}_n.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n=\Theta $.Then ${\tilde{c}}_1\left(\lambda \right).\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left(\lambda \right)+{\tilde{c}}_2\left(\lambda \right).\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left(\lambda \right)+..+{\tilde{c}}_n\left(\lambda \right).\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left(\lambda \right)=\theta \Rightarrow {\tilde{c}}_1\left(\lambda \right)=\ {\tilde{c}}_2\left(\lambda \right)=\ \dots ={\tilde{c}}_n\left(\lambda \right)=0,\ \forall \lambda \in A\Rightarrow {\tilde{c}}_1=\ {\tilde{c}}_2=\ \dots ={\tilde{c}}_n=\overline{0}$.
Hence $S=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\}$ is linearly independent.
A set $S=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\}$ of soft vectors in a soft vector space $G$ over $V$ is linearly dependent if and only if the sets
$S\left(\lambda \right)=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left(\lambda \right),{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left(\lambda \right),\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left(\lambda \right)\},\ $ are linearly dependent in $V$ for some $\lambda \in A$.
**Proof.** Let $S$ be linearly dependent. Then there is a set of soft scalars ${\tilde{c}}_1,\ {\tilde{c}}_2,\ \dots ,{\tilde{c}}_n,$ not all equal to $\overline{0}$ such that ${\tilde{c}}_1.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1+{\tilde{c}}_2.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2+..+{\tilde{c}}_n.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n=\Theta $. Then ${\tilde{c}}_1\left(\lambda \right).\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left(\lambda \right)+{\tilde{c}}_2\left(\lambda \right).\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left(\lambda \right)+..+{\tilde{c}}_n\left(\lambda \right).\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left(\lambda \right)=\theta $, $\forall \lambda \in A$ and there is at least one ${\lambda }_0\in A,$ such that ${\tilde{c}}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right),\ {\tilde{c}}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right),\dots .,{\tilde{c}}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)$ are not all zeros. Then ${\tilde{c}}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right).\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right)+{\tilde{c}}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right).\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right)+..+{\tilde{c}}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right).\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)=\theta $ and ${\tilde{c}}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right),\ {\tilde{c}}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right),\dots .,{\tilde{c}}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)$ are not all zeros. Proving that $S\left({\lambda }_0\right)=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right),{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right),\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)\}$ is linearly dependent.
Conversely let $S\left({\lambda }_0\right)=\{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right),{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right),\dots ,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)\},\ $ be linearly dependent for some ${\lambda }_0\in A$.. Then there is a set of scalars $c_1,c_2,\ \dots ,c_n$ not all zeros such that $c_1.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left({\lambda }_0\right)+c_2.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left({\lambda }_0\right)+..+c_n.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left({\lambda }_0\right)=\theta .$
Let ${\tilde{c}}_1,\ {\tilde{c}}_2,\ \dots ,{\tilde{c}}_n$ be a set of soft scalars such that${\tilde{c}}_i\left({\lambda }_0\right)=c_i,$ and ${\tilde{c}}_i\left(\lambda \right)=0$for $\lambda \in A\backslash \{{\lambda }_0\}$, for $i=1,2,\dots ,n.$ Then ${\tilde{c}}_1,\ {\tilde{c}}_2,\ \dots ,{\tilde{c}}_n,$ are not all equal to $\overline{0}$ and ${\tilde{c}}_1.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_1+{\tilde{c}}_2.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_2+..+{\tilde{c}}_n.\ {\widetilde{\alpha }}_n=\Theta $. Hence $S$ is linearly dependent.
Soft norm and soft normed linear spaces
=======================================
Let $X$ be a vector space over a field $K$,$X$ is also our initial universe set and $A$ be a non-empty set of parameters. Let $\check{X}$ be the absolute soft vector space i.e., $\check{X}\left(\lambda \right)=X$, $\forall \lambda \in A$. We use the notation $\tilde{x},\ \tilde{y},\ \tilde{z}$ to denote soft vectors of a soft vector space and $\tilde{r},\ \tilde{s},\ \tilde{t}$ to denote soft real numbers whereas $\overline{r},\ \overline{s},\ \overline{t}$ will denote a particular type of soft real numbers such that $\overline{r}\left(\lambda \right)=r,\ $ for all $\lambda \in A$ etc. For example $\overline{0}$ is the soft real number such that $\overline{0}\left(\lambda \right)=0,\ $ for all $\lambda \in A$. Note that, in general, $\tilde{r}$ is not related to $r$.
Definitions and examples of soft norm and soft normed linear spaces
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\check{X}$ be the absolute soft vector space i.e., $\check{X}\left(\lambda \right)=X$, $\forall \lambda \in A$. Then a mapping $\left\|.\right\|:SE(\check{X})\to {R\left(A\right)}^*$ is said to be a soft norm on the soft vector space $\check{X}$ if $\left\|.\right\|$ satisfies the following conditions:
- $\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\widetilde{\ge }\overline{0},\ $ for all $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$;
- $\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|=\overline{0}$ if and only if $\tilde{x}=\Theta ;$
- $\left\|\widetilde{\alpha }.\tilde{x}\right\|=|\widetilde{\alpha }|\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|$ for all $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$ and for every soft scalar $\widetilde{\alpha }$;
- For all $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X},\left\|\tilde{x}+\tilde{y}\right\|\widetilde{\le }\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|+\left\|\tilde{y}\right\|$.
The soft vector space $\check{X}$ with a soft norm $\left\|.\right\|$ on $\check{X}$ is said to be a soft normed linear space and is denoted by $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$ or $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|)$. (N1), (N2), (N3) and (N4) are said to be soft norm axioms.
\[ex411\] Let ${\mathcal R}(A)$ be the set of all soft real numbers. We define $\left\|.\right\|:{\mathcal R}(A)\to {{\mathcal R}\left(A\right)}^*$ ,by,
$\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|=|\tilde{x}|,\ $ for all $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }{\rm \ }{\mathcal R}{\rm (}A)$, where $|\tilde{x}|$ denotes the modulus of soft real numbers. Then $\left\|.\right\|$ satisfied all the soft norm axioms so, $\left\|.\right\|$ is a soft norm on ${\mathcal R}(A)$ and $({\mathcal R}(A),\left\|.\right\|,A)$ or${\rm (}{\mathcal R}{\rm (}A),\left\|.\right\|)$ is a soft normed linear space.
\[ex421\] Every parametrized family of crisp norms{${\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda }:\lambda \in A$} on a crisp vector space $X$ can be considered as a soft norm on the soft vector space $\check{X}$.
**Proof.** Let $\check{X}$ be the absolute soft vector space over a field $K$, $A$ be a non-empty set of parameters. Let {${\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda }:\lambda \in A$} be a family of crisp norms on the vector space $X$. Let $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$, then $\tilde{x}(\lambda )\in X$, for every $\lambda \in A$. Let us define a mapping $\left\|.\right\|:\check{X}\to {R\left(A\right)}^*$by $\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\left(\lambda \right)={\left\|\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda },\ \forall \lambda \in A,\ \forall \tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}.$
Then $\left\|.\right\|$ is a soft norm on $\check{X}$.
To verify it we now verify the conditions (N1), (N2), (N3) and (N4) for soft norm.
(N1). We have $\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\left(\lambda \right)={\left\|\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }\ge 0,\forall \lambda \in A,\ \forall \tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X},$
$\ \left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\widetilde{\ge }\overline{0},\ $ for all $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$.
(N2). $\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|=\Theta $
$\Longleftrightarrow \left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\left(\lambda \right)=\theta ,\ \forall \lambda \in A$
$\Longleftrightarrow {\left\|\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }=\theta ,\ \forall \lambda \in A$
$\Longleftrightarrow \tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)=\theta ,\ \forall \lambda \in A$
$\Longleftrightarrow \tilde{x}=\Theta $
Therefore (N2) is satisfied.
(N3). We have, $\left\|\alpha .\tilde{x}\right\|\left(\lambda \right)={\left\|\alpha .\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }$
$=\left|\alpha \right|{\left\|\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda },\ [$ because ${\left\|\alpha .\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }=|\alpha |{\left\|\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda },\ \forall \lambda \in A]$
$=(\left|\alpha \right|\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|)\left(\lambda \right),\ \forall \lambda \in A.$
$\ \left\|\alpha .\tilde{x}\right\|=\left|\alpha \right|\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|$, for all $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$ and for every scalar $\alpha \in K$.
(N4). For all $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X},$
$\left[\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|+\left\|\tilde{y}\right\|\right]\left(\lambda \right)=\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\left(\lambda \right)+\left\|\tilde{y}\right\|\left(\lambda \right)$
$={\left\|\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }+{\left\|\tilde{y}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }$
$\ge {\left\|\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)+\tilde{y}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }$, \[by the property of triangle inequality of ${\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda }$\]
$=\ \left\|\tilde{x}+\tilde{y}\right\|\left(\lambda \right), \forall \lambda \in A.$
Therefore $\ \left\|\tilde{x}\right\|+\left\|\tilde{y}\right\|\widetilde{\ge }\left\|\tilde{x}+\tilde{y}\right\|.$
Thus (N4) is satisfied.
$\ \left\|.\right\|$ is a soft norm on $\check{X}$ and consequently $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|)$) is a soft normed linear space.
Every crisp norm ${\left\|.\right\|}_X$ on a crisp vector space $X$ can be extended to a soft norm on the soft vector space $\check{X}$.
**Proof.** First we construct the absolute soft vector space $\check{X}$ using a non-empty set of parameters $A$.
Let us define a mapping $\left\|.\right\|:SE(\check{X})\to {R(A)}^*$ by $\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\left(\lambda \right)={\left\|\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_X,\forall \lambda \in A,\ \forall \tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}.$
Then using the same procedure as Example \[ex421\], it can be easily proved that $\left\|.\right\|$ is a soft norm on $\check{X}$.
This soft norm is generated using the crisp norm ${\left\|.\right\|}_X$ and it is said to be the soft norm generated by ${\left\|.\right\|}_X$.
[(Decomposition Theorem)]{} If a soft norm $\left\|.\right\|$ satisfies the condition
(N5). For $\xi \in X,$ and $\lambda \in A$, $\left\{\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\left(\lambda \right):\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)=\xi \right\}$ is a singleton set.
And if for each $\lambda \in A$, ${\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda }:X\to R^+$ be a mapping such that for each $\xi \in X,\ {\left\|\xi \right\|}_{\lambda }=\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\left(\lambda \right)$, where $\tilde{x}\ \widetilde{\in }\ \check{X}$ such that $\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)=\xi $. Then for each $\lambda \in A,$ ${\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda }$ is a norm on $X.$
**Proof.** Clearly ${\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda }:X\to R^+$ is a rule that assign a vector of $X$ to a non-negative crisp real number $\forall \lambda \in A.$ Now the well defined property of ${\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda }$ ,$\ \forall \lambda \in A$ is follows from the condition (N5) and the soft norm axioms gives the norm conditions of ${\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda }$ ,$\ \forall \lambda \in A$. Thus the soft norm satisfying (N5) gives a parameterized family of crisp norms. With this point of view, it also follows that, a soft norm, satisfying (N5) is a particular ‘soft mapping’ as defined by P. Majumdar, et al. in [@Pin1] where $\left\|.\right\|:A\to {{{\rm (}{\mathcal R}}^+)}^X$.
Let $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$ be a soft normed linear space. Let us define $d:\check{X}\times \check{X}\to {R\left(A\right)}^*$ by $d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)=\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|$, for all $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$. Then $d$ is a soft metric on $\check{X}$.
**Proof.** We have, (M1). $\ d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)=\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|\widetilde{\ge }\overline{0},\ $ for all $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$. \[using (N1)\]
(M2). $d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)=\ \overline{0}\Longleftrightarrow \left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|=\ \overline{0}\Longleftrightarrow \tilde{x}=\tilde{y}.$ \[using (N2)\]
(M3).$\ d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)=\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|=\left\|\tilde{y}-\tilde{x}\right\|=d\left(\tilde{y},\tilde{x}\right)$ for all $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$. \[using (N3)\]
(M4). $d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\right)+d\left(\tilde{y},\tilde{z}\right)=\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|+\left\|\tilde{y}-\tilde{z}\right\|\widetilde{\ge }\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{z}\right\|=\ d\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{z}\right).$ \[using (N4)\]
$\ \ d$ is a soft metric on $\check{X}$.$d$ is said to be the soft metric induced by the soft norm $\left\|.\right\|$. From the above proposition it also follows that every soft normed linear space is also a soft metric space.
[(Translation invariance)]{} A soft metric $d$ induced by a soft norm $\left\|.\right\|$ on a normed linear space $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|)$ satisfies
- $d\left(\tilde{x}+\tilde{a},\ \tilde{y}+\tilde{a}\right)=d(\tilde{x},\tilde{y});$
- $d\left(\widetilde{\alpha }.\tilde{x},\ \widetilde{\alpha }.\tilde{y}\right)=\left|\widetilde{\alpha }\right|d(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})$, for all $\tilde{x},\ \tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$ and for every soft scalar $\widetilde{\alpha }$.
**Proof.** We have, $d\left(\tilde{x}+\tilde{a},\ \tilde{y}+\tilde{a}\right)=\left\|(\tilde{x}+\tilde{a})-(\tilde{y}+\tilde{a})\right\|=\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|=\ d(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})$ and $$d\left(\widetilde{\alpha }.\tilde{x},\ \widetilde{\alpha }.\tilde{y}\right)=\left\|\widetilde{\alpha }.\tilde{x}-\widetilde{\alpha }.\tilde{y}\right\|=|\widetilde{\alpha }|\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|=\left|\widetilde{\alpha }\right|d(\tilde{x},\tilde{y}).$$
Let $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|)$ be a soft normed linear space and $(Y,A)$ be a non-null member of ${\mathcal S}(\check{X}).$ Then the mapping ${\left\|.\right\|}_Y:SE(Y,A)\to {{\mathcal R}(A)}^*$ given by ${\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|}_Y=\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|$ for all $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }(Y,A)$ is a soft norm on $(Y,A)$. This norm ${\left\|.\right\|}_Y$ is known as the relative norm induced on $(Y,A)$ by $\left\|.\right\|$. The soft normed linear space $(Y,{\left\|.\right\|}_Y,A)$ is called a normed subspace or simply a subspace of the soft normed linear space $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$.
Sequences and their convergence in soft normed linear spaces
------------------------------------------------------------
Let $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$ be a soft normed linear space and $\tilde{r}\tilde{>}\overline{0}$ be a soft real number. We define the followings;
$$\label{eq403}
B\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{r}\right)=\{\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}:\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|\tilde{<}\tilde{r}\}\subset SE(\check{X})$$
$$\label{eq404}
\overline{B}\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{r}\right)=\{\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}:\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|\widetilde{\le }\tilde{r}\}\subset SE(\check{X})$$
$$\label{eq405}
S\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{r}\right)=\{\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}:\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|=\tilde{r}\}\subset SE(\check{X})$$
$B\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{r}\right),\overline{B}\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{r}\right)$ and $S\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{r}\right)$ are respectively called an open ball, a closed ball and a sphere with centre at $\tilde{x}$ and radius $\tilde{r}$. $SS(B\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{r}\right)),SS(\overline{B}\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{r}\right))$ and $SS(S\left(\tilde{x},\tilde{r}\right))$ are respectively called a soft open ball, a soft closed ball and a soft sphere with centre at $\tilde{x}$ and radius $\tilde{r}$.
A sequence of soft elements $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ in a soft normed linear space $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$ is said to be convergent and converges to a soft element $\tilde{x}$ if $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right\|\to \overline{0}$ as $n\to \infty $.This means for every $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0}$, chosen arbitrarily, $\exists $ a natural number $N=N(\widetilde{\varepsilon })$, such that $\overline{0}\widetilde{\le }\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }$ , whenever $n>N$.
i.e., $n>N\Longrightarrow {\tilde{x}}_n\in B(\tilde{x},\ \widetilde{\varepsilon })$. We denote this by ${\tilde{x}}_n\to \tilde{x}$ as $n\to \infty $ or by ${\mathop{\lim }_{n\to \infty } {\tilde{x}}_n\ }=\tilde{x}$. $\tilde{x}$ is said to be the limit of the sequence ${\tilde{x}}_n$ as $n\to \infty $.
Let us consider the set ${\mathcal R}$ of all real numbers endowed with the usual norm $\left\|.\right\|$. Let $\left(\check{{\mathcal R}},\left\|.\right\|\right)$ or $(\check{{\mathcal R}},\left\|.\right\|,A)$ be the soft norm generated by the crisp norm $\left\|.\right\|,\ $ where $A$ is the non-empty set of parameters. Let $(Y,A)\widetilde{\subset }\check{{\mathcal R}}$ such that $Y\left(\lambda \right)=(0,1]$ in the real line, $\forall \lambda \in A$. Let us choose a sequence $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ of soft elements of $(Y,A)$ where ${\tilde{x}}_n\left(\lambda \right)=\frac{1}{n},\ \forall n\in {\mathcal N},\forall \lambda \in A.$ Then there is no $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }(Y,A)$ such that ${\tilde{x}}_n\to \tilde{x}$ in $(Y,{\left\|.\right\|}_Y,A)$. However the sequence $\{{\tilde{y}}_n\}$ of soft elements of $(Y,A)$ where ${\tilde{y}}_n\left(\lambda \right)=\frac{1}{2},\ \forall n\in {\mathcal N},\forall \lambda \in A$ is convergent in $(Y,\left\|.\right\|,A)$ and converges to $\overline{\frac{1}{2}}$.
Limit of a sequence in a soft normed linear space, if exists is unique.
**Proof.** If possible let there exists a sequence $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ of soft elements in a soft normed linear space $\left(\check{X},d\right)$ such that ${\mathop{\lim }_{n\to \infty } {\tilde{x}}_n\ }=\tilde{x}$, ${\mathop{\lim }_{n\to \infty } {\tilde{x}}_n\ }={\tilde{x}}^/$, where $\tilde{x}\ne {\tilde{x}}^/$. Then there is at least one $\lambda \in A$ such that
$\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}^/\right\|\left(\lambda \right)\ne 0$. We consider a positive real number ${\varepsilon }_{\lambda }$ satisfying $0<{\varepsilon }_{\lambda }<\frac{1}{2}\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}^/\right\|\left(\lambda \right)$. Let $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0}$ with $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\left(\lambda \right)={\varepsilon }_{\lambda }$.
Since ${\tilde{x}}_n\to \tilde{x}$, ${\tilde{x}}_n\to {\tilde{x}}^/$. Corresponding to $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0}$, $\exists $ natural numbers $N_1=N_1(\widetilde{\varepsilon })$, $N_2=N_2(\widetilde{\varepsilon })$ such that $n>N_1\Rightarrow {\tilde{x}}_n\in B(\tilde{x},\ \widetilde{\varepsilon })\Rightarrow \left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}^/\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }$
$\Rightarrow \left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}^/\right\|\left(\lambda \right)<{\varepsilon }_{\lambda }$, in particular.
Also, $\ n>N_2\Rightarrow {\tilde{x}}_n\in B({\tilde{x}}^/,\ \widetilde{\varepsilon })\Rightarrow \left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}^/\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }\Rightarrow \left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}^/\right\|\left(\lambda \right)<{\varepsilon }_{\lambda }$, in particular.
Hence for all $n>N=\max \{N_1,N_2\}$,
$\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}^/\right\|\left(\lambda \right)\le \ \left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right\|\left(\lambda \right)+\ \left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-{\tilde{x}}^/\right\|\left(\lambda \right)<2{\varepsilon }_{\lambda }$
So, ${\varepsilon }_{\lambda }>\frac{1}{2}\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}^/\right\|\left(\lambda \right)$. This contradicts our hypothesis.
Hence the result follows.
A sequence $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ of soft elements in $\left(\check{X},d\right)$ is said to be bounded if the set $\{\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-{\tilde{x}}_m\right\|;m,n\in N\}$ of soft real numbers is bounded, i.e.,$\exists \widetilde{M}\tilde{>}\overline{0}$ such that $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-{\tilde{x}}_m\right\|\widetilde{\le }\widetilde{M}$, $\forall m,n\in N$.
A sequence $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ of soft elements ina soft normed linear space
$(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$ is said to be a Cauchy sequence in $\check{X}$ if corresponding to every $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},\ \exists \ m\in N\ $ such that $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_j\right\|\widetilde{\le }\widetilde{\varepsilon }$, $\forall \ i,j\ge m$ i.e., $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_j\right\|\to \overline{0}$ as $i,j\to \infty $.
Every convergent sequence in a soft normed linear space is Cauchy and every Cauchy sequence is bounded.
**Proof.** Let $\left\{{\tilde{x}}_n\right\}$ be a convergent sequence of soft elements with limit $\tilde{x}$(say) in $\left(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|\right)$. Then corresponding to each $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},\ \exists \ m\in N\ $ such that ${\tilde{x}}_n\in B\left(\tilde{x},\ \frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2}\right)$ i.e., $\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}_n\right\|\widetilde{\le }\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2}$, $\forall n\ge m$.
Then for $i,j\ge m$, $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_j\right\|\widetilde{\le }\left\|{\tilde{x}}_i-\tilde{x}\right\|+\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}_j\right\|\tilde{<}\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2}+\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2}=\widetilde{\varepsilon }$. Hence $\left\{{\tilde{x}}_n\right\}$ is a Cauchy sequence.
Next let $\left\{{\tilde{x}}_n\right\}$ be a Cauchy sequence of soft elements in $\left(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|\right)$. Then $\exists \ m\in N$ such that $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_j\right\|\tilde{<}\overline{1}$, $\forall i,j\ge m$. Take $\tilde{M}$ with
$\tilde{M}\left(\lambda \right)={\mathop{\max }_{1\le i,j\le m} \left\{\left\|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_j\right\|\left(\lambda \right)\right\}\ },\ \forall \lambda \in A$. Then for $1\le i\le m$ and $j\ge m$, $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_j\right\|\widetilde{\le }\left\|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_m\right\|+\left\|{\tilde{x}}_m-{\tilde{x}}_j\right\|\tilde{<}\tilde{M}+\overline{1}$.
Thus, $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_j\right\|\tilde{<}\tilde{M}+\overline{1}$, $\forall i,j\in N$ and consequently the sequence is bounded.
A soft subset $(Y,A)$ with $Y(\lambda )\ne \emptyset $, $\forall \lambda \in A$, in a soft normed linear space $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$ is said to be bounded if $\exists $ a soft real number $\tilde{k}$ such that $\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\widetilde{\le }\tilde{k}$, $\forall \tilde{x}\in (Y,A)$.
Let $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$ be a soft normed linear space. Then $\check{X}$ is said to be complete if every Cauchy sequence in $\check{X}$ converges to a soft element of $\check{X}$ i.e., every complete soft normed linear space is called a soft Banach’s Space.
Let $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$ be a soft normed linear space. Then
- if ${\tilde{x}}_n\to \tilde{x}$ and ${\tilde{y}}_n\to \tilde{y}$ then ${\tilde{x}}_n+{\tilde{y}}_n\to \tilde{x}+\tilde{y}$.
- if ${\tilde{x}}_n\to \tilde{x}$ and ${\widetilde{\lambda }}_n\to \widetilde{\lambda }$ then ${\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n\to \widetilde{\lambda }.\tilde{x}$, where $\{{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n\}$ is a sequence of soft scalars.
- if $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ and $\{{\tilde{y}}_n\}$ are Cauchy sequences in $\check{X}$ and ${\{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence of soft scalars, then $\{{\tilde{x}}_n+{\tilde{y}}_n\}$ and ${\{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ are also Cauchy sequences in $\check{X}$.
**Proof.** (i) Since ${\tilde{x}}_n\to \tilde{x}$ and ${\tilde{y}}_n\to \tilde{y}$, for $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},\ \exists $ +ve integers $N_1,N_2$ such that $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right\|\tilde{<}\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2},\ \forall n\ge N_1$ and $\left\|{\tilde{y}}_n-\tilde{y}\right\|\tilde{<}\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2},\ \forall n\ge N_2.$ Let $N=\max \{N_1,N_2\}$, then both the above relations hold for $n\ge N$.
Then $\left\|{(\tilde{x}}_n+{\tilde{y}}_n)-(\tilde{x}+\tilde{y})\right\|=\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n+{\tilde{y}}_n-\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|\widetilde{\le }\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right\|+\left\|{\tilde{y}}_n-\tilde{y}\right\|\tilde{<}\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2}+\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2}=\widetilde{\varepsilon },\ \forall n\ge N$. $$\Longrightarrow {\tilde{x}}_n+{\tilde{y}}_n\to \tilde{x}+\tilde{y}.$$
\(ii) Since ${\tilde{x}}_n\to \tilde{x}$ and ${\lambda }_n\to \lambda $ we get, for $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},\ \exists $ +ve integers $N$ such that $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon },\ \forall n\ge N$.
Now, $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n\right\|=\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}+\tilde{x}\right\|\widetilde{\le }\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right\|+\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }+\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|,\ \forall n\ge N$.
$$\label{eq412}
\Longrightarrow \left\|{\tilde{x}}_n\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }+\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|,\ \forall n\ge N.$$
Thus the sequence $\{\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n\right\|\}$ is bounded.
Now, $\left\|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n-\widetilde{\lambda }.\tilde{x}\right\|=\left\|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n-\widetilde{\lambda }.{\tilde{x}}_n+\widetilde{\lambda }.{\tilde{x}}_n-\widetilde{\lambda }.\tilde{x}\right\|=\left\|{{\tilde{x}}_n(\widetilde{\lambda }}_n-\widetilde{\lambda })+\widetilde{\lambda}({\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x})\right\|$
$\widetilde{\le }\left\|{{\tilde{x}}_n(\widetilde{\lambda }}_n-\widetilde{\lambda })\right\|+\left\|\widetilde{\lambda }({\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x})\right\|$
$=\left|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n-\widetilde{\lambda }\right|\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n\right\|+\left|\widetilde{\lambda }\right|\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right| $
$$\label{eq413}
\Longrightarrow \left\|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n-\widetilde{\lambda }.\tilde{x}\right\|\widetilde{\le}\left|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n-\widetilde{\lambda }\right|\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n\right\|+\left|\widetilde{\lambda }\right|\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right|$$
Since ${\tilde{x}}_n\to \tilde{x}$ and ${\widetilde{\lambda }}_n\to \widetilde{\lambda }$ we get,$\left|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n-\widetilde{\lambda }\right|\to \overline{0}$ and $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-\tilde{x}\right\|\to \overline{0}$ as $n\to \infty $.
Now using (\[eq412\]) and (\[eq413\]) we get, $\left\|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n-\widetilde{\lambda }.\tilde{x}\right\|\to \overline{0}$ as $n\to \infty .$
Hence ${\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n\to \widetilde{\lambda }.\tilde{x}$.
\(iii) Let $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ and $\{{\tilde{y}}_n\}$ be Cauchy sequences in $\check{X}$, then for $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},\ \exists $ +ve integers $N_1,N_2$ such that
$\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-{\tilde{x}}_m\right\|\tilde{<}\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2},\ \forall \ m,n\ge N_1$ and $\left\|{\tilde{y}}_n-{\tilde{y}}_n\right\|\tilde{<}\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2},\ \forall \ m,n\ge N_2.$
Let $N=\max \{N_1,N_2\}$, then both the above relations hold for $m,n\ge N$.
Now, $\left\|{(\tilde{x}}_n+{\tilde{y}}_n)-{(\tilde{x}}_m+{\tilde{y}}_m)\right\|=\left\|{(\tilde{x}}_n-{\tilde{x}}_m)+({\tilde{y}}_n-{\tilde{y}}_m)\right\|$
$\widetilde{\le }\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-{\tilde{x}}_m\right\|+\left\|{\tilde{y}}_n-{\tilde{y}}_m\right\|\tilde{<}\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2}+\frac{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}{2}=\widetilde{\varepsilon },\ $
$\forall \ m,n\ge N$. $\Longrightarrow {\{\tilde{x}}_n+{\tilde{y}}_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequences in $\check{X}$.
Since ${\{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequences in $\check{X}$, for $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},\ \exists $ +ve integers $N$ such that $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n-{\tilde{x}}_m\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon },\ \forall \ m,n\ge N.$
Taking in particular $n=m+1$, $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_{m+1}\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon },\ \forall \ m,n\ge N,$ so $\{\left\|{\tilde{x}}_n\right\|\}$ is bounded. Now $\{{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n\}$ is bounded too.
Then, $\left\|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n-{\lambda }_m.{\tilde{x}}_m\right\|=\left\|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n-{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_m+{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_m-{\widetilde{\lambda }}_m.{\tilde{x}}_m\right\|$
$=\left\|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n{(\tilde{x}}_n-{\tilde{x}}_m)+{\tilde{x}}_m({\widetilde{\lambda }}_n-{\widetilde{\lambda }}_m)\right\|\widetilde{\le }\left|{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n\right|\left\|{(\tilde{x}}_n-{\tilde{x}}_m)\right\|+\left\|{\tilde{x}}_m\right\|\left|({\widetilde{\lambda }}_n-{\widetilde{\lambda }}_m)\right|\to \overline{0}$ as $n\to \infty $.
$\Longrightarrow \{{\widetilde{\lambda }}_n.{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ are also Cauchy sequences in $\check{X}$.
If $(M,A)$ is a soft subspace in a soft normed linear space $(\check{X},\left\|.\right\|,A)$, then the closure of $(M,A)$, $\overline{(M,A)}$ is also a soft subspace.
**Proof.** Let $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\overline{(M,A)}$, we must show that any linear combination of $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}$ belongs to $\overline{(M,A)}$. Since $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\overline{(M,A)}$, corresponding to $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0}$, there exists soft elements ${\tilde{x}}_1,{\tilde{y}}_1\widetilde{\in }\overline{(M,A)}$ such that $\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}_1\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon },\left\|\tilde{y}-{\tilde{y}}_1\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }.$
For soft scalars $\widetilde{\alpha },\widetilde{\beta }\tilde{>}\overline{0}$, $\left\|\left(\widetilde{\alpha }\tilde{x}+\widetilde{\beta }\tilde{y}\right)-(\widetilde{\alpha }{\tilde{x}}_1+\widetilde{\beta }{\tilde{y}}_1)\right\|$
$\widetilde \le \left|\widetilde{\alpha }\right|\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}_1\right\|+\left|\widetilde{\beta }\right|\left\|\tilde{y}-{\tilde{y}}_1\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }\left(\left|\widetilde{\alpha }\right|+\left|\widetilde{\beta }\right|\right)={\widetilde{\varepsilon }}^/$(say),
The above inequality shows that $\widetilde{\alpha }{\tilde{x}}_1+\widetilde{\beta }{\tilde{y}}_1$ belongs to the open ball $B(\widetilde{\alpha }\tilde{x}+\widetilde{\beta }\tilde{y},{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}^/)$. As $\widetilde{\alpha }{\tilde{x}}_1+\widetilde{\beta }{\tilde{y}}_1$ and ${\widetilde{\varepsilon }}^/\tilde{>}\overline{0}$ are arbitrary, it follows that $\widetilde{\alpha }\tilde{x}+\widetilde{\beta }\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\overline{(M,A)}$. Hence $\overline{(M,A)}$ is a soft subspace of $\check{X}$.
A soft linear space $\check{X}$ is said to be of finite dimensional if there is a finite set of linearly independent soft vectors in $\check{X}$ which also generates $\check{X}$.
\[lem410\] Let ${\tilde{x}}_1,{\tilde{x}}_2,\dots ..,{\tilde{x}}_n$ be a linearly independent set of soft vectors in a soft linear space $\check{X}.$ Then there is a soft real number $\tilde{c}\tilde{>}\overline{0}$ such that for every set of soft scalars ${\widetilde{\alpha }}_1,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,\dots ..,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n$ we have $$\left\|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1{\tilde{x}}_1+{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2{\tilde{x}}_2+\dots +{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n{\tilde{x}}_n\right\|\widetilde{\ge }\tilde{c}\left(\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\right|+\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\right|+\dots +\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\right|\right).$$
**Proof.** The theorem will be proved if we can prove $$\left\|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1{\tilde{x}}_1+{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2{\tilde{x}}_2+\dots +{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n{\tilde{x}}_n\right\|\left(\lambda \right)\ge \left[\tilde{c}\left(\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\right|+\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\right|+\dots +\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\right|\right)\right]\left(\lambda \right),\forall \lambda \in A.$$ i.e.,${\left\|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left(\lambda \right).{\tilde{x}}_1\left(\lambda \right)+{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left(\lambda \right).{\tilde{x}}_2\left(\lambda \right)+\dots +{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left(\lambda \right).{\tilde{x}}_n\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }$
$\ge \left[\tilde{c}\left(\lambda \right).\left(\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left(\lambda \right)\right|+\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left(\lambda \right)\right|+\dots +\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left(\lambda \right)\right|\right)\right],\forall \lambda \in A.$
Now, ${\tilde{x}}_1,{\tilde{x}}_2,\dots ..,{\tilde{x}}_n$ being soft vectors in $\check{X},{\tilde{x}}_1\left(\lambda \right),{\tilde{x}}_2\left(\lambda \right),\dots ..,{\tilde{x}}_n\left(\lambda \right)$ are vectors in $X$ and ${\widetilde{\alpha }}_1,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2,\dots ..,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n$ being soft scalars ${\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\left(\lambda \right),{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\left(\lambda \right),\dots ..,{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\left(\lambda \right)$ are scalars. Then using the property of normed linear space $(X,{\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda })$ we get a real number $c_{\lambda },$ such that the above relation holds for $\tilde{c}\left(\lambda \right)=c_{\lambda },\forall \lambda \in A.$
Every Cauchy sequence in ${\mathcal R}(A)$ with finite parametr set $A$ is convergent, i.e., the set of all soft real numbers with its usual modulus soft norm as defined in Example \[ex411\], with finite parametr set $A$, is a soft Banach space.
**Proof.** Let $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ be any arbitrary Cauchy sequence in ${\mathcal R}(A).$ Then corresponding to every $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},\ \exists \ m\in N\ $ such that $|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_j|\widetilde{\le }\widetilde{\varepsilon }$, $\forall \ i,j\ge m$ i.e.,$|{\tilde{x}}_i-{\tilde{x}}_j|\left(\lambda \right)\le \widetilde{\varepsilon }\left(\lambda \right)$, $\forall \ i,j\ge m$,$\ \forall \lambda \in A$ i.e.,$|{\tilde{x}}_i\left(\lambda \right)-{\tilde{x}}_j\left(\lambda \right)|\le \widetilde{\varepsilon }\left(\lambda \right)$, $\forall \ i,j\ge m$,$\ \forall \lambda \in A.$ Then $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\left(\lambda \right)\}$ is a Cauchy sequence of ordinary real numbers ${\mathcal R}$ for each $\lambda \in A.$ By the Completeness of ${\mathcal R}$ and finiteness of $A$, it follows that $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\left(\lambda \right)\}$ is convergent for each $\lambda \in A.$ Let ${\tilde{x}}_n\left(\lambda \right)\to x_{\lambda },$ for each $\lambda \in A.$ Consider the soft element $\tilde{x}$ defined by $\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)=x_{\lambda },$ for each $\lambda \in A.$ Then $\tilde{x}$ is a soft real number and it follows that the sequence $\{{\tilde{x}}_n\}$ of soft real numbers is convergent and it converges to the soft real number $\tilde{x}.$ Hence ${\mathcal R}(A)$ is a soft Banach space.
Every finite dimensional soft normed linear space over a finite parameter set $A$ is complete.
**Proof.** Let $\check{X}$ be a finite dimensional soft normed linear space over a finite parameter set $A$. Let $\{{\tilde{y}}_m\}$ be any arbitrary Cauchy sequence in $\check{X}.$ We show that $\{{\tilde{y}}_m\}$ converges to some soft element $\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}.$ Suppose that the dimension of $\check{X}$ is $n,$ and let $\{{\tilde{e}}_1,{\tilde{e}}_2,\dots ..,{\tilde{e}}_n\}$ be a basis for $\check{X}.$ Then each ${\tilde{y}}_m$ has a unique representation ${\tilde{y}}_m={{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1}^{(m)}{\tilde{e}}_1+{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2}^{(m)}{\tilde{e}}_2+\dots +{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n}^{(m)}{\tilde{e}}_n.$
Because $\{{\tilde{y}}_m\}$ is a Cauchy sequence, for $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0}$ arbitrary there exist a positive integer $N$ such that $\left\|{\tilde{y}}_m-{\tilde{y}}_r\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }$ for $m,r>N.$
From Lemma \[lem410\], it follows that there exists $\tilde{c}\tilde{>}\overline{0}$ such that
$\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\left\|{\tilde{y}}_m-{\tilde{y}}_r\right\|=\left\|\sum^n_{j=1}{({{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(m\right)}-{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{(r)}){\tilde{e}}_j}\right\|\widetilde{\ge }\tilde{c}\sum^n_{j=1}{\left|{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(m\right)}-{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(r\right)}\right|,}$ for $m,r>N.$
Consequently, $\left|{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(m\right)}-{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(r\right)}\right|\widetilde{\le }\sum^n_{j=1}{\left|{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(m\right)}-{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(r\right)}\right|}\tilde{<}{\widetilde{\varepsilon }}/{\tilde{c}}$
shows that each of the $n$ sequences $\left\{{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(m\right)}\right\}=\left\{{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(1\right)},{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(2\right)},{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(3\right)},\dots ..\right\},\ j=1,2,..,n$ is Cauchy in ${\mathcal R}(A)$ and $A$ is finite, converges to ${\widetilde{\alpha }}_j,$ (say), $j=1,2,\dots ,n.$
We now define the soft element $\tilde{y}={\widetilde{\alpha }}_1{\tilde{e}}_1+{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2{\tilde{e}}_2+\dots +{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n{\tilde{e}}_n$ which is clearly a soft element of $\check{X}.$ Moreover, since ${{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(m\right)}\to {\widetilde{\alpha }}_j$ as $m\to \infty $ and $j=1,2,\dots ,n;$ we have
$\left\|{\tilde{y}}_m-\tilde{y}\right\|=\left\|\sum^n_{j=1}{({{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(m\right)}-{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j){\tilde{e}}_j}\right\|\widetilde{\le }\sum^n_{j=1}{\left|{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j}^{\left(m\right)}-{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j\right|}$$\left\|{\tilde{e}}_j\right\|\to \overline{0}$ as $m\to \infty .$
i.e., ${\tilde{y}}_m\to \tilde{y}$ as $m\to \infty .$
Equivalent soft norms
---------------------
Let $\check{X}$ be a soft linear (vector) space. A soft norm ${\left\|.\right\|}_1$ on $\check{X}$ is said to be equivalent to a soft norm ${\left\|.\right\|}_2$ on $\check{X}$ if there are positive soft real numbers $\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{b}$ such that for all $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}$ we have
$$\label{eq431}
\tilde{a}{\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|}_2\widetilde{\le }{\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|}_1\widetilde{\le }\tilde{b}{\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|}_2$$
On a finite dimensional soft linear space $\check{X}$, any soft norm ${\left\|.\right\|}_1$ is equivalent to any other norm ${\left\|.\right\|}_2.$
**Proof.** Let $n$ be the dimension of $\check{X}$ and $\{{\tilde{e}}_1,{\tilde{e}}_2,\dots ..,{\tilde{e}}_n\}$ be a basis for $\check{X}.$ If $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\check{X},$ then $\tilde{x}$ has the representation $\tilde{x}={{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\tilde{e}}_1+{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\tilde{e}}_2+\dots .+{{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\tilde{e}}_n$.
By Lemma \[lem410\], there is a soft real number $\tilde{c}\tilde{>}\overline{0}$ such that,
${\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|}_1\widetilde{\ge }\tilde{c}\left(\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_1\right|+\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_2\right|+\dots +\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_n\right|\right)$.
If $\tilde{R}\left(\lambda \right)={\mathop{\max }_{j} \{{\left\|{\tilde{e}}_j\right\|}_2\ }\left(\lambda \right)\},\forall \lambda \in A.$ Then soft norm axioms give, $${\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|}_2\widetilde{\le }\sum^n_{j=1}{\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j\right|}{\left\|{\tilde{e}}_j\right\|}_2\widetilde{\le }\tilde{R}.\sum^n_{j=1}{\left|{\widetilde{\alpha }}_j\right|}\widetilde{\le }\left(\frac{\tilde{R}}{\tilde{c}}\right).{\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|}_1$$ or, $\left(\frac{\tilde{c}}{\tilde{R}}\right).{\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|}_2\widetilde{\le }{\left\|\tilde{x}\right\|}_1$
The other side inequality in (\[eq431\]) is obtained by interchanging the roles of ${\left\|.\right\|}_1$ and ${\left\|.\right\|}_2$ in the above argument.
[(Riesz’s Lemma)]{} Let $\tilde{L}$ be a proper soft closed subspace of a soft normed linear space $\check{X}$ satisfying (N5). Then for $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},\ $ there exists $\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}-\tilde{L}$ with $\left\|\tilde{y}\right\|=\overline{1}$ such that for all $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\tilde{L}$, the inequality $\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|\tilde{>}\overline{1}-\widetilde{\varepsilon }$ is satisfied.
**Proof.** Let $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},$ then $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\left(\lambda \right)={\varepsilon }_{\lambda }>0,\forall \lambda \in A.$
Also, since $\check{X}$ satisfies (N5),$\tilde{L}\left(\lambda \right)=L_{\lambda }$ is a proper closed subspace of the normed linear space $\check{X}\left(\lambda \right)=X,$ for each $\lambda \in A.$ Thus by Riesz’s Lemma for normed linear space $(X,{\left\|.\right\|}_{\lambda })$, there exists $\tilde{y}\left(\lambda \right)\in X-L_{\lambda }$ with ${\left\|\tilde{y}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }=1$ such that for all $\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)\in L_{\lambda }$ the inequality ${\left\|\tilde{x}\left(\lambda \right)-\tilde{y}\left(\lambda \right)\right\|}_{\lambda }>1-{\varepsilon }_{\lambda }$ is satisfied.
Then for $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},$ there exists $\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\check{X}-\tilde{L}$ with $\left\|\tilde{y}\right\|=\overline{1}$ such that for all $\tilde{x}\widetilde{\in }\tilde{L}$, the inequality $\left\|\tilde{x}-\tilde{y}\right\|\tilde{>}\overline{1}-\widetilde{\varepsilon }$ is satisfied.
Convex sets in soft normed linear spaces
----------------------------------------
Let $\check{X}$ be a soft normed linear space and ${\tilde{x}}_1,\ {\tilde{x}}_2\widetilde{\in }\check{X}.$ The set of all soft elements of the form $\tilde{y}=\tilde{t}{\tilde{x}}_1+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right){\tilde{x}}_2,$ where $\tilde{t}$ assumes all soft real numbers such that $\tilde{t}\left(\lambda \right)\in \left[0,\ 1\right],\ \forall \lambda \in A,$ is called the segment joining the soft elements ${\tilde{x}}_1$ and ${\tilde{x}}_2$. A soft set $\tilde{K}\widetilde{\subset }\check{X}$ is called convex if all segments joining any two soft elements of $\tilde{K}$ are contained in $\tilde{K}$. Clearly, every soft subspace $\tilde{M}$ of $\check{X}$ is a convex soft set.
A soft sphere in a soft normed linear space is a convex soft set.
**Proof.** We prove the theorem for a soft closed sphere. The proof for the soft open sphere is analogous. Let ${\tilde{x}}_1,\ {\tilde{x}}_2\widetilde{\in }SS\left(S(\tilde{a},\tilde{r})\right),$ so that $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_1-\tilde{a}\right\|\widetilde{\le }\tilde{r}$ and $\left\|{\tilde{x}}_2-\tilde{a}\right\|\widetilde{\le }\tilde{r}$. Let $\tilde{y}=\tilde{t}{\tilde{x}}_1+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right){\tilde{x}}_2,\ \tilde{t}\left(\lambda \right)\in \left[0,\ 1\right],\ \forall \lambda \in A.$ Then we have, $\left\|\tilde{y}-\tilde{a}\right\|=\left\|\tilde{t}{\tilde{x}}_1+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right){\tilde{x}}_2-\tilde{a}\right\|=\left\|\tilde{t}{\tilde{x}}_1+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right){\tilde{x}}_2-\tilde{t}\tilde{a}-\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\tilde{a}\right\|$
$=\left\|\tilde{t}{\tilde{x}}_1-\tilde{t}\tilde{a}\right\|+\left\|\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right){\tilde{x}}_2-\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\tilde{a}\right\|=\tilde{t}\left\|{\tilde{x}}_1-\tilde{a}\right\|+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\left\|{\tilde{x}}_2-\tilde{a}\right\|$
$\widetilde{\le }\tilde{t}\tilde{r}+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\tilde{r}=\tilde{r},$
So, $\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }SS\left(S(\tilde{a},\tilde{r})\right)$. This proves the theorem.
Let $\check{X}$ be a soft normed linear space and $\tilde{K}$ be a convex soft subset of $\check{X}$. Then the closure of $\tilde{K}$, $\overline{\tilde{K}}$ is convex.
**Proof.** Let $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\overline{\tilde{K}}$ and $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},$ there exists ${\tilde{x}}_1,{\tilde{y}}_1\widetilde{\in }\tilde{K}$ such that
$\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}_1\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon },\left\|\tilde{y}-{\tilde{y}}_1\right\|\tilde{<}\widetilde{\varepsilon }$.
Let $\tilde{t}\left(\lambda \right)\in \left[0,\ 1\right],\ \forall \lambda \in A.$ Then $\tilde{t}$ is a non-negative soft real number.
Then, $\left\|\tilde{t}\tilde{x}+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\tilde{y}-\left\{\tilde{t}{\tilde{x}}_1+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right){\tilde{y}}_1\right\}\right\|\widetilde{\le }\tilde{t}\left\|\tilde{x}-{\tilde{x}}_1\right\|+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\left\|\tilde{y}-{\tilde{y}}_1\right\|$
$\widetilde{\le }\tilde{t}\widetilde{\varepsilon }+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\widetilde{\varepsilon }=\widetilde{\varepsilon };$
Since $\tilde{K}$ is convex, $\tilde{t}{\tilde{x}}_1+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right){\tilde{y}}_1\widetilde{\in }\tilde{K}$ and because $\widetilde{\varepsilon }\tilde{>}\overline{0},$ is arbitrary,
$\tilde{t}\tilde{x}+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\overline{\tilde{K}}$. $\Rightarrow \overline{\tilde{K}}$ is convex.
The intersection of an arbitrary number of convex soft sets is a convex soft set.
**Proof.** Let $\tilde{M}=\bigcap_a{{\tilde{M}}_a}$, where each ${\tilde{M}}_a$ is a convex soft set. If $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\tilde{M}$, then $\tilde{x},\tilde{y}$ belongs to all ${\tilde{M}}_a$ and because each ${\tilde{M}}_a$ is a convex, $\tilde{t}\tilde{x}+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }{\tilde{M}}_a,\ $ where $\tilde{t}\left(\lambda \right)\in \left[0,\ 1\right],\ \forall \lambda \in A.$ So, $\tilde{t}\tilde{x}+\left(\overline{1}-\tilde{t}\right)\tilde{y}\widetilde{\in }\tilde{M}$ and $\tilde{M}$ is convex.
[30]{}
H. Aktas, N. Cagman, Soft sets and soft groups, Inform. Sci. 177 (2007) 2226 – 2735.
M.I. Ali, F. Feng, X. Liu, W.K. Min, M. Shabir, On some new operations in soft set theory, Comput. Math. Appl. 57 (2009) 1547 –1553.
D. Chen, The parametrization reduction of soft sets and its applications, Comput. Math. Appl. 49 (2005) 757 –763.
Sujoy Das, S.K. Samanta, Soft Real Sets, Soft Real Numbers and Their Properties, J. Fuzzy Math. 20 (3) (2012) 551-576.
Sujoy Das, S.K. Samanta, On Soft Complex Sets and Soft Complex Numbers, J. Fuzzy Math. 21 (1) (2013) 195-216.
Sujoy Das, S.K. Samanta, On Soft Metric Spaces, To be appeared in J. Fuzzy Math. 21 (3) (2013).
Sujoy Das, S.K. Samanta, Soft metric, Ann. Fuzzy Math. Inform. 6(1) (2013) 77-94.
F. Feng, Y. B. Jun, X. Zhao, Soft semirings, Comput. Math. Appl. 56 (2008) 2621 – 2628.
F. Feng, C. X. Li, B. Davvaz, M. I. Ali, Soft sets combined with fuzzy sets and rough sets: a tentative approach, Soft Computing 14 (2010) 8999 – 9911.
Y.B. Jun, Soft BCK/BCI – algebras, Comput. Math. Appl. 56 (2008) 1408 – 1413.
Y.B. Jun, C.H. Park, Applications of soft sets in ideal theory of BCK/BCI – algebras, Inform. Sci. 178 (2008) 2466 – 2475.
Z. Kong, L. Gao, L. Wong and S. Li, The normal parameter reduction of soft sets and its algorithm, Comput. Math. Appl. 56 (2008) 3029 – 3037.
P.K. Maji, R. Biswas, A. R. Roy, An application of soft sets in a decision making problem, Comput. Math. Appl. 44 (2002) 1077 –1083.
P.K. Maji, R. Biswas, A. R. Roy, Soft set theory, Comput. Math. Appl. 45 (2003) 555 –562.
P. Majumdar, S.K. Samanta, On soft mappings, Comput. Math. Appl. 60 (2010) 2666 –2672
D. Molodtsov, Soft set theory first results, Comput. Math. Appl. 37 (1999) 19 – 31.
D. Pie, D. Miao, From soft sets to information systems, Granular Computing, 2005, IEEE International Conference, Volume - 2. 617 – 622.
M. Shabir, M. Irfan Ali, Soft ideals and generalized fuzzy ideals in semigroups, New Math. Nat. Comput. 5 (2009) 599 – 615.
M. Shabir, M. Naz, On soft topological Spaces, Comput. Math. Appl. 61 (2011) 1786 –1799.
Y. Zou, Z. Xiao, Data analysis approaches of soft sets under incomplete information, Knowledge-Based Systems. 21 (2008) 941 – 945.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the effective resistance of small-world resistor networks. Utilizing recent analytic results for the propagator of the Edwards-Wilkinson process on small-world networks, we obtain the asymptotic behavior of the disorder-averaged two-point resistance in the large system-size limit. We find that the small-world structure suppresses large network resistances: both the average resistance and its standard deviation approaches a finite value in the large system-size limit for any non-zero density of random links. We also consider a scenario where the link conductance decays as a power of the length of the random links, $l^{-\alpha}$. In this case we find that the average effective system resistance diverges for any non-zero value of $\alpha$.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Applied Physics, and Astronomy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8$^{th}$ Street, Troy, NY 12180–3590, USA'
- 'Center for Non-linear Studies and Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA'
- 'Department of Physics, 617 Science and Research Blvd I, Univesity of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-5005, USA'
- 'Centre for Biomedical Engineering (CBME) and School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia'
author:
- 'G. Korniss'
- 'M.B. Hastings'
- 'K.E. Bassler'
- 'M.J. Berryman'
- 'B. Kozma'
- 'D. Abbott'
title: 'Scaling in Small-World Resistor Networks'
---
,
,
,
,
,
Small-world model , Resistor networks ,Scaling 89.75.Hc , 05.60.Cd
Resistor networks have been widely studied since the 70’s as models for conductivity problems and classical transport in disordered media [@Kirkpatrick71; @Kirkpatrick73; @DERRIDA82; @Harris86]. Related studies on fuse networks have been investigated on random percolating lattices with various applications to breakdown processes in condensed matter and materials systems, ranging from brittle fracture to dielectric breakdown [@Hansen91; @Herrmann_rev; @fuse1; @DUXBURY95; @fuse2].
Recent research on complex networks [@BarabREV; @MendesREV; @NEWMAN_SIAM] has turned to focus on dynamics on networks with applications to synchronization in natural and artificial systems [@Strogatz_review; @BARAHONA02; @LAI03; @MOTTER05; @GRIN05; @KORNISS03], and transport phenomena [@BARA03; @TORO04; @barrat; @LAI05]. Interesting recent studies have examined the tradeoffs between redundancy and pleiotropy [@Berryman04], and centralized versus decentralized design [@Ashton05], in complex networks. Finding the resistance between any two points on a complex network is tractable and builds upon early mesh-resistance techniques [@Aitchison]. Estimating the strength of collaborative ties between nodes in collaboration networks [@NEWMAN01] and quantifying the centrality of a node in weighted networks can also be modeled by resistor networks [@NEWMAN04]. While resistor networks have been employed to study and explore community structures in social networks [@NEWMAN04; @HUBER04; @NEWMAN05], they have not been investigated as prototypical models for transport phenomena in complex networks until very recently [@Lopez2005; @Rieger05]. The work by López et al. [@Lopez2005] revealed that in scale-free (SF) networks [@BarabREV; @Barab_sci] anomalous transport properties can emerge, displayed by the power-law tail of distribution of the network conductance.
Here we investigate the effective system resistance of small-world (SW) networks [@WATTS98; @WATTS99; @NEWMAN]. Our results, in part, are based on recent calculations [@KHK04; @KHK05; @KHK_SPIE_2005; @ee] of the disordered averaged propagator of the Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) [@EW] process extended to a SW network. The EW process on a network can be thought of in terms of a synchronization paradigm in a noisy environment. As a linear approximation, it also serves as the simplest model for generic causally-constrained queuing networks [@TORO_VIRTUAL], such as manufacturing supply chains, e-commerce based services facilitated by interconnected servers [@Dong2005], and certain distributed parallel schemes on computer networks [@KORNISS03; @KIRK2004]. In the context of the latter, it was shown [@KORNISS03] that when extending the original short-range connections to a SW-like network (essentially, by adding a small density of random links on top of a regular graph), the spread between completion times of tasks performed on different nodes of a computer network remains [*bounded*]{}, rather than diverging over time. Further, an infinitesimal extra “cost” is sufficient to achieve this reduction. An important measure of efficiency is the spread (or “width”) of task-completion landscapes in such processing networks (larger spread corresponds to longer delays and poorer efficiency). It is evident that this measure—the width of the EW landscape on a network—is identical to the average resistance (characterizing transport efficiency) of the same network. While this connection between the network propagator and the network resistance [@Kirkpatrick73; @WU2004; @Cserti2000], just like the one between random walks and network resistance [@Doyle; @Lovasz; @Redner], is well known, it has not been exploited to study transport efficiency of SW networks. Further, the connection between the average spread of an EW steady-state landscape and the resistance of the same network gives some insight in treating synchronization and transport efficiency on the same footing. Namely, understanding the effects of the SW links in suppressing the diverging long-wavelength modes of the network propagator, originally present in regular lattices.
Our main result is that in SW networks, the average system resistance becomes finite for an arbitrarily small density of random links, governed by the same behavior of the network propagator which is responsible for suppressing “rough” synchronization landscapes [@KORNISS03; @KHK04].
[*The Edwards-Wilkinson process on a network.—*]{}The EW process in a synchronization context on a network, is given by the Langevin equation $$\partial_{t} h_i = - \sum_{j=1}^{N} A_{ij}(h_i-h_j) +
\eta_{i}(t)\;,
\label{EW_ntwk}$$ where $h_{i}(t)$ is the general stochastic field variable on a node (such as fluctuations in the task-completion landscape in certain distributed parallel schemes on computer networks [@KORNISS03; @KHK04]) and $\eta_{i}(t)$ is a delta-correlated noise with zero mean and variance $\langle\eta_{i}(t)\eta_{j}(t')\rangle$$=$$2\delta_{ij}\delta(t-t')$. Here, $A_{ij}$$=$$A_{ji}$$>$$0$ is the effective coupling between the nodes ($A_{ii}$$\equiv$$0$). Defining the network Laplacian, $\Gamma_{ij}=\delta_{ij}\sum_{l}A_{il}-A_{ij}$, we can rewrite Eq. (\[EW\_ntwk\]) $$\partial_{t} h_i = - \sum_{j=1}^{N} \Gamma_{ij} h_j +
\eta_{i}(t)\;.
\label{EW_ntwk_gamma}$$ For the steady-state equal-time two-point correlation function one finds $$G_{ij} \equiv \langle(h_{i}-\bar{h})(h_{j}-\bar{h})\rangle =
\hat{\Gamma}^{-1}_{ij} =
\sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{\lambda_{k}}\psi_{ki}\psi_{kj} \;,
\label{corr_func}$$ where $\bar{h}=(1/N)\sum_{i=1}^{N}h_i$ and $\langle\ldots\rangle$ denotes an ensemble average over the noise in Eq. (\[EW\_ntwk\_gamma\]). Here, $\hat{\Gamma}^{-1}$ denotes the inverse of $\Gamma$ in the space orthogonal to the zero mode. Also, $\{\psi_{ki}\}_{i=1}^{N}$ and $\lambda_{k}$, $k=0,1,\dots,N-1$, denote the $k$th normalized eigenvectors and the corresponding eigenvalues, respectively. The $k=0$ index is reserved for the zero mode of the Laplacian on any network: all components are identical of this eigenvector and $\lambda_{0}=0$. The last form in Eq. (\[corr\_func\]) (the spectral decomposition of $\hat{\Gamma}^{-1}$) is useful for exact numerical diagonalization purposes. As one can see from Eq. (\[corr\_func\]), $G$ is the inverse of the coupling matrix $\Gamma$ in the space orthogonal to the zero mode of the Laplacian. In particular, the average spread or width in the synchronization landscape becomes $$\langle w^2 \rangle =
\left\langle\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(h_i-\bar{h})^2\right\rangle =
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} G_{ii} =
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{\lambda_{k}}\;.
\label{w2_def}$$ For large networked systems, the above observable is typically self-averaging $\langle w^2 \rangle\simeq[\langle w^2 \rangle]$, where $[\dots]$ denotes the average over the network disorder. Thus, if one is able to calculate the disorder-averaged propagator $[G_{ij}]$, it provides the scaling behavior of the average spread of the synchronization landscape in the limit of $N$$\to$$\infty$.
[*The two-point resistance of a network.—*]{}The stationary currents and voltages in any network of resistors are governed by Kirchhoff’s and Ohm’s laws $$\sum_{n}A_{mn}(V_m-V_n) = I_{m}\;,
\label{Kirchhoff}$$ where $A_{mn}$ is the conductance of the link between node $m$ and $n$, and $I_{m}$ is the [*net*]{} current flowing [*into*]{} the network at node $m$. Note that $I_{m}$ is zero, unless node $m$ is connected to an external terminal. Connecting the network to a “battery” with fixed voltage drop $V$ through nodes $i$ and $j$ as the input and output terminals, yields $$\sum_{n}\Gamma_{mn}V_n = I(\delta_{mi}-\delta_{mj}) \;,
\label{K2}$$ where $\Gamma_{mn}$ is the [*same*]{} network Laplacian as introduced earlier in the context of the EW process \[Eq. (\[EW\_ntwk\_gamma\])\], associating the link conductance with the coupling matrix there; $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta. Here, $I$ is the magnitude of the current entering and leaving the system at node $i$ and node $j$, respectively. Solving for the voltages is well defined in the subspace orthogonal to the zero-mode of the network Laplacian; the right-hand side vector of Eq. (\[K2\]) is in that subspace. Hence, introducing the voltages measured from the mean $\hat{V}_{m} = V_{m}-\bar{V}$, where $\bar{V}$$=$$(1/N)\sum_{m=1}^{N}V_m$, and employing $\hat{\Gamma}^{-1}$ one has $$\hat{V}_{m} =
\sum_{n} \hat{\Gamma}^{-1}_{mn} I_n =
\sum_{n} \hat{\Gamma}^{-1}_{mn}I(\delta_{ni}-\delta_{nj}) = I(G_{mi} - G_{mj})\;,
\label{voltage_solution1}$$ where $G$ is the same network propagator discussed in the previous section in the context of the EW process on networks \[Eq. (\[corr\_func\])\]. Applying the above equation to the voltage difference across node $i$ and node $j$ to which the battery is attached, one finds $$V = V_i-V_j=\hat{V}_i-\hat{V}_j = I \left( G_{ii} + G_{jj} -2G_{ij}\right) \;.
\label{voltage_solution2}$$ For the equivalent two-point resistance between node $i$ and $j$ one finally obtains $$R_{ij} \equiv \frac{V}{I} = G_{ii} + G_{jj} -2G_{ij} =
\sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{\lambda_{k}}(\psi_{ki}^2 + \psi_{kj}^2 - 2 \psi_{ki}\psi_{kj}) \;,
\label{R_solution}$$ where the last form in Eq. (\[R\_solution\]) is, again, useful for exact numerical diagonalization purposes. Looking at Eq. (\[R\_solution\]), one can realize that the two-point resistance of a network between node $i$ and $j$ is the same as the steady-state [*height-difference*]{} correlation function of the EW process on the network $$\langle (h_i-h_j)^2\rangle = G_{ii} + G_{jj} -2G_{ij} = R_{ij} \;.
\label{R_C}$$ The height-difference correlation function is a standard observable in surface-growth phenomena, extensively studied in the past two decades [@BARA95], so many of the answers for regular resistor networks can be obtained directly by looking at the equivalent EW model on a $d$-dimensional substrate. For example, in an infinite one-dimensional system, the resistance between two nodes, separated by a distance $|i-j|$, diverges with the separation as $R_{ij}=R(|i-j|)\simeq|i-j|$ [@WU2004; @Cserti2000; @BARA95]. Another trivial, but insightful, relationship between the EW process and the resistor network can be obtained by summing up Eq. (\[R\_C\]) over all $i\neq j$ pairs, yielding $$\bar{R} \equiv\frac{1}{N(N-1)}\sum_{i\neq j}R_{ij} = 2\langle w^2 \rangle \;,
\label{R_w2}$$ i.e., the average system resistance of a given network is twice the steady-state width of the EW process on the same network.
[*Effective Resistance of simple SW Networks.—*]{}First, we consider “simple” SW resistor networks, where the conductance of each link is identical, with unit value, for simplicity. When studying network-transport phenomena for systems where physical links are subject to strong cost and geometric constraints, this can be unrealistic and cost-prohibitive. For others, e.g., modeling information flow in social networks [@NEWMAN04; @HUBER04; @NEWMAN05; @TORO04a], this can be an acceptable starting point, since “long-range” connections do not necessarily degrade the information carrying capacity and the efficiency (e.g., influence) of that link. We start with a one-dimensional ring with $N$ nodes (i.e., impose periodic boundary conditions), and add a “random” link to each pair of nodes, independently for each pair, with probability $p/N$. In addition to the two nearest-neighbor connections, now each node, on average has $p$ random links, so $p$ is the density of random links. The resulting network is essentially an Erdős-Rényi (ER) network [@ER] on top of a one-dimensional graph. This SW construction slightly differs from the original Watts-Strogatz one [@WATTS98] where random links are introduced through “rewiring”. The resulting network, however, has the same universal properties in the small-$p$, large-$N$ limit [@NEWMAN_WATTS; @MONA], and is also more amenable to analytic approximations.
The coupling matrix for the [*differences*]{} of the relevant variables \[Eq. (\[EW\_ntwk\]) and (\[Kirchhoff\])\] then becomes $$A_{ij} = \delta_{i,j-1} + \delta_{i,j+1} + J_{ij}\;,
\label{A_sw_ntwk}$$ where the matrix elements $J_{ij}$ are quenched random variables; $J_{ij}$$=$$1$ with probability $p/N$ and $J_{ij}$$=$$0$ with probability $(1-p/N)$. The corresponding Laplacian then can be written as $$\Gamma_{ij}=2\delta_{i,j} - \delta_{i,j-1} - \delta_{i,j+1}
+ \delta_{ij}\sum_{l}J_{il}-J_{ij} \;.
\label{SWN_Laplacian}$$ Equations (\[A\_sw\_ntwk\]) and (\[SWN\_Laplacian\]), with $J_{ij}$ defined above, correspond to identical (unit) conductance for each existing connection in the resistor network. Our numerical scheme relied on the exact numerical diagonalization of the SW network Laplacian $\Gamma$ in Eq. (\[SWN\_Laplacian\]) [@numrec]. Our analytic results, asymptotically exact in the large system-size limit, are straightforward applications of those of the EW propagator on SW networks [@KHK04; @KHK05; @KHK_SPIE_2005; @ee].
Averaging over the network-disorder restores translational invariance, hence the disorder-averaged two-point function $[G_{ij}]=[G(|i-j|)]$ will only depend on the underlying Euclidean distance between the nodes. These correlation functions have been calculated using disorder-averaged self-consistent perturbation theory [@KHK04; @KHK05; @KHK_SPIE_2005; @ee]. For the disorder-averaged two-point function for small $p$ values, in the infinite system-size limit one finds [@KHK04; @KHK05; @KHK_SPIE_2005; @ee] $$[G(l)] \simeq \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\Sigma}}e^{-\sqrt{\Sigma} l} \;,
\label{G_l}$$ where $\Sigma\sim p^2$ is an effective mass generated by the random links for simple SW networks [@KHK04; @MONA]. Then, using Eq. (\[R\_solution\]), for the average resistance on a SW network between two nodes separated by a distance $l$, we obtain $$[R(l)] = 2\left([G(0)] -[G(l)]\right) \simeq
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Sigma}}\left(1-e^{-\sqrt{\Sigma} l}\right)
\;,
\label{R_l}$$ approaching a finite value in the limit of infinite separation, $\lim_{l\to\infty}[R(l)]=\Sigma^{-1/2} \sim p^{-1}$. In contrast, on a regular one-dimensional ring, the resistance between two nodes separated by a distance $l$ diverges in a power-law fashion, $R(l) \simeq l$, as can be seen by taking the $\Sigma$$\to$$0$ limit in Eq. (\[R\_l\]) or by direct calculations on regular lattices [@WU2004; @Cserti2000]. Further, the average resistance is [*finite*]{} for an arbitrarily small but non-zero $p$ in the limit of $N$$\to$$\infty$, $$\bar{R}\simeq [\bar{R}] = 2[\langle w^{2} \rangle]= 2[G(0)] \simeq
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Sigma}} \sim p^{-1}\;,
\label{R_avg}$$ in strong contrast with average resistance for a regular network diverging as $\bar{R}\simeq N/6$. Equations (\[R\_l\]) and (\[R\_avg\]) are the central results of our paper. They capture the average resistance between nodes separated by a distance $l$ and the average system resistance for SW networks with a small but non-zero density of random links, respectively. Results from exact numerical diagonalizations, shown in Fig. \[fig3\] and Fig. \[fig1\], up to systematic finite-size effects, agree very well with the above predictions.
In addition to the above asymptotic results, valid in the infinite system-size limit, we also constructed the scaling form, capturing the finite-size effects, e.g., for the average resistance [@KHK_SPIE_2005; @KHK_PREP]. From the above it is clear that in addition to the linear system size $N$, there is one other lengthscale in the problem for non-zero $p$ values, $\xi=1/\sqrt{\Sigma}\sim
p^{-1}$. This lengthscale is, in fact, the average distance between nodes which have random links emanating from them. For $p=0$ (the limit of a regular one-dimensional network) $[\bar{R}]\sim N$, while for $p\neq 0$, in the infinite system-size limit, it approaches a constant, $[\bar{R}] \simeq 1/\sqrt{\Sigma} =\xi \sim p^{-1}$ \[Fig. \[fig1\](a) and (b)\]. Thus, the finite-size behavior of the average resistance can be expressed as $$[\bar{R}] = N f(\xi/N)
\;,
\label{R_fss}$$ where $f(x)$ is a scaling function such that $$f(x) \sim \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
x & \mbox{if $x\ll 1$} \\
{\rm const.} & \mbox{if $x\gg 1$} \;.
\end{array} \right.
\label{f_fss}$$ The scaled numerical data, $[\bar{R}]/N$ vs $\xi/N$ \[Fig. \[fig2\]\], shows good collapse, as suggested by Eq. (\[R\_fss\]).
We also studied the probability distribution of the effective resistance of the network \[Fig. \[fig\_P\_R\]\]. The overall distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig\_P\_R\](a). Further, we constructed the distribution of the effective network resistance between two nodes separated by a distance $l$, $P(R|l)$ [@Harris86], indicating that they converge to a limit distribution for $l$$\to$$\infty$ \[Fig. \[fig\_P\_R\](b) and (c)\]. These results imply that for SW networks, [*both*]{} small and large effective resistance values are strongly (at least exponentially) suppressed about the average. This is in strong contrast with the behavior of SF resistor networks [@Lopez2005], where large resistance values are strongly suppressed, but the probability of small values decays only in a power-law fashion; hence a power-law tail in the conductance distribution occurs for large $g$$\equiv$$1/R$ values. This finding for SF networks implies [@Lopez2005], that there exist a few nodes (“hubs”) in the system that, if selected as the input and output nodes, can support anomalously large transport through the network. This phenomenon is absent (as one can expect) in SW networks, just like in completely random (ER) networks [@Lopez2005] related to the exponential tail of the degree distributions of these networks. In Fig. \[fig\_BA\] we compare the conductance distributions for the SW and the Barabási-Albert (BA) [@Barab_sci; @BA_m] SF network, with the same average degree and uniform link conductance. At this point we note that while anomalously large conductances are absent in SW networks, they are more efficient, on average, in supporting transport between two arbitrary pairs of nodes, i.e., $[R]_{SW} <
[R]_{SF}$, and $[g]_{SW} > [g]_{SF}$. In comparison, for the two networks shown in Fig. \[fig\_BA\] with the same average degree and uniform link conductance, the average network resistance and conductance values are $[R]_{SW}\simeq 0.472$, $[R]_{SF}\simeq 0.572$, and $[g]_{SW}\simeq
2.28$, $[g]_{SF}\simeq 1.93$, respectively. In real-life complex networks with SF structure, however, the link conductances are typically [*weighted*]{} [@barrat], ultimately leading to better performance for SF networks [@Lopez2005].
[*Effective Resistance of SW Networks with Distance-Dependent Conductances.—*]{}Now we consider the more general case where the conductances of the random (possibly long-range) links decay with the underlying spatial distance between the nodes they connect in a power-law fashion: $J_{ij}=1/|i-j|^{\alpha}$ with probability $p/N$ and $J_{ij}$$=$$0$ with probability $(1-p/N)$ in Eq. (\[A\_sw\_ntwk\]). Keeping the density of the random links, $p$, fixed (at a non-zero value) and taking the large system-size limit, corresponds to the limit of fixed density of weak links at large scales. Then one can argue that, to leading order, mean-field scaling holds [@KHK05; @KHK_SPIE_2005; @ee; @KHK_PREP; @mft]. Focusing on the $0$$\leq$$\alpha$$\leq$$1$ regime, we find that the average link strength, decaying as $[J_{ij}]=(p/N)|i-j|^{-\alpha}$, gives rise to a system-size dependent effective mass $\Sigma_{N}\simeq (N/2)^{-\alpha}p/(1-\alpha)$ and consequently $$[\bar{R}]\simeq \Sigma_{N}^{-1/2}\sim N^{\alpha/2} \;.
\label{R_alpha_N}$$ Thus, the average system resistance diverges with the system size for an arbitrarily small but nonzero value of $\alpha$. Figure \[fig4\] supports this picture, but also indicates that corrections beyond the mean-field approximation are important and noticeable for the range of system-sizes that were accessible via numerical methods. In fact, an analysis of the naive perturbative approach [@KHK05] reveals that although higher-order corrections are becoming progressively smaller as $N$ increases, their prefactor is singular for certain values of $\alpha$ [@KHK_PREP]. Given these subtleties, the deviations \[Figure \[fig4\]\] from the predicted asymptotic scaling Eq. (\[R\_alpha\_N\]) are reasonable.
For the interested reader, familiar with the diagrammatics of [@KHK04], we present a brief analysis of the higher order corrections. The mean-field gives a self-energy of order $N^{-\alpha}$. There are some corrections for finite $N$ to Eq. (\[R\_l\]), but the most important higher-order ones (higher order in powers of $N^{-1}$ compared to the mean-field) are corrections to the self-energy. The leading order correction to the mean-field involves diagrams in which a single link appears twice; these diagrams involve summing over the length of the link and are mulitplied by the strength of the link [*squared*]{}: $|i-j|^{-2\alpha}$. For $\alpha$$<$$1/2$, this sum diverges for large $N$ and gives rise to corrections to the mean-field $\Sigma$, so that $\Sigma_0=p(N/2)^{-\alpha}/(1-\alpha)$ is the mean-field value and the leading correction is $\Sigma=
p(N/2)^{-\alpha}/(1-\alpha)-p
[(N/2)^{-2\alpha}/(1-2\alpha)]/\sqrt{\Sigma_0}+\ldots$. Using this correction to $\Sigma$, the corrections to the resistance are of order $N^0$, and thus for $\alpha$$<$$1/2$ may be significant compared to the value in Eq. (\[R\_alpha\_N\]). The coefficient of these corrections becomes singular at $\alpha$$=$$1/2$ and for $\alpha$$\geq$$1/2$, the self-energy $\Sigma$ becomes non-local and acquires a momentum dependence, which may be shown to change the form of the higher-order corrections.
Also note that this behavior is very different from that of the case where the strength (conductance) of the random links is uniform, but the probability of connecting two nodes, separated by a distance $l$, decays as $l^{-\alpha}$ [@KHK05; @KHK_SPIE_2005; @JB00]. There exists a [*finite*]{} region, $0$$<$$\alpha$$<$$2$, where the propagator, hence in the context of this paper, the average system resistance, remains finite in the limit of $N$$\to$$\infty$. In the present case, where the link-length distribution is uniform, but the link strength decays as $l^{-\alpha}$, the average system resistance is finite [*only*]{} for $\alpha$$=$$0$.
This contrasting behavior between the two different “$l^{-\alpha}$” implementations of the random links (strength vs probability) is in accord with recent studies on phase transition [*on*]{} SW networks. Interacting systems often exhibit mean-field-like phase transitions [@mft; @SCALETT; @BARRAT; @GITTERMAN; @xy_sw; @ising_sw; @HERRERO02; @MARK], even for an arbitrarily small but nonzero density of random links added to a one-dimensional regular graph. However, in the case of the strength of the random links decaying in the above $l^{-\alpha}$ fashion, for the Ising model on SW networks, it was shown [@JONG2003] that no phase transition occurs at any finite temperature for any nonzero $\alpha$.
[*Summary and Outlook.—*]{}We obtained the scaling behavior of the effective resistance of SW networks. For uniform link conductances, we found that for an arbitrary small density of random links, the average system resistance is finite, and the two-point resistance, as function of the distance between the nodes, saturates exponentially fast to the same finite value. When the link conductance decays with the distance as $l^{-\alpha}$, the average network resistance diverges with the number of nodes as $N^{\alpha/2}$.
Ultimately, one is interested not only in the global transport or flow characteristics of the network, but also in their effect on the local “components”, capacity limitations, and possible global network failures. In the context of resistor networks, the question of voltage landscapes in the network, or more specifically, the voltage-drop distribution across the links, can be addressed. Such a study can reveal the most vulnerable links/connections to be “blown” when increasing the overall load in the network. In particular, studying the properties of the extreme (largest) voltage-drops across the links in the network carries information on the weakest links of the network, and in turn, provides solutions from a system-design viewpoint. Fuse networks have been intensively studied on random percolating lattices with various applications to breakdown processes in condensed matter and materials systems, ranging from brittle fracture to dielectric breakdown [@Hansen91; @Herrmann_rev; @fuse1; @DUXBURY95; @fuse2]. Future work will address these questions from a general complex network vulnerability viewpoint [@BarabERROR; @Havlin00; @Havlin01].
[*Acknowledgments.—*]{}GK and BK were supported by NSF Grant No. DMR-0426488 and the Research Corporation, MJB and DA by the Australian Research Council (ARC), MBH by US DOE W-7405-ENG-36, and KEB by NSF Grant No. DMR-0427538 and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
[00]{}
S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**27**]{}, 1722 (1971).
S. Kirkpatrick, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**45**]{}, 574 (1973).
B. Derrida and J. Vannimenus, J. Phys. A [**15**]{}, L557-L564 (1982).
A. B. Harris and T. C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 6964 (1987).
A. Hansen and E.L. Hinrichsen, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 665 (1991).
edited by H.J. Herrmann and S. Roux (Elsevier, Amsterdam,, 1990).
L. de Arcangelis, S. Redner, and H.J. Herrmann, J. de Physique [**46**]{}, L585 (1985).
P.M. Duxbury, P.D. Beale, and C. Moukarzel, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 3476–3488 (1995).
G.G. Batrouni, A. Hansen and G.H. Ristow, J. Phys. A 27, 1363 (1994).
R. Albert and A.-L. Barabási, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, 47 (2002).
S.N. Dorogovtsev and J.F.F. Mendes, Adv. in Phys. [**51**]{}, 1079 (2002).
M.E.J. Newman, SIAM Review [**45**]{}, 167 (2003).
S.H. Strogatz, Nature [**410**]{}, 268 (2001).
M. Barahona and L.M. Pecora, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 054101 (2002).
T. Nishikawa, A.E. Motter, Y.-C. Lai, and F.C. Hoppensteadt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 014101 (2003).
A.E. Motter, C. Zhou, and J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. E. [**71**]{}, 016116 (2005).
G. Grinstein and R. Linsker, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**102**]{}, 9948 (2005).
G. Korniss, M.A. Novotny, H. Guclu, and Z. Toroczkai, P.A. Rikvold, Science [**299**]{}, 677 (2003).
M. Argollo de Menezes and A.-L. Barabási, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{} 028701 (2004).
Z. Toroczkai and K. Bassler, Nature [**428**]{}, 716 (2004).
A. Barrat, M. Barthelemy, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**101**]{}, 3747 (2004).
K. Park, Y.-C. Lai, L. Zhao, and N. Ye, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 065105(R) (2005).
M.J. Berryman, A. Allison, and D. Abbott, in [*Noise in Communication*]{}, edited by L.B. White, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5473 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2004) pp.122–130.
D.J. Ashton, T.C. Jarrett, and N.F. Johnson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 058701 (2005).
R. E. Aitchison, Am. J. Phys. [**32**]{}, 566 (1964).
M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, 016132 (2001).
M.E.J. Newman and M. Girvan, Phys. Rev. E [**69**]{}, 026113 (2004).
F. Wu and B.A. Huberman, Eur. Phys. J. B. [**38**]{}, 331 (2004).
M.E.J. Newman, Social Networks [**27**]{}, 39 (2005).
E. López, S.V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, and H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 248701 (2005).
D.-S. Lee, H. Rieger, arXiv:cond-mat/0503008 (2005);
A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert, Science [**286**]{}, 509 (1999).
D.J. Watts and S.H. Strogatz, Nature [**393**]{}, 440 (1998).
D.J. Watts, Am. J. Soc. [**105**]{}, 493 (1999).
M.E.J. Newman, J. Stat. Phys. [**101**]{}, 819 (2000).
B. Kozma, M. B. Hastings, and G. Korniss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 108701 (2004).
B. Kozma, M. B. Hastings, and G. Korniss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 018701 (2005).
B. Kozma, M.B. Hastings, and G. Korniss, in [*Noise in Complex Systems and Stochastic Dynamics III*]{}, edited by L.B. Kish, K. Lindenberg, Z. Gingl, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5845 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2005) pp.130–138.
M. B. Hastings, Eur. Phys. J. B [**42**]{}, 297 (2004).
S.F. Edwards and D.R. Wilkinson, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser A [**381**]{}, 17 (1982).
Z. Toroczkai, G. Korniss, M. A. Novotny, and H. Guclu, in [*Computational Complexity and Statistical Physics*]{}, edited by A. Percus, G. Istrate, and C. Moore, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity Series (Oxford University Press, 2005, in press); arXiv:cond-mat/0304617.
A. Nagurney, J. Cruz, J. Dong, and D. Zhang, Eur. J. Oper. Res. [**26**]{}, 120 (2005).
S. Kirkpatrick, Science [**299**]{}, 668 (2003).
F.Y. Wu, J. Phys. A [**37**]{}, 6653 (2004).
J. Cserti, Am. J. Phys. [**68**]{}, 896 (2000).
P.G. Doyle and J.L. Snell, [*Random Walks and Electric Networks*]{}, Carus Mathematical Monograph Series Vol. 22 (The Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1984), pp. 83–149; arXive: math.PR/0001057.
L. Lovász, [*Random Walks on Graphs: A Survey in Combinatorics*]{}, Paul Erdős is Eighty Vol. 2, edited by D. Miklós, V.T. Sós, and T. Szőnyi (János Bolyai Mathematical Society, Budapest, 1996), pp. 353-398; http://research.microsoft.com/users/lovasz/erdos.ps.
S. Redner, [*A Guide to First-Passage Processes*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001).
A.-L. Barab[á]{}si and H.E. Stanley, [*Fractal Concepts in Surface Growth*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
M. Anghel, Z. Toroczkai, K.E. Bassler, and G. Korniss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 058701 (2004).
P. Erdős and A. Rényi, Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. [**5**]{}, 17 (1960).
M.E.J. Newman and D.J. Watts, Phys. Lett. A [**263**]{}, 341 (1999).
R. Monasson, Eur. Phys. J. B [**12**]{}, 555 (1999).
W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, B.P. Flannery, [*Numerical Recipes in C*]{}, 2nd ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995), Secs. 11.2 and 11.3.
B. Kozma, M.B. Hastings, and G. Korniss, in preparation.
For the BA scale-free model [@Barab_sci] (growth and preferential attachment), each new node is connected to the network with $m$ links, resulting in an average degree of $2m$ in the large-$N$ limit.
M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 098701 (2003).
S. Jespersen and A. Blumen, Phys. Rev. E [**62**]{}, 6270 (2000).
R. T. Scalettar, [*Physica A*]{} [**170**]{}, 282 (1991).
A. Barrat and M. Weigt, Eur. Phys. J. B [**13**]{}, 547 (2000).
M. Gitterman, J. Phys. A [**33**]{}, 8373 (2000).
B.J. Kim, H. Hong, P. Holme, G.S. Jeon, P. Minnhagen, and M.Y. Choi, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, 056135 (2001).
H. Hong, B.J. Kim, and M.Y. Choi, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 018101 (2002).
C. P. Herrero, Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{}, (2002) 066110.
M.A. Novotny and S.M. Wheeler, Braz. J. Phys. [**34**]{} 395 (2004);
D. Jeong, H. Hong, B.J. Kim, and M.Y. Choi, Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 027101 (2003).
R. Albert. H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabási, Nature [**406**]{}, 378 (2000).
R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4626 (2000).
R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 3682 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We calculate the Mellin moments of the next-to-next-to leading order coefficient functions for the Drell–Yan and Higgs production cross sections. The results can be expressed in terms of multiple finite harmonic sums of maximal weight [w = 4]{}. Using algebraic and structural relations between harmonic sums one finds that besides the single harmonic sums only five basic sums and their derivatives w.r.t. the summation index contribute. This representation reduces the large complexity being present in $x$–space calculations and is well suited for fast numerical implementations.'
---
DESY 05–002\
SFB/CPP–05–02\
January 2005
[**Mellin Moments of the Next-to-next-to Leading Order**]{}
Johannes Blümlein$^a$ and Vajravelu Ravindran$^{a,b}$\
\
\
Introduction
============
The [Principle of Simplicity]{} [^1] is one of the guiding principles in physics [@OCCAM]. Whenever possible one seeks for as simple as possible expressions, not only to obtain the result in a more compact form, but also to reveal the basic structures behind. This applies also to complex computations in particle physics. Without achieving suitable simplifications it is often impossible to undertake even more involved calculations, such as one order higher in the coupling constant in perturbation theory.
In the present paper we seek for a simplification of the 2–loop coefficient functions for the Drell–Yan (DY) process both for unpolarized and polarized nucleons, and associated to it, to those for hadronic scalar and pseudo–scalar Higgs boson production in the heavy–mass limit. [^2] The pioneering 2–loop calculations[^3] in this field [@DY; @HGS] were carried out during the last 15 years and paved the way to understand single–scale quantities in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), beyond the level of the pole terms. They form one of the milestone in the history of QCD. The calculations were performed in $x$–space using the QCD–improved parton model. Here $x$ denotes the fraction of the momentum of a radiated particle to that of the source particle. For the representation of the Wilson coefficients a set of up to 77 functions is needed, not counting those, which lead structurally to the same Mellin transform [@JK].
With the present collider Tevatron [@TEV] and the upcoming large hadron collider, LHC [@LHC], at CERN, the need for precise predictions from theory has become more and more important. These experiments are aimed at not only to discover new particles but also to measure various parameters of the Standard Model at higher precision to confirm the predictions of the theory. The Higgs boson of the Standard Model has yet to be discovered at these machines. Needless to mention that one also hopes to discover various new particles predicted in scenarios beyond the Standard Model, as for example supersymmetric particles or leptoquarks. The measurement of the masses and couplings of newly discovered particles likewise the known particles require the precise knowledge of the QCD corrections.
On the theoretical side the relevant observables have to be calculated at high accuracy. The QCD corrections have a considerable impact both in the discovery channels as well as for the precision measurements. Theoretical uncertainties emerge from ultraviolet (UV) renormalization and mass factorization scale dependence. These uncertainties can only be diminished extending the calculations to higher orders.
In the differential and total production cross sections for the Drell–Yan process as well as for Higgs production at hadron colliders the UV–renormalization scale dependence is due to the strong coupling constant. On the other hand, processes like Higgs production are associated to heavy quark final states such as $t \bar t,b\bar b$, or inclusive heavy quark productions. They receive a UV–renormalization scale dependence also from heavy quark mass effects.
A second source of uncertainty is due to mass factorization. Both the partonic cross sections and the non–perturbative parton densities depend on the factorization scale. Since the partonic cross sections are computable order by order in perturbation theory, their dependence on the factorization scale is known completely. Similarly, one can fully determine the factorization scale dependence of the parton densities through solving the associated renormalization group equations (RGE) which govern their evolution. To diminish both effects significantly usually next-to-next-to leading order (NNLO) QCD–corrections have to be performed.
In recent years, there have been several significant developments in achieving very precise theoretical results to match with the accuracy of the experiments. With the advent of the NNLO non–singlet and singlet anomalous dimensions [@anNNLO] NNLO predictions for the Drell–Yan [@DY] and Higgs–production cross sections [@HGS] are possible. To get some feeling for the theoretical uncertainty coming from the scale–dependence we consider the following two processes: the total Higgs production cross section and the cross section for Higgs production associated with a top anti-top quark pair. The total Higgs production cross section is one of the most important processes at LHC from the discovery point of view. This production cross section receives dominant contributions from gluon–gluon fusion through the top quark loop. Since the leading order correction is of $O(\alpha_s^2)$ and also involves two gluon densities in the initial state, the NLO correction is inevitable to reduce the scale uncertainty. Unfortunately the NLO correction is about $80-100\%$ larger than the LO correction, casting doubt on the reliability of perturbation theory. Interestingly, the NNLO corrections to the process not only give smaller contributions but also reduce the scale uncertainty significantly, which improves the stability of the perturbative result. Similarly, Higgs production associated with a top anti–top pair suffers from huge scale uncertainties of the order of $100-200\%$ at the LO level. The NLO correction stabilizes the result significantly. The Drell–Yan cross section, which is known upto NNLO [@DY], not only tests the reliability of perturbative QCD but also reduces the uncertainties coming from theory in order to make background studies more reliable for new particle searches and physics beyond the Standard Model.
The NLO and NNLO results are technically complicated and they result in large expressions involving a large number of functions. For example the perturbativly computable coefficient functions at NNLO for the Drell–Yan or Higgs total cross section depend on nearly 80 individual functions. These belong to the class of Nielsen integrals [@nielsen] with a variety of partly complicated arguments and products with logarithms or the weights $1/(1\pm x)$. For the physical cross sections these are convoluted with the respective evolved NNLO parton densities. Since the different sets of parton density are usually available in form of numerical codes, the Mellin convolution is done performing the respective integrals numerically. Because of the complexity of the expressions involved, the numerical computations are usually slow.
We will discuss here an alternative method which is faster to compute the cross sections. It involves the use of the Mellin transformation technique both for the Wilson coefficients and the parton densities. The evolution equations of the parton densities can be solved analytically in Mellin–space. If the respective Wilson coefficients are also known in Mellin–space one may calculate the cross sections by a single numerical integral around the singularities of the product of both in the complex plane. This requires the Mellin–representation of the Wilson coefficients in the variable $N$ and their analytic continuation to complex values of $N$ [@JB3].[^4] For integer values of $N$ the Mellin transformation of the Wilson coefficients leads to finite harmonic sums [@JK; @JVE]. We use various algebraic relations between these sums [@JK; @euler; @GIRG; @JB1] to simplify the expressions. Furthermore, structural relations between the Mellin transforms [@JB04] are used to reduce the number of basic functions further. The use of finite harmonic leads to a synchronization of the expressions. Several complicated harmonic sums present for individual contributions disappear in the final result. A brief summary of the results presented below was given in [@JBVR1]. Similar investigations as performed in the present paper are carried out for the Wilson coefficients for deeply inelastic scattering off unpolarized and polarized targets [@JBSM1] and the unpolarized and polarized time–like fragmentation functions [@JBVR2] to NNLO.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we summarize aspects of the calculation of 2–loop Wilson coefficients in $x$–space. The Mellin moments are discussed in section 3. In section 4 a brief survey is given on multiple harmonic sums and their relation to Mellin transforms. The algebraic relations between the finite harmonic sums used in the present paper is discussed in section 5. In section 6 the basic functions representing the 2–loop Wilson coefficients for the processes considered in the present paper are identified. In the appendices A.1,2 the explicit results are summarized for the Mellin transforms of the NNLO Wilson coefficients for the unpolarized and polarized Drell–Yan process and appendix A.3,4 contains the corresponding expressions for the hadronic scalar and pseudo–scalar Higgs boson production processes.
Coefficient Functions
=====================
Due to mass factorization, hadronic cross sections such as those for the Drell–Yan process [@DY] and hadronic Higgs boson production [@HGS] can be expressed in terms of Mellin convolutions of the perturbativly computable coefficient functions $\Delta_{ab}(x,Q^2,\mu^2)$ and non–perturbative parton distributions, $f_a(x,\mu^2)$, of incoming hadrons, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(x,Q^2)&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\int_0^1 \!\!{dx_1 }\! \int_0^1
\!\!{dx_2}
\int_0^1 dz
f_a(x_1,\mu^2) f_b(x_2,\mu^2)
\Delta_{ab}\Bigg(z,
{Q^2 \over \mu^2}\Bigg) \delta(x-z x_1 x_2)~.
\label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ Here the sum over $a,b={q,\bar q,g}$ is implied. $Q^2$ is the mass squared of the Drell–Yan pair or the Higgs boson. The parameter $x$ is a scaling variable defined by $$\begin{aligned}
x={Q^2 \over S},\quad \quad \quad S=(P_1+P_2)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $P_1,P_2$ are the momenta of incoming hadrons. We have set both the UV– and factorization scales to be equal to $\mu^2$. Though the parton densities are not calculable in the perturbative QCD, their evolution with respect to the factorization scale $\mu^2$ is computable using the renormalization group equations (RGE). Hence higher order corrections to hadronic reactions enter through two sources viz, the coefficient functions and the RG equations of the parton distribution functions.
The coefficient functions are computed from the partonic cross sections in powers of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s(\mu^2)$ in perturbative QCD. They are expressible in terms of the scaling variable $z=Q^2/s$, where $s$ is the center of mass of incoming partonic system. $Q^2$ is a large invariant mass characteristic for the process. The lowest order contributions are of $O(\alpha_s^0)$ and the Wilson coefficients are obtained from the Born–diagrams. In the case of the Drell–Yan process the lowest order contributions are due to quark anti-quark annihilation, likewise gluon–gluon fusion in the case of Higgs boson production through the top–quark loop. Hence the results are just proportional to $\delta(1-z)$. To the next-to-leading order (NLO) one encounters virtual corrections as well as real gluon emissions to the Born–processes. In addition, gluon–initiated processes also contribute in case of the Drell–Yan process as quark–initiated processes in case of Higgs boson production. The virtual processes are in general UV–divergent due to the loop–corrections. Since one is dealing with light partons inside the incoming hadrons, the real emission processes suffer from collinear divergences. In addition, the standard soft divergences appear in both real emission as well as virtual contributions to Born processes. All these divergences are regularized using $n$–dimensional regularization. The UV–divergences are removed by standard UV–renormalization. This introduces the renormalization scale $\mu_R^2$ both through $\alpha_s(\mu_R^2)$ and $\ln(Q^2/\mu_R^2)$–terms. The soft divergences cancel when virtual and real emission contributions are added. The remaining collinear divergences are removed by the mass factorization procedure. This introduces a new scale called factorization scale $\mu_F^2$. Finally one ends up with the regular functions as $\ln(x),\ln(1-x)$, polynomials in $x$ and distribution functions such as $(\ln^m(1-x)/(1-x))_+$ with $m=0,1$; $\delta(1-x)$.
Beyond NLO, the computation becomes more complicated. First of all there are many more processes that contribute to this order. For example one finds, two–loop virtual contributions to the Born terms, one loop virtual corrections to the NLO contributions, double real emissions to the Born contributions, and single real emissions to the NLO processes. In addition several new type of processes start contributing from NNLO level onwards. Due to this, the number of integrations involved increases enormously and new functions emerge. The two–loop virtual corrections to the Born process generate only constants such as $\zeta_2, \zeta_3, \zeta_4$. But one–loop corrections to NLO processes and real emissions to Born–, NLO– and the new NNLO–processes lead to hypergeometric functions $F_{2,1}$ which upon integration generate further higher functions. The hypergeometric functions usually result from the one–loop box to NLO processes and also from angular integration of the real emission processes at the NNLO level. Higher functions are also generated when NLO–splitting functions are convoluted with the Born– and NLO–cross sections. Such convolutions are required in order to perform mass factorization. The NNLO results are finally expressible in terms of polynomials in $x$, logarithms and Nielsen integrals $S_{n,p}(x)$ [@nielsen], both with various argument–functions, defined by $$\label{eq3aa}
S_{n,p}(x)\!\!=\!\!{(-1)^{n+p-1} \over (n-1)!p!}
\int_0^1 {dz \over z}\! \ln^{n-1}(z)\!
\ln^p(1-zx)$$ The [weight w]{} of these functions is defined by [w = p + n]{}, where any power of a logarithm counts for [w = 1]{} as the case for the denominators $1/x,~1/(1+x)$ and $1/(1-x)$. In a product of functions the weights of the factors add. The standard polylogarithms are related to the Nielsen integrals by : $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm Li}}_n(x)&=&{d {{\rm Li}}_{n+1}(x) \over d \ln(x)} \equiv S_{n-1,1}(x)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
&=&
{(-1)^{n-1} \over (n-2)\!} \int_0^1 {dz\over z} \ln^{n-2} (z)
\ln(1-zx) \quad {\rm for}\quad n \geq 2~.
\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ One relates the logarithms to the polylogarithms by simple differentiation: $$\begin{aligned}
{d {{\rm Li}}_2(\pm x)\over d \ln(x)}&=&{{\rm Li}}_1(\pm x) =-\ln(1\mp x)~,
\nonumber\\[2ex]
{{\rm Li}}_0(x)&=&{x \over 1-x}~.
\label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, one reduces the weight of a Nielsen integral by differentiating w.r.t. $\ln(x)$ : $$\begin{aligned}
{d S_{n,p}(x)\over d \ln(x)} = S_{n-1,p}(x)~.
\label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$ In addition, distributions as $\delta(1-x)$ and $(\ln^m(1-x)/(1-x))_+$ with $m=0,1,2,3$ contribute. These functions and their Mellin transforms can be found in Ref. [@JK].
The hadronic scattering cross sections are obtained using Eq. (\[eq1\]). One performs the integration over $x_1$ and $x_2$ after folding the perturbativly computed coefficient functions with the appropriate parton distributions. This may involve further evaluation of various Nielsen integrals and increases the complexity of the numerical evaluation of the hadronic cross sections. In the next section we will study the structure of these corrections in Mellin space using algebraic identities which relate the resulting finite harmonic sums. We will present an alternative treatment of the evaluation of the total cross sections upto NNLO by working in Mellin space. Such techniques have been used in the past to compute deep–inelastic scattering cross sections. They are also found to be most suitable for various resummation programs [@JV]. [^5]
Mellin Moments
==============
The Mellin–transform [@mellin] of a given function $F(x)$ is defined by $${{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[F\big](N)=\int_0^1 dx x^{N-1} F(x)~.$$ The Mellin convolution of two functions $F_1(x),F_2(x)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq8A}
\left[F_1 \otimes F_2\right] (x) = \int_0^1 dx_1 \int_0^1 dx_2 F_1(x_1)
F_2(x_2)
\delta(x-x_1 x_2)~.
\label{eq5}\end{aligned}$$ ${\,\mbox{\bf M}}\left[[F_1 \otimes F_2\right](x)](N)$ reduces to the product of Mellin moments of $F_1(x)$ and $F_2(x)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[F_1 \otimes F_2\big](N) = {{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[F_1\big](N)
\cdot
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[F_2\big](N)~.
\label{eq6}\end{aligned}$$ One may generalize this property for the convolution of $m$ functions : $$\begin{aligned}
\left[F_1 \otimes F_2 \otimes ... \otimes F_m\right] (x) &=& \int_0^1 dx_1
\int_0^1
dx_2 ...\int_0^1
dx_m \int_0^1 dz F_1(x_1) F_2(x_2) ...F_m(x_m)
\nonumber\\ & &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \times
\delta(x- x_1 x_2 ...x_m)~,
\label{eq7}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[F_1 \otimes F_2 \otimes ...F_m\big](N) =
\prod_{k=1}^m
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[F_k\big](N)~.
\label{eq8}\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, already the multiple convolution of rather simple functions in $x$–space may lead to complicated expressions, cf. Ref. [@JBHK1]. Contrary to that, the representation (\[eq8\]) is straightforward.
Due to mass–factorization the QCD–improved collinear parton model relates the hadronic cross sections via Mellin convolutions to the partonic cross sections and the parton distribution functions. Hence the cross section in the Mellin–$N$ space becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq12aa}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[\sigma\big](N,Q^2)&=&{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[f_a\big](N,\mu^2) {{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[f_b\big](N,\mu^2)
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[\Delta_{ab}\big]\Bigg(N,{Q^2 \over \mu^2}\Bigg)~.
\label{eq9}\end{aligned}$$ The Mellin moments of these functions can be analytically continued [@JB3] to complex values of $N$ so that one can use various analyticity properties of these functions in complex $N$–space to evaluate them efficiently. To retrieve back the full $x-$dependent result for (\[eq9\]), we have to take the inverse Mellin transform as a numerical contour integral around all singularities in $N$.
For our analysis, the starting point is Eq. (\[eq8A\]) with given parton densities $f_a(x,\mu^2)$ and known coefficient functions $\Delta_{ab}(x,Q^2)$ computed upto NNLO in perturbative QCD. We then compute the Mellin moments of these functions in $N$–space and analytically continue them to complex $N$–space. At the end, we use Eq. (\[eq9\]) and perform the inverse Mellin transformation to arrive at the results in $x$–space using a suitable contour in the complex $N$–space. Since only one integral has to be carried out numerically, the evaluation can be performed very fast.
Before we study the Mellin moment of the coefficient functions, we would like to make a few remarks on the parton densities. As is well known, the parton densities are fitted as functions of $x$ using the available deeply inelastic scattering data. The parton distributions are determined at some scale $Q_0^2$ along with the QCD–scale, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. The renormalization group equations for mass factorization in $x$–space $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AP1}
\mu^2 {d f_{a/P}(x,\mu^2) \over d \mu^2}
={\alpha_s(\mu^2) \over 4 \pi}
\sum_{b=q,\bar q,g}
\int_x^1 {dz \over z}
P_{ab}(z,\alpha_s(\mu^2))
f_{b/P}(z,\mu^2) \quad \quad \quad a=q,\bar q,g
\label{eq10}\end{aligned}$$ relate the parton densities at $Q_0^2$ to those at the scale $\mu^2$. The splitting functions $P_{ab}(z,\alpha_s(\mu^2))$ are computable order by order in perturbation theory: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{ab}(z,\alpha_s(\mu^2))=\sum_{n=0}^\infty
\left({\alpha_s(\mu^2)\over 4 \pi} \right)^n P^{(n)}_{ab}(z)~.
\label{eq11}\end{aligned}$$ Instead solving the integro–differential equations (\[AP1\]) one may Mellin–transform these equations to $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^2
{d {{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[f_{a/P}\big](N,\mu^2)\over d\mu^2}=
{\alpha_s(\mu^2) \over 4 \pi} \sum_{b=q,\bar q,g}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[ P_{ab}\big](N,\alpha_s(\mu^2))
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[ f_{b/P}\big](N,\mu^2)~.
\label{eq12}\end{aligned}$$ The solution of (\[eq12\]) for ${{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[f_{a/P}\big](N,\mu^2)$ is straightforward as it is now just a first order differential equation. The parton densities in $x-$space are obtained from the solutions ${{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[f_{a/P}\big](N,\mu^2)$ by an inverse Mellin transformation. Since we are dealing with cross sections in $N-$space given in (\[eq12aa\]), the solutions ${{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\big[f_{a/P}\big](N,\mu^2)$ can be used for further analysis directly.
The next task is to compute the Mellin moments of the known coefficient functions for the different hard processes in case of massless fermions to 2–loop order which were usually computed in $x-$space.
Let us start with the Drell–Yan process. We present here the relevant formulae for both unpolarized as well as polarized cross sections. The Drell–Yan process is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_1(P_1)+H_2(P_2) \rightarrow l^+(k_1)+l^-(k_2)+X~,
\label{eq13}\end{aligned}$$ where $H_i$ are the incoming hadrons with momenta $P_i$. $k_i$, with $i = 1,2$, are the momenta of final state leptons $l^+l^-$, respectively. Since the dominant contribution is through the $\gamma$–exchange $s-$channel processes[^6], we find the cross section can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
{d \left(\Delta\right)
\sigma^{DY}(x,Q^2) \over dQ^2} = {4 \pi \alpha^2 \over
3 N_c Q^2 S} \left(\Delta\right) W^{DY}(x,Q^2),
\label{eq14}\end{aligned}$$ where $\left(\Delta\right)$ denotes the polarized case, $Q^2$ is the invariant mass of the di–lepton, $$\begin{aligned}
S=(P_1+P_2)^2, \quad \quad \quad x ={Q^2 \over S}~,
\label{eq15}\end{aligned}$$ $N_c$ is the number of colors, and $\alpha$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant. The scaling function, usually called the hadronic Drell–Yan structure functions $\left(\Delta\right) W^{DY}(x,Q^2)$, is related to the coefficient functions as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Delta \right) W^{DY}(x,Q^2) &=&\sum_{a,b=q,\bar q,g}
\int_0^1 dx_1 \int_0^1 dx_2 \int_0^1 dz
\left(\Delta\right) f_{a/H_1}(x_1,\mu^2)
\left(\Delta\right)f_{b/H_2}(x_2,\mu^2)
\nonumber\\[2ex]&&
\times
\left(\Delta\right)
\Delta_{ab}^{DY}\left(z,Q^2,\mu^2\right)
\delta(x-z x_1 x_2)~,
\label{eq16}\end{aligned}$$ where we have set the renormalization scale to be equal to the factorization scale. Alternatively, we can express the above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Delta \right) W^{DY}(x,Q^2) &=&\sum_{a,b=q,\bar q,g}
\int_x^1 {dy \over y} \left(\Delta\right) \Phi_{ab}(y,\mu^2)
\left(\Delta\right)\Delta_{ab}^{DY}\left({x \over y},Q^2,\mu^2\right)~,
\label{eq17}\end{aligned}$$ where the flux $\Phi_{ab}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Delta\right) \Phi_{ab}(y,\mu^2)=
\int_y^1 {dz \over z}
\left(\Delta\right)f_{a/H_1}(z,\mu^2)
\left(\Delta\right)f_{b/H_2}\left({y \over z},\mu^2\right)~.
\label{eq18}\end{aligned}$$
The Mellin moment of $x^{-1} \left[d \left(\Delta\right) \sigma^{DY}
(x,Q^2)/dQ^2\right]$ reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{1 \over x} {d \left(\Delta\right)\sigma^{DY}\over d Q^2}\right]
(N,\mu^2)
={4 \pi \alpha^2 \over 3 N_c Q^4} {{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[ \left(\Delta\right) W^{DY}
\right](N,\mu^2)~,
\label{eq19}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqMM}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[ \left(\Delta\right) W^{DY}\right](N,\mu^2)
={{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\left(\Delta\right) \Phi_{ab}\right](N,\mu^2)
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\left(\Delta\right) \Delta_{ab}^{DY}\right](N,\mu^2)~.
\label{eq20}\end{aligned}$$ The flux ${{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\left(\Delta\right) \Phi_{ab}\right](N,\mu^2)$ can be computed using (\[eq12\]) with the input parton densities as boundary conditions.
We now present the total cross section for both scalar $(H)$ and pseudo–scalar $(A)$ Higgs bosons at hadron colliders. The process is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_1(P_1)+H_2(P_2) \rightarrow B + X~,
\label{eq21}\end{aligned}$$ where $B=H,A$. The total cross section for Higgs boson production is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{tot}^{B}(x,m^2)={\pi G_B^2 \over 8 (N^2_c-1)} \sum_{a,b=q,\bar
q,g}
\int_x^1 dx_1 \int_{x \over x_1}^1 dx_2 f_{a/H_1} (x_1,\mu^2)
f_{b/H_2}(x_2,\mu^2)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
\times \Delta_{ab,B}\left({x \over x_1 x_2},m^2,\mu^2\right)~,
\quad \quad \quad B=H,A,
\label{eq22}\end{aligned}$$ where $m^2$ is the mass of the Higgs boson and the scaling variable is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
x={m^2 \over S} ,\quad \quad \quad S=(P_1+P_2)^2~.
\label{eq23}\end{aligned}$$ $\Delta_{ab,B}(x,m^2,\mu^2)$ is the partonic coefficient function. Again we have set both renormalization and factorization scale to be equal. The overall constant $G_B$ is $$\begin{aligned}
G_B=-2^{5/4} a_s\left(\mu_R^2\right) G_F^2 \tau_B F_B(\tau_B){\cal C}_B
\left(a_s(\mu_R^2),\mu_R^2,m_t^2\right)~,
\label{eq24}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
a_s(\mu_R^2)={\alpha_s(\mu_R^2)\over 4 \pi}~,
\label{eq25}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_R$ is the renormalization scale. $G_F$ is the Fermi constant and the functions $F_B(\tau)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
F_H(\tau)&=&1+(1-\tau) f(\tau),\quad \quad \quad F_A(\tau)=f(\tau) \cot\beta
\nonumber\\[2ex]
\tau&=& {4 m_t^2 \over m^2}
\nonumber\\[2ex]
f(\tau)&=& \arcsin^2{1 \over \sqrt \tau }, \quad \quad {\rm for} \quad
\quad
\tau \geq 1,
\nonumber\\[2ex]
f(\tau)&=&- {1 \over 4} \left( \ln{1-\sqrt{1-\tau} \over 1+\sqrt{1-\tau}}
+\pi i\right)^2 \quad \quad
\tau \le 1,
\label{eq26}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ is the mixing angle in the two–Higgs doublet model. $m_t$ is the mass of the top quark. The coefficient ${\cal C}_B$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal C}_H\left(a_s(\mu_R^2) ,m_t^2\right)&=&
1+a_s^{(5)}(\mu_R^2) \Big[5 C_A-3 C_F\Big]+\left(a_s^{(5)}(\mu_R^2)\right)^2
\Bigg[{27 \over 2 } C_F^2
\nonumber \\[2ex] & &
-{100 \over 3} C_A C_F + {1063 \over 36} C_A^2
-{4 \over 3 } C_F T_f
-{5 \over 6} C_A T_f +\big( 7 C_A^2 -11 C_A C_F \big)\ln {\mu_R^2 \over
m_t^2}
\nonumber \\[2ex]
& &
+n_f T_f \Big(-4 C_F -{47 \over 9 } C_A + 8 C_F \ln{\mu_R^2 \over m_t^2}
\Big)\Bigg],
\nonumber\\[2ex]
{\cal C}_A\left(a_s(\mu_R^2) ,m_t^2\right) &=& 1,
\label{eq27}\end{aligned}$$ [@HMAS1], where $a_s^{(5)}$ refers to the five–flavor number scheme. The color factors are $$\begin{aligned}
C_A=N_c, \quad \quad \quad C_F={N^2_c -1 \over 2}, \quad \quad T_f={1
\over 2}~.
\label{eq28}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[eq22\]) can be expressed in a compact form as $$\begin{aligned}
{1 \over x} \sigma_{tot}^B(x,m^2)=
{\pi G_B^2 \over 8 (N^2-1)} \sum_{a,b=q,\bar q,g}
\int_x^1 {dy \over y} \Phi_{ab}(y,\mu^2) {y \over x}
\Delta_{ab,B}\left({x \over y},m^2,\mu^2\right)~.
\label{eq29}\end{aligned}$$ The Mellin transform of (\[eq29\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq33aa}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\sigma^B_{tot} \right](N,m^2)
={\pi G_B^2 \over 8 (N^2-1)} \sum_{ab=q,\bar q,g}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\Phi_{ab}\right](N+1,\mu^2)
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\Delta_{ab,B}\right](N,m^2,\mu^2)~.
\label{eq30}\end{aligned}$$ The flux ${{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\Phi_{ab}\right]$ can be extracted from the solution of the evolution equations (\[eq12aa\]) and ${{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\Delta_{ab,B}\right]$ can be computed analytically from the known functions $\Delta_{ab,B}(x,m^2,\mu^2)$, see appendix 3,4.
Finite Harmonic Sums
====================
We are dealing with the total scattering cross sections for the unpolarized and polarized Drell–Yan process and hadronic (pseudo)scalar Higgs boson production in the heavy–mass limit, which depend only on two variables, $x = Q^2/s$ and $Q^2$, the invariant mass squared of the final state. The coefficient functions upto NNLO contain a large class of $x$–space functions [@JK]. Their complexity reaches nearly $80$, the number of all alternating and non–alternating finite harmonic sums [@JK; @JB1; @JB04] of weight [w $\leq$ 4]{}. The class contains simple functions of the form $(1 \pm x)^{-1},\ln^m(x)$, $\ln^m(1-x)$, and $(\ln^m(1-x)/(1-x))_+,
m=0 \ldots 3$. More complicated examples are weighted Nielsen–integrals $S_{n,p}(x)/(1 \mp x)$. The Mellin transforms of these functions were evaluated in [@JK]. In the following we present some examples.
The Mellin moment of the function $1/(1+x)$ can be computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 dx x^{N-1} {1 \over (1+x)} &=&\int_0^1 dx x^{N-1} \sum_{i=0}
^\infty (-1)^i x^i
= \sum_{i=0}^\infty {(-1)^{i} \over i+N}
\nonumber\\[2ex]
&=& (-1)^{N-1} \left[\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}{(-1)^i \over i}
-\sum_{i=1}^\infty{(-1)^i \over i} \right]
=(-1)^{N-1} \left[ S_{-1}(N-1)+ \ln(2)\right]~.
\label{eq31}\end{aligned}$$ Likewise one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 dx x^{N-1} {1 \over (1-x)_+}
&=&\int_0^1 dx \frac{x^{N-1}-1}{1-x}
=\int_0^1 dx (x^{N-1}-1) \sum_{i=0}^\infty x^i
\nonumber\\[2ex]
&=&\sum_{i=0}^\infty \left({1 \over i+N}-{1 \over i+1}\right)
=-S_1(N-1)~,
\label{eq32}\end{aligned}$$ where the finite harmonic sums are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{k}(N)=\sum_{i=1}^N {1 \over i^k},
\quad \quad \quad
S_{-k}(N)=\sum_{i=1}^N {(-1)^k \over i^k}~.
\label{eq33}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we compute the Mellin moment of $x^r \ln(1-x)$ by expanding $$\ln(1-x)= - \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{x^i}{i}$$ using partial fractions and changing the limits of the sums : $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 dx x^{N-1} x^r \ln(1-x)&=&-\sum_{i=1}^\infty {1 \over i
(i+N+r)}
={1 \over N+r} \sum_{i=1}^\infty \left({1 \over i+N+r}-{1 \over i}\right)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
&=&-{1 \over N+r} \sum_{i=1}^{N+r} {1 \over i}=-{S_1(N+r) \over N+r}~.
\label{eq34}\end{aligned}$$ One may compute the Mellin moment of the distribution $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 dx x^{N-1} \left({\ln(1-x)\over 1-x}\right)_+
&=& \int_0^1 dx \left[x^{N-1}-1\right] {\ln(1-x)\over 1-x}
={N-1 \over 2} \int_0^1 x^{N-2} \ln^2(1-x)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
&=&{N-1 \over 2} \sum_{i,j=1}^\infty {1 \over i j (i+j+N-1)}~.
\label{eq35}\end{aligned}$$ The summation is performed after partial fractioning and shifting the summation limits and one arrives at $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 dx x^{N-1} \left({\ln(1-x)\over 1-x}\right)_+
&=& S_{1,1}(N-1)~.
\label{eq36}\end{aligned}$$ The latter sum is a multiple (nested) harmonic sum defined by $$\begin{aligned}
S_{m,m_1,m_2,...,m_k}(N)=\sum_{i=1}^N {S_{m_1,m_2,...,m_k}(i) \over
i^m}~,~\forall m_i > 0~.
\label{eq37}\end{aligned}$$ In general, also alternating nested harmonic sums contribute, which are labeled with as well negative indices $k_i < 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{k_1...k_m}(N)&=&\sum_{n_1=1}^N {[{{\rm sign}}(k_1)]^{n_1} \over n_1^{|k_1|}}
\sum_{n_2=1}^{n_1} {[{{\rm sign}}(k_2)]^{n_2} \over n_2^{|k_2|}}
\cdot \cdot \cdot\sum_{n_m=1}^{n_m-1} {[{{\rm sign}}(k_m)]^{n_m} \over
n_m^{|k_m|}}~,
\label{eq38}\end{aligned}$$ with $k_l, l \not=0$. Similarly one computes Mellin moments of more complicated function. For example, $$\begin{aligned}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\left({\ln^3(1-x)\over 1-x}\right)_+\right](N)&=&
{1\over 4} S_1^4(N-1)
+{3\over 2} S_1^2(N-1) S_2(N-1)
+{3\over 4} S_2^2(N-1)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
&& +2 S_1(N-1) S_3(N-1)
+{3\over 2} S_4(N-1)~,
\label{eq39}\end{aligned}$$ where the right hand side contains only single finite harmonic sums. The Mellin moments of Nielsen integrals can be mostly done by relating them to simpler moments after an integration by parts: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 dx x^{N-1} S_{1,2}(-x)={1 \over N}
\frac{\zeta_3}{8}-{1 \over 2 N}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\Big[\ln^2(1+x)\Big](N)\end{aligned}$$ The Mellin transforms of individual functions in $x$–space may contain complicated sums [@JK], which cancel in combinations. As an example we mention $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^1 dx x^{N-1} \Bigg[ S_{1,2}(-x) + {{\rm Li}}_2(-x) \ln(1+x)
+ \frac{1}{2} \ln(x)
\ln^2(1+x)\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&&= \frac{(-1)^{N-1}}{N} \Bigg\{
S_{-1,2}(N) + \frac{\zeta_2}{2} \left[S_1(N) - S_{-1}(N)\right]\Biggr\}
+ \frac{1+(-1)^{N-1}}{N}\left[\frac{\zeta_3}{8} - \frac{\ln(2) \zeta_2}{2}\right]
\label{eq40}\end{aligned}$$ in which the sum $S_{-1,1}(N)$ does not occur unlike the case for ${\,\mbox{\bf M}}[{{\rm Li}}_2(-x) \ln(1+x)](N)$. We finally mention recursive integral–representations for the finite harmonic sums and weighted power sums, cf. [@JK], $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\pm k}(N)&=\!\!&\!\!\int_0^1{dx_1\over x_1} \cdot \cdot \cdot \int_0^{x_{k-1}}
{(\pm x_k)^N-1\over x_k \mp 1}
\nonumber\\[2ex]
&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&{(-1)^{k-1} \over (k-1)!}\int_0^1 dx \ln^{k-1}(x)
{(\pm x)^N-1 \over x \mp 1}~,
\label{eq41}\\
\sum_{k=1}^N{(\pm x)^k \over k^l}&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&
{(-1)^{l-1} \over (l-1)!}\!\int_0^x \!dz \!\ln^{l-1}(z)
{(\pm z)^N-1 \over z \mp 1}~.
\label{eq42}\end{aligned}$$ The translation of the 2–loop Wilson coefficients [@DY; @HGS] from $x$– to $N$–space is performed using the tables given in [@JK] for the individual functions. One observes the cancellation of a series of sums. In particular we would like to mention, that multiple sums with the index $\{-1\}$ do not occur in the final results up to [w=4]{}.
Algebraic Relations
===================
Finite harmonic sums obey algebraic equations, see e.g. [@JB1]. The more simple relations for finite harmonic sums can be found in [@euler; @NIELSHB; @GIRG; @JK]. Finite harmonic sums obey a shuffle algebra. To further simplify the expressions for the Wilson coefficients dealt with in the present paper the following relations are used for sums with two $$\begin{aligned}
S_{1,1}(N)&=&{1 \over 2}(S_{1}(N)^2+S_{2}(N))
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-1,1}(N)&=&-S_{1,-1}(N)+S_{1}(N)S_{-1}(N)
+S_{-2}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-1,-2}(N)&=&-S_{-2,-1}(N)+S_{-2}(N)S_{-1}(N)
+S_{3}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{1,2}(N)&=&-S_{2,1}(N)+S_{2}(N)S_{1}(N)
+S_{3}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-1,2}(N)&=&-S_{2,-1}(N)+S_{2}(N)S_{-1}(N)
+S_{-3}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{1,-2}(N)&=&-S_{-2,1}(N)+S_{-2}(N)S_{1}(N)
+S_{-3}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{2,2}(N)&=&{1 \over 2}(S_{2}(N)^2+S_{4}(N))
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-2,-2}(N)&=&{1 \over 2}(S_{-2}(N)^2+S_{4}(N))
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{2,-2}(N)&=&-S_{-2,2}(N)+S_{-2}(N)S_{2}(N)
+S_{-4}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-1,-3}(N)&=&-S_{-3,-1}(N)+S_{-3}(N)S_{-1}(N)
+S_{4}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{1,3}(N)&=&-S_{3,1}(N)+S_{3}(N)S_{1}(N)
+S_{4}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-1,3}(N)&=&-S_{3,-1}(N)+S_{3}(N)S_{-1}(N)
+S_{-4}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{1,-3}(N)&=&-S_{-3,1}(N)+S_{-3}(N)S_{1}(N)
+S_{-4}(N)
\label{eq44}\end{aligned}$$ and three indices : $$\begin{aligned}
S_{1,2,1}(N)&=&-2S_{2,1,1}(N)+S_{3,1}(N)
+S_{1}(N)S_{2,1}(N)+S_{2,2}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{1,1,2}(N)&=&S_{2,1,1}(N)
+\left[{1 \over 2}(S_{1}(N)(S_{1,2}(N)
-S_{2,1}(N))+S_{1,3}(N)-S_{3,1}(N)\right]
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{1,-2,1}(N)&=&-2S_{-2,1,1}(N)+S_{-3,1}(N)
+S_{1}(N)S_{-2,1}(N)+S_{-2,2}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{1,1,-2}(N)&=&S_{-2,1,1}(N)+S_{-2}(N)S_{2}(N)
-S_{-2,2}(N)-S_{-2}(N)S_{1,1}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]&&
+S_{1}(N)S_{1,-2}(N)+S_{1,-3}(N)
-S_{1}(N)S_{-3}(N)~.
\label{eq46}\end{aligned}$$ At intermediate stages of the computation we encounter various more complicated sums such as $S_{1,-1,2}$, $S_{-1,-1,-2}$, $S_{-1,-2,-1}$, $S_{-2,-1,-1}$, $S_{2,-1,1}$, $S_{1,2,-1}$, $S_{2,1-1}$, $S_{-1,1,2}$, $S_{-1,1,2}$, $S_{-1,-3}$, and $S_{-1,3}$. All these sums do finally occur in symmetric combinations, which are [polynomials]{} of [single]{} harmonic sums. At the level of 3–fold sums only $S_{-2,1,1}$ and $S_{2,1,1}$ remain.
Coefficient Functions in -Space
===============================
Let us now express the Wilson coefficients in terms of the remaining harmonic sums in terms of polynomials and as rational functions in $N$. Furthermore, we list the respective harmonic sums in terms of their Mellin–transforms, cf. [@JK].
The single harmonic sums are : $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-4}(N)&=&(-1)^{N+1}{1 \over 6}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{\ln^3(x)\over 1+x}\right](N+1)
-{7 \over 20} \zeta_2^2
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-3}(N)&=&(-1)^N{1 \over 2}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{\ln^2(x)\over 1+x}\right](N+1)
-{3 \over 4} \zeta_3
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-2}(N)&=&(-1)^{N+1}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{\ln(x)\over 1+x}\right](N+1)
-{1 \over 2} \zeta_2
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-1}(N)&=&(-1)^N
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{1\over 1+x}\right](N+1)
-\ln(2)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{4}(N)&=&{1 \over 6}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{\ln^3(x)\over 1-x}\right](N+1)
+{2 \over 5} \zeta_2^2
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{3}(N)&=&-{1 \over 2}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{\ln^2(x)\over 1-x}\right](N+1)
+\zeta_3
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{2}(N)&=&
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{\ln(x)\over 1-x}\right](N+1)
+\zeta_2
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{1}(N)&=&-
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\left({1\over 1-x}\right)_+\right](N+1)~.
\label{eq47}\end{aligned}$$ These harmonic sums can be solely expressed in terms of Euler’s $\psi$–function and the $\beta$–function [@NIELSHB] and their derivatives, which is related to the former combining two $\psi$–functions with shifted argument. These functions represent at the same time the analytic continuation of these harmonic sums : $$\begin{aligned}
S_{k}(N) &=& \frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{(k-1)!} \psi^{(k-1)}(N+1) + \zeta(k) \\
S_{-1}(N) &=& (-1)^N \beta(N+1) - \ln(2) \\
S_{-k}(N) &=& \frac{(-1)^{N+k-1}}{(k-1)!} \beta^{(k-1)}(N+1) -
\left(1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}\right) \zeta_k,~~k \geq 2~,
\\
\beta(z) &=& \frac{1}{2} \left[ \psi\left(\frac{1+z}{2}\right) -
\psi\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)\right]~.\end{aligned}$$ The following five double sums occur : $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-3,1}(N)&=&(-1)^N
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{{{\rm Li}}_3(x)\over 1+x}\right](N+1)
+\zeta_2 S_{-2}(N)
-\zeta_3 S_{-1}(N)
-{3 \over 5} \zeta_2^2
+2 {{\rm Li}}_4\left({1 \over 2}\right)
\nonumber\\[2ex]&&
+{3 \over 4} \zeta_3 \ln(2)
-{1 \over 2} \zeta_2 \ln^2(2)
+{1 \over 12} \ln^4(2)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-2,1}(N)&=&-(-1)^N
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{{{\rm Li}}_2(x)\over 1+x}\right](N+1)
+\zeta_2 S_{-1}(N)
-{5 \over 8} \zeta_3
+ \zeta_2 \ln(2)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{-2,2}(N)&=&-(-1)^N
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\Bigg[{1\over 1+x}\Big(2 {{\rm Li}}_3(x)
-\ln(x) \Big({{\rm Li}}_2(x)
+\zeta_2\Big)\Big)\Bigg](N+1)
+\zeta_2 S_{-2}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]&&
+2 \zeta_3 S_{-1}(N)
+{71 \over 40} \zeta_2^2
-4 {{\rm Li}}_4\left({1 \over 2}\right)
-{3 \over 2} \zeta_3 \ln(2)
+\zeta_2 \ln^2(2)
-{1 \over 6} \ln^4(2)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{2,1}(N)&=&
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\left({{{\rm Li}}_2(x)\over 1-x}\right)_+\right](N+1)
+\zeta_2 S_{1}(N)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{3,1}(N)&=& -{1 \over 2}
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{{{\rm Li}}_2(x)\ln(x)\over 1-x}\right](N+1)
+\zeta_2 S_{2}(N)
-{1 \over 4} S_2^2(N)
-{1 \over 4} S_4(N)
-{3 \over 20} \zeta_2^2
\label{eq48}\end{aligned}$$ Two triple sums contribute : $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-2,1,1}(N)&=&-(-1)^N
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[{S_{1,2}(x)\over 1+x}\right](N+1)
+\zeta_3 S_{-1}(N)
-{{\rm Li}}_4\left({1 \over 2}\right)
+{1 \over 8} \zeta_2^2
+{1 \over 8} \zeta_3 \ln(2)
\nonumber\\[2ex] &&
+{1 \over 4} \zeta_2 \ln^2(2)
-{1 \over 24} \ln^4(2)
\nonumber\\[2ex]
S_{2,1,1}(N)&=&
{{\,\mbox{\bf M}}}\left[\left({S_{1,2}(x)\over 1-x}\right)_+\right](N+1)
+\zeta_3 S_1(N)~.
\label{eq49}\end{aligned}$$ For the analytic continuation it is sufficient to determine ${\,\mbox{\bf M}}[f(x)](N)$ for complex values of $N$ since $$\frac{\partial^k}{\partial N^k} {\,\mbox{\bf M}}[f(x)](N) = {\,\mbox{\bf M}}\left[\ln^k(x)
f(x)\right](N)$$ is easily obtained analytically. Therefore we will not count the associated derivatives as genuinely new functions. Besides Euler’s $\psi$–function the Mellin transforms of five further [basic]{} functions, $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\rm Li}}_2(x) \over 1-x}, \quad \quad
{{{\rm Li}}_2(x) \over 1+x}, \quad \quad
{S_{1,2}(x) \over 1-x}, \quad \quad
{S_{1,2}(x) \over 1+x}, \quad \quad
{{{\rm Li}}_3(x) \over 1+x},\end{aligned}$$ are sufficient to express the different Wilson coefficients dealt with in the present paper. The Mellin transforms of these functions were calculated in [@JB3] and are denoted by $A_k(N)$ with $k=18, 3, 21, 8, 18, 6$. In the appendices we furthermore refer to the functions $A_5(N)$ and $A_{22}(N)$, which are given by $$\begin{aligned}
A_5(N) &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial N} A_3(N)~,\\
A_{22}(N) &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial N} A_{18}(N)~.\end{aligned}$$ The analytic continuation to $N~\epsilon~{\bf C}$ is unique [@carlson]. The hadronic cross sections are obtained calculating the inverse Mellin transform of (\[eqMM\],\[eq33aa\]) by a numerical contour integral $$\begin{aligned}
F(x)={1 \over 2 \pi i}
\int_{c-i\infty}^{c+i \infty} dN x^{-N} {\,\mbox{\bf M}}[F(x)](N)~.
\label{eq51}\end{aligned}$$ Here the parameter $c$ is the intersection of the contour and the real axis and is chosen right to the rightmost singularity of the function ${\,\mbox{\bf M}}[F(x)](N)$. The shape of the contour can be deformed at our convenience covering all singularities of ${\,\mbox{\bf M}}[F(x)](N)$.
Conclusion
==========
We have systematically analyzed the mathematical structure behind the NNLO coefficient functions for the unpolarized and polarized Drell–Yan process and hadronic scalar and pseudo–scalar Higgs boson production using Mellin moment techniques. Use of various algebraic and structural identities, which relate the finite harmonic sums, reduces the complexity of the results from around 80 functions to only five basic functions, the $\psi$–function and a few derivatives thereof. This is very useful both for the understanding of the nature of higher order corrections in the massless case and yields expressions which allow to perform fast numerical calculations at high precision for phenomenological applications and fits to data. The same structures are found in the case of polarized and unpolarized 2–loop fragmentation functions [@JBVR2]. Together with the results of [@JBSM1] for the Wilson coefficients for unpolarized and polarized deeply inelastic scattering it is now shown that these structures are in common for all known massless 2–loop Wilson coefficients.
[**Acknowledgment.**]{}\
We thank S. Moch for discussions. V.R. would like to thank DESY for their kind hospitality extended to him. This paper was supported in part by DFG Sonderforschungsbereich Transregio 9, Computergestützte Theoretische Physik, and EU grant HPRN–CT–2000–00149.
[99]{} William of Occam, [Quadlibeta]{}, Book V, (1324). R.K. Ellis, I. Hinchliffe, M. Soldate, J.J. van der Bij, Nucl. Phys. [**B297**]{} (1988) 221;\
U. Baur, E. Glover, Nucl. Phys. [**B339**]{} (1990) 38;\
D. Graudenz, M. Spira, P. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{} (1993) 1372;\
M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz, P. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. [**B318**]{} (1993) 347; Nucl. Phys. [**B453**]{} (1995) 17. A. Djouadi, [hep-ph/0503172, hep-ph/0503173.]{} S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. [**B359**]{} (1991) 283; A. Djouadi, M. Spira, P. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. [**B264**]{} (1991) 440 T. Matsuura, S.C. van der Marck, and W.L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. [**B319**]{} (1989) 570;\
R. Hamberg, W.L. van Neerven, and T. Matsuura, Nucl. Phys. [**B359**]{} (1991) 343;\
V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. [**B682**]{} (2004) 421. S. Catani, D. de Florian, and M. Grazzini, JHEP (2001) 0105:025;\
R.V. Harlander, W.B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. [**D64**]{} (2001) 013015; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{} (2002) 201801; JHEP (2002) 0210:017;\
C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. [**B646**]{} (2002) 220;\
V. Ravindran, J. Smith, and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. [**B665**]{} (2003) 325; [**B704**]{} (2005) 332.\
J. Smith and W.L. van Neerven, [hep-ph/0501098]{};\
C. Anastasiou, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, [hep-ph/0501130]{}. J. Blümlein and S. Kurth, Phys. Rev. [**D60**]{} (1999) 014018. Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, D0 collab., [ hep-ex/0404010]{}. CMS collab., Technical Proposal, report CERN/LHCC/94-38, ATLAS Coll., ATLAS Detector and Physics Performance: Technical Design Report, Vol. 2, report CERN/LHCC/99-15 (1999). S. Moch, J.A.M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. [**B688**]{} (2004) 101; [**B691**]{} (2004) 129. N. Nielsen, Nova Acta Leopold. [**XC**]{} (1909) 121;\
S. Kölbig, Siam J. Math. Anal. [**17**]{} (1986) 1232;\
L. Lewin, [Dilogarithms and Associated Functions]{} (Macdonald, London, 1958);\
[Polylogarithms and Associated Functions]{} (North Holland, New York, 1981). J. Blümlein, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**133**]{} (2000) 76. J. Blümlein and S.-O. Moch, [hep-ph/0503188]{}. J.A.M. Vermaseren, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A14**]{} (1999) 2037. L. Euler, Novi Comm. Acad. Sci Petropolitanae [**1**]{} (1775) 140;\
R.L. Graham, D.E. Knuth, and O. Patashnik, [Concrete Mathematics]{}, (Addison-Wesley, Reading/MA, 1994). J.M. Borwein and R. Girgensohn, Electron. J. Combinatorics [**3**]{} (1996) R23 (Appendix by D.J. Broadhurst). J. Blümlein, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**159**]{} (2004) 19. J. Blümlein, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} Proc. Suppl. [**135**]{} (2004) 225, [hep-ph/0407044]{}; DESY 04–064. J. Blümlein and V. Ravindran, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} Proc. Suppl. [**135**]{} (2004) 24, [hep-ph/0407045]{}. J. Blümlein and S. Moch, DESY 05–008. J. Blümlein and V. Ravindran, in preparation. J. Blümlein and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. [**B370**]{} (1996) 149; [**B 386**]{} (1996) 350; Acta Phys. Pol. [**B 27**]{} (1996) 1309; Phys. Rev. [**D 57**]{} (1998) 1; [**D58**]{} (1998) 014020;\
J. Blümlein, V. Ravindran, W.L. van Neerven and A. Vogt, [hep-ph/9806368]{};\
R.K. Ellis, Z. Kunszt, and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. [**B420**]{} (1994) 517; E : [**B433**]{} (1995) 498(E). S. Alekhin and J. Blümlein, Phys. Lett. [**B594**]{} (2004) 299. H. Mellin, Acta Math. [**25**]{} (1902) 139. J. Blümlein and H. Kawamura, [hep-ph/0409289]{} and in preparation. M. Krämer, E. Laenen, M. Spira, Nucl. Phys. B511 (1998) 523;\
K.G. Chetyrkin, B.A. Kniehl, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 353;\
K.G. Chetyrkin, B.A. Kniehl, M. Steinhauser, and W.A. Bardeen, Nucl. Phys. [**B535**]{} (1998) 3. N. Nielsen, [Handbuch der Theorie der Gammafunktion]{}, (Teubner, Leipzig, 1906). E. Carlson, Thesis, Univ. Uppsala, 1914, E.C. Titchmarsh, [Theory of Functions]{}, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1939), Chap.9.5.
[^1]: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
[^2]: For the calculation of the Higgs and pseudo-scalar Higgs production cross section including mass effects to NLO see [@HMAS] and the recent reviews [@ABDEL].
[^3]: For NLO results in the case of Higgs–production see [@DAWS].
[^4]: The analytic continuations of the basic Mellin transforms which contribute to the 3–loop anomalous dimensions have been given in [@JBSM] recently.
[^5]: Heavy flavor contributions in Mellin space were treated in [@JBSA].
[^6]: The $Z$–exchange processes can be incorporated in a similar way.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We explicit the relation between the dynamics the Berkovich projective line over the completion of the field of formal Puiseux series and the space dynamical systems between trees of spheres known to be equivalent to the Deligne-Mumford compactification of the Moduli space of marked spheres.'
author:
- |
Matthieu Arfeux\
[[email protected]]{}
title: 'Berkovich spaces and Deligne-Mumford compactification'
---
[**About this preprint.**]{}This preprint does not expose any new result. It may be completed later in a version that would contain a description of its relation between different other works and also concrete application to dynamics but the author wanted to make it quickly available. The readers are very welcome to mail any comment that could improve this preprint.
Introduction
============
[**Motivations.**]{}
Who in holomorphic dynamics did not hear about Berkovich spaces and about Deligne-Mumford compactification? Indeed these tools appear more and more in the literature these last years, explicitly as in [@K1], [@DF], [@HK], [@S], [@A0] for example or implicitly as in DeMarco-McMullen’s trees [@DM], Shishikura’s trees [@Sh1], etc... It would really be a very long task to list where these tools are used! However, it is often painful for people to be introduced in these topics because the main ideas are often hidden under a heavy formalism that has to be introduced in order to state corrects results.
What if I tell you that in fact these tools behind their respective formalisms are very simple and that they are also related? One could think that explaining the relation would be very painful and that if it is already hard to learn about one of these topics, it would be crazy to try to understand both of them at the same time. But one would be wrong, as this is exactly the goal of this paper:
- introducing both of these topics at the same time,
- explaining the main ideas behind them,
- expliciting the relation between them, and
- try to be understandable by a beginner in both of these fields.
First let us recall what I mean by holomorphic dynamics. Let us denote by $\S:=\P^1\C$ the Riemann sphere. According to the Uniformization Theorem, every compact surface of genus $0$ with a projective structure is isomorphic to $\S$. For $d\geq 1$, we denote by $\Rat_d$ the set of rational maps $f:{\mathbb S}\to {\mathbb S}$ of degree $d$. We want to understand the behavior of these maps under iteration. Hence we introduce the natural action by conjugacy of the set $\Aut(\S):=\Rat_1$ of Moebius transformations on $\Rat_d$ : $$\Aut(\S)\times \Rat_d\ni (M,f)\mapsto M\circ f\circ M^{-1}\in \Rat_d.$$ We want to understand the dynamical properties of $\rat_d$, the quotient of $\Rat_d$ by this action. Here we are going to focus on the study of diverging sequences of $\rat_d$.
Berkovich spaces and the Deligne-Mumford compactification are very general tools that can be used in very general settings but for our purpose we will restrict our use to the completion of the field of formal Puiseux series for Berkovich spaces and to the case of genus zero (moduli space of punctured spheres) for the Deligne-Mumford compactification.
For the Berkovich space, we will recall what is this field later (as late as possible). This will restrict our application of Berkovich spaces in dynamics (for example we will not be able to explain how they are used in [@BD] or in [@FG]).
For the Deligne-Mumford compactification, a new vocabulary with dynamical systems between trees of spheres, that was claimed to be more adapted for the use in holomorphic dynamics, has been introduced in [@A0] (translated in English in [@A1], [@A2], [@A3]). We will directly use it without going back to the formalism of Deligne-Mumford.
In [@K2], the author explain how to use Berkovich space ideas in order to deduce properties of diverging sequences in $\rat_d$ and the vocabulary in [@A0] has been based on this idea. One of the goal of this work is also to explicit here the bridge between the two formalism in order to allow later to use this bridge the reverse way. This paper is based on some remarks sketched in [@A0].
[**A problem of normalization.**]{}
As we said, the space we are interested in, $\rat_d$, is a quotient space and it is usually convenient to use representatives instead of classes. The choice of representatives (often called normalizations) is usually a problem when one want to study the behavior in the boundary of the space. For example, it can happen that a sequence diverges in $\Rat_d$ and at the same time converges in $\rat_d$.
When we go to infinity we always have some critical points collapsing but the reverse can be false. Intuitively it is natural to think that one could understand the behavior of a diverging sequence by trying to understand how the critical points are collapsing together. That’s why it is natural to keep trace of the critical points. Of course, as we are doing dynamics, we will also look at the behavior of periodic orbits. To keep trace of these elements, we “mark” them on the sphere. Given a rational map $f\in\Rat_d$ and a finite set $X$ of elements which are meaningful for us (critical points, orbits,...), we define a sphere marked by $X$ to be an injection $i:X\to\S$.
We are interested in $[f]\in\rat_d$ so the space that we will consider is not the space of injections but its quotient by the corresponding action: the injection $i$ will be considered modulo post composition by a Moebius transformation.
For a finite set $X$ containing at least three elements, the space $\Mod_X$ is the space of injections of $X$ in $\S$ modulo post composition by Moebius transformations and is called the moduli space of marked spheres.
For example, when $\card X=3$ the space $\Mod_X$ has a unique element because the action of the Moebius transformation on the subsets of three points of $\P^1\C$ is transitive. In particular, $\Mod_X$ is compact in this case. For $\card X>3$ this is not the case and this space has been well studied by people in algebraic geometry. There is a natural compactification of $\Mod_X$ called the Deligne-Mumford compactification.
[**Another point of view on holomorphic families.**]{}
Let’s go back to our initial problem but with a different point of view. Consider an holomorphic family $$F_t(z):=\frac{a_d(t)z^d+\ldots+a_1(t)z+a_0(t)}{b_d(t)z^d+\ldots+b_1(t)z+b_0(t)},\quad t\in D({0,1}).$$ For the study of the boundary of $\rat_d$, we will consider that $f_t\in\Rat_d$ if and only if $t\neq0$.
By holomorphic family we mean that the $a_i(t)$ and $b_j(t)$ are Laurent series in $t$ without essential singularities. The other idea is to consider that instead of having a family of rational map with coefficients in $\C$, we can think of $F_t$ as only one rational map whose coefficients are Laurent series without essential singularities or in another field that contains them. We denote by $\LL$ a field that contains these series and that will be specified when we will really need it. The only thing that the reader should keep in mind is that even if this field is really bigger than what we are used to see in holomorphic dynamics, the only interesting property for us is that it our series.
Thus what we will be considering is a rational map
$$F_t(z):=\frac{a_dz^d+\ldots+a_0}{b_dz^d+\ldots+b_0}\in \LL(z).$$
The field $\LL$ has the particularity to be equipped by a non-Archimedean norm (to be defined later). In this case, there is an interesting construction existing over this field which is called a Berkovich space. We will see that this space has a natural tree structure and that the map $F_t$ acts naturally on this tree which provides a dynamical system giving information about how the family $[f_t]\in\rat_d$ diverges when $t\neq 0$.
[**Outline.**]{} This paper will try to be pedagogic. Hence will first make an exposition of the comparison of these two notions emphasizing the ideas and forgetting a little about the Berkovich general formalism that will be introduced in Section \[Chap7\]. As in order to do dynamics we first need a space, then a map and finally a way to iterate, the structure of this paper will be the sequel: spaces Section \[Chap2\], maps Section \[Chap3\] and dynamics Section \[Chap4\]. Then in Section \[Chap5\] we will compare the approaches underlying advantages and disadvantages of these two ones. Finally we will have Section \[Chap7\] as already explained.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} This paper follows from discussions with Jan Kiwi during my PhD. I want to thank also Charles Favre, Mattias Jonsson and Juan Rivera-Letelier for discussion that allowed me to go further in the Berkovich formalism.
Spaces {#Chap2}
======
Trees of spheres on an example
------------------------------
In this section we forgot about rational maps and fix a set $X$ containing at least three elements. As we saw above, we are interested in understanding the diverging sequences in $\Mod_X$.
For simplicity, let us first suppose that $\card X=4$ (we already saw that for ${\card X=3}$ the space is compact). We set $X=\{a,b,c,d\}$. Consider a sequence $[i_n]$ without converging subsequences in $\Mod_X$. The natural reflex when we are working modulo Moebius transformation, is to post-compose $i_n$ by such a transformation $M_n$ in order to control the position of three points. We call $M_n\circ i_n$ a normalization of the marked sphere.
For example $M_n\circ i_n$ maps $a$ to $0$, $b$ to $1$ and $c$ to $\infty$. Using the compactness of $\S$, we can suppose (maybe after extracting a subsequence) that the sequence $M_n\circ i_n(d)$ converges. As $[i_n]$ diverges, we deduce that the limit is $0,1$ or $\infty$. Suppose for example that $\lim M_n\circ i_n(d)=\infty= M_n\circ i_n(c)$.
A naive way to think would be to define the limit of $[i_n]$ to be the application that maps $a$ to $0$, $b$ to $1$ and both $c$ and $d$ to $\infty$ (i.e. the limit of $M_n\circ i_n$). Indeed, if we take another normalization, i.e. another sequence of Moebius transformation $N_n$ that maps now $a$ to $0$, $c$ to $\infty$ and $d$ to $1$, one can see that this process would give a different limit for $[i_n]$.
It is an easy exercise to check that if we choose another sequence of representative such that the image of three elements of $X$ are constant we have a limit with differs only from the two previous one by a Moebius translation. So a first idea is to think that the limit that we define for $[i_n]$ is going to be the collection of these two possible limits.
The second idea is to remark that these two limits are related. Indeed, if for example $M_n\circ i_n(d)=n$ then we can compute that $N_n\circ M_n^{-1}(z)= z/n$ and it follows that $N_n\circ i_n(b)=1/n\to0=N_n\circ i_n(a)$. Hence this collection of limits comes with some rigidity. This is why we introduce trees: in order to give a simple visualization of this rigidity. In this example we identify the limit of $[i_n]$ to a tree of sphere (that we will define later) as on Figure \[dmpp\].
![Illustration of the convergence to a tree of spheres.[]{data-label="dmpp"}](dmpp-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="14cm"}
\[zoomstof\] When we consider the normalization $M_n\circ i_n$, we see that the images of $c$ and $d$ are collapsing so intuitively, considering the normalization $N_n\circ i_n$ corresponds to zooming or rescaling at the level of these two points.
Before developing the definition of trees of spheres in the next subsection, let us first describe this example. The tree of sphere on Figure \[dmpp\] has 5 edges, and 6 vertices. There are two categories of vertices: elements of $X$ at the ends (or leaves) of the tree and spheres at the interior and on which are attached edges. At each internal vertex $\S_v$ the set of branches induces a partition of $X$. Hence this naturally provides an application $X\to\S_v$ that maps each element of $x$ to the attaching point of the branch to which it belongs. The two spheres provide two applications that correspond exactly to the ones associated to $M_n$ and $N_n$. Note that from the definition, both of the spheres have at least three different marked points. Of course, in order to have a well define and unique limit we have to consider these trees modulo a natural action of isomorphism.
Limits and trees of spheres
---------------------------
As we saw above, the structure of the trees we are going to define is essentially combinatorial. It is important as it encodes a rigidity that is not obvious to describe with a simple vocabulary. That’s why we define everything in order to make easy to talk about it.
A graph is the disjoint union of a finite set $V$ called set of vertices and an other finite set $E$ consisting of elements of the form $\{v,v'\}$ with different $v,v'\in V$. We say that $\{ v,v'\}$ is an edge between $v$ and $v'$. For all $v\in V$ we define $E_v$ the set of edges containing $v$. We call valence of $v$ the cardinal of $E_v$.
A (stable) tree is a connected graph without cycle and whose internal vertices have at least valence $3$.
For every vertex $v$ and every edge $e$ adjacent to $v$, we denote by $B_v(e)$ the branch on $v$ that contains $e$, ie the connected component of $T\setminus\{v\}$ that contains $e$.
A tree of sphere ${\cal T^X}$ (marked by $X$) is the data of:
- a combinatorial tree $T^X$ whose leaves are the elements of $X$ and
- for every internal vertex $v$ of $T^X$,
- a Riemann sphere $\S_v$ and
- a one-to-one map $i_v:E_v\to \S_v$.
We denote by $\overline{\rm Mod}_X$ the space of trees of spheres marked by $X$. For $e\in E_v$, we say that $i_v(e)$ is the attaching point of $e$ on $v$. We extend $i_v$ to $T\setminus \{v\}$ by setting $i_v(v'):=i_v(e)$ if $v'\in B_v(e)$. We denote by $a_v$ the application $i_v|_X$. When the tree has a unique internal vertex $v$, we identify it to the marked sphere $a_v$.
A sequence of marked spheres $a_n:X\to{\mathbb S}_n$ converges to a tree of sphere ${\cal T}^X$ if for all internal vertex $v$ of $\T^X$ , there exists an isomorphism $M_{n,v}:{\mathbb S}_n\to{\S}_v$ such that $M_{n,v} \circ a_n$ converges to $a_v$.
(We prefer to use the notation $\S_n$ instead of $\S$ or $\P^1\C$ because the $\S_n$ should be thought distinct.)
We keep in this paper this notion of convergence witch is not Hausdorff. In fact this notion is Hausdorff after passing to a quotient by the appropriated notion of isomorphism of trees of spheres. We will not develop this notion of isomorphism in this paper but the interested reader can take a look to [@A3].
Berkovich space
---------------
Recall that $\LL$ is a special field that contains Laurent series without essential singularities. We are going to explain how is constructed a Berkovich space over $\LL$. For simplicity we assume in this section that $\LL$ is the set of these series. Let us define a norm on this space. Let $$c:=\sum_{k\geq k_0}c_{j} t^{k}\in \LL\quad \text{with}\quad k_0\in\Z\text{ and }c_{k_0}\neq0.$$
We define $$|c|_\LL:=exp({-k_0}).$$ Setting $|0|_\LL=0$, we assure that $|.|_\LL$ is a norm on $\LL$. Moreover, it satisfies an inequality stronger then the usual triangular inequality, called the ultrametric or non-Archimedean inequality and that defines $\LL$ to be a non-Archimedean field: $$\forall a,b\in\LL, |a+b|_\LL\leq \rm{max}(|a|_\LL,|b|_\LL).$$
This inequality, is very strange for people who are not used to it. For example I have here to say that this paper design by “closed” (resp. “open”) ball the ball define by a large (resp. strict) inequality because both of them are open and closed for this topology. Also, if we denote by $B(z,r)$ the closed ball of center $z\in\LL$ and radius $r\geq0$, we have the surprising following lemma.
\[ball\] Given $z,z'\in\LL$ and $r\geq0$, we have $$z\in B(z',r)\implies B(z,r)=B(z',r).$$
Suppose that $|z-z'|\leq r$. Then $$x\in B(z,r)\implies |x-z'|_\LL\leq \max (|x-z|_\LL,|z-z'|_\LL)\leq r\implies x\in B(z',r).$$
This means that every element in a closed ball is the center of this ball and, as a consequence, that the intersection of two balls is empty or one ball is included in the other. It will play a major role in the understanding of tree structure in the Berkovich space.
To define precisely what is this Berkovich space, we would have to talk about valuations, semi norms but one would want first to forget about the formalism and concentrate on the keys for understanding this space. Let’s denote by $\P^1_\LL\approx\LL\cup\{\infty\}$ the projective space over $\LL$.
$ \P^1 _{Berk}$ is a compactification of $\P^1_\LL$ called the Berkovich projective line.
Here is the important remark due to Berkovich:
\[prethm\] Almost every element of $ \P^1 _{Berk}$ is identified to a closed ball $$B(z_0,r)=\{z\in \P^1_\LL ~|~ |z-z_0|\leq r \}.$$
From this we can deduce that $\P^1 _{Berk}$ has a real tree structure. A way to represent the space $\P^1 _{Berk}$ is to consider it as the quotient of the product $" {\LL} \times (\R^+\cup\{\infty\} )"$ (Center$\times$ Radius) by the relation provided in Lemma \[ball\]. The real structure of this space comes from the vertical line that all behave well to the quotient.
For example take $a\neq b$ in $\LL$. Consider the balls $B(a,r)$ and $B(b,r)$ for the radii $r\in[0,\infty]$. Define $r_0:=|b-a|_\LL$. For $r<r_0$ the balls $B(a,r)$ and $B(b,r)$ are disjoint but for $r\geq r_0$ they are equal according to Lemma \[ball\] (cf Figure \[Berkline\]).
Hence we have to think about $\P^1 _{Berk}$ as real lines attached to the elements of $\LL\cup\{\infty\}$, identified to the balls of radius $0$ or infinity, parametrized by the radius of the balls and with intersecting points at each values of $|a-b|_\LL$ for some $a$ and $b$ in $\LL$ (cf Figure \[P1brek\]).
Proposition \[prethm\] gives a good idea of what is the all space. For the purpose of proving that trees of spheres are included in the Berkovich space, it will be sufficient to consider the elements mentioned in this statement. We will give in Section \[Chap7\] a complete version of this theorem.The points that corresponds to balls of radius 0 are identified to elements of $\P^1\LL$ and are called type I. The non branching points are said to be type II and the branching ones are type III. The points that we omitting are some ends of the Berkovich tree. These points are called the type IV points. We will totally abuse and design in this paper by “end” only the type I points.
![ []{data-label="P1brek"}](Berkline-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="6cm"}
![ []{data-label="P1brek"}](P1berk-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="6.5cm"}
Limits and Berkovich space
--------------------------
Now, let us look at the branching points in $ \P^1 _{Berk}$. We saw that they occur at some points $B(a,|a-b|_\LL)$ for some $a$ and $b$ in $\LL\cup\{\infty\}$. Up to a change of coordinate in $\P^1_\LL$, we can consider that this ball is the (closed) ball $${\zeta}:=B(0,1)$$ called the Gauss point.
This point is very particular from an algebraic point of view as we will see the formalism in detail. The elements of $\zeta$ have the following form: $$c=\sum_{k\geq0}c_{k} t^{k} \text{ with all } c_k\in \C.$$ We define a map $\rho:\P^1 _{Berk}\to\P^1\C$ by $\rho(c)= c_0$ for $c\in\zeta$ and $\rho(c)=\infty$ for $c\notin \zeta$. Note that when it is well defined, applying $\rho$ corresponds to taking the limit.
Two elements of $\P^1\LL$ are in the same branch of $\zeta$ if and only if they have the same image by $\rho$. This gives a canonical identification between the branches at $\zeta$ and $\P^1\C$.
For $d\in\P^1\LL\setminus\zeta$, we have $|d-0|_\LL>1$ so $$\zeta\subset B(0,|d|_\LL)=B(0,|d|_\LL)$$ and all the elements $ B(d,0)\approx d$ with $|d|_\LL>1$ are in a same branch containing $\infty$.
For $a,b\in\zeta$, we saw before that $B(a,r)=B(b,r)\subset \zeta$ is a branching point separating $a\approx B(a,0)$ and $b\approx B(b,0)$. Thus $a$ and $b$ are in the same branch if and only if $|b-a|_\LL<1$. The result follows by remarking that $|b-a|_\LL<1$ if and only if the corresponding series have the same constant term.
We denote the set of branches at $\zeta$ by $T_{\zeta} \P^1 _{Berk}$. It is usually called the tangent space at $\zeta$. More generally, for any branching point $a\in\P^1_{Berk}$, we denote $T_{\zeta} \P^1 _{Berk}$ its tangent space, ie the set of branches at $a$.
\[remopenball\] Note that the intersection every branch at a branching point $B(a,r)$ (for $a\in\P^1_\LL$ and $r>0$) with $\P^1\LL$ is empty or an open ball. Indeed, after a change of coordinate we can suppose that this branch $B$ does not contains $\infty\in\P^1\LL$. Take $a'\in B\cap\LL$. Then $B(a,r)\cap\LL$ is the increasing union of the closed balls $B(a',r')$ for $0\leq r'<r$.
Comparison {#compspace}
----------
In order to be able to compare these two worlds, we have to first consider families of marked spheres instead of sequences. We suppose that for all $t\in D(0,1)\setminus \{0\}$, the maps $i_t:X\to\S_t$ are injections from the finite set $X$ to some spheres that we identify to the Riemann sphere $\C\cup\{\infty\}$. For every $a\in X$ we denote by $a_t$ the element $i_t(a)$. We suppose that the $a_t$ depend holomorphicaly on $t$.
Then naturally, every $a_t$ for $a\in X$ is identified to an element of $\LL$. Now take two other elements $b$ and $c$ in $X$ and identify them as for $a$ to elements $b_t$ and $c_t$ in $\LL$. Note that $a_t, b_t$ and $c_t$ are also identified to ends of the tree $\P^1_{Berk}$, thus there is a unique branching point $v\in \P^1_{Berk}$ separating them. Denote by $\S_v$ the tangent space $T_v\P^1_{Berk}$. Applying a Moebius transformation $M_{v,t}$ with coefficients in $\LL$ we can suppose that $a_t=1$, $b_t=1$ and $c_t=\infty$. Then $v=\zeta$ so we can deduce that $\rho(a_t)=\lim_{t\to0}a_t$. It follows that two elements of $M_{v,t}\circ i_t(X)$ have the same limit on $\S_v$ if and only if they are in the same branch of $\S_v$.
Every sphere $\S_v$ in $\T^X$ separates at least three elements of $X$, so for each sphere we can associate a vertex $v$ in $\P^1_{Berk}$ and its tangent space to $\S_v$ and the notions of convergence corresponds: for every vertex in $\P^1_{Berk}$ corresponding to a vertex in $\T^X$, there is a Moebius transformation $M_t$ such that $a$ and $b\in X$ are in the same branch if and only if $M_t\circ i_t(a_t)$ and $M_t\circ i_t(b_t)$ have same limit.
\[actionMoeb\] We can define an action of the space of Moebius transformations of $\P^1\LL$ on the branching points of $\P^1_{Berk}$. Indeed, given a branching point $v$, it separates at least three ends of the tree that we can identify to points of $\LL$. Then there exists a unique Moebius transformation $M_t$ that send these three points to $0,1$ and $\infty$. We define the image of $\zeta$ by $M_t$ to be $v$ and this is sufficient to define a transitive action on the all space of branching points of $\P^1_{Berk}$.
Because of this and as we saw in Remark \[zoomstof\] that a sequence (or a family in this setting) of Moebius transformations can be interpret as a rescaling, we can think of the set of branching points of $\P^1_{Berk}$ as a space of all the possible zooms or rescalings. In fact we could go much further and explicit a relation between these Moebius transformations and blows-up.
Maps {#Chap3}
====
Trees of spheres covers
-----------------------
We want to introduce maps between trees of spheres. For this it is convenient to first look at this notion in the case of marked spheres. Recall that the motivation to look at marked spheres was to mark critical points and periodic points. Hence, if we wanna consider sequences of rational maps and consequently sequences of marked spheres, it is clear that all of the maps in the same sequence should have the same number of critical points and the same number of other marked points, ie the same combinatorial datas.
We fix two finite sets $Y$ and $Z$ with at least three elements. We define a portrait ${\bf F}$ of degree $d\geq 2$ to be a couple $(F,\deg)$ where
- $F:Y\to Z$ is a map between two finite sets $Y$ and $Z$ and
- $\deg:Y\to \N-\{0\}$ is a function that satisfies $$\sum_{a\in Y}\bigl(\deg(a) -1\bigr) = 2d-2\quad\text{and}\quad \sum_{a\in F^{-1}(b)} \deg(a) = d\quad\text{ for all } b\in \Z.$$
Typically, $Z\subset \S$ is a finite set, $F:Y\to Z$ is the restriction of a rational map $F:\S\to \S$ to $Y:=F^{-1}(Z)$ and $\deg(a)$ is the local degree of $F$ at $a$. In this case, the Riemann-Hurwitz formula and the conditions on the function $\deg$ implies that $Z$ contains the set $V_F$ of the critical values of $F$ in order to let $F:\S-Y\to \S-Z$ be a cover.
A rational map marked by ${\bf F}$ is a triple $(f,y,z)$ such that $f\in \Rat_d$, $y:Y\to \S$ and $z:Z\to \S$ are marked spheres, and the following diagram commutes:
$\xymatrix{
Y \ar[r]^{y} \ar[d] _{{ F}} &\S \ar[d]^{f} \\
Z \ar[r]_{z} &\S
}$
with $\deg_{y(a)}f = \deg(a)$ for all $a\in Y$.
Now we want to consider a sequence $(f_n,i_n,j_n)_n$ of rational maps marked by the same portrait ${\bf F}$ and understand how the trees of spheres are going to help us to define an interesting limit to it. The main idea comes from the following lemma:
[@A2]\[postcomp\] Let $(f_n: \S \to \S )_n$ be a sequence of rational maps of same degree. Then, there exists a subsequence $(f_{n_k})_{n_k}$ and a sequence of Moebius transformations $(M_{n_k})_{n_k}$ such that $ (M_{n_k}\circ f_{n_k})_{n_k}$ converges to a non constant rational map $f$ uniformly outside a finite number of points.
This mean that a sequence of rational map is never really diverging to a constant but its natural image can disappears to another scale. After passing to a subsequence $i_n$ converges to a tree of sphere $\T^Y$. In our case, each sphere $\S_v$ of $\T^Y$ corresponds to a scale $M_{n,v}$ and another map corresponding to this scale which is $f_n\circ M_{n,v}^{-1}$. This lemma insure that by looking at the right scale for the image we get a non constant limit.
Now, the magic of the right definitions works and it follows that if $j_n$ converges to a tree of spheres $\T^Z$, then the scales represented corresponding to the spheres of $\T^Z$ are exactly the ones given by Lemma \[postcomp\].
\[toscover\] Let $(f_n,i_n,j_n)_n$ be a sequence of rational maps marked by the same portrait ${\bf F}$. If $([i_n],[j_n])\to([{\cal T}^Y],[{\cal T}^Z])\in \overline{\rm Mod}_Y\times \overline{\rm Mod}_Z,$ then $(f_n,i_n,j_n)_n$ converges to a cover between trees of spheres $${\cal F}:{\cal T}^Y\to {\cal T}^Z.$$
Where covers between trees of spheres and convergence are defined below.
${\cal F}:{\cal T}^Y\to {\cal T}^Z$ is :
- a trees map $F:T^Y\to T^Z$
- for $w:=F(v)$, a ramified cover $f_v: \S_v\to \S_w$ s.t. 0.2cm
1. the restriction $f_v: \S_v-a_v(Y)\to \S_w-a_w(Z)$ is a cover; 0.2cm
2. adjacent attaching points maps to the corresponding adjacent attaching points 0.2cm
3. same local degree on both sides of edges.
Let ${ \F}:{\T}^Y\to { \T}^Z$ be a cover between trees of spheres of portrait ${\bf F}$. A sequence ${ \F}_n:=(f_n,a_n^Y,a_n^Z)$ of marked spheres covers converges to ${ \F}$ if their portrait is ${\bf F}$ and if for all pair of internal vertices $v$ and $w:=F(v)$, there exists sequences of isomorphisms $M_{n,v}^Y:\S_n^Y\to \S_v$ and $M_{n,w}^Z:\S_n^Z\to \S_w$ such that
- $M_{n,v}^Y\circ a_n^Y:Y\to \S_v$ converges to $a_v^Y:Y\to \S_v$,
- $M_{n,w}^Z\circ a_n^Z:Z\to \S_w$ converges to $a_w^Z:Z\to \S_w$ and
- $M_{n,w}^Z\circ f_n\circ (M_{n,v}^Y )^{-1}:\S_v\to \S_w$ converges locally uniformly outside $Y_v$ to ${f_v:\S_v\to \S_w}$.
These covers have natural properties such as
- combinatorial surjectivity (every sphere of $\T^Z$ has a preimage),
- global degree (the global number of preimages of every point on a sphere of $\T^Z$ is constant) and
- allowing Riemann-Hurwitz type formula for a well chosen equivalent of the Euler characteristic.
Maps on Berkovich space
-----------------------
For every polynomial $P_t:=X^d+a_1.X^{d-1}+\ldots+a_{d}\in \LL[X]$ we have the explicit formula: $$P(B(0,r))=B(a_d(t),\underset{i\in[1,d]}{max}(|a_i(t)|_\LL . r^{d-i})).$$ Hence $P_t$ defines a dynamic on $ \P^1 _{Berk}$.
However the case of rational maps is a little more difficult but we can also associate a unique ball as an image to another one and thus define a dynamic on $\P^1 _{Berk}$. For this we have to remark that the map $F_t$ is well defined on $\P^1\LL$, and that for each branching point$a\in \P^1 _{Berk}$ all the open balls corresponding to the branches of $a$ (see Remark \[remopenball\]) but a finite number of them map to open balls corresponding to the branches of a unique branching point of $\P^1 _{Berk}$. This is unfortunately not easy to prove, we would have to prove the following that we admit in this paper (cf [@Juan]).
If an open ball maps to another open ball, then the corresponding branch maps to the other one.
Thus, for a branching point $v$, this define almost everywhere a map $$D_{v}F_t:T_{v} \P^1 _{Berk}\to T_{F_t(v)} \P^1 _{Berk}.$$
cf Remark \[actionMoeb\].
As tangent spaces are related to limits, it is time to look at the meaning in terms of the map $\rho$. Recall that we defined a map $\rho:\LL\to\C$ which is the equivalent of taking the limit $t\to 0$. This map extends to $\rho:\LL[X]\to\C[X]$ by applying $\rho$ to the coefficients. In order to extend it to a map $$\rho:\LL(X)\to\C(X),$$ we have to be more careful and for each $F_t=P_t/Q_t$ with $P_t,Q_t\in \LL[X]$ we first have to simplify $P_t$ and $Q_t$ by the maximal power of $t$ that can be factored for both of them and, then, we can apply $\rho$ to the coefficients. Of course this is the equivalent of taking the limit when $t\to 0$ when it is meaningful.
Now we are ready to state the most important statement about functions acting on the Berkovich space.
\[thmzeta\] If $F_t(\zeta)=\zeta$, the tangent map $D_{\zeta}F_t:T_{\zeta} \P^1 _{Berk}\to T_{\zeta} \P^1 _{Berk}$ is a well defined non constant rational map and satisfies $$D_{\zeta}F_t=\rho(F_t).$$
Hence we have the following corollary.
If $deg(\rho(P_t)/\rho(Q_t))>0$ and $(F_t)_{t\in D(0,1)-\{0\}} $ is a holomorphic family in $\Rat_d$ with $F_t:\P^1_\LL\to\P^1_\LL$, then $$F_t=\frac{P_t}{Q_t}\;{\longrightarrow}\;\frac{\rho(P_t)}{\rho(Q_t)}=\rho(F_t).$$
In fact the convergence is local, uniform outside a finite set.
Comparison {#comparison}
----------
Consider an holomorphic family $$f_t(z):=\frac{a_d(t)z^d+\ldots+a_1(t)z+a_0(t)}{b_d(t)z^d+\ldots+b_1(t)z+b_0(t)},\quad t\in D({0,1}),$$ such that $f_t\in\Rat_d$ if and only if $t\neq0$.
Fix a portrait ${\bf F}$ of degree $d$ and suppose that for $t\neq 0$, we can associate to $F_t$ two marqued spheres $i_t$ and $j_t$ as in the section \[compspace\] and such that $(\F_t,i_t,j_t)$ is a rational map marked by ${\bf F}$. Then $i_t$ and $j_t$ converge respectively to some trees of spheres $\T^Y$ and $\T^Z$ that can be identified in $\P^1_{Berk}$ and, according to Theorem \[toscover\], there is a trees of spheres cover $\F:\T^Y\to\T^Z$.
Given a vertex $v\in T^Y$, there exist a moebius transformation $M_{v,t}$ that maps $\zeta$ to $v$ and $M_{F(v),t}$ the maps $\zeta$ to $F(v)$. Hence the map $$F _{v,t}:=M_{F(v),t}\circ F_t\circ M_{v,t}$$ fixes $\zeta$ and Theorem \[thmzeta\] together with its corollary assures that $f_v$ and $D_\zeta F _{v,t}:T_{\zeta} \P^1 _{Berk}\approx\S\to T_{\zeta} \P^1 _{Berk}\approx\S$ are conjugated.
Remarks about quotient
----------------------
Now we are ready go back to the original spaces. The sequences or families that we were studying are in $\rat_d$. On the one had, for the trees of spheres point of view, we see that considering a sequence of dynamically marked rational map $(M_n\circ f_n\circ M_n^{-1},M_n\circ i_n,M_n\circ j_n)_n$ instead of $(f_n,i_n,j_n)_n$ does not really affect the notion of convergence as in that definition allows to pre-compose and post-compose $f_n$ when we want to prove that it converges in certain charts to the corresponding applications between two spheres.
On the other hand, for the Berkovich point of view, considering ${M_t\circ F_t\circ M_t^{-1}}$ instead of $F_t$ corresponds to making a change of coordinate in $\P^1\LL$ and by consequence changing the corresponding point $\zeta$. The new $\zeta$ corresponds to the image by $M_t$ of the old one in the corresponding coordinates.
Dynamics and rescaling limits {#Chap4}
=============================
Dynamics on trees
-----------------
The dynamics in the branching points of the Berkovich space is already well defined. However, it needs more work for the case of trees of spheres. Indeed, when we mark a rational map, we distinguish the domain of definition and the image of the map. For example, already at the level of a portrait, there is no meaning of cycle. For this we would need to have at least an identification of a subset of $Z$ into a subset of $Y$. Hence we consider the case where there exists a set $X= Y\cap Z$ with at least three elements. To be consistent, we say that a triple $(f,i,j)$ is a rational map dynamically marked by $({\bf F},X)$ if ${\bf F}$ is a portrait, $i|_X=j|_X$ and the following diagram commutes
[ $$\xymatrix{
X\ar[r]\ar[rd]&Y \ar[r]^i \ar[d]_{ F} & \S \ar[d]^f \\
&Z \ar[r]_j & \S.
}$$]{}
Before defining dynamics on trees of spheres, let us already go back to the Berkovich space point of view. Suppose that the $(f_t,i_t,j_t)$ are as in the previous section and that in addition they are rational map dynamically marked by $({\bf F},X)$. Then as before we have $\T^Y$ and $\T^Z$ in the Berkovich space. But now we have an additional information : the ends corresponding to the elements marked by $X$ are common to the trees $\T^Y$ and $\T^Z$. Thus we have to identify the spheres of the trees of spheres $\T^Y$ and $\T^Z$ that corresponds to branching points separating three elements of $X$.
A tree of spheres ${\cal T}^X$ is compatible with a tree of spheres ${\cal T}^Y$ if
- $X\subseteq Y$, $IV^X\subseteq IV^Y$,
- for all internal vertex $v$ of $T^X$, we have
- $\St^X_v=\St^Y_v$ and
- $a_v^X=a_v^Y|_X $.
We write $\T^X\lhd \T^Y$ in this case.
A dynamical system of trees of spheres is a pair $(\F,\T^X)$ such that
- ${\cal F}:{\cal T}^Y\to {\cal T}^Z$ is a cover between trees of spheres ;
- $\T^X\lhd \T^Y$ and $\T^X\lhd\T^Z$.
We can define dynamics and iterate the spheres of $\T^Y$ as soon as their iterates lie in $\T^X$. If this is not the case, then we have to stop iterating, which is one of the inconvenient of this formalism. We also have to adapt a little the notion of convergence.
\[defcvdyn\] Let $({\F}:{ \T}^Y\to { \T}^Z,{ \T}^X)$ be a dynamical system of trees of spheres with portrait ${\bf F}$. A sequence $(f_n,y_n,z_n)_n$ of dynamical systems between spheres marked by $({\bf F},X)$ converges to $(\F,\T^X)$ if $$\displaystyle (f_n,y_n,z_n)\underset{M_n^Y,M_n^Z}\longrightarrow{ \F}\quad\text{with}\quad M_{n,v}^Y=M_{n,v}^Z$$ for all vertex $v\in IV^X$.
Rescaling limits
----------------
Let us now see what dynamics on these trees can tell about the divergence of the sequence of rational maps $(f_n,i_n,j_n)$ dynamically marked by a same portrait. Suppose that we have a sphere $\S_v$ of $\T^X$ of period $p$. We deduce from the definitions that the map $$(M^Z_{n,F^p(v)}\circ f_n\circ\ldots M^Z_{n,F^2(v)}\circ f_n\circ (M^Y_{n,F(v)})^{-1})\circ (M^Z_{n,F(v)}\circ f_n\circ (M^Y_{n,v})^{-1})$$ which is the same as the map $ M^Y_{n,v}\circ f^p_n\circ (M^Y_{n,v})^{-1}$ converges locally uniformly outside a finite number of point to a non constant map.
For a period $p$ branching point in $\P^1_{Berk}$ for some $F_t$, it is even easier: if $M_{t,v}$ maps $v$ to $\zeta$ then $M_{t,v}\circ F_t\circ M^{-1}_{t,v}$ fixes $\zeta$ so converges also locally uniformly outside a finite number of point to a non constant map.
These phenomena are meaningful from the dynamical point of view and such limits are called rescaling limits. As we can see, these limits come as cycles so there is a natural notion of dependance that follows from these (see [@K2] for the details). It is not the purpose of this paper to study rescaling limits. The interested reader can refer to [@K2] or to [@A1] and [@A2] for the results known today.
Comparison of these approaches {#Chap5}
==============================
Overview of the bridge
----------------------
Before comparing these two approaches, let’s first resume the links that we proved between these two approaches.
First, we suppose that for all $t\in D(0,1)\setminus \{0\}$, the maps $i_t:Y\to\S_t$ and $j_t:Z\to\S_t$ are injections with finite sets $Y$ and $Z$ whose intersection $X$ contains at least 3 elements. For every element $a$ in these sets we denote by $a_t$ its image on $\S_t$ and we suppose that the $a_t$ depend holomorphicaly on $t$ and that $i_t$ and $j_t$ converge to the respective trees of spheres $\T^Y$ and $\T^Z$.
The elements in $i_t(Y)$ and $j_t(Z)$ are points in $\P^1\LL$ identifiable to ends in $\P^1_{Berk}$. Every internal vertex $v$ in $\T^Y$ (resp. $\T^Z$) separate three points in $Y$ (resp. $Z$) and corresponds to a unique branching points $B_v$ in $\P^1_{Berk}$. There exists Moebius transformation $M_{t,v}$ (not uniquely defined) that maps $\zeta$ to $B_v$. The spheres $\S_v$ and $T_{B_v}\P^1_{Berk}$ are identified. The composition $M_{t,v}\circ i_t$ (resp. $M_{t,v}\circ j_t$) converges to the marking $a_v$ of $\S_v$ (modulo maybe a post composition by a constant Moebius transformation).
Consider an holomorphic family $F_t$ of rational map of degree $d$ when $t\neq0$, a portrait ${\bf F}$ and suppose that $(\F_t,i_t,j_t)$ is a rational map marked by ${\bf F}$. then there is a trees of spheres cover $\F:\T^Y\to\T^Z$. If $F(v)=w$ then $F_t(B_v)=B_w$ and $f_v=\rho( M_{w,t}^{-1}\circ F_t\circ M_{v,t})$ (up to a pre and post composition by some constant Moebius transformations).
Advantages and disadvantages
----------------------------
There are three advantages to use the trees of spheres point of view. First, the vocabulary is quite simple and really matches the concern of people in holomorphic dynamics. Second, the proofs for the rescaling theorems are more combinatorics and topology: the analytic properties are hidden inside lemmas (see Branches and Annuli lemmas in [@A2]). Third, given a portrait ${\bf F}$, the space of rational maps dynamically marked by ${\bf F}$ comes with a topology described in [@A3] and the convergence arise in a nice analytic space when in the Berkovich point of view we provide a dynamics on a space only when we fix a diverging analytic family diverging, i.e. there is no topology and the way to diverge is fixed. Note that Jan Kiwi pointed out that the analytic condition is not a very big constraint as he proved that if a sequence for rational maps has a finite number of rescaling limits, then there exists a corresponding analytic family of rational maps that have the same behavior in the sense defined in Proposition 6.1 of [@K2].
The price to pay in order to get a nice topology is to have to consider finite objects and force the dynamics to appear when in the Berkovich space the dynamics is directly well defined. The other problem of finiteness of these objects is that we have to make a choice of the points we are marking whereas in the Berkovich space in a certain sense all the possible analytical markings are already there. In a some sense, we can say that Berkovich spaces are useful to find an information whereas the trees of spheres are a more natural setting in order to write a convergence when we already have the informations we are interested in.
The other problem to force finiteness of the combinatorics is that the trees of spheres can just have a finite number of rescaling cycles. In [@K2], J. Kiwi remarked that we don’t know so far any example of sequences of rational maps that have infinitely many rescaling limits that are dynamically interesting (i.e. of degree at least two and not monomial). However, recent results from Cui G. and Peng W. in [@CP] involving the general idea of Shishikura trees (see [@Sh1] for a special case) let think that we could produce such examples.
The formalism of Berkovich spaces {#Chap7}
=================================
[**The non-Archimedean field.**]{}
The field $\LL$ we consider is the completion of $\C\langle\langle t \rangle\rangle$ (the algebraic closure of the field of formal Puiseux series). Its elements looks like $$a=\sum_{q_j\geq q_0}c_{j} t^{q_j}\in\L-\{0\}\quad\quad (c_{j}\in \C,\;c_0\neq0, \;\Q\ni q_j\nearrow\infty).$$
The non-Archimedean norm on this field corresponds to the vanishing order at $0$, i.e. $$|a|_\LL:=\rm{exp}(-q_0).$$ We denoted by $ \P^1 _\LL$ the projective space over $\LL$.
[**The Berkovich projective line.**]{}
A multiplicative semi-norm on $\LL[X]$, is a function defined on ${|.|_x:\LL[X]\to\R^+}$ that satisfies:
1. $|0|_x=0$ ;
2. $|1|_x=1$ ;
3. $|fg|_x=|f|_x|g|_x$ and
4. $|f+g|_x\leq |f|_x+|g|_x$.
\[sminorm\] Here are two fundamental example of such semi-norms::
- for every $a\in\LL$, we set $$P\to|P|_a:=|P(a)|_\LL,$$
- for every $z_0\in \LL$ and every $r\in\R^{\star+}$ we set $$B(z_0,r):=\{z\in\LL~|~|z-z_0|_\LL\leq r\}$$ and $$P\to|P|_{B(z_0,r)}=\underset{z\in B(z_0,r)}{max}|P(z)|_\LL.$$
We define the analytical Berkovich space $\mathbb A^{1,{\rm an}}_\LL$ to be the set of multiplicative semi-norms on $\LL[X]$ whose restriction to $\LL$ is $|.|_\LL$ and it is equipped with the weak convergence topology. This space is called the Berkovich affine line. The following theorem due to Berkovich is the right formulation of Proposition \[prethm\] (see [@BR]):
\[thmberk0\] Every element $|.|_B$ of $\mathbb A^{1,{\rm an}}_\LL$ is realizable as: $$|P|_B=\lim_{i\to \infty} \left( \underset{z\in B(z_i,r_i)}{max}|P(z)|_\LL\right).$$ for a decreasing sequence of (“closed”) balls: $$B(z_0,r_0)\supseteq B(z_1,r_1)\supseteq B(z_2,r_2)\supseteq\ldots\quad.$$
In particular, if the intersection of the $B(z_i,r_i)$ is not empty we are in one of the examples cited in Example \[sminorm\]. Otherwise, the point is said to be type IV point and it corresponds to a limit of the other points.
The projective line $\P^1 _{Berk}$ is obtained from $\mathbb A^{1,{\rm an}}_\LL$ by adding the function mapping all non identically zero polynomial to $\infty$ and $z\in\LL$ to $|z|_\LL.$ It follows that this space is compact.
[**Reduction.**]{}
On $\mathbb A^{1,{\rm an}}_\LL$, there is a point that plays a an important role from an algebraic point of view: $\cal O_\LL:=\{ z\in\LL~|~|z|_\LL\leq 1 \}$ (or $\zeta$ in the previous sections). Indeed, the elements of ${\cal O_\LL}$ form a local ring and are of the form: $$c_0+\sum_{q_j>0}c_{q_j} t^{q_j} .$$ This ring has a maximal ideal ${\frak M}:=\{ z\in\LL~|~|z|_\LL< 1 \}$ corresponding to the elements whose series has constant term 0. Hence there is a natural field to consider called the residue field ${\cal O_\LL/ \frak M}$ and the natural projection called the reduction $\rho:\cal B_G\to \cal O_\LL/ \frak M\approx \C$ defined by $$c_0+\sum_{q_j>0}c_{j} t^{q_j} \longmapsto c_0.$$
Note that this makes sense even if the series cannot be identified to a holomorphic map.
[**Dynamics.**]{}
We recalled that for $P_t:=X^d+a_1(t).X^{d-1}+\ldots+a_{d}(t)\in \LL[X]$ with $\forall i, a_i(t)\in\LL$, we can prove that $$P(B(0,r))=B(a_d(t),\underset{i\in[1,d]}{max}(|a_i(t)|_\LL . r^{d-i})).$$ In fact there is a well defined dynamics of $P_t$ on $\P^1 _{Berk}$t: if $|.|_x$ is a multiplicative semi-norm on $\LL[X]$ then $P(|.|_x)$ is the semi-norm that maps $Q \in\LL[X]$ to $|Q \circ P |_x$.
Note that proving that rational maps with coefficients in $\LL$ define a dynamics on $\P^1_{Berk}$ remains complicated and the interested reader can refer to [@Juan].
[105]{}
, [*Dynamique holomorphe et arbres de sphères*]{}, Thèse de l’université Toulouse III., 2013.
, [*Dynamics on trees of spheres*]{}, Submitted.
, [*Approximability of dynamical systems between trees of spheres*]{}, Submitted.
, [*Compactification and trees of spheres covers*]{}, Submitted.
, [*Special curves and postcritically-finite polynomials*]{},Forum of Mathematics, Pi. 1, e3, 2013.
, [*Potential Theory and Dynamics on the Berkovich Projective Line*]{},Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol 159, 2004.
, [*On the cycles of components of disconnected Julia sets*]{}, in preparation.
, [*Degenerations of complex dynamical systems*]{}, Forum of Mathematics. Sigma, Vol.2, 2014.
, [*Trees and the dynamics of polynomials*]{}, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 41, 2008.
, [*Distribution of postcritically finite polynomials*]{}, to appear in Israel J. Math.
, [*An analytic construction of the Deligne-Mumford compactification of the moduli space of curves*]{}, Journal of Differential Geometry, vol.98, 2014.
, [*Puiseux Series Dynamics of Quadratic Rational Maps*]{}, Israel Journal of Math., vol.201, 2014.
, [*Rescaling limits of complex rational maps*]{}, Duke Math. J., Vol.164, 2015.
, [*Dynamique des fonctions rationnelles on des corps locaux.*]{}, Geometric methods in dynamics. II. Astérisque No. 287, xv, 147-230, 2003.
, [*Thurston’s pullback map on the augmented Teichmüller space and applications*]{}, Invent. Math. 189, No. 1, 111-142, 2012.
, [*Trees associated with the configuration of Herman rings*]{}, Ergodic Theory & Dynamical Systems, 9, 543-560,1989.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Extending Culler-Shalen theory, Hara and the second author presented a way to construct certain kinds of branched surfaces in a $3$-manifold from an ideal point of a curve in the $\op{SL}_n$-character variety. There exists an essential surface in some $3$-manifold known to be not detected in the classical $\op{SL}_2$-theory. We prove that every connected essential surface in a $3$-manifold is given by an ideal point of a rational curve in the $\op{SL}_n$-character variety for some $n$.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Regensburg, Germany'
- 'Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Japan'
- 'Université du Québec à Montréal, Québec, Canada'
author:
- Stefan Friedl
- Takahiro KITAYAMA
- Matthias Nagel
title: Representation varieties detect essential surfaces
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we study an extension of Culler-Shalen theory for higher-dimensional representations. In their seminal work [@CS] Culler and Shalen established a method to construct essential surfaces in a $3$-manifold from an ideal point of a curve in the $\op{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$-character variety. The method is built on a beautiful combination of the theory of incompressible surfaces in a $3$-manifold, the geometry of representation varieties, and Bass-Serre theory [@Se1; @Se2]. We refer the reader to the exposition [@Sh] for literature and related topics on Culler-Shalen theory. Hara and the second author presented an analogous extension of the Culler-Shalen method to the case of higher-dimensional representations [@HK]. They showed that certain kinds of branched surfaces (possibly without any branched points) are constructed from an ideal point of a curve in the $\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$-character variety for a general $n$. Such a branched surface corresponds to a nontrivial splitting of the $3$-manifold group as a complex of groups [@C; @Ha].
The classical theory for $2$-dimensional representations is not sufficient to detect all essential surfaces in Haken manifolds. Throughout the paper let $M$ be a compact connected orientable $3$-manifold. We denote by $X_n(M)$ the $\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$-character variety of $\pi_1 M$. It was discovered by Boyer and Zhang [@BZ], and Motegi [@Mo] that there exist infinitely many Haken manifolds $M$, which are even hyperbolic, such that $X_2(M)$ has no irreducible component of positive dimension. See also [@SZ] for further study on the topic. We say that *an essential surface $S$ in $M$ is given by an ideal point $\chi$ of a curve in $X_n(M)$* if $S$ is constructed from $\chi$ by the Culler-Shalen method or its extension developed in [@HK] as described in Subsection \[subsec\_HK\]. Hara and the second author formulated and raised the following question [@HK Question 6.1].
\[q\_HK\] Does there exist an essential surface in some $3$-manifold $M$ not given by any ideal point of curves in $X_2(M)$ but given by an ideal point of a curve in $X_n(M)$ for some $n$?
The aim of this paper is to show that the extension of Culler-Shalen theory to the case of higher-dimensional representations [@HK] detects all essential surfaces in Haken manifolds. The following is the main theorem of this paper, which, in particular, gives an affirmative answer to Question \[q\_HK\].
\[thm\_main\] Every connected essential surface in $M$ is given by an ideal point of a rational curve in $X_n(M)$ for some $n$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\] relies on the breakthroughs of Agol [@A] and Wise [@W], and the subsequent works of Przytycki and Wise [@PW1; @PW2] on the separability of subgroups in a $3$-manifold group. For a given connected essential surface $S$ in $M$ there exists a non-separating lift $T$ of $S$ in some finite cover $N$ of $M$ by the separability of $\pi_1 S$ in $\pi_1 M$. The non-separating surface $T$ defines abelian representations $\pi_1 N \to \op{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$ parameterized in ${\mathbb{C}}^\times$, which induces an affine curve $D_T$ consisting of representations $\pi_1 M \to \op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ where $n$ is twice the degree of the cover $N$. The set of characters of representations in $D_T$ is a desired rational curve in $X_n(M)$ as in the statement of Theorem \[thm\_main\], which has a unique ideal point. Then analyzing the structure of the Bruhat-Tits building associated to the function field of $D_T$, we explicitly construct a PL-map from the universal cover of $M$ to the $1$-skeleton of the building. Finally, we show that the inverse image of midpoints of edges by the PL-map is isotopic to parallel copies of $S$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec\_HK\] we review the extension of the Culler-Shalen method to the case of $\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$-representations in [@HK]. Here we recall some of the standard facts on $\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$-character varieties and Bruhat-Tits buildings associated to the special linear group. In Subsection \[subsec\_HK\], we give the precise definition of the sentence ‘*an essential surface is given by an ideal point*’. Section \[sec\_PW\] provides a brief exposition on the separability of surface subgroups by Przytycki and Wise [@PW2]. Section \[sec\_proof\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
We wish to thank Steven Boyer and Takashi Hara for helpful conversations. The first and the third author was supported by the SFB 1085 ‘Higher Invariants’ at the Universität Regensburg funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). The second author was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (No. 26800032).
$\op{SL}_n$-Culler Shalen theory {#sec_HK}
================================
We begin with an overview of the extension of Culler-Shalen theory to the case of higher-dimensional representations in [@HK].
Character varieties
-------------------
We briefly review the $\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$-character variety of a finitely generated group. See [@LM; @Si1; @Si2] for more details.
Let $\pi$ be a finitely generated group. We define the following affine algebraic set $$R_n(\pi) = {\operatorname{Hom}}(\pi, \op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})).$$ The algebraic group $\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ acts on the affine algebraic set $R_n(\pi)$ by conjugation. We denote by $X_n(\pi)$ the GIT quotient of the action [@MFK]: $$X_n(\pi) = {\operatorname{Hom}}(\pi, \op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})) // \op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}).$$ The affine algebraic set $X_n(\pi)$ is called the *$\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$-character variety* of $\pi$. By definition the coordinate ring ${\mathbb{C}}[X_n(\pi)]$ is isomorphic to the subring ${\mathbb{C}}[R_n(\pi)]^{\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})}$ of ${\mathbb{C}}[R_n(\pi)]$ consisting of $\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})$-invariant functions. Procesi [@P Theorem 1.3] showed that ${\mathbb{C}}[R_n({\mathbb{C}})]^{\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}})}$ is generated by *trace functions* $I_\gamma$ for $\gamma \in \pi$ defined by $$I_\gamma(\rho) = \operatorname{tr}\rho(\gamma)$$ for $\rho \in R_n(\pi)$. Therefore $X_n({\mathbb{C}})$ is identified with the set of *characters* $\chi_\rho$ for $\rho \in R_n(\pi)$ defined by $$\chi_\rho(\gamma) = \operatorname{tr}\rho(\gamma)$$ for $\gamma \in \pi$. For a compact connected orientable $3$-manifold $M$, we abbreviate $R_n(\pi_1 M)$ and $X_n(\pi_1 M)$ with $R_n(M)$ and $X_n(M)$ respectively to simplify notation.
Let $C$ be an affine variety, and denote by ${\mathbb{C}}(C)$ its field of rational functions. We call $C$ an *affine curve* if the transcendence degree of ${\mathbb{C}}(C)$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$ equals $1$ [@F Section 6.5]. Consider an affine curve $C$ and its projectivisation $\overline C$. The projective curve $\overline C$ might not be smooth, but it has a unique smooth model, i.e., there is a smooth projective curve $\widetilde C$ together with a birational map $\widetilde C \dashrightarrow \overline C$ which is universal [@F Theorem 7.3]. Recall that a birational equivalence induces an isomorphism on the associated fields of rational functions [@F Proposition 6.12]. Thus their fields of rational functions all agree: ${\mathbb{C}}(C) = {\mathbb{C}}(\overline C) = {\mathbb{C}}(\widetilde C)$. To a point $P$ of $\widetilde C$ the local ring $\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde C, P}$ of $\widetilde C$ at $P$ is associated. As the point $P$ is a smooth point, the ring $\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde C, P}$ is a discrete valuation ring, which induces a discrete valuation $v_P$ on ${\mathbb{C}}(C)$ [@F Section 7.1].
An *ideal point* $\chi$ of an affine curve $C$ is a point of its smooth projective model $\widetilde C$ corresponding to a point of $\overline C \setminus C$. We can equip the rational functions ${\mathbb{C}}(C)$ with the discrete valuation $v_\chi$ associated to an ideal point $\chi$ as described above.
Bruhat-Tits buildings
---------------------
Following the exposition [@G], we describe the Bruhat-Tits building [@BT1; @BT2; @IM] associated to the special linear group over a discrete valuation field. See also [@AB] for more details on buildings.
Let $F$ be a commutative field equipped with a discrete valuation $v$ which is not necessarily complete. We denote by $\mathcal{O}_v$ the valuation ring associated to $v$. The *Bruhat-Tits building* associated to $\op{SL}_n(F)$, which is an $(n-1)$-dimensional simplicial complex $B_v$, is defined as follows: A vertex of $B_v$ is the homothety class of a lattice in the $n$-dimensional vector space $F^n$, where a *lattice* in $F^n$ is a free $\mathcal{O}_v$-submodule of full rank, and two lattices $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ are *homothetic* if $\Lambda = \alpha \Lambda'$ for some $\alpha \in F^\times$. A set of $(m+1)$ vertices $s_0, s_1, \dots, s_m$ forms an $m$-simplex in $B_v$ if and only if there exist lattices $\Lambda_0, \Lambda_1, \dots, \Lambda_m$ representing $s_0, s_1, \dots, s_m$ respectively such that after relabeling indices we have the flag relation $$\omega \Lambda_m \subsetneq \Lambda_0 \subsetneq \Lambda_1 \subsetneq \dots \subsetneq \Lambda_m,$$ where $\omega$ is an irreducible element of $\mathcal{O}_v$.
The simplicial complex $B_v$ is known to be an *Euclidean building*, and, in particular, a $\op{CAT}(0)$-space with respect to the standard metric. See for instance [@AB Definition 11.1] for the definition of an Euclidean building. Since $\op{SL}_n(F)$ acts on the set of lattices in $F^n$ so that homothety classes and above flag relations are preserved, $\op{SL}_n(F)$ acts also on $B_v$. This action is *type-preserving*, i.e., there exists an $\op{SL}_n(F)$-invariant map $\tau \colon B_v^{(0)} \to {\mathbb{Z}}/ n {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $\tau|_{\Delta^{(0)}}$ is a bijection for each $(n-1)$-simplex $\Delta$ in $B_v$. Here for a simplicial complex $K$ we denote by $K^{(m)}$ the $m$-skeleton of $K$. In particular, for any subgroup $G$ of $\op{SL}_n(F)$ the quotient $B_v / G$ is again an $(n-1)$-dimensional simplicial complex.
In the case of $n = 2$ the above construction is nothing but the one of the tree associated to $\op{SL}_2(F)$ in [@Se1; @Se2].
An ideal point giving an essential surface {#subsec_HK}
------------------------------------------
We summarize the construction in [@HK] of a certain branched surface from an ideal point of a curve in the character variety. Here we restrict our attention to the case where such a branched surface has no branched points, and is an essential surface.
Let $C$ be a curve in $X_n(M)$ and $\chi$ an ideal point of $C$. We denote by $t \colon R_n(M) \to X_n(M)$ the quotient map. There exists a curve $D$ in $t^{-1}(C)$ such that $t|_D$ is not a constant map, and a regular map $\tilde t|_D \colon \widetilde D \to \widetilde C$ on the smooth projective models is induced by $t|_D$. We take a lift $\tilde \chi \in (\tilde t|_D)^{-1}(\{ \chi \})$, and denote by $B_{\tilde \chi}$ the Bruhat-Tits building associated to $\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}(D))$, where the function field ${\mathbb{C}}(D)$ is equipped with the discrete valuation at $\tilde \chi$. The *tautological representation* $\mathcal{P} \colon \pi_1 M \to \op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}(D))$ is defined by $$\mathcal{P}(\gamma)(\rho) = \rho(\gamma)$$ for $\gamma \in \pi_1 M$ and $\rho \in D$. Pulling back the action of $\op{SL}_n({\mathbb{C}}(D))$ on $B_{\tilde \chi}$ by $\mathcal{P}$, we obtain the action of $\pi_1 M$ on $B_{\tilde \chi}$. Extending [@CS Theorem 2.2.1] to the case of a general $n$, Hara and the second author [@HK Corollary 4.5] proved that the action is *nontrivial*, i.e., for every vertex of $B_{\tilde \chi}$ its stabilizer subgroup of $\pi_1 M$ is proper.
Recall that a compact orientable properly-embedded surface $S$ in $M$ is called *essential* if for any component $S_0$ of $S$ the inclusion-induced homomorphism $\pi_1 S_0 \to \pi_1 N$ is injective, and $S_0$ is not boundary-parallel nor homeomorphic to the $2$-sphere $S^2$. We say that *an essential surface $S$ is given by an ideal point $\chi$* if for some lift $\tilde \chi$ of $\chi$ there exists a PL map $f \colon M \to B_{\tilde \chi}^{(1)} / \pi_1 M$ whose inverse image of the set of midpoints of the edges in $B_{\tilde \chi}$ is isotopic to some number of parallel copies of $S$.
When $n = 2$, since $\pi_1 M$ nontrivially acts on the tree $B_{\tilde \chi}$ without inversions, every ideal point $\chi$ gives some essential surface in $M$ [@CS Proposition 2.3.1]. In general, it follows from the proof of [@HK Theorem 4.7] that if $n = 3$ or if $\partial M$ is non-empty, then there exists a PL map $f \colon M \to B_{\tilde \chi}^{(2)} / \pi_1 M$ such that $f^{-1}(Y)$ is a certain branched surface called *essential tribranched surface* [@HK Definition 2.2], where $Y$ is the union of edges in the first barycentric subdivision of $B_{\tilde \chi}^{(2)} / \pi_1 M$ not contained in $B_{\tilde \chi}^{(1)} / \pi_1 M$. Note that an essential tribranched surface without any branched points is nothing but an essential surface in the usual sense.
The authors [@FKN] showed that every closed $3$-manifold $M$ with $\operatorname{rank}\pi_1 M \geq 4$ contains an essential tribranched surface.
Surface subgroup separability {#sec_PW}
=============================
We recall the separability of surface subgroups in a $3$-manifold group proved by Przytycki and Wise [@PW2], which is a key ingredient of the proof of Theorem \[thm\_main\]. A subgroup $H$ of a group $G$ is *separable* if $H$ equals the intersection of finite index subgroups of $G$ containing $H$.
$($[[@PW2 Theorem 1.1]]{}$)$ \[thm\_PW\] Let $S$ be a connected essential surface $S$ in $M$. Then $\pi_1 S$ is separable in $\pi_1 M$.
Theorem \[thm\_PW\] was proved by Przytycki and Wise [@PW1] when $M$ is a graph manifold, and by Wise [@W] when $M$ is a hyperbolic manifold. In fact, every finitely generated subgroup of $\pi_1 M$ is separable when $M$ is a hyperbolic manifold, by Wise [@W] in the case where $M$ has a non-empty boundary and by Agol [@A] in the case where $M$ is closed. See also Liu [@L] for a refinement of the separability.
The following is a topological interpretation of Theorem \[thm\_PW\]. While it is well-known for experts, nevertheless we give a proof for the sake of completeness. See also [@Sc Lemma 1.4].
\[cor\_PW\] For an essential surface $S$ in $M$ there exists some finite cover of $M$ where the inverse image of $S$ contains a non-separating component.
We may assume that $S$ is connected and separating. Let $M_+$ and $M_-$ be the two components of the complement of $S$. It follows from [@He Theorem 10.5] that $\pi_1 S$ has index at least two in $\pi_1 M_-$ and in $\pi_1 M_+$. It follows from Theorem \[thm\_PW\] that there exists an epimorphism $\varphi \colon \pi_1 M \to G$ to a finite group such that $\varphi(\pi_1 S) \neq \varphi(\pi_1 M_\pm)$. In particular, we have $$[G ~\colon~ \varphi(\pi_1 S)] \geq 2 [G ~\colon~ \varphi(\pi_1 M_\pm)].$$ Let $p \colon M_\varphi \to M$ be the covering corresponding to ${\operatorname{Ker}}\varphi$. The numbers of components of $p^{-1}(M_\pm)$ and $p^{-1}(S)$ are equal to $[G \colon \varphi(\pi_1 M_\pm)]$ and $[G ~\colon~ \varphi(\pi_1 S)]$ respectively, and the above inequality implies $$[G ~\colon~ \varphi(\pi_1 S)] \geq [G ~\colon~ \varphi(\pi_1 M_+)] + [G ~\colon~ \varphi(\pi_1 M_-)].$$ Thus the number of components of $p^{-1}(S)$ is greater than or equal to that of its complement, which shows that some component of $p^{-1}(S)$ is non-separating.
Proof of the main theorem {#sec_proof}
=========================
Now we prove the main theorem. For the readers’ convenience we recall the statement.
Every connected essential surface in $M$ is given by an the ideal point of a rational curve in $X_n(M)$ for some $n$.
Let $S$ be a connected essential surface in $M$. It follows from Corollary \[cor\_PW\] that there exists a $d$-fold covering $p \colon N \to M$ for some $d$ such that $p^{-1}(S)$ contains a non-separating component $T$. Then the proof is divided into two parts: First, we construct a rational curve $C_T$ in $X_{2d}(M)$ with a unique ideal point $\chi_T$, which is determined by $T$. Second, for a lift $\tilde \chi_T$ of $\chi_T$ we construct a PL map $f \colon M \to B_{\tilde \chi_T}^{(1)}$ whose inverse image of the set of midpoints of edges in $B_{\tilde \chi_T}$ is isotopic to two parallel copies of $S$.
Construction of a curve
-----------------------
We denote by $\psi \colon \pi_1 N \to {\mathbb{Z}}$ the epimorphism induced by the intersection pairing with $T$. For each $z \in {\mathbb{C}}^\times$ we define the representation $\tilde \rho_z \colon \pi_1 N \to \op{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$ to be the composition of $\psi$ and the homomorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}\to \op{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}})$ which sends an integer $k$ to the matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}
z^k & 0 \\
0 & z^{-k}
\end{pmatrix}
.$$ We consider the induced representation $\rho_z \colon \pi_1 M \to \operatorname{Aut}({\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 M] \otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 N]} {\mathbb{C}}^2)$ of $\tilde\rho_z$. Fixing representatives $\gamma_1, \dots, \gamma_d \in \pi_1 M$ of the elements of $\pi_1 M / p_*(\pi_1 N)$, we have the decomposition $${\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 M] \otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 N]} {\mathbb{C}}^2\, =\, {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{i = 1}^{d}$}} \gamma_i \otimes {\mathbb{C}}^2,$$ which is naturally identified with ${\mathbb{C}}^{2d}$. Thus we regard $\rho_z$ as a representation $\pi_1 M \to \op{SL}_{2d}({\mathbb{C}})$. We now set $$\begin{aligned}
D_T &= \{ \rho_z \in R_{2d}(M) ~:~ z \in {\mathbb{C}}^\times \}, \\
C_T &= \{ \chi_{\rho_z} \in X_{2d}(M) ~:~ z \in {\mathbb{C}}^\times \}.\end{aligned}$$
1. The set $D_T$ is a curve in $R_{2d}(M)$ isomorphic to ${\mathbb{C}}^\times$.
2. The set $C_T$ is a rational curve in $X_{2d}(M)$ with a unique ideal point.
These sets of representations and characters are constructed along the following commutative diagram: $$\begin{CD}
{\mathbb{C}}^\times @>>> R_2({\mathbb{Z}}) @>>> R_2(N) @>>> R_{2d}(M) \\
@VVV @VVV @VVV @VVV \\
{\mathbb{C}}@>>> X_2({\mathbb{Z}}) @>>> X_2(N) @>>> X_{2d}(M),
\end{CD}$$ where the first vertical map sends $z \in {\mathbb{C}}^\times$ to $z + z^{-1} \in {\mathbb{C}}$, and the first bottom horizontal map is an isomorphism which sends $w \in {\mathbb{C}}$ to the character of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ whose image of $1 \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ is $w$. The composition of the top horizontal maps is called $\Psi$ and the composition of the bottom horizontal maps is called $\Phi$. Then the sets $D_T$ and $C_T$ coincide with the images of $\Psi$ and $\Phi$
We may assume $\gamma_1 \in \pi_1 N$, and take $\mu \in \pi_1 N$ with $\psi(\mu) = 1$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_z(\mu) &=
\begin{pmatrix}
z & 0 \\
0 & z^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\oplus {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{i = 2}^{d}$}}
\begin{pmatrix}
z^{\psi(\gamma_i^{-1} \mu \gamma_i)} & 0 \\
0 & z^{-\psi(\gamma_i^{-1} \mu \gamma_i)}
\end{pmatrix}, \\
\chi_{\rho_z}(\mu) &= z + z^{-1} + \sum_{i = 2}^d \left( z^{\psi(\gamma_i^{-1} \mu \gamma_i)} + z^{-\psi(\gamma_i^{-1} \mu \gamma_i)} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Hence the restriction of the map $R_{2d}(M) \to {\mathbb{C}}^2$ sending a representation $\rho$ to the vector of the $(1, 1)$- and $(2, 2)$-entries of $\rho(\mu)$ gives the inverse regular map $D_T \to {\mathbb{C}}^\times$ of $\Psi$, where ${\mathbb{C}}^\times$ is identified with the curve $xy - 1$ in ${\mathbb{C}}^2$, and $(1)$ is proved.
We deduce from the second equation above that the map $\Phi$ is not constant. Also by fixing an affine space ${\mathbb{C}}^N$ containing $X_{2d}(M)$, we regard $\Phi$ as a map ${\mathbb{C}}\to {\mathbb{C}}^N$. We denote by $\overline \Phi \colon \mathbb{P}^1 \to \mathbb{P}^N$ the projective extension of $\Phi$. Since $\overline \Phi$ is not a constant map, by the completeness of the projective line $\mathbb{P}^1$ [@Mu Section I.9, Theorem 1] the image $\overline C_T$ of $\overline \Phi$ is a projective curve, and by the Riemann-Hurwitz formula the curve $\overline C_T$ is rational. Therefore the set $C_T$, which coincides with the intersection of $\overline C_T$ and ${\mathbb{C}}^N$, is an affine rational curve. Since $\Phi$ induces a surjective regular map $\widetilde \Phi \colon \mathbb{P}^1 \to \widetilde C_T$ on the smooth projective models, the rational curve $C_T$ has a unique ideal point corresponding to the point at infinity of $\mathbb{P}^1$, which proves $(2)$.
It is a simple matter to check that both the two ideal points of $D_T$ corresponding to $0$ and $\infty$ are lifts of the unique ideal point $\chi_T$ of $C_T$. Let $\tilde \chi_T$ be the one corresponding to $0$. Then as in Section \[subsec\_HK\] we obtain the nontrivial action $\pi_1 M$ on the Bruhat-Tits building $B_{\tilde \chi_T}$ associated to $\op{SL}_{2d}({\mathbb{C}}(D_T))$. We identify ${\mathbb{C}}(D_T)$ with the standard function field ${\mathbb{C}}(t)$ and the valuation at $\tilde \chi_T$ with the lowest degree of the Laurent expansion of a rational function. Then the vector space ${\mathbb{C}}(t)^{2d}$ is decomposed into $${\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 M] \otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 N]} {\mathbb{C}}(t)^2 \,=\, {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{i = 1}^{d}$}} \gamma_i \otimes {\mathbb{C}}(t)^2,$$ where $\pi_1 N$ acts on ${\mathbb{C}}(t)^2$ by the representation $\mathcal{Q} \colon \pi_1 N \to \op{SL}_2({\mathbb{C}}(t))$ defined by $$\mathcal{Q}(\gamma) =
\begin{pmatrix}
t^{\psi(\gamma)} & 0 \\
0 & t^{-\psi(\gamma)}
\end{pmatrix}$$ for $\gamma \in \pi_1 N$, and the tautological representation $\mathcal{P} \colon \pi_1 M \to \op{SL}_{2d}({\mathbb{C}}(t))$ is given by the left multiplication on ${\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 M] \otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 N]} {\mathbb{C}}(t)^2$.
Construction of a PL-map
------------------------
We take a triangulation of $M$ containing $S$ as a normal surface. We may assume that the intersection of each tetrahedron with $S$ is connected, if necessary, replacing the triangulation by an appropriate subdivision. The triangulation of $M$ induces ones of $N$ and the universal cover $\widetilde M$ of $M$, so that $T$ and its inverse image $\widetilde T$ by the covering $\widetilde M \to N$ are also normal surfaces. Then we take a cellular map $g \colon N \to {\mathbb{R}}/ {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $g^{-1}([\frac{1}{2}]) = T$, where we consider the cellular structure of ${\mathbb{R}}/ {\mathbb{Z}}$ with one vertex corresponding to ${\mathbb{Z}}$. We define $\tilde g \colon \widetilde M \to {\mathbb{R}}$ to be the $\pi_1 N$-equivariant lift of $g$, so that $\tilde g^{-1}(\frac{1}{2} + {\mathbb{Z}}) = \widetilde T$.
We now define a map $\tilde{f}^{(0)} \colon \widetilde M^{(0)} \to B_{\tilde \chi_T}^{(0)}$ as follows. For $s \in \widetilde M^{(0)}$ we consider the lattice $${\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^{d}$}} \gamma_i \otimes \Lambda_{\tilde g(\gamma_i^{-1} s)}$$ in ${\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 M] \otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}[\pi_1 N]} {\mathbb{C}}(t)^2$, where $\Lambda_n$ is the lattice in ${\mathbb{C}}(t)^2$ generated by the vectors $$\begin{pmatrix}
t^n \\
0
\end{pmatrix}
~\text{and}~
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
t^{-n}
\end{pmatrix}
.$$ Note that $\tilde g(\gamma_i^{-1} s)$ is an integer for each $i$ by the construction of $\tilde g$. Then we set $\tilde{f}^{(0)}(s)$ to be the homothety class of the above lattice. In the following two lemmas we observe the key properties of $\tilde f^{(0)}$.
\[lem\_A\] The map $\tilde f^{(0)}$ is $\pi_1 M$-equivariant.
For $\gamma \in \pi_1 M$ there exist a permutation $\sigma$ of degree $d$ and $\delta_i \in \pi_1 N$ such that $$\gamma \gamma_i = \gamma_{\sigma(i)} \delta_i$$ for each $i$. Then $$\begin{array}{rclclcl}
\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^d \gamma \gamma_i \otimes \Lambda_{\tilde{g}(\gamma_i^{-1} s)} &= &\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^d \gamma_{\sigma(i)} \delta_i \otimes \Lambda_{\tilde{g}(\gamma_i^{-1} s)} &=& \bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^d \gamma_{\sigma(i)} \otimes \mathcal{Q}(\delta_i) \cdot \Lambda_{\tilde{g}(\gamma_i^{-1} s)} \\
&=& \bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^d \gamma_{\sigma(i)} \otimes \Lambda_{\tilde{g}(\gamma_i^{-1} s) + \psi(\delta_i)}
&= &\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^d \gamma_{\sigma(i)} \otimes \Lambda_{\tilde{g}(\delta_i \gamma_i^{-1} s)} \\
&=& \bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^d \gamma_{\sigma(i)} \otimes \Lambda_{\tilde{g}(\gamma_{\sigma(i)}^{-1} \gamma s)}
&= &\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^d \gamma_i \otimes \Lambda_{\tilde{g}(\gamma_i^{-1} \gamma s)}\end{array}$$ for $\gamma \in \pi_1 M$ and $s \in \widetilde M^{(0)}$, which implies that $\tilde f^{(0)}$ is a $\pi_1 M$-equivariant map.
\[lem\_B\] For each tetrahedron $\Delta$ in $\widetilde M$ the set $\tilde f^{(0)}(\Delta^{(0)})$ consists of one vertex if $\gamma_i^{-1} \cdot \Delta$ does not intersect with $\widetilde T$ for any $i$, and two vertices of distance $2$ with respect to the graph metric on $B_{\tilde \chi}^{(1)}$ otherwise.
If $\gamma_i^{-1} \cdot \Delta$ does not intersect with $\widetilde T$ for any $i$, then it follows from the choice of $g$ that there exists some $n_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\tilde g(\gamma_i^{-1} \cdot \Delta^{(0)}) = \{ n_i \}$$ for each $i$, and hence we obtain $$\tilde f^{(0)}(\gamma_i^{-1} \cdot \Delta^{(0)}) = \left\{ \left[ {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{i = 1}^{d}$}} \gamma_i \otimes \Lambda_{n_i} \right] \right\}.$$
In the following we consider the case where $\gamma_i^{-1} \cdot \Delta$ intersects with $\widetilde T$ for $i = i_1, \dots, i_m$. Then the intersections of $\gamma_{i_k}^{-1} \cdot \Delta$ with $\widetilde T$ are all connected and of same type for $k = 1, \dots, m$, since otherwise $p(T) = S$ implies that the intersection of some tetrahedron in $M$ with $S$ is not a normal disc, which contradicts the choice of the triangulation of $M$. Thus $\Delta^{(0)}$ is divided into two subsets $\Delta_+^{(0)}$ and $\Delta_-^{(0)}$ satisfying the following:
1. there exists some $n_{i_k} \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\tilde g(\gamma_{i_k}^{-1} \cdot \Delta_+^{(0)}) = \{ n_{i_k} + 1 \} ~\text{and}~ \tilde g(\gamma_{i_k}^{-1} \cdot \Delta_-^{(0)}) = \{ n_{i_k} \}$$ for $k = 1, \dots, m$;
2. there exists some $n_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\tilde g(\gamma_i^{-1} \cdot \Delta^{(0)}) = \{ n_i \}$$ for $i \neq i_1, \dots, i_m$.
Hence we obtain $$\tilde f^{(0)}(\Delta_+^{(0)}) = \{ [\Lambda_+] \} ~\text{and}~ \tilde f^{(0)}(\Delta_-^{(0)}) = \{ [\Lambda_-] \},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_+ &= \bigg( {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{k = 1}^{m}$}} \gamma_{i_k} \otimes \Lambda_{n_{i_k} + 1} \bigg) \oplus \bigg( {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{i \neq i_1, \dots, i_m}^{}$}} \gamma_i \otimes \Lambda_{n_i} \bigg), \\
\Lambda_- &= \bigg( {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{k = 1}^{m}$}} \gamma_{i_k} \otimes \Lambda_{n_{i_k}} \bigg) \oplus \bigg( {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{i \neq i_1, \dots, i_m}^{}$}} \gamma_i \otimes \Lambda_{n_i} \bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
t \Lambda_n' \subsetneq \Lambda_{n+1} \subsetneq \Lambda_n', \\
t \Lambda_n' \subsetneq \Lambda_n \subsetneq \Lambda_n' \end{aligned}$$ for $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, where $\Lambda_n'$ is the lattice in ${\mathbb{C}}(t)^2$ generated by the vectors $$\begin{pmatrix}
t^n \\
0
\end{pmatrix}
~\text{and}~
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
t^{-n-1}
\end{pmatrix}
,$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
t \Lambda' \subsetneq \Lambda_+ \subsetneq \Lambda', \\
t \Lambda' \subsetneq \Lambda_- \subsetneq \Lambda',\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Lambda' = \bigg( {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{k = 1}^{m}$}} \gamma_{i_k} \otimes \Lambda_{n_{i_k}}' \bigg) \oplus \bigg( {\mbox{\footnotesize$\displaystyle\bigoplus\limits_{i \neq i_1, \dots, i_m}^{}$}} \gamma_i \otimes \Lambda_{n_i} \bigg).$$ By the definition of the building $B_{\tilde{\chi}}$ these relations imply that there exist edges in $B_{\tilde{\chi}}$ connecting $[\Lambda_+]$ and $[\Lambda_-]$ with $[\Lambda']$, and hence the distance between $[\Lambda_+]$ and $[\Lambda_-]$ is at most $2$ in $B_{\tilde{\chi}}^{(1)}$. We further observe that the matrix $$\left( \bigoplus_{i=1}^n \gamma_{i_k} \otimes
\begin{pmatrix}
t & 0 \\
0 & t^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\right) \oplus \left( \bigoplus_{i \neq i_1, \dots, i_m} \gamma_i \otimes
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\right)$$ in $\op{SL}_{2d}({\mathbb{C}}(t))$ sends $[\Lambda_-]$ to $[\Lambda_+]$. Since the action of $\op{SL}_{2d}({\mathbb{C}}(t))$ on $B_{\tilde{\chi}}$ is type-preserving, the distance between them is exactly equal to $2$, and the lemma follows.
We are now in position to construct a desired PL map $f \colon M \to B_{\tilde \chi_T}^{(1)} / \pi_1 M$. It follows from Lemmas \[lem\_A\] and \[lem\_B\] that $\tilde f^{(0)}$ extends to a $\pi_1 M$-equivariant simplicial map $\tilde f \colon \widetilde{N} \to B_{\tilde \chi_T}^{(1)}$ with respect to the $1$st barycentric subdivision of the triangulation of $\widetilde{M}$. We define $f \colon M \to B_{\tilde \chi_T}^{(1)} / \pi_1 M$ to be the quotient of $\tilde f$ by $\pi_1 M$. By the construction of $\tilde f$ we check at once that the inverse image of the set of midpoints of edges in $B_{\tilde \chi_T}$ by $\tilde f$ is isotopic to two parallel copies of $\widetilde T$. Since $\tilde f$ is $\pi_1 M$-equivariant and since $p(T) = S$, the inverse image of the set of midpoints of edges in $B_{\tilde \chi_T} / \pi_1 M$ by $f$ is isotopic to two parallel copies of $S$. Therefore $S$ is given by $\chi_T$, which completes the proof.
[FKN]{} P. Abramenko and K. S. Brown, *Buildings. Theory and applications*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 248, Springer, New York, 2008. xxii+747 pp.
I. Agol, *The virtual Haken conjecture*, With an appendix by Agol, Daniel Groves, and Jason Manning, Doc. Math. **18** (2013), 1045-–1087.
S. Boyer and X. Zhang, *On Culler-Shalen seminorms and Dehn filling*, Ann. of Math. (2) **148** (1998), no. 3, 737–801.
F. Bruhat and J. Tits, *Groupes réductifs sur un corps local. II. Schémas en groupes. Existence d’une donnée radicielle valuée*, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. **60** (1984), 197-–376.
F. Bruhat and J. Tits, *Groupes réductifs sur un corps local* (French), Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. **41** (1972), 5–-251.
J. M. Corson, *Complexes of groups*, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) **65** (1992), no. 1, 199-–224.
M. Culler and P. B. Shalen, *Varieties of group representations and splittings of $3$-manifolds*, Ann. of Math. (2) **117** (1983), no. 1, 109–146.
S. Friedl, T. Kitayama and M. Nagel, *A note on the existence of essential tribranched surfaces*, arXiv:1505.01806.
W. Fulton, *Algebraic Curves*, Advanced Book Program, W.A. Benjamin Inc., Massachusetts, 1974.
P. Garrett, *Buildings and classical groups*, Chapman & Hall, London, 1997. xii+373 pp.
T. Hara and T. Kitayama, *Character varieties of higher dimensional representations and splittings of $3$-manifolds*, arXiv:1410.4295.
A. Haefliger, *Complexes of groups and orbihedra*, Group theory from a geometrical viewpoint (Trieste, 1990), 504-–540, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1991.
J. Hempel, *$3$-Manifolds*, Ann. of Math. Studies, no. 86. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1976.
N. Iwahori and H. Matsumoto, *On some Bruhat decomposition and the structure of the Hecke rings of $p$-adic Chevalley groups*, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. **25** (1965), 5-–48.
Y. Liu, *A characterization of virtually embedded subsurfaces in 3-manifolds*, arXiv:1406.4674.
A. Lubotzky and A. R. Magid, *Varieties of representations of finitely generated groups*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. **58** (1985), no. 336, xi+117 pp.
K. Motegi, *Haken manifolds and representations of their fundamental groups in $\op{SL}(2, {\mathbb{C}})$*, Topology Appl. **29** (1988), no. 3, 207–212.
D. Mumford, *The red book of varieties and schemes. Second, expanded edition. Includes the Michigan lectures (1974) on curves and their Jacobians. With contributions by Enrico Arbarello*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1358. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. x+306 pp.
D. Mumford, J. Fogarty and F. Kirwan, *Geometric invariant theory, Third edition*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (2) 34. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. xiv+292 pp.
C. Procesi, *The invariant theory of $n \times n$ matrices*, Advances in Math. **19** (1976), no. 3, 306–381.
P. Przytycki and D. T. Wise, *Graph manifolds with boundary are virtually special*, J. Topol. **7** (2014), no. 2, 419-–435.
P. Przytycki and D. T. Wise, *Separability of embedded surfaces in $3$-manifolds*, Compos. Math. **150** (2014), no. 9, 1623-–1630.
S. Schanuel and X. Zhang, *Detection of essential surfaces in $3$-manifolds with $\op{SL}_2$-trees*, Math. Ann. **320** (2001), no. 1, 149–165.
P. Scott, *Subgroups of surface groups are almost geometric*, J. London Math. Soc. (2) **17** (1978), no. 3, 555-–565.
J.-P. Serre, *Arbres, amalgames, $\op{SL}_2$*, Avec un sommaire anglais, Rédigé avec la collaboration de Hyman Bass, Astérisque, No. 46, Société Mathematique de France, Paris, 1977, 189 pp.
J.-P. Serre, *Trees*, Translated from the French by John Stillwell, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1980. ix+142 pp.
P. B. Shalen, *Representations of $3$-manifold groups*, Handbook of geometric topology, 955–1044, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.
A. S. Sikora, *$\op{SL}_n$-character varieties as spaces of graphs*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **353** (2001), no. 7, 2773–-2804 (electronic).
A. S. Sikora, *Character varieties*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **364** (2012), no. 10, 5173–-5208.
D. T. Wise, *The structure of groups with a quasi-convex hierarchy*, preprint (2011), available at http://www.math.mcgill.ca/wise/papers.html.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate that it is possible to prepare a lattice gas of ultracold atoms with a desired non-classical spin-correlation function using atom-light interaction of the kind routinely employed in quantum spin polarization spectroscopy. Our method is based on quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement and feedback, and allows in particular to create on demand exponentially or algebraically decaying correlations, as well as a certain degree of multi-partite entanglement.'
author:
- 'P. Hauke'
- 'R.J. Sewell'
- 'M.W. Mitchell'
- 'M. Lewenstein'
title: 'Quantum control of spin-correlations in ultracold lattice gases'
---
Ultra-cold atomic gases trapped in optical lattices offer an unprecedented playground for studying the quantum phases of many-body systems [@Bloch2008; @*Lewenstein2007; @*Esslinger2010; @*Lewenstein2012]. In particular, quantum states of ultra-cold lattice gases with spin degrees of freedom may be used to simulate quantum magnetism and to investigate physics relevant for our understanding of high-$T_c$ superconductivity [@Anderson1987; @*Kotliar1988; @*Lee2006]. While enormous progress has been made towards engineering such systems, achieving the regime of high-$T_c$ superconductivity remains experimentally extremely challenging because of the low temperatures required [@Lewenstein2012].
In this context, quantum spin polarization spectroscopy (SPS) [@Eckert2007] has emerged as a promising technique for *detecting* quantum phases in lattice gases via the coherent mapping of spin-correlations onto scattered light in a quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement. In particular, spatially-resolved SPS that employs standing-wave laser configurations [@Eckert2008] allows direct probing of magnetic structure factors and order parameters [@Roscilde2009; @*De-Chiara2011; @*Weitenberg2011; @*De-Chiara2011a; @*Meineke2012]. In this manuscript, we propose inverting the SPS scheme in order to *prepare* a lattice gas with a desired non-classical spin correlation function. Motivated by the experimental demonstration of spin-squeezing via QND measurements [@Appel2009; @*Takano2009; @*Schleier-Smith2010; @*Chen2011; @*Sewell2011], and by the recent extension of these ideas to unpolarized ensembles [@Toth2010], we demonstrate that a simple modification of the experimental scheme of Ref. [@Eckert2008] (illustrated in Fig. \[fig:expt\]) allows for the on-demand preparation of lattice gases with arbitrary spin-correlation functions.
#### Atom-light interaction.—
We consider the interaction of atoms trapped in a one-dimensional optical lattice potential with a set of standing-wave pulses of near-resonant light with wave-numbers ${k_{p}}$. The atoms are described by collective variables ${J_{\alpha,i}}\equiv\sum_{n=1}^{{n_{\rm a}}}{{j_{\alpha,i}}^{(n)}}$, where the index $n$ runs over the ${n_{\rm a}}$ atoms at lattice site $i$ and $\alpha=x,y,z$ labels the components of the atomic spin operators with length $j$. With ${n_{\rm s}}$ lattice sites, the total number of atoms is ${N_{\rm A}}={n_{\rm s}}{n_{\rm a}}$. The photons are described by collective Stokes operators ${S_{\alpha}}$ with $\alpha=1,2,3$, defined as ${S_{\alpha}}\equiv\dfrac{1}{2}({a_{+}}^{\dagger},{a_{-}}^{\dagger}){\sigma_{\alpha}}({a_{+}},{a_{-}})^T$, where the ${\sigma_{\alpha}}$ are the Pauli matrices, and ${a_{\pm}}$ are annihilation operators for the spatial and temporal mode of the pulse with circular plus/minus polarization. The atom–light interaction for a single pulse is then described by the effective Hamiltonian [@Hammerer2004; @*Echaniz2008] $${H_{p}}={\Omega_{p}}\sum_{i=1}^{{n_{\rm s}}}c_{i}({k_{p}}){J_{z,i}}{S_3}\,,
\label{eq:ham}$$ where $c_{i}({k_{p}})=(1+\cos(2{k_{p}}{r_{i}}))/2$ describes the standing-wave intensity profile, and the coupling constants ${\Omega_{p}}$ depend on the probe detuning and intensity. Eq. describes a QND measurement that induces spin-squeezing of the ${J_z}$ component of the collective atomic mode ${J_{\alpha}}(k)\equiv\sum_{i=1}^{{n_{\rm s}}}{J_{\alpha,i}}\exp(ik{r_{i}})/\sqrt{{n_{\rm s}}}$ with $k=\pm2{k_{p}}$. For multi-level alkali atoms, this effective Hamiltonian can be synthesized using multicolor or dynamical-decoupling probing techniques [@Appel2009; @Koschorreck2010b].
#### Measurement & feedback—
We model the interaction using methods developed for treating the Gaussian dynamics of collective-variable systems [@Molmer2004; @Madsen2004; @Koschorreck2009; @Toth2010], with the assumption that ${n_{\rm a}}\gg1$. The full system is then described by the operators ${R_{\rm m}}(k)=\{{J_x}(k),{J_y}(k),{J_z}(k),{S_1},{S_2},{S_3}\}$ and the covariances ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{\rm mn}}(k_1,k_2)\equiv{\langle {R_{\rm m}}(k_1){R_{\rm n}}(k_2)+{R_{\rm n}}(k_2){R_{\rm m}}(k_1) \rangle}/2-{\langle {R_{\rm m}}(k_1) \rangle}{\langle {R_{\rm n}}(k_2) \rangle}$. The dynamical equations for the covariances can be derived from the Heisenberg equation of motion for the operators, where, in the small-angle regime, an operator changes as ${R_{\rm m}}(k){^{\rm (out)}}={R_{\rm m}}(k){^{\rm (in)}}-i\tau[{R_{\rm m}}(k){^{\rm (in)}},{H_{p}}]$, where $\tau$ is the pulse duration. We assume that the atomic and light variables are initially uncorrelated, and that the atomic covariances ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{\alpha\beta}}{^{\rm (in)}}(k_1,k_2)=0$ $\forall \alpha\neq\beta$. For simplicity we also assume a uniform atomic filling factor.
![[**Proposed experimental set-up.**]{} Atoms trapped in an optical lattice (black) are probed with a far-detuned, linearly polarized standing-wave light pulse with wavevector ${k_{p}}$. Afterwards, the probe beam is outcoupled to a homodyne detector, where ${S_2}$ is recorded. A projection-noise limited measurement induces spin squeezing, introducing quantum correlations among the atoms in spatial mode $k=2{k_{p}}$. Feedback is applied via optical pumping to set ${\langle {J_{\alpha}}(k) \rangle}=0$. Successive spin components ${J_{\alpha}}$ can then be separately squeezed by coherently rotating the atomic spin between measurements. The procedure is repeated for a set of wavevectors ${k_{p}}$, with interaction strengths ${\Omega_{p}}$ weighted by the corresponding amplitude of the cosine Fourier transform of the desired spatial correlation signature.\[fig:expt\]](fig1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
For an input ${S_1}$-polarized pulse, the only covariances that change due to the pulse are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:covout}
&& {\tilde{\Gamma}}_{z2}{^{\rm (out)}}(k) =\frac{{C_{p}}}{2\sqrt{j}} {{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}{^{\rm (in)}}({k_{p}}),\text{ and } \\
&& {\tilde{\Gamma}}_{22}{^{\rm (out)}}={\tilde{\Gamma}}_{22}{^{\rm (in)}}+\frac{{C_{p}^{2}}}{8j}\left[ 2{{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}{^{\rm (in)}}(0) + {{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}{^{\rm (in)}}(2{k_{p}}) \right.\\ \notag
&& \qquad\qquad + \left. {{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}{^{\rm (in)}}(-2{k_{p}})\right] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where the coupling strength ${C_{p}}=\tau{\Omega_{p}}{S_1}\sqrt{{n_{\rm s}}j/S_{0}}$ and we define ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(k)\equiv {{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(0,k)+{{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(2{k_{p}},k)/2+{{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(-2{k_{p}},k)/2$.
Detection of ${S_2}$ then transfers the correlations described in Eqs. to the atoms. This can be modeled as a projection $\Gamma{^{\rm (M)}}=\Gamma{^{\rm (out)}}-\Gamma{^{\rm (out)}}({\Pi_{\rm 2}}\Gamma{^{\rm (out)}}{\Pi_{\rm 2}})^{{\rm MP}}\Gamma{^{\rm (out)}}$, where ${{\rm MP}}$ indicates the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse and ${\Pi_{\rm 2}}=\text{diag}(0,0,0,0,1,0)$ [@Toth2010]. After the measurement, the atomic covariances are $${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{\alpha\beta}}{^{\rm (M)}}(k_1,k_2)={{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{\alpha\beta}}{^{\rm (out)}}(k_1,k_2)-\frac{\Gamma_{\alpha2}{^{\rm (out)}}(k_1)\Gamma_{2\beta}{^{\rm (out)}}(k_2)}{\Gamma_{22}{^{\rm (out)}}}.
\label{eq:atomcov}$$ Eqns. and imply that if the covariance matrix ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{\alpha\beta}}$ is initially diagonal, then the only atomic covariances changed by the interaction–measurement process are ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(k_1,k_2)$, i.e. the measurement induces spin squeezing of the ${J_z}(2{k_{p}})$ mode. Furthermore, the process is highly symmetric, preserving $\Gamma_{\alpha\alpha}(k,k')=\Gamma_{\alpha\alpha}(k,-k')$ for $k\neq k'$ and $\Gamma_{\alpha\alpha}(k,k')=\Gamma_{\alpha\alpha}(k',k)$ $\forall k,k'$.
The orthogonal spin components ${J_{\alpha}}(2{k_{p}})$ can be successively measured by coherently rotating the atomic spin between measurements. To allow the measurement-induced squeezing to be repeated for each spin component, we require ${\langle {J_{\alpha}}(2{k_{p}}) \rangle}=0$, which allows us to avoid measurement induced back-action due to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation $(\Delta{J_{\alpha}}(k_1))^2(\Delta{J_{\beta}}(k_2))^2\ge{\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}\tfrac{1}{4{n_{\rm s}}}{|{\langle {J_{\gamma}}(k_1+k_2) \rangle}|^2}$. To obtain ${\langle {J_{\alpha}}(2{k_{p}}) \rangle}=0$, the result of the measurement of ${S_2}$ can be used as the input to an optical pumping feedback process: a weak pulse of near-resonant light at wavevector ${k_{p}}$ with an intensity proportional to ${S_2}{^{\rm (out)}}$ will set ${\langle {J_z}(2{k_{p}})+{J_z}(-2{k_{p}}) \rangle}=0$, and a second pulse with a half-period phase shift sets ${\langle {J_z}(2{k_{p}})-{J_z}(-2{k_{p}}) \rangle}=0$, so that ${\langle {J_z}(2{k_{p}}) \rangle}={\langle {J_z}(-2{k_{p}}) \rangle}=0$. As shown in Ref. [@Toth2010], this feedback introduces spin noise $\propto N^{1/4}$, which is negligible in the thermodynamic limit [^1].
{width="\textwidth"}
#### Strategy—
We now motivate a strategy that exploits the spatial dependence induced by $c_{i}({k_{p}})$ in Eq. to systematically manipulate the real-space spin–spin correlation function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:spinspin}
{{\Gamma}_{\alpha\alpha}}(r_1,r_2)&\equiv&{\langle {J_{\alpha}}(r_1){J_{\alpha}}(r_2) \rangle}-{\langle {J_{\alpha}}(r_1) \rangle}{\langle {J_{\alpha}}(r_2) \rangle} \\
&=&\frac{1}{{n_{\rm s}}}\sum_{k_1,k_2=1}^{{n_{\rm s}}}\exp(ik_1r_1)\exp(ik_2r_2){{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{\alpha\alpha}}(k_1,k_2)\, \notag\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we label the $k$-vectors in the first Brillouin zone (BZ) from 1 to ${n_{\rm s}}$. Eqs. (\[eq:covout\]) and (\[eq:atomcov\]) imply that the covariances of a given collective mode ${J_{\alpha}}(k)$ are only altered by a pulse with $k=2{k_{p}}$ [^2]. This suggests that we can manipulate ${{\Gamma}_{\alpha\alpha}}(r_1,r_2)$ with a sequence of pulses with wavevectors $2{k_{p}}$ that cover the first BZ. Now we show that this can be done by an appropriate choice of coupling constants ${C_{p}}$.
We assume that we start with a completely mixed initial state with covariances ${{\Gamma}_{zz}}^{(0)}(r_1,r_2)={\Gamma}^{(0)}\delta_{r_1,r_2}$ where ${\Gamma}^{(0)}={n_{\rm a}}j(j+1)/3$. Under the approximation that the covariances ${{\Gamma}_{\alpha\alpha}}(k_1,k_2)$ with $k_2\neq\pm k_1,0$ remain small, Eq. becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GzzCosFourierTransform}
{{\Gamma}_{zz}}(r_1,r_2)&\approx\frac{1}{{n_{\rm s}}}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(0,0)+\frac{2}{{n_{\rm s}}}\sum_{p}\left[\cos(2{k_{p}}r_1)+\cos(2{k_{p}}r_2)\right]{{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(2{k_{p}},0)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{2}{{n_{\rm s}}}\sum_{p}\left[\cos(2{k_{p}}(r_1+r_2)){{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(2{k_{p}},2{k_{p}}) + \cos(2{k_{p}}(r_1-r_2)){{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(2{k_{p}},-2{k_{p}})\right].\end{aligned}$$
The spatial dependence is strongly dominated by the ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(2{k_{p}},-2{k_{p}})$ term, which, after the pulse with ${k_{p}}$, changes as ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}{^{\rm (out)}}(2{k_{p}},-2{k_{p}})={\Gamma}^{(0)}(1-{f_{p}}/4)$, where we define the scaled coupling constants $${f_{p}}\equiv\frac{{\Gamma}^{(0)}{C_{p}^{2}}}{4j\Gamma_{22}{^{\rm (out)}}}.
\label{eq:fm}$$
Assuming that these covariances are not changed by subsequent pulses [^3], Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{{\Gamma}_{zz}}(r_1,r_2)&\approx\frac{{{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(0,0)}{{n_{\rm s}}} \\
&+\frac{2}{{n_{\rm s}}}\sum_{p}\cos(2{k_{p}}(r_1-r_2)){\Gamma}^{(0)}\left(1-\frac{{f_{p}}}{4}\right). \notag\end{aligned}$$ The spatial dependence is given by the final term, which is the cosine Fourier transform of the ${f_{p}}$. This suggests the following strategy for manipulating the spin–spin correlations ${{\Gamma}_{zz}}(r_1,r_2)$: Let ${{\Gamma}_{zz}}(r_1,r_1+\delta r)={C_{\rm des}(\delta r)}$ be the desired output correlation signature. To determine the coupling strength ${C_{p}}$ that should be used for each wavevector ${k_{p}}$ in order to create ${C_{\rm des}(\delta r)}$, we approximate ${f_{p}}$ by the inverse cosine Fourier transform of $-4{C_{\rm des}(\delta r)}/{\Gamma}^{(0)}$. Further, in Eq. , we replace the covariances ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(k_1,k_2)$ in the expression for $\Gamma_{22}{^{\rm (out)}}$ with the completely mixed values ${\Gamma}^{(0)}$. Both approximations are valid for realistic experimental parameters. Now, we can solve Eq. for ${C_{p}}$, $${C_{p}}=2\sqrt{j}\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma_{22}{^{\rm (in)}}{f_{p}}}{1-{g_{p}}{\Gamma}^{(0)}{f_{p}}}}
\label{eq:k}$$ where ${g_{p}}=\tfrac{9}{2}$ for ${k_{p}}=0$ and ${g_{p}}=\tfrac{3}{2}$ otherwise.
The coupling strengths ${C_{p}}$ can be adjusted experimentally by choosing detuning $\Delta$, intensity, and duration of the pulse appropriately. In fact, ${C_{p}}=\sqrt{{N_{\rm A}}{N_{\rm ph}}}\sigma\gamma/A\Delta$, where $\sigma$ is the on-resonance cross section for the probe transition, $\gamma$ the spontaneous decay rate, and $A$ the cross section of the atomic ensemble illuminated by the probe. With a finite on-resonance optical depth $d$, ${C_{p}}$ is related to the probability of spontaneous emission ${\eta_{p}}$ via ${C_{p}}=\sqrt{d{\eta_{p}}}$, giving a trade-off between coupling strength and decoherence. Decoherence due to spontaneous excitation by the probe pulse is included in the model, following Refs. [@Giedke2002; @Toth2010; @*Madsen2004; @*Koschorreck2009], by updating the atomic covariances according to ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{\alpha\alpha}}^{(\eta)}(k_1,k_2)=(1-2{\eta_{p}}){{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{\alpha\alpha}}(k_1,k_2)+2{\eta_{p}}\Gamma^{(0)}\delta_{k_1,-k_2}$.
#### Entanglement witness.—
A special kind of correlation, entanglement, is particularly important in the context of quantum information processing and many-body systems [@Osborne2002; @*Osterloh2002; @*Jozsa2003; @*Verstraete2004; @*Guhne2009]. To show that our proposal can create multipartite entanglement, we derive an entanglement witness for the multimode spatial correlations induced by the procedure described above. Generalizing the strategy of Refs. [@Krammer2009; @*Cramer2011; @*De-Chiara2011b], we use the witness $W\equiv\mathcal{S}/{n_{\rm a}}-1$, such that $W<0$ implies entanglement, where we define $$\mathcal{S}\equiv\sum_{\alpha}\mathcal{S}_{\alpha}=\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{i,j=1}^{{n_{\rm s}}}{\langle {J_{\alpha,i}}{J_{\alpha,j}}\rangle}f^{*}(r_i)f(r_j)\,.
\label{eq:s}$$ Here, $f(r_i)$ is any normalized function $\sum_{i=1}^{{n_{\rm s}}}\left|f(r_i)\right|^2=1$. This definition encompasses and generalizes the plane waves described in Refs. [@Krammer2009; @Cramer2011], and allows us to calculate the entanglement witness $W$ as a function of spatial separation, which may be of general interest outside this particular example.
To probe spatial dependence, we calculate the entanglement between two sets of lattice bins $r_{s=1\ldots m}$ and $r_{w=1\ldots n}$ separated by a distance $\delta r$ using the witness $W$ with the function $$f(r_i)=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $r_i\in r_s$,} \\
\exp(i\phi) & \text{if $r_i\in r_w$,} \\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ For given $\delta r$, $W$ can be minimized with respect to $\phi$.
#### Numerical results.—
We illustrate this technique using a 1D chain of spin $j=1$ atoms with ${n_{\rm s}}=200$ sites and ${n_{\rm a}}=10$ atoms per site [^4], which is related to the bilinear-biquadratic Hamiltonian, which has a rich phase diagram displaying ferromagnetic, critical, dimerized, and Haldane phases, each with distinctive spatial correlation signatures [@Haldane1983; @Fath1991; @Bursill1995; @Schollwock1996; @Imambekov2003; @Buchta2005; @Rizzi2005; @Lauchli2006]. We have also checked that our method can be used to prepare correlation signatures of more exotic quantum phases, such as the critical phase of the bilinear-biquadratic Hamiltonian, which has a structure factor peaked at $k=\pm2\pi/3$ [@Bursill1995; @*Schollwock1996], and algebraically decaying correlations with characteristic period-3 oscillations [@Fath1991].
We demonstrate the preparation of spin correlations ${C_{\rm des}(\delta r)}$ with: (a) an exponential decay $\exp(-r/\xi)$ with a correlation length $\xi$, corresponding to gapped phases, such as spin liquids which are conjectured to appear in the vicinity of high-$T_c$ superconductivity [@Anderson1987; @Kotliar1988; @Lee2006; @Misguich2004; @*Lhuillier2005]; and (b) an algebraic decay $r^{-\zeta}$, corresponding to critical phases and quantum critical points of the phase diagram. We illustrate case (a) with $\xi=5$ and case (b) with $\zeta=0.7$. We compute the ${f_{p}}$ corresponding to ${C_{\rm des}(\delta r)}$ as described above, apply the pulses in sequence to the atoms, and compute the resulting real-space spin-correlations $$C(\delta r)=\frac{1}{{n_{\rm s}}/4}\sum_{i=1}^{{n_{\rm s}}/4}\sum_{\alpha}{{\Gamma}_{\alpha\alpha}}(r_i,r_i+\delta r)/{\Gamma}^{(0)}$$ after all pulses have been applied. The only remaining free parameter is then the maximum coupling strength ${\rm max}_p\{{C_{p}}\}$, which we set to $\approx0.95$, ensuring that the approximations suggesting the used coupling strengths are valid [^5].
The numerical results are shown in Fig. \[fig:expalgGaussAndexpalgGaussEntanglement\]. At large optical depth, the desired correlation signatures ${C_{\rm des}(\delta r)}$ coincide well with the calculated correlation function in both cases (first column). For case (a), the exponential decay is maintained over several orders of magnitude, and fits to the short-range behaviour yield a correlation length close to the desired $\xi=5$. For case (b), a clear algebraic decay is seen with a fitted $\zeta\approx0.4$. Deviations from the desired parameters induced by finite optical depth could be further compensated by adjusting the ${C_{p}}$ appropriately. The real-space correlation signature can also be extracted by fitting the Fourier transform of ${C_{\rm des}(\delta r)}$ to the covariances ${\tilde{\Gamma}}(k,-k)$ (second column), which are the observables that are measured and manipulated in the experiment. Finally, we calculate the entanglement witness $W$ for a single bin entangled with a chain of 106 bins (third column). In both cases, $W$ is minimized for $\phi=0$ and decays exponentially (algebraically) with $\delta r$ following the spatial behavior of the spin correlation function. Notably, the entanglement is stronger for algebraic decay.
#### Outlook.—
We have demonstrated that, with a simple modification of the experimental scheme discussed in Ref. [@Eckert2008], it is possible to engineer a quantum lattice gas with an arbitrary non-classical spin correlation function. We have illustrated the procedure with two examples mimicking the quantum phases of the bilinear-biquadratic Hamiltonian, demonstrating how to prepare exponentially- and algebraically-decaying correlations. We have also checked that the method can be extended to the spatial correlations signatures of more exotic quantum phases. We have generalized the entanglement witness proposed in Refs. [@Krammer2009; @*Cramer2011] and shown that the engineered spin-correlations entail multimode atomic entanglement. In our calculations, we make conservative assumptions about the experimental parameters, leaving considerable scope for further optimization of the procedure, which is readily extendible to higher dimensions and larger-spin systems, with both fermionic or bosonic atoms.
This work was supported by the Spanish MINECO (project MAGO, FIS2011-23520), the Spanish MICINN (TOQATA, FIS2008-00784), Catalunya-Caixa, by the ERC (AQUMET, QUAGATUA), and EU projects AQUTE and NAMEQUAM.
[50]{}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 [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1080/00018730701223200) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.3664) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.78.17) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.100404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys776) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/11/i=5/a=055041) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.83.021604) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.215301) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10909-011-0403-8) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2280) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1073/pnas.0901550106) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.033601) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.073604) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.133601) @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/12/i=5/a=053007) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.044304) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.032316) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.093602) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052102) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052324) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.032316) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.032110) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/416608a) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1098/rspa.2002.1097) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2009.02.004) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.100502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.020401) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10909-011-0403-8) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1153) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.44.11836) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0305-4470/28/i=8/a=005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.53.3304) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.063602) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.72.054433) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.240404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.144426) “,” (, ) p. @noop [ ()]{},
[^1]: Alternatively, data with $\left<{J_{\alpha}}(2{k_{p}})\right>\ll{\Gamma}^{(0)}$ $\forall$ could be post-selected based on the measurement outcomes
[^2]: The pulse with $k=2{k_{p}}$ also introduces small correlations to the zero mode $\Gamma_{zz}(k,0)\neq0$, which results in a change of ${{\Gamma}_{zz}}(k,k)$ and ${{\Gamma}_{zz}}(k,-k)$ by subsequent pulses with $k'\neq k$. Below we demonstrate that this has negligible effect on the outcome.
[^3]: This restriction could be relaxed with a more sophisticated strategy that takes into account the change in the correlations at one wavevector due to squeezing a different wavevector.
[^4]: Note that the same results generalize to a single atom per site, as long as we bin the atoms into ${n_{\rm s}}$ bins with ${n_{\rm a}}$ atoms per bin, and redefine the coupling constant ${C_{p}}$ as an average over the ${n_{\rm a}}$ atoms in each bin.
[^5]: This is a conservative choice: we could increase ${C_{p}}$ and calculate the ${f_{p}}$ taking into account the change in the covariances ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}_{zz}}(k_1,k_2)$ after each pulse in the sequence.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Planck Collaboration: Y. Akrami'
- 'M. Ashdown'
- 'J. Aumont'
- 'C. Baccigalupi'
- 'M. Ballardini'
- 'A. J. Banday'
- 'R. B. Barreiro'
- 'N. Bartolo'
- 'S. Basak'
- 'K. Benabed'
- 'M. Bersanelli'
- 'P. Bielewicz'
- 'J. R. Bond'
- 'J. Borrill'
- 'F. R. Bouchet'
- 'F. Boulanger'
- 'M. Bucher'
- 'C. Burigana'
- 'E. Calabrese'
- 'J.-F. Cardoso'
- 'J. Carron'
- 'B. Casaponsa'
- 'A. Challinor'
- 'L. P. L. Colombo'
- 'C. Combet'
- 'B. P. Crill'
- 'F. Cuttaia'
- 'P. de Bernardis'
- 'A. de Rosa'
- 'G. de Zotti'
- 'J. Delabrouille'
- 'J.-M. Delouis'
- 'E. Di Valentino'
- 'C. Dickinson'
- 'J. M. Diego'
- 'S. Donzelli'
- 'O. Doré'
- 'A. Ducout'
- 'X. Dupac'
- 'G. Efstathiou'
- 'F. Elsner'
- 'T. A. En[ß]{}lin'
- 'H. K. Eriksen[^1]'
- 'E. Falgarone'
- 'R. Fernandez-Cobos'
- 'F. Finelli'
- 'F. Forastieri'
- 'M. Frailis'
- 'A. A. Fraisse'
- 'E. Franceschi'
- 'A. Frolov'
- 'S. Galeotta'
- 'S. Galli'
- 'K. Ganga'
- 'R. T. Génova-Santos'
- 'M. Gerbino'
- 'T. Ghosh'
- 'J. González-Nuevo'
- 'K. M. Górski'
- 'S. Gratton'
- 'A. Gruppuso'
- 'J. E. Gudmundsson'
- 'W. Handley'
- 'F. K. Hansen'
- 'G. Helou'
- 'D. Herranz'
- 'Z. Huang'
- 'A. H. Jaffe'
- 'A. Karakci'
- 'E. Keihänen'
- 'R. Keskitalo'
- 'K. Kiiveri'
- 'J. Kim'
- 'T. S. Kisner'
- 'N. Krachmalnicoff'
- 'M. Kunz'
- 'H. Kurki-Suonio'
- 'G. Lagache'
- 'J.-M. Lamarre'
- 'A. Lasenby'
- 'M. Lattanzi'
- 'C. R. Lawrence'
- 'M. Le Jeune'
- 'F. Levrier'
- 'M. Liguori'
- 'P. B. Lilje'
- 'V. Lindholm'
- 'M. López-Caniego'
- 'P. M. Lubin'
- 'Y.-Z. Ma'
- 'J. F. Macías-Pérez'
- 'G. Maggio'
- 'D. Maino'
- 'N. Mandolesi'
- 'A. Mangilli'
- 'A. Marcos-Caballero'
- 'P. G. Martin'
- 'E. Martínez-González'
- 'S. Matarrese'
- 'N. Mauri'
- 'J. D. McEwen'
- 'P. R. Meinhold'
- 'A. Melchiorri'
- 'A. Mennella'
- 'M. Migliaccio'
- 'M.-A. Miville-Deschênes'
- 'D. Molinari'
- 'A. Moneti'
- 'L. Montier'
- 'G. Morgante'
- 'P. Natoli'
- 'F. Oppizzi'
- 'L. Pagano'
- 'D. Paoletti'
- 'B. Partridge'
- 'M. Peel'
- 'V. Pettorino'
- 'F. Piacentini'
- 'G. Polenta'
- 'J.-L. Puget'
- 'J. P. Rachen'
- 'M. Reinecke'
- 'M. Remazeilles'
- 'A. Renzi'
- 'G. Rocha'
- 'G. Roudier'
- 'J. A. Rubiño-Martín'
- 'B. Ruiz-Granados'
- 'L. Salvati'
- 'M. Sandri'
- 'M. Savelainen'
- 'D. Scott'
- 'D. S. Seljebotn'
- 'C. Sirignano'
- 'L. D. Spencer'
- 'A.-S. Suur-Uski'
- 'J. A. Tauber'
- 'D. Tavagnacco'
- 'M. Tenti'
- 'H. Thommesen'
- 'L. Toffolatti'
- 'M. Tomasi'
- 'T. Trombetti'
- 'J. Valiviita'
- 'B. Van Tent'
- 'P. Vielva'
- 'F. Villa'
- 'N. Vittorio'
- 'B. D. Wandelt'
- 'I. K. Wehus'
- 'A. Zacchei'
- 'A. Zonca'
---
[^1]: Corresponding author: H. K. Eriksen; [[email protected]]([email protected])
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe Morita equivalence of unital locally matrix algebras in terms of their Steinitz parametrization. Two countable dimensional unital locally matrix algebras are Morita equivalent if and only if their Steinitz numbers are rationally connected. For an arbitrary uncountable dimension $\alpha$ and an arbitrary not locally finite Steinitz number $s$ there exist unital locally matrix algebras $A$, $B$ such that $\dim_{F}A=\dim_{F}B=\alpha$, $\mathbf{st}(A)=\mathbf{st}(B)=s$, however, the algebras $A$, $B$ are not Morita equivalent.'
address: |
Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Volodymyrska, 60, Kyiv 01033, Ukraine\
Department of Mathematics, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Skovorody St. 2, Kyiv, 04070, Ukraine
author:
- Oksana Bezushchak and Bogdana Oliynyk
title: Morita equivalent unital locally matrix algebras
---
Introduction
============
Let $F$ be a ground field. Throughout the paper we consider unital associative $F$–algebras. An algebra $A$ with a unit $1_A$ is called a [*unital locally matrix algebra*]{} if an arbitrary finite collection of elements $a_1,$ $\ldots,$ $a_s \in A$ lies in a subalgebra $B$, $1_A\in B \subset A$, that is isomorphic to a matrix algebra $M_n(F),$ $n\geq 1.$
The idea of parametrization of unital locally matrix algebras with Steinitz numbers was introduced by J. G. Glimm [@Glimm]. Diagonal locally simple Lie algebras of countable dimension were parametrized with Steinitz numbers by A. A. Baranov and A. G. Zhilinskii in [@Baranov2], [@Baranov1]. The extension of these results to regular relation structures was done in [@Sushch2].
In this paper we apply Steinitz parametrisation to Morita equivalence classes of unital locally matrix algebras. We show that two countable dimensional unital locally matrix algebras are Morita equivalent if and only if their Steinitz numbers are rationally connected. This result does not extend to the uncountable case. Moreover, for an arbitrary uncountable dimension $\alpha$ and an arbitrary not locally finite Steinitz number $s$ there exist unital locally matrix algebras $A$, $B$ such that $\dim_{F}A=\dim_{F}B=\alpha$, $\mathbf{st}(A)=\mathbf{st}(B)=s$, however, the algebras $A$, $B$ are not Morita equivalent.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $ \mathbb{P} $ be the set of all primes and $ \mathbb{N} $ be the set of all positive integers. A [*Steinitz* ]{} or “supernatural” number (see [@ST]) is an infinite formal product of the form $$\label{1}
\prod_{p\in \mathbb{P}} p^{r_p} \ ,$$ where $ r_p\in \mathbb{N} \cup \{0,\infty\}$ for all $p\in \mathbb{P}.$ The product of two Steinitz numbers $$\prod_{p\in \mathbb{P}} p^{r_p} \ \text{ and } \ \prod_{p\in \mathbb{P}} p^{k_p}$$ is a Steinitz number $$\prod_{p\in \mathbb{P}} p^{r_p+k_p} \ ,$$ where we assume, that $t+\infty=\infty+t=\infty+\infty=\infty$ for all non negative integers $t$.
Denote by $ \mathbb{SN} $ the set of all Steinitz numbers. Note, that the set of all positive integers $ \mathbb{N}$ is a subset of $\mathbb{SN}$.
A Steinitz number is called [*locally finite*]{} if $r_p \neq \infty $ for any $p \in \mathbb{P} $. The numbers $ \mathbb{SN}\setminus \mathbb{N} $ are called [*infinite*]{} Steinitz numbers.
J. G. Glimm [@Glimm] parametrised countable dimensional locally matrix algebras with Steinitz numbers. In [@BezOl], [@BezOl_2] we studied Steinitz numbers of unital locally matrix algebras of arbitrary dimensions.
Let $A$ be an infinite dimensional locally matrix algebra with a unit $1_A$ over a field $F$ and let $D(A)$ be the set of all positive integers $n$ such that there is a subalgebra $A'$, $1_A \in A'\subseteq A$, $A' \cong M_n(F)$.
\[St\_number\] The least common multiple of the set $D(A)$ is called the Steinitz number $\mathbf{st}(A)$ of the algebra $A$.
Given two unital locally matrix algebras $A$ and $B$ their tensor product $A \otimes_F B$ is a unital locally matrix algebra and $ \mathbf{st}(A \otimes_F B)=\mathbf{st}(A) \cdot \mathbf{st}(B)$ (see [@BezOl], [@BezOl_2]). In particular, a matrix algebra $M_k(A)$ is a unital locally matrix algebra and $\mathbf{st}(M_k(A))= k \cdot \mathbf{st}(A).$
\[teorBOS\] If $A$ and $B$ are unital locally matrix algebras of countable dimension then $A$ and $B$ are isomorphic if and only if $\mathbf{st}(A)=\mathbf{st}(B)$.
Let $A$ be an algebraic system. The universal elementary theory $UTh(A)$ consists of universal closed formulas (see [@Malcev]) that are valid on $A$. The systems $A$ and $B$ of the same signature are universally equivalent if $UTh(A)=UTh(B)$.
In [@BezOl] we showed that for unital locally matrix algebras $A,$ $B$ of dimension $> \aleph_0$ the equality $\mathbf{st}(A)=\mathbf{st}(B)$ does not necessarily imply that $A$ and $B$ are isomorphic. However, $\mathbf{st}(A)=\mathbf{st}(B)$ is equivalent to $A,$ $B$ being universally equivalent.
Morita equivalence
==================
\[Morita\] Two unital algebras $A,$ $B$ are called Morita equivalent if categories of their left modules are equivalent.
Let $e\in A$ be an idempotent. We refer to the subalgebra $e A e$ as a [*corner*]{} of the algebra $A.$ An idempotent $e\in A$ is said to be [*full*]{} if $AeA=A.$ K.Morita [@Morita] (see also [@Lam]) proved that the algebras $A,$ $B$ are Morita equivalent if and only if there exists $n \geq 1$ and a full idempotent $e$ in the matrix algebra $M_n (A) $ such that $B \cong e M_n (A) e.$ Thus $B$ is isomorphic to a corner of the algebra $M_n(A).$
We say that a property $P$ is *Morita invariant* if any two Morita equivalent algebras do satisfy or do not satisfy $P$ simultaneously.
An algebra $A$ is a tensor product of finite dimensional matrix algebras if $$A\cong \otimes_{i\in I} A_i, \ \ A_i\cong M_{n_i}(F), \ n_i \geq 1.$$ Every tensor product of finite dimensional matrix algebras is a locally matrix algebra. G. Köthe [@Koethe] showed that the reverse is true for countable dimensional algebras. A.G.Kurosh [@Kurosh] (see also [@BezOl_2], [@Kurochkin]) constructed examples of locally matrix algebras that do not decompose into a tensor product of finite dimensional matrix algebras.
\[1L\]
1. Being a locally matrix algebra is a Morita invariant property.
2. Being a tensor product of finite dimensional matrix algebras is a Morita invariant property.
Let algebras $A,$ $B$ be Morita equivalent. Then there exists $n \geq 1$ and a full idempotent $e\in M_n (A)$ such that $B\cong e M_n (A) e.$ If the algebra $A$ is locally matrix then so is the matrix algebra $M_n (A).$ J.Dixmier [@Dixm] showed that a corner of a locally matrix algebra is a locally matrix algebra. Hence $B$ is a locally matrix algebra.
Now suppose that $A\cong \otimes_{i\in I} A_i,$ $ A_i\cong M_{n_i}(F),$ $n_i \geq 1.$ Then $$M_n(A)\cong M_n (F)\otimes_F A \cong M_n (F)\otimes (\otimes_{i\in I} A_i ).$$ There exists a finite subset $I_0 \subset I,$ $\mid I_0 \mid < \infty,$ such that $e \in M_n (F)\otimes (\otimes_{i\in I_0} A_i ). $ As above, the corner $e ( M_n (F)\otimes (\otimes_{i\in I_0} A_i )) e $ is a matrix algebra. Hence, $$B \cong e M_n(A) e \cong e ( M_n (F)\otimes (\otimes_{i\in I_0} A_i )) e \otimes (\otimes_{i\in I\setminus I_0} A_i ) ,$$ which completes the proof of the Lemma.
\[rat\_connec\] We say that nonzero Steinitz numbers $s_1,$ $s_2$ are rationally connected if there exists a rational number $q\in \mathbb{Q}$ such that $s_2= q \cdot s_1 .$
\[teor\_1\]
1. If unital locally matrix algebras $A,$ $B$ are Morita equivalent then their Steinitz numbers $ \mathbf{st}(A),$ $\mathbf{st}(B)$ are rationally connected.
2. If the locally matrix algebras $A,$ $B$ are countable dimensional then they are Morita equivalent if and only if $\mathbf{st}(A),$ $\mathbf{st}(B)$ are rationally connected.
3. For an arbitrary not locally finite Steinitz number $s$ there exist not Morita equivalent locally matrix algebras $A,$ $B$ of arbitrary uncountable dimensions such that $ \mathbf{st}(A)=\mathbf{st}(B).$
4. For a countable dimensional locally matrix algebra $A$ the Morita equivalence class of $A$ is countable up to isomorphism. For a locally matrix algebra of arbitrary dimension the Morita equivalence class is countable up to universal equivalence.
Countability of Morita equivalence classes of finitely presented algebras was discussed in *[@Zel_Alanm]*, *[@Berest]*, *[@Futorny]*.
Let $A$ be a locally matrix algebra, let $a\in A.$ There exists a subalgebra $1\in A_1 < A, $ $a\in A_1,$ such that $A_1 \cong M_n(F),$ $n\geq 1.$ Let $r$ be the rang of the matrix $a$ in $A_1.$ Let $$r(a)= \frac{r}{n}, \ \ 0\leq r(a) \leq 1.$$ V.M.Kurochkin [@Kurochkin] noticed that the number $r(a)$ does not depend on a choice of the subalgebra $A_1.$ We will call $r(a)$ the [*relative rang*]{} of the element $a.$
\[2L\] Let $e$ be an idempotent of a locally matrix algebra $A.$ Then $ \mathbf{st}(e A e)=r(e)\cdot \mathbf{st}(A).$
Consider the family of all matrix subalgebras $1\in A_i < A,$ $A_i \cong M_{n_i}(F),$ $i\in I,$ such that $e\in A_i.$ Then $\mathbf{st}(A)= \text{lcm} (n_i, i\in I).$ The rang of the matrix $e$ in $A_i$ is equal to $r(e) \cdot n_i.$ Hence $$e A_i e\cong M_{r(e)\cdot n_i} (F) \ \ \text{ and } \ \ \mathbf{st}(e A e)= \text{lcm} (r(e)\cdot n_i, i\in I) =r(e)\cdot \mathbf{st}(A).$$
\[teor\_2\]
1\) Let $A,$ $B$ be locally matrix algebras that are Morita equivalent. Hence [@Lam] there exists $k\geq 1$ and an idempotent $e \in M_k (A) $ such that $B \cong e M_k (A) e.$ Let $r(e) $ be the relative rang of the idempotent $e$ in the locally matrix algebra $M_k (A).$ By Lemma \[2L\] $$\mathbf{st}(B)= r(e)\cdot \mathbf{st}(M_k (A))= r(e)\cdot k \cdot \mathbf{st}(A).$$ Since the number $r(e)\cdot k$ is rational it follows that the Steinitz numbers $ \mathbf{st}(A),$ $\mathbf{st}(B)$ are rationally connected.
2\) Let $A,$ $B$ be countable dimensional locally matrix algebras. Suppose that their Steinitz numbers $ \mathbf{st}(A),$ $\mathbf{st}(B)$ are rationally connected. Our aim is to prove that the algebras $A,$ $B$ are Morita equivalent. There exist integers $k,$ $l\geq 1$ such that $ k\cdot \mathbf{st}(A)=l \cdot \mathbf{st}(B).$ Consider the matrix algebras $M_k(A)$ and $M_l(B).$ We have $$\mathbf{st}(M_k(A))= k \cdot \mathbf{st}(A)=l \cdot \mathbf{st}(B)=\mathbf{st}(M_l(B)).$$ By Glimm’s Theorem [@Glimm] the algebras $M_k (A)$ and $M_l (B)$ are isomorphic. Hence the algebras $A,$ $B$ are Morita equivalent.
3\) Let $S$ be a not locally finite Steinitz number. In [@BezOl_2] (see also [@BezOl] and [@Kurosh]) we showed that there exists a locally matrix algebra $A$ of an arbitrary uncountable dimension $\alpha$ such that $\mathbf{st}(A)=s$ and $A$ is not isomorphic to a tensor product of finite dimensional matrix algebras. It is easy to see that there exists a locally matrix algebra $B$ of dimension $\alpha$ such that $\mathbf{st}(B)=s$ and $B$ is isomorphic to a tensor product of finite dimensional matrix algebras. By Lemma \[1L\] (2) the algebras $A,$ $B$ are not Morita equivalent.
4\) For a countable dimensional locally simple algebra $A$ all algebras in its Morita equivalence class have Steinitz numbers $q \cdot \mathbf{st}(A),$ where $0\neq q$ is a rational number, and are uniquely determined by their Steinitz numbers. This implies that the Morita equivalence class of $A$ is countable.
If the algebra $A$ is not necessarily countable dimensional then Steinitz numbers $q \cdot \mathbf{st}(A) $ determine universal elementary theories of algebras in this class (see [@BezOl]). Hence the Morita equivalence class of $A$ is countable up to elementary equivalence. This completes the proof of Theorem \[teor\_2\].
If nonzero Steinitz numbers $s_1,$ $s_2$ are rationally connected then it makes sense to talk about their ratio $q=\frac{s_2}{s_1}$ which is a rational number.
For a countable dimensional locally matrix algebra $A$ its Morita equivalence class [*is ordered*]{}: for algebras $A_1,$ $A_2$ in this class we say that $A_1 < A_2$ if $$\frac{\mathbf{st}(A_1)}{\mathbf{st}(A_2)}<1.$$
Let $A_1,$ $A_2$ be countable dimensional Morita equivalent locally matrix algebras. Then $$\frac{\mathbf{st}(A_1)}{\mathbf{st}(A_2)}<1 \text{ if and only if } A_1 \text{ is isomorphic
to a proper corner of } A_2.$$
If $A_1\cong e A_2 e,$ where $e$ is a proper idempotent of the algebra $A_2$ then $\mathbf{st}(A_1)=r(e) \mathbf{st}(A_2)$ by Lemma \[2L\]. Hence $$\frac{\mathbf{st}(A_1)}{\mathbf{st}(A_2)}=r(e)<1.$$
Now let $$\frac{\mathbf{st}(A_1)}{\mathbf{st}(A_2)}= \frac{m}{n}<1,$$ where $m,$ $ n$ are relatively prime integers. Then $n$ is a divisor of $\mathbf{st}(A_2).$ Hence the algebra $A_2$ contains a subalgebra $1\in A_2^{'}<A_2,$ $A_2^{'}\cong M_n(F).$ Hence (see [@Kurosh]) $$A_2\cong A_2^{'} \otimes_F C \cong M_n (C),$$ where $C$ is the centralizer of the subalgebra $A_2^{'}$ in $A_2.$ Consider the idempotent $e= diag(\underbrace{1,1,...,1}_m,0,...,0) \in M_n (C).$ By Lemma \[2L\] $$\mathbf{st}(e M_n (C) e)=\frac{m}{n} \ \mathbf{st}(A_2)= \mathbf{st}(A_1).$$ By Glimm’s Theorem $A_1$ is isomorphic to a corner of $M_n (C),$ hence to a corner of $A_2.$
[99]{}
J. G. Glimm, On a certain class of operator algebras, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, **95** (1960) no. 2, 318–340.
A. A. Baranov, Classification of the direct limits of involution simple associative algebras and the corresponding dimension groups, [*Journal of Algebra*]{}, [**381**]{} (2013) 73–95.
A. A. Baranov, A. G .Zhilinskii, Diagonal direct limits of simple Lie algebras, [*Commun. in Algebra*]{}, [**27**]{} (1999), no. 6, 2749–2766.
O. Bezushchak, B. Oliynyk, V. Sushchansky, Representation of Steinitz’s lattice in lattices of substructures of relational structures, [*Algebra Discrete Math.*]{}, [**21**]{} (2016), no. 2, 184–-201.
E. Steinitz, Algebraische Theorie der K[ö]{}rper, [*J. Reine Angew. Math.*]{}, **137** (1910) 167–309.
Oksana Bezushchak, Bogdana Oliynyk, Unital locally matrix algebras and Steinitz numbers, [*Journal of Algebra and Its Applications*]{}, (2020).
Oksana Bezushchak and Bogdana Oliynyk, On primary decompositions of unital locally matrix algebras, [*arXiv*]{}:1911.10887.
A.I. Mal’cev, Algebraic Systems. B.D. Seckler & A.P. Doohovskoy (trans.). Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1973.
Morita, Kiiti, Duality for modules and its applications to the theory of rings with minimum condition. [*Science reports of the Tokyo Kyoiku Daigaku*]{} (1958). Section A. [**6**]{} ([**150**]{}): 83–142.
Lam, T.Y., Lectures on Modules and Rings. [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. [**189**]{}. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag (1999). Chapters 17-18-19.
G. Köthe, Schiefkörper unendlichen Ranges über dem Zentrum, [*Math. Ann.*]{}, [**105**]{} (1931), 15–39.
A. Kurosh, Direct decompositions of simple rings, [*Rec. Math. \[Mat. Sbornik\] N.S.*]{}, Volume [**11**]{}([**53**]{}), Number 3 (1942), 245–264.
V. M. Kurochkin. On the theory of locally simple and locally normal algebras, [*Mat. Sb., Nov. Ser.*]{}, [**22(64)**]{} (1948), no. 3, 443–454.
J. Dixmier, On some $C^{*}$-algebras considered by Glimm, [*J. Functional Analysis*]{} [**1**]{} (1967), 182-203.
Adel Alahmadi, Hamed Alsulamia, Efim Zelmanov, On the Morita Equivalence Class of a Finitely Presented Algebra, [*arXiv*]{}:1806.00629.
Yuri Berest and George Wilson, Automorphisms and ideals of the Weyl algebra, [*Math. Ann.*]{}, **318** (2000), no. 1, 127–147.
Xiaojun Chen, Alimjon Eshmatov, Farkhod Eshmatov, Vyacheslav Futorny, Automorphisms and Ideals of Noncommutative Deformations of $\mathbb{C}^2 /\mathbb{Z}_2$, [*arXiv*]{}:1606.05424.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Huijuan Xu
- Kate Saenko
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: 'Ask, Attend and Answer: Exploring Question-Guided Spatial Attention for Visual Question Answering'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.